diff --git "a/eurlex/validation.jsonl" "b/eurlex/validation.jsonl"
deleted file mode 100644--- "a/eurlex/validation.jsonl"
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,5000 +0,0 @@
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 500/2011\nof 20 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2011.", "references": ["39", "9", "2", "80", "24", "10", "13", "88", "6", "1", "53", "8", "25", "98", "27", "77", "15", "84", "16", "95", "60", "97", "40", "23", "56", "44", "17", "29", "89", "70", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 February 2011\nintroducing the questionnaire to be used for the first report on the implementation of Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the geological storage of carbon dioxide\n(notified under document C(2011) 657)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/92/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (1), and in particular Article 27(1), thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 on standardising and rationalising reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 27(1) of Directive 2009/31/EC requires that Member States submit a report to the Commission on the implementation of Directive 2009/31/EC, including on the register referred to in Article 25(1)(b) of Directive 2009/31/EC, every 3 years.\n(2)\nArticle 27(1) of Directive 2009/31/EC further requires that the report be drawn up on the basis of either a questionnaire or outline drafted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 6 of Directive 91/692/EEC. A questionnaire with questions on all relevant elements of Directive 2009/31/EC appears to be best suited to ensure that the information provided by the Member States in their reports is complete and comparable.\n(3)\nThe first report should be sent to the Commission by 30 June 2011. The questionnaire produced by the Commission should be sent to Member States at least 6 months before the deadline for the submission of the report.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion expressed by the Climate Change Committee, according to the procedure referred to in Article 6 of Directive 91/692/EEC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States shall use the questionnaire set out in the Annex as a basis for the first report on the implementation of Directive 2009/31/EC.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2011.", "references": ["70", "59", "30", "7", "41", "10", "95", "1", "75", "24", "43", "72", "84", "86", "93", "79", "18", "67", "61", "48", "31", "89", "4", "25", "83", "50", "69", "53", "63", "66", "No Label", "8", "39", "58", "60", "76", "77", "78"], "gold": ["8", "39", "58", "60", "76", "77", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 570/2012\nof 28 June 2012\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use of benzoic acid - benzoates (E 210-213) in alcohol-free counterparts of wine\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Article 10(3) and Article 30(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 lays down a Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and their conditions of use.\n(2)\nThat list may be amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (2).\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, the Union list of food additives may be updated either on the initiative of the Commission or following an application.\n(4)\nAn application for authorisation of the use of benzoic acid - benzoates (E 210-213) as preservative in alcohol-free counterparts of wine was submitted and has been made available to the Member States.\n(5)\nThese alcohol-free counterparts of wine are produced by removing the alcohol from the wine after fermentation. In order to avoid secondary fermentation in the bottle, sorbic acid - sorbates (E 200-203) are used and subsequent pasteurisation is required. However, pasteurisation alters and degrades the natural fruit aromas and flavours of the product. Addition of benzoates has a synergistic effect with sorbates, allowing a better preservation and reducing the need to pasteurise.\n(6)\nAlcohol-free counterparts of wine are presented and marketed as alternative to wine to adults who choose not to drink alcoholic beverages. Consumption of these counterparts does not substitute consumption of soft drinks. The additional exposure to benzoic acid - benzoates (E 210-213) based on this new use will therefore remain limited and will not lead to exceedence of the acceptable daily intake established by the Scientific Committee for Food (3). It is therefore appropriate to allow the use of benzoic acid - benzoates (E 210-213) for the preservation of alcohol-free counterparts of wine.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, the Commission is to seek the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority in order to update the Union list of food additives set out in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, except where the update in question is not liable to have an effect on human health. Since the authorisation of use of benzoic acid - benzoates (E 210-213) for the preservation of alcohol-free counterparts of wine constitutes an update of that list which is not liable to have an effect on human health, it is not necessary to seek the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority.\n(8)\nPursuant to the transitional provisions of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1129/2011 of 11 November 2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing a Union list of food additives (4), Annex II establishing the Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and conditions of use applies from 1 June 2013. In order to allow the use of benzoic acid - benzoates (E 210-213) in alcohol-free counterparts of wine before that date, it is necessary to specify an earlier date of application with regard to this use of that food additive.\n(9)\nTherefore, Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 should be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2012.", "references": ["55", "73", "98", "41", "50", "78", "6", "90", "72", "30", "81", "15", "20", "87", "84", "2", "5", "91", "31", "93", "57", "58", "4", "40", "99", "65", "67", "23", "77", "52", "No Label", "25", "38", "71", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "71", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1014/2011\nof 11 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for Norway lobster in VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 October 2011.", "references": ["54", "21", "5", "25", "11", "78", "68", "17", "13", "26", "80", "48", "72", "3", "41", "9", "60", "29", "51", "65", "75", "28", "40", "64", "23", "22", "2", "43", "52", "34", "No Label", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 368/2012\nof 27 April 2012\namending Council Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreement\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreement (1), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCatch limits for sandeel in EU waters of ICES zones IIa, IIIa and IV are laid down in Annex IA of Regulation (EU) No 44/2012.\n(2)\nPursuant to point 4 of Annex IIB to Regulation (EU) No 44/2012, the Commission is to revise the total allowable catches (TAC) and quotas for 2012 for sandeel in those zones based on scientific advice provided for each of the seven management areas defined in that Annex.\n(3)\nThe International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) delivered its advice on sandeel on 1 March 2012, which indicated that catches in Management Area 1 should be limited to 23 000 tonnes compared to the preliminary figure of 200 000 tonnes for that area fixed in Regulation (EU) No 44/2012.\n(4)\nICES further recommended that catches of up to 5 000 tonnes should be permitted in each of the Management Areas 2, 3 and 4 in order to allow the monitoring of the stock in those areas, that the catches in Management Area 6 should not be allowed to increase beyond the 420 tonnes that was fixed for 2011 and that there should be zero catches allowed in Management Areas 5 and 7.\n(5)\nAnnex IA to Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IA to Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2012.", "references": ["80", "82", "77", "70", "11", "44", "88", "1", "63", "47", "98", "4", "32", "99", "50", "18", "49", "66", "85", "38", "0", "57", "14", "10", "2", "17", "55", "81", "46", "26", "No Label", "13", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1383/2011\nof 22 December 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 January 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 January 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 January 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2011.", "references": ["78", "2", "72", "23", "71", "45", "83", "44", "66", "76", "42", "69", "24", "77", "21", "52", "54", "41", "48", "4", "89", "60", "47", "99", "90", "75", "12", "95", "32", "3", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 5 April 2011\ngranting derogations to certain Member States with respect to the transmission of statistics pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work, as regards statistics on causes of death\n(notified under document C(2011) 2057)\n(Only the Bulgarian, Czech, Dutch, Finnish, French, German and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2011/222/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the requests made by the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Finland,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008, it applies to the production of statistics on causes of death as defined in Annex III.\n(2)\nArticle 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 provides, if necessary, for derogations and transition periods for Member States, both to be based upon objective grounds.\n(3)\nIt emerges from the information provided to the Commission that the requests for derogations made by Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, France, Netherlands and Finland result from the need for major adaptations to national statistical systems in order to comply in full with Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008.\n(4)\nSuch derogations should be therefore granted as requested to those Member States.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDerogations as set out in the Annex are granted to the Member States listed therein.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Finland.\nDone at Brussels, 5 April 2011.", "references": ["14", "97", "91", "28", "36", "63", "6", "31", "76", "10", "77", "80", "68", "69", "81", "64", "86", "83", "50", "43", "23", "2", "7", "5", "87", "48", "82", "22", "8", "52", "No Label", "9", "19", "38", "51"], "gold": ["9", "19", "38", "51"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/54/EU\nof 20 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include metaldehyde as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included metaldehyde.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of metaldehyde.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Austria, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nAustria evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 5 January 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on metaldehyde to the Commission on 11 October 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for metaldehyde.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing metaldehyde may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include metaldehyde in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(8)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing metaldehyde to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(9)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(10)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(11)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of metaldehyde and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning metaldehyde in the Annex to that Decision.\n(12)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning metaldehyde in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing metaldehyde as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to metaldehyde are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing metaldehyde as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning metaldehyde. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing metaldehyde as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing metaldehyde as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["82", "60", "79", "90", "40", "9", "96", "23", "42", "16", "5", "78", "37", "24", "93", "29", "31", "32", "45", "63", "53", "86", "87", "21", "47", "36", "41", "11", "77", "56", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 5/2011\nof 5 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 January 2011.", "references": ["17", "48", "21", "59", "29", "37", "36", "96", "71", "90", "78", "57", "76", "24", "20", "32", "67", "47", "94", "79", "27", "46", "49", "93", "40", "89", "10", "22", "99", "80", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 713/2012\nof 3 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 August 2012.", "references": ["93", "65", "0", "95", "58", "91", "17", "45", "96", "43", "33", "28", "53", "15", "69", "34", "21", "38", "74", "39", "66", "52", "3", "80", "82", "64", "56", "26", "97", "41", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1237/2011\nof 29 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2011.", "references": ["60", "18", "23", "47", "76", "50", "16", "80", "78", "6", "32", "96", "30", "99", "66", "92", "29", "0", "74", "41", "27", "15", "33", "37", "70", "58", "79", "81", "69", "71", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 August 2010\namending Decision 2006/594/EC fixing an indicative allocation by Member State of the commitment appropriations for the Convergence Objective for the period 2007-2013 as regards additional allocations for the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia\n(notified under document C(2010) 5817)\n(2010/475/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions for the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1), and in particular Article 18(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision 2006/594/EC (2), as amended by Decision 2007/191/EC (3), the Commission fixed an indicative allocation by Member State of the commitment appropriations for the Convergence Objective for the period 2007 to 2013.\n(2)\nIn accordance with paragraph 10 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, in 2010 it has been established that the cumulated GDP for the years 2007 to 2009 in the Czech Republic, in Poland and in Slovakia has each diverged by more than \u00b1 5 % from the cumulated GDP estimated in accordance with paragraph 9 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, including as a consequence of exchange rate changes. The amounts allocated for the period 2011 to 2013 to the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia should therefore be adjusted accordingly.\n(3)\nIn accordance with points 16 and 17 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (4) on 16 April 2010 the Commission adopted the Communication on the technical adjustment of the financial framework for 2011 in line with movements in GNI, including the adjustment of amounts allocated from funds supporting cohesion to the Member States concerned by divergence between estimated and actual GDP for the period 2007-2009 (5), by which it informed that a positive adjustment is necessary for the Czech Republic of EUR 237 045 801, for Poland of EUR 632 392 153 and for Slovakia of EUR 137 711 534, to be shared in equal amounts in 2011, 2012 and 2013.\n(4)\nIn order to establish the amounts allocated to the Member States concerned, it is necessary to take into account the pro-rata allocation between the Convergence and Regional competitiveness and employment objectives in the current programming period 2007-2013 for each of the Member States concerned and the need to make the most efficient use of the allocation of the funds to projects currently being implemented. Therefore, this Decision should allocate only the part of the overall positive adjustments concerning the Convergence objective.\n(5)\nFor reasons of efficiency, it is appropriate to replace the amounts in the row Total of Table 2 of Annex III to Decision 2006/594/EC for the years 2007 to 2010 since they do not reflect the figures given for Bulgaria.\n(6)\nDecision 2006/594/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2006/594/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nAnnex I is replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this Decision;\n2.\nAnnex III is replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 August 2010.", "references": ["81", "84", "88", "44", "27", "20", "53", "76", "39", "4", "22", "95", "79", "8", "82", "69", "62", "65", "59", "74", "75", "48", "67", "35", "40", "19", "32", "28", "6", "7", "No Label", "10", "15", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 27 September 2010\nappointing one Danish member and five alternate Danish members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/590/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Danish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of term of Ms Tove LARSEN. Four alternate members\u2019 seats have become available following the end of term of Mr Erik Bent NIELSEN, Mr Johnny S\u00d8TRUP, Mr Bo ANDERSEN and Ms Jane Findahl LINDSKOV. One alternate member\u2019s seat has become available following the appointment of Mr Jan BOYE as a member of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas member:\n-\nMs Kirstine Helene BILLE, Borgmester;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMr Steen Ole DAHLSTR\u00d8M, Borgmester,\n-\nMr Carsten KISSMEYER-NIELSEN, Borgmester,\n-\nMr Martin MERRILD, 2. viceborgmester,\n-\nMs Tatiana S\u00d8RENSEN, Byr\u00e5dsmedlem,\n-\nMr Hans Freddie Holmgaard MADSEN, Byr\u00e5dsmedlem.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["23", "26", "93", "47", "6", "35", "57", "79", "30", "98", "67", "9", "36", "72", "24", "86", "52", "32", "55", "38", "18", "90", "84", "50", "58", "16", "94", "88", "80", "78", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1095/2011\nof 28 October 2011\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on cucumbers, artichokes, clementines, mandarins and oranges\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2) provides for the surveillance of the imports of the products listed in Annex XVIII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2008, 2009 and 2010, the trigger levels for additional duties on cucumbers, artichokes, clementines, mandarins and oranges should be adjusted.\n(3)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVIII to Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 October 2011.", "references": ["32", "59", "78", "25", "33", "34", "90", "91", "76", "62", "96", "6", "51", "23", "63", "55", "66", "95", "40", "94", "42", "5", "49", "35", "64", "81", "61", "17", "72", "93", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1176/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\non the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 121(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe coordination of the economic policies of the Member States within the Union should be developed in the context of the broad economic policy guidelines and the employment guidelines, as provided for by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and should entail compliance with the guiding principles of stable prices, sound and sustainable public finances and monetary conditions and a sustainable balance of payments.\n(2)\nThere is a need to draw lessons from the first decade of functioning of the economic and monetary union and, in particular, for improved economic governance in the Union built on stronger national ownership.\n(3)\nAchieving and maintaining a dynamic internal market should be considered an element of the proper and smooth functioning of the economic and monetary union.\n(4)\nThe improved economic governance framework should rely on several interlinked and coherent policies for sustainable growth and jobs, in particular a Union strategy for growth and jobs, with particular focus on developing and strengthening the internal market, fostering international trade and competitiveness, a European Semester for strengthened coordination of economic and budgetary policies (European Semester), an effective framework for preventing and correcting excessive government deficits (the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)), a robust framework for preventing and correcting macroeconomic imbalances, minimum requirements for national budgetary frameworks, and enhanced financial market regulation and supervision, including macroprudential supervision by the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB).\n(5)\nThe strengthening of economic governance should include a closer and more timely involvement of the European Parliament and the national parliaments. While recognising that the counterparts of the European Parliament in the framework of the dialogue are the relevant institutions of the Union and their representatives, the competent committee of the European Parliament may offer an opportunity to participate in an exchange of views to a Member State which is the subject of a Council recommendation or decision in accordance with Article 7(2), Article 8(2) or Article 10(4) of this Regulation. The Member State's participation in such an exchange of views is voluntary.\n(6)\nThe Commission should have a stronger role in the enhanced surveillance procedure as regards assessments that are specific to each Member State, monitoring, on-site missions, recommendations and warnings.\n(7)\nIn particular, surveillance of the economic policies of the Member States should be broadened beyond budgetary surveillance to include a more detailed and formal framework to prevent excessive macroeconomic imbalances and to help the Member States affected to establish corrective plans before divergences become entrenched. Such broadening of the surveillance of economic policies should take place in parallel with a deepening of fiscal surveillance.\n(8)\nTo help correct such excessive macroeconomic imbalances, it is necessary to lay down a detailed procedure in legislation.\n(9)\nIt is appropriate to supplement the multilateral surveillance procedure referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 121 TFEU with specific rules for the detection of macroeconomic imbalances, as well as the prevention and correction of excessive macroeconomic imbalances within the Union. It is essential that the procedure should be aligned with the annual multilateral surveillance cycle.\n(10)\nThat procedure should establish an alert mechanism for the early detection of emerging macroeconomic imbalances. It should be based on the use of an indicative and transparent \u2018scoreboard\u2019 comprising indicative thresholds, combined with economic judgement. This judgement should take into account, inter alia, nominal and real convergence inside and outside the euro area.\n(11)\nIn order to function efficiently as an element of the alert mechanism, the scoreboard should consist of a limited set of economic, financial and structural indicators relevant to the detection of macroeconomic imbalances, with corresponding indicative thresholds. The indicators and thresholds should be adjusted when necessary, in order to adapt to the changing nature of macroeconomic imbalances due, inter alia, to evolving threats to macroeconomic stability, and in order to take into account the enhanced availability of relevant statistics. The indicators should not be understood as goals for economic policy in themselves but as tools to take account of the evolving nature of the macroeconomic imbalances within the Union.\n(12)\nThe Commission should closely cooperate with the European Parliament and the Council when drawing up the scoreboard and the set of macroeconomic and macrofinancial indicators for Member States. The Commission should present suggestions for comments to the competent committees of the European Parliament and of the Council on plans to establish and adjust the indicators and thresholds. The Commission should inform the European Parliament and the Council of any changes to the indicators and thresholds and explain its reasons for suggesting such changes.\n(13)\nIn developing the scoreboard, due consideration should also be given to catering for heterogeneous economic circumstances, including catching-up effects.\n(14)\nThe crossing of one or more indicative thresholds need not necessarily imply that macroeconomic imbalances are emerging, as economic policy-making should take into account interlinks between macroeconomic variables. Conclusions should not be drawn from an automatic reading of the scoreboard: economic judgement should ensure that all pieces of information, whether from the scoreboard or not, are put in perspective and become part of a comprehensive analysis.\n(15)\nBased on the multilateral surveillance procedure and the alert mechanism, or in the event of unexpected, significant economic developments that require urgent analysis for the purpose of this Regulation, the Commission should identify the Member States to be subject to an in-depth review. The in-depth review should be undertaken without the presumption that an imbalance exists and should encompass a thorough analysis of sources of imbalances in the Member State under review, taking due account of country-specific economic conditions and circumstances and of a wider set of analytical tools, indicators and qualitative information of country-specific nature. When the Commission is undertaking the in-depth review, the Member State should cooperate to ensure that the information available to the Commission is as complete and correct as possible. Furthermore, the Commission should give due consideration to any other information which, in the opinion of the Member State concerned is relevant, and which the Member State has put forward to the Council and to the Commission.\n(16)\nThe in-depth review should be discussed within the Council, and within the Eurogroup for the Member States whose currency is the euro. The in-depth review should take into account, where appropriate, Council recommendations or invitations addressed to Member States under review adopted in accordance with Articles 121, 126 and 148 TFEU and under Articles 6, 7, 8 and 10 of this Regulation, and the policy intentions of the Member State under review, as reflected in its national reform programmes, as well as international best practices as regards indicators and methodologies. When the Commission decides to undertake an in-depth review in the event of significant and unexpected economic developments that require urgent analysis, it should inform the Member States concerned.\n(17)\nWhen assessing macroeconomic imbalances, account should be taken of their severity and their potential negative economic and financial spill-over effects which aggravate the vulnerability of the Union economy and are a threat to the smooth functioning of the economic and monetary union. Actions to address macroeconomic imbalances and divergences in competitiveness are required in all Member States, particularly in the euro area. However, the nature, importance and urgency of the policy challenges may differ significantly depending on the Member States concerned. Given vulnerabilities and the magnitude of the adjustment required, the need for policy action is particularly pressing in Member States showing persistently large current-account deficits and competitiveness losses. Furthermore, in Member States that accumulate large current-account surpluses, policies should aim to identify and implement measures that help strengthen their domestic demand and growth potential.\n(18)\nThe economic adjustment capacity and the track record of the Member State concerned as regards compliance with earlier recommendations issued under this Regulation and other recommendations issued under Article 121 TFEU as part of multilateral surveillance, in particular the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union, should also be considered.\n(19)\nA procedure to monitor and correct adverse macroeconomic imbalances, with preventive and corrective elements, will require enhanced surveillance tools based on those used in the multilateral surveillance procedure. This could include enhanced surveillance missions to Member States by the Commission, in liaison with the European Central Bank (ECB) for Member States whose currency is the euro or Member States participating in the Agreement of 16 March 2006 between the European Central Bank and the national central banks of the Member States outside the euro area laying down the operating procedures for an exchange rate mechanism in stage three of Economic and Monetary Union (4) (ERM II), and additional reporting by Member States in case of severe imbalances, including imbalances that jeopardise the proper functioning of the economic and monetary union. Social partners and other national stakeholders should, where appropriate, be involved in the dialogue.\n(20)\nIf macroeconomic imbalances are identified, recommendations, where appropriate involving the relevant committees, should be addressed to the Member State concerned to provide guidance on appropriate policy responses. The policy response of the Member State concerned should be timely and should use all available policy instruments under the control of public authorities. Where appropriate, relevant national stakeholders, including social partners, should also be involved in accordance with the TFEU and national legal and political arrangements. The policy response should be tailored to the specific environment and circumstances of the Member State concerned and should cover the main economic policy areas, potentially including fiscal and wage policies, labour markets, product and services markets and financial sector regulation. The commitments under ERM II should be taken into account.\n(21)\nThe warnings and recommendations by the ESRB to Member States or to the Union address risks of a macrofinancial nature. These should also warrant appropriate follow-up action by the Commission in the context of the surveillance of macroeconomic imbalances, where appropriate. The independence and confidentiality of the ESRB should be strictly observed.\n(22)\nIf severe macroeconomic imbalances are identified, including imbalances that jeopardise the proper functioning of the economic and monetary union, an excessive imbalance procedure should be initiated that may include issuing recommendations to the Member State, enhanced surveillance and monitoring requirements and, in respect of Member States whose currency is the euro, the possibility of enforcement in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1174/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on enforcement measures to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area (5) in the event of sustained failure to take corrective action.\n(23)\nA Member State subject to the excessive imbalance procedure should establish a corrective action plan setting out details of its policies designed to implement the Council's recommendations. The corrective action plan should include a timetable for implementing the measures envisaged. It should be endorsed by a recommendation of the Council. That recommendation should be transmitted to the European Parliament.\n(24)\nThe power to adopt individual decisions establishing non-compliance with the recommendations adopted by the Council within the framework of the corrective action plan should be conferred on the Council. As part of the coordination of the economic policies of the Member States conducted within the Council, as provided for in Article 121(1) TFEU, those individual decisions are an integral follow-up to the recommendations adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 121(4) TFEU in the context of the corrective action plan.\n(25)\nIn applying this Regulation, the Council and the Commission should fully respect the role of national parliaments and social partners, as well as differences in national systems, such as the systems for wage formation.\n(26)\nIf the Council considers that a Member State is no longer affected by an excessive macroeconomic imbalance, the excessive imbalance procedure should be closed following the Council's abrogation, on a recommendation from the Commission, of its relevant recommendations. That abrogation should be based on a comprehensive analysis by the Commission showing that the Member State has acted in line with the relevant Council recommendations and that the underlying causes and associated risks identified in the Council recommendation opening the excessive imbalance procedure no longer exist, taking account, inter alia, of macroeconomic developments, prospects and spill-over effects. The closure of the excessive imbalance procedure should be made public.\n(27)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely the establishment of an effective framework for the detection of macroeconomic imbalances and the prevention and correction of excessive macroeconomic imbalances, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States because of the deep trade and financial interlinks between Member States and the spill-over effects of national economic policies on the Union and the euro area as a whole, and can therefore be better achieved at the level of the Union, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT MATTER AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. This Regulation sets out detailed rules for the detection of macroeconomic imbalances, as well as the prevention and correction of excessive macroeconomic imbalances within the Union.\n2. This Regulation shall be applied in the context of the European Semester as set out in Regulation (EU) No 1175/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (6).\n3. The application of this Regulation shall fully observe Article 152 TFEU, and the recommendations issued under this Regulation shall respect national practices and institutions for wage formation. This Regulation takes into account Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and accordingly does not affect the right to negotiate, conclude or enforce collective agreements or to take collective action in accordance with national law and practices.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation:\n(1)\n\u2018imbalances\u2019 means any trend giving rise to macroeconomic developments which are adversely affecting, or have the potential adversely to affect, the proper functioning of the economy of a Member State or of the economic and monetary union, or of the Union as a whole;\n(2)\n\u2018excessive imbalances\u2019 means severe imbalances, including imbalances that jeopardise or risks jeopardising the proper functioning of the economic and monetary union.\nCHAPTER II\nDETECTION OF IMBALANCES\nArticle 3\nAlert mechanism\n1. An alert mechanism shall be established to facilitate the early identification and the monitoring of imbalances. The Commission shall prepare an annual report containing a qualitative economic and financial assessment based on a scoreboard with a set of indicators the values of which are compared to their indicative thresholds, as provided for in Article 4. The annual report, including the values of the indicators of the scoreboard, shall be made public.\n2. The Commission's annual report shall contain an economic and financial assessment putting the movement of the indicators into perspective, drawing, if necessary, on other relevant economic and financial indicators when assessing the evolution of imbalances. Conclusions shall not be drawn from a mechanical reading of the scoreboard indicators. The assessment shall take into account the evolution of imbalances in the Union and in the euro area. The report shall also indicate whether the crossing of thresholds in one or more Member States signifies the possible emergence of imbalances. The assessment of Member States showing large current-account deficits may differ from that of Member States that accumulate large current-account surpluses.\n3. The annual report shall identify Member States that the Commission considers may be affected by, or may be at risk of being affected by, imbalances.\n4. The Commission shall transmit the annual report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee in a timely manner.\n5. As part of the multilateral surveillance in accordance with Article 121(3) TFEU, the Council shall discuss and carry out an overall assessment of the Commission's annual report. The Eurogroup shall discuss the report as far as it relates to Member States whose currency is the euro.\nArticle 4\nScoreboard\n1. The scoreboard comprising the set of indicators, shall be used as a tool to facilitate early identification and monitoring of imbalances.\n2. The scoreboard shall comprise a small number of relevant, practical, simple, measurable and available macroeconomic and macrofinancial indicators for Member States. It shall allow for the early identification of macroeconomic imbalances that emerge in the short-term and imbalances that arise due to structural and long-term trends.\n3. The scoreboard shall, inter alia, encompass indicators which are useful in the early identification of:\n(a)\ninternal imbalances, including those that can arise from public and private indebtedness; financial and asset market developments, including housing; the evolution of private sector credit flow; and the evolution of unemployment;\n(b)\nexternal imbalances, including those that can arise from the evolution of current account and net investment positions of Member States; real effective exchange rates; export market shares; changes in price and cost developments; and non-price competitiveness, taking into account the different components of productivity.\n4. In undertaking its economic reading of the scoreboard in the alert mechanism, the Commission shall pay close attention to developments in the real economy, including economic growth, employment and unemployment performance, nominal and real convergence inside and outside the euro area, productivity developments and its relevant drivers such as research and development and foreign and domestic investment, as well as sectoral developments including energy, which affect GDP and current account performance.\nThe scoreboard shall also include indicative thresholds for the indicators, to serve as alert levels. The choice of indicators and thresholds shall be conducive towards promoting competitiveness in the Union.\nThe scoreboard of indicators shall have upper and lower alert thresholds unless inappropriate, which shall be differentiated for euro and non-euro area Member States if justified by specific features of the monetary union and relevant economic circumstances. In developing the scoreboard, due consideration shall be given to catering for heterogeneous economic circumstances, including catching-up effects.\n5. The work of the ESRB shall be taken into due consideration in the drafting of indicators relevant to financial market stability. The Commission shall invite the ESRB to provide its views regarding draft indicators, relevant to financial market stability.\n6. The Commission shall make the set of indicators and the thresholds in the scoreboard public.\n7. The Commission shall assess on a regular basis the appropriateness of the scoreboard, including the composition of indicators, the thresholds set and the methodology used, and it shall adjust or modify them where necessary. The Commission shall make changes in the underlying methodology and composition of the scoreboard and the associated thresholds public.\n8. The Commission shall update the values for the indicators on the scoreboard at least on an annual basis.\nArticle 5\nIn-depth review\n1. Taking due account of the discussions within the Council and the Eurogroup referred to in Article 3(5), or in the event of unexpected, significant economic developments that require urgent analysis for the purpose of this Regulation, the Commission shall undertake an in-depth review for each Member State that it considers may be affected by, or may be at risk of being affected by, imbalances.\nThe in-depth review shall build on a detailed analysis of country-specific circumstances, including the different starting positions across Member States; it shall examine a broad range of economic variables and involve the use of analytical tools and qualitative information of country-specific nature. It shall acknowledge the national specificities regarding industrial relations and social dialogue.\nThe Commission shall also give due consideration to any other information which the Member State concerned considers to be relevant and has communicated to the Commission.\nThe Commission shall undertake its in-depth review in conjunction with surveillance missions to the Member State concerned in accordance with Article 13.\n2. The Commission's in-depth review shall include an evaluation of whether the Member State in question is affected by imbalances, and of whether these imbalances constitute excessive imbalances. It shall examine the origin of the detected imbalances against the background of prevailing economic circumstances, including the deep trade and financial interlinks between Member States and the spill-over effects of national economic policies. The in-depth review shall analyse relevant developments related to the Union strategy for growth and jobs. It shall also consider the relevance of economic developments in the Union and the euro area as a whole. It shall, in particular, take into account:\n(a)\nwhere appropriate, Council recommendations or invitations addressed to Member States under review adopted in accordance with Articles 121, 126 and 148 TFEU and under Articles 6, 7, 8 and 10 of this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe policy intentions of the Member State under review, as reflected in its national reform programmes and, where appropriate, in its stability or convergence programme;\n(c)\nany warnings or recommendations from the ESRB on systemic risks addressed to, or being relevant to, the Member State under review. The confidentiality regime of the ESRB shall be observed.\n3. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council of the results of the in-depth review and shall make them public.\nArticle 6\nPreventive action\n1. If, on the basis of the in-depth review referred to in Article 5, the Commission considers that a Member State is experiencing imbalances, it shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Eurogroup accordingly. The Council, on a recommendation from the Commission, may address the necessary recommendations to the Member State concerned, in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 121(2) TFEU.\n2. The Council shall inform the European Parliament of the recommendation and shall make it public.\n3. The recommendations of the Council and of the Commission shall fully observe Article 152 TFEU and shall take into account Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.\n4. The Council shall review its recommendation annually in the context of the European Semester and may, if appropriate, adjust it in accordance with paragraph 1.\nCHAPTER III\nEXCESSIVE IMBALANCE PROCEDURE\nArticle 7\nOpening of the excessive imbalance procedure\n1. If, on the basis of the in-depth review referred to in Article 5, the Commission considers that the Member State concerned is affected by excessive imbalances, it shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Eurogroup accordingly.\nThe Commission shall also inform the relevant European Supervisory Authorities and the ESRB. The ESRB is invited to take the steps that it deems necessary.\n2. The Council, on a recommendation from the Commission, may, in accordance with Article 121(4) TFEU, adopt a recommendation establishing the existence of an excessive imbalance and recommending that the Member State concerned take corrective action.\nThe Council's recommendation shall set out the nature and implications of the imbalances and shall specify a set of policy recommendations to be followed and a deadline within which the Member State concerned is to submit a corrective action plan. The Council may, as provided for in Article 121(4) TFEU, make its recommendation public.\nArticle 8\nCorrective action plan\n1. Any Member State for which an excessive imbalance procedure is opened shall submit a corrective action plan to the Council and the Commission based on, and within a deadline to be defined in, the Council's recommendation referred to in Article 7(2). The corrective action plan shall set out the specific policy actions the Member State concerned has implemented or intends to implement and shall include a timetable for those actions. The corrective action plan shall take into account the economic and social impact of the policy actions and shall be consistent with the broad economic policy guidelines and the employment guidelines.\n2. The Council, on the basis of a Commission report, shall assess the corrective action plan within 2 months of submission of that plan. If, upon a Commission recommendation, the Council considers the corrective action plan sufficient, it shall endorse the plan by way of a recommendation listing the specific actions required and the deadlines for taking them, and shall establish a timetable for surveillance, paying due attention to the transmission channels and recognising that there may be long lags between the adoption of the corrective action and the actual resolution of imbalances.\n3. If, upon a Commission recommendation, the Council considers the actions or the timetable envisaged in the corrective action plan insufficient, it shall adopt a recommendation addressed to the Member State to submit, within 2 months as a rule, a new corrective action plan. The Council shall examine the new corrective action plan in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Article.\n4. The corrective action plan, the Commission report and the Council recommendation referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be made public.\nArticle 9\nMonitoring of corrective action\n1. The Commission shall monitor implementation of the Council's recommendation adopted under Article 8(2). For that purpose, the Member State shall present to the Council and the Commission at regular intervals progress reports, the frequency of which shall be established by the Council in the recommendation referred to in Article 8(2).\n2. The Council shall make Member States' progress reports public.\n3. The Commission may carry out enhanced surveillance missions to the Member State concerned, in order to monitor the implementation of the corrective action plan, in liaison with the ECB when those missions concern Member States whose currency is the euro or Member States participating in ERM II. The Commission shall, where appropriate, involve social partners and other national stakeholders in a dialogue during those missions.\n4. In the event of relevant major changes in economic circumstances, the Council, on a recommendation from the Commission, may amend the recommendations adopted under Article 8(2) in accordance with the procedure laid down in that Article. Where appropriate, the Council shall invite the Member State concerned to submit a revised corrective action plan, and shall assess that revised corrective action plan in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 8.\nArticle 10\nAssessment of corrective action\n1. On the basis of a Commission report, the Council shall assess whether the Member State concerned has taken the recommended corrective action in accordance with the Council's recommendation issued under Article 8(2).\n2. The Commission shall make its report public.\n3. The Council shall make its assessment by the deadline set by the Council in its recommendations adopted in accordance with Article 8(2).\n4. Where it considers that the Member State has not taken the recommended corrective action, the Council, on a recommendation from the Commission, shall adopt a decision establishing non-compliance, together with a recommendation setting new deadlines for taking corrective action. In this case, the Council shall inform the European Council, and shall make public the conclusions of the surveillance missions referred to in Article 9(3).\nThe Commission's recommendation on establishing non-compliance shall be deemed to have been adopted by the Council, unless it decides, by qualified majority, to reject the recommendation within 10 days of its adoption by the Commission. The Member State concerned may request that a meeting of the Council be convened within that period to take a vote on the decision.\n5. Where the Council, on the basis of the Commission's report referred to in paragraph 1, considers that the Member State has taken the corrective action recommended in accordance with Article 8(2), the excessive imbalance procedure shall be considered to be on track and shall be held in abeyance. Nevertheless, monitoring shall continue in accordance with the timetable set out in the recommendation under Article 8(2). The Council shall make public its reasons for holding the procedure in a position of abeyance and recognising the corrective policy actions taken by the Member State concerned.\nArticle 11\nClosing of the excessive imbalance procedure\nThe Council, on a recommendation from the Commission, shall abrogate recommendations issued under Articles 7, 8 or 10 as soon as it considers that the Member State concerned is no longer affected by excessive imbalances as outlined in the recommendation referred to in Article 7(2). The Council shall make a public statement reflecting that fact.\nArticle 12\nVoting within the Council\nFor the measures referred to in Articles 7 to 11, the Council shall act without taking into account the vote of the member of the Council representing the Member State concerned.\nCHAPTER IV\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 13\nSurveillance missions\n1. The Commission shall ensure a permanent dialogue with the authorities of the Member States in accordance with the objectives of this Regulation. To that end, the Commission shall, in particular, carry out missions for the purpose of assessing the economic situation in the Member State and the identification of any risks or difficulties in complying with the objectives of this Regulation.\n2. The Commission may undertake enhanced surveillance missions for Member States which are the subject of a recommendation as to the existence of an excessive imbalance position under Article 7(2) for the purposes of on-site monitoring.\n3. Where the Member State concerned is a Member State whose currency is the euro or is participating in ERM II, the Commission may, if appropriate, invite representatives of the European Central Bank to participate in surveillance missions.\n4. The Commission shall report to the Council on the outcome of the missions referred to in paragraph 2 and may, if appropriate, decide to make its findings public.\n5. When organising the missions referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall transmit its provisional findings to the Member State concerned for comments.\nArticle 14\nEconomic Dialogue\n1. In order to enhance the dialogue between the institutions of the Union, in particular the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and to ensure greater transparency and accountability, the competent committee of the European Parliament may invite the President of the Council, the Commission and, where appropriate, the President of the European Council or the President of the Eurogroup to appear before the committee to discuss:\n(a)\ninformation provided by the Council on the broad guidelines of economic policy pursuant to Article 121(2) TFEU;\n(b)\ngeneral guidance to Member States issued by the Commission at the beginning of the annual cycle of surveillance;\n(c)\nthe conclusions of the European Council concerning orientations for economic policies in the context of the European Semester;\n(d)\nthe results of multilateral surveillance carried out under this Regulation;\n(e)\nthe conclusions of the European Council concerning the orientations for, and results of, multilateral surveillance;\n(f)\na review of the conduct of the multilateral surveillance at the end of the European Semester;\n(g)\nthe recommendations taken pursuant to Article 7(2), Article 8(2) and Article 10(4) of this Regulation.\n2. The competent committee of the European Parliament may offer the opportunity to participate in an exchange of views to the Member State which is the subject of a Council recommendation or decision under Article 7(2), Article 8(2) or Article 10(4).\n3. The Council and the Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament of the results of the application of this Regulation.\nArticle 15\nAnnual Reporting\nThe Commission shall report annually on the application of this Regulation, including the updating of the scoreboard as set out in Article 4 and shall present its findings to the European Parliament and to the Council in the context of the European Semester.\nArticle 16\nReview\n1. By 14 December 2014 and every 5 years thereafter, the Commission shall review and report on the application of this Regulation.\nThose reports shall evaluate, inter alia:\n(a)\nthe effectiveness of this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe progress in ensuring closer coordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of economic performances of the Member States in accordance with the TFEU.\nWhere appropriate, those reports shall be accompanied by a proposal for amendments to this Regulation.\n2. The Commission shall send the reports referred to in paragraph 1 to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nArticle 17\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["94", "67", "37", "56", "72", "99", "91", "44", "26", "41", "52", "9", "33", "8", "83", "35", "31", "27", "55", "29", "7", "86", "75", "82", "69", "13", "66", "73", "95", "12", "No Label", "15", "16", "19", "28"], "gold": ["15", "16", "19", "28"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1243/2011\nof 30 November 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 December 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 December 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 December 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["54", "50", "33", "36", "71", "49", "45", "18", "7", "46", "62", "2", "29", "20", "37", "58", "73", "30", "42", "76", "15", "95", "44", "19", "94", "56", "82", "86", "63", "32", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 February 2012\non a method for the collection of premiums for excess CO2 emissions from new passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/100/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community\u2019s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (1), and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nWhere the Commission, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, confirms and, in accordance with Article 10(2) of that Regulation, makes public, that a manufacturer has failed to comply with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, it shall in accordance with Article 9(1) of that Regulation impose excess emissions premiums on that manufacturer, or in the case of a pool, on the pool manager.\n(2)\nIt is necessary to establish the methods for collecting those excess emissions premiums.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, the amounts of excess emissions premiums are to be considered as revenue for the general budget of the European Union and are to be entered and booked in Title 7 of the general budget. It is therefore appropriate to apply as collection method the rules for recovery of receivable amounts set out in Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2) and Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3).\n(4)\nFor the purpose of establishing the amount receivable within the meaning of Article 71 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, it should be considered that, in accordance with Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, the manufacturer is to be notified by the Commission of the provisional calculations of its average specific emissions of CO2 in the preceding year, the specific emissions target and the difference between its average specific emissions and the specific emissions target for that year, and must, in accordance with Article 8(5) of that Regulation, be given the possibility to verify those calculations and to notify the Commission of any errors within 3 months from receipt of the provisional calculations.\n(5)\nIn view of the exchange of views that takes place between the Commission and the manufacturer prior to the confirmation of the manufacturer\u2019s performance in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 8(5) and Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, and the possibility given to the manufacturer for raising objections against the calculation of its performance, it should be considered that the Commission by confirming the performance has demonstrated that the debt exists and that the amount receivable is certain within the meaning of Article 71 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.\n(6)\nThe excess emissions premium is to be calculated in accordance with the formulae laid down in Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and is to be made public pursuant to Article 10 of that Regulation. The amount receivable should therefore be considered as a fixed amount that is due within the meaning of Article 71 of Regulation (EC Euratom) No 1605/2002.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Commission shall proceed with the recovery of the excess emissions premium calculated in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 by establishing a recovery order and by issuing a debit note addressed to the manufacturer concerned in accordance with the provisions set out in Articles 71 to 74 of Regulation (EC Euratom) No 1605/2002 and Articles 78 to 89 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2012.", "references": ["8", "15", "53", "65", "32", "93", "13", "35", "50", "69", "79", "34", "80", "73", "76", "7", "45", "48", "72", "56", "61", "68", "91", "82", "4", "47", "41", "49", "16", "36", "No Label", "33", "58", "60", "85"], "gold": ["33", "58", "60", "85"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/178/CFSP\nof 23 March 2011\namending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1970 (2011).\n(2)\nOn 17 March 2011, the United Nations Security Council adopted UNSCR 1973 (2011), which widened the scope of the restrictive measures imposed by UNSCR 1970 (2011) and introduced additional restrictive measures against Libya.\n(3)\nDecision 2011/137/CFSP should be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2011/137/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following Article is added:\n\u2018Article 3a\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent flights by aircraft under their jurisdiction in the airspace of Libya, in view of the need to help protect civilians.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to flights the sole purpose of which is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from Libya, nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraph 4 or 8 of UNSCR 1973 (2011), nor to other flights which are deemed by Member States, acting under the authorisation conferred in paragraph 8 of UNSCR 1973 (2011), to be necessary for the benefit of the Libyan people.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 4(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea and relevant international civil aviation agreements, vessels and aircraft bound to or from Libya, in their territory, including their seaports and airports, and on the high seas, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo of such vessels and aircraft contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under this Decision.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe following Article is added:\n\u2018Article 4a\n1. Member States shall deny permission to any aircraft registered in Libya or owned or operated by Libyan nationals or companies to take off from, land in or overfly their territory unless the particular flight has been approved in advance by the Sanctions Committee, or in the case of an emergency landing.\n2. Member States shall deny permission to any aircraft to take off from, land in or overfly their territory, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the aircraft contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited under this Decision, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, except in the case of an emergency landing.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 5(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of:\n(a)\npersons listed in Annex I to UNSCR 1970 (2011), and additional persons designated by the Security Council or by the Committee in accordance with paragraph 22 of UNSCR 1970 (2011) and paragraph 23 of UNSCR 1973 (2011), as listed in Annex I to this Decision;\n(b)\npersons not covered by Annex I to this Decision involved in or complicit in ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, the commission of serious human rights abuses against persons in Libya, including by being involved in or complicit in planning, commanding, ordering or conducting attacks, in violation of international law, including aerial bombardments, on civilian populations and facilities, or acting for or on their behalf or at their direction, as listed in Annex II to this Decision.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 6(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. All funds, other financial assets and economic resources, owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by:\n(a)\npersons and entities listed in Annex II to UNSCR 1970 (2011), and additional persons and entities designated by the Security Council or by the Committee in accordance with paragraph 22 of UNSCR 1970 (2011) and paragraphs 19 and 23 of UNSCR 1973 (2011), as listed in Annex III to this Decision;\n(b)\npersons and entities not covered by Annex III to this Decision involved in or complicit in ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, the commission of serious human rights abuses against persons in Libya, including by being involved in or complicit in planning, commanding, ordering or conducting attacks, in violation of international law, including aerial bombardments, on civilian populations and facilities, or by the Libyan authorities, or by persons and entities that have violated or have assisted in violating the provisions of UNSCR 1970 (2011) or of this Decision, or by persons or entities acting for or on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them or by persons and entities listed in Annex III, as listed in Annex IV to this Decision;\nshall be frozen.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 6, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20184a. With regard to persons and entities listed in Annex IV to this Decision, exemptions may also be made for funds and economic resources which are necessary for humanitarian purposes, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, the provision of electricity, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from Libya.\u2019;\n(7)\nthe following Article is added:\n\u2018Article 6a\nMember States shall require their nationals, persons subject to their jurisdiction and firms incorporated in their territories or subject to their jurisdiction to exercise vigilance when doing business with entities incorporated in Libya or subject to Libya's jurisdiction, and any individuals and entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, and entities owned or controlled by them, with a view to preventing business that could contribute to violence and the use of force against civilians.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAnnexes I, II, III and IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP are hereby replaced by the text set out in Annexes I, II, III and IV respectively to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2011.", "references": ["64", "69", "45", "22", "23", "81", "1", "17", "85", "24", "36", "21", "9", "25", "99", "52", "0", "26", "62", "80", "54", "42", "59", "72", "47", "46", "86", "6", "61", "18", "No Label", "3", "4", "11", "12", "14", "57", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "11", "12", "14", "57", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 529/2010\nof 17 June 2010\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Community,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2010.", "references": ["42", "52", "76", "5", "64", "94", "50", "96", "43", "65", "60", "30", "97", "63", "9", "75", "21", "10", "73", "88", "7", "66", "82", "49", "26", "13", "6", "2", "38", "0", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 627/2010\nof 15 July 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 619/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 July 2010.", "references": ["50", "48", "78", "28", "76", "13", "55", "27", "36", "98", "45", "19", "99", "30", "81", "68", "88", "1", "25", "69", "63", "5", "29", "23", "75", "58", "73", "89", "84", "0", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 916/2010\nof 12 October 2010\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Fourme d\u2019Ambert/fourme de Montbrison (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and in accordance with Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined France\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Fourme d\u2019Ambert/fourme de Montbrison\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1263/96 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 October 2010.", "references": ["12", "18", "13", "76", "59", "87", "66", "3", "50", "49", "53", "67", "57", "52", "37", "40", "26", "45", "34", "74", "58", "81", "4", "95", "55", "22", "30", "83", "72", "98", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 433/2011\nof 4 May 2011\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 15(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (2) lays down rules concerning the increased level of official controls to be carried out on imports of feed and food of non-animal origin listed in Annex I thereto (the list), at the points of entry into the territories referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\n(2)\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 provides that the list is to be reviewed on a regular basis, and at least quarterly, taking into account at least the sources of information referred to in that Article.\n(3)\nThe occurrence and relevance of food incidents notified through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), the findings of missions to third countries carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office, as well as the quarterly reports on consignments of feed and food of non-animal origin submitted by Member States to the Commission in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 indicate that the list should be amended.\n(4)\nIn particular, the list should be amended by deleting the entries for commodities for which those information sources indicate an overall satisfactory degree of compliance with the relevant safety requirements provided for in Union legislation and for which an increased level of official control is therefore no longer justified.\n(5)\nIn addition, certain other commodities for which the information sources indicate a degree of non-compliance with the relevant safety requirements, thereby warranting the introduction of increased level of official controls, should be included in the list.\n(6)\nThe entries in the list for certain imports from Turkey and Thailand should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nIn the interest of clarity of Union legislation, it is also necessary to make a small precision in the list regarding the entries for imports of okra from India and sweet peppers from Turkey.\n(8)\nThe amendment to the list concerning the deletion of the references to commodities should apply as soon as possible, as the original safety concerns have been satisfied. Accordingly, those amendments should apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n(9)\nTaking into account the number of amendments that need to be made to Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009, it is appropriate to replace it by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 669/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nHowever, the deletions of the entries for Turkey for courgettes and pears shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2011.", "references": ["91", "10", "59", "36", "12", "51", "61", "28", "92", "57", "17", "39", "53", "5", "71", "14", "87", "58", "54", "30", "32", "1", "43", "16", "52", "83", "93", "25", "23", "67", "No Label", "20", "38", "72", "73"], "gold": ["20", "38", "72", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 5 November 2010\nrecognising in principle the completeness of the dossiers submitted for detailed examination in view of the possible inclusion of penflufen and fluxapyroxad in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC\n(notified under document C(2010) 7439)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/672/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 91/414/EEC provides for the development of a European Union list of active substances authorised for incorporation in plant protection products.\n(2)\nThe dossier for the active substance penflufen was submitted by Bayer CropScience AG to the authorities of the United Kingdom on 9 December 2009 with the application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nThe dossier for the active substance fluxapyroxad was submitted by BASF SE to the authorities of the United Kingdom on 11 December 2009 with the application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(4)\nThe authorities of the United Kingdom have indicated to the Commission that, on preliminary examination, the dossiers for the active substances concerned appear to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC. The dossiers submitted appear also to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substances concerned. In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, the dossiers were subsequently forwarded by the applicants to the Commission and other Member States, and were referred to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.\n(5)\nBy this Decision it should be formally confirmed at European Union level that the dossiers are considered as satisfying in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II and, for at least one plant protection product containing the active substances concerned, the requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe dossiers concerning the active substances identified in the Annex to this Decision, which were submitted to the Commission and the Member States with a view to obtaining the inclusion of those substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, satisfy in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to that Directive.\nThe dossiers also satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substance, taking into account the uses proposed.\nArticle 2\nThe rapporteur Member State shall pursue the detailed examination for the dossiers referred to in Article 1 and shall communicate to the Commission the conclusions of its examination accompanied by any recommendations on the inclusion or non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances referred to in Article 1 and any conditions for that inclusion as soon as possible and by 31 December 2011 at the latest.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 November 2010.", "references": ["19", "86", "89", "61", "44", "29", "12", "10", "91", "36", "73", "30", "18", "0", "60", "32", "23", "71", "58", "24", "68", "92", "70", "22", "69", "14", "62", "94", "78", "87", "No Label", "2", "25", "41", "65", "76"], "gold": ["2", "25", "41", "65", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 6 April 2011\non the temporary prohibition of the placing on the market in Germany of the detergent POR-\u00c7\u00d6Z\n(notified under document C(2011) 2290)\n(2011/225/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents (1), and in particular Article 15 and 12(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the German Federal Environment Agency notified the Commission and the other Member States of their temporary prohibition for the placing on the German market of the cleaning product POR-\u00c7\u00d6Z with a nitric acid content of 20 % or more, based on risks of corrosion and dangerous fumes resulting from the ingredient nitric acid (3).\n(2)\nThe German authorities additionally notified the temporary prohibition of POR-\u00c7\u00d6Z to the Commission via RAPEX (4) under Article 12 of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (5). As an additional risk it was mentioned that the POR-\u00c7\u00d6Z containers did not have sufficiently child-proof caps.\n(3)\nPOR-\u00c7\u00d6Z is manufactured in Turkey by the registered company Levent Kimya and imported into Germany by the company Karakus Handels GmbH with its registered seat in D-58638 Iserlohn.\n(4)\nPOR-\u00c7\u00d6Z contains 20-30 % nitric acid in aqueous solution. Nitric acid is classified as corrosive to the skin, category 1, under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) concerning classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures.\n(5)\nPOR-\u00c7\u00d6Z is marketed as a limescale and rust remover to the general public. It is a mixture intended for cleaning purposes and is therefore a detergent according to Article 2 of the Regulation.\n(6)\nBased on the presentation of facts in the German RAPEX notification, the product POR-\u00c7\u00d6Z is not fitted with appropriate child-resistant fastenings. Consequently, it does not comply with Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 in combination with Article 9, paragraph 1.3 and Annex IV, Part A of Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations and does not fall under Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 which is applicable only to products that are \u2018complying with the requirement of this Regulation\u2019.\n(7)\nA clarification of the facts was made orally by Germany at the meeting of the Detergents Working Group on 14 December 2010. Germany explained that there had been two products under the brand name POR-\u00c7\u00d6Z on the German market. The product referred to in the notification to the Commission of 29 October 2010, which was imported by Karakus Handels GmbH, was correctly labelled and fitted with appropriate child-resistant fastening. The second POR-\u00c7\u00d6Z product by the same manufacturer was imported illegally via unknown channels. It was labelled in Turkish language and was not fitted with sufficiently child-proof fastenings.\n(8)\nBy letter of 22 December 2010, Germany confirmed that the product to which Germany had referred in its notification of 29 October 2010 (manufactured by Levent Kimya and imported into Germany by the company Karakus Handels GmbH) was complying with the Detergents Regulation, notably with its labelling and packaging requirements by having a German-language label and by being fitted with child-proof fastening. The RAPEX Notification No 1760/10 has been modified with a revised notification submitted to the Commission on 16 December 2010, which stated that the grounds for prohibition were not non-compliance with legal requirements but the product\u2019s high risks for human health.\n(9)\nBased on these facts, Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 is applicable, as the product POR-\u00c7\u00d6Z referred to in the German notification is a detergent complying with the requirements of that Regulation.\n(10)\nGermany has provided justifiable grounds for believing that the product POR-\u00c7\u00d6Z constitutes a risk to safety or health of humans. Germany reported that one case of child injury is attributed to the use of POR-\u00c7\u00d6Z in Germany. Furthermore, between 1999 and 2010, German poison centres registered 134 cases of severe injuries to health related to the use in households of lime and rust removers containing nitric acid. In Belgium (the only other Member State where a Turkish-labelled version of POR-\u00c7\u00d6Z had been found on the market) anti-poison centres have recorded three cases of severe respiratory problems resulting from the professional use of limescale removers containing 30 % nitric acid. Based on an assessment of the risks to health from the use of cleaning products with a nitric acid content of 20-30 %, on 28 September 2010, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment recommended that cleaning products containing more than 20 % nitric acid should not be placed on the market for supply to the general public (8).\n(11)\nThe Commission has consulted the Member States both via questionnaires sent out on 15 November 2010 and in a meeting of the Detergents Working Group Meeting on 14 December 2010. The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with their opinion as expressed in the Committee opinion of 14 March 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Federal Republic of Germany may maintain its temporary prohibition on the placing on the market of the cleaning product POR-\u00c7\u00d6Z with a nitric acid content of 20 % or more for 1 year from the date of adoption this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 April 2011.", "references": ["81", "71", "51", "46", "29", "75", "54", "14", "34", "43", "39", "78", "65", "26", "69", "50", "86", "57", "32", "98", "76", "92", "77", "38", "18", "90", "89", "20", "31", "36", "No Label", "24", "25", "60", "83", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "60", "83", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 May 2011\nappointing one Dutch member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/309/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Dutch Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Hans KOK,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr J.F.M. (Hans) JANSSEN, burgemeester (mayor) of Oisterwijk.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 May 2011.", "references": ["17", "51", "54", "47", "71", "79", "21", "18", "84", "35", "89", "94", "20", "60", "39", "58", "90", "56", "12", "40", "22", "87", "72", "78", "36", "67", "55", "25", "62", "74", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 4 February 2011\namending Decisions 2002/741/EC, 2002/747/EC, 2003/31/EC, 2003/200/EC, 2005/341/EC and 2005/343/EC in order to prolong the validity of the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to certain products\n(notified under document C(2011) 523)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/81/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular paragraph 3(c) of Article 8 thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Union Eco-Labelling Board,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2002/741/EC of 4 September 2002 establishing revised ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to copying and graphic paper and amending Decision 1999/554/EC (2) expires on 31 December 2010.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2002/747/EC of 9 September 2002 establishing revised ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to light bulbs and amending Decision 1999/568/EC (3) expires on 31 December 2010.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2003/31/EC of 29 November 2002 establishing revised ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to detergents for dishwashers and amending Decision 1999/427/EC (4) expires on 31 December 2010.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2003/200/EC of 14 February 2003 establishing revised ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to laundry detergents and amending Decision 1999/476/EC (5) expires on 31 December 2010.\n(5)\nCommission Decision 2005/341/EC of 11 April 2005 establishing ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements for the award of the EU Ecolabel to personal computers (6) expires on 31 December 2010.\n(6)\nCommission Decision 2005/343/EC of 11 April 2005 establishing ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements for the award of the EU Ecolabel to portable computers (7) expires on 31 December 2010.\n(7)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 a timely review has been carried out of the ecological criteria, as well as of the related assessment and verification requirements, established by those Decisions.\n(8)\nGiven the different stages of the revision process for those Decisions, it is appropriate to prolong the periods of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements which they set out. The period of validity for Decisions 2003/31/EC and 2003/200/EC should be prolonged until 30 April 2011. The period of validity for Decisions 2002/741/EC, 2005/341/EC and 2005/343/EC should be prolonged until 30 June 2011. The period of validity for Decision 2002/747/EC should be prolonged until 31 August 2011.\n(9)\nDecisions 2002/741/EC, 2002/747/EC, 2003/31/EC, 2003/200/EC, 2005/341/EC and 2005/343/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee instituted by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 5 of Decision 2002/741/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nThe ecological criteria for the product group \u201ccopying and graphic paper\u201d, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 June 2011.\u2019\nArticle 2\nArticle 5 of Decision 2002/747/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nThe ecological criteria for the product group \u201clight bulbs\u201d, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 31 August 2011.\u2019\nArticle 3\nArticle 5 of Decision 2003/31/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nThe ecological criteria for the product group \u201cdetergents for dishwashers\u201d, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 April 2011.\u2019\nArticle 4\nArticle 5 of Decision 2003/200/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nThe ecological criteria for the product group \u201claundry detergents\u201d, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 April 2011.\u2019\nArticle 5\nArticle 3 of Decision 2005/341/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\nThe ecological criteria for the product group \u201cpersonal computers\u201d, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 June 2011.\u2019\nArticle 6\nArticle 3 of Decision 2005/343/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\nThe ecological criteria for the product group \u201cportable computers\u201d, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 June 2011.\u2019\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 February 2011.", "references": ["14", "63", "28", "64", "95", "77", "8", "20", "7", "88", "78", "75", "59", "60", "10", "34", "33", "91", "90", "70", "6", "0", "36", "97", "96", "54", "12", "5", "74", "45", "No Label", "24", "25", "76"], "gold": ["24", "25", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1198/2010\nof 14 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for common sole in IIIa; EU waters of IIIb, IIIc and IIId by vessels flying the flag of Sweden\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["31", "35", "4", "47", "64", "50", "14", "42", "70", "27", "82", "17", "75", "49", "39", "9", "36", "65", "20", "10", "15", "38", "92", "80", "5", "32", "81", "34", "78", "37", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 826/2011\nof 12 August 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 August 2011.", "references": ["84", "9", "70", "79", "27", "69", "44", "38", "65", "2", "88", "48", "67", "83", "32", "49", "56", "98", "3", "62", "34", "63", "59", "64", "25", "77", "31", "89", "43", "41", "No Label", "21", "72"], "gold": ["21", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 585/2010\nof 2 July 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) and Article 148, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 19a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 (2) refers to the tariff quotas managed in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3). Those quotas include also the quotas provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 of 9 April 2001 providing for the management of Community tariff quotas and of reference quantities for products eligible for preferences by virtue of agreements with certain Mediterranean countries (4).\n(2)\nAn Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the State of Israel concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols 1 and 2 and their annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, was concluded in 2008. This Agreement, hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019, was approved by Council Decision 2009/855/EC (5).\n(3)\nThe Agreement provides for new tariff quotas for agricultural and processed agricultural products originating in Israel.\n(4)\nTherefore, Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2009 (6) provided for an increase of the quota for the milk product falling under CN code 0404 10 as from 1 January 2010.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 2535/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe amendment proposed should apply as from 1 January 2010, date on which the Agreement entered into force and became applicable the corresponding amendment of Regulation (EC) No 747/2001.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex VIIa to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, point 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Tariff quota under Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 as regards certain agricultural products originating in Israel:\nQuota No\nCN code\nDescription (7)\nApplicable rate of duty\nYearly quantity in tonnes\nBase = calendar year\n09.1302\n0404 10\nWhey and modified whey\nExemption\n1 300\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 July 2010.", "references": ["83", "65", "58", "4", "28", "7", "8", "14", "71", "63", "36", "91", "80", "22", "89", "39", "69", "12", "93", "40", "3", "26", "44", "72", "38", "49", "78", "75", "24", "29", "No Label", "20", "21", "23", "70"], "gold": ["20", "21", "23", "70"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUSEC/2/2010\nof 8 October 2010\non the appointment of the Head of Mission for the European Union mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUSEC RD Congo)\n(2010/610/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the Article 38, thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/565/CFSP of 21 September 2010 on the European mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUSEC RD Congo) (1), and in particular Article 8 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2010/565/CFSP the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC), inter alia, to take decisions regarding the appointment of the Head of Mission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Ant\u00f3nio MARTINS is hereby appointed Head of Mission for the European Union mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUSEC RD Congo).\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 1 October 2010.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["70", "43", "32", "49", "68", "54", "17", "42", "38", "66", "61", "78", "44", "30", "65", "33", "59", "21", "53", "2", "7", "64", "95", "55", "63", "75", "96", "62", "81", "11", "No Label", "1", "4", "9", "52", "94"], "gold": ["1", "4", "9", "52", "94"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 911/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 22 September 2010\non the European Earth monitoring programme (GMES) and its initial operations (2011 to 2013)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 189 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAt its meeting of 15 and 16 June 2001 in Gothenburg, the European Council agreed on a strategy for sustainable development, in order to mutually reinforce economic, social and environmental policies and added an environmental dimension to the Lisbon process.\n(2)\nIn its Resolution of 21 May 2007 on the European Space Policy (3) adopted at the fourth joint and concomitant meeting of the Council of the European Union and of the Council of the European Space Agency at ministerial level established in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Framework Agreement between the European Community and the European Space Agency (4) (the \u2018Space Council\u2019), the Council recognised the actual and potential contributions from space activities towards the Lisbon strategy for growth and employment by providing enabling technologies and services for the emerging European knowledge society and contributing to European cohesion, and underlined that space represents a significant element of Europe\u2019s Sustainable Development Strategy.\n(3)\nThe Resolution \u2018Taking forward the European Space Policy\u2019 (5) of 26 September 2008 adopted at the fifth joint and concomitant meeting of the Space Council stressed the need to develop adequate EU instruments and funding schemes, taking into account the specificities of the space sector, the need to strengthen its overall and its industry\u2019s competitiveness and the necessity of a balanced industrial structure; and to allow appropriate long-term Union investment for space-related research and for the operation of sustainable space-based applications for the benefit of the Union and its citizens, in particular by examining all space-related policy consequences within the framework of the next financial perspective.\n(4)\nThe European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on the European space policy: how to bring space down to earth (6) stressed the need to find adequate EU instruments and funding schemes for the European Space Policy to supplement the allocations from the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (the Seventh Framework Programme), so as to allow the different economic actors to plan their actions in the medium and long term and emphasised that the next financial framework should take into account adequate EU instruments and funding schemes to allow long-term Union investment for space-related research and for the operation of sustainable space-based applications for the benefit of the Union and its citizens.\n(5)\nGlobal Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) has been an Earth monitoring initiative led by the Union and carried out in partnership with the Member States and the European Space Agency (ESA). Its primary objective is to provide, under Union control, information services which give access to accurate data and information in the field of the environment and security and are tailored to the needs of users. In doing so, GMES should foster better exploitation of the industrial potential of policies of innovation, research and technological development in the field of Earth observation. GMES should be, inter alia, a key tool to support biodiversity, ecosystem management, and climate change mitigation and adaptation.\n(6)\nIn order to achieve the objective of GMES on a sustainable basis, it is necessary to coordinate the activities of the various partners involved in GMES, and to develop, establish and operate service and observation capacity meeting the demands of users, without prejudice to relevant national and European security restrictions.\n(7)\nIn this context, a committee should assist the Commission in ensuring the coordination of contributions to GMES by the Union, the Member States and inter-governmental agencies, making the best use of existing capacities and identifying gaps to be addressed at Union level. It should also assist the Commission in monitoring the coherent implementation of GMES. It should monitor the evolution of policy and enable exchanges of good practice in GMES.\n(8)\nThe Commission should be responsible for the implementation of the GMES security policy, assisted by the Committee. For that purpose, a specific configuration of the Committee (the \u2018Security Board\u2019) should be set up.\n(9)\nGMES should be user driven, thus requiring the continuous, effective involvement of users, particularly regarding the definition and validation of service requirements. In order to increase the value of GMES to users, their input should be actively sought through regular consultation with end-users from the public and private sectors. A dedicated body (the \u2018User Forum\u2019) should also be established to facilitate the identification of user requirements, the verification of service compliance and the coordination of GMES with its public sector users.\n(10)\nFor the purpose of providing for a framework ensuring full and open access to information produced by GMES services and data collected through GMES infrastructure, while providing for the necessary protection of that information and data, the Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in respect of registration and licensing conditions for GMES users and of criteria for restriction of access to GMES data and information, while taking into account the data and information policies of providers of data needed for GMES, and without prejudice to national rules and procedures applicable to space and in-situ infrastructures under national control. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(11)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for implementation of this Regulation and of the delegated acts adopted on the basis of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt, on the basis of the conditions and criteria established by delegated acts, specific measures on restricting access to the information produced by the GMES services and to data collected through the GMES dedicated infrastructure, including individual measures taking into account the sensitivity of the information and data in question. Implementing powers should also be conferred on the Commission to coordinate the voluntary contributions of Member States and the potential synergies with relevant national, Union and international initiatives, to set the maximum rate of co-financing for grants, to adopt measures laying down the technical requirements in order to ensure the control and integrity of the system within the GMES space component dedicated programme and to control the access to, and handling of, technologies that provide security to the GMES space component dedicated programme, and to adopt the annual work programme of GMES.\nAccording to Article 291 TFEU, rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of its implementing powers shall be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (7) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable.\n(12)\nAs GMES is based on a partnership between the Union, ESA and the Member States, the Commission should endeavour to continue the dialogue recently established with ESA and Member States owning relevant space assets.\n(13)\nGMES services are necessary in order to foster the use of information sources by the private sector on a continuous basis, thus facilitating innovation, and thereby adding value, by service providers, many of which are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).\n(14)\nGMES comprises both development activities and operations. With regard to operations, in its third orientations adopted at the Space Council meeting of 28 November 2005, the Council supported a phased approach for the implementation of GMES based on clearly identified priorities, starting with the development of three fast-track services in the field of emergency response, land monitoring and marine services.\n(15)\nThe first operational services in the field of emergency response and land monitoring were financed as preparatory actions in accordance with Article 49(6)(b) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (8) (the Financial Regulation).\n(16)\nIn addition to the development activities financed under the space thematic area included in the Seventh Framework Programme, Union action is necessary in the period 2011-2013 to ensure continuity with the preparatory actions and to establish operational services on a more permanent basis in areas of sufficient technical maturity with a proven potential for the development of downstream services.\n(17)\nIn its Communication of 12 November 2008 entitled \u2018Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES): we care for a safer planet\u2019, the Commission outlined its approach to the governance and financing of GMES and indicated its intention to delegate the technical implementation of GMES to specialised entities, including ESA for the GMES space component, owing to its unique position and expertise.\n(18)\nThe Commission should entrust the coordination of the technical implementation of the GMES services, where appropriate, to competent Union bodies or intergovernmental organisations, such as the European Environment Agency and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.\n(19)\nOperational services in the field of emergency management and humanitarian responses are necessary in order to coordinate the existing capacity of the Union and its Member States to be better prepared for, to respond to and to recover from natural and man-made disasters, which often also have a negative impact on the environment. As climate change could lead to an increase in the number of emergencies, GMES will be essential for supporting climate change adaptation measures. GMES services should therefore deliver geospatial information to support emergency and humanitarian responses.\n(20)\nLand monitoring services are important for monitoring biodiversity and ecosystems and support climate change mitigation and adaptation measures and the management of a wide range of resources and policies, most of which relate to the natural environment: soil, water, agriculture, forests, energy and utilities, built-up areas, recreational facilities, infrastructure and transport. Operational land monitoring services are necessary at both European and global levels, developed in collaboration with Member States, third countries in Europe and partners outside Europe and the United Nations.\n(21)\nGMES services in the field of the marine environment are important for the support of an integrated European capacity for ocean forecasting and monitoring and the future provision of Essential Climate Variables (ECVs). They are an essential element for climate change monitoring, marine environment monitoring and transport policy support.\n(22)\nAtmosphere monitoring services are important for monitoring air quality, atmospheric chemistry and composition. They are also an essential element for climate change monitoring and the future provision of ECVs. The provision of information on the state of the atmosphere is necessary on a regular basis and at regional and global levels.\n(23)\nSecurity services are an important part of the GMES initiative. Europe will benefit from the use of space and in-situ assets in support of the implementation of services responding to the challenges which Europe is facing in the security field, notably border control, maritime surveillance and support to Union external actions.\n(24)\nMonitoring of climate change should allow for the adaptation and mitigation of its effects. It should in particular contribute to the provision of ECVs, climate analysis and projections on a scale relevant to adaptation and mitigation, and relevant service delivery.\n(25)\nThe provision of operational services financed under this Regulation depends on access to data collected via space infrastructure and airborne, seaborne and ground-based facilities (in-situ infrastructure) and survey programmes. With full respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, access to the required data should therefore be ensured, and where necessary in-situ data collection complementary to existing Union and national activities may be supported. The continuous availability of the underlying in-situ and space observation infrastructure needs to be ensured, including space infrastructure specifically developed for GMES within the framework of the ESA GMES space component programme (the \u2018Sentinels\u2019). The first Sentinels should enter their initial operations phase in 2012.\n(26)\nThe Commission should ensure the complementarity of GMES-related research and development activities under the Seventh Framework Programme, the Union contribution to GMES initial operations, the activities of GMES partners and pre-existing structures, such as the European Data Centres.\n(27)\nGMES initial operations should be implemented consistently with other relevant Union policies, instruments and action, in particular with environmental, security, competitiveness and innovation, cohesion, research, transport, competition and international cooperation policies, the European Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) programme and the protection of personal data. Furthermore, GMES data should maintain coherence with Member States\u2019 spatial reference data and support the development of the infrastructure for spatial information in the Union established by Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (9). GMES should also complement the Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) and Union activities in the field of emergency response.\n(28)\nGMES and its initial operations should be considered as a European contribution to building the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) developed within the framework of the Group on Earth Observations (GEO).\n(29)\nThe Agreement on the European Economic Area and the Framework Agreements with candidate and potential candidate countries provide for participation by those countries in Union programmes. Participation by other third countries and international organisations should be made possible by the conclusion of international agreements to that effect.\n(30)\nThis Regulation lays down, for the entire duration of GMES initial operations, a financial envelope of EUR 107 million constituting the prime reference, within the meaning of point 37 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (10) (Interinstitutional Agreement), for the budgetary authority during the annual budgetary procedure. It is envisaged that this financial envelope will be complemented by an amount of EUR 209 million from the space theme of the Seventh Framework Programme for research actions accompanying GMES initial operations that should be managed in accordance with applicable rules and decision-making procedures in the Seventh Framework Programme. These two funding sources should be managed in a coordinated manner in order to ensure consistent progress in the implementation of GMES.\n(31)\nThat financial envelope is compatible with the ceiling for subheading 1a of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2007-2013, but the margin remaining in subheading 1a for 2011-2013 is very small. It should be emphasised that the annual amount will be determined during the annual budgetary procedure, in accordance with point 37 of the Interinstitutional Agreement.\n(32)\nThe fund should if possible be further increased so that commitment appropriations can be allocated for the space component during the current MFF. In specific terms, this concerns the operation of the A series of Sentinel satellites and the launch of the B series and the procurement of crucial components for the C series.\n(33)\nTo that end, the Commission should, in the context of the mid-term review of the current MFF, and before the end of 2010, examine the possibility of additional funding for GMES, within the overall Union budget during the MFF 2007-2013.\n(34)\nThe allocation of any additional funding to this Regulation on top of the EUR 107 million already allocated should be considered in the context of discussions on the future of European space policy, notably on procurement and governance.\n(35)\nThe Commission should also submit a long-term financing strategy for the future MFF during the first semester of 2011, without prejudice to the outcome of the negotiations on the MFF 2014-2020.\n(36)\nIn its financial planning, the Commission should ensure that data continuity is maintained both during and after the end of the period of the initial GMES operations (2011 to 2013), and that the services can be used uninterruptedly and without restrictions.\n(37)\nIn accordance with the Financial Regulation, Member States, third countries and international organisations should be free to contribute to the programmes on the basis of appropriate agreements.\n(38)\nGMES information should be fully and openly accessible, without prejudice to relevant security restrictions or to the data policies of Member States and other organisations contributing data and information to GMES. This is necessary to promote the use and sharing of Earth observation data and information in accordance with the principles of SEIS, INSPIRE and GEOSS. Full and open access to data should also take into account existing commercial data provision and should promote stronger Earth observation markets in Europe, in particular in downstream sectors, to increase growth and employment.\n(39)\nAccording to the Commission Communication of 28 October 2009 entitled \u2018Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES): Challenges and Next Steps for the Space Component\u2019, there should be a full and open access data policy for the Sentinels through a free-of-charge licensing and online access scheme, subject to security concerns. Such an approach aims at maximising the beneficial use of Sentinel data for the widest range of applications and is intended to stimulate the uptake of information based on Earth observation data for end users.\n(40)\nThe action financed under this Regulation should be monitored and evaluated in order to allow for readjustments.\n(41)\nAppropriate measures should also be taken to prevent irregularities and fraud and the necessary steps should be taken to recover funds lost, wrongly paid or incorrectly used in accordance with Council Regulations (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities\u2019 financial interests (11) and (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities\u2019 financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (12) and Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (13).\n(42)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely the establishment of the programme GMES and its initial operations, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States because GMES initial operations will also comprise pan-European capacity and depend on the coordinated provision of services throughout the Member States that needs to be coordinated at Union level and can therefore, by reason of the scale of the 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. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective, especially regarding the Commission\u2019s role as coordinator of national activities,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation establishes the European Earth monitoring programme called GMES and the rules for the implementation of its initial operations during the period 2011-2013.\nArticle 2\nScope of GMES\n1. The GMES programme shall build on the research activities carried out under Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (14) and the GMES Space Component Programme of ESA.\n2. The GMES programme shall comprise the following:\n(a)\na service component ensuring access to information in support of the following areas:\n-\natmosphere monitoring,\n-\nclimate change monitoring in support of adaptation and mitigation policies,\n-\nemergency management,\n-\nland monitoring,\n-\nmarine environment monitoring,\n-\nsecurity;\n(b)\na space component ensuring sustainable spaceborne observations for the service areas referred to in point (a);\n(c)\nan in-situ component ensuring observations through airborne, seaborne and ground-based installations for the service areas referred to in point (a).\nArticle 3\nGMES initial operations (2011 to 2013)\n1. GMES initial operations shall cover the period 2011-2013 and may comprise operational actions in the following fields:\n1.\nthe service areas referred to in Article 2(2)(a);\n2.\nmeasures to support take-up of services by users;\n3.\ndata access;\n4.\nsupport for in-situ data collection;\n5.\nthe GMES space component.\n2. The objectives of the operational actions referred to in paragraph 1 are defined in the Annex.\nArticle 4\nOrganisational arrangements\n1. The Commission shall ensure the coordination of the GMES programme with activities at national, Union and international levels, notably GEOSS. The implementation and operation of GMES shall be based on partnerships between the Union and the Member States, in compliance with their respective rules and procedures. The voluntary contributions of Member States, and the potential synergies with relevant national, Union and international initiatives, shall be coordinated in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 16(5).\n2. The Commission shall manage the funds allocated to the activities under this Regulation in accordance with the Financial Regulation and with the management procedure referred to in Article 16(4). It shall ensure the complementarity and consistency of the GMES programme with other relevant Union policies, instruments and actions, relating in particular to the environment, security, competitiveness and innovation, cohesion, research (in particular the activities of the Seventh Framework Programme linked to GMES, without prejudice to Decision No 1982/2006/EC), transport and competition, international cooperation, the European Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) programmes, the protection of personal data and existing intellectual property rights, Directive 2007/2/EC, the Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) and Union activities in the field of emergency response.\n3. Since GMES is a user-driven programme, the Commission shall ensure that service specifications match user needs. To that end, it shall establish a transparent mechanism for regular user involvement and consultation, enabling identification of user requirements at Union and national level. The Commission shall ensure coordination with relevant public sector users in Member States, third countries and international organisations. Service data requirements shall be established independently by the Commission after consultation of the User Forum.\n4. Technical coordination and implementation of the GMES space component shall be delegated to ESA, relying on the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) where necessary.\n5. The Commission shall entrust the coordination of the technical implementation of the GMES services, where appropriate, to competent Union bodies or intergovernmental organisations.\nArticle 5\nService delivery\n1. The Commission shall take adequate measures to ensure effective competition in the provision of GMES services and to promote the participation of SMEs. The Commission shall facilitate the use of the GMES services output to develop the downstream sector.\n2. The provision of GMES services shall be decentralised, where appropriate, to integrate at European level existing space, in-situ and reference data inventories and capacities in Member States, thus avoiding duplication. Procurement of new data that duplicate existing sources shall be avoided unless the use of existing or upgradable data sets is not technically feasible or cost-effective.\n3. The Commission, taking into account the opinion of the User Forum, may define or validate appropriate procedures for the certification of the production of data within the framework of the GMES programme. Those procedures shall be transparent, verifiable and auditable to ensure authenticity, traceability and data integrity for the user. In its contractual arrangements with GMES service operators, the Commission shall ensure that those procedures are implemented.\n4. The Commission shall report annually on the results achieved in the implementation of this Article.\nArticle 6\nForms of Union funding\n1. Union funding may take the following legal forms:\n(a)\ndelegation agreements;\n(b)\ngrants;\n(c)\npublic procurement contracts.\n2. Genuine competition, transparency and equal treatment shall be ensured in the provision of funding by the Union. Where justified, Union grants may be provided in specific forms, including framework partnership agreements, or co-funding of operating or action grants. Operating grants to bodies pursuing objectives of general European interest shall not be subject to the degressivity provisions of the Financial Regulation. For grants, the maximum rate of co-financing shall be set in accordance with the management procedure referred to in Article 16(4).\n3. The Commission shall report on the allocation of Union funds to each of the activities specified in Article 3(1) and on the evaluation process and results of the procurement tenders and of the contracts concluded on the basis of this Article, after the award of the contracts.\nArticle 7\nParticipation of third countries\nThe following countries may participate in the operational actions referred to in Article 3:\n1.\nEuropean Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries which are Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement in accordance with the conditions laid down in the EEA Agreement;\n2.\nthe candidate countries, as well as potential candidates included in the stabilisation and association process in accordance with the Framework Agreements, or a Protocol to an Association Agreement, on the general principles for the participation of those countries in Union programmes, concluded with those countries;\n3.\nthe Swiss Confederation, other third countries not referred to in points 1 and 2, and international organisations, in accordance with agreements concluded by the Union with such third countries or international organisations pursuant to Article 218 TFEU, which shall lay down the conditions and detailed rules for their involvement.\nArticle 8\nFunding\n1. The financial envelope allocated to the operational actions referred to in Article 3(1) shall be EUR 107 million.\n2. Appropriations shall be authorised annually by the budgetary authority within the limits laid down in the MFF.\n3. Third countries or international organisations may also provide additional funding for the GMES programme.\nThe additional funding referred to in the first subparagraph shall be treated as assigned revenue, in accordance with Article 18 of the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 9\nGMES data and information policy\n1. The data and information policy for actions financed under the GMES programme shall have the following objectives:\n(a)\npromoting the use and sharing of GMES information and data;\n(b)\nfull and open access to information produced by GMES services and data collected through GMES infrastructure, subject to relevant international agreements, security restrictions and licensing conditions, including registration and acceptance of user licences;\n(c)\nstrengthening Earth observation markets in Europe, in particular the downstream sector, with a view to enabling growth and job creation;\n(d)\ncontributing to the sustainability and continuity of the provision of GMES data and information;\n(e)\nsupporting the European research, technology and innovation communities.\n2. For the purpose of providing for a framework to ensure the attainment of the GMES information and data policy objective referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 while providing for the necessary protection of the information produced by the GMES services and of data collected through the GMES dedicated infrastructure, the Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 10 and subject to the conditions specified in Articles 11 and 12, the following measures, taking into account the data and information policies of providers of data needed for GMES, and without prejudice to national rules and procedures applicable to space and in-situ infrastructures under national control:\n(a)\nmeasures establishing registration and licensing conditions for GMES users;\n(b)\nmeasures defining criteria for restricting access to the information produced by the GMES services and to data collected through the GMES dedicated infrastructure.\nArticle 10\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The powers to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 9(2) shall be conferred on the Commission until 31 December 2013.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The powers to adopt delegated acts are conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 11 and 12.\nArticle 11\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of powers referred to in Article 9(2) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of powers shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 12\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 2 months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council, that period shall be extended by 2 months.\n2. If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 13\nImplementing measures on data and information policy and on the governance of the security of GMES components and information\n1. On the basis of the criteria referred to in point (b) of Article 9(2), the Commission shall adopt specific measures in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 16(3), for restricting access to the information produced by GMES services and data collected through the GMES dedicated infrastructure.\n2. The Commission shall ensure overall coordination with regard to the security of the GMES components and services, taking into account the need for oversight and integration of the security requirements of all its elements, without prejudice to national rules and procedures applicable to space and in-situ infrastructures under national control. In particular, the Commission shall adopt measures, in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 16(3), laying down technical requirements in order to ensure the control and integrity of the system within the GMES space component dedicated programme, and to control the access to, and handling of, technologies that provide security to the GMES space component dedicated programme.\nArticle 14\nMonitoring and evaluation\n1. The Commission shall monitor and evaluate the implementation of the operational actions referred to in Article 3(1).\n2. The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions an interim evaluation report by 31 December 2012 and an ex-post evaluation report by 31 December 2015.\nArticle 15\nImplementing measures\n1. The Commission shall adopt the annual work programme pursuant to Article 110 of the Financial Regulation and Articles 90 and 166 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (15) in accordance with the management procedure referred to in Article 16(4) of this Regulation.\n2. The financial allocation for the GMES programme may also cover expenses relating to preparatory, monitoring, control, audit and evaluation activities which are required directly for the management of the GMES programme and the achievement of its objectives, and in particular studies, meetings, information and publication actions, together with all other technical and administrative assistance expenses that the Commission may incur for the management of the GMES programme.\nArticle 16\nGMES Committee\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee (the \u2018GMES Committee\u2019).\n2. The GMES Committee may meet in specific configurations to deal with concrete issues, notably those relating to security (the \u2018Security Board\u2019).\n3. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\nThe period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at 2 months.\n4. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 4 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\nThe period laid down in Article 4(3) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at 2 months.\n5. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 3 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\nArticle 17\nUser Forum\n1. The User Forum is hereby set up as a dedicated body. It shall advise the Commission with regard to the definition and validation of user requirements, and to the coordination of the GMES programme with its public sector users.\n2. The User Forum shall be chaired by the Commission. It shall consist of GMES public sector users appointed by the Member States.\n3. The Secretariat of the User Forum shall be provided by the Commission.\n4. The User Forum shall adopt its rules of procedure.\n5. The GMES Committee shall be kept fully informed of the advice of the User Forum for the implementation of the GMES programme.\nArticle 18\nProtection of the Union\u2019s financial interests\n1. The Commission shall ensure that, when actions financed under this Regulation are implemented, the financial interests of the Union are protected by the application of preventive measures against fraud, corruption and any other illegal activities, by means of effective checks and by the recovery of amounts unduly paid and, if irregularities are detected, by effective, proportional and dissuasive penalties, in accordance with Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95, Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 and Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999.\n2. For the Union actions financed under this Regulation, the notion of irregularity referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 shall mean any infringement of a provision of Union law or any breach of a contractual obligation resulting from an act or omission by an economic operator which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the European Union by an unjustified item of expenditure.\n3. Agreements resulting from this Regulation, including agreements concluded with participating third countries and international organisations, shall provide for supervision and financial control by the Commission, or any representative authorised by it, and audits by the Court of Auditors, if necessary on-the-spot audits.\nArticle 19\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 22 September 2010.", "references": ["43", "6", "68", "85", "34", "42", "20", "71", "31", "66", "23", "5", "47", "72", "74", "32", "7", "35", "37", "13", "25", "28", "15", "76", "2", "78", "22", "61", "24", "70", "No Label", "3", "9", "40", "57", "59", "77", "90"], "gold": ["3", "9", "40", "57", "59", "77", "90"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 February 2011\nauthorising a laboratory in the Republic of Korea to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines\n(notified under document C(2011) 656)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/91/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2000/258/EC of 20 March 2000 designating a specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2000/258/EC designates the laboratory of the Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (ANSES) in Nancy (previously Agence fran\u00e7aise de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire des aliments (AFSSA)) as the specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines. That Decision also lays down the duties of that laboratory.\n(2)\nIn particular, ANSES, Nancy, is to appraise the laboratories in Member States and third countries in order to decide whether to authorise the laboratories to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines.\n(3)\nThe competent authority of South Korea has submitted an application for approval of a laboratory in that third country to perform such serological tests.\n(4)\nANSES, Nancy has carried out an appraisal of that laboratory and provided the Commission with a favourable report of that appraisal on 6 September 2010.\n(5)\nThat laboratory should therefore be authorised to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines in dogs, cats and ferrets.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Decision 2000/258/EC, the following laboratory is authorised to perform the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines in dogs, cats and ferrets:\nKomipharm International Co. Ltd\n1236-6 Jeoungwang-dong\n420-450 Siheung-si, Gyeonggi-do\nSouth Korea\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 March 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2011.", "references": ["31", "68", "91", "86", "4", "87", "41", "7", "50", "83", "18", "58", "92", "8", "62", "73", "59", "82", "40", "97", "15", "70", "3", "52", "71", "0", "60", "63", "21", "49", "No Label", "24", "38", "66", "76", "77", "95", "96"], "gold": ["24", "38", "66", "76", "77", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 927/2012\nof 16 July 2012\nestablishing the deadline in the event of underutilisation of fishing opportunities under the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 June 2007, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 753/2007 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand (1).\n(2)\nSince the current Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand (2) (\u2018the current Protocol\u2019) will expire on 31 December 2012, a new Protocol was initialled on 3 February 2012. The new Protocol provides EU fishing vessels with fishing opportunities in Greenlandic waters.\n(3)\nOn 16 July 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/653/EU (3) on the signing and the provisional application of the new Protocol.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 of 29 September 2008 concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters (4), if it appears that the number of fishing authorisations or the amount of fishing opportunities allocated to the Union under the current Protocol are not fully utilised, the Commission is to inform the Member States concerned. The absence of a reply within the deadline to be set by the Council is to be considered as confirmation that the vessels of the Member State concerned are not making full use of their fishing opportunities during the given period. That deadline should therefore be set by the Council.\n(5)\nGiven that the current Protocol will expire on 31 December 2012 and that the new Protocol is to be provisionally applied from 1 January 2013, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2013,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. If, by the relevant date set out in the Annex to this Regulation, applications for fishing authorisations from the Member States under the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand, do not cover all the annually allocated fishing opportunities set by that Protocol, the Commission shall consider applications for fishing authorisations from any other Member State pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008.\n2. The deadline referred to in Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 shall be set at 10 working days.\n3. For each stock referred to in the Annex, the Commission shall inform the Member States of the level of utilisation of the fishing opportunities based on licence applications received at the latest:\n(a)\none month before the date set out in the Annex; and\n(b)\nby the date set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["23", "57", "11", "18", "94", "20", "62", "34", "74", "37", "64", "61", "30", "52", "4", "63", "2", "60", "15", "80", "47", "77", "86", "59", "85", "89", "27", "46", "75", "24", "No Label", "3", "9", "13", "67", "91", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "13", "67", "91", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/15/EU\nof 23 February 2011\namending Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC (1), and in particular Article 27 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nResolution MSC.150(77) of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has been revoked and replaced by IMO Resolution MSC.286(86) with effect from 1 July 2009. Therefore Article 12 of Directive 2002/59/EC referring to the revoked IMO Resolution should also be updated accordingly.\n(2)\nThe carriage requirements concerning the automatic identification Systems (AIS) and voyage data recorders (VDR) should be updated in line with the modifications to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and should take account of the development of simplified VDRs, as approved by the IMO. The scope of exemptions of carriage requirements for small passenger vessels on short distances should also be made more precise and adapted to such voyages.\n(3)\nFollowing an incident at sea, the powers of intervention of Member States should be made more explicit. In particular, it should be clearly stated that they may give instructions to the assistance, salvage or towage companies in order to prevent a serious and imminent threat to its coastline or related interests, to the safety of other ships and their crews and passengers or of persons on shore or to protect the marine environment.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments\nDirective 2002/59/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 12(1), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nfor the substances referred to in Annex I to the Marpol Convention, the safety data sheet detailing the physico-chemical characteristics of the products, including, where applicable, their viscosity expressed in cSt at 50 \u00b0C and their density at 15 \u00b0C and the other data contained in the safety data sheet in accordance with IMO Resolution MSC.286(86).\u2019;\n2.\nAnnex II is replaced by Annex I to this Directive;\n3.\nAnnex IV is replaced by Annex II to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 12 months from its entry into force at the latest, without prejudice to the transposition date provided for by Article 2(1) of Directive 2009/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) as far as fishing vessels are concerned. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2011.", "references": ["64", "25", "50", "87", "69", "47", "34", "45", "1", "80", "27", "72", "11", "35", "39", "81", "23", "7", "3", "6", "29", "83", "55", "88", "82", "46", "51", "89", "5", "49", "No Label", "13", "41", "42", "53", "56"], "gold": ["13", "41", "42", "53", "56"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 734/2010\nof 13 August 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 729/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 August 2010.", "references": ["91", "12", "60", "50", "49", "0", "77", "74", "89", "68", "73", "9", "48", "5", "31", "1", "79", "76", "14", "95", "37", "75", "28", "6", "69", "88", "43", "36", "82", "97", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 115/2012\nof 9 February 2012\nimposing a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 12 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 13 May 2011, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (\u2018notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding (\u2018AS proceeding\u2019) with regard to imports into the Union of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India (\u2018India\u2019 or \u2018the country concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nOn the same day, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) (\u2018notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India and commenced a separate investigation (\u2018AD proceeding\u2019).\n(3)\nThe AS proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 31 March 2011 by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute (EIFI) (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of total Union production of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of subsidisation of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.\n(4)\nPrior to the initiation of the proceeding and in accordance with Article 10(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission notified the Government of India (the \u2018GOI\u2019) that it had received a properly documented complaint alleging that subsidised imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India were causing material injury to the Union industry. The GOI was invited for consultations with the aim of clarifying the situation as regards the contents of the complaint and arriving at a mutually agreed solution. No mutually agreed solution was found.\n1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(5)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant Union producers, other known Union producers, the exporting producers, importers, users known to be concerned, and the Indian authorities of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(6)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n1.2.1. Sampling for exporting producers in India\n(7)\nIn view of the large number of exporting producers in India, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of subsidisation in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation.\n(8)\nIn order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, exporting producers in India were requested to make themselves known within 15 days from the date of the initiation of the investigation and to provide basic information on their export and domestic sales, their precise activities with regard to the production of the product concerned and the names and activities of all their related companies involved in the production and/or selling of the product concerned during the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011.\n(9)\nThe relevant Indian authorities were also consulted for the selection of a representative sample.\n(10)\nIn total, five exporting producers, including a group of related companies in India, provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample within the deadline set in the notice of initiation. These cooperating companies reported exports of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period. The comparison between Eurostat import data and the volume of exports to the Union of the product concerned reported for the investigation period by the five cooperating companies revealed that the cooperation of Indian exporting producers was close to 100 %. Thus, the sample was chosen on the basis of the information submitted by these five exporting producers.\n1.2.2. Selection of the sample of cooperating companies in India\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample based on the largest representative volume of exports of the product concerned to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sample selected consisted of three individual companies, together representing ca. 98 % of the total volume of exports from India to the Union of the product concerned.\n(12)\nIn accordance with Article 27(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned and the Indian authorities were consulted on the selection of the sample. The two non-sampled exporting producers insisted to be also included in the sample. However, in view of the representativity of the proposed sample, as mentioned in recital (11) above, it was concluded that it was not necessary to amend or enlarge the sample.\n1.2.3. Individual examination of companies not selected in the sample\n(13)\nA claim for individual examination as per Article 27(3) of the basic Regulation was received from a non-sampled exporting producer. The examination of this claim at the provisional stage would have been too burdensome to be carried out. Therefore, a decision whether individual examination will be granted to this company will be taken at a later stage.\n1.2.4. Sampling of Union producers\n(14)\nIn view of the apparent large number of Union producers, sampling was provided for in the notice of initiation for the determination of injury, in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation.\n(15)\nIn the notice of initiation the Commission announced that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. This sample consisted of five companies, out of the 15 Union producers that were known prior to the initiation of the investigation, selected on the basis of their sales volume, size and geographic location in the Union. They represented 37 % of the total estimated Union production during the IP. Interested parties were invited to consult the file and to comment on the appropriateness of this choice within 15 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. No interested party opposed to the proposed sample composed of five companies.\n(16)\nSubsequently one of the five sampled Union producers withdrew its cooperation. The remaining four sampled companies still represented 32 % of the total estimated Union production during the IP. Hence the sample was still considered to be representative of the Union industry. Verification visits took place at the premises of three of these companies. It was considered at this provisional stage of the investigation that a thorough desk analysis was sufficient to verify the data provided by the fourth sampled company.\n1.2.5. Sampling of unrelated importers\n(17)\nIn view of the potentially large number of importers involved in the proceeding, sampling was envisaged for importers in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation. Two importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample within the deadline set in the notice of initiation. Given the low number of importers who made themselves known, it was decided not to apply sampling.\n1.2.6. Questionnaire replies and verifications\n(18)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to all the other companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. Questionnaires were thus sent to the GOI, the sampled exporting producers in India, the sampled Union producers, the cooperating importers in the Union and to all users known to be concerned by the investigation.\n(19)\nReplies were received from the GOI, the sampled exporting producers and four sampled Union producers. None of the importers or users contacted replied to the questionnaire.\n(20)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information provided by interested parties and deemed necessary for a provisional determination of subsidisation, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the GOI in Delhi and the following parties:\nProducers in the Union\n-\nInox Viti di Cattinori Bruno & C.s.n.c., Grumello del Monte, Italy,\n-\nBontempi Vibo S.p.A., Rodengo Saiano, Italy,\n-\nUgivis S.A., Belley, France;\nExporting producers in India\n-\nViraj Profiles Limited, Boisar, Dist. Thane, Maharashtra,\n-\nAgarwal Fastners Pvt. Ltd., Vasai (East), Dist. Thane, Maharashtra,\n-\nRaajratna Ventures Ltd., Ahmedabad, Gujarat.\n1.3. Investigation period\n(21)\nThe investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 2008 to the end of the investigation period (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(22)\nThe product concerned is stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof (\u2018SSF\u2019) originating in India, currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61. and 7318 15 70.\n2.2. Like product\n(23)\nThe product concerned and the product produced and sold on the domestic market of India as well as the product produced and sold on the Union market by the Union industry were found to have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses. They are therefore provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the basic Regulation.\n3. SUBSIDISATION\n3.1. Introduction\n(24)\nOn the basis of the information contained in the complaint and the replies to the Commission\u2019s questionnaire, the following schemes, which allegedly involve the granting of subsidies, were investigated:\n(a)\nDuty Entitlement Passbook Scheme;\n(b)\nAdvance Authorisation Scheme;\n(c)\nExport Promotion Capital Goods Scheme;\n(d)\nExport Oriented Units Scheme;\n(e)\nFocus Product Scheme;\n(f)\nExport Credit Scheme;\n(g)\nElectricity Duty Exemption.\n(25)\nThe schemes (a) to (e) specified above are based on the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 (No 22 of 1992), which entered into force on 7 August 1992 (\u2018Foreign Trade Act\u2019). The Foreign Trade Act authorises the GOI to issue notifications regarding the export and import policy. These are summarised in \u2018Foreign Trade Policy\u2019 documents, which are issued by the Ministry of Commerce every five years and updated regularly. The Foreign Trade Policy document relevant to the IP of this investigation is the FT-policy 09-14. In addition, the GOI also sets out the procedures governing the FT-policy 09-14 in a \u2018Handbook of Procedures, Volume I\u2019 (\u2018HOP I 09-14\u2019). The Handbook of Procedures is also updated on a regular basis.\n(26)\nThe Export Credit Scheme specified above under (f) is based on sections 21 and 35A of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, which allow the Reserve Bank of India (\u2018RBI\u2019) to direct commercial banks in the field of export credits.\n(27)\nThe Electricity Duty Exemption specified above under (g) is included in the Package Scheme of Incentives 2007 of the Government of Maharashtra, Resolution No. PSI-1707/(CR-50)/IND-8, dated 30 March 2007.\n3.2. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (\u2018DEPBS\u2019)\n(a) Legal Basis\n(28)\nThe detailed description of the DEPBS is contained in chapter 4.3 of the FT-policy 09-14 as well as in chapter 4 of the HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(29)\nAny manufacturer-exporter or merchant-exporter is eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation of the DEPBS\n(30)\nAn exporter can apply for DEPBS credits which are calculated as a specified percentage of the value of products exported under this scheme. Such DEPBS rates have been established by the Indian authorities for most products, including the product concerned. They are determined on the basis of Standard Input Output Norms (\u2018SIONs\u2019) taking into account a presumed import content of inputs in the export product and the customs duty incidence on such presumed imports, regardless of whether import duties have actually been paid or not.\n(31)\nTo be eligible for benefits under this scheme, a company must export. At the time of the export transaction, a declaration must be made by the exporter to the Indian authorities indicating that the export is taking place under the DEPBS. In order for the goods to be exported, the Indian customs authorities issue an export shipping bill during the dispatch procedure. This document shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction. At this point in time, the exporter knows the benefit it will receive. Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill, the GOI has no discretion over the granting of a DEPBS credit.\n(32)\nIt was found that in accordance with Indian accounting standards, DEPBS credits can be booked on an accrual basis as income in the commercial accounts, upon fulfilment of the export obligation. Such credits can be used for payment of customs duties on subsequent imports of any goods - except capital goods and goods where there are import restrictions. Goods imported against such credits can be sold on the domestic market (subject to sales tax) or used otherwise. DEPBS credits are freely transferable and valid for a period of 24 months from the date of issue.\n(33)\nApplication for DEPBS credits are electronically filed and can cover an unlimited amount of export transactions. De facto no strict deadlines apply to DEPBS credits. The electronic system used to manage DEPBS does not automatically exclude export transactions exceeding the submission deadline mentioned in chapter 4.47 of the HOP I 09-14. Furthermore, as clearly provided in chapter 9.3 of the HOP I 09-14, applications received after the expiry of submission deadlines can always be considered subject to the imposition of a minor penalty fee.\n(34)\nIt was found that two of the companies in the sample, Agarwal Fastners Pvt. Ltd. and Raajratna Ventures Ltd. used this scheme during the IP.\n(d) Conclusions on the DEPBS\n(35)\nThe DEPBS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. A DEPBS credit is a financial contribution by the GOI since the credit will eventually be used to offset import duties, thus decreasing the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would otherwise be due. In addition, the DEPBS credit confers a benefit upon the exporter because it improves its liquidity.\n(36)\nFurthermore, the DEPBS is contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation.\n(37)\nThis scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation since it does not conform to the rules laid down in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. In particular, an exporter is under no obligation to actually consume the goods imported free of duty in the production process and the amount of credit is not calculated in relation to actual inputs used. Moreover, there is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production process of the exported product or whether an excess payment of import duties occurred within the meaning of item (i) of Annex I, and Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation. Lastly, an exporter is eligible for the DEPBS benefits regardless of whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported. Thus, even exporters which procure all of their inputs locally and do not import any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled to benefit from the DEPBS.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(38)\nIn accordance with Articles 3(2) and 5 of the basic Regulation, the amount of countervailable subsidies was calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient found to exist during the IP. In this regard, it was considered that the benefit is conferred on the recipient at the point in time when an export transaction is made under this scheme. At that moment, the GOI is liable to forego the customs duties, which constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill which shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction, the GOI has no discretion as to whether or not to grant the subsidy. In the light of the above, it is considered appropriate to assess the benefit under the DEPBS as being the sums of the credits earned on export transactions made under this scheme during the IP.\n(39)\nWhere justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the credits so established to arrive at the subsidy amount as numerator, pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the total export turnover during the IP as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(40)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the companies concerned during the IP ranged from 4,70 % to 6,53 %.\n3.3. Advance Authorisation Scheme (\u2018AAS\u2019)\n(a) Legal basis\n(41)\nThe detailed description of the scheme is contained in paragraphs 4.1.3 to 4.1.14 of the FT-policy 09-14 and chapters 4.1 to 4.30A of the HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(42)\nThe AAS consists of six sub-schemes, as described in more detail in recital (43) below. Those sub-schemes differ inter alia in the scope of eligibility. Manufacturer-exporters and merchant-exporters \u2018tied to\u2019 supporting manufacturers are eligible for the AAS physical exports and for the AAS for annual requirement sub-schemes. Manufacturer-exporters supplying the ultimate exporter are eligible for AAS for intermediate supplies. Main contractors which supply to the \u2018deemed export\u2019 categories mentioned in paragraph 8.2 of the FT-policy 09-14, such as suppliers of an export oriented unit (\u2018EOU\u2019), are eligible for the AAS deemed export sub-scheme. Eventually, intermediate suppliers to manufacturer-exporters are eligible for \u2018deemed export\u2019 benefits under the sub-schemes Advance Release Order (\u2018ARO\u2019) and back to back inland letter of credit.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(43)\nThe AAS can be issued for:\n(i) Physical exports: This is the main sub-scheme. It allows for duty-free import of input materials for the production of a specific resulting export product. \u2018Physical\u2019 in this context means that the export product has to leave Indian territory. An import allowance and export obligation including the type of export product are specified in the licence;\n(ii) Annual requirement: Such an authorisation is not linked to a specific export product, but to a wider product group (e.g. chemical and allied products). The licence holder can - up to a certain value threshold set by its past export performance - import duty-free any input to be used in manufacturing any of the items falling under such a product group. It can choose to export any resulting product falling under the product group using such duty-exempt material;\n(iii) Intermediate supplies: This sub-scheme covers cases where two manufacturers intend to produce a single export product and divide the production process. The manufacturer-exporter who produces the intermediate product can import duty-free input materials and can obtain for this purpose an AAS for intermediate supplies. The ultimate exporter finalises the production and is obliged to export the finished product;\n(iv) Deemed exports: This sub-scheme allows a main contractor to import inputs free of duty which are required in manufacturing goods to be sold as \u2018deemed exports\u2019 to the categories of customers mentioned in paragraph 8.2 of the FT-policy 09-14. According to the GOI, deemed exports refer to those transactions in which the goods supplied do not leave the country. A number of categories of supply is regarded as deemed exports provided the goods are manufactured in India, e.g. supply of goods to an export-oriented unit (\u2018EOU\u2019) or to a company situated in a special economic zone (\u2018SEZ\u2019);\n(v) Advance Release Order (\u2018ARO\u2019): The AAS holder intending to source the inputs from indigenous sources, in lieu of direct import, has the option to source them against AROs. In such cases the Advance Authorisations are validated as AROs and are endorsed to the indigenous supplier upon delivery of the items specified therein. The endorsement of the ARO entitles the indigenous supplier to the benefits of deemed exports as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the FT-policy 09-14 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty). The ARO mechanism refunds taxes and duties to the supplier instead of refunding the same to the ultimate exporter in the form of drawback/refund of duties. The refund of taxes/duties is available both for indigenous inputs as well as imported inputs;\n(vi) Back to back inland letter of credit: This sub-scheme again covers indigenous supplies to an Advance Authorisation holder. The holder of an Advance Authorisation can approach a bank for opening an inland letter of credit in favour of an indigenous supplier. The authorisation will be validated by the bank for direct import only in respect of the value and volume of items being sourced indigenously instead of importation. The indigenous supplier will be entitled to deemed export benefits as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the FT-policy 09-14 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty).\n(44)\nOne company in the sample received concessions under the AAS linked to the product concerned during the IP. This company made use of one of the sub-schemes, i.e. AAS physical exports. It is therefore not necessary to establish the countervailability of the remaining unused sub-schemes.\n(45)\nFor verification purposes by the Indian authorities, an Advance Authorisation holder is legally obliged to maintain \u2018a true and proper account of consumption and utilisation of duty-free imported/domestically procured goods\u2019 in a specified format (chapters 4.26, 4.30 and Appendix 23 HOP I 09-14), i.e. an actual consumption register. This register has to be verified by an external chartered accountant/cost and works accountant who issues a certificate stating that the prescribed registers and relevant records have been examined and the information furnished under Appendix 23 is true and correct in all respects.\n(46)\nWith regard to the sub-scheme used during the IP by the company concerned, i.e. physical exports, the import allowance and the export obligation are fixed in volume and value by the GOI and are documented on the Authorisation. In addition, at the time of import and of export, the corresponding transactions are to be documented by Government officials on the Authorisation. The volume of imports allowed under the AAS is determined by the GOI on the basis of Standard Input Output Norms (\u2018SIONs\u2019) which exist for most products including the product concerned. Imported input materials are not transferable and have to be used to produce the resultant export product. The export obligation must be fulfilled within a prescribed time frame after issuance of the licence (24 months with two possible extensions of 6 months each).\n(47)\nThe investigation established that the verification requirements stipulated by the Indian authorities were either not honoured or not yet tested in practice.\n(48)\nThe company using the scheme did maintain a certain production and consumption register. The Appendix 23 was not properly completed and, therefore, could not be considered an actual consumption register as prescribed by the chapters 4.26, 4.30 of the HOP I 09-14. An actual consumption register for the IP was not available, and consequently it was not possible to verify inter alia the consumption records in order to establish which inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product and in what amounts, as stated in the copy of the Appendix 23. Regarding the verification requirements referred to in recital (45) above, there were no records kept by the company on how this certification took place. There was no audit plan or any other supporting material of the audit performed (e.g. a report of the auditing), no recorded information on the methodology used and the specific requirements needed for such scrupulous work that required detailed technical knowledge on production processes. Any potential excess remission realized by the company and reported in the Appendix 23 did not entail any intervention or control by the relevant authorities. In sum, it is considered that the investigated exporter was not able to demonstrate that the relevant provisions of FT-policy 09-14 were met.\n(d) Conclusion on the AAS\n(49)\nThe exemption from import duties is a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation, since it constitutes a financial contribution of the GOI which conferred a benefit upon the investigated exporter.\n(50)\nIn addition, the subsidies related to AAS physical exports are clearly contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation. Without an export commitment a company cannot obtain benefits under this scheme.\n(51)\nThe sub-scheme used in the present case cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the rules laid down in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. The GOI did not effectively apply a verification system or a procedure to confirm whether and in what amounts inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) of the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) of the basic Regulation). Moreover, the SIONs for the product concerned were not sufficiently precise and they cannot constitute a verification system of actual consumption because the design of those standard norms does not enable the GOI to verify with sufficient precision what amounts of inputs were consumed in the export production. In addition, the GOI did not carry out a further examination based on actual inputs involved, although this would normally need to be carried out in the absence of an effectively applied verification system (Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) to the basic Regulation).\n(52)\nThe sub-scheme is therefore countervailable.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(53)\nIn the absence of permitted duty drawback systems or substitution drawback systems, the countervailable benefit is the remission of total import duties normally due upon importation of inputs. In this respect, it is noted that the basic Regulation does not only provide for the countervailing of an \u2018excess\u2019 remission of duties. According to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Annex I(i) of the basic Regulation only when the conditions of Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation are met the excess remission of duties can be countervailed. However, these conditions were not fulfilled in the present case. Thus, if an adequate monitoring process is not demonstrated, the above exception for drawback schemes is not applicable and the normal rule of the countervailing of the amount of unpaid duties (revenue forgone), applies, rather than of any purported excess remission. As set out in Annexes II(II) and III(II) of the basic Regulation the burden is not upon the investigating authority to calculate such excess remission. To the contrary, according to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation, the investigating authority only has to establish sufficient evidence to refute the appropriateness of an alleged verification system.\n(54)\nThe subsidy amount for the company which used the AAS was calculated on the basis of import duties forgone (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) on the material imported under the sub-scheme during the IP (numerator). In accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the subsidy amount where justified claims were made. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount was allocated over the export turnover of the product concerned during the IP as appropriate denominator because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(55)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the company concerned during the IP was 2,94 %.\n3.4. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (\u2018EPCGS\u2019)\n(a) Legal basis\n(56)\nThe detailed description of the EPCGS is contained in chapter 5 of the FT-policy 09-14 as well as in chapter 5 of the HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(57)\nManufacturer-exporters, merchant-exporters \u2018tied to\u2019 supporting manufacturers and service providers are eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(58)\nUnder the condition of an export obligation, a company is allowed to import capital goods (new and second-hand capital goods) at a reduced rate of customs duty. To this end, the GOI issues an EPCGS licence upon application and payment of a fee. This scheme provides for a reduced import duty rate of 5 % applicable to all capital goods imported under this scheme. In order to meet the export obligation, the imported capital goods must be used to produce a certain amount of export goods during a certain period. Under FTP 09-14 the capital goods can be imported with 0 % duty rate under EPCGS but in such case the time period for fulfilment of the export obligation is shorter, i.e. 6 years instead of 8 years from Authorization issue-date. The EPCGS licence holder can also source the capital goods indigenously. In such case, the indigenous manufacturer of capital goods may avail himself of the benefit for duty free import of components required to manufacture such capital goods. Alternatively, the indigenous manufacturer can claim the benefit of deemed export in respect of supply of capital goods to an EPCGS licence holder.\n(59)\nIt was found that all sampled exporting producers used this scheme during the IP.\n(d) Conclusion on EPCG Scheme\n(60)\nThe EPCGS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. The duty reduction constitutes a financial contribution by the GOI since this concession decreases the GOI\u2019s duty revenue, which would otherwise be due. In addition, the duty reduction confers a benefit upon the exporter because the duties saved upon import improve its liquidity.\n(61)\nFurthermore, the EPCGS is contingent in law upon export performance, since such licences cannot be obtained without a commitment to export. Therefore, it is deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation.\n(62)\nThis scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Capital goods are not covered by the scope of such permissible systems, as set out in Annex I, item (i), to the basic Regulation because they are not consumed/incorporated in the production of the exported products.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(63)\nThe subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods spread across a period which reflects the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in the industry concerned. In accordance with the established practice, the amount so calculated, which is attributable to the IP, has been adjusted by adding interest during this period in order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. The commercial interest rate during the investigation period in India was considered appropriate for this purpose. Where justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(64)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount has been allocated over the appropriate export turnover during the IP as the appropriate denominator because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(65)\nThe subsidy rates established in respect of this scheme for the companies concerned during the IP were 0,11 %, 0,16 % and 0,19 %.\n3.5. Export Oriented Units Scheme (\u2018EOUS\u2019)\n(a) Legal basis\n(66)\nThe details of the EOU scheme are contained in chapter 6 of the FT-policy 09-14 as well as in chapter 6 of the HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(67)\nWith the exception of pure trading companies, all enterprises which, in principle, undertake to export their entire production of goods or services may be set up under the EOUS. Undertakings in the industrial sectors have to fulfil a minimum investment threshold in fixed assets to be eligible for the EOUS.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(68)\nExport oriented units can be located and established anywhere in India.\n(69)\nAn application for EOU status must include details for a period of the next five years on, inter alia, planned production quantities, projected value of exports, import requirements and indigenous requirements. Upon acceptance by the authorities of the company\u2019s application, the terms and conditions attached to this acceptance will be communicated to the company. The agreement to be recognised as a company under EOUS is valid for a five-year period. The agreement may be renewed for further periods.\n(70)\nA crucial obligation of an EOU as set out in the FT-policy 09-14 is to achieve net foreign exchange (\u2018NFE\u2019) earnings; i.e. in a reference period (5 years) the total value of exports has to be higher than the total value of imported goods.\n(71)\nExport oriented units are entitled to the following concessions:\n(i)\nexemption from import duties on all types of goods (including capital goods, raw materials and consumables) required for the manufacture, production, processing, or in connection therewith;\n(ii)\nexemption from excise duty on goods procured from indigenous sources;\n(iii)\nreimbursement of central sales tax paid on goods procured locally;\n(iv)\nthe facility to sell part of production on the domestic market of up to 50 % of FOB value of exports, subject to fulfilment of positive NFE earnings upon payment of concessional duties, namely excise duties on finished products;\n(v)\npartial reimbursement of duty paid on fuel procured from domestic oil companies;\n(vi)\nexemption from income tax normally due on profits realised on export sales in accordance with Section 10B of the Income Tax Act for a 10-year period after starting its operations.\n(72)\nUnits operating under this scheme are bonded under the surveillance of customs officials.\n(73)\nThey are legally obliged to maintain a proper account of all imports, of the consumption and utilisation of all imported materials and of the exports made in accordance with the relevant paragraph of HOP I 09-14. These documents should be submitted periodically to the competent authorities in India through quarterly and annual progress reports.\n(74)\nHowever, \u2018at no point in time an EOU shall be required to co-relate every import consignment with its exports, transfers to other units, sales in DTA (\u201cdomestic tariff area\u201d) or stocks\u2019, as the relevant section of the HOP I 09-14 states.\n(75)\nDomestic sales are dispatched and recorded on a self-certification basis. The dispatch process of export consignments of an EOU is supervised by a customs/excise official.\n(76)\nIn the present case, the EOUS was used by one of the exporters in the sample. This exporter utilised the scheme to import raw materials, consumables and capital goods free of import duties, to procure goods domestically free of excise duty and to obtain sales tax reimbursement, and to sell part of its production on the domestic market. The exporter thereby availed of all benefits as described in recital (71) above under (i) to (vi). However, as regards income tax exemption pursuant to Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, the investigation revealed that, as from 1 April 2010, the company was no longer eligible for this exemption. Consequently, the income tax exemption provisions of the EOU were not further considered in the context of this investigation.\n(77)\nAt a very late stage, the company which was found to operate as an EOU submitted detailed comments on the scheme, inter alia alleging that the various measures available within an EOU do not constitute countervailable subsidies. The analysis of these comments could not be concluded at this point in time; however, it will be duly dealt with in the subsequent stage of this investigation.\n(d) Conclusions on the EOUS\n(78)\nThe exemptions of an EOU from three types of import duties (\u2018basic customs duty\u2019, \u2018education cess on customs duty\u2019 and \u2018higher secondary education cess\u2019) and the reimbursement of sales tax are financial contributions of the GOI within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Government revenue which would be otherwise due in the absence of this scheme is forgone, thus, conferring a benefit upon the EOU within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation because it improved liquidity by not having to pay duties normally due and by obtaining a sales tax reimbursement.\n(79)\nIn addition, the EOU cannot be considered as a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the rules laid down in Annex I items (h) and (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. The GOI did not effectively apply a verification system or a procedure to confirm whether and in what amounts inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) of the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) of the basic Regulation). The verification system in place aims at monitoring the NFE earning obligation and not the consumption of imports in relation to the production of exported goods.\n(80)\nThe exemption from excise duty and its import duty equivalent (\u2018EED\u2019), however, do not lead to revenue forgone which is otherwise due. Excise and additional customs duty, if paid, could be used as a credit for its own future duty liabilities (the so-called \u2018CENVAT mechanism\u2019) which is a system comparable to VAT and which allows Indian companies to offset taxes on purchases with taxes payable on sales. Therefore, these duties are not definitive. By the means of \u2018CENVAT\u2019-credit only an added value bears a definitive duty, not the input materials.\n(81)\nThus, only the exemption from basic customs duty, education cess on customs duty, higher secondary education cess and the central sales tax reimbursement, constitute subsidies within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation. They are contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation. The export objective of an EOU as set out in chapter 6.1 of the FT-policy 09-14 is a conditio sine qua non to obtain the incentives.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(82)\nAccordingly, the countervailable benefit is the remission of import duties (basic customs duty, education cess on customs duty, higher secondary education cess) normally due upon importation as well as the reimbursement of central sales tax, during the IP.\n(i) Exemption from import duties (basic customs duty, education cess on customs duty, higher secondary education cess), reimbursement of central sales tax on raw materials and consumables\n(83)\nThe subsidy amount for the exporter that are export oriented units was calculated on the basis of import duties forgone (basic customs duty, education cess on customs duty, higher secondary education cess) on the materials imported for the EOU as a whole and the sales tax reimbursed during the IP. Fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation from this sum to arrive at the subsidy amount as numerator. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the appropriate export turnover generated during the IP as appropriate denominator because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. The subsidy margin thus obtained for the company concerned was 2,68 %.\n(ii) Exemption from import duties (basic customs duty, education cess on customs duty, higher secondary education cess) on capital goods\n(84)\nCapital goods are not physically incorporated into the finished goods. In accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, the benefit to the concerned company has been calculated on the basis of the amount of unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods spread across a period which reflects the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in one of the investigated companies. The amount so calculated is then attributable to the IP and has been adjusted by adding interest during this period in order to reflect the value of the benefit over time and thereby establish the full benefit of this scheme to the recipient. The commercial interest rate during the investigation period in India was considered appropriate for this purpose. In accordance with Articles 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount has been allocated over the appropriate export turnover generated during the IP as appropriate denominator because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. The subsidy margin thus obtained for the company concerned was 0,05 %.\n(85)\nThe total subsidy margin obtained under the EOUS for the company concerned amounts to 2,73 %.\n3.6. Focus Product Scheme (\u2018FPS\u2019)\n(a) Legal basis\n(86)\nThe detailed description of the scheme is contained in paragraphs 3.15 to 3.17 of the FT-policy 09-14 and chapters 3.9 to 3.11 of the HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(87)\nAccording to paragraph 3.15.2 of the FT-policy 09-14, exporters of notified products in Appendix 37D of HOP I 09-14 are eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(88)\nAn exporter of products included in the list of Appendix 37D of HOP I 09-14 can apply for FPS Duty Credit scrip equivalent to 2 % or 5 % of FOB value of exports. However, Special Focus product(s)/sector(s), covered under Table 2 and table 5 of the abovementioned Appendix 37D are entitled of a Duty Credit scrip equivalent to 5 % of FOB value of exports. The product concerned under investigation is included in these Special Focus products.\n(89)\nFPS is a post export scheme, i.e. a company must export to be eligible for benefits under this scheme. As a result, the company proceeds to file an on-line application to the relevant authority along with copies of the export order and invoice, the bank receipt showing payment of application fees, copy of the shipping bills and bank realization certificate for the receipt of payment or foreign inward remittance certificate in the case of direct negotiation of documents. In cases where the original copy of the shipping bills and/or bank realisation certificates have been submitted for claiming benefits under any other scheme, the company can submit self-attested copies quoting the relevant authority where the original documents have been submitted. The on-line application for FPS credits can cover a maximum of up to 50 shipping bills.\n(90)\nIt was found that, in accordance with Indian accounting standards, FPS credits can be booked on an accrual basis as income in the commercial accounts, upon fulfilment of the export obligation. Such credits can be used for payment of customs duties on subsequent imports of any goods - except capital goods and goods where there are import restrictions. Goods imported against such credits can be sold on the domestic market (subject to sales tax) or used otherwise. FPS credits are freely transferable and valid for a period of 24 months from the date of issue.\n(91)\nIt was found that two of the companies in the sample used this scheme during the IP.\n(d) Conclusion on the FPS\n(92)\nThe FPS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. An FPS credit is a financial contribution by the GOI since the credit will eventually be used to offset import duties, thus decreasing the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would otherwise be due. In addition, the FPS credit confers a benefit upon the exporter because it improves its liquidity.\n(93)\nFurthermore, the FPS is contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(94)\nThis scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation since it does not conform to the rules laid down in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. In particular, an exporter is under no obligation to actually consume the goods imported free of duty in the production process and the amount of credit is not calculated in relation to actual inputs used. Moreover, there is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production process of the exported product or whether an excess payment of import duties occurred within the meaning of item (i) of Annex I, and Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation. Lastly, an exporter is eligible for the FPS benefits regardless of whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported. Thus, even exporters which procure all of their inputs locally and do not import any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled to benefit from the FPS.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(95)\nIn accordance with Articles 3(2) and 5 of the basic Regulation, the amount of countervailable subsidies was calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient found to exist during the IP. In this regard, it was considered that the benefit is conferred on the recipient at the point in time when an export transaction is made under this scheme. At that moment, the GOI is liable to forego the customs duties, which constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill which shows, inter alia, the amount of FPS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction, the GOI has no discretion as to whether or not to grant the subsidy. In the light of the above, it is considered appropriate to assess the benefit under the FPS as being the sums of the credits earned on export transactions made under this scheme during the IP.\n(96)\nWhere justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the credits so established to arrive at the subsidy amount as numerator, pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the total export turnover during the IP as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(97)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the two companies concerned during the IP was 4,80 %.\n3.7. Export Credit Scheme (\u2018ECS\u2019)\n(a) Legal basis\n(98)\nThe details of the scheme are set out in the Master Circular DBOD No. DIR.(Exp).BC. 06/04.02.002/2010-10 (Rupee/Foreign Currency Export Credit) of the Reserve Bank of India (\u2018RBI\u2019), which is addressed to all commercial banks in India.\n(b) Eligibility\n(99)\nManufacturing exporters and merchant exporters are eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(100)\nThe ECS consists of two sub-schemes, the Pre-Shipment Export Credit Scheme (\u2018packing credit\u2019), which covers credits provided to an exporter for financing the purchase, processing, manufacturing, packing and/or shipping of goods prior to export, and the Post-Shipment Export Credit Scheme, which provides for working capital loans with the purpose of financing export receivables. Since July 1, 2010, commercial banks apply a new Base Rate System applicable for all tenors of rupee export credit advances. As regards ECS in foreign currency, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) sets maximum ceiling interest rates applicable to export credits which commercial banks can charge an exporter. The RBI also directs the banks to provide a certain amount of their net bank credit towards export finance.\n(101)\nAs a result of the RBI Master Circular exporters can obtain export credits at preferential interest rates as compared with the interest rates for ordinary commercial credits (\u2018cash credits\u2019), which are solely set under market conditions. The difference in rates might decrease for companies with good credit ratings. In fact, high rating companies might be in a position to obtain export credits and cash credits at the same conditions.\n(102)\nIt was found that all the sampled exporting producers used this scheme during the IP.\n(d) Conclusion on the ECS\n(103)\nThe preferential interest rates of an ECS credit set by the RBI Master Circular mentioned in recital (98) can decrease the interest costs of an exporter as compared with credit costs purely set by market conditions and confer in this case a benefit within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation on such an exporter.\n(104)\nDespite the fact that the preferential credits under the ECS are granted by commercial banks, this benefit is a financial contribution by a government within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation. In this context, it should be noted that neither Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation nor Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures require a charge on the public accounts, e.g. reimbursement of the commercial banks by the GOI, to establish a subsidy, but only government direction to carry out functions illustrated in points (i), (ii) or (iii) of Article 3(1)(a) of the basic Regulation. The RBI is a public body and falls therefore under the definition of \u2018government\u2019 as set out in Article 2(b) of the basic Regulation. It is 100 % government-owned, pursues public policy objectives, e.g. monetary policy, and its management is appointed by the GOI. The RBI directs private bodies, within the meaning of the second indent of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation, since the commercial banks are bound by the conditions it imposes, inter alia, with regard to the setting of the interest rates on export credits mandated in the RBI Master Circular and the RBI provisions that commercial banks have to provide a certain amount of their net bank credit towards export finance. This direction obliges commercial banks to carry out functions mentioned in Article 3(1)(a)(i) of the basic Regulation, in this case to provide loans in the form of preferential export financing. Such direct transfer of funds in the form of loans under certain conditions would normally be vested in the government, and the practice differs, in no real sense, from practices normally followed by governments, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation. This subsidy is deemed to be specific and countervailable since the preferential interest rates are only available in relation to the financing of export transactions and are therefore contingent upon export performance, pursuant to Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(105)\nThe subsidy amount has been calculated on the basis of the difference between the interest paid for export credits used during the IP and the amount that would have been payable for ordinary commercial credits used by the company concerned. This subsidy amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total export turnover during the IP as the appropriate denominator in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(106)\nThe subsidy rates established in respect of this scheme for the companies concerned during the IP were 0,25 %, 0,31 % and 0,44 %.\n3.8. Electricity Duty Exemption\n(a) Legal basis\n(107)\nThe scheme is included in the Package Scheme of Incentives 2007 of the Government of Maharashtra, Resolution No PSI-1707/(CR-50)/IND-8, dated 30 March 2007. Following the Amendments to the Package Scheme of Incentives 2007 issued by the Government of Maharashtra on 30 June 2011, an extension period has been provided until 31 August 2011.\n(b) Eligibility\n(108)\nThe abovementioned Resolution lists the categories of industries and enterprises which can be considered eligible for incentives under the 2007 scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(109)\nIn order to encourage the dispersal of industries to the less developed areas, the Maharashtra Government has provided a package of incentives to new/expansion industrial units set up in the developing region of the Maharashtra State. For the purpose of the Scheme, Annexure I to the Resolution classifies the area of the State eligible for incentives. However, the incentives under the 2007 Scheme cannot be claimed unless an Eligibility Certificate has been issued under the 2007 Scheme by the Implementing Agency and the eligible unit has complied with the stipulations/conditions of the Eligibility Certificate. An Eligibility Certificate is issued by the Implementing Agency with effect from the date of commencement of commercial production of the eligible unit.\n(110)\nExemption from Electricity Duty is granted to eligible new units set up in specified areas for a period of 15 years. In other parts of the State, 100 % Exported Oriented Units (EOUs), Information Technology (IT) and Bio-Technology (BT) units will also be exempted from payment of Electricity Duty for a period of 10 years.\n(111)\nDuring the investigation it was found that one company in the sample, being an EOU located in Maharashtra, benefited from this scheme during the IP.\n(d) Conclusion on the Electricity Duty Exemption\n(112)\nThe exemption from the Electricity Duty is a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation, since it constitutes a financial contribution of the GOI which conferred a benefit upon the investigated exporters.\n(113)\nThe subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the basic Regulation given that the legislation itself, pursuant to which the granting authority operates, limited the access to this scheme to certain enterprises within a designated geographical region.\n(114)\nConsequently, the subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(115)\nIn accordance with Articles 3(2) and 5 of the basic Regulation, the amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient in relation to the product concerned, which is found to exist during the IP. This amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total sales turnover of the product concerned of the exporting producer during the IP, because the subsidy is not contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported, pursuant to Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(116)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the company concerned amounts to 0,09 %.\n3.9. Amount of countervailable subsidies\n(117)\nBased on the findings, as summarised in the below table, the total amounts of countervailable subsidies, expressed ad valorem, were found to range from 3,2 % to 16,5 %:\nTable 1\nScheme\nEPCGS\nDEPBS\nAAS\nEOUS\nECS\nFPS\nElectricity duty exemption\nTotal\nCompany\nViraj Profiles Ltd.\n0,16 %\n2,73 %\n0,25 %\n0,09 %\n3,2 %\nRaajratna Ventures Ltd.\n0,19 %\n4,70 %\n2,94 %\n0,44 %\n4,80 %\n13,0 %\nAgarwal Fastners Pvt. Ltd.\n0,11 %\n6,53 %\n0,31 %\n4,80 %\n11,7 %\nCooperating non-sampled companies\n0,16 %\n5,53 %\n2,94 %\n0,25 %\n4,80 %\n13,6 %\nOther companies\n0,16 %\n5,53 %\n2,94 %\n2,73 %\n0,25 %\n4,80 %\n0,09 %\n16,5 %\n(118)\nIn accordance with Article 15(3) of the basic Regulation, the subsidy margin for the cooperating companies not included in the sample, calculated on the basis of the weighted average subsidy margin established for each of the programmes which benefit the cooperating companies in the sample, is 13,6 %. For the purpose of calculating the weighted average subsidy margin for the sample, the subsidy amounts found for the EOUS and the electricity duty exemption under the Package Scheme of Incentives of the Government of Maharashtra (i.e. applicable to EOUs only) were excluded from the calculation as it was found that the scope of these subsidy schemes would not cover the two cooperating non-sampled companies. In particular, with regards to the EOU, it is not possible to cumulate EOU-related benefits with benefits under the other schemes. As regards the electricity duty exemption, this is only available to EOUs or to firms located in certain regions of Maharashtra. Therefore, the universe of beneficiaries under this scheme is too limited for it to be considered applicable to the non-sampled companies.\n(119)\nWith regard to all other exporters in India, the Commission first established the level of cooperation. As mentioned in recital (10) above, the comparison between Eurostat import data and the volume of exports to the Union of the product concerned reported for the investigation period by the cooperating companies or groups with exports of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period shows that the cooperation of Indian exporting producers was very high, close to 100 %. Given this high level of cooperation, the subsidy rate for all non-cooperating companies is set at the level of the weighted average subsidy margin established for each of the programmes which benefit the cooperating companies in the sample, i.e. 16,5 %.\n4. UNION INDUSTRY\n4.1. Union production\n(120)\nAll available information concerning Union producers, including information provided in the complaint, data collected from Union producers before and after the initiation of the investigation, and the verified questionnaire responses of the sampled Union producers, was used in order to establish the total Union production.\n(121)\nOn that basis, the total Union production was estimated to be around 52 000 tonnes during the IP. This figure includes the production of all Union producers that made themselves known and the estimated production volume of producers that did not come forward in the proceeding.\n(122)\nAs indicated in recital (14) above sampling was applied for investigating Union producers. Of the 15 Union producers who provided data prior to the initiation of the proceeding, a sample of five companies was selected. Subsequently, as explained in recital (16) above, one company decided not to cooperate in the investigation. The remaining cooperating sampled companies represented around 32 % of the total estimated Union production during the IP and were deemed to be representative of the Union Industry. The sampled companies are the main producers and are located in France and Italy where the largest volume of the product concerned is manufactured.\n4.2. Union industry\n(123)\nAll known Union producers referred to in recital (120) above are deemed to constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 9(1) and Article 10(8) of the basic Regulation and will hereinafter be referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\n5. INJURY\n5.1. Preliminary remarks\n(124)\nThe relevant Eurostat import statistics, together with data provided in the complaint and data collected from Union producers before and after the initiation of the investigation, including the verified questionnaire responses of the sampled Union producers were used also in the evaluation of the relevant injury factors.\n(125)\nThe injury analysis with regard to macroeconomic data, such as production capacity, capacity utilization, sales volume, market share, growth, employment and productivity is based on the data of the Union industry as a whole.\n(126)\nThe injury analysis with regard to microeconomic data such as transaction prices, profitability, cash flow, investment and return on investment, ability to raise capital, stocks, and wages, is based on the data of the sampled Union producers.\n(127)\nThe four sampled Union producers were also sampled in the expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of SSF originating in China and Taiwan, concluded on 7 January 2012 (4). In that review one other company, which was not sampled in the present investigation, was included in the sample. Given that the period considered for the injury analysis overlaps with that of the expiry review, data for the years 2008 and 2009 are identical except for that of one company. By disclosing figures for 2008 and 2009 it would be possible to deduce the figures of the company which was not included in the sample in the present case. Therefore, micro indicators such as stocks, wages, investments, cash flow, return on investments and profitability have been indexed.\n5.2. Union consumption\n(128)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volume of the Union industry in the Union as provided in the complaint and cross checked by the replies to the sampling questionnaires and the verified data obtained from the sampled producers. In addition, the volume of imports based on data from Eurostat for the period considered was also taken into account.\n(129)\nOn this basis the Union consumption developed as follows:\nTable 2\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnion consumption (tonnes)\n120 598\n101 143\n122 345\n131 457\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n84\n101\n109\nSource:\nEurostat, complaint data and questionnaire replies.\n(130)\nTotal consumption on the EU market increased by 9 % during the period considered. Between 2008 and 2009 there was a drastic decrease by 16 %, allegedly due to the global negative effects of the economic crisis on the market, after which consumption recovered again by 21 % between 2009 and 2010 and further by 7 % between 2010 and the IP.\n5.3. Imports from the country concerned\n(131)\nImports into the Union from India developed as follows during the period considered:\nTable 3\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nVolume of imports from India (tonnes)\n14 546\n18 883\n21 914\n24 072\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n130\n151\n165\nMarket share\n12,1 %\n18,7 %\n17,9 %\n18,3 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n155\n149\n152\nSource:\nEurostat and questionnaire replies from exporting producers.\n(132)\nImports from India increased significantly by 65 % over the period considered. This increase was strongest between 2008 and 2009 when imports surged by 30 % and when consumption decreased by 16 %. On a year to year basis, Indian imports continued to increase during 2010 (+ 16 %) and during the IP (+ 10 %).\n5.3.1. Prices of imports and price undercutting\nTable 4\nImports from India\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nAverage price in EUR/tonne\n3 531\n2 774\n2 994\n3 216\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n79\n85\n91\nSource:\nEurostat and questionnaire replies from sampled EU producers.\n(133)\nAverage prices of imports from India decreased overall by 9 % during the period considered. This explains the increase in the market share of India from 12,1 % to 18,3 % over the same period. The highest increase occurred between 2008 and 2009, when Indian exporters gained more than 6 percentage points of market share.\n(134)\nIn order to determine price undercutting during the IP, the weighted average sales prices per product type of the sampled Union producers charged to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports from India to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a CIF basis, with appropriate adjustments for the existing customs duties and post-importation costs.\n(135)\nThe price comparison was made on a type-by-type basis for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and discounts. The result of the comparison, when expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union producers\u2019 turnover during the IP, showed price undercutting ranging between 3 % and 13 %.\n5.4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(136)\nIn accordance with Article 8(4) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the subsidised imports from India on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators established for the Union industry over the period considered.\n5.4.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilization\nTable 5\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nProduction volume (tonnes)\n69 514\n56 396\n62 213\n51 800\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n81\n89\n75\nProduction capacity (tonnes)\n140 743\n127 200\n128 796\n111 455\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n90\n92\n79\nCapacity utilisation\n49 %\n44 %\n48 %\n46 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n90\n98\n94\nSource:\nTotal Union Industry.\n(137)\nThe table above shows that production decreased significantly by 25 % over the period considered. In line with a decrease in demand, production decreased sharply by 19 % in 2009, after which it recovered by around 10 % in 2010. In the IP, although the Union consumption increased by 7 %, Union production decreased again by around 17 % compared to the previous year.\n(138)\nThe production capacity of the Union industry decreased by around 21 % over the period considered. Capacity utilisation also decreased over the period considered, constantly remaining below 50 %.\n5.4.2. Sales volume and market share\nTable 6\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nSales volume (tonnes)\n56 042\n44 627\n45 976\n48 129\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n80\n82\n86\nMarket share\n46,5 %\n44,1 %\n37,6 %\n36,6 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n95\n81\n79\nSource:\nTotal Union Industry.\n(139)\nIn the context of an increasing consumption (+ 9 %), sales volume of the like product when sold to the first independent customer in the Union decreased by 14 % over the period considered. Consequently market share dropped from 46,5 % in 2008 to 36,6 % in the IP. Following sharp decrease in sales volume in 2009 (- 20 %), it recovered slightly in 2010 and in the IP.\n5.4.3. Growth\n(140)\nUnion consumption increased by 9 % between 2008 and the IP. However, sales volume and market share of the Union industry decreased in the same period, by 14 % and 21 % respectively. At the same time imports from India increased significantly by 65 %.\n5.4.4. Employment\nTable 7\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nNumber of employees\n1 007\n863\n821\n761\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n86\n82\n76\nProductivity (unit/employee)\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n95\n110\n99\nSource:\nTotal Union Industry.\n(141)\nDue to the downsizing activities of the Union industry, the number of employees was reduced accordingly during the period considered by 24 %. Between 2008 and the IP labour costs per employee increased by 6 %.\n(142)\nProductivity of the Union industry workforce, measured as output per person employed per year, decreased slightly by 1 % over the period considered. It reached its lowest level in 2009, after which it started to recover towards the IP.\n5.4.5. Average unit prices in the Union\nTable 8\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnit price in EU to unrelated customers\n(Euro per tonne)\n4 336\n2 792\n3 914\n4 244\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n64\n90\n98\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies sampled producers.\n(143)\nAverage sales prices decreased by 2 % over the period considered. In 2009 the Union industry was forced to reduce its sales prices by 36 %, in the context of the economic downturn and of a sharp decrease of import prices from India (- 21 %). During 2010 and the IP the Union industry sales prices recovered again.\n(144)\nThe investigation showed that the decrease in sales prices in 2009 reflected the decrease in costs which dropped by 18 % compared to 2008 levels. This decrease in costs was mainly due to the decrease in raw material prices, especially those of nickel, which has an unstable price dynamic. However, the Union industry was forced to decrease its sales prices more than the decrease in costs, in view of the expansion of the low-priced Indian imports in 2009.\n5.4.6. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital\nTable 9\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nProfitability of EU sales (% of net sales)\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n- 100\n- 442\n-74\n-24\nCash Flow\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n- 100\n-1 827\n-40\n171\nInvestments (EUR)\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n29\n59\n6\nReturn on Investments\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n- 100\n- 284\n-59\n-28\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies sampled EU producers.\n(145)\nThe investigation showed that, even if the decrease in sales prices partly reflected the decrease in costs, the price of the Union industry was under pressure by the imports of SSF from India. The profitability of the Union industry was negative since the beginning of the period concerned. Especially in 2009 the Union industry was forced to decrease its sales prices more than the decrease in costs, in view of the expansion of the low-priced Indian imports. This lead to a significant deterioration of profitability in that year. However, in 2010 and the IP profitability improved, but it still remained negative.\n(146)\nCash flow, which is the ability of the industry to self-finance its activities, followed a similar trend as profitability. It reached its lowest level in 2009, after which it showed an increasing trend and turned positive in the IP.\n(147)\nAfter making investments in 2008 in the production of SSF, investments decreased by about 94 % during the period considered. The return on investment showed a similar negative development in line with the negative results achieved by the Union industry over the period considered and remained always negative.\n(148)\nThe evolution of profitability, the cash flow and the low level of investments points to the fact that the sampled EU producers may have experienced difficulties to raise capital.\n5.4.7. Stocks\nTable 10\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nClosing stock of Union industry\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n92\n100\n103\nSource:\nQuestionnaire reply.\n(149)\nThe stock level of the sampled Union industry increased by 3 % during the period considered. In 2009 the level of closing stock decreased by 8 %; afterwards, in 2010 and in the IP it increased by 8 % and 3 % respectively.\n5.4.8. Magnitude of the subsidy margin\n(150)\nGiven the volume, market share and prices of the subsidised imports from India, the impact on the Union industry of the actual subsidy margins cannot be considered to be negligible.\n5.5. Conclusion on injury\n(151)\nThe investigation showed that most injury indicators such as production (- 25 %), capacity utilisation (- 6 %), sales volume (- 14 %), market share (- 21 %), and employment (- 24 %) deteriorated during the period considered. In the context of an increasing consumption, both sales volume and market share dropped. Sales volume recovered slightly in 2010 and the IP when compared to 2009; however, the Union industry was unable to regain its lost market share in view of the expansion of the Indian imports which increased steadily over the period considered, at prices constantly undercutting those of the Union industry.\n(152)\nFurthermore, the injury indicators related to the financial performance of the Union industry, such as cash flow and profitability were seriously affected. This means that the ability of the Union industry to raise capital was undermined.\n(153)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it was concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 8(5) of the basic Regulation.\n6. CAUSATION\n6.1. Introduction\n(154)\nIn accordance with Article 8(5) and 8(6) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the subsidised imports originating in India have caused injury to the Union industry to a degree that enables it to be classified as material. Known factors other than the subsidised imports, which could at the same time be injuring the Union industry, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the subsidised imports.\n6.2. Effect of the subsidised imports\n(155)\nThe investigation showed that the Union consumption increased by 9 % over the period considered, while sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 14 % and market share dropped by 21 %. At the same time the subsidised imports from India increased dramatically by 65 %, increasing their market share by 52 %.\n(156)\nIn 2010 and the IP Union consumption increased in line with the general economic recovery. However, sales volume of the Union industry increased only slightly in 2010 (+ 3 %) and in the IP (+ 4,7). On the other hand, the investigation showed an annual increase in Indian imports by 16 % in 2010 and 10 % in the IP.\n(157)\nThe subsidised imports from India exerted pressure on the Union industry particularly in 2009, when they grew by 30 % compared to 2008 and gained 6.6 percentage points in market share. In the same year, sales of the Union industry decreased by 20 %.\n(158)\nWith regard to price pressure in 2009, average import prices from India decreased by 21 % forcing the Union industry to decrease its sales prices by 36 %. This decrease was more than the decrease in costs. This situation led to a significant deterioration in profitability which dropped dramatically in 2009.\n(159)\nPrices of imports from India decreased overall by 9 % in the period considered, remaining always lower than import prices from the rest of the world and sales prices of the Union industry.\n(160)\nBased on the above it is concluded that the massive increase of the subsidised imports from India at prices constantly undercutting those of the Union industry have had a determining role in the material injury suffered by the Union industry, which is reflected in its poor financial situation, the significant drop in sales volume and market share and the deterioration of almost all injury indicators.\n6.3. Effect of other factors\n6.3.1. Imports from other third countries\nTable 11\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nVolume of imports from other third countries in tonnes\n50 010\n37 633\n54 454\n59 255\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n75\n109\n118\nMarket share of imports from other third countries\n41,5 %\n37,2 %\n44,5 %\n45,1 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n90\n107\n109\nAverage price of imports from other third countries in EUR/tonne\n5 380\n5 236\n5 094\n5 234\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n97\n95\n97\nVolume of imports from Malaysia (tonnes)\n13 712\n9 810\n9 611\n9 966\nMarket share of imports from Malaysia\n11,4 %\n9,7 %\n7,9 %\n7,6 %\nAverage price of imports from Malaysia in EUR/tonne\n4 203\n2 963\n3 324\n3 633\nVolume of imports from Philippines (tonnes)\n7 046\n5 406\n15 576\n18 149\nMarket share of imports from Philippines\n5,8 %\n5,3 %\n12,7 %\n13,8 %\nAverage price of imports from Philippines in EUR/tonne\n4 645\n3 474\n3 714\n3 912\nVolume of imports from the People\u2019s Republic of China (tonnes)\n2 332\n2 452\n3 217\n3 288\nMarket share of imports from the People\u2019s Republic of China\n1,9 %\n2,4 %\n2,6 %\n2,5 %\nAverage price of imports from the People\u2019s Republic of China in EUR/tonne\n4 004\n4 561\n5 272\n5 648\nVolume of imports from Taiwan (tonnes)\n4 304\n3 703\n6 451\n6 640\nMarket share of imports from Taiwan\n3,6 %\n3,7 %\n5,3 %\n5,1 %\nAverage price of imports from Taiwan in EUR/tonne\n5 092\n4 719\n4 755\n4 943\nSource:\nEurostat\n(161)\nBased on Eurostat data, the volume of imports into the Union of SSF originating in other third countries increased by 18 % during the period considered. At the same time, average import prices decreased by about 3 % during the period considered and their market share increased by about 9 %.\n(162)\nThere have been anti-dumping measures in force on imports of SSF from the People\u2019s Republic of China and Taiwan as of 19 November 2005. Despite the measures, these imports have increased significantly over the period considered, although market shares remained rather modest, at 2,5 % and 5,1 % respectively in the IP. Other main sources of imports are the Philippines and Malaysia. Imports especially from the Philippines increased significantly over the period considered, increasing their market share from 5,8 % in 2008 to 13,8 % in the IP.\n(163)\nAs regards Malaysia, there was a decreasing trend over the period considered, however, imports still had a market share of 7,6 % in the IP. Import volume from the Philippines increased significantly during the period considered. However, as mentioned below the average import price was much higher, namely, about 20 %, than the average price of the Indian SSF.\n(164)\nWith regard to import prices, average prices of imports from other third countries remained quite stable over the period considered and were always above the average sales prices of the Union industry and the average import prices from India.\n(165)\nOn the basis of the above, it was provisionally concluded that imports from other third countries did not break the causal link between the impact of the subsidised imports from India and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n6.3.2. Economic crisis\n(166)\nThe economic crisis partially explains the contraction of the Union consumption in 2009. However, it is noteworthy that despite the decrease of 16 % in consumption in 2009, the volume of Indian imports increased by 30 %.\n(167)\nIn 2010 and the IP Union consumption increased in line with the general economic recovery. However, sales volume of the Union industry increased only slightly, by 3 % in 2010 and by 4,7 % in the IP This compares to an annual increase in Indian imports by 16 % and 10 % respectively.\n(168)\nUnder normal economic conditions and in the absence of strong price pressure and increased import levels from the subsidised imports, the Union industry might have had some difficulty in coping with the decrease in consumption and the increase in fixed costs per unit due to the decreased capacity utilisation it experienced. However, the subsidised imports have intensified the effect of the economic downturn and even during the general economic recovery, the Union industry was unable to recover and to regain the market share lost to the Indian imports.\n(169)\nTherefore, although the economic crisis 2008-2009 may have contributed to the Union industry\u2019s poor performance, it cannot be considered to have an impact such as to break the causal link between the subsidised imports and the injurious situation of the Union industry.\n6.3.3. Export performance of the sampled Union industry\nTable 12\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nExport sales in tonnes\n967\n689\n933\n884\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n71\n97\n91\nUnit selling price in euro\n4 770\n3 060\n4 020\n4 313\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n64\n84\n90\n(170)\nDuring the period considered the volume of export sales of the sampled Union industry decreased by 9 % while average export prices dropped by 10 %. While it cannot be excluded that the negative trend in the export performance may have had a further negative impact on the Union industry, it is considered that, given the low volume of exports in relation to sales on the Union market, the impact does not break the causal link between the subsidised imports and the injury found.\n6.4. Conclusion on causation\n(171)\nThe above analysis demonstrated that there was a substantial increase over the period considered in the volume and market share of the low-priced, subsidised imports originating in India. In addition, it was found that these imports were constantly undercutting the prices charged by the Union industry on the Union market.\n(172)\nThis increase in volume and market share of the subsidised Indian imports was continuous, even during 2009, when Union consumption decreased by 16 %, and coincided with the negative development in the market share of the Union industry during the same period.\n(173)\nStarting from 2008, in the context of the economic slowdown and a sharp decrease in Union consumption, the Indian exporting producers managed to significantly increase their market share. This coincided with a negative development in the market share of the Union industry and a sharp decrease in profitability and other financial indicators. Over the period considered, the surge in the low-priced subsidised imports from India, which were constantly undercutting the prices of the Union industry, had an overall negative impact on the financial situation of the Union industry. Even if the situation improved slightly towards the IP, the Union industry was unable to regain its lost market share and profitability remained negative.\n(174)\nThe analysis of the other known factors, including the economic crisis, which could have caused injury to the Union industry showed that these factors did not break the causal link established between the subsidised imports from India and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(175)\nBased on the above analysis, it was provisionally concluded that the subsidised imports from India have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 8(5) of the basic Regulation.\n7. UNION INTEREST\n7.1. Preliminary remark\n(176)\nIn accordance with Article 31 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether, despite the conclusion on injurious subsidisation, compelling reasons existed for concluding that it is not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this particular case. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers, and users of the product concerned.\n7.2. Interest of the Union industry\n(177)\nThe Union industry has suffered material injury caused by the subsidised imports from India. It is recalled that most of the injury indicators showed a negative trend during the period considered. In the absence of measures, a further deterioration in the Union industry\u2019s situation appears unavoidable.\n(178)\nIt is expected that the imposition of provisional countervailing duties will restore effective trade conditions on the Union market, allowing the Union industry to align the prices of the product investigated to reflect the costs of the various components and the market conditions. It can also be expected that the imposition of provisional measures would enable the Union industry to regain at least part of the market share lost during the period considered, with a further positive impact on its profitability and overall financial situation.\n(179)\nShould measures not be imposed, further losses in market share could be expected and the Union industry would remain loss-making. This would be unsustainable in the medium to long-term. In view of the losses incurred and the high level of investment in production made at the beginning of the period considered it can be expected that most Union producers would be unable to recover their investments should measures not be imposed. In addition, it is expected that the imposition of countervailing measures will help to maintain employment which deteriorated constantly over the period considered.\n(180)\nIt is therefore provisionally concluded that the imposition of countervailing duties would be in the interest of the Union industry.\n7.3. Interest of users and importers\n(181)\nThere was no cooperation by users in this investigation; 20 users were contacted but none of them replied to the questionnaires sent to them. As regards importers, questionnaires were sent to two unrelated importers which expressed their willingness to cooperate, but no reply was received.\n(182)\nIt is recalled that also in previous investigations on the same product, cooperation from users has been very limited. In the recent expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of SSF originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and Taiwan the same users were contacted but none of them cooperated in that investigation either (5).\n(183)\nAccording to the complaint, the impact on users would be negligible, should measures be imposed on imports of SSF from India, given that SSF represents only a fraction of their total cost. An estimate was given in the complaint for the proportion of the cost of SSF in manufacturing a car and a washing machine/dishwasher. In both cases it was concluded that SSF represents a negligible proportion of the total cost of manufacturing of these products.\n(184)\nIn view of the low capacity utilisation of the Union industry (46 % in the IP) there would not be any risk of shortage of supply on the market, if measures were to be imposed against Indian imports. Furthermore, there are other sources of supply, such as imports of SSF from other countries, which are not subject to any measures.\n(185)\nFinally, the level of measures proposed is moderate and therefore it is expected that imports from India will continue to enter the EU market, albeit at fair prices.\n7.4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(186)\nIn view of the above, it is provisionally concluded that based on the information available concerning the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of provisional measures on imports of the product concerned originating in India.\n8. PROVISIONAL COUNTERVAILING MEASURES\n8.1. Injury elimination level\n(187)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to subsidisation, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional countervailing measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the subsidised imports.\n(188)\nFor the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the subsidy margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Union industry, without exceeding the subsidy margin found.\n(189)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious subsidisation, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of subsidised imports, on sales of the like product in the Union. It is considered that the profit that could be achieved in the absence of the subsidised imports should be based on the average pre-tax profit margin of the sampled Union producers in the year 2007, i.e. prior to the period considered when the industry was still profitable. It is thus considered that a profit margin of 7 % of turnover could be regarded as an appropriate minimum which the Union industry could have expected to obtain in the absence of injurious subsidisation.\n(190)\nOn this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry for the like product. The non-injurious price was obtained by adjusting the sales prices of the sampled Union producers by the actual profit/loss made during the IP and by adding the above mentioned profit margin.\n(191)\nThe necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of the cooperating exporting producers in India, as established for the price undercutting calculations, with the non-injurious price of the products sold by the Union industry on the Union market during the IP. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the average total CIF import value.\n8.2. Provisional measures\n(192)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 12(1) of the basic Regulation, provisional countervailing measures should be imposed in respect of imports originating in India at the level of the lower of the subsidy and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(193)\nOn the basis of the above, the countervailing duty rates have been established by comparing the injury elimination margins and the subsidy margins. Consequently, the proposed countervailing duty rates are as follows:\nCompany\nSubsidy margin\nInjury margin\nProvisional CVD rate\nAgarwal Fastners Pvt. Ltd.\n11,7 %\n20,9 %\n11,7 %\nRaajratna Ventures Ltd.\n13,0 %\n13,7 %\n13,0 %\nViraj Profiles Limited\n3,2 %\n27,7 %\n3,2 %\nCooperating non-sampled companies\n13,6 %\n17,3 %\n13,6 %\nAll other companies\n16,5 %\n20,9 %\n16,5 %\n(194)\nThe individual company countervailing duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in India and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(195)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company countervailing duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (6) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n9. DISCLOSURE\n(196)\nThe above provisional findings will be disclosed to all interested parties which will be invited to make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Their comments will be analysed and taken into consideration where warranted before any definitive determinations are made. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of countervailing duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purposes of any definitive findings,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional countervailing duty is hereby imposed on imports of stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70 and originating in India.\n2. The rate of the provisional countervailing duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies below shall be:\nCompany\nRate of duty (%)\nTARIC additional code\nAgarwal Fastners Pvt. Ltd., Vasai (East), Thane, Maharashtra\n11,7\nB266\nRaajratna Ventures Ltd., Ahmedabad, Gujarat\n13,0\nB267\nViraj Profiles Limited, Boisar, Thane, Maharashtra\n3,2\nB268\nCompanies listed in the Annex\n13,6\nB269\nAll other companies\n16,5\nB999\n3. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Without prejudice to Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Pursuant to Article 31(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of four months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 February 2012.", "references": ["51", "3", "5", "59", "48", "55", "46", "45", "37", "38", "88", "79", "68", "89", "65", "94", "36", "99", "73", "25", "0", "50", "34", "57", "98", "33", "90", "7", "4", "40", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "23", "82", "84", "85", "95", "96"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "23", "82", "84", "85", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 855/2010\nof 27 September 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1631/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating, inter alia, in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9(4), and Article 11(3),(5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nIn October 2005, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1631/2005 (2) (the \u2018original Regulation\u2019), imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid (\u2018TCCA\u2019) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019). The duty rates ranged from 7,3 % to 42,6 %.\n2. Request for a review\n(2)\nIn 2009, the Commission received a request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. The request, limited in scope to the examination of dumping, was lodged by a Chinese exporting producer Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd (\u2018Heze\u2019 or \u2018the applicant\u2019). The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the applicant is 14,1 %.\n(3)\nIn its request, the applicant claimed that the circumstances on the basis of which measures were imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. The applicant provided prima facie evidence that the continued imposition of the measure at its current level is no longer necessary to offset dumping.\n(4)\nIn particular, the request was based on the claim that the TCCA unit cost of the applicant have significantly decreased since the original investigation as:\n-\nthe applicant produces the main raw material needed to produce the product under investigation; and,\n-\nthe applicant has increased its production capacity,\n3. Initiation of a review\n(5)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of a review, the Commission, on 2 July 2009, initiated an investigation (3) pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of the applicant.\n4. Product concerned and like product\n(6)\nThe product concerned by the current review is the same as that described in the original Regulation, trichloroisocyanuric acid and preparations thereof, also referred to as \u2018symclosene\u2019 under the international non-proprietary name (INN), originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the product concerned\u2019), currently falling within CN codes ex 2933 69 80 and ex 3808 94 20.\n(7)\nThe product produced and sold on the Chinese domestic market and that exported to the Union have the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics and uses and are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n5. Parties concerned\n(8)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicant, the Union industry, as well as the representatives of the government of the exporting country, of the initiation of the review.\n(9)\nInterested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the Notice of Initiation.\n(10)\nIn order to obtain the information deemed necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a market economy treatment (MET) claim form and a questionnaire to the applicant and received replies within the deadlines set for that purpose. The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the determination of dumping, and a verification visit was carried out at the premises of the applicant.\n6. Investigation period\n(11)\nThe investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (\u2018IP\u2019).\nB. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n1. Market economy treatment (\u2018MET\u2019)\n(12)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 2 of the basic Regulation for those exporting producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, i.e. where it is shown that market economy conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product. These criteria are set out in summarised form below:\n-\nbusiness decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values,\n-\nfirms have one clear set of accounting records which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards (IAS) and applied for all purposes,\n-\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from a former non-market economy system,\n-\nbankruptcy and property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty,\n-\ncurrency exchanges are carried out at market rate.\n(13)\nThe investigation found that the applicant met all five MET criteria. It was found that during the IP, Heze made its business decisions without any State interference or distortions related to non-market economy conditions. Heze is subject to Chinese bankruptcy and property laws without any derogation. The company has one set of independently audited accounting records and accounting system and its practice was found to be in line with internationally accepted general accounting principles and IAS. Costs and prices were found to reflect market values and exchange rate conversions were carried out at market rates.\n(14)\nBased on the above facts and considerations, the applicant could be granted MET.\n2. Normal value\n(15)\nFor the determination of normal value it was first established whether Heze\u2019s total volume of domestic sales of the like product was representative in comparison with its total volume of export sales to the Union. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales are considered representative when the total domestic sales volume is at least 5 % of the total volume of corresponding export sales to the Union. The Commission established that TCCA was sold domestically by the applicant in overall representative volumes.\n(16)\nSubsequently, those types of the like product sold on the domestic market by the applicant that were identical and directly comparable to the types sold for export to the Union, were identified.\n(17)\nFor each type sold by Heze on the domestic market and found to be directly comparable with the type sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sold in representative volume for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular type were considered sufficiently representative when the total domestic sales volume of that type during the IP represented 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the comparable type exported to the Union.\n(18)\nIt was also examined whether the domestic sales of each type could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market of each exported type of the product concerned during the IP.\n(19)\nWhere the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price. This price was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that type made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not.\n(20)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as the weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of the type in question made during the IP.\n(21)\nWherever domestic prices of a particular product type sold by Heze could not be used in order to establish the normal value, another method had to be applied. In this regard, the Commission used constructed normal value. In accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, normal value was constructed by adding to the manufacturing costs of the exported types a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative expenses (\u2018SG&A\u2019) and a reasonable margin of profit. Pursuant to Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, the amounts for SG&A and profit margin were based on the average SG&A and profit margin of Heze sales in the ordinary course of trade of the like product.\n(22)\nIn line with the methodology used in the original investigation, the cost of manufacturing was calculated for two types of products. Taking into account the information provided by the applicant, one cost of manufacturing was calculated for granules and tablets and a second one for powder.\n3. Export price\n(23)\nAs the product concerned was exported directly to independent customers in the Union, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable for the product when sold for export to the Union.\n4. Comparison\n(24)\nThe average normal value and the average export price for each type of the product concerned were compared on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and export price, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which were claimed and demonstrated to affect prices and price comparability. For this purpose, adjustments for transport costs, ocean freight and insurance costs, handling, credit costs, and bank charges were made where applicable and justified. Furthermore, it was found that VAT was partially refunded when the product concerned was sold for export to the Union. Consequently, the VAT payable on domestic sales was adjusted accordingly pursuant to Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n(25)\nWith regard to the packing cost allowance, the applicant claimed an allowance in respect of packing expenses for sales in both the Chinese and the Union markets. The verification showed that those costs were equally included in the cost of production of the product regardless of whether it was to be sold domestically or for export. Therefore, the allowance claimed was not accepted either in the domestic or in the export market.\n5. Dumping Margin\n(26)\nAs provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value by type was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned. This comparison showed the existence of dumping.\n(27)\nThe dumping margin of Heze expressed as a percentage of the net, free-at-Union-frontier price was found to be 3,2 %.\nC. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES\n(28)\nIn accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, it was also examined whether the changed circumstances which were found to exist could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.\n(29)\nThe applicant provided full cooperation in this interim review and the data collected and verified allowed for the establishment of a dumping margin based on its individual export prices to the Union. The result of this calculation indicates that the continued application of the measure at its current level is no longer justified.\n(30)\nEvidence obtained and verified during the investigation showed a reduction in the level of dumping explained by the reduction of the company cost structure. The main factors to trigger the reduction in the applicant\u2019s cost structure are the in-house production of the main raw material and the expansion in the applicant\u2019s production capacity.\n(31)\nIt was also found that since the original investigation, Heze\u2019s export prices to all markets increased. In particular, export prices to the Union are in line with the company\u2019s export prices to other third countries. Evidence collected on spot showed that the company has many Union customers with similar price levels. The consistent market behaviour of the applicant shows that the changes in circumstances are of a lasting nature.\n(32)\nIn the light of the above, it is therefore considered that the circumstances that led to the initiation of this review are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future in a manner that would affect the findings of the current review. Therefore it is concluded that the changes are considered to be of a lasting nature and that the application of the measure at its current level is no longer justified.\nD. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(33)\nIn the light of the results of this review investigation, it is considered appropriate to amend the anti-dumping duty applicable to imports of the product concerned from Heze to 3,2 %,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entry concerning Heze Huayi Chemical Co. Limited, in the table in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1631/2005, shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018PRC\nHeze Huayi Chemical Co. Limited\n3,2 %\nA629\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["65", "54", "76", "68", "27", "2", "73", "21", "33", "78", "40", "92", "41", "37", "30", "79", "81", "44", "61", "32", "24", "13", "4", "84", "50", "56", "74", "91", "88", "87", "No Label", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 June 2010\non guidelines for the calculation of land carbon stocks for the purpose of Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC\n(notified under document C(2010) 3751)\n(2010/335/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1), and in particular Annex V, part C, point 10 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2009/28/EC lays down rules for calculating the greenhouse gas impact of biofuels, bioliquids and their fossil fuel comparators, which take into account emissions from carbon stock changes caused by land use change. Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC (2) includes corresponding rules as far as biofuels are concerned.\n(2)\nThe Commission should draw its guidelines for the calculation of land carbon stocks on the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Those Guidelines were intended for national greenhouse gas inventories and are not expressed in a form that is readily applicable by economic operators. It is therefore appropriate, where IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories lack the necessary information for purposes of biofuel and bioliquid production or where such information is not accessible, to draw on other scientific sources of data.\n(3)\nFor the calculation of the carbon stocks in soil organic matter it is appropriate to take into account climate, soil type, land cover, land management and input. For mineral soils, the IPCC Tier 1 methodology for soil organic carbon is an appropriate method to use for this purpose as it covers the global level. For organic soils, the IPCC methodology addresses in particular carbon loss following soil drainage and does this only through annual losses. As soil drainage normally results in high carbon stock loss that cannot be compensated by the greenhouse gas saving of biofuels or bioliquids and as drainage of peatland soil is prohibited by the sustainability criteria laid down by Directive 2009/28/EC, it suffices to lay down general rules for determining soil organic carbon or carbon losses in organic soils.\n(4)\nFor the calculation of carbon stock in living biomass and dead organic matter a low complexity approach corresponding to IPCC Tier 1 methodology for vegetation should be an appropriate method. In accordance with that methodology it is reasonable to assume that all carbon stock in living biomass and dead organic matter is lost from the land upon conversion. Dead organic matter is usually of low significance in land conversion for the establishment of crops for the production of biofuels and bioliquids, but should be taken into account at least for closed forests.\n(5)\nIn calculating the greenhouse gas impact of land conversion, economic operators should be able to use actual values for the carbon stocks associated with the reference land use and the land use after conversion. They should also be able to use standard values and it is appropriate for these guidelines to provide them. It is not necessary, however, to provide standard values for improbable combinations of climate and soil type.\n(6)\nAnnex V to Directive 2009/28/EC sets out the method for calculating greenhouse gas impacts and contains rules for the calculation of annualised emissions of carbon stock changes from land use changes. The guidelines annexed to this Decision establish rules for the calculation of land carbon stocks, completing the rules laid down in the Annex V,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe guidelines for the calculation of land carbon stocks for the purpose of Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC are set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 June 2010.", "references": ["55", "12", "70", "72", "3", "67", "5", "25", "34", "39", "94", "27", "31", "76", "96", "89", "75", "46", "15", "98", "48", "66", "44", "26", "7", "95", "49", "35", "37", "84", "No Label", "60", "64", "78", "80", "83"], "gold": ["60", "64", "78", "80", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1298/2011\nof 9 December 2011\napproving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [P\u00e9lardon (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined France\u2019s application for the approval of an amendment to the single document for the protected designation of origin \u2018P\u00e9lardon\u2019 registered in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/1996 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2372/2001 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendment should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["86", "77", "6", "21", "32", "14", "7", "40", "69", "87", "93", "89", "75", "56", "72", "3", "30", "47", "81", "36", "99", "26", "18", "90", "33", "73", "55", "54", "2", "17", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/55/EU\nof 20 August 2010\namending Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC to renew the inclusion of azoxystrobin as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe inclusion of azoxystrobin in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC expires on 31 December 2011. A notification was submitted in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 of 27 June 2007 on laying down the procedure of the renewal of the inclusion of a first group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and establishing the list of those substances (2) for the renewal of the inclusion of azoxystrobin as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within the time period provided for in that Article.\n(2)\nThat notification was found to be admissible by Commission Decision 2008/656/EC of 28 July 2008 on the admissibility of the notifications concerning the renewal of the inclusion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances azimsulfuron, azoxystrobin, fluroxypyr, imazalil, kresoxim-methyl, prohexadion-calcium and spiroxamin, and establishing the list of the notifiers concerned (3).\n(3)\nWithin the time period provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007, the notifier submitted the data required in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 together with an explanation as regards the relevance of each new study submitted.\n(4)\nThe rapporteur Member State prepared an assessment report in consultation with the co-rapporteur Member State and submitted it to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter: \u2018the Authority\u2019) and the Commission on 10 June 2009. In addition to the assessment of the substance, that report includes a list of the studies the rapporteur Member State relied on for its assessment.\n(5)\nThe Authority communicated the assessment report to the notifier and to all Member States, and forwarded the comments received to the Commission. The Authority also made the assessment report available to the public.\n(6)\nAt the request of the Commission, the assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority, the Authority presented its conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of azoxystrobin (4) to the Commission on 6 April 2010. The assessment report and the conclusion from the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 9 July 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for azoxystrobin.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing azoxystrobin may be expected to continue to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to renew the inclusion of azoxystrobin in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, in order to ensure that plant protection products containing this active substance may continue to be authorised where they comply with that Directive.\n(8)\nMoreover, the review has established that for the active substance azoxystrobin notified by the main data submitter the manufacturing impurity toluene is of toxicological concern and therefore its presence in the technical material must not exceed the maximum level of 2 grams for kilogram.\n(9)\nFrom the new data submitted, it appears that azoxystrobin may cause risks for aquatic organisms. Without prejudice to the conclusion that the inclusion of azoxystrobin is to be renewed, it is therefore appropriate to obtain further information on those specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that the inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the notifier submit further information to confirm the results of the risk assessment on the basis of most recent scientific knowledge as regards the risk for groundwater contamination with respect to some minor soil transformation products and the risk for aquatic organisms.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is renewed in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the renewal.\n(11)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of renewing the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I thereof, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after renewal to review authorisations of plant protection products containing azoxystrobin to make sure that the requirements laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13, and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I to that Directive, continue to be satisfied. As appropriate, Member States should renew, where appropriate with modifications, or refuse to renew authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(12)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31 January 2012 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 February 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing azoxystrobin as an active substance by 31 January 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to azoxystrobin are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing azoxystrobin as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances, all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 July 2011 at the latest, Member States shall, where necessary, re-evaluate the products, to take into account developments occurred in the scientific and technical knowledge and in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning azoxystrobin. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product still satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC. Following that determination Member States shall, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 July 2015.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, for each authorised plant protection product containing azoxystrobin as one of several active substances, all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 July 2011 at the latest, and at least one of which was included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC between 1 January 2009 and 31 July 2011, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning azoxystrobin. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 July 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 August 2011.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 August 2010.", "references": ["9", "10", "37", "19", "50", "68", "54", "43", "35", "33", "72", "51", "81", "62", "6", "48", "99", "27", "49", "22", "84", "28", "39", "26", "92", "41", "47", "63", "4", "29", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "42", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "42", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 657/2012\nof 16 July 2012\napproving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Th\u00fcringer Rostbratwurst (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Germany's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Th\u00fcringer Rostbratwurst\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2).\n(2)\nSince the amendment in question is not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation (3). As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendment should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendment to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["90", "53", "3", "8", "88", "71", "21", "59", "81", "83", "0", "36", "68", "93", "50", "19", "66", "13", "61", "44", "87", "39", "29", "30", "78", "14", "56", "82", "70", "54", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1140/2011\nof 8 November 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for forkbeards in EU and international waters of V, VI and VII by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2011 and 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2011.", "references": ["73", "54", "50", "44", "34", "51", "19", "29", "12", "21", "11", "74", "77", "26", "68", "33", "69", "66", "99", "87", "98", "1", "40", "94", "58", "10", "17", "25", "22", "60", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/514/CFSP\nof 22 November 2010\nconcerning the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in particular Article 37 thereof, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Article 218(5) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAt its meeting on 22 March 2010, the Council decided to authorise the HR to open negotiations pursuant to Article 37 TEU and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218(3) TFEU in order to conclude an Agreement on the security of information between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia.\n(2)\nFollowing that authorisation, the HR negotiated an Agreement with the Republic of Serbia on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["29", "4", "7", "21", "8", "70", "93", "9", "80", "86", "0", "53", "60", "83", "59", "13", "36", "75", "76", "89", "11", "39", "48", "31", "47", "88", "77", "1", "62", "82", "No Label", "14", "41", "42", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["14", "41", "42", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1089/2010\nof 23 November 2010\nimplementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards interoperability of spatial data sets and services\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (1), and in particular Article 7(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2007/2/EC lays down general rules for the establishment of the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community. Within this infrastructure, Member States are required to make available data sets related to one or several of the Annexes in Directive 2007/2/EC and the corresponding spatial data services in conformity with the technical arrangements for the interoperability and, where practicable, harmonisation of spatial data sets and services.\n(2)\nThe technical arrangements take into account relevant user requirements, which were elicited from stakeholders through a user requirements survey and by analysing the submitted reference material and relevant Union environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment.\n(3)\nThe feasibility of the technical arrangements and their proportionality in terms of the likely costs and benefits were analysed by the Commission based on the testing results reported by the stakeholders, replies from Member States through the national contact points to a request for information on cost benefit considerations and evidence from studies conducted by Member States on the costs and benefits of spatial data infrastructures at regional level.\n(4)\nRepresentatives of Member States as well as other natural or legal persons with an interest in the spatial data, including users, producers, added value service providers or any coordinating body were given the opportunity to participate in the drafting of the technical arrangements through proposed experts and to evaluate the draft implementing rules through a stakeholder consultation and testing exercise.\n(5)\nIn order to achieve interoperability and benefit from the endeavours of users\u2019 and producers\u2019 communities, when appropriate, international standards are integrated into the concepts and definitions of the elements of spatial data themes listed in the Directive 2007/2/EC Annex I, II or III.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure interoperability and harmonisation across spatial data themes, the Member States should meet requirements for common data types, the identification of spatial objects, metadata for interoperability, generic network model and other concepts and rules that apply to all spatial data themes.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure the interoperability and harmonisation within one spatial data theme, the Member States should use the classifications and definitions of spatial objects, their key attributes and association roles, data types, value domains and specific rules that apply to individual spatial data theme.\n(8)\nSince the code list values required for the implementation of this Regulation are not included in this Regulation, this Regulation should only become applicable once these are adopted as a legal act. It is therefore appropriate to defer the applicability of this Regulation.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 22 of Directive 2007/2/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject Matter\nThis Regulation sets out the requirements for technical arrangements for the interoperability and, where practicable, harmonisation of spatial data sets and spatial data services corresponding to the themes listed in Annexes I, II and III to Directive 2007/2/EC.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions as well as the theme-specific definitions set out in Annex II shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018abstract type\u2019 means a type that cannot be instantiated, but which may have attributes and association roles,\n2.\n\u2018association role\u2019 means a value or object, to which a type has a relationship, as referred to in Article 8 (2b) of Directive 2007/2/EC,\n3.\n\u2018attribute\u2019 means a characteristic of a type, as referred to in Article 8 (2c) of Directive 2007/2/EC,\n4.\n\u2018candidate type\u2019 means a type which is already used as part of the specification of a spatial data theme in Annex I of Directive 2007/2/EC, but which will be fully specified in the spatial data theme in Annex II or III of Directive 2007/2/EC where it thematically belongs,\n5.\n\u2018code list\u2019 means an open enumeration that can be extended,\n6.\n\u2018data type\u2019 means a descriptor of a set of values that lack identity, in accordance with ISO 19103,\n7.\n\u2018enumeration\u2019 means a data type whose instances form a fixed list of named literal values. Attributes of an enumerated type may only take values from this list,\n8.\n\u2018external object identifier\u2019 means a unique object identifier which is published by the responsible body, which may be used by external applications to reference the spatial object,\n9.\n\u2018identifier\u2019 means a linguistically independent sequence of characters capable of uniquely and permanently identifying that with which it is associated, in accordance with EN ISO 19135,\n10.\n\u2018instantiate\u2019 means to create an object that is conformant with the definition, attributes, association roles and constraints specified for the instantiated type,\n11.\n\u2018layer\u2019 means a basic unit of geographic information that may be requested as a map from a server in accordance with EN ISO 19128,\n12.\n\u2018life-cycle information\u2019 means a set of properties of a spatial object that describe the temporal characteristics of a version of a spatial object or the changes between versions,\n13.\n\u2018metadata element\u2019 means a discrete unit of metadata, in accordance with EN ISO 19115,\n14.\n\u2018package\u2019 means a general purpose mechanism for organizing elements into groups,\n15.\n\u2018register\u2019 means a set of files containing identifiers assigned to items with descriptions of the associated items, in accordance with EN ISO 19135,\n16.\n\u2018spatial object type\u2019 means a classification of spatial objects,\n17.\n\u2018style\u2019 means a mapping from spatial object types and their properties and constraints to parameterized symbols used in drawing maps,\n18.\n\u2018sub-type of\u2019 means a relationship between a more specific type and a more general type, where the more specific type is fully consistent with the more general type and contains additional information, as adapted from ISO 19103,\n19.\n\u2018type\u2019 means spatial object type or data type,\n20.\n\u2018voidable\u2019 means that, for an attribute or association role a value of \u2018void\u2019 may be made available if no corresponding value is contained in the spatial data sets maintained by the Member States or no corresponding value can be derived from existing values at reasonable costs. If an attribute or association role is not voidable, the table cell specifying its voidability is left blank.\nArticle 3\nCommon Types\nTypes that are common to several of the themes listed in Annexes I, II and III to Directive 2007/2/EC shall conform to the definitions and constraints and include the attributes and association roles set out in Annex I.\nArticle 4\nTypes for the Exchange and Classification of Spatial Objects\n1. Member States shall use the spatial object types and associated data types, enumerations and code lists defined in Annex II for the exchange and classification of spatial objects from data sets meeting the conditions laid down in Article 4 of Directive 2007/2/EC.\n2. Spatial object types and data types shall comply with the definitions and constraints and include the attributes and association roles set out in Annex II.\n3. The enumerations used in attributes or association roles of spatial object types or data types shall comply with the definitions and include the values set out in Annex II. The enumeration values are language-neutral mnemonic codes for computers.\n4. The code lists used in attributes or association roles of spatial object types or data types shall comply with the definitions set out in Annex II.\nArticle 5\nTypes\n1. For all types defined in this Regulation, a language-neutral name for computers is given between parentheses in the title of the section specifying the requirements for that type. This language-neutral name shall be used for referring to the corresponding type in the definition of an attribute or association role.\n2. Types that are a sub-type of another type shall also include all this type\u2019s attributes and association roles.\n3. Abstract types shall not be instantiated.\n4. Candidate types shall be considered during the development of requirements for the spatial data theme they thematically belong to. During this development, the only allowed change to the specification of the candidate type is to extend it.\nArticle 6\nCode Lists and Enumerations\n1. Code lists shall be of one of the following types, as specified in Annex II:\n(a)\ncode lists that are managed in a common code list register and that shall not be extended by Member States;\n(b)\ncode lists that may be extended by Member States.\n2. Where a Member State extends a code list, the allowed values of the extended code lists shall be made available in a register.\n3. Attributes or association roles of spatial object types or data types that have a code list type may only take values that are valid according to the register in which the code list is managed.\n4. Attributes or association roles of spatial object types or data types that have an enumeration type may only take values from the lists specified for the enumeration type.\nArticle 7\nEncoding\n1. Every encoding rule used to encode spatial data shall conform to EN ISO 19118. In particular, it shall specify schema conversion rules for all spatial object types and all attributes and association roles and the output data structure used.\n2. Every encoding rule used to encode spatial data shall be made available.\nArticle 8\nUpdates\n1. Member States shall make available updates of data on a regular basis.\n2. All updates shall be made at the latest 6 months after the change was applied in the source data set, unless a different period is specified for a specific spatial data theme in Annex II.\nArticle 9\nIdentifier Management\n1. The data type Identifier defined in Section 2.1 of Annex I shall be used as a type for the external object identifier of a spatial object.\n2. The external object identifier for the unique identification of spatial objects shall not be changed during the life-cycle of a spatial object.\nArticle 10\nLife-cycle of Spatial Objects\n1. Different versions of the same spatial object shall always be instances of the same spatial object type.\n2. The namespace and localId attributes of the external object identifier shall remain the same for different versions of a spatial object.\n3. Where the attributes beginLifespanVersion and endLifespanVersion are used, the value of endLifespanVersion shall not be before the value of beginLifespanVersion.\nArticle 11\nTemporal Reference Systems\n1. The default temporal reference system referred to in point 5 of part B of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1205/2008 (2) shall be used, unless other temporal reference systems are specified for a specific spatial data theme in Annex II.\n2. If other temporal reference systems are used, these shall be specified in the data set metadata.\nArticle 12\nOther Requirements & Rules\n1. The value domain of spatial properties defined in this Regulation shall be restricted to the Simple Feature spatial schema as defined by EN ISO 19125-1, unless specified otherwise for a specific spatial data theme or type.\n2. All measurement values shall be expressed using SI units, unless specified otherwise for a specific spatial data theme or type.\n3. Where the attributes validFrom and validTo are used, the value of validTo shall not be before the value of validFrom.\n4. In addition, all theme-specific requirements set out in Annex II shall apply.\nArticle 13\nMetadata required for Interoperability\nThe metadata describing a spatial data set shall include the following metadata elements required for interoperability:\n1. Coordinate Reference System: Description of the coordinate reference system(s) used in the data set.\n2. Temporal Reference System: Description of the temporal reference system(s) used in the data set.\nThis element is mandatory only if the spatial data set contains temporal information that does not refer to the default temporal reference system.\n3. Encoding: Description of the computer language construct(s) specifying the representation of data objects in a record, file, message, storage device or transmission channel.\n4. Topological Consistency: Correctness of the explicitly encoded topological characteristics of the data set as described by the scope.\nThis element is mandatory only if the data set includes types from the Generic Network Model and does not assure centreline topology (connectivity of centrelines) for the network.\n5. Character Encoding: The character encoding used in the data set.\nThis element is mandatory only if an encoding is used that is not based on UTF-8.\nArticle 14\nPortrayal\n1. For the portrayal of spatial data sets using a view network service as specified in Commission Regulation No 976/2009 (3), the following shall be available:\n(a)\nthe layers specified in Annex II for the theme or themes the data set is related to;\n(b)\nfor each layer at least a default portrayal style, with as a minimum an associated title and a unique identifier.\n2. For each layer, Annex II defines the following:\n(a)\na human readable title of the layer to be used for display in user interface;\n(b)\nthe spatial object type(s) that constitute the content of the layer.\nArticle 15\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 15 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 November 2010.", "references": ["78", "85", "67", "86", "13", "63", "99", "97", "46", "2", "89", "39", "95", "88", "47", "70", "92", "29", "6", "81", "96", "9", "68", "44", "91", "74", "10", "27", "21", "50", "No Label", "24", "41", "42", "43", "76"], "gold": ["24", "41", "42", "43", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 792/2011\nof 5 August 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in Thailand\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), (the basic Regulation) and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROVISIONAL MEASURES\n(1)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 118/2011 of 10 February 2011 (2) (the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in Thailand.\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 6 April 2010 by Ring Alliance Ringbuchtechnik GmbH (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 % of the total Union production of certain ring binder mechanisms (RBM). The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting there from, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n(3)\nIt is recalled that, as set out in recital 7 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (\u2018the investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the investigation period (injury investigation period).\n2. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE\n(4)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested, in particular two importers and the Thai producer, were granted the opportunity to be heard.\n(5)\nThe Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings with respect to dumping, injury, causality and Union interest. In addition to the verifications mentioned in recital 6 of the provisional Regulation, a further verification was carried out at the premises of Rima Benelux Holding BV, the only user that had cooperated in the investigation by replying to a user\u2019s questionnaire.\n(6)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in Thailand and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.\n(7)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.\n3. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(8)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the product concerned and the like product, recitals 8 to 11 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4. DUMPING\n4.1. Normal Value\n(9)\nIt is recalled that, as explained in recital 14 of the provisional Regulation, only one Thai exporting producer cooperated in the investigation and that its exports to the Union during the IP accounted for all Thai exports to the Union. The exporting producer and one cooperating unrelated importer claimed that the independent external expert who assisted the Commission during the on-spot visit to the exporting producer made some calculation errors in his report. One of the tasks of the expert was to examine the nickel coating process and the amount of raw materials consumed by the exporting producer in the different production phases. As mentioned in recital 15 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation revealed that the exporting producer provided incomplete and incorrect information with regard to significant elements of its cost of production and other raw materials. The allegations made by the exporting producer and an importer regarding calculation errors in the expert\u2019s report were examined by the Commission and it was concluded that they were not founded. Therefore, the findings as set out in recital 15 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.\n(10)\nThe exporting producer and an importer also contested the provisional findings as set out in recitals 19 to 20 of the provisional Regulation. In particular, they claimed that the methodology used for the provisional determination of the normal value for types other than those for which a specific normal value was established was over-stated, because it had been incorrectly based on an arithmetic average of the normal values. The Commission accepted the claim, adjusted the methodology and revised the calculation of the normal values for these other types taking account of the product mix of the Thai producer, which more accurately reflects his situation.\n(11)\nThe exporting producer further argued that the rates used for selling, general and administrative expenses (SGA) and profit margins of respectively 16 % and 8 % were too high. The exporting producer argued that the SGA rate should not exceed 12,59 %, reflecting its own SGA excluding inland freight costs.\n(12)\nIt is recalled that as outlined in recitals 15 to 17 of the provisional Regulation the exporting producer did not cooperate with the investigation and consequently did not provide data about its full SGA costs. Under these circumstances and given the fact that no further information was provided on the company\u2019s full SGA costs, it was decided to continue to rely on the information available in the complaint. Furthermore, in the light of the information available and insofar as it could be verified, a SGA rate of 16 % was considered to be reasonable. Therefore, the claim was rejected.\n(13)\nThe exporting producer claimed that the profit level of 8 % used in the provisional calculation was too high and instead, a profit level of 5 % should have been used. The arguments put forward were, firstly, a profit level of 5 % has been used for the target profit in the injury analysis and, secondly, a profit level of 5 % would be in line with previous investigations on the same product. On the first argument, the Commission noted that the determination of a target profit for the Union industry and the profit level used for the determination of a normal value do not follow the same logic and therefore, do not have to be the same. On the second argument, the Commission agreed that there were some grounds for using the same profit level as in previous investigations on the same product and decided to accept this claim and to change the profit level used in the calculation of the normal values accordingly.\n(14)\nFurther to final disclosure, the Union industry and the exporting producer submitted some comments. The Union industry disagreed with the correction made regarding the profit margin arguing that a profit rate of 5 % would not be sufficient to cover the profitability requirements of the three related companies involved in the production and sales of the product concerned, but without providing any other substantial arguments. Therefore, the claim was rejected.\n(15)\nThe exporting producer claimed that the cost for depreciation, building and insurance used in the calculation of the normal value of one type was not the same as the one used for the other types and the same figure should apply to all types. The Commission verified the claim and indeed found an error in the calculation. However, contrary to the exporting producer\u2019s claim the error was found to be made in the calculation of the normal value of the other types. A correction to the normal value for the other types was made accordingly.\n(16)\nThe exporting producer also claimed that the normal values for types other than those for which a specific normal value was established did not take fully into account the actual product mix of the exporting producer. In this respect, the exporting producer reiterated his claim that a weighted average of the normal values found should be used for the other types, thus reflecting the actual product mix of the exporting producer. As mentioned in recital 10 above, the Commission agreed to revise the calculation of the normal values for these other types in order to take into account of the actual product mix of the Thai producer and, irrespective of the actual sales volumes for each type, a normal value for small, medium and large RBM was calculated. However, the Commission rejected the argument that in addition a weighting factor based on the exporter\u2019s sales to the Union should be taken into consideration in the absence of substantiated reasons.\n(17)\nIn addition, the exporting producer claimed that the Commission\u2019s method of calculating NV on the basis of the length of the ring binder mechanisms was imprecise and incomplete and proposed a new method for the calculation of the averages which would take into account their various lengths more accurately. As explained in recital 16 above the Commission calculated a normal value for types other than those for which a specific normal value was established and calculated normal values reflecting small, medium and large RBM. The exporter\u2019s calculation was found to be flawed and result-oriented. Therefore, the claim was rejected.\n(18)\nApart from the changes mentioned above and in the absence of any other comments, the content of recitals 15 to 20 of the provisional Regulation concerning the establishing of the normal value is hereby definitively confirmed.\n4.2. Export price and comparison\n(19)\nThe exporting producer claimed that the currency used for the computation of transport costs in the dumping calculation was not the correct one. The Commission accepted this claim.\n(20)\nIn the absence of any other comments, the content of recitals 21 to 24 of the provisional Regulation concerning the establishing of export prices and comparing the export prices with the respective normal value is hereby definitively confirmed.\n4.3. Dumping margin\n(21)\nThe exporting producer claimed that the calculation of the dumping margin did not take into account the specific normal value for two types. The claim was accepted and corrected accordingly.\n(22)\nIn the light of the above-mentioned changes in the calculation of the normal value and the comparison, and after correction of the calculation error regarding export price mentioned above, the amount of dumping finally determined, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is as follows:\nExporting producer\nDumping margin\nThai Stationery Industry Co. Ltd, Bangkok, Thailand\n16,3 %\n(23)\nSince the cooperating exporting producer accounted for all Thai exports to the Union of the product concerned, it was considered that the residual dumping margin should be set at the level of dumping margin found for this cooperating exporting producer, i.e. 16,3 %.\n5. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(24)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the definition of the Union industry, the findings set out in recitals 28 to 32 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6. INJURY\n6.1. Union consumption and imports from Thailand\n(25)\nThe Thai producer and several importers questioned the trends in Union consumption established in the provisional Regulation. In particular, they argued that the consumption decreased to a higher extent than what was provisionally established (by around 30 %). They also asked for clarifications concerning the methodology followed by the Commission to establish consumption, because the RBM is included in a customs tariff heading including other products.\n(26)\nIt should be mentioned that although these interested parties contested the findings related to the consumption, no supporting evidence or figures have been provided to substantiate their arguments. They also did not point to any methodological flaw.\n(27)\nAs to the methodology, it should be recalled that, as mentioned in recital 33 of the provisional Regulation, the consumption was established on the basis of the verified sales figures provided in the questionnaire\u2019s reply of the cooperating parties (the two Union producers and the Thai exporter for the periods 2008-IP) and on the basis of Eurostat figures for the rest of the imports. Given that RBM from other sources are subject to anti-dumping measures, imports (from all sources) are registered under sub-headings codes in the customs tariff database (TARIC) which are very largely specific to the product under investigation. These sub-headings were used in order to ensure that only imports of the product concerned were considered, despite a minor update of the product definition in this investigation.\n(28)\nFurthermore, given that Eurostat figures are expressed in kilograms, while the consumption has been calculated in pieces, one importer requested clarifications as to the methodology used to covert kilograms into pieces. It should thus be clarified that a conversion factor of 50 gram/piece has been used, which is in line with previous investigations and was found to be reasonable, when compared to the information provided by the Thai exporting producer. It should be also added that, if the Commission had used exactly the average weight per piece resulting from the information provided by the Thai exporting producer, the imports from Thailand would have shown during the overall injury investigation period a steeper increase in terms of both absolute volume (by 25 %, as compared to 19 % established in the provisional Regulation) and market shares (from 11,8 % to 15,5 %, as compared to 12,0 % to 15,0 % established in the provisional Regulation).\n(29)\nOne importer also claimed that the Thai imports actually decreased by 40 % during the injury investigation period, but this was based on the import value - and not on the volume - for the totality of the customs code, thus including products other than those under investigation. This claim had to be rejected.\n(30)\nIn view of the above, the findings in recitals 33 to 40 of the provisional Regulation concerning the Union consumption (which decreased by more than 15 % between 2008 and the IP) and the imports from Thailand, are hereby confirmed.\n6.2. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(31)\nOne importer submitted that the injury analysis was biased because the poor financial situation of the Union industry should be seen in conjunction with the situation of one of its related companies, which is allegedly making profits in the RBM\u2019s business. In this respect it is noted that the injury analysis should only focus on the Union industry\u2019 sales on the Union market of the product concerned produced in the Union. Since, as mentioned in recital 69 of the provisional Regulation, the related company in question is not a producer in the Union and is mostly trading products not originating in the Union, it should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of the injury analysis.\n(32)\nWithout prejudice to the above, it is nevertheless underlined that the importer has provided no information showing that the above-mentioned related company would be in a good financial situation. To the contrary, the figures obtained during the investigation show that also this company decreased significantly its sales volume of RBM during the investigation period.\n(33)\nAccount taken of the above and in the absence of other comments in respect to the injury analysis, the recitals 41 to 57 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed, and it is concluded that the Union industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\n7. CAUSATION\n7.1. Effects of the dumped imports\n(34)\nEven though some interested parties contested the provisional findings regarding the effect of other factors (see below), none of them contested the provisional conclusion that dumped imports from Thailand caused injury to the Union industry. The recitals 58 to 64 of the provisional Regulation are thus hereby confirmed.\n7.2. Effects of other factors\n(35)\nSome interested parties contested the provisional findings concerning the effect of other factors, and submitted that alternately contraction in demand, competition between Union producers, imports from India and self-inflicted injury would be the main cause of injury.\n(36)\nConcerning the contraction in demand, reference is made to recitals 25 to 30 above which confirm the trend of the consumption established in the provisional Regulation. The allegations that the effects of the contraction in demand have been underestimated should therefore be rejected. Nevertheless, it should be recalled that the recital 67 of the provisional Regulation concluded that the decrease in consumption indeed might have contributed to the material injury suffered by the Union industry, although this effect was considerably reinforced by the effect caused by the dumped imports. However, the effect of the decrease in consumption was not such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury found.\n(37)\nIt was also argued by the Thai exporter that the injury suffered by the Union industry was also caused by the competition between the Union producers. This is mainly because the loss of the Union industry\u2019s market share coincided with the market share increase of the other Union producer.\n(38)\nIn this respect, even if the calculations presented by the Thai exporter are not entirely correct, it is true that overall the market share of the second producer also increased during the injury investigation period. It should however be recalled that, as mentioned in the recital 30 of the provisional Regulation, this producer is importing a significant quantity of RBM from Thailand. Interestingly, the year when this producer managed to increase its sales of Union made products and market shares it also significantly increased its sales of RBM from Thailand. Actually, it even became a significant importer of Thai RBM, by purchasing a major part of the Thai exports during that year. Therefore, even if indeed the second Union producer managed to take over some market shares from the Union industry, it is difficult not to conclude that this company managed to do this because it also benefited from the dumped imports of RBM from Thailand. It is recalled that this producer was excluded from the definition of the Union industry because of his important import activities as compared to his own production.\n(39)\nFurthermore, the claim already addressed in recital 69 of the provisional Regulation that Indian imports also caused injury to the Union industry was reiterated by interested parties. This was based on the fact that India holds around 50 % share of the Union market, i.e. three times more than Thailand, and that the corresponding average prices decreased by 3 % between 2009 and IP, while undercutting Union prices by 24 %. It was also underlined that a significant portion of the Indian imports was purchased by a company related to the Union industry.\n(40)\nNo new arguments were however given in this respect and these claims were already addressed in the provisional Regulation. Even if the absolute level of Indian imports was indeed overall higher than that of Thailand, it was shown in the provisional Regulation that these imports developed differently: while Thai imports increased overall during the injury investigation period, both in absolute and relative terms, Indian imports decreased (by almost 10 %) and market shares also slightly diminished. In addition, the Indian average price level was also higher than the Thai import price. Furthermore, even if a company related to the Union industry is importing RBM from India, the investigation established that the level of these imports has significantly decreased over the years as mentioned above in recital 32.\n(41)\nFinally, several interested parties also claimed that the complainant lost its customers because it became active on the downstream market via its mother company, Ring International Holding (RIH), and that sales of RBM to related companies should be considered carefully because they would not be made at arm\u2019s length. These claims have however been rejected because they were not substantiated and the investigation showed that sales to related companies were negligible as compared to total sales.\n7.3. Conclusion on causation\n(42)\nBased on the above, the provisional conclusions laid down in recitals 65 to 76 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. Even if factors other than imports also had some impact on the situation of the Union industry, it is concluded that dumped imports from Thailand have caused material injury to the Union industry, within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation, based on an analysis which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors from the injurious effects of the dumped imports.\n8. UNION INTEREST\n(43)\nTwo of the five importers that cooperated during the investigation reacted to the disclosure of the provisional findings and submitted comments in writing. One of these importers requested to be heard as well as another importer. The Commission also decided to carry out a visit at the premises of the sole user that participated to the investigation.\n(44)\nNo comments were made with respect to the recitals 79 to 90 of the provisional Regulation concerning the description of the market and the section related to the interest of the Union industry.\n8.1. Importers and traders\n(45)\nIt is firstly recalled that in the provisional Regulation it was concluded that the imposition of measures could only have a significant negative impact on the situation of one importer, which also produces RBM in the Union. This importer did not react to the imposition of the provisional measures.\n(46)\nOne other importer, which also requested a hearing chaired by the Hearing Officer, mainly questioned the calculation of the dumping margin, the injury analysis and the calculation of the Union consumption. It did however not raise any new comment regarding the Union interest analysis.\n(47)\nA third importer, representing 20 % of the overall Thai imports, requested a hearing during which it was explained that, contrary to the information submitted previously during the investigation, it did not cease all its activities related to RBM - as mentioned in recital 92 of the provisional Regulation - but has transferred them to another office. During the hearing, this importer explained that its RBM-business is only complementary to its core one covering other products and did not exclude importing RBM from Thailand even if measures are imposed. However, because of the overhead costs of its large distribution network, this will depend on the level of the anti-dumping duties and on the possibility to increase the price to customers. Alternatively, this importer would not suffer significant negative consequences from stopping the RBM-business given the minor importance of this activity as compared to its overall business.\n8.2. Users\n(48)\nAs mentioned in recital 5 above, the questionnaire reply of the only cooperating user was verified during the visit at its premises after the imposition of the provisional measures. This user is purchasing from a variety of sources, including the Union, India and Thailand. It also used to import from China but changed its source of supply since the imposition of anti-dumping duties.\n(49)\nThai imports represent around 10 % of its total purchases of RBM, and the company decided not to import Thai products since the imposition of the provisional measures. Even if so far the measures did not seem to have significantly affected its economic situation, this company nevertheless deplored the limitation of its sources of supply, and especially the fact that now it cannot rely always on short-term delivery of RBM.\n(50)\nInterested parties reiterated their claim, already addressed in the provisional Regulation, that the imposition of measures would lead to limited sources of supply on the Union market. It is thus worth restating that indeed the investigation showed that the Union market is characterised by a limited number of players: there is one producer in India, one in Thailand, two in the Union and some in China. The purpose of anti-dumping measures is to restore fair competition on the Union market and not to prevent imports. This may indeed result in a reduction of the level of imports, while measures offset the trade distorting nature of these imports. This is however, as such, not a sufficient reason to question the imposition of measures against dumped imports. It could even be argued that fair competition should be guaranteed on the Union market to ensure the continued existence of all sources of supply in the long term.\n(51)\nIt is expected that with a level of the definitive duty, which is lower than the provisional one, Thai imports could still enter the Union market, while the investigation has shown that there are also other sources of supply, even if in limited number.\n8.3. Conclusion on the Union interest\n(52)\nIn the light of the above, and in the absence of any other comments, recitals 77 to 110 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed and it is concluded that overall, based on the information available concerning the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of definitive measures against imports of RBM originating in Thailand.\n9. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n9.1. Injury elimination level\n(53)\nIn the absence of any comments as to the injury elimination level, recitals 111 to 114 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n9.2. Definitive measures\n(54)\nWith respect to the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it has been commented that the anti-dumping duty should be reduced to 6 %, since allegedly Indian imports are not dumped and are 6 % higher than Thai imports. In this respect, it is noted that the purpose of anti-dumping duties is not to align prices to those of other sources but to eliminate the distorting effects of injurious dumping.\n(55)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level of the lowest of the dumping and injury margins found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule. In this case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the dumping found. This was calculated at 16,3 % having fallen significantly since the provisional stage.\n(56)\nOn the basis of the above, the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty for the cooperating exporter is 16,3 %.\n10. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY\n(57)\nIn view of the magnitude of the dumping margin found and given the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by the provisional Regulation should be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the duty definitively imposed by this Regulation. Since the definitive duty is lower than the provisional duty, the amounts secured in excess of the definitive duty rate should be released,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on certain ring binder mechanisms, currently falling within CN code ex 8305 10 00 (TARIC codes 8305100011, 8305100013, 8305100019, 8305100021, 8305100023, 8305100029, 8305100034, 8305100035 and 8305100036) originating in Thailand. For the purpose of this Regulation, ring binder mechanisms shall consist of at least two steel sheets or wires with at least four half-rings made of steel wire fixed on them and which are kept together by a steel cover. They can be opened either by pulling the half rings or with a small steel trigger mechanism fixed to the ring binder mechanism.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 shall be 16,3 %.\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nAmounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 118/2011 shall be definitively collected at the rate of the definitive duty imposed pursuant to Article 1 of this Regulation. The amounts secured in excess of the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty shall be released.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2011.", "references": ["73", "14", "60", "98", "16", "91", "62", "83", "67", "72", "51", "74", "41", "86", "20", "17", "61", "59", "90", "29", "68", "8", "45", "47", "5", "7", "27", "99", "85", "52", "No Label", "22", "23", "40", "48", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "40", "48", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/8/EU\nof 28 January 2011\namending Directive 2002/72/EC as regards the restriction of use of Bisphenol A in plastic infant feeding bottles\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC (1), and in particular Article 18(3) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Food Safety Authority,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Directive 2002/72/EC of 6 August 2002 relating to plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs (2) authorises the use of 2,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane, commonly known as Bisphenol A (hereinafter \u2018BPA\u2019), as monomer for the manufacture of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs in accordance with the opinions of the Scientific Committee on Food (hereinafter \u2018SCF\u2019) (3) and the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the EFSA\u2019) (4).\n(2)\nBPA is used as monomer in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics. Polycarbonate plastics are used amongst others in the manufacture of infant feeding bottles. When heated under certain conditions small amounts of BPA can potentially leach out from food containers into foods and beverages and be ingested.\n(3)\nOn 29 March 2010 the Danish Government informed the Commission and the Member States that it has decided to apply the safeguard measures provided for in Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 and to temporarily ban the use of BPA for the manufacture of plastic materials in contact with food intended for children aged 0-3 (5).\n(4)\nThe Danish Government substantiated its safeguard measure with a risk assessment provided on 22 March 2010 by the National Food Institute at the Technical University of Denmark (hereinafter \u2018DTU Food\u2019). The risk assessment covers the evaluation of a comprehensive study carried out on animals exposed to BPA in low doses monitoring the development of the nervous system and the behaviour in newborn rats. DTU Food has also evaluated whether the new data changes its previous evaluation of the toxic effects on the development of the nervous system and behaviour possibly caused by BPA.\n(5)\nIn accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 on 30 March 2010 the Commission asked the EFSA to give its opinion on the grounds adduced by Denmark for concluding that the use of the material endangers human health, although it complies with the relevant specific measures.\n(6)\nOn 6 July 2010 the French Government informed the Commission, and on 9 July 2010 the Member States, that it has decided to apply the safeguard measures provided for in Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 and to temporarily ban the manufacture, import, export and placing on the market of feeding bottles containing BPA (6).\n(7)\nThe French Government substantiated its safeguard measure with two opinions issued by the French Food Safety Authority (AFSSA) on 29 January and 7 June 2010 and the report published on 3 June 2010 by the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM).\n(8)\nOn 23 September 2010 the EFSA adopted the opinion of its Panel on food contact materials, enzymes, flavourings and processing aids (hereinafter \u2018the Panel\u2019) on BPA responding to the Commission\u2019s request of 30 March 2010 as well as covering the evaluation of the specific neurobehavioural study evaluated in the Danish risk assessment and the review and evaluation of other recently published studies on BPA (7).\n(9)\nIn its opinion the Panel concludes that based on the comprehensive evaluation of recent human and animal toxicity data, no new study could be identified, which would call for a revision of the current tolerable daily intake (hereinafter \u2018TDI\u2019) of 0,05 mg/kg bodyweight per day. This TDI is based on the no adverse effect level of 5 mg/kg bodyweight per day from a multi-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats, and the application of an uncertainty factor of 100, which is considered as conservative based on all information on BPA toxicokinetics. However, in a minority opinion one Member of the Panel concluded that the effects observed in certain studies raised uncertainties which may not be covered by the current TDI which should therefore be considered temporary until more robust data becomes available in the areas of uncertainty.\n(10)\nThe Panel noted that some animal studies conducted on developing animals have suggested other BPA-related effects of possible toxicological relevance, in particular biochemical changes in brain, immune-modulatory effects and enhanced susceptibility to breast tumours. These studies have many shortcomings. The relevance of these findings in relation to human health cannot be assessed at present. In case any new relevant data becomes available in the future, the Panel will reconsider its opinion.\n(11)\nInfant formula or breast milk is the only source of nutrition for infants up to the age of 4 months, and it remains the major source of nutrition for some additional months. In its opinion of 2006 the EFSA concluded that infants aged 3 and 6 months fed using polycarbonate infant feeding bottles have the highest exposure to BPA, though below the TDI. For this group of infants the level of exposure to BPA decreases once feeding from polycarbonate bottles is phased out and other sources of nutrition become dominant.\n(12)\nEven if the infant has sufficient capacity to eliminate BPA at worst-case exposure the EFSA opinion pointed out that an infant\u2019s system to eliminate BPA is not as developed as that of an adult and it only gradually reaches the adult capacity during the first 6 months.\n(13)\nThe potential toxicological effects may have a higher impact in the developing organism. According to the opinions of the Scientific Committee on Food of 1997 (8) and 1998 (9) certain effects, in particular endocrine and reproductive effects, effects on the immune system and the neurodevelopment are of particular relevance to infants. Reproductive effects and neurodevelopmental effects of BPA have been studied extensively in standard multigeneration toxicological tests and in other studies, which took account of the developing organism and did not reveal effects in doses below the TDI. However, studies which could not be taken into account for setting the TDI due to many shortcomings showed BPA-related effects of possible toxicological relevance. These effects, in particular those on the biochemical changes in the brain, which may affect neurodevelopment, and on immune modulation are reflecting the area of particular concern for infants highlighted in the SCF opinions of 1997 and 1998. In addition, the EFSA opinion of 2010 mentions the enhancing effect of an early exposure to BPA on tumour formation later on in life when exposed to a carcinogen. Also in this case the sensitive stage is the developing organism. Thus the infant can be identified as the particular vulnerable part of the population as regards those findings for which the relevance for human health could not yet be fully assessed.\n(14)\nAccording to the EFSA opinion of 2006 polycarbonate feeding bottles is the main source of exposure to BPA for infants. Alternative materials to polycarbonate that do not contain BPA exist on the EU market, in particular glass and other plastic infant feeding bottles. These alternative materials have to comply with the strict safety requirements set out for food contact materials. Therefore, it is not necessary to continue the use of BPA-containing polycarbonate for infant feeding bottles.\n(15)\nGiven that there exists a possible particular vulnerability of infants to potential effects of BPA, although also the infant is deemed to be able to eliminate BPA and even where the risk, notably to human health, has not yet been fully demonstrated, it is appropriate to reduce their exposure to BPA as much as reasonably achievable, until further scientific data is available to clarify the toxicological relevance of some observed effects of BPA, in particular as regards biochemical changes in brain, immune-modulatory effects and enhanced susceptibility to breast tumours.\n(16)\nThe precautionary principle referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (10) allows the Union to provisionally adopt measures on the basis of available pertinent information, pending an additional assessment of risk and a review of the measure within a reasonable period of time.\n(17)\nTaking into account that there are uncertainties in the present state of scientific research with regard to the harmfulness of BPA exposure to infants (11) through polycarbonate infant feeding bottles that would need to be clarified, the Commission is entitled to take a preventive measure regarding the use of BPA in polycarbonate infant feeding bottles on the basis of the precautionary principle which is applicable in a situation in which there is scientific uncertainty, even if the risk, notably to human health, has not yet been fully demonstrated.\n(18)\nThus, it is necessary and appropriate for the achievement of the basic objective of ensuring a high level of human health protection to obviate sources of danger to physical and mental health that may be caused to infants by BPA exposure through feeding bottles.\n(19)\nThe Commission evaluated the infant feeding bottle market and received an indication by the relevant producers that voluntary action by the industry for replacements on the market are ongoing and the economic impact of the proposed measure is limited. Therefore, all BPA-containing infant feeding bottles on the EU market should be replaced by the middle of 2011.\n(20)\nUntil further scientific data are available to clarify the toxicological relevance of some observed effects of BPA, in particular as regards biochemical changes in brain, immune-modulatory effects and enhanced susceptibility to breast tumours, the use of BPA in the manufacture and placing on the market of polycarbonate infant feeding bottles should be temporarily banned. Directive 2002/72/EC should therefore be amended accordingly. The Authority has a mandate to monitor new studies to clarify these endpoints.\n(21)\nFollowing the evaluation of the technical and economic feasibility to implement the proposed measure it is concluded that the measure is no more restrictive of trade than is required to achieve the high level of health protection chosen in the Union.\n(22)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex II, Section A of Directive 2002/72/EC, the text in column 4 under the reference number 13480 as regards the monomer 2,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane is replaced by the following:\n\u2018SML (T) = 0,6 mg/kg. Not to be used for the manufacture of polycarbonate infant (12) feeding bottles\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 15 February 2011 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt the provisions referred to in paragraph 1, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall apply the provisions referred to in paragraph 1 in such a way as to prohibit from 1 March 2011 the manufacture of, and from 1 June 2011 the placing on the market and importation into the Union of, plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs and which do not comply with this Directive.\n3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 February 2011.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 January 2011.", "references": ["10", "9", "67", "28", "36", "81", "12", "94", "49", "37", "24", "13", "82", "22", "78", "61", "43", "63", "65", "93", "44", "11", "7", "56", "21", "39", "0", "52", "41", "51", "No Label", "25", "38", "72", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "72", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 27/2011\nof 14 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 January 2011.", "references": ["40", "42", "44", "85", "74", "36", "97", "27", "92", "3", "70", "89", "15", "11", "12", "30", "56", "64", "87", "58", "76", "73", "54", "69", "24", "29", "78", "99", "86", "96", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 June 2012\non mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management\n(2012/366/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the \u2018Fund\u2019) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.\n(2)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.\n(4)\nItaly submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by flooding in Liguria and Tuscany,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 18 061 682 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 June 2012.", "references": ["76", "90", "18", "34", "84", "62", "37", "45", "19", "31", "93", "59", "86", "28", "95", "32", "49", "63", "68", "67", "79", "87", "81", "78", "82", "0", "66", "13", "74", "24", "No Label", "4", "10", "60", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "60", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 13 August 2010\namending Decisions 2008/934/EC and 2008/941/EC as regards the date until which authorisations may continue to be in force and the period of grace, in cases where the notifier has submitted an application in accordance with the accelerated procedure under Regulation (EC) No 33/2008\n(notified under document C(2010) 5536)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/455/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (2) and Commission Decision 2008/941/EC of 8 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (3) establish the lists of active substances for which the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of the active substance concerned in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with Article 11e of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 (4) and Article 24e of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 (5).\n(2)\nFor most of the substances concerned applications have been submitted in accordance with the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (6).\n(3)\nIn order to allow the examination of those substances to be completed, it is necessary to extend the period for Member States to withdraw authorisations and the period of grace they may grant in respect of those substances.\n(4)\nDecisions 2008/934/EC and 2008/941/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Decision 2008/934/EC\nDecision 2008/934/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 2, the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018However, the latest date for Member States to withdraw such authorisations shall be 31 December 2011 where an application has been submitted in accordance with the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 3, the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018However, any such period of grace shall expire on 31 December 2012 at the latest where an application has been submitted in accordance with the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAmendment to Decision 2008/941/EC\nDecision 2008/941/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 2, the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018However, the latest date for Member States to withdraw such authorisations shall be 31 December 2011 where an application has been submitted in accordance with the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 3, the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018However, any such period of grace shall expire on 31 December 2012 at the latest where an application has been submitted in accordance with the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 August 2010.", "references": ["91", "4", "74", "31", "78", "77", "86", "42", "22", "81", "35", "71", "63", "41", "76", "80", "13", "75", "57", "30", "44", "58", "26", "15", "49", "23", "95", "24", "39", "16", "No Label", "2", "38", "48", "60", "61", "65", "66"], "gold": ["2", "38", "48", "60", "61", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 555/2011\nof 6 June 2011\namending Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 179/2009 of 5 March 2009 amending Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1) suspended totally, for a period of two years, the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for certain black and white or other monochrome, and certain colour monitors using liquid crystal display technology and falling under Combined Nomenclature (CN) codes 8528 59 10 and 8528 59 90.\n(2)\nOn economic and industrial policy grounds, it is in the interest of the Union to prolong the autonomous duty suspension provided for in Regulation (EC) No 179/2009 for a period of six months starting from 1 January 2011.\n(3)\nFollowing a restructuring of CN heading 8528, the monitors in question are now covered by CN codes 8528 59 10 and 8528 59 40. The tariff suspensions provided for in this Regulation should therefore concern those CN codes.\n(4)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (2) should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe suspensions provided for in this Regulation are an extension of the suspensions provided for by Regulation (EC) No 179/2009 that expired on 31 December 2010. Since it is not in the interest of the Union that there be any interruption of the tariff treatment of the monitors covered by the suspension, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart Two, Section XVI, Chapter 85 of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe text in column 3 for CN code 8528 59 10 is replaced by the following:\n\u201814 (3)\n(2)\nthe text in column 3 for CN code 8528 59 40 is replaced by the following:\n\u201814 (4)\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 6 June 2011.", "references": ["80", "26", "78", "76", "33", "62", "49", "91", "18", "11", "10", "37", "44", "73", "9", "72", "59", "23", "52", "41", "81", "82", "36", "75", "45", "97", "48", "67", "60", "58", "No Label", "21", "22", "42"], "gold": ["21", "22", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 June 2010\namending Decision 2006/771/EC on harmonisation of the radio spectrum for use by short-range devices\n(notified under document C(2010) 4313)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/368/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2006/771/EC (2) harmonises the technical conditions for use of spectrum for a wide variety of short-range devices, including applications such as alarms, local communications equipment, door openers and medical implants. Short-range devices are typically mass-market and/or portable products which can easily be taken and used across borders; differences in spectrum access conditions therefore prevent their free movement, increase their production costs and create risks of harmful interference with other radio applications and services.\n(2)\nHowever, due to rapid changes in technology and societal demands, new applications for short-range devices can emerge which require regular updates of spectrum harmonisation conditions.\n(3)\nOn 5 July 2006, the Commission issued a permanent mandate to the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT), pursuant to Article 4(2) of Decision No 676/2002/EC, to update the Annex to Decision 2006/771/EC in response to the technological and market developments in the area of short-range devices.\n(4)\nCommission Decisions 2008/432/EC (3) and 2009/381/EC (4) already amended the harmonised technical conditions for short-range devices contained in Decision 2006/771/EC by replacing its Annex.\n(5)\nIn its November 2009 report (5) submitted in response to the abovementioned mandate, the CEPT advised the Commission to amend a number of technical aspects in the Annex to Decision 2006/771/EC.\n(6)\nThe Annex to Decision 2006/771/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nEquipment operating within the conditions set in this Decision must also comply with Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (6) in order to use the spectrum effectively so as to avoid harmful interference, demonstrated either by meeting harmonised standards or by fulfilling alternative conformity assessment procedures.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Radio Spectrum Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2006/771/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 June 2010.", "references": ["11", "45", "93", "98", "63", "99", "53", "50", "8", "24", "87", "16", "26", "17", "34", "69", "74", "23", "20", "51", "91", "14", "47", "95", "38", "92", "37", "84", "15", "41", "No Label", "40", "76"], "gold": ["40", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 692/2010\nof 30 July 2010\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3 of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that, subject to the measures in force in the European Union relating to double checking systems and to prior and retrospective surveillance of textile products on importation into the European Union, binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature and which is not in accordance with this Regulation, may continue to be relied on for a period of 60 days by the holder, pursuant to Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column 2 of that table.\nArticle 2\nSubject to the measures in force in the European Union relating to double checking systems and to prior and retrospective surveillance of textile products on importation into the European Union, binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States which is not in accordance with this Regulation, may continue to be relied on for a period of 60 days, pursuant to Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 July 2010.", "references": ["54", "44", "74", "42", "88", "78", "25", "69", "93", "83", "71", "49", "47", "43", "6", "5", "84", "80", "63", "59", "26", "61", "28", "38", "30", "67", "72", "24", "55", "82", "No Label", "21", "89"], "gold": ["21", "89"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 697/2011\nof 19 July 2011\non the issue of licences for the import of garlic in the subperiod from 1 September 2011 to 30 November 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 (3) opens and provides for the administration of tariff quotas and introduces a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and other agricultural products imported from third countries.\n(2)\nThe quantities for which \u2018A\u2019 licence applications have been lodged by traditional importers and by new importers during the first seven working days of July 2011, pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 exceed the quantities available for products originating in China, and all third countries other than China and Argentina.\n(3)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, it is now necessary to establish the extent to which the \u2018A\u2019 licence applications sent to the Commission by 14 July 2011 can be met in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApplications for \u2018A\u2019 import licences lodged pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 during the first seven working days of July 2011 and sent to the Commission by 14 July 2011 shall be met at a percentage rate of the quantities applied for as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["2", "77", "10", "89", "28", "23", "63", "58", "42", "86", "12", "39", "27", "94", "67", "25", "30", "46", "74", "43", "70", "16", "15", "53", "50", "81", "3", "40", "7", "38", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 April 2011\ndetermining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 2772)\n(2011/278/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Article 10a thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 10a of the Directive requires that the Community-wide and fully-harmonised implementing measures for the allocation of free emission allowances should, to the extent feasible, determine ex-ante benchmarks so as to ensure that the free allocation of emission allowances takes place in a manner that provides incentives for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficient techniques, by taking account of the most efficient techniques, substitutes, alternative production processes, high efficiency cogeneration, efficient energy recovery of waste gases, use of biomass and capture and storage of carbon dioxide, where such facilities are available, and should not provide incentives to increase emissions. Allocations must be fixed prior to the trading period so as to enable the market to function properly.\n(2)\nIn defining the principles for setting ex-ante benchmarks in individual sectors or sub-sectors, the starting point should be the average performance of the 10 % most efficient installations in a sector or sub-sector in the EU in the years 2007-2008. The benchmarks should be calculated for products rather than for inputs, in order to maximise greenhouse gas emissions reductions and energy efficiency savings throughout each production process of the sector or the sub-sector concerned.\n(3)\nIn order to establish the benchmarks, the Commission has consulted the relevant stakeholders, including the sectors and sub-sectors concerned. Information necessary for setting the benchmarks, installation data on the production, emissions and energy use, was collected as of February 2009 from industry associations, Member States, publicly and commercially available sources and through a survey asking installations to participate.\n(4)\nTo the extent feasible, the Commission has developed benchmarks for products, as well as intermediate products that are traded between installations, produced from activities listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC. In principle, for each product one benchmark should be defined. Where a product is a direct substitute of another product, both should be covered by the same product benchmark and the related product definition.\n(5)\nThe Commission considered that setting a benchmark for a product was feasible where, taking into account the complexity of the production processes, product definitions and classifications were available that allow for verification of production data and a uniform application of the product benchmark across the Union for the purposes of allocating emission allowances. No differentiation was made on the basis of geography or on the basis of technologies, raw materials or fuels used, so as not to distort comparative advantages in carbon efficiency across the Union economy, and to enhance harmonisation of the transitional free allocation of emission allowances.\n(6)\nThe benchmark values should cover all production-related direct emissions, including emissions related to the production of measurable heat used for production, regardless of whether the measurable heat was produced on-site or by another installation. Emissions related to the production of electricity and to the export of measurable heat, including avoided emissions of alternative heat or electricity production in cases of exothermic processes or the production of electricity without direct emissions, were deducted when setting the benchmark values. In case the deduction of emissions related to the export of measurable heat was not feasible, this heat should not be eligible for the free allocation of emission allowances.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure that benchmarks lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, for some production processes in which direct emissions eligible for the free allocation of emission allowances and indirect emissions from electricity production not eligible for free allocation on the basis of Directive 2003/87/EC are to a certain extent interchangeable, the total emissions including indirect emissions related to the production of electricity have been considered for the determination of the benchmark values to ensure a level playing field for fuel and electro-intensive installations. For the purpose of the allocation of emission allowances on the basis of the benchmarks concerned, only the share of the direct emissions in the total emissions should be taken into account in order to avoid providing free allocation of emission allowances for emissions related to electricity.\n(8)\nFor the determination of benchmark values, the Commission has used as a starting point the arithmetic average of the greenhouse gas performance of the 10 % most greenhouse gas efficient installations in 2007 and 2008 for which data has been collected. In addition, the Commission has in accordance with Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC analysed for all sectors for which a product benchmark is provided for in Annex I, on the basis of additional information received from several sources and on the basis of a dedicated study analysing most efficient techniques and reduction potentials at European and international level, whether these starting points sufficiently reflect the most efficient techniques, substitutes, alternative production processes, high efficiency cogeneration, efficient energy recovery of waste gases, use of biomass and capture and storage of carbon dioxide, where such facilities are available. Data used for determining the benchmark values has been collected from a wide range of sources in order to cover a maximum of installations producing a benchmarked product in the years 2007 and 2008. First, data on the greenhouse gas performance of ETS installations producing benchmarked products has been collected by or on behalf of the respective European sector associations based on defined rules, so-called \u2018sector rule books\u2019. As reference for these rule books, the Commission provided guidance on quality and verification criteria for benchmarking data for the EU-ETS. Second, to complement the data collection by European sector associations, consultants on behalf of the European Commission collected data from installations not covered by industry\u2019s data and also competent authorities of Member States provided data and analyses.\n(9)\nTo ensure that the benchmark values are based on correct and compliant data, the Commission, supported by consultants, carried out in-depth compliance checks of the sector rule books as well as plausibility checks of the starting point values derived from the data. As indicated in the guidance on quality and verification, data has been verified to the extent necessary by independent verifiers.\n(10)\nWhere several products are produced in one installation and an assignment of emissions to the individual products has not been regarded feasible, only single product installations have been covered by the data collection and included in the benchmark setting. This concerns the product benchmarks for lime, dolime, bottles and jars of colourless glass, bottles and jars of coloured glass, facing bricks, pavers, spray-dried powder, uncoated fine paper, tissue, testliner and fluting, uncoated carton board as well as coated carton board. To increase the significance and check the plausibility of the results, the values for the average performance of the 10 % most efficient installations have been compared against literature on most efficient techniques.\n(11)\nIn case no data or no data collected in compliance with the benchmarking methodology has been available, information on present levels of emissions and consumptions and on most efficient techniques, mainly derived from the Reference Documents on Best Available Techniques (BREF) established in accordance with Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (2) has been used to derive benchmark values. In particular, due to a lack of data on the treatment of waste gases, heat exports and electricity production, the values for the product benchmarks for coke and hot metal have been derived from calculations of direct and indirect emissions based on information on relevant energy flows provided by the relevant BREF and default emission factors set out in Commission Decision 2007/589/EC of 18 July 2007 establishing guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). For the product benchmark for sintered ore, data has also been corrected based on relevant energy flows provided by the relevant BREF, taking into account the combustion of waste gases in the sector.\n(12)\nWhere deriving a product benchmark was not feasible, but greenhouse gases eligible for the free allocation of emission allowances occur, those allowances should be allocated on the basis of generic fallback approaches. A hierarchy of three fallback approaches has been developed in order to maximise greenhouse gas emission reductions and energy savings for at least parts of the production processes concerned. The heat benchmark is applicable for heat consumption processes where a measurable heat carrier is used. The fuel benchmark is applicable where non-measurable heat is consumed. The heat and fuel benchmark values have been derived based upon the principles of transparency and simplicity, using the reference efficiency of a widely available fuel that can be regarded as second-best in terms of greenhouse gas efficiency, considering energy efficient techniques. For process emissions, emission allowances should be allocated on the basis of historical emissions. In order to ensure that the free allocation of emission allowances for such emissions provides sufficient incentives for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and to avoid any difference in treatment of process emissions that are allocated on the basis of historical emissions and those within the system boundaries of a product benchmark, the historical activity level of each installation should be multiplied by a factor equal to 0,9700 to determine the number of free emission allowances.\n(13)\nFrom 2013 onwards, all free allocations pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC should be done in accordance with these rules. To give effect to the transitional system provided for by Article 10a(11) of Directive 2003/87/EC, according to which the free allocation of emission allowances should decrease from 80 % of the amount that corresponded to the allowances to be allocated in 2013 to 30 % of this amount in 2020 with a view to reaching no free allocation in 2027, the factors set out in Annex VI apply. Where a sector or sub-sector has been put on the list determined by Commission Decision 2010/2/EU of 24 December 2009 determining, pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage (4), these factors do not apply. Allocations under this Decision will be taken into account in determining future lists of sectors or sub-sectors deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage.\n(14)\nTo facilitate the data collection from operators and the calculation of the emission allowances to be allocated by Member States, each installation should be divided into sub-installations where required. Member States should ensure that emissions are correctly attributed to the relevant sub-installations and that there are no overlaps between sub-installations.\n(15)\nMember States should ensure that data collected from the operators and used for allocation purposes is complete, consistent and presents the highest achievable accuracy. It should be verified by an independent verifier so as to ensure that the free allocation of emission allowances is based on solid and reliable data. This decision should provide for specific minimum requirements for data collection and verification to facilitate a harmonised and consistent application of the allocation rules.\n(16)\nThe amount of allowances to be allocated free of charge to incumbent installations should be based on historical production data. In order to ensure that the reference period is as far as possible representative of industry cycles, covers a relevant period where good quality data is available and reduces the impact of special circumstances, such as temporary closure of installations, the historical activity levels have been based on the median production during the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2008, or, where it is higher, on the median production during the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2010. It is also appropriate to take account of any significant capacity change that has taken place in the relevant period. For new entrants, the determination of activity levels should be based on standard capacity utilisation based on sector-specific information or on installation-specific capacity utilisation.\n(17)\nThe information collected by Member States should facilitate the application of this Decision by competent authorities and by the Commission.\n(18)\nIn order to avoid any distortion of competition and to ensure an orderly functioning of the carbon market, Member States should ensure that when determining the allocation of individual installations no double counting and no double allocation takes place. In this context, Member States should pay particular attention to cases where a benchmarked product is produced in more than one installation, where more than one benchmarked product is produced in the same installation or where intermediate products are exchanged across installation boundaries.\n(19)\nTo ensure that the emissions trading system delivers reductions over time, Directive 2003/87/EC provides for the Union-wide quantity of allowances to decrease in a linear manner. As this decreasing Union-wide quantity is taken into account for determining the maximum annual amount of allowances pursuant to Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, all free emission allowances allocated on the basis of this Decision to installations not covered by this maximum annual amount referred to in Article 10a(5) should be adjusted in the same linear manner as the Union-wide quantity of allowances, using the year 2013 as a reference.\n(20)\nThe uniform cross-sectoral correction factor that is applicable in each year of the period from 2013 to 2020 to installations that are not identified as electricity generators, and that are not new entrants, pursuant to Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, should be determined on the basis of the preliminary total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge over the period from 2013 to 2020 calculated for these installations pursuant to this Decision, including the installations that might be excluded according to Article 27 of that Directive. This amount of free emission allowances allocated in each year of the period should be compared with the annual amount of allowances that is calculated in accordance with Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC for installations that are not electricity generator or new entrants, taking into account the relevant share of the annual Community-wide total quantity, as determined pursuant to Article 9 of that Directive, and the relevant amount of emissions that are only included in the Union scheme from 2013 onwards.\n(21)\nWhere measurable heat is exchanged between two or more installations, the free allocation of emission allowances should be based on the heat consumption of an installation and take account of the risk of carbon leakage. Thus, to ensure that the number of free emission allowances to be allocated is independent from the heat supply structure, emission allowances should be allocated to the heat consumer.\n(22)\nTo enhance the significance of the available data on the greenhouse gas performance of the installations covered by the Union scheme, the product benchmarks for sulphite pulp, thermo-mechanical pulp and mechanical pulp as well as for recovered paper are based on BREF information on most efficient techniques reflecting the use of fossil start-up fuels, the use of fossil fuels (for sulphite pulp, thermo-mechanical and mechanical pulp) and of thermal energy (for recovered paper). The product benchmark for newsprint has also been based on most efficient techniques reflecting the use of thermal energy to derive a significant benchmark value.\n(23)\nIn order to take account of additional greenhouse gas emissions not reflected in the data for determining the benchmark values for some installations, in particular methane emissions, and to ensure that the allocation of free emission allowances on the basis of the product benchmark takes into account the greenhouse gas efficiency of the processes and does not provide incentives to increase emissions, the individual data points of the installations on the benchmark curve for nitric acid have been corrected on the basis of information on the average of these emissions provided by industry and of information derived from the BREF. The product benchmark for nitric acid reflects this correction.\n(24)\nIn order to take into account differences in refinery configurations, the product benchmark for the refinery sector should be based on the \u2018CO2 weighted tonne\u2019 (hereinafter \u2018CWT\u2019) approach. Thereby the single product of the refinery is the CWT and its production has been calculated on the basis of defined generic process units each of which has been weighted with an emission factor relative to crude distillation, denoted as the CWT factor and representative of the CO2 emission intensity at an average level of energy efficiency, for the same standard fuel type for each process unit for combustion, and for average process emissions of the process unit. On this basis, the data points used for setting the product benchmark have been derived by comparing the actual emissions to the total CWT of each refinery. The free allocation of emission allowances to refineries is then corrected to exclude electricity use and production in order to be consistent with Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n(25)\nGiven the wide range of product qualities that can be achieved, the product benchmarks for lime and dolime refer to a standard composition concerning calcium oxide and magnesium oxide. Regarding combustion emissions data for specific combustion emissions of the production of these standard products has been used based on Decision 2007/589/EC.\n(26)\nWhereas several product benchmarks, such as the ammonia and soda ash benchmarks, assume that all CO2 resulting from the production processes is emitted to the atmosphere, emissions should be monitored and reported in accordance with the regulation for the monitoring and reporting of emissions from the activities listed in Annex I, to be adopted by 31 December 2011 pursuant to Article 14(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, assuming that all CO2 produced during these production processes was emitted to the atmosphere, irrespective of any potential use of the CO2 as feedstock in chemical production processes.\n(27)\nThe steam cracking benchmark does not cover the so-called supplemental feed, high value chemicals that are not produced in the main process as well as the related emissions, but, where applicable, supplemental feed should be considered for the free allocation of emission allowances using specific emission factors.\n(28)\nIn order to ensure a level playing field for the production of aromatics in refineries and in chemical plants, the free allocation of emission allowances for aromatics should be based on the CWT approach and the benchmark value of the refineries product benchmark should be applied.\n(29)\nConsidering that in the production of vinyl chloride monomer, hydrogen is used to some extent as fuel substituting conventional fuels such as natural gas, thus reducing the direct emissions of the combusting process, but considering also that the use of hydrogen as a feedstock is preferable in terms of total greenhouse gas efficiency, the vinyl chloride monomer benchmark accounts for the fuel use of hydrogen as if it was natural gas.\n(30)\nIn order to ensure a level playing field for the production of hydrogen and synthesis gas in refineries and in chemical plants, the benchmark for these products should be based on the CWT approach and the benchmark value of the refineries benchmark. Both product benchmarks refer to a defined volumetric concentration of hydrogen.\n(31)\nGiven that full auctioning should be the rule from 2013 onwards for the power sector, taking into account its ability to pass on the increased cost of carbon dioxide, and that no free allocation should be made in respect of any electricity production, except for transitional free allocation for the modernisation of electricity generation and electricity produced from waste gases, this Decision should not cover the free allocation of emission allowances related to the production or consumption of electricity. Nevertheless, according to Article 10a(6) of Directive 2003/87/EC, sectors or subsectors deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage may be compensated for costs related to greenhouse gas emissions passed on in electricity prices by financial measures adopted by Member States in accordance with state aid rules applicable and to be adopted by the Commission in this area.\n(32)\nIt is also appropriate that the product benchmarks take account of the efficient energy recovery of waste gases and emissions related to their use. To this end, for the determination of the benchmark values for products of which the production generates waste gases, the carbon content of these waste gases has been taken into account to a large extent. Where waste gases are exported from the production process outside the system boundaries of the relevant product benchmark and combusted for the production of heat outside the system boundaries of a benchmarked process as defined in Annex I, related emissions should be taken into account by means of allocating additional emission allowances on the basis of the heat or fuel benchmark. In the light of the general principle that no emission allowances should be allocated for free in respect of any electricity production, to avoid undue distortions of competition on the markets for electricity supplied to industrial installations and taking into account the inherent carbon price in electricity, it is appropriate that, where waste gases are exported from the production process outside the system boundaries of the relevant product benchmark and combusted for the production of electricity, no additional allowances are allocated beyond the share of the carbon content of the waste gas accounted for in the relevant product benchmark.\n(33)\nThe product benchmarks also take account of the historical emissions from flaring of waste gases related to the production of a given product and fuel used for safety flaring should be considered fuel used for the production of non-measurable heat in order to take account of the compulsory nature of these flares.\n(34)\nSubstantial investment efforts are necessary to combat climate change and to reduce the carbon intensity of economies. This Decision should therefore be applied in a manner to foster investment in clean technologies in each sector and sub-sector. In accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC, other policies and measures may in the future supplement this goal and encourage the effective use of allowances in order to generate substantial investments in more energy-efficient technologies. In particular, if the final annual amount of allowances allocated free of charge for all incumbent installations determined in accordance with this Decision falls significantly below the maximum annual amount of allowances referred to in Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, an amendment to this Decision could provide incentives for further reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC by allocating allowances to installations capable of implementing innovative technologies that further reduce greenhouse gas emissions.\n(35)\nInvestments in significant capacity extensions giving access to the reserve for new entrants provided for in Article 10a(7) of Directive 2003/87/EC should be unambiguous and of a certain scale in order to avoid an early depletion of the reserve of emission allowances created for new entrants, to avoid distortions of competition, to avoid any undue administrative burden and to ensure equal treatment of installations across Member States. It is therefore appropriate to define the threshold for a significant capacity change by 10 % of the installation\u2019s installed capacity and require that the change in the installed capacity triggers a significantly higher or lower activity level of the installation concerned. However, incremental capacity extensions or reductions should be taken into account when assessing whether this threshold is reached.\n(36)\nConsidering the limited number of allowances in the reserve for new entrants, it is appropriate to assess, when a considerable amount of these allowances is issued to new entrants, whether a fair and equitable access to the remaining allowances in this reserve is guaranteed. In the light of the outcome of this assessment, the possibility for a queuing system may be provided. The design and the definition of the eligibility criteria of such a system should take account of different permitting practices in Member States, avoid any misuse and not provide incentives to reserve allowances over an unreasonable period of time.\n(37)\nTo ensure that no emission allowances are allocated free of charge to an installation that has ceased its operations, this Decision should provide for measures defining such installations and prohibiting the issuance of allowances, unless it can be established that the installation will resume its operations within a specified and reasonable amount of time.\n(38)\nIn order to adapt the number of emission allowances to be allocated to an installation having partially ceased operations, specific thresholds comparing the reduced activity level to the initial activity level have been defined. The number of emission allowances to be allocated should then be adjusted accordingly as of the year following the year during which the installation partially ceased operations. Where such an installation again reaches an activity level above the thresholds, the initial number of emission allowances to be allocated should be partly or even fully be reinstated depending of the installation\u2019s level of operation.\n(39)\nWhere applicable, account has been taken of the guidance on interpretation of Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC.\n(40)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision lays down transitional Union-wide rules for the harmonised free allocation of emission allowances under Directive 2003/87/EC from 2013 onwards.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThis Decision shall apply to the free allocation of emission allowances under Chapter III (stationary installations) of Directive 2003/87/EC in trading periods from 2013 with the exception of transitional free allocation of emission allowances for the modernisation of electricity generation pursuant to Article 10c of Directive 2003/87/EC.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018incumbent installation\u2019 means any installation carrying out one or more activities listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC or an activity included in the Union scheme for the first time in accordance with Article 24 of that Directive which:\n(i)\nobtained a greenhouse gas emission permit before 30 June 2011; or\n(ii)\nis in fact operating, obtained all relevant environmental permits, including a permit provided for in Directive 2008/1/EC where applicable, by 30 June 2011 and fulfilled by 30 June 2011 all other criteria defined in the national legal order of the Member State concerned on the basis of which the installation would have been entitled to receive the greenhouse gas permit;\n(b)\n\u2018product benchmark sub-installation\u2019 means inputs, outputs and corresponding emissions relating to the production of a product for which a benchmark has been set in Annex I;\n(c)\n\u2018heat benchmark sub-installation\u2019 means inputs, outputs and corresponding emissions not covered by a product benchmark sub-installation relating to the production, the import from an installation or other entity covered by the Union scheme, or both, of measurable heat which is:\n-\nconsumed within the installation\u2019s boundaries for the production of products, for the production of mechanical energy other than used for the production of electricity, for heating or cooling with the exception of the consumption for the production of electricity, or\n-\nexported to an installation or other entity not covered by the Union scheme with the exception of the export for the production of electricity;\n(d)\n\u2018fuel benchmark sub-installation\u2019 means inputs, outputs and corresponding emissions not covered by a product benchmark sub-installation relating to the production of non-measurable heat by fuel combustion consumed for the production of products, for the production of mechanical energy other than used for the production of electricity, for heating or cooling with the exception of the consumption for the production of electricity, including safety flaring;\n(e)\n\u2018measurable heat\u2019 means a net heat flow transported through identifiable pipelines or ducts using a heat transfer medium, such as, in particular, steam, hot air, water, oil, liquid metals and salts, for which a heat meter is or could be installed;\n(f)\n\u2018heat meter\u2019 means a heat meter within the meaning of Annex MI-004 to Directive 2004/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) or any other device to measure and record the amount of heat energy produced based upon flow volumes and temperatures;\n(g)\n\u2018non-measurable heat\u2019 means all heat other than measurable heat;\n(h)\n\u2018process emissions sub-installation\u2019 means greenhouse gas emissions listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC other than carbon dioxide, which occur outside the system boundaries of a product benchmark listed in Annex I, or carbon dioxide emissions, which occur outside the system boundaries of a product benchmark listed in Annex I, as a result of any of the following activities and emissions stemming from the combustion of incompletely oxidised carbon produced as a result of the following activities for the purpose of the production of measurable heat, non-measurable heat or electricity provided that emissions that would have occurred from the combustion of an amount of natural gas, equivalent to the technically usable energy content of the combusted incompletely oxidised carbon, are subtracted:\n(i)\nthe chemical or electrolytic reduction of metal compounds in ores, concentrates and secondary materials;\n(ii)\nthe removal of impurities from metals and metal compounds;\n(iii)\nthe decomposition of carbonates, excluding those for flue gas scrubbing;\n(iv)\nchemical syntheses where the carbon bearing material participates in the reaction, for a primary purpose other than the generation of heat;\n(v)\nthe use of carbon containing additives or raw materials for a primary purpose other than the generation of heat;\n(vi)\nthe chemical or electrolytic reduction of metalloid oxides or non-metal oxides such as silicon oxides and phosphates;\n(i)\n\u2018significant capacity extension\u2019 means a significant increase in a sub-installation\u2019s initial installed capacity whereby all of the following occur:\n(i)\none or more identifiable physical changes relating to its technical configuration and functioning other than the mere replacement of an existing production line take place; and\n(ii)\nthe sub-installation can be operated at a capacity that is at least 10 % higher compared to the initial installed capacity of the sub-installation before the change; or\n(iii)\nthe sub-installation to which the physical changes relate has a significantly higher activity level resulting in an additional allocation of emission allowances of more than 50 000 allowances per year representing at least 5 % of the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge for this sub -installation before the change;\n(j)\n\u2018significant capacity reduction\u2019 means one or more identifiable physical changes leading to a significant decrease in a sub-installation\u2019s initial installed capacity and its activity level of the magnitude considered to constitute a significant capacity extension;\n(k)\n\u2018significant capacity change\u2019 means either a significant capacity extension or a significant capacity reduction;\n(l)\n\u2018added capacity\u2019 means the difference between the initial installed capacity of a sub-installation and the installed capacity of that same sub-installation after having had a significant extension determined on the basis of the average of the 2 highest monthly production volumes within the first 6 months following the start of changed operation;\n(m)\n\u2018reduced capacity\u2019 means the difference between the initial installed capacity of a sub-installation and the installed capacity of that same sub-installation after having had a significant capacity reduction determined on the basis of the average of the 2 highest monthly production volumes within the first 6 months following the start of changed operation;\n(n)\n\u2018start of normal operation\u2019 means the verified and approved first day of a continuous 90-day period, or, where the usual production cycle in the sector concerned does not foresee continuous production, the first day of a 90-day period split in sector-specific production cycles, during which the installation operates at least at 40 % of the capacity that the equipment is designed to accommodate taking into account, where appropriate, the installation-specific operating conditions;\n(o)\n\u2018start of changed operation\u2019 means the verified and approved first day of a continuous 90-day period, or, where the usual production cycle in the sector concerned does not foresee continuous production, the first day of a 90-day period split in sector-specific production cycles, during which the changed sub-installation operates at least at 40 % of the capacity that the equipment is designed to accommodate taking into account, where appropriate, the sub-installation-specific operating conditions;\n(p)\n\u2018safety flaring\u2019 means the combustion of pilot fuels and highly fluctuating amounts of process or residual gases in a unit open to atmospheric disturbances which is explicitly required for safety reasons by relevant permits for the installation;\n(q)\n\u2018private household\u2019 means a residential unit in which persons make arrangements, individually or in groups, for providing themselves with measurable heat;\n(r)\n\u2018verifier\u2019 means a competent, independent, person or verification body with responsibility for performing and reporting on the verification process, in accordance with the detailed requirements established by the Member State pursuant to Annex V to Directive 2003/87/EC;\n(s)\n\u2018reasonable assurance\u2019 means a high but not absolute level of assurance, expressed positively in the verification opinion, whether the data subject to verification is free from material misstatement;\n(t)\n\u2018level of assurance\u2019 means the degree to which the verifier is confident in the verification conclusions that it has been proved whether or not the data submitted for an installation is free from material misstatement;\n(u)\n\u2018material misstatement\u2019 means a substantial misstatement (omissions, misrepresentations and errors, not considering the permissible uncertainty) in the data submitted that, according to the professional judgment of the verifier, could affect subsequent use of the data by the competent authority in the calculation of the allocation of emission allowances.\nArticle 4\nCompetent authority and rounding\n1. Member States shall make the appropriate administrative arrangements, including designation of the competent authority or authorities in accordance with Article 18 of Directive 2003/87/EC, for the implementation of the rules of this Decision.\n2. All calculations relating to a number of allowances carried out in accordance with this Decision shall be rounded up to the nearest allowance.\nCHAPTER II\nINCUMBENT INSTALLATIONS\nArticle 5\nIdentification of installations\n1. Each Member State shall identify all installations in its territory and eligible for free allocation under Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n2. Each Member State shall also identify all heat producing electricity generators and small installations, which may be excluded from the Union scheme pursuant to Article 27 of Directive 2003/87/EC.\nArticle 6\nDivision into sub-installations\n1. For the purposes of this Decision, Member States shall divide each installation eligible for the free allocation of emission allowances under Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC into one or more of the following sub-installations, as required:\n(a)\na product benchmark sub-installation;\n(b)\na heat benchmark sub-installation;\n(c)\na fuel benchmark sub-installation;\n(d)\na process emissions sub-installation.\nSub-installations shall correspond, to the extent possible, to physical parts of the installation.\nFor heat benchmark sub-installations, fuel benchmark sub-installations and process emissions sub-installations, Member States shall clearly distinguish on the basis of NACE and Prodcom codes between whether or not the relevant process serves a sector or subsector deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage as determined by Decision 2010/2/EU.\nWhere an installation included in the Union scheme has produced and exported measurable heat to an installation or other entity not included in the Union scheme, Member States shall consider that the relevant process of the heat benchmark sub-installation for this heat does not serve a sector or subsector deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage as determined by Decision 2010/2/EU unless the competent authority is satisfied that the consumer of the measurable heat belongs to a sector or subsector deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage as determined by Decision 2010/2/EU.\n2. The sum of the inputs, outputs and emissions of each sub-installation shall not exceed the inputs, outputs and total emissions of the installation.\nArticle 7\nBaseline data collection\n1. For each incumbent installation eligible for the free allocation of emission allowances under Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC, including installations that are operated only occasionally, in particular, installations that are kept in reserve or on standby and installations operating on a seasonal schedule, Member States shall, for all years of the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2008, or 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2010 where applicable, during which the installation has been operating, collect from the operator all relevant information and data regarding each parameter listed in Annex IV.\n2. Member States shall collect data for each sub-installation separately. If necessary, Member States may require the operator to submit more data.\nWhere 95 % of the inputs, outputs and corresponding emissions of the heat benchmark sub-installation, of the fuel benchmark sub-installation or of the process emissions sub-installation, serve sectors or subsectors deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage as determined by Decision 2010/2/EU or where 95 % of the inputs, outputs and corresponding emissions of the heat benchmark sub-installation, of the fuel benchmark sub-installation or of the process emissions sub-installation serve sectors or subsectors not deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage, Member States may exempt the operator from providing data allowing for the distinction in terms of carbon leakage exposure.\n3. Member States shall require the operator to submit the initial installed capacity of each product benchmark sub-installation, determined as follows:\n(a)\nin principle, the initial installed capacity shall be the average of the 2 highest monthly production volumes in the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2008 assuming that the sub-installation has been operating at this load 720 hours per month for 12 months per year;\n(b)\nWhere it is not possible to determine the initial installed capacity according to point (a), an experimental verification of the sub-installation\u2019s capacity under the supervision of a verifier shall take place in order to ensure that the parameters used are typical for the sector concerned and that the results of the experimental verification are representative.\n4. Where a sub-installation has had a significant capacity change between 1 January 2005 and 30 June 2011, Member States shall require the operator to submit in addition to the initial installed capacity of that sub-installation, determined in accordance with paragraph 3, until the start of changed operation, the added or, where applicable, the reduced capacity as well as the installed capacity of the sub-installation after having had a significant capacity change determined on the basis of the average of the 2 highest monthly production volumes within the first 6 months following the start of changed operation. Member States shall consider this installed capacity of the sub-installation after having had a significant capacity change as the sub-installation\u2019s initial installed capacity when assessing any further significant capacity change.\n5. Member States shall obtain, record and document data in a manner that enables an appropriate use of it by the competent authority.\nMember States may require the operator to use an electronic template or specify a file format for submission of the data. However, Member States shall accept an operator\u2019s use of any electronic template or file format specification published by the Commission for the purpose of data collection under this Article, unless the Member State\u2019s template or file format specification requires at least input of the same data.\n6. Inputs, outputs and corresponding emissions for which only data for the installation as a whole is available, shall be proportionally attributed to the relevant sub-installations, as follows:\n(a)\nwhere different products are produced one after the other in the same production line, inputs, outputs and corresponding emissions shall be attributed sequentially based on the usage time per year for each sub-installation;\n(b)\nwhere it is not possible to attribute inputs, outputs and corresponding emissions according to point (a), they shall be attributed based on the mass or volume of individual products produced or estimates based on the ratio of free reaction enthalpies of the chemical reactions involved or based on another suitable distribution key that is corroborated by a sound scientific methodology.\n7. Member States shall require operators to submit complete and consistent data and to ensure that there are no overlaps between sub-installations and no double counting. Member States shall, in particular, ensure that operators exercise due diligence and submit data that presents highest achievable accuracy so as to enable reasonable assurance of the integrity of data.\nTo this end, Member States shall ensure that each operator also submits a methodology report containing, in particular, a description of the installation, the compilation methodology applied, different data sources, calculation steps and, where applicable, assumptions made and the methodology applied to attribute emissions to the relevant sub-installations in accordance with paragraph 6. Member States may order the operator to demonstrate the accuracy and completeness of the data provided.\n8. Where data is missing, Member States shall require the operator to duly justify any lack of data.\nMember States shall require the operator to substitute all missing data with conservative estimates, in particular, based on best industry practice, recent scientific and technical knowledge before or, at the latest, during verification by the verifier.\nWhere data are partly available, conservative estimate means that the value extrapolated shall be not more than 90 % of the value obtained by using the data available.\nWhere no data on measurable heat flows for the heat benchmark sub-installation is available, a proxy value may be derived from the corresponding energy input multiplied by the measured efficiency of the heat production as verified by a verifier. In case no such efficiency data is available, a reference efficiency of 70 % shall be applied on the corresponding energy input of the production of measurable heat.\n9. Upon request, each Member State shall make the data collected on the basis of paragraph 1 to 6 available to the Commission.\nArticle 8\nVerification\n1. In the process of collecting data in accordance with Article 7, Member States shall only accept data that has been verified as satisfactory by a verifier. The verification process shall relate to the methodology report and the reported parameters referred to in Article 7 and Annex IV. The verification shall address the reliability, credibility and accuracy of the data provided by the operator and shall come to a verification opinion that states with reasonable assurance whether the data submitted is free from material misstatements.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the verifier is independent of the operator, carries out his activities in a sound and objective professional manner, and understands each of the following:\n(a)\nthe provisions of this Decision, as well as relevant standards and guidance;\n(b)\nthe legislative, regulatory, and administrative requirements relevant to the activities being verified;\n(c)\nthe generation of all information related to each parameter or source of emissions in the installation, in particular, relating to the collection, measurement, calculation and reporting of the data.\n3. In addition to the requirements set out in Decision 2007/589/EC, Member States shall ensure that all of the following minimum requirements are met:\n(a)\nthe verifier has planned and performed the verification with an attitude of professional scepticism recognising that circumstances may exist that cause the information and data submitted to be materially misstated;\n(b)\nthe verifier has only validated reported parameters determined with a high degree of certainty. A high degree of certainty requires the operator to show that:\n(i)\nthe reported parameters are free of inconsistencies;\n(ii)\nthe collection of the parameters has been carried out in accordance with applicable standards or guidance;\n(iii)\nthe relevant records of the installation are complete and consistent;\n(c)\nthe verifier has commenced the verification process with a strategic analysis of all relevant activities carried out in the installation and has an overview of all the activities and their significance for allocation purposes;\n(d)\nthe verifier has taken account of the information contained in the greenhouse gas emissions permit or other relevant environmental permits, such as the permit provided for in Directive 2008/1/EC, in particular when assessing the initial installed capacity of sub-installations;\n(e)\nthe verifier has analysed the inherent risks and control risks related to the scope and complexity of the operator\u2019s activities and related to allocation parameters, which could lead to material misstatements and has drawn up a verification plan following this risk analysis;\n(f)\nthe verifier has conducted a site visit, when appropriate, to inspect the operation of meters and monitoring systems, conduct interviews, and collect sufficient information and evidence. If the verifier has deemed a site visit is not appropriate, he should be able to fully justify his decision to an appropriate authority;\n(g)\nthe verifier has carried out the verification plan by gathering data in accordance with the defined sampling methods, walkthrough tests, document reviews, analytical procedures and data review procedures, including any relevant additional evidence, upon which the verifier\u2019s verification opinion will be based;\n(h)\nthe verifier has requested the operator to provide any missing data or complete missing sections of audit trails, explain variations in parameters or emissions data, or revise calculations, or adjust reported data;\n(i)\nthe verifier has prepared an internal verification report. The verification report shall record evidence showing that the strategic analysis, the risk analysis and the verification plan has been performed in full, and provide sufficient information to support verification opinions. The internal verification report shall as well facilitate a potential evaluation of the audit by the competent authority, and accreditation body;\n(j)\nthe verifier has made a judgment with respect to whether the reported parameters contain any material misstatement and whether there are other issues relevant for the verification opinion based on the findings contained in the internal verification report;\n(k)\nthe verifier has presented the verification methodology, his findings and verification opinion in a verification report, addressed to the operator, to be submitted by the operator with the methodology report and the reported parameters to the competent authority.\n4. Member States shall not allocate emission allowances free of charge to an installation where data relating to this installation has not been verified as satisfactory.\nMember States may only decide to allocate emission allowances free of charge to an installation where data relating to this installation has not been verified as satisfactory, if they are satisfied that the data gaps leading to the verifier\u2019s judgment are due to exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all due care had been exercised and that are beyond the control of the operator of the installation concerned, in particular because of circumstances such as natural disasters, war, threats of war, terrorist acts, revolution, riot, sabotage or acts of vandalism.\n5. Upon verification, Member States shall, in particular, ensure that there are no overlaps between sub-installations and no double counting.\nArticle 9\nHistorical activity level\n1. For incumbent installations, Member States shall determine historical activity levels of each installation for the baseline period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2008, or, where they are higher, for the baseline period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2010, on the basis of the data collected under Article 7.\n2. The product-related historical activity level shall, for each product for which a product benchmark has been determined as referred to in Annex I, refer to the median annual historical production of this product in the installation concerned during the baseline period.\n3. The heat-related historical activity level shall refer to the median annual historical import from an installation covered by the Union scheme, production, or both, during the baseline period, of measurable heat consumed within the installation\u2019s boundaries for the production of products, for the production of mechanical energy other than used for the production of electricity, for heating or cooling with the exception of the consumption for the production of electricity, or exported to installations or other entity not covered by the Union scheme with the exception of the export for the production of electricity expressed as terajoule per year.\n4. The fuel-related historical activity level shall refer to the median annual historical consumption of fuels used for the production of non-measurable heat consumed for the production of products, for the production of mechanical energy other than used for the production of electricity, for heating or cooling with the exception of the consumption for the production of electricity, including safety flaring, during the baseline period expressed as terajoule per year.\n5. For process emissions, which occurred in relation with the production of products in the installation concerned during the baseline period referred to in paragraph 1, the process-related historical activity level shall refer to the median annual historical process emissions expressed as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.\n6. For the purposes of the determination of the median values referred to in paragraphs 1 to 5 only calendar years during which the installation has been operating for at least 1 day shall be taken into account.\nIf the installation has been operating less than 2 calendar years during the relevant baseline period, the historical activity levels shall be calculated on the basis of the initial installed capacity determined in accordance with the methodology set out in Article 7(3) of each sub-installation multiplied by the relevant capacity utilisation factor determined in accordance with Article 18(2).\n7. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, Member States shall determine the product-related historical activity level for products to which the product benchmarks referred to in Annex III apply on the basis of the median annual historical production according to the formulas set out in this same Annex.\n8. Incumbent installations that are operated only occasionally, including, in particular, installations that are kept in reserve or on standby and installations operating on a seasonal schedule and that have not been operating for at least 1 day in a given calendar year during the baseline period, shall be taken into account when determining the median values referred to in paragraph 1, where all of the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nit is clearly demonstrated that the installation is used occasionally, in particular, operated regularly as standby or reserve capacity or operated regularly following a seasonal schedule;\n(b)\nthe installation is covered by a greenhouse gas emissions permit and by all other relevant permits required in the national legal order of the Member State to operate the installation;\n(c)\nit is technically possible to start operation on short notice and maintenance is carried out on a regular basis.\n9. Where an incumbent installation has had a significant capacity extension or a significant reduction of capacity between 1 January 2005 and 30 June 2011, the historical activity levels of the installation concerned shall be the sum of the median values determined in accordance with paragraph 1 without the significant capacity change and the historical activity levels of the added or reduced capacity.\nThe historical activity levels of the added or reduced capacity shall be the difference between the initial installed capacities of each sub-installation having had a significant capacity change determined in accordance with Article 7(3) until the start of changed operation and the installed capacity after the significant capacity change determined in accordance with Article 7(4) multiplied by the average historical capacity utilisation of the installation concerned of the years prior to the start of changed operation.\nArticle 10\nAllocation at installation level\n1. Based on the data collected in accordance with Article 7, Member States shall, for each year, calculate the number of emission allowances allocated free of charge from 2013 onwards to each incumbent installation on their territory in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 8.\n2. For the purpose of this calculation, Member States shall first determine the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge for each sub-installation separately as follows:\n(a)\nfor each product benchmark sub-installation, the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a given year shall correspond to the value of this product benchmark as referred to in Annex I multiplied by the relevant product-related historical activity level;\n(b)\nfor:\n(i)\nthe heat benchmark sub-installation, the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a given year shall correspond to the value of the heat benchmark for measurable heat as referred to in Annex I multiplied by the heat-related historical activity level for the consumption of measurable heat;\n(ii)\nthe fuel benchmark sub-installation, the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a given year shall correspond to the value of the fuel benchmark as referred to in Annex I multiplied by the fuel-related historical activity level for the fuel consumed;\n(iii)\nthe process emissions sub-installation, the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a given year shall correspond to the process-related historical activity level multiplied by 0,9700.\n3. To the extent that measurable heat is exported to private households and the preliminary annual number of emission allowances determined in accordance with paragraph 2(b), point (i), for 2013 is lower than the median annual historical emissions related to the production of measurable heat exported to private households by that sub-installation in the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2008, the preliminary annual number of emission allowances for 2013 shall be adjusted by the difference. In each of the years 2014 to 2020, the preliminary annual number of emission allowances determined in accordance with paragraph 2(b), point (i), shall be adjusted to the extent that the preliminary annual number of emission allowances for that year is lower than a percentage of the abovementioned median annual historical emissions. This percentage shall be 90 % in 2014 and decline by 10 percentage points each subsequent year.\n4. For the purpose of implementing Article 10a(11) of Directive 2003/87/EC, the factors referred to in Annex VI shall be applied to the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge determined for each sub-installation pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article for the year concerned where the processes in those sub-installations serve sectors or subsectors deemed not to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage as determined by Decision 2010/2/EU.\nWhere the processes in those sub-installations serve sectors or subsectors deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage as determined by Decision 2010/2/EU, the factor to be applied for the years 2013 and 2014 shall be 1. The sectors or subsectors for which the factor is 1 for the years 2015 to 2020 shall be determined pursuant to Article 10a(13) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n5. Where at least 95 % of the historical activity level of the heat benchmark sub-installation, of the fuel benchmark sub-installation or of the process emissions sub-installation serve sectors or subsectors deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage as determined by Decision 2010/2/EU, the sub-installation as a whole is deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage.\nWhere at least 95 % of the historical activity level of the heat benchmark sub-installation, of the fuel benchmark sub-installation or of the process emissions sub-installation serve sectors or subsectors not deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage as determined by Decision 2010/2/EU, the sub-installation as a whole is not deemed to be exposed to a significant risk carbon leakage.\n6. The preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge for sub-installations that received measurable heat from sub-installations producing products covered by the nitric acid benchmarks referred to in Annex I shall be reduced by the annual historical consumption of that heat during the baseline period referred to in Article 9(1) multiplied by the value of the heat benchmark for this measurable heat as referred to in Annex I.\n7. The preliminary total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for each installation shall be the sum of all sub-installations\u2019 preliminary annual numbers of emission allowances allocated free of charge calculated in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.\nWhere an installation encompasses sub-installations producing pulp (short fibre kraft pulp, long fibre kraft pulp, thermo-mechanical pulp and mechanical pulp, sulphite pulp or other pulp not covered by a product benchmark) exporting measurable heat to other technically connected sub-installations, the preliminary total amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge shall, without prejudice to the preliminary annual numbers of emission allowances allocated free of charge for other sub-installations of the installation concerned, only take into account the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge to the extent that pulp products produced by this sub-installation are placed on the market and not processed into paper in the same or other technically connected installations.\n8. When determining the preliminary total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for each installation, Member States shall ensure that emissions are not double counted and that the allocation is not negative. In particular, where an intermediate product that is covered by a product benchmark according to the definition of the respective system boundaries set out in Annex I is imported by an installation, emissions shall not be double counted when determining the preliminary total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for both installations concerned.\n9. The final total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for each incumbent installation, except for installations covered by Article 10a(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC, shall be the preliminary total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for each installation determined in accordance with paragraph 7 multiplied by the cross-sectoral correction factor as determined in accordance with Article 15(3).\nFor installations covered by Article 10a(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC and eligible for the allocation of free emission allowances, the final total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge shall correspond to the preliminary total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for each installation determined in accordance with paragraph 7 annually adjusted by the linear factor referred to in Article 10a(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC, using the preliminary total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for the installation concerned for 2013 as a reference.\nArticle 11\nAllocation in respect of steam cracking\nBy way of derogation from Article 10(2)(a), the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a product benchmark sub-installation relating to the production of high value chemicals (hereinafter \u2018HVC\u2019) shall correspond to the value of the steam cracking product benchmark referred to in Annex I multiplied by the historical activity level determined in accordance with Annex III and multiplied by the quotient of the total direct emissions including emissions from net imported heat over the baseline period referred to in Article 9(1) of this Decision expressed as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and the sum of these total direct emissions and the relevant indirect emissions over the baseline period referred to in Article 9(1) of this Decision calculated in accordance with Article 14(2) To the result of this calculation, 1,78 tonnes of carbon dioxide per ton of hydrogen times the median historical production of hydrogen from supplemental feed expressed in tons of hydrogen, 0,24 tonnes of carbon dioxide per ton of ethylene times the median historical production of ethylene from supplemental feed expressed in tons of ethylene and 0,16 tonnes of carbon dioxide per ton of HVC times the median historical production of other high value chemicals than hydrogen and ethylene from supplemental feed expressed in tons of HVC shall be added.\nArticle 12\nAllocation in respect of vinyl chloride monomer\nBy way of derogation from Article 10(2)(a), the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a sub-installation relating to the production of vinyl chloride monomer (hereinafter \u2018VCM\u2019) shall correspond to the value of the VCM benchmark multiplied by the historical activity level for VCM production expressed as tonnes and multiplied by the quotient of the direct emissions for the production of VCM including emissions from net imported heat over the baseline period referred to in Article 9(1) of this Decision, calculated in accordance with Article 14(2), expressed as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and the sum of these direct emissions and the hydrogen-related emissions for the production of VCM over the baseline period referred to in Article 9(1) of this Decision expressed as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent calculated on the basis of the historical heat consumption stemming from hydrogen combustion expressed as terajoules (TJ) times 56,1 tonnes of carbon dioxide per TJ.\nArticle 13\nHeat flows between installations\nWhere a product-benchmark sub-installation encompasses measurable heat imported from an installation or other entity not included in the Union scheme, the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge for the product benchmark sub-installation concerned determined pursuant to Article 10(2)(a) shall be reduced by the amount of heat historically imported from an installation or other entity not included in the Union scheme in the year concerned multiplied by the value of the heat benchmark for measurable heat set out in Annex I.\nArticle 14\nExchangeability of fuel and electricity\n1. For each product benchmark sub-installation referred to in Annex I with consideration of exchangeability of fuel and electricity, the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge shall correspond to the value of the relevant product benchmark set out in Annex I multiplied by the product-related historical activity level and multiplied by the quotient of the total direct emissions including emissions from net imported heat over the baseline period referred to in Article 9(1) of this Decision expressed as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and the sum of these total direct emissions and the relevant indirect emissions over the baseline period referred to in Article 9(1) of this Decision.\n2. For the purposes of the calculation pursuant to paragraph 1, the relevant indirect emissions refer to the relevant electricity consumption as specified in the definition of processes and emissions covered in Annex I during the baseline period referred to in Article 9(1) of this Decision expressed in megawatt-hours for the production of the product concerned times 0,465 tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour and expressed as tonnes of carbon dioxide.\nFor the purposes of the calculation pursuant to paragraph 1, the emissions from net imported heat refer to the amount of measurable heat for the production of the product concerned imported from installations covered by the Union scheme during the baseline period referred to in Article 9(1) of this Decision multiplied by the value of the heat benchmark as referred to in Annex I.\nCHAPTER III\nALLOCATION DECISIONS\nArticle 15\nNational Implementation measures\n1. In accordance with Article 11(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, Member States shall submit to the Commission by 30 September 2011 a list of installations covered by Directive 2003/87/EC in their territory, including installations identified pursuant to Article 5, using an electronic template provided by the Commission.\n2. The list referred to in paragraph 1 shall for each incumbent installation contain, in particular:\n(a)\nan identification of the installation and its boundaries using the installation identification code in the CITL;\n(b)\nan identification of each sub-installation of an installation;\n(c)\nfor each product benchmark sub-installation the initial installed capacity together with the annual production volumes of the product concerned in the period 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2008;\n(d)\nfor each installation and sub-installation information on whether or not it belongs to a sector or subsector deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage as determined by Decision 2010/2/EU;\n(e)\nfor each sub-installation the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge over the period from 2013 to 2020 as determined in accordance with Article 10(2);\n(f)\nin addition to point (d), for sub-installations not serving a sector or subsector deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage as determined by Decision 2010/2/EU, the preliminary annual numbers of emission allowances allocated free of charge over the period from 2013 to 2020 decreasing by equal amounts from 80 % of the quantity in 2013 to 30 % in 2020 as determined in accordance with Article 10(4);\n(g)\nfor each installation the preliminary total annual amounts of emission allowances allocated free of charge over the period from 2013 to 2020 as determined in accordance with Article 10(6).\nThe list shall also identify all heat producing electricity generators, and small installations that may be excluded from the Union scheme pursuant to Article 27 of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n3. Upon receipt of the list referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the Commission shall assess the inclusion of each installation in the list and the related preliminary total annual amounts of emission allowances allocated free of charge.\nAfter notification by all Member States of the preliminary total annual amounts of emission allowances allocated free of charge over the period from 2013 to 2020, the Commission shall determine the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor as referred to in Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC. It shall be determined by comparing the sum of the preliminary total annual amounts of emission allowances allocated free of charge to installations that are not electricity generators in each year over the period from 2013 to 2020 without application of the factors referred to in Annex VI with the annual amount of allowances that is calculated in accordance with Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC for installations that are not electricity generator or new entrants, taking into account the relevant share of the annual Union-wide total quantity, as determined pursuant to Article 9 of that Directive, and the relevant amount of emissions which are only included in the Union scheme from 2013 onwards.\n4. If the Commission does not reject an installation\u2019s inscription on this list, including the corresponding preliminary total annual amounts of emission allowances allocated free of charge for this installation, the Member State concerned shall proceed to the determination of the final annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for each year over the period from 2013 to 2020 in accordance with Article 10(9) of this Decision.\n5. After determination of the final annual amount for all incumbent installations in their territory, Member States shall submit to the Commission a list of the final annual amounts of emission allowances allocated free of charge over the period from 2013 to 2020 as determined in accordance with Article 10(9).\nArticle 16\nChanges to carbon leakage exposure\nWithin 3 months of the adoption of the list referred to in Article 10a(13) of Directive 2003/87/EC for the years 2015 to 2020 or of the adoption of any addition to the list determined by Commission Decision 2010/2/EU for the years 2013 and 2014, each Member State shall revise the list referred to in Article 15(1) of this Decision clearly indicating the changes to the deemed carbon leakage exposure of installations and sub-installations and the related preliminary annual amount of free allocation where applicable and submit that list to the Commission.\nCHAPTER IV\nNEW ENTRANTS AND CLOSURES\nArticle 17\nApplication for free allocation\n1. Upon application by a new entrant, Member States shall determine on the basis of the present rules the amount of allowances to be allocated free of charge once the installation concerned has started normal operation and its initial installed capacity has been determined.\n2. Member States shall only accept applications that are submitted to the competent authority within 1 year following the start of normal operation of the installation or sub-installation concerned.\n3. Member States shall divide the installation concerned in sub-installations in accordance with Article 6 of this Decision and shall require the operator to submit together with the application referred to in paragraph 1 all relevant information and data regarding each parameter listed in Annex V for each sub-installation separately to the competent authority. If necessary, Member States may require the operator to submit more disaggregated data.\n4. For installations referred to in Article 3(h) of Directive 2003/87/EC, with the exception of installations that have had a significant extension after 30 June 2011, Member States shall require the operator to determine the initial installed capacity for each sub-installation according to the methodology set out in Article 7(3) using the continuous 90-day period on the basis of which the start of normal operation is determined as a reference. Member States shall approve this initial installed capacity of each sub-installation before calculating the allocation to the installation.\n5. Member States shall only accept data submitted pursuant to this Article that has been verified as satisfactory by a verifier, in accordance with the requirements set out in Article 8, to ensure that reliable and correct data is reported.\nArticle 18\nActivity levels\n1. For installations referred to in Article 3(h) of Directive 2003/87/EC, with the exception of installations that have had a significant extension after 30 June 2011, Member States shall determine activity levels of each installation as follows:\n(a)\nthe product-related activity level shall, for each product for which a product benchmark has been determined as referred to in Annex I, be the initial installed capacity for the production of this product of the installation concerned multiplied by the standard capacity utilisation factor;\n(b)\nthe heat-related activity level shall be the initial installed capacity for the import from installations covered by the Union scheme, production, or both, of measurable heat consumed within the installation\u2019s boundaries for the production of products, for the production of mechanical energy other than used for the production of electricity, for heating or cooling with the exception of the consumption for the production of electricity, or exported to an installation or other entity not covered by the Union scheme with the exception of the export for the production of electricity multiplied by the relevant capacity utilisation factor;\n(c)\nthe fuel-related activity level shall be the initial installed capacity for the consumption of fuels used for the production of non-measurable heat consumed for the production of products, for the production of mechanical energy other than used for the production of electricity, for heating or cooling with the exception of the consumption for the production of electricity, including safety flaring, of the installation concerned multiplied by the relevant capacity utilisation factor;\n(d)\nthe process emissions-related activity level shall be the initial installed capacity for the production of process emissions of the process unit multiplied by the relevant capacity utilisation factor.\n2. The standard capacity utilisation factor referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be determined and published by the Commission on the basis of the data collection carried out by Member States in accordance with Article 7 of this Decision. For each product benchmark set out in Annex I, it shall be the 80-percentile of the average annual capacity utilisation factors of all installations producing the product concerned. The average annual capacity utilisation factor of each installation producing the product concerned shall correspond to the average annual production of the period 2005 to 2008 divided by the initial installed capacity.\nThe relevant capacity utilisation factor referred to in paragraphs 1(b) to (d) shall be determined by Member States on the basis of duly substantiated and independently verified information on the installation\u2019s intended normal operation, maintenance, common production cycle, energy efficient techniques and typical capacity utilisation in the sector concerned compared to sector-specific information.\nWhen determining the relevant capacity utilisation factor referred to in paragraph 1(d) in accordance with the previous sentence, Member States shall also take account of duly substantiated and independently verified information on the emission intensity of the input and greenhouse gas efficient techniques.\n3. For installations which had a significant capacity extension after 30 June 2011, Member States shall determine in accordance with paragraph 1 the activity levels only for the added capacity of the sub-installations to which the significant capacity extension relates.\nFor installations which had a significant capacity reduction after 30 June 2011, Member States shall determine in accordance with paragraph 1 the activity levels only for the reduced capacity of the sub-installations to which the significant capacity reduction relates.\nArticle 19\nAllocation to new entrants\n1. For the purposes of the allocation of emission allowances to new entrants, with the exception of allocations to installations referred to in the third indent of Article 3(h) of Directive 2003/87/EC, Member States shall calculate the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge as of the start of normal operation of the installation for each sub-installation separately, as follows:\n(a)\nfor each product benchmark sub-installation, the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a given year shall correspond to the value of that product benchmark multiplied by the product-related activity level;\n(b)\nfor each heat benchmark sub-installation, the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge shall correspond to the value of the heat benchmark for this measurable heat as referred to in Annex I multiplied by the heat-related activity level;\n(c)\nfor each fuel benchmark sub-installation, the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge shall correspond to the value of the fuel benchmark as referred to in Annex I multiplied by the fuel-related activity level;\n(d)\nfor each process emissions sub-installation, the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a given year shall correspond to the process-related activity level multiplied by 0,9700.\nArticles 10(4) to (6) and (8), 11, 12, 13 and 14 of this Decision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge.\n2. For independently verified emissions of the new entrant which occurred prior to the start of normal operation, additional allowances shall be allocated on the basis of historic emissions expressed as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.\n3. The preliminary total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge shall be the sum of all sub-installations\u2019 preliminary annual numbers of emission allowances allocated free of charge calculated in accordance with paragraph 1 and the additional allowances referred to in paragraph 2. The second sentence of Article 10(7) shall apply.\n4. Member States shall notify to the Commission without delay the preliminary total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge. Emission allowances from the new entrants reserve created pursuant to Article 10a(7) of Directive 2003/87/EC shall be allocated on a first come, first served basis with regard to the receipt of this notification.\nThe Commission may reject the preliminary total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for the installation concerned. If the Commission does not reject this preliminary total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge, the Member State concerned shall proceed to the determination of the final annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge.\n5. The final annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge shall correspond to the preliminary total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for each installation determined in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article annually adjusted by the linear reduction factor referred to in Article 10a(7) of Directive 2003/87/EC, using the preliminary total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for the installation concerned for 2013 as a reference.\n6. When half of the amount of allowances set aside for new entrants pursuant to Article 10a(7) of Directive 2003/87/EC, notwithstanding the amount of allowances available pursuant to Article 10a(8) of Directive 2003/87/EC, is issued or to be issued until 2020 to new entrants, the Commission shall assess whether a queuing system should be put in place to ensure that access to the reserve is managed in a fair way.\nArticle 20\nAllocation as new entrant following a significant capacity extension\n1. Where an installation has had a significant capacity extension after 30 June 2011, Member States shall, upon application by the operator and without prejudice to the allocation to an installation pursuant to Article 10, determine on the basis of the methodology set out in Article 19 the number of free emission allowances to be allocated, in so far as the extension is concerned.\n2. Member States shall require the operator to submit together with the application evidence demonstrating that the criteria for a significant capacity extension have been met and to provide the information referred to in Article 17(3) to support any allocation decision. In particular, Member States shall require the operator to submit the added capacity and the installed capacity of the sub-installation after having had a significant capacity extension verified as satisfactory by a verifier, in accordance with the requirements set out in Article 8. Member States shall consider this installed capacity of the sub-installation after having had a significant capacity extension as the sub-installation\u2019s initial installed capacity when assessing any subsequent significant capacity change.\nArticle 21\nSignificant capacity reduction\n1. Where an installation has had a significant capacity reduction after 30 June 2011, Member States shall determine the amount by which the number of allowances to be allocated for free is reduced, in so far as this reduction is concerned. To this end, the Member States shall require the operator to submit the reduced capacity and the installed capacity of the sub-installation after having had a significant capacity reduction verified as satisfactory by a verifier, in accordance with the requirements set out in Article 8. Member States shall consider this installed capacity of the sub-installation after having had a significant capacity reduction as the sub-installation\u2019s initial installed capacity when assessing any subsequent significant capacity change.\n2. Member States shall reduce the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge for each sub-installation by the preliminary annual number of emission allowances allocated free of charge for the sub-installation concerned calculated in accordance with Article 19(1) in so far as the significant capacity reduction is concerned.\nMember States shall then determine the preliminary total annual amount of the installation concerned according to the methodology applied to determine the preliminary total annual amount prior to the significant capacity reduction and the final total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge to the installation concerned in accordance with Article 10(9).\n3. The allocation to the installation shall be adjusted accordingly as of the year following the one during which the capacity reduction took place or as of 2013, if the significant capacity reduction took place before 1 January 2013.\nArticle 22\nCessation of operations of an installation\n1. An installation is deemed to have ceased operations, where any of the following conditions is met:\n(a)\nthe greenhouse gas emissions permit, the permit in force in accordance with Directive 2008/1/EC or any other relevant environmental permit has expired;\n(b)\nthe permits referred to under point (a) have been withdrawn;\n(c)\noperation of the installation is technically impossible;\n(d)\nthe installation is not operating, but has been operating before and it is technically impossible to resume operation;\n(e)\nthe installation is not operating, but has been operating before and the operator cannot establish that this installation will resume operation at the latest within 6 months after having ceased operations. Member States may extent this period up to a maximum of 18 months if the operator can establish that the installation cannot resume operation within 6 months due to exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all due care had been exercised and that are beyond the control of the operator of the installation concerned, in particular because of circumstances such as natural disasters, war, threats of war, terrorist acts, revolution, riot, sabotage or acts of vandalism.\n2. Paragraph 1(e) shall not apply to installations that are kept in reserve or standby and installations that are operated on a seasonal schedule, where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe operator holds a greenhouse gas emissions permit and all other relevant permits;\n(b)\nit is technically possible to start operations without making physical changes to the installation;\n(c)\nregular maintenance is carried out.\n3. Where an installation has ceased operation, the Member State concerned shall not issue emission allowances to this installation as of the year following the cessation of operations.\n4. Member States may suspend the issuance of the emission allowances to installations referred to in paragraph 1(e) as long as it is not established that the installation will resume operations.\nArticle 23\nPartial cessation of operations of an installation\n1. An installation is deemed to have partially ceased operations, provided that one sub-installation, which contributes to at least 30 % of the installation\u2019s final annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge or to the allocation of more than 50 000 allowances, reduces its activity level in a given calendar year by at least 50 % compared to the activity level used for calculating the sub-installation\u2019s allocation in accordance with Article 9 or, where applicable, with Article 18 (hereinafter \u2018initial activity level\u2019).\n2. The allocation of emission allowances to an installation that partially ceases operations shall be adjusted as of the year following the year during which it partially ceased operations or as of 2013, if the partial cessation took place before 1 January 2013, as follows:\nif the activity level of the sub-installation referred to in paragraph 1 is reduced by 50 % to 75 % compared to the initial activity level, the sub-installation shall only receive half of the initially allocated allowances;\nif the activity level of the sub-installation referred to in paragraph 1 is reduced by 75 % to 90 % compared to the initial activity level, the sub-installation shall only receive 25 % of the initially allocated allowances;\nif the activity level of the sub-installation referred to in paragraph 1 is reduced by 90 % or more compared to the initial activity level, no allowances shall be allocated free of charge in respect of the sub-installation concerned.\n3. If the activity level of the sub-installation referred to in paragraph 1 reaches an activity level of more than 50 % compared to the initial activity level, the installation having partially ceased operations shall receive the allowances initially allocated to it as of the year following the calendar year during which the activity level exceeded the threshold of 50 %.\n4. If the activity level of the sub-installation referred to in paragraph 1 reaches an activity level of more than 25 % compared to the initial activity level, the installation having partially ceased operations shall receive half of the allowances initially allocated to it as of the year following the calendar year during which the activity level exceeded the threshold of 25 %.\nArticle 24\nChanges to the operation of an installation\n1. Member States shall ensure that all relevant information about any planned or effective changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of an installation is submitted by the operator to the competent authority by 31 December of each year.\n2. Where there is a change to an installation\u2019s capacity, activity level or operation which has an impact on the installation\u2019s allocation, Member States shall submit, using an electronic template provided by the Commission, all relevant information, including the revised preliminary total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for the installation concerned determined in accordance with this Decision, to the Commission before determining the final total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge. The Commission may reject the revised preliminary total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for the installation concerned.\nCHAPTER V\nFINAL PROVISION\nArticle 25\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2011.", "references": ["8", "47", "39", "52", "33", "43", "97", "67", "46", "15", "21", "57", "83", "68", "16", "65", "13", "42", "2", "20", "95", "85", "64", "10", "96", "81", "84", "44", "29", "37", "No Label", "58", "60"], "gold": ["58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 287/2011\nof 21 March 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tungsten carbide, tungsten carbide simply mixed with metallic powder and fused tungsten carbide originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 9(4) and 11(2), 5 and 6 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EEC) No 2737/90 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 33 % on imports of tungsten carbide and fused tungsten carbide originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019). By Decision 90/480/EEC (3) the Commission accepted undertakings given by two major exporters concerning the product subject to measures.\n(2)\nFollowing the withdrawal of the undertakings by the two Chinese exporters concerned, the Commission imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2286/94 (4) a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of the product concerned.\n(3)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 610/95 (5), the Council amended Regulation (EEC) No 2737/90 and imposed a definitive duty of 33 % on imports of tungsten carbide and fused tungsten carbide. Following a review which had been initiated pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation (\u2018the previous review investigation\u2019), these measures were extended for another five-year period by Council Regulation (EC) No 771/98 (6).\n(4)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 2268/2004 (7), following an expiry review, the Council imposed an anti-dumping duty of 33 % on imports of tungsten carbide and fused tungsten carbide originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019).\n(5)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1275/2005 (8), the Council amended the definition of the product scope to also cover tungsten carbide simply mixed with metallic powder.\n2. Request for a review\n(6)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry (9) of the definitive anti-dumping measures in force, the Commission received on 30 September 2009 a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged by the European Association of Metals (Eurometaux) (\u2018the applicants\u2019) on behalf of Union producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 85 %, of the total Union production of tungsten carbide, tungsten carbide simply mixed with metallic powder and fused tungsten carbide.\n(7)\nThe request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Union industry.\n3. Initiation\n(8)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 30 December 2009, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (10) (\u2018the notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n4. Investigation\n4.1. Investigation period\n(9)\nThe investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the RIP (\u2018the period considered\u2019).\n4.2. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(10)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicant, other known Union producers, exporting producers, importers and users known to be concerned, producers in the analogue country and the representatives of the PRC of the initiation of the expiry review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(11)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(12)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to those who made themselves known within the deadlines set in the Notice of initiation. Replies were received from seven Union producers, one exporting producer in the PRC, one exporting producer in the analogue country and three users.\n(13)\nNone of the importers replied to the sampling exercise nor supplied the Commission with any information or made themselves known in the course of the investigation. As only one exporting producer from the PRC came forward with the requested information, it was not necessary to select a sample.\n(14)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for a determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nUnion producers\n-\nWolfram Bergbau und H\u00fctten-GmbH Nfg.KG., St Peter, Austria\n-\nH. C. Starck GmbH & Co. KG, Goslar, Germany\n-\nEurotungst\u00e8ne poudres S.A., Grenoble, France\n-\nGlobal Tungsten & Powders spol. s.r.o, Brunt\u00e1l, Czech Republic\n-\nTreibacher Industrie AG, Althofen, Austria\n(b)\nAnalogue Country\n-\nGlobal Tungsten & Powders Corp., USA\n(c)\nUser\n-\nSandvik Hard Materials, Epinouze, France\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(15)\nThe product concerned by the present review is tungsten carbide, tungsten carbide simply mixed with metallic powder and fused tungsten carbide originating in the PRC and currently falling within CN codes 2849 90 30 and ex 3824 30 00.\n(16)\nTungsten carbide, tungsten carbide simply mixed with metallic powder and fused tungsten carbide are compounds of carbon and tungsten produced by heat treatment (carburisation in the first case, fusion in the third). These products are intermediate products, used as input materials in the manufacture of hard metal components such as cemented carbide cutting tools and high-wear components, in abrasion-resistant coatings, in bits for oil drilling and mining tools as well as in dies and tips for the drawing and forging of metals.\n(17)\nThe present investigation confirmed that the product concerned manufactured and sold by the exporting producer to the Union is identical in terms of physical and chemical characteristics and uses to the product produced by the Union producers and sold on the Union market or to the one produced and sold in the analogue country and are, therefore, considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION OR A RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(18)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether dumping was currently taking place and, if so, whether or not the expiry of the existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping. It is recalled that in the context of investigation under this Article, market economy treatment (\u2018MET\u2019) is not reconsidered.\n(19)\nAs explained above, it was not necessary to apply sampling in respect of exporting producers in the PRC.\n(20)\nAt the sampling stage, the sole cooperating Chinese exporting producer appeared to represent less that 5 % of total Chinese exports to the Union. The Chinese authorities and the other interested parties were notified of the possibility that Article 18 of the basic Regulation might be applied due to a low level of cooperation by the exporting producers. The Commission did not receive any answer to this communication.\n(21)\nHowever, further in the investigation, in the reply to the questionnaire, the cooperating exporting producer corrected the error in reporting its export sales to the Union and revised upwards its export volume to the Union. In parallel, the volumes of the product concerned exported to the Union from the PRC were further analysed based on Eurostat figures. As a result, and after the verification of the questionnaire reply, it was established that the export volume of the cooperating exporting producer was very high (11). On the basis of these findings, it was concluded that cooperation was high.\n2. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n2.1. Analogue country\n(22)\nSince no exporting producer from PRC was granted MET in the previous investigations, the normal value for China was established in accordance with the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(23)\nIn the notice of initiation, it was envisaged to use the USA as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC. Interested parties were invited to comment on the appropriateness of this choice. No comments or objections were received from any parties in that respect. The USA was used also as an analogue country in the original investigation and no new or changed circumstances which would justify a change appeared to exist nor were any such circumstances communicated to the Commission. It was considered that the USA was representative as a reference market, especially in view of the openness and competitiveness of the US domestic market. In addition, one producer from the USA agreed to cooperate within the present review.\n(24)\nTherefore, the USA has been used as an analogue market economy country for the purpose of this review.\n2.2. Normal value\n(25)\nPursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, normal value was established on the basis of the verified information received from the cooperating US producer in the analogue country, i.e. on the basis of prices paid or payable on the domestic market in the USA, for product types which were found to be sold in the ordinary course of trade.\n(26)\nAs a result, normal value was established as the weighted average domestic sales price to unrelated customers by the cooperating producer in the USA.\n(27)\nIt was first established whether the total domestic sales of the like product to independent customers of the US cooperating producer were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. whether they accounted for 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the product concerned exported to the Union. The domestic sales of the cooperating US producer were found to be sufficiently representative during the review investigation period.\n(28)\nIt was subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of the like product could be regarded as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for the like product sold on the US market the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers during the RIP.\n(29)\nSince the volume of profitable sales of the like product represented less than 80 % of the total sales volume of the like product, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales.\n2.3. Export price\n(30)\nAs explained above, in view of the fact that the cooperating exporting producer represented more than 90 % of total Chinese imports to the Union, the export price was examined on the basis of data provided by that exporting producer, i.e. the duly adjusted price actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Union.\n2.4. Comparison\n(31)\nThe weighted average normal value was compared with the weighted average export price for each type of product concerned, on an ex-works basis, at the same level of trade and the same level of taxation. In accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, and for the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison, differences in factors which were claimed and demonstrated to affect price and price comparability were taken into account. Adjustments were made for ocean and domestic freight, insurance, bank charges and packaging costs. Further, a 5 % adjustment on the export price for the export tax was made and the adjustment for Value Added Tax (VAT) on the normal value.\n2.5. Dumping margin\n(32)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established per product type on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price at the same level of trade. This comparison showed the existence of dumping during the RIP amounting to more than 80 %, hence at a significantly higher level than in the last review investigation (31 %). The precise dumping margin cannot be disclosed due to confidentiality reasons. The calculations have been based on data provided by one exporting producer in the PRC and one producer in the analogue country. Disclosure of the dumping margin would allow both the cooperating exporting producer in the PRC and the producer in the analogue country to deduce respectively the other\u2019s normal value and export price, which would amount to a clear breach of both parties right to confidentiality.\n3. Development of imports should measures be repealed\n3.1. Preliminary remark\n(33)\nThe data included in this section were obtained through the analysis of the data provided by the cooperating exporting producer, by Eurostat and by the review request.\n3.2. Spare capacity of the Chinese exporting producers\n(34)\nData on spare capacity provided by the cooperating Chinese exporting producer were presented with a 20 % increase or decrease to respect confidentiality. The production capacity in the PRC amounted to around 21 000 tonnes in 2006 and 2007 and increased substantially to around 35 000 tonnes in 2008 and the RIP, an increase of more than 80 % over the period considered. These figures can be considered as conservative, as the review request reported a production capacity in the vicinity of 50 000 tonnes.\n(35)\nIn addition the cooperating exporting producer reported a substantial increase in capacity during the period considered.\n(36)\nOn the basis of the information collected during the investigation, the total Chinese production capacity exceeded considerably the actual Chinese production (by at least more than 20 000 tonnes in 2008 and in the RIP).\n(37)\nIn the RIP the PRC had a spare capacity amounting to a six fold of the Union consumption (25 000 tonnes as related to 3 800 tonnes of Union consumption).\n(38)\nIn view of the above, it is clear that a large part of the spare capacity available in the PRC could be used to increase exports to the Union in the absence of anti-dumping measures.\n(39)\nMoreover, information submitted during the investigation indicated important distortions in the raw materials market used to manufacture the product concerned. Firstly, raw materials are subject to quotas granted by the Chinese authorities. Secondly, the Chinese authorities limit the access to raw materials through the imposition of export taxes and VAT rebate policies, which as indicated in recital 31 also applied to the product concerned. These factors constitute additional elements pointing to the likelihood of continuation of dumping in the present case.\n3.3. Attractiveness of the Union market and export prices to third countries\n(40)\nPrice information provided by the cooperating exporter, which cannot be disclosed due to confidentiality reasons, shows that the Union constitutes indeed an interesting market for the Chinese exporting producers. Throughout the period considered the prices achieved on other third-country markets were below (except in 2007) those charged to the Union (roughly between 10 and 20 % lower in different years throughout the period considered).\n(41)\nOn these grounds, it can be concluded that in terms of prices achievable, the EU market is definitely an attractive alternative for the Chinese exporters.\n(42)\nOn that basis, Chinese exporting producers have an incentive to direct their exports to the Union market, should measures be repealed. The high prevailing prices in the Union market would allow the Chinese exporting producers to achieve better profit margins.\n3.4. Circumvention of measures\n(43)\nIn 2005 the measures have been extended to an additional CN code as it was found that Chinese exporters were circumventing the measures by adding small quantities of another metallic powder (mostly cobalt) to tungsten carbide powder (12). This confirmed circumvention practice is yet another element pointing to the conclusion of likelihood of continuation of dumping. It constitutes clear evidence that the European market continues to be attractive for the Chinese exporting producers who would likely direct higher volumes of tungsten carbide into the EU in the absence of anti-dumping measures.\n3.5. Conclusion of the likelihood of continuation of dumping\n(44)\nThe foregoing analysis demonstrates that Chinese imports continued to enter the Union market at dumped prices with very high dumping margins. Given most notably the analysis of price levels on the EU and other third-country markets as well as the capacities available in the PRC, it can be concluded there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping should measures be removed.\nD. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Definition of the Union industry\n(45)\nWithin the Union, the like product is manufactured by seven companies or groups of companies.\n(46)\nThey are therefore deemed to constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will hereinafter be referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\n2. Preliminary remark\n(47)\nData relating to imports of the product concerned into the Union originating in the PRC had to be indexed in order to preserve confidentiality pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation.\n(48)\nRegarding import volumes under TARIC code 3824300010, due to the inclusion of products other than the product concerned in the import data available at CN code level from Eurostat (CN code 3824 30 00), the following analysis has been made on the basis of import data at TARIC code level, supplemented by information from data collected in accordance with Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation. TARIC data are considered confidential as they provide a level of detail which allows for identification of the parties. For this reason some information was presented in ranges.\n(49)\nUnion industry data were obtained from the questionnaire responses of the seven Union producers.\n3. Consumption in the Union market\n(50)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market, and import data from Eurostat.\n(51)\nBetween 2006 and the RIP, Union consumption decreased by 62 %, with the main decrease occurring between 2008 and the RIP. In the RIP, consumption decreased by 63 % compared to 2008.\nTable 1\nConsumption\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume (tonnes)\n+\nTotal imports\n1 766\n1 885\n2 303\n755\n+\nEU production sold on the EU market\n8 281\n8 334\n7 981\n3 024\n=\nConsumption\n10 047\n10 218\n10 284\n3 779\nyear-on-year increase\n2 %\n1 %\n-63 %\n4. Volume, market share and prices of dumped imports from the People\u2019s Republic of China\n(52)\nThe volumes, market shares and average prices of dumped imports from the PRC developed as set out below. The following quantity and price trends are based on Eurostat data.\nTable 2\nImports from PRC\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from the country concerned (tonnes)\nMore than 700\nMore than 700\nMore than 400\nMore than 60\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n104\n60\n11\nMarket share of imports from the country concerned\n7,1 %\n7,3 %\n4,2 %\n2,1 %\nPrice of imports from the country concerned (EUR/tonne)\n25 622\n21 883\n22 434\n22 110\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n85\n88\n86\n(53)\nThe volume of dumped imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC has decreased by 89 % over the period considered and reached a level of around 80 tonnes during the RIP. Their market share also dropped from 7,1 % in 2006 to 2,1 % in the RIP.\n(54)\nA possible explanation for this decrease is a substantial increase of PRC\u2019s domestic consumption during the period considered. In addition, through a system of export quotas and export tariffs Chinese authorities appear to pursue a policy of conserving PRC\u2019s tungsten resources.\n(55)\nPrices of Chinese imports decreased by 14 % during the period considered. This evolution reflects the general trend also observed with regard to the Union industry prices.\n(56)\nThe comparison also showed that imports from the PRC were undercutting the prices of the Union industry by more than 10 %, after deduction of the anti-dumping duty in place. These results are the same as in the last review investigation (13).\n5. Imports from other countries\n(57)\nThe volume of imports from other countries during the period considered are shown in the table below. The quantity and price trends are based on Eurostat data.\nTable 3\nImports from other countries\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nImports from other counties (tonnes)\n1 050\n1 138\n1 873\n675\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n108\n178\n64\nMarket share of imports from other countries\n10,5 %\n11,1 %\n18,2 %\n17,9 %\nAverage price (EUR/tonne)\n27 309,1\n26 626,0\n21 607,5\n24 867,4\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n97\n79\n91\nUS Market share\n4,2 %\n3,9 %\n3,9 %\n3,6 %\nAverage price (EUR/tonne)\n32 948,1\n32 356,0\n29 353,3\n32 054,4\nSouth Korea Market share\n2,2 %\n2,4 %\n2,6 %\n4,4 %\nAverage price (EUR/tonne)\n33 733,8\n29 969,5\n25 789,0\n24 503,7\n(58)\nThe imports from third countries decreased by 36 % over the period considered. They followed a general market trend triggered by the shrinking consumption (a drop by 62 %), but not at the same pace. Thereby the market share of these imports has increased from 10,5 % to 17,9 %. However, the impact of those imports on the Union industry cannot be considered negative as demonstrated in recitals 85 to 88 below.\n(59)\nIt should be noted that the market share of the Republic of Korea (\u2018Korea\u2019) doubled during the period considered, reaching 4,4 %. The Korean average import prices decreased during the period considered, however remaining consistently higher than the average selling price of Chinese export sales.\n6. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(60)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry.\n6.1. Production\n(61)\nThe Union industry\u2019s production first increased by 5,8 % in 2007 and 11,6 % in 2008, compared to 2006, and then declined sharply during the RIP, by 56 % compared to 2008.\nTable 4\nTotal Union production\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume (tonnes)\nProduction\n10 094\n10 679\n11 268\n4 861\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n106\n112\n48\n6.2. Capacity and capacity utilisation rates\n(62)\nProduction capacity increased by 10,8 % between 2006 and the RIP. As production decreased, in particular during the RIP, the resulting capacity utilisation showed an overall decrease of 57 % between 2006 and the RIP, reaching a 39 % capacity utilisation during the RIP.\nTable 5\nProduction capacity and capacity utilisation\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume (tonnes)\nProduction capacity\n11 110\n11 610\n12 230\n12 310\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n105\n110\n111\nCapacity utilisation\n91 %\n92 %\n92 %\n39 %\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n101\n101\n43\n6.3. Stocks\n(63)\nThe level of closing stocks of the Union industry increased by 20 % in 2008 compared to 2006 and then decreased by 26 % during the RIP.\nTable 6\nStocks\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume (tonnes)\nClosing stock\n1 714\n1 808\n2 054\n1 514\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n106\n120\n88\n6.4. Sales volume\n(64)\nThe sales of the Union industry on the Union market to unrelated customers slightly increased between 2006 and 2008 and then decreased by 61 % between 2008 and the RIP. Sales volumes increased in 2007 and 2008 but declined sharply, during the RIP. This development is in line with the general trend of decreasing consumption on the Union market.\nTable 7\nSales to unrelated customers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume (tonnes)\n5 594\n5 630\n5 874\n2 292\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n101\n105\n41\n6.5. Market share\n(65)\nThe market share held by the Union industry was rather stable between 2006 and 2008, to increase thereafter by 4 percentage points between 2008 and the RIP. Overall, there has been an increase of 5 percentage points during the period considered.\nTable 8\nEU Market share\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nEU Market share\n56 %\n55 %\n57 %\n61 %\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n99\n103\n109\n6.6. Growth\n(66)\nAs the decrease in sales was slightly lower than the decrease in consumption, the Union industry was able to gain some market share.\n6.7. Employment\n(67)\nThe level of employment of the Union industry declined by 17 % between 2006 and the RIP. Employment decreased also in the period 2006-2008, when production slightly increased, showing the efforts made by Union industry to improve its productivity. During RIP however, the sharp decrease of the output lead to a strong deterioration of employment.\nTable 9\nEmployment\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nAverage (period considered)\nTotal employment\n674\n667\n653\n557\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n99\n97\n83\n6.8. Productivity\n(68)\nProductivity of the Union industry\u2019s workforce, measured as output per person employed per year, increased in 2007 and 2008 by 7 % and 15 % respectively, compared to 2006, and then decreased by 49 % between 2008 and the RIP.\nTable 10\nProductivity\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProductivity (tonnes per year/employee)\n15\n16\n17\n9\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n107\n115\n58\n6.9. Sales prices\n(69)\nAverage ex-works sales price of the Union industry to unrelated customers in the Union followed a declining trend over the period considered. Overall, the Union industry had to decrease its prices by 15,4 % between 2006 and the RIP.\n(70)\nAs explained in recitals 55 and 56, the prices of dumped imports from the PRC followed a similar trend to that of the Union industry, but were consistently lower than the prices of the Union industry. During the RIP, prices from the PRC were more than 10 % lower than the Union industry\u2019s prices.\nTable 11\nUnit price EU market\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nUnit prices of Union sales (EUR/tonne)\n31 030\n29 995\n29 072\n26 241\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n97\n94\n85\n6.10. Wages\n(71)\nBetween 2006 and the RIP, the average wage per employee increased by 4,8 %.\nTable 12\nLabour cost\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nAnnual labour cost per employee\n53 614\n54 613\n56 564\n56 221\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n102\n106\n105\n6.11. Investments and ability to raise capital\n(72)\nBetween 2006 and 2008, the annual flow of investments in the product concerned made by the Union industry increased by 18 %. Investments between 2007 and 2008 increased by 103 %. However, during the RIP investments decreased by 65 % compared to 2008.\n(73)\nInvestments were mainly made in the construction of new facilities to produce tungsten material from used materials and scrap. Investments had to be reduced due to: (i) the decrease on the general level of production in the Union market, (ii) the distortions in the raw materials (see recital 39), (iii) the economic crisis.\n(74)\nDuring the RIP, no significant investments were made. This can be explained in large part by the economic crisis which began in 2008 and reached its deepest point during the RIP when access to new capital was ever more difficult.\nTable 13\nInvestments\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nNet investments ('000 EUR)\n18 403\n10 711\n21 756\n7 568\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n58\n118\n41\n6.12. Profitability and return on investments\n(75)\nThanks in part to the anti-dumping measures in force and in part to the efforts made by the Union industry to diversify the raw material sources, between 2006 and 2008 the Union industry was able to maintain a positive level of profitability, even if it overall decreased by 26 % during this period. During the RIP, however, the Union industry had a much less favourable result, showing a certain fragility in this respect.\n(76)\nThe return on investments (\u2018ROI\u2019) broadly followed the profitability trend over the whole period considered.\nTable 14\nProfitability and ROI\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nNet Profit of EU sales to unrelated customers (% of net sales)\n10,3 %\n5,8 %\n7,6 %\n-19,5 %\nROI (net profit in % of net book value of investments)\n34,8 %\n22,1 %\n28,8 %\n-28,6 %\n6.13. Cash flow\n(77)\nThe trend of cash-flow, which is the ability of the industry to self-finance its activities, remained positive during the period under investigation. However, between 2006 and the RIP, it decreased by around 35 %.\nTable 15\nCash flow\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nCash flow ('000 EUR)\n36 125\n39 868\n44 102\n23 540\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n110\n122\n65\n6.14. Magnitude of dumping margin\n(78)\nDumping from PRC continued during the RIP at a level which is significantly above the current level of measures. Furthermore, given the distortions on raw materials, the spare capacity and prices of the imports from the PRC, the impact on the Union industry of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.\n6.15. Recovery from past dumping\n(79)\nIt was analysed whether the Union industry recovered from the effects of past dumping. It was concluded that it managed to recover to a large extent from such effects given that the anti-dumping measures in force proved to be effective. However, the economic crisis stopped that process and has accentuated the difficulties of the Union industry.\n7. Impact of dumped imports and other factors\n7.1. Impact of the dumped imports\n(80)\nIn parallel to the shrinking consumption in the Union, the market share of Chinese imports decreased from 7,1 % to 2,1 % (see recital 52). The available information indicates that these imports were made at prices which were lower than those of the Union industry and also lower than those of the imports originating in other third countries. As mentioned in recital 56 above, based on a calculation excluding anti-dumping duty, the Chinese imports undercut the Union industry prices by 10,7 % during the RIP. It is recalled that the duty rate amounts to 33 %. Consequently, the level of undercutting demonstrates on one hand the effectiveness of the duties in place and on the other hand the necessity to continue the measures. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the undercutting found was at the same level as in the last review investigation. Hence, the price impact of dumped imports from the PRC on the Union industry remained unchanged and, in the absence of any evidence pointing to the contrary, it is likely to continue.\n7.2. Impact of the economic crisis\n(81)\nDue to the very negative economic conditions prevailing during the RIP in the tungsten\u2019s downstream sector, in particular in the sector of steel and cemented carbides, which represents the majority of tungsten consumption in the Union, the Union industry drastically reduced production and sales of the product concerned.\n(82)\nPrior to the crisis, companies operating in the downstream sector had high level of tungsten' stocks that were not built up during the RIP, further affecting the production level of the Union industry.\n(83)\nAs production decreased, and as the Union industry is a capital intensive one, thus needing to produce certain volumes to keep down the unit fixed cost, the profitability was seriously affected.\n(84)\nHowever, the analysis of the Union industry, before the crisis, proves the effectiveness of the anti-dumping measures in force. The investigation showed that the largest Union producers were making important investments in order to avoid the raw material distortions while at the same time they were able to compete in the market keeping a healthy position.\n7.3. Imports from other countries\n(85)\nIt is estimated that the volume of imports from other third countries decreased by 36 % from 1 500 tonnes in 2006 to 675 tonnes in the RIP. The market share of imports from other countries increased from 10,5 % in 2006 to 17,9 % in the RIP. Their average imports price decreased by 8,9 % between 2006 and the RIP. The main importing countries were South Korea and the USA.\n(86)\nThe market share of imports from South Korea doubled over the period considered (from 2,2 % to 4,4 %). However, the available information indicates that during the RIP these imports were made at prices only slightly lower than those of the Union industry (by 6,6 %), but higher (by 9,8 %) than those of the imports originating in the PRC.\n(87)\nThe market share of imports from the USA decreased by 15,1 percentage points over the period considered (from 4,2 % to 3,6 %). The available information indicates that during the RIP these imports were made at prices which were above those of the Union industry and thus also substantially higher (by 31 %) than those of the imports originating in the PRC.\n(88)\nIn conclusion, among the biggest importers of tungsten carbide into the EU, the South Korean and US imports could not have a negative impact on the situation of the Union industry mainly because of their price levels (similar or even higher than the Union industry prices) and in the case of the US also because of the decreasing market share.\n8. Conclusion\n(89)\nDue to the effective anti-dumping duties in place, the Union industry was able to recover to some extent from the effects of past injurious dumping.\n(90)\nNevertheless, it cannot be concluded that the situation of the Union industry is secure. Although almost all injury indicators relating to the financial performance of the Union producers - such as profitability, return on investments and cash-flow - improved during the first years of the period considered, the investigation also showed that during the RIP all injury indicators deteriorated.\n(91)\nNotwithstanding the fact that the decrease in demand during the RIP could be partially attributed to the economic crisis, the investigation carefully analysed the impact of low dumped priced exports from the PRC on the situation of the Union industry.\n(92)\nAs shown under recital 52, volumes of imports from the PRC indeed decreased between 2006 and the RIP. The prices of those imports decreased by 14 % over the same period, which when analysed from the perspective of the four-year period considered mirrors the development of the Union industry prices. It is notable, however, that the substantial price decrease of the Chinese dumped imports occurred between 2006 and 2007 (by 15 %), i.e. long before the economic crisis in the period when the Union industry was in the process of recovery. The prices of dumped imports from PRC stabilised thereafter and the financial-crisis related decrease appears to be limited. The timing of the substantial price decrease on the part of the Chinese exporters (before crisis) could indicate that they were setting off more concentrated and forceful price strategy in order to undercut the Union industry prices. Indeed the price differential between Chinese export prices and those of the Union industry amounted to 27 % and 22,8 % in 2007 and 2008 respectively.\n(93)\nIn 2008, export prices from China were 22,8 % lower than those to the Union industry. During the RIP, the gap decreased to 15,7 %. With the sharp decline in consumption, Union producers had to reduce their prices in order to keep market share.\n(94)\nAs shown under recital 57, the volume of imports from other third countries decreased by 36 %, in line with the decrease in consumption. Despite an increase in market share the impact of those imports on the situation of the Union industry cannot be considered negative, as demonstrated in recital 88 above.\n(95)\nWith regard to the viability of the Union industry it must be noted that the evidence collected during the investigation showed that the Union industry has been able to compete under normal market conditions against the imports from third countries and even when prices were lower than those of the Union producers the gap was not as significant as with the prices from China, as demonstrated in recitals 85 to 88 above.\n(96)\nAs a result of the amelioration of the Union industry situation in the years previous to the RIP, the industry invested in new cutting edge technology to produce the product concerned from scrap and partially circumvent the distortions in place on the raw materials.\n(97)\nTaking into account the overall situation of the Union industry as well as the imports from PRC in the period from 2006 to RIP, in conclusion, in view of the positive developments of some indicators pertaining to the Union Industry, it is considered that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the period considered. It was therefore examined whether there was a likelihood of recurrence of injury should the measures be allowed to lapse.\nE. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(98)\nAs described in recitals 89 to 97, the imposition of anti-dumping measures allowed the Union industry to recover from the injury suffered, but only to some extent. Indeed when the exceptional levels of Union consumption experienced during most of the period considered significantly decreased during the RIP, the Union industry appeared in a fragile and vulnerable situation, still exposed to the injurious effect of the dumped imports from the PRC.\n(99)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, imports from the country concerned were assessed in order to establish if there was a likelihood of recurrence of injury.\n2. Chinese export volumes and prices to third countries\n(100)\nIt was found that export price of Chinese sales on other third-country markets were also lower to those charged to the EU (roughly between 10 and 20 % lower in different years throughout the period considered, except in 2007). The Chinese exporter\u2019s sales to non-EU countries were made in significant quantities, accounting for over 80 % of its total export sales. Therefore, it was considered that, should measures lapse, Chinese exporting producers would have an incentive to shift significant quantities of exports from other third countries to the more attractive Union market.\n3. Spare capacity in the PRC market\n(101)\nAs described in recitals 34 to 42, data collected during the investigation showed that there is a significant spare capacity available in the PRC. Clear indications were found pointing to the conclusion that a large part of this spare capacity could be used to increase exports to the Union in the absence of anti-dumping measures. This is confirmed in particular because there are no indications that third-country markets or the domestic market could absorb any additional production in the PRC.\n4. Conclusion\n(102)\nThe Union industry had been suffering from the effects of the Chinese dumped imports for several years and is still currently in a fragile economic situation.\n(103)\nAs shown above, the Union industry managed to recover from the Chinese dumping practice thanks to the anti-dumping measures in force. During the RIP, however, it found itself in a difficult economic situation mainly due to the economic crisis. In this context, should the Union industry be exposed to increased volumes of dumped low priced imports from the country concerned, this would be likely to result in a further deterioration of its sales, market share, sales prices, as well as a consequent deterioration of its financial situation.\n(104)\nIn addition, as stated in recital 56 above, it was also found that the fact that the sales price of Chinese producers undercut those of the Union industry on average almost 11 % appears to indicate that in the absence of measures Chinese exporting producers are likely to export the product concerned to the Union market at prices considerably lower than those of the Union industry.\n(105)\nIn view of the findings made during the investigation, namely the spare capacity in the PRC, the distortions found in the market for raw materials, the potential of the exporting producers in the country concerned to raise and/or redirect their export volumes to the Union market, the pricing behaviour of the Chinese in other third countries and the attractiveness of the more lucrative Union market, any repeal of the measures would point to a likelihood of recurrence of injury. The latter would be even more serious taking into account the present economic crisis.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n1. Introduction\n(106)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of the various interests involved, i.e. those of the Union industry, importers and users.\n(107)\nIt should be recalled that, in the previous investigations, the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place, allows the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.\n(108)\nOn this basis it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case.\n2. Interest of the Union industry\n(109)\nIn view of the conclusions on the situation of the Union industry set out in recitals 89 to 97 above, and pursuant to the arguments relating to the analysis on the likelihood of recurrence of injury as explained in recitals 102 to 105, it can also be considered that the Union industry would be likely to experience a serious deterioration of its financial situation in case the anti-dumping duties were allowed to expire.\n(110)\nIt is considered that the continuation of measures would benefit the Union industry which should then be able to increase sales volumes and, in all likelihood, sales prices thereby generating the necessary return level which would enable it to continue to invest in new technology for its production facilities. By contrast, the discontinuation of the measures would halt the recovery of the Union industry, seriously threatening its viability, and, as a consequence, putting its existence at risk, thus reducing supply and competition on the market.\n3. Interest of importers/users\n(111)\nOne user came forward and submitted a questionnaire reply. The cooperating user claimed that the continuation of measures would not have a negative impact on competition in the Union market, but that, on the contrary, it would allow the downstream industry to have a wider range of suppliers competing at market prices.\n(112)\nIt is recalled that, in the previous investigations, it was found that the impact of the imposition of measures would not be significant for the users (14). Despite the existence of measures, importers/users in the Union were able to continue to source their supply, inter alia, from the PRC. No indications were brought forward whether there have been difficulties in finding other sources. It is therefore concluded that the maintenance of the anti-dumping measures is not likely to have a serious effect on importers/users in the Union.\n4. Conclusion\n(113)\nThe effects of the continuation of measures can be expected to assist the Union industry, with consequent beneficial effects on the competitive conditions on the Union market and the reduction of the threat of closures and reductions in employment.\n(114)\nFurthermore, the continuation of the measures can be expected to benefit the users/importers by maintaining a wide range of suppliers in the Union market.\n(115)\nGiven the above analysis, it is concluded that the continuation of measures is not against the Union interest.\nG. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(116)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to submit comments subsequent to that disclosure. The submissions and comments were duly taken into consideration where warranted.\n(117)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of tungsten carbide, tungsten carbide simply mixed with metallic powder and fused tungsten, originating in PRC should be maintained. It is recalled that these measures consist of ad valorem duties,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of tungsten carbide, tungsten carbide simply mixed with metallic powder and fused tungsten carbide currently falling within CN codes 2849 90 30 and ex 3824 30 00 (15) (TARIC code 3824300010) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of duty applicable to the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, for the products described in paragraph 1, shall be 33 %.\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["97", "92", "15", "93", "98", "74", "52", "27", "79", "6", "19", "9", "7", "86", "26", "14", "75", "18", "65", "99", "94", "1", "16", "42", "41", "66", "90", "60", "56", "39", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 886/2010\nof 7 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Prle\u0161ka t\u00fcnka (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovenia\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Prle\u0161ka t\u00fcnka\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 October 2010.", "references": ["4", "21", "61", "23", "48", "57", "88", "2", "46", "53", "16", "68", "77", "70", "67", "49", "8", "7", "76", "73", "75", "18", "6", "15", "94", "14", "1", "43", "65", "10", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 120/2012\nof 10 February 2012\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for import licences for olive oil lodged from 6 to 7 February 2012 under the Tunisian tariff quota and suspending the issue of import licences for the month of February 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(1) and (2) of Protocol No 1 (3) to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part (4), opens a tariff quota at a zero rate of duty for imports of untreated olive oil falling within CN codes 1509 10 10 and 1509 10 90, wholly obtained in Tunisia and transported direct from that country to the European Union, up to the limit laid down for each year.\n(2)\nArticle 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 of 20 December 2006 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quota for olive oil originating in Tunisia (5) lays down monthly quantitative limits for the issue of import licences.\n(3)\nImport licence applications have been submitted to the competent authorities under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 in respect of a total quantity exceeding the limit laid down for the month of February in Article 2(2) of that Regulation.\n(4)\nIn these circumstances, the Commission must set an allocation coefficient allowing import licences to be issued in proportion to the quantity available.\n(5)\nSince the limit for the month of February has been reached, no more import licences can be issued for that month,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications were lodged for 6 and 7 February 2012 under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 12,493792 %.\nThe issue of import licences in respect of amounts applied for as from 13 February 2012 shall be suspended for February 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 February 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["98", "88", "65", "87", "77", "6", "33", "25", "63", "42", "44", "16", "78", "40", "75", "8", "36", "15", "35", "59", "38", "64", "7", "24", "95", "1", "89", "4", "84", "0", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "70", "94"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "70", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 742/2012\nof 16 August 2012\nimplementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (1), and in particular Article 32(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 January 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Implementing Decision 2012/478/CFSP of 16 August 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (2), an additional entity should be included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entity listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2012.", "references": ["78", "29", "32", "63", "21", "80", "87", "25", "81", "70", "85", "28", "20", "92", "65", "51", "71", "30", "48", "15", "73", "43", "2", "27", "89", "90", "41", "59", "17", "76", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 216/2011\nof 1 March 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Chianti Classico (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1), and having regard to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Chianti Classico\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2446/2000 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2011.", "references": ["87", "89", "88", "48", "38", "7", "27", "30", "15", "71", "13", "35", "2", "17", "11", "84", "0", "51", "42", "14", "8", "33", "34", "77", "44", "26", "57", "23", "37", "98", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 418/2010\nof 12 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2010.", "references": ["81", "4", "29", "33", "41", "84", "6", "97", "28", "11", "9", "39", "22", "31", "13", "14", "24", "12", "94", "69", "82", "96", "50", "66", "80", "48", "67", "87", "26", "30", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 887/2011\nof 5 September 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of a preparation of Enterococcus faecium CECT 4515 as feed additive for chickens for fattening (holder of the authorisation Norel SA)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation of Enterococcus faecium CECT 4515. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 16 March 2011 (2) that Enterococcus faecium CECT 4515, under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer health or the environment, and that this additive has the potential to improve the body weight gain and feed to gain ratio in chickens for fattening. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of the preparation of Enterococcus faecium CECT 4515 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018gut flora stabilisers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 September 2011.", "references": ["84", "80", "97", "62", "19", "30", "6", "15", "28", "93", "70", "5", "65", "45", "91", "3", "2", "61", "89", "35", "82", "88", "71", "56", "69", "23", "38", "18", "55", "27", "No Label", "25", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 154/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 February 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt is necessary to clarify the rules on transit through international areas of airports to ensure legal certainty and transparency.\n(2)\nThird-country nationals subject to the airport transit visa requirement pursuant to Article 3(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (2), who hold a valid visa issued by a Member State, Canada, Japan or the United States of America or who hold a valid residence permit issued by a Member State, Andorra, Canada, Japan, San Marino or the United States of America, are exempt from the airport transit visa requirement. It should be clarified that this exemption also applies to holders of valid visas or residence permits issued by Member States which did not take part in the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 and by the Member States which do not yet apply the provisions of the Schengen acquis in full.\n(3)\nAs regards third-country nationals holding a valid visa, the exemption should apply when they travel to the issuing country or to any other third country and when they return from the issuing country after having used the visa.\n(4)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely to clarify the rules on transit through international areas of airports, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.\n(5)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (3) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement (4).\n(6)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (5) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (6).\n(7)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (7) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (8).\n(8)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Regulation builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of 6 months after the Council has decided on this Regulation whether it will implement it in its national law.\n(9)\nThis Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (9); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(10)\nThis Regulation 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 of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (10); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(11)\nAs regards Cyprus, this Regulation constitutes an act building upon or otherwise related to the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the 2003 Act of Accession.\n(12)\nAs regards Bulgaria and Romania, this Regulation constitutes an act building upon or otherwise related to the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the 2005 Act of Accession,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009, points (b) and (c) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nthird-country nationals holding a valid residence permit issued by a Member State which does not take part in the adoption of this Regulation or by a Member State which does not yet apply the provisions of the Schengen acquis in full, or third-country nationals holding one of the valid residence permits listed in Annex V issued by Andorra, Canada, Japan, San Marino or the United States of America guaranteeing the holder\u2019s unconditional readmission;\n(c)\nthird-country nationals holding a valid visa for a Member State which does not take part in the adoption of this Regulation, for a Member State which does not yet apply the provisions of the Schengen acquis in full, or for Canada, Japan or the United States of America, when travelling to the issuing country or to any other third country, or when, having used the visa, returning from the issuing country;\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strassbourg, 15 February 2012.", "references": ["86", "76", "6", "31", "37", "8", "21", "1", "93", "12", "24", "11", "40", "92", "77", "14", "18", "70", "34", "0", "88", "44", "87", "52", "5", "46", "56", "7", "71", "99", "No Label", "4", "13", "36", "54", "57"], "gold": ["4", "13", "36", "54", "57"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2012/74/CFSP\nof 10 February 2012\nimplementing Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\n(2)\nIn view of the developments in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["99", "14", "19", "64", "43", "42", "51", "48", "91", "7", "17", "88", "75", "36", "61", "74", "11", "73", "54", "86", "92", "68", "62", "53", "90", "13", "56", "1", "59", "30", "No Label", "3", "5", "12", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 360/2011\nof 12 April 2011\nimplementing Article 16(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 16(1) and (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 2 March 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Libya, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.\n(3)\nFurthermore, one person should be removed from the list in Annex III, and the information relating to certain persons and entities included in the lists in Annexes II and III to that Regulation should be updated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 shall be replaced by the text set out in Annexes I and II respectively to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 12 April 2011.", "references": ["9", "71", "33", "16", "13", "28", "40", "68", "34", "81", "87", "56", "23", "53", "6", "78", "64", "21", "65", "48", "2", "19", "24", "31", "86", "41", "26", "42", "32", "36", "No Label", "3", "4", "11", "14", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "11", "14", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 554/2012\nof 19 June 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 June 2012.", "references": ["88", "96", "68", "47", "64", "94", "14", "34", "19", "4", "12", "26", "58", "24", "78", "85", "40", "83", "79", "92", "22", "45", "62", "5", "77", "52", "7", "72", "23", "39", "No Label", "21", "90"], "gold": ["21", "90"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 329/2012\nof 17 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 April 2012.", "references": ["1", "88", "86", "21", "45", "13", "16", "39", "4", "37", "78", "58", "40", "44", "89", "23", "59", "34", "26", "36", "19", "85", "72", "27", "8", "77", "98", "84", "25", "6", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2010/88/EU\nof 7 December 2010\namending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax, with regard to the duration of the obligation to respect a minimum standard rate\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 113 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national Parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee,\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 97(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) provides that from 1 January 2006 until 31 December 2010, the standard rate may not be less than 15 %.\n(2)\nThe standard rate of value added tax (VAT) currently in force in various Member States, combined with the mechanism of the transitional system has ensured that this system has functioned to an acceptable degree. With new rules on the place of supply of services which favour taxation at the place of consumption, the possibilities for exploiting differences in VAT rates through relocation have been limited further and potential distortions of competition reduced.\n(3)\nTo prevent a growing divergence in the standard rates of VAT applied by the Member States from leading to structural imbalances in the European Union and distortions of competition in some sectors of activity, it is common practice in the field of indirect taxes to set minimum rates. It is still necessary to do so for VAT.\n(4)\nPending the outcome of consultations on a new VAT strategy which is expected to address future arrangements and corresponding levels of harmonisation, it would be premature to set a permanent standard rate level or to consider changing the minimum rate level.\n(5)\nIt is therefore appropriate to maintain the current minimum standard rate at 15 % for a further period long enough to ensure legal certainty, while allowing further review.\n(6)\nThis does not preclude a further revision of VAT legislation before 31 December 2015 to address the outcome of the new VAT strategy.\n(7)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (2), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n(8)\nDirective 2006/112/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nArticle 97 of Directive 2006/112/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 97\nFrom 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2015, the standard rate may not be lower than 15 %.\u2019.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 January 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2010.", "references": ["15", "13", "12", "73", "81", "38", "9", "10", "52", "59", "60", "76", "31", "4", "48", "18", "82", "23", "71", "29", "32", "78", "14", "80", "89", "33", "43", "20", "42", "97", "No Label", "25", "26", "34"], "gold": ["25", "26", "34"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 107/2011\nof 7 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 February 2011.", "references": ["85", "80", "1", "17", "0", "66", "25", "70", "97", "21", "27", "75", "7", "23", "64", "51", "54", "63", "47", "44", "45", "87", "78", "3", "6", "19", "30", "65", "48", "40", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 361/2011\nof 13 April 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 10415 as a feed additive for chickens for fattening (holder of authorisation DSM Nutritional products Ltd represented by DSM Nutritional Products Sp. z o.o) and amending Regulation (EC) No 943/2005\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).\n(2)\nThe preparation of Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 10415 was authorised in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC as a feed additive without a time limit for use on calves up to 6 months by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1288/2004 (3), for use on chickens for fattening and pigs for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 943/2005 (4), for use on sows by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1200/2005 (5), for use on piglets by Commission Regulation (EC) No 252/2006 (6) and for use on cats and dogs by Commission Regulation (EC) No 102/2009 (7). That additive was subsequently entered in the Community Register of feed additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 of that Regulation, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 10415 as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, requesting that additive be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 22 June 2010 (8) that, under the proposed conditions of use, Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 10415 does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or on the environment, and that that additive has the potential to increase the final body weight of chickens for fattening. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the European Union Reference Laboratory for Feed Additives set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 10415 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised as specified in Annex I to this Regulation.\n(6)\nAs a consequence of a new authorisation being granted by this Regulation, the entry concerning Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 10415 for chickens for fattening in Regulation (EC) No 943/2005 should be deleted.\n(7)\nSince the modifications to the conditions of the authorisation are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for the disposal of existing stocks of premixtures and compound feed.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in Annex I, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018gut flora stabilisers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 943/2005 is replaced by the text in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nPremixtures and compound feed containing Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 10415 labelled in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC may continue to be placed on the market and used until stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 April 2011.", "references": ["35", "60", "63", "23", "98", "67", "48", "7", "99", "33", "82", "12", "57", "77", "51", "53", "64", "56", "68", "65", "52", "18", "15", "92", "55", "27", "73", "43", "95", "30", "No Label", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 422/2011\nof 29 April 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 May 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 May 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 May 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 April 2011.", "references": ["74", "35", "72", "58", "0", "52", "29", "37", "54", "15", "80", "36", "49", "71", "61", "84", "91", "63", "99", "18", "34", "21", "81", "70", "2", "75", "93", "45", "1", "79", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 203/2012\nof 8 March 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, as regards detailed rules on organic wine\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 19(3), Articles 21(2), 22(1), 38(a), and Article 40 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 834/2007 and in particular Chapter 4 of Title III thereof lays down basic requirements with regard to organic production of processed food. The detailed rules for the implementation of those basic requirements have been established by Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (2).\n(2)\nSpecific provisions for the production of organic wine should be laid down in Regulation (EC) No 889/2008. Those provisions should apply to the products of the wine sector as referred to in Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (3).\n(3)\nThe processing of organic wine requires the use of certain products and substances as additives or processing aids under well-defined conditions. For that purpose and on the basis of recommendations of the Union-wide study on \u2018Organic viticulture and wine-making: development of environment and consumer friendly technologies for organic wine quality improvement and scientifically based legislative framework\u2019 (also known as \u2018Orwine\u2019) (4) the use of such products and substances should be allowed in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007.\n(4)\nCertain products and substances, which are used as additives and processing aids for oenological practices under Commission Regulation (EC) No 606/2009 of 10 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards the categories of grapevine products, oenological practices and the applicable restrictions (5), are derived from raw materials of agricultural origin. In such case the raw materials may be available on the market in organic form. In order to encourage the development of their demand on the market, preference should be given to the use of additives and processing aids derived from organically farmed raw materials.\n(5)\nPractices and techniques for the production of wine are established on the level of the Union in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and its implementing rules as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 606/2009 and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products (6). Using those practices and techniques in organic wine-making may not be in line with the objectives and principles fixed in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, and in particular with the specific principles applicable to the processing of organic food, mentioned in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. Therefore specific restrictions and limitations should be set up for certain oenological practices and processes.\n(6)\nCertain other practices which are widely used in food processing are also available for wine-making and may also have some effect on certain essential characteristics of the organic products and hence on their true nature, but at present no alternative techniques are available to replace them. This applies to heat treatments, filtration, reverse osmosis and the use of ion exchange resins. As a consequence those practices should be available to organic wine-makers, but their use should be restricted. A possibility for re-examination of heat treatment, ion exchange resins and reverse osmosis should be foreseen in due time.\n(7)\nOenological practices and processes which might be misleading regarding the true nature of the organic products should be excluded in the making of organic wine. This applies to the concentration by cooling, the dealcoholisation, the elimination of sulphur dioxide by physical process, electrodialyses and the use of cation exchangers as those oenological practices do significantly modify the composition of the product to the point that they may be misleading as to the true nature of organic wine. For the same purposes, use or addition of certain substances might be also misleading regarding the true nature of the organic wine. It is therefore appropriate to lay down that such substances should not be used or added under the organic oenological practices and treatment processing.\n(8)\nRegarding more specifically sulphites, the results of the Orwine study have shown that a reduction in the level of sulphur dioxides in wines made from organic grapes is already achieved by organic producers of wine in the Union, as compared to the maximum sulphur dioxide content which is authorised for non-organic wines. Therefore it is appropriate to fix a maximum sulphur content specific to organic wines, which should be lower than the level authorised in non-organic wines. The necessary quantities of sulphur dioxide depend on the various categories of wines and also on certain intrinsic characteristics of the wine, notably its content in sugar, which should be considered when laying down the maximum levels of sulphur dioxides content specific to organic wines. However, extreme weather conditions may provoke difficulties in certain wine-growing areas which make it necessary to use supplementary amounts of sulphites in the preparation of wine to achieve stability of the final product of that year. It should therefore be allowed to increase the maximum sulphur dioxide content when such conditions are met.\n(9)\nWine is a product with a long shelf-life and some wines are stored traditionally for several years in barrels or tanks before being placed on the market. Under the conditions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (7) and for a limited period in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 889/2008, the marketing of such wines by maintaining the labelling requirements under that Regulation should be allowed until stocks are exhausted.\n(10)\nSome of the stored wines were already produced by a wine-making process which already complies with the rules on the production of organic wine provided for by this Regulation. Where this can be proven, the use of the Community organic production logo as referred to in Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, called from 1 July 2010 the \u2018Organic logo of the EU\u2019, should be authorised, to allow for fair comparison and competition between organic wines produced before and after the entry into force of this Regulation. If this is not the case, the wine should be labelled exclusively as \u2018wine made from organic grapes\u2019, without bearing the organic logo of the EU, provided that the wine is produced in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 and Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 before its amendment by this Regulation.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 889/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Regulatory Committee on Organic Production,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 889/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nTitle II is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin Article 27(1), the introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u2018For the purposes of Article 19(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, only the following substances can be used in the processing of organic food, with the exception of products of the wine sector, for which the provisions of Chapter 3a shall apply:\u2019;\n(b)\na new Chapter 3a is inserted:\n\u2018CHAPTER 3a\nSpecific rules for the making of wine\nArticle 29b\nScope\n1. This Chapter lays down specific rules for the organic production of the products of the wine sector as referred to in Article 1(1)(l) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (8).\n2. Commission Regulations (EC) No 606/2009 (9) and (EC) No 607/2009 (10) shall apply, save as explicitly provided otherwise in this Chapter.\nArticle 29c\nUse of certain products and substances\n1. For the purposes of Article 19(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, products of the wine sector shall be produced from organic raw material.\n2. For the purposes of Article 19(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, only products and substances listed in Annex VIIIa to this Regulation can be used for the making of products of the wine sector, including during the processes and oenological practices, subject to the conditions and restrictions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Regulation (EC) No 606/2009 and in particular in Annex I A to that Regulation.\n3. Products and substances listed in Annex VIIIa to this Regulation and marked with an asterisk, derived from organic raw material, shall be used if available.\nArticle 29d\nOenological practices and restrictions\n1. Without prejudice to Article 29c and to specific prohibitions and restrictions provided for in paragraphs 2 to 5 of this Article, only oenological practices, processes and treatments, including the restrictions provided for in Article 120c and 120d of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and in Articles 3, 5 to 9 and 11 to 14 of Regulation (EC) No 606/2009 and in their Annexes, used before 1 August 2010 are permitted.\n2. The use of the following oenological practices, processes and treatments is prohibited:\n(a)\npartial concentration through cooling according to point (c) of Section B.1 of Annex XVa to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(b)\nelimination of sulphur dioxide by physical processes according to point 8 of Annex I A to Regulation (EC) No 606/2009;\n(c)\nelectrodialysis treatment to ensure the tartaric stabilisation of the wine according to point 36 of Annex I A to Regulation (EC) No 606/2009;\n(d)\npartial dealcoholisation of wine according to point 40 of Annex I A to Regulation (EC) No 606/2009;\n(e)\ntreatment with cation exchangers to ensure the tartaric stabilisation of the wine according to point 43 of Annex I A to Regulation (EC) No 606/2009.\n3. The use of the following oenological practices, processes and treatments is permitted under the following conditions:\n(a)\nfor heat treatments according to point 2 of Annex I A to Regulation (EC) No 606/2009, the temperature shall not exceed 70 \u00b0C;\n(b)\nfor centrifuging and filtration with or without an inert filtering agent according to point 3 of Annex I A to Regulation (EC) No 606/2009, the size of the pores shall be not smaller than 0,2 micrometer.\n4. The use of the following oenological practices, processes and treatments shall be re-examined by the Commission before 1 August 2015 with a view to phase out or to further restrict those practices:\n(a)\nheat treatments as referred to in point 2 of Annex I A to Regulation (EC) No 606/2009;\n(b)\nuse of ion exchange resins as referred to in point 20 of Annex I A to Regulation (EC) No 606/2009;\n(c)\nreverse osmosis according to point (b) of Section B.1 of Annex XVa to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n5. Any amendment introduced after 1 August 2010, as regards the oenological practice, processes and treatments provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 or Regulation (EC) No 606/2009, may be applicable in the organic production of wine only after the adoption of the measures necessary for the implementation of the production rules provided for in Article 19(3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and, if required, an evaluation process according to Article 21 of that Regulation.\n(c)\nArticle 47 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin the first paragraph, the following point (e) is added:\n\u2018(e)\nthe use of sulphur dioxide up to the maximum content to be fixed in accordance with the Annex I B to Regulation (EC) No 606/2009 if the exceptional climatic conditions of a given harvest year deteriorate the sanitary status of organic grapes in a specific geographical area because of severe bacterial attacks or fungal attacks, which oblige the winemaker to use more sulphur dioxide than in previous years to obtain a comparable final product.\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Upon approval by the competent authority, the individual operators shall keep documentary evidence of the use of the above exceptions. Member States shall inform each other and the Commission on the exceptions they have granted under points (c) and (e) of the first paragraph.\u2019;\n(2)\nTitle V is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin Article 94(1), the following point (d) is added:\n\u2018(d)\nwithin one month from their approval, the exceptions granted by the Member States under points (c) and (e) of the first paragraph of Article 47.\u2019;\n(b)\nin Article 95, paragraph 10a is replaced by the following:\n\u201810a. As regards products of the wine sector, the transitional period referred to in paragraph 8 shall expire on 31 July 2012.\nStocks of wines produced until 31 July 2012 in accordance with either Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 or Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 may continue to be brought on the market until stocks are exhausted, and subject to the following labelling requirements:\n(a)\nthe Community organic production logo as referred to in Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, called from 1 July 2010 the \u201cOrganic logo of the EU\u201d may be used provided that the wine-making process complies with Chapter 3a of Title II of this Regulation;\n(b)\noperators using \u201cOrganic logo of the EU\u201d shall keep recorded evidence, for a period of at least five years after they placed on the market that wine obtained from organic grapes, including of the corresponding quantities of wine in litres, per wine category and per year;\n(c)\nwhere the evidence referred to in point (b) of this paragraph is not available, such wine may be labelled as \u201cwine made from organic grapes\u201d, provided that it complies with the requirements of this Regulation except those provided for in Chapter 3a of Title II thereof;\n(d)\nwine labelled as \u201cwine made from organic grapes\u201d cannot bear the \u201cOrganic logo of the EU\u201d.\u2019;\n(3)\na new Annex VIIIa is inserted, the text of which is set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 August 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2012.", "references": ["32", "8", "19", "81", "78", "1", "46", "33", "89", "76", "39", "90", "10", "97", "24", "14", "93", "77", "61", "17", "54", "67", "31", "30", "86", "52", "50", "66", "13", "62", "No Label", "23", "25", "71", "72", "74", "83"], "gold": ["23", "25", "71", "72", "74", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 8 June 2010\namending Decision 2007/589/EC as regards the inclusion of monitoring and reporting guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions from the capture, transport and geological storage of carbon dioxide\n(notified under document C(2010) 3310)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/345/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Articles 14(1) and 24(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2003/87/EC establishes a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (hereinafter \u2018the Community scheme\u2019). Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community (2) amends Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include the capture, transport and geological storage of carbon dioxide (hereinafter \u2018CO2\u2019) within the Community scheme from the year 2013 onwards.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 14(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, the Commission should adopt guidelines for monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the Community scheme.\n(3)\nBefore 2013, CO2 capture, transport and geological storage activities can be unilaterally included into the Community scheme by Member States pursuant to Article 24(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n(4)\nArticle 24(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC provides the legal basis for the Commission to adopt guidelines for activities not yet covered by Annex I to the Directive.\n(5)\nThe Commission should adopt guidelines for monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from CO2 capture, transport and geological storage activities with a view to the inclusion of these activities in the Community scheme from 2013 and their possible unilateral inclusion in the Community scheme before 2013.\n(6)\nCommission Decision 2007/589/EC (3) should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee referred to in Article 23 of Directive 2003/87/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2007/589/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThe guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from the activities listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC, and of activities included pursuant to Article 24(1) of that Directive, are set out in Annexes I to XIV and XVI to XVIII to this Decision. The guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of tonne-kilometre data from aviation activities for the purpose of an application pursuant to Article 3e or 3f of Directive 2003/87/EC are set out in Annex XV.\nThose guidelines are based on the principles set out in Annex IV to that Directive.\u2019\n2.\nThe Table of Annexes is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe entry for Annex XII is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Annex XII:\nGuidelines for determination of emissions or amount of transfer of greenhouse gases by continuous measurement systems\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following titles of new Annexes XVI, XVII and XVIII are added:\n\u2018Annex XVI:\nActivity-specific guidelines for determination of greenhouse gas emissions from CO2 capture activities for the purpose of transport and geological storage in a storage site permitted under Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4).\nAnnex XVII:\nActivity-specific guidelines for determination of greenhouse gas emissions from the transport of CO2 by pipeline for geological storage in a storage site permitted under Directive 2009/31/EC.\nAnnex XVIII:\nActivity-specific guidelines for the geological storage of CO2 in a storage site permitted under Directive 2009/31/EC.\n3.\nAnnex I is amended as set out in Part A of the Annex to this Decision.\n4.\nAnnex XII is replaced by the text set out in Part B of the Annex to this Decision.\n5.\nAnnex XVI is added as set out in Part C of the Annex to this Decision.\n6.\nAnnex XVII is added as set out in Part D of the Annex to this Decision.\n7.\nAnnex XVIII is added as set out in Part E of the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 June 2010.", "references": ["85", "54", "32", "5", "47", "96", "62", "15", "50", "75", "20", "87", "59", "26", "98", "21", "94", "55", "82", "68", "28", "6", "51", "99", "97", "10", "29", "86", "1", "95", "No Label", "58", "60"], "gold": ["58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 816/2012\nof 13 September 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2012.", "references": ["89", "50", "41", "92", "14", "52", "40", "95", "62", "19", "9", "59", "83", "1", "67", "4", "16", "29", "47", "45", "27", "72", "93", "64", "79", "11", "98", "54", "97", "90", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 15 November 2011\namending Decision 2008/630/EC on emergency measures applicable to crustaceans imported from Bangladesh and intended for human consumption\n(notified under document C(2011) 8094)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/742/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1)(b)(ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2008/630/EC of 24 July 2008 on emergency measures applicable to crustaceous imported from Bangladesh and intended for human consumption (2) was adopted following the detection of the presence of residues of veterinary medicinal products and unauthorised substances in crustaceans imported from that third country and intended for human consumption.\n(2)\nDecision 2008/630/EC provides that Member States are to authorise the importation into the Union of consignments of crustaceans from Bangladesh provided that they are accompanied by the results of an analytical test carried out at the place of origin to ensure that they do not present a danger to human health.\n(3)\nIn addition, that Decision provides that Member States are to ensure that official samples are taken from at least 20 % of the consignments of crustaceans imported from Bangladesh and that those official samples are to undergo analytical tests for the detection of the presence of residues of pharmacologically active substances.\n(4)\nA Commission inspection was carried out in Bangladesh in March-April 2011. The results of that inspection confirmed considerable improvements in that third country, particularly in the implementation of analytical methods used for residue monitoring and traceability of animals and products.\n(5)\nBased on the results of that inspection, it appears unnecessary that Member States continue to ensure additional sampling and analytical tests on consignments of crustaceans imported from Bangladesh for the detection of the presence of residues of pharmacologically active substances, before they are placed on the Union market.\n(6)\nDecision 2008/630/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2008/630/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 3 is deleted;\n2.\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nThe consignments from which official samples have been taken pursuant to Article 2(3) shall be kept under official detention by the competent authority of the Member State concerned, until the analytical test has been completed.\nThose consignments can be placed on the market only if the results of the analytical test confirm that the consignments comply with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\u2019;\n3.\nArticles 4a and 4b are deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2011.", "references": ["34", "40", "46", "14", "86", "53", "66", "57", "50", "33", "32", "77", "26", "62", "72", "17", "76", "81", "13", "75", "1", "56", "41", "87", "79", "97", "15", "3", "6", "49", "No Label", "20", "22", "38", "67", "95", "96"], "gold": ["20", "22", "38", "67", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1000/2010\nof 3 November 2010\nderogating from Regulations (EC) No 2402/96, (EC) No 2058/96, (EC) No 2305/2003, (EC) No 969/2006, (EC) No 1918/2006, (EC) No 1964/2006, (EC) No 27/2008, (EC) No 1067/2008 and (EC) No 828/2009 as regards the dates for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences in 2011 under tariff quotas for sweet potatoes, manioc starch, manioc, cereals, rice, sugar and olive oil and derogating from Regulations (EC) No 382/2008, (EC) No 1518/2003, (EC) No 596/2004, (EC) No 633/2004 and (EC) No 951/2006 as regards the dates for issuing export licences in 2011 in the beef and veal, pigmeat, eggs, poultrymeat and out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose sectors\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 96/317/EC of 13 May 1996 concerning the conclusion of the results of consultations with Thailand under GATT Article XXIII (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/96 of 18 June 1996 on the implementation of the concessions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in the wake of the conclusion of the GATT XXIV.6 negotiations (2), and in particular Article 1(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (3), and in particular Articles 61, 144(1), 148, 156 and 161(3), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements (4), and in particular Article 9(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007 (5), and in particular Article 11(7) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2402/96 of 17 December 1996 opening and setting administrative rules for certain annual tariff quotas for sweet potatoes and manioc starch (6) lays down specific provisions for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences for sweet potatoes under quotas 09.4013 and 09.4014 and for manioc starch under quotas 09.4064 and 09.4065.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 27/2008 of 15 January 2008 opening and providing for the administration of certain annual tariff quotas for products covered by CN codes 0714 10 91, 0714 10 99, 0714 90 11 and 0714 90 19 originating in certain third countries other than Thailand (7) lays down specific provisions for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences, for the products concerned, under quotas 09.4009, 09.4010, 09.4011, 09.4012 and 09.4021.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 of 30 October 2008 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for common wheat of a quality other than high quality from third countries and derogating from Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (8), Commission Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 of 29 December 2003 opening and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for imports of barley from third countries (9) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 of 29 June 2006 opening and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for imports of maize from third countries (10) lay down specific provisions for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences for common wheat of a quality other than high quality under quotas 09.4123, 09.4124 and 09.4125, for barley under quota 09.4126 and for maize under quota 09.4131.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2058/96 of 28 October 1996 opening and providing for the management of a tariff quota for broken rice of CN code 1006 40 00 for production of food preparations of CN code 1901 10 (11) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1964/2006 of 22 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the opening and administration of an import quota for rice originating in Bangladesh, pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3491/90 (12) lay down specific provisions for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences for broken rice under quota 09.4079 and for rice originating in Bangladesh under quota 09.4517.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 828/2009 of 10 September 2009 laying down detailed rules of application for the marketing years 2009/2010 to 2014/2015 for the import and refining of sugar products of tariff heading 1701 under preferential agreements (13) lays down specific provisions for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences under quotas 09.4221, 09.4231 and 09.4241 to 09.4247.\n(6)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 of 20 December 2006 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quota for olive oil originating in Tunisia (14) lays down specific provisions for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences for olive oil under quota 09.4032.\n(7)\nIn view of the public holidays in 2011, derogations should be made, at certain times, from Regulations (EC) Nos 2402/96, 2058/96, 2305/2003, 969/2006, 1918/2006, 1964/2006, 1067/2008 and 828/2009 as regards the dates for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences in order to ensure compliance with the quota volumes in question.\n(8)\nThe second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 of 21 April 2008 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector (15), Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1518/2003 of 28 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the pigmeat sector (16), Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 596/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the egg sector (17) and Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 633/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the poultrymeat sector (18) provide that export licences are to be issued on the Wednesday following the week in which the licence applications were lodged, unless the Commission has taken any particular measures in the meantime.\n(9)\nArticle 7d(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (19) lays down that export licences for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose are to be issued from the Friday following the week during which the licence applications were lodged, unless the Commission has taken any particular measures in the meantime.\n(10)\nIn view of the public holidays in 2011 and the resulting impact on the publication of the Official Journal of the European Union, the period between the lodging of applications and the day on which the licences are to be issued will be too short to ensure proper management of the market. That period should therefore be extended.\n(11)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1157/2009 (20) derogating from certain Regulations as regards the dates for lodging applications and issuing import and export licences in 2010 should therefore be repealed.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSweet potatoes\n1. By way of derogation from Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2402/96, for 2011, import licence applications for sweet potatoes under quotas 09.4013 and 09.4014 may not be lodged before Tuesday 4 January 2011 or after Tuesday 13 December 2011.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2402/96, import licences for sweet potatoes applied for on the date indicated in Annex I to this Regulation under quotas 09.4013 and 09.4014 shall be issued on the date indicated therein, subject to measures adopted pursuant to Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 (21).\nArticle 2\nManioc starch\n1. By way of derogation from the first paragraph of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 2402/96, for 2011, import licence applications for manioc starch under quotas 09.4064 and 09.4065 may not be lodged before Tuesday 4 January 2011 or after Tuesday 13 December 2011.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2402/96, import licences for manioc starch applied for on the date indicated in Annex II to this Regulation under quotas 09.4064 and 09.4065 shall be issued on the date indicated therein, subject to measures adopted pursuant to Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006.\nArticle 3\nManioc\n1. By way of derogation from Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 27/2008, for 2011, import licence applications for manioc under quotas 09.4009, 09.4010, 09.4011, 09.4012 and 09.4021 may not be lodged before Monday 3 January 2011 or after 13:00 (Brussels time) on Wednesday 14 December 2011.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 27/2008, import licences for manioc applied for on the dates indicated in Annex III to this Regulation under quotas 09.4009, 09.4010, 09.4011, 09.4012 and 09.4021 shall be issued on the dates indicated therein, subject to measures adopted pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006.\nArticle 4\nCereals\n1. By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008, for 2011, import licence applications for common wheat of a quality other than high quality under quotas 09.4123, 09.4124 and 09.4125 may no longer be lodged after 13:00 (Brussels time) on Friday 16 December 2011.\n2. By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003, for 2011, import licence applications for barley under quota 09.4126 may no longer be lodged after 13:00 (Brussels time) on Friday 16 December 2011.\n3. By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 969/2006, for 2011, import licence applications for maize under quota 09.4131 may no longer be lodged after 13:00 (Brussels time) on Friday 16 December 2011.\nArticle 5\nRice\n1. By way of derogation from the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2058/96, for 2011, import licence applications for broken rice under quota 09.4079 may no longer be lodged after 13:00 (Brussels time) on Friday 9 December 2011.\n2. By way of derogation from the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1964/2006, for 2011, import licence applications for rice originating in Bangladesh under quota 09.4517 may no longer be lodged after 13:00 (Brussels time) on Friday 9 December 2011.\nArticle 6\nSugar\nBy way of derogation from Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 828/2009, import licence applications for sugar sector products under quotas 09.4221, 09.4231 and 09.4241 to 09.4247 may no longer be lodged after 13:00 (Brussels time) on Friday 16 December 2011 until 13:00 (Brussels time) on Friday 30 December 2011.\nArticle 7\nOlive oil\nBy way of derogation from Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006, import licences for olive oil applied for during the periods referred to in Annex IV to this Regulation shall be issued on the corresponding dates specified therein, subject to measures adopted pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006.\nArticle 8\nLicences for exports of beef and veal, pigmeat, eggs and poultrymeat attracting refunds\nBy way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 382/2008, Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1518/2003, Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 596/2004 and Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 633/2004, export licences applied for during the periods referred to in Annex V to this Regulation shall be issued on the corresponding dates set out therein.\nThe derogation provided for in the first paragraph shall apply only where none of the particular measures provided for in Article 12(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 382/2008, Article 3(4) and (4a) of Regulation (EC) No 1518/2003, Article 3(4) and (4a) of Regulation (EC) No 596/2004 and Article 3(4) and (4a) of Regulation (EC) No 633/2004 has been taken before the said dates of issue.\nArticle 9\nOut-of-quota sugar and isoglucose\nBy way of derogation from Article 7d(1) of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, export licences for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose for which applications are lodged during the periods referred to in Annex VI to this Regulation shall be issued on the corresponding dates set out therein.\nThe derogation provided for in the first paragraph shall apply only where none of the particular measures provided for in Article 9(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 has been taken before the said dates of issue.\nArticle 10\nRegulation (EC) No 1157/2009 is repealed with effect from 31 December 2010.\nArticle 11\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2010.", "references": ["57", "12", "29", "75", "39", "45", "26", "23", "63", "46", "78", "87", "97", "14", "54", "88", "1", "49", "60", "24", "44", "80", "70", "91", "72", "33", "7", "93", "17", "62", "No Label", "8", "21", "66"], "gold": ["8", "21", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 19 January 2011\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of purified terephthalic acid and its salts originating in Thailand\n(2011/32/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009, the European Commission (the \u2018Commission\u2019) announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (Notice of initiation), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of purified terephthalic acid and its salts (PTA) originating in Thailand (the country concerned).\n(2)\nThe anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 13 November 2009 by BP Aromatics Limited NV and CEPSA Quimica S.A. (the complainants) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of PTA. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the product concerned originating in the country concerned and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the opening of a proceeding.\n(3)\nOn the same day, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of PTA originating in Thailand. This investigation has been terminated by means of Commission Decision 2011/31/EU (4).\n1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(4)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainants, other known producers in the Union, the known exporting producers in Thailand, the representatives of the exporting country concerned and known importers and users of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the Notice of initiation. All interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\n(5)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the complainants, other known producers in the Union, the known exporting producers in Thailand and to the known importers and users of the product concerned and to all other parties that requested a questionnaire within the deadlines set out in the Notice of initiation.\n(6)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from the three known Thai exporting producers, from three Union producers, from one Union importer and from five Union users.\n(7)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nUnion producers:\n-\nBP Aromatics Limited NV, Geel, Belgium\n-\nCEPSA Qu\u00edmica, S.A., Madrid, Spain\n-\nLotte Chemical UK Ltd (formerly Artenius), Wilton, Redcar, United Kingdom\n(b)\nUnion importers:\n-\nMitsui & Co. Benelux NV, Brussels, Belgium\n(c)\nUnion users:\n-\nDSM Powder Coating Resins BV, Zwolle, Holland\n-\nM&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Patrica (Frosinone), Italy\n-\nNOVAPET S.A., Barbastro (Huesca), Spain\n-\nUAB NEO Group, Klaipeda, Lithuania\n(d)\nExporting producers in Thailand:\n-\nTPT Petrochemicals Public Company Ltd, Bangkok, Thailand (hereinafter \u2018TPT\u2019)\n-\nIndorama Petrochem Ltd, Bangkok, Thailand (hereinafter \u2018Indorama\u2019)\n-\nSiam Mitsui PTA Company Ltd, Bangkok, Thailand (hereinafter \u2018SMPC\u2019)\n(e)\nRelated exporter:\n-\nMitsui Chemicals Inc, Tokyo, Japan (hereinafter \u2018MCI\u2019) - export sales representative and shareholder of SMPC.\n(8)\nGiven that both TPT and Indorama are owned by the same holding company, they will be referred to in this document as the \u2018Indorama group\u2019.\n1.3. Investigation period and period considered\n(9)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 December 2008 to 30 November 2009 (the \u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the investigation period (the period considered).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(10)\nThe product concerned is terephthalic acid and its salts of a purity by weight of 99,5 % or more, currently falling within CN code ex 2917 36 00 (the product concerned).\n(11)\nPTA is obtained by the purification of crude terephthalic acid, which is a result of making paraxylene (PX) react with a solvent and a catalyst solution.\n2.2. Like product\n(12)\nThe product concerned and the PTA produced and sold on the domestic market of Thailand, as well as the PTA produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry were found to have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and uses. They were therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n3. DUMPING\n3.1. Preliminary remarks\n(13)\nAll three Thai exporting producers named in the complaint submitted questionnaires responses. The investigation revealed that no other Thai exporting producers of PTA exist and that the responses covered 100 % of Thai exports to the EU market.\n(14)\nThe three companies requested dumping calculations to be performed on the basis of monthly data on the grounds that costs of the main raw material and consequently prices for the product concerned varied significantly through the IP. For the reasons shown in recital 26 below, the use of the requested methodology was not considered warranted.\n(15)\nIt should be noted that sales on the domestic and EU markets were based on either spot prices or contracts based on the PX cost (the main raw material) or a formula based on a PTA pricing index in China. In the latter case, there was a significant time lag in a number of instances after which the final index was available. In order to implement the formula, an invoicing arrangement had to be operated whereby the final price could be settled some months after the initial provisional invoice was issued. Debit/credit notes were issued to correct the final price agreed in the contract.\n(16)\nThe general methodology set out below has been applied to all the cooperating exporting producers in Thailand.\n3.2. Normal value\n(17)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first established whether the domestic sales of the Thai producers were sufficiently representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of their total volume of export sales of the product concerned to the Union. The domestic sales of the Thai producers were considered sufficiently representative during the investigation period.\n(18)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of the like product could be regarded as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for the like product sold on the domestic market the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers during the IP.\n(19)\nSince the volume of profitable sales of the like product represented more than 80 % of the total domestic sales volume of the like product for all 3 producers, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of all domestic sales.\n3.3. Export price\n(20)\nThis investigation showed that one of the cooperating exporting producers (SMPC) sold to the EU market via its largest shareholder (MCI, a company located in Japan), which then resold to a series of Japanese traders, which ultimately sold to parties on the EU market. It was investigated whether MCI and the largest Japanese trader were related and if such a relationship had an impact on prices.\n(21)\nIt was found that the most important relationship concerned common shareholdings at a very low percentage held by Japanese banks on behalf of numerous trustees. It was, therefore, established that the relationship was not of such a nature to impact price levels. Indeed, given (i) the pricing/contractual arrangements outlined above which are typical for this industry and (ii) the nature of the relationship between the companies described above, prices are at arm\u2019s length. It was therefore determined that the export price of the product concerned could be established on the basis of MCI\u2019s sales to the Japanese traders.\n(22)\nA letter was sent to MCI informing it of the consequences of non-cooperation because during the verification in Tokyo the case handlers involved were not granted full access to accounting information relating to certain allowances.\n(23)\nIt was therefore decided to calculate the allowances on the basis of facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. As a result the following methodology was used. For freight costs the allowance was adjusted upwards on the basis of information gathered on spot. For the remaining allowances the amounts reported as well as the net sales prices were also checked by reference to other independent sources, in this case information established for the other two Thai exporting producers and were found to be in line for the same type of sales. An alternative method of using Eurostat prices as a substitute was considered but not used because for this product the value in Eurostat was the cif price at the date of importation and not the adjusted final price established in accordance with the sales contract and the invoicing systems outlined above. This approach was exceptionally appropriate given the structure of the market as explained in recital 15 above. Note that the vast majority of allowances had already been verified in Thailand.\n3.4. Comparison\n(24)\nThe comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis.\n(25)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments for differences in transport, insurance, packing, credit, handling and commission costs were made where applicable and justified.\n(26)\nThe comparison between export price and normal value was made on an annual basis. The request of the exporting producers to make comparisons on a monthly basis was considered but not pursued since it was obvious that it would not have changed the overall conclusion with respect to dumping, i.e. the countrywide de minimis dumping.\n3.5. Dumping margin\n(27)\nPursuant to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin for the cooperating exporting producers in Thailand were established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average export price as established above.\n(28)\nOn the basis of the above methodology the dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid, were set as follows:\nDumping Margin\nIndorama group\n3,7 %\nSMPC\nNo dumping\n(29)\nThe three exporting producers (the two of the Indorama group and SMPC) represent the entirety of exports originating in Thailand when compared to the Eurostat data. In order to assess whether, on a countrywide basis, the dumping margin was below de minimis, a weighted average countrywide dumping margin was established. It was found that this margin was below de minimis, i.e. 1,8 %.\n(30)\nIn view of the countrywide de minimis dumping margin, provisional measures on imports of PTA originating in Thailand should not be imposed.\n4. INJURY, CAUSATION AND UNION INTEREST\n(31)\nIn view of the above findings with respect to dumping it is not considered necessary to present any analysis on injury, causation and Union interest.\n5. TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(32)\nThe proceeding should therefore be terminated as the dumping margin determined for Thailand is less than 2 %. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment.\n(33)\nAs to dumping issues, comments were received from one of the complainants which considered that the Commission should have imputed to SMPC the dumping margin established for the other two exporting producers (3,7 %) as a consequence of facts available. In such a case it was argued that there would have been a de minimis dumping margin. This had to be rejected. The Commission did apply facts available with respect to the Japanese related company by using the company\u2019s available data, adjusting it upwards and comparing it to other verifiable sources. To impute in these circumstances the dumping margin of the other exporters would not have been in line with the provisions of Article 18.\n(34)\nThe same complainant also argued that other governments take a different view on investigations concerning PTA for a similar IP. This had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that the evidence provided by the party refers to an anti-dumping duty imposed by the People\u2019s Republic of China on imports of PTA from Korea and Thailand. The information provided cannot corroborate the party\u2019s claim since no evidence exists on how normal value and export price were established in this Chinese anti-dumping investigation. Furthermore, in the investigation by the Chinese authorities, the IP runs from 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2008, while the IP used in the current EU investigation runs from 1 December 2008 to 30 November 2009. Therefore the periods taken into consideration in the EU and the Chinese investigations were very different.\n(35)\nAs far as injury aspects are concerned no representations were submitted by any interested party.\n(36)\nIn conclusion, no comments from any interested party undermine the finding that protective measures are unnecessary.\n(37)\nIn light of all the above, the Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of purified terephthalic acid and its salts originating in Thailand should be terminated without the imposition of anti-dumping measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nThe anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of terephthalic acid and its salts of a purity by weight of 99,5 % or more, currently falling within CN code ex 2917 36 00, originating in Thailand, is hereby terminated.\nDone at Brussels, 19 January 2011.", "references": ["54", "89", "45", "90", "97", "60", "29", "3", "62", "31", "79", "34", "30", "50", "78", "40", "88", "12", "6", "69", "32", "33", "37", "22", "11", "58", "99", "36", "46", "94", "No Label", "4", "20", "21", "23", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["4", "20", "21", "23", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 767/2011\nof 2 August 2011\namending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 3199/93 on the mutual recognition of procedures for the complete denaturing of alcohol for the purposes of exemption from excise duty, as regards the entries concerning the Czech Republic and Latvia\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (1), and in particular Article 27(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 27(1)(a) of Directive 92/83/EEC, Member States are required to exempt from excise duty alcohol which has been completely denatured in accordance with the requirements of any Member State, provided that such requirements have been duly notified and accepted in accordance with the conditions laid down in paragraphs 3 and 4 of that Article.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 3199/93 (2) provides that the denaturants which are employed in each Member State for the purposes of completely denaturing alcohol in accordance with Article 27(1)(a) of Directive 92/83/EEC are to be described in the Annex to that Regulation.\n(3)\nOn 13 May 2010 the Czech Republic communicated some changes to its denaturing processes authorised by Regulation (EC) No 3199/93.\n(4)\nThe Commission transmitted the communication of the Czech Republic to the other Member States on 18 June 2010.\n(5)\nObjections have been received to the requirements notified by the Czech Republic. Therefore, the procedure referred to in Article 27(4) of Directive 92/83/EEC has been duly followed. Following discussion in the Committee on Excise Duties, the Czech Republic revised its original proposal so that the proposed requirements should not give rise to evasion, avoidance or abuse.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 27(5) of Directive 92/83/EEC, Poland notified the Commission on 26 May 2010 that it had detected abuse of completely denatured alcohol, exempted from excise duty pursuant to Article 27(1)(a) of Directive 92/83/EEC, and denatured according to the method of Latvia authorised by Regulation (EC) No 3199/93, which is a mixture of a minimum amount of 3 litres of isopropyl alcohol and 2 grams of denatonium benzoate per 100 litres of spirit.\n(7)\nThe Commission transmitted the communication of Poland to the other Member States on 25 June 2010.\n(8)\nSubsequent responses to the communication and discussion in the Committee on Excise Duties indicated that the majority of Member States were in agreement with the position of Poland. In response to the concerns raised by Poland, Latvia communicated to the Commission the agreement to amend its method of denaturing as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 3199/93.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 3199/93 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Excise Duties,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 3199/93 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2011.", "references": ["48", "10", "93", "83", "49", "8", "15", "16", "11", "95", "82", "38", "81", "28", "39", "37", "29", "0", "6", "21", "80", "9", "18", "23", "46", "70", "35", "26", "53", "45", "No Label", "34", "71", "74", "76", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["34", "71", "74", "76", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 4 April 2012\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, limited to two Chinese exporting producers Fang Da Food Additive (Shen Zhen) Limited and Fang Da Food Additive (Yang Quan) Limited\n(2012/185/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 3 January 2011, the European Commission (\u2018Commission\u2019) received a complaint pursuant to Article 5 of the Basic Regulation, alleging that imports of sodium cyclamate, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019) and produced by Fang Da Food Additive (Shen Zhen) Limited and Fang Da Food Additive (Yang Quan) Limited (\u2018the Fang Da group\u2019) are being dumped and are thereby contributing to the material injury to the Union industry.\n(2)\nThe complaint was lodged by Productos Aditivos SA (\u2018the complainant\u2019), the sole producer in the Union of sodium cyclamate, representing 100 % of the Union production thereof.\n(3)\nOn 17 February 2011, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the PRC, limited to the Fang Da group.\n(4)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the complainant, to the Fang Da group and to known importers and users. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(5)\nAll interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\nB. WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(6)\nBy a letter of 17 January 2012 to the Commission, the complainant formally withdrew its complaint.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(8)\nIt is considered that the present proceeding should be terminated since the investigation had not brought to light any considerations showing that such termination would not be in the Union interest. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received indicating that such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(9)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the PRC, limited to the Fang Da group should be terminated.\n(10)\nThe review based on Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 (3) can therefore also be terminated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, limited to two Chinese exporting producers Fang Da Food Additive (Shen Zhen) Limited and Fang Da Food Additive (Yang Quan) Limited, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThe review based on Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 is hereby terminated.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 4 April 2012.", "references": ["88", "97", "16", "5", "51", "47", "7", "78", "67", "45", "79", "38", "70", "55", "29", "57", "63", "84", "80", "20", "42", "3", "72", "69", "91", "77", "33", "98", "13", "44", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "74", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "74", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 811/2012\nof 10 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in Norwegian waters of I and II by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non- EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 September 2012.", "references": ["27", "22", "30", "12", "3", "28", "1", "61", "77", "19", "8", "35", "78", "93", "75", "32", "85", "15", "14", "87", "99", "45", "80", "73", "74", "64", "33", "83", "94", "36", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1167/2010\nof 9 December 2010\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Prosciutto di Modena (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Prosciutto di Modena\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2010.", "references": ["10", "26", "86", "23", "64", "88", "27", "81", "39", "46", "90", "67", "16", "50", "58", "51", "80", "87", "65", "60", "33", "34", "43", "1", "84", "78", "71", "11", "76", "30", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/504/CFSP\nof 16 August 2011\namending Decision 2010/232/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 April 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/232/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar (1).\n(2)\nOn 12 April 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/239/CFSP (2) amending Decision 2010/232/CFSP.\n(3)\nThe lists of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures should be updated.\n(4)\nAnnexes I, II and IV to Decision 2010/232/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I, II and IV to Decision 2010/232/CFSP are replaced by the text set out in Annexes I, II and III respectively to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2011.", "references": ["76", "65", "92", "42", "81", "50", "13", "14", "22", "29", "41", "31", "28", "67", "62", "27", "55", "46", "33", "79", "15", "69", "17", "20", "39", "86", "0", "6", "57", "43", "No Label", "3", "23", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "23", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1078/2011\nof 25 October 2011\nconcerning the non-approval of the active substance propanil, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply, with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval, to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (3). Propanil is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish lists of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. These lists included propanil.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 11f of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 and Article 12(1)(a) and (2)(b) of that Regulation, Commission Decision 2008/769/EC of 30 September 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of propanil in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (6) was adopted.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to Italy, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/769/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nItaly evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 26 February 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on the risk assessment of propanil to the Commission on 23 February 2011 (7). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 27 September 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for propanil.\n(7)\nBased on the new data submitted by the applicant and included in the additional report an acceptable operator exposure level could be set. However, during the evaluation of this active substance, a number of other concerns have been identified. In particular, it was not possible to perform a reliable consumer exposure assessment as data were missing on the toxicity of metabolite 3,4-DCA which may be higher than the parent compound. Moreover, no maximum residue levels could be proposed for the supported use on rice as the submitted trials have not been conducted according to the critical good agricultural practices. A high risk to birds and mammals has been identified while a high risk for aquatic organisms and non-target arthropods cannot be excluded on the basis of the data made available by the applicant. In addition, a potential for long-range transport through the atmosphere cannot be excluded.\n(8)\nThe Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion of the Authority. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the applicant to submit comments on the draft review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(9)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns referred to in recital 7 could not be eliminated. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing propanil satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nPropanil should therefore not be approved pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(11)\nIn the interest of clarity, Decision 2008/769/EC should be repealed.\n(12)\nThis Regulation does not prejudice the submission of a further application for propanil pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nNon-approval of active substance\nThe active substance propanil is not approved.\nArticle 2\nRepeal\nDecision 2008/769/EC is repealed.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["60", "95", "49", "54", "7", "84", "72", "8", "98", "23", "66", "42", "86", "2", "3", "17", "74", "68", "58", "36", "26", "92", "43", "41", "48", "82", "85", "70", "5", "62", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/86/EU\nof 2 December 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include haloxyfop-P as an active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 703/2001 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included haloxyfop-R. By Commission Decision 2007/437/EC (4) it was decided not to include haloxyfop-R in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier, hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019, submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(3)\nThe application was submitted to Denmark, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as those that were the subject of Decision 2007/437/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008. In that application the ISO name, \u2018haloxyfop-P\u2019, is used to refer to the active substance rather than the previously used term, \u2018haloxyfop-R\u2019.\n(4)\nDenmark evaluated the new information and data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 3 April 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on haloxyfop-P to the Commission on 9 October 2009 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 October 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for haloxyfop-P.\n(5)\nThe additional report by the rapporteur Member State and the new conclusion by the EFSA concentrate on the concerns that lead to the non-inclusion. Those concerns were in particular the potential contamination of groundwater - and possibly drinking water - by a number of metabolites and the risk to mammals.\n(6)\nThe new data submitted by the applicant show the following. The metabolites concerned are neither of toxicological, nor of biological relevance and they present a low risk from an ecotoxicological point of view.\n(7)\nConsequently, the additional data and information provided by the applicant permit to eliminate the specific concerns that led to the non-inclusion. No other open scientific questions have arisen.\n(8)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing haloxyfop-P may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1) (a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include haloxyfop-P in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance may be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that the inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit information confirming the groundwater exposure assessment as regards the active substance and its soil metabolites DE-535 phenol, DE-535 pyridinol and DE-535 pyridinone.\n(10)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 June 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["94", "41", "11", "26", "70", "84", "20", "66", "73", "82", "93", "21", "15", "5", "40", "44", "28", "43", "23", "89", "92", "8", "91", "77", "71", "1", "99", "3", "31", "64", "No Label", "2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 445/2012\nof 25 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2012.", "references": ["84", "6", "89", "67", "32", "71", "52", "34", "73", "20", "28", "74", "72", "8", "78", "5", "75", "86", "54", "83", "11", "2", "47", "43", "46", "76", "60", "55", "25", "26", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 579/2010\nof 29 June 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 19 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\nI. Previous investigation and existing countervailing measures\n(1)\nIn December 1999, by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 (2), the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film (\u2018the product concerned\u2019) currently falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90, originating in India. The investigation which led to the adoption of that Regulation is hereinafter referred to as the \u2018original investigation\u2019. The measures took the form of an ad valorem countervailing duty, ranging between 3,8 % and 19,1 % imposed on imports from individually named exporters, with a residual duty rate of 19,1 % imposed on imports of the product concerned from all other companies. The investigation period of the original investigation was 1 October 1997 to 30 September 1998.\n(2)\nIn March 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 (3), the Council, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, maintained the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 on imports of PET film originating in India. The review investigation period was 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004.\n(3)\nIn August 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1288/2006 (4), the Council, following an interim review concerning the subsidisation of an Indian PET film producer, Garware Polyester Limited (\u2018Garware\u2019), amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on Garware by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.\n(4)\nIn September 2007, by Regulation (EC) No 1124/2007 (5), the Council, following a partial interim review concerning the subsidisation of another Indian PET film producer, Jindal Poly Films Limited (\u2018Jindal\u2019), formerly known as Jindal Polyester Ltd, amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on Jindal by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.\n(5)\nIn January 2009, by Regulation (EC) No 15/2009 (6), the Council, following a partial interim review initiated by the Commission on its own initiative concerning the subsidisation of five Indian PET film producers, amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.\nII. Existing anti-dumping measures\n(6)\nIt should be noted that Jindal Poly Films Limited is subject to an anti-dumping duty of 0 % (7).\nIII. Initiation of a partial interim review\n(7)\nThe request for a partial interim review was lodged by Jindal Poly Films Limited, an exporting producer from India (\u2018the applicant\u2019). The request is limited in scope to the examination of subsidisation as far as the applicant is concerned. The applicant has provided prima facie evidence that the circumstances with regard to subsidisation on the basis of which measures were established have changed significantly and that these changes are of a lasting nature.\n(8)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced on 9 September 2009, by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union (8) (\u2018Notice of Initiation\u2019), the initiation of a partial interim review, in accordance with Article 19 of the basic Regulation, limited to the level of subsidisation to the applicant, with a view to determining whether the measures should be removed or amended for the applicant,\n(9)\nThe partial interim review investigation would also assess the need, depending on the review findings, to amend the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the product concerned from exporting producers in the country concerned not individually mentioned in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006, i.e. the duty rate as applying to \u2018all other companies\u2019 in India.\nIV. Investigation period\n(10)\nThe investigation of the level of subsidisation covered the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009 (\u2018review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019).\nV. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(11)\nThe Commission officially informed the applicant, the Government of India (GOI), Du Pont Tejin Films, Luxembourg, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Germany, Toray Plastics Europe, France and Nurell, Italy, which represent a major proportion of Union PET film production (hereinafter \u2018the Union industry\u2019), of the initiation of the partial interim review investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the Notice of Initiation.\n(12)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(13)\nThe written and oral comments submitted by the parties were considered and, where appropriate, taken into account.\n(14)\nIn order to obtain the information necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to the GOI.\n(15)\nReplies from the questionnaire were received from the applicant and from the GOI.\n(16)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the determination of subsidisation. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the applicant and at the premises of the GOI in Delhi.\nVI. Disclosure and comments on procedure\n(17)\nThe GOI and the other interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations upon which it was intended to propose to amend the duty rate applicable to the applicant. They were given a reasonable time to comment. All submissions and comments were taken duly into consideration as set out below.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED\n(18)\nThe product covered by this review is the same product as the one concerned by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006, namely polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90 originating in India.\nC. SUBSIDISATION\n1. Introduction\n(19)\nOn the basis of the information submitted by the GOI and the other interested parties and the replies to the Commission\u2019s questionnaire, the following schemes, which allegedly involve the granting of subsidies, were investigated:\n(a)\nAdvance Authorization Scheme (formerly known as Advance Licence Scheme);\n(b)\nDuty Entitlement Passbook Scheme;\n(c)\nExport Promotion Capital Goods Scheme;\n(d)\nExport Credit Scheme.\n(e)\nPackage Scheme of Incentives (PSI)\n(20)\nThe schemes (a) to (c) specified above are based on the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 (No 22 of 1992) which entered into force on 7 August 1992 (\u2018Foreign Trade Act\u2019). The Foreign Trade Act authorises the GOI to issue notifications regarding the export and import policy. These are summarised in \u2018Export and Import Policy\u2019 documents, which are issued by the Ministry of Commerce every five years and updated regularly. One Export and Import Policy document is relevant to the RIP of this case, i.e. the five-year plan relating to the period 1 September 2004 to 31 March 2009 (\u2018EXIM-policy 04-09\u2019). In addition, the GOI also sets out the procedures governing the EXIM-policy 04-09 in a \u2018Handbook of Procedures - 1 September 2004 to 31 March 2009, Volume I\u2019 (\u2018HOP I 04-09\u2019). The Handbook of Procedure is also updated on a regular basis.\n(21)\nThe Export Credit Scheme specified above under (d) is based on sections 21 and 35A of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, which allow the Reserve Bank of India (\u2018RBI\u2019) to direct commercial banks in the field of export credits.\n(22)\nThe scheme specified above under (e) is managed by State authorities in India.\n2. Advance Authorisation Scheme (\u2018AAS\u2019)\n(a) Legal basis\n(23)\nThe detailed description of the scheme is contained in paragraphs 4.1.1 to 4.1.14 of the EXIM-policy 04-09 and chapters 4.1 to 4.30 of the HOP I 04-09. This scheme was called Advance Licence Scheme during the previous review investigation that led to the imposition by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 of the definitive countervailing duty currently in force.\n(b) Eligibility\n(24)\nThe AAS consists of six sub-schemes, as described in more detail in recital (25) below. Those sub-schemes differ , inter alia in the scope of eligibility. Manufacturer-exporters and merchant-exporters \u2018tied to\u2019 supporting manufacturers are eligible for the AAS physical exports and for the AAS for annual requirement. Manufacturer-exporters supplying the ultimate exporter are eligible for AAS for intermediate supplies. Main contractors which supply to the \u2018deemed export\u2019 categories mentioned in paragraph 8.2 of the EXIM-policy 04-09, such as suppliers of an export oriented unit (\u2018EOU\u2019), are eligible for AAS deemed export. Eventually, intermediate suppliers to manufacturer-exporters are eligible for \u2018deemed export\u2019 benefits under the sub-schemes Advance Release Order (\u2018ARO\u2019) and back to back inland letter of credit.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(25)\nAdvance authorisations can be issued for:\n(i) Physical exports: This is the main sub-scheme. It allows for duty free import of input materials for the production of a specific resulting export product. \u2018Physical\u2019 in this context means that the export product has to leave Indian territory. An import allowance and export obligation including the type of export product are specified in the licence;\n(ii) Annual requirement: Such an authorisation is not linked to a specific export product, but to a wider product group (e.g. chemical and allied products). The licence holder can - up to a certain value threshold set by its past export performance - import duty free any input to be used in manufacturing any of the items falling under such a product group. It can choose to export any resulting product falling under the product group using such duty-exempt material;\n(iii) Intermediate supplies: This sub-scheme covers cases where two manufacturers intend to produce a single export product and divide the production process. The manufacturer-exporter who produces the intermediate product can import duty free input materials and can obtain for this purpose an AAS for intermediate supplies. The ultimate exporter finalises the production and is obliged to export the finished product;\n(iv) Deemed exports: This sub-scheme allows a main contractor to import inputs free of duty which are required in manufacturing goods to be sold as \u2018deemed exports\u2019 to the categories of customers mentioned in paragraph 8.2(b) to (f), (g), (i) and (j) of the EXIM policy 04-09. According to the GOI, deemed exports refer to those transactions in which the goods supplied do not leave the country. A number of categories of supply is regarded as deemed exports provided the goods are manufactured in India, e.g. supply of goods to an EOU or to a company situated in a special economic zone (\u2018SEZ\u2019);\n(v) ARO: The AAS holder intending to source the inputs from indigenous sources, in lieu of direct import, has the option to source them against AROs. In such cases the Advance Authorisations are validated as AROs and are endorsed to the indigenous supplier upon delivery of the items specified therein. The endorsement of the ARO entitles the indigenous supplier to the benefits of deemed exports as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the EXIM-policy 04-09 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty). The ARO mechanism refunds taxes and duties to the supplier instead of refunding the same to the ultimate exporter in the form of drawback/refund of duties. The refund of taxes/duties is available both for indigenous inputs as well as imported inputs;\n(vi) Back to back inland letter of credit: This sub-scheme again covers indigenous supplies to an Advance Authorisation holder. The holder of an Advance Authorisation can approach a bank for opening an inland letter of credit in favour of an indigenous supplier. The authorisation will be invalidated by the bank for direct import only in respect of the value and volume of items being sourced indigenously instead of importation. The indigenous supplier will be entitled to deemed export benefits as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the EXIM-policy 04-09 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty).\n(26)\nThe applicant received concessions under the AAS linked to the product concerned during the RIP. The applicant made use of two of the sub-schemes, i.e. (i) AAS physical exports and (ii) AAS for deemed exports. It is therefore not necessary to establish the countervailability of the remaining unused sub-schemes.\n(27)\nFor verification purposes by the Indian authorities, an Advance Authorisation holder is legally obliged to maintain \u2018a true and proper account of consumption and utilisation of duty free imported/domestically procured goods\u2019 in a specified format (chapters 4.26, 4.30 and Appendix 23 HOP I 04-09), i.e. an actual consumption register. This register has to be verified by an external chartered accountant/cost and works accountant who issues a certificate stating that the prescribed registers and relevant records have been examined and the information furnished under Appendix 23 is true and correct in all respects. Nevertheless, the aforesaid provisions apply only to Advance Authorisations issued on or after 13 May 2005. For all Advance Authorisations or Advance Licences issued before that date, holders are requested to follow the previously applicable verification provisions, i.e. to keep a true and proper account of licence-wise consumption and utilisation of imported goods in the specified format of Appendix 18 (chapter 4.30 and Appendix 18 HOP I 02-07).\n(28)\nWith regard to the sub-schemes used during the RIP by the applicant, i.e. physical exports and deemed exports, both the import allowance and the export obligation are fixed in volume and value by the GOI and are documented on the Authorisation. In addition, at the time of import and of export, the corresponding transactions are to be documented by Government officials on the Authorisation. The volume of imports allowed under the AAS is determined by the GOI on the basis of standard input-output norms (\u2018SIONs\u2019). SIONs exist for most products including the product concerned and are published in the HOP II 04-09. The most recent changes in the SIONs for PET film and PET chips, an intermediate product, were revised in September 2005.\n(29)\nImported input materials are not transferable and have to be used to produce the resultant export product. The export obligation must be fulfilled within a prescribed time frame after issuance of the licence (24 months with two possible extensions of 6 months each).\n(30)\nThe scheme as described above has not changed since the last partial interim review concerning subsidisation for the applicant which was concluded in January 2009. However, the benefit under this scheme has substantially decreased as shown in recital (39) below.\n(31)\nThe current interim review investigation established that the verification requirements stipulated by the Indian authorities were not honoured and not yet tested in practice. The applicant did not maintain a system whereby it could be verified which inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product and in what amounts, as stipulated by the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2004 to 2009 (Appendix 23) and in accordance with Annex II(II)(4) of the basic Regulation. The consumption register was never inspected by the GOI.\n(32)\nChanges in the administration of the FTP 2004 to 2009, which became effective in autumn of 2005 (mandatory sending of the consumption register to the India authorities in the context of the redemption procedure) has not yet been applied in the case of the applicant. Thus, the de facto implementation of this provision could not be verified at this stage.\n(d) Conclusion\n(33)\nThe exemption from import duties is a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. a financial contribution of the GOI which conferred a benefit upon the investigated exporters.\n(34)\nIn addition, AAS physical exports and AAS for deemed exports are clearly contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation. Without an export commitment a company cannot obtain benefits under these schemes.\n(35)\nThe two sub-schemes used in the present case cannot be considered permissible duty drawback systems or substitution drawback systems within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. They do not conform to the rules laid down in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. The GOI did not effectively apply either its new or its old verification system or procedure to confirm whether and in what amounts inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) of the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) of the basic Regulation). The SIONs for the product concerned were not sufficiently precise. The SION\u2019s themselves cannot be considered a verification system of actual consumption because the design of those standard norms does not enable the GOI to verify with sufficient precision what amounts of inputs were consumed in the export production In addition, the GOI did not carry out a further examination based on actual inputs involved, although this would normally need to be carried out in the absence of an effectively applied verification system (Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) to the basic Regulation).\n(36)\nThese two sub-schemes are therefore countervailable.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(37)\nIn the absence of permitted duty drawback systems or substitution drawback systems, the countervailable benefit is the remission of total import duties normally due upon importation of inputs. In this respect, it is noted that the basic Regulation does not only provide for the countervailing of an \u2018excess\u2019 remission of duties. According to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Annex I(i) of the basic Regulation only when the conditions of Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation are met that the excess remission of duties can be countervailed. However, these conditions were not fulfilled in the present case. Thus, if an adequate monitoring process is not demonstrated, the above exception for drawback schemes is not applicable and the normal rule of the countervailing of the amount of unpaid duties (revenue forgone), applies, rather than of any purported excess remission. As set out in Annexes II(II) and III(II) of the basic Regulation the burden is not upon the investigating authority to calculate such excess remission. To the contrary, according to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation, the investigating authority only has to establish sufficient evidence to refute the appropriateness of an alleged verification system.\n(38)\nThe subsidy amount for the applicant, which used the AAS, was calculated on the basis of import duties forgone (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) on the material imported under the two sub-schemes during the RIP (numerator). In accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the subsidy amount where justified claims were made. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount was allocated over the export turnover of the product concerned during the RIP as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(39)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the applicant for the RIP amounts to 0,7 %.\n3. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (\u2018DEPBS\u2019)\n(a) Legal Basis\n(40)\nThe detailed description of the DEPBS is contained in paragraph 4.3 of the EXIM-policy 04-09 and in chapter 4 of the HOP I 04-09.\n(b) Eligibility\n(41)\nAny manufacturer-exporter or merchant-exporter is eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation of the DEPBS\n(42)\nAn eligible exporter can apply for DEPBS credits which are calculated as a percentage of the value of products exported under this scheme. Such DEPBS rates have been established by the Indian authorities for most products, including the product concerned. They are determined on the basis of SIONs, taking into account a presumed import content of inputs in the export product and the customs duty incidence on such presumed imports, regardless of whether import duties have actually been paid or not.\n(43)\nTo be eligible for benefits under this scheme, a company must export. At the time of the export transaction, a declaration must be made by the exporter to the authorities in India indicating that the export is taking place under the DEPBS. In order for the goods to be exported, the Indian customs authorities issue an export shipping bill, during the dispatch procedure. This document shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction. At this point in time, the exporter knows the benefit it will receive. Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill, the GOI has no discretion over the granting of a DEPBS credit. The relevant DEPBS rate to calculate the benefit is that which applied at the time the export declaration is made.\n(44)\nDEPBS credits are freely transferable and valid for a period of 12 months from the date of issue. They can be used for payment of customs duties on subsequent imports of any goods unrestrictedly importable, except capital goods. Goods imported against such credits can be sold on the domestic market (subject to sales tax) or used otherwise.\n(45)\nApplication for DEPBS credits are electronically filed and can cover an unlimited amount of export transactions. De facto no strict deadlines apply to DEPBS credits. The electronic system used to manage DEPBS does not automatically exclude export transactions exceeding the deadline submission periods mentioned in chapter 4.47 of the HOP I 04-09. Furthermore, as clearly provided in chapter 9.3 of the HOP I 04-09, applications received after the expiry of submission deadlines can always be considered with the imposition of a minor penalty fee (i.e. 10 % of the entitlement).\n(46)\nIt was found that the applicant used this scheme during the RIP.\n(d) Conclusions on the DEPBS\n(47)\nThe DEPBS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. A DEPBS credit is a financial contribution by the GOI, since the credit will eventually be used to offset import duties, thus decreasing the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would otherwise be due. In addition, the DEPBS credit confers a benefit upon the exporter, because it improves its liquidity.\n(48)\nFurthermore, the DEPBS is contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation.\n(49)\nThis scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. An exporter is under no obligation to actually consume the goods imported free of duty in the production process and the amount of credit is not calculated in relation to actual inputs used. Moreover, there is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production process of the exported product or whether an excess payment of import duties occurred within the meaning of item (i) of Annex I, and Annexes II and III, of the basic Regulation. Lastly, an exporter is eligible for the DEPBS benefits regardless of whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported. Thus, even exporters which procure all of their inputs locally and do not import any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled to benefit from the DEPBS.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(50)\nIn accordance with Articles 3(2) and 5 of the basic Regulation and the calculation methodology used for this scheme in Regulation (EC) No 367/2006, the amount of countervailable subsidies was calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient found to exist during the RIP. In this regard, it was considered that the benefit is conferred on the recipient at the point in time when an export transaction is made under this scheme. At this moment, the GOI is liable to forego the customs duties, which constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill which shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction, the GOI has no discretion as to whether or not to grant the subsidy. Furthermore, the cooperating exporting producer booked the DEPBS credits on an accrual basis as income.\n(51)\nWhere justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the credits so established to arrive at the subsidy amount as numerator, pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the export turnover of the product concerned during the review investigation period as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(52)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the applicant for the RIP amounts to 5,1 %.\n4. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (\u2018EPCGS\u2019)\n(a) Legal basis\n(53)\nThe detailed description of the EPCGS is contained in chapter 5 of the EXIM-policy 04-09 and in chapter 5 of the HOP I 04-09.\n(b) Eligibility\n(54)\nManufacturer-exporters, merchant-exporters \u2018tied to\u2019 supporting manufacturers and service providers are eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(55)\nUnder the condition of an export obligation, a company is allowed to import capital goods (new and -since April 2003- second-hand capital goods up to 10 years old) at a reduced rate of duty. To this end, the GOI issues, upon application and payment of a fee, an EPCGS licence. Since April 2000, the scheme provides for a reduced import duty rate of 5 % applicable to all capital goods imported under the scheme. Until 31 March 2000, an effective duty rate of 11 % (including a 10 % surcharge) and, in case of high value imports, a zero duty rate, was applicable. In order to meet the export obligation, the imported capital goods must be used to produce a certain amount of export goods during a certain period.\n(56)\nThe EPCGS licence holder can also source the capital goods indigenously. In such case, the indigenous manufacturer of capital goods may avail himself of the benefit for duty free import of components required to manufacture such capital goods. Alternatively, the indigenous manufacturer can claim the benefit of deemed export in respect of supply of capital goods to an EPCGS licence holder.\n(57)\nIt was found that the applicant used this scheme during the RIP.\n(d) Conclusion on EPCG Scheme\n(58)\nThe EPCGS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. The duty reduction constitutes a financial contribution by the GOI, since this concession decreases the GOI\u2019s duty revenue, which would otherwise be due. In addition, the duty reduction confers a benefit upon the exporter, because the duties saved upon importation improve its liquidity.\n(59)\nFurthermore, the EPCGS is contingent in law upon export performance, since such licences can not be obtained without a commitment to export. Therefore, it is deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation.\n(60)\nThis scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Capital goods are not covered by the scope of such permissible systems, as set out in Annex I, item (i), of the basic Regulation, because they are not consumed in the production of the exported products.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(61)\nThe subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods spread across a period which reflects the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in the industry concerned. In accordance with the established practice, the amount so calculated, which is attributable to the RIP, has been adjusted by adding interest during this period in order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. The commercial interest rate during the review investigation period in India was considered appropriate for this purpose. Where justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(62)\nThe applicant claimed that capital goods imported duty-free under the EPCG scheme used in the unit located in Khanvel were no longer in use and that the benefit relating to such goods should not be included in the numerator. In reply to this, it is noted that the applicant has already received the benefit relating to these capital goods. In addition, as there is no evidence that the applicant no longer possesses such goods or that it will not use them again, the claim has to be rejected.\n(63)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount has been allocated over the export turnover of the product concerned during the RIP as the appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(64)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the applicant for the RIP amounts to 2,3 %.\n5. Export Credit Scheme (\u2018ECS\u2019)\n(a) Legal basis\n(65)\nThe details of the scheme are set out in the Master Circular DBOD No DIR.(Exp).BC 01/04.02.02/2007-08 (Rupee/Foreign Currency Export Credit) and Master Circular DBOD No DIR.(Exp).BC 09/04.02.02/2008-09 (Rupee/Foreign Currency Export Credit) of the Reserve Bank of India (\u2018RBI\u2019), which is addressed to all commercial banks in India.\n(b) Eligibility\n(66)\nManufacturing exporters and merchant exporters are eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(67)\nUnder this scheme, the RBI mandatorily sets maximum ceiling interest rates applicable to export credits, both in Indian rupees and in foreign currency, which commercial banks can charge an exporter. The ECS consists of two sub-schemes, the Pre-Shipment Export Credit Scheme (\u2018packing credit\u2019), which covers credits provided to an exporter for financing the purchase, processing, manufacturing, packing and/or shipping of goods prior to export, and the Post-Shipment Export Credit Scheme, which provides for working capital loans with the purpose of financing export receivables. The RBI also directs the banks to provide a certain amount of their net bank credit towards export finance.\n(68)\nAs a result of the RBI Master Circulars exporters can obtain export credits at preferential interest rates as compared with the interest rates for ordinary commercial credits (\u2018cash credits\u2019), which are solely set under market conditions. The difference in rates might decrease for companies with good credit ratings. In fact, high rating companies might be in a position to obtain export credits and cash credits at the same conditions.\n(69)\nIt was found that the applicant used this scheme during the RIP.\n(d) Conclusion on the ECS\n(70)\nThe preferential interest rates of an ECS credit set by the RBI Master Circulars mentioned in recital (65) can decrease the interest costs of an exporter as compared with credit costs purely set by market conditions and confer in this case a benefit in the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation on such an exporter. Export financing is not per se more secure than domestic financing. In fact, it is usually perceived as being more risky and the extent of security required for a certain credit, regardless of the finance object, is a purely commercial decision of a given commercial bank. Rate differences with regard to different banks are the result of the methodology of the RBI to set maximum lending rates for each commercial bank individually.\n(71)\nDespite the fact that the preferential credits under the ECS are granted by commercial banks, this benefit is a financial contribution by a government within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the Regulation. In this context, it should be noted that neither Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation nor the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures require a charge on the public accounts, e.g. reimbursement of the commercial banks by the GOI, to establish a subsidy, but only government direction to carry out functions illustrated in points (i), (ii) or (iii) of Article 3(1)(a) of the basic Regulation. The RBI is a public body and falls therefore under the definition of \u2018government\u2019 as set out in Article 2(b) of the basic Regulation. It is 100 % government-owned, pursues public policy objectives, e.g. monetary policy, and its management is appointed by the GOI. The RBI directs private bodies, within the meaning of the second indent of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation, since the commercial banks are bound by the conditions it imposes, inter alia, with regard to the maximum ceilings for interest rates on export credits mandated in the RBI Master Circulars and the RBI provisions that commercial banks have to provide a certain amount of their net bank credit towards export finance. This direction obliges commercial banks to carry out functions mentioned in Article 3(1)(a)(i) of the basic Regulation, in this case provide loans in the form of preferential export financing. Such direct transfer of funds in the form of loans under certain conditions would normally be vested in the government, and the practice differs, in no real sense, from practices normally followed by governments, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation. This subsidy is deemed to be specific and countervailable since the preferential interest rates are only available in relation to the financing of export transactions and are therefore contingent upon export performance, pursuant to Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(72)\nThe subsidy amount has been calculated on the basis of the difference between the interest paid for export credits used during the RIP and the amount that would have been payable for ordinary commercial credits used by the applicant. This subsidy amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total export turnover during the RIP as the appropriate denominator in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(73)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the applicant for the RIP amounts to 0,2 %.\n6. Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI)\n(a) Legal basis\n(74)\nIn previous investigations regarding PET film, including the review investigation that led to the imposition by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 of the definitive countervailing duty currently in force, several Indian State schemes involving incentives granted to local companies were investigated. The State schemes fall under the heading \u2018Package Scheme of Incentives\u2019 (PSI), as there can be different kinds of incentives involved. The investigation established that a company\u2019s entitlement to benefits under the scheme is stipulated in the \u2018Eligibility Certificate\u2019.\n(75)\nThe Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) of the Government of Maharashtra (GOM) has been amended several times since its introduction. The applicant continues to avail itself of benefits under the PSI \u20181993 Scheme\u2019 and not under successor schemes. Consequently, only the PSI 1993 was assessed in the context of the case at hand.\n(76)\nThe Sales Tax Remission Scheme of the Government of West Bengal provides for the remission of Central Sales Tax. The investigation revealed that the applicant enjoyed trade tax (Central Sales Tax) exemption under the PSI of the Government of West Bengal in respect of its purchases. This tax provision excuses home-market sales by a company from payment of sales tax (both local sales tax and central sales tax).\n(b) Eligibility\n(77)\nIn order to be eligible, companies must as a general rule invest in less developed areas of a state either by setting up a new industrial establishment or by making a large scale capital investment in expansion or diversification of an existing industrial establishment. The main criterion to establish the amount of incentives is the classification of the area in which the enterprise is or will be located and the size of the investment.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(78)\nUnder the sales tax exemption schemes, designated units were not required to collect any sales tax on their sales transactions. Similarly, designated units were exempted from the payment of sales tax on their purchases of goods from suppliers eligible for the schemes. Whereas the exemption in relation to sales transaction is not considered to confer any benefit on the designated sales units, the exemption in relation to purchase transactions, however, does confer a benefit on the designated purchasing units.\n(79)\nExemption of sales tax on purchases within the State of Maharashtra (which was earlier exempted under the Maharashtra Sales Tax Exemption Scheme of Incentives) is no longer available. In April 2005 the sales tax legislation for intra-State sales in Maharashtra was replaced by a value added tax (VAT) system. With effect from April 2005, the applicant, as a non-exempt unit, has to purchase materials by paying VAT.\n(d) Conclusion\n(80)\nAs regards the PSI 1993 of the GOM, the applicant only accrued remission rights of sales tax on sales of finished goods during the RIP, which in the past has been found not to confer a benefit on the recipient (recital 114 of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006). Therefore, no countervailable benefit was found under the PSI 1993 of the GOM.\n(81)\nHowever, as regards the applicant\u2019s purchases from companies not located in the State of Maharashtra of raw materials without the payment of Central Sales Tax, the PSI provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. The exemption from payment of sales taxes on purchases constitutes a financial contribution, since this concession decreases the Government\u2019s revenue which would otherwise be due. In addition, this exemption confers a benefit upon the companies as it improves their liquidity.\n(82)\nThe PSI is only available to companies having invested within certain designated geographical areas within the jurisdiction of a State in India. It is not available for companies located outside these areas. The level of benefit is different according to the area concerned. The scheme is therefore specific in accordance with Article 4(2), first subparagraph, point (a) and Article 4(3) of the basic Regulation and therefore countervailable.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(83)\nConcerning the sales tax exemption, the subsidy amount was calculated on the basis of the amount of the sales tax normally due during the RIP but which remained unpaid.\n(84)\nPursuant to Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the amount of subsidy (numerator) has then been allocated over the total turnover of export and domestic sales during the review investigation period as the appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is not export-contingent and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(85)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the applicant for the RIP amounts to 0,1 %.\n7. Amount of countervailable subsidies\n(86)\nIt is recalled that Regulation (EC) No 1124/2007, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 367/2006, established the amount of countervailable subsidies for the applicant, expressed ad valorem, at 17,1 %.\n(87)\nDuring the present partial interim review, the amount of countervailable subsidies for the applicant, expressed ad valorem, was found to be 8,4 %, as listed hereunder:\nSCHEME\u2192\nAAS (9)\nDEPBS (9)\nEPCGS (9)\nECS (9)\nPSI\nTotal\nCOMPANY \u2193\n%\n%\n%\n%\n%\n%\nJindal Poly Films Limited\n0,7\n5,1\n2,3\n0,2\n0,1\n8,4\n(88)\nAccount taken of the above it is concluded that the level of subsidisation with regard to the exporting producer concerned has decreased.\n8. Countervailing measures\n(89)\nIt was also examined whether the changed circumstances with regard to the examined schemes could be considered to be of a lasting nature. In this respect, several elements would suggest that this is the case.\n(90)\nFirstly, it should be noted that the findings in this partial interim review are in line with the subsidy amounts established for five Indian PET film producers in the partial interim review published in January 2009, where the amount of countervailable subsidies, expressed ad valorem, were found to be ranging from 5,4 % to 8,6 %. This is an indication of certain constancy in the level of subsidisation existing in India for this product.\n(91)\nSecondly, while in the previous investigation the main benefit was conferred under the AAS, the benefit under this scheme has dropped significantly during the RIP and evidence has been obtained that this continued to be the case also after the RIP\n(92)\nOn the basis of the above there seems to be indications that the applicant will continue to receive subsidies in the future of an amount which is less than the one determined in the previous partial interim review investigation.\n(93)\nSince it has been demonstrated that the applicant is in receipt of much lesser subsidisation than before and that it is likely to continue to receive subsidies of an amount which is less than determined in the previous partial interim review investigation, the level of the measure should therefore be amended to reflect the new findings.\n(94)\nIn view of the above, the amended countervailing duty rate should be established at the new rate of subsidisation found during the present partial interim review, as the injury margin calculated in the original anti-subsidy investigation remains higher.\n(95)\nPursuant to Article 24(1), second subparagraph of the basic Regulation and Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (10), no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with one and the same situation arising from dumping or from export subsidisation. However, as mentioned in recital (6) above, since the applicant is subject to an anti-dumping duty of 0 % with regard to the product concerned, these provisions do not apply in the present case.\n(96)\nWith regard to the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the product concerned from exporting producers not individually mentioned in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006, i.e. the duty specified as applying to \u2018all other companies\u2019 in India, it is noted that the actual modalities of the investigated schemes and their countervailability have not changed with respect to the previous investigation. Thus there is no reason to re-calculate the subsidy and duty rates of these companies. Consequently, the rates of the duty applicable to all companies other than the applicant remain unchanged,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The rate of the definitive countervailing duty applicable to the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products manufactured by the companies listed below, shall be as follows:\nCompany\nDefinitive duty (%)\nTARIC additional code\nEster Industries Limited, 75-76, Amrit Nagar, Behind South Extension Part-1, New Delhi 110003, India\n7,2\nA026\nGarware Polyester Limited, Garware House, 50-A, Swami Nityanand Marg, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400057, India\n5,4\nA028\nJindal Poly Films Limited, 56 Hanuman Road, New Delhi 110001, India\n8,4\nA030\nMTZ Polyfilms Limited, New India Centre, 5th Floor, 17 Co-operage Road, Mumbai 400039, India\n8,7\nA031\nPolyplex Corporation Limited, B-37, Sector-1, Noida 201301, Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, India\n8,6\nA032\nSRF Limited, Block C, Sector 45, Greenwood City, Gurgaon 122003, Haryana, India\n5,4\nA753\nUflex Limited, A-1, Sector 60, Noida 201301 (U.P.), India\n6,4\nA027\nAll other companies\n19,1\nA999\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 29 June 2010.", "references": ["41", "89", "73", "67", "18", "2", "90", "58", "55", "37", "38", "52", "68", "31", "33", "72", "29", "78", "35", "70", "79", "86", "24", "0", "1", "54", "45", "65", "19", "28", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 620/2012\nof 10 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["50", "70", "38", "83", "91", "78", "56", "89", "40", "24", "95", "10", "65", "94", "80", "17", "93", "37", "41", "44", "36", "59", "7", "90", "69", "75", "6", "27", "98", "43", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/500/CFSP\nof 10 August 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Libya, two additional entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2011.", "references": ["1", "29", "91", "17", "31", "38", "55", "12", "87", "83", "34", "0", "60", "14", "40", "6", "16", "49", "9", "97", "95", "72", "50", "64", "82", "42", "73", "68", "81", "53", "No Label", "3", "5", "76", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "76", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 March 2012\nauthorising the opening of negotiations for an international agreement on the creation of the EU-LAC Foundation as an international organisation\n(2012/493/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 218(3) and (4),\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\nnegotiations should be opened with a view to concluding an international agreement on the creation of the EU-LAC Foundation as an international organisation between the European Union and its Member States and the Latin American and Caribbean countries,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Commission is hereby authorised to open negotiations for an international agreement on the creation of the EU-LAC Foundation as an international organisation between the European Union and its Member States and the Latin American and Caribbean countries.\n2. The negotiations shall be conducted on the basis of the negotiating directives set out in the Addendum to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Commission is nominated as the Union\u2019s negotiator.\nArticle 3\nThe negotiations shall be conducted in consultation with the Latin America Working Group (COLAT/AMLAT).\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Commission.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["84", "91", "53", "64", "55", "56", "59", "62", "38", "86", "44", "8", "40", "4", "33", "99", "83", "13", "90", "71", "81", "73", "29", "74", "28", "10", "97", "98", "0", "32", "No Label", "3", "9", "93"], "gold": ["3", "9", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 321/2011\nof 1 April 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 as regards the restriction of use of Bisphenol A in plastic infant feeding bottles\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC (1), and in particular Article 18(3) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Food Safety Authority,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Directive 2011/8/EU (2) amended Directive 2002/72/EC (3) relating to plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs restricting the use of Bisphenol A (2,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane) in polycarbonate infant feeding bottles.\n(2)\nFrom 1 May 2011 Directive 2002/72/EC will be replaced by Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 of 14 January 2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food (4).\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 10/2011 does not contain the restrictions concerning Bisphenol A that were introduced in Directive 2002/72/EC by Directive 2011/8/EU.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 10/2011 should therefore be amended to reflect the restrictions of use of Bisphenol A.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Table 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 10/2011, the entry concerning substance number 151, named \u20182,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane\u2019, in column 10 (Restrictions and specifications), the following text is inserted:\n\u2018Not to be used for the manufacture of polycarbonate infant (5) feeding bottles (6).\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 May 2011 to prohibit the manufacture of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and which do not comply with this Regulation.\nIt shall apply as from 1 June 2011 to prohibit the placing on the market and importation into the Union of plastic materials and articles which do not comply with this Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 April 2011.", "references": ["13", "35", "50", "81", "30", "95", "98", "23", "76", "87", "92", "74", "6", "63", "64", "56", "42", "34", "33", "54", "8", "79", "93", "32", "90", "88", "0", "2", "62", "17", "No Label", "25", "38", "72", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "72", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 July 2012\nappointing six Bulgarian members and eight Bulgarian alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/403/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Bulgarian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nSix members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Ms Katya DOYCHEVA, Ms Dora IANKOVA, Mr Orhan MUMUN, Ms Penka PENKOVA, Mr Georgi SLAVOV and Mr Bozhidar YOTOV. Six alternate members\u2019 seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Ivo ANDONOV, Ms Shukran IDRIZ, Mr Veselin LICHEV, Mr Rumen RASHEV, Mr Svetlin TANCHEV and Mr Nayden ZELENOGORSKI. Two alternate members\u2019 seats will become vacant following the appointment of Mr Ahmed AHMEDOV and Mr Krassimir KOSTOV as members of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMr Ahmed AHMEDOV, Mayor, Municipality of Tsar Kaloyan\n-\nMs Tanya HRISTOVA, Mayor, Municipality of Gabrovo\n-\nMr Krassimir KOSTOV, Mayor, Municipality of Shumen\n-\nMr Madzhid MANDADZHA, Mayor, Municipality of Stambolovo\n-\nMr Zhivko TODOROV, Mayor, Municipality of Stara Zagora\n-\nMr Luydmil VESSELINOV, Mayor, Municipality of Popovo,\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMr Nida AHMEDOV, Mayor, Municipality of Kaolinovo\n-\nMr Ivan ALEKSIEV, Mayor, Municipality of Pomorie\n-\nMr Atanas KAMBITOV, Mayor, Municipality of Blagoevgrad\n-\nMs Kornelia MARINOVA, Municipal Councillor, Municipality of Lovech\n-\nMs Sebihan MEHMED, Mayor, Municipality of Krumovgrad\n-\nMs Anastassya MLADENOVA, Municipal Councillor, Municipality of Peshtera\n-\nMr Fahri MOLAYSSENOV, Mayor, Municipality of Madan\n-\nMr Georgi SLAVOV, Mayor, Municipality of Yambol.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["5", "70", "38", "27", "12", "9", "28", "72", "31", "46", "15", "99", "21", "74", "85", "50", "6", "26", "58", "63", "67", "57", "49", "22", "40", "41", "43", "48", "33", "76", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1296/2011\nof 9 December 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Riso di Baraggia Biellese e Vercellese (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Riso di Baraggia Biellese e Vercellese\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 982/2007 (2).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["35", "79", "26", "80", "72", "86", "78", "82", "53", "33", "54", "88", "3", "64", "32", "37", "85", "70", "99", "5", "43", "49", "19", "51", "2", "7", "21", "65", "22", "40", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 July 2012\non the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Russian Federation relating to the introduction or increase of export duties on raw materials\n(2012/435/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2012/108/EU (1), the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Russian Federation relating to the introduction or increase of export duties on raw materials (\u2018the Agreement\u2019), was signed on 16 December 2011, subject to its conclusion.\n(2)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Russian Federation relating to the introduction or increase of export duties on raw materials is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to make the notification provided for in the Agreement in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the Agreement (3).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["52", "84", "14", "4", "76", "56", "45", "31", "59", "80", "99", "62", "89", "12", "39", "24", "43", "81", "64", "21", "36", "13", "57", "30", "58", "1", "79", "17", "74", "65", "No Label", "3", "9", "23", "34", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "23", "34", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1041/2010\nof 16 November 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 479/2010 laying down rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards Member States\u2019 notifications to the Commission in the milk and milk products sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 192(2) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 479/2010 (2) provides for the notification by the Member States to the Commission of monthly prices for skimmed milk powder used for animal feed. As this information is an essential element for the management of the internal market, it is appropriate to change it into a weekly notification.\n(2)\nThe objective of the provision in Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 479/2010 is to relieve the Member States of the notification of export licence applications on days where no refunds or 0 refund rates are fixed for the products referred to in Part 9 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (3). It appears that the current drafting of the provision can lead to an incorrect interpretation. It is therefore appropriate to provide for a clearer formulation.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 479/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 479/2010 is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 6(1) point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nwhere appropriate, that no applications have been submitted on that day, except where none of the products referred to in Part 9 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (4) is subject to a refund or where only a 0 rate refund is applicable;\n2.\nAnnexes I.A and I.B are replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 November 2010.", "references": ["64", "44", "2", "73", "79", "0", "4", "9", "5", "85", "21", "78", "19", "27", "75", "76", "12", "16", "54", "58", "83", "13", "87", "24", "11", "51", "50", "94", "59", "91", "No Label", "7", "15", "41", "61", "70", "96"], "gold": ["7", "15", "41", "61", "70", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 16 May 2011\non repealing Decision 2003/796/EC on establishing the European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas\n(2011/280/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2003/796/EC (1) established a European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas to facilitate consultation, coordination and cooperation between the regulatory bodies in the Member States, and between these bodies and the Commission, with a view to consolidating the internal market and ensuring the consistent application in all Member States of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (2), Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas (3) and Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity (4).\n(2)\nIn order to enhance the cooperation between national regulatory bodies and to contribute further towards the effective functioning of the internal markets in electricity and natural gas, an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators was established by Regulation No (EC) 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (5).\n(3)\nThe Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators provides a framework within which national regulatory authorities can cooperate and carry out tasks similar to those currently pursued by the European Regulatory Group for Electricity and Gas. As the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators will continue the work undertaken by the European Regulatory Group for Electricity and Gas within the framework of a more effective governance, it is therefore appropriate to repeal Decision 2003/796/EC.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the European Regulatory Group for Electricity and Gas can finalise several pending projects, the European Regulatory Group for Electricity and Gas should be dissolved only as of 1 July 2011 so to ensure a smooth transition to the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2003/796/EC is repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2011.", "references": ["80", "66", "30", "88", "48", "56", "42", "3", "94", "50", "29", "35", "55", "54", "89", "27", "24", "13", "44", "74", "43", "83", "32", "40", "2", "11", "85", "14", "67", "46", "No Label", "7", "9", "78", "81"], "gold": ["7", "9", "78", "81"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/422/CFSP\nof 23 July 2012\nin support of a process leading to the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 31(1) thereof;\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy;\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union is actively implementing the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) of 12 December 2003, and giving effect to the measures listed in Chapter III thereof, such as rendering multilateralism more effective and promoting a stable international and regional environment.\n(2)\nThe Union is committed to the multilateral treaty system, which provides the legal and normative basis for all non-proliferation efforts. The Union's policy is to pursue the implementation and universalisation of the existing disarmament and non-proliferation norms. The Union assists third countries in the fulfilment of their obligations under multilateral conventions and regimes.\n(3)\nThe Joint Declaration of the Paris Summit for the Mediterranean of 13 July 2008, establishing the Union for the Mediterranean, reaffirmed the common aspiration to achieve peace as well as regional security as set out in the Barcelona Declaration adopted at the Euro-Mediterranean Conference of 27-28 November 1995, which, inter alia, promotes regional security by acting in favour of nuclear, chemical and biological non-proliferation through adherence to and compliance with a combination of international and regional non-proliferation regimes and arms control and disarmament agreements such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, and/or regional arrangements such as zones free of nuclear weapons, including their verification regimes, as well as by fulfilling in good faith their commitments under arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation conventions.\n(4)\nThe parties to the Union for the Mediterranean will pursue a mutually and effectively verifiable Middle East zone free of WMD - nuclear, chemical and biological - and their delivery systems. Furthermore the parties will consider practical steps, inter alia, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as well as the excessive accumulation of conventional arms.\n(5)\nOn 19-20 June 2008, the European Union organised a seminar in Paris on \u2027Middle East Security, WMD Non-Proliferation and Disarmament\u2027, which brought together representatives of States of the region and Union Member States as well as academics and national nuclear energy agencies. Participants encouraged the Union to promote the continuation of the debate in various fora, and to gradually move to a more formal format that would include discussions among government officials, building on the Barcelona Framework, but doing so in a geographically more inclusive format.\n(6)\nThe 2010 NPT Review Conference emphasised the importance of a process leading to full implementation of its 1995 Resolution on the Middle East (the 1995 Resolution). To that end, the Conference endorsed practical steps, inter alia, consideration of all offers aimed at supporting the implementation of the 1995 Resolution, including the offer of the Union to host a follow-up seminar related to the one organised in June 2008.\n(7)\nThe 2010 NPT Review Conference further recognised the important role played by civil society in contributing to the implementation of the 1995 Resolution and encouraged all efforts in this regard.\n(8)\nOn 6-7 July 2011, the Union organised a seminar in Brussels to \u2027promote confidence building and in support of a process aimed at establishing a zone free of WMD and means of delivery in the Middle East\u2027, which brought together senior representatives of States of the region, the three NPT depositary States, the Union Member States, other interested States, as well as academics and official representatives of the major regional and international organizations. Participants strongly encouraged the Union to continue to facilitate the process towards the establishment of a zone free of WMD in the Middle East, including through further similar initiatives prior to the 2012 Conference to be convened by the UNSG and the co-sponsors of the 1995 Resolution.\n(9)\nOn 14 October 2011, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Governments of the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, as co-sponsors of the 1995 NPT Resolution on the Middle East and depositary States of the Treaty, in consultation with the States of the region, appointed Under-Secretary of State Jaakko Laajava as Facilitator, and designated Finland as the host Government, for the 2012 Conference on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.\n(10)\nSince November 2011, the Union has been in close consultation with the Facilitator and his team in order to provide further support to the process aimed at establishing a zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. For the purpose of providing follow-up to the 2011 seminar to \u2027promote confidence building and in support of a process aimed at establishing a zone free of WMD and means of delivery in the Middle East\u2027, the Union shall support activities in order to further the following objectives:\n(a)\nto support the work of the Facilitator for the 2012 Conference on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction;\n(b)\nto enhance the visibility of the Union as a global actor and in the region in the field of non-proliferation;\n(c)\nto encourage regional political and security-related dialogue within civil societies and governments, and more particularly among experts, officials and academics;\n(d)\nto identify concrete confidence-building measures that could serve as practical steps towards the prospect of a Middle East zone free of WMD and their means of delivery;\n(e)\nto encourage discussion on the universalisation and implementation of relevant international treaties and other instruments to prevent the proliferation of WMD and their delivery systems;\n(f)\nto discuss issues related to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and international and regional cooperation in this regard.\n2. In this context, the projects to be supported by the Union shall cover the following specific activities:\n(a)\nproviding means for the organisation of a follow-up event related to the 2008 and 2011 Union seminars, to be held before the 2012 Conference in the form of a track-2 seminar;\n(b)\nproviding means for the preparation of background papers on subjects dealt with by the follow-up seminar;\n(c)\nproviding means for the creation of a dedicated page on the website of the EU Non Proliferation Consortium of Think Tanks;\n(d)\nproviding means for the participation of non-governmental experts from the Union, when necessary and in close coordination with the European External Action Service (EEAS), to relevant official, non-governmental and track-2 initiatives, such as the Amman Framework.\nA detailed description of the projects is set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.\n2. Technical implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be carried out by the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium, which shall perform this task under the responsibility of the HR. For this purpose, the HR shall enter into the necessary arrangements with the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium.\nArticle 3\n1. The financial reference amount for the implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be EUR 352 000.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the Union budget.\n3. The Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 1. For this purpose, it shall conclude a financing agreement with the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium. The agreement shall stipulate that the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium is to ensure visibility of the Union contribution, appropriate to its size.\n4. The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the agreement.\nArticle 4\n1. The HR shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular reports prepared by the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium. Those reports shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council.\n2. The Commission shall provide information on the financial aspects of the projects referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 5\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall expire 18 months after the date of the conclusion of the financing agreements referred to in Article 3(3). However, it shall expire six months after its entry into force if no financing agreement has been concluded by that time.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["63", "33", "82", "81", "9", "25", "3", "93", "48", "45", "71", "85", "56", "34", "42", "10", "80", "98", "84", "70", "55", "52", "7", "29", "2", "4", "50", "91", "27", "47", "No Label", "5", "6", "95"], "gold": ["5", "6", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 2 May 2012\nappointing three Spanish members and two Spanish alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/239/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nThree members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Pedro CASTRO V\u00c1ZQUEZ, Mr Jordi HEREU I BOHER and Mr Alberto RUIZ-GALLARD\u00d3N JIM\u00c9NEZ. Two alternate members\u2019 seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Ms Paz FERN\u00c1NDEZ FELGUEROSO and Mr Andr\u00e9s OCA\u00d1A RABAD\u00c1N,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMr Juan Ignacio ZOIDO \u00c1LVAREZ, Alcalde de Sevilla,\n-\nMr Abel CABALLERO \u00c1LVAREZ, Alcalde de Vigo,\n-\nMs Nuria MAR\u00cdN MART\u00cdNEZ, Alcaldesa de Hospitalet de Llobregat,\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMr Ram\u00f3n ROPERO MANCERA, Alcalde de Villafranca de los Barros,\n-\nMr Jordi SAN JOS\u00c9 I BUENAVENTURA, Alcalde de Sant Feli\u00fa de Llobregat (Barcelona).\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 2 May 2012.", "references": ["26", "39", "37", "8", "60", "74", "84", "83", "86", "22", "33", "4", "90", "44", "24", "87", "3", "66", "94", "95", "19", "30", "50", "98", "62", "76", "65", "11", "18", "51", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 June 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB614 (BCS-GH\u00d8\u00d82-5) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 4177)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/354/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Article 7(3) and Article 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 January 2008, Bayer CropScience AG submitted to the competent authority of the Netherlands an application, in accordance with Article 5 and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from GHB614 cotton (\u2018the application\u2019).\n(2)\nThe application also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of GHB614 cotton for the same uses as any other cotton with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with Article 5(5) and Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.\n(3)\nOn 10 March 2009, the European Food Safety Authority (\u2018EFSA\u2019) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Article 6 and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It considered that cotton GHB614 is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment. Therefore it concluded that it is unlikely that the placing on the market of the products containing, consisting of, or produced from GHB614 cotton as described in the application (\u2018the products\u2019) will have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment in the context of their intended uses (3). In its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Article 6(4) and Article 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(4)\nIn particular, EFSA concluded that GHB614 cotton is compositionally and agronomically equivalent to its non-genetically modified counterpart and other conventional cotton varieties except for the introduced trait and that the molecular characterisation provided no indication of unintended effects of the genetic modification and as a consequence, that animal safety studies with the whole food/feed (e.g. a 90-day toxicity study in rats) are not needed.\n(5)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products. However due to the physical characteristics of cotton seeds and methods of transportation, EFSA recommended that, within general surveillance, specific measures are introduced to actively monitor the occurrence of feral cotton plants in areas where seed spillage and plant establishment are likely to occur.\n(6)\nIn order to better describe the monitoring requirements and to comply with the EFSA recommendation, the monitoring plan submitted by the applicant has been modified. Specific measures to limit losses and spillage and to eradicate adventitious cotton populations have been introduced.\n(7)\nTaking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products.\n(8)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).\n(9)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from GHB614 cotton. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (5), lays down labelling requirements in Article 4(6) for products containing or consisting of GMOs. Traceability requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs are laid down in paragraphs (1) to (5) of Article 4 and for food and feed produced from GMOs are laid down in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(11)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). The EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in point (e) of Article 6(5) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(12)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(13)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing-House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).\n(14)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(15)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chair and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures. Since, at its meeting on 17 March 2011 the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal and the Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded, these measures are to be adopted by the Commission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) GHB614, as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier BCS-GH\u00d8\u00d82-5, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Article 4(2) and Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from BCS-GH\u00d8\u00d82-5 cotton;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from BCS-GH\u00d8\u00d82-5 cotton;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of BCS-GH\u00d8\u00d82-5 cotton for the same uses as any other cotton with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018cotton\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of BCS-GH\u00d8\u00d82-5 cotton referred to in Article 2(b) and (c).\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nCommunity register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Bayer Cropscience AG.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Bayer CropScience AG, Alfred-Nobel-Stra\u00dfe 50, 40789 Monheim am Rhein, Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2011.", "references": ["91", "74", "37", "39", "42", "22", "92", "46", "29", "5", "50", "77", "55", "90", "69", "40", "15", "31", "20", "60", "78", "96", "73", "72", "70", "97", "95", "17", "3", "30", "No Label", "25", "58", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "58", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 748/2012\nof 3 August 2012\nlaying down implementing rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production organisations\n(recast)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (1), and in particular Articles 5(5) and 6(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 of 24 September 2003 laying down implementing rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production organisations (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). Since further amendments are to be made, it should be recast in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 216/2008 establishes common essential requirements to provide for a high uniform level of civil aviation safety and environmental protection. It requires the Commission to adopt the necessary implementing rules to ensure their uniform application. It establishes the \u2018European Aviation Safety Agency\u2019 (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Agency\u2019) to assist the Commission in the development of such implementing rules.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to lay down common technical requirements and administrative procedures to ensure the airworthiness and environmental compatibility of aeronautical products, parts and appliances, subject to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. Such requirements and procedures should specify the conditions to issue, maintain, amend, suspend or revoke the appropriate certificates.\n(4)\nOrganisations involved in the design and production of products, parts and appliances should be required to comply with certain technical requirements in order to demonstrate their capability and means to discharge their obligations and associated privileges. The Commission is required to lay down measures to specify conditions to issue, maintain, amend, suspend or revoke certificates attesting such compliance.\n(5)\nIn laying down measures for the implementation of common essential requirements in the field of airworthiness, the Commission must take care that they reflect the state of the art and the best practices, take into account worldwide aircraft experience and scientific and technical progress and allow for immediate reaction to established causes of accidents and serious incidents.\n(6)\nThe need to ensure uniformity in the application of common airworthiness and environmental requirements for aeronautical products, parts and appliances requires that common procedures be followed by the competent authorities of the Member States and, where applicable, the Agency to assess compliance with these requirements. The Agency should develop certification specifications and guidance material to facilitate the necessary regulatory uniformity.\n(7)\nIt is necessary to recognise the continuing validity of certificates issued before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003, in accordance with Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n(8)\nIn order to maintain a high uniform level of aviation safety in Europe, it is necessary to introduce changes to requirements and procedures for the certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances and of design and production organisations, in particular to elaborate the rules related to the demonstration of compliance with the type-certification basis and environmental protection requirements and to introduce the possibility to choose to comply with later standards for changes to type-certificates.\n(9)\nThe concept and complexity of auxiliary power units (APU) resembles that of aircraft engines and in some cases APU designs are even derived from engine designs. Changes to provisions for repairs to APU are therefore needed to restore consistency with repairs process to engines.\n(10)\nIn order to subject non-complex motor-powered aircraft, recreational aircraft and related products, parts and appliances to measures that are proportionate to their simple design and type of operation, while maintaining a high uniform level of aviation safety in Europe, it is necessary to introduce changes to requirements and procedures for the certification of those aircraft and related products, parts and appliances and of design and production organisations and in particular, for the owners of European Light Aircraft below 2 000 kg (ELA2) or below 1 200 kg (ELA1), to introduce the possibility to accept certain not safety critical parts for installation without an EASA Form 1.\n(11)\nThe Agency prepared draft implementing rules and submitted them as opinions No 01/2009 on \u2018Possibility to deviate from airworthiness code in case of design changes\u2019, No 02/2009 on \u2018Repair and design changes to European Technical Standard Order\u2019, No 01/2010 on \u2018SubPart J DOA\u2019 and Opinion No 01/2011 on \u2018ELA Process and \u201cstandard changes and repairs\u201d \u2019 to the Commission in accordance with Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Aviation Safety Agency Committee established by Article 65(1) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope and definitions\n1. This Regulation lays down, in accordance with Article 5(5) and Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, common technical requirements and administrative procedures for the airworthiness and environmental certification of products, parts and appliances specifying:\n(a)\nthe issue of type-certificates, restricted type-certificates, supplemental type-certificates and changes to those certificates;\n(b)\nthe issue of certificates of airworthiness, restricted certificates of airworthiness, permits to fly and authorised release certificates;\n(c)\nthe issue of repair design approvals;\n(d)\nthe showing of compliance with environmental protection requirements;\n(e)\nthe issue of noise certificates;\n(f)\nthe identification of products, parts and appliances;\n(g)\nthe certification of certain parts and appliances;\n(h)\nthe certification of design and production organisations;\n(i)\nthe issue of airworthiness directives.\n2. For the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018JAA\u2019 means the \u2018Joint Aviation Authorities\u2019;\n(b)\n\u2018JAR\u2019 means \u2018Joint Aviation Requirements\u2019;\n(c)\n\u2018Part 21\u2019 means the requirements and procedures for the certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, and of design and production organisations laid down in Annex I to this Regulation;\n(d)\n\u2018Part M\u2019 means the applicable continuing airworthiness requirements adopted in pursuance of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008;\n(e)\n\u2018principal place of business\u2019 means the head office or registered office of the undertaking within which the principal financial functions and operational control of the activities referred to in this Regulation are exercised;\n(f)\n\u2018article\u2019 means any part and appliance to be used on civil aircraft;\n(g)\n\u2018ETSO\u2019 means European Technical Standard Order. The European Technical Standard Order is a detailed airworthiness specification issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (the \u2018Agency\u2019) to ensure compliance with the requirements of this Regulation as a minimum performance standard for specified articles;\n(h)\n\u2018EPA\u2019 means European Part Approval. European Part Approval of an article means the article has been produced in accordance with approved design data not belonging to the type-certificate holder of the related product, except for ETSO articles;\n(i)\n\u2018ELA1 aircraft\u2019 means the following manned European Light Aircraft:\n(i)\nan aeroplane with a Maximum Take-off Mass (MTOM) of 1 200 kg or less that is not classified as complex motor-powered aircraft;\n(ii)\na sailplane or powered sailplane of 1 200 kg MTOM or less;\n(iii)\na balloon with a maximum design lifting gas or hot air volume of not more than 3 400 m3 for hot air balloons, 1 050 m3 for gas balloons, 300 m3 for tethered gas balloons;\n(iv)\nan airship designed for not more than 4 occupants and a maximum design lifting gas or hot air volume of not more than 3 400 m3 for hot air airships and 1 000 m3 for gas airships;\n(j)\n\u2018ELA2 aircraft\u2019 means the following manned European Light Aircraft:\n(i)\nan aeroplane with a Maximum Take-off Mass (MTOM) of 2 000 kg or less that is not classified as complex motor-powered aircraft;\n(ii)\na sailplane or powered sailplane of 2 000 kg MTOM or less;\n(iii)\na balloon;\n(iv)\na hot air airship;\n(v)\na gas airship complying with all of the following characteristics:\n-\n3 % maximum static heaviness,\n-\nNon-vectored thrust (except reverse thrust),\n-\nConventional and simple design of: structure, control system and ballonet system,\n-\nNon-power assisted controls;\n(vi)\na Very Light Rotorcraft.\nArticle 2\nProducts, parts and appliances certification\n1. Products, parts and appliances shall be issued certificates as specified in Annex I (Part 21).\n2. By way of derogation from point 1, aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance, which are not registered in a Member State shall be exempted from the provisions of Subparts H and I of Annex I (Part 21). They shall also be exempted from the provisions of Subpart P of Annex I (Part 21) except when aircraft identification marks are prescribed by a Member State.\nArticle 3\nContinued validity of type-certificates and related certificates of airworthiness\n1. With regard to products which had a type-certificate, or a document allowing the issuing of a certificate of airworthiness, issued before 28 September 2003 by a Member State, the following provisions shall apply:\n(a)\nthe product shall be deemed to have a type-certificate issued in accordance with this Regulation when:\n(i)\nits type-certification basis was:\n-\nthe JAA type-certification basis, for products that have been certificated under JAA procedures, as defined in their JAA data sheet, or\n-\nfor other products, the type-certification basis as defined in the type-certificate data sheet of the State of design, if that State of design was:\n-\na Member State, unless the Agency determines, taking into account, in particular, airworthiness codes used and service experience, that such type-certification basis does not provide for a level of safety equivalent to that required by Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and this Regulation, or\n-\na State with which a Member State had concluded a bilateral airworthiness agreement or similar arrangement under which such products have been certificated on the basis of the airworthiness codes of that State of design, unless the Agency determines that such airworthiness codes or service experience or the safety system of that State of design do not provide for a level of safety equivalent to that required by Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and this Regulation.\nThe Agency shall make a first evaluation of the implication of the provisions of the second indent in view of producing an opinion to the Commission including possible amendments to this Regulation;\n(ii)\nthe environmental protection requirements were those laid down in Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention, as applicable to the product;\n(iii)\nthe applicable airworthiness directives were those of the State of design;\n(b)\nthe design of an individual aircraft, which was on the register of a Member State before 28 September 2003, shall be deemed to have been approved in accordance with this Regulation when:\n(i)\nits basic type design was part of a type-certificate referred to in point (a);\n(ii)\nall changes to this basic type design, which were not under the responsibility of the type-certificate holder, had been approved; and\n(iii)\nthe airworthiness directives issued or adopted by the Member State of registry before 28 September 2003 were complied with, including any variations to the airworthiness directives of the State of design agreed by the Member State of registry.\n2. With regard to products for which a type-certification process was proceeding through the JAA or a Member State on 28 September 2003, the following shall apply:\n(a)\nif a product is under certification by several Member States, the most advanced project shall be used as the reference;\n(b)\npoints 21.A.15(a), (b) and (c) of Annex I (Part 21) shall not apply;\n(c)\nby way of derogation from point 21.A.17(a) of Annex I (Part 21), the type-certification basis shall be that established by the JAA or, where applicable, the Member State at the date of application for the approval;\n(d)\ncompliance findings made under JAA or Member State procedures shall be deemed to have been made by the Agency for the purpose of complying with points 21.A.20(a) and (b) of Annex I (Part 21).\n3. With regard to products that have a national type-certificate, or equivalent, and for which the approval process of a change carried out by a Member State was not finalised at the time when the type-certificate had to be in accordance with this Regulation, the following shall apply:\n(a)\nif an approval process is being carried out by several Member States, the most advanced project shall be used as the reference;\n(b)\npoint 21.A.93 of Annex I (Part 21) shall not apply;\n(c)\nthe applicable type-certification basis shall be that established by the JAA or, where applicable, the Member State at the date of application for the approval of change;\n(d)\ncompliance findings made under JAA or Member State procedures shall be deemed to have been made by the Agency for the purpose of complying with points 21.A.103(a)(2) and (b) of Annex I (Part 21).\n4. With regard to products that had a national type-certificate, or equivalent, and for which the approval process of a major repair design carried out by a Member State was not finalised at the time when the type-certificate had to be determined in accordance with this Regulation, compliance findings made under JAA or Member State procedures shall be deemed to have been made by the Agency for the purpose of complying with point 21.A.433(a) of Annex I (Part 21).\n5. A certificate of airworthiness issued by a Member State attesting conformity with a type-certificate determined in accordance with point 1 shall be deemed to comply with this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nContinued validity of supplemental type-certificates\n1. With regard to supplemental type-certificates issued by a Member State under JAA procedures or applicable national procedures and with regard to changes to products proposed by persons other than the type-certificate holder of the product, which were approved by a Member State under applicable national procedures, if the supplemental type-certificate, or change, was valid on 28 September 2003, the supplemental type-certificate, or change shall be deemed to have been issued under this Regulation.\n2. With regard to supplemental type-certificates for which a certification process was being carried out by a Member State on 28 September 2003 under applicable JAA supplemental type-certificate procedures and with regard to major changes to products, proposed by persons other than the type-certificate holder of the product, for which a certification process was being carried out by a Member State on 28 September 2003 under applicable national procedures, the following shall apply:\n(a)\nif a certification process was being carried out by several Member States, the most advanced project shall be used as the reference;\n(b)\npoint 21.A.113 (a) and (b) of Annex I (Part 21) shall not apply;\n(c)\nthe applicable certification basis shall be that established by the JAA or, where applicable, the Member State at the date of application for the supplemental type-certificate or the major change approval;\n(d)\nthe compliance findings made under JAA or Member State procedures shall be deemed to have been made by the Agency for the purpose of complying with point 21.A.115(a) of Annex I (Part 21).\nArticle 5\nContinued operation of certain aircraft registered by Member States\nWith regard to an aircraft that cannot be deemed to have a type-certificate issued in accordance with Article 3(1)(a) of this Regulation, that has been issued a certificate of airworthiness by a Member State before Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 became applicable in that Member State (4), was on its register on that date, and was still on the register of a Member State on 28 March 2007, the combination of the following shall be deemed to constitute the applicable specific airworthiness specifications issued in accordance with this Regulation:\n(a)\nthe type-certificate data sheet and type-certificate data sheet for noise, or equivalent documents, of the State of design, provided that the State of design has concluded the appropriate working arrangement in accordance with Article 27(2) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 with the Agency covering the continued airworthiness of the design of such an aircraft;\n(b)\nthe environmental protection requirements laid down in Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention, as applicable to that aircraft; and\n(c)\nthe mandatory continuing airworthiness information of the State of design.\nArticle 6\nContinued validity of parts and appliances certificates\n1. Approvals of parts and appliances issued by a Member State and valid on 28 September 2003 shall be deemed to have been issued in accordance with this Regulation.\n2. With regard to parts and appliances for which an approval or authorisation process was being carried out by a Member State on 28 September 2003, the following shall apply:\n(a)\nif an authorisation process was being carried out by several Member States, the most advanced project shall be used as the reference;\n(b)\npoint 21.A.603 of Annex I (Part 21) shall not apply;\n(c)\nthe applicable data requirements laid down in point 21.A.605 of Annex I (Part 21) shall be those established by the relevant Member State, at the date of application for the approval or authorisation;\n(d)\ncompliance findings made by the relevant Member State shall be deemed to have been made by the Agency for the purpose of complying with point 21.A.606(b) of Annex I (Part 21).\nArticle 7\nPermit to fly\nThe conditions determined before 28 March 2007 by the Member States for permits to fly or other airworthiness certificate issued for aircraft which did not hold a certificate of airworthiness or restricted certificate of airworthiness issued under this Regulation, are deemed to have been determined in accordance with this Regulation, unless the Agency has determined before 28 March 2008 that such conditions do not provide for a level of safety equivalent to that required by Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 or this Regulation.\nArticle 8\nDesign organisations\n1. An organisation responsible for the design of products, parts and appliances or for changes or repairs thereto shall demonstrate its capability in accordance with Annex I (Part 21).\n2. By way of derogation from point 1, an organisation whose principal place of business is in a non-member State may demonstrate its capability by holding a certificate issued by that State for the product, part and appliance for which it applies, provided:\n(a)\nthat State is the State of design; and\n(b)\nthe Agency has determined that the system of that State includes the same independent level of checking of compliance as provided by this Regulation, either through an equivalent system of approvals of organisations or through direct involvement of the competent authority of that State.\n3. Design organisation approvals issued or recognised by a Member State in accordance with the JAA requirements and procedures and valid before 28 September 2003 shall be deemed to comply with this Regulation.\nArticle 9\nProduction organisations\n1. An organisation responsible for the manufacture of products, parts and appliances shall demonstrate its capability in accordance with the provisions of Annex I (Part 21).\n2. By way of derogation from point 1, a manufacturer whose principal place of business is in a non-member State may demonstrate its capability by holding a certificate issued by that State for the product, part and appliance for which it applies, provided:\n(a)\nthat State is the State of manufacture; and\n(b)\nthe Agency has determined that the system of that State includes the same independent level of checking of compliance as provided by this Regulation, either through an equivalent system of approvals of organisations or through direct involvement of the competent authority of that State.\n3. Production organisation approvals issued or recognised by a Member State in accordance with the JAA requirements and procedures and valid before 28 September 2003 shall be deemed to comply with this Regulation.\nArticle 10\nAgency measures\n1. The Agency shall develop acceptable means of compliance (hereinafter called \u2018AMC\u2019) that competent authorities, organisations and personnel may use to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the Annex I (Part 21) to this Regulation.\n2. The AMC issued by the Agency shall neither introduce new requirements nor alleviate the requirements of the Annex I (Part 21) to this Regulation.\n3. Without prejudice to Articles 54 and 55 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, when the acceptable means of compliance issued by the Agency are used, the related requirements of the Annex I (Part 21) to this Regulation shall be considered as met without further demonstration.\nArticle 11\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 1702/2003 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex III.\nArticle 12\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 August 2012.", "references": ["6", "91", "27", "84", "28", "0", "5", "72", "96", "23", "17", "16", "85", "12", "81", "1", "89", "8", "11", "92", "56", "74", "31", "7", "2", "3", "24", "59", "79", "40", "No Label", "53", "57", "58", "76"], "gold": ["53", "57", "58", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 17 June 2011\non extension of the advantages conferred on the joint undertaking Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG)\n(2011/374/Euratom)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 48 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision 74/295/Euratom (1), the Council established Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG) as a joint undertaking, within the meaning of the Treaty, for a period of 25 years as from 1 January 1974.\n(2)\nBy Decision 2002/355/Euratom (2), the Council extended the Joint Undertaking status granted to HKG for 11 years with effect from 1 January 1999.\n(3)\nBy Decision 74/296/Euratom (3) and its Decision of 16 November 1992 (4) the Council conferred on HKG a number of advantages listed in Annex III to the Treaty, for a period of 25 years as from 1 January 1974.\n(4)\nBy Decision 2002/356/Euratom (5), the Council extended the conferred advantages on HKG for 11 years with effect from 1 January 1999.\n(5)\nBy a letter, dated 26 April 2010, HKG asked for the further extension of its tax advantages for the new period for which it had been granted Joint Undertaking status.\n(6)\nThe current objective of HKG is to implement a programme for decommissioning the nuclear power station up to the safe enclosure stage and, thereafter, to carry out a programme of surveillance of the enclosed nuclear installations.\n(7)\nThere is no equivalent to these programmes in the Community since, to date, no high-temperature reactor has been definitively shut down in the Community.\n(8)\nImplementation of these programmes is therefore important since they provide useful experience for the future development of nuclear energy in the Community, in particular as regards the decommissioning of nuclear installations.\n(9)\nHKG should therefore be assisted with implementing the programme for decommissioning the nuclear power station up to the safe enclosure stage and the programme of surveillance of the enclosed nuclear installations, by lightening the financial burden.\n(10)\nArrangements for financing HKG\u2019s activities have been agreed between the Federal Republic of Germany, the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, HKG and its members for the period up to 31 December 2017.\n(11)\nThe advantages conferred on HKG should therefore be extended for the same period as the extension of its Joint Undertaking status, that is until 31 December 2017,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Member States hereby extend for 8 years with effect from 1 January 2010 the following advantages listed in Annex III to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, conferred on the Joint Undertaking Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG):\n1.\nUnder paragraph 4 of Annex III to the Treaty, the exemption from the Grunderwerbsteuer (tax on the acquisition of immovable property);\n2.\nUnder paragraph 5 of Annex III to the Treaty:\n-\nthe exemption from Grundsteuer (land tax),\n-\nthe exemption from that part of the industrial or commercial profits tax which is levied, pursuant to point 1 of Article 8 of the Gewerbesteuergesetz (trade tax law), on the interest due on long-term debt.\nArticle 2\nThe conferment of the advantages listed in Article 1 on HKG is subject to the condition that the European Commission shall have access to all the industrial, technical and economic information, including that relating to safety, acquired by HKG in the course of implementation of the programme for decommissioning the nuclear power station up to the safe enclosure stage and of the programme of surveillance of the enclosed nuclear installations. This obligation extends to all the information which HKG is entitled to pass on in accordance with the contracts concluded with it. The Commission shall determine which information must be communicated to it, as well as the manner in which such communication shall be made and shall ensure that this information is disseminated.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States and to HKG.\nDone at Luxembourg, 17 June 2011.", "references": ["5", "85", "51", "44", "92", "8", "53", "74", "3", "61", "40", "6", "12", "31", "28", "67", "95", "58", "89", "77", "86", "84", "30", "63", "23", "69", "38", "0", "87", "37", "No Label", "34", "45", "78", "81", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["34", "45", "78", "81", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 177/2012\nof 1 March 2012\namending for the 165th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 21 February 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one natural person and seventeen entities from the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply after considering the de-listing request submitted by this person and these entities and the Comprehensive Report of the Ombudsperson established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1904(2009). It also decided to amend one entry on the list. Furthermore, on 23 February 2012, it decided to amend five other entries on the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2012.", "references": ["84", "41", "11", "27", "12", "18", "86", "74", "78", "19", "9", "95", "56", "7", "87", "15", "45", "24", "97", "0", "94", "14", "33", "67", "92", "35", "52", "4", "34", "76", "No Label", "1", "3"], "gold": ["1", "3"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 141/2012\nof 17 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2012.", "references": ["37", "46", "58", "52", "42", "44", "81", "51", "49", "88", "89", "85", "99", "93", "74", "76", "53", "25", "33", "50", "66", "48", "57", "45", "26", "38", "6", "90", "84", "13", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 July 2011\non the signing and conclusion of the Monetary Agreement between the European Union and the French Republic on keeping the euro in Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy following the amendment of its status with regard to the European Union\n(2011/433/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 219(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Council Decision of 13 April 2011 on the arrangements for the negotiation of a Monetary Agreement with the French Republic, acting for the benefit of the French overseas collectivity of Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy, and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy European Council Decision 2010/718/EU of 29 October 2010 amending the status with regard to the European Union of the island of Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy (1), the island of Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy is to cease to be an outermost region of the Union with effect from 1 January 2012 and is to have the status of an overseas country or territory, as referred to in Part Four of the Treaty, as from that date. The French Republic has undertaken to conclude the agreements necessary to ensure that the interests of the Union are preserved when this amendment takes place.\n(2)\nThe French Republic has informed the institutions of the Union of its intention to retain the euro as the sole currency in Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy. A monetary agreement should therefore be concluded.\n(3)\nOn 13 April 2011 the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate with the French Republic, acting for the benefit of the French overseas collectivity of Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy, and to fully associate the European Central Bank with the negotiations and to seek its agreement on issues falling within its fields of competence, with a view to concluding a monetary agreement. On 30 May 2011, the Monetary Agreement between the European Union and the French Republic on keeping the euro in Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy following the amendment of its status with regard to the European Union (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) was initialled.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be signed and concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Monetary Agreement between the European Union and the French Republic on keeping the euro in Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy following the amendment of its status with regard to the European Union (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\n2. The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 11 of the Agreement.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["48", "63", "29", "76", "34", "54", "33", "5", "43", "26", "11", "58", "7", "42", "80", "55", "52", "36", "28", "15", "60", "85", "71", "12", "57", "82", "19", "14", "95", "40", "No Label", "9", "27", "91", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "27", "91", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 June 2010\non the recognition of Israel as regards education, training and certification of seafarers for the recognition of certificates of competency\n(notified under document C(2010) 4227)\n(2010/361/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/106/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1) and in particular Article 19(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the letter of 13 May 2005 from the Cypriot Authorities, requesting the recognition of Israel in order to recognise certificates of competency issued by this country,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMember States may decide to endorse seafarers\u2019 certificates of competency issued by third countries, provided that the relevant third country is recognised by the Commission as ensuring that this country complies with the requirements of the international Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW Convention) (2).\n(2)\nFollowing the request of the Cypriot Authorities, the Commission assessed the maritime education, training and certification systems in Israel in order to verify whether this country complies with the requirements of the STCW Convention and whether appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. This assessment was based on the results of a fact-finding inspection performed by experts of the European Maritime Safety Agency in March 2007.\n(3)\nWhere deficiencies had been identified during the assessment of compliance with the STCW Convention, the Israeli Authorities provided to the Commission the requested relevant information and evidence concerning the implementation of appropriate and sufficient corrective action to address most of these issues.\n(4)\nThe remaining shortcomings as regards seafarers\u2019 training and certification procedures mainly concern missing legal provisions in relation to minor aspects of the training provided by the Maritime Education and Training Institutions, the definition of relevant objectives for the application of the Quality Standards System and training requirements regarding personal survival techniques and the use of survival craft. The Israeli Authorities have therefore been invited to implement further corrective action in this respect. However, these shortcomings do not warrant calling into question the overall level of compliance of the Israeli systems regarding education, training and certification of seafarers with the STCW Convention.\n(5)\nThe outcome of the assessment of compliance and the evaluation of the information provided by the Israeli Authorities demonstrate that Israel complies with the relevant requirements of the STCW Convention, while this country has taken appropriate measures to prevent fraud involving certificates and should thus be recognised by the Union.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIsrael is recognised as regards education, training and certification of seafarers, for the purpose of recognition of certificates of competency issued by this country.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision takes effect from the date of its notification to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2010.", "references": ["60", "25", "91", "74", "82", "46", "29", "21", "2", "73", "84", "40", "20", "76", "59", "68", "81", "51", "8", "38", "57", "13", "70", "0", "37", "66", "53", "9", "92", "11", "No Label", "49", "50", "54", "56", "95", "96"], "gold": ["49", "50", "54", "56", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1231/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\nextending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(2)(b) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Parliament (3), the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee (4) have called for the better integration of nationals of third countries who are legally resident in the territory of the Member States by giving them a set of uniform rights which match as closely as possible those enjoyed by citizens of the Union.\n(2)\nThe Justice and Home Affairs Council of 1 December 2005 stressed that the Union must ensure fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in the territory of the Member States and that a more vigorous integration policy should be geared to granting them rights and obligations comparable to those of citizens of the Union.\n(3)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 (5) extended Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 on the coordination of Member States\u2019 statutory social security schemes to the nationals of third countries who were not already covered by those Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality.\n(4)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised, in particular, by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably Article 34(2) thereof.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (6) replaces Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (7) replaces Regulation (EEC) No 574/72. Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 are to be repealed with effect from the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 significantly update and simplify the coordination rules for insured persons as well as social security institutions. For the latter, the updated coordination rules aim to accelerate and facilitate the processing of data on insured persons\u2019 rights to benefits and to reduce the corresponding administrative costs.\n(7)\nPromoting a high level of social protection and raising the standard of living and the quality of life in the Member States are objectives of the Union.\n(8)\nIn order to avoid a situation where employers and national social security bodies have to manage complex legal and administrative situations concerning only a limited group of persons, it is important to enjoy the full benefits of modernisation and simplification in the field of social security by making use of a single legal coordination instrument combining Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009.\n(9)\nIt is therefore necessary to replace Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 with a legal instrument, the basic aim of which is to substitute Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 for Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 respectively.\n(10)\nThe application of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by those Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality must not give them any entitlement to enter, to stay or to reside in a Member State or to have access to its labour market. Accordingly, the application of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 should be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to refuse to grant, to withdraw or to refuse to renew a permit to enter, to stay, to reside or to work in the Member State concerned, in accordance with the law of the Union.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 should, by virtue of this Regulation, be applicable only in so far as the person concerned is already legally resident in the territory of a Member State. Legal residence should therefore be a prerequisite for the application of those Regulations.\n(12)\nRegulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 should not apply in a situation which is confined in all respects within a single Member State. This concerns, inter alia, the situation of a third-country national who has links only with a third country and a single Member State.\n(13)\nThe condition of residing legally in the territory of a Member State should not affect the rights deriving from the application of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 concerning invalidity, old age or survivors\u2019 pensions, on behalf of one or more Member States, for a third-country national who has previously fulfilled the conditions of this present Regulation, or the survivors of such third-country national, insofar as they derive their rights from a worker, when residing in a third country.\n(14)\nThe continued right to unemployment benefit, as laid down in Article 64 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, is subject to the condition of registering as a job-seeker with the employment services of each Member State entered. Those provisions should only therefore apply to a third-country national provided that that individual has the right, where appropriate pursuant to his or her residence permit or long-term resident status, to register as a job-seeker with the employment services of the Member State entered and the right to work there legally.\n(15)\nThis Regulation should be without prejudice to rights and obligations arising from international agreements with third countries to which the Union is a party and which confer benefits in terms of social security.\n(16)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States on account of the cross-border situations involved and can therefore, by reason of the Union-wide scale of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. 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.\n(17)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Ireland has notified, by letter of 24 October 2007, its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation.\n(18)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, the United Kingdom is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(19)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 shall apply to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by those Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality, as well as to members of their families and to their survivors, provided that they are legally resident in the territory of a Member State and are in a situation which is not confined in all respects within a single Member State.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 859/2003 shall be repealed between the Member States that are bound by this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["1", "49", "84", "7", "29", "20", "61", "69", "43", "48", "2", "83", "38", "82", "19", "32", "88", "12", "26", "30", "80", "14", "27", "97", "73", "11", "59", "51", "77", "90", "No Label", "13", "37", "96"], "gold": ["13", "37", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 June 2012\nconcerning a financial contribution by the Union to Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom for studies on Schmallenberg virus\n(notified under document C(2012) 4203)\n(Only the Dutch, English, French, German, Italian and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(2012/349/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 23 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the budget of the European Union shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nSchmallenberg virus is an emerging contagious pathogen of ruminants putatively included in the Simbu serogroup of the Bunyaviridae family, genus Orthobunyavirus. Very little information is known on this emerging pathogen, most assumptions are extrapolated from scientific information available on other viruses of the Simbu serogroup.\n(3)\nOnly some Orthobunyavirus had been isolated in the Union (Tahyna virus from the California serogroup) but never from the Simbu serogroup. Schmallenberg virus was first detected in November 2011 in Germany in samples collected in the summer and autumn 2011 from diseased animals. In December 2011, congenital malformations were reported in newborn lambs in the Netherlands, linked to the presence of the virus. Subsequently up to March 2012, Belgium, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Luxembourg, Italy and Spain have reported stillbirth and congenital malformations. Schmallenberg virus presence was confirmed through the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests.\n(4)\nAs this is the first time that this virus is isolated in the Union, there are no harmonised rules as regards control or notification of Schmallenberg virus.\n(5)\nNo efficient diagnostic tools are available to assess the actual spread of Schmallenberg virus and its impact on animal health.\n(6)\nSeveral trading partners have taken temporary protective measures including trade restrictions and requested for additional guarantees for certain commodities awaiting for further scientific knowledge before resuming trade.\n(7)\nOn 23 January 2012, the Agriculture Council requested the Commission to take actions with respect to this emerging disease.\n(8)\nIn a meeting organised on 14 February 2012, the Commission in close collaboration with the Member States identified the priorities and areas for which additional information should be gathered prior to considering the development of veterinary legislation addressing this new infection. These are in particular, the mechanism by which the disease is caused (pathogenesis), the epidemiology, notably focusing on transmission pathways, the host range, the role of vectors and reservoirs; and the confirmation of the non-zoonotic potential of this virus and the methods to diagnose the disease in animal samples and their validation.\n(9)\nBelgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have drawn up scientific studies intended to gain knowledge on Schmallenberg virus in the areas identified above and submitted them to the Commission on 5 March 2012, requesting EU financial support.\n(10)\nSome of the scientific studies have been presented by several Member States in the form of a consortium, in these cases and for the purpose of clarity, one of the partners has been identified as coordinator of the consortium and responsible for communication with the Commission and transmission of technical reports.\n(11)\nPursuant to Article 22 of Decision 2009/470/EC, the Union may undertake, or assist the Member States or international organisations in undertaking, the technical and scientific measures necessary for the development of EU veterinary legislation and for the development of veterinary education or training.\n(12)\nA financial contribution should be granted to the studies on Schmallenberg virus implemented by Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom as the outcomes may lead to new insights on the subject mentioned above.\n(13)\nThe Commission has evaluated all the proposals and selected those that matched with the agreed priorities. Considering the resources needed to develop the studies and the need to start as soon as possible the activities in order to get the results, it is appropriate to start financing them as from 1 April 2012.\n(14)\nUnder Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), veterinary measures are to be financed under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. For financial control purposes, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of that Regulation are to apply.\n(15)\nThe payment of the financial contribution shall be subject to the condition that the studies planned have actually been carried out and that the authorities supply all the necessary information to the Commission.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Union shall grant Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom financial assistance for their scientific studies on Schmallenberg virus, as summarised in Annex I. The present decision constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union\n(a)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the eligible costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for the studies listed in Annex I and in accordance with the budgets listed in Annex II, for the period 1 April 2012 to 31 December 2013;\n(b)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 438 615 for Belgium;\n(ii)\nEUR 595 883 for Germany;\n(iii)\nEUR 146 590 for Spain;\n(iv)\nEUR 589 380 for France;\n(v)\nEUR 124 120 for Italy;\n(vi)\nEUR 639 342 for the Netherlands;\n(vii)\nEUR 371 811 for the United Kingdom;\n(c)\nBelgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, or in cases when the scientific studies are carried out by more than one Member State in a consortium, the coordinator Member State as listed in Annex I, shall submit to the Commission:\n-\nno later than 31 March 2013 an intermediate technical report per project,\n-\nno later than 31 March 2014 a final technical report per project;\n(d)\nBelgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom shall submit to the Commission:\n-\nno later than 31 March 2014 a paper version and an electronic version of their financial report drawn up in accordance with Annex IV. The supporting documents, evidencing all the expenditure referred to in the application for reimbursement, shall be sent to the Commission on request;\n(e)\nthe outcome of the studies must be made available to the Commission, all Member States and EFSA and presented at the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.\nArticle 2\n1. The maximum overall contribution authorised by this Decision for the costs incurred for the work referred to in Article 1(1) is set at EUR 2 905 741 to be financed from the following budgetary line of the general budget of the European Union for 2012:\n-\nbudgetary line No 17 04 02 01.\n2. Expenditure relating to staff dedicated to the projects, consumables, animal studies, travel costs linked to meetings and overheads shall be eligible within the limits set out in Article 1 and in accordance with the eligibility rules set out in Annex III.\n3. The Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be paid following presentation and approval of the reports and supporting documents referred to Article 1(2)(c) and (d).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2012.", "references": ["58", "79", "9", "3", "59", "28", "35", "24", "55", "46", "71", "50", "70", "7", "95", "5", "76", "29", "23", "48", "65", "93", "53", "34", "18", "31", "0", "88", "20", "32", "No Label", "4", "10", "61", "66", "77", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "61", "66", "77", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 20 August 2012\namending Decision 2002/994/EC concerning certain protective measures with regard to the products of animal origin imported from China\n(notified under document C(2012) 5753)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/482/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), and in particular Article 22(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2002/994/EC of 20 December 2002 concerning certain protective measures with regard to the products of animal origin imported from China (2) applies to all products of animal origin imported from China and intended for human consumption or for animal feed.\n(2)\nUnder Article 3 of that Decision, Member States are to authorise imports of products listed in Part II of the Annex to that Decision which are accompanied by a declaration of the Chinese competent authority stating that each consignment has been subjected before dispatch to a chemical test in order to ensure that the products concerned do not present a danger to human health. That test is to be carried out, in particular, with a view to detecting the presence of chloramphenicol and nitrofuran and its metabolites.\n(3)\nThe Chinese competent authority has provided an appropriate residue monitoring plan for honey intended for export to the Union. That plan has been approved by Commission Decision 2011/163/EU of 16 March 2011 on the approval of plans submitted by third countries in accordance with Article 29 of Council Directive 96/23/EC (3).\n(4)\nHoney and royal jelly are currently included in the list set out in Part II of the Annex to Decision 2002/994/EC. Propolis and bee pollen are products that also originate from apiculture and, given the specificities of the production process for those animal products, the risks to animal or public health posed by them is minimal. In addition, appropriate safety guarantees for those products are provided by the residue monitoring plan for honey intended for export submitted by China and approved by Decision 2011/163/EU. Propolis and bee pollen should therefore be included in the list of products set out in Part II of the Annex to Decision 2002/994/EC and that Decision should be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Part II of the Annex to Decision 2002/994/EC, the following indent is added:\n\u2018-\npropolis and bee pollen\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 August 2012.", "references": ["7", "67", "45", "43", "89", "59", "13", "65", "3", "6", "99", "55", "29", "18", "52", "32", "79", "85", "30", "82", "2", "31", "47", "87", "84", "26", "24", "60", "50", "11", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "23", "38", "69", "95", "96"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "23", "38", "69", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 21 March 2012\non the measure SA.31479 (2011/C) (ex 2011/N) which the United Kingdom plans to implement for Royal Mail Group\n(notified under document C(2012) 1834)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/542/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision(s) cited above (1) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 10 June 2011, after informal (pre-notification) contacts with the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the \u2018United Kingdom\u2019) notified a series of measures (see section 2.3) in favour of Royal Mail Group (\u2018RMG\u2019).\n(2)\nBy letter dated 29 July 2011, the Commission informed the United Kingdom that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty in respect of the notified measures in question.\n(3)\nThe Commission Decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments.\n(4)\nBy letter dated 9 August 2011 the United Kingdom requested an extension of the deadline to respond until 14 September 2011, which was granted by the Commission by letter of 11 August 2011. The United Kingdom transmitted its observations on 8 September 2011.\n(5)\nThe Commission received the following comments from interested parties:\n-\n5 October 2011\nUK Mail\n-\n6 October 2011\nCommunication Workers Union\n-\n6 October 2011\nUPS\n-\n7 October 2011\nDeutsche Post\n-\n7 October 2011\nDX Group\n-\n7 October 2011\nMail Competition Forum\n-\n7 October 2011\nTNT\n-\n7 October 2011\nFree Fair Post Initiative\n-\n9 October 2011\nSecured Mail.\n(6)\nThe comments received from interested parties were forwarded to the United Kingdom on 12 October 2011. The United Kingdom submitted its observations on the comments by letter registered on 16 November 2011.\n(7)\nOn 22 August 2011 the Commission sent an information request to the United Kingdom, to which it replied by letter of 14 September 2011.\n(8)\nA meeting with UK authorities, RMG and its bankers took place on 20 September 2011 in which the latter provided more detailed information on the notified restructuring plan.\n(9)\nThe Commission held several other meetings with the UK authorities on 12 October 2011, 10 and 23 November 2011 and 12 January 2012 to discuss the case. The United Kingdom submitted several pieces of additional information by e-mail or letter dated 30 September 2011, 20 October 2011, 7, 11, 18, 20, 28 and 30 November 2011, 6 December 2011 and 14 February 2012.\n(10)\nThe United Kingdom authorities submitted final updates to the notification and clarifications on the restructuring plan on 17 February 2012.\n2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES\n2.1. Context: liberalisation of the UK postal sector\n(11)\nThe United Kingdom places the notified measures in the context of its wider policy for postal services and underlines the strategic importance of RMG to ensure the permanent provision of universal postal services.\n(12)\nThe United Kingdom Government\u2019s policy is set out in the Postal Services Act (3) (\u2018Postal Services Act 2011\u2019), which received Royal Assent on 13 June 2011. The Act implements the recommendations of an independent review led by Richard Hooper (\u2018Hooper Reports\u2019) (4) and, in summary:\n(i)\nallows for private sector investment into RMG, with a view to injecting commercial disciplines and new capital;\n(ii)\nenables the transfer of the historic pension deficit to the United Kingdom Government leaving the company with a smaller fully funded scheme (\u2018the pension relief\u2019);\n(iii)\nmakes clear that Post Office Limited (\u2018POL\u2019, the retail arm of RMG) is not for sale but will remain in State ownership;\n(iv)\npaves the way to modernise the regulation of the postal services sector; and\n(v)\nrequires an employee share scheme which will hold at least 10 % of the equity in RMG by the time the UK Government has sold its entire shareholding in RMG.\n2.2. Beneficiaries of the measures\n2.2.1. Structure of the Royal Mail Group\n(13)\nRMG is 100 % State-owned through the Royal Mail Holdings plc (\u2018RMH\u2019). RMG is the United Kingdom\u2019s main postal operator and had a legal monopoly over certain basic letter services until the end of 2005 when the postal markets in the United Kingdom were fully liberalised. RMG is providing the collection, sorting, transportation and delivery of mail (letters, packets and parcels), using the \u2018Royal Mail\u2019 and \u2018Parcelforce Worldwide\u2019 brands.\n(14)\nThe post office network is operated by POL, which is currently wholly owned by RMG (and hence by the UK Government). RMG and POL are separate legal entities though they are part of the same group. Consistent with the recommendations of the Hooper Reports, it is proposed that POL will remain in full public ownership after the reform and will become a sister company of RMG under RMH.\n(15)\nRMG has also other subsidiaries, notably General Logistics System BV (\u2018GLS\u2019) which is RMG\u2019s European parcels business, providing parcel services, logistics and express services throughout Europe. The GLS network comprises subsidiary companies and network partners covering 36 European countries.\nChart 1: current organisational structure of RMG\n2.2.2. Royal Mail Group (RMG)\n(16)\nRMG has held a license to provide letter services in the United Kingdom under the Postal Services Act 2000 since 23 March 2001. Under the terms of its license, it is required to discharge the universal service obligation (\u2018USO\u2019). These arrangements implement the requirements of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (5) (\u2018Postal Services Directive\u2019). RMG is required by its license to negotiate commercial agreements with any interested operator for access to its national network. New operators have tended to enter the market through such access agreements with RMG.\n(17)\nRMG is the only licensee in the United Kingdom postal market with universal service obligations. The main aspects of the current USO are (i) the delivery of postal packets (letters, packets and parcels) up to 20 kg every working day to the home or premises of every individual or other person in the United Kingdom (Mon-Sat delivery obligations for letters), (ii) at least one collection every working day from each access point, and a service of conveying, receiving, collecting, sorting and delivering postal packets at affordable prices determined in accordance with a uniform tariff, and (iii) the provision of a registered post service at prices determined in accordance with a uniform tariff.\n(18)\nRMG\u2019s license imposes price controls in relation to the provision of regulated services. The current price control was set in April 2006 for a four-year period, but has been extended to March 2012.\n(19)\nFurthermore, RMG is required by its license to allow customers and other postal companies access to its national network on a non-discriminatory basis and in practice most of the competitors to RMG have entered the market by using third party access to RMG\u2019s downstream network (for example final sorting of mail and delivery on the \u2018last mile\u2019 to customers).\n(20)\nDownstream access competition involves the third party operator collecting and processing the mail through its own network until delivered to RMG\u2019s sorting centres, where it is injected into RMG\u2019s network for final sorting and delivery to receiving customers. Under equivalent agreements known as \u2018customer direct access\u2019 agreements, high-volume customers may deliver their pre-sorted mail to RMG\u2019s mail centres for downstream delivery.\n(21)\nCompetition in the United Kingdom\u2019s letter mail services has arisen through downstream access to RMG\u2019s network and not end-to-end competition between RMG and new entrants. Since the market opening in 2006, the letter volumes that other UK postal operators inject into RMG\u2019s downstream network have grown on average by more than 1 000 million items per annum and now account for over 45 % of the United Kingdom addressed inland mail market. RMG expects to lose even more market shares to its competitors in the coming years. For certain high volume markets, competitors are expected to achieve market shares of [\u2026] (6).\n2.2.3. Post Office Limited (POL)\n(22)\nPOL, the so-called retail arm of RMG, is responsible for the network of around 11 500 Post Office branches. Just fewer than 400 of these are directly owned and managed by POL. All others are privately owned and operated by subpostmasters or franchise partners. POL is entrusted to maintain a network meeting certain access criteria for the UK population (99 % of the population to be within 3 miles (4,8 km) of an outlet, etc.).\n(23)\nPOL does not currently have any employees as all personnel currently working for POL (except those who are self-employed) are seconded from RMG. Approximately 9 000 RMG employees are seconded and work wholly for POL.\n(24)\nPOL provides retail counter services to RMG, whilst RMG provides shared back-office support services to POL. Furthermore, there are a number of shared services in place between RMG and POL (for example vehicle services, building security etc.) which are currently provided at cost by RMG. The provision of these services is currently subject to a service agreement between RMG and POL that will be replaced by a series of new service agreements when POL becomes a sister company of RMG.\n(25)\nIn addition to being a provider of services of general economic interest (\u2018SGEIs\u2019), POL carries out some \u2018commercial\u2019 activities (such as selling telephony and insurance products) through its network and also through a direct internet sales channel.\n(26)\nOn 23 March 2011, the Commission authorised GBP 180 million of public assistance to POL for the funding of its network of post offices during one year starting 1 April 2011 (7). The Commission also authorised the continuation, over the same period, of existing loan facilities funding the provision of cash services at post office counters. The Commission concluded that the aid is compatible with Union rules because it does not overcompensate the net costs of the public service tasks entrusted to POL.\n(27)\nOn 24 January 2012, the United Kingdom has notified a package of measures in support of the SGEIs provided by POL, broadly similar to the measures authorised in 2011.\n2.2.4. Financial difficulties\n(28)\nThe United Kingdom considers RMG to be a firm in difficulty because it is currently facing severe financial difficulties (the reported financial figures refer to the consolidated results of RMG including all subsidiaries, if not stated otherwise):\n(i)\nthe State of its balance sheet, in particular the substantial size of the pension deficit;\n(ii)\nits projected cash flow shortages;\n(iii)\nits future inability to repay its debts when they fall due in the absence of the notified measures;\n(iv)\nRMG\u2019s declining revenues from the letter business: between the 2008/09 and 2010/11 financial years, external revenue fell by 3,1 %, in the same period inland addressed delivered volumes decreased by 11,7 %.\n(29)\nRMG\u2019s balance sheet shows that the company had serious financial difficulties at the end of the 2010/11 financial year; both its working capital and net operating assets were negative.\n(30)\nAccording to the projections provided by the United Kingdom, RMG will have negative cash headroom [\u2026], that is to say, it will not have sufficient funds to pay for its day-to-day operations, if the notified measures are not implemented. Consequently, RMG will also be unable to repay its existing loan facilities when they fall due in [\u2026].\n(31)\nOn the basis of these factors, RMG will face severe difficulty in meeting its payment obligations by [\u2026] and subsequently will be unable to undertake a restructuring program and return to viability out of its own resources, leaving the firm in a situation where it must rely on State aid in order to ensure a return to economic viability and the uninterrupted availability of the public service.\n2.3. Measures under investigation\n2.3.1. Pension relief\n(32)\nThe Postal Services Act 2011 envisages that the United Kingdom will assume responsibility for certain of the accrued liabilities under the Royal Mail Pension Plan (\u2018RMPP\u2019). The proposed measure will relieve RMG of the obligation to make good the deficit that has arisen under that scheme, thus relieving RMG of a significant financial burden.\n(33)\nAccording to the United Kingdom, the size and volatility of the RMPP is out of all proportion to RMG\u2019s current business and has proved to be a severe handicap to RMG\u2019s ability to compete on its own merits in the liberalised United Kingdom postal market. The United Kingdom believes that by taking certain liabilities over from the RMPP and thereby contributing to the restoration of RMG\u2019s viability, RMG will, as the sole universal service provider in the United Kingdom, have the ability to adapt to the liberalised industry environment through modernisation. The pension relief, as a consequence, will remove one of the principal obstacles to attracting private sector capital to RMG.\n(34)\nBesides the RMPP, RMG currently sponsors 3 other pension plans: the Royal Mail Senior Executives Pension Plan (\u2018RMSEPP\u2019), the Royal Mail Retirement Savings Plan (\u2018RMRSP\u2019) and the Royal Mail Defined Contribution Pension Plan (\u2018RMDCPP\u2019). The notified measure concerns only the RMPP and will not affect members of the RMSEPP, the RMRSP or the RMDCPP.\n(35)\nThe RMPP is an occupational pension scheme for RMG\u2019s employees, including those employees seconded to and working wholly for POL (8). It is a private sector scheme in the sense that it operates under normal UK pensions law as applied to private sector companies. As at 31 March 2011, the RMPP had approximately 436 000 members, of which approximately 130 000 were current employees accruing benefits in the scheme (active members), approximately 118 000 were former employees who had left service before retirement age and not yet drawn pension benefits (deferred members) and approximately 188 000 were pensioners.\n(36)\nThe RMPP is governed by the Third Principal Trust Deed and Rules dated 21 December 2009, as subsequently amended (the \u2018Trust Deed\u2019). The principal employer in relation to the scheme is RMG and the trustee is a company, Royal Mail Pensions Trustees Limited (\u2018the Trustee\u2019). In addition to the Trust Deed, the obligations of the Trustee and RMG under the RMPP are governed by legislation introduced by the Department for Work and Pensions applying to occupational schemes, set out, principally, in the Pension Schemes Act 1993, the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2004. The RMPP falls within the jurisdiction of the UK Pensions Regulator.\n(37)\nThe RMPP is a defined benefit scheme, that is, benefits are determined by reference to a pension of a target amount at normal retirement age, related to the amount of the member\u2019s annual pay and length of service with the employer. This is in contrast to defined contribution schemes under which only the level of the contributions required from the employer/employee is specified. The contributions are invested and when a member retires, the value of the accumulated fund is used to provide the member with an income for life.\n(38)\nThere are two main types of defined benefit scheme, known as final salary and career average. A final salary scheme provides a pension based on a stated fraction or percentage of the employee\u2019s final pensionable salary for each year of pensionable service. In contrast, a career average scheme provides a pension based on a stated percentage of the employee\u2019s average pay over the whole period of pensionable service (usually adjusted in some way to take account of inflation) for each year of pensionable service.\n(39)\nUntil April 2008, benefits accrued by members of the RMPP were calculated on the basis of a final salary method. However, in April 2008 RMG implemented pension reforms by amendment of the RMPP rules which included changes to benefits accrued in respect of service from 1 April 2008, such that they are now calculated on the basis of a career average salary method rather than a final salary method (although benefits accrued in respect of service prior to that date will continue to be linked to a member\u2019s salary at the date of leaving service). Other reforms implemented on 1 April 2008 included raising the retirement age to 65 for service accrued from 1 April 2010 (benefits built up before that date can still be taken at age 60 without an early retirement reduction being applied) and closure of the RMPP to new members and joiners with effect from 1 April 2008. The RMPP was replaced with a defined contribution scheme for new members and joiners after 1 April 2008, the RMDCPP.\n(40)\nThe United Kingdom points out that RMG\u2019s ability to amend the RMPP over time has been materially constrained. These constraints derive from general UK pensions law and from specific features of the RMPP scheme.\n(41)\nUnder UK law RMG has no power of veto over its contribution rate to the RMPP. The contribution rate is normally agreed between the sponsoring employer and the trustee of a pension scheme, but against a background where a failure to reach agreement within 15 months of the effective date of a valuation will lead to contributions being determined by the UK Pensions Regulator, which was established on 6 April 2005 by the Pensions Act 2004 and which enforces compliance with pensions legislation. The Pensions Regulator has made clear, among other things, that it expects schemes to have a certain level of solvency and that it expects trustees to seek recovery of any deficit as against that technical provisions funding target from the sponsoring employer \u2018as quickly as the employer can reasonably afford\u2019.\n(42)\nIn that context, RMG agreed a memorandum of understanding with the Trustee in June 2006 to fund the RMPP deficit over 17 years, in addition to the annual payments RMG makes to the RMPP to fund the cost of the accrued benefits. Conditions included the establishment of the escrow accounts totalling GBP 1 billion secured in favour of the RMPP that were the subject of Commission Decision 2009/613/EC (9).\n(43)\nOn 30 June 2010, RMG agreed on a further recovery plan with the Trustee aiming to fund the RMPP deficit by March 2047, by paying the following annual contributions:\n(i)\nfrom 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2047: annual deficit payments of GBP 282 million per annum increasing in line with retail prices inflation;\n(ii)\nfrom 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2023: additional contributions of 4,0 % of members\u2019 contributions.\n(44)\nPOL contributes a 7 % share of the deficit payments. The share is calculated on the basis of the number of employees seconded to POL in relation to RMG\u2019s total number of employees. POL\u2019s annual contribution to the pension deficit in the 2010-11 financial year was GBP 21 million.\n(45)\nThe United Kingdom authorities propose to set up a new statutory pension scheme which will be a liability of the UK Government and will have no legal connection to RMG or the RMPP. Certain part of accrued liabilities and assets held by RMPP will be transferred to the new scheme. It is intended that pension benefits accrued up to 31 March 2012 will be transferred to the scheme. The persons to whom this proposal applies include current pensioners, deferred members and active members of the RMPP.\n(46)\nIn broad terms, it is estimated that the new pension scheme will be taking over GBP 32 200 million of liabilities and associated assets of GBP 27 700 million (based on the 31 March 2011 actuarial valuation figures) and hence a deficit of GBP 4 500 million. After the pension relief on 1 April 2012, RMG will continue paying only the normal pension contributions for all members of the RMPP, who still work for RMG, and consequently only remain liable for new pension rights acquired after March 2012 (hereafter referred to as on-going RMPP scheme).\n(47)\nThe on-going RMPP scheme will immediately after the pension relief consist of approximately GBP 2 100 million (10) of liabilities and a matching amount of assets remaining with RMG. RMG will continue to bear all future service costs, including liability for any current obligations under the RMPP to maintain a continuing final salary link together with certain enhancements (for example on early retirement) in respect of the historic pension benefits. This means that after the pension relief, RMG will continue to bear the risk that the historic liabilities for deferred members may increase by reason of any salary increases, which exceed price inflation, as the pension benefits have to be linked to the current final salary level. RMG would also retain responsibility for the existing RMSEPP which shows liabilities of GBP 300 million and a deficit of approximately GBP 30 million (as valued at 31 March 2011).\n2.3.2. Restructuring aid\n(48)\nTo address its financial difficulties, in June 2011 RMG drew up a restructuring plan covering the period 2008-2016.\n(49)\nRMG\u2019s plans, which are focused primarily on reduction of costs and revenue diversification, build on the significant restructuring measures that RMG has taken since 2002 (including implementing significant changes to the RMPP) to modernise its business and drive costs down. RMG\u2019s plan of June 2011 for restoring the company to viability is split into five key areas:\n(i)\noperational modernisation, covering changes in all areas of RMG\u2019s activities and results in significant cost savings for the business;\n(ii)\ncorporate and back-office restructuring measures;\n(iii)\ncommercial transformation;\n(iv)\ninvestment in a new IT Platform;\n(v)\ncash generation initiatives.\n(50)\nThe restructuring plan aims to restore long-term viability of RMG. According to the United Kingdom, the ability to take structurally high levels of fixed cost out, enhance the overall regulatory environment and diversify revenues to replace lost revenues from declining mails volumes will promote a viable RMG capable of attracting private sector investment to ensure its long term future.\n(51)\nThe United Kingdom claims that the restoration of RMG\u2019s long term viability is a central policy objective in order to achieve universal availability and effective discharge of the USO. According to the United Kingdom, the pension relief alone will not be sufficient to secure RMG\u2019s long term viability: even after the relief of the deficit RMG cannot overcome its financial difficulties with its own resources or with funds obtained from market sources.\n(52)\nTherefore, in addition to the pension relief, the United Kingdom also notified certain measures to strengthen RMG\u2019s balance sheet, consisting of:\n(i)\nwriting off a certain amount of debt owed by RMG to the UK Government (hereafter \u2018debt reduction measures\u2019), expected to be up to GBP 1 700 million (plus accrued interest); and\n(ii)\nRMH making available certain amounts in the \u2018Mails Reserve\u2019 (11) to RMG by way of a revolving credit facility with a maximum drawdown of GBP 200 million.\n2.4. Grounds for initiating the in-depth investigation\n(53)\nThe United Kingdom contended in its notification that the pension relief could be found compatible with the internal market as legacy costs from the pre-liberalisation period, based on the Commission practice. Furthermore, it claimed that the proposed measures are in line with the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (12) (\u2018the R&R Guidelines\u2019). The United Kingdom did not invoke Article 106(2) of the Treaty as justification for the notified measures during the procedure.\n(54)\nIn its Decision to initiate the formal investigation, the Commission questioned whether the pension relief could be found compatible as compensation for an exceptional burden resulting from RMG\u2019s past status as public sector monopoly. In 2007, the Commission indeed approved a French reform regarding the financing of the current and future pensions of the employees of La Poste with a civil servant status (13). However, while the 2007 decision ensured that La Poste\u2019s effective social security costs were comparable to those of competitors; it seemed that relieving RMG from its whole pension deficit would put it in a better position than an average UK company. The Commission wondered therefore whether the charges of which RMG was relieved correspond entirely to legacy costs within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and whether there indeed would be a level playing field once the relief was implemented.\n(55)\nFurthermore, the Commission also expressed reservations about the restructuring plan\u2019s compatibility with the R&R Guidelines, notably regarding the prospect of a return to viability, the extent of RMG\u2019s contribution, and the level of compensatory measures.\n(56)\nAccording to the Commission, the United Kingdom did not convincingly demonstrate that the originally submitted restructuring plan would comply with the R&R Guidelines. In particular, the Commission doubted that RMG\u2019s role as the sole universal service provider and the liabilities resulting from its public sector monopoly legacy would justify mitigating the conditions of the R&R Guidelines and notably those ensuring that competition distortions are limited and that the cost of restructuring is shared by the required 50 % own contribution.\n(57)\nThe Commission also considered that the duration of the original restructuring plan from 2008 to 2016 was particularly long and that the projections in the original restructuring plan were sensitive to changes in the assumptions such as total mail volumes. The Commission therefore expressed doubts as to the restoration of long-term viability of RMG by the implementation of the notified plan and to the robustness of the viability projections.\n2.5. Modification to the notified measures after the opening of the formal investigation procedure\n(58)\nIn the course of the discussions with the Commission during the formal investigation, the United Kingdom renounced part of the debt reduction of 1 700 million and reduced the notified debt reduction measures to GBP 1 089 million. Furthermore, the United Kingdom also renounced the notified GBP 200 million revolving credit facility. The Commission therefore no longer considers those measures to be notified but only the debt reduction measure amounting to GBP 1 089 million.\n(59)\nFurthermore, during the investigation, the United Kingdom provided an updated restructuring plan, covering a shorter restructuring period: 2010-2015. During that period RMG will undertake operational and industrial measures to restructure its business. The plan for restoring the viability of RMG can be split into the following key actions: labour related restructuring, structural restructuring to reduce its capacity and restructuring of IT systems.\n(60)\nLabour related restructuring is at the heart of the RMG\u2019s changes to ensure that a financially sustainable universal service can be provided for the long term in the United Kingdom. RMG has already made progress and intends to significantly reduce its workforce further through a programme of voluntary redundancy and natural attrition over the period of the plan. This alone represents around one third of the total relevant restructuring costs from the plan, and will reduce significantly one of RMG\u2019s core costs.\n(61)\nThe restructuring plan envisages, over the course of the restructuring period, a reduction in RMG\u2019s headcount in UK Letters & Parcels and International (UKLPI) from approximately 160 000 people at the start of the year ending in March 2011 to approximately [\u2026] people in March 2015. This represents a total reduction of approximately [\u2026] in UKLPI between March 2011 and March 2015, representing the equivalent of around [\u2026] a year. This labour-related restructuring includes a reduction of close to [\u2026] central managers (over 1 000 of whom had already left by March 2011). Labour cost savings of GBP [\u2026] million in real terms are forecast to be achieved between March 2010 and March 2015.\n(62)\nThe labour changes proposed will impact virtually every part of the RMG\u2019s business. For example:\n(i)\noutdoor delivery and collections, which are labour intensive activities with high fixed costs, are being restructured; the restructuring is focused on achieving savings including by World Class Mail (see recital (68)) being introduced with savings arising from this comprehensive system for improving safety, customer service, quality and productivity in all delivery offices;\n(ii)\nthere is a move away from manual labour intensive processing to automated processing, with corresponding implications for labour;\n(iii)\nclose to [\u2026] managers in central functions are also being removed.\n(63)\nThe key elements of the labour restructuring cost included in the June 2011 restructuring plan are (i) redundancy payments, (ii) travel and outplacement costs and (iii) certain exceptional lump sum payments. Redundancy payments are expected to be approximately GBP [\u2026] million from March 2010 to March 2015. Travel and outplacement costs (which are paid to staff that have been retained but must now work at alternative facilities as part of the restructuring of RMG\u2019s infrastructure, including the closure of various mail centres) will amount to a cost of approximately GBP [\u2026] million by 2014/15. Exceptional lump sum payments - which are required to sustain the pace and depth of change as they form a key part of the 2010 modernisation agreement with the Communication Workers Union amount to GBP [\u2026] million. Those payments would not have been required with a slower, more conventional, pace of modernisation.\n(64)\nThose key elements of labour restructuring together amount to approximately half of the total relevant restructuring costs during the period from March 2010 to March 2015.\n(65)\nIn addition to the measures to address the labour force at RMG, the notified restructuring plan includes structural restructuring to reduce capacity in the business over the period. In total, the amount spent on structural restructuring represents approximately one third of the total relevant restructuring costs during the period from March 2010 to March 2015. In particular this element of the restructuring relates to the significant reduction of the mail centre network, which has a corresponding impact on labour.\n(66)\nStructural restructuring also consists of automation and, critically, new delivery methods to enable longer more flexible delivery spans. This again has significant implications for the workforce and forms a key part of restructuring.\n(67)\nThe restructuring plan includes a one-off property rationalisation programme reducing the number of mail centres from 64 at the start of the financial year 2010/11 to [\u2026] by March 2015, significantly reducing the RMG\u2019s footprint and streamlining its operations. The restructuring plan therefore envisages closure of [\u2026] mail centres between 2010/11 and 2014/15 which equates to a [\u2026] reduction across the network. During the year from March 2010 to March 2011 a total of 5 mail centres were closed.\n(68)\nIn conjunction with this, RMG is introducing World Class Mail in all mail centres which will remain open. World Class Mail is a comprehensive system for improving safety, customer service, quality and productivity, and reducing breakdowns. World Class performance is achieved by involving all employees in attacking wasted time and resources caused by sub-standard reliability, and operating performance of processing systems. All mail centres will be part of World Class Mail by the end of financial year 2011/2012 and World Class Mail is also being introduced in delivery offices.\n(69)\nIn addition, the deployment of intelligent letter sorting machines will bring about a change in automated sorting and reduce the costs associated with manual sorting. These machines are considerably faster than existing methods and equipment, which have been used by RMG for nearly 20 years.\n(70)\nFurther to this, the deployment of walk sequencing, which automates the sorting of letters to the order of delivery is being implemented. This is a critical part of the restructuring and requires the acquisition and deployment of compact sorter sequencer machines and results in changes to working practices for postmen and women working in delivery in particular. Automated sequencing of letters reduces manual sorting in delivery offices (and associated costs), and therefore allows for more efficient scheduling of start and finish times for delivery staff. Walk sequencing is a structural change to mail processing for RMG that will increase its productivity. RMG sequenced 0 % of mail in 2008; 1 % of mail in 2009, and 50 % by August 2011.\n(71)\nRMG\u2019s restructuring plan includes the automation of sorting of small parcels which is currently done manually. The company is determining the best solution to deploy during the restructuring period.\n(72)\nFinally, new delivery methods allow RMG to change from traditional delivery methods (on foot, by bicycle) to delivery mainly using secure trolleys (either manual or powered) and vans. These new methods represent a major change for RMG and the change being implemented, including the expenditure incurred, will facilitate longer, flexible delivery spans. This, in turn, allows RMG to reduce the number of delivery routes and outdoor delivery operating costs.\n(73)\nThe restructuring includes business critical capital investment in IT over the period of the plan. To complement the labour changes, RMG is in the process of introducing handheld electronic devices to replace paper-based processes and therefore increase efficiency. One of their basic functions is to store customer signatures which confirm receipt of tracked items. The devices allow RMG to track items in real time. This removes the need for further processing of signatures and receipts on paper when the postman or woman has finished deliveries.\n(74)\nIn addition, RMG will be making other investment in IT and operations - including significant investment in several critical areas:\n(i)\nimproving operational reporting capabilities;\n(ii)\nmodernisation of human resources processes;\n(iii)\nenabling automatic reading of address information and use of the information for performance reporting;\n(iv)\n[\u2026]; and\n(v)\n[\u2026].\n(75)\nThe investment in systems and IT restructuring in total represents approximately one fifth of the total relevant restructuring costs during the period from March 2010 to March 2015.\n(76)\nAccording to the United Kingdom, after the implementation of the pensions\u2019 measures and the completion of the restructuring measures, RMG is forecast to be in a position to:\n(i)\ncover its costs including depreciation and financial charges - in particular the company will have a positive free cashflow after interest and tax of GBP [\u2026] million by March 2015;\n(ii)\nmake a return on capital which will enable it to compete in the marketplace on its own merit - in particular the company will make a positive return on invested capital of [\u2026] by March 2015; and\n(iii)\ngenerate cash from the underlying business (pre-asset sales) - in particular the company will have a positive operating free cashflow of GBP [\u2026] million.\n(77)\nThis conclusion also applies on the basis of the reasonable downside scenario (an additional [\u2026] decline in volumes over the period of the restructuring plan) submitted to the Commission on 30 November 2011 as part of the sensitivity analysis. Under such a downside scenario, by March 2015 RMG would be in a position to:\n(i)\nhave a positive free cashflow after interest and tax of GBP [\u2026] million by March 2015;\n(ii)\nmake a positive return on invested capital of [\u2026] by March 2015; and\n(iii)\nhave positive operation free cashflow of GBP [\u2026] million.\n(78)\nThese forecasts are claimed to prove the robustness and strength of the proposed restructuring.\n3. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES\n(79)\nComments on the opening decision were received from a wide range of interested third parties including RMG\u2019s smaller domestic competitors and their industry associations, its larger international peers, pressure groups and a workers union representing the majority of RMG staff.\n(80)\nAs an industry association of smaller postal operators in the United Kingdom, the Mail Competition Forum (\u2018MCF\u2019), places a great emphasis on the importance of a sound and viable RMG as the only company capable of fulfilling the universal service obligation in the United Kingdom, whilst at the same time voicing concerns that an artificially strengthened RMG could squeeze its smaller competitors out of an already difficult market by means of predatory pricing, margin squeeze and denial of access to essential facilities. In this context the MCF urges far reaching ex ante regulatory measures to protect smaller competitors and ensure that they have access to the Royal Mail network.\n(81)\nMCF agrees with the United Kingdom in its assessment that RMG is a firm in difficulty and agrees with the application of the R&R Guidelines as the appropriate framework to assess the proposed measures. Moreover, it notes that the United Kingdom does not seek to justify the aid on grounds that such aid is necessary to sustain an SGEI, but it records that in case that any SGEI compensation to RMG would be authorised by the Commission, it would need to be coupled with rigorous safeguards to protect competition.\n(82)\nThe MCF believes that the measures should be confined to the strict minimum necessary and designed to deal with the pension deficit alone. MCF rejects any balance sheet repair measures or any other measures undertaken with a view to making the firm more attractive for a market economy investor. In this context MCF expresses scepticism about a privatisation of the firm.\n(83)\nWith respect to the own contribution of 50 % required under the R&R Guidelines for large undertakings, MCF urges a strict adherence to the prescribed threshold and recommends the divestiture of assets and seizure of loss-making activities to finance this.\n(84)\nWith regards to compensatory measures the MCF believes that a number of far reaching structural, fiscal and regulatory measures are necessary including a reform of the UK Postal Services Act with a view to preventing the RMG from getting additional aid for the same purpose in the future, a full structural separation of the retail and network aspects of the business, and an end to the VAT exemption enjoyed by RMG for services which are outside the universal service.\n(85)\nSecured Mail points to the importance of RMG for the discharge of the USO in the United Kingdom. At the same time Secured Mail urges the Commission to ensure that RMG will not gain the opportunity to exploit its new found strength in a way which would endanger the smaller competitor\u2019s business model. Just as the Mail Competition Forum, Secured Mail emphasises the need for a sufficient own contribution financed through divestiture of assets, and seizure of loss-making activities. Furthermore Secured Mail would like to see regulatory action like a separation of the network and retail aspects of RMG businesses.\n(86)\nUK Mail, a small domestic competitor comments that whilst the firm generally welcomed State aid to RMG with a view to safeguarding the effective discharge of the USO, the measures should only be authorised under strict adherence to the R&R Guidelines.\n(87)\nDX, another small domestic competitor also expresses concerns about strengthening RMG\u2019s position on the UK market in an unchecked fashion and advocates compensatory measures in order to make up for potential distortions of competition.\n(88)\nThe Communication Workers Union (\u2018CWU\u2019) places the measures in the context of the wider modernisation efforts of RMG over the past years. CWU welcomes the aid measures but voices concerns about the level of stress put on the workforce by the restructuring process and points to the profound and sustained changes in the general working condition of Royal Mail employees. CWU asks the Commission to confine restructuring to a minimum with a view to limit the adverse effects on the general working conditions. CWU rejects an appraisal under the R&R Guidelines and opines that the Commission should authorise the aid as compensation for a service of general economic interest instead. CWU believes that no own contribution should be required from RMG and advocates a generous appreciation of the aid measures with a view to making the transition process as smooth as possible for RMG\u2019s workers.\n(89)\nThe Free and Fair Postal Initiative (\u2018FFPI\u2019), a pressure group, generally welcomes the State aid measures in favour of RMG and only voices some concern about RMGs return to viability according to the restructuring plan. In light of the current economic climate FFPI questions the sale prospects and bemoans the lack of a comprehensive privatisation plan.\n(90)\nFurthermore the FFPI is keen to point out that all requirements of the R&R Guidelines must be met, especially as regards the own contribution which FFPI would like to be substantial (50 %) in line with the R&R Guidelines. Furthermore FFPI considers that far reaching compensatory measures should necessarily, include the sale of assets which are not essential to the discharge of the USO and especially guarantees with regards to market access for competitors.\n(91)\nFFPI furthermore submits that it rejects the application of a legacy cost reasoning pursuant to the EDF (14) and La Poste (15) decisions in this case on the grounds of substantial dissimilarities with the facts in this case, especially in respect of the pension systems in France and the United Kingdom.\n(92)\nDeutsche Post places the aid requirement of RMG within the context of the liberalisation and process of the UK postal market and the consequential requirement for the incumbent ex- monopolist to adapt to the conditions of a competitive postal market and modernise its business practices accordingly. In this context Deutsche Post urges the Commission to ensure a uniform application of the law across all Member States in this regard. Subsequently Deutsche Post rejects the reasoning put forward by the United Kingdom that RMG presented an \u2018exceptional case\u2019 within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines and voices doubts about the applicability of the R&R Guidelines to the case.\n(93)\nIn this context, Deutsche Post also argues on the basis of the judgment of the Court in Combus (16) that, in the course of the privatisation of formerly State-owned universal service providers, the public compensation of pension costs - which go beyond the level normally assumed by private competitors - do not constitute aid. Deutsche Post claims that the relief of RMG\u2019s pension deficit should escape the prohibition of Art 107 of the Treaty on the grounds that this measure is designed to rectify a structural disadvantage within the meaning of the Combus judgment.\n(94)\nDeutsche Post also considers that the Commission would be obliged to take into account that RMG has already received compensation for its pension deficit in the form of higher stamp prices.\n(95)\nTNT observes that the aid should be no more than the smallest amount strictly necessary to rescue RMG from its financial difficulties. At the same time TNT is concerned that RMG could use its new found strength to unduly restrict competition on the UK postal market in a bid to regain control of the market and recoup lost market shares.\n(96)\nIn order to prevent such a move, TNT asks for far reaching measures as a compensation for State aid, including a guarantee of future network access, if possible by way of unbundling, and the end of the VAT exemption to strengthen the evolution of competition in the end to end delivery markets.\n(97)\nWith respect to the proper legal framework, TNT agrees with the United Kingdom that the measures should be assessed as restructuring aid pursuant to the R&R Guidelines and rejects the notion of an analysis under Article 106(2) of the Treaty.\n(98)\nIn its statement UPS opines that the proposed aid measures could have severe implications on the postal market and produce effects beyond the markets directly targeted - in the express service parcel markets in the United Kingdom and Europe. In this context UPS raises doubts about the way in which the advantages for RMG have been calculated and the applicability of the R&R Guidelines to this case.\n(99)\nFurthermore, UPS has doubts about the compatibility of the measures under Article 107(3) of the Treaty and the R&R Guidelines.\n(100)\nWith regard to compensatory measures UPS contends that the required measures must be proportional to the distortions of competition. UPS thereby rejects the notion forwarded by the United Kingdom that the burden of discharging the public service obligation should be taken into account when assessing the measures under the R&R Guidelines. UPS places a particular emphasis on the need to analyse and account for potential spill- over effects into neighbouring markets, should the measures not only strengthen RMG but also its subsidiaries, especially GLS.\n(101)\nWith respect to the amount of aid, UPS emphasises that the amount should be limited to the strict minimum necessary and that a substantial own contribution should be made by RMG. In this context UPS expresses doubts over the presence of exceptional circumstances which would allow for an own contribution below 50 %, as suggested by the United Kingdom. UPS furthermore believes in case that the Commission should accept the United Kingdom\u2019s reasoning in this regard, the own contribution should under no circumstances be lower than 40 % based on the Commission\u2019s decision practice in previous decisions.\n(102)\nWith regards to the legacy cost reasoning under Article 107(3) of the Treaty, UPS points out that the measures could not be justified upon the basis of precedent (La Poste) or as a matter of principle, but require a comprehensive balancing test in which the positive effects of the measure are balanced against the way in which it distorts competition.\n4. COMMENTS FROM THE UK AUTHORITIES\n4.1. On the existence of aid and aid beneficiaries\n(103)\nThe United Kingdom accepts that the notified pension relief and debt reduction measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(104)\nThe United Kingdom maintains that there is no aid involved in the tax treatment of the transfer of net liabilities from RMG to the United Kingdom since the pension liabilities currently in RMG\u2019s accounts represent amounts which are as yet unpaid, and they are only tax deductible when payment is actually made. As such, RMG has not claimed tax relief for any of the liabilities in its accounts. According to the United Kingdom, it would be inequitable for RMG to be charged tax on the release of provisions, when it has not received tax relief on those provisions in the first place (17).\n(105)\nIn response to the Commission\u2019s assertion in the opening decision that it is unclear whether POL would benefit from the debt reduction measures, the United Kingdom claims that POL\u2019s funding and accounting is ring-fenced from that of RMG. According to the United Kingdom, this is further assured by the fact that the businesses are legally separated.\n4.2. On the compatibility of the pension relief as compensation for legacy pension costs under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty\n(106)\nThe United Kingdom first of all maintains that there are significant parallels between the present case and the La Poste case. Although the United Kingdom acknowledges that the UK pension environment is different to that of France, and there is no UK specific comparator to RMG\u2019s scheme, this does not mean that the La Poste precedent cannot be applied. The United Kingdom strongly believes that there are sufficient similarities between the two cases to merit a full application of the precedent, because both cases involve material economic risk and uncapped liabilities and because both cases involved inflexible schemes.\n(107)\nFurthermore, the United Kingdom considers that, whilst there are parallels between the cases, the proposed solution for RMG is not as extensive or material as that for La Poste because the United Kingdom is only relieving RMG of its past liabilities and because the pension liabilities assumed by the United Kingdom are accompanied by the majority of the RMPP pension assets, such that the aid concerned is limited to the deficit rather than the amount of the liabilities.\n(108)\nThe United Kingdom also contends that the scale of RMG\u2019s pension liabilities is unusual due to a combination of factors that include the scale of RMG\u2019s employment costs, the indexation and early retirement arrangements, and the enhanced redundancy terms imposed by collective agreements with the unions. The United Kingdom submits that these liabilities can be regarded as \u2018stranded costs\u2019 within the meaning of previous Commission decisions on pension liabilities in the energy sector. This means that the pension deficit should be regarded as an irreversible (social) investment made before the liberalisation of the sector which turned unprofitable under the new conditions of sector liberalisation which could not be foreseen at the time when the decision was taken. The United Kingdom bases its stranded cost reasoning on the following factors:\n(i)\nthe shape and scale of the liabilities are directly linked to RMG\u2019s civil service and monopoly legacy;\n(ii)\nthe RMPP was less problematic to manage when it was in a monopoly environment; and\n(iii)\nthe generous entitlements granted to members, combined with the sheer number of active, deferred and retired members (which was unavoidable given RMG\u2019s USO), represent additional pension costs that RMG\u2019s competitors do not have to bear.\n(109)\nDuring the course of the investigation, the United Kingdom has also provided further information on the abnormal nature of RMG\u2019s pension liabilities, which would be relieved as part of the UK Government\u2019s proposals. It further developed the initial analysis carried out by the expert Towers Watson who examined the level of abnormality inherent in the RMPP.\n(110)\nThis additional analysis compared the RMPP to the average private sector defined benefit scheme and according to the United Kingdom demonstrates that approximately GBP 6 900 million of the RMPP\u2019s pension liabilities relate to abnormally high costs when compared to the average scheme.\n(111)\nThis exceeds the level of the RMPP\u2019s pension deficit of GBP 4 500 million on an accounting basis at March 2011, which, according to the United Kingdom, suggests that all of RMPP\u2019s pension deficit could be considered abnormal.\n4.3. On the compatibility of the debt reduction measures under the R&R Guidelines\n(112)\nThe United Kingdom first of all maintains that the Commission should apply the R&R Guidelines in such a way as to avoid a negative effect on the availability of the universal service in the United Kingdom. Consequently, the United Kingdom points out that RMG is indispensable to the availability of the universal service and argues that the difficulties of the firm endanger not only the survival of RMG as an undertaking but also the availability of the universal service in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom therefore asks the Commission to take the legislative intent of Article 106(2) of the Treaty into account when assessing the measures under the R&R Guidelines. In support of its argument the United Kingdom points to case-law from the Court of Justice according to which the rules of the Treaty should be applied in consideration of the effective discharge and undistorted availability of the universal service in cases where an undertakings ability to deliver a core service is threatened, and in particular where the survival of the undertaking delivering this service is threatened (18).\n(113)\nHereby, the United Kingdom submits that the compatibility criteria under the R&R Guidelines should be qualified to the extent required to allow the measures to be implemented as contemplated in the restructuring plan in order to ensure that the UK Government\u2019s ability to meet its obligations under the Postal Services Directive is not jeopardised.\n(114)\nFurthermore, the United Kingdom maintains that RMG is to be considered as a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines i.e. a firm that - bar State intervention - would be unable to obtain the necessary capital to stem losses which endanger its very survival from either its shareholders or market sources. In this respect the United Kingdom points to the severe financial difficulties of the firm caused by diminishing revenues, the considerable size of the pension deficit which causes a deeply troublesome balance sheet, and projected shortages in its cash flow positions.\n(115)\nIn its submissions, the United Kingdom provided much more information on the restructuring plan. In particular it presented:\n(i)\na more detailed description of the operational and industrial measures which RMG is undertaking to restructure its business and in respect of which the notified UK restructuring measures would also provide financial support;\n(ii)\nthe United Kingdom\u2019s clarification about the duration of the restructuring plan;\n(iii)\nreassurance that, on the basis of the restructuring plan, the future viability of RMG is ensured, even in a reasonable downside scenario;\n(iv)\na clarification of the full extent of own contribution which RMG is providing towards its restructuring.\n(116)\nAs regards the length of the restructuring plan, the United Kingdom contends that the Commission should take into account the pace at which it is possible to roll out the scale of operational restructuring required having regard to the scale of RMG\u2019s operations, its industrial relations environment and its obligation to continue providing the universal service to specified quality standards throughout the process.\n(117)\nAs regards the restoration of the long-term viability and the deliverability of the restructuring plan, according to the United Kingdom it has been sufficiently demonstrated in the restructuring plan that RMG will return to viability by the end of the restructuring period in accordance with the R&R Guidelines.\n(118)\nThe United Kingdom believes, based on the assessment of its financial advisors, that the delivery of the restructuring plan will restore RMG to viability by the end of financial year 2014/15 (that is to say by the end of March 2015). In practice this means that after the implementation of the pension relief and the completion of the restructuring measures which are relevant for State aid purposes, the United Kingdom forecasts that RMG should be in a position to bear all its costs, including depreciation and financial charges. Moreover the expected return on capital would be enough to enable the restructured RMG to compete in the market place on its own merits.\n(119)\nAs regards the own contribution requirement, the view of the United Kingdom remains that the particular circumstances of this case justify a flexible approach to own contribution.\n(120)\nNevertheless, the United Kingdom has clarified how RMG is also using its own resources to fund the costs associated with the restructuring activity set out in section 2.5.\n(121)\nThe United Kingdom considers that any distortion of competition arising from the notified measures will be minimal. It also reiterates that RMG\u2019s subsidiary GLS is not directly impacted by the measures and there will therefore be no impact on competition from the measures in the European parcels and express markets in which GLS operates.\n(122)\nAs regards compensatory measures, the United Kingdom maintains that the Commission should consider the extent to which this principle should be applied in order to avoid any action which would directly or indirectly obstruct RMG in its performance of the universal service.\n4.4. On the comments from third parties\n(123)\nIn response to the third party submissions the United Kingdom addresses the issues at hand thematically.\n(124)\nIn response to the fears of potential spill-over effects on neighbouring markets via RMG subsidiary GLS the United Kingdom elaborates that GLS is not benefitting from the proposed aid measures due to the fact that GLS employees are neither currently nor have ever been part of the RMPP, and that its pension system has no connection whatsoever to the RMPP, making spill over effects impossible. Furthermore the United Kingdom stresses that the measures, however implemented will not have any effect any cash position of GLS.\n(125)\nIn response to comments which question the level of debt deriving from the statutory pension contribution, the United Kingdom asserts that the size of the deficit was directly linked to the legacy costs incurred and that RMG should therefore be relieved of the deficit in its entirety.\n(126)\nWith regards to the general compatibility of the measures with the R&R Guidelines the United Kingdom considers that the proposed measures fit within the scope of the R&R Guidelines. Furthermore the United Kingdom maintains its position expressed in the notification that the Commission should undertake its assessment of the proposed measures under Article 107(3) of the Treaty in the spirit of Article 106(2) of the Treaty.\n(127)\nIn response to comments questioning the long term viability of RMG after the aid is granted, the United Kingdom rejects the concerns of the interested parties and submits that on the basis of the independent advice from its economic advisers, it firmly believed that RMG will return to viability and prosper in the long- term.\n(128)\nThe United Kingdom rejects comments alleging that the amount of aid was not limited to the strict minimum necessary and in essence aimed at making RMG more attractive to potential investors with a view to realise a successful privatisation in the future. It explains that the measures were specifically designed to spend only the strict minimum necessary to secure the future of the universal service and restore RMG to viability to that end.\n(129)\nThe United Kingdom furthermore rejects claims that the measures would lead to an undue distortion of competition since the benefits to consumers flowing from RMG\u2019s survival would significantly outweigh the limited degree of market distortion.\n(130)\nIn response to the comments on the required own contribution, the United Kingdom rejects arguments forwarded by interested parties who question the existence of exceptional circumstances which would justify a deviation from the 50 % own contribution rule prescribed in the R&R Guidelines. The UK maintains its position voiced in the notification that the Commission should take account of RMG\u2019s public sector heritage and its public service burden when determining appropriate level of own contribution.\n(131)\nFurthermore the United Kingdom points out that the separation of POL from RMG already puts RMG in a position where it will lose businesses opportunities in the development of related fields such as personal banking and other usage of POL\u2019s infrastructure.\n(132)\nThe United Kingdom also firmly rejects calls to divest its express parcel operator GLS as a compensatory measure as suggested in some of the third party comments. The United Kingdom clarifies that it considers GLS to be a vital part of RMG\u2019s overall strategy and that it regards the firm as crucial to the attainment of long term viability. In this context the United Kingdom is keen to stress that diversification of a firms activities into more profitable areas is expressly recognised by the R&R Guidelines (paragraph 17) as a vital part of the recovery of a struggling enterprise. Furthermore the United Kingdom believes that a divestiture of GLS would threaten the viability of RMG in such a way that it would endanger not only the restructuring plan but also the provision of the universal service in the United Kingdom.\n(133)\nThe United Kingdom emphasises its position with regards to the applicability of the legacy cost reasoning along the lines of the La Poste, EDF (19) and OTE (20) case-law to the present case. The United Kingdom maintains its position that, despite of the technical differences between the United Kingdom and French pension systems a sufficient logical analogy remained which allowed for a legacy cost reasoning to be applied to this case.\n(134)\nIn response to comments which recommended assessing the measures under Article 106(2) of the Treaty rather than the R&R Guidelines pursuant to Article 107 of the Treaty, the United Kingdom again stresses its position that such a move would not be the appropriate step for RMG under the present circumstances. Nevertheless the United Kingdom believes that the Commission should bear Article 106(2) of the Treaty in mind in its application of the R&R Guidelines.\n(135)\nThe United Kingdom also remarks on Deutsche Post\u2019s submission calling on the Commission to discount any proceeds already generated in favour of RMG with respect to its pension liabilities in the form of higher prices in price regulated areas from the pension relief. The United Kingdom seeks to refute this line of reasoning and expresses a belief that there is effectively no double counting between regulated prices and the pension deficit due to the methodology and regulatory arrangements employed by RMG and the past and present regulators which ensured that RMG would not receive funds for the same purpose twice.\n(136)\nThe United Kingdom rejects Deutsche Post\u2019s submission that the assessment of State aid to former postal monopolies should be undertaken on an identical set of criteria to ensure a uniform application of Union law across the Member States, and argues instead that the Commission should be free to assess each case on its particular circumstances taking account of the particularities of each individual case.\n(137)\nFinally the United Kingdom comments on the many remarks and suggestions made by some third parties which the United Kingdom believes to fall within the scope of regulatory activity rather than this case. With regards to those issues, such as structural separation, transparency, review and cessation of certain activities, the United Kingdom is keen to stress that such measures are of a regulatory nature and should be raised in the appropriate forum with the national regulator rather than the context of State aid proceedings. In addition, the United Kingdom notes that the extent of the VAT exemption for postal services in the United Kingdom has already been considered by the Court of Justice of the European Union (21) and is expected to be further reviewed by the UK tax authorities.\n5. ASSESSMENT\n5.1. Existence of aid under Article 107(1) of the Treaty and potential beneficiaries\n(138)\nArticle 107(1) of the Treaty provides that \u2018any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019. In determining whether a measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, the Commission has to apply the following criteria: the measure must be imputed to the State and use State resources, it must confer an advantage on certain undertakings or certain sectors which distorts competition and it must affect trade between Member States.\n5.1.1. State resources\n(139)\nArticle 107(1) of the Treaty is concerned with aid granted by a Member State or through State resources. In other words, the measures in question must appear as the result of behaviour attributable to the State or must involve State resources.\n(140)\nAs regards the pension relief, the United Kingdom\u2019s taking over of certain of RMG\u2019s accrued pensions liabilities is financed by State resources and is imputable to the State: the United Kingdom will set up a new statutory pension scheme which will be a liability of the UK Government and to which certain part of the accrued liabilities held by the RMPP will be transferred.\n(141)\nConcerning the debt reduction measures, those are clearly financed from State resources and imputable to the State: the United Kingdom will write off the debt from the outstanding loans that RMG currently owes to it.\n5.1.2. Selective advantage\n(142)\nIn order to ascertain whether the measures under scrutiny contain elements of State aid, it needs to be determined whether they confer an economic advantage on RMG in that they allow it to avoid costs that would normally have had to be borne by its own financial resources and have thus prevented market forces from producing their normal effect (22).\n(143)\nIn this respect, it should also be borne in mind that several of the Court of Justice\u2019s rulings contradict the theory that compensation for a structural disadvantage exempts a measure from being qualified as aid. The Court of Justice has constantly held that the existence of aid is to be assessed in relation to the effects and not in relation to the causes or objectives of State intervention (23). The Court of Justice has also held that the concept of aid includes advantages granted by public authorities which, in various forms, reduce the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking (24). The Court of Justice has also clearly stated that the costs linked to remuneration of employees naturally place a burden on the budgets of undertakings, irrespective of whether or not those costs stem from legal obligations or collective agreements (25). In that context, the Court of Justice has considered that the fact that State measures aim to compensate for additional costs cannot constitute grounds for disqualifying them from the definition of aid (26).\n(144)\nThe Commission takes the view that the liabilities a company bears under employment legislation or collective agreements with trade unions, such as pension costs, are part of the normal costs of a business which a firm has to meet from its own resources (27). Those costs are inherent to the economic activity of the undertaking (28). It does not matter in that regard whether the undertaking bears the pension costs by directly financing the pensions of its former staff or by paying contributions to a pension fund, which in turn uses the collected contributions to finance the pensions of the companies\u2019 employees. The decisive element is that, in one way or another, undertakings bear the full costs for pensions.\n(145)\nAs regards the pension relief, the Commission observes that it will provide a financial advantage to RMG, given the effects on RMG of the deficit in the RMPP, and the obligations RMG has towards the RMPP under UK pensions law. These obligations include the payment of contributions, in particular to address the deficit, and are reflected in the fact that the deficit is recorded on RMG\u2019s balance sheet as required by rule 19 of the International Accounting Standards (hereinafter referred to as IAS). Therefore, the Commission finds that the taking over of certain accrued pensions liabilities by the United Kingdom will relieve RMG of financial obligations that the undertaking would normally have had to bear and thus prevent market forces from producing their normal effect.\n(146)\nFurthermore, the Commission observes that the pension relief not only confers an advantage on RMG, but also on its subsidiary POL as it relieves the latter of the obligation under the secondment arrangements with RMG to contribute to the pension deficit. GLS on the other hand is not considered to be a beneficiary of the pension relief in view of the fact that its employees are not part of the RMPP, and its pension system has no connection whatsoever to the RMPP.\n(147)\nThe Commission also notes that arguments intended to demonstrate that the pension costs borne by RMG are higher than those of its competitors are irrelevant for the purpose of finding whether the pension relief constitutes a State aid. However, their comparative level can be taken into consideration in the assessment of the compatibility of the pension relief.\n(148)\nThe Commission finds therefore that the pension relief provides a selective advantage to RMG and POL within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(149)\nAs regards the non-taxation of the release of the provisions made in the accounts as a result of the pension deficit, the Commission accepts the argument of the United Kingdom that this is justified because the building up of the provisions could not be deducted from tax. The pension liabilities currently in RMG\u2019s accounts represent amounts which are as yet unpaid under the RMPP and under UK tax legislation, tax relief is only available for pension contributions where and when those pension contributions are paid. As such, RMG has not claimed tax relief for any liabilities reflected in its accounts to date. Following the transfer of those liabilities to the new scheme, RMG will no longer be responsible for funding the RMPP and therefore will not claim any tax relief. As RMG will not be able to claim tax relief in respect of the related pension obligations which are currently reflected in its accounts, equally, it would not expect to suffer tax on the reversal of the accounts provisioning. Therefore, the Commission finds that the tax treatment of the pension relief does not involve a selective advantage for RMG and does therefore not constitute State aid.\n(150)\nAs regards the assessment whether the debt reduction measures provide a selective advantage, the Commission assesses this type of measures under the private creditor test (29). This test asks whether a private creditor in the same situation would have acted the same way in order to maximise its chances to recover its credit. The Commission observes first that the United Kingdom has not claimed that it is acting in line with the behaviour of a private creditor in relation to the debt reduction measures and therefore it has not provided the Commission with any information that would enable it to apply such test. Second, the Commission is of the view that a private creditor would not have agreed to a reduction of his credit without demanding any further covenants or at least agreements on a rescheduling of the reminder of its credit with a view to maximise his chances of debt repayment after a successful restructuring. Therefore, the Commission finds that the debt reduction measures in the restructuring plan provide a selective advantage to RMG within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n5.1.3. Distortion of competition and affectation of intra-Union trade\n(151)\nWhen aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Union trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid. In accordance with settled case-law (30), for a measure to distort competition and affect trade between Member States it is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition.\n(152)\nThe UK postal market was fully opened to competition in 2006, while already being open to competition before that date in certain market segments (for example delivery of parcels and delivery of bulk mail in case of postings above 4 000 items and in general any postal service that was not reserved to a specific undertaking). In this context, it is sufficient to point out that RMG is competing with companies established in other Member States (such as Post NL or Deutsche Post) and is itself active on markets outside the United Kingdom through its express parcel subsidiary GLS. Therefore, the measures in question are liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.\n5.1.4. Conclusion as regards the existence of aid\n(153)\nIn light of the above, the Commission concludes that both the pension relief as well as the debt reduction measures in the restructuring plan constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n5.2. Compatibility of the aid\n(154)\nAs the derogations provided for in Article 107(2) of the Treaty and Article 107(3)(a)(b) of the Treaty do clearly not apply, the Commission will assess to which extent the pension relief and the debt reduction measure can be found compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.\n(155)\nThe United Kingdom has not invoked Article 106(2) of the Treaty as such as justification for the compatibility of the aid granted to RMG.\n5.2.1. Compatibility of the pension relief as compensation for legacy pension costs under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty\n(156)\nThe Commission will assess whether the pension relief can be declared compatible pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, which provides that aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may be declared compatible with the internal market where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.\n(157)\nAccording to the case-law, the Commission may declare State aid compatible with the internal market if the aid contributes to the attainment of an objective of common interest (31), is necessary for the attainment of that objective (32), and does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest (proportionality).\n(158)\nPostal services contribute to social, economic and territorial cohesion in the Union. The gradual opening of postal services to competition, which started at Union level in 1998, has brought about increased quality, greater efficiency and better responsiveness to users. Market opening has allowed the establishment of an internal market for postal services. It therefore contributes to the objective of the establishment of the internal market set out in Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union.\n(159)\nHowever, during the process of liberalisation, the former incumbent may suffer from a competitive disadvantage because he is burdened with \u2018legacy costs\u2019, that is to say costs which come from commitments entered into prior to the beginning of market opening and which can no longer be honoured under the same conditions in a competitive market environment because the historic operator is no longer able to pass on the corresponding costs to consumers.\n(160)\nThe Commission has recognised in its decision-making practice that the gradual transition from a situation of largely restricted competition to one of genuine competition at Union level must take place under acceptable economic conditions (33). Therefore, it has accepted in a number of decisions that Member States grant State aid to relief the historic operator of a part of its \u2018legacy\u2019 pension liabilities (34).\n(161)\nIn its Decision regarding the State aid granted to EDF (35), the Commission declared compatible with the common market State aid that relieved EDF of specific pension liabilities which exceeded those resulting from the general retirement arrangements and which had been defined during the monopoly period. The Commission stated that these liabilities were not dissimilar in nature to that of stranded costs in the electricity sector (36) and that aid to compensate excessive pension costs would therefore be treated in the same way as compensation for stranded costs. Therefore, the Commission declared that the same approach would be applied in the analyses of similar cases in the future.\n(162)\nIn its Decision of 10 October 2007 on the State aid granted to La Poste (37), the Commission declared compatible with the common market State aid that relieved La Poste of specific pension liabilities which exceeded those resulting from the ordinary pension arrangements and which had been defined during the monopoly period. These liabilities arose from, first, the higher pension contributions payable in respect of employees with civil servant status and, secondly, the requirement to ensure the equilibrium of its retirement scheme for these employees.\n(163)\nThe Commission noted that the measures were limited to what was strictly necessary to establish a level playing field for social security contributions and ultimately would therefore favour the development of competition and further liberalisation of the postal sector. It further noted, by way of drawing a parallel with the EDF decision, that La Poste no longer recruited civil servants and that the future pensions payments of La Poste placed it in a comparable situation vis-\u00e0-vis its competitors as regards social security contributions.\n(164)\nIn its Decision of 25 January 2012 concerning subsidies for the financing of the civil servants\u2019 pension costs at Deutsche Post (38), the Commission verified, in line with its La Poste Decision, whether the social security contributions borne by Deutsche Post were equivalent to those of private competitors. The Commission found that, in addition to pension subsidies, Deutsche Post has also benefitted from dedicated stamp price increases to finance the civil servants\u2019 pension costs. Taking account of this extra relief, Deutsche Post had effectively borne significantly lower social contributions than private competitors in certain market segments. Accordingly the Commission declared the pension subsidies as partly incompatible with the internal market and ordered Germany to recover the incompatible share of the pension subsidies.\n(165)\nIn its Decision on the same day in BPost (39), the Commission found the State aid granted to BPost for the relief of civil servants\u2019 pension liabilities as compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty since it only relieved BPost of legacy pension costs without placing the company in a more favourable position than its competitors as regards the social security contributions. The Commission verified that the social security contributions borne by Belgian Post were equivalent to those of private competitors.\n(166)\nThere are certain parallels between the case on RMG and previous case-law.\n(167)\nFirst of all, all cases involve material economic risk and involve uncapped liabilities: RMG bears the economic risk of a pension scheme which stems from RMG\u2019s public monopoly legacy. The other postal incumbents bore a similar economic risk prior to being relieved of their liabilities, and were similarly disadvantaged when compared to their competitors. All cases concern aid beneficiaries in equivalent positions because their pension arrangements differed very significantly from the competitors\u2019 pension arrangements.\n(168)\nSecond of all, as with the previous cases, the Commission considers that in the absence of any State intervention to relieve RMG of at least part of the pension liabilities, RMG would not be able to compete on its merits with its competitors. After all, leaving RMG with the pension deficit would lead to its bankruptcy. As mentioned in recital 29, RMG has shown at the end of the 2010/2011 financial year negative operating assets on its balance sheet. Even after a successful implementation of the restructuring plan RMG would remain with net liabilities of at least GBP 2 000 million without a relief of the pension deficit.\n(169)\nHowever, there are some factors which distinguish the previous cases from this case.\n(170)\nIn the first place, the UK pension arrangements differ significantly from those in other Member States. Most occupational pension schemes are \u2018contracted out\u2019 of the State pension arrangements known as the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme. Most large employers run their own pension schemes. Under UK pension law, those schemes must provide a pension entitlement which meets certain standards, and employers have certain obligations to ensure that schemes are adequately funded. Under current accounting standards (IAS), employers must record deficits on such pension schemes on their balance sheets.\n(171)\nIn this respect, the RMPP is in principle similar to pension funds of private competitors. The only difference between RMG and competitors lies in the fact that the level of pension liabilities - and thus the deficit of the RMPP - has arisen from terms and conditions which were agreed during the monopoly period and in line with the status of civil servants.\n(172)\nFurthermore, the terms and levels of other social costs (for example contributions to the State pension arrangement, contributions to health and unemployment insurances) do not differ between RMG\u2019s employees and private competitors\u2019 employees.\n(173)\nFinally, RMG will remain liable for all newly accrued liabilities in the future as well as for new liabilities from an increase in the previously-accrued benefits of current employees as a result of future above-inflation wage increases. This means that RMG will continue to bear the same level of pension costs for newly accrued pension rights. The notified pension relief will therefore only reduce historic pension liabilities up to the date of the pension relief on 1 April 2012, while RMG remains fully responsible for any deficit that may arise from newly accrued pension rights after the pension relief on 1 April 2012.\n(174)\nThese differences justify an adjustment of the approach followed in previous cases to assess the compatibility of the measure at issue and to account for the specificities of the UK pension arrangements. In the previous cases, the compulsory social security contributions (for example the contribution to the social insurances for pension, health, and unemployment) were used as a benchmark but this is not appropriate in the current case.\n(175)\nFirst, as RMG bears - apart from the pension costs - the same level of costs as competitors for the other social insurances (for example the financing terms for health and unemployment insurances do not differ from those of competitors), the benchmarking has to be carried out with regard to the funding of pension\u2019s liabilities. It has to be ensured that RMG is placed in the same position as competitors in respect of their obligations as regards the financing of pension funds.\n(176)\nSecond, in the previous cases, the Commission approved a level of aid such that the postal incumbent\u2019s future social costs were capped at the competitors\u2019 social contribution rates. The United Kingdom reform does not go that far but leaves RMG the full financial responsibility for any deficit that results from the newly accrued pension rights. Therefore, the comparison has to be done on the basis of RMG\u2019s accrued pension liabilities at the date of the pension relief on 1 April 2012.\n(177)\nThird, it is not straightforward to find a single benchmark for the level of competitors\u2019 pension costs because the pension benefits offered by the pension funds differ from one company to another. Each pension fund has individual arrangements with the sponsoring companies. At most, the comparison can be done based on an average of comparable pension funds.\n(178)\nTherefore, the Commission will assess whether RMG will, as a result of the pension relief, be placed in a comparable situation vis-\u00e0-vis its competitors and other UK companies as regards the liability for accrued pension deficits.\n(179)\nWith regard to Deutsche Post\u2019s comment that the assessment should take into account the extent to which pension costs were passed on through increased regulated stamp prices, the Commission has reviewed the UK postal regulator\u2019s pricing decisions. The Commission finds that in the RMG case pension costs were evenly apportioned between the different business segments of RMG according to generally accepted cost allocation principles. This means that both the price-regulated as well as the other services in competition have carried an appropriate share of the pension deficit. It is therefore not true that in the RMG case the regulated prices financed a disproportionate share of pension costs for the benefit of the non-price regulated business segments. The UK postal regulator has ensured that all of RMG\u2019s business segments have equally and proportionally contributed to the financing of the RMPP\u2019s deficit and have not been placed in a better position than competitors.\n(180)\nThe Commission will first assess the United Kingdom\u2019s contention that the current deficit of the RMPP can be fully relieved because the amount of liabilities which are due to more generous entitlements that the RMPP offered to its members exceeds the current deficit.\n(181)\nThe United Kingdom has submitted a study to support its assertion that the pension deficit has been caused by abnormally high pension liabilities. This study estimates that the level of abnormal liabilities of the Royal Mail scheme is GBP 12,7 billion when compared to the liabilities that would result from a pension fund that offers pension benefits in line with the statutory minimum. An amount of GBP 6,9 billion of abnormal liabilities results when compared to the UK average pension fund\u2019s liabilities. As, in both cases, those liabilities would be higher than the current deficit of GBP 4,5 billion, the United Kingdom claims that a total relief of the pension deficit is justified.\n(182)\nFirst, the Commission refutes the comparison to the statutory minimum because the submitted data on the average UK pension schemes clearly shows that the majority of UK pension schemes offer benefits that go significantly beyond the statutory minimum.\n(183)\nSecond, the Commission considers that the provided comparison to the average pension schemes must be critically reviewed because the different elements of the comparison show different degrees of quality and reliability.\n(billion GBP)\nCosts relative to average pension scheme\n1\nRMPP\u2019s retirement age of 60 compared to average retirement age of 63,5\n3,5\n2\nRedundancy benefits\n0,5\n3\nDeferred pension revaluation for employees who left service before 1991\n1,1\n4\nIncreases to paid-out pensions relating to pre-1997 service\n1,9\nTOTAL\n6,9\n(184)\nCompared to RMPP\u2019s retirement age of 60, the average retirement age was 63,5 across United Kingdom private sector schemes over the period 1990 to 2010. The difference in pension costs of GBP 3,5 billion is calculated based on reliable data.\n(185)\nThe redundancy benefits of GBP 0,5 billion under the RMPP are an unusual feature for private sector schemes and are identified as pension costs that go beyond those of general pension arrangements.\n(186)\nFor members of UK pension schemes who left active service prior to 1991, pension schemes are not required to provide inflationary increases on all their benefits in the period between leaving employment and retiring. However, the RMPP does provide inflationary increases on all benefits for such members. The United Kingdom was not able to provide exact numbers of private sector schemes that also offer deferred pension revaluation for pre-1991 leavers but assures the Commission that a clear majority of schemes do not provide such revaluation. In the calculation of the abnormal liabilities of GBP 1,1 billion, it is assumed without sufficient justification that 75 % of all private sector schemes would not offer such additional benefits.\n(187)\nContrary to the RMPP, pensions accrued prior to 1997 are generally not required to increase once retirement benefits have started to be paid to the respective member of the scheme. However, 36 % of private sector schemes guarantee increases in line with inflation as does the RMPP. The other private sector schemes do not offer guaranteed increases in the same magnitude but it was common practice in the past that a majority of those schemes decided at their own discretion increases that came close to the guaranteed increases. The United Kingdom\u2019s expert doubts that this practice will continue in the future because also private schemes are now in deficit and may decide to cut back on the discretionary increases. The calculated legacy costs of GBP 1,9 billion depend sensitively on the assumptions about the future behaviour of the private sector schemes and are therefore the least robust estimate out of the four items of legacy costs.\n(188)\nAs the United Kingdom itself admits, an analysis of legacy cost compared to an average benchmark is necessarily characterised by a certain margin of approximation given the diversity of UK pension schemes and the lack of detailed benchmarking data stretching back 20-30 years. While the United Kingdom considers that the estimates of the four items are considered reasonable based on their expert\u2019s experience, the United Kingdom notes nevertheless that the degree of confidence and level of external supporting data does vary by item.\n(189)\nThe Commission considers that the estimates of legacy costs concerning the retirement age and the redundancy benefits are reliable because they are calculated based on objective data. Consequently, the Commission notes as an intermediate result of its assessment that the provided data by the United Kingdom on the abnormality of the pension liabilities would provide sufficient evidence to justify a (partial) relief from the pension deficit in so far as the aid was limited to the legacy costs stemming from these two items.\n(190)\nHowever, concerning the other items, the magnitude of abnormality depends sensitively on the assumptions made by the expert. Although the Commission recognises that the RMPP offered more generous benefits than average private sector schemes, it is difficult to exactly quantify them.\n(191)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that although the submitted expert study is based on reasonable assumptions as regards abnormality resulting from early retirement age and redundancy benefits, it suffers from a lack of (historical) data on the other sources of abnormality and can therefore not be considered reliable enough to justify a complete relief of RMPP\u2019s pension deficit.\n(192)\nMoreover, the Commission is of the opinion that a total relief of the pension deficit would place RMG in a better position vis-\u00e0-vis its competitors and other UK companies as regards its pension liabilities. Indeed, when looking at the pension deficits that the FTSE 100 companies (40) show on their balance sheets, the vast majority of those companies with a comparable profile to RMG, currently do carry pension deficits due to the rising life expectancy of the pension schemes\u2019 members and the adverse conditions on the stock markets.\n(193)\nIn order to overcome these difficulties in assessing the compatibility of the aid at issue, the Commission has looked at the average pension deficits of companies with a profile similar to that of RMG.\n(194)\nThe United Kingdom puts forward that the ratio of pension deficit to EBITDA (= Earnings before Interest, Tax, Depreciation, and Amortisation) provides a measure of the relative burden of the pension liabilities and a company\u2019s ability to fund such liabilities. The United Kingdom submitted the latest available accounting data from 2011 on the pension deficits and EBITDAs of the FTSE 100 companies. The Commission considers that on average, the FTSE 100 companies show a pension deficit that amounts to [16 to 23 %] of the EBITDA.\n(195)\nIn contrast, RMG\u2019s pension deficit is significantly higher than its EBITDA - for example measured in relation to its 2011 EBITDA - RMG\u2019s pension deficit amounts to more than 12 times its EBITDA. As the letter business is highly labour intensive, RMG is particularly exposed to the increased pension deficits from the defined-benefit schemes that RMG entered into in the pre-liberalisation period. Compared to other companies of a similar profile, RMG is therefore in a worse financial situation in respect of its ability to cover the pension deficits from on-going revenues.\n(196)\nThe Commission considers that the ratio of pension deficit to EBITDA provides a reasonable benchmark for the pension deficit that is generally assumed by UK companies with a comparable profile to RMG. Aid granted to relieve RMG of abnormal pension liabilities can therefore be considered as compatible insofar as RMG carries after the grant of the aid a liability on its balance sheet that is comparable to the pension deficit that a UK company of a similar size generally assumes on its balance sheet. Using as benchmark group the FTSE 100 companies, which show an average liability for pension deficits of [16 to 23 %] of their EBITDA, RMG should also retain a liability for a pension deficit that equals [16 to 23 %] of its EBITDA. This way, the pension relief will be limited to those pension costs that comparable private sector companies have generally not assumed.\n(197)\nThe United Kingdom has calculated RMG\u2019s ratio of pension deficit to EBITDA based on RMG\u2019s realised EBITDA in 2011. However, the Commission considers that it is erroneous to use the 2011 EBITDA because the 2011 EBITDA is particularly low because of RMG\u2019s financial and operational difficulties.\n(198)\nTo benchmark the pension deficit, the Commission finds it therefore appropriate to use the projected average EBITDA over the period from 2010 to 2015 to take account of the fact that RMG\u2019s profits are expected to increase in the coming years. As the average EBITDA is estimated to amount to GBP [\u2026] million, the pension deficit that RMG should keep on its balance sheet after the pension relief amounts to GBP 150 million.\n(199)\nTo correctly value the impact on RMG\u2019s balance sheet, further clarifications are necessary:\n(i)\nas the benchmarking is done on the level of the total exposure of a company to its pension deficit, the benchmarked deficit of GBP 150 million should be understood to include the deficits of all pension schemes that RMG currently sponsors;\n(ii)\nthe benchmark value of GBP 150 million represents RMG\u2019s total liability for historic pension deficits accrued at the date of the pension relief on 1 April 2012 in line with the generally accepted IAS rules.\n(200)\nThe Commission considers that in order to be considered as compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, the pension relief must be limited such that RMG remains liable for a pension deficit that is in line with the average pension deficit that UK companies with a comparable profile assume on their balance sheets. Therefore, taking the average pension deficit of FTSE 100 companies as a benchmark, the pension relief under Article 107(3)(c) as compensation for legacy pension costs must be limited such that RMG will retain at the date of the pension relief on 1 April 2012 a liability of GBP 150 million on its balance sheet for the accrued deficits of the pension schemes that RMG sponsors.\n(201)\nFurthermore, the Commission notes that, contrary to previous cases, the pension relief will not affect RMG\u2019s on-going pension costs since the pension relief is restricted to the historic pension deficit accrued up to the date of the pension relief on 1 April 2012. As the RMPP was closed for new members on 31 March 2008 and currently active member of the RMPP agreed to a reduction in their pension benefits, RMG\u2019s defined-benefit exposure will decrease over time. The Commission considers therefore that RMG should not receive any aid in the future as compensation for legacy costs in respect of pension liabilities accruing after 31 March 2012 for RMPP members.\n(202)\nThe Commission considers that the implementation of these conditions will ensure that the pension relief will not place RMG in a better position than competitors concerning the liability for the accrued pension deficits as well as payment of on-going pension costs.\n5.2.2. Compatibility of the debt reduction measures under the R&R Guidelines\n(203)\nIn line with the R&R Guidelines, in order for an aid to be compatible under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty it must comply with criteria for compatibility listed in section 3.2.2 of those Guidelines:\n(204)\nThe R&R Guidelines consider a firm to be in difficulties where it is unable, whether through its own resources or with the funds it is able to obtain from its owner/shareholders or creditors, to stem losses which, without outside intervention by the public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to going out of business. The R&R Guidelines also list some usual signs of such companies, such as mounting debt or falling or nil net asset value.\n(205)\nAs already set out in section 3.4 of the opening decision, RMG is a company in difficulty as defined in section 2.1 of the R&R Guidelines because RMG shows the usual signs of a such company: e.g. negative net worth of approximately GBP 3 000 million on its balance sheet at March 2011, declining revenues by 3 % from 2008 to 2011, and a negative cash-flow before interest of approximately GBP [\u2026] million in the financial year 2011/2012.\n(206)\nAlthough the pension relief, which the Commission considers to be a compatible aid for the compensation of pension legacy costs pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty in so far as it is limited such that RMG will retain GBP 150 million on its balance sheet, will reduce RMG\u2019s liabilities and improve its cash-flow, RMG\u2019s financial difficulties will not be resolved. Even after the pension relief, RMG\u2019s expected cash-flows before interest remain negative or only slightly positive. In any case, RMG would not be able to afford to repay its debt facilities of GBP [\u2026] million when they fall due for repayment in [\u2026]. In the same vein, even though the balance sheet is expected to show net assets of GBP [\u2026] million after the pension relief, RMG will not reach a sufficiently high credit rating to be able to raise funds from the financial markets.\n(207)\nIn view of the above, the Commission considers that RMG qualifies as a \u2018firm in difficulty\u2019 in the meaning of the R&R Guidelines and is consequently eligible for restructuring aid.\n(208)\nAccording to points 34-37 of the R&R Guidelines, the grant of aid must be conditional to the implementation of a restructuring plan endorsed by the Commission and to which the Member State has committed itself. The restructuring plan has to analyse in detail the problems which have led to the difficulties and to set out the means by which to restore the long-term viability and health of the firm within a reasonable timescale. It has to be ensured that the restructuring measures are appropriate to address the company\u2019s problems and enable the company to progress towards a new structure that allows it to stand on its own merits. The improvements in viability must derive mainly from internal measures.\n(209)\nThe restructuring plan must also be as short as possible and be based on the basis of realistic assumptions as to future operating conditions. The expected return on capital must be enough to enable the restructured firm to compete in the marketplace on its own merits.\n(210)\nThe updated restructuring plan submitted to the Commission by the United Kingdom covers the period 2010/2015.\n(211)\nIndeed, RMG started in the financial year 2010/2011 to take significant measures to address its inefficiency problems in the letter business. In 2010 that RMG started to close loss-making mail centres to a larger extent, to deploy new machines for the automation of its sorting activities and to re-organise delivery offices according to the \u2018World Class Mail\u2019 efficiency programme.\n(212)\nFurthermore, in 2010 the United Kingdom engaged in pre-notification contacts with the Commission to provide information about the envisaged restructuring measures and the need for restructuring aid.\n(213)\nStarting from 2010 onwards, RMG has undertaken significant restructuring measures - as described in the restructuring plan - that have introduced a step-change in RMG\u2019s letter business. Those measures address the inefficiencies of the letter operations (overstaffing, lacking automation, too high number of mail sorting centres) compared to other European postal incumbent who have already undertaken those modernisation efforts and have achieved a financially sound standing.\n(214)\nRMG\u2019s proposed operational modernisation covers changes in all areas and results in significant cost savings for the business. The modernisation will deliver savings via the introduction of new technology and more effective working practices as RMG rolls out \u2018World Class Mail\u2019 operations throughout the letters network, which aims to raise productivity through the deployment of best practices. The operational modernisation is projected to result in annual cost savings of GBP [\u2026] million (net of pay increases) by 2014/2015, driven by a headcount reduction of [\u2026].\n(215)\nThe Commission concludes therefore that the updated restructuring plan address appropriately the weaknesses of RMG\u2019s letter business and allows RMG to progress towards a new and sustainable structure. The improvement in RMG\u2019s profitability comes from the internal measures (for example closure of mail sorting centres, streamlining of internal processes and significant reduction of workforce) that increase RMG\u2019s productivity in a declining letter market.\n(216)\nThe Commission further notes that according to the R&R Guidelines, the restructuring plan must ensure that the company returns to long-term viability. Since the restructuring plan shows that RMG will already reach profitability to sustain its operations by the end of the 2014/2015 financial year in March 2015 reach, it is therefore not necessary to provide any further aid after March 2015.\n(217)\nViability will therefore be re-established in a restructuring period of five years, which the Commission considers to be a reasonable length of time (41). In the present case it does not appear possible to restore the long term viability of RMG within a shorter time period because of the extent of the restructuring - including a large change in RMG\u2019s business operations, staff reduction and closure of a huge number of mail centres - combined with the necessity to ensure the uninterrupted provision of the USO.\n(218)\nAs regards the assumptions on the future supply and demand on the relevant markets, the Commission notes that the restructuring plan already assumes in the base-case scenario (see recital 76) an annual decline in letter demand by [\u2026]. In view of the substitution of traditional letters by e-mail, the Commission agrees to base the projections on a substantial reduction of letter volumes. The United Kingdom has also provided financial projections of RMG under more pessimistic and optimistic scenarios: With the pessimistic scenario, the annual decline in the letter business would be [\u2026] instead of [\u2026] per year, while with the optimistic scenario would assume an annual decline of only [\u2026]. The expected demand would therefore decrease [\u2026] faster in the pessimistic scenario and [\u2026] slower in the optimistic scenario than in the base case. The Commission considers that those projections provide a realistic picture with a sufficiently broad range of outcomes (for example the expected letter volumes would after 10 years fall in a range of [\u2026]of RMG\u2019s current volume).\n(219)\nThe base-case business plan shows that RMG expects to break even in [\u2026] and achieve a return of [\u2026] % on invested capital after March 2015. Compared to postal incumbents in other Member States and private UK operators (42), RMG\u2019s expected return is within the range of returns that those companies currently achieve. As the restructuring measures will bring RMG to a level of operational efficiency comparable to that of other postal operators, it is reasonable to expect that RMG will, in the long-term, generate profits in the same range as its peers.\n(220)\nWith regard to the pessimistic scenario, RMG is expected to break even during financial year [\u2026] and reach onwards a level of profitability to finance its operations and provide a return of [\u2026] on invested capital from 2015. RMG will therefore also achieve long-term viability under less favourable market conditions.\n(221)\nIn light of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that the restructuring plan is based on realistic predictions. The assumptions submitted with regard to the development of the market are plausible, and the forecasts made in the restructuring plan with regard to progress in terms of RMG\u2019 overall result therefore appear credible.\n(222)\nHaving analysed and verified the updated restructuring plan, the Commission considers that that the plan complies with the requirements of points 34-37 of the R&R Guidelines and in particular it will restore the viability of RMG in line with the R&R Guidelines.\n(223)\nPursuant to points 43-45 of the R&R Guidelines, the aid must be limited to the minimum necessary and the beneficiary is expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring from its own resources or from external commercial financing. The R&R Guidelines clearly indicate that a significant part of the financing of the restructuring must come from own resources, including the sale of assets not essential to the firm\u2019s survival and from external financing at market terms. Such contribution must be real and must be as high as possible, at least 50 % for large firms. The Commission considers RMG to be a large firm within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines.\n(224)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission raised doubts about the level of restructuring costs necessary to enable the restructuring. During the investigation, the UK authorities have provided a more detailed list of restructuring costs:\n(million GBP)\n2010/2015\nUK\u2019s proposal\n2010/2015\nCommission\u2019s assessment\nLabour restructuring costs\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n-\nRedundancy payments\n[\u2026]\n-\nTravel and outplacement costs\n[\u2026]\n-\nExceptional lump-sum payments\n[\u2026]\nCapacity restructuring costs\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n-\nMail centre reduction\n[\u2026]\n-\nFlexible delivery methods\n[\u2026]\n-\nWalk sequencing deployments\n[\u2026]\n-\nOther investment operations\n[\u2026]\n-\nIntelligent letter sorting machines\n[\u2026]\n-\nPackets sortation\n[\u2026]\nIT restructuring costs\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nPension deficit relief\n150\n150\nExceptional restructuring costs to Royal Mail of separating from Post Office Limited\n[\u2026]\n0\nTotal\n2 357\n2 179\n(225)\nIn that regard, the Commission notes that not all costs should automatically qualify as restructuring costs. According to the Commission, the costs for the separation of POL are not related to the restructuring of RMG\u2019s letter business but rather to the future privatisation of RMG and can therefore not be accepted as eligible restructuring costs.\n(226)\nHowever, the Commission does accept all costs that are related to the labour, capacity, and IT restructuring programs as eligible because they are necessary for RMG\u2019s letter business to catch up to industry standards and earn a sufficient return from its letter operations. Furthermore, the Commission accepts further relief of the remaining pension deficit as eligible financial restructuring costs to regain long-term viability.\n(227)\nRestructuring costs are primarily related to RMG\u2019s activities in the letter business that are of vital importance for both the maintenance of the universal postal service as well as RMG\u2019s role as provider of downstream access for the other postal operators. Both the labour and the capacity restructuring costs concern solely the modernisation efforts for the sorting centres and the downstream delivery of letters (for example \u2018on the last mile\u2019 to customers). Both facilities are essential for competitors who deliver their letters to the sorting centres for the final delivery to customer because they do not themselves possess downstream delivery networks.\n(228)\nIn particular, the labour restructuring costs contain, inter alia, redundancy payments of GBP [\u2026] million for leaving staff due to the closing down of sorting centres and the rationalisation of outdoor delivery; and GBP [\u2026] million of travel and outplacement costs for staff that has been retained but now works at alternative locations.\n(229)\nThe capacity restructuring consists of the automation of the sorting centres and the introduction of new delivery methods to achieve more efficient operations. The most important capacity restructuring cost items are inter alia:\n(i)\nGBP [\u2026] million for the property rationalisation program reducing the number of mail centres from 64 in March 2010 to [\u2026] by March 2015;\n(ii)\nGBP [\u2026] million for the implementation of new and more flexible delivery methods;\n(iii)\nGBP [\u2026] million for the investment of new sorting and walk sequencing machines.\n(230)\nThe Commission concludes therefore that, in view of the own-contribution requirement of 50 % for large companies, the restructuring aid should not exceed the amount of 50 % of GBP 2 179 million.\n(231)\nThe Commission in its opening Decision also questioned whether RMG would make a significant own contribution to the restructuring, as required by point 44 of the R&R Guidelines.\n(232)\nIn response to the concerns raised by the Commission in its opening decision, the UK authorities have provided several details on the amounts considered as own contribution of RMG to the restructuring costs.\n(233)\nAccording to the latest submission, RMG will contribute to finance the costs of the 2010-2015 restructuring measures by the sale of assets and the additional funds from releasing of the pension escrow account as follows:\n(million GBP)\nSale of assets\n[\u2026]\nRelease of pension escrow account\n[\u2026]\nTotal own contribution\n1 090\n(234)\nThe assets to be sold include the disposal of stakes in other companies as well as real estate property that are not essential to RMG\u2019s survival. In addition, RMG has sold or will sell real estates, vehicles, and equipment that are essential for the operations but are leased back. The complete list includes the following items:\n(i)\nsale of RMG\u2019s 20 % stake in Camelot plc, the operator of the UK national lottery, to a Canadian pension fund (OTPP) in June 2010;\n(ii)\ndivestment of Romec Services Limited in April 2011;\n(iii)\nsale, or sale and leaseback, of certain mail centres and other properties. This includes the sale or sale and leaseback of sites in London, such as the [\u2026]. Under the sale and leaseback programme, RMG has divested or will divest of the freehold interest in these properties, and has been granted a leasehold interest to use the properties by the new freeholder;\n(iv)\nsale of surplus land; and\n(v)\nsale and leaseback of equipment and vehicles.\n(235)\nWhile the value of the sales that have already been concluded are based on the actual proceeds of the disposal (amounting up to GBP [\u2026] million), the valuations of the future sales are conservative and based on RMG\u2019s experience with recent sale transactions.\n(236)\nFurther financial means are generated by the release of the RMG\u2019s pension escrow account upon implementation of the pension relief on 1 April 2012. As the Pension Trustee will no longer require the escrow account security, the amount of the RMG Escrows will revert to RMG. At that date, the RMG escrow (GBP 150 million) is expected to have accrued interest of GBP [\u2026] million (resulting in a total value of GBP [\u2026] million).\n(237)\nHaving verified that the measures regarding RMG\u2019s own contribution have already been implemented or will be completed by March 2015 and that, as confirmed by the United Kingdom, the sale values are on market terms, the Commission can accept that the amount of GBP 1 090 million constitutes an own contribution to the restructuring plan. Putting the own contribution in relation to the eligible restructuring costs, the Commission notes that 50 % of the restructuring costs are financed by own contribution from RMG and that the own-contribution requirement of the R&R guidelines for large companies is fulfilled.\n(238)\nIn view of RMG\u2019s own contribution, the Commission concludes therefore that the aid in the form of debt reduction measures of GBP 1 089 million is limited to the strict minimum of the necessary restructuring costs. In comparison to the initial notification of debt reduction measures of GBP 1 700 million and an additional GBP 200 million revolving credit facility, the restructuring aid in the form of a debt reduction of maximum GBP 1 089 million is now limited to 50 % of the necessary restructuring cost for the period from March 2010 to March 2015. The significant reduction in the aid amount compared to the initial notification ensures that RMG will not be left with surplus cash after the completion of the restructuring plan in March 2015.\n(239)\nPursuant to points 38-42 of the R&R Guidelines, measures must be taken to mitigate as far as possible any adverse effects of the aid on competitors. The aid must not unduly distort competition. This usually means a limitation of the presence which the company can enjoy on its markets at the end of the restructuring period. The compulsory limitation or reduction of the company\u2019s presence on the relevant market represents a compensatory factor in favour of its competitors. It should be in proportion to the distortive effects of the aid and to the relative importance of the firm on its market or markets.\n(240)\nFirst, the Commission notes that at the moment, based on the existing regulatory conditions concerning access to its delivery network, RMG is an indispensable business partner for other UK postal operators since it delivers the competitors\u2019 letters on the \u2018last mile\u2019 to the customers. RMG fulfils therefore an essential function for the working of the UK postal market that is currently primarily based on upstream competition and not on end-to-end competition. Furthermore, the importance of RMG for the postal sector is clearly reflected by the comments of its competitors who emphasise the necessity of a healthy and sound RMG for downstream letter delivery and thereby the maintenance of the universal service. The restructuring of RMG will therefore provide economic benefits for the whole UK postal sector and allow all postal providers to provide better and more efficient services\n(241)\nTherefore, when determining the required level of compensatory measures the Commission has to take account of the particular role played by RMG in the UK postal sector as universal service and access provider for all UK postal operators.\n(242)\nIn this respect, it has to be underlined that the significantly reduced restructuring aid - compared to the United Kingdom\u2019s initially notified restructuring aid measures of more than GBP 1 700 million - will primarily be used to secure the functioning of RMG\u2019s downstream network which is essential for safeguarding the permanent provision of universal postal services and ensuring, where applicable according to Article 38 of the Postal Services Act and the subsequent regulatory conditions (see below), the provision of access to its delivery network.\n(243)\nAs explained in recital (227), the debt reduction measure of GBP 1 089 million supports primarily the restructuring of RMG\u2019s essential downstream activities (for example sorting centres, delivery on \u2018last mile\u2019). Both the labour restructuring costs of GBP [\u2026] million as well as the capacity restructuring costs of GBP [\u2026] million concern solely the downstream activities that are essential for universal service and the competitors\u2019 letter business. Also the remaining restructuring costs are for the most part related to those downstream activities.\n(244)\nIn view of RMG\u2019s key role in the downstream letter delivery that is vital for all UK postal operators, RMG\u2019s restructuring appears to have limited distortive effect on the current structure of UK postal sector. The restructuring in RMG\u2019s downstream network will bring about a more efficient and affordable service both for the general public as well as for the other UK postal operators who have to rely on access to RMG\u2019s downstream network as set out by the relevant regulatory provisions.\n(245)\nThe Commission has verified that the other UK postal operators will continue to have access to RMG\u2019s downstream network. The competent regulator - Office of Communications (Ofcom) - has proposed to impose access conditions upon RMG for the next seven-year regulatory period starting on 1 April 2012 requiring, inter alia, the fulfilment of the following conditions (43):\n(i)\nRMG shall provide access to other postal operators on reasonable request and to offer such access on fair and reasonable terms;\n(ii)\nRMG shall not unduly discriminate (44);\n(iii)\nRMG shall not obtain an unfair commercial advantage from allowing access to the network and shall not use information in its possession as a result of giving access for its own benefit;\n(iv)\nRMG shall set access prices so as to maintain a minimum level of margin between access prices and analogous retail services to avoid that other postal operators will be prevented from competing with RMG by means of margin squeezes.\n(246)\nThe Commission considers that those conditions will effectively limit RMG\u2019s exercise of market power and appropriately safeguard the competitors\u2019 access to RMG\u2019s downstream network. They will therefore ensure for other UK postal operators that they can compete on their merits on the upstream markets with RMG and can maintain or even further expand their strong presence on the upstream market. The Commission considers therefore that those conditions can be considered as an appropriate compensatory measure in favour of RMG\u2019s competitors, which mitigate the adverse effects of the aid.\n(247)\nIn this respect, the Commission takes note that [\u2026] Ofcom will take a decision on mandatory access requirements for the next seven years as laid out in its proposals.\n(248)\nAs the restructuring aid is essentially limited to those downstream activities in the general interest as well as in the interest of the other UK postal operators and does not enhance RMG\u2019s position on other upstream letter markets or in the express parcel markets, the Commission considers that the restructuring aid will lead to limited distortive effects to the detriment of competitors.\n(249)\nSecond, the restructuring plan involves a significant reduction in employment that is due to the technical change and higher automation in the postal sector. In this respect, the Commission notes that it generally takes a favourable view of State aid to cover the social costs of restructuring. According to point 64 of the R&R Guidelines the Commission has no a priori objection to such aid when it is granted to firms in difficulty, for it brings economic benefits above and beyond the interests of the firm concerned, facilitating structural change and reducing hardship.\n(250)\nThe Commission observes that a large part of the restructuring costs consists of redundancy payments as well as travel and outplacement costs based on agreements with the trade union. On the other hand, aid that will be granted to finance those labour-related costs benefits not only RMG but also the redundant employees. The Commission considers therefore that this aid for the labour-related restructuring facilitates structural changes and reduces hardship.\n(251)\nThird, the Commission notes that RMG will divest POL. In view of the future privatisation of RMG and therefore different owners of RMG and POL, RMG will lose direct control on the retail operations of POL and its market position will be weakened. In particular, it must be noted that the agreement between RMG and POL is limited to 10 years [\u2026].\n(252)\nContrary to the current situation, RMG will not anymore benefit from a retail network under its direct control but will have, as any of its competitors, to negotiate and contract its retail activities with an independent third party (e.g. comparable to DHL\u2019s service point network which is made up of independent retail shops (for example WHSmith and Staples shops)). Thereby, RMG will be placed on an equal level compared to its competitors and will not anymore benefit from its ownership of a fully fledged retail network. In particular, RMG will no longer be able to decide which other services and products (for example banking services) POL will offer which means that RMG loses leverage into other markets. The Commission considers therefore that the divestment of POL will limit RMG\u2019s presence on the UK postal market and can be considered as a measure mitigating the effect of the restructuring aid for RMG\u2019s competitors.\n(253)\nIn view of the positive effects that RMG\u2019s more efficient downstream network will bring about for the general public, who has to rely on RMG as universal postal service provider, and to all UK postal operators, who need access to RMG\u2019s downstream network to have their letters delivered to customers, as well as the fact that a considerable share of the restructuring costs is for the benefit of redundant employees, and the divestment of POL the Commission considers that the competitive distortions resulting from the restructuring aid are rather limited such that no further compensatory measures are necessary.\n(254)\nFinally, the one time, last time condition as stipulated in point 72 and following of the R&R Guidelines is met, as RMG has not benefited from rescue and restructuring aid in the past.\n(255)\nAccording to point 47 of the R&R Guidelines, RMG must fully implement its restructuring plan and the United Kingdom has committed to the fulfilment of this obligation. The Commission will need to be kept informed of the progress in the implementation of the restructuring plan in conformity with points 49 and 50 of the R&R Guidelines.\n(256)\nThe Commission finds that the five-year restructuring plan from 2010 to 2015 for RMG fulfils the conditions of the R&R Guidelines and that debt reduction measures in the amount of GBP 1 089 million constitute restructuring aid that is compatible with Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.\n6. CONCLUSION\n(257)\nIn line with previous case practice, the Commission can only allow aid as compensation for legacy pension costs to such an extent that the beneficiary is not placed in a better position than competitors in terms of the general obligations for contributions to social insurances.\n(258)\nDue to the peculiarity of this case, the Commission has adapted its compatibility assessment for aid to compensate for legacy pension costs and has carried out a comparison of RMG\u2019s current pension deficit to the pension deficits that UK companies of a comparable size carry on average on their balance sheet.\n(259)\nThe Commission considers that the pension relief constitutes a compatible State aid for legacy pension costs pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty subject to the following two conditions:\n(i)\nat the date of the pension relief on 1 April 2012, RMG will retain on its balance sheet a liability of GBP 150 million that is in line with the average pension deficit of comparable UK companies;\n(ii)\nRMG will not receive any aid as legacy compensation for pension liabilities accruing after 31 March 2012 for members of the RMPP.\n(260)\nWith regard to the notified restructuring aid, the Commission considers that the updated restructuring plan covering the period 2010 to 2015 is are appropriate and sufficient to address RMG\u2019s difficulties and to restore long-term viability. The Commission considers that RMG\u2019s own contribution to the restructuring costs limit the aid to a strict minimum of GBP 1 089 million. In view of the positive benefits that the restructuring brings to the efficiency of the whole UK postal sector, the unique position of RMG as universal service provider, the separation of POL, and that the restructuring aid facilitates to a large part the necessary reduction of RMG\u2019s workforce, the Commission finds that the aid of GBP 1 089 million does not create distortive effects that will be disproportionate to the positive effects of a successful restructuring of RMG,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The notified measures in relation to the pension relief which the United Kingdom is planning to implement for Royal Mail Group constitute aid which is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, provided that the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 are met.\n2. At the date of the pension relief on 1 April 2012, Royal Mail Group shall retain a liability of GBP 150 million on its balance sheet for the accrued deficits that have resulted from the pension plans that it has sponsored.\n3. The United Kingdom shall not grant State aid to Royal Mail Group as compensation for legacy costs in relation to newly accrued pension liabilities for members of the Royal Mail Pension Plan after the date of the pension relief on 1 April 2012.\nArticle 2\nThe debt reduction measures which the United Kingdom are planning to implement for Royal Mail Group, amounting to GBP 1 089 million, constitute aid which is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, provided that the restructuring plan notified to the Commission is implemented in full.\nArticle 3\nThe United Kingdom shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation of the restructuring plan. The first report shall be submitted within one year from the notification of this decision to the United Kingdom. The subsequent reports shall be submitted within one year of the previous report until the end of the restructuring plan.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2012.", "references": ["33", "88", "32", "55", "71", "46", "52", "51", "20", "81", "78", "63", "74", "34", "11", "58", "31", "86", "28", "1", "35", "30", "18", "50", "82", "54", "94", "0", "3", "24", "No Label", "8", "15", "37", "40", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "37", "40", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 896/2011\nof 2 September 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2011.", "references": ["81", "67", "42", "54", "55", "26", "9", "56", "58", "39", "30", "29", "27", "19", "60", "11", "74", "99", "88", "38", "62", "5", "8", "24", "61", "18", "32", "53", "65", "86", "No Label", "21", "51", "83"], "gold": ["21", "51", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 798/2010\nof 9 September 2010\nfixing the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the sixth individual invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the sixth individual invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the sixth individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 7 September 2010, the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be EUR 211,00/100 kg.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 September 2010.", "references": ["58", "28", "4", "95", "96", "50", "42", "73", "99", "1", "40", "11", "87", "12", "24", "8", "91", "62", "57", "26", "67", "69", "93", "82", "10", "94", "74", "78", "29", "21", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1112/2011\nof 3 November 2011\namending Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 as regards the entry for Paraguay in the list of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the Union of certain fresh meat\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8 and the first subparagraph of point 1 of Article 8 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 of 12 March 2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements (2) lays down the veterinary certification requirements for the introduction into the Union of certain consignments of fresh meat of ungulates and equidae intended for human consumption. It provides that such consignments are only to be introduced if they come from third countries, territories or parts thereof listed in Part 1 of Annex II to that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 19 September 2011, Paraguay notified an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). That outbreak is located in the San Pedro district and was confirmed on 18 September 2011 by laboratory analysis (ELISA and EITB).\n(3)\nPart 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 specifies that imports from Paraguay of fresh meat of domestic bovine animals are authorised.\n(4)\nDue to the risk of the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease into the Union linked with the import of fresh bovine meat from Paraguay, and in the absence of guarantees allowing for regionalisation of Paraguay, such imports should no longer be authorised. The entry for Paraguay in Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 should be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nRegulation (EU) No 206/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010, the entry for Paraguay is replaced by the following:\n\u2018PY - Paraguay\nPY-0\nWhole country\nEQU\nPY-1\nWhole country except the designated high surveillance zone of 15 km from the external borders\nBOV\nA\n1\n18 September 2011\n1 August 2008\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2011.", "references": ["0", "45", "29", "89", "25", "34", "10", "94", "3", "39", "28", "82", "42", "18", "77", "56", "48", "7", "81", "9", "54", "99", "17", "2", "11", "30", "13", "76", "59", "47", "No Label", "22", "23", "38", "61", "66", "69", "93"], "gold": ["22", "23", "38", "61", "66", "69", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 524/2010\nof 17 June 2010\ngranting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 15 June 2010.\n(3)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 15 June 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in point (c) of Article 1 and in Article 2 respectively of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2010.", "references": ["9", "10", "39", "59", "62", "95", "99", "25", "49", "3", "98", "12", "55", "5", "1", "73", "44", "81", "11", "79", "68", "38", "19", "32", "67", "61", "57", "21", "71", "14", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 549/2010\nof 23 June 2010\namending and correcting Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(a), (d), and (j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the Commission, without the assistance of the Committee referred to in Article 195(1) of that Regulation, is to close public intervention for beef, where over a representative period, the conditions provided for in Article 12(1)(c) of that Regulation are no longer fulfilled. It is necessary to set the representative period for the closing of public intervention for beef through a tendering procedure and, therefore, to reflect this power of the Commission in Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 (2).\n(2)\nIn Article 29(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, differing and erroneous provisions have been adopted in the different language versions as regards the rules to be applied when the storage place indicated by the offerer or tenderer is changed by the intervention agency. As a consequence, it is necessary to clarify that in that case the additional transport costs shall be borne by the intervention agencies, except for the first 20 km, and to add that where Article 38(3) applies, the reduction shall not exceed the transport costs beyond 100 km.\n(3)\nPart IX of Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 lays down provisions related to cartons for the packaging of beef bought into intervention. It is necessary to adapt the sealing requirements provided for in point 6 in order to align them to the requirements in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3).\n(4)\nAt the occasion of this amendment of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 it is appropriate to correct an omission in Article 25 of that Regulation.\n(5)\nRegulation (EU) No 1272/2009 should therefore be amended and corrected accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 1272/2009 is amended as follows:\n1.\nIn Article 16(2), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nthe tendering procedure for buying-in beef by category and Member State, or region thereof, on the basis of the two most recent weekly market prices recorded, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. That tendering procedure shall be closed by the Commission, in accordance with the same procedure, by category and Member State, or region thereof, on the basis of the most recent weekly market prices recorded.\u2019\n2.\nIn the first subparagraph of Article 16(6), the introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u2018For the purposes of Article 12(1)(c), Article 12(2) and Article 18(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the following rules shall apply:\u2019\n3.\nIn Article 25, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018After having checked the admissibility of the offer or tender as referred to in Article 11(1) and after having notified in accordance with Article 20(3), the intervention agency shall issue a delivery order, without prejudice to the measures adopted in accordance with Articles 14(1) and 19(1). The delivery order shall be dated and numbered and shall show:\n(a)\nthe quantity to be delivered;\n(b)\nthe final date for delivery of the products;\n(c)\nthe storage place to which the products shall be delivered;\n(d)\nthe price at which the offer or tender is accepted.\u2019\n4.\nIn Article 29, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. If the storage place indicated by the offerer or tenderer is changed by the intervention agency, in accordance with Article 26(1), the additional transport costs, except for the first 20 km, shall be borne by the intervention agency. However, the transport costs over 100 km shall still be borne totally by the intervention agency. This paragraph shall not apply in case of application of Article 31(2).\u2019\n5.\nIn Article 38(3), point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe transport costs between the actual place of takeover designated by the intervention agency and the storage place referred to in Article 10(1)(a)(iv) where the products should have been delivered at the lowest cost, but not exceeding the 100 km limit referred to in Article 29(1); and\u2019\n6.\nIn Part IX of Annex III, point 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186.\nCartons must be sealed:\n(a)\nby means of the mark applied in accordance with Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004; and\n(b)\nby intervention agency labels bearing a serial number on both ends of the carton affixed in such a way that they are destroyed when the carton is opened.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply:\n(a)\nfrom 1 July 2010 for beef and veal, butter, skimmed milk powder and cereals; and\n(b)\nfrom 1 September 2010 for rice.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 June 2010.", "references": ["77", "57", "23", "66", "36", "54", "43", "78", "16", "29", "49", "76", "2", "24", "47", "42", "84", "4", "37", "0", "7", "70", "32", "88", "65", "55", "26", "98", "95", "56", "No Label", "20", "61", "69"], "gold": ["20", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/322/CFSP\nof 20 June 2012\namending Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1).\n(2)\nIt is necessary to further develop the application of Article 1(3)(b) and Article 1a(2)(b) of Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\n(3)\nDecision 2011/782/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2011/782/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1(3)(b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the items referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, as well as insurance and reinsurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for the provision of related technical assistance, brokering services or other services to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Syria.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 1a(2)(b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nfinancing or financial assistance related to the items referred to in paragraph 1, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, as well as insurance and reinsurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for the provision of related technical assistance, brokering services or other services to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Syria.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2012.", "references": ["53", "57", "37", "4", "1", "52", "33", "90", "72", "26", "0", "99", "56", "5", "47", "40", "81", "29", "65", "13", "15", "9", "42", "55", "24", "93", "77", "30", "69", "49", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 718/2012\nof 7 August 2012\namending for the 176th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 26 July 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one natural person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 August 2012.", "references": ["30", "78", "69", "80", "51", "18", "42", "34", "96", "6", "12", "49", "77", "79", "68", "97", "76", "21", "75", "20", "74", "81", "35", "16", "33", "58", "82", "11", "43", "44", "No Label", "1", "3"], "gold": ["1", "3"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 737/2012\nof 14 August 2012\non the protection of certain stocks in the Celtic Sea\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fisheries resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (1), and in particular Article 45(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (2), the common fisheries policy must provide for coherent measures concerning the conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources, including specific measures to reduce the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems and non-target species.\n(2)\nArticle 45(1) of Regulation (EC) No 850/98 provides that, where the conservation of stocks of marine organisms calls for immediate action, the Commission may, in addition to or by way of derogation from that Regulation, adopt any measures necessary.\n(3)\nAdvice received in June 2011 from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (hereinafter \u2018ICES\u2019) shows that discarding rates in the Celtic Sea, particularly of juvenile haddock and whiting, are high and increasing. Discarding fish before they have reproduced reduces the potential yield for future years and thus threatens the sustainability of the stocks.\n(4)\nBoth the fleets targeting Norway lobster and the fleets using bottom trawls and seines to target mixed finfish have high levels of haddock and whiting discards due to the poor selectivity of the gears used. ICES also states that the cod stock is highly dependent on recruitment of fish, and that technical measures should be encouraged to reduce discards. With recent high recruitment in both haddock and whiting stocks in the Celtic Sea, discarding is expected to get worse this year. Consequently, ICES advises that technical measures should be introduced urgently to increase selectivity and reduce discards of haddock, whiting and cod.\n(5)\nIt is therefore necessary to introduce the use of square-meshed panels to improve the size selectivity of the gears used and protect the juvenile fish entering the stock, whilst maintaining as much of the catches of target species as possible. Square-meshed panels have been shown to reduce fishing mortality significantly by allowing fish to escape and are an effective measure that can be introduced immediately.\n(6)\nIn October 2011 the North Western Waters Regional Advisory Council (NWWRAC) issued advice that the current technical measures in the Celtic Sea should be improved to reduce discards, especially of haddock and whiting, by requiring the use of an appropriately positioned square-meshed panel of a specified size depending on the gear type and engine power of the vessel.\n(7)\nTherefore, the conservation of haddock and whiting stocks in the Celtic Sea require immediate action.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to fishing vessels operating with bottom trawls or seines in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) divisions VIIf, VIIg and the part of VIIj that lies north of latitude 50\u00b0 N and east of 11\u00b0 W (hereinafter the \u2018Celtic Sea\u2019), where:\n(a)\nbottom trawls and seines are of single mesh size equal to or larger than 100 millimetres (hereinafter \u2018TR1 vessels\u2019);\n(b)\nbottom trawls and seines are of single mesh size equal or larger than 70 millimetres and less than 100 millimetres (hereinafter \u2018TR2 vessels\u2019); or\n(c)\nwhere the vessel using bottom trawls or seines has an engine power of less than 112 kilowatts (hereinafter \u2018low-powered vessels\u2019).\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to fishing vessels operating with beam trawls.\nArticle 2\nTechnical measures\n1. By way of derogation from point (a) of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 850/98, the following technical measures shall apply for vessels as referred to in Article 1:\n(a)\nTR1 and low-powered vessels shall use a square-meshed panel of a mesh size of at least 100 millimetres;\n(b)\nTR2 vessels shall use a square-meshed panel of a mesh size of at least 110 millimetres.\n2. By way of derogation from point (a) of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 850/98, the square-meshed panel as referred to in paragraph 1 shall be placed into the top panel of the codend. The rearmost edge of the square-meshed panel, which is the part closest to the codline, shall be no more than 9 metres from the codline.\nArticle 3\nOnboard observer programme\n1. Without prejudice to Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 (3), each Member State whose vessels are concerned by the technical measures referred to in Article 2 shall immediately establish an onboard observer programme to record the effectiveness of those measures. In particular, the observer programme shall estimate haddock, whiting and cod catches and discards with a precision of no less than 20 %.\n2. Member States shall submit to the Commission a report on the selective performance of the gear, including the total catches and discards of vessels subject to the observer programme no later than 15 October of each year in which the programme is implemented.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 2 shall apply from 26 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 August 2012.", "references": ["92", "12", "54", "43", "42", "58", "76", "84", "31", "57", "75", "41", "48", "9", "78", "70", "44", "88", "15", "2", "8", "87", "80", "89", "29", "45", "94", "98", "90", "55", "No Label", "56", "59", "67"], "gold": ["56", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1006/2010\nof 8 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["92", "25", "55", "67", "26", "53", "0", "19", "99", "31", "78", "87", "21", "82", "1", "33", "44", "24", "83", "36", "65", "71", "4", "59", "43", "40", "60", "95", "70", "63", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2011/64/EU\nof 21 June 2011\non the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco\n(codification)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 113 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee,\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directives 92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes (1), 92/80/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of taxes on manufactured tobacco other than cigarettes (2) and 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (3) have been substantially amended several times (4). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Directives should be codified by assembling them in a single act.\n(2)\nThe Union\u2019s fiscal legislation on tobacco products needs to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market and, at the same time, a high level of health protection, as required by Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, bearing in mind that tobacco products can cause serious harm to health and that the Union is Party to the World Health Organization\u2019s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Account should be taken of the situation prevailing for each of the various types of manufactured tobacco.\n(3)\nOne of the objectives of the Treaty on European Union is to maintain an economic union, whose characteristics are similar to those of a domestic market, within which there is healthy competition. As regards manufactured tobacco, achievement of this aim presupposes that the application in the Member States of taxes affecting the consumption of products in this sector does not distort conditions of competition and does not impede their free movement within the Union.\n(4)\nThe various types of manufactured tobacco, distinguished by their characteristics and by the way in which they are used, should be defined.\n(5)\nA distinction needs to be made between fine-cut tobacco for the rolling of cigarettes and other smoking tobacco.\n(6)\nRolls of tobacco capable of being smoked as they are after simple handling should also be deemed to be cigarettes for the purposes of uniform taxation of these products.\n(7)\nA manufacturer needs to be defined as a natural or legal person who actually prepares tobacco products and sets the maximum retail selling price for each of the Member States for which the products in question are to be released for consumption.\n(8)\nIn the interests of uniform and fair taxation, a definition of cigarettes, cigars and cigarillos and of other smoking tobacco should be laid down so that, respectively, rolls of tobacco which according to their length can be considered as two cigarettes or more are treated as two cigarettes or more for excise purposes, a type of cigar which is similar in many respects to a cigarette is treated as a cigarette for excise purposes, smoking tobacco which is similar in many respects to fine-cut tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes is treated as fine-cut tobacco for excise purposes, and tobacco refuse is clearly defined. In view of the economic difficulties that immediate implementation could cause for the German and Hungarian operators concerned, Germany and Hungary should be authorised to postpone the application of the definition of cigars and cigarillos until 1 January 2015.\n(9)\nAs far as excise duties are concerned, harmonisation of structures must, in particular, result in competition in the different categories of manufactured tobacco belonging to the same group not being distorted by the effects of the charging of the tax and, consequently, in the opening of the national markets of the Member States.\n(10)\nThe imperative needs of competition imply a system of freely formed prices for all groups of manufactured tobacco.\n(11)\nThe structure of the excise duty on cigarettes must include, in addition to a specific component calculated per unit of the product, a proportional component based on the retail selling price, inclusive of all taxes. The turnover tax on cigarettes has the same effect as an ad valorem excise duty and this fact should be taken into account when the ratio between the specific component of the excise duty and the total tax burden is being established.\n(12)\nWithout prejudice to the mixed tax structure and the maximum percentage of the specific component of the total tax burden, Member States should be given effective means to levy specific or minimum excise duty on cigarettes, so as to ensure that at least a certain minimum amount of taxation applies throughout the Union.\n(13)\nFor the proper functioning of the internal market, it is necessary to establish minimum excise duties for all categories of manufactured tobacco.\n(14)\nAs regards cigarettes, neutral conditions of competition for manufacturers should be assured, the partitioning of the tobacco markets should be reduced and health objectives should be underscored. Thus, a price related minimum requirement should refer to the weighted average retail selling price, whereas a monetary minimum should be applicable to all cigarettes. For the same reasons, the weighted average retail selling price should also serve as a reference for measuring the importance of specific excise duty within the total tax burden.\n(15)\nAs regards prices and excise levels, in particular for cigarettes - by far the most important category of tobacco products - as well as for fine cut-tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes, there are still considerable differences between Member States which may disturb the operation of the internal market. A certain degree of convergence between the tax levels applied in the Member States would help to reduce fraud and smuggling within the Union.\n(16)\nSuch convergence would also help to ensure a high level of protection for human health. The level of taxation is a major factor in the price of tobacco products, which in turn influences consumers\u2019 smoking habits. Fraud and smuggling undermine tax induced price levels, in particular of cigarettes and fine-cut tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes, and thus jeopardise the achievement of tobacco control and health protection objectives.\n(17)\nAs regards products other than cigarettes, a harmonised incidence of tax should be established for all products belonging to the same group of manufactured tobacco. The setting of an overall minimum excise duty expressed as a percentage, as an amount per kilogram or for a given number of items is the most appropriate for the functioning of the internal market.\n(18)\nAs regards fine-cut tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes, a Union price related minimum requirement should be expressed in such a way as to obtain effects similar to those in the field of cigarettes and should take the weighted average retail selling price as the point of reference.\n(19)\nIt is necessary to bring the minimum levels for fine-cut tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes closer to the minimum levels applicable to cigarettes, so as to better take account of the degree of competition existing between the two products, reflected in consumption patterns observed, as well as their equally harmful character.\n(20)\nPortugal should be granted the possibility of applying a reduced rate for cigarettes made by small-scale producers and consumed in the most remote regions of the Azores and Madeira.\n(21)\nTransitional periods should allow Member States to adapt smoothly to the levels of the overall excise duty, thus limiting possible side effects.\n(22)\nIn order to prevent damage to Corsica\u2019s economic and social equilibrium, it is both essential and justifiable to provide for a derogation, until 31 December 2015, by which France may apply a rate of excise duty that is lower than the national rate to cigarettes and other manufactured tobaccos released for consumption in Corsica. By that date, the tax rules for manufactured tobaccos released for consumption there should be brought fully into line with the rules for mainland France. Nevertheless, too abrupt a change should be avoided and there should therefore be a stepwise increase in the excise duty currently levied on cigarettes and fine-cut tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes in Corsica.\n(23)\nA majority of Member States grant exemptions from excise duty or make refunds of excise duty in respect of certain types of manufactured tobacco depending on the use which is made of them, and the exemptions or refunds for particular uses need to be specified in this Directive.\n(24)\nA procedure should be provided for to enable the rates or amounts laid down in this Directive to be reviewed periodically on the basis of a Commission report taking account of all the appropriate factors.\n(25)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law and application of the Directives set out in Annex I, Part B,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER 1\nSUBJECT MATTER\nArticle 1\nThis Directive lays down general principles for the harmonisation of the structure and rates of the excise duty to which the Member States subject manufactured tobacco.\nCHAPTER 2\nDEFINITIONS\nArticle 2\n1. For the purposes of this Directive manufactured tobacco shall mean:\n(a)\ncigarettes;\n(b)\ncigars and cigarillos;\n(c)\nsmoking tobacco:\n(i)\nfine-cut tobacco for the rolling of cigarettes;\n(ii)\nother smoking tobacco.\n2. Products consisting in whole or in part of substances other than tobacco but otherwise conforming to the criteria set out in Article 3 or Article 5(1) shall be treated as cigarettes and smoking tobacco.\nNotwithstanding the first subparagraph, products containing no tobacco and used exclusively for medical purposes shall not be treated as manufactured tobacco.\n3. Notwithstanding existing Union provisions, the definitions referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and Articles 3, 4 and 5 shall be without prejudice to the choice of system or the level of taxation which shall apply to the different groups of products referred to in these Articles.\nArticle 3\n1. For the purposes of this Directive cigarettes shall mean:\n(a)\nrolls of tobacco capable of being smoked as they are and which are not cigars or cigarillos within the meaning of Article 4(1);\n(b)\nrolls of tobacco which, by simple non-industrial handling, are inserted into cigarette-paper tubes;\n(c)\nrolls of tobacco which, by simple non-industrial handling, are wrapped in cigarette paper.\n2. A roll of tobacco referred to in paragraph 1 shall, for excise duty purposes, be considered as two cigarettes where, excluding filter or mouthpiece, it is longer than 8 cm but not longer than 11 cm, as three cigarettes where, excluding filter or mouthpiece, it is longer than 11 cm but not longer than 14 cm, and so on.\nArticle 4\n1. For the purposes of this Directive the following shall be deemed to be cigars or cigarillos if they can be and, given their properties and normal consumer expectations, are exclusively intended to be smoked as they are:\n(a)\nrolls of tobacco with an outer wrapper of natural tobacco;\n(b)\nrolls of tobacco with a threshed blend filler and with an outer wrapper of the normal colour of a cigar, of reconstituted tobacco, covering the product in full, including, where appropriate, the filter but not, in the case of tipped cigars, the tip, where the unit weight, not including filter or mouthpiece, is not less than 2,3 g and not more than 10 g, and the circumference over at least one third of the length is not less than 34 mm.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the following subparagraph may continue to be applied by Germany and Hungary until 31 December 2014.\nThe following shall be deemed to be cigars or cigarillos if they can be smoked as they are:\n(a)\nrolls of tobacco made entirely of natural tobacco;\n(b)\nrolls of tobacco with an outer wrapper of natural tobacco;\n(c)\nrolls of tobacco with a threshed blend filler and with an outer wrapper of the normal colour of a cigar covering the product in full, including, where appropriate, the filter but not, in the case of tipped cigars, the tip, and a binder, both being of reconstituted tobacco, where the unit weight, not including filter or mouthpiece, is not less than 1,2 g and where the wrapper is fitted in spiral form with an acute angle of at least 30\u00b0 to the longitudinal axis of the cigar;\n(d)\nrolls of tobacco with a threshed blend filler and with an outer wrapper of the normal colour of a cigar, of reconstituted tobacco, covering the product in full, including where appropriate the filter but not, in the case of tipped cigars, the tip, where the unit weight, not including filter or mouth-piece, is not less than 2,3 g and the circumference over at least one third of the length is not less than 34 mm.\n3. Products which consist in part of substances other than tobacco but otherwise fulfil the criteria set out in paragraph 1 shall be treated as cigars and cigarillos.\nArticle 5\n1. For the purposes of this Directive smoking tobacco shall mean:\n(a)\ntobacco which has been cut or otherwise split, twisted or pressed into blocks and is capable of being smoked without further industrial processing;\n(b)\ntobacco refuse put up for retail sale which does not fall under Article 3 and Article 4(1) and which can be smoked. For the purpose of this Article, tobacco refuse shall be deemed to be remnants of tobacco leaves and by-products obtained from tobacco processing or the manufacture of tobacco products.\n2. Smoking tobacco in which more than 25 % by weight of the tobacco particles have a cut width of less than 1,5 millimetre shall be deemed to be fine-cut tobacco for the rolling of cigarettes.\nMember States may also deem smoking tobacco in which more than 25 % by weight of the tobacco particles have a cut width of 1,5 millimetre or more and which was sold or intended to be sold for the rolling of cigarettes to be fine-cut tobacco for the rolling of cigarettes.\nArticle 6\nA natural or legal person established in the Union who converts tobacco into manufactured products prepared for retail sale shall be deemed to be a manufacturer.\nCHAPTER 3\nPROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CIGARETTES\nArticle 7\n1. Cigarettes manufactured in the Union and those imported from third countries shall be subject to an ad valorem excise duty calculated on the maximum retail selling price, including customs duties, and also to a specific excise duty calculated per unit of the product.\nNotwithstanding the first subparagraph, Member States may exclude customs duties from the basis for calculating the ad valorem excise duty on cigarettes.\n2. The rate of the ad valorem excise duty and the amount of the specific excise duty must be the same for all cigarettes.\n3. At the final stage of harmonisation of structures, the same ratio shall be established for cigarettes in all Member States between the specific excise duty and the sum of the ad valorem excise duty and the turnover tax, in such a way that the range of retail selling prices reflects fairly the difference in the manufacturers\u2019 delivery prices.\n4. Where necessary, the excise duty on cigarettes may include a minimum tax component, provided that the mixed structure of taxation and the band of the specific component of the excise duty as laid down in Article 8 is strictly respected.\nArticle 8\n1. The percentage of the specific component of excise duty in the amount of the total tax burden on cigarettes shall be established by reference to the weighted average retail selling price.\n2. The weighted average retail selling price shall be calculated by reference to the total value of all cigarettes released for consumption, based on the retail selling price including all taxes, divided by the total quantity of cigarettes released for consumption. It shall be determined by 1 March at the latest of each year on the basis of data relating to all such releases for consumption made in the preceding calendar year.\n3. Until 31 December 2013, the specific component of the excise duty shall not be less than 5 % and shall not be more than 76,5 % of the amount of the total tax burden resulting from the aggregation of the following:\n(a)\nspecific excise duty;\n(b)\nthe ad valorem excise duty and the value added tax (VAT) levied on the weighted average retail selling price.\n4. From 1 January 2014, the specific component of the excise duty on cigarettes shall not be less than 7,5 % and shall not be more than 76,5 % of the amount of the total tax burden resulting from the aggregation of the following:\n(a)\nspecific excise duty;\n(b)\nthe ad valorem excise duty and the VAT levied on the weighted average retail selling price.\n5. By way of derogation from paragraphs 3 and 4, where a change in the weighted average retail selling price of cigarettes occurs in a Member State, thereby bringing the specific component of the excise duty, expressed as a percentage of the total tax burden, below the percentage of 5 % or 7,5 %, whichever is applicable, or above the percentage of 76,5 % of the total tax burden, the Member State concerned may refrain from adjusting the amount of the specific excise duty until 1 January of the second year following that in which the change occurs.\n6. Subject to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of this Article and the second subparagraph of Article 7(1), Member States may levy a minimum excise duty on cigarettes.\nArticle 9\n1. Member States shall apply to cigarettes minimum consumption taxes in accordance with the rules provided for in this Chapter.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall apply to the taxes which, pursuant to this Chapter, are levied on cigarettes and which comprise:\n(a)\na specific excise duty per unit of the product;\n(b)\nan ad valorem excise duty calculated on the basis of the maximum retail selling price;\n(c)\na VAT proportional to the retail selling price.\nArticle 10\n1. The overall excise duty (specific duty and ad valorem duty excluding VAT) on cigarettes shall represent at least 57 % of the weighted average retail selling price of cigarettes released for consumption. That excise duty shall not be less than EUR 64 per 1 000 cigarettes irrespective of the weighted average retail selling price.\nHowever, Member States which levy an excise duty of at least EUR 101 per 1 000 cigarettes on the basis of the weighted average retail selling price need not to comply with the 57 % requirement set out in the first subparagraph.\n2. From 1 January 2014, the overall excise duty on cigarettes shall represent at least 60 % of the weighted average retail selling price of cigarettes released for consumption. That excise duty shall not be less than EUR 90 per 1 000 cigarettes irrespective of the weighted average retail selling price.\nHowever, Member States which levy an excise duty of at least EUR 115 per 1 000 cigarettes on the basis of the weighted average retail selling price need not to comply with the 60 % requirement set out in the first subparagraph.\nBulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and Romania shall be allowed a transitional period until 31 December 2017 in order to reach the requirements laid down in the first and second subparagraphs.\n3. Member States shall gradually increase excise duties in order to reach the requirements referred to in paragraph 2 on the dates set therein.\nArticle 11\n1. Where a change in the weighted average retail selling price of cigarettes occurs in a Member State, thereby bringing the overall excise duty below the levels specified in the first sentence of paragraph 1 and in the first sentence of paragraph 2 of Article 10 respectively, the Member State concerned may refrain from adjusting that duty until 1 January of the second year following that in which the change occurs.\n2. Where a Member State increases the rate of VAT on cigarettes, it may reduce the overall excise duty up to an amount which, expressed as a percentage of the weighted average retail selling price, is equal to the increase in the rate of VAT, also expressed as a percentage of the weighted average retail selling price, even if such an adjustment has the effect of reducing the overall excise duty to below the levels, expressed as a percentage of the weighted average retail selling price, laid down in the first sentence of paragraph 1 and in the first sentence of paragraph 2 of Article 10 respectively.\nHowever, the Member State shall raise that duty again so as to reach at least those levels by 1 January of the second year after that in which the reduction took place.\nArticle 12\n1. Portugal may apply a reduced rate of up to 50 % less than that laid down in Article 10 to cigarettes consumed in the most remote regions of the Azores and Madeira, made by small-scale manufacturers each of whose annual production does not exceed 500 tonnes.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 10, France may continue to apply for the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2015 a reduced rate of excise duty to cigarettes released for consumption in the departments of Corsica up to an annual quota of 1 200 tonnes. The reduced rate shall be:\n(a)\nuntil 31 December 2012, at least 44 % of the price for cigarettes in the price category most in demand in those departments;\n(b)\nfrom 1 January 2013, at least 50 % of the weighted average retail selling price of cigarettes released for consumption; the excise duty shall not be less than EUR 88 per 1 000 cigarettes irrespective of the weighted average retail selling price;\n(c)\nfrom 1 January 2015, at least 57 % of the weighted average retail selling price of cigarettes released for consumption; the excise duty shall not be less than EUR 90 per 1 000 cigarettes irrespective of the weighted average retail selling price.\nCHAPTER 4\nPROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO MANUFACTURED TOBACCO OTHER THAN CIGARETTES\nArticle 13\nThe following groups of manufactured tobacco produced in the Union and imported from third countries shall be subject, in each Member State, to a minimum excise duty as laid down in Article 14:\n(a)\ncigars and cigarillos;\n(b)\nfine-cut tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes;\n(c)\nother smoking tobaccos.\nArticle 14\n1. Member States shall apply an excise duty which may be:\n(a)\neither an ad valorem duty calculated on the basis of the maximum retail selling price of each product, freely determined by manufacturers established in the Union and by importers from third countries in accordance with Article 15; or\n(b)\na specific duty expressed as an amount per kilogram, or in the case of cigars and cigarillos, alternatively for a given number of items; or\n(c)\na mixture of both, combining an ad valorem element and a specific element.\nIn cases where excise duty is either ad valorem or mixed, Member States may establish a minimum amount of excise duty.\n2. The overall excise duty (specific duty and/or ad valorem duty excluding VAT), expressed as a percentage, as an amount per kilogram or for a given number of items, shall be at least equivalent to the rates or minimum amounts laid down for:\n(a) cigars or cigarillos: 5 % of the retail selling price inclusive of all taxes or EUR 12 per 1 000 items or per kilogram;\n(b) fine-cut smoking tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes: 40 % of the weighted average retail selling price of fine-cut smoking tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes released for consumption, or EUR 40 per kilogram;\n(c) other smoking tobaccos: 20 % of the retail selling price inclusive of all taxes, or EUR 22 per kilogram.\nFrom 1 January 2013, the overall excise duty on fine-cut smoking tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes shall represent at least 43 % of the weighted average retail selling price of fine-cut smoking tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes released for consumption, or at least EUR 47 per kilogram.\nFrom 1 January 2015 the overall excise duty on fine-cut smoking tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes shall represent at least 46 % of the weighted average retail selling price of fine-cut smoking tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes released for consumption, or at least EUR 54 per kilogram.\nFrom 1 January 2018, the overall excise duty on fine-cut smoking tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes shall represent at least 48 % of the weighted average retail selling price of fine-cut smoking tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes released for consumption, or at least EUR 60 per kilogram.\nFrom 1 January 2020, the overall excise duty on fine-cut smoking tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes shall represent at least 50 % of the weighted average retail selling price of fine-cut smoking tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes released for consumption, or at least EUR 60 per kilogram.\nThe weighted average retail selling price shall be calculated by reference to the total value of fine-cut smoking tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes released for consumption, based on retail selling price including all taxes, divided by the total quantity of fine-cut smoking tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes released for consumption. It shall be determined by 1 March at the latest of each year on the basis of data relating to all such releases for consumption made in the preceding calendar year.\n3. The rates or amounts referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be effective for all products belonging to the group of manufactured tobaccos concerned, without distinction within each group as to quality, presentation, origin of the products, the materials used, the characteristics of the firms involved or any other criterion.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, France may continue to apply, for the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2015, a reduced rate of excise duty to manufactured tobacco other than cigarettes released for consumption in the departments of Corsica. The reduced rate shall be:\n(a) for cigars and cigarillos: at least 10 % of the retail selling price, inclusive of all taxes;\n(b) for fine-cut smoking tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes:\n(i)\nuntil 31 December 2012, at least 27 % of the retail selling price, inclusive of all taxes;\n(ii)\nfrom 1 January 2013, at least 30 % of the retail selling price, inclusive of all taxes;\n(iii)\nfrom 1 January 2015, at least 35 % of the retail selling price, inclusive of all taxes;\n(c) for other smoking tobacco: at least 22 % of the retail selling price, inclusive of all taxes.\nCHAPTER 5\nDETERMINATION OF THE MAXIMUM RETAIL SELLING PRICE OF MANUFACTURED TOBACCO, COLLECTION OF EXCISE DUTY, EXEMPTIONS AND REFUNDS\nArticle 15\n1. Manufacturers or, where appropriate, their representatives or authorised agents in the Union, and importers of tobacco from third countries shall be free to determine the maximum retail selling price for each of their products for each Member State for which the products in question are to be released for consumption.\nThe first subparagraph may not, however, hinder implementation of national systems of legislation regarding the control of price levels or the observance of imposed prices, provided that they are compatible with Union legislation.\n2. In order to facilitate the levying of the excise duty, Member States may, for each group of manufactured tobacco, fix a scale of retail selling prices on condition that each scale has sufficient scope and variety to correspond in fact with the variety of products originating in the Union.\nEach scale shall be valid for all the products belonging to the group of manufactured tobacco which it concerns, without distinction on the basis of quality, presentation, the origin of the products or of the materials used, the characteristics of the undertakings or of any other criterion.\nArticle 16\n1. At the final stage of harmonisation of the excise duty, at the latest the rules for collecting the excise duty shall be harmonised. During the preceding stage, the excise duty shall, in principle, be collected by means of tax stamps. If they collect the excise duty by means of tax stamps, Member States shall be obliged to make these stamps available to manufacturers and dealers in other Member States. If they collect the excise duty by other means, Member States shall ensure that no obstacle, either administrative or technical, affects trade between Member States on that account.\n2. Importers and Union manufacturers of manufactured tobacco shall be subject to the system set out in paragraph 1 as regards the detailed rules for levying and paying the excise duty.\nArticle 17\nThe following may be exempted from excise duty or excise duty already paid on them may be refunded:\n(a)\ndenatured manufactured tobacco used for industrial or horticultural purposes;\n(b)\nmanufactured tobacco which is destroyed under administrative supervision;\n(c)\nmanufactured tobacco which is solely intended for scientific tests and for tests connected with product quality;\n(d)\nmanufactured tobacco which is reworked by the producer.\nMember States shall determine the conditions and formalities to which the abovementioned exemptions or refunds are subject.\nCHAPTER 6\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 18\n1. The Commission shall publish once a year the value of the euro in national currencies to be applied to the amounts of the overall excise duty.\nThe exchange rates to be applied shall be those obtained on the first working day of October and published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall apply from 1 January of the following calendar year.\n2. Member States may maintain the amounts of the excise duties in force at the time of the annual adjustment provided for in paragraph 1 if the conversion of the amounts of the excise duties expressed in euro would result in an increase of less than 5 % or less than EUR 5, whichever is the lower amount, in the excise duty expressed in national currency.\nArticle 19\n1. Every four years, the Commission shall submit to the Council a report and, where appropriate, a proposal concerning the rates and the structure of excise duty laid down in this Directive.\nThe report by the Commission shall take into account the proper functioning of the internal market, the real value of the rates of excise duty and the wider objectives of the Treaty.\n2. The report referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based in particular on the information provided by the Member States.\n3. The Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 43 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (5), determine a list of statistical data needed for the report, excluding data relating to individual natural persons or legal entities. Apart from data readily available to Member States, the list shall only contain data the collection and assembly of which does not involve a disproportionate administrative burden on the part of the Member States.\n4. The Commission shall not publish or otherwise divulge data where it would lead to the disclosure of a commercial, industrial or professional secret.\nArticle 20\nMember States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 21\nDirectives 92/79/EEC, 92/80/EEC and 95/59/EC, as amended by the Directives listed in Annex I, Part A, are repealed, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law and application of the Directives set out in Annex I, Part B.\nReferences to the repealed Directives shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex II.\nArticle 22\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nArticle 23\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 21 June 2011.", "references": ["21", "62", "96", "13", "44", "91", "87", "86", "72", "59", "0", "71", "9", "12", "63", "53", "75", "93", "56", "83", "55", "51", "37", "36", "23", "46", "30", "94", "24", "38", "No Label", "34", "68", "73", "82"], "gold": ["34", "68", "73", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 689/2012\nof 27 July 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 415/2007 concerning the technical specifications for vessel tracking and tracing systems referred to in Article 5 of Directive 2005/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on harmonised river information services (RIS) on inland waterways in the Community\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2005/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on harmonised river information services (RIS) on inland waterways in the Community (1), and in particular Article 1, paragraph 2, and Article 5, paragraph 2, thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 415/2007 of 13 March 2007 concerning the technical specifications for vessel tracking and tracing systems referred to in Article 5 of Directive 2005/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on harmonised river information services (RIS) on inland waterways in the Community (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to remain interoperable with maritime vessel traffic management and information services, and therefore with the maritime Automatic Identification System (AIS), it is necessary to amend Regulation (EC) No 415/2007 accordingly.\n(2)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established pursuant to Article 7 of Council Directive 91/672/EEC of 16 December 1991 on the reciprocal recognition of national boatmasters\u2019 certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway (3),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 415/2007 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to comply with this Regulation 12 months after its entry into force at the latest.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2012.", "references": ["83", "8", "48", "9", "15", "68", "78", "2", "39", "73", "0", "40", "1", "19", "42", "33", "94", "98", "97", "63", "47", "28", "18", "77", "81", "72", "65", "13", "54", "22", "No Label", "41", "53", "56", "76"], "gold": ["41", "53", "56", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 467/2011\nof 13 May 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 May 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 May 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 May 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 May 2011.", "references": ["83", "28", "87", "55", "58", "89", "4", "93", "66", "43", "1", "7", "50", "17", "69", "11", "71", "78", "25", "23", "73", "63", "57", "61", "45", "33", "77", "27", "92", "12", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 475/2012\nof 5 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Accounting Standard (IAS) 1 and International Accounting Standard (IAS) 19\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards (1), and in particular Article 3(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 (2) certain international standards and interpretations that were in existence at 15 October 2008 were adopted.\n(2)\nOn 16 June 2011, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) published Amendments to IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements - Presentation of Items of Other Comprehensive Income (hereinafter \"the amendments to IAS 1\") and to IAS 19 Employee Benefits, (hereinafter \"the amendments to IAS 19\"). The objective of the amendments to IAS 1 is to make the presentation of the increasing number of items of other comprehensive income clearer, and to assist the users of financial statements in distinguishing between the items of other comprehensive income that can be reclassified subsequently to profit or loss, and those that will never be reclassified to profit or loss. As to the amendments to IAS 19, they should help users of financial statements better understand how defined benefit plans affect an entity's financial position, financial performance and cash flows. The objective of the standard is to prescribe the accounting and disclosure for employee benefits.\n(3)\nThe consultation with the Technical Expert Group (TEG) of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) confirms that the amendments to IAS 1 and the amendments to IAS 19 meet the technical criteria for adoption set out in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1126/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Accounting Regulatory Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nInternational Accounting Standard (IAS) 1 Presentation of Financial Statements is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;\n(2)\nInternational Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 1, IFRS 5, IFRS 7, IAS 12, IAS 20, IAS 21, IAS 32, IAS 33, and IAS 34 are amended in accordance with the amendments to IAS 1 as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;\n(3)\nInternational Accounting Standard (IAS) 19 Employee Benefits is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;\n(4)\nInternational Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 1, IFRS 8, IFRS 13, IAS 1, IAS 24, and Interpretation 14 of the Standing Interpretations Committee (SIC) are amended in accordance with the amendments to IAS 19 as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\n1. Each company shall apply the amendments referred to in points (1) and (2) of Article 1, at latest, as from the commencement date of its first financial year starting on or after 1 July 2012.\n2. Each company shall apply the amendments referred to in points (3) and (4) of Article 1, at latest, as from the commencement date of its first financial year starting on or after 1 January 2013.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 June 2012.", "references": ["41", "74", "39", "66", "50", "21", "73", "65", "33", "45", "24", "84", "7", "93", "15", "89", "0", "97", "6", "63", "30", "27", "8", "94", "64", "53", "42", "48", "92", "70", "No Label", "18", "47", "52", "76"], "gold": ["18", "47", "52", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 July 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs\n(2011/620/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (the \u2018Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Agreement will enable the reciprocal protection of the geographical indications of the respective Parties and will contribute to the approximation of legislation among the EU neighbouring countries.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (1).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["27", "29", "63", "84", "23", "81", "97", "30", "52", "65", "95", "18", "6", "74", "77", "70", "54", "42", "37", "32", "87", "38", "10", "8", "94", "19", "46", "71", "53", "12", "No Label", "9", "25", "66", "72", "91"], "gold": ["9", "25", "66", "72", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1181/2011\nof 17 November 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of November 2011 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 November 2011 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 November 2011 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 0,414127 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 November 2011.", "references": ["70", "5", "45", "66", "92", "50", "8", "51", "75", "60", "4", "17", "27", "33", "26", "95", "94", "71", "3", "53", "96", "72", "47", "31", "76", "19", "18", "99", "59", "83", "No Label", "21", "22", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1077/2010\nof 23 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in Skagerrak by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 November 2010.", "references": ["8", "99", "48", "60", "30", "26", "52", "35", "0", "27", "70", "4", "44", "90", "11", "18", "42", "1", "50", "28", "16", "34", "61", "15", "12", "22", "23", "7", "19", "65", "No Label", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 185/2012\nof 7 March 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Armagh Bramley Apples (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Armagh Bramley Apples\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2012.", "references": ["27", "67", "58", "82", "80", "77", "6", "99", "4", "9", "35", "26", "14", "93", "36", "30", "87", "61", "22", "11", "60", "28", "1", "74", "53", "78", "43", "12", "71", "48", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 292/2011\nof 23 March 2011\nfixing allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available quantities of out-of-quota isoglucose to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 of 3 March 2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2010/2011 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe quantities covered by certificate applications for out-of-quota isoglucose submitted from 14 to 18 March 2011 and notified to the Commission exceed the limit set in Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 222/2011.\n(2)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 it is necessary to fix an allocation coefficient, which the Member Stats shall apply to the quantities covered by each notified certificate application, to reject the applications which have not yet been notified and to close the period for submitting the applications.\n(3)\nIn order to act before the issuing of certificates applied for, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which certificate applications for out-of-quota isoglucose have been submitted under Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 from 14 to 18 March 2011 and notified to the Commission shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 51,126352 %. Applications for certificates submitted from 21 to 25 March 2011 are hereby rejected and the period for submitting applications for certificates is closed as from 28 March 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2011.", "references": ["66", "10", "59", "77", "55", "9", "6", "70", "16", "86", "41", "23", "25", "80", "65", "56", "57", "79", "88", "68", "14", "84", "26", "53", "99", "7", "31", "42", "69", "32", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "62", "71", "72", "75"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "62", "71", "72", "75"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2012/167/CFSP\nof 23 March 2012\nimplementing Decision 2011/486/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Decision 2011/486/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 August 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/486/CFSP.\n(2)\nOn 29 November 2011, 6 January 2012, 13 February 2012, 1 March 2012 and 16 March 2012, the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 30 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1988 (2011) updated the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(3)\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/486/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/486/CFSP is hereby replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["79", "81", "29", "38", "73", "85", "86", "54", "32", "67", "72", "18", "37", "17", "46", "62", "77", "88", "57", "15", "60", "0", "39", "9", "89", "45", "93", "94", "80", "98", "No Label", "3", "12", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "12", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1026/2010\nof 12 November 2010\nfixing a single percentage for acceptance of the amounts notified by the Member States to the Commission concerning the applications for the grubbing-up premium for the wine year 2010/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 85s(4), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe eligible applications notified by the Member States to the Commission by 15 October 2010 according to Article 85s(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 exceed the maximal annual budget for the grubbing-up scheme for the wine year 2010/2011, i.e. EUR 276 million, as laid down in Annex Xd to that Regulation. Therefore, a single percentage for acceptance of the amounts actually notified should be fixed.\n(2)\nLuxembourg has communicated, according to Article 85s(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, eligible applications for an area smaller than 50 hectares; therefore it is exempted from the application for the single percentage of acceptance in accordance with Article 71(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector (2).\n(3)\nFor the sake of clarity it is appropriate to indicate also the breakdown per Member State concerned of the annual budget allocated to the grubbing-up scheme.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1092/2009 (3) fixing a single percentage for acceptance of the amounts notified by the Member States to the Commission concerning the applications for the grubbing-up premium became obsolete at the end of the wine year 2009/2010. For this reason, it should be replaced by a new Regulation.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nGrubbing-up applications notified to the Commission for the wine year 2010/2011 under Article 85s(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be accepted for 59,622 % of the amounts covered by those applications.\nThe budget limits for the Member States concerned are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply for the wine year 2010/2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 November 2010.", "references": ["50", "68", "12", "58", "79", "76", "59", "9", "8", "67", "19", "22", "43", "24", "25", "64", "15", "14", "27", "91", "55", "23", "92", "6", "5", "82", "3", "30", "39", "32", "No Label", "10", "61", "62", "66", "96"], "gold": ["10", "61", "62", "66", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 3 March 2011\namending Decision 97/80/EC laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Directive 96/16/EC on statistical surveys of milk and milk products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/142/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 96/16/EC of 19 March 1996 on statistical surveys of milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nExperience acquired in applying Commission Decision 97/80/EC of 18 December 1996 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Directive 96/16/EC on statistical surveys of milk and milk products (2), has shown that it is necessary to adopt a more detailed breakdown of the largest dairy enterprises.\n(2)\nDecision 97/80/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee for Agricultural Statistics,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Decision 97/80/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 3 March 2011.", "references": ["57", "51", "88", "66", "30", "44", "99", "2", "31", "24", "36", "9", "96", "11", "43", "49", "25", "59", "13", "0", "20", "97", "72", "32", "46", "4", "58", "94", "87", "98", "No Label", "19", "41", "63", "70", "73"], "gold": ["19", "41", "63", "70", "73"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 55/2012\nof 23 January 2012\nimplementing Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (1), and in particular Article 33(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 January 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria and in accordance with Council Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP of 23 January 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (2), additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["60", "90", "91", "56", "82", "55", "74", "62", "43", "11", "76", "42", "81", "41", "68", "72", "27", "66", "21", "57", "18", "87", "33", "28", "0", "70", "32", "6", "99", "64", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 472/2011\nof 16 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2011.", "references": ["12", "10", "0", "21", "8", "26", "17", "47", "49", "1", "85", "94", "76", "65", "91", "31", "45", "24", "39", "16", "48", "77", "25", "14", "43", "60", "74", "79", "5", "89", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 April 2011\nextending the transitional period concerning the acquisition of agricultural land in Lithuania\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/240/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia,\nHaving regard to the Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, and in particular Chapter 4 of Annex IX thereto,\nHaving regard to the request made by Lithuania,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe 2003 Act of Accession provides that Lithuania may maintain in force, under the conditions laid down therein, for a 7-year period following the accession, expiring on 30 April 2011, prohibitions on the acquisition of agricultural land by natural and legal persons from other EU Member States who are neither established nor registered nor having a branch or an agency in Lithuania. This is a temporary exception to the free movement of capital as guaranteed by Articles 63 to 66 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This transitional period may only be extended once for a period of up to 3 years.\n(2)\nOn 4 February 2011, Lithuania requested to extend the transitional period concerning the acquisition of agricultural land by 3 years.\n(3)\nThe main reason for the transitional period was the need to safeguard the socioeconomic conditions for agricultural activities following the introduction of the single market and the transition to the common agricultural policy in Lithuania. In particular, it aimed to meet concerns raised about the possible impact on the agricultural sector of liberalising the acquisition of agricultural land due to initial large differences in land prices and income compared with Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (hereinafter the EU-15). The transitional period was also designed to ease the process of restitution and privatisation of agricultural land to farmers. In its Report of 16 July 2008 on the Review of the transitional measures for the acquisition of agricultural real estate set out in the 2003 Accession Treaty (hereinafter the \u2018Mid-Term Review of 2008\u2019), the Commission has already emphasised the importance of the completion of the abovementioned agricultural reform by the end of the foreseen transitional period (1).\n(4)\nThe land reform is still ongoing in Lithuania. According to data supplied by the Lithuanian authorities, there is a total of 429 000 ha of State land for which ownership rights need to be clarified. At the moment only 77 200 ha of State agricultural land have been privatised and for 351 000 ha of agricultural land, which constitutes 11,42 % of the total agricultural land in Lithuania, the ownership rights still remain to be solved.\n(5)\nIn the view of the Lithuanian authorities, the lack of clarity on property rights together with the unfavourable structure of the farms inevitably hinders land transactions and consolidation of agricultural land. Land fragmentation, however, leads to lower competitiveness and less market-oriented farms. In this context, data relating to 2009 made available by the Lithuanian authorities show that, in that year, farms of a size of up to 5 ha amounted to 52,5 % of all farms.\n(6)\nThe aforementioned lower competitiveness of the Lithuanian agricultural sector compared to the agricultural sector in EU-15 is compounded by difficulties in access to financial resources and high interest rates applied to commercial credit lines for the acquisition of agricultural land (more than 10 % in 2009).\n(7)\nMoreover, the recent global financial and economic crisis also had a negative impact on Lithuania\u2019s economy and in particular on the selling prices of agricultural products. According to the data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, the total index of the purchase prices of the agricultural products in 2009, as compared to 2008, was 77,8. The fall was especially significant in the plant growing sector, where the total index of the purchase prices of these agricultural products in 2009 compared to 2008 was equal to 69,1.\n(8)\nIn the light of the factors mentioned above, the still considerable, although decreasing over time, gap in the agricultural income of farmers in Lithuania and of farmers in the EU-15 can be explained. According to Eurostat, in 2009 the level of the farmers\u2019 income in Lithuania decreased by 13,6 %, while the average of the income of the EU-27 decreased by 10,7 %.\n(9)\nSimilarly to the levels of agricultural income, the gap in the agricultural land sales prices between Lithuania and the other EU Member States also persists. According to Eurostat data, the prices of the agricultural land parcels in Lithuania remain low in comparison to the other EU Member States. Complete convergence in agricultural land sales prices was neither expected nor seen as a necessary pre-condition for terminating the transitional period. Nevertheless, the noticeable differences in agricultural land sales prices between Lithuania and the EU-15 are such that they may hinder smooth progress towards price convergence.\n(10)\nAgainst this background, it may be anticipated, as do the Lithuanian authorities, that the lifting of the restrictions on 1 May 2011 would exert pressure on the land prices in Lithuania. Therefore, a threat of serious disturbances on the Lithuanian agricultural land market upon the expiry of the transitional period exists.\n(11)\nAn extension by 3 years of the transitional period referred to in Chapter 4 of Annex IX to the Act of Accession should therefore be granted.\n(12)\nIn order to fully prepare the market for liberalisation, it continues to be of utmost importance, even amid adverse economic circumstances, to foster the improvement of factors such as credit and insurance facilities for farmers, and the completion of the agricultural structural reform during the transitional period, as already emphasised in the Mid-Term Review of 2008.\n(13)\nSince an open single market has always been at the heart of the European prosperity, an increased inflow of foreign capital would bring along potential benefits also for the agricultural market in Lithuania. As emphasised in the Mid-Term Review of 2008, foreign investment in the agriculture sector would also have important long-term effects on the provision of capital and know-how, on the functioning of land markets and on agricultural productivity. The progressive loosening of the restrictions on foreign ownership during the transitional period would also contribute to preparing the market for full liberalisation.\n(14)\nFor the purpose of legal certainty and in order to avoid a legal vacuum in the national legal system of Lithuania after the expiry of the current transitional period, this Decision should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe transitional period concerning the acquisition of agricultural land in Lithuania referred to in Chapter 4 of Annex IX to the 2003 Act of Accession shall be extended until 30 April 2014.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 14 April 2011.", "references": ["34", "47", "66", "21", "3", "72", "12", "22", "38", "37", "43", "80", "46", "39", "19", "2", "65", "90", "96", "8", "36", "25", "99", "5", "6", "56", "75", "94", "70", "10", "No Label", "9", "11", "15", "30", "35", "64", "91"], "gold": ["9", "11", "15", "30", "35", "64", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 391/2010\nof 6 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2010.", "references": ["12", "18", "2", "5", "37", "11", "21", "28", "41", "96", "72", "78", "80", "57", "74", "32", "30", "38", "14", "44", "0", "8", "50", "66", "85", "62", "53", "6", "69", "3", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1067/2010\nof 19 November 2010\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN codes indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN codes indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 November 2010.", "references": ["75", "69", "53", "68", "10", "48", "41", "26", "95", "56", "61", "91", "15", "18", "5", "36", "86", "8", "78", "27", "81", "20", "4", "9", "14", "80", "17", "99", "52", "96", "No Label", "21", "90"], "gold": ["21", "90"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/36/EU\nof 1 June 2010\namending Directive 2009/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on safety rules and standards for passenger ships\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (1), and in particular Article 10, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2009/45/EC has codified and recast Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (2) and its subsequent substantive amendments in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nFor the purpose of Directive 2009/45/EC, the international conventions, including the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention) and other international codes and resolutions, for the safety rules and standards for passenger vessels, were in force on the date of the adoption of that Directive.\n(3)\nChanges have been made to relevant international instruments, such as the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) conventions, protocols, codes and resolutions since the last substantial amendment of Directive 98/18/EC by Commission Directive 2003/75/EC (3).\n(4)\nAccount should be taken of these new international instruments in the relevant Articles and Annexes to Directive 2009/45/EC.\n(5)\nDirective 2009/45/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas, set up pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2009/2002 of the European Parliament and the Council (4),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2009/45/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 2(c) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\n\u201cHigh Speed Craft Code\u201d means the \u201cInternational Code for Safety of High Speed Craft\u201d contained in IMO Resolution MSC 36 (63) of 20 May 1994, or the International Code for Safety of High-Speed Craft, 2000 (2000 HSC Code), contained in IMO Resolution MSC.97(73) of December 2000, in their up-to-date versions;\u2019\n2.\nArticle 2(g)(ii) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018(ii)\ntheir maximum speed, as defined in Regulation 1.4.30 of the 1994 High Speed Craft Code and Regulation 1.4.37 of the 2000 High Speed Craft Code, is less than 20 knots;\u2019.\n3.\nArticle 3(2)(a) (iii) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018(iii)\nvessels constructed in material other than steel or equivalent and not covered by the standards concerning High Speed Craft (Resolution MSC 36 (63) or MSC.97 (73)) or Dynamically Supported Craft (Resolution A.373 (X));\u2019.\n4.\nArticle 4(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. For high speed passenger craft the categories defined in Chapter 1 (1.4.10) and (1.4.11) of the High Speed Craft Code 1994, or Chapter 1 (1.4.12) and (1.4.13) of the High Speed Craft Code 2000 shall apply.\u2019\n5.\nArticle 6(1)(c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nthe provisions for shipborne navigational equipment of Regulations 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, Chapter V of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, in its up-to-date version, shall apply. Shipborne navigational equipment, as listed in Annex A(1) to Directive 96/98/EC and complying with the provisions of the latter, is considered to be in conformity with the type approval requirements of Regulation 18.1, Chapter V of the 1974 SOLAS Convention.\u2019\n6.\nArticle 6(4)(a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nhigh speed passenger craft constructed or subjected to repairs, alterations or modifications of a major character on or after 1 January 1996 shall comply with the requirements of Regulation X/2 and X/3 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, unless\n-\ntheir keel was laid or they were at a similar stage of construction not later than June 1998, and\n-\ndelivery and commissioning has taken place not later than December 1998, and\n-\nthey fully comply with the requirements of the Code of Safety for Dynamically Supported Craft (DSC Code) in IMO Resolution A.373(X) as amended by IMO Resolution MSC.37(63);\u2019\n7.\nArticle 12(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The relevant procedures and guidelines for surveys for the Passenger Ship Safety Certificate specified in IMO Resolution A.997(25), as amended, \u201cSurvey guidelines under the harmonized system of survey and certification, 2007\u201d or procedures designed to achieve the same goal, shall be followed.\u2019\n8.\nAnnexes I to V of Directive 2009/45/EC are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive within 12 months of its entry into force at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2010.", "references": ["82", "11", "61", "60", "83", "95", "5", "55", "31", "37", "93", "25", "10", "81", "45", "52", "13", "62", "22", "39", "17", "43", "47", "91", "21", "27", "50", "99", "63", "12", "No Label", "8", "53", "54", "56", "76"], "gold": ["8", "53", "54", "56", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 898/2010\nof 8 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Patata della Sila (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Patata della Sila\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["45", "16", "63", "41", "71", "18", "26", "60", "7", "57", "3", "47", "1", "58", "90", "31", "99", "87", "92", "46", "34", "2", "32", "54", "64", "86", "72", "82", "94", "80", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 144/2012\nof 16 February 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 February 2012.", "references": ["11", "48", "37", "62", "22", "8", "35", "31", "18", "95", "80", "60", "72", "55", "47", "52", "68", "53", "23", "7", "67", "5", "89", "16", "4", "9", "82", "1", "29", "33", "No Label", "21", "40"], "gold": ["21", "40"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 362/2011\nof 13 April 2011\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance monepantel\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 14, in conjunction with Article 17, thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nMonepantel is currently included in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as an allowed substance, for ovine and caprine species, applicable to muscle, fat, liver and kidney, excluding animals producing milk for human consumption. The provisional maximum residue limits (hereinafter \u2018MRLs\u2019) for that substance set out for caprine species will expire on 1 January 2011.\n(4)\nAn application for the extension of the expiry date for provisional MRLs of the existing entry for monepantel applicable to caprine species has been submitted to the European Medicines Agency.\n(5)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use has recommended the extension of the time period for which the provisional MRLs for monepantel for caprine species apply.\n(6)\nThe entry for monepantel in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to extend the provisional MRLs for caprine species. The provisional MRLs set out in that Table for monepantel for caprine species should expire on 1 January 2012.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 April 2011.", "references": ["25", "3", "64", "88", "94", "28", "44", "70", "43", "5", "26", "96", "14", "29", "8", "13", "92", "40", "45", "77", "82", "63", "6", "81", "76", "99", "73", "80", "79", "93", "No Label", "24", "38", "69", "72"], "gold": ["24", "38", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 587/2011\nof 17 June 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 570/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2011.", "references": ["2", "5", "13", "73", "84", "70", "15", "0", "78", "27", "56", "19", "77", "94", "67", "80", "43", "44", "14", "86", "98", "1", "9", "92", "88", "48", "53", "85", "6", "55", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 July 2010\non the existence of an excessive deficit in Cyprus\n(2010/401/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 126(6) in conjunction with Article 126(13) and Article 136 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the observations made by Cyprus,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 126(1) of the Treaty Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits.\n(2)\nThe Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.\n(3)\nThe excessive deficit procedure (EDP) under Article 126 of the Treaty, as clarified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1) (which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact), provides for a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit. The Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the EDP. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provision of the said Protocol.\n(4)\nThe 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the EDP. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.\n(5)\nArticle 126(5) of the Treaty requires the Commission to address an opinion to the Council if the Commission considers that an excessive deficit in a Member State exists or may occur. Having taken into account its report in accordance with Article 126(3) and having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee in accordance with Article 126(4), the Commission concluded that an excessive deficit exists in Cyprus. The Commission therefore addressed such an opinion to the Council in respect of Cyprus on 15 June 2010 (3).\n(6)\nArticle 126(6) of the Treaty states that the Council should consider any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make before deciding, after an overall assessment, whether an excessive deficit exists. In the case of Cyprus, this overall assessment leads to the following conclusions.\n(7)\nAccording to data notified by the Cypriot authorities in April 2010, the general government deficit in Cyprus reached 6,1 % of GDP in 2009, thus exceeding the 3 % of GDP reference value. The deficit was not close to the 3 % of GDP reference value, but the excess over the reference value can be qualified as exceptional within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. In particular, it results from a severe economic downturn in the sense of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. According to the Commission services\u2019 2010 spring forecast, real GDP in Cyprus is projected to shrink further, although to a lesser extent, by almost \u00bd % in 2010 compared with 1\u00be % in 2009. However, the planned excess over the reference value cannot be considered temporary. According to the Commission services\u2019 spring 2010 forecast, the budgetary deficit would reach about 7\u00be % of GDP in 2011 on a no-policy-change basis. The deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.\n(8)\nAccording to data notified by the Cypriot authorities in April 2010, the general government gross debt remains below the 60 % of GDP reference value and stood at 56,2 % of GDP in 2009. For 2010, Cyprus notified a planned debt of 62 % of GDP, thus exceeding the 60 % of GDP Treaty reference value. The Commission services\u2019 spring 2010 forecast projects debt to rise further to 62,3 % of GDP in 2010 and 67,6 % in 2011 on the back of a deteriorated primary balance. In view of these trends, the debt ratio cannot be considered as diminishing sufficiently and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. The debt criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.\n(9)\nAccording to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, \u2018relevant factors\u2019 can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) if the double condition - that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary - is fully met. In the case of Cyprus, this double condition is not met. Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFrom an overall assessment it follows that an excessive deficit exists in Cyprus.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Cyprus.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2010.", "references": ["84", "58", "23", "6", "47", "14", "72", "79", "39", "20", "70", "69", "37", "87", "41", "17", "30", "55", "27", "45", "60", "8", "90", "18", "25", "49", "92", "63", "61", "34", "No Label", "28", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["28", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 608/2012\nof 6 July 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances denathonium benzoate, methyl nonyl ketone and plant oils/spearmint oil\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2)(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe active substances denathonium benzoate, methyl nonyl ketone and plant oils/spearmint oil were included in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) by Commission Directive 2008/127/EC (3) in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 24b of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 of 3 December 2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4). Since the replacement of Directive 91/414/EEC by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, these substances are deemed to have been approved under that Regulation and are listed in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (5).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 25a of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004, the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, presented to the Commission its views on the draft review reports for denathonium benzoate (6), methyl nonyl ketone (7) on 2 December 2011 and for plant oils/spearmint oil (8) on 16 December 2011. The draft review reports and the views of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 1 June 2012 in the format of the Commission review reports for denathonium benzoate, methyl nonyl ketone and plant oils/spearmint oil.\n(3)\nThe Authority communicated its views on denathonium benzoate, methyl nonyl ketone and plant oils/spearmint oil to the notifiers, and the Commission invited them to submit comments on the review reports.\n(4)\nIt is confirmed that the active substances denathonium benzoate, methyl nonyl ketone and plant oils/spearmint oil are to be deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is necessary to amend the conditions of approval of denathonium benzoate, methyl nonyl ketone and plant oils/spearmint oil. It is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information as regards methyl nonyl ketone. The use of plant oils/spearmint oil should be restricted to postharvest treatment of potatoes.\n(6)\nA reasonable period of time should be allowed before the application of this Regulation in order to allow Member States, notifiers and holders of authorisations for plant protection products to meet the requirements resulting from amendment to the conditions of the approval.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 November 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2012.", "references": ["24", "1", "99", "51", "43", "29", "79", "42", "22", "72", "45", "53", "30", "23", "56", "26", "9", "77", "49", "37", "10", "86", "14", "13", "18", "80", "50", "57", "0", "21", "No Label", "25", "61", "65", "70", "83"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65", "70", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 March 2011\non the State aid C 28/05 (ex NN 18/05, ex N 517/2000) implemented by Germany for Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH\n(notified under document C(2011) 1764)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/524/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) (1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision(s) cited above (2) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter dated 4 August 2000, registered on 7 August 2000, the German authorities notified their intention to provide an aid intensity of 35 % for an investment aid in favour of the establishment of an integrated centre for wood processing in Nettgau (Saxony-Anhalt) by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH. The proposed aid was registered with the number N 517/2000.\n(2)\nAfter the submission of additional information, the Commission adopted, on 25 July 2001, a decision not to raise objections to an aid intensity of 35 % based on the Multisectoral Framework on regional aid for large investment projects (3) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018MSF 1998\u2019).\n(3)\nBy judgement of 1 December 2004, the General Court decided in case T-27/02 (4), Kronofrance/Commission, to annul the above mentioned Commission decision.\n(4)\nTherefore, the Commission has to take a new decision on the basis of the notification of the German authorities of 7 August 2000.\n(5)\nBy letter dated 17 December 2004, the Commission asked the German authorities whether they wanted to submit further information to the notification of 7 August 2000 due to the annulment the Commission\u2019s decision and sent a reminder on 3 March 2005. The German authorities replied by letter of 23 March 2005, but did not submit additional information at that stage.\n(6)\nMoreover, it has to be noted that the German authorities granted in February 2000 the present aid on the condition that it would be approved by the Commission. The German authorities started to pay out the aid after the no objection decision of the Commission of 25 July 2001.\n(7)\nHowever, following its annulment by the General Court, the decision of 25 July 2001 must be considered as never to have existed and the German authorities thus did not receive an approval from the Commission on the aid intensity proposed (5). The Commission has accordingly transferred the case to the register of illegally granted aid under aid NN 18/05.\n(8)\nBy letter dated 20 July 2005, the Commission informed Germany that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in respect of the aid.\n(9)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (6). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.\n(10)\nThe Commission received comments from interested parties. It forwarded them to Germany, which was given the opportunity to react; its comments were received by letters dated 24 October 2005 and 24 January 2006.\n(11)\nBy letter dated 28 February 2006, Germany requested, in the meaning of Article 7(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (7) the suspension of the formal investigation procedure in view of the pending appeals brought by Germany and Glunz AG before the Court of Justice of the European Union (joined cases C-75/05 P and C-80/05 P) against the judgement of the General Court in case T-27/02, Kronofrance/Commission.\n(12)\nBy letter of 9 March 2006, the Commission accepted the suspension of the procedure until after the judgement of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-75/05 P and C-80/05 P Federal Republic of Germany and Others v Kronofrance SA.\n(13)\nThe Court of Justice in its ruling of 11 September 2008 (8) decided to uphold the decision made by the General Court. Following this, the formal investigation procedure in case C 28/05 resumed.\n(14)\nGermany submitted additional information by letter dated 4 August 2009 and, following a request for information of the Commission, by letter dated 19 July 2010.\nII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\n2.1. THE AID MEASURE\n(15)\nThe Landesf\u00f6rderinstitut Sachsen-Anhalt decided on 29 February 2000 to grant investment aid for the establishment of a centre for wood processing in Nettgau (Saxony-Anhalt) to Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH. The total aid amounts to EUR 69 797 988.\n(16)\nAccording to the notification of 4 August 2000, the aid is given in the form of a grant for an amount of EUR 46 201 868 under the 28th Framework of common interest \u2018Improvement of the regional economic structures\u2019 (28. Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe \u2018Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur\u2019 (9)), approved by the Commission. This grant corresponds to 23,17 % gross of the eligible cost.\n(17)\nFurthermore, an investment premium is given on the basis of the Investment Premium Law 1999 (10) (Investitionszulage), approved by the Commission for an amount of EUR 23 596 120. This investment premium amounts to 11,83 % gross of the eligible investment cost.\n(18)\nAccording to information submitted by Germany, an amount of EUR [\u2026] (11) was already paid out on the basis of the 28. Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe \u2018Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur\u2019 , while an amount of EUR [\u2026] was already paid out as Investitionszulage. Thus, an aid amount of totally EUR [\u2026] was already paid out by the German authorities to the beneficiaries (out of the agreed total amount of EUR 69 797 988).\n2.2. THE BENEFICIARY\n(19)\nThere are two aid beneficiaries.\n(20)\nOne of the aid beneficiaries is Glunz AG, Hamm (North-Rhine-Westphalia) which was founded in 1932 and was then operating in the field of timber-based materials. Since the 1960s, the company manufactures and markets exclusively Particle boards, MDF (Mittel-dichte Faserplatte - medium density fibre board), OSB (Oriented Strand Board) and plywood. At the time of the notification, TAFISA, which belongs to the Portuguese SONAE-group, held 96,03 % of the shares of Glunz AG.\n(21)\nThe other aid beneficiary is OSB Deutschland GmbH (hereinafter \u2018OSBD\u2019) which belongs at 100 % to TAFISA and thus is an affiliated sister company to Glunz AG as they both have the same mother company TAFIS. OSBD was created on 16 July 1999 and upon full completion of the investment in Nettgau, started with the manufacturing and marketing of OSB products.\n2.3. THE PROJECT\n(22)\nThe investment project is located in Nettgau, Saxony-Anhalt (Germany) an assisted area in virtue of article 107(3)(a) of TFEU. In this region the maximum permitted aid intensity for the support of new investments was 35 % gross with regard to large undertakings at the time of notification.\n(23)\nGlunz AG and OSBD set up, on a land not yet used for industrial purposes, a centre for wood processing which will comprise two combined plants. The first plant, owned by OSB Deutschland GmbH, manufactures OSB. The second plant, owned by Glunz AG, manufactures particle board. The German authorities stated that both plants have their production lines linked to each other by a common technical infrastructure. Moreover, they advanced that both OSB panels and particle board panels are further processed and refined through the same grinding line, the same lamination equipment and the same tongue and groove equipment. In addition, they put forward that particles deriving from the treatment of OSB are used in the neighbouring particle board installation. Furthermore, the German authorities submitted that a central administration will manage both plants including their marketing, supply and distribution activities.\n(24)\nAdditionally, the German authorities argue that the concept of the integrated centre for wood processing of Glunz and OSBD offers several advantages thanks to an optimised conception of the installation through a single technical infrastructure in particular as concerned the treatment of the wood panels produced. They advance that it enables an optimal use of the wood assortment including the better utilisation of raw material and internal recycling.\n(25)\nThe notification of 7 August 2000 mentions that part of the aid will be granted in favour and the OSB plant and part of it in favour of the particle board plant. The aid foreseen in favour of the OSB plant amounts to EUR 28,61 million for eligible investment cost of EUR 81,8 million, corresponding to an intensity of 35 % gross. The aid granted in favour of the particle board plant amounts to EUR 41,18 million for eligible investment cost of EUR 117,6 million, corresponding to an intensity of 35 % gross.\n(26)\nAt the time of the notification, the German authorities estimated that the integrated centre for wood processing in Nettgau would create 355 permanent jobs. The jobs were distributed to the respective plant as follows: 234 jobs would be created in relation to the particle board plant production and 121 in relation to the OSB plant production. The German authorities indicated that 520 indirect jobs created in relevant assisted areas. Amongst them 33 are indirect safeguarded jobs. The new investment in Nettgau was to be realised between January 2000 and end of 2002. The production was intended to start in the course of 2001 and full operation was to be reached after 2 years.\n(27)\nThe production capacity of the new OSB-plant was estimated to amount to [\u2026] m3 in 2002. In 1999, the capacity for OSB-products of the TAFISA-group was [\u2026] m3.\n(28)\nIn 1999, the capacity for particle board within the Glunz group amounted to [\u2026] m3. According to the German authorities, the total production capacities will reach [\u2026] m3, thus the new plant in Nettgau will create new capacities of [\u2026] m3.\nIII. REASONS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(29)\nThe maximum allowable aid intensity under MSF 1998 is determined on the basis of a calculation which involves the application of a number of assessment factors, and, in particular, the factor indicating the state of competition in the sector concerned (\u2018factor T\u2019), for which there are four levels: 0,25, 0,5, 0,75 and 1. It can only be set at 1 if the sector (defined at the lowest NACE level) is not facing overcapacity (overcapacity test) and/or if the relevant market (defined as the product envisaged and its substitutes) is not in relative decline (declining market test).\n(30)\nThe Commission, in its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU, had doubts as to definition of the relevant market to which OSB belongs and consequently could not establish whether the market is in decline or not for defining the competition factor \u2018T\u2019.\nIV. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(31)\nThe Commission received on 22 November 2005 a joint submission (12) by competitors belonging to the KronoGroup Switzerland (Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG, Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronofrance S.A.).\n(32)\nIn their submission, the KronoGroup companies argued in favour of a market definition comprising OSB and softwood plywood. Hardwood plywood is significantly more expensive and is used predominantly in areas (furniture and decorative applications) where OSB and softwood plywood are not or hardly used. They referred to a study made by Jaakko P\u00f6yry (13) and to a publication of the Finnish Forest Research Institute substantiating this claim.\n(33)\nKronoGroup raised some further issues which can be summarized as follows.\n(34)\nKronoGroup claims that the Commission, when calculating whether the market was in decline, should use data for the period until 1999 as such data were already available at the time of the initial approval decision (July 2001) which was later annulled by the General Court. It also alleges that in the period 1995-99, particle board had a negative average growth rate of - 4,626 %. The submission however acknowledges that in the period 1994-99, particle board had a positive average growth rate of 0,456 % (even if below the growth of the EEA manufacturing industry as a whole).\n(35)\nKronoGroup also claims that the Commission, rather than calculating a common aid intensity for the whole project, should assess separately the aid to the OSB plant and the aid to the particle board plant as the two investments, the two production lines and the two product markets can clearly be separated. This would entail a separate calculation of all the assessment factors for the two plants.\n(36)\nKronoGroup further alleges that in parallel to its investment in Nettgau, Glunz closed down its particle board plant in Sassenburg (located at a distance of 30 km, although in a different Land, i.e. Lower Saxony (14)). It cites newspaper articles according to which the entire workforce of the plant in Sassenburg was taken over in the new plant in Nettgau. This, according to KronoGroup, is contrary to the aim of the MSF 1998 to create jobs in the region concerned for those living in the region, and these jobs should not be taken into account when determining the capital/labour factor and the regional impact factor defined in the MSF 1998 (both of which build on the number of jobs created by the investment).\n(37)\nFinally, KronoGroup also claims that the Commission should have ordered an injunction to provisionally recover the aid pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (recovery injunction for unlawful aid) since Glunz and OSBD obtained substantial competition advantages through the partly disbursed aid.\nV. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY\n(38)\nThe observations of Germany can be summarised as follows.\n5.1. COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE DEFINITION OF THE RELEVANT MARKET FOR OSB\n(39)\nGermany considers that the relevant market regarding OSB consists of OSB and plywood in the end-use applications of packaging, hoarding, roofing, flooring and sheathing/walls. This market is not declining.\n(40)\nThe end-use applications in which OSB substitutes plywood broadly correspond to the main areas of application for softwood plywood. In key areas of application of hardwood plywood (furniture industry, construction industry and fitting out of transport vehicles), however, OSB cannot be used because of its technical characteristics. Including OSB in the overall market for hardwood and softwood plywood would not therefore be in line with the actual conditions on the markets concerned. This is confirmed in an expert opinion dated 21 October 2005 drawn up by Jaakko P\u00f6yry.\n(41)\nJaakko P\u00f6yry estimates the following percentages for the substitution potential of OSB in the above areas of application: packaging 40-60 %; hoarding 70-80 %; roofing 70-90 %; flooring 50-80 %; sheathing/walls 70-90 %.\n(42)\nIn the furniture industry, OSB is not suitable for visible applications owing to its surface characteristics. The surface of OSB is not visually attractive since it is manufactured using oriented strands of wood which makes it rough and uneven. OSB cannot therefore be decoratively coated. OSB is only suitable for non-visible furniture parts (e.g. support structure for upholstered furniture). In the area of non-visible furniture parts, however, OSB cannot compete in terms of price with the far cheaper types of particle board, which are generally used in this context.\n(43)\nIn the construction industry (formwork), it is crucial that the sheathing/shuttering/framework materials used with regard to poured-in place concrete have a smooth surface. Owing to the unevenness caused by the manufacturing process, OSB has to be specially coated for fair-faced concrete in order to ensure that the fair-faced concrete has an even surface. This further processing is expensive and raises the price of the end product. In comparison with plywood, OSB is only competitive if it can be re-used on several occasions as a framework. However, for practical reasons, this will not necessarily be the case. Since the boards are heavily used at construction sites, their surface may become damaged. If cracks appear, there is a danger that the OSB will become warped by water or moisture or deformed in some other way. Therefore, repeated use of expensive processed OSB is not necessarily possible. In addition, the edges of OSB may be unstable and susceptible to moisture. Furthermore, materials used as a framework for cement need to be very difficult to split and bend. In this respect, OSB does not satisfy the demands which the construction industry makes of framework materials. Softwood plywood on the other hand is in view of its relatively low cost and even surface very suitable for this use, as can be seen by the volume actually used for formwork.\n(44)\nIn the area of transport vehicles, it is also important that the surface should be even as the boards used here often have to be coated. Coating OSB is for various reasons often not easily practicable. Even if OSB is coated, for example with melamine paper, there is a risk that the coating will crack owing to the uneven surface of the OSB. When a lift truck is being loaded, pressure is put on the surface at certain points. There is a danger that in such cases in a damp or wet environment, water may seep into the board causing it to become deformed or warped. Stable surface coating can only be guaranteed by expensive further processing. The surface of OSB is, unlike hardwood plywood, which is relatively resistant to scratches, pressure points etc. given the particular hardness of its surface, also otherwise not sufficiently resistant to withstand the effects of pressure in the field of transport.\n(45)\nAssessment of the scope for substituting OSB with softwood plywood on the one hand and hardwood plywood on the other rests largely on the technical properties and possible uses of OSB and on the price difference compared with hardwood plywood. Whereas hardwood plywood is superior to softwood plywood and OSB in all technical respects, the price difference between hardwood plywood on the one hand and OSB and softwood plywood on the other means that hardwood plywood lacks competitiveness in the areas of application dominated by OSB and softwood plywood. It would therefore be wrong to assume that OSB can be substituted by all types of plywood, including hardwood plywoods.\n(46)\nThere exists a large overlap between the market for OSB and plywood in the end-use applications of packaging, hoarding, roofing, flooring and sheathing/walls on the one hand and the market for OSB and softwood plywood on the other. There is only a difference between the two market definitions in relation to the construction industry (formwork). OSB is unsuitable for this area, whereas softwood plywood is eminently usable and is indeed employed. The core common message is that hardwood plywood must not be included in the market for OSB.\n5.2. COMMENTS ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE MARKET FOR PARTICLE BOARD\n(47)\nGermany considers that the competition factor should also be set at 1 for the particle board market, which should not be regarded as declining, as there is a strong upward trend within the meaning of paragraph 7.8 of the MSF 1998.\n(48)\nTo substantiate this, Germany submitted a study by Professor Stefan Collignon (Harvard University, the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies) (15) according to which long-term growth in the market for particle board between 1972 and 2003 was 36 % faster than in manufacturing industry as a whole. Germany is of the opinion that under paragraph 7.8 of the 1998 MSF, this strong, long-term upward trend means that the particle board market cannot be regarded as in decline.\n5.3. COMMENTS ON ASSIGNING AID INTENSITY TO DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE PROJECT\n(49)\nIn Germany\u2019s view, should the Commission nevertheless take the view that the competition factor \u2018T\u2019 is 0,75 for the particle board market while it is 1 for OSB, the common aid intensity must be determined for overall project in Nettgau on the basis of the contribution margins of the two production lines, i.e. for OSB and particle board production.\n(50)\nThe contribution margin is the amount which a product contributes to covering fixed costs and to achieving the company\u2019s net profit. It is calculated as the difference between earnings and the variable costs incurred directly for that product.\n(51)\nBy using contribution margins as a reference, the aid intensity would be assigned to the individual parts of the investment project in Nettgau in accordance with the actual contribution of OSB and particle board, as products, to the operating result.\n5.4. COMMENTS ON OTHER POINTS RAISED BY KRONOGROUP\n(52)\nGermany considers the assessment of the aid should be based on facts that were known on 7 August 2000, i.e. at the time of the notification.\n(53)\nAccording to Germany, this results from the interpretation of the MSF 1998. Germany refers in this respect to point 3.1 of the MSF 1998, which provides that the maximum allowable aid intensity is identified on the basis of the regional aid ceiling valid at the moment of notification. Moreover, point 3.6 of the MSF 1998 foresees the calculation of market share prior to the aid application. Also, the Annex to the MSF 1998 indicates in the section \u2018ex-post control\u2019 the possibility for the Commission to verify the accuracy of the information provided in the context of the notification.\n(54)\nGermany claims furthermore that apparent consumption data for 1999 were not known at the time of the notification. In any event, in order to obtain the average annual growth rate of apparent consumption over 5 years, as required in point 7.8 of the MSF 1998, apparent consumption data covering 6 years instead of five as proposed by KronoGroup are necessary. This is due to the fact that the growth rate for a given year is calculated by comparing apparent consumption in 2 distinct years.\n(55)\nAs regards the alleged relocation of jobs, Germany confirms the closing of the plant in Sassenburg. Germany explained in this respect that the Sassenburg plant was the oldest particle board plant of Glunz and was making significant losses. Therefore, it had no chance to survive and had to be closed, independently of the new investment of Nettgau. [\u2026] employees that had previously been employed in Sassenburg were transferred to Nettgau (making up [\u2026]% of the workforce there).\n(56)\nIn their comments on the observations of the KronoGroup, the German authorities add that in any event, the MSF 1998 only requires that the new jobs be created in the region concerned, but not that they have to be filled with employees from this region. The main aim is to foster the development of the assisted region in question.\n(57)\nGermany indicated that some of the machinery were also transferred from Sassenburg to Nettgau; these however were excluded from the eligible costs of the project and thus did not receive aid. In any event, with a book value of some EUR [\u2026], these machines represent a very small part of the overall investment project.\nVI. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n(58)\nThe following assessment is based on the facts, figures and situations as they were known at the time of the notification on 7 August 2000. Since some time has elapsed between the original notification and the current decision, situations might have changed, markets might have developed and facts concerning the project might have turned differently than was originally planned. However, this cannot be taken into account by the Commission in this assessment. In general, the Commission has to take a decision before the investment is actually carried out, on the basis of estimates of future perspectives and market figures. The aid intensities are nevertheless not adapted afterwards if some years later figures show that the market has, for example, turned out differently. Although in the present case the Commission has to take a decision more than 10 years after the original notification took place, it must nevertheless base its assessment on the facts and situations known at the time of notification and not on information arising thereafter.\n6.1. EXISTENCE OF AID UNDER ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU\n(59)\nThe present aid measure was granted by a Member State and through State resources in the sense of Article 107(1) TFEU (see point 2.1 of the present decision). The aid confers an advantage to Glunz and OSBD as they otherwise would have had to bear the whole costs of the investment on their own. As a significant volume of the concerned wood boards is transported across international borders, there exists an international trade in the wood-industry concerned. Therefore, financial advantages favouring the two concerned companies may distort competition in a way that can affect trade between Member States. Consequently, the Commission considers that the notified measure constitutes State aid to Glunz AG and OSBD within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n6.2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT\n(60)\nAccording to Article 108(3) TFEU, Member States have to notify all aid measures before putting them into effect. The proposed aid is to be granted in the context of two regional schemes which were already approved by the Commission.\n(61)\nHowever, under the rules laid down in the MSF 1998, the aid intensity to be granted for large investment projects is excluded from the scope of application of approved schemes if aid to the relevant investment project exceeds certain thresholds.\n(62)\nThe planned aid amounts totally to EUR 69 797 988. If the aid is considered as concerning a single investment project, the notification requirement laid down in point 2.1(ii) of the MSF 1998 is fulfilled as the total aid is at least EUR 50 000 000.\n(63)\nAs mentioned under point 2.3 of the present decision, the German authorities argued extensively in their notification that the present aid measure concerns a single investment project.\n(64)\nPoint 7.2, second paragraph of the MSF 1998 stipulates that an investment project should not be artificially subdivided into sub-projects in order to escape the notification obligation. In the present case this would however not occur. Indeed, even if it was considered that the investment concerns two distinctive investment projects, the notification requirements would still be fulfilled for the investments in the Glunz plant and in OSBD plant.\n(65)\nThe Commission thus concludes that the aid is to be notified and assessed according to the MSF 1998.\n6.3. THE THREE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA OF THE MSF 1998\n(66)\nUnder the MSF 1998, the Commission has to identify, in order to determine the maximum allowable aid intensity for a proposal to award aid, the maximum aid intensity (regional aid ceiling) which a company could obtain in the assisted area concerned within the context of the authorised regional aid system valid at the moment of notification.\n(67)\nAs the notification took place on 7 August 2000, the regional aid map 2000-06 is applicable (16). Nettgau in Saxony-Anhalt is a region falling under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU, with a regional aid ceiling of 35 % GGE at the time of notification. The Commission notes that the proposed aid intensity of 35 % gross corresponds with the applicable regional aid ceiling.\n(68)\nAccording to the rules laid down in the MSF 1998, the Commission has then to assess three specific adjustment factors that have to be applied to the percentage figure of 35 % in order to calculate a maximum allowable aid intensity for the project in question, namely, the competition factor (T), the capital/labour factor (I), the regional impact factor (M).\n(69)\nIt is recalled here that according to the KronoGroup, rather than calculating a common aid intensity for the whole project, the Commission should assess separately the aid to the OSB plant and the aid to the particle board plant as the two investments and the two product markets can clearly be separated.\n(70)\nThe Commission notes in this respect that point 7.2 of the MSF 1998 defines an \u2018investment project\u2019 as an initial investment in fixed assets in the creation of a new establishment, the extension of an existing establishment or engaging in an activity involving a fundamental change in the product or production process of an existing establishment.\n(71)\nThe German authorities provided detailed arguments concerning the links that exist between the two plants, set up on the same site by two sister companies of the same group. Both plants have their production lines linked to each other by a common technical infrastructure. Both OSB panels and particle board panels are further processed and refined through the same grinding line, the same lamination equipment and the same tongue and groove equipment. In addition, particles deriving from the treatment of OSB are used in the neighbouring particle board installation. Furthermore, a central administration will manage both plants including their marketing, supply and distribution activities.\n(72)\nIn light of the strong technical, functional and administrative links that exist between the two plants set up on the same site, the Commission considers that the investments in the OSB and particle board plant form a single investment project, i.e. an initial investment in the creation of a new establishment. Consequently, the maximum allowable aid intensity will be calculated for this overall investment project.\n6.3.1. COMPETITION FACTOR (T)\n6.3.1.1. Applicable rules\n(73)\nAccording to point 3.2 of the MSF 1998, the authorisation of aid to companies operating in sectors which are in structural overcapacity poses particular risks for the distortion of competition. Indeed, any capacity expansion, which is not compensated by capacity reductions elsewhere, will exacerbate the problem of structural overcapacity. The Commission notes that the notified project will create new capacities on the European market. The competition factor has thus to involve an analysis of whether the proposed project would take place in a sector or sub-sector suffering from structural overcapacity.\n(74)\nPursuant to point 3.3 of the MSF 1998, when sufficient data on capacity utilisation is available, the Commission has to limit the determination of the competition factor to the existence or not of structural/serious overcapacity in the sector or sub-sector concerned.\n(75)\nAccording to point 3.4 of the MSF 1998, it is only in the absence of sufficient data on capacity utilisation that the Commission will consider whether the investment takes place in a declining market. However, following the Judgement of 1 December 2004 (T-27/02, Kronofrance SA/Commission), the General Court ruled that point 3.4 and 3.10 of the MSF 1998 must be understood as meaning that, where the data on capacity utilisation in the sector concerned does not allow the Commission to reach the positive conclusion that there is structural overcapacity, the Commission must consider whether the market in question is a declining market. The Court of Justice in joined cases C-75/05 P and C-80/05 P Federal Republic of Germany and Others v Kronofrance SA upheld the judgement of the General Court.\n(76)\nTherefore, the Commission will first analyse if there is sufficient data on capacity utilisation and then it will, if the data on capacity utilisation is not sufficient or if this data shows there is no structural overcapacity, analyse if the market is in decline on the basis of data on apparent consumption. Moreover, following point 3.6 of the MSF 1998, the Commission has still then to analyse if the beneficiary(ies) of the aid, prior to making an application for aid, does already have a market share of 40 %.\n(77)\nThe market data on capacity utilisation has to be established at the lowest available segmentation of the NACE classification. Moreover, in order to establish whether the market is in decline and whether the market share ceiling is exceeded, the Commission also has to define the relevant market of the product(s) concerned by the investment project.\n6.3.1.2. The product(s) concerned\n(78)\nThe investment project concerns the production of OSB (Oriented Strand Board) and particle board.\n(79)\nParticle board is a wood panel made of the crushing of roundwood-shaving and/or recycled wood-shavings which are agglomerated by an organic binder. It is mainly used in the furniture industry and for internal house finishing.\n(80)\nOSB is a wood panel made of wood strands composed in three layers. The raw material used to make OSB is pine wood. OSB is mainly used in the prefabricated building industry, the packaging industry and for the restoration of old buildings. OSB was invented in the 1950s in North America. During the 1980s and 1990s it has gained wide acceptance in the wood panel market and was used as a substitute for the more expensive (softwood) plywood.\n6.3.1.3. Relevant market\n(81)\nAccording to point 7.6 of the MSF 1998, the relevant product market(s) compromises the products envisaged by the investment project and, where appropriate, its substitutes considered by the consumer (by reason of the products\u2019 characteristics, their prices and their intended use) or by the producer (through flexibility of the product installations). The relevant geographical market compromises usually the EEA or, alternatively, any significant part of it if the conditions of competition in that area can be sufficiently distinguished from other areas of the EEA.\n(82)\nAs mentioned above, the project concerns the production of OSB and particle board. According to the German authorities, the production facilities do not allow to produce distinct products but only variations of the same products, i.e. with a different surface quality. The German authorities thus argue that, from the manufacturing point of view, substitution at the production side through flexibility of the production installations should be excluded.\n(83)\nAt the demand side, particle board and OSB are to a certain extent substitutable, namely in the field of prefabricated building industry. However, the substitution between particle board and OSB seems to be very limited as it would be less than 10 % of the market size (17). This limited substitution seems to be due to the differentiation in end-uses and the significant price difference (EUR 285/m3 for OSB to EUR 117/m3 for particle board). The Commission considers that this is too marginal to justify that OSB and particle board would be assigned to the same product market.\n(84)\nIn its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU, the Commission considered that particle board constituted a separate product market. Since this finding has not been contested, the Commission concludes that for the purposes of this assessment particle board constitutes a relevant product market on its own.\n(85)\nAs regards OSB, the decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU indicated that substitution to a certain extent seems to exists in the EEA between OSB and (certain types/segments of) plywood.\n(86)\nPlywood is a versatile polymer wood composite. It is basically made up of an uneven number of thin layers of wood called veneer joined together by a synthetic or natural adhesive. There exist softwood plywood and hardwood plywood. As the name suggests, one sort of plywood is made of softwood (which means made of trees [fir, pine, spruce, hemlock] characterized by its needles and being for the most part evergreen; the term does not refer to the hardness of the wood) and the other sort of hardwood (which means made of the botanical group of trees that have broad leaves, produce a fruit or nut, and generally go dormant in the winter).\n(87)\nBecause of the doubts as to the extent of substitutability of OSB and different types/segments of plywood, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the relevant market to which OSB belongs.\n(88)\nThe comments received from Germany and one of the aid beneficiary\u2019s main competitors, i.e. the KronoGroup point to the same relevant market which comprises OSB and plywood in the end-use applications of packaging, hoarding, roofing, flooring and sheathing/walls. It is only in these end use applications that a substitution potential of more than 50 % exists between OSB and plywood. Due to different performance criteria in the transport (strength/weight) and also the appearance markets (furniture), the substitution potential is very limited (less than 20 %). These arguments and the degree of substitutability in the different end uses were supported by several studies prepared by Jaakko P\u00f6yry (18).\n(89)\nThe above end-use applications almost the same as those of softwood plywood (the only difference being that softwood plywood is also widely used in a further application, i.e. formwork where OSB is not suitable). On the other hand, OSB and hardwood plywood do not substitute each other to the extent that they could be considered as belonging to the same relevant market.\n(90)\nTherefore, the Commission defines the relevant market to which OSB belongs as OSB and plywood in the end-use applications of packaging, hoarding, roofing, flooring and sheathing/walls, which to a very large extent corresponds to the market of OSB and softwood plywood.\n(91)\nAlthough a significant volume of wood boards is transported across international borders, boards are a bulky, heavy product. As a result it is generally too expensive to transport it over great distances, the transport radius being restricted to some 800 km. The various supply areas can be seen as a series of overlapping circles with their centres at the production plant. Given the dispersion of the individual production plants and the various degrees of overlap for the natural supply areas, so that effects can be transmitted from one circle to another, it is appropriate to define the EEA as the relevant geographical market for both products concerned (19).\n6.3.1.4. Data on capacity utilisation\n(92)\nPursuant to point 7.7 of the MSF 1998, structural overcapacity is deemed to exist when, on average over the last 5 years, the capacity utilisation rate of the relevant sector or subsector is more than two percentage points below that of manufacturing as a whole. Serious structural overcapacity is deemed to exist when the difference with respect to the average for manufacturing is more than five percentage points.\n(93)\nAccording to footnote 13 of the MSF 1998, the market data on capacity utilisation has to be established at the lowest available segmentation of the NACE classification. The Commission considers that the production of particle board and OSB by, respectively, Glunz and OSBD corresponds well to that of the total NACE 20.20 products (manufacture of veneer sheets; manufacture of plywood, lamin board, particle board, fibre board and other panels and boards) since the production of particle board, plywood and OSB accounts for 81 % of the total production of wood-panels in Europe (20). Therefore, the Commission esteems that it can base its assessment on capacity utilisation data for the NACE 20.20 segment.\n(94)\nThe German authorities provided figures on the average annual capacity rate from 1994 to 1998 (which are the 5 years for which data was available at the moment of the notification) in the EEA for the NACE code 20.20 corresponding to the manufacturing of wood panels. These data, obtained from a study of an independent expert (21), comply with the requirements of point 7.7 of the Multisectoral Framework since they correspond to the sector at the lowest segmentation of the NACE classification.\n(95)\nThe expert has defined the basis of annual capacity calculation as the daily (23 hours) capacity of the line for 300 days in a year. This basis of annual capacity calculation has been calculated on the basis on information obtained from industry and the expert\u2019s Wood-Based Panel Mill Databank which includes capacity information by individual mills and press lines. The figure of 23 hours/300 days takes into account the variation in machinery type/age and mill configurations when determining the capacity of a line.\n(96)\nThe study concluded that the average annual capacity utilisation rate from 1994 to 1998 (which are the years for which data was available at the moment of the notification) in the EEA amounts to 88,8 % for particle board, to 80,4 % for OSB, to 88,8 % for the combined particle board and OSB rate and to 85 % for wood-based panels in total (NACE 20.20).\n(97)\nThe capacity utilisation rate of the wood-panels industry (NACE 20.20) in the EEA is detailed in the following table:\n1994\n1995\n1996\n1997\n1998\nTotal production, 1 000 m3\n30,673\n32,412\n32,566\n35,178\n36,481\nTotal capacity, 1 000 m3\n36,776\n37,148\n40,034\n40,545\n41,787\nUtilisation Rate\n83 %\n87 %\n81 %\n87 %\n87 %\n(98)\nThe Commission took also into consideration a second study (22) carried out on its behalf. This second study took as a basis a daily capacity (22 hours) of 345 days a year and came to an average of 81,8 % for the years 1995 to 1997. This study did not however provide any data for the remaining years of the period 1994-98 and seems to be based on the average annual capacity of modern plants only.\n(99)\nAccording to point 3.1 of the MSF 1998, the Commission will, where appropriate, utilise external independent data to assess the likely impact on competition in the relevant market; where this is not easily obtainable, however, the Commission will give full weight to representations made by Member States. In the present case, the Commission considers the study provided by the German authorities to be sufficiently reliable. In any event, the other study, although not providing complete information, would lead to the same result.\n(100)\nOver the period 1994-98, the average annual utilisation capacity rate for the EU manufacturing industry as a whole amounts to 81,72 %.\n(101)\nTaking into account the above, the Commission concludes that the investment project will result in a capacity expansion in a sector where no overcapacity exists. However, following the Judgement of the General Court, when the Commission reaches the positive conclusion that there is no structural overcapacity, which is the case at present, the Commission has to analyse if the market is in decline or not.\n6.3.1.5. Data on apparent consumption\n(102)\nAccording to point 3.4 of the MSF 1998, the Commission should for the purpose of defining whether the relevant market is in decline, compare the evolution of apparent consumption of the product(s) in question (that is, production plus imports minus exports) with the growth rate of EEA manufacturing industry as a whole.\n(103)\nFollowing point 7.8 of the MSF 1998, the market for the product(s) in question will be deemed to be in decline if, over the last 5 years, the average annual growth rate of apparent consumption of the product(s) in question is significantly (more than 10 %) below the annual average of EEA manufacturing industry as a whole, unless there is a strong upward trend in the relative growth rate of demand for the product(s). An absolutely declining market is one in which the average annual growth rate of apparent consumption over the last 5 years is negative.\n(104)\nThe annual average growth rate of the whole EEA manufacturing industry for the years 1993-98 (23) is 5,78 %.\n(105)\nA study from an independent consultant (24) gives data on value of the apparent consumption of particle board in billion EUR shows the following results for the years 1993-98 (which are the 6 years on which data existed on the moment of the notification). This data can be presented as follows:\nBillion EUR\n1993\n1994\n1995\n1996\n1997\n1998\nGrowth/a\nParticle board\n4,61\n4,78\n5,91\n4,98\n5,71\n5,65\n4,15 %\n(106)\nThe Commission notes that the difference between 5,78 % and 4,15 % is more than 10 %. The outcome would be the same if data until 1999 (i.e. over the period 1994-99), as argued for by KronoGroup, would be taken into account.\n(107)\nIn its observations, Germany refers to point 7.8 of the MSF 1998 according to which the market is not considered to be in relative decline (despite the fact that its annual growth rate is below that of the EEA manufacturing industry as a whole) if there is a strong upward trend in the relative growth rate of demand for the product. Germany substantiates this by a study which shows that in the period 1973 to 2003 apparent consumption of particle board grew 36 % faster than value added in the manufacturing industry.\n(108)\nThe Commission considers that this argument is not sufficient to prove that there exists a strong upward trend in the relative growth rate of demand for particle board. This condition of the MSF 1998 aims at a situation where, although the average annual growth rate of the relevant market over the last 5 years is low, the latest couple of years show a clearly increasing growth trend which might continue in the years to come, i.e. in the short term, when the aided investment comes on stream. This would ensure that the distortive effects of the aid remain limited.\n(109)\nThe study, however, works with very long term data that do not allow predictions for the immediate future which is more relevant for the assessment of the investment\u2019s impact. Moreover, it presents data until 2003 that were not available at the time of the initial notification in 2000.\n(110)\nTherefore, the Commission considers that the market for particle board is in relative decline according to point 7.8 of the MSF 1998 and the competition factor \u2018T\u2019 for this product should be set at 0,75.\n(111)\nAs mentioned already above, the annual average growth rate of the whole EEA manufacturing industry for the years 1993-98 is 5,78 %.\n(112)\nThe notification by Germany contains a study from an independent consultant (25) which gives data on value of the apparent consumption in billion EUR in the EEA for the years 1993-98 for OSB and plywood in the end-use applications of packaging, hoarding, roofing, flooring and sheathing. These data are as follows:\n1993\n1994\n1995\n1996\n1997\n1998\nGrowth/a\nOSB\n0,05\n0,06\n0,08\n0,10\n0,13\n0,18\n31,321 %\nPlywood segments\n0,46\n0,55\n0,55\n0,48\n0,50\n0,49\n1,175 %\nOSB and plywood segments (26)\n0,51\n0,61\n0,63\n0,58\n0,63\n0,67\n5,765 %\n(113)\nThus for the relevant market consisting of OSB and segments of plywood in the end-use applications of packaging, hoarding, roofing, flooring and sheathing, the difference in growth between 5,78 % and 5,765 % is not more than 10 %. Consequently, according to point 7.8 of the MSF 1998, this relevant market is not in decline and a competition factor \u2018T\u2019 of 1 applies for the market to which OSB belongs.\n6.3.1.6. Market shares on relevant market\n(114)\nIn assessing the competition factor, the Commission has also, following point 3.6 of the MSF 1998, to check whether the market shares of the group to which Glunz and OSBD belong in the relevant market is at least 40 %, which would imply that the risk exists that the award of maximum levels of aid normally permitted in the region concerned may unduly distort competition.\n(115)\nThe German authorities submitted market share data at the level of the EEA (27) for the years 1999 (before the investment) and 2002 (after the investment) of the SONAE group, the parent company of TAFISA to which Glunz and OSBD belong. These data are as follows:\nProduct markets\n1999 (before investment)\n2002 (after investment)\nParticle boards\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\nOSB and plywood segments (28)\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n(116)\nThe provided data show that the market share of the SONAE group did not exceed 40 % in the relevant markets. Therefore, the established competition factors do not have to be reduced.\n6.3.2. CAPITAL/LABOUR FACTOR (I)\n(117)\nIt is recalled here that in its comments, KronoGroup considered that the jobs relocated following the closure of Glunz\u2019 particle board plant in Sassenburg should not be taken into account when determining the capital/labour factor and the regional impact factor (both of which build on the number of jobs created by the investment). According to KronoGroup, taking into account these jobs would be contrary to the alleged aim of the MSF 1998 to create jobs in the region concerned for those living in the region.\n(118)\nThe Commission considers that the notion of \u2018job creation\u2019 within the meaning of the MSF 1998 has to be interpreted in the context of the assisted region, as it is through the creation of jobs in this region that the project contributes to regional development. Therefore, it seems justified to accept that \u2018jobs created\u2019 means jobs that are new to the region concerned. Moreover, the creation of jobs in the assisted region, even if the posts are filled with employees commuting from a neighbouring area (which in the present case is a non-assisted region of the same Member State), undoubtedly benefits the region concerned through its spill-over effects and thus fulfils the main aim of regional aid.\n(119)\nTherefore, the Commission will take these jobs into account when determining the capital/labour factor and the regional impact factor applicable for the investment project.\n(120)\nThe MSF 1998 lays down a capital-labour factor which aims at adjusting the maximum aid intensity with a view to favour those projects which effectively and better contribute to the reduction of unemployment through the creation of a relatively more important number of new direct jobs.\n(121)\nThe different capital-labour factors are listed under point 3.10.2 of the MSF 1998. The total investment amounts to EUR 199 400 000 for the creation of 355 jobs. This corresponds to the ratio EUR 561 700/job. In such a case, the competition factor \u2018I\u2019 for the adjustment of the maximum aid intensity is to be set at 0,8.\n6.3.3. REGIONAL IMPACT FACTOR (M)\n(122)\nThe regional impact factor takes into account the beneficial effects of a new aided investment on the economy of the assisted region. The Commission considers that job creation can be used as an indicator of a project\u2019s contribution to the development of a region. A capital-intensive investment may create a significant number of indirect jobs in the assisted region concerned and any adjacent assisted region. Job creation in this context refers to jobs created directly by the project together with jobs created by first-tier suppliers and customers in response to the aided investment.\n(123)\nThe German authorities estimated at the time of the notification of 7 August 2000, the indirect jobs to be created as a result of the investment upon full completion of the centre for wood processing to be a total amount of 520 and broken down as follows according to the needs of each production:\nOSB production\nIndirect jobs\nOSB production\nContingencies\nParticle board production\nIndirect jobs\nParticle board production\nContingencies\nTotal\nForestry activities\n61\n11\n70\n12\n154\nWood transport to the plants\n42\n8\n77\n14\n141\nPaste transport to the plants\n5\n8\n13\nFuel transport to the plants\n2\n3\n5\nMelanin paper transport\n1\n1\nTransport from plants to customers\n50\n9\n76\n14\n149\nSupply of services (maintenance, repair of facilities)\n17\n3\n17\n3\n40\nCleaning services\n5\n5\n10\nHousing, consumer goods for staff\n2\n5\n7\nTotal\n184\n31\n262\n43\n520\n(124)\nThe calculation of the estimated job creation is based on the following calculation.\n(125)\nAccording to the German authorities, the most important source of indirect job creation (309) generated by both productions is the transport sector for supply of materials and for delivery of final products to customers.\n(126)\nAs far as the OSB-production is concerned, the forecasted manufacturing of approx. [\u2026] m3 OSB-products should result in sales of about [\u2026] m3. The production of one m3 final product will need about [\u2026] m3 wood resulting in approx. [\u2026] m3 wood/year. Estimates for paste and chemicals amount to [\u2026] tons and for fuel to [\u2026] tons/year.\n(127)\nRaw material for the OSB products is 100 % forest wood originating within a radius of approx. 100 km around the plant. The volume needed per day is estimated at [\u2026] m3 transported in trucks with a capacity of [\u2026] m3. On the basis of two trips per day and a capacity of [\u2026] m3, this will result in 39 trucks and 39 drivers, further 8 contingencies and 3 mechanics, and to a total of 50 indirect jobs. However, the Commission considers that contingencies do not comply with the definition of jobs set out in points 3.7 and 7.5 of the MSF 1998 (29). Therefore 42 indirect jobs can be accepted for the transport of materials to the plant.\n(128)\nThe forecasted sales of [\u2026] m3 would result, over 251 working days, in a volume of [\u2026] m3 OSB-products per day transported in trucks with a capacity of [\u2026] m3. 46 trips per day will need 46 drivers, further 9 contingencies and 4 mechanics and will result in a total of 59 new indirect jobs. Taking out the contingencies, the indirect job creation for the transport of final products to the customers is 50.\n(129)\nThe production capacity in the particle board plant is estimated per year at approx. [\u2026] m3 raw particle board and [\u2026] m3 coated board. The sales are forecasted to reach [\u2026] m3 for the first product and [\u2026] m3 for the latter. The difference between capacity and sales forecast results from the fact that a significant part of particle board will enter in the coating process. The total demand for wood is set at [\u2026] m3/year. Estimates for paste and chemicals amount to [\u2026] tons and for fuel to [\u2026] tons/year.\n(130)\nThe forest wood also originates from a periphery of approx. 100 km around the plant. The volume needed per day is estimated at [\u2026] m3 forest wood, further [\u2026] m3 packing wood and [\u2026] m3 wood shavings. The transport capacity is indicated at [\u2026] m3 forest wood or [\u2026] m3 packing wood respectively wood shavings. This, results in 72 daily trips conducted by 72 drivers and, together with 14 contingencies and 5 mechanics, would lead to 91 indirect jobs. Taking out the contingencies, the indirect job creation for the transport of material to the particle board plant is thus 77.\n(131)\nThe forecasted sales of [\u2026] m3 per year would result, over 251 working days, in a volume of [\u2026] particle board per day, which will be transported in trucks of a [\u2026] m3 capacity. The estimates of 71 drivers, 14 contingencies and 5 mechanics are reduced by 14 contingencies and the Commission accepts 76 indirect jobs created for the transport of the final product to the customers.\n(132)\nThe German authorities did not provide explanations with regard to the 19 indirect jobs created for the transport of paste, fuel and melamine paper for both plants. However, the Commission considers this figure as realistic.\n(133)\nIn total, the Commission considers that the indirect job creation in the transport sector can be set at 264.\n(134)\nThe forestry activities, providing the second important source of indirect job creation, are carried out on 251 days/year.\n(135)\nThe production of OSB requires a daily volume of [\u2026] m3 wood of which 95 % are produced mechanically and 5 % manually. The mechanical production of [\u2026] m3 involves 25 gangs comprising 2 machineries and 2 forestry workers, plus one supplementary job attached to six gangs, performing each [\u2026] m3/day. This results in 54 jobs. The manual production of [\u2026] m3 involves 13 forestry workers performing each [\u2026] m3/day. The German authorities estimate that in addition to the 67 indirectly created jobs, 13 jobs will be created for contingencies leading to a figure of 80 indirect jobs. However out of the 67 indirectly created jobs, only 61 are created in the assisted region and adjacent assisted regions and will therefore be taken into account.\n(136)\nThe production of particle board requires a daily volume of [\u2026] m3 wood of which 95 % are produced mechanically and 5 % manually. On the basis of the same calculations as carried out in the case of the pre-forestry activities for the OSB-production, the German authorities estimate the creation of indirect jobs at 41, including 5 jobs for contingencies. However out of the 41 indirectly created jobs, only 32 are created in the assisted region and adjacent assisted regions and will therefore be taken into account.\n(137)\nWith regard to the volume of [\u2026] m3/day of packing wood, the German authorities estimate at 36 the number of indirect jobs for collecting, transporting and sizing, further 7 jobs for contingencies and 7 jobs for the purchase of material, for logistic purposes, etc... Out of the 43 indirectly created jobs, only 38 are created in the assisted region and adjacent assisted regions.\n(138)\nIn total, the Commission considers that the indirect job creation in forestry activities can be set at 131.\n(139)\nThe German authorities did not provide explanations for the creation of 51 indirect jobs plus 6 contingencies in the service sector as well as for housing and consumer goods. The Commission, considering that some of these jobs should be shared by both plants, estimates that the figure of only 45 indirect jobs is realistic.\n(140)\nTaking into account the above, the total number of indirect jobs created in the assisted region and adjacent assisted regions amounts to 440. If the indirect safeguarded jobs were not included, the overall number of indirect jobs would be 407. The amount of 440 or even 407 compared to the total direct job creation of 355 would in any event lead to a ratio that is, in both cases, more than 100 % which leads to the regional impact factor \u2018M\u2019 of 1,5.\n6.3.4. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE AID INTENSITY FOR THE INVESTMENT PROJECT\n(141)\nThe maximum allowable aid intensity according to the formula R \u00d7 T \u00d7 I \u00d7 M (30) as mentioned under point 3.10 of the MSF 1998.\n(142)\nSince the competition factor \u2018T\u2019 is different for the two products concerned (i.e. 1 for OSB and 0,75 for particle board), it has to be established how to arrive at a single competition factor applicable for the whole project. The MSF 1998 does not provide guidance in this respect.\n(143)\nIn a similar case under the MSF 1998 which concerned two distinct products which were assigned different competition factors (C 15/06 Pilkington (31)), the Commission noted that since the project in question concerns a completely integrated production site, it would be artificial to weigh the two competition factors by the relative value of the investments concerning each of the two products. In that case, the Commission used therefore the proportion of the capacities created for the two products for the weighing.\n(144)\nThe present case, as explained in point 2.3 of this decision, concerns two combined plants (one for OSB and one for particle board production), linked to each other by a common technical infrastructure and a common administration. It is possible to identify the eligible costs associated with each of these plants. Therefore, in contrast to the Pilkington decision, it is also be possible to calculate to common competition factor with reference to the relative share of the two products in the eligible investment costs.\n(145)\nIn their comments on the opening decision, Germany proposed a third way of weighing the different competition factors related to the two products, namely on the basis of the contribution margin (32) (Deckungsbeitrag) of the two production lines. According to Germany, this would ensure that account is taken of the contribution of each of the products concerned to the operating income.\n(146)\nDepending on the approach followed, the combined competition factor for the investment project as a whole would be 0.86 (calculation based on relative capacities (33)), 0,85 (calculation based on relative investment costs (34)) or 0,92 (calculation based on the relative contribution margins (35)).\n(147)\nSince the other two assessment factors necessary to calculate the maximum allowable aid intensity for the project are 0,8 (capital/labour factor, \u2018I\u2019) and 1,5 (regional impact factor, \u2018M\u2019), the final maximum aid intensity according to the formula R \u00d7 T \u00d7 I \u00d7 M as mentioned under point 3.10 of the MSF 1998 would be respectively 36,12 %, 35,70 % and 38,64 %. In all cases the aid intensity of 35 % as notified by the German authorities complies with the MSF 1998.\n(148)\nTherefore, it is not necessary to decide which method to use for the calculation of the combined competition factor. In any event, the method proposed by Germany (which leads to the most favourable result) should be rejected on the grounds that it uses data from 2004, not available at the time of the notification.\n6.3.5. NO RECOVERY INJUNCTION\n(149)\nIt is recalled here that an aid amount of totally EUR [\u2026] was already paid out by the German authorities to the beneficiaries (out of the agreed total amount of EUR 69 797 988).\n(150)\nKronoGroup in its comments argued that the Commission should have ordered an injunction to provisionally recover the aid pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (recovery injunction for unlawful aid).\n(151)\nIn this respect it should be noted that such an injunction decision has never been taken. A recovery injunction is an unusual step which the Commission may adopt only in very specific conditions laid down in Article 11 of the Procedural Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. KronoGroup has not put forward convincing arguments showing that these conditions are fulfilled; in any event, the Commission takes the view that a recovery injunction would not have been appropriate in the present case.\nVII. CONCLUSION\n(152)\nThe Commission finds that Germany has unlawfully implemented the aid in question in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. However, the aid intensity of 35 %, employed by Germany, is compatible with the provisions of the MSF 1998,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid Germany has implemented for Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH, amounting to EUR 69 797 988, is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2011.", "references": ["64", "16", "45", "51", "78", "93", "77", "36", "82", "2", "29", "94", "33", "7", "3", "99", "63", "34", "56", "5", "52", "89", "60", "31", "9", "59", "43", "92", "57", "76", "No Label", "8", "15", "48", "88", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "48", "88", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 380/2011\nof 18 April 2011\nopening a tariff quota for certain quantities of industrial sugar for the 2011/2012 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 142, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure that the supply necessary for the production of the products referred to in Article 62(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 is available at a price that corresponds to the world price, it is in the interest of the Union to suspend the import duties on sugar intended for the production of those products for the 2011/2012 marketing year, for a quantity that would correspond to half of its industrial sugar needs.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2) provides for the administration of the tariff quotas for imports of sugar products under Article 142 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 with order number 09.4390 (industrial import sugar). However, in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 the quantities of those products for which import duties are to be suspended has to be determined by a separate legal act.\n(3)\nThe import quantities of industrial sugar for which no import duties should apply for the 2011/2012 marketing year, need to be set accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe import duties for industrial sugar falling within CN 1701 and with order number 09.4390 shall be suspended for a quantity of 400 000 tonnes from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2011.\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2011.", "references": ["68", "56", "86", "67", "44", "92", "11", "8", "30", "91", "58", "45", "42", "60", "65", "82", "81", "98", "94", "51", "9", "48", "26", "75", "89", "77", "63", "99", "83", "55", "No Label", "21", "22", "71", "73"], "gold": ["21", "22", "71", "73"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 April 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) and Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement\n(2012/251/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 114, 192(1) and 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex II and Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019), contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning technical regulations, standards, testing and certification, and environment.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (3) should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1336/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 in order to adapt it to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (4) should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(4)\nDirective 2008/112/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 amending Council Directives 76/768/EEC, 88/378/EEC, 1999/13/EC and Directives 2000/53/EC, 2002/96/EC and 2004/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council in order to adapt them to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (5) should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 453/2010 of 20 May 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (6) should be be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(6)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 440/2010 of 21 May 2010 on the fees payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (7) should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1272/2008 repeals Council Directive 67/548/EEC (8) and Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (9) with effect from 1 June 2015. Since those Directives have been incorporated into the EEA Agreement, that Agreement should be amended, with effect from 1 June 2015, to take account of their repeal.\n(8)\nAnnexes II and XX to the EEA Agreement should be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe position of the Union within the EEA Joint Committee should therefore be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendments to Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) and Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["42", "81", "51", "18", "21", "0", "45", "29", "37", "22", "27", "53", "82", "30", "39", "93", "28", "35", "12", "5", "47", "80", "31", "6", "36", "92", "43", "62", "7", "55", "No Label", "3", "9", "24", "25", "60", "76", "83"], "gold": ["3", "9", "24", "25", "60", "76", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1327/2011\nof 16 December 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2011 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 of 14 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the poultrymeat sector (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 533/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2011 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2012 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2012 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["19", "53", "29", "59", "9", "60", "93", "52", "95", "40", "83", "99", "2", "88", "11", "3", "8", "43", "98", "17", "81", "6", "97", "18", "73", "75", "34", "71", "72", "45", "No Label", "21", "22", "66", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 838/2011\nof 19 August 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of August 2011 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 August 2011 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 August 2011 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 0,490234 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 August 2011.", "references": ["15", "70", "39", "9", "24", "82", "7", "89", "30", "77", "67", "97", "73", "40", "37", "26", "18", "6", "29", "14", "60", "59", "50", "75", "5", "63", "42", "95", "48", "23", "No Label", "21", "22", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 410/2010\nof 11 May 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (\u0395\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf \u0395\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf \u03a3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf \u039a\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (Exeretiko partheno eleolado Selino Kritis) (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Greece\u2019s application to register the name \u2018\u0395\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf \u0395\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf \u03a3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf \u039a\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\u2019 (Exeretiko partheno eleolado Selino Kritis) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 May 2010.", "references": ["50", "79", "46", "84", "43", "73", "19", "81", "28", "90", "31", "5", "36", "39", "42", "78", "21", "86", "41", "44", "17", "74", "92", "66", "56", "48", "3", "49", "80", "38", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/67/EU\nof 1 July 2011\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include abamectin as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes abamectin.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, abamectin has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nThe Netherlands was designated as rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 19 June 2009 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 18 February 2011, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods and containing abamectin may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include abamectin in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at Union level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to human populations and to environmental compartments that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nIn the light of the risks identified for sediment when products are used with a certain application rate and emitted to a sewage treatment plant, it is appropriate to require that products are not authorised for such uses, unless data are submitted demonstrating that the product will meet the requirements of both Article 5 of and Annex VI to Directive 98/8/EC, if necessary by the application of appropriate risk mitigation measures.\n(8)\nIn the light of the findings of the assessment report, it is appropriate to require that risk mitigation measures are applied at product authorisation level. In particular, in the light of the possible risks for infants and children, appropriate risk mitigation measures should be taken to minimise the potential exposure of infants and children.\n(9)\nIt is important that the provisions of this Directive be applied simultaneously in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment of biocidal products on the market containing the active substance abamectin and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(11)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(12)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 June 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 July 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2011.", "references": ["46", "22", "9", "17", "81", "78", "24", "57", "33", "35", "21", "95", "37", "66", "42", "30", "69", "8", "79", "86", "1", "67", "90", "87", "74", "5", "91", "34", "83", "96", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "60", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "60", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 286/2011\nof 10 March 2011\namending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1), and in particular Article 53 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1272/2008 harmonises the provisions and criteria for the classification and labelling of substances, mixtures and certain specific articles within the European Union.\n(2)\nThat Regulation takes into account the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the GHS\u2019) of the United Nations (UN).\n(3)\nThe classification criteria and labelling rules of the GHS are periodically reviewed at UN level. The third revised edition of the GHS was adopted in December 2008 by the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and on the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (UNCETDG/GHS). It contains amendments concerning, inter alia, the provisions for the allocation of hazard statements and for the labelling of small packaging, new sub-categories for respiratory and skin sensitisation, the revision of the classification criteria for long-term hazards (chronic toxicity) to the aquatic environment and a new hazard class for substances and mixtures hazardous to the ozone layer. It is therefore necessary to adapt the technical provisions and criteria in the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 to the third revised edition of the GHS.\n(4)\nThe GHS allows authorities to adopt supplemental labelling provisions to protect individuals already sensitised to a specific chemical that may elicit a response at very low concentration. Requirements should be introduced to add the name of such chemical on the label even if present at very low concentration in a mixture.\n(5)\nThe terminology of different provisions in the Annexes and certain technical criteria should also be amended to facilitate implementation by operators and enforcement authorities, to improve consistency of the legal text and to enhance clarity.\n(6)\nTo ensure that suppliers of substances can adapt to the new classification, labelling and packaging provisions introduced by this Regulation, a transitional period should be foreseen and the application of this Regulation should be deferred. This should allow for the possibility to apply the provisions laid down in this Regulation on a voluntary basis before the transitional period is over.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established pursuant to Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1272/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 25(5) is deleted;\n(2)\nthe following new section (e) is inserted in Article 26(1):\n\u2018(e)\nif the hazard pictogram \u201cGHS02\u201d or \u201cGHS06\u201d applies, the use of the hazard pictogram \u201cGHS04\u201d shall be optional.\u2019;\n(3)\nAnnex I is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation;\n(4)\nAnnex II is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation;\n(5)\nAnnex III is amended in accordance with Annex III to this Regulation;\n(6)\nAnnex IV is amended in accordance with Annex IV to this Regulation;\n(7)\nAnnex V is amended in accordance with Annex V to this Regulation;\n(8)\nAnnex VI is amended in accordance with Annex VI to this Regulation;\n(9)\nAnnex VII is amended in accordance with Annex VII to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nTransitional provisions\n1. By way of derogation from the second paragraph of Article 3, substances and mixtures may, before 1 December 2012 and 1 June 2015 respectively, be classified, labelled and packaged in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 as amended by this Regulation.\n2. By way of derogation from the second paragraph of Article 3, substances classified, labelled and packaged in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and placed on the market before 1 December 2012, are not required to be relabelled and repackaged in accordance with this Regulation until 1 December 2014.\n3. By way of derogation from the second paragraph of Article 3, mixtures classified, labelled and packaged in accordance with Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) or Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and placed on the market before 1 June 2015, are not required to be relabelled and repackaged in accordance with this Regulation until 1 June 2017.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply in respect of substances from 1 December 2012 and in respect of mixtures from 1 June 2015.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 March 2011.", "references": ["46", "24", "43", "93", "47", "19", "30", "82", "98", "80", "96", "59", "70", "95", "44", "90", "29", "52", "74", "27", "16", "53", "50", "86", "63", "69", "51", "49", "0", "55", "No Label", "25", "39", "60", "76", "77"], "gold": ["25", "39", "60", "76", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 985/2010\nof 3 November 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Bruna b\u00f6nor fr\u00e5n \u00d6land (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Sweden\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Bruna b\u00f6nor fr\u00e5n \u00d6land\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2010.", "references": ["46", "0", "22", "11", "39", "4", "82", "20", "87", "81", "83", "44", "47", "8", "84", "58", "53", "49", "70", "18", "37", "9", "14", "63", "80", "5", "73", "50", "74", "19", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 304/2012\nof 4 April 2012\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for import licences lodged from 23 to 30 March 2012 under subquota I in the context of the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 for common wheat of a quality other than high quality\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 (3) opens an overall annual import tariff quota of 3 112 030 tonnes of common wheat of a quality other than high quality. That quota is divided into four subquotas.\n(2)\nArticle 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 sets subquota I (order number 09.4123) at 572 000 tonnes for the period 1 January to 31 December 2012.\n(3)\nThe notification made in accordance with Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 shows that the applications lodged from 23 March 2012 at 13.00 to 30 March 2012 at 13.00 (Brussels time) in accordance with Article 4(1), subparagraph 2, of that Regulation exceed the quantities available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined and the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities applied for should be fixed.\n(4)\nNo further import licences should be issued under subquota I as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 for the current quota period.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Each import licence application under subquota I referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 and lodged from 23 March 2012 at 13.00 to 30 March 2012 at 13.00 (Brussels time) shall give rise to the issue of a licence for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 16,678529 %.\n2. The issue of licences for the quantities applied for from 30 March 2012 at 13.00 (Brussels time) falling within subquota I as referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 is hereby suspended for the current quota period.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 April 2012.", "references": ["15", "88", "91", "56", "77", "79", "39", "66", "18", "81", "0", "46", "96", "27", "57", "3", "23", "67", "69", "38", "85", "59", "65", "28", "24", "1", "25", "4", "52", "16", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 February 2012\nlaying down rules concerning guidance on the collection of data and on the drawing up of BAT reference documents and on their quality assurance referred to in Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions\n(notified under document C(2012) 613)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/119/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 13(1) of Directive 2010/75/EU requires the Commission to organise an exchange of information on industrial emissions between it, Member States, the industries concerned and non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection in order to facilitate the drawing up of best available techniques (BAT) reference documents as defined in Article 3(11) of that Directive.\n(2)\nBy virtue of Article 13(2) of Directive 2010/75/EU, the exchange of information is to address, amongst others, the environmental performance of installations and techniques, the associated monitoring and the best available techniques and the emerging techniques.\n(3)\nCommission Decision of 16 May 2011 establishing a forum for the exchange of information pursuant to Article 13 of the Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (2) established a forum composed of representatives of Member States, the industries concerned and non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 13(3) of Directive 2010/75/EU, on 13 September 2011 the Commission obtained the opinion (3) of that forum on the guidance on the collection of data and on the drawing up of BAT reference documents and on their quality assurance including the suitability of their content and format, and made this opinion publicly available.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 75(1) of Directive 2010/75/EU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe guidance on the collection of data and on the drawing up of BAT reference documents and on their quality assurance including the suitability of their content and format as referred to in points (c) and (d) of Article 13(3) of Directive 2010/75/EU is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["24", "99", "73", "72", "83", "36", "9", "55", "82", "70", "10", "61", "94", "91", "89", "93", "6", "29", "62", "14", "25", "63", "46", "98", "20", "21", "23", "90", "16", "84", "No Label", "19", "41", "42", "58", "60", "75", "76"], "gold": ["19", "41", "42", "58", "60", "75", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 713/2010\nof 9 August 2010\namending for the 133rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Articles 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 27 and 29 July 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove five persons and eight entities from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 August 2010.", "references": ["77", "45", "81", "71", "42", "21", "84", "68", "64", "98", "25", "52", "15", "51", "13", "74", "66", "97", "8", "6", "54", "67", "17", "27", "69", "28", "10", "30", "24", "49", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 443/2010\nof 21 May 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Piave (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Piave\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2010.", "references": ["15", "89", "74", "95", "82", "49", "13", "66", "28", "56", "3", "42", "90", "57", "59", "54", "12", "29", "0", "84", "50", "69", "17", "80", "18", "93", "52", "68", "98", "75", "No Label", "23", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 326/2011\nof 4 April 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 319/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 April 2011.", "references": ["76", "89", "69", "95", "43", "79", "18", "38", "51", "8", "45", "49", "93", "80", "61", "24", "0", "36", "68", "66", "92", "65", "15", "62", "13", "42", "29", "47", "77", "67", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 March 2012\nproviding for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 with respect to the effective implementation of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in Bolivia\n(2012/161/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences from 1 January 2009 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007 (1), and in particular Article 17(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Generalised Preferences Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 June 2011, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia (hereinafter Bolivia) deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations an instrument of denunciation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The denunciation took effect for Bolivia on 1 January 2012.\n(2)\nBolivia has subsequently deposited an instrument to re-accede the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs with a reservation on the traditional use of coca leaves (in particular chewing and medicinal uses). This request for re-accession is currently under assessment by the State Parties.\n(3)\nArticle 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 provides for the temporary withdrawal of the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance referred to in Section 2 of Chapter II of that Regulation, in particular if the national legislation no longer incorporates those conventions referred to in Annex III which have been ratified in fulfilment of the requirements of Article 8(1) and (2) or if that legislation is not effectively implemented. This arrangement was granted to Bolivia by Commission Decision 2008/938/EC (2).\n(4)\nThe UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is listed in Annex III, Part B, point 24, to Regulation (EC) No 732/2008.\n(5)\nArticle 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 provides that where the Commission receives information that may justify temporary withdrawal and where it considers that there are sufficient grounds for an investigation it shall inform the Generalised Preferences Committee and request consultations. Pursuant to Article 17(2), following consultations the Commission may decide to initiate an investigation\n(6)\nIt is necessary to analyse the effects of the denunciation of that Convention to determine whether they justify a temporary withdrawal of the special incentive arrangement. Therefore, there are sufficient grounds for an investigation.\n(7)\nConsultations with the Generalised Preferences Committee were held on 27 February 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Commission shall initiate an investigation in order to establish whether the denunciation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs justifies a temporary withdrawal of the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance for products originating in Bolivia.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 March 2012.", "references": ["27", "44", "56", "78", "50", "63", "1", "60", "26", "47", "64", "88", "79", "30", "13", "55", "73", "12", "82", "96", "94", "85", "45", "4", "70", "68", "53", "10", "90", "9", "No Label", "3", "21", "23", "38", "93"], "gold": ["3", "21", "23", "38", "93"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 21 March 2011\non the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of an Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on supplementary rules in relation to the External Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 2013\n(2011/305/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(d) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 11 of Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing the External Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme \u2018Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows\u2019 (1) the third countries associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis shall participate in the Fund in accordance with its provisions and arrangements should be concluded to specify supplementary rules necessary for such participation, including provisions ensuring the protection of the Community\u2019s financial interests and the power of audit of the Court of Auditors.\n(2)\nFollowing the authorisation given to the Commission on 20 December 2007, negotiations with the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein were concluded on 30 June 2009.\n(3)\nAccording to Council Decision 2010/374/EC of 30 November 2009 (2), and pending its conclusion at a later date, the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on supplementary rules in relation to the External Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was signed on 19 March 2010 on behalf of the Union, and applied on a provisional basis.\n(4)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, a Joint Declaration by the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on supplementary rules in relation to the External Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 has been agreed by all Parties at the time of the signature, and attached to the Agreement, stating that the European Union has replaced and suceeded the European Community.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it, or subject to its application. Given that this Decision builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of 6 months after the Council has decided on this Decision whether it will implement it in its national law.\n(6)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (3). The United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(7)\nThis 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 of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (4). Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(8)\nThe Agreement should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on supplementary rules in relation to the External Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) (5) and the Declarations thereto are hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit on behalf of the Union the instrument of approval provided for in Article 13(2) of the Agreement in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["69", "72", "57", "67", "82", "97", "87", "83", "53", "36", "88", "42", "14", "73", "24", "51", "47", "85", "91", "86", "78", "70", "37", "30", "5", "15", "21", "41", "77", "28", "No Label", "1", "3", "10", "13", "96"], "gold": ["1", "3", "10", "13", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 July 2010\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program\n(2010/412/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 87(2)(a) and 88(2), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy decision of 11 May 2010, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations on behalf of the European Union between the Union and the United States to make available to the United States Treasury Department financial messaging data to prevent and combat terrorism and terrorism financing.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2010/411/EU of 28 June 2010 (1) the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (the Agreement) was signed on 28 June 2010, subject to its conclusion at a later date.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be concluded.\n(4)\nThe Agreement respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably the right to private and family life, recognised in Article 7 of the Charter, the right to the protection of personal data, recognised in Article 8 of the Charter and the right to effective remedy and fair trial recognised in Article 47 of the Charter. The Agreement should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (the Agreement) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (2).\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Commission is invited to submit to the European Parliament and the Council, no later than one year from the date of entry into force of the Agreement, a legal and technical framework for the extraction of data on EU territory.\nWithin three years from the date of entry into force of the Agreement, the Commission is invited to present a report of progress on the development of the equivalent EU system with regard to Article 11 of the Agreement.\nIf, five years after the date of entry into force of the Agreement, the equivalent EU system has not been set up, the Union shall consider whether to renew the Agreement in accordance with Article 21(2) thereof.\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to the exchange of the instruments of approval provided for in Article 23 of the Agreement, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2010.", "references": ["82", "36", "68", "88", "72", "73", "57", "75", "79", "58", "86", "55", "81", "14", "5", "27", "20", "11", "83", "89", "74", "10", "4", "17", "54", "60", "21", "90", "29", "56", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "31", "40", "42", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "31", "40", "42", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 697/2012\nof 25 July 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2012.", "references": ["12", "39", "55", "8", "33", "78", "19", "53", "83", "56", "62", "43", "26", "5", "69", "14", "6", "32", "74", "35", "73", "80", "90", "52", "57", "44", "75", "2", "10", "47", "No Label", "21", "86"], "gold": ["21", "86"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1237/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 as regards the prohibition of highgrading and restrictions on fishing for flounder and turbot in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 (3) lays down specific technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, and in particular restrictions on fishing as regards certain species, mesh sizes and areas.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1226/2009 of 20 November 2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2010 (4) provides for the prohibition of highgrading and for restrictions on fishing for flounder and turbot.\n(3)\nThis prohibition and these restrictions are technical measures of a permanent nature which should no longer be included in the regulatory framework establishing annual fishing opportunities. From January 2011, they should therefore be incorporated into Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005.\n(4)\nThe term \u2018Community\u2019 used in the enacting terms of Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 should be changed following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 2187/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure the continuous application of the measures provided for in this Regulation, it should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 2187/2005 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nthe following article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 15a\nProhibition of highgrading\nAny species which is subject to a quota and which is caught during fishing operations shall be brought aboard the vessel and subsequently landed unless this would be contrary to obligations laid down in Union fisheries regulations establishing technical, control and conservation measures in particular in this Regulation, in Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 or in Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (5).\n2.\nthe following article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 18a\nRestrictions on fishing for flounder and turbot\n1. The retention on board of the following species of fish shall be prohibited where they are caught within the geographical areas and during the periods mentioned below:\nSpecies\nGeographical area\nPeriod\nFlounder (Platichthys flesus)\nSubdivisions 26, 27, 28 and 29 south of 59\u00b0 30\u2032 N\n15 February to 15 May\nSubdivision 32\n15 February to 31 May\nTurbot (Psetta maxima)\nSubdivisions 25, 26 and 28 south of 56\u00b0 50\u2032 N\n1 June to 31 July\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, when fishing with trawls, Danish seines or similar gears with a mesh size equal to or greater than 105 mm or with gillnets, entangling nets or trammel nets with a mesh size equal to or greater than 100 mm, by-catches of flounder and turbot may be retained on board and landed within a limit of 10 % by live weight of the total catch retained on board and landed during the periods of prohibition referred to in paragraph 1.\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 26(1) and (2), the noun \u2018Community\u2019, or the corresponding adjective, is replaced by the noun \u2018Union\u2019, or the corresponding adjective, and any grammatical adjustments needed as a consequence of this replacement shall be made.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["9", "6", "25", "11", "55", "64", "58", "3", "16", "38", "39", "8", "7", "34", "13", "17", "96", "44", "15", "92", "65", "56", "69", "70", "98", "22", "37", "84", "53", "80", "No Label", "59", "67", "76"], "gold": ["59", "67", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 345/2010\nof 22 April 2010\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural market and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(s) and listed in Part XIX of Annex 1 to of that Regulation and prices within the Community may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed Part V of the Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 of 30 June 2005 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with paragraph 2(b) of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture concluded under the Uruguay Round lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 and in Article 1(1)(s) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 April 2010.", "references": ["49", "59", "65", "84", "3", "99", "98", "91", "42", "57", "47", "51", "55", "77", "56", "5", "16", "11", "46", "70", "22", "0", "94", "15", "53", "48", "32", "39", "52", "41", "No Label", "20", "69", "72"], "gold": ["20", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1025/2011\nof 14 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2011.", "references": ["59", "30", "95", "74", "73", "0", "29", "9", "28", "98", "97", "72", "36", "47", "87", "17", "90", "89", "23", "53", "21", "65", "7", "56", "60", "93", "45", "52", "85", "70", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 678/2011\nof 14 July 2011\nreplacing Annex II and amending Annexes IV, IX and XI to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (1), and in particular Article 39(2) and (3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2007/46/EC establishes a harmonised framework containing the administrative provisions and general technical requirements for all new vehicles, systems, components and separate technical units. In particular it includes the specific definitions concerning vehicles that are necessary for the proper functioning of the European type-approval system.\n(2)\nOne of the objectives of Directive 2007/46/EC is to extend the European vehicle type-approval system to all vehicle categories. Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC that includes the necessary specific definitions has to be redesigned in order to take technical progress into account. It is therefore necessary to amend existing definitions or to establish new definitions.\n(3)\nExperience shows that the current criteria for determining whether a new model of vehicle is to be considered a new type are too vague. This lack of certainty can delay the implementation of new requirements laid down in EU legislation regarding new vehicle types. Moreover, experience shows that it is possible to circumvent the EU small series legislation by dividing a vehicle type into several sub-types under different type-approvals. Consequently, the number of new vehicles that may be put into service in the European Union under the small series regime can exceed what is permissible. It is therefore important to specify which vehicle technical features are to be used as criteria in determining what constitutes a new type.\n(4)\nIn accordance with the principles enshrined in the communications from the Commission entitled Action plan \u2018Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment\u2019 (2) and Action programme for \u2018Reducing administrative burdens in the European Union\u2019 (3), it is appropriate to reconsider the criteria to be used for the definition of the variants and versions within a vehicle type with a view to reducing the administrative burden placed on vehicle manufacturers. This would result, moreover, in making the type-approval process more transparent for the competent authorities of the Member States.\n(5)\nGiven the trends for globalisation on the automotive sector, the work of the World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations - \u2018the Working Party 29 (WP.29)\u2019 - is increasingly significant. As it is essential in order to meet the recommendations of the CARS 21 High Level Group to incorporate Regulations of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UNECE) into EU law or even to replace EU Directives or Regulations by UNECE Regulations as well as to incorporate global technical Regulations into EU law, the consistency of the legislation of the European Union with the UNECE Regulations should be ensured.\n(6)\nGiven the harmonisation work in progress in the World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations, it is essential to take account of the most recent developments laid down in Resolution R.E. 3 on Classification and definition of power-driven vehicles and trailers in the framework of the Agreement of the UNECE concerning the adoption of uniform prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted to and/or used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions (Revised 1958 Agreement) as well as the Special Resolution S.R. 1 concerning the common definitions of vehicle categories, masses and dimensions in the framework of the UNECE 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 (\u2018Parallel or 1998 Agreement\u2019). Only the inclusion of those developments in the Framework Directive can ensure the proper functioning of the European type-approval system. It is therefore necessary to introduce new criteria for determining whether a vehicle type should be categorised in an \u2018M\u2019 category or an \u2018N\u2019 category.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance for new passenger cars as part of the Community\u2019s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (4), Member States are required to keep a register containing data relating to inter alia the type, variant and version of each particular vehicle with regard to its specific emissions of CO2 for each new vehicles registered in its territory. It is essential to specify the criteria in accordance with which a light-duty vehicle has to be type-approved as M1 or as N1 vehicle. These criteria should be objective and constitute guidance for vehicle manufacturers as well as for type-approval and registration authorities. In accordance with Article 13 (4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, the presence of innovative technologies fostering further CO2 emission reduction must be identified. This should be achieved by means of a \u2018code\u2019 assigned to the vehicle by the manufacturer so that each type/variant/version corresponds to a unique set of innovative technologies. Identification of those innovative technologies should thus be possible from the definition of the type-variant-version. It is therefore appropriate to add the corresponding entry into Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC.\n(8)\nAs the type of bodywork has to be specified in the certificate of conformity, which is intended to facilitate the registration of new vehicles in the Member States, the use of harmonised codes for each kind of bodywork should constitute a simplification in the registration process. A list of appropriate codes should be assigned to the kinds of bodywork in order to allow the data processing to be automated.\n(9)\nAs trailers designed especially for abnormal load transport cannot meet all the provisions of the regulatory acts listed in Annex IV to Directive 2007/46/EC that are required to be complied with for the purpose of European type-approval, it is appropriate to include those trailers in the category of special purposes vehicles given their technical features. For the purposes of type-approval a simplified set of rules should be laid down in order to make their type-approval at European level possible. Consequently it is necessary to add a new Appendix to Annex XI to Directive 2007/46/EC.\n(10)\nNew technical developments are currently in progress in order to cope with the demand for new solutions in the transport of goods. It is therefore necessary to include new definitions in the framework legislation in order to permit subsequently appropriate technical rules to be laid down in the relevant regulatory acts listed in Annex IV or XI to Directive 2007/46/EC. It is important to make clear that no EC type-approval should be granted for such vehicles until the type-approval legislation is amended for such purposes.\n(11)\nAn error occurred in the adoption of Commission Directive 2010/19/EU of 9 March 2010 amending, for the purposes of adaptation to technical progress in the field of spray-suppression systems of certain categories of motor vehicles and their trailers, Council Directive 91/226/EEC, and Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) in so far as Annexes IV and XI to Directive 2007/46/EC were also amended by that Directive. Those annexes had previously been replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1060/2008 of 7 October 2008 replacing Annexes I, III, IV, VI, VII, XI, and XV to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (6). In the interest of legal certainty, any partial amendment to those annexes should henceforth only be introduced by a Regulation. As the corresponding Article 2 of Directive 2010/19/EU has been deleted by Commission Decision 2011/415/EU of 14 July 2011 correcting Directive 2010/19/EU amending, for the purposes of adaptation to technical progress in the field of spray-suppression systems of certain categories of motor vehicles and their trailers, Council Directive 91/226/EEC, and Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the amendment of the annexes to Directive 2007/46/EC (7) in order to remedy that error, it is appropriate to effectuate the amendments previously contained in that Article by way of this Regulation.\n(12)\nIt is appropriate with a view to ensuring the proper operation of the type-approval system to update the annexes to Directive 2007/46/EC in order to adapt them to the development of scientific and technical knowledge.\n(13)\nIt is also appropriate to update the annexes to Directive 2007/46/EC in order to lay down technical requirements for special purpose vehicles to be type-approved.\n(14)\nSince the provisions of those annexes are sufficiently detailed and need no further transposition measures by Member States, it is therefore appropriate to replace Annex II and amend Annexes IV, IX and XI by means of a Regulation in accordance with Article 39 (8) of Directive 2007/46/EC.\n(15)\nAnnex II should be replaced and Annexes IV, IX and XI should be amended accordingly.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2007/46/EC shall be amended as follows:\n(1)\nAnnex II is replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this Regulation;\n(2)\nAnnex IV is amended as set out in Annex II to this Regulation;\n(3)\nAnnex IX is amended as set out in Annex III to this Regulation;\n(4)\nAnnex XI is amended as set out in Annex IV to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall not invalidate any vehicle type-approval granted before 29 October 2012 nor prevent extension of such approvals.\nArticle 3\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply to new vehicle types for which approval will be granted on and after 29 October 2012.\nHowever, the requirements set out in Annex II and in points 1 and 2 of Annex IV shall apply from 9 April 2011.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1 second subparagraph manufacturers may as from 4 August 2011 apply any provision of this Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 July 2011.", "references": ["25", "63", "35", "87", "32", "83", "9", "89", "30", "33", "3", "41", "75", "48", "31", "62", "36", "18", "79", "81", "28", "66", "98", "61", "44", "34", "19", "85", "1", "96", "No Label", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 432/2012\nof 16 May 2012\nestablishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children\u2019s development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, health claims made on foods are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nArticle 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 provides that Member States shall submit national lists of health claims made on foods, as referred to in Article 13(1) of that Regulation to the Commission, by 31 January 2008 at the latest. The national lists of claims must be accompanied by the conditions applying to them and by references to the relevant scientific justification.\n(3)\nArticle 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 provides that, after consulting the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Authority\u2019), the Commission shall adopt a list of permitted health claims made on foods, as referred to in Article 13(1) of that Regulation, and all necessary conditions for the use of those claims by 31 January 2010 at the latest.\n(4)\nOn 31 January 2008 the Commission received lists with more than 44 000 health claims from the Member States. An examination of the national lists showed that due to many duplications and following discussions with Member States, it was necessary to compile the national lists into a consolidated list of the claims for which the Authority should give scientific advice, hereinafter referred to as the \u2018consolidated list\u2019 (2).\n(5)\nOn 24 July 2008, the Commission formally transmitted to the Authority the request for a scientific opinion pursuant to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, together with terms of reference and a first part of the consolidated list. Subsequent parts of the consolidated list were transmitted in November and December 2008. The consolidated list was finalised by the Commission by an addendum, which was forwarded to the Authority on 12 March 2010. Some claims in the consolidated list were subsequently withdrawn by Member States before their evaluation by the Authority. The scientific evaluation by the Authority concluded in the publication of its opinions between October 2009 and July 2011 (3).\n(6)\nIn its evaluation the Authority found that some submissions covered different claimed effects or brought together the same claimed effect. Therefore, a health claim considered in this Regulation may represent one or more of the entries on the consolidated list.\n(7)\nFor a number of health claims the Authority concluded that, on the basis of the data submitted, a cause and effect relationship has been established between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and the claimed effect. Health claims corresponding to those conclusions and complying with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 should be authorised under Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(8)\nArticle 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 provides that permitted health claims must be accompanied with all necessary conditions (including restrictions) for their use. Accordingly, the list of permitted claims should include the wording of the claims and specific conditions of use of the claims, and where applicable, conditions or restrictions of use and/or an additional statement or warning, in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and in line with the opinions of the Authority.\n(9)\nOne of the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 is to ensure that health claims are truthful, clear, reliable and useful to the consumer. In that respect, the wording and presentation of such claims have to be taken into account. Where the wording of claims has the same meaning for consumers as that of a permitted health claim, because it demonstrates the same relationship that exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health, the claims should be subject to the same conditions of use indicated for the permitted health claims.\n(10)\nThe Commission has identified a number of claims submitted for evaluation, referring to effects of plant or herbal substances, commonly known as \u2018botanical\u2019 substances, for which the Authority has yet to complete a scientific evaluation. In addition, there are a number of health claims for which either a further evaluation is required before the Commission is able to consider their inclusion or otherwise in the list of permitted claims, or which have been evaluated, but due to other legitimate factors consideration cannot be completed by the Commission at this time.\n(11)\nClaims whose evaluation by the Authority or whose consideration by the Commission has not yet been completed will be published on the website of the Commission (4) and may continue to be used pursuant to Article 28(5) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\n(12)\nPursuant to Articles 6(1) and 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims need to be based on generally accepted scientific evidence. Accordingly, health claims that did not receive a favourable assessment on their scientific substantiation by the Authority, as it was not concluded that a cause and effect relationship had been established between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and the claimed effect, should not be authorised. Authorisation may also legitimately be withheld if health claims do not comply with other general and specific requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, even in the case of a favourable scientific assessment by the Authority. Health claims inconsistent with generally accepted nutrition and health principles should not be made. The Authority concluded that for one claim (5) on the effect of fats on the normal absorption of fat soluble vitamins and another claim (6) on the effect of sodium on the maintenance of normal muscle function a cause and effect relationship has been established. However, the use of these health claims would convey a conflicting and confusing message to consumers, because it would encourage consumption of those nutrients for which, on the basis of generally accepted scientific advice, European, national and international authorities inform the consumer that their intake should be reduced. Therefore, these two claims do not comply with point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 which foresees that the use of claims shall not be ambiguous or misleading. Furthermore, even if the health claims concerned were to be authorised only under specific conditions of use and/or accompanied by additional statements or warnings, it would not be sufficient to alleviate the confusion of the consumer, and consequently the claims should not be authorised.\n(13)\nThis Regulation should apply six months after the date of its entry into force to enable food business operators to adapt to its requirements, including the prohibition according to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of those health claims whose evaluation by the Authority and whose consideration by the Commission has been completed.\n(14)\nArticle 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 provides for the Commission to establish and maintain a Union Register of nutrition and health claims made on foods, hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Register\u2019. The Register will contain all the authorised claims and, inter alia, the conditions of use applying to them. The Register will also contain a list of rejected health claims and the reasons for their rejection.\n(15)\nHealth claims that have been withdrawn by the Member States will not be included in the list of rejected claims in the Union Register. The Register will be updated periodically and, as the case may be, following progress on health claims for which the evaluation by the Authority and/or consideration by the Commission has not yet been completed.\n(16)\nComments and positions from the members of the public and interested stakeholders, received by the Commission have been adequately considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(17)\nThe addition of substances to or the use of substances in foodstuffs is governed by specific Union and national legislation, as is the classification of products as foodstuffs or medicinal products. Any decision on a health claim in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 such as inclusion in the list of permitted claims referred to in Article 13(3) thereof does not constitute an authorisation to the marketing of the substance on which the claim is made, a decision on whether the substance can be used in foodstuffs, or a classification of a certain product as a foodstuff.\n(18)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPermitted health claims\n1. The list of health claims which may be made on foods, as referred to in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, is set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. Health claims referred to in paragraph 1 may be made on foods in compliance with the conditions set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 14 December 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2012.", "references": ["67", "14", "18", "56", "93", "65", "69", "50", "86", "21", "27", "81", "16", "20", "48", "29", "82", "68", "75", "96", "91", "30", "33", "55", "1", "22", "60", "12", "3", "15", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 25 January 2012\nauthorising the Kingdom of Denmark to conclude agreements with Greenland and the Faroe Islands for transfers of funds between Denmark and each of these territories to be treated as transfers of funds within Denmark, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2012) 141)\n(Only the Danish text is authentic)\n(2012/43/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 on information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds (1), and in particular Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the application from the Kingdom of Denmark,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nLaunched in December 2006, Denmark in April 2011 completed its application for derogation under Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 for the transfers of funds between Denmark and Greenland and between Denmark and the Faroe Islands.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006, transfers of funds between Denmark and Greenland and between Denmark and the Faroe Islands have been provisionally treated as transfers of funds within Denmark since December 2006.\n(3)\nMember States were informed on 27 April 2011 that the Commission considered that it had received the information necessary for appraising the requests made by Denmark.\n(4)\nNeither Greenland nor the Faroe Islands form part of the territory of the European Union as determined in accordance with Article 52 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 355 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) but form part of the currency area of Denmark. Greenland and the Faroe Islands therefore comply with the criterion set out in Article 17(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006.\n(5)\nPayment services providers in Greenland and the Faroe Islands participate directly in payment and settlement systems in Denmark, namely either Kronos or Sumclearing. They therefore comply with the criterion set out in Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006.\n(6)\nBoth Greenland and the Faroe Islands have incorporated in their legal orders provisions corresponding to those of Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006, in particular, for Greenland through Act No 399 of 21 April 2010 on the information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds and Act No 6 of 19 May 2010 on the information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds, and for the Faroe Islands through Act No 467 of 17 June 2008 on the information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds, with amendments in Act No 579 of 1 June 2010.\n(7)\nGreenland and the Faroe Islands have issued legislation which contributes to the building of a sound anti-money laundering regime. In Greenland, this legislation consists particularly of the Royal Decree No 1034 of 30 August 2010 on Measures to Prevent Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism and the Act No 5 of 19 May 2010 on Measures to Prevent Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism. In the Faroe Islands, the anti-money laundering legislation comprises particularly the Royal Decree No 79 of 29 January 2010 on Measures to Prevent Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism and the Act on Measures to Prevent Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism, Act No 56 of 9 June 2008 with amendments of 26 May 2010.\n(8)\nGreenland and the Faroe Islands have in place appropriate legislation to impose financial penalties vis-\u00e0-vis entities or persons listed by the United Nations or the European Union.\n(9)\nTherefore, both Greenland and the Faroe Islands have adopted the same rules as those established under Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 and require their respective payment services providers to apply them, thus fulfilling the criterion set out in Article 17(1)(c) of that Regulation.\n(10)\nIt is therefore appropriate to grant to Denmark the requested derogation.\n(11)\nThe agreements to be concluded between Denmark and Greenland should make provision to ensure compliance with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (2) and in particular Articles 25 and 26.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Kingdom of Denmark shall be authorised to conclude agreements with Greenland and the Faroe Islands, to the effect that the transfers of funds between Denmark and Greenland and between Denmark and the Faroe Islands are treated as transfers of funds within Denmark for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.\nDone at Brussels, 25 January 2012.", "references": ["72", "38", "18", "84", "22", "5", "43", "90", "23", "29", "16", "79", "55", "86", "74", "66", "32", "82", "26", "68", "20", "51", "42", "37", "17", "65", "70", "39", "15", "54", "No Label", "8", "27", "28", "30", "91", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "27", "28", "30", "91", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1106/2011\nof 20 October 2011\namending Regulations (EU) No 57/2011 and (EC) No 754/2009 as regards the protection of the species \u2018porbeagle\u2019, certain TACs and certain fishing effort limits set for Germany and Ireland\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 (1) fixes for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters.\n(2)\nAn inconsistency between the wording of Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 and the wording of the entry in Annex IA thereto concerning the Norway pout should be corrected.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 57/2011 prohibits fishing for porbeagle in international waters, with a prompt release obligation for accidental catches. Annex IA to that Regulation fixes the total allowable catches for porbeagle at 0 tonnes in certain ICES zones, with no provision regarding accidental catches. As a consequence in some areas within EU waters catches of porbeagle are unrestricted, whereas in others (the Atlantic ocean) some zones (ICES zones) are managed by total allowable catch (TAC) and some others are not (CECAF zones). Given the status of this species and the discussions underway regarding the possibility of its listing under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES convention )(Appendix III), it is appropriate to provide for enhanced protection for porbeagle in all areas and to cover both EU vessels and third-country vessels fishing in EU waters.\n(4)\nThe scientific assessment of cod in the Celtic Sea has improved, and has confirmed that the advice on which the current TAC is based underestimated the strong year class of 2009 and thus the dynamic increase in biomass for this stock. Further to the new selectivity measures planned by the North Western Regional Advisory Council (NWWRAC), which would reduce the risk of haddock and whiting discards in this cod fishery, it is appropriate to adapt the TAC for cod in the Celtic Sea to the new scientific advice for the remainder of 2011.\n(5)\nOn 29 July 2011, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) communicated to all contracting parties the adoption of a revision of the 2011 NAFO TAC for redfish in Subarea 2, Division 1F and 3K, with immediate effect. The Commission, on 1 August 2011, submitted the same information to all Member States with an interest in this fishery. The revision should be implemented in the law of the Union and apply to EU vessels from 2 August 2011.\n(6)\nWithin the context of establishing fishing opportunities and in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks (2), the Council may, acting on a Commission proposal and on the basis of the information provided by Member States and the advice of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), exclude certain groups of vessels from the application of the fishing effort regime provided that appropriate data is available on the cod catches and discards of the vessels concerned, that the percentage of cod catches does not exceed 1,5 % of the total catches of the group of vessels and that the inclusion of the group in the effort regime would constitute an administrative burden disproportionate to its overall impact on cod stocks.\n(7)\nBased on Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008, Regulation (EC) No 754/2009 (3) excluded certain groups of vessels from the fishing effort regime laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008.\n(8)\nIreland provided information on cod catches by a group of vessels operating in the west of Scotland using bottom trawls of mesh size equal to or larger than 120 mm with square mesh panels in the area stated in point 6.1 of Annex III to Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 of 16 January 2009 fixing for 2009 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (4), and using 100 mm mesh size elsewhere in the west of Scotland. On the basis of that information, as assessed by the STECF, it can be established that cod catches, including discards, by that group of vessels do not exceed 1,5 % of their total catches. Moreover, the control and monitoring measures in place ensure the monitoring and control of the fishing activities of that group of vessels. Finally, the inclusion in the fishing effort regime of that group constitutes an administrative burden disproportionate to the overall impact of that inclusion on cod stocks. It is therefore appropriate to amend Regulation (EC) No 754/2009 in order to exclude that group of vessels from the fishing effort regime laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008. The effort limits set for Ireland in Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 should be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nA group of vessels from Germany is currently excluded from the application of the fishing effort regime laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008. On the basis of information provided by Germany in 2011, STECF was not in a position to assess whether the conditions set out in Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 remained fulfilled in the 2010 management period. It is therefore appropriate to reinclude this group of German vessels in that fishing effort regime. Regulation (EC) No 754/2009 should be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nRegulation (EU) No 57/2011 applies, in general, from 1 January 2011. However, the fishing effort limits laid down in Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 apply for a 1-year period starting from 1 February 2011. As a consequence, the provisions of this Regulation concerning catch limits and allocations should apply from 1 January 2011, except for the new provisions for redfish in Subarea 2, Division 1F and 3K, which should apply from 2 August 2011. The provisions of this Regulation concerning fishing effort limits should apply from 1 February 2011. Such retroactive application will be without prejudice to the principle of legal certainty as the fishing opportunities concerned have not yet been exhausted. Since modifications of effort regimes have a direct influence on the economic activities of the fleets concerned, this Regulation should enter into force immediately upon its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011\nRegulation (EU) No 57/2011 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 5(4), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nthe stock of Norway pout and associated by-catches in ICES Subarea IIIa and EU waters of ICES division IIa and ICES Subarea IV and the stock of sprat in EU waters of ICES division IIa and ICES Subarea IV.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 8 (1), point (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nporbeagle (Lamna nasus) in all waters, except where it is provided otherwise in Annex IA; and\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 37, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. It shall be prohibited for third-country vessels to fish for, to retain on board, to tranship or to land the following species:\n(a)\nbasking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) in all EU waters;\n(b)\nangel shark (Squatina squatina) in all EU waters;\n(c)\ncommon skate (Dipturus batis) in EU waters of ICES division IIa and ICES Subareas III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X;\n(d)\nundulate ray (Raja undulata) and white skate (Rostroraja alba) in EU waters of ICES Subareas VI, VII, VIII, IX and X;\n(e)\nporbeagle (Lamna nasus) in all EU waters; and\n(f)\nguitarfishes (Rhinobatidae) in EU waters of ICES Subareas I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XII.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Annex IA, the entry for cod in VIIb, VIIc, VIIe-k, VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nCod\nGadus morhua\nZone\n:\nVIIb, VIIc, VIIe-k, VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1\n(COD/7XAD34)\nBelgium\n233\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 12 of this Regulation applies.\nFrance\n3 811\nIreland\n923\nThe Netherlands\n1\nUnited Kingdom\n411\nEU\n5 379\nTAC\n5 379\u2019\n(5)\nin Annex IA, the entry for porbeagle in EU and international waters of III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XII is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nPorbeagle\nLamna nasus\nZone\n:\nFrench Guyana waters, Kattegat; EU waters of Skagerrak, I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1, 34.1.2 and 34.2\n(POR/3-1234)\nDenmark\n0 (5)\nAnalytical TAC\nFrance\n0 (5)\nGermany\n0 (5)\nIreland\n0 (5)\nSpain\n0 (5)\nUnited Kingdom\n0 (5)\nEU\n0 (5)\n0 (5)\nTAC\n0 (5)\n(6)\nin Annex IA, the entry for Norway lobster in VII is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nNorway lobster\nNephrops norvegicus\nZone\n:\nVII\n(NEP/07.)\nSpain\n1 306 (6)\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 13 of this Regulation applies\nFrance\n5 291 (6)\nIreland\n8 025 (6)\nUnited Kingdom\n7 137 (6)\nEU\n21 759 (6)\nTAC\n21 759 (6)\n(7)\nin Annex IC, the entry for redfish in NAFO Subarea 2, Divisions IF and 3K, is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nRedfish\nSebastes spp.\nZone\n:\nNAFO Subarea 2, Divisions IF and 3K\n(RED/N1F3K.)\nLatvia\n0\nLithuania\n0\nTAC\n0\u2019\n(8)\nAppendix 1 of Annex IIA is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin Table (b), the column concerning Germany (DE) is replaced by the following:\nRegulated gear\n\u2018DE\nTR1\n1 166 735\nTR2\n436 666\nTR3\n257\nBT1\n29 271\nBT2\n1 525 679\nGN\n224 484\nGT\n467\nLL\n0\u2019\n(b)\nin Table (d) the columns for Germany (DE) and Ireland (IE) are replaced by the following:\nRegulated gear\n\u2018DE\nIE\nTR1\n12 427\n107 088\nTR2\n0\n479 043\nTR3\n0\n273\nBT1\n0\n0\nBT2\n0\n3 801\nGN\n35 442\n5 697\nGT\n0\n1 953\nLL\n0\n4 250\u2019\nArticle 2\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 754/2009\nIn Regulation (EC) No 754/2009, Article 1 is hereby amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (f) is deleted;\n(b)\nthe following point is added:\n\u2018(h)\nthe group of vessels flying the flag of Ireland, participating in the fishery indicated in the request from Ireland dated 11 March 2011, operating in the west of Scotland using bottom trawls of mesh size equal to or larger than 120 mm with square mesh panels in the area stated in point 6.1 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 and using 100 mm mesh size elsewhere in the west of Scotland.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 points (1) to (6) shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nArticle 1 point (7) shall apply from 2 August 2011.\nArticle 1 point (8) and Article 2 shall apply from 1 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["74", "53", "39", "68", "69", "42", "86", "49", "11", "92", "75", "20", "84", "71", "35", "59", "4", "34", "57", "65", "33", "61", "63", "85", "79", "22", "5", "38", "60", "72", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 536/2012\nof 21 June 2012\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(s) and listed in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 346/2012 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nIn order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Part XIX of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 346/2012 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2012.", "references": ["91", "36", "71", "23", "55", "1", "86", "9", "96", "56", "90", "79", "32", "94", "77", "14", "59", "93", "16", "74", "68", "73", "17", "66", "51", "99", "75", "24", "76", "67", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "69", "72"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/445/CFSP\nof 11 August 2010\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for the crisis in Georgia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 September 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/760/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Pierre MOREL European Union Special Representative (hereinafter the EUSR) for the crisis in Georgia until 28 February 2009.\n(2)\nOn 22 February 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/106/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 31 August 2010.\n(3)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 31 August 2011. However, the mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter the HR) following the entry into force of the Decision establishing the European External Action Service.\n(4)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Pierre MOREL as the EUSR for the crisis in Georgia is hereby extended until 31 August 2011. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the HR following the entry into force of the Decision establishing the European External Action Service.\nArticle 2\nObjectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR for the crisis in Georgia shall be based on the objectives established by the conclusions of the extraordinary European Council meeting in Brussels on 1 September 2008 and the Council conclusions of 15 September 2008 on Georgia.\nThe EUSR shall enhance the effectiveness and visibility of the European Union (hereinafter \u2018the EU\u2019 or \u2018the Union\u2019) in helping to resolve the conflict in Georgia.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the policy objectives, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\nfirstly, help prepare for the international talks to be held under point 6 of the settlement plan of 12 August 2008, which are in particular to cover:\n-\narrangements for security and stability in the region,\n-\nthe issue of refugees and displaced persons, on the basis of internationally recognised principles,\n-\nany other subject, by mutual agreement between the parties,\nsecondly, help establish the Union\u2019s position and represent it, at his level, in those talks;\n(b)\nfacilitate the implementation of the agreement concluded on 8 September 2008 in Moscow and Tbilisi, as well as the agreement of 12 August 2008 in close coordination with the United Nations and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE);\nin the framework of the activities mentioned above, to contribute to the implementation of the Union\u2019s human rights policy and of its approach in this field, in particular with regard to children and women.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (hereinafter the PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011 shall be EUR 700 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of his mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting his team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of his team.\n2. Member States and Union institutions may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of personnel who are seconded by a Member State or Union institution to the EUSR shall be covered by the EU Member State or institution concerned, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the General Secretariat of the Council may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State or Union institution and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and his staff\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of his staff shall be agreed with the host party/parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of his team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council\u2019s security regulations (3), in particular when managing EU classified information.\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegation and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nThe EUSR shall, in accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with his mandate and on the basis of the security situation in his geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under his direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the General Secretariat of the Council, providing for mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, and the management of security incidents, and providing for a contingency plan and a mission evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of his team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the General Secretariat of the Council;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the HR, the Council and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report as necessary to Council working parties. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote overall Union political coordination. He shall help ensure that all Union instruments are engaged coherently to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSRs active in the region, and in particular of the EUSR for the South Caucasus while respecting the specific objectives of the latter\u2019s mandate. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States\u2019 missions and the Union\u2019s delegations.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Head of the Union delegation and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of his mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the HR, the Council and the Commission with a progress report at the end of February 2011 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["21", "2", "28", "36", "9", "55", "60", "79", "38", "45", "30", "64", "43", "27", "83", "24", "46", "25", "19", "13", "78", "50", "88", "62", "97", "56", "37", "98", "44", "15", "No Label", "3", "5", "7", "91"], "gold": ["3", "5", "7", "91"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 December 2011\namending the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure\n(2011/900/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Article 2(2) of Annex III to the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(3), first and fourth subparagraphs, of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaties provides that, until 31 October 2014, when an act is to be adopted by the Council by a qualified majority, and if a member of the Council so requests, it must be verified that the Member States constituting the qualified majority represent at least 62 % of the total population of the Union calculated according to the population figures set out in Article 1 of Annex III to the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter \u2018Rules of Procedure\u2019).\n(2)\nArticle 2(2) of Annex III to the Rules of Procedure provides that, with effect from 1 January each year, the Council, in accordance with the data available to the Statistical Office of the European Union on 30 September of the preceding year, must amend the figures set out in Article 1 of that Annex.\n(3)\nThe Rules of Procedure should therefore be amended accordingly for 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1 of Annex III to the Rules of Procedure shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nFor the purposes of implementing Article 16(5) of the TEU and Article 3(3) and (4) of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaties, the total population of each Member State for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012 shall be as follows:\nMember State\nPopulation\n(\u00d7 1 000)\nGermany\n81 751,6\nFrance\n65 075,4\nUnited Kingdom\n62 435,7\nItaly\n60 626,4\nSpain\n46 152,9\nPoland\n38 200,0\nRomania\n21 413,8\nNetherlands\n16 655,8\nGreece\n11 325,9\nBelgium\n10 918,4\nPortugal\n10 637,0\nCzech Republic\n10 532,8\nHungary\n9 985,7\nSweden\n9 415,6\nAustria\n8 404,3\nBulgaria\n7 504,9\nDenmark\n5 560,6\nSlovakia\n5 435,3\nFinland\n5 375,3\nIreland\n4 480,9\nLithuania\n3 244,6\nLatvia\n2 229,6\nSlovenia\n2 050,2\nEstonia\n1 340,2\nCyprus\n804,4\nLuxembourg\n511,8\nMalta\n417,6\nTotal\n502 486,7\nThreshold (62 %)\n311 541,8\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["46", "99", "8", "94", "79", "75", "90", "30", "88", "73", "78", "60", "6", "64", "86", "87", "18", "5", "16", "91", "47", "51", "49", "61", "76", "12", "72", "13", "32", "58", "No Label", "1", "7"], "gold": ["1", "7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/90/EU\nof 14 November 2011\namending Part II of Annex I to Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council providing additional assumptions for the calculation of the annual percentage rate of charge\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (1) (the Consumer Credit Directive), and in particular Article 19(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe experience gathered by Member States with the implementation of Directive 2008/48/EC has shown that the assumptions set out in Part II of Annex I to that Directive do not suffice to calculate the annual percentage rate of charge in a uniform manner and moreover are not adapted any more to the commercial situation at the market.\n(2)\nIt is necessary to add to those assumptions by providing new assumptions on standards for the calculation of the annual percentage rate of charge for credits without fixed duration or repayable in full repeatedly. It is also necessary to provide standards for the timing of the initial drawdown of credit and the payments to be made by the consumer.\n(3)\nPart II of Annex I to Directive 2008/48/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 25(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC and neither the European Parliament nor the Council has opposed them,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nPart II of Annex I to Directive 2008/48/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 December 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 January 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["32", "70", "54", "97", "23", "41", "60", "80", "64", "28", "98", "40", "22", "91", "82", "30", "16", "6", "1", "33", "75", "35", "10", "48", "47", "93", "77", "19", "4", "7", "No Label", "11", "24", "29"], "gold": ["11", "24", "29"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 171/2012\nof 28 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2012.", "references": ["4", "66", "74", "87", "73", "78", "3", "8", "2", "62", "18", "83", "93", "7", "23", "45", "1", "6", "39", "69", "52", "90", "13", "63", "92", "26", "50", "10", "40", "54", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 634/2010\nof 19 July 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ricotta di Bufala Campana (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Ricotta di Bufala Campana\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2010.", "references": ["57", "93", "79", "52", "34", "16", "8", "74", "9", "81", "89", "83", "31", "0", "28", "84", "14", "77", "7", "6", "45", "76", "88", "87", "49", "32", "43", "64", "94", "21", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 773/2010\nof 1 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 September 2010.", "references": ["12", "7", "40", "63", "1", "10", "59", "27", "82", "54", "72", "64", "74", "37", "34", "97", "15", "49", "86", "45", "16", "3", "81", "62", "13", "14", "91", "48", "58", "36", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 278/2011\nof 21 March 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of March 2011 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of March 2011 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2011 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["22", "11", "61", "43", "10", "13", "94", "38", "34", "23", "60", "57", "30", "88", "46", "56", "98", "97", "91", "49", "29", "73", "58", "65", "32", "96", "89", "84", "41", "75", "No Label", "21", "69"], "gold": ["21", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 727/2011\nof 25 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2011.", "references": ["90", "87", "48", "47", "55", "20", "57", "49", "7", "80", "71", "2", "56", "21", "24", "33", "70", "76", "72", "32", "51", "28", "50", "40", "23", "84", "58", "39", "10", "46", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 8 November 2011\non the conclusion of an Agreement on the participation of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the European Economic Area and four related agreements\n(2011/733/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(i) and the second subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement on the participation of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the European Economic Area and four related agreements were signed, on behalf of the European Community, on 25 July 2007, in accordance with Council Decision 2007/566/EC (2), subject to their conclusion.\n(2)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(3)\nThose agreements should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following agreements (3) are hereby approved on behalf of the European Union:\n-\nAgreement on the participation of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the European Economic Area,\n-\nAgreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway concerning a Cooperation Programme for Economic Growth and Sustainable Development in Bulgaria,\n-\nAgreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway concerning a Cooperation Programme for Economic Growth and Sustainable Development in Romania,\n-\nAdditional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Iceland consequent on the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, and\n-\nAdditional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway consequent on the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit on behalf of the Union the act of approval provided for in each of the agreements, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound (4).\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, make the following notification:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \"the European Community\" in the text of the Agreements are, where appropriate, to be read as \"the European Union\u201d.\u2019\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2011.", "references": ["68", "73", "38", "55", "63", "61", "31", "66", "26", "50", "28", "44", "93", "51", "7", "18", "85", "65", "32", "83", "11", "86", "57", "21", "33", "6", "54", "72", "4", "2", "No Label", "3", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 April 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement\n(2012/227/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 and Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019), contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning technical regulations, standards, testing and certification.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks (3) should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(3)\nCommission Recommendation 2010/133/EU of 2 March 2010 on the prevention and reduction of ethyl carbamate contamination in stone fruit spirits and stone fruit marc spirits and on the monitoring of ethyl carbamate levels in these beverages (4) should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 110/2008 repealed Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks (5) which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement and should therefore be repealed under the EEA Agreement.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 1014/90 of 24 April 1990 laying down detailed implementing rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks (6), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement, has become obsolete (7) and should therefore be deleted from the EEA Agreement.\n(6)\nIn order to reduce the problems alcohol consumption may cause, EFTA States may prohibit, on a non-discriminatory basis, the placing on their national market of spirit drinks for direct human consumption which exceed an alcoholic strength of 60 %.\n(7)\nDue to the special features of the system of registration of geographical indications for spirit drinks and the fact that a very low number of registrations are expected from the EFTA States, paragraph 4(d) of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement is not to be applied for these matters. As a consequence, the procedures for application and registration of geographical indications will be carried out by the Commission also in relation to applications from the EFTA states which are parties to the EEA Agreement.\n(8)\nThe position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should therefore be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendments to Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["88", "21", "62", "40", "61", "22", "74", "98", "47", "51", "92", "64", "54", "35", "49", "73", "80", "83", "30", "6", "56", "27", "31", "14", "12", "67", "11", "16", "34", "78", "No Label", "3", "9", "24", "25", "38", "60", "68", "71"], "gold": ["3", "9", "24", "25", "38", "60", "68", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 777/2012\nof 27 August 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 of 29 April 2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia (1), and in particular Article 11(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 827/2004 lists the natural and legal persons, bodies and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 3, 10 and 20 July 2012, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council established pursuant to resolution 1521 (2003) concerning Liberia decided to amend the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I should therefore be amended accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 27 August 2012.", "references": ["4", "10", "79", "24", "74", "55", "66", "29", "53", "11", "44", "25", "65", "64", "17", "2", "78", "54", "42", "31", "49", "91", "35", "71", "58", "57", "89", "95", "8", "18", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 336/2012\nof 19 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["64", "98", "51", "63", "55", "46", "17", "26", "33", "13", "14", "48", "93", "1", "75", "44", "53", "83", "15", "41", "12", "57", "81", "85", "7", "0", "30", "6", "39", "47", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/87/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\namending Directive 2000/25/EC as regards the application of emission stages for narrow-track tractors\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on Functioning of European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2000/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2000 on action to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by engines intended to power agricultural or forestry tractors (3) regulates exhaust emissions from engines installed in agricultural and forestry tractors with a view to further safeguarding human health and the environment. Directive 2000/25/EC provided that the emission limits applicable in 2010 for type-approval of the majority of compression ignition engines, referred to as Stage III A, were to be replaced by the more stringent Stage III B limits, entering into force progressively as from 1 January 2010 as regards the type-approval, and from 1 January 2011 with regard to the placing on the market, for those engines. Stage IV, providing for emission limits more stringent than Stage III B, will enter into force progressively as from 1 January 2013 as regards the type-approval for those engines and from 1 January 2014 with regard to the placing on the market.\n(2)\nArticle 2(b) of Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery (4), provides that the Commission is to consider the available technology, including the cost/benefits, with a view to confirming Stage III B and IV limit values and evaluating the possible need for additional flexibilities, exemptions or later introduction dates for certain types of equipment or engines and taking into account engines installed in non-road mobile machinery used in seasonal applications. Moreover, Article 4(8) of Directive 2000/25/EC provides for a review clause in order to take into account the specificities of tractors of categories T2, T4.1 and C2.\n(3)\nDirective 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) was the subject of several technical studies. As a result of those technical studies carried out in 2007, 2009 and 2010 and confirmed by the impact assessment carried out by the Commission, it was established that it is not technically feasible for tractors of categories T2, T4.1 and C2 to meet the requirements of Stages III B and IV by the dates set out in that Directive.\n(4)\nIn order to prevent Union legislation from prescribing technical requirements which cannot be met yet and in order to prevent a situation in which tractors of categories T2, T4.1 and C2 can no longer be type-approved and placed on the market or put into service, it is necessary to provide for a transitional period of 3 years, during which tractors of categories T2, T4.1 and C2 may still be type-approved and placed on the market or put into service.\n(5)\nThe Commission should report annually to the European Parliament and the Council on progress in the development of technical solutions for Stage IV-compliant technology.\n(6)\nDirective 2000/25/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Directive 2000/25/EC\nIn Article 4 of Directive 2000/25/EC, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20189. By way of derogation, the dates set out in points (d) and (e) of paragraph 2 and in paragraph 3 shall, for tractors of categories T2, T4.1 and C2, as defined respectively in the second indent of point A.1 of Chapter A, in point 1.1 of Part I of Appendix 1 of Chapter B, and in point A.2 of Chapter A of Annex II to Directive 2003/37/EC, and equipped with engines of categories L to R, be postponed for 3 years. Until such dates, the requirements of Stage III A in this Directive shall continue to apply.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAvailability of compatible technology\nThe Commission shall, by 31 December 2014, consider what technology is available that is capable of meeting Stage IV requirements and that is compatible with the needs of categories T2, T4.1 and C2, and submit, where appropriate, proposals to the European Parliament and the Council.\nArticle 3\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 9 December 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those measures.\nWhen Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 5\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["17", "28", "90", "8", "55", "37", "13", "42", "59", "89", "32", "40", "5", "33", "88", "66", "44", "15", "98", "18", "97", "63", "79", "91", "30", "99", "53", "51", "96", "86", "No Label", "25", "54", "58", "60", "65", "76"], "gold": ["25", "54", "58", "60", "65", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 797/2010\nof 9 September 2010\nnot fixing a minimum selling price in response to the sixth individual invitation to tender for the sale of butter within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 (2) has opened the sales of butter by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the sixth individual invitation to tender, no minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the sixth individual invitation to tender for selling of butter within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 7 September 2010, no minimum selling price for butter shall be fixed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 September 2010.", "references": ["24", "77", "4", "57", "36", "13", "49", "23", "75", "73", "64", "71", "38", "39", "32", "67", "25", "31", "41", "50", "83", "14", "66", "69", "86", "10", "48", "40", "2", "78", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 534/2012\nof 21 June 2012\nfixing the export refunds on beef and veal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XV of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in beef and veal, export refunds should therefore be set in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167, 168 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007 of 21 November 2007 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals (5) provides for a reduction of the special refund if the quantity of cuts of boned meat to be exported amounts to less than 95 %, but not less than 85 %, of the total weight of cuts produced by boning.\n(6)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 343/2012 (6). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(7)\nIn order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(8)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004, and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nIn the case referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007, the rate of the refund on products falling within product code 0201 30 00 9100 shall be reduced by EUR 1,2/100 kg.\nArticle 3\nRegulation (EU) No 343/2012 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2012.", "references": ["33", "42", "94", "46", "44", "7", "34", "67", "12", "23", "13", "74", "79", "49", "82", "51", "89", "56", "9", "57", "18", "43", "71", "98", "91", "72", "15", "17", "41", "54", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 3 June 2010\namending Decision 2008/721/EC as regards indemnities paid to members of scientific committees and experts in the field of consumer safety, public health and the environment\n(2010/309/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 168 and 169 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 19 of Commission Decision 2008/721/EC of 5 September 2008 setting up an advisory structure of Scientific Committees and experts in the field of consumer safety, public health and the environment and repealing Decision 2004/210/EC (1) states that members of the Scientific Committees, scientific advisors from the Pool of Scientific Advisors on Risk Assessment (hereinafter the Pool) and external experts are entitled to an indemnity for their participation in the meetings of the committees, thematic workshops, working groups and other meetings and events organised by the Commission, and for serving as Rapporteur on a specific question.\n(2)\nAnnex III to Decision 2008/721/EC, sets down the amounts of indemnities to be paid to the members of the Scientific Committees, scientific advisors of the Pool and external experts.\n(3)\nCurrently the indemnities for participation in meetings can only be paid to experts physically present in those meetings. Modern technologies allow the exchange of expert opinions in virtual meetings using audio or video devices or online applications. The use of these tools would allow wider participation of experts in the activities of the Scientific Committees while minimising the environmental impact and costs and reduce expert time needed for travelling.\n(4)\nIn the case of participation from a distance by electronic means, the amount of the indemnity should be related to the duration of the meeting (short attendance, full day or only morning or afternoon meeting).\n(5)\nIt is therefore necessary to adjust the rules for the payment of participation indemnities to members, advisors and external experts. Article 19 and Annex III to Decision 2008/721/EC should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2008/721/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 19, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Members of the Scientific Committees, scientific advisors from the Pool and external experts shall be entitled to an indemnity for their participation, in person or from a distance by electronic means, in the meetings of the committees, thematic workshops, working groups and other meetings and events organised by the Commission, and for serving as Rapporteur on a specific question, as provided for in Annex III.\u2019;\n2.\nAnnex III is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["62", "82", "99", "77", "56", "31", "8", "12", "29", "42", "13", "34", "60", "72", "32", "67", "86", "50", "22", "37", "33", "95", "78", "48", "47", "94", "65", "68", "54", "40", "No Label", "1", "7", "24", "38", "39", "52", "58"], "gold": ["1", "7", "24", "38", "39", "52", "58"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 106/2012\nof 7 February 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 February 2012.", "references": ["71", "82", "50", "47", "98", "67", "30", "75", "37", "68", "93", "94", "99", "40", "1", "44", "9", "13", "87", "4", "90", "3", "12", "66", "78", "36", "34", "19", "53", "38", "No Label", "21", "54", "55"], "gold": ["21", "54", "55"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 328/2011\nof 5 April 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work, as regards statistics on causes of death\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work (1), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1338/2008 establishes a common framework for the systematic production of European statistics on public health and health and safety at work.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008, implementing measures are needed to specify the data and metadata to be provided on causes of death covered by Annex III to that Regulation and to set the reference periods and intervals for providing this data.\n(3)\nConfidential data sent by Member States to the Commission (Eurostat) should be handled in accordance with the principle of statistical confidentiality as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (2) and with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3).\n(4)\nA cost-benefit analysis has been carried out and evaluated in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nEuropean statistics in the domain of \u2018causes of death\u2019 shall concern all registered deaths and stillbirths occurring in each Member State, distinguishing residents and non-residents.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018death\u2019 means the permanent disappearance of all evidence of life at any time after live birth has taken place (post-natal cessation of vital functions without capability of resuscitation). This definition excludes stillbirths;\n(b)\n\u2018stillbirth\u2019 means foetal death, namely death prior to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy. Death is indicated by the fact that after such separation from its mother the foetus does not breathe or show any other evidence of life, such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles;\n(c)\n\u2018gestational age\u2019 means the duration of gestation, measured from the first day of the last normal menstrual period. Gestational age is expressed in completed days or completed weeks;\n(d)\n\u2018neonatal death\u2019 means the death occurring among live births during the first 28 completed days of life (days 0-27);\n(e)\n\u2018parity\u2019 means the number of previous live births or stillbirths (0, 1, 2, 3 or more previous live births or stillbirths);\n(f)\n\u2018other deaths\u2019 means the deaths occurring after the neonatal death period from the 28th completed day of life onwards;\n(g)\n\u2018underlying cause of death\u2019 means the disease or injury which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury;\n(h)\n\u2018resident\u2019 means \u2018usual resident\u2019 in the place where a person normally spends the daily period of rest, regardless of temporary absences for purposes of recreation, holidays, visits to friends and relatives, business, medical treatment or religious pilgrimage.\nThe following persons alone shall be considered to be usual residents of the geographical area in question:\n(i)\nthose who have lived in their place of usual residence for a continuous period of at least 12 months before the reference date; or\n(ii)\nthose who arrived in their place of usual residence during the 12 months before the reference date with the intention of staying there for at least 1 year.\nWhere the circumstances described in point (i) or (ii) cannot be established, \u2018usual residence\u2019 shall mean the place of legal or registered residence.\nArticle 3\nData required\nMember States shall transmit to the Commission (Eurostat) the list of variables set out in the Annex. Whenever possible, statistics concerning deaths of residents dying abroad shall be included.\nFor stillbirths at least one of three reporting criteria shall be applied in the following order: (1) birth weight; (2) gestational age; and (3) crown-heel length. Data collection shall be limited to the following groups:\n(a)\nbirth weight from 500 g to 999 g or when birth weight does not apply gestational age from 22 to 27 completed weeks, or when neither of the two applies crown-heel length from 25 to 34 cm (Variable 9); and\n(b)\nbirth weight of 1 000 g and more or when birth weight does not apply gestational age after 27 completed weeks or when neither of the two applies crown-heel length of 35 cm or more (Variable 10).\nArticle 4\nReference period\nThe reference period shall be the calendar year.\nMember States shall provide the data specified in this Regulation to the Commission (Eurostat) within 24 months after the end of the reference year.\nThe first reference year shall be 2011.\nArticle 5\nMetadata\nRelevant information, including information on national differences regarding definitions, coverage of data, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) revision and updates used and the automated coding systems, as well as information about the selection and modification of the underlying cause of death, shall be transmitted by Member States to the Commission (Eurostat).\nArticle 6\nProvision of data and metadata to the Commission (Eurostat)\nMember States shall provide aggregated or micro data (finalised, validated and accepted) and metadata required by this Regulation in accordance with an exchange standard specified by the Commission (Eurostat). Data and metadata shall be provided to Eurostat through the single entry point.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 April 2011.", "references": ["62", "60", "17", "83", "6", "79", "14", "39", "85", "66", "2", "65", "81", "77", "99", "29", "47", "93", "57", "87", "86", "71", "1", "41", "11", "72", "89", "10", "7", "32", "No Label", "9", "19", "38", "46", "51"], "gold": ["9", "19", "38", "46", "51"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2012/12/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 19 April 2012\namending Council Directive 2001/112/EC relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to protect the interests of consumers and to enhance the free movement of fruit juices and certain similar products within the Union, Council Directive 2001/112/EC (3) has laid down specific provisions regarding production, composition and labelling of the products concerned. Those rules should be adapted to technical progress and should, as far as possible, take account of developments in relevant international standards, in particular the Codex General Standard for fruit juices and nectars (Codex Stan 247-2005) which was adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission during its 28th session held from 4 to 9 July 2005 (\u2018Codex Standard\u2019). The Codex Standard establishes, in particular, quality factors and labelling requirements for fruit juices and similar products.\n(2)\nWithout prejudice to Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (4), it is necessary to amend the specific provisions of Directive 2001/112/EC concerning the labelling of fruit juices and similar products to reflect the new rules on authorised ingredients, such as those pertaining to the addition of sugars, which are no longer authorised in fruit juices. For other products, added sugars should continue to be labelled in accordance with Directive 2000/13/EC.\n(3)\nThe nutrition claim \u2018with no added sugars\u2019, as listed in the Annex to 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 (5), has been used in relation to fruit juices for a very long time. In the light of the new compositional requirements for fruit juices provided for in this Directive, its disappearance from one day to the next after a transitional period might not allow an immediate clear distinction to be made between fruit juices and other drinks in terms of the addition of sugars in the products, which would be detrimental to the fruit juices sector. In order to enable the industry to inform consumers properly, it should be possible to use, for a limited time, a statement indicating that no fruit juices contain added sugars.\n(4)\nIn order to bring the Annexes to Directive 2001/112/EC into line with developments in relevant international standards and to take into account technical progress, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending those Annexes, with the exception of Part I of Annex I, and of Annex II. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(5)\nIn order to allow Member States to adopt national laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive, a transposition period of 18 months should be established. During that period the requirements of Directive 2001/112/EC, without the amendments introduced by this Directive, should remain applicable.\n(6)\nIn order to take into account the interests of economic operators who place on the market or label their products in accordance with the requirements applicable before the application of the national provisions transposing this Directive, it is necessary to establish appropriate transitional measures. Therefore, this Directive should provide that those products may continue to be marketed for a limited time beyond the transposition period.\n(7)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely to adapt Directive 2001/112/EC to technical progress whilst taking into account the Codex Standard, 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.\n(8)\nDirective 2001/112/EC should be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Directive 2001/112/EC\nDirective 2001/112/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018The products defined in Annex I are subject to provisions of Union law applicable to food, such as Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (6), unless this Directive provides otherwise.\n(2)\nArticle 2 is deleted;\n(3)\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183.\nFor products manufactured from two or more fruits, except where lemon and/or lime juice are used under the conditions laid down in point 2 of Part II of Annex I, the product name shall be composed of a list of the fruits used, in descending order of the volume of the fruit juices or pur\u00e9es included, as indicated in the list of ingredients. However, in the case of products manufactured from three or more fruits, the indication of the fruits used may be replaced by the words \u201cseveral fruits\u201d or a similar wording, or by the number of fruits used.\u2019;\n(b)\npoint 4 is deleted;\n(4)\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nThe labelling of concentrated fruit juice referred to in point 2 of Part I of Annex I, not intended for delivery to the final consumer, shall bear a reference indicating the presence and quantity of added lemon juice, lime juice or acidifying agents permitted by Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (7). This reference shall appear on one of the following:\n-\non the packaging,\n-\non a label attached to the packaging, or\n-\non an accompanying document.\n(5)\nin Article 5, the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018This Directive shall apply to the products defined in Annex I which are placed on the market within the Union in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 7\nIn order to bring the Annexes to this Directive into line with developments in relevant international standards and to take into account technical progress, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 7a to amend the Annexes to this Directive, with the exception of Part I of Annex I, and of Annex II.\u2019;\n(7)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 7a\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 7 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from 28 October 2013. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 7 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\nA decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 7 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 8 is deleted.\n(9)\nthe Annexes are replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 28 October 2013. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nMember States shall apply those provisions from 28 October 2013.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nTransitional measures\n1. Products which are placed on the market or labelled before 28 October 2013 in accordance with Directive 2001/112/EC may continue to be marketed until 28 April 2015.\n2. The statement \u2018from 28 October 2015 no fruit juices contain added sugars\u2019 may appear on the label in the same field of vision as the name of products referred to in points 1 to 4 of Part I of Annex I until 28 October 2016.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 5\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["52", "10", "90", "80", "57", "50", "16", "3", "13", "92", "21", "47", "75", "79", "41", "8", "19", "44", "95", "89", "54", "82", "17", "66", "98", "49", "96", "61", "28", "76", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "71", "74"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "71", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1087/2011\nof 27 October 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security in respect of explosive detection systems\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (1) and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 of 4 March 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (2) lays down provision on explosive detection systems.\n(2)\nMethods and technologies for the detection of explosives develop over time. In line with the evolution of the threat to civil aviation, technological developments and operation experiences both at Union and global level, the Commission should revise the technological and operation provisions relating to explosives detection systems.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 185/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Civil Aviation Security set up by Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["78", "14", "66", "62", "0", "2", "74", "86", "89", "34", "39", "15", "95", "80", "36", "48", "41", "26", "38", "81", "24", "13", "96", "23", "58", "92", "68", "27", "17", "32", "No Label", "53", "57", "76", "83"], "gold": ["53", "57", "76", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 888/2011\nof 5 September 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of diclazuril as a feed additive for turkeys for fattening (holder of authorisation Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V.) and amending Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).\n(2)\nDiclazuril, CAS number 101831-37-2, was authorised for 10 years in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC as a feed additive for use on chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying up to 16 weeks and turkeys up to 12 weeks by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (3). The additive was subsequently entered in the Community Register of feed additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003. Its use has further been authorised for 10 years for chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1118/2010 (4), for guinea fowls by Commission Regulation (EU) No 169/2011 (5) and for rabbits by Commission Regulation (EC) No 971/2008 (6).\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 10(2) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of diclazuril as a feed additive for turkeys for fattening, requesting that additive be classified in the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 16 March 2011 (7) that, under the proposed conditions of use, diclazuril does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer health or the environment, and that it is effective in controlling coccidiosis in turkeys for fattening. It concluded that no safety concerns would arise for users provided that appropriate protective measures are taken. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of diclazuril shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nAs a consequence of a new authorisation being granted by this Regulation, the entry in Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 concerning diclazuril should be deleted.\n(7)\nSince the modifications to the conditions of authorisation are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for the disposal of existing stocks of premixtures and compound feed containing this preparation, as authorised by Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 for use on turkeys up to 12 weeks.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019 is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThe entry in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 concerning the diclazuril for turkeys, identified with registration number 27, is deleted.\nArticle 3\nPremixtures and compound feed labelled in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC and containing diclazuril, as authorised by Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 for use on turkeys up to 12 weeks, may continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 September 2011.", "references": ["91", "26", "18", "65", "30", "35", "21", "44", "73", "8", "7", "28", "49", "6", "82", "0", "89", "23", "52", "86", "72", "9", "68", "85", "61", "75", "31", "56", "11", "27", "No Label", "25", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 691/2010\nof 29 July 2010\nlaying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1) and in particular Article 11 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 549/2004 requires that a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions be set up by means of implementing rules.\n(2)\nThe performance scheme should contribute to the sustainable development of the air transport system by improving overall efficiency of the air navigation services across the key performance areas of safety, environment, capacity and cost-efficiency, in consistency with those identified in the Performance Framework of the ATM Master Plan, all having regard to the overriding safety objectives.\n(3)\nThe performance scheme should provide for indicators and binding targets on key performance areas whereby required safety levels are fully achieved and maintained while allowing for performance target setting in other key performance areas.\n(4)\nThe performance scheme should be set up and operated with a long-term view on the high-level societal goals.\n(5)\nThe performance scheme should address air navigation services in a gate-to-gate approach including airports with a view to improving the overall performance of the network.\n(6)\nThe interdependencies between the national and functional airspace block levels and the network level, as well as the interdependencies between performance targets, all having regard to the overriding safety objectives, should be duly taken into account in the preparation and monitoring of the performance scheme.\n(7)\nThe performance plans should register the commitment of Member States, for the duration of the reference period, to achieve the objectives of the single European sky and the balance between the needs of all airspace users and supply of services provided by air navigation service providers.\n(8)\nNational Supervisory Authorities have a key role to play in the implementation of the performance scheme. Member States should therefore ensure that they are in a position to effectively carry out these additional responsibilities.\n(9)\nThe performance plans should describe the measures, such as incentives schemes, aimed at driving the behaviour of stakeholders towards improving performance at national, functional airspace block and European levels.\n(10)\nIn circumstances that were unforeseeable at the moment of adopting the performance plans and that are both insurmountable and outside the control of the Member States and the entities subject to the performance targets, the establishment of appropriate alert mechanisms should allow the implementation of adequate measures aiming at preserving the safety requirements as well as the continuity of service provision.\n(11)\nEffective stakeholder consultations should take place at national and/or functional airspace block level, as well as at European Union level.\n(12)\nHaving due regard to military mission effectiveness, civil-military cooperation and coordination are of utmost importance in order to achieve the performance objectives.\n(13)\nThe performance scheme should be without prejudice to the provisions of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 aiming at safeguarding essential security or defence policy interests.\n(14)\nKey performance indicators should be selected for being specific and measurable and allowing the allocation of responsibility for achieving the performance targets. The associated targets should be achievable, realistic and timely and aim at effectively steering the sustainable performance of air navigation services.\n(15)\nThe implementation of binding performance targets supported by incentives that can be of financial nature requires appropriate link with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services (2).\n(16)\nThe establishment and implementation of key performance indicators and of performance targets require the appropriate consistency with the safety objectives and standards laid down in Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (3), and its implementing rules together with the measures taken by the European Union to achieve and maintain these objectives.\n(17)\nDuring the reference periods an effective performance monitoring process should be put in place to ensure that the evolution of performance allows meeting the targets and if necessary introducing appropriate measures.\n(18)\nWhen adopting European Union-wide performance targets for the first reference period, due account should be taken by the Commission of the actual financial situation of the air navigation service providers resulting in particular from cost-containment measures already taken, in particular since 2009, as well as possible over or under recoveries of route charges to be carried over from preceding years. Due account should also be taken of the progress already achieved by the existing functional airspace blocks.\n(19)\nPursuant to Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, this Regulation should apply to the air traffic management network functions referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) through an appropriate amendment of this Regulation.\n(20)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation lays down the necessary measures to improve the overall performance of air navigation services and network functions for general air traffic within the ICAO EUR and AFI regions where Member States are responsible for the provision of air navigation services with a view to meeting the requirements of all airspace users.\n2. For the purpose of target setting, this Regulation shall apply to the air navigation services provided by air traffic service providers designated in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) and by providers of meteorological services, if designated in accordance with Article 9(1) of that Regulation.\n3. Member States may decide not to apply this Regulation to terminal air navigation services provided at airports with less than 50 000 commercial air transport movements per year. They shall inform the Commission thereof. Where none of the airports in a Member State reaches the threshold of 50 000 commercial air transport movements per year, performance targets shall apply as a minimum to the airport with the highest commercial air transport movements.\n4. Where a Member State considers that some or all of its terminal air navigation services are submitted to market conditions it shall assess in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 1(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006, and with the support of the national supervisory authority, no later than 12 months before the start of each reference period, whether the conditions laid down in Annex I of that Regulation are met. Where the Member State finds that these conditions are met, regardless of the number of commercial air transport movements served, it may decide not to set determined costs under that Regulation nor apply binding targets to the cost efficiency of those services.\n5. Pursuant to Article 11(6)(c)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 and Article 15(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004, and without prejudice to Article 4(2) of the present Regulation, target setting on cost-efficiency shall apply to all determined costs chargeable to airspace users.\n6. Member States may also apply this Regulation:\n(a)\nin airspace under their responsibility within other ICAO regions, on condition that they inform the Commission and the other Member States thereof, and without prejudice to the rights and duties of Member States under the 1944 Chicago Convention on international civil aviation (the Chicago Convention);\n(b)\nto providers of air navigation services which have received the permission to provide air navigation services without certificate, in accordance with Article 7(5) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004.\n7. Notwithstanding the protection of information provisions of Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) and its implementing Regulations Commission Regulations (EC) No 1321/2007 (7) and (EC) Nos 1330/2007 (8), the requirements related to the provision of data as defined in Chapter V shall apply to national authorities, air navigation service providers, airport operators, airport coordinators and air carriers under the conditions set out in Annex IV.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 shall apply.\nIn addition, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018Airport operator\u2019 means the \u2018managing body of an airport\u2019 as defined in Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports (9);\n(b)\n\u2018Data\u2019 means qualitative, quantitative and other relevant information related to air navigation performance collected and systematically processed by, or on behalf of, the Commission for the purpose of the implementation of the performance scheme;\n(c)\n\u2018Performance indicators\u2019 means the indicators used for the purpose of performance monitoring, benchmarking and reviewing;\n(d)\n\u2018Key performance indicators\u2019 means the performance indicators used for the purpose of performance target setting;\n(e)\n\u2018Commercial air transport movements\u2019 means the sum of take-offs and landings involving the transport of passengers, cargo or mail, for remuneration or hire, calculated as an average over the three years preceding the adoption of the performance plan, regardless of the maximum take-off mass and the number of passenger seats used;\n(f)\n\u2018Binding target\u2019 means a performance target adopted by Member States as part of a national or functional airspace block performance plan and subject to an incentive scheme providing for rewards, disincentives and/or corrective action plans;\n(g)\n\u2018Air carrier\u2019 means an air transport undertaking with a valid operating license issued by a Member State in accordance with European Union Law;\n(h)\n\u2018Airspace users\u2019 representative\u2019 means any legal person or entity representing the interests of one or several categories of users of air navigation services;\n(i)\n\u2018Determined costs\u2019 means the costs as defined in Article 15(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004;\n(j)\n\u2018National authorities\u2019 means the regulatory authorities at national or functional airspace block level whose costs are eligible for recovery from airspace users when they are incurred in relation with the provision of air navigation services in application of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006;\n(k)\n\u2018Just culture\u2019 means a culture in which front line operators or others are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training, but where gross negligence, wilful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated;\n(l)\n\u2018Airport coordinator\u2019 means the function established at coordinated airports in application of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93;\n(m)\n\u2018Performance Monitoring\u2019 means the continuous process of collecting and analysing data in order to measure the actual output of a system versus predefined targets.\nArticle 3\nPerformance Review Body\n1. Where the Commission decides to designate a Performance Review Body to assist it in the implementation of the performance scheme, such designation shall be for a fixed term consistent with the reference periods.\n2. The Performance Review Body shall have the appropriate competence and impartiality to carry out independently the tasks assigned to it by the Commission, in particular in the applicable key performance areas.\n3. The Performance Review Body shall assist the Commission in the implementation of the performance scheme, in particular in the following tasks:\n(a)\nthe collection, examination, validation and dissemination of performance-related data;\n(b)\nthe definition of new or the adaptation of key performance areas, in consistency with those identified in the Performance Framework of the ATM (Air Traffic Management) Master Plan, as referred to in Article 8(1) and the related key performance indicators;\n(c)\nfor the second reference period and beyond, the definition of appropriate key performance indicators in order to cover in all key performance areas the performance of the network functions and of air navigation services both in en route and terminal services;\n(d)\nthe setting up or the revision of European Union-wide performance targets;\n(e)\nthe setting up of the thresholds for activating the alert mechanisms as referred to in Article 9(3);\n(f)\nthe consistency assessment of adopted performance plans, including performance targets, with the European Union-wide targets;\n(g)\nwhere appropriate, the consistency assessment of the alert thresholds adopted in application of Article 18(3) with the European Union-wide alert thresholds referred to in Article 9(3);\n(h)\nwhere appropriate, the assessment of the revised performance targets or the corrective measures taken by the Member States concerned;\n(i)\nthe monitoring, benchmarking and reviewing of the performance of air navigation services, at national or functional airspace block and European Union level;\n(j)\nthe monitoring, benchmarking and reviewing of the performance of the network functions;\n(k)\nthe ongoing monitoring of the overall performance of the ATM network, including the preparation of annual reports to the Single Sky Committee;\n(l)\nthe assessment of the achievement of the performance targets at the end of each reference period with a view to preparing the following period.\n4. Upon the Commission\u2019s request, the Performance Review Body shall provide ad hoc information or reports on performance related issues.\n5. The Performance Review Body may report and make recommendations to the Commission for the improvement of the scheme.\n6. As regards relations with national supervisory authorities:\n(a)\nIn order to exercise its function of ongoing monitoring of the overall performance of the ATM network, the Performance Review Body shall obtain from the national supervisory authorities the information necessary in relation with the national or functional airspace block performance plans.\n(b)\nThe Performance Review Body shall assist the national supervisory authorities upon their request by providing an independent view of the national or functional airspace block performance issues such as factual comparisons between air navigation service providers operating in similar environments (benchmarking), analyses of changes in performance over the last five years, or analyses of forward-looking projections.\n(c)\nNational supervisory authorities may request the assistance of the Performance Review Body for the definition of ranges of indicative values for national or functional airspace block target setting, taking into account the European perspective. Such values shall be available to national supervisory authorities, air navigation service providers, airport operators and airspace users.\n7. The Performance Review Body shall cooperate as appropriate with the European Aviation Safety Agency for the tasks referred to in paragraph 3 when they are related to safety, to ensure consistency with the objectives and standards established and implemented in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n8. In order to exercise its function of ongoing monitoring of the overall performance of the air traffic management network, the Performance Review Body shall develop appropriate working arrangements with the air navigation service providers, airport operators, airport coordinators and air carriers.\nArticle 4\nNational supervisory authorities\n1. The national supervisory authorities shall be responsible for the elaboration, at national or functional airspace block level, of the performance plans, the performance oversight and the monitoring of performance plans and targets. In carrying out these tasks, they shall act impartially, independently and transparently.\n2. Member States shall ensure that national supervisory authorities have, or have access to, the necessary resources and capabilities in all the key performance areas to carry out the tasks provided for in this Regulation, including the investigation powers to perform the tasks referred to in Article 19.\n3. Where a Member State has more than one national supervisory authority, it shall notify the Commission which national supervisory authority is responsible for the national coordination and relations with the Commission for the implementation of this Regulation.\nArticle 5\nFunctional airspace blocks\n1. Member States shall encourage close cooperation between their national supervisory authorities with a view to establishing a performance plan at functional airspace block level.\n2. Where Member States decide to adopt a performance plan at functional airspace block level, they shall:\n(a)\nensure that the performance plan conforms to the template laid down in Annex II;\n(b)\nnotify the Commission which national supervisory authority or body is responsible for the coordination within the functional airspace block and the relations with the Commission for the implementation of the performance plan;\n(c)\nmake appropriate arrangements to ensure that:\n(i)\na single target is established for each key performance indicator;\n(ii)\nthe measures referred to in Article 11(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 are defined and applied during the reference period when targets are not met. For this purpose the annual values in the performance plan shall be used;\n(iii)\nthe consequences for meeting or not meeting the targets are suitably allocated within the functional airspace block;\n(d)\nbe jointly responsible for the achievement of the performance targets set for the functional airspace block;\n(e)\nin the case where no common charging zone has been established within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006, aggregate the national cost-efficiency targets and provide for information a global figure demonstrating the cost efficiency effort at functional airspace block level.\n3. Where Member States of a functional airspace block do not adopt a performance plan with targets at functional airspace block level, they shall communicate for information to the Commission aggregated performance targets highlighting the consistency at functional airspace block level with the European Union-wide performance targets.\nArticle 6\nCoordination with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)\nIn application of Article 13a of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 and in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, the Commission shall coordinate as appropriate with the EASA:\n(a)\nthe safety aspects of the performance scheme, including the setting-up, revision and implementation of key safety performance indicators and European Union-wide safety performance targets as well as the provision of proposals for appropriate actions and measures following the activation of an alert mechanism;\n(b)\nthe consistency of the safety key performance indicators and targets with the implementation of the European Aviation Safety Programme as may be adopted by the European Union.\nArticle 7\nDuration of the reference periods\n1. The first reference period for the performance scheme shall cover the calendar years 2012 to 2014 included. The following reference periods shall be of five calendar years, unless decided otherwise through amendment of this Regulation.\n2. The same reference period shall apply to European Union-wide performance targets and the national or functional airspace blocks performance plans and targets.\nArticle 8\nKey performance areas and performance indicators\n1. For the purpose of target-setting, the possible addition and adaptation of other key performance areas pursuant to Article 11(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 shall be decided by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5(3) of that Regulation.\n2. For the purpose of target-setting, to each key performance area shall correspond one or a limited number of key performance indicators. The performance of air navigation services shall be assessed by means of binding targets for each key performance indicator.\n3. The key performance indicators for European Union-wide target setting, selected for each key performance area, are in Annex I Section 1.\n4. The key performance indicators used for establishing the performance targets for the national or functional airspace blocks are in Annex I Section 2.\n5. The key performance indicators shall not be changed in the course of a reference period. Changes shall be adopted by amendment of this Regulation at the latest six months before adopting new European Union-wide performance targets.\n6. In addition to the key performance areas and key performance indicators referred to in this Article, Member States, at national or functional airspace block level, may decide to set up and use additional performance indicators and associated targets to those set out in Annex I Section 2 for their own performance monitoring and/or as part of their performance plans. These additional indicators and targets shall be supportive of the achievement of the European Union-wide, and resulting national or functional airspace block level targets. They may for example integrate and describe the civil-military or meteorological dimension of the performance plan. These additional indicators and targets may be accompanied by appropriate incentive schemes decided at national or functional airspace block level.\nCHAPTER II\nTHE PREPARATION OF PERFORMANCE PLANS\nArticle 9\nEuropean Union-wide performance targets\n1. The Commission shall adopt European Union-wide performance targets, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, taking into account the relevant inputs from national supervisory authorities and after consultation of the stakeholders as referred to in Article 10 of that Regulation, other relevant organisations as appropriate and the European Aviation Safety Agency for the safety aspects of the performance.\n2. European Union-wide targets shall be proposed by the European Commission at the latest 15 months before the beginning of the reference period and adopted at the latest 12 months before the beginning of the reference period.\n3. Together with the adoption of the European Union-wide performance targets, the Commission shall define for each key performance indicator alert thresholds beyond which the alert mechanisms referred to in Article 18 may be activated. Alert thresholds for the cost-efficiency key performance indicator shall cover both traffic and costs evolution.\n4. The Commission shall substantiate each European Union-wide performance target with a description of the assumptions and rationale used for setting up these targets, such as the use made of inputs from national supervisory authorities and other factual data, traffic forecasts and, where appropriate, expected levels of efficient determined costs for the European Union.\nArticle 10\nElaboration of performance plans\n1. The national supervisory authorities, at either national or functional airspace block level, shall draw up performance plans containing targets consistent with the European Union-wide performance targets and the assessment criteria set out in Annex III. There shall be only one performance plan per Member State or per functional airspace block when the Member States concerned decide to elaborate a performance plan at functional airspace block level in application of Article 5(1) and (2).\n2. To support the preparation of the performance plans the national supervisory authorities shall ensure:\n(a)\nthat the air navigation service providers communicate relevant elements of their business plans, prepared in consistency with the European Union-wide targets;\n(b)\nconsultation of the stakeholders in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 on the performance plan and targets. Adequate information shall be provided to stakeholders at least three weeks prior to the consultation meeting.\n3. The performance plans shall contain, in particular:\n(a)\nthe traffic forecast, expressed in service units, to be served for each year of the reference period, with the justification of the figures used;\n(b)\nthe determined costs for air navigation services costs set by Member State(s) in accordance with the provisions of Article 15(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004;\n(c)\na description of investment necessary to achieve the performance targets with a description of their relevance in relation with the European ATM Master Plan and their coherence with the main areas and directions of progress and change as set out therein;\n(d)\nperformance targets in each relevant key performance area, set by reference to each key performance indicator, for the entire reference period, with annual values to be used for monitoring and incentive purposes;\n(e)\na description of the civil-military dimension of the plan describing the performance of flexible use of airspace (FUA) application in order to increase capacity with due regard to military mission effectiveness, and if deemed appropriate, relevant performance indicators and targets in consistency with the indicators and targets of the performance plan;\n(f)\na description and justification of how the performance targets referred to in (d) reconcile and contribute to the European Union-wide performance targets;\n(g)\nclear identification of the different entities, accountable for meeting the targets and their specific contribution;\n(h)\na description of the incentive mechanisms to be applied on the various accountable entities to encourage achievement of the targets over the reference period;\n(i)\nthe measures taken by the national supervisory authorities to monitor the achievement of the performance targets;\n(j)\na description of the outcome of the stakeholder consultation, including the issues raised by the participants as well as the actions agreed.\n4. The performance plans shall be based on the template set out in Annex II and may, if the Member States so decide in application of Article 8(6), contain additional indicators with associated targets.\nArticle 11\nIncentive schemes\n1. The incentive schemes applied by Member States as part of their performance plan, shall comply with the following general principles:\n(a)\nthey shall be effective, proportional, and credible and shall not be changed during the reference period;\n(b)\nthey shall be implemented on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis to support improvements in the performance of service provision;\n(c)\nthey shall be part of the regulatory environment known ex ante by all stakeholders and be applicable during the entire reference period;\n(d)\nthey shall drive behaviour of entities subject to target setting with a view to achieving a high level of performance and meeting the associated targets.\n2. Incentives on safety targets shall aim at encouraging that required safety objectives are fully achieved and maintained while allowing for performance improvements in other key performance areas. They shall not be of financial nature and shall consist in action plans with deadlines and/or associated measures in application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 of 20 December 2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services (10) and/or implementing rules resulting from Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n3. Incentives on cost-efficiency targets shall be of financial nature and shall be governed by appropriate provisions in Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006. They shall consist in a risk-sharing mechanism, at national or functional airspace block level.\n4. Incentives on capacity targets may be of financial nature or of other nature, such as corrective action plans with deadlines and associated measures, which may include bonuses and penalties, adopted by Member States. Where the incentives are of financial nature, they shall be governed by the provisions of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006.\n5. Incentives on environment targets shall aim at encouraging the achievement of required environmental performance levels while allowing for performance improvements in other key performance areas. They shall be of financial or non-financial nature and shall be decided by Member States taking account of local circumstances.\n6. In addition, Member States, at national or functional airspace block level, may establish or approve incentives schemes on airspace users, as provided for in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006.\nCHAPTER III\nTHE ADOPTION OF PERFORMANCE PLANS\nArticle 12\nInitial adoption of performance plans\nUpon proposal of the national supervisory authorities, Member States, at national or functional airspace block level, shall adopt and communicate to the Commission, at the latest six months after adoption of the European Union-wide targets, their performance plans containing binding performance targets.\nArticle 13\nAssessment of performance plans and revision of the targets\n1. The Commission shall assess the performance plans, their targets and in particular their consistency with, and adequate contribution to, the European Union-wide performance targets, on the basis of the criteria laid down in Annex III, taking into appropriate account the evolution of the context that may have occurred between the date of adoption of the European Union-wide targets and the date of assessment of the performance plan.\n2. Where performance targets contained in a performance plan are found consistent with, and adequately contributing to, the European Union-wide targets, the Commission shall notify the Member State(s) thereof at the latest four months after reception of the plan.\n3. Where performance target(s) contained in a performance plan is/are found not to be consistent with, and adequately contributing to, the European Union-wide targets, the Commission may, at the latest four months after reception of the plan and in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, decide to issue a recommendation to the Member State(s) concerned to adopt revised performance target(s). Such decision shall be taken after consultation of the Member State(s) concerned, and shall identify precisely which target(s) has/have to be revised as well as the rationale of the Commission\u2019s assessment.\n4. In such case, at the latest two months after the issuance of the recommendation, the Member State(s) concerned shall adopt revised performance targets, taking due account of the Commission\u2019s views, together with the appropriate measures for reaching those targets and shall notify the Commission thereof.\nArticle 14\nAssessment of the revised performance targets and adoption of corrective measures\n1. Within two months after notification, the Commission shall assess the revised performance targets and in particular their consistency with, and adequate contribution to, the European Union-wide performance targets, on the basis of the criteria laid down in Annex III.\n2. Where the revised targets referred to in Article 13(4) are found consistent with, and adequately contributing to, the European Union-wide targets, the Commission shall notify the Member State(s) thereof at the latest two months after reception of the revised targets.\n3. Where the revised performance targets and the appropriate measures are still not consistent with, and adequately contributing to, the European Union-wide targets, the Commission may decide, at the latest two months after reception of the revised targets and in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, that the Member State(s) concerned shall take corrective measures.\n4. Such decision shall identify precisely which target(s) has/have to be revised and the rationale of the Commission\u2019s assessment. It may contain the level of performance expected for those targets in order to allow the Member State(s) concerned to take the appropriate corrective measures, and/or contain suggestions for such appropriate measures.\n5. At the latest two months after the Commission\u2019s decision, the corrective measures adopted by the Member State(s) concerned shall be communicated to the Commission, together with the elements showing how consistency with the Commission\u2019s decision is ensured.\nArticle 15\nPerformance plans and targets adopted after the beginning of the reference period\nPerformance plans or corrective measures adopted after the beginning of the reference period as a result of the implementation of the procedures set out in Articles 13 and 14 shall apply retroactively as from the first day of the reference period.\nArticle 16\nRevision of the European Union-wide targets\n1. The Commission may decide to revise the European Union-wide targets in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004:\n(a)\nbefore the beginning of the reference period when it has substantial evidence that the initial data, assumptions and rationales used for setting the initial European Union-wide targets are no longer valid;\n(b)\nduring the reference period, as a result of the application of an alert mechanism as referred to in Article 18.\n2. A revision of the European Union-wide targets may result in amendment of the existing performance plans. In such case the Commission may decide an appropriate adjustment of the time schedule set up in Chapters II and III of this Regulation.\nCHAPTER IV\nMONITORING OF THE ACHIEVEMENT OF PERFORMANCE\nArticle 17\nOngoing monitoring and reporting\n1. The national supervisory authorities, at national or functional airspace block level, and the Commission shall monitor the implementation of the performance plans. If during the reference period targets are not met, the national supervisory authorities shall apply the appropriate measures defined in the performance plan with a view to rectifying the situation. For this purpose the annual values in the performance plan shall be used.\n2. Where the Commission witnesses a significant and persistent drop in performance in a Member State or a functional airspace block, affecting other States parties to the single European sky and/or the entire European airspace, it may request the Member States concerned and national or functional airspace block supervisory authority or body concerned to define, apply and communicate to the Commission appropriate measures to achieve the targets set in their performance plan.\n3. The Member States shall report to the Commission on the monitoring by their national or functional airspace block supervisory authorities of the performance plans and targets at least on an annual basis and when performance targets risk not being achieved. The Commission shall report to the Single Sky Committee on the achievement of performance targets at least on an annual basis.\nArticle 18\nAlert mechanisms\n1. Where, due to circumstances that were unforeseeable at the beginning of the period and are at the same time insurmountable and outside the control of the Member States, alert threshold(s) referred to in Article 9(3) is/are reached at European Union level, the Commission shall review the situation in consultation with the Member States through the Single Sky Committee and provide proposals for appropriate actions within three months, which may include the revision of the European Union-wide performance targets and as a consequence revision of the national or functional airspace block performance targets.\n2. Where, due to circumstances that were unforeseeable at the beginning of the period and are at the same time insurmountable and outside the control of the Member States and the entities subject to the performance targets, alert threshold(s) referred to in Article 9(3) is/are reached at national or functional airspace block level, the national supervisory authority or body concerned shall review the situation liaising with the Commission and may provide proposals for appropriate measures within three months, which may include the revision of the national or functional airspace block performance targets.\n3. Member States, at national or functional airspace block level, may decide to adopt alert thresholds different from the ones referred to in Article 9(3), in order to take account of local circumstances and specificities. In such case, these thresholds shall be set out in the performance plans and consistent with the thresholds adopted pursuant to Article 9(3). The deviations shall be supported by detailed justification. When these thresholds are activated, the process set out in paragraph 2 shall apply.\n4. Where the implementation of an alert mechanism entails revision of performance plans and targets, the Commission shall facilitate such revision through an appropriate adjustment of the time schedule applicable in accordance with the procedure referred to in Chapters II and III of this Regulation.\nArticle 19\nFacilitation of compliance monitoring\nAir navigation service providers shall facilitate inspections and surveys by the Commission and the national supervisory authority(ies) responsible for their oversight, by a qualified entity acting on the latter\u2019s behalf, or by EASA in so far as relevant, including site visits. Without prejudice to the oversight powers conferred upon the national supervisory authorities and the EASA the authorised persons shall be empowered:\n(a)\nto examine, in relation with all key performance areas, the relevant documents and any other material relevant to the establishment of performance plans and targets;\n(b)\nto take copies of or extracts from such documents;\n(c)\nto ask for an oral explanation on site.\nSuch inspections and surveys shall be carried out in compliance with the procedures in force in the Member State in which they are to be undertaken.\nCHAPTER V\nCOLLECTION, VALIDATION, EXAMINATION, EVALUATION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION RELATED TO AIR NAVIGATION PERFORMANCE FOR THE SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY\nArticle 20\nCollection and validation of data for performance review\n1. In addition to the data already collected by the Commission through other European Union instruments and which may also be used for performance review, national authorities, air navigation service providers, airport operators, airport coordinators and air carriers shall ensure the provision to the Commission of the data referred to in Annex IV according to the requirements set out in this Annex.\n2. National authorities may delegate or reorganise in full or in part the task of providing the data between their national supervisory authorities, air navigation service providers, airport operators and airport coordinators, with a view to taking into account local specificities and existing reporting channels.\n3. The data providers shall take the necessary measures to ensure the quality, validation and timely transmission of the data, including evidence of their quality checks and validation processes, explanations to specific requests of the European Commission related to the quality of the data and, where necessary, action plans to improve data quality. The data shall be provided free of charge, in electronic form where applicable using the format specified by the Commission.\n4. The Commission shall assess the quality and validate the data transmitted according to paragraph 1. When the data do not allow proper use for performance review, the Commission may take appropriate measures to assess and improve the quality of the data in cooperation with Member States, and in particular their national supervisory authorities.\n5. For the purpose of this Regulation, performance related data referred to in paragraph 1 that is already provided to Eurocontrol shall be deemed to be provided to the Commission. Where this is not the case, the Commission and Eurocontrol shall make the necessary arrangements to ensure that such data is made available to the Commission under the same requirements as described in paragraph 3.\n6. Whenever significant new data requirements are identified or insufficient quality data is to be expected, the Commission may carry out pilot studies to be completed on a voluntary basis by the Member States before new data requirements are introduced by amendment of this Regulation. Such pilot studies will be carried out in order to assess the feasibility of the relevant data collection, taking into consideration the benefits of the availability of the data in relation to the collection costs and the burden of respondents.\nArticle 21\nDissemination of information\n1. The Commission shall disseminate general information for the purpose of the objectives set out in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (11), in particular its Article 4, and with Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004.\n2. The information included in Article 3(3)(a) shall be publicly available to the interested parties concerned, in particular by electronic means.\n3. The annual reports referred to in Article 3(3)(k) shall be publicly available. A reference to those reports shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission may decide to provide other general information on a regular basis to the interested parties concerned, in particular by electronic means.\n4. The European Union-wide targets referred to in Article 9 and a reference to the adopted performance plans referred to in Chapter III shall be publicly available and published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n5. Individual access to specific information, such as validated data and statistics, shall be granted to the data provider to whom the information and activities directly relate.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 22\nAppeal\nMember States shall ensure that decisions taken pursuant to this Regulation are properly reasoned and are subject to an effective review and/or appeal procedure.\nArticle 23\nTransitional measures\nWhere Member States decide to adopt a performance plan with targets at functional airspace block level in the course of the first reference period, they shall ensure that:\n(a)\nthe plan supersedes the national plans as from 1 January of one of the years of the reference period;\n(b)\nthe duration of the plan does not exceed the remaining duration of the reference period;\n(c)\nthe plan demonstrates that its performance targets are at least as ambitious as the consolidation of the former national targets.\nArticle 24\nReview of the scheme\nThe Commission shall review the effectiveness of the process by 1 July 2013. By the end of 2014 and regularly thereafter, the Commission shall review the performance scheme, and in particular analyse the impact, the effectiveness and scope of that system, taking appropriate account of work carried out by ICAO in this field.\nArticle 25\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005\nRegulation (EC) No 2096/2005 is amended as follows:\n1.\nSection 2.2 of Annex I is replaced by the following:\n\u20182.2. Organisational management\nAn air navigation service provider shall produce a business plan covering a minimum period of five years. The business plan shall:\n(a)\nset out the overall aims and goals of the air navigation service provider and its strategy towards achieving them in consistency with any overall longer term plan of the provider and with relevant European Union requirements for the development of infrastructure or other technology;\n(b)\ncontain appropriate performance targets in terms of safety, capacity, environment and cost-efficiency as may be applicable.\nThe information contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) shall be consistent with the national or functional airspace block performance plan referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 and, as far as safety data is concerned, consistent with the State Safety Programme referred to in Standard 2.27.1 of ICAO Annex 11, Amendment 47B-A from 20 July 2009 as applicable.\nAn air navigation service provider shall produce safety and business justifications for major investment projects including where relevant the estimated impact on the appropriate performance targets referred to in 2.2(b) and identifying investments stemming from the legal requirements associated with the implementation of SESAR.\nAn air navigation service provider shall produce an annual plan covering the forthcoming year which shall specify further the features of the business plan and describe any changes to it.\nThe annual plan shall cover the following provisions on the level and quality of service such as the expected level of capacity, safety, environment and cost-efficiency as may be applicable:\n(a)\ninformation on the implementation of new infrastructure or other developments and a statement how they will contribute to improving the performance of the air navigation service provider, including level and quality of services;\n(b)\nperformance indicators consistent with the national or functional airspace block performance plan referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 against which the performance level and quality of service may be reasonably assessed;\n(c)\ninformation on the measures foreseen to mitigate the safety risks identified in the safety plan of the air navigation service provider, including safety indicators to monitor safety risk and where appropriate the estimated cost of mitigation measures;\n(d)\nthe service provider\u2019s expected short-term financial position as well as any changes to or impacts on the business plan.\nThe air navigation service provider shall make the content of the performance part of the business plan and of the annual plan available to the Commission on request under conditions set by the national supervisory authority in accordance with national law.\u2019\n2.\nSection 9 of Annex I is replaced by the following:\n\u20189. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS\nAn air navigation service provider shall be able to provide an annual report of its activities to the relevant national supervisory authority. This report shall cover its financial results without prejudice to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004, as well as its operational performance and any other significant activities and developments in particular in the area of safety.\nThe annual report shall include as a minimum:\n-\nan assessment of the level of performance of service generated,\n-\nthe performance of the air navigation service provider compared to the performance targets established in the business plan, reconciling actual performance against the annual plan by using the indicators of performance established in the annual plan,\n-\nprovide an explanation for differences with the targets, and identify measures for closing any gaps during the Reference Period referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004,\n-\ndevelopments in operations and infrastructure,\n-\nthe financial results, as long as they are not separately published in accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004,\n-\ninformation about the formal consultation process with the users of its services,\n-\ninformation about the human resources policy.\nThe air navigation service provider shall make the content of the annual report available to the European Commission on request and to the public under conditions set by the national supervisory authority in accordance with national law.\u2019.\nArticle 26\nEntry into force\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. Chapter V shall apply as from 1 January 2011. The first reference period shall start from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2010.", "references": ["31", "10", "7", "62", "85", "23", "92", "4", "0", "27", "65", "29", "41", "72", "38", "79", "94", "69", "77", "67", "40", "84", "61", "99", "78", "80", "83", "30", "24", "64", "No Label", "25", "53", "54", "57", "76"], "gold": ["25", "53", "54", "57", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 484/2010\nof 3 June 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(a) and (d), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides for compulsory private storage of butter.\n(2)\nArticle 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 (2) establishes the requirements to be fulfilled by the products in order to be eligible for a private storage aid. Those requirements are listed in Annex I to that Regulation.\n(3)\nPoint III of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 provides that only butter produced in an undertaking approved in accordance with Article 4(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 105/2008 of 5 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in butter (3) and which fulfils additional criteria is eligible for private storage aid.\n(4)\nArticle 60 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (4) repealed Regulation (EC) No 105/2008 with effect from 1 March 2010.\n(5)\nThe criteria for the approval of undertakings for butter eligible for the private storage aid have been taken up in point 1(a), (b) and (c) of Part III of Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(6)\nSince the reference to Regulation (EC) No 105/2008 in point III of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 is no longer relevant starting with 1 March 2010, for reasons of clarity it is therefore appropriate to update this reference by making reference to point 1(a), (b) and (c) of Part III of Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 826/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe proposed amendment should apply as from the date on which the repeal of Regulation (EC) No 105/2008 has taken effect.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe first paragraph of point III, \u2018Butter\u2019, of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Private storage aid shall only be granted for butter produced in an undertaking approved in accordance with point 1(a), (b) and (c) of Part III of Annex IV to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 (5), during the 28 days preceding the day of application or the day of submission of the tender.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 March 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["38", "24", "0", "71", "94", "54", "27", "58", "10", "41", "37", "89", "39", "5", "4", "82", "53", "22", "87", "36", "52", "74", "7", "95", "46", "32", "2", "80", "45", "14", "No Label", "15", "26", "62", "66", "69", "70"], "gold": ["15", "26", "62", "66", "69", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/301/CFSP\nof 23 May 2011\nimplementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus, additional persons should be included in the list of persons subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex IIIA to Decision 2010/639/CFSP,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex IIIA to Decision 2010/639/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["81", "60", "34", "7", "3", "25", "4", "89", "52", "50", "42", "45", "71", "87", "69", "74", "85", "95", "94", "70", "43", "38", "96", "88", "65", "75", "84", "26", "16", "48", "No Label", "1", "2", "9", "12", "13", "14", "91", "97"], "gold": ["1", "2", "9", "12", "13", "14", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 March 2011\nestablishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Rotterdam Convention as regards the amendments to Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade\n(2011/162/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 192 and 207, in conjunction with Article 218(9), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Union has approved the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade (the \u2018Rotterdam Convention\u2019) by Council Decision 2006/730/EC (1).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals (2) implements the Rotterdam Convention in the Union.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure that importing countries benefit from the protection offered by the Rotterdam Convention, it is necessary and appropriate to support the recommendation from the Chemical Review Committee as regards the inclusion in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention of chrysotile asbestos, endosulfan, alachlor and aldicarb. These four substances are already banned or severely restricted in the Union and are therefore subject to export requirements which go beyond what is required under the Rotterdam Convention.\n(4)\nThe fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Rotterdam Convention is expected to take decisions on the proposed amendments to Annex III. The Union should support the adoption of these amendments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the Union at the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Rotterdam Convention is that the Commission shall, on behalf of the Union, as regards matters falling within the Union\u2019s competence, support the adoption of the amendments to Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade (3) as regards the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos, endosulfan, alachlor and aldicarb.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Commission.\nDone at Brussels, 14 March 2011.", "references": ["84", "95", "52", "13", "79", "98", "67", "55", "57", "89", "86", "69", "77", "16", "10", "8", "28", "49", "32", "63", "7", "54", "62", "25", "78", "36", "21", "91", "82", "2", "No Label", "3", "23", "38", "58", "60", "65", "83"], "gold": ["3", "23", "38", "58", "60", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1158/2010\nof 9 December 2010\non a common safety method for assessing conformity with the requirements for obtaining railway safety certificates\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on Safety on the Community\u2019s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive) (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Recommendation ERA/REC/SAF/09-2009 from the European Railway Agency, delivered to the Commission on 18 September 2009, on a common safety method for conformity assessment.\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2004/49/EC provides a framework for equal conditions for all railway undertakings, through the application of the same safety certification requirements across the Union. The purpose of the common safety method (CSM) is to provide a framework for national safety authorities to harmonise their decision-making criteria across the Union, in accordance with Article 17(4) of Directive 2004/49/EC.\n(2)\nIt is necessary to provide for a method for national safety authorities to assess the adequacy of processes developed by railway undertakings to meet the harmonised requirements for obtaining Part A safety certificates issued in accordance with Article 10(2)(a) and Part B safety certificates issued in accordance with Article 10(2)(b) of Directive 2004/49/EC. The criteria by which assessment by national safety authorities shall be carried out should be defined and the procedures to be followed should be established.\n(3)\nRegarding conformity with the safety requirement according to which responsibility for railway vehicle maintenance should be clearly defined, a railway undertaking which is not the entity in charge of maintenance for all vehicles used in its operation, should through appropriate contractual arrangements, such as the General Contract of Use (GCU), ensure that every vehicle has an entity in charge of maintenance to take responsibility for vehicle maintenance in accordance with Article 14a of Directive 2004/49/EC. The contract between the parties should specify the exchange of information between both undertakings needed to guarantee the safe operation of vehicles.\n(4)\nIn assessing conformity with safety requirements of products or services provided by contractors or suppliers of railway undertakings, such as provision of services by training centres recognised in accordance with Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community (2), authorisations or certificates granted in accordance with relevant Union law to contractors or suppliers may be considered valid evidence. Certification of entities in charge of maintenance in accordance with Article 14a of Directive 2004/49/EC may also be regarded valid evidence. Until the European certification system enters into force, certificates delivered on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding establishing the basic principles of a common system of certification of entities in charge of maintenance for freight wagons (3) signed on 14 May 2009 may be considered valid evidence when assessing conformity with relevant safety requirements.\n(5)\nNational safety authorities assess a railway undertaking\u2019s ability to comply with all the requirements required to operate in general and on the specific network for which it is seeking a certificate by assessing its safety management system at global level.\n(6)\nEach national safety authority should put in place arrangements to examine whether the results outlined in the application for a safety certificate are being delivered in operation after the award of the certificate and whether all the necessary requirements are complied with on a continuous basis, as required by Article 16(2)(f) and Article 17(2) of Directive 2004/49/EC. This therefore requires the development of a post-award supervision regime based on key fundamental principles in order to ensure a harmonised approach by national safety authorities in each Member State.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 27(1) of Directive 2004/49/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject-matter\nThis Regulation establishes a common safety method (CSM) for assessing conformity with requirements for obtaining safety certificates as referred to in Article 6(3)(b) of Directive 2004/49/EC.\nThe CSM includes:\n(a)\na procedure and criteria for assessing applications by railway undertakings for safety certificates as referred to in Article 10(2) of Directive 2004/49/EC, as set out in Annexes I, II and III to this Regulation;\n(b)\nprinciples for supervising compliance with the requirements of Directive 2004/49/EC after the national safety authority has granted the certificate, as set out in Annex IV to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definition shall apply: \u2018supervision\u2019 means the arrangements put in place by the national safety authority to oversee safety performance after it has granted a safety certificate.\nArticle 3\nProcedures for assessing applications\n1. When examining applications for both Part A and Part B safety certificates submitted after the entry into force of this Regulation, national safety authorities shall apply the procedure set out in Annex I to this Regulation for assessing their conformity with requirements in Directive 2004/49/EC. National safety authorities shall use the assessment criteria set out in Annex II to this Regulation for safety certificates issued in accordance with Article 10(3) of Directive 2004/49/EC and those contained in Annex III to this Regulation for safety certificates issued in accordance with Article 10(4) of Directive 2004/49/EC. These criteria shall also be used in case of renewal of safety certificates in accordance with Article 10(5) of Directive 2004/49/EC.\n2. During assessment, national safety authorities may accept commitments by applicants that they will manage risks through the use of contracts with third parties. The contracts shall also specify the exchange of information needed to ensure the safe operation of vehicles, especially in the areas relating to managing maintenance.\n3. Products or services provided by contractors or suppliers to railway undertakings shall be presumed to conform to safety requirements if the contractors, suppliers or products are certified in accordance with relevant certification schemes established under Union legislation, for the provision of such products and services.\nArticle 4\nSupervision\nAfter granting a safety certificate, national safety authorities shall, for both Part A and Part B safety certificates, supervise railway undertakings\u2019 continued application of their safety management system and shall apply the principles for supervision set out in Annex IV.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2010.", "references": ["14", "45", "37", "62", "40", "7", "12", "6", "8", "85", "24", "35", "84", "31", "34", "19", "95", "39", "93", "20", "83", "96", "74", "21", "86", "57", "32", "64", "46", "80", "No Label", "53", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["53", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 639/2011\nof 29 June 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 629/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2011.", "references": ["56", "54", "70", "19", "21", "6", "24", "13", "2", "18", "65", "26", "96", "12", "85", "42", "20", "89", "27", "99", "11", "52", "31", "77", "0", "41", "93", "78", "40", "68", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 May 2011\non the conclusion of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes\n(2011/290/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 114, 168, 169, 172, 173(3), 188 and 192, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part (2), on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019) was signed on behalf of the Union on 22 November 2010.\n(2)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(3)\nThe Protocol should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes (3) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 10 of the Protocol.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 May 2011.", "references": ["28", "8", "10", "72", "85", "82", "31", "42", "52", "14", "86", "78", "2", "20", "49", "18", "34", "26", "88", "44", "5", "4", "16", "92", "51", "32", "74", "64", "57", "0", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 646/2011\nof 1 July 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 639/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2011.", "references": ["37", "46", "36", "64", "21", "69", "39", "16", "93", "86", "28", "77", "84", "85", "67", "57", "29", "6", "61", "32", "40", "1", "81", "83", "12", "75", "96", "92", "13", "99", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 745/2011\nof 28 July 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 7(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Czech Republic\u2019s application of 19 October 2004 to register the name \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAustria and Germany submitted objections to the registration pursuant to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. The objections were deemed admissible under points (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 7(3) of that Regulation.\n(3)\nBy letters dated 6 May 2008, the Commission asked the Member States concerned to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with their internal procedures.\n(4)\nGiven that no agreement was reached between Austria and the Czech Republic nor between Germany and the Czech Republic within the designated timeframe, the Commission must adopt a decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(5)\nConcerning the alleged failure of compliance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 regarding an absence of production in the geographical area and the quality of its reputation, the national authorities responsible confirmed that production took place in the geographical zone. The link was based on the specific quality of the product attributable to the geographical area, namely the thermal spring water used in production, which is sufficient to meet the requirements of point (b) of Article 2(1); whether or not the product also had sufficient reputation to satisfy the requirements of Article 2(1) was immaterial.\n(6)\nThe statements of objection from Germany showed that trade marks including the term \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 had been registered prior to the application for registration of the term \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019 as a protected geographical indication. Evidence was further provided to show that consumers in Germany associated the name \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 with a certain type of wafer. However no evidence was provided in the statements of objection that consumers strongly associated the wafers with all or any of the trade marks as distinct from the descriptive term \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019, nor that consumers would be liable to be misled as to the true identity of a product marketed under the name \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019. Therefore, the Commission cannot conclude that the registration of the name \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019 would be contrary to Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(7)\nAs a salient part of the names \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 and \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019 is identical, it is reasonable to conclude that the names are partly identical for the purposes of point (c) of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. Furthermore, given the similarities between the products and their common origins, the application of the protection envisaged by Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, and in particular point (b) of paragraph (1) thereof, could have the result that \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019, if registered, would be found by a competent court to be protected against the use of \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 on the wafers concerned. The evidence therefore shows that the continued existence of the name \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 could be jeopardised by the registration of \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019 within the meaning of point (c) of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(8)\nThe statements of objection were declared admissible on the ground, inter alia, that registration of the proposed name would jeopardise the existence of a partly identical name, namely \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019, in so far that this name is used on product and not protected under trade mark legislation. The evidence further shows that the name \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 originated from producers in the town formerly known as Karlsbad and that production of the wafer so named has continued for a considerable period of time. Moreover, the evidence shows that the uses of the name \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 referred to an authentic and traditional product that was not exploiting the reputation of \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019. For these reasons the maximum transitional period foreseen by Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 should be foreseen.\n(9)\nConcerning trade marks containing the term \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 that were protected through registration or acquired by use prior to the application for registration of \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019, the conditions of Article 14(1) not being met, the said trade marks cannot be invalidated nor can their continued use be hindered by virtue of the registration of \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019 as a protected geographical indication, provided the general requirements under trade mark legislation are otherwise met.\n(10)\nConcerning generic status, the evidence provided in the statements of objection referred to the general use of the term \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 and not to that of \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019. While the objections have provided evidence to show that a number of uses as general descriptive terms exist including the German mention \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019, no evidence has been provided that the name \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019 is used to designate a category of products that do not originate in the region of Karlovy Vary. The objection does not take into consideration the situation in the Czech Republic. Therefore, on the basis of information provided the name \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019 cannot be considered to be generic and there is no failure of compliance with Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(11)\nIn the light of the above, the name \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019 should be entered in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications subject to a transitional period of 5 years during which time the term \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 may continue to be used in circumstances that, but for the transitional period, could be contrary to the protection provided for by Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Protected Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe designation contained in the Annex to this Regulation shall be entered in the register.\nArticle 2\n1. The term \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 may be used to designate wafers not complying with the specification for \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019 for a period of 5 years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Trade marks containing the term \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 that were protected through registration or acquired by use prior to 19 October 2004, shall not be invalidated nor shall their continued use be hindered by virtue of the registration of \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 trojhr\u00e1nky\u2019 as a protected geographical indication, provided the general requirements under trade mark legislation are otherwise met.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2011.", "references": ["52", "27", "85", "39", "10", "45", "7", "94", "80", "59", "77", "79", "54", "22", "11", "60", "63", "19", "34", "29", "36", "56", "23", "92", "74", "64", "1", "53", "32", "37", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/666/CFSP\nof 10 October 2011\namending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (1).\n(2)\nOn the basis of a review of Decision 2010/639/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be extended until 31 October 2012.\n(3)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus, additional persons should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex IIIA to Decision 2010/639/CFSP.\n(4)\nFurthermore, the information relating to certain persons and to an entity listed in Annex IIIA to that Decision should be updated.\n(5)\nIt is necessary to include a derogation to the asset freeze in Decision 2010/639/CFSP in order to ensure that EU companies are not prohibited from recovering funds owed to them by the listed entities under contracts entered into prior to the listing of those entities.\n(6)\nDecision 2010/639/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/639/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nThe following paragraph is added to Article 3:\n\u20183. Article 2(1) shall not prevent a listed natural or legal person, entity or body from making a payment due under a contract entered into before the listing of such a natural or legal person, entity or body, provided that the relevant Member State has determined that the payment is not, directly or indirectly, received by a natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 2(1).\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 7(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. This Decision shall apply until 31 October 2012. It shall be kept under constant review. It may be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe persons listed in Annex I to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex IIIA to Decision 2010/639/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nIn Annex IIIA to Decision 2010/639/CFSP, the entries for the following persons and entity shall be replaced by the respective entries set out in Annex II to this Decision:\n(1)\nMazouka Siarhei\n(2)\nBazanau, Aliaksandr Viktaravich\n(3)\nPeftiev Vladimir\n(4)\nIpatau, Vadzim Dzmitryevich\n(5)\nBushnaia, Natallia Uladzimirauna\n(6)\nBushchyk, Vasil Vasilievich\n(7)\nKatsuba, Sviatlana Piatrouna\n(8)\nKisialiova, Nadzeia Mikalaeuna\n(9)\nPadaliak, Eduard Vasilievich\n(10)\nRakhmanava, Maryna Iurievna\n(11)\nShchurok, Ivan Antonavich\n(12)\nSport-Pari\n(13)\nShadryna, Hanna Stanislavauna.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 10 October 2011.", "references": ["90", "75", "45", "47", "94", "60", "92", "57", "73", "67", "44", "89", "83", "86", "49", "56", "41", "53", "10", "93", "30", "46", "5", "87", "13", "19", "84", "99", "9", "54", "No Label", "3", "11", "23", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "11", "23", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 20 April 2012\nconcerning the application of the control and movement provisions of Council Directive 2008/118/EC to certain additives, in accordance with Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC\n(notified under document C(2012) 2484)\n(2012/209/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1), and in particular Article 20(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFollowing a request made by the Authorities of the Netherlands under Article 20(2) of Directive 2003/96/EC, the Commission has adopted Commission Implementing Decision 2011/545/EU of 16 September 2011 concerning the application of the control and movement provisions of Council Directive 2008/118/EC to products falling within CN code 3811, in accordance with Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (2). That Implementing Decision submits all products falling within CN code 3811 to the control and movement provisions of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (3).\n(2)\nIn line with the request made by the Authorities of the Netherlands, the intention of Implementing Decision 2011/545/EU is to prevent tax evasion, avoidance and abuse, by submitting to the control and movement provisions of Directive 2008/118/EC certain products intended to be used as additives for motor fuels and which, in this case, are subject to taxation in accordance with Directive 2003/96/EC.\n(3)\nFollowing the adoption of Implementing Decision 2011/545/EU, the Commission\u2019s attention has been drawn to the particular position of products falling within CN codes 3811 21 00 and 3811 29 00. Those products are neither intended to be used as heating fuels or motor fuels, nor as additives thereto and do not give rise to a risk of tax evasion, avoidance or abuse. They should thus not be made subject to the control and movement provisions of Directive 2008/118/EC. Only products falling within CN codes 3811 11 10, 3811 11 90, 3811 19 00 and 3811 90 00 should thus be made subject to those control and movement provisions.\n(4)\nImplementing Decision 2011/545/EU should therefore be replaced by an analogous Decision, which should however be limited to CN codes 3811 11 10, 3811 11 90, 3811 19 00 and 3811 90 00.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Excise Duty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAs from 1 January 2013, products falling within CN codes 3811 11 10, 3811 11 90, 3811 19 00 and 3811 90 00 of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (4) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 (5) shall be subject to the control and movement provisions of Directive 2008/118/EC, in accordance with Article 20(2) of Directive 2003/96/EC.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Decision 2011/545/EU is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2012.", "references": ["43", "36", "17", "94", "28", "29", "76", "98", "57", "50", "45", "39", "71", "5", "14", "68", "16", "8", "38", "9", "60", "56", "4", "66", "47", "49", "82", "72", "65", "41", "No Label", "23", "34", "80", "83"], "gold": ["23", "34", "80", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1167/2011\nof 15 November 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 November 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 November 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 November 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2011.", "references": ["59", "50", "14", "3", "76", "78", "43", "82", "73", "5", "24", "0", "63", "39", "81", "96", "13", "44", "52", "57", "72", "48", "56", "87", "47", "34", "71", "17", "54", "53", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 11 October 2011\namending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of the Banco de Portugal\n(2011/714/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular to Article 27.1 thereof,\nHaving regard to Recommendation ECB/2011/11 of the European Central Bank of 25 August 2011 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banco de Portugal (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are to be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB\u2019s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the current external auditors of the Banco de Portugal ended after the audit for the financial year 2010. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2011.\n(3)\nThe Banco de Portugal has selected PricewaterhouseCoopers & Associados - Sociedade de Revisores Oficiais de Contas, Lda. as its external auditors for the financial years 2011 to 2016.\n(4)\nThe Governing Council of the ECB recommended that PricewaterhouseCoopers & Associados - Sociedade de Revisores Oficiais de Contas, Lda. should be appointed as the external auditors of the Banco de Portugal for the financial years 2011 to 2016.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to follow the recommendation of the Governing Council of the ECB and to amend Council Decision 1999/70/EC (2) accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1(10) of Decision 1999/70/EC shall be replaced by the following:\n\u201810. PricewaterhouseCoopers & Associados - Sociedade de Revisores Oficiais de Contas, Lda. is hereby approved as the external auditors of the Banco de Portugal for the financial years 2011 to 2016.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the European Central Bank.\nDone at Luxembourg, 11 October 2011.", "references": ["2", "70", "35", "94", "23", "51", "87", "3", "76", "54", "68", "69", "9", "16", "78", "53", "79", "38", "29", "85", "77", "75", "31", "19", "83", "8", "44", "37", "33", "57", "No Label", "28", "47", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["28", "47", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 January 2011\nappointing a Slovak alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/40/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Slovak Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Pavol FRE\u0160O,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as an alternate member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr Juraj BLAN\u00c1R\npredseda \u017dilinsk\u00e9ho samospr\u00e1vneho kraja.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["15", "60", "67", "11", "92", "22", "54", "1", "73", "29", "49", "46", "57", "19", "33", "43", "93", "16", "83", "86", "78", "68", "64", "76", "69", "82", "48", "3", "32", "13", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 417/2012\nof 15 May 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 May 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 May 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 May 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 May 2012.", "references": ["2", "99", "55", "34", "58", "36", "84", "47", "25", "24", "42", "4", "1", "88", "65", "12", "86", "14", "17", "7", "21", "81", "0", "93", "91", "69", "18", "95", "37", "74", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 6 July 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/031 BE/General Motors Belgium from Belgium)\n(2011/470/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nBelgium submitted an application on 20 December 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in the enterprise General Motors Belgium and four of its suppliers, and supplemented it by additional information up to 24 January 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 9 593 931.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Belgium,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 9 593 931 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 6 July 2011.", "references": ["33", "8", "57", "18", "25", "47", "92", "66", "34", "65", "70", "13", "98", "19", "5", "12", "69", "23", "83", "26", "17", "40", "32", "35", "44", "75", "60", "20", "89", "14", "No Label", "15", "16", "49", "50", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "16", "49", "50", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 483/2010\nof 2 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 3 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 June 2010.", "references": ["22", "58", "29", "10", "32", "52", "26", "39", "57", "18", "93", "13", "79", "54", "71", "86", "14", "41", "66", "67", "9", "6", "8", "27", "72", "37", "99", "53", "17", "76", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 23 March 2012\namending Decision 2006/133/EC requiring Member States temporarily to take additional measures against the dissemination of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Steiner et Buhrer) Nickle et al. (the pine wood nematode) as regards areas in Portugal, other than those in which it is known not to occur\n(notified under document C(2012) 1844)\n(2012/175/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular the fourth sentence of Article 16(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2006/133/EC (2) lays down certain protective measures to be applied until 31 March 2012.\n(2)\nDecision 2006/133/EC should continue to apply for a period allowing an adequate revision of the measures it provides for.\n(3)\nDecision 2006/133/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 2 of Decision 2006/133/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin the first paragraph, the words \u201831 March 2012\u2019 are replaced by \u201831 October 2012\u2019;\n2.\nin the third paragraph, the words \u201831 March 2012\u2019 are replaced by \u201831 October 2012\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["12", "55", "43", "58", "34", "56", "49", "45", "50", "90", "0", "81", "14", "44", "41", "76", "85", "83", "65", "94", "27", "25", "77", "68", "52", "33", "79", "40", "26", "99", "No Label", "60", "61", "66", "88", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["60", "61", "66", "88", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 1 June 2012\nauthorising the placing on the market of Gamma-Cyclodextrin as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2012) 3496)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2012/288/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 February 2010 the company Wacker Chemie GmbH made a request to the competent authorities of Ireland to place \u03b3-Cyclodextrin on the market as novel food ingredient. Gamma-Cyclodextrin is a digestible carbohydrate to be added to foods.\n(2)\nOn 9 July 2010 the competent food assessment body of Ireland issued its initial assessment report. In this report it came to the conclusion that the company Wacker Chemie GmbH had provided sufficient information to authorise the placing on the market of \u03b3-Cyclodextrin as a novel food ingredient.\n(3)\nThe Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to all Member States on 19 July 2010.\n(4)\nWithin the 60-day period laid down in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 reasoned objections were raised in accordance with that provision. In particular, objections which concerned the absorption of fat soluble vitamins were raised. In accordance with the provisions of Article 7(1) a Commission Implementing Decision is required that takes into account the objections raised. Additional explanations by the applicant alleviated these concerns to the satisfaction of Member States and the Commission.\n(5)\nThe intentional addition of \u03b3-Cyclodextrin to food for technological purposes falls within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (2) and should be authorised in accordance with that regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGamma-Cyclodextrin as specified in the Annex may be placed on the market as a novel food ingredient.\nArticle 2\nThe designation of \u03b3-Cyclodextrin authorised by this Decision on the labelling of the foodstuffs containing it shall be \u2018Gamma-Cyclodextrin\u2019 or \u2018\u03b3-Cyclodextrin\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Wacker Chemie AG, Hanns Seidel Platz 4, 81737 M\u00fcnchen, Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2012.", "references": ["45", "83", "50", "16", "67", "32", "89", "95", "58", "4", "44", "12", "94", "2", "59", "68", "48", "21", "13", "75", "96", "40", "36", "71", "33", "80", "11", "10", "52", "70", "No Label", "25", "38", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1205/2011\nof 22 November 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 7\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards (1), and in particular Article 3(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 (2) certain international standards and interpretations that were in existence at 15 October 2008 were adopted.\n(2)\nOn 7 October 2010, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) published Amendments to IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures -Transfers of Financial Assets, hereinafter \"the Amendments\". The Amendments aim to help users of financial statements better evaluate the risk exposures relating to transfers of financial assets and the effect of those risks on an entity\u2019s financial position. Their objective is to promote transparency in the reporting of transfer transactions, particularly those that involve securitisation of financial assets.\n(3)\nThe consultation with the Technical Expert Group (TEG) of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) confirms that the Amendments meet the technical criteria for adoption set out in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002. In accordance with Commission Decision 2006/505/EC of 14 July 2006 setting up a Standards Advice Review Group to advise the Commission on the objectivity and neutrality of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group's (EFRAG\u2019s) opinions (3), the Standards Advice Review Group considered EFRAG's opinion on endorsement and advised the Commission that it is well-balanced and objective.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1126/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Accounting Regulatory Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nInternational Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;\n(2)\nIFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards is amended in accordance with the amendments to IFRS 7 as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEach company shall apply the amendments referred to in Article 1 as from the commencement date of its first financial year starting after 30 June 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2011.", "references": ["36", "40", "86", "97", "19", "51", "50", "98", "89", "75", "24", "8", "85", "14", "31", "80", "43", "92", "25", "22", "88", "41", "54", "2", "13", "55", "5", "46", "21", "37", "No Label", "29", "30", "47"], "gold": ["29", "30", "47"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 165/2011\nof 22 February 2011\nproviding for deductions from certain mackerel quotas allocated to Spain in 2011 and subsequent years on account of overfishing in 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Article 105(1) and (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA fishing quota for mackerel in zone VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 was allocated to Spain for 2010 by Council Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 (2) and for 2011 by Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 (3).\n(2)\nThe mackerel fishing quota for 2010 was reduced following exchanges made by Spain with France and Portugal, pursuant to Article 20(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (4).\n(3)\nThe Commission detected inconsistencies in the Spanish data about the mackerel fishery in 2010 by crosschecking such data as they had been recorded and reported at different stages of the value chain, from catch to first sale. These inconsistencies were further corroborated through the conduct of several audits, verification missions and inspections in Spain in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. The evidence gathered in the course of the investigation allows the Commission to establish that this Member State has exceeded its mackerel quota in the year 2010 by 19 621 tonnes.\n(4)\nAccording to paragraph 1 of Article 105 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, when the Commission has established that a Member State has exceeded the fishing quotas which have been allocated to it, the Commission shall operate deductions from future fishing quotas of that Member State.\n(5)\nParagraph 2 of Article 105 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 provides that deductions from fishing quotas shall be operated in the following year or years by applying certain multiplying factors set out in that paragraph.\n(6)\nThe deductions applicable for overfishing in 2010 are higher than the quota allocated to Spain in 2011 for the stock concerned.\n(7)\nThe mackerel stock in question is currently within safe biological limits and scientific advice indicates that this is likely to remain so in the foreseeable future. An immediate and full application of the deduction from the Spanish mackerel quota for 2011 would lead to a complete closure of this fishery in 2011. In the specific circumstances of this case, such complete closure is likely to involve serious risks of disproportionate socio-economic consequences for both the fishing sector concerned and the associated processing industry. On balance, and taking into consideration the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy, it is considered appropriate in this particular case to operate the deductions needed for the restitution of the overfishing amount due over a period of 5 years, from 2011 to 2015 and, if necessary, to operate any remainder deduction from the mackerel quota allocated in immediately subsequent years.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe fishing quota for mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in zone VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 allocated to Spain in the year 2011 by Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 shall be reduced as shown in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThe fishing quota for mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in zone VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 that may be allocated to Spain in the years from 2012 to 2015 and, where appropriate, the fishing quota for the same stock which may be allocated to Spain in subsequent years shall be reduced as shown in the Annex.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 February 2011.", "references": ["76", "60", "84", "29", "1", "41", "93", "21", "71", "24", "22", "44", "5", "38", "20", "92", "65", "87", "75", "35", "6", "53", "81", "49", "46", "43", "62", "63", "85", "14", "No Label", "13", "58", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "58", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1177/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\nconcerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 91(1) and 100(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAction by the Union in the field of maritime and inland waterway transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers that is comparable with other modes of transport. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general.\n(2)\nSince the maritime and inland waterway passenger is the weaker party to the transport contract, all passengers should be granted a minimum level of protection. Nothing should prevent carriers from offering contract conditions more favourable for the passenger than the conditions laid down in this Regulation. At the same time, the aim of this Regulation is not to interfere in commercial business-to-business relationships concerning the transport of goods. In particular, agreements between a road haulier and a carrier should not be construed as transport contracts for the purposes of this Regulation and should therefore not give the road haulier or its employees the right to compensation under this Regulation in the case of delays.\n(3)\nThe protection of passengers should cover not only passenger services between ports situated in the territory of the Member States, but also passenger services between such ports and ports situated outside the territory of the Member States, taking into account the risk of distortion of competition on the passenger transport market. Therefore the term \u2018Union carrier\u2019 should, for the purposes of this Regulation, be interpreted as broadly as possible, but without affecting other legal acts of the Union, such as Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 of 22 December 1986 laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport (3) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (4).\n(4)\nThe internal market for maritime and inland waterway passenger services should benefit citizens in general. Consequently, disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, whether caused by disability, age or any other factor, should have opportunities for using passenger services and cruises that are comparable to those of other citizens. Disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility have the same rights as all other citizens with regard to free movement, freedom of choice and non-discrimination.\n(5)\nMember States should promote the use of public transport and the use of integrated tickets in order to optimise the use and interoperability of the various transport modes and operators.\n(6)\nIn the light of Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and in order to give disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility opportunities for maritime and inland waterway travel comparable to those of other citizens, rules for non-discrimination and assistance during their journey should be established. Those persons should therefore be accepted for carriage and not refused transport, except for reasons which are justified on the grounds of safety and established by the competent authorities. They should enjoy the right to assistance in ports and on board passenger ships. In the interests of social inclusion, the persons concerned should receive this assistance free of charge. Carriers should establish access conditions, preferably using the European standardisation system.\n(7)\nIn deciding on the design of new ports and terminals, and as part of major refurbishments, the bodies responsible for those facilities should take into account the needs of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, in particular with regard to accessibility, paying particular consideration to \u2018design for all\u2019 requirements. Carriers should take such needs into account when deciding on the design of new and newly refurbished passenger ships in accordance with Directive 2006/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels (5) and Directive 2009/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (6).\n(8)\nAssistance given at ports situated in the territory of a Member State should, among other things, enable disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility to proceed from a designated point of arrival at a port to a passenger ship and from a passenger ship to a designated point of departure at a port, including embarking and disembarking.\n(9)\nIn organising assistance to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, and the training of their personnel, carriers should cooperate with organisations representative of disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility. In that work they should also take into account the relevant provisions of the International Convention and Code on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers as well as the Recommendation of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on the design and operation of passenger ships to respond to elderly and disabled persons\u2019 needs.\n(10)\nThe provisions governing the embarkation of disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility should be without prejudice to the general provisions applicable to the embarkation of passengers laid down by the international, Union or national rules in force.\n(11)\nLegal acts of the Union on passenger rights should take into account the needs of passengers, in particular those of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, to use different transport modes and to transfer smoothly between different modes, subject to the applicable safety regulations for the operation of ships.\n(12)\nPassengers should be adequately informed in the event of cancellation or delay of any passenger service or cruise. That information should help passengers to make the necessary arrangements and, if needed, to obtain information about alternative connections.\n(13)\nInconvenience experienced by passengers due to the cancellation or long delay of their journey should be reduced. To this end, passengers should be adequately looked after and should be able to cancel their journey and have their tickets reimbursed or to obtain re-routing under satisfactory conditions. Adequate accommodation for passengers may not necessarily consist of hotel rooms but also of any other suitable accommodation that is available, depending in particular on the circumstances relating to each specific situation, the passengers\u2019 vehicles and the characteristics of the ship. In this respect and in duly justified cases of extraordinary and urgent circumstances, carriers should be able to take full advantage of the available relevant facilities, in cooperation with civil authorities.\n(14)\nCarriers should provide for the payment of compensation for passengers in the event of the cancellation or delay of a passenger service based on a percentage of the ticket price, except when the cancellation or delay occurs due to weather conditions endangering the safe operation of the ship or to extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.\n(15)\nCarriers should, in accordance with generally accepted principles, bear the burden of proving that the cancellation or delay was caused by such weather conditions or extraordinary circumstances.\n(16)\nWeather conditions endangering the safe operation of the ship should include, but not be limited to, strong winds, heavy seas, strong currents, difficult ice conditions and extremely high or low water levels, hurricanes, tornados and floods.\n(17)\nExtraordinary circumstances should include, but not be limited to, natural disasters such as fires and earthquakes, terrorist attacks, wars and military or civil armed conflicts, uprisings, military or illegal confiscations, labour conflicts, landing any sick, injured or dead person, search and rescue operations at sea or on inland waterways, measures necessary to protect the environment, decisions taken by traffic management bodies or port authorities, or decisions by the competent authorities with regard to public order and safety as well as to cover urgent transport needs.\n(18)\nWith the involvement of stakeholders, professional associations and associations of customers, passengers, disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, carriers should cooperate in order to adopt arrangements at national or European level for improving care and assistance offered to passengers whenever their travel is interrupted, notably in the event of long delays or cancellation of travel. National enforcement bodies should be informed of those arrangements.\n(19)\nThe Court of Justice of the European Union has already ruled that problems leading to cancellations or delays can be covered by the concept of extraordinary circumstances only to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. It should be noted that weather conditions endangering the safe operation of the ship are indeed beyond the actual control of the carrier.\n(20)\nThis Regulation should not affect the rights of passengers established by Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (7). This Regulation should not apply in cases where a package tour is cancelled for reasons other than cancellation of the passenger service or the cruise.\n(21)\nPassengers should be fully informed of their rights under this Regulation in formats which are accessible to everybody, so that they can effectively exercise those rights. Rights of passengers should include the receipt of information regarding the passenger service or cruise before and during the journey. All essential information provided to passengers should also be provided in formats accessible to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, with such accessible formats allowing passengers to access the same information using, for example, text, Braille, audio, video and/or electronic formats.\n(22)\nPassengers should be able to exercise their rights by means of appropriate and accessible complaint procedures implemented by carriers and terminal operators within their respective areas of competence or, as the case may be, by the submission of complaints to the body or bodies designated to that end by the Member State concerned. Carriers and terminal operators should respond to complaints by passengers within a set period of time, bearing in mind that the non-reaction to a complaint could be held against them.\n(23)\nTaking into account the procedures established by a Member State for the submission of complaints, a complaint concerning assistance in a port or on board a ship should preferably be addressed to the body or bodies designated for the enforcement of this Regulation in the Member State where the port of embarkation is situated and, for passenger services from a third country, where the port of disembarkation is situated.\n(24)\nMember States should ensure compliance with this Regulation and designate a competent body or bodies to carry out supervision and enforcement tasks. This does not affect the rights of passengers to seek legal redress from courts under national law.\n(25)\nThe body or bodies designated for the enforcement of this Regulation should be independent of commercial interests. Each Member State should appoint at least one body which, when applicable, should have the power and capability to investigate individual complaints and to facilitate dispute settlement. Passengers should be entitled to receive a substantiated reply from the designated body, within a reasonable period of time. Given the importance of reliable statistics for the enforcement of this Regulation, in particular to ensure coherent application throughout the Union, the reports prepared by those bodies should if possible include statistics on complaints and their outcome.\n(26)\nMember States should lay down penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and ensure that those penalties are applied. Those penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n(27)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely to ensure a high level of protection of and assistance to passengers throughout the Member States and to ensure that economic agents operate under harmonised conditions in the internal market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the 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. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(28)\nThe enforcement of this Regulation should be based on Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation) (8). That Regulation should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(29)\nDirective 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (9) should be strictly respected and enforced in order to guarantee respect for the privacy of natural and legal persons, and to ensure that the information and reports requested serve solely to fulfil the obligations laid down in this Regulation and are not used to the detriment of such persons.\n(30)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as referred to in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation establishes rules for sea and inland waterway transport as regards the following:\n(a)\nnon-discrimination between passengers with regard to transport conditions offered by carriers;\n(b)\nnon-discrimination and assistance for disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility;\n(c)\nthe rights of passengers in cases of cancellation or delay;\n(d)\nminimum information to be provided to passengers;\n(e)\nthe handling of complaints;\n(f)\ngeneral rules on enforcement.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply in respect of passengers travelling:\n(a)\non passenger services where the port of embarkation is situated in the territory of a Member State;\n(b)\non passenger services where the port of embarkation is situated outside the territory of a Member State and the port of disembarkation is situated in the territory of a Member State, provided that the service is operated by a Union carrier as defined in Article 3(e);\n(c)\non a cruise where the port of embarkation is situated in the territory of a Member State. However, Articles 16(2), 18, 19 and 20(1) and (4) shall not apply to those passengers.\n2. This Regulation shall not apply in respect of passengers travelling:\n(a)\non ships certified to carry up to 12 passengers;\n(b)\non ships which have a crew responsible for the operation of the ship composed of not more than three persons or where the distance of the overall passenger service is less than 500 metres, one way;\n(c)\non excursion and sightseeing tours other than cruises; or\n(d)\non ships not propelled by mechanical means as well as original, and individual replicas of, historical passenger ships designed before 1965, built predominantly with the original materials, certified to carry up to 36 passengers.\n3. Member States may, for a period of 2 years from 18 December 2012, exempt from the application of this Regulation seagoing ships of less than 300 gross tons operated in domestic transport, provided that the rights of passengers under this Regulation are adequately ensured under national law.\n4. Member States may exempt from the application of this Regulation passenger services covered by public service obligations, public service contracts or integrated services provided that the rights of passengers under this Regulation are comparably guaranteed under national law.\n5. Without prejudice to Directive 2006/87/EC and to Directive 2009/45/EC, nothing in this Regulation shall be understood as constituting technical requirements imposing obligations on carriers, terminal operators or other entities to modify or replace ships, infrastructure, ports or port terminals.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018disabled person\u2019 or \u2018person with reduced mobility\u2019 means any person whose mobility when using transport is reduced as a result of any physical disability (sensory or locomotor, permanent or temporary), intellectual disability or impairment, or any other cause of disability, or as a result of age, and whose situation needs appropriate attention and adaptation to his particular needs of the service made available to all passengers;\n(b)\n\u2018territory of a Member State\u2019 means a territory to which the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union applies as referred to in Article 355 thereof, under the conditions set out therein;\n(c)\n\u2018access conditions\u2019 means relevant standards, guidelines and information on the accessibility of port terminals and ships including their facilities for disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility;\n(d)\n\u2018carrier\u2019 means a natural or legal person, other than a tour operator, travel agent or ticket vendor, offering transport by passenger services or cruises to the general public;\n(e)\n\u2018Union carrier\u2019 means a carrier established within the territory of a Member State or offering transport by passenger services operated to or from the territory of a Member State;\n(f)\n\u2018passenger service\u2019 means a commercial passenger transport service by sea or inland waterways operated according to a published timetable;\n(g)\n\u2018integrated services\u2019 means interconnected transport services within a determined geographical area with a single information service, ticketing scheme and timetable;\n(h)\n\u2018performing carrier\u2019 means a person, other than the carrier, who actually performs the carriage wholly or partially;\n(i)\n\u2018inland waterway\u2019 means a natural or artificial navigable inland body of water, or system of interconnected bodies of water, used for transport, such as lakes, rivers or canals or any combination of these;\n(j)\n\u2018port\u2019 means a place or a geographical area made up of such improvement works and facilities as to permit the reception of ships from which passengers regularly embark or disembark;\n(k)\n\u2018port terminal\u2019 means a terminal, staffed by a carrier or a terminal operator, in a port with facilities, such as check-in, ticket counters or lounges, and staff for the embarkation or disembarkation of passengers travelling on passenger services or on a cruise;\n(l)\n\u2018ship\u2019 means a vessel used for navigation at sea or on inland waterways;\n(m)\n\u2018transport contract\u2019 means a contract of carriage between a carrier and a passenger for the provision of one or more passenger services or cruises;\n(n)\n\u2018ticket\u2019 means a valid document or other evidence of a transport contract;\n(o)\n\u2018ticket vendor\u2019 means any retailer concluding transport contracts on behalf of a carrier;\n(p)\n\u2018travel agent\u2019 means any retailer acting on behalf of a passenger or a tour operator for the conclusion of transport contracts;\n(q)\n\u2018tour operator\u2019 means an organiser or retailer, other than a carrier, within the meaning of Article 2(2) and (3) of Directive 90/314/EEC;\n(r)\n\u2018reservation\u2019 means a booking of a specific departure of a passenger service or a cruise;\n(s)\n\u2018terminal operator\u2019 means a private or public body in the territory of a Member State responsible for the administration and management of a port terminal;\n(t)\n\u2018cruise\u2019 means a transport service by sea or inland waterway, operated exclusively for the purpose of pleasure or recreation, supplemented by accommodation and other facilities, exceeding two overnight stays on board;\n(u)\n\u2018shipping incident\u2019 means shipwreck, capsizing, collision or stranding of the ship, explosion or fire in the ship, or defect in the ship.\nArticle 4\nTickets and non-discriminatory contract conditions\n1. Carriers shall issue a ticket to the passenger, unless under national law other documents give entitlement to transport. A ticket may be issued in an electronic format.\n2. Without prejudice to social tariffs, the contract conditions and tariffs applied by carriers or ticket vendors shall be offered to the general public without any direct or indirect discrimination based on the nationality of the final customer or on the place of establishment of carriers or ticket vendors within the Union.\nArticle 5\nOther performing parties\n1. Where the performance of the obligations under this Regulation has been entrusted to a performing carrier, ticket vendor or any other person, the carrier, travel agent, tour operator or terminal operator who has entrusted such obligations shall nevertheless be liable for the acts and omissions of that performing party, acting within that party's scope of employment.\n2. In addition to paragraph 1, the party to whom the performance of an obligation has been entrusted by the carrier, travel agent, tour operator or terminal operator shall be subject to the provisions of this Regulation, including provisions on liabilities and defences, with regard to the obligation entrusted.\nArticle 6\nExclusion of waiver\nRights and obligations pursuant to this Regulation shall not be waived or limited, in particular by a derogation or restrictive clause in the transport contract.\nCHAPTER II\nRIGHTS OF DISABLED PERSONS AND PERSONS WITH REDUCED MOBILITY\nArticle 7\nRight to transport\n1. Carriers, travel agents and tour operators shall not refuse to accept a reservation, to issue or otherwise provide a ticket or to embark persons on the grounds of disability or of reduced mobility as such.\n2. Reservations and tickets shall be offered to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility at no additional cost under the same conditions that apply to all other passengers.\nArticle 8\nExceptions and special conditions\n1. By way of derogation from Article 7(1), carriers, travel agents and tour operators may refuse to accept a reservation from, to issue or otherwise provide a ticket to or to embark a disabled person or person with reduced mobility:\n(a)\nin order to meet applicable safety requirements established by international, Union or national law or in order to meet safety requirements established by the competent authorities;\n(b)\nwhere the design of the passenger ship or port infrastructure and equipment, including port terminals, makes it impossible to carry out the embarkation, disembarkation or carriage of the said person in a safe or operationally feasible manner.\n2. In the event of a refusal to accept a reservation or to issue or otherwise provide a ticket on the grounds referred to in paragraph 1, carriers, travel agents and tour operators shall make all reasonable efforts to propose to the person concerned an acceptable alternative transport on a passenger service or a cruise operated by the carrier.\n3. Where a disabled person or a person with reduced mobility, who holds a reservation or has a ticket and has complied with the requirements referred to in Article 11(2), is nonetheless denied embarkation on the basis of this Regulation, that person, and any accompanying person referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article, shall be offered the choice between the right to reimbursement and re-routing as provided for in Annex I. The right to the option of a return journey or re-routing shall be conditional upon all safety requirements being met.\n4. Where strictly necessary and under the same conditions set out in paragraph 1, carriers, travel agents and tour operators may require that a disabled person or person with reduced mobility be accompanied by another person who is capable of providing the assistance required by the disabled person or person with reduced mobility. As regards passenger services, such an accompanying person shall be carried free of charge.\n5. When carriers, travel agents and tour operators have recourse to paragraphs 1 or 4, they shall immediately inform the disabled person or person with reduced mobility of the specific reasons therefor. On request, those reasons shall be notified to the disabled person or person with reduced mobility in writing, no later than five working days after the request. In the event of refusal according to paragraph 1(a), reference shall be made to the applicable safety requirements.\nArticle 9\nAccessibility and information\n1. In cooperation with organisations representative of disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility, carriers and terminal operators shall, where appropriate through their organisations, establish, or have in place, non-discriminatory access conditions for the transport of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility and accompanying persons. The access conditions shall upon request be communicated to national enforcement bodies.\n2. The access conditions provided for in paragraph 1 shall be made publicly available by carriers and terminal operators physically or on the Internet, in accessible formats on request, and in the same languages as those in which information is generally made available to all passengers. Particular attention shall be paid to the needs of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility.\n3. Tour operators shall make available the access conditions provided for in paragraph 1 which apply to journeys included in package travel, package holidays and package tours which they organise, sell or offer for sale.\n4. Carriers, travel agents and tour operators shall ensure that all relevant information, including online reservation and information, concerning the conditions of carriage, journey information and access conditions is available in appropriate and accessible formats for disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility. Persons needing assistance shall receive confirmation of such assistance by any means available, including electronic means or Short Message Service (SMS).\nArticle 10\nRight to assistance in ports and on board ships\nSubject to the access conditions provided for in Article 9(1), carriers and terminal operators shall, within their respective areas of competence, provide assistance free of charge to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, as specified in Annexes II and III, in ports, including embarkation and disembarkation, and on board ships. The assistance shall, if possible, be adapted to the individual needs of the disabled person or person with reduced mobility.\nArticle 11\nConditions under which assistance is provided\n1. Carriers and terminal operators shall, within their respective areas of competence, provide assistance to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility as set out in Article 10 provided that:\n(a)\nthe carrier or the terminal operator is notified, by any means available, including electronic means or SMS, of the person's need for such assistance at the latest 48 hours before the assistance is needed, unless a shorter period is agreed between the passenger and the carrier or terminal operator; and\n(b)\nthe disabled person or person with reduced mobility presents himself at the port or at the designated point as referred to in Article 12(3):\n(i)\nat a time stipulated in writing by the carrier which shall not be more than 60 minutes before the published embarkation time; or\n(ii)\nif no embarkation time is stipulated, no later than 60 minutes before the published departure time, unless a shorter period is agreed between the passenger and the carrier or terminal operator.\n2. In addition to paragraph 1, disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility shall notify the carrier, at the time of reservation or advance purchase of the ticket, of their specific needs with regard to accommodation, seating or services required or their need to bring medical equipment, provided the need is known at that time.\n3. A notification made in accordance with paragraphs 1(a) and 2 may always be submitted to the travel agent or the tour operator from which the ticket was purchased. Where the ticket permits multiple journeys, one notification shall be sufficient provided that adequate information on the timing of subsequent journeys is provided. The passenger shall receive a confirmation stating that the assistance needs have been notified as required in accordance with paragraphs 1(a) and 2.\n4. Where no notification is made in accordance with paragraphs 1(a) and 2, carriers and terminal operators shall nonetheless make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the assistance is provided in such a way that the disabled person or person with reduced mobility is able to embark, disembark and travel on the ship.\n5. Where a disabled person or person with reduced mobility is accompanied by a recognised assistance dog, that dog shall be accommodated together with that person, provided that the carrier, travel agent or tour operator is notified in accordance with applicable national rules on the carriage of recognised assistance dogs on board passenger ships, where such rules exist.\nArticle 12\nReception of notifications and designation of meeting points\n1. Carriers, terminal operators, travel agents and tour operators shall take all measures necessary for the request for notifications, and for the reception of notifications made in accordance with Article 11(1)(a) and 11(2). That obligation shall apply at all their points of sale, including sale by telephone and over the Internet.\n2. If travel agents or tour operators receive the notification referred to in paragraph 1 they shall, within their normal office hours, transfer the information to the carrier or terminal operator without delay.\n3. Carriers and terminal operators shall designate a point inside or outside port terminals at which disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility can announce their arrival and request assistance. That point shall be clearly signposted and shall offer basic information about the port terminal and assistance provided, in accessible formats.\nArticle 13\nQuality standards for assistance\n1. Terminal operators and carriers operating port terminals or passenger services with a total of more than 100 000 commercial passenger movements during the previous calendar year shall, within their respective areas of competence, set quality standards for the assistance specified in Annexes II and III and shall, where appropriate through their organisations, determine resource requirements for meeting those standards, in cooperation with organisations representative of disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility.\n2. In setting quality standards, full account shall be taken of internationally recognised policies and codes of conduct concerning facilitation of the transport of disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility, notably the IMO's Recommendation on the design and operation of passenger ships to respond to elderly and disabled persons\u2019 needs.\n3. The quality standards provided for in paragraph 1 shall be made publicly available by terminal operators and carriers physically or on the Internet in accessible formats and in the same languages as those in which information is generally made available to all passengers.\nArticle 14\nTraining and instructions\nWithout prejudice to the International Convention and Code on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers and to the regulations adopted under the Revised Convention for Rhine Navigation and the Convention regarding the Regime of Navigation on the Danube, carriers and, where appropriate, terminal operators shall establish disability-related training procedures, including instructions, and ensure that:\n(a)\ntheir personnel, including those employed by any other performing party, providing direct assistance to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility are trained or instructed as described in Annex IV, Parts A and B;\n(b)\ntheir personnel who are otherwise responsible for the reservation and selling of tickets or embarkation and disembarkation, including those employed by any other performing party, are trained or instructed as described in Annex IV, Part A; and\n(c)\nthe categories of personnel referred to in points (a) and (b) maintain their competences, for example through instructions or refresher training courses when appropriate.\nArticle 15\nCompensation in respect of mobility equipment or other specific equipment\n1. Carriers and terminal operators shall be liable for loss suffered as a result of the loss of or damage to mobility equipment or other specific equipment, used by a disabled person or person with reduced mobility, if the incident which caused the loss was due to the fault or neglect of the carrier or the terminal operator. The fault or neglect of the carrier shall be presumed for loss caused by a shipping incident.\n2. The compensation referred to in paragraph 1 shall correspond to the replacement value of the equipment concerned or, where applicable, to the costs relating to repairs.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply if Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents (10) applies.\n4. Moreover, every effort shall be undertaken to rapidly provide temporary replacement equipment which is a suitable alternative.\nCHAPTER III\nOBLIGATIONS OF CARRIERS AND TERMINAL OPERATORS IN THE EVENT OF INTERRUPTED TRAVEL\nArticle 16\nInformation in the event of cancelled or delayed departures\n1. In the case of a cancellation or a delay in departure of a passenger service or a cruise, passengers departing from port terminals or, if possible, passengers departing from ports shall be informed by the carrier or, where appropriate, by the terminal operator, of the situation as soon as possible and in any event no later than 30 minutes after the scheduled time of departure, and of the estimated departure time and estimated arrival time as soon as that information is available.\n2. If passengers miss a connecting transport service due to a cancellation or delay, the carrier and, where appropriate, the terminal operator shall make reasonable efforts to inform the passengers concerned of alternative connections.\n3. The carrier or, where appropriate, the terminal operator, shall ensure that disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility receive the information required under paragraphs 1 and 2 in accessible formats.\nArticle 17\nAssistance in the event of cancelled or delayed departures\n1. Where a carrier reasonably expects the departure of a passenger service or a cruise to be cancelled or delayed for more than 90 minutes beyond its scheduled time of departure, passengers departing from port terminals shall be offered free of charge snacks, meals or refreshments in reasonable relation to the waiting time, provided they are available or can reasonably be supplied.\n2. In the case of a cancellation or a delay in departure where a stay of one or more nights or a stay additional to that intended by the passenger becomes necessary, where and when physically possible, the carrier shall offer passengers departing from port terminals, free of charge, adequate accommodation on board, or ashore, and transport to and from the port terminal and place of accommodation in addition to the snacks, meals or refreshments provided for in paragraph 1. For each passenger, the carrier may limit the total cost of accommodation ashore, not including transport to and from the port terminal and place of accommodation, to EUR 80 per night, for a maximum of three nights.\n3. In applying paragraphs 1 and 2, the carrier shall pay particular attention to the needs of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility and any accompanying persons.\nArticle 18\nRe-routing and reimbursement in the event of cancelled or delayed departures\n1. Where a carrier reasonably expects a passenger service to be cancelled or delayed in departure from a port terminal for more than 90 minutes, the passenger shall immediately be offered the choice between:\n(a)\nre-routing to the final destination, under comparable conditions, as set out in the transport contract, at the earliest opportunity and at no additional cost;\n(b)\nreimbursement of the ticket price and, where relevant, a return service free of charge to the first point of departure, as set out in the transport contract, at the earliest opportunity.\n2. Where a passenger service is cancelled or delayed in departure from a port for more than 90 minutes, passengers shall have the right to such re-routing or reimbursement of the ticket price from the carrier.\n3. The payment of the reimbursement provided for in paragraphs 1(b) and 2 shall be made within 7 days, in cash, by electronic bank transfer, bank order or bank cheque, of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was purchased, for the part or parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made where the journey no longer serves any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan. Where the passenger agrees, the full reimbursement may also be paid in the form of vouchers and/or other services in an amount equivalent to the price for which the ticket was purchased, provided that the conditions are flexible, particularly regarding the period of validity and the destination.\nArticle 19\nCompensation of the ticket price in the event of delay in arrival\n1. Without losing the right to transport, passengers may request compensation from the carrier if they are facing a delay in arrival at the final destination as set out in the transport contract. The minimum level of compensation shall be 25 % of the ticket price for a delay of at least:\n(a)\n1 hour in the case of a scheduled journey of up to 4 hours;\n(b)\n2 hours in the case of a scheduled journey of more than 4 hours, but not exceeding 8 hours;\n(c)\n3 hours in the case of a scheduled journey of more than 8 hours, but not exceeding 24 hours; or\n(d)\n6 hours in the case of a scheduled journey of more than 24 hours.\nIf the delay exceeds double the time set out in points (a) to (d), the compensation shall be 50 % of the ticket price.\n2. Passengers who hold a travel pass or a season ticket and who encounter recurrent delays in arrival during its period of validity may request adequate compensation in accordance with the carrier's compensation arrangements. These arrangements shall state the criteria for determining delay in arrival and for calculation of compensation.\n3. Compensation shall be calculated in relation to the price which the passenger actually paid for the delayed passenger service.\n4. Where the transport is for a return journey, compensation for delay in arrival on either the outward or the return leg shall be calculated in relation to half of the price paid for the transport by that passenger service.\n5. The compensation shall be paid within 1 month after the submission of the request for compensation. The compensation may be paid in vouchers and/or other services, provided that the conditions are flexible, particularly regarding the period of validity and the destination. The compensation shall be paid in money at the request of the passenger.\n6. The compensation of the ticket price shall not be reduced by financial transaction costs such as fees, telephone costs or stamps. Carriers may introduce a minimum threshold under which payments for compensation will not be paid. This threshold shall not exceed EUR 6.\nArticle 20\nExemptions\n1. Articles 17, 18 and 19 shall not apply to passengers with open tickets as long as the time of departure is not specified, except for passengers holding a travel pass or a season ticket.\n2. Articles 17 and 19 shall not apply if the passenger is informed of the cancellation or delay before the purchase of the ticket or if the cancellation or delay is caused by the fault of the passenger.\n3. Article 17(2) shall not apply where the carrier proves that the cancellation or delay is caused by weather conditions endangering the safe operation of the ship.\n4. Article 19 shall not apply where the carrier proves that the cancellation or delay is caused by weather conditions endangering the safe operation of the ship or by extraordinary circumstances hindering the performance of the passenger service which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.\nArticle 21\nFurther claims\nNothing in this Regulation shall preclude passengers from seeking damages in accordance with national law in respect of loss resulting from cancellation or delay of transport services before national courts, including under Directive 90/314/EEC.\nCHAPTER IV\nGENERAL RULES ON INFORMATION AND COMPLAINTS\nArticle 22\nRight to travel information\nCarriers and terminal operators shall, within their respective areas of competence, provide passengers with adequate information throughout their travel in formats which are accessible to everybody and in the same languages as those in which information is generally made available to all passengers. Particular attention shall be paid to the needs of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility.\nArticle 23\nInformation on passenger rights\n1. Carriers, terminal operators and, when applicable, port authorities, shall, within their respective areas of competence, ensure that information on the rights of passengers under this Regulation is publicly available on board ships, in ports, if possible, and in port terminals. The information shall be provided as far as possible in accessible formats and in the same languages as those in which information is generally made available to all passengers. When that information is provided particular attention shall be paid to the needs of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility.\n2. In order to comply with the information requirement referred to in paragraph 1, carriers, terminal operators and, when applicable, port authorities, may use a summary of the provisions of this Regulation prepared by the Commission in all the official languages of the institutions of the European Union and made available to them.\n3. Carriers, terminal operators and, when applicable, port authorities shall inform passengers in an appropriate manner on board ships, in ports, if possible, and in port terminals, of the contact details of the enforcement body designated by the Member State concerned pursuant to Article 25(1).\nArticle 24\nComplaints\n1. Carriers and terminal operators shall set up or have in place an accessible complaint-handling mechanism for rights and obligations covered by this Regulation.\n2. Where a passenger covered by this Regulation wants to make a complaint to the carrier or terminal operator, he shall submit it within 2 months from the date on which the service was performed or when a service should have been performed. Within 1 month of receiving the complaint, the carrier or terminal operator shall give notice to the passenger that his complaint has been substantiated, rejected or is still being considered. The time taken to provide the final reply shall not be longer than 2 months from the receipt of a complaint.\nCHAPTER V\nENFORCEMENT AND NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT BODIES\nArticle 25\nNational enforcement bodies\n1. Each Member State shall designate a new or existing body or bodies responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation as regards passenger services and cruises from ports situated on its territory and passenger services from a third country to such ports. Each body shall take the measures necessary to ensure compliance with this Regulation.\nEach body shall, in its organisation, funding decisions, legal structure and decision-making, be independent of commercial interests.\n2. Member States shall inform the Commission of the body or bodies designated in accordance with this Article.\n3. Any passenger may submit a complaint, in accordance with national law, to the competent body designated under paragraph 1, or to any other competent body designated by a Member State, about an alleged infringement of this Regulation. The competent body shall provide passengers with a substantiated reply to their complaint within a reasonable period of time.\nA Member State may decide:\n(a)\nthat the passenger as a first step shall submit the complaint covered by this Regulation to the carrier or terminal operator; and/or\n(b)\nthat the national enforcement body or any other competent body designated by the Member State shall act as an appeal body for complaints not resolved under Article 24.\n4. Member States that have chosen to exempt certain services pursuant to Article 2(4) shall ensure that a comparable mechanism of enforcement of passenger rights is in place.\nArticle 26\nReport on enforcement\nBy 1 June 2015 and every 2 years thereafter, the enforcement bodies designated pursuant to Article 25 shall publish a report on their activity in the previous two calendar years, containing in particular a description of actions taken in order to implement the provisions of this Regulation, details of sanctions applied and statistics on complaints and sanctions applied.\nArticle 27\nCooperation between enforcement bodies\nNational enforcement bodies referred to in Article 25(1) shall exchange information on their work and decision-making principles and practice to the extent necessary for the coherent application of this Regulation. The Commission shall support them in that task.\nArticle 28\nPenalties\nThe Member States shall lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all the measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify those rules and measures to the Commission by 18 December 2012 and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 29\nReport\nThe Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council by 19 December 2015 on the operation and the effects of this Regulation. The report shall be accompanied where necessary by legislative proposals implementing in further detail the provisions of this Regulation, or amending it.\nArticle 30\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004\nIn the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 the following point shall be added:\n\u201818.\nRegulation (EU) No 1177/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway (11).\nArticle 31\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 18 December 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["55", "76", "89", "2", "23", "63", "72", "80", "85", "22", "33", "62", "28", "96", "75", "59", "61", "9", "39", "3", "57", "70", "16", "15", "81", "10", "99", "1", "29", "83", "No Label", "11", "14", "24", "36", "54", "56"], "gold": ["11", "14", "24", "36", "54", "56"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 863/2011\nof 25 August 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for blue whiting in EU and international waters of I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId, VIIIe, XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Ireland\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member States referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member States referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member States referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 August 2011.", "references": ["7", "18", "15", "32", "45", "85", "95", "52", "64", "33", "90", "68", "55", "89", "99", "54", "81", "48", "51", "59", "87", "49", "1", "12", "5", "75", "83", "30", "41", "39", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 May 2010\namending Decision 2004/407/EC as regards authorising imports of photographic gelatine into the Czech Republic\n(notified under document C(2010) 3244)\n(Only the Czech, Dutch, English, French and German texts are authentic)\n(2010/301/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 4(4) and the first and second subparagraphs of Article 32(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1774/2002 prohibits the importation and transit of animal by-products and processed products into the Community, unless they are authorised in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2004/407/EC of 26 April 2004 on transitional sanitary and certification rules under Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards import from certain third countries of photographic gelatine (2) provides that Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are to authorise the importation of certain gelatine exclusively intended for the photographic industry (photographic gelatine), in compliance with that Decision.\n(3)\nDecision 2004/407/EC provides that the importation of photographic gelatine is only authorised from the third countries listed in the Annex to that Decision, namely Japan and the United States.\n(4)\nDecision 2004/407/EC, as amended by Commission Decision 2009/960/EC (3), authorises imports of photographic gelatine from a specified plant in the United States to the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic has now submitted a new request for the authorisation of imports of photographic gelatine from another plant in the United States. The Czech Republic has confirmed that the strict channelling conditions under Decision 2004/407/EC are to apply in order to prevent potential health risks.\n(5)\nAccordingly, and pending the review of the technical requirements for the import of animal by-products under Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (4), the Czech Republic should be allowed to authorise the importation of photographic gelatine from the additional plant in the United States subject to compliance with the conditions set out in Decision 2004/407/EC.\n(6)\nDecision 2004/407/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Decision 2004/407/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 May 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2010.", "references": ["78", "25", "59", "86", "5", "36", "63", "45", "95", "88", "4", "6", "24", "50", "20", "26", "9", "87", "21", "72", "11", "79", "18", "49", "29", "65", "57", "83", "41", "62", "No Label", "22", "38", "66", "69", "90", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "38", "66", "69", "90", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 708/2011\nof 20 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["32", "64", "49", "63", "23", "9", "10", "12", "93", "28", "46", "79", "84", "13", "16", "98", "20", "39", "96", "60", "21", "30", "82", "2", "14", "95", "76", "70", "51", "75", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1310/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as regards repayable assistance, financial engineering and certain provisions related to the statement of expenditure\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 177 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMember States have had positive experiences with repayable assistance schemes at the level of operations during the programming period 2000 to 2006 and have therefore continued such schemes or have started to implement repayable assistance schemes in the current programming period 2007 to 2013. Some Member States have also included descriptions of those schemes in their programming documents, which were approved by the Commission.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund (3) sets out financial engineering instruments with precise areas and scope of intervention. However, the repayable assistance schemes implemented by Member States in the form of reimbursable grants and credit lines managed by managing authorities through intermediate bodies are neither appropriately covered by the provisions on financial engineering instruments, nor by other provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Social Fund (4), which already provides that assistance can take the form of reimbursable grants, for Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 to be amended in order to provide that the Structural Funds may co-finance repayable assistance. That amendment should cover reimbursable grants and credit lines managed by managing authorities through intermediate bodies which are financial institutions.\n(3)\nGiven that the financial resources used through repayable assistance are totally or partially reimbursed by the beneficiaries, it is necessary to introduce appropriate provisions for the reuse of the repayable assistance reimbursed for the same purpose or in accordance with the objectives of the operational programme in question so as to ensure that the funds that are repaid are properly invested and the support provided by the Union is used as effectively as possible.\n(4)\nIt is necessary to clarify that the provisions on major projects, revenue-generating projects and durability of operations should not be applicable as a matter of principle to financial engineering instruments, as those provisions are meant for other types of operation.\n(5)\nThere is a need to enhance the transparency of the implementation process and ensure appropriate monitoring, by the Member States and by the Commission, of the implementation of financial engineering instruments, inter alia, in order to allow the Member States to provide appropriate information to the Commission on the type of instruments put in place and on the relevant actions undertaken through such instruments on the ground. It is therefore necessary to introduce a provision for reporting on financial engineering instruments. Such reporting would also allow the Commission to better assess the overall performance of financial engineering instruments and to provide a summary of the progress at the Union and Member State level.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure compliance with Article 61(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), the statement of expenditure submitted to the Commission should provide all information necessary for the Commission to produce transparent accounts which give a true image of the Union's assets and of budgetary implementation. To this effect, an attachment to each statement of expenditure should include information on the amount of total expenditure paid in establishing or contributing to financial engineering instruments and on the advances paid to the beneficiaries in the context of State aid. The format of the attachment should be defined in an Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 for the purpose of legal certainty and consistency. However, the practical implementation of the collection of data necessary for the attachment should be conducted at national level and, as far as the applicable legal framework allows, it should not result in changes to national computer systems.\n(7)\nThe amendments relating to the forms and reuse of the repayable assistance as well as to the exclusion of the application of the provisions on major projects, revenue-generating projects and durability of operations, to operations falling under Article 44 (financial engineering instruments), aim at providing for greater legal certainty and clarity concerning the application of an existing practice in these fields with effect from the beginning of the eligibility period as set out by Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. Those amendments should, therefore, have retroactive effect from the beginning of the current programming period 2007 to 2013.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 1083/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1083/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2, the following points are added:\n\u2018(8) \u201creimbursable grant\u201d: a direct financial contribution by way of a donation, which can be totally or partially reimbursable, without interest.\n(9) \u201ccredit line\u201d: a financial facility allowing the beneficiary to draw down the financial contribution, which can be totally or partially reimbursable, in relation to the expenditure paid by the beneficiary and supported by receipted invoices or accounting documents of equivalent probative value.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Title III, Chapter II, the following section is inserted:\n\u2018SECTION 3A\nRepayable assistance\nArticle 43a\nForms of repayable assistance\n1. As part of an operational programme, the Structural Funds may co-finance repayable assistance in the form of:\n(a)\nreimbursable grants; or\n(b)\ncredit lines managed by the managing authority through intermediate bodies which are financial institutions.\n2. The statement of expenditure concerning repayable assistance shall be submitted in accordance with Article 78(1) to (5).\nArticle 43b\nReuse of repayable assistance\nRepayable assistance, repaid to the body that provided that assistance or to another competent authority of the Member State, shall be reused for the same purpose or in line with the objectives of the relevant operational programme. Member States shall ensure that an adequate record of the repayable assistance repaid is shown in the accounting system of the appropriate body or authority.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe following article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 44a\nNon-application of certain provisions\nArticles 39, 55 and 57 shall not apply to operations falling under Article 44.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 67 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the first subparagraph of paragraph 2, the following point is added:\n\u2018(j)\nthe progress made in financing and implementing the financial engineering instruments as defined in Article 44, namely:\n(i)\na description of the financial engineering instrument and implementation arrangements;\n(ii)\nidentification of the entities which implement the financial engineering instrument, including those acting through holding funds;\n(iii)\namounts of assistance from the Structural Funds and national co-financing paid to the financial engineering instrument;\n(iv)\namounts of assistance from the Structural Funds and national co-financing paid by the financial engineering instrument.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. By 1 October each year, the Commission shall provide a summary of the data, on the progress made in financing and implementing the financial engineering instruments, sent by the managing authorities in accordance with Article 67(2)(j).\u2019;\n(5)\nthe following article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 78a\nRequirement to provide additional information in the statement of expenditure regarding financial engineering instruments and advances paid to the beneficiaries in the context of State aid\nAn attachment to each statement of expenditure to be submitted to the Commission, in the format set out in Annex V, shall indicate the following information in relation to the total expenditure included in the statement of expenditure:\n(a)\nas regards financial engineering instruments as defined in Article 44, and set out in Article 78(6), the total expenditure paid in establishing or contributing to such funds or holding funds and the corresponding public contribution;\n(b)\nas regards advances paid in the context of State aid in accordance with Article 78(2), the total expenditure paid as an advance to the beneficiaries by the body granting the aid and the corresponding public contribution.\u2019;\n(6)\nthe text set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added as Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nPoints (1), (2) and (3) of Article 1 shall apply retroactively from 1 January 2007.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["32", "67", "26", "42", "75", "27", "18", "80", "3", "33", "8", "19", "59", "79", "9", "14", "63", "77", "98", "66", "17", "81", "21", "7", "38", "71", "83", "49", "24", "34", "No Label", "4", "10", "15"], "gold": ["4", "10", "15"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 22 July 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Liberia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the European Union\n(2011/475/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(3), in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn May 2003, the Commission adopted a Communication to the Council and to the European Parliament entitled \u2018Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT): Proposal for an EU Action Plan\u2019 which called for measures to address illegal logging by developing voluntary partnership agreements with timber-producing countries. Council conclusions on that Action Plan were adopted in October 2003 (1) and the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the subject on 11 July 2005 (2).\n(2)\nOn 5 December 2005, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations on partnership agreements to implement the EU Action Plan for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade.\n(3)\nOn 20 December 2005, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 (3), which established a FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of timber into the Union from countries with which the Union has concluded voluntary partnership agreements.\n(4)\nThe negotiations with the Republic of Liberia have been completed and the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Liberia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the European Union (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was initialled on 9 May 2011.\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Liberia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the European Union (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (4).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2011.", "references": ["70", "98", "82", "59", "24", "63", "77", "50", "41", "83", "72", "46", "4", "8", "97", "23", "37", "25", "1", "2", "58", "19", "29", "65", "79", "51", "95", "54", "20", "69", "No Label", "9", "21", "22", "88", "94"], "gold": ["9", "21", "22", "88", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 14/2012\nof 9 January 2012\nextending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China to imports of certain molybdenum wires consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not and terminating the investigation in respect of imports consigned from Switzerland\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 13 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Existing measures\n(1)\nBy Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 (2) (\u2018the original Regulation\u2019), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 64,3 % on imports of certain molybdenum wires as defined in Article 1(1) of the said Regulation (\u2018the product concerned\u2019) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019 or \u2018country concerned\u2019). These measures will hereinafter be referred to as \u2018the measures in force\u2019 and the investigation that led to the measures imposed by the original Regulation will be hereinafter referred to as \u2018the original investigation\u2019.\n2. Request\n(2)\nOn 4 April 2011, the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation to investigate the alleged circumvention of the measures in force. The request was submitted by the European Association of Metals (Eurometaux) on behalf of a Union producer of certain molybdenum wires (\u2018the applicant\u2019).\n(3)\nThe request alleged that following the imposition of the measures in force, there had been a significant change in the pattern of trade between PRC, Malaysia and Switzerland on the one hand and the Union on the other. The applicant claimed that this change was due to transhipment of molybdenum wires via Malaysia or Switzerland.\n(4)\nThe request concluded that there was insufficient due cause or economic justification for the transhipment other than the existence of the measures in force.\n(5)\nFinally, the applicant alleged that the remedial effects of the measures in force were being undermined both in terms of quantities and prices and that the prices of molybdenum wires from Malaysia and Switzerland were dumped when related to the normal value established in the original investigation.\n3. Initiation\n(6)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed for initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated an investigation by Regulation (EU) No 477/2011 (3) (\u2018the initiating Regulation\u2019). Pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission, by the initiating Regulation, also directed the customs authorities to register imports of the product concerned consigned from Malaysia or Switzerland, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or Switzerland or not, as of 19 May 2011.\n4. Investigation\n(7)\nThe Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC, Malaysia and Switzerland, the exporting producers and traders in those countries, the importers in the Union known to be concerned as well as the Union producers of the initiation of the investigation.\n(8)\nQuestionnaires were sent to the producers/exporters in Malaysia, Switzerland and the PRC as well as to Union importers known to be concerned and/or mentioned in the request. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation. All parties were informed that non-cooperation might lead to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and to findings being based on the facts available.\n(9)\nOne Union importer contacted the Commission, declaring that it had never purchased any molybdenum wires from outside the Union.\n(10)\nTwo Malaysian companies submitted that during the IP referred to in recital (14) they neither manufactured nor exported to the Union any molybdenum wires.\n(11)\nOne Swiss company declared that they were not involved in producing or selling the molybdenum wires over the past three years.\n(12)\nOne PRC producer replied to the questionnaire indicating that, from 2009 onwards, they exported molybdenum wires neither to the Union nor to Malaysia or Switzerland.\n(13)\nThe Commission received no comments from the PRC, Malaysian or Swiss authorities.\n5. Investigation Period\n(14)\nThe investigation period covered the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 (\u2018the IP\u2019). Data was collected for the period from 2007 to the end of the IP (\u2018period considered\u2019) to investigate the alleged change in the pattern of trade.\nB. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n1. General considerations/degree of cooperation\n(15)\nAs mentioned in recital (10), only two companies in Malaysia cooperated but they did not export the product concerned to the Union during the IP. As mentioned in recital (11), only one Swiss company submitted information according to which they were not involved in producing or selling the product concerned over the past three years. Consequently, findings in the present investigation had to be based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.\n(16)\nIn accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of possible circumvention practices was made by analyzing successively: (1) whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between PRC, Malaysia and Switzerland on the one hand and the Union on the other; (2) if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty; (3) if there was evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the like product; and (4) whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product, if necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regulation.\n2. Product concerned and like product\n(17)\nThe product concerned is as defined in the original investigation, i.e. molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN code ex 8102 96 00.\n(18)\nThe product under investigation is the same as that defined in recital (17) but consigned from Malaysia or Switzerland, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or Switzerland or not.\n(19)\nAs far as imports declared as originating in Switzerland are concerned, it was established, on the basis of data from Surveillance II database, that there were no imports of the product concerned to the Union during the IP.\n(20)\nAs far as imports declared as originating in Malaysia are concerned, in the absence of cooperation, the comparison of molybdenum wires exported to the Union from PRC against molybdenum wires consigned from Malaysia to the Union was based on information available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, including information provided in the request. No information obtained during the present investigation suggested that molybdenum wires exported to the Union from the PRC and molybdenum wires consigned from Malaysia to the Union would not have the same basic physical characteristics and the same uses. Therefore, they are considered as like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. No submissions to the contrary were made during the investigation.\n3. Change in the pattern of trade\n3.1. PRC and Malaysia\n(21)\nDue to lack of cooperation from the PRC exporting producers, in order to assess the level of imports for the year 2010 and the IP different statistical sources have been compared. Those included both publicly available sources like Eurostat as well as other sources like the database pursuant to Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation and Surveillance II database.\n(22)\nAs stated in recital (27) of the original Regulation, imports from the PRC amounted to 87 tonnes in 2007, 100 tonnes in 2008 and 97 tonnes in the original IP (1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009).\n(23)\nThe imports of the product concerned from the PRC dropped significantly after the imposition of the measures (from 97 tonnes in the original IP to below 10 tonnes in the IP). On the other hand Malaysian imports increased from none in 2009 to around 6 tonnes in the IP.\n3.2. PRC and Switzerland\n(24)\nAccording to the Eurostat data, i.e. data at the CN code level, the imports from Switzerland increased from virtually none in 2009 and preceding years to 5 tonnes in both 2010 and 2011. However, the investigation established that no imports of the product concerned from Switzerland, declared as originating in Switzerland, into the Union were made during the IP. Furthermore, no such imports were made in the whole year 2010 while original provisional measures were in force since December 2009.\n3.3. Imports from the PRC into Malaysia and Switzerland\n(25)\nThe PRC statistical sources indicate that exports of the product concerned to Malaysia started in 2010, while only negligible quantities were exported in 2009 and 2008.\n(26)\nThe Swiss statistical sources show that imports from the PRC into Switzerland started in 2010 and continued in 2011 although negligible quantities were imported in 2009 and 2008. However, this import data relates at the level of CN code and hence has a scope broader than the definition of the product concerned in the present investigation. As noted above it was established that there were no exports of the product concerned from Switzerland, declared as originating in Switzerland, to the Union. Consequently, the investigation could not establish any transhipment practices of molybdenum wires originating in the PRC via Switzerland.\n3.4. Conclusion on the change of pattern of trade\n(27)\nThe overall decrease of exports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Union as from 2010 and the parallel increase of exports from Malaysia and of exports from the PRC to Malaysia after the imposition of the original measures constituted a change in the pattern of trade between the above mentioned countries on the one hand and the Union on the other hand.\n(28)\nAs far as Switzerland is concerned, no change in the pattern of trade between the PRC, Switzerland and the Union could be established with regard to imports of the product concerned. Consequently, the investigation of possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures by imports of molybdenum wires consigned from Switzerland should be terminated.\n4. Nature of the circumvention practice and insufficient due cause or economic justification\n(29)\nArticle 13(1) of the basic Regulation requires that the change in the pattern of trade stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or work includes, inter alia, the consignment of the product subject to measures via third countries.\n(30)\nThe comparison of trade flows between the PRC and Malaysia on the one hand and Malaysia and the Union on the other hand indicates the existence of transhipment practices. The allegation in the request has not been contested by any operator; neither those from the PRC or Malaysia nor from the Union. It is recalled that no producers of molybdenum wires from Malaysia cooperated with this investigation.\n(31)\nThe investigation did not bring to light any other due cause or economic justification for the transshipment than the avoidance of the measures in force. No elements were found, other than the avoidance of the payment of the duty, which could be considered as a compensation for the costs of transshipment of the product concerned from the PRC via Malaysia.\n(32)\nThis conclusion is further corroborated by the fact that no producer of molybdenum wires from Malaysia came forward during the present investigation.\n(33)\nIn addition, it is noted that imports from Malaysia had discontinued around the time of the publication of the initiating Regulation.\n(34)\nIt is therefore concluded that, in the absence of any other sufficient due cause or economic justification within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the change in the pattern of trade between the PRC and Malaysia on the one hand and the Union on the other hand was due to the imposition of the measures in force.\n5. Undermining of the remedial effects of the duty in terms of the prices and/or the quantities of the like product\n(35)\nTo assess whether the imported products from Malaysia had, in terms of quantities and prices, undermined the remedial effects of the measures in force, data from available statistical sources as described in recital (21) were used as the best data available concerning quantities and prices of exports from Malaysia.\n(36)\nThe increase of imports from Malaysia was considered to be significant in terms of quantities. The level of imports from Malaysia in the IP amounts to around 6 % of the level of imports of the product originating in the PRC to the Union before the imposition of measures.\n(37)\nThe comparison of the injury elimination level as established in the original Regulation and the weighted average export price showed significant underselling. It was therefore concluded that the remedial effects of the measures in force are being undermined both in terms of quantities and prices.\n6. Evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value previously established for the like product\n(38)\nIn the absence of cooperation from any exporting producer, export prices were based on facts available pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation. The prices available from statistical sources as described in recital (21) were considered to be the most reliable.\n(39)\nIn accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, it was considered appropriate that the normal value to be used in an anti-circumvention investigation is the normal value established during the original investigation. In the absence of cooperation and pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, for the purpose of comparing the export price and normal value, it was considered appropriate to assume that the product mix of the goods observed during the present investigation was the same as in the original investigation.\n(40)\nIn the original investigation, the USA was considered to be an appropriate market economy analogue country. Since the analogue country producer made only marginal sales on the domestic US market, it was found unreasonable to use US domestic sales data for the purposes of determining or constructing normal value. Consequently, the normal value for the PRC was established on the basis of export prices from the USA to other third countries, including the Union.\n(41)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the weighted average normal value as established in the original Regulation and the weighted average export prices established during this investigation\u2019s IP, expressed as a percentage of the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before customs duty.\n(42)\nThe comparison of the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export prices showed dumping.\nC. MEASURES\n(43)\nIn view of the findings above, it was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of molybdenum wires originating in the PRC was circumvented by transhipment via Malaysia.\n(44)\nIn accordance with the first sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the existing anti-dumping measures on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC, should be extended to imports of the same product consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not.\n(45)\nThe measures to be extended should be the ones established in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010, which are a definitive anti-dumping duty of 64,3 % applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before customs duty.\n(46)\nIn accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provides that any extended measure should apply to imports which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties should be collected on those registered imports of molybdenum wires consigned from Malaysia.\nD. TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION IN RESPECT OF IMPORTS FROM SWITZERLAND\n(47)\nIn view of the findings regarding Switzerland, the investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures by imports of the product concerned consigned from Switzerland should be terminated and the registration of imports of molybdenum wires consigned from Switzerland, introduced by the initiating Regulation, should be discontinued.\nE. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION\n(48)\nIt is recalled that during the present investigation no producer/exporter of molybdenum wires to the Union made itself known or was found to exist in Malaysia. Nevertheless, any producer from Malaysia which did not export the product under investigation to the Union during the IP and which considers lodging a request for an exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation will be required to complete a questionnaire in order to enable the Commission to determine whether an exemption may be warranted. Such exemption may be granted after the assessment of the market situation of the product concerned, production capacity and capacity utilisation, procurement and sales and the likelihood of continuation of practices for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification and the evidence of dumping. The Commission would normally also carry out an on-the-spot verification visit. The request should be addressed to the Commission forthwith, with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to the production and sales.\n(49)\nWhere an exemption is warranted, the Commission will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, propose the amendment of the extended measures in force accordingly. Subsequently, any exemption granted will be monitored to ensure compliance with the conditions set therein.\nF. DISCLOSURE\n(50)\nInterested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were given the opportunity to comment and to be heard,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 on imports of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, currently falling within CN code ex 8102 96 00 and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, is hereby extended to imports of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, currently falling within CN code ex 8102 96 00 (TARIC code 8102960011), consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not.\n2. The duties extended by paragraph 1 shall be collected on imports consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 477/2011, and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Requests for exemption from the duties extended by Article 1 shall be made in writing in one of the official languages of the Union and must be signed by a person authorized to represent the entity requesting the exemption. The request must be sent to the following address:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N105 4/92\n1049 Bruxelles/Brussel\nBELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb\nFax +32 2297 98 81\nEmail: TRADE-13-3-MOLYBDENUM@ec.europa.eu\n2. In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, may authorise by decision the exemption of imports which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 from the duty extended by Article 1 of the present Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThe investigation initiated by Regulation (EU) No 477/2011 concerning the possible circumvention of the of anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China by imports of certain molybdenum wires consigned from Switzerland, whether declared as originating in Switzerland or not, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 4\nCustoms authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 477/2011.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 January 2012.", "references": ["64", "34", "37", "2", "6", "92", "74", "98", "57", "18", "65", "20", "53", "0", "62", "87", "40", "63", "38", "4", "82", "12", "70", "66", "88", "7", "3", "44", "55", "33", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "91", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "91", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2010/31/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 19 May 2010\non the energy performance of buildings\n(recast)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 194(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (4) has been amended (5). Since further substantive amendments are to be made, it should be recast in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nAn efficient, prudent, rational and sustainable utilisation of energy applies, inter alia, to oil products, natural gas and solid fuels, which are essential sources of energy, but also the leading sources of carbon dioxide emissions.\n(3)\nBuildings account for 40 % of total energy consumption in the Union. The sector is expanding, which is bound to increase its energy consumption. Therefore, reduction of energy consumption and the use of energy from renewable sources in the buildings sector constitute important measures needed to reduce the Union\u2019s energy dependency and greenhouse gas emissions. Together with an increased use of energy from renewable sources, measures taken to reduce energy consumption in the Union would allow the Union to comply with the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and to honour both its long term commitment to maintain the global temperature rise below 2 \u00b0C, and its commitment to reduce, by 2020, overall greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 % below 1990 levels, and by 30 % in the event of an international agreement being reached. Reduced energy consumption and an increased use of energy from renewable sources also have an important part to play in promoting security of energy supply, technological developments and in creating opportunities for employment and regional development, in particular in rural areas.\n(4)\nManagement of energy demand is an important tool enabling the Union to influence the global energy market and hence the security of energy supply in the medium and long term.\n(5)\nThe European Council of March 2007 emphasised the need to increase energy efficiency in the Union so as to achieve the objective of reducing by 20 % the Union\u2019s energy consumption by 2020 and called for a thorough and rapid implementation of the priorities established in the Commission Communication entitled \u2018Action plan for energy efficiency: realising the potential\u2019. That action plan identified the significant potential for cost-effective energy savings in the buildings sector. The European Parliament, in its resolution of 31 January 2008, called for the strengthening of the provisions of Directive 2002/91/EC, and has called at various times, on the latest occasion in its resolution of 3 February 2009 on the Second Strategic Energy Review, for the 20 % energy efficiency target in 2020 to be made binding. Moreover, Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community\u2019s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020 (6), sets national binding targets for CO2 reduction for which energy efficiency in the building sector will be crucial, and Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (7) provides for the promotion of energy efficiency in the context of a binding target for energy from renewable sources accounting for 20 % of total Union energy consumption by 2020.\n(6)\nThe European Council of March 2007 reaffirmed the Union\u2019s commitment to the Union-wide development of energy from renewable sources by endorsing a mandatory target of a 20 % share of energy from renewable sources by 2020. Directive 2009/28/EC establishes a common framework for the promotion of energy from renewable sources.\n(7)\nIt is necessary to lay down more concrete actions with a view to achieving the great unrealised potential for energy savings in buildings and reducing the large differences between Member States\u2019 results in this sector.\n(8)\nMeasures to improve further the energy performance of buildings should take into account climatic and local conditions as well as indoor climate environment and cost-effectiveness. These measures should not affect other requirements concerning buildings such as accessibility, safety and the intended use of the building.\n(9)\nThe energy performance of buildings should be calculated on the basis of a methodology, which may be differentiated at national and regional level. That includes, in addition to thermal characteristics, other factors that play an increasingly important role such as heating and air-conditioning installations, application of energy from renewable sources, passive heating and cooling elements, shading, indoor air-quality, adequate natural light and design of the building. The methodology for calculating energy performance should be based not only on the season in which heating is required, but should cover the annual energy performance of a building. That methodology should take into account existing European standards.\n(10)\nIt is the sole responsibility of Member States to set minimum requirements for the energy performance of buildings and building elements. Those requirements should be set with a view to achieving the cost-optimal balance between the investments involved and the energy costs saved throughout the lifecycle of the building, without prejudice to the right of Member States to set minimum requirements which are more energy efficient than cost-optimal energy efficiency levels. Provision should be made for the possibility for Member States to review regularly their minimum energy performance requirements for buildings in the light of technical progress.\n(11)\nThe objective of cost-effective or cost-optimal energy efficiency levels may, in certain circumstances, for example in the light of climatic differences, justify the setting by Member States of cost-effective or cost-optimal requirements for building elements that would in practice limit the installation of building products that comply with standards set by Union legislation, provided that such requirements do not constitute an unjustifiable market barrier.\n(12)\nWhen setting energy performance requirements for technical building systems, Member States should use, where available and appropriate, harmonised instruments, in particular testing and calculation methods and energy efficiency classes developed under measures implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (8) and Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (9), with a view to ensuring coherence with related initiatives and minimise, to the extent possible, potential fragmentation of the market.\n(13)\nThis Directive is without prejudice to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The term \u2018incentive\u2019 used in this Directive should not therefore be interpreted as constituting State aid.\n(14)\nThe Commission should lay down a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements. Member States should use this framework to compare the results with the minimum energy performance requirements which they have adopted. Should significant discrepancies, i.e. exceeding 15 %, exist between the calculated cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements and the minimum energy performance requirements in force, Member States should justify the difference or plan appropriate steps to reduce the discrepancy. The estimated economic lifecycle of a building or building element should be determined by Member States, taking into account current practices and experience in defining typical economic lifecycles. The results of this comparison and the data used to reach these results should be regularly reported to the Commission. These reports should enable the Commission to assess and report on the progress of Member States in reaching cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements.\n(15)\nBuildings have an impact on long-term energy consumption. Given the long renovation cycle for existing buildings, new, and existing buildings that are subject to major renovation, should therefore meet minimum energy performance requirements adapted to the local climate. As the application of alternative energy supply systems is not generally explored to its full potential, alternative energy supply systems should be considered for new buildings, regardless of their size, pursuant to the principle of first ensuring that energy needs for heating and cooling are reduced to cost-optimal levels.\n(16)\nMajor renovations of existing buildings, regardless of their size, provide an opportunity to take cost-effective measures to enhance energy performance. For reasons of cost-effectiveness, it should be possible to limit the minimum energy performance requirements to the renovated parts that are most relevant for the energy performance of the building. Member States should be able to choose to define a \u2018major renovation\u2019 either in terms of a percentage of the surface of the building envelope or in terms of the value of the building. If a Member State decides to define a major renovation in terms of the value of the building, values such as the actuarial value, or the current value based on the cost of reconstruction, excluding the value of the land upon which the building is situated, could be used.\n(17)\nMeasures are needed to increase the number of buildings which not only fulfil current minimum energy performance requirements, but are also more energy efficient, thereby reducing both energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. For this purpose Member States should draw up national plans for increasing the number of nearly zero-energy buildings and regularly report such plans to the Commission.\n(18)\nUnion financial instruments and other measures are being put into place or adapted with the aim of stimulating energy efficiency-related measures. Such financial instruments at Union level include, inter alia, Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund (10), amended to allow increased investments in energy efficiency in housing; the public-private partnership on a \u2018European energy-efficient buildings\u2019 initiative to promote green technologies and the development of energy-efficient systems and materials in new and renovated buildings; the EC-European Investment Bank (EIB) initiative \u2018EU sustainable energy financing initiative\u2019 which aims to enable, inter alia, investments for energy efficiency and the EIB-led \u2018Marguerite Fund\u2019: the 2020 European Fund for Energy, Climate Change and Infrastructure; Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards reduced rates of value added tax (11), structural and cohesion funds instrument Jeremie (Joint European Resources for micro to medium enterprises); the Energy Efficiency Finance Facility; the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme including the Intelligent Energy Europe II Programme focused specifically on removing market barriers related to energy efficiency and energy from renewable sources through for example the technical assistance facility ELENA (European Local Energy Assistance); the Covenant of Mayors; the Entrepreneurship and Innovation programme; the ICT Policy Support Programme 2010, and the Seventh Research Framework Programme. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development also provides funding with the aim of stimulating energy-efficiency-related measures.\n(19)\nUnion financial instruments should be used to give practical effect to the objectives of this Directive, without however substituting national measures. In particular, they should be used for providing appropriate and innovative means of financing to catalyse investment in energy efficiency measures. They could play an important role in the development of national, regional and local energy efficiency funds, instruments, or mechanisms, which deliver such financing possibilities to private property owners, to small and medium-sized enterprises and to energy efficiency service companies.\n(20)\nIn order to provide the Commission with adequate information, Member States should draw up lists of existing and proposed measures, including those of a financial nature, other than those required by this Directive, which promote the objectives of this Directive. The existing and proposed measures listed by Member States may include, in particular, measures that aim to reduce existing legal and market barriers and encourage investments and/or other activities to increase the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings, thus potentially contributing to reducing energy poverty. Such measures could include, but should not be limited to, free or subsidised technical assistance and advice, direct subsidies, subsidised loan schemes or low interest loans, grant schemes and loan guarantee schemes. The public authorities and other institutions which provide those measures of a financial nature could link the application of such measures to the indicated energy performance and the recommendations from energy performance certificates.\n(21)\nIn order to limit the reporting burden on Member States it should be possible to integrate the reports required by this Directive into the Energy Efficiency Action Plans referred to in Article 14(2) of Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on energy end-use efficiency and energy services (12). The public sector in each Member State should lead the way in the field of energy performance of buildings, and therefore the national plans should set more ambitious targets for the buildings occupied by public authorities.\n(22)\nThe prospective buyer and tenant of a building or building unit should, in the energy performance certificate, be given correct information about the energy performance of the building and practical advice on improving such performance. Information campaigns may serve to further encourage owners and tenants to improve the energy performance of their building or building unit. Owners and tenants of commercial buildings should also be encouraged to exchange information regarding actual energy consumption, in order to ensure that all the data are available to make informed decisions about necessary improvements. The energy performance certificate should also provide information about the actual impact of heating and cooling on the energy needs of the building, on its primary energy consumption and on its carbon dioxide emissions.\n(23)\nPublic authorities should lead by example and should endeavour to implement the recommendations included in the energy performance certificate. Member States should include within their national plans measures to support public authorities to become early adopters of energy efficiency improvements and to implement the recommendations included in the energy performance certificate as soon as feasible.\n(24)\nBuildings occupied by public authorities and buildings frequently visited by the public should set an example by showing that environmental and energy considerations are being taken into account and therefore those buildings should be subject to energy certification on a regular basis. The dissemination to the public of information on energy performance should be enhanced by clearly displaying these energy performance certificates, in particular in buildings of a certain size which are occupied by public authorities or which are frequently visited by the public, such as shops and shopping centres, supermarkets, restaurants, theatres, banks and hotels.\n(25)\nRecent years have seen a rise in the number of air-conditioning systems in European countries. This creates considerable problems at peak load times, increasing the cost of electricity and disrupting the energy balance. Priority should be given to strategies which enhance the thermal performance of buildings during the summer period. To that end, there should be focus on measures which avoid overheating, such as shading and sufficient thermal capacity in the building construction, and further development and application of passive cooling techniques, primarily those that improve indoor climatic conditions and the micro-climate around buildings.\n(26)\nRegular maintenance and inspection of heating and air-conditioning systems by qualified personnel contributes to maintaining their correct adjustment in accordance with the product specification and in that way ensures optimal performance from an environmental, safety and energy point of view. An independent assessment of the entire heating and air-conditioning system should occur at regular intervals during its lifecycle in particular before its replacement or upgrading. In order to minimise the administrative burden on building owners and tenants, Member States should endeavour to combine inspections and certifications as far as possible.\n(27)\nA common approach to the energy performance certification of buildings and to the inspection of heating and air-conditioning systems, carried out by qualified and/or accredited experts, whose independence is to be guaranteed on the basis of objective criteria, will contribute to a level playing field as regards efforts made in Member States to energy saving in the buildings sector and will introduce transparency for prospective owners or users with regard to energy performance in the Union property market. In order to ensure the quality of energy performance certificates and of the inspection of heating and air-conditioning systems throughout the Union, an independent control mechanism should be established in each Member State.\n(28)\nSince local and regional authorities are critical for the successful implementation of this Directive, they should be consulted and involved, as and when appropriate in accordance with applicable national legislation, on planning issues, the development of programmes to provide information, training and awareness-raising, and on the implementation of this Directive at national or regional level. Such consultations may also serve to promote the provision of adequate guidance to local planners and building inspectors to carry out the necessary tasks. Furthermore, Member States should enable and encourage architects and planners to properly consider the optimal combination of improvements in energy efficiency, use of energy from renewable sources and use of district heating and cooling when planning, designing, building and renovating industrial or residential areas.\n(29)\nInstallers and builders are critical for the successful implementation of this Directive. Therefore, an adequate number of installers and builders should, through training and other measures, have the appropriate level of competence for the installation and integration of the energy efficient and renewable energy technology required.\n(30)\nMember States should take account of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (13) with regard to the mutual recognition of professional experts which are addressed by this Directive, and the Commission should continue its activities under the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme on guidelines and recommendations for standards for the training of such professional experts.\n(31)\nIn order to enhance the transparency of energy performance in the Union\u2019s non-residential property market, uniform conditions for a voluntary common certification scheme for the energy performance of non-residential buildings should be established. In accordance with Article 291 TFEU, rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers shall be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (14) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable.\n(32)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of the adaptation to technical progress of certain parts of the general framework set out in Annex I, and in respect of the establishment of a methodology framework for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(33)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely of enhancing the energy performance of buildings, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, due to the complexity of the buildings sector and the inability of the national housing markets to adequately address the challenges of energy efficiency, and can by the reason of the scale and the effects of the 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. In accordance with the principles of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.\n(34)\nThe obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive change as compared with Directive 2002/91/EC. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under that Directive.\n(35)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law and application of the Directive 2002/91/EC.\n(36)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (15), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Union, their own tables, illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. This Directive promotes the improvement of the energy performance of buildings within the Union, taking into account outdoor climatic and local conditions, as well as indoor climate requirements and cost-effectiveness.\n2. This Directive lays down requirements as regards:\n(a)\nthe common general framework for a methodology for calculating the integrated energy performance of buildings and building units;\n(b)\nthe application of minimum requirements to the energy performance of new buildings and new building units;\n(c)\nthe application of minimum requirements to the energy performance of:\n(i)\nexisting buildings, building units and building elements that are subject to major renovation;\n(ii)\nbuilding elements that form part of the building envelope and that have a significant impact on the energy performance of the building envelope when they are retrofitted or replaced; and\n(iii)\ntechnical building systems whenever they are installed, replaced or upgraded;\n(d)\nnational plans for increasing the number of nearly zero-energy buildings;\n(e)\nenergy certification of buildings or building units;\n(f)\nregular inspection of heating and air-conditioning systems in buildings; and\n(g)\nindependent control systems for energy performance certificates and inspection reports.\n3. The requirements laid down in this Directive are minimum requirements and shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent measures. Such measures shall be compatible with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. They shall be notified to the Commission.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018building\u2019 means a roofed construction having walls, for which energy is used to condition the indoor climate;\n2.\n\u2018nearly zero-energy building\u2019 means a building that has a very high energy performance, as determined in accordance with Annex I. The nearly zero or very low amount of energy required should be covered to a very significant extent by energy from renewable sources, including energy from renewable sources produced on-site or nearby;\n3.\n\u2018technical building system\u2019 means technical equipment for the heating, cooling, ventilation, hot water, lighting or for a combination thereof, of a building or building unit;\n4.\n\u2018energy performance of a building\u2019 means the calculated or measured amount of energy needed to meet the energy demand associated with a typical use of the building, which includes, inter alia, energy used for heating, cooling, ventilation, hot water and lighting;\n5.\n\u2018primary energy\u2019 means energy from renewable and non-renewable sources which has not undergone any conversion or transformation process;\n6.\n\u2018energy from renewable sources\u2019 means energy from renewable non-fossil sources, namely wind, solar, aerothermal, geothermal, hydrothermal and ocean energy, hydropower, biomass, landfill gas, sewage treatment plant gas and biogases;\n7.\n\u2018building envelope\u2019 means the integrated elements of a building which separate its interior from the outdoor environment;\n8.\n\u2018building unit\u2019 means a section, floor or apartment within a building which is designed or altered to be used separately;\n9.\n\u2018building element\u2019 means a technical building system or an element of the building envelope;\n10.\n\u2018major renovation\u2019 means the renovation of a building where:\n(a)\nthe total cost of the renovation relating to the building envelope or the technical building systems is higher than 25 % of the value of the building, excluding the value of the land upon which the building is situated; or\n(b)\nmore than 25 % of the surface of the building envelope undergoes renovation;\nMember States may choose to apply option (a) or (b).\n11.\n\u2018European standard\u2019 means a standard adopted by the European Committee for Standardisation, the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation or the European Telecommunications Standards Institute and made available for public use;\n12.\n\u2018energy performance certificate\u2019 means a certificate recognised by a Member State or by a legal person designated by it, which indicates the energy performance of a building or building unit, calculated according to a methodology adopted in accordance with Article 3;\n13.\n\u2018cogeneration\u2019 means simultaneous generation in one process of thermal energy and electrical and/or mechanical energy;\n14.\n\u2018cost-optimal level\u2019 means the energy performance level which leads to the lowest cost during the estimated economic lifecycle, where:\n(a)\nthe lowest cost is determined taking into account energy-related investment costs, maintenance and operating costs (including energy costs and savings, the category of building concerned, earnings from energy produced), where applicable, and disposal costs, where applicable; and\n(b)\nthe estimated economic lifecycle is determined by each Member State. It refers to the remaining estimated economic lifecycle of a building where energy performance requirements are set for the building as a whole, or to the estimated economic lifecycle of a building element where energy performance requirements are set for building elements.\nThe cost-optimal level shall lie within the range of performance levels where the cost benefit analysis calculated over the estimated economic lifecycle is positive;\n15.\n\u2018air-conditioning system\u2019 means a combination of the components required to provide a form of indoor air treatment, by which temperature is controlled or can be lowered;\n16.\n\u2018boiler\u2019 means the combined boiler body-burner unit, designed to transmit to fluids the heat released from burning;\n17.\n\u2018effective rated output\u2019 means the maximum calorific output, expressed in kW, specified and guaranteed by the manufacturer as being deliverable during continuous operation while complying with the useful efficiency indicated by the manufacturer;\n18.\n\u2018heat pump\u2019 means a machine, a device or installation that transfers heat from natural surroundings such as air, water or ground to buildings or industrial applications by reversing the natural flow of heat such that it flows from a lower to a higher temperature. For reversible heat pumps, it may also move heat from the building to the natural surroundings;\n19.\n\u2018district heating\u2019 or \u2018district cooling\u2019 means the distribution of thermal energy in the form of steam, hot water or chilled liquids, from a central source of production through a network to multiple buildings or sites, for the use of space or process heating or cooling.\nArticle 3\nAdoption of a methodology for calculating the energy performance of buildings\nMember States shall apply a methodology for calculating the energy performance of buildings in accordance with the common general framework set out in Annex I.\nThis methodology shall be adopted at national or regional level.\nArticle 4\nSetting of minimum energy performance requirements\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that minimum energy performance requirements for buildings or building units are set with a view to achieving cost-optimal levels. The energy performance shall be calculated in accordance with the methodology referred to in Article 3. Cost-optimal levels shall be calculated in accordance with the comparative methodology framework referred to in Article 5 once the framework is in place.\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that minimum energy performance requirements are set for building elements that form part of the building envelope and that have a significant impact on the energy performance of the building envelope when they are replaced or retrofitted, with a view to achieving cost-optimal levels.\nWhen setting requirements, Member States may differentiate between new and existing buildings and between different categories of buildings.\nThese requirements shall take account of general indoor climate conditions, in order to avoid possible negative effects such as inadequate ventilation, as well as local conditions and the designated function and the age of the building.\nA Member State shall not be required to set minimum energy performance requirements which are not cost-effective over the estimated economic lifecycle.\nMinimum energy performance requirements shall be reviewed at regular intervals which shall not be longer than five years and, if necessary, shall be updated in order to reflect technical progress in the building sector.\n2. Member States may decide not to set or apply the requirements referred to in paragraph 1 to the following categories of buildings:\n(a)\nbuildings officially protected as part of a designated environment or because of their special architectural or historical merit, in so far as compliance with certain minimum energy performance requirements would unacceptably alter their character or appearance;\n(b)\nbuildings used as places of worship and for religious activities;\n(c)\ntemporary buildings with a time of use of two years or less, industrial sites, workshops and non-residential agricultural buildings with low energy demand and non-residential agricultural buildings which are in use by a sector covered by a national sectoral agreement on energy performance;\n(d)\nresidential buildings which are used or intended to be used for either less than four months of the year or, alternatively, for a limited annual time of use and with an expected energy consumption of less than 25 % of what would be the result of all-year use;\n(e)\nstand-alone buildings with a total useful floor area of less than 50 m2.\nArticle 5\nCalculation of cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements\n1. The Commission shall establish by means of delegated acts in accordance with Articles 23, 24 and 25 by 30 June 2011 a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements.\nThe comparative methodology framework shall be established in accordance with Annex III and shall differentiate between new and existing buildings and between different categories of buildings.\n2. Member States shall calculate cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements using the comparative methodology framework established in accordance with paragraph 1 and relevant parameters, such as climatic conditions and the practical accessibility of energy infrastructure, and compare the results of this calculation with the minimum energy performance requirements in force.\nMember States shall report to the Commission all input data and assumptions used for those calculations and the results of those calculations. The report may be included in the Energy Efficiency Action Plans referred to in Article 14(2) of Directive 2006/32/EC. Member States shall submit those reports to the Commission at regular intervals, which shall not be longer than five years. The first report shall be submitted by 30 June 2012.\n3. If the result of the comparison performed in accordance with paragraph 2 shows that the minimum energy performance requirements in force are significantly less energy efficient than cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements, the Member State concerned shall justify this difference in writing to the Commission in the report referred to in paragraph 2, accompanied, to the extent that the gap cannot be justified, by a plan outlining appropriate steps to significantly reduce the gap by the next review of the energy performance requirements as referred to in Article 4(1).\n4. The Commission shall publish a report on the progress of the Member States in reaching cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements.\nArticle 6\nNew buildings\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that new buildings meet the minimum energy performance requirements set in accordance with Article 4.\nFor new buildings, Member States shall ensure that, before construction starts, the technical, environmental and economic feasibility of high-efficiency alternative systems such as those listed below, if available, is considered and taken into account:\n(a)\ndecentralised energy supply systems based on energy from renewable sources;\n(b)\ncogeneration;\n(c)\ndistrict or block heating or cooling, particularly where it is based entirely or partially on energy from renewable sources;\n(d)\nheat pumps.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the analysis of alternative systems referred to in paragraph 1 is documented and available for verification purposes.\n3. That analysis of alternative systems may be carried out for individual buildings or for groups of similar buildings or for common typologies of buildings in the same area. As far as collective heating and cooling systems are concerned, the analysis may be carried out for all buildings connected to the system in the same area.\nArticle 7\nExisting buildings\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that when buildings undergo major renovation, the energy performance of the building or the renovated part thereof is upgraded in order to meet minimum energy performance requirements set in accordance with Article 4 in so far as this is technically, functionally and economically feasible.\nThose requirements shall be applied to the renovated building or building unit as a whole. Additionally or alternatively, requirements may be applied to the renovated building elements.\nMember States shall in addition take the necessary measures to ensure that when a building element that forms part of the building envelope and has a significant impact on the energy performance of the building envelope, is retrofitted or replaced, the energy performance of the building element meets minimum energy performance requirements in so far as this is technically, functionally and economically feasible.\nMember States shall determine these minimum energy performance requirements in accordance with Article 4.\nMember States shall encourage, in relation to buildings undergoing major renovation, the consideration and taking into account of high-efficiency alternative systems, as referred to in Article 6(1), in so far as this is technically, functionally and economically feasible.\nArticle 8\nTechnical building systems\n1. Member States shall, for the purpose of optimising the energy use of technical building systems, set system requirements in respect of the overall energy performance, the proper installation, and the appropriate dimensioning, adjustment and control of the technical building systems which are installed in existing buildings. Member States may also apply these system requirements to new buildings.\nSystem requirements shall be set for new, replacement and upgrading of technical building systems and shall be applied in so far as they are technically, economically and functionally feasible.\nThe system requirements shall cover at least the following:\n(a)\nheating systems;\n(b)\nhot water systems;\n(c)\nair-conditioning systems;\n(d)\nlarge ventilation systems;\nor a combination of such systems.\n2. Member States shall encourage the introduction of intelligent metering systems whenever a building is constructed or undergoes major renovation, whilst ensuring that this encouragement is in line with point 2 of Annex I to Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (16). Member States may furthermore encourage, where appropriate, the installation of active control systems such as automation, control and monitoring systems that aim to save energy.\nArticle 9\nNearly zero-energy buildings\n1. Member States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nby 31 December 2020, all new buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings; and\n(b)\nafter 31 December 2018, new buildings occupied and owned by public authorities are nearly zero-energy buildings.\nMember States shall draw up national plans for increasing the number of nearly zero-energy buildings. These national plans may include targets differentiated according to the category of building.\n2. Member States shall furthermore, following the leading example of the public sector, develop policies and take measures such as the setting of targets in order to stimulate the transformation of buildings that are refurbished into nearly zero-energy buildings, and inform the Commission thereof in their national plans referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. The national plans shall include, inter alia, the following elements:\n(a)\nthe Member State\u2019s detailed application in practice of the definition of nearly zero-energy buildings, reflecting their national, regional or local conditions, and including a numerical indicator of primary energy use expressed in kWh/m2 per year. Primary energy factors used for the determination of the primary energy use may be based on national or regional yearly average values and may take into account relevant European standards;\n(b)\nintermediate targets for improving the energy performance of new buildings, by 2015, with a view to preparing the implementation of paragraph 1;\n(c)\ninformation on the policies and financial or other measures adopted in the context of paragraphs 1 and 2 for the promotion of nearly zero-energy buildings, including details of national requirements and measures concerning the use of energy from renewable sources in new buildings and existing buildings undergoing major renovation in the context of Article 13(4) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Articles 6 and 7 of this Directive.\n4. The Commission shall evaluate the national plans referred to in paragraph 1, notably the adequacy of the measures envisaged by the Member State in relation to the objectives of this Directive. The Commission, taking due account of the principle of subsidiarity, may request further specific information regarding the requirements set out in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. In that case, the Member State concerned shall submit the requested information or propose amendments within nine months following the request from the Commission. Following its evaluation, the Commission may issue a recommendation.\n5. The Commission shall by 31 December 2012 and every three years thereafter publish a report on the progress of Member States in increasing the number of nearly zero-energy buildings. On the basis of that report the Commission shall develop an action plan and, if necessary, propose measures to increase the number of those buildings and encourage best practices as regards the cost-effective transformation of existing buildings into nearly zero-energy buildings.\n6. Member States may decide not to apply the requirements set out in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 in specific and justifiable cases where the cost-benefit analysis over the economic lifecycle of the building in question is negative. Member States shall inform the Commission of the principles of the relevant legislative regimes.\nArticle 10\nFinancial incentives and market barriers\n1. In view of the importance of providing appropriate financing and other instruments to catalyse the energy performance of buildings and the transition to nearly zero-energy buildings, Member States shall take appropriate steps to consider the most relevant such instruments in the light of national circumstances.\n2. Member States shall draw up, by 30 June 2011, a list of existing and, if appropriate, proposed measures and instruments including those of a financial nature, other than those required by this Directive, which promote the objectives of this Directive.\nMember States shall update this list every three years. Member States shall communicate these lists to the Commission, which they may do by including them in the Energy Efficiency Action Plans referred to in Article 14(2) of Directive 2006/32/EC.\n3. The Commission shall examine the effectiveness of the listed existing and proposed measures referred to in paragraph 2 as well as of relevant Union instruments, in supporting the implementation of this Directive. On the basis of that examination, and taking due account of the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission may provide advice or recommendations as regards specific national schemes and coordination with Union and international financial institutions. The Commission may include its examination and possible advice or recommendations in its report on the National Energy Efficiency Plans referred to in Article 14(5) of Directive 2006/32/EC.\n4. The Commission shall, where appropriate, assist upon request Member States in setting up national or regional financial support programmes with the aim of increasing energy efficiency in buildings, especially of existing buildings, by supporting the exchange of best practice between the responsible national or regional authorities or bodies.\n5. In order to improve financing in support of the implementation of this Directive and taking due account of the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission shall, preferably by 2011, present an analysis on, in particular:\n(a)\nthe effectiveness, the appropriateness of the level, and the actual amount used, of structural funds and framework programmes that were used for increasing energy efficiency in buildings, especially in housing;\n(b)\nthe effectiveness of the use of funds from the EIB and other public finance institutions;\n(c)\nthe coordination of Union and national funding and other forms of support that can act as a leverage for stimulating investments in energy efficiency and the adequacy of such funds for achieving Union objectives.\nOn the basis of that analysis, and in accordance with the multiannual financial framework, the Commission may subsequently submit, if it considers this appropriate, proposals with respect to Union instruments to the European Parliament and the Council.\n6. Member States shall take account of the cost-optimal levels of energy performance when providing incentives for the construction or major renovation of buildings.\n7. The provisions of this Directive shall not prevent Member States from providing incentives for new buildings, renovations or building elements which go beyond the cost-optimal levels.\nArticle 11\nEnergy performance certificates\n1. Member States shall lay down the necessary measures to establish a system of certification of the energy performance of buildings. The energy performance certificate shall include the energy performance of a building and reference values such as minimum energy performance requirements in order to make it possible for owners or tenants of the building or building unit to compare and assess its energy performance.\nThe energy performance certificate may include additional information such as the annual energy consumption for non-residential buildings and the percentage of energy from renewable sources in the total energy consumption.\n2. The energy performance certificate shall include recommendations for the cost-optimal or cost-effective improvement of the energy performance of a building or building unit, unless there is no reasonable potential for such improvement compared to the energy performance requirements in force.\nThe recommendations included in the energy performance certificate shall cover:\n(a)\nmeasures carried out in connection with a major renovation of the building envelope or technical building system(s); and\n(b)\nmeasures for individual building elements independent of a major renovation of the building envelope or technical building system(s).\n3. The recommendations included in the energy performance certificate shall be technically feasible for the specific building and may provide an estimate for the range of payback periods or cost-benefits over its economic lifecycle.\n4. The energy performance certificate shall provide an indication as to where the owner or tenant can receive more detailed information, including as regards the cost-effectiveness of the recommendations made in the energy performance certificate. The evaluation of cost effectiveness shall be based on a set of standard conditions, such as the assessment of energy savings and underlying energy prices and a preliminary cost forecast. In addition, it shall contain information on the steps to be taken to implement the recommendations. Other information on related topics, such as energy audits or incentives of a financial or other nature and financing possibilities may also be provided to the owner or tenant.\n5. Subject to national rules, Member States shall encourage public authorities to take into account the leading role which they should play in the field of energy performance of buildings, inter alia, by implementing the recommendations included in the energy performance certificate issued for buildings owned by them within its validity period.\n6. Certification for building units may be based:\n(a)\non a common certification of the whole building; or\n(b)\non the assessment of another representative building unit with the same energy-relevant characteristics in the same building.\n7. Certification for single-family houses may be based on the assessment of another representative building of similar design and size with a similar actual energy performance quality if such correspondence can be guaranteed by the expert issuing the energy performance certificate.\n8. The validity of the energy performance certificate shall not exceed 10 years.\n9. The Commission shall, by 2011, in consultation with the relevant sectors, adopt a voluntary common European Union certification scheme for the energy performance of non-residential buildings. That measure shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 26(2). Member States are encouraged to recognise or use the scheme, or use part thereof by adapting it to national circumstances.\nArticle 12\nIssue of energy performance certificates\n1. Member States shall ensure that an energy performance certificate is issued for:\n(a)\nbuildings or building units which are constructed, sold or rented out to a new tenant; and\n(b)\nbuildings where a total useful floor area over 500 m2 is occupied by a public authority and frequently visited by the public. On 9 July 2015, this threshold of 500 m2 shall be lowered to 250 m2.\nThe requirement to issue an energy performance certificate does not apply where a certificate, issued in accordance with either Directive 2002/91/EC or this Directive, for the building or building unit concerned is available and valid.\n2. Member States shall require that, when buildings or building units are constructed, sold or rented out, the energy performance certificate or a copy thereof is shown to the prospective new tenant or buyer and handed over to the buyer or new tenant.\n3. Where a building is sold or rented out in advance of construction, Member States may require the seller to provide an assessment of its future energy performance, as a derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2; in this case, the energy performance certificate shall be issued at the latest once the building has been constructed.\n4. Member States shall require that when:\n-\nbuildings having an energy performance certificate,\n-\nbuilding units in a building having an energy performance certificate, and\n-\nbuilding units having an energy performance certificate,\nare offered for sale or for rent, the energy performance indicator of the energy performance certificate of the building or the building unit, as applicable, is stated in the advertisements in commercial media.\n5. The provisions of this Article shall be implemented in accordance with applicable national rules on joint ownership or common property.\n6. Member States may exclude the categories of buildings referred to in Article 4(2) from the application of paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of this Article.\n7. The possible effects of energy performance certificates in terms of legal proceedings, if any, shall be decided in accordance with national rules.\nArticle 13\nDisplay of energy performance certificates\n1. Member States shall take measures to ensure that where a total useful floor area over 500 m2 of a building for which an energy performance certificate has been issued in accordance with Article 12(1) is occupied by public authorities and frequently visited by the public, the energy performance certificate is displayed in a prominent place clearly visible to the public.\nOn 9 July 2015, this threshold of 500 m2 shall be lowered to 250 m2.\n2. Member States shall require that where a total useful floor area over 500 m2 of a building for which an energy performance certificate has been issued in accordance with Article 12(1) is frequently visited by the public, the energy performance certificate is displayed in a prominent place clearly visible to the public.\n3. The provisions of this Article do not include an obligation to display the recommendations included in the energy performance certificate.\nArticle 14\nInspection of heating systems\n1. Member States shall lay down the necessary measures to establish a regular inspection of the accessible parts of systems used for heating buildings, such as the heat generator, control system and circulation pump(s), with boilers of an effective rated output for space heating purposes of more than 20 kW. That inspection shall include an assessment of the boiler efficiency and the boiler sizing compared with the heating requirements of the building. The assessment of the boiler sizing does not have to be repeated as long as no changes were made to the heating system or as regards the heating requirements of the building in the meantime.\nMember States may reduce the frequency of such inspections or lighten them as appropriate, where an electronic monitoring and control system is in place.\n2. Member States may set different inspection frequencies depending on the type and effective rated output of the heating system whilst taking into account the costs of the inspection of the heating system and the estimated energy cost savings that may result from the inspection.\n3. Heating systems with boilers of an effective rated output of more than 100 kW shall be inspected at least every two years.\nFor gas boilers, this period may be extended to four years.\n4. As an alternative to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 Member States may opt to take measures to ensure the provision of advice to users concerning the replacement of boilers, other modifications to the heating system and alternative solutions to assess the efficiency and appropriate size of the boiler. The overall impact of this approach shall be equivalent to that arising from the provisions set out in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.\nWhere Member States choose to apply the measures referred to in the first subparagraph, they shall submit to the Commission a report on the equivalence of those measures to measures referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article by 30 June 2011 at the latest. Member States shall submit these reports to the Commission every three years. The reports may be included in the Energy Efficiency Action Plans referred to in Article 14(2) of Directive 2006/32/EC.\n5. After receiving the national report from a Member State about the application of the option as described in paragraph 4, the Commission may request further specific information regarding the requirements and equivalence of the measures set out in that paragraph. In that case, the Member State concerned shall present the requested information or propose amendments within nine months.\nArticle 15\nInspection of air-conditioning systems\n1. Member States shall lay down the necessary measures to establish a regular inspection of the accessible parts of air-conditioning systems of an effective rated output of more than 12 kW. The inspection shall include an assessment of the air-conditioning efficiency and the sizing compared to the cooling requirements of the building. The assessment of the sizing does not have to be repeated as long as no changes were made to this air-conditioning system or as regards the cooling requirements of the building in the meantime.\nMember States may reduce the frequency of such inspections or lighten them, as appropriate, where an electronic monitoring and control system is in place.\n2. The Member States may set different inspection frequencies depending on the type and effective rated output of the air-conditioning system, whilst taking into account the costs of the inspection of the air-conditioning system and the estimated energy cost savings that may result from the inspection.\n3. In laying down the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, Member States shall, as far as is economically and technically feasible, ensure that inspections are carried out in accordance with the inspection of heating systems and other technical systems referred to in Article 14 of this Directive and the inspection of leakages referred to in Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases (17).\n4. As an alternative to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 Member States may opt to take measures to ensure the provision of advice to users on the replacement of air-conditioning systems or on other modifications to the air-conditioning system which may include inspections to assess the efficiency and appropriate size of the air-conditioning system. The overall impact of this approach shall be equivalent to that arising from the provisions set out in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.\nWhere Member States apply the measures referred to in the first subparagraph, they shall, by 30 June 2011 at the latest, submit to the Commission a report on the equivalence of those measures to the measures referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article. Member States shall submit these reports to the Commission every three years. The reports may be included in the Energy Efficiency Action Plans referred to in Article 14(2) of Directive 2006/32/EC.\n5. After receiving the national report from a Member State about the application of the option as described in paragraph 4, the Commission may request further specific information regarding the requirements and equivalence of the measures set in that paragraph. In this case, the Member State concerned shall present the requested information or propose amendments within nine months.\nArticle 16\nReports on the inspection of heating and air-conditioning systems\n1. An inspection report shall be issued after each inspection of a heating or air-conditioning system. The inspection report shall contain the result of the inspection performed in accordance with Article 14 or 15 and include recommendations for the cost-effective improvement of the energy performance of the inspected system.\nThe recommendations may be based on a comparison of the energy performance of the system inspected with that of the best available feasible system and a system of similar type for which all relevant components achieve the level of energy performance required by the applicable legislation.\n2. The inspection report shall be handed over to the owner or tenant of the building.\nArticle 17\nIndependent experts\nMember States shall ensure that the energy performance certification of buildings and the inspection of heating systems and air-conditioning systems are carried out in an independent manner by qualified and/or accredited experts, whether operating in a self-employed capacity or employed by public bodies or private enterprises.\nExperts shall be accredited taking into account their competence.\nMember States shall make available to the public information on training and accreditations. Member States shall ensure that either regularly updated lists of qualified and/or accredited experts or regularly updated lists of accredited companies which offer the services of such experts are made available to the public.\nArticle 18\nIndependent control system\n1. Member States shall ensure that independent control systems for energy performance certificates and reports on the inspection of heating and air-conditioning systems are established in accordance with Annex II. Member States may establish separate systems for the control of energy performance certificates and for the control of reports on the inspection of heating and air-conditioning systems.\n2. The Member States may delegate the responsibilities for implementing the independent control systems.\nWhere the Member States decide to do so, they shall ensure that the independent control systems are implemented in compliance with Annex II.\n3. Member States shall require the energy performance certificates and the inspection reports referred to in paragraph 1 to be made available to the competent authorities or bodies on request.\nArticle 19\nReview\nThe Commission, assisted by the Committee established by Article 26, shall evaluate this Directive by 1 January 2017 at the latest, in the light of the experience gained and progress made during its application, and, if necessary, make proposals.\nArticle 20\nInformation\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to inform the owners or tenants of buildings or building units of the different methods and practices that serve to enhance energy performance.\n2. Member States shall in particular provide information to the owners or tenants of buildings on energy performance certificates and inspection reports, their purpose and objectives, on cost-effective ways to improve the energy performance of the building and, where appropriate, on financial instruments available to improve the energy performance of the building.\nAt the request of the Member States, the Commission shall assist Member States in staging information campaigns for the purposes of paragraph 1 and the first subparagraph of this paragraph, which may be dealt with in Union programmes.\n3. Member States shall ensure that guidance and training are made available for those responsible for implementing this Directive. Such guidance and training shall address the importance of improving energy performance, and shall enable consideration of the optimal combination of improvements in energy efficiency, use of energy from renewable sources and use of district heating and cooling when planning, designing, building and renovating industrial or residential areas.\n4. The Commission is invited to continuously improve its information services, in particular the website that has been set up as a European portal for energy efficiency in buildings directed towards citizens, professionals and authorities, in order to assist Member States in their information and awareness-raising efforts. Information displayed on this website might include links to relevant European Union and national, regional and local legislation, links to Europa websites that display the National Energy Efficiency Action Plans, links to available financial instruments, as well as best practice examples at national, regional and local level. In the context of the European Regional Development Fund, the Commission shall continue and further intensify its information services with the aim of facilitating the use of available funds by providing assistance and information to interested stakeholders, including national, regional and local authorities, on funding possibilities, taking into account the latest changes in the regulatory framework.\nArticle 21\nConsultation\nIn order to facilitate the effective implementation of the Directive, Member States shall consult the stakeholders involved, including local and regional authorities, in accordance with the national legislation applicable and as relevant. Such consultation is of particular importance for the application of Articles 9 and 20.\nArticle 22\nAdaptation of Annex I to technical progress\nThe Commission shall adapt points 3 and 4 of Annex I to technical progress by means of delegated acts in accordance with Articles 23, 24 and 25.\nArticle 23\nExercise of delegation\n1. The powers to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 22 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years beginning on 8 July 2010. The Commission shall make a report in respect of the delegated powers not later than six months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of powers shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 24.\n2. Without prejudice to the deadline referred to in Article 5(1), the powers to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 5 shall be conferred on the Commission until 30 June 2012.\n3. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n4. The powers to adopt delegated acts are conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 24 and 25.\nArticle 24\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of powers referred to in Articles 5 and 22 may be revoked by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of powers shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 25\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of two months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by two months.\n2. If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period, if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 26\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 3 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\nArticle 27\nPenalties\nMember States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall communicate those provisions to the Commission by 9 January 2013 at the latest and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.\nArticle 28\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 9 July 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2 to 18, and with Articles 20 and 27.\nThey shall apply those provisions as far as Articles 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20 and 27 are concerned, from 9 January 2013 at the latest.\nThey shall apply those provisions as far as Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 16 are concerned, to buildings occupied by the public authorities from 9 January 2013 at the latest and to other buildings from 9 July 2013 at the latest.\nThey may defer the application of Article 12(1) and (2) to single building units that are rented out, until 31 December 2015. This shall however not result in fewer certificates being issued than would have been the case under the application of the Directive 2002/91/EC in the Member State concerned.\nWhen Member States adopt measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. They shall also include a statement that references in existing laws, regulations and administrative provisions to Directive 2002/91/EC shall be construed as references to this Directive. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made and how that statement is to be formulated.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 29\nRepeal\nDirective 2002/91/EC, as amended by the Regulation indicated in Annex IV, Part A, is hereby repealed with effect from 1 February 2012, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limit for transposition into national law and application of the Directive set out in Annex IV, Part B.\nReferences to Directive 2002/91/EC shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex V.\nArticle 30\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 31\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 19 May 2010.", "references": ["35", "96", "24", "11", "86", "45", "55", "9", "16", "30", "59", "61", "67", "13", "19", "63", "10", "46", "7", "73", "49", "42", "89", "52", "4", "44", "97", "28", "50", "20", "No Label", "58", "78", "87"], "gold": ["58", "78", "87"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 671/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 11 July 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the application of direct payments to farmers in respect of the year 2013\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 42 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nNew support schemes for farmers within the framework of the common agricultural policy are to apply from 1 January 2014 and are to replace the current schemes. Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (4) should continue to form the basis on which to grant income support for farmers in calendar year 2013.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 73/2009 established a system of compulsory, progressive reduction of direct payments (\u2018modulation\u2019) including an exemption of direct payments of up to EUR 5 000 which is to apply until calendar year 2012. As a consequence, the total net amounts of direct payments (\u2018net ceilings\u2019) which may be granted in a Member State, after the application of modulation, have been fixed until calendar year 2012. In order to maintain the amount of direct payments in calendar year 2013 on a level similar to that of 2012, with due account being taken of phasing-in in the new Member States, within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, it is appropriate to establish an adjustment mechanism for calendar year 2013 with an effect equivalent to that of modulation and the net ceilings. Due to the special characteristics of the support in the outermost regions under the common agricultural policy, this adjustment mechanism should not be applied to farmers in those regions.\n(3)\nFor the smooth functioning of the direct payments to be made by the Member States in respect of applications made in calendar year 2013, it is necessary to extend the net ceilings set for calendar year 2012 to 2013 and to adjust them, where necessary, in particular as regards the increases resulting from the phasing-in of direct payments in the new Member States.\n(4)\nIn parallel with compulsory modulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 of 27 March 2007 laying down rules for voluntary modulation of direct payments provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (5) made it possible for Member States to apply a reduction (\u2018voluntary modulation\u2019) to all amounts of direct payments to be granted in their territory in respect of a given calendar year until calendar year 2012. In order to maintain the amount of direct payments to be made in respect of applications made in calendar year 2013 on a level similar to that of 2012, Member States which made use of voluntary modulation in respect of calendar year 2012 should continue to have the possibility to reduce direct payments in respect of calendar year 2013 and to use the funds generated thereby to finance rural development programmes. Therefore, it is appropriate to provide for the possibility to further reduce the amount of direct payments by applying a system of voluntary adjustment of direct payments in respect of calendar year 2013. Such reduction should be in addition to the compulsory adjustment of direct payment foreseen in respect of calendar year 2013.\n(5)\nWhere a Member State has applied regionally differentiated voluntary modulation rates in respect of calendar year 2012, it should also have that possibility in respect of calendar year 2013. In order to safeguard the level of direct support to farmers, the combined application of the compulsory and voluntary adjustment of direct payments in calendar year 2013 should not lead to a reduction of direct payment in excess of the reductions applied in 2012, through both compulsory and voluntary modulation. Therefore, the maximum rate of adjustment of direct payments to be applied in respect of calendar year 2013 in each region should not exceed the reductions resulting from both compulsory and voluntary modulation, as applied in respect of calendar year 2012.\n(6)\nWhere a Member State made use of the option provided for in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 by deciding not to apply the maximum rate for the contribution from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) to the net amounts resulting from the application of voluntary modulation in the programming period 2007 to 2013, the same option should be made available to that Member State in respect of the funds raised through the voluntary adjustment of direct payments, in order to ensure continuity in the financing of public expenditure of the rural development measures in 2014. For reasons of consistency, the prefinancing arrangements for the rural development programmes should not apply to such funds.\n(7)\nAccording to the phasing-in mechanism provided for in the Act of Accession of 2005, the level of direct payments in Bulgaria and Romania continues to be below the level of direct payments applicable in the other Member States in 2013 after application of the adjustment of payments to farmers in the transitional period. Therefore, the adjustment mechanism should not apply to farmers in Bulgaria and Romania.\n(8)\nThe new Member States were allowed to grant complementary national direct payments as a consequence of the phasing-in of direct payments in those Member States. Such possibility will no longer be available in 2013, when the schedule for the gradual introduction of direct payments in the new Member States will be complete. In the new Member States applying the single area payment scheme, the complementary national direct payments have played an important role in supporting the income of farmers in specific sectors. As regards Cyprus, the same can be said of State aids. For that reason, and in order to avoid a sudden and substantial decrease of support in 2013 in those sectors benefiting, until 2012, from complementary national direct payments and, in the case of Cyprus, from State aids, it is appropriate to provide, in those Member States, for the possibility to grant, subject to authorisation by the Commission, transitional national aids to farmers in 2013. In order to ensure the continuity of the level of support to farmers in 2013, only those sectors that benefited, in 2012, from complementary national direct payments and, in the case of Cyprus, from State aids should be eligible for the transitional national aid, and if that transitional aid is granted, it should be granted under the same conditions as the ones applied to those payments in 2012.\n(9)\nThe financial transfers to the EAFRD provided for in Articles 134 and 135 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 relate to the 2007-13 multiannual financial framework. The direct payments to be made by the Member States in respect of applications made in calendar year 2013 will have effects in financial year 2014, thereby falling under the next multiannual financial framework. Under that framework, the amounts available for rural development programming already include the amounts corresponding to the financial transfers provided for in Articles 134 and 135 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. Therefore, such financial transfers should be abolished.\n(10)\nIn order to facilitate the more efficient use of the funds, Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 provided for the possibility for Member States to grant support above their national ceilings up to an amount the level of which ensures that it remains within the margins of the under-execution of the national ceiling. That Regulation provided for those amounts either to be used for the funding of specific support or to be transferred to the EAFRD under Article 136 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. As the possibility to grant support above the national ceilings will be abolished when the new direct support system becomes applicable, the financial transfer to the EAFRD provided for in Article 136 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 should be maintained only until 31 December 2013.\n(11)\nThe possibility to make the amounts resulting from the application of voluntary adjustment available as an additional Union support under rural development programming and financing under EAFRD for financial year 2014 and the prolongation of the financial transfers provided for in Article 136 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 should not affect the future adjustment of the level of direct payments with a view to a more equal distribution of direct support among Member States which is foreseen to be part of the new direct support system.\n(12)\nIn the context of respecting budget discipline, it is necessary to define, for the financial year 2014, the ceiling for the expenditure financed by the EAGF, by taking into account the maximum amounts set in the Regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework adopted by the Council pursuant to Article 312(2) of the Treaty and the amounts resulting from the voluntary adjustment, along with the amounts resulting from the application of Article 136 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 for that financial year.\n(13)\nIn order to ensure the correct application of the adjustments of direct payments to be made by the Member States in respect of applications made in 2013 and financial discipline for calendar year 2013, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the relevant rules concerning the basis of calculation for reductions to be applied to the farmers by the Member States. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(14)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, Member States had the possibility to decide to use, from the following year, a certain percentage of their national ceiling for specific support for their farmers as well as to review a previous decision by deciding to modify, or put an end to, such support. It is appropriate to provide for an additional review of those decisions with effect for calendar year 2013.\n(15)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission as regards the presentation of the amounts resulting from the voluntary adjustment. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (6).\n(16)\nIn respect of fixing the amounts resulting from voluntary adjustment, setting the net balance available for EAGF expenditure in respect of financial year 2014 and authorising the granting of transitional national aids, the Commission should be empowered to adopt implementing acts without applying Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n(17)\nRegulation (EC) No 73/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 73/2009 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 8 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Without prejudice to Article 11 of this Regulation, the total net amounts of direct payments which may be granted in a Member State in respect of any calendar year before 2013 after application of Articles 7 and 10 of this Regulation and Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 or in calendar year 2013 after application of Articles 10a and 10b of this Regulation, and with the exception of direct payments granted under Regulations (EC) No 247/2006 and (EC) No 1405/2006, shall not be higher than the ceilings set out in Annex IV to this Regulation. Where necessary, Member States shall make a linear reduction in the amounts of direct payments which are subject to the reduction provided for in Articles 7 and 10 of this Regulation and Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 in respect of any calendar year before 2013 or in Articles 10a and 10b of this Regulation in respect of calendar year 2013, in order to comply with the ceilings set out in Annex IV to this Regulation.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, point (d) is deleted;\n(2)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 10a\nAdjustment of direct payments in 2013\n1. Any amount of direct payments to be granted in calendar year 2013 to a farmer in excess of EUR 5 000 shall be reduced by 10 %.\n2. The reduction provided for in paragraph 1 shall be increased by four percentage points for amounts exceeding EUR 300 000.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to direct payments granted to farmers in Bulgaria and in Romania and in the French overseas departments, in the Azores and Madeira, in the Canary Islands and in the Aegean Islands.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the reduction referred to in that paragraph shall be set at 0 % for new Member States other than Bulgaria and Romania.\nArticle 10b\nVoluntary adjustment of direct payments in 2013\n1. Any Member State having applied Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 in respect of calendar year 2012 may apply a reduction (hereinafter referred to as \u2018voluntary adjustment\u2019) to all amounts of direct payments to be granted in its territory in respect of calendar year 2013. Voluntary adjustment shall be applied in addition to the adjustment of direct payments provided for in Article 10a of this Regulation.\nVoluntary adjustment may be regionally differentiated, provided that the Member State has made use of the option provided for in Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 378/2007.\n2. The maximum rate of reduction resulting from the combined application of Article 10a and paragraph 1 of this Article shall not exceed the percentage rate of reduction resulting from the combined application of Article 7 of this Regulation and Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 as applied to the amounts to be granted to farmers in respect of calendar year 2012 in the regions concerned.\n3. The amounts resulting from the application of voluntary adjustment shall not exceed the net amounts fixed by the Commission for calendar year 2012 pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 378/2007.\n4. The amounts resulting from the application of voluntary adjustment shall be available, in the Member State where they were generated, as Union support under rural development programming and financing by the EAFRD.\n5. By 8 October 2012 Member States shall decide on, and communicate to the Commission, the following:\n(a)\nthe rate of voluntary adjustment for the whole territory and, where applicable, for each region;\n(b)\nthe total amount to be reduced under voluntary adjustment for the whole territory and, where applicable, for each region.\nArticle 10c\nAmounts resulting from voluntary adjustment and from application of Article 136\n1. Based on the amounts communicated by the Member States pursuant to Article 10b(5), the Commission shall adopt implementing acts, without applying the procedure referred to in Article 141(2) or 141b(2), fixing the amounts resulting from voluntary adjustment.\n2. The amounts fixed pursuant to paragraph 1, as well as the amounts resulting from the application of Article 136 for financial year 2014, shall be added to the annual breakdown by Member State of the EAFRD contribution to the rural development programmes.\n3. Member States may decide to exceed the maximum EAFRD contribution rate as regards the amounts added to the annual breakdown by Member State referred to in paragraph 2.\nThe amounts added to the annual breakdown by Member State referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be subject to the payment of the single prefinancing amount for the rural development programmes.\n4. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts laying down rules for the presentation of the amounts referred to in paragraph 2 in the financing plans of the rural development programmes. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 141b(2).\nArticle 10d\nEAGF net ceiling\n1. The ceiling for EAGF expenditure in respect of financial year 2014 shall be calculated as the maximum amounts set for it by the Regulation adopted by the Council pursuant to Article 312(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union minus the amounts referred to in Article 10c(2) of this Regulation.\n2. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts, without applying the procedure referred to in Article 141(2) or 141b(2), setting the net balance available for EAGF expenditure in respect of financial year 2014 on the basis of the data referred to in paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 11(1), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018However, in financial year 2014, the adjustment referred to in the first subparagraph shall be determined taking into account the forecasts for the financing of direct payments and market related expenditure of the CAP laid down in the Regulation adopted by the Council pursuant to Article 312(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, increased by the amounts referred to in Article 10b of this Regulation and the amounts resulting from the application of Article 136 thereof for financial year 2014, before the adjustment of direct payments provided for in Article 10a of this Regulation, but without taking into account the margin of EUR 300 000 000.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 11, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure on a proposal from the Commission presented no later than 31 March of the calendar year in respect of which the adjustments referred to in paragraph 1 apply, shall determine these adjustments no later than 30 June of the same calendar year.\u2019;\n(5)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 11a\nDelegation of powers\nIn order to ensure an optimal application of the adjustments of direct payments in 2013 and financial discipline for calendar year 2013, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 141a, laying down rules concerning the basis of calculation for reductions to be applied to farmers by Member States due to the adjustments of payments in 2013 provided for in Article 10a and financial discipline provided for in Article 11.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 68(8), the introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u20188. By 1 September 2012, the Member States that took the decision referred to in Article 69(1) may review it and decide, with effect from 2013, to:\u2019;\n(7)\nArticle 69(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States may decide, by 1 August 2009, 1 August 2010, 1 August 2011 or by 1 September 2012, to use, from the year following such decision, up to 10 % of their national ceiling referred to in Article 40, or, in the case of Malta, the amount of EUR 2 000 000 for the specific support provided for in Article 68(1).\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 131(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The new Member States applying the single area payment scheme may decide, by 1 August 2009, 1 August 2010, 1 August 2011 or by 1 September 2012, to use, from the year following that decision, up to 10 % of their national ceilings referred to in Article 40 to grant support to farmers as set out in Article 68(1) and in accordance with Chapter 5 of Title III, as applicable to them.\u2019;\n(9)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 133a\nTransitional national aid\n1. With the exception of Bulgaria and Romania, the new Member States applying the single area payment scheme shall have the possibility to grant transitional national aid in 2013.\nExcept in the case of Cyprus, the granting of such aid shall be subject to authorisation by the Commission, to be granted in accordance with paragraph 5.\n2. The transitional national aid may be granted to farmers in sectors in respect of which complementary national direct payments and, in the case of Cyprus, State aids have been authorised in 2012 pursuant to Articles 132 and 133.\n3. The conditions for granting the aid shall be identical to those authorised for the granting of payments pursuant to Articles 132 and 133 in respect of 2012.\n4. The total amount of aid that may be granted to farmers in any of the sectors referred to in paragraph 2 shall be limited by a specific financial envelope per sector, which shall be equal to the difference between:\n(a)\nthe total direct support which may be granted to farmers in the relevant sector in 2012, including all payments received pursuant to Article 132; and\n(b)\nthe total amount of direct support that would be available for the same sector under the single area payment scheme in 2013.\nFor Cyprus, the sector specific financial envelopes are set out in Annex XVIIa.\n5. On the basis of a notification submitted, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts, without applying the procedure referred to in Article 141(2) or 141b(2), authorising the transitional national aid and:\n(a)\nsetting the financial envelope per sector;\n(b)\nsetting the maximum rate of transitional national aid where appropriate;\n(c)\nsetting the conditions for the granting thereof; and\n(d)\ndefining the applicable exchange rate to be used for the payments.\n6. The new Member States may decide, on the basis of objective criteria and within the limits authorised by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 5, on the amounts of transitional national aid to be granted.\u2019;\n(10)\nArticles 134 and 135 are deleted;\n(11)\nArticle 136 is deleted;\n(12)\nArticle 139 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 139\nState aid\nBy way of derogation from Article 180 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1184/2006 of 24 July 2006 applying certain rules of competition to the production of, and trade in, agricultural products (7), Articles 107, 108 and 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union shall not apply to payments made under Articles 41, 57, 64, 68, 69, 70 and 71, Article 82(2), Article 86, Articles 98(4) and 111(5), Article 120, Article 129(3) and Articles 131, 132, 133 and 133a of this Regulation by Member States in conformity with this Regulation.\n(13)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 141a\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 11a shall be conferred on the Commission for a period from 1 September 2012 until 31 December 2013.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 11a may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 11a shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 141b\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Rural Development Committee established by Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. That committee is a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (8).\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\n(14)\nin Annex IV, the following column is added:\n\u20182013\n569\n903\n964,3\n5 329,6\n101,2\n1 255,5\n2 344,5\n5 055,2\n7 853,1\n4 128,3\n53,5\n146,4\n379,8\n34,7\n1 313,1\n5,5\n830,6\n715,7\n3 043,4\n566,6\n144,3\n385,6\n539,2\n708,5\n3 650\u2019\n(15)\nthe following Annex is inserted:\n\u2018ANNEX XVIIa\nTRANSITIONAL NATIONAL AID IN CYPRUS\n(EUR)\nSector\n2013\nCereals (durum wheat excluded)\n141 439\nDurum wheat\n905 191\nMilk and dairy\n3 419 585\nBeef\n4 608 945\nSheep and goats\n10 572 527\nPig sector\n170 788\nPoultry and eggs\n71 399\nWine\n269 250\nOlive oil\n3 949 554\nTable grapes\n66 181\nDried grapes\n129 404\nProcessed tomatoes\n7 341\nBananas\n4 285 696\nTobacco\n1 027 775\nDeciduous fruit including stone fruit\n173 390\nTotal\n29 798 462\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2013.\nBy way of derogation from the second paragraph:\n(a)\nthe following provisions shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation:\n(i)\nArticle 10b(5), Article 10c(1) and (4) and Article 10d(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, as inserted by point (2) of Article 1 of this Regulation;\n(ii)\nArticle 133a(5) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, as inserted by point (9) of Article 1 of this Regulation;\n(iii)\npoints (5), (6), (7), (8) and (13) of Article 1 of this Regulation;\n(b)\npoints (1)(b) and (11) of Article 1 of this Regulation shall apply from 1 January 2014.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 July 2012.", "references": ["26", "48", "94", "43", "97", "11", "62", "71", "6", "81", "46", "83", "49", "85", "36", "89", "98", "28", "39", "2", "34", "45", "96", "59", "95", "79", "29", "3", "93", "27", "No Label", "10", "17", "61", "63"], "gold": ["10", "17", "61", "63"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 354/2012\nof 23 April 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2012/212/CFSP of 23 April 2012 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 765/2006 (2) provides for a freezing of the assets of President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus as well as persons responsible for serious violations of human rights or the repression of civil society and democratic opposition, and persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the Lukashenko regime.\n(2)\nBy Decision 2012/212/CFSP, the Council has decided that a derogation from the asset freeze should be provided, in order to ensure that funds or economic resources can be made available for the official purposes of diplomatic missions or consular posts or international organisations enjoying immunities in accordance with international law.\n(3)\nThis measure falls within the scope of the Treaty and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to give effect to it, in particular with a view to ensuring its uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 765/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, the following Article is inserted:\n\"Article 4b\nBy way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities in the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are necessary for official purposes of diplomatic missions or consular posts or international organisations enjoying immunities in accordance with international law.\".\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 23 April 2012.", "references": ["2", "90", "6", "96", "39", "62", "18", "34", "38", "32", "61", "37", "92", "94", "98", "45", "11", "64", "75", "52", "73", "78", "63", "99", "0", "80", "87", "31", "25", "70", "No Label", "3", "8", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "8", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 461/2011\nof 12 May 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 fixing the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2010/2011 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 61, first paragraph, point (d), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the sugar produced during a marketing year in excess of the quota referred to in Article 56 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed.\n(2)\nDetailed implementing rules for out-of-quota exports, in particular concerning the issue of export licences, are laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2). However, the quantitative limit should be fixed per marketing year in view of the possible opportunities on the export markets.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 of 7 May 2010 fixing the quantitative limit for exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2010/2011 marketing year (3) fixed the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar at 650 000 tonnes. This quantity was quickly used. Current high sugar prices provide an incentive for growers to sow additional areas of sugar beet in 2011. Taking into account that the WTO ceiling for exports in the 2010/2011 marketing year has not been fully used, it is appropriate to increase the export quantitative limit by 700 000 tonnes, to exploit all possible outlet for the product available. This measure will provide additional business opportunities for the Union sugar sector, including prospective opportunities for growers in relation to present sowings, and should further stabilise the market.\n(4)\nIn order to enable economic actors to do the necessary planning of their operations, applications for export licences should be allowed as from the first week of July. It is appropriate to set the period of validity for these licences from 1 September 2011 to 31 December 2011 for this measure to cover only sugar produced under the new, September harvest.\n(5)\nRegulation (EU) No 397/2010 should be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 397/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. For the 2010/2011 marketing year, running from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011, the quantitative limit referred to in Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be 1 350 000 tonnes for exports without refund of out-of-quota white sugar falling within CN code 1701 99.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following Article 2a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 2a\nBy way of derogation from Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, the export licences issued as of 4 July 2011 for the quantities fixed by Article 1 shall be valid from 1 September 2011 until 31 December 2011.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 4 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2011.", "references": ["5", "70", "16", "92", "8", "91", "2", "93", "63", "55", "66", "69", "90", "81", "26", "39", "9", "76", "31", "82", "49", "72", "32", "13", "34", "43", "97", "41", "37", "28", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "71"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/299/CFSP\nof 23 May 2011\namending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nAdditional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.\n(3)\nThe entries for certain persons and entities included in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP should be amended.\n(4)\nThe application of the travel restrictions should be suspended insofar as it concerns Mr Ali Akbar Salehi.\n(5)\nDecision 2010/413/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 26 of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. The measures referred to in Article 19(1)(b), in so far as they apply to Mr Ali Akbar Salehi, shall be suspended.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe persons and entities listed in Annex I to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nIn Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP, the entries for the following persons and entities:\n(1)\nMr Ali Akbar Salehi;\n(2)\nIran Centrifuge Technology Company (aka TSA or TESA);\n(3)\nMinistry of Defence and Support for Armed Force Logistics (MODAFL);\n(4)\nResearch Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology (aka Nuclear Science and Technology Research Institute),\nshall be replaced by the entries set out in Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["44", "30", "40", "65", "22", "19", "10", "49", "0", "33", "14", "16", "38", "81", "31", "85", "63", "7", "67", "66", "64", "48", "18", "54", "42", "74", "17", "13", "57", "72", "No Label", "3", "5", "11", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "11", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 408/2011\nof 27 April 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning statistics on pesticides, as regards transmission format\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 concerning statistics on pesticides (1), and in particular Article 5(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1185/2009 establishes a new framework for the production of comparable European statistics on sales and use of pesticides.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009, Member States are to transmit the statistical data in electronic form, in conformity with an appropriate technical format to be adopted by the Commission.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure confidentiality, a flag indicating whether the information transmitted on the substance, chemical class, category of product or major group is confidential or not will be included in the transmission file.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nMember States shall transmit the statistical data on the placing on the market of pesticides as described in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009 using the statistical data and metadata exchange (SDMX) format. The data shall be transmitted or uploaded by electronic means to the single entry point for data at Eurostat.\nMember States shall transmit the required data conforming to the technical specifications provided by the Commission (Eurostat).\nArticle 2\nThe technical format for the transmission of data to the Commission (Eurostat) is described in the Annex.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2011.", "references": ["16", "90", "63", "55", "69", "26", "46", "93", "82", "89", "29", "30", "99", "38", "14", "35", "70", "84", "47", "81", "28", "92", "5", "32", "57", "45", "48", "15", "3", "6", "No Label", "19", "40", "41", "42", "65"], "gold": ["19", "40", "41", "42", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\non the recognition of the \u2018Greenergy Brazilian Bioethanol verification programme\u2019 scheme for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria under Directives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(2011/441/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1), and in particular Article 18(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels (2) as amended by the Directive 2009/30/EC (3), and in particular Article 7c(6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee established by Article 25, paragraph 2 of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC both lay down sustainability criteria for biofuels. When reference is made to the provisions of Articles 17 and 18 of and Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC this should be construed as the reference also to the similar provisions of Articles 7a, 7b, 7c of and Annex IV to Directive 2009/30/EC.\n(2)\nWhere biofuels and bioliquids are to be taken into account for the purposes referred to in Article 17(1)(a), (b) and (c), Member States shall require economic operators to show the compliance of biofuels and bioliquids with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(2) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(3)\nRecital 76 of Directive 2009/28/EC states that the imposition of an unreasonable burden on industry should be avoided and voluntary schemes can help creating efficient solutions for proving compliance with these sustainability criteria.\n(4)\nThe Commission may decide that a voluntary national or international scheme demonstrates that consignments of biofuel comply with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(3) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC or that voluntary national or international scheme to measure greenhouse gas emission saving contains accurate data for the purposes of Article 17(2) of this Directive.\n(5)\nThe Commission may recognise such a voluntary scheme for a period of five years.\n(6)\nWhen an economic operator provides proof or data obtained in accordance with a scheme that has been recognised by the Commission, to the extent covered by that recognition decision, a Member State shall not require the supplier to provide further evidence of compliance with the sustainability criteria.\n(7)\nThe \u2018Greenergy Brazilian Bioethanol verification programme\u2019 (hereafter \u2018Greenergy\u2019) scheme was submitted on 31 January 2011 to the Commission with the request for recognition. This scheme covers bioethanol from sugar cane produced in Brazil. The recognised scheme will be made available at the transparency platform established under Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission will take into account considerations of commercial sensitivity and may decide to only partially publish the scheme.\n(8)\nAssessment of the Greenergy scheme found it to adequately cover, with exception of the criterion set out in Article 17(3)(c), the sustainability criteria of Directive 2009/28/EC, as well as applying a mass balance methodology in line with the requirements of Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(9)\nThe evaluation of the Greenergy scheme found that it meets adequate standards of reliability, transparency and independent auditing and also complies with the methodological requirements in Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(10)\nAny additional sustainability elements covered by the Greenergy scheme are not part of the consideration of this Decision. These additional sustainability criteria are not mandatory to show compliance with sustainability requirements set up in Directive 2009/28/EC. The European Commission may at a later stage take a view on whether the scheme also contains accurate data for the purpose of information on measures taken for issues referred to in the second paragraph, second sentence of Article 18(4) of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018Greenergy Brazilian Bioethanol verification programme\u2019, for which the request for recognition was submitted to the Commission on 31 January 2011, demonstrates that consignments of biofuels comply with the sustainability criteria as laid down in Article 17(3)(a) and (b), (4) and (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(3)(a), 7b(3)(b), 7b(4) and 7b(5) of Directive 98/70/EC. The scheme also contains accurate data for purposes of Article 17(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(2) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nFurthermore, it may be used for demonstrating compliance with Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC and of Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nArticle 2\n1. The Decision is valid for a period of five years after it enters into force. If the scheme, after adoption of Commission decision, undergoes changes to its contents in a way that might affect the basis of this Decision, such changes shall be notified to the Commission without delay. The Commission will assess the notified changes with a view to establish whether the scheme is still adequately covering the sustainability criteria for which it is recognised.\n2. If it has been clearly demonstrated that the scheme has not implemented elements considered to be decisive for this Decision and if severe and structural breach of those elements has taken place, the Commission reserves the right to revoke its Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision enters into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["15", "88", "59", "97", "70", "73", "23", "64", "53", "7", "67", "13", "39", "38", "85", "43", "80", "86", "65", "56", "11", "49", "17", "18", "69", "63", "62", "72", "99", "2", "No Label", "58", "76", "77", "78"], "gold": ["58", "76", "77", "78"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 3 February 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/012 NL/Noord Holland ICT from the Netherlands)\n(2011/99/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nThe Netherlands submitted an application on 8 April 2010 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in two enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 46 (\u2018Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles\u2019) in the NUTS II region of Noord Holland (NL32) and supplemented it with additional information up to 5 August 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 557 135.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Netherlands,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 557 135 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2011.", "references": ["41", "34", "92", "84", "43", "74", "50", "59", "18", "87", "99", "81", "60", "85", "11", "57", "71", "20", "23", "75", "89", "17", "95", "29", "48", "65", "26", "52", "78", "72", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 820/2010\nof 16 September 2010\nfixing the maximum reduction in the duty on sorghum imported under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EU) No 464/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAn invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on sorghum imported into Spain from third countries was opened by Commission Regulation (EU) No 464/2010 (2).\n(2)\nUnder Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 of 18 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of tariff quotas for imports of maize and sorghum into Spain and imports of maize into Portugal (3), the Commission, in accordance the procedure laid down in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, may decide to fix a maximum reduction in the import duty. In fixing this maximum the criteria provided for in Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 must be taken into account.\n(3)\nA contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum reduction in the duty.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor tenders lodged from 27 August to 16 September 2010 under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EU) No 464/2010, the maximum reduction in the duty on sorghum imported shall be EUR 6,49/t for a total maximum quantity of 44 000 t.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 September 2010.", "references": ["24", "5", "42", "51", "2", "65", "90", "36", "16", "76", "11", "82", "59", "57", "61", "6", "46", "3", "62", "72", "12", "37", "58", "50", "40", "77", "48", "13", "67", "69", "No Label", "4", "10", "20", "21", "22", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "20", "21", "22", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 35/2011\nof 18 January 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 595/2010 as regards an extension of the transitional period for the use of certain health certificates for milk and milk products, serum from equidae and treated blood products, excluding those of equidae, for the manufacture of technical products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (1), and in particular the first and second subparagraph of Article 32(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 595/2010 of 2 July 2010 amending Annexes VIII, X and XI to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (2) introduced requirements for the placing on the market and importation of blood and blood products of equidae and modified existing requirements for imports from third countries of serum of equidae for technical purposes. That Regulation entered into force on 28 July 2010.\n(2)\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EU) No 595/2010 provides for a transitional period until 31 August 2010 during which consignments of animal by-products accompanied by a health certificate completed and signed in accordance with the appropriate model certificates, as set out in Chapter 2, Chapter 4(A) and Chapter 4(D) respectively of Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 before the date of entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 595/2010 are to be accepted by Member States.\n(3)\nDue to difficulties adapting to the new rules, some key economic operators have requested an extension of that transitional period.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (3) is to apply from 4 March 2011 and introduce new requirements for imports; the transitional period should be extended accordingly.\n(5)\nTo prevent disruptions in trade in animal by-products which are accompanied by health certificates completed and signed in accordance with the appropriate model certificates set out in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 prior to 28 July 2010, this Regulation should apply retroactively from 1 September 2010.\n(6)\nIt is necessary for this Regulation to enter into force as a matter of urgency to prevent potential trade disruptions.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EU) No 595/2010 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nFor a transitional period until 4 March 2011, Member States shall accept consignments of milk and milk products, serum from equidae and treated blood products, excluding those of equidae, for the manufacture of technical products, which are accompanied by a health certificate completed and signed in accordance with the appropriate model certificates, as set out in Chapter 2, Chapter 4(A) and Chapter 4(D) of Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 before the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nUntil 30 April 2011, Member States shall accept such consignments if the accompanying health certificates were completed and signed before 5 March 2011.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["55", "40", "79", "45", "20", "84", "89", "51", "95", "6", "26", "70", "49", "31", "53", "85", "92", "25", "60", "54", "46", "5", "43", "29", "81", "72", "15", "14", "3", "7", "No Label", "24", "38", "61", "69", "82"], "gold": ["24", "38", "61", "69", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1182/2010\nof 13 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in EU waters of IIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["73", "31", "28", "35", "65", "41", "63", "9", "50", "58", "62", "34", "17", "86", "5", "12", "99", "21", "98", "3", "71", "24", "93", "36", "49", "69", "0", "82", "22", "72", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 677/2011\nof 7 July 2011\nlaying down detailed rules for the implementation of air traffic management (ATM) network functions and amending Regulation (EU) No 691/2010\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 11 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the organisation and use of the airspace in the single European sky (the airspace Regulation) (2), and in particular Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 551/2004 aims at supporting the concept of a progressively more integrated operating airspace within the context of the common transport policy and to establish common procedures for design, planning and management ensuring the efficient and safe performance of air traffic management. Network functions should be aimed at supporting initiatives at national level and at the level of functional airspace blocks.\n(2)\nThe network functions should be a \u2018service of general interest\u2019 exercised for the European aviation network and contributing to the sustainable development of the air transport system by ensuring the required level of performance, compatibility and coordination of activities including those to ensure the optimal use of scarce resources.\n(3)\nThe design of the European route network and the coordination of scarce resources according to Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 should be without prejudice to Member States\u2019 sovereignty over their airspace and to the requirements of the Member States relating to public order, public security and defence matters according to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004.\n(4)\nDecision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (3) creates a policy and legal framework for that area.\n(5)\nAn impartial and competent body (the Network Manager) should be established to perform the tasks necessary for the execution of the network functions provided for in Regulation (EC) No 551/2004.\n(6)\nThe European route network should be designed to optimise routings from a gate-to-gate perspective in all phases of flight taking in particular into account flight efficiency and environmental aspects.\n(7)\nThe work of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and Eurocontrol in route design, frequency and secondary surveillance radar (SSR) transponder code management is recognised and should be used as a basis when optimising the development and operation of the network at Union level.\n(8)\nThe obligations of the Member States towards the ICAO regarding route design, frequency and SSR transponder code management should be respected and should be implemented more effectively for the network with coordination by and support from the Network Manager.\n(9)\nThe allocation of radio spectrum takes place in the context of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The Member States have a responsibility to highlight the civil aviation requirements and to subsequently use the resource allocated to general air traffic in an optimal manner.\n(10)\nThe ICAO has developed guidance material relevant for the SSR transponder code and radio frequency functions and operates a system of registering frequency assignments for general air traffic purposes in the ICAO European region, currently facilitated by Eurocontrol.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 551/2004 requires the adoption of detailed implementing rules to coordinate and harmonise the processes and procedures to enhance the efficiency of aeronautical frequency management and a central function to coordinate the early identification and resolution of frequency needs to support the design and operation of the network.\n(12)\nAs air traffic flow management (ATFM) is an integral part of the network functions, an appropriate link to Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 laying down common rules on air traffic flow management (4) is required.\n(13)\nAs the efficiency of network management depends on immediate commencement of network functions, the Member States have already entrusted Eurocontrol with the performance of ATFM.\n(14)\nIt is beneficial to entrust a single body to coordinate the various network functions in order to develop consistent short and long term optimisation solutions at network level, compliant with the performance objectives. However, network functions should be delivered by the Network Manager and at Member State and functional airspace block level according to the responsibilities set out by this Regulation.\n(15)\nThe Network Manager should be involved with aspects of Member State or functional airspace blocks air traffic management (ATM) plans, actions and performance, in particular when it can be expected that it has, or is likely to have, a material effect on the performance of the network.\n(16)\nThe events linked to the eruption of the Eyjafjallaj\u00f6kull volcano in April 2010 have demonstrated the need to create a central entity that can take the lead in coordinating the management of mitigating measures at local, regional and network level in order to secure the provision of a timely response to future crisis situations affecting aviation.\n(17)\nThere should be coordination between the network functions and the operations organised at level of functional airspace blocks.\n(18)\nEffective stakeholder consultations should take place at national, functional airspace block and network levels.\n(19)\nAirports being entry and exit points to the network are key contributors to overall network performance, therefore the network functions should liaise through the Union observatory on airports capacity with airport operators acting as ground coordinators with the objective to optimise capacity on the ground, thus improving the overall network capacity.\n(20)\nThe implementation of network functions should be without prejudice to Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports (5).\n(21)\nHaving due regard to military operation effectiveness, civil-military cooperation and coordination are of utmost importance in order to achieve the required objectives. Whilst decisions relating to the content, scope or carrying out of military operations and training performed under the operational air traffic regime, do not fall within the sphere of competence of the Union, it is important to cover the interfaces between these operations and those covered by this Regulation in the interest of safety and mutual efficiency.\n(22)\nThe network functions should be without prejudice to Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 aiming at safeguarding essential security or defence policy interests or the application of flexible use of airspace provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004.\n(23)\nThe network functions should be provided in a cost-efficient manner, in particular avoiding any duplication of efforts, and therefore enabling the provision of these functions at reduced, or at least not higher, financial and human resources requirements in the Member States in the context of this Regulation, compared to the situation before a Network Manager was nominated.\n(24)\nThe Commission should ensure an appropriate oversight of the Network Manager.\n(25)\nSafety requirements for the network functions have to be of comparable level with the European Aviation Safety Agency (the Agency) requirements on air navigation service provision. These requirements, as well as the requirements on the safety oversight, should be provided.\n(26)\nThe consideration and involvement of third countries in the establishment and implementation of the network functions should contribute to the pan-European dimension of the single European sky.\n(27)\nThe network functions may be expanded in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004.\n(28)\nThe execution of the network functions should be subject to specific performance targets which require amendments to Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services (6). Those specific performance targets may be further developed based on practical experience with the execution of the performance scheme.\n(29)\nRegulation (EU) No 691/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(30)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation lays down detailed rules for the implementation of air traffic management (ATM) network functions in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 in order to allow optimum use of airspace in the single European sky and ensure that airspace users can operate preferred trajectories, while allowing maximum access to airspaces and air navigation services.\n2. For the purpose of network management this Regulation shall apply in particular to Member States, European Aviation Safety Agency (the Agency), airspace users, air navigation service providers, airport operators, airport slot coordinators and operating organisations, at national or functional airspace block level.\n3. In accordance with Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 and without prejudice to the operation of State aircraft under Article 3 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, Member States shall apply this Regulation in airspace placed under their responsibility in ICAO EUR and AFI regions.\n4. In accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, this Regulation shall not prevent the application of measures by a Member State to the extent to which these are needed to safeguard essential security or defence policy interests.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 shall apply.\nIn addition, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018airport operator\u2019 means the \u2018managing body of an airport\u2019 as defined in point (j) of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93;\n(2)\n\u2018airport slot coordinator\u2019 means the function established at coordinated airports in application of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93;\n(3)\n\u2018airspace design\u2019 means a process to contribute to the achievement of network related performance targets and to cater for airspace users needs as well as to ensure or increase the established safety level and increase the airspace capacity and environmental performance through the development and implementation of advanced navigational capabilities and techniques, improved route networks and associated sectorisation, optimised airspace structures and capacity enhancing ATM procedures;\n(4)\n\u2018airspace reservation\u2019 means a defined volume of airspace temporarily reserved for exclusive or specific use by categories of users;\n(5)\n\u2018airspace restriction\u2019 means a defined volume of airspace within which, variously, activities dangerous to the flight of aircraft may be conducted at specified times (a \u2018danger area\u2019); or such airspace situated above the land areas or territorial waters of a State, within which the flight of aircraft is restricted in accordance with certain specified conditions (a \u2018restricted area\u2019); or such airspace situated above the land areas or territorial waters of a State, within which the flight of aircraft is prohibited (a \u2018prohibited area\u2019);\n(6)\n\u2018airspace structure\u2019 means a specific volume of airspace designed to ensure the safe and optimal operation of aircraft;\n(7)\n\u2018airspace utilisation\u2019 means the way that airspace is operationally used;\n(8)\n\u2018airspace users\u2019 representative\u2019 means any legal person or entity representing the interests of one or several categories of users of air navigation services;\n(9)\n\u2018aviation frequency band\u2019 means an entry in the ITU Radio Regulations Table of Frequency Allocations of a given frequency band in which frequency assignments are made for the purpose of general air traffic;\n(10)\n\u2018ATC sector\u2019 means a defined volume of airspace for which an associated controller(s) has ATC responsibility at any given time;\n(11)\n\u2018air traffic service route (ATS route)\u2019 means a specified part of the airspace structure designed for channelling the flow of traffic as necessary for the provision of air traffic services;\n(12)\n\u2018civil-military coordination\u2019 means the interaction between civil and military authorities and components of air traffic management necessary to ensure safe, efficient and harmonious use of the airspace;\n(13)\n\u2018conditional route (CDR)\u2019 means an ATS route that is only available for flight planning and use under specified conditions;\n(14)\n\u2018cooperative decision making\u2019 means a process in which decisions are made based on a constant interaction and consultation with Member States, operational stakeholders and other actors as appropriate;\n(15)\n\u2018network crisis\u2019 means a state of inability to provide air navigation service at required level resulting in a major loss of network capacity, or a major imbalance between network capacity and demand, or a major failure in the information flow in one or several parts of the network following an unusual and unforeseen situation;\n(16)\n\u2018European Route Network Improvement Plan\u2019 means the plan developed by the Network Manager in coordination with the operational stakeholders that includes the result of its operational activities with respect to route network design on short and medium terms in accordance with the guiding principles of the Network Strategy Plan;\n(17)\n\u2018Free Route Airspace\u2019 means a specific airspace within which users can freely plan their routes between an entry point and an exit point without reference to the ATS route network;\n(18)\n\u2018frequency assignment\u2019 means authorisation given by a Member State to use a radio frequency or radio frequency channel under specified conditions;\n(19)\n\u2018impact on the network\u2019 means in the context of the radio frequency function set out in Annex II a situation when a radio frequency assignment will degrade, obstruct or interrupt the functioning of one or more radio frequency assignments of the network, or will counter the optimal use of aviation frequency bands within the scope of this Regulation;\n(20)\n\u2018multiple route options\u2019 means the availability to the airspace user of more than one routing option on the ATS route network;\n(21)\n\u2018third countries\u2019 means non-Member States that are members of Eurocontrol or have concluded an agreement with the Union on the implementation of the single European sky or are participating in a functional airspace block;\n(22)\n\u2018Network Manager\u2019 means the body established under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 to perform the duties provided for in that Article and this Regulation;\n(23)\n\u2018Network Operations Plan\u2019 means the plan developed by the Network Manager in coordination with the operational stakeholders to organise its operational activities in the short and medium term in accordance with the guiding principles of the Network Strategic Plan. For the European route network design (ERND)-specific part of the Network Operations Plan, it includes the European Route Network Improvement Plan;\n(24)\n\u2018Network Strategy Plan\u2019 means the plan developed by the Network Manager, consistent with the European ATM Master Plan, in coordination with Member States and the operational stakeholders defining the guiding principles for the network operation and its long term perspective;\n(25)\n\u2018operating organisation\u2019 means an organisation responsible for the provision of engineering and technical services supporting air traffic, communication, navigation or surveillance services;\n(26)\n\u2018operational requirements\u2019 means the requirements of the network in terms of safety, capacity and efficiency;\n(27)\n\u2018operational stakeholders\u2019 means the civil and military airspace users, civil and military air navigation service providers, airport operators, airport slot coordinators and operating organisations and any additional stakeholder groups considered relevant for the individual functions;\n(28)\n\u2018sector configuration\u2019 means a scheme combining sectors that are constructed and best placed to satisfy the operational requirements and airspace availability;\n(29)\n\u2018user required route\u2019 means the desirable routing that is declared by the aircraft operators at the airspace design stage to meet their needs.\nCHAPTER II\nORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NETWORK FUNCTIONS\nArticle 3\nEstablishment of a Network Manager\n1. For the purpose of the performance of the tasks necessary for the execution of functions provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 and in the Annexes to this Regulation, an impartial and competent body (the Network Manager) shall be established.\n2. The length of the term of the Network Manager shall coincide with the reference periods for the performance scheme provided for in Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010. It shall be sufficiently long to enable maturity to develop in performance of these functions. It shall not be shorter than two reference periods and may be renewed.\n3. The nomination of the Network Manager shall take the form of a Commission Decision after consultation of the Single Sky Committee in accordance with Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 and not later than 3 months after the adoption of this Regulation. That Decision shall include the terms and conditions of the nomination, including the financing and the conditions of its withdrawal. The Commission shall assess compliance with those conditions at the end of each reference period referred to in paragraph 2.\n4. The Network Manager shall perform the following functions:\n(a)\nthe design of the European Route Network as set out in Annex I;\n(b)\nthe coordination of scarce resources, in particular:\n(i)\nradio frequencies within aviation frequency bands used by general air traffic as set out in Annex II;\n(ii)\nSSR transponder codes as set out in Annex III.\nThe Commission may add other functions to the Network Manager under Articles 6(3) or (4)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004.\n5. The Network Manager shall also perform the ATFM function referred to in Article 6(6) of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 and in Regulation (EU) No 255/2010.\nArticle 4\nTasks of the Network Manager\n1. To support the execution of the functions listed in Article 3, the Network Manager shall perform the following tasks, with a view to a continuous improvement of the network operations in the single European sky contributing to the European Union-wide performance targets provided for in Regulation (EU) No 691/2010, and in particular:\n(a)\ndevelop, maintain and implement a Network Strategy Plan specified in Article 5, in compliance with the performance scheme provided for in Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 and the European ATM master plan and taking into account any relevant ICAO Air Navigation Plans;\n(b)\ndetail the Network Strategy Plan through a Network Operations Plan, as further specified in Article 6, addressing in particular European Union-wide performance targets covering 3 to 5 year, annual, seasonal, weekly and daily periods;\n(c)\ndevelop an integrated European Route Network Design set out in Annex I;\n(d)\nprovide the central function for the coordination of radio frequencies as required by Article 6(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 and set out in Annex II to this Regulation;\n(e)\ncoordinate the improvement of the SSR transponder code allocation process set out in Annex III;\n(f)\norganise the management and operation of the functions and execute in particular the obligations of the Central Unit for ATFM;\n(g)\nprovide a consolidated and coordinated approach to all planning and operational activities of the network, including monitoring and improvement of its overall performance;\n(h)\nprovide support for network crisis management;\n(i)\nsupport the different operational stakeholders in the execution of the obligations that are placed on them, in the deployment of air traffic management and/or air navigation services (ATM/ANS) systems and procedures in accordance with the European ATM master plan;\n(j)\nprovide support to entities entrusted with the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents or with the analysis of occurrences as requested by those entities; within the scope of Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7);\n(k)\nensure coordination with other regions and third countries which do not participate in the work of the Network Manager.\n2. The Network Manager shall contribute to the implementation of the performance scheme in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 691/2010.\n3. To fulfil its tasks, the Network Manager shall ensure the following:\n(a)\nthe availability, operations and sharing of tools, processes and consistent data to support the cooperative decision-making process at network level, including but not limited to, flight plan processing and data management systems;\n(b)\nthe facilitation and coordination between operational stakeholders and support to these stakeholders in the deployment and implementation of the plans and the related network measures following cooperative decision-making;\n(c)\nthe appropriate operational coordination, as well as optimisation, interoperability and interconnectivity within its area of responsibility;\n(d)\nthe coordination of proposals for amendments to the appropriate ICAO documents relating to the network functions;\n(e)\nthe reporting in accordance with Article 20 of all operational performance aspects, including scarce resources;\n(f)\nan appropriate liaison with other modes of transport.\n4. The Network Manager shall comply with ad hoc requests for information, advice, analysis or other similar ancillary tasks linked to the various functions on request of the Commission or the Agency.\nArticle 5\nNetwork Strategy Plan\n1. To guide its long term perspective, the Network Manager shall develop, maintain and implement a Network Strategy Plan, which shall be aligned with the reference period provided for in Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010. It shall contain the performance plan and targets for the next reference period and shall give an outlook for future reference periods.\n2. The Network Strategy Plan shall provide information set out in Annex IV.\n3. The Network Strategy Plan shall aim at achieving the performance targets for network functions provided for in Regulation (EU) No 691/2010.\n4. The Network Strategy Plan shall be updated if appropriate.\nArticle 6\nNetwork Operations Plan\n1. To implement the Network Strategy Plan at operational level the Network Manager shall develop a detailed Network Operations Plan.\n2. The Network Operations Plan shall provide the information set out in Annex V.\n3. The Network Operations Plan shall in particular lay down measures for the achievement of the European Union-wide performance targets provided for in Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 covering a 3 to 5 year, an annual, a seasonal, a weekly and a daily period.\n4. The Network Operations Plan shall include military requirements if provided by Members States.\n5. The Network Operations Plan shall include the European Route Network Improvement Plan and the equivalent for radio frequencies and the SSR transponder codes.\n6. The Network Operations Plan shall identify operational constraints, bottlenecks, measures of improvement and solutions for remediation or mitigation.\n7. Air navigation service providers, functional airspace blocks and airport operators shall ensure that their operation plans are aligned with the Network Operations Plan. The Network Manager shall ensure the coherence of the Network Operations Plan.\n8. The Network Operations Plan shall be updated at regular intervals, taking into account all relevant developments in the needs and requirements of the network functions.\nArticle 7\nCompetences of the Network Manager\n1. Without prejudice to the responsibilities of the Member States, the Network Manager shall, in the execution of its tasks, adopt individual measures which result from the cooperative decision-making process. The parties concerned with those measures shall implement them.\n2. Where a Member State\u2019s responsibilities prevent the adoption of such individual measures, the Network Manager shall refer such a case to the Commission for further consideration.\n3. The Network Manager shall also recommend measures on other issues required by the performance of the network.\n4. The Network Manager shall take, in its area of responsibility, measures aiming to ensure that applicable European Union-wide performance targets referred to in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 are met.\n5. The Network Manager shall collect, consolidate and analyse all relevant data identified in Annexes I to VI. It shall provide this data to the Commission, the Agency or Performance Review Body provided for in Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 as requested.\nArticle 8\nRelations with operational stakeholders\n1. In order to perform its tasks of monitoring and improvement of the overall performance of the network, the Network Manager shall develop appropriate working arrangements, provided for in Article 15, with the operational stakeholders.\n2. The operational stakeholders shall ensure that the measures implemented at local or functional airspace block level are compatible with those adopted, through the cooperative decision-making process, at network level.\n3. The operational stakeholders shall provide the Network Manager with the relevant data listed in Annexes I to VI, complying with any deadlines, completeness requirements or accuracy requirements agreed with the Network Manager for its delivery.\n4. Operational stakeholders concerned with the individual measures taken by the Network Manager under Article 7(1) may request the revision of such measures within 5 working days of their adoption. The request of revision shall not suspend the individual measures.\n5. The Network Manager shall confirm or modify the measures concerned within 5 working days or within 48 hours in case of network crisis.\nArticle 9\nRelations with Member States\n1. In the execution of its tasks, the Network Manager shall take due consideration of the responsibilities of the Member States.\n2. Member States shall inform the Network Manager where their sovereignty and responsibilities prevent the adoption of individual measures under Article 7(1).\n3. When Member States are involved in operational issues related to the network functions they shall be part of the cooperative decision-making process and shall implement the results agreed in this process at national level.\nArticle 10\nRelations with functional airspace blocks\n1. Member States shall ensure close cooperation and coordination between the functional airspace block and the Network Manager, such as in strategic planning level and tactical daily flow and capacity management.\n2. In order to facilitate operational interconnectivity between functional airspace blocks, the Network Manager shall establish, in close cooperation with all the functional airspace blocks, harmonised processes, procedures and interfaces including changes on aspects related to activities of the Network Manager.\n3. Member States cooperating in a functional airspace block shall ensure that consolidated views are formulated related to the network functions.\n4. Air navigation service providers cooperating in a functional airspace block shall ensure that consolidated views are formulated related to operational issues of the network functions.\n5. Before the establishment of a functional airspace block, Member States and air navigation service providers shall cooperate in such a way that consolidated views are formulated on aspects related to activities of the Network Manager.\nArticle 11\nCivil-military cooperation\n1. The Network Manager shall ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place to allow and support adequate coordination with national military authorities.\n2. The Member States shall ensure appropriate military involvement in all activities related to the network functions.\n3. The Member States shall ensure appropriate representation of the military air navigation service providers and military airspace users in all operational working and consultation arrangements established by the Network Manager.\n4. The function of European Route Network Design shall be executed without prejudice to the reservations or restrictions of a volume of airspace for exclusive or specific use by the Member States. The Network Manager shall encourage and coordinate the availability of conditional routes through those areas in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2150/2005 (8).\nArticle 12\nGeneral requirements for network functions\nThe Network Manager shall ensure that the general requirements for network functions set out in Annex VI are met. Those requirements shall apply as from the date of adoption of the nomination Decision and the Network Manager shall comply with them within 12 months after such date.\nCHAPTER III\nGOVERNANCE OF NETWORK FUNCTIONS\nArticle 13\nCooperative decision-making\n1. Network functions shall be managed through cooperative decision-making.\n2. A cooperative decision-making process shall include:\n(a)\na consultation process provided for in Article 14;\n(b)\ndetailed working arrangements and processes for operations provided for in Article 15.\n3. In order to adopt measures related to the governance of the network functions and to monitor their performance the Network Manager shall establish a Network Management Board provided for in Article 16.\n4. Where the Network Manager finds its actions hindered by one or several parties, the matter shall be referred to the Network Management Board for resolution.\nArticle 14\nConsultation process\n1. A process shall be established to organise the appropriate and regular consultation of the Member States and operational stakeholders.\n2. The consultation shall focus on the detailed working arrangements provided for in Article 15, the Network Strategy Plan, the Network Operations Plan, progress in the implementation of the plans, reports to the Commission and on operational issues as appropriate.\n3. The consultation process may vary depending on the nature of the individual network functions. In order to ensure that regulatory issues can be addressed, Member States shall be involved when required.\n4. Where stakeholders are not satisfied with the consultation, the issue shall first be referred to the appropriate consultation arrangement at individual function level. Where resolution of the issue cannot be reached at individual function level, the matter shall be referred to the Network Management Board for resolution.\nArticle 15\nDetailed working arrangements and processes for operations\n1. The Network Manager shall develop detailed working arrangements and processes for operations to address planning and operational aspects, taking into account, in particular, the specificity and requirements of the individual network functions as specified in Annexes I to VI.\n2. The Network Manager shall ensure that the detailed working arrangements and processes for operations contain rules for notification of interested parties concerned.\n3. These detailed working arrangements and processes for operations need to respect the separation of service provision and regulatory issues and to ensure that Member States are involved, when required.\nArticle 16\nNetwork Management Board\n1. The Network Management Board shall be responsible for:\n(a)\nendorsing the Network Strategy Plan prior to adoption in accordance with Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004;\n(b)\napproving the 3 to 5 year and the annual Network Operations Plans;\n(c)\napproving the cooperative decision-making processes, the consultation processes as well as detailed working arrangements and processes for operations for the network functions, after a positive opinion of the Single Sky Committee;\n(d)\napproving the Rules of Procedure of the European Aviation Crisis Coordination Cell provided for in Article 18(4), after a positive opinion of the Single Sky Committee;\n(e)\nmonitoring progress in the implementation of the plans and addressing any potential deviations from initial plans;\n(f)\nmonitoring the consultation process of operational stakeholders;\n(g)\nmonitoring activities related to the management of the network functions;\n(h)\nmonitoring Network Manager activities related to network crises;\n(i)\napproving the annual report referred to in Article 20. This report shall include, but not be limited to, the implementation of the Network Strategy Plan and the Network Operations Plan;\n(j)\naddressing issues which were not solved at individual network function level;\n(k)\nassessing if the Network Manager has the appropriate competences, resources and impartiality to carry out independently the tasks assigned to it, including security, liability and contingency arrangements;\n(l)\nendorsing the Network Managers annual budget, after a positive opinion of the Single Sky Committee;\n(m)\napproving its Rules of Procedure, after a positive opinion of the Single Sky Committee;\n(n)\naddressing any additional subject it identifies as relevant.\n2. The following shall be voting members of the Network Management Board:\n(a)\none representative of air navigation service providers per functional airspace block, established or under establishment, with a total number of four votes for all air navigation service providers;\n(b)\nfour representatives of commercial and non-commercial civil airspace users;\n(c)\ntwo representatives of the airport operators;\n(d)\ntwo representatives of the military as air navigation service providers and airspace users.\n3. The following shall also be members of the Network Management Board:\n(a)\nthe chairperson, appointed on the basis of technical competence and expertise upon a proposal by the Commission, based in particular on proposals from the voting members of the Network Management Board, and after a positive opinion of the Single Sky Committee;\n(b)\none representative of the Commission;\n(c)\none representative of Eurocontrol;\n(d)\none representative of the Network Manager.\n4. Members shall have an alternate.\n5. The voting members of the Network Management Board shall be appointed, upon proposals from their organisations, after a positive opinion of the Single Sky Committee.\n6. The Commission may appoint independent and recognised experts as advisors who shall serve in their personal capacity and represent a broad range of disciplines encompassing major aspects of the network functions. States participating in the work of the Network Manager shall propose candidates to that effect.\n7. The members listed in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 3 shall have the right to reject proposals which impact on:\n(a)\nsovereignty and responsibilities of Member States, in particular relating to public order, public security and defence matters, as set out in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004;\n(b)\nthe compatibility of Network Management Board activities with the aims and objectives of this Regulation;\n(c)\nthe impartiality and equity of the Network Management Board.\n8. The documents referred to in paragraph 1 shall be adopted by the Network Management Board by simple majority of its voting members.\n9. Where agreement cannot be reached on issues of major network significance, the Network Management Board shall refer the case to the Commission for further action. The Commission shall inform the Single Sky Committee.\nArticle 17\nRole of the Single Sky Committee\n1. The Network Manager shall refer regulatory issues to the Commission; the Commission shall inform the Single Sky Committee of those issues.\n2. The Single Sky Committee shall give an opinion on:\n(a)\nthe nomination of the Network Manager;\n(b)\nthe appointment of the chairperson of the Network Management Board;\n(c)\nthe appointment of the voting members of the Network Management Board;\n(d)\nthe Rules of Procedure of the Network Management Board;\n(e)\nthe Network Strategy Plan, and in particular the objectives of this plan at an early stage;\n(f)\nthe annual budget of the Network Manager;\n(g)\nthe Rules of Procedure of the European Aviation Crisis Coordination Cell;\n(h)\nthe cooperative decision-making processes, the consultation processes as well as the detailed working arrangements and processes for operations for the network functions.\n3. The Single Sky Committee may advise the Commission when agreement cannot be reached on issues of major network significance by the Network Management Board.\nCHAPTER IV\nNETWORK CRISIS MANAGEMENT\nArticle 18\nEstablishment of the European Aviation Crisis Coordination Cell\n1. The management of network crises shall be supported by the establishment of a European Aviation Crisis Coordination Cell (the EACCC).\n2. Permanent members of the EACCC shall consist of one representative of the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council, one representative of the Commission, one representative of the Agency, one representative of Eurocontrol, one representative of the military, one representative of the air navigation service providers, one representative of airports, and one representative of the airspace users.\n3. The composition of the EACCC may be enhanced on a case-by-case basis by experts depending on the nature of the specific crisis.\n4. The EACCC shall prepare its Rules of Procedure for adoption by the Network Management Board.\n5. The Network Manager shall make available the resources required for the establishment and operation of the EACCC.\nArticle 19\nResponsibilities of the Network Manager and the EACCC\n1. The Network Manager in conjunction with the EACCC members shall be responsible for activating and deactivating the EACCC.\n2. The Network Manager, with the support of the EACCC, shall be responsible for:\n(a)\ncoordinating the management of response to the network crisis, in accordance with the EACCC Rules of Procedure, involving close cooperation with corresponding structures in Member States;\n(b)\nsupporting the activation and coordination of contingency plans at Member State level;\n(c)\nthe elaboration of mitigating measures at network level to secure the provision of a timely response to such network crisis situations to protect and ensure the continued and safe operation of the network. For this purpose the Network Manager shall:\n(i)\nmonitor the network situation with regard to network crises on a 24-hour basis;\n(ii)\nensure an effective information management and communication through the dissemination of accurate, timely and consistent data to support the application of risk management principles and processes in decision-making processes;\n(iii)\nfacilitate the organised collection and centralised storage of that data;\n(d)\nhighlighting, where appropriate, to the Commission, the Agency or Member States opportunities for additional support for mitigation of the crisis, including liaising with operators of other modes of transport who may identify and implement intermodal solutions;\n(e)\nmonitoring and reporting on the network recovery and sustainability.\nCHAPTER V\nMONITORING, REPORTING AND OVERSIGHT\nArticle 20\nMonitoring and reporting\n1. The Network Manager shall establish a process of continuous monitoring of:\n(a)\nthe operational network performance;\n(b)\nthe measures taken and the performance outcome achieved by the operational stakeholders and States;\n(c)\nthe effectiveness and efficiency of each of the functions covered by this Regulation.\n2. The continuous monitoring shall identify any potential deviation from the Network Strategy Plan and Network Operations Plans. The operational stakeholders shall assist the Network Manager in this task by performing certain tasks including but not limited to the provision of data.\n3. The Network Manager shall submit annually a report to the Commission and the Agency on the measures taken to fulfil its tasks. The report shall address individual network functions as well as the total network situation and shall be closely linked to the content of the Network Strategy Plan and the Network Operations Plan. The Commission shall inform the Single Sky Committee.\nArticle 21\nOversight of the Network Manager\nThe Commission, assisted by the Agency in matters related to safety, shall ensure the oversight of the Network Manager, in particular in respect of the requirements contained in this Regulation and other Union legislation. The Commission shall report to the Single Sky Committee annually or when so specifically requested.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 22\nRelations with third countries\nThird countries together with their operational stakeholders may participate in the work of the Network Manager.\nArticle 23\nFinancing of the Network Manager\nMember States shall take the necessary measures for the funding of the network functions entrusted to the Network Manager based on air navigation charges. The Network Manager shall establish its costs in a transparent manner.\nArticle 24\nLiability\nThe Network Manager shall put arrangements in place to cover liability related to the execution of its tasks. The method employed to provide the cover shall be appropriate to the potential loss and damage in question, taking into account the legal status of the Network Manager and the level of commercial insurance cover available.\nArticle 25\nReview\nThe Commission shall review the effectiveness of the execution of the network functions by 31 December 2013 at the latest and regularly thereafter, taking appropriate account of the reference periods for the performance scheme provided for in Regulation (EU) No 691/2010.\nArticle 26\nAmendments to Regulation (EU) No 691/2010\nRegulation (EU) No 691/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 3(3), the following point (m) is added:\n\u2018(m)\nthe assessment of the performance plan of the Network Manager, including its consistency with the European-Union wide performance targets.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following Article 5a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 5a\nNetwork Manager\n1. The Network Manager established by Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 677/2011 (9) shall carry out the following tasks in relation to the performance scheme:\n(a)\nsupport the Commission by providing relevant input for the preparation of European Union-wide performance targets before the reference periods and for monitoring during the reference period. In particular, the Network Manager shall draw the Commission\u2019s attention to any significant and persistent drops in operational performance;\n(b)\nin accordance with Article 20(5), provide access for the Commission to all data listed in Annex IV;\n(c)\nsupport Member States and air navigation service providers in reaching their performance target during reference periods;\n(d)\nelaborate a performance plan, which shall be adopted as part of the Network Strategy Plan before the beginning of each reference period. This performance plan shall be public and shall:\n(i)\ncontain an environment performance target that shall be consistent with the European Union-wide performance target for the entire reference period, with annual values to be used for monitoring purposes;\n(ii)\ncontain performance targets for other relevant key performance areas, consistent with the European Union-wide performance targets for the entire reference period, with annual values to be used for monitoring purposes;\n(iii)\ncontain a description of the actions planned to meet the targets;\n(iv)\ncontain, where necessary or where decided by the Commission, additional key performance indicators and targets.\n(3)\nin Article 17, the following paragraph 2a is inserted:\n\u20182a. The Commission shall monitor the implementation of the performance plan of the Network Manager. If during the reference period targets are not met, the Commission shall apply the appropriate measures specified in the performance plan with a view to rectifying the situation. For this purpose, the annual values in the performance plan shall be used.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Annex III, paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Environment\nRoute design: Not applicable during the first reference period. During the second reference period, assessment of the process on route design used in the performance plan and its consistency with the process for the development of the European Route Network Improvement Plan developed by the Network Manager.\n4. Capacity\nDelay level: Comparison of the expected level of en route ATFM delay used in the performance plans with a reference value provided by the capacity planning process of Eurocontrol and in the Network Operations Plan of the Network Manager.\u2019\nArticle 27\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 July 2011.", "references": ["96", "60", "38", "63", "52", "61", "2", "80", "49", "74", "75", "93", "42", "47", "33", "56", "34", "32", "45", "67", "97", "8", "91", "6", "48", "55", "4", "43", "30", "27", "No Label", "7", "9", "13", "53", "57"], "gold": ["7", "9", "13", "53", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 36/2011\nof 18 January 2011\namending for the 143rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Articles 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 15 and 23 December 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to amend the identifying data concerning twenty four natural persons on its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. On 17 December 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one natural person and on 22 December 2010 removed another three natural persons from that list.\n(3)\nAnnex I should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["17", "89", "37", "68", "90", "42", "88", "60", "57", "64", "59", "19", "6", "35", "54", "8", "85", "5", "62", "73", "20", "82", "47", "48", "30", "18", "74", "97", "96", "52", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 462/2010\nof 27 May 2010\nopening an invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries, for the quota year 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the Community's international obligations within the framework of the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (2), the Community undertook to import a certain quantity of maize into Spain.\n(2)\nChapter II of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 of 18 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of tariff quotas for imports of maize and sorghum into Spain and imports of maize into Portugal (3) laid down the specific detailed rules necessary for applying a reduction to the import duties to ensure that the quantities provided for in Article 1(1) and (2) of that Regulation are actually imported.\n(3)\nIn view of the market conditions in Spain for the year 2010, an invitation to tender for the reduction in the import duty on maize should be opened to ensure the import quota is completely used.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 676/2009 (4) opened an invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries up until 17 December 2009. This invitation was extended until 27 May 2010 by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1292/2009 (5). Regulation (EC) No 676/2009 should therefore be repealed.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A tendering procedure is opened for the reduction in the duty referred to in Article 136 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on maize to be imported into Spain.\n2. The provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThe invitation shall remain open until 16 December 2010. During that period partial invitations to tender shall be issued and the dates for submission of tenders shall be laid down in the notice of invitation to tender.\nArticle 3\nImport licences issued in the context of this invitation to tender shall be valid for 50 days from the date of issue within the meaning of Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008.\nArticle 4\nRegulation (EC) No 676/2009 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 June 2010.\nIt shall expire on 16 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2010.", "references": ["10", "77", "87", "14", "63", "33", "44", "35", "75", "84", "36", "39", "80", "49", "67", "85", "8", "7", "43", "93", "94", "40", "25", "95", "70", "34", "99", "89", "65", "11", "No Label", "4", "20", "21", "22", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "20", "21", "22", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 293/2012\nof 3 April 2012\non monitoring and reporting of data on the registration of new light commercial vehicles pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 setting emission performance standards for new light commercial vehicles as part of the Union\u2019s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 8(9) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011, Member States must every year record and transmit certain data to the Commission about new light commercial vehicles registered in their territory in the previous year. As those data are to serve as the basis for determining the specific CO2 emissions target for manufacturers of new light commercial vehicles and for the assessment of whether manufacturers comply with those targets, it is necessary to harmonise the rules on the collection and reporting of those data.\n(2)\nTo allow for the future inclusion in Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 of vehicles in categories M2 and N2 in accordance with Article 13(2) of that Regulation, data for those categories of vehicles should be recorded and transmitted to the Commission.\n(3)\nIn order to assess fully whether each manufacturer complies with its specific CO2 emissions target established pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 and to gain the necessary experience from the application of that Regulation, the Commission needs detailed data at manufacturer level for each vehicle series defined by type, variant and version. Member States should therefore ensure that such data are recorded and transmitted to the Commission together with the aggregated data in accordance with Article 8(2) of that Regulation.\n(4)\nPursuant to Articles 18 and 26 of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (2), a manufacturer must ensure that each new light commercial vehicle placed on the market in the Union is accompanied by a valid certificate of conformity and a Member State may not register such a vehicle unless it is accompanied by such a certificate of conformity. Therefore, the certificate of conformity should be the primary source for the information that the Member States are required to record, make available to manufacturers pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 and report to the Commission. In certain justified cases, Member States may also use information from sources other than the certificate of conformity, provided that the accuracy of those sources is equivalent to the certificate of conformity and, where necessary, that the Member States concerned put measures in place to guarantee that accuracy.\n(5)\nThe data on the registration of new light commercial vehicles should be accurate and should be processed effectively for the purpose of establishing the specific emissions target in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011. Manufacturers should therefore provide the Commission with up-to-date information on the manufacturers\u2019 names that are used on the certificates of conformity in the different Member States of registration. That information will enable the Commission to provide the Member States with an up-dated list of designated manufacturers\u2019 names which should be used for the purpose of data reporting.\n(6)\nMember States should record and report information about newly registered vehicles that are designed to use alternative fuels. In order to allow the Commission to take into account reductions to the specific emissions target due to the use of ethanol (E85) fuel in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011, Member States should provide the Commission with the necessary information, including the proportion of filling stations in their territory and, where applicable, the total number of those which provide ethanol (E85) fuel meeting the sustainability criteria set out in Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (3), and in Article 7b of Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC (4).\n(7)\nIn order to avoid unnecessary data duplication, the information on the number of filling stations in the respective territory of the Member States that supply ethanol (E85) fuel provided in accordance with Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1014/2010 of 10 November 2010 on monitoring and reporting of data on the registration of new passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) should be used for the purposes of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011.\n(8)\nArticles 23 and 24 of Directive 2007/46/EC provide for a simplified approval procedure for which it is not required to issue a European certificate of conformity. Member States should monitor the number of vehicles registered under those procedures in order to assess its impact on the monitoring process and the attainment of the Union\u2019s average CO2 emissions target for the new light commercial vehicle fleet.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Implementing Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation sets out the rules for collection and reporting of data on registrations of the following vehicles:\n(a)\nlight commercial vehicles as referred to in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011;\n(b)\nvehicles of categories M2 and N2 as referred to in Article 8(10) of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions set out in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 as well as the definitions of \u2018bi-fuel gas vehicle\u2019 and \u2018flex-fuel ethanol vehicle\u2019 set out in Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 (6) shall apply. The following definitions shall also apply:\n(1)\n\u2018type-approval documentation\u2019 means the documents including the data specified in the third column of the table set out in Annex I to this Regulation;\n(2)\n\u2018aggregated monitoring data\u2019 means the aggregated data specified in Section 1 of Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011;\n(3)\n\u2018detailed monitoring data\u2019 means the detailed data specified in Section 2 of Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 which is disaggregated by manufacturer and vehicle series as defined by the type, variant and version.\nArticle 3\nData transmission\nThe aggregated monitoring data together with the detailed monitoring data shall be transmitted by the Member States via electronic data transfer to the Central Data Repository managed by the European Environmental Agency. Member States shall notify the Commission when the data is transmitted.\nArticle 4\nData sources\n1. Member States shall prepare the aggregated monitoring data and the detailed monitoring data based upon information contained in the certificate of conformity or the type-approval documentation of the relevant light commercial vehicle as specified in the table in Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. The parameter \u2018total number of new registrations\u2019 in the detailed monitoring data shall be determined from the total number of registration records created in each year which relate to a single vehicle.\n3. The parameter \u2018category of the vehicle registered\u2019 in the detailed monitoring data shall be based on the technical characteristics of the vehicle at the time of registration.\n4. Where there is more than one name of a manufacturer on the certificate of conformity or type-approval documentation, the Member State shall report the manufacturer of the base vehicle.\n5. The CO2 emission values to be reported under the parameter \u2018specific emissions of CO2\u2019 in the detailed monitoring data shall be taken from the entry \u2018combined\u2019 in the certificate of conformity or the type-approval documentation, except in the case when the entry for \u2018weighted combined\u2019 applies.\n6. In reporting the alternative fuel vehicles in the detailed monitoring data, the competent authority shall provide the fuel type and fuel mode as specified in Annex I to this Regulation.\n7. In the case of bi-fuel gas or flex-fuel ethanol vehicles, the competent authority shall report the following CO2 emission values under the parameter \u2018specific emissions of CO2 (g/km)\u2019 in the detailed monitoring data:\n(a)\nfor bi-fuel gas vehicles using petrol and gaseous fuels, the CO2 emissions value for the liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or natural gas (NG) in accordance with point 2 in Part A of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011;\n(b)\nfor flex-fuel ethanol vehicles using petrol and ethanol (E85) fuel referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011, the CO2 emission value for petrol.\nIn the case of point (b), Member States shall report the petrol value also where the conditions for a reduction set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 are not met. Member States may however also report the E85 value.\n8. Where the vehicle is equipped with more than one steering axle or non-steering axle of different widths, the Member State shall report the maximum axle width under the parameter \u2018Track width other axle (mm)\u2019 in the detailed monitoring data. The wheelbase for these vehicles shall be the distance between the outer front and the outer back axles.\n9. Where the aggregated monitoring data and the detailed monitoring data are taken from the type-approval documentation, and where those data contain ranges of values, the Member States shall ensure that the reported data provide adequate accuracy, and are in accordance with the data contained in the certificate of conformity.\nArticle 5\nData maintenance and control\nThe Member States shall ensure the maintenance, collection, control, verification and transmission of the aggregated monitoring data and the detailed monitoring data.\nArticle 6\nPreparation of data by Member States\nThe detailed monitoring data shall be reported with the precision set out in Annex II.\nArticle 7\nReporting of filling stations supplying ethanol (E85) fuel\nFor the purposes of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011, the information reported pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1014/2010 shall be used.\nArticle 8\nVehicles not covered by EC type-approval\n1. Where light commercial vehicles are subject to national type-approval of small series in accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2007/46/EC or to individual approvals in accordance with Article 24 of that Directive, Member States shall inform the Commission of the respective numbers of such cars registered in their territory.\n2. In completing the aggregated monitoring data, the competent authority shall, instead of the name of manufacturer, indicate one of the following:\n(a)\n\u2018AA-IVA\u2019 for reporting vehicle types approved individually;\n(b)\n\u2018AA-NSS\u2019 for reporting vehicle types approved nationally in small series.\nMember States may also complete the detailed monitoring data for these vehicles, and shall in that case use the denominations referred to in points (a) and (b).\nArticle 9\nList of manufacturers\n1. Manufacturers shall notify the Commission without delay and not later than by 1 June 2012 of the names they indicate or intend to indicate on the certificates of conformity. They shall notify the Commission without delay of any changes to that information. New manufacturers entering the market shall notify the Commission without delay of the names they indicate or intend to indicate on the certificates of conformity.\n2. In completing the aggregated monitoring data and the detailed monitoring data, the competent authority shall use the names of the manufacturers taken from the list that is to be drawn up by the Commission on the basis of the names notified pursuant to paragraph 1. That list shall be published on the internet for the first time on 1 September 2012 and shall be updated at regular intervals.\n3. Where the name of a manufacturer is not included in that list, the competent authority shall use the name on the certificate of conformity or type-approval documentation for the purpose of completing the aggregated monitoring data and the detailed monitoring data.\nArticle 10\nAdditional information to be provided by manufacturers\n1. For the purpose of the notification referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011, manufacturers shall, at the latest by 1 June 2012, inform the Commission of the relevant name and address of the contact person to whom the notification shall be addressed.\nThe manufacturer shall inform the Commission without delay of any change to the provided data. New manufacturers entering the market shall inform the Commission without delay of their contact details.\n2. Where a group of connected undertakings forms a pool, it shall for the purposes of determining the applicability of Article 7(6) of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 provide evidence to the Commission of the connection between the members of the group in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 3(2) of that Regulation.\nArticle 11\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 April 2012.", "references": ["62", "31", "92", "19", "61", "72", "73", "15", "49", "18", "81", "77", "32", "23", "30", "8", "7", "71", "16", "89", "74", "33", "52", "17", "91", "5", "4", "0", "82", "79", "No Label", "40", "42", "53", "55", "58", "60", "76", "80"], "gold": ["40", "42", "53", "55", "58", "60", "76", "80"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1110/2011\nof 3 November 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of an enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (CBS 114044) as a feed additive for laying hens, minor poultry species and pigs for fattening (holder of authorisation Roal Oy)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (CBS 114044). The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (CBS 114044) as a feed additive for laying hens, minor poultry species and pigs for fattening, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of that preparation has been authorised for 10 years for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and for weaned piglets by Commission Regulation (EC) No 902/2009 (2).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for the authorisation of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (CBS 114044) for laying hens, minor poultry species and pigs for fattening. The European Food Safety Authority (\u2027the Authority\u2027) concluded in its opinion of 14 June 2011 (3) that, under the proposed conditions of use, endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (CBS 114044) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that the use of that preparation can improve the laying performance of the hens and the growth performance of other minor poultry species and pigs for fattening. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (CBS 114044) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018digestibility enhancers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2011.", "references": ["43", "57", "70", "37", "52", "46", "96", "10", "85", "42", "21", "28", "47", "8", "87", "89", "22", "61", "13", "20", "7", "38", "19", "32", "63", "88", "35", "44", "24", "59", "No Label", "25", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 980/2010\nof 28 October 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for common sole in VIIIa and VIIIb by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 October 2010.", "references": ["3", "55", "25", "62", "43", "6", "95", "89", "57", "21", "29", "61", "69", "15", "40", "24", "65", "33", "63", "42", "71", "32", "72", "75", "98", "44", "1", "13", "52", "26", "No Label", "56", "58", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "58", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 April 2012\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer of passenger name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security\n(2012/472/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 82(1)(d) and Article 87(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 2 December 2010, the Council adopted a decision, together with negotiation directives, authorising the Commission to open negotiations between the Union and the United States of America on the transfer and use of passenger name records (PNR) to prevent and combat terrorism and other serious transnational crime.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2012/471/EU (2), the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer of passenger name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) was signed on 14 December 2011, subject to its conclusion.\n(3)\nThe Agreement respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably the right to private and family life, recognised in Article 7 thereof, the right to the protection of personal data, recognised in Article 8 thereof and the right to effective remedy and fair trial recognised in Article 47 thereof. This Agreement should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the Position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by the Agreement or subject to its application.\n(7)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer of passenger name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to the exchange of the notifications provided for in Article 27 of the Agreement, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the Agreement.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2012.", "references": ["10", "48", "2", "26", "89", "84", "11", "31", "6", "60", "72", "77", "73", "67", "29", "38", "12", "76", "95", "30", "23", "75", "56", "94", "44", "5", "47", "33", "58", "4", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "36", "40", "41", "42", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "36", "40", "41", "42", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 29 November 2010\namending Decision 2007/441/EC authorising the Italian Republic to apply measures derogating from Articles 26(1)(a) and 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(2010/748/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn a letter registered by the Commission\u2019s Secretariat-General on 18 February 2010, Italy requested an authorisation to extend a measure derogating from Article 26(1)(a) and Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC in order to continue to restrict the right of deduction in relation to expenditure on certain motorised road vehicles not wholly used for business purposes.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 13 July 2010, the Commission informed the other Member States of Italy\u2019s request. By letter dated 15 July 2010, the Commission notified Italy that it had all the information necessary to consider the request.\n(3)\nCouncil Decision 2007/441/EC of 18 June 2007 authorising the Italian Republic to apply measures derogating from Articles 26(1)(a) and 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (2) authorises Italy to limit the right of deduction of value added tax (VAT) charged on expenditure on motorised road vehicles not wholly used for business purposes to 40 %. Decision 2007/441/EC provides that the use for private purposes of vehicles which have been subject to a right of deduction restriction under that Decision is not to be considered as a supply of services for consideration. Decision 2007/441/EC contains definitions of the vehicles and the expenditure included in the scope of that Decision and a list of vehicles which are explicitly excluded from the scope of that Decision.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of Decision 2007/441/EC, Italy submitted a report to the Commission covering the two first years of application of the Decision which included a review of the percentage restriction. The information provided by Italy shows that a restriction of the right of deduction to 40 % still corresponds to the actual circumstances as regards the use for business or non-business purposes of the vehicles concerned. Italy should therefore be authorised to apply the measure during a further limited period, until 31 December 2013.\n(5)\nIn the event Italy were to request a further extension beyond 2013, a new report should be submitted to the Commission together with that extension request by 1 April 2013.\n(6)\nOn 29 October 2004, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to simplifying value added tax obligations. The derogating measures provided for in this Decision should expire on the date of entry into force of that amending Directive, if that date is earlier than the date of expiry of the derogation measure set out in this Decision.\n(7)\nThe derogation has no impact on the Union\u2019s own resources accruing from value added tax.\n(8)\nDecision 2007/441/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2007/441/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\nAny request for the extension of the measures provided for in this Decision shall be submitted to the Commission by 1 April 2013.\nAny request for extension of those measures shall be accompanied by a report which includes a review of the percentage restriction applied on the right to deduct VAT charged on expenditure on motorised road vehicles not wholly used for business purposes.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 7\nThis Decision shall expire on the date of entry into force of Union rules determining the expenditure relating to motorised road vehicles which is not eligible for a full deduction of VAT, but on 31 December 2013 at the latest.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2010.", "references": ["30", "4", "15", "23", "54", "73", "45", "74", "43", "94", "64", "47", "27", "68", "11", "81", "95", "65", "60", "7", "63", "10", "29", "9", "87", "38", "55", "92", "70", "18", "No Label", "25", "26", "34", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "26", "34", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/100/CFSP\nof 14 February 2011\namending Common Position 2003/495/CFSP on Iraq\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 7 July 2003, the Council adopted Common Position 2003/495/CFSP on Iraq (1), in implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1483 (2003).\n(2)\nOn 15 December 2010, the UNSC adopted Resolution 1956 (2010) by which it decided, inter alia, to extend until 30 June 2011 the arrangements for the depositing into the Development Fund for Iraq of proceeds from export sales of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas and the arrangements concerning immunity from legal proceedings of certain Iraqi assets, as referred to in UNSC Resolutions 1483 (2003) and 1546 (2004).\n(3)\nCommon Position 2003/495/CFSP should therefore be amended.\n(4)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 7 of Common Position 2003/495/CFSP, the second paragraph shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Articles 4 and 5 shall apply until 30 June 2011.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 February 2011.", "references": ["43", "36", "6", "37", "19", "44", "29", "21", "74", "89", "78", "97", "54", "93", "11", "32", "61", "13", "73", "91", "51", "68", "59", "38", "35", "64", "96", "66", "45", "47", "No Label", "3", "8", "22", "80", "95"], "gold": ["3", "8", "22", "80", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 108/2011\nof 7 February 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 104/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 February 2011.", "references": ["31", "80", "33", "90", "12", "95", "9", "88", "73", "36", "5", "45", "7", "86", "75", "53", "23", "89", "38", "67", "91", "21", "78", "87", "41", "20", "39", "2", "66", "32", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/302/CFSP\nof 23 May 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), and in particular Article 5(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/273/CFSP.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, additional persons should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/273/CFSP.\n(3)\nThe information relating to certain persons on the list in the Annex to that Decision should be updated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/273/CFSP shall be replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["91", "60", "69", "73", "89", "61", "53", "71", "25", "26", "66", "58", "99", "29", "0", "41", "83", "51", "88", "44", "10", "63", "35", "68", "94", "57", "37", "85", "97", "24", "No Label", "3", "9", "12", "14", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "9", "12", "14", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 June 2012\non the State aid No SA.33015 (2012/C) which Malta is planning to implement for Air Malta plc.\n(notified under document C(2012) 4198)\n(Only the English version is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/661/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the decision by which the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU, in respect of the aid SA.33015 (1),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above, and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter dated 16 May 2011 Malta notified the Commission of the restructuring aid to Air Malta plc, following a rescue aid loan of EUR 52 million that was approved by a Commission decision of 15 November 2010 (N 504/2010, hereinafter \"the decision on the rescue aid\"). The Commission requested additional information by letters dated 5 July and 1 September 2011, to which then Maltese authorities replied by letters dated 2 August and 22 September 2011.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 25 January 2012, the Commission informed Malta that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the aid (hereinafter \"the opening decision\"). Malta provided comments on that decision by letter dated 5 March 2012. The Commission asked further questions by letter dated 19 March 2012, to which Malta replied on 19 April 2012.\n(3)\nThe opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 21 February 2012. The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments.\n(4)\nThe Commission received comments from six interested parties. It forwarded them to Malta, which was given the opportunity to react; its comments were received by letter dated 27 April 2012.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE AND THE RESTRUCTURING PLAN\n2.1 Restructuring aid\n(5)\nMalta notified restructuring aid of EUR 130 million to Air Malta in the form of equity, including a debt-to-equity swap of the approved rescue loan of EUR 52 million, on the basis of the Restructuring Plan (RP) described below starting in November 2010 (after the approval of the rescue loan), and covering a five year restructuring period from autumn 2010 until autumn 2015.\n2.2 Beneficiary\n(6)\nAir Malta plc. is the national flag carrier of Malta since 1974. At the beginning of the restructuring process, Air Malta operated 12 passenger aircrafts and served 43 scheduled destinations in Europe, North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean. Air Malta is owned by the Maltese government (98 %) and private investors (2 %).\n(7)\nAir Malta is a very small player in the European aviation market (ca. 1,8 million passengers in 2010), representing only 0,25 % of the entire European airline industry\u2019s productive capacity and output (in terms of passengers). With the intended reduction of 2 aircrafts in Air Malta\u2019s fleet, it will become an even smaller player in a growing European air transport market. Air Malta plan to join a global alliance to improve connectivity in this reduced fleet scenario and also to improve fleet utilisation.\n(8)\nNonetheless, Air Malta is the most important air carrier for flights from and to Malta with a market share of 51 % (passengers) and 28 % (cargo). According to Malta, the restructuring of Air Malta is crucial as it provides Malta with a regular and dependable link to main European and North African centres whilst also supporting the economy through services such as the transportation of mail, cargo and patients for treatment abroad. This role is not filled by Air Malta's main competitors, above all low cost carriers (LCC) like Ryanair and easyJet.\n(9)\nAir Malta has been making losses in its core airline business for several years and made a EUR 23,1 million operating loss in FY (2) 2010 and EUR 37,3 million in FY2011 (see Table 2).\n(10)\nAir Malta plc. has the following subsidiaries (\"Air Malta Group\"):\nTable 1\nAir Malta Group structure\nSubsidiary\nShare of Air Malta plc.\nProfit b/tax in FY2010\n(in EUR 000's)\nOsprey Insurance Brokers Ltd. (an insurance broker)\n100 %\n618\nShield Insurance Company Ltd. (a captive insurance company)\n100 %\n1,165\nSelmun Palace Hotel Co. Ltd. (a four star hotel in Malta)\n100 %\n(879)\nHoliday Malta (a UK based specialist tour operator)\n100 %\n(GBP 1,081)\nWorld Aviation Group (a general sales agent for Air Malta and other airlines)\n50 %\n241\nLufthansa Technik Malta (joint venture with Lufthansa Technik AG to perform aircraft maintenance and repair operations)\n8 %\n(10,896)\n2.3 Restructuring Plan\n(11)\nThe RP (dated 29 November 2011) and its Update of 28 February 2012 aim to restore Air Malta's profitability by FY2014 and its return to long-time viability by 2015. The duration of the RP is limited to five years, running from autumn 2010 to autumn 2015.\n(12)\nThe plan assumes that it will be possible to turn around the existing level of losses from an operating loss (EBIT) of EUR 37,3 million and a net loss of EUR 88,9 million in FY2011 to an operating profit of EUR [\u2026] (3) million and a net profit of EUR [\u2026] million in FY2014 and a further improvement of the profit situation in FY2015 and FY2016 (see Table 2).\nTable 2\nProfit and loss 2008-2016\n(in EUR million)\nFinancial year\n2008\n2009\n2010\n2011\n2012(f)\n2013(f)\n2014(f)\n2015(f)\n2016(f)\nRevenues\n273,7\n249,5\n210,8\n207,5\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nOperating result\n(8,9)\n(33,8)\n(23,1)\n(37,3)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nNet result\n3,6\n(23,7)\n(11,6)\n(88,9)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(13)\nThe plan aims to achieve a return on capital employed (ROCE) (4) of [4 to 6] % and a return on equity (ROE) (5) of [5 to 7] % for FY2016.\nTable 3\nROCE and ROE 2012-2016\nFY\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\n2016\nReturn on equity (ROE)\nn/a\n- [30 to - 20] %\n[2 to 6] %\n[4 to 6] %\n[5 to 7] %\nReturn on capital employed (ROCE)\n- [60 to - 50] %\n- [20 to 10] %\n[0 to 5] %\n[4 to 6] %\n[4 to 6] %\n(14)\nTo achieve these results, Air Malta proposes the following key actions:\n(15)\nThe target is to create a more cost-effective schedule. Therefore, Air Malta will terminate certain routes - both loss making and profitable - and increase frequency on selected core routes.\n(16)\nAir Malta has already taken action to discontinue the loss making routes to Leipzig, Tunis, Damascus, Palermo and Turin in early 2011.\n(17)\nFurthermore, as of autumn 2011, Air Malta has started to discontinue or reduce capacity on certain routes which are offered as compensatory measures according to the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (6) (hereinafter, \u201cthe R&R Guidelines\u201d). This will also release the pertinent slots in a number of foreign airports, with Air Malta thus forgoing any grandfather rights it currently has on these slots. By 2013, [\u2026] slot pairs will be surrendered at coordinated airports (7) such as London-Gatwick, Manchester, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Geneva, Catania, Stuttgart, London-Heathrow and Munich. Through the withdrawal or reduced frequency other airlines will be able to benefit from potentially increasing their load factors and/or yields.\n(18)\nConcerning the profitability of the different routes, Malta provided the gross margin of all of the routes between FY2010-FY2013 as well as for Summer 2009-Summer 2012. The gross margin is calculated as follows: Revenue minus VDOC (variable direct operating costs) minus FDOC (fixed direct operating costs). The routes are profitable if they have a gross margin equal or above 0 %. Routes are \u2027marginally profitable\u2027 if their gross margin is currently lower than 0 % but higher than - 10 % but would become profitable in the future. According to Malta, both profitable and \u2027marginal routes\u2027 has been classified as relevant compensatory measures.\n(19)\nThe changes in the route network between FY2010 and FY2013 relate to an overall capacity reduction of 20,9 % ASK (8) of the 2010 overall capacity. This includes a capacity reduction of [27 to 33] % ([12,5 to 15,5] % (9) are related to routes claimed to be profitable, [5,5 to 7,5] % (10) to \u2027marginal routes\u2027 and [9 to 11] % (11) to unprofitable routes) and a capacity increase through the launching of new destinations and expansion of existing schedules of [8 to 10] %.\nTable 4\nCapacity change 2010-2013\nCapacity change\nASK\n% of FY2010\nTotal ASK (FY2010)\n4 145 522\nASK reduction in capacity\n[\u2026]\n[27 to 33] %\nASK increase in capacity\n[\u2026]\n[8 to 10] %\nTotal ASK (FY2013)\n3 275 710\n79 %\nOverall decrease in capacity (FY2010-FY2013)\n869 812\n20,9 %\n(20)\nEspecially important are connections to international hubs which are essential for Malta's access to global markets. Because of this, Air Malta concluded code share agreements with a number of airlines. Furthermore, Air Malta plans to join a global alliance to improve connectivity and fleet utilisation.\n(21)\nCost initiatives are focused on improving the efficiency of Air Malta's operations in order to reduce the cost structure by streamlining the core business, addressing operational inefficiencies and bringing the airline into a competitive and sustainable position. The annual improvements in profitability from cost initiatives are expected to total EUR [42 to 52] million by the end of the RP period which means a reduction in the total costs of the Company of [10 to 12] % and a decline of the total operating cost per passenger by [7,5 to 10] % (while total passengers carried during the same period remain almost constant). The major items are: network based reductions (EUR [21 to 27] million), personnel savings (EUR [9 to 11] million) and contract management (EUR [7 to 9] million).\n(22)\nThe planned 20,9 % capacity reduction has an impact on fixed and variable direct operating costs such as a reduction in fuel uplift of approximately [\u2026] million gallons (EUR [\u2026] million), the reduction in the number of flown hours and therefore a decrease of the overall maintenance costs [\u2026] and a reduction of landing, handling and navigation and en-route charges [\u2026].\n(23)\nThe airline will reduce the fleet from 12 to 10 aircraft. One aircraft has already been subleased to a Mexican carrier from [\u2026] and another aircraft, which is currently subleased under a short-term contract, has been subleased to a Polish carrier from [\u2026] to [\u2026]. Both aircraft will be sub-leased at cost and hence will reduce Air Malta's overall lease expenditure. The overall lease rate is expected to decrease by EUR [2,5 to 3,5] million.\n(24)\nHowever, the reduction in network is expected to have a negative effect on passengers and cargo carried, before initiatives are implemented. It is assumed that passengers (scheduled and chartered) will decrease from 1,75 million in FY2011 to [1,5 to 1,7] million in FY2013 resulting in a revenue reduction of EUR [11 to 13] million. Cargo revenue is also expected to decrease by EUR [1 to 2] million as a result of network reduction.\n(25)\nAir Malta is renegotiating the contracts with their major suppliers. The overall target for contract costs savings is ca. EUR [7 to 8] million. The review has been commenced with ten business partners. A big amount of savings [\u2026] was already achieved through negotiations with Malta International Airport (12).\n(26)\nAir Malta aims at increasing its revenues by introducing ancillary revenues from additional payable services (similar to the LCC approach) together with improving its revenue management and pricing.\n(27)\nGiven the seasonal nature of Air Malta\u2019s market, the focus of the revenue initiatives is to improve yield in summer, when load factors are already strong, and to build revenue in winter through targeted marketing, campaigns and seat sales. Total passenger revenue per passenger (including ancillary revenues) is projected to increase to EUR [110-120] per passenger in FY2016 compared with EUR [100 to 105] in FY2011. Ancillary passenger revenue streams will then represent [3 to 4] % of total revenues in FY2016, compared with approximately 20 % for the Company's primary competitors, easyJet and Ryanair. The main revenue initiatives include: improvement of the load factor (EUR [9 to 10] million), yield management (EUR [8 to 10] million) and ancillary revenues (EUR [9 to 11] million).\n(28)\nAir Malta has developed a new commercial strategy in order to improve its competitiveness and load factor. This strategy includes simplification and standardisation of processes and offerings, branding Air Malta as a \u201cdestination airline\u201d (closer business relations with Malta Tourism Authority), building customer loyalty and repetitive business, guerrilla marketing and distribution and innovative products and offerings.\n(29)\nThis new strategy and improved marketing should lead to revenue enhancement. As can be seen from Table 5, according to Air Malta's RP, passenger numbers will decline between FY2011 and FY2013 driven by the reduction in the planned reduction in capacity; however, by FY2016 the reduction in passengers will have been recovered through: targeted marketing [\u2026]; filling seats in troughs by focusing on increasing passenger numbers in the winter and shoulder seasons and market growth.\n(30)\nWith an expected growth in passenger volume of approximately [90,000 to 100,000] at average yields less incremental passenger related costs, revenue is expected to increase by [7 to 9] % from EUR 205,4 million in FY2011 to EUR [200 to 240] million in FY2016.\nTable 5\nLoad factors, FY2011 to FY2016\nFY\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\n2016\nRevenues (EUR 000\u2019s)\n205 369\n[180 000 to 220 000]\n[180 000 to 220 000]\n[190 000 to 240 000]\n[200 000 to 240 000]\n[200 000 to 240 000]\nPassengers (million) (13)\n1,75\n[1,6 to 1,8]\n[1,6 to 1,8]\n[1,6 to 1,8]\n[1,6 to 1,8]\n[1,6 to 1,8]\nTotal seats (million)\n[2,5 to 3]\n[2 to 2,5]\n[2 to 2,5]\n[2 to 2,5]\n[2 to 2,5]\n[2 to 2,5]\nLoad factor (14)\n[72 to 75] %\n[72 to 75] %\n[72 to 75] %\n[72 to 75] %\n[73 to 78] %\n[73 to 78] %\n(31)\nThe increase in forecast load factors reflects the improved commercial strategy of the airline and greater focus on yield management. The key drivers behind the load factor changes are a growth in traffic (based on an expected market growth of 5,9 % as forecast by Eurocontrol), reduced fares to improve competitive position resulting in a [4 to 6] % reduction in yield and an increase in number of passengers, network re-evaluation in order to focus on commercially viable routes only, expanding code shares agreements and cooperation with [\u2026], the cessation of the granting of complimentary tickets to a range of beneficiaries and the expected improvement of the political situation in Libya (plan assumes that flights to Libya are suspended during FY2012 due to the recent crisis).\n(32)\nFollowing a number of changes to the commercial approach and route strategy that have already been implemented at the beginning of the restructuring process, the airline has already achieved an increase in load factor by [6 to 8] % (from [65 to 67] % in FY2010 to [72 to 75] % in FY2011).\n(33)\nAir Malta will apply industry standard practices to revenue management, pricing and increasing focus on MICE (Meetings, incentives, conferencing, exhibitions), corporate travel and tour operator relationships. These efforts are predicted to result in improved revenues of EUR [8 to 10] million.\n(34)\nPricing revenue initiatives include: changes to pricing structures, concentration on higher passenger volumes in off-peak periods and better yield performance during high season as well as a strategic framework for managing Tour Operators (EUR [3 to 4] million).\n(35)\nRevenue management initiatives include: simplification of processes, management of market rather than and individual flights (EUR [4 to 5] million).\n(36)\nFollowing the approach of many LCC's Air Malta will charge fees for ancillary services both pre- and in-flight which is expected to lead to increased revenues by EUR [9 to 11] million in FY2016.\n(37)\nPre-flight revenues initiatives include\n-\ndifferentiated service fees by sale channel (tour operators, global distribution, call centre and online) between EUR 10,00 and EUR 15,00 in order to drive business to cheaper and more profitable sale channels such as the internet (increase in profitability by EUR [1 to 2] million p/a);\n-\nimproved revenues through all added services booked through the airline's new Internet Booking Engine (EUR [1 to 2] million p/a);\n-\nadditional bag charge fees of EUR [35 to 45] for any second or subsequent bag, it is assumed that 3 % all passengers travel with more than one bag (EUR [1 to 2] million p/a);\n-\nadditional revenue shall also be generated through seat reservations fee of EUR [9 to 11] for each reservation, it is assumed that on average 10 passengers a sector will make a seat reservation;\n-\nlounge access fee of EUR [9 to 11] with an assumed take-up rate of 1 % (EUR [100 000 to 200 000] p/a);\n-\nrevenues through bag insurance of EUR [3 to 5] offered when making an online booking with an assumed take-up rate of 1 % (EUR [50 000 to 100 000] p/a).\n(38)\nIn-flight revenues initiatives include\n-\npaid catering service (EUR [4 to 5] million p/a);\n-\nsale of duty free and other goods (EUR [1 to 2] million p/a).\n(39)\nAir Malta plans to significantly restructure its organisation in order to reduce the costs of the back office and support functions but also to improve the productivity of the front line operational functions. Migrating to the new organisation will release approximately 430 full-time equivalents (FTE), giving an annual saving of EUR [9 to 11] million. The transition process to the new organisation will take approximately 18-24 months and so the full saving will not impact the profit and loss results until FY2014. It should be noted that this overall saving will be eroded by contracted increases in wages of [2 to 3] % per annum agreed with staff from FY2013 onwards.\n(40)\nThe four trade unions have a legally valid Collective Agreement, through which early retirement schemes (ERS) are available to staff as an entitlement. The eligibility criterion of the ERS is such that only [\u2026] staff are eligible to apply.\n(41)\nAdditionally, Air Malta will offer a voluntary redundancy scheme (VRS) which will be universally available to staff wherein the Company retains the right to accept or refuse the staff member\u2019s application. Employees are eligible for the VRS when they have continuously worked with Air Malta for at least [\u2026] years. The VRS offers a payment of up to EUR [\u2026] per employee [\u2026].\n(42)\nMoreover, the Company also underwent a main organisation structure change and recruited new key executives to its management team.\n2.4 State aid and financing of the restructuring costs\n(43)\nGiven the total restructuring costs of EUR 238 million, the Government of Malta intends to recapitalise the beneficiary with EUR 130 million of equity according to the following schedule: EUR 60 million will be injected via fresh share issue in FY2013, EUR 15 million in FY2014, EUR 3 million in FY2015 in addition to EUR 52 million in Government debt substituting the approved Rescue Aid loan and already disbursed to be converted to equity.\n(44)\nAir Malta proposes the remaining amount (i.e. the own contribution of 45 %) to be financed by the sale of land (EUR 66,2 million), sale of subsidiaries (EUR [9 to 12] million), sale of engines (EUR [9 to 12] million) and a bank loan (EUR [20 to 25] million).\n(45)\nThe most important part of the Company's own contribution will come from the sale of land. Air Malta owns a leasehold title on valuable property situated on the perimeter of Malta International Airport. The Government of Malta has expressed its strategic interest to acquire Air Malta's airside properties. The land sites concerned represent a scarce resource that Government would like to see developed in a manner consistent with its long term strategy for the development of aviation related activity in Malta, including the creation of a cargo hub as part of an enlarged aviation park that also includes aircraft repair and other related facilities. The sale will not be carried out in an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tender. However, in line with its general policy and the national legal requirements, all property acquisitions by the Government have to be effected at a fair open market value, which reflects the price that would be paid on an arm\u2019s length basis by a private investor. The Plan assumes the sale of the land adjacent to the airport for a total of EUR 66,2 million between FY2012 and FY2014. The value is based on an independent valuation report from November 2011 by [\u2026], an independent evaluator appointed by the Government for this purpose.\n(46)\nAir Malta secured a private loan of EUR [25 to 30] million provided by [\u2026] in December 2011. This bridging loan will facilitate the transition to the final equity structure over the next three years.\n(47)\nAir Malta estimates to generate revenues of EUR [9 to 11] million through the sale of its subsidiaries [\u2026].\n(48)\nThe sale of spare engines [\u2026] took place on 28 October and 17 December 2010 respectively and generated revenues of USD [19 to 22] million. However, whereas engine No. [\u2026] was fully owned by Air Malta, engine No. [\u2026] was leased property of Air Malta with an option to purchase the engine at EUR [5 to 7] million, which was exercised. The net proceeds from the sale of the engines are EUR [9 to 12] million.\n(49)\nThe EUR [20 to 25] million bank loan will be concluded only in FY2014, Air Malta has thus not concluded the negotiations yet.\nTable 6\nSources and uses of funding 2011-2016\n(in EUR million)\nUses\nFY2011-2016\nSources\nFY2011-2016\nRepayment of rescue aid\n52 000\nInternal contribution:\nSale of land\n66 200\nRepayment of third party loan\n[20 000 to 25 000]\nSale of subsidiaries\n[9 000 to 12 000]\nRedundancy payments\n[25 000 to 30 000]\nSale of engines\n[9 000 to 12 000]\nRestructuring costs\n[13 000 to 16 000]\nThird party contribution:\nBank debt\n[20 000 to 25 000]\nCapital expenditure\n[13 000 to 16 000]\nChange in working capital/ net losses\n[50 000 to 60 000]\nMaintenance reserves payment\n[40 000 to 50 000]\nGovernment funding:\nGovernment equity\n130 000\nTotal\n238 000\n238 000\n2.5 The opening decision\n(50)\nOn 25 January 2012, the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure. In its decision, the Commission expressed doubts relating to the return to long term viability of the company, namely about the feasibility of the optimistic forecasts of the previous version of the RP which assumed a return to profitability by 2016 to be on a similar level as the profitability of major low cost carriers such as Ryanair or major traditional carriers such as Lufthansa. In particular, the Commission questioned the assumed impact of the ancillary revenues, cost reduction through contract renegotiation, market growth rates, yield and the non-inclusion of cost inflation in Air Malta's RP. Furthermore, Malta was invited to provide clarifications regarding the scenario analysis.\n(51)\nRegarding the proposed compensatory measures, the Commission doubted that the proposed overall capacity reduction of 20 % of ASK can be regarded as compensatory measures since it also contains loss-making routes whose closure is necessary to restore viability. The Commission also asked for further clarifications regarding the calculation of profitability of certain non-loss making routes as well as additional information that would demonstrate that the proposed measures are sufficient enough to compensate for the undue distortion of competition caused by the state aid.\n(52)\nApart from the capacity reduction, the Commission doubted whether the proposed sale of non-loss making assets can be considered as compensatory measure in view of the fact that according to point 40 of the R&R Guidelines, the compensation measure should take place in particular in the market where the firm will have a significant market position after restructuring.\n(53)\nRegarding the own contribution, the Commission expressed its doubt whether it is indeed real, i.e. actual and excluding all future expected profits, as required by point 43 of the R&R Guidelines. In particular, the Commission requested clarification regarding the sale of Air Malta's subsidiaries, the availability of the envisaged EUR 20 million loan and whether the sales of engines took place within the restructuring period.\n(54)\nLastly, the Commission requested further comments regarding the Plan's compliance with the \"one time, last time\" principle with regard to an EUR 57 million capital increase that was carried out by Malta in April 2014.\n3. COMMENTS FROM MALTA\n(55)\nIn its reply to the opening decision, Malta submitted comments and clarifications regarding all of the points raised in the Commission's opening decision, indicating that the notified RP complies with all the conditions imposed by the R&R Guidelines. Moreover, Malta also provided an update regarding the restructuring process, demonstrating that significant progress has already been achieved.\n(56)\nAs regards the doubts on the forecasted return to profitability, Air Malta revised its forecasts (see Table 3) to an EBIT margin of [3 to 5] % in FY2016, which is lower than the historical margins achieved by Ryanair and Lufthansa. This reduction in profitability is mainly due to the realignment of the fuel assumptions.\n(57)\nAir Malta provided substantiated comments regarding the ancillary revenues, demonstrating that they will represent [3 to 5] % of passenger revenues in FY 2016 which is significantly lower than the percentages achieved by the directly competing low Cost carriers (LCCs) such as Ryanair and easyJet as well as other network carriers that have embraced the ancillary revenue strategy, such as Aer Lingus. Regarding the costs reduction through contract renegotiation, Air Malta confirmed that over EUR [4 to 6] million p.a. has already been committed through concluded negotiations and a number of additional savings have been identified which would lead to a total amount of contract savings of EUR [9 to 11] million instead of EUR [7 to 9] million as previously planned.\n(58)\nMalta has also revised its assumptions for Maltese market growth rates reducing it from 5,9 % annual growth rate to 4 % p.a. for the period to 2016. In addition a reduction in passengers flown of [2 to 4] % p.a. for the period FY2011-FY2013 has been assumed (in line with capacity reduction): following such reduction, an annual passenger growth rate of [2 to 4] % has been assumed for FY2013-FY2016. This growth rate remains lower than the average market growth rate for the overall period.\n(59)\nMalta has clarified that the RP only assumes an average growth of less than 2 % for yields throughout the period (passenger revenues including ancillary/total passengers) which is in line with the forecast for several network carriers in Europe such as Aer Lingus or IAG and lower than the directly competing LCCs easyJet and Ryanair. Malta has also adapted its assumptions on cost inflation, in particular in aircraft leases and forecasted fuel costs and clarified the assumptions for the scenario analysis including the deviation from EBIT.\n(60)\nAs regards the proposed compensatory measures, Malta provided additional detailed information regarding the calculation of profitability of routes in respect of their contribution to the fixed/variable direct operating costs and overheads. Malta reiterated that the sale of its two profit-making insurance companies could be considered as a relevant compensatory measure because it provided Air Malta with cost effective insurance solutions and both of the companies were significant players in the local aviation insurance market. Since Air Malta is a small airline, it has a high component of overheads relative to its overall cost base due to the functional requirements of operating an airline. Excessive reduction of capacity would thus compromise the airline's long term viability.\n(61)\nAs regards the own contribution Malta confirmed that all sales of the subsidiaries will be conducted in an open, competitive, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. Malta also provided additional information regarding the sale of engines, the EUR [20 to 25] million facility that is to be drawn in FY2014 and confirmed the conclusion of the EUR [25 to 30] million bridge loan agreement.\n(62)\nAs regards the \"one time, last time\" principle, Malta submitted a business plan on the basis of which the EUR 57 million capital increase was carried out in 2004, demonstrating that this transaction should be viewed as conform with the market economy investor principle.\n4. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(63)\nDuring the formal investigation procedure the Commission received comments from six interested parties: Ryanair; International Airlines Group SA (IAG, i.e. the holding company owning British Airways and Iberia); Malta Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry; Airline Pilots Association Malta (ALPA); Malta Hotels and Restaurant Association (MHRA) and a consultant who wishes not to disclose his identity.\n(64)\nThe observations of the Malta Chamber of Commerce, ALPA and MHRA were in favour of Air Malta's continuity in business underlining its importance for the whole Maltese economy, especially for the tourism sector. The Commission was asked to take into account the particularities of the case and the small size of Air Malta when assessing the RP.\n(65)\nThe critical comments made by Ryanair and IAG refer mostly to the doubts already expressed in the opening decision as regard to the return to viability and the underlying assumptions. Ryanair states that the small size of Air Malta's fleet deprives it of the possibility of benefiting from economies of scale and integration. This disadvantage will be further exacerbated by the decrease in the number of aircraft. Furthermore, Ryanair and the anonymous consultant criticise that the land sale will be carried out not in an open tender and allege that Malta hopes to inject extra aid into Air Malta through this transaction.\n(66)\nAs to the transport of patients for treatment abroad and the link to non-EU destinations based on bilateral agreement, Ryanair points to the legislation on public service obligations (PSO), in particular Regulation 1008/2008 according to which PSO must be imposed after an open tender and compensated on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical well run undertaking would have incurred in discharging those obligations. Ryanair warns of an ex-post application of supposed PSO in order to justify the RP and invites the Commission to investigate this issue, in particular in order to determine whether any such compensation has been determined.\n5. COMMENTS FROM MALTA ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF INTERESTED PARTIES\n(67)\nMalta addressed in detail all of the arguments raised by third parties in their comments. In particular, Malta rebutted the arguments regarding Air Malta's return to long-term viability asserting that the trend of escalating losses of the Airline has already been reversed.\n(68)\nAir Malta's commercial strategy is to be a \"destination airline\" with its activities centred around the local airport. The successful turnaround of the company will in addition be achieved through significant reduction of waste and losses accompanied by the change in work practices of the company.\n(69)\nRegarding the argument of Air Malta's inability to profit from economies of scale, the Maltese authorities argue that the operating costs in the airline industry are variable in nature (amounting to [60 to 70] % in Air Malta's case). These include fuel costs, aircraft rental and maintenance, landing, navigation and flight crew costs, all of which are driven by regulated market pricing which limits, to some extent, the economies of scale that an airline could benefit from.\n(70)\nAs to the valuation and sale of strategic property to the Government, Malta reasserts that the valuation was carried out by an external and independent evaluator [\u2026] with no conflict of interest and is based on a detailed report which follows international valuation standards as set out by the International Valuation Standards Council. The logic behind this transaction is evidenced by the new needs of the company (significantly reduced staff) and change of culture which require the workforce to be based in one modern office. Therefore the Airline disposed of property that it no longer needed. Given the scarcity of land resources in Malta, the Maltese authorities submit that the strategy to create an aviation park on this land predates Air Malta's restructuring by many years.\n(71)\nAs far as public services are concerned, the Maltese authorities confirmed that PSO under regulation No 1008/2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community have neither been imposed in the past nor are planned for the future. Consequently, no compensation from the State has been or will be paid. Therefore, Air Malta has never been provided with any remuneration from public funds for any of the services which it provides to and from Malta, including the transport of medical passengers.\n6. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n6.1 Existence of State Aid\n(72)\nBy virtue of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever, which distorts or threaten to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, shall, in so far as it affects trade between the Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\n(73)\nThe concept of State aid applies to any advantage granted directly or indirectly, financed out of State resources, granted by the State itself or by any intermediary body acting by virtue of powers conferred on it.\n(74)\nIn this context, the decision of the Maltese authorities to inject new equity of EUR 130 million has to be seen as State aid. The capital injection involves State resources and constitutes a selective advantage to Air Malta, since it improves its financial situation.\n(75)\nThe measure affects trade between Member States and Competition as Air Malta is in competition with other European Union airlines, in particular since the entry into force of the third stage of liberalisation of air transport (\"third package\") on 1 January 1993. The measure in question enables Air Malta to continue operating so that it does not have to face the consequences normally deriving from its poor financial results and therefore it distorts competition.\n(76)\nUnder these conditions, the capital injection constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. This conclusion is not disputed by the Maltese authorities.\n6.2 Compatibility of the aid with the internal market under the R&R Guidelines\n(77)\nArticle 107(3)(c) TFEU stipulates that State aid can be authorised where it is granted to promote the development of certain economic sectors and where this aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.\n(78)\nThe Commission considers the present measure to constitute a restructuring aid which must be assessed in the light of the criteria under the R&R Guidelines as well as the 1994 Aviation Guidelines (15), in order to establish whether it may be compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3) TFEU.\n(79)\nThe Commission acknowledges that the Maltese authorities have undertaken to respect the stand-still obligation (in accordance with point 34 of the R&R Guidelines) and have not granted any aid to Air Malta (apart from the Rescue aid as approved by the Commission on 15 November 2010).\n6.2.1 Eligibility\n(80)\nRegarding eligibility, point (33) of the R&R Guidelines states that the firm must qualify as a firm in difficulty within the meaning of these Guidelines (points 9-13).\n(81)\nAccording to point 9 of the R&R Guidelines the Commission regards a firm as being in difficulty when it is unable, whether through its own resources or with the funds it is able to obtain from its owners/shareholders or creditors, to stem losses which without outside intervention by the public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to going out of business in the short or medium term.\n(82)\nSubsequently, Point 10(a) of the R&R Guidelines clarifies that a limited liability company is regarded as being in difficulty where more than half of its registered capital has disappeared and more than one quarter of that capital has been lost over the preceding 12 months.\n(83)\nThe Commission notes that Air Malta is a company with limited liability which has lost almost all of its registered capital and is unable to meet its current obligations. Air Malta was found to be a company in difficulty already in the decision by which the rescue aid to the company was approved (16). According to point (25) of the R&R Guidelines a Member State concerned must communicate to the Commission, not later than six months after the rescue aid measure has been authorised, a restructuring plan or a liquidation plan or proof that the rescue loan has been reimbursed in full. Malta has duly notified the RP of Air Malta within the six months deadline. Given that this relatively short period the situation of Air Malta has not substantially changed so that it requires restructuring aid for its return to viability, it follows that the company clearly still fulfils the criteria set in point 10(a) of the R&R Guidelines and hence qualifies as a company in difficulty for the same reasons indicated in the decision on the rescue aid (points 7-13 and 45).\n(84)\nPoint 12 of the Guidelines states that a newly created firm is not eligible for rescue or restructuring aid even if its initial financial position is unsecure. A firm is in principle considered as newly created for the first three years following the start of operations in the relevant field of activity.\n(85)\nAir Malta was created in 1974 and cannot therefore be considered as a newly created firm.\n(86)\nPoint 13 of the R&R Guidelines states that a firm belonging to or being taken over by a larger business group is not normally eligible for rescue or restructuring aid, except where it can be demonstrated that the firm's difficulties are intrinsic and are not the result of an arbitrary allocation of costs within the group, and that the difficulties are too serious to be dealt with by the group itself. Where a firm in difficulty creates a subsidiary, the subsidiary, together with the firm in difficulty controlling it, will be regarded as a group and may receive aid under the conditions laid down in this point.\n(87)\nAir Malta plc. forms a group together with its subsidiaries (see paragraph (10)). The accounts of the group show that the airline, despite being part of a larger group of companies, in fact constitutes 94 % of the total Air Malta Group turnover and there is therefore no possibility for any other part of the Group to finance the restructuring of the airline. Furthermore, the accounts demonstrate that the airline\u2019s losses are intrinsic to the airline itself and are therefore not attributable to any part of the Group.\n(88)\nThe Commission thus considers that the difficulties of Air Malta are not a result of an arbitrary allocation of costs within the group but are mostly due to weak revenues in its core business. The difficulties are too serious to be dealt with by the group itself especially because many of the subsidiaries are loss making and the positive contribution by the profitable subsidiaries is far too small to compensate the losses in Air Malta's core business.\n6.2.2 Restoration of long-term viability\n(89)\nFirstly, according to point 35 of the R&R Guidelines the restructuring plan, the duration of which must be as short as possible, must restore the long-term viability of the firm within a reasonable timescale and on the basis of realistic assumptions as to future operating conditions.\n(90)\nThe plan must provide for a turnaround that will enable the company, after completing its restructuring, to cover all its costs including depreciation and financial charges. The expected return on capital must be enough to enable the restructured firm to compete in the marketplace on its own merits (point 37 of the R&R Guidelines).\n(91)\nThe RP with five years long restructuring period aims to achieve a return to profitability as of FY2014 thereby ensuring long term viability.\n(92)\nMoreover, the most important restructuring measures as well as the implementation of compensatory measures will take place in the first half of the restructuring period. However, some minor restructuring measures as well part of the notified capital injection should be carried out in 2014 and 2015. The Maltese authorities demonstrated that the strategy in the RP is set out over five years after a careful assessment of the shortest time required to restore the long-term viability of the Company, keeping in mind possible future operating conditions.\n(93)\nThe Commission notes that the notified five years restructuring period is especially required because of the relocation of Air Malta. Indeed, Air Malta had to first implement its voluntary redundancy and early retirement schemes (following the negotiations with trade unions) in the first half of the restructuring period. Subsequently, the company's reduced staff will be able to relocate to the new headquarter building. The sale of the land, which constitutes the main element of the own contribution can thus only take place in the second half of the restructuring period (FY2012-FY2014). Moreover, Malta intends to disburse the aid only in the second half of the restructuring period (see paragraph 43) due to budgetary constraints. Furthermore, the Commission notes that especially in the air transport sector in the current economic circumstances, the stabilization of operational and services performance has to be achieved in order to ensure a long-term viability as a solid base for future growth and not only a short-term turnaround. This takes by nature several years. The Commission notes that in previous cases a restructuring period of five years or more has been accepted (17). Therefore, on balance, the Commission finds the relatively long restructuring period (November 2010 - 2015) acceptable.\n(94)\nTo enable a turnaround for Air Malta, the RP envisages significant cost reductions, especially through the reduction of capacity and staff as well as an improved cost management. The annual improvements in profitability from cost initiatives are expected to total EUR [42 to 52] million by the end of the restructuring period which corresponds to a reduction in total costs of [9 to 11] % between FY2010 and FY2016 or a decline of the total operating cost per passenger by [8 to 10] % between FY2010 and FY2016.\n(95)\nThe RP demonstrates that especially the reduction of capacity by downsizing the fleet from 12 to 10 aircraft and by consequently reducing the ASK capacity offered leads to significant cost reduction.\n(96)\nThe social costs of the restructuring amount to the legal obligations of the Company to those workers that will be made redundant. The airline has already concluded negotiations with three of its trade unions, covering 85 % of the workforce. The negotiations with the remaining trade union (ALPA) are in the final stages. The Commission notes that the airline has over-achieved its target of 500 voluntary applications for its Early Retirement and Voluntary Redundancy schemes. More than 40 % of the planned total of staff has already left the company.\n(97)\nThe assumed cost reduction through contract management of EUR [7 to 9] million in cost savings appears achievable since over EUR [4 to 5] million p.a. has already been committed through negotiations concluded to date and, according to the Maltese authorities, negotiations with Malta International Airport (which is mostly owned by private shareholders) contributing the highest amount of cost savings [\u2026] are 90 % concluded.\n(98)\nAs to the ancillary revenues, the Maltese authorities demonstrated that the assumed figures ([3 to 5] % of total revenues or [3 to 5] % of passenger revenues in FY2016) are substantially lower than the percentages achieved by other carriers including LLC and network carriers. Furthermore, Air Malta has successfully started to implement some of its ancillary revenue initiatives which deliver results that are in-line, if not above, the predictions contained in the RP.\n(99)\nThese results are based on realistic assumptions. The Commission positively notes that, following the opening decision, all the assumptions of the RP were revised and a number of key assumptions were adapted. In more detail:\n(a)\nGDP and market forecasts have been revised to reflect the deteriorating economic situation in Europe. The 5,9 % annual growth rate for the Maltese air transport market has been reduced to 4 % per annum for the period to 2016 in view of the revised GDP growth forecasts by the IMF and Eurostat.\n(b)\nAs to the assumed yield, Malta demonstrated that the assumed average growth of less than 2 % in yield is in line with the forecast for several network carriers in Europe (e. g. Lufthansa 1,3 % in 2012, Air France-KLM 1,0 % in 2012, IAG 2,9 % in 2012) and lower than the directly competing LCCs easyJet (3,4 % in 2012) and Ryanair (5 % in 2012).\n(c)\nAs to the assumptions on inflation, Air Malta reviewed its assumptions and corrected for inflation by including a 1,2 % p.a. escalation in costs to the fixed component of the aircraft leases. The revision of the inflation component on the rental agreements results in 60 % of the operating cost base of the airline (personnel costs, fuel and rental agreements) being corrected for inflation. Conservatively, no inflation assumptions have been made for revenue to account for an increase in purchasing power in the long-term. Furthermore, wage increases - wages are the second largest cost item for Air Malta - have been included in the RP.\n(d)\nThe costs for fuel, which are the largest cost item for the airline, are expressed in real terms. The fuel price forecast has been revised to better reflect the latest long-term oil price forecasts.\n(100)\nIn addition, Malta provided a scenario analysis including, beside the above mentioned most realistic assumptions (base case scenario), a best case and a worst case scenario with modified assumptions on several key drivers such as expected cost reductions through renegotiation of contracts, staff reduction, number of passengers, revenue per passengers, fuel price and foreign exchange rates.\n(101)\nThe revision and the adaptation of a number of key assumptions as described in paragraph 99 led to revised financial projections for the base case scenario resulting in the FY2015 operating profit to move from EUR [11 to 13] million to EUR [9 to 11] million and the FY2016 operating profit to move from EUR [13 to 15] million to EUR [9 to 11] million. Together with the provided clarification, the adapted assumptions and the revised forecasts give now a more realistic and sound picture of Air Malta's future development.\n(102)\nAir Malta aims to achieve a return on equity of [4 to 6] % and [4 to 6] % and a return on capital employed of [4 to 6] % and [4 to 6] % respectively in FY2015 and in FY2016. These profitability figures are in line with other major European carriers in the last years.\n(103)\nSome major European air carriers like British Airways, Iberia or easyJet target a much higher ROCE (12 % (18)) in the next years. However, the Commission notes that Air Malta as a small carrier with a fleet of only 10 aircraft which does not have much possibility to benefit from synergies and which additionally intends to meet specific needs due to Malta's peripheral geographical situation is not comparable with major flag carriers or large LCCs. Given the particularities of the present case, a ROCE of [4 to 6] % appears to be enough to enable Air Malta to compete in the marketplace on its own merits.\n(104)\nFurthermore, Air Malta made progress in restructuring up to now which demonstrates that the restructuring measures taken are already effective. 2011 figures show a revenue increase of 1,6 % compared with 2010 (notwithstanding 8 % capacity reduction) which is 2,9 % ahead of the levels originally forecasted in the RP (19). Air Malta's financial performance for the year to date December 2011 has improved by EUR 13 million on last year and is approximately EUR 1 million better than the results forecasted in the RP. Other key indicators for the same period show that the seat load factor has increased by [3 to 5] %, passengers have increased by [1 to 3] % and average fare has increased by [0 to 2] % whereas Cost per Available Seat Kilometre (CASK) is [0 to 2] % lower.\n(105)\nAgainst this background, the Commission considers that the revised the RP will enable Air Malta to restore its long-time viability within a reasonable timescale.\n6.2.3 Avoidance of undue distortion of competition (compensatory measures)\n(106)\nSecondly, according to point 38 of the R&R Guidelines, compensatory measures must be taken in order to ensure that the adverse effects on trading conditions are minimized as much as possible. These measures may comprise divestment of assets, reductions in capacity or market presence and reduction of entry barriers on the markets concerned (point 39 of the R&R Guidelines).\n(107)\nIn this regard, closure of loss-making activities which would at any rate be necessary to restore viability will not be considered as a reduction of capacity or market presence for the purpose of the assessment of the compensatory measures (point 40 of the R&R Guidelines).\n(108)\nAir Malta proposes the following compensatory measures:\n-\nReduction in absolute capacity in passenger transport;\n-\nSurrender of profitable and potentially profitable routes;\n-\nSurrender of landing slots at coordinated European airports;\n-\nReduction of cargo flights;\n-\nSale of subsidiaries.\n(109)\nThe first compensatory measure offered by Air Malta is the reduction of capacity in passenger transport. The total capacity reduction amounts to 19,7 % (Summer 2009 to Summer 2012) or 20,9 % (FY2010 to FY2013). The overall capacity reduction cannot be accepted under point 40 of the R&R Guidelines since this also includes the reduction and withdrawal of unprofitable routes.\n(110)\nBased on the information provided in the formal investigation procedure, the Commission is in a position to identify 14 routes (20) to be reduced in capacity or withdrawn which are profitable as well as a number of charter flights which can be accepted as compensatory measures.\n(111)\nThe profitability of the scheduled routes is determined on the basis of the so called \u2027gross margin\u2027 which is calculated as follows: Revenue minus VDOC (variable direct operating costs) minus FDOC (fixed direct operating costs). The routes are profitable if they have a gross margin equal or above 0. The so called \u2027net margin\u2027 takes also into account the overhead costs. From the Commission's point of view, the gross margin appears to be the appropriate figure since it takes into account all costs which are directly linked to the route in question. Applying the \u2027net margin\u2027 would be too strict since the overhead costs have a non-linear relationship to fleet size and capacity and cannot be reduced below a certain level given the fact that some activities and functions are necessary to the normal operations of the airline, regardless of its size.\n(112)\nThe Commission does not take into account so called \u2027marginal\u2027 routes, i.e. routes which are not profitable today having a gross margin between 0 % and -10 % but have potential for profitability in the future with the right management and commercial attention and investment, since point 40 of the R&R Guidelines refers to \u2027loss-making activities\u2027 at the time of notifying the RP.\n(113)\nAs to the profitability of charter flights, the Maltese authorities confirmed that all charter services were profitable. The overall profitability of charter flights for FY2010 was [5 to 8] % (gross margin).\n(114)\nThe Commission takes into account the figures for the changes between FY2010 and FY2013 and not for between Summer 2009 and Summer 2012 since the end of FY2010 (i.e. March 2010) constitutes a more appropriate starting point than the summer 2009, i.e. six months earlier, in view of the restructuring period starting in autumn 2010. The Commission notes that the Maltese authorities confirmed that the route network should be constant from FY2013 onwards so that this capacity change applies for the whole restructuring period.\n(115)\nBased on an overall capacity in FY2010 of 4 145 522 ASK, the capacity reductions related to both profitable scheduled routes and charter routes amount to [\u2026] ASK which is accompanied by an expected capacity increase of [\u2026] ASK. Therefore, the overall capacity reduction in passenger transport acceptable as compensatory measure (capacity reduction related to profitable routes minus capacity increase) between FY2010 and the end of the restructuring period amounts to 5 % of the 2010 capacity.\n(116)\nAs a result of the Air Malta's change in network, the reduction of frequencies operated and the cancellation of certain routes, [\u2026] landing slots pairs (21) will be surrendered are at European Level 3 Coordinated Airports (22). The Commission notes that the surrender of these landing slots will enable other competing airlines to increase their capacity at those coordinated airports (regardless of the concrete route that has been withdrawn) and thus represents a reduction of entry barriers on the market. Therefore, this measure can be accepted as a compensatory measure.\n(117)\nIn the formal investigation procedure, Malta has proposed as additional compensatory measure a capacity reduction of 20 % in cargo flights. According to Malta, all cargo flights concerned have been profitable. Air Malta holds a significant market position in the local cargo and freighter market (with a market share of 28 % for flights from and to Malta). Therefore, the Commission will take into account this reduction as compensatory measure.\n(118)\nBeyond the capacity reduction, Air Malta proposes the sale of non-loss making assets as compensatory measures. This includes its subsidiaries Shield Insurance Company Ltd (\"Shield Insurance\") and Osprey Insurance Brokers Company Ltd (\"Osprey Insurance Brokers\"). Shield Insurance is a Captive Insurance Company operating in Guernsey and is primarily set up to insure Air Malta's peripheral aviation insurance policies. However it has access to the international insurance market and is licensed to transact insurance business of various classes, both in respect of the Air Malta Group as well as for third parties. Osprey Insurance Brokers is an insurance broker and specialises in handling accounts of a medium to large economical nature involving all classes of insurances, including aviation.\n(119)\nAccording to point 40 of the R&R Guidelines, the compensation measures should take place in particular in the market where the firm will have a significant market position after restructuring.\n(120)\nThe market where Air Malta has and will have a significant market position is the Maltese air transport market (both passengers and cargo). This does not apply to the insurance sector. The insurance activities are non-core activities which are not strictly related to the air transport business. In fact, after the sale of Shield Insurance and Osprey Insurance Brokers, the Air Malta group will not be active in the insurance market anymore. Therefore, the sale neither of Shield Insurance nor of Osprey Insurance Brokers can be considered as compensatory measures.\n(121)\nWhen assessing whether the compensatory measures are appropriate the Commission will take account of the market structure and the conditions of competition to ensure that any such measure does not lead to deterioration in the structure of the market (point 39 of the R&R Guidelines).\n(122)\nThe compensatory measures must be in proportion to the distortive effects of the aid and, in particular, to the size and the relative importance of the firm on its market or markets. The degree of reduction must be established on a case-by-case basis (point 40 of the R&R Guidelines).\n(123)\nAir Malta is a very small player in the European aviation market representing only 0,25 % of the entire European airline industry\u2019s productive capacity and output (in terms of passengers).Even though Air Malta has still a leading position in the Maltese aviation market, the airlines which would benefit from Air Malta's market exit are above all large LCCs like Ryanair and easyJet that already have a significant market share in the European aviation market.\n(124)\nThe Commission notes that for a small carrier like Air Malta, any further reduction in its fleet size will have a negative effect on the viability of the airline, without providing any meaningful market opportunities for competitors. Air Malta's fleet may be too small to provide synergies and to efficiently have a multiple type fleet to attract a bigger market and reach potential markets. For Air Malta, it is very difficult to diversify on board products and seating configurations in its aircraft to maximise profits. Furthermore, the small size puts Air Malta at a disadvantage when financing aircraft, handling contracts and other matters where economies of scale bring tangible financial and competitive benefits. Any further capacity reduction could have a cumulative negative effect on the airline's ability to compete with larger competitors.\n(125)\nFurthermore, Malta is an area eligible for assistance under Article 107 (3)(a) TFEU. According to point 56 of the R&R Guidelines, the conditions for authorising aid may be less stringent as regards the implementation of the compensatory measures.\n(126)\nIn addition, the Commission has to take into account the particularities of the present case when assessing the appropriateness of the proposed compensatory measures. Malta's peripheral geographical situation as an island causes problems with respect to accessibility to the rest of the European Union. The Commission acknowledges that the Maltese Islands are geographically isolated and therefore cross-border links with mainland Europe and other parts of the world are limited to sea and air transportation. Appropriate air links are crucial for Malta's economy given its high degree of economic openness (23) (necessitating reliable transport links for business travellers) and the importance of the tourism industry (24). They are also vital for Malta's economic and social cohesion both internally and with the rest of the EU by providing daily transportation of mail and freight including perishables goods between the islands and the European mainland as well as passengers transport for medical reasons in stretchers and incubators (in cases where special medical care required is not available in Malta).\n(127)\nAlso in its decision of 7 March 2007 concerning Cyprus Airways (25), the Commission, when assessing the appropriateness of the compensatory measures, considered in respect of Cyprus the\n\"territorial, and, therefore permanent, characteristics which impact on its socio-economic development. Cyprus' southern peripherality results in direct problems with respect to accessibility to the rest of the European Union and as a result the country is extensively dependent on air and sea transport, but particularly on air transport. This is important as in the case of Cyprus, air travel is the only viable means of business passenger.\"\n(128)\nThe Commission notes that Malta is in a situation comparable to that of Cyprus in respect of peripherality, accessibility and dependence on air transport.\n(129)\nThe Commission notes that, since Air Malta is a very small player in the European aviation market and since the notified aid will not enable Air Malta to conduct an aggressive expansion policy or grow in dimension, the distortive effect of the notified measure is limited.\n(130)\nThe Commission considers that the 5 % capacity reduction (for profitable activities) in passenger transport (which is related to the fleet reduction by two aircrafts over 12 aircrafts) may appear at first sight to be small. However, considering the small size of Air Malta compared to the European airline industry\u2019s productive capacity and output (in terms of passengers) and the small size of Air Malta's fleet, the Commission finds that this capacity reduction is not insignificant. Moreover, the Commission notes that the overall capacity reduction will result in a decrease of Air Malta's market share on the Maltese air transport market from 51 % in 2010 to less than 40 % expected in 2016 (26).\n(131)\nIn view of the above, and taking furthermore into account the fact that Air Malta will surrender an important number of slots at coordinated airports, immediately creating new business opportunities for its competitors, the important capacity reduction of 20 % in the cargo flights segment (which will affect the significant market position in the local cargo and freighter market held by Air Malta), the particular situation of Malta as regards peripherality, accessibility and dependence on air transport, the Commission concludes that the proposed compensatory measures are appropriate to minimise the distortive effects of the aid and proportionate to those effects, and the size and importance of Air Malta.\n6.2.4 Aid limited to the minimum (own contribution)\n(132)\nThirdly, according to point 43 of the R&R Guidelines, in order to limit the amount of aid to the strict minimum of the restructuring costs necessary, a significant contribution to the restructuring plan by the beneficiary from its own resources is necessary. This can include the sale of assets that are not essential to the firm's survival, or external financing at market conditions.\n(133)\nFor large firms, the Commission normally considers a contribution of at least 50 % of the restructuring costs to be appropriate. However, in exceptional circumstances and in cases of particular hardship, the Commission may accept a lower contribution (point 44 of the R&R Guidelines).\n(134)\nThe own contribution must be real, i.e. actual, excluding all future profits such as cash flow (point 43 of the R&R Guidelines). Inherently, the own contribution must not include any further state aid.\n(135)\nAs described above under section 2,4, the proposed own contribution of Air Malta consists of the sale of land, the sale of subsidiaries, the sale of engines and a bank loan.\n(136)\nThe most important part of the Company's own contribution (EUR 66,2 million) will come from the sale of land situated on the perimeter of Malta International Airport to the Maltese State. The Promise of Sale Agreement was signed on 7 December 2011.\n(137)\nThe sale will not be carried out in an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tender. However, in line with its general policy and the national legal requirements, all property acquisitions by the Maltese Government have to be effected at a fair open market value, which reflects the price that would be paid on an arm\u2019s length basis by a private investor.\n(138)\nAir Malta has explained that in view of its restructuring some of its properties became redundant such as its head office which will be too large for its reduced workforce. With a move to new premises, the company also wishes to stimulate its cultural transformation into modern and dynamic airline.\n(139)\nThe Government of Malta has expressed its strategic interest to acquire Air Malta's property situated on the perimeter of the Malta international airport as the land sites concerned represent a scarce resource. Malta explained its long term strategy for the development of aviation related activity in Malta, including the creation of a cargo hub as part of an enlarged aviation park that also includes aircraft repair and other related facilities.\n(140)\nThe Commission acknowledges that with the land sale Malta pursues its strategy to develop the aviation related industry in Malta in order to increase employment in this sector. Therefore, the Commission considers that the land sale has not the main purpose to inject fresh money in Air Malta but pursues a credible policy objective.\n(141)\nThe value of the land is based on an independent valuation report dated 25 November 2011 by [\u2026], an independent evaluator appointed by the Government for this purpose. [\u2026] is a reputable real estate firm with long-standing international and local experience. The Commission has analysed the evaluation and found it sound. The evaluation gives no cause for concern since no manifest errors have been detected, accepted methodologies are applied - the applied valuation standards are set out by the International Valuation Standards Council - and the evaluation is based on credible assumptions. Therefore, the Commission considers that the result of the present appraisal report is an appropriate approximation for the realistic market price of the land.\n(142)\nIn view of the above, the Commission accepts the proceeds through the land sale as own contribution.\n(143)\nThe sale of subsidiaries [\u2026] should, according to Malta, generate at least EUR [10 to 12] million.\n(144)\nThe value of the subsidiaries is based on indicative values established by [\u2026] in a document entitled \u201cReview of potential disposal of assets\u201d dated 24 June 2011.\n(145)\nMalta confirmed that all sales and transactions will be conducted in an open, competitive, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. The sale process is managed by an independent adviser. The open tender sale process is launched with the publication of a Request for Proposals and the opening of an electronic data room. After the selection of short-listed bidders, the data room re-opens to the short-listed bidders for the purpose of due diligence. The short-listed bidders are invited to submit a final offer. The selected bidder is chosen and approved by the Air Malta Board of Directors in view of maximising the value of the assets. The most important steps are notified to non-selected bidder to ensure a transparent and non-discriminatory procedure. Two sale procedures have already been launched in line with the above described procedure: the sale of Selmun Palace and of Holiday Malta.\n(146)\nThe Commission notes that the first bids for one of the subsidiaries, Holiday Malta, were significantly [\u2026] than the indicative value. However, recent evaluation of Selmun Palace in December 2011 - [\u2026] - support a value ranging between EUR [\u2026] million and EUR [\u2026] million.\n(147)\nAlthough Air Malta presented a conservative approach - the assumptions in the RP include a 15 % risk adjustment (proceeds from the sales of EUR [10 to 12 million instead of EUR [12 to 14] million) - the Commission considers that the information provided on the evaluation of the subsidiaries is not sufficient. The evaluation reports are of a relatively poor quality and do not enable the Commission to firmly conclude on the actual value of the subsidiaries.\n(148)\nAgainst this background, the Commission is not in a position to quantify the exact amount of proceeds from the sale of subsidiaries. However, the Commission notes that, based on the available information, the subsidiaries are indeed of a certain value. Any revenues from the sale of subsidiaries, will therefore increase the own contribution.\n(149)\nThe proceeds from the sale of two spare engines to [\u2026], a private international financing and leasing company for spare engines, should be included into own contribution of the company to its restructuring costs. The sale of the spare engine with the serial number ESN [\u2026] took place on 28 October 2010 and generated USD [10 to 12] million. The sale of the spare engine with the serial number ESN [\u2026] took place on 17 December 2010 and generated USD [9 to 11] million. The overall proceeds through the sale of engines amount to USD [19 to 23] million (about EUR [15 to 17] million). However, it should be noted that whereas engine No. \u2026 was fully owned by Air Malta, engine No. [\u2026] was leased property of Air Malta. The Airline had an option to purchase engine No. [\u2026] at EUR [5 to 7] million, which was exercised, and consequently the engine was sold to [\u2026] and then leased-back.\n(150)\nFor the purpose of own contribution, Air Malta has applied the net proceeds, coming from the sale of the engines, and has therefore considered the EUR [5 to 7] million as a cost. The net proceeds are calculated as the revenue from the sale of engines to [\u2026] (USD [10 to 12] million + USD [9 to 11] million = USD [19 to 23] million or EUR [15 to 17] million) less the cost of purchasing of engine No. [\u2026]) (EUR [5 to 7] million) netting EUR [10 to 12] million as own contribution.\n(151)\nThe Commission notes that the sales of engines took place within the restructuring period or just a very few days to its beginning. Therefore, the whole revenues from those sales can be considered as own contribution. Furthermore, the Commission accepts the proposed calculation of the real amount of proceeds from the sales and thus accepts the own contribution of EUR [9 to 12] million.\n(152)\nA loan amounting to EUR [20 to 25] million should be granted by [\u2026] as of mid-2014.\n(153)\nMalta has provided letters of intent by the two banks dated 24 and 29 November 2011. However, no legally binding agreement has been concluded yet since, according to Malta, it is commercial policy of the banks not to bind themselves more than two years prior to the transaction. As no binding agreements have been provided, this bank loan cannot be regarded as real and actual own contribution as required in point 43 of the R&R Guidelines.\n(154)\nHowever, the Commission notes that Air Malta already arrived at the conclusion of a bridging finance in December 2011 amounting to EUR [25 to 30] million for a three years maturity, secured without any assistance of the Maltese authorities. The purpose of this loan is a bridging financing of the restructuring of Air Malta until 2014 when the proceeds from the land sale are expected to materialize.\n(155)\nThe loan will be provided by [\u2026]. Both banks are to be regarded as private banks. [\u2026]\n(156)\nAir Malta has to pay an interest rate of currently [4 to 6] % p.a. (i.e. [150 to 350] basis point above the [\u2026] base rate as reference rate which currently amounts to 2,5 %) plus fees amounting to [1 to 1,5] % p.a. The loan is secured by a mortgage of EUR [25 to 30] million.\n(157)\nThe Commission notes that this loan agreement of December 2011 demonstrates that Air Malta was already able to obtain external financing at market conditions without any assistance of the Maltese authorities. Such financing shows that the market believes in the feasibility of the envisaged return to viability. The Commission hence considers the EUR [25 to 30] million loan as part of the own contribution.\n(158)\nIn view of the above, the Commission considers as appropriate and acceptable own contribution the proceeds from the sale of land (EUR 66,2 million); the sale of engines (EUR [9 to 12] million) and the bank loan concluded in December 2011 (EUR 30 million). The total own contribution hence amounts to EUR 107 million which constitutes 45 % of the total restructuring costs. Furthermore, the Commission notes that if the expected proceeds from the sale of subsidiaries materialize, then the level of the own contribution will raise by EUR [10 to 12] million and the total own contribution would thus amount to 49,5 % of the total restructuring costs.\n(159)\nMalta is an area eligible for assistance under Article 107 (3)(a) TFEU. In assisted areas the conditions for authorising aid may be less stringent as regards the size of the beneficiary's contribution (point 56 of the R&R Guidelines). Furthermore, Malta's peripheral geographical situation causes problems with respect to accessibility to the rest of the EU and as a result the country is extensively dependent on air transport (see paragraph (126) above) which has to be taken into account.\n(160)\nDue to the particularities of the present case, an own contribution slightly lower than 50 % appears acceptable. Since the RP, especially the submitted financial plan, demonstrates that the amount of aid is such as to avoid providing Air Malta with surplus cash which could be used for aggressive, market-distorting activities not linked to the restructuring process and that the aid does not finance new investment that is not essential for restoring the firm's viability as stipulated in point 45 of the R&R Guidelines, the Commission concludes that an own contribution of at least 45 % is appropriate in the present case.\n6.2.5 \u2018One time, last time\u2019 principle\n(161)\nFinally, the aid must respect the condition that it is \u2018one time, last time\u2019. Point 72 of the R&R Guidelines provides that a company that has received rescue and restructuring aid in the past ten years is not eligible for rescue or restructuring aid.\n(162)\nIn April 2004, before accession to the EU, Malta carried out a capital increase of EUR 57 million. The transaction in question was made in kind and involved the transfer of real property (land and buildings) in return for obtaining additional shares in Air Malta. This measure was not considered as rescue or restructuring aid by the Maltese authorities who considered the capital increase to be compatible with the market economy investor principle.\n(163)\nThe Commission was informed about this measure at the time in the context of pre-accession cooperation. Since the measure was granted before Malta's accession to the EU, it was not necessary for Malta to seek the Commission's approval prior to implementing the capital increase in 2004. However, in line with consistent Commission practice (27), the Commission will take account of restructuring aid granted prior to accession for the application of the \"one time, last time\" principle in subsequent cases of restructuring aid.\n(164)\nIn order to determine whether an economic advantage in favour of Air Malta is present in the 2004 injection and therefore this measure involves state aid, the Commission must assess whether the undertaking received \u2027an economic advantage, which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions (28)\u2027. To examine this question the Commission applies the market economy investor principle (MEIP). According to this test, where, in similar circumstances, a private investor operating in normal market conditions of a market economy of a comparable size to that of the bodies operating in the public sector could have been prompted to make the capital contribution in question, no State Aid would be involved. The Commission must therefore assess whether a private investor would have entered into the transaction in question on the same terms (29). The attitude of the hypothetical private investor is that of a prudent investor (30) whose goal of profit maximisation is tempered with caution about the level of risk acceptable for a given rate of return (31).\n(165)\nMoreover, \u2027\u2026 [T]he comparison between the conduct of public and private investors must be made by reference to the attitude which a private investor would have had at the time of the transaction in question, having regard to the available information and foreseeable developments at that time (32)\u2027.\n(166)\nThe Commission's analysis and assessment must include all factors that are relevant to the transaction at issue and its context. This will include the financial situation of the beneficiary undertaking at the relevant market, while ex-post developments or results are irrelevant unless they were foreseen at the time of the investment (33).\n(167)\nThe transaction in question involved the transfer by the Government of real property (land and buildings) to Air Malta in return for obtaining additional shares in Air Malta. The use of the property in question had long vested with Air Malta. The real estate in question had been formerly held by Air Malta under a lease agreement since 1979 for an indefinite period. Air Malta had over the years enhanced the value of the property at its own cost and on the basis of an expectation that the property would be transferred.\n(168)\nThe Commission notes that this transaction was discussed and prepared over a number of years. The plan to transfer the land was already made in the 1990's. A board paper in 2000 already referred to this transaction. The reason for the delay of its implementation is the privatisation of Malta International Airport which was only completed in 2002.\n(169)\nThe transaction was made in view of a Corporate Strategy and Business Plan 2004-2007 (November 2003) and a 3-year financial projection. Given positive outlooks for the market environment such as expected market growth for the Maltese air transport market, increasing seat capacity and earning margins in the European aviation sector as well as encouraging results, the business plan expected a substantial increase in passengers and yield in the following years achieving profitability by FY2007.\n(170)\nThe relevant forecasts reflected the general opinion in the airline industry at the time predicting strong growth in the air transport sector. Furthermore, the positive results were based on additional expected growth opportunities due to the EU accession of Malta. Besides the improvement of the capital structure, the business plan proposed a number of reasonable initiatives such as the introduction of a standardised, modern and fuel efficient fleet of Airbus A319/A320 as well as rationalisation of maintenance. The Commission notes that in 2004 LCCs were not seen as a threat for Air Malta on its core market as the lengths of the routes to/from Malta were regarded as too long to make the LCC business model work. Although the expectations turned out to be too optimistic and the challenges on the market to be underestimated from an ex post perspective, given the information available in 2004 and the general opinion in the airline industry, the Commission considers the forecasts in the business plan and the 3-year financial projection to be credible at that time.\n(171)\nDue to the fact that the Maltese government as major shareholder of Air Malta contributed only a minimal share capital when the company was founded in 1974, Air Malta was hugely undercapitalised compared to other flag carriers prior to April 2004 and needed a capital structure proportionate to its operations. The capital increase, which was made in kind by the transfer of land, was intended to ensure that the company had a balanced financial structure so as to enable it to engage in a growth strategy and allow further equity leverage through enhanced working capital management arrangements.\n(172)\nThe transaction was based on a market value with advice from PriceWaterhouseCoopers which stated that \"the value of assets being allocated to the company corresponds to at least the nominal value of the shares and the share premium thereon issued in the company to the Government of Malta\".\n(173)\nMoreover, the Commission notes that Air Malta was not a firm in difficulties in April 2004. Although Air Malta suffered from losses incurring by Air Malta's subsidiary Azzura Air in the aftermath of 9/11, Malta had significant cash reserves at that time. Based on the figures on 31 July 2003, Air Malta's total equity was EUR 45,7 million (issued share capital of EUR 11,7 million plus a positive balance on the profit and loss account). Based on the management account for the seven months ended 29 February 2004, the loss for this period was EUR 15,5 million and a loss of EUR 19,2 million was expected for the whole financial year. Further losses have been recognized when closing off the July 2004 statutory financial statements and computed in early 2005. However, these losses would not have been known or anticipated in April 2004.\n(174)\nFurthermore, Air Malta was able to raise external debt from three private banks without any Government support.\n(175)\nFinally, private minority shareholders participated in the capital increase in proportion to their holdings (less than 5 % of the total capital).\n(176)\nAgainst this background, the Commission does not have compelling evidence demonstrating that the April 2004 transaction was not compliant with the market economy investor principle since it appears rather reasonable to assume that a private investor would have behaved in the same way as the Maltese government did, in similar circumstances. The 2004 transaction therefore did not constitute state aid to Air Malta.\n(177)\nThe Maltese authorities have furthermore confirmed that Air Malta has not received any rescue or restructuring aid in the past ten years. The Commission therefore considers that the \u2018one time, last time\u2019 principle is respected.\n6.3 Conclusion\n(178)\nIn view of the above, the Commission considers that the envisaged aid amounting to EUR 130 million and the RP is compatible with the conditions required by the R&R Guidelines. The Commission hence considers the aid to be compatible with the internal market.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe restructuring aid notified by Malta consisting in granting EUR 130 million to Air Malta in the form of equity, including a debt-to-equity swap of the approved rescue loan of EUR 52 million, constitutes State aid, within the meaning of Article 107 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nThat State aid is compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Malta.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2012.", "references": ["72", "23", "83", "35", "4", "70", "41", "77", "43", "65", "51", "28", "5", "7", "31", "52", "69", "78", "84", "47", "46", "62", "9", "0", "1", "49", "12", "29", "75", "61", "No Label", "15", "44", "48", "57", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "44", "48", "57", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 758/2012\nof 20 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 August 2012.", "references": ["74", "38", "15", "79", "33", "72", "77", "81", "82", "1", "85", "53", "99", "17", "36", "40", "56", "91", "7", "59", "0", "19", "96", "93", "24", "57", "58", "89", "98", "30", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 912/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 22 September 2010\nsetting up the European GNSS Agency, repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1321/2004 on the establishment of structures for the management of the European satellite radio navigation programmes and amending Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 172 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving consulted the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European satellite radio-navigation policy is presently implemented through the EGNOS and Galileo programmes (hereinafter the \u2018programmes\u2019).\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1321/2004 of 12 July 2004 on the establishment of structures for the management of the European satellite radio-navigation programmes (3), established a Community agency, called the European GNSS Supervisory Authority (hereinafter the \u2018Authority\u2019).\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on the further implementation of the European satellite navigation programmes (EGNOS and Galileo) (4) defines the new framework for the public governance and financing of the programmes. It sets out the principle of the strict division of responsibilities between the European Union, represented by the Commission, the Authority and the European Space Agency (hereinafter the \u2018ESA\u2019), granting the Commission responsibility for the management of the programmes and attributing to it the tasks originally assigned to the Authority. It also provides that the Authority, when accomplishing the tasks entrusted to it, will ensure that the role of the Commission as manager of the programmes is respected and that the Authority acts in accordance with guidelines issued by the Commission.\n(4)\nIn Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council invited the Commission to put forward a proposal to align formally the management structures of the programmes as set out in Regulation (EC) No 1321/2004 with the new roles of the Commission and the Authority as set out in Regulation (EC) No 683/2008.\n(5)\nIn view of its reduced sphere of activity, the Authority should no longer be called the \u2018European GNSS Supervisory Authority\u2019, but rather the \u2018European GNSS Agency\u2019 (hereinafter the \u2018Agency\u2019). However, the continuity of the activities of the Authority, including continuity as regards rights and obligations, staff and the validity of any decisions taken, should be ensured under the Agency.\n(6)\nThe aims and objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1321/2004 should also be adjusted in order to reflect the fact that the Agency is no longer responsible for the management of public interests relating to the European Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) programmes and for regulating such programmes.\n(7)\nThe legal status of the Agency should be such as to enable it to act as a legal person in the discharge of its tasks.\n(8)\nIt is also important to modify the tasks of the Agency, and, in this regard, to ensure that its tasks are defined in accordance with those set out in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008, including the possibility for the Agency to accomplish other activities that may be entrusted to it by the Commission, in order to support the Commission in the implementation of the programmes. In accordance with Article 54(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), such activities could for example include following the development of coordination and consultation procedures on security-related matters, carrying out research of benefit to the development and promotion of the programmes and providing support in the development and implementation of the Public Regulated Service (PRS) pilot project.\n(9)\nWithin its scope, its objectives and in the performance of its tasks, the Agency should comply in particular with the provisions applicable to Union institutions.\n(10)\nThe Commission should, in the context of its mid-term review of the Galileo programme planned for 2010 as referred to in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008, also address the issue of the governance of the programmes in the operating and exploitation phase and the role of the Agency in this context.\n(11)\nIn order to ensure effectively the accomplishment of the tasks of the Agency, the Member States and the Commission should be represented on an Administrative Board entrusted with the necessary powers to establish the budget, verify its execution, adopt the appropriate financial rules, establish transparent working procedures for decision making by the Agency, approve its work programme and appoint the Executive Director.\n(12)\nIt is also appropriate to include a representative of the European Parliament in the Administrative Board as a non-voting member, in view of the fact that Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 highlighted the usefulness of close cooperation between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.\n(13)\nIn order to ensure that the Agency accomplishes its tasks whilst respecting the role of the Commission as manager of the programmes and in accordance with guidelines issued by the Commission, it is also important to state explicitly that the Agency should be managed by an Executive Director under the supervision of the Administrative Board, in accordance with the guidelines issued to the Agency by the Commission. It is equally important to specify that the Commission should have five representatives on the Administrative Board and that decisions regarding a limited number of tasks of the Administrative Board should not be adopted without the favourable vote of the representatives of the Commission.\n(14)\nThe smooth functioning of the Agency requires that its Executive Director be appointed on the grounds of merit and documented administrative and managerial skills, as well as relevant competence and experience, and that he performs his duties with complete independence and flexibility in relation to the organisation of the internal functioning of the Agency. Except as regards certain activities and measures relating to security accreditation, the Executive Director should prepare and take all necessary measures to ensure the proper accomplishment of the work programme of the Agency, should prepare each year a draft general report to be submitted to the Administrative Board, should draw up a draft statement of estimates of revenues and expenditure of the Agency and implement the budget.\n(15)\nThe Administrative Board should be empowered to take any decision which may ensure that the Agency is able to accomplish its tasks with the exception of the security accreditation tasks, which should be entrusted to a Security Accreditation Board for European GNSS systems (hereinafter the \u2018Security Accreditation Board\u2019). In respect of such accreditation tasks the Administrative Board should be responsible only for resource and budget matters. Sound governance of the programmes also requires that the tasks of the Administrative Board be compliant with the new missions assigned to the Agency under Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008, notably regarding the operation of the Galileo security centre and the instructions given pursuant to Council Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP of 12 July 2004 on aspects of the operation of the European satellite radio-navigation system affecting the security of the European Union (6).\n(16)\nProcedures for the appointment of office-holders should be transparent.\n(17)\nIn view of the scope of the tasks entrusted to the Agency, which include security accreditation, the Scientific and Technical Committee set up in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1321/2004 should be disbanded and the System Security and Safety Committee established in accordance with Article 10 of that Regulation should be replaced by the Security Accreditation Board, which will be responsible for security accreditation, and composed of representatives from the Member States and the Commission. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter the \u2018HR\u2019) and the ESA should have an observer role in the Security Accreditation Board.\n(18)\nSecurity accreditation activities should be carried out independently of the authorities responsible for managing the programmes, notably the Commission, the other bodies of the Agency, the ESA, and other entities responsible for implementing provisions with regard to security. In order to ensure such independence, the Security Accreditation Board should be established as the security accreditation authority for the European GNSS systems (hereinafter the \u2018systems\u2019) and for receivers containing PRS technology. It should be an autonomous body which, within the Agency, takes its decisions independently and objectively, in the interest of the citizens.\n(19)\nGiven that the Commission, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 683/2008, manages all aspects relating to system security, and in order to ensure efficient governance of security issues and compliance with the principle of strict division of responsibilities provided for under that Regulation, it is essential that the activities of the Security Accreditation Board be strictly limited to the security accreditation activities of systems and that they do not under any circumstances encroach on the tasks entrusted to the Commission under Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008.\n(20)\nThe decisions taken by the Commission in accordance with procedures involving the European GNSS Programmes Committee will in no way affect the existing rules on budgetary matters or the specific competence of Member States on security matters.\n(21)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008, in cases where the security of the Union or of the Member States may be affected by the operation of the systems, the procedures set out in Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP apply. In particular, in the event of a threat to the security of the Union or of a Member State arising from the operation or use of the systems, or in the event of a threat to the operation of the systems, in particular as a result of an international crisis, the Council, acting unanimously, is able to decide on the necessary instructions to give to the Agency and to the Commission. Any member of the Council, the HR or the Commission is able to request a Council discussion to agree on such instructions.\n(22)\nIn application of the principle of subsidiarity, security accreditation decisions should, following the process defined in the security accreditation strategy, be based on local security accreditation decisions taken by the respective national security accreditation authorities of the Member States.\n(23)\nIn order for it to carry out all of its activities quickly and effectively, the Security Accreditation Board should be able to set up appropriate subordinate bodies acting on its instructions. It should accordingly set up a panel to assist it in preparing its decisions and a Crypto Distribution Authority, managing and preparing crypto material issues, including a Flight Key Cell dedicated to operational flight keys for launches, as well as other bodies, if necessary, to deal with specific issues. In doing so, special consideration should be given to the necessary continuity of the work in those bodies.\n(24)\nIt is also important for security accreditation activities to be coordinated with the work of the authorities responsible for managing the programmes and other entities responsible for implementing security provisions.\n(25)\nGiven the specific nature and complexity of the systems, it is essential for the security accreditation activities to be carried out in a context of collective responsibility for the security of the Union and of the Member States, by making efforts to reach a consensus and by involving all parties with an interest in security, and for permanent risk monitoring. It is also imperative that technical security accreditation activities be entrusted to professionals who are duly qualified in the field of accrediting complex systems and who have an adequate level of security clearance.\n(26)\nIn order to ensure that the Security Accreditation Board is able to accomplish its tasks, it should also be provided that Member States supply that Board with any necessary documentation, grant access to classified information and to any areas falling within their jurisdiction to duly authorised persons, and that they should be responsible at local level for the accreditation of the security of areas that are located within their territory.\n(27)\nThe systems established within the framework of the programmes are infrastructures the use of which extends well beyond the national boundaries of the Member States, and which are set up as trans-European networks in accordance with the provisions of Article 172 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Furthermore, the services provided via such systems contribute to the development of trans-European networks in the areas of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures.\n(28)\nThe Commission is to assess the budgetary implications of the financing of the Agency for the expenditure heading concerned. On the basis of the information and without prejudice to the relevant legislative procedure, the two arms of the budgetary authority need to achieve, in the framework of budgetary cooperation, a timely agreement on the financing of the Agency. The Union budgetary procedure is applicable to the Union contribution charged to the general budget of the European Union. In addition, auditing of accounts are to be undertaken by the European Court of Auditors in accordance with Title VIII of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.\n(29)\nThe Agency should apply the relevant Union legislation concerning public access to documents and the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. It should also comply with the security principles applicable to the Council and the Commission services.\n(30)\nIt should be possible for third countries to participate in the Agency, provided that they have concluded a prior agreement to this effect with the Union, particularly when such countries have been involved in the previous phases of the Galileo programme through their contribution to the Galileosat programme of the ESA.\n(31)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely to establish and ensure the functioning of an agency with responsibility in particular for security accreditation of the systems, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore by reason of the scale and effects of the 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. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(32)\nSince the name of the Agency is to be changed, Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 should be amended accordingly.\n(33)\nRegulation (EC) No 1321/2004 has previously been amended. Considering the amendments that are now being introduced, it is appropriate, for the sake of clarity, to repeal that Regulation and replace it with a new Regulation,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT, TASKS, BODIES\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation sets up a Union agency called the European GNSS Agency (hereinafter the \u2018Agency\u2019).\nArticle 2\nTasks\nThe tasks of the Agency shall be as set out in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008.\nArticle 3\nBodies\nThe bodies of the Agency shall be the Administrative Board, the Security Accreditation Board for European GNSS systems and the Executive Director. They shall accomplish their tasks in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Commission as set out in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008.\nArticle 4\nLegal status, local offices\n1. The Agency shall be a body of the Union. It shall have legal personality.\n2. In each of the Member States, the Agency shall enjoy the most extensive legal capacity accorded to legal persons under their law. It may, in particular, acquire or dispose of movable and immovable property and be a party to legal proceedings.\n3. The Agency may decide to establish local offices in Member States subject to their consent, or in third countries participating in the work of the Agency in accordance with Article 23.\n4. Subject to Article 11(9), the Agency shall be represented by its Executive Director.\nArticle 5\nAdministrative Board\n1. An Administrative Board is hereby set up to carry out the tasks listed in Article 6.\n2. The Administrative Board shall be composed of one representative appointed by each Member State, five representatives appointed by the Commission and a non-voting representative appointed by the European Parliament. The duration of the term of office of the Administrative Board members shall be 5 years. The term of office may be renewed for a maximum of 5 years. A representative of the HR and a representative of the ESA shall be invited to attend the Administrative Board\u2019s meetings as observers.\n3. Where appropriate, the participation of representatives of third countries and the conditions thereof shall be established in the arrangements referred to in Article 23.\n4. The Administrative Board shall elect a Chairperson and a Deputy Chairperson from among its members. The Deputy Chairperson shall automatically take the place of the Chairperson where the Chairperson is prevented from attending to his duties. The term of office of the Chairperson and of the Deputy Chairperson shall be 2,5 years, renewable once, and shall expire when they cease to be members of the Administrative Board.\n5. The meetings of the Administrative Board shall be convened by its Chairperson.\nThe Executive Director shall normally take part in the deliberations, unless the Chairperson decides otherwise.\nThe Administrative Board shall hold an ordinary meeting twice a year. In addition, it shall meet on the initiative of its Chairperson or at the request of at least a third of its members.\nThe Administrative Board may invite any person whose opinion may be of interest to attend its meetings as an observer. The members of the Administrative Board may, subject to the provisions of its rules of procedure, be assisted by advisers or experts.\nThe secretariat of the Administrative Board shall be provided by the Agency.\n6. Unless otherwise provided in this Regulation, the Administrative Board shall take its decisions by a two-thirds majority of its members.\n7. Each representative of the Member States and of the Commission shall have one vote. Decisions based on Article 6(b) and (e) shall not be adopted without a favourable vote of the representatives of the Commission. The Executive Director shall not vote.\nThe rules of procedure of the Administrative Board shall establish more detailed voting arrangements, in particular the conditions for a member to act on behalf of another member.\nArticle 6\nTasks of the Administrative Board\nThe Administrative Board shall ensure that the Agency carries out the work entrusted to it, under the conditions set out in this Regulation, and shall take any necessary decision to this end. In respect of security accreditation tasks and decisions provided for in Chapter III, the Administrative Board shall be responsible only for resources and budgetary matters. The Administrative Board shall also:\n(a)\nappoint the Executive Director pursuant to Article 7(2);\n(b)\nadopt by 15 November each year, and after receiving the Commission\u2019s opinion, the work programme of the Agency for the coming year;\n(c)\nperform its duties in relation to the Agency\u2019s budget pursuant to Articles 13 and 14;\n(d)\noversee the operation of the Galileo security centre (hereinafter the \u2018Galileo Security Monitoring Centre\u2019 or the \u2018GSMC\u2019) as referred to in Article 16(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008;\n(e)\nexercise disciplinary authority over the Executive Director;\n(f)\nadopt the special provisions necessary for the implementation of the right of access to the documents of the Agency, in accordance with Article 21;\n(g)\nadopt the annual report on the activities and prospects of the Agency and forward it, by 1 July, to the Member States, the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the European Economic and Social Committee; the Agency shall forward to the budgetary authority all information relevant to the outcome of the evaluation procedures;\n(h)\nadopt its rules of procedure.\nArticle 7\nExecutive Director\n1. The Agency shall be managed by its Executive Director, who shall carry out his duties under the supervision of the Administrative Board.\n2. The Executive Director shall be appointed by the Administrative Board on the grounds of merit and documented administrative and managerial skills, as well as relevant competence and experience, from a list of at least three candidates proposed by the Commission, after an open competition, following publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and elsewhere of a call for expressions of interest. The Administrative Board shall take its decision to appoint the Executive Director by a three-quarters majority of its members.\nThe Administrative Board shall have the power to dismiss the Executive Director and shall adopt its decision to that effect by a three-quarters majority of its members.\nThe term of office of the Executive Director shall be 5 years. This term of office may be renewed once for a further 5-year period.\n3. The European Parliament or the Council may call upon the Executive Director to submit a report on the performance of his tasks, and to make a statement before those institutions.\nArticle 8\nTasks of the Executive Director\nThe Executive Director:\n(a)\nshall be responsible for representing the Agency, except in respect of activities and decisions undertaken in accordance with Chapters II and III, and shall be in charge of its management;\n(b)\nshall prepare the work of the Administrative Board. He shall participate, without having the right to vote, in the work of the Administrative Board;\n(c)\nshall be responsible for implementing the annual work programme of the Agency under the control of the Administrative Board;\n(d)\nshall take all necessary measures, including the adoption of internal administrative instructions and the publication of notices, to ensure the functioning of the Agency in accordance with this Regulation;\n(e)\nshall draw up estimates of the Agency\u2019s revenue and expenditure in accordance with Article 13, and shall implement the budget in accordance with Article 14;\n(f)\nshall prepare a draft general report each year and submit it to the Administrative Board;\n(g)\nshall ensure that the Agency, as the operator of the GSMC, is able to respond to instructions provided under Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP;\n(h)\nshall define the organisational structure of the Agency and submit it for approval to the Administrative Board;\n(i)\nshall exercise, in respect of staff, the powers laid down in Article 18;\n(j)\nmay adopt, after approval of the Administrative Board, the necessary measures to establish local offices in Member States in accordance with Article 4;\n(k)\nshall ensure that the secretariat and all the resources necessary for proper functioning are provided to the Security Accreditation Board and to the bodies set up under its authority referred to in Article 11(11).\nCHAPTER II\nASPECTS RELATING TO THE SECURITY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION OR OF THE MEMBER STATES\nArticle 9\nJoint Action\n1. In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008, whenever the security of the Union or of the Member States may be affected by the operation of the systems, the procedures set out in Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP shall apply.\n2. The security accreditation decisions taken pursuant to Chapter III, as well as the residual risks identified, shall be communicated by the Commission to the Council for information.\nCHAPTER III\nSECURITY ACCREDITATION FOR EUROPEAN GNSS SYSTEMS\nArticle 10\nGeneral principles\nThe security accreditation activities referred to in this Chapter shall be carried out in accordance with the following principles:\n(a)\nsecurity accreditation activities and decisions are undertaken in a context of collective responsibility for the security of the Union and of the Member States;\n(b)\nefforts shall be made for decisions to be reached by consensus and for all relevant parties with an interest in security issues to be involved;\n(c)\ntasks shall be carried out in respect of relevant security rules applicable to the Council and the Commission (7);\n(d)\na permanent monitoring process shall ensure that security risks are known, security measures are defined to reduce such risks to an acceptable level in accordance with the basic principles and minimum standards set out in the security rules applicable to the Council and the Commission and that these measures are applied in line with the concept of defence in depth. The effectiveness of such measures shall be continuously evaluated;\n(e)\nsecurity accreditation decisions shall, following the process defined in the security accreditation strategy, be based on local security accreditation decisions taken by the respective national security accreditation authorities of the Member States;\n(f)\nthe technical security accreditation activities shall be entrusted to professionals who are duly qualified in the field of accrediting complex systems, who have an appropriate level of security clearance, and who shall act objectively;\n(g)\nsecurity accreditation decisions shall be taken independently of the Commission, without prejudice to Article 3, and of the entities responsible for implementing the programmes. As a result, a security accreditation authority for European GNSS systems shall be, within the Agency, an autonomous body that takes its decisions independently;\n(h)\nsecurity accreditation activities shall be carried out while reconciling the requirement for independence with the need for adequate coordination, between the Commission and the authorities responsible for implementing security provisions.\nArticle 11\nSecurity Accreditation Board\n1. A Security Accreditation Board for European GNSS systems (hereinafter the \u2018Security Accreditation Board\u2019) shall be established within the Agency. In relation to the European GNSS systems, the Security Accreditation Board shall have the tasks of the security accreditation authority, as referred to in the relevant security rules applicable to the Council and the Commission.\n2. The Security Accreditation Board shall perform the tasks entrusted to the Agency with regard to security accreditation under Article 16(a)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 and take \u2018security accreditation decisions\u2019 as provided for in the present Article, in particular on the approval of the security accreditation strategy and of satellite launches, the authorisation to operate the systems in their different configurations and for the various services, the authorisation to operate the ground stations and in particular the sensor stations located in third countries, as well as the authorisation to manufacture receivers containing PRS technology and their components.\n3. The security accreditation of the systems by the Security Accreditation Board shall consist of the establishment of compliance of the systems with the security requirements referred to in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 and in accordance with the relevant security rules and regulations applicable to the Council and the Commission.\n4. On the basis of the risk reports referred to in paragraph 11, the Security Accreditation Board shall inform the Commission of its risk assessment and provide advice to the Commission on residual risk treatment options for a given security accreditation decision.\n5. The Commission shall keep the Security Accreditation Board continuously informed of the impact of any envisaged decisions of the Security Accreditation Board on the proper conduct of the programmes and of the implementation of residual risk treatment plans. The Security Accreditation Board shall take note of any such opinion of the Commission.\n6. The decisions of the Security Accreditation Board shall be addressed to the Commission.\n7. The Security Accreditation Board shall be composed of one representative per Member State, one representative from the Commission and one from the HR. A representative of ESA shall be invited to attend the meetings of the Security Accreditation Board as an observer.\n8. The Security Accreditation Board shall establish its rules of procedure and shall appoint its Chairperson.\n9. The Chairperson of the Security Accreditation Board shall be responsible for representing the Agency insofar as the Executive Director, according to Article 8, is not responsible.\n10. The Security Accreditation Board shall have access to all the human and material resources required to provide appropriate administrative support functions and to enable it, together with the bodies referred to in paragraph 11, to perform its tasks independently, in particular when handling files, initiating and monitoring the implementation of security procedures and performing system security audits, preparing decisions and organising its meetings.\n11. The Security Accreditation Board shall set up special subordinate bodies, acting on its instructions, to deal with specific issues. In particular, while ensuring necessary continuity of work, it shall set up:\n-\na panel to conduct security analysis reviews and tests to produce the relevant risk reports in order to assist it in preparing its decisions,\n-\na Crypto Distribution Authority (CDA) to assist the Security Accreditation Board in particular with regard to questions related to flight keys.\n12. If consensus according to the general principles referred to in Article 10 of this Regulation cannot be reached, the Security Accreditation Board shall take decisions on the basis of majority voting, as provided for in Article 16 of the Treaty on European Union and without prejudice to Article 9 of this Regulation. The representative of the Commission and the representative of the HR shall not vote. The Chairperson of the Security Accreditation Board shall sign, on behalf of the Security Accreditation Board, the decisions adopted by the Security Accreditation Board.\n13. The Commission shall keep the European Parliament and the Council informed, without undue delay, about the impact of the adoption of the security accreditation decisions on the proper conduct of the programmes. If the Commission considers that a decision taken by the Security Accreditation Board may have a significant effect on the proper conduct of the programmes, for example in terms of costs and schedule, it shall immediately inform the European Parliament and the Council.\n14. Taking into account the views of the European Parliament and of the Council, which should be expressed within 1 month, the Commission may adopt any adequate measures in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 683/2008.\n15. The Administrative Board shall be regularly kept informed of the evolution of the work of the Security Accreditation Board.\n16. The timetable for the work of the Security Accreditation Board shall respect the GNSS work programme of the Commission.\nArticle 12\nRole of Member States\nMember States shall:\n(a)\ntransmit to the Security Accreditation Board all information they consider relevant for the purposes of security accreditation;\n(b)\npermit duly authorised persons appointed by the Security Accreditation Board to have access to any classified information and to any areas/sites related to the security of systems falling within their jurisdiction, in accordance with their national laws and regulations, and without any discrimination on ground of nationality, including for the purposes of security audits and tests as decided by the Security Accreditation Board;\n(c)\neach be responsible for devising a template for access control, which is to outline or list the areas/sites to be accredited, and which shall be agreed in advance between the Member States and the Security Accreditation Board, thereby ensuring that the same level of access control is being provided by all Member States;\n(d)\nbe responsible, at local level, for the accreditation of the security of areas that are located within their territory and form part of the security accreditation area for European GNSS systems, and report, to this end, to the Security Accreditation Board.\nCHAPTER IV\nBUDGETARY AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 13\nBudget\n1. Without prejudice to other resources and dues yet to be defined, revenue of the Agency shall include a Union subsidy entered in the general budget of the European Union in order to ensure a balance between revenue and expenditure.\n2. The expenditure of the Agency shall cover staff, administrative and infrastructure expenditure, operating costs and expenditure associated with the functioning of the Security Accreditation Board, including the bodies referred to in Article 11(11), and the contracts and agreements concluded by the Agency in order to accomplish the tasks entrusted to it.\n3. The Executive Director shall draw up a draft statement of estimates of the revenue and expenditure of the Agency for the following year and shall forward it to the Administrative Board, together with a draft establishment plan.\n4. Revenue and expenditure shall be in balance.\n5. Each year the Administrative Board, on the basis of the draft statement of revenue and expenditure, shall produce a statement of estimates of revenue and expenditure for the Agency for the following financial year.\n6. This statement of estimates, which shall include a draft establishment plan together with the provisional work programme, shall, by 31 March, be forwarded by the Administrative Board to the Commission and to the third countries with which the Union has concluded agreements in accordance with Article 23.\n7. The statement of estimates shall be forwarded by the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council (hereinafter the \u2018budgetary authority\u2019) together with the draft general budget of the European Union.\n8. On the basis of the statement of estimates, the Commission shall enter in the draft general budget of the European Union the estimates it deems necessary for the establishment plan and the amount of the subsidy to be charged to the general budget, which it shall place before the budgetary authority in accordance with Article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n9. The budgetary authority shall authorise the appropriations for the subsidy to the Agency and shall adopt the establishment plan for the Agency.\n10. The budget shall be adopted by the Administrative Board. It shall become final following definitive adoption of the general budget of the European Union. Where appropriate, it shall be adjusted accordingly.\n11. The Administrative Board shall, as soon as possible, notify the budgetary authority of its intention to implement any project which will have significant financial implications for the funding of the budget, in particular any projects relating to property such as the rental or purchase of buildings. It shall inform the Commission thereof.\n12. Where a branch of the budgetary authority has notified its intention to deliver an opinion, it shall forward its opinion to the Administrative Board within a period of 6 weeks from the date of notification of the project.\nArticle 14\nImplementation and control of the budget\n1. The Executive Director shall implement the budget of the Agency.\n2. By 1 March following each financial year, the accounting officer of the Agency shall communicate the provisional accounts to the Commission\u2019s accounting officer, together with a report on the budgetary and financial management for that financial year. The Commission\u2019s accounting officer shall consolidate the provisional accounts of the institutions and decentralised bodies in accordance with Article 128 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.\n3. By 31 March following each financial year, the Commission\u2019s accounting officer shall forward the provisional accounts of the Agency to the Court of Auditors, together with a report on the budgetary and financial management for that financial year. The report shall also be forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council.\n4. On receipt of the Court of Auditors\u2019 observations on the provisional accounts of the Agency, under Article 129 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, the Executive Director shall draw up the final accounts of the Agency under his own responsibility and submit them to the Administrative Board for an opinion.\n5. The Administrative Board shall deliver an opinion on the final accounts of the Agency.\n6. The Executive Director shall, by 1 July following each financial year, forward the final accounts to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, together with the Administrative Board\u2019s opinion.\n7. The final accounts shall be published.\n8. The Executive Director shall send the Court of Auditors a reply to its observations by 30 September. He shall also send this reply to the Administrative Board.\n9. The Executive Director shall submit to the European Parliament, at the latter\u2019s request, all information necessary for the smooth application of the discharge procedure for the financial year in question, as laid down in Article 146(3) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.\n10. The European Parliament, on a recommendation from the Council acting on a qualified majority, shall, before 30 April of the year N + 2, grant discharge to the Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the budget for year N.\nArticle 15\nFinancial provisions\nThe financial rules applicable to the Agency shall be adopted by the Administrative Board after the Commission has been consulted. They may not depart from Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (8) unless such departure is specifically required for the operation of the Agency and the Commission has given its prior consent.\nCHAPTER V\nMISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS\nArticle 16\nAnti-fraud measures\n1. In order to combat fraud, corruption and other unlawful activities, the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (9) shall apply without restriction.\n2. The Agency shall accede to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities concerning internal investigations by the European Anti Fraud Office (OLAF) (10) and shall issue, without delay, appropriate provisions applicable to all staff of the Agency.\n3. The decisions concerning funding, and the implementing agreements and instruments resulting there from, shall explicitly stipulate that the Court of Auditors and OLAF may, if necessary, carry out on-the-spot checks on the recipients of funding of the Agency and the agents responsible for allocating it.\nArticle 17\nPrivileges and immunities\nThe Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Union shall apply to the Agency.\nArticle 18\nStaff\n1. The Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union and the rules adopted jointly by the institutions of the European Union for the purposes of the application of those Staff Regulations and Conditions of employment shall apply to the staff of the Agency. The Administrative Board, in agreement with the Commission, shall adopt the necessary detailed rules of application.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 8, the powers conferred on the appointing authority by the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of employment of other servants shall be exercised by the Agency with respect to its own staff.\n3. The staff of the Agency shall consist of servants recruited by the Agency as necessary to perform its tasks, but may also include officials with the appropriate clearance who have been assigned or seconded by the Commission or the Member States on a temporary basis.\n4. The provisions laid down in paragraphs 1 and 3 shall also apply to the staff of the GSMC.\nArticle 19\nLiability\n1. The contractual liability of the Agency shall be governed by the law applicable to the contract in question. The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to give judgement pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by the Agency.\n2. In the event of non-contractual liability, the Agency shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its departments or by its servants in the performance of their duties.\n3. The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute relating to compensation for damage referred to in paragraph 2.\n4. The personal liability of its servants towards the Agency shall be governed by the provisions laid down in the Staff Regulations or Conditions of employment applicable to them.\nArticle 20\nLanguages\n1. The provisions laid down in Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used in the European Economic Community (11) shall apply to the Agency.\n2. The translation services required for the functioning of the Agency shall be provided by the Translation Centre for the bodies of the European Union.\nArticle 21\nAccess to documents and protection of data of a personal character\n1. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (12) shall apply to documents held by the Agency.\n2. The Administrative Board shall adopt arrangements for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 within 6 months from the entry into force of this Regulation.\n3. Decisions taken by the Agency in pursuance of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 may be the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman or an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union, under Articles 228 and 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union respectively.\n4. When processing data relating to individuals, the Agency shall be subject to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (13).\nArticle 22\nSecurity rules\nThe Agency shall apply the security principles contained in Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom. This shall cover, inter alia, provisions for the exchange, handling and storage of classified information.\nArticle 23\nParticipation of third countries\n1. The Agency shall be open to the participation of third countries that have entered into agreements with the European Union to this effect.\n2. Under the relevant provisions of these agreements, arrangements shall be developed specifying, in particular, the nature, extent and manner in which these countries will participate in the work of the Agency, including provisions relating to participation in the initiatives undertaken by the Agency, financial contributions and staff.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 24\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 683/2008\nThroughout Regulation (EC) No 683/2008, the words \u2018European GNSS Supervisory Authority\u2019 and \u2018Authority\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018European GNSS Agency\u2019 and \u2018Agency\u2019 respectively.\nArticle 25\nRepeal and validity of measures taken\nRegulation (EC) No 1321/2004 is hereby repealed. References to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation. Any measure adopted on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1321/2004 shall remain valid.\nArticle 26\nEvaluation\nBy 2012, the Commission shall evaluate this Regulation, particularly as regards the Agency\u2019s tasks laid down in Article 2, and, if necessary, make proposals.\nArticle 27\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 22 September 2010.", "references": ["21", "89", "84", "63", "24", "86", "55", "25", "83", "97", "43", "95", "35", "32", "70", "68", "1", "60", "36", "67", "42", "47", "3", "49", "73", "46", "38", "75", "19", "71", "No Label", "2", "7", "9", "11", "44", "54"], "gold": ["2", "7", "9", "11", "44", "54"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 November 2010\nreleasing Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom from the obligation to apply to certain species Council Directives 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 68/193/EEC, 1999/105/EC, 2002/54/EC, 2002/55/EC and 2002/57/EC on the marketing of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, material for the vegetative propagation of the vine, forest reproductive material, beet seed, vegetable seed and seed of oil and fibre plants respectively\n(notified under document C(2010) 7578)\n(Only the Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/680/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 66/401/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of fodder plant seed (1), and in particular Article 23a thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 66/402/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of cereal seed (2), and in particular Article 23a thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 68/193/EEC of 9 April 1968 on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine (3), and in particular Article 18a thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 1999/105/EC of 22 December 1999 on the marketing of forest reproductive material (4), and in particular Article 20 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/54/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of beet seed (5), and in particular Article 30A thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/55/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of vegetable seed (6), and in particular Article 49 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/57/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of seed of oil and fibre plants (7), and in particular Article 28 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 68/193/EEC, 1999/105/EC, 2002/54/EC, 2002/55/EC and 2002/57/EC set out certain provisions for the marketing of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, material for the vegetative propagation of the vine, forest reproductive material, beet seed, vegetable seed, and seed of oil and fibre plants respectively. Those Directives also provide that, subject to certain conditions, Member States may be wholly or partially released from the obligation to apply those Directives in respect of certain species or material.\n(2)\nSeed of the species set out in Parts I, II, V, VI and VII of the Annex to this Decision is not normally reproduced or marketed in certain Member States. In addition, the growing of vines and the marketing of propagating material set out in Part III of that Annex are of minimal economic importance in certain Member States. The tree species set out in Part IV of that Annex are also not important for forestry purposes in certain Member States.\n(3)\nOn the basis of applications made by Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom since 1969 the Commission adopted the following Decisions 69/270/EEC (8), 69/271/EEC (9), 69/272/EEC (10), 70/47/EEC (11), 70/48/EEC (12), 70/49/EEC (13), 70/93/EEC (14), 70/94/EEC (15), 70/481/EEC (16), 72/270/EEC (17), 72/271/EEC (18), 73/122/EEC (19), 73/123/EEC (20), 73/188/EEC (21), 74/5/EEC (22), 74/358/EEC (23), 74/360/EEC (24), 74/361/EEC (25), 74/362/EEC (26), 74/491/EEC (27), 74/532/EEC (28), 75/287/EEC (29), 75/752/EEC (30), 79/355/EEC (31), 86/153/EEC (32), 89/101/EEC (33), 90/209/EEC (34), 2005/325/EC (35), 2005/871/EC (36), 2005/886/EC (37), 2005/931/EC (38), 2008/462/EC (39), 2009/786/EC (40), 2010/198/EU (41) and 2010/377/EU (42) releasing those Member States wholly or partially from the obligation to apply the provisions of Directives 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 68/193/EEC, 1999/105/EC, 2002/54/EC, 2002/55/EC and 2002/57/EC, to the species and material in question.\n(4)\nAs part of a survey conducted by the Commission in the first semester of 2010 among the Member States concerned, the Commission has asked these Member States to verify to what extent they consider it appropriate to continue to apply the Decisions referred to in recital 3 and whether the applicable conditions continue to be fulfilled. Based on this verification, certain Member States submitted updated applications to the Commission, whereas Belgium, Greece and Luxemburg requested to withdraw the Decisions relating to them altogether. It is therefore necessary to update and, where requested, withdraw the releases granted. Furthermore, in the interest of transparency and simplification, all Decisions referred to in recital 3 should be repealed and replaced by one single act.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Member States set out in Part I of the Annex to this Decision are released from the obligation to apply Directive 66/401/EEC, with the exception of Article 14(1), to the species listed in the first column of the table and corresponding to the indication \u2018X\u2019 in the column of the respective Member States.\n2. The Member States set out in Part II of the Annex to this Decision are released from the obligation to apply Directive 66/402/EEC, with the exception of Article 14(1), to the species listed in the first column of the table and corresponding to the indication \u2018X\u2019 in the column of the respective Member States.\nIn the case of Latvia, the release of this obligation in respect of Zea mays applies also with the exception of Article 19(1) of that Directive.\n3. The Member States set out in Part III of the Annex to this Decision are released from the obligation to apply Directive 68/193/EEC, with the exception of Articles 12 and 12a, to the genus listed in the first column of the table.\n4. The Member States set out in Part IV of the Annex to this Decision are released from the obligation to apply Directive 1999/105/EC, with the exception of Article 17(1), to the species listed in the first column of the table and corresponding to the indication \u2018X\u2019 in the column of the respective Member States.\n5. The Member States set out in Part V of Annex to this Decision are released from the obligation to apply Directive 2002/54/EC, with the exception of Article 20, to the species listed in the first column of the table and corresponding to the indication \u2018X\u2019 in the column of the respective Member States.\n6. The Member States set out in Part VI of the Annex to this Decision are released from the obligation to apply Directive 2002/55/EC, with the exception of Articles 16(1) and 34(1), to the species listed in the first column of the table and corresponding to the indication \u2018X\u2019 in the column of the respective Member States.\n7. The Member States set out in Part VII of the Annex to this Decision are released from the obligation to apply Directive 2002/57/EC, with the exception of Article 17, to the species listed in the first column of the table and corresponding to the indication \u2018X\u2019 in the column of the respective Member States.\nIn the case of Malta, the release from that obligation in respect of sunflower applies also with the exception of Article 9(1) of that Directive.\nArticle 2\nDecisions 69/270/EEC, 69/271/EEC, 69/272/EEC, 70/47/EEC, 70/48/EEC, 70/49/EEC, 70/93/EEC, 70/94/EEC, 70/481/EEC, 72/270/EEC, 72/271/EEC, 73/122/EEC, 73/123/EEC, 73/188/EEC, 74/5/EEC, 74/358/EEC, 74/360/EEC, 74/361/EEC, 74/362/EEC, 74/491/EEC, 74/532/EEC, 75/287/EEC, 75/752/EEC, 79/355/EEC, 86/153/EEC, 89/101/EEC, 90/209/EEC, 2005/325/EC, 2005/871/EC, 2005/886/EC, 2005/931/EC, 2008/462/EC, 2009/786/EC, 2010/198/EU and 2010/377/EU are repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2010.", "references": ["49", "5", "18", "53", "44", "93", "94", "90", "99", "79", "50", "22", "28", "41", "66", "16", "86", "3", "56", "88", "76", "51", "37", "2", "52", "48", "43", "27", "23", "73", "No Label", "8", "25", "65", "68"], "gold": ["8", "25", "65", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 3 June 2010\nappointing three Danish alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/312/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Danish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nThree alternate members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Bent HANSEN, Mr Carl HOLST and Mr Bent LARSEN,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as alternate members for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr Lasse KRULL, Regionsr\u00e5dsmedlem,\n-\nMs Bente LAURIDSEN, Regionsr\u00e5dsmedlem,\n-\nMr Ole B. S\u00d8RENSEN, Regionsr\u00e5dsmedlem.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["4", "38", "94", "19", "68", "91", "81", "86", "23", "39", "65", "83", "13", "67", "45", "82", "16", "61", "84", "3", "93", "89", "6", "55", "14", "79", "71", "56", "54", "98", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/420/CFSP\nof 23 July 2012\namending Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/782/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nIn order to further strengthen the enforcement of the measures set out in Decision 2011/782/CFSP, Member States should inspect all vessels and aircraft bound for Syria in their seaports and airports, and in their territorial sea, with the consent, as necessary in accordance with international law, of the flag State, if the Member State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo of such vessels and aircraft contains arms or equipment, goods or technology which might be used for internal repression and the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited or subject to authorisation under Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\n(3)\nFurthermore, a derogation from the freezing of funds and economic resources should be included in relation to a transfer of funds due in connection with the provision of financial support to Syrian nationals pursuing an education, professional training or engaged in academic research in the Union.\n(4)\nDecision 2011/782/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2011/782/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\"Article 17b\n1. If Member States have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo of vessels and aircraft bound for Syria contains items whose supply, sale, transfer or export is prohibited under Article 1 or subject to authorisation under Article 1a, they shall inspect, in accordance with their national legislation and consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea and relevant international civil aviation agreements and maritime transport agreements, such vessels and aircraft in their seaports and airports, as well as in their territorial sea, in accordance with decisions and capabilities of their competent authorities and with the consent, as necessary in accordance with international law for the territorial sea, of the flag State.\n2. Member States, in accordance with their national legislation and consistent with international law, shall, upon discovery, seize and dispose of items whose supply, sale, transfer or export is prohibited under Article 1 or 1a.\n3. Member States shall cooperate, in accordance with their national legislation, with inspections and disposals undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2.\n4. Aircraft and vessels transporting cargo to Syria shall be subject to the requirement of additional pre-arrival or pre-departure information for all goods brought into or out of a Member State.\".\n(2)\nIn Article 19, the following paragraph is added:\n\"10. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to a transfer, by or through a financial entity listed in Annex I or II, of frozen funds or economic resources where the transfer is related to a payment by a person or entity not listed in Annex I or II in connection with the provision of financial support to Syrian nationals pursuing an education, professional training or engaged in academic research in the Union, provided that the relevant Member State has determined, on a case-by-case basis, that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1.\".\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["54", "33", "28", "37", "93", "40", "88", "53", "35", "86", "10", "85", "71", "7", "34", "15", "63", "49", "1", "45", "16", "67", "25", "42", "55", "31", "52", "8", "19", "27", "No Label", "3", "21", "23", "30", "56", "57", "95"], "gold": ["3", "21", "23", "30", "56", "57", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 356/2012\nof 24 April 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 as regards the periods during which tenders may be submitted in response to the second and subsequent partial invitations to tender for the 2011/2012 marketing year for imports of sugar at a reduced customs duty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/2012 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.\n(2)\nAs the availability of supply on the Union sugar market has improved, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 57/2012 (3) suspended the submission of tenders for the partial invitation to tender ending on 25 January 2012, 1 February 2012 and 15 February 2012.\n(3)\nConstant monitoring of the market revealed that availability of sugar supply in the Union has improved only moderately. Despite the increasing imports in January 2012 the pace of imports from African, Caribbean and Pacific States and Least Developed Countries decreased considerably since mid-February 2012. This analysis was confirmed by a large majority of Member States in the Management Committee of 8 March 2012 who considered that there were still supply problems that would get worse in the course of the marketing year. This could concern especially small and medium Enterprises and customers with fixed quantities in long term contracts.\n(4)\nIt is therefore appropriate to advance the periods of submission of tenders and their ending dates which Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 scheduled for 6 June 2012, 27 June 2012 and 11 July 2012.\n(5)\nRegulation (EU) No 1239/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\"2. The periods during which tenders may be submitted in response to the second and subsequent partial invitations shall begin on the first working day following the end of the preceding period. They shall end at 12 noon, Brussels time, on 2 May 2012, 23 May 2012 and 6 June 2012.\"\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["42", "64", "24", "0", "40", "3", "89", "5", "41", "61", "2", "14", "39", "47", "76", "35", "72", "19", "33", "65", "77", "70", "50", "51", "85", "45", "80", "82", "54", "66", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "71"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 29 April 2011\non the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2010 financial year\n(notified under document C(2011) 2958)\n(2011/272/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 32 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the Commission, on the basis of the annual accounts submitted by the Member States, accompanied by the information required for the clearance of accounts and a certificate regarding the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts and the reports established by the certification bodies, clears the accounts of the paying agencies referred to in Article 6 of the said Regulation.\n(2)\nPursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the keeping of accounts by the paying agencies, declarations of expenditure and revenue and the conditions for reimbursing expenditure under the EAGF and the EAFRD (2), account is taken for the 2010 financial year of expenditure incurred by the Member States between 16 October 2009 and 15 October 2010.\n(3)\nThe first subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (3) lays down that the amounts that are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State, in accordance with the accounts clearance decision referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the said Regulation, shall be determined by deducting the monthly payments in respect of the financial year in question, i.e. 2010, from expenditure recognised for that year in accordance with paragraph 1. The Commission shall deduct that amount from or add it to the monthly payment relating to the expenditure effected in the second month following that in which the accounts clearance decision is taken.\n(4)\nThe Commission has checked the information submitted by the Member States and it has communicated to the Member States before 31 March 2011 the results of its verifications, along with the necessary amendments.\n(5)\nThe annual accounts and the accompanying documents permit the Commission to take, for certain paying agencies, a decision on the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts submitted. Annex I lists the amounts cleared by Member State and the amounts to be recovered from or paid to the Member States.\n(6)\nThe information submitted by certain other paying agencies requires additional inquiries and their accounts cannot be cleared in this Decision. Annex II lists the paying agencies concerned.\n(7)\nUnder Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2006, any overrun of deadlines during August, September and October is to be taken into account in the clearance of accounts decision. Some of the expenditure declared by certain Member States during these months in the year 2010 was effected after the applicable deadlines. This Decision should therefore fix the relevant reductions.\n(8)\nThe Commission, in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2006, has already reduced or suspended a number of monthly payments on entry into the accounts of expenditure for the 2010 financial year. In order to avoid any premature, or temporary, reimbursement of the amounts in question, they should not be recognised in this Decision and they should be further examined under the conformity clearance procedure pursuant to Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(9)\nPursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities shall be borne by the Member State concerned if the recovery of those irregularities has not taken place within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts. Article 32(3) of the said Regulation obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, together with the annual accounts, a summary report on the recovery procedures undertaken in response to irregularities. Detailed rules on the application of the Member States\u2019 reporting obligation of the amounts to be recovered are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. Annex III to the said Regulation provides the table that had to be provided in 2011 by the Member States. On the basis of the tables completed by the Member States, the Commission should decide on the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities older than 4 or 8 years respectively. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(10)\nPursuant to Article 32(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. Such a decision may only be taken if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered or if the recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. If that decision has been taken within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, 100 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery should be borne by the Community budget. In the summary report referred to in Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the amounts for which the Member State decided not to pursue recovery and the grounds for the decision are shown. These amounts are not charged to the Member States concerned and are consequently borne by the Community budget. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of the said Regulation.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from European Union financing expenditure not effected in accordance with European Union rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nWith the exception of the paying agencies referred to in Article 2, the accounts of the paying agencies of the Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) in respect of the 2010 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from; or payable to; each Member State pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 2\nFor the 2010 financial year, the accounts of the Member States\u2019 paying agencies in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGF, set out in Annex II, are disjoined from this Decision and shall be the subject of a future clearance of accounts decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 April 2011.", "references": ["90", "87", "7", "0", "39", "53", "77", "79", "66", "70", "97", "57", "17", "84", "4", "20", "68", "69", "81", "36", "40", "16", "22", "33", "23", "65", "91", "32", "63", "37", "No Label", "10", "47", "61"], "gold": ["10", "47", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1028/2011\nof 13 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for alfonsinos in EU and international waters of III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2011 and 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 October 2011.", "references": ["66", "52", "51", "65", "21", "33", "74", "30", "37", "76", "11", "23", "73", "48", "84", "8", "3", "18", "75", "81", "87", "79", "2", "32", "45", "5", "43", "34", "9", "15", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 831/2012\nof 14 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for Hake in EU waters of IIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 September 2012.", "references": ["64", "74", "98", "79", "55", "7", "83", "72", "35", "4", "1", "26", "20", "78", "2", "80", "87", "60", "86", "16", "39", "70", "50", "22", "37", "85", "66", "95", "48", "3", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 811/2010\nof 15 September 2010\nmaking imports of wireless wide area networking (WWAN) modems originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China subject to registration in application of Article 24(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Articles 16(4) and 24(5) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has received a request, pursuant to Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation, to make imports of wireless wide area networking (WWAN) modems originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China subject to registration.\nA. PRODUCT CONCERNED\n(2)\nThe product concerned by this registration is wireless wide area networking (WWAN) modems with a radio antenna and providing Internet Protocol (IP) data connectivity for computing devices and including Wi-Fi routers comprising a WWAN modem (WWAN/Wi-Fi routers), originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the product concerned\u2019), currently falling within CN codes ex 8471 80 00 and ex 8517 62 00.\nB. REQUEST\n(3)\nHaving received a complaint from Option NV (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019), the Commission determined that there is sufficient evidence to justify initiation of a proceeding and therefore, pursuant to Article 10 of the basic Regulation, announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (the \u2018Notice of Initiation\u2019) the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of wireless wide area networking (WWAN) modems originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n(4)\nConcerning standing to lodge a complaint, the applicant is the sole producer of the product concerned in the European Union, representing 100 % of the total Union production.\n(5)\nAs regards the existence of alleged countervailable subsidisation, the complainant has provided the European Commission with evidence of specific subsidy programmes regarding preferential loans, income tax preferential rates, benefits from establishment in free trade zones, indirect tax and import tariff programmes, grant programmes, preferential rate for government provision of goods and services and preferential policies at the level of local government.\n(6)\nThe applicant also requests that imports of the product concerned are made subject to registration pursuant to Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports from the date of such registration.\nC. GROUNDS FOR THE REGISTRATION\n(7)\nAccording to Article 12(1) of the basic Regulation, provisional measures may not be imposed earlier than 60 days from initiation. However, according to Article 16(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive countervailing duty may be levied on products which were entered for consumption not more than 90 days prior to the date of application of provisional measures, provided that the conditions set out in that paragraph are fulfilled, and imports have been registered in accordance with Article 24(5). According to Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission may, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, direct the customs authorities to take the appropriate steps to register imports, so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports from the date of such registration. Imports may be made subject to registration following a request from the Union industry which contains sufficient evidence to justify such action.\n(8)\nThe request contains sufficient evidence to justify registration.\n(9)\nThe alleged subsidies consist, inter alia, of income tax programmes (e.g. income tax exemptions or reductions under the two free/three half programme, income tax reductions for high or new technology industries, income tax credits for domestically owned companies purchasing domestically produced equipment), indirect tax and import tariff programmes (e.g. value-added tax (\u2018VAT\u2019) and tariff exemptions on imported equipment), preferential lending schemes (e.g. policy loans including export financing from State-owned commercial banks and government policy banks), grant programmes (e.g. the Development Fund for the Electronics and Information Industry (\u2018IT Fund\u2019), the state key technologies renovation project fund, famous brands awards), government provision of goods and services for less than adequate numeration (e.g. provision of land use rights) as well as of local government preferential policies, including benefits in special zones and industrial parks (e.g. preferential policies in Shenzhen, Shanghai, Beijing, Xian).\n(10)\nIt is alleged that the above schemes are subsidies since they involve a financial contribution from the Government of the People\u2019s Republic of China or other regional Governments (including public bodies) and confer a benefit to the recipients, i.e. to the exporting producers of the product under investigation. They are alleged to be contingent upon export performance and/or upon the use of domestic over imported goods and/or limited to certain enterprises or groups of enterprises and/or products and/or regions, and therefore specific and countervailable.\n(11)\nThe request provides sufficient evidence of critical circumstances where for the subsidised product in question injury which is difficult to repair is caused by massive imports benefiting from countervailable subsidies in a relatively short period of time. Evidence of such circumstances include the rapid nature of the deterioration of the situation of the Union industry, the fact that a single producer exists in the Union and the significant amount of R & D expenses that must be undertaken to generate the product concerned. Against this background, the complainant has provided evidence that imports of the product under investigation from the country concerned have increased significantly overall in absolute terms and in terms of market share. As regards the injury caused by these massive imports, the evidence provided by the complainant shows that the volume and the prices of the imported product under investigation have, among other consequences, had a negative impact on the quantities sold, the level of the prices charged and the market share held by the Union industry, resulting in substantial adverse effects on the overall performance, the financial situation and the employment situation of the Union industry. It follows that the Commission has at its disposal sufficient evidence that, in order to preclude the recurrence of such injury, it may be necessary to assess countervailing duties retroactively.\n(12)\nAccordingly, the conditions for registration in this case are met.\nD. PROCEDURE\n(13)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission has concluded that the applicant\u2019s request contains sufficient evidence to make imports of the product concerned subject to registration, in accordance with Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(14)\nAll interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\nE. REGISTRATION\n(15)\nPursuant to Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product concerned (2) should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings leading to the imposition of countervailing duties, those duties, can, if the necessary conditions are fulfilled, be levied retroactively in accordance with applicable legal provisions.\n(16)\nAny future liability would emanate from the findings of the anti-subsidy investigation. It is not possible to give an estimated amount of possible future liability since this will depend on the amount of countervailable subsidies found to exist and the manner in which they would need to be allocated to the product under investigation.\nF. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\n(17)\nAny personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 24(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union of wireless wide area networking (WWAN) modems with a radio antenna and providing Internet Protocol (IP) data connectivity for computing devices and including Wi-Fi routers comprising a WWAN modem (WWAN/Wi-Fi routers) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 8471 80 00 and ex 8517 62 00 (TARIC codes 8471800010, 8517620011 and 8517620091). Registration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation\n2. All interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing, to provide supporting evidence or to request to be heard within 20 days from the date of publication of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThe Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 September 2010.", "references": ["17", "13", "66", "92", "24", "52", "64", "45", "78", "37", "28", "85", "98", "54", "80", "69", "97", "35", "68", "84", "32", "72", "57", "49", "39", "74", "99", "73", "6", "25", "No Label", "4", "20", "21", "22", "23", "40", "48", "95", "96"], "gold": ["4", "20", "21", "22", "23", "40", "48", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1254/2010\nof 22 December 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 January 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 January 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 January 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2010.", "references": ["45", "82", "84", "52", "55", "98", "76", "60", "79", "43", "35", "8", "99", "72", "14", "59", "15", "11", "69", "54", "20", "80", "56", "30", "88", "58", "25", "87", "77", "83", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 424/2010\nof 17 May 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 419/2010 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 May 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 May 2010 were fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 419/2010 (3).\n(2)\nAs the average of the import duties calculated differs by more than EUR 5/tonne from that fixed, a corresponding adjustment must be made to the import duties fixed by Regulation (EU) No 419/2010.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 419/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 419/2010 are hereby replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 18 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 May 2010.", "references": ["66", "87", "38", "16", "91", "13", "85", "88", "6", "73", "9", "4", "1", "94", "33", "76", "8", "60", "43", "42", "97", "20", "72", "95", "59", "84", "62", "30", "71", "14", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 919/2011\nof 13 September 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for roundnose grenadier in EU and international waters of VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of a Member State of the European Union\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2011 and 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member States referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member States referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member States referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2011.", "references": ["98", "78", "70", "82", "75", "60", "68", "8", "80", "0", "43", "41", "88", "37", "18", "94", "25", "6", "55", "54", "23", "38", "61", "57", "74", "21", "83", "39", "9", "87", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "96"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 March 2011\nconcerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community on cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation safety\n(2011/719/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 207(4) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a), 218(7), the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) and Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated on behalf of the Union an Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community on cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation safety (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019), in accordance with the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations.\n(2)\nThe Agreement was signed on 30 June 2008 on behalf of the Union subject to its possible conclusion at a later date.\n(3)\nFollowing the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be approved.\n(5)\nIt is necessary to lay down procedural arrangements for the participation of the Union in the joint bodies established by the Agreement, as well as for the adoption of certain decisions concerning in particular the amendment of the Agreement and its Annexes, the addition of new annexes, the termination of individual annexes, consultations and dispute resolution and the adoption of safeguard measures.\n(6)\nMember States should take the necessary measures in order to ensure that their bilateral agreements with the United States on the same subject are either amended or terminated, as appropriate, as of the date of entry into force of the Agreement,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community on cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation safety is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\n2. The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is authorised to designate the person empowered to make the notification provided for in Article 19.A of the Agreement and to make the following notification:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d in the text of the Agreement are, where appropriate, to be read as \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019\nArticle 3\n1. The Union shall be represented in the Bilateral Oversight Board established under Article 3 of the Agreement by the European Commission assisted by the European Aviation Safety Agency and accompanied by the Aviation Authorities as representatives of the Member States.\n2. The Union shall be represented in the Certification Oversight Board provided for in paragraph 2.1.1 of Annex 1 to the Agreement and in the Joint Maintenance Coordination Board provided for in paragraph 3.1.1 of Annex 2 to the Agreement by the European Aviation Safety Agency assisted by the Aviation Authorities directly affected by the agenda of each meeting.\nArticle 4\n1. The Commission, after consulting the special committee appointed by the Council, shall determine the position to be taken by the Union in the Bilateral Oversight Board with respect to the following matters:\n(a)\nthe adoption or amendment of the internal governing procedures of the Bilateral Oversight Board provided for in Article 3.B of the Agreement;\n(b)\nany amendments to the Annexes to the Agreement made in accordance with Article 19.B of the Agreement that are consistent with, and do not entail any modification of, relevant Union legal acts.\n2. The Commission, after consulting the special committee referred to in paragraph 1, may take the following action:\n(a)\nadopt safeguard measures in accordance with Article 15.B of the Agreement;\n(b)\nrequest consultations in accordance with Article 17.A of the Agreement;\n(c)\nsuspend the acceptance of findings and rescind such suspension in accordance with Article 18 of the Agreement.\n3. The Council, acting by qualified majority, on a proposal from the Commission, shall establish the position to be taken by the Union in the Bilateral Oversight Board, with respect to the adoption of additional Annexes in accordance with Article 3.C.7 and Article 19.C of the Agreement.\n4. The Council, acting by qualified majority, on a proposal from the Commission, and in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, shall decide with respect to any other amendments to the Agreement not falling within the scope of paragraphs 1 and 3, including the termination of individual Annexes in accordance with Article 19.E of the Agreement.\nArticle 5\nMember States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that their bilateral agreements with the United States, listed in Attachment 1 to the Agreement, are amended or terminated, as appropriate, upon entry into force of the Agreement.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["21", "94", "14", "72", "70", "59", "54", "27", "3", "44", "52", "83", "2", "55", "25", "64", "24", "47", "68", "32", "75", "11", "87", "63", "66", "10", "34", "92", "40", "33", "No Label", "4", "9", "53", "57", "76", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "9", "53", "57", "76", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2012/7/EU\nof 2 March 2012\namending, for the purpose of adaptation to technical progress, part III of Annex II to Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to toy safety\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys (1), and in particular Article 46.1 (b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2009/48 sets limit values for cadmium, based on the recommendations of the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) made in the 2008 report entitled \"Chemicals in Toys. A general methodology for assessment of chemical safety of toys with a focus on elements\". The RIVM recommendations are based on the assumption that exposure of children to chemicals in toys may not exceed a certain level, called \u201ctolerable daily intake\u201d. Since children are exposed to chemicals via other sources than toys, only a percentage of the tolerable daily intake should be allocated to toys. The Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) recommended in its 2004 report that a maximum of 10 % of the tolerable daily intake may be allocated to toys. However, for cadmium and other chemical substances which are particularly toxic, the recommended allocation should not exceed 5 % of the tolerable daily intake, in order to ensure that only traces that are compatible with good manufacturing practice will be present\n(2)\nAccording to the RIVM recommendations, the maximum percentage of the tolerable daily intake should be multiplied by the weight of a child, estimated at 7.5 kg, and divided by the quantity of toy material ingested, in order to obtain the limit values for the chemical substances listed in Directive 2009/48/EC.\n(3)\nFor cadmium, RIVM used the tolerable weekly intake of 7 \u03bcg/kg established by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and the World Health Organisation Experts committee on food additives (JEFCA) in 1989 and confirmed by JECFA in 2001. A safety factor of two was applied, resulting in a tolerable weekly intake of 3.5 \u03bcg/kg and a tolerable daily intake of 0.5 \u03bcg/kg.\n(4)\nIn order to define possible exposure scenarios to chemical substances, the quantity of toy material ingested was estimated by the RIVM at 8 mg per day for scraped-off toy material, 100 mg for brittle toy material and 400 mg for liquid or sticky toy material. Those ingestion limits were supported by the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) in its opinion entitled \"Risks from organic CMR substances in toys\" adopted on the 18 May 2010.\n(5)\nBy applying 5 % of the tolerable daily intake, multiplied by the weight of the child and divided by the quantity of toy material ingested, the following limit values for cadmium were established: 23 mg/kg for scrapped-off material, 1.9 mg/kg for dry material and 0.5 mg/kg for liquid material.\n(6)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded in its opinion of 30 January 2009 that the tolerable weekly intake established by JEFCA in 1989 and confirmed by JECFA in 2001 was no longer appropriate in view of the new developments related to the toxicology of cadmium. The EFSA established a new tolerable weekly intake of 2.5 \u03bcg/kg, resulting in a tolerable daily intake of 0.36 \u03bcg/kg.\n(7)\nApplying 5 % of the new tolerable daily intake, multiplied by the weight of the child and divided by the quantity of toy material ingested results in the following limits for cadmium: 17 mg/kg for scrapped-off material, 1.3 mg/kg for dry material and 0.3 mg/kg for liquid material.\n(8)\nDirective 2009/48/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Toy Safety Committee.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nPart III of Annex II to Directive 2009/48/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 20 January 2013 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions\nThey shall apply those provisions from 20 July 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2012.", "references": ["73", "17", "10", "49", "21", "47", "1", "69", "45", "4", "93", "3", "2", "74", "19", "20", "55", "41", "50", "78", "58", "8", "0", "14", "46", "34", "66", "64", "87", "12", "No Label", "24", "38", "60", "76", "84", "90"], "gold": ["24", "38", "60", "76", "84", "90"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/27/EU\nof 4 March 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include oryzalin as active substance and amending Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included oryzalin.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of oryzalin.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to France, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nFrance evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 17 August 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on oryzalin to the Commission on 6 August 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for oryzalin.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing oryzalin may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include oryzalin in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is necessary that the specification of the technical material, as commercially manufactured, be confirmed by appropriate analytical data, including information on the relevance of the impurities, which for confidentiality reasons are referred to as impurities 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12. The relevance of the test material used in the toxicity dossiers should be confirmed in view of the specification of the technical material and information confirming the risk assessment for aquatic organisms should be requested. Provided that oryzalin becomes classified under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) as \u2018suspected of causing cancer\u2019, the Member States concerned shall request the submission of further information confirming the relevance of the metabolites OR13 (8) and OR15 (9), and the corresponding groundwater risk assessment.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing oryzalin to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (10) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of oryzalin and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning oryzalin in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning oryzalin in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing oryzalin as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to oryzalin are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing oryzalin as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning oryzalin. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing oryzalin as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing oryzalin as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 March 2011.", "references": ["54", "1", "23", "63", "28", "0", "78", "21", "7", "20", "27", "79", "44", "84", "55", "46", "68", "96", "17", "47", "82", "66", "42", "95", "71", "14", "57", "75", "18", "22", "No Label", "2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1063/2011\nof 21 October 2011\nimplementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 July 2011, the Council adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 (2) implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001, by establishing an updated list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies.\n(2)\nThe Council has determined that the persons listed in Annex I to this Regulation have been involved in terrorist acts within the meaning of Articles 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 be subject to the specific restrictive measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001.\n(3)\nThe Council has concluded that there are no longer grounds for keeping the person listed in Annex II to this Regulation on the list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies.\n(4)\nThe list of the persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies should be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The persons listed in Annex I to this Regulation shall be added to the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001.\n2. The person listed in Annex II to this Regulation shall be removed from the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2011.", "references": ["93", "65", "12", "25", "22", "18", "9", "76", "33", "6", "21", "96", "94", "66", "40", "30", "99", "84", "15", "80", "11", "44", "70", "23", "31", "74", "34", "26", "20", "62", "No Label", "1", "2", "3"], "gold": ["1", "2", "3"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 682/2012\nof 24 July 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Vadehavslam (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Denmark's application to register the name \u2027Vadehavslam\u2027 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["64", "30", "53", "21", "41", "61", "93", "36", "2", "54", "1", "72", "52", "79", "71", "5", "4", "84", "27", "88", "35", "74", "66", "46", "31", "87", "28", "62", "49", "17", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 701/2011\nof 20 July 2011\ncorrecting Regulation (EU) No 1004/2010 operating deductions from certain quotas for 2010 on account of overfishing in the previous year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Article 105(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1004/2010 (2): two lines should be corrected, because landings made by Estonia vessels in Spain and Denmark were misreported.\n(2)\nRegulation (EU) No 1004/2010 should therefore be corrected accordingly.\n(3)\nIt is necessary for those corrections to take effect from the date of entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 1004/2010 in so far as they are advantageous to individuals concerned.\n(4)\nThe corrections should take effect from the date of entry into force of this Regulation in so far as they impose burdens on the individuals concerned,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe table in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1004/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe seventh line is replaced by the following:\n\u2018EST\nRED\nN3M\nRedfish\nOPANO 3M\ny\n1 540,00\n0,0\n1 540,00\n0,0\n1 642,76\n1 642,76\n106,7 %\n- 102,7\n1 571,00\n1 468\u2019\n(2)\nthe eight line:\n\u2018EST\nSPR\n03A.\nSprat\nIIIa\ny\n0,00\n0,0\n0,00\n0,0\n0,00\n0,00\n0,0 %\n0,00\n0,00\n- 150,00\n150\u2019\nis deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["45", "59", "86", "23", "89", "77", "75", "63", "30", "48", "57", "29", "43", "11", "94", "6", "33", "52", "95", "50", "72", "22", "41", "4", "71", "9", "70", "38", "80", "83", "No Label", "13", "67", "96"], "gold": ["13", "67", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 671/2011\nof 12 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["27", "19", "1", "61", "49", "98", "94", "34", "91", "29", "2", "51", "5", "0", "14", "66", "92", "73", "97", "38", "13", "48", "76", "9", "77", "16", "96", "42", "57", "75", "No Label", "22", "35", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 463/2010\nof 27 May 2010\nopening an invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on maize imported into Portugal from third countries, for the quota year 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the Community's international obligations within the framework of the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (2), the Community undertook to import a certain quantity of maize into Portugal.\n(2)\nChapter II of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 of 18 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of tariff quotas for imports of maize and sorghum into Spain and imports of maize into Portugal (3) laid down the specific detailed rules necessary for applying a reduction to the import duties to ensure that the quantities provided for in Article 1(1) and (2) of that Regulation are actually imported.\n(3)\nIn view of the market conditions in Portugal for the year 2010, an invitation to tender for the reduction in the import duty on maize should be opened to ensure the import quota is completely used.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 677/2009 (4) opened an invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on maize imported into Portugal from third countries up until 17 December 2009. This invitation was extended until 27 May 2010 by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1292/2009 (5). Regulation (EC) No 677/2009 should therefore be repealed.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A tendering procedure is opened for the reduction in the duty referred to in Article 136 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on maize to be imported into Portugal.\n2. The provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThe invitation shall remain open until 16 December 2010. During that period partial invitations to tender shall be issued and the dates for submission of tenders shall be laid down in the notice of invitation to tender.\nArticle 3\nImport licences issued in the context of this invitation to tender shall be valid for 50 days from the date of issue within the meaning of Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008.\nArticle 4\nRegulation (EC) No 677/2009 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 June 2010.\nIt shall expire on 16 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2010.", "references": ["26", "90", "84", "19", "41", "56", "17", "58", "72", "86", "25", "54", "80", "83", "45", "32", "40", "43", "88", "61", "5", "8", "55", "64", "85", "10", "98", "49", "76", "79", "No Label", "4", "20", "21", "22", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "20", "21", "22", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 212/2011\nof 3 March 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M as a feed additive for laying hens (holder of authorisation Lallemand SAS)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of a new use of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M as a feed additive for laying hens, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M was authorised without a time limit for chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1200/2005 (2), without a time limit for pigs for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2036/2005 (3) and for 10 years for salmonids and shrimps by Commission Regulation (EC) No 911/2009 (4) and for weaned piglets by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1120/2010 (5).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for the authorisation of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M for laying hens. The European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 5 October 2010 (6) that Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M, under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use significantly increased the laying intensity of the target species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018gut flora stabilisers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 March 2011.", "references": ["94", "59", "6", "60", "32", "57", "62", "0", "70", "91", "46", "13", "29", "75", "43", "87", "7", "55", "42", "68", "12", "83", "8", "63", "92", "90", "80", "18", "77", "14", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1145/2011\nof 10 November 2011\nfixing the maximum amount of aid granted for the private storage of olive oil under the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1023/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(d), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1023/2011 of 14 October 2011 opening the tendering procedure for aid for private storage of olive oil (2) provides for two tendering sub-periods.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 13(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 of 20 August 2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products (3), on the basis of tenders notified by the Member States, the Commission either fixes a maximum amount of the aid or does not fix a maximum amount of the aid.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders submitted in response to the second partial invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum amount of the aid for private storage of olive oil for the tendering sub-period ending on 8 November 2011.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the tendering sub-period ending on 8 November 2011 within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1023/2011, the maximum amount of aid for olive oil shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2011.", "references": ["69", "1", "85", "25", "76", "53", "29", "30", "99", "97", "49", "91", "86", "17", "8", "28", "4", "95", "96", "74", "44", "40", "77", "27", "90", "87", "5", "67", "66", "0", "No Label", "15", "20", "26", "62", "70"], "gold": ["15", "20", "26", "62", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 21/2012\nof 11 January 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Vulture (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Vulture\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 January 2012.", "references": ["98", "1", "93", "95", "83", "15", "59", "82", "41", "68", "86", "76", "29", "48", "81", "60", "51", "21", "35", "58", "61", "56", "52", "20", "53", "64", "50", "73", "99", "16", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 October 2011\namending Decision 98/536/EC establishing the list of national reference laboratories for the detection of residues\n(notified under document C(2011) 7610)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/717/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 14(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 96/23/EC lays down measures to monitor the substances and groups of residues listed in Annex I thereto. It provides that each Member State is to designate at least one national reference laboratory, which is to be responsible for certain tasks laid down in that Directive. Directive 96/23/EC also provides that a list of such designated laboratories is to be drawn up by the Commission.\n(2)\nThe list of national reference laboratories for the detection of residues is currently set out in the Annex to Commission Decision 98/536/EC (2).\n(3)\nCertain Member States have designated additional national reference laboratories or have replaced the designated laboratories with other laboratories. In addition, the contact coordinates and the groups of residues monitored by certain laboratories currently listed in the Annex to Decision 98/536/EC have changed. In the interest of clarity and consistency of Union law, it is therefore appropriate to update the list of national reference laboratories set out in the Annex to that Decision.\n(4)\nDecision 98/536/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 98/536/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["95", "22", "94", "43", "37", "96", "45", "58", "8", "3", "73", "91", "87", "5", "20", "81", "10", "98", "6", "54", "88", "79", "83", "90", "48", "68", "46", "23", "25", "57", "No Label", "38", "60", "77"], "gold": ["38", "60", "77"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/333/CFSP\nof 25 June 2012\nupdating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Decision 2011/872/CFSP\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 December 2001, the Council adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nOn 22 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/872/CFSP updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (2).\n(3)\nIn 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 2011/872/CFSP applies.\n(4)\nThis 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.\n(5)\nThe 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.\n(6)\nThe 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 2011/872/CFSP should be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply shall be that set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2011/872/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["17", "96", "81", "13", "53", "36", "61", "83", "47", "31", "33", "37", "84", "99", "23", "41", "64", "25", "63", "67", "56", "8", "76", "0", "51", "54", "68", "80", "38", "87", "No Label", "1", "3"], "gold": ["1", "3"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 747/2012\nof 16 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2012.", "references": ["72", "80", "58", "95", "33", "5", "15", "19", "53", "57", "32", "70", "23", "73", "98", "39", "78", "77", "31", "87", "16", "9", "17", "93", "41", "0", "88", "82", "38", "8", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 104/2012\nof 7 February 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 February 2012.", "references": ["10", "66", "48", "67", "31", "35", "16", "72", "30", "32", "73", "53", "13", "2", "95", "38", "98", "36", "81", "14", "3", "89", "83", "9", "52", "44", "60", "74", "43", "58", "No Label", "21", "55", "85"], "gold": ["21", "55", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 13 July 2010\nrepealing Decision 2006/109/EC accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain castings originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\n(2010/389/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1212/2005 (2), imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports into the Union of certain castings originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the product concerned\u2019). This Regulation was last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 500/2009 (3).\n(2)\nThe Commission, by Decision 2006/109/EC (4) accepted a joint price undertaking (\u2018the undertaking\u2019) from the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronics Products (\u2018CCCME\u2019) together with 20 cooperating Chinese companies or cooperating groups of companies (\u2018the companies\u2019). This Decision was last amended by Commission Decision 2010/177/EU (5).\n(3)\nIn the framework of the undertaking, the companies agreed, inter alia, not to sell the product concerned to the first independent customer in the European Union (\u2018EU\u2019) below a certain minimum import price (\u2018MIP\u2019) laid down in the undertaking.\n(4)\nThe companies also agreed not to circumvent the undertaking by, inter alia, making compensatory arrangements with their customers and by making misleading declarations regarding the origin of the product concerned or the identity of the exporter.\n(5)\nThe terms of the undertaking also oblige the companies to provide the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) with regular and detailed information, in the form of a quarterly report of all their export sales of the product concerned to the EU. Unless otherwise indicated, it is assumed that the data submitted in these sales reports are complete, exhaustive and correct in all particulars and that the transactions fully comply with the terms of the undertaking.\n(6)\nFor the purpose of ensuring compliance with the undertaking, the companies also undertook to allow on-spot verification visits at their premises in order to verify the accuracy and veracity of data submitted in the said quarterly reports and to provide all information considered necessary by the Commission.\n(7)\nFurthermore, and as further stipulated in the undertaking, the acceptance of the undertaking by the Commission is based on trust and any action which would harm the relationship of trust established with the Commission shall justify the immediate withdrawal of the undertaking.\n(8)\nIn addition, Decision 2006/109/EC stipulates that a breach by any of the companies or the CCCME shall be considered as a breach of the undertaking by all signatories. The undertaking further stipulates that any breach or suspected breach of any provision of the undertaking shall lead to acceptance of the undertaking being withdrawn for all companies, regardless of the level of materiality of the breach.\n(9)\nA verification visit was carried out in 2010 at the premises of one of the co-signatories of the undertaking, Hebei Jize Xian Ma Gang Cast Factory (\u2018Ma Gang\u2019) in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n(10)\nDuring the verification visit Ma Gang declared neither to be related to any other producer of the product concerned nor to sell the product concerned from any other producer under the terms of the undertaking.\n(11)\nSubsequent to the verification visit and in cooperation with the Italian customs authorities, the Commission\u2019s services received information showing clearly that Ma Gang\u2019s has been circumventing the terms of the undertaking in several ways since the acceptance of the undertaking.\n(12)\nIt was found that Ma Gang set up a compensatory arrangement with at least one customer in the EU whereby an official invoice price at or above the MIP and a \u2018real\u2019 sales price below the MIP were agreed and the difference was re-transferred to the customer in the EU as \u2018refund\u2019.\n(13)\nSeveral e-mail exchanges from 2007 and 2008 between Ma Gang and a customer in the EU detail the compensatory arrangement, including calculation of the amount to be refunded and means to avoid traceability in the accounts of Ma Gang. Furthermore, a note of 2008 refers to the refund relating to two specific invoices (A714/TPL07002 and A714/TPL070921).\n(14)\nIn was also found that Ma Gang offered to compensate the invoice price for product concerned by artificially lowering the sales price of a product not covered by anti-dumping measures.\n(15)\nThere is evidence that Ma Gang provided misleading information during the verification visit in several regards.\n(16)\nFirstly, it was found that there is a relationship between Ma Gang and another Chinese producer of the product concerned (\u2018other company\u2019) since in a number of e-mails reference is made to the fact that the owner of Ma Gang is the father of the owner of the other company. In addition, a high ranking manager of Ma Gang was at least until the end of 2008 working for the other company since the correspondence between the customer in the EU and Ma Gang was frequently made under the e-mail address and the fax number of the other company.\n(17)\nSecondly, there is evidence that Ma Gang breached its undertaking obligations by selling the product concerned produced by the other company under the terms of the undertaking, therefore making misleading declarations regarding the identity of the exporter. This practice allowed at least one customer in the EU to avoid payment of the residual anti-dumping duty rate of 47,8 % applicable to the other company.\n(18)\nMoreover, in 2006, Ma Gang has offered via an e-mail to tranship the product concerned via Korea. A contract issued by a company in Korea was attached to the offer.\n(19)\nFrom the facts set out in recitals 12 to 18 it is concluded that Ma Gang breached the undertaking in several regards.\n(20)\nMa Gang continuously breached the MIP by means of a compensatory arrangement with at least one customer in the EU. Ma Gang has also made misleading declarations regarding the identity of the exporter by issuing undertaking invoices for sales of the product concerned produced by the other company not subject to the undertaking. Furthermore, Ma Gang has offered to issue misleading declarations regarding the origin of the product concerned. Moreover, giving incorrect information during the verification visit in January 2010 is considered as another breach of the undertaking.\n(21)\nFinally, the continuous and numerous breaches of the undertaking harmed the relationship of trust which formed the basis for the acceptance of the undertaking.\n(22)\nThe company and CCCME were informed in writing of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the acceptance of the joint undertaking should be withdrawn and the definitive anti-dumping duties should apply.\n(23)\nWritten submissions were made by CCCME within the time limits and a hearing was also requested and granted.\n(24)\nMa Gang confirmed that a high ranking manager indeed violated the obligations of the undertaking as described above, but pointed out that this person acted without the knowledge of Ma Gang and was dismissed immediately. Ma Gang has also confirmed that they were related to the other company (the owners were father and son), albeit they operated independently. Finally, Ma Gang confirmed that they offered to tranship the product concerned via Korea but that this transhipment has never actually taken place.\n(25)\nCCCME did not contest that one co-signatory breached the undertaking. However, it submitted that a withdrawal for all co-signatories could be regarded as undue punishment for all other companies strictly abiding by the terms of the undertaking since its entry into force in 2006, in particular since numerous verification visits and intense monitoring activities had not brought to light any major implementation problem. CCCME also stressed that it had continuously worked on improving the implementation together with the companies concerned and that the indexed MIP had provided for an effective anti-dumping measure.\n(26)\nMoreover, CCCME submitted a draft agreement signed shortly after disclosure of the findings between CCCME and the all co-signatories except Ma Gang, in order to strengthen the monitoring responsibilities of CCCME even further, notably strengthening CCCME\u2019s rights vis-\u00e0-vis every co-signatory.\n(27)\nIn response to these submissions it should be stressed that the joint liability which was accepted by all co-signatories of the undertaking was an indispensable condition for the acceptance of the undertaking by the Commission. Therefore, and in view of the serious and continued breaches of the undertaking, the Commission has a duty to withdraw its acceptance immediately.\n(28)\nIn view of the above, the acceptance of the undertaking should be withdrawn and Decision 2006/109/EC should be repealed. Accordingly, the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1212/2005 on imports of the product concerned produced by the companies should apply,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2006/109/EC is hereby repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2010.", "references": ["59", "13", "85", "8", "19", "3", "79", "28", "25", "2", "0", "56", "11", "78", "44", "76", "37", "66", "17", "69", "16", "70", "62", "83", "60", "75", "30", "36", "67", "21", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 21 December 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of a novel chewing gum base as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 9680)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(2011/882/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 10 October 2007 the company Revolymer Ltd made a request to the competent authorities of the Netherlands to place a novel chewing gum base on the market as a novel food ingredient.\n(2)\nOn 23 April 2009 the competent food assessment body of the Netherlands issued its initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that the novel chewing gum base can safely be used as a food ingredient.\n(3)\nThe Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to all Member States on 30 April 2009.\n(4)\nWithin the 60-day period laid down in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 reasoned objections to the marketing of the product were raised in accordance with that provision.\n(5)\nTherefore the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was consulted on 2 July 2010.\n(6)\nOn 25 March 2011, EFSA in the \u2018Scientific Opinion on the safety of a \u201cnovel chewing gum base (REV-7)\u201d as a novel food ingredient\u2019 (2) came to the conclusion that the novel chewing gum base was safe at the proposed conditions of use and the proposed levels of intake.\n(7)\nThe novel chewing gum base complies with the criteria laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe novel chewing gum base as specified in the Annex may be placed on the market in the Union as a novel food ingredient for the use in chewing gums up to a maximum of 8 %.\nArticle 2\nThe designation of the novel chewing gum base authorised by this Decision on the labelling of the foodstuff containing it shall be \u2018gum base (1,3-butadiene, 2-methyl-homopolymer, maleated, esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether)\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Revolymer Ltd, 1 Newtech Square, Deeside Industrial Park, Deeside, Flintshire CH5 2NT, United Kingdom.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["17", "24", "0", "1", "79", "4", "66", "85", "21", "86", "54", "23", "97", "7", "11", "45", "91", "90", "65", "26", "87", "52", "3", "31", "18", "35", "37", "47", "12", "96", "No Label", "25", "38", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 576/2012\nof 28 June 2012\non the allocation of import rights for applications lodged for the period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 431/2008 for frozen meat of bovine animals\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 431/2008 of 19 May 2008 opening and providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for frozen meat of bovine animals covered by CN code 0202 and products covered by CN code 0206 29 91 (3) opens an import tariff quota for beef and veal products.\n(2)\nThe applications for import rights lodged for the period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import rights may be allocated should therefore be determined and an allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import right applications covered by the quota with the serial number 09.4003 have been lodged for the period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 under Regulation (EC) No 431/2008 shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 30,632325 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 June 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2012.", "references": ["91", "18", "41", "52", "32", "49", "73", "53", "55", "76", "46", "31", "25", "38", "95", "11", "10", "77", "17", "26", "27", "89", "81", "42", "83", "68", "19", "67", "13", "50", "No Label", "21", "22", "69", "72"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1130/2010\nof 30 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for Greenland halibut in EU waters of IIa and IV; EU and international waters of Vb and VI by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["33", "84", "85", "51", "14", "35", "78", "7", "75", "83", "34", "61", "62", "49", "40", "4", "19", "9", "21", "29", "32", "27", "39", "10", "69", "31", "63", "0", "73", "98", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 8 November 2010\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Slovakia\n(2010/682/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2), in particular Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1, of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(5)\nSlovakia has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on dactyloscopic data exchange.\n(6)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by Slovakia with Austria.\n(7)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in Slovakia and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the Austrian/German evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(8)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning dactyloscopic data exchange has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching of dactyloscopic data, Slovakia has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Article 9 of that Decision as from the date of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["61", "80", "74", "83", "54", "33", "75", "86", "87", "60", "20", "3", "25", "58", "66", "65", "79", "18", "27", "56", "55", "68", "0", "84", "82", "63", "51", "62", "48", "88", "No Label", "4", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 348/2011\nof 8 April 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 11a(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 April 2005, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\n(2)\nIn view of the developments in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 April 2011.", "references": ["37", "50", "0", "48", "84", "53", "16", "67", "82", "83", "35", "66", "57", "97", "70", "31", "62", "46", "26", "63", "17", "24", "69", "75", "22", "71", "7", "93", "33", "20", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "79", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "79", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 571/2010\nof 29 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2010.", "references": ["14", "43", "85", "54", "16", "20", "44", "22", "84", "7", "83", "94", "47", "88", "89", "0", "34", "65", "75", "81", "60", "97", "41", "78", "45", "90", "50", "42", "19", "37", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 December 2011\nappointing a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank\n(2011/897/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 283(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 11.2 thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation of the Council of the European Union (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter dated 10 November 2011, the President of the European Central Bank, Mr Mario DRAGHI announced the decision of Mr Lorenzo BINI SMAGHI to resign from his position on the Executive Board with effect from the end of 31 December 2011. It is therefore necessary to appoint a new member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank.\n(2)\nThe European Council wishes to appoint Mr Beno\u00eet COEUR\u00c9 who, in its view, fulfils all the requirements set out in Article 283(2) of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Beno\u00eet COEUR\u00c9 is hereby appointed a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank for a term of office of eight years as from 1 January 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["13", "3", "95", "60", "12", "27", "44", "19", "88", "68", "98", "33", "6", "65", "22", "36", "58", "87", "75", "52", "86", "67", "72", "21", "16", "49", "71", "47", "30", "63", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2010/35/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 June 2010\non transportable pressure equipment and repealing Council Directives 76/767/EEC, 84/525/EEC, 84/526/EEC, 84/527/EEC and 1999/36/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 1999/36/EC of 29 April 1999 on transportable pressure equipment (3) was adopted as a first step towards enhancing transport safety for transportable pressure equipment, whilst ensuring the free movement of transportable pressure equipment in a single transport market.\n(2)\nIn the light of developments in transport safety, it is necessary to update certain technical provisions of Directive 1999/36/EC.\n(3)\nDirective 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on the inland transport of dangerous goods (4) extended the application of the provisions of certain international agreements to cover national traffic in order to harmonise the conditions under which dangerous goods are transported by road, rail and inland waterways across the Union.\n(4)\nIt is therefore necessary to update the provisions of Directive 1999/36/EC accordingly to avoid conflicting rules, in particular as regards conformity requirements, conformity assessment and conformity assessment procedures in relation to transportable pressure equipment.\n(5)\nIn order to enhance safety with regard to transportable pressure equipment approved for the inland transport of dangerous goods and to ensure free movement, including placing on the market, making available on the market and use of such transportable pressure equipment within the Union, it is necessary to lay down detailed rules concerning the obligations of the various operators and the requirements to be fulfilled by the equipment concerned.\n(6)\nDecision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products (5) constitutes a general framework of a horizontal nature for future legislation harmonising the conditions for the marketing of products. This framework should apply where appropriate for the transportable pressure equipment sector in line with the objective of harmonising rules on the free movement of products.\n(7)\nIn order not to hinder transport operations between Member States and third countries, this Directive should not apply to transportable pressure equipment exclusively used for the transport of dangerous goods between the territory of the Union and that of third countries.\n(8)\nThe obligations of the different economic operators, including owners and operators of transportable pressure equipment, should be clearly defined in the interests of transport safety and the free movement of transportable pressure equipment.\n(9)\nEconomic operators should in relation to their respective roles in the supply chain be responsible for the compliance of transportable pressure equipment with the safety and market access rules.\n(10)\nCompliance of new transportable pressure equipment with the technical requirements of the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and this Directive should be demonstrated by means of a conformity assessment to provide evidence that the transportable pressure equipment is safe.\n(11)\nPeriodic inspections, intermediate inspections and exceptional checks of transportable pressure equipment should be carried out in accordance with the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and with this Directive to ensure continued compliance with their safety requirements.\n(12)\nTransportable pressure equipment should bear a mark indicating its compliance with Directive 2008/68/EC and this Directive to ensure its free movement and free use.\n(13)\nThis Directive should not apply to transportable pressure equipment which was placed on the market before the relevant date of implementation of Directive 1999/36/EC and which has not been subject to reassessment of conformity.\n(14)\nWhere existing transportable pressure equipment not previously assessed for conformity with Directive 1999/36/EC is to benefit from free movement and free use, it should be subject to reassessment of conformity.\n(15)\nIt is necessary to set requirements for authorities responsible for the assessment, notification and monitoring of notified bodies in order to ensure a consistent level of quality in the performance of notified bodies.\n(16)\nThe conformity assessment procedures provided for in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive require the intervention of inspection bodies setting out detailed operational requirements to ensure a uniform level of performance throughout the Union. These inspection bodies should then be notified by the Member States to the Commission.\n(17)\nThe notifying authority should retain responsibility for monitoring the notified body regardless of where the notified body performs its activities in order to ensure clear responsibility for ongoing monitoring.\n(18)\nIt is necessary to lay down common rules for the mutual recognition of notified bodies which ensure compliance with Directive 2008/68/EC and this Directive. Those common rules will have the effect of eliminating unnecessary costs and administrative procedures related to the approval of the equipment and of eliminating technical barriers to trade.\n(19)\nMember States should be able to take measures to limit or prohibit the placing on the market and use of equipment in cases where such equipment presents a risk to safety in certain specified circumstances, including when such equipment is in compliance with Directive 2008/68/EC and with this Directive.\n(20)\nThe Commission should draw up specific guidelines to facilitate the practical implementation of the technical provisions of this Directive, taking into account the results of the exchange of experiences as foreseen in Articles 28 and 29.\n(21)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in respect of certain adaptations of the Annexes. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(22)\nCouncil Directive 76/767/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to common provisions for pressure vessels and methods for inspecting them (6), Council Directive 84/525/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to seamless, steel gas cylinders (7), Council Directive 84/526/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to seamless, unalloyed aluminium and aluminium alloy gas cylinders (8), Council Directive 84/527/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to welded unalloyed steel gas cylinders (9) and Directive 1999/36/EC have become obsolete and should therefore be repealed.\n(23)\nIn accordance with paragraph 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (10), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Union, their own tables, which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and their transposition measures, and to make those tables public,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER 1\nSCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nScope\n1. This Directive sets out detailed rules concerning transportable pressure equipment to enhance safety and ensure free movement of such equipment within the Union.\n2. This Directive shall apply to:\n(a)\nnew transportable pressure equipment as defined in Article 2(1), which does not bear the conformity markings provided for in Directives 84/525/EEC, 84/526/EEC, 84/527/EEC or 1999/36/EC, for the purpose of making it available on the market;\n(b)\ntransportable pressure equipment as defined in Article 2(1), bearing the conformity markings provided for in this Directive or in Directives 84/525/EEC, 84/526/EEC, 84/527/EEC or 1999/36/EC, for the purposes of its periodic inspections, intermediate inspections, exceptional checks and use;\n(c)\ntransportable pressure equipment as defined in Article 2(1), which does not bear the conformity markings provided for in Directive 1999/36/EC, for the purposes of reassessment of conformity.\n3. This Directive shall not apply to transportable pressure equipment which was placed on the market before the date of implementation of Directive 1999/36/EC and which has not been subject to a reassessment of conformity.\n4. This Directive shall not apply to transportable pressure equipment used exclusively for the transport of dangerous goods between Member States and third countries, carried out in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2008/68/EC.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018transportable pressure equipment\u2019 means:\n(a)\nall pressure receptacles, their valves and other accessories when appropriate, as covered in Chapter 6.2 of the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC;\n(b)\ntanks, battery vehicles/wagons, multiple-element gas containers (MEGCs), their valves and other accessories when appropriate, as covered in Chapter 6.8 of the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC;\nwhen the equipment under (a) or (b) is used in accordance with those Annexes for the transport of Class 2 gases, excluding gases or articles with figures 6 and 7 in the classification code, and for the transport of the dangerous substances of other classes specified in Annex I to this Directive.\nTransportable pressure equipment shall be understood as including gas cartridges (UN No 2037) and excluding aerosols (UN No 1950), open cryogenic receptacles, gas cylinders for breathing apparatus, fire extinguishers (UN No 1044), transportable pressure equipment exempted according to 1.1.3.2 of the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and transportable pressure equipment exempted from the rules for construction and testing of packaging according to special provisions in 3.3 of the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC;\n(2)\n\u2018Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC\u2019 means Section I.1 of Annex I, Section II.1 of Annex II, and Section III.1 of Annex III to Directive 2008/68/EC;\n(3)\n\u2018placing on the market\u2019 means the first making available of transportable pressure equipment on the Union market;\n(4)\n\u2018making available on the market\u2019 means any supply of transportable pressure equipment for distribution or use on the Union market in the course of a commercial or public service activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge;\n(5)\n\u2018use\u2019 means filling, temporary storage linked to carriage, emptying and refilling of transportable pressure equipment;\n(6)\n\u2018withdrawal\u2019 means any measure aimed at preventing transportable pressure equipment from being made available on the market or from being used;\n(7)\n\u2018recall\u2019 means any measure aimed at achieving the return of transportable pressure equipment that has already been made available to the end user;\n(8)\n\u2018manufacturer\u2019 means any natural or legal person who manufactures transportable pressure equipment, or parts thereof, or who has such equipment designed or manufactured and markets it under his name or trademark;\n(9)\n\u2018authorised representative\u2019 means any natural or legal person established within the Union who has received a written mandate from the manufacturer to act on his behalf in relation to specified tasks;\n(10)\n\u2018importer\u2019 means any natural or legal person established within the Union, who places transportable pressure equipment or parts thereof from a third country on the Union market;\n(11)\n\u2018distributor\u2019 means any natural or legal person established within the Union, other than the manufacturer or the importer, who makes transportable pressure equipment or parts thereof available on the market;\n(12)\n\u2018owner\u2019 means any natural or legal person established within the Union who owns transportable pressure equipment;\n(13)\n\u2018operator\u2019 means any natural or legal person established in the Union using transportable pressure equipment;\n(14)\n\u2018economic operator\u2019 means the manufacturer, the authorised representative, the importer, the distributor, the owner or the operator acting in the course of a commercial or public service activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge;\n(15)\n\u2018conformity assessment\u2019 means the assessment and the procedure for the assessment of conformity set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC;\n(16)\n\u2018Pi marking\u2019 means a marking which indicates that the transportable pressure equipment is in conformity with the applicable conformity assessment requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive;\n(17)\n\u2018reassessment of conformity\u2019 means the procedure undertaken, at the request of the owner or operator, for the subsequent assessment of the conformity of transportable pressure equipment manufactured and placed on the market before the date of implementation of Directive 1999/36/EC;\n(18)\n\u2018periodic inspection\u2019 means the periodic inspection and the procedures governing the periodic inspection as set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC;\n(19)\n\u2018intermediate inspection\u2019 means the intermediate inspection and the procedures governing the intermediate inspection as set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC;\n(20)\n\u2018exceptional check\u2019 means the exceptional check and the procedures governing the exceptional check set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC;\n(21)\n\u2018national accreditation body\u2019 means the sole body in a Member State that performs accreditation with authority derived from the State;\n(22)\n\u2018accreditation\u2019 means an attestation by a national accreditation body that a notified body meets the requirements set out in the second paragraph of 1.8.6.8 of the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC;\n(23)\n\u2018notifying authority\u2019 means the authority designated by a Member State pursuant to Article 17;\n(24)\n\u2018notified body\u2019 means an inspection body meeting the requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and the conditions set out in Articles 20 and 26 of this Directive and notified in accordance with Article 22 of this Directive;\n(25)\n\u2018notification\u2019 is the process of awarding notified body status to an inspection body and includes communication of this information to the Commission and to the Member States;\n(26)\n\u2018market surveillance\u2019 means the activities carried out and measures taken by public authorities to ensure that transportable pressure equipment during its life cycle complies with the requirements set out in Directive 2008/68/EC and this Directive and does not endanger health, safety or any other aspect of public interest protection.\nArticle 3\nOn-site requirements\nMember States may on their territory establish on-site requirements for the mid- or long-term storage or the on-site use of transportable pressure equipment. However, Member States shall not establish additional requirements for the transportable pressure equipment itself.\nCHAPTER 2\nOBLIGATIONS OF ECONOMIC OPERATORS\nArticle 4\nObligations of manufacturers\n1. When placing their transportable pressure equipment on the market, manufacturers shall ensure that the equipment has been designed, manufactured and documented in accordance with the requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive.\n2. Where the compliance of the transportable pressure equipment with the applicable requirements has been demonstrated through the conformity assessment process set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive, manufacturers shall affix the Pi marking in accordance with Article 15 of this Directive.\n3. Manufacturers shall keep the technical documentation specified in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC. This documentation shall be kept for the period specified therein.\n4. Manufacturers who consider or have reason to believe that transportable pressure equipment which they have placed on the market is not in conformity with the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC or with this Directive shall immediately take the corrective measures necessary to bring the transportable pressure equipment into conformity, to withdraw it or to recall it, if appropriate. Furthermore, where the transportable pressure equipment presents a risk, manufacturers shall immediately inform the competent national authorities of the Member States in which they made the transportable pressure equipment available to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective measures taken.\n5. Manufacturers shall document all such instances of non-compliance and corrective measures.\n6. Manufacturers shall, further to a reasoned request from the competent national authority, provide it with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the transportable pressure equipment, in a language easily understood by that authority. They shall cooperate with that authority, at its request, as regards any action taken to eliminate the risks posed by transportable pressure equipment which they have placed on the market.\n7. Manufacturers shall only provide information to operators which complies with the requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive.\nArticle 5\nAuthorised representatives\n1. Manufacturers may, by a written mandate, appoint an authorised representative.\nThe obligations set out in Article 4(1) and (2) and the drawing up of technical documentation shall not form part of the authorised representative's mandate.\n2. An authorised representative shall perform the tasks specified in the mandate received from the manufacturer. The mandate shall allow the authorised representative to do at least the following:\n(a)\nkeep the technical documentation at the disposal of national surveillance authorities for at least the period as specified in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC for manufacturers;\n(b)\nfurther to a reasoned request from a competent national authority, provide that authority with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the transportable pressure equipment in a language easily understood by that authority;\n(c)\ncooperate with the competent national authorities, at their request, on any action taken to eliminate the risks posed by transportable pressure equipment covered by the mandate.\n3. The identity and address of the authorised representative shall be indicated on the certificate of conformity specified in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC.\n4. Authorised representatives shall only provide information to operators which complies with the requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive.\nArticle 6\nObligations of importers\n1. Importers shall only place on the Union market transportable pressure equipment which is in conformity with the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and with this Directive.\n2. Before placing transportable pressure equipment on the market, importers shall ensure that the appropriate conformity assessment procedure has been carried out by the manufacturer. They shall ensure that the manufacturer has drawn up the technical documentation and that the transportable pressure equipment bears the Pi marking and is accompanied by the certificate of conformity specified in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC.\nWhere an importer considers or has reason to believe that the transportable pressure equipment is not in conformity with the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC or with this Directive, he shall not place the transportable pressure equipment on the market until it has been brought into conformity. Furthermore, where the transportable pressure equipment presents a risk, the importer shall inform the manufacturer and the market surveillance authorities to that effect.\n3. Importers shall indicate their name and the address at which they can be contacted either in, or attached to, the certificate of conformity specified in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC.\n4. Importers shall ensure that, while transportable pressure equipment is under their responsibility, storage or transport conditions do not jeopardise its compliance with the requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC.\n5. Importers who consider or have reason to believe that transportable pressure equipment which they have placed on the market is not in conformity with the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC or with this Directive shall immediately take the corrective measures necessary to bring the transportable pressure equipment into conformity, to withdraw it or to recall it, if appropriate. Furthermore, where the transportable pressure equipment presents a risk, importers shall immediately inform the manufacturer and the competent national authorities of the Member States in which they made the transportable pressure equipment available to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective measures taken.\nImporters shall document all such instances of non-compliance and corrective measures.\n6. Importers shall, for at least the period specified in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC for manufacturers, keep a copy of the technical documentation at the disposal of the market surveillance authorities and ensure that the technical documentation can be made available to those authorities upon request.\n7. Importers shall, further to a reasoned request from the competent national authority, provide it with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the transportable pressure equipment, in a language easily understood by that authority. They shall cooperate with that authority, at its request, on any action taken to eliminate the risks posed by transportable pressure equipment which they have placed on the market.\n8. Importers shall only provide information to operators which complies with the requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive.\nArticle 7\nObligations of distributors\n1. Distributors shall only make available on the Union market transportable pressure equipment which is in conformity with the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and with this Directive. Before making transportable pressure equipment available on the market distributors shall verify that the transportable pressure equipment bears the Pi marking, and that it is accompanied by the certificate of conformity and the contact address referred to in Article 6(3) of this Directive.\nWhere a distributor considers or has reason to believe that transportable pressure equipment is not in conformity with the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC or with this Directive, he shall not make the transportable pressure equipment available on the market until it has been brought into conformity. Furthermore, where the transportable pressure equipment presents a risk, the distributor shall inform the manufacturer or the importer to that effect as well as the market surveillance authorities.\n2. Distributors shall ensure that, while transportable pressure equipment is under their responsibility, storage or transport conditions do not jeopardise its compliance with the requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC.\n3. Distributors who consider or have reason to believe that transportable pressure equipment which they have made available on the market is not in conformity with the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC or with this Directive shall make sure that the corrective measures necessary to bring that transportable pressure equipment into conformity, to withdraw it or to recall it, if appropriate, are taken. Furthermore, where the transportable pressure equipment presents a risk, distributors shall immediately inform the manufacturer, the importer, where relevant, and the competent national authorities of the Member States in which they made the transportable pressure equipment available to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective measures taken.\nDistributors shall document all such instances of non-compliance and corrective measures.\n4. Distributors shall, further to a reasoned request from the competent national authority, provide it with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the transportable pressure equipment in a language easily understood by that authority. They shall cooperate with that authority, at its request, on any action taken to eliminate the risks posed by transportable pressure equipment which they have made available on the market.\n5. Distributors shall only provide information to operators which complies with the requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive.\nArticle 8\nObligations of owners\n1. Where an owner considers or has reason to believe that transportable pressure equipment is not in conformity with the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC, including the requirements for periodic inspection, and with this Directive, he shall not make it available or use it until it has been brought into conformity. Furthermore, where the transportable pressure equipment presents a risk, the owner shall inform the manufacturer or the importer or the distributor to that effect as well as the market surveillance authorities.\nOwners shall document all such instances of non-compliance and corrective measures.\n2. Owners shall ensure that, while transportable pressure equipment is under their responsibility, storage or transport conditions do not jeopardise its compliance with the requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC.\n3. Owners shall only provide information to operators which complies with the requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive.\n4. This Article shall not apply to private individuals intending to use or using transportable pressure equipment for their personal or domestic use or for their leisure or sporting activities.\nArticle 9\nObligations of operators\n1. Operators shall only use transportable pressure equipment which is in conformity with the requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive.\n2. Where the transportable pressure equipment presents a risk, the operator shall inform the owner to that effect as well as the market surveillance authorities.\nArticle 10\nCases in which obligations of manufacturers apply to importers and distributors\nAn importer or distributor shall be considered a manufacturer for the purposes of this Directive and subject to the obligations of the manufacturer pursuant to Article 4, where he places transportable pressure equipment on the market under his name or trademark or modifies transportable pressure equipment already placed on the market in such a way that compliance with the applicable requirements may be affected.\nArticle 11\nIdentification of economic operators\nEconomic operators shall, on request from the market surveillance authority, identify the following to it for a period of at least 10 years:\n(a)\nany economic operator who has supplied them with transportable pressure equipment;\n(b)\nany economic operator to whom they have supplied transportable pressure equipment.\nCHAPTER 3\nCONFORMITY OF TRANSPORTABLE PRESSURE EQUIPMENT\nArticle 12\nConformity of transportable pressure equipment and its assessment\n1. The transportable pressure equipment referred to in Article 1(2)(a) shall meet the relevant conformity assessment, periodic inspection, intermediate inspection and exceptional checks requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in Chapters 3 and 4 of this Directive.\n2. The transportable pressure equipment referred to in Article 1(2)(b) shall meet the specifications of the documentation according to which the equipment was manufactured. The equipment shall be subject to periodic inspections, intermediate inspections and exceptional checks in accordance with the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and with the requirements of Chapters 3 and 4 of this Directive.\n3. Certificates of conformity assessment and certificates of reassessment of conformity and reports of periodic inspections, intermediate inspections and exceptional checks issued by a notified body shall be valid in all Member States.\nFor demountable parts of refillable transportable pressure equipment a separate conformity assessment may be carried out.\nArticle 13\nReassessment of conformity\nThe reassessment of conformity of transportable pressure equipment referred to in Article 1(2)(c) manufactured and put into service before the date of implementation of Directive 1999/36/EC shall be established in accordance with the conformity reassessment procedure set out in Annex III to this Directive.\nThe Pi marking shall be affixed in accordance with Annex III to this Directive.\nArticle 14\nGeneral principles of the Pi marking\n1. The Pi marking shall only be affixed by the manufacturer or, in cases of reassessment of conformity, as set out in Annex III. For gas cylinders previously in compliance with Directives 84/525/EEC, 84/526/EEC or 84/527/EEC the Pi mark shall be affixed by or under the surveillance of the notified body.\n2. The Pi marking shall be affixed only to transportable pressure equipment which:\n(a)\nmeets the conformity assessment requirements in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive; or\n(b)\nmeets the reassessment of conformity requirements referred to in Article 13.\nIt shall not be affixed to any other transportable pressure equipment.\n3. By affixing or having affixed the Pi marking, the manufacturer indicates that he takes responsibility for the conformity of the transportable pressure equipment with all applicable requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive.\n4. For the purposes of this Directive, the Pi marking shall be the only marking which attests conformity of the transportable pressure equipment with the applicable requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive.\n5. The affixing on transportable pressure equipment of markings, signs and inscriptions which are likely to mislead third parties as to the meaning or form of the Pi marking, shall be prohibited. Any other marking shall be affixed to the transportable pressure equipment in such a way that the visibility, legibility and meaning of the Pi marking are not thereby impaired.\n6. Demountable parts of refillable transportable pressure equipment with a direct safety function shall be Pi-marked.\n7. Member States shall ensure correct implementation of the rules governing the Pi marking and shall take appropriate action in the event of improper use of the marking. Member States shall also provide for penalties for infringements, which may include criminal sanctions for serious infringements. Those penalties shall be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and constitute an effective deterrent against improper use.\nArticle 15\nRules and conditions for the affixing of the Pi marking\n1. The Pi marking shall consist of the following symbol in the following form:\n2. The minimum height of the Pi marking shall be 5 mm. For transportable pressure equipment with a diameter less than or equal to 140 mm the minimum height shall be 2,5 mm.\n3. The proportions given in the graduated drawing in paragraph 1 shall be respected. The grid does not form part of the marking.\n4. The Pi marking shall be affixed visibly, legibly and permanently to the transportable pressure equipment or to its data plate as well as to demountable parts of refillable transportable pressure equipment having a direct safety function.\n5. The Pi marking shall be affixed before the new transportable pressure equipment or demountable parts of refillable transportable pressure equipment having a direct safety function are placed on the market.\n6. The Pi marking shall be followed by the identification number of the notified body involved in the initial inspections and tests.\nThe identification number of the notified body shall be affixed by the body itself, or under its instructions, by the manufacturer.\n7. The marking of the date of the periodic inspection or, where appropriate, the intermediate inspection shall be accompanied by the identification number of the notified body responsible for the periodic inspection.\n8. With regard to gas cylinders previously in compliance with Directives 84/525/EEC, 84/526/EEC or 84/527/EEC not bearing the Pi marking, when the first periodic inspection is carried out in accordance with this Directive, the identification number of the notified body responsible shall be preceded by the Pi marking.\nArticle 16\nFree movement of transportable pressure equipment\nWithout prejudice to the safeguard procedures in Articles 30 and 31 of this Directive and to the market surveillance framework set out in Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 (11), no Member State shall prohibit, restrict or impede on its territory the free movement, the making available on the market and the use of transportable pressure equipment, which complies with this Directive.\nCHAPTER 4\nNOTIFYING AUTHORITIES AND NOTIFIED BODIES\nArticle 17\nNotifying authorities\n1. Member States shall designate a notifying authority that shall be responsible for setting up and carrying out the necessary procedures for the assessment, notification and subsequent monitoring of notified bodies.\n2. Member States may decide that the assessment and monitoring referred to in paragraph 1 shall be carried out by a national accreditation body within the meaning of and in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.\n3. Where the notifying authority delegates or otherwise entrusts the monitoring referred to in paragraph 1 to a body which is not a governmental entity, that body shall be a legal entity and shall comply mutatis mutandis with the requirements set out in Article 18(1) to (6). In addition the entrusted body shall have arrangements to cover liabilities arising out of its activities.\n4. The notifying authority shall take full responsibility for the tasks performed by the body referred to in paragraph 3.\nArticle 18\nRequirements relating to notifying authorities\n1. The notifying authority shall be established in such a way that no conflicts of interest with notified bodies occur.\n2. The notifying authority shall be organised and operated so as to safeguard the objectivity and impartiality of its activities.\n3. The notifying authority shall be organised in such a way that each decision relating to notification of the notified bodies is taken by competent persons different from those who carried out the assessment.\n4. The notifying authority shall not offer or provide any activities or consultancy services on a commercial or competitive basis that notified bodies perform.\n5. The notifying authority shall safeguard the confidentiality of the information obtained.\n6. The notifying authority shall have a sufficient number of competent personnel at its disposal for the proper performance of its tasks.\nArticle 19\nInformation obligation of notifying authorities\nMember States shall inform the Commission of their national procedures for the assessment, notification and monitoring of notified bodies, and of any changes to that information.\nThe Commission shall make that information publicly available.\nArticle 20\nRequirements relating to notified bodies\n1. For the purposes of notification, a notified body shall meet the requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive.\n2. A competent authority, within the meaning of the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC may be a notified body provided it meets the requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive and that it does not also act as the notifying authority.\n3. The notified body shall be established under national law and shall have legal personality.\n4. The notified body shall participate in, or ensure that its assessment personnel is informed of, the relevant standardisation activities and the activities of the notified body coordination group established pursuant to Article 29 and apply as general guidance the administrative decisions and documents produced as a result of the work of that group.\nArticle 21\nApplication for notification\n1. An inspection body shall submit an application for notification to the notifying authority of the Member State in which it is established.\n2. The application shall be accompanied by a description of:\n(a)\nthe activities relating to conformity assessment, periodic inspection, intermediate inspection, exceptional checks and reassessment of conformity;\n(b)\nthe procedures relating to point (a);\n(c)\nthe transportable pressure equipment for which the body claims to be competent;\n(d)\nan accreditation certificate issued by a national accreditation body within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, attesting that the inspection body fulfils the requirements set out in Article 20 of this Directive.\nArticle 22\nNotification procedure\n1. Notifying authorities shall notify only those bodies which have satisfied the requirements set out in Article 20.\n2. They shall notify the Commission and the other Member States using the electronic tool developed and managed by the Commission.\n3. The notification shall include the information required in Article 21(2).\n4. The body concerned may perform the activities of a notified body only where no objections are raised by the Commission or the other Member States within two weeks of a notification.\nOnly such a body shall be considered a notified body for the purposes of this Directive.\n5. The Commission and the other Member States shall be notified of any subsequent relevant changes to the notification.\n6. In-house inspection services of the applicant as defined in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC shall not be notified.\nArticle 23\nIdentification numbers and lists of notified bodies\n1. The Commission shall assign an identification number to a notified body.\nIt shall assign a single such number even where the body is notified under several Union acts.\n2. The Commission shall make publicly available the list of the bodies notified under this Directive, including the identification numbers that have been allocated to them and the activities for which they have been notified.\nThe Commission shall ensure that that list is kept up to date.\nArticle 24\nChanges to notifications\n1. Where a notifying authority has ascertained or has been informed that a notified body no longer meets the requirements set out in Article 20, or that it is failing to fulfil its obligations, the notifying authority shall restrict, suspend or withdraw notification, as appropriate, depending on the seriousness of the failure to meet those requirements or fulfil those obligations. It shall immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States accordingly.\n2. In the event of withdrawal, restriction or suspension of notification or where the notified body has ceased its activity, the notifying Member State shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that the files of that body are either processed by another notified body or kept available for the responsible notifying and market surveillance authorities on request.\nArticle 25\nChallenge to the competence of notified bodies\n1. The Commission shall investigate all cases where it doubts or doubt is brought to its attention regarding the competence of a notified body or the continued fulfilment by a notified body of the requirements and responsibilities to which it is subject.\n2. The notifying Member State shall provide the Commission, on request, with all information relating to the basis for the notification or the maintenance of the competence of the body concerned.\n3. The Commission shall ensure that all sensitive information obtained in the course of its investigations is treated confidentially.\n4. Where the Commission ascertains that a notified body does not meet, or no longer meets, the requirements for its notification, it shall inform the notifying Member State accordingly and request it to take the necessary corrective measures, including de-notification, if necessary.\nArticle 26\nOperational obligations of notified bodies\n1. Notified bodies shall carry out conformity assessments, periodic inspections, intermediate inspections and exceptional checks in accordance with the terms of their notification and the procedures set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC.\n2. Notified bodies shall carry out reassessments of conformity in accordance with Annex III.\n3. Notified bodies notified by one Member State shall be authorised to work in all Member States. The notifying authority which carried out the initial assessment and notification retains the responsibility for monitoring the ongoing activities of the notified body.\nArticle 27\nInformation obligation of notified bodies\n1. Notified bodies shall inform the notifying authority of the following:\n(a)\nany refusal, restriction, suspension or withdrawal of a certificate;\n(b)\nany circumstances affecting the scope of and conditions for notification;\n(c)\nany request for information on activities performed which they have received from market surveillance authorities;\n(d)\non request, activities performed within the scope of their notification and any other activity performed, including cross-border activities and subcontracting.\n2. Notified bodies shall provide the other bodies notified under this Directive carrying out similar conformity assessment, periodic inspection, intermediate inspections and exceptional checks activities covering the same transportable pressure equipment with relevant information on issues relating to negative and, on request, positive conformity assessment results.\nArticle 28\nExchange of experience\nThe Commission shall provide for the organisation of exchange of experience between the Member States\u2019 national authorities responsible under this Directive for:\n(a)\nnotification policy;\n(b)\nmarket surveillance.\nArticle 29\nCoordination of notified bodies\nThe Commission shall ensure that appropriate coordination and cooperation between bodies notified under this Directive are put in place and properly operated in the form of a sectoral group of notified bodies.\nMember States shall ensure that the bodies notified by them participate in the work of that group, directly or by designated representatives.\nCHAPTER 5\nSAFEGUARD PROCEDURES\nArticle 30\nProcedure for dealing with transportable pressure equipment presenting a risk at national level\n1. Where the market surveillance authorities of one Member State have taken action pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 or where they have sufficient reason to believe that transportable pressure equipment covered by this Directive presents a risk to the health or safety of persons or to other aspects of public interest protection covered by this Directive, they shall carry out an evaluation in relation to the transportable pressure equipment concerned covering all the requirements laid down in this Directive. The relevant economic operators shall cooperate as necessary with the market surveillance authorities, including granting access to their premises and providing samples as appropriate.\nWhere, in the course of that evaluation, the market surveillance authorities find that the transportable pressure equipment does not comply with the requirements set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive, they shall without delay require the relevant economic operator to take all appropriate corrective action to bring the transportable pressure equipment into compliance with those requirements, to withdraw the transportable pressure equipment from the market or to recall it within a reasonable period, commensurate with the nature of the risk, as they may prescribe.\nThe market surveillance authorities shall inform the relevant notified body accordingly.\nArticle 21 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 shall apply to the corrective action referred to in the second subparagraph of this paragraph.\n2. Where the market surveillance authorities consider that non-compliance is not restricted to their national territory, they shall inform the Commission and the other Member States of the results of the evaluation and of the actions which they have required the economic operator to take.\n3. The economic operator shall ensure that all appropriate corrective action is taken in respect of transportable pressure equipment that it has made available on the Union market.\n4. Where the relevant economic operator does not take adequate corrective action within the period referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, the market surveillance authorities shall take all appropriate provisional measures to prohibit or restrict the transportable pressure equipment being made available on their national market, to withdraw the equipment from that market or to recall it.\nThey shall inform the Commission and the other Member States, without delay, of those measures.\n5. The information referred to in paragraph 4 shall include all available details, in particular the data necessary for the identification of the non-compliant transportable pressure equipment, the origin of the equipment, the nature of the alleged non-compliance and the risk involved, the nature and duration of the national measures taken and the arguments put forward by the relevant economic operator. In particular, the market surveillance authorities shall indicate whether the non-compliance is due to either:\n(a)\nfailure of the transportable pressure equipment to meet requirements relating to the health or safety of persons or to other aspects of public interest protection set out in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and in this Directive, or\n(b)\nshortcomings in the standards or technical codes referred to in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC or in other provisions of that Directive.\n6. Member States other than the Member State initiating the procedure shall without delay inform the Commission and the other Member States of any measures adopted and of any additional information at their disposal relating to the non-compliance of the transportable pressure equipment concerned, and, in the event of disagreement with the notified national measure, of their objections.\n7. Where, within two months of receipt of the information referred to in paragraph 4, no objection has been raised by either a Member State or the Commission in respect of a provisional measure taken by a Member State, that measure shall be deemed justified.\n8. Member States shall ensure that appropriate restrictive measures are taken in respect of the transportable pressure equipment concerned, such as withdrawal of the transportable pressure equipment from their market, without delay.\nArticle 31\nUnion safeguard procedure\n1. Where, on completion of the procedure set out in Article 30(3) and (4), objections are raised against a measure taken by a Member State or where the Commission considers a national measure to be contrary to a legally binding Union act, the Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the Member States and the relevant economic operator or operators and shall evaluate the national measure. On the basis of the results of that evaluation, the Commission shall decide whether the national measure is justified or not.\nThe Commission shall address its decision to all Member States and shall immediately communicate it to them and to the relevant economic operator or operators.\n2. If the national measure is considered justified, all Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the non-compliant transportable pressure equipment is withdrawn from their markets, and shall inform the Commission accordingly.\nIf the national measure is considered unjustified, the Member State concerned shall withdraw it.\n3. Where the national measure is considered justified and the non-compliance of the transportable pressure equipment is attributed to shortcomings in the standards as referred to in Article 30(5)(b), the Commission shall inform the relevant European standardisation body or bodies and may bring the matter before the Committee set up by Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC (12). That Committee may consult the relevant European standardisation body or bodies before delivering its opinion.\nArticle 32\nCompliant transportable pressure equipment which presents a risk to health and safety\n1. Where having performed an evaluation pursuant to Article 30(1) a Member State finds that although transportable pressure equipment is in compliance with Directive 2008/68/EC and this Directive, it presents a risk to the health or safety of persons or to other aspects of public interest protection, it shall require the relevant economic operator to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the transportable pressure equipment concerned, when placed on the market, no longer presents that risk, to withdraw the equipment from the market or to recall it within a reasonable period, commensurate with the nature of the risk, as it may prescribe.\n2. The economic operator shall ensure that corrective action is taken in respect of all the transportable pressure equipment concerned that he has made available on the market or is using throughout the Union.\n3. The Member State shall immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States. That information shall include all available details, in particular the data necessary for the identification of the transportable pressure equipment concerned, the origin and the supply chain of the equipment, the nature of the risk involved and the nature and duration of the national measures taken.\n4. The Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the Member States and the relevant economic operator or operators and shall evaluate the national measures taken. On the basis of the results of that evaluation, the Commission shall decide whether the measure is justified or not, and where necessary, propose appropriate measures.\n5. The Commission shall address its decision to all Member States and shall immediately communicate it to them and to the relevant economic operator or operators.\nArticle 33\nFormal non-compliance\n1. Without prejudice to Article 30, where a Member State makes one of the following findings, it shall require the relevant economic operator to put an end to the non-compliance concerned:\n(a)\nthat the Pi marking has been affixed in violation of Article 12, 13, 14 or 15;\n(b)\nthat the Pi marking has not been affixed;\n(c)\nthat the technical documentation is either not available or not complete;\n(d)\nthat the requirements of the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and of this Directive have not been complied with.\n2. Where the non-compliance referred to in paragraph 1 persists, the Member State concerned shall take all appropriate measures to restrict or prohibit the transportable pressure equipment being made available on the market or shall ensure that it is recalled or withdrawn from the market.\nCHAPTER 6\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 34\nTransitional provisions\nWithin their territory, Member States may maintain the provisions listed in Annex II.\nMember States which maintain such provisions shall inform the Commission thereof. The Commission shall inform the other Member States.\nArticle 35\nAdaptation to scientific and technical progress\nThe Commission may adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU as regards adaptations of the Annexes to this Directive to scientific and technical progress, in particular taking into account amendments to the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC.\nFor the delegated acts referred to in this Article, the procedures set out in Articles 36, 37 and 38 shall apply.\nArticle 36\nExercise of delegation\n1. The powers to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 35 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and the Council.\n3. The powers to adopt delegated acts are conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 37 and 38.\nArticle 37\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 35 may be revoked by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of powers shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision and shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 38\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of two months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council this period shall be extended by two months.\n2. If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force at the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 39\nRepeal\nDirectives 76/767/EEC, 84/525/EEC, 84/526/EEC, 84/527/EEC and 1999/36/EC are repealed with effect from 1 July 2011.\nReferences to the repealed Directive 1999/36/EC shall be construed as references to this Directive.\nArticle 40\nRecognition of equivalence\n1. EEC pattern approval certificates for transportable pressure equipment issued pursuant to Directives 84/525/EEC, 84/526/EEC and 84/527/EEC and EC design-examination certificates issued pursuant to Directive 1999/36/EC shall be recognised as equivalent to the type approval certificates referred to in the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC and shall be subject to the provisions on time-limited recognition of type approvals set out in those Annexes.\n2. Valves and accessories referred to in Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/36/EC and marked with the mark of Directive 97/23/EC (13) according to Article 3(4) of Directive 1999/36/EC may still be used.\nArticle 41\nObligations on Member States\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the economic operators concerned comply with the provisions set out in Chapters 2 and 5. Member States shall also ensure that the necessary implementing measures are taken in respect of Articles 12 to 15.\nArticle 42\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 June 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nWhen Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\n3. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that Article 21(2)(d) applies with effect from 1 January 2012 at the latest.\n4. Member States shall ensure the laws, regulations and administrative provisions referred to in paragraph 1 apply to pressure receptacles, their valves and other accessories used for the carriage of UN No 1745, UN No 1746 and UN No 2495 from 1 July 2013 at the latest.\nArticle 43\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 44\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 June 2010.", "references": ["21", "69", "51", "41", "27", "89", "59", "47", "11", "61", "86", "32", "95", "4", "22", "84", "99", "96", "60", "91", "63", "94", "62", "88", "33", "72", "40", "26", "35", "67", "No Label", "25", "53", "54", "76", "85"], "gold": ["25", "53", "54", "76", "85"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\non mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/023 ES/Lear from Spain)\n(2010/812/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nSpain submitted an application on 23 July 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Lear and supplemented it with additional information on 10 August 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 382 200.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Spain,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 382 200 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["5", "79", "20", "24", "22", "69", "89", "53", "6", "47", "52", "43", "64", "2", "62", "71", "82", "48", "67", "54", "31", "77", "4", "63", "28", "37", "55", "88", "40", "76", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1213/2011\nof 23 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 November 2011.", "references": ["94", "43", "25", "55", "87", "39", "83", "81", "37", "10", "91", "21", "73", "53", "36", "45", "15", "89", "79", "9", "86", "80", "64", "56", "70", "75", "92", "63", "30", "44", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 7 August 2012\namending Implementing Decision 2012/262/EU amending Decision 2008/589/EC establishing a specific control and inspection programme related to the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea\n(2012/468/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Article 95 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2008/589/EC (2) established a specific control and inspection programme applicable for a period of four years to ensure the harmonised implementation of the multiannual plan set up by Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 (3) for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks.\n(2)\nTo address the clerical error occurred during the adoption procedure of Commission Implementing Decision 2012/262/EU (4) and consequently to bring that Decision in conformity with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture, the text \u2018or likely to be engaged\u2019 should be deleted from paragraph 3 of Article 1 of that Decision.\n(3)\nImplementing Decision 2012/262/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision have been established in concert with the Member States concerned.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nParagraph 3 of Article 1 of Implementing Decision 2012/262/EU is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Article 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u201cArticle 2\nScope\n\u20183.1. The specific control and inspection programme shall cover control and inspection of:\n(a)\nfishing activities by vessels referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 and by fishing vessels of all length engaged in the catch of salmon;\n(b)\nall related activities including the landing, weighing, marketing, transport and storage of fishery products and the recording of landing and sales.\n2. The specific control and inspection programme shall apply for five years.\u201d \u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 7 August 2012.", "references": ["57", "79", "62", "81", "39", "49", "95", "51", "85", "24", "73", "70", "80", "54", "61", "38", "77", "17", "2", "52", "5", "90", "82", "16", "15", "75", "86", "43", "35", "91", "No Label", "59", "67"], "gold": ["59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 674/2012\nof 23 July 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste to certain non-OECD countries\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (1), and in particular Article 37 thereof,\nAfter consultation of the countries concerned,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 has been amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 664/2011 of 11 July 2011 (2) on shipments of waste to include certain mixtures of wastes. Consequently, pursuant to Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, the Commission has sent a written request to each country to which the OECD Decision (3) does not apply, seeking confirmation in writing that those mixtures of wastes, the export of which is not prohibited under Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, may be exported from the European Union for recovery in that country and requesting an indication as to which control procedure, if any, would be followed in the country of destination. The Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 of 29 November 2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council to certain countries to which the OECD Decision on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply (4) should therefore be amended to take into account the replies received.\n(2)\nThe Commission has also received further information from several countries relating to other wastes listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 should therefore be amended to take this into account,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the fourteenth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["79", "37", "6", "75", "89", "88", "98", "27", "92", "3", "35", "86", "53", "91", "96", "94", "31", "61", "74", "30", "18", "48", "13", "66", "40", "29", "73", "97", "47", "76", "No Label", "22", "58", "60"], "gold": ["22", "58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 667/2010\nof 26 July 2010\nconcerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Eritrea\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 215(1) and (2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/127/CFSP of 1 March 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Eritrea (1), adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 March 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/127/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Eritrea and implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1907 (2009). On 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/414/CFSP amending Decision 2010/127/CFSP in order to introduce a procedure for the amendment and the review of the list of persons and entities designated by the United Nations Security Council (\u2018the Security Council\u2019) or by the relevant United Nations Sanctions Committee (\u2018Sanctions Committee\u2019).\n(2)\nThe restrictive measures against Eritrea include a prohibition on the provision of technical assistance, training, financial and other assistance relating to military activities, as well as a prohibition on the procurement or obtaining of such technical assistance, training, financial and other assistance from Eritrea.\n(3)\nDecision 2010/127/CFSP also provides for the inspection of certain cargoes to and from Eritrea and, in the case of aircraft and vessels, for the supply of additional pre-arrival and pre-departure information in respect of goods brought into or out of the Union. This information should be provided in accordance with the provisions on entry and exit summary declarations of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(4)\nFurthermore, Decision 2010/127/CFSP provides for financial restrictive measures against persons and entities designated by the Security Council or by the competent Sanctions Committee, as well as prohibitions on the supply, sale or transfer of weapons and military equipment to those designated persons and entities and on the provision of related assistance and services. These restrictive measures should be imposed against individuals and entities, including but not limited to the Eritrean political and military leadership, governmental and parastatal entities and entities privately owned by Eritrean nationals living within or outside Eritrean territory, designated by the UN as violating the arms embargo established in UNSCR 1907 (2009), as providing support from Eritrea to armed opposition groups which aim to destabilise the region, as obstructing the implementation of UNSCR 1862 (2009) concerning Djibouti, as harbouring, financing, facilitating, supporting, organising, training or inciting individuals or groups to perpetrate acts of violence or terrorist acts against States other than Eritrea, or their citizens in the region, or as obstructing the investigations or work of the Monitoring Group established by the Security Council.\n(5)\nThese measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, notably with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, legislation at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement them as far as the Union is concerned.\n(6)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the right to property and the right to protection of personal data. This Regulation should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(7)\nThis Regulation also fully respects the obligations of Member States under the Charter of the United Nations and the legally binding nature of Security Council Resolutions.\n(8)\nThe power to amend the list in Annex I to this Regulation should be exercised by the Council, in view of the specific threat to international peace and security in the region posed by the situation in Eritrea and in order to ensure consistency with the process for amending and reviewing the Annex to Decision 2010/127/CFSP.\n(9)\nThe procedure for amending the list in Annex I to this Regulation should include a requirement to communicate to the designated natural or legal persons, entities or bodies the grounds for listing as provided by the Sanctions Committee, so as to give them an opportunity to present observations. Where observations are submitted, or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in light of those observations and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n(10)\nFor the implementation of this Regulation, and in order to create maximum legal certainty within the Union, the names and other relevant data concerning natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources must be frozen in accordance with the Regulation, should be made public. Any processing of personal data of natural persons under this Regulation should respect Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (4).\n(11)\nMember States should determine the penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation. The penalties provided for should be proportionate, effective and dissuasive.\n(12)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018technical assistance\u2019 means any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance, or any other technical service, and may take forms such as instruction, advice, training, transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services, including verbal forms of assistance;\n(b)\n\u2018funds\u2019 means financial assets and benefits of every kind, including but not limited to:\n(i)\ncash, cheques, claims on money, drafts, money orders and other payment instruments;\n(ii)\ndeposits with financial institutions or other entities, balances on accounts, debts and debt obligations;\n(iii)\npublicly and privately traded securities and debt instruments, including stocks and shares, certificates representing securities, bonds, notes, warrants, debentures and derivatives contracts;\n(iv)\ninterest, dividends or other income on or value accruing from or generated by assets;\n(v)\ncredit, right of set-off, guarantees, performance bonds or other financial commitments;\n(vi)\nletters of credit, bills of lading, bills of sale;\n(vii)\ndocuments evidencing an interest in funds or financial resources;\n(c)\n\u2018freezing of funds\u2019 means preventing any move, transfer, alteration, use of, access to, or dealing with funds in any way that would result in any change in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination or other change that would enable the funds to be used, including portfolio management;\n(d)\n\u2018economic resources\u2019 means assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which are not funds, but may be used to obtain funds, goods or services;\n(e)\n\u2018freezing of economic resources\u2019 means preventing their use to obtain funds, goods or services in any way, including, but not limited to, by selling, hiring or mortgaging them;\n(f)\n\u2018Sanctions Committee\u2019 means the Security Council Committee established pursuant to Security Council Resolutions 751 (1992) and 1907 (2009) concerning Somalia and Eritrea;\n(g)\n\u2018territory of the Union\u2019 means the territories to which the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is applicable, under the conditions laid down in the Treaty, including their airspace.\nArticle 2\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide technical assistance related to military activities and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of arms and of related materiel of all types included in the Common Military List of the European Union (5) (\u2018EU Common Military List\u2019), directly or indirectly, to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Eritrea;\n(b)\nto provide financing or financial assistance related to military activities, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance for any sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related materiel of all types included in the EU Common Military List, or for the provision of related technical assistance and brokering services directly or indirectly to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Eritrea;\n(c)\nto obtain, directly or indirectly, technical assistance related to military activities, and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of arms and of related materiel of all types included in the EU Common Military List, from any natural or legal person, entity or body in Eritrea;\n(d)\nto obtain, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to military activities, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance for any sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related materiel of all types included in the EU Common Military List, or for the provision of related technical assistance and brokering services directly or indirectly, from any natural or legal person, entity or body in Eritrea;\n(e)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities, the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a), (b), (c) and (d).\n2. The prohibitions set out in paragraph 1(b) and (d) shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies concerned, if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe these prohibitions.\nArticle 3\n1. In order to ensure the strict implementation of Article 1 of Decision 2010/127/CFSP, all goods brought into or leaving the customs territory of the Union on cargo aircraft and merchant vessels to and from Eritrea shall be made subject to pre-arrival or pre-departure information to be submitted to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.\n2. The rules governing the obligation to provide pre-arrival or pre-departure information, in particular the time limits to be respected and data required, shall be as determined in the relevant provisions concerning entry and exit summary declarations as well as customs declarations set out in Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, and in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (6).\n3. Furthermore, the person who brings the goods, or who assumes responsibility for the carriage of the goods on cargo aircraft and merchant vessels to and from Eritrea, or their representatives, shall declare whether the goods are covered by the EU Common Military List.\n4. Until 31 December 2010 the entry and exit summary declarations and the required additional elements referred to in this Article may be submitted in written form using commercial, port or transport documentation, provided that they contain the necessary particulars.\n5. As from 1 January 2011, the required additional elements referred to in this Article shall be submitted either in written form or using the entry and exit summary declarations, as appropriate.\nArticle 4\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I.\n3. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited.\n4. The prohibition set out in paragraph 2 shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies concerned, if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe that prohibition.\n5. Annex I shall include the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies designated by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee in conformity with paragraphs 15 and 18(b) of UNSCR 1907 (2009).\n6. Annex I shall include the grounds for listing of listed persons, entities and bodies as provided by the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee.\n7. Annex I shall include, where available, information provided by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee necessary to identify the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies concerned. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, entities or bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. Annex I shall also include the date of designation by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 5\n1. By way of derogation from Article 4, the competent authorities in the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of persons listed in Annex I, and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services; or\n(c)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources;\nprovided that the Member State concerned has notified the Sanctions Committee of that determination and its intention to grant an authorisation, and in the absence of a negative decision by the Sanctions Committee within three working days of such notification.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 4, the competent authorities in the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are necessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that such determination has been notified to the Sanctions Committee by the Member State concerned and that the determination has been approved by that Committee.\n3. The relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraphs 1 and 2.\nArticle 6\nBy way of derogation from Article 4, the competent authorities in the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established before the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 4 has been designated by the Sanctions Committee or the Security Council or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgement rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a person, entity or body listed in Annex I;\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgment is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned; and\n(e)\nthe Sanctions Committee has been notified by the Member State of the lien or judgment.\nArticle 7\n1. Article 4(2) shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 4 has been designated by the Sanctions Committee or the Security Council;\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to Article 4(1).\n2. Article 4(2) shall not prevent financial or credit institutions in the Union from crediting frozen accounts where they receive funds transferred to the account of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, provided that any additions to such accounts will also be frozen. The financial or credit institution shall inform the competent authorities about such transactions without delay.\nArticle 8\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide technical assistance related to military activities and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of arms and of related materiel of all types included in the EU Common Military List, directly or indirectly, to any natural or legal person, entity or body listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nto provide financing or financial assistance related to military activities, including, in particular, grants, loans and export credit insurance for any sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related materiel of all types included in the EU Common Military List, or for the provision of related technical assistance and brokering services directly or indirectly to any natural or legal person, entity or body listed in Annex I.\n2. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the prohibition referred to in paragraph 1 shall be prohibited.\n3. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1(b) shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies concerned, if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe these prohibitions.\nArticle 9\nThe freezing of funds and economic resources or the refusal to make funds or economic resources available, carried out in good faith on the basis that such action is in accordance with this Regulation, shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal person or entity implementing it, or its directors or employees, unless it is proved that the funds and economic resources were frozen as a result of negligence.\nArticle 10\n1. Without prejudice to the applicable rules concerning reporting, confidentiality and professional secrecy, natural and legal persons, entities and bodies shall:\n(a)\nsupply immediately any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 4, to the competent authorities of the Member States, as listed in Annex II, where they are resident or located, and shall transmit such information, directly or through these competent authorities, to the Commission;\n(b)\ncooperate with the competent authorities, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II, in any verification of this information.\n2. Any information provided or received in accordance with this Article shall be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.\nArticle 11\nThe Commission and Member States shall immediately inform each other of the measures taken under this Regulation and shall supply each other with any other relevant information at their disposal in connection with this Regulation, in particular information in respect of violation and enforcement problems and judgments handed down by national courts.\nArticle 12\n1. Where the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee lists a natural or legal person, entity or body, the Council shall include such natural or legal person, entity or body in Annex I. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body an opportunity to present observations.\n2. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the natural or legal person, entity or body accordingly.\n3. Where the United Nations decides to delist a natural or legal person, entity or body, or to amend the identifying data of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, the Council shall amend Annex I accordingly.\nArticle 13\nThe Commission shall be empowered to amend Annex II on the basis of information supplied to it by Member States.\nArticle 14\n1. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules without delay after the entry into force of this Regulation and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment.\nArticle 15\n1. Member States shall designate the competent authorities referred to in this Regulation and identify them in the websites listed in Annex II. Member States shall notify the Commission of any changes to the addresses of their websites listed in Annex II before such changes take effect.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of their competent authorities, including the contact details of those competent authorities, without delay after the entry into force of this Regulation, and shall notify the Commission without delay of any subsequent amendment.\n3. Where this Regulation sets out a requirement to notify, inform or otherwise communicate with the Commission, the address and other contact details to be used for such communication shall be those indicated in Annex II.\nArticle 16\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\nArticle 17\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["44", "13", "88", "54", "90", "96", "39", "84", "49", "55", "24", "52", "22", "47", "53", "68", "1", "82", "28", "16", "66", "4", "86", "30", "95", "72", "48", "0", "74", "18", "No Label", "3", "6", "9", "23", "94"], "gold": ["3", "6", "9", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/158/CFSP\nof 19 March 2012\namending Decision 2011/173/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/173/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nOn the basis of a review of Decision 2011/173/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 22 March 2013.\n(3)\nDecision 2011/173/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 6 of Decision 2011/173/CFSP, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\"This Decision shall apply until 22 March 2013.\".\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 March 2012.", "references": ["21", "10", "63", "92", "55", "64", "87", "41", "27", "88", "24", "19", "35", "36", "28", "31", "0", "33", "44", "79", "60", "37", "81", "32", "8", "75", "59", "9", "48", "80", "No Label", "3", "12", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "12", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 664/2010\nof 23 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2010.", "references": ["7", "45", "60", "3", "54", "2", "41", "6", "39", "24", "26", "53", "34", "42", "66", "83", "4", "58", "37", "43", "55", "99", "94", "49", "84", "73", "21", "0", "9", "89", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 16 December 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the Joint Committee established under the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons as regards the replacement of Annex II to that Agreement on the co-ordination of social security schemes\n(2011/863/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 48, in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council, and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation (1), and in particular Article 2 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the Free Movement of Persons (2) (\"the Agreement\") was signed on 21 June 1999 and entered into force on 1 June 2002.\n(2)\nArticle 18 of the Agreement provides that the Joint Committee may, by decision, adopt amendments to the Agreement, including Annex II thereto on the co-ordination of social security schemes.\n(3)\nIn order to preserve a coherent and correct application of the legal acts of the Union and to avoid administrative and possibly legal difficulties, Annex II to the Agreement needs to be amended to integrate new legal acts of the Union to which the Agreement does not currently refer.\n(4)\nIn the interests of clarity and rationality, Annex II to the Agreement and the Protocol to that Annex should be codified.\n(5)\nThe position of the Union in the Joint Committee should therefore be based on the draft Decision set out in Annex I to this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the Union in the Joint Committee established by Article 14 of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons shall be based on the draft Decision of the Joint Committee set out in Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Declaration set out in Annex II to this Decision is hereby approved and shall be made on behalf of the Union in the Joint Committee when the latter adopts its Decision referred to in Article 1.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["85", "15", "46", "26", "59", "41", "53", "69", "45", "73", "78", "52", "94", "25", "98", "86", "16", "83", "47", "71", "56", "2", "24", "7", "11", "63", "27", "1", "76", "62", "No Label", "3", "37", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "37", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 790/2012\nof 31 August 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 September 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 September 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 September 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 August 2012.", "references": ["98", "7", "74", "92", "71", "83", "56", "9", "54", "24", "49", "80", "47", "59", "42", "41", "64", "27", "8", "19", "0", "76", "14", "35", "30", "78", "13", "16", "23", "3", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 April 2012\nextending the period referred to in Article 114(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in relation to national provisions concerning the maximum admissible content of cadmium in fertilisers notified by the Kingdom of Sweden pursuant to Article 114(5) of the TFEU\n(notified under document C(2012) 2461)\n(Only the Swedish text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/230/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\nI. FACTS\n(1)\nOn 17 October 2011, the Kingdom of Sweden notified the Commission, pursuant to Article 114(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), of its intention to introduce national provisions to lower the content of cadmium allowed in phosphorous fertilisers to a maximum level of 46 grams of cadmium per tonne of phosphorous (equivalent to 20 mg Cd/kg P2O5). Those measures would derogate from Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 relating to fertilisers (1) and would lower the maximum level of 100 grams of cadmium per tonne of phosphorous (equivalent to 44 mg Cd/kg P2O5) for which a derogation has already been granted to the Kingdom of Sweden.\n1. Article 114(5) and (6) TFEU\n(2)\nArticle 114, paragraphs (5) and (6) TFEU provide:\n\u20185. \u2026 if, after the adoption of a harmonisation measure by the European Parliament and the Council, by the Council or by the Commission, a Member State deems it necessary to introduce national provisions based on new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment on grounds of a problem specific to that Member State arising after the adoption of the harmonisation measure, it shall notify the Commission of the envisaged provisions as well as the grounds for introducing them.\n6. The Commission shall, within six months of the notifications \u2026 approve or reject the national provisions involved after having verified whether or not they are a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States and whether or not they shall constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market.\nIn the absence of a decision by the Commission within this period the national provisions referred to in paragraphs \u2026 5 shall be deemed to have been approved.\nWhen justified by the complexity of the matter and in the absence of danger for human health, the Commission may notify the Member State concerned that the period referred to in this paragraph may be extended for a further period of up to six months.\u2019\n2. EU legislation\n(3)\nCouncil Directive 76/116/EEC of 18 December 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to fertilisers (2), laid down the requirements that fertilisers must fulfil in order to be placed on the market with the designation \u2018EC fertiliser\u2019.\n(4)\nAnnex I to Directive 76/116/EEC set out the type designation and the corresponding requirements, e.g. with respect to its composition, that each fertiliser had to fulfil to be eligible for designation as \u2018EC fertiliser\u2019. Type designations in this list were grouped into categories, depending on the content of the primary nutrients, i.e. the elements nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.\n(5)\nAccording to Article 7 of Directive 76/116/EEC (3), Member States were not permitted on grounds of composition, identification, labelling or packaging, to prohibit, restrict or hinder the marketing of fertilisers marked \u2018EC fertiliser\u2019 which complied with the provisions of the Directive.\n(6)\nCommission Decision 2002/399/EC of 24 May 2002 on the national provisions notified by the Kingdom of Sweden under Article 95(4) of the EC Treaty concerning the maximum admissible content of cadmium in fertilisers (4), granted a derogation from Directive 76/116/EEC, by approving the Swedish provisions which prohibited the placing on the Swedish market of fertilisers containing in excess of 100 grams of cadmium per tonne of phosphorus. This derogation was applicable until 31 December 2005.\n(7)\nDirective 76/116/EEC has been replaced by Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 relating to fertilisers.\n(8)\nArticle 35(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 states that derogations from Article 7 of Directive 76/116/EEC that were granted by the Commission under former Article 95(6) of the EC Treaty shall be construed as derogations from Article 5 of that Regulation and shall continue to produce their effects notwithstanding the entry into force of the Regulation.\n(9)\nRecital 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 announces that the Commission will address the issue of unintentional cadmium content in mineral fertilisers and will, where appropriate, draw up a proposal for a Regulation and will present it to the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission has conducted extensive preparatory work but due to the complexity of the various factors to be taken into account has not yet adopted a proposal.\n(10)\nSince the Swedish derogation was granted only until 31 December 2005, Sweden requested in June 2005 an extension of the existing derogation. Commission Decision 2006/347/EC of 3 January 2006 on the national provisions notified by the Kingdom of Sweden under Article 95(4) of the EC Treaty concerning the maximum admissible content of cadmium in fertilisers (5) allows the Swedish authorities to maintain the national measures until harmonised measures on cadmium in fertilisers are applied at EU level.\n3. National provisions\n(11)\n\u2018The Chemicals Products (Handling, Import and Export Prohibitions) Ordinance\u2019 (1998:944) (6) contains provisions relating, inter alia, to the maximum permissible cadmium content in fertilisers, including EC-designated fertilisers. Section 3, paragraph 1, provides that fertilisers covered by customs tariffs numbers 25.10, 28.09, 28.35, 31.03 and 31.05 containing in excess of 100 grams of cadmium per tonne of phosphorous may not be offered for sale or transferred.\n(12)\nThe envisaged national measure notified under Article 114(5) TFEU would lower the content of cadmium allowed in phosphorous fertilisers from the current maximum level of 100 grams of cadmium per tonne of phosphorus to a level of 46 grams of cadmium per tonne of phosphorus (46 mg Cd/kg P, equivalent to 20 mg Cd/kg P2O5).\nII. PROCEDURE\n(13)\nBy letter of 17 May 2011 the Kingdom of Sweden notified the Commission that, pursuant to Article 114(5) TFEU, it requests approval to introduce national provisions to lower the content of cadmium allowed in phosphorous fertilisers to a maximum concentration of 46 grams per tonne of phosphorus. The Swedish authorities thus request to lower the cadmium content allowed by the derogation provided by Decision 2006/347/EC.\n(14)\nBy letter of 17 October 2011, the Swedish authorities sent additional information to the Commission to provide the text of the national legislation in force reflecting the amendments introduced by Ordinances 2008:255 and 2009:654 (7).\n(15)\nBy letter of 14 November 2011, the Commission informed the Swedish authorities that the six-month period for its examination according to Article 114(6) started on 18 October 2011.\n(16)\nBy letter of 17 October 2011, the Commission informed the other Member States about the request received from Sweden. The Commission also published a notice regarding the request in the Official Journal of the European Union (8) in order to inform other interested parties of the national measures that Sweden intends to introduce as well as the grounds invoked to that effect. In reaction, Latvia supported the Swedish request. No other comments were received by the Commission.\nIII. ASSESSMENT\n1. Consideration of admissibility\n(17)\nArticle 114(5) TFEU concerns cases in which national provisions are notified in relation to an EU harmonisation measure, where the national measures are to be introduced after the harmonisation measure has been adopted and enforced and where the new national measure would be incompatible with the EU harmonisation measure. The national provisions were notified in relation to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003, which was adopted on the basis of former Article 95 of the EC Treaty, and which sets harmonised rules regarding the composition, identification, labelling and packaging of EC fertilisers. According to Article 5 of that Regulation, Member States are not allowed to introduce obstacles to the free movement of fertilisers based on any of those grounds.\n(18)\nFurthermore, Article 114(5) TFEU requires that the notification of the intended national measures must be based on new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment on grounds of a problem specific to the notifying Member State arising after the adoption of the harmonisation measure and must be accompanied by a description of the grounds for introducing the intended national measures.\n(19)\nIn support of the request for a lower limit on cadmium in phosphate fertilisers the Swedish authorities have submitted a national risk assessment and some studies. This assessment takes into account the general EU risk assessment of cadmium and cadmium oxide produced in 2007 in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (9), a scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority on cadmium in food (10), as well as old and new data relating to the assessment of the risks to human health and the environment from cadmium in fertilisers in Sweden. The Swedish risk assessment is published on the internet (11).\n(20)\nAccording to the Swedish authorities, the new risk assessment shows the need to reduce exposure to cadmium to protect the health of the Swedish population in the long term. Exposure depends on the intake of cadmium via food, mainly from plants and therefore it is necessary to reduce the risk of high levels of cadmium in crops. Arable soils are in general more acidic in Sweden than in Central Europe and this specific situation makes cadmium more readily available for plants.\n(21)\nFurthermore, lowering the national limit of 100 grams of cadmium per tonne phosphorous to 46 grams of cadmium per tonne phosphorous is a measure intended to reduce the accumulation of cadmium in soils and also risks to aquatic organisms living in extreme soft waters as occur in Sweden.\n(22)\nIn the light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the application submitted by the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to obtaining approval to lower the content of cadmium in fertilisers to a maximum level of 46 grams of cadmium per tonne of phosphorus is admissible.\n2. Recourse to Article 114(6), third subparagraph TFEU\n2.1. Justification based on the complexity of the matter\n(23)\nTo support its request, Sweden has conducted a new risk assessment which was finalised in January 2011, in which it compares the predicted no effect concentrations (PNECs) for organisms representative for various environmental compartments with the cadmium concentrations in the Swedish environment. In their notification, reference is also made to certain studies made available in the framework of the previous requests submitted to the Commission in accordance with Article 114(4) of the Treaty and to the EU risk assessment on cadmium and cadmium oxide.\n(24)\nThe PNEC for fresh water is dependent on hardness. Since Sweden has very soft fresh waters, toxicity for aquatic organisms is expected to occur at lower cadmium concentration compared to other parts of Europe. The Swedish authorities, therefore, consider that it is likely that aquatic organisms in Swedish waters are in general more sensitive to additional cadmium compared to waters in Central and Southern Europe.\n(25)\nResults of monitoring programmes in Swedish surface waters in 2006 and 2009 show that about 1 % of the lakes and 7 % of the coastal waters show higher cadmium concentrations than the PNEC values. A review conducted in 2008 concluded that emission reduction measures have for most metals led to significant decreased concentrations in aquatic organisms, but for cadmium the situation is less clear. A tendency of increasing effects on the immune system in fish (eelpout) during the last years seems to correlate with increasing concentrations of cadmium in fish. A further report has been produced in 2011 with the aim to describe future trends of cadmium in arable soils and crops to estimate concentrations in 100 years and results have been used in a worst case modelling to estimate the risk to aquatic organisms inhabiting waters close to fields fertilised during 100 years ahead.\n(26)\nThe Swedish authorities conclude in their assessment that there might be an increased risk for aquatic organisms living in extremely soft waters (below hardness 5 mg CaCO3/l) in the longer term. But this is only likely in small brooks with low dilution of the drainage water from the agricultural soil. No other risk to the environment resulting from the use of cadmium in fertilisers has been identified by the Swedish authorities.\n(27)\nIn the light of the complexity of the relations of cadmium input via phosphate fertilisers, possible accumulation and risks to the environment, as already demonstrated during the evaluation of similar requests for derogation from Austria, Finland, and the Czech Republic, as well as the earlier requests from Sweden, the Commission requested the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) for an opinion on the overall quality of the Swedish risk assessment, any significant deficiencies, the appropriateness of the scenarios studied and the assumptions made, as well as the reliability and validity of the conclusions concerning the identified risks for the environment.\n(28)\nThe SCHER adopted its opinion on 27 February 2012 (12). SCHER concluded that the risk assessment report prepared by the Swedish authorities is of good scientific quality and that in general the scenarios studied are appropriate and most parameter values used in the scenarios are acceptable. However, SCHER considers that a number of statements and/or assumptions in the report are not supported by sufficient evidence. For example, the observations given in the fish monitoring studies assume a cause-effect relationship which is not proven. Another example is the important (central to the risk assessment) assumption of a 1/2 dilution factor used to calculate the cadmium concentration in the surface waters of brooks. No scientific evidence or justification is given to support this factor. SCHER also notes that for some scenarios rather worst-case conditions were used. For example, the calculations for phosphate applications on agricultural soils use application rates that are actually valid for less than 25 % of Swedish soils. The calculations of the water surface concentrations in the brooks after drainage seem problematic and the proposed levels do not correspond with the measured concentrations given elsewhere in the report. The PNECs used in the Swedish risk assessment are those suggested in the EU RAR on cadmium and as such can be supported by SCHER. The presented risk characterisation ratios (RCR) are thus solely dependent on the exposure assessment, i.e. the predicted cadmium concentrations in Swedish surface waters. The latter are dependent on the - unsubstantiated - soil/brook dilution factor. SCHER does not agree either with the assumption that there is no adsorption of cadmium in the soil. This will occur only if the soil is already heavily contaminated and no net adsorption occurs at steady state, which is not the situation in Sweden. The Swedish report also assumes that there is no cadmium adsorption in soil occurring deeper than 30 cm, which is also not the case. Consequently, SCHER does not support the results presented by the Swedish authorities for brooks, which is the only environmental compartment for which the Swedish authorities had identified risks.\n(29)\nNonetheless, SCHER recalls the earlier assessment of CSTEE in 2002, which estimated that cadmium concentrations in soil are expected not to increase in most European soils at a limit of 46 mg Cd/kg P. SCHER confirms that such estimate is still defendable including for Swedish agricultural soils and notes that the derivation was based on a \u2018stand-still principle\u2019, not on a risk assessment as performed by the Swedish authorities in their current justification.\n(30)\nAlthough, in its opinion of 27 February 2012, SCHER considers that the risk assessment report prepared by the Swedish authorities is of good scientific quality and contains new and relevant data, some uncertainties remain regarding certain key assumptions used by the Swedish authorities to conclude that there is a risk to aquatic organisms in small brooks in Sweden. This will need further clarification from the Swedish authorities to allow the Commission to take a final position.\n2.2. Absence of danger to human health\n(31)\nIn their justification, the Swedish authorities identify risks for sensitive groups of the population (diabetics, people suffering from osteoporosis or iron deficiency). These risks are caused by long-term exposure to cadmium through the diet. Therefore, there is no danger to human health linked to a decision to extend the assessment of the Swedish situation for an additional period of six months. This additional period will allow the Commission to take into account further clarifications to be provided by the Swedish authorities in order to take a final decision.\n(32)\nBased on the above, the Commission considers that the conditions laid down in Article 114(6), third subparagraph, are met in order for it to have recourse to the possibility of extending the six-month period within which it has to approve or reject the national provisions notified by Sweden.\nIV. CONCLUSION\n(33)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it can be concluded that the request of the Kingdom of Sweden for introducing national provisions derogating from Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 is admissible.\n(34)\nHowever, in view of the complexity of the matter and of the absence of danger for human health by adopting the present Decision, the Commission considers it justified to extend the period referred to in Article 114(6), first paragraph, TFEU for a further period expiring on 18 October 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nPursuant to Article 114(6), third paragraph, TFEU, the period to approve or reject the envisaged national provisions on cadmium in fertilisers notified by the Kingdom of Sweden on 17 October 2011 pursuant to Article 114(5) TFEU is extended until 18 October 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Sweden.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2012.", "references": ["39", "19", "16", "48", "62", "68", "13", "29", "52", "9", "30", "67", "22", "25", "59", "11", "69", "53", "50", "47", "1", "34", "43", "35", "46", "27", "2", "14", "99", "77", "No Label", "8", "61", "65", "84", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "61", "65", "84", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 707/2012\nof 1 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 August 2012.", "references": ["9", "12", "51", "47", "96", "17", "72", "80", "66", "75", "83", "54", "1", "42", "50", "55", "28", "32", "84", "29", "31", "86", "73", "99", "64", "19", "77", "13", "48", "3", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 194/2012\nof 8 March 2012\nfixing the amount of private storage aid for certain fishery products in the 2012 fishing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2813/2000 of 21 December 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards the grant of private storage aid for certain fishery products (2), and in particular Article 1 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPrivate storage aid should not exceed the sum of technical and financial costs recorded in the Union during the fishing year preceding the year in question.\n(2)\nTo discourage long-term storage, to shorten payment times and to reduce the burden of controls, private storage aid should be paid in one single instalment.\n(3)\nIn order not to hinder the operation of the intervention system in the year 2012, this Regulation should apply retroactively from 1 January 2012.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the Management Committee for Fishery Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 2012 fishing year the amount of private storage aid, referred to in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, for the products listed in Annex II to that Regulation shall be as follows:\n-\n:\nfirst month\n:\nEUR 219 per tonne,\n-\n:\nsecond month\n:\nEUR 0 per tonne.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2012.", "references": ["24", "61", "98", "37", "7", "41", "55", "3", "10", "23", "77", "8", "29", "59", "44", "45", "46", "9", "49", "12", "43", "99", "85", "30", "33", "50", "53", "78", "42", "2", "No Label", "4", "15", "26", "62", "67"], "gold": ["4", "15", "26", "62", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 676/2011\nof 13 July 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 663/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2011.", "references": ["28", "8", "77", "88", "89", "64", "95", "7", "94", "4", "82", "42", "9", "47", "14", "90", "65", "62", "36", "73", "49", "32", "18", "57", "60", "53", "27", "50", "6", "33", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 829/2010\nof 20 September 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of September 2010 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 of 14 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the poultrymeat sector (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 533/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of September 2010 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2010 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2010 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2010.", "references": ["6", "37", "16", "13", "90", "39", "65", "25", "52", "47", "59", "18", "43", "34", "36", "68", "45", "58", "40", "49", "57", "63", "24", "67", "42", "2", "98", "48", "88", "77", "No Label", "21", "69"], "gold": ["21", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 6 August 2010\namending Annexes I and II to Decision 2008/185/EC as regards the inclusion of Slovenia in the list of Member States free of Aujeszky\u2019s disease and of Poland and regions of Spain in the list of Member States where an approved national control programme for that disease is in place\n(notified under document C(2010) 5358)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/434/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), and in particular Articles 9(2) and 10(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 64/432/EEC lays down rules applicable to trade in the Union in bovine animals and swine, with the exception of feral pigs. Article 9 of that Directive lays down criteria for the approval of compulsory national control programmes for certain contagious diseases, including Aujeszky\u2019s disease. In addition, Article 10 of that Directive provides that where a Member State considers its territory or part thereof to be free of such diseases, including Aujeszky\u2019s disease, it is to present appropriate supporting documentation to the Commission.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2008/185/EC of 21 February 2008 on additional guarantees in intra-Community trade of pigs relating to Aujeszky\u2019s disease and criteria to provide information on this disease (2) lays down the additional guarantees for movements of pigs between Member States. Those guarantees are linked to the classification of Member States according to their Aujeszky\u2019s disease status.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Decision 2008/185/EC lists Member States or regions thereof which are free of Aujeszky\u2019s disease and where vaccination is prohibited. Annex II to that Decision lists Member States or regions thereof where approved national control programmes for the eradication of Aujeszky\u2019s disease are in place.\n(4)\nIn Poland and Spain national control programmes for Aujeszky\u2019s disease have been implemented for several years. For several Spanish regions the national control programme for Aujeszky\u2019s disease is already approved by Commission Decision 2007/603/EC (3).\n(5)\nSlovenia has submitted supporting documentation to the Commission as regards the Aujeszky\u2019s disease-free status of the territory of Slovenia demonstrating that the disease has never been detected in that Member State.\n(6)\nThe Commission has examined the documentation submitted by Slovenia and found it to comply with the requirements of Article 10(1) of Directive 64/432/EEC. Accordingly, that Member State should be included in the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2008/185/EC. That Annex should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nPoland has submitted supporting documentation to the Commission as regards the programme in place in the whole territory of Poland and requested the approval of this programme.\n(8)\nSpain has now submitted supporting documentation to the Commission as regards the programme in place in the Autonomous Communities of Andalusia, Aragon, Balearic Islands, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalonia, Extremadura, Madrid, Region of Murcia, Community of Valencia, and the provinces of Salamanca, Segovia and Soria in the Autonomous Community of Castilla y Le\u00f3n and the province of Tenerife in the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands and requested the approval of this programme.\n(9)\nThe Commission has also found that the national control programmes presented by Poland and Spain comply with the criteria laid down in Article 9(1) of Directive 64/432/EEC. Accordingly, Poland and Spain should be included in the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2008/185/EC. That Annex should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nDecision 2008/185/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2008/185/EC are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 August 2010.", "references": ["84", "78", "33", "23", "55", "93", "21", "90", "99", "15", "86", "42", "34", "37", "67", "81", "13", "63", "46", "9", "95", "64", "16", "4", "36", "40", "43", "11", "7", "54", "No Label", "20", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 995/2011\nof 6 October 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 980/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 October 2011.", "references": ["76", "57", "6", "60", "15", "19", "50", "86", "61", "31", "32", "98", "97", "73", "49", "36", "47", "64", "80", "24", "34", "8", "66", "46", "54", "95", "5", "27", "78", "96", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 21 December 2011\nconcerning the adoption of a financing decision to support voluntary surveillance studies on honeybee colony losses\n(notified under document C(2011) 9597)\n(2011/881/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Articles 22 to 24 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 75(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Implementing Rules\u2019), and in particular Article 90 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the Community\u2019s financial contribution on expenditure in the veterinary field.\n(2)\nIn particular, Article 22 of Decision 2009/470/EC provides that the Community may undertake or assist the Member States in undertaking the technical and scientific measures necessary for the development of Community veterinary legislation.\n(3)\nThe Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on honeybee health (4) gives an overview of the Commission\u2019s actions already undertaken and ongoing as regards honeybee health in the EU. The main issue addressed by the communication is the mortality of bees. Such mortalities have been reported in several countries in the world and also in the EU.\n(4)\nIn 2009 the EFSA project \u2018Bee mortality and bee surveillance in Europe\u2019 concluded that the surveillance systems in the EU are, in general, weak and that there is a lack of data at Member States level and a lack of comparable data at EU level.\n(5)\nThe main actions Commission proposed were the appointment of an EU reference laboratory (EURL) for bee health and the launch of surveillance studies on honeybee colony losses supported for the technical aspects by the EURL, and co-financed by the Commission.\n(6)\nThe first step has been already completed as the EURL for bee health has been appointed with Commission Regulation (EU) No 87/2011 (5) and it is operational since 1 April 2011 (ANSES - Sophia Antipolis - FR).\n(7)\nAs requested by the Commission, the EURL for bee health has produced a technical document \u2018Basis for a pilot surveillance project on honey bee colony losses\u2019 (available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/bees/bee_health_en.htm) providing guidance to Member States to elaborate their surveillance studies.\n(8)\nIn order to improve the availability of data on bee health it is appropriate to assist and support certain surveillance studies in Member States on honeybee losses.\n(9)\nMember States were invited to send to the Commission their surveillance studies based on the technical document of the EURL for bee health by 30 September 2011.\n(10)\n20 Member States have sent their proposals for the surveillance studies. These proposals are being technically and financially evaluated in order to assess their conformity with the technical document \u2018Basis for a pilot surveillance project on honey bee colony losses\u2019. After the evaluation and selection process the rate of co-financing that will not exceed 70 % and the amount of the individual contribution to each Member State will be fixed by means of a subsequent Commission Decision.\n(11)\nThe surveillance studies need to include controls on apiaries in the period preceding the winter followed by a visit after the winter. Another visit is planned during the summer. Therefore, depending on the design of the Member States programmes, the first visit is expected to be carried out before winter of 2012 while the second is expected to be carried out the following year. For this reason, it is opportune to consider the period of application of this Decision starting from 1 January 2012 until 30 June 2013.\n(12)\nIt is appropriate to establish financing by the Union for the studies by allocating EUR 3 750 000.\n(13)\nThis Decision constitutes a financing decision within the meaning of Article 75(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 and Article 90 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The contribution of the European Union for the implementation of the surveillance studies on honeybee colony losses action is set at EUR 3 750 000. The contribution applies to the period from 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2013.\n2. The contribution referred to in paragraph 1 for a maximum of 70 % is limited to costs relating to:\n(i)\ncarry out laboratory tests; and\n(ii)\nstaff specifically allocated for:\n-\ncarrying out sampling, and\n-\nmonitoring the health status of apiaries and bee colonies.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["74", "2", "81", "56", "8", "40", "95", "42", "96", "36", "52", "83", "99", "94", "4", "73", "45", "0", "43", "71", "89", "57", "91", "28", "37", "44", "21", "60", "18", "64", "No Label", "10", "61", "66", "77"], "gold": ["10", "61", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 840/2011\nof 22 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 August 2011.", "references": ["11", "65", "88", "5", "63", "67", "21", "12", "0", "39", "59", "81", "47", "48", "30", "19", "16", "28", "33", "43", "82", "27", "45", "85", "24", "55", "86", "70", "92", "73", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/452/CFSP\nof 12 August 2010\non the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28 and 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 15 September 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1) (hereinafter the Mission). That Joint Action expires on 14 September 2010.\n(2)\nOn 28 May 2010 the Political and Security Committee (PSC) recommended to extend the Mission for an additional period of 12 months until 14 September 2011.\n(3)\nThe command and control structure of the Mission should be without prejudice to the contractual responsibility of the Head of Mission towards the Commission for implementing the budget of the Mission.\n(4)\nThe Watch-keeping capability established within the General Secretariat of the Council should be activated for this Mission.\n(5)\nThe Mission will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Mission\n1. The European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (hereinafter \u2018EUMM Georgia\u2019 or the \u2018Mission\u2019), established by Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP, shall be extended as from 15 September 2010 until 14 September 2011.\n2. EUMM Georgia shall operate in accordance with the mission statement as set out in Article 2 and shall carry out the tasks as set out in Article 3.\nArticle 2\nMission statement\n1. EUMM Georgia shall provide civilian monitoring of Parties\u2019 actions, including full compliance with the six-point Agreement and subsequent implementing measures throughout Georgia, working in close coordination with partners, particularly the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and consistent with other Union activity, in order to contribute to stabilisation, normalisation and confidence building whilst also contributing to informing European policy in support of a durable political solution for Georgia.\n2. The particular objectives of the Mission shall be:\n(a)\nto contribute to long-term stability throughout Georgia and the surrounding region;\n(b)\nin the short term, the stabilisation of the situation with a reduced risk of a resumption of hostilities, in full compliance with the six-point Agreement and the subsequent implementing measures.\nArticle 3\nMission tasks\nIn order to achieve the Mission, the tasks of EUMM Georgia shall be to:\n1.\nStabilisation:\nMonitor, analyse and report on the situation pertaining to the stabilisation process, centred on full compliance with the six-point Agreement, including troop withdrawals, and on freedom of movement and actions by spoilers, as well as on violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.\n2.\nNormalisation:\nMonitor, analyse and report on the situation pertaining to the normalisation process of civil governance, focusing on rule of law, effective law enforcement structures and adequate public order. The Mission shall also monitor the security of transport links, energy infrastructures and utilities, as well as the political and security aspects of the return of internally displaced persons and refugees.\n3.\nConfidence building:\nContribute to the reduction of tensions through liaison, facilitation of contacts between parties and other confidence building measures.\n4.\nContribute to informing European policy and to future Union engagement.\nArticle 4\nStructure of the Mission\n1. EUMM Georgia shall be structured as follows:\n(a)\nHeadquarters (HQ). The HQ shall consist of the Office of the Head of Mission and the HQ Staff, providing all necessary functions of command and control and mission support. The HQ shall be located in Tbilisi.\n(b)\nField Offices. Geographically distributed Field Offices shall conduct monitoring tasks and provide necessary functions of mission support.\n(c)\nSupport Element. The Support Element shall be located within the General Secretariat of the Council in Brussels.\n2. The elements set out in paragraph 1 shall be subject to further detailed arrangements in the Operation Plan (OPLAN).\nArticle 5\nCivilian Operation Commander\n1. The Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) Director shall be the Civilian Operation Commander for EUMM Georgia.\n2. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and the overall authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), shall exercise command and control of EUMM Georgia at the strategic level.\n3. The Civilian Operation Commander shall ensure proper and effective implementation of the Council\u2019s decisions as well as the PSC\u2019s decisions, including by issuing instructions at the strategic level as required to the Head of Mission and providing him with advice and technical support.\n4. All seconded staff shall remain under the full command of the national authorities of the seconding State or Union institution concerned. National authorities shall transfer Operational Control (OPCON) of their personnel, teams and units to the Civilian Operation Commander.\n5. The Civilian Operation Commander shall have overall responsibility for ensuring that the Union\u2019s duty of care is properly discharged.\n6. The Civilian Operation Commander and the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) shall consult each other as required.\nArticle 6\nHead of Mission\n1. The Head of Mission shall assume responsibility for and exercise command and control of the Mission at theatre level.\n2. The Head of Mission shall exercise command and control over personnel, teams and units from contributing States as assigned by the Civilian Operation Commander together with administrative and logistic responsibility including over assets, resources and information placed at the disposal of the Mission.\n3. The Head of Mission shall issue instructions to all Mission staff, including in this case the support element in Brussels, for the effective conduct of EUMM Georgia in theatre, assuming its coordination and day-to-day management, and following the instructions at the strategic level of the Civilian Operation Commander.\n4. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the implementation of the Mission\u2019s budget. For this purpose, the Head of Mission shall sign a contract with the Commission.\n5. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for disciplinary control over the staff. For seconded staff, disciplinary action shall be exercised by the national authority or Union institution concerned.\n6. The Head of Mission shall represent EUMM Georgia in the operations area and shall ensure appropriate visibility of the Mission.\n7. The Head of Mission shall coordinate, as appropriate, with other Union actors on the ground. The Head of Mission shall, without prejudice to the chain of command, receive local political guidance from the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nStaff\n1. EUMM Georgia shall consist primarily of staff seconded by Member States or Union institutions. Each Member State or Union institution shall bear the costs related to any of the staff seconded by it, including travel expenses to and from the place of deployment, salaries, medical coverage and allowances other than applicable daily allowances, as well as hardship and risk allowances.\n2. International civilian staff and local staff shall be recruited on a contractual basis by the Mission if the functions required are not provided by personnel seconded by Member States. Exceptionally, in duly justified cases, where no qualified applications from Member States are available, nationals from participating third States may be recruited on a contractual basis, as appropriate.\n3. All staff shall abide by the Mission-specific minimum security operating standards and the Mission security plan supporting the Union\u2019s field security policy. As regards the protection of EU classified information with which staff are entrusted in the course of their duties, all staff shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by the Council\u2019s security regulations (2).\nArticle 8\nStatus of Mission and staff\n1. The status of the Mission and its staff, including where appropriate the privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the Mission, shall be agreed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 37 of the Treaty.\n2. The State or Union institution having seconded a member of staff shall be responsible for answering any claims linked to the secondment, from or concerning the member of staff. The State or Union institution in question shall be responsible for bringing any action against the seconded person.\n3. The conditions of employment and the rights and obligations of international and local staff shall be laid down in the contracts between the Head of Mission and the members of staff.\nArticle 9\nChain of command\n1. EUMM Georgia shall have a unified chain of command, as a crisis management operation.\n2. Under the responsibility of the Council, the PSC shall exercise political control and strategic direction of EUMM Georgia.\n3. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the PSC and the overall authority of the HR, shall be the commander of EUMM Georgia at the strategic level and, as such, shall issue the Head of Mission with instructions and provide him with advice and technical support.\n4. The Civilian Operation Commander shall report to the Council through the HR.\n5. The Head of Mission shall exercise command and control of EUMM Georgia at theatre level and shall be directly responsible to the Civilian Operation Commander.\nArticle 10\nPolitical control and strategic direction\n1. The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and of the HR, political control and strategic direction of the Mission. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty. This authorisation shall include the powers to appoint a Head of Mission, upon a proposal of the HR, and to amend the Concept of operations (CONOPS) and the OPLAN. The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of the Mission shall remain vested in the Council.\n2. The PSC shall report to the Council at regular intervals.\n3. The PSC shall receive, on a regular basis and as required, reports by the Civilian Operation Commander and the Head of Mission on issues within their areas of responsibility.\nArticle 11\nParticipation of third States\n1. Without prejudice to the decision-making autonomy of the Union and its single institutional framework, third States may be invited to contribute to the Mission, provided that they bear the cost of the staff seconded by them, including salaries, all risk insurance cover, daily subsistence allowances and travel expenses to and from Georgia, and that they contribute to the running costs of the Mission, as appropriate.\n2. Third States contributing to the Mission shall have the same rights and obligations in terms of day-to-day management of the Mission as Member States.\n3. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions and to establish a Committee of Contributors.\n4. Detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States shall be covered by agreements concluded in accordance with Article 37 of the Treaty and additional technical arrangements as necessary. Where the Union and a third State conclude an agreement establishing a framework for the participation of that third State in Union crisis-management operations, the provisions of that agreement shall apply in the context of the Mission.\nArticle 12\nSecurity\n1. The Civilian Operation Commander shall direct the Head of Mission\u2019s planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation for EUMM Georgia in accordance with Articles 5 and 9, in coordination with the Council Security Office.\n2. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the security of the Mission and for ensuring compliance with minimum security requirements applicable to the Mission, in line with the policy of the Union on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, and its supporting instruments.\n3. The Head of Mission shall be assisted by a Mission Security Officer (MSO), who shall report to the Head of Mission and also maintain a close functional relationship with the Council Security Office.\n4. EUMM Georgia staff shall undergo mandatory security training before taking up their duties, in accordance with the OPLAN. They shall also receive regular in-theatre refresher training organised by the MSO.\n5. The Head of Mission shall ensure the protection of EU classified information in accordance with the Council\u2019s Security Regulations.\nArticle 13\nWatch-keeping capability\nThe Watch-keeping capability shall be activated for EUMM Georgia.\nArticle 14\nFinancial arrangements\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the Mission between 15 September 2010 and 14 September 2011 shall be EUR 26 600 000.\n2. All expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\n3. The Head of Mission shall report fully to, and be supervised by, the Commission regarding the activities undertaken in the framework of his contract.\n4. Nationals of third States shall be allowed to tender for contracts. Subject to the Commission\u2019s approval, the Head of Mission may conclude technical arrangements with Member States, participating third States, and other international actors regarding the provision of equipment, services and premises to EUMM Georgia.\n5. The financial arrangements shall respect the operational requirements of the Mission including compatibility of equipment and interoperability of its teams.\n6. The expenditure shall be eligible as of the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 15\nCoordination\n1. Without prejudice to the chain of command, the Head of Mission shall act in close coordination with the Union delegation to ensure the consistency of Union action in support of Georgia.\n2. The Head of Mission shall coordinate closely with Heads of the diplomatic missions of Member States.\n3. The Head of Mission shall cooperate with the other international actors present in the country.\nArticle 16\nRelease of classified information\n1. The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States associated with this Decision, as appropriate and in accordance with the needs of the Mission, EU classified information and documents up to \u2018CONFIDENTIEL UE\u2019 level generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with the Council\u2019s Security Regulations.\n2. The HR shall also be authorised to release to the UN and OSCE, in accordance with the operational needs of the Mission, EU classified information and documents up to \u2018RESTREINT UE\u2019 level which are generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with the Council\u2019s Security Regulations. Local arrangements shall be drawn up for this purpose.\n3. In the event of a specific and immediate operational need, the HR shall also be authorised to release to the host State any EU classified information and documents up to \u2018RESTREINT UE\u2019 level which are generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with the Council\u2019s Security Regulations. In all other cases, such information and documents shall be released to the host State in accordance with the appropriate procedures for cooperation by the host State with the Union.\n4. The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States associated with this Decision any EU non-classified documents connected with the deliberations of the Council relating to the Mission and covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (3).\nArticle 17\nReview of the Mission\nA Mission review shall be presented to the PSC every six months, on the basis of a report by the Head of Mission and the General Secretariat of the Council.\nArticle 18\nEntry into force and duration\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 15 September 2010 until 14 September 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 12 August 2010.", "references": ["87", "49", "21", "31", "83", "41", "17", "40", "72", "22", "78", "90", "66", "98", "47", "24", "86", "30", "77", "23", "0", "64", "38", "89", "71", "26", "32", "99", "56", "54", "No Label", "3", "4", "5", "9", "91"], "gold": ["3", "4", "5", "9", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 24 April 2012\nexempting the production and wholesale of electricity produced from conventional sources in Germany from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors\n(notified under document C(2012) 2426)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/218/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1), and in particular Article 30(5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the request submitted by Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft e.V. (Federal Association of the Energy and Water Industry) (hereinafter referred to as BDEW) by e-mail of 26 October 2011,\nWhereas:\nI. FACTS\n(1)\nOn 26 October 2011, BDEW transmitted a request pursuant to Article 30(5) of Directive 2004/17/EC to the Commission by e-mail. The Commission informed the German authorities about the request on 11 November 2011 and also requested additional information of the German authorities by e-mail of 10 January 2012, and of BDEW by e-mail of 21 December 2011. Additional information was transmitted by the German authorities by e-mail of 14 December 2011 and by BDEW on 17 January 2012 on 26 January 2012 and on 28 February 2012.\n(2)\nThe request submitted by BDEW on behalf of contracting entities in the sector concerns, as described in the request, \u2018the construction, the purchase and the operation (including maintenance) of all types of electricity generation plants, as well as the relevant support activities\u2019 (2).\n(3)\nThe request is accompanied by an opinion of the Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) dated 25 July 2011. This opinion (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Opinion\u2019) was issued on the basis of relevant German legislation, and addresses the question as to whether the activity subject to the procedure is directly exposed to competition. The Opinion is based on a large sectorial survey of the relevant markets.\nII. LEGAL FRAMEWORK\n(4)\nArticle 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC provides that contracts intended to enable the performance of one of the activities to which the Directive applies shall not be subject to the Directive if, in the Member State in which it is carried out, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted. Direct exposure to competition is assessed on the basis of objective criteria, taking account of the specific characteristics of the sector concerned. Access is deemed to be unrestricted if the Member State has implemented and applied the relevant Community legislation opening a given sector or a part of it. This legislation is listed in Annex XI to Directive 2004/17/EC, which, for the electricity sector, refers to Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (3). Directive 96/92/EC has been superseded by Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (4) which was also replaced by Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (5).\n(5)\nGermany has implemented and applied not only Directive 96/92/EC but also Directives 2003/54/EC and 2009/72/EC. Consequently, and in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 30(3), access to the market should be deemed not to be restricted on the entire territory of Germany.\n(6)\nDirect exposure to competition should be evaluated on the basis of various indicators, none of which are, necessarily, per se, decisive. In respect of the markets concerned by this Decision, the market share of the main players on a given market constitutes one criterion which should be taken into account. Another criterion is the degree of concentration on those markets. Given the characteristics of the markets concerned, further criteria should also be taken into account such as the functioning of the balancing market, price competition and the degree of customer switching.\n(7)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to the application of the rules on competition.\nIII. ASSESSMENT\n(8)\nThe German market of electricity is characterised by a large number of power plants which are operated by a big number of market players (6). The majority of production capacity belongs to four large energy companies: RWE AG, E.ON AG, EnBW AG and Vattenfall Europe AG. However, as two of these companies, namely RWE and E.ON are private companies (i.e. companies not subject to the direct or indirect dominant influence of contracting authorities as provided for under Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2004/17/EC), which do not operate in the electricity generation sector on the basis of special or exclusive rights within the meaning of Article 2(3) of Directive 2004/17/EC, they are not contracting entities in the sense of the Directive 2004/17/EC. Their procurement for the purpose of producing or selling electricity is therefore not subject to the provisions of this Directive; consequently, in respect of these activities, they should be considered as competitors of the contracting entities whose procurement is subject to this Directive. The analysis will therefore in the following focus on the contracting entities when examining whether the activity is exposed to competition in markets to which access is not restricted.\n(9)\nElectricity is marketed at wholesale level via the exchanges, i.e. the spot and forward markets of the European Energy Exchange AG (EEX) and the European Power Exchange S.E. (EPEX), or in over-the-counter transactions outside the exchanges. The price on the power exchanges usually serves as a reference price for transactions over the counter. The production companies optimise operation of their power stations in line with the results of the spot market trade on the exchanges. In principle, only those power stations are operated whose marginal costs are below the market price.\n(10)\nThe Gesetz f\u00fcr den Vorrang Erneuerbarer Energien (7) (hereinafter referred to as EEG) sets out the rules for the electricity generated from renewable energy sources (8), which, in addition to the electricity generated through conventional sources (9), is playing an increasing role in the German market. According to the amended EEG which entered into force at the beginning of 2012, the share of renewable energy sources in the electricity supply shall increase to 35 % by 2020, to 50 % by 2030 and to 80 % by 2050.\n(11)\nAt the end of 2010, 160,5 GW generating capacity was connected to the networks of the Transmission System Operators (TSOs) (77,6 GW) and Distribution System Operators (DSOs) (82,9 GW). Compared to 2009 (152,7 GW), this represents an increase of approximately 7,8 GW. Renewables account for 54,2 GW of the total capacity. Some 50,7 GW of the renewables are paid for in accordance with EEG tariffs. This means that renewables represent approximately 34 % of overall capacity (10).\n(12)\nIn terms of feed-in, in 2010, a total of 531,2 TWh was fed into the TSO (367,5 TWh) and DSO (163,7 TWh) systems. The volume fed in from renewable sources was 93,7 TWh, of which 80,7 TWh were remunerated in accordance with the EEG. This means that feed-in from renewables represents approximately 18 % of the total feed-in volume, a proportion that therefore lies below the 34 % of total generation capacity accounted for by these sources (11). The difference is due to the fact that the period of utilisation of renewable sources per year is lower than that of conventional sources.\n(13)\nAnother feature of the German electricity market relates to the recent decision of the national authorities to close eight nuclear power plants, with a total capacity of 8 400 MW (12), following the nuclear catastrophe in Japan, at the beginning of 2011. Moreover, it was decided to close the rest of the nuclear power plants in Germany by 2022. On the short term this changed the balance between imports and exports, so that, from a net exporter of electricity until 2010, Germany became a net importer in 2011.\n(14)\nAccording to Commission precedents (13), the following relevant product markets could be distinguished in the electricity sector: (i) generation and wholesale supply; (ii) transmission; (iii) distribution; and (iv) retail supply. While some of these markets may be further subdivided, to date previous Commission practice (14) rejected a distinction between an electricity generation market and a wholesale supply market since generation as such is only a first step in the value chain, but electricity volumes generated are marketed via the wholesale market.\n(15)\nThe request by BDEW pertains to electricity generation and wholesale. The Federal Cartel Office in its Opinion defines the product market as \u2018a primary sales market for electricity\u2019 (15), which covers initial sales of all electricity suppliers of their own production and the net imports of electricity, but do not include subsequent trading between market participants. Moreover, the Federal Cartel Office considers that the production and marketing of electricity regulated under EEG (hereinafter referred to as \u2018EEG electricity\u2019) is not part of this market.\n(16)\nThe Federal Cartel Office considers that the market for EEG electricity represents a separate market as far as its first sale is concerned. The EEG electricity is normally not directly sold on the wholesale market but first bought by the transmission grid operators for a statutory rate of remuneration. They then sell it in a second step on the wholesale market.\n(17)\nThe Federal Cartel Office concludes that the production and marketing of EEG electricity is not organised on a competitive basis and that the EEG electricity is independent of demand and price indicators (16). This conclusion is notably based on the following facts:\n(18)\nThe EEG electricity has feed-in priority; therefore the production of EEG electricity is totally independent of demand. The production and feed-in is also independent of the prices as the operators are entitled to a statutory payment. The EEG electricity is marketed by the TSOs on the spot market in conformity with statutory provisions, without any scope for manoeuvre.\n(19)\nThe Federal Cartel Office also noted that, according to the law, EEG electricity may be marketed directly, and a certain percentage of operators are using this opportunity. EEG provides that EEG installation operators may switch between direct selling and receipt of the tariff payment under the EEG on the first day of the month. Depending on the market price forecast and depending on demand, EEG installation operators can thus decide each month, which form of selling is best for them. However, this direct marketing will in the future only be of marginal importance.\n(20)\nAccording to the amended EEG which entered into force at the beginning of 2012, EEG installation operators have - as indicated above - the option of marketing the electricity they produce themselves and receive a marketing premium as well. The marketing premium is to replace the difference between the fixed EEG remuneration and the monthly average price on the exchange determined ex post. The taking-up of the marketing premium is however optional, i.e. EEG installation operators can remain in the fixed remuneration system or return to it any month. The largest share of EEG electricity is, however, expected to be marketed via the transmission grid operators. Moreover, the market premium model will not alter the fact that the total remuneration level for EEG producers is not primarily determined by market prices (17).\n(21)\nThe Federal Cartel Office acknowledges therefore that, while EEG electricity exerts a competitive pressure on the electricity produced from conventional sources, the reverse is not true; therefore, EEG electricity cannot be included in the same market as the conventional electricity as the market conditions which prevail for the first sale significantly differ between these two generation forms. The first sale of EEG electricity, moreover, mostly takes place via the transmission grid operators. The market therefore evidently differs also from a demand-side perspective from the wholesale market for conventional electricity.\n(22)\nTaking into account the specificity of the German electricity market, for the purposes of evaluating the conditions laid down in Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC, and without prejudice to competition law, the relevant product market is hereby defined as the market for generation and first sale of electricity produced from conventional sources. Generation and first sale of EEG electricity is not part of this market, for the reasons set out above, and it will be hereinafter assessed separately.\n(23)\nAccording to the application, the request pertains to activities on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. The applicant explores the possibility of a wider market including Germany and Austria based on several trends in respect of development of the regulatory framework, level of electricity imports and exports and market coupling and congestion management procedures, but eventually concludes that \u2018the applicant cannot draw a final conclusion as to whether the German wholesale electricity market and relevant markets in neighbouring countries are sufficiently integrated at the moment so as to be considered a regional market\u2019.\n(24)\nThe Federal Cartel Office, following the sectorial survey carried out, assumes that there is a common primary market for electricity in Germany and Austria. This conclusion is based on the absence of bottlenecks at the border interconnectors between Germany and Austria and the standard marketing and pricing area on the European Power Exchange S.E. (EPEX).\n(25)\nPrevious Commission practice mostly defined the electricity markets as being national in scope (18) or even smaller (19). Occasionally, it has left open the possibility of wider than national markets (20).\n(26)\nThe Commission considers that for the purposes of evaluating the conditions laid down in Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC, and without prejudice to the competition law, it is not necessary to conclude on the precise scope of the relevant geographic market for the generation and first sale of conventional electricity as, under any alternative market definition, the results of the assessment would be the same.\n(27)\nAs regards production and first sale of EEG electricity, its geographic scope could not extend beyond the territory of Germany since it is based on the specific legal conditions laid down in the German EEG.\n(a) Market shares and market concentration\n(28)\nAs it results from a constant practice (21) in respect of Commission Decisions pursuant to Article 30, the Commission considered that, in respect of electricity generation, \u2018one indicator for the degree of competition on national markets is the total market share of the biggest three producers\u2019.\n(29)\nAccording to the Opinion of the Federal Cartel Office (22), the cumulative market shares of the first three producers, in terms of feed-in electricity, was 74 % in 2007 and 73 % in 2008 and 70 % in 2010. The German electricity market is therefore in the middle of the range, by comparison with previous exemptions decisions under Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC (23).\n(30)\nHowever, it is recalled that the first two producers RWE and E.ON, which together have a cumulative market share of 58 % of the market (24), are not subject to the provisions of the procurement law.\n(31)\nThe aim of the present Decision is to establish whether the activities of generation and wholesale of electricity are exposed to such a level of competition (on markets to which access is free) that this will ensure that, also in the absence of the discipline brought about by the detailed procurement rules set out in Directive 2004/17/EC, the procurement for the pursuit of the activities concerned will be carried out in a transparent, non-discriminatory manner based on criteria allowing it to identify the solution which overall is the economically most advantageous one. In this context it is important to keep in mind that the companies which are not subject to the public procurement procedures (notably RWE and E.ON) when acting on these markets have the possibility to bring competitive pressure on the other market players. This will not change even if Austria is included into the relevant geographic market since the market shares of the first producers are expected to be only slightly smaller in a market covering both Austria and Germany (25).\n(32)\nIn respect of production and wholesale supply of electricity from conventional sources the facts above can be considered to be an indication of direct exposure to competition of the market players which are covered by the procurement law provisions.\n(33)\nIt is also worth noting that the Commission Staff Working Paper \u20182009-2010 Report on Progress in Creating the Internal Gas and Electricity Market\u2019 of June 2011 (26) indicated a decrease in the market concentration in Germany (27) compared to the previous years and placed the German electricity market in the category of \u2018moderately concentrated markets\u2019 (28), namely those markets with a Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) (29) by capacity between 750 and 1 800.\n(34)\nHaving regards to the above figures, for the purposes of this Decision and without prejudice to the competition law, it can be assumed with respect to the contracting entities that the degree of concentration of the market can be considered as an indication of a certain degree of exposure to competition of electricity production and wholesale from conventional sources in Germany.\n(b) Other factors\n(35)\nIn the last years, actually until March 2011, Germany was a net exporter of electricity. However, due to the decision to phase out production of electricity by several nuclear plants, Germany became a net importer. There is therefore currently a competitive pressure on the market deriving from the potential to import electricity from outside Germany. This ensures that investment in the electricity sector in Germany cannot be made without taking into account other producers in the surrounding countries. These factors should therefore be seen as not opposing the conclusion that contracting entities operating on the German production market from conventional sources are exposed to competition. Furthermore, an analysis of the situation in respect of customer switching (30) and the degree of liquidity on the wholesale market (31) show that these factors do not oppose the conclusion that contracting entities operating on the German production market from conventional sources are exposed to competition. Finally, it should also be noted that the German balancing market (32) and its main characteristics (market-based pricing and price difference between positive and negative balancing power) do not either oppose the conclusion that contracting entities operating on the German production market from conventional sources are exposed to competition.\n(36)\nEEG electricity benefits from priority connection to the grid, and it has priority over conventional electricity for grid feed-in, which means that EEG electricity production is independent from demand. Since EEG electricity is generally produced at costs which are higher than the market price, a system was established by which EEG electricity receives particular support. EEG installation operators (33) have the right to receive a statutory rate of remuneration from the transmission grid operators for a period of 20 years plus the commissioning year. This remuneration provides for a coverage of their costs and is therefore higher than the market price. They can therefore feed the electricity they produce into the grid irrespective of the price on the exchanges (34).\n(37)\nEEG electricity is generally not directly sold on the wholesale market but first bought by the transmission grid operators for a statutory rate of remuneration. The transmission system operators are responsible for marketing the EEG electricity on the power exchange spot market which consequently causes a loss for them. These costs are ultimately paid by the final electricity consumers who pay to their energy suppliers an extra EEG fee which is subsequently passed to the transmission grid operators. Energy suppliers buying more than 50 % of EEG electricity including at least 20 % of electricity from solar or wind pay a reduced EEG fee.\n(38)\nThe EEG installation operators have also the possibility to do \u2018direct marketing\u2019 of the electricity produced. This means that an EEG plant operator can renounce to the statutory remuneration and opt to sell the electricity directly on the spot market. Due to the high generation costs of EEG electricity, direct marketing outside of the statutory conditions is normally not a viable option. In the past, this method has mainly been used to a limited extent in instances where the buyers were able to achieve an exemption from the extra EEG fee by combining a certain amount of EEG electricity sourced directly from a producer with conventional electricity (35). With the new EEG law which entered into force beginning of 2012, the possibility for this specific exemption was limited which is expected to reduce this form of direct marketing (36).\n(39)\nThe new law contains a new possibility of \u2018direct marketing\u2019 which, however, includes the payment of a so-called \u2018market premium\u2019 to the EEG electricity producers that covers the difference between their higher costs and the average market price (in the following: \u2018market premium model\u2019). Transmission System Operators estimate selling in the market premium model to take a share of 15 % for all types of renewable energies together in 2012 (37). It can be concluded that at present and in the near future, the by far largest part of EEG electricity is marketed in the regime of statutory payments and via the transmission grid operators. Unsubsidised direct marketing will only play a marginal role.\n(40)\nFor the reasons indicated above the generation and first sale of EEG electricity form part of a regulated system in which producers are remunerated on the basis of a statutory payment. They are not exposed to competition since they can feed in their EEG electricity regardless of the prevailing market price. Due to the feed-in priority they can also sell all the quantities they produce. It cannot be therefore concluded that the activity of producers of EEG electricity is exposed to competition. In view of the above, no other indicators, such as those listed in recital 6, need to be assessed.\nIV. CONCLUSIONS\n(41)\nIn view of the factors examined above, the condition of direct exposure to competition laid down in Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC should be considered to be met in view of the contracting entities with respect of production and wholesale supply of electricity from conventional sources in Germany.\n(42)\nFurthermore, since the condition of unrestricted access to the market is deemed to be met, Directive 2004/17/EC should not apply when contracting entities award contracts intended to enable production and wholesale supply of electricity from conventional sources to be carried out in Germany nor when they organise design contests for the pursuit of such an activity in that geographical area.\n(43)\nNevertheless, the condition of direct exposure to competition laid down in Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC should be considered not to be met in view of the contracting entities with respect to production and first sale of EEG electricity in Germany.\n(44)\nSince the production and first sale of EEG electricity continues to be subject to the provisions of Directive 2004/17/EC, it is recalled that procurement contracts covering several activities shall be treated in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2004/17/EC. This means that, when a contracting entity is engaged in \u2018mixed\u2019 procurement, that is procurement used to support the performance of both, activities exempted from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC and activities not exempted, regard shall be had to the activities for which the contract is principally intended. In the event of such mixed procurement, where the purpose is principally to support the production and wholesale of EEG electricity, the provision of Directive 2004/17/EC shall apply. If it is objectively impossible to determine for which activity the contract is principally intended, the contract shall be awarded in accordance with the rules referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 9 of Directive 2004/17/EC. This Decision is based on the legal and factual situation as of October 2011 to February 2012 as it appears from the information submitted by BDEW and the German authorities. It may be revised, should significant changes in the legal or factual situation mean that the conditions for the applicability of Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC in respect of production and wholesale supply of electricity from conventional sources are no longer met.\n(45)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Committee for Public Contracts,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2004/17/EC shall not apply to contracts awarded by contracting entities and intended to enable production and first sale of electricity produced from conventional sources to be carried out in Germany.\nFor the purposes of this Decision, electricity produced from conventional sources means electricity which does not fall within the scope of the EEG. Moreover, within the meaning of the EEG, and under the conditions set out therein, \u2018renewable energy sources\u2019 means hydropower, including wave power, tidal power, salt gradient and flow energy, wind energy, solar radiation, geothermal energy, energy from biomass, including biogas, biomethane, landfill gas and sewage treatment gas, as well as the biodegradable fraction of municipal waste and industrial waste.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["36", "34", "5", "95", "7", "22", "76", "86", "99", "8", "24", "0", "87", "15", "47", "19", "27", "62", "12", "29", "85", "68", "77", "35", "50", "3", "72", "88", "43", "63", "No Label", "20", "26", "78", "81", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "26", "78", "81", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1313/2011\nof 13 December 2011\namending Regulations (EC) No 2535/2001 and (EC) No 1187/2009 as regards the CN codes for dairy products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 144 and 148 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (2) provides for amendments in CN codes for dairy products of Chapter 4.\n(2)\nIt is necessary to update Part I.F of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 of 14 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas (3), as well as Article 27 and Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (4).\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart I.F of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 1187/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 27(2), the code 0402 21 19 9900 is replaced by 0402 21 18 9900;\n(2)\nIn Group No 1 of Annex II, the code 0401 30 is replaced by the codes 0401 40 and 0401 50.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["45", "74", "29", "58", "71", "65", "3", "18", "8", "98", "68", "39", "2", "26", "30", "81", "57", "20", "32", "50", "79", "89", "55", "36", "1", "49", "53", "27", "97", "51", "No Label", "21", "70"], "gold": ["21", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 848/2010\nof 27 September 2010\nderogating, for the marketing year 2010/2011, from Article 63(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the dates for communicating the carry forward of surplus sugar\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 85, point (c), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 63(2), point (a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, each undertaking having decided to carry forward all or part of its production in excess of the sugar quota has to inform the Member State concerned of its decision before a date to be determined by that Member State within the time limits fixed by that Article.\n(2)\nIn order to facilitate the supply of the out-of-quota sugar on the Union market, thereby allowing undertakings to respond to unforeseen changes in demand in the last months of the marketing year 2010/2011, it is necessary to give Member States the possibility to fix later dates for undertakings to communicate the quantity of surplus sugar to be carried forward.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 63(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, for the marketing year 2010/2011, the undertakings having decided to carry forward quantities of sugar, in accordance with Article 63(1) of that Regulation, inform the Member State concerned before a date to be determined by that Member State between 1 February and 15 August 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["52", "90", "51", "33", "27", "56", "30", "45", "80", "50", "93", "79", "26", "4", "86", "54", "48", "15", "6", "3", "20", "17", "74", "70", "76", "87", "97", "35", "68", "92", "No Label", "25", "61", "71", "75"], "gold": ["25", "61", "71", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 923/2010\nof 14 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Asparago di Badoere (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Asparago di Badoere\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2010.", "references": ["81", "63", "10", "16", "59", "67", "15", "4", "18", "13", "23", "90", "33", "82", "49", "78", "95", "47", "93", "94", "54", "1", "8", "45", "53", "35", "57", "31", "79", "99", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 539/2011\nof 1 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2011.", "references": ["6", "55", "77", "2", "92", "1", "86", "40", "90", "9", "31", "72", "34", "0", "85", "83", "58", "36", "98", "13", "3", "82", "51", "74", "97", "80", "24", "50", "7", "88", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/019 IE/Construction 41 from Ireland)\n(2011/772/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nIreland submitted an application on 9 June 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 1 482 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (\u2018Construction of buildings\u2019) in the NUTS II regions of Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02) in Ireland, and supplemented it by additional information up to 17 June 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 12 689 838.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Ireland,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 12 689 838 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["65", "92", "26", "2", "12", "48", "3", "13", "73", "90", "57", "42", "62", "8", "66", "35", "95", "44", "0", "69", "68", "25", "30", "22", "53", "61", "14", "47", "9", "86", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "87", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "87", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 775/2011\nof 2 August 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2011.", "references": ["22", "75", "45", "29", "57", "40", "61", "79", "81", "13", "88", "1", "41", "0", "47", "56", "26", "72", "5", "27", "44", "59", "46", "8", "64", "35", "87", "2", "51", "30", "No Label", "21", "70"], "gold": ["21", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1096/2011\nof 28 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 October 2011.", "references": ["44", "92", "60", "40", "86", "96", "34", "81", "66", "9", "94", "45", "54", "48", "88", "7", "90", "87", "57", "27", "37", "99", "52", "53", "58", "67", "71", "46", "56", "30", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 April 2012\non guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States\n(2012/238/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 148(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 145 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that Member States and the Union are to work towards developing a coordinated strategy for employment and particularly for promoting a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce and labour markets that are responsive to economic change with a view to achieving the objectives defined in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).\n(2)\nThe Europe 2020 Strategy proposed by the Commission enables the Union to turn its economy towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, accompanied by high level employment, productivity and social cohesion. On 13 July 2010, the Council adopted its Recommendation on broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union (3). Furthermore, on 21 October 2010, the Council adopted its Decision 2010/707/EU on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (4) (the \u2018employment guidelines\u2019). Those sets of guidelines form the integrated guidelines for implementing the Europe 2020 Strategy. Five headline targets, listed under the relevant integrated guidelines, constitute shared objectives which guide the action of the Member States, taking into account their relative starting positions and national circumstances as well as the positions and circumstances of the Union. The European Employment Strategy plays the leading role in the implementation of the employment and labour market objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy. In 2011, the employment guidelines were maintained.\n(3)\nThe integrated guidelines are in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 17 June 2010. They give precise guidance to the Member States on defining their national reform programmes and on implementing reforms, reflecting interdependence and being in line with the Stability and Growth Pact. The employment guidelines should form the basis for any country-specific recommendations that the Council may address to the Member States under Article 148(4) of the TFEU, in parallel with the country-specific recommendations addressed to the Member States under Article 121(2) of the TFEU. The employment guidelines should also form the basis for the establishment of the Joint Employment Report sent annually by the Council and the Commission to the European Council.\n(4)\nThe examination of the Member States\u2019 draft national reform programmes, contained in the Joint Employment Report adopted by the Council on 17 February 2012, shows that Member States should continue to make every effort to address the following priorities: increasing labour market participation and reducing structural unemployment; developing a skilled workforce responding to labour market needs and promoting job quality and lifelong learning; improving the performance of education and training systems at all levels and increasing participation in tertiary education; promoting social inclusion and combating poverty.\n(5)\nThe employment guidelines adopted in 2010 should remain stable until 2014 to ensure a focus on their implementation. In the intermediate years, until the end of 2014, their updating should remain strictly limited.\n(6)\nMember States should explore the use of the European Social Fund when implementing the employment guidelines,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, as set out in the Annex to Decision 2010/707/EU, are hereby maintained for 2012 and shall be taken into account by the Member States in their employment policies.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2012.", "references": ["72", "84", "12", "56", "41", "15", "80", "8", "22", "70", "78", "79", "46", "31", "40", "7", "98", "19", "47", "45", "43", "26", "55", "96", "37", "20", "89", "71", "24", "63", "No Label", "9", "18", "36", "49", "50", "51"], "gold": ["9", "18", "36", "49", "50", "51"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1086/2011\nof 27 October 2011\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 as regards salmonella in fresh poultry meat\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the control of salmonella and other specified food-borne zoonotic agents (1), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2), and in particular Article 4(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 2160/2003 aims at ensuring that proper and effective measures are taken to detect and control salmonella and other zoonotic agents at all relevant stages of production, processing and distribution in order to reduce their prevalence and the risk they pose to public health. That Regulation covers, amongst other things, the adoption of targets for the reduction of the prevalence of specified zoonoses in animal populations and the adoption of rules concerning trade within the Union and imports from third countries of certain animals and products thereof.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 646/2007 of 12 June 2007 implementing Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a Community target for the reduction of the prevalence of Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium in broilers and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1091/2005 (3) sets a Union target for the reduction of those two serotypes of salmonella in broilers. That Regulation aims for a reduction to be achieved in the number of flocks of broilers remaining positive to Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium to 1 % or less by 31 December 2011.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 584/2008 of 20 June 2008 implementing Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a Community target for the reduction of the prevalence of Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium in turkeys (4) sets a Union target for the reduction of those two serotypes of salmonella in turkey flocks. That Regulation aims for a reduction to be achieved in the number of fattening turkey flocks remaining positive to Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium to 1 % or less by 31 December 2012.\n(4)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 sets out specific measures to be taken for the control of the zoonoses and zoonotic agents listed in Annex I thereto. More specifically, point 1 of Part E of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 provides that, as from 12 December 2010, certain fresh poultry meat from animals listed in Annex I thereto may not be placed on the market for human consumption unless it meets the criterion: \u2018Salmonella: absence in 25 grams\u2019. That Regulation also provides for detailed rules for that criterion to be laid down, in particular, rules specifying sampling schemes and analytical methods.\n(5)\nAs regards fresh poultry meat, provision should be made to ensure that the detailed rules for the salmonella criterion in poultry meat result in a reasonable assurance that it is free from the relevant salmonella and that a harmonised application results in fair competition and similar conditions for placing on the market.\n(6)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs (5) lays down microbiological criteria for certain micro-organisms and the implementing rules that are to be complied with by food business operators when implementing the general and specific hygiene measures referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004.\n(7)\nIn the interests of consistency of Union legislation, it is appropriate to amend the specific requirements concerning fresh poultry meat set out in Part E of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 and to introduce detailed rules of the salmonella criterion in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Commission Decision 2005/636/EC of 1 September 2005 concerning a financial contribution of the Community towards a baseline survey on the prevalence of Salmonella spp. in broiler flocks of Gallus gallus to be carried out in the Member States (6), Commission Decision 2006/662/EC of 29 September 2006 concerning a financial contribution from the Community towards a baseline survey on the prevalence of salmonella in turkeys to be carried out in the Member States (7) and Commission Decision 2007/516/EC of 19 July 2007 concerning a financial contribution from the Community towards a survey on the prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter spp. in broiler flocks and on the prevalence of Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella spp. in broiler carcases to be carried out in the Member States (8) information was collected on the prevalence of salmonella in broiler flocks, turkey flocks and broiler carcases, respectively. The results of these surveys, as well as preliminary results of the first year of national salmonella control programmes in broilers (2009) in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 show that salmonella prevalence in flocks of broilers and turkeys is still high (9). In addition, national salmonella control programmes in turkeys in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 only became mandatory from 2010 onwards. The application of the criterion to all salmonella serotypes before a notable reduction of the prevalence of salmonella in flocks of broilers and turkeys has been demonstrated may result in a disproportionate economic impact for the industry. Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 should therefore be amended.\n(9)\nAccording to the Community Summary Report on trends and sources of zoonoses, and zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in the European Union in 2008 (10) by the European Food Safety Authority approximately 80 % of human salmonellosis cases are caused by Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium which is similar to preceding years. Poultry meat remains a major source of human salmonellosis.\n(10)\nSetting a criterion for Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium would provide the best balance between reducing human salmonellosis attributed to the consumption of poultry meat and the economic consequences of the application of that criterion. At the same time, it would encourage food business operators to take measures at previous stages of poultry production that may contribute to the reduction of all serotypes of salmonella with public health significance. Focusing on those two serotypes would also be consistent with the Union targets set for primary production of poultry.\n(11)\nThe sampling plans for other salmonella food safety criteria have been provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005. They have been demonstrated to be practical for use by food business operators and are therefore also appropriate for fresh poultry meat sampling.\n(12)\nThe international standard EN/ISO 6579 is the horizontal method for the detection of Salmonella spp. in food and animal feeding stuffs. In addition, Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 provides for that standard to be the reference method for all salmonella criteria. It should, therefore, also be laid down as a reference method for the criterion for fresh poultry meat, without prejudice to provisions on the use of alternative methods laid down in that Regulation. The European Union Reference Laboratory for Salmonella recommends that it is appropriate to use the White-Kaufmann-Le Minor scheme as reference method for serotyping.\n(13)\nMonophasic strains of Salmonella typhimurium have rapidly emerged as one of the most commonly found serotype of salmonella in several species of animals and in clinical isolates from humans. According to the Scientific Opinion on monitoring and assessment of the public health risk of \u2018Salmonella typhimurium-like\u2019 strains (11) monophasic Salmonella typhimurium strains with the antigenic formula 1,4,[5],12:i:- are considered as variants of Salmonella typhimurium and current evidence has shown that these strains appear to pose a public health risk comparable to that of other Salmonella typhimurium strains. Therefore, it is appropriate to clarify that provisions for Salmonella typhimurium are applicable also to these monophasic strains.\n(14)\nRegulation (EC) No 2073/2005 lays down a process hygiene criterion for salmonella in poultry carcases of broilers and turkeys after chilling in slaughterhouses. The process hygiene criterion aims at controlling faecal contamination of poultry carcases if derived from infected flocks or due to cross-contamination in the slaughterhouse. Under Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005, the criteria and conditions concerning the presence of salmonella in poultry carcases are to be revised in the light of the changes observed in salmonella prevalence. Since the Union targets laid down for flocks of broilers in Regulation (EC) No 646/2007, and for turkeys in Regulation (EC) No 584/2008, must be achieved by the end of 2011 and the end of 2012 respectively, the number of sample units accepted to exceed the set limit should be decreased. Chapter 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(15)\nRegulations (EC) No 2160/2003 and (EC) No 2073/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(16)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003, point 1 of Part E is replaced by the following:\n\u20181.\nFrom 1 December 2011, fresh poultry meat from animal populations listed in Annex I shall meet the relevant microbiological criterion set out in Row 1.28 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 (12).\nArticle 2\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation:\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["19", "98", "32", "0", "9", "5", "8", "90", "40", "64", "78", "33", "23", "28", "86", "14", "77", "41", "71", "76", "11", "24", "63", "35", "67", "60", "42", "46", "20", "49", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "66", "69"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 27 December 2010\non the transmission of confidential data under the common framework for business registers for statistical purposes\n(ECB/2010/33)\n(2011/11/EU)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the \u2018Statute of the ESCB\u2019), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 177/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 establishing a common framework for business registers for statistical purposes and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2186/93 (1), and in particular Article 12 thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 192/2009 of 11 March 2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 177/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framework for business registers for statistical purposes, as regards the exchange of confidential data between the Commission (Eurostat) and Member States (2),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1097/2010 of 26 November 2010 implementing Regulation (EC) No 177/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framework for business registers for statistical purposes, as regards the exchange of confidential data between the Commission (Eurostat) and central banks (3),\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the collection of statistical information by the European Central Bank (4), and in particular to Article 8a(2), (3) and (5) and Article 8b thereof,\nHaving regard to the contribution of the General Council, pursuant to the first indent of Article 46.2 of the Statute of the ESCB,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 177/2008 establishes a new common framework for business registers of the multinational enterprise groups\u2019 data exclusively for statistical purposes in order to maintain the development of business registers in a harmonised framework.\n(2)\nAn exchange of confidential data between the Commission and national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro (hereinafter the \u2018NCBs\u2019), and between the Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB), should contribute to ensuring the quality of multinational enterprise group information in the Union.\n(3)\nIn order to establish the format, security and confidentiality measures and procedures concerning the data transmitted from the Commission to the NCBs and the ECB, the Commission has adopted Regulation (EU) No 1097/2010 implementing Regulation (EC) No 177/2008.\n(4)\nIn view of the separate governance structures of the European System of Central Banks and the European Statistical System (ESS), it is necessary to define the format, security and confidentiality measures, and procedures concerning the data that the ECB and NCBs receive from the Commission and the data transmitted from the NCBs to the national statistical institutes and other national authorities which participate in the ESS as defined in Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics and repealing Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1101/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the transmission of data subject to statistical confidentiality to the Statistical Office of the European Communities, Council Regulation (EC) No 322/97 on Community Statistics, and Council Decision 89/382/EEC, Euratom establishing a Committee on the Statistical Programmes of the European Communities (5).\n(5)\nThe provisions of this Decision may be extended to apply to the central banks of Member States whose currency is not the euro by means of an agreement between those central banks and the ECB,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nScope\n1. The NCBs shall use the table in part B of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1097/2010 when transmitting the characteristics concerning multinational enterprise groups and their constituent units to the national statistical institute and other national authorities which participate in the ESS in their Member State (hereinafter the \u2018ESS member\u2019), subject to the confidentiality regime set out in Regulation (EC) No 2533/98.\n2. The NCBs shall be subject to Article 3 of this Decision, when transmitting these characteristics to the ESS member of their Member State for assessment, correction, completion and integration with the data that the ESS member transmits to the Commission (Eurostat) pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 177/2008.\nArticle 2\nFormat and procedures for transmission\n1. The format set out in the Annex shall be used when data is transmitted from the NCBs to the ESS members.\n2. When data is transmitted from the NCBs to the ESS members, the data and metadata shall be transmitted in accordance with the standards of the ESS and with the structure defined in the most recent version of the Eurostat Business Registers Recommendations Manual available from the Commission (Eurostat).\n3. When data is transmitted from the NCBs to the ESS members, the NCBs shall follow the same naming conventions, structures and definitions of fields as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 192/2009.\n4. The data and metadata transmitted pursuant to this Decision shall be exchanged in electronic form.\n5. The data and metadata transmitted pursuant to this Decision shall be transmitted via the secure medium used for the transmission of confidential data, or via secured remote access.\nArticle 3\nSecurity and confidentiality measures\n1. The ECB and NCBs shall store the data they receive from the Commission (Eurostat) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 177/2008 and Regulation (EU) No 1097/2010, and which have been flagged as confidential, in a secure area with restricted and controlled access.\n2. Data received by the ECB and NCBs from the Commission (Eurostat) shall be used exclusively for statistical purposes.\n3. The ECB and NCBs shall ensure that information on the security measures taken is included in the annual confidentiality report or that the Commission (Eurostat) and the appropriate national authorities are informed by other means.\nArticle 4\nFinal provision\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 27 December 2010.", "references": ["16", "51", "87", "20", "83", "92", "73", "43", "89", "38", "98", "84", "93", "18", "55", "53", "23", "4", "12", "39", "95", "30", "27", "94", "10", "35", "72", "28", "80", "65", "No Label", "7", "19", "40", "42", "44"], "gold": ["7", "19", "40", "42", "44"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 28 February 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement\n(2011/153/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 192(1) and 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (hereinafter \u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning environment.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to incorporate Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (2), into the EEA Agreement.\n(3)\nAnnex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nThe position to be taken by the Union in the EEA Joint Committee on an envisaged amendment to Annex XX to the EEA Agreement is laid down in the Annex to this Decision.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["11", "84", "62", "34", "81", "18", "75", "19", "59", "1", "20", "27", "15", "71", "28", "76", "23", "42", "91", "33", "72", "53", "80", "3", "50", "78", "39", "98", "17", "82", "No Label", "9", "57", "58", "60", "96"], "gold": ["9", "57", "58", "60", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/291/CFSP\nof 5 June 2012\namending and extending Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (1), EULEX KOSOVO\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 4 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP (2) establishing a European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, (EULEX Kosovo).\n(2)\nOn 8 June 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/322/CFSP (3), which amended Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP and extended it for a period of two years until 14 June 2012.\n(3)\nFollowing the recommendations in the strategic review, the mission should be extended for a further period of two years.\n(4)\nThe financial reference amount covers the period until 14 June 2012. Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP should be amended to provide a new financial reference amount intended to cover the period from 15 June 2012 until 14 June 2013.\n(5)\nEULEX Kosovo will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty.\n(6)\nJoint Action 2008/124/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nJoint Action 2008/124/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 3, the following point is added:\n\u2018(j)\ncooperate with judicial and law enforcement authorities of Member States and third States in the execution of its mandate.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\nStructure of EULEX Kosovo\n1. EULEX Kosovo shall be a unified CSDP mission across Kosovo.\n2. EULEX Kosovo shall establish:\n(a)\nits main headquarters in Pristina;\n(b)\noffices across Kosovo, as required;\n(c)\nliaison offices, as required; and\n(d)\na Brussels support element.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 9(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. All staff shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the Mission. All staff shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (4).\n(4)\nArticle 14 is hereby amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Civilian Operation Commander shall direct the Head of Mission's planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation for EULEX Kosovo in accordance with Article 7 and 11 and in coordination with the EEAS.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. The Head of Mission shall ensure the protection of EU classified information in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 16(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure of EULEX Kosovo until 14 October 2010 shall be EUR 265 000 000.\nThe financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure of EULEX Kosovo from 15 October 2010 until 14 December 2011 shall be EUR 165 000 000.\nThe financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure of EULEX Kosovo from 15 December 2011 until 14 June 2012 shall be EUR 72 800 000.\nThe financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure of EULEX Kosovo from 15 June 2012 until 14 June 2013 shall be EUR 111 000 000.\nThe financial reference amount for the subsequent period for EULEX Kosovo shall be decided by Council.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 18 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 18\nRelease of information and documents\n1. The HR shall be authorised to release to the United Nations, NATO/KFOR and to other third parties associated with this Joint Action, EU classified information and documents generated for the purposes of EULEX Kosovo up to the level of the relevant classification respectively for each of them, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU. Local technical arrangements shall be drawn up to facilitate this.\n2. In the event of a specific and immediate operational need, the HR shall also be authorised to release to the competent local authorities EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018restreint UE/ EU restricted\u2019 generated for the purposes of EULEX Kosovo, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU. In all other cases, such information and documents shall be released to the competent local authorities in accordance with the procedures appropriate to those authorities' level of cooperation with the EU.\n3. The HR shall be authorised to release to the United Nations, NATO/KFOR, to other third parties associated with this Joint Action and to the relevant local authorities, EU non-classified documents related to the deliberations of the Council with regard to EULEX Kosovo covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council's Rules of Procedure (5).\n4. The HR may delegate such authorisations, as well as the ability to conclude the arrangements referred to above to persons placed under his/her authority, to the Civilian Operations Commander and/or to the Head of Mission.\n(7)\nin Article 20, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 14 June 2014.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 5 June 2012.", "references": ["37", "50", "89", "94", "15", "23", "77", "7", "60", "86", "41", "39", "35", "22", "19", "76", "99", "44", "21", "51", "56", "28", "79", "49", "84", "8", "33", "88", "74", "36", "No Label", "0", "4", "9", "10", "91", "96"], "gold": ["0", "4", "9", "10", "91", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 345/2011\nof 7 April 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for red seabream in EU and international waters of VI, VII and VIII by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2011 and 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 April 2011.", "references": ["16", "26", "61", "57", "53", "83", "29", "38", "30", "5", "20", "22", "84", "54", "35", "77", "39", "78", "72", "15", "48", "21", "31", "27", "18", "24", "19", "1", "76", "98", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 749/2012\nof 14 August 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 August 2012.", "references": ["75", "62", "59", "52", "89", "81", "84", "20", "12", "57", "67", "55", "18", "7", "0", "93", "11", "5", "92", "69", "8", "6", "68", "50", "3", "34", "53", "28", "32", "94", "No Label", "21", "72"], "gold": ["21", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 137/2012\nof 16 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 February 2012.", "references": ["72", "42", "91", "47", "98", "48", "40", "16", "46", "19", "51", "83", "50", "82", "27", "14", "15", "85", "49", "95", "96", "45", "1", "23", "79", "67", "17", "20", "84", "11", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 549/2012\nof 25 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["28", "91", "53", "36", "72", "94", "79", "20", "41", "48", "67", "37", "44", "13", "98", "19", "75", "1", "62", "85", "60", "58", "18", "88", "87", "33", "66", "99", "43", "47", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 218/2012\nof 13 March 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (B\u00e9a du Roussillon (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France's application to register the name \u2018B\u00e9a du Roussillon\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 March 2012.", "references": ["72", "80", "18", "56", "28", "45", "7", "65", "30", "89", "90", "93", "52", "16", "17", "6", "95", "27", "88", "31", "34", "43", "85", "22", "70", "12", "58", "40", "33", "51", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 181/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 February 2011\nconcerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, in the light of the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on 24 January 2011 (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAction by the Union in the field of bus and coach transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers, that is comparable with other modes of transport, wherever they travel. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general.\n(2)\nSince the bus or coach passenger is the weaker party to the transport contract, all passengers should be granted a minimum level of protection.\n(3)\nUnion measures to improve passengers\u2019 rights in the bus and coach transport sector should take account of the specific characteristics of this sector, which consists largely of small- and medium-sized undertakings.\n(4)\nPassengers and, as a minimum, persons whom the passenger had, or would have had, a legal duty to maintain should enjoy adequate protection in the event of accidents arising out of the use of the bus or coach, taking into account Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (3).\n(5)\nIn choosing the national law applicable to compensation for death, including reasonable funeral expenses, or personal injury as well as for loss of or damage to luggage due to accidents arising out of the use of the bus or coach, Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (4) and Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (5) should be taken into account.\n(6)\nPassengers should, in addition to compensation in accordance with applicable national law in the event of death or personal injury or loss of or damage to luggage due to accidents arising out of the use of the bus or coach, be entitled to assistance with regard to their immediate practical needs following an accident. Such assistance should include, where necessary, first aid, accommodation, food, clothes and transport.\n(7)\nBus and coach passenger services should benefit citizens in general. Consequently, disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, whether caused by disability, age or any other factor, should have opportunities for using bus and coach services that are comparable to those of other citizens. Disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility have the same rights as all other citizens with regard to free movement, freedom of choice and non-discrimination.\n(8)\nIn the light of Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and in order to give disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility opportunities for bus and coach travel comparable to those of other citizens, rules for non-discrimination and assistance during their journey should be established. Those persons should therefore be accepted for carriage and not refused transport on the grounds of their disability or reduced mobility, except for reasons which are justified on the grounds of safety or of the design of vehicles or infrastructure. Within the framework of relevant legislation for the protection of workers, disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility should enjoy the right to assistance at terminals and on board vehicles. In the interest of social inclusion, the persons concerned should receive the assistance free of charge. Carriers should establish access conditions, preferably using the European standardisation system.\n(9)\nIn deciding on the design of new terminals, and as part of major refurbishments, terminal managing bodies should endeavour to take into account the needs of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, in accordance with \u2018design for all\u2019 requirements. In any case, terminal managing bodies should designate points where such persons can notify their arrival and need for assistance.\n(10)\nSimilarly, without prejudice to current or future legislation on technical requirements for buses and coaches, carriers should, where possible, take those needs into account when deciding on the equipment of new and newly refurbished vehicles.\n(11)\nMember States should endeavour to improve existing infrastructure where this is necessary to enable carriers to ensure access for disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility as well as to provide appropriate assistance.\n(12)\nIn order to respond to the needs of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, staff should be adequately trained. With a view to facilitating the mutual recognition of national qualifications of drivers, disability awareness training could be provided as a part of the initial qualification or periodic training as referred to in Directive 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers (6). In order to ensure coherence between the introduction of the training requirements and the time-limits set out in that Directive, a possibility for exemption during a limited period of time should be allowed.\n(13)\nOrganisations representative of disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility should be consulted or involved in preparing the content of the disability-related training.\n(14)\nRights of bus and coach passengers should include the receipt of information regarding the service before and during the journey. All essential information provided to bus and coach passengers should also be provided, upon request, in alternative formats accessible to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, such as large print, plain language, Braille, electronic communications that can be accessed with adaptive technology, or audio tapes.\n(15)\nThis Regulation should not restrict the rights of carriers to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the applicable national law.\n(16)\nInconvenience experienced by passengers due to cancellation or significant delay of their journey should be reduced. To this end, passengers departing from terminals should be adequately looked after and informed in a way which is accessible to all passengers. Passengers should also be able to cancel their journey and have their tickets reimbursed or to continue their journey or to obtain re-routing under satisfactory conditions. If carriers fail to provide passengers with the necessary assistance, passengers should have the right to obtain financial compensation.\n(17)\nWith the involvement of stakeholders, professional associations and associations of customers, passengers, disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, carriers should cooperate in order to adopt arrangements at national or European level. Such arrangements should aim at improving the information, care and assistance offered to passengers whenever their travel is interrupted, in particular in the event of long delays or cancellation of travel, with a particular focus on passengers with special needs due to disability, reduced mobility, illness, elderly age and pregnancy, and including accompanying passengers and passengers travelling with young children. National enforcement bodies should be informed of those arrangements.\n(18)\nThis Regulation should not affect the rights of passengers established by Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (7). This Regulation should not apply in cases where a package tour is cancelled for reasons other than cancellation of the bus or coach transport service.\n(19)\nPassengers should be fully informed of their rights under this Regulation, so that they can effectively exercise those rights.\n(20)\nPassengers should be able to exercise their rights by means of appropriate complaint procedures implemented by carriers or, as the case may be, by submission of complaints to the body or bodies designated to that end by the relevant Member State.\n(21)\nMember States should ensure compliance with this Regulation and designate a competent body or bodies to carry out supervision and enforcement tasks. This does not affect the rights of passengers to seek legal redress from courts under national law.\n(22)\nTaking into account the procedures established by Member States for the submission of complaints, a complaint concerning assistance should preferably be addressed to the body or bodies designated for the enforcement of this Regulation in the Member State where the boarding point or alighting point is situated.\n(23)\nMember States should promote the use of public transport and the use of integrated information and integrated tickets in order to optimise the use and interoperability of the various transport modes and operators.\n(24)\nMember States should lay down penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and ensure that those penalties are applied. Those penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n(25)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely to ensure an equivalent level of protection of and assistance to passengers in bus and coach transport throughout the Member States, cannot sufficiently be achieved by the Member States and can therefore by reason of the scale and effects of the 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. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.\n(26)\nThis Regulation should be without prejudice to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (8).\n(27)\nThe enforcement of this Regulation should be based on Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection law (the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation) (9). That Regulation should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(28)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as referred to in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, bearing in mind also Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (10) and Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (11),\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation establishes rules for bus and coach transport as regards the following:\n(a)\nnon-discrimination between passengers with regard to transport conditions offered by carriers;\n(b)\nrights of passengers in the event of accidents arising out of the use of the bus or coach resulting in death or personal injury or loss of or damage to luggage;\n(c)\nnon-discrimination and mandatory assistance for disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility;\n(d)\nrights of passengers in cases of cancellation or delay;\n(e)\nminimum information to be provided to passengers;\n(f)\nhandling of complaints;\n(g)\ngeneral rules on enforcement.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to passengers travelling with regular services for non-specified categories of passengers where the boarding or the alighting point of the passengers is situated in the territory of a Member State and where the scheduled distance of the service is 250 km or more.\n2. As regards the services referred to in paragraph 1 but where the scheduled distance of the service is shorter than 250 km, Article 4(2), Article 9, Article 10(1), point (b) of Article 16(1), Article 16(2), Article 17(1) and (2), and Articles 24 to 28 shall apply.\n3. In addition, with the exception of Articles 9 to 16, Article 17(3), and Chapters IV, V and VI, this Regulation shall apply to passengers travelling with occasional services where the initial boarding point or the final alighting point of the passenger is situated in the territory of a Member State.\n4. With the exception of Article 4(2), Article 9, Article 10(1), point (b) of Article 16(1), Article 16(2), Article 17(1) and (2), and Articles 24 to 28, Member States may, on a transparent and non-discriminatory basis, exempt domestic regular services from the application of this Regulation. Such exemptions may be granted as from the date of application of this Regulation for a period no longer than 4 years, which may be renewed once.\n5. For a maximum period of 4 years from the date of application of this Regulation, Member States may, on a transparent and non-discriminatory basis, exempt from the application of this Regulation particular regular services because a significant part of such regular services, including at least one scheduled stop, is operated outside the Union. Such exemptions may be renewed once.\n6. Member States shall inform the Commission of exemptions of different types of services granted pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 5. The Commission shall take appropriate action if such an exemption is deemed not to be in accordance with the provisions of this Article. By 2 March 2018, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on exemptions granted pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 5.\n7. Nothing in this Regulation shall be understood as conflicting with or introducing additional requirements to those in current legislation on technical requirements for buses or coaches or infrastructure or equipment at bus stops and terminals.\n8. This Regulation shall not affect the rights of passengers under Directive 90/314/EEC and shall not apply in case where a package tour referred to in that Directive is cancelled for reasons other than cancellation of a regular service.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018regular services\u2019 means services which provide for the carriage of passengers by bus or coach at specified intervals along specified routes, passengers being picked up and set down at predetermined stopping points;\n(b)\n\u2018occasional services\u2019 means services which do not fall within the definition of regular services and the main characteristic of which is the carriage by bus or coach of groups of passengers constituted on the initiative of the customer or the carrier himself;\n(c)\n\u2018transport contract\u2019 means a contract of carriage between a carrier and a passenger for the provision of one or more regular or occasional services;\n(d)\n\u2018ticket\u2019 means a valid document or other evidence of a transport contract;\n(e)\n\u2018carrier\u2019 means a natural or legal person, other than a tour operator, travel agent or ticket vendor, offering transport by regular or occasional services to the general public;\n(f)\n\u2018performing carrier\u2019 means a natural or legal person other than the carrier, who actually performs the carriage wholly or partially;\n(g)\n\u2018ticket vendor\u2019 means any intermediary concluding transport contracts on behalf of a carrier;\n(h)\n\u2018travel agent\u2019 means any intermediary acting on behalf of a passenger for the conclusion of transport contracts;\n(i)\n\u2018tour operator\u2019 means an organiser or retailer, other than the carrier, within the meaning of Article 2(2) and (3) of Directive 90/314/EEC;\n(j)\n\u2018disabled person\u2019 or \u2018person with reduced mobility\u2019 means any person whose mobility when using transport is reduced as a result of any physical disability (sensory or locomotory, permanent or temporary), intellectual disability or impairment, or any other cause of disability, or as a result of age, and whose situation needs appropriate attention and adaptation to his particular needs of the services made available to all passengers;\n(k)\n\u2018access conditions\u2019 means relevant standards, guidelines and information on the accessibility of buses and/or of designated terminals including their facilities for disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility;\n(l)\n\u2018reservation\u2019 means a booking of a seat on board a bus or coach for a regular service at a specific departure time;\n(m)\n\u2018terminal\u2019 means a staffed terminal where according to the specified route a regular service is scheduled to stop for passengers to board or alight, equipped with facilities such as a check-in counter, waiting room or ticket office;\n(n)\n\u2018bus stop\u2019 means any point other than a terminal where according to the specified route a regular service is scheduled to stop for passengers to board or alight;\n(o)\n\u2018terminal managing body\u2019 means an organisational entity in a Member State responsible for the management of a designated terminal;\n(p)\n\u2018cancellation\u2019 means the non-operation of a regular service which was previously scheduled;\n(q)\n\u2018delay\u2019 means a difference between the time the regular service was scheduled to depart in accordance with the published timetable and the time of its actual departure.\nArticle 4\nTickets and non-discriminatory contract conditions\n1. Carriers shall issue a ticket to the passenger, unless other documents give entitlement to transport. A ticket may be issued in an electronic format.\n2. Without prejudice to social tariffs, the contract conditions and tariffs applied by carriers shall be offered to the general public without any direct or indirect discrimination based on the nationality of the final customer or on the place of establishment of the carriers, or ticket vendors within the Union.\nArticle 5\nOther performing parties\n1. If the performance of the obligations under this Regulation has been entrusted to a performing carrier, ticket vendor or any other person, the carrier, travel agent, tour operator or terminal managing body, who has entrusted such obligations, shall nevertheless be liable for the acts and omissions of that performing party.\n2. In addition, the party to whom the performance of an obligation has been entrusted by the carrier, travel agent, tour operator or terminal managing body shall be subject to the provisions of this Regulation with regard to the obligation entrusted.\nArticle 6\nExclusion of waiver\n1. Obligations to passengers pursuant to this Regulation shall not be limited or waived, in particular by a derogation or restrictive clause in the transport contract.\n2. Carriers may offer contract conditions that are more favourable for the passenger than the conditions laid down in this Regulation.\nCHAPTER II\nCOMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE IN THE EVENT OF ACCIDENTS\nArticle 7\nDeath or personal injury to passengers and loss of or damage to luggage\n1. Passengers shall, in accordance with applicable national law, be entitled to compensation for death, including reasonable funeral expenses, or personal injury as well as to loss of or damage to luggage due to accidents arising out of the use of the bus or coach. In case of death of a passenger, this right shall as a minimum apply to persons whom the passenger had, or would have had, a legal duty to maintain.\n2. The amount of compensation shall be calculated in accordance with applicable national law. Any maximum limit provided by national law to the compensation for death and personal injury or loss of or damage to luggage shall on each distinct occasion not be less than:\n(a)\nEUR 220 000 per passenger;\n(b)\nEUR 1 200 per item of luggage. In the event of damage to wheelchairs, other mobility equipment or assistive devices the amount of compensation shall always be equal to the cost of replacement or repair of the equipment lost or damaged.\nArticle 8\nImmediate practical needs of passengers\nIn the event of an accident arising out of the use of the bus or coach, the carrier shall provide reasonable and proportionate assistance with regard to the passengers\u2019 immediate practical needs following the accident. Such assistance shall include, where necessary, accommodation, food, clothes, transport and the facilitation of first aid. Any assistance provided shall not constitute recognition of liability.\nFor each passenger, the carrier may limit the total cost of accommodation to EUR 80 per night and for a maximum of 2 nights.\nCHAPTER III\nRIGHTS OF DISABLED PERSONS AND PERSONS WITH REDUCED MOBILITY\nArticle 9\nRight to transport\n1. Carriers, travel agents and tour operators shall not refuse to accept a reservation from, to issue or otherwise provide a ticket to, or to take on board, a person on the grounds of disability or of reduced mobility.\n2. Reservations and tickets shall be offered to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility at no additional cost.\nArticle 10\nExceptions and special conditions\n1. Notwithstanding Article 9(1), carriers, travel agents and tour operators may refuse to accept a reservation from, to issue or otherwise provide a ticket to, or to take on board, a person on the grounds of disability or of reduced mobility:\n(a)\nin order to meet applicable safety requirements established by international, Union or national law, or in order to meet health and safety requirements established by the competent authorities;\n(b)\nwhere the design of the vehicle or the infrastructure, including bus stops and terminals, makes it physically impossible to take on board, alight or carry the disabled person or person with reduced mobility in a safe and operationally feasible manner.\n2. In the event of a refusal to accept a reservation or to issue or otherwise provide a ticket on the grounds referred to in paragraph 1, carriers, travel agents and tour operators shall inform the person concerned about any acceptable alternative service operated by the carrier.\n3. If a disabled person or a person with reduced mobility, who holds a reservation or has a ticket and has complied with the requirements of point (a) of Article 14(1), is nonetheless refused permission to board on the grounds of his disability or reduced mobility, that person and any accompanying person pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article shall be offered the choice between:\n(a)\nthe right to reimbursement, and where relevant a return service free of charge to the first point of departure, as set out in the transport contract, at the earliest opportunity; and\n(b)\nexcept where not feasible, continuation of the journey or re-routing by reasonable alternative transport services to the place of destination set out in the transport contract.\nThe right to reimbursement of the money paid for the ticket shall not be affected by the failure to notify in accordance with point (a) of Article 14(1).\n4. If a carrier, travel agent or tour operator refuses to accept a reservation from, to issue or otherwise provide a ticket to, or to take on board, a person on the grounds of disability or of reduced mobility for the reasons set out in paragraph 1, that person may request to be accompanied by another person of his own choosing who is capable of providing the assistance required by the disabled person or person with reduced mobility in order that the reasons set out in paragraph 1 no longer apply.\nSuch an accompanying person shall be transported free of charge and, where feasible, seated next to the disabled person or person with reduced mobility.\n5. When carriers, travel agents or tour operators have recourse to paragraph 1, they shall immediately inform the disabled person or person with reduced mobility of the reasons therefor, and, upon request, inform the person in question in writing within 5 working days of the request.\nArticle 11\nAccessibility and information\n1. In cooperation with organisations representative of disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility, carriers and terminal managing bodies shall, where appropriate through their organisations, establish, or have in place, non-discriminatory access conditions for the transport of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility.\n2. The access conditions provided for in paragraph 1, including the text of international, Union or national laws establishing the safety requirements, on which these non-discriminatory access conditions are based, shall be made publicly available by carriers and terminal managing bodies physically or on the Internet, in accessible formats on request, in the same languages as those in which information is generally made available to all passengers. When providing this information particular attention shall be paid to the needs of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility.\n3. Tour operators shall make available the access conditions provided for in paragraph 1 which apply to journeys included in package travel, package holidays and package tours which they organise, sell or offer for sale.\n4. The information on access conditions referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be physically distributed at the request of the passenger.\n5. Carriers, travel agents and tour operators shall ensure that all relevant general information concerning the journey and the conditions of carriage is available in appropriate and accessible formats for disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility including, where applicable, online booking and information. The information shall be physically distributed at the request of the passenger.\nArticle 12\nDesignation of terminals\nMember States shall designate bus and coach terminals where assistance for disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility shall be provided. Member States shall inform the Commission thereof. The Commission shall make available a list of the designated bus and coach terminals on the Internet.\nArticle 13\nRight to assistance at designated terminals and on board buses and coaches\n1. Subject to the access conditions provided for in Article 11(1), carriers and terminal managing bodies shall, within their respective areas of competence, at terminals designated by Member States, provide assistance free of charge to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, at least to the extent specified in part (a) of Annex I.\n2. Subject to the access conditions provided for in Article 11(1), carriers shall, on board buses and coaches, provide assistance free of charge to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, at least to the extent specified in part (b) of Annex I.\nArticle 14\nConditions under which assistance is provided\n1. Carriers and terminal managing bodies shall cooperate in order to provide assistance to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility on condition that:\n(a)\nthe person\u2019s need for such assistance is notified to carriers, terminal managing bodies, travel agents or tour operators at the latest 36 hours before the assistance is needed; and\n(b)\nthe persons concerned present themselves at the designated point:\n(i)\nat the time stipulated in advance by the carrier which shall be no more than 60 minutes before the published departure time, unless a shorter period is agreed between the carrier and the passenger; or\n(ii)\nif no time is stipulated, no later than 30 minutes before the published departure time.\n2. In addition to paragraph 1, disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility shall notify the carrier, travel agent or tour operator at the time of reservation or advance purchase of the ticket of their specific seating needs, provided that the need is known at that time.\n3. Carriers, terminal managing bodies, travel agents and tour operators shall take all measures necessary to facilitate the receipt of notifications of the need for assistance made by disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility. This obligation shall apply at all designated terminals and their points of sale including sale by telephone and via the Internet.\n4. If no notification is made in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2, carriers, terminal managing bodies, travel agents and tour operators shall make every reasonable effort to ensure that the assistance is provided in such a way that the disabled person or person with reduced mobility is able to board the departing service, to change to the corresponding service or to alight from the arriving service for which he has purchased a ticket.\n5. The terminal managing body shall designate a point inside or outside the terminal at which disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility can announce their arrival and request assistance. The point shall be clearly signposted and shall offer basic information about the terminal and assistance provided, in accessible formats.\nArticle 15\nTransmission of information to a third party\nIf travel agents or tour operators receive a notification referred to in point (a) of Article 14(1) they shall, within their normal office hours, transfer the information to the carrier or terminal managing body as soon as possible.\nArticle 16\nTraining\n1. Carriers and, where appropriate, terminal managing bodies shall establish disability-related training procedures, including instructions, and ensure that:\n(a)\ntheir personnel, other than drivers, including those employed by any other performing party, providing direct assistance to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility are trained or instructed as described in parts (a) and (b) of Annex II; and\n(b)\ntheir personnel, including drivers, who deal directly with the travelling public or with issues related to the travelling public, are trained or instructed as described in part (a) of Annex II.\n2. A Member State may for a maximum period of 5 years from 1 March 2013 grant an exemption from the application of point (b) of paragraph 1 with regard to training of drivers.\nArticle 17\nCompensation in respect of wheelchairs and other mobility equipment\n1. Carriers and terminal managing bodies shall be liable where they have caused loss of or damage to wheelchairs, other mobility equipment or assistive devices. The loss or damage shall be compensated by the carrier or terminal managing body liable for that loss or damage.\n2. The compensation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be equal to the cost of replacement or repair of the equipment or devices lost or damaged.\n3. Where necessary, every effort shall be undertaken to rapidly provide temporary replacement equipment or devices. The wheelchairs, other mobility equipment or assistive devices shall, where possible, have technical and functional features similar to those lost or damaged.\nArticle 18\nExemptions\n1. Without prejudice to Article 2(2), Member States may exempt domestic regular services from the application of all or some of the provisions of this Chapter, provided that they ensure that the level of protection of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility under their national rules is at least the same as under this Regulation.\n2. Member States shall inform the Commission of exemptions granted pursuant to paragraph 1. The Commission shall take appropriate action if such an exemption is deemed not to be in accordance with the provisions of this Article. By 2 March 2018, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on exemptions granted pursuant to paragraph 1.\nCHAPTER IV\nPASSENGER RIGHTS IN THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION OR DELAY\nArticle 19\nContinuation, re-routing and reimbursement\n1. Where a carrier reasonably expects a regular service to be cancelled or delayed in departure from a terminal for more than 120 minutes or in the case of overbooking, the passenger shall immediately be offered the choice between:\n(a)\ncontinuation or re-routing to the final destination, at no additional cost and under comparable conditions, as set out in the transport contract, at the earliest opportunity;\n(b)\nreimbursement of the ticket price, and, where relevant, a return service by bus or coach free of charge to the first point of departure, as set out in the transport contract, at the earliest opportunity.\n2. If the carrier fails to offer the passenger the choice referred to in paragraph 1, the passenger shall have the right to compensation amounting to 50 % of the ticket price, in addition to the reimbursement referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1. This sum shall be paid by the carrier within 1 month after the submission of the request for compensation.\n3. Where the bus or coach becomes inoperable during the journey, the carrier shall provide either the continuation of the service with another vehicle from the location of the inoperable vehicle, or transport from the location of the inoperable vehicle to a suitable waiting point or terminal from where continuation of the journey becomes possible.\n4. Where a regular service is cancelled or delayed in departure from a bus stop for more than 120 minutes, passengers shall have the right to the continuation or re-routing or reimbursement of the ticket price from the carrier, as referred to in paragraph 1.\n5. The payment of reimbursement provided for in point (b) of paragraph 1 and paragraph 4 shall be made within 14 days after the offer has been made or request has been received. The payment shall cover the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was purchased, for the part or parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made if the journey no longer serves any purpose in relation to the passenger\u2019s original travel plan. In case of travel passes or season tickets the payment shall be equal to its proportional part of the full cost of the pass or ticket. The reimbursement shall be paid in money, unless the passenger accepts another form of reimbursement.\nArticle 20\nInformation\n1. In the event of cancellation or delay in departure of a regular service, passengers departing from terminals shall be informed by the carrier or, where appropriate, the terminal managing body, of the situation as soon as possible and in any event no later than 30 minutes after the scheduled departure time, and of the estimated departure time as soon as this information is available.\n2. If passengers miss, according to the timetable, a connecting service due to a cancellation or delay, the carrier or, where appropriate, the terminal managing body, shall make reasonable efforts to inform the passengers concerned of alternative connections.\n3. The carrier or, where appropriate, the terminal managing body, shall ensure that disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility receive the information required under paragraphs 1 and 2 in accessible formats.\n4. Where feasible, the information required under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be provided by electronic means to all passengers, including those departing from bus stops, within the time-limit stipulated in paragraph 1, if the passenger has requested this and has provided the necessary contact details to the carrier.\nArticle 21\nAssistance in case of cancelled or delayed departures\nFor a journey of a scheduled duration of more than 3 hours the carrier shall, in case of cancellation or delay in departure from a terminal of more than 90 minutes, offer the passenger free of charge:\n(a)\nsnacks, meals or refreshments in reasonable relation to the waiting time or delay, provided they are available on the bus or in the terminal, or can reasonably be supplied;\n(b)\na hotel room or other accommodation as well as assistance to arrange transport between the terminal and the place of accommodation in cases where a stay of 1 or more nights becomes necessary. For each passenger, the carrier may limit the total cost of accommodation, not including transport to and from the terminal and place of accommodation, to EUR 80 per night and for a maximum of 2 nights.\nIn applying this Article the carrier shall pay particular attention to the needs of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility and any accompanying persons.\nArticle 22\nFurther claims\nNothing in this Chapter shall preclude passengers from seeking damages in accordance with national law before national courts in respect of loss resulting from cancellation or delay of regular services.\nArticle 23\nExemptions\n1. Articles 19 and 21 shall not apply to passengers with open tickets as long as the time of departure is not specified, except for passengers holding a travel pass or a season ticket.\n2. Point (b) of Article 21 shall not apply where the carrier proves that the cancellation or delay is caused by severe weather conditions or major natural disasters endangering the safe operation of bus or coach services.\nCHAPTER V\nGENERAL RULES ON INFORMATION AND COMPLAINTS\nArticle 24\nRight to travel information\nCarriers and terminal managing bodies shall, within their respective areas of competence, provide passengers with adequate information throughout their travel. Where feasible, this information shall be provided in accessible formats upon request.\nArticle 25\nInformation on passenger rights\n1. Carriers and terminal managing bodies shall, within their respective areas of competence, ensure that passengers are provided with appropriate and comprehensible information regarding their rights under this Regulation at the latest on departure. This information shall be provided at terminals and where applicable, on the Internet. At the request of a disabled person or person with reduced mobility the information shall be provided, where feasible, in an accessible format. This information shall include contact details of the enforcement body or bodies designated by the Member State pursuant to Article 28(1).\n2. In order to comply with the information requirement referred to in paragraph 1, carriers and terminal managing bodies may use a summary of the provisions of this Regulation prepared by the Commission in all the official languages of the institutions of the European Union and made available to them.\nArticle 26\nComplaints\nCarriers shall set up or have in place a complaint handling mechanism for the rights and obligations set out in this Regulation.\nArticle 27\nSubmission of complaints\nWithout prejudice to claims for compensation in accordance with Article 7, if a passenger covered by this Regulation wants to make a complaint to the carrier, he shall submit it within 3 months from the date on which the regular service was performed or when a regular service should have been performed. Within 1 month of receiving the complaint, the carrier shall give notice to the passenger that his complaint has been substantiated, rejected or is still being considered. The time taken to provide the final reply shall not be longer than 3 months from the receipt of the complaint.\nCHAPTER VI\nENFORCEMENT AND NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT BODIES\nArticle 28\nNational enforcement bodies\n1. Each Member State shall designate a new or existing body or bodies responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation as regards regular services from points situated on its territory and regular services from a third country to such points. Each body shall take the measures necessary to ensure compliance with this Regulation.\nEach body shall, in its organisation, funding decisions, legal structure and decision making, be independent of carriers, tour operators and terminal managing bodies.\n2. Member States shall inform the Commission of the body or bodies designated in accordance with this Article.\n3. Any passenger may submit a complaint, in accordance with national law, to the appropriate body designated under paragraph 1, or to any other appropriate body designated by a Member State, about an alleged infringement of this Regulation.\nA Member State may decide that the passenger as a first step shall submit a complaint to the carrier in which case the national enforcement body or any other appropriate body designated by the Member State shall act as an appeal body for complaints not resolved under Article 27.\nArticle 29\nReport on enforcement\nBy 1 June 2015 and every 2 years thereafter, the enforcement bodies designated pursuant to Article 28(1) shall publish a report on their activity in the previous 2 calendar years, containing in particular a description of actions taken in order to implement this Regulation and statistics on complaints and sanctions applied.\nArticle 30\nCooperation between enforcement bodies\nNational enforcement bodies as referred to in Article 28(1) shall, whenever appropriate, exchange information on their work and decision-making principles and practices. The Commission shall support them in this task.\nArticle 31\nPenalties\nMember States shall lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all the measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify those rules and measures to the Commission by 1 March 2013 and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.\nCHAPTER VII\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 32\nReport\nThe Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council by 2 March 2016 on the operation and effects of this Regulation. The report shall be accompanied, where necessary, by legislative proposals implementing in further detail the provisions of this Regulation, or amending it.\nArticle 33\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004\nIn the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 the following point is added:\n\u201819.\nRegulation (EU) No 181/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport (12).\nArticle 34\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 March 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 February 2011.", "references": ["13", "95", "94", "11", "47", "92", "21", "6", "42", "71", "50", "75", "65", "41", "52", "76", "91", "17", "98", "79", "90", "69", "37", "60", "40", "87", "4", "85", "63", "20", "No Label", "9", "24", "53", "54", "55"], "gold": ["9", "24", "53", "54", "55"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 941/2011\nof 22 September 2011\nimplementing Article 16(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 16(2) and (5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 2 March 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.\n(2)\nFollowing the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2009 (2011) on 16 September 2011 and in accordance with Council Decision 2011/625/CFSP of 22 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (2), the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annexes II and III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entries for the entities set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall be deleted from the lists set out in Annexes II and III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2011.", "references": ["82", "10", "65", "58", "16", "23", "37", "83", "93", "15", "8", "99", "71", "61", "11", "46", "55", "77", "48", "80", "87", "24", "39", "5", "72", "52", "30", "69", "63", "33", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 740/2012\nof 14 August 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 August 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 August 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 August 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 August 2012.", "references": ["55", "84", "19", "86", "7", "0", "36", "13", "3", "21", "75", "8", "52", "89", "20", "39", "25", "48", "6", "12", "18", "60", "57", "59", "46", "82", "53", "37", "56", "49", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 388/2011\nof 19 April 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of maduramicin ammonium alpha as a feed additive for chickens for fattening (holder of authorisation Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA) and amending Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).\n(2)\nMaduramicin ammonium alpha, CAS number 84878-61-5, was authorised for 10 years in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC as a feed additive for use on chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (3) and for use on turkeys by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2380/2001 (4). That additive was subsequently entered in the Community Register of feed additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 of that Regulation, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of maduramicin ammonium alpha as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, requesting that additive to be classified in the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 9 December 2010 that, under the proposed conditions of use, maduramicin ammonium alpha does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that that additive is effective in controlling coccidiosis in chickens for fattening (5). The Authority recommends appropriate measures for user safety. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the European Union Reference Laboratory for Feed Additives set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of maduramicin ammonium alpha shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nAs a consequence of the granting of a new authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, the provisions on maduramicin ammonium alpha in Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 should be deleted.\n(7)\nSince the modifications on the conditions of the authorisation are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for the disposal of existing stocks of the premixtures and compound feed.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019 is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999, the entry under the registration number of additive E 770, concerning Maduramicin ammonium alpha is deleted.\nArticle 3\nPremixtures and compound feed containing maduramicin ammonium alpha labelled in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC may continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2011.", "references": ["26", "86", "55", "20", "65", "2", "37", "44", "10", "68", "13", "4", "17", "85", "61", "64", "84", "42", "28", "29", "47", "54", "50", "15", "32", "79", "96", "36", "90", "94", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 465/2011\nof 13 May 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 882/2010 as regards the lodging of export-licence applications for out-of-quota sugar for marketing year 2010/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 7e in conjunction with Article 9(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the sugar produced during a marketing year in excess of the quota referred to in Article 56 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 of 7 May 2010 fixing the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2010/2011 marketing year (3) has fixed the quantitative limit at 650 000 tonnes in the case of sugar.\n(3)\nThe quantities of sugar covered by applications for export licences exceeded that quantitative limit. Therefore Commission Regulation (EU) No 882/2010 of 6 October 2010 fixing the acceptance percentage for the issuing of export licences, rejecting export-licence applications and suspending the lodging of export-licence applications for out-of-quota sugar (4) suspended the lodging of applications for out-of-quota sugar export licences for the period 11 October 2010 to 30 September 2011.\n(4)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 461/2011 of 12 May 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 fixing the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2010/2011 marketing year (5), the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar in respect of marketing year 2010/2011 was increased by 700 000 tonnes.\n(5)\nAs the quantitative limit in respect of marketing year 2010/2011 is increased, the lodging of applications should once again be possible as of the first week of July.\n(6)\nRegulation (EU) No 882/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 882/2010, paragraph 3 is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 4 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 May 2011.", "references": ["37", "82", "0", "29", "73", "45", "88", "3", "8", "66", "35", "60", "76", "14", "80", "68", "69", "32", "42", "83", "79", "55", "19", "98", "28", "77", "13", "6", "34", "95", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "71"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 22 June 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the Committee on Trade and Sustainable Development set up by the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, as regards the operation of the Civil Society Forum and the establishment of the Panel of Experts to examine the matters in the areas falling within the scope of the Committee on Trade and Sustainable Development\n(2012/488/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(4), first subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 April 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea on behalf of the European Union and its Member States.\n(2)\nThe Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part (1) (\u2018the Agreement\u2019), was signed on 6 October 2010.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 15.10(5) of the Agreement, the Agreement has been provisionally applied since 1 July 2011 subject to its conclusion at a later date.\n(4)\nArticle 13.13(1) of the Agreement provides that the parties shall agree by decision of the Committee on Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) (\u2018the EU-Korea Committee on Trade and Sustainable Development\u2019) on the operation of the Civil Society Forum no later than one year after the entry into force of the Agreement.\n(5)\nArticle 13.15(3) foresees the establishment of a list of persons who could be called to serve in a Panel of Experts to examine any matter arising under the TSD chapter that could not be satisfactorily addressed through government consultations.\n(6)\nThe Union should determine the position to be taken with regard to the operation of the Civil Society Forum and the list of persons who could be called to serve as experts,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the Union in the EU-Korea Committee on Trade and Sustainable Development set up by the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, as regards:\n(a)\nthe operation of the Civil Society Forum foreseen in Article 13.13(1) of the Agreement; and\n(b)\nthe establishment of a list of qualified individuals to serve as panellists, in accordance with Article 13.15(3) of the Agreement;\nshall be based on the draft decisions of the EU-Korea Committee on Trade and Sustainable Development attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 22 June 2012.", "references": ["99", "58", "6", "49", "48", "18", "92", "74", "93", "80", "87", "12", "56", "42", "79", "46", "82", "33", "30", "67", "47", "2", "41", "34", "70", "19", "54", "3", "55", "62", "No Label", "1", "9", "23", "95", "96"], "gold": ["1", "9", "23", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1371/2011\nof 21 December 2011\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1)(b)(ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 provides for the possibility to adopt appropriate Union emergency measures for food and feed imported from a third country in order to protect public health, animal health or the environment, where the risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member States individually.\n(2)\nFollowing the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station on 11 March 2011, the Commission was informed that radionuclide levels in certain food products originating in Japan such as milk and spinach exceeded the action levels in food applicable in Japan. Such contamination may constitute a threat to public and animal health in the Union and therefore Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 (2) was adopted.\n(3)\nThe Japanese authorities monitor the presence of radioactivity in feed and food and it can be observed from the reported analytical results that certain feed and food in prefectures close to the Fukushima nuclear power station continue to contain levels of radioactivity above the maximum levels. It is therefore appropriate to extend the date of applicability of the measures by three additional months.\n(4)\nA significant number of samples taken by the Japanese authorities from feed and food produced in the Nagano prefecture show that the production of feed and food in that prefecture is only to a very limited extent affected by the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station as only one sample of mushrooms of more than 1 800 samples of feed and food from Nagano had non-compliant levels of radioactivity. In particular, nearly all samples had non-detectable levels of radioactivity and only in few samples significant levels of radioactivity were detected. Therefore, it is appropriate to remove that prefecture from the zone, where a testing of all feed and food originating from those prefectures is required before export to the Union.\n(5)\nThe analytical results of import controls performed by the competent authorities of the Member States are so far very favourable and indicate that the control measures imposed on feed and food for export to the EU are correctly and efficiently applied by the Japanese authorities. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider at the next review of the measures a reduction of the frequency of import controls.\n(6)\nGiven that the half-life of iodine-131 is short (about 8 days) and that no new releases of iodine-131 to the environment have been recently reported, the presence of iodine-131 is no longer observed in feed and food or the environment. As the possibility of new releases of iodine-131 are very minimal, it is appropriate to no longer require the analysis for the presence of iodine-131.\n(7)\nTo facilitate the issuance of attestations, it is appropriate to authorise the competent authority to appoint an instance which is authorised to sign in certain cases the attestations under the authority and supervision of the competent authority of Japan.\n(8)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmending provisions\nRegulation (EU) No 961/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Each consignment of products referred to in Article 1 shall be accompanied by a declaration, attesting that:\n(a)\nthe product has been harvested and/or processed before 11 March 2011; or\n(b)\nthe product originates in and is consigned from a prefecture other than Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa and Shizuoka; or\n(c)\nthe product is consigned from Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa and Shizuoka prefectures, but does not originate in one of those prefectures and has not been exposed to radioactivity during transiting; or\n(d)\nwhere a product originates in Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa and Shizuoka prefectures, the product does not contain levels of radionuclides caesium-134 and caesium-137 above the maximum levels provided for in Annex II to this Regulation.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 2, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. The declaration referred to in paragraph 3 shall be drawn up in accordance with the model set out in Annex I. For the products referred to in points (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 3, the declaration shall be signed by an authorised representative of the competent authority of Japan or by an authorised representative of an instance authorised by the competent authority of Japan under the authority and supervision of the competent authority. For the products referred to in point (d) of paragraph 3, the declaration shall be signed by an authorised representative of the competent authority of Japan and shall be accompanied by an analytical report containing the results of sampling and analysis.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 5, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The competent authorities of the border inspection post or designated point of entry shall carry out:\n(a)\ndocumentary checks on all consignments of products referred to in Article 1; and\n(b)\nidentity and physical checks, including laboratory analysis on the presence of caesium-134 and caesium-137, on at least:\n-\n10 % of the consignments of products referred to in Article 2(3)(d), and\n-\n20 % of the consignments of products referred to in Article 2(3)(b) and (c).\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 10, the second paragraph, the date of \u201831 December 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 March 2012\u2019.\n(5)\nAnnex I is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["30", "57", "85", "14", "40", "36", "19", "71", "74", "8", "45", "2", "61", "70", "86", "29", "87", "4", "9", "98", "18", "27", "58", "97", "89", "90", "24", "34", "37", "80", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "38", "60", "66", "72", "81", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "38", "60", "66", "72", "81", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 18 August 2011\namending Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC as regards the entries for Bahrain and Lebanon in the list of third countries and parts thereof from which the introduction into the Union of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species are authorised\n(notified under document C(2011) 5863)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/512/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992, laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), and in particular Article 17(3)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2009/156/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing the movement and importation from third countries of equidae (2), and in particular Article 12(1) and (4), and the introductory phrase of Article 19 and points (a) and (b) of Article 19 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 92/65/EEC lays down conditions applicable to imports of animals, semen, ova and embryos. Those conditions are to be at least equivalent to those applicable to trade between Member States.\n(2)\nDirective 2009/156/EC lays down animal health conditions for the importation into the Union of live equidae. It provides that imports of equidae into the Union are only authorised from third countries which have been free from glanders for a period of six months.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2004/211/EC of 6 January 2004 establishing the list of third countries and parts of territory thereof from which Member States authorise imports of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species, and amending Decisions 93/195/EEC and 94/63/EC (3) establishes a list of third countries, or parts thereof where regionalisation applies, from which Member States are to authorise the importation of equidae and semen, ova and embryos thereof, and indicates the other conditions applicable to such imports. That list is set out in Annex I to that Decision and includes registered horses and semen thereof from Lebanon.\n(4)\nThe Regional Commission for the Middle East of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) informed the Commission of the confirmation by an OIE Reference Laboratory of glanders (Burkholderia mallei) cases in equidae in Lebanon.\n(5)\nThe introduction into the Union from Lebanon of registered horses and of semen thereof should therefore no longer be authorised. Accordingly, it is necessary to amend the entry for Lebanon in the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC.\n(6)\nIn April 2010, the Commission received a report about confirmed cases of glanders in the northern parts of Bahrain. In order to suspend the introduction into the Union of registered horses, their semen, ova and embryos, the Commission adopted Decision 2010/333/EU of 14 June 2010 amending Decision 2004/211/EC as regards the entries for Bahrain and Brazil in the list of third countries and parts thereof from which the introduction into the European Union of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species are authorised (4).\n(7)\nA veterinary inspection mission carried out in Bahrain in June 2011 found sufficient evidence that Bahrain had implemented measures to control the disease in the north and that surveillance carried out throughout the territory of Bahrain confirmed the continued absence of this disease in the southern part of Bahrain. In addition, Bahrain has implemented movement controls, which include a strictly enforced ban on movements of equidae from the northern part of the territory of Bahrain into the southern part of the main island of Bahrain. Consequently, it is possible to regionalise Bahrain in order to authorise the temporary admission and imports into the Union of registered horses from the southern part of the main island of Bahrain.\n(8)\nAccordingly, it is necessary to amend the entry for Bahrain and to provide details of the delimitation of the southern part of the main island of Bahrain in the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Decision 2004/211/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nthe entry for Lebanon is replaced by the following:\n\u2018LB\nLebanon\nLB-0\nWhole country\nE\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\u2019\n2.\nthe entry for Bahrain is replaced by the following:\n\u2018BH\nBahrain\nBH-0\nWhole country\nE\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nBH-1\nSouthern part of the main island of Bahrain\n(see Box 4 for details)\nE\nX\n-\nX\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\u2019\n3.\nBox 4 is added in accordance with the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 August 2011.", "references": ["21", "53", "46", "24", "34", "47", "48", "94", "10", "84", "56", "79", "76", "77", "73", "4", "44", "39", "78", "17", "50", "7", "62", "9", "64", "83", "82", "14", "92", "58", "No Label", "22", "61", "65", "66", "95"], "gold": ["22", "61", "65", "66", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 832/2011\nof 18 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 August 2011.", "references": ["8", "56", "46", "45", "15", "54", "60", "43", "16", "74", "23", "84", "29", "3", "65", "69", "99", "20", "97", "55", "6", "0", "67", "30", "21", "52", "71", "88", "53", "90", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 155/2012\nof 21 February 2012\namending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 620/2011 (2) two new subheadings, 8528 71 15 and 8528 71 91, have been introduced in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87. Both cover apparatus with a microprocessor-based device incorporating a modem for gaining access to the Internet, and having a function of interactive information exchange, capable of receiving television signals, so-called \u2018set-top boxes which have a communication function\u2019. According to the wording of the subheadings the apparatus include apparatus incorporating a device performing a recording or reproducing function, provided that they retain the essential character of a set-top box which has a communication function.\n(2)\nIn the interest of legal certainty it is necessary to clarify the scope of those new subheadings with regard to the terms \u2018modem\u2019 and \u2018interactive information exchange\u2019. A new Additional Note should therefore be inserted in Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature to ensure a uniform interpretation of those subheadings throughout the territory of the Union.\n(3)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 (3), the following Additional Note 3 is inserted:\n\u20183.\nFor the purposes of subheadings 8528 71 15 and 8528 71 91 only, the term \u201cmodem\u201d covers devices or equipment that modulate and demodulate incoming and outgoing signals, such as V.90 modems or cable modems, and other devices that utilise akin technologies for gaining access to the Internet, such as WLAN, ISDN and Ethernet. The extent of access to the Internet may be limited by the service provider.\nApparatus of these subheadings must enable a two-way communication process or a two-way flow of information for the purposes of providing an interactive information exchange.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2012.", "references": ["31", "65", "3", "28", "86", "99", "23", "32", "69", "1", "18", "9", "36", "92", "5", "72", "16", "73", "76", "71", "62", "47", "30", "75", "82", "46", "88", "98", "19", "95", "No Label", "21", "40", "41", "42"], "gold": ["21", "40", "41", "42"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 423/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 22 May 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as regards certain provisions relating to risk-sharing instruments for Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 177 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe unprecedented global financial crisis and economic downturn have seriously damaged economic growth and financial stability and provoked a strong deterioration in financial, economic and social conditions in several Member States.\n(2)\nWhilst important actions to counterbalance the negative effects of the crisis have already been taken, including amendments to the legislative framework, the impact of the financial crisis on the real economy, the labour market and citizens, is being widely felt.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 122(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which provides for the possibility of granting Union financial assistance to a Member State in difficulties or seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused, inter alia, by exceptional occurrences beyond its control, Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 (3) established a European financial stabilisation mechanism with a view to preserving the financial stability of the Union.\n(4)\nBy Council Implementing Decisions 2011/77/EU (4) and 2011/344/EU (5), Ireland and Portugal, respectively, were granted financial assistance under Regulation (EU) No 407/2010.\n(5)\nGreece was already experiencing serious difficulties with respect to its financial stability before the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 407/2010. Financial assistance to Greece could not, therefore, be based on that Regulation.\n(6)\nThe Intercreditor Agreement and the Loan Facility Agreement for Greece, signed on 8 May 2010, entered into force on 11 May 2010. The Intercreditor Agreement is to remain in full force and effect for a three-year programme period, as long as there are any amounts outstanding under the Loan Facility Agreement.\n(7)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States\u2019 balances of payments (6) provides that the Council is to grant mutual assistance where a Member State which has not adopted the euro is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with difficulties as regards its balance of payments.\n(8)\nBy Council Decisions 2009/102/EC (7) and 2009/459/EC (8), Hungary and Romania, respectively, were granted financial assistance under Regulation (EC) No 332/2002.\n(9)\nOn 11 July 2011, finance ministers of the 17 euro area Member States signed the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). Following decisions taken by the Heads of State or Government of the euro area on 21 July and 9 December 2011, the Treaty was modified in order to improve the effectiveness of the mechanism and signed on 2 February 2012. Under that Treaty, the ESM will, by 2013, assume the tasks currently fulfilled by the European Financial Stability Facility and the European financial stabilisation mechanism. The ESM should, therefore, be taken into account by this Regulation.\n(10)\nIn its conclusions of 23 and 24 June 2011, the European Council welcomed the Commission\u2019s intention to enhance the synergies between the loan programme for Greece and the Union funds, and supported efforts to increase Greece\u2019s capacity to absorb Union funds in order to stimulate growth and employment by refocusing on improving competitiveness and employment creation. Moreover, it welcomed and supported the preparation by the Commission, together with the Member States, of a comprehensive programme of technical assistance to Greece.\n(11)\nIn the Statement by the Heads of State or Government of the euro area and the EU institutions of 21 July 2011, the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) were invited to enhance the synergies between loan programmes and Union funds in all countries under Union or International Monetary Fund assistance. This Regulation should contribute to that objective.\n(12)\nIn the Statement of the Members of the European Council of 30 January 2012, the Heads of State or Government agreed on strengthening EIB support for infrastructure as an urgent measure and invited the Council, the Commission and the EIB to consider possible options to enhance EIB action to support growth and to make appropriate recommendations, including possibilities for the general budget of the European Union to leverage EIB group financing capacity. This Regulation aims to respond to that invitation in the current crisis-management context.\n(13)\nThe implementation of operational programmes and projects in the field of infrastructure and productive investment in Greece faces serious problems because the conditions for the participation of the private sector and particularly of the financial sector have changed dramatically as a result of the economic and financial crisis.\n(14)\nIn order to alleviate those problems and to speed up the implementation of operational programmes and projects, as well as to strengthen the economic recovery, it is necessary that the Member States, which have experienced or have been threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability and which have been granted financial assistance under one of the financial assistance mechanisms set out in Article 77(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund (9) as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1311/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10), may contribute financial resources from operational programmes to the establishment of risk-sharing instruments providing loans or guarantees or other financial facilities, in support of projects and operations provided for under an operational programme.\n(15)\nIn light of the EIB\u2019s long-standing expertise as a major financier of infrastructure projects and its commitment to support economic recovery, the Commission should be able to establish risk-sharing instruments by means of a cooperation agreement concluded with the EIB for such a purpose. In order to provide legal certainty, it is necessary to set out the typical main terms and conditions of such a cooperation agreement in Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. As regards the specific crisis-management nature of risk-sharing instruments, as provided for under this Regulation, the specific terms and conditions of each cooperation should be laid down in an individual cooperation agreement, to be concluded between the Commission and the EIB in accordance with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (11).\n(16)\nIn view of the need to expand investment opportunities which may arise in the Member States concerned, the Commission should also be able to establish risk-sharing instruments with national or international public-sector bodies or bodies governed by private law with a public-service mission providing adequate guarantees, as referred to in Article 54(2)(c) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, under similar terms and conditions to those applied to and by the EIB.\n(17)\nTo respond rapidly in the context of the current economic, financial and social crisis, risk-sharing instruments under this Regulation should be implemented by the Commission in accordance with Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.\n(18)\nIn the interests of clarity and legal certainty, a definition of a risk-sharing instrument should be inserted in Article 36a of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as amended by this Regulation. Risk-sharing instruments should be used for loans and guarantees as well as for other financial facilities in order to finance operations, co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) or the Cohesion Fund (CF), as regards investment costs which cannot be financed, as eligible expenditure pursuant to Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, or pursuant to the Union rules on State aids. For this purpose, it is also necessary to establish a derogation from Article 54(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.\n(19)\nA Member State seeking to benefit from a risk-sharing instrument should clearly specify, in its written request to the Commission, why it considers that it meets one of the eligibility conditions of Article 77(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 and it should attach to its request all the information required under this Regulation in order to prove the specified eligibility condition. In its request, the requesting Member State should also identify the programmes (including the list of project proposals and related funding needs) co-financed by the ERDF or the CF and the part of the 2012 and 2013 allocations to such programmes that it wants to allocate to the risk-sharing instrument. The Member State request should, therefore, be transmitted to the Commission, by 31 August 2013, with a view to the adoption of a Commission decision on the participation of the requesting Member State in a risk-sharing instrument by 31 December 2013. Before the Commission decision on the Member State request, the related operational programmes under the ERDF and the CF should be revised, in accordance with Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.\n(20)\nSelected operations, eligible under a risk-sharing instrument, should be either major projects that have already been subject to a Commission decision under Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 or other projects, co-financed by the ERDF or the CF and falling under one or more of their operational programmes, where these projects face a lack of finance regarding the investment costs to be borne by private investors. Finally, selected operations could also be operations which contribute to the objectives of the national strategic reference framework of the requesting Member State and of the Community strategic guidelines on cohesion and which can, by virtue of their character, contribute to supporting growth, and strengthen the economic recovery, subject to availability of funds under the risk-sharing instrument.\n(21)\nIn addition, the requesting Member State should specify in its request the amount available for its exclusive benefit, within its cohesion policy financial allocation pursuant to Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, and which can be earmarked for the objectives of the risk-sharing instrument exclusively from the Union budget commitments to be effected in the years 2012 and 2013, pursuant to Article 75(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, and which should not exceed 10 % of the indicative total allocation for the requesting Member State for the years 2007-13 regarding the ERDF and the CF, and approved in accordance with Article 28(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. Finally, it is necessary to ensure that Union financing of the risk-sharing instrument, including management fees and other eligible costs, is clearly limited to the above-specified maximum amount of the Union contribution to the risk-sharing instrument and there should be no additional contingent liability for the general budget of the European Union. Any residual risk inherent in the financed operations under the established risk-sharing instrument should, therefore, be borne either by the EIB or by the national or international public sector bodies or bodies governed by private law with a public service mission, with which the risk-sharing instrument has been established by virtue of a cooperation agreement. Reuse of reflow or any amount left-over, allocated to the risk-sharing instrument, should be made possible, under this Regulation, for the same Member State, at its request and within the same risk-sharing instrument, provided that it still meets the eligibility conditions.\n(22)\nThe Commission should verify that the information submitted by the requesting Member State is correct and that the Member State request is justified, and should be empowered to adopt, by means of an implementing act, within four months of the Member State request, a decision on the terms and conditions of the participation of the requesting Member State in the risk-sharing instrument. However, only projects for which a favourable financing decision is taken either by the EIB or by the national or international public sector bodies or bodies governed by private law with a public service mission, as the case may be, should be accepted as eligible for financing through an established risk-sharing instrument. In the interests of transparency and legal certainty, the Commission decision should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(23)\nGiven the crisis-management purpose and the nature of the risk-sharing instrument introduced by this Regulation, as well as the unprecedented crisis affecting international markets and the economic downturn which have seriously damaged the financial stability of several Member States and which require a rapid response in order to counter the effects on the real economy, the labour market and citizens, it is appropriate that this Regulation enters into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(24)\nRegulation (EC) No 1083/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1083/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 14, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The budget of the European Union allocated to the Funds shall be implemented within the framework of shared management between the Member States and the Commission, in accordance with point (b) of Article 53 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (12), with the exception of the instrument referred to in Article 36a of this Regulation and of the technical assistance referred to in Article 45 of this Regulation.\nThe principle of sound financial management shall be applied in accordance with Article 48(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.\n(2)\nthe following article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 36a\nRisk-sharing instrument\n1. For the purpose of this Article, a risk-sharing instrument means a financial instrument which guarantees the total or partial coverage of a defined risk, where appropriate in exchange for an agreed remuneration.\n2. A Member State that meets one of the conditions set out in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 77(2), may contribute a part of the overall resources distributed in accordance with Articles 19 and 20 to a risk-sharing instrument which shall be established by means of a cooperation agreement to be concluded by the Commission either with the EIB or with national or international public sector bodies or bodies governed by private law with a public service mission providing adequate guarantees as referred to in Article 54(2)(c) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, under similar terms and conditions to those applied to and by the EIB (\u201ccontracted implementing body\u201d), to cover the provisioning and capital allocation of guarantees and loans, as well as other financial facilities, granted under the risk-sharing instrument.\n3. The cooperation agreement, referred to in paragraph 2, shall contain rules in particular on: the total amount of the Union contribution and a schedule on how it will be made available; the trust account conditions to be set up by the contracted implementing body; the eligibility criteria for the use of the Union contribution; the details of the exact risk-sharing (including the leverage ratio) to be covered and the guarantees to be provided by the contracted implementing body; the pricing of the risk-sharing instrument based on the risk margin and the coverage of all the administrative costs of the risk-sharing instrument; the application and approval procedure for the project proposals covered by the risk-sharing instrument; the period of availability of the risk-sharing instrument; and the reporting requirements.\nThe exact risk-sharing (including the leverage ratio) to be undertaken, pursuant to the cooperation agreement, by the contracted implementing body, shall, as an average, aim at being at least 1,5 times the amount of the Union contribution to the risk-sharing instrument.\nPayments to the risk-sharing instrument shall be made in tranches, in accordance with the scheduled use of the risk-sharing instrument in providing loans and guarantees financing specific operations.\n4. By way of derogation from Article 54(5), the risk-sharing instrument shall be used to finance operations co-financed by the ERDF or the Cohesion Fund, regarding investment costs which cannot be financed, as eligible expenditure pursuant to Article 55, or pursuant to the Union rules on State aids.\nIt may also be used to finance operations which contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the national strategic reference framework of the requesting Member State and the Community strategic guidelines on cohesion under Council Decision 2006/702/EC (13), and which bring the greatest added value to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.\n5. The risk-sharing instrument shall be implemented by the Commission within the framework of indirect centralised management in accordance with Articles 54 and 56 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.\n6. A Member State seeking to benefit from a risk-sharing instrument shall submit a written request to the Commission by 31 August 2013. In its request, the Member State shall provide all the information necessary to establish:\n(a)\nthat it meets one of the conditions referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 77(2), by providing a reference to a Council decision or other legal act proving its eligibility;\n(b)\nthe list of programmes (including project proposals and related funding needs) co-financed either by the ERDF or by the Cohesion Fund, and the part of the 2012 and 2013 allocations to such programmes that it wants to take out of those programmes in order to reallocate those amounts to the risk-sharing instrument;\n(c)\nthe list of proposed projects pursuant to the second subparagraph of paragraph 4, and the part of the 2012 and 2013 allocations that it wants to take out of the programmes in order to reallocate those amounts to the risk-sharing instrument;\n(d)\nthe amount available for its exclusive benefit within its cohesion policy financial allocation pursuant to Article 18(2), and an indication of the amount which may be earmarked for the objectives of the risk-sharing instrument exclusively from the Union budget commitments to be effected in the years 2012 and 2013, pursuant to Article 75(1).\n7. After verifying that the Member State request is correct and justified, the Commission shall adopt a decision, within four months of the Member State request, by means of an implementing act, specifying the system established to guarantee that the amount available is used for the exclusive benefit of the Member State which provided it within its cohesion policy financial allocation pursuant to Article 18(2), as well as setting out the terms and conditions of the participation of the requesting Member State in the risk-sharing instrument. The terms and conditions shall in particular cover the following:\n(a)\ntraceability and accounting, information on the use of the funds, payment conditions and monitoring and control systems;\n(b)\nstructure of the fees and other administrative and management costs;\n(c)\nindicative list of eligible projects for financing; and\n(d)\nthe maximum amount of the Union contribution that can be allocated to the risk-sharing instrument from the Member State allocations available, and the instalments for practical implementation.\nThe Commission decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nWhen deciding on the Member State request, the Commission shall ensure that only projects for which a favourable financing decision is taken either by the EIB or by a national or international public-sector body or body governed by private law with a public-service mission, shall be accepted as eligible for financing through an established risk-sharing instrument.\n8. The Commission decision referred to in paragraph 7 shall be preceded by the revision of the operational programmes under the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund in accordance with Article 33(2).\n9. The financial allocations to the risk-sharing instrument shall be strictly capped and shall not exceed 10 % of the indicative total allocation for the requesting Member State for the years 2007-13 regarding the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund, which was approved in accordance with Article 28(3)(b). The financial allocations available to the projects in the second subparagraph of paragraph 4 of this Article are limited to the amounts left after financing the operations mentioned in the first subparagraph of paragraph 4 of this Article. Apart from the total Union contribution to the risk-sharing instrument endorsed in the decision referred to in paragraph 7 of this Article, the Union participation in a risk-sharing instrument shall not create any additional contingent liabilities either for the general budget of the European Union or for the Member State concerned.\n10. Any reflow or amount left over after the completion of an operation covered by the risk-sharing instrument may be reused, at the request of the Member State concerned, within the risk-sharing instrument, provided that the Member State still meets one of the conditions set out in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 77(2). If the Member State no longer meets any of those conditions, the reflow or the amount left-over shall be considered as assigned revenue within the meaning of Article 18 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002. At the request of the Member State concerned, additional commitment appropriations generated by this assigned revenue shall be added the following year to the cohesion policy financial allocation of that Member State.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 22 May 2012.", "references": ["37", "82", "75", "64", "78", "67", "45", "56", "55", "59", "41", "23", "36", "12", "53", "1", "57", "68", "63", "51", "84", "19", "79", "97", "69", "65", "20", "6", "42", "90", "No Label", "4", "10", "15", "16", "31"], "gold": ["4", "10", "15", "16", "31"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 717/2010\nof 6 August 2010\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3 of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column 2 of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 August 2010.", "references": ["56", "47", "87", "79", "30", "4", "74", "84", "65", "42", "18", "97", "33", "73", "8", "80", "81", "59", "57", "71", "20", "69", "75", "36", "49", "55", "38", "15", "22", "10", "No Label", "21", "54"], "gold": ["21", "54"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1373/2011\nof 21 December 2011\nexcluding ICES Subdivisions 27 and 28.2 from certain fishing effort limitations for 2012, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 establishing a multiannual plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 779/97 (1), and in particular Article 29(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nProvisions for setting fishing effort limitations for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea are set out in Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007.\n(2)\nOn the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007, Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 1256/2011 of 30 November 2011 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea and amending Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 (2) has established fishing effort limitations for 2012 in the Baltic Sea.\n(3)\nAccording to Article 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 the Commission may exclude Subdivisions 27 and 28.2 from the scope of certain fishing effort limitations when the catches of cod were below a certain threshold in the last reporting period.\n(4)\nTaking into account the reports submitted by Member States and the advice from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, subdivisions 27 and 28.2 should be excluded in 2012 from the scope of those fishing effort limitations.\n(5)\nRegulation (EU) No 1256/2011 will apply from 1 January 2012. In order to ensure coherence with that Regulation, this Regulation should also apply from 1 January 2012.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe provisions of Article 8(1)(b), (3), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 shall not apply to ICES subdivisions 27 and 28.2 in the year 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["63", "56", "13", "8", "16", "90", "44", "23", "1", "57", "65", "42", "81", "73", "9", "88", "40", "22", "64", "85", "60", "26", "74", "53", "46", "50", "66", "17", "4", "62", "No Label", "59", "67"], "gold": ["59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 507/2011\nof 23 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["31", "58", "22", "40", "44", "72", "45", "26", "74", "4", "16", "41", "20", "34", "70", "55", "66", "29", "56", "96", "85", "38", "47", "80", "71", "10", "1", "19", "93", "0", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\non the recognition of the \u2018Abengoa RED Bioenergy Sustainability Assurance\u2019 scheme for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria under Directives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(2011/436/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1), and in particular Article 18(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels (2) as amended by Directive 2009/30/EC (3), and in particular Article 7c(6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee established by Article 25, paragraph 2 of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC both lay down sustainability criteria for biofuels. When reference is made to the provisions of Articles 17 and 18 of, and Annex V to, Directive 2009/28/EC this should be construed as the reference also to the similar provisions of Articles 7a, 7b and 7c of, and Annex IV to, Directive 2009/30/EC.\n(2)\nWhere biofuels and bioliquids are to be taken into account for the purposes referred to in Article 17(1)(a), (b) and (c), Member States shall require economic operators to show the compliance of biofuels and bioliquids with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(2) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(3)\nRecital 76 of Directive 2009/28/EC states that the imposition of an unreasonable burden on industry should be avoided and voluntary schemes can help creating efficient solutions for proving compliance with these sustainability criteria.\n(4)\nThe Commission may decide that a voluntary national or international scheme demonstrates that consignments of biofuels comply with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(3) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC or that a voluntary national or international scheme to measure greenhouse gas emission savings contains accurate data for the purposes of Article 17(2) of this Directive.\n(5)\nThe Commission may recognise such a voluntary scheme for a period of 5 years.\n(6)\nWhen an economic operator provides proof or data obtained in accordance with a scheme that has been recognised by the Commission, to the extent covered by that recognition decision, a Member State shall not require the supplier to provide further evidence of compliance with the sustainability criteria.\n(7)\nThe \u2018Abengoa RED Bioenergy Sustainability Assurance\u2019 (hereinafter \u2018RBSA\u2019) scheme was submitted on 8 April 2011 to the Commission with the request for recognition. The scheme covers a wide range of products and applies to all geographic locations. The recognised scheme will be made available at the transparency platform established under Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission will take into account considerations of commercial sensitivity and may decide to only partially publish the scheme.\n(8)\nAssessment of the RBSA scheme found it to adequately cover the sustainability criteria of Directive 2009/28/EC, as well as applying a mass balance methodology in line with the requirements of Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(9)\nThe evaluation of the RBSA scheme found that it meets adequate standards of reliability, transparency and independent auditing and also complies with the methodological requirements in Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(10)\nAny additional sustainability elements covered by the \u2018RBSA\u2019 scheme are not part of the consideration of this Decision. These additional sustainability criteria are not mandatory to show compliance with sustainability requirements set up in Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission may at a later stage take a view on whether the scheme also contains accurate data for the purpose of information on measures taken for issues referred to in the second paragraph, second sentence of Article 18(4) of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018RBSA\u2019 for which the request for recognition was submitted to the Commission on 8 April 2011 demonstrates that consignments of biofuels comply with the sustainability criteria as laid down in Article 17(3)(a), (b) and (c) and Article 17(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(3)(a), (b) and (c) and Article 7b(4) and (5) of Directive 98/70/EC. The scheme also contains accurate data for purposes of Article 17(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(2) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nFurthermore, it may be used for demonstrating compliance with Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nArticle 2\n1. The Decision is valid for a period of 5 years after it enters into force. If the scheme, after adoption of Commission decision, undergoes changes to its contents in a way that might affect the basis of this Decision, such changes shall be notified to the Commission without delay. The Commission will assess the notified changes with a view to establish whether the scheme is still adequately covering the sustainability criteria for which it is recognised.\n2. If it has been clearly demonstrated that the scheme has not implemented elements considered to be decisive for this Decision and if severe and structural breach of those elements has taken place, the Commission reserves the right to revoke its Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision enters into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["41", "5", "55", "39", "87", "84", "85", "52", "0", "11", "82", "62", "12", "81", "72", "7", "93", "28", "48", "98", "30", "25", "90", "2", "54", "23", "47", "22", "18", "49", "No Label", "58", "76", "77", "78"], "gold": ["58", "76", "77", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1258/2011\nof 2 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels for nitrates in foodstuffs\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (2) sets maximum levels for nitrates in certain leafy vegetables.\n(2)\nIn some cases, despite developments in good agricultural practice, the maximum levels are exceeded and therefore a temporary derogation was granted to certain Member States for the placing on the market of certain leafy vegetables, grown and intended for consumption in their territory with nitrate levels higher than the established maximum levels.\n(3)\nSince the application of the maximum levels of nitrates in lettuce and spinach, many investigations have been performed on the factors involved in the presence of nitrates in lettuce and spinach and on the measures to be taken to reduce the presence of nitrates in lettuce and spinach as much as possible. Despite the progress achieved in the good agricultural practice to reduce the presence of nitrates in lettuce and spinach and a strict application of this good agricultural practice, it is not possible to achieve in a consistent way nitrate levels in lettuce and fresh spinach below the current maximum levels in certain regions of the Union. The reason is that the climate and in particular the light conditions are the main determinant factor in the presence of nitrates in lettuce and spinach. These climate conditions cannot be managed or changed by the producer.\n(4)\nTo provide an up-to-date scientific basis for the longer-term strategy for managing the risk arising from nitrates in vegetables, a scientific risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), taking into account new information, was needed. Such assessment had to take into account any relevant considerations on risks and benefits, for example, weighing the possible negative impact of nitrate versus the possible positive effects of eating vegetables, such as antioxidant activities or other properties that might in some way counteract or provide a balance to the risks arising from nitrates and the resulting nitroso-compounds.\n(5)\nOn request of the Commission, the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (the Panel) adopted on 10 April 2008 a Scientific opinion on nitrate in vegetables (3). The Panel compared the risk and benefits of exposure to nitrate from vegetables. Overall, the estimated exposures to nitrate from vegetables are unlikely to result in appreciable health risks, therefore, the recognised beneficial effects of consumption of vegetables prevail. The Panel recognised that there are occasional circumstances (e.g. unfavourable local/home production conditions) for vegetables which constitute a large part of the diet, or individuals with a diet high in vegetables such as rucola which need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.\n(6)\nFollowing discussion on appropriate measures and concerns expressed as regards possible risks for infants and young children following acute dietary intake exposure, the Commission asked EFSA for a complementary scientific statement on nitrates in vegetables, whereby the possible risks for infants and young children related to the presence of nitrates in fresh vegetables are assessed in more detail, also considering the acute dietary intake, taking into account recent occurrence data on the presence of nitrates in vegetables, more detailed consumption data of vegetables by infants and young children and the possibility of the establishment of slightly higher than the current maximum levels for nitrates in leafy vegetables. The Panel adopted on 1 December 2010 a Statement on possible public health risks for infants and young children from the presence of nitrates in leafy vegetables (4).\n(7)\nIn that statement the Panel concluded that exposure to nitrate at the current or envisaged maximum levels in spinach cooked from fresh spinach is unlikely to be a health concern, although a risk for some infants eating more than one spinach meal per day cannot be excluded. EFSA noted that it did not take into account possible changes of the nitrate content due to processing of the food commodities, such as washing, peeling and/or cooking, as this could not be considered due to lack of representative data. The non-consideration of the quantitative impact of food processing on nitrate levels may consequently lead to an overestimation of the exposure. It was furthermore concluded that levels of nitrate in lettuce are not a health concern for children. Enforcing the current maximum levels for nitrate in lettuce and spinach, or envisaged maximum levels at 500 mg/kg higher than the current maximum levels, would have a minor impact.\n(8)\nIn order to provide legal security for the producer in all regions of the European Union which applies strictly the good agricultural practices to reduce the presence of nitrates in spinach and lettuce as much as possible, it is therefore appropriate to slightly increase the maximum level for nitrates in fresh spinach and lettuce without endangering public health.\n(9)\nGiven the sometimes very high levels of nitrates found in rucola, it is appropriate to set a maximum level for rucola. The maximum level for rucola should be reviewed in 2 years in view of a reduction of the levels after having identified the factors involved in the presence of nitrate in rucola and the full implementation of good agricultural practice in rucola to minimise the nitrate content.\n(10)\nGiven that EFSA has been mandated by the Commission to compile all occurrence data on contaminants, including nitrates, in food into one database, it is appropriate to communicate the results directly to EFSA.\n(11)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1881/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 7, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are deleted;\n(2)\nin Article 9, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall monitor nitrate levels in vegetables which may contain significant levels, in particular green leaf vegetables, and communicate the result to EFSA on a regular basis.\u2019;\n(3)\nin the Annex, Section 1: Nitrate is replaced by the Section in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the date of its entry into force. However, the maximum levels for rucola provided for in point 1.5 of the Annex shall apply from 1 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2011.", "references": ["81", "91", "61", "22", "27", "43", "78", "85", "8", "56", "0", "47", "1", "19", "7", "31", "51", "92", "94", "37", "87", "66", "71", "80", "34", "95", "4", "26", "29", "98", "No Label", "38", "68", "83"], "gold": ["38", "68", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 62/2012\nof 24 January 2012\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) as regards the 2013 list of target secondary variables on well-being\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 concerning Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) (1), and in particular Article 15(2)(f) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1177/2003 established a common framework for the systematic production of European statistics on income and living conditions, encompassing comparable and timely cross-sectional and longitudinal data on income and on the level and composition of poverty and social exclusion at national and European levels.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 15(2)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003, implementing measures are necessary in respect of the list of target secondary areas and variables that is to be included every year in the cross-sectional component of EU-SILC. The list of target secondary variables to be incorporated in the module on well-being should be laid down for the year 2013, together with the corresponding variable codes.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe list of target secondary variables and the variables\u2019 identifiers for the 2013 module on well-being to be included in the cross-sectional component of European statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) shall be as laid down in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 January 2012.", "references": ["96", "14", "64", "28", "84", "97", "69", "74", "46", "94", "56", "85", "82", "66", "51", "88", "47", "38", "65", "34", "77", "67", "0", "86", "15", "57", "62", "83", "23", "35", "No Label", "18", "19", "42"], "gold": ["18", "19", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1136/2010\nof 6 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 December 2010.", "references": ["74", "5", "95", "98", "15", "64", "44", "41", "3", "19", "24", "7", "99", "50", "32", "94", "12", "54", "49", "67", "28", "2", "55", "79", "62", "71", "36", "34", "18", "47", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/171/CFSP\nof 21 March 2011\namending Decision 2010/573/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/573/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nOn the basis of a review of Decision 2010/573/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be extended until 31 March 2012.\n(3)\nHowever, in order to encourage progress in reaching a political settlement to the Transnistrian conflict, addressing the remaining problems of the Latin-script schools and restoring free movement of persons, the restrictive measures should be suspended until 30 September 2011. At the end of that period, the Council will review the restrictive measures in the light of developments, notably in the areas mentioned above. The Council may decide to reapply or lift travel restrictions at any time,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/573/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 4(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. This Decision shall apply until 31 March 2012. It shall be kept under constant review. It may be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 4(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The restrictive measures provided for in this Decision shall be suspended until 30 September 2011. At the end of that period, the Council shall review the restrictive measures.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["81", "43", "51", "13", "17", "35", "47", "98", "60", "53", "64", "92", "4", "76", "55", "90", "24", "45", "30", "32", "7", "16", "73", "6", "14", "78", "2", "38", "18", "46", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "12", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "12", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 103/2011\nof 4 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 February 2011.", "references": ["33", "75", "14", "96", "48", "37", "66", "4", "89", "18", "3", "59", "77", "16", "65", "6", "27", "69", "19", "42", "87", "74", "79", "28", "90", "23", "86", "40", "26", "11", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 198/2012\nof 8 March 2012\nfixing the Union withdrawal and selling prices for the fishery products listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 for the 2012 fishing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1), and in particular Article 20(3) and Article 22 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 104/2000 provides that the Union withdrawal and selling prices for each of the products listed in Annex I thereto are to be fixed on the basis of the freshness, size or weight and presentation of the product by applying the conversion factor for the product category concerned to an amount not more than 90 % of the relevant guide price.\n(2)\nThe withdrawal prices may be multiplied by adjustment factors in landing areas which are very distant from the main centres of consumption in the Union. The guide prices for the 2012 fishing year were fixed for all the products concerned by Council Regulation (EU) No 1388/2011 (2).\n(3)\nIn order not to hinder the operation of the intervention system in the year 2012, this Regulation should apply retroactively from 1 January 2012.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe conversion factors used for calculating the Union withdrawal and selling prices, as referred to in Articles 20 and 22 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, for the 2012 fishing year for the products listed in Annex I to that Regulation, are set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe Union withdrawal and selling prices applicable for the 2012 fishing year and the products to which they relate are set out in Annex II.\nArticle 3\nThe withdrawal prices applicable for the 2012 fishing year in landing areas which are very distant from the main centres of consumption in the Union, the adjustment factors used for calculating those prices and the products to which those prices relate are set out in Annex III.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2012.", "references": ["87", "80", "77", "26", "3", "99", "45", "89", "96", "65", "15", "21", "0", "63", "82", "37", "86", "12", "73", "18", "11", "85", "61", "72", "4", "36", "97", "93", "8", "14", "No Label", "35", "67"], "gold": ["35", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 12 January 2011\non the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain\n(notified under document C(2010) 9566)\n(Only the Spanish text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/282/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy written questions addressed to the Commission (No E-4431/05, E-4772/05 and E-5800/06) several MEPs indicated that Spain had enacted a special scheme allegedly providing an unfair tax incentive for Spanish companies that acquired significant shareholdings in foreign companies, pursuant to Article 12(5) of the Spanish Corporate Tax Law (\u2018Real Decreto Legislativo 4/2004, de 5 de marzo, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades\u2019 (2), hereinafter \u2018TRLIS\u2019).\n(2)\nBy written question No P-5509/06, Mr David Martin MEP complained to the Commission about the hostile takeover bid by the Spanish energy producer Iberdrola involving purchasing shares of the UK energy generator and distributor Scottish Power Ltd According to Mr Martin, Iberdrola had unfairly benefited from State aid in the form of a tax incentive for the acquisition. Mr Martin asked the Commission to examine all the competition issues arising from the acquisition, which had been notified on 12 January 2007 for review by the Commission pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (3) (hereinafter \u2018the Merger Regulation\u2019). By Decision dated 26 March 2007 (Case No COMP/M.4517 - Iberdrola/Scottishpower, SG-Greffe(2007) D/201696) (4), the Commission decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market under Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.\n(3)\nBy letters dated 15 January and 26 March 2007, the Commission asked the Spanish authorities to provide information in order to assess the scope and the effects of Article 12(5) TRLIS with respect to its possible classification as State aid and its compatibility with the internal market.\n(4)\nBy letters dated 16 February and 4 June 2007, the Spanish authorities replied to these requests.\n(5)\nBy fax dated 28 August 2007, the Commission received a complaint by a private operator alleging that the scheme set up by Article 12(5) TRLIS constituted State aid and was incompatible with the internal market. The complainant asked for his identity not to be divulged.\n(6)\nBy decision of 10 October 2007 (hereinafter \u2018the opening Decision\u2019), the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter \u2018TFEU\u2019) (former Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty) in respect of the tax amortisation of financial goodwill provided for by Article 12(5) TRLIS, because it appeared to fulfil all the conditions for being considered State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The Commission informed Spain that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU. The Opening Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5), inviting interested parties to submit their comments.\n(7)\nBy letter dated 5 December 2007, the Commission received comments from Spain on the opening Decision.\n(8)\nBetween 18 January and 16 June 2008, the Commission received comments on the opening Decision from 32 third parties. The third parties that did not ask to remain anonymous are listed in Annex I to this Decision.\n(9)\nBy letters of 9 April, 15 May and 22 May 2008 and 27 March 2009, the Commission forwarded the above-mentioned comments to the Spanish authorities, in order to give them the opportunity to react. By letters of 30 June 2008 and 22 April 2009, the Spanish authorities gave their reactions to the third parties\u2019 comments.\n(10)\nOn 18 February 2008, 12 May 2009 and 8 June 2009, technical meetings took place between the Spanish authorities and the Commission representatives to clarify, among others matters, certain aspects of the application of the scheme in question and the interpretation of the Spanish legislation relevant for the analysis of the case.\n(11)\nOn 7 April 2008, a meeting took place between the Commission\u2019s representatives and Banco de Santander S.A.; on 16 April 2008 a meeting took place between the Commission\u2019s representatives and the law firm J&A Garrigues S.L. representing various interested third parties; on 2 July 2008 a meeting took place between the Commission\u2019s representatives and Altadis S.A.; on 12 February 2009 a meeting took place between the Commission\u2019s representatives and Telef\u00f3nica S.A.\n(12)\nOn 14 July 2008, the Spanish authorities submitted additional information regarding the contested measure, in particular data extracted from 2006 tax returns, which provided a general overview of the taxpayers benefiting from the contested measure.\n(13)\nBy e-mail dated 16 June 2009, the Spanish authorities provided additional information and argued that Spanish companies still faced a number of obstacles to cross-border mergers within the European Union.\n(14)\nOn 28 October 2009, the Commission adopted a negative decision (6) with recovery concerning aid granted to beneficiaries on the basis of the contested legislation when making intra-EU acquisitions (hereinafter \u2018the previous Decision\u2019). As indicated in paragraph 119 of this Decision, the Commission maintained the procedure, as initiated by the opening Decision, open for extra-EU acquisitions since the Spanish authorities undertook to provide new details concerning the obstacles to cross-border mergers outside the EU.\n(15)\nOn 12, 16 and 20 November 2009, the Spanish authorities submitted summary information concerning direct investment by Spanish companies in non-EU countries.\n(16)\nOn 16 December 2009, the Commission sent a request for information to the Spanish authorities concerning transactions in non-EU countries which it deemed necessary in order to make the State aid assessment of the scheme along the lines suggested by the Spanish authorities.\n(17)\nBy letter dated 3 January 2010 the Spanish authorities submitted detailed information on 15 non-EU countries in which the vast majority (approximately 70 %) of Spanish foreign direct investment was located. More precisely, the Spanish authorities presented two reports prepared by the law firm Garrigues and by KPMG, which include an analysis of the alleged fiscal and legal obstacles in these third countries.\n(18)\nBy letter of 27 January 2010 the Commission received comments from Banesto, a member of the Santander Group.\n(19)\nBy e-mail of 3 March 2010, the Spanish authorities answered a technical question addressed to them on 26 February 2010.\n(20)\nBy letter of 9 July 2010 the Commission received comments from Banco Santander.\n(21)\nBy letter of 25 November 2010 the Commission received comments from Telef\u00f3nica.\n(22)\nOn 27 November 2009, 16 June 2010 and 29 June 2010, technical meetings took place between the Commission and the Spanish authorities.\nII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTESTED MEASURE\n(23)\nThe measure in question provides for tax amortisation of the financial goodwill arising from the acquisition of a significant shareholding in a foreign target company.\n(24)\nThe measure is governed by Article 12(5) TRLIS (hereinafter \u2018the contested measure\u2019). More precisely, Article 2(5) of Law 24/2001 of 27 December 2001 amended the Spanish Corporate Tax Law 43/1995 of 27 December 1995, by adding Article 12(5). Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March 2005 provides a consolidated version of the Spanish Corporate Tax Law.\n(25)\nThe Commission is aware that the Spanish legislation has evolved since the date of the opening Decision (7). Nonetheless, the Commission considers that the latest amendments cannot modify or alter the doubts expressed in the opening Decision. For the sake of consistency, the Commission will refer in the present Decision to the numbering of the Spanish legislation as given in the opening Decision, even though it may have been modified. Any new legal provision will be expressly identified as such.\n(26)\nArticle 12(5) TRLIS, within Article 12 TRLIS \u2018Value adjustments: loss of value of assets\u2019, entered into force on 1 January 2002. It essentially provides that a company which is taxable in Spain may deduct from its taxable income the financial goodwill deriving from the acquisition of a shareholding of at least 5 % of a foreign company, in yearly instalments, over not less than the 20 years following the acquisition.\n(27)\nGoodwill is understood to represent the value of a well-respected business name, good customer relations, employee skills, and other such factors expected to translate into greater than apparent earnings in the future. Under Spanish accounting principles (8), the price paid for the acquisition of a business in excess of the market value of the assets constituting the business is termed \u2018goodwill\u2019 and should be booked as a separate intangible asset as soon as the acquiring company takes control of the target company (9).\n(28)\nUnder Spanish tax principles, with the exception of the contested measure, goodwill can only be amortised following a business combination that arises either as a result of acquisition or contribution of the assets constituting independent businesses or following a merger or de-merger operation.\n(29)\n\u2018Financial goodwill\u2019, as used in the Spanish tax system, is the goodwill that would have been booked if the shareholding company and the target company had merged. The concept of financial goodwill under Article 12(5) TRLIS therefore introduces into the field of share acquisitions a concept that is usually used in transfers of assets or business combination transactions. According to Article 12(5) TRLIS, the financial goodwill is determined by deducting the market value of the tangible and intangible assets of the acquired company from the acquisition price paid for the shareholding.\n(30)\nArticle 12(5) TRLIS provides that the amortisation of financial goodwill is conditional upon meeting the following requirements, as set by reference to Article 21 TRLIS:\n(a)\nat least 5 % of the foreign company must be held directly or indirectly by the Spanish acquiring company for an uninterrupted period of at least 1 year (10);\n(b)\nthe foreign company must be subject to a tax similar to that applicable in Spain. This condition is presumed to be met if the country of residence of the target company has signed a tax convention with Spain to avoid international double taxation and prevent tax evasion (11) with a clause on exchange of information;\n(c)\nthe revenue of the foreign company must derive mainly from business activities carried out abroad, or revenue that can be treated as such. This condition is met when at least 85 % of the income of the target company:\n(i)\nis not included in the taxable base under Spanish international tax transparency rules and is taxed as profits earned in Spain (12). Income is specifically considered to meet these requirements when it derives from the following activities:\n-\nwholesale trade, when the goods are made available to the purchasers in the country or territory of residence of the target company or in any country or territory other than Spain,\n-\nservices provided to clients that do not have their tax domicile in Spain,\n-\nfinancial services provided to clients that do not have their tax domicile in Spain,\n-\ninsurance services relating to risks not located in Spain;\n(ii)\nis dividend income, provided that the conditions on the nature of the income from the shareholding provided for in Article 21(1)(a) and the level of direct and indirect shareholding of the Spanish company are met (Article 21(1)(c)(2) TRLIS) (13).\n(31)\nIn addition to the contested measure, it is worth presenting briefly the following TRLIS provisions to which the present Decision will refer:\n-\nArticle 11(4) TRLIS (14), (Article 11 is entitled \u2018Value adjustments: amortisation\u2019 and is contained in Chapter IV of the TRLIS, which defines the tax base) provides for a minimum of 20 years\u2019 amortisation of the goodwill deriving from an acquisition under the following conditions: (i) the goodwill results from an acquisition for value; (ii) the seller is unrelated to the acquiring company. The amendments made to this provision subsequent to the opening Decision and brought in by Law No 16/2007 of 4 July 2007, clarified that if condition (ii) was not met, the price paid used for calculating the goodwill will be the price paid for the share acquired by a related company to an unrelated seller, and, in addition, required (iii) a restricted reserve to have been set up for an amount at least equivalent to that deducted under Article 12(5) TRLIS,\n-\nArticle 12(3) TRLIS, which is contained in Chapter IV TRLIS, permits partial deduction for depreciation of domestic and foreign shareholdings, which are not listed on a secondary market, up to the difference between the theoretical accounting value at the beginning and the end of the tax year. The contested measure can be applied in conjunction with this article of the TRLIS (15),\n-\nArticle 89(3) TRLIS (Article 89 is entitled \u2018Holdings in the capital of the transferring entity and the acquiring entity\u2019), is contained in Title VII, Chapter VIII on the \u2018Special system for mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares and change of domicile of a European company or European cooperative society from one European Union Member State to another\u2019. Article 89(3) TRLIS provides for the amortisation of goodwill arising from business restructuring. Under this provision, the following conditions must be fulfilled in order to apply Article 11(4) TRLIS to the goodwill arising from a business combination: (i) a shareholding of at least 5 % in the target company before the business combination; (ii) it must be proven that the goodwill has been taxed and charged to the seller (iii) the seller is not linked to the purchaser. If condition (iii) is not met, the amount deducted must correspond to an irreversible depreciation of the intangible assets,\n-\nArticle 21 TRLIS, entitled \u2018Exemption to avoid international double taxation on dividends and income from foreign sources arising from the transfer of securities representing the equity of entities not resident in Spain\u2019, is contained in Title IV TRLIS. Article 21 lays down the conditions under which dividends or income from entities not resident in Spanish territory are tax exempt when received by a company which is tax domiciled in Spain,\n-\nArticle 22 TRLIS, entitled \u2018Exemption of certain income obtained abroad via a permanent establishment\u2019, is contained in Chapter IV TRLIS. Article 22 TRLIS lays down the conditions under which income generated abroad by a permanent establishment not situated in Spain is tax exempt.\n(32)\nFor the purposes of this Decision:\n-\ntransfer of assets shall mean an operation whereby a company transfers, without being dissolved, all or one or more branches of its activity to another company,\n-\nbusiness combination shall mean an operation whereby one or more companies, on being dissolved without going into liquidation, transfer all their assets and liabilities to another existing company or to a company that they form in exchange for the issue to their shareholders of securities representing the capital of that other company,\n-\nshare acquisition shall mean an operation whereby one company acquires a shareholding in the capital of another company without obtaining a majority or the control of the voting rights of the target company,\n-\ntarget company shall mean a company not resident in Spain, whose income fulfils the conditions described in paragraph 30(c) and in which a shareholding is acquired by a company resident in Spain,\n-\nintra-EU acquisitions shall mean shareholding acquisitions, which meet all the relevant conditions of Article 12(5) TRLIS, in a target company which is formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and has its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Union,\n-\nextra-EU acquisitions shall mean shareholding acquisitions, which meet all the relevant conditions of Article 12(5) TRLIS, in a target company which has not been formed in accordance with the law of a Member State or does not have its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Union.\nIII. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE\n(33)\nIn the opening Decision, the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU (former Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty) in respect of the contested measure, because it appeared to fulfil all the conditions for being considered State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The Commission also had doubts as to whether the contested measure could be considered compatible with the internal market, as none of the exceptions provided for in Article 107(2) and (3) seemed applicable.\n(34)\nIn particular, the Commission considered that the contested measure departed from the ordinary scope of the Spanish corporate tax system, which is the tax system of reference. The Commission also held that the tax amortisation of the financial goodwill arising from the acquisition of a 5 % shareholding in a foreign target company seemed to constitute an exceptional incentive.\n(35)\nThe Commission observed that the tax amortisation applied only to a specific category of undertakings, namely undertakings which acquire certain shareholdings, amounting to at least 5 % of the share capital of a target company, and only in respect of foreign target companies provided that the criteria in Article 21(1) TRLIS are fulfilled. The Commission also underlined that, pursuant to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, a tax reduction favouring only exports of national products constitutes State aid (16). The contested measure therefore seemed selective.\n(36)\nIn this context, the Commission also considered that the selective advantage did not appear to be justified by the inherent nature of the tax system. In particular, it considered that the differentiation created by the contested measure, which departed from the general rules of the Spanish accounting and tax systems, could not be justified by reasons linked to technicalities of the tax system. Indeed, goodwill can only be deducted in the case of a business combination or transfer of assets, except under the provisions of the contested measure. The Commission also considered that it was disproportionate for the contested measure to claim to attain the neutrality objectives pursued by the Spanish system because it is limited solely to the acquisition of significant shareholdings in foreign companies.\n(37)\nIn addition, the Commission considered that the contested measure implied the use of state resources, as it involved the Spanish Treasury foregoing tax revenue. Finally, the contested measure could distort competition in the European business acquisition market by providing a selective economic advantage to Spanish companies engaged in the acquisition of a significant shareholding in foreign companies. Nor did the Commission find any grounds for considering the contested measure compatible with the internal market.\n(38)\nThe Commission therefore concluded that the contested measure could constitute incompatible State aid. If this were the case, recovery should take place according to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the Treaty. The Commission accordingly invited the Spanish authorities and interested parties to submit their observations as to the possible presence of legitimate expectations or any other general principle of Union law which would permit the Commission to exceptionally waive recovery pursuant to the second sentence of Article 14(1) of the above-mentioned Council Regulation.\nIV. THE FIRST PARTIAL NEGATIVE DECISION\n(39)\nIn the previous Decision, the Commission concluded that Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU when it applies to intra-EU acquisitions.\n(40)\nThe Commission also found that, since the contested measure had been implemented in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU, it constituted an unlawful aid scheme to the extent that it applied to intra-EU acquisitions.\n(41)\nThe Commission maintained the procedure, as initiated by the opening Decision of 10 October 2007, open for extra-EU acquisitions in the light of the new elements which the Spanish authorities undertook to provide as regards the obstacles to cross-border mergers outside the EU.\nV. COMMENTS FROM THE SPANISH AUTHORITIES AND INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES\n(42)\nThe Commission received comments from the Spanish authorities (17) and from 32 interested third parties (18), eight of which were associations.\n(43)\nTo summarise, the Spanish authorities consider that Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes a general measure and not an exception to the Spanish tax system since this provision allows the amortisation of an intangible asset, which applies to any taxpayer who acquires a significant shareholding in a foreign company. In the light of Commission practice and the relevant case law, the Spanish authorities conclude that the contested measures cannot be considered State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU. In addition, the Spanish authorities consider that a different conclusion would be contrary to the principle of legal certainty. The Spanish authorities also contest the competence of the Commission to challenge this general measure as they consider that the Commission cannot use State aid rules as the basis for harmonising tax issues.\n(44)\nIn general, 30 interested third parties (hereinafter \u2018the 30 interested parties\u2019) support the views of the Spanish authorities, whereas another two third parties (hereinafter \u2018the two parties\u2019) consider that Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes an unlawful State aid measure incompatible with the internal market. Hence, the arguments of the 30 interested parties will be presented together with the position of the Spanish authorities, whereas the arguments of the two parties will be described separately.\nA. Comments from the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties\n(45)\nAs a preliminary remark, the Spanish authorities stress that direct taxation lies within the competence of Member States. Therefore, the Commission\u2019s action in this field should be in line with the subsidiarity principle stated in Article 5 EC Treaty (now replaced in substance by Article 5 TFEU). Moreover, the Spanish authorities recall that Article 3 EC Treaty (now replaced in substance by Articles 3 to 6 TFEU) and 58(1)(a) EC Treaty (now replaced by Article 65 TFEU) allow Member States to establish different tax systems, according to the location of the investment or the tax residence of the taxpayer, without this being considered a restriction to the free movement of capital.\n(46)\nThe 30 interested parties also maintain that a negative Commission decision would breach the principle of national fiscal autonomy laid down in the TFEU, as well as Article 56 EC Treaty (now replaced by Article 63 TFEU) prohibiting restrictions on the free movement of capital.\nA.1. The contested measure does not constitute State aid\n(47)\nThe Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties consider that the contested measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU since: (i) it does not confer an economic advantage; (ii) it does not favour certain undertakings; and (iii) it does not distort or threaten to distort competition between Member States. In line with the logic of the Spanish tax system, they consider that the contested measure should be considered a general measure applying indiscriminately to any type of company and to any activity.\nA.1.1. The contested measure does not confer an economic advantage\n(48)\nContrary to the Commission\u2019s position as expressed in the opening Decision, Article 12(5) TRLIS does not constitute an exception to the Spanish corporate tax system since (i) the Spanish accounting system is not an appropriate point of reference on which to base the existence of an exception to the tax system; and (ii) even if it were, the characterisation of financial goodwill as a depreciable asset over time has historically been a general feature of the Spanish accounting and corporate tax system.\n(49)\nFirstly, because of the lack of harmonisation of accounting rules, the accounting result cannot serve as a reference point for establishing the exceptional nature of the contested measure. Indeed, in Spain, the tax base is calculated on the basis of the accounting result, adjusted according to tax rules. Therefore, in the case at hand, accounting considerations cannot, in Spain\u2019s view, serve as a reference point for a tax measure.\n(50)\nSecondly, it is incorrect to consider goodwill amortisation not to be within the logic of the Spanish accounting system since both goodwill (19) and financial goodwill (20) can be amortised over periods up to 20 years. These empirical rules reflect the loss of value of the underlying assets, whether tangible or not. Therefore, Article 12(5) TRLIS would not constitute an exception as it does not depart from the rules on amortisation of goodwill established in the Spanish accounting and tax systems.\n(51)\nThirdly, the Spanish authorities point out that the contested measure does not constitute a true economic advantage since, in case of sale of the acquired shareholding, the amount deducted is recovered by taxation of the capital gain, thus placing the taxpayer in the same situation as if Article 12(5) TRLIS had not been applied.\n(52)\nFourthly, the Commission incorrectly refers to Articles 11(4) and 89(3) TRLIS to establish the existence of an advantage. In the opening Decision, the Commission states that neither a business combination nor takeover of the target company is necessary to benefit from Article 12(5) TRLIS. This statement reflects a misunderstanding of the Spanish tax system since these two articles do not prevent a group of companies that jointly acquires control of a target company from deducting a corresponding fraction of the goodwill resulting from the operation. Hence, application of these two articles does not require individual control of the target company in order to benefit from the contested measure. In this context, it would be inappropriate to consider that Article 12(5) TRLIS offers more favourable treatment than Articles 11(4) or 89(3) TRLIS as regards the controlling position of the beneficiaries. Finally, it should be noted that the 5 % shareholding criterion is consistent with the conditions laid down in Article 89(3) TRLIS and also with Commission guidelines and practice (21).\n(53)\nThe Spanish authorities point out that the Commission also incorrectly refers to Article 12(3) TRLIS to establish an alleged advantage under Article 12(5) TRLIS: Article 12(3) applies to situations of depreciation in case of an objective loss recorded by the target company, whereas Article 12(5) TRLIS complements this provision and reflects the loss of value attributable to depreciation of the financial goodwill.\n(54)\nFifthly, the Commission Notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (22) (hereinafter \u2018the Commission Notice\u2019) explicitly states that amortisation rules do not imply State aid. Since the current amortisation coefficient for financial goodwill over a minimum of 20 years is the same as the amortisation coefficient for goodwill, the rule does not constitute an exception to the general tax system.\n(55)\nFinally, the 30 interested parties also consider that if the contested measure constituted an advantage, the ultimate beneficiaries would be the target company\u2019s shareholders since they would receive the price paid by the acquiring company benefiting from the contested measure.\nA.1.2. The contested measure does not favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods\n(56)\nFirstly, Spain maintains that Article 12(5) TRLIS is a general measure since it is open to any Spanish company whatever its activity, sector, size, form or other characteristics. The only condition for the taxpayer to be able to benefit from the contested measure is to be tax resident in Spain. The fact that not all taxpayers benefit from the measure in question does not make it selective. Therefore, Article 12(5) TRLIS is neither de facto nor de jure selective within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. Accordingly, by letter dated 14 July 2008 (23), the Spanish authorities provided data extracted from the 2006 Spanish tax returns which show that all types of companies (SMEs and large undertakings), as well as companies active in different economic sectors, had benefited from the contested measure. The Spanish authorities also stress that in a recent judgment (24), the General Court indicated that a limited number of beneficiaries is not sufficient in itself to establish the selectivity of the measure since that group can actually represent all of the undertakings in a particular legal and factual situation. In particular, the Spanish authorities stress that the contested measure bears similarities with a recent case (25) that the Commission considered to be a general measure and they therefore request the same treatment.\n(57)\nSecondly, according to the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties, in its opening Decision the Commission mixed up the concept of selectivity and the objective conditions of the contested measure which refer only to certain transactions (i.e. shareholding in a foreign target company). Indeed, the Commission alleges that Article 12(5) TRLIS is selective since the same treatment is not granted to comparable investments in Spanish companies. However, the Commission fails to recognise that the selectivity criterion is not determined by the fact that the beneficiary of the contested measure is a group of companies or a multinational company that has a share in a target company. The fact that a measure benefits only companies that comply with the objective criterion laid down in the contested measure does not in itself make it selective. The selectivity criterion implies that subjective restrictions should be imposed on the beneficiary of the contested measure. The selectivity criterion created for this procedure is inconsistent with previous Commission practice and too vague and broad. Taking this concept further would lead to the erroneous conclusion that most tax-deductible expenses fall within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(58)\nThe Spanish authorities add that the fact of limiting the amortisation of financial goodwill to that resulting from the acquisition of a significant shareholding in a target company is not sufficient to remove the general character of the contested measure, since it applies indiscriminately to any company that is tax resident in Spain with no further requirements. In line with the case law of the Court of Justice (26), a measure which benefits all undertakings in national territory, without distinction, cannot therefore constitute State aid.\n(59)\nThirdly, as regards the 5 % threshold, this level does not set a minimum amount to be invested and therefore the contested measure does not benefit only large undertakings. As for the fact that there is no requirement for the seller to pay for capital gains in order for the contested measure to apply, the Spanish authorities consider this to be irrelevant since control of income received abroad by a seller who is not liable for tax in Spain lies outside their field of competence. Lastly, limiting the scope of a measure - for fiscal technical reasons - to shareholding acquisitions in target companies is consistent with the situation resulting from the implementation of various Community Directives.\n(60)\nFourthly, the introduction of the contested measure is in any case justified by the principle of neutrality, which underlies all Spanish tax legislation. This principle implies that the tax treatment of an investment should be neutral irrespective of the instruments used, whether transfer of assets, business combination or share acquisition. Therefore, the tax amortisation of an investment should be identical whatever the instrument used to carry out the acquisition in question. The final aim of the contested measure, in this broader perspective, is to ensure the free movement of capital by avoiding discriminatory tax treatment between transactions with target companies and purely domestic transactions. Given that acquisitions of significant shareholdings in resident companies could lead to a business combination of the acquiring and the acquired companies with no legal or fiscal barriers, the goodwill that would ensue for tax purposes as a result of the combination could be amortised (27). However, goodwill of cross-border operations cannot arise because harmonisation at Community level is not complete or - even worse - because there is no harmonisation outside the European Union.\n(61)\nMoreover, in the course of the investigation, the Spanish authorities and some of the 30 interested parties provided a very detailed description of the legal obstacles that existed in the legislation of 15 third countries. The technical information contained in the submissions presented by the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties are summarised in Annexes II and III to this Decision (hereinafter \u2018the reports\u2019). These descriptions have to be read more broadly in the context of the following statement by the Spanish authorities (28): \u2018the Spanish tax system thus provides for different tax schemes, as in the case of shareholding acquisitions in foreign companies compared with acquisitions in Spanish companies (impossible to undertake merger operations, risk assumption, etc.), in order to achieve the tax neutrality sought by the Spanish domestic legislation and EU law itself and also in order to ensure that the Spanish tax system is consistent and efficient\u2019. According to those authorities and the 30 interested parties, the barriers described in the reports make business combinations between companies from different Member States impossible. Therefore, the aim of the contested measure is to remove the negative impact of these barriers, for whose existence Spain is not answerable. Consequently, limiting the scope of the contested measure to cross-border acquisitions is necessary to enforce the neutrality principle. In this way, still according to the Spanish authorities, the Spanish tax system treats differently taxpayers who are in different situations (29), thereby ensuring that the Spanish tax system is neutral as required by the Spanish tax system itself and by the TFEU.\n(62)\nTo conclude, the contested measure is designed to remove the tax barriers that the Spanish tax system generates in investment decisions by penalising share acquisitions in foreign companies as opposed to acquisitions in domestic companies. The contested measure guarantees the same tax treatment for both types of acquisition (direct acquisitions of assets and indirect acquisitions by purchasing shareholdings): goodwill arising from both of them (direct goodwill and financial goodwill) can thus be identified in order to promote the integration of the different markets, until factual and legal barriers to cross-border business combinations have been removed. The Spanish authorities thus ensure that taxpayers can opt to invest at local or cross-border level without being affected by these barriers. Article 12(5) TRLIS basically restores fair conditions of competition by eliminating the adverse impacts of the barriers.\nA.1.3. The contested measure neither distorts competition nor affects Union trade\n(63)\nThe Spanish authorities state that the Commission has not established, to the requisite legal standard, that Article 12(5) TRLIS restricts competition, as (i) the alleged \u2018market for the acquisition of shares in companies\u2019 does not constitute a relevant market for the purposes of competition law; and (ii) even if this were the case, the amortisation of financial goodwill does not in itself affect the competitive position of Spanish undertakings.\n(64)\nFirst, the Commission qualified the contested measure as an anti-competitive advantage on the grounds that Article 12(5) allows Spanish taxpayers to obtain a premium for the acquisition of significant shareholdings in a target company. However, the Commission did not carry out any benchmarking study on the economic circumstances of Spanish and international companies.\n(65)\nSecond, since the contested measure is open to any Spanish company with no restrictions, it cannot distort competition. Indeed, any company in the same situation as a beneficiary of the contested measure can benefit from the measure, thus reducing its tax burden, which cancels any competitive edge that might derive from it. In addition, a lower rate of taxation in a Member State that can increase the competitive edge of local companies should not come under the State aid rules as long as it is of a general nature.\n(66)\nFinally, the Commission has already examined, in the light of the Merger Regulation (30), many Spanish cross-border operations that could have benefited from the contested measure. Yet the Commission did not raise any concerns about potential distortions of competition in any of these cases.\n(67)\nThe Commission\u2019s allegations are not only far removed from reality but also out of touch with the investment situation of Spanish companies. The contested measure neither distorts competition nor adversely affects intra-EU trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.\n(68)\nIn a non-harmonised market, as a result of competition between tax systems, identical operations have a different fiscal impact depending on where traders are resident. This situation distorts competition even if the national measures at stake are general measures. In other words, this distortion is not the result of State aid but of a lack of harmonisation. If the Commission\u2019s reasoning were followed through, it would have to open formal investigations into hundreds of national measures, which would create a situation of legal uncertainty that is highly detrimental to foreign investment.\nA.2 Compatibility\n(69)\nEven if the Commission considers that Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, this provision is compatible with Article 107(3) TFEU since it contributes to the Union interest of promoting the integration of international companies.\n(70)\nAs stated in the State Aid Action Plan (31), a measure can be considered compatible if it addresses a market failure, if it fulfils clearly defined objectives of common interest and if it does not distort intra-EU competition and trade to an extent contrary to the common interest. In the case at hand, the market failure is the difficulty (or virtual impossibility) of carrying out cross-border business combinations. The effect of Article 12(5) TRLIS is to promote the creation of pan-European undertakings, by putting domestic and cross-border acquisitions on the same footing.\n(71)\nTherefore, for the Spanish authorities, Article 12(5) TRLIS is compatible with the internal market since, in the absence of European tax harmonisation, it achieves the objective of breaking down barriers to cross-border investment in a proportionate manner. The contested measure is effectively aimed at removing the adverse impact of obstacles to cross-border business combinations and aligning the tax treatment of cross-border and local business combinations in order to ensure that the decisions taken as regards such operations are based not on tax considerations but exclusively on economic considerations.\nA.3 Legitimate expectation and legal certainty\n(72)\nFinally, and in the event that the Commission declares that Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes State aid incompatible with the internal market, the Commission must acknowledge the existence of certain circumstances that justify the non-recovery of the alleged State aid received pursuant to Article 12(5) TRLIS. The beneficiaries should have the right to complete the exceptional amortisation of the financial goodwill corresponding to acquisitions made before the date of publication of the final decision.\n(73)\nFirstly, the Commission seems to recognise, in the opening Decision, the probable existence of legitimate expectations. Therefore, in line with the case law of the General Court (32), this statement constitutes a clear indication of the existence of legitimate expectations. Since the opening Decision does not prejudge the outcome of the formal investigation, legitimate expectations should be recognised for all the operations that took place before the date of publication of the final decision.\n(74)\nSecondly, in its answers to written questions from MEPs (33), the Commission stated that Article 12(5) TRLIS does not constitute State aid. This statement constitutes a clear position from the Commission which offers obvious legitimate expectations to the Spanish authorities and the beneficiaries of the contested measure.\n(75)\nThirdly, in line with the conclusion reached by the Commission in similar cases (34), the Commission has provided a series of indirect evidence that Article 12(5) TRLIS does not constitute State aid. Taking into account these decisions, a prudent undertaking would not have been able to predict that the Commission could take an opposite position.\n(76)\nFinally, the contested measure should continue to apply to all operations prior to the publication date of a negative decision until amortisation of the financial goodwill is completed. The contested measure corresponds to a right to deduct a given amount, determined at the time of the acquisition, whose deduction is spread over the following 20 years. Moreover, because of the position taken by the Commission in similar cases (35), it is justified to assume that the legitimate expectations should remain until the date of publication of the final decision.\nB. Comments from the two parties\n(77)\nAccording to the two parties, Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes State aid. They maintain that there are no legitimate expectations in the case at hand and therefore call on the Commission to order recovery of any unlawful aid granted. Their arguments are summarised below.\nB.1. The contested measure constitutes State aid\nB.1.1. The contested measure confers an economic advantage\n(78)\nAccording to the two parties, Article 12(5) TRLIS is exceptional in nature because the Spanish tax system, with the exception of this provision, does not allow any amortisation of financial goodwill but only a deduction in the event of an impairment test. Until the introduction of Article 12(5) TRLIS the Spanish corporate tax legislation did not allow the amortisation of shareholdings regardless of whether or not there had actually been an impairment. They stress that Article 12(5) TRLIS is probably unique in the European context, as no other Member State has a similar system for cross-border transactions not involving the acquisition of controlling shares.\n(79)\nUnder the Spanish tax system, goodwill can be amortised only if there is a business combination - the sole exception is the contested measure, which allows amortisation in an exceptional case: if a minority shareholding is acquired in a target company. This diverges from the general tax system since amortisation is possible not only without there being a business combination but also in cases where the purchaser does not even acquire control of the foreign target company. Article 12(5) TRLIS thus confers a benefit on certain Spanish companies vis-\u00e0-vis (i) other Spanish companies that operate only at national level and (ii) other EU operators that compete internationally with the Spanish beneficiaries of the contested measure.\n(80)\nFrom an economic point of view, the Spanish authorities are not only providing an interest-free loan that will be drawn over a period of 20 years (interest-free tax deferral), but also effectively leaving the repayment date of the interest-free loan to the discretion of the borrower - if indeed the loan is repaid. If the investor does not transfer the significant shareholding, the effect is the same as cancellation of the debt by the Spanish authorities. In this case, the measure turns into a permanent tax exemption.\n(81)\nOne of the two parties estimates that, as a result of the contested measure, Spanish acquirers, for instance in the banking sector, are able to pay some 7 % more than they would otherwise be able to. However, it also recognises that as the offer price is a combination of various additional elements, the contested measure is not the only factor, although probably one of the most decisive factors behind the aggressiveness of potential Spanish bidders benefiting from the contested measure. This party considers also that the measure provides a definite advantage to Spanish bidders in international auctions.\nB.1.2. The contested measure favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods\n(82)\nThere is a clear parallel between the case at hand and the circumstances which led to the Court of Justice judgment of 15 July 2004 (36). Despite the arguments put forward by the Spanish authorities that the contested measure in the latter case is not selective because Article 37 TRLIS applies to all Spanish undertakings that invest internationally, the Court concluded that the measure constituted State aid since it was limited to one category of undertakings, namely undertakings making certain international investments. This same reasoning can be applied to Article 12(5) TRLIS. The selectivity of Article 12(5) TRLIS is therefore due to the fact that only companies acquiring shareholdings in foreign companies are eligible for this provision.\n(83)\nFurthermore, only enterprises of a certain size and financial strength with multinational operations can benefit from Article 12(5) TRLIS. Although the company\u2019s balance sheet discloses the book values of assets, it is unlikely that it also reflects the tacit market values of assets. Therefore, in practice, only operators with a controlling interest in target companies have sufficient access to a company\u2019s records to ascertain the tacit market value of the company\u2019s assets. Consequently, the 5 % threshold favours companies that perform multinational operations.\n(84)\nMoreover, only a Spanish operator with existing business in Spain has a Spanish tax base and can benefit from the depreciation. Therefore, only companies resident in Spain with a significant Spanish tax base can in practice benefit from it, since the potential benefit is linked to the size of the Spanish operation rather than of the acquisition. Although Article 12(5) TRLIS is drafted to apply to all operators established in Spain, in practice only a limited and identifiable number of companies with a Spanish tax base, which make foreign acquisitions in the relevant tax year and have a sizeable tax base against which to offset the financial goodwill deduction, can benefit from the application of the measure on an annual basis. As a result, the contested measure in fact gives a different tax treatment even to Spanish operators in the same position of making acquisitions abroad.\n(85)\nThe two parties consider that they have not been able to identify any objective or horizontal criterion or condition that justifies the contested measure. On the contrary, they are of the view that the basic intention of the measure is to give a benefit to certain Spanish operators. In addition, if the contested measure is inherent in the Spanish tax system, foreign shareholdings acquired prior to that date should also qualify for the measure, which is not the case since the tax relief is granted only for shareholdings acquired after 1 January 2002.\n(86)\nAccordingly, and in the light of Commission policy (37), the contested measure must be considered selective.\nB.1.3. The contested measure distorts competition and affects EU trade\n(87)\nThe contested measure is clearly discriminatory as it gives Spanish operators a clear fiscal and monetary benefit that foreign operators are not able to enjoy. In a situation of an auction or other competitive procedure for the acquisition of a company, such an advantage makes a significant difference.\n(88)\nTakeover bids usually presuppose the payment of a premium over the share price of the target company that would almost always result in financial goodwill. On several occasions, the financial press has reported on large acquisitions by Spanish companies and the respective tax benefits accruing from the Spanish tax rules on the amortisation of financial goodwill. For one of those acquisitions by an investment bank, the tax benefit resulting from Article 12(5) TRLIS was estimated to be EUR 1,7 billion, or 6,5 % of the offer price. Another report indicated that the Spanish acquirer had been able to bid about 15 % more than non-Spanish competitors.\n(89)\nThe contested measure also seems to favour certain export activities (export aid for foreign share acquisitions) of Spanish companies, which is at odds with established Commission policy (38) in this area.\nB.1.4. The contested measure impacts state resources\n(90)\nThe contested measure is of benefit to undertakings that meet certain requirements and enables them to reduce their tax base and thereby the amount of tax that would normally be due in a given year if this provision did not exist. It therefore provides the beneficiary with a financial advantage, the cost of which is directly borne by the budget of the Member State concerned.\nVI. REACTION FROM SPAIN TO THE COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES\n(91)\nThe Spanish authorities point out that the vast majority of third parties\u2019 comments support their point of view. Only two parties consider that the contested measure constitutes State aid, whereas all the others conclude that Article 12(5) TRLIS does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. Otherwise, fewer economic operators would have submitted comments. In addition, the wide range of activities and size of the interested third parties demonstrates the general nature of the contested measure.\n(92)\nRegarding the exceptional nature of the contested measure, the Spanish authorities reject this qualification by recalling the common feature of goodwill and financial goodwill amortisation according to Spanish accounting rules (39). In addition, the deduction of goodwill amortisation constitutes the general rule of the Spanish corporate tax system in accordance with the provisions laid down in Articles 11(4) and 89(3) TRLIS. Article 12(5) TRLIS follows the same logic. It is incorrect to present Article 12(3) TRLIS as the general rule for amortisation of financial goodwill since this article refers to the deduction of shareholdings in non-listed entities. This provision is related to the depreciation of the theoretical accounting value and not to financial goodwill. Article 12(3) and 12(5) TRLIS are two complementary general rules: the first refers to the depreciation attributed to the losses generated by the target company, whereas the second refers to the deduction only of the part of the depreciation attributable to the depreciation of financial goodwill. Finally, the fact that no other Member State has a measure similar to the contested measure is irrelevant since tax systems are not harmonised within the European Union.\n(93)\nRegarding the selective nature of the contested measure, the parallels drawn with the Court of Justice judgment of 15 July 2004 (40) are incorrect since in that case the Commission had clearly defined the profile of the beneficiary, whereas in the present case this could not be done. Indeed, Article 12(5) TRLIS does not require any link between the shareholding acquisition and the export of goods and services. Therefore the contested measure does not have the effect of increasing exports of Spanish goods or services. The fact that this non-selective measure is not available for domestic operations does not affect its general nature. In fact, the final objective of the contested measure is the same as that of the Cross-border Tax Directive, which is to ensure that investment decisions are based on economic rather than tax considerations. Therefore, since it is possible to carry out business combinations with domestic acquisitions and not with cross-border acquisitions, treating domestic operations and cross-border operations differently is not only legally justified but also necessary in order to guarantee the neutrality of the tax system.\n(94)\nRegarding the alleged distorting features of the contested measure, the Spanish authorities point out that any tax relief that reduces the operating costs of a company increases the competitive edge of the beneficiary. However, this statement is irrelevant since the contested measure is a general measure. The different tax rates applied across the Member States, which impact on the competitiveness of their resident companies, do not fall under the State aid rules. In addition, the contested measure has not been shown to affect trade between Member States. Moreover, the consequence of amortising financial goodwill is not necessarily to increase the price offered by a competitor.\n(95)\nAs regards the compatibility of the contested measure with the internal market, the Spanish authorities consider Article 12(5) TRLIS to be appropriate and proportionate to address a market failure by establishing a neutral tax system for domestic and cross-border operations that fosters the development of pan- European companies.\nVII. ASSESSMENT OF THE SCHEME\n(96)\nIn order to ascertain whether a measure constitutes aid, the Commission has to assess whether the contested measure fulfils the conditions of Article 107(1) TFUE. This provision states that \u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019. In the light of this provision, the Commission will assess hereunder whether the contested measure constitutes State aid.\nA. Selectivity and advantage inherent in the measure\n(97)\nTo be considered State aid, a measure must be specific or selective in the sense that it favours only certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.\n(98)\nThe Commission Notice (41) states that \u2018The main criterion in applying Article 92(1) (now Article 107(1) TFEU) to a tax measure is therefore that the measure provides in favour of certain undertakings in the Member State an exception to the application of the tax system. The common system applicable should thus first be determined. It must then be examined whether the exception to the system or differentiations within that system are justified \u201cby the nature or general scheme\u201d of the tax system, that is to say, whether they derive directly from the basic or guiding principles of the tax system in the Member State concerned.\u2019\n(99)\nAccording to the case law of the Court of Justice (42), \u2018as regards the assessment of the condition of selectivity, which is a constituent factor in the concept of State aid, it is clear from settled case law that Article 87(1) EC (now Article 107(1) TFEU) requires assessment of whether, under a particular statutory scheme, a State measure is such as to \u201cfavour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods\u201d in comparison with other undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the measure in question\u2019 (43).\n(100)\nThe Court has also held on numerous occasions that Article 107(1) TFEU does not establish a distinction between the causes or the objectives of state measures, but rather defines them in relation to their effects (44). In particular, tax measures which do not constitute an adaptation of the general system to particular characteristics of certain undertakings, but have been conceived as a means of improving their competitiveness, fall within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU (45).\n(101)\nThe concept of State aid does not, however, apply to state measures which differentiate between undertakings where that differentiation arises from the nature or the overall structure of the system of which they form part. As explained in the Commission Notice (46), \u2018some conditions may be justified by objective differences between taxpayers\u2019.\n(102)\nAs explained in more detail in the following section, the Commission considers that the contested measure is selective in that it only favours certain groups of undertakings that carry out certain investments abroad and that this specific character is not justified by the nature of the scheme. The Commission considers that the contested measure should be assessed in the light of the general provisions of the corporate tax system, and more precisely the rules on the tax treatment of financial goodwill (see paragraphs 48 to 69).\n(103)\nThe Commission has also analysed whether the factual hypothesis used as a basis by the Spanish authorities is sound and whether there are barriers in the legislations of third countries. However, it should be pointed out that this exercise cannot constitute a recognition that such barriers could justify a different tax treatment in the present case. Moreover, the purpose of the present Decision is not to set out the conditions which would have allowed the Member State concerned to avoid the classification of the contested measure as State aid.\n(104)\nEven if an alternative reference system inspired by the one suggested by the Spanish authorities were chosen, the Commission concludes that the contested measure would still constitute a selective advantage, essentially due to the absence of different factual and legal conditions required for the different scenarios to benefit from the provisions on the goodwill or financial goodwill on foreign transactions. More importantly still, under the contested measure the financial goodwill can be recognised separately and can also be amortised if the beneficiary acquires a minority shareholding of 5 %. This level is well below that needed to apply the general rules on amortisation of goodwill (47). The contested measure is therefore an exception to the reference system, whatever its definition.\n(105)\nIn addition to this, the Commission notes other differences as regards the implementing conditions applying to the contested measure and the provisions of the reference system. Indeed, under the contested measure, shareholding acquisitions made before 1 January 2002 are not taken into account for the calculation of the base to be amortised. By contrast, under a business combination scenario, such a cut-off date does not exist when calculating the goodwill and the taxpayer has to prove that the combination is made for valid economic reasons to avoid combinations being aimed at purely obtaining tax benefits (48), whereas the contested measure only provides tax benefits. The Spanish authorities have been unable to provide convincing arguments to justify these differences, and thus the measure cannot be considered to be justified by the logic of the Spanish tax system.\n(106)\nHence, the contested measure is too imprecise and indiscriminate since it does not set any conditions, such as the existence of specific, legally circumscribed situations which would justify different tax treatment. Consequently, situations which have not been demonstrated to be sufficiently different to justify a selective derogation from general goodwill rules end up benefiting from the contested measure. The Commission therefore considers that the contested measure concerns the tax deduction of specific types of costs and covers a broad category of transactions in a discriminatory manner, which cannot be justified by objective differences between taxpayers.\n(107)\nMoreover, in line with the case law of the Court of Justice (49), the Commission considers that it is not necessary, in order to arrive at a conclusion regarding the State aid qualification of a scheme, to demonstrate that all individual aid granted under that scheme qualifies as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. For this purpose, it is sufficient that the implementation of the scheme under review leads to situations which qualify as aid to be able to conclude that the scheme contains aid elements within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. Hence, reviewing the legislation of all possible non-EU countries for which the Commission investigation procedure is still open is unnecessary in the context of this Decision. Therefore, as indicated already in paragraphs 115 et seq. of the previous Decision (50), the Commission has verified - on the basis of methodology explained in detail below - whether some of the individual applications of the contested aid scheme in non-EU transactions involve State aid. This analysis focused on those non-EU countries with which Spain maintains close economic relations and which were therefore selected according to their importance in terms of foreign direct investment (FDI) between 1 January 2002 and 1 June 2009. Of these non-EU countries, the Commission focused its analysis on the countries likely to yield a greater number of individual applications of the contested measure: United States of America (EUR 35 billion FDI), Mexico (EUR 18 billion FDI), Argentina (EUR15 billion FDI) and Brazil (EUR 13 billion FDI). According to the information submitted by the Spanish authorities in the course of the procedure, it would appear that, of the 15 non-EU countries for which the Spanish authorities presented information, transactions took place not only in the above-mentioned four countries but also in the Republic of Colombia, the Republic of Peru and the Republic of Ecuador. The Commission has therefore extended its review to these three countries also.\n(108)\nThe Commission\u2019s reasoning, summarised above, is developed in the following paragraphs.\nA.1. Tax treatment of financial goodwill under the Spanish tax system with respect to non-EU acquisitions\nA.1.1. Reference system\n(109)\nIn the opening Decision as well as in the previous Decision, the Commission considered that the appropriate reference system is the Spanish corporate tax system and, more precisely, the rules on the tax treatment of financial goodwill set out in the Spanish tax system. This approach is in line with previous Commission practice and the case law of the European Courts, which consider the ordinary corporate tax system to be the reference system (51). This approach is maintained in the present Decision.\n(110)\nThe Spanish authorities state that, in general, the constraints on cross-border business combinations place taxpayers buying shareholdings in domestic companies in a different legal and factual situation from those buying shareholdings in non-resident companies, and in particular in companies located in non-EU countries. The Spanish authorities have explained that the objective of the contested measure is to avoid a difference of tax treatment between, on the one hand, an acquisition followed by a business combination for valuable consideration and, on the other hand, a share acquisition without a business combination. On this basis, the scope of the contested scheme would be limited to the acquisition of significant shareholdings in a company not resident in Spain because some obstacles would make it more difficult to perform a cross-border business combination compared with a local one (52). As a consequence of the existence of these obstacles, Spanish taxpayers investing abroad would be placed, legally and factually, in a different situation from those investing in Spain. In this respect, the Spanish authorities state that (53): \u2018In summary, the mere differential nature of certain tax measures does not necessarily imply that they are State aid, since these measures also need to be examined to see whether they are necessary or functional as regards the efficiency of the tax system, as stated in the Commission Notice. Hence the Spanish tax system envisages different tax schemes for objectively different situations, as is the case for acquisitions of shareholdings in foreign companies as against acquisitions in Spanish companies (impossible to perform merger operations, risk management, etc.) with a view to achieving the tax neutrality imposed by Spanish domestic legislation and by Community law itself, and ensuring that the logic of the Spanish tax system is consistent and efficient\u2019.\n(111)\nProviding specific tax treatment for cross-border shareholding acquisitions would, according to these authorities, be necessary to ensure the neutrality of the Spanish tax system and to prevent more favourable treatment for domestic shareholding acquisitions. Therefore, the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties consider that the correct reference framework for the assessment of the contested measure would be the tax treatment of goodwill for foreign acquisitions.\n(112)\nIn the previous Decision, the Commission maintained the procedure in order to allow the Spanish authorities to provide new information as regards the existence of explicit legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations in non-EU countries.\n(113)\nIn this context, and essentially on the basis of the elements contained in the reports, the Commission has investigated the legislation of various non-EU countries simply in order to check the Spanish authorities\u2019 allegations about the existence of explicit legal obstacles to cross-border combinations. This examination does not, however, constitute recognition of the fact that such obstacles could justify a different reference system in the present case. In the course of this examination, the Commission checked mainly whether a Spanish parent company had the legal capacity to combine with a subsidiary resident in a non-EU country.\n(114)\nThe following premises underpin this investigation which was limited to examining the truth of the allegations made in the arguments:\n-\nfirst, the Commission checked whether, as stated in the previous Decision (54), Spanish companies face an explicit legal barrier, attributable to a non-EU country and not to Spain (55), that prevents them from converting a foreign subsidiary into a branch. Such legal provisions can only constitute a barrier, however, if the company concerned would have been able to exercise effective influence, most notably by means of a majority shareholding, over the target company to such an extent that it would be able to impose a merger if the obstacles were not there. Hence, legal provisions in non-EU countries which prevent a Spanish taxpayer from acquiring control over a target company in that country cannot be regarded as a relevant explicit legal barrier in the sense alleged by the Spanish authorities: as a result of such provisions, Spanish companies/taxpayers can never fulfil the condition of effective influence since they will always be minority shareholders of the target company. Therefore, they can never have the necessary effective capacity to impose a business combination. The Commission would like to point out that the condition of control was assessed at the level of the beneficiary of the measure (and not of the group to which it may belong) in line with the Spanish tax system. Following the same line of reasoning, the Commission considers that an explicit prohibition on non-resident entities directly owning specific assets (for instance, property on the coast) cannot constitute an explicit legal barrier in the context of this exercise.\nThe Commission considers that a mere administrative burden or formality (56) required of non-resident companies by non-EU countries cannot be regarded as an explicit legal barrier simply because it generates additional costs - which may be tax-deductible under the Spanish tax system - but does not make the business combination impossible,\n-\nsecond, an allegation that there are no known examples of cross-border business combinations between Spanish companies and companies from certain non-EU countries cannot constitute sufficient evidence or demonstrate the existence of obstacles. The elements taken into account by companies when deciding to carry out a business combination are diverse and not limited only to the capacity of the companies concerned to combine their business activities. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that some of the 30 interested parties own numerous fully-controlled Spanish subsidiaries without having combined their Spanish businesses, even though the Spanish authorities recognise that there are no obstacles to domestic business combinations. Therefore, the Commission considers that, of the elements in the reports, only explicit prohibitions of cross-border business combinations set out in the laws of non-EU countries can be accepted. Indeed, as already indicated in paragraph 93 of the previous Decision, if unsubstantiated elements of a general nature were taken into account, this analysis would risk becoming largely arbitrary.\n(115)\nThe findings presented below are based on the information provided by the Spanish authorities in the reports, the truthfulness and completeness of which have been checked by the Commission in the light of the methodological remarks set out above. On this basis, the Commission considers that, contrary to the arguments of the Spanish authorities, it cannot be considered that all the laws of non-EU countries raise explicit legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations. Therefore, similar to what was stated in relation to intra-EU transactions in the previous Decision (57), the Commission cannot share the views expressed by the Spanish authorities, supported by the arguments of the 30 interested parties, as regards the general existence of these alleged obstacles. The Commission considers that outside the EU Member States, and at least in the following relevant non-EU countries, no explicit legal obstacles can be recognised, as indicated below:\n-\nUnited States of America:\n(i)\nfirst of all, the Commission notes that, in a report presented by the Spanish authorities (58), when assessing whether there are any precedents for cross-border business combinations, the author states \u2018Not found, but it is likely that this event happened in Delaware\u2019. In contradiction with the Spanish authorities\u2019 main arguments, the conclusion in one of the reports (59) regarding this country seems to be that there is no general, explicit legal prohibition on cross-border business combinations;\n(ii)\nsecond, under the general rules of company law (60) and tax law (61), there is no explicit prohibition on business combinations with foreign entities;\n(iii)\nthird, specific company law provisions (62) apply to domestic business combinations. There is, to the Commission\u2019s knowledge, no explicit prohibition on applying those provisions to cross-border business combinations, even though the applicable administrative formalities may differ. The Commission points out that at least the State of Delaware makes cross-border business combinations (63) explicitly feasible on condition that the inverse is permitted by the legislation of the country where the foreign company is resident. Therefore, if such a transaction is not feasible between companies located respectively in Delaware and Spain, the Commission considers that the obstacles are attributable to Spain, and therefore not relevant for the present assessment. This finding should be looked at in the context of the importance of the State of Delaware for the location/incorporation of companies in the USA (64);\n(iv)\nfourth, specific tax provisions apply to domestic business combinations in order to avoid unfavourable taxation when carrying out restructuring operations. There is, to the Commission\u2019s knowledge, no explicit prohibition on applying them to cross-border business combinations, even though the applicable administrative formalities may differ;\n(v)\nfinally, the Commission did not find any case law by the competent US courts that would contradict its conclusion regarding the absence of explicit legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations with a company resident in the United States.\n-\nMexico:\n(i)\nfirst of all, the Commission notes that Article 8(3) of the tax convention (65) between Spain and Mexico, signed on 6 October 1994 and still in force, explicitly provides for cross-border business combination transactions. As a consequence of this provision, such transactions benefit from roll-over relief since unrealised capital gains are not taxed. As far as the Commission can see, the purpose of this international tax convention is to remove the possible exclusion (66) of cross-border business combinations from the benefit of the specific tax rules applying to domestic business combinations;\n(ii)\nsecond, under Mexican legislation (company law and tax law), and taking into account the above tax convention, there is no explicit legal prohibition on business combinations with Spanish entities;\n(iii)\nfinally, the Commission did not find any case law by the competent Mexican courts that would clearly contradict its conclusion regarding the absence of explicit legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations with a company resident in Mexico.\n-\nBrazil:\n(i)\nfirst of all, the Commission notes that a precedent of a cross-border business combination (not with Spain) was found by the Spanish authorities (67);\n(ii)\nsecond, under the general rules of company law and tax law (68), there is no explicit legal prohibition on business combinations with foreign entities, although administrative formalities may differ (69);\n(iii)\nthird, some explicit legal restrictions apply to the performance of economic activities in certain sectors (70) by entities controlled by foreign companies. However, as stated above (see paragraph 114), legal provisions in non-EU countries preventing a Spanish taxpayer from taking control of a target company in that country cannot be regarded as a relevant explicit legal barrier in the sense alleged by the Spanish authorities: as a result of this provision, Spanish companies/taxpayers can never fulfil the condition of effective influence since they will always be a minority shareholder in the target company. As far as the Commission can see, this is precisely the situation which arises from the Brazilian legislation referred to in the two reports;\n(iv)\nfinally, the Commission did not find any case law that would contradict its conclusion regarding the absence of explicit legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations with a company resident in Brazil.\n-\nArgentina:\n(i)\nfirst of all, the Commission notes that Article 5 of the tax convention (71) between Spain and Argentina, signed on 26 August 1994 and still in force, explicitly provides for cross-border business combinations. As a result of this provision, cross-border restructuring operations cannot give rise to unfavourable taxation;\n(ii)\nsecond, under the general rules of company law (72) and tax law (73), there is no explicit legal prohibition on business combinations with foreign entities although the applicable administrative formalities may differ;\n(iii)\nthird, the Commission did not find any case law that would contradict its conclusion regarding the absence of explicit legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations with a company resident in Argentina. Moreover, the Commission does not agree with the interpretation in the two reports of the rulings (74) issued by the tax administration in certain planned cross-border transactions. These rulings simply clarify the conditions of the Argentinian tax roll-over arrangements. They do not mention the existence of a general and explicit prohibition on applying these arrangements to cross-border restructuring operations. Moreover, the interpretation given in the reports of these specific rulings contradicts the general provision in the above-mentioned tax convention (75) between the Kingdom of Spain and the Argentine Republic.\n-\nEcuador:\n(i)\nfirst of all, the Commission notes that, under the general rules of company law and tax law, there is no explicit legal prohibition on business combinations with foreign entities (76);\n(ii)\nSecond, the Commission notes that a report presented by the Spanish authorities (77) recognises that a cross-border business combination is feasible provided that the Spanish acquirer has set up a branch in Ecuador beforehand.\n-\nPeru:\n(i)\nfirst of all, the Commission notes that, under the general rules of company law and tax law, there is, to the Commission\u2019s knowledge, no explicit legal prohibition on business combinations with foreign entities (78);\n(ii)\nsecond, the Commission notes that Article 2074 of the Peruvian Civil Code sets out the principles applicable to cross-border business combinations and the General Companies Law allows business combinations involving a branch of a foreign entity and a company resident in Peru (79);\n(iii)\nthird, the Law on Income Tax ensures neutral treatment of business combinations involving a branch of a foreign entity and a company resident in Peru (80);\n(iv)\nthe Commission therefore considers that a cross-border business combination is in any case feasible provided that the Spanish acquirer has set up a branch in Peru beforehand.\n-\nColombia:\n(i)\nfirst of all, the Commission notes that the Superintendencia de Sociedades (81) explicitly confirms that cross-border business combinations are feasible under Colombian legislation (82);\n(ii)\nsecond, under the general rules of company law and tax law (83), there is no explicit legal prohibition on business combinations with foreign entities even though the applicable administrative formalities may differ;\n(iii)\nthird, the Commission notes that a report presented by the Spanish authorities (84) recognises that cross-border business combinations are feasible provided that the Spanish acquirer has set up a branch in Colombia beforehand.\n(116)\nThe Spanish authorities submitted information on the laws of eight other non-EU countries. As already stated in paragraph 107, the Commission considers that the above findings are sufficient to confirm that, in any event, even if one were to admit that the existence of legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations are significant, the reference system is the rules on the tax treatment of financial goodwill in the Spanish system. Nonetheless, applying the same methodology and criteria as described in paragraphs 114 et seq., the Commission considers, on the basis of the information available, that no explicit legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations of a general nature exist in the laws of Chile, Venezuela, Algeria, Canada, Australia, Japan or Morocco.\n(117)\nTherefore, on the basis of the above findings, the Commission cannot agree with the Spanish authorities that each potential individual beneficiary of the contested measure is faced, be it only in practice, with insurmountable obstacles to cross-border business combinations.\n(118)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission considers that there is no reason to depart from the reference system in the opening Decision and the previous Decision: the appropriate reference framework for assessing the contested measure is the general Spanish corporate tax system and, more precisely, the rules on the tax treatment of financial goodwill in the Spanish tax system. This conclusion cannot be affected by the fact that the Commission found two non-EU countries where explicit legal obstacles do exist (India and China). As already stated in paragraph 107, in line with the case law of the Court of Justice (85), the Commission considers that, in order to arrive at a conclusion regarding the State aid qualification of a scheme, it is not necessary to demonstrate that all individual aid granted under that scheme qualifies as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(119)\nMore precisely, as regards China, the 2005 Company Law applying to mergers involving only limited liability companies or joint stock limited companies incorporated in China, and Articles 2 and 55 of the regulation entitled \u2018Provisions on Acquisitions of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors\u2019 issued by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce on 22 June 2009, explicitly exclude non-resident companies from the scope of application of the business combination rules so that a Spanish company would not be able to combine its business with a Chinese-controlled subsidiary.\n(120)\nWith reference to the legislation in force in India, Articles 391 to 394 of the Indian Companies Law of 1956 explicitly exclude non-resident companies from the scope of application of the business combination rules so that a Spanish company would not be able to combine its business with any Indian-controlled subsidiary.\nA.1.2. Existence of a derogation from the reference system\n(121)\nUnder the Spanish tax system, the tax base is calculated on the basis of the accounting result, to which adjustments are then made by applying specific tax rules. As a preliminary remark and on a subsidiary basis, the Commission notes that the contested measure derogates from the Spanish accounting system. The emergence of financial goodwill can only be computed in abstract by consolidating the accounts of the target company with those of the acquiring company. However, under the Spanish accounting system, the consolidation of accounts is required in case of \u2018control\u2019 (86) and is done for both domestic and foreign associations of companies, in order to provide the global situation of a group of companies subject to unitary control. Such a situation is deemed (87) to exist, for instance, if the parent company holds the majority of the voting rights of the subsidiary company. Nonetheless, the contested measure does not require any such type of control and applies as from a 5 % level of shareholding. Finally, the Commission also notes that, from 1 January 2005 (88), in line with accounting rules, financial goodwill can no longer be amortised by most Spanish companies. In effect, in this respect the 30 interested parties refer to provisions (89) that are no longer in force under the current Spanish accounting system. As a result of Law 16/2007 of 4 July 2007 reforming and adapting commercial law in the field of accounting for the purposes of international accounting harmonisation under EU legislation, as well as Royal Decree 1514/2007 of 16 November 2007 on the General Accounting Plan, from an accounting point of view the amortisation of neither goodwill nor financial goodwill is allowed any more. These amendments to Spanish accounting law are in line with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards (90). Therefore, given these considerations, the contested measure constitutes an exception to the ordinary accounting rules applicable in Spain.\n(122)\nThat being said, because of the fiscal nature of the contested measure, the existence of an exception must be assessed in comparison with the reference tax system, and not merely on an accounting basis. In this context, the Commission notes that the Spanish tax system has never permitted the amortisation of financial goodwill, except under Article 12(5) TRLIS. In particular, no such amortisation is possible for domestic transactions. This is clear from the following:\n(123)\nFor Spanish tax purposes, goodwill can only be booked separately following a business combination (91), which materialises either in the case of acquisition or contribution of the assets that make up an independent business, or following a legal business combination. In such cases, the goodwill arises as the accounting difference between the acquisition cost and the market value of the assets that make up the business acquired or held by the combined company. When the acquisition of the business of a company is made by way of the acquisition of its shares, as in the case of the contested measure, goodwill can only arise if the acquiring company combines subsequently with the acquired company, over which it will then have control.\n(124)\nHowever, under the contested measure, neither control nor the combination of the two businesses is necessary. The mere acquisition of a shareholding of at least 5 % in a foreign company is sufficient. Thus, by allowing the financial goodwill, which is the goodwill that would have been booked if the businesses had combined, to appear separately even in the absence of a business combination, the contested measure constitutes an exception to the reference system. It must be stressed that the exception does not result from the duration of the period during which the financial goodwill is amortised compared with the period that applies to traditional goodwill (92), but rather from the different treatment of domestic and cross-border transactions. The contested measure cannot be considered a new general accounting rule in its own right because the amortisation of financial goodwill deriving from the acquisition of domestic shareholdings is not allowed.\n(125)\nGiven all the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the contested measure derogates from the reference system. As will be demonstrated in paragraphs 153 to 163, the Commission considers that neither the Spanish authorities nor the 30 interested parties have put forward sufficiently coherent arguments to alter this conclusion.\nA.1.3. Existence of an advantage\n(126)\nUnder Article 12(5) TRLIS, part of the financial goodwill deriving from the acquisition of shareholdings in foreign companies can be deducted from the tax base by way of derogation from the reference system. Therefore, by reducing the tax burden of the beneficiary, Article 12(5) TRLIS provides them with an economic advantage. It takes the form of a reduction in the tax to which the companies concerned would otherwise be liable. This reduction is proportionate to the difference between the acquisition price paid and the market value of the underlying booked assets of the shareholdings purchased.\n(127)\nThe precise amount of the advantage with respect to the acquisition price paid corresponds to the net discounted value of the tax burden reduction provided by the amortisation that is deductible throughout the amortisation period following the acquisition. It therefore depends on the corporate tax rate in the years concerned and the discount interest rate applicable.\n(128)\nIf the acquired shareholdings are resold, part of this advantage would be recouped by means of capital gain taxation. Indeed, by allowing amortisation of financial goodwill, if the foreign shareholding in question is resold, the amount deducted would lead to an increase in the capital gain taxed at the time of sale. However, in the event of such uncertain circumstances, the advantage would not disappear completely since taxation at a later stage does not take the liquidity cost into account. As rightly pointed out by the two parties, from an economic point of view, the amount of the advantage is at least similar to that of an interest-free credit line that allows up to 20 annual withdrawals of one-20th of the financial goodwill for as long as the shareholdings are held on the taxpayer\u2019s books.\n(129)\nTaking a hypothetical example, already mentioned by the Commission in the opening Decision, a shareholding acquired in 2002 would yield an advantage corresponding to 20,6 % of the amount of financial goodwill, assuming a discount interest rate of 5 % (93) and considering the existing structure of corporate tax rates until 2022 as currently set out in Law No 35/2006 (94). The third parties have not contested these figures. In the event that the acquired shareholdings are resold, the advantage would correspond to the interest that would have been charged to the taxpayer for a credit line with the characteristics described in the previous paragraph.\n(130)\nFinally, the Commission cannot share the views of the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties that the final beneficiary of the contested measure would only be the seller of the foreign shareholding since it would receive a higher price. The Commission rejects this argument after assessing the effect of the contested measure in its current form. First, there is no mechanism guaranteeing that the advantage is passed on in full or in part to the seller. Second, the acquisition price results from a series of different elements, not just from the contested measure. Third, even if the above two conditions were met, the Spanish taxpayer benefiting from the contested measure must still be considered the beneficiary of the measure. Even if an economic advantage were transferred to the seller, the contested measure would still give the acquirer greater capacity to offer a higher price, which is of the utmost importance in the case of a competitive acquisition operation.\n(131)\nTherefore, the Commission concludes that, in any event, the contested measure provides an advantage at the time of acquisition of foreign shareholdings.\nA.1.4. Justification of the measure by the logic of the Spanish tax system\n(132)\nThe Commission considers that, in line with the settled case law of the Court of Justice (95), the measures introducing a differentiation between undertakings do not constitute State aid when that differentiation arises from the nature and overall structure of the system of charges of which they form part. This justification based on the nature or overall structure of the tax system reflects the consistency of a specific tax measure with the internal logic of the tax system in general.\n(133)\nIn this regard, the Commission considers, firstly, that the Spanish authorities have not demonstrated that the effect of the contested measure would be to eliminate double taxation. The scheme in fact does not establish any conditions to prove that the seller has been effectively taxed on the gain derived from the transfer of the shareholding, even though such a condition is imposed for amortising the goodwill arising from a business combination (96). It should be underlined that, although the Spanish authorities claim not to be competent to exercise control over a foreign seller carrying out operations abroad, the Commission notes that this condition is required for the application of other Spanish tax provisions (97) but not for the contested measure.\n(134)\nSecondly, the contested measure does not constitute a mechanism to avoid double taxation of future dividends that would be taxed upon realisation of future profits and should not be taxed twice when distributed to the company that holds a significant shareholding for the acquisition of which financial goodwill was paid. In fact, the contested measure creates no relation between the dividends received and the deduction enjoyed as a result of the contested measure. On the contrary, the dividends received from a significant shareholding in a foreign company already benefit from both the exemption provided for by Article 21 TRLIS and the direct tax neutrality provided for by Article 32 TRLIS to avoid international double taxation. In this connection, the amortisation of the financial goodwill results in an additional advantage with respect to the acquisition of significant shareholdings in foreign companies.\n(135)\nThirdly, the Spanish authorities have not demonstrated that the contested measure is an extension of the impairment rules which presuppose that there is objective evidence of losses based on a detailed and objective calculation that is not required by the contested measure. On the contrary, Article 12(3) TRLIS permits partial deductions for depreciation of equity shareholdings in domestic and foreign shareholdings which are not traded on a secondary market for impairments occurring between the beginning and the end of the tax year. The contested measure - which is, for beneficiaries, compatible with Article 12(3) TRLIS (98) - provides for further deductions over and above the decrease in the theoretical accounting value linked to impairment.\n(136)\nFourthly, the Commission notes that the financial goodwill deriving from the acquisition of domestic shareholdings cannot be amortised whereas the financial goodwill of foreign companies is amortised under certain conditions. Different tax treatment of the financial goodwill of foreign companies compared with domestic ones is a differentiation introduced by the contested measure which is neither necessary nor proportionate in terms of the logic of the tax system. In fact, the Commission considers that it is disproportionate for the scheme at hand to impose substantially different nominal and effective taxation on companies in comparable situations just because some of them are involved in investment opportunities abroad.\n(137)\nMoreover, the Commission considers that the comments made by one of the 30 interested parties (99) mean that even the rationale behind the justification put forward by Spain would be contrary to the logic of the Spanish tax system. In fact, according to this submission, in a cross-border business combination scenario, the goodwill that would arise would, in all likelihood, be located abroad, more precisely in the foreign permanent establishment resulting from the dissolution of the target company. Therefore, again according to this submission, even in a cross-border business scenario, Spain would not allow goodwill to be amortised in Spain as the goodwill is not located in Spain. In addition to this, the Commission notes additional differences in the conditions applying to each of these two scenarios. Under the contested measure, shareholding acquisitions made before 1 January 2002 are not taken into account for the calculation of the base to be amortised. However, in a business combination scenario, this cut-off date does not exist when calculating the goodwill. Moreover, in a business combination scenario, the taxpayer has to prove that the main objective of the combination derives from economic considerations in order to avoid combinations only aimed at obtaining tax benefits (100), whereas the contested measure only provides tax benefits. The Spanish authorities have not been able to provide convincing arguments to justify these differences, which are thus to be considered as not being duly justified by the logic of the Spanish tax system.\n(138)\nFinally, the Spanish authorities also argue that the contested measure is justified by the neutrality principle which must be applied in the corporate tax context (101). Indeed, the explanatory memorandum to the Corporate Tax Law (102) in force when the contested measure was introduced clearly referred to this principle. In this respect, the Commission notes that the \u2018competitiveness principle\u2019 (103) invoked by the Spanish authorities, who expressly refer to \u2018an increase in exports\u2019, also drives this reform. In this context, it should be recalled that, according to previous Commission Decisions (104), it is disproportionate to impose different effective taxation on companies in comparable situations just because they are involved in export-related activities or pursue investment opportunities abroad. In addition, the Commission recalls that, as the Court stated, (105)\u2018\u2026whilst the principles of equal tax treatment and equal tax burden certainly form part of the basis of the Spanish tax system, they do not require that taxpayers in different situations be accorded the same treatment\u2019.\n(139)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission considers that the neutrality principle cannot justify the contested measure. Indeed, as highlighted also by the two parties, the fact that the acquisition of a 5 % minority shareholding acquired after a given date benefits from the contested measure demonstrates that the measure would include certain situations that bear no significant similarity. In this way it could be said that, under the reference system, situations which are both factually and legally different are treated in an identical manner. The Commission considers therefore that the neutrality principle cannot be invoked to justify the contested measure.\n(140)\nGiven the above considerations, the Commission must conclude that the selective advantage aspect of the tax scheme under review is not justified by the nature of the tax system. Therefore, the contested measure must be considered as including a discriminatory element in the form of a limitation regarding the country in which the transaction benefiting from the tax advantage takes place, and this discrimination is not justified by the logic of the Spanish tax system.\nA.2. Complementary reasoning: analysis of the contested measure from the point of view of a reference system based on the one suggested by the Spanish authorities\n(141)\nAlthough the Commission considers, as stated in the previous paragraphs, that the arguments raised by the Spanish authorities rely on an incorrect analysis of the de facto legislation of non-EU countries, as in the previous Decision, the Commission also analysed the contested measure from the point of view of a hypothetical reference system based on the one suggested by the Spanish authorities.\n(142)\nThe Spanish authorities have explained that the objective of the contested measure is to avoid a difference of tax treatment between, on the one hand, an acquisition followed by a business combination for valuable consideration and, on the other hand, a share acquisition without a business combination. On this basis, the scope of the contested scheme would be limited to the acquisition of significant shareholdings in a company not resident in Spain because some obstacles would make it more difficult to perform a cross-border business combination than a local one (106). As a result of these barriers, Spanish taxpayers investing abroad would be placed, legally and factually, in a different situation from those investing in Spain. Indeed, the Spanish authorities state that (107): \u2018In summary, the mere differential nature of certain tax measures does not necessarily imply that they are State aid, since these measures also need to be examined to see whether they are necessary or functional as regards the efficiency of the tax system, as stated in the Commission Notice. Hence the Spanish tax system envisages different tax schemes for objectively different situations, as is the case for acquisitions of shareholdings in foreign companies as against acquisitions in Spanish companies (impossible to perform merger operations, risk management, etc.) with a view to achieving the tax neutrality imposed by Spanish domestic legislation and by Community law itself, and ensuring that the logic of the Spanish tax system is consistent and efficient.\u2019 Hence, providing specific tax treatment for cross-border shareholding acquisitions would be necessary to ensure the neutrality of the Spanish tax system and to avoid more favourable treatment of domestic shareholding acquisitions. Therefore, the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties consider that the correct reference framework for the assessment of the contested measure would be the tax treatment of the goodwill for foreign acquisitions.\n(143)\nHowever, the Commission points out that, even under this alternative reference system which could be defined as the tax treatment of goodwill and financial goodwill deriving from an economic interest in a company resident in a country other than Spain, the contested measure still constitutes a derogation which is not consistent with the logic of the Spanish tax system. The fact that the acquisition of 5 % minority shareholding which has been acquired after a given date benefits from the contested measure demonstrates that the measure would include certain situations which bear no significant similarity to other transactions requiring at least majority control. In this way it can be said that, under this hypothetical alternative reference system, situations which are both factually and legally different are treated identically. The Commission considers, therefore, that the contested measure constitutes a derogation even under this alternative reference system and that the neutrality principle cannot be invoked to justify it.\nB. Presence of state resources\n(144)\nThe measure involves the use of state resources as it implies forgoing tax revenue for the amount corresponding to the reduced tax liability of the companies taxable in Spain that acquire a significant shareholding in foreign companies for a period of at least 20 years following the acquisition.\n(145)\nThe forgoing of tax revenues mitigates the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which thus, without being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect. Likewise, a measure allowing certain undertakings to benefit from a tax reduction or to postpone payment of tax normally due amounts to State aid. From a budgetary point of view and in line with the case law of the Court of Justice (108) and the Commission Notice (109), the contested measure leads to a loss of tax revenue for the state, resulting from the reduction in the tax base, which is equivalent to consumption of state resources.\n(146)\nFor these reasons, the Commission considers that the contested measure involves the use of state resources.\nC. Distortion of competition and trade between Member States\n(147)\nAccording to the case law of the Court of Justice (110), \u2018\u2026for the purpose of categorising a national measure as prohibited State aid, it is necessary, not to establish that the aid has a real effect on trade between Member States and that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether that aid is liable to affect such trade and distort competition. In particular, when aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid\u2026In addition, it not necessary that the beneficiary undertaking itself be involved in intra-Community trade. Aid granted by a Member State to an undertaking may help to maintain or increase domestic activity, with the result that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of penetrating the market of the Member State concerned.\u2019 Moreover, in line with the settled case law of the Court (111), for a measure to distort competition it is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition. The Commission considers that the conditions set out in the case law are fulfilled for the following reasons.\n(148)\nFirst, the contested measure provides an advantage in terms of financing and, therefore, strengthens the position of the economic unit that can be formed by the beneficiary and the target company. In that regard and in line with the case law of the Court (112), the mere fact of owning controlling shareholdings in a target company and exercising that control by involving itself directly or indirectly in the management of it, must be regarded as taking part in the economic activity carried on by the controlled undertaking.\n(149)\nSecond, the contested measure is liable to distort competition, most clearly amongst European competitors, by providing a tax reduction to Spanish companies that acquire a significant shareholding in target companies. This analysis is confirmed by the fact that several companies complained or intervened after the opening Decision to state that the contested measure provided a significant advantage fuelling the merger appetite of Spanish companies, in particular in the context of tendering procedures. These interventions confirm at least that a series of non-Spanish companies consider that their position on the market is affected by the contested measure, irrespective of the correctness of their detailed submissions as regards the existence of aid.\n(150)\nFinally, the Commission would like to state that the selective advantage is granted to companies which are Spanish taxpayers, and not to the activities of Spanish taxpayers outside the EU. The tax base which is eroded is the one which derives from taxable economic activity in Spain. Hence, the advantage is granted directly to the activity of the beneficiary which is carried out in Spain, and not in the permanent establishment outside the EU. Therefore, in the light of this fact, the Commission considers that it cannot be argued, in the case at hand, that the advantage cannot distort competition or trade between Member States because the contested measure applies to non-EU countries. Even though the advantage is granted in line with objective conditions relating to transactions with non-EU countries, this does not alter the fact that the effect of the measure results in an erosion of the tax base deriving from an economic activity carried out in the internal market.\n(151)\nTherefore the Commission concludes that the contested measure is liable to affect trade between Member States and distort competition, mainly in the internal market, by potentially improving the operating conditions of the beneficiaries directly engaged in economic activities which are taxable in Spain.\nD. The Commission\u2019s reaction to the comments received\n(152)\nBefore concluding on the classification of the measure, the Commission considers it appropriate to analyse in more detail certain arguments raised by the Spanish authorities and by third parties, which have not yet been explicitly or implicitly addressed in the paragraphs concerning the assessment of the scheme (paragraphs 96 et seq.).\nD.1. Reaction to the data extracted from the 2006 tax returns and to the comments about the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-501/00\n(153)\nAs regards the data extracted by the Spanish authorities from the 2006 tax returns in order to demonstrate that the contested measure is not selective (113), the Commission underlines the general lack of precision of the information submitted. First, the data present the distribution of beneficiaries by category (activity, turnover), but do not indicate whether the beneficiaries concerned represent a small or large part of each of the categories concerned. Secondly, although statistics based on the size of the turnover of the beneficiaries could be an interesting indicator in order to demonstrate that the contested measure applies to all companies in Spain, it must be underlined that the contested measure is related to acquisitions of shareholdings. This type of investment does not necessarily generate significant turnover, which implies, for example, that holding companies may be included as SMEs in the data concerned. Therefore, for the data to be considered relevant, it would be necessary to take into account additional indicators, such as the total balance sheet figures, as well as whether the beneficiaries can consolidate their tax base with other Spanish taxpayers. Thirdly, the data also appear unrepresentative because they contain no indication of the level of shareholdings acquired (control or only minority shareholdings) by the beneficiaries. Finally, the data received do not provide any indication making it possible to determine whether the conditions of the 2003 SME Recommendation of the Commission (114) are fulfilled. Therefore the Commission considers that its demonstration that the contested aid measure is selective due to the very characteristics of the legislation in question is not undermined by the partial and unrepresentative data provided by the Spanish authorities.\n(154)\nNonetheless, even if the arguments presented by the Spanish authorities had been complemented by additional evidence, this would not remove the selective nature of the contested measure as only certain undertakings benefit from the measure, also in line with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-501/00 Spain v Commission (115). Indeed, as regards the Spanish authorities\u2019 classification of the measure as a general measure (116) because it is open to any undertakings resident in Spain, it is worth recalling this judgment of the Court. That case also concerned an exception to Spanish corporate tax, more specifically a measure entitled \u2018deduction for export activities\u2019. The Spanish authorities contended before the Court that the scheme was open to any undertaking resident in Spain for tax purposes. However, the Court considered that the tax deduction could \u2018benefit only one category of undertaking, namely undertakings which have export activities and make certain investments referred to by the contested measures\u2019 (117). The Commission considers that also in the present case, the contested measure is intended to promote the export of capital out of Spain in order to strengthen the position of Spanish companies abroad, thereby improving the competitiveness of the beneficiaries of the scheme.\n(155)\nIn this respect it is noteworthy that, according to the Court of Justice, \u2018in order to justify the contested measures with respect to the nature or the structure of the tax system of which those measures form part, it is not sufficient to state that they are intended to promote international trade. It is true that such a purpose is an economic objective but it has not been shown that that purpose corresponds to the overall logic of the tax system. \u2026 The fact that the contested measures pursue a commercial or industry policy objective, such as the promotion of international trade by supporting foreign investment, is thus not sufficient to take them outside the classification of \u201caid\u201d within the meaning of Article 4(c) CS.\u2019 (118). In the present case, the Spanish authorities have simply declared that the contested measure is intended to promote international trade and the consolidation of companies, without proving that such a measure is justified by the logic of the system. In the light of the above, the Commission confirms its analysis that the contested measure is selective.\nD.2. Reaction to the comments on Commission practice\n(156)\nAs regards the reference made to the alleged innovative interpretation of the concept of selectivity in the present case, it should first be underlined that this approach is fully in line with the Commission\u2019s decision-making practice and the case law of the Court as described in paragraph 109. Nor does the approach in this particular case depart from Commission Decision N 480/07 (119) to which the Spanish authorities refer. In fact, this Decision took into account the specific nature of the objective pursued by referring (120) to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee Towards a more effective use of tax incentives in favour of R & D (121). In the case at hand, the objective pursued by the contested measure does not have a similar objective. Moreover, unlike the present case, the Spanish measure covered by Commission Decision N 480/07 did not make any distinction between national and international transactions.\n(157)\nFinally, as regards the derogation from the corporate tax system resulting from the implementation of Directives (122) such as the Parent-Subsidiary Directive or the Cross-border Interest and Royalty Payments Directive, the Commission considers that the situation resulting from implementation of these Directives is fully consistent with the reasoning developed in this Decision. Following harmonisation within the European Union, cross-border operations within the European Union and within each Member State should be considered to be in a comparable legal and factual situation. In addition, the Commission would like to underline the fact that the Court of Justice stated that (123): \u2018as Community law stands at present, direct taxation falls within the competence of the Member States, although it is settled case law that they must exercise that competence consistently with Community law (see, in particular, Case C-391/97 Gschwind [1999] ECR I-5451, paragraph 20) and therefore avoid taking, in that context, any measures capable of constituting State aid incompatible with the common market.\u2019\nD.3. Reaction to the comments on Article 65(1)(a) TFEU\n(158)\nAs already pointed out before, it must be borne in mind that, although direct taxation falls within the competence of Member States, they must nonetheless exercise that competence consistently with EU law (124), including the provisions of the TFEU on State aid. Article 65(1)(a) TFEU simply limits the scope of Article 63 TFEU and does not affect in any way the application of the Treaty rules on State aid, including those granting control powers to the Commission in that area.\n(159)\nMoreover, Article 65 TFEU, as invoked by the Spanish authorities, must be read in conjunction with Article 63 TFEU, which prohibits restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States. In fact, Article 65(1) TFEU provides that \u2018the provisions of Article 63 shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States: (a) to apply the relevant provisions of their tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested\u2019.\n(160)\nThe possibility granted to Member States by Article 65(1)(a) TFEU of applying the relevant provisions of their tax legislation which distinguish between taxpayers according to their place of residence or the place where their capital is invested, has already been upheld by the Court. According to that case law, before the entry into force of Article 65(1)(a) TFEU, national tax provisions which established certain distinctions based, in particular, on the residence of taxpayers, could be compatible with EU law provided that they applied to situations which were not objectively comparable (125) or could be justified by overriding reasons in the general interest, in particular in relation to the cohesion of the tax system (126). In any case, objectives of a purely economic nature cannot constitute an overriding reason in the general interest justifying a restriction of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty (127).\n(161)\nAlso, as regards the period after the entry into force of Article 65(1)(a) TFEU, the Court has inquired into the possible presence of objectively comparable situations which could justify legislation restricting the free movement of capital. With reference to certain tax laws which had the effect of deterring taxpayers living in a Member State from investing their capital in companies established in another Member State and which also produced a restrictive effect in relation to companies established in other Member States in that they constituted an obstacle to their raising capital in the Member State concerned, the Court constantly held that such laws could not be justified by an objective difference in situation of such a kind as to justify a difference in tax treatment, in accordance with Article 65(1)(a) TFEU (128).\n(162)\nIn any case, it must be borne in mind that Article 65(3) TFEU states specifically that the national provisions referred to by Article 65(1)(a) TFEU are not to constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital and payments (129).\n(163)\nIn the light of the above, and in particular in view of the fact that there are no explicit legal obstacles in some of the non-EU countries to which the contested scheme applies, the Commission considers that, in the present case, domestic share acquisitions and share acquisitions of companies established in all other Member States, and in some of the non-EU countries where no explicit legal obstacles have been identified, are, for the reasons highlighted above, in an objective comparable situation, and that there are no overriding reasons of general interest which could justify different treatment of taxpayers with regard to the place where their capital is invested.\nE. Conclusion on the classification of the contested measure\n(164)\nDue to the fact that the scheme applies both within the EU (see the previous Decision) and to a number of situations outside the EU where no explicit legal obstacles have been identified, the Commission considers that the contested measure in its entirety, also to the extent that it applies to non-EU acquisitions, fulfils all the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU and should thus be regarded as State aid.\n(165)\nIn line with the case law of the Court of Justice (130), the Commission would like to reiterate that the purpose of this Decision is not to establish the conditions which would make it possible for the Member State concerned to avoid the classification of the contested measure as State aid. This question should have been discussed by the Spanish authorities and the Commission, as part of the notification of the scheme at issue, before the scheme was put into effect.\nF. Compatibility\n(166)\nAs stated in the opening Decision, the Commission considers that the aid scheme in question does not qualify for any of the derogations laid down in Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU.\n(167)\nIn the course of the procedure, the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties presented their arguments to demonstrate that the derogations provided for in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU would apply in the present case (131). The two parties considered that none of the provisions of Article 107(2) or Article 107(3) TFEU applied in the present case.\n(168)\nThe derogations in Article 107(2) TFEU, concerning aid of a social character granted to individual consumers, aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and aid granted to certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany, do not apply in this case.\n(169)\nNor does the derogation provided for in Article 107(3)(a) apply, which authorises aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, because the measure is not conditional upon carrying out any type of activity in specific regions (132).\n(170)\nIn the same way, the contested measure adopted in 2001 cannot be regarded as promoting the execution of a project of common European interest or remedying a serious disturbance in the economy of Spain, as provided for in Article 107(3)(b). Nor does it have as its object the promotion of culture and heritage conservation as provided for in Article 107(3)(d).\n(171)\nFinally, the contested measure must be examined in the light of Article 107(3)(c), which provides for the authorisation of aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent that is contrary to the common interest. In this respect, it should first be noted that the contested measure does not fall under any of the frameworks or guidelines which define the conditions for considering certain types of aid compatible with the internal market.\n(172)\nAs regards the arguments raised by the Spanish authorities and by the 30 interested parties based on the State Aid Action Plan of 2005 (133), where they consider that certain measures can be compatible if they essentially respond to a market failure, the Commission observes that alleged general difficulties in carrying out cross-border mergers cannot be regarded as a market failure.\n(173)\nThe fact that a specific company may not be capable of undertaking a certain project or transaction without aid does not necessarily mean that there is a market failure. Only where market forces would not in themselves be able to reach an efficient outcome measure - i.e. where not all potential gains from trade are realised measure - can a market failure be considered to exist.\n(174)\nThe Commission does not dispute that the costs involved in some transactions may well be higher than those involved in other transactions. However, since these costs are real costs that accurately reflect the nature of the projects being considered - i.e. costs relating to their different geographic location or the different legal environment in which they are to take place - it is efficient for the companies to take these costs fully into account when making their decisions. On the contrary, inefficient outcomes would arise if these real costs were ignored or, indeed, compensated by State aid. The same type of real-cost differences also arise when comparing different transactions within the same country as well as when comparing cross-border transactions, and the existence of these differences does not mean that inefficient market outcomes would arise.\n(175)\nThe examples provided by the Spanish authorities of alleged increased costs for conducting international transactions compared with national transactions are all related to real costs of conducting transactions, which should be fully taken into account by market participants in order to achieve efficient outcomes.\n(176)\nFor a market failure to be present, essentially there would have to be externalities (positive spillovers) generated by the transactions or significant incomplete or asymmetric information leading to otherwise efficient transactions not being carried out. While these may be, theoretically, present in certain transactions, both international and national (e.g. in the context of joint R & D programmes), they cannot be considered inherently present in all international transactions, let alone in transactions of the type in question. In this respect, the Commission considers that the claim relating to market failures cannot be accepted.\n(177)\nMoreover it should be recalled that, when assessing whether aid can be deemed compatible with the internal market, the Commission balances the positive impact of the measure in reaching an objective of common interest against its potentially negative side effects, such as distortion of trade and competition. The State Aid Action Plan, building on existing practice, has formalised a three-step \u2018balancing test\u2019. The first two steps address the positive effects of the State aid and the third addresses the negative effects and resulting balancing of the positive and negative effects. The balancing test is based on three questions:\n(a)\nassessing whether the aid is aimed at a well-defined objective of common interest, (e.g. growth, employment, cohesion, environment, energy security);\n(b)\nassessing whether the aid is appropriate to deliver the objective of common interest, i.e. whether the proposed aid addresses the market failure or other objective. This assessment requires checking whether:\n(i)\nState aid is an appropriate policy instrument;\n(ii)\nthere is an incentive effect, namely whether the aid changes the behaviour of undertakings;\n(iii)\nthe measure is proportionate, namely whether the same change in behaviour could be obtained with less aid;\n(c)\nassessing whether the distortions of competition and effect on trade are limited, so that the overall balance is positive.\n(178)\nIt is first necessary to assess whether the objective pursued by the aid can indeed be regarded as being in the common interest. Despite the alleged aim of fostering single-market integration, in the present case the objective pursued by the aid is not well defined as it goes beyond market integration, by promoting the expansion of Spanish companies in the European market in particular.\n(179)\nThe second step requires assessing whether the aid is properly designed to reach the well-defined objective of common interest. More precisely, State aid must change the behaviour of a beneficiary undertaking in such a way that it engages in activities that contribute to the achievement of the objective of common interest, which it would not carry out without the aid or which it would carry out in a limited or different way. The Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties did not present any specific arguments demonstrating the likelihood that this incentive effect would be produced.\n(180)\nThe third question addresses the negative effects of State aid. Even if it is well-designed to address an objective of common interest, aid granted to a particular undertaking or economic sector may lead to serious distortions of competition and of trade between Member States. In this respect, the 30 interested parties consider that the aid scheme does not have an impact on the competitive situation of companies liable to corporate tax in Spain, since the financial effect of Article 12(5) would be negligible. However, as already indicated above in paragraphs 126 et seq., there are serious indications that the effect of Article 12(5) is far from negligible. Moreover, since the aid scheme is applicable only to foreign transactions, it clearly has the effect of focusing the distortions of competition on foreign markets.\n(181)\nThe last step in the compatibility analysis is to evaluate whether the positive effects of the aid, if any, outweigh its negative effects. As indicated above, in this case the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties did not demonstrate the existence of a well-defined objective leading to clear positive effects. They consider, in general terms, that Article 12(5) TRLIS fulfils the Union objective of promoting cross-border transactions, without embarking on the evaluation of the potential and actual negative effects of the contested measure. In any case, even assuming that the positive effect of the measure is to promote cross-border transactions by eliminating obstacles in such transactions, the Commission considers that the positive effects of the measure do not outweigh its negative effects, in particular because the measure\u2019s scope is imprecise and indiscriminate.\n(182)\nIn conclusion, the Commission considers that, as regards the analysis in accordance with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU in particular, the tax advantages granted under the contested measure are not related to investment, job creation or specific projects. They simply relieve the undertakings concerned of charges normally borne by those undertakings and must therefore be considered to be operating aid. As a general rule, operating aid does not fall within the scope of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU since it distorts competition in the sectors in which it is granted and is at the same time incapable, by its very nature, of achieving any of the objectives laid down in that provision (134). In line with the standard practice of the Commission, such aid cannot not be considered compatible with the internal market, as it neither facilitates the development of any activities or economic areas, nor is it limited in time, degressive or proportionate to what is necessary to remedy to a specific economic handicap of the areas concerned. The result of the \u2018balancing test\u2019 confirms this analysis.\n(183)\nIn the light of the above, it must be concluded that the entire aid scheme in question, also to the extent that it applies to extra-EU acquisitions, is incompatible with the internal market.\nG. Recovery\n(184)\nThe contested measure has been implemented without having been notified in advance to the Commission in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU. The measure therefore constitutes unlawful State aid.\n(185)\nWhere unlawfully granted State aid is found to be incompatible with the internal market, the consequence of such a finding is that the aid should be recovered from the recipients pursuant to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (135). Through recovery of the aid, the competitive position that existed before it was granted is restored as far as possible. No arguments raised by the Spanish authorities or by the 30 interested parties justify a general departure from this basic principle.\n(186)\nNevertheless, Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 provides that \u2018the Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law\u2019. The case law of the Court of Justice and Commission practice have established, among other things, that an order to recover aid infringes a general principle of EU law where, as a result of the Commission\u2019s actions, the beneficiary of a measure has legitimate expectations that the aid has been granted in accordance with EU law (136).\n(187)\nIn its judgment in the Forum 187 case (137), the Court of Justice held that \u2018the right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any person in a situation where a Community authority has caused him to entertain expectations which are justified. However, a person may not plead infringement of the principle unless he has been given precise assurances by the administration. Similarly, if a prudent and alert economic operator could have foreseen the adoption of a Community measure likely to affect his interests, he cannot plead that principle if the measure is adopted\u2026\u2019.\n(188)\nThe Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties have essentially invoked the existence of legitimate expectations based, firstly, on certain Commission replies to written parliamentary questions and, secondly, on the alleged similarity of the aid scheme with earlier measures which have been declared compatible by the Commission. Thirdly, the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties consider that the principle of legitimate expectations implies that the Commission can ask for recovery neither of the deductions already realised nor of all outstanding deductions, up to the 20-year period established by the TRLIS.\n(189)\nAs regards the alleged similarity of the aid scheme to other measures, which have been considered not to constitute State aid, the Commission takes the view that the aid scheme is substantially different from the measures assessed by the Commission in its Decision of 1984 concerning Belgian coordination centres (138). The contested measure has a different scope since it does not concern intra-group activities, as in the case of the Belgian coordination centres. Moreover, the contested measure has a different structure, which renders it selective, most notably because it applies only to transactions linked to foreign countries.\n(190)\nAs regards the impact of the Commission\u2019s statements on the beneficiaries\u2019 legitimate expectations, the Commission takes the view that a distinction should be drawn between two periods: (a) the period starting from the entry into force of the measure on 1 January 2002 until the date of publication of the opening Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union on 21 December 2007; and (b) the period following the publication of the opening Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(191)\nWith reference to the first period, the Commission acknowledges its answers to the parliamentary questions by Mr Erik Mejier and Ms Sharon Bowles regarding the possibility that the contested measure constituted State aid. More precisely, in reply to the parliamentary question by Mr Erik Meijer MEP, on 19 January 2006 a Commissioner answered on behalf of the Commission as follows: \u2018The Commission cannot confirm whether the high bids by Spanish companies are due to Spain\u2019s tax legislation enabling undertakings to write off goodwill more quickly than their French or Italian counterparts. The Commission can confirm, however, that such national legislations do not fall within the scope of application of state aid rules, because they rather constitute general depreciation rules applicable to all undertakings in Spain\u2019 (139). On 17 February 2006, in reply to the parliamentary question by Ms Sharon Bowles MEP, a Commissioner answered on behalf of the Commission as follows: \u2018According to the information currently in its possession, it would however appear to the Commission that the Spanish (tax) rules related to the write off of \u201cgoodwill\u201d are applicable to all undertakings in Spain independently from their sizes, sectors, legal forms or if they are privately or publicly owned because they constitute general depreciation rules. Therefore, they do not appear to fall within the scope of application of the state aid rules\u2019 (140).\n(192)\nBy these statements to the European Parliament, the Commission provided specific, unconditional and consistent assurances of a nature such that the beneficiaries of the contested measure entertained justified hopes that the goodwill amortisation scheme was lawful, in the sense that it did not fall within the scope of the State aid rules, (141) and that any advantages derived from it could not, therefore, be subject to subsequent recovery proceedings. Although these statements did not amount to a formal Commission decision establishing that the amortisation scheme did not constitute State aid, their effect was equivalent from the point of view of the creation of a legitimate expectation, especially in view of the fact that the applicable procedures ensuring the respect of the collegiality principle had been respected in this case. As the notion of State aid is objective (142) and the Commission does not have any discretionary power as regards its interpretation - unlike what happens when assessing compatibility - any precise and unconditional statement on behalf of the Commission to the effect that a national measure is not to be regarded as State aid will naturally be understood as meaning that the measure was \u2018non-aid\u2019 from the outset (i.e. also before the statement in question). Any undertaking which had previously been uncertain as to whether or not it would in future be liable, under the State aid rules, to recovery of advantages it had obtained under the goodwill amortisation scheme arising from transactions entered into before the Commission statements could have concluded thereafter that such uncertainty was unfounded, as it could not be expected to demonstrate greater diligence than the Commission in this respect. In these specific circumstances, and bearing in mind that EU law does not require the demonstration of a causal link between the assurances given by a Community institution and the behaviour by citizens or undertakings to which such assurances relate, (143) any diligent entrepreneur could reasonably expect the Commission subsequently not to impose any recovery (144) as regards measures which it had itself previously classified, in a statement to another Community institution, as not constituting aid, irrespective of when the transaction benefiting from the aid measure was concluded.\n(193)\nAccordingly, the Commission concludes that some beneficiaries of the contested measure could have the legitimate expectation that the aid would not be recovered and hence is not requiring recovery of the tax aid granted to those beneficiaries in the context of any shareholdings held by a Spanish acquiring company, directly or indirectly in a foreign company, before the date of publication (145) in the Official Journal of the European Union of the Commission Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, which could have then benefited from the contested measure.\n(194)\nBeyond these considerations, which are identical to those expressed in the previous Decision, the Commission takes the view that a series of additional factors should be taken into account.\n(195)\nIn accordance with paragraph 117 of the previous Decision, although the Commission considered that the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties had provided insufficient evidence to justify different tax treatment of Spanish shareholding transactions and transactions between companies established within the European Union, the Commission stated that it could not \u2018a priori completely exclude this differentiation as regards transactions concerning third countries. Indeed, outside the Community, legal barriers to cross-border business combinations may persist, which would place cross-border transactions in a different legal and factual situation from intra-Community transactions. As a result, extra-Community acquisitions that could have led to the tax amortisation of goodwill - as in the case of a majority shareholding - may be excluded from this tax advantage because it is impossible to perform business combinations. Amortisation of financial goodwill for these transactions, which fall outside the Community factual and legal framework, may be necessary to ensure tax neutrality.\u2019 The Commission concluded its analysis by stating in paragraph 119 of the previous Decision, which has been available on the Commission\u2019s website since the beginning of January 2010, that \u2018In this context, the Commission maintains the procedure, as initiated by the initiating Decision of 10 October 2007, open for extra-Community acquisitions in the light of new elements which the Spanish authorities have undertaken to provide as regards the obstacles to extra-Community cross-border mergers. The procedure as opened on 10 October 2007 is therefore still ongoing for extra-Community acquisitions\u2019.\n(196)\nIn paragraphs 115 to 119 of the previous Decision, the Commission indicated that there could be a differentiation between acquisition transactions which took place within the EU and those taking place outside the EU. In particular, the Commission observed that \u2018legal barriers to cross-border business combinations may persist, which would place cross-border transactions in a different legal and factual situation from intra-Community transactions\u2019. The references to the criteria of \u2018legal barriers\u2019 and \u2018majority shareholding\u2019 are particularly relevant in those specific circumstances.\n(197)\nIn the light of these specific and characteristic features of the present case, the Commission takes the view that the statement in paragraph 117 of the previous Decision could have given rise to legitimate expectations as regards the application of the contested aid scheme to transactions by Spanish companies in those third countries where there are explicit \u2018legal barriers\u2019 to cross-border business combinations and where a \u2018majority shareholding\u2019 has been acquired by the Spanish company concerned, irrespective of the date on which the transaction took place before the adoption of this Decision.\n(198)\nOn the basis of the information submitted by the Spanish authorities in the reports and without prejudice to the classification of the contested scheme as State aid and its application to individual transactions for the reasons outlined in paragraph 107, the Commission notes that, among the countries analysed, the legislation in force in two of them, i.e. India and China, presents explicit legal barriers to cross-border business combinations.\n(199)\nIn the light of the findings presented in paragraphs 119 and 120 and, the Commission concludes that, for transactions relating to those two countries, the beneficiaries of the contested measure which had acquired a majority shareholding could have the legitimate expectation that the aid would not be recovered.\n(200)\nThe same treatment will apply to those beneficiaries which have carried out a transaction in other third countries, which have acquired a majority shareholding and which can provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of an explicit legal barrier, within the meaning of this Decision, in the legislation of that third country. For the countries mentioned in the reports, the Commission will take into account that, on the basis of the information provided by the Spanish authorities, it was not possible to identify such barriers, but is willing to examine further relevant evidence.\n(201)\nFor beneficiaries enjoying legitimate expectations either on the basis of the Commission statements to Members of the European Parliament or on the basis of the previous Decision, the Commission also considers that all those beneficiaries should continue to enjoy the benefits of the contested measure until the end of the amortisation period established by the measure. The Commission acknowledges that the operations were planned and investments were made in the reasonable and legitimate expectation of a certain degree of continuity in the economic conditions, including the contested measure. Therefore, in line with the previous case law of the Court of Justice and Commission practice (146), in the absence of an overriding public interest (147), the Commission considers that the beneficiaries should be allowed to continue enjoying the benefits of the contested measure over the entire amortisation period provided by Article 12(5) TRLIS.\n(202)\nMoreover, the Commission considers that a reasonable transition period should be envisaged for companies enjoying legitimate expectations which had already acquired, in a long-term perspective, rights in foreign companies, and which had not held those rights for an uninterrupted period of at least 1 year on the date of the publication of the opening Decision (legitimate expectations arising from Commission statements to Members of the European Parliament) or on the date of publication of this Decision (legitimate expectations arising from the previous Decision). The Commission therefore considers that companies which fulfilled all other relevant conditions of Article 12(5) TRLIS by 21 December 2007, or respectively by the date of publication of this Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union, apart from the condition that they hold their shareholdings for an uninterrupted period of at least 1 year, should also benefit from legitimate expectations if they held those rights for an uninterrupted period of at least 1 year by 21 December 2008, or respectively 1 year after the publication of this Decision.\n(203)\nOn the other hand, in cases where a Spanish acquiring company does not enjoy legitimate expectations, any incompatible aid will be recovered from this beneficiary unless, firstly, an irrevocable obligation was entered into before 21 December 2007 (legitimate expectations arising from Commission statements to Members of the European Parliament) or before the date of publication of this Decision (legitimate expectations arising from the previous Decision) by a Spanish acquiring company to hold such rights and, secondly, the contract contained a suspensive condition linked to the fact that the operation in question is subject to the mandatory approval of a regulatory authority and, thirdly, the operation had been notified before 21 December 2007 (legitimate expectations arising from Commission statements to Members of the European Parliament) or before the publication of this Decision (legitimate expectations arising from the previous Decision).\n(204)\nThe Commission also considers that the contested measure does not constitute aid if, at the time beneficiaries enjoyed its advantages, all the conditions laid down by the legislation adopted pursuant to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 (148), which was applicable at the time the tax reduction was utilised, were fulfilled.\n(205)\nIn the light of all the above considerations and as already highlighted in the previous Decision, in a given year, for a given beneficiary, the precise amount of the aid corresponds to the net discounted value of the reduction in the tax burden granted by the amortisation under Article 12(5) TRLIS. It is therefore contingent on the company tax rate in the years concerned and on the discount interest rate applicable.\n(206)\nFor a given year and a given beneficiary, the nominal value of the aid corresponds to the tax reduction granted by the application of Article 12(5) TRLIS for rights in foreign companies that do not fulfil the conditions set out in the preceding paragraphs.\n(207)\nThe discounted value is calculated by applying the interest rate to the nominal value, in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (149), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 (150).\n(208)\nWhen calculating the tax burden of beneficiaries in the absence of the unlawful aid measure, the Spanish authorities must base themselves on the transactions that were carried out in the period prior to the publication of the opening Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union (legitimate expectations arising from Commission statements to Members of the European Parliament) or prior to the date of publication of this Decision (legitimate expectations arising from the previous Decision), as indicated above. It is not possible to argue that, had these illegal advantages not existed, the beneficiaries would have structured their transactions differently in order to reduce their tax burden. As clearly stated by the Court of Justice in the Unicredito judgment (151), these hypothetical considerations cannot be taken into account for the purposes of calculating aid.\nVIII. CONCLUSION\n(209)\nThe Commission must consider that, in the light of the above-mentioned case law and the specific features of the case, Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes a State aid scheme within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, also to the extent that it applies to extra-EU acquisitions. The Commission also finds that the contested measure, having been implemented in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU, constitutes an unlawful aid scheme to the extent that it applies to intra-EU acquisitions.\n(210)\nHowever, given the presence of legitimate expectations until the date of publication of the opening Decision, the Commission accepts that implementation may continue over the entire amortisation period established by the aid scheme and exceptionally waives recovery of any tax advantage deriving from the application of the aid scheme to shareholdings held directly or indirectly by a Spanish acquiring company in a foreign company before the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the Commission Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2), except where, firstly, an irrevocable obligation has been entered into before 21 December 2007 by a Spanish acquiring company to hold such rights and, secondly, the contract contained a suspensive condition linked to the fact that the operation in question is subject to the mandatory approval of a regulatory authority and, thirdly, the operation had been notified before 21 December 2007. Moreover, the Commission must waive recovery and accepts that implementation may continue over the entire amortisation period established by the aid scheme also for any tax advantage deriving from the application of the aid scheme to majority shareholding transactions carried out before the publication of this Decision which relate to third countries where the presence of explicit legal barriers to cross-border combinations is duly justified in accordance with the principles laid down in this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The aid scheme implemented by Spain under Article 12(5) of Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March 2005, consolidating the amendments made to the Spanish Corporate Tax Law, unlawfully put into effect by Spain in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is incompatible with the internal market as regards aid granted to beneficiaries in respect of extra-EU acquisitions.\n2. Nonetheless, tax reductions enjoyed by beneficiaries in respect of extra-EU acquisitions under Article 12(5) TRLIS which are related to rights held directly or indirectly in foreign companies fulfilling the relevant conditions of the aid scheme by 21 December 2007, apart from the condition that they hold their shareholdings for an uninterrupted period of at least 1 year, can continue to apply over the entire amortisation period established by the aid scheme.\n3. Tax reductions enjoyed by beneficiaries in respect of extra-EU acquisitions under Article 12(5) TRLIS which are related to an irrevocable obligation entered into before 21 December 2007 to hold such rights when the contract contains a suspensive condition linked to the fact that the operation at issue is subject to the mandatory approval of a regulatory authority and the operation has been notified before 21 December 2007, can continue to apply for the entire amortisation period established by the aid scheme for those rights held on the date on which the suspensive condition is lifted.\n4. Furthermore, tax reductions enjoyed by beneficiaries under Article 12(5) TRLIS in respect of extra-EU acquisitions carried out by the date of publication of this Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union, which are related to majority shareholdings held directly or indirectly in foreign companies established in China, India or in other countries where the existence of explicit legal barriers to cross-border business combinations have been or can be demonstrated, can continue to apply over the entire amortisation period established by the aid scheme.\n5. Tax reductions enjoyed by beneficiaries when realising extra-EU acquisitions under Article 12(5) TRLIS which are related to an irrevocable obligation entered into before this Decision is published in the Official Journal of the European Union, to hold such rights in foreign companies established in China, India or in other countries where the existence of explicit legal barriers to cross-border business combinations have been or can be demonstrated, when the contract contains a suspensive condition linked to the fact that the operation at issue is subject to the mandatory approval of a regulatory authority and the operation has been notified before the publication of this Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union, can continue to apply over the entire amortisation period established by the aid scheme for those rights held on the date on which the suspensive condition is lifted.\nArticle 2\nIndividual aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 does not constitute aid if, at the time it is granted, it fulfils the conditions laid down by a regulation adopted pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 994/98 which is applicable at the time the aid is granted.\nArticle 3\nIndividual aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 which, at the time it is granted, fulfils the conditions laid down by a regulation adopted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 994/98 or by any other approved aid scheme, shall be compatible with the internal market, up to the maximum aid intensities applicable to this type of aid.\nArticle 4\n1. Spain shall recover the incompatible aid corresponding to the tax reduction under the scheme referred to in Article 1(1) from the beneficiaries whose rights in foreign companies, acquired in the context of extra-EU acquisitions, do not fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 1(2) to (5).\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which the tax base of the beneficiaries was reduced until the date of recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\n4. Spain shall cancel any outstanding tax reduction provided under the scheme referred to in Article 1(1) with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision, except for the reduction attached to rights in foreign companies fulfilling the conditions laid down in Article 1(2).\nArticle 5\n1. Recovery of the aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Spain shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within 4 months of the date of its notification.\nArticle 6\n1. Within 2 months of notification of this Decision, Spain shall submit the following information:\n(a)\nthe list of beneficiaries that have received aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 and the total amount of aid received by each of them under the scheme;\n(b)\nthe total amount (principal and interest) to be recovered from each beneficiary;\n(c)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(d)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiaries have been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Spain shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, upon request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and interest already recovered from the beneficiaries.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 12 January 2011.", "references": ["13", "39", "54", "46", "67", "76", "71", "49", "72", "55", "74", "89", "53", "64", "21", "31", "99", "10", "12", "11", "65", "60", "2", "35", "98", "95", "68", "25", "70", "90", "No Label", "15", "44", "45", "47", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "44", "45", "47", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 February 2012\nauthorising Spain and France to introduce a special measure derogating from Article 5 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(2012/85/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letters registered with the Commission on 5 September 2011 and 13 September 2011 respectively, Spain and France requested authorisation to introduce a special measure derogating from the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC in relation to the construction of an underground electricity interconnection between their respective electricity networks.\n(2)\nThe Commission informed the other Member States by letters dated 25 October 2011 of the requests made by Spain and France. By letters dated 27 October 2011, the Commission notified Spain and France that it had all the information necessary to consider the requests.\n(3)\nOn 27 June 2008 an agreement was signed between Spain and France for the construction of an underground electricity interconnection between Santa Llogaia in Spain and Baixas in France.\n(4)\nThrough the special measure, the underground electricity interconnection is to be treated as being situated 50 % in Spain and 50 % in France for the purposes of supplies of goods and services, intra-Community acquisition of goods and importations of goods intended for its construction.\n(5)\nIn the absence of such measure, it would be necessary, according to the principle of territoriality, to ascertain for each supply whether the place of taxation was within Spain or France.\n(6)\nThe purpose of the special measure is therefore to simplify the procedure for collecting value added tax on the construction of the underground electricity interconnection.\n(7)\nThe derogation could affect the overall amount of the tax revenue of the Member States collected at the stage of final consumption only to a negligible extent and has no negative impact on the Union\u2019s own resources accruing from valued added tax,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 5 of Directive 2006/112/EC, Spain and France are authorised to consider the underground electricity interconnection between Santa Llogaia in Spain and Baixas in France as being situated 50 % on the territory of Spain and 50 % on the territory of France for the purposes of supplies of goods and services, intra-Community acquisitions of goods and importations of goods intended for its construction.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["26", "47", "11", "6", "33", "1", "81", "65", "43", "37", "50", "28", "77", "7", "75", "55", "83", "63", "46", "19", "5", "52", "92", "93", "16", "39", "49", "60", "74", "56", "No Label", "4", "8", "9", "34", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "8", "9", "34", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 May 2012\nappointing a German member and a German alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/263/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the German Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Uta-Maria KUDER.\n(3)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat will become vacant following the appointment of Mr Detlef M\u00dcLLER as member of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas member:\n-\nMr Detlef M\u00dcLLER, Mitglied des Landtages Mecklenburg-Vorpommern;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate member:\n-\nMr Andreas TEXTER, Mitglied des Landtages Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 May 2012.", "references": ["0", "42", "63", "61", "47", "88", "9", "83", "62", "53", "4", "24", "69", "55", "57", "77", "43", "19", "44", "80", "92", "39", "15", "45", "81", "82", "93", "75", "37", "59", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1043/2011\nof 19 October 2011\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 26 January 2011, the European Commission (the Commission) announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (notice of initiation), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of oxalic acid originating in India and the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC) or (the countries concerned).\n(2)\nThe anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 13 December 2010 by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) on behalf of Oxaquim S.A. (the complainant), representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of oxalic acid. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the opening of a proceeding.\n1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant, other known Union producers, exporting producers and representatives of the countries concerned, importers, and users, and associations known to be concerned, of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. All interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(4)\nIn view of the apparent high number of exporting producers in the countries concerned, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping and injury in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers in the countries concerned were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the period 1 January 2010-31 December 2010. Four Indian companies, one of which did not report any sales to the Union, and three groups of companies from the PRC replied to the sampling exercise. In view of the limited number of cooperating companies or groups of companies, sampling was not considered necessary for either India or the PRC and all parties were informed that samples would not be selected.\n(5)\nSubsequently, one group of companies from the PRC withdrew from further cooperation with the investigation at an early stage. In addition, one Indian company refused the Commission access to its production plant for a verification visit. It was consequently deemed not to cooperate pursuant to Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation and was informed of the possible consequences thereof.\n(6)\nIn order to allow exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or to request individual treatment (IT), the Commission sent claim forms to the cooperating Chinese exporting producers, and the authorities of the PRC within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. One Chinese group of companies claimed MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation or, failing that, IT, while another group of companies requested IT only.\n(7)\nQuestionnaires were sent to all parties known to be concerned. Replies were received from three companies in India and by two groups of companies in the PRC, and the complainant. The other Union producer did not cooperate. Questionnaire replies were also received from three users and eight importers, among which all users and four importers were visited.\n(8)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest and carried out verifications at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nUnion producers\n-\nOxaquim S.A. (Spain)\n(b)\nUsers\n-\nOMG Kokkola (Finland)\n-\nP.A.G. Srl (Italy)\n-\nThird user asked to remain unknown\n(c)\nImporters\n-\nBrenntag BV (Netherlands)\n-\nBrenntag Sp. z o.o. (Poland)\n-\nNorkem Limited (United Kingdom)\n-\nGeratech Marketing (Belgium)\n(d)\nExporting producers in India\n-\nPunjab Chemicals and Crop Protection Limited\n-\nStar Oxochem Pvt. Ltd\n(e)\nExporting producers in PRC\n-\nShandong Fengyuan Chemicals Stock Co., Ltd; Shandong Fengyuan Uranus Advanced Material Co., Ltd and Qingdao Fengyuan Unite International Trade Co., Ltd (Shandong Fengyuan Group)\n-\nYuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co., Ltd; Shanxi Reliance Chemicals Co., Ltd and Tianjin Chengyi International Trading Co., Ltd (Shanxi Reliance Group)\n1.3. Investigation period\n(9)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covers the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the investigation period (period considered).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(10)\nThe product concerned is oxalic acid, whether in dihydrate (CUS number 0028635-1 and CAS number 6153-56-6) or anhydrous form (CUS number 0021238-4 and CAS number 144-62-7) and whether or not in aqueous solution, currently falling within CN code ex 2917 11 00 and originating in India and the PRC. There are two types of oxalic acid: unrefined oxalic acid and refined oxalic acid. Refined oxalic acid, which is produced in the PRC but not in India, is manufactured through a purification process of unrefined oxalic acid, the purpose of which is to remove iron, chlorides, metal traces and other impurities.\n(11)\nOxalic acid is used in a wide range of applications, e.g. as a reducing and bleaching agent, in pharmaceutical synthesis and in the manufacture of chemicals.\n2.2. Like product\n(12)\nThe investigation has shown that oxalic acid produced and sold by the Union industry in the Union, oxalic acid produced and sold on the domestic market of India and the PRC and oxalic acid imported into the Union from India and the PRC has essentially the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same basic end uses.\n(13)\nTherefore, these products are provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n3. DUMPING\n3.1. India\n3.1.1. Preliminary remark\n(14)\nDuring the verification visit in India one company failed to provide requested information in either a timely manner or in the requested format. As a result the Commission was not able to verify the information submitted in response to the anti-dumping questionnaire. The company was informed in writing that it might not be considered as a cooperating party and that findings could be made on the basis of the facts available. In its response the company claimed mitigating circumstances which, however, were not such as to lead to a different conclusion. Consequently, Article 18 has been applied to this company and findings made on the basis of facts available. Accordingly, only one exporting producer from India is deemed to have cooperated with the Commission in the current investigation.\n3.1.2. Normal value\n(15)\nAccording to Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation the Commission first examined whether the domestic sales of the like product to independent customers by the exporting producer were representative. As these sales constituted more than 5 % of its sales volume of the product concerned to the Union, it is concluded that the overall sales of the like product were representative.\n(16)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of the exporting producer could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers of all sales of the like product.\n(17)\nWhere the profitable sales amount to at least 80 % of all sales, the normal value will be calculated on the basis of all sales, including the unprofitable ones. On the other hand, if the profitable sales account for less than 80 % but more than 20 % of all sales, and if the weighted average full cost is higher than the weighted average price, the normal value will be calculated on the basis of the profitable sales only. A sale is considered to be profitable where the unit price is equal to or above the cost of production.\n(18)\nThe Commission\u2019s analysis of domestic sales showed that 41 % of all sales of the product concerned were profitable and the weighted average full cost is higher than the weighted average price. Accordingly, the normal value is calculated as a weighted average price of the profitable sales only.\n3.1.3. Export price\n(19)\nThe exporting producer in India exported the product concerned directly to independent customers in the Union. Therefore, pursuant to Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, export prices are established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable by those independent customers for the product concerned when exported to the Union.\n3.1.4. Comparison\n(20)\nThe comparison between normal value and export price is made on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price due allowances in the form of adjustments are made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.\n(21)\nAccordingly, adjustments have been made for transport costs, insurance, handling and packaging costs, credit costs and commission.\n3.1.5. Dumping margin\n(22)\nIn accordance with Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation the dumping margin for the cooperating Indian producer is established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price.\n(23)\nOn this basis, the provisional dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the cif Union border price, duty unpaid, is 22,8 % for Punjab Chemicals and Crop Protection Limited (PCCPL).\n(24)\nIn order to calculate the countrywide dumping margin applicable to all other exporting producers in India, the level of cooperation was established by comparing the volume of exports to the Union reported by the cooperating exporting producer with Eurostat statistics. Given that cooperation from India was low, i.e. 38 %, it is considered appropriate that the countrywide dumping margin applicable to all other exporters in India should be established on the basis of the most dumped transaction of the cooperating producer.\n(25)\nOn this basis the countrywide level of dumping is provisionally established at 43,6 % of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid.\n3.2. People\u2019s Republic of China\n3.2.1. Market Economy Treatment (MET)/Individual treatment (IT)\n(26)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, normal value for imports originating in the PRC shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. Briefly and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in summarised form below:\n-\nbusiness decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values,\n-\nfirms have one clear set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and are applied for all purposes,\n-\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system,\n-\nbankruptcy and property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty, and\n-\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates.\n(27)\nOne group of companies in the PRC requested MET and submitted MET claim forms for the three companies involved in the production and commercialisation of the product concerned. The information provided was subsequently verified by the Commission at the premises of the companies in question.\n(28)\nThe MET investigation demonstrated that one company failed to meet the requirements of criteria 1 to 3. First, it failed to demonstrate that its costs reflected market values due to significant State financial intervention affecting the company\u2019s cost structure in the form of, e.g. tax holidays and interest free loans. Second, the MET investigation established a number of serious shortcomings and errors in its accounting and that it was not audited in line with international accounting standards (IAS). Third, distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system were found in respect of the company\u2019s land-use rights. More particularly, the company had obtained a land-use right certificate without complying with the contractual terms or paying it in full.\n(29)\nFurthermore, another company in the group failed to demonstrate that it fulfilled criteria 2 given the fact that it did not have independently audited accounts.\n(30)\nThe Commission disclosed the results of the MET findings to the group of companies concerned and to the complainant and gave them the opportunity to provide comments. The findings were also disclosed to the authorities of the PRC. No comments were submitted to the Commission.\n(31)\nIn view of the above it was concluded that two of the companies in the group failed to fulfil the MET criteria. In compliance with the Union\u2019s consistent practice to examine whether a group of related companies as a whole fulfils the conditions for MET, the group as a whole was refused MET.\n(32)\nAs mentioned in recital 6 above, both of the cooperating Chinese groups of companies requested IT. As it was found that both groups fulfilled all of the criteria of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, it was provisionally decided that they be granted IT.\n3.2.2. Analogue country\n(33)\nAccording to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for exporting producers not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the domestic prices or constructed normal value in an analogue country.\n(34)\nIn the notice of initiation the Commission indicated its intention to use India as the appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value and invited interested parties to comment. No comments were received. In any event, the Commission considers India as an appropriate analogue country since the only other producing country outside the Union, Japan, has a monopoly market closed to competition and manufactures oxalic acid through a unique method that is not comparable with the PRC. In contrast, Indian producers use a production method comparable with the PRC and are subject to competition on the domestic market.\n3.2.3. Normal value\n(35)\nThe Chinese companies manufacture and export two types of oxalic acid to the Union: unrefined oxalic acid and refined oxalic acid. Refined oxalic acid, which is not produced in the analogue country, is manufactured through a purification process of unrefined oxalic acid, the purpose of which is to remove iron, chlorides, metal traces and other impurities. The extra costs for producing refined oxalic acid is estimated at 12 % as compared to the production of unrefined oxalic acid. Accordingly, the Commission considered it appropriate to establish a normal value for both types of oxalic acid.\n(36)\nWith regard to unrefined oxalic acid the normal value has been established on the basis of the normal value established for India in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. Normal value was established, as described in recital 18 above, on the basis of profitable sales only. With regard to refined oxalic acid, which is not produced in the analogue country, in compliance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, the normal value has been constructed on the basis of the manufacturing costs for unrefined oxalic acid in the analogue country. The manufacturing costs are adjusted with an uplift of 12 % to take into account additional manufacturing costs (see recital 35 above) plus selling, general and administrative costs (SG&A) and profit.\n(37)\nSG&A costs and profit were established, by analogy to Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, by adding the SG&A and profit for domestic sales of unrefined oxalic acid by the cooperating exporting producer in the analogue country.\n3.2.4. Export price\n(38)\nSince both groups were granted IT, the export price has been based on the prices actually paid or payable by the first independent customer in the Union in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n(39)\nBoth exporting producers in the PRC exported oxalic acid to the Union via related traders, which added a mark-up to the price paid to the producers. This mark-up is considered when comparing the export price with the established normal value (see recital 42 below).\n3.2.5. Comparison\n(40)\nWith regard to unrefined oxalic acid, the export price at ex-works level was compared with the normal value established for the analogue country.\n(41)\nThe export price for refined oxalic acid at ex-works level was compared with the constructed normal value (see recital 36 above).\n(42)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value or constructed normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made pursuant to Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. In particular, an adjustment was made pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) for commissions received by related traders.\n(43)\nIn this regard it should be noted that the Commission has found that the related traders via which the exporting producers in the PRC exported oxalic acid to the EU cannot be considered as internal sales departments since they also trade in oxalic acid and other chemical products sourced from unrelated suppliers for either export purposes and/or for domestic sales. It is therefore concluded that the functions of these traders are similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis. Accordingly, the mark-up in price by the traders has been removed to ensure a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value. The adjustment has been calculated on the basis of the profit of an EU unrelated trader and the selling, general and administrative costs of the respective Chinese trader.\n(44)\nMoreover, further adjustments were made, where appropriate, in respect of indirect taxes, freight, insurance, handling and ancillary costs, packing and credit costs where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.\n3.2.6. Dumping margins\n(45)\nPursuant to Articles 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margins were established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value of each product type with each company\u2019s weighted average export price of the product concerned to the Union, as indicated above.\n(46)\nOn this basis, the provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:\nCompany\nProvisional dumping margin\nShandong Fengyuan Chemicals Stock Co., Ltd and Shandong Fengyuan Uranus Advanced Material Co., Ltd\n37,7 %\nYuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co., Ltd\n14,6 %\n(47)\nIn order to calculate the countrywide dumping margin applicable to all other exporting producers in the PRC, the level of cooperation was established by comparing the volume of exports to the Union reported by the cooperating exporting producers with Eurostat statistics.\n(48)\nGiven that cooperation from the PRC was low at around 46 %, it is considered appropriate that the countrywide dumping margin applicable to all other exporters in the PRC should be based on the most dumped transaction of the cooperating exporters.\n(49)\nOn this basis the countrywide level of dumping is provisionally established at 52,2 % of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid.\n4. INJURY\n4.1. Union production and Union industry\n(50)\nThe complaint was lodged by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) on behalf of Oxaquim S.A. hereinafter \u2018the Complainant\u2019, a producer of oxalic acid in the Union, representing a major proportion of the total Union production during the IP. A second Union producer, Clariant, did not object to the initiation of the investigation but decided not to cooperate. There is currently no other producer of the product concerned in the Union. On this basis the two producers Oxaquim S.A. and Clariant constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation, representing 100 % of the Union production. They will hereinafter be referred to as \u2018the Union industry\u2019.\n(51)\nAll available information concerning the two producers Oxaquim S.A. and Clariant, including information provided in the complaint and data collected from the complainant before and after the initiation of the investigation, was used in order to establish the total Union production. On this basis, the total Union production ranged between 11 000 and 15 000 tonnes during the period considered.\n4.2. Determination of the relevant Union market\n(52)\nIt was found that one of the Union producers used some of its oxalic acid production as an intermediate material for the production of oxalates (tetra-oxalate, acetosella and potassium bioxalates). This oxalic acid was simply transferred (without invoice) within the same company. This captive use of oxalic acid did not enter the free market and so is not exposed to direct competition with imports of the product concerned. By contrast, production destined for free market sales was found to be in direct competition with imports of the product concerned.\n(53)\nIn order to provide as complete a picture as possible of the situation of the Union industry, data has been obtained and analysed for the entire oxalic acid activity and it was subsequently determined whether the production was destined for captive use or for the free market.\n(54)\nFor the following economic indicators relating to the Union industry, it was found that the analysis and evaluation had to focus on the situation prevailing on the free market: sales volume and sales prices on the Union market, market share, growth, export volume, prices, profitability, return on investments and cash flow.\n(55)\nAs regards other economic indicators however, it was found, on the basis of the investigation, that they could reasonably be examined only by referring to the whole activity. Indeed, production (for both captive use and destined for the free market), capacity, capacity utilisation, investments, stocks, employment, productivity, wages, and ability to raise capital depend upon the whole activity, whether the production is captive or sold on the free market.\n4.3. Union consumption\n(56)\nGiven that oxalic acid is part of a CN code that also includes other products, it was not possible to establish import volumes on the basis of Eurostat data. Accordingly, consumption was established on the basis of import volume data provided by the complainant, cross-checked against the verified data provided by the exporting producers from the countries concerned, and the total sales volume on the Union market of the Union industry.\n(57)\nIn view of the small number of suppliers and the need to protect confidential business information pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation, the development of consumption during the period considered has been indexed.\nTable 1\nConsumption in the Union\nIndex 2007 = 100\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nTotal consumption\n100\n124\n61\n95\n(58)\nIn 2008 there was a sharp increase in total consumption in the Union by 24 %, while consumption decreased by 50 % during the following year before increasing again during the IP. Overall, consumption in the EU market decreased by 5 % during the period considered.\n5. IMPORTS FROM THE COUNTRIES CONCERNED\n5.1. Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned\n(59)\nThe Commission examined whether imports of oxalic acid from the PRC and India should be assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(60)\nWith regard to the effects of the imports originating in the PRC and India, the investigation showed that the dumping margins were above the de minimis threshold as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation and the volume of dumped imports from each of the two countries concerned was not negligible in the sense of Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation.\n(61)\nWith regard to the conditions of competition between the dumped imports from the PRC and India, on the one hand, and between the dumped imports from the PRC and India and the like product, on the other hand, the investigation revealed that they were similar. More specifically, the imported products are sold through the same sales channels and to similar categories of customers thus competing with each other and with the oxalic acid produced in the Union.\n(62)\nIn view of the above, it is provisionally considered that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation are met and that imports from the PRC and India should be examined cumulatively.\n5.2. Volume and market share of dumped imports from the countries concerned\n(63)\nThe investigation showed that the imports of oxalic acid from the PRC and India developed as follows:\nTable 2\nImports from the PRC and India\nImport volumes (MT)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nPRC and India\n7 629\n11 763\n4 707\n7 969\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n100\n154\n62\n104\nMarket share\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n100\n125\n101\n110\nSource: Information from the complainant and questionnaire replies.\n(64)\nImports from the countries concerned increased by 4 % in volume during the period considered while total consumption in the EU market decreased by 5 % over the same period (see Table 1 above). As shown in the Table above, there was also a significant gain in market share of 25 % between 2007 and 2008 and 10 % over the period considered.\n5.3. Price of dumped imports and price undercutting\n(65)\nAverage prices of imports from the countries concerned developed as follows:\nTable 3\nPrice of imports from the PRC and India\nImport prices (EUR/MT)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nPRC and India\n470\n641\n474\n545\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n100\n136\n101\n116\n(66)\nImport prices increased by 36 % between 2007 and 2008 before falling back in 2009 to prices similar to those in 2007. Prices increased again by almost 15 % in the IP. Prices increased by 16 % during the period considered. It is notable, however, that import prices decreased by 20 % between 2008 and the IP, despite the increase in the prices of the main inputs (carbon sources and energy) in this period.\n(67)\nFor the purposes of analysing price undercutting the weighted average sales prices of the Union industry to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, i.e. excluding freight costs in the Union and after deduction of discounts and rebates, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the cooperating exporters from the PRC and India to the first independent customer on the Union market, i.e. net of discounts and adjusted where necessary to cif Union frontier price duly adjusted for customs clearance costs and post-importation costs.\n(68)\nThe comparison showed that during the IP the dumped product concerned originating in the PRC and India sold in the Union undercut the Union industry\u2019s sales prices by 16,9 % to 34,6 %. This level of undercutting was combined with a negative price development on the market thereby leading to substantial price depression.\n6. ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n6.1. Preliminary remarks\n(69)\nIn accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic factors and indices relating to the state of the Union industry from 2007 to the end of the IP.\n(70)\nThe macroeconomic indicators (production, capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volumes, market share, employment, productivity, wages and magnitude of dumping margins) were assessed at the level of the Union industry, while microeconomic indicators (stocks, sales prices, profitability, cash flow, and return on investment, ability to raise capital and investments, production costs) were based on the information derived from the duly verified questionnaires submitted by the sole cooperating Union producer.\n(71)\nTaking into account the fact that the data for the injury analysis is derived mainly from one source only, data relating to the Union industry had to be indexed in order to preserve confidentiality pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation.\n6.2. Data relating to the Union industry (macroeconomic indicators)\n6.2.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\nTable 4\nTotal Union production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nTotal production\n100\n101\n89\n106\nTotal production capacity\n100\n100\n77\n77\nTotal capacity utilisation\n100\n101\n116\n138\n(72)\nThe above Table includes data on the production, production capacity and capacity utilisation of the Union industry as well as, for 2007 and 2008, data of one other Union producer which ceased producing oxalic acid in 2008.\n(73)\nAs shown in the Table above, the production of the Union industry was relatively stable in 2007 and 2008 before falling sharply in 2009. Production increased during the IP. Overall, during the period considered, production increased by 6 %.\n(74)\nDue to the closure of the production facility of one other Union producer in 2008 the production capacity of the Union industry fell sharply in 2008 by 23 %.\n(75)\nThe combination of these two factors, i.e. increase in production volume and decrease in production capacity due to the closure of a production unit by the third Union producer from 2008, led to a significant increase in capacity utilisation of 38 % over the period considered.\n6.2.2. Sales volumes and market share\nTable 5\nSales volumes and market share\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nTotal sales\n100\n97\n61\n86\nMarket share (%)\n100\n79\n99\n91\n(76)\nThe sales volumes for 2007 and 2008 include the sales of the Union producer that ceased production in 2008.\n(77)\nWhile Union consumption decreased by 5 % during the period considered (see recital 58 above) the sales volume of the product concerned by the Union industry to independent customers on the Union market decreased by 14 % during the same period, which was translated by a loss in market share of 9 %.\n(78)\nWhen looking at the development over the period considered, the fall of 14 % in the sales volume of the Union industry was far more pronounced than the decrease of 5 % in Union consumption. As a consequence, the market share of the Union industry also decreased significantly by 9 percentage points during the same period.\n6.2.3. Employment, productivity and wages\nTable 6\nEmployment, productivity and wages\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nTotal number of employees\n100\n119\n108\n96\nTotal productivity (unit/employee)\n100\n85\n83\n111\nTotal yearly wages\n100\n121\n110\n99\nAverage labour costs per employee\n100\n119\n118\n104\n(79)\nThe number of employees fell by 4 % during the period considered. It should be noted that production of oxalic acid is not labour-intensive.\n(80)\nDuring the period considered the total productivity per employee increased by 11 %, as the production increased, whilst there was a fall in the number of employees.\n(81)\nOver the total period considered wages declined by 1 %. After an initial increase in wages of 21 % between 2007 and 2008, they fell continuously up to the IP.\n6.2.4. Magnitude of the actual margin of dumping\n(82)\nThe dumping margins are specified above in the dumping section. All margins established are significantly above the de minimis level. Furthermore, given the volumes and the prices of the dumped imports, the impact of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered negligible.\n6.3. Data relating to the cooperating Union producer (Microeconomic indicators)\n6.3.1. General remark\n(83)\nThe analysis of microeconomic indicators (sales prices and cost of production, stocks, profitability, cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital and investments) was carried out at the level of the complainant only as no data was obtained from the other EU producer as described in recital 70.\n6.3.2. Average unit prices of the cooperating Union producer and cost of production\nTable 7\nSales prices\nIndex 2007 = 100\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nAverage unit selling price\n100\n143\n136\n131\nSource: questionnaire reply.\n(84)\nAverage ex-works sales prices of the Union industry to unrelated customers on the Union market increased by 31 % during the period considered.\nTable 8\nCost of production\nIndex 2007 = 100\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nAverage COP/tonne\n100\n103\n102\n98\nSource: questionnaire reply.\n(85)\nThe investigation revealed that the average cost of production of the cooperating Union producer had been relatively stable over the years due to a constant improvement in their production process, which was made possible only through heavy investments (see Tables 9 and 11 above).\n6.3.3. Stocks\n(86)\nGiven the nature of the product concerned, no stocks are held. The product concerned dries quickly and then cakes and therefore producers only produce goods for immediate shipment.\n6.3.4. Profitability, cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital and investments\nTable 9\nProfitability\nIndex 2007 = - 100\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nProfitability (in EU)\n- 100\n4\n-2\n3\nSource: questionnaire reply.\n(87)\nProfitability for the like product was established by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product by the complainant as a percentage of the turnover of these sales.\n(88)\nAfter generating dramatic losses in 2007, the complainant made a small profit in 2008 before making losses again in 2009. The complainant made a small profit in the IP thanks to a decrease in some elements of the COP, as shown in Table 8 above.\nTable 10\nCash flow\nIndex 2007 = - 100\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nCash flow\n- 100\n3 054\n1 994\n868\nSource: questionnaire reply.\n(89)\nThe trend shown by the cash flow, which is the ability of the industry to self-finance its activities, reflects to a large extent the evolution of profitability. Consequently, the cash flow was negative in 2007 and, despite some improvement in 2008, it decreased between 2008 and the IP, thus weakening the financial situation of the cooperating Union producer.\nTable 11\nInvestments\nIndex 2007 = 100\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nTotal Investments\n100\n111\n185\n277\nSource: questionnaire reply.\n(90)\nThe Table above shows that the complainant increased its investments in the product concerned, even when faced with low profitability. The investments were mainly in the implementation of new production tools and the introduction of new production processes in order to improve efficiency. The increase in investments shows that the industry has not faced difficulties in raising capital, thus demonstrating the continued viability of the industry.\n(91)\nInvestments increased by 177 % over the period considered.\n(92)\nBy increasing its investments in order to improve its production processes the industry, which is capital intensive, still showed an ability to raise capital; nevertheless, this ability is hampered by falling sales and increasing difficulties in generating cash flow.\nTable 12\nReturn on Investment (ROI)\nIndex 2007 = - 100\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nROI\n- 100\n13\n-14\n-51\nSource: questionnaire reply.\n(93)\nDespite the increase in investment, the ROI of the product concerned did not meet the expected return. Although there has been some improvement in 2008, ROI remained negative during the period considered.\n(94)\nTherefore the industry\u2019s growth is limited and clearly disproportionate to the investments made over recent years.\n7. CONCLUSION ON INJURY\n(95)\nThe investigation has shown that some injury indicators show a positive trend: production volume increased by 6 %, capacity utilisation increased by 38 %, investment increased by 177 %, allowing the company to achieve a somewhat relative profit (from a significant loss in 2007 to a small profit in the IP). However, as shown above, a number of indicators pertaining to the economic situation of the Union industry deteriorated significantly during the period considered.\n(96)\nFollowing the closure of the production facility of one Union producer, sales volume decreased by 14 %. Employment had to be reduced by 4 % and production capacity decreased by 23 %. While consumption decreased by only 5 %, market share decreased by almost 9 %. Hence profitability was low, affecting negatively returns on investments and cash flow, especially between 2008 and the IP. The profitability level improved during the period concerned but remained very low in the IP and is insufficient to maintain production in the medium term.\n(97)\nEven though overall production grew, the Union industry lost significant market share. At the same time, dumped imports from the countries concerned showed a significant increase.\n(98)\nConsidering the above, it is provisionally concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury during the IP within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\n8. CAUSALITY\n8.1. Introduction\n(99)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether the material injury suffered by the Union industry has been caused by the dumped imports from the countries concerned. Furthermore, known factors other than dumped imports, which might have injured the Union industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those factors was not attributed to dumped imports.\n8.2. Effect of the dumped imports\n(100)\nThe Union consumption of oxalic acid decreased by 5 % over the period considered, while dumped imports from the countries concerned increased by more than 4 % over this period. The highest increase in dumped imports took place between 2007 and 2008, when they increased by 54 %. Imports from the countries concerned increased their market share by 25 % between 2007 and 2008, which coincided with a decrease of 21 % in the market share of the Union industry during that period.\n(101)\nWhile average import prices increased by 16 % over the period considered, import prices undercut those of the cooperating Union producer by an average of 21,9 % during the IP, thereby exerting price pressure on the Union industry and preventing the cooperating Union producer from raising prices to more profitable levels.\n(102)\nIt is recalled that the Union industry faced a significant drop in its sales volume (- 14 %). However, this decrease in sales was much more pronounced than the fall in demand and led to a loss of market share of 9 %. At the same time, the market share of the countries concerned increased by 10 %. This shows that the Union industry\u2019s market share has largely been taken over by the dumped imports from the countries concerned.\n(103)\nIt is therefore considered that the continued pressure exerted by the low-priced dumped imports from the countries concerned on the Union market did not allow the Union to adapt its sales prices to the increased raw material and energy costs. This led to the loss of market share and a continuously poor profitability situation for the Union industry.\n(104)\nIn view of the above, it was provisionally concluded that the surge in the low-priced dumped imports from the countries concerned had a considerable negative impact on the economic situation of the Union industry.\n8.3. Effect of other factors\n(105)\nThe other factors which were examined in the context of the causality are the development of demand on the Union market, the prices of raw material, the export performance of the Union industry, the imports from other countries of the product concerned and the industry\u2019s captive use of oxalic acid and the economic crisis.\n8.3.1. Development of demand on the Union market\n(106)\nAs indicated in Table 1 above, the Union consumption of oxalic acid first increased by 24 % in 2008, while it decreased by 39 % during the following year to increase again during the IP. Overall, the consumption in the EU market decreased by 5 % during the period considered. During the same period the Union industry lost market share.\n(107)\nAlthough the investigation revealed that imports from the countries concerned were also affected by the fall in demand on the Union market in 2009, it is noteworthy that, over the period considered, the exporters in the countries concerned managed to increase their sales volumes and market share through the price pressure exerted on the market by the dumped imports.\n(108)\nAccordingly, it is provisionally considered that the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry is caused mainly by the surge in the dumped imports from the countries concerned and the undercutting practised by exporters in the countries concerned and not by decreasing consumption. Even though the contraction in demand contributed to the injury, it could not break the causal link between the material injury suffered and the increase in dumped imports.\n8.3.2. Prices of the main raw material\n(109)\nAs shown in Table 8 above, the average cost of production remained relatively stable despite a sharp increase in the cost of the main raw material (sugar). Indeed, the investigation showed that the cost of production of the cooperating Union producer did not follow the same trend as the evolution of the prices of one of the main raw materials in the production of oxalic acid. The sharp increase of average sugar prices by 50 % over the period considered has been mitigated by the investments made by the cooperating Union producer to improve its production processes. Overall, therefore, the net effect was a decrease of 12 % in the cost of production. Nonetheless, as shown in Table 7 above, unit sales price increased by 31 % during the period considered. It was found that the exporters in the countries concerned were subject to the same economic conditions with regard to the evolution of prices of raw materials, as unit import prices followed the same trend as the unit sales prices of the cooperating Union producer, albeit at lower levels.\n(110)\nIn the absence of injurious dumping it could be expected that prices would have been regularly adapted to reflect the development of the various components of the cost of production. However, this did not happen. The cooperating Union producer was not able to achieve the solid profit margins necessary for this capital-intensive producer and its cash flow also decreased.\n(111)\nAccordingly, it is provisionally considered that the dumped imports from the countries concerned, which undercut the cooperating Union producer\u2019s prices, depressed the prices on the Union market and prevented the cooperating Union producer from increasing its sales prices to cover its costs or to achieve a reasonable level of profitability.\n(112)\nGiven that the raw material prices were also affecting the exporters in the countries concerned, it was provisionally concluded that the increase in the prices of raw materials could not have had an impact on the material injury suffered by the Union industry during the period considered.\n8.3.3. Export performance of the Union industry\nTable 13\nExport volume and unit prices\nIndex 2007 = 100\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nExports in tonnes\n100\n80\n140\n152\nAverage export price\n100\n104\n103\n91\nSource: questionnaire reply.\n(113)\nExport performance was also examined as one of the known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time have injured the Union industry, to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n(114)\nThe analysis showed that the export sales to unrelated parties made by the cooperating Union producer represented an important part of their total sales (around 30 %). During the period considered, the export volumes of the cooperating Union producer increased by 52 %, while the unit price of export sales decreased considerably, in contrast with the sales price of the cooperating Union producer within the Union, which increased significantly. The investigation revealed that exports played an important role in keeping capacity utilisation high to cover the fixed costs and costs of investments in machinery. Even though export sales were made at prices lower than those on the Union market, these low prices resulted from competition with low-priced oxalic acid in the export markets by the exporters from the countries concerned. The investigation showed that these exports allowed the cooperating Union producer to mitigate the injury suffered on the EU market and are thus not such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the countries concerned and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n8.3.4. Imports from other third countries\n(115)\nIn the absence of any imports from countries other than the countries concerned, this element had no impact on the EU market.\n8.3.5. Captive use\n(116)\nAs mentioned in recitals 52 to 55 above, captive use is limited to captive transfers within one of the Union producers, where oxalic acid is transformed into oxalates within the company. The profits made by selling oxalates are considerable and actually allowed the producer to continue its activities despite the losses on oxalic acid. Therefore this element does not contribute to the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n8.3.6. Economic crisis\n(117)\nIn 2009 the Union consumption of oxalic acid halved compared to 2008 due to the economic crisis, contributing to a loss in sales volume (- 40 %) and value (- 45 %) for the Union industry. However, by reducing prices in this period by around 5 % the industry was able to gain market share (11 %) and so minimise the negative effects of the crisis. Indeed, the industry was close to breakeven in 2009.\n(118)\nAlthough the economic crisis in 2008-2009 might have contributed to the Union industry\u2019s poor performance, overall, this could not be considered to have an impact such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injurious situation of the Union industry.\n8.4. Conclusion on causation\n(119)\nThe above analysis demonstrated that there was an increase in the sales volume and market share of the countries concerned over the period considered. In addition, it was found that these imports were made at dumped prices which were significantly - almost 22 % - below the prices charged by the Union industry on the Union market for the product concerned during the IP.\n(120)\nThis increase in volume and market share of the low-priced dumped imports from the countries concerned was achieved despite an overall decrease in demand on the Union market during the period considered. The growing market share of the imports coincided with the negative development in the market share of the Union industry during the same period. At the same time a negative development in the main indicators of the economic and financial situation of the Union industry were observed as shown above.\n(121)\nThe fall in consumption on the Union market in 2009 affected negatively the performance of the Union industry. However, overall, this and the other factors could not be considered to have an impact such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injurious situation of the Union industry.\n(122)\nBased on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports, it is provisionally concluded that the dumped imports from the countries concerned have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\n9. UNION INTEREST\n9.1. Preliminary remark\n(123)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation it was examined whether, despite the provisional conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed for concluding that it was not in the Union interest to adopt provisional anti-dumping measures in this particular case. The analysis of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and users of the product concerned.\n9.2. Interest of the Union industry\n(124)\nThe Union industry consists of two producers, with factories located in different Member States of the Union, employing directly 30-50 people in the production and sale of the like product.\n(125)\nOne of the two Union producers did not object to the initiation of the investigation, but provided no further information and did not cooperate during the investigation.\n(126)\nThe Union industry has suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports from the countries concerned. It is recalled that most relevant injury indicators showed a negative trend during the period considered. In particular, injury indicators relating to the financial performance of the Union industry, such as profitability, cash flow and return on investments, were seriously affected. In the absence of measures, it is considered that the recovery in the oxalic acid sector will not be sufficient to allow the recovery of the Union industry\u2019s financial situation and might deteriorate further.\n(127)\nIt is expected that the imposition of measures will restore effective and fair trading conditions on the Union market, allowing the Union industry to align the prices of oxalic acid to reflect the cost of production. It can be expected that the imposition of measures would enable the Union industry to regain, at least part of the market share lost during the period considered, with a further positive impact on its economic situation and profitability.\n(128)\nIt was therefore concluded that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of oxalic acid originating in the PRC and India would be in the interest of the Union industry.\n9.3. Interest of importers\n(129)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from eight unrelated importers. Three of these importers only imported small volumes of the product concerned and could transfer the price increase to their clients. Some of them indicated that they might consider removing the product from their product range if anti-dumping duties were imposed.\n(130)\nThe fourth importer claimed that its clients could use the inward processing scheme for all their end-products using oxalic acid in the production process and re-exported outside the EU. Accordingly, the impact of the imposition of anti-dumping measures on this importer would not be significant.\n(131)\nOn the basis of the above, it is provisionally concluded that the imposition of measures should not, overall, have a significant impact on the importers. In general, profit margins on oxalic acid are considerably high for importers and they expect to be able to transfer the price increases to their customers.\n9.4. Interest of users\n(132)\nThe cooperating users accounted for 22 % of the Union consumption of oxalic acid during the IP. The investigation showed that the distinction between the uses of unrefined oxalic acid and refined oxalic acid is pertinent for the EU interest test with regard to users. The cooperating Union industry produces unrefined, whilst the other non-cooperating EU producer produces refined, which is used mainly in the pharmaceutical, food and fine metal powder extraction sectors.\n(133)\nThe users of unrefined oxalic acid claimed that the imposition of measures would lead to a price increase by the cooperating Union industry, which is the only EU supplier. On the other hand, users also mentioned that it would not be desirable to be completely dependent on foreign imports.\n(134)\nFor users producing cleaning and bleaching products, oxalic acid represents only a small part of their inputs and they could probably transfer the price increase resulting from anti-dumping duties to their clients or change the formulas of their products where possible to use substitute products in place of oxalic acid.\n(135)\nFor the users producing polishing products, oxalic acid represents a major share of their input costs and is not substitutable. It is unlikely that users would be able to fully transfer price increases to their clients due to competition from non-EU producers. However, they export 95 % of their products outside the EU and could reclaim duties in the framework of the inward processing system.\n(136)\nFor users using oxalic acid for other applications such as recycling metals from scrap, oxalic acid represents an important portion of the total production costs of the end-product for which oxalic acid is used. The market of the end-product is very volatile. Oxalic acid is not replaceable in the production process. The main Union scrap recycler currently buys all of its oxalic acid from the Union producers. With the imposition of anti-dumping duties, the industry is in a position to choose to what extent it will increase prices, if at all, in order to benefit from the imposition of duties. Therefore, the impact of the imposition of measures on this user is unclear. However, given that this user is currently making low profits on its sales of the finished product, any price increase will have a negative impact if the company is not able to pass on the price increase.\n(137)\n\u2018Refined\u2019 oxalic acid is used, amongst others, for the production of powder of certain metals. Oxalic acid represents a considerable part of the total production costs. In this process oxalic acid is not replaceable. Profits in this sector can, however, be significant. As annual contracts are commonplace in this sector, in the short term, passing on price increases will not be easy. However, bearing in mind that the lowest proposed duty rate is 14,6 % and that high profits are being achieved, it would be possible to absorb any price increase in the short term.\n(138)\nOne user claimed that the production of refined oxalic acid was not sufficient to meet demand. In this regard, it was found that the shortfall in the Union between production of the refined type and consumption was around 1 000-2 000 tonnes/year. Given that the bulk of the end-products for which refined oxalic acid is used during the production process is exported, users could, in any event, operate under the inward processing regime if they so wished.\n9.5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(139)\nIn view of the above, it was provisionally concluded that, overall, based on the information available concerning the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of provisional measures on imports of acid oxalic originating in the PRC and India.\n10. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n10.1. Injury elimination level\n(140)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.\n(141)\nFor the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the dumping margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Union industry.\n(142)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the Union. It is considered that the profit that could be achieved in the absence of dumped imports is 8 % of turnover and that this profit margin could be regarded as an appropriate minimum which the Union industry could have expected to obtain in the absence of injurious dumping.\n(143)\nOn this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry for the like product. The non-injurious price was obtained by adding the above-mentioned profit margin of 8 % to the cost of production.\n(144)\nThe necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison per product type of the weighted average import price of the cooperating exporting producers in the PRC and India, duly adjusted for importation costs and customs duties with the non-injurious price of the product types sold by the Union industry on the Union market during the IP. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the average cif import value of the types compared.\n10.2. Provisional measures\n(145)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in respect of imports originating in the PRC and India at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(146)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the PRC and India and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(147)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (3) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will be amended accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(148)\nIn order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the residual duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.\n(149)\nThe dumping and injury margins established are as follows:\nCountry\nCompany\nDumping margin\n(%)\nInjury margin\n(%)\nIndia\nPunjab Chemicals and Crop Protection Limited (PCCPL)\n22,8\n40,8\nAll other companies\n43,6\n50,7\nPRC\nShandong Fengyuan Chemicals Stock Co., Ltd and Shandong Fengyuan Uranus Advanced Material Co., Ltd\n37,7\n54,5\nYuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co., Ltd\n14,6\n22,1\nAll other companies\n52,2\n66,3\n11. FINAL PROVISIONS\n(150)\nAny exporting producer of oxalic acid in the PRC which has not yet made itself known, since it considered that it met neither the MET nor the IT criteria, but which considers that a separate duty rate should be established, is invited to make itself known to the European Commission within 10 days from the day following the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union (4).\n(151)\nIn the interests of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make their views known in writing and request a hearing.\n(152)\nThe findings concerning the imposition of anti-dumping duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purposes of any definitive findings,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of oxalic acid, whether in dihydrate (CUS number 0028635-1 and CAS number 6153-56-6) or anhydrous form (CUS number 0021238-4 and CAS number 144-62-7) and whether or not in aqueous solution, currently falling within CN code ex 2917 11 00 (TARIC code 2917110091) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and India.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies below shall be as follows:\nCountry\nCompany\nProvisional duty\n(%)\nTARIC additional code\nIndia\nPunjab Chemicals and Crop Protection Limited\n22,8\nB230\nAll other companies\n43,6\nB999\nPRC\nShandong Fengyuan Chemicals Stock Co., Ltd; Shandong Fengyuan Uranus Advanced Material Co., Ltd\n37,7\nB231\nYuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co., Ltd\n14,6\nB232\nAll other companies\n52,2\nB999\n3. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Without prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within 1 month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within 1 month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of 6 months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 October 2011.", "references": ["84", "68", "11", "88", "99", "1", "12", "71", "82", "72", "98", "52", "25", "51", "79", "26", "69", "53", "46", "10", "55", "75", "43", "36", "50", "41", "17", "76", "56", "18", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 197/2011\nof 28 February 2011\nfixing the closing date for the submission of applications for private storage aid for pigmeat laid down by Regulation (EU) No 68/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(a) and (d), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPrivate storage aid granted pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU) No 68/2011 of 28 January 2011 on fixing the amount of aid in advance for private storage of pigmeat (2) has had a favourable effect on the pigmeat market. A temporary stabilisation of prices is expected.\n(2)\nThe granting of private storage aid for pigmeat should therefore be ended and a closing date for the submission of applications should be set in accordance with Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) No 68/2011.\n(3)\nFor sake of legal certainty, Regulation (EU) No 68/2011 should be repealed.\n(4)\nIn order to avoid speculation, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe closing date for the submission of applications for private storage aid for pigmeat provided for in Regulation (EU) No 68/2011 shall be 4 March 2011.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 68/2011 is repealed as from 4 March 2011. However, it shall continue to apply in respect of contracts concluded under that repealed Regulation before the entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["51", "71", "70", "78", "63", "56", "19", "6", "4", "86", "16", "17", "53", "54", "18", "1", "58", "28", "49", "35", "36", "12", "90", "88", "22", "84", "59", "38", "50", "83", "No Label", "26", "61", "62", "69"], "gold": ["26", "61", "62", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1139/2010\nof 7 December 2010\namending for the 141st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Articles 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation. By means of Regulation (EC) No 246/2006 (2) Ghunia Abdrabbah, Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih and Tahir Nasuf were added to Annex 1. This followed the decision of the United Nations Sanctions Committee, established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1267(1999) concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban and Associated Individuals and Entities, to add them to its Consolidated List.\n(2)\nOn 29 September 2010 the General Court (3) annulled Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 in so far as it concerned Mr Abdrabbah, Mr Al-Faqih and Mr Nasuf, holding that the rights of the defence, the right to judicial review and the right to property had not been respected.\n(3)\nA statement of reasons was provided by the Commission to Mr Abdrabbah, Mr Al-Faqih and Mr Nasuf, respectively, on 22 September 2009, 7 August 2009 and 11 August 2009, after commencement of the Court proceedings referred to above. Accordingly the failure identified by the General Court has been addressed.\n(4)\nIn view of this, the listing decision concerning Mr Abdrabbah, Mr Al-Faqih and Mr Nasuf should therefore be replaced by a new decision made pursuant to Article 7a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, in order to ensure consistency with the decision of the United Nations Sanctions Committee and taking into account the objectives of the freezing of funds and economic resources under Regulation (EC) No 881/2002.\n(5)\nThis new decision should apply from 11 February 2006, given the preventative nature and objectives of the freezing of funds and economic resources under Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 and the need to protect legitimate interests of the economic operators, who have been relying on the decision made in 2006.\n(6)\nMr Abdrabbah, Mr Al-Faqih and Mr Nasuf have already had an opportunity to submit observations on the statements of reasons provided to them as envisaged by Articles 7a(3) and 7c(3) of Regulation (EC) No 881/2002. The Commission has communicated those observations to the Sanctions Committee and is in the process of conducting its review of its decisions to impose restrictive measures on them, which is being conducted under the procedure referred to in Article 7b(2) of Regulation (EC) No 881/2002. The results of the review will be communicated to Mr Abdrabbah, Mr Al-Faqih and Mr Nasuf.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 11 February 2006.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2010.", "references": ["92", "75", "2", "17", "78", "57", "51", "68", "73", "50", "6", "9", "19", "79", "8", "14", "69", "91", "29", "76", "96", "21", "81", "34", "18", "28", "72", "65", "4", "16", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 298/2012\nof 2 April 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that, subject to the measures in force in the Union relating to double checking systems and to prior and retrospective surveillance of textile products on importation into the Union, binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature and which is not in accordance with this Regulation, may continue to be invoked for a period of 60 days by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nSubject to the measures in force in the Union relating to double checking systems and to prior and retrospective surveillance of textile products on importation into the European Union, binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States which is not in accordance with this Regulation, may continue to be invoked for a period of 60 days, under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 April 2012.", "references": ["13", "16", "44", "82", "84", "10", "8", "96", "41", "40", "6", "14", "68", "9", "39", "54", "35", "60", "58", "88", "66", "11", "69", "67", "85", "73", "93", "53", "0", "33", "No Label", "21", "89"], "gold": ["21", "89"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 147/2012\nof 20 February 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1), and in particular Articles 51(4) and 74(4) and Article 91 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 (2) contains definitions which, according to the text of that Article, are to apply only to Title I of Part II of that Regulation. However, the terms \u2018area-related measures\u2019 and \u2018animal-related measures\u2019 appear throughout the Regulation. Those terms should therefore be included in the list of definitions set out in Article 2 of the Regulation.\n(2)\nFor the sake of consistency, in Article 31(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, the term \u2018area-related support\u2019 should be replaced by the term \u2018area-related measures\u2019.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (3) has been amended to improve and simplify certain control rules as regards animal-related payments. For the sake of consistency with controls for animal-related measures under Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, corresponding rules should be included in that Regulation.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, a bovine animal which has lost one of the two ear tags is to be deemed to belong to the animals determined provided that it is clearly and individually identified by the other elements of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals. The system for the identification and registration of bovine animals is in general well established. Therefore, where one bovine animal has lost both ear tags and its identity can be established without any doubt it should also be included in the number of animals determined and should be eligible for payment. This should, however, only apply if the farmer has taken measures to remedy the situation before the announcement of the on-the-spot check and, in order to avoid any risk of irregular payments, the application of this rule should be limited to one single animal.\n(5)\nA new improved system for the identification of ovine and caprine animals has been set up under Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC (4). A similar provision for ovine and caprine animals declared for payment should therefore be included in Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 applies mutatis mutandis for the purposes of Title I of Part II of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011. While under the second subparagraph of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 beneficiaries of animal-related measures are required to inform the competent authorities about any change of location of the animals during the applicable retention period, it should be made clear that failure to do so should not lead to penalties if the animals concerned are immediately located within the holding during the on-the-spot check.\n(7)\nAs regards the rules on reductions and exclusions set out in Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 and the order of reductions laid down in Article 22 of that Regulation, it should be made clear that offsetting in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (5) should always be carried out last in the order of reductions pursuant to Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011. Articles 17 and 22 of that Regulation should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nRegulation (EU) No 65/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Rural Development Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 65/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2, the following definitions are added:\n\u2018(d)\n\u201cArea-related measures\u201d means measures or sub-measures for which support is based on the size of the area declared;\n(e)\n\u201cAnimal-related measures\u201d means measures or sub-measures for which support is based on the number of animals declared.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 6(2), points (a) and (b) are deleted;\n(3)\nArticle 17 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 3, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. A bovine animal which has lost one of the two ear tags shall be deemed to belong to the animals determined provided that it is clearly and individually identified by the other elements of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals. Furthermore, where one single bovine animal of a holding has lost two ear tags it shall be deemed to belong to the animals determined provided that the animal can still be identified by register, animal passport, database or other means laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) and provided that the keeper can provide evidence that he had already taken action to remedy the situation before the announcement of the on-the-spot check.\n(b)\nthe following paragraphs are inserted:\n\u20183a. An ovine or caprine animal which has lost one ear tag shall be deemed to belong to the animals determined provided that the animal can still be identified by a first means of identification in accordance with Article 4(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 (7) and provided that all other requirements of the system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals are fulfilled.\n3b. Where a beneficiary has failed to inform the competent authorities pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 that animals were moved to another location during the retention period, the animals concerned shall be deemed to belong to the animals determined if the animals were immediately located within the holding during the on-the-spot check.\n(c)\nin the third subparagraph of paragraph 5, the second sentence is deleted;\n(d)\nin the second subparagraph of paragraph 7, the second sentence is deleted;\n(e)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20188. The amount resulting from the exclusions provided for in the third subparagraph of paragraph 5 and in the second subparagraph of paragraph 7 of this Article shall be offset in accordance with Article 5b of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. If the amount cannot be fully offset in accordance with that Article in the course of the 3 calendar years following the calendar year of the finding, the outstanding balance shall be cancelled.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 22, the sixth indent is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nfinally, in accordance with Articles 16(7) and 17(8) of this Regulation.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 31(a), point (ii) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(ii)\nfor area-related measures, the total area broken down by individual aid scheme;\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 February 2012.", "references": ["69", "9", "40", "89", "26", "16", "35", "91", "86", "59", "62", "11", "94", "47", "70", "31", "51", "10", "97", "5", "32", "28", "20", "6", "92", "3", "76", "38", "87", "93", "No Label", "2", "4", "15", "17", "61", "63", "65", "66"], "gold": ["2", "4", "15", "17", "61", "63", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 90/2011\nof 3 February 2011\nlaying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the poultrymeat sector\n(codification)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 161(3), Article 170 and Article 192(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 633/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the poultrymeat sector (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.\n(2)\nSpecific implementing rules should be laid down for export licences in the poultrymeat sector which should, in particular, include provisions for the submission of applications and the information which must appear on the applications and licences, in addition to those contained in Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (4).\n(3)\nIn order to assure proper administration of the system of export licences, the rate of the security for export licences under that system should be fixed. In view of the risk of speculation inherent in the system in the poultrymeat sector, export licences should not be transferable and precise conditions governing access by traders to the said system should be laid down.\n(4)\nArticle 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that compliance with the obligations arising from agreements concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations regarding the export volume shall be ensured on the basis of the export licences. Therefore, a detailed schedule for the lodging of applications and for the issuing of licences should be laid down.\n(5)\nIn addition, the decision regarding applications for export licences should be notified only after a period of consideration. This period would allow the Commission to appreciate the quantities applied for as well as the expenditure involved and, if appropriate, to take specific measures applicable in particular to the applications which are pending. It is in the interest of traders to allow the licence application to be withdrawn after the acceptance coefficient has been fixed.\n(6)\nThe Commission should have precise information concerning applications for licences and the use of licences issued, in order to be able to manage the licence system. In the interests of efficient administration, Member States should use the information systems in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 of 31 August 2009 laying down detailed rules for the Member States\u2019 notification to the Commission of information and documents in implementation of the common organisation of the markets, the direct payments\u2019 regime, the promotion of agricultural products and the regimes applicable to the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean islands (5).\n(7)\nIn the case of applications concerning quantities equal to or less than 25 tonnes, the export licence should be issued immediately if the trader requests it. However, such licences should be restricted to short-term commercial transactions in order to prevent the mechanism provided for in this Regulation from being circumvented.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure an exact follow up of the quantities to be exported, a derogation from the rules regarding the tolerances laid down in Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 should be laid down.\n(9)\nArticle 167(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that for day-old chicks export refunds may be granted on the basis of an ex post export licence. Therefore implementing rules for such a system should be laid down with the aim of ensuring efficient verification that the obligations arising from the agreements concluded in the framework of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations are complied with. However, it would appear unnecessary to require the lodging of a security in the case of licences applied for after exportation.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAll exports of products in the poultrymeat sector for which an export refund is requested, with the exception of chicks falling within CN codes 0105 11, 0105 12 and 0105 19, shall be subject to the presentation of an export licence with advance fixing of the refund, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 2 to 8.\nArticle 2\n1. Export licences shall be valid for 90 days from their actual day of issue within the meaning of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008.\n2. Applications for licences and licences shall bear, in Section 15, the description of the product and, in Section 16, the 12-digit product code of the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds.\n3. The categories of products referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, as well as the rate of the security for export licences, are set out in Annex I.\n4. Applications for licences and licences shall bear, in Section 20, at least one of the entries listed in Annex II.\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, licences for category 6(a) referred to in Annex I shall be valid 15 days from the actual date of issue within the meaning of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008.\n6. In the case of licences for products of category 6(a) referred to in Annex I it is obligatory to export to the country of destination indicated in Section 7 or to any country referred to in Annex VIII.\nTo this end, licence applications and licences shall contain at least one of the entries listed in Annex III.\n7. In the case of licences for products of category 6(b) referred to in Annex I it is obligatory to export to the country of destination indicated in Section 7 or to any other country not referred to in Annex VIII.\nTo this end, licence applications and licences shall contain at least one of the entries listed in Annex IV.\nArticle 3\n1. Applications for export licences may be lodged with the competent authorities from Monday to Friday of each week.\n2. Applicants for export licences shall be natural or legal persons who, at the time applications are submitted, are able to prove to the satisfaction of the competent authorities in the Member States that they have been engaged in trade in the poultrymeat sector for at least 12 months. However, retail establishments or restaurants selling their products to end consumers may not lodge applications.\n3. Export licences are issued on the Wednesday following the period referred to in paragraph 1, provided that none of the particular measures referred to in paragraph 4 have since been taken by the Commission.\n4. Where the issue of export licences would or might result in the available budgetary amounts being exceeded or in the maximum quantities which may be exported with a refund being exhausted during the period concerned, in view of the limits referred to in Article 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 or where the issue of export licences would not allow exports to continue during the remainder of the period, the Commission may:\n(a)\nset a single acceptance percentage for the quantities applied for;\n(b)\nreject applications for which licences have not yet been granted;\n(c)\nsuspend the lodging of licence applications for a maximum period of 5 working days, extendable by the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nLicence applications made during the suspension period shall be invalid.\nThe measures provided for in the first subparagraph may be implemented or modulated by category of product and by destination.\n5. The measures provided for in paragraph 4 may be adopted where export licence applications relate to quantities which exceed or might exceed the normal disposable quantities for one destination and issuing the licences requested would entail a risk of speculation, distortion of competition between operators, or disturbance of the trade concerned or of the internal market.\n6. Where quantities applied for are rejected or reduced, the security shall be released immediately for all quantities for which an application was not satisfied.\n7. Notwithstanding paragraph 3, where a single percentage of acceptance less than 80 % is set, the licence shall be issued at the latest by the 11th working day following publication of that percentage in the Official Journal of the European Union. During the 10 working days following its publication, the operator may:\n-\neither withdraw his application, in which case the security is released immediately,\n-\nor request immediate issuing of the licence, in which case the competent authority shall issue it without delay but no sooner than the normal issue date for the relevant week.\n8. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, the Commission can set a day other than Wednesday for the issuing of export licences when it is not possible to respect this day.\nArticle 4\n1. On application by the operator, licence applications for up to 25 tonnes of products shall not be subject to any special measures as referred to in Article 3(4) and the licences applied for shall be issued immediately.\nIn such cases, notwithstanding Article 2(1) and (5), the term of validity of the licences shall be limited to 5 working days from their actual day of issue within the meaning of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 and Section 20 of licence applications and of licences shall show one of the entries listed in Annex V.\n2. The Commission may, where necessary, suspend the application of this Article.\nArticle 5\nExport licences shall not be transferable.\nArticle 6\n1. The quantity exported within the tolerance referred to in Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 shall not give entitlement to payment of the refund.\n2. In Section 22 of the licence, at least one of the entries listed in Annex VI shall be indicated.\nArticle 7\n1. By Friday each week, Member States shall notify the Commission of the following information:\n(a)\nthe applications for export licences as referred to in Article 1 lodged from Monday to Friday of the same week, stating whether they fall within the scope of Article 4 or not;\n(b)\nthe quantities covered by export licences issued on the preceding Wednesday, not including those issued immediately pursuant to Article 4;\n(c)\nthe quantities covered by export licence applications withdrawn pursuant to Article 3(7) during the preceding week.\n2. The notification of the applications referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall specify:\n(a)\nthe quantity in product weight for each category referred to in Article 2(3);\n(b)\nthe breakdown by destination of the quantity for each category in the case where the rate of refund varies according to the destination;\n(c)\nthe rate of refund applicable;\n(d)\nthe total amount of refund prefixed in euro per category.\n3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission on a monthly basis following the expiry of validity of export licences the quantity of unused export licences.\nArticle 8\n1. For chicks falling within CN codes 0105 11, 0105 12 and 0105 19, operators shall declare at the time when customs formalities for exports are fulfilled, that they intend to claim an export refund.\n2. Not later than 2 working days after exporting, operators shall lodge with the competent authority the application for an ex post export licence for the chicks which have been exported. In Section 20 of the licence application and of the licence, the term ex post shall be indicated together with the customs office where customs formalities have been fulfilled as well as the day of export within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 (6).\nBy way of derogation from Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 no security shall be required.\n3. Member States shall notify the Commission, by Friday each week, of the number of ex post export licences applied for during the current week, including \u2018nil\u2019 notifications. The notifications shall specify, where applicable, the details referred to in Article 7(2).\n4. Ex post export licences shall be issued each following Wednesday, provided that none of the particular measures referred to in Article 3(4) are taken by the Commission after the export concerned. Where such measures are taken they shall apply to the exports already carried out.\nThis licence accords entitlement to payment of the refund applicable on the day of export within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009.\n5. Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 shall not apply to the ex post licences referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article.\nThe licences shall be presented directly by the interested party to the agency in charge of the payment of export refunds. This agency shall attribute and stamp the licence.\nArticle 9\nThe notifications referred to in this Regulation, including \u2018nil\u2019 notifications, shall be made in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009.\nArticle 10\nRegulation (EC) No 633/2004 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex X.\nArticle 11\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2011.", "references": ["53", "76", "58", "88", "47", "92", "67", "28", "81", "72", "64", "32", "86", "42", "59", "66", "97", "5", "65", "84", "22", "24", "26", "98", "37", "93", "17", "30", "60", "8", "No Label", "20", "21", "69"], "gold": ["20", "21", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 479/2011\nof 17 May 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 473/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 May 2011.", "references": ["25", "37", "20", "43", "66", "46", "26", "24", "12", "0", "18", "91", "79", "11", "17", "36", "80", "29", "54", "82", "76", "48", "87", "59", "73", "30", "51", "5", "97", "39", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 21 October 2010\namending Annex II to Decision 2009/861/EC on transitional measures under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the processing of non-compliant raw milk in certain milk processing establishments in Bulgaria\n(notified under document C(2010) 7153)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/653/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (1), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 9 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business operators. Those rules include hygiene requirements for raw milk and dairy products.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2009/861/EC (2) provides for certain derogations from the requirements set out in subchapters II and III of Chapter I of Section IX of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 for the milk processing establishments in Bulgaria listed in that Decision.\n(3)\nAccordingly, certain milk processing establishments listed in Annex II to that Decision may process non-compliant milk without separate production lines until 31 December 2011.\n(4)\nBulgaria sent the Commission a revised and updated list of those milk processing establishments on 25 February 2010. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the list of establishments in Annex II to Decision 2009/861/EC.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Decision 2009/861/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["40", "68", "87", "36", "74", "83", "6", "92", "37", "41", "88", "16", "60", "21", "39", "72", "75", "80", "51", "55", "66", "54", "32", "65", "99", "90", "12", "98", "48", "79", "No Label", "9", "25", "38", "70", "73", "76", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "25", "38", "70", "73", "76", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 659/2010\nof 22 July 2010\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural market and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(s) and listed in Part XIX of Annex 1 to of that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed Part V of the Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture concluded under the Uruguay Round lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Article 1(1)(s) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2010.", "references": ["99", "85", "65", "53", "36", "27", "17", "33", "42", "16", "83", "8", "90", "37", "71", "4", "46", "30", "68", "76", "11", "66", "10", "77", "67", "44", "93", "14", "34", "22", "No Label", "23", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["23", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 254/2012\nof 22 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 March 2012.", "references": ["66", "49", "52", "79", "24", "3", "32", "45", "36", "90", "43", "83", "57", "89", "48", "78", "99", "26", "98", "39", "37", "44", "97", "64", "38", "67", "20", "18", "88", "21", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 724/2012\nof 8 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 August 2012.", "references": ["29", "46", "33", "85", "93", "18", "88", "26", "71", "81", "5", "17", "57", "60", "59", "39", "24", "73", "72", "1", "19", "77", "23", "50", "11", "94", "7", "3", "16", "47", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 514/2010\nof 15 June 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of Pediococcus pentosaceus (DSM 16244) as a feed additive for all animal species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of Pediococcus pentosaceus (DSM 16244) as a feed additive for all animal species, to be classified in the additive category \u2018technological additives\u2019.\n(4)\nIt results from the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) of 3 February 2010 (2) that Pediococcus pentosaceus (DSM 16244) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that this preparation has the potential to improve the production of silage. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory established by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of Pediococcus pentosaceus (DSM 16244) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this additive should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018technological additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018silage additives\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2010.", "references": ["69", "68", "28", "78", "81", "13", "35", "60", "46", "17", "71", "80", "32", "64", "86", "34", "83", "89", "39", "15", "37", "33", "24", "65", "45", "0", "76", "14", "61", "10", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 2 September 2011\namending Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU on granting Union financial assistance to Portugal\n(2011/541/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUpon a request by Portugal, the Council granted it financial assistance (Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU (2)) in support of a strong economic and financial reform programme aiming at restoring confidence, enabling the return of the economy to sustainable growth, and safeguarding financial stability in Portugal, the euro area and the Union.\n(2)\nIn line with Article 3(9) of Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU, the Commission, together with the International Monetary Fund (\u2018IMF\u2019) and in liaison with the European Central Bank (\u2018ECB\u2019), has conducted the first review of the authorities\u2019 progress on the implementation of the agreed measures as of the effectiveness and economic and social impact of those measures.\n(3)\nUnder the Commission\u2019s current projections for nominal GDP growth (-0,7 % in 2011, 0,0 % in 2012, 2,5 % in 2013 and 3,9 % in 2014), the fiscal adjustment path is in line with the Council Recommendation to Portugal of 2 December 2009 with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive government deficit, pursuant to Article 126(7) of the Treaty, and is consistent with a path for the debt-to-GDP ratio of 101,1 % in 2011, 106,2 % in 2012, 107,3 % in 2013 and 106,4 % in 2014. The debt-to-GDP ratio would therefore be stabilised in 2013 and be placed on a declining path thereafter, assuming further progress in the reduction of the deficit. Debt dynamics are affected by several below-the-line operations, including sizeable acquisitions of financial assets, in particular for possible bank recapitalisation and financing to state-owned enterprises (\u2018SOEs\u2019) and differences between accrued and cash interest payments.\n(4)\nThe quarterly quantitative performance criterion on the general government cash balance for the first half of 2011 was met. However, recent data pointed to an opening gap between fiscal trends and the 2011 deficit targets. Expenditure overruns in the first half of the year, underperforming non-tax revenue, the reclassification of some operations led to a projected shortfall of about 1,1 % of GDP over the whole of 2011. The net costs related to the sale of Banco Portugu\u00eas de Neg\u00f3cios (\u2018BPN\u2019) would add another 0,2 % of GDP to the headline deficit. The authorities have reacted promptly. Budget execution has been tightened, a one-time surcharge on the personal income tax has been introduced, increases in the VAT rates of natural gas and electricity have been brought forward from 2012 and sales of concessions will be stepped up. The authorities should also seek to adopt other consolidation measures of a permanent nature and/or frontload other measures planned for next year. The ongoing process of a phased transfer of banks pension funds to the State social security system should exceptionally provide a buffer towards meeting the deficit target for 2011. The acquired assets of these pension funds should not be used in a way detrimental to long-term fiscal sustainability. The government should not count on further transfers of pension funds to meet the targets for the coming years. Progress is being made to strengthen public financial management through improved reporting and monitoring and reforming the budgetary framework, in line with the recommendations from the Commission services and IMF staff.\n(5)\nBanks are working towards meeting the higher capital requirements as required by the programme. Existing legislation is being amended to strengthen the augmented solvency support facility. A balanced and orderly deleveraging of the banking sector remains critical, while safeguarding adequate credit for dynamic sectors to spur growth. A buyer for BPN has been found although the deal still needs clearance from Union competition authorities. Progress has also been made to strengthen the supervisory and regulatory framework, including via technical assistance. Portuguese banks passed the July 2011 European Banking Authority (\u2018EBA\u2019) stress tests with mixed results reinforcing the need to implement the programme reforms to strengthen the sector.\n(6)\nNotwithstanding the relatively large first disbursement, the government\u2019s cash position remains under strain. This is explained by increasing financing needs from SOEs, a sharp increase in households\u2019 redemption of savings certificates, and persisting financial market stress.\n(7)\nProgress in labour and product market reforms is essential to restore competitiveness and raise growth potential. In this respect, the special rights of the state in private companies were abolished ahead of schedule. The privatisation programme is being accelerated and broadened. A severe and urgent restructuring of SOEs is at the top of the government\u2019s agenda. Labour market reforms to align the protection and rights under fixed and open-ended contracts and to establish an employer-financed fund for paying out workers\u2019 severance entitlements are advancing. Progress is being made in preparation for a budget-neutral so-called fiscal devaluation, and authorities remain committed to take a major first step in this area with the 2012 Budget. Structural reforms should be implemented decisively and closely monitored.\n(8)\nIn light of these developments, Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nImplementing Decision 2011/344/EU is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Union financial assistance shall be made available by the Commission to Portugal in a maximum of 14 instalments. An instalment may be disbursed in one or several tranches. The maturities of the tranches under the first and second instalment may be longer than the maximum average maturity referred to in paragraph 1. In such cases, the maturities of further tranches shall be set so that the maximum average maturity referred to in paragraph 1 be achieved once all instalments have been disbursed.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 3(5) is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoints (a), (b) and (c) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nPortugal shall implement fully the fiscal consolidation measures foreseen in the 2011 budget amounting to around EUR 9 billion and the additional consolidation measures that the government has announced since then. To offset adverse budgetary trends and emerging risks to the achievement of the 2011 deficit target, Portugal shall tighten budgetary execution, implement the already approved one-time surcharge in the context of the personal income tax in 2011, frontload from 2012 to 1 October 2011 the increase in the VAT rate for natural gas and electricity and step up sales of concessions. The government shall also endeavour to adopt other consolidation measures of a permanent nature and/or frontload other measures planned for 2012. The ongoing process of a phased transfer of banks pensions funds to the State social security system shall exceptionally provide a buffer towards reaching the 2011 fiscal deficit target. The acquired assets of these pension funds shall not be used in a way detrimental to long-term sustainability.\n(b)\nPortugal shall adopt measures to reinforce public finance management. Portugal shall implement the measures foreseen in the new Budgetary Framework Law, including setting-up a medium-term budgetary framework, prepare a medium-term fiscal strategy and establish an independent Fiscal Council. The budgetary framework at local and regional levels shall be considerably strengthened, in particular by aligning the respective financing laws to the requirements of the Budgetary Framework Law. Portugal shall step up reporting and monitoring of public finances, in particular arrears; it shall set up a strategy for the settlement of arrears, and reinforce budgetary execution rules and procedures. Portugal shall start the systematic and regular analysis of fiscal risks as part of the budget process, including the risks stemming from Public Private Partnerships (\u201cPPPs\u201d) and SOEs.\n(c)\nPortugal shall continue strengthening labour market functioning, notably by taking measures to reform employment protection legislation, wage setting and active labour market policies.\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nPortugal shall continue opening up the economy to competition. The government shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the Portuguese State or any public body do not conclude, in a shareholder capacity, shareholder agreements which may hinder the free movement of capital or influence the management control of companies. The new Privatisation Law shall also be respectful to the principles of free movement of capital and not grant or allow special rights to the State. A revision of competition law shall be undertaken aiming at improving the speed and effectiveness of enforcement of competition rules.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following points are added:\n\u2018(g)\nPortugal shall adopt measures to improve the efficiency and sustainability of SOEs at central, regional and local level. Portugal shall prepare a comprehensive SOEs strategy document reviewing the tariff structure and the service provision and a plan to tighten borrowing requirements as of 2012. Portugal shall implement ongoing plans to reduce operational costs by at least 15 % on average in central government SOEs outside the health sector and prepare an equivalent plan for regional and local government SOEs.\n(h)\nPortugal shall implement the privatisation programme. In particular, public sector shares in EDP, REN and GALP, and, if market conditions permit, TAP, shall be sold in 2011. A strategic privatisation plan for Parpublica shall be prepared. The privatisation plan through 2013 shall also cover Aeroportos de Portugal, the freight branch of CP, Correios de Portugal and Caixa Seguros, as well as a number of smaller firms.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 3(6), points (a) and (b) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nThe 2012 budget shall include a budget neutral recalibration of the tax system with a view to lowering labour costs and boosting competitiveness. The reform shall be developed in consultation with the Commission, the ECB and the IMF.\n(b)\nThe measures, defined in points (c) and (d), amounting to at least EUR 5,1 billion, shall be included in the 2012 Budget. Further measures, mostly on the expenditure side, shall be taken to fill any possible gap arising from budgetary developments in 2011. The government shall prepare an updated assessment of the budgetary situation and prospects in view of the discussion of the 2012 Budget with the Commission, the ECB and the IMF before its approval by the government.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 3(8) is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoints (a), (b) and (c) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nEncourage banks to strengthen their collateral buffers and monitor the issuance of the government guaranteed bank bonds, which has been authorised up to EUR 35 billion in line with EU State aid rules;\n(b)\nFollow closely the plans presented by the banks to reach a core Tier 1 ratio of 9 % by end-2011 and 10 % at the latest by end-2012. If the banks cannot reach the capital requirement thresholds on time, they might temporarily require public provision of equity for private banks through the established EUR 12 billion bank solvency support facility;\n(c)\nEnsure a balanced an orderly deleveraging of the banking sector, which remains critical to eliminating funding imbalances on a permanent basis. Banks\u2019 funding plans target a reduction in the loan-to-deposit ratio to about 120 % and a reduction of the reliance on Eurosystem funding during the duration of the programme. The Bank of Portugal shall ask banks to revise their funding plans by end-September. These funding plans shall be reviewed quarterly, starting from the second programme review. The Bank of Portugal shall take appropriate action in case of deviations from the banks\u2019 funding plans;\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nEnsure that the state-owned Caixa Geral de Dep\u00f3sitos (CGD) is streamlined to increase the capital base of its core banking arm as needed; the necessary resources to increase the capital base should come from within the group. Complete the sale of Banco Portugu\u00eas de Neg\u00f3cios after clearance from the Commission in accordance with competition and State aid rules;\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2011.", "references": ["8", "40", "25", "20", "79", "71", "83", "60", "24", "95", "35", "43", "16", "87", "36", "69", "93", "0", "92", "81", "6", "85", "38", "55", "9", "34", "84", "76", "26", "13", "No Label", "10", "30", "32", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "30", "32", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 684/2011\nof 15 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 July 2011.", "references": ["15", "70", "96", "10", "94", "86", "91", "55", "79", "47", "14", "71", "33", "77", "39", "40", "63", "34", "58", "75", "23", "72", "60", "48", "12", "90", "30", "17", "56", "69", "No Label", "22", "35", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 526/2010\nof 17 June 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of June 2010 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 June 2010 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 June 2010 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 0,433989 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2010.", "references": ["64", "45", "54", "49", "31", "73", "60", "53", "70", "83", "12", "84", "13", "27", "86", "46", "5", "25", "28", "8", "52", "47", "10", "1", "7", "88", "44", "97", "74", "57", "No Label", "21", "24", "69"], "gold": ["21", "24", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 September 2012\non Eurostat\n(2012/504/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (1) provides the basic legal framework for European statistics. That Regulation refers to the Commission (Eurostat) as the Union\u2019s statistical authority responsible for the development, production and dissemination of European statistics.\n(2)\nEuropean statistics should be developed, produced and disseminated by Eurostat in accordance with the statistical principles set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Regulation (EC) No 223/2009, and further elaborated in the European statistics Code of Practice as reviewed and updated by the European Statistical System Committee on 28 September 2011.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 223/2009 also provides for the protection of confidential data, which should be used exclusively for statistical purposes.\n(4)\nThe Commission has undertaken to reinforce the statistical governance in the Union and to respect the above statistical principles (2). This commitment was confirmed and further developed in the Communication of 15 April 2011 to the European Parliament and the Council \u2018Towards robust quality management for European Statistics\u2019 (3). The present Decision should be regarded as a renewed commitment from the Commission on confidence in European statistics developed, produced and disseminated by Eurostat.\n(5)\nRecent developments in the Union\u2019s economic governance framework have had an impact on the statistical domain and should be taken into account. This concerns, in particular, statistical independence as laid down in Regulation (EU) No 1175/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (4).\n(6)\nIn this context, the powers of the Commission as appointing authority with regard to the recruitment, transfer and dismissal of the Director-General of Eurostat should be exercised, in accordance with the Staff Regulations, with due regard to the need to guarantee independence, objectivity and efficiency in the exercise of his or her responsibilities, and following a transparent procedure based on professional criteria only.\n(7)\nIn addition, Eurostat has been assigned specific tasks by Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 of 25 May 2009 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (5).\n(8)\nFurthermore, as set out in the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on \u2018the production method of EU statistics: a vision for the next decade\u2019 (6), Eurostat should provide a high-quality statistical service by also enhancing relations with the Union bodies in order to anticipate statistical needs and advance the usage of existing statistics. This also involves building closer relations with other services of the Commission.\n(9)\nStatistics should be defined with reference to Regulation (EC) No 223/2009. For the purposes of this Decision, a distinction should also be made between European statistics and other statistics.\n(10)\nSetting policy objectives and determining the information required to achieve these objectives is a matter for policymakers. Those activities should therefore fall within the mandate and responsibilities of the concerned Commission services, while Eurostat should ensure the programming of activities related to European statistics, taking into account user needs, relevant policy developments and resource constraints.\n(11)\nCommission activities related to other statistics should be subject to a planning and coordination exercise with a view to ensuring consolidated information on these activities. This exercise should be steered by Eurostat and its scope limited to subjects upon which there is mutual agreement between the Commission services concerned and Eurostat.\n(12)\nEuropean statistics are determined by the European statistical programme and the corresponding annual work programme.\n(13)\nTo secure public trust in European statistics and to promote high-quality statistics developed, produced and disseminated by Eurostat, a process for labelling European statistics should be developed and applied.\n(14)\nThe development, production and dissemination of high-quality European statistics should be safeguarded by the Director-General of Eurostat, who is the Chief Statistician. In addition, his or her tasks should include coordinating the statistical activities of the Commission with a view to ensuring quality and minimising reporting burden. Therefore, the Chief Statistician should also be consulted on the development and production of other statistics.\n(15)\nClose cooperation between Eurostat and other Commission services on statistical activities and the appropriate coordination of these activities by the Chief Statistician should ensure the coherence and comparability of European statistics and a better response to future challenges, in particular the need to minimise response burden and administrative burden. For the same purposes, access to administrative data sources within the Commission should be provided to the extent necessary and cost-effective for the development, production and dissemination of European statistics.\n(16)\nRegulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (7) is applicable to the extent Eurostat processes personal data. In addition, European statistics produced on the basis of personal data should be gender-disaggregated when relevant.\n(17)\nIt is therefore necessary to further define and clarify Eurostat\u2019s role and responsibilities within the Commission.\n(18)\nCommission Decision 97/281/EC of 21 April 1997 on the role of Eurostat as regards the production of Community statistics (8) should be repealed,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision defines the role and responsibilities of Eurostat within the internal organisation of the Commission, as regards the development, production and dissemination of statistics.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions apply:\n(1)\n\u2018Statistics\u2019 mean statistics as defined in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009. They are either European statistics or other statistics;\n(2)\n\u2018European statistics\u2019 means statistics as referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 and as determined by the European statistics annual work programme;\n(3)\n\u2018Other statistics\u2019 means statistics that are not European statistics and that are identified in the planning and coordination exercise referred to in Article 5(2).\nArticle 3\nEurostat\nEurostat is the statistical authority of the Union referred to in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009. It is a service of the Commission, headed by a Director-General.\nArticle 4\nStatistical principles\nEurostat shall develop, produce and disseminate European statistics in accordance with the statistical principles of professional independence, impartiality, objectivity, reliability, statistical confidentiality and cost-effectiveness as defined in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 and as further elaborated in the European statistics Code of Practice.\nArticle 5\nPlanning and programming\n1. Activities related to European statistics shall be determined by the European statistical programme referred to in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009, and by the annual work programme referred to in Article 17 of that Regulation.\n2. Activities related to other statistics shall be subject to and identified through a planning and coordination exercise steered by Eurostat. The scope of this exercise shall be limited to subjects upon which there is mutual agreement between the Commission services concerned and Eurostat.\n3. Specific inter-service agreements may be established between Eurostat and the other services of the Commission for the purpose of these activities, including also activities related to administrative records.\nArticle 6\nTasks of Eurostat\n1. Eurostat shall be in charge of the development, production and dissemination of European statistics.\nTo this end, Eurostat shall, in particular:\n(a)\ncollect and aggregate the statistical information necessary to compile European statistics;\n(b)\ndevelop and promote statistical standards, methods and procedures;\n(c)\nsteer the European Statistical System, strengthen cooperation among its partners, and ensure its leading role in official statistics worldwide;\n(d)\ncooperate with international organisations and third countries in order to facilitate the comparability of European statistics with statistics produced in other statistical systems and, where appropriate, support third countries in the improvement of their statistical systems.\n2. Eurostat shall ensure that European statistics are made accessible to all users in accordance with statistical principles, in particular the principles of professional independence, impartiality and statistical confidentiality.\nIn this respect, Eurostat shall provide the technical explanations and the support necessary for the use of European statistics and may use appropriate communication channels for the purpose of statistical news releases.\n3. Eurostat shall ensure cooperation and regular constructive dialogue with other services of the Commission and, where necessary, with data providers with a view to taking into account user needs, relevant policy developments and other initiatives. To this end, those Commission services that are potential users of specific European statistics shall be informed and involved from an early stage in the development of new or changed statistics, among other things in order to understand the potential policy implications of new or changed statistical methods, standards and definitions.\n4. Eurostat shall coordinate the development and production of other statistics. For that purpose, it shall:\n(a)\noptimise the use of existing information that can be used for statistical purposes, in order to ensure quality and minimise burden for respondents; Eurostat shall invite any service of the Commission concerned to contribute for that purpose;\n(b)\nbe informed by all services of the Commission about the scope and quality characteristics of statistics produced by them, about significant changes in the methodology for the production of statistics, and about new data collections planned;\n(c)\nprovide guidance, appropriate training and expert services to other Commission services necessary for the development and production of other statistics, subject to available resources.\nArticle 7\nDirector-General of Eurostat\n1. With regard to European statistics, the Director-General of Eurostat shall have sole responsibility for deciding on processes, statistical methods, standards and procedures, or on the content and timing of statistical releases, in accordance with the European statistical programme and the annual work programme. When carrying out these statistical tasks, the Director-General of Eurostat shall act in an independent manner; he or she shall neither seek nor take instructions from the Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State, or from any other institution, body, office or entity.\n2. The Director-General of Eurostat shall act as authorising officer for the implementation of the appropriations allocated to Eurostat.\nArticle 8\nChief Statistician\n1. The Director-General of Eurostat shall be regarded as the Chief Statistician.\n2. The Chief Statistician shall:\n(a)\nbe in charge of the development, production and dissemination of European statistics within the Commission;\n(b)\nbe responsible for coordination of the development and production of other statistics as referred to in Articles 5(2) and 6(4);\n(c)\nrepresent the Commission in international statistical forums, notably for the purposes of coordinating the statistical activities of the institutions and bodies of the Union as referred to in Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009;\n(d)\nchair the European Statistical System Committee referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009;\n(e)\nprepare the programmes referred to in Article 5(1) of this Decision in close consultation with other services of the Commission, taking into account as far as possible user needs and other relevant developments;\n(f)\nliaise between the European Statistical System (ESS) and the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board in all matters relating to the implementation of the European statistics Code of Practice within the ESS as a whole.\n3. Any service that intends to undertake activities involving the production of statistics shall consult the Chief Statistician at an early stage in the preparation of the activities concerned. The Chief Statistician may make recommendations in this regard. Initiatives not related to the development, production and dissemination of European statistics, especially in cases of specific inter-service agreements, shall fall entirely under the responsibility of the concerned service.\nArticle 9\nAccess to administrative records\n1. In order to reduce the burden on respondents, Eurostat shall have the right to access administrative data within the Commission services, subject to confidentiality rules established in Union legislation, and to integrate these administrative data with statistics to the extent that these data are relevant for the development, production and dissemination of European statistics.\n2. Eurostat shall be consulted on and may be involved in the initial design, subsequent development and discontinuation of administrative registers and databases built up and maintained by other Commission services, in order to facilitate further use of the data contained in these registers and databases for the purposes of European statistics. To that end, Eurostat shall have the right to propose standardisation activities concerning administrative records that are relevant for the production of European statistics.\n3. To enhance the effectiveness of the provisions of this Article, each service of the Commission shall ensure that access to administrative data is granted to Eurostat upon request to the extent necessary for the development, production and dissemination of European statistics, in accordance with confidentiality rules established in Union legislation.\nArticle 10\nEuropean statistics Code of Practice\n1. In accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009, European statistics shall be developed, produced and disseminated by Eurostat in accordance with the European statistics Code of Practice as reviewed and updated by the European Statistical System Committee.\n2. Eurostat shall involve the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board in all actions concerning the European statistics Code of Practice in accordance with the mandate of the Board.\n3. Eurostat shall monitor the effective implementation of the European statistics Code of Practice by national statistical authorities.\nArticle 11\nQuality assurance and labelling\n1. Eurostat shall ensure the quality management of European statistics. For that purpose, and on the basis of established quality criteria, while answering user needs for statistics with different quality profiles, Eurostat shall:\n(a)\nmonitor and assess the quality of the data that it collects or receives, and report upon the quality of the European statistics that it disseminates;\n(b)\npromote and apply a labelling process for European statistics;\n(c)\nverify the data that are under Eurostat\u2019s responsibility in the context of the Union\u2019s enhanced economic governance and apply all the powers that have been specifically granted to Eurostat in the relevant procedures.\n2. Eurostat shall establish a quality assurance framework, reflecting the measures in place or to be taken in order to ensure the proper implementation of the European statistics Code of Practice.\nArticle 12\nUse of confidential data\n1. The Director-General of Eurostat shall take all necessary measures to ensure that statistical confidentiality is respected.\n2. Data that are considered confidential pursuant to Article 3(7) of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 shall, according to the provisions of Chapter V of the same Regulation, be accessible only to officials and other staff of Eurostat and other natural persons working for Eurostat under contract, wherever such data are necessary for the production of European statistics and within their specific domain of work.\n3. The Director-General of Eurostat shall, in addition, take all necessary measures to protect data whose disclosure would cause prejudice to Union interests, or to the interests of the Member State to which they relate.\nArticle 13\nRepeal\nDecision 97/281/EC is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Decision shall be construed as references to this Decision.\nDone at Brussels, 17 September 2012.", "references": ["55", "24", "17", "58", "0", "15", "29", "41", "2", "82", "1", "64", "13", "20", "6", "65", "12", "94", "68", "32", "63", "10", "85", "31", "98", "71", "79", "62", "66", "99", "No Label", "7", "19"], "gold": ["7", "19"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/58/EU\nof 23 August 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards an extension of the use of the active substance iprodione\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Directive 2003/31/EC (2) iprodione was included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(2)\nWhen applying for the inclusion of iprodione its sole notifier Bayer submitted data on uses as fungicide which supported the overall conclusion that it may be expected that plant protection products containing iprodione will fulfil the safety requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nIn addition to that use, another notifier Devgen has applied for an amendment to allow iprodione to be used as nematicide. In order to support such an extension of the use, the notifier Devgen submitted additional information.\n(4)\nFrance has evaluated the information submitted and informed the Commission on 12 January 2010 about its conclusions that the requested extension of use does not cause any risks in addition to those already taken into account in the specific provisions for iprodione in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and in the Commission review report for that substance. In particular, France has prepared several addenda to the assessment report in the concerned areas of the risk assessment, whose conclusions confirm the acceptability of such extension of use.\n(5)\nTherefore, it is justified to modify the specific provisions for iprodione.\n(6)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 24 December 2010 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 25 December 2010.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 August 2010.", "references": ["63", "88", "90", "84", "44", "46", "18", "76", "91", "35", "62", "70", "8", "52", "27", "67", "66", "94", "96", "53", "31", "80", "41", "33", "4", "34", "10", "69", "55", "92", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "42", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "42", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 167/2011\nof 21 February 2011\nterminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating, inter alia, in the Republic of Korea\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 11(3) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nThe measures currently in force are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 (2) on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating, inter alia, in the Republic of Korea (South Korea). For the Korean companies with individual duties, the duties in force are zero. The residual duty is 148,3 EUR/tonne.\n2. Request for a review\n(2)\nA request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation was lodged by the Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Committee of PlasticsEurope (the applicant), representing seven Union producers.\n(3)\nThe request was limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far as the exporting producer KP Chemical Group, composed of Honam Petrochemicals Corp. and KP Chemical Corp. (KP Chemical Group), is concerned, and of certain injury aspects.\n(4)\nThe applicant provided prima facie evidence showing that, as far as KP Chemical Group is concerned, the continued imposition of the measure at the current level of zero, is no longer sufficient to counteract the current injurious dumping.\n3. Initiation of a partial interim review\n(5)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) the initiation of a partial interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited to the examination of dumping and of certain injury aspects insofar as the KP Chemical Group is concerned.\n4. Product concerned and like product\n(6)\nThe product under review is polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in South Korea (the product concerned).\n(7)\nThe product concerned and sold on the Korean domestic market and that exported to the Union has the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics and uses and is therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n5. Parties concerned\n(8)\nThe Commission officially advised the exporting producer, representatives of the exporting country, Union producers and the applicant of the initiation of the partial interim review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time-limit set in the notice of initiation. All interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(9)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the exporting producer and the Union industry and received replies within the deadlines set for that purpose. The Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary. The Commission carried out verification visits at the premises of the KP Chemical Corp., South Korea; Honam Petrochemicals Corp, South Korea; Novapet SA, Spain; Equipolymers Srl, Italy; UAB Orion Global PET (Indorama), Lithuania; UAB Indorama Polymers Europe, Lithuania; UAB Neo Group, Lithuania; La Seda de Barcelona, S.A., Spain and M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Italy.\n6. Review investigation period\n(10)\nThe investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (review investigation period).\nB. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n(11)\nAs far as the determination of normal value is concerned, the Commission first established whether the total domestic sales of the product concerned made by KP Chemical Group were representative in comparison with its total export sales to the Union. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales are considered representative when the total domestic sales volume is at least 5 % of the total export sales volume to the Union. The Commission established that the product concerned, which was considered a homogenous product and not subdivided into different product types, was sold domestically by KP Chemical Group in overall representative volumes.\n(12)\nAn examination was also made as to whether the sales of the product concerned sold domestically in representative quantities could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, by establishing the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market. As it was found that there were sufficient sales in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was based on the actual domestic price of profitable sales.\n(13)\nAs the product concerned was exported directly to independent customers in the Union, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the basis of the export price actually paid or payable.\n(14)\nThe comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis.\n(15)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Allowances for differences in transport costs, freight and insurance costs, bank charges, packing costs and credit costs were granted where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.\n(16)\nPursuant to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price as established above.\n(17)\nThe dumping margin thus calculated is less than 2 %, expressed as a percentage of the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, duty unpaid, and shall therefore be considered de minimis in accordance with Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.\nC. LASTING NATURE OF CIRCUMSTANCES\n(18)\nLike the previous interim review which resulted in Regulation (EC) No 192/2007, the present interim review showed a dumping margin at a de minimis level for the KP Chemical Group.\n(19)\nNo indications were found that this de minimis margin would not be of a lasting nature, as the KP Chemical Group has been found to operate at a very high capacity utilisation rate (almost 100 %). In addition, the KP Chemical Group has no plans to increase their production capacity in South Korea. Indeed, the KP Chemical Group has acquired a production plant within the Union and is more likely to decrease its exports from South Korea.\n(20)\nTherefore the circumstances under which the dumping margin has been calculated in this investigation can be considered to be of a lasting nature.\nD. TERMINATION OF THE REVIEW\n(21)\nIn light of the above findings, the present review should be terminated without amending the level of the duty applicable to KP Chemical Group. In these circumstances, the injury aspects do not need to be addressed.\nE. DISCLOSURE\n(22)\nInterested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to terminate the present partial interim review. All parties were given the opportunity to comment. Comments were received from the Union industry, which however, were not of a nature to change the above conclusions.\nF. FINAL PROVISION\n(23)\nThis review should therefore be terminated without any amendment to Regulation (EC) No 192/2007,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating, inter alia, in the Republic of Korea, is hereby terminated without amending the measures in force.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2011.", "references": ["0", "10", "81", "38", "56", "62", "82", "58", "17", "54", "76", "51", "94", "70", "9", "99", "2", "28", "67", "71", "32", "98", "86", "89", "42", "40", "14", "30", "80", "46", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/137/CFSP\nof 28 February 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 February 2011, the European Union expressed its grave concern regarding the situation unfolding in Libya. The EU strongly condemned the violence and use of force against civilians and deplored the repression against peaceful demonstrators.\n(2)\nThe EU reiterated its call for an immediate end to the use of force and for steps to address the legitimate demands of the population.\n(3)\nOn 26 February 2011, the United Nations Security Council (\u2018the Security Council\u2019) adopted Resolution 1970 (\u2018UNSCR 1970 (2011)\u2019) which introduced restrictive measures against Libya and against persons and entities involved in serious human rights abuses against persons in Libya, including by being involved in attacks, in violation of international law, on civilian populations and facilities.\n(4)\nIn view of the seriousness of the situation in Libya, the EU considers it necessary to impose additional restrictive measures.\n(5)\nIn addition, further Union action is needed in order to implement certain measures.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer of arms and related material of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, as well as equipment which might be used for internal repression, to Libya by nationals of Member States or from or through the territories of Member States or using their flag vessels or aircraft, shall be prohibited whether originating or not in their territories.\n2. It shall be prohibited to:\n(a)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance, training or other assistance, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, related to military activities or to the provision, maintenance and use of items referred to in paragraph 1, to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Libya;\n(b)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, financial assistance related to military activities or to the provision, maintenance and use of items referred to in paragraph 1, to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Libya;\n(c)\nparticipate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities, the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) or (b).\nArticle 2\n1. Article 1 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nthe supply, sale or transfer of non-lethal military equipment or of equipment which might be used for internal repression, intended solely for humanitarian or protective use;\n(b)\nother supply, sale or transfer of arms and related material;\n(c)\nthe provision of technical assistance, training or other assistance, including personnel, related to such equipment;\n(d)\nthe provision of financial assistance related to such equipment;\nas approved in advance, where appropriate, by the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 24 of UNSCR 1970 (2011) (\u2018the Committee\u2019):\n2. Article 1 shall not apply to the supply, sale or transfer of protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to Libya by UN personnel, personnel of the European Union or its Member States, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only.\nArticle 3\nThe procurement by nationals of Member States, either using their flag vessels or aircraft, of the items referred to in Article 1(1) from Libya shall be prohibited, whether or not originating in the territory of Libya.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea and relevant international civil aviation agreements, all cargo to and from Libya, in their territory, including their seaports and airports, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under this Decision.\n2. Member States shall, upon discovery, seize and dispose of (such as through destruction, rendering inoperable, storage or transferring to a State other than the originating or destination States for disposal) items whose supply, sale, transfer or export is prohibited under this Decision.\n3. Member States shall cooperate, in accordance with their national legislation, with inspections and disposals undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2.\n4. Aircrafts and vessels transporting cargo to and from Libya shall be subject to the requirement of additional pre-arrival or pre-departure information for all goods brought into or out of a Member State.\nArticle 5\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of:\n(a)\npersons listed in Annex I to UNSCR 1970 (2011), and additional persons designated by the Security Council or by the Committee in accordance with paragraph 22 of UNSCR 1970 (2011), as listed in Annex I;\n(b)\npersons not covered by Annex I involved in or complicit in ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, the commission of serious human rights abuses against persons in Libya, including by being involved in or complicit in planning, commanding, ordering or conducting attacks, in violation of international law, including aerial bombardments, on civilian populations and facilities, or acting for or on their behalf or at their direction, as listed in Annex II.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1(a) shall not apply where the Committee determines that:\n(a)\ntravel is justified on the grounds of humanitarian need, including religious obligation; or\n(b)\nan exemption would further the objectives of peace and national reconciliation in Libya and stability in the region;\n4. Paragraph 1(a) shall not apply where:\n(a)\nentry or transit is necessary for the fulfilment of a judicial process; or\n(b)\na Member State determines on a case-by-case basis that such entry or transit is required to advance peace and stability in Libya and the Member State subsequently notifies the Committee within forty-eight hours after making such a determination.\n5. Paragraph 1(b) shall be without prejudice to the cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation of international law, namely:\n(a)\nas a host country to an international intergovernmental organisation;\n(b)\nas a host country to an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the UN;\n(c)\nunder a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities; or\n(d)\nunder the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran pact) concluded by the Holy See (State of the Vatican City) and Italy.\n6. Paragraph 5 shall be considered as applying also in cases where a Member State is host country to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).\n7. The Council shall be duly informed in all cases where a Member State grants an exemption pursuant to paragraphs 5 or 6.\n8. Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed under paragraph 1(b) where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the Union, or hosted by a Member State holding the Chairmanship in office of the OSCE, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Libya.\n9. A Member State wishing to grant exemptions referred to in paragraph 8 shall notify the Council in writing. The exemption shall be deemed to be granted unless one or more Council members raise an objection in writing within two working days of receiving notification of the proposed exemption. Should one or more Council members raise an objection, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to grant the proposed exemption.\n10. In cases where, pursuant to paragraphs 5, 6, and 8, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in the Annex, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\nArticle 6\n1. All funds, other financial assets and economic resources, owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by:\n(a)\npersons and entities listed in Annex II to UNSCR 1970 (2011), and additional persons and entities designated by the Security Council or by the Committee in accordance with paragraph 22 of UNSCR 1970 (2011), or by individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them, as listed in Annex III;\n(b)\npersons and entities not covered by Annex III involved in or complicit in ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, the commission of serious human rights abuses against persons in Libya, including by being involved in or complicit in planning, commanding, ordering or conducting attacks, in violation of international law, including aerial bombardments, on civilian populations and facilities, or by individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them, as listed in Annex IV,\nshall be frozen.\n2. No funds, other financial assets or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of, natural or legal persons or entities referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. Exemptions may be made for funds, financial assets and economic resources which are:\n(a)\nnecessary for basic expenses, including payment of foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services in accordance with national laws; or\n(c)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges, in accordance with national laws, for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds, other financial assistance and economic resources;\nafter notification by the Member State concerned to the Committee, where appropriate, of the intention to authorise access to such funds, other financial assets or economic resources and in the absence of a negative decision by the Committee within five working days of such notification.\n4. Exemptions may also be made for funds and economic resources which are:\n(a)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, after notification by the Member State concerned to the Committee, where appropriate, and approval by the Committee; or\n(b)\nthe subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien or judgement, in which case the funds, other financial assets and economic resources may be used to satisfy that lien or judgement provided that the lien or judgement was entered before the date of adoption of UNSCR 1970 (2011), and is not for the benefit of a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1, after notification by the Member State concerned to the Committee, where appropriate;\n5. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent a designated person or entity from making payment due under a contract entered into before the listing of such a person or entity, provided that the relevant Member State has determined that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1 and after notification by the relevant Member State to the Committee, where appropriate, of the intention to make or receive such payments or to authorise the unfreezing of funds, other financial assets or economic resources for this purpose, 10 working days prior to such authorisation.\n6. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings due on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that arose before the date on which those accounts became subject to restrictive measures;\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to paragraph 1.\nArticle 7\nNo claims, including for compensation or any other claim of this kind, such as a claim of set-off or a claim under a guarantee, in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which was affected, directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, by reason of measures decided upon pursuant to UNSCR 1970 (2011), including measures of the Union or any Member State in accordance with, as required by or in any connection with, the implementation of the relevant decisions of the Security Council or measures covered by this Decision, shall be granted to the designated persons or entities listed in Annexes I, II, III or IV, or any other person or entity in Libya, including the Government of Libya, or any person or entity claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or entity.\nArticle 8\n1. The Council shall implement modifications to Annexes I and III on the basis of the determinations made by the Security Council or by the Committee.\n2. The Council, acting on a proposal from Member States or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall establish the lists in Annexes II and IV and adopt modifications thereto.\nArticle 9\n1. Where the Security Council or the Committee lists a person or entity, the Council shall include such person or entity in Annexes I or III.\n2. Where the Council decides to subject a person or entity to the measures referred to in Articles 5(1)(b) and 6(1)(b), it shall amend Annexes II and IV accordingly.\n3. The Council shall communicate its decision to the person or entity referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, including the grounds for listing, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person or entity an opportunity to present observations.\n4. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person or entity accordingly.\nArticle 10\n1. Annexes I, II, III and IV shall include the grounds for listing of listed persons and entities concerned, as provided by the Security Council or by the Committee with regard to Annexes I and III.\n2. Annexes I, II, III and IV shall also contain, where available, the information necessary to identify the persons or entities concerned, as provided by the Security Council or by the Committee with regard to Annexes I and III. With regard to persons, such information may include names, including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address if known, and function or profession. With regard to entities, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. Annexes I and III shall also include the date of designation by the Security Council or by the Committee.\nArticle 11\nIn order to maximise the impact of the measures laid down in this Decision , the Union shall encourage third States to adopt similar restrictive measures.\nArticle 12\n1. This Decision shall be reviewed, amended or repealed as appropriate, notably in the light of relevant decisions by the Security Council.\n2. The measures referred to in Articles 5(1)(b) and 6(1)(b) shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months. They shall cease to apply in respect of the persons and entities concerned if the Council determines, in accordance with the procedure referred in Article 8(2), that the conditions for their application are no longer met.\nArticle 13\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["25", "89", "39", "40", "45", "92", "87", "33", "42", "73", "63", "55", "64", "52", "59", "1", "10", "78", "91", "17", "68", "34", "37", "99", "7", "36", "67", "98", "15", "84", "No Label", "3", "4", "6", "11", "12", "14", "76", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "6", "11", "12", "14", "76", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1204/2010\nof 16 December 2010\namending for the 142nd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 07 December 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add one natural person to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply and on 30 November 2010 amended two entries on the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2010.", "references": ["13", "20", "96", "10", "22", "62", "50", "2", "83", "35", "45", "70", "65", "24", "57", "12", "63", "71", "77", "93", "82", "73", "56", "54", "91", "7", "21", "39", "25", "38", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "11", "23", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "11", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1024/2011\nof 14 October 2011\namending for the 159th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 5 October 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add one natural person to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2011.", "references": ["86", "63", "20", "18", "38", "60", "91", "10", "29", "57", "4", "22", "9", "11", "98", "5", "50", "92", "35", "80", "79", "66", "99", "41", "61", "97", "78", "44", "13", "19", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/2/EU\nof 7 January 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include myclobutanil as active substance and amending Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included myclobutanil.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of myclobutanil.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Article 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Belgium, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nBelgium evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 22 October 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on myclobutanil to the Commission on 11 July 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 23 November 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for myclobutanil.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing myclobutanil may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include myclobutanil in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information on the residues of myclobutanil and its metabolites in following growing seasons and information confirming that the available residue data cover all compounds of the residue definition.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing myclobutanil to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of myclobutanil and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning myclobutanil in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning myclobutanil in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing myclobutanil as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to myclobutanil are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing myclobutanil as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account Part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning myclobutanil. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing myclobutanil as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing myclobutanil as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 January 2011.", "references": ["97", "27", "40", "81", "12", "36", "18", "48", "38", "89", "66", "33", "63", "15", "95", "52", "56", "31", "34", "94", "57", "86", "21", "75", "51", "79", "20", "28", "92", "72", "No Label", "2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 625/2010\nof 15 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 July 2010.", "references": ["93", "55", "46", "37", "7", "65", "20", "71", "62", "38", "28", "48", "98", "86", "53", "33", "0", "66", "87", "16", "49", "22", "58", "50", "89", "77", "31", "43", "9", "83", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 June 2010\nconcerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC\n(notified under document C(2010) 4199)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/355/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Decision 2007/629/EC (2) it was decided not to include the active substance trifluralin in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That Decision was taken within the framework of the second stage of the programme of work provided for in Commission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (3) and (EC) No 703/2001 (4) which lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and which establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(2)\nThe original notifier submitted a new application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5). It requested the application of the accelerated procedure pursuant to Articles 13 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and submitted an updated dossier. The application was submitted to Greece, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000.\n(3)\nThat application complies with the substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and was submitted within the time period provided for in the second sentence of Article 13 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nGreece evaluated the new information and data submitted by the notifier and prepared an additional report on 7 January 2009.\n(5)\nThe additional report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter EFSA, and presented to the Commission on 14 July 2009 in the format of the EFSA Scientific Report for trifluralin (6). This report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 May 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for trifluralin.\n(6)\nThe new assessment by the rapporteur Member State and the new conclusion by the EFSA concentrated on the concerns that lead to the non-inclusion, which were due to the high risk for aquatic organisms, especially fish, the toxicity of metabolites to sediment dwelling organisms, the consumer exposure for non-cereal applications, the high persistence in soil, the high potential for bioaccumulation, and the potential for long range transport via air.\n(7)\nNew data and information were submitted by the notifier in the updated dossier, in particular as regards the aquatic risk assessment, especially fish, the toxicity of metabolites to sediment dwelling organisms, the high persistence in soil and the high potential for bioaccumulation. In order to reduce the risk to consumers, the notifier, in the context of the resubmission, only supported applications on oil seed rape. As regards the potential for long range transport via air, the submitted data simply reproduced a monitoring report which already figured in the original dossier. A new assessment was performed, as included in the additional report and in the EFSA Scientific Report for trifluralin.\n(8)\nHowever, the additional data and information provided by the notifier did not permit to eliminate all the specific concerns that led to the non-inclusion.\n(9)\nIn particular, the concern on potential high risk for aquatic organisms, especially fish, could not be solved due to shortcomings in the newly submitted studies. As a consequence, the surface water risk assessment could not be finalised. Furthermore, the potential for long range transport via air has not been adequately elucidated by the produced information which was of an obsolete nature.\n(10)\nThe Commission invited the notifier to submit its comments on the results of the peer review. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) to Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the notifier to submit comments on the draft review report and in particular on the remaining concerns for the aquatic risk and the potential for long range transport. The notifier submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(11)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the notifier, the concerns identified could not be eliminated, and assessments made on the basis of the information submitted and evaluated during the EFSA expert meetings have not demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing trifluralin satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(12)\nTrifluralin should therefore not be included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(13)\nDecision 2007/629/EC should be repealed.\n(14)\nThis Decision does not prejudice the submission of a further application for trifluralin pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nTrifluralin shall not be included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2007/629/EC is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 June 2010.", "references": ["86", "63", "36", "94", "47", "73", "92", "83", "78", "97", "38", "66", "43", "3", "50", "76", "18", "69", "74", "80", "34", "90", "71", "12", "67", "27", "57", "62", "87", "1", "No Label", "20", "25", "48", "60", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "48", "60", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 23 November 2011\non the allocation to Spain and France of additional days at sea within ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa excluding the Gulf of Cadiz\n(notified under document C(2011) 8303)\n(Only the French and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(2011/760/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (1) and in particular points 7.1, 7.3 and 7.6 of Annex IIB thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPoint 5.1 of Annex IIB to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 specifies the maximum number of days on which EU vessels of an overall length equal to or greater than 10 meters carrying on board the regulated gears (trawls, Danish seines and similar gears of mesh size equal to or lager than 32 mm and gill-nets of mesh size equal to or larger than 60 mm and bottom long-lines) may be present within ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa excluding the Gulf of Cadiz from 1 February 2011 to 31 January 2012.\n(2)\nPoint 7.1 of Annex IIB to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 allows the Commission to allocate an additional number of days at sea on which a vessel may be authorised by its flag Member State to be present within the area when carrying on board any regulated gear, on the basis of permanent cessations of fishing activities that have taken place between 1 February 2010 and 31 January 2011.\n(3)\nPoint 7.6 of Annex IIB to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 allows the Commission to exceptionally allocate additional days during the 2011 management period on the basis of permanent cessations of fishing activities that have taken place from 1 February 2004 to 31 January 2010 and which have not been subject of prior request for additional days.\n(4)\nOn 3 and 21 June 2011 Spain submitted requests in accordance with point 7.2 of that Annex including data showing that eight fishing vessels have permanently ceased activities between 1 February 2004 and 31 January 2010 and three fishing vessels have permanently ceased activities between 1 February 2010 and 31 January 2011, and which have not been subject of prior request for additional days. In view of the data submitted and having regard to the calculation method laid down in the second subparagraph of point 7.1 of that Annex, 9 additional days at sea for the vessels referred to in point 1 of that Annex should be allocated to Spain for the period from 1 February 2011 to 31 January 2012.\n(5)\nOn 14 July 2011 France submitted a request in accordance with point 7.2 of that Annex including data showing that six fishing vessels have permanently ceased activities from 1 February 2004 to 31 January 2010 and which have not been subject of prior request for additional days. In view of the data submitted and having regard to the calculation method laid down in the second subparagraph of point 7.1 of that Annex, 23 additional days at sea for the vessels referred to in point 1 of that Annex should be allocated to France for the period from 1 February 2011 to 31 January 2012.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe maximum number of days at sea for which a vessel flying the flag of Spain may be authorised to be present in ICES divisions VIIIc and IXa excluding the Gulf of Cadiz carrying on board any regulated gear and not subject to any of the special conditions listed in point 5.2 of Annex IIB to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011, as laid down in Table I of that Annex, shall be increased to 167 days per year.\nArticle 2\nThe maximum number of days at sea for which a vessel flying the flag of France may be authorised to be present in ICES divisions VIIIc and IXa excluding the Gulf of Cadiz carrying on board any regulated gear and not subject to any of the special conditions listed in point 5.2 of Annex IIB to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011, as laid down in Table I of that Annex, shall be increased to 165 days per year.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain and to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 23 November 2011.", "references": ["2", "80", "28", "70", "43", "27", "51", "61", "33", "4", "93", "71", "32", "87", "57", "9", "49", "90", "53", "22", "35", "78", "19", "92", "16", "73", "7", "5", "75", "55", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/82/EU\nof 29 November 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards an extension of the use of the active substance tetraconazole\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Council Directive 2009/82/EC (2) tetraconazole was included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/CEE for use as a fungicide.\n(2)\nHowever, the inclusion of tetraconazole is limited to uses on field crops with a restricted rate and timing of application. Uses on apples and grapes are entirely excluded. Those restrictions were necessary because at the time of inclusion the information required for the groundwater assessment was insufficient, in particular as regards the risk of contamination by two metabolites which had not been identified by the notifier. As regards uses on apples and grapes, the information necessary for the assessment of the risk to consumers was incomplete.\n(3)\nThe notifier Isagro has requested an amendment to the inclusion of tetraconazole extending its use as a fungicide by removing those restrictions. It has submitted further scientific data in support of its request.\n(4)\nItaly which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) assessed those data and submitted to the Commission on 10 February 2010 an addendum to the draft assessment report on tetraconazole, which was circulated for comments to the other Member States and to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The draft assessment report together with that addendum was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 October 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for tetraconazole.\n(5)\nThe new data submitted by the notifier and the new assessment carried out by the rapporteur Member State indicate that the requested extension of use does not cause any risks in addition to those already taken into account in the specific provisions for tetraconazole in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and in the Commission review report for that substance. In particular as regards the risk of groundwater contamination, the rapporteur Member State considered that the new study submitted by the notifier identifies those metabolites and that there is no unacceptable leaching. Concerning use on apples and grapes, it concluded that, as completed by the new supervised and field trials, the residue data show that there are no risks as regards the acute and chronic intake by consumers.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, it is therefore justified to modify the specific provisions for tetraconazole by removing the restrictions on its use as a fungicide.\n(7)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, in the column \u2018Specific provisions\u2019 of the row for \u2018Tetraconazole\u2019, Part A is replaced by the following:\n\u2018PART A\nOnly uses as fungicide may be authorised.\u2019\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31 March 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 April 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2010.", "references": ["13", "87", "43", "84", "77", "59", "58", "8", "37", "75", "3", "9", "41", "16", "12", "10", "81", "50", "32", "35", "72", "73", "95", "20", "67", "71", "34", "79", "1", "40", "No Label", "2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 231/2012\nof 9 March 2012\nlaying down specifications for food additives listed in Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Articles 14 and 30(4) thereof, and Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (2), and in particular Article 7(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSpecifications relating to origin, purity criteria and any other necessary information should be adopted for food additives listed in the Union lists in Annex II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.\n(2)\nTo that end, specifications previously developed for food additives in Commission Directive 2008/128/EC of 22 December 2008 laying down specific purity criteria concerning colours for use in foodstuffs (3), Commission Directive 2008/84/EC of 27 August 2008 laying down specific purity criteria on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (4) and Commission Directive 2008/60/EC of 17 June 2008 laying down specific purity criteria concerning sweeteners for use in foodstuffs (5) should be updated and taken over to this Regulation. As a consequence, those Directives should be repealed.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to take into account the specifications and analytical techniques as set out in the Codex Alimentarius drafted by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (hereafter JECFA).\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) expressed its opinion on the safety of basic methacrylate copolymer (6) as a glazing agent. That food additive has subsequently been authorised on the basis of specific uses and has been allocated the number E 1205. Therefore specifications should be adopted for that food additive.\n(5)\nFood colours ethyl ester of beta-apo-8'-carotenic acid (E 160 f), and brown FK (E 154), as well as the aluminium containing carrier bentonite (E 558) are not used any more according to information submitted by food manufacturers. Therefore, current specifications for those food additives should not be taken over to this Regulation.\n(6)\nOn 10 February 2010 the Authority expressed an opinion on the safety of sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) prepared from vinyl esters of fatty acids (7). Current specifications should be adapted accordingly in particular by reducing maximum limits for impurities of safety concern.\n(7)\nSpecific purity criteria currently applicable should be adapted by reducing maximum limits for individual heavy metals of interest where feasible and where the JECFA limits are lower than those currently in force. Pursuant to that approach maximum limits for the contaminant 4-methylimidazole in ammonia caramel (E 150 c), sulphated ash in beta-carotene (E 160 a (i)), and magnesium and alkali salts in calcium carbonate (E 170), should be lowered. That approach should be departed from only for additives trisodium citrate (E 331 (iii)) (lead content), carrageenan (E 407) and processed euchema seaweed (E407 a) (cadmium content), as manufacturers have declared that compliance with stricter Union provisions, reflecting JECFA limits, would not be technically feasible. The contribution to the total intake of those two contaminants (lead and cadmium) in those three individual food additives is not considered to be significant. On the contrary for phosphates (E 338-E 341 and E 450-E 452) new significantly lower values, compared to the ones indicated by JECFA, should be established due to new developments of the manufacturing processes, by taking into account the recent recommendations of the Authority on a reduction of the intake of arsenic, especially in the inorganic form (8). In addition, a new provision on arsenic for glutamic acid (E 620) should be introduced for safety reasons. The total balance of those adaptations benefits the consumers as maximum limits for heavy metals are becoming stricter in general and in most of the food additives. Detailed information on the production process and starting materials of a food additive should be included in the specifications to facilitate any future decision pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.\n(8)\nSpecifications should not make reference to organoleptic tests related to the taste as it cannot be expected by the control authorities to take the risk to taste a chemical substance.\n(9)\nSpecifications should not make reference to classes as there is no added value in this reference.\n(10)\nSpecifications should not make reference to the general parameter \u2018Heavy metals\u2019 as this parameter does not relate with toxicity, but rather with a generic analytical method. Parameters related to individual heavy metals are toxicity related and are included in the specifications.\n(11)\nSome food additives are currently listed under various names (carboxy methyl cellulose (E 466), cross-linked sodium carboxymethylcellulose (E 468), enzymatically hydrolised carboxymethylcellulose (E 469) and beeswax, white and yellow (E 901)) in various provisions of Directive 95/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (9). Therefore the specifications established by this Regulation should refer to those various names.\n(12)\nCurrent provisions on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) are too generic and not relevant to safety and should be replaced by maximum limits for individual PAHs of concern for food additives vegetable carbon (E 153) and microcrystalline wax (E 905). Similar maximum limits should be established for formaldehyde in carageenan (E 407) and processed euchema seaweed (E 407 a), for particular microbiological criteria in agar (E 406) and for Salmonella spp. content in mannitol (E 421 (ii)) manufactured by fermentation.\n(13)\nThe use of propan-2-ol (isopropanol, isopropyl alcohol) should be allowed for manufacturing the additives curcumin (E 100) and paprika extract (E 160 c), in line with JECFA specifications, as this particular use has been considered safe by the Authority (10). The use of ethanol in replacement of propan-2-ol in the manufacturing of gellan gum (E 418) should be permitted where the final product still complies with all other specifications and ethanol is considered to be of less safety concern.\n(14)\nThe percentage of the colouring principle in cochineal, carminic acid, carmines (E 120) should be specified, as maximum limits are to apply to quantities of that principle.\n(15)\nThe numbering system for subcategories of carotenes (E 160 a) should be updated in order to bring it in line with the Codex Alimentarius numbering system.\n(16)\nThe solid form of lactic acid (E 270) should also be included in the specifications, as it can now be manufactured in the solid form and there is no safety concern.\n(17)\nThe current temperature value in loss on drying for monosodium citrate (E 331 (i)), anhydrous form should be adjusted as under the currently listed conditions the substance decomposes. Drying conditions for trisodium citrate (E 331 (iii)) should also be adjusted to improve the reproducibility of the method.\n(18)\nThe current specific absorption value for alpha-tocopherol (E 307) should be corrected and the sublimation point for sorbic acid (E 200) should be replaced by a \u2018solubility test\u2019 as the former is not relevant. The specification of bacterial sources for the manufacturing of nisin (E 234) and natamycin (E 235) should be updated according to the current taxonomic nomenclature.\n(19)\nAs new innovative manufacturing techniques resulting in less contaminated food additives are now available, the presence of aluminium in food additives should be restricted. In order to enhance legal certainty and non-discrimination it is appropriate to provide the manufacturers of food additives with a transitional period to adapt gradually to those restrictions.\n(20)\nMaximum limits for aluminium should be established for food additives where relevant, and particularly for calcium phosphates (E 341 (i)-(iii)) intended to be used in food for infants and young children (11), according to the relevant opinion of Scientific Committee on Food expressed on 7 June 1996 (12). In this framework a maximum limit for aluminum in calcium citrate (E 333) should also be established.\n(21)\nThe maximum limits for aluminium in calcium phosphates (E 341 (i)-(iii)), disodium diphosphate (E 450 (i)) and calcium dihydrogen diphosphate (E 450 (vii)) should be in accordance with the opinion of the Authority of 22 May 2008 (13). Current limits should be reduced, where this is technically feasible, and where the contribution to the total aluminium intake is significant. In this framework aluminium lakes of individual food colours should be authorised only if technically needed.\n(22)\nProvisions on maximum limits for aluminium in dicalcium phosphate (E 341 (ii)), tricalcium phosphate (E 341 (iii)) and calcium dihydrogen diphosphate (E 450 (vii)) should not cause any disruption of the market, due to a possible lack of supplies.\n(23)\nAccording to Commission Regulation (EU) No 258/2010 of 25 March 2010 imposing special conditions on the imports of guar gum originating in or consigned from India due to contamination risks by pentachlorophenol and dioxins (14), maximum limits should be set for the contaminant pentachlorophenol in guar gum (E 412).\n(24)\nAccording to recital 48 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (15) Member States are requested to examine other foodstuffs than the ones included in that Regulation for the occurrence of contaminant 3-MCPD in order to consider the need to set maximum levels for that substance. French authorities have submitted data on high concentrations of 3-MCPD in the food additive glycerol (E 422) and the average use level of this food additive in various food categories. Maximum limits for 3-MCPD in this particular food additive should be set in order to avoid contamination of the final food at a higher than permissible level, taking into account the dilution factor.\n(25)\nDue to the development of analytical methods certain current specifications should be updated. The current limit value \u2018not detectable\u2019 is linked to the evolution of analytical methodologies and should be replaced by a specific number for additives acid esters of mono- and diglycerides (E 472 a-f), polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (E 475) and propane-1,2-diol esters of fatty acids (E 477).\n(26)\nSpecifications relating to the manufacturing procedure should be updated for citric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 472 c), as the use of alkaline bases is replaced today by the use of their milder acting salts.\n(27)\nThe current criterion \u2018free fatty acids\u2019 for additives citric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 472 c) and mono- and diacetyltartaric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 472 e) is not appropriate. It should be replaced by the criterion \u2018acid value\u2019 as the latter expresses better the titrimetric estimation of the free acidic groups. This is in accordance with the 71st report on food additives from JECFA (16) where such change was adopted for mono- and diacetyltartaric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 472 e).\n(28)\nThe current erroneous description of additive magnesium oxide (E 530) should be corrected according to information submitted by the manufacturers, in order to bring it in line with the Pharmacopoeia Europea (17). The current maximum value for the reducing matter in additive gluconic acid (E 574) should also be updated as this limit is not technically feasible. For the estimation of the water content of xylitol (E 967) the current method based on \u2018loss on drying\u2019, should be replaced by a more appropriate method.\n(29)\nSome current specifications for additive candelilla wax (E 902) should not be taken over to this Regulation since they are erratic. For calcium dihydrogen diphosphate (E 450 (vii)) the current entry concerning P2O5 content should be corrected.\n(30)\nIn the current entry \u2018assay\u2019 for thaumatin (E 957) a calculation factor should be corrected. That factor is to be used in the Kjeldahl method for the estimation of the total content of the substance based on the measurement of nitrogen. The calculation factor should be updated according to the relevant published literature for thaumatin (E 957).\n(31)\nThe Authority evaluated the safety of steviol glycosides, as a sweetener and expressed its opinion of 10 March 2010 (18). The use of steviol glycosides, which have been allocated number E 960, has subsequently been permitted on the basis of well defined conditions of use. Therefore specifications should be adopted for this food additive.\n(32)\nDue to a taxonomic change, current specifications for source materials (yeasts) used in the manufacturing of erythritol (E 968) should be updated.\n(33)\nFor quillaia extract (E 999) the current specification relating to the pH range should be adjusted in order to bring it in line with JECFA.\n(34)\nThe combination of citric acid and phosphoric acid (which are currently both individually authorised for use in the manufacturing of additive polydextrose (E 1200)), should be allowed, where the final product still complies with the purity specifications, as it improves yields and results to more controllable reaction kinetics. There is no safety concern involved in such amendment.\n(35)\nUnlike for small molecules, the molecular mass of a polymer is not one unique value. A given polymer may have a distribution of molecules with different masses. The distribution may depend on the way the polymer is produced. Polymer physical properties and behaviors are related to the mass and to the distribution of molecules with a certain mass in the mixture. A group of mathematical models describe the mixture in different ways in order to clarify the distribution of molecules in the mixture. Among the different models available, it is recommended in scientific literature to use the weight average molecular weight (Mw) to describe polymers. The specifications for polyvinylpyrrolidone (E 1201) should be adjusted accordingly.\n(36)\nThe criterion \u2018Distillation range\u2019 referred to in current specifications for propane-1,2 diol (E 1520) leads to contradictory conclusions compared to results from the assay. That criterion should therefore be corrected and renamed into \u2018Distillation test\u2019.\n(37)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSpecifications for food additives\nSpecifications for food additives including colours and sweeteners listed in Annex II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 are laid down in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRepeals\nDirectives 2008/60/EC, 2008/84/EC and 2008/128/EC are repealed with effect from 1 December 2012.\nArticle 3\nTransitional measures\nFoodstuffs containing food additives that have been lawfully placed on the market before 1 December 2012, but do not comply with this Regulation, may continue to be marketed until stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 December 2012.\nHowever, the specifications laid down in the Annex for additives steviol glycosides (E 960) and basic methacrylate copolymer (E 1205) shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2012.", "references": ["10", "76", "23", "13", "6", "19", "97", "61", "96", "70", "39", "29", "24", "47", "16", "75", "81", "9", "64", "15", "54", "85", "22", "49", "41", "31", "60", "14", "5", "7", "No Label", "38", "72", "73", "74"], "gold": ["38", "72", "73", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 619/2012\nof 10 July 2012\namending for the 173rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 2 July 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one natural person and one entity from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply after considering the de-listing requests submitted by this person and this entity and the Comprehensive Reports of the Ombudsperson established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1904(2009).\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["20", "88", "41", "21", "34", "33", "23", "62", "91", "11", "79", "56", "95", "26", "50", "24", "70", "7", "99", "64", "2", "0", "29", "66", "94", "89", "31", "8", "84", "25", "No Label", "1", "3"], "gold": ["1", "3"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 34/2011\nof 18 January 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 288/2009 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the Community aid for supplying fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables and banana products to children in educational establishments, in the framework of a School Fruit Scheme\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 103h(f) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 288/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules for the European School Fruit Scheme established by Article 103ga of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. In the light of the experience of the School Fruit Scheme's first year of implementation and in order to facilitate its implementation by the Member States, a number of provisions of Regulation (EC) No 288/2009 should be amended.\n(2)\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 288/2009 lays down rules on aid for the supply of fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables and banana products to children in the framework of the School Fruit Scheme, including rules on the allocation and reallocation of the aid. In order to assist the Member States in making their aid application and to ensure that there are no doubts in respect of the amount of aid applied for, an aid application should be submitted by the Member States together with their strategy using a precise form.\n(3)\nValue added tax should under no circumstances be considered as expenditure eligible for the Union aid referred to in Article 103ga of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. As clear rules on the eligibility of expenditure are necessary for financial management and control purposes, the rules on the eligible costs under the School Fruit Scheme should be clarified in this respect.\n(4)\nArticle 5(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) of Regulation (EC) No 288/2009 provides for the eligibility of costs related to monitoring and evaluation and communication, respectively. Article 7 provides for the general conditions for approval of aid applicants. In order to ensure a more flexible implementation of the School Fruit Scheme, Article 7 should be amended, so as to ensure that services related to monitoring, evaluation and communication may be provided by aid applicants that do not themselves use or deliver the products financed under the School Fruit Scheme.\n(5)\nArticle 14 of Regulation (EC) No 288/2009 provides for the use of a European \u2018School Fruit Scheme\u2019 poster. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, references to the \u2018European Community\u2019 should be replaced by \u2018European Union\u2019. At the same time, Member States should be allowed to continue using previously produced posters and other tools of information during a reasonable period of time.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 288/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 4(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States setting up a School Fruit Scheme may apply for the aid referred to in Article 103ga of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for one or more periods running from 1 August to 31 July, by notifying the Commission of their strategy by 31 January of the year in which the first period starts. The strategy shall be accompanied by the aid application drawn up in accordance with the model set out in Annex IIa, also where a strategy covers more than one year.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 5(1), the introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The following costs, excluding value added tax (VAT), are eligible for the Union aid referred to in Article 103ga of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007:\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 6(2)(e), point (ii) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(ii)\nthe monitoring, evaluation and/or communication.\u2019;\n(4)\nin the first paragraph of Article 7, the following new point (aa) is inserted:\n\u2018(aa)\nto use the aid for the monitoring and evaluation of the School Fruit Scheme as referred to in Article 12 or for communication;\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 10(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nat the end of point (b) the term \u2018and\u2019 is deleted;\n(b)\nthe following new point (d) is added:\n\u2018(d)\nthe supporting documents to be defined by the Member States.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 14 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 14\nEuropean \u201cSchool Fruit Scheme\u201d poster\n1. Member States participating in the European \u201cSchool Fruit Scheme\u201d shall communicate to the public that the scheme has received financial support from the European Union. In this respect, Member States may make use of a poster produced in accordance with the minimum requirements laid down in Annex III, which shall be permanently situated at a clearly visible and legible place at the main entrance of the participating educational establishment.\n2. Where Member States decide not to make use of the poster referred to in paragraph 1, they shall clearly explain in their strategy how they will inform the public about the European Union's financial contribution to their scheme. Websites or any other instrument of information or publicity on a Member State's School Fruit Scheme shall in any event exhibit the European flag and mention the European \u201cSchool Fruit Scheme\u201d and the financial support of the European Union.\n3. References to the financial contribution made available by the European Union shall receive at least the same visibility as contributions from other private or public entities supporting a Member State's scheme.\n4. Member States may continue to use posters and the other tools of information printed prior to 31 January 2011 on the basis of the legislation applicable at the time of their production, until 31 August 2012.\u2019;\n(7)\nArticle 15 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, second subparagraph, point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe results of the monitoring exercise, as provided for in Article 12(1);\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Where a Member State changes the strategy referred to in Article 3, it shall notify the Commission of its new strategy, by e-mail to the address referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 and at the latest by 31 January of the following year.\u2019;\n(8)\na new Annex IIa, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation, is inserted;\n(9)\nin Annex III, the last indent is replaced by the following:\n\u2018 \u201cOur [type of educational establishment (e.g. nursery/pre-school/school)] participates in the European \u2018School Fruit Scheme\u2019 with the financial support of the European Union.\u201d The poster shall bear the emblem of the European Union.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["13", "85", "63", "46", "44", "5", "95", "93", "81", "22", "33", "14", "18", "51", "83", "15", "34", "79", "92", "37", "47", "21", "11", "32", "53", "75", "87", "94", "36", "70", "No Label", "1", "9", "38", "61", "68"], "gold": ["1", "9", "38", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 437/2012\nof 23 May 2012\ninitiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China by imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not, and making such imports subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Articles 13(3) and 14(5) thereof,\nAfter having consulted the Advisory Committee in accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation,\nWhereas:\nA. REQUEST\n(1)\nThe European Commission (\u2027the Commission\u2027) has received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China and to make imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not, subject to registration.\n(2)\nThe request was lodged on 10 April 2012 by Saint-Gobain Adfors CZ s.r.o., Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgozo, Valmieras \"Stikla Skiedra\" AS and Vitrulan Technical Textiles GmbH, four Union producers of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres.\nB. PRODUCT\n(3)\nThe product concerned by the possible circumvention is open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35g/m2, excluding glass fibre discs, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00 (\u2027the product concerned\u2027).\n(4)\nThe product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but consigned from Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not, currently falling within the same CN codes as the product concerned.\nC. EXISTING MEASURES\n(5)\nThe measures currently in force and possibly being circumvented are anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 (2).\nD. GROUNDS\n(6)\nThe request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China are being circumvented by means of transhipment via Taiwan and Thailand.\n(7)\nThe prima facie evidence submitted is as follows:\n(8)\nThe request shows that a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the People's Republic of China, Taiwan and Thailand to the Union has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned, without sufficient due cause or justification for such a change other than the imposition of the duty.\n(9)\nThis change appears to stem from the transhipment of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China via Taiwan and Thailand to the Union.\n(10)\nFurthermore, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned are being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. Significant volumes of imports of the product under investigation appear to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, there is sufficient evidence that imports of the product under investigation are made at prices below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures.\n(11)\nFinally, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the prices of the product under investigation are dumped in relation to the normal value previously established for the product concerned.\n(12)\nShould circumvention practices via Taiwan and Thailand covered by Article 13 of the basic Regulation, other than transhipment, be identified in the course of the investigation, the investigation may also cover these practices.\nE. PROCEDURE\n(13)\nIn light of the above, the Commission has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation and to make imports of the product under investigation, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not, subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(a) Questionnaires\n(14)\nIn order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the known exporters/producers and to the known associations of exporters/producers in Taiwan and Thailand, to the known exporters/producers and to the known associations of exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China, to the known importers and to the known associations of importers in the Union and to the authorities of the People's Republic of China, Taiwan and Thailand. Information, as appropriate, may also be sought from the Union industry.\n(15)\nIn any event, all interested parties should contact the Commission forthwith, but not later than the time-limit set in Article 3 of this Regulation, and request a questionnaire within the time-limit set in Article 3(1) of this Regulation, given that the time-limit set in Article 3(2) of this Regulation applies to all interested parties.\n(16)\nThe authorities of the People's Republic of China, Taiwan and Thailand will be notified of the initiation of the investigation.\n(b) Collection of information and holding of hearings\n(17)\nAll interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\n(c) Exemption of registration of imports or measures\n(18)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation may be exempted from registration or measures if the importation does not constitute circumvention.\n(19)\nSince the possible circumvention takes place outside the Union, exemptions may be granted, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, to producers in Taiwan and Thailand of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35g/m2, excluding glass fibre discs, that can show that they are not related (3) to any producer subject to the measures (4) and that are found not to be engaged in circumvention practices as defined in Articles 13(1) and 13(2) of the basic Regulation. Producers wishing to obtain an exemption should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the time-limit indicated in Article 3(3) of this Regulation.\nF. REGISTRATION\n(20)\nPursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied from the date on which registration of such imports consigned from Taiwan and Thailand was imposed.\nG. TIME-LIMITS\n(21)\nIn the interest of sound administration, time-limits should be stated within which:\n-\ninterested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,\n-\nproducers in Taiwan and Thailand may request exemption from registration of imports or measures,\n-\ninterested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.\n-\nAttention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the time-limits mentioned in Article 3 of this Regulation.\nH. NON-COOPERATION\n(22)\nIn cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time-limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.\n(23)\nWhere it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of facts available.\n(24)\nIf an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.\nI. SCHEDULE OF THE INVESTIGATION\n(25)\nThe investigation will be concluded, pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, within nine months of the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nJ. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\n(26)\nIt is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5).\nK. HEARING OFFICER\n(27)\nInterested parties may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of the Directorate-General for Trade. The Hearing Officer acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission investigation services. The Hearing Officer reviews requests for access to the file, disputes regarding the confidentiality of documents, requests for extension of time-limits and requests by third parties to be heard. The Hearing Officer may organise a hearing with an individual interested party and mediate to ensure that the interested partie's rights of defence are being fully exercised.\n(28)\nA request for a hearing with the Hearing Officer should be made in writing and should specify the reasons for the request. The Hearing Officer will also provide opportunities for a hearing involving parties to take place which would allow different views to be presented and rebuttal arguments offered.\n(29)\nFor further information and contact details interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages on the Directorate-General for Trade's website: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/hearing-officer/index_en.htm.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAn investigation is hereby initiated pursuant to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, in order to determine if imports into the Union of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35g/m2, excluding fibreglass discs, consigned from Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00 (TARIC codes 7019510012, 7019510013, 7019590012 and 7019590013), are circumventing the measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011.\nArticle 2\nThe Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 13(3) and Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union identified in Article 1 of this Regulation.\nRegistration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThe Commission, by regulation, may direct Customs authorities to cease registration in respect of imports into the Union of products manufactured by producers having applied for an exemption of registration and having been found to fulfil the conditions for an exemption to be granted.\nArticle 3\nQuestionnaires must be requested from the Commission within 15 days from publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nInterested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 37 days from the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.\nProducers in Taiwan and Thailand requesting exemption from registration of imports or measures must submit a request duly supported by evidence within the same 37-day time-limit.\nInterested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 37-day time-limit.\nInterested parties are required to make all submissions and requests in electronic format (non-confidential submissions via e-mail, confidential ones on CD-R/DVD), and must indicate their name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers. However, any Powers of Attorney, signed certifications, and any updates thereof, accompanying questionnaire replies must be submitted on paper, i.e. by post or by hand, at the address below. If an interested party cannot provide its submissions and requests in electronic format, it must immediately inform the Commission in compliance with Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation. For further information concerning correspondence with the Commission, interested parties may consult the relevant web page on the website of the Directorate-General for Trade: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/trade-defence.\nAll written submissions, including the information requested in this Regulation, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis must be labelled as \u2027Limited\u2027 (6) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, must be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which must be labelled \u2027For inspection by interested parties\u2027.\nCommission address for correspondence:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N105 4/92\n1049 Bruxelles/Brussel\nBELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb\nFax +32 2 295 65 05\nE-mail: TRADE-AC-MESH-TT@ec.europa.eu\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2012.", "references": ["80", "46", "62", "15", "3", "78", "29", "94", "30", "9", "12", "54", "98", "70", "81", "60", "74", "47", "85", "93", "34", "4", "35", "64", "75", "40", "69", "16", "50", "71", "No Label", "8", "22", "23", "48", "83", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["8", "22", "23", "48", "83", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 December 2011\nestablishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization on the accession of Samoa to the WTO\n(2012/18/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91, Article 100(2) and Article 207, in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 15 April 1998 the Government of Samoa applied for accession to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO), pursuant to Article XII of that Agreement.\n(2)\nA Working Party on the accession of Samoa was established on 15 July 1998 in order to reach agreement on terms of accession acceptable to Samoa and all WTO Members.\n(3)\nThe Commission, on behalf of the Union, has negotiated a comprehensive series of market opening commitments on the part of Samoa which satisfy the Union\u2019s requests and are in line with the development level of Samoa.\n(4)\nThese commitments are now embodied in the Protocol of Accession of Samoa to the WTO.\n(5)\nAccession to the WTO is expected to make a positive and lasting contribution to the process of economic reform and sustainable development in Samoa.\n(6)\nThe Protocol of Accession should therefore be approved.\n(7)\nArticle XII of the Agreement establishing the WTO provides that the terms of accession are to be agreed between the acceding Member and the WTO, and that the WTO Ministerial Conference approves the terms of accession on the WTO side.\n(8)\nAccordingly, it is necessary to establish the position to be taken by the Union within the WTO Ministerial Conference on the accession of Samoa to the WTO,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization on the accession of Samoa to the WTO is to approve the accession.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Geneva, on 14 December 2011.", "references": ["64", "29", "49", "8", "28", "59", "18", "98", "5", "57", "68", "17", "34", "88", "10", "81", "63", "4", "25", "54", "7", "55", "85", "61", "65", "91", "70", "16", "0", "86", "No Label", "3", "20", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "20", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 730/2011\nof 20 July 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for black scabbardfish in EU and international waters of V, VI, VII and XII by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["72", "1", "6", "80", "33", "74", "55", "36", "51", "70", "19", "83", "86", "99", "23", "85", "61", "84", "16", "64", "14", "37", "53", "22", "41", "87", "7", "43", "78", "11", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 August 2010\nconcerning the adoption of a financing decision on a pilot project to promote consumer empowerment, efficiency and stability of European financial markets through training of consumer associations and similar organisations\n(2010/462/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Financial Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 75 thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Implementing Rules\u2019), and in particular Article 90 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 49(6)(a) of the Financial Regulation the current pilot project is a pilot scheme of an experimental nature designed to test the feasibility of an action and its usefulness.\n(3)\nThe Budgetary Authority allocated in the Union budget for 2010 EUR 1 million for a pilot project concerning consumer empowerment, efficiency and stability of European financial markets through training.\n(4)\nThree actions are foreseen for implementation for this pilot project, and the financing of these actions should be subject to a single decision.\n(5)\nAs financial services are becoming more complex, consumers are more in need of financial advice. A service of general financial advice can empower consumers, and provide information on how to buy financial services smartly. The training of non-profit entities, such as consumer associations and other non-governmental organisations as well as governmental organisations, will enable them to provide better advice to consumers on a wider range of important issues in financial services.\n(6)\nThe present financing decision may also cover the payment of interest due for late payment on the basis of Article 83 of the Financial Regulation and Article 106(5) of the Implementing Rules.\n(7)\nIt is appropriate to define the terms \u2018substantial change\u2019 within the meaning of Article 90(4) of the Implementing Rules for the application of this decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nThe actions referred to in the Annex are hereby approved. They shall be financed through the budget line 17 02 04 of the budget of the European Union for 2010 up to a maximum of EUR 1 000 000. These appropriations may also cover interest due for late payment.\nThe amounts indicated in the following descriptions are indicative. Within the maximum indicative budget of all the specific actions, cumulated changes not exceeding 20 % are not considered to be substantial provided that they do not significantly affect the nature and objectives of the pilot project.\nThe authorising officer may adopt such changes in accordance with the principles of sound financial management and proportionality.\nDone at Brussels, 18 August 2010.", "references": ["19", "81", "62", "22", "18", "85", "39", "25", "52", "69", "74", "31", "73", "99", "96", "66", "61", "13", "59", "72", "32", "86", "12", "55", "98", "78", "65", "1", "26", "53", "No Label", "9", "10", "24", "29", "33"], "gold": ["9", "10", "24", "29", "33"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 May 2010\non the signing and provisional application of the Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela and of the Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and the United States of America\n(2010/314/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(4), first subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission reached Understandings with Ecuador and the United States of America, on 11 April 2001 and on 30 April 2001 respectively (the \u2018Understandings\u2019), which identified means to resolve the disputes brought by those countries in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) with respect to the tariff treatment of bananas imported into the Union. Those Understandings envisaged the introduction of a tariff-only regime for the imports of bananas. To that effect, on 12 July 2004 the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate the modification of the bound tariff with a view to introducing a tariff-only regime for bananas in the EU schedule for bananas pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (\u2018GATT 1994\u2019).\n(2)\nOn 22 March 2004 and on 29 January 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994 in the course of the accession to the European Union of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia and of Bulgaria and Romania, respectively.\n(3)\nThe negotiations were successfully concluded on 15 December 2009 by the initialling of a Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas with Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela (the \u2018Geneva Agreement\u2019) and of an Agreement on Trade in Bananas with the United States of America (the \u2018EU/US Agreement\u2019).\n(4)\nThe Agreements negotiated by the Commission meet the claims of the countries concerned pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994. In addition, they implement the Understandings by providing for the binding of a tariff-only regime, and provide an adequate solution to all the pending disputes concerning the tariff treatment of bananas, which should therefore be formally settled.\n(5)\nThose two Agreements should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to their conclusion at a later date.\n(6)\nIn view of the need to implement expeditiously the initial tariff cuts, to prevent the continuation of the pending disputes and to ensure that the Union\u2019s final market access commitments for bananas in the next WTO multilateral market access negotiations for agricultural products successfully concluded do not exceed those provided for in paragraphs 3, 6 and 7 of the Geneva Agreement and paragraph 2 and paragraph 3(a) and 3(b) of the EU/US Agreement, both Agreements should be applied provisionally, in accordance with paragraph 8(b) of the Geneva Agreement and paragraph 6 of the EU/US Agreement, respectively, from the date of signature of each Agreement, pending their entry into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign, on behalf of the Union, the following Agreements:\n(a)\nthe Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela (the \u2018Geneva Agreement\u2019);\n(b)\nthe Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and the United States of America (the \u2018EU/US Agreement\u2019).\nThe texts of those Agreements are attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\n1. Paragraphs 3, 6 and 7 of the Geneva Agreement shall be applied provisionally, in accordance with paragraph 8(b) thereof, from the date of signature of that Agreement, pending its entry into force.\n2. Paragraph 2 and paragraph 3(a) and 3(b) of the EU/US Agreement shall be applied provisionally, in accordance with its paragraph 6, from the date of signature of that Agreement, pending its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2010.", "references": ["78", "15", "1", "0", "6", "27", "91", "39", "41", "37", "88", "89", "77", "58", "14", "18", "43", "16", "73", "80", "24", "66", "48", "17", "74", "51", "36", "84", "20", "49", "No Label", "9", "21", "22", "23", "68", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "21", "22", "23", "68", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 608/2011\nof 22 June 2011\ndetermining the extent to which the import licence applications submitted in June 2011 for certain milk products under certain tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 can be accepted\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImport licence applications lodged from 1 to 10 June 2011 for certain tariff quotas referred to in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 of 14 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas (3) relate to quantities greater than those available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor import licence applications lodged from 1 to 10 June 2011 for the tariff quotas referred to in parts I.A, I.F, I.H, I.I, and I.J of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, licences shall be issued for the quantities requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficient(s) set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2011.", "references": ["4", "50", "66", "40", "81", "3", "34", "29", "77", "76", "90", "71", "25", "39", "54", "79", "68", "10", "27", "26", "30", "75", "58", "9", "56", "49", "2", "51", "64", "11", "No Label", "21", "22", "70"], "gold": ["21", "22", "70"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1342/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 as regards the inclusion of the Kaliningrad oblast and certain Polish administrative districts in the eligible border area\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular point (b) of Article 77(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnion rules on local border traffic, established by Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 laying down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the Member States and amending the provisions of the Schengen Convention (2), in force since 2007, have avoided creating barriers to trade, to social and cultural interchange or to regional cooperation with neighbouring countries, while preserving the security of the entire Schengen area.\n(2)\nThe Kaliningrad oblast has an exceptional geographic situation: as a relatively small area completely surrounded by two Member States, it constitutes the only enclave in the European Union; its shape and the distribution of its population are such that applying the standard rules on the definition of the border area would artificially divide the enclave, whereby some inhabitants would enjoy facilitations for local border traffic while the majority, including the inhabitants of the city of Kaliningrad, would not. In the light of the homogeneous nature of the Kaliningrad oblast, for trade, social and cultural interchange and regional cooperation to be enhanced, a specific exception to Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 should be introduced that would allow the entire Kaliningrad oblast to be considered as a border area.\n(3)\nA specific border area on the Polish side should also be recognised as an eligible border area, in order for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 in that region to have real effect through increased opportunities for trade, social and cultural interchange and regional cooperation between the Kaliningrad oblast on the one hand and major centres in the North of Poland on the other.\n(4)\nThis Regulation is without prejudice to the general definition of the border area and to full respect for the rules and conditions set out in Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006, including the penalties to be imposed by Member States on border residents who abuse the local border traffic regime.\n(5)\nThis Regulation contributes to further promoting the strategic partnership between the European Union and the Russian Federation, in line with the priorities set out in the Roadmap of the Common Space on Freedom, Security and Justice, and takes into account the overall relationship between the European Union and the Russian Federation.\n(6)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely the inclusion of the Kaliningrad oblast and certain Polish administrative districts in the eligible border area, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve this objective.\n(7)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (3) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A, of Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement (4).\n(8)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (5) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (6).\n(9)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (7) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (8).\n(10)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Regulation builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of 6 months after the Council has decided on this Regulation whether it will implement it in its national law.\n(11)\nThis Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (9); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(12)\nThis Regulation 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 of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (10); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1931/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nat the end of Article 3, point (2), the following sentence is added:\n\u2018The areas listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be considered as part of the border area;\u2019;\n(2)\nthe text set out in the Annex to this Regulation is added as an Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["78", "12", "55", "16", "50", "22", "28", "15", "79", "30", "21", "31", "93", "72", "40", "32", "77", "99", "69", "87", "29", "86", "81", "64", "38", "76", "71", "11", "24", "95", "No Label", "1", "2", "4", "5", "13", "17", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["1", "2", "4", "5", "13", "17", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Portugal\n(2011/472/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 2(3) and Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2), in particular Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nPortugal has informed the General Secretariat of the Council of the national DNA analysis files to which Articles 2 to 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA apply and the conditions for automated searching as referred to in Article 3(1) of that Decision in accordance with Article 36(2) of that Decision.\n(5)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1, of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(6)\nPortugal has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on DNA data exchange.\n(7)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by Portugal with Germany.\n(8)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in Portugal and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the German evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(9)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning DNA data exchange has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching and comparison of DNA data, Portugal has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of that Decision as from the date of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["2", "32", "46", "3", "89", "66", "27", "85", "61", "71", "22", "81", "35", "95", "50", "23", "12", "36", "57", "59", "92", "21", "79", "83", "47", "51", "15", "99", "70", "29", "No Label", "9", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 773/2011\nof 2 August 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2011.", "references": ["40", "24", "45", "82", "77", "70", "44", "73", "18", "31", "37", "20", "35", "50", "76", "57", "30", "17", "72", "39", "2", "46", "1", "9", "89", "97", "54", "90", "34", "23", "No Label", "21", "55"], "gold": ["21", "55"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 9 March 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Japan on cooperation in science and technology\n(2011/213/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 186 in conjunction with point (v) of Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission negotiated, on behalf of the European Community, an Agreement on cooperation in science and technology with the Government of Japan.\n(2)\nThat Agreement was signed by the representatives of the Parties on 30 November 2009 in Brussels subject to its conclusion at a later date.\n(3)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be concluded on behalf of the Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Japan on cooperation in science and technology is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Commission shall adopt the position to be taken by the Union in the Joint Committee established by Article 6(1) of the Agreement with regard to amendments to the Agreement according to Article 13(5) of the Agreement.\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 13(1) of the Agreement and make the following notification to the Government of Japan:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d in the text of the Agreement are, where appropriate, to be read as \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2011.", "references": ["22", "87", "55", "99", "25", "14", "73", "36", "98", "53", "19", "62", "24", "12", "60", "41", "58", "68", "44", "85", "40", "50", "97", "29", "1", "28", "16", "69", "51", "49", "No Label", "3", "4", "76", "77", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "4", "76", "77", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUTM SOMALIA/1/2011\nof 6 December 2011\non the acceptance of third States\u2019 contributions to the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia)\n(2011/815/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/96/CFSP of 15 February 2010 on a European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (1) (EUTM Somalia), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commander of EUTM Somalia held Force Generation and Manning Conferences on 17 November 2008, 16 December 2008 and 19 March 2009.\n(2)\nFollowing recommendations on a contribution from Serbia to EUTM Somalia by the EU Mission Commander and the EU Military Committee (EUMC), the contribution from Serbia should be accepted.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications. Denmark does not, therefore, participate in the implementation of this Decision and in the financing of EUTM Somalia,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThird States\u2019 contributions\nTaking into account the findings of the Force Generation and Manning Conferences of 17 November 2008, 16 December 2008 and 19 March 2009 and the recommendations by the EU Mission Commander and the EUMC, the contribution from Serbia to the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia) shall be accepted.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 6 December 2011.", "references": ["62", "51", "13", "56", "87", "85", "29", "66", "47", "0", "33", "19", "50", "95", "11", "73", "65", "2", "3", "44", "53", "63", "37", "40", "14", "16", "61", "70", "17", "12", "No Label", "4", "6", "9", "91", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "6", "9", "91", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 April 2010\nadjusting the allowances provided for in Decision 2003/479/EC and Decision 2007/829/EC concerning the rules applicable to national experts and military staff on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council\n(2010/248/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 41(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 240(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 15(7) of Council Decision 2003/479/EC (1) and Article 15(6) of Council Decision 2007/829/EC (2) provide that the daily and monthly allowances are to be adjusted each year without retroactive effect on the basis of the adaptation of the basic salaries of European Union officials in Brussels and Luxembourg.\n(2)\nOn 23 December 2009, the Council adopted Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (3), which applies an adjustment of 1,85 %,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. In Article 15(1) of Decision 2003/479/EC and Article 15(1) of Decision 2007/829/EC, the amounts EUR 30,75 and EUR 122,97 shall be replaced by EUR 31,32 and EUR 125,25 respectively.\n2. In Article 15(2) of Decision 2003/479/EC and in Article 15(2) of Decision 2007/829/EC the table shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Distance between place of origin and place of secondment\n(in km)\nAmount in EUR\n0-150\n0,00\n> 150\n80,50\n> 300\n143,12\n> 500\n232,59\n> 800\n375,71\n> 1 300\n590,40\n> 2 000\n706,72\u2019\n3. In Article 15(4) of Decision 2003/479/EC the amount EUR 30,75 shall be replaced by EUR 31,32.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the first day of the month following its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["17", "2", "40", "3", "9", "77", "26", "43", "51", "89", "25", "70", "38", "33", "95", "32", "53", "54", "12", "44", "24", "16", "57", "0", "58", "86", "10", "60", "56", "37", "No Label", "6", "7", "50", "52"], "gold": ["6", "7", "50", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 215/2012\nof 13 March 2012\namending for the 166th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 5 March 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add one natural person to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 March 2012.", "references": ["31", "64", "12", "77", "83", "44", "97", "15", "54", "74", "67", "18", "40", "55", "24", "86", "35", "63", "53", "65", "57", "60", "75", "22", "26", "56", "78", "30", "50", "49", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 July 2010\nestablishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service\n(2010/427/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 27(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (\u2018the High Representative\u2019),\nHaving regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe purpose of this Decision is to establish the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (\u2018EEAS\u2019), a functionally autonomous body of the Union under the authority of the High Representative, set up by Article 27(3) of the Treaty on European Union (\u2018TEU\u2019), as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. This Decision and, in particular, the reference to the term \u2018High Representative\u2019 will be interpreted in accordance with his/her different functions under Article 18 TEU.\n(2)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 21(3) TEU, the Union will ensure consistency between the different areas of its external action and between those areas and its other policies. The Council and the Commission, assisted by the High Representative, will ensure that consistency and will cooperate to that effect.\n(3)\nThe EEAS will support the High Representative, who is also a Vice-President of the Commission and the President of the Foreign Affairs Council, in fulfilling his/her mandate to conduct the Common Foreign and Security Policy (\u2018CFSP\u2019) of the Union and to ensure the consistency of the Union\u2019s external action as outlined, notably, in Articles 18 and 27 TEU. The EEAS will support the High Representative in his/her capacity as President of the Foreign Affairs Council, without prejudice to the normal tasks of the General Secretariat of the Council. The EEAS will also support the High Representative in his/her capacity as Vice-President of the Commission, in respect of his/her responsibilities within the Commission for responsibilities incumbent on it in external relations, and in coordinating other aspects of the Union\u2019s external action, without prejudice to the normal tasks of the Commission services.\n(4)\nIn its contribution to the Union\u2019s external cooperation programmes, the EEAS should seek to ensure that the programmes fulfil the objectives for external action as set out in Article 21 TUE, in particular in paragraph (2)(d) thereof, and that they respect the objectives of the Union\u2019s development policy in line with Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (\u2018TFEU\u2019). In this context, the EEAS should also promote the fulfilment of the objectives of the European Consensus on Development (1) and the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid (2).\n(5)\nIt results from the Treaty of Lisbon that, in order to implement its provisions, the EEAS must be operational as soon as possible after the entry into force of that Treaty.\n(6)\nThe European Parliament will fully play its role in the external action of the Union, including its functions of political control as provided for in Article 14(1) TEU, as well as in legislative and budgetary matters as laid down in the Treaties. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 36 TEU, the High Representative will regularly consult the European Parliament on the main aspects and the basic choices of the CFSP and will ensure that the views of the European Parliament are duly taken into consideration. The EEAS will assist the High Representative in this regard. Specific arrangements should be made with regard to access for Members of the European Parliament to classified documents and information in the area of CFSP. Until the adoption of such arrangements, existing provisions under the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 November 2002 between the European Parliament and the Council concerning access by the European Parliament to sensitive information of the Council in the field of security and defence policy (3) will apply.\n(7)\nThe High Representative, or his/her representative, should exercise the responsibilities provided for by the respective acts founding the European Defence Agency (4), the European Union Satellite Centre (5), the European Union Institute for Security Studies (6), and the European Security and Defence College (7). The EEAS should provide those entities with the support currently provided by the General Secretariat of the Council.\n(8)\nProvisions should be adopted relating to the staff of the EEAS and their recruitment where such provisions are necessary to establish the organisation and functioning of the EEAS. In parallel, necessary amendments should be made, in accordance with Article 336 TFEU, to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (\u2018Staff Regulations\u2019) and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of those Communities (8) (\u2018CEOS\u2019) without prejudice to Article 298 TFEU. For matters relating to its staff, the EEAS should be treated as an institution within the meaning of the Staff Regulations and the CEOS. The High Representative will be the Appointing Authority, in relation both to officials subject to the Staff Regulations and agents subject to the CEOS. The number of officials and servants of the EEAS will be decided each year as part of the budgetary procedure and will be reflected in the establishment plan.\n(9)\nThe staff of the EEAS should carry out their duties and conduct themselves solely with the interest of the Union in mind.\n(10)\nRecruitment should be based on merit whilst ensuring adequate geographical and gender balance. The staff of the EEAS should comprise a meaningful presence of nationals from all the Member States. The review foreseen for 2013 should also cover this issue, including, as appropriate, suggestions for additional specific measures to correct possible imbalances.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 27(3) TEU, the EEAS will comprise officials from the General Secretariat of the Council and from the Commission, as well as personnel coming from the diplomatic services of the Member States. For that purpose, the relevant departments and functions in the General Secretariat of the Council and in the Commission will be transferred to the EEAS, together with officials and temporary agents occupying a post in such departments or functions. Before 1 July 2013, the EEAS will recruit exclusively officials originating from the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission, as well as staff coming from the diplomatic services of the Member States. After that date, all officials and other servants of the European Union should be able to apply for vacant posts in the EEAS.\n(12)\nThe EEAS may, in specific cases, have recourse to specialised seconded national experts (\u2018SNEs\u2019), over whom the High Representative will have authority. SNEs in posts in the EEAS will not be counted in the one third of all EEAS staff at Administrator (\u2018AD\u2019) level which staff from Member States should represent when the EEAS will have reached its full capacity. Their transfer in the phase of setting up of the EEAS will not be automatic and will be made with the consent of the authorities of the originating Member States. By the date of expiry of the contract of an SNE transferred to the EEAS under Article 7, the relevant function will be converted into a temporary agent post in cases where the function performed by the SNE corresponds to a function normally carried out by staff at AD level, provided that the necessary post is available under the establishment plan.\n(13)\nThe Commission and the EEAS will agree on detailed arrangements relating to the issuing of instructions from the Commission to delegations. These should provide in particular that when the Commission will issue instructions to delegations, it will simultaneously provide a copy thereof to the Head of Delegation and to the EEAS central administration.\n(14)\nCouncil Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (9) (the \u2018Financial Regulation\u2019) should be amended in order to include the EEAS in Article 1 thereof, with a specific section in the Union budget. In accordance with the applicable rules, and as is the case for other institutions, a part of the annual report of the Court of Auditors will also be dedicated to the EEAS, and the EEAS will respond to such reports. The EEAS will be subject to the procedures regarding the discharge as provided for in Article 319 TFEU and in Articles 145 to 147 of the Financial Regulation. The High Representative will provide the European Parliament with all necessary support for the exercise of the European Parliament\u2019s right as discharge authority. The implementation of the operational budget will be the Commission\u2019s responsibility in accordance with Article 317 TFEU. Decisions having a financial impact will, in particular, comply with the responsibilities laid down in Title IV of the Financial Regulation, especially Articles 64 to 68 thereof regarding liability of financial actors, and Article 75 thereof regarding expenditure operations.\n(15)\nThe establishment of the EEAS should be guided by the principle of cost-efficiency aiming towards budget neutrality. To this end, transitional arrangements and a gradual build-up of capacity will have to be used. Unnecessary duplication of tasks, functions and resources with other structures should be avoided. All opportunities for rationalisation should be availed of.\nIn addition, a number of additional posts for Member States\u2019 temporary agents will be necessary, which will have to be financed within the framework of the current multiannual financial framework.\n(16)\nRules should be laid down covering the activities of the EEAS and its staff as regards security, the protection of classified information, and transparency.\n(17)\nIt is recalled that the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union will apply to the EEAS, its officials and other agents, who will be subject either to the Staff Regulations or the CEOS.\n(18)\nThe European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community continue to be served by a single institutional framework. It is therefore essential to ensure consistency between the external relations of both, and to allow the Union Delegations to undertake the representation of the European Atomic Energy Community in third countries and at international organisations.\n(19)\nThe High Representative should, by mid-2013, provide a review of the organisation and functioning of the EEAS, accompanied, if necessary, by proposals for a revision of this Decision. Such a revision should be adopted no later than the beginning of 2014,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nNature and scope\n1. This Decision establishes the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (\u2018EEAS\u2019).\n2. The EEAS, which has its headquarters in Brussels, shall be a functionally autonomous body of the European Union, separate from the General Secretariat of the Council and from the Commission with the legal capacity necessary to perform its tasks and attain its objectives.\n3. The EEAS shall be placed under the authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (\u2018High Representative\u2019).\n4. The EEAS shall be made up of a central administration and of the Union Delegations to third countries and to international organisations.\nArticle 2\nTasks\n1. The EEAS shall support the High Representative in fulfilling his/her mandates as outlined, notably, in Articles 18 and 27 TEU:\n-\nin fulfilling his/her mandate to conduct the Common Foreign and Security Policy (\u2018CFSP\u2019) of the European Union, including the Common Security and Defence Policy (\u2018CSDP\u2019), to contribute by his/her proposals to the development of that policy, which he/she shall carry out as mandated by the Council and to ensure the consistency of the Union\u2019s external action,\n-\nin his/her capacity as President of the Foreign Affairs Council, without prejudice to the normal tasks of the General Secretariat of the Council,\n-\nin his/her capacity as Vice-President of the Commission for fulfilling within the Commission the responsibilities incumbent on it in external relations, and in coordinating other aspects of the Union\u2019s external action, without prejudice to the normal tasks of the services of the Commission.\n2. The EEAS shall assist the President of the European Council, the President of the Commission, and the Commission in the exercise of their respective functions in the area of external relations.\nArticle 3\nCooperation\n1. The EEAS shall support, and work in cooperation with, the diplomatic services of the Member States, as well as with the General Secretariat of the Council and the services of the Commission, in order to ensure consistency between the different areas of the Union\u2019s external action and between those areas and its other policies.\n2. The EEAS and the services of the Commission shall consult each other on all matters relating to the external action of the Union in the exercise of their respective functions, except on matters covered by the CSDP. The EEAS shall take part in the preparatory work and procedures relating to acts to be prepared by the Commission in this area.\nThis paragraph shall be implemented in accordance with Chapter 1 of Title V of the TEU, and with Article 205 TFEU.\n3. The EEAS may enter into service-level arrangements with relevant services of the General Secretariat of the Council, the Commission, or other offices or interinstitutional bodies of the Union.\n4. The EEAS shall extend appropriate support and cooperation to the other institutions and bodies of the Union, in particular to the European Parliament. The EEAS may also benefit from the support and cooperation of those institutions and bodies, including agencies, as appropriate. The EEAS internal auditor will cooperate with the internal auditor of the Commission to ensure a consistent audit policy, with particular reference to the Commission\u2019s responsibility for operational expenditure. In addition, the EEAS shall cooperate with the European Anti-Fraud Office (\u2018OLAF\u2019) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (10). It shall, in particular, adopt without delay the decision required by that Regulation on the terms and conditions for internal investigations. As provided in that Regulation, both Member States, in accordance with national provisions, and the institutions shall give the necessary support to enable OLAF\u2019s agents to fulfil their tasks.\nArticle 4\nCentral administration of the EEAS\n1. The EEAS shall be managed by an Executive Secretary-General who will operate under the authority of the High Representative. The Executive Secretary-General shall take all measures necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the EEAS, including its administrative and budgetary management. The Executive Secretary-General shall ensure effective coordination between all departments in the central administration as well as with the Union Delegations.\n2. The Executive Secretary-General shall be assisted by two Deputy Secretaries-General.\n3. The central administration of the EEAS shall be organised in directorates-general.\n(a)\nIt shall, in particular, include:\n-\na number of directorates-general comprising geographic desks covering all countries and regions of the world, as well as multilateral and thematic desks. These departments shall coordinate as necessary with the General Secretariat of the Council and with the relevant services of the Commission,\n-\na directorate-general for administrative, staffing, budgetary, security and communication and information system matters, working in the EEAS framework managed by the Executive Secretary-General. The High Representative shall appoint, in accordance with the normal rules of recruitment, a Director-General for budget and administration who shall work under the authority of the High Representative. He/she shall be responsible to the High Representative for the administrative and internal budgetary management of the EEAS. He/she shall follow the same budget lines and administrative rules as are applicable in the part of Section III of the Union\u2019s budget which falls under Heading 5 of the Multiannual Financial Framework,\n-\nthe crisis management and planning directorate, the civilian planning and conduct capability, the European Union Military Staff and the European Union Situation Centre, placed under the direct authority and responsibility of the High Representative, and which shall assist him/her in the task of conducting the Union\u2019s CFSP in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty while respecting, in accordance with Article 40 TEU, the other competences of the Union.\nThe specificities of these structures, as well as the particularities of their functions, recruitment and the status of the staff shall be respected.\nFull coordination between all the structures of the EEAS shall be ensured.\n(b)\nThe central administration of the EEAS shall also include:\n-\na strategic policy planning department,\n-\na legal department under the administrative authority of the Executive Secretary-General which shall work closely with the Legal Services of the Council and of the Commission,\n-\ndepartments for interinstitutional relations, information and public diplomacy, internal audit and inspections, and personal data protection.\n4. The High Representative shall designate the chairpersons of Council preparatory bodies that are chaired by a representative of the High Representative, including the chair of the Political and Security Committee, in accordance with the detailed arrangements set out in Annex II to Council Decision 2009/908/EU of 1 December 2009 laying down measures for the implementation of the European Council Decision on the exercise of the Presidency of the Council, and on the chairmanship of preparatory bodies of the Council (11).\n5. The High Representative and the EEAS shall be assisted where necessary by the General Secretariat of the Council and the relevant departments of the Commission. Service-level arrangements may be drawn up to that effect by the EEAS, the General Secretariat of the Council and the relevant Commission departments.\nArticle 5\nUnion delegations\n1. The decision to open or close a delegation shall be adopted by the High Representative, in agreement with the Council and the Commission.\n2. Each Union Delegation shall be placed under the authority of a Head of Delegation.\nThe Head of Delegation shall have authority over all staff in the delegation, whatever their status, and for all its activities. He/she shall be accountable to the High Representative for the overall management of the work of the delegation and for ensuring the coordination of all actions of the Union.\nStaff in delegations shall comprise EEAS staff and, where appropriate for the implementation of the Union budget and Union policies other than those under the remit of the EEAS, Commission staff.\n3. The Head of Delegation shall receive instructions from the High Representative and the EEAS, and shall be responsible for their execution.\nIn areas where the Commission exercises the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties, the Commission may, in accordance with Article 221(2) TFEU, also issue instructions to delegations, which shall be executed under the overall responsibility of the Head of Delegation.\n4. The Head of Delegation shall implement operational credits in relation to the Union\u2019s projects in the corresponding third country, where sub-delegated by the Commission, in accordance with the Financial Regulation.\n5. The operation of each delegation shall be periodically evaluated by the Executive Secretary-General of the EEAS; evaluation shall include financial and administrative audits. For this purpose, the Executive Secretary-General of the EEAS may request assistance from the relevant Commission departments. In addition to internal measures by the EEAS, OLAF shall exercise its powers, notably by conducting anti-fraud measures, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999.\n6. The High Representative shall enter into the necessary arrangements with the host country, the international organisation, or the third country concerned. In particular, the High Representative shall take the necessary measures to ensure that host States grant the Union delegations, their staff and their property, privileges and immunities equivalent to those referred to in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961.\n7. Union delegations shall have the capacity to respond to the needs of other institutions of the Union, in particular the European Parliament, in their contacts with the international organisations or third countries to which the delegations are accredited.\n8. The Head of Delegation shall have the power to represent the Union in the country where the delegation is accredited, in particular for the conclusion of contracts, and as a party to legal proceedings.\n9. The Union delegations shall work in close cooperation and share information with the diplomatic services of the Member States.\n10. The Union delegations shall, acting in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 35 TEU, and upon request by Member States, support the Member States in their diplomatic relations and in their role of providing consular protection to citizens of the Union in third countries on a resource-neutral basis.\nArticle 6\nStaff\n1. This Article, except paragraph 3, shall apply without prejudice to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (\u2018Staff Regulations\u2019) and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of those Communities (\u2018CEOS\u2019), including the amendments made to those rules, in accordance with Article 336 TFEU, in order to adapt them to the needs of the EEAS.\n2. The EEAS shall comprise officials and other servants of the European Union, including personnel from the diplomatic services of the Member States appointed as temporary agents.\nThe Staff Regulations and the CEOS shall apply to this staff.\n3. If necessary, the EEAS may, in specific cases, have recourse to a limited number of specialised seconded national experts (SNEs).\nThe High Representative shall adopt rules, equivalent to those laid down in Council Decision 2003/479/EC of 16 June 2003 concerning the rules applicable to national experts and military staff on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council (12), under which SNEs are put at the disposal of the EEAS in order to provide specialised expertise.\n4. The staff of the EEAS shall carry out their duties and conduct themselves solely with the interests of the Union in mind. Without prejudice to the third indent of Article 2(1) and Articles 2(2) and 5(3), they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government, authority, organisation or person outside the EEAS or from any body or person other than the High Representative. In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations, EEAS staff shall not accept any payments of any kind whatever from any other source outside the EEAS.\n5. The powers conferred on the appointing authority by the Staff Regulations and on the authority authorised to conclude contracts by the CEOS shall be vested in the High Representative, who may delegate those powers inside the EEAS.\n6. Recruitment to the EEAS shall be based on merit whilst ensuring adequate geographical and gender balance. The staff of the EEAS shall comprise a meaningful presence of nationals from all the Member States. The review provided for in Article 13(3) shall also cover this issue, including, as appropriate, suggestions for additional specific measures to correct possible imbalances.\n7. Officials of the Union and temporary agents coming from the diplomatic services of the Member States shall have the same rights and obligations and be treated equally, in particular as concerns their eligibility to assume all positions under equivalent conditions. No distinction shall be made between temporary agents coming from national diplomatic services and officials of the Union as regards the assignment of duties to perform in all areas of activities and policies implemented by the EEAS. In accordance with the provisions of the Financial Regulation, the Member States shall support the Union in the enforcement of financial liabilities of EEAS temporary agents coming from the Member States\u2019 diplomatic services which result from a liability under Article 66 of the Financial Regulation.\n8. The High Representative shall establish the selection procedures for EEAS staff, which shall be undertaken through a transparent procedure based on merit with the objective of securing the services of staff of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, while ensuring adequate geographical and gender balance, and a meaningful presence of nationals from all Member States in the EEAS. Representatives of the Member States, the General Secretariat of the Council and of the Commission shall be involved in the recruitment procedure for vacant posts in the EEAS.\n9. When the EEAS has reached its full capacity, staff from Member States, as referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2, should represent at least one third of all EEAS staff at AD level. Likewise, permanent officials of the Union should represent at least 60 % of all EEAS staff at AD level, including staff coming from the diplomatic services of the Member States who have become permanent officials of the Union in accordance with the provisions of the Staff Regulations. Each year, the High Representative shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the occupation of posts in the EEAS.\n10. The High Representative shall lay down the rules on mobility so as to ensure that the members of the staff of the EEAS are subject to a high degree of mobility. Specific and detailed arrangements shall apply to the personnel referred to in the third indent of Article 4(3)(a). In principle, all EEAS staff shall periodically serve in Union delegations. The High Representative shall establish rules to that effect.\n11. In accordance with the applicable provisions of its national law, each Member State shall provide its officials who have become temporary agents in the EEAS with a guarantee of immediate reinstatement at the end of their period of service to the EEAS. This period of service, in accordance with the provisions of Article 50b of the CEOS, shall not exceed eight years, unless, it is extended for a maximum period of two years in exceptional circumstances and in the interest of the service.\nOfficials of the Union serving in the EEAS shall have the right to apply for posts in their institution of origin on the same terms as internal applicants.\n12. Steps shall be taken in order to provide EEAS staff with adequate common training, building in particular on existing practices and structures at national and Union level. The High Representative shall take appropriate measures to that effect within the year following the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 7\nTransitional provisions regarding staff\n1. The relevant departments and functions in the General Secretariat of the Council and in the Commission listed in the Annex shall be transferred to the EEAS. Officials and temporary agents occupying a post in departments or functions listed in the Annex shall be transferred to the EEAS. This shall apply mutatis mutandis to contract and local staff assigned to such departments and functions. SNEs working in those departments or functions shall also be transferred to the EEAS with the consent of the authorities of the originating Member State.\nThese transfers shall take effect on 1 January 2011.\nIn accordance with the Staff Regulations, upon their transfer to the EEAS, the High Representative shall assign each official to a post in his/her function group which corresponds to that official\u2019s grade.\n2. The procedures for recruiting staff for posts transferred to the EEAS which are ongoing at the date of entry into force of this Decision shall remain valid: they shall be carried on and completed under the authority of the High Representative in accordance with the relevant vacancy notices and the applicable rules of the Staff Regulations and the CEOS.\nArticle 8\nBudget\n1. The duties of authorising officer for the EEAS section of the general budget of the European Union shall be delegated in accordance with Article 59 of the Financial Regulation. The High Representative shall adopt the internal rules for the management of the administrative budget lines. Operational expenditure shall remain within the Commission section of the budget.\n2. The EEAS shall exercise its powers in accordance with the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union within the limits of the appropriations allocated to it.\n3. When drawing up estimates of administrative expenditure for the EEAS, the High Representative will hold consultations with, respectively, the Commissioner responsible for Development Policy and the Commissioner responsible for Neighbourhood Policy regarding their respective responsibilities.\n4. In accordance with Article 314(1) TFEU, the EEAS shall draw up estimates of its expenditure for the following financial year. The Commission shall consolidate those estimates in a draft budget, which may contain different estimates. The Commission may amend the draft budget as provided for in Article 314(2) TFEU.\n5. In order to ensure budgetary transparency in the area of external action of the Union, the Commission will transmit to the budgetary authority, together with the draft general budget of the European Union, a working document presenting, in a comprehensive way, all expenditure related to the external action of the Union.\n6. The EEAS shall be subject to the procedures regarding the discharge provided for in Article 319 TFEU and in Articles 145 to 147 of the Financial Regulation. The EEAS will, in this context, fully cooperate with the institutions involved in the discharge procedure and provide, as appropriate, the additional necessary information, including through attendance at meetings of the relevant bodies.\nArticle 9\nExternal action instruments and programming\n1. The management of the Union\u2019s external cooperation programmes is under the responsibility of the Commission without prejudice to the respective roles of the Commission and of the EEAS in programming as set out in the following paragraphs.\n2. The High Representative shall ensure overall political coordination of the Union\u2019s external action, ensuring the unity, consistency and effectiveness of the Union\u2019s external action, in particular through the following external assistance instruments:\n-\nthe Development Cooperation Instrument (13),\n-\nthe European Development Fund (14),\n-\nthe European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (15),\n-\nthe European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (16),\n-\nthe Instrument for Cooperation with Industrialised Countries (17),\n-\nthe Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (18),\n-\nthe Instrument for Stability, regarding the assistance provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 (19).\n3. In particular, the EEAS shall contribute to the programming and management cycle for the instruments referred to in paragraph 2, on the basis of the policy objectives set out in those instruments. It shall have responsibility for preparing the following decisions of the Commission regarding the strategic, multiannual steps within the programming cycle:\n(i)\ncountry allocations to determine the global financial envelope for each region, subject to the indicative breakdown of the multiannual financial framework. Within each region, a proportion of funding will be reserved for regional programmes;\n(ii)\ncountry and regional strategic papers;\n(iii)\nnational and regional indicative programmes.\nIn accordance with Article 3, throughout the whole cycle of programming, planning and implementation of the instruments referred to in paragraph 2, the High Representative and the EEAS shall work with the relevant members and services of the Commission without prejudice to Article 1(3). All proposals for decisions will be prepared by following the Commission\u2019s procedures and will be submitted to the Commission for adoption.\n4. With regard to the European Development Fund and the Development Cooperation Instrument, any proposals, including those for changes in the basic regulations and the programming documents referred to in paragraph 3, shall be prepared jointly by the relevant services in the EEAS and in the Commission under the responsibility of the Commissioner responsible for Development Policy and shall be submitted jointly with the High Representative for adoption by the Commission.\nThematic programmes, other than the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, the Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation and that part of the Instrument for Stability referred to in the seventh indent of paragraph 2, shall be prepared by the appropriate Commission service under the guidance of the Commissioner responsible for Development Policy and presented to the College of Commissioners in agreement with the High Representative and the other relevant Commissioners.\n5. With regard to the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, any proposals, including those for changes in the basic regulations and the programming documents referred to in paragraph 3, shall be prepared jointly by the relevant services in the EEAS and in the Commission under the responsibility of the Commissioner responsible for Neighbourhood Policy and shall be submitted jointly with the High Representative for adoption by the Commission.\n6. Actions undertaken under: the CFSP budget; the Instrument for Stability other than the part referred to in the seventh indent of paragraph 2; the Instrument for Cooperation with Industrialised Countries; communication and public Diplomacy actions, and election observation missions, shall be under the responsibility of the High Representative/the EEAS. The Commission shall be responsible for their financial implementation under the authority of the High Representative in his/her capacity as Vice-President of the Commission. The Commission department responsible for this implementation shall be co-located with the EEAS.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\n1. The High Representative shall, after consulting the Committee referred to in point 3 of Section I of Part II of the Annex to Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council\u2019s security regulations (20), decide on the security rules for the EEAS and take all appropriate measures in order to ensure that the EEAS manages effectively the risks to its staff, physical assets and information, and that it fulfils its duty of care and responsibilities in this regard. Such rules shall apply to all EEAS staff, and all staff in Union Delegations, regardless of their administrative status or origin.\n2. Pending the Decision referred to in paragraph 1:\n-\nwith regard to the protection of classified information, the EEAS shall apply the security measures set out in the Annex to Decision 2001/264/EC,\n-\nwith regard to other aspects of security, the EEAS shall apply the Commission\u2019s Provisions on Security, as set out in the relevant Annex to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission (21).\n3. The EEAS shall have a department responsible for security matters, which shall be assisted by the relevant services of the Member States.\n4. The High Representative shall take any measure necessary in order to implement security rules in the EEAS, in particular as regards the protection of classified information and the measures to be taken in the event of a failure by EEAS staff to comply with the security rules. For that purpose, the EEAS shall seek advice from the Security Office of the General Secretariat of the Council, from the relevant services of the Commission and from the relevant services of the Member States.\nArticle 11\nAccess to documents, archives and data protection\n1. The EEAS shall apply the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (22). The High Representative shall decide on the implementing rules for the EEAS.\n2. The Executive Secretary-General of the EEAS shall organise the archives of the service. The relevant archives of the departments transferred from the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission shall be transferred to the EEAS.\n3. The EEAS shall protect individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (23). The High Representative shall decide on the implementing rules for the EEAS.\nArticle 12\nImmovable property\n1. The General Secretariat of the Council and the relevant Commission services shall take all necessary measures so that the transfers referred to in Article 7 can be accompanied by the transfers of the Council and Commission buildings necessary for the functioning of the EEAS.\n2. The terms on which immovable property is made available to the EEAS central administration and to the Union Delegations shall be decided on jointly by the High Representative and the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission, as appropriate.\nArticle 13\nFinal and general provisions\n1. The High Representative, the Council, the Commission and the Member States shall be responsible for implementing this Decision and shall take all measures necessary in furtherance thereof.\n2. The High Representative shall submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the functioning of the EEAS by the end of 2011. That report shall, in particular, cover the implementation of Article 5(3) and (10) and Article 9.\n3. By mid-2013, the High Representative shall provide a review of the organisation and functioning of the EEAS, which will cover inter alia the implementation of Article 6(6), (8) and (11). The review shall, if necessary, be accompanied by appropriate proposals for the revision of this Decision. In that case, the Council shall, in accordance with Article 27(3) TEU, revise this Decision in the light of the review by the beginning of 2014.\n4. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption. The provisions on financial management and recruitment shall take effect once the necessary amendments to the Staff Regulations, the CEOS and the Financial Regulation, as well as the amending budget, have been adopted. To ensure a smooth transition, the High Representative, the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission shall enter into the necessary arrangements, and they shall undertake consultations with the Member States.\n5. Within one month after the entry into force of this Decision, the High Representative shall submit to the Commission an estimate of the revenue and expenditure of the EEAS, including an establishment plan, in order for the Commission to present a draft amending budget.\n6. This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["19", "50", "98", "37", "91", "35", "16", "85", "38", "53", "76", "14", "89", "22", "31", "51", "33", "12", "41", "88", "27", "48", "99", "4", "96", "17", "57", "66", "71", "40", "No Label", "2", "7", "9"], "gold": ["2", "7", "9"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1201/2010\nof 15 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for deep-sea sharks in Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of V, VI, VII, VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (2) lays down quotas for 2009 and 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["74", "98", "5", "53", "44", "22", "63", "32", "52", "93", "31", "4", "43", "35", "48", "73", "71", "58", "20", "87", "45", "9", "57", "30", "19", "90", "25", "59", "18", "7", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 566/2012\nof 18 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 975/98 on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 128(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Recommendation 2009/23/EC of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (3), endorsed by the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009, defines common principles for the designs used for the national sides of euro circulation coins and establishes procedures whereby Member States inform each other of draft designs, and for the approval of these designs.\n(2)\nAs the euro coins circulate in the whole euro area, their national design features are a matter of common interest. To permit their smooth circulation and in the interests of legal certainty and transparency it is appropriate that the rules defined in Recommendation 2009/23/EC concerning denominations and technical specifications of euro circulation coins, be made legally binding by integrating them into Council Regulation (EC) No 975/98 (4).\n(3)\nEuro coins have a common European side and a distinctive national side. The common European sides of euro coins bear both the name of the single currency and the denomination of the coin. The national side should neither repeat the name of the single currency nor the denomination of the coin.\n(4)\nA clear indication of the name of the issuing Member State should be put on the national side of the coin in order to allow interested coin users to easily identify the issuing Member State.\n(5)\nThe edge lettering of euro coins should be considered part of the national side and should therefore not repeat any indication of the denomination, except for the 2-euro coin, and provided that only the figure \u20182\u2019 or the term \u2018euro\u2019 in the relevant alphabet, or both, are used.\n(6)\nThe designs on the national side of euro coins are decided upon by each Member State whose currency is the euro and should take into account the fact that euro coins circulate in the whole euro area and not only in the issuing Member State. In order to ensure that coins are immediately recognisable as euro coins also from their national side, the design should be fully surrounded by the 12 stars of the Union flag.\n(7)\nIn order to facilitate the recognition of circulation coins and to ensure appropriate continuity in the minting, Member States should only be allowed to modify the designs used for the national sides of regular circulation coins once every 15 years, except if the Head of State referred to on a coin changes. This should, however, be without prejudice to changes necessary to prevent counterfeiting of the currency. Changes to the design of the common European side of circulation coins should be decided by the Council and voting rights should be restricted to Member States whose currency is the euro.\n(8)\nIndividual Member States should be allowed to issue commemorative coins to celebrate subjects of major national or European relevance, whereas commemorative coins issued collectively by all Member States whose currency is the euro should be reserved for subjects of the highest European relevance. The 2-euro coin constitutes the most suitable denomination for this purpose, principally on account of the large diameter of the coin and its technical characteristics, which offer adequate protection against counterfeiting.\n(9)\nTaking into account that euro coins circulate in the whole euro area, to avoid the use of inappropriate designs, issuing Member States should inform each other and the Commission about draft designs for the national side of euro coins in advance of the planned issue date. The Commission should verify the compliance of the designs with the technical requirements of this Regulation. Submission of draft designs to the Commission should be made sufficiently in advance of the planned issue date for issuing Member States to modify the design if necessary.\n(10)\nFurthermore, uniform conditions for the approval of the designs of the national sides of euro coins should be laid down to avoid the choice of designs which could be considered as inappropriate in some Member States. In view of the fact that the competence for an issue as sensitive as the design of the national sides of the euro coins belongs to the issuing Member States, implementing powers should therefore be conferred on the Council. Any implementing decisions taken on this basis by the Council would be closely connected to the acts adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 128(2) of the Treaty; therefore, the suspension of the voting rights of the members of the Council representing Member States whose currency is not the euro for the adoption by the Council of those decisions should apply as set out in Article 139(4) of the Treaty. The procedure should allow the issuing Member States to modify the design in due time if so required.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 975/98 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment of Regulation (EC) No 975/98\nIn Regulation (EC) No 975/98 the following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 1a\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u201ccirculation coins\u201d means euro coins intended for circulation, the denominations and technical specifications of which are laid down in Article 1;\n2.\n\u201cregular coins\u201d means circulation coins excluding commemorative coins;\n3.\n\u201ccommemorative coins\u201d means circulation coins, which are intended to commemorate a specific subject as specified in Article 1h.\nArticle 1b\nCirculation coins shall have a common European side and a distinctive national side.\nArticle 1c\n1. The national side of circulation coins shall not repeat any indication of the denomination, or any parts thereof, of the coin. It shall not repeat the name of the single currency or of its subdivision, unless such indication stems from the use of a different alphabet.\n2. By derogation from paragraph 1, the edge lettering of the 2-euro coin may include an indication of the denomination, provided that only the figure \u201c2\u201d or the term \u201ceuro\u201d in the relevant alphabet, or both, are used.\nArticle 1d\nThe national side of all denominations of circulation coins shall bear an indication of the issuing Member State by means of the Member State\u2019s name or an abbreviation of it.\nArticle 1e\n1. The national side of circulation coins shall bear a circle of 12 stars that shall fully surround the national design, including the year mark and the indication of the issuing Member State\u2019s name. This shall not prevent some design elements from extending into the circle of stars, provided that the stars are all clearly and fully visible. The 12 stars shall be depicted as on the Union flag.\n2. The designs for the national side of circulation coins shall be chosen taking into account that euro coins circulate in all Member States whose currency is the euro.\nArticle 1f\n1. Changes to the designs used for the national sides of regular coins may only be made once every 15 years, without prejudice to changes necessary to prevent counterfeiting of the currency.\n2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, changes to the designs used for the national sides of regular coins may be made where the Head of State referred to on a coin changes. However, a temporary vacancy or the provisional occupation of the function of Head of State shall not give any additional right to such change.\nArticle 1g\nIssuing Member States shall update their national sides of regular coins in order to fully comply with this Regulation by 20 June 2062.\nArticle 1h\n1. Commemorative coins shall bear a different national design from that of the regular coins and shall only commemorate subjects of major national or European relevance. Commemorative coins issued collectively by all Member States whose currency is the euro shall only commemorate subjects of the highest European relevance and their design shall be without prejudice to the possible constitutional requirements of these Member States.\n2. The edge lettering on commemorative coins shall be the same as on regular coins.\n3. Commemorative coins may only have a face value of 2 euro.\nArticle 1i\n1. Member States shall inform each other of the draft designs of new national sides of circulation coins, including the edge letterings, and, for commemorative coins, on the estimated volume of issuance, before the formal approval of those designs.\n2. The power to approve designs for new or modified national sides of circulation coins shall be conferred on the Council acting by qualified majority in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 3 to 7.\nWhen taking the decisions referred to in this Article, the voting rights of the Member States whose currency is not the euro shall be suspended.\n3. For the purpose of paragraph 1, draft designs of circulation coins shall be submitted by the issuing Member State to the Council, to the Commission and to the other Member States whose currency is the euro, in principle at least three months before the planned issue date.\n4. Within seven days following the submission referred to in paragraph 3, any Member State whose currency is the euro may, in a reasoned opinion addressed to the Council and to the Commission, raise an objection to the draft design proposed by the issuing Member State if that draft design is likely to create adverse reactions among its citizens.\n5. Where the Commission considers that the draft design does not respect the technical requirements set out by this Regulation, it shall, within seven days following the submission referred to in paragraph 3, submit a negative assessment to the Council.\n6. If no reasoned opinion or negative assessment has been submitted to the Council within the time limit referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 respectively, the decision approving the design is deemed to be adopted by the Council on the day following the expiry of the time limit referred to in paragraph 5.\n7. In all other cases, the Council shall decide without delay on the approval of the draft design, unless, within seven days following the submission of a reasoned opinion or of a negative assessment, the issuing Member State withdraws its submission and informs the Council of its intention to submit a new draft design.\n8. All relevant information on new national circulation coin designs shall be published by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1j\nArticles 1c, 1d, 1e and 1h(2):\n(a)\nshall not apply to circulation coins which have been issued or produced prior to 19 June 2012;\n(b)\nshall, during a transitional period ending on 20 June 2062, not apply to the designs that are already legally in use on circulation coins on 19 June 2012. Circulation coins that have been issued or produced during the transitional period may remain legal tender without limit in time.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Luxembourg, 18 June 2012.", "references": ["61", "58", "53", "38", "80", "24", "26", "77", "25", "12", "66", "74", "63", "32", "60", "88", "2", "94", "67", "97", "90", "50", "31", "37", "7", "0", "82", "47", "17", "89", "No Label", "27", "28", "76"], "gold": ["27", "28", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/62/EU\nof 8 September 2010\namending, for the purpose of adapting their technical provisions, Council Directives 80/720/EEC and 86/297/EEC and Directives 2003/37/EC, 2009/60/EC and 2009/144/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the type-approval of agricultural or forestry tractors\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on type-approval of agricultural or forestry tractors, their trailers and interchangeable towed machinery, together with their systems, components and separate technical units and repealing Directive 74/150/EEC (1), and in particular points (a) and (b) of Article 19(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nTechnical progress allows for complete whole vehicle type-approval for tractors of category T4.3 (low-clearance tractors), as defined in Directive 2003/37/EC. Therefore, Council Directive 80/720/EEC of 24 June 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the operating space, access to the driving position and the doors and windows of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (2), Directive 2003/37/EC, Directive 2009/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the maximum design speed of and load platforms for wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (3) and Directive 2009/144/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on certain components and characteristics of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (4) should be amended to take account of the specificities of low-clearance tractors.\n(2)\nIn order to progress in the completion of the internal market and to achieve higher levels of occupational safety, requirements for front power take-offs for all tractor categories covered by Directive 2003/37/EC should be included in Council Directive 86/297/EEC of 26 May 1986 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the power take-offs of wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors and their protection (5).\n(3)\nThe required clearance zones and dimensions of the power take-off protective guard established in Directive 86/297/EEC should be amended in order to achieve worldwide harmonisation of such zones and dimensions so as to facilitate the global competitiveness of Union manufacturers.\n(4)\nISO 500-1:2004 together with the Technical Corrigendum 1:2005, ISO 500-2:2004, and ISO 8759-1:1998 contain globally recognised requirements for power take-offs of all tractors covered by Directive 2003/37/EC. It is therefore appropriate to make reference to those ISO standards in Directive 86/297/EEC.\n(5)\nDirective 2003/37/EC should be amended in order to reflect the application of Directive 86/297/EEC to tractors of category T5. Equally, Directive 2003/37/EC should be amended to reflect the application of Directive 2009/60/EC and Directive 80/720/EEC to tractors of category T4.3.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/37/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nDirective 80/720/EEC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\n1. For the purposes of this Directive, \u201ctractor\u201d means a tractor as defined in Article 2(j) of Directive 2003/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6),\nFor the purposes of this Directive, the tractor categories defined in Annex II to Directive 2003/37/EC shall apply.\n2. This Directive shall apply to tractor categories T1, T3 and T4 as defined in Annex II to Directive 2003/37/EC.\nThis Directive shall not apply to tractors of category T4.3 where the driver\u2019s seat index point, as determined in Annex II to Directive 2009/144/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) is more than 100 mm from the median longitudinal plane of the tractor.\n2.\nAnnex I is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nDirective 86/297/EEC is amended as follows:\n1.\nThe title is replaced by the following:\n2.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\n1. For the purposes of this Directive, \u201ctractor\u201d means a tractor as defined in Article 2(j) of Directive 2003/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (8).\n2. For the purposes of this Directive, the tractor categories defined in Annex II to Directive 2003/37/EC shall apply.\n3.\nAnnexes I and II are replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Directive.\nArticle 3\nAnnex II to Directive 2003/37/EC is amended in accordance with Annex III to this Directive.\nArticle 4\nDirective 2009/60/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\n1. For the purposes of this Directive, \u201ctractor\u201d means a tractor as defined in Article 2(j) of Directive 2003/37/EC.\n2. For the purposes of this Directive, the tractor categories defined in Annex II to Directive 2003/37/EC shall apply.\n3. This Directive shall apply only to tractors which are equipped with pneumatic tyres and have a maximum design speed of not more than 40 km/h.\u2019;\n2.\nAnnex I is amended in accordance with Annex IV to this Directive.\nArticle 5\nDirective 2009/144/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\n1. For the purposes of this Directive, \u201ctractor\u201d means a tractor as defined in Article 2(j) of Directive 2003/37/EC.\n2. For the purposes of this Directive, the tractor categories defined in Annex II to Directive 2003/37/EC shall apply.\n3. This Directive shall apply to tractor categories T1, T2, T3 and T4.\u2019;\n2.\nAnnex II is amended in accordance with Annex V to this Directive.\nArticle 6\n1. For tractor categories T1, T2 and T3 as defined in Annex II to Directive 2003/37/EC, Member States shall apply the provisions referred to in Article 7(1) of this Directive to new types of vehicles from 29 September 2011 and to new vehicles from 29 September 2012.\n2. For tractors of category T4.3 as defined in Annex II to Directive 2003/37/EC, Member States shall apply the provisions referred to in Article 7(1) of this Directive to new types of vehicles from 29 September 2013 and to new vehicles from 29 September 2016.\n3. For vehicle categories T4.1, T4.2, T5, C, R and S as defined in Annex II to Directive 2003/37/EC, Member States shall apply the provisions referred to in Article 7(1) of this Directive to new types of vehicles and to new vehicles from the dates laid down in Article 23(2) of Directive 2003/37/EC.\nArticle 7\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 29 September 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 8\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 9\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 September 2010.", "references": ["18", "24", "17", "2", "81", "20", "32", "1", "97", "67", "14", "30", "68", "10", "72", "26", "57", "63", "33", "9", "28", "56", "12", "48", "8", "77", "37", "74", "27", "83", "No Label", "54", "65", "76"], "gold": ["54", "65", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 677/2012\nof 23 July 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 655/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["96", "45", "84", "12", "8", "3", "77", "68", "90", "99", "74", "66", "54", "59", "51", "7", "64", "43", "58", "15", "70", "78", "55", "6", "67", "79", "83", "89", "97", "19", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1007/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 27 September 2011\non textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products and repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC and Directives 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 73/44/EEC of 26 February 1973 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the quantitative analysis of ternary fibre mixtures (3), Directive 96/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 on certain methods for the quantitative analysis of binary textile fibre mixtures (4) and Directive 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on textile names (5) have been amended several times. Since further amendments are to be made, those acts should be replaced by a single legal instrument, in the interest of clarity.\n(2)\nThe legal acts of the Union on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of fibre composition of textile products are very technical in their content, with detailed provisions that need to be adapted regularly. In order to avoid the need for Member States to transpose the technical amendments into national legislation and thus reduce the administrative burden for national authorities and in order to allow for a faster adoption of new textile fibre names to be used simultaneously throughout the Union, a regulation seems to be the most appropriate legal instrument to carry out the legislative simplification.\n(3)\nIn order to eliminate potential obstacles to the proper functioning of the internal market caused by Member States' diverging provisions with regard to textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of fibre composition of textile products, it is necessary to harmonise the names of textile fibres and the indications appearing on labels, markings and documents which accompany textile products at the various stages of their production, processing and distribution.\n(4)\nThe labelling and marking requirements laid down in this Regulation should not apply in cases where textile products are contracted out to persons working in their own homes or to independent firms that carry out work from materials supplied to them without the property therein being transferred for consideration or where customised textile products are made up by self-employed tailors. However, those exemptions should be limited to the transactions between those persons working in their own homes or independent firms and the persons contracting out work to them, and between self-employed tailors and consumers.\n(5)\nThis Regulation lays down harmonised provisions with regard to certain aspects of textile labelling and marking, in particular textile fibre names. Other labelling and marking may exist, provided that it does not cover the same scope as this Regulation and that it is compatible with the Treaties.\n(6)\nIt is appropriate to lay down rules enabling manufacturers to ask for the inclusion of a new textile fibre name in the Annexes to this Regulation.\n(7)\nProvision should also be made in respect of certain products which are not made exclusively of textile materials but have a textile content which constitutes an essential part of the product or to which attention is specifically drawn by the economic operator.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate to lay down rules concerning the labelling or marking of certain textile products which contain non-textile parts of animal origin. This Regulation should, in particular, set out the requirement to indicate the presence of non-textile parts of animal origin on the labelling or marking of textile products containing such parts, in order to enable consumers to make informed choices. The labelling or marking should not be misleading.\n(9)\nThe tolerance in respect of \u2018extraneous fibres\u2019, which are not to be stated on the labels and markings, should apply both to pure products and to mixtures.\n(10)\nLabelling or marking of the fibre composition should be compulsory to ensure that correct and uniform information is made available to all consumers in the Union. However, this Regulation should not prevent economic operators from indicating, in addition, the presence of small quantities of fibres requiring particular attention to keep the original quality of the textile product. Where it is technically difficult to specify the fibre composition of a textile product at the time of its manufacture, it should be possible to state, on the label or marking, only those fibres which are known at the time of manufacture provided that they account for a certain percentage of the finished product.\n(11)\nIn order to avoid differences in practice among the Member States, it is necessary to lay down the exact methods of labelling or marking for certain textile products consisting of two or more components, and also to specify the components of textile products that need not be taken into account for the purposes of labelling, marking and analysis.\n(12)\nTextile products subject only to the requirements of inclusive labelling, and those sold by the metre or in cut lengths, should be made available on the market in such a way that the consumer can fully acquaint himself with the information affixed to the overall packaging or the roll.\n(13)\nThe use of textile fibre names or descriptions of fibre compositions which enjoy particular prestige among users and consumers should be made subject to certain conditions. Furthermore, in order to provide information to users and consumers, it is appropriate that the textile fibre names are related to the characteristics of the fibre.\n(14)\nThe market surveillance in Member States of products covered by this Regulation is subject to Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products (6) and Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (7).\n(15)\nIt is necessary to lay down methods for the sampling and analysis of textile products in order to exclude any possibility of objections to the methods used. The methods used for official tests carried out in the Member States to determine the fibre composition of textile products composed of binary and ternary fibre mixtures should be uniform, as regards both the pre-treatment of the sample and its quantitative analysis. In order to simplify this Regulation and adapt the uniform methods set out therein to technical progress, it is appropriate that those methods be turned into harmonised standards. To that end, the Commission should manage the transition from the current system, which is based on the methods set out in this Regulation, to a harmonised standard-based system. The use of uniform methods of analysis of textile products composed of binary and ternary fibre mixtures will facilitate the free movement of those products, and thereby improve the functioning of the internal market.\n(16)\nIn the case of binary textile fibre mixtures for which there is no uniform method of analysis at Union level, the laboratory responsible for the test should be allowed to determine the composition of such mixtures, indicating in the analysis report the result obtained, the method used and its degree of accuracy.\n(17)\nThis Regulation should set out the agreed allowances to be applied to the anhydrous mass of each fibre during the determination by analysis of the fibre content of textile products, and should give two different agreed allowances for calculating the composition of carded or combed fibres containing wool and/or animal hair. Since it cannot always be established whether a product is carded or combed, and consequently inconsistent results can arise from the application of the tolerances during checks on the conformity of textile products carried out in the Union, the laboratories carrying out those checks should be authorised to apply a single agreed allowance in doubtful cases.\n(18)\nRules should be laid down in respect of products exempt from the general labelling and marking requirements set out in this Regulation, in particular with respect to disposable products or products for which only inclusive labelling is required.\n(19)\nMisleading commercial practices, involving the provision of false information that would cause consumers to take a transactional decision that they would not have taken otherwise, are prohibited by Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (8) and are covered by Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection law (9).\n(20)\nConsumer protection requires transparent and consistent trade rules, including as regards indications of origin. When such indications are used, they should enable consumers to be fully aware of the origin of the products they purchase, so as to protect them against fraudulent, inaccurate or misleading claims of origin.\n(21)\nThe European textiles sector is affected by counterfeiting, which poses problems in terms of consumer protection and information. Member States should pay particular attention to the implementation of horizontal Union legislation and measures regarding counterfeit products in the field of textile products, for example Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (10).\n(22)\nIt is appropriate to establish a procedure for the inclusion of new textile fibre names in the Annexes to this Regulation. This Regulation should thus set out requirements regarding applications by manufacturers or other persons acting on their behalf for new textile fibre names to be added to those Annexes.\n(23)\nIt is necessary that manufacturers, or other persons acting on their behalf, who wish to add a new textile fibre name to the Annexes to this Regulation, include in the technical file to be submitted with their application available scientific information concerning possible allergic reactions or other adverse effects of the new textile fibre on human health, including results of tests conducted to that effect in compliance with relevant Union legislation.\n(24)\nThe power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the adoption of technical criteria and procedural rules for the authorisation of higher tolerances, the amendment of Annexes II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX in order to adapt them to technical progress and the amendment of Annex I in order to include new textile fibre names in the list set out in that Annex. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(25)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of its scale, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(26)\nIn order to eliminate possible obstacles to the proper functioning of the internal market caused by divergent provisions or practices of Member States, and in order to keep pace with the development of electronic commerce and future challenges in the market for textile products, the harmonisation or standardisation of other aspects of textile labelling should be examined. To that end, the Commission is invited to submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council regarding possible new labelling requirements to be introduced at Union level with a view to facilitating the free movement of textile products in the internal market and to achieving a high level of consumer protection throughout the Union. That report should examine in particular consumer views relating to the amount of information that should be supplied on the label of textile products, and investigate which means other than labelling may be used to provide additional information to consumers. The report should be based on an extended consultation of relevant stakeholders, including consumers, and should take into account existing related European and international standards. The report should examine, in particular: the scope and features of possible harmonised rules on the indication of origin, taking into account the results of developments on potential horizontal country-of-origin rules; the added value to the consumer of possible labelling requirements relating to care instructions, size, hazardous substances, flammability and environmental performance of the textile products; the use of language-independent symbols or codes for identifying the textile fibres contained in a textile product, enabling the consumer to understand easily the composition and, in particular, the use of natural or synthetic fibres; social labelling and electronic labelling; as well as the inclusion of an identification number on the label to obtain additional on-demand information, especially via the Internet, about the product and the manufacturer. The report should be accompanied, where appropriate, by legislative proposals.\n(27)\nThe Commission should carry out a study to evaluate whether there is a causal link between allergic reactions and chemical substances or mixtures used in textile products. On the basis of that study, the Commission should, where appropriate, submit legislative proposals in the context of existing Union legislation.\n(28)\nDirectives 73/44/EEC, 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC should be repealed,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER 1\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down rules concerning the use of textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of fibre composition of textile products, rules concerning the labelling or marking of textile products containing non-textile parts of animal origin and rules concerning the determination of the fibre composition of textile products by quantitative analysis of binary and ternary textile fibre mixtures, with a view to improving the functioning of the internal market and to providing accurate information to consumers.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to textile products when made available on the Union market and to the products referred to in paragraph 2.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following products shall be treated in the same way as textile products:\n(a)\nproducts containing at least 80 % by weight of textile fibres;\n(b)\nfurniture, umbrella and sunshade coverings containing at least 80 % by weight of textile components;\n(c)\nthe textile components of:\n(i)\nthe upper layer of multi-layer floor coverings;\n(ii)\nmattress coverings;\n(iii)\ncoverings of camping goods;\nprovided such textile components constitute at least 80 % by weight of such upper layers or coverings;\n(d)\ntextiles incorporated in other products and forming an integral part thereof, where their composition is specified.\n3. This Regulation shall not apply to textile products which are contracted out to persons working in their own homes or to independent firms that carry out work from materials supplied without the property therein being transferred for consideration.\n4. This Regulation shall not apply to customised textile products made up by self-employed tailors.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018textile product\u2019 means any raw, semi-worked, worked, semi-manufactured, manufactured, semi-made-up or made-up product which is exclusively composed of textile fibres, regardless of the mixing or assembly process employed;\n(b)\n\u2018textile fibre\u2019 means either of the following:\n(i)\na unit of matter characterised by its flexibility, fineness and high ratio of length to maximum transverse dimension, which render it suitable for textile applications;\n(ii)\na flexible strip or tube, of which the apparent width does not exceed 5 mm, including strips cut from wider strips or films, produced from the substances used for the manufacture of the fibres listed in Table 2 of Annex I and suitable for textile applications;\n(c)\n\u2018apparent width\u2019 means the width of the strip or tube when folded, flattened, compressed or twisted, or the average width where the width is not uniform;\n(d)\n\u2018textile component\u2019 means a part of a textile product with an identifiable fibre content;\n(e)\n\u2018extraneous fibres\u2019 means fibres other than those stated on the label or marking;\n(f)\n\u2018lining\u2019 means a separate component used in making up garments and other products, consisting of a single layer or multiple layers of textile material held in place along one or more of the edges;\n(g)\n\u2018labelling\u2019 means affixing the required information to the textile product by way of attaching a label;\n(h)\n\u2018marking\u2019 means indicating the required information directly on the textile product by way of sewing, embroidering, printing, embossing or any other technology of application;\n(i)\n\u2018inclusive labelling\u2019 means the use of a single label for several textile products or components;\n(j)\n\u2018disposable product\u2019 means a textile product designed to be used only once or for a limited time, and the normal use of which is not intended for subsequent use for the same or a similar purpose;\n(k)\n\u2018agreed allowance\u2019 means the value of moisture regain to be used in the calculation of the percentage of fibre components on a clean, dry mass basis, with adjustment by conventional factors.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions of \u2018making available on the market\u2019, \u2018placing on the market\u2019, \u2018manufacturer\u2019, \u2018importer\u2019, \u2018distributor\u2019, \u2018economic operators\u2019, \u2018harmonised standard\u2019, \u2018market surveillance\u2019 and \u2018market surveillance authority\u2019 set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 shall apply.\nArticle 4\nGeneral requirement on the making available on the market of textile products\nTextile products shall only be made available on the market provided that such products are labelled, marked or accompanied with commercial documents in compliance with this Regulation.\nCHAPTER 2\nTEXTILE FIBRE NAMES AND RELATED LABELLING AND MARKING REQUIREMENTS\nArticle 5\nTextile fibre names\n1. Only the textile fibre names listed in Annex I shall be used for the description of fibre compositions on labels and markings of textile products.\n2. Use of the names listed in Annex I shall be reserved for textile fibres the nature of which corresponds to the description set out in that Annex.\nThe names listed in Annex I shall not be used for other fibres, whether on their own or as a root or as an adjective.\nThe term \u2018silk\u2019 shall not be used to indicate the shape or particular presentation in continuous filament yarn of textile fibres.\nArticle 6\nApplications for new textile fibre names\nAny manufacturer or any person acting on a manufacturer's behalf may apply to the Commission to add a new textile fibre name to the list set out in Annex I.\nThe application shall include a technical file compiled in accordance with Annex II.\nArticle 7\nPure textile products\n1. Only textile products exclusively composed of the same fibre may be labelled or marked as \u2018100 %\u2019, \u2018pure\u2019 or \u2018all\u2019.\nThose or similar terms shall not be used for other textile products.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 8(3), a textile product containing no more than 2 % by weight of extraneous fibres may also be treated as exclusively composed of the same fibre, provided this quantity is justified as being technically unavoidable in good manufacturing practice and is not added as a matter of routine.\nA textile product which has undergone a carding process may also be treated as exclusively composed of the same fibre if it contains no more than 5 % by weight of extraneous fibres, provided this quantity is justified as being technically unavoidable in good manufacturing practice and is not added as a matter of routine.\nArticle 8\nFleece wool or virgin wool products\n1. A textile product may be labelled or marked by one of the names set out in Annex III provided it is composed exclusively of a wool fibre which has not previously been incorporated in a finished product, which has not been subjected to any spinning and/or felting processes other than those required in the manufacture of that product, and which has not been damaged by treatment or use.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the names listed in Annex III may be used to describe wool contained in a textile fibre mixture if all the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nall the wool contained in that mixture satisfies the requirements defined in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nsuch wool accounts for not less than 25 % of the total weight of the mixture;\n(c)\nin the case of a scribbled mixture, the wool is mixed with only one other fibre.\nThe full percentage composition of such mixture shall be given.\n3. The extraneous fibres in the products referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, including wool products which have undergone a carding process, shall not exceed 0,3 % by weight, shall be justified as being technically unavoidable in good manufacturing practice and shall not be added as a matter of routine.\nArticle 9\nMulti-fibre textile products\n1. A textile product shall be labelled or marked with the name and percentage by weight of all constituent fibres in descending order.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, and without prejudice to Article 7(2), a fibre which accounts for up to 5 % of the total weight of the textile product, or fibres which collectively account for up to 15 % of the total weight of the textile product, may, where they cannot easily be stated at the time of the manufacture, be designated by the term \u2018other fibres\u2019, immediately preceded or followed by their total percentage by weight.\n3. Products having a pure cotton warp and a pure flax weft, in which the percentage of flax accounts for at least 40 % of the total weight of the unsized fabric may be given the name \u2018cotton linen union\u2019 which must be accompanied by the composition specification \u2018pure cotton warp - pure flax (or linen) weft\u2019.\n4. Without prejudice to Article 5(1), for textile products the composition of which is hard to state at the time of their manufacture, the term \u2018mixed fibres\u2019 or the term \u2018unspecified textile composition\u2019 may be used on the label or marking.\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, fibres not yet listed in Annex I may be designated by the term \u2018other fibres\u2019, immediately preceded or followed by their total percentage by weight.\nArticle 10\nDecorative fibres and fibres with antistatic effect\n1. Visible, isolable fibres which are purely decorative and do not exceed 7 % of the weight of the finished product do not have to be taken into account in the fibre compositions provided for in Articles 7 and 9.\n2. Metallic fibres and other fibres which are incorporated in order to obtain an antistatic effect and which do not exceed 2 % of the weight of the finished product do not have to be taken into account in the fibre compositions provided for in Articles 7 and 9.\n3. In the case of the products referred to in Article 9(4), the percentages provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall be calculated on the weight of the warp and that of the weft separately.\nArticle 11\nMulti-component textile products\n1. Any textile product containing two or more textile components which have different textile fibre contents shall bear a label or marking stating the textile fibre content of each component.\n2. The labelling or marking referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be compulsory for textile components when the following two conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthose components are not main linings; and\n(b)\nthose components represent less than 30 % of the total weight of the textile product.\n3. Where two or more textile products have the same fibre content and normally form a single unit, they may bear only one label or marking.\nArticle 12\nTextile products containing non-textile parts of animal origin\n1. The presence of non-textile parts of animal origin in textile products shall be indicated by using the phrase \u2018Contains non-textile parts of animal origin\u2019 on the labelling or marking of products containing such parts whenever they are made available on the market.\n2. The labelling or marking shall not be misleading and shall be carried out in such a way that the consumer can easily understand.\nArticle 13\nLabelling and marking of textile products listed in Annex IV\nThe fibre composition of textile products listed in Annex IV shall be indicated in accordance with the labelling and marking provisions set out in that Annex.\nArticle 14\nLabels and markings\n1. Textile products shall be labelled or marked to give an indication of their fibre composition whenever they are made available on the market.\nThe labelling and marking of textile products shall be durable, easily legible, visible and accessible and, in the case of a label, securely attached.\n2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, labels or markings may be replaced or supplemented by accompanying commercial documents when the products are being supplied to economic operators within the supply chain, or when they are delivered in performance of an order placed by any contracting authority as defined in Article 1 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (11).\n3. The textile fibre names and descriptions of fibre compositions referred to in Articles 5, 7, 8 and 9 shall be clearly indicated in the accompanying commercial documents referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article.\nAbbreviations shall not be used with the exception of a mechanised processing code, or where the abbreviations are defined in international standards, provided that they are explained in the same commercial document.\nArticle 15\nObligation to supply the label or marking\n1. When placing a textile product on the market, the manufacturer shall ensure the supply of the label or marking and the accuracy of the information contained therein. If the manufacturer is not established in the Union, the importer shall ensure the supply of the label or marking and the accuracy of the information contained therein.\n2. A distributor shall be considered a manufacturer for the purposes of this Regulation where he places a product on the market under his name or trademark, attaches the label himself or modifies the content of the label.\n3. When making a textile product available on the market, the distributor shall ensure that textile products bear the appropriate labelling or marking prescribed by this Regulation.\n4. The economic operators referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall ensure that any information supplied when textile products are made available on the market cannot be confused with the textile fibre names and the descriptions of fibre compositions, as laid down by this Regulation.\nArticle 16\nThe use of textile fibre names and fibre composition descriptions\n1. When making a textile product available on the market, the textile fibre composition descriptions referred to in Articles 5, 7, 8 and 9 shall be indicated in catalogues and trade literature, on packaging, labels and markings in a manner that is easily legible, visible, clear and in print which is uniform as regards its size, style and font. This information shall be clearly visible to the consumer before the purchase, including in cases where the purchase is made by electronic means.\n2. Trade marks or the name of the undertaking may be given immediately before or after textile fibre composition descriptions referred to in Articles 5, 7, 8 and 9.\nHowever, where a trade mark or a name of an undertaking contains, on its own or as a root or as an adjective, one of the textile fibre names listed in Annex I or a name liable to be confused therewith, such trade mark or name shall be given immediately before or after the textile fibre composition descriptions referred to in Articles 5, 7, 8 and 9.\nOther information shall be always displayed separately.\n3. The labelling or marking shall be provided in the official language or languages of the Member State on the territory of which the textile products are made available to the consumer, unless the Member State concerned provides otherwise.\nIn the case of bobbins, reels, skeins, balls or other small quantities of sewing, mending and embroidery yarns, the first subparagraph shall apply to the inclusive labelling referred to in Article 17(3). Whenever these products are individually sold, they may be labelled or marked in any of the official languages of the institutions of the Union, provided they are also inclusively labelled.\nArticle 17\nDerogations\n1. The rules laid down in Articles 11, 14, 15 and 16 shall be subject to the derogations provided for in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article.\n2. The indication of textile fibre names or fibre composition on the labels and markings of textile products listed in Annex V is not required.\nHowever, where a trade mark or name of an undertaking contains, on its own or as a root or as an adjective, one of the names listed in Annex I or a name liable to be confused therewith, Articles 11, 14, 15 and 16 shall apply.\n3. Where textile products listed in Annex VI are of the same type and fibre composition, they may be made available on the market together with an inclusive labelling.\n4. The fibre composition of textile products sold by the metre may be shown on the length or roll made available on the market.\n5. The textile products referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be made available on the market in such a way that the fibre composition of those products is made known to each purchaser in the supply chain, including the consumer.\nCHAPTER 3\nMARKET SURVEILLANCE\nArticle 18\nMarket surveillance checks\nMarket surveillance authorities shall carry out checks on the conformity of the fibre composition of textile products with the supplied information related to the fibre composition of those products in accordance with this Regulation.\nArticle 19\nDetermination of fibre composition\n1. For the purpose of determining the fibre composition of textile products, the checks referred to in Article 18 shall be carried out in accordance with the methods set out in Annex VIII or with the harmonised standards to be introduced in that Annex.\n2. In the determination of fibre compositions set out in Articles 7, 8 and 9, the items listed in Annex VII shall not be taken into account.\n3. The fibre compositions set out in Articles 7, 8 and 9 shall be determined by applying to the anhydrous mass of each fibre the appropriate agreed allowance laid down in Annex IX, after having removed the items set out in Annex VII.\n4. The laboratories responsible for the testing of textile mixtures for which there is no uniform method of analysis at Union level shall determine the fibre composition of such mixtures, indicating in the analysis report the result obtained, the method used and its degree of accuracy.\nArticle 20\nTolerances\n1. For the purposes of establishing the fibre composition of textile products, the tolerances laid down in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 shall apply.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 8(3), the presence of extraneous fibres in the fibre composition to be provided in accordance with Article 9 does not need to be indicated if the percentage of those fibres does not reach the following values:\n(a)\n2 % of the total weight of the textile product, provided this quantity is justified as being technically unavoidable in good manufacturing practice and is not added as a matter of routine; or\n(b)\n5 % of the total weight in the case of textile products which have undergone a carding process, provided this quantity is justified as being technically unavoidable in good manufacturing practice and is not added as a matter of routine.\n3. A manufacturing tolerance of 3 % shall be permitted between the stated fibre composition to be provided in accordance with Article 9 and the percentages obtained from analysis carried out in accordance with Article 19, in relation to the total weight of fibres shown on the label or marking. Such tolerance shall also apply to the following:\n(a)\nfibres which may be designated by the term \u2018other fibres\u2019 in accordance with Article 9;\n(b)\nthe percentage of wool referred to in point (b) of Article 8(2).\nFor the purposes of the analysis, the tolerances shall be calculated separately. The total weight to be taken into account in calculating the tolerance referred to in this paragraph shall be that of the fibres of the finished product less the weight of any extraneous fibres found when applying the tolerance referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n4. The cumulative application of the tolerances referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be permitted only if any extraneous fibres found by analysis, when applying the tolerance referred to in paragraph 2, prove to be of the same chemical type as one or more of the fibres shown on the label or marking.\n5. In the case of particular textile products for which the manufacturing process requires tolerances higher than those laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Commission may authorise higher tolerances.\nPrior to placing the textile product on the market, the manufacturer shall submit a request for authorisation by the Commission providing sufficient reasons for and evidence of the exceptional manufacturing circumstances. The authorisation may only be granted in exceptional cases and where adequate justification is provided by the manufacturer.\nIf appropriate, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 22, technical criteria and procedural rules for the application of this paragraph.\nCHAPTER 4\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 21\nDelegated acts\n1. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 22 concerning the adoption of technical criteria and procedural rules for the application of Article 20(5), amendments to Annexes II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX, in order to take account of technical progress, and amendments to Annex I in order to include, pursuant to Article 6, new textile fibre names in the list set out in that Annex.\n2. When adopting such delegated acts, the Commission shall act in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation.\nArticle 22\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 20(5) and Article 21 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from 7 November 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 20(5) and Article 21 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 20(5) and Article 21 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 23\nReporting\nBy 8 November 2014, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Regulation, with an emphasis on the requests for and adoption of new textile fibre names and submit, where appropriate, a legislative proposal.\nArticle 24\nReview\n1. By 30 September 2013, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council regarding possible new labelling requirements to be introduced at Union level with a view to providing consumers with accurate, relevant, intelligible and comparable information on the characteristics of textile products.\n2. The report shall be based on a consultation of relevant stakeholders and shall take into account existing related European and international standards.\n3. The report shall be accompanied, where appropriate, by legislative proposals, and shall examine, inter alia, the following issues:\n(a)\nan origin labelling scheme aimed at providing consumers with accurate information on the country of origin and additional information ensuring full traceability of textile products, taking into account the results of developments on potential horizontal country-of-origin rules;\n(b)\na harmonised care labelling system;\n(c)\na Union-wide uniform size labelling system for relevant textile products;\n(d)\nan indication of allergenic substances;\n(e)\nelectronic labelling and other new technologies, and the use of language-independent symbols or codes for the identification of fibres.\nArticle 25\nStudy on hazardous substances\nBy 30 September 2013, the Commission shall carry out a study to evaluate whether there is a causal link between allergic reactions and chemical substances or mixtures used in textile products. On the basis of that study, the Commission shall, where appropriate, submit legislative proposals in the context of existing Union legislation.\nArticle 26\nTransitional provision\nTextile products which comply with Directive 2008/121/EC and which are placed on the market before 8 May 2012 may continue to be made available on the market until 9 November 2014.\nArticle 27\nRepeal\nDirectives 73/44/EEC, 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC are hereby repealed with effect from 8 May 2012.\nReferences to the repealed Directives shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation tables in Annex X.\nArticle 28\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 8 May 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 27 September 2011.", "references": ["49", "18", "82", "29", "16", "76", "30", "31", "2", "61", "36", "85", "47", "5", "67", "79", "32", "98", "38", "17", "83", "84", "87", "21", "96", "68", "63", "12", "75", "7", "No Label", "9", "24", "25", "89"], "gold": ["9", "24", "25", "89"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 454/2010\nof 26 May 2010\non transitional measures under Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the labelling provisions for feed\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the placing on the market and use of feed (1), and in particular Article 32(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 767/2009 provides for a complete revision of EU rules concerning the marketing conditions of feed materials and compound feed and its Article 32(4) allows measures in order to facilitate transition to the new rules.\n(2)\nThe rules on labelling laid down by Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 will have to be applied as from 1 September 2010. This would imply an abrupt change and not allow a smooth transition for the feed business operators placing feed on the market. Switching the design and production of labels and the conversion of the existing machinery from one day to the other would be expensive for those businesses. The resulting burden would be disproportionate to the objective of the change. It is therefore appropriate to provide for a transitional period during which feed may be labelled in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 before 1 September 2010.\n(3)\nAs regards feed intended for pet animals, the market consists of a huge number of different products with specific labels. Compared with the current labelling rules for pet food, only Articles 15(f), 17(1)(f) and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 will introduce changes to the labelling of those products, representing only minor changes with no effect on safety. In order to allow a smooth transition for the feed business operators concerned, it is justified to provide for a transitional period of 1 year during which the current labels for pet food may continue to be used after 1 September 2010.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from the second paragraph of Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 and without prejudice to Council Directives 79/373/EEC (2), 82/471/EEC (3), 93/74/EEC (4) and 96/25/EC (5), feed labelled in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 may be placed on the market as from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nBy way of derogation from the second paragraph of Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2009, feed intended for pet animals and labelled in accordance with Directive 79/373/EEC and Article 16 of Council Directive 70/524/EEC (6) may be placed on the market until 31 August 2011. After that date, it may remain on the market until stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 May 2010.", "references": ["27", "44", "60", "12", "85", "68", "87", "78", "98", "96", "34", "70", "65", "54", "94", "95", "88", "57", "89", "67", "40", "14", "9", "13", "11", "86", "36", "30", "19", "47", "No Label", "8", "24", "25", "66"], "gold": ["8", "24", "25", "66"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2010/40/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 7 July 2010\non the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving consulted the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe increase in the volume of road transport in the Union associated with the growth of the European economy and mobility requirements of citizens is the primary cause of increasing congestion of road infrastructure and rising energy consumption, as well as a source of environmental and social problems.\n(2)\nThe response to those major challenges cannot be limited to traditional measures, inter alia the expansion of the existing road transport infrastructure. Innovation will have a major role to play in finding appropriate solutions for the Union.\n(3)\nIntelligent Transport Systems (ITS) are advanced applications which without embodying intelligence as such aim to provide innovative services relating to different modes of transport and traffic management and enable various users to be better informed and make safer, more coordinated and \u2018smarter\u2019 use of transport networks.\n(4)\nITS integrate telecommunications, electronics and information technologies with transport engineering in order to plan, design, operate, maintain and manage transport systems. The application of information and communication technologies to the road transport sector and its interfaces with other modes of transport will make a significant contribution to improving environmental performance, efficiency, including energy efficiency, safety and security of road transport, including the transport of dangerous goods, public security and passenger and freight mobility, whilst at the same time ensuring the functioning of the internal market as well as increased levels of competitiveness and employment. However, ITS applications should be without prejudice to matters concerning national security or which are necessary in the interest of defence.\n(5)\nAdvances in the field of the application of information and communication technologies to other modes of transport should now be reflected in developments in the road transport sector, in particular with a view to ensuring higher levels of integration between road transport and other modes of transport.\n(6)\nIn some Member States national applications of these technologies are already being deployed in the road transport sector. However, such deployment remains fragmented and uncoordinated and cannot provide geographical continuity of ITS services throughout the Union and at its external borders.\n(7)\nTo ensure a coordinated and effective deployment of ITS within the Union as a whole, specifications, including, where appropriate, standards, defining further detailed provisions and procedures should be introduced. Before adopting any specifications, the Commission should assess their compliance with certain defined principles set out in Annex II. Priority should be given in the first instance to the four main areas of ITS development and deployment. Within those four areas, priority actions should be established for the development and use of specifications and standards. During further implementation of ITS the existing ITS infrastructure deployed by a particular Member State should be taken into account in terms of technological progress and financial efforts made.\n(8)\nWhen a legislative act is adopted as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 6(2) of this Directive, the second sentence of Article 5(1) should be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe specifications should, inter alia take into account and build upon the experience and results already obtained in the field of ITS, notably in the context of the eSafety initiative, launched by the Commission in April 2002. The eSafety Forum was established by the Commission under that initiative to promote and further implement recommendations to support the development, deployment and use of eSafety systems.\n(10)\nVehicles which are operated mainly for their historical interest and were originally registered and/or type-approved and/or put into service before the entry into force of this Directive and of its implementing measures should not be affected by the rules and procedures laid down in this Directive.\n(11)\nITS should build on interoperable systems which are based on open and public standards and available on a non-discriminatory basis to all application and service suppliers and users.\n(12)\nThe deployment and use of ITS applications and services will entail the processing of personal data. Such processing should be carried out in accordance with Union law, as set out, in particular, in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (3) and in Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (4), inter alia, the principles of purpose limitation and data minimisation should be applied to ITS applications.\n(13)\nAnonymisation as one of the principles of enhancing individuals' privacy should be encouraged. As far as data protection and privacy related issues in the field of ITS applications and services deployment are concerned, the Commission should, as appropriate, further consult the European Data Protection Supervisor and request an opinion of the Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data established by Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC.\n(14)\nThe deployment and use of ITS applications and services, and notably traffic and travel information services, will entail the processing and use of road, traffic and travel data forming part of documents held by public sector bodies of the Member States. Such processing and use should be carried out in accordance with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (5).\n(15)\nIn appropriate cases, the specifications should include detailed provisions laying down the procedure governing assessment of conformity or suitability for use of constituents. Those provisions should be based on Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products (6), in particular concerning the modules for the various phases of the conformity assessment procedures. Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) already establishes a framework for the type approval of motor vehicles and their parts or related equipment, and Directive 2002/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (8) and Directive 2003/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (9) lay down rules on the type approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, and agricultural or forestry tractors and their parts or related equipment. Therefore, it would be a duplication of work to provide for conformity assessment of equipment and applications falling within the scope of those Directives. At the same time, although those Directives apply to ITS-related equipment installed in vehicles, they do not apply to external road infrastructure ITS equipment and software. In such cases, the specifications could provide for conformity assessment procedures. Such procedures should be limited to what would be necessary in each separate case.\n(16)\nFor ITS applications and services for which accurate and guaranteed timing and positioning services are required, satellite-based infrastructures or any technology providing an equivalent level of precisions should be used, such as those provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations (10) and Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on the further implementation of the European satellite navigation programmes (EGNOS and Galileo) (11).\n(17)\nInnovative technologies such as Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFID) or EGNOS/Galileo should be used for the realisation of ITS applications, notably for the tracking and tracing of freight along its journey and across modes of transport.\n(18)\nMajor stakeholders such as ITS service providers, associations of ITS users, transport and facilities operators, representatives of the manufacturing industry, social partners, professional associations and local authorities should have the possibility to advise the Commission on the commercial and technical aspects of the deployment of ITS within the Union. For this purpose the Commission, ensuring close cooperation with stakeholders and Member States, should set up an ITS advisory group. The work of the advisory group should be carried out in a transparent manner and the result should be made available to the Committee established by this Directive.\n(19)\nUniform conditions of implementation should be ensured for the adoption of guidelines and non-binding measures to facilitate Member States cooperation in respect of priority areas on ITS as well as in respect of guidelines for reporting by the Member States and of a working programme.\n(20)\nAccording to Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers shall be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (12) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable.\n(21)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the TFEU in respect of the adoption of specifications. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(22)\nIn order to guarantee a coordinated approach, the Commission should ensure coherence between the activities of the Committee established by this Directive and those of the Committee established by Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (13), the Committee established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (14), the Committee established by Directive 2007/46/EC and the Committee established by Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (15).\n(23)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely to ensure the coordinated and coherent deployment of interoperable Intelligent Transport Systems throughout the Union cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and/or the private sector and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, 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.\n(24)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making, Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Union, their own tables, which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Directive establishes a framework in support of the coordinated and coherent deployment and use of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) within the Union, in particular across the borders between the Member States, and sets out the general conditions necessary for that purpose.\n2. This Directive provides for the development of specifications for actions within the priority areas referred to in Article 2, as well as for the development, where appropriate, of necessary standards.\n3. This Directive shall apply to ITS applications and services in the field of road transport and to their interfaces with other modes of transport without prejudice to matters concerning national security or necessary in the interest of defence.\nArticle 2\nPriority areas\n1. For the purpose of this Directive the following shall constitute priority areas for the development and use of specifications and standards:\n- I.\nOptimal use of road, traffic and travel data,\n- II.\nContinuity of traffic and freight management ITS services,\n- III.\nITS road safety and security applications,\n- IV.\nLinking the vehicle with the transport infrastructure.\n2. The scope of the priority areas is specified in Annex I.\nArticle 3\nPriority actions\nWithin the priority areas the following shall constitute priority actions for the development and use of specifications and standards, as set out in Annex I:\n(a)\nthe provision of EU-wide multimodal travel information services;\n(b)\nthe provision of EU-wide real-time traffic information services;\n(c)\ndata and procedures for the provision, where possible, of road safety related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users;\n(d)\nthe harmonised provision for an interoperable EU-wide eCall;\n(e)\nthe provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles;\n(f)\nthe provision of reservation services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles.\nArticle 4\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018Intelligent Transport Systems\u2019 or \u2018ITS\u2019 means systems in which information and communication technologies are applied in the field of road transport, including infrastructure, vehicles and users, and in traffic management and mobility management, as well as for interfaces with other modes of transport;\n(2)\n\u2018interoperability\u2019 means the capacity of systems and the underlying business processes to exchange data and to share information and knowledge;\n(3)\n\u2018ITS application\u2019 means an operational instrument for the application of ITS;\n(4)\n\u2018ITS service\u2019 means the provision of an ITS application through a well-defined organisational and operational framework with the aim of contributing to user safety, efficiency, comfort and/or to facilitate or support transport and travel operations;\n(5)\n\u2018ITS service provider\u2019 means any provider of an ITS service, whether public or private;\n(6)\n\u2018ITS user\u2019 means any user of ITS applications or services including travellers, vulnerable road users, road transport infrastructure users and operators, fleet managers and operators of emergency services;\n(7)\n\u2018vulnerable road users\u2019 means non-motorised road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists as well as motor-cyclists and persons with disabilities or reduced mobility and orientation;\n(8)\n\u2018nomadic device\u2019 means a portable communication or information device that can be brought inside the vehicle to support the driving task and/or the transport operations;\n(9)\n\u2018platform\u2019 means an on-board or off-board unit enabling the deployment, provision, exploitation and integration of ITS applications and services;\n(10)\n\u2018architecture\u2019 means the conceptual design that defines the structure, behaviour and integration of a given system in its surrounding context;\n(11)\n\u2018interface\u2019 means a facility between systems which provides the media through which they can connect and interact;\n(12)\n\u2018compatibility\u2019 means the general ability of a device or system to work with another device or system without modification;\n(13)\n\u2018continuity of services\u2019 means the ability to ensure seamless services on transport networks across the Union;\n(14)\n\u2018road data\u2019 means data on road infrastructure characteristics, including fixed traffic signs or their regulatory safety attributes;\n(15)\n\u2018traffic data\u2019 means historic and real-time data on road traffic characteristics;\n(16)\n\u2018travel data\u2019 means basic data such as public transport timetables and tariffs, necessary to provide multi-modal travel information before and during the trip to facilitate travel planning, booking and adaptation;\n(17)\n\u2018specification\u2019 means a binding measure laying down provisions containing requirements, procedures or any other relevant rules;\n(18)\n\u2018standard\u2019 means standard as defined in Article 1(6) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (16).\nArticle 5\nDeployment of ITS\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the specifications adopted by the Commission in accordance with Article 6 are applied to ITS applications and services, when these are deployed, in accordance with the principles in Annex II. This is without prejudice to the right of each Member State to decide on its deployment of such applications and services on its territory. This right is without prejudice to any legislative act adopted under the second subparagraph of Article 6(2).\n2. Member States shall also make efforts to cooperate in respect of the priority areas, insofar as no specifications have been adopted.\nArticle 6\nSpecifications\n1. The Commission shall first adopt the specifications necessary to ensure the compatibility, interoperability and continuity for the deployment and operational use of ITS for the priority actions.\n2. The Commission shall aim at adopting specifications for one or more of the priority actions by 27 February 2013.\nAt the latest 12 months after the adoption of the necessary specifications for a priority action, the Commission shall, where appropriate, after conducting an impact assessment including a cost-benefit analysis, present a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with Article 294 of the TFEU on the deployment of that priority action.\n3. Once the necessary specifications for the priority actions have been adopted, the Commission shall adopt specifications ensuring compatibility, interoperability and continuity for the deployment and operational use of ITS for other actions in the priority areas.\n4. Where relevant, and depending on the area covered by the specification, the specification shall include one or more of the following types of provisions:\n(a)\nfunctional provisions that describe the roles of the various stakeholders and the information flow between them;\n(b)\ntechnical provisions that provide for the technical means to fulfil the functional provisions;\n(c)\norganisational provisions that describe the procedural obligations of the various stakeholders;\n(d)\nservice provisions that describe the various levels of services and their content for ITS applications and services.\n5. Without prejudice to the procedures under Directive 98/34/EC the specifications shall, where appropriate, stipulate the conditions in which Member States may, after notification to the Commission, establish additional rules for the provision of ITS services on all or part of their territory, provided that those rules do not hinder interoperability.\n6. The specifications shall, where appropriate, be based on any standards referred to in Article 8.\nThe specifications shall, as appropriate, provide for conformity assessment in accordance with Decision No 768/2008/EC.\nThe specifications shall comply with the principles set out in Annex II.\n7. The Commission shall conduct an impact assessment including a cost-benefit analysis prior to the adoption of the specifications.\nArticle 7\nDelegated acts\n1. The Commission may adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the TFEU as regards specifications. When adopting such delegated acts the Commission shall act in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Directive, in particular Article 6 and Annex II.\n2. A separate delegated act shall be adopted for each of the priority actions.\n3. For the delegated acts referred to in this Article, the procedure set out in Articles 12, 13 and 14 shall apply.\nArticle 8\nStandards\n1. The necessary standards to provide for interoperability, compatibility and continuity for the deployment and operational use of ITS shall be developed in the priority areas and for the priority actions. To that effect, the Commission, after having consulted the Committee referred to in Article 15, shall request the relevant standardisation bodies in accordance with the procedure laid down in Directive 98/34/EC to make every necessary effort to adopt these standards rapidly.\n2. When issuing a mandate to the standardisation bodies, the principles set out in Annex II shall be observed as well as any functional provision included in a specification adopted in accordance with Article 6.\nArticle 9\nNon-binding measures\nThe Commission may adopt guidelines and other non-binding measures to facilitate Member States' cooperation relating to the priority areas in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 15(2).\nArticle 10\nRules on privacy, security and re-use of information\n1. Member States shall ensure that the processing of personal data in the context of the operation of ITS applications and services is carried out in accordance with Union rules protecting fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, in particular Directive 95/46/EC and Directive 2002/58/EC.\n2. In particular, Member States shall ensure that personal data are protected against misuse, including unlawful access, alteration or loss.\n3. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, in order to ensure privacy, the use of anonymous data shall be encouraged, where appropriate, for the performance of the ITS applications and services.\nWithout prejudice to Directive 95/46/EC personal data shall only be processed insofar as such processing is necessary for the performance of ITS applications and services.\n4. With regard to the application of Directive 95/46/EC and in particular where special categories of personal data are involved, Member States shall also ensure that the provisions on consent to the processing of such personal data are respected.\n5. Directive 2003/98/EC shall apply.\nArticle 11\nRules on liability\nMember States shall ensure that issues related to liability, concerning the deployment and use of ITS applications and services set out in specifications adopted in accordance with Article 6, are addressed in accordance with Union law, including in particular Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (17) as well as relevant national legislation.\nArticle 12\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 7 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of seven years following 27 August 2010. The Commission shall make a report in respect of the delegated powers no later than six months before the end of a five year period following 27 August 2010.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 13 and 14.\nArticle 13\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of powers referred to in Article 7 may be revoked by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of powers shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 14\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of two months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council this period shall be extended by two months.\n2. If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 15\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the European ITS Committee (EIC).\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 3 and Article 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\nArticle 16\nEuropean ITS Advisory Group\nThe Commission shall establish a European ITS Advisory Group to advise it on business and technical aspects of the deployment and use of ITS in the Union. The group shall be composed of high level representatives from relevant ITS service providers, associations of users, transport and facilities operators, manufacturing industry, social partners, professional associations, local authorities and other relevant fora.\nArticle 17\nReporting\n1. Member States shall submit to the Commission by 27 August 2011 a report on their national activities and projects regarding the priority areas.\n2. Member States shall provide the Commission by 27 August 2012 with information on national ITS actions envisaged over the following five year period.\nGuidelines for reporting by the Member States shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 15(2).\n3. Following the initial report, Member States shall report every three years on the progress made in the deployment of the actions referred to in paragraph 1.\n4. The Commission shall submit a report every three years to the European Parliament and to the Council on the progress made for the implementation of this Directive. The report shall be accompanied by an analysis on the functioning and implementation, including the financial resources used and needed, of Articles 5 to 11 and Article 16, and shall assess the need to amend this Directive, where appropriate.\n5. In accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 15(2), the Commission shall adopt a working program by 27 February 2011. The working program shall include objectives and dates for its implementation every year and if necessary shall propose the necessary adaptations.\nArticle 18\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 27 February 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference, and its wording, shall be laid down by Member States.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 19\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 20\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 7 July 2010.", "references": ["83", "23", "85", "82", "59", "93", "51", "72", "48", "41", "71", "1", "81", "47", "52", "89", "26", "75", "94", "86", "30", "79", "39", "66", "19", "13", "61", "10", "56", "15", "No Label", "40", "42", "53", "54", "55", "58"], "gold": ["40", "42", "53", "54", "55", "58"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 November 2010\non the clearance of the accounts of certain paying agencies in France concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2008 financial year\n(notified under document C(2010) 8220)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(2010/721/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 33 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Fund Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decisions 2009/373/EC (2) and 2010/59/EU (3) cleared, for the 2008 financial year, the accounts of all the paying agencies except for the German paying agency \u2018Bayern\u2019, the Greek paying agency \u2018OPEKEPE\u2019, the French paying agency \u2018ODARC\u2019 and the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019.\n(2)\nFollowing the transmission of new information and after additional checks, the Commission can now take a decision concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the French paying agency \u2018ODARC\u2019.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from Community financing expenditure not effected in accordance with Community rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accounts of the French paying agency \u2018ODARC\u2019 concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in respect of the 2008 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State under each rural development programme pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 33(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 26 November 2010.", "references": ["39", "42", "30", "32", "99", "50", "80", "35", "86", "40", "87", "5", "1", "16", "4", "85", "88", "34", "53", "95", "55", "92", "77", "46", "38", "79", "94", "60", "52", "48", "No Label", "10", "17", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "17", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 798/2011\nof 9 August 2011\napproving the active substance oxyfluorfen, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Articles 13(2) and 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Oxyfluorfen is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included oxyfluorfen.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (6) the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from entry into force of that Regulation. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (7) was adopted on the non-inclusion of oxyfluorfen.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to Spain, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nSpain evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 13 January 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on oxyfluorfen to the Commission on 23 November 2010 (8). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for oxyfluorfen.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing oxyfluorfen may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve oxyfluorfen in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that oxyfluorfen should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(11)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of the approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing oxyfluorfen. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw existing authorisations. By way of derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(12)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (9) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances. In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (10) should be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of oxyfluorfen and the withdrawal of authorisations for plants protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning oxyfluorfen in the Annex to that Decision. It is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance oxyfluorfen, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing oxyfluorfen as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing oxyfluorfen as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Following that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing oxyfluorfen as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing oxyfluorfen as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2008/934/EC\nThe line concerning oxyfluorfen in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 August 2011.", "references": ["69", "50", "84", "79", "62", "43", "14", "74", "78", "82", "68", "81", "63", "12", "17", "97", "24", "7", "41", "5", "3", "28", "22", "89", "53", "2", "64", "16", "46", "44", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 721/2011\nof 22 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2011.", "references": ["83", "77", "50", "56", "98", "76", "74", "1", "80", "84", "38", "6", "64", "95", "37", "39", "40", "36", "67", "27", "21", "70", "63", "60", "94", "4", "71", "78", "93", "14", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 568/2012\nof 28 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 as regards the submission of support programmes in the wine sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 103za, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 103k(1), first subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that each producer Member State referred to in Annex Xb of that Regulation is to submit to the Commission a draft five-year support programme containing measures to assist the wine sector.\n(2)\nArticle 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector (2) provides that the first submission of support programmes is to refer to the five financial years 2009 to 2013.\n(3)\nIn order to prepare for the second submission of draft support programmes for the financial years 2014 to 2018, the framework and specific requirements for the new programming period should be established. It is also necessary to set a deadline for the second submission of the draft support programmes.\n(4)\nA deadline should be set for Member States wishing to transfer, from 2014, amounts of their national envelope into the Single Payment Scheme as provided for in Article 103o of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 555/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 555/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\"Article 2\nSubmission of support programmes\n1. The first submission of the draft support programme referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 103k(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall refer to the five financial years 2009 to 2013.\nFor the financial years 2014 to 2018, Member States shall submit their draft support programme to the Commission by 1 March 2013. If the national envelopes foreseen from the financial year 2014 and onwards are modified after that date, the Member States shall adapt the support programmes accordingly.\nMember States shall make their draft support programme available to the Commission by electronic means using the form in Annex I.\nMember States shall submit their financial planning for the draft support programme referred to in the first and second subparagraphs to the Commission in the form set out in Annex II.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission their legislation related to the draft support programmes referred to in paragraph 1 once adopted or modified. This notification can be done by informing the Commission about the site where the legislation concerned is publicly available.\n3. Member States deciding to transfer all the amount of their national envelope from the 2010 financial year onwards and for all the period referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, into the Single Payment Scheme shall submit the form provided for in Annex II of this Regulation, duly completed in the relevant line and once for all before the 30 June 2008.\nMember States deciding to transfer amounts of their national envelope from the 2014 financial year onwards and for all the period referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, into the Single Payment Scheme shall submit the form provided for in Annex II, duly completed in the relevant line, before 1 December 2012.\n4. Member States deciding to set up their support programme including regional particularities may also submit details by region in the form provided for in Annex III.\n5. Member States shall bear the responsibility for expenditure between the date on which their support programme is received by the Commission and the date of its applicability according to Article 103k(2), first subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007\"\n(2)\nAnnexes I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, VIIIa and VIIIb are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2012.", "references": ["88", "21", "48", "43", "36", "74", "53", "69", "28", "59", "3", "87", "7", "76", "99", "81", "24", "85", "9", "26", "75", "23", "37", "17", "32", "68", "13", "25", "70", "54", "No Label", "4", "42", "61", "66", "71"], "gold": ["4", "42", "61", "66", "71"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/009 ES/Comunidad Valenciana Textiles from Spain)\n(2010/808/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nSpain submitted an application on 22 March 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 143 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 13 (manufacture of textiles) in a single NUTS II region, Comunidad Valenciana (ES52) and supplemented it with additional information up to 17 June 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 059 466.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Spain,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 059 466 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["98", "43", "70", "69", "57", "80", "39", "53", "0", "42", "30", "54", "14", "48", "47", "88", "84", "16", "65", "34", "36", "71", "2", "26", "68", "52", "17", "60", "61", "93", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 369/2010\nof 29 April 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 April 2010.", "references": ["51", "16", "39", "94", "83", "47", "84", "48", "28", "88", "0", "21", "90", "7", "86", "96", "36", "18", "12", "95", "45", "23", "62", "6", "44", "25", "76", "32", "70", "52", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 712/2012\nof 3 August 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008 concerning the examination of variations to the terms of marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use and veterinary medicinal products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (1), and in particular Article 27b thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (2), and in particular Article 23b(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (3), and in particular Article 16(4) and Article 41(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2009/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 amending Directive 2001/82/EC and Directive 2001/83/EC, as regards variations to the terms of marketing authorisations for medicinal products (4), requires the Commission to adopt appropriate arrangements for the examination of variations to the terms of marketing authorisations granted in accordance with Directives 2001/82/EC and 2001/83/EC not yet covered by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008 (5). It is therefore appropriate to extend the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008. The variations of all marketing authorisations granted in the EU in accordance with the acquis should be subject to the procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008.\n(2)\nThe definition of variation should be clarified and updated in particular to take into consideration the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, and Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products (6), and the provisions of Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (7).\n(3)\nFor reasons of consistency and with a view to reducing the administrative burden, variations to purely national marketing authorisations should be processed in accordance with the same principles that apply to variations of marketing authorisations granted under the mutual recognition procedure and the decentralised procedure. However, the possibilities for grouping variations should be adapted to the specific characteristics of purely national marketing authorisations.\n(4)\nIt should be possible to process variations to purely national marketing authorisations in accordance with the worksharing procedure under certain conditions. Where the use of the worksharing procedure has lead to the harmonisation of a section of the summary of product characteristics, it should not be possible for the holder to later undermine the harmonisation achieved by submitting applications for variations to the section thus harmonised in some of the concerned Member States only.\n(5)\nGrouping of several variations in a single submission is possible in some cases. It should be clarified that, where several variations are grouped, the procedure for the handling of the variations in the group and the rules for the implementation of those variations should be those of the variation of the highest grade. In order to facilitate the acceptance of complex groupings by the relevant authorities, it should be possible to extend the assessment period.\n(6)\nThe worksharing procedure is intended to avoid duplication of work. Accordingly, it should be possible for competent authorities to process under the same procedure variations to purely national marketing authorisations, variations to marketing authorisations granted under the mutual recognition or decentralised procedure, and variations to centralised marketing authorisations.\n(7)\nThe procedure for the variation of human influenza vaccines should be streamlined. Competent authorities should still be able to start the assessment in the absence of clinical and stability data and take a decision if no additional information is considered necessary. However, if clinical and stability data is requested, the competent authorities should not be required to take a decision until the assessment thereof has been finalised.\n(8)\nFor medicinal products authorised under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the refusal of the European Medicines Agency to accept a variation should terminate the procedure. Likewise, a Commission decision should not be required regarding variations that do not amend the terms of the decision granting the marketing authorisation.\n(9)\nThe European Medicines Agency has the expertise to assess the need for urgent safety restrictions regarding medicinal products authorised under the centralised procedure. Marketing authorisation holders of medicinal products authorised under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 should therefore inform the Agency if they consider that urgent safety measures are necessary.\n(10)\nA proliferation of variation procedures leading to frequent changes in the terms of the decision granting the marketing authorisation for centralised marketing authorisations has been identified. Changes that are critical for public health should be reflected in the decision granting the marketing authorisation promptly. However, other changes should be reflected in the decision granting the marketing authorisation according to timelines that ensure reasonable periodic updates of the decision granting the marketing authorisations while facilitating the identification of variations with the greatest impact on public health.\n(11)\nThe principles governing the implementation of variations should be adjusted while keeping the principle that it should be possible for the marketing authorisation holder to implement certain variations prior to the relevant marketing authorisation being changed.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use and the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008\nRegulation (EC) No 1234/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. This Regulation lays down provisions concerning the examination of variations to the terms of all marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use and veterinary medicinal products granted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, Directive 2001/83/EC, Directive 2001/82/EC, and Council Directive 87/22/EEC (8).\n(b)\nthe following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (3):\n\u20183a. Chapter IIa shall apply only to variations to the terms of purely national marketing authorisations.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. \u201cVariation to the terms of a marketing authorisation\u201d or \u201cvariation\u201d means any amendment to:\n(a)\nthe information referred to in Articles 12(3) to 14 of Directive 2001/82/EC and Annex I thereto, Articles 8(3) to 11 of Directive 2001/83/EC and Annex I thereto, Articles 6(2) and 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, or Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007;\n(b)\nthe terms of the decision granting the marketing authorisation for a medicinal product for human use, including the summary of the product characteristics and any conditions, obligations, or restrictions affecting the marketing authorisation, or changes to the labelling or the package leaflet connected with changes to the summary of the product characteristics;\n(c)\nthe terms of the decision granting the marketing authorisation for a veterinary medicinal product, including the summary of the product characteristics and any conditions, obligations, or restrictions affecting the marketing authorisation, or changes to the labelling or the package leaflet.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u20188. \u201cUrgent safety restriction\u201d means an interim change in the terms of the marketing authorisation due to new information having a bearing on the safe use of the medicinal product.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraph 9 is added:\n\u20189. \u201cPurely national marketing authorisation\u201d means any marketing authorisation granted by a Member State in accordance with the acquis outside the mutual recognition or decentralised procedure and that has not been subject to a complete harmonisation following a referral procedure.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. A variation which is not an extension and whose classification is undetermined after application of the rules provided for in this Regulation, taking into account the guidelines referred to in Article 4(1) and, where relevant, any recommendations delivered pursuant to Article 5, shall by default be considered a minor variation of type IB.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nwhere the competent authority of the reference Member State as referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2001/82/EC and Article 28 of Directive 2001/83/EC (hereinafter \u201cthe reference Member State\u201d), in consultation with the other Member States concerned, or the Agency in the case of a centralised marketing authorisation, or the competent authority in the case of a purely national marketing authorisation, concludes, following the assessment of validity of a notification in accordance with Article 9(1), Article 13b(1), or Article 15(1) and taking into account the recommendations delivered pursuant to Article 5, that the variation may have a significant impact on the quality, safety or efficacy of the medicinal product concerned.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nGuidelines\n1. The Commission shall, after consulting the Member States and the Agency, draw up guidelines on the details of the various categories of variations, on the operation of the procedures laid down in Chapters II, IIa, III and IV of this Regulation, and on the documentation to be submitted pursuant to those procedures.\n2. The guidelines referred to in paragraph 1 shall be regularly updated.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 5 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Prior to the submission of a variation whose classification is not provided for in this Regulation, a holder may request a recommendation on the classification of the variation as follows:\n(a)\nto the Agency, where the variation refers to a marketing authorisation granted under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(b)\nto the competent authority of the Member State concerned, where the variation refers to a purely national marketing authorisation;\n(c)\nto the competent authority of the reference Member State, in the other cases.\nThe recommendation referred to in the first subparagraph shall be consistent with the guidelines referred to in Article 4(1). It shall be delivered within 45 days following receipt of the request and sent to the holder, the Agency, and the coordination group referred to in Article 31 of Directive 2001/82/EC or in Article 27 of Directive 2001/83/EC.\nThe 45-day period referred to in the second subparagraph may be extended by 25 days where the relevant authority deems it necessary to consult with the coordination group.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph 1a is inserted after paragraph 1:\n\u20181a. Prior to the examination of a variation whose classification is not provided for in this Regulation, a competent authority of a Member State may request a recommendation on the classification of the variation to the coordination group.\nThe recommendation referred to in the first subparagraph shall be consistent with the guidelines referred to in Article 4(1). It shall be delivered within 45 days following receipt of the request and sent to the holder, the Agency, and the competent authorities of all Member States.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 7\nGrouping of variations\n1. Where several variations are notified or applied for, a separate notification or application in accordance with Chapters II, III, or Article 19 as appropriate shall be submitted in respect of each variation sought.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the following shall apply:\n(a)\nwhere the same minor variation(s) of type IA to the terms of one or more marketing authorisations owned by the same holder are notified at the same time to the same relevant authority, a single notification as referred to in Article 8 or 14 may cover all such variations;\n(b)\nwhere several variations to the terms of the same marketing authorisation are submitted at the same time, a single submission may cover all such variations provided that the variations concerned fall within one of the cases listed in Annex III;\n(c)\nwhere several variations to the terms of the same marketing authorisation are submitted at the same time and the variations do not fall within one of the cases listed in Annex III, a single submission may cover all such variations provided that the competent authority of the reference Member State in consultation with the competent authorities of the Member States concerned or, in the case of a centralised marketing authorisation, the Agency agrees to such single submission.\nThe submission referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c) shall be made simultaneously to all relevant authorities by means of the following:\n(i)\na single notification in accordance with Article 9 or 15 where at least one of the variations is a minor variation of type IB and the remaining variations are minor variations;\n(ii)\na single application in accordance with Article 10 or 16 where at least one of the variations is a major variation of type II and none of the variations is an extension;\n(iii)\na single application in accordance with Article 19 where at least one of the variations is an extension.\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 9, the following paragraph 5 is added:\n\u20185. This Article shall not apply where a type IB variation request is submitted in a grouping that includes a variation type II and does not contain an extension. In such case, the prior approval procedure in Article 10 shall apply.\nThis Article shall not apply where a type IB variation request is submitted in a grouping that includes an extension. In such case, the procedure in Article 19 shall apply.\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 10 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The competent authority of the reference Member State may reduce the period referred to in the first subparagraph, having regard to the urgency of the matter, or extend it to 90 days for variations listed in Part 1 of Annex V or for grouping of variations in accordance with Article 7(2)(c).\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph 6 is added:\n\u20186. This Article shall not apply where a type II variation request is submitted in a grouping that includes an extension. In such case, the procedure in Article 19 shall apply.\u2019;\n(9)\nArticle 12 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. By way of derogation from Article 10, the procedure laid down in paragraphs 2 to 5 shall apply to the examination of variations concerning changes to the active substance for the purposes of the annual update of a human influenza vaccine.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraphs 3, 4 and 5 are replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The competent authority of the reference Member State shall assess the application submitted. Where deemed necessary, the competent authority of the reference Member State may request additional data to the holder in order to complete its assessment.\n4. The competent authority shall prepare a decision and an assessment report within 45 days from the receipt of a valid application.\nThe 45-day period referred to in the first subparagraph shall be suspended from the moment when the additional data referred to in paragraph 3 is requested until the data is submitted.\n5. Within 12 days from the receipt of the decision and the assessment report of the competent authority of the reference Member State, the relevant authorities shall adopt a decision accordingly and inform the competent authority of the reference Member State and the holder thereof.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 6 is deleted;\n(10)\nthe following Chapter IIa is inserted after Article 13:\n\u2018CHAPTER IIa\nVARIATIONS TO PURELY NATIONAL MARKETING AUTHORISATIONS\nArticle 13a\nNotification procedure for minor variations of type IA\n1. Where a minor variation of type IA is made, the holder shall submit to the competent authority a notification containing the elements listed in Annex IV. This notification shall be submitted within 12 months following the implementation of the variation.\nHowever, the notification shall be submitted immediately after the implementation of the variation in the case of minor variations requiring immediate notification for the continuous supervision of the medicinal product concerned.\n2. Within 30 days following receipt of the notification, the measures provided for in Article 13e shall be taken.\nArticle 13b\nNotification procedure for minor variations of type IB\n1. The holder shall submit to the competent authority a notification containing the elements listed in Annex IV.\nIf the notification fulfils the requirement laid down in the first subparagraph, the competent authority shall acknowledge receipt of a valid notification.\n2. If within 30 days following the acknowledgement of receipt of a valid notification, the competent authority has not sent the holder an unfavourable opinion, the notification shall be deemed accepted by the competent authority.\nWhere the notification is accepted by the competent authority, the measures provided for in Article 13e shall be taken.\n3. Where the competent authority is of the opinion that the notification cannot be accepted, it shall inform the holder, stating the grounds on which its unfavourable opinion is based.\nWithin 30 days following the receipt of the unfavourable opinion, the holder may submit to the competent authority an amended notification in order to take due account of the grounds laid down in that opinion.\nIf the holder does not amend the notification in accordance with the second subparagraph, the notification shall be deemed rejected.\n4. Where an amended notification has been submitted, the competent authority shall assess it within 30 days following its receipt and the measures provided for in Article 13e shall be taken.\n5. This Article shall not apply where a type IB variation request is submitted in a grouping that includes a variation type II and does not contain an extension. In such case, the prior approval procedure in Article 13c shall apply.\nThis Article shall not apply where a type IB variation request is submitted in a grouping that includes an extension. In such case, the procedure in Article 19 shall apply.\nArticle 13c\n\u201cPrior Approval\u201d procedure for major variations of type II\n1. The holder shall submit to the competent authority an application containing the elements listed in Annex IV.\nIf the application fulfils the requirements laid down in the first subparagraph, the competent authority shall acknowledge receipt of a valid application.\n2. Within 60 days following the acknowledgement of receipt of a valid application, the competent authority shall conclude the assessment.\nThe competent authority may reduce the period referred to in the first subparagraph, having regard to the urgency of the matter, or extend it to 90 days for variations listed in Part 1 of Annex V or for grouping of variations in accordance with Article 13d(2)(c).\nThe period referred to in the first subparagraph shall be 90 days for variations listed in Part 2 of Annex V.\n3. Within the periods referred to in paragraph 2, the competent authority may request the holder to provide supplementary information within a time limit set by the competent authority. In this case the procedure shall be suspended until such supplementary information has been provided and the competent authority may extend the period referred to in paragraph 2.\n4. Within 30 days after the conclusion of the assessment, the measures provided for in Article 13e shall be taken.\n5. This Article shall not apply where a type II variation request is submitted in a grouping that includes an extension. In such case, the procedure in Article 19 shall apply.\nArticle 13d\nGrouping of variations to purely national marketing authorisations\n1. Where several variations are notified or applied for, a separate notification or application in accordance with Articles 13a, 13b, 13c, or 19 as appropriate shall be submitted to the competent authority in respect of each variation sought.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1 the following shall apply:\n(a)\nwhere the same minor variation(s) of type IA to the terms of one or more marketing authorisations owned by the same holder are notified at the same time to the same competent authority, a single notification as referred to in Article 13a may cover all such variations;\n(b)\nwhere several variations to the terms of the same marketing authorisation are submitted at the same time to the same competent authority, a single submission may cover all such variations provided that the variations concerned fall within one of the cases listed in Annex III;\n(c)\nwhere the same variation(s) to the terms of one or more marketing authorisations owned by the same holder are submitted at the same time to the same competent authority and they are not covered under subparagraph (a) or (b), a single submission may cover all such variations provided that the competent authority agrees to such single submission.\nThe submission referred to in points (b) and (c) shall be made by means of the following:\n(i)\na single notification in accordance with Article 13b where at least one of the variations is a minor variation of type IB and the remaining variations are minor variations;\n(ii)\na single application in accordance with Article 13c where at least one of the variations is a major variation of type II and none of the variations is an extension;\n(iii)\na single application in accordance with Article 19 where at least one of the variations is an extension.\nArticle 13e\nMeasures to close the procedures of Articles 13a to 13c\nWhere reference is made to this Article, the competent authority shall take the following measures:\n(a)\nit shall inform the holder as to whether the variation is accepted or rejected;\n(b)\nwhere the variation is rejected, it shall inform the holder of the grounds for the rejection;\n(c)\nwhere necessary, it shall amend the decision granting the marketing authorisation in accordance with the accepted variation within the time limit laid down in paragraph 1 of Article 23.\nArticle 13f\nHuman influenza vaccines\n1. By way of derogation from Article 13c, the procedure laid down in paragraphs 2 to 4 shall apply to the examination of variations concerning changes to the active substance for the purposes of the annual update of a human influenza vaccine.\n2. The holder shall submit to the competent authority an application containing the elements listed in Annex IV.\nIf the application fulfils the requirements laid down in the first subparagraph, the competent authority shall acknowledge receipt of a valid application.\n3. The competent authority shall assess the application submitted. Where deemed necessary, the competent authority may request additional data to the holder in order to complete its assessment.\n4. The competent authority shall adopt a decision within 45 days from the receipt of a valid application and shall take the measures provided for in Article 13e.\nThe 45-day period referred to in the first subparagraph shall be suspended from the moment when the additional data referred to in paragraph 3 is requested until the data is submitted.\u2019;\n(11)\nArticle 15 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 3, the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018If the holder does not amend the notification in accordance with the second subparagraph, the notification shall be deemed rejected.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph 5 is added:\n\u20185. This Article shall not apply where a type IB variation request is submitted in a grouping that includes a variation type II and does not contain an extension. In such case, the prior approval procedure in Article 16 shall apply.\nThis Article shall not apply where a type IB variation request is submitted in a grouping that includes an extension. In such case, the procedure in Article 19 shall apply.\u2019;\n(12)\nArticle 16 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Agency may reduce the period referred to in the first subparagraph, having regard to the urgency of the matter, or extend it to 90 days for variations listed in Part 1 of Annex V or for grouping of variations in accordance with Article 7(2)(c).\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph 5 is added:\n\u20185. This Article shall not apply where a type II variation request is submitted in a grouping that includes an extension. In such case, the procedure in Article 19 shall apply.\u2019;\n(13)\nArticle 17 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 17\nMeasures to close the procedures of Articles 14 to 16\n1. Where reference is made to this Article, the Agency shall take the following measures:\n(a)\nit shall inform the holder of the outcome of the assessment;\n(b)\nwhere the variation is rejected, it shall inform the holder of the grounds for the rejection;\n(c)\nwhere the outcome of the assessment is favourable and the variation affects the terms of the Commission decision granting the marketing authorisation, the Agency shall transmit to the Commission its opinion and the grounds for its opinion as well as the revised versions of the documents referred to in Article 9(4) or Article 34(4) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as appropriate.\n2. In the cases identified under paragraph 1(c), the Commission, having regard to the opinion from the Agency and within the time limit foreseen in Article 23(1a), shall amend where necessary the decision granting the marketing authorisation. The Community Register of Medicinal Products provided for in Article 13(1) and Article 38(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 shall be updated accordingly.\u2019;\n(14)\nArticle 18 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. By way of derogation from Article 16, the procedure laid down in paragraphs 2 to 6 shall apply to the examination of variations concerning changes to the active substance for the purposes of the annual update of a human influenza vaccine.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 are replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Agency shall assess the application submitted. Where deemed necessary, the Agency may request additional data to complete its assessment.\n4. Within 55 days from the receipt of a valid application, the Agency shall adopt an opinion. The Agency\u2019s opinion on the application shall be transmitted to the applicant. Where the Agency\u2019s opinion is favourable, the Agency shall also transmit to the Commission its opinion and the grounds for its opinion as well as the revised versions of the documents referred in Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\n5. The 55-day period referred to in paragraph 4 shall be suspended from the moment when the additional data referred to in paragraph 3 is requested until the data is submitted.\n6. Having regard to the favourable opinion of the Agency, the Commission shall amend where necessary the decision granting the marketing authorisation. The Community Register of Medicinal Products provided for in Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 shall be updated accordingly.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 7 is deleted;\n(15)\nArticle 20 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. By way of derogation from Articles 7(1), 9, 10, 13b, 13c, 13d, 15 and 16 the holder of a marketing authorisation may choose to follow the worksharing procedure laid down in paragraphs 3 to 9 in the following cases:\n(a)\nfor marketing authorisations referred to in Chapters II and III, where a minor variation of type IB, a major variation of type II, or a group of variations as provided for in Article 7(2)(b) or (c) that does not contain any extension relates to several marketing authorisations owned by the same holder;\n(b)\nfor purely national marketing authorisations referred to in Chapter IIa, where a minor variation of type IB, a major variation of type II, or a group of variations as provided for in Article 13d(2)(b) or (c) that does not contain any extension relates to several marketing authorisations owned by the same holder;\n(c)\nfor purely national marketing authorisations referred to in Chapter IIa, where a minor variation of type IB, a major variation of type II, or a group of variations as provided for in Article 13d(2)(b) or (c) that does not contain any extension relates to one marketing authorisation that is owned by the same holder in more than one Member State.\nVariations covered under (a), (b) or (c) may be subject to the same worksharing procedure.\nThe reference authority or, in the case of purely national marketing authorisations, the competent authority may refuse to process a submission under the worksharing procedure where the same change(s) to different marketing authorisations require the submission of individual supportive data for each medicinal product concerned or a separate product-specific assessment.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. For the purposes of this Article, \u201creference authority\u201d shall mean one of the following:\n(a)\nthe Agency where at least one of the marketing authorisations referred to paragraph 1 is a centralised marketing authorisation;\n(b)\nthe competent authority of a Member State concerned chosen by the coordination group, taking into account a recommendation of the holder, in the other cases.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, the first and second subparagraphs are replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The holder shall submit to all relevant authorities an application containing the elements listed in Annex IV, with an indication of the preferred reference authority.\nThe coordination group shall choose a reference authority. If the application fulfils the requirements laid down in the first subparagraph, that reference authority shall acknowledge receipt of a valid application.\u2019;\n(d)\nparagraphs 4 and 5 are replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The reference authority shall issue an opinion on a valid application as referred to in paragraph 3 within one of the following periods:\n(a)\na period of 60 days following acknowledgement of receipt of a valid application in the case of minor variations of type IB or major variations of type II;\n(b)\na period of 90 days following acknowledgement of receipt of a valid application in the case of variations listed in Part 2 of Annex V.\n5. The reference authority may reduce the period referred to in point (a) of paragraph 4, having regard to the urgency of the matter, or extend it to 90 days for variations listed in Part 1 of Annex V or for grouping of variations in accordance with Article 7(2)(c) or Article 13d(2)(c).\u2019;\n(e)\nparagraphs 7 and 8 are replaced by the following:\n\u20187. Where the reference authority is the Agency, Article 9(1) and (2) and Article 34(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 shall apply to the opinion referred to in paragraph 4.\nThe Agency\u2019s opinion on the application shall be transmitted to the applicant and the Member States, together with the assessment report. Where the outcome of the assessment is favourable and the variation affects the terms of the Commission decision granting the marketing authorisation, the Agency shall also transmit to the Commission its opinion and the grounds for its opinion as well as the revised versions of the documents referred in Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\nWhere the Agency issues a favourable opinion, the following shall apply:\n(a)\nif the opinion recommends the variation to the terms of a Commission decision granting the marketing authorisation, the Commission shall, having regard to the final opinion and within the time limits foreseen in Article 23(1a), amend the decision(s) accordingly, provided that the revised versions of the documents referred to in Article 9(4) or Article 34(4) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 have been received. The Community Register of Medicinal Products provided for in Article 13(1) and Article 38(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 shall be updated accordingly;\n(b)\nthe Member States concerned shall, within 60 days following receipt of the final opinion of the Agency, approve that final opinion, inform the Agency thereof and, where necessary, amend the marketing authorisations concerned accordingly, provided that the documents necessary for the amendment of the marketing authorisation have been transmitted to the Member States concerned.\n8. Where the reference authority is the competent authority of a Member State:\n(a)\nit shall send its opinion to the holder and to all relevant authorities;\n(b)\nwithout prejudice to Article 13 and within 30 days following receipt of the opinion, the relevant authorities shall approve that opinion and inform the reference authority;\n(c)\nthe concerned marketing authorisations shall be amended accordingly within 30 days following the approval of the opinion, provided that the documents necessary for the amendment of the marketing authorisation have been transmitted to the Member States concerned.\u2019;\n(f)\nthe following paragraph 10 is inserted after paragraph 9:\n\u201810. Where harmonisation of a section of the summary of product characteristics of a purely national marketing authorisation has been achieved through a worksharing procedure, any subsequent variation submission affecting the harmonised section shall be transmitted simultaneously to all Member States concerned.\u2019;\n(16)\nin Article 21, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. By way of derogation from Chapters I, II, IIa and III, where a pandemic situation with respect to human influenza is duly recognised by the World Health Organisation or by the Union in the framework of Decision 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (9), the relevant authorities or, in the case of centralised marketing authorisations, the Commission may exceptionally and temporarily accept a variation to the terms of a marketing authorisation for a human influenza vaccine, where certain non-clinical or clinical data are missing.\n(17)\nin Article 22, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Where, in the event of a risk to public health in the case of medicinal products for human use or, in the case of veterinary medicinal products, in the event of a risk to human or animal health or to the environment, the holder takes urgent safety restrictions on its own initiative, it shall forthwith inform all relevant authorities and, in the case of a centralised marketing authorisation, the Agency.\nIf the relevant authority or, in the case of a centralised marketing authorisation, the Agency has not raised objections within 24 hours following receipt of that information, the urgent safety restrictions shall be deemed accepted.\u2019;\n(18)\nArticle 23 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Amendments to the decision granting the marketing authorisation resulting from the procedures laid down in Chapters II and IIa shall be made:\n(a)\nin the case of major variations of type II, within two months following receipt of the information referred to in Article 11(1)(c) and Article 13e(a), provided that the documents necessary for the amendment of the marketing authorisation have been transmitted to the Member States concerned;\n(b)\nin the other cases, within six months following receipt of the information referred to in Article 11(1)(c) and Article 13e(a), provided that the documents necessary for the amendment of the marketing authorisation have been transmitted to the Member States concerned.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph 1a is inserted after paragraph 1:\n\u20181a. Amendments to the decision granting the marketing authorisation resulting from the procedures laid down in Chapter III shall be made:\n(a)\nwithin two months following receipt of the information referred to in Article 17(1)(c) for the following variations:\n(i)\nvariations related to the addition of a new therapeutic indication or to the modification of an existing one;\n(ii)\nvariations related to the addition of a new contraindication;\n(iii)\nvariations related to a change in posology;\n(iv)\nvariations related to the addition of a non-food producing target species or the modification of an existing one for veterinary medicinal products;\n(v)\nvariations concerning the replacement or addition of a serotype, strain, antigen or combination of serotypes, strains or antigens for a veterinary vaccine;\n(vi)\nvariations related to changes to the active substance of a seasonal, pre-pandemic or pandemic vaccine against human influenza;\n(vii)\nvariations related to changes to the withdrawal period for a veterinary medicinal product;\n(viii)\nother type II variations that are intended to implement changes to the decision granting the marketing authorisation due to a significant public health concern or significant animal health or environmental concern in the case of veterinary medicinal products;\n(b)\nwithin 12 months following receipt of the information referred to in Article 17(1)(c) in the other cases.\nThe Agency shall determine the variations referred to in point (a)(viii) and provide reasons for such determination.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Where the decision granting a marketing authorisation is amended as a result of one of the procedures laid down in Chapters II, IIa, III and IV, the relevant authority or, in the case of centralised marketing authorisations, the Commission shall notify the amended decision without delay to the holder.\u2019;\n(19)\nthe following Article 23a is inserted after Article 23:\n\u2018Article 23a\nThe statement indicating compliance with the agreed completed paediatric investigation plan provided for under Article 28(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 shall be included within the technical dossier of the marketing authorisation.\nThe relevant authority shall provide the holder with a confirmation that the statement is included in the technical dossier within 30 days after the relevant assessment has been concluded.\u2019;\n(20)\nArticle 24 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 24\nImplementation of variations\n1. Minor variations of type IA may be implemented any time before completion of the procedures laid down in Articles 8, 13a and 14.\nWhere a notification concerning one or several minor variations of type IA is rejected, the holder shall cease to apply the concerned variation(s) immediately after receipt of the information referred to in Articles 11(1)(a), 13e(a), and 17(1)(a).\n2. Minor variations of type IB may only be implemented in the following cases:\n(a)\nfor variations submitted in accordance with the procedures laid down in Chapter II, after the competent authority of the reference Member State has informed the holder that it has accepted the notification pursuant to Article 9, or after the notification is deemed accepted pursuant to Article 9(2);\n(b)\nfor variations submitted in accordance with the procedures laid down in Chapter IIa, after the relevant authority has informed the holder that it has accepted the notification pursuant to Article 13b, or after the notification is deemed accepted pursuant to Article 13b(2);\n(c)\nfor variations submitted in accordance with the procedures laid down in Chapter III, after the Agency has informed the holder that its opinion referred to in Article 15 is favourable, or after that opinion is deemed favourable pursuant to Article 15(2);\n(d)\nfor variations submitted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 20, after the reference authority has informed the holder that its opinion is favourable.\n3. Major variations of type II may only be implemented in the following cases:\n(a)\nfor variations submitted in accordance with the procedures laid down in Chapter II, 30 days after the competent authority of the reference Member State has informed the holder that it has accepted the variation pursuant to Article 10, under the condition that the documents necessary for the amendment to the marketing authorisation have been provided to the Member States concerned. Where an arbitration procedure has been initiated in accordance with Article 13, the holder shall not implement the variation until the arbitration procedure has concluded that the variation is accepted;\n(b)\nfor variations submitted in accordance with the procedures laid down in Chapter IIa, after the competent authority has informed the holder that it has accepted the variation pursuant to Article 13c;\n(c)\nfor variations submitted in accordance with the procedures laid down in Chapter III, after the Agency has informed the holder that its opinion referred to in Article 16 is favourable, unless the variation is one referred to in Article 23(1a)(a).\nVariations referred to in Article 23(1a)(a) may only be implemented after the Commission has amended the decision granting the marketing authorisation and notified the holder thereof;\n(d)\nfor variations submitted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 20, 30 days after the reference authority has informed the holder that its opinion is favourable, under the condition that the documents necessary for the amendment to the marketing authorisation have been provided to the Member States concerned; unless an arbitration procedure has been initiated in accordance with Article 13, or unless the procedure concerns a variation to a centralised marketing authorisation as referred to in Article 23(1a)(a).\nWhere an arbitration procedure has been initiated in accordance with Article 13, or where the worksharing procedure concerns a variation to a centralised marketing authorisation as referred to in Article 23(1a)(a), the holder shall not implement the variation until the arbitration procedure has concluded that the variation is accepted, or until the Commission Decision amending the decision granting the marketing authorisation has been adopted.\n4. An extension may only be implemented after the relevant authority or, in the case of extensions to a centralised marketing authorisation, the Commission has amended the decision granting the marketing authorisation and notified the holder accordingly.\n5. Urgent safety restrictions and variations which are related to safety issues shall be implemented within a time frame agreed by the holder and the relevant authority and, in the case of a centralised marketing authorisation, the Agency.\nBy way of derogation from the first subparagraph, urgent safety restrictions and variations related to safety issues which concern marketing authorisations granted in accordance with Chapter 4 of Directive 2001/82/EC or Chapter 4 of Directive 2001/83/EC shall be implemented within a time frame agreed by the holder and the competent authority of the reference Member State, in consultation with the other relevant authorities.\u2019;\n(21)\nthe title of Annex III is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Cases for grouping variations referred to in Article 7(2)(b) and Article 13d(2)(b)\u2019;\n(22)\nthe following Article 24a is inserted after Article 24:\n\u2018Article 24a\nApplication of national provisions on variations to purely national marketing authorisations\nMember States that, in accordance with Article 23b(4) of Directive 2001/83/EC, may continue to apply their national provisions on variations to certain purely national marketing authorisations are listed in Annex VI to this Regulation.\u2019;\n(23)\nthe Annex set out in the Annex to this Regulation is added.\nArticle 2\nTransitional arrangements\nFrom 2 November 2012, the following changes shall apply:\n(a)\nin Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008, the reference to \u2018Chapters II and III\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Chapter II\u2019;\n(b)\nin Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008, subparagraph (a) is deleted.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force and application\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. It shall apply from 2 November 2012.\nHowever, points (10), (15), (18)(a) and (c), (21), (22) and (23) of Article 1 shall apply from 4 August 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 August 2012.", "references": ["49", "17", "54", "89", "76", "88", "71", "83", "44", "99", "15", "10", "2", "51", "6", "64", "62", "24", "31", "85", "39", "34", "33", "21", "4", "55", "40", "91", "61", "12", "No Label", "25", "38"], "gold": ["25", "38"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUPOL RD CONGO/1/2010\nof 8 October 2010\nconcerning the appointment of the Head of Mission of EUPOL RD Congo\n(2010/609/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/576/CFSP of 23 September 2010 on the European Union police mission undertaken in the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo) (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 10(1) of Decision 2010/576/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of EUPOL RD Congo, including in particular the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nThe High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Chief Superintendent Jean-Paul RIKIR as Head of Mission with effect from 1 October 2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nChief Superintendent Jean-Paul RIKIR is hereby appointed Head of the European Union police mission undertaken in the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo) with effect from 1 October 2010.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply until the end of EUPOL RD Congo mandate.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["91", "31", "16", "76", "55", "10", "13", "12", "6", "82", "7", "11", "72", "24", "46", "57", "84", "77", "59", "88", "28", "81", "58", "20", "18", "39", "68", "14", "36", "65", "No Label", "4", "9", "52", "94"], "gold": ["4", "9", "52", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 234/2011\nof 10 March 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (1), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Food Safety Authority pursuant to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1331/2008 lays down procedural arrangements for updating the lists of substances the marketing of which is authorised in the Union pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (2), Regulation (EC) No 1332/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food enzymes (3) and Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods (4) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the sectoral food laws\u2019).\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 it is for the Commission to adopt the implementing measure as regards the content, drafting and presentation of applications to update the Union lists under each sectoral food law, arrangements for checking the validity of applications and the type of information that should be included in the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Authority\u2019).\n(3)\nIn order to update the lists it is necessary to verify that the use of the substance complies with the general and specific conditions of use as provided for in the respective sectoral food laws.\n(4)\nThe Authority adopted a scientific opinion on 9 July 2009 on data requirements for the evaluation of food additive applications (5). This data should be provided when an application for the use of a new food additive is submitted. In case of an application for a modification of the conditions of use of an already authorised food additive or for a modification of the specifications of an already authorised food additive, the data required for risk assessment may not be required, as long as this is justified by the applicant.\n(5)\nThe Authority adopted a scientific opinion on 23 July 2009 on data requirements for the evaluation of food enzyme applications (6). This data should be provided when an application for the use of a new food enzyme is submitted. In case of an application for a modification of the conditions of use of an already authorised food enzyme or for a modification of the specifications of an already authorised food enzyme, the data required for risk assessment may not be required, as long as this is justified by the applicant.\n(6)\nThe Authority adopted a scientific opinion on 19 May 2010 on data requirements for the risk assessment of flavourings to be used in or on foods (7). This data should be provided when an application for the use of a new flavouring is submitted. In case of an application for a modification of the conditions of use of an already authorised flavouring or for a modification of the specifications of an already authorised flavouring, the data required for risk assessment may not be required, as long as this is justified by the applicant.\n(7)\nIt is important that toxicological tests are performed to a certain standard. Therefore Directive 2004/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the harmonisation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of the principles of good laboratory practice and the verification of their applications for tests on chemical substances (8) should be followed. Where such tests are carried out outside the territory of the Union, they should follow \u2018the OECD Principles of Good Laboratory Practice\u2019 (GLP) (OECD, 1998) (9).\n(8)\nThe use of food additives and food enzymes should always be technologically justified. Applicants should also explain in case of a food additive why the technological effect cannot be achieved by any other economically and technologically practicable means.\n(9)\nThe use of a substance should be authorised if it does not mislead the consumer. Applicants should explain that the requested uses do not mislead the consumer. The advantages and benefits for the consumer should also be explained in case of a food additive.\n(10)\nWithout prejudice to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1332/2008, Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 and Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008, the Commission should verify the validity of the application and whether it falls within the scope of the respective sectoral food law. An advice from the Authority should be taken into account, where appropriate, on the suitability of the submitted data for risk assessment. Such verification should not delay the assessment of an application.\n(11)\nThe information provided in the opinion of the Authority should be sufficient to ascertain whether the authorisation of the proposed use of the substance is safe for consumers. This includes conclusions on the toxicity of the substance, where appropriate, and possible establishment of an acceptable daily intake (ADI) expressed in a numerical form with details of a dietary exposure assessment for all food categories, including exposure of vulnerable consumer groups.\n(12)\nThe applicant should also take into account detailed guidance concerning the data required for risk assessment established by the Authority (The EFSA Journal (10)).\n(13)\nThis Regulation takes into account current scientific and technical knowledge. The Commission may revise this Regulation in the light of any developments in this field and the publication of any revised or additional scientific guidance by the Authority.\n(14)\nPractical arrangements related to an application for the authorisation of food additives, food enzymes and flavourings, such as addresses, persons to contact, transmission of documents, etc., should be made available in a separate communication of the Commission and/or the Authority.\n(15)\nIt is necessary to provide for a time period in order to allow the applicants to comply with the provisions of this Regulation.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to applications as referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings.\nCHAPTER II\nCONTENT, DRAFTING AND PRESENTATION OF AN APPLICATION\nArticle 2\nContent of an application\n1. The application referred to in Article 1 shall consist of the following:\n(a)\na letter;\n(b)\na technical dossier;\n(c)\na summary of the dossier.\n2. The letter referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be drafted in accordance with the model provided in the Annex.\n3. The technical dossier referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall contain:\n(a)\nthe administrative data as provided for in Article 4;\n(b)\nthe data required for risk assessment as provided for in Articles 5, 6, 8 and 10; and\n(c)\nthe data required for risk management as provided for in Articles 7, 9 and 11.\n4. In case of an application for a modification of the conditions of use of an already authorised food additive, food enzyme or flavouring all the data mentioned in Articles 5 to 11 may not be required. The applicant shall submit a verifiable justification why the proposed changes do not affect the results of the existing risk assessment.\n5. In case of an application for a modification of the specifications of an already authorised food additive, food enzyme or flavouring:\n(a)\nthe data may be limited to the justification of the request and the changes in the specification;\n(b)\nthe applicant shall submit a verifiable justification why the proposed changes do not affect the results of the existing risk assessment.\n6. The summary of the dossier referred to in paragraph 1(c) shall include a reasoned statement that the use of the product complies with the conditions laid down in:\n(a)\nArticle 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1332/2008; or\n(b)\nArticles 6, 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008; or\n(c)\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008.\nArticle 3\nDrafting and presentation\n1. Applications shall be sent to the Commission. The applicant shall take into account the practical guidance on the submission of applications made available by the Commission (Directorate General for Health and Consumers\u2019 (11) website).\n2. For the establishment of the Union list of food enzymes as referred to in Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1332/2008, the deadline for submitting applications shall be 24 months after the date of application of the implementing measures established by this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nAdministrative data\nThe administrative data as referred to in Article 2(3)(a) shall include:\n(a)\nname of the applicant (company, organisation, etc.), address and contact details;\n(b)\nname of the manufacturer(s) of the substance, if different than the applicant\u2019s, address and contact details;\n(c)\nname of the person responsible for the dossier, address and contact details;\n(d)\ndate of submission of the dossier;\n(e)\ntype of the application, i.e. concerning a food additive, a food enzyme, or a flavouring;\n(f)\nwhere applicable, chemical name according to IUPAC nomenclature;\n(g)\nwhere applicable, E-number of the additive as defined in the Union legislation on food additives;\n(h)\nwhere applicable, a reference to similar authorised food enzymes;\n(i)\nwhere applicable, the FL-number of a flavouring substance as defined in the Union legislation on flavourings;\n(j)\nwhere applicable, the information on authorisations falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (12);\n(k)\ntable of content of the dossier;\n(l)\nlist of documents and other particulars; the applicant shall identify the number and titles of volumes of documentation submitted in support of the application; a detailed index with a reference to volumes and pages shall be included;\n(m)\nlist of the parts of the dossier to be treated as confidential; applicants shall indicate what they wish to be treated as confidential and give verifiable justification in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008.\nArticle 5\nGeneral provisions on data required for risk assessment\n1. The dossier submitted in support of an application for the safety evaluation of a substance shall enable a comprehensive risk assessment of the substance and shall permit verification that the substance does not pose a safety concern to consumers within the meaning of Article 6(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1332/2008, Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 and Article 4(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008.\n2. The application dossier shall include all the available data relevant for the purpose of the risk assessment (i.e. full published papers of all references cited or full copies of the original unpublished studies).\n3. The applicant shall take into account the latest guidance documents adopted or endorsed by the Authority available at the time of the submission of the application (The EFSA Journal).\n4. The documentation on the procedure followed when gathering the data shall be provided, including the literature search strategies (assumptions made, key words used, databases used, time period covered, limitation criteria, etc.) and a comprehensive outcome of such search.\n5. The safety evaluation strategy and the corresponding testing strategy shall be described and justified with rationales for inclusion and exclusion of specific studies and/or information.\n6. The individual raw data of the unpublished studies and, where possible, of the published studies as well as the individual results of examinations shall be made available on request from the Authority.\n7. For each biological or toxicological study, it shall be clarified whether the test material conforms to the proposed or existing specification. Where the test material differs from that specification, the applicant shall demonstrate the relevance of those data to the substance under consideration.\nToxicological studies shall be conducted in facilities which comply with the requirements of Directive 2004/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council or, if they are carried out outside the territory of the Union, they shall follow \u2018the OECD Principles of Good Laboratory Practice\u2019 (GLP). The applicant shall provide evidence to demonstrate that those requirements are complied with. For studies not conducted according to standard protocols, data interpretation, as well as a justification on their appropriateness for the risk assessment, shall be provided.\n8. The applicant shall propose an overall conclusion on the safety of the proposed uses of the substance. The overall evaluation of potential risk to human health shall be made in the context of known or likely human exposure.\nArticle 6\nSpecific data required for risk assessment of food additives\n1. In addition to data to be provided pursuant to Article 5, information shall be provided on:\n(a)\nthe identity and characterisation of the additive, including the proposed specifications and analytical data;\n(b)\nwhere applicable, the particle size, particle size distribution and other physicochemical characteristics;\n(c)\nthe manufacturing process;\n(d)\npresence of impurities;\n(e)\nthe stability, reaction and fate in foods to which the additive is added;\n(f)\nwhere applicable, the existing authorisations and risk assessments;\n(g)\nproposed normal and maximum use levels in the food categories mentioned in the Union list, or in a newly proposed food category, or in a more specific foodstuff belonging to one of these categories;\n(h)\na dietary exposure assessment;\n(i)\nthe biological and toxicological data.\n2. As regards to the biological and toxicological data, referred to in point (i) of paragraph 1, the following core areas shall be covered:\n(a)\ntoxicokinetics;\n(b)\nsubchronic toxicity;\n(c)\ngenotoxicity;\n(d)\nchronic toxicity/carcinogenicity;\n(e)\nreproductive and developmental toxicity.\nArticle 7\nData required for risk management of food additives\n1. The dossier submitted in support of an application shall include the information necessary to verify whether there is a reasonable technological need that cannot be achieved by other economically and technologically practicable means and whether the proposed use does not mislead the consumer within the meaning of points (b) and (c) of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.\n2. In order to ensure the verification referred to in paragraph 1, appropriate and sufficient information shall be provided on:\n(a)\nthe identity of the food additive, including reference to the existing specifications;\n(b)\nthe function and technological need for the level proposed in each of the food categories or products for which authorisation is requested and an explanation that this can not be reasonably achieved by other economically and technologically practical means;\n(c)\nthe investigations on the efficacy of the food additive for the intended effect at the use level proposed;\n(d)\nadvantages and benefit for the consumer. The applicant shall take into account the requirements laid down in Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008;\n(e)\nwhy the use would not mislead the consumer;\n(f)\nproposed normal and maximum use levels in the food categories mentioned in the Union list, or in a newly proposed food category, or in a more specific foodstuff belonging to one of these categories;\n(g)\nthe exposure assessment, based on normal and maximum intended use for each of the categories or products concerned;\n(h)\nthe amount of the food additive present in the final food as consumed by the consumer;\n(i)\nanalytical methods allowing the identification and quantification of the additive or its residues in food;\n(j)\nwhere applicable, the compliance with the specific conditions for sweeteners and for colours as laid down in Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.\nArticle 8\nSpecific data required for risk assessment of food enzymes\n1. In addition to data to be provided pursuant to Article 5, information shall be provided on:\n(a)\nname(s), synonyms, abbreviations and classification(s);\n(b)\nEnzyme Commission Number;\n(c)\nthe proposed specifications, including the origin;\n(d)\nthe properties;\n(e)\nthe reference to any similar food enzyme;\n(f)\nthe source material;\n(g)\nthe manufacturing process;\n(h)\nthe stability, reaction and fate in foods in which the food enzyme is used;\n(i)\nwhere applicable the existing authorisations and evaluations;\n(j)\nthe proposed uses in food and, where applicable, the proposed normal and maximum use levels;\n(k)\nthe dietary exposure assessment;\n(l)\nthe biological and toxicological data.\n2. As regards to the biological and toxicological data, referred to in point (1) of paragraph 1, the following core areas shall be covered:\n(a)\nsubchronic toxicity;\n(b)\ngenotoxicity.\nArticle 9\nData required for risk management of food enzymes\n1. The dossier submitted in support of an application shall include the information necessary to verify whether there is a reasonable technological need and whether the proposed use does not mislead the consumer within the meaning of points (b) and (c) of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1332/2008.\n2. In order to ensure the verification referred to in paragraph 1, appropriate and sufficient information shall be provided on:\n(a)\nthe identity of the food enzyme, including reference to the specifications;\n(b)\nthe function and technological need, including a description of the typical process(es) in which the food enzyme may be applied;\n(c)\nthe effect of the food enzyme on the final food;\n(d)\nwhy the use would not mislead the consumer;\n(e)\nthe proposed normal and maximum use levels where applicable;\n(f)\nthe dietary exposure assessment, as described in the Authority\u2019s guidance document on food enzymes (13).\nArticle 10\nSpecific data required for risk assessment of flavourings\n1. In addition to data to be provided pursuant to Article 5, information shall be provided on:\n(a)\nthe manufacturing process;\n(b)\nspecifications;\n(c)\nwhere applicable, information on particle size, particle size distribution and other physicochemical characteristics;\n(d)\nwhere applicable the existing authorisations and evaluations;\n(e)\nthe proposed uses in food and proposed normal and maximum use levels in the categories according to the Union list or in a more specified type of product within the categories;\n(f)\nthe data on dietary sources;\n(g)\nthe dietary exposure assessment;\n(h)\nthe biological and toxicological data.\n2. As regards to the biological and toxicological data, referred to in point (h) of paragraph 1, the following core areas shall be covered:\n(a)\nexamination for structural/metabolic similarity to flavouring substances in an existing flavouring group evaluation (FGE);\n(b)\ngenotoxicity;\n(c)\nsubchronic toxicity, where applicable;\n(d)\ndevelopmental toxicity, where applicable;\n(e)\nchronic toxicity and carcinogenicity data, where applicable.\nArticle 11\nData required for risk management of flavourings\nThe dossier submitted in support of an application shall include the following information:\n(a)\nthe identity of the flavouring, including reference to the existing specifications;\n(b)\norganoleptic properties of the substance;\n(c)\nthe proposed normal and maximum use levels in the food categories or in a more specific food belonging to one of these categories;\n(d)\nthe exposure assessment, based on normal and maximum intended use for each of the categories or products concerned.\nCHAPTER III\nARRANGEMENTS FOR CHECKING THE VALIDITY OF AN APPLICATION\nArticle 12\nProcedures\n1. On receipt of an application the Commission shall without delay verify whether the food additive, food enzyme or flavouring falls within the scope of the appropriate sectoral food law and whether the application contains all the elements required under Chapter II.\n2. Where the application contains all the elements required under Chapter II, the Commission shall, where necessary, request the Authority to verify the suitability of the data for risk assessment in accordance with the scientific opinions on data requirements for the evaluation of substance applications and to prepare, if appropriate, an opinion.\n3. Within 30 working days following the receipt of the Commission\u2019s request, the Authority shall inform the Commission by letter about the suitability of the data for risk assessment. If the data is considered suitable for risk assessment, the evaluation period referred to in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 shall begin from the date when the Authority\u2019s letter is received by the Commission.\nHowever, in accordance with point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 17(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1332/2008, in the case of establishment of the Union list of food enzymes, Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 shall not apply.\n4. In case of an application to update the Union list of food additives, food enzymes or flavourings, the Commission may request additional information from the applicant on matters regarding the validity of the application and inform the applicant of the period within which that information shall be provided. In the case of applications submitted in compliance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1332/2008, the Commission shall determine that period together with the applicant.\n5. When the application does not fall within the appropriate sectoral food law or when it does not contain all the elements required under Chapter II or when the Authority considers that the data for risk assessment are not suitable, the application shall be considered as not valid. In such a case the Commission shall inform the applicant, the Member States and the Authority indicating the reasons why the application is considered not valid.\n6. By way of derogation from paragraph 5, an application may be considered as valid even if it does not contain all the elements required under Chapter II, provided that the applicant has submitted verifiable justification for each missing element.\nCHAPTER IV\nOPINION OF THE AUTHORITY\nArticle 13\nInformation to be included in the opinion of the Authority\n1. The opinion of the Authority shall include the following information:\n(a)\nthe identity and characterisation of the food additive, food enzyme or flavouring;\n(b)\nthe assessment of the biological and toxicological data;\n(c)\na dietary exposure assessment for the European population taking into account other possible sources of dietary exposure;\n(d)\nan overall risk assessment establishing if possible and relevant a health-based guidance value, and highlighting uncertainties and limitations where relevant;\n(e)\nwhen the dietary exposure exceeds the health-based guidance value identified in the overall risk assessment, the dietary exposure assessment of the substance shall be detailed, providing where possible the contribution to the total exposure of each food category or foodstuff for which the use is authorised or has been requested;\n(f)\nconclusions.\n2. The Commission may ask for more specific additional information in its request for an opinion of the Authority.\nCHAPTER V\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 14\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 11 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 March 2011.", "references": ["9", "18", "50", "11", "71", "35", "84", "75", "7", "64", "28", "41", "44", "3", "27", "20", "12", "98", "48", "39", "32", "95", "0", "97", "52", "65", "66", "96", "73", "82", "No Label", "8", "24", "38", "43", "74"], "gold": ["8", "24", "38", "43", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1289/2011\nof 9 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["92", "16", "40", "6", "90", "72", "31", "12", "84", "38", "1", "23", "50", "94", "58", "30", "42", "99", "14", "56", "96", "45", "18", "59", "85", "15", "89", "70", "29", "98", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 15 September 2011\non the common specifications of the register of railway infrastructure\n(notified under document C(2011) 6383)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/633/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 35(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 35 of Directive 2008/57/EC, each Member State should ensure that a register of infrastructure is published and updated. The Commission should adopt specifications on the register on the basis of a draft prepared by the European Railway Agency (the Agency).\n(2)\nComplementary common specifications are needed to make data of the registers easily accessible across several Member States. The development and deployment of a computerised common user interface acting as a virtual register of railway infrastructure at European level should be done together with the setting-up of national registers of infrastructure and the collection of data. Member States, with the help of the Agency, should cooperate to ensure that the registers are operational, contain all the data, are interconnected and provide a common interface to the users.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe common specifications for the register of infrastructure as referred to in Article 35 of Directive 2008/57/EC are set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\n1. Each Member State shall ensure that its register of infrastructure is computerised and fulfils the requirements of the common specifications referred to in Article 1 not later than 3 years after the entry into force of this Decision.\n2. Member States shall ensure that their registers are interconnected and connected to the common user interface referred to in Article 4 not later than 6 months after that interface is operational.\nArticle 3\nThe Agency shall publish an application guide relating to the specifications referred to in Article 1 not later than 1 year after the entry into force of this Decision and shall keep it up to date. The application guide shall include a reference to the relevant clauses of the Technical Specifications of Interoperability (TSIs) for each parameter.\nArticle 4\n1. The Agency shall draft the detailed specifications, the governance and implementation plan (a) for the development, testing, deployment and operation of a common user interface; and (b) for the interconnection of the national registers. The Agency shall submit them to the Commission not later than 1 year after the entry into force of this Decision.\n2. The common user interface referred to in paragraph 1 shall be a web-based application facilitating access to the data of the registers of infrastructure at European level. It shall be operational not later than 3 years after the entry into force of this Decision.\n3. When progress in the development of TSIs so requires, the Agency shall recommend updates of the specifications referred to in Article 1 and of the detailed specifications referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 5\n1. Member States shall ensure that the necessary data are collected and inserted in their national register of infrastructure in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 5. They shall ensure that these data are reliable and are kept up to date.\n2. Data relating to infrastructures for freight corridors defined in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) shall be collected and inserted in the national register of infrastructure no later than 3 years after the entry into force of this Decision.\n3. Data relating to infrastructures placed in service after the entry into force of Directive 2008/57/EC and before the entry into force of this Decision, other than the data referred to in paragraph 2, shall be collected and inserted in the national register of infrastructure not later than 3 years after the entry into force of this Decision.\n4. Data relating to infrastructures placed in service before the entry into force of Directive 2008/57/EC other than the data referred to in paragraph 2 shall be collected and inserted in the national register of infrastructure in accordance with the national implementation plan referred to in Article 6(1) but not later than 5 years after the entry into force of this Decision.\n5. Data relating to private sidings placed in service before the entry into force of Directive 2008/57/EC shall be collected and inserted in the national register of infrastructure in accordance with the national implementation plan referred to in Article 6(1) but not later than 7 years after the entry into force of this Decision.\n6. Data relating to infrastructures placed in service after the entry into force of this Decision shall be inserted in the national register of infrastructure as soon as the infrastructures are placed into service and as soon as the register referred to in Article 2(1) is set up.\nArticle 6\n1. Each Member State shall draft a national implementation plan for the implementation of the obligations resulting from this Decision, together with a timetable. The national implementation plan shall be submitted to the Commission not later than 6 months after the entry into force of this Decision.\n2. The Agency shall coordinate, monitor and support the implementation of the national registers of infrastructure. In particular, it shall set up and manage a group composed of representatives of the entities in charge of setting up and maintaining the national registers. These entities shall send an implementation progress report to the Agency every 4 months. The Agency shall regularly report to the Commission on progress in implementing this Decision.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision shall apply from 16 March 2012.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States and to the European Railway Agency.\nDone at Brussels, 15 September 2011.", "references": ["25", "12", "15", "75", "26", "16", "34", "49", "10", "46", "28", "71", "48", "32", "78", "1", "89", "37", "2", "79", "51", "74", "85", "36", "19", "21", "58", "66", "35", "44", "No Label", "7", "40", "41", "42", "53", "55", "76"], "gold": ["7", "40", "41", "42", "53", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 785/2010\nof 3 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 September 2010.", "references": ["33", "85", "97", "74", "11", "2", "19", "40", "87", "45", "46", "51", "93", "37", "4", "60", "6", "30", "58", "62", "16", "84", "36", "89", "47", "23", "25", "98", "54", "22", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1387/2011\nof 14 December 2011\ncorrecting the Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak and Spanish versions of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Article 85 and Article 161(3), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFollowing the amendment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 (2), by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1055/2009 (3), it was noted that the Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak and Spanish versions of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 contain an error in Article 7b(3), as regards the starting date for submitting applications for export licences.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 951/2006 should therefore be corrected accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nConcerns only the Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak and Spanish versions.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2011.", "references": ["9", "60", "5", "58", "16", "0", "57", "49", "6", "69", "26", "59", "45", "7", "46", "95", "1", "72", "29", "62", "18", "36", "81", "47", "61", "54", "92", "84", "2", "35", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "71"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/12/EU\nof 8 February 2011\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include fenoxycarb as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes fenoxycarb.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, fenoxycarb has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product type 8, wood preservatives, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nGermany was designated as Rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 12 September 2008 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 24 September 2010, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as wood preservatives and containing fenoxycarb may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include fenoxycarb in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at Union level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to the environmental compartments and populations that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nIn view of the assumptions made during the risk assessment, it is appropriate to require that freshly treated timber is stored after treatment under shelter or on impermeable hardstanding, or both, and that any losses from the application of products used as wood preservatives and containing fenoxycarb are collected for reuse or disposal.\n(8)\nIn view of the risks identified for the aquatic compartment, appropriate measures should be taken to protect those compartments. Unacceptable risks were identified during the in-service use of treated wood not covered and not in contact with the ground, which is either continually exposed to the weather or protected from the weather but subject to frequent wetting (use class 3 as defined by OECD (3)) in the specific scenario bridge over pond. It is therefore appropriate to require that products are not authorised for the treatment of wood intended for outdoor constructions near or above water, unless data is submitted demonstrating that the product will meet the requirements of Article 5 of, and Annex VI to Directive 98/8/EC, if necessary by the application of appropriate risk mitigation measures.\n(9)\nIt is important that the provisions of this Directive be applied simultaneously in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment of biocidal products on the market containing the active substance fenoxycarb and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(11)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(12)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 January 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 February 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 February 2011.", "references": ["55", "21", "32", "56", "76", "9", "71", "34", "58", "22", "20", "12", "5", "3", "28", "93", "79", "87", "40", "16", "53", "91", "77", "98", "99", "74", "69", "75", "42", "50", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 575/2010\nof 30 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 June 2010.", "references": ["19", "46", "52", "3", "44", "20", "69", "91", "11", "9", "30", "25", "41", "17", "97", "45", "89", "4", "8", "6", "74", "13", "34", "15", "10", "29", "38", "26", "5", "85", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 April 2010\nconcerning the adoption of a financing decision towards a preparatory action on control posts for 2010\n(2010/249/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1), and in particular the introductory phrase and Article 49(6)(b) and Article 75(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2) (hereinafter referred to as the Implementing Rules), and in particular Article 90 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a Community action plan on the protection and welfare of animals 2006-2010 (3) identifies as one area of action the upgrading of existing minimum standards for animal protection and welfare in line with new scientific evidence and socioeconomic assessments as well as securing efficient enforcement.\n(2)\nIn order to improve the welfare of certain categories of transported animals, Union legislation lays down requirements concerning maximum journey times after which the animals are to be unloaded, fed and watered and rested. Such obligatory breaks in the long-distance transport of animals take place at control posts, as defined in Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 of 25 June 1997 concerning Community criteria for control posts (4).\n(3)\nThe increase in the number of animals being transported by road over long journeys has led to the need for improved control posts. It is necessary to determine, by consulting stakeholders and using their technical expertise, quality criteria for control posts and to determine which strategies should be developed within the Union.\n(4)\nIn addition, there is a lack of control posts in certain locations and a number of existing control posts are of poor quality. A preparatory action, including the building or renovating of certain control posts, should therefore be carried out.\n(5)\nIn 2008, a call for proposals was published by the Commission for a similar preparatory action, but none of the proposals received met the minimum criteria of the call, due to the lack of sufficient information regarding the economic viability of the projects as well as the source of co-financing.\n(6)\nCommission Decision 2009/755/EC of 13 October 2009 concerning the adoption of a financing decision towards a preparatory action on control posts for 2009 (5) established two phases of the preparatory action for 2009: firstly a preliminary study by a procurement procedure and another one by grants.\n(7)\nIn 2009, the preliminary study provided for in Decision 2009/755/EC was initiated to collect information on the current status of control posts as well as to define quality criteria for high quality control posts. That study will also establish economic criteria for providing subsidies to properly renovate or build high quality control posts. The results of the study are expected by May 2010 and the procedure for grants provided for by Decision 2009/755/EC will be initiated on the basis of the criteria established in the study.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate to maintain financing by the Union for that preparatory action. In the general budget of the European Union for 2010, the budgetary authority allocated EUR 2 000 000 to a preparatory action on control posts.\n(9)\nThis Decision constitutes a financing decision within the meaning of Article 75(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 and Article 90 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002.\n(10)\nPursuant to Article 83 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, the validation, authorisation and payment of expenditure should be completed within the time limits laid down in the Implementing Rules.\n(11)\nFor the application of this Decision, it is appropriate to define the term \u2018substantial change\u2019, within the meaning of Article 90(4) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparatory action, as set out in the Annex, (the preparatory action) is hereby adopted.\nArticle 2\nFor the purposes of this Decision, the definition of \u2018control post\u2019 in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 shall apply.\nArticle 3\nThe maximum contribution of the European Union for the implementation of the preparatory action is set at EUR 2 000 000, to be financed from budget line 17 04 03 03 of the general budget of the European Union for 2010.\nArticle 4\n1. The authorising officer may adopt any changes to this Decision which are not considered substantial within the meaning of Article 90(4) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, in accordance with the principles of sound financial management and of proportionality.\n2. Cumulated changes of the allocations to the actions covered by the preparatory action not exceeding 10 % of the maximum contribution provided for in Article 3 of this Decision shall not be considered to be substantial within the meaning of Article 90(4) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, provided that they do not significantly affect the nature and objective of the preparatory action.\nDone at Brussels, 30 April 2010.", "references": ["6", "64", "91", "99", "45", "11", "52", "25", "15", "72", "32", "28", "86", "48", "55", "27", "82", "63", "88", "37", "33", "80", "0", "53", "96", "14", "75", "24", "97", "19", "No Label", "21", "31", "38", "54", "58", "61", "66"], "gold": ["21", "31", "38", "54", "58", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 341/2011\nof 7 April 2011\nnot fixing a minimum selling price in response to the nineteenth individual invitation to tender for the sale of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the nineteenth individual invitation to tender, no minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the nineteenth individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 5 April 2011, no minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be fixed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 April 2011.", "references": ["60", "85", "49", "79", "98", "87", "62", "78", "56", "40", "16", "33", "15", "84", "68", "1", "8", "91", "32", "82", "67", "54", "30", "99", "71", "18", "36", "74", "19", "52", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 330/2011\nof 6 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d'Ivoire (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2011/221/CFSP provides, inter alia, for further restrictive measures in relation to C\u00f4te d'Ivoire, in addition to those set out in Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP (2), including a prohibition on the trade of bonds and the provision of loans to the illegitimate government of Mr GBAGBO, as well as a provision to ensure that those restrictive measures do not affect humanitarian operations in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire.\n(2)\nThose restrictive measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, notably with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, regulatory action at Union level is necessary in order to implement them.\n(3)\nOn 30 March 2011, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1975 (\u2018UNSCR 1975 (2011)\u2019) imposing targeted sanctions against additional individuals who meet the criteria set out in Resolution 1572 (2004) and subsequent Resolutions, including those individuals who obstruct peace and reconciliation in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire, obstruct the work of the United Nations Operation in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire (UNOCI) and other international actors in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire and commit serious violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law.\n(4)\nMoreover, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annexes I and IA to Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire (3) should be amended.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 560/2005 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 3a\nBy way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise, with regard to persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex IA, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources or the making available of certain funds or economic resources which are necessary for humanitarian purposes, after notification in advance to the other Member States and to the Commission.\nArticle 3b\nBy way of derogation from Article 2, and provided that a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex IA is due under a contract or agreement that was concluded by, or an obligation that arose for, the person, entity or body concerned, before the date on which that person, entity or body had been designated, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided that the competent authority concerned has determined that:\n(i)\nthe funds or economic resources shall be used for a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex IA;\n(ii)\nthe payment is not in breach of Article 2(2).\nThe Member State concerned shall, at least two weeks prior to the grant of the authorisation, notify the other Member States and the Commission of that determination and its intention to grant an authorisation.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 9a is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 9a\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto purchase, broker or assist in the issue of bonds or securities issued or guaranteed after the date of entry into force of this Regulation by the illegitimate government of Mr Laurent GBAGBO, as well as by persons or entities acting on its behalf or under its authority, or by entities owned or controlled by it. By way of exception, financial institutions shall be authorised to purchase such bonds or securities of corresponding value to bonds and securities already held by them and which are due to mature;\n(b)\nto provide loans, in any form, to the illegitimate government of Mr Laurent GBAGBO, as well as to persons or entities acting on its behalf or under its authority, or to entities that it owns or controls.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 9b\nThe prohibitions set out in Article 2(2) and in Article 9a shall not give rise to any liability of any kind on the part of the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies which made funds or economic resources available if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe the prohibitions in question.\u2019.\nArticle 2\n1. The persons listed in part A of Annex I to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 and shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\n2. The person listed in part B of Annex I to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\n3. The persons listed in Annex II to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 April 2011.", "references": ["12", "4", "62", "7", "50", "51", "52", "26", "29", "19", "92", "79", "13", "0", "75", "93", "10", "16", "76", "23", "41", "81", "53", "42", "83", "56", "73", "68", "25", "5", "No Label", "3", "11", "30", "94"], "gold": ["3", "11", "30", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 9/2011\nof 6 January 2011\nfixing the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 13th individual invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the 13th individual invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 13th individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 4 January 2011, the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be EUR 212,10/100 kg.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 January 2011.", "references": ["88", "92", "34", "25", "2", "51", "49", "98", "23", "90", "41", "83", "44", "99", "95", "46", "77", "66", "38", "75", "30", "37", "76", "63", "28", "16", "57", "5", "6", "94", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 683/2011\nof 17 June 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 as regards fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 (1) fixes for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters.\n(2)\nConsultations on fishing opportunities between the Union and the Faroe Islands failed to result in an agreement for 2011. After a further round of consultations with Norway in March 2011, the fishing opportunities reserved for the consultations with the Faroe Islands can now be allocated to Member States. Therefore, Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 and the relevant TACs in Annexes IA and IB thereto should be amended in order to distribute the non-allocated quota and to reflect the traditional allocation of mackerel in the North-East Atlantic.\n(3)\nIt is desirable to implement flexible arrangements regarding the use of blue whiting quotas across the two main management areas provided for in Annex IA to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 for that fishery (namely the area consisting of EU and international waters of ICES zones I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId, VIIIe, XII and XIV and the area consisting of ICES zones VIIIc, IX and X and EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1), since those two areas are subject to the same scientific advice and considered part of the same biological stock.\n(4)\nAnnex IA to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 establishes general quotas for Norway lobster in ICES zone VII and specific quotas for Norway lobster in the area of the Porcupine Bank located within that zone. It is necessary to fix those specific quotas anew for the year 2011 on the basis of updated data on historic catches.\n(5)\nFurther to the consultations concluded on 17 March 2011 between coastal states (Faroe Islands, Greenland and Iceland) and other North East Atlantic Fisheries Convention (NEAFC) parties (Union and Norway) on the management of redfish in the Irminger Sea and adjacent waters, it is necessary to establish TACs for redfish in those areas while respecting the agreed time and area restrictions. Annex IB to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 should be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nAt its Annual Meeting in 2010, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission decided to maintain the limits imposed for that year on swordfish catches and on the number of vessels authorised to fish for swordfish, with effect from 1 January 2011. It is necessary to implement those measures in Union law.\n(7)\nDuring the Third International Meeting, held in May 2007, for the creation of a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) in the high seas of the South Pacific (SPRFMO), the participants accepted interim measures, including fishing opportunities, in order to regulate pelagic fishing activities as well as bottom fisheries in that area until the establishment of such RFMO. New interim measures have been accepted at the Second Preparatory Conference for the SPRFMO Commission, held in January 2011. Those interim measures are voluntary and not legally binding under international law. It is however appropriate, in accordance with the cooperation and conservation obligations enshrined in the International Law of the Sea, to implement those measures in Union law by establishing an overall quota for the Union. For the purpose of allocating the Union quota among the Member States, it is appropriate to establish a new and final allocation key on the basis of sound, fair and objective criteria of the past fishing performance of the Member States in 2009 and 2010 which is a recent and sufficiently representative period during which all Member States concerned were present on the fishing grounds.\n(8)\nAnnex IIB to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 sets fishing effort limitations for the recovery of certain southern hake and Norway lobster stocks in ICES divisions VIIIc and IXa, excluding the Gulf of Cadiz. It is appropriate to clarify the wording of a special condition set out in the framework of those fishing effort limitations and the consequences of receiving an unlimited number of days for landings in the 2011 management period.\n(9)\nAnnex IIC to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 sets fishing effort limitations for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2007 of 7 May 2007 establishing a multi-annual plan for the sustainable exploitation of the stock of sole in the Western Channel (2). It is necessary to align the wording of that Annex with the wording of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2007.\n(10)\nRegulation (EU) No 57/2011 applies, in general, from 1 January 2011. However, the fishing effort limits are laid down for a 1-year period starting from 1 February 2011. In order to follow the year-to-year regime of reporting on fishing opportunities, the provisions of this Regulation concerning catch limits and allocations should apply from 1 January 2011 and the provisions concerning fishing effort limits should apply from 1 February 2011, except where indicated otherwise. Such retroactive application is without prejudice to the principle of legal certainty as the fishing opportunities concerned have not yet been exhausted. For reasons of urgency, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011\nRegulation (EU) No 57/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation fixes the following fishing opportunities:\n(a)\nfor the year 2011, catch limits for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks;\n(b)\nfor the period from 1 February 2011 to 31 January 2012, certain effort limits;\n(c)\nfor the periods set out in Articles 20, 21 and 22 and in Annexes IE and V, fishing opportunities for certain stocks in the Convention Area of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR);\n(d)\nfor the periods set out in Article 28, fishing opportunities for certain stocks in the Convention Area of the Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC); and\n(e)\nadditional fishing opportunities for mackerel resulting from uncaught quota in 2010.\u2019;\n(2)\nAnnex IA is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe entry for sandeel and associated by-catches in EU waters of IIa, IIIa and IV is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nSandeel and associated by-catches\nAmmodytes spp.\nZone\n:\nEU waters of IIa, IIIa and IV (3)\n(SAN/2A3A4.)\nDenmark\n334 324\nAnalytical TAC\nUnited Kingdom\n7 308\nGermany\n511\nSweden\n12 277\nEU\n354 420 (4)\nNorway\n20 000\nTAC\n374 420\nSpecial conditions:\nWithin the limits of the abovementioned quotas, no more than the quantities given below may be taken in the following sandeel management areas, as defined in Annex IID:\nZone\n:\nEU waters of sandeel management areas\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n(SAN/*234_1)\n(SAN/*234_2)\n(SAN/*234_3)\n(SAN/*234_4)\n(SAN/*234_5)\n(SAN/*234_6)\n(SAN/*234_7)\nDenmark\n282 989\n32 072\n9 434\n9 434\n0\n395\n0\nUnited Kingdom\n6 186\n701\n206\n206\n0\n9\n0\nGermany\n433\n49\n14\n14\n0\n1\n0\nSweden\n10 392\n1 178\n346\n346\n0\n15\n0\nEU\n300 000\n34 000\n10 000\n10 000\n0\n420\n0\nNorway\n20 000\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n320 000\n34 000\n10 000\n10 000\n0\n420\n0\u2019;\n(b)\nthe entry for herring in IIIa is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nHerring (5)\nClupea harengus\nZone\n:\nIIIa\n(HER/03A.)\nDenmark\n12 608 (6)\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nGermany\n202 (6)\nSweden\n13 189 (6)\nEU\n25 999 (6)\nTAC\n30 000\n(c)\nthe entry for herring in EU and international waters of Vb, VIb and VIaN is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nHerring\nClupea harengus\nZone\n:\nEU and international waters of Vb, VIb and VIaN (7)\n(HER/5B6ANB)\nGermany\n2 513\nAnalytical TAC\nFrance\n475\nIreland\n3 396\nThe Netherlands\n2 513\nUnited Kingdom\n13 584\nEU\n22 481\nTAC\n22 481\n(d)\nthe entry for blue whiting in EU and international waters of I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId, VIIIe, XII and XIV is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nBlue whiting\nMicromesistius poutassou\nZone\n:\nEU and international waters of I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId, VIIIe, XII and XIV\n(WHB/1X14)\nDenmark\n1 533 (8)\nAnalytical TAC\nGermany\n596 (8)\nSpain\n1 300 (8) (9)\nFrance\n1 067 (8)\nIreland\n1 187 (8)\nThe Netherlands\n1 869 (8)\nPortugal\n121 (8) (9)\nSweden\n379 (8)\nUnited Kingdom\n1 990 (8)\nEU\n10 042 (8)\nTAC\n40 100\n(e)\nthe entry for blue ling in EU waters and international waters of Vb, VI, VII is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nBlue ling\nMolva dypterygia\nZone\n:\nEU waters and international waters of Vb, VI, VII\n(BLI/5B67-) (12)\nGermany\n20\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 13 of this Regulation applies.\nEstonia\n3\nSpain\n62\nFrance\n1 422\nIreland\n5\nLithuania\n1\nPoland\n1\nUnited Kingdom\n362\nOthers\n5 (10)\nEU\n1 717\nNorway\n150 (11)\nTAC\n2 032\n(f)\nthe entry for ling in EU and international waters of VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nLing\nMolva molva\nZone\n:\nEU and international waters of VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV\n(LIN/6X14.)\nBelgium\n30\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 13 of this Regulation applies.\nDenmark\n5\nGermany\n109\nSpain\n2 211\nFrance\n2 357\nIreland\n591\nPortugal\n5\nUnited Kingdom\n2 716\nEU\n8 024\nNorway\n6 140 (15) (16)\nTAC\n14 164\n(g)\nthe entry for Norway lobster in zone VII is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nNorway lobster\nNephrops norvegicus\nZone\n:\nVII\n(NEP/07.)\nSpain\n1 306 (17)\nAnalytical TAC\nFrance\n5 291 (17)\nIreland\n8 025 (17)\nUnited Kingdom\n7 137 (17)\nEU\n21 759 (17)\nTAC\n21 759 (17)\n(h)\nthe entry for mackerel in IIIa and IV; EU waters of IIa, IIIb, IIIc and Subdivisions 22-32 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nMackerel\nScomber scombrus\nZone\n:\nIIIa and IV; EU waters of IIa, IIIb, IIIc and IIId\n(MAC/2A34.)\nBelgium\n517 (20)\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nDenmark\n18 084 (20) (22)\nGermany\n539 (20)\nFrance\n1 629 (20)\nThe Netherlands\n1 640 (20)\nSweden\n4 860 (18) (19) (20)\nUnited Kingdom\n1 518 (20)\nEU\n28 787 (18) (20) (22)\nNorway\n169 019 (21)\nTAC\nNot relevant\nSpecial condition:\nWithin the limits of the abovementioned quotas, no more than the quantities given below may be taken in the following zones:\nIIIa\n(MAC/*03A.)\nIIIa and IVbc\n(MAC/*3A4BC)\nIVb\n(MAC/*04B.)\nIVc\n(MAC/*04C.)\nVI, international waters of IIa, from 1 January to 31 March 2011 and in December 2011\n(MAC/*2A6.)\nDenmark\n0\n4 130\n0\n0\n9 764 ()\nFrance\n0\n490\n0\n0\n0\nThe Netherlands\n0\n490\n0\n0\n0\nSweden\n0\n0\n390\n10\n1 847\nUnited Kingdom\n0\n490\n0\n0\n0\nNorway\n3 000\n0\n0\n0\n0\n() Includes 183 tonnes of quota transferred from unused 2010 fishing opportunities.\u2019;\n(i)\nthe entry for mackerel in VI, VII, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of IIa, XII and XIV is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nMackerel\nScomber scombrus\nZone\n:\nVI, VII, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of IIa, XII and XIV\n(MAC/2CX14-)\nGermany\n20 694\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nSpain\n22\nEstonia\n172\nFrance\n13 797\nIreland\n68 978\nLatvia\n127\nLithuania\n127\nThe Netherlands\n30 177\nPoland\n1 457\nUnited Kingdom\n189 694\nEU\n325 245 (26)\nNorway\n14 050 (24) (25)\nTAC\nNot relevant\nWithin the limits of the abovementioned quotas, no more than the quantities given below may be taken in the following zones and periods specified below.\nEU and Norwegian waters of IVa\n(MAC/*04A-EN)\nDuring the periods from 1 January to 15 February 2011 and from 1 September to 31 December 2011\nNorwegian waters of IIa\n(MAC/*2AN-)\nGermany\n8 326\n849\nFrance\n5 551\n566\nIreland\n27 754\n2 832\nThe Netherlands\n12 142\n1 238\nUnited Kingdom\n76 325\n7 789\nEU\n130 098\n13 274\u2019;\n(j)\nthe entry for mackerel in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nMackerel\nScomber scombrus\nZone\n:\nVIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1\n(MAC/8C3411)\nSpain\n30 609 (27)\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nFrance\n203 (27)\nPortugal\n6 327 (27)\nEU\n37 139\nTAC\nNot relevant\nSpecial condition:\nWithin the limits of the abovementioned quotas, no more than the quantities given below may be taken in the following zone.\nVIIIb\n(MAC/*08B.)\nSpain\n2 570\nFrance\n17\nPortugal\n531\u2019;\n(k)\nthe entry for mackerel in Norwegian waters of IIa and IVa is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nMackerel\nScomber scombrus\nZone\n:\nNorwegian waters of IIa and IVa\n(MAC/2A4A-N.)\nDenmark\n13 018 (28) (29)\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nEU\n13 018 (28) (29)\nTAC\nNot relevant\n(l)\nthe entry for sprat and associated by-catches in EU waters of IIa and IV is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nSprat and associated by-catches\nSprattus sprattus\nZone\n:\nEU waters of IIa and IV\n(SPR/2AC4-C)\nBelgium\n1 835\nPrecautionary TAC\nDenmark\n145 273\nGermany\n1 835\nFrance\n1 835\nThe Netherlands\n1 835\nSweden\n1 330 (30)\nUnited Kingdom\n6 057\nEU\n160 000 (33)\nNorway\n10 000 (31)\nTAC\n170 000 (32)\n(m)\nthe entry for horse mackerel and associated by-catches in EU waters of IIa, IVa; VI, VIIa-c, VIIe-k, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nHorse mackerel and associated by-catches\nTrachurus spp.\nZone\n:\nEU waters of IIa, IVa; VI, VIIa-c,VIIe-k, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV\n(JAX/2A-14)\nDenmark\n15 781 (34)\nAnalytical TAC\nGermany\n12 314 (34) (35)\nSpain\n16 795\nFrance\n6 338 (34) (35)\nIreland\n41 010 (34)\nThe Netherlands\n49 406 (34) (35)\nPortugal\n1 618\nSweden\n675 (34)\nUnited Kingdom\n14 850 (34) (35)\nEU\n158 787 (36)\nTAC\n158 787\n(3)\nAnnex IB is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe entry for cod and haddock in Faroese waters of Vb is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nCod and haddock\nGadus morhua and Melanogrammus aeglefinus\nZone\n:\nFaroese waters of Vb\n(C/H/05B-F.)\nGermany\n0\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nFrance\n0\nUnited Kingdom\n0\nEU\n0\nTAC\nNot relevant\u2019;\n(b)\nthe entry for blue whiting in Faroese waters is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nBlue whiting\nMicromesistius poutassou\nZone\n:\nFaroese waters\n(WHB/2A4AXF)\nDenmark\n0\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nGermany\n0\nFrance\n0\nThe Netherlands\n0\nUnited Kingdom\n0\nEU\n0\nTAC\n40 100 (37)\n(c)\nthe entry for ling and blue ling in Faroese waters of Vb is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nLing and blue ling\nMolva molva and Molva dypterygia\nZone\n:\nFaroese waters of Vb\n(B/L/05B-F.)\nGermany\n0\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nFrance\n0\nUnited Kingdom\n0\nEU\n0\nTAC\nNot relevant\u2019;\n(d)\nthe entry for northern prawn in Greenland waters of V and XIV is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nNorthern prawn\nPandalus borealis\nZone\n:\nGreenland waters of V and XIV\n(PRA/514GRN)\nDenmark\n1 950\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nFrance\n1 950\nEU\n7 000 (38)\nTAC\nNot relevant\n(e)\nthe entry for saithe in Faroese waters of Vb is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nSaithe\nPollachius virens\nZone\n:\nFaroese waters of Vb\n(POK/05B-F.)\nBelgium\n0\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nGermany\n0\nFrance\n0\nThe Netherlands\n0\nUnited Kingdom\n0\nEU\n0\nTAC\nNot relevant\u2019;\n(f)\nthe entry for Greenland halibut in Greenland waters of NAFO 0 and 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nGreenland halibut\nReinhardtius hippoglossoides\nZone\n:\nGreenland waters of NAFO 0 and 1\n(GHL/N01GRN)\nGermany\n1 850\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nEU\n2 650 (39)\nTAC\nNot relevant\n(g)\nthe entry for Greenland halibut in Greenland waters of V and XIV is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nGreenland halibut\nReinhardtius hippoglossoides\nZone\n:\nGreenland waters of V and XIV\n(GHL/514GRN)\nGermany\n5 867\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nUnited Kingdom\n309\nEU\n7 000 (40)\nTAC\nNot relevant\n(h)\nthe entry for redfish in EU and international waters of V; international waters of XII and XIV is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nRedfish (shallow pelagic)\nSebastes spp.\nZone\n:\nEU and international waters of V; international waters of XII and XIV\n(RED/51214S)\nEstonia\n0 (41)\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nGermany\n0 (41)\nSpain\n0 (41)\nFrance\n0 (41)\nIreland\n0 (41)\nLatvia\n0 (41)\nThe Netherlands\n0 (41)\nPoland\n0 (41)\nPortugal\n0 (41)\nUnited Kingdom\n0 (41)\nEU\n0 (41)\nTAC\n0 (41)\nSpecies\n:\nRedfish (deep pelagic)\nSebastes spp.\nZone\n:\nEU and international waters of V; international waters of XII and XIV\n(RED/51214D)\nEstonia\n177 (42) (43)\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nGermany\n3 569 (42) (43)\nSpain\n633 (42) (43)\nFrance\n336 (42) (43)\nIreland\n1 (42) (43)\nLatvia\n64 (42) (43)\nThe Netherlands\n2 (42) (43)\nPoland\n324 (42) (43)\nPortugal\n757 (42) (43)\nUnited Kingdom\n8 (42) (43)\nEU\n5 871 (42) (43)\nTAC\n38 000 (42) (43)\n(i)\nthe entry for redfish in Greenland waters of V and XIV is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nRedfish (pelagic)\nSebastes spp.\nZone\n:\nGreenland waters of V and XIV\n(RED/514GRN)\nGermany\n5 164 (44) (45)\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nFrance\n26 (44) (45)\nUnited Kingdom\n37 (44) (45)\nEU\n5 227 (44) (45)\nTAC\nNot relevant\n(j)\nthe entry for other species in Faroese waters of Vb is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nOther species (46)\nZone\n:\nFaroese waters of Vb\n(OTH/05B-F.)\nGermany\n0\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nFrance\n0\nUnited Kingdom\n0\nEU\n0\nTAC\nNot relevant\n(k)\nthe entry for flatfish in Faroese waters of Vb is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nFlatfish\nZone\n:\nFaroese waters of Vb\n(FLX/05B-F.)\nGermany\n0\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nFrance\n0\nUnited Kingdom\n0\nEU\n0\nTAC\nNot relevant\u2019;\n(4)\nin Annex IC, the entry for northern prawn in zone NAFO 3L is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nNorthern prawn\nPandalus borealis\nZone\n:\nNAFO 3L (47)\n(PRA/N3L.)\nEstonia\n214\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nLatvia\n214\nLithuania\n214\nPoland\n214\nOther Member States\n213 (48)\nEU\n1 069\nTAC\n19 200\n(5)\nIn Annex ID, the entry for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of 45\u00b0 W, and Mediterranean (BFT/AE045W) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nBluefin tuna\nThunnus thynnus\nZone\n:\nAtlantic Ocean, east of 45\u00b0 W, and Mediterranean\n(BFT/AE045W)\nCyprus\n66,98 (53)\nGreece\n124,37\nSpain\n2 411,01 (50) (53)\nFrance\n958,42 (50) (51) (53)\nItaly\n1 787,91 (53) (54)\nMalta\n153,99 (53)\nPortugal\n226,84\nOther Member States\n26,90 (49)\nEU\n5 756,41 (50) (51) (53) (54)\nTAC\n12 900\n(6)\nAnnex IH is replaced by the following:\n\u2018ANNEX IH\nWCPFC Convention Area\nSpecies\n:\nSwordfish\nXiphias gladius\nZone\n:\nWCPFC Convention Area south of 20\u00b0 S\n(SWO/F7120S)\nEU\n3 170,36\nAnalytical TAC\nTAC\nNot relevant\u2019;\n(7)\nAnnex IJ is replaced by the following:\n\u2018ANNEX IJ\nSPRFMO Convention Area\nSpecies\n:\nJack mackerel\nTrachurus murphyi\nZone\n:\nSPRFMO Convention Area\n(CJM/SPRFMO)\nGermany\n10 223,67\nThe Netherlands\n11 080,80\nLithuania\n7 112,63\nPoland\n12 231,90\nEU\n40 649\u2019;\n(8)\nAnnex IIB is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint 5.2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185.2.\nFor the purposes of fixing the maximum number of days at sea that an EU vessel may be authorised by its flag Member State to be present within the area, the following special conditions shall apply in accordance with Table I:\n(a)\nthe total landings of hake in the year 2008 or 2009 made by the vessel shall represent less than 5 tonnes or less than 3 % of the total landings in live weight; and\n(b)\nthe total landings of Norway lobster in the year 2008 or 2009 made by the vessel shall represent less than 2,5 tonnes according to the landings in live weight.\u2019;\n(b)\npoint 9.1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20189.1.\nIf a vessel has received an unlimited number of days resulting from compliance with the special conditions, the vessel\u2019s landings in the 2011 management period shall not exceed 5 tonnes or 3 % of the total landings in live weight of hake and 2,5 tonnes in live weight of Norway lobster.\u2019;\n(9)\nAnnex IIC is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Fishing gear\nFor the purposes of this Annex, the following groupings of fishing gears shall apply:\n(a)\nbeam trawls of mesh size equal to or greater than 80 mm;\n(b)\nstatic nets including gill-nets, trammel-nets and tangle-nets with mesh size equal to or less than 220 mm.\u2019;\n(b)\nTable I is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Table I\nGear\npoint 2\nDenomination\nOnly the gear groupings as defined in point 2 are used\nWestern Channel\n2(a)\nBeam trawls of mesh size \u2265 80 mm\n164\n2(b)\nStatic nets with mesh size \u2264 220 mm\n164\u2019;\n(10)\nAnnex VII is replaced by the following:\n\u2018ANNEX VII\nWCPFC CONVENTION AREA\nMaximum number of EU vessels authorised to fish for swordfish in areas south of 20\u00b0 S of the WCPFC Convention Area\nSpain\n14\nEU\n14\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force and applicability\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nPoints 1 to 7 and point 10 of Article 1 shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nPoints 8 and 9 of Article 1 shall apply from 1 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 17 June 2011.", "references": ["91", "18", "87", "79", "7", "93", "53", "55", "47", "92", "9", "30", "81", "3", "59", "85", "34", "97", "94", "33", "61", "70", "19", "5", "25", "2", "32", "46", "72", "76", "No Label", "13", "56", "67"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1165/2010\nof 9 December 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Salzwedeler Baumkuchen (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Salzwedeler Baumkuchen (PGI)\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2010.", "references": ["32", "53", "22", "93", "44", "4", "51", "87", "26", "83", "71", "98", "43", "58", "45", "55", "35", "99", "3", "6", "86", "2", "31", "14", "52", "0", "78", "23", "56", "33", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "73", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "73", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1197/2011\nof 21 November 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 December 2005 on the establishment of a Community list of air carriers subject to an operating ban within the Community and on informing air passengers of the identity of the operating carrier, and repealing Article 9 of Directive 2004/36/CE (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 of 22 March 2006 established the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Union referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, some Member States and the European Aviation Safety Agency (hereinafter \"EASA\") communicated to the Commission information that is relevant in the context of updating the Community list. Relevant information was also communicated by third countries. On this basis, the Community list should be updated.\n(3)\nThe Commission informed all air carriers concerned either directly or, when this was not practicable, through the authorities responsible for their regulatory oversight, indicating the essential facts and considerations which would form the basis for a decision to impose on them an operating ban within the Union or to modify the conditions of an operating ban imposed on an air carrier which is included in the Community list.\n(4)\nOpportunity was given by the Commission to the air carriers concerned to consult documents provided by Member States, to submit written comments and to make an oral presentation to the Commission within 10 working days and to the Air Safety Committee established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/1991 of 16 December on the harmonization of the technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (3).\n(5)\nThe Air Safety Committee has heard presentations by EASA about the results of the analysis of audit reports carried out by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in the framework of the comprehensive USOAP programme as well as technical assistance projects carried out in countries affected by Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005. It has been informed about the requests for further technical assistance and cooperation to improve the administrative and technical capability of civil aviation authorities with a view to resolving any non compliance with applicable international standards\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 474/2006 should be therefore amended accordingly,\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Air Safety Committee,\n(8)\nFollowing the analysis by EASA of information resulting from SAFA ramp checks carried out on aircraft of certain Union air carriers or from standardisation inspections carried out by EASA as well as area specific inspections and audits carried out by their national aviation authorities, some Member States have taken certain enforcement measures. They informed the Commission and the Air Safety Committee about these measures: Cyprus decided to revoke on 5 August 2011 the AOC of the air carrier Eurocypria Airlines; Italy informed the air transport license held by the air carriers Livingston and ItaliAirlines remain suspended; France decided to revoke the AOC of Blue Line on 6 October 2010. Greece decided to revoke the AOC of First Airways on 21 October 2010, to revoke the AOC of Athens Airways on 20 July 2011, to revoke the AOC of Air Go Airlines on 2 September 2011, to revoke the AOC of Argo Airways on 9 September 2011, to limit the validity of the license of the air carrier Hellenic Imperial Airways to five months until 2 February 2012 as a result of the on-going heightened surveillance of its air operations and its maintenance; the United Kingdom confirmed that the enhanced surveillance activity of the air carriers Jet2.com, Oasis and Titan Airways has not revealed further safety concerns; the Netherlands decided to suspend the AOC of Solid-air on 28 September and to suspend the AOC of Amsterdam Airlines on 4 November 2011; Germany decided to revoke the AOC of ACH Hamburg GmbH on 29 June 2011. Furthermore, pending the expected reinforcement of the staffing of the LBA in 2012, the LBA are continuing to focus their oversight on those air carriers identified as presenting higher risks; Portugal informed that the AOC of the air carrier Luzair expired on 19 September 2011 and is in the process of recertification, and that, as the enhanced surveillance of White Airways has not revealed safety concerns, the air carrier has returned under normal surveillance; finally Sweden decided to suspend on 16 September 2011 the AOCs of the air carrier Flyg Centrum AB and the air carriers Nova Air and AirSweden Aviation AB have submitted corrective action plans which are being examined by the competent authorities of Sweden; in the meantime these air carriers remain under enhanced surveillance.\n(9)\nFollowing the adoption of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No390/2011 on 19 April 2011 (4), two subsequent regular analyses of SAFA inspection data by EASA continues to show a high number of air carriers licensed in Spain with results from SAFA inspections of more than one major finding per inspection. As a result the Commission continued the formal consultations with the competent authorities of Spain (AESA) which were launched on 14 March 2011.\n(10)\nAt a meeting on 19 October 2011, AESA briefed the Commission on the actions taken to date to address the identified safety issues with Spanish air carriers in a sustainable manner. In particular, AESA informed the Commission that the air carrier Flightline, following corrective actions by the company, had its AOC renewed, but limited to exclude the aircraft of type Metro III. In the case of the air carrier Zorex S.A., AESA had launched suspension action and provisional measures to prevent operations in May 2011. After remedial actions by the company the measures were lifted. However, following further evidence that the air carrier was not satisfactorily addressing safety concerns a new suspension procedure was commenced on 7 October 2011. Concerning the air carrier Alba Star, AESA had already detected issues with the safety performance of this air carrier and were increasing oversight. AESA, from their own audits and inspections, had determined that the other Spanish air carriers that had had some poor results from SAFA inspections did not present any immediate safety risk but would continue to be subject to enhanced oversight.\n(11)\nAESA also briefed that the AOCs of Baleares Link Express and Eurocontinental had been revoked on 27 June 2011.\n(12)\nDuring the meeting of the Air Safety Committee AESA updated the Committee on further actions taken. They informed that the AOC of Zorex S.A. had been suspended on 7 November 2011, that the air carrier Alba Star had been subject to specific inspections on 24 October 2011 with no significant discrepancies detected, and that the last two SAFA inspections had no findings. Furthermore, the air carrier IMD Airways S.L. had been subject to a series of inspections on 20, 24 October and 3, 4 November 2011 with no significant findings.\n(13)\nGiven the actions undertaken by AESA in addressing the identified safety deficiencies of Spanish air carriers it is assessed that, currently, the operations of these air carriers are sufficiently controlled by that authority to avoid any serious risks to safety and therefore no further action is necessary. Meanwhile the Commission, in co- operation with EASA, will continue to monitor the safety performance of Spanish air carriers.\n(14)\nICAO carried out a comprehensive safety audit of Albania under its Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) in December 2009. This audit reported a large number of significant deficiencies with regard to the capability of the competent authorities of Albania to discharge their air safety oversight responsibilities. At the time of the issuance of the final report stemming from this audit, more than 59 % of ICAO standards were considered by ICAO as not effectively implemented. On certain critical elements such as the resolution of safety concerns, more than 80 % of ICAO standards were not effectively implemented. In addition, the competent authorities of Albania failed to propose adequate corrective action plans, as demonstrated by the fact that more than 90 % of the corrective actions submitted by these authorities to ICAO in August 2010 in the fields of legislation, organisation, licensing, operations, airworthiness and accident/incident investigation have not been considered acceptable by ICAO. Furthermore, the competent authorities of Albania have failed to report the implementation of the above mentioned corrective action plans.\n(15)\nEASA carried out a comprehensive standardisation inspection of Albania in January 2010. The final report of this inspection revealed significant deficiencies in all areas audited that needed to be immediately remedied. EASA informed however that the competent authorities of Albania (ACAA) had presented a comprehensive action plan that had been found acceptable and had been agreed on 29 April 2010 and a series of remedial actions to be implemented progressively until the end of 2011, with immediate actions to address the safety deficiencies. Further to the hearings of the ACAA before the Air Safety Committees held in March (5) and June 2010 (6) respectively, the competent authorities of Albania were urged to take the necessary actions to continue to implement effectively and timely the action plans agreed with EASA, with priority to the resolution of the deficiencies identified that raise safety concerns if not promptly corrected. It was in particular indicated that it was of utmost importance to accelerate the capacity building of the authority and to ensure the safety oversight of all air carriers certified in Albania in accordance with the applicable safety regulations and to take enforcement measures as necessary.\n(16)\nEASA continued actively the consultations with the competent authorities of Albania to follow-up the corrective action plans presented by these authorities in order to remedy the significant deficiencies identified by EASA during the comprehensive standardisation inspection of Albania carried out in January 2010. To that end, EASA carried out in July 2011 follow-up inspections in the fields of airworthiness and air operations. The final reports arising from these inspections, which were addressed to the ACAA on 10 August and 2 September 2011 respectively, reveal not only that the corrective action plans agreed have not been timely implemented, but that also new deficiencies had been reported. In the field of airworthiness, EASA concludes that three non-compliance findings stemming from the inspection of January 2010 were not adequately addressed by the competent authorities of Albania and that three additional ones were not satisfactorily closed contrary to previous statements of the competent authorities of Albania (7), four of these findings being classified by EASA as affecting the safety. Accordingly, the ACAA have not been in a position to discharge their responsibilities regarding the oversight of airworthiness as ACAA does not hired qualified staff for that purpose and that the contracts established previously with external staff to compensate this situation have expired since January 2011. Consequently, there was no oversight neither of the airworthiness legislation in force in Albania nor of the certificate holders at the time of the inspection. In the field of air operations, EASA concludes that four non-compliance findings stemming from the inspection of January 2010 were not adequately addressed by the competent authorities of Albania and that two additional were not satisfactorily closed contrary to previous statements of the competent authorities of Albania (8), five of these findings being classified by EASA as affecting the safety. Accordingly, the competent authorities of Albania have not been in a position to discharge effectively their responsibilities regarding the oversight of air operations as ACAA has not hired sufficient qualified staff for that purpose and that the contracts established previously with external staff to compensate this situation have been disrupted. Consequently, the implementation of the air operations' legislation in force in Albania and the oversight of the certificate holders is not robust and many safety critical elements are not overseen.\n(17)\nThe competent authorities of Italy, which had embarked on an extensive twinning project with the competent authorities of Albania since September 2010, informed that these authorities, due to a lack of competent personnel, did make so far little use of the assistance offered to build up their technical and administrative capacity.\n(18)\nGiven what precedes, the Commission continued actively the consultations with ACAA, requesting information regarding the safety oversight of air carriers licensed in Albania to be submitted in writing by 11 October 2011. Further consultations were held on 21 October 2011 with the competent authorities of France and Italy and the support of EASA. The ACAA were also invited to the Air Safety Committee and heard on 9 November 2011. ACAA did not provide further information on the actions undertaken to resolve the deficiencies reported by ICAO, nor evidence that all the deficiencies identified by EASA in its standardisation inspections had been timely resolved or were subject to corrective actions acceptable to EASA. EASA confirmed that only a limited number of actions were considered acceptable and only in the field of operations. The competent authorities of Albania confirmed that they do not have any qualified inspectors and continue to rely solely on three external consultants, contracted indirectly, working part time only and on short term basis until December 2011, to discharge on their behalf their oversight responsibilities. ACAA failed however to demonstrate the continuity of oversight as well as the absence of conflict of interest of the contracted agents. ACAA also failed to provide the extent of surveillance activities carried out in the field of airworthiness and acknowledged that the safety oversight had been disrupted for several months in 2010/2011 due to difficulties experienced with the contracts of these experts.\n(19)\nThe competent authorities of Albania however declared that the basic law establishing the ACAA was modified on 10 November 2011 to allow for more substantial financial independence and better employments conditions for the staff and that subsequently an international call for tender for technical assistance over five years is being organised, with a view to have contracts signed early 2012. They recognised that the use of externally contracted staff does not replace the need to recruit full time qualified inspectors within the authority to enable it to control the safety oversight functions and committed to recruit such staff as soon as practically possible.\n(20)\nThe air carrier Albanian Airlines certified in Albania was invited to the Air Safety Committee and heard on 9 November 2011 in the presence of ACAA. Whilst the AOC was extended on 17 June 2011 to add a third aircraft of type BAE-146 with registration mark ZA-MAN, no evidence was provided that ex-ante verifications had been conducted by the competent authorities of Albania prior to the issuance of the certificate of airworthiness and the addition of the aircraft on the AOC. In addition, whilst the AOC was renewed on 27 July 2011 by the competent authorities of Albania, no evidence could be provided that ex-ante verifications had been conducted in the field of airworthiness prior to the renewal; with regard to operations, the ex-ante verifications were also limited. Although Albanian Airlines has established a functioning quality management system, no evidence was provided that all the deficiencies identified by ACAA and EASA in 2011 had been timely corrected, in particular those related to the operations manual and the training of the flight and cabin crew. The ACAA informed and provided written evidence on 10 November of the revocation with immediate effect the AOC of the air carrier Albanian Airlines. The Air Safety Committee took note of this decision of the competent authorities of Albania.\n(21)\nThe air carrier Belle Air certified in Albania was invited to the Air Safety Committee and heard on 9 November 2011 in the presence of ACAA. Belle Air indicated that, out of the five aircraft operated, only one aircraft of type Boeing DC-9-82, is registered in Albania, the other aircraft of type Airbus A318/319/320/321 and ATR72 being registered in France under registration marks F-ORAA, F-ORAD, F-ORAE, F-ORAG. Belle Air demonstrated that the aircraft registered in France are managed by a contracted continuing airworthiness management organisation approved by the competent authorities of France and these confirmed the airworthiness and the licensing of the related crew remain under their safety oversight. Belle Air also demonstrated it had established internal controls of its activities, in particular through safety and quality management systems. The ACAA informed and provided written evidence on 10 November 2011 of the withdrawal with immediate effect of the Certificate of Airworthiness of the aircraft with registration marks ZA-ARD operated until that date by Belle Air and of its immediate grounding until the completion of the certification process of this aircraft is completed. The Air Safety Committee took note of this decision of the competent authorities of Albania.\n(22)\nThe Commission and the Air Safety Committee acknowledge the efforts made to reform the civil aviation system in Albania, in particular the establishment of a new legislative framework in line with international and European safety standards, the efforts undertaken to address the safety deficiencies reported by ICAO, EASA and those identified in the course of the consultations, as well as the enforcement actions adopted by ACAA and the commitment to hire without delay qualified inspectors on a permanent basis.\n(23)\nACAA also formally requested the assistance of the competent authority of Italy, in the framework of an established cooperation arrangement between these authorities, in order to strengthen the administrative and technical capabilities of ACAA regarding the safety oversight, in particular in the field of air operations. The competent authorities of Italy informed the Air Safety Committee of their readiness to put in place this programme without delay, so as to enable the ACAA to exercise effectively the oversight of the air carriers under its regulatory control until such time the ACAA has the necessary qualified staff to do so independently.\n(24)\nIn the light of these developments, it is assessed that, on the basis of the common criteria, that no further are measures needed at that stage. Member States will however verify effective compliance with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections on aircraft of air carriers certified in Albania pursuant to Regulation No 351/2008.\n(25)\nThe Commission and the Air Safety Committee encourage Albania to make decisive progress in the build up of the technical and administrative capacity of ACAA and invites ACAA to cooperate fully and transparently with ICAO and EASA in order to demonstrate quick and substantial progress in the implementation of adequate corrective action plans to remedy all deficiencies identified. The Commission and the Air Safety Committee will reassess the situation in due time.\n(26)\nAs per Regulation (EC) No 273/2010 (9) TAAG Angolan Airlines certified in Angola is allowed to operate in the EU only with four aircraft of type Boeing 737-700 with registration marks D2-TBF, D2-TBG, D2-TBH and D2-TBJ and with three aircraft of type Boeing 777-200 with registration marks D2-TED, D2-TEE, D2-TEF. TAAG informed that following the renewal of its fleet the aircraft of type Boeing B747 were completely phased out and replaced in June/July 2011 by two aircraft of type Boeing 777-300 with registration mark D2-TEG and D2-TEH; TAAG requested these aircraft to be equally allowed to fly in the EU.\n(27)\nTAAG Angolan Airlines made written submissions and was heard by the Air Safety Committee on 9 November 2011. TAAG demonstrated its ability to ensure safe, secure and on-time operations of aircraft of type Boeing B777-200 and 777-300.\n(28)\nThe competent authorities of Angola (INAVIC) confirmed to the Air Safety Committee and provided evidence that the extension of TAAG\u2019s fleet to the aircraft of type B777-300 was duly approved; INAVIC also stated that the air carrier is subject to continuous oversight, and that no safety concern has been identified in the course of this surveillance. With regard to the incident that occurred in December 2010 over Lisbon and Lunad, the on-going investigations by the competent authorities have not revealed deficiencies in the operations or maintenance of TAAG nor led to specific recommendations to the company.\n(29)\nThe competent authorities of Portugal reported that no safety concern had been identified in the ramp inspections carried out in Portugal on aircraft operated by TAAG.\n(30)\nOn the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that TAAG should be allowed to operate into the EU the additional two aircraft of type Boeing B777-300ER with registration marks D2-TEG and D2-TEH that should be consequently added to Annex B. The operations of this carrier into the European Union should continue to be subject to appropriate verification of effective compliance with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of this air carrier pursuant to Regulation No 351/2008.\n(31)\nFollowing the analysis by EASA of the results of SAFA ramp checks (10) carried out on aircraft operated into the EU by the air carrier Al Wafeer Air certified in Saudi Arabia, revealing repetitive serious non compliances with international safety standards, the Commission entered on 5 August 2011 into formal consultations with the competent authorities of Saudi Arabia. These informed on 14 September that the AOC of Al Wafeer Air had been suspended and provided assurance that the operations would not be allowed to resume without ensuring the deficiencies identified in the course of the SAFA programme have been remedied. The Commission will continue its consultations with the competent authorities of Saudi Arabia to follow-up that case.\n(32)\nThe Commission entered into consultations with the competent authorities of Pakistan on 8 September 2011 in order to resolve the findings in the area of airworthiness raised during numerous ramp inspections (11) on aircraft operated by Pakistan International Airways PIA into the Union since September 2010. These consultations were launched as a result of an analysis of these SAFA inspections by EASA and in particular a SAFA inspection conducted by the competent authorities of France (12) on an aircraft of type Airbus A310 with registration mark AP-BGO which resulted in the aircraft having to be ferried empty to Pakistan for remedial maintenance actions.\n(33)\nIn their reply of 17 September 2011, the competent authorities of Pakistan (PCAA) provided information concerning actions taken by them to address the detected non-compliances. The response included details of a corrective action plan (CAP), produced by PIA, which set out 15 specific actions the air carrier planned to take, the majority of which were due to have been completed by 30 October 2011.\n(34)\nOn 31 October 2011 the PCAA updated the Commission on the progress made by PIA in completing their corrective action plan, and on actions carried out by the PCAA. Of the fifteen actions in the PIA CAP, eight had been completed and the remainder were due to be completed no later than 15 December 2011. The PCAA had introduced a thirteen point plan to address the safety culture of PIA, the airworthiness status of their aircraft, and actions to achieve systemic improvements in the airline.\n(35)\nMember States encourage the Commission to pursue its consultation with the competent authorities of Pakistan and with the air carrier with a view to ensuring that any corrective and remedial actions are sustainable in the long term. To that end member States shall continue to verify the effective compliance with relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of this carrier pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008 in order to confirm, or otherwise, the effectiveness of PIA's remedial actions. Should however these inspection reveal that PIA actions have failed to address the identified safety concerns, the Commission will have no choice but to act to contain any risks to safety.\n(36)\nFollowing two subsequent regular analyses of SAFA inspection data by EASA where various air carriers licensed in the Russian Federation continue to show results from SAFA inspections of greater than one major finding per inspection as well as the fact that some of these air carriers experienced fatal accidents in 2011, the Commission held consultations with the competent authorities of the Russian Federation (Federal Air Transport Agency of the Russian Federation - FATA) in the margins of the EU-Russia Aviation Summit organised in St. Petersburg on 12 and 13 October 2011.\n(37)\nIn order to provide detailed information regarding the safety performance of air carriers operating into the Union and the safety of operations of certain types of aircraft involved in fatal accidents of Russian air carriers in the Russian Federation in 2010 and 2011 further consultations were held with these authorities on 27 October. Also during these consultations, two air carriers certified by these authorities VIM AVIA (VIM AIRLINES) and TATARSTAN AIRLINES were heard by the Commission, EASA, Eurocontrol and a Member State.\n(38)\nDuring these consultations FATA informed that certain types of aircraft - Tupolev TU-134 and Tupolev TU-154B-2 and TU-154M operated by certain Russian air carriers were subject to various measures involving their continuing airworthiness, mandatory airworthiness information of equipment fitted thereon, as well as procedures for their operations. FATA also informed the Commission that certain equipment mandatory for international flights (GPWS/TAWS) were made obligatory also for domestic flights within the Russian Federation as of 1 January 2012.\n(39)\nAt the meeting of the Air Safety Committee on 8 November 2011 FATA informed of the following enforcement measures taken on air carriers under their regulatory control:\n(a)\nThe following 12 air carriers operating commercial air transport into the Union had had their AOCs revoked:\n-\n2nd Aviation Unit Sverdlovsk (ICAO designator UKU) revocation on 2.03.2011, MOSKVA (ICAO designator MOA) revocation on 23.03.2011, AVIAL NB (ICAO designator NVI), revocation on 15.07.2011, AVIAENERGO (ICAO designator ERG), revocation on 18.07.2011, CONTINENT (ICAO designator CNE) revocation on 2.08.2011 in connection with statements by the operators concerned;\n-\nRUSAIR (ICAO designator CGI) revocation on 13.07.2011 on the basis of facts following the accident on 20.06.2011 of the aircraft of type TU-134 operated by the air carrier;\n-\nYAK SERVICE (ICAO designator AKY) revocation on 23.09.2011 the basis of the facts following the accident on 7 September 2011 of the aircraft of type YAK-42 operated by the air carrier and the results of an inspection carried out on the air carrier by FATA on 22.09.2011;\n-\nAEROSTARZ (ICAO designator ASE), revocation on 28.10.2011, AVIANOVA (ICAO designator VNV), revocation on 10.10.2011, KAVMINVODYAVIA (ICAO designator MVD) revocation on 27.09.2011 following the results of inspections carried out on these air carriers by FATA on 20.10.2011, 4.10.2011 and 27.09.2011 respectively;\n-\nSKY EXPRESS (ICAO designator SXR) revocation on 31.10.2011 following industrial indicators, the financial condition of the air carrier and the results of an inspection carried out on the air carrier by FATA on 6.10.2011;\n-\nAERORENT (ICAO designator NRO) revocation on 07.11.2011 following no compliance with certification requirements and the results of the inspection carried out by FATA on 27.09.2011;\n(b)\nThe following 6 air carriers operating commercial air transport into the Union had their AOCs modified with the imposition of operating restrictions by order of FATA on 2 November 2011:\n-\nAVIASTAR-TU, UTAIR-CARGO, TATARSTAN AIRLINES, DAGHESTAN, YAKUTIA and VIM AVIA (VIM AIRLINES).\n(40)\nAs regards the performance of certain operators - Yakutia and Tatarstan Airlines- whose operations have been continuously monitored since 2007 and which had been heard by the Commission and members of the Air Safety Committee in April 2008, the Commission drew the attention of FATA to the results of the analysis by EASA of the SAFA ramp checks which indicates that certain airworthiness and operations related weaknesses have not been effectively addressed by previous corrective and remedial actions. FATA informed that it had requested the competent regional authorities responsible for the oversight of these air carriers to investigate the results of the SAFA inspections and to ensure that appropriate corrective measures were implemented by these air carriers to resolve any detected deficiencies.\n(41)\nBoth air carriers were heard by the Air Safety Committee on 8 November 2011 whereby they made presentations showing that they had resolved the findings raised previously during SAFA ramp inspections. Both air carriers stated that they had stopped operations into the Union following the decision of FATA of November 2, 2011.\n(42)\nAs regards the air carrier VIM AVIA (VIM AIRLINES), the Commission drew the attention of FATA to two issues which raised concerns about the effective compliance of the air carrier with relevant safety standards, namely the correspondence by the competent authorities of France addressed to FATA following an inspection at a French airport (13) which resulted into numerous significant and serious findings affecting the safety of operations and leading to the grounding of the aircraft and the restriction imposed by these authorities for the return flight (ferry flight) and the revocation on 24 May 2011 of the maintenance approval issued to that air carrier by EASA (EASA 145.0410) following its suspension on 24 September 2010 in view of the failure of VIM AVIA (VIM AIRLINES) to resolve adequately the findings in accordance with the relevant legislation (14). The unresolved findings which led to the revocation of the maintenance approval confirmed deficiencies in the area of airworthiness raised during various SAFA inspections at Union airports (15) notably those affecting undetected defects or damages and known defects or damages left without assessment or monitoring and damages or defected outside acceptable maintenance limits.\n(43)\nDuring its presentation in the Air Safety Committee VIM AVIA (VIM AIRLINES) did not show that the air carrier has in place a functioning safety management system which ensures that the operator is capable of correctly identifying, evaluating, managing and controlling risks in an appropriate manner to ensure that it operates safely. VIM AVIA (VIM AIRLINES) stated that it had stopped operations into the Union following the decision of FATA of November 2, 2011.\n(44)\nOn the basis of information presented by Eurocontrol, the Air Safety Committee learned that all three air carriers - VIM AVIA (VIM AIRLINES), YAKUTIA and TATARSTAN AIRLINES have actually operated various flights into the EU still after November 2, 2011. The Air Safety Committee was also informed that one air carrier - AERO RENT, whose AOC was revoked by FATA performed commercial flights departing from the EU after the date of the decision of revocation.\n(45)\nIn the light of this information the Commission was compelled to request urgent clarifications from FATA with a view to receiving assurances that the various enforcement measures (revocation of AOCs and imposition of operating restrictions) vis-\u00e0-vis Russian air carriers were effectively complied with.\n(46)\nHaving examined the documentation submitted by this air carrier and having listened to its presentations in the Air Safety Committee, the Commission and the Air Safety Committee have expressed doubts about the capability of VIM AVIA (VIM AIRLINES) to resume operations into the European Union unless and until they have received the necessary documented evidence that it has fully implemented corrective and remedial actions to address any findings resulting from both SAFA and continuous surveillance activities of FATA in a sustainable manner.\n(47)\nThe Commission requested information from FATA on 10 November 2011 with a view to receiving assurances by 14 November 2011 that the operations into the Union of the air carriers concerned were effectively restricted until they had demonstrated that they had appropriately resolved all findings resulting from both SAFA and continuous surveillance activities of FATA in a sustainable manner. FATA submitted documented evidence on 14 November confirming that the operations of the air carrier VIM AVIA (VIM AIRLNES) will remain restricted until April 1, 2012 and that the operations of the other five Russian air carriers were restricted until such time as they had demonstrated to FATA that they had addressed effectively all safety issues arising from SAFA ramp inspections. Also, FATA confirmed that it was taking the necessary steps to ensure that all air carriers affected by operating restrictions complied effectively with the decisions of FATA.\n(48)\nIn view of the documentation submitted by FATA, it is assessed that, at this stage, in accordance with the common criteria, no further measures are necessary on VIM AVIA (VIM AIRLINES). The Commission will examine again the performance of this air carrier in the Air Safety Committee in March 2012.\n(49)\nThe Air Safety Committee has expressed the desire to continue a constructive dialogue with FATA on all matters affecting safety. The Commission and the Air Safety Committee will monitor closely the performance of the air carriers whose operations into the Union have been restricted by FATA to ensure that they resume operations once they have demonstrated that they effectively resolved all findings resulting from ramp inspections carried out in the EU. The Commission and the Air Safety Committee will pursue the sustainable resolution of any safety non compliances detected during SAFA ramp inspections through further technical consultations with FATA. In the meantime, Member States will continue to verify the effective compliance of Russian air carriers with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of these carriers pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008 and the Commission will closely monitor the actions taken by them.\n(50)\nOn the basis of an analysis of the results of SAFA inspections carried out on certain air carriers certified in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan since 2010, the Commission entered into consultations with the competent authorities for civil aviation of the Hashemite Kingdom (CARC) of Jordan on 1 September 2011 with a view to receiving assurances that the safety deficiencies raised during these SAFA inspections had been resolved in a sustainable manner and, where this had not yet happened, that appropriate measures had been taken to mitigate the identified safety risks.\n(51)\nIn their reply of 19 September 2011, CARC did not provide clear evidence of corrective and preventive measures effectively implemented by the air carriers concerned. Moreover, the lack of information regarding the root-cause analysis of the safety deficiencies coupled with increasingly poor results of SAFA inspections observed on several air operators certified in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan raised some questions on the ability of the competent authorities of that country to conduct appropriately continuous oversight of the air carriers it certified.\n(52)\nThe Commission addressed further requests for information on 6 October 2011 and invited CARC to a meeting in Brussels on 21 October 2011 to clarify the abovementioned issues. During this meeting CARC outlined a series of measures that were initiated by this authority in September 2011 to strengthen its oversight over the air carriers certified in Jordan and ensure that the results of ramp inspections carried out in the framework of the European programme for the Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA) are duly taken into account in the oversight of the Jordanian air carriers, so that safety deficiencies identified during inspections are resolved in a sustainable manner. However, this meeting did not allow for sufficient clarification to be presented with regard to the safety performance of the air carrier Jordan Aviation.\n(53)\nIn the case of Jordan Aviation the SAFA reports point to significant deficiencies in the management of airworthiness and operations of the aircraft of type Boeing B-767. In particular, following a SAFA inspection of B767, Reg No JY-JAG in France (16), serious airworthiness deficiencies required the aircraft to be ferried empty for remedial maintenance actions. The number of findings at each SAFA inspection, as well as the repetition of the safety deficiencies since 2010, indicate a serious safety concern. As a consequence, CARC and the operator Jordan Aviation were invited to make presentations to the Air Safety Committee in November 2011.\n(54)\nDuring their hearing by the Air Safety Committee on 9 November 2011, CARC and Jordan Aviation recognized the benefits of the consultations engaged with the Commission assisted by EASA and the Members States. These consultations triggered the establishment by both organisations of a corrective action plan aiming at addressing the safety deficiencies raised during the SAFA inspections, as well as the weaknesses identified in their own internal processes. The Committee acknowledged the efforts made towards bringing sustainable solutions to the safety deficiencies and took note of the commitment made by CARC and Jordan Aviation to fully implement their plan as presented during the hearing.\n(55)\nThe Committee, whilst welcoming the encouraging moves by the air carrier, expressed its concerns regarding the current capability of Jordan Aviation to mitigate the safety risks regarding the commercial operations with its aircraft of type Boeing B-767. Taking into account the numerous and repeated safety deficiencies detected during ramp checks of aircraft of type Boeing B-767 operated by Jordan Aviation and the insufficient ability of the company to implement, to date, an appropriate corrective and preventive actions plan, and the lack of exercise of adequate safety oversight exercised by CARC, it is assessed, on the basis of the common criteria, that Jordan Aviation should be placed on Annex B and its operations should be subject to restrictions to exclude all aircraft of type Boeing B-767. The air carrier should be permitted to fly into the Union with the other types of aircraft on its AOC as per Annex B.\n(56)\nMember States encourage the Commission to pursue its consultation with the competent authorities of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan with a view to ensuring that international safety standards are effectively enforced by these authorities and that any corrective and preventive actions implemented by all air carriers concerned are sustainable in the long term. In the meantime, Member States shall continue to verify the effective compliance with relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of this carrier pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008.\n(57)\nThe Commission is ready to support the efforts of CARC and Jordan Aviation, through an assessment visit, with the participation of Member States and EASA, to verify the safety performance of Jordan Aviation as well as the progress made by CARC in the field of the oversight of the air operators certified in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.\n(58)\nThe Commission launched formal consultations with the company Rollins Air certified by the competent authorities of Honduras following information provided by the competent authorities of France informing about their decision not to issue traffic rights to this air carrier pending resolution of the safety deficiencies identified during the technical assessment of the technical questionnaire and additional information submitted by Rollins Air for the purpose of receiving the landing authorisation (issuance of a so-called SAFA standard report).\n(59)\nThe company was invited to clarify the following issues and make presentations to the Air Safety Committee on 8 November 2011: a) evidence that a flight data analysis programme compliant with the ICAO provisions had been implemented; b) evidence that France including its oversees territories was part of the authorized area of operations for the aircraft of type L1011-500 registered under HR-AVN, as authorized by its competent authority; c) evidence that the pilots involved in the intended flight had passed the necessary proficiency checks over the last 12 months and d) that the flight crew proposed by the air carrier were both over ICAO acceptable age limits.\n(60)\nNeither Rollins Air nor the competent authority of Honduras (DGAC) was present in the Air Safety Committee. DGAC empowered the diplomatic representation of Honduras to the Kingdom of Belgium to inform the Air Safety Committee about their official position on 9 November 2011, according to which the DGAC initiated a procedure to cancel the registration of aircraft HR-AVN from the national registry of Honduras and that Rollins Air is no longer allowed to operate the aforementioned aircraft. However, Rollins Air operates more aircraft of this type and no further information was presented in relation to the issues raised above.\n(61)\nThe Committee took into consideration that Honduras is classified under category 2 of the US IASA programme by the US Federal Aviation Administration indicating systemic deficiencies within the competent authorities of Honduras to discharge effectively its certification and oversight obligations on the air carriers under its regulatory control.\n(62)\nConsequently, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Rollins Air should be included in Annex A pending submission of evidence of rectification of the deficiencies raised in the standard report issued by the French competent authority.\n(63)\nThe competent authorities of the Republic of Congo (ANAC) informed of the issuance of a new AOC to the air carrier Equatorial Congo Airlines S.A. on 23 September 2011, thus without demonstrating that the certification and oversight of this air carrier complies fully with applicable international safety standards. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Equatorial Congo Airlines S.A. should be equally included in Annex A.\n(64)\nThere is verified evidence that the competent authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo (AAC) issued a new AOC to the air carrier Stellar Airways, whilst there is no evidence that the certification and oversight of this air carrier complies fully with applicable international safety standards. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Stellar Airways should be equally included in Annex A.\n(65)\nThe Commission was informed that the competent authorities of the Philippines (CAAP) would have issued new AOC to air carriers such as Aeromajestic and Interisland Airlines. The CAAP failed to reply to the Commission's request for information sent on 26 October 2011 regarding the validity of the certificates held by this companies and did not demonstrate further that their certification and oversight comply with the applicable international safety standards. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these carriers should be equally included in Annex A.\n(66)\nNo evidence of the full implementation of appropriate remedial actions by the other air carriers included in the Community list updated on 19 April 2011 and by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of these air carriers has been communicated to the Commission so far in spite of specific requests submitted by the latter. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these air carriers should continue to be subject to an operating ban (Annex A) or operating restrictions (Annex B), as the case may be.\n(67)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Air Safety Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 474/2006 is amended as follows:\n1.\nAnnex A is replaced by the text set out in Annex A to this Regulation.\n2.\nAnnex B is replaced by the text set out in Annex B to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 21 November 2011.", "references": ["56", "44", "80", "38", "88", "84", "34", "89", "26", "25", "81", "21", "62", "9", "3", "27", "36", "10", "17", "51", "40", "33", "8", "74", "11", "4", "65", "85", "42", "0", "No Label", "53", "54", "57", "76", "91", "93", "94", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["53", "54", "57", "76", "91", "93", "94", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION ATALANTA/2/2011\nof 15 June 2011\non the appointment of an EU Operation Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)\n(2011/341/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (Atalanta), and in particular Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Operation Commander.\n(2)\nThe United Kingdom has proposed that Rear Admiral Duncan POTTS replace Major-General Buster HOWES as EU Operation Commander.\n(3)\nThe EU Military Committee supports that proposal.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nRear-Admiral Duncan POTTS is hereby appointed EU Operation Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 1 August 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2011.", "references": ["82", "24", "98", "23", "56", "37", "28", "39", "20", "91", "49", "95", "13", "2", "61", "42", "36", "41", "15", "74", "16", "4", "67", "50", "90", "17", "65", "19", "71", "14", "No Label", "5", "6", "9", "12", "52", "94"], "gold": ["5", "6", "9", "12", "52", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 50/2011\nof 20 January 2011\nfixing the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 14th individual invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the 14th individual invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 14th individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 18 January 2011, the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be EUR 225,00/100 kg.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2011.", "references": ["44", "83", "86", "65", "60", "3", "36", "5", "38", "57", "49", "46", "63", "4", "62", "19", "75", "59", "18", "73", "53", "22", "84", "81", "16", "93", "33", "74", "64", "52", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 526/2012\nof 20 June 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 496/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2012.", "references": ["74", "84", "68", "86", "70", "98", "38", "3", "62", "25", "95", "5", "37", "2", "89", "75", "8", "17", "90", "55", "11", "85", "40", "73", "53", "47", "0", "33", "44", "63", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 March 2011\namending Decision 2010/320/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening the fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit\n(2011/257/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 126(9) and Article 136 thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) foresees the possibility of adopting measures specific to the Member States whose currency is the euro with a view to strengthening the coordination and surveillance of their budgetary discipline.\n(2)\nArticle 126 TFEU establishes that Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits and sets out the excessive deficit procedure to that effect. The Stability and Growth Pact, which in its corrective arm implements the excessive deficit procedure, provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.\n(3)\nOn 27 April 2009, the Council decided, in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, that an excessive deficit existed in Greece.\n(4)\nOn 10 May 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/320/EU (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Decision\u2019) addressed to Greece under Article 126(9) and Article 136 TFEU with a view to reinforcing and deepening the fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit at the latest by the deadline of 2014. The Council established the following path for the deficit correction: government deficits not exceeding EUR 18 508 million in 2010, EUR 17 065 million in 2011, EUR 14 916 million in 2012, EUR 11 399 million in 2013 and EUR 6 385 million in 2014.\n(5)\nAccording to the forecast available at the time the Council adopted the Decision, real GDP was expected to contract by 4 % in 2010 and 2\u00bd % in 2011, and recover afterwards, with growth rates of 1,1 % in 2012, and 2,1 % in 2013 and in 2014. GDP deflator was expected to be 1,2 %, - 0,5 %, 1,0 %, 0,7 % and 1,0 % for the years 2010 to 2014, respectively. Given economic developments, real GDP is now expected to contract by 4\u00bd % in 2010 and 3 % in 2011 and recover afterwards with growth rates of 1,1 % in 2012, and 2,1 % in 2013 and in 2014. GDP deflators are now expected to be 3,0 %, 1,6 %, 0,4 %, 0,8 % and 1,2 % from 2010 to 2014, respectively.\n(6)\nOn 12 February 2011, Greece submitted to the Council and the Commission a report outlining the policy measures taken to comply with the Decision. The Commission assessed the report and concluded that Greece is satisfactorily complying with the Decision. However, the deficit target for 2011 must not be missed, as happened in 2010.\n(7)\nIn light of the above considerations, it appears appropriate to amend the Decision in a number of respects, while keeping unchanged the deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit and the adjustment path for the government deficit and the increase of government debt in nominal terms,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/320/EU is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2(4), point (c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nthe government clears payment of arrears accumulated in 2010 and reduces those of previous years;\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 2(4), point (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\na medium-term budgetary strategy plan which identifies permanent fiscal consolidation measures of at least 8 % of GDP (some of which have already been identified in May 2010), plus a contingency reserve, that will ensure the achievement of deficit targets up to 2014, and that the debt-to-GDP ratio is put on a sustainable downward path. The strategy plan will be published for public consultation before end March. The medium-term strategy plan includes, in particular: prudent macroeconomic forecasts; baseline revenue and expenditure projections for the state and for the other government entities; a description of permanent fiscal measures, their timing and their quantification; annual spending ceilings for each ministry and fiscal targets for other government entities through 2014; post-measures fiscal projections for general government in line with the deficit and debt targets; longer-term debt projections based on prudent macroeconomic projections, stable primary surpluses from 2014 on; and privatisation plans. The medium-term strategy plan will be articulated with the ongoing healthcare and pension reforms and with specific sectoral plans. The sectoral plans (draft plans to be available by end March), will cover in particular: tax policy reforms; state-owned enterprises; extra budgetary funds (legal entities of the public sector and earmarked accounts); public wage bill; and public administration; social spending; public investment and military spending. Each sectoral plan will be managed by interministerial taskforces;\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 2(4), point (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nan anti-evasion plan which includes quantitative performance indicators to hold revenue administration accountable; legislation to streamline the administrative tax dispute and judicial appeal processes and the required acts and procedures to better address misconduct, corruption and poor performance of tax officials, including prosecution in cases of breach of duty; and publication of monthly reports of the five anti-evasion taskforces, including a set of progress indicators;\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 2(4), point (f) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(f)\na detailed action plan with a timeline to complete and implement the simplified remuneration system; preparation of a medium-term human resource plan for the period up to 2013 in line with the rule of 1 recruitment for 5 exits, also specifying plans to reallocate qualified staff to priority areas; and publication of monthly data on staff movements (entries, exits, transfers among entities) of the several government departments;\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 2(4), point (g) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(g)\nimplementation of the comprehensive reform of the health care system started in 2010 with the objective to keep public health expenditure at or below 6 % of GDP; measures yielding savings on pharmaceuticals of at least EUR 2 billion relative to the 2010 level, of which at least EUR 1 billion in 2011; improvement in the accounting and billing systems of hospitals, through: finalising the introduction of double-entry accrual accounting systems in all hospitals; the use of the uniform coding system and a common registry for medical supplies; the calculation of stocks and flows of medical supplies in all the hospitals using the uniform coding system for medical supplies; and the timely invoicing of treatment costs (no later than 2 months) to Greek social security funds, other Member States and private health insurers; and ensure that at least 50 % of the volume of medicines used by public hospitals by the end of 2011 is composed of generics and off-patent medicines by making it compulsory for all public hospitals to procure pharmaceutical products by active substance;\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 2(4), point (h) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(h)\nwith the aim of fighting waste and mismanagement in state-owned companies and yield fiscal savings of at least EUR 800 million, an act that: cuts primary remuneration in public enterprises by at least 10 % at company level; limits secondary remuneration to 10 % of primary remuneration; establishes a ceiling of EUR 4 000 per month for gross earnings (12 payments per year); increases urban transport tariffs by at least 30 %; actions that reduce operational expenditure in public companies between 15 % to 25 %; and an act for the restructuring of the OASA;\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 2(4), point (k) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(k)\nadoption of a law to establish the Single Public Procurement Authority in line with the Action Plan; and development of an e-procurement IT platform and setting up of intermediate milestones in line with the Action Plan, including: testing a pilot version, availability of all functionalities for all contracts and phasing-in of the mandatory use of e-procurement system for supplies, services and works contracts;\u2019;\n(8)\nin Article 2(4), the following point is added:\n\u2018(l)\nan act specifying the qualification and responsibilities of accounting officers to be appointed in all line ministries and major government entities with the responsibility to ensure sound financial controls; appointment of financial accounting officers; and acceleration of the process of establishing commitment registries and operational registries covering the whole general government (except the smallest entities).\u2019;\n(9)\nin Article 2(5), the following point is added:\n\u2018(i)\npublication of an inventory of state-owned assets, including stakes in listed and non-listed enterprises and commercially viable real estate and land and an estimation of the values of these assets; and establishment of a General Secretariat of Real Estate in order to improve coordination and accelerate the privatisation and asset management programme. On the basis of this inventory, privatisation plans will be revised and accelerated.\u2019;\n(10)\nin Article 2(6), the following point is added:\n\u2018(f)\nbuilding on the inventory of commercial state-owned real-estate assets (to be published by June 2011); elaboration of a medium-term plan to divest state assets; revision of the privatisation receipts planned for 2011-13; and extension of the plan through 2015.\u2019;\n(11)\nArticle 2, a new paragraph is added:\n\u20188. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of March 2012:\n(a)\na reform of the secondary/supplementary pension schemes, by merging funds and starting the calculation of benefits on the basis of the new notional defined-contribution system; freezing of nominal supplementary pensions and reduction of the replacement rates for accrued rights in funds with deficits, based on the actuarial study prepared by the National Actuarial Authority. In case the actuarial study is not ready, replacement rates are reduced, starting from 1 January 2012, to avoid deficits.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["55", "28", "78", "39", "54", "17", "59", "23", "90", "8", "61", "73", "43", "77", "84", "30", "95", "40", "69", "71", "89", "3", "67", "76", "48", "14", "53", "51", "5", "56", "No Label", "15", "16", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "16", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 615/2010\nof 13 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2010.", "references": ["45", "82", "89", "64", "48", "91", "21", "16", "13", "52", "7", "71", "19", "46", "60", "80", "2", "54", "29", "84", "43", "11", "39", "55", "15", "5", "42", "10", "32", "59", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 396/2012\nof 8 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 May 2012.", "references": ["71", "81", "37", "83", "21", "74", "11", "26", "88", "24", "28", "7", "96", "23", "69", "27", "52", "30", "5", "42", "98", "65", "93", "15", "47", "10", "63", "14", "4", "20", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 309/2012\nof 11 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2012.", "references": ["10", "77", "76", "6", "30", "56", "80", "96", "39", "98", "55", "92", "26", "19", "60", "32", "7", "21", "16", "9", "66", "62", "33", "47", "38", "1", "70", "15", "75", "87", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 752/2011\nof 29 July 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 August 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 August 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 August 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2011.", "references": ["89", "4", "52", "6", "5", "79", "71", "51", "83", "29", "15", "80", "49", "20", "24", "73", "18", "95", "78", "60", "17", "66", "33", "32", "19", "30", "36", "0", "7", "65", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/3/EU\nof 17 January 2011\namending Directive 2008/128/EC laying down specific purity criteria on colours for use in foodstuffs\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Article 30(5) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Directive 2008/128/EC (2) sets out the specific purity criteria concerning colours for use in foodstuffs, which colours are mentioned in European Parliament and Council Directive 94/36/EC of 30 June 1994 on colours for use in foodstuffs (3).\n(2)\nUnder Article 30(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 specifications of the food additives covered under paragraphs 1 to 3 of that Article (which include also additives authorised under Directive 94/36/EC) shall be adopted, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (4), at the moment those food additives are entered in the Annexes in accordance with those paragraphs.\n(3)\nSince the lists have not yet been drawn up, and in order to ensure that the modification of the Annexes to Directive 94/36/EC pursuant to Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 is effective and that additives so authorised comply with safe conditions of use, Directive 2008/128/EC should therefore be amended.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) has assessed the information on the safety in use of lycopene as a food colour from all sources in its opinion of 30 January 2008 (5). The sources that were considered were the following: (a) E160d Lycopene obtained by solvent extraction of the natural strains of red tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) with subsequent removal of the solvent, (b) synthetic lycopene and (c) lycopene from Blakeslea trispora.\n(5)\nCurrent legislation lays down specifications only for lycopene of red tomatoes and needs to be modified respectively by including the other two sources. Specifications of lycopene extracted from red tomatoes need also to be updated. Dichloromethane does not need to be listed in the list of the extraction solvents, as it is not used any more for lycopene of red tomatoes, according to the information received from stakeholders. Maximum limit for lead needs to be lowered due to safety reasons, and the reference on heavy metals is too generic and not relevant any more. In addition the reference on natural strains needs to be updated according to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6).\n(6)\nDichloromethane (methylene chloride) is being reported to be used for manufacturing ready-to-sale formulations of lycopene, mentioned also in the Authority's opinion on Safety of \u2018Lycopene Cold Water Dispersible Products from Blakeslea trispora\u2019 of 4 December 2008 (7). Similar products are produced also from synthetic lycopene, as mentioned in the Authority's opinion on safety of Synthetic Lycopene of 10 April 2008 (8). As the Authority evaluated this specific use, it is necessary to authorise this use by the same residual levels that were considered during the evaluation.\n(7)\nIt is necessary to take into account the specifications and analytical techniques for additives as set out in the Codex Alimentarius drafted by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). In particular, the specific purity criteria need to be adapted to reflect the limits for individual heavy metals of interest, where appropriate.\n(8)\nDirective 2008/128/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex I to Directive 2008/128/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 September 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 January 2011.", "references": ["59", "34", "62", "64", "49", "41", "27", "61", "44", "99", "98", "15", "53", "96", "55", "85", "17", "84", "8", "50", "95", "83", "79", "51", "69", "76", "91", "31", "52", "93", "No Label", "38", "72", "73", "74"], "gold": ["38", "72", "73", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1314/2011\nof 13 December 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in Greenland waters of NAFO 0 and 1; Greenland waters of V and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Germany\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["35", "36", "77", "48", "12", "20", "26", "32", "57", "28", "34", "69", "37", "53", "84", "63", "74", "79", "88", "92", "6", "83", "18", "39", "9", "43", "0", "25", "38", "54", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 19 January 2012\nrequiring Member States to prohibit the placing on the market of flail-type cutting attachments for portable hand-held brush cutters\n(notified under document C(2011) 9772)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/32/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nGrass trimmers and brush cutters are portable hand-held gardening and forestry machines used for cutting grass, weeds, brush, small trees and similar vegetation. A complete grass trimmer or brush cutter unit includes a power head, a power transmission shaft, a cutting attachment and a guard. Many combustion engine driven machines are dual purpose machines that can be used for cutting grass and weeds or for cutting brush and small trees, depending on the cutting attachment fitted.\n(2)\nIn September 2008, the Swedish authorities informed the other authorities of Member States and the Commission that several flail-type cutting attachments for brush cutters, consisting of two or more metal parts such as chains, knives or brushes linked to a rotating head, were being placed on the market by manufacturers other than the original brush cutter manufacturers. The Swedish authorities considered that such flail-type cutting attachments were dangerous.\n(3)\nIn May 2010, the authorities of the United Kingdom informed the other authorities of Member States and the Commission of a fatal accident involving a flail-type cutting attachment for a brush cutter consisting of two chains linked to a metal disc. During use of a brush cutter fitted with such a cutting attachment, a link of the chain had been ejected and had fatally injured a bystander. The United Kingdom had taken measures to ensure the withdrawal from the market and from service of the cutting attachments concerned. At the meeting of the Machinery Committee held on 2 June 2010, the United Kingdom requested the Commission to examine the need for the adoption of a measure requiring Member States to prohibit the placing on the market of cutting attachments having similar technical characteristics.\n(4)\nFlail-type cutting attachments for brush cutters placed on the market separately in order to be assembled with a brush cutter by the operator, not covered by the risk assessment, the EC declaration of conformity and the instructions of a brush cutter manufacturer, are interchangeable equipment according to the definition set out in point (b) of Article 2 of Directive 2006/42/EC.\n(5)\nSection 1.3.2 of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC on the risk of break-up during operation requires the various parts of machinery and their linkages to be able to withstand the stresses to which they are subject when used. Where a risk of rupture or disintegration remains despite the measures taken, the parts concerned must be mounted, positioned and/or guarded in such a way that any fragments will be contained, preventing hazardous situations. Section 1.3.3 of Annex I to that Directive on risks due to falling or ejected objects requires precautions to be taken to prevent risks from falling or ejected objects.\n(6)\nThe harmonised standard for portable hand-held combustion engine driven brush cutters, EN ISO 11806:2008, includes technical specifications and tests to ensure the adequate strength of cutting attachments and to reduce risks due to thrown objects. The standard does not foresee cutting attachments consisting of more than one metal part. While application of the harmonised standard is voluntary, the standard indicates the state of the art to be taken into account when applying the essential health and safety requirements of Directive 2006/42/EC, according to the general principles set out in the introduction to Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC.\n(7)\nThe use of flail-type cutting attachments with linked metal parts gives rise to significantly higher residual risks of break-up during operation and of ejection of objects than single part metal blades. The metal parts of flail-type cutting attachments and their linkages are subject to repeated high mechanical stresses when they come into contact with stones, rocks and other obstacles and are liable to break-up and be ejected at high speed. They are also liable to eject stones with higher energy than single part metal blades. The guards fitted to portable hand-held brush cutters cannot provide adequate protection against the higher risks created by flail-type cutting attachments with linked metal parts. Consequently, taking account of the state of the art, flail-type cutting attachments for portable hand-held brush cutters cannot be considered to comply with the requirements set out in sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC. That non-conformity gives rise to a significant risk of serious or fatal injury to users and other exposed persons.\n(8)\nOn 22 October 2010, the Commission consulted the European Garden Machinery Federation on a draft measure to deal with dangerous cutting attachments for brush cutters. In its reply dated 4 November 2010, the Federation expressed support for the draft measure.\n(9)\nThe shortest possible period should be allowed for the application of the measures required by this Decision in order to prevent further accidents.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 22 of Directive 2006/42/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States shall prohibit the placing on the market of flail-type cutting attachments consisting of several linked metal parts for portable hand-held brush cutters.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to comply with this Decision by 30 April 2012 at the latest. They shall publish those measures and forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 January 2012.", "references": ["93", "46", "52", "31", "71", "45", "94", "70", "33", "59", "40", "84", "2", "0", "41", "88", "97", "69", "79", "4", "50", "3", "43", "47", "75", "19", "26", "67", "29", "27", "No Label", "24", "25", "66", "76", "86", "90"], "gold": ["24", "25", "66", "76", "86", "90"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 972/2010\nof 28 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 October 2010.", "references": ["4", "72", "41", "22", "66", "11", "93", "64", "73", "96", "48", "54", "99", "84", "82", "57", "26", "75", "56", "51", "83", "20", "19", "40", "88", "36", "45", "80", "63", "87", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 November 2010\nauthorising the placing on the market of ferrous ammonium phosphate as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 8191)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(2010/715/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 21 October 2008 the company Cantox Health Sciences International on behalf of Nestec Ltd made a request to the competent authorities of Ireland to place ferrous ammonium phosphate on the market as a novel food ingredient.\n(2)\nOn 20 November 2008 the competent food assessment body of Ireland issued its initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that an additional assessment was required.\n(3)\nThe Commission informed all Member States about the request on 23 December 2008. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was requested to carry out the assessment on 28 April 2009.\n(4)\nOn 14 April 2010 following a request from the Commission, EFSA adopted an opinion (2) on the safety of ferrous ammonium phosphate as a source of iron added for nutritional purposes to foods for the general population (including food supplements) and to foods for particular nutritional uses. In the opinion EFSA concluded that ferrous ammonium phosphate, at the proposed use levels, is not of safety concern provided that established upper safety limits for iron are not exceeded.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 953/2009 of 13 October 2009 on substances that may be added for specific nutritional purposes in foods for particular nutritional uses (3), Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (4) and/or Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (5) lay down specific provision for the use of vitamins, minerals and other substances in food. The use of ferrous ammonium phosphate should be authorised without prejudice to the requirements of this legislation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFerrous ammonium phosphate as a source of iron as specified in the Annex may be placed on the market in the Union as a novel food ingredient to be used in food without prejudice to the specific provisions of Regulation (EC) No 953/2009, Directive 2002/46/EC and/or Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006.\nArticle 2\nThe designation of the novel food ingredient authorised by this Decision on the labelling of the foodstuff containing it shall be \u2018ferrous ammonium phosphate\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Nestec Ltd Avenue Nestl\u00e9 55, CH-1800 Vevey, Switzerland.\nDone at Brussels, 25 November 2010.", "references": ["93", "65", "34", "84", "45", "31", "73", "16", "36", "91", "29", "75", "66", "27", "14", "81", "94", "87", "76", "26", "40", "97", "95", "69", "55", "58", "92", "6", "3", "8", "No Label", "25", "28", "38", "74"], "gold": ["25", "28", "38", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 May 2010\namending Decision 2001/672/EC as regards time periods for the movements of bovine animals to summer grazing areas\n(notified under document C(2010) 3188)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/300/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (1) and in particular Article 7(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1760/2000 establishes a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals in order to ensure the transparency of the conditions for the production and marketing of beef and beef products. To that end, the Regulation requires the Member States to set up national bovine databases which will record the identity of the animal, all holdings on its territory and the movements of the animals. In addition, it imposes an obligation on keepers of animals to report to the competent authority, inter alia, all movements to and from the holding, along with the dates of these events, within a period fixed by the Member State of between three and seven days of the event occurring.\n(2)\nThe Regulation provides for the possibility for the Commission at the request of a Member State to extend that maximum period and to set up special rules applicable to different mountain areas, which was done by means of Commission Decision 2001/672/EC of 20 August 2001 laying down special rules applicable to movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in mountain areas (2).\n(3)\nPursuant to recital 4 of Decision 2001/672/EC these special rules must result in a real simplification and foresee only what is absolutely necessary to guarantee the fully operational character of the national bovine databases.\n(4)\nDecision 2001/672/EC applies to such movements during the period from 1 May to 15 October. Practical experience with the application of that Decision has shown that in some mountain areas movements to summer grazing areas start already in April. The scope of application of Decision 2001/672/EC should be amended accordingly to take account of that fact.\n(5)\nUnder certain conditions, animals, which are moved from different holdings to the same summer grazing mountain area, arrive there over a period of more than seven days. In order to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens, time limits in Decision 2001/672/EC should therefore be adapted to take account of that practical fact without compromising traceability.\n(6)\nDecision 2001/672/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Agricultural Funds,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2001/672/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 1 the date \u20181 May\u2019 is replaced by \u201815 April\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 2(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The information contained in the list mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be reported to the competent authority in accordance with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 at the latest 15 days after the date when the animals were moved to the pasture.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2010.", "references": ["18", "40", "43", "59", "23", "62", "26", "13", "14", "45", "98", "92", "76", "46", "27", "72", "88", "85", "56", "51", "96", "16", "99", "29", "80", "74", "63", "6", "33", "15", "No Label", "17", "42", "61", "64", "65"], "gold": ["17", "42", "61", "64", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 October 2010\namending Decision 2008/866/EC as regards its period of application\n(notified under document C(2010) 7183)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/641/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1)(b)(i) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2008/866/EC of 12 November 2008 on emergency measures suspending imports from Peru of certain bivalve molluscs intended for human consumption (2) was adopted as a result of contamination with the hepatitis A virus (HAV) of certain bivalve molluscs imported from Peru which were identified as being at the origin of an outbreak of hepatitis A in humans. That Decision initially applied until 31 March 2009 but this period of application was extended until 30 November 2010 by Commission Decision 2009/862/EC of 30 November 2009 amending Decision 2008/866/EC as regards its period of application (3).\n(2)\nThe Peruvian authorities have provided certain information concerning the corrective measures put in place to improve control of the production of bivalve molluscs intended for export to the Union.\n(3)\nA Commission inspection was carried out in September 2009 in order to evaluate the control systems in place governing the production of bivalve molluscs and fishery products intended for export to the Union. The inspection concluded that the Peruvian authorities were putting in place the corrective measures described in the information which they provided after the outbreak of hepatitis A. However, these measures were not fully implemented at the time of the inspection.\n(4)\nThe Peruvian authorities recently informed the Commission that they have concluded the implementation of the corrective measures. However, in order to protect the health of consumers it is necessary to maintain the protective measures provided for in Decision 2008/866/EC until the Commission verifies that the Peruvian authorities have completed the implementation of the corrective measures and concludes that bivalve molluscs produced in Peru and intended for export to the Union meet the conditions established by the Union law.\n(5)\nIt is therefore appropriate to extend the application of Decision 2008/866/EC until 30 November 2011, without prejudice to the power of the Commission to modify, repeal or extend those measures in the light of any new information related to the evolution of the situation in Peru and of the outcome of inspections by its services.\n(6)\nDecision 2008/866/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 5 of Decision 2008/866/EC, the date \u201830 November 2010\u2019 is replaced by the date \u201830 November 2011\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 October 2010.", "references": ["12", "28", "44", "88", "15", "50", "3", "96", "18", "25", "73", "5", "66", "31", "52", "27", "0", "49", "41", "1", "85", "62", "77", "40", "17", "82", "61", "30", "99", "37", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "38", "67", "93"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "38", "67", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 385/2011\nof 18 April 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 358/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2011.", "references": ["7", "4", "59", "23", "93", "34", "48", "85", "83", "5", "79", "51", "18", "76", "41", "19", "73", "25", "42", "54", "1", "67", "46", "61", "30", "94", "60", "66", "69", "2", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 March 2011\non State aid C 10/10 (ex N 562/09) which Spain intends to grant for the restructuring of A NOVO Comlink\n(notified under document C(2011) 1740)\n(Only the Spanish text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/178/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions (1),\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 16 October 2009, Spain notified a restructuring aid measure planned by the Autonomous Community of Andalusia for A NOVO Comlink SL. By letter dated 25 March 2010, the Commission informed Spain that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU in respect of the measure. Spain responded to this decision by letter of 26 April 2010. By letter dated 22 September 2010, the Commission asked Spain for additional information. The Spanish authorities responded on 20 October 2010 by withdrawing the notification as the company\u2019s economic situation had developed better than expected.\n(2)\nThe Commission Decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid. The Commission did not receive any comments from third parties.\nII. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n1. The notified restructuring plan\n(3)\nThe restructuring plan that Spain notified in October 2009 provided for restructuring aid for A NOVO Comlink SL (hereinafter \u2018A NOVO\u2019) on the basis of the Order of 5 November 2008 establishing the regulatory bases for the Aid Programme for Viable Enterprises with economic difficulties in Andalusia and launching a call for applications for 2008 and 2009 (3). The Commission approved this Order in May 2009 as a rescue and restructuring aid scheme for SMEs - hence individual grants of this type of aid to large companies must be notified (Case N 608/08).\n(4)\nThe aid planned by Andalusia consisted of an 80 % guarantee for a 10-year loan of EUR 4 375 000 with an interest-rate subsidy of 0,89 %, and a government loan of EUR 2 000 000 over 10 years, granted by the Andalusia Innovation and Development Agency (IDEA).\n(5)\nAs regards cash requirements, Spain stated in the notification that the debts outstanding at the time of drafting the restructuring measure consisted of:\n-\ndebts of EUR 2,7 million to suppliers,\n-\ndebts of EUR 650 000 to the government,\n-\ndebts of EUR 1,6 million to other undertakings of the A NOVO Group,\n-\nother needs deriving from the expansion of activities.\nAll this amounted to cash needs of some EUR 5 million.\n(6)\nApart from the abovementioned injection of fresh capital, the restructuring plan did not provide for any restructuring of the company\u2019s activities, organisation and management, nor its workforce. As regards the company\u2019s structure, the plan only described the current areas of activity and the possibilities and prospects for their expansion.\n(7)\nThe plan did not refer to any contribution by the beneficiary or its parent company. As regards compensatory measures, the plan did not provide for any capacity reduction or asset sales. As regards prospects, no distinction was made between best-case, intermediate and worst-case assumptions.\n2. Measures not notified to the Commission\n(8)\nDuring the assessment of the restructuring plan, it emerged that rescue aid had been granted to A NOVO in May 2009 in the form of an 80 % guarantee on a EUR 1 825 000 loan for six months, with an annual premium of 1,5 % and an interest rate of 2,86 %. Spain did not notify this guarantee.\n(9)\nAfter the rescue aid was awarded on 21 May 2009, A NOVO submitted a restructuring plan to the Andalusian authorities on 10 September 2009.\n3. Recipient\n(10)\nA NOVO is a large company that operates in the area of after-sales activities for computers, mobile telephones and other electronic devices. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the French company A NOVO SA. Originally, A NOVO produced telephones. Between 2004 and 2006 A NOVO gave up production activities and concentrated on after-sales services. A NOVO is located in Malaga (Andalusia), in an area eligible for regional aid under the exemption in Article 107(3)(a) TFEU.\n(11)\nAt the time of notification of the restructuring plan, A NOVO fulfilled the conditions for insolvency. It was having difficulties in obtaining money on the capital markets. Of the initial registered capital of EUR 15 million in 2001, more than EUR 10 million had disappeared, and more than one quarter had been lost in 2008 alone:\n(in EUR)\n2001\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nCapital\n15 000 000\n14 684 923\n6 167 668\n6 167 668\n8 967 667\n4 056 802\n2 057 000\nA NOVO also had high losses and a decreasing turnover:\n(in EUR)\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIncreasing losses\n-2 603 000\n-4 549 000\n-3 923 000\n- 292 000\nDiminishing turnover\n22 090 000\n21 853 000\n15 305 000\n15 464 000\n(12)\nConsequently, at the beginning of 2009, A NOVO was in difficulties according to points 10 and 11 of the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (hereinafter \u2018the Guidelines\u2019) (4). More than half of its registered capital had disappeared, and more than one quarter of that capital had been lost over the preceding 12 months (point 10(a) of the Guidelines). The company therefore fulfilled the criteria under Spanish law for being subject to insolvency proceedings (point 10(c) of the Guidelines). In any case, it had diminishing overall turnover and almost nil asset value, as stipulated in point 11 of the Guidelines.\n(13)\nRestructuring of A NOVO had already begun in July 2005 with a view to switching activities from telephone production to after-sales services. The 2005 Agreement on the Bases and Commitments of A NOVO Comlink SL\u2019s Viability Plan required the company to contribute to financing its Viability Plan by means of a sale and lease-back operation covering its real estate at the Andalusia Technology Park (for an estimated sum of EUR 14,9 million), to transform 94 temporary contracts into permanent contracts before 31 December 2007, to conclude 88 new contracts before 31 December 2009, and to keep on the current workforce until 2015. The Agreement also included a partial retirement scheme for employees once they reached the age of 60.\n(14)\nIn return, the Department of Employment of the Junta de Andaluc\u00eda authorised A NOVO to suspend 224 employment contracts for employees aged over 54 until 31 August 2008. This authorisation gives these employees the right to apply for unemployment benefits although, in theory, they are still employed. During the temporary suspension of employment contracts, employees continue to form part of the company. The measure is intended to supplement the income of the employees concerned until they reach retirement age.\n(15)\nThe company\u2019s legal obligations are limited to paying the employer\u2019s contribution to the social security system for the suspended employees, and payroll and social security costs during the period of partial retirement (between the ages of 60 and 65).\n4. Grounds for initiating the procedure\n(16)\nFollowing an analysis of these State aid measures under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and in the light of the Guidelines, the Commission decided to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU because it had doubts whether the conditions for approving the rescue and restructuring aid had been met.\n(17)\nThe Commission concluded that both measures were likely to constitute aid. Under Article 107(1) TFEU, any financial support granted by a Member State which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings and which affects trade between Member States constitutes aid. The measures in question, i.e. the guarantees, the interest-rate subsidy, the loan by the region of Andalusia, and the direct payments to employees of A NOVO involve state resources. They were granted by the Autonomous Community of Andalusia and are imputable to the State.\n(18)\nThe measures must confer an advantage on the recipient which it could not obtain under normal market conditions. A guarantee does not constitute such an advantage if the borrower is in financial difficulty (point 3.2(a) of the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees) (5). The loan by Andalusia could confer an advantage. The Commission has doubts that it was granted at market rates determined according to the Commission\u2019s rules on setting market rates, laid down in the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (6). Hence, the measures are likely to constitute aid which distorts competition.\n(19)\nAlthough A NOVO was in economic difficulties in early 2009, there were doubts whether it was eligible for any rescue or restructuring aid, as it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the French undertaking A NOVO SA, which had a turnover of some EUR 350 million and a net profit of EUR 12 million in 2009. According to point 11 of the Guidelines, a firm in difficulty is only eligible where it cannot recover with the funds it obtains from its owners. Furthermore, under point 13 of the Guidelines, in the case of a firm belonging to a larger business group, the Member State must demonstrate that the firm\u2019s difficulties are intrinsic and too serious to be dealt with by the group itself. Spain has not submitted information showing whether these conditions are met.\n(20)\nRegarding the restructuring plan, the Commission has doubts that it will lead to long-term viability, as required by points 35 and 36 of the Guidelines. The restructuring plan did not contain a description of internal measures to improve the firm\u2019s viability and structure. The plan also lacked compensatory measures to mitigate as far as possible any adverse effects of the aid on competitors, such as a reduction in capacity (points 38 and 39 of the Guidelines). Nor was it possible to ascertain that the amount and intensity of the aid were limited to the strict minimum of the restructuring costs necessary (points 43 and 45 of the Guidelines). Specifically, the plan lacked any reference to a contribution from the recipient.\n(21)\nRegarding the 2005 restructuring, the Commission doubts that the \u2018one time, last time principle\u2019 was respected. According to points 72 et seq. of the Guidelines, state intervention should not be permitted where less than 10 years have elapsed since the last rescue or restructuring aid measure has been implemented. The Commission does not have the information needed to determine whether the direct payments by the Autonomous Community of Andalusia to employees constitute aid. If the payments were made under a general social security scheme they would not be regarded as State aid. If they had to be borne by the company itself - under employment legislation or collective agreements - these payments would form part of the normal costs of the business. If the State makes these payments, they must be counted as aid (7).\n(22)\nTherefore, it was doubtful that the rescue and restructuring aid could be considered compatible with the relevant Guidelines.\nIII. COMMENTS FROM SPAIN\n(23)\nSpain informed the Commission by letter dated 22 October 2010 that the notified restructuring measure had not been implemented and that it was withdrawing the notification.\n(24)\nRegarding the May 2009 rescue aid, Spain stated that on 19 January 2009 the Andalusia Innovation and Development Agency (IDEA) had approved a risk operation consisting of a rescue guarantee of EUR 1,5 million for a six-month period which enabled the company to obtain a loan on the capital market for EUR 1 875 000. This loan was issued on 21 May 2009. It relieved the company\u2019s cash-flow problems, which would have bankrupted it, and gave it the necessary margin for manoeuvre to develop a new restructuring plan with the measures and actions it needed to guarantee its viability during the unexpected situation involving general credit restrictions by financial institutions.\n(25)\nAs regards the classification of the guarantee as aid, Spain claimed that there would be no effect on trade. The after-sales services - the recipient\u2019s area of activity - would be provided locally and limited to the territory of Spain. Aid would not affect cross-border trade or appreciably hinder non-Spanish competitors from setting up operations in the Spanish market. There would also be no basis for providing post-sales services to Spanish end-users from outside Spanish territory. Although A NOVO was part of the French group A NOVO S.A., an important player in after-sales services in Europe, the potential indirect effect on trade would be a theoretical, and, at most, insignificant possibility and would not appreciably affect competitive relations between a group like A NOVO S.A. and its competitors given the amount of the aid in comparison with a major group like A NOVO S.A. whose turnover amounted to EUR 366 million in 2009.\n(26)\nThe Spanish authorities stated that the interest rate on the 21 May 2009 bank loan of EUR 1,875 million, which was 80 % guaranteed by the Junta de Andaluc\u00eda for a 1,5 % annual premium, was comparable to the rates observed for loans to healthy firms. The interest rate was 2,88 % and the reference rate published by the Commission for May 2009 was 2,22 % (8). The Communication on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (9) determines the margin to be applied to loans with high collateral to healthy undertakings (rating AAA - A) of 60 basis points. This would give a limit of 2,82 %. According to the decision granting the guarantee, the guarantee expired not later than six months after the loan was granted.\n(27)\nThe Spanish authorities also stated that the guarantee was justified due to serious social repercussions and had no unduly adverse spill-over effects in other Member States within the meaning of point 25(b) of the Guidelines. The number of people officially employed in the undertaking was 527. A bankruptcy or closure of the undertaking would have affected these employees and, in addition, several hundred indirect jobs. Given the age structure of the employees, a large part would have had difficulties in finding a new job. With the high unemployment rate in Andalusia (30 % in Malaga) a closure would have caused a very serious social situation. Furthermore, Spain considered that, in view of the regional focus of after-sales repair services, unduly adverse spill-over effects in other Member States were unlikely.\n(28)\nThe Spanish authorities also maintained that the conditions of point 25(c) of the Guidelines applicable to non-notified rescue aid were met, according to which the Member State must submit, no later than six months after the first authorisation of a rescue aid measure, a restructuring plan or proof that the guarantee has been terminated. Following the granting of the rescue aid on 21 May 2009, Spain notified the restructuring plan and the planned aid on 16 October 2009. Thereby it remained within six months as from the grant of the rescue aid. Furthermore, Spain confirmed that the state guarantee was limited to six months.\n(29)\nLastly, the Spanish authorities held that the amount of aid was limited to the amount needed to keep the undertaking in business during the authorisation period of six months, as required by point 25(d) of the Guidelines. The amount was calculated on the basis of the six-month liquidity needs and the cash deficit submitted by the company, which provided the following six-month cash flow table as part of the rescue application:\n(in EUR)\nMonth 1\nMonth 2\nMonth 3\nMonth 4\nMonth 5\nMonth 6\nRevenues\n1 440 998,00\n1 685 785,00\n1 586 880,00\n1 403 600,00\n1 405 920,00\n1 549 760,00\nExpenses\n1 632 677,00\n4 231 415,00\n2 631 987,00\n2 684 834,00\n1 754 309,00\n1 504 723,00\nBalance\n- 191 679,00\n-2 545 630,00\n-1 045 107,00\n-1 281 234,00\n- 348 389,00\n45 037,00\nCumulative balance\n- 191 679,00\n-2 737 309,00\n-3 782 416,00\n-5 063 650,00\n-5 412 039,00\n-5 367 002,00\n(30)\nOn the basis of these data the Spanish authorities concluded that the amount needed was EUR 1 875 000 despite the high negative cash flow figure (EUR - 5 367 002). When determining the amount of aid, Spain took into consideration the result obtained by applying the formula provided in the Annex to the Guidelines. The calculation was made as follows:\nEBIT 2008: EUR - 4 212 036\nDepreciation 2008: EUR 437 201\nWorking capital 2008: (current assets EUR 7 686 473 - current liabilities EUR 10 446 997) = EUR - 2 760 524\nWorking capital 2007: (current assets EUR 11 748 449 - current liabilities EUR 10 958 960) = EUR 789 489\n(working capitalt - working capitalt-1) = EUR - 3 550 013\n[EBITt + depreciationt + (working capitalt - working capitalt-1)]/2\n= [EUR - 4 212 036 + EUR 437 201 + EUR - 3 550 013]/2 = EUR - 3 662 424\nAs a result, half of the negative operating cash flow for the year preceding the aid amounted to EUR 3 662 424. The loan guaranteed by Spain would remain well below this ceiling and, therefore, limited to the amount needed.\n(31)\nAs to whether A NOVO, as a wholly owned subsidiary of the French undertaking A NOVO SA, whose turnover is some EUR 350 million, can qualify as a company in difficulty eligible for rescue and restructuring support, Spain claimed that the firm\u2019s difficulties were intrinsic and too serious to be dealt with by the Group itself. They were intrinsic because exclusively linked to the activities of A NOVO and, in particular, to its shift from manufacturing to services. They did not result from any cost allocations within the group. Furthermore, the firm\u2019s financial difficulties were too serious for the group itself to overcome. The 2008 and 2009 profit and cash flow results for the A NOVO Group SA and A NOVO Comlink Spain show that towards the end of 2008, when the difficulties of A NOVO began to call for a rescue operation, the parent company was itself under financial pressure:\n(EUR million)\nA NOVO Group SA (France)\nA NOVO (Spain)\n2008\n2009\n2008\n2009\nSales\n350\n366\n14,9\n15,5\nProfits\n-17\n12\n-3,9\n-0,3\nOwn resources\n45\n53\n0\n1,8\nShort-term loans\n28\n18\n3,4\n2\nLong-term loans\n56\n51\n0,6\n0,7\nCash flow\n-0,3\n2\n-0,6\n-0,9\nAssets\n230\n225\n14,2\n13,4\nThe Group\u2019s losses of EUR 17 million in 2008 were also caused by a series of commitments towards A NOVO Spain. The A NOVO Group made very significant contributions to its Spanish subsidiary: EUR 2 123 million in 2006 and EUR 2 060 million in 2009. Further pressure arose in 2009 from the need to reschedule the French Group\u2019s debts.\n(32)\nRegarding the 2005 restructuring and the one time, last time principle, according to the Spanish authorities 224 employees benefited from the partial retirement scheme following the suspension of their employment contracts in accordance with a temporary labour force adjustment plan (ERTE). Under this ERTE, 224 employees suspended their employment contracts in accordance with the general labour legislation applicable, in particular Article 45 of the Workers\u2019 Statute adopted by Legislative Royal Decree 1/1995 of 24 March 1995 (10).\n(33)\nIn accordance with Article 45(1) of the Workers\u2019 Statute, an employment contract can be suspended for economic, technical, organisational or production reasons. Article 45(2) states that the suspension relieves the parties of the reciprocal obligations of working and remunerating work. The employees receive unemployment benefit on the basis of Article 208(1)(a) of the General Social Security Law (Legislative Royal Decree 1/1994 of 20 June 1994 (11)). According to Article 214(2) of this Royal Decree approving the Revised Text of the General Social Security Law, the employer is required to pay the employer\u2019s contribution for the social security insurance while the employee\u2019s social security contribution is paid by the National Social Security Institute (INSS).\n(34)\nOnce the individual contract suspension period authorised in the ERTE ended, the employees were reincorporated in the company but came under the partial retirement scheme whereby they worked only 15 % of their original contract. The company paid 15 % of the salary and social security contributions. According to the Spanish authorities, this measure, as well as the accompanying financial provisions adopted by the Employment Ministry of the Junta de Andaluc\u00eda in the context of the ERTE of 2005 and based on the 18 July 2005 Agreement on the Bases and Commitments of A NOVO Comlink Spain SL\u2019s Viability Plan, comply with the general labour legislation applicable. This concerns, in particular, Articles 51 et seq. of the Workers\u2019 Statute; Royal Decree 43/1996 of 19 January of the Ministry of Employment and Social Security approving the Rules on procedure for regulation of short-time working and lay-offs and for administrative action in connection with collective transfers (12); Royal Decree 2064/1995 of 22 December approving the General Regulation on the contributions and settlement of other social security entitlements (13); and the Collective Life Assurance Contract, which is a specific measure to support employees directly and nominally to cope with the implications of their move to partial retirement, as laid down in Law 50/1980 of 8 October on Insurance Contracts (14).\nIV. ASSESSMENT\n1. Withdrawal of the notification by Spain\n(35)\nAfter the withdrawal of the notification, the procedure regarding the notified restructuring plan ceased to serve any purpose. However, the withdrawal of a notification cannot have an effect on the rescue aid which was not notified and already granted before the notification of the restructuring aid.\n2. The rescue aid of May 2009\n(36)\nFollowing the replies by the Spanish authorities, it must be ensured that the rescue aid is compatible with Article 107(3)(c), as it meets the relevant conditions laid down in the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty.\n(37)\nThe measure constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. To qualify as State aid, the measure needs to confer an advantage on the recipient which it could not obtain under normal market conditions and which would affect competition and trade between Member States. A guarantee must be considered to constitute aid if the borrower is in financial difficulty under the terms of point 3.2(a) of the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees. In this case, the Commission considers that the guarantee confers an advantage on the borrower. The position of the beneficiary company was strengthened compared with that of its competitors. Hence the measure could distort competition.\n(38)\nThe Spanish authorities maintained that there would be no effect on trade between Member States. However, the Court has confirmed that the effect on trade does not depend on the local or regional character of the services supplied or on the scale of the field of activity concerned (15). Moreover, the after-sales services provided by A NOVO are freely traded within the Union. The ownership of the firms providing such services extends to more than one Member State. This applies, in particular, to the recipient, which is part of the French A NOVO Group, a major player in after-sales services in Europe and beyond. A NOVO\u2019s services could just as well be provided by other European companies with a subsidiary in Spain. Companies from other Member States could also consider setting up in Spain to offer such services but might be dissuaded from doing so because of the services A NOVO is able to offer thanks to the aid it received. A low amount of aid can also have an impact on trade between Member States, especially if it determines whether A NOVO can continue to operate. The aid could also strengthen the French parent company. Therefore the condition of an effect on trade between Member States is fulfilled and the rescue aid guarantee constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. It was awarded by the Junta de Andaluc\u00eda and is imputable to the State.\n(39)\nA NOVO is a firm in difficulty within the meaning of point 13 of the Guidelines, despite belonging to a larger group. Spain could demonstrate that the difficulties of the undertaking were intrinsic and not the result of an arbitrary allocation of costs. In fact, they were due to the industrial restructuring affecting the company in the preceding years. The difficulties were too serious to be dealt with by the parent company alone as this company itself was under financial strain at the time of the granting of the rescue aid. In 2006 it had invested EUR 2,123 million in A NOVO and it had itself also incurred losses in 2008. In 2009 it made an own cash injection of EUR 2,060 million.\n(40)\nThe guarantee complies with the requirements laid down in point 25(a) of the Guidelines. The rescue bank loan of EUR 1,875 million, which was 80 % guaranteed by the Junta de Andaluc\u00eda, was granted at an interest rate which is comparable to those observed for loans to healthy firms, according to the Communication on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates. In addition, the borrower paid an annual guarantee premium of 1,5 %. The guarantee expired within six months after the date on which the loan was granted.\n(41)\nThe guarantee was justified due to A NOVO\u2019s serious social difficulties and had no unduly adverse spill-over effects in other Member States within the meaning of point 25(b) of the Guidelines. The Commission had already acknowledged in the opening Decision that the economic situation of A NOVO, which employed 527 people, became difficult during 2008 (see recitals 11 and 12 above). A bankruptcy or closure of the undertaking would have caused a very serious social situation in Andalusia, which already suffers from a high unemployment rate. In view of the regional focus of after-sales repair services, unduly adverse spill-over effects in other Member States are not likely.\n(42)\nThe conditions of point 25(c) of the Guidelines applicable to non-notified rescue aid are also fulfilled, according to which the Member State must submit within six months after the first authorisation of a rescue aid measure a restructuring plan or proof that the guarantee has been terminated. Following the granting of the rescue aid on 21 May 2009, A NOVO submitted a restructuring plan on 10 September 2009 together with an application for restructuring aid. On 16 October 2009, Spain notified the restructuring plan. In addition, the state guarantee was limited to six months and expired on 21 November 2009.\n(43)\nIn addition, the amount of aid was limited to the quantity needed to keep the undertaking in business during the authorisation period of six months, as required by point 25(d) of the Guidelines. The amount was calculated on the basis of the six-month liquidity needs and cash deficit submitted by the company, and was well below the ceiling established following the formula provided in the Annex to the Guidelines. It may be considered to be restricted to the amount needed according to point 25(d) of the Guidelines.\n(44)\nAs regards the one time, last time principle, the information submitted by Spain allowed the Commission to verify that the public funds employed in the context of the 2005 restructuring for social measures for part of A NOVO\u2019s workforce took place under a general social security scheme and cannot be regarded as State aid, in accordance with points 61 and 63 of the Guidelines.\n(45)\nConsequently, the information submitted by the Spanish authorities clears up any doubts about the compatibility of the interim relief awarded to A NOVO with Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, which the Commission had expressed in its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty.\nV. CONCLUSION\n(46)\nTherefore, the Commission has decided to terminate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU. With regard to the non-notified rescue aid, the Commission finds that Spain has unlawfully implemented it in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU. However, the Commission must take a positive decision because it is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. The procedure in respect of the notified restructuring aid is closed on the grounds that it no longer serves any purpose given that Spain has withdrawn the measure,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid in the form of a guarantee granted by Spain to rescue A NOVO Comlink SL is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nAfter Spain\u2019s withdrawal of the restructuring measure, these proceedings have ceased to serve any purpose as far as this restructuring aid is concerned. The Commission has therefore decided to terminate the procedure pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU with regard to the restructuring aid.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2011.", "references": ["2", "98", "54", "24", "69", "43", "38", "92", "60", "0", "33", "27", "53", "80", "84", "82", "56", "90", "87", "57", "45", "37", "95", "16", "6", "88", "18", "5", "35", "94", "No Label", "4", "8", "15", "25", "40", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "8", "15", "25", "40", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 736/2011\nof 26 July 2011\napproving the active substance fluroxypyr, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances listed in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 of 27 June 2007 on laying down the procedure of the renewal of the inclusion of a first group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and establishing the list of those substances (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Fluroxypyr is listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 737/2007.\n(2)\nThe approval of fluroxypyr, as set out in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (4), expires on 31 December 2011. A notification was submitted in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 for the renewal of the inclusion of fluroxypyr in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within the time period provided for in that Article.\n(3)\nThat notification was found to be admissible by Commission Decision 2008/656/EC of 28 July 2008 on the admissibility of the notifications concerning the renewal of the inclusion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances azimsulfuron, azoxystrobin, fluroxypyr, imazalil, kresoxim-methyl, prohexadione and spiroxamine, and establishing the list of the notifiers concerned (5).\n(4)\nWithin the time period provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007, the notifier submitted the data required in accordance with that Article together with an explanation as regards the relevance of each new study submitted.\n(5)\nThe rapporteur Member State prepared an assessment report in consultation with the co-rapporteur Member State and submitted it to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and the Commission on 26 November 2009. In addition to the assessment of the active substance, that report includes a list of the studies the rapporteur Member State relied on for its assessment.\n(6)\nThe Authority communicated the assessment report to the notifier and to the Member States for comments and forwarded the comments received to the Commission. The Authority also made the assessment report available to the public.\n(7)\nAt the request of the Commission, the assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority. The Authority presented its conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of fluroxypyr (6) to the Commission on 24 February 2011. The assessment report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for fluroxypyr.\n(8)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing fluroxypyr may be expected to continue to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve fluroxypyr.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions not provided for in the first inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that fluroxypyr should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(11)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(12)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing fluroxypyr. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(13)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(14)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should be amended accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance fluroxypyr, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing fluroxypyr as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing fluroxypyr as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product still satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing fluroxypyr as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing fluroxypyr as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2011.", "references": ["77", "41", "0", "48", "82", "58", "50", "86", "32", "97", "56", "85", "87", "36", "31", "1", "30", "17", "68", "63", "78", "4", "75", "39", "29", "18", "69", "67", "23", "80", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 1 October 2010\nappointing one German member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/600/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the German Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of mandate of Mr Wolfgang GIBOWSKI,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as a member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nDr Martina KROGMANN\nStaatssekret\u00e4rin\nBevollm\u00e4chtigte des Landes Niedersachsen beim Bund\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 1 October 2010.", "references": ["42", "19", "47", "80", "53", "41", "82", "37", "71", "2", "22", "55", "39", "43", "79", "27", "78", "72", "93", "20", "99", "29", "50", "63", "77", "60", "89", "36", "24", "69", "No Label", "7", "52", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "52", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EU SSR GUINEA-BISSAU/1/2010\nof 15 June 2010\nconcerning the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union mission in support of security sector reform in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (EU SSR GUINEA-BISSAU)\n(2010/334/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/112/CFSP of 12 February 2008 on the European Union mission in support of security sector reform in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (EU SSR GUINEA-BISSAU) (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 8(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 8(1) of Joint Action 2008/112/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (hereinafter referred to as \u2018PSC\u2019), in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of the EU SSR GUINEA-BISSAU mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nOn 5 March 2008, upon a proposal by the Secretary General of the Council, High Representative for the common foreign and security policy, the PSC appointed by Decision EU SSR GUINEA-BISSAU/1/2008 (2) Mr Juan Esteban VERASTEGUI as Head of Mission of the European Union mission EU SSR GUINEA-BISSAU.\n(3)\nThe High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed that Mr Fernando AFONSO be appointed to replace Mr Juan Esteban VERASTEGUI as Head of Mission of the European Union mission EU SSR GUINEA-BISSAU from 1 July 2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Fernando AFONSO is hereby appointed as Head of Mission of the European Union mission in support of security sector reform in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (EU SSR GUINEA-BISSAU), from 1 July 2010.\nArticle 2\nPolitical and Security Committee Decision EU SSR GUINEA-BISSAU/1/2008 of 5 March 2008 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply until the expiry of Council Joint Action 2008/112/CFSP.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2010.", "references": ["49", "88", "20", "72", "68", "24", "40", "11", "39", "58", "43", "17", "86", "74", "6", "82", "7", "81", "42", "16", "45", "71", "28", "76", "41", "8", "73", "53", "23", "30", "No Label", "1", "9", "52", "94"], "gold": ["1", "9", "52", "94"]}
-{"input": "EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 June 2011\nappointing the President of the European Central Bank\n(2011/386/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 283(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 11.2 thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation of the Council of the European Union (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe term of office of the President of the European Central Bank, Mr Jean-Claude TRICHET, appointed by Decision of 16 October 2003 (4), expires on 31 October 2011 and it is therefore necessary to appoint a new President of the European Central Bank.\n(2)\nThe European Council wishes to appoint Mr Mario DRAGHI who, in its view, meets all the requirements set out in Article 283(2) of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Mario DRAGHI is hereby appointed President of the European Central Bank for a term of office of 8 years as from 1 November 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 June 2011.", "references": ["73", "55", "72", "29", "70", "20", "54", "68", "81", "8", "96", "10", "84", "76", "44", "93", "86", "65", "40", "90", "24", "56", "51", "38", "53", "63", "22", "21", "5", "18", "No Label", "7", "52"], "gold": ["7", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 269/2012\nof 26 March 2012\nconcerning the authorisation of dicopper chloride trihydroxide as feed additive for all animal species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of dicopper chloride trihydroxide. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of dicopper chloride trihydroxide as a feed additive for all animal species, to be classified in the additive category \u2018nutritional additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 6 September 2011 (2) that, under the proposed conditions of use, dicopper chloride trihydroxide does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment and that its use may be considered as an effective source of copper for all animal species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of dicopper chloride trihydroxide shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018nutritional additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018compounds of trace elements\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 March 2012.", "references": ["54", "28", "96", "67", "40", "14", "68", "51", "23", "7", "83", "15", "88", "50", "33", "93", "43", "76", "82", "70", "37", "19", "9", "11", "94", "98", "3", "21", "13", "55", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1083/2010\nof 24 November 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1075/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["31", "80", "26", "78", "48", "93", "39", "14", "69", "44", "83", "59", "63", "68", "41", "34", "23", "92", "62", "27", "73", "8", "94", "58", "56", "50", "16", "64", "60", "32", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 519/2012\nof 19 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on persistent organic pollutants as regards Annex I\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC (1), and in particular Articles 14(1) and 14(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 850/2004 implements in the law of the Union the commitments set out in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (hereinafter \u2018the Convention\u2019) approved by Council Decision 2006/507/EC of 14 October 2004 concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2) and in the 1998 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019) approved by Council Decision 2004/259/EC of 19 February 2004 concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants (3) (hereinafter \u2018CLRTAP\u2019).\n(2)\nAt its 27th Session from 14 to 18 December 2009, the CLRTAP Executive Body decided to add hexachlorobutadiene (4), polychlorinated naphthalenes (hereinafter \u2018PCN\u2019), and short-chain chlorinated paraffins (5) (hereinafter \u2018SCCPs\u2019) to the Protocol.\n(3)\nIn view of the Decisions taken by the CLRTAP, it is necessary to update Annex I, Part B to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 in order to include the three new substances listed in the Protocol.\n(4)\nPlacing on the market and use of SCCPs has been restricted in the Union by virtue of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). The existing restriction on SCCPs in the Union covers only two uses and thus its scope is much narrower than the scope of the restriction on SCCPs established by the Decision of the CLRTAP Executive Body. This Regulation should therefore widen the scope of restriction on SCCPs in the Union by prohibiting their production, placing on the market, and use, except for two exempted uses.\n(5)\nThe 1 % threshold level established in this Regulation for SCCPs should not be considered as an implementation of the notion of \u2018unintentional trace contaminant\u2019 contained in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004. Further scientific analysis is required before the Commission can reach a clear view with regard to the level corresponding to \u2018unintentional trace contaminant\u2019 in relation to SCCPs.\n(6)\nThe derogations for SCCPs should, where applicable, be subject to the use of the best available techniques. The Commission should continue to review those derogations and the availability of safer alternative substances or technologies.\n(7)\nAt its fifth meeting from 25 to 29 April 2011, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention agreed by Decision SC-5/3 (7) to add endosulfan to the list of POPs to be eliminated worldwide, with some exemptions.\n(8)\nIn view of Decision SC-5/3, it is necessary to update Annex I, Part A to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 in order to include endosulfan. However, endosulfan was subject to Commission Decision 2005/864/EC of 2 December 2005 concerning the non-inclusion of endosulfan in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisation for plant protection products containing this active substance (8). Endosulfan should therefore be listed in Annex I, Part A to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 without exemptions since all the exemptions allowed under Decision SC-5/3 relate to the use of endosulfan as a plant protection product.\n(9)\nIt is necessary to clarify that the prohibition in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 does not apply to articles containing endosulfan, hexachlorobutadiene, PCN or SCCPs, produced before or on the date of entry into force of this Regulation until six months after the date of its entry into force.\n(10)\nIt is also necessary to clarify that the prohibition in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 does not apply to articles containing endosulfan, hexachlorobutadiene, PCN or SCCPs, already in use before or on the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n(11)\nIt is necessary to adapt to technical progress the reference to the CEN standards currently under development in relation to perfluoroctane sulphonic acid and its derivates (PFOS), to allow other analytical methods with the same level of performance to be used.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Council Directive 67/548/EEC (9),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 June 2012.", "references": ["19", "53", "41", "93", "18", "87", "49", "9", "4", "23", "57", "75", "68", "78", "51", "10", "61", "2", "35", "91", "67", "37", "42", "76", "55", "89", "40", "20", "26", "36", "No Label", "25", "58", "60", "65", "83"], "gold": ["25", "58", "60", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 299/2012\nof 2 April 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 April 2012.", "references": ["6", "34", "2", "14", "78", "54", "28", "91", "90", "11", "43", "12", "49", "61", "64", "17", "33", "65", "4", "93", "5", "15", "19", "1", "25", "35", "3", "86", "77", "79", "No Label", "21", "40"], "gold": ["21", "40"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/784/CFSP\nof 17 December 2010\non the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28 and 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 14 November 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/797/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (1) (EUPOL COPPS) for a period of 3 years. The operational phase of EUPOL COPPS began on 1 January 2006.\n(2)\nThe Mission was last extended by Council Decision 2009/955/CFSP (2) and will expire on 31 December 2010.\n(3)\nOn 17 November 2010 the Political and Security Committee (PSC) recommended to extend the Mission for an additional period of 12 months until 31 December 2011.\n(4)\nThe command and control structure of the Mission should be without prejudice to the contractual responsibilities of the Head of Mission towards the European Commission for implementing the budget of the Mission.\n(5)\nThe watch-keeping capability should be activated for the Mission.\n(6)\nThe Mission will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the common foreign and security policy as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMission\n1. The European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories, hereinafter referred to as the European Union Coordinating Office for Palestinian Police Support (EUPOL COPPS), established by Joint Action 2005/797/CFSP, shall be continued as from 1 January 2011.\n2. EUPOL COPPS shall operate in accordance with the mission statement as set out in Article 2.\nArticle 2\nMission statement\nThe aim of EUPOL COPPS is to contribute to the establishment of sustainable and effective policing arrangements under Palestinian ownership in accordance with best international standards, in cooperation with the Union\u2019s institution building programmes as well as other international efforts in the wider context of the Security Sector including Criminal Justice Reform.\nTo this end EUPOL COPPS shall:\n(a)\nassist the Palestinian Civil Police (PCP) in implementation of the Police Development Programme by advising and closely mentoring PCP, and specifically senior officials at District, Headquarters and Ministerial level;\n(b)\ncoordinate and facilitate Union and Member State assistance, and where requested, international assistance to PCP;\n(c)\nadvise on police-related Criminal Justice elements;\n(d)\nhave a project cell for identifying and implementing projects. The Mission shall, as appropriate, coordinate, facilitate and provide advice on projects implemented by Member States and third States under their responsibility, in areas related to the Mission and in support of its objectives.\nArticle 3\nReview\nA 6-monthly review process, in accordance with the assessment criteria set out in the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and the Operation Plan (OPLAN) and taking into account developments on the ground, will enable adjustments to be made to the EUPOL COPPS size and scope as necessary.\nArticle 4\nStructure\nIn achieving its mission, EUPOL COPPS shall consist of the following elements:\n1.\nHead of Mission/Police Commissioner;\n2.\nAdvisory Section;\n3.\nProgramme Coordination Section;\n4.\nAdministration Section;\n5.\nRule of Law Section.\nThese elements shall be developed in the CONOPS and the OPLAN. The Council shall approve the CONOPS and the OPLAN.\nArticle 5\nCivilian Operation Commander\n1. The Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) Director shall be the Civilian Operation Commander for EUPOL COPPS.\n2. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the PSC and the overall authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), shall exercise command and control of EUPOL COPPS at the strategic level.\n3. The Civilian Operation Commander shall ensure proper and effective implementation of the Council\u2019s decisions as well as the PSC\u2019s decisions, including by issuing instructions at the strategic level as required to the Head of Mission and providing him with advice and technical support.\n4. All seconded staff shall remain under the full command of the national authorities of the seconding State or Union institution concerned. National authorities shall transfer Operational Control (OPCON) of their personnel, teams and units to the Civilian Operation Commander.\n5. The Civilian Operation Commander shall have overall responsibility for ensuring that the Union\u2019s duty of care is properly discharged.\n6. The Civilian Operation Commander and the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) shall consult each other as required.\nArticle 6\nHead of Mission\n1. The Head of Mission shall assume responsibility and exercise command and control of the Mission at theatre level.\n2. The Head of Mission shall exercise command and control over personnel, teams and units from contributing States as assigned by the Civilian Operation Commander together with administrative and logistic responsibility including over assets, resources and information put at the disposal of the Mission.\n3. The Head of Mission shall issue instructions to all Mission staff, for the effective conduct of EUPOL COPPS in theatre, assuming its coordination and day-to-day management, following the instructions at the strategic level of the Civilian Operation Commander.\n4. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the implementation of the Mission\u2019s budget. For this purpose, the Head of Mission shall sign a contract with the Commission.\n5. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for disciplinary control over the staff. For seconded staff, disciplinary action shall be exercised by the national authorities or Union institution concerned.\n6. The Head of Mission shall represent EUPOL COPPS in the operations area and shall ensure appropriate visibility of the Mission.\n7. The Head of Mission shall coordinate, as appropriate, with other Union actors on the ground. The Head of Mission shall, without prejudice to the chain of command, receive local political guidance from the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nEUPOL COPPS Staff\n1. The numbers and competence of EUPOL COPPS staff shall be consistent with the mission statement set out in Article 2 and the structure set out in Article 4.\n2. EUPOL COPPS staff shall consist primarily of staff seconded by Member States or Union institutions. Each Member State or Union institution shall bear the costs related to any of the staff seconded by it, including salaries, medical coverage, travel expenses to and from the Mission area, and allowances other than applicable daily allowances, as well as hardship and risk allowances.\n3. Nationals of Member States shall be recruited on a contractual basis by EUPOL COPPS as required, if the functions required are not provided by personnel seconded by Member States.\n4. EUPOL COPPS shall also recruit local staff as required.\n5. Third States may also, as appropriate, second Mission staff. Each seconding third State shall bear the costs related to any of the staff seconded by it, including salaries, medical coverage, allowances, high-risk insurance and travel expenses to and from the Mission area.\n6. All staff shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the Mission. All staff shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council\u2019s security regulations (3).\nArticle 8\nStatus of EUPOL COPPS staff\n1. Where required, the status of EUPOL COPPS staff, including, where appropriate, the privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of EUPOL COPPS shall be the subject of an agreement to be concluded in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 37 of the Treaty.\n2. The Member State or Union institution having seconded a staff member shall be responsible for answering any claims, from or concerning the staff member, linked to the secondment. The Member State or Union institution in question shall be responsible for bringing any action against the seconded person.\n3. The conditions of employment and the rights and obligations of international and local staff shall be laid down in the contracts between the Head of Mission/Police Commissioner and the staff member.\nArticle 9\nChain of Command\n1. EUPOL COPPS shall have a unified chain of command, as a crisis management operation.\n2. Under the responsibility of the Council and the HR, the PSC shall exercise political control and strategic direction of EUPOL COPPS.\n3. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the PSC and the overall authority of the HR, shall be the commander of EUPOL COPPS at strategic level and, as such, shall issue instructions to the Head of Mission and provide him with advice and technical support.\n4. The Civilian Operation Commander shall report to the Council through the HR.\n5. The Head of Mission shall exercise command and control of EUPOL COPPS at theatre level and shall be directly responsible to the Civilian Operation Commander.\nArticle 10\nPolitical control and strategic direction\n1. The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and the HR, political control and strategic direction of the Mission. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions for this purpose in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty. This authorisation shall include the powers to appoint a Head of Mission, upon proposal of the HR, and to amend the CONOPS and the OPLAN. It shall also include powers to take subsequent decisions regarding the appointment of the Head of Mission. The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of the Mission shall remain vested in the Council.\n2. The PSC shall report to the Council at regular intervals.\n3. The PSC shall receive on a regular basis and as required reports by the Civilian Operation Commander and the Head of Mission on issues within their areas of responsibility.\nArticle 11\nParticipation of third States\n1. Without prejudice to the decision-making autonomy of the Union and its single institutional framework, third States may be invited to contribute to EUPOL COPPS provided that they bear the cost of the staff seconded by them, including salaries, medical coverage, allowances, high-risk insurance and travel expenses to and from the Mission area, and contribute to the running costs of EUPOL COPPS, as appropriate.\n2. Third States making contributions to EUPOL COPPS shall have the same rights and obligations in terms of day-to-day management of the Mission as Member States.\n3. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions and to establish a Committee of Contributors.\n4. Detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States shall be the subject of an agreement to be concluded in accordance with Article 37 of the Treaty and additional technical arrangements as necessary. Where the Union and a third State conclude an agreement establishing a framework for the participation of this third State in the Union crisis management operations, the provisions of such an agreement shall apply in the context of EUPOL COPPS.\nArticle 12\nSecurity\n1. The Civilian Operation Commander shall direct the Head of Mission\u2019s planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation for EUPOL COPPS in accordance with Articles 5 and 10, in coordination with the Council Security Office.\n2. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the security of the operation and for ensuring compliance with minimum security requirements applicable to the operation, in line with the policy of the Union on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty and its supporting instruments.\n3. The Head of Mission shall be assisted by a Mission Security Officer (MSO), who will report to the Head of Mission and also maintain a close functional relationship with the Council Security Office.\n4. EUPOL COPPS staff shall undergo mandatory security training before their entry into function, in accordance with the OPLAN. They shall also receive regular in-theatre refresher training organised by the MSO.\nArticle 13\nFinancial arrangements\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL COPPS for the period from 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011 shall be EUR 8 250 000.\n2. All expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. Nationals of participating third States and of neighbouring countries shall be allowed to tender for contracts. Subject to the Commission\u2019s approval, the Head of Mission may conclude technical arrangements with Member States, participating third States, and other international actors regarding the provision of equipment, services and premises to EUPOL COPPS.\n4. The Head of Mission/Police Commissioner shall report fully to, and be supervised by, the Commission on the activities undertaken in the framework of his contract.\n5. The financial arrangements shall respect the operational requirements of EUPOL COPPS, including compatibility of equipment and interoperability of its teams.\n6. Expenditure shall be eligible as of the date of entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 14\nRelease of classified information\n1. The HR is authorised to release to third States associated with this Decision, as appropriate and in accordance with the operational needs of the Mission, EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018RESTREINT UE\u2019 generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with the Council\u2019s security regulations.\n2. In the event of a specific and immediate operational need, the HR is also authorised to release to the local authorities EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018RESTREINT UE\u2019 generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with the Council\u2019s security regulations. In all other cases, such information and documents shall be released to the local authorities in accordance with the procedures appropriate to their level of cooperation with the Union.\n3. The HR is authorised to release to third States associated with this Decision and to the local authorities EU non-classified documents related to the deliberations of the Council with regard to the Mission covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (4).\nArticle 15\nWatch-keeping\nThe Watch-Keeping Capability shall be activated for EUPOL COPPS.\nArticle 16\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 17 December 2010.", "references": ["75", "26", "29", "72", "30", "20", "73", "88", "85", "66", "54", "77", "86", "37", "19", "5", "15", "41", "65", "40", "13", "3", "59", "58", "21", "98", "69", "84", "45", "49", "No Label", "4", "7", "9", "10", "32", "95"], "gold": ["4", "7", "9", "10", "32", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1179/2010\nof 10 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for deep-sea sharks in Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of V, VI, VII, VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (2), lays down quotas for 2009 and 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 December 2010.", "references": ["26", "1", "85", "77", "74", "89", "11", "25", "4", "78", "12", "40", "45", "23", "9", "32", "49", "15", "22", "86", "59", "82", "8", "93", "29", "7", "50", "94", "16", "83", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 885/2011\nof 5 September 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of Bacillus subtilis (ATCC PTA-6737) as a feed additive for chickens reared for laying, ducks for fattening, quails, pheasants, partridges, guinea fowl, pigeons, geese for fattening and ostriches (holder of authorisation Kemin Europa N.V.)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation of Bacillus subtilis (ATCC PTA-6737). The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of the preparation of Bacillus subtilis (ATCC PTA-6737) as a feed additive for chickens reared for laying, ducks for fattening, quails, pheasants, partridges, guinea fowl, pigeons, geese for fattening and ostriches, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of the preparation of Bacillus subtilis (ATCC PTA-6737) was authorised for 10 years for chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EU) No 107/2010 (2).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for the authorisation of Bacillus subtilis (ATCC PTA-6737) for chickens reared for laying, ducks for fattening, quails, pheasants, partridges, guinea fowl, pigeons, geese for fattening and ostriches. The European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 15 March 2011 (3) that, under the proposed conditions of use, Bacillus subtilis (ATCC PTA-6737) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer health or the environment, and that the use of this preparation can improve the zootechnical performance of the animal species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of Bacillus subtilis (ATCC PTA-6737) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018gut flora stabilisers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation enters into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 September 2011.", "references": ["19", "32", "8", "30", "78", "37", "87", "33", "61", "96", "72", "88", "90", "42", "41", "10", "5", "79", "59", "3", "16", "62", "63", "64", "18", "24", "44", "98", "15", "83", "No Label", "25", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1305/2011\nof 13 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["82", "25", "57", "9", "80", "73", "4", "84", "83", "44", "81", "0", "75", "95", "76", "70", "78", "28", "53", "50", "26", "88", "10", "52", "2", "24", "46", "63", "92", "71", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 703/2011\nof 20 July 2011\napproving the active substance azoxystrobin, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances listed in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 of 27 June 2007 on laying down the procedure of the renewal of the inclusion of a first group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and establishing the list of those substances (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Azoxystrobin is listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 737/2007.\n(2)\nThe approval of azoxystrobin, as set out in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (4), expires on 31 December 2011. A notification was submitted in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 for the renewal of the inclusion of azoxystrobin in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within the time period provided for in that Article.\n(3)\nThat notification was found to be admissible by Commission Decision 2008/656/EC of 28 July 2008 on the admissibility of the notifications concerning the renewal of the inclusion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances azimsulfuron, azoxystrobin, fluroxypyr, imazalil, kresoxim-methyl, prohexadione and spiroxamine, and establishing the list of the notifiers concerned (5).\n(4)\nWithin the time period provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007, the notifier submitted the data required in accordance with that Article together with an explanation as regards the relevance of each new study submitted.\n(5)\nThe rapporteur Member State prepared an assessment report in consultation with the co-rapporteur Member State and submitted it to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and the Commission on 10 June 2009. In addition to the assessment of the active substance, that report includes a list of the studies the rapporteur Member State relied on for its assessment.\n(6)\nThe Authority communicated the assessment report to the notifier and to the Member States for comments and forwarded the comments received to the Commission. The Authority also made the assessment report available to the public.\n(7)\nAt the request of the Commission, the assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority. The Authority presented its conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of azoxystrobin (6) to the Commission on 12 March 2010. The assessment report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for azoxystrobin.\n(8)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing azoxystrobin may be expected to continue to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve azoxystrobin.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions not provided for in the first inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nBased on the review report, which points out that for the active substance azoxystrobin notified by the main data submitter the manufacturing impurity toluene is of toxicological concern, a maximum level of 2 g/kg should, however, be set for that impurity in the technical material.\n(11)\nFrom the new data submitted, it appears that azoxystrobin may cause risks for aquatic organisms. Without prejudice to the conclusion that azoxystrobin should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(12)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(13)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing azoxystrobin. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(14)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(15)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should be amended accordingly.\n(16)\nIn the interest of clarity, Commission Directive 2010/55/EU of 20 August 2010 amending Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC to renew the inclusion of azoxystrobin as active substance (8) should be repealed.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance azoxystrobin, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing azoxystrobin as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Article 13(1) to (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing azoxystrobin as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product still satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing azoxystrobin as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing azoxystrobin as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nRepeal\nDirective 2010/55/EU is repealed.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["93", "50", "75", "59", "89", "41", "7", "11", "90", "8", "69", "45", "35", "27", "48", "87", "55", "80", "39", "29", "62", "23", "40", "36", "52", "88", "78", "18", "99", "38", "No Label", "25", "43", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "43", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 682/2010\nof 29 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2010.", "references": ["86", "97", "26", "17", "39", "47", "85", "37", "64", "19", "24", "46", "0", "63", "72", "10", "4", "74", "56", "40", "52", "88", "62", "96", "28", "14", "95", "29", "94", "76", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 April 2012\namending Annex I to Decision 2006/766/EC as regards the entry for Chile in the list of third countries from which imports of live, chilled, frozen or processed bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods for human consumption are permitted\n(notified under document C(2012) 2446)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/203/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 provides that products of animal origin are only to be imported from a third country or part of a third country that appears on a list drawn up in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 also provides that when drawing up and updating such lists, account is to be taken of Union controls in third countries and guarantees provided by the competent authorities of third countries, as regards compliance or equivalence with the Union feed and food law and animal health rules as specified in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (2).\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2006/766/EC of 6 November 2006 establishing the lists of third countries and territories from which imports of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates, marine gastropods and fishery products are permitted (3) lists those third countries which satisfy the criteria referred to in Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and are therefore able to guarantee that exports of those products to the Union meet the sanitary conditions laid down in Union legislation to protect the health of consumers. In particular, Annex I to that Decision sets out a list of third countries from which imports of live, chilled, frozen or processed bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods for human consumption are permitted. That list also indicates restrictions concerning such imports from certain third countries.\n(4)\nChile is currently included in the list in Annex I to Decision 2006/766/EC as a third country from which imports of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods intended for human consumption are permitted, but such imports are restricted to frozen or processed bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods and to certain chilled and eviscerated Pectinidae.\n(5)\nA Commission inspection was carried out in Chile from 26 April to 6 May 2010, to evaluate the control system in place governing the production of bivalve molluscs intended for export to the Union. The outcome of that inspection, together with the guarantees provided by the competent authority of Chile, indicate that the conditions applicable in that third country to live bivalve molluscs echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods intended for export to the Union are equivalent to those laid down in the relevant Union legislation. The restrictions to imports into the Union of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods from Chile should therefore no longer apply.\n(6)\nDecision 2006/766/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex I to Decision 2006/766/EC, the entry for Chile is replaced by the following:\n\u2018CL\nCHILE\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["18", "53", "11", "8", "78", "30", "68", "31", "89", "13", "43", "4", "87", "56", "39", "20", "82", "54", "7", "83", "40", "98", "58", "75", "51", "52", "17", "73", "85", "29", "No Label", "22", "38", "67", "93"], "gold": ["22", "38", "67", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 November 2010\non the withdrawal of the recognition of Georgia as regards education, training and certification of seafarers for the recognition of certificates of competency\n(notified under document C(2010) 7966)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/705/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1) and in particular Article 20(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the reassessment of compliance of Georgia carried out by the Commission pursuant to Article 21(1) of Directive 2008/106/EC,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMember States may decide to endorse seafarers\u2019 certificates of competency issued by third countries, provided that the relevant third country is recognised by the Commission as ensuring that this country complies with the requirements of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW Convention) (2).\n(2)\nGeorgia is recognised at the level of the European Union under the procedure established by Article 18(3)(c) of Directive 2001/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (3), as recognitions of Georgian certificates by Italy and Greece are published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) and therefore remain valid in accordance with Article 19(5) of Directive 2008/106/EC, in spite of the fact that Directive 2001/25/EC has been repealed.\n(3)\nThe Commission assessed the maritime education, training and certification systems in Georgia, in line with Article 21(1) of Directive 2008/106/EC, to verify whether this country continues to comply with the requirements of the STCW Convention and whether appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. This assessment, which was based on the results of a fact-finding inspection performed by experts of the European Maritime Safety Agency in September 2006, revealed several deficiencies.\n(4)\nThe Commission provided the Member States with a report on the results of the assessment of compliance.\n(5)\nSubsequently, the Commission requested the Georgian authorities, by letters of 27 February 2009 and 23 March 2010, to provide evidence demonstrating whether the deficiencies detected during the assessment were adequately addressed.\n(6)\nWhere deficiencies had been identified during the assessment of compliance with the STCW Convention, the Georgian authorities provided to the Commission on its request, by letters of 1 May 2009, 12 January 2010, 17 February 2010 and 14 April 2010, some information concerning the implementation of corrective action as regards these issues.\n(7)\nThe evaluation of the replies of the Georgian authorities, which was conducted by the Commission, confirmed that the information provided address only a very minor part of these deficiencies, while it revealed that the majority of the deficiencies that were identified during the assessment of compliance remain unresolved. These deficiencies concern several sections of the STCW Convention and especially missing national provisions to implement some requirements of the STCW Convention, such as in particular the implementation of a quality standards system and the use of simulators, the functioning of the quality standards system both in the administration and some maritime education and training institutions, the monitoring of these institutions by the administration, as well as numerous certification requirements relating to both the deck and engine departments.\n(8)\nThese non-conformities affect various core provisions of the STCW Convention and risk affecting the overall level of competence of seafarers holding certificates issued by Georgia.\n(9)\nThe outcome of the assessment of compliance and the evaluation of the information provided by the Georgian authorities demonstrate that Georgia does not comply fully with the relevant requirements of the STCW Convention and therefore its recognition by the European Union should be withdrawn.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe recognition of Georgia that was granted according to Article 18(3)(c) of Directive 2001/25/EC is withdrawn as regards education, training and certification of seafarers, for the purpose of recognition of certificates of competency issued by this country.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["2", "43", "3", "80", "81", "5", "64", "16", "9", "78", "65", "6", "8", "45", "12", "34", "73", "29", "32", "58", "40", "4", "46", "89", "62", "41", "82", "87", "84", "75", "No Label", "49", "50", "54", "56", "91"], "gold": ["49", "50", "54", "56", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 February 2012\namending Decision 2007/453/EC as regards the BSE status of Denmark and Panama\n(notified under document C(2012) 678)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/111/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in animals. For that purpose, the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) status of Member States or third countries or regions thereof (\u2018countries or regions\u2019) is according to Article 5(1) and Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 to be determined by classification into one of three categories depending on the BSE risk involved, namely a negligible BSE risk, a controlled BSE risk and an undetermined BSE risk.\n(2)\nThe Annex to Commission Decision 2007/453/EC of 29 June 2007 establishing the BSE status of Member States or third countries or regions thereof according to their BSE risk (2) lists countries or regions according to their BSE risk status.\n(3)\nThe World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) plays a leading role in the categorisation of countries or regions according to their BSE risk and employs criteria equivalent to those established in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. The list in the Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC takes account of Resolution No 18 - Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Risk Status of Members - adopted by the OIE in May 2010 regarding the BSE status of Member States and third countries (3).\n(4)\nIn May 2011, the OIE adopted Resolution No 17 - Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Risk Status of Members. That Resolution recognised Denmark and Panama as having a negligible BSE risk. The list in the Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC should therefore be amended to be brought into line with that Resolution as regards those countries (4).\n(5)\nDecision 2007/453/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["68", "83", "16", "47", "62", "53", "27", "24", "23", "58", "13", "78", "69", "82", "88", "14", "30", "18", "50", "98", "64", "1", "99", "21", "48", "25", "4", "55", "63", "77", "No Label", "38", "61", "66", "91", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "61", "66", "91", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/441/CFSP\nof 11 August 2010\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative to the African Union\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 6 December 2007, the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/805/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Koen VERVAEKE as European Union Special Representative (hereinafter the EUSR) to the African Union (AU).\n(2)\nOn 1 December 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/898/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 28 February 2010.\n(3)\nOn 25 February 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/119/CFSP (3) amending the mandate of the EUSR and extending it until 31 August 2010.\n(4)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 31 August 2011. However, the mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter the HR) following the entry into force of the Decision establishing the European External Action Service.\n(5)\nThe EUSR is to implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Koen VERVAEKE as EUSR to the AU is hereby extended until 31 August 2011. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the HR following the entry into force of the Decision establishing the European External Action Service.\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the EU\u2019s comprehensive policy objectives in support of African efforts to build a peaceful, democratic and prosperous future as set out in the EU Africa Strategy. These objectives include:\n(a)\nenhancing the EU\u2019s political dialogue and broader relationship with the AU;\n(b)\nstrengthening the EU-AU partnership in all areas outlined in the EU Africa Strategy, contributing to the development and implementation of the EU Africa Strategy in partnership with the AU, respecting the principle of African ownership and working more closely with African representatives in multilateral forums in coordination with multilateral partners;\n(c)\nworking with, and providing support to the AU by supporting institutional development and strengthening the relationship between EU and AU Institutions, including through development assistance, to promote:\n- peace and security: predict, prevent, manage, mediate and resolve conflict, support efforts to promote peace and stability, support post-conflict reconstruction,\n- human rights and governance: promote and protect human rights; promote fundamental freedoms and respect for the rule of law; support, through political dialogue and financial and technical assistance, African efforts to monitor and improve governance; support growth of participatory democracy and accountability; support the fight against corruption and organised crime and further promote efforts to address the issue of children and armed conflict in all its aspects,\n- sustainable growth, regional integration and trade: support efforts towards interconnectivity and facilitate people\u2019s access to water and sanitation, energy and information technology; promote a stable, efficient and harmonised legal business framework; assist to integrate Africa into the world trade system, assist African countries to comply with EU rules and standards; support Africa in countering the effects of climate change,\n- investment in people: support efforts in the fields of gender, health, food security and education, promote exchange programmes, networks of universities and centres of excellence, address the root causes of migration.\nFurthermore, the EU will play a key role in implementing the EU-Africa Joint Strategy intended to further develop and consolidate the strategic partnership between Africa and the EU.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)/European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) aspects of the objectives referred to in Article 2, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\nstrengthen the overall EU influence in, and coordination of, the Addis Ababa-based dialogue with the AU and its Commission, on the whole range of CFSP/ESDP issues covered by the EU-AU relationship;\n(b)\nensure an appropriate level of political representation, reflecting the importance of the EU as a political, financial and institutional partner of the AU, and the step-change in that partnership necessitated by the growing political profile of the AU on the world stage;\n(c)\nrepresent, should the Council so decide, EU positions and policies, when the AU plays a major role in a crisis situation for which no EUSR has been appointed;\n(d)\nhelp achieve better coherence, consistency and coordination of EU policies and actions towards the AU, and contribute to enhance coordination of the broader partner group and its relation with the AU;\n(e)\nfollow closely, and report on, all relevant developments at AU level;\n(f)\nmaintain close contact with the AU Commission, other AU organs, missions of African sub-regional organisations to the AU and the missions of the AU Member States to the AU;\n(g)\nfacilitate the relations and cooperation between the AU and African sub-regional organisations, especially in those areas where the EU is providing support;\n(h)\noffer advice and provide support to the AU upon request in the areas outlined in the EU Africa Strategy;\n(i)\noffer advice and provide support to the building up of the AU\u2019s crisis management capabilities;\n(j)\non the basis of a clear division of tasks, coordinate with, and support, the actions of EUSRs with mandates in AU Member States/regions; and\n(k)\nmaintain close contacts and promote coordination with key international partners of the AU present in Addis Ababa, especially the United Nations, but also with non-State actors on the whole range of the CFSP/ESDP issues covered by the EU-AU relationship.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (hereinafter the PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011 shall be EUR 1 280 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of his mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting his team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of his team.\n2. Member States and Union institutions may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of personnel who are seconded by a Member State or Union institution to the EUSR shall be covered by the EU Member State or institution concerned, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the General Secretariat of the Council may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State or Union institution and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and his staff\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of his staff shall be agreed with the host party/parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of his team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council\u2019s security regulations (4), in particular when managing EU classified information.\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegation and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nThe EUSR shall, in accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with his mandate and on the basis of the security situation in his geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under his direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the General Secretariat of the Council, providing for mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, and the management of security incidents, and providing for a contingency plan and a mission evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of his team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the General Secretariat of the Council;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the HR, the Council and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report as necessary to Council working parties. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote overall Union political coordination. He shall help ensure that all Union instruments in the field are engaged coherently to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSRs active in the region as appropriate. The EUSR shall provide Member States\u2019 missions and the Union\u2019s delegations with regular briefings.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegations and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission who shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the HR, the Council and the Commission with a progress report at the end of February 2011 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["95", "56", "69", "46", "15", "48", "41", "11", "20", "22", "10", "34", "6", "36", "42", "72", "64", "29", "94", "98", "49", "43", "76", "27", "92", "5", "93", "90", "37", "52", "No Label", "3", "9"], "gold": ["3", "9"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 6/2012\nof 5 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 January 2012.", "references": ["21", "91", "70", "49", "4", "34", "23", "66", "56", "92", "39", "67", "64", "79", "95", "50", "60", "48", "19", "53", "45", "76", "20", "94", "77", "13", "72", "36", "58", "24", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 258/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 14 March 2012\nimplementing Article 10 of the United Nations\u2019 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UN Firearms Protocol), and establishing export authorisation, and import and transit measures for firearms, their parts and components and ammunition\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national Parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2001/748/EC of 16 October 2001 concerning the signing on behalf of the European Community of the United Nations Protocol on the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts, components and ammunition, annexed to the Convention against transnational organised crime (2), the Commission signed that Protocol (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018UN Firearms Protocol\u2019) on behalf of the Community on 16 January 2002.\n(2)\nThe UN Firearms Protocol, the purpose of which is to promote, facilitate and strengthen cooperation among Parties in order to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, entered into force on 3 July 2005.\n(3)\nIn order to facilitate the tracing of firearms and efficiently combat illicit trafficking in firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition, it is necessary to improve the exchange of information between Member States, in particular through the better use of existing communication channels.\n(4)\nPersonal data must be processed in accordance with the rules laid down in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (3) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (4).\n(5)\nIn its Communication of 18 July 2005 on measures to ensure greater security in explosives, detonators, bomb-making equipment and firearms (5), the Commission announced its intention to implement Article 10 of the UN Firearms Protocol as part of the measures which need to be taken in order for the Union to be in a position to conclude that Protocol.\n(6)\nThe UN Firearms Protocol requires Parties to put in place or improve administrative procedures or systems to exercise effective control over the manufacturing, marking, import and export of firearms.\n(7)\nCompliance with the UN Firearms Protocol also requires that illicit manufacture of or trafficking in firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition be established as criminal offences, and that measures be taken to enable the confiscation of items so manufactured or trafficked.\n(8)\nThis Regulation should not apply to firearms, their parts and essential components or ammunition that are intended specifically for military purposes. The measures to meet the requirements of Article 10 of the UN Firearms Protocol should be adapted to provide for simplified procedures for firearms for civilian use. Consequently, some facilitation with regard to authorisation for multiple shipments, transit measures and temporary exports for lawful purposes should be ensured.\n(9)\nThis Regulation does not affect the application of Article 346 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which refers to essential interests of the security of the Member States, nor has this Regulation any impact on Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products within the Community (6), or on Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (7). Moreover, the UN Firearms Protocol, and consequently this Regulation, do not apply to State-to-State transactions or to State transfers in cases where the application of the Protocol would prejudice the right of a State Party to take action in the interest of national security consistent with the Charter of the United Nations.\n(10)\nDirective 91/477/EEC addresses transfers of firearms for civilian use within the territory of the Union, while this Regulation focuses on measures in respect of export from the customs territory of the Union to or through third countries.\n(11)\nFirearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition when imported from third countries are subject to Union law and, in particular, to the requirements of Directive 91/477/EEC.\n(12)\nConsistency should be ensured with regard to record-keeping provisions in force under Union law.\n(13)\nIn order to ensure that this Regulation is properly applied, Member States should take measures giving the competent authorities appropriate powers.\n(14)\nIn order to maintain the list of firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition for which an authorisation is required under this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of aligning Annex I to this Regulation to Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (8), and to Annex I to Directive 91/477/EEC. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(15)\nThe Union has adopted a body of customs rules, contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (9) and its implementing provisions as laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (10). Consideration should also be given to Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code) (11) whose provisions are applicable in different phases according to Article 188 thereof. Nothing in this Regulation constrains any powers under and pursuant to the Community Customs Code and its implementing provisions.\n(16)\nMember States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n(17)\nThis Regulation is without prejudice to the Union regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items established by Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 (12).\n(18)\nThis Regulation is consistent with the other relevant provisions on firearms, their parts, essential components and ammunition for military use, security strategies, illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons and exports of military technology, including Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment (13).\n(19)\nThe Commission and the Member States should inform each other of the measures taken under this Regulation and of other relevant information at their disposal in connection with this Regulation.\n(20)\nThis Regulation does not prevent the Member States from applying their constitutional rules relating to public access to official documents, taking into account Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (14),\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT, DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation lays down rules governing export authorisation, and import and transit measures for firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition, for the purpose of implementing Article 10 of the United Nations Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (the \u2018UN Firearms Protocol\u2019).\nArticle 2\nFor the purposes of this Regulation:\n(1)\n\u2018firearm\u2019 means any portable barrelled weapon that expels, is designed to expel or may be converted to expel, a shot, bullet or projectile by the action of a combustible propellant as referred to in Annex I.\nAn object is considered as capable of being converted to expel a shot, bullet or projectile by the action of a combustible propellant if:\n-\nit has the appearance of a firearm, and\n-\nas a result of its construction or the material from which it is made, it can be so converted;\n(2)\n\u2018parts\u2019 means any element or replacement element as referred to in Annex I specifically designed for a firearm and essential to its operation, including a barrel, frame or receiver, slide or cylinder, bolt or breech block, and any device designed or adapted to diminish the sound caused by firing a firearm;\n(3)\n\u2018essential components\u2019 means the breech-closing mechanism, the chamber and the barrel of a firearm which, being separate objects, are included in the category of the firearms on which they are or are intended to be mounted;\n(4)\n\u2018ammunition\u2019 means the complete round or the components thereof, including cartridge cases, primers, propellant powder, bullets or projectiles that are used in a firearm, as referred to in Annex I, provided that those components are themselves subject to authorisation in the relevant Member State;\n(5)\n\u2018deactivated firearms\u2019 means objects otherwise corresponding to the definition of a firearm which have been rendered permanently unfit for use by deactivation, ensuring that all essential parts of the firearm have been rendered permanently inoperable and incapable of removal, replacement or modification that would permit the firearm to be reactivated in any way.\nMember States shall make arrangements for these deactivation measures to be verified by a competent authority. Member States shall, in the context of that verification, provide for the issue of a certificate or record attesting to the deactivation of the firearm or the apposition of a clearly visible mark to that effect on the firearm;\n(6)\n\u2018export\u2019 means:\n(a)\nan export procedure within the meaning of Article 161 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92;\n(b)\na re-export within the meaning of Article 182 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 but not including goods moving under the external transit procedure, as referred to in Article 91 of that Regulation where no re-export formalities as referred to in Article 182(2) thereof have been fulfilled;\n(7)\n\u2018person\u2019 means a natural person, a legal person and, where the possibility is provided for under the rules in force, an association of persons recognised as having the capacity to perform legal acts but lacking the legal status of a legal person;\n(8)\n\u2018exporter\u2019 means any person, established in the Union, who makes or on whose behalf an export declaration is made, that is to say the person who, at the time when the declaration is accepted, holds the contract with the consignee in the third country and has the power for determining the sending of the item out of the customs territory of the Union. If no export contract has been concluded or if the holder of the contract does not act on its own behalf, the exporter shall mean the person who has the power for determining the sending of the item out of the customs territory of the Union.\nWhere the benefit of a right to dispose of firearms, their parts and essential components or ammunition accrues to a person established outside the Union pursuant to the contract on which the export is based, the exporter shall be considered to be the contracting party established in the Union;\n(9)\n\u2018customs territory of the Union\u2019 means the territory within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92;\n(10)\n\u2018export declaration\u2019 means the act whereby a person indicates in the prescribed form and manner his intention to place firearms, their parts and essential components, and ammunition under an export procedure;\n(11)\n\u2018temporary export\u2019 means the movement of firearms leaving the customs territory of the Union and intended for re-importation within a period not exceeding 24 months;\n(12)\n\u2018transit\u2019 means the operation of transport of goods leaving the customs territory of the Union and passing through the territory of one or more third countries with final destination in another third country;\n(13)\n\u2018transhipment\u2019 means transit involving the physical operation of unloading goods from the importing means of transport followed by reloading, for the purpose of re-exportation, generally onto another means of transport;\n(14)\n\u2018export authorisation\u2019 means:\n(a)\na single authorisation or licence granted to one specific exporter for one shipment of one or more firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition to one identified final recipient or consignee in a third country; or\n(b)\na multiple authorisation or licence granted to one specific exporter for multiple shipments of one or more firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition to one identified final recipient or consignee in a third country; or\n(c)\na global authorisation or licence granted to one specific exporter for multiple shipments of one or more firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition to several identified final recipients or consignees in one or several third countries;\n(15)\n\u2018illicit trafficking\u2019 means the import, export, sale, delivery, movement or transfer of firearms, their parts and essential components or ammunition from or across the territory of one Member State to that of a third country, if any of the following applies:\n(a)\nthe Member State concerned does not authorise it in accordance with the terms of this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe firearms are not marked in accordance with Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 91/477/EEC;\n(c)\nthe imported firearms are not marked at the time of import at least with a simple marking permitting identification of the first country of import within the European Union, or, where the firearms do not bear such a marking, a unique marking identifying the imported firearms;\n(16)\n\u2018tracing\u2019 means the systematic tracking of firearms and, where possible, their parts and essential components and ammunition from manufacturer to purchaser for the purpose of assisting the competent authorities of Member States in detecting, investigating and analysing illicit manufacturing and trafficking.\nArticle 3\n1. This Regulation shall not apply to:\n(a)\nState to State transactions or State transfers;\n(b)\nfirearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition if specially designed for military use and, in any case, firearms of the fully automatic firing type;\n(c)\nfirearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition when destined for the armed forces, the police, or the public authorities of the Member States;\n(d)\ncollectors and bodies concerned with cultural and historical aspects of firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition and recognised as such for the purpose of this Regulation by the Member State in whose territory they are established, provided that tracing measures are ensured;\n(e)\ndeactivated firearms;\n(f)\nantique firearms and their replicas as defined in accordance with national legislation, provided that antique firearms do not include firearms manufactured after 1899.\n2. This Regulation is without prejudice to Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Community Customs Code), Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (implementing provisions of the Community Customs Code), Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 (Modernised Customs Code), and to the regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items established by Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 (Dual Use Regulation).\nCHAPTER II\nEXPORT AUTHORISATION, PROCEDURES AND CONTROLS AND IMPORT AND TRANSIT MEASURES\nArticle 4\n1. An export authorisation established in accordance with the form set out in Annex II shall be required for the export of firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition listed in Annex I. Such authorisation shall be granted by the competent authorities of the Member State where the exporter is established and shall be issued in writing or by electronic means.\n2. Where the export of firearms, their parts, essential components and ammunition requires an export authorisation pursuant to this Regulation and that export is also subject to authorisation requirements in accordance with Common Position 2008/944/CFSP, Member States may use a single procedure to carry out the obligations imposed on them by this Regulation and by that Common Position.\n3. If the firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition are located in one or more Member States other than the one where the application for export authorisation has been made, that fact shall be indicated on that application. The competent authorities of the Member State to which the application for export authorisation has been made shall immediately consult the competent authorities of the Member State or States in question and provide the relevant information. The Member State or States consulted shall make known within 10 working days any objections it or they may have to the granting of such an authorisation, which shall bind the Member State in which the application has been made.\nArticle 5\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 6 to amend Annex I on the basis of the amendments to Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, and on the basis of the amendments to Annex I to Directive 91/477/EEC.\nArticle 6\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 5 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 5 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 5 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 7\n1. Before issuing an export authorisation for firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition, the Member State concerned shall verify that:\n(a)\nthe importing third country has authorised the relevant import; and\n(b)\nthe third countries of transit, if any, have given notice in writing - and at the latest prior to shipment - that they have no objection to the transit. This provision does not apply:\n-\nto shipments by sea or air and through ports or airports of third countries provided that that there is no transhipment or change of means of transport,\n-\nin the case of temporary exports for verifiable lawful purposes, which include hunting, sport shooting, evaluation, exhibitions without sale, and repair.\n2. Member States may decide that, if no objections to the transit are received within 20 working days from the day of the written request for no objection to the transit submitted by the exporter, the consulted third country of transit shall be regarded as having no objection to the transit.\n3. The exporter shall supply the competent authority of the Member State responsible for issuing the export authorisation with the necessary documents proving that the importing third country has authorised the import and that the third country of transit had no objection to the transit.\n4. Member States shall process applications for export authorisations within a period of time to be determined by national law or practice, which shall not exceed 60 working days, from the date on which all required information has been provided to the competent authorities. Under exceptional circumstances and for duly justified reasons, that period may be extended to 90 working days.\n5. The period of validity of an export authorisation shall not exceed the period of validity of the import authorisation. Where the import authorisation does not specify a period of validity, except under exceptional circumstances and for duly justified reasons, the period of validity of an export authorisation shall be at least nine months.\n6. Member States may decide to make use of electronic documents for the purpose of processing the applications for export authorisation.\nArticle 8\n1. For the purpose of tracing, the export authorisation and the import licence or import authorisation issued by the importing third country and the accompanying documentation shall together contain information that includes:\n(a)\nthe dates of issue and expiry;\n(b)\nthe place of issue;\n(c)\nthe country of export;\n(d)\nthe country of import;\n(e)\nwhenever applicable, the third country or countries of transit;\n(f)\nthe consignee;\n(g)\nthe final recipient, if known at the time of the shipment;\n(h)\nparticulars enabling the identification of the firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition, and the quantity thereof including, at the latest prior to the shipment, the marking applied to the firearms.\n2. The information referred to in paragraph 1, if contained in the import licence or import authorisation, shall be provided by the exporter in advance to the third countries of transit, at the latest prior to the shipment.\nArticle 9\n1. Simplified procedures for the temporary export or the re-export of firearms, their parts, essential components and ammunition shall apply as follows:\n(a)\nNo export authorisation shall be required for:\n(i)\nthe temporary export by hunters or sport shooters as part of their accompanied personal effects, during a journey to a third country, provided that they substantiate to the competent authorities the reasons for the journey, in particular by producing an invitation or other proof of the hunting or sport shooting activities in the third country of destination, of:\n-\none or more firearms,\n-\ntheir essential components, if marked, as well as parts,\n-\ntheir related ammunition, limited to a maximum of 800 rounds for hunters and a maximum of 1 200 rounds for sport shooters;\n(ii)\nthe re-export by hunters or sport shooters as part of their accompanied personal effects following temporary admission for hunting or sport shooting activities, provided that the firearms remain the property of a person established outside the customs territory of the Union and the firearms are re-exported to that person.\n(b)\nWhen leaving the customs territory of the Union through a Member State other than the Member State of their residence, hunters and sport shooters shall produce to the competent authorities a European Firearms Pass as provided for in Articles 1 and 12 of Directive 91/477/EEC. In the case of travel by air, the European Firearms Pass shall be produced to the competent authorities where the relevant items are handed over to the airline for transport out of the customs territory of the Union.\nWhen leaving the customs territory of the Union through the Member State of their residence, hunters and sport shooters may, instead of a European Firearms Pass, choose to produce another document considered valid for this purpose by the competent authorities of that Member State.\n(c)\nThe competent authorities of a Member State shall, for a period not exceeding 10 days, suspend the process of export or, if necessary, otherwise prevent firearms, their parts and essential components or ammunition from leaving the customs territory of the Union through that Member State, where they have grounds for suspicion that the reasons substantiated by hunters or sport shooters are not in conformity with the relevant considerations and the obligations laid down in Article 10. In exceptional circumstances and for duly justified reasons, the period referred to in this point may be extended to 30 days.\n2. Member States shall, in accordance with national law, establish simplified procedures for:\n(a)\nthe re-export of firearms following temporary admission for evaluation or exhibition without sale, or inward processing for repair, provided that the firearms remain the property of a person established outside the customs territory of the Union and the firearms are re-exported to that person;\n(b)\nthe re-export of firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition if they are held in temporary storage from the moment they enter the customs territory of the Union until their exit;\n(c)\nthe temporary export of firearms for the purpose of evaluation and repair and exhibition without sale, provided that the exporter substantiates the lawful possession of these firearms and exports them under the outward processing or temporary exportation customs procedures.\nArticle 10\n1. In deciding whether to grant an export authorisation under this Regulation, Member States shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where appropriate:\n(a)\ntheir obligations and commitments as parties to the relevant international export control arrangements or relevant international treaties;\n(b)\nconsiderations of national foreign and security policy, including those covered by Common Position 2008/944/CFSP;\n(c)\nconsiderations as to intended end use, consignee, identified final recipient and the risk of diversion.\n2. In addition to the relevant considerations set out in paragraph 1, when assessing an application for an export authorisation, Member States shall take into account the application by the exporter of proportionate and adequate means and procedures to ensure compliance with the provisions and objectives of this Regulation and with the terms and conditions of the authorisation.\nIn deciding whether to grant an export authorisation under this Regulation, Member States shall respect their obligations with regard to sanctions imposed by decisions adopted by the Council or by a decision of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) or by a binding resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations, in particular as regards arms embargoes.\nArticle 11\n1. Member States shall:\n(a)\nrefuse to grant an export authorisation if the applicant has a criminal record concerning conduct constituting an offence listed in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (15), or concerning any other conduct provided that it constituted an offence punishable by a maximum deprivation of liberty of at least four years or a more serious penalty;\n(b)\nannul, suspend, modify or revoke an export authorisation if the conditions for granting it are not met or are no longer met.\nThis paragraph is without prejudice to stricter rules under national legislation.\n2. Where Member States refuse, annul, suspend, modify or revoke an export authorisation, they shall notify the competent authorities of the other Member States thereof and share the relevant information with them. Where the competent authorities of a Member State have suspended an export authorisation, their final assessment shall be communicated to the other Member States at the end of the period of suspension.\n3. Before the competent authorities of a Member State grant an export authorisation under this Regulation, they shall take into account all refusals under this Regulation of which they have been notified, in order to ascertain whether an authorisation has been refused by the competent authorities of another Member State or Member States for an essentially identical transaction (concerning an item with essentially identical parameters or technical characteristics and in respect of the same importer or consignee).\nThey may first consult the competent authorities of the Member State or Member States which issued refusals, annulments, suspensions, modifications or revocations under paragraphs 1 and 2. If, following such consultation, the competent authorities of the Member State decide to grant an authorisation, they shall notify the competent authorities of the other Member States, providing all relevant information to explain the decision.\n4. All information shared in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be in compliance with the provisions of Article 19(2) concerning its confidentiality.\nArticle 12\nIn accordance with their national law or practice in force, Member States shall keep, for not less than 20 years, all information relating to firearms and, where appropriate and feasible, their parts and essential components and ammunition, which is necessary to trace and identify those firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition, and to prevent and detect illicit trafficking therein. That information shall include the place, dates of issue and expiry of the export authorisation; the country of export; the country of import; where applicable, the third country of transit; the consignee; the final recipient if known at the time of export; and the description and quantity of the items, including any markings applied to them.\nThis Article shall not apply to exports as referred to in Article 9.\nArticle 13\n1. Member States shall, in case of suspicion, request the importing third country to confirm receipt of the dispatched shipment of firearms, their parts and essential components or ammunition.\n2. Upon request of a third country of export which is a Party to the UN Firearms Protocol at the time of the export, Member States shall confirm the receipt within the customs territory of the Union of the dispatched shipment of firearms, their parts and essential components or ammunition, which shall be ensured in principle by producing the relevant customs importation documents.\n3. Member States shall comply with paragraphs 1 and 2 in accordance with their national law or practice in force. In particular, with regard to exports, the competent authority of the Member State may decide either to address the exporter or to contact the importing third country directly.\nArticle 14\nMember States shall take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that their authorisation procedures are secure and that the authenticity of authorisation documents can be verified or validated.\nVerification and validation may also, where appropriate, be ensured by means of diplomatic channels.\nArticle 15\nIn order to ensure that this Regulation is properly applied, Member States shall take necessary and proportionate measures to enable their competent authorities to:\n(a)\ngather information on any order or transaction involving firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition; and\n(b)\nestablish that the export control measures are being properly applied, which may, in particular, include the power to enter the premises of persons with an interest in an export transaction.\nArticle 16\nMember States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\nCHAPTER III\nCUSTOMS FORMALITIES\nArticle 17\n1. When completing customs formalities for the export of firearms, their parts and essential components or ammunition at the customs office of export, the exporter shall furnish proof that any necessary export authorisation has been obtained.\n2. The exporter may be required to provide a translation into an official language of the Member State where the export declaration is presented of any documents furnished as proof.\n3. Without prejudice to any powers conferred on them under Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, Member States shall, for a period not exceeding 10 days, suspend the process of export from their territory or, if necessary, otherwise prevent firearms, their parts and essential components or ammunition which are covered by a valid export authorisation from leaving the customs territory of the Union through their territory, where they have grounds for suspicion that:\n(a)\nrelevant information was not taken into account when the authorisation was granted; or\n(b)\ncircumstances have materially changed since the authorisation was granted.\nIn exceptional circumstances and for duly substantiated reasons, that period may be extended to 30 days.\n4. Within the period or extended period referred to in paragraph 3, Member States shall either release the firearms, their parts and essential components or ammunition, or take action pursuant to Article 11(1)(b).\nArticle 18\n1. Member States may provide that customs formalities for the export of firearms, their parts and essential components or ammunition can be completed only at customs offices empowered to that end.\n2. Member States availing themselves of the option set out in paragraph 1 shall inform the Commission of the duly empowered customs offices or of subsequent changes thereto. The Commission shall publish and update that information on a yearly basis in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union.\nCHAPTER IV\nADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION\nArticle 19\n1. Member States shall, in cooperation with the Commission and in accordance with Article 21(2), take all appropriate measures to establish direct cooperation and exchange of information between competent authorities with a view to enhancing the efficiency of the measures established by this Regulation. Such information may include:\n(a)\ndetails of exporters whose application for an authorisation is refused, or of exporters who are the subject of decisions taken by Member States pursuant to Article 11;\n(b)\ndata on consignees or other actors involved in suspicious activities, and, where available, routes taken.\n2. Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 (16) on mutual assistance, and in particular the provisions thereof as to the confidentiality of information, shall apply mutatis mutandis to measures under this Article, without prejudice to Article 20 of this Regulation.\nCHAPTER V\nGENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 20\n1. A Firearms Exports Coordination Group (the \u2018Coordination Group\u2019) chaired by a representative of the Commission shall be set up. Each Member State shall appoint a representative to it.\nThe Coordination Group shall examine any question concerning the application of this Regulation which may be raised either by the Chair or by a representative of a Member State. It shall be bound by the confidentiality rules of Regulation (EC) No 515/97.\n2. The Chair of the Coordination Group or the Coordination Group shall, whenever necessary, consult any relevant stakeholders concerned by this Regulation.\nArticle 21\n1. Each Member State shall inform the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted in implementation of this Regulation, including the measures referred to in Article 16.\n2. By 19 April 2012, each Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of the national authorities competent for implementing Articles 7, 9, 11 and 17. Based on that information, the Commission shall publish and update a list of those authorities on a yearly basis in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union.\n3. By 19 April 2017, and thereafter upon request of the Coordination Group and in any event every 10 years, the Commission shall review the implementation of this Regulation and present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on its application, which may include proposals for its amendment. Member States shall provide the Commission with all appropriate information for the preparation of the report, including information about the use of the single procedure provided for in Article 4(2).\nArticle 22\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 30 September 2013.\nHowever, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 13 shall apply from the 30th day after the date on which the UN Firearms Protocol enters into force in the European Union, following its conclusion pursuant to Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 14 March 2012.", "references": ["7", "36", "30", "37", "56", "58", "33", "29", "4", "1", "28", "50", "57", "90", "70", "81", "68", "0", "39", "91", "31", "55", "10", "13", "24", "85", "51", "84", "19", "88", "No Label", "3", "6", "20", "21", "22", "54", "99"], "gold": ["3", "6", "20", "21", "22", "54", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 589/2011\nof 20 June 2011\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2011 opening an exceptional import tariff quota for certain quantities of sugar in the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe world market prices for sugar have been at a constant high level during the first months of the 2010/11 marketing year, which has slowed down the pace of imports in particular from third countries benefiting from certain preferential agreements.\n(2)\nConfronted with this situation, the Commission recently adopted a series of measures with the purpose to bring additional supply to the Union market. Those measures included Commission Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 of 3 March 2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2010/2011 (2), which increased the combined availability of sugar and isoglucose on the Union market by 526 000 tonnes, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2011 of 28 March 2011 opening an exceptional import tariff quota for certain quantities of sugar in the 2010/11 marketing year (3), which suspended the import duties for sugar falling within CN 1701 for a quantity of 300 000 tonnes.\n(3)\nImports of sugar under Inward Processing in accordance with Chapter 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (4) have been reduced and the processing industry has increased the use of quota sugar in exported products. Those developments have maintained the tight supply situation on the Union market, which threaten to cause undersupply during the last months of the marketing year, until the arrival of the new harvest.\n(4)\nThe high prices on the world market for sugar therefore threaten the availability of supply on the Union market. For that reason it is necessary to increase, by a quantity of 200 000 tonnes, the quantity of 300 000 tonnes set out in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2011, for which the import duty of sugar is to be suspended.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (5) the opening of the tariff quotas for imports of sugar products pursuant to Article 187 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 with order number 09.4380 (exceptional import sugar), the quantities of those products for which import duties are to be suspended and the tariff quota period have to be determined by a separate legal act. Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2011 suspends the import duties for sugar falling within CN 1701 for a quantity of 300 000 tonnes.\n(6)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2011 should be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn the first paragraph of Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2011, the following sentence is added:\n\u2018The import duties shall be suspended for an additional quantity of 200 000 tonnes from 1 July to 30 September 2011.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["87", "38", "69", "33", "57", "40", "16", "47", "80", "43", "85", "82", "30", "35", "89", "10", "41", "83", "36", "2", "62", "42", "28", "99", "24", "9", "0", "1", "22", "81", "No Label", "20", "21", "23", "71"], "gold": ["20", "21", "23", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1356/2011\nof 20 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["17", "12", "34", "1", "24", "25", "40", "19", "30", "46", "54", "89", "72", "98", "65", "69", "62", "79", "88", "80", "18", "41", "56", "55", "93", "16", "51", "85", "83", "87", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 687/2010\nof 30 July 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 103h and 127 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 103d(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides for the grant of financial assistance to be capped at either 4,1 % or 4,6 % of the value of the marketed production of each producer organisation.\n(2)\nArticle 52 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 (2) lays down detailed rules on the calculation of the value of marketed production for a producer organisation. Pursuant to point (a) of paragraph 6 of that Article, a producer organisation is to invoice the marketed production of fruit and vegetables at the \u2018ex-producer organisation\u2019 stage, where applicable, as product which is packaged, prepared, or has undergone first-stage processing.\n(3)\nPoint (i) of Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 contains a definition of \u2018first-stage processing\u2019. However, that definition has given rise to difficulties of interpretation. Since legal certainty requires clear rules on the calculation of the value of marketed production, that definition should be deleted and the definition of \u2018by product\u2019 should be adapted accordingly.\n(4)\nThe calculation of the value of fruit and vegetables intended for processing has proven difficult. For control purposes and for the sake of simplification, it is appropriate to introduce a flat rate for the purposes of calculating the value of fruit and vegetables intended for processing, representing the value of the basic product, namely fruit and vegetables intended for processing, and activities which do not amount to genuine processing activities. Since the volumes of fruit and vegetables needed for the production of processed fruit and vegetables differ largely between groups of products, those differences should be reflected in the applicable flat rates.\n(5)\nIn the case of fruit and vegetables intended for processing that are transformed into processed aromatic herbs and paprika powder, it is also appropriate to introduce a flat rate for the purposes of calculating the value of fruit and vegetables intended for processing, representing only the value of the basic product.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure the smooth transition to the new system for the calculation of the value of the marketed production for fruit and vegetables intended for processing, operational programmes approved by 20 January 2010 should not be affected by the new calculation method, without prejudice to the possibility to amend those operational programmes in accordance with Articles 66 and 67 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007. For the same reason, the value of the marketed production for the reference period of operational programmes approved after that date should be calculated under the new rules.\n(7)\nIn order to allow for more flexibility in the use of market withdrawals, it is appropriated to increase the annual margin of overrun set out in Article 80(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007.\n(8)\nIn order to facilitate free distribution, it is appropriate to provide for the possibility to allow charitable organisations and institutions to ask a symbolic contribution from the final recipients of products subjected to market withdrawals, in case those products have undergone processing.\n(9)\nThe flat-rate amounts for transport, sorting and packaging costs for free distribution of fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market set out in Article 83(1) and Annex XI of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 should be updated.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 21(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (h) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(h)\n\u201cby product\u201d means a product which results from preparation of a fruit or vegetable product which has a positive economic value but is not the main intended result;\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (i) is replaced by the following;\n\u2018(i)\n\u201cpreparation\u201d means preparatory activities such as cleaning, cutting, peeling trimming and drying of fruit and vegetables, without transforming them into processed fruit and vegetables;\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 52 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following paragraph 2a is inserted:\n\u20182a. The value of the marketed production shall not include the value of processed fruit and vegetables or any other product that is not a product of the fruit and vegetables sector.\nHowever, the value of the marketed production of fruit and vegetables intended for processing, which have been transformed into one of the processed fruit and vegetables listed in Part X of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 or any other agricultural product referred to in this Article and described further in Annex VIa to this Regulation, by either a producer organisation, an association of producer organisations or their members, who are producers or their cooperatives, or subsidiaries as referred to in paragraph 7 of this Article, either by themselves or through outsourcing, shall be calculated as a flat rate in percentage applied to the invoiced value of those processed products.\nThat flat rate shall be:\n(a)\n53 % for fruit juices;\n(b)\n73 % for concentrated juices;\n(c)\n77 % for tomato concentrate;\n(d)\n62 % for frozen fruit and vegetables;\n(e)\n48 % for canned fruit and vegetables;\n(f)\n70 % for canned mushrooms of the genus Agaricus;\n(g)\n81 % for fruits provisionally preserved in brine;\n(h)\n81 % for dried fruits;\n(i)\n27 % for other processed fruit and vegetables;\n(j)\n12 % for processed aromatic herbs;\n(k)\n41 % for paprika powder.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. The marketed production of fruit and vegetables shall be invoiced at the \u201cex-producer organisation\u201d stage where applicable, as product listed in Part IX of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 which is prepared and packaged excluding:\n(a)\nVAT;\n(b)\ninternal transport costs, where the distance between the centralised collection or packing points of the producer organisation and the point of distribution of the producer organisation is significant.\nFor the purposes of point (b) of the first subparagraph, Member States shall provide for reductions to be applied to the invoiced value for products invoiced at different stages of delivery or transport.\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 53(7), the following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018However, for operational programmes approved by 20 January 2010, the value of the marketed production for the years until 2007 shall be calculated on the basis of the legislation applicable in the reference period, whereas the value of the marketed production for the years from 2008 shall be calculated on the basis of the legislation applicable in 2008.\nFor operational programmes approved after 20 January 2010, the value of the marketed production for the years from 2008 shall be calculated on the basis of the legislation applicable at the time the operational programme has been approved.\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 80(2), the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The percentages referred to in the first subparagraph shall be annual averages over a three year period, with 5 percentage points of annual margin of overrun.\u2019;\n5.\nin Article 81(2), the following subparagraph is inserted after the first subparagraph:\n\u2018Member States may allow the charitable organisations and the institutions referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 103d(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 to ask a symbolic contribution from the final recipients of products subjected to market withdrawals, in case those products have undergone processing.\u2019;\n6.\nin Article 83, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The costs of sorting and packaging fresh fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market for free distribution shall be eligible under operational programmes, in the case of products put up in packages of less than 25 kilograms net weight at the flat-rate amounts set out in Part A of Annex XII.\n2. Packages of products for free distribution shall display the European emblem, together with one or more of the references set out in Part B of Annex XII.\u2019;\n7.\nAnnex VIa, as set out in Annex I to this Regulation, is inserted;\n8.\nAnnex XI is replaced by the text in Annex II to this Regulation;\n9.\nAnnex XII is replaced by the text in Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 July 2010.", "references": ["59", "89", "9", "73", "23", "39", "13", "87", "29", "16", "40", "88", "52", "70", "28", "45", "50", "54", "32", "42", "34", "47", "98", "75", "56", "76", "91", "2", "86", "79", "No Label", "4", "10", "17", "20", "25", "62", "66", "68"], "gold": ["4", "10", "17", "20", "25", "62", "66", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 65/2012\nof 24 January 2012\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards gear shift indicators and amending Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (1) and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 requires the installation of gear shift indicators (GSI) on all vehicles, which are fitted with a manual gearbox, of category M1 with a reference mass not exceeding 2 610 kg and vehicles to which type-approval is extended in accordance with Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (2).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 requires the technical details of its provisions on GSI to be defined by implementing legislation. It is now necessary to set out the specific procedures, tests and requirements for such type-approval of GSI.\n(3)\nDirective 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (3) should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation applies to vehicles of category M1 which comply with the following requirements:\n-\nthey are fitted with a manual gearbox,\n-\nthey have a reference mass not exceeding 2 610 kg or type-approval is extended to them in accordance with Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007.\nThis Regulation does not apply to \u2018vehicles designed to fulfil specific social needs\u2019 as defined in Article 3(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply in addition to the definitions set out in Regulation (EC) No 661/2009:\n(1)\n\u2018vehicle type with regard to the GSI\u2019 means a group of vehicles, which do not differ with respect to functional characteristics of the GSI and the logic used by the GSI to determine when to indicate a gearshift point. Examples of different logics include, but are not limited to:\n(i)\nupshifts indicated at specified engine speeds;\n(ii)\nupshifts indicated when specific fuel consumption engine maps show that a specified minimum fuel consumption improvement will be delivered in the higher gear;\n(iii)\nupshifts indicated when torque demand can be met in the higher gear;\n(2)\n\u2018functional characteristics of the GSI\u2019 means the set of input parameters, such as engine speed, power demand, torque and their variation in time, determining the GSI indication and the functional dependence of the GSI indications on these parameters;\n(3)\n\u2018operational mode of the vehicle\u2019 means a state of the vehicle, in which shifts between at least two forward gears may occur;\n(4)\n\u2018manual mode\u2019 means an operational mode of the vehicle, where the shift between all or some of the gears is always an immediate consequence of an action of the driver;\n(5)\n\u2018tailpipe emissions\u2019 means tailpipe emissions as defined in Article 3(6) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007.\nArticle 3\nAssessment of manual gearbox\nFor the purpose of assessing whether a gearbox meets the definition according to Article 3(16) of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009, a gearbox having at least one manual mode according to Article 2(4) of this Regulation shall be considered as a \u2018manual gearbox\u2019. For this assessment, automatic changes between gears, which are performed not to optimise the operation of the vehicle but only under extreme conditions for reasons such as protecting or avoiding the stalling of the engine, are not considered.\nArticle 4\nEC type-approval\n1. Manufacturers shall ensure that vehicles placed on the market, which are covered by Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009, are equipped with GSI in accordance with the requirements of Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. To obtain an EC type-approval for the vehicles covered by Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009, the manufacturer shall fulfil the following obligations:\n(a)\ndraw up and submit to the type-approval authority an information document in accordance with the model set out in Part 1 of Annex II to this Regulation;\n(b)\nsubmit to the type-approval authority a declaration laying down that, according to the manufacturer\u2019s assessment, the vehicle complies with the requirements set out in this Regulation;\n(c)\npresent to the type-approval authority a certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex II to this Regulation;\n(d)\neither\n(i)\nsubmit to the type-approval authority the GSI gear shift points determined analytically as provided for in the last paragraph of point 4.1 to Annex I; or\n(ii)\nsubmit to the technical service responsible for conducting the type-approval tests a vehicle which is representative of the vehicle type to be approved to enable the test described in point 4 of Annex I to be carried out.\n3. Based on the elements provided by the manufacturer under points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 and the results of the type-approval test referred to in point (d) of paragraph 2, the type-approval authority shall assess compliance with the requirements of Annex I.\nIt shall issue an EC type-approval certificate according to the model set out in Part 3 of Annex II to this Regulation for the vehicles covered by Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 only if such compliance is established.\nArticle 5\nMonitoring the effects of legislation\nFor the purpose of monitoring the effects of this Regulation and evaluating the need for further developments, manufacturers and type-approval authorities shall make available to the Commission, upon request, the information set out in Annex II. This information shall be treated in a confidential manner by the Commission and its delegates.\nArticle 6\nAmendments to Directive 2007/46/EC\nAnnexes I, III, IV, VI and XI to Directive 2007/46/EC are amended in accordance with Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 January 2012.", "references": ["86", "26", "93", "48", "18", "41", "8", "49", "88", "72", "87", "0", "16", "77", "50", "31", "66", "82", "36", "25", "60", "22", "24", "70", "7", "56", "39", "6", "97", "95", "No Label", "53", "54", "76", "85"], "gold": ["53", "54", "76", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 11/2012\nof 9 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 January 2012.", "references": ["8", "55", "76", "14", "42", "79", "21", "67", "30", "20", "73", "93", "7", "72", "87", "70", "31", "6", "39", "52", "74", "81", "27", "9", "45", "38", "33", "77", "51", "28", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 710/2012\nof 2 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2012.", "references": ["31", "80", "87", "70", "55", "42", "81", "29", "24", "32", "38", "89", "50", "41", "36", "6", "21", "10", "47", "46", "34", "97", "66", "39", "12", "8", "88", "51", "62", "95", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 September 2010\nconcerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean\n(2010/631/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution, which was subsequently renamed as the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Barcelona Convention\u2019) was concluded on behalf of the European Community by the Council in Decisions 77/585/EEC (1) and 1999/802/EC (2).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 4.3(e) of the Barcelona Convention, the Contracting Parties shall commit themselves to promote the integrated management of the coastal zones, taking into account the protection of areas of ecological and landscape interest and the rational use of natural resources.\n(3)\nThe Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2002, concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe (3), and in particular Chapter V thereof, encourages the implementation by the Member States of integrated coastal zone management in the context of existing conventions with neighbouring countries, including non-Member States, in the same regional sea.\n(4)\nThe European Union promotes integrated management on a larger scale by means of horizontal instruments, including in the field of environmental protection, and by developing a sound scientific base for it, through its research programmes. These activities therefore contribute to integrated coastal zone management.\n(5)\nIntegrated Coastal Zone Management is one component of the EU Integrated Maritime Policy as endorsed by the European Council held in Lisbon on 13 and 14 December 2007 and as also detailed in the Commission Communication \u2018Towards an Integrated Maritime Policy for better governance in the Mediterranean\u2019 and later welcomed by the General Affairs Council in its conclusions on Integrated Maritime Policy of 16 November 2009.\n(6)\nBy Decision 2009/89/EC of 4 December 2008 (4), the Council signed the Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean to the Barcelona Convention (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the ICZM Protocol\u2019) on behalf of the Community, subject to the subsequent conclusion of the ICZM Protocol at a later date.\n(7)\nFollowing the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union notified the Government of Spain as regards the European Union having replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(8)\nThe Mediterranean coastal zones continue to experience severe environmental pressure and degradation of coastal resources. The ICZM Protocol provides a framework to stimulate a more concerted and integrated approach, involving public and private stakeholders including civil society and economic operators. Such an inclusive approach, based on best available scientific observation and knowledge, is required to address these problems more effectively and achieve a more sustainable development of the Mediterranean coastal zones.\n(9)\nThe ICZM Protocol covers a broad range of provisions which will need to be implemented by different levels of administration, having regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.While it is appropriate for the Union to act in support of integrated coastal zone management, bearing in mind, inter alia, the cross-border nature of most environmental problems, the Member States and their relevant competent authorities will be responsible for the design and implementation on the coastal territory of certain detailed measures laid down in the ICZM Protocol, such as the establishment of zones where construction is not allowed.\n(10)\nThe ICZM Protocol should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the ICZM Protocol\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union (5).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to the deposit of the instrument of approval, with the Government of Spain which assumes the function of Depositary, provided for in Article 37 of the ICZM Protocol, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the ICZM Protocol.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nThe date of entry into force of the ICZM Protocol shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2010.", "references": ["19", "54", "0", "24", "75", "43", "73", "94", "23", "92", "85", "2", "38", "3", "63", "27", "31", "10", "25", "71", "51", "26", "61", "18", "47", "82", "66", "93", "33", "30", "No Label", "9", "15", "17", "58", "59"], "gold": ["9", "15", "17", "58", "59"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 81/2011\nof 31 January 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 February 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 February 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 February 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2011.", "references": ["64", "19", "88", "69", "90", "31", "53", "76", "44", "52", "74", "37", "92", "24", "78", "57", "60", "93", "30", "77", "89", "23", "7", "16", "46", "25", "85", "49", "12", "18", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 7 March 2012\non State aid No SA.29041 (C 28/2009, ex N 433/2009) Support measures in favour of Oltchim SA R\u00e2mnicu V\u00e2lcea\n(notified under document C(2012) 1369)\n(Only the Romanian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2013/246/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter: \u2018TFEU\u2019), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the decision by which the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the aid C 28/2009 (ex N 433/2009) (2),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above, and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 17 July 2009 Romania notified two support measures (hereinafter: \u2018the notification\u2019) in favour of Oltchim SA R\u00e2mnicu V\u00e2lcea (hereinafter: \u2018Oltchim\u2019 or \u2018the company\u2019): (i) the conversion of debt towards the public authorities amounting to RON 538 million (approximately EUR 128 million (3)) into equity and (ii) a state guarantee covering 80 % of a commercial loan amounting to EUR 424 million. Romania notified these state support measures for reasons of legal certainty, arguing that they did not involve state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(2)\nPrior to this notification, on 10 April 2008, PCC SE (hereinafter: \u2018PCC\u2019), a company based in Duisburg, Germany, which currently owns a minority stake of 18,31 % in Oltchim, submitted a formal complaint, alleging that the planned debt-to-equity conversion involved incompatible state aid.\n(3)\nFollowing the registration of the complaint, the Commission exchanged correspondence and information with the Romanian authorities, Oltchim and the complainant, and met on several occasions with the Romanian authorities and representatives of Oltchim, on the one hand, and with representatives of the complainant, on the other hand.\n(4)\nOn 15 September 2009 the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU with regard to the notified measures (hereinafter: \u2018the opening decision\u2019). Romania submitted comments on the opening decision on 3 November 2009.\n(5)\nThe opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 29 December 2009 (4). By letters of 21 December 2009, the Commission invited eight companies potentially interested in the proceedings as competitors of Oltchim to submit comments on the opening decision.\n(6)\nThe Commission received comments from five third parties: by letter of 26 January 2010, from Vestolit GmbH & Co. KG (hereinafter: \u2018Vestolit\u2019); by letter of 26 January 2010 from Ineos ChlorVinyls (hereinafter: \u2018Ineos\u2019); by letters of 27 January 2010 and 28 January 2010, from two companies which requested confidentiality as regards their identity (hereinafter: \u2018Anonymous parties I and II\u2019); and by letter of 29 January 2010, from Mr Virgil Bestea, a private individual.\n(7)\nThese comments were transmitted to Romania by letter of 2 March 2010. Romania replied to the above-mentioned third party observations by letter of 8 April 2010.\n(8)\nA sixth third party, Firebird Management LLC (hereinafter: \u2018Firebird\u2019) - an investment fund holding at the time 1,328 % of Oltchim's shares - submitted information and comments by letters of 27 May 2010 and 8 July 2010. Firebird's comments were transmitted to Romania by letters of 25 June 2010 and 27 July 2010 respectively.\n(9)\nPCC, the complainant, submitted information on the case by letters of 6 May 2010, 18 May 2010, 19 May 2010, 28 May 2010, 13 June 2010, 18 June 2010, 22 July 2010, 6 August 2010, 2 September 2010, 18 October 2010, 9 April 2011 and 14 April 2011. Besides these submissions, PCC sent numerous pieces of information related to the case, principally including various newspaper articles and other information, mostly publicly available.\n(10)\nFurthermore, Anonymous parties I and II (which also commented on the opening decision and which requested confidentiality as regards their identity) submitted further information on 21 September 2010, 22 February 2011, 28 February 2011, 26 July 2011 and 28 October 2011.\n(11)\nThe Commission transmitted the comments referred to above in recitals (9) and (10) to Romania, when they contained new information and arguments and were relevant to the current procedure, by letters of 25 June 2010, 2 August 2010, 9 September 2010, 22 September 2010, 20 October 2010 and 23 November 2011.\n(12)\nRomania replied to the additional comments submitted by letters of 30 July 2010, 2 September 2010, 12 October 2010, 26 October 2010, 23 November 2010 and 7 December 2011. It also submitted additional information on the case by letters of 29 March 2011, 14 April 2011, 27 July 2011, 9 September 2011 and 21 September 2011.\n(13)\nFollowing the opening decision, several meetings took place in Brussels between the Commission's departments and the Romanian authorities: on 30 June 2010, 15 July 2010, 19 May 2011 and 12 September 2011. The Commission's departments also met on several occasions with representatives of the complainant PCC.\n(14)\nBy letter dated 22 June 2011, the Romanian authorities withdrew their notification of 17 July 2009 with regard to the state guarantee for the loan of EUR 424 million. They also informed the Commission that they maintained their notification with regard to the debt-to-equity conversion.\n(15)\nOn 10 August 2011 the Romanian Government approved a Memorandum mandating the representatives of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and the Business Environment, AVAS (5) and Oltchim to adopt a private-law convention between AVAS and Oltchim whereby the company would acknowledge interests accruing on the public debt since 1 January 2007.\n(16)\nBy letter of 9 September 2011, the Romanian authorities announced that Oltchim and AVAS intended to conclude the above-mentioned private-law convention, and that AVAS would also convert the interests thus accrued into equity, together with the principal debt.\n(17)\nBy letter of 21 October 2011, Romanian Prime Minister Emil Boc conveyed the Romanian Government's firm commitment to privatise Oltchim in full, including the whole stake accruing to the public authorities after the debt conversion. The privatisation announcement was to be released at the end of March 2012, and the privatisation was to be concluded by the end of May 2012. By letter of 16 February 2012, the new Romanian Prime Minister Mihai-R\u0103zvan Ungureanu re-affirmed these commitments.\n(18)\nRomania submitted additional comments and information by letters of 12 October 2011 and 23 December 2011.\n(19)\nThe letters mentioned in recitals 17 and 18 show that Romania modified the notification of Measure 1 in the sense that the conversion of the debt to the public authorities amounting to RON 538 million was to be followed by the privatisation of the resulting shareholding in Oltchim, and that the conversion has to be assessed in the light of the subsequent privatisation.\nII. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE\nII.1. The company\n(20)\nOltchim is a large Romanian petrochemical manufacturer, producing PVC, caustic soda, chlorine, DOP and polyether polyols. The company's main product is PVC (currently about 37,5 % of its overall production), with an EU market share of 2,1 % in 2008 (6). Oltchim is one of the largest petrochemical companies in Romania and south-east Europe, manufacturing 78 types of 40 base chemical products. The company exports around 80 % of its production inside and outside Europe.\n(21)\nOltchim is the main industrial employer in V\u00e2lcea, a Romanian region assisted under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU. On 15 October 2011 the workforce consisted of 3 470 people (7). Owing to the current difficult financial situation, the company temporarily laid off 1 000 employees in December 2011 and a further 993 employees in January 2012 (8).\n(22)\nThe company started business in 1966, was reorganised in 1990 and was listed on the Romanian Stock Exchange in 1997. The Romanian State (currently via the Ministry of Economy) maintains a controlling stake of 54,8 % in the company. The principal minority shareholder is PCC, which is also the complainant in this procedure and also owns Rokita SA, a Polish competitor of Oltchim, with a stake of 18,31 %. The rest of the company shares are held by Nachbar Services Ltd (14,02 %), various individuals (11,04 %) and other legal entities (1,81 %).\nII.2. Events prior to Romania's Accession to the EU\nII.2.1. The origin of the public debt\n(23)\nOver the period 1992-2008, Oltchim invested a total of approximately EUR 371 million in the modernisation of its production line (of which EUR 118,8 million was invested in 2007/2008). In relation to certain of these investments, Oltchim contracted over the period 1995-2000 a series of 12 commercial loans, totalling approximately DEM 171 million plus USD 60 million. The loans were backed by state guarantees, issued by the Ministry of Finance.\n(24)\nGiven that Oltchim was not able to repay the loans, the banks called on the state guarantees starting from November 1999.\n(25)\nFrom 1999 to 2002, the Ministry of Finance made payments under the called guarantees. It charged substantial interest and penalties on the amounts thus paid on account of the state guarantees triggered between 1999 and 2002, fluctuating between 0,15 % and 0,3 % per day, i.e. 54 %-110 % per year (9).\n(26)\nBy June 2002, Oltchim's accrued debt towards the Ministry of Finance stemming from the state guarantees, plus the interest and penalties applied thereon, amounted to RON 303 million (approximately EUR 72 million). At that date, this amount was transferred from the Ministry of Finance to the Romanian agency entrusted with the recovery of public debt, AVAS (10), and was consolidated in USD so as to preserve the value of the debt in the hyperinflationary environment, the resulting amount being USD 91 million.\n(27)\nIn accordance with Romanian law (GEO 51/1998), AVAS did not have a specific mandate to apply interest and penalties on the public debt that it was entrusted with recovering from the debtor companies.\nII.2.2. The 2003 debt conversion\n(28)\nThe first attempt to privatise the company took place in 2001, when AVAS negotiated and signed with Exall Resources a sale agreement for the state's stake in the company. The sale agreement was cancelled owing to the buyer's inability to fulfil its payment obligations and its failure to guarantee the technological/environmental investments for the company.\n(29)\nThe second attempt to privatise Oltchim was made in October 2003, when the Romanian privatisation agency APAPS published an announcement for the sale of the State's stake. Potential investors were informed that the public debt would be converted into equity, with a view to increasing the attractiveness of the company to potential investors.\n(30)\nHowever, as a potential investor (Rompetrol) and minority shareholders challenged the 2003 debt conversion in the Romanian courts, the privatisation offer was cancelled in early November 2003. Notwithstanding this, in November 2003 the AVAS debt of USD 95 million (i.e. the transferred USD 91 million plus further payments made by the Ministry of Finance in application of the guarantees and transferred to AVAS since June 2002), equal to RON 322 million, was converted into equity by decision of the Oltchim General Meeting of Shareholders (in which the state representatives had majority votes). The public stake in Oltchim thus increased from 53,26 % to 95,73 %.\n(31)\nIn November 2005, a commercial court in V\u00e2lcea annulled the Oltchim General Meeting's decision on the debt conversion, on the ground that the debt conversion had been carried out without allowing the minority shareholders to also participate in the capital increase.\n(32)\nIn June 2006 the Romanian Government issued an Emergency Ordinance (11) mandating the state representatives in the Oltchim General Meeting of Shareholders to vote not to appeal against the court ruling which had annulled the first debt conversion, and to take the necessary steps to reverse the conversion. The court decision annulling the debt conversion became final in August 2006. The share capital decrease effectively took place in November 2007. The debt resulting from the annulment of the debt conversion was re-entered in the accounts at its historical value of USD 95 million, subsequently equalling RON 317 million.\nII.2.3. Further accumulated debt\n(33)\nAfter the first transfer of the debt in June 2002 to AVAS, over the period June 2002 to December 2006 the Ministry of Finance continued to make payments on account of the state guarantees which had been triggered in November 1999. Over the period 2003-2006, while the 2003 debt conversion was still in place, the total sum of extra payments made by the Ministry of Finance on account of the triggered guarantees amounted to RON 191 million. In application of the convention concluded in June 2002 between the Ministry of Finance and AVAS for the transfer of the public debt, the Ministry of Finance also transferred to AVAS, in successive instalments following the actual payments made on account of the guarantees, all these receivables. AVAS also consolidated these receivables in USD, which in 2006 totalled USD 60 million.\n(34)\nThus on 1 January 2007, the date of Romania's accession to the EU, Oltchim's total debt to AVAS amounted to USD 60 million (12).\nII.3. Events after Romania's accession to the EU\nII.3.1. Evolution of the debt\n(35)\nSince 1 January 2007, all payments concerning the external loans have been made by Oltchim. The Ministry of Finance no longer made any additional payment under the state guarantees.\n(36)\nIn November 2007, the amount of the reversal of the debt conversion of USD 95 million was entered into Oltchim's accounts and added to the USD 60 million linked to the further payments, thus resulting in a total public debt of USD 155 million (RON 508 million). This public debt of USD 155 million is indicated in Oltchim's accounts in RON (i.e. RON 508 million). This USD-denominated debt has been reported since then in Oltchim's accounts in RON, and the amount remained unchanged in the Romanian currency because, at every new reporting interval, the company reported in the balance sheet the historical RON value (13), which was always higher than the then-applicable value, as the RON appreciated against the USD over time.\n(37)\nAs an exception to the general rule provided by GEO 51/1998 (see recital (27) above), based on Article 2(2) of Government Emergency Ordinance 45/2006 (hereinafter: \u2018GEO 45/2006\u2019), in 2007 AVAS charged interest amounting to RON 29,9 million, at the one-year LIBOR (14) rate for deposits in USD, for the Oltchim receivables transferred to it by the Ministry of Finance that were the subject of the 2003 debt conversion, for the period 2003-2006.\n(38)\nConsequently, as from November 2007, the total amount owed by Oltchim to AVAS amounted to USD 155 million (RON 508 million) plus RON 29 million, for a total of RON 538 million. In what follows, this Decision will refer to the debt in RON as the notified debt conversion is also denominated in RON.\nII.3.2. The second debt conversion\n(39)\nIn January 2007, the Romanian Parliament validated through Law 30/2007 the GEO 45/2006, which authorised AVAS to reverse the first debt conversion and mandated it to implement a second one, this time also respecting the priority rights of the minority shareholders.\n(40)\nThis second attempt to convert the debt into equity was opposed, however, by the new principal minority shareholder, PCC, which refused to participate in the operation.\n(41)\nPCC had acquired a 1,2 % stake in Oltchim for EUR 7,5 million in May 2007, i.e. after the date when the national court ruling which annulled the first debt conversion became final because neither Oltchim nor the Romanian authorities appealed. When the debt conversion was reversed on the company's accounts, PCC's share of 1,2 % became a share of 12 % (15).\n(42)\nIn April 2008 PCC lodged a complaint with the Commission, alleging that the debt conversion involved incompatible state aid (see recital 2 above).\n(43)\nThe Romanian authorities decided, in order to ensure compliance with Article 108(3) TFEU, to obtain state aid clearance from the Commission prior to carrying out the second debt conversion, and notified the measure.\nII.4. Oltchim's current situation\n(44)\nThe Romanian authorities argue that after the reversal of the 2003 debt conversion in 2006 they tried again to privatise the company with the debt, in 2006 and 2008 respectively. According to the Romanian authorities, no investor was interested in buying on such terms.\n(45)\nMoreover, according to the Romanian authorities, the challenges the company has been facing since 2008 are: (i) the stoppage of supplies of key raw materials from the main supplier Arpechim; (ii) the negative impact on the company\u2019s net asset value caused by the reinstatement of a significant debt after the reversal of the 2003 debt conversion in November 2007; (iii) the undercapitalisation of the company, also due to the debt conversion reversal; and, finally (iv) the effects of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(46)\nFor the financial year 2008, Oltchim made an operating loss of RON 71 million (EUR 17 million), a net loss of RON 226 million (EUR 54 million), and the accumulated losses reached RON 1,367 billion (EUR 325 million). After the closure of the main ethylene supplier Arpechim in November 2008, the company functioned at 45 % of capacity and about one third of the staff was temporarily laid off.\n(47)\nAt the end of 2008, Oltchim's shares held until that time by AVAS were transferred to the Ministry of Economy's portfolio.\n(48)\nIn December 2009 Oltchim purchased the assets (ethylene installation) of its previous supplier Arpechim for EUR [0]-[10] (16) and paid for its stocks/inventories EUR [10]-[20] million. According to the Romanian authorities, the acquisition was financed from customer advance payments. Arpechim restarted operations in May 2011.\n(49)\nOn 31 December 2009, Oltchim's financial accounts for 2009 showed an operating loss of EUR 26 million (RON 109 million), a net loss of EUR 52,4 million (RON 220 million), accumulated losses of EUR 377 million (RON 1,584 billion) and negative own funds in the amount of EUR 112 million (RON 469 million).\n(50)\nOn 31 December 2010, Oltchim's financial accounts showed an operating profit of EUR 56 million, a net profit of EUR 32 million (RON 220 million) and accumulated losses of EUR 383 million. The positive operating and net result was due to the fact that the Arpechim assets purchased for EUR [0]-[10] were revalued at EUR [80]-[100] million, and the difference was entered in the books as \u2018gain from a bargain purchase\u2019.\n(51)\nOn 30 June 2011, Oltchim's six-months financial accounts (17) showed an operating loss of EUR 7,4 million and a net loss of EUR 17,4 million, accumulated losses of EUR 401 million and negative own funds in the amount of EUR 358 million (without taking into account the debt to AVAS).\nIII. THE OPENING DECISION\n(52)\nOn 15 September 2009, the Commission opened a formal investigation into the two support measures in favour of Oltchim notified by Romania in July 2009:\n-\nMeasure 1: a debt conversion for the total value of RON 538 million (approximately EUR 128 million); and\n-\nMeasure 2: a \u2018shareholder guarantee\u2019 covering 80 % of a commercial loan of EUR 424 million for further modernisation investments. (Romania withdrew its notification with regard to Measure 2 by letter of 22 June 2011.)\n(53)\nThe Commission questioned whether, contrary to Romania's arguments, the notified support package conferred an undue advantage on the company and constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(54)\nFurthermore, the opening decision identified as possible further state aid the fact that, since 1 January 2007, the State had not charged interest and/or penalties on the pending public debt (identified as \u2018Measure 3\u2019).\n(55)\nFinally, the Commission doubted that the measures could be found compatible with the TFEU under the relevant state aid rules if found to involve state aid.\nIV. ROMANIA'S COMMENTS ON THE OPENING DECISION\n(56)\nIn their reply to the opening decision, the Romanian authorities maintained that none of the three measures constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, as the behaviour of the Romanian State was consistent with market principles.\n(57)\nIn particular, Romania insisted that the notified measures (the debt conversion and the shareholder guarantee) would have ensured Oltchim's return to profitability by resolving the undercapitalisation issue and by providing the necessary funds for its growth strategy. Moreover, Romania stressed that the Commission had to take account of the dual role of the State as shareholder and creditor to Oltchim.\n(58)\nFinally, Romania maintained that Measure 3 did not constitute state aid as the State's behaviour with regard to the non-enforcement of the past debt strictly related to the planned debt conversion, and that with regard to this debt the Romanian authorities had behaved consistently in line with what a market operator in a similar situation would have chosen to do.\nV. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(59)\nIn its comments on the opening decision, dated 26 January 2010, Vestolit expressed concerns about the state support package notified in July 2009 by Romania. Vestolit considers itself a competitor of Oltchim, as both parties are active in the production of PVC. According to Vestolit, no private investor would have supported an investment programme exclusively geared to the purchase and revamping of the outdated Arpechim ethylene installation.\n(60)\nIn its letter of 21 January 2010, Ineos argued that, based on the information in the opening decision, Oltchim seemed to be a firm in difficulty, and therefore the support measures to be taken by the Romanian State in its favour were unlikely to have been undertaken by a private investor. Ineos also drew attention to the fact that the European PVC market is characterised by significant overcapacity, and therefore any potential aid to one of the market players is likely to be highly distortive.\n(61)\nThe comments submitted by Firebird on 28 May 2010 are of similar content to those presented by the above-mentioned interested parties.\n(62)\nBy letter of 28 January 2010, another competitor of Oltchim, Anonymous party I, also made comments along the same lines as those of Vestolit and Ineos. It also stresses that operating aid cannot be found to be compatible with the TFEU, and there do not seem to be other grounds of compatibility in the case of Oltchim.\n(63)\nBy letter of 27 January 2010, Anonymous party II argued that all the support measures identified in the opening decision constitute incompatible aid. This Anonymous party II also maintained that:\n(a)\nthe state guarantees granted to Oltchim during the period 1995-2000 were still in place after Romania's accession to the EU, namely until 31 October 2009, and therefore should be treated as of the accession date as new aid;\n(b)\nthe difficulties that Oltchim has been facing since the triggering of the state guarantees in November 1999 are due to structural problems of the company (poor management, wrong business strategy choices, the lack of real and effective restructuring);\n(c)\nthe acquisition of Arpechim is against the business interests of Oltchim; this will not generate profit in the future;\n(d)\nthe subsequent payments made by the Ministry of Finance during the period June 2002 to December 2006 on the basis of the triggered state guarantees show that Oltchim was in difficulty throughout that period;\n(e)\nRomania truly attempted to privatise the company only once, in 2001, and the successive \u2018failed\u2019 privatisation attempts of 2003 and 2006 were only a strategy for not enforcing the public debt;\n(f)\nthe business plan underlying the support package as notified in July 2009 was not credible, especially regarding the sensitivity analysis and the expected return on the investment;\n(g)\nthe State would have incurred a substantial loss by supporting such a sizeable investment programme, as the revenues expected from Oltchim's privatisation would not have covered the costs of the support measures;\n(h)\nin view of the fact that the notified measures involved state aid, Romania should have proposed a restructuring plan for Oltchim, allowing an assessment of the compatibility of the aid under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (18).\n(64)\nLater in the course of the procedure, PCC drew the attention of the Commission to the fact that in June 2010 the Romanian environmental protection agency had imposed an environmental fine of EUR 14,34 million on Oltchim for late return of CO2 certificates for the year 2009 (19). In the view of PCC, the possible non-enforcement of the fine involved further state aid to the company. Firebird's letter of 8 July 2010 also raises the issue of the environmental fine.\n(65)\nIn October 2010 and October 2011 PCC also informed the Commission that the state-owned electricity supplier SC Electrica SA (hereinafter: \u2018Electrica\u2019) and other publicly owned creditors (Salrom Exploatarea Minier\u0103 Rm. V\u00e2lcea, a salt solution and limestone supplier; and SC CET Govora SA, a supplier of industrial steam) have substantial rescheduled claims vis-\u00e0-vis Oltchim.\nVI. ROMANIA'S COMMENTS ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF INTERESTED PARTIES\n(66)\nIn its reply of 8 April 2010 to the observations of interested parties, Romania largely refers to the notification and its earlier comments submitted in response to the opening decision.\n(67)\nIn particular, Romania claimed that, contrary to what one of the third parties alleges, the acquisition and revamping of the Arpechim petrochemical assets includes all necessary restructuring and is essential for the long-term viability of the company, and that the operation of the integrated Oltchim-Arpechim petrochemical unit platform can be expected to generate profits.\n(68)\nRomania also repeats its arguments that the actions taken for the enforcement of the receivables against Oltchim did not confer any advantage on Oltchim. Finally, Romania also insisted on its intention to privatise Oltchim.\nVII. WITHDRAWAL OF THE NOTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE GUARANTEE (MEASURE 2)\n(69)\nAccording to Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (20), a Member State may withdraw the notification after the opening of the formal investigation procedure in due time before the Commission has taken a decision on the aid character of the notified measure. In such a case, the Commission will close the procedure with a decision declaring the matter moot.\n(70)\nThe Romanian authorities have withdrawn the notification with respect to the state guarantee (covering 80 % of a loan up to EUR 424 million). Thus, as regards Measure 2, the Commission\u2019s investigation has become moot.\nVIII. ROMANIA'S POSITION AFTER THE WITHDRAWAL OF MEASURE 2\nVIII.1. Modification of measure 1 - Romania's intention to privatise\n(71)\nIn February 2011, a joint EU/International Monetary Fund (hereinafter: \u2018IMF\u2019) precautionary financial assistance programme was requested to support the re-launch of economic growth in Romania with a focus on structural reforms, while improving fiscal sustainability and consolidating financial stability. In May 2011, the Council adopted a decision (21) to make available to Romania precautionary medium-term financial assistance of up to EUR 1,4 billion. In March 2011, the IMF approved a new Precautionary Stand-By Arrangement (22) for Romania. Under this Agreement, the IMF places at Romania's disposal SDR 3 090,6 million (EUR 3,5 billion) of financial assistance for the next two years. The financing is conditional upon Romania meeting a series of targets for reducing budgetary deficit, specified in a Letter of Intent presented by the Romanian authorities and reflected in a Technical Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter: \u2018TmoU\u2019). The TMoU targets include inter alia reductions of payment arrears and losses for publicly owned enterprises. In the Letter of Intent and the TMoU of 2 December 2011 (23), Romania committed to announce the privatisation tender for Oltchim by the end of April 2012.\n(72)\nThis followed several public statements by the Romanian authorities that were made in the course of 2011 declaring the Romanian Government's intention to privatise Oltchim.\n(73)\nRomania also declared its commitment to privatise Oltchim vis-\u00e0-vis the Commission. More specifically, by letter dated 21 October 2011 addressed to Vice-President Joaqu\u00edn Almunia, Romanian Prime Minister Emil Boc declared that Romania was committed to privatising Oltchim fully (including the stake subject to the debt conversion) by May 2012. Following the appointment of a new government in Romania on 9 February 2012, the new Prime Minister, Mihai R\u0103zvan Ungureanu, re-confirmed this commitment by letter dated 16 February 2012.\n(74)\nIn the light of its budgetary constraints, Romania therefore no longer intends to remain the owner of Oltchim and finance the necessary investments through a state guarantee, but seeks to sell its shareholding in Oltchim.\nVIII.2. Developments regarding measure 3 - the interest agreement\n(75)\nBy letter of 9 September 2011 the Romanian authorities informed the Commission that they intended to charge interest on the due AVAS debt amounting to RON 538 million as from 1 January 2007. Romania also explained that this would take place within a debt convention agreement between AVAS and Oltchim whereby the company would accept the interest due. In the same letter the Romanian authorities indicated that the interests thus accrued was also to be converted into equity, along with the main public debt, as notified under measure 1.\n(76)\nBy letter of 23 December 2011, the Romanian authorities provided a copy of the private law agreement concluded on 22 December 2011 between AVAS and Oltchim, whereby the company acknowledged the interest accruing on the public debt from 1 January 2007 until 31 December 2011 amounting to a total of RON 511 million. The Romanian authorities explained that the interest was calculated on a compound basis, using as default interest for the relevant periods the highest of the interest rates charged by the commercial banks for the loans granted effectively to the company since 1 January 2007 and using the applicable Commission reference and discount rates. This approach resulted in the following applicable interest rates and accrued interest on the AVAS debt:\nTable 1\nBreakdown of the interest charged by AVAS for the period 2007-2011\n2007\n2008\n2009\n2010\n2011\nApplicable interest rate\n1.1-30.6 -> 11,17 %\n1.7-31.12 -> 10,24 %\n14,86 %\n18,85 %\n14,00 %\n13,22 %\nInterest amount (rounded to RON million)\n58\n87\n129\n114\n123\nTotal interest on AVAS debt since 2007: RON 511 million\n(77)\nIn the same correspondence, the Romanian authorities also stated that preparations for implementing the AVAS debt conversion amounting to RON 538 million plus the interest accrued thereon were to be launched with a view to complying with the privatisation timeline proposed.\nVIII.3. Romania's arguments in view of the privatisation intention\n(78)\nAs explained above, the Romanian authorities withdrew measure 2 (see section VII above). Following withdrawal of the notification with respect to the state guarantee, the Romanian authorities argued that the current measure 1, i.e. the conversion into equity of the AVAS debt amounting to RON 538 million plus the interest accruing on the AVAS debt from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2011, amounting to an additional sum of RON 511 million, did not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. Romania argued that the measure would be in keeping with the market and as such would not confer an advantage on Oltchim. More specifically, the Romanian authorities argued that the creditor AVAS was better off by converting the entire debt into equity and selling its entire stake in the company in the short term than by enforcing the debt, as the market value of the resulting stake of AVAS in the company following the debt conversion was higher than the sum that AVAS would obtain from the liquidation of the company.\n(79)\nRomania submitted a consultancy report prepared by Raiffeisen Capital & Investment SA (hereinafter: \u2018the consultancy report\u2019) in order to demonstrate that the state\u2019s best strategy for maximising its return was to perform the debt-to-equity debt conversion followed by the short-term sale of combined packages of shares.\n(80)\nThe consultancy report examines, on the one hand, the value of the AVAS claim in a liquidation scenario and, on the other hand, its value in a debt conversion + privatisation scenario.\n(81)\nThe liquidation assessment is based on two liquidation reports (a previous Raiffeisen liquidation report dating from February 2011, and a liquidation report by the independent consultancy Romcontrol SA Bucharest, dated March 2011). The outcome for the State in a debt conversion + privatisation scenario was estimated on the basis of the enterprise value method, which is one of the fundamental metrics used in business valuation. (A detailed description of the methodologies used and the outcome of the evaluation, as well as its critical assessment by the Commission, are to be found in section IX.3.3 below.)\n(82)\nThe report concludes that converting its total debt into equity would allow for a smoother and faster privatisation process for the company, and that the financial outcome of this option is superior to the choice of liquidation for AVAS.\nIX. ASSESSMENT\nIX.1. General\n(83)\nIn order to ascertain whether the measures under scrutiny constitute state aid, the Commission has to assess whether they fulfil the cumulative conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU. That provision states that \u2018[s]ave as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(84)\nThe Commission notes that, in the light of the withdrawal of the notification with regard to measure 2 (see section VII above), the following assessment concerns measures 1 and 3 only. Measure 1 has been modified, as Romania has linked the conversion of the debt into equity to the privatisation of Oltchim. The assessment of that latter measure is therefore carried out on the assumption that the equity stake which AVAS will hold after the conversion will immediately be sold to a private investor in a fair, open and transparent sales process, which aims at maximising the revenues for AVAS.\n(85)\nFurthermore, the Commission considers that the issue of whether the creditor AVAS conferred any undue advantage to Oltchim in the way it treated the debt after 1 January 2007 has to be assessed in the context of GEO 51/1998 (see recital (27) above) and Law 30/2007 mandating AVAS to re-perform the debt conversion, of the notification of the debt conversion to the Commission - identified as measure 1 in the opening decision - and of the modification of measure 1 as a consequence of the doubts raised by the Commission and the constraints resulting from the EU/IMF programme.\n(86)\nMoreover, the Commission notes that the intention to privatise the company in full by the end of May 2012, as communicated by the Romanian authorities in their letter of 21 October 2011 and re-confirmed in the letter from Prime Minister Ungureanu of 16 February 2012, is considered to be an integral part of measure 1.\n(87)\nWith regard to the environmental fine on the one hand, and the company's pending debts towards Electrica SA, Salrom Exploatarea Minier\u0103 Rm. V\u00e2lcea, and SC CET Govora SA, on the other, the Commission notes that those alleged measures were not part of the opening decision. Therefore, they cannot form part of the present Decision. The Commission will inform the complainant in due time of the further course of action with regard to those allegations on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.\nIX.2. Competence of the Commission prior to accession\n(88)\nAs indicated in section V above, Anonymous Party II argued that some of the state guarantees granted to Oltchim during the period 1995-2000 were still in place after Romania's accession to the EU, namely until 31 October 2009, and therefore should be treated as of the accession date as new aid. The Commission must therefore assess the validity of that argument and its possible implications for the assessment of the notified measure.\n(89)\nAs a general rule, Article 107(1) TFEU is applicable only as of the date of accession onwards. An exception to that general rule is that of measures that were put into effect before accession and which continue to be applicable afterwards. Under the 2005 Accession Treaty between Romania and the EU (24), measures put into effect in Romania before the accession date which are still applicable after the date of accession (1 January 2007), which might constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and do not qualify as existing aid for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (25), are to be considered potential new aid starting from the accession date for the purposes of applying Article 108(3) TFEU.\n(90)\nPoint 2.1 of the second paragraph of Annex V to the 2005 Accession Act of Bulgaria and Romania (26), based on Article 22 of the same Accession Act, stipulates that \u2018all aid measures still applicable after the date of accession which constitute state aid and which do not fulfil the conditions set out above shall be considered as new aid upon accession for the purposes of the application of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty\u2019.\n(91)\nThe above-mentioned provision thus covers measures put into effect before the accession date (1 January 2007) which are still applicable after that date. The notion of \u2018applicable after the accession date\u2019 has been defined in a series of Commission decisions (27) as covering schemes and individual measures that are either not limited in time or where the exact liability of the State is not exactly delimited - in other words, cases where the exact exposure of the State is still not known on the date of accession. In the light of the above considerations, it must be determined whether the state guarantees issued in favour of Oltchim throughout the period 1995-2000 were \u2018applicable after accession\u2019 in the sense that has been defined in the above-mentioned case practice. To that end, it must be verified whether a situation obtained in which the state guarantees were either not limited in time or where the exact exposure of the State was not known before the date of accession.\n(92)\nHaving examined the terms and conditions under which the state guarantees in question were issued, the Commission notes that they represented separate and individual, one-off measures, whereby the State backed up the company for taking out specified loans of determined amounts and determined duration. The date until which the guarantees were valid was established when they were issued, as the guarantees stipulated a validity period up to the expiry of the underlying loans, which was precisely defined in the underlying loans. That validity period was not modified afterwards. Therefore, upon accession their validity in time was indeed limited, and had been established at a date prior to accession, namely when the loan agreement was concluded. The Commission must therefore take note that the first of the situations in which a given measure will qualify as \u2018new aid\u2019 as of the accession date onwards, namely its lack of limitation in time upon the accession date, is not satisfied in the present case.\n(93)\nSecondly, the maximum liability of the State was delimited at the moment in time at which the guarantees were granted, as the guarantees cover only the specific loan for which they are granted. Therefore, it must also be concluded that the second case of \u2018applicability after accession\u2019, namely unknown exposure of the State as of the accession date onwards, is not applicable.\n(94)\nIn addition, the Commission also observes that the state guarantees were triggered before the accession date. From the date of their triggering, the State became liable for the repayment of the outstanding amount of the loans that were taken with their back-up, and indeed, it subrogated itself into the obligations of the company for the repayment of the loans in question, becoming consequently a creditor of Oltchim for the amounts paid on account of the guarantees. As indicated in Section II.2 above, the payments made on account of the triggered guarantees lasted until 2006. No further payments were made on this account as of the accession date onwards, as Oltchim was able to service the still-outstanding part of the loans.\n(95)\nIt is therefore to be concluded that the state guarantees granted to Oltchim during the period 1995-2000 cannot be qualified as new aid within the meaning of point 2.1 of the second paragraph of Annex V to the 2005 Accession Act of Bulgaria and Romania.\nIX.3. Existence of aid: Advantage\nIX.3.1. The private creditor test\n(96)\nRomania argues that the notified measure, consisting of converting RON 1 049 million of public debt into equity with a view to selling the total resulting public stake shortly afterwards (by the end of May 2012) does not confer any undue advantage on the company, because any private creditor in a situation similar to the one of the public creditor AVAS would have chosen that method of debt recovery rather than the liquidation of the company, which is financially less advantageous for the public creditor.\n(97)\nIn order to determine whether the notified measure confers an undue advantage on Oltchim, the Commission should assess whether the public creditor AVAS pursued the recovery of the public debt with the same diligence as a private creditor seeking to maximise recovery of the debt owed to it (28). That perspective takes into account the fact that, with the transfer of the public debt to AVAS, recovery of the debt is pursued by an institution that has no other relationship with the company but the one of a creditor with its debtor. The assessment does not disregard the fact that the Ministry of Economy is the public shareholder of Oltchim, but it takes into account that the public shareholder does not have a role to play with respect to the recovery of the public debt, which is entrusted to the creditor AVAS. The Commission notes, however, that the effects of the debt conversion followed by privatisation for the current shareholder, i.e. the Ministry of Economy, must also be assessed in order to reach a conclusion on whether the proposed debt conversion followed by privatisation is a better financial solution for the State than wholly liquidating the company.\nIX.3.2. Recovery of the public debt - Assessment of measure 3\n(98)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission considered that an additional element of state aid could stem from the fact that the State has not charged any interest and/or late payment penalties on Oltchim's overdue public debt after Romania's accession to the EU. That public debt resulted from the triggering of the state guarantees (see description above in recitals 23-27 and assessment of the state guarantees above in recitals 88-95). In the opening decision, the Commission took the view that the failure to accrue interest or enforce the public debt conferred an advantage on Oltchim, given that the company enjoyed capital free of charge.\n(99)\nIn order to assess whether Romania behaved like a private creditor with regard to the outstanding debt resulting from the triggering of the state guarantees, it is necessary to assess the behaviour of the Romanian State over the period from 2007 until today, based on the information available to the Romanian authorities at the relevant points in time.\n(100)\nThe Commission first of all notes that the fact of not charging interest and penalties as of 2007 and until the modification of the notification of measure 1 results from GEO 51/1998 (see recital (27)). It also has to be seen against the background of Law 30/2007, mandating AVAS to re-perform the debt conversion. At the time the Romanian authorities were considering a continuation of Oltchim's activities and planning further investments rather than its liquidation.\n(101)\nTherefore, the Commission first of all needs to ascertain whether Romania, by deciding in 2007 to carry out the debt-for-equity swap, rather than seeking the enforcement of the debt and/or liquidation of the company, behaved like a private creditor. In that regard, the Commission notes that Romania had pursued the strategy of a debt-to-equity conversion with a view to continuing Oltchim's activities since the first (failed) attempt to do so in 2003. The behaviour of the Romanian authorities in that regard was therefore consistent with their prior behaviour. Reactions from the market to previous privatisation attempts, as well as the court actions of minority shareholders, showed that the market believed in the fundamental viability of Oltchim's business.\n(102)\nFurthermore, the Commission notes that Romania had at its disposal also a business plan (29) for Oltchim which indicated that the company was viable.\n(103)\nIn the light of those elements, the Commission considers that it was not unreasonable for Romania, in its role as creditor, to decide to perform the debt to equity conversion and to pass a law along those lines that did not envisage charging interest and penalties on the outstanding debt, as that debt was to be in any event converted into equity.\n(104)\nThat analysis is not contradicted by the fact that Romania, prior to carrying out the debt-for-equity swap, sought state aid clearance. Indeed, by doing so, Romania merely fulfilled its obligations under Article 108(3) TFEU. Given the difficulties Romania had encountered with minority shareholders before, and kept encountering for the application of Law 30/2007, it made perfect sense to seek confirmation from the Commission that the planned operation did not amount to state aid.\n(105)\nDue to the state aid assessment and the application of the standstill obligation, the debt-for-equity swap was eventually delayed by five years. In that regard, the Commission observes first of all that, up to mid-2011, Romania had the firm intention of pursuing an expansive investment strategy with regard to Oltchim, which was explored by a number of expert studies (30). It would have been against the State's strategy of making further investments in order to return the company to profitability and increase its value with a view to privatising in the medium-to-longterm to charge at the same time interest on the pending public debt.\n(106)\nAs a result of the doubts the Commission had raised with regards to the expansive investment strategy in its opening decision and, more importantly, as a result of the budgetary problems and the EU/IMF programme, Romania changed its strategy in 2011 and decided to privatise the company immediately after the debt-for-equity swap. It thereby abandoned the initial plans to make further investments of EUR 424 million before privatising.\n(107)\nIn the new context, the charging of interest on the debt became a sensible strategy for the State in order to maximise the recovery of the debt owed to it.\n(108)\nAs outlined in recitals 75-77 above, further compound interest was charged on the public debt, corresponding to the period 1 January 2007 onwards, by means of a private agreement concluded in December 2011 between Oltchim and AVAS. In particular, the interest rates that were applied on the public debt corresponded to whatever were the higher: the Commission reference rates relevant for each period or the interest rates applied for private loans of the company for the same period which can be considered adequate.\n(109)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that Oltchim did not derive an advantage from the way in which the public authorities pursued, after accession, the recovery of the public debt to be now converted into equity.\nIX.3.3. The debt conversion - measure 1\n(110)\nThe Commission must also assess whether measure 1, consisting (following modification of the notification - see recitals 14-16, 69-70 and 75-77 above) of converting into equity a total of RON 1 049 million of public debt, to be followed shortly by full sale of the resulting public stake (privatisation), confers any undue advantage on Oltchim. The total public debt to be converted into equity includes the main public debt, held by the privatisation agency AVAS, of RON 538 million, and the interest accruing on the AVAS debt from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2011, of RON 511 million.\n(111)\nIn order to assess whether the proposed debt conversion involves any undue advantage for Oltchim, it should be determined whether the debt conversion is indeed the best mechanism for maximising recovery of the public debt, as Romania argues. In practice, the Commission needs to determine whether a hypothetical private creditor in a situation comparable to the one of the privatisation agency AVAS, which is the creditor of Oltchim, would have indeed preferred that mechanism of recovering the debt to other recovery alternatives available, considering the fact that the debtor is facing serious financial difficulties. The Ministry of Economy, the current shareholder of Oltchim, does not have any role to play with respect to the recovery of the public debt, but nevertheless the outcomes of the two possible scenarios for the public shareholder are also taken into account in the analysis below.\n(112)\nRomania argues that, considering the current situation of the company (serious undercapitalisation and excessive indebtedness), the only realistic options that a private creditor in a situation comparable to the one of the public creditor AVAS would have are either (i) to liquidate the company, or (ii) to convert the debt into equity and subsequently sell the entire resulting stake in the company. Any private creditor faced with such choices would prefer the one that maximises recovery of the pending debt. In other words, the creditor would choose the \u2027debt conversion followed by privatisation\u2027 option if the return expected from privatisation exceeded the amount that could be recovered through liquidation.\n(113)\nIn order to demonstrate that the debt conversion followed by a sale of the resulting stake brings more revenues to the creditor than liquidation, Romania submitted a report by an independent consultancy (see recitals 78-82 above) which compares the outcomes for the creditor of the two scenarios, i.e. debt conversion followed by privatisation and liquidation respectively.\n(114)\nThe Commission has critically assessed the report, in order to verify whether its results withstand scrutiny and demonstrate indeed that, by converting its debt into equity, AVAS behaves like a private creditor. Having scrutinised the report, the Commission observes the following:\n(115)\nValue of the AVAS claim in a liquidation scenario: The liquidation assessment is based on a previous Raiffeisen liquidation report dating from February 2011, and on a liquidation report by the independent consultancy Romcontrol SA Bucharest, dated March 2011.\n(116)\nUnder Romanian law, companies in which the State holds a stake of at least 50 % + 1 are liquidated under the so-called \u2027special voluntary liquidation procedure\u2027 established by Government Emergency Order 88/1997, Government Decision 577/2002 and Law 137/2002. Under that special voluntary liquidation procedure, the amount obtained by the liquidator from the sale of the company's assets is to be used for covering the company's outstanding debts following the same order of preference as established by Law 85/2006 (the Romanian insolvency law). Accordingly, liquidation proceeds must be used for covering debts in the following order of preference: 1) liquidation costs; 2) salaries owed; 3) privileged debt (i.e. debt secured with pledges, mortgages and other special privileges); 4) budgetary debt (taxes and other fiscal obligations); 5) debt to the Ministry of Finance on account of triggered state guarantees; 6) debt from public loans; 7) ordinary (non-secured) debt; 8) shareholders. In the present case, AVAS would be within the third category of creditors (privileged creditors), yet ranking after several (private) privileged creditors of Oltchim, as the public debt was only partially secured.\n(117)\nThe consultancy Romcontrol estimated the liquidation value of Oltchim's assets as of 15 December 2010, relying on the net adjusted asset method, which takes into account the limited time of exposure on the market of the assets put up for sale (31).\n(118)\nOn the basis of the results of the liquidation value of assets as estimated by Romcontrol, Raiffeisen estimated the outcome for the creditor AVAS and for the State as shareholder, by taking into account the company's liabilities as of 31 December 2010 and its preliminary financial statements of the same date (\"the February 2011 Raiffeisen liquidation study\"). That study estimates that the proceeds to be obtained from the sale of Oltchim's assets would allow for recovery of approximately [20]-[30]% of the company's total liabilities. The creditor AVAS, as a partially guaranteed creditor, would have recovered around RON [80]-[100] million (which represents [10]-[30]% of the then total claim of RON 538 million). Given the negative gap between the liquidation proceeds and the company's liabilities, the State in its capacity as shareholder would not collect anything.\n(119)\nIn October 2011, Raiffeisen updated the estimates of the February 2011 liquidation study to take into account the 30 June 2011 financial data of the company and to include the interest charged on the public debt as of January 2007 onwards.\n(120)\nAccording to the updated estimate AVAS, being a partially guaranteed creditor of Oltchim, would collect RON [100]-120] million of its total debt towards the company (which represents [10]-[20] (32) of the total claim, i.e. the principal debt of RON 538 million plus interest). The Ministry of Economy, the public shareholder, would again collect nothing. The sum to be obtained by AVAS was subsequently discounted (33) to its present value on 30 June 2011. As a result, AVAS would collect EUR [10]-[40] million in the event of the liquidation of the company.\nTable 2\nCollection of the State's claim in a liquidation scenario\nClaim\n(million EUR)\nCollection total\n(million EUR)\nCollection NPV at 10,7 %\n(million EUR)\nAVAS (Creditor)\n209,4\n[20]-[30]\n[10]-[30]\nMinistry of Economy (shareholder)\nShareholding\n[0]-[10]\n[0]-[10]\nState total\n[20]-[30]\n[10]-[30]\n(121)\nThat amount must then be compared with the expected return of converting AVAS' claim into equity, followed by a privatisation of the company.\n(122)\nValue of the AVAS claim in a debt conversion + privatisation scenario: in the report, the outcome for the State in a debt conversion + privatisation scenario was estimated on the basis of the enterprise value (hereinafter: \u2018EV\u2019) method, which is one of the fundamental metrics used in business valuation.\n(123)\nWith respect to the use of that method, the Commission notes that, in principle, there are several methods for estimating the value of the equity of an undertaking.\n(124)\nOne of the methods often used is that of the multiple of the EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation). It allows the value of the equity of an undertaking for year X to be assessed by multiplying the EBITDA of year X by a factor (the multiple) considered to be appropriate for the sector and subtracting the net debt from the result.\n(125)\nAnother method is discounted cash flow analysis. The undertaking\u2019s nominal free cash flows for the coming years are discounted at the weighted average cost of capital, or WACC (34), and the net debt is subtracted from the value obtained.\n(126)\nA third method is that of the multiple of turnover. It allows the value of an undertaking\u2019s equity in year X to be assessed by multiplying the turnover of year X by a factor (the multiple) considered to be appropriate for the sector and subtracting the net debt from the result.\n(127)\nAll these methods (future EBITDA, cash flow or turnover) use projected values. In the case at hand not all estimation methods that are based on projected values in a business plan can be used meaningfully. Given the envisaged immediate privatisation of the company, only the new owner will be in a position to determine the company's future business strategy, and therefore the relevant business plan projections necessary for using these methods are not available, nor can they be anticipated (35). As the new owner will have to undertake significant investments, nor can past results of the company be used to make predictions for the future.\n(128)\nUnder those circumstances, the Commission takes the view that the only two methods available for estimating the value of the combined stake of the Romanian State, i.e. AVAS and the Ministry of Economy, are market capitalisation and the EV. It has to be noted that EV also includes the parameters used for market capitalisation.\n(129)\nMarket capitalisation is defined as the share price multiplied by the number of shares in issue, providing a total value for the company's shares outstanding. This metric represents the public consensus on the value of a company's equity and could be used as a proxy for the public opinion of a company's net worth.\n(130)\nOltchim's market capitalisation was calculated on the basis of its share price observed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange (36) over a period of 44 months (2008-August 2011). That interval is sufficiently long to be relevant and the market capitalisation over that period is also a good indication of what the market is prepared to pay for the company.\n(131)\nIn that context, the Commission notes, as a positive aspect, the fact that the share price, during the recent period May-August 2011, was always higher than its 44 months average. More precisely, whereas the 44 months weighted average is RON 0,53 per share, the share price even reached RON 2,05 in July 2011 (37). Thus, the data used for establishing the market value can be considered to be conservative.\n(132)\nFurthermore, with regard to the share price development since September 2011 (the last data range used by the Raiffeisen study), the Commission notes, as a positive aspect, that, in the recent past (since mid-October 2011), the share price has risen significantly and has been constantly higher than the weighted average of RON 0,53 used in the market capitalisation formula.\nFigure 1\nOltchim's share price development on the Bucharest Stock Exchange 23.2.2011-23.2.2012\n(133)\nBefore the planned debt conversion, Oltchim's market capitalisation in the observed period (January 2008-August 2011) was on weighted average (38) EUR 45 million and in the last three months of the observed period (June-August 2011) it was constantly over EUR 100 million. The market capitalisation therefore clearly exceeds the liquidation value of Oltchim (EUR [10]-[40] million), which provides a first indication that selling the State's stake in a privatisation would be preferable to liquidating the company.\n(134)\nThe second method that can be used is the Enterprise Value (EV). EV is a measure of a company's value which is often used as an alternative to straightforward market capitalisation, because it is considered to provide a more accurate representation of the firm's value. EV is defined as the sum of the market capitalisation of a company and its net financial debt. That method was used by Raiffeisen Capital.\n(135)\nFollowing the calculation of the market capitalisation, the other element in the EV formula, the net debt, was computed as the sum of all financial debts of the company (all interest-bearing debts of the company - namely, bank loans and overdue/rescheduled liabilities) (39).\n(136)\nAs a next step, it is then possible to calculate the median, average and weighted average of the EV and EV/share over the 44-month period. The report did so for two scenarios: with the interest charged on the debt under the agreement, and without it.\n(137)\nOn that point, the Commission is of the view that the interest charged under the agreement should not be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the enterprise value (EV) for the following reasons: ceteris paribus, if debt increases, equity goes down. Those two effects go in opposite directions and should in principle bring no change to the EV. If the market knew about the interest, it would price the shares downward accordingly. However, in the current case the interest amount was added ex post and not anticipated by the market. Therefore, the contemporaneous information held by the market at the moment of the valuation is relevant.\n(138)\nAgainst those considerations, the following EV/share values have been calculated for the observed period.\nTable 3\nCalculation of Oltchim's EV/share value in the observed period\nPeriod\nNumber of shares\nAverage share price\nMarket capitalisation (share price x number of shares)\nNet debt\nin RON thou\nEnterprise value (market capitalisation plus net debt)\nin RON thou\nEnterprise value per share\nJan. -08\n343 023 858\n1,10\n378\n[1 200]-[1 400]\n[1 700]-[1 800]\n[4]-[6]\nFeb. -08\n343 023 858\n0,91\n314\n[1 200]-[1 400]\n[1 600]-[1 700]\n[4]-[6]\nMar. -08\n343 023 858\n0,81\n279\n[1 200]-[1 400]\n[1 600]-[1 700]\n[4]-[6]\nApr. -08\n343 023 858\n0,87\n300\n[1 200]-[1 400]\n[1 600]-[1 700]\n[4]-[6]\nMay -08\n343 023 858\n1,04\n358\n[1 300]-[1 500]\n[1 700]-[1 800]\n[4]-[6]\nJun. -08\n343 023 858\n0,96\n330\n[1 300]-[1 500]\n[1 700]-[1 800]\n[4]-[6]\nJul. -08\n343 023 858\n0,72\n247\n[1 300]-[1 500]\n[1 600]-[1 700]\n[4]-[6]\nAug. -08\n343 023 858\n0,63\n216\n[1 300]-[1 500]\n[1 600]-[1 700]\n[4]-[6]\nSep. -08\n343 023 858\n0,47\n160\n[1 300]-[1 500]\n[1 500]-[1 600]\n[4]-[6]\nOct. -08\n343 023 858\n0,37\n127\n[1 300]-[1 500]\n[1 500]-[1 600]\n[4]-[6]\nNov. -08\n343 023 858\n0,21\n71\n[1 200]-[1 400]\n]1 400]-[1 500]\n[4]-[6]\nDec. 08\n343 023 858\n0,16\n54\n[1 400]-[1 600]\n[1 400]-[1 500]\n[4]-[6]\nJan. -09\n343 023 858\n0,15\n51\n[1 400]-[1 600]\n[1 600]-[1 700]\n[4]-[6]\nFeb. -09\n343 023 858\n0,13\n45\n[1 400]-[1 600]\n[1 600]-[1 700]\n[4]-[6]\nMar. -09\n343 023 858\n0,15\n53\n[1 400]-[1 600]\n[1 600]-[1 700]\n[4]-[6]\nApr. -09\n343 023 858\n0,25\n84\n[1 400]-[1 600]\n[1 600]-[1 700]\n[4]-[6]\nMay -09\n343 023 858\n0,27\n93\n[1 400]-[1 600]\n[1 600]-[1 700]\n[4]-[6]\nJun. -09\n343 023 858\n0,30\n104\n[1 400]-[1 600]\n[1 700]-[1 800]\n[4]-[6]\nJul -09\n343 023 858\n0,33\n113\n[1 400]-[1 600]\n[1 700]-[1 800]\n[4]-[6]\nAug. -09\n343 023 858\n0,32\n109\n[1 600]-[1 800]\n[1 700]-[1 800]\n[4]-[6]\nSep. -09\n343 023 858\n0,28\n96\n[1 600]-[1 800]\n[1 700]-[1 800]\n[4]-[6]\nOct. -09\n343 023 858\n0,27\n91\n[1 600]-[1 800]\n[1 700]-[1 800]\n[4]-[6]\nNov. -09\n343 023 858\n0,23\n79\n[1 600]-[1 800]\n[1 700]-[1 800]\n[4]-[6]\nDec. -09\n343 023 858\n0,26\n89\n[1 600]-[1 800]\n[1 700]-[1 800]\n[4]-[6]\nJan. -10\n343 023 858\n0,23\n79\n[1 600]-[1 800]\n[1 700]-[1 800]\n[4]-[6]\nFeb. -10\n343 023 858\n0,22\n77\n[1 600]-[1 800]\n[1 700]-[1 800]\n[4]-[6]\nMar. -10\n343 023 858\n0,27\n92\n[1 600]-[1 800]\n[1 700]-[1 800]\n[4]-[6]\nApr. -10\n343 023 858\n0,31\n105\n[1 600]-[1 800]\n[1 800]-[1 900]\n[4]-[6]\nMay -10\n343 023 858\n0,22\n76\n[1 600]-[1 800]\n[1 800]-[1 900]\n[4]-[6]\nJun. -10\n343 023 858\n0,21\n71\n[1 700]-[1 900]\n[1 900]-[2 000]\n[4]-[6]\nJul. -10\n343 023 858\n0,18\n62\n[1 700]-[1 900]\n[1 900]-[2 000]\n[4]-[6]\nAug. -10\n343 023 858\n0,19\n64\n[1 700]-[1 900]\n[1 900]-[2 000]\n[4]-[6]\nApr. -10\n343 023 858\n0,19\n66\n[1 700]-[1 900]\n[1 900]-[2 000]\n[4]-[6]\nOct. -10\n343 023 858\n0,22\n76\n[1 700]-[1 900]\n[1 900]-[2 000]\n[4]-[6]\nNov. -10\n343 023 858\n0,22\n75\n[1 800]-[2 000]\n[2 000]-[2 100]\n[4]-[6]\nDec. -10\n343 023 858\n0,20\n69\n[1 800]-[2 000]\n[2 000]-[2 100]\n[5]-[7]\nIan. -11\n343 023 858\n0,21\n74\n[1 800]-[2 000]\n[2 000]-[2 100]\n[5]-[7]\nFeb. -11\n343 023 858\n0,26\n88\n[1 800]-[2 000]\n[2 000]-[2 100]\n[5]-[7]\nMar. -11\n343 023 858\n0,30\n102\n[1 800]-[2 000]\n[2 000]-[2 100]\n[5]-[7]\nApr. -11\n343 023 858\n0,44\n152\n[2 000]-[2 200]\n[2 100]-[2 200]\n[5]-[7]\nMay -11\n343 211 383\n0,77\n265\n[2 000]-[2 200]\n[2 300]-[2 400]\n[5]-[7]\nJun. -11\n343 211 383\n1,61\n551\n[2 000]-[2 200]\n[2 600]-[2 700]\n[6]-[8]\nJul. -11\n343 211 383\n2,05\n702\n[2 000]-[2 200]\n[2 800]-[2 900]\n[6]-[8]\nAug. -11\n343 211 383\n1,32\n452\n[2 000]-[2 200]\n[2 600]-[2 700]\n[6]-[8]\n(139)\nOn the basis of this table, the median, average and weighted average of EV per share was calculated.\nTable 4\nOltchim's median, average and weighted average of EV per share\nShare price\nEnterprise value per share\nMedian\n[0,10]-[0,30]\n[4]-[6]\nAverage\n[0,30]-[0,50]\n[4]-[6]\nWeighted average\n[0,40]-[0,60]\n[4]-[6]\n(140)\nThe EV (median, average, weighted average) calculated as explained above can then be used for determining the value of the State's share \u2018post debt conversion\u2019 by deducting from this EV the company's debt that remains pending after the conversion; this will remain a liability of the company which has to be serviced.\n(141)\nThe result is the market value of total equity as shown in Table 5.\nTable 5\nCalculation of market value of equity based on the EV method\nCalculation of the market value of total equity after the debt conversion\nScenarios\nEV based on 44 months\u2019 median share price\nEV based on 44 months\u2019 average share price\nEV based on 44 months\u2019 weighted average share price\nEV/share (RON)\n[4]-[6]\n[4]-[6]\n[4]-[6]\nNumber of shares before conversion\n343 211 383\n343 211 383\n343 211 383\nEnterprise value (RON million)\n[1 700]-[1 800]\n[1 800]-[1 900]\n[2 000]-[2 100]\nNet debt after debt conversion (RON million)\n[1 600]-[1 700]\n[1 600]-[1 700]\n[1 600]-[1 700]\nMarket value of equity (RON million)\n[100]-[200]\n[200]-[300]\n[400]-[500]\nMarket value of equity (EUR million)\n[20]-[30]\n[50]-[60]\n[90]-[100]\n(142)\nWith respect to the net financial debt used in the above-described calculation, both steps of the calculation, viz. (i) the calculation of the EV formula and (ii) the subsequent subtraction in order to arrive at the market value of equity, should in principle be based on the market value of the company's debt.\n(143)\nHowever, the Commission notes first that, since Oltchim's debt is not traded and in the absence of a local market for debt trading, it is very difficult to establish a market price for that debt. Instead, one could theoretically determine the market value of the debt by establishing the rating of the company pre- and post-debt conversion. That rating could then be used to estimate the probability of default which in turn can be used to estimate the market value of debt. In the absence of such ratings, the Commission considered that such an exercise is not possible, and that the errors generated by the use of a poorly estimated market value would be significant.\n(144)\nSecond, if one assumed that the net debt was traded at the same discount to its book value before and after the swap, then the results of the calculation consequently do not change at all, irrespective of the size of the discount. Any change in the value of the net financial debt would then lead to a proportionate change, of opposite sign, in the value of the market capitalisation. The impact of adding either the book value of debt or its market value is neutral, as the value of debt is first added to obtain EV and then subtracted to obtain the new equity value of shares.\n(145)\nThird, assuming that the debt remaining after the conversion is traded at a different discount than before the conversion, a meaningful calculation would need to take into account the fact that after the debt-for-equity swap the market value of the remaining debt would probably still be lower than its book value, but at any rate higher than the market value of the debt pre-swap. In the absence of a basis to establish those discounts, it is, however, not possible to simulate the effects of a change in those discounts, as too many parameters would need to be varied at the same time.\n(146)\nOn the other hand, the Commission notes that Oltchim's financial statements have been prepared in accordance with IFRS standards and audited by the independent auditor KPMG. In those financial statements, financial liabilities are presented at their fair value according to the stipulations of IAS 39. IAS 39 defines fair value as the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties in normal conditions of competition. On that basis, KPMG certified that the fair value of the company\u2019s long-term debt was not significantly different from its book value.\n(147)\nOn the basis of the above considerations, the Commission is of the view that it is indeed appropriate to use the book value of the debt in order to calculate the market value of the equity.\n(148)\nHowever, in order to verify the robustness of the calculation, the Commission, in addition, carried out a sensitivity analysis, i.e. it determined the percentage difference between the book value and market value of the net debt pre-conversion which would equalise the present value of the State's stake post-conversion and the liquidation value, assuming that the market value of the debt will correspond to its book value following the debt-to-equity conversion. That percentage value can be considered a kind of \u2018margin of error\u2019 for the estimation of the market value of the debt.\n(149)\nThe Commission is of the view that, of all scenarios (EV based on median, average, weighted average), the weighted average represents the most accurate scenario, as in that case the values are weighted by traded share volumes. For that scenario, the above-mentioned margin is 15 %. The Commission concludes that a margin of that size is sufficiently large to lead one to consider that the EV calculation is based on solid data.\n(150)\nSubsequently, once the market value of the equity has been calculated, one can calculate the value of the State's resulting stake from that market value of total equity based on the public shareholding, which will be as follows after the debt conversion (40):\nTable 6\nThe Romanian State's shareholding in Oltchim before and after the planned debt conversion\nShareholding before debt conversion\nShareholding after debt conversion\nAVAS debt plus interest thereon is debt converted\nAVAS\n0 %\n[80]-[100]%\nMinistry of Economy\n54,81 %\n[0]-[5]%\nState total\n54,81 %\n[80]-[100]%\n(151)\nAs a result, after converting the AVAS main debt plus interest charged under the agreement, Oltchim will have a market value of equity ranging between EUR [20]-[30] and [90]-[100] million, which will lead to a present value (41) of the combined public stake ([80]-[100]%) of between EUR [15]-[30 and [75]-[90] million. In Table 7, below, the EVs as assessed for all the scenarios are summarised and compared with the values applicable in the case of a liquidation.\nTable 7\nComparison of the debt conversion followed by privatisation versus liquidation scenarios on the basis of the EV method\nState's expected revenue\nEUR million\nDebt conversion and immediate privatisation\nNet present value of the revenues obtained through liquidation\nComparison\nEV based on 44 months\u2019 median share price\nEV based on 44 months\u2019 average share price\nEV based on 44 months\u2019 weighted average share price\nMarket value of equity\n[20]-[30]\n[45]-[60]\n[90]-[100]\nMarket value of combined public stake\n[15]-[40]\n[45]-[60]\n[80]-[100]\nNet present value of combined public stake (98,44 %)\n[15]-[40]\n[30]-[50]\n[75]-[90]\n[10]-[40]\nLiquidation < Debt conversion and privatisation\nNet present value of AVAS stake (96,54 %)\n[15]-[40]\n[30]-[50]\n[70]-[80]\n[10]-[40]\nLiquidation < Debt conversion and privatisation\nNet present value of Ministry of Economy stake (1,9 %)\n[0]-[1]\n[0]-[1]\n[1]-[2]\n[0]-[1]\nLiquidation < Debt conversion and privatisation\n(152)\nIn all assessed EV scenarios both the public creditor AVAS and the public shareholder Ministry of Economy obtain better results from the debt conversion followed by privatisation than if the company were liquidated. The shareholding of the current public shareholder, the Ministry of Economy, will be reduced by the debt conversion, which results in a stake of [80]-[100]% for the creditor AVAS. However, the Ministry has no reason to oppose the debt conversion as in the event of liquidation it would not obtain anything for its stake in the company. The public creditor AVAS would still obtain more even in the scenario with the lowest estimated EV than in the case of deciding to liquidate the company (EUR [10]-[30] million, versus EUR [10]-[30] million).\n(153)\nOn the basis of the above findings, it can be concluded that, if that the company is fully privatised in the short term after the debt conversion, the notified measure (conversion of the debt followed by full privatisation) does not involve an advantage for Oltchim as that measure allows the public creditor AVAS to recover more than if it decided to place the company in liquidation. In that respect, the Commission takes note of the commitment made by the Romanian authorities (see recitals 17 and 73 above) to privatise the company in full by 31 May 2012.\n(154)\nThe Commission considers that the quantitative assessment on the basis of the market capitalisation method and the EV method is also supported by the following two arguments, which were not quantified by the independent expert.\n(155)\nFirst of all, the assessment is based on the stock market price. However, as the State's stake in Oltchim will be sold as one entity, the acquirer will be able to control the company. Therefore, the acquirer will be willing to pay a control premium for the stake, as is normally the case in comparable transactions.\n(156)\nSecond, the Commission observes that PCC was willing to pay in 2007 EUR 7,5 million for a de facto 12 % stake in Oltchim and in 2011 EUR 2,6 million for a further 3,6 % stake in Oltchim. This indicates on the one hand that one private investor considered that the value of Oltchim had increased in 2011 compared with 2007 (as it was willing to pay a higher price per share), and that, based on the 2011 transaction, 100 % of the shares would be valued at EUR 73 million, which is substantially above the liquidation value.\nIX.4. Conclusion on the advantage criterion\n(157)\nOn the basis of the above findings, namely that: (i) the company did not derive any undue advantage from the way in which the public authorities pursued recovery of the public debt that is the subject of the notified measure, and (ii) the debt conversion as such does not confer any undue advantage on the company, the Commission concludes that the advantage criterion is not met by the currently notified measure (resulting from the combination of former measures 1 and 3). In the light of that finding, the other cumulative criteria in the definition of the concept of state aid stemming from Article 107(1) of the TFEU do not need to be analysed for the assessment of the currently notified measure.\nX. CONCLUSION\n(158)\nThe formal investigation procedure initiated under Article 108(2) TFEU with respect to measure 2 (the state guarantee) must be terminated as being moot, following withdrawal of the notification of that measure.\n(159)\nThe currently notified measure (the combination of former measures 1 and 3) does not involve state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(160)\nThat conclusion is based on the firm intention of Romania to sell its stake in Oltchim in full, as expressed in the letter of Prime Minister Emil Boc of 21 October 2011, and re-confirmed in the letter of Prime Minister Ungureanu dated 16 February 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of the notified state guarantee (measure 2) in favour of Oltchim, in view of the fact that Romania has withdrawn its notification and will not pursue that measure further.\nArticle 2\nMeasure 1, notified by Romania on 17 July 2009 and amended on 22 June 2011, 9 September 2011, 21 October 2011 and 16 February 2012, does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nMeasure 3, put in place by Romania in 2007, does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to Romania.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2012.", "references": ["20", "90", "14", "26", "71", "51", "30", "65", "3", "12", "33", "38", "41", "34", "87", "86", "60", "1", "22", "94", "63", "16", "98", "70", "50", "28", "64", "23", "84", "81", "No Label", "8", "11", "15", "44", "48", "80", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "11", "15", "44", "48", "80", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1163/2011\nof 14 November 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1137/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["61", "77", "99", "13", "89", "46", "87", "50", "88", "69", "29", "64", "63", "12", "37", "57", "65", "78", "75", "24", "23", "21", "52", "49", "44", "98", "83", "6", "55", "31", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/23/EU\nof 3 March 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include triflumuron as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included triflumuron. By Commission Decision 2009/241/EC (4) it was decided not to include triflumuron in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(3)\nThe application was submitted to Italy, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as those that were the subject of Decision 2009/241/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(4)\nItaly evaluated the new information and data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 5 March 2010.\n(5)\nThe Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the additional report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority. The Authority then presented its conclusion on triflumuron to the Commission on 9 December 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for triflumuron.\n(6)\nThe additional report by the rapporteur Member State and the new conclusion by the Authority concentrate on the concerns that lead to the non-inclusion. Those concerns were in particular that, based on the available information, it had not been demonstrated that the consumer exposure was acceptable due to lack of data in terms of nature and level of the relevant residues. In fact, it was not possible to perform an acute risk assessment for the metabolite M07 (7), because data was not sufficient to allocate an acute reference dose for this metabolite. Moreover, data was missing to determine an appropriate residue definition and to estimate the level of residues in processed fruit commodities.\n(7)\nThe new information submitted by the applicant enabled a consumer exposure assessment. The information currently available indicates that the consumer exposure is acceptable.\n(8)\nConsequently, the additional data and information provided by the applicant permit to eliminate the specific concerns that led to the non-inclusion. No other open scientific questions have arisen.\n(9)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing triflumuron may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include triflumuron in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance may be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(10)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain confirmatory information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that the inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit confirmatory information as regards the long-term risk to birds, the risk to aquatic invertebrates and the risk to bee brood development.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 September 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 April 2011.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 March 2011.", "references": ["30", "3", "83", "65", "43", "49", "91", "33", "46", "42", "34", "72", "70", "1", "31", "88", "64", "36", "52", "7", "28", "24", "81", "97", "23", "45", "87", "17", "22", "37", "No Label", "25", "38", "61"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 524/2011\nof 26 May 2011\namending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for biphenyl, deltamethrin, ethofumesate, isopyrazam, propiconazole, pymetrozine, pyrimethanil and tebuconazole in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor deltamethrin, ethofumesate, propiconazole, pymetrozine and pyrimethanil maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Annex II and Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For tebuconazole, MRLs were set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For isopyrazam no MRLs were set before in any of the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, so the default value of 0.01 mg/kg applied. Up to now, for biphenyl no specific MRLs were set nor was the substance included in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. Biphenyl was formerly used as a plant protection product. In accordance with Article 18(1)(b) Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 the default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg is to apply to all products listed in Annex I thereto.\n(2)\nIn the context of a procedure, in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2), for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance pymetrozine on spinach, purslane and beet leaves an application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing MRLs.\n(3)\nAs regards deltamethrin, such an application was made for the use on potatoes. As regards ethofumesate, such an application was made for the use in herbal infusions for leaves and flowers and thyme. As regards isopyrazam, such an application was made for the use on several cereals. As regards propiconazole, such an application was made for the use on table and wine grapes, and apples As regards pyrimethanil, such an application was made for the use on peas with pods. As regards tebuconazole, such an application was made for the use on various citrus fruit.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, these applications were evaluated by the Member States concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission.\n(5)\nAs Regards biphenyl, the Commission received information from Germany and business operators showing the presence of biphenyl on fresh herbs and herbal infusions containing pesticide residues higher than the default MRL. Germany submitted an evaluation report and informed that due to the ubiquitous presence of this substance from various sources it is impossible to produce herbs,tea rose hips, spices and herbal infusions containing residues of biphenyl complying with the MRL. Referring to the procedure described in Article 16(1) (a) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 Germany made an application for temporary MRLs to enable the placing on the market of the affected products.\n(6)\nThe European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, assessed the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs (3). It forwarded these opinions to the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public.\n(7)\nThe Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs requested by the applicants were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime exposure to these substances via consumption of all food products that may contain these substances, nor the short term exposure due to extreme consumption of the relevant crops showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference dose (ARfD) is exceeded.\n(8)\nFor biphenyl the Authority recommended only to raise the MRLs for which data demonstrated that this was necessary. It also advised that because of analytical problems in some cases it might not be possible to enforce the existing MRL and suggested that the lowest limit of analytical determination (LOD) for these crops might be raised. This was confirmed by information obtained from the EU reference laboratory.\n(9)\nBased on the reasoned opinions and statement of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 May 2011.", "references": ["17", "11", "81", "86", "21", "7", "96", "20", "61", "45", "70", "77", "79", "62", "6", "73", "19", "50", "40", "26", "42", "33", "30", "54", "53", "0", "15", "27", "78", "43", "No Label", "38", "65", "66"], "gold": ["38", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 598/2012\nof 5 July 2012\namending for the 172nd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 21 June 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove two natural persons from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply after considering the de-listing requests submitted by these persons and the Comprehensive Reports of the Ombudsperson established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1904(2009). On 27 June 2012, it decided to remove another natural person from the list. Furthermore, on 10 May 2012, 25 May 2012 and 21 June 2012, it decided to amend five entries on the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2012.", "references": ["11", "68", "37", "35", "28", "9", "23", "52", "88", "75", "62", "96", "91", "70", "45", "51", "39", "79", "7", "24", "63", "32", "0", "80", "46", "29", "20", "36", "65", "54", "No Label", "1", "3"], "gold": ["1", "3"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1368/2011\nof 21 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the support schemes for farmers provided for in Titles IV and V thereof, and Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular points (c), (l), and (n) of Article 142,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn the basis of the experience gained and in particular the improvements made in the supporting systems used by the national administrations when implementing Commission Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 (3) it is appropriate to improve and simplify these two Regulations as regards the administration of direct payments and the related controls.\n(2)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, Member States may use information available in the computerised database of the identification and registration system of bovine animals for an aid application for bovine animals. It is appropriate to introduce a clarification on the start of the retention period applicable pursuant to Article 61 of Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 where Member States have made use of this possibility. In addition, these Member States should, for the sake of simplification, be enabled to replace the submission of an application provided for in Article 62 of that Regulation by the submission of a statement of participation. Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nCertain definitions set out in Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 should be updated. Furthermore, the separate soft fruit payment provided for in Article 129 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 will be introduced as from 2012. Hence, the definition of area-related aid schemes should be amended accordingly and provision should be made for an appropriate application procedure.\n(4)\nAccording to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, Member States have to determine a latest date for submitting the single application. After submission of the single application, farmers have the possibility to amend their application within the deadlines set in Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009. Administrative controls and on-the-spot checks depend on the receipt of final applications by Member States. Member States choosing to set the latest date for the submission of applications at an earlier date than the latest dates established in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 should also be able to start and finalise controls earlier. These Member States should therefore be allowed to establish a latest date for the amendments to the single application at an earlier date than the latest date established in Article 14(2). However, to give farmers sufficient time to notify possible changes, that date should not be earlier than 15 days after the latest date fixed by Member States for the submission of the single application.\n(5)\nDue to the introduction of area-related support decoupled from production, the on-the-spot checks are in many cases limited to the verification of the size and the eligibility status of the area concerned. Those checks are to a large extent performed by remote sensing. In parallel, Member States regularly update their identification system for agricultural parcels. The methodology used for such updates may be similar to the performance of on-the-spot checks by means of remote sensing. Therefore, in a spirit of simplification and with a view to reducing administrative costs, it is appropriate to allow Member States performing a systematic update of the identification systems for agricultural parcels to use the results thereof as a replacement of part of the traditional on-the-spot checks. To avoid creating any additional risk for irregular payments, criteria to be fulfilled by management and control systems in the Member States opting for this possibility should be defined. Those criteria should in particular address the intervals and the coverage of the update, any particulars on the ortho-images used, the required quality of the identification system for agricultural parcels and the maximum yearly error rate.\n(6)\nThe requirement for bovine animals in a farm to comply with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (4) is controlled via the on-the-spot checks performed under cross compliance. Currently, there is also an obligation to check animals for which no aid is claimed in the context of eligibility controls of direct payments. This additional control is applied only in those Member States that have chosen to maintain any coupled direct payments for bovine animals. However, in order to have an equal control burden in all Member States and to simplify the on-the-spot checks for the farmers and the national authorities, it is appropriate to abolish the check of animals for which no aid is claimed in the context of eligibility controls unless Member States make use of the possibility provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.\n(7)\nAccording to Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, where an animal is moved to another location during the retention period, the farmer has to inform the competent authority. To avoid the risk of disproportionate reductions of the payment, rules on animals determined as eligible for payment should be established for the cases where the notification of movements of animals has been omitted but where the relevant animals can be immediately identified within the holding of the farmer concerned during the on-the-spot check.\n(8)\nRules on the identification and registration system of animals should in particular ensure traceability of animals. A loss of both ear-tags of a bovine animal as well as the loss of any ear-tag of an ovine or caprine animal would render the animal ineligible for payments and also leads to reductions under Articles 65 and 66 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009. However, there are situations where those animals could be identified by other means and where traceability of the relevant animals is thus ensured.\n(9)\nAccording to Article 63(4)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, when a bovine animal declared for payment has lost one of the two ear tags and can be clearly and individually identified by other means of the identification and registration system for bovine animals, that animal is still included in the number of animals determined and thus eligible for payment. Moreover, the system for identification and registration of bovine animals is in general well established. Therefore, where one bovine animal has lost both ear tags and its identity can be established without any doubt it should also be included in the number of animals determined and thus eligible for payment. This should however only apply if the farmer has taken measures to remedy the situation before the announcement of the on-the-spot check and, in order to avoid any risk of irregular payments, the application of this rule should be limited to one single animal.\n(10)\nA new improved system for identification of ovine and caprine animals under Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC (5) has been implemented and it is therefore appropriate to introduce a similar provision for ovine and caprine animals declared for payment.\n(11)\nMember States making use of the possibility provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 should be allowed to provide that the notifications to the computerised database for identification and registration of bovine animals replace the notification from that farmer in case of a replacement of an animal during the retention period. This possibility should be made available to all Member States.\n(12)\nFurthermore, certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 have become obsolete and should be deleted.\n(13)\nRegulation (EC) No 1122/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets and the Management Committee for Direct Payments have not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by their chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1121/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 61, the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018However, where a Member State makes use of the possibility provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, it shall fix the date when the period referred to in the first paragraph of this Article starts.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 62, the following paragraph 3 is added:\n\u20183. Where a Member State makes use of the possibility provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, the application for the suckler cow premium may take the form of a statement of participation which shall also fulfil the requirements laid down in points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article. The Member State may decide that a statement of participation submitted for a given year is valid for one or more subsequent years where the information provided in the statement of participation remains accurate.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 1122/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (12) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(12)\n\u201carea-related aid schemes\u201d means the single payment scheme, area-related payments under specific support and all aid schemes established under Titles IV and V of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, except those established under Sections 7, 10, and 11 of that Title IV, except the separate sugar payment established in Article 126 of that Regulation, except the separate fruit and vegetable payment established in Article 127 of that Regulation and except the separate soft fruit payment established in Article 129 of that Regulation.\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (21) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(21)\n\u201cretention period\u201d means the period during which an animal for which aid has been claimed has to be kept on the holding, as provided for in Article 35(3) and Article 61 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 (6)\n(2)\nArticle 13 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraphs 2, 3 and 4 are deleted;\n(b)\nin paragraph 6, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. In the case of an application for transitional fruit and vegetables payments provided for in Section 8 of Chapter 1 of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 the single application shall contain a copy of the contract for processing or the commitment to supply provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 8, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20188. Uses of area referred to in Articles 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and those listed in Annex VI to that Regulation or areas declared for the specific support provided for in Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, where those areas do not have to be declared in accordance with this Article, shall be declared under a separate heading in the single application form.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 14, paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018By way of derogation from the first subparagraph Member States may fix an earlier latest date for the notification of amendments. That date shall however not be earlier than 15 calendar days after the latest date for submitting the single application fixed in accordance with Article 11(2).\u2019;\n(4)\nin Part II, Title II, the title of Chapter IV is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Aid for sugar beet and cane producers, separate sugar payment, separate fruit and vegetables payment and separate soft fruit payment\u2019 ;\n(5)\nArticle 17 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Requirements pertaining to applications for the aid for sugar beet and cane producers, the separate sugar payment, the separate fruit and vegetables payment and the separate soft fruit payment\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 1, the introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Farmers applying for the aid for sugar beet and cane producers provided for in Section 7 of Chapter 1 of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, for the separate sugar payment provided for in Article 126 of that Regulation, for the separate fruit and vegetables payment provided for in Article 127 or for the separate soft fruit payment provided for in Article 129 of that Regulation shall submit an aid application containing all information necessary to establish eligibility for the aid, and in particular:\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 28(1), point (f) is deleted;\n(7)\na new Article 31a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 31a\nCombined on-the-spot checks\n1. By way of derogation from Article 31 and under the conditions set out in this Article, Member States may, as regards the single payment scheme and the single area payment scheme as referred to in Title III and Title V, Chapter 2 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, decide to replace the checks of the control sample to be established based on a risk analysis referred to in first subparagraph of Article 31(1) of this Regulation by checks based on the ortho images used for the update of the identification system for agricultural parcels referred to in Article 6.\nThe decision referred to in the first subparagraph may be taken at national level or regional level. A region shall be comprised of the whole area covered by one or more autonomous identification systems for agricultural parcels.\nMember States shall systematically update the identification system for agricultural parcels and check all farmers in the entire area covered by it within a period of maximum three years, covering per year at least 25 % of the eligible hectares recorded in the identification system for agricultural parcels. However, a Member State with less than 150 000 eligible hectares recorded in the identification system for agricultural parcels may derogate from the requirement of a minimum coverage per year.\nBefore applying this Article, Member States shall have made a complete update of the identification system for agricultural parcels concerned within the previous three years.\nThe ortho images used for the update shall not be older than 15 months at the date of their use for the purpose of the update of the identification system for agricultural parcels as referred to in the first subparagraph.\n2. The quality of the identification system for agricultural parcels as assessed in accordance with Article 6(2) during the two years preceding the application of this Article, shall be sufficient to ensure effective verification of the conditions under which aids are granted.\n3. The rate of errors found in the random sample checked on-the-spot shall not exceed 2 % in the two years preceding the application of this Article. Moreover, the rate of errors shall not exceed 2 % during two consecutive years when applying this Article.\nThe rate of errors shall be certified by the Member State in accordance with the methodology drawn up at Union level.\n4. Article 35(1) shall apply to the checks carried out in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2, and 3.\u2019;\n(8)\nin Article 33, first paragraph, the first sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018On-the-spot checks shall cover all the agricultural parcels for which aid is requested under aid schemes listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.\u2019;\n(9)\nArticle 37 is deleted;\n(10)\nArticle 41 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 41\nTiming of on-the-spot checks\n1. At least 60 % of the minimum rate of on-the-spot checks provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 30(2)(b) shall be spread throughout the entire retention period of the aid scheme concerned. The remaining percentage of on-the-spot checks shall be spread over the year.\nHowever, where the retention period starts before an aid application has been lodged or where it cannot be fixed in advance, on-the-spot checks provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 30(2)(b) shall be spread over the year.\n2. At least 50 % of the minimum rate of on-the-spot checks provided for in Article 30(2)(c) shall be spread throughout the entire retention period. However, the total minimum rate of on-the-spot checks shall be fully conducted and spread throughout the retention period in Member States where the system established by Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as concerns ovines and caprines, in particular in relation to the identification of animals and the proper keeping of registers, is not fully implemented and applied.\u2019;\n(11)\nArticle 42 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. On-the-spot checks shall verify that all eligibility conditions are fulfilled and cover all livestock for which aid applications have been submitted, including animals replaced during the retention period in accordance with Article 64 and which are still on the holding, under the aid schemes to be checked. In the case of checks of the bovine aid schemes and where the Member State makes use of the possibility provided for in Article 16(3), also the potentially eligible bovine animals shall be checked.\nOn-the-spot checks shall include in particular a check that the number of animals present on the holding for which aid applications have been submitted and, where applicable, the number of potentially eligible bovine animals corresponds to the number of animals entered in the registers and, in the case of bovine animals, to the number of animals notified to the computerised database for bovine animals.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (c) is deleted;\n(b)\npoint (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nthat bovine animals are identified by ear tags, accompanied, where applicable, by animal passports and that they are recorded in the register and have been duly notified to the computerised database for bovine animals.\nThe checks referred to under point (d) may be made on the basis of a sample.\u2019;\n(12)\nArticles 43 and 44 are deleted;\n(13)\nin Article 45, paragraphs 2 and 3 are deleted;\n(14)\nArticle 57 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. In the case of applications for aid under area-related aid schemes if the area of a crop group determined is found to be greater than that declared in the aid application, the area declared shall be used for calculation of the aid.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Without prejudice to reductions and exclusions in accordance with Articles 58 and 60, in the case of applications for aid under area-related aid schemes if the area declared in a single application exceeds the area determined for that crop group, the aid shall be calculated on the basis of the area determined for that crop group.\u2019;\n(15)\nin Article 58, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018If, in respect of a crop group, the area declared for the purposes of any area-related aid schemes exceeds the area determined in accordance with Article 57, the aid shall be calculated on the basis of the area determined reduced by twice the difference found if that difference is more than either 3 % or two hectares, but no more than 20 % of the area determined.\u2019;\n(16)\nArticles 59 and 61 are deleted;\n(17)\nArticle 63 is amended as follows:\n(a)\na new paragraph 3a is inserted:\n\u20183a. Where a farmer has failed to inform the competent authorities that animals have been moved to another location during the retention period, as required by the second subparagraph of Article 16(1), the animals concerned shall be regarded as determined if an immediate localisation of the animals within the holding was made at the on-the-spot check.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 4, the following point (aa) is inserted:\n\u2018(aa)\nWhere one single bovine animal of a holding has lost two ear tags it shall be regarded as determined provided that the animal can still be identified by register, animal passport, database or other means laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and provided that the keeper can provide evidence that he has already taken action to remedy the situation before the announcement of the on-the-spot check;\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraph 5 is added:\n\u20185. An ovine or caprine animal which has lost one ear tag shall be regarded as determined provided that the animal can still be identified by a first means of identification in accordance with Article 4(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 and provided that all other requirements of the system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals are fulfilled.\u2019;\n(18)\nin Article 64(2), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018However, a Member State may provide that the notifications to the computerised database for bovine animals of an animal having left the holding and another animal having arrived on the holding within the time limits provided for in the first subparagraph may replace the information to be sent to the competent authority pursuant to the first subparagraph. In that case, where the Member State does not make use of the possibility provided for in Article 16(3) it shall ensure by any means that there are no doubts as to which animals are covered by the farmers applications.\u2019;\n(19)\nin Article 65(3), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In the case of application of the second subparagraph of Article 16(3), potentially eligible animals found not to be correctly identified or registered in the system for identification and registration for bovine animals shall count as animals found with irregularities.\u2019;\n(20)\nin Article 66, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Where, in respect of applications for aid under the ovine/caprine aid scheme, a difference is found between the number of animals declared and that determined in accordance with Article 63(3), Article 63(3a) and Article 63(5), Article 65(2), Article 65(3) and Article 65(4) shall apply mutatis mutandis as from the first animal in respect of which irregularities are found.\u2019;\n(21)\nArticle 68 is deleted;\n(22)\nin the first subparagraph of Article 78(2), point (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nwith regard to those support schemes for which a budgetary ceiling is fixed in accordance with Article 51(2), Article 69(3), Article 123(1) and Article 128(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 or applied in accordance with Article 126(2), Article 127(2) and Article 129(2) of that Regulation, Member State shall add the amounts resulting from the application of points (a), (b) and (c) of this paragraph.\u2019\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply to aid applications relating to marketing years or premium periods starting from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["98", "79", "44", "27", "97", "12", "55", "28", "89", "8", "93", "69", "92", "88", "32", "25", "45", "81", "9", "15", "50", "30", "65", "35", "90", "14", "20", "80", "0", "83", "No Label", "4", "42", "61", "62", "63"], "gold": ["4", "42", "61", "62", "63"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2012/5/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 14 March 2012\namending Council Directive 2000/75/EC as regards vaccination against bluetongue\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 2000/75/EC of 20 November 2000 laying down specific provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue (3) lays down control rules and measures to combat and eradicate bluetongue, including rules on the establishment of protection and surveillance zones and the use of vaccines against bluetongue.\n(2)\nIn the past, only sporadic incursions of certain serotypes of the bluetongue virus were recorded in the Union. Those incursions mainly occurred in the southern parts of the Union. However, since the adoption of Directive 2000/75/EC, and particularly since the introduction into the Union of bluetongue virus serotypes 1 and 8 in the years 2006 and 2007, the bluetongue virus has become more widespread in the Union, with the potential to become endemic in certain areas. It has therefore become difficult to control the spread of that virus.\n(3)\nThe rules on vaccination against bluetongue laid down in Directive 2000/75/EC are based on experience of the use of so-called \u2018modified live vaccines\u2019, or \u2018live attenuated vaccines\u2019, which were the only vaccines available when that Directive was adopted. The use of those vaccines may lead to an undesired local circulation of the vaccine virus in unvaccinated animals.\n(4)\nIn recent years, as a result of new technology, \u2018inactivated vaccines\u2019 against bluetongue have become available which do not pose the risk of undesired local circulation of the vaccine virus to unvaccinated animals. The extensive use of such vaccines during the vaccination campaign in the years 2008 and 2009 has led to a significant improvement in the disease situation. It is now widely accepted that vaccination with inactivated vaccines is the preferred tool for the control of bluetongue and for the prevention of clinical disease in the Union.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure better control of the spread of the bluetongue virus and to reduce the burden on the agricultural sector posed by that disease, it is appropriate to amend the current rules on vaccination laid down in Directive 2000/75/EC in order to take account of the recent technological developments in vaccine production.\n(6)\nIn order to enable the vaccination season 2012 to benefit from the new rules, this Directive should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe amendments provided for in this Directive should make the rules on vaccination more flexible and also take into account the fact that inactivated vaccines that can also be successfully used outside areas subject to animal movement restrictions are now available.\n(8)\nIn addition, and provided that appropriate precautionary measures are taken, the use of live attenuated vaccines should not be excluded, as their use might still be necessary under certain circumstances, such as following the introduction of a new bluetongue virus serotype against which inactivated vaccines may not be available.\n(9)\nDirective 2000/75/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2000/75/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2, the following point is added:\n\u2018(j) \u201clive attenuated vaccines\u201d: vaccines which are produced by adapting bluetongue virus field isolates through serial passages in tissue culture or in embryonated hens\u2019 eggs.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\n1. The competent authority of a Member State may decide to allow the use of vaccines against bluetongue provided that:\n(a)\nsuch decision is based on the result of a specific risk assessment carried out by the competent authority;\n(b)\nthe Commission is informed before such vaccination is carried out.\n2. Whenever live attenuated vaccines are used, Member States shall ensure that the competent authority demarcates:\n(a)\na protection zone, consisting of at least the vaccination area;\n(b)\na surveillance zone, consisting of a part of the Union territory with a depth of at least 50 kilometres extending beyond the limits of the protection zone.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 6(1), point (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nimplement the measures adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 20(2), in particular with regard to the introduction of any vaccination programme or other alternative measures;\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 8(2), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nThe surveillance zone shall consist of a part of the Union territory with a depth of at least 50 kilometres extending beyond the limits of the protection zone and in which no vaccination against bluetongue with live attenuated vaccines has been carried out during the previous 12 months.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 10, point 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182.\nany vaccination against bluetongue using live attenuated vaccines is prohibited in the surveillance zone.\u2019.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 23 September 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall communicate immediately to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 24 September 2012 at the latest.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 14 March 2012.", "references": ["52", "23", "58", "0", "94", "40", "88", "49", "34", "46", "57", "77", "44", "53", "20", "27", "64", "54", "25", "89", "87", "35", "78", "12", "18", "83", "63", "69", "41", "72", "No Label", "38", "61", "65", "66"], "gold": ["38", "61", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 332/2012\nof 13 April 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 130/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, and excluding company Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co., Ltd from the definitive measures\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 of 23 July 2001 on the measures that may be taken by the Community following a report adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy matters (1), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 130/2006 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty, ranging from 0 % to 34,9 %, on imports of tartaric acid (\u2018TA\u2019) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018China\u2019). The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on TA produced by the Chinese exporting producer Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co., Ltd (\u2018Hangzhou Bioking\u2019) was 0 %.\n2. Initiation of an expiry review and of a review of existing measures on Hangzhou Bioking\n(2)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry (3) of the anti-dumping measures in force, the Commission received on 27 October 2009 a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (4) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019).\n(3)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 26 January 2011 the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5) (\u2018Notice of initiation\u2019).\n(4)\nIn the Notice of initiation, the Commission also announced the initiation of a review of existing measures on Hangzhou Bioking pursuant to Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 in order to allow for any necessary amendment of Regulation (EC) No 130/2006 in the light of the WTO Appellate Body report entitled Mexico - Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice (6). This report found, in paragraphs 305 and 306, that an exporting producer not found to be dumping in an original investigation has to be excluded from the scope of the definitive measure imposed as a result of such investigation and cannot be made subject to administrative and changed circumstances review.\n3. Initiation of a new proceeding\n(5)\nOn 29 July 2011, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (7), the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation concerning imports into the European Union of tartaric acid originating in China, limited to Hangzhou Bioking.\n4. Exclusion of Hangzhou Bioking from the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 130/2006\n(6)\nHangzhou Bioking should be excluded from the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 130/2006 in order not to fall under two anti-dumping proceedings at the same time,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 130/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\nIn Article 1(2), in the table, the entry concerning Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co., Ltd shall be deleted and the entry \u2018All other companies\u2019 shall be replaced by the entry \u2018All other companies (except Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co., Ltd - TARIC additional code A687)\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 April 2012.", "references": ["60", "76", "27", "78", "55", "2", "14", "11", "85", "77", "64", "88", "8", "31", "41", "63", "79", "50", "32", "16", "25", "26", "86", "73", "10", "18", "67", "15", "81", "37", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 439/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 19 May 2010\nestablishing a European Asylum Support Office\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 74 and Article 78(1) and (2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe policy of the Union on the Common European Asylum System (the CEAS) is designed, under the terms of the Hague Programme, to establish a common asylum area by means of an effective harmonised procedure consistent with the values and humanitarian tradition of the European Union.\n(2)\nMuch progress has been made in recent years towards the establishment of the CEAS thanks to the introduction of common minimum standards. There remain great disparities between the Member States, however, in the granting of international protection and the forms that such international protection takes. Those disparities should be reduced.\n(3)\nIn its Policy Plan on Asylum, adopted in June 2008, the Commission announced its intention to develop the CEAS by proposing a revision of existing legal instruments in order to achieve greater harmonisation of the applicable standards and by strengthening support for practical cooperation between the Member States, in particular by a legislative proposal to establish a European Asylum Support Office (the Support Office) in order to increase coordination of operational cooperation between Member States so that the common rules are implemented effectively.\n(4)\nIn the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, adopted in September 2008, the European Council solemnly reiterated that any persecuted foreigner is entitled to obtain aid and protection on the territory of the European Union in application of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967, and other relevant treaties. It was also expressly agreed that a European support office would be established in 2009.\n(5)\nPractical cooperation on asylum aims to increase convergence and ensure ongoing quality of Member States' decision-making procedures in that area within a European legislative framework. A substantial number of practical cooperation measures has already been undertaken in recent years, notably the adoption of a common approach to information on countries of origin and the establishment of a common European asylum curriculum.\n(6)\nThe Support Office should be established in order to strengthen and develop those cooperation measures. The Support Office should take due account of those cooperation measures and the lessons learnt therefrom.\n(7)\nFor Member States which are faced with specific and disproportionate pressures on their asylum and reception systems, due in particular to their geographical or demographic situation, the Support Office should support the development of solidarity within the Union to promote a better relocation of beneficiaries of international protection between Member States, while ensuring that asylum and reception systems are not abused.\n(8)\nIn order to best fulfil its mandate, the Support Office should be independent in technical matters and should enjoy legal, administrative and financial autonomy. To that end, the Support Office should be a body of the Union having legal personality and exercising the implementing powers conferred upon it by this Regulation.\n(9)\nThe Support Office should work in close cooperation with Member States'asylum authorities, with national immigration and asylum services and other services, drawing on the capacity and expertise of those services, and with the Commission. Member States should cooperate with the Support Office to ensure that it is able to fulfil its mandate.\n(10)\nThe Support Office should also act in close cooperation with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (the UNHCR) and, where appropriate, with relevant international organisations in order to benefit from their expertise and support. To that end, the roles of the UNHCR and the other relevant international organisations should be fully recognised and those organisations should be fully involved in the work of the Support Office. Any financial resources made available by the Support Office to the UNHCR in accordance with this Regulation should not result in double financing of the UNHCR's activities with other international or national sources.\n(11)\nFurthermore, to fulfil its purpose, and to the extent required for the fulfilment of its duties, the Support Office should cooperate with other bodies of the Union, in particular with the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex), established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 (2), and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), established by Council Regulation (EC) No 168/2007 (3).\n(12)\nThe Support Office should cooperate with the European Migration Network, established by Council Decision 2008/381/EC (4), in order to avoid duplication of activities. The Support Office should also maintain a close dialogue with civil society with a view to exchanging information and pooling knowledge in the field of asylum.\n(13)\nThe Support Office should be a European centre of expertise on asylum, responsible for facilitating, coordinating and strengthening practical cooperation among Member States on the many aspects of asylum, so that Member States are better able to provide international protection to those entitled, while dealing fairly and efficiently with those who do not qualify for international protection,where appropriate. The Support Office's mandate should be focused on three major duties, namely contributing to the implementation of the CEAS, supporting practical cooperation among Member States on asylum and supporting Member States that are subject to particular pressure.\n(14)\nThe Support Office should have no direct or indirect powers in relation to the taking of decisions by Member States' asylum authorities on individual applications for international protection.\n(15)\nIn order to provide and/or coordinate the provision of speedy and effective operational support to Member States subject to particular pressure on their asylum and reception systems, the Support Office should, at the request of the Member States concerned, coordinate action to support those Member States inter alia through the deployment in their territories of asylum support teams made up of asylum experts. Those teams should, in particular, provide expertise relating to interpreting services, information on countries of origin and knowledge of the handling and management of asylum cases. The arrangements for the asylum support teams should be governed by this Regulation in order to ensure their effective deployment.\n(16)\nThe Support Office should fulfil its purpose in conditions which enable it to serve as a reference point by virtue of its independence, the scientific and technical quality of the assistance it provides and the information it disseminates, the transparency of its procedures and operating methods, and its diligence in performing the duties assigned to it.\n(17)\nThe Commission and the Member States should be represented on the Management Board of the Support Office in order effectively to control its workings. The Management Board should, where possible, consist of the operational heads of the Member States' asylum administrations or their representatives. It should be given the necessary powers, in particular to establish the budget, verify its execution, adopt the appropriate financial rules, establish transparent working procedures for decision-making by the Support Office, adopt the annual report on the situation of asylum in the Union and technical documents on the implementation of the Union's asylum instruments, and appoint an Executive Director and, if appropriate, an Executive Committee. Given its expertise in the field of asylum, the UNHCR should be represented by a non-voting member of the Management Board so that it is fully involved in the work of the Support Office.\n(18)\nGiven the nature of the duties of the Support Office and the role of the Executive Director, and with a view to enabling the European Parliament to adopt an opinion on the selected candidate, before his appointment as well as before a possible extension of his term of office, the Executive Director should be invited to make a statement and to answer questions to the European Parliament's competent committee or committees. The Executive Director should also present the annual report to the European Parliament. Furthermore, the European Parliament should have the possibility to invite the Executive Director to report on the performance of his duties.\n(19)\nTo ensure the Support Office's full autonomy and independence, it should have its own budget, most of which will comprise a contribution from the Union. The financing of the Support Office should be subject to an agreement by the budgetary authority as set out in point 47 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (5). The budgetary procedure of the Union should be applicable to the Union's contribution and to any grant chargeable to the general budget of the European Union. The auditing of accounts should be undertaken by the Court of Auditors.\n(20)\nThe Support Office should cooperate with third-country authorities and international organisations competent in matters falling within the scope of this Regulation and third countries within the framework of working arrangements concluded in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).\n(21)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and to the TFEU, the United Kingdom and Ireland have notified their wish, by letters of 18 May 2009, to take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation.\n(22)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it nor subject to its application.\n(23)\nConsidering that Denmark, as a Member State, has hitherto contributed to the practical cooperation between Member States within the area of asylum, the Support Office should facilitate operational cooperation with Denmark. To that end, a Danish representative should be invited to attend all the meetings of the Management Board, which should also be able to decide to invite Danish observers to the meetings of working parties, where appropriate.\n(24)\nTo fulfil its purpose, the Support Office should be open to participation by countries which have concluded agreements with the Union by virtue of which they have adopted and apply law of the Union in the field covered by this Regulation, in particular Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. It should also, in agreement with the Commission, be able to conclude working arrangements in accordance with the TFEU with countries other than those which have concluded agreements with the Union by virtue of which they have adopted and apply law of the Union. Under no circumstances, however, should it formulate any independent external policy.\n(25)\nCouncil Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (6) (the Financial Regulation), and in particular Article 185 thereof should apply to the Support Office.\n(26)\nRegulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (7) should apply without restriction to the Support Office, which should accede to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities concerning internal investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (8).\n(27)\nRegulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (9) should apply to the Support Office.\n(28)\nRegulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (10) should apply to the processing of personal data by the Support Office.\n(29)\nThe necessary provisions regarding accommodation for the Support Office in the Member State in which it is to have its headquarters and the specific rules applicable to all the Support Office's staff and members of their families should be laid down in a headquarters agreement. Furthermore, the host Member State should provide the best possible conditions to ensure the proper functioning of the Support Office, including schools for children and transport, in order to attract high-quality human resources from as wide a geographical area as possible.\n(30)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely the need to improve the implementation of the CEAS, to facilitate, coordinate and strengthen practical cooperation between Member States on asylum and to provide and/or coordinate the provision of operational support to Member States subject to particular pressure on their asylum and reception systems, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at the level of the Union, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the TEU. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(31)\nThis Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and should be applied in accordance with the right to asylum recognised in Article 18 of the Charter,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER 1\nESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE OF THE EUROPEAN ASYLUM SUPPORT OFFICE\nArticle 1\nEstablishment of the European Asylum Support Office\nA European Asylum Support Office (the Support Office) is hereby established in order to help to improve the implementation of the Common European Asylum System (the CEAS), to strengthen practical cooperation among Member States on asylum and to provide and/or coordinate the provision of operational support to Member States subject to particular pressure on their asylum and reception systems.\nArticle 2\nPurpose of the Support Office\n1. The Support Office shall facilitate, coordinate and strengthen practical cooperation among Member States on the many aspects of asylum and help to improve the implementation of the CEAS. In this regard, the Support Office shall be fully involved in the external dimension of the CEAS.\n2. The Support Office shall provide effective operational support to Member States subject to particular pressure on their asylum and reception systems, drawing upon all useful resources at its disposal which may include the coordination of resources provided for by Member States under the conditions laid down in this Regulation.\n3. The Support Office shall provide scientific and technical assistance in regard to the policy and legislation of the Union in all areas having a direct or indirect impact on asylum so that it is in a position to lend its full support to practical cooperation on asylum and to carry out its duties effectively. It shall be an independent source of information on all issues in those areas.\n4. The Support Office shall fulfil its purpose in conditions which enable it to serve as a reference point by virtue of its independence, the scientific and technical quality of the assistance it provides and the information it disseminates, the transparency of its operating procedures and methods, its diligence in performing the duties assigned to it, and the information technology support needed to fulfil its mandate.\n5. The Support Office shall work closely with the Member States' asylum authorities, with national immigration and asylum services and other national services and with the Commission. The Support Office shall carry out its duties without prejudice to those assigned to other relevant bodies of the Union and shall work closely with those bodies and with the UNHCR.\n6. The Support Office shall have no powers in relation to the taking of decisions by Member States' asylum authorities on individual applications for international protection.\nCHAPTER 2\nDUTIES OF THE SUPPORT OFFICE\nSECTION 1\nSupporting practical cooperation on asylum\nArticle 3\nBest practices\nThe Support Office shall organise, promote and coordinate activities enabling the exchange of information and the identification and pooling of best practices in asylum matters between the Member States.\nArticle 4\nInformation on countries of origin\nThe Support Office shall organise, promote and coordinate activities relating to information on countries of origin, in particular:\n(a)\nthe gathering of relevant, reliable, accurate and up-to date information on countries of origin of persons applying for international protection in a transparent and impartial manner, making use of all relevant sources of information, including information gathered from governmental, non-governmental and international organisations and the institutions and bodies of the Union;\n(b)\nthe drafting of reports on countries of origin, on the basis of information gathered in accordance with point (a);\n(c)\nthe management and further development of a portal for gathering information on countries of origin and its maintenance with a view to ensuring transparency in accordance with the necessary rules for access to such information under Article 42;\n(d)\nthe development of a common format and a common methodology for presenting, verifying and using information on countries of origin;\n(e)\nthe analysis of information on countries of origin in a transparent manner with a view to fostering convergence of assessment criteria, and, where appropriate, making use of the results of meetings of one or more working parties. That analysis shall not purport to give instructions to Member States about the grant or refusal of applications for international protection.\nArticle 5\nSupporting relocation of beneficiaries of international protection within the Union\nFor Member States which are faced with specific and disproportionate pressures on their asylum and reception systems, due in particular to their geographical or demographic situation, the Support Office shall promote, facilitate and coordinate exchanges of information and other activities related to relocation within the Union. Relocation within the Union shall be carried out only on an agreed basis between Member States and with consent of the beneficiary of international protection concerned and, where appropriate, in consultation with the UNHCR.\nArticle 6\nSupport for training\n1. The Support Office shall establish and develop training available to members of all national administrations and courts and tribunals, and national services responsible for asylum matters in the Member States. Participation in training is without prejudice to national systems and procedures.\nThe Support Office shall develop such training in close cooperation with Member States' asylum authorities and, where relevant, take advantage of expertise of academic institutions and other relevant organisations.\n2. The Support Office shall manage and develop a European asylum curriculum taking into account the Union's existing cooperation in that field.\n3. The training offered by the Support Office may be general, specific or thematic and may include \u2018train-the-trainers\u2019 methodology.\n4. Specific or thematic training activities in knowledge and skills regarding asylum matters shall include and shall not be limited to:\n(a)\ninternational human rights and the asylum acquis of the Union, including specific legal and case-law issues;\n(b)\nissues related to the handling of asylum applications from minors and vulnerable persons with specific needs;\n(c)\ninterview techniques;\n(d)\nthe use of expert medical and legal reports in asylum procedures;\n(e)\nissues relating to the production and use of information on countries of origin;\n(f)\nreception conditions, including special attention given to vulnerable groups and victims of torture.\n5. The training offered shall be of high quality and shall identify key principles and best practices with a view to greater convergence of administrative methods and decisions and legal practice, in full respect of the independence of national courts and tribunals.\n6. The Support Office shall provide experts who are part of the Asylum Intervention Pool referred to in Article 15 with specialist training relevant to their duties and functions and shall conduct regular exercises with those experts in accordance with the specialist training and exercise schedule referred to in its annual work programme.\n7. The Support Office may organise training activities in cooperation with Member States in their territory.\nArticle 7\nSupport for the external dimensions of the CEAS\nThe Support Office shall, in agreement with the Commission, coordinate the exchange of information and other action taken on issues arising from the implementation of instruments and mechanisms relating to the external dimension of the CEAS.\nThe Support Office shall coordinate exchanges of information and other actions on resettlement taken by Member States with a view to meeting the international protection needs of refugees in third countries and showing solidarity with their host countries.\nPursuant to its mandate, and in accordance with Article 49, the Support Office may cooperate with competent authorities of third countries in technical matters, in particular with a view to promoting and assisting capacity building in the third countries' own asylum and reception systems and implementing regional protection programmes, and other actions relevant to durable solutions.\nSECTION 2\nSupport for Member States subject to particular pressure\nArticle 8\nParticular pressure on the asylum and reception system\nThe Support Office shall coordinate and support common action assisting asylum and reception systems of Member States subject to particular pressure which places exceptionally heavy and urgent demands on their reception facilities and asylum systems. Such pressure may be characterised by the sudden arrival of a large number of third-country nationals who may be in need of international protection and may arise from the geographical or demographical situation of the Member State.\nArticle 9\nGathering and analysing information\n1. To be able to assess the needs of Member States subject to particular pressure, the Support Office shall gather, in particular on the basis of information provided by Member States, the UNHCR and, where appropriate, other relevant organisations, relevant information for the identification, preparation and formulation of emergency measures referred to in Article 10 to cope with such pressure.\n2. The Support Office shall systematically identify, collect and analyse, on the basis of data provided by Member States subject to particular pressure, information relating to the structures and staff available, especially for translation and interpretation, information on countries of origin and on assistance in the handling and management of asylum cases and the asylum capacity in those Member States subject to particular pressure, with a view to fostering quick and reliable mutual information to the various Member States' asylum authorities.\n3. The Support Office shall analyse data on any sudden arrival of large numbers of third country nationals, which may cause particular pressure on asylum and reception systems and ensure the rapid exchange of relevant information amongst Member States and the Commission. The Support Office shall make use of existing early warning systems and mechanisms and, if necessary, set up an early warning system for its own purposes.\nArticle 10\nSupport actions for the Member States\nAt the request of the Member States concerned, the Support Office shall coordinate actions to support Member States subject to particular pressure on their asylum and reception systems, including coordinating:\n(a)\naction to help Member States subject to particular pressure to facilitate an initial analysis of asylum applications under examination by the competent national authorities;\n(b)\naction designed to ensure that appropriate reception facilities can be made available by the Member States subject to particular pressure, in particular emergency accommodation, transport and medical assistance;\n(c)\nthe asylum support teams, the operating arrangements of which are set out in Chapter 3.\nSECTION 3\nContribution to the implementation of the CEAS\nArticle 11\nGathering and exchanging information\n1. The Support Office shall organise, coordinate and promote the exchange of information between the Member States' asylum authorities and between the Commission and the Member States' asylum authorities concerning the implementation of all relevant instruments of the asylum acquis of the Union. To that end, the Support Office may create factual, legal and case-law databases on national, Union and international asylum instruments making use, inter alia, of existing arrangements. Without prejudice to the activities of the Support Office pursuant to Article 15 and 16, no personal data shall be stored in such databases, unless such data has been obtained by the Support Office from documents that are publicly accessible.\n2. In particular, the Support Office shall gather information on the following:\n(a)\nthe processing of applications for international protection by national administrations and authorities;\n(b)\nnational law and legal developments in the field of asylum, including case law.\nArticle 12\nReports and other Support Office documents\n1. The Support Office shall draw up an annual report on the situation of asylum in the Union, taking due account of information already available from other relevant sources. As part of that report, the Support Office shall evaluate the results of activities carried out under this Regulation and make a comprehensive comparative analysis of them with the aim of improving the quality, consistency and effectiveness of the CEAS.\n2. The Support Office may adopt, in accordance with its work programme or at the request of the Management Board or the Commission, taking due account of views expressed by Member States or the European Parliament, acting in close consultation with its working parties and the Commission, technical documents on the implementation of the asylum instruments of the Union, including guidelines and operating manuals. Whenever such technical documents make reference to points of international refugee law, due regard shall be given to relevant UNHCR guidelines. The documents shall not purport to give instructions to Member States about the grant or refusal of applications for international protection.\nCHAPTER 3\nASYLUM SUPPORT TEAMS\nArticle 13\nCoordination\n1. A Member State or Member States subject to particular pressure may request the Support Office for deployment of an asylum support team. The requesting Member State or Member States shall provide, in particular a description of the situation, indicate the objectives of the request for deployment and specify the estimated deployment requirements, in accordance with Article 18(1).\n2. In response to such a request, the Support Office may coordinate the necessary technical and operational assistance to the requesting Member State or Member States and the deployment, for a limited time, of an asylum support team in the territory of that Member State or those Member States on the basis of an operating plan as referred to in Article 18.\nArticle 14\nTechnical assistance\nThe asylum support teams shall provide expertise as agreed upon in the operating plan referred to in Article 18, in particular in relation to interpreting services, information on countries of origin and knowledge of the handling and management of asylum cases within the framework of the actions to support Member States referred to in Article 10.\nArticle 15\nAsylum Intervention Pool\n1. On a proposal by the Executive Director, the Management Board shall decide by a majority of three quarters of its members with voting rights on the profiles and the overall number of the experts to be made available for the asylum support teams (Asylum Intervention Pool). As part of the Asylum Intervention Pool, the Support Office shall set up a list of interpreters. The same procedure shall apply with regard to any subsequent changes in the profiles and the overall number of experts of the Asylum Intervention Pool.\n2. Member States shall contribute to the Asylum Intervention Pool via a national expert pool on the basis of defined profiles and propose experts corresponding to the required profiles.\nMember States shall assist the Support Office in identifying interpreters for the list of interpreters.\nMember States may choose to deploy interpreters or to make them available via video-conferencing.\nArticle 16\nDeployment\n1. The home Member State shall retain its autonomy as regards the selection of the number and the profiles of the experts (national pool) and the duration of their deployment. Member States shall make those experts available for deployment at the Support Office's request unless they are faced with a situation substantially affecting the discharge of national duties, such as one resulting in insufficient staffing for the performing of procedures to determine the status of persons applying for international protection. Member States shall, at the request of the Support Office, as soon as possible communicate the number, names and profiles of experts from their national pool who can be made available as soon as possible to join an asylum support team.\n2. When determining the composition of an asylum support team, the Executive Director shall take into account the particular circumstances confronting the requesting Member State. The asylum support team shall be constituted in accordance with the operating plan referred to in Article 18.\nArticle 17\nProcedure for deciding on deployment\n1. If required, the Executive Director may send the Support Office experts to assess the situation in the requesting Member State.\n2. The Executive Director shall immediately notify the Management Board of any request for deployment of asylum support teams.\n3. The Executive Director shall take a decision on the request for deployment of asylum support teams as soon as possible and no later than five working days from the date of receipt of the request. The Executive Director shall notify the requesting Member State and the Management Board of the decision simultaneously in writing stating the main reasons therefor.\n4. If the Executive Director decides to deploy one or more asylum support teams, an operating plan shall immediately be drawn up by the Support Office and the requesting Member State in accordance with Article 18.\n5. As soon as that plan has been agreed, the Executive Director shall inform the Member States providing the experts to be deployed of the number and profiles required. That information shall be provided, in writing, to the national contact points referred to in Article 19 and shall specify the scheduled date of deployment. A copy of the operating plan shall also be sent to them.\n6. If the Executive Director is absent or indisposed, the decisions on the deployment of the asylum support teams shall be taken by the head of unit assuming his duties.\nArticle 18\nOperating plan\n1. The Executive Director and the requesting Member State shall agree on an operating plan setting out in detail the conditions for deployment of the asylum support teams. The operating plan shall include:\n(a)\na description of the situation, with the modus operandi and objectives of the deployment, including the operational objective;\n(b)\nthe forecast duration of the teams' deployment;\n(c)\nthe geographical area of responsibility in the requesting Member State where the teams will be deployed;\n(d)\na description of the tasks and special instructions for members of the teams, including databases that they are authorised to consult and the equipment that they may carry in the requesting Member State; and\n(e)\nthe composition of the teams.\n2. Any amendments to or adaptations of the operating plan shall require the agreement of both the Executive Director and the requesting Member State. The Support Office shall immediately send a copy of the amended or adapted operating plan to the participating Member States.\nArticle 19\nNational contact point\nEach Member State shall designate a national contact point for communication with the Support Office on all matters pertaining to the asylum support teams.\nArticle 20\nUnion contact point\n1. The Executive Director shall designate one or more Support Office experts to act as the Union contact point for coordination. The Executive Director shall notify the host Member State of such designations.\n2. The Union contact point shall act on behalf of the Support Office in all aspects of the deployment of asylum support teams. In particular, the Union contact point shall:\n(a)\nact as an interface between the Support Office and the host Member State;\n(b)\nact as an interface between the Support Office and members of the asylum support teams, providing assistance, on behalf of the Support Office, on all issues relating to the conditions of deployment of those teams;\n(c)\nmonitor the correct implementation of the operating plan; and\n(d)\nreport to the Support Office on all aspects of the asylum support teams' deployment.\n3. The Executive Director may authorise the Union contact point to assist in resolving any disputes concerning the implementation of the operating plan and the deployment of asylum support teams.\n4. In discharging his duties, the Union contact point shall take instructions only from the Support Office.\nArticle 21\nCivil liability\n1. Where members of an asylum support team are operating in a host Member State, that Member State shall be liable in accordance with its national law for any damage caused by them during their operations.\n2. Where such damage is caused by gross negligence or wilful misconduct, the host Member State may approach the home Member State in order to have any sums it has paid to the victims or persons entitled on their behalf reimbursed by the home Member State.\n3. Without prejudice to the exercise of its rights vis-\u00e0-vis third parties, each Member State shall waive all its claims against the host Member State or any other Member State for any damage it has sustained, except in cases of gross negligence or wilful misconduct.\n4. Any dispute between Member States relating to the application of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article which cannot be resolved by negotiations between them shall be submitted by them to the Court of Justice in accordance with Article 273 of the TFEU.\n5. Without prejudice to the exercise of its rights vis-\u00e0-vis third parties, the Support Office shall meet costs relating to damage caused to the Support Office's equipment during deployment, except in cases of gross negligence or wilful misconduct.\nArticle 22\nCriminal liability\nDuring the deployment of an asylum support team, members of an asylum support team shall be treated in the same way as officials of the host Member State with regard to any criminal offences that might be committed against them or by them.\nArticle 23\nCosts\nWhere Member States make their experts available for deployment to asylum support teams, the Support Office shall meet costs relating to the following:\n(a)\ntravel from the home Member State to the host Member State and from the host Member State to the home Member State;\n(b)\nvaccinations;\n(c)\nspecial insurance cover required;\n(d)\nhealth care;\n(e)\ndaily subsistence allowances, including accommodation;\n(f)\nthe Support Office's technical equipment; and\n(g)\nexperts' fees.\nCHAPTER 4\nORGANISATION OF THE SUPPORT OFFICE\nArticle 24\nAdministrative and management structure of the Support Office\nThe administrative and management structure of the Support Office shall comprise:\n(a)\na Management Board;\n(b)\nan Executive Director and the staff of the Support Office.\nThe administrative and management structure of the Support Office may comprise an Executive Committee, if established in accordance with Article 29(2).\nArticle 25\nComposition of the Management Board\n1. Each Member State bound by this Regulation shall appoint one member to the Management Board and the Commission shall appoint two members.\n2. Each member of the Management Board may be represented or accompanied by an alternate; when accompanying a member, the alternate member shall attend without having the right to vote.\n3. Management Board members shall be appointed on the basis of their experience, professional responsibility and high degree of expertise in the field of asylum.\n4. A representative of the UNHCR shall be a non-voting member of the Management Board.\n5. The term of office of members of the Management Board shall be three years. That term shall be renewable. On the expiry of their term of office or in the event of their resignation, members shall remain in office until their appointments are renewed or until they are replaced.\nArticle 26\nChair of the Management Board\n1. The Management Board shall elect a Chair and a Deputy Chair from among its members with voting rights. The Deputy Chair shall automatically replace the Chair if he is prevented from attending to his duties.\n2. The terms of office of the Chair and of the Deputy Chair shall be three years and may be renewed only once. If, however, their membership of the Management Board ends at any time during their term of office as Chair or Deputy Chair, their term of office shall automatically expire on that date also.\nArticle 27\nMeetings of the Management Board\n1. The meetings of the Management Board shall be convened by the Chair. The Executive Director shall take part in the meetings. The representative of the UNHCR shall not take part in the meeting when the Management Board performs the functions laid down in points (b), (h), (i), (j) and (m) of Article 29(1) and in Article 29(2), and when the Management Board decides to make financial resources available for financing the activities enabling the Support Office to benefit from the UNHCR's expertise in asylum matters as referred to in Article 50.\n2. The Management Board shall hold at least two ordinary meetings a year. In addition, it shall meet on the initiative of its Chair or at the request of one third of its members.\n3. The Management Board may invite any person whose opinion may be of interest to attend its meetings as an observer.\nDenmark shall be invited to attend the meetings of the Management Board.\n4. The members of the Management Board may, subject to the provisions of its rules of procedure, be assisted by advisers or experts.\n5. The secretariat for the Management Board shall be provided by the Support Office.\nArticle 28\nVoting\n1. Unless provided otherwise, the Management Board shall take its decisions by an absolute majority of its members with voting rights. Each member entitled to vote shall have one vote. In the absence of a member, his alternate shall be entitled to exercise his right to vote.\n2. The Executive Director shall not vote.\n3. The Chair shall take part in the voting.\n4. Member States that do not fully participate in the acquis of the Union in the field of asylum shall not vote where the Management Board is called on to take decisions falling within point (e) of Article 29(1) and where the technical document in question relates exclusively to an asylum instrument of the Union by which they are not bound.\n5. The Management Board's rules of procedure shall establish more detailed voting arrangements, in particular the circumstances in which a member may act on behalf of another member, and any quorum requirements, where necessary.\nArticle 29\nFunctions of the Management Board\n1. The Management Board shall ensure that the Support Office performs the duties assigned to it. It shall be the Support Office's planning and monitoring body. In particular, it shall:\n(a)\nadopt its rules of procedure, by a majority of three quarters of its members with voting rights and after receiving the opinion of the Commission;\n(b)\nappoint the Executive Director in accordance with Article 30, exercise disciplinary authority over the Executive Director and, where necessary, suspend or dismiss him;\n(c)\nadopt an annual general report on the Support Office's activities and send it, by 15 June of the following year, to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors. The annual general report shall be made public;\n(d)\nadopt an annual report on the situation of asylum in the Union in accordance with Article 12(1). That report shall be presented to the European Parliament. The Council and the Commission may request that the report to be presented also to them;\n(e)\nadopt the technical documents referred to in Article 12(2);\n(f)\nby 30 September each year, on the basis of a draft put forward by the Executive Director and after having received the opinion of the Commission, adopt, by a majority of three quarters of its members with voting rights, the Support Office's work programme for the following year and send it to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. That work programme shall be adopted in accordance with the annual budgetary procedure of the Union and the legislative work programme of the Union in the area of asylum;\n(g)\nexercise its responsibilities in respect of the Support Office's budget as laid down in Chapter 5;\n(h)\nadopt the detailed rules for applying Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in accordance with Article 42 of this Regulation;\n(i)\nadopt the Support Office's staff policy in accordance with Article 38;\n(j)\nadopt, having requested the opinion of the Commission, the multiannual staff policy plan;\n(k)\ntake all decisions for the purpose of fulfilling the Support Office's mandate as laid down in this Regulation;\n(l)\ntake all decisions on the establishment and, where necessary, the development of the information systems provided for in this Regulation, including the information portal referred to in point (c) of Article 4; and\n(m)\ntake all decisions on the establishment and, where necessary, the modification of the Support Office's internal structures.\n2. The Management Board may establish an Executive Committee to assist it and the Executive Director with regard to the preparation of the decisions, work programme and activities to be adopted by the Management Board and when necessary, because of urgency, to take certain provisional decisions on behalf of the Management Board.\nSuch an Executive Committee shall consist of eight members appointed from among the members of the Management Board amongst whom one of the Commission members of the Management Board. The term of office of members of the Executive Committee shall be the same as that of members of the Management Board.\nAt the request of the Executive Committee, UNHCR representatives or any other person whose opinion might be of interest may attend meetings of the Executive Committee without the right to vote.\nThe Support Office shall lay down the operating procedures of the Executive Committee in the Support Office's rules of procedure and make those procedures public.\nArticle 30\nAppointment of the Executive Director\n1. The Executive Director shall be appointed for a term of five years by the Management Board from among the suitable candidates identified in an open competition organised by the Commission. That selection procedure will provide for publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and elsewhere, of a call for expressions of interest. The Management Board may require a new procedure if it is not satisfied with the suitability of any of the candidates retained in the first list. The Executive Director shall be appointed on the basis of his personal merits, experience in the field of asylum and administrative and management skills. Before appointment, the candidate selected by the Management Board shall be invited to make a statement before the competent committee or committees of the European Parliament and answer questions put by its or their members.\nAfter that statement, the European Parliament may adopt an opinion setting out its view relating to the selected candidate. The Management Board shall inform the European Parliament of the manner in which that opinion is taken into account. The opinion shall be treated as personal and confidential until the appointment of the candidate.\nIn the course of the last nine months of the Executive Director's five-year term, the Commission shall carry out an evaluation focusing on:\n-\nthe performance of the Executive Director; and\n-\nthe Support Office's duties and requirements in coming years.\n2. The Management Board, taking into account that evaluation, may extend the term of office of the Executive Director once for not more than three years but only where such an extension is justified by the purpose and requirements of the Support Office.\n3. The Management Board shall inform the European Parliament of its intention to extend the Executive Director's term of office. In the month prior to such extension of his term of office the Executive Director shall be invited to make a statement before the competent committee or committees of the European Parliament and answer questions put by its or their members.\nArticle 31\nDuties of the Executive Director\n1. The Support Office shall be managed by its Executive Director, who shall be independent in the performance of his duties. The Executive Director shall be accountable to the Management Board for his activities.\n2. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission, the Management Board, or the Executive Committee, if established, the Executive Director shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body.\n3. The Executive Director shall report to the European Parliament on the performance of his duties when invited. The Council may invite the Executive Director to report on the performance of his duties.\n4. The Executive Director shall be the legal representative of the Support Office.\n5. The Executive Director may be assisted by one or more heads of unit. If the Executive Director is absent or indisposed, a head of unit shall take his place.\n6. The Executive Director shall be responsible for the administrative management of the Support Office and for the implementation of the duties assigned to it by this Regulation. In particular, the Executive Director shall be responsible for:\n(a)\nthe day-to-day administration of the Support Office;\n(b)\nestablishing the Support Office's work programmes, after having received the opinion of the Commission;\n(c)\nimplementing the work programmes and decisions adopted by the Management Board;\n(d)\ndrafting reports on countries of origin as provided for in point (b) of Article 4;\n(e)\npreparing the Support Office's draft financial regulation for adoption by the Management Board under Article 37, and its implementing rules;\n(f)\npreparing the Support Office's draft statement of estimates of revenue and expenditure and of implementation of its budget;\n(g)\nexercising the powers laid down in Article 38 in respect of Support Office staff;\n(h)\ntaking all decisions on the management of the information systems provided for in this Regulation, including the information portal referred to in point (c) of Article 4;\n(i)\ntaking all decisions on the management of the Support Office's internal structures; and\n(j)\nthe coordination and operation of the Consultative Forum referred to in Article 51. To this end, the Executive Director shall, in consultation with relevant civil society organisations, first adopt a plan for installing the Consultative Forum. Once formally installed, the Executive Director shall, in consultation with the Consultative Forum, adopt an operational plan which will include rules on the frequency and nature of consultation and the organisational mechanisms for implementing Article 51. Transparent criteria for ongoing participation in the Consultative Forum shall also be agreed.\nArticle 32\nWorking parties\n1. As part of its mandate as laid down in this Regulation, the Support Office may set up working parties composed of experts from competent Member State authorities operating in the field of asylum, including judges. The Support Office shall set up working parties for the purposes of point (e) of Article 4 and Article 12(2). Experts may be replaced by alternates, appointed at the same time.\n2. The Commission shall take part in the working parties as of right. UNHCR representatives may attend all or part of the meetings of the Support Office's working parties, depending on the nature of the issues under discussion.\n3. The working parties may invite any person whose opinion may be of interest to attend meetings, including representatives of civil society working in the field of asylum.\nCHAPTER 5\nFINANCIAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 33\nBudget\n1. Estimates of all the revenue and expenditure of the Support Office shall be prepared for each financial year, corresponding to the calendar year, and shall be shown in the Support Office's budget.\n2. The Support Office's budget shall be balanced in terms of revenue and of expenditure.\n3. Without prejudice to other resources, the Support Office's revenue shall comprise:\n(a)\na contribution from the Union entered in the general budget of the European Union;\n(b)\nany voluntary contribution from the Member States;\n(c)\ncharges for publications and any service provided by the Support Office;\n(d)\na contribution from the associate countries.\n4. The expenditure of the Support Office shall include staff remuneration, administrative and infrastructure expenses, operating costs.\nArticle 34\nEstablishment of the budget\n1. Each year the Executive Director shall draw up a draft statement of estimates of the Support Office's revenue and expenditure together for the following financial year, including the establishment plan, and send it to the Management Board.\n2. The Management Board shall, on the basis of that draft, produce a provisional draft estimate of the Support Office's revenue and expenditure for the following financial year.\n3. The provisional draft estimate of the Support Office's revenue and expenditure shall be sent to the Commission by 10 February each year. The Management Board shall send a final draft estimate, which shall include a draft establishment plan, to the Commission by 31 March.\n4. The Commission shall send the statement of estimates to the European Parliament and the Council (the budgetary authority) together with the draft general budget of the European Union.\n5. On the basis of the statement of estimates, the Commission shall enter in the draft general budget of the European Union the estimates it considers necessary for the establishment plan and the amount of the subsidy to be charged to the general budget, which it shall place before the budgetary authority in accordance with Articles 313 and 314 of the TFEU.\n6. The budgetary authority shall authorise the appropriations for the Support Office's subsidy.\n7. The budgetary authority shall adopt the Support Office's establishment plan.\n8. The Support Office's budget shall be adopted by the Management Board. It shall become final following final adoption of the general budget of the European Union. Where necessary, it shall be adjusted accordingly.\n9. The Management Board shall, as soon as possible, notify the budgetary authority of its intention to implement any project which may have significant financial implications for the funding of the budget, in particular any projects relating to immovable property such as the rental or purchase of buildings. It shall inform the Commission accordingly.\n10. Where a branch of the budgetary authority has notified its intention to deliver an opinion, it shall send its opinion to the Management Board within a period of six weeks from the date of the project's notification.\nArticle 35\nImplementation of the budget\n1. The Executive Director shall implement the Support Office's budget.\n2. Each year the Executive Director shall send to the budgetary authority all information relevant to the findings of the evaluation procedures.\nArticle 36\nPresentation of accounts and discharge\n1. By 1 March following each financial year, the Support Office's accounting officer shall communicate the provisional accounts to the Commission's Accounting Officer, together with a report on the budgetary and financial management for that financial year. The Commission's Accounting Officer shall consolidate the provisional accounts of the institutions and decentralised bodies in accordance with Article 128 of the Financial Regulation.\n2. By 31 March following each financial year, the Commission's accounting officer shall send the Support Office's provisional accounts to the Court of Auditors, together with a report on the budgetary and financial management for that financial year. The report on the budgetary and financial management for that financial year shall also be sent to the European Parliament and the Council.\n3. On receipt of the Court of Auditors' observations on the Support Office's provisional accounts pursuant to Article 129 of Financial Regulation, the Executive Director shall draw up the Support Office's final accounts under his own responsibility and submit them to the Management Board for an opinion.\n4. The Management Board shall deliver an opinion on the Support Office's final accounts.\n5. The Executive Director shall, by 1 July following each financial year, send the final accounts to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, together with the Management Board's opinion.\n6. The final accounts shall be published.\n7. The Executive Director shall send the Court of Auditors a reply to its observations by 30 September. He shall also send this reply to the Management Board.\n8. The Executive Director shall submit to the European Parliament, at the latter's request, any information required for the smooth application of the discharge procedure for the financial year in question, as laid down in Article 146(3) of Financial Regulation.\n9. On a recommendation from the Council acting by a qualified majority, the European Parliament, shall, before 15 May of year N + 2, give a discharge to the Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the budget for year N.\nArticle 37\nFinancial regulation\nThe financial regulation applicable to the Support Office shall be adopted by the Management Board after consultation with the Commission. It shall not depart from Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (11) unless such departure is specifically required for the Support Office's operation and the Commission has given its prior consent.\nCHAPTER 6\nSTAFF PROVISIONS\nArticle 38\nStaff\n1. The Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities laid down in Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (12) (the Staff Regulations) and the rules adopted jointly by the Union's institutions for the purpose of applying these Staff Regulations and Conditions of Employment shall apply to the staff of the Support Office, including the Executive Director.\n2. The Management Board shall, in agreement with the Commission, adopt the necessary implementing measures referred to in Article 110 of the Staff Regulations.\n3. The powers conferred on the appointing authority by the Staff Regulations and on the authority entitled to conclude contracts by the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be exercised by the Support Office in respect of its own staff.\n4. The Management Board shall adopt provisions to allow national experts from Member States to be employed on secondment to the Support Office.\nArticle 39\nPrivileges and immunities\nThe Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union shall apply to the Support Office.\nCHAPTER 7\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 40\nLegal status\n1. The Support Office shall be a body of the Union. It shall have legal personality.\n2. In each of the Member States the Support Office shall enjoy the most extensive legal capacity accorded to legal persons under their laws. It may, in particular, acquire and dispose of movable and immovable property and be party to legal proceedings.\n3. The Support Office shall be represented by its Executive Director.\nArticle 41\nLanguage arrangements\n1. The provisions laid down in Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used in the European Economic Community (13) shall apply to the Support Office.\n2. Without prejudice to decisions taken on the basis of Article 342 of the TFEU, the annual general report on the Support Office's activities and the annual work programme referred to in points (c) and (f) of Article 29(1) shall be produced in all the official languages of the institutions of the European Union.\n3. The translation services required for the functioning of the Support Office shall be provided by the Translation Centre of the bodies of the European Union.\nArticle 42\nAccess to documents\n1. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 shall apply to documents held by the Support Office.\n2. The Management Board shall, within six months of the date of its first meeting, adopt the detailed rules for applying Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.\n3. Decisions taken by the Support Office under Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 may form the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman or of an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union, under the conditions laid down in Articles 228 and 263 of the TFEU respectively.\n4. The processing of data of a personal nature by the Support Office shall be subject to the Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\nArticle 43\nSecurity rules on the protection of classified information and non-classified sensitive information\n1. The Support Office shall apply the security principles contained in Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending its internal Rules of Procedure (14), inter alia, the provisions for the exchange, processing and storage of classified information.\n2. The Support Office shall also apply the security principles relating to the processing of non-classified sensitive information as adopted and implemented by the Commission.\nArticle 44\nCombating fraud\n1. In order to combat fraud, corruption and other unlawful activities the Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 shall apply without restriction.\n2. The Support Office shall accede to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 and shall issue, without delay, the appropriate provisions applicable to all the employees of the Support Office.\n3. The decisions concerning funding and the implementing agreements and instruments resulting from them shall explicitly stipulate that the Court of Auditors and OLAF may carry out, if necessary, on-the-spot checks among recipients of the Support Office's funding and the agents responsible for allocation thereof.\nArticle 45\nProvisions on liability\n1. The Support Office's contractual liability shall be governed by the law applicable to the contract in question.\n2. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give judgment pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by the Support Office.\n3. In the case of non-contractual liability, the Support Office shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its departments or by its staff in the performance of their duties.\n4. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction in disputes over compensation for damages referred to in paragraph 3.\n5. The personal liability of its staff towards the Support Office shall be governed by the provisions laid down in the Staff Regulations applicable to them.\nArticle 46\nEvaluation and review\n1. No later than 19 June 2014, the Support Office shall commission an independent external evaluation of its achievements on the basis of terms of reference issued by the Management Board in agreement with the Commission. That evaluation shall cover the Support Office's impact on practical cooperation on asylum and on the CEAS. The evaluation shall take due regard to progress made, within its mandate, including assessing whether additional measures are necessary to ensure effective solidarity and sharing of responsibilities with Member States subject to particular pressure. It shall, in particular, address the possible need to modify the mandate of the Support Office, including the financial implications of any such modification and shall also examine whether the management structure is appropriate for carrying out the Support Office's duties. The evaluation shall take into account the views of stakeholders, at both Union and national level.\n2. The Management Board, in agreement with the Commission, shall decide the timing of future evaluations, taking into account the findings of the evaluation referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 47\nAdministrative controls\nThe activities of the Support Office shall be subject to the controls of the Ombudsman in accordance with Article 228 of the TFEU.\nArticle 48\nCooperation with Denmark\nThe Support Office shall facilitate operational cooperation with Denmark, including the exchange of information and best practices in matters covered by its activities.\nArticle 49\nCooperation with third and associate countries\n1. The Support Office shall be open to the participation of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland as observers. Arrangements shall be made, specifying in particular the nature, extent and manner in which those countries are to participate in the Support Office's work. Such arrangements shall include provisions relating to participation in initiatives undertaken by the Support Office, financial contributions and staff. As regards staff matters, those arrangements shall, in any event, comply with the Staff Regulations.\n2. In matters connected with its activities and to the extent required for the fulfilment of its duties the Support Office shall, in agreement with the Commission and within the limits of its mandate, facilitate operational cooperation between Member States and third countries other than those referred to in paragraph 1 within the framework of the Union's external relations policy, and may also cooperate with the authorities of third countries competent in technical aspects of the areas covered by this Regulation, within the framework of working arrangements concluded with those authorities, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the TFEU.\nArticle 50\nCooperation with the UNHCR\nThe Support Office shall cooperate with the UNHCR in the areas governed by this Regulation within the framework of working arrangements concluded with it. From the side of the Support Office, the Management Board shall decide on the working arrangements including their budgetary implications.\nIn addition, the Management Board may decide that the Support Office can make available financial resources to cover the expenses of the UNHCR for activities that are not provided for in the working arrangements. They shall form part of the special cooperation relations established between the Support Office and the UNHCR in accordance with this Article and with Article 2(5), Article 5, Article 9(1), Article 25(4) and Article 32(2). In accordance with Article 75 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002, the relevant provisions of the Financial Regulation and its implementing rules shall apply.\nArticle 51\nConsultative Forum\n1. The Support Office shall maintain a close dialogue with relevant civil society organisations and relevant competent bodies operating in the field of asylum policy at local, regional, national, European or international level and shall set up a Consultative Forum for this purpose.\n2. The Consultative Forum shall constitute a mechanism for the exchange of information and pooling of knowledge. It shall ensure there is a close dialogue between the Support Office and relevant stakeholders.\n3. The Consultative Forum shall be open to relevant stakeholders in accordance with paragraph 1. The Support Office shall address the members of the Consultative Forum in accordance with specific needs related to areas identified as priority for the Support Office's work.\nThe UNHCR shall be a member of the Consultative Forum ex officio.\n4. The Support Office shall call upon the Consultative Forum in particular to:\n(a)\nmake suggestions to the Management Board on the annual work programme to be adopted under point (f) of Article 29(1);\n(b)\nprovide feedback to the Management Board and suggest measures as follow-up to the annual report referred to in point (c) of Article 29(1) and the annual report on the situation of asylum in the Union referred to in Article 12(1); and\n(c)\ncommunicate conclusions and recommendations of conferences, seminars and meetings relevant to the work of the Support Office to the Executive Director and the Management Board.\n5. The Consultative Forum shall meet at least once a year.\nArticle 52\nCooperation with Frontex, FRA, other bodies of the Union and with international organisations\nThe Support Office shall cooperate with the bodies of the Union having activities relating to its field of activity, and in particular with Frontex and FRA and with international organisations competent in matters covered by this Regulation, within the framework of working arrangements concluded with those bodies, in accordance with the TFEU and the provisions on the competence of those bodies.\nCooperation shall create synergies between the bodies concerned and prevent any duplication of effort in the work carried out pursuant to their mandate.\nArticle 53\nHeadquarters agreement and operating conditions\nThe necessary arrangements concerning the accommodation to be provided for the Support Office in the host Member State and the facilities to be made available by that Member State together with the specific rules applicable in the Support Office's host Member State to the Executive Director, members of the Management Board, Support Office staff and members of their families shall be laid down in a headquarters agreement between the Support Office and the host Member State concluded once the Management Board's approval is obtained. The host Member State shall provide the best possible conditions to ensure the proper functioning of the Support Office, including multilingual, European-oriented schooling and appropriate transport connections.\nArticle 54\nStart of the Support Office's activities\nThe Support Office shall become fully operational by 19 June 2011.\nThe Commission shall be responsible for the establishment and initial operation of the Support Office until it has the operational capacity to implement its own budget.\nTo that end:\n-\nuntil such time as the Executive Director takes up his duties following his appointment by the Management Board in accordance with Article 30, a Commission official may act as interim Director and exercise the duties assigned to the Executive Director;\n-\nCommission officials may carry out the duties assigned to the Support Office under the responsibility of its interim Director or Executive Director.\nThe interim Director may authorise all payments covered by appropriations entered in the Support Office's budget after approval by the Management Board and may conclude contracts, including staff contracts, following the adoption of the Support Office's establishment plan.\nArticle 55\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 19 May 2010.", "references": ["28", "29", "42", "83", "0", "20", "21", "68", "71", "94", "84", "78", "55", "98", "37", "65", "77", "46", "85", "40", "15", "67", "39", "58", "76", "41", "9", "18", "64", "12", "No Label", "5", "7", "13", "14", "36"], "gold": ["5", "7", "13", "14", "36"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 787/2012\nof 31 August 2012\nderogating from Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 as regards the determination of the refund rate for pigmeat in the case of supplies as referred to in Article 34 of that Regulation and carried out from 1 to 18 April 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 170 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 342/2012 (2) fixed export refunds for pigmeat at zero.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 34 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 (3), Member States may authorise exporters to follow a procedure whereby the last day of the month is used to determine the rate of the refund applicable to supplies as referred to in Article 34 of that Regulation loaded each month.\n(3)\nEntitlement to the refund on specific supplies carried out under the procedure provided for in Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009, before the date of the entry into force of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 342/2012, should not be affected. In order to determine that refund, it is therefore necessary to set the date to be used for that purpose, by way of derogation from Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009, the date 18 April 2012 shall be used to determine the rate of refund applicable for pigmeat in the case of supplies as referred to in Article 41(1) of that Regulation and carried out from 1 to 18 April 2012 in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 34 of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 August 2012.", "references": ["89", "31", "81", "79", "45", "46", "6", "76", "5", "33", "97", "54", "91", "47", "7", "77", "90", "25", "15", "40", "65", "94", "83", "21", "28", "87", "44", "82", "59", "86", "No Label", "8", "20", "22", "69"], "gold": ["8", "20", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 467/2012\nof 1 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2012.", "references": ["70", "19", "38", "10", "5", "80", "82", "17", "15", "4", "18", "30", "52", "27", "26", "37", "66", "45", "6", "73", "64", "28", "97", "86", "39", "46", "75", "8", "12", "83", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1114/2011\nof 4 November 2011\nrepealing Regulation (EC) No 601/2008 on protective measures applying to certain fishery products imported from Gabon and intended for human consumption\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 601/2008 (2) applies to certain fishery products originating in Gabon and intended for human consumption. It provides for laboratory checks on each consignment of such fishery products to ensure compliance with the relevant limit values for heavy metals and sulphites, respectively, that are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (3) and in European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (4). These protective measures were taken after a Community inspection in 2007 revealed significant shortcomings in Gabon\u2019s monitoring system.\n(2)\nThe Food and Veterinary Office carried out a follow-up inspection in Gabon in July 2010 to evaluate the monitoring system in place governing the production of fishery products intended for export to the Union. The inspection team observed improvements in legislation, official control procedures and laboratory performance. A number of recommendations were made that were subsequently addressed by Gabon. In addition, pre-export controls carried out in Gabon now provide appropriate guarantees to allow imports of fishery products, intended for human consumption, into the Union.\n(3)\nSince the checks provided for in Regulation (EC) No 601/2008 are no longer necessary that Regulation should be repealed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 601/2008 is repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 November 2011.", "references": ["88", "40", "24", "83", "42", "14", "26", "37", "71", "85", "10", "43", "98", "49", "91", "7", "3", "68", "58", "6", "80", "11", "53", "86", "2", "93", "34", "65", "48", "66", "No Label", "22", "23", "38", "60", "67", "84", "94"], "gold": ["22", "23", "38", "60", "67", "84", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 678/2012\nof 16 July 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Sz\u0151regi r\u00f3zsat\u0151 (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Hungary's application to register the name \u2018Sz\u0151regi r\u00f3zsat\u0151\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["51", "21", "79", "3", "85", "93", "17", "45", "42", "73", "61", "22", "30", "35", "59", "10", "4", "64", "52", "6", "86", "98", "67", "14", "74", "12", "32", "54", "75", "16", "No Label", "24", "25", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 261/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 14 March 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards contractual relations in the milk and milk products sector\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 42 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSuccessive reforms of the common market organisation covering milk and milk products, now contained in Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (4), have been aimed at market orientation, that is, letting price signals guide the decisions of farmers in terms of what and how much to produce, so as to strengthen the competitive situation of the dairy sector and its sustainability in the context of globalised trade. It was therefore decided to increase quotas gradually, by adopting Council Regulation (EC) No 72/2009 of 19 January 2009 on modifications to the Common Agricultural Policy by amending Regulations (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 320/2006, (EC) No 1405/2006, (EC) No 1234/2007, (EC) No 3/2008 and (EC) No 479/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1883/78, (EEC) No 1254/89, (EEC) No 2247/89, (EEC) No 2055/93, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 2596/97, (EC) No 1182/2005 and (EC) No 315/2007 (5) (the \u2018Health Check\u2019 reform of 2008-2009), in order to ensure a smooth phasing out of the milk quota system by 2015.\n(2)\nIn the period from 2007 to 2009, exceptional developments took place in the milk and milk products sector markets, which ultimately resulted in a price collapse in 2008/09. Initially, extreme weather conditions in Oceania brought about a significant decline in supplies, leading to a rapid and significant increase in prices. Although world supplies started to recover and prices started to return to more normal levels, the subsequent financial and economic crisis negatively affected Union dairy producers, aggravating price volatility. Higher commodity prices resulted in a significant increase in feed and other input costs including energy. Subsequently, a drop in worldwide, as well as Union, demand, including demand for milk and milk products, during a period when Union production remained stable, led Union prices to fall to the lower safety net level. This sharp decline in dairy commodity prices failed to fully translate into lower dairy prices at consumer levels, generating, for downstream sectors, a widening in the gross margin for most milk and milk sector products and countries, and preventing demand for them from adjusting to low commodity prices, slowing down price recovery and exacerbating the impact of low prices on milk producers, the viability of many of whom was put at serious risk.\n(3)\nIn response to this difficult market situation for milk, a High Level Expert Group on Milk (HLG) was set up in October 2009 with the purpose of discussing mid- and long-term arrangements for the milk and milk products sector which, in the context of the end of dairy quotas in 2015, would contribute to stabilising the market and milk producers\u2019 incomes and to enhancing transparency in the sector.\n(4)\nThe HLG obtained oral and written input from major European stakeholder groups in the dairy supply chain representing farmers, dairy processors, dairy traders, retailers and consumers. Furthermore, the HLG received contributions from invited academic experts, third-country representatives, national competition authorities and from the Commission\u2019s services. A dairy stakeholder conference was also held on 26 March 2010 allowing a wider range of actors in the supply chain to express their views. The HLG delivered its report on 15 June 2010. The report contained an analysis of the current state of the dairy sector and a number of recommendations which focused on contractual relations, the bargaining power of producers, interprofessional/interbranch organisations, transparency (including the further elaboration of the European Price Monitoring Tool), market measures and futures, marketing standards and origin labelling, and innovation and research. As a first step, this Regulation addresses the first four of these issues.\n(5)\nThe HLG noted that the dairy producing and processing sectors are highly differentiated between Member States. There is also a highly variable situation between operators and types of operators within individual Member States. However, in many cases the concentration of supply is low, which results in an imbalance in bargaining power in the supply chain between farmers and dairies. This imbalance can lead to unfair commercial practices; in particular, farmers may not know at the moment of delivery what price they will receive for their milk because frequently the price is fixed much later by dairies on the basis of the added value obtained, which is often beyond the farmer\u2019s control.\n(6)\nThere is thus a problem of price transmission along the chain, in particular as regards farm-gate prices, the level of which generally does not evolve in line with rising production costs. Conversely, during 2009, the supply of milk did not adjust promptly to lower demand. Indeed, in some large producer Member States, farmers reacted to lower prices by producing more than in the previous year. Value added in the dairy chain has become increasingly concentrated in the downstream sectors, especially dairies and retailers, with a final consumer price that is not reflected in the price paid to milk producers. All actors in the dairy chain, including the distribution sector, should be encouraged to collaborate to address this imbalance.\n(7)\nFor dairies, the volume of milk which is delivered to them during the season is not always well planned. Even in the case of dairy cooperatives (which are owned by farmers, possess processing facilities and process 58 % of the Union\u2019s raw milk), there is a potential failure to adapt supply to demand: farmers are obliged to deliver all their milk to their cooperative and the cooperative is obliged to accept all that milk.\n(8)\nThe use of formalised written contracts concluded in advance of delivery containing basic elements is not widespread. However, such contracts may help to reinforce the responsibility of operators in the dairy chain and increase awareness of the need to better take into account the signals of the market, to improve price transmission and to adapt supply to demand, as well as to help to avoid certain unfair commercial practices.\n(9)\nIn the absence of Union legislation concerning such contracts, Member States may, within their own contract law systems, decide to make the use of such contracts compulsory provided that in doing so Union law is respected and in particular that the proper functioning of the internal market and the common market organisation is respected. In view of the diversity of the situations that exist across the Union in relation to contract law, in the interests of subsidiarity, such a decision should remain with Member States. Equal conditions should apply to all deliveries of raw milk on a given territory. Therefore, if a Member State decides that every delivery of raw milk in its territory to a processor by a farmer must be covered by a written contract between the parties, this obligation should also apply to deliveries of raw milk coming from other Member States, but it is not necessary for it to apply to deliveries to other Member States. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity it should be left to Member States to decide whether to require a first purchaser to make a written offer to a farmer for such a contract.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure appropriate minimum standards for such contracts and to ensure that the internal market and the common market organisation function well, some basic conditions for the use of such contracts should be laid down at Union level. All such basic conditions should, however, be freely negotiated. Nevertheless, in order to strengthen the stability of the dairy market and the outlet for milk producers in certain Member States where the use of extremely short contracts is quite widespread, Member States should be allowed to set a minimum contract duration to be included in such contracts and/or offers. Such minimum duration should however be imposed only on contracts between first purchasers and milk producers or in the offers made by first purchasers to milk producers. Moreover, it should not impair the proper functioning of the internal market and milk producers should be free to opt out or refuse such a minimum duration. Among the basic conditions, it is important that the price payable for the delivery can be set in the contract, at the choice of the contracting parties, as a static price or a price varying depending on defined factors, such as the volume and the quality or composition of the raw milk delivered, without excluding the possibility of a combination of a static price for a certain volume and a formula price for an additional volume of raw milk delivered in a single contract.\n(11)\nDairy cooperatives which have in their statutes or in the rules and decisions based thereon provisions with effects similar to those of the basic conditions for contracts laid down in this Regulation should, in the interests of simplicity, be exempted from a requirement that there be a written contract.\n(12)\nIn order to strengthen the effectiveness of the contract-based system set out above, where intermediate parties collect milk from farmers to deliver to processors, Member States should be given the possibility of applying that system also to those intermediaries.\n(13)\nArticle 42 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that Union rules on competition are to apply to production of and trade in agricultural products only to the extent determined by the European Parliament and the Council within the framework of Article 43(2) TFEU, which itself provides for the establishment of the common organisation of agricultural markets.\n(14)\nIn order to ensure the viable development of production and thus to ensure a fair standard of living for dairy farmers, their bargaining power vis-\u00e0-vis dairy processors should be strengthened, thereby resulting in a fairer distribution of value added along the supply chain. Therefore, in order to realise these objectives of the common agricultural policy, a provision should be adopted pursuant to Article 42 and Article 43(2) TFEU to allow producer organisations constituted solely of dairy farmers or their associations to jointly negotiate contract terms, including price, for some or all of its members\u2019 production, with a dairy. However, only producer organisations which seek and obtain recognition under Article 122 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 should be eligible to benefit from that provision. In addition, that provision should not apply to recognised producers\u2019 organisations, including cooperatives, that process all the raw milk of their members, since no delivery of raw milk to other processors is at stake. Furthermore, provision should be made for the possibility of de facto recognition under this Regulation for existing producer organisations recognised under national law.\n(15)\nSo as not to undermine the effective functioning of cooperatives and for the sake of clarity, it should be specified that, when a farmer\u2019s membership of a cooperative entails an obligation, in respect of all or a part of that farmer\u2019s milk production, to deliver raw milk, the conditions of which are set out in the cooperative\u2019s statutes or in the rules and decisions based thereon, those conditions should not be subject to a negotiation through a producer organisation.\n(16)\nIn addition, in order to maintain effective competition on the dairy market, this possibility should be subject to appropriate limits expressed in terms of a percentage of the Union\u2019s production and of the production of any Member State covered by such negotiations. The limit expressed in terms of a percentage of the national production should first apply to the volume of raw milk produced in the producing Member State or in each of the producing Member States. The same percentage limit should also apply to the volume of raw milk delivered to any particular Member State of destination.\n(17)\nIn view of the importance of protected designations of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indications (PGI), notably for vulnerable rural regions, and in order to ensure the value added and to maintain the quality of, in particular, cheeses benefiting from PDO or PGI, and in the context of the expiring milk quota system, Member States should be allowed to apply rules to regulate the supply of such cheese produced in the defined geographical area. The rules should cover the entire production of the cheese concerned and should be requested by an interbranch organisation, a producer organisation or a group as defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (6). Such a request should be supported by a large majority of milk producers representing a large majority of the volume of milk used for that cheese and, in the case of interbranch organisations and groups, by a large majority of cheese producers representing a large majority of the production of that cheese. Moreover, these rules should be subject to strict conditions, in particular in order to avoid damage to the trade in products in other markets and to protect minority rights. Member States should immediately publish and notify to the Commission the adopted rules, ensure regular checks and repeal the rules in case of non-compliance.\n(18)\nRules have been introduced at Union level for interbranch organisations in some sectors. These organisations can play useful roles in allowing dialogue between actors in the supply chain and in promoting best practice and market transparency. Such rules should also be applied in the milk and milk products sector, along with the provisions clarifying the position of such organisations under competition law, provided that the activities of those organisations do not distort competition or the internal market or adversely affect the good functioning of the common organisation of agricultural markets. Member States should encourage all relevant actors to participate in interbranch organisations.\n(19)\nIn order to follow developments in the market, the Commission needs timely information on volumes of raw milk delivered. Therefore, provision should be made to ensure that the first purchaser communicates such information to the Member States on a regular basis and that the Member State notifies the Commission thereof.\n(20)\nThe Commission also needs notifications from Member States with respect to contractual negotiations, recognition of producer organisations and their associations and interbranch organisations, as well as contractual relations in the milk and milk products sector, for the purpose of monitoring and analysing the application of this Regulation, notably with a view to preparing the reports which it should present to the European Parliament and Council on the development of the dairy market.\n(21)\nThe measures set out in this Regulation are justified in the current economic circumstances of the dairy market and the structure of the supply chain. They should therefore be applied for a sufficiently long period to allow them to have full effect. However, given their far-reaching nature, they should be temporary and subject to review for the purpose of seeing how they have operated and whether they should continue to apply. This should be dealt with in two Commission reports on the development of the dairy market, covering, in particular, potential incentives to encourage farmers to enter into joint production agreements, to be submitted by 30 June 2014 and by 31 December 2018 respectively.\n(22)\nThe economy of certain disadvantaged regions in the Union depends heavily on milk production. Because of the specific characteristics of these regions, general policies need be adapted to better meet their needs. The common agricultural policy already contains specific measures for those disadvantaged regions. Additional policy measures laid down in this Regulation may contribute to strengthening the position of milk producers in such regions. These effects should however be evaluated in the abovementioned reports on the basis of which the Commission should, where necessary, submit proposals to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(23)\nIn order to ensure that the objectives and responsibilities of producer organisations and associations of producer organisations in the milk and milk products sector are clearly defined, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the conditions for the recognition of transnational producer organisations and transnational associations of producer organisations, the rules on the establishment and the conditions of administrative assistance in the case of transnational cooperation and the calculation of the volume of raw milk covered by negotiations by a producer organisation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(24)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. The implementing powers relating to the implementation of conditions for the recognition of producer organisations and their associations and interbranch organisations, the notifications by those organisations of the volume of raw milk covered by negotiations, the notifications to be made by the Member States to the Commission concerning those organisations and the rules for the regulation of supply of cheese benefiting from a PDO or a PGI, detailed rules concerning agreements, decisions and concerted practices in the milk and milk products sector, the content, format and timing of compulsory declarations in that sector, certain aspects of contracts for the delivery of raw milk by farmers and the notification, to the Commission, of options taken by the Member State in this respect should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (7).\n(25)\nIn the light of the Commission\u2019s powers in the field of Union competition policy and given the special nature of those acts, the Commission should decide without applying Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 whether certain agreements and concerted practices in the milk and milk products sector are incompatible with Union competition rules, whether the negotiations by a producer organisation relating to more than one Member State may take place and whether certain rules laid down by the Member States to regulate the supply of such cheese with a PDO or a PGI should be repealed.\n(26)\nRegulation (EC) No 1234/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007\nRegulation (EC) No 1234/2007 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 122, the following point is inserted:\n\u2018(iiia)\nmilk and milk products;\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 123, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. Member States may also recognise interbranch organisations which:\n(a)\nhave formally requested recognition and are made up of representatives of economic activities linked to the production of raw milk and linked to at least one of the following stages of the supply chain: processing of or trade in, including distribution of, products of the milk and milk products sector;\n(b)\nare formed on the initiative of all or some of the representatives referred to in point (a);\n(c)\ncarry out, in one or more regions of the Union, taking into account the interests of the members of those interbranch organisations and of consumers, one or more of the following activities:\n(i)\nimproving the knowledge and the transparency of production and the market, including by publication of statistical data on the prices, volumes and durations of contracts for the delivery of raw milk which have been previously concluded, and by providing analyses of potential future market developments at regional, national and international level;\n(ii)\nhelping to coordinate better the way the products of the milk and milk products sector are placed on the market, in particular by means of research and market studies;\n(iii)\npromoting consumption of, and providing information on, milk and milk products in both internal and external markets;\n(iv)\nexploring potential export markets;\n(v)\ndrawing up standard forms of contract compatible with Union rules for the sale of raw milk to purchasers and/or the supply of processed products to distributors and retailers, taking into account the need to achieve fair competitive conditions and to avoid market distortions;\n(vi)\nproviding the information and carrying out the research necessary to adjust production in favour of products more suited to market requirements and consumer tastes and expectations, in particular with regard to product quality and protection of the environment;\n(vii)\nmaintaining and developing the production potential of the dairy sector, inter alia, by promoting innovation and supporting programmes for applied research and development in order to exploit the full potential of milk and milk products, especially in order to create value-added products which are more attractive to the consumer;\n(viii)\nseeking ways of restricting the use of animal-health products, improving the management of other inputs and enhancing food safety and animal health;\n(ix)\ndeveloping methods and instruments for improving product quality at all stages of production and marketing;\n(x)\nexploiting the potential of organic farming and protecting and promoting such farming as well as the production of products with designations of origin, quality labels and geographical indications; and\n(xi)\npromoting integrated production or other environmentally sound production methods.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Chapter II of Title II of Part II, the following Section is inserted:\n\u2018Section IIA\nRules concerning producer organisations and interbranch organisations in the milk and milk products sector\nArticle 126a\nRecognition of producer organisations and their associations in the milk and milk products sector\n1. Member States shall recognise as producer organisations in the milk and milk products sector all legal entities or clearly defined parts of legal entities applying for such recognition, provided that:\n(a)\nthey meet the requirements laid down in points (b) and (c) of the first paragraph of Article 122;\n(b)\nthey have a minimum number of members and/or cover a minimum volume of marketable production, to be laid down by the Member State concerned, in the area where they operate;\n(c)\nthere is sufficient evidence that they can carry out their activities properly, both over time and in terms of effectiveness and concentration of supply;\n(d)\nthey have a statute that is consistent with points (a), (b) and (c) of this paragraph.\n2. In response to an application, Member States may recognise an association of recognised producer organisations in the milk and milk products sector if the Member State concerned considers that this association is capable of carrying out effectively any of the activities of a recognised producer organisation and that it fulfils the conditions laid down in paragraph 1.\n3. Member States may decide that producer organisations which have been recognised before 2 April 2012 on the basis of national law and which fulfil the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article are to be considered to be recognised as producer organisations pursuant to point (iiia) of point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 122.\nProducer organisations which have been recognised before 2 April 2012 on the basis of national law and which do not fulfil the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article may continue to exercise their activities under national law until 3 October 2012.\n4. Member States shall:\n(a)\ndecide whether to grant a recognition to a producer organisation within 4 months of the lodging of an application accompanied by all the relevant supporting evidence; this application shall be lodged with the Member State where the organisation has its headquarters;\n(b)\ncarry out, at intervals to be determined by them, checks to ascertain that recognised producer organisations and associations of producer organisations are complying with the provisions of this Chapter;\n(c)\nin the event of non-compliance or irregularities in the implementation of the measures provided for in this Chapter, impose on those organisations and associations the applicable penalties they have laid down and decide whether, if necessary, recognition should be withdrawn;\n(d)\ninform the Commission once a year, and no later than 31 March, of every decision to grant, refuse or withdraw recognition which they have taken during the previous calendar year.\nArticle 126b\nRecognition of interbranch organisations in the milk and milk products sector\n1. Member States may recognise interbranch organisations in the milk and milk products sector provided that such organisations:\n(a)\nmeet the requirements laid down in Article 123(4);\n(b)\ncarry out their activities in one or more regions in the territory concerned;\n(c)\naccount for a significant share of the economic activities referred to in Article 123(4)(a);\n(d)\ndo not themselves engage in the production of processing of or the trade in products in the milk and milk products sector.\n2. Member States may decide that interbranch organisations which have been recognised before 2 April 2012 on the basis of national law and which fulfil the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are to be considered to be recognised as interbranch organisations under Article 123(4).\n3. Where Member States make use of the option to recognise an interbranch organisation in accordance with paragraph 1 and/or 2, they shall:\n(a)\ndecide whether to grant recognition to the interbranch organisation within 4 months of the lodging of an application accompanied by all the relevant supporting evidence; this application shall be lodged with the Member State where the organisation has its headquarters;\n(b)\ncarry out, at intervals to be determined by them, checks to verify that recognised interbranch organisations are complying with the conditions governing their recognition;\n(c)\nin the event of non-compliance or irregularities in the implementation of the measures provided for in this Regulation, impose on those organisations the applicable penalties they have laid down and decide whether, if necessary, recognition should be withdrawn;\n(d)\nwithdraw recognition if:\n(i)\nthe requirements and conditions for recognition laid down in this Article are no longer met;\n(ii)\nthe interbranch organisation engages in any of the agreements, decisions and concerted practices referred to in Article 177a(4), without prejudice to any other penalties to be imposed pursuant to national law;\n(iii)\nthe interbranch organisation fails to comply with the notification obligation referred to in Article 177a(2);\n(e)\ninform the Commission once a year, and no later than 31 March, of every decision to grant, refuse or withdraw recognition taken during the previous calendar year.\nArticle 126c\nContractual negotiations in the milk and milk products sector\n1. A producer organisation in the milk and milk products sector which is recognised under Article 122 may negotiate on behalf of its farmer members, in respect of part or all of their joint production, contracts for the delivery of raw milk by a farmer to a processor of raw milk, or to a collector within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 185f(1).\n2. The negotiations by the producer organisation may take place:\n(a)\nwhether or not there is a transfer of ownership of the raw milk by the farmers to the producer organisation;\n(b)\nwhether or not the price negotiated is the same as regards the joint production of some or all of the farmer members;\n(c)\nprovided that, for a particular producer organisation:\n(i)\nthe volume of raw milk covered by such negotiations does not exceed 3,5 % of total Union production; and\n(ii)\nthe volume of raw milk covered by such negotiations which is produced in any particular Member State does not exceed 33 % of the total national production of that Member State; and\n(iii)\nthe volume of raw milk covered by such negotiations which is delivered in any particular Member State does not exceed 33 % of the total national production of that Member State;\n(d)\nprovided that the farmers concerned are not members of any other producer organisation which also negotiates such contracts on their behalf; however, Member States may derogate from this condition in duly justified cases where farmers hold two distinct production units located in different geographic areas;\n(e)\nprovided that the raw milk is not covered by an obligation to deliver arising from the farmer\u2019s membership of a cooperative in accordance with the conditions set out in the cooperative\u2019s statutes or the rules and decisions provided for in or derived from these statutes; and\n(f)\nprovided that the producer organisation notifies the competent authorities of the Member State or Member States in which it operates of the volume of raw milk covered by such negotiations.\n3. Notwithstanding the conditions set out in points (ii) and (iii) of point (c) of paragraph 2, a producer organisation may negotiate pursuant to paragraph 1, provided that, with regard to that producer organisation, the volume of raw milk covered by the negotiations which is produced in or delivered in a Member State having a total annual raw milk production of less than 500 000 tonnes does not exceed 45 % of the total national production of that Member State.\n4. For the purposes of this Article, references to producer organisations shall also include associations of such producer organisations.\n5. For the purposes of applying point (c) of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, the Commission shall publish, by such means as it considers appropriate, the amounts of raw milk production in the Union and the Member States using the most up-to-date information available.\n6. By way of derogation from point (c) of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, even where the thresholds set out therein are not exceeded, the competition authority referred to in the second subparagraph of this paragraph may decide in an individual case that a particular negotiation by the producer organisation should either be reopened or should not take place at all if it considers that this is necessary in order to prevent competition being excluded or in order to avoid seriously damaging SME processors of raw milk in its territory.\nFor negotiations covering more than one Member State, the decision referred to in the first subparagraph shall be taken by the Commission without applying the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) or Article 196b(2). In other cases, that decision shall be taken by the national competition authority of the Member State to which the negotiations relate.\nThe decisions referred to in this paragraph shall not apply earlier than the date of their notification to the undertakings concerned.\n7. For the purposes of this Article:\n(a)\na \u201cnational competition authority\u201d means the authority referred to in Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty (8);\n(b)\nan \u201cSME\u201d means a micro-, small- or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (9).\n8. The Member States in which negotiations take place in accordance with this Article shall notify the Commission of the application of point (f) of paragraph 2 and paragraph 6.\nArticle 126d\nRegulation of supply for cheese with a protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication\n1. Upon the request of a producer organisation recognised under point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 122, an interbranch organisation recognised under Article 123(4) or a group of operators referred to in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Member States may lay down, for a limited period of time, binding rules for the regulation of the supply of cheese benefiting from a protected designation of origin or from a protected geographical indication under Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n2. The rules referred to in paragraph 1 shall comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 4 and shall be subject to the existence of a prior agreement between the parties in the geographical area referred to in Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. Such an agreement shall be concluded between at least two thirds of the milk producers or their representatives representing at least two thirds of the raw milk used for the production of the cheese referred to in paragraph 1 and, if appropriate, at least two thirds of the producers of that cheese representing at least two thirds of the production of that cheese in the geographical area referred to in Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n3. For the purpose of paragraph 1, concerning cheese benefiting from a protected geographical indication, the geographical area of origin of the raw milk, as set in the product specification for the cheese, shall be the same as the geographical area referred to in Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 related to that cheese.\n4. The rules referred to in paragraph 1:\n(a)\nshall only cover the regulation of supply of the product concerned and shall have the aim of adapting the supply of that cheese to demand;\n(b)\nshall have effect only on the product concerned;\n(c)\nmay be made binding for no more than 3 years and be renewed after this period, following a new request, as referred to in paragraph 1;\n(d)\nshall not damage the trade of products other than those concerned by the rules referred to in paragraph 1;\n(e)\nshall not relate to any transaction after the first marketing of the cheese concerned;\n(f)\nshall not allow for price fixing, including where prices are set for guidance or recommendation;\n(g)\nshall not render unavailable an excessive proportion of the product concerned that would otherwise be available;\n(h)\nshall not create discrimination, constitute a barrier for new entrants in the market, or lead to small producers being adversely affected;\n(i)\nshall contribute to maintaining the quality and/or the development of the product concerned;\n(j)\nshall be without prejudice to Article 126c.\n5. The rules referred to in paragraph 1 shall be published in an official publication of the Member State concerned.\n6. Member States shall carry out checks in order to ensure that the conditions laid down in paragraph 4 are complied with, and, where it has been found by the competent national authorities that such conditions have not been complied with, shall repeal the rules referred to in paragraph 1.\n7. Member States shall notify the Commission forthwith of the rules referred to in paragraph 1 which they have adopted. The Commission shall inform Member States of any notification of such rules.\n8. The Commission may at any time adopt implementing acts requiring that a Member State repeal the rules laid down by that Member State pursuant to paragraph 1 if the Commission finds that those rules do not comply with the conditions laid down in paragraph 4, prevent or distort competition in a substantial part of the internal market or jeopardise free trade or the attainment of the objectives of Article 39 TFEU. Those implementing acts shall be adopted without applying the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) or Article 196b(2).\nArticle 126e\nCommission powers in relation to producer organisations and interbranch organisations in the milk and milk products sector\n1. In order to ensure that the objectives and responsibilities of producer organisations and associations of producer organisations in the milk and milk products sector are clearly defined, so as to contribute to the effectiveness of the actions of such organisations without imposing an undue burden, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 196a which lay down:\n(a)\nthe conditions for recognising transnational producer organisations and transnational associations of producer organisations;\n(b)\nrules relating to the establishment and the conditions of administrative assistance to be given by the relevant competent authorities in the case of transnational cooperation;\n(c)\nadditional rules regarding the calculation of the volume of raw milk covered by the negotiations referred to in Article 126c(2)(c) and Article 126c(3).\n2. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down detailed rules necessary for:\n(a)\nthe implementation of the conditions for recognition of producer organisations and their associations and interbranch organisations set out in Articles 126a and 126b;\n(b)\nthe notification referred to in Article 126c(2)(f);\n(c)\nthe notifications to be made by the Member States to the Commission in accordance with Article 126a(4)(d), Article 126b(3)(e), Article 126c(8) and Article 126d(7);\n(d)\nthe procedures relating to administrative assistance in the case of transnational cooperation.\nThose implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 196b(2).\n(4)\nin Article 175 the words \u2018subject to Articles 176 to 177 of this Regulation\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018subject to Articles 176 to 177a of this Regulation\u2019;\n(5)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 177a\nAgreements, decisions and concerted practices in the milk and milk products sector\n1. Article 101(1) TFEU shall not apply to the agreements, decisions and concerted practices of recognised interbranch organisations for the purpose of carrying out the activities referred to in Article 123(4)(c) of this Regulation.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall only apply if:\n(a)\nthe agreements, decisions and concerted practices have been notified to the Commission; and\n(b)\nwithin 3 months of receipt of all the details required, the Commission, without applying the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) or Article 196b(2), has not found that the agreements, decisions or concerted practices are incompatible with Union rules.\n3. The agreements, decisions and concerted practices may not be put into effect before the period referred to in point (b) of paragraph 2 elapses.\n4. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices shall in any case be declared incompatible with Union rules if they:\n(a)\nmay lead to the partitioning of markets in any form within the Union;\n(b)\nmay affect the sound operation of the market organisation;\n(c)\nmay create distortions of competition and are not essential to achieving the objectives of the common agricultural policy pursued by the interbranch organisation activity;\n(d)\nentail the fixing of prices;\n(e)\nmay create discrimination or eliminate competition in respect of a substantial proportion of the products in question.\n5. If, after the period referred to in point (b) of paragraph 2 has expired, the Commission finds that the conditions for applying paragraph 1 have not been met, it shall, without applying the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) or Article 196b(2), take a decision declaring that Article 101(1) TFEU applies to the agreement, decision or concerted practice in question.\nThat Commission decision shall not apply earlier than the date of its notification to the interbranch organisation concerned, unless that interbranch organisation has given incorrect information or has abused the exemption provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article.\n6. In the case of multiannual agreements, the notification for the first year shall be valid for the subsequent years of the agreement. However, the Commission may, on its own initiative or at the request of another Member State, issue a finding of incompatibility at any time.\n7. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down measures necessary for the uniform application of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 196b(2).\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 184 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186.\nbefore 31 December 2010 and 31 December 2012 to the European Parliament and Council regarding the evolution of the market situation and the consequent conditions for smoothly phasing out the milk quota system, accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate proposals;\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following point is added:\n\u20189.\nby 30 June 2014 and by 31 December 2018 to the European Parliament and the Council regarding the development of the market situation in the milk and milk products sector and in particular on the operation of point (iiia) of point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 122, of Article 123(4) and of Articles 126c, 126d, 177a, 185e and 185f, assessing, in particular, the effects on milk producers and milk production in disadvantaged regions in connection with the general objective of maintaining production in such regions, and covering potential incentives to encourage farmers to enter into joint production agreements together with any appropriate proposals.\u2019,\n(7)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 185e\nCompulsory declarations in the milk and milk products sector\nFrom 1 April 2015, the first purchasers of raw milk shall declare to the competent national authority the quantity of raw milk that has been delivered to them each month.\nFor the purpose of this Article and of Article 185f, a \u201cfirst purchaser\u201d means an undertaking or group which buys milk from producers in order to:\n(a)\nsubject it to collecting, packing, storing, chilling or processing, including under a contract;\n(b)\nsell it to one or more undertakings treating or processing milk or other milk products.\nMember States shall notify the Commission of the quantity of raw milk referred to in the first subparagraph.\nThe Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down rules on the content, format and timing of such declarations and measures relating to the notifications to be made by the Member States in accordance with this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 196b(2).\nArticle 185f\nContractual relations in the milk and milk products sector\n1. If a Member State decides that every delivery of raw milk in its territory by a farmer to a processor of raw milk must be covered by a written contract between the parties and/or decides that first purchasers must make a written offer for a contract for the delivery of raw milk by the farmers, such a contract and/or such an offer for a contract shall fulfil the conditions laid down in paragraph 2.\nWhere the Member State decides that deliveries of raw milk by a farmer to a processor of raw milk must be covered by a written contract between the parties, it shall also decide which stage or stages of the delivery shall be covered by such a contract if the delivery of raw milk is made through one or more collectors. For the purposes of this Article, a \u201ccollector\u201d means an undertaking which transports raw milk from a farmer or another collector to a processor of raw milk or another collector, where the ownership of the raw milk is transferred in each case.\n2. The contract and/or the offer for a contract shall:\n(a)\nbe made in advance of the delivery;\n(b)\nbe made in writing; and\n(c)\ninclude, in particular, the following elements:\n(i)\nthe price payable for the delivery, which shall:\n-\nbe static and be set out in the contract, and/or,\n-\nbe calculated by combining various factors set out in the contract, which may include market indicators reflecting changes in market conditions, the volume delivered and the quality or composition of the raw milk delivered,\n(ii)\nthe volume of raw milk which may and/or must be delivered and the timing of such deliveries;\n(iii)\nthe duration of the contract, which may include either a definite or an indefinite duration with termination clauses;\n(iv)\ndetails regarding payment periods and procedures;\n(v)\narrangements for collecting or delivering raw milk; and\n(vi)\nrules applicable in the event of force majeure.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, a contract and/or an offer for a contract shall not be required where raw milk is delivered by a farmer to a cooperative of which the farmer is a member if the statutes of that cooperative or the rules and decisions provided for in or derived from these statutes contain provisions having similar effects to the provisions set out in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2.\n4. All elements of contracts for the delivery of raw milk concluded by farmers, collectors or processors of raw milk, including the elements referred to in paragraph 2(c), shall be freely negotiated between the parties.\nNotwithstanding the first subparagraph,\n(i)\nwhere a Member State decides to make written contracts for the delivery of raw milk compulsory in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, it may establish a minimum duration, applicable only to written contracts between a farmer and the first purchaser of raw milk. Such a minimum duration shall be at least 6 months and shall not impair the proper functioning of the internal market; and/or\n(ii)\nwhere a Member State decides that the first purchaser of raw milk must make a written offer for a contract to the farmer in accordance with paragraph 1, it may provide that the offer must include a minimum duration for the contract, set by national law for this purpose. Such a minimum duration shall be at least 6 months and shall not impair the proper functioning of the internal market.\nThe second subparagraph shall be without prejudice to the farmer\u2019s right to refuse such a minimum duration provided that he does so in writing. In this case, the parties shall be free to negotiate all elements of the contract, including those elements referred to in paragraph 2(c).\n5. The Member States which make use of the options referred to in this Article shall notify the Commission of how they are applied.\n6. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down measures necessary for the uniform application of points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of this Article and measures relating to notifications to be made by the Member States in accordance with this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 196b(2).\u2019;\n(8)\nin Chapter I of Part VII, the following Articles are added:\n\u2018Article 196a\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 126e(1) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 2 April 2012. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 9 months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than 3 months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 126e(1) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 126e(1) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 196b\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee which shall be referred to as the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets. That committee is a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (10).\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\n(9)\nin Article 204, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20187. As regards the milk and milk products sector, point (iiia) of point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 122, Article 123(4) and Articles 126a, 126b, 126e, and 177a shall apply from 2 April 2012 until 30 June 2020 and Articles 126c, 126d, 185e and 185f shall apply from 3 October 2012 until 30 June 2020.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. It shall apply from 2 April 2012.\nHowever, Articles 126c, 126d, 185e and 185f of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, as inserted by this Regulation, shall apply from 3 October 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 14 March 2012.", "references": ["5", "59", "69", "67", "57", "24", "7", "32", "14", "3", "60", "58", "53", "44", "77", "72", "88", "0", "10", "16", "80", "50", "9", "36", "13", "30", "64", "83", "20", "65", "No Label", "25", "35", "61", "62", "66", "70", "73"], "gold": ["25", "35", "61", "62", "66", "70", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 803/2010\nof 13 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2010.", "references": ["92", "51", "27", "55", "41", "56", "87", "13", "99", "33", "11", "98", "65", "20", "90", "76", "43", "80", "46", "25", "15", "42", "22", "29", "94", "63", "72", "49", "74", "96", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 353/2012\nof 23 April 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 345/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2012.", "references": ["16", "41", "80", "48", "92", "50", "59", "44", "7", "14", "34", "60", "24", "12", "91", "37", "0", "58", "3", "75", "68", "65", "18", "96", "66", "79", "56", "9", "11", "53", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 271/2012\nof 26 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 March 2012.", "references": ["79", "37", "86", "93", "41", "29", "71", "83", "92", "16", "65", "95", "72", "26", "77", "87", "5", "66", "28", "14", "91", "4", "74", "38", "7", "24", "80", "34", "56", "84", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 359/2010\nof 26 April 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["47", "14", "28", "5", "6", "25", "51", "54", "64", "12", "46", "73", "89", "34", "53", "78", "82", "66", "97", "10", "21", "8", "55", "65", "36", "17", "26", "94", "43", "63", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 43/2012\nof 17 January 2012\nfixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 43(3) of the Treaty provides that the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, is to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1) requires that measures governing access to waters and resources and the sustainable pursuit of fishing activities be established taking into account available scientific, technical and economic advice and, in particular, reports drawn up by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), as well as in the light of any advice received from Regional Advisory Councils.\n(3)\nIt is incumbent upon the Council to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities by fishery or by group of fisheries, including certain conditions functionally linked thereto, as appropriate. Fishing opportunities should be distributed among Member States in such a way as to assure each Member State relative stability of fishing activities for each stock or fishery and having due regard to the objectives of the common fisheries policy established in Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation concerning the granting individual Member State an authorisation to benefit from the system of managing its fishing effort allocations in accordance with a kilowatt days system, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission relating to granting of additional days at sea for permanent cessation of fishing activities and for enhanced scientific observer coverage as well as to establishing the formats of spreadsheet for the collection and transmission of information concerning transfer of days at sea between fishing vessels flying the flag of a Member State. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (2).\n(6)\nWhere a total allowable catch (TAC) relating to a stock is allocated to one Member State only, it is appropriate to empower the Member State concerned in accordance with Article 2(1) of the Treaty to determine the level of such TAC. Provisions should be made to ensure that, when fixing that TAC level, the Member State concerned acts in a manner fully consistent with the principles and rules of the common fisheries policy.\n(7)\nCertain TACs allow Member States to grant additional allocations for vessels participating in trials on fully documented fisheries. The aim of those trials is to test a catch-quota system to avoid discards and the waste of otherwise usable fish resources it entails. Uncontrolled discards of fish are a threat to the long term sustainability of fish as a public good and thus to the common fisheries policy objectives. By contrast, catch-quota systems inherently present the fishers with an incentive to optimise the catch selectivity of their operations. In order to achieve a rational management of discards, a fully documented fishery should cover every operation at sea, rather than what is landed at port. The conditions for Member States to grant such additional allocations should therefore include an obligation to ensure the use of close circuit television cameras (CCTV) associated to a system of sensors. This should enable to record in detail all retained and discarded parts of catches. A system based on human observers operating in real time on board would be less efficient, more costly, and less reliable. Consequently, the use of CCTV is at this time a prerequisite for the achievement of discard reduction schemes such as fully documented fisheries, provided that the requirements of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (3) are complied with.\n(8)\nThe TACs should be established on the basis of available scientific advice, taking into account biological and socio-economic aspects whilst ensuring fair treatment between fishing sectors, as well as in the light of the opinions expressed during the consultation of stakeholders, in particular at the meetings with the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Regional Advisory Councils concerned.\n(9)\nFor stocks subject to specific multiannual plans, the TACs should be established in accordance with the rules laid down in those plans. Consequently, the TACs for stocks of hake, of Norway lobster, of sole in the Bay of Biscay and the Western Channel, of herring to the west of Scotland and of cod in the Kattegat, to the west of Scotland and in the Irish Sea should be established in accordance with the rules laid down in: Council Regulation (EC) No 811/2004 of 21 April 2004 establishing measures for the recovery of the northern hake stock (4); Council Regulation (EC) No 2166/2005 of 20 December 2005 establishing measures for the recovery of the Southern hake and Norway lobster stocks in the Cantabrian Sea and Western Iberian peninsula (5); Council Regulation (EC) No 388/2006 of 23 February 2006 establishing a multiannual plan for the sustainable exploitation of the stock of sole in the Bay of Biscay (6); Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2007 of 7 May 2007 establishing a multi-annual plan for the sustainable exploitation of the stock of sole in the Western Channel (7); Council Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a multi-annual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock (8); and Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks (9) (the \u2018Cod Plan\u2019).\n(10)\nFor stocks for which there is no sufficient or reliable data in order to provide size estimates, management measures and TAC levels should follow the precautionary approach to fisheries management as defined in point (i) of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, while taking into account stock-specific factors, including, in particular, available information on stock trends and mixed fisheries considerations.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (10), the stocks that are subject to the various measures referred to therein should be identified.\n(12)\nFor certain species, such as certain species of sharks, even a limited fishing activity could result in a serious risk to their conservation. Fishing opportunities for such species should therefore be fully restricted through a general prohibition on fishing those species.\n(13)\nNorway lobster is caught in mixed demersal fisheries together with various other species. In a zone to the west of Ireland, known as the Porcupine Bank, scientific advice has recommended that catches of this species do not increase in 2012. In order to help continue the recovery of the stock, it is appropriate to keep fishing opportunities confined, in a certain part of that zone and in certain periods, to the catching of pelagic species with which Norway lobster is not caught.\n(14)\nSince there is no scientific evidence that the TAC areas for pollack correspond to distinct biological stocks and the distribution of this species is continuous from the north of the British Isles to the south of the Iberian Peninsula, it is appropriate, in order to guarantee full use of the fishing opportunities, to allow the implementation of a flexible arrangement between some of the TAC areas.\n(15)\nIt is necessary to establish the fishing effort ceilings for 2012 in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2166/2005, Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2007, Articles 11 and 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008, while taking into account Council Regulation (EC) No 754/2009 of 27 July 2009 excluding certain groups of vessels from the fishing effort regime laid down in Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 (11).\n(16)\nThe use of fishing opportunities available to EU vessels set out in this Regulation is subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (12), and in particular to Articles 33 and 34 thereof concerning the recording of catches and fishing effort and the notification of data on the exhaustion of fishing opportunities. It is therefore necessary to specify the codes to be used by Member States when sending data to the Commission relating to landings of stocks subject to this Regulation.\n(17)\nIn order to avoid the interruption of fishing activities and to ensure the livelihood of the fishermen of the Union, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2012, except for the provisions concerning fishing effort limits, which should apply from 1 February 2012. For reasons of urgency, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication.\n(18)\nFishing opportunities should be used in full compliance with the applicable law of the Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nTITLE I\nSCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. This Regulation fixes the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements.\n2. The fishing opportunities referred to in paragraph 1 shall include:\n(a)\ncatch limits for the year 2012; and\n(b)\nfishing effort limits for the period from 1 February 2012 to 31 January 2013.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to EU vessels.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2027EU vessel\u2027 means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State and registered in the Union;\n(b)\n\u2027EU waters\u2027 means waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of waters adjacent to the overseas countries and territories listed in Annex II to the Treaty;\n(c)\n\u2027total allowable catch\u2027 (TAC) means the quantity that can be taken and landed from each fish stock each year;\n(d)\n\u2027quota\u2027 means a proportion of the TAC allocated to the Union or a Member State;\n(e)\n\u2027international waters\u2027 means waters falling outside the sovereignty or jurisdiction of any State;\n(f)\n\u2027mesh size\u2027 means the mesh size of fishing nets as determined in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 517/2008 (13);\n(g)\n\u2027EU fishing fleet register\u2027 means the register set up by the Commission in accordance with Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;\n(h)\n\u2027fishing logbook\u2027 means the logbook referred to in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\nArticle 4\nFishing zones\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following zone definitions shall apply:\n(a)\nICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) zones are the geographical areas specified in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 218/2009 (14);\n(b)\n\u2027Skagerrak\u2027 means the geographical area bounded on the west by a line drawn from the Hanstholm lighthouse to the Lindesnes lighthouse and on the south by a line drawn from the Skagen lighthouse to the Tistlarna lighthouse and from this point to the nearest point on the Swedish coast;\n(c)\n\u2027Kattegat\u2027 means the geographical area bounded on the north by a line drawn from the Skagen lighthouse to the Tistlarna lighthouse and from this point to the nearest point on the Swedish coast and on the south by a line drawn from Hasen\u00f8re to Gnibens Spids, from Korshage to Spodsbjerg and from Gilbjerg Hoved to Kullen;\n(d)\n\u2027VII (Porcupine Bank - Unit 16)\u2027 means the geographical area bounded by rhumb lines sequentially joining the following positions:\n-\n53\u00b0 30\u2032 N 15\u00b0 00\u2032 W,\n-\n53\u00b0 30\u2032 N 11\u00b0 00\u2032 W,\n-\n51\u00b0 30\u2032 N 11\u00b0 00\u2032 W,\n-\n51\u00b0 30\u2032 N 13\u00b0 00\u2032 W,\n-\n51\u00b0 00\u2032 N 13\u00b0 00\u2032 W,\n-\n51\u00b0 00\u2032 N 15\u00b0 00\u2032 W,\n-\n53\u00b0 30\u2032 N 15\u00b0 00\u2032 W;\n(e)\n\u2027Gulf of C\u00e1diz\u2027 means the geographical area of ICES division IXa east of longitude 7\u00b0 23\u2032 48\u2033 W;\n(f)\nCECAF (Committee for Eastern Central Atlantic Fisheries) areas are the geographical areas specified in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 216/2009 (15).\nTITLE II\nFISHING OPPORTUNITIES\nArticle 5\nTACs and allocations\nThe TACs for EU vessels in EU waters or in certain non-EU waters and the allocation of such TACs among Member States, and the conditions functionally linked thereto, where appropriate, are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 6\nSpecial provisions on certain TACs\n1. The TACs for certain fish stocks shall be determined by the Member State concerned. Those stocks are identified in Annex I.\n2. The TACs to be determined by a Member State shall:\n(a)\nbe consistent with the principles and rules of the common fisheries policy, in particular the principle of sustainable exploitation of the stock; and\n(b)\nresult:\n(i)\nif analytical assessments are available, in the exploitation of the stock consistent with maximum sustainable yield from 2015 onwards, with as high a probability as possible;\n(ii)\nif analytical assessments are unavailable or incomplete, in the exploitation of the stock consistent with the precautionary approach to fisheries management.\n3. By 15 March 2012, each Member State concerned shall submit to the Commission the following information:\n(a)\nthe TACs adopted;\n(b)\nthe data collected and assessed by the Member State concerned on which the TACs adopted are based; and\n(c)\ndetails on how the TACs adopted comply with paragraph 2.\nArticle 7\nAdditional allocation for vessels participating in trials on fully documented fisheries\n1. For certain stocks, a Member State may grant an additional allocation to vessels flying its flag participating in trials on fully documented fisheries. Those stocks are identified in Annex I. The additional allocation shall not exceed an overall limit set out in Annex I as a percentage of the quota allocated to that Member State.\n2. The additional allocation referred to in paragraph 1 may be granted only in accordance with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe vessel makes use of close circuit television cameras (CCTV) associated to a system of sensors to record all fishing and processing activities on board the vessels;\n(b)\nthe amount of the additional allocation granted to an individual vessel that participates in trials on fully documented fisheries shall be no more than 75 % of the discards estimated for the type of vessel to which it belongs, and in any case shall not represent more than a 30 % increase of the vessel's basic allocation; and\n(c)\nall catches of the relevant stock subject to the additional allocation by that vessel shall be counted against its total allocation.\nNotwithstanding point (b), a Member State may exceptionally grant to vessel flying its flag additional allocation that corresponds to more than 75 % of the estimated discards for the type of vessel to which the vessel concerned belongs, provided that:\n(i)\nthe estimated discards for the type of vessel are less than 10 %;\n(ii)\nit can be demonstrated that the inclusion of that type of vessel is important to evaluate the potential of the CCTV system for control purposes; and\n(iii)\nan overall limit of 75 % of the estimated discards is not exceeded for all vessels participating in the trials.\nTo the extent that the recordings obtained in accordance with point (a) involve the processing of personal data within the meaning of Directive 95/46/EC, that Directive shall apply to the processing of such data.\n3. Where a Member State detects that a vessel participating in trials on fully documented fisheries fails to comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 2, it shall immediately withdraw the additional allocation granted to that vessel and exclude it from participation in those trials for the remainder of the year 2012.\n4. Prior to granting the additional allocation referred to in paragraph 1, a Member State shall submit to the Commission the following information:\n(a)\nthe list of vessels flying its flag participating in trials on fully documented fisheries;\n(b)\nthe specifications of the remote electronic monitoring equipment installed on board those vessels;\n(c)\nthe capacity, type and specification of gears used by those vessels;\n(d)\nthe estimated discards for each type of vessel participating in the trials; and\n(e)\nthe amount of catches of the stock subject to the relevant TAC made in 2011 by the vessels participating in the trials.\n5. The Commission may request that the assessment of the estimated discards for the type of vessel referred to in point (b) of paragraph 2, be submitted to a scientific advisory body for review. In the absence of a confirming assessment, the Member State concerned shall inform the Commission, in writing, of the measures taken to ensure that the relevant vessels comply with the estimated discards condition established in point (b) of paragraph 2.\nArticle 8\nConditions for landing catches and by-catches\nFish from stocks for which TACs are established shall be retained on board or landed only if:\n(a)\nthe catches have been taken by vessels flying the flag of a Member State having a quota and that quota is not exhausted; or\n(b)\nthe catches consist of a share in a EU quota which has not been allocated by quota among Member States, and that EU quota has not been exhausted.\nArticle 9\nFishing effort limits\nFrom 1 February 2012 to 31 January 2013, the fishing effort measures laid down in:\n(a)\nAnnex IIA, shall apply for the management of cod stocks in the Kattegat, ICES divisions VIIa and VIa, and EU waters of ICES division Vb;\n(b)\nAnnex IIB, shall apply for the recovery of hake and Norway lobster in ICES divisions VIIIc and IXa, with the exception of the Gulf of C\u00e1diz;\n(c)\nAnnex IIC, shall apply for the management of the sole stock in ICES division VIIe.\nArticle 10\nSpecial provisions on allocations of fishing opportunities\n1. The allocation of fishing opportunities among Member States as set out in this Regulation shall be without prejudice to:\n(a)\nexchanges made pursuant to Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;\n(b)\nreallocations made pursuant to Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 or pursuant to Article 10(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 (16);\n(c)\nadditional landings allowed under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(d)\nquantities withheld in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(e)\ndeductions made pursuant to Articles 37, 105, 106 and 107 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\n2. Except where otherwise specified in Annex I to this Regulation, Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 shall apply to stocks subject to precautionary TAC and Article 3(2) and (3) and Article 4 of that Regulation shall apply to stocks subject to analytical TAC.\nArticle 11\nClosed fishing season\n1. It shall be prohibited to fish or retain on board any of the following species in the Porcupine Bank during the period from 1 May to 31 July 2012: cod, megrims, anglerfish, haddock, whiting, hake, Norway lobster, plaice, pollack, saithe, skates and rays, common sole and spurdog.\n2. For the purposes of this Article, the Porcupine Bank shall comprise the geographical area bounded by rhumb lines sequentially joining the following positions:\nPoint\nLatitude\nLongitude\n1\n52\u00b0 27\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 19\u2032 W\n2\n52\u00b0 40\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 30\u2032 W\n3\n52\u00b0 47\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 39,600\u2032 W\n4\n52\u00b0 47\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 56\u2032 W\n5\n52\u00b0 13,5\u2032 N\n13\u00b0 53,830\u2032 W\n6\n51\u00b0 22\u2032 N\n14\u00b0 24\u2032 W\n7\n51\u00b0 22\u2032 N\n14\u00b0 03\u2032 W\n8\n52\u00b0 10\u2032 N\n13\u00b0 25\u2032 W\n9\n52\u00b0 32\u2032 N\n13\u00b0 07,500\u2032 W\n10\n52\u00b0 43\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 55\u2032 W\n11\n52\u00b0 43\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 43\u2032 W\n12\n52\u00b0 38,800\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 37\u2032 W\n13\n52\u00b0 27\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 23\u2032 W\n14\n52\u00b0 27\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 19\u2032 W\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, transit through the Porcupine Bank, carrying on board the species referred to in that paragraph, shall be permitted in accordance with Article 50(3), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\nArticle 12\nProhibitions\n1. It shall be prohibited for EU vessels to fish for, to retain on board, to tranship or to land the following species:\n(a)\nbasking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) in EU waters and non-EU waters;\n(b)\nporbeagle (Lamna nasus) in all waters, except where it is provided otherwise in Annex I Part B;\n(c)\nangel shark (Squatina squatina) in EU waters;\n(d)\ncommon skate (Dipturus batis) in EU waters of ICES division IIa and ICES subareas III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X;\n(e)\nundulate ray (Raja undulata) and white skate (Rostroraja alba) in EU waters of ICES subareas VI, VII, VIII, IX and X;\n(f)\nguitarfishes (Rhinobatidae) in EU waters of ICES subareas I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XII.\n2. When accidentally caught, species referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be harmed. They shall be promptly released.\nArticle 13\nData transmission\nWhen, pursuant to Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Member States submit to the Commission data relating to landings of quantities of stocks caught, they shall use the stock codes set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nTITLE III\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 14\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture established by Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 15\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nHowever, Article 9 shall apply from 1 February 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 January 2012.", "references": ["52", "16", "43", "31", "40", "38", "99", "95", "78", "72", "62", "17", "33", "60", "64", "83", "63", "37", "8", "15", "50", "94", "92", "3", "54", "97", "22", "70", "11", "46", "No Label", "13", "67"], "gold": ["13", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 807/2011\nof 10 August 2011\napproving the active substance triazoxide, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Articles 13(2) and 78(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Triazoxide is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included triazoxide. By Commission Decision 2009/860/EC (6) it was decided not to include triazoxide in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the application of the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I.\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as those that were the subject of Decision 2009/860/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe United Kingdom evaluated the new information and data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 10 June 2010.\n(6)\nThe Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the additional report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority. The Authority then presented its conclusion on triazoxide to the Commission on 15 February 2011 (7). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for triazoxide.\n(7)\nThe additional report by the rapporteur Member State and the new conclusion by the Authority concentrate on the concerns that led to the non-inclusion. Those concerns were in particular that it was not possible to perform a reliable consumer risk assessment as data were missing to determine the nature of residues in plant commodities and the possible transfer of residues in animal products.\n(8)\nThe new information submitted by the applicant shows that the exposure of consumers may be considered as acceptable.\n(9)\nConsequently, the additional information provided by the applicant permit to eliminate the specific concerns that led to the non-inclusion. No other open scientific questions have arisen.\n(10)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing triazoxide may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve triazoxide in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions.\n(12)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that triazoxide should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(13)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (8), should be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance triazoxide, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2011.", "references": ["32", "75", "0", "64", "36", "7", "52", "90", "35", "73", "15", "50", "68", "62", "67", "13", "1", "99", "11", "95", "56", "94", "76", "43", "29", "31", "30", "18", "5", "41", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 401/2012\nof 7 May 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2012.", "references": ["69", "98", "3", "76", "64", "8", "39", "74", "92", "56", "52", "60", "71", "90", "26", "73", "2", "91", "1", "51", "46", "7", "47", "22", "78", "96", "49", "38", "6", "57", "No Label", "21", "89"], "gold": ["21", "89"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 July 2012\namending the list of \u2018basic local government units\u2019 in the Annex to Council Directive 94/80/EC laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals\n(2012/412/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 22(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994 laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (1), and in particular Article 2(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 94/80/EC lists in its Annex the \u2018basic local government units\u2019 which determine the scope of the Directive.\n(2)\nAccording to Article 2(2) of Directive 94/80/EC, a Member State shall notify the Commission if any local government unit referred to in the Annex to that Directive is, by virtue of a change in its domestic law, replaced by another unit or if, by virtue of such a change, any such unit is abolished or further such units are created. Consequently, the Commission shall adapt that Annex by making appropriate substitutions, deletions or additions and that Annex so revised shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(3)\nDenmark, Ireland, Greece, Latvia and Lithuania have informed the Commission that, following changes in their domestic legislation, the \u2018basic local government units\u2019 concerning them have been modified. These laws have been formally notified to the Commission.\n(4)\nThe Annex to Directive 94/80/EC should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Directive 94/80/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the first day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2012.", "references": ["23", "87", "44", "50", "49", "33", "35", "73", "30", "6", "93", "9", "37", "94", "41", "17", "27", "79", "65", "83", "54", "31", "63", "18", "76", "90", "68", "61", "48", "75", "No Label", "2", "13", "14", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "13", "14", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 693/2012\nof 25 July 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 (extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not), by granting an exemption from those measures to one Malaysian exporting producer and terminating the registration of imports from that exporting producer\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 11(4) and 13(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. EXISTING MEASURES\n(1)\nThe Council, by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (2), imposed anti-dumping measures on certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China. By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 (3), the Council extended those measures to certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia (\u2018the extended measures\u2019) with the exception of imports produced by the Malaysian companies which are specifically mentioned in that Regulation.\nB. CURRENT INVESTIGATION\n1. Request for a review\n(2)\nThe Commission received a request for an exemption from the extended measures pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation. The application was lodged by Andfast Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. (\u2018Andfast\u2019), a producer in Malaysia.\n2. Initiation of a review\n(3)\nThe Commission examined the evidence submitted by Andfast and considered it sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation for the purposes of determining the possibility of granting Andfast an exemption from the extended measures. After consultation of the Advisory Committee, and after the Union industry concerned had been given the opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated, by Regulation (EU) No 1164/2011 (4) (\u2018the initiating Regulation\u2019), a review of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 with regard to Andfast.\n(4)\nThe Regulation initiating the review repealed the anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 with regard to imports of the product under examination consigned from Malaysia and produced by Andfast. Simultaneously, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, customs authorities were directed to take appropriate steps to register such imports.\n3. Product concerned\n(5)\nThe product concerned is certain iron or steel fasteners, other than of stainless steel, i.e. wood screws (excluding coach screws), self-tapping screws, other screws and bolts with heads (whether or not with their nuts or washers, but excluding screws turned from bars, rods, profiles or wire, of solid section, of a shank thickness not exceeding 6 mm and excluding screws and bolts for fixing railway track construction material), and washers, consigned from Malaysia, currently falling within CN codes ex 7318 12 90, ex 7318 14 91, ex 7318 14 99, ex 7318 15 59, ex 7318 15 69, ex 7318 15 81, ex 7318 15 89, ex 7318 15 90, ex 7318 21 00 and ex 7318 22 00 (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n4. Investigation\n(6)\nThe Commission officially advised Andfast and the representatives of Malaysia of the initiation of the review. Interested parties were invited to make their views known and informed of the possibility to request a hearing. No such request was received.\n(7)\nThe Commission also sent a questionnaire to Andfast and received a reply within the relevant deadline. The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the purposes of the review. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of Andfast.\n5. Investigation period\n(8)\nThe investigation covered the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 (\u2018the IP\u2019). Data was collected from 2008 up to the end of the IP to investigate any change in the pattern of trade.\nC. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n(9)\nThe investigation confirmed that Andfast was not related to any of the Chinese or Malaysian exporters or producers subject to the anti-dumping measures and had not exported the product concerned to the European Union during the investigation period of the investigation that led to the extended measures, i.e. 1 January 2008 to 30 September 2010. Andfast\u2019s first exports of the product concerned occurred subsequently to the extension of measures to Malaysia.\n(10)\nThe processing activities of Andfast can be considered as a completion and assembly operation in the sense of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation. Andfast imports blanks from the People\u2019s Republic of China which are subsequently threaded, plated and put together with the nuts and the washers at its premises in Malaysia. The finished product is sold and exported to its related company in the Union.\n(11)\nThis is not considered to be a process involving circumvention as it could be demonstrated that the value added to the parts brought in from the People\u2019s Republic of China, during the assembly and completion operation, is greater than 25 % of the manufacturing costs.\n(12)\nNo evidence was found that Andfast was purchasing the finished product concerned from the People\u2019s Republic of China to resell or tranship to the European Union.\nD. AMENDMENT OF THE MEASURES BEING REVIEWED\n(13)\nIn accordance with the above findings that Andfast has not engaged in circumvention practices, the company should be exempted from the anti-dumping measures in force.\n(14)\nThe registration of imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia by Andfast, as imposed by the initiating Regulation, should cease. In accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provides that measures shall be applied against registered imports from the date of registration, and in view of the exemption of the company from measures, no anti-dumping duty should be collected on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia by Andfast which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation.\n(15)\nThe exemption from the extended measures granted to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners produced by Andfast shall, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, remain valid on condition that the facts as finally ascertained justify the exemption and that it is not, for instance, established that the exemption was granted on the basis of false or misleading information submitted by the company concerned. Should prima facie evidence indicate otherwise, or should exports from Andfast to the European Union increase dramatically, an investigation may be initiated by the Commission to establish whether withdrawal of the exemption is warranted.\n(16)\nThe exemption from the extended measures granted to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners produced by Andfast was established on the basis of the findings of the present review. This exemption is thus exclusively applicable to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia and produced by that specific legal entity. Imported iron or steel fasteners, produced by any company not specifically mentioned in Article 1(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 with its name, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, shall not benefit from the exemption and should be subject to the residual duty rate as imposed by that Regulation.\n(17)\nIt is considered that special measures are needed in this case in order to ensure the proper application of such exemptions. These special measures are the requirement of the presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the extended anti-dumping duty.\nE. PROCEDURE\n(18)\nAndfast and all other interested parties were informed of the facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to grant an exemption to Andfast from the extended measures. No comments were received,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 shall be modified by adding the following company to the list of companies that produce certain iron or steel fasteners in Malaysia and whose imports of certain iron or steel fasteners are exempted from the application of the extended definitive residual anti-dumping duty:\n\u2018Andfast Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. (TARIC additional code B265)\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe customs authorities are hereby directed to cease the registration of imports carried out pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 1164/2011. No anti-dumping duty shall be collected on the imports thus registered.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2012.", "references": ["80", "28", "69", "54", "67", "13", "6", "43", "89", "60", "4", "32", "40", "83", "73", "46", "36", "79", "59", "7", "18", "37", "47", "76", "65", "87", "56", "75", "85", "98", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 10/2011\nof 14 January 2011\non plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC (1), and in particular Article 5(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i) and (j) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Food Safety Authority,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1935/2004 lays down the general principles for eliminating the differences between the laws of the Member States as regards food contact materials. Article 5(1) of that Regulation provides for the adoption of specific measures for groups of materials and articles and describes in detail the procedure for the authorisation of substances at EU level when a specific measure provides for a list of authorised substances.\n(2)\nThis Regulation is a specific measure within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004. This Regulation should establish the specific rules for plastic materials and articles to be applied for their safe use and repeal Commission Directive 2002/72/EC of 6 August 2002 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs (2).\n(3)\nDirective 2002/72/EC sets out basic rules for the manufacture of plastic materials and articles. The Directive has been substantially amended 6 times. For reasons of clarity the text should be consolidated and redundant and obsolete parts removed.\n(4)\nIn the past Directive 2002/72/EC and its amendments have been transposed into national legislation without any major adaptation. For transposition into national law usually a time period of 12 months is necessary. In case of amending the lists of monomers and additives in order to authorise new substances this transposition time leads to a retardation of the authorisation and thus slows down innovation. Therefore it seems appropriate to adopt rules on plastic materials and articles in form of a Regulation directly applicable in all Member States.\n(5)\nDirective 2002/72/EC applies to materials and articles purely made of plastics and to plastic gaskets in lids. In the past these were the main use of plastics on the market. However, in recent years, besides materials and articles purely made of plastics, plastics are also used in combination with other materials in so called multi-material multi-layers. Rules on the use of vinyl chloride monomer laid down in Council Directive 78/142/EEC of 30 January 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to materials and articles which contain vinyl chloride monomer and are intended to come into contact with foodstuffs (3) already apply to all plastics. Therefore it seems appropriate to extend the scope of this Regulation to plastic layers in multi-material multi-layers.\n(6)\nPlastic materials and articles may be composed of different layers of plastics held together by adhesives. Plastic materials and articles may also be printed or coated with an organic or inorganic coating. Printed or coated plastic materials and articles as well as those held together by adhesives should be within the scope of the Regulation. Adhesives, coatings and printing inks are not necessarily composed of the same substances as plastics. Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 foresees that for adhesives, coatings and printing inks specific measures can be adopted. Therefore plastic materials and articles that are printed, coated or held together by adhesives should be allowed to contain in the printing, coating or adhesive layer other substances than those authorised at EU level for plastics. Those layers may be subject to other EU or national rules.\n(7)\nPlastics as well as ion exchange resins, rubbers and silicones are macromolecular substances obtained by polymerisation processes. Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 foresees that for ion exchange resins, rubbers and silicones specific measures can be adopted. As those materials are composed of different substances than plastics and have different physico-chemical properties specific rules for them need to apply and it should be made clear that they are not within the scope of this Regulation.\n(8)\nPlastics are made of monomers and other starting substances which are chemically reacted to a macromolecular structure, the polymer, which forms the main structural component of the plastics. To the polymer additives are added to achieve defined technological effects. The polymer as such is an inert high molecular weight structure. As substances with a molecular weight above 1 000 Da usually cannot be absorbed in the body the potential health risk from the polymer itself is minimal. Potential health risk may occur from non- or incompletely reacted monomers or other starting substances or from low molecular weight additives which are transferred into food via migration from the plastic food contact material. Therefore monomers, other starting substances and additives should be risk assessed and authorised before their use in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles.\n(9)\nThe risk assessment of a substance to be performed by the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter the Authority) should cover the substance itself, relevant impurities and foreseeable reaction and degradation products in the intended use. The risk assessment should cover the potential migration under worst foreseeable conditions of use and the toxicity. Based on the risk assessment the authorisation should if necessary set out specifications for the substance and restrictions of use, quantitative restrictions or migration limits to ensure the safety of the final material or article.\n(10)\nNo rules have yet been set out at EU level for the risk assessment and use of colorants in plastics. Therefore their use should remain subject to national law. That situation should be reassessed at a later stage.\n(11)\nSolvents used in the manufacture of plastics to create a suitable reaction environment are expected to be removed in the manufacturing process as they are usually volatile. No rules have yet been set out at EU level for the risk assessment and use of solvents in the manufacture of plastics. Therefore their use should remain subject to national law. That situation should be reassessed at a later stage.\n(12)\nPlastics can also be made of synthetic or natural occurring macromolecular structures which are chemically reacted with other starting substances to create a modified macromolecule. Synthetic macromolecules used are often intermediate structures which are not fully polymerised. Potential health risk may occur from the migration of non- or incompletely reacted other starting substances used to modify the macromolecule or an incompletely reacted macromolecule. Therefore the other starting substances as well as the macromolecules used in the manufacture of modified macromolecules should be risk assessed and authorised before their use in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles.\n(13)\nPlastics can also be made by micro-organisms that create macromolecular structures out of starting substances by fermentation processes. The macromolecule is then either released to a medium or extracted. Potential health risk may occur from the migration of non- or incompletely reacted starting substances, intermediates or by-products of the fermentation process. In this case the final product should be risk assessed and authorised before its use in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles.\n(14)\nDirective 2002/72/EC contains different lists for monomers or other starting substances and for additives authorised for the manufacture of plastic materials and articles. For monomers, other starting substances and additives the Union list is now complete, this means that only substances authorised at EU level may be used. Therefore a separation of monomers or other starting substances and of additives in separate lists due to their authorisation status is no longer necessary. As certain substances can be used both as monomer or other starting substances and as additive for reasons of clarity they should be published in one list of authorised substances indicating the authorised function.\n(15)\nPolymers can not only be used as main structural component of plastics but also as additives achieving defined technological effects in the plastic. If such a polymeric additive is identical to a polymer that can form the main structural component of a plastic material the risk from polymeric additive can be regarded as evaluated if the monomers have already been evaluated and authorised. In such a case it should not be necessary to authorise the polymeric additive but it could be used on the basis of the authorisation of its monomers and other starting substances. If such a polymeric additive is not identical to a polymer that can form the main structural component of a plastic material then the risk of the polymeric additive can not be regarded as evaluated by evaluation of the monomers. In such a case the polymeric additive should be risk assessed as regards its low molecular weight fraction below 1 000 Da and authorised before its use in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles.\n(16)\nIn the past no clear differentiation has been made between additives that have a function in the final polymer and polymer production aids (PPA) that only exhibit a function in the manufacturing process and are not intended to be present in the final article. Some substances acting as PPA had already been included in the incomplete list of additives in the past. These PPA should remain in the Union list of authorised substances. However, it should be made clear that the use of other PPA will remain possible, subject to national law. That situation should be reassessed at a later stage.\n(17)\nThe Union list contains substances authorised to be used in the manufacture of plastics. Substances such as acids, alcohols and phenols can also occur in form of salts. As the salts usually are transformed in the stomach to acid, alcohol or phenol the use of salts with cations that have undergone a safety evaluation should in principle be authorised together with the acid, alcohol or phenol. In certain cases, where the safety assessment indicates concerns on the use of the free acids, only the salts should be authorised by indicating in the list the name as \u2018\u2026 acid(s), salts\u2019.\n(18)\nSubstances used in the manufacture of plastic materials or articles may contain impurities originating from their manufacturing or extraction process. These impurities are non-intentionally added together with the substance in the manufacture of the plastic material (non-intentionally added substance - NIAS). As far as they are relevant for the risk assessment the main impurities of a substance should be considered and if necessary be included in the specifications of a substance. However it is not possible to list and consider all impurities in the authorisation. Therefore they may be present in the material or article but not included in the Union list.\n(19)\nIn the manufacture of polymers substances are used to initiate the polymerisation reaction such as catalysts and to control the polymerisation reaction such as chain transfer, chain extending or chain stop reagents. These aids to polymerisation are used in minute amounts and are not intended to remain in the final polymer. Therefore they should at this point of time not be subject to the authorisation procedure at EU level. Any potential health risk in the final material or article arising from their use should be assessed by the manufacturer in accordance with internationally recognised scientific principles on risk assessment.\n(20)\nDuring the manufacture and use of plastic materials and articles reaction and degradation products can be formed. These reaction and degradation products are non-intentionally present in the plastic material (NIAS). As far as they are relevant for the risk assessment the main reaction and degradation products of the intended application of a substance should be considered and included in the restrictions of the substance. However it is not possible to list and consider all reaction and degradation products in the authorisation. Therefore they should not be listed as single entries in the Union list. Any potential health risk in the final material or article arising from reaction and degradation products should be assessed by the manufacturer in accordance with internationally recognised scientific principles on risk assessment.\n(21)\nPrior to the establishment of the Union list of additives, other additives than those authorised at EU level could be used in the manufacture of plastics. For those additives which were permitted in the Member States, the time limit for the submission of data for their safety evaluation by the Authority with a view to their inclusion in the Union list expired on 31 December 2006. Additives for which a valid application was submitted within this time limit were listed in a provisional list. For certain additives on the provisional list a decision on their authorisation at EU level has not yet been taken. For those additives, it should be possible to continue to be used in accordance with national law until their evaluation is completed and a decision is taken on their inclusion in the Union list.\n(22)\nWhen an additive included in the provisional list is inserted in the Union list or when it is decided not to include it in the Union list, that additive should be removed from the provisional list of additives.\n(23)\nNew technologies engineer substances in particle size that exhibit chemical and physical properties that significantly differ from those at a larger scale, for example, nanoparticles. These different properties may lead to different toxicological properties and therefore these substances should be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the Authority as regards their risk until more information is known about such new technology. Therefore it should be made clear that authorisations which are based on the risk assessment of the conventional particle size of a substance do not cover engineered nanoparticles.\n(24)\nBased on the risk assessment the authorisation should if necessary set out specific migration limits to ensure the safety of the final material or article. If an additive that is authorised for the manufacture of plastic materials and articles is at the same time authorised as food additive or flavouring substance it should be ensured that the release of the substance does not change the composition of the food in an unacceptable way. Therefore the release of such a dual use additive or flavouring should not exhibit a technological function on the food unless such a function is intended and the food contact material complies with the requirements on active food contact materials set out in Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 450/2009 of 29 May 2009 on active and intelligent materials and articles intended to come into contact with food (4). The requirements of Regulations (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (5) or (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91, Regulations (EC) No 2232/96 and (EC) No 110/2008 and Directive 2000/13/EC (6) should be respected where applicable.\n(25)\nAccording to Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 the release of substances from food contact materials and articles should not bring about unacceptable changes in the composition of the food. According to good manufacturing practice it is feasible to manufacture plastic materials in such a way that they are not releasing more than 10 mg of substances per 1 dm2 of surface area of the plastic material. If the risk assessment of an individual substance is not indicating a lower level, this level should be set as a generic limit for the inertness of a plastic material, the overall migration limit. In order to achieve comparable results in the verification of compliance with the overall migration limit, testing should be performed under standardised test conditions including testing time, temperature and test medium (food simulant) representing worst foreseeable conditions of use of the plastic material or article.\n(26)\nThe overall migration limit of 10 mg per 1 dm2 results for a cubic packaging containing 1kg of food to a migration of 60 mg per kg food. For small packaging where the surface to volume ratio is higher the resulting migration into food is higher. For infants and small children which have a higher consumption of food per kilogram bodyweight than adults and do not yet have a diversified nutrition, special provisions should be set in order to limit the intake of substances migrating from food contact materials. In order to allow also for small volume packaging the same protection as for high volume packaging, the overall migration limit for food contact materials that are dedicated for packaging foods for infants and small children should be linked to the limit in food and not to the surface area of the packaging.\n(27)\nIn recent years plastic food contact materials are being developed that do not only consist of one plastic but combine up to 15 different plastic layers to attain optimum functionality and protection of the food, while reducing packaging waste. In such a plastic multi-layer material or article, layers may be separated from the food by a functional barrier. This barrier is a layer within food contact materials or articles preventing the migration of substances from behind that barrier into the food. Behind a functional barrier, non-authorised substances may be used, provided they fulfil certain criteria and their migration remains below a given detection limit. Taking into account foods for infants and other particularly susceptible persons, as well as the large analytical tolerance of the migration analysis, a maximum level of 0,01 mg/kg in food should be established for the migration of a non-authorised substance through a functional barrier. Substances that are mutagenic, carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction should not be used in food contact materials or articles without previous authorisation and should therefore not be covered by the functional barrier concept. New technologies that engineer substances in particle size that exhibit chemical and physical properties that significantly differ from those at a larger scale, for example, nanoparticles, should be assessed on a case-by-case basis as regards their risk until more information is known about such new technology. Therefore, they should not be covered by the functional barrier concept.\n(28)\nIn recent years food contact materials and articles are being developed that consist of a combination of several materials to achieve optimum functionality and protection of the food while reducing packaging waste. In these multi-material multi-layer materials and articles plastic layers should comply with the same compositional requirements as plastic layers which are not combined with other materials. For plastic layers in a multi-material multi-layer which are separated from the food by a functional barrier the functional barrier concept should apply. As other materials are combined with the plastic layers and for these other materials specific measures are not yet adopted at EU level it is not yet possible to set out requirements for the final multi-material multi-layer materials and articles. Therefore specific migration limits and the overall migration limit should not be applicable except for vinyl chloride monomer for which such a restriction is already in place. In the absence of a specific measure at EU level covering the whole multi-material multi-layer material or article Member States may maintain or adopt national provisions for these materials and articles provided they comply with the rules of the Treaty.\n(29)\nArticle 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 provides that materials and articles covered by specific measures be accompanied by a written declaration of compliance stating that they comply with the rules applicable to them. To strengthen the coordination and responsibility of the suppliers at each stage of manufacture, including that of the starting substances, the responsible persons should document the compliance with the relevant rules in a declaration of compliance which is made available to their customers.\n(30)\nCoatings, printing inks and adhesives are not yet covered by a specific EU legislation and therefore not subject to the requirement of a declaration of compliance. However, for coatings, printing inks and adhesives to be used in plastic materials and articles adequate information should be provided to the manufacturer of the final plastic article that would enable him to ensure compliance for substances for which migration limits have been established in this Regulation.\n(31)\nArticle 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (7) requires the food business operator to verify that foods are compliant with the rules applicable to them. To this end and subject to the requirement of confidentiality, food business operators should be given access to the relevant information to enable them to ensure that the migration from the materials and articles to food complies with the specifications and restrictions laid down in food legislation.\n(32)\nAt each stage of manufacture, supporting documentation, substantiating the declaration of compliance, should be kept available for the enforcement authorities. Such demonstration of compliance may be based on migration testing. As migration testing is complex, costly and time consuming it should be admissible that compliance can be demonstrated also by calculations, including modelling, other analysis, and scientific evidence or reasoning if these render results which are at least as severe as the migration testing. Test results should be regarded as valid as long as formulations and processing conditions remain constant as part of a quality assurance system.\n(33)\nWhen testing articles not yet in contact with food, for certain articles, such as films or lids, it is often not feasible to determine the surface area that is in contact with a defined volume of food. For these articles specific rules should be set out for verification of compliance.\n(34)\nThe setting of migration limits takes into account a conventional assumption that 1kg of food is consumed daily by a person of 60 kg bodyweight and that the food is packaged in a cubic container of 6 dm2 surface area releasing the substance. For very small and very large containers the real surface area to volume of packaged food is varying a lot from the conventional assumption. Therefore, their surface area should be normalised before comparing testing results with migration limits. These rules should be reviewed when new data on food packaging uses become available.\n(35)\nThe specific migration limit is a maximum permitted amount of a substance in food. This limit should ensure that the food contact material does not pose a risk to health. It should be ensured by the manufacturer that materials and articles not yet in contact with food will respect these limits when brought into contact with food under the worst foreseeable contact conditions. Therefore compliance of materials and articles not yet in contact with food should be assessed and the rules for this testing should be set out.\n(36)\nFood is a complex matrix and therefore the analysis of migrating substances in food may pose analytical difficulties. Therefore test media should be assigned that simulate the transfer of substances from the plastic material into food. They should represent the major physico-chemical properties exhibited by food. When using food simulants standard testing time and temperature should reproduce, as far as possible, the migration which may occur from the article into the food.\n(37)\nFor determining the appropriate food simulant for certain foods the chemical composition and the physical properties of the food should be taken into account. Research results are available for certain representative foods comparing migration into food with migration into food simulants. On the basis of the results, food simulants should be assigned. In particular, for fat containing foods the result obtained with food simulant may in certain cases significantly overestimate migration into food. In these cases it should be foreseen that the result in food simulant is corrected by a reduction factor.\n(38)\nThe exposure to substances migrating from food contact materials was based on the conventional assumption that a person consumes daily 1 kg of food. However, a person ingests at most 200 g of fat on a daily basis. For lipophilic substances that only migrate into fat this should be taken into consideration. Therefore a correction of the specific migration by a correction factor applicable to lipophilic substances in accordance with the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) (8) and the opinion of the Authority (9) should be foreseen.\n(39)\nOfficial control should establish testing strategies which allow the enforcement authorities to perform controls efficiently making best use of available resources. Therefore it should be admissible to use screening methods for checking compliance under certain conditions. Non-compliance of a material or article should be confirmed by a verification method.\n(40)\nBasic rules on migration testing should be set out in this Regulation. As migration testing is a very complex issue, these basic rules can, however, not cover all foreseeable cases and details necessary for performing the testing. Therefore a EU guidance document should be established, dealing with more detailed aspects of the implementation of the basic migration testing rules.\n(41)\nThe updated rules on food simulants and migration testing provided by this Regulation will supersede those in Directive 78/142/EEC and the Annex to Council Directive 82/711/EEC of 18 October 1982 laying down the basic rules necessary for testing migration of the constituents of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs (10).\n(42)\nSubstances present in the plastic but not listed in Annex I to this Regulation have not necessarily been risk assessed as they had not been subject to an authorisation procedure. Compliance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 for these substances should be assessed by the relevant business operator in accordance with internationally recognised scientific principles taking into account exposure from food contact materials and other sources.\n(43)\nRecently additional monomers, other starting substances and additives have received a favourable scientific evaluation by the Authority and should now be added to the Union list.\n(44)\nAs new substances are added to the Union list the Regulation should apply as soon as possible to allow for manufacturers to adapt to technical progress and allow for innovation.\n(45)\nCertain migration testing rules should be updated in view of new scientific knowledge. Enforcement authorities and industry need to adapt their current testing regime to these updated rules. To allow for this adaptation it seems appropriate that the updated rules only apply 2 years after the adoption of the Regulation.\n(46)\nBusiness operators are currently basing their declaration of compliance on supporting documentation following the requirements set out in Directive 2002/72/EC. Declaration of compliance need, in principle, only to be updated when substantial changes in the production bring about changes in the migration or when new scientific data are available. In order to limit the burden to business operators, materials which have been lawfully placed on the market based on the requirements set out in Directive 2002/72/EC should be able to be placed on the market with a declaration of compliance based on supporting documentation in accordance with Directive 2002/72/EC until 5 years after the adoption of the Regulation.\n(47)\nAnalytical methods for testing migration and residual content of vinyl chloride monomer as described in Commission Directives 80/766/EEC of 8 July 1980 laying down the Community method of analysis for the official control of the vinyl chloride monomer level in materials and articles which are intended to come into contact with foodstuffs (11) and 81/432/EEC of 29 April 1981 laying down the Community method of analysis for the official control of vinyl chloride released by materials and articles into foodstuffs (12) are outdated. Analytical methods should comply with the criteria set out in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (13) of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules. Therefore Directives 80/766/EEC and 81/432/EEC should be repealed.\n(48)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. This Regulation is a specific measure within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004.\n2. This Regulation establishes specific requirements for the manufacture and marketing of plastic materials and articles:\n(a)\nintended to come into contact with food; or\n(b)\nalready in contact with food; or\n(c)\nwhich can reasonably be expected to come into contact with food.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to materials and articles which are placed on the EU market and fall under the following categories:\n(a)\nmaterials and articles and parts thereof consisting exclusively of plastics;\n(b)\nplastic multi-layer materials and articles held together by adhesives or by other means;\n(c)\nmaterials and articles referred to in points a) or b) that are printed and/or covered by a coating;\n(d)\nplastic layers or plastic coatings, forming gaskets in caps and closures, that together with those caps and closures compose a set of two or more layers of different types of materials;\n(e)\nplastic layers in multi-material multi-layer materials and articles.\n2. This Regulation shall not apply to the following materials and articles which are placed on the EU market and are intended to be covered by other specific measures:\n(a)\nion exchange resins;\n(b)\nrubber;\n(c)\nsilicones.\n3. This Regulation shall be without prejudice to the EU or national provisions applicable to printing inks, adhesives or coatings.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018plastic materials and articles\u2019 means:\n(a)\nmaterials and articles referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 2(1); and\n(b)\nplastic layers referred to in Article 2(1)(d) and (e);\n(2)\n\u2018plastic\u2019 means polymer to which additives or other substances may have been added, which is capable of functioning as a main structural component of final materials and articles;\n(3)\n\u2018polymer\u2019 means any macromolecular substance obtained by:\n(a)\na polymerisation process such as polyaddition or polycondensation, or by any other similar process of monomers and other starting substances; or\n(b)\nchemical modification of natural or synthetic macromolecules; or\n(c)\nmicrobial fermentation;\n(4)\n\u2018plastic multi-layer\u2019 means a material or article composed of two or more layers of plastic;\n(5)\n\u2018multi-material multi-layer\u2019 means a material or article composed of two or more layers of different types of materials, at least one of them a plastic layer;\n(6)\n\u2018monomer or other starting substance\u2019 means:\n(a)\na substance undergoing any type of polymerisation process to manufacture polymers; or\n(b)\na natural or synthetic macromolecular substance used in the manufacture of modified macromolecules; or\n(c)\na substance used to modify existing natural or synthetic macromolecules;\n(7)\n\u2018additive\u2019 means a substance which is intentionally added to plastics to achieve a physical or chemical effect during processing of the plastic or in the final material or article; it is intended to be present in the final material or article;\n(8)\n\u2018polymer production aid\u2019 means any substance used to provide a suitable medium for polymer or plastic manufacturing; it may be present but is neither intended to be present in the final materials or articles nor has a physical or chemical effect in the final material or article;\n(9)\n\u2018non-intentionally added substance\u2019 means an impurity in the substances used or a reaction intermediate formed during the production process or a decomposition or reaction product;\n(10)\n\u2018aid to polymerisation\u2019 means a substance which initiates polymerisation and/or controls the formation of the macromolecular structure;\n(11)\n\u2018overall migration limit\u2019 (OML) means the maximum permitted amount of non-volatile substances released from a material or article into food simulants;\n(12)\n\u2018food simulant\u2019 means a test medium imitating food; in its behaviour the food simulant mimics migration from food contact materials;\n(13)\n\u2018specific migration limit\u2019 (SML) means the maximum permitted amount of a given substance released from a material or article into food or food simulants;\n(14)\n\u2018total specific migration limit\u2019 (SML(T)) means the maximum permitted sum of particular substances released in food or food simulants expressed as total of moiety of the substances indicated;\n(15)\n\u2018functional barrier\u2019 means a barrier consisting of one or more layers of any type of material which ensures that the final material or article complies with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 and with the provisions of this Regulation;\n(16)\n\u2018non-fatty food\u2019 means a food for which in migration testing only food simulants other than food simulants D1 or D2 are laid down in Table 2 of Annex V to this Regulation;\n(17)\n\u2018restriction\u2019 means limitation of use of a substance or migration limit or limit of content of the substance in the material or article;\n(18)\n\u2018specification\u2019 means composition of a substance, purity criteria for a substance, physico-chemical characteristics of a substance, details concerning the manufacturing process of a substance or further information concerning the expression of migration limits.\nArticle 4\nPlacing on the market of plastic materials and articles\nPlastic materials and articles may only be placed on the market if they:\n(a)\ncomply with the relevant requirements set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 under intended and foreseeable use; and\n(b)\ncomply with the labelling requirements set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004; and\n(c)\ncomply with the traceability requirements set out in Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004; and\n(d)\nare manufactured according to good manufacturing practice as set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006 (14); and\n(e)\ncomply with the compositional and declaration requirements set out in Chapters II, III and IV of this Regulation.\nCHAPTER II\nCOMPOSITIONAL REQUIREMENTS\nSECTION 1\nAuthorised substances\nArticle 5\nUnion list of authorised substances\n1. Only the substances included in the Union list of authorised substances (hereinafter referred to as the Union list) set out in Annex I may be intentionally used in the manufacture of plastic layers in plastic materials and articles.\n2. The Union list shall contain:\n(a)\nmonomers or other starting substances;\n(b)\nadditives excluding colorants;\n(c)\npolymer production aids excluding solvents;\n(d)\nmacromolecules obtained from microbial fermentation.\n3. The Union list may be amended in accordance with the procedure established by Articles 8 to 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004.\nArticle 6\nDerogations for substances not included in the Union list\n1. By way of derogation from Article 5, substances other than those included in the Union list may be used as polymer production aids in the manufacture of plastic layers in plastic materials and articles subject to national law.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 5, colorants and solvents may be used in the manufacture of plastic layers in plastic materials and articles subject to national law.\n3. The following substances not included in the Union list are authorised subject to the rules set out in Articles 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12:\n(a)\nsalts (including double salts and acid salts) of aluminium, ammonium, barium, calcium, cobalt, copper, iron, lithium, magnesium, manganese, potassium, sodium, and zinc of authorised acids, phenols or alcohols;\n(b)\nmixtures obtained by mixing authorised substances without a chemical reaction of the components;\n(c)\nwhen used as additives, natural or synthetic polymeric substances of a molecular weight of at least 1 000 Da, except macromolecules obtained from microbial fermentation, complying with the requirements of this Regulation, if they are capable of functioning as the main structural component of final materials or articles;\n(d)\nwhen used as monomer or other starting substance, pre-polymers and natural or synthetic macromolecular substances, as well as their mixtures, except macromolecules obtained from microbial fermentation, if the monomers or starting substances required to synthesise them are included in the Union list.\n4. The following substances not included in the Union list may be present in the plastic layers of plastic materials or articles:\n(a)\nnon-intentionally added substances;\n(b)\naids to polymerisation.\n5. By derogation from Article 5, additives not included in the Union list may continue to be used subject to national law after 1 January 2010 until a decision is taken to include or not to include them in the Union list provided they are included in the provisional list referred to in Article 7.\nArticle 7\nEstablishment and management of the provisional list\n1. The provisional list of additives that are under evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) that was made public by the Commission in 2008 shall be regularly updated.\n2. An additive shall be removed from the provisional list:\n(a)\nwhen it is included in the Union list set out in Annex I; or\n(b)\nwhen a decision is taken by the Commission not to include it in the Union list; or\n(c)\nif during the examination of the data, the Authority calls for supplementary information and that information is not submitted within the time limits specified by the Authority.\nSECTION 2\nGeneral requirements, restrictions and specifications\nArticle 8\nGeneral requirement on substances\nSubstances used in the manufacture of plastic layers in plastic materials and articles shall be of a technical quality and a purity suitable for the intended and foreseeable use of the materials or articles. The composition shall be known to the manufacturer of the substance and made available to the competent authorities on request.\nArticle 9\nSpecific requirements on substances\n1. Substances used in the manufacture of plastic layers in plastic materials and articles shall be subject to the following restrictions and specifications:\n(a)\nthe specific migration limit set out in Article 11;\n(b)\nthe overall migration limit set out in Article 12;\n(c)\nthe restrictions and specifications set out in column 10 of Table 1 of point 1 of Annex I;\n(d)\nthe detailed specifications set out in point 4 of Annex I.\n2. Substances in nanoform shall only be used if explicitly authorised and mentioned in the specifications in Annex I.\nArticle 10\nGeneral restrictions on plastic materials and articles\nGeneral restrictions related to plastic materials and articles are laid down in Annex II.\nArticle 11\nSpecific migration limits\n1. Plastic materials and articles shall not transfer their constituents to foods in quantities exceeding the specific migration limits (SML) set out in Annex I. Those specific migration limits (SML) are expressed in mg of substance per kg of food (mg/kg).\n2. For substances for which no specific migration limit or other restrictions are provided in Annex I, a generic specific migration limit of 60 mg/kg shall apply.\n3. By derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, additives which are also authorised as food additives by Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 or as flavourings by Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 shall not migrate into foods in quantities having a technical effect in the final foods and shall not:\n(a)\nexceed the restrictions provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 or in Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 or in Annex I to this Regulation for foods for which their use is authorised as food additive or flavouring substances; or\n(b)\nexceed the restrictions set out in Annex I to this Regulation in foods for which their use is not authorised as food additive or flavouring substances.\nArticle 12\nOverall migration limit\n1. Plastic materials and articles shall not transfer their constituents to food simulants in quantities exceeding 10 milligrams of total constituents released per dm2 of food contact surface (mg/dm2).\n2. By derogation from paragraph 1, plastic materials and articles intended to be brought into contact with food intended for infants and young children, as defined by Commission Directives 2006/141/EC (15) and 2006/125/EC (16), shall not transfer their constituents to food simulants in quantities exceeding 60 milligrams of total of constituents released per kg of food simulant.\nCHAPTER III\nSPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN MATERIALS AND ARTICLES\nArticle 13\nPlastic multi-layer materials and articles\n1. In a plastic multi-layer material or article, the composition of each plastic layer shall comply with this Regulation.\n2. By derogation from paragraph 1, a plastic layer which is not in direct contact with food and is separated from the food by a functional barrier, may:\n(a)\nnot comply with the restrictions and specifications set out in this Regulation except for vinyl chloride monomer as provided in Annex I; and/or\n(b)\nbe manufactured with substances not listed in the Union list or in the provisional list.\n3. The migration of the substances under paragraph 2(b) into food or food simulant shall not be detectable measured with statistical certainty by a method of analysis set out in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 with a limit of detection of 0,01 mg/kg. That limit shall always be expressed as concentration in foods or food simulants. That limit shall apply to a group of compounds, if they are structurally and toxicologically related, in particular isomers or compounds with the same relevant functional group, and shall include possible set-off transfer.\n4. The substances not listed in the Union list or provisional list referred to in paragraph 2(b) shall not belong to either of the following categories:\n(a)\nsubstances classified as \u2018mutagenic\u2019, \u2018carcinogenic\u2019 or \u2018toxic to reproduction\u2019 in accordance with the criteria set out in sections 3.5, 3.6. and 3.7 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council (17);\n(b)\nsubstances in nanoform.\n5. The final plastic multi-layer material or article shall comply with the specific migration limits set out in Article 11 and the overall migration limit set out in Article 12 of this Regulation.\nArticle 14\nMulti-material multi-layer materials and articles\n1. In a multi-material multi-layer material or article, the composition of each plastic layer shall comply with this Regulation.\n2. By derogation from paragraph 1, in a multi-material multi-layer material or article a plastic layer which is not in direct contact with food and is separated from the food by a functional barrier, may be manufactured with substances not listed in the Union list or the provisional list.\n3. The substances not listed in the Union list or provisional list referred to in paragraph 2 shall not belong to either of the following categories:\n(a)\nsubstances classified as \u2018mutagenic\u2019, \u2018carcinogenic\u2019 or \u2018toxic to reproduction\u2019 in accordance with the criteria set out in sections 3.5, 3.6. and 3.7 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008;\n(b)\nsubstances in nanoform.\n4. By derogation from paragraph 1, Articles 11 and 12 of this Regulation do not apply to plastic layers in multi-material multi-layer materials and articles.\n5. The plastic layers in a multi-material multi-layer material or article shall always comply with the restrictions for vinyl chloride monomer laid down in Annex I to this Regulation.\n6. In a multi-material multi-layer material or article, specific and overall migration limits for plastic layers and for the final material or article may be established by national law.\nCHAPTER IV\nDECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE AND DOCUMENTATION\nArticle 15\nDeclaration of compliance\n1. At the marketing stages other than at the retail stage, a written declaration in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 shall be available for plastic materials and articles, products from intermediate stages of their manufacturing as well as for the substances intended for the manufacturing of those materials and articles.\n2. The written declaration referred to in paragraph 1 shall be issued by the business operator and shall contain the information laid down in Annex IV.\n3. The written declaration shall permit an easy identification of the materials, articles or products from intermediate stages of manufacture or substances for which it is issued. It shall be renewed when substantial changes in the composition or production occur that bring about changes in the migration from the materials or articles or when new scientific data becomes available.\nArticle 16\nSupporting documents\n1. Appropriate documentation to demonstrate that the materials and articles, products from intermediate stages of their manufacturing as well as the substances intended for the manufacturing of those materials and articles comply with the requirements of this Regulation shall be made available by the business operator to the national competent authorities on request.\n2. That documentation shall contain the conditions and results of testing, calculations, including modelling, other analysis, and evidence on the safety or reasoning demonstrating compliance. Rules for experimental demonstration of compliance are set out in Chapter V.\nCHAPTER V\nCOMPLIANCE\nArticle 17\nExpression of migration test results\n1. To check the compliance, the specific migration values shall be expressed in mg/kg applying the real surface to volume ratio in actual or foreseen use.\n2. By derogation from paragraph 1 for:\n(a)\ncontainers and other articles, containing or intended to contain, less than 500 millilitres or grams or more than 10 litres,\n(b)\nmaterials and articles for which, due to their form it is impracticable to estimate the relationship between the surface area of such materials or articles and the quantity of food in contact therewith,\n(c)\nsheets and films that are not yet in contact with food,\n(d)\nsheets and films containing less than 500 millilitres or grams or more than 10 litres,\nthe value of migration shall be expressed in mg/kg applying a surface to volume ratio of 6 dm2 per kg of food.\nThis paragraph does not apply to plastic materials and articles intended to be brought into contact with or already in contact with food for infants and young children, as defined by Directives 2006/141/EC and 2006/125/EC.\n3. By derogation from paragraph 1, for caps, gaskets, stoppers and similar sealing articles the specific migration value shall be expressed in:\n(a)\nmg/kg using the actual content of the container for which the closure is intended or in mg/dm2 applying the total contact surface of sealing article and sealed container if the intended use of the article is known, while taking into account the provisions of paragraph 2;\n(b)\nmg/article if the intended use of the article is unknown.\n4. For caps, gaskets, stoppers and similar sealing articles the overall migration value shall be expressed in:\n(a)\nmg/dm2 applying the total contact surface of sealing article and sealed container if the intended use of the article is known;\n(b)\nmg/article if the intended use of the article is unknown.\nArticle 18\nRules for assessing compliance with migration limits\n1. For materials and articles already in contact with food verification of compliance with specific migration limits shall be carried out in accordance with the rules set out in Chapter 1 of Annex V.\n2. For materials and articles not yet in contact with food verification of compliance with specific migration limits shall be carried out in food or in food simulants set out in Annex III in accordance with the rules set out in Chapter 2, Section 2.1 of Annex V.\n3. For materials and articles not yet in contact with food screening of compliance with the specific migration limit can be performed applying screening approaches in accordance with the rules set out in Chapter 2, Section 2.2 of Annex V. If a material or article fails to comply with the migration limits in the screening approach a conclusion of non-compliance has to be confirmed by verification of compliance in accordance with paragraph 2.\n4. For materials and articles not yet in contact with food verification of compliance with the overall migration limit shall be carried out in food simulants A, B, C, D1 and D2 as set out in Annex III in accordance with the rules set out in Chapter 3, Section 3.1 of Annex V.\n5. For materials and articles not yet in contact with food screening of compliance with the overall migration limit can be performed applying screening approaches in accordance with the rules set out in Chapter 3, Section 3.4 of Annex V. If a material or article fails to comply with the migration limit in the screening approach a conclusion of non-compliance has to be confirmed by verification of compliance in accordance with paragraph 4.\n6. The results of specific migration testing obtained in food shall prevail over the results obtained in food simulant. The results of specific migration testing obtained in food simulant shall prevail over the results obtained by screening approaches.\n7. Before comparing specific and overall migration test results with the migration limits the correction factors in Chapter 4 of Annex V shall be applied in accordance with the rules set out therein.\nArticle 19\nAssessment of substances not included in the Union list\nCompliance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of substances referred to in Articles 6(1), 6(2), 6(4), 6(5) and 14(2) of this Regulation which are not covered by an inclusion in Annex I to this Regulation shall be assessed in accordance with internationally recognised scientific principles on risk assessment.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 20\nAmendments of EU acts\nThe Annex to Council Directive 85/572/EEC (18) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The food simulants to be used for testing migration of constituents of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with a single food or specific groups of foods are set out in point 3 of Annex III to Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011.\u2019\nArticle 21\nRepeal of EU acts\nDirectives 80/766/EEC, 81/432/EEC, and 2002/72/EC are hereby repealed with effect from 1 May 2011.\nReferences to the repealed Directives shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation tables in Annex VI.\nArticle 22\nTransitional provisions\n1. Until 31 December 2012 the supporting documents referred to in Article 16 shall be based on the basic rules for overall and specific migration testing set out in the Annex to Directive 82/711/EEC.\n2. As from 1 January 2013 the supporting documents referred to in Article 16 for materials, articles and substances placed on the market until 31 December 2015, may be based on:\n(a)\nthe rules for migration testing set out in Article 18 of this Regulation; or\n(b)\nthe basic rules for overall and specific migration testing set out in the Annex to Directive 82/711/EEC.\n3. As from 1 January 2016, the supporting documents referred to in Article 16 shall be based on the rules for migration testing set out in Article 18, without prejudice to paragraph 2 of this Article.\n4. Until 31 December 2015 additives used in glass fibre sizing for glass fibre reinforced plastics which are not listed in Annex I have to comply with the risk assessment provisions set out in Article 19.\n5. Materials and articles that have been lawfully placed on the market before 1 May 2011 may be placed on the market until 31 December 2012.\nArticle 23\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 May 2011.\nThe provision of Article 5 as regards the use of additives, others than plasticisers, shall apply for plastic layers or plastic coatings in caps and closures referred to in Article 2(1)(d), as from 31 December 2015.\nThe provision of Article 5 as regards the use of additives used in glass fibre sizing for glass fibre reinforced plastics, shall apply from 31 December 2015.\nThe provisions of Articles 18(2), 18(4) and 20 shall apply from 31 December 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 14 January 2011.", "references": ["12", "27", "61", "81", "88", "82", "64", "28", "74", "41", "79", "17", "11", "94", "44", "98", "80", "56", "30", "65", "39", "13", "97", "8", "47", "20", "5", "10", "45", "6", "No Label", "25", "38", "60", "72", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "60", "72", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 508/2012\nof 20 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (1), and in particular Article 33(2), Article 33(3), Article 38(d) and Article 40 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn the light of experience gained with the application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 (2), the publication of the names and the internet addresses of the control authority or authorities or the control body or bodies recognised by the competent authority to carry out controls in the third country is sufficient for the purpose of that Regulation. However, it is appropriate to continue to require the publication of the code number of the authority or authorities or the control body or bodies responsible in the third country for issuing certificates with a view to importing into the Union.\n(2)\nIn the light of the experience gained with the implementation of the equivalence system, a third country which is recognised for the purpose of equivalence should be included in the list referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 for a probative period of three years, as a first step. Then, if that country continues to fulfil the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 and provides the Commission with the necessary guarantees, the inclusion in that list should be extended.\n(3)\nIn order not to disrupt international trade and to help the transition between the rules established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (3) and those established by Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 extends the possibility of Member States to continue to grant authorisations to importers for placing products on the Union market on a case by case basis until the measures necessary for the functioning of the new import rules have been put in place. That possibility is to be gradually phased out as the list of countries set out in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 is being established.\n(4)\nOnce a third country is recognised as equivalent in the Union, there would be no need for Member States to deliver such authorisations any more.\n(5)\nHowever, the experience gained with the equivalence system has shown that in some cases it is appropriate for technical reasons to limit the scope of the recognition of a third country to some product categories or to products originating in that third country.\n(6)\nTherefore, it should be clarified that Member States have the possibility to grant such authorisations until 30 June 2014 for products imported from a third country listed in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008, if the imported products in question are goods which are not covered by the categories and/or origin listed for that country.\n(7)\nSome Member States may have granted the authorisations referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 for an unlimited period of time before 1 July 2012. Those import authorisations should expire on 1 July 2014 at the latest.\n(8)\nThe experience has shown that difficulties can arise in identifying the products covered by the product categories listed in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008. In the light of experience and the information received, it is necessary to clarify that certain products are not included in these products categories.\n(9)\nFor organic wine exported from the United States to the Union, the United States authorities have agreed to apply and certify compliance with the rules for organic wine laid down in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (4) as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 203/2012 (5) as from 1 August 2012 and until such time as a joint working group has concluded its examination of the equivalence of organic wine making rules. Consequently, it is necessary to clarify that wine will be included from 1 August 2012 in the product categories relating to the United States in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008.\n(10)\nThe presentation of product categories of the countries listed in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 should be harmonised with the categories defined in Annex IV.\n(11)\nThe duration of inclusion of Tunisia in the list set out in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 expires on 30 June 2012. Since Tunisia did not communicate sufficient information related to its control system after request by the Commission in accordance with Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008, the inclusion should be prolonged for one year only.\n(12)\nThe Costa-Rican, Indian, Japanese and Tunisian authorities have asked the Commission to include new control and certificate issuing bodies and have provided the Commission with the necessary guarantees that they meet the preconditions laid down in Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008. The Costa-Rican authorities have informed the Commission that the control body Mayacert is not recognised by them anymore and have asked the Commission to remove it from the list. The competent authority of the United States has informed the Commission that the control body \u2018Louisiana Department of Agriculture\u2019 is not accredited anymore and should be removed from the list.\n(13)\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1267/2011 (6) sets out the list of control bodies and control authorities competent to carry out controls and issue certificates in third countries for the purpose of equivalence. The Commission has continued the assessment of the requests for inclusion received by 31 October 2009 in the light of additional information received and has assessed the requests received by 31 October 2010. Only those control bodies and control authorities in respect of which the subsequent examination of all information received led to the conclusion that they complied with the relevant requirements should be included in that list. In certain cases, the names of the control bodies listed in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 were abbreviated. For the sake of clarity, that Annex should be replaced.\n(14)\nRegulation (EC) No 1235/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the regulatory Committee on organic production,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1235/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 7(2), points (e) and (f) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nthe names and internet addresses of the control authority or authorities or the control body or bodies recognised by the competent authority referred to in point (d) to carry out controls;\n(f)\nthe names, internet addresses and code numbers of the authority or authorities or the control body or bodies responsible in the third country for issuing certificates with a view to importing into the Union;\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 8, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Commission shall assess whether the technical dossier referred to in paragraph 2 and the information referred to in paragraph 3 are satisfactory and may subsequently decide to recognise and include a third country in the list for a three-year period. Where the Commission considers that the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and this Regulation continue to be met, it may decide to extend the inclusion of the third country after that three-year period.\nThe decisions referred to in the first subparagraph shall be taken in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 37(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 19 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin the first subparagraph, the following sentence is added:\n\u2018The competent authority of a Member State may also grant such authorisations under the same conditions to products imported from a third country included in the list referred to in Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 if the imported products in question are goods which are not covered by the categories and/or origin listed for that country.\u2019;\n(ii)\nin the third subparagraph, the following sentence is added:\n\u2018Authorisations granted before 1 July 2012 shall expire on 1 July 2014 at the latest.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 6 is deleted;\n(4)\nAnnex III is replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this Regulation;\n(5)\nAnnex IV is replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nHowever, point 3(a)(ii) and point 5 of Article 1 shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2012.", "references": ["69", "29", "17", "96", "63", "68", "84", "45", "9", "79", "55", "6", "56", "31", "39", "75", "93", "18", "25", "90", "4", "52", "33", "37", "98", "34", "16", "82", "70", "67", "No Label", "20", "22", "23", "72"], "gold": ["20", "22", "23", "72"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 458/2010/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 19 May 2010\namending Decision No 573/2007/EC establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 by removing funding for certain Community actions and altering the limit for funding such actions\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 78(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe policy of the Union on the Common European Asylum System (the CEAS) is designed, under the terms of the Hague Programme, to establish a common asylum area by means of an effective harmonised procedure consistent with the values and humanitarian tradition of the European Union.\n(2)\nMuch progress has been made in recent years towards the establishment of the CEAS, thanks to the introduction of common minimum standards. There remain great disparities between the Member States, however, in the granting of international protection and the forms that such protection takes.\n(3)\nIn its Policy Plan on Asylum, adopted in June 2008, the Commission announced its intention to develop the CEAS by proposing a revision of the existing legal instruments in order to achieve greater harmonisation of the applicable standards and by strengthening support for practical cooperation between the Member States, in particular, by a legislative proposal to establish a European Asylum Support Office (the Support Office) in order to increase coordination of operational cooperation between Member States so that the common rules are implemented effectively.\n(4)\nIn the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, adopted in September 2008, the European Council solemnly reiterated that any persecuted foreigner is entitled to obtain aid and protection on the territory of the European Union in application of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967, and other relevant treaties. It was also expressly agreed that a European support office would be established in 2009.\n(5)\nPractical cooperation on asylum aims to increase convergence and ensure ongoing quality of Member States\u2019 decision-making procedures in that area, within a European legislative framework. A substantial number of practical cooperation measures have already been undertaken in recent years, notably the adoption of a common approach to information on countries of origin and the establishment of a common European asylum curriculum. The Support Office should be established in order to strengthen and develop those cooperation measures.\n(6)\nIn the interests of simplifying actions to support practical cooperation on asylum matters, and in so far as the Support Office should be entrusted with some of the tasks that are currently financed under the European Refugee Fund, it is necessary to transfer responsibility for some of the Community actions provided for in Article 4 of Decision No 573/2007/EC (2) from the European Refugee Fund to the Support Office in order to ensure the best possible practical cooperation on asylum matters.\n(7)\nIn order to take account of the reduced scope of the Community actions, the limit for their funding laid down in Decision No 573/2007/EC should be reduced from 10 % of the Fund\u2019s available resources to 4 % thereof.\n(8)\nThe financial envelope for the implementation of Decision No 573/2007/EC should be reduced in order to free up resources for funding the Support Office.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom and Ireland have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(10)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it nor subject to its application,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision No 573/2007/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the figure \u201810 %\u2019 is replaced by the figure \u20184 %\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, points (a) and (f) are deleted;\n2.\nArticle 12(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial envelope for the implementation of this Decision from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2013 shall be EUR 614 million.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 19 May 2010.", "references": ["47", "59", "72", "15", "17", "45", "53", "62", "26", "39", "28", "87", "42", "81", "48", "98", "76", "85", "50", "6", "82", "93", "58", "24", "92", "97", "37", "94", "32", "43", "No Label", "4", "5", "9", "10", "13", "31", "96"], "gold": ["4", "5", "9", "10", "13", "31", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 733/2012\nof 13 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 August 2012.", "references": ["85", "97", "8", "82", "49", "3", "25", "19", "50", "98", "59", "72", "46", "20", "75", "53", "36", "93", "27", "29", "73", "1", "91", "79", "77", "16", "86", "12", "58", "34", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/428/CFSP\nof 18 July 2011\nin support of United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs activities to implement the United Nations Programme of Actions to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 26(2) and Article 31(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 20 July 2001, the States participating in the ad-hoc Conference adopted the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (the Programme of Action). On 8 December 2005, the United Nations General Assembly adopted an International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons (International Tracing Instrument). Both these international instruments declare that States will cooperate, as appropriate, with the United Nations to support their effective implementation.\n(2)\nThe 2008 Third Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the Programme of Action noted in its final report the importance of regional approaches to the implementation of the Programme of Action and the usefulness, therefore, of convening regional meetings sponsored by interested States and international, regional and sub-regional organisations in a position to do so. The final report also encouraged States to support and make full use of existing mechanisms that support the implementation of the Programme of Action and the matching of needs with resources, such as the Programme of Action Implementation Support System.\n(3)\nOn 15-16 December 2005, the European Council adopted the EU Strategy to combat the illicit accumulation and trafficking of small arms and light weapons (SALW) and their ammunition (the EU SALW Strategy). The EU SALW Strategy identifies support for the UN Programme of Action as the first priority for action at international level, and calls for the adoption of a legally binding international instrument on the tracing and marking of SALW and ammunition.\n(4)\nFollowing the adoption of the international tracing instrument, the European Union supported its full implementation through the adoption and implementation of Council Joint Action 2008/113/CFSP of 12 February 2008 in support of the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) (1). The implementation of that Joint Action was positively assessed by the Council of the European Union.\n(5)\nOn 2 December 2009, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/64/50 on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects which encourages all initiatives, including those of international, regional and sub-regional organisations, for the successful implementation of the Programme of Action and emphasises that initiatives by the international community with respect to international cooperation and assistance remain essential and complementary to national implementation efforts.\n(6)\nResolution A/RES/64/50 also provided that the fourth biennial meeting of States to consider the national, regional and global implementation of the Programme of Action should be held in New York from 14 to 18 June 2010, and that a conference to review progress made in implementation of the Programme of Action will be convened for a period of 2 weeks in New York, no later than in 2012.\n(7)\nAlso on 2 December 2009, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/64/51 on Problems arising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus, which encourages States in a position to do so to contribute to the development within the United Nations of technical guidelines for the stockpile management of conventional ammunition, in order to assist States in improving their national stockpile management capacity, preventing the growth of conventional ammunition surpluses,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. With a view to supporting the preparation of the Review Conference of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects to be held in 2012, the Union shall pursue the following objectives:\n-\nthe promotion of the implementation of the UN Programme of Action on SALW both at global and regional level,\n-\nsupporting the implementation of the International Tracing Instrument (ITI),\n-\nsupporting the development and implementation of UN technical guidelines for ammunition stockpile management.\n2. In order to achieve the objectives referred to in paragraph 1, the Union shall undertake the following measures:\n-\ndeveloping the Programme of Action Implementation Support System as an effective tool to coordinate international efforts to implement the UN Programme of Action, including through support to the informal Group of Interested States on SALW,\n-\norganising up to eight 2-day regional meetings on advancing the implementation of the Programme of Action at regional level,\n-\norganising regional training-of-trainers courses on the International Tracing Instrument for countries in West Africa, and setting-up marking facilities and expertise in countries of the region lacking such equipment,\n-\nsupporting the development of UN technical guidelines on ammunition stockpile management,\n-\nsupporting the implementation of the guidelines through regional training-of-trainers programmes for law enforcement officials in the African Great Lakes region, Latin America and the Caribbean,\n-\nsupporting individual States in critical need of assistance in the management of their ammunition stockpiles, by providing technical, legal and policy assistance and specialised training.\nA detailed description of these measures is set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (the HR) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.\n2. The implementation of the measures referred to in Article 1(2) shall be carried out by the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (hereinafter UNODA).\n3. UNODA shall perform its task under the responsibility of the HR. For this purpose, the HR shall enter into the necessary arrangements with UNODA.\nArticle 3\n1. The financial reference amount for the implementation of the measures referred to in Article 1(2) shall be EUR 2 150 000.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure of the amount referred to in paragraph 1. For this purpose, it shall conclude a financing agreement with UNODA. The agreement shall stipulate that UNODA is to ensure the visibility of the Union\u2019s contribution, appropriate to its size.\n4. The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the financing agreement.\nArticle 4\nThe HR shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular bi-monthly reports prepared by UNODA. Those reports shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council. The Commission shall report on the financial aspects of the implementation of the measures referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 5\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall expire 24 months after the date of conclusion of the financing agreement referred to in Article 3(3). However, it shall expire 6 months after the date of its entry into force if that financing agreement has not been concluded by that time.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["13", "53", "47", "76", "82", "38", "32", "74", "86", "60", "67", "16", "75", "29", "25", "22", "54", "9", "83", "79", "56", "43", "3", "44", "96", "77", "94", "21", "66", "19", "No Label", "1", "6", "10", "20", "46", "99"], "gold": ["1", "6", "10", "20", "46", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 865/2010\nof 29 September 2010\nfixing the minimum selling price for butter for the seventh individual invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 (2) has opened the sales of butter by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the seventh individual invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed for butter stored in France due to the very small quantity stored in that Member State. For butter stored in other Member States than France, no minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the seventh individual invitation to tender for selling of butter within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 21 September 2010, the minimum selling price for butter stored in France shall be EUR 356,00/100 kg.\nIn the framework of that individual invitation to tender no minimum selling price shall be fixed for butter stored in other Member States than France.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 September 2010.", "references": ["96", "14", "65", "78", "24", "75", "79", "73", "91", "61", "52", "85", "82", "31", "27", "42", "47", "0", "36", "71", "94", "28", "89", "87", "39", "1", "41", "46", "59", "68", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 75/2012\nof 30 January 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [\"Mi\u00f3d z Sejne\u0144szczyny/\u0141o\u017adziejszczyzny\"/\"Sein\u0173/Lazdij\u0173 kra\u0161to medus\" (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland and Lithuania\u2019s application to register the name \"Mi\u00f3d z Sejne\u0144szczyny/\u0141o\u017adziejszczyzny\"/\"Sein\u0173/Lazdij\u0173 kra\u0161to medus\" was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 January 2012.", "references": ["34", "40", "83", "65", "36", "3", "64", "88", "33", "30", "12", "38", "0", "28", "77", "59", "7", "37", "1", "71", "80", "72", "52", "68", "67", "39", "2", "20", "73", "22", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1135/2011\nof 9 November 2011\ninitiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China by imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, and making such imports subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Articles 13(3), 14(3) and 14(5) thereof,\nAfter having consulted the Advisory Committee in accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation,\nWhereas:\nA. REQUEST\n(1)\nThe European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) has received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and to make imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, subject to registration.\n(2)\nThe request was lodged on 27 September 2011 by Saint-Gobain Adfors CZ s.r.o., Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgozo es Muszakiszovet-gyarto Bt., Valmieras \u2018Stikla Skiedra\u2019 AS and Vitrulan Technical Textiles GmbH, four Union producers of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres.\nB. PRODUCT\n(3)\nThe product concerned by the possible circumvention is open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2, excluding fibreglass discs, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00 (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n(4)\nThe product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, currently falling within the same CN codes as the product concerned.\nC. EXISTING MEASURES\n(5)\nThe measures currently in force and possibly being circumvented are anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 (2).\nD. GROUNDS\n(6)\nThe request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China are being circumvented by means of the transhipment via Malaysia.\nThe evidence submitted is as follows:\n(7)\nThe request shows that a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the People\u2019s Republic of China and Malaysia to the Union has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned, and that there is insufficient due cause or justification other than the imposition of the duty for such a change.\n(8)\nThis change in the pattern of trade appears to stem from the transhipment of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China via Malaysia.\n(9)\nFurthermore, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned are being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. Significant volumes of imports of the product under investigation appear to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, there is sufficient evidence that imports of the product under investigation are made at prices well below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures.\n(10)\nFinally, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the prices of the product under investigation are dumped in relation to the normal value previously established for the product concerned.\n(11)\nShould circumvention practices via Malaysia covered by Article 13 of the basic Regulation, other than transhipment, be identified in the course of the investigation, the investigation may also cover these practices.\nE. PROCEDURE\n(12)\nIn light of the above, the Commission has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation and to make imports of the product under investigation, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(a) Questionnaires\n(13)\nIn order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the known exporters/producers and to the known associations of exporters/producers in Malaysia, to the known exporters/producers and to the known associations of exporters/producers in the People\u2019s Republic of China, to the known importers and to the known associations of importers in the Union and to the authorities of the People\u2019s Republic of China and Malaysia. Information, as appropriate, may also be sought from the Union industry.\n(14)\nIn any event, all interested parties should contact the Commission forthwith, but not later than the time limit set in Article 3 of this Regulation, and request a questionnaire within the time limit set in Article 3(1) of this Regulation, given that the time limit set in Article 3(2) of this Regulation applies to all interested parties.\n(15)\nThe authorities of the People\u2019s Republic of China and Malaysia will be notified of the initiation of the investigation.\n(b) Collection of information and holding of hearings\n(16)\nAll interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\n(c) Exemption of registration of imports or measures\n(17)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation may be exempted from registration or measures if the importation does not constitute circumvention.\n(18)\nSince the possible circumvention takes place outside the Union, exemptions may be granted, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, to producers in Malaysia of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres that can show that they are not related (3) to any producer subject to the measures (4) and that are found not to be engaged in circumvention practices as defined in Article 13(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation. Producers wishing to obtain an exemption should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the time limit indicated in Article 3(3) of this Regulation.\nF. REGISTRATION\n(19)\nPursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied retroactively from the date of registration of such imports consigned from Malaysia.\nG. TIME LIMITS\n(20)\nIn the interest of sound administration, time limits should be stated within which:\n-\ninterested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,\n-\nproducers in Malaysia may request exemption from registration of imports or measures,\n-\ninterested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.\n(21)\nAttention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party\u2019s making itself known within the time limits mentioned in Article 3 of this Regulation.\nH. NON-COOPERATION\n(22)\nIn cases in which an interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.\n(23)\nWhere it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.\nI. SCHEDULE OF THE INVESTIGATION\n(24)\nThe investigation will be concluded, according to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, within 9 months of the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nJ. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\n(25)\nIt is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5).\nK. HEARING OFFICER\n(26)\nIt is also noted that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of Directorate-General for Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views. For further information and contact details, interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer\u2019s web pages on the website of Directorate-General for Trade (http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/hearing-officer/index_en.htm),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAn investigation is hereby initiated pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, in order to determine if imports into the Union of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2, excluding fibreglass discs, consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00 (TARIC codes 7019510011 and 7019590011), are circumventing the measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011.\nArticle 2\nThe Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union identified in Article 1 of this Regulation.\nRegistration shall expire 9 months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThe Commission, by regulation, may direct Customs authorities to cease registration in respect of imports into the Union of products manufactured by producers having applied for an exemption of registration and having been found to fulfil the conditions for an exemption to be granted.\nArticle 3\n1. Questionnaires should be requested from the Commission within 15 days from publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. Interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 37 days from the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.\n3. Producers in Malaysia requesting exemption from registration of imports or measures should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the same 37-day time limit.\n4. Interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 37-day time limit.\n5. Interested parties are required to make all submissions and requests in electronic format (the non-confidential submissions via e-mail, the confidential ones on CD-R/DVD), and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers of the interested party. However, any Powers of Attorney, signed certifications, and any updates thereof, accompanying questionnaire replies shall be submitted on paper, i.e. by post or by hand, at the address below. Pursuant to Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation if an interested party cannot provide its submissions and requests in electronic format, it must immediately inform the Commission. For further information concerning correspondence with the Commission, interested parties may consult the relevant web page on the website of Directorate-General for Trade: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/trade-defence. All written submissions, including the information requested in this Regulation, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labelled as \u2018Limited\u2019 (6) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labelled \u2018For inspection by interested parties\u2019.\nAddress for correspondence:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N105 4/92\n1049 Bruxelles/Brussel\nBELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb\nFax +32 22993704\nE-mail: TRADE-AC-MESH@ec.europa.eu\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2011.", "references": ["28", "91", "52", "98", "75", "74", "31", "97", "39", "21", "16", "79", "6", "27", "29", "54", "12", "65", "70", "2", "78", "62", "36", "15", "3", "67", "58", "53", "33", "92", "No Label", "8", "22", "23", "48", "83", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["8", "22", "23", "48", "83", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 794/2012\nof 5 September 2012\non transitional measures concerning the Union list of flavourings and source materials set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91, Regulations (EC) No 2232/96 and (EC) No 110/2008 and Directive 2000/13/EC (1) and in particular Article 25(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 lays down the type of flavourings and source materials for which an evaluation and approval is required.\n(2)\nArticle 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 provides that, of the flavourings and source materials referred to in Article 9, only those included in the Union list may be placed on the market as such and used in or on foods under the conditions of use specified therein, where applicable.\n(3)\nArticle 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 specifies that Article 10 is to apply from 18 months after the date of application of the Union list.\n(4)\nIt is therefore appropriate to fix that date of application of the Union list for the purposes of third paragraph of Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008.\n(5)\nAs a first step, a Union list of flavouring substances referred to in point (a) of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 has been established by Commission Regulation (EU) No 793/2012 (2) by introducing the list of flavouring substances referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) into Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 and by fixing the dates of application of that list.\n(6)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 flavouring substances not included in the Union list may be placed on the market as such and used in or on food until 18 months after the date of application of the Union list. Since flavouring substances are already on the market in the Member States, provision should be made to ensure that the transition to a Union authorisation procedure is smooth. To increase legal certainty, a transitional period should be provided also for food containing those flavouring substances.\n(7)\nAs a second step, the flavourings and source materials referred to in Article 9(b) to (f) must be evaluated. The interested parties are to submit applications for updating the Union list by adding a substance to the list pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and are to follow Commission Regulation (EU) No 234/2011 of 10 March 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (5) as to the data required and as to the content, drafting and presentation of the applications for authorisation of flavourings and source materials listed in Article 9(b) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008.\n(8)\nIn accordance with the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008, in order to enhance legal certainty and non-discrimination it is appropriate to adopt transitional measures to allow the time for evaluation and authorisation of those flavourings and source materials.\n(9)\nThe date of application of Parts B to F of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008, concerning flavourings and source materials listed in Article 9(b) to (f) of that Regulation, should be postponed to allow the time for evaluation and authorisation of those flavourings and source materials.\n(10)\nThe interested parties should submit applications for authorisations within a set time limit as regards flavourings and source materials listed in Article 9(b) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 that are currently placed on the market.\n(11)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 flavourings and source materials listed in Article 9(b) to (f) not included in the Union list may be placed on the market as such and used in or on food until 18 months after the date of application of the Union list. Since flavourings and source materials listed in Article 9(b) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 are already on the market in the Member States, provision should be made to ensure that the transition to a Union authorisation procedure is smooth. To increase legal certainty, a transitional period should be provided also for food containing those flavourings and source materials.\n(12)\nArticle 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 specifies that Articles 26 and 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 concerning amendments to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91 of 10 June 1991 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of aromatised wines, aromatised wine-based drinks and aromatised wine-product cocktails (6) and to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks (7) are to apply from the date of application of the Union list. It is therefore appropriate to fix that date of application for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008.\n(13)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nFLAVOURING SUBSTANCES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 9(a) OF REGULATION (EC) No 1334/2008\nArticle 1\nTransitional measures for food containing flavouring substances\nFoods containing flavouring substances, which are lawfully placed on the market or labelled prior to 27 September 2014, but which do not comply with Part A of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 may be marketed until their date of minimum durability or use-by date.\nCHAPTER II\nFLAVOURINGS AND SOURCE MATERIALS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 9(b) TO (f) OF REGULATION (EC) No 1334/2008\nArticle 2\nDate of application of Parts B to F of the Union list of flavourings and source materials\nFor the purposes of the third paragraph of Article 30 in conjunction with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008, Parts B to F of the Union list of flavourings and source materials set out in Annex I to that Regulation shall apply from 27 September 2016.\nArticle 3\nTime limit for submissions\nInterested parties shall submit applications for authorisation of flavourings and source materials referred to in Article 9(b) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 placed on the market at the time of entry into force of this Regulation to the Commission in accordance with the Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 at the latest by 27 September 2015.\nArticle 4\nTransitional measure for food containing flavourings and source materials referred to in Article 9(b) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008\nFoods containing flavourings and source materials referred to in Article 9(b) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 which are lawfully placed on the market or labelled prior to 27 March 2018 but which do not comply with Parts B to F of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008, may be marketed until their date of minimum durability or use-by date.\nCHAPTER III\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 5\nAmendments to Regulations (EEC) No 1601/91 and (EC) No 110/2008\nFor the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008, concerning amendments to Regulations (EEC) No 1601/91 and (EC) No 110/2008, the date of application of the Union list of flavourings and source materials shall be 27 March 2013.\nArticle 6\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 September 2012.", "references": ["78", "33", "64", "63", "34", "62", "16", "0", "90", "60", "76", "93", "97", "20", "49", "66", "91", "5", "98", "30", "75", "56", "3", "10", "80", "24", "69", "40", "83", "37", "No Label", "25", "38", "72", "73", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "72", "73", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 444/2011\nof 5 May 2011\nextending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America to imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada, whether declared as originating in Canada or not, and extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 to imports of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel originating in the United States of America, and terminating the investigation in respect of imports consigned from Singapore\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Existing measures\n(1)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 193/2009 (2) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America (USA).\n(2)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 (3) (the definitive Regulation), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty ranging from EUR 0 to EUR 198 per tonne on imports of biodiesel, as defined in Article 1(1) of the said Regulation (the product concerned) originating in the USA (the existing measures). The investigation leading to the adoption of the definitive Regulation is hereafter referred to as \u2018the original investigation\u2019.\n(3)\nIt should also be noted that by Regulation (EC) No 598/2009 (4), the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty ranging from EUR 211,2 to EUR 237 per tonne on imports of the product concerned.\n1.2. Request\n(4)\nOn 30 June 2010, the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of the product concerned. The request was submitted by the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) on behalf of the Union producers of biodiesel.\n(5)\nThe request alleged that the anti-dumping measures on imports of the product concerned were being circumvented by means of transhipment via Canada and Singapore and by exports of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel.\n(6)\nThe request alleged that a significant change in pattern of trade involving exports from the USA, Canada and Singapore has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned, and that there is insufficient due cause or justification other than the imposition of the duty for this change. This change in pattern of trade stemmed allegedly from the transhipment of the product concerned via Canada and Singapore.\n(7)\nThe request further alleged that following the imposition of the measures, exports of biodiesel in blends containing 20 % or less of biodiesel from the USA had begun to arrive in the Union, allegedly taking advantage of the biodiesel content threshold set in the description of the product concerned.\n(8)\nFurthermore, the request alleged that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned were being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. It was alleged that significant volumes of imports of biodiesel in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of biodiesel from Canada and Singapore and of biodiesel in blends containing 20 % or less of biodiesel, appeared to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, there was sufficient evidence that this increased volume of imports were made at prices well below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures.\n(9)\nFinally, the request alleged that the prices of the product concerned continued to be subsidised as previously established.\n1.3. Initiation\n(10)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated an investigation by Regulation (EU) No 720/2010 (5) (the initiation Regulation). Pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission, by the initiation Regulation, also directed the customs authorities to register imports consigned from Canada and Singapore as well as imports originating in the USA of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin.\n(11)\nThe Commission also initiated a parallel investigation by Regulation (EU) No 721/2010 (6) concerning the possible circumvention of countervailing measures on imports of biodiesel originating in the USA by imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada and Singapore and by imports of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel originating in the USA.\n1.4. Investigation\n(12)\nThe Commission officially advised the authorities of the USA, Canada and Singapore. Questionnaires were sent to known producers/exporters in USA, Canada and Singapore. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the initiation Regulation.\n(13)\nThe following companies submitted replies to the questionnaires and verification visits were subsequently carried out at their premises:\nProducers/exporters in Canada:\n-\nBIOX Corporation,\n-\nRothsay Biodiesel.\nTraders in Singapore:\n-\nTrafigura Pte Ltd,\n-\nWilmar Trading Pte Ltd.\nProducers/exporters in the USA:\n-\nArcher Daniels Midland Company,\n-\nBP Products North America Inc.,\n-\nLouis Dreyfus Corporation.\nRelated importers\n-\nBP Oil International Limited,\n-\nCargill BV.\n(14)\nMoreover, visits were made to the relevant competent authorities of the Government of Canada and the Government of Singapore.\n1.5. Investigation period\n(15)\nThe investigation period covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 30 June 2010 (the IP). Data was collected for the period from 2008 up to the end of the IP to investigate the alleged change in the pattern of trade.\n2. PRODUCT FORMING THE OBJECT OF THE CIRCUMVENTION INVESTIGATION\n(16)\nThe product concerned by the possible circumvention, i.e. the product at issue in the original investigation, is fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, commonly known as \u2018biodiesel\u2019, in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, currently falling within CN codes ex 1516 20 98, ex 1518 00 91, ex 1518 00 99, ex 2710 19 41, 3824 90 91, ex 3824 90 97, and originating in the USA.\n(17)\nThe product forming the object of the circumvention investigation is twofold. Firstly, regarding the allegations of transhipment through Canada and Singapore, it is identical to the product at issue in the original investigation, as described in the previous paragraph. Regarding shipments directly from the USA, the product under investigation is biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, originating in the USA.\n3. IMPORTS OF BIODIESEL TO THE UNION V EXPORTS FROM THE USA\n(18)\nFollowing the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures in March 2009, imports of the product concerned have practically ceased. The below table summarises the situation:\nImports of biodiesel and certain biodiesel blends into the European Union\nunder code CN 3824 90 91 (in tonnes)\n2008\nShare\n2009\nShare\nIP\nShare\nUSA\n1 487 790\n83,62 %\n381 227\n22,29 %\n24\n0,00 %\nCanada\n1 725\n0,10 %\n140 043\n8,19 %\n197 772\n9,28 %\nSingapore\n179\n0,01 %\n20 486\n1,20 %\n32 078\n1,50 %\nSource: Eurostat.\n(19)\nThe above Eurostat data cover all biodiesel containing 96,5 % or more of esters.\n(20)\nIn comparison, the USA report exports of biodiesel and biodiesel blends under code HTS 3824.90.40.00 (mixtures of fatty substances, animal or vegetable origin) as follows:\nUS exports of biodiesel and biodiesel blends\nunder code HTS 3824.90.40.00 (in tonnes)\n2008\n2009\nIP\nEuropean Union\n2 241 473\n335 577\n358 291\nCanada\n967\n128 233\n161 841\nSingapore\n311\n42 056\n27 415\n2 242 751\n505 866\n547 547\nSource: US Department of Commerce\n(21)\nComparing the two above tables leads to the conclusion that the 358 291 tonnes exported to the Union during the IP are blends with a biodiesel content of 96,5 % and below.\n4. CANADA\n4.1. General considerations\n(22)\nThere was a high level of cooperation by producers/exporters in Canada. Two producers representing approximately 90 % of Canadian production of biodiesel submitted a questionnaire reply and fully cooperated with the investigation. Moreover, the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association and relevant authorities of the Government of Canada cooperated with the investigation.\n(23)\nIn accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the existence of circumvention should be made by analysing successively whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between USA, Canada and the Union, if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty, if there was evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the like product, and that there is evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product.\n4.2. Change in patterns of trade\n4.2.1. Imports into the Union\n(24)\nImports of biodiesel from the USA dropped from 1 487 790 tonnes in 2008, to 381 227 tonnes in 2009 and to close to zero during the IP.\n(25)\nOn the other hand, according to Eurostat data total imports of biodiesel from Canada to the Union increased significantly between 2008 and the IP from 1 725 tonnes in 2008 to 140 043 tonnes in 2009 and 197 772 tonnes during the IP.\n4.2.2. US exports of biodiesel to Canada\n(26)\nThere are no customs duties applicable for sales of biodiesel between the USA and Canada or other kinds of imports restrictions.\n(27)\nAccording to the US statistics, exports of biodiesel from the USA to Canada increased from 967 tonnes in 2008 to 128 233 tonnes in 2009 and 161 841 tonnes during the IP.\n(28)\nA comparison of the export statistics provided by the US authorities with the import statistics provided on-spot by the Canadian authorities showed significant discrepancies on a monthly basis. According to the Canadian statistics, imports of US biodiesel increased from 11 757 tonnes in 2008 to 18 673 tonnes in 2009 and 174 574 tonnes during the IP.\n(29)\nAccording to the Canadian authorities, there is no specific code to declare biodiesel. They noted that Canada and the USA exchange import data for use as their respective export data. As such, at the six-digit level Canadian import data and US export data should match, which they do quite closely under HTS 3824.90. However, beyond six digits they each have their own classification systems. Also it should be noted that the Canadian statistics only cover imports which have been customs cleared in Canada and not transhipped goods.\n(30)\nIn conclusion, despite the discrepancies between the two data sources, it is clear that US export of biodiesel to Canada increased from 2008 to the IP, and in particular following the imposition of anti-dumping measures. The Canadian biodiesel market is currently not able to absorb such quantities of biodiesel. Genuine Canadian biodiesel producers are in fact export oriented.\n4.2.3. Production in Canada and sales of genuine Canadian biodiesel to the Union\n(31)\nThe two cooperating producers in Canada did not purchase any biodiesel from the USA or from any other sources during the IP.\n(32)\nProduction of biodiesel in Canada is an infant industry. Some six production facilities were in place during the IP, but the two facilities in eastern Canada, which are in fact owned and run by the two cooperating producers, alone account for approximately 90 % of total production.\n(33)\nFrom the production volumes sold by the cooperating producers, sales where end-customers were certainly in North America, i.e. in the USA or Canada, were determined. The remainder of the sales were sold to customers who either traded the goods and/or blended the goods with other biodiesel. The two companies did not know whether the customers sold the products to the Union as Canadian biodiesel, whether they blended it, or whether the biodiesel was sold to end-customers in the USA or in Canada.\n(34)\nEven if in an extreme case it was assumed that all genuine Canadian biodiesel ended up in the Union, this would account for only 20 % of total imports into the Union from Canada during the IP.\n4.3. Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade\n(35)\nThe reconciliation of statistics with the data obtained from the cooperating producers showed that Canadian biodiesel producers could not have produced the volume exported from Canada into the Union. This therefore strongly suggests that the surge of imports from Canada to the Union market relates to exports of US biodiesel consigned from Canada.\n(36)\nThe overall decrease of US exports to the Union as from 2008 and the parallel increase of exports from Canada to the Union and of exports from the USA to Canada after the imposition of the original measures can thus be considered as a change in the pattern of trade.\n4.4. Insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-dumping duty\n(37)\nThe investigation did not bring to light any other due cause or economic justification for the transhipment than the avoidance of the payment of the anti-dumping duty in force on biodiesel originating in the USA.\n4.5. Undermining the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty\n(38)\nEurostat data was used to assess whether the imported products had, in terms of quantities, undermined the remedial effects of the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of biodiesel from the USA. The quantities and prices of exports from Canada were compared with the injury elimination level established in the original investigation.\n(39)\nAs mentioned above, imports from Canada into the Union increased from 1 725 tonnes in 2008 to 197 772 tonnes during the IP, the latter representing a share of imports of 9,2 %. The increase of imports from Canada could not be considered to be insignificant bearing in mind the size of the Union market as determined in the original investigation. Considering the non-injurious price level established in the original investigation, Canadian imports into the Union during the IP showed underselling in the region of 50 %, while undercutting the Union producers\u2019 sales prices by approximately 40 %.\n(40)\nIt was therefore concluded that the measures are being undermined in terms of quantities and prices.\n4.6. Evidence of dumping\n(41)\nIn accordance with Article 13(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value established in the original investigation.\n(42)\nIn the original investigation normal value was established on the basis of domestic sales prices in the ordinary course of trade and constructed based on the cost of production plus a reasonable profit margin where there were no domestic sales or where they were not in the ordinary course of trade.\n(43)\nExport prices from Canada were established on the basis of the average import price of biodiesel during the IP as reported in Eurostat.\n(44)\nFor the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance, in the form of adjustments, was made for differences which affect prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, in the absence of information relating to a number of costs items, only transport costs and insurance based on the observed average costs for ocean freight of biodiesel from the USA to the Union during the original investigation period, were deducted from the Eurostat CIF prices in order to arrive at the FOB prices at the Canadian border.\n(45)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the weighted average normal value as established in the original investigation and the weighed average export prices during the IP, expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid.\n(46)\nThis comparison showed the existence of dumping.\n4.7. Conclusion\n(47)\nThe investigation concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in the USA were circumvented by transhipment via Canada pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation.\n5. SINGAPORE\n(48)\nTwo traders located in Singapore cooperated with the investigation. In addition, cooperation was received from the relevant authorities of the Government of Singapore.\n(49)\nThe criteria for the assessment of the existence of circumvention have been described in recital 23 above.\n(50)\nAccording to Eurostat figures total exports of biodiesel from Singapore to the Union increased from 179 tonnes in 2008 to 20 486 tonnes in 2009 and to 32 078 tonnes during the IP. Exports from the USA to Singapore have also increased over the same period.\n(51)\nAccording to the relevant authorities of the Government of Singapore the biodiesel produced locally is sold mostly within Singapore to cater to domestic demand. However, they do note a growing industry in Singapore with the recent construction of new production facilities.\n(52)\nExports from Singapore have traditionally been low. Imports of biodiesel into the Union were closely examined in the Article 14(6) database and checked with the relevant national customs authorities. It appears that imports have arrived in a few spikes. The analysis showed that the majority of these imports were of genuine Singaporean origin. However, not all imports could be accounted for.\n(53)\nCompared to the Union consumption established in the original investigation the import volumes from Singapore to the Union, which could not be accounted for, were found to be extremely low. Furthermore, their share of Union consumption, taking account of EBB\u2019s estimation of the considerable increase in Union consumption since the original investigation, would be negligible.\n(54)\nIn view of the above, it can be concluded that the remedial effects of the anti-dumping measures have not been undermined in terms of quantities consigned from Singapore.\n(55)\nRegarding transhipment, it is well known that Singapore is a huge shipping hub in Asia where regional ships arrive and unload goods which are later reloaded to ships sailing, among others, to Europe. In this investigation, one of the cooperating traders transhipped biodiesel with Malaysian or Indonesian origin through Singapore with a final destination in the Union. During the IP, this trader alone exported a significant quantity of biodiesel to the Union via transhipment in Singapore and customs cleared the biodiesel in the Union as Malaysian or Indonesian origin. The verification did not reveal indications to put in question the declared Indonesian or Malaysian origin.\n(56)\nIn the light of the above, the investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures by imports of biodiesel consigned from Singapore should be terminated.\n6. USA\n6.1. Preliminary remarks\n(57)\nFive US producers of biodiesel or biodiesel blends cooperated in the investigation, three of which were included in the sample of the original investigation. The US Government cooperated by providing exports statistics and their interpretation of the statistics.\n(58)\nAll three producers which were included in the sample in the original investigation had stopped exporting biodiesel after the imposition of definitive measures.\n(59)\nOnly one of the five cooperating companies, BP North America which did not cooperate in the original investigation, exported biodiesel blends containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel (B20 and below) to the Union during the IP.\n(60)\nThe National Biodiesel Board (NBB) which represents the US biodiesel industry argued that a product which was according to them explicitly found to be outside of the product scope of the existing measures cannot become subject to anti-dumping measures without a de novo anti-dumping investigation. NBB argued that the definitive Regulation in explicit terms established the \u2018product concerned\u2019 and \u2018like product\u2019 at the level of biodiesel or biodiesel in blends with biodiesel representing more than 20 %. According to NBB, this was not an artificial threshold but corresponded to the market reality found during the original investigation. It was, for example, found that the threshold of 20 % was appropriate to allow a clear distinction between the various types of blends which were available on the US market.\n(61)\nIn the view of NBB and other interested parties, an anti-circumvention investigation can only extend anti-dumping measures on a product concerned to a like product that is only a slightly modified product compared to the product concerned. Again, NBB argued that the Council itself, in the definitive Regulation, had established that biodiesel in blends with a volume of biodiesel of 20 % or less is not a like product. Therefore, according to NBB, in the structure of the provisions of the basic Regulation there is no other option but to initiate a new investigation in order to determine whether these blends should become subject to measures.\n(62)\nIn reply to these arguments, it should first of all be noted that the purpose of the anti-circumvention provisions in Article 13 of the basic Regulation is to counteract any alleged attempts to evade the measures in force. If sufficient prima facie evidence exists showing that circumvention is taking place within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission will initiate an investigation in order to determine whether circumvention takes place. In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the existence of circumvention should be made, for example, by analysing successively whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between USA and the Union, if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty and if there was evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities.\n(63)\nIt should also be recalled that an anti-circumvention investigation is not a review of the product scope based on Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation and does not change the definition of the product concerned and the like product. The provisions under Article 13 of the basic Regulation provide for the relevant legal basis for an investigation of whether there is circumvention with regard to a product subject to measures.\n(64)\nIn this respect, the request the Commission received pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation alleged that, following the imposition of the measures, exports of biodiesel in blends containing 20 % or less biodiesel from the USA had begun to arrive in the Union, allegedly taking advantage of the biodiesel content threshold set in the description of the product concerned and the like product. The investigation examined whether such practice could be considered as circumvention pursuant to the provisions of Article 13 of the basic Regulation. Finally, it should be noted that alleged circumvention practices can only be examined under Article 13 of the basic Regulation.\n6.2. Exports of B20 and below from the USA to the Union\n(65)\nAs mentioned above in recital 20, the US HTS code 3824.90.40.00 contains also blends with a biodiesel content of 96,5 % and below. According to the US export statistics a total quantity of 358 291 tonnes of this type of blend was exported to the Union during the IP.\n(66)\nBP Products North America (BPNA) during the IP exported a significant proportion of the abovementioned quantity.\n(67)\nBPNA did not participate in the original investigation because it started up its biodiesel activities only in the beginning of 2009 in anticipation of a growing biodiesel market in the future, in response to government mandates both in the USA and abroad. BPNA started to export to the Union in December 2009. In this respect it is recalled that definitive measures were imposed in July 2009.\n(68)\nIn the Union, BP sold US origin biodiesel blend containing by weight 15 % or less of biodiesel (B15) in the UK, France and the Netherlands. In all cases, the product is further blended in order to respect the relevant legislation in force in certain Member States to promote the consumption of biofuels at the pump because they are currently considered environmentally sustainable.\n(69)\nBPNA argued that blends less than 15 % are not a like product for the product concerned. The characteristics and market realities are very different. The logistics involved (including shipping restrictions) in the production and importing of lower blends are very different to those of higher grades. According to BPNA, when transporting blends less than 15 %, such products are classified as a petroleum product for shipping as opposed to a chemical product which makes the shipment less costly. BPNA also argued that there are differences in performance between higher and lower grade biodiesel blends when used in diesel engines.\n(70)\nThe objective of a circumvention investigation is to establish whether biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % and less of biodiesel has circumvented the measures in force. It may well be the case that lower blends attract lower shipping costs. However, it should be noted that a blend of B20 and below is effectively only a different composition of the blend, in comparison to the process of producing biodiesel in a blend above B20. It is a simple process to change the composition of a blend. Putting into existence B20 and below is considered to be merely a slight modification of the product concerned, the only difference being the biodiesel proportion in the blend. It should also be noted that the product concerned, as well as B20 and below, ultimately are destined for the same uses in the Union. Furthermore, biodiesel in blends of B20 and below as well as biodiesel in blends above B20 have the same essential characteristics.\n6.3. Change in patterns of trade\n(71)\nImports of the product concerned from the USA dropped from 1 487 790 tonnes in 2008 to 381 227 tonnes in 2009 and to close to zero during the IP.\n(72)\nIn this regard, it should be noted that though there was mandatory blending of, for example, B5 in the Union during the original investigation, exports of B20 or below from the USA to the Union only came into existence following the imposition of definitive measures. During the original investigation, mainly exports of B99,9 were exported to the Union according to the data obtained from the sampled cooperating exporting producers. The reason for this was that it maximised the subsidy on the exported goods (USD 1 biodiesel tax credit per gallon).\n(73)\nIt is therefore difficult to see what the economic justification would be for starting to export B20 and below other than the avoidance of the anti-dumping measures in place.\n(74)\nThe proportion of biodiesel in the blend is still subsidised and the importer avoids the payment of the anti-dumping duty due. In this respect, it should be noted that the anti-dumping duty on blends is applicable in proportion to the biodiesel in the blend, i.e. in the case of imports of B15 the anti-dumping duty not paid would be up to around EUR 26 per tonne.\n6.4. Insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-dumping duty\n(75)\nAccording to BNPA, the creation of less than B15 biodiesel was not created specifically to avoid duties. The company argued that it did not participate in the original investigation because it started up its biodiesel activities beginning of 2009 in anticipation of a future active biodiesel market in response to government mandates, both in the USA and abroad. The specific structure of the company, its activity as a petroleum company and its logistic presence in the USA, made blending in the USA and exporting to the Union a logical commercial decision. The blend exported was always B15 or below, because of the less stringent security measures: up to B15 the blend is not considered a chemical product according to maritime regulations.\n(76)\nIt is noted that this company\u2019s activity in regard to exports to the Union only started after the imposition of measures. It is considered that there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the avoidance of the payment of the anti-dumping duty in force on biodiesel originating in the USA.\n6.5. Undermining the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty\n(77)\nConsidering the non-injurious price level of the original investigation, US imports of B20 and below into the Union during the IP showed both undercutting and underselling. The imports of B20 and below only came into existence following the imposition of definitive measures and the quantities involved are not insignificant.\n(78)\nIt was therefore concluded that the measures are being undermined in terms of quantities and prices.\n6.6. Evidence of dumping\n(79)\nIn accordance with Article 13(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value established in the original investigation. The comparison of the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price showed the existence of dumping.\n6.7. Conclusion\n(80)\nThe investigation concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in the USA were circumvented by imports into the Union of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel.\n(81)\nIt was concluded that the only economic justification for exporting blends of B20 and below was prompted by the subsidisation in the USA on the one hand, and the avoidance of paying any anti-dumping duties when importing into the Union on the other hand.\n(82)\nBPNA requested an exemption from the possible extended measures. However, as the investigation clearly showed that imports of B20 and below were only done in order to circumvent the measures in force, such exemption cannot be granted. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, exemptions may be granted to producers of the product concerned who can show that they are not related to any producer subject to measures and that they are found not to be engaged in circumvention practices. In these investigations, it was found that BPNA is involved in the circumvention practices by starting to export B20 and below after the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing measures without sufficient due course or economic justification other than the imposition of the measures. Moreover, there is evidence that the effects of the measures are being undermined in terms of prices and quantities, and that dumping in relation to the normal values previously established exists.\n(83)\nSome biodiesel producers cooperating in the original investigations requested exemptions from any extended measures due to circumvention. It was found that these US producers did not produce or sell biodiesel B20 and below. Pursuant to Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, only producers\u2019 request for exemption can be considered in the course of an anti-circumvention investigation. However, it should be noted that Article 13 of the basic Regulation contains newcomer provisions.\n7. MEASURES\n7.1. Canada\n(84)\nGiven the above, it was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in the USA was circumvented by transhipment via Canada pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation.\n(85)\nIn accordance with the first sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the measures in force on imports of the product concerned originating in the USA, should therefore be extended to imports of the same product consigned from Canada, whether declared as originating in Canada or not.\n(86)\nIn order to avoid evasion of the duty by unverifiable allegations that the product transhipped through Canada has been produced by a company subject to an individual duty in the definitive Regulation, the measure to be extended should be the one established for \u2018All other companies\u2019 in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 599/2009, which is a definitive anti-dumping duty of EUR 172,2 per tonne.\n(87)\nThe anti-dumping duty on blends shall be applicable in proportion in the blend, by weight, of the total content of fatty-acid mono alkyl esters and of paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin (biodiesel content).\n(88)\nIn accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provides that any extended measure should apply to imports which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiation Regulation, duties should be collected on those registered imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada.\n7.2. USA\n(89)\nGiven the above, it was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in the USA was circumvented by imports into the Union of B20 and below pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation.\n(90)\nIn accordance with the first sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the measures in force on imports of the product concerned originating in the USA, should therefore be extended to imports of B20 and below.\n(91)\nThe measures to be extended shall be those established in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 599/2009.\n(92)\nThe extended anti-dumping duty on blends shall be applicable in proportion in the blend, by weight, of the total content of fatty-acid mono alkyl esters and of paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin (biodiesel content).\n(93)\nIn accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provides that any extended measure should apply to imports which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiation Regulation, duties should be collected on those registered imports of B20 and below originating in the USA.\n8. TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION AGAINST SINGAPORE\n(94)\nIn view of the findings regarding Singapore, the investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures by imports of biodiesel consigned from Singapore should be terminated and the registration of imports of biodiesel consigned from Singapore, introduced by the initiation Regulation, should be discontinued.\n9. REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION\n(95)\nThe two cooperating companies in Canada submitting a questionnaire reply requested an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(96)\nIt was found that the two cooperating Canadian producers were not engaged in the circumvention practices which are the subject of this investigation. Furthermore, these producers could demonstrate that they are not related to any of US producers/exporters of biodiesel. Therefore, their requests for exemption can be granted.\n(97)\nIt is considered that special measures are needed in this case in order to ensure the proper application of such exemptions. These special measures consist in the presentation to the Customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the extended anti-dumping duty.\n(98)\nOne cooperating party in the USA submitting a questionnaire reply requested an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(99)\nAs explained in recital 82 above, the investigation clearly showed this party was engaged in the circumvention practices by importing B20 and below. Consequently, such exemption cannot be granted.\n(100)\nHowever, it should be underlined that, should any exporting producer(s) concerned not be dumping anymore, such parties can request a review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.\n10. DISCLOSURE\n(101)\nAll interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were invited to comment. The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 on imports of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, commonly known as \u2018biodiesel\u2019, in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, originating in the United States of America, is hereby extended to imports into the Union of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, commonly known as \u2018biodiesel\u2019, in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, consigned from Canada, whether declared as originating in Canada or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 1516 20 98 (TARIC code 1516209821), ex 1518 00 91 (TARIC code 1518009121), ex 1518 00 99 (TARIC code 1518009921), ex 2710 19 41 (TARIC code 2710194121), ex 3824 90 91 (TARIC code 3824909110) and ex 3824 90 97 (TARIC code 3824909701), with the exception of those produced by the companies listed below:\nCountry\nCompany\nTARIC additional code\nCanada\nBIOX Corporation, Oakville, Ontario, Canada\nB107\nCanada\nRothsay Biodiesel, Guelph, Ontario, Canada\nB108\nThe duty to be extended shall be the one established for \u2018All other companies\u2019 in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 599/2009, which is a definitive anti-dumping duty of EUR 172,2 per tonne net.\nThe anti-dumping duty on blends shall be applicable in proportion in the blend, by weight, of the total content of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and of paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin (biodiesel content).\n2. The application of exemptions granted to the companies mentioned in paragraph 1 or authorised by the Commission in accordance with Article 4(2) shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the anti-dumping duty as imposed by paragraph 1 shall apply.\n3. The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports consigned from Canada, whether declared as originating in Canada or not, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 720/2010 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, with the exception of those produced by the companies mentioned in paragraph 1.\n4. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 on imports of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, commonly known as \u2018biodiesel\u2019, in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, originating in the United States of America, is hereby extended to imports into the Union of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, originating in the United States of America, and currently falling within CN codes ex 1516 20 98 (TARIC code 1516209830), ex 1518 00 91 (TARIC code 1518009130), ex 1518 00 99 (TARIC code 1518009930), ex 2710 19 41 (TARIC code 2710194130) and ex 3824 90 97 (TARIC code 3824909704).\nThe duties to be extended shall be those established in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 599/2009.\nThe anti-dumping duty on blends shall be applicable in proportion in the blend, by weight, of the total content of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and of paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin (biodiesel content).\n2. The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports originating in the United States of America, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 720/2010 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.\n3. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 3\nThe investigation initiated by Regulation (EU) No 720/2010 concerning the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America by imports of biodiesel consigned from Singapore, whether declared as originating in Singapore or not, and making such imports subject to registration, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 4\n1. Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) shall be made in writing in one of the official languages of the European Union and must be signed by a person authorised to represent the entity requesting the exemption. The request must be sent to the following address:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N-105 04/92\n1049 Brussels\nBELGIUM\nFax + 32 2 295 65 05\n2. In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, may authorise, by decision, the exemption of imports from companies which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 599/2009, from the duty extended by Article 1(1) and by Article 2(1).\nArticle 5\nCustoms authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 720/2010.\nArticle 6\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 May 2011.", "references": ["32", "76", "30", "94", "68", "83", "91", "13", "15", "82", "88", "40", "33", "89", "59", "63", "9", "51", "10", "79", "52", "67", "58", "75", "38", "11", "65", "14", "64", "87", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "78", "93", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "78", "93", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 April 2010\nconcerning the draft Decree from Italy setting out standards governing the labelling of shelf-stable milk, UHT milk, micro-filtered pasteurised milk and high-temperature pasteurised milk, as well as milk products\n(notified under document C(2010) 2436)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/229/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 19 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the procedure provided for in the second paragraph of Article 19 of Directive 2000/13/EC, the Italian authorities notified the Commission on 25 August 2009 of the draft Decree setting out standards governing the labelling of shelf-stable milk, UHT milk, micro-filtered pasteurised milk and high-temperature pasteurised milk, as well as milk products.\n(2)\nAccording to Article 1 of the notified Decree, this applies to shelf-stable milk, UHT milk, micro-filtered pasteurised milk and high-temperature pasteurised milk as well as milk products.\n(3)\nArticle 2 of the notified Decree requires that the labels of sterilised shelf-stable milk, UHT milk, micro-filtered pasteurised milk and high-temperature pasteurised milk must indicate the place of origin of the milk which has undergone the treatments in question.\n(4)\nArticle 3(1) of the notified Decree provides that the labels of milk products must indicate the place of origin of the milk used in the preparation of such products.\n(5)\nArticle 3(3) of the notified Decree provides that the labels of cheeses, including cottage cheeses, containing substances obtained from processing milk or milk products must include those substances in the list of ingredients with a reference to the place of origin of the milk used for processing those substances.\n(6)\nArticle 4 of the notified Decree provides that the labels of cheeses obtained from curd must indicate the place of origin of the milk used in the curd.\n(7)\nDirective 2000/13/EC harmonises the rules governing the labelling of foodstuffs by making provision for, on the one hand, harmonisation of certain national provisions and, secondly, arrangements for non-harmonised national provisions. The scope of harmonisation is defined in Article 3(1) of that Directive, which lists all the particulars that are compulsory on the labelling of foodstuffs in accordance with Articles 4 to 17 and subject to the exceptions contained therein.\n(8)\nIn particular, in accordance with Article 3(1)(8) of Directive 2000/13/EC the indication of the place of origin or provenance is mandatory where failure to give such a particular might mislead the consumer to a material degree as to the true origin or provenance of the foodstuff. This provision puts in place an appropriate mechanism to counter the risk of consumers being misled in cases where some elements could imply that a given food comes from an origin or provenance different from the true one.\n(9)\nFurthermore, Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/13/EC provides that other particulars in addition to those listed in Article 3(1) of that Directive may be required, in the case of specified foodstuffs, by Union provisions or, in their absence, by national provisions.\n(10)\nArticle 18(2) of Directive 2000/13/EC allows the adoption of non-harmonised national provisions if they are justified on one of the grounds listed therein, including, inter alia, the prevention of fraud and the protection of public health, and provided they are not of such a nature as to impede application of the definitions and rules laid down by Directive 2000/13/EC. Therefore, where draft national labelling provisions have been proposed in a Member State, it is necessary to examine their compatibility with the above-mentioned requirements and the provisions of the Treaty.\n(11)\nThe Italian authorities maintain that the notified Decree is necessary to define and regulate the traceability system for sterilised shelf-stable milk, UHT milk, micro-filtered pasteurised milk and high-temperature pasteurised milk and milk products. They also state that the notified Decree is necessary to regulate the labelling of the foods listed in Article 1 thereof in order to ensure that the interests of the consumer are protected to the greatest extent.\n(12)\nWith regard to the traceability of the products listed in Article 1 of the notified Decree, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (2) requests that, at all stages of production, processing and distribution, a comprehensive system of traceability should be established by food businesses so that targeted and accurate withdrawals can be undertaken or information given to consumers or control officials. In particular, pursuant to Article 18 thereof, food business operators shall be able to identify any person from whom they have been supplied with a food, and the other businesses to which their products have been supplied. Moreover, Article 19 of that Regulation foresees specific obligations for food business operators. The mandatory indication of origin on the label of the finished products in question is not necessary information for the purpose of meeting those traceability requirements.\n(13)\nIn addition, apart from a generic reference to the need of protecting the interests of the consumer, the Italian authorities did not provide any justification allowing to conclude that, as regards the products listed in Article 1 of the notified Decree, the mandatory indication of the origin, beyond the obligation laid down in Article 3(1)(8) of Directive 2000/13/EC, is necessary.\n(14)\nTherefore, the Italian authorities failed to demonstrate that the indication of origin as provided by the notified Decree is necessary to attain one of the objectives listed in Article 18(2) of Directive 2000/13/EC.\n(15)\nIn light of these observations, the Commission has delivered a negative opinion on the above-mentioned provisions of the notified Decree, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 19 of Directive 2000/13/EC.\n(16)\nThe Italian authorities should accordingly be requested not to adopt the provisions of notified Decree in question.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nItaly shall not adopt Article 2, 3(1) and (3) and Article 4 (as far as the obligation to indicate the place of origin of the milk used in the curd is concerned) of the notified Decree setting out standards governing the labelling of shelf-stable milk, UHT milk, micro-filtered pasteurised milk and high-temperature pasteurised milk, as well as milk products.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 22 April 2010.", "references": ["58", "42", "56", "4", "30", "87", "93", "6", "88", "92", "21", "77", "34", "74", "49", "99", "10", "55", "29", "67", "54", "8", "86", "82", "33", "65", "43", "72", "3", "79", "No Label", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 447/2011\nof 6 May 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of 3 months, continue to be invoked by the holder, pursuant to Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of 3 months pursuant to Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2011.", "references": ["99", "59", "11", "41", "1", "57", "19", "96", "67", "97", "10", "26", "43", "94", "16", "7", "2", "98", "24", "48", "81", "25", "8", "5", "20", "22", "71", "91", "40", "27", "No Label", "21", "72"], "gold": ["21", "72"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 661/2010/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 7 July 2010\non Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network\n(recast)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 172 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (3) has been substantially amended several times (4). Since further amendments are to be made, it should be recast in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nThe establishment and development of trans-European networks contribute to the attainment of major Union objectives, such as the smooth functioning of the internal market and the strengthening of economic and social cohesion.\n(3)\nThe establishment and development of trans-European transport networks throughout the territory of the Union also have the specific objectives of ensuring the sustainable mobility of persons and goods under the best possible social, environmental and safety conditions and integrating all modes of transport, taking account of their comparative advantages. Job creation is one of the possible spin-offs of the trans-European network.\n(4)\nGrowth in traffic, in particular due to the growing share in heavy goods vehicles, has resulted in increased congestion and bottlenecks on international transport corridors. In order to ensure international mobility of goods and passengers, it is therefore necessary to optimise the capacity of the trans-European transport network.\n(5)\nShort distance shipping may, inter alia, help to relieve congestion on inland transport routes.\n(6)\nNetwork integration at European level can only be developed progressively by interlinking different modes of transport with a view to making better use of the inherent advantages of each.\n(7)\nInterconnection points including seaports, inland ports and intermodal terminals are a precondition for the integration of the different transport modes in a multimodal network.\n(8)\nSince the objectives of the action to be taken, and in particular the establishment of the broad outlines and priorities in the field of trans-European transport networks cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the need for coordination of these objectives, 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, the present decision does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.\n(9)\nIt is necessary to identify projects of common interest which contribute to the achievement of those objectives and which correspond to the priorities of the action which have thus been established. Only projects which are potentially economically viable should be taken into account.\n(10)\nThere is a need for declaring priority projects to be of European interest, for concentrating Union financing on such projects and for introducing mechanisms to encourage coordination between Member States in order to facilitate completion of the projects within the desired timetable.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 170 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the trans-European network policy should help to strengthen economic and social cohesion within the Union. In order to achieve this objective, efforts should be made to maximise consistency between the Union guidelines for the trans-European transport network and the programming of the relevant financial instruments available at Union level.\n(12)\nA posteriori evaluation of the priority projects should facilitate future revisions of the guidelines and of the list of priority projects and should help improve the a priori evaluation methods practised by the Member States.\n(13)\nAuthorisation for certain public and private projects likely to have a significant environmental impact should be granted only after prior assessment of that potential impact, in compliance with existing Union rules.\n(14)\nEnvironmental protection requirements should be integrated into the definition and implementation of Union policy in the field of the trans-European networks in accordance with Article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This entails the promotion as a priority of infrastructure for transport modes that cause less damage to the environment, namely rail transport, short sea shipping and inland waterways shipping.\n(15)\nEnvironmental assessment pursuant to Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (5) will in the future be carried out for all plans and programmes leading to projects of common interest. Funding for transport infrastructure should also be conditional on compliance with the provisions of Union environmental legislation, in particular Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (6), Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (7) and Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (codified version) (8).\n(16)\nWithin the general objective of ensuring the sustainable mobility of persons and goods, mechanisms should be put in place to support the development of motorways of the sea between Member States in order to reduce road congestion and/or improve access to peripheral and island regions and States. Establishment of such mechanisms, backed up, inter alia, by tendering procedures, should be transparent and geared to needs and should in no way prejudice the Union rules on competition or on public procurement.\n(17)\nCloser coordination between the States involved in projects on the same route may be necessary to improve the return on investments and to make it easier to synchronise investments and to put together a funding package.\n(18)\nThe Commission should present every two years a report on the implementation of this Decision and by 2010 the Commission should draft a progress report on the priority projects and, if necessary, propose amendments to the list of priority projects.\n(19)\nA Committee should be empowered, in particular, to assist the Commission when it examines the implementation and development of the guidelines laid down by this Decision.\n(20)\nIn the interests of clarity, Annex I of Decision No 1692/96/EC should be replaced with a new Annex containing the maps concerning all of the Member States; this would ensure that the maps already contained in that Decision as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 (9) are supplemented by those contained in the 2003 Act of Accession. Moreover the target date for the plan is 2020 for all of the Member States,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSECTION 1\nGENERAL PRINCIPLES\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. The purpose of this Decision shall be to establish the guidelines covering the objectives, priorities and broad lines of measures envisaged in the area of the trans-European transport network. These guidelines identify projects of common interest, the implementation of which should contribute to the development of the network throughout the Union.\n2. The guidelines referred to in paragraph 1 shall constitute a general reference framework intended to encourage the Member States and, where appropriate, the Union in carrying out projects of common interest, the purpose of which is to ensure the cohesion, interconnection and interoperability of the trans-European transport network, as well as access to that network. These guidelines are also intended to facilitate the involvement of the private sector.\n3. Essential requirements relating to the interoperability of the trans-European transport network, transport telematics and ancillary services, are defined in accordance with the Treaties in Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (10) and separately from this Decision.\nArticle 2\nObjectives\n1. The trans-European transport network shall be established gradually by 2020, by integrating land, sea and air transport infrastructure networks throughout the Union in accordance with the outline plans indicated on the maps in Annex I and/or the specifications in Annex II.\n2. The network must:\n(a)\nensure the sustainable mobility of persons and goods within an area without internal frontiers under the best possible social and safety conditions, while helping to achieve the Union's objectives, particularly in regard to the environment and competition, and contribute to strengthening economic and social cohesion;\n(b)\noffer users high-quality infrastructure on acceptable economic terms;\n(c)\ninclude all modes of transport, taking account of their comparative advantages;\n(d)\nallow the optimal use of existing capacities;\n(e)\nbe, insofar as possible, interoperable within modes of transport and encourage intermodality between the different modes of transport;\n(f)\nbe, insofar as possible, economically viable;\n(g)\ncover the whole territory of the Member States so as to facilitate access in general, link island, landlocked and peripheral regions to the central regions and interlink without bottlenecks the major conurbations and regions of the Union;\n(h)\nbe capable of being connected to the networks of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) States, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean countries, while at the same time promoting interoperability and access to these networks, insofar as this proves to be in the Union's interest.\nArticle 3\nScope of the network\n1. The trans-European network shall comprise transport infrastructure, traffic management systems and positioning and navigation systems.\n2. The transport infrastructure shall comprise road, rail and inland waterway networks, motorways of the sea, seaports and inland waterway ports, airports and other interconnection points between modal networks.\n3. The traffic management systems and the positioning and navigation systems shall include the necessary technical installations and information and telecommunications systems to ensure harmonious operation of the network and efficient traffic management.\nArticle 4\nBroad lines of measures\nThe broad lines of Union action concern:\n(a)\nthe drawing up and revision of the network outline plans;\n(b)\nthe identification of projects of common interest;\n(c)\nthe adaptation of the existing network;\n(d)\nthe promotion of network interoperability;\n(e)\nthe optimum combination of modes of transport, inter alia, by creating interconnection centres, which in the case of freight should be located, insofar as possible, away from urban centres, in order to render possible the effective operation of intermodality;\n(f)\nthe pursuit of consistency and complementarity of financial aid in line with the rules applicable to each financial instrument;\n(g)\nresearch and development;\n(h)\ncooperation with third countries concerned by development of the network and the conclusion of suitable agreements with them;\n(i)\nincentives for Member States and international organisations to further the objectives pursued by the Union;\n(j)\npromotion of continuous cooperation between interested parties;\n(k)\nany other measures which prove necessary for the achievement of the objectives referred to in Article 2(2).\nArticle 5\nPriorities\nTaking into account the objectives set out in Article 2(2) and the broad lines of measures set out in Article 4, the priorities shall be:\n(a)\nthe establishment and development of the key links and interconnections needed to eliminate bottlenecks, fill in missing sections and complete the main routes, especially their cross-border sections, cross natural barriers, and improve interoperability on major routes;\n(b)\nthe establishment and development of infrastructure which promotes the interconnection of national networks in order to facilitate the linkage of islands, or areas similar to islands, and landlocked, peripheral and outermost regions on the one hand and the central regions of the Union on the other, in particular to reduce the high transport costs in these areas;\n(c)\nthe necessary measures for the gradual achievement of an interoperable rail network, including, where feasible, routes adapted for freight transport;\n(d)\nthe necessary measures to promote long-distance, short sea and inland shipping;\n(e)\nthe necessary measures to integrate rail and air transport, especially through rail access to airports, whenever appropriate, and the infrastructures and installations needed;\n(f)\nthe optimisation of the capacity and efficiency of existing and new infrastructure, promotion of intermodality and improvement of the safety and reliability of the network by establishing and improving intermodal terminals and their access infrastructure and/or by developing intelligent systems;\n(g)\nthe integration of safety and environmental concerns in the design and implementation of the trans-European transport network;\n(h)\nthe development of sustainable mobility of persons and goods in accordance with the objectives of the Union on sustainable development.\nArticle 6\nThird-country networks\nPromotion by the Union of projects of common interest and network interconnection and interoperability in order to ensure the compatibility of third-country networks with the trans-European transport network shall be determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the appropriate procedures in the Treaties.\nArticle 7\nProjects of common interest\n1. Projects of common interest shall form a common objective, the implementation of which depends on their degree of maturity and the availability of financial resources, without prejudging the financial commitment of a Member State or the Union.\n2. In compliance with the rules of the Treaties, particularly as regards questions of competition, any project shall be considered to be of common interest which:\n(a)\npursues the objectives set out in Article 2(2);\n(b)\nconcerns the network described in Article 3(1);\n(c)\ncorresponds to one or more of the priorities set out in Article 5; and\n(d)\nis potentially economically viable on the basis of analysis of the socio-economic costs and benefits.\n3. Projects shall relate to an element of the network described in Articles 9 to 18 and shall in particular:\n(a)\nrelate to the routes identified on the maps in Annex I; and/or\n(b)\ncorrespond to the specifications or criteria in Annex II.\n4. Member States shall take any measures which they consider necessary within the framework of the principles laid down in Article 1(2).\nArticle 8\nEnvironmental protection\n1. When projects are planned and carried out, environmental protection must be taken into account by the Member States by carrying out, pursuant to Directive 85/337/EEC, environmental impact assessments of projects of common interest which are to be implemented and by applying Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC.\nAs from 21 July 2004, an environmental assessment of the plans and programmes leading to such projects, especially where they concern new routes or other important nodal infrastructure development, shall be carried out by Member States pursuant to Directive 2001/42/EC.\nMember States shall take the results of this environmental assessment into account in the preparation of the plans and programmes concerned, in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 2001/42/EC.\n2. Before 21 July 2004, the Commission shall, in agreement with Member States, develop suitable methods for implementing the strategic environmental impact assessment with the objective of ensuring, inter alia, appropriate coordination, avoiding duplication of effort, and achieving simplification and acceleration of planning processes for cross-border projects and corridors.\nThe results of this work and of the environmental assessment of the trans-European networks projects carried out by Member States pursuant to Directive 2001/42/EC shall be taken into account, as appropriate, by the Commission in its report on the guidelines and the possible accompanying legislative proposals to revise the guidelines, as provided for in Article 22 of this Decision.\nSECTION 2\nROAD NETWORK\nArticle 9\nCharacteristics\n1. The trans-European road network shall comprise motorways and high-quality roads, whether existing, new or to be adapted, which:\n(a)\nplay an important role in long-distance traffic; or\n(b)\nbypass the main urban centres on the routes identified by the network; or\n(c)\nprovide interconnection with other modes of transport; or\n(d)\nlink landlocked and peripheral regions to central regions of the Union.\n2. The network shall guarantee users a high, uniform and continuous level of services, comfort and safety.\n3. The network shall also include infrastructure for traffic management, user information, dealing with incidents and emergencies and electronic fee collection, such infrastructure being based on active cooperation between traffic management systems at European, national and regional level and providers of travel and traffic information and value added services, which will ensure the necessary complementarity with applications whose deployment is facilitated under the trans-European telecommunications networks programme.\nSECTION 3\nRAIL NETWORK\nArticle 10\nCharacteristics\n1. The rail network shall comprise the high-speed rail network and the conventional rail network.\n2. The high-speed rail network, whether using current or new technology, shall comprise:\n(a)\nspecially built high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h;\n(b)\nspecially upgraded high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h;\n(c)\nspecially upgraded high-speed lines or lines specially built for high speed and connected to the high-speed rail network which have special features as a result of topographical or environmental, relief or town-planning constraints, on which speed must be adapted individually.\nThe high-speed rail network shall consist of the lines indicated in Section 3 of Annex I. Essential requirements and technical specifications for interoperability applicable to high-speed rail lines using current technology shall be defined in accordance with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (11). Member States shall give the Commission prior notice of the opening of any high-speed line and of the line's technical characteristics.\n3. The conventional rail network shall comprise lines for the conventional transport by rail of passengers and freight, including the rail segments of the trans-European combined transport network referred to in Article 15, access links to sea and inland ports of common interest and those freight terminals which are open to all operators. Essential requirements and technical specifications for interoperability applicable to the conventional rail lines shall be defined in accordance with Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (12).\n4. The rail network shall include the infrastructures and the facilities which enable rail and road and, where appropriate, maritime services and air transport services to be integrated. In this regard, particular attention shall be paid to the connection of regional airports to the network.\n5. The rail network shall fulfil at least one of the following functions:\n(a)\nplay an important role in long-distance passenger traffic;\n(b)\npermit interconnection with airports, where appropriate;\n(c)\npermit access to regional and local rail networks;\n(d)\nfacilitate freight transport by means of the identification and development of trunk routes dedicated to freight or routes on which freight trains have priority;\n(e)\nplay an important role in combined transport;\n(f)\npermit interconnection via ports of common interest with short sea shipping and inland waterways.\n6. The rail network shall offer users a high level of quality and safety, by virtue of its continuity and of the gradual implementation of its interoperability, which shall be brought about in particular by technical harmonisation and the ERTMS harmonised command and control system recommended for the European railway network. To this end, a deployment plan, coordinated with national plans, shall be established by the Commission in consultation with the Member States.\nSECTION 4\nINLAND WATERWAY NETWORK AND INLAND PORTS\nArticle 11\nCharacteristics\n1. The trans-European inland waterway network shall comprise rivers and canals and various branches and links which connect them. It shall, in particular, render possible the interconnection between industrial regions and major conurbations and link them to ports.\n2. The minimum technical characteristics for waterways forming part of the network shall be those laid down for a class IV waterway, which allows the passage of a vessel or a pushed train of craft 80 to 85 m long and 9,50 m wide. Where a waterway forming part of the network is modernised or constructed, the technical specifications should correspond at least to class IV, should enable class Va/Vb to be achieved at a later date and should make satisfactory provision for the passage of vessels used for combined transport. Class Va allows the passage of a vessel or a pushed train of craft 110 m long and 11,40 m wide and class Vb allows the passage of a pushed train of craft 172 to 185 m long and 11,40 m wide.\n3. Inland ports shall form part of the network, in particular as points of interconnection between the waterways referred to in paragraph 2 and Article 15 and other modes of transport.\n4. The network shall include inland ports:\n(a)\nopen to commercial traffic;\n(b)\nlocated on the network of inland waterways as shown in the outline in Annex I, Section 4;\n(c)\ninterconnected with other trans-European transport routes as shown in Annex I; and\n(d)\nequipped with transhipment facilities for intermodal transport or with an annual freight traffic volume of at least 500 000 tonnes.\nThe inland ports referred to in point (d) are shown in Annex I.\n5. The network shall also include the traffic management infrastructure. This shall entail in particular the establishment of an interoperable, intelligent traffic and transport system known as the \u2018River Information Services\u2019 intended to optimise the existing capacity and safety of the inland waterway network and to improve interoperability with other modes of transport.\nSECTION 5\nSEAPORTS\nArticle 12\nCharacteristics\n1. Seaports shall permit the development of sea transport and shall constitute shipping links for islands and the points of interconnection between sea transport and other modes of transport. They shall provide equipment and services to transport operators. Their infrastructure shall provide a range of services for passenger and goods transport, including ferry services and short- and long-distance shipping services, including coastal shipping, within the Union and between the latter and third countries.\n2. The seaports included in the trans-European transport network shall correspond to one of the categories, A, B or C, defined as follows:\nA\n:\ninternational seaports: ports with a total annual traffic volume of not less than 1,5 million tonnes of freight or 200 000 passengers which, unless it is an impossibility, are connected with the overland elements of the trans-European transport network and therefore play a major role in international maritime transport;\nB\n:\nUnion seaports, not included in category A: these ports have a total annual traffic volume of not less than 0,5 million tonnes of freight or between 100 000 and 199 999 passengers, are connected, unless it is an impossibility, with the overland elements of the trans-European transport network and are equipped with the necessary transhipment facilities for short-distance sea shipping;\nC\n:\nregional ports: these ports do not meet the criteria of categories A and B but are situated in island, peripheral or outermost regions, interconnecting such regions by sea and/or connecting them with the central regions of the Union.\nThe seaports in category A shall be shown on the indicative maps in the outline plans in Section 5 of Annex I, on the basis of the most recent port data.\n3. In addition to the criteria set out in Article 7, seaport projects of common interest related to seaports included in the trans-European seaport network shall comply with the criteria and specifications in Annex II.\nArticle 13\nMotorways of the Sea (MoS)\n1. The trans-European network of motorways of the sea is intended to concentrate flows of freight on sea-based logistical routes in such a way as to improve existing maritime links which are viable, regular and frequent, or to establish new such links for the transport of goods between Member States so as to reduce road congestion and/or improve access to peripheral and island regions and States. Motorways of the sea should not exclude the combined transport of persons and goods, provided that freight is predominant.\n2. The trans-European network of motorways of the sea shall consist of facilities and infrastructure concerning at least two ports in two different Member States. The facilities and infrastructure shall include elements, in at least one Member State, such as port facilities, electronic logistics management systems, safety and security and administrative and customs procedures, as well as infrastructure for direct land and sea access, including ways of ensuring year-round navigability, in particular the availability of facilities for dredging and icebreakers for winter access.\n3. Waterways or canals, as identified in section 4 of Annex I, which link two European motorways of the sea, or two sections thereof, and make a substantial contribution to shortening sea routes, increasing efficiency and saving shipping time shall form part of the trans-European network of motorways of the sea.\n4. The projects of common interest of the trans-European network of motorways of the sea shall be proposed by at least two Member States and shall be geared to actual needs. The projects proposed shall in general involve both the public and private sectors in accordance with procedures which, before aid granted from the national budgets can be supplemented, if necessary, by aid from the Union, provide for a tendering process in one of the following forms:\n(a)\na public call for tenders organised jointly by the Member States concerned, intended to establish new links from the category A port, as defined in Article 12(2), which they select in advance within each sea area, as provided for in project No 21 referred to in Annex III;\n(b)\nin so far as the location of the ports is comparable, a public call for tenders organised jointly by the Member States concerned and targeting consortia bringing together at least shipping companies and ports located in one of the sea areas, as provided for in project No 21 referred to in Annex III.\n5. The projects of common interest of the trans-European network of motorways of the sea:\n(a)\nshall focus on the facilities and infrastructure which make up the network of motorways of the sea;\n(b)\nmay include, without prejudice to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, start-up aid if, as a result of the tendering process referred to in paragraph 4, public support is deemed necessary for the financial viability of the project; start-up aid shall be limited to two years and shall be granted only in support of duly justified capital costs; the aid may not exceed the minimum estimated amount required to start up the links concerned; the aid must not lead to distortions of competition in the relevant markets contrary to the common interest;\n(c)\nmay also include activities which have wider benefits and are not linked to specific ports, such as making available facilities for ice-breaking and dredging operations, as well as information systems, including traffic management and electronic reporting systems.\n6. The projects of common interest of the trans-European network of motorways of the sea shall be submitted to the Commission for approval.\n7. The Commission shall, within three years, submit to the Committee referred to in Article 21(1) an initial list of specific projects of common interest, thereby putting the concept of the motorways of the sea into concrete form.\nThis list shall also be communicated to the European Parliament.\nSECTION 6\nAIRPORTS\nArticle 14\nCharacteristics\n1. The trans-European airport network shall comprise airports situated within the territory of the Union which are open to commercial air traffic and which comply with the criteria set out in Section 6 of Annex II. These airports shall be classified differently according to the volume and type of traffic they handle and according to their function within the network. They shall permit the development of air links and the interconnection of air transport and other modes of transport.\n2. The international connecting points and the Union connecting points shall constitute the core of the trans-European airport network. Links between the Union and the rest of the world shall be mainly via the international connecting points. The Union connecting points shall essentially provide links within the Union, with extra-Union services still accounting for a small proportion of their business. Regional connecting points and accessibility points shall facilitate access to the core of the network or help to open up peripheral and isolated regions.\n3. International and Union connecting points shall be gradually linked to the high-speed lines of the rail network, where appropriate. The network shall include the infrastructures and the facilities which permit the integration of air and rail transport services and, where appropriate, maritime transport services.\nSECTION 7\nCOMBINED TRANSPORT NETWORK\nArticle 15\nCharacteristics\nThe trans-European combined transport network shall comprise:\n(a)\nrailways and inland waterways which are suitable for combined transport and shipping which, combined where appropriate with the shortest possible initial and/or terminal road haulage, permit the long-distance transport of goods;\n(b)\nintermodal terminals equipped with installations permitting transhipment between railways, inland waterways, shipping routes and roads;\n(c)\nsuitable rolling stock, on a provisional basis, where the characteristics of the infrastructure, as yet unadapted, so require.\nSECTION 8\nSHIPPING MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION NETWORK\nArticle 16\nCharacteristics\nThe trans-European shipping management and information network shall concern:\n(a)\ncoastal and port shipping management systems;\n(b)\nvessel positioning systems;\n(c)\nreporting systems for vessels transporting dangerous or polluting goods;\n(d)\ncommunications systems for distress and safety at sea.\nSECTION 9\nAIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT NETWORK\nArticle 17\nCharacteristics\nThe trans-European air traffic management network shall comprise the airspace reserved for general aviation, airways, air navigation aids, the traffic planning and management systems and the air traffic control system (control centres, surveillance and communications facilities) that are necessary for safe and efficient aviation in European airspace.\nSECTION 10\nPOSITIONING AND NAVIGATION NETWORK\nArticle 18\nCharacteristics\nThe trans-European positioning and navigation systems network shall comprise the satellite positioning and navigation systems and the systems to be defined in the future European Radio Navigation Plan. These systems shall provide a reliable and efficient positioning and navigation service which can be used by all modes of transport.\nSECTION 11\nCOORDINATION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES\nArticle 19\nEuropean Coordinator\n1. In order to facilitate the coordinated implementation of certain projects, in particular cross-border projects or sections of cross-border projects included among the projects declared to be of European interest referred to in Article 25, the Commission may designate, in agreement with the Member States concerned, and after having consulted the European Parliament, a person called the \u2018European Coordinator\u2019.\n2. The European Coordinator shall be chosen, in particular, on the basis of his/her experience of the European institutions and knowledge of issues relating to the financing and the socio-economic and environmental evaluation of major projects.\n3. The Commission decision designating the European Coordinator shall specify how he/she is to perform the tasks referred to in paragraph 5.\n4. The European Coordinator shall act in the name of and on behalf of the Commission. The remit of the European Coordinator shall normally relate to a single project, especially in the case of a cross-border project, but may, if necessary, be extended to cover the whole of a major axis. The European Coordinator shall draw up together with the Member States concerned a work plan for his/her activities.\n5. The European Coordinator shall:\n(a)\npromote, in cooperation with the Member States concerned, joint methods for the evaluation of projects and, where appropriate, advise project promoters on the financial package for the projects;\n(b)\ndraw up a report every year for the European Parliament, the Commission and the Member States concerned on progress achieved in the implementation of the project(s) for which he/she is responsible, new regulatory or other developments which could affect the characteristics of the projects and any difficulties and obstacles which may result in a significant delay in relation to the dates indicated in Annex III;\n(c)\nconsult, together with the Member States concerned, regional and local authorities, operators, transport users, and representatives of civil society with a view to gaining fuller knowledge of the demand for transport services, the possibilities of investment funding and the type of services that must be provided in order to facilitate access to such funding.\n6. The Member States concerned shall cooperate with the European Coordinator and give him/her the information required to perform the tasks referred to in paragraph 5.\n7. Without prejudice to the applicable procedures laid down in Union and national law, the Commission may request the opinion of the European Coordinator when examining applications for Union funding for projects or groups of projects for which the European Coordinator is responsible.\nSECTION 12\nCOMMON PROVISIONS\nArticle 20\nNational plans and programmes\nThe Member States shall provide the Commission with abstracts of national plans and programmes which they are drawing up with a view to development of the trans-European transport network, in particular in relation to the projects declared to be of European interest referred to in Articles 24 to 27. Once adopted, the Member States shall send the national plans and programmes to the Commission for information.\nArticle 21\nCommittee for monitoring the guidelines and exchanging information\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee for monitoring the guidelines and exchanging information, hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Committee\u2019, made up of representatives of the Member States and chaired by a representative of the Commission.\n2. The Committee shall exchange information on the plans and programmes notified by Member States and may consider any question relating to the development of the trans-European transport network.\nArticle 22\nReport\nThe Commission shall report every two years to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of the guidelines described in this Decision.\nThe Committee shall assist the Commission with drawing up the report.\nThe report shall be accompanied where necessary by legislative proposals to revise the guidelines; these legislative proposals may, if necessary, include amendments to the list of priority projects in Annex III or the addition to that list of projects that are in conformity with Article 23(1). The revision shall have particular regard to projects that contribute to the territorial cohesion of the Union in accordance with Article 23(1)(e).\nArticle 23\nPriority projects\n1. The priority projects shall be projects of common interest referred to in Article 7 where examination confirms that they:\n(a)\nare intended to eliminate a bottleneck or complete a missing link on a major route of the trans-European network, in particular projects which are cross-border projects, cross natural barriers or have a cross-border section;\n(b)\nare on such a scale that long-term planning at European level contributes significant added value;\n(c)\npresent, overall, potential socio-economic net benefits and other socio-economic advantages;\n(d)\nsignificantly improve the mobility of goods and persons between Member States and thus also contribute to the interoperability of national networks;\n(e)\ncontribute to the territorial cohesion of the Union by integrating the networks of the new Member States and improving connections with the peripheral and island regions;\n(f)\ncontribute to the sustainable development of transport by improving safety and reducing environmental damage caused by transport, in particular by promoting a modal shift towards railways, intermodal transport, inland waterways and maritime transport;\n(g)\ndemonstrate commitment on the part of the Member States concerned to carrying out studies and evaluation procedures in time to complete the work in accordance with a date agreed in advance, based upon national plans or any other equivalent document relating to the project in question.\n2. The priority projects on which work was due to start before 2010, the sections thereof and the dates agreed for completing the work referred to in paragraph 1(g) are set out in Annex III.\n3. By 2010 the Commission shall draft a progress report and, if necessary, propose amendments to the list of priority projects identified in Annex III in line with paragraph 1.\nArticle 24\nDeclaration of European interest\nThe priority projects identified in Annex III are declared to be of European interest. This declaration is made solely in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Treaties and in the legal acts based thereon.\nArticle 25\nProjects declared to be of European interest\n1. Without prejudice to the legal basis of the Union financial instrument in question, the Member States:\n(a)\nwhen submitting their projects under the Cohesion Fund, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 establishing a Cohesion Fund (13), shall give appropriate priority to the projects declared to be of European interest;\n(b)\nwhen submitting their projects under the budget for the trans-European networks, in accordance with Articles 5 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks (14), shall give appropriate priority to the projects declared to be of European interest.\n2. Without prejudice to the legal basis of the Union financial instrument in question, the Commission:\n(a)\nshall encourage the Member States to take into account the projects declared to be of European interest when planning the programming of the Structural Funds, in particular in regions covered by the \u2018Convergence\u2019 Objective, having regard to national transport plans falling within the scope of existing Union support frameworks;\n(b)\nshall ensure that the countries qualifying for the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) give appropriate priority, when submitting their projects under that instrument in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (15), to the projects declared to be of European interest.\n3. When forecasting its financial needs, the Commission shall give appropriate priority to the projects declared to be of European interest.\nArticle 26\nDelay in completion of projects declared to be of European interest\n1. In the event of a significant delay, in relation to the deadline of 2010, in starting work on one of the projects declared to be of European interest, the Commission shall ask the Member States concerned to give the reasons for the delay within three months. On the basis of the reply given, the Commission shall consult all the Member States concerned in order to solve the problem which has led to the delay.\nThe Commission may, in consultation with the Committee and as part of its active monitoring of the implementation of the project declared to be of European interest and having due regard to the principle of proportionality, decide to adopt appropriate measures. The Member States concerned shall be given the opportunity to submit observations on such measures before their adoption.\nThe European Parliament shall be informed immediately of any measure taken.\nIn adopting these measures, the Commission shall take due account of the share of responsibility for the delay of each Member State concerned and shall refrain from taking measures that would affect the realisation of the project in Member States not responsible for the delay.\n2. In the event that a project declared to be of European interest is not substantially completed within a reasonable period of time after the expected date of its completion indicated in Annex III, and all Member States concerned are responsible for the delay, the Commission shall review the project, in accordance with the procedure referred to in paragraph 1, with a view to withdrawing its classification as a project declared to be of European interest by means of the revision procedure referred to in the third paragraph of Article 22.\nThe Commission shall, in any event, review the project at the end of a period of 15 years after it has been declared to be of European interest within the meaning of this Decision.\nArticle 27\nSocio-economic impact and environmental impact assessment\n1. Five years after completion of a project declared to be of European interest or of one of the sections thereof, the Member States concerned shall carry out an assessment of its socio-economic impact and its impact on the environment, including its impact on trade and the free movement of persons and goods between Member States, on territorial cohesion and on sustainable development. Member States shall inform the Commission of the results of this assessment.\n2. Where a project declared to be of European interest includes a cross-border section which is technically and financially indivisible, the Member States concerned shall coordinate their procedures for assessing the socio-economic effects thereof and use their best endeavours to conduct a transnational enquiry prior to granting construction permission and within the existing framework.\n3. Other sections of projects of European interest shall be coordinated bilaterally or multilaterally by the Member States on a case-by-case basis.\n4. The coordinated actions or transnational enquiries referred to in paragraph 2 shall apply without prejudice to the obligations imposed by the Union legislation on environmental protection, and particularly those relating to environmental impact assessment. The Member States concerned shall inform the Commission when such coordinated actions or transnational enquiries are launched and of the results. The Commission shall include that information in the report referred to in Article 22.\nArticle 28\nCross-border sections\nIn the context of certain priority projects, cross-border sections between two Member States, including motorways of the sea, shall be identified by the Member States on the basis of criteria defined by the Committee and notified to the Commission.\nThese will be, notably, sections which are technically and financially indivisible or to which the Member States concerned commit themselves jointly and for which they put in place a common structure.\nArticle 29\nRepeal\nDecision No 1692/96/EC is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Decision shall be construed as references to this Decision and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex V.\nArticle 30\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 31\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 7 July 2010.", "references": ["67", "18", "39", "2", "49", "99", "75", "94", "40", "73", "86", "0", "85", "11", "29", "30", "83", "91", "23", "76", "27", "96", "97", "47", "52", "93", "14", "71", "63", "17", "No Label", "8", "9", "53", "55", "56", "57", "58"], "gold": ["8", "9", "53", "55", "56", "57", "58"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/169/CFSP\nof 21 March 2011\namending Decision 2010/638/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 October 2009, the Council adopted Common Position 2009/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea (1), in response to the violent crackdown by security forces on political demonstrators in Conakry on 28 September 2009.\n(2)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/638/CFSP (2) renewing the restrictive measures until 27 October 2011 and repealing Common Position 2009/788/CFSP.\n(3)\nDecision 2010/638/CFSP should be amended in light of the political situation and of the Report of the International Commission of Inquiry mandated to establish the facts and circumstances of the events of 28 September 2009 in Guinea,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/638/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 3(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the persons identified by the International Commission of Inquiry as responsible for the 28 September 2009 events in Guinea, and of the persons associated with them, as listed in the Annex.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 4(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the persons identified by the International Commission of Inquiry as responsible for the 28 September 2009 events in Guinea, and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in the Annex, shall be frozen.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe Annex to Decision 2010/638/CFSP shall be replaced by the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["33", "56", "75", "62", "19", "52", "84", "31", "26", "93", "22", "37", "25", "78", "5", "35", "89", "41", "7", "50", "57", "97", "28", "9", "59", "46", "13", "10", "30", "80", "No Label", "3", "6", "11", "12", "14", "23", "94"], "gold": ["3", "6", "11", "12", "14", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 276/2012\nof 27 March 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 255/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 March 2012.", "references": ["79", "68", "26", "32", "29", "69", "70", "12", "36", "15", "67", "95", "59", "5", "98", "84", "20", "28", "88", "51", "97", "19", "17", "77", "11", "30", "91", "4", "92", "41", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 652/2010\nof 22 July 2010\ngranting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 20 July 2010.\n(3)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 20 July 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in point (c) of Article 1 and in Article 2 respectively of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2010.", "references": ["75", "22", "16", "38", "91", "88", "23", "8", "52", "18", "14", "74", "24", "73", "49", "84", "87", "61", "37", "69", "67", "29", "83", "35", "26", "9", "41", "59", "58", "12", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 269/2011\nof 21 March 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/169/CFSP of 21 March 2011 amending Decision 2010/638/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea (1), adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 (2) imposed certain restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea, in accordance with Common Position 2009/788/CFSP (3) (later replaced by Decision 2010/638/CFSP (4)), in response to the violent crackdown by security forces on political demonstrators in Conakry on 28 September 2009.\n(2)\nOn 21 March 2011, by Decision 2011/169/CFSP, the Council decided that the restrictive measures imposed in respect of the Republic of Guinea should be amended in light of the political situation and of the Report of the International Commission of Inquiry mandated to establish the facts and circumstances of the events of 28 September 2009 in Guinea.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 1284/2009, as amended by this Regulation, respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the right to the protection of personal data. Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(4)\nThe power to amend the list in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 should be exercised by the Council, in view of the political situation in the Republic of Guinea, and to ensure consistency with the process for amending and reviewing the Annex to Decision 2010/638/CFSP.\n(5)\nThe procedure for amending the list in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 should include providing designated natural or legal persons, entities or bodies with the grounds for listing, so as to give them an opportunity to submit observations. Where observations are submitted, or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in light of those observations and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, it should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(7)\nRegulation (EU) No 1284/2009 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 1284/2009 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 6(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Annex II shall consist of the persons identified by the International Commission of Inquiry as responsible for the 28 September 2009 events in the Republic of Guinea, and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as designated by the Council in accordance with Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea (5).\n2.\nArticle 15 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 15\nThe Commission shall be empowered to amend Annex III on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\u2019;\n3.\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 15a\n1. Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to the measures referred to in Article 6(1), it shall amend Annex II accordingly.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 1, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the natural or legal person, entity or body accordingly.\n4. The list in Annex II shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months.\u2019;\n4.\nAnnex II is replaced by the text appearing in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["40", "63", "65", "74", "73", "54", "16", "49", "0", "8", "39", "90", "17", "89", "57", "29", "32", "45", "2", "1", "50", "83", "99", "7", "69", "78", "68", "76", "35", "75", "No Label", "3", "6", "11", "23", "41", "94"], "gold": ["3", "6", "11", "23", "41", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 486/2010\nof 3 June 2010\ngranting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 1 June 2010.\n(3)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 1 June 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the products and destinations referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 1 and in Article 2 of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["30", "18", "38", "9", "82", "46", "68", "12", "37", "73", "25", "74", "86", "41", "31", "80", "66", "34", "61", "17", "92", "0", "87", "29", "63", "75", "48", "22", "99", "53", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 48/2011\nof 20 January 2011\non the issue of licences for the import of garlic in the subperiod from 1 March 2011 to 31 May 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 (3) opens and provides for the administration of tariff quotas and introduces a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and other agricultural products imported from third countries.\n(2)\nThe quantities for which \u2018A\u2019 licence applications have been lodged by traditional importers and by new importers during the first seven working days of January 2011, pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 exceed the quantities available for products originating in China, and all third countries other than China and Argentina.\n(3)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, it is now necessary to establish the extent to which the \u2018A\u2019 licence applications sent to the Commission by 14 January 2011 can be met in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApplications for \u2018A\u2019 import licences lodged pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 during the first seven working days of January 2011 and sent to the Commission by 14 January 2011 shall be met at a percentage rate of the quantities applied for as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2011.", "references": ["11", "34", "49", "20", "79", "36", "66", "90", "69", "78", "61", "29", "96", "39", "62", "98", "45", "97", "26", "84", "16", "3", "87", "95", "53", "81", "28", "22", "71", "85", "No Label", "4", "21", "23", "68"], "gold": ["4", "21", "23", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 49/2012\nof 19 January 2012\nfixing the export refunds on pigmeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVII of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in pigmeat, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1058/2011 (5). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nIn order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the condition provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 1058/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 January 2012.", "references": ["86", "89", "0", "35", "92", "96", "28", "50", "21", "8", "98", "38", "60", "97", "62", "55", "58", "63", "33", "52", "17", "80", "47", "68", "5", "12", "30", "14", "56", "7", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 June 2010\nallowing Member States to extend provisional authorisations granted for the new active substances amisulbrom, chlorantraniliprole, meptyldinocap and pinoxaden\n(notified under document C(2010) 4177)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/353/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in March 2006 the United Kingdom received an application from Nissan Chemical Europe SARL for the inclusion of the active substance amisulbrom in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2007/669/EC (2) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in February 2007 Ireland received an application from DuPont International Operations SARL for the inclusion of the active substance chlorantraniliprole in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2007/560/EC (3) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in August 2005 the United Kingdom received an application from Dow Agrosciences for the inclusion of the active substance meptyldinocap in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2006/589/EC (4) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in March 2004 the United Kingdom received an application from Syngenta Ltd for the inclusion of the active substance pinoxaden in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2005/459/EC (5) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(5)\nConfirmation of the completeness of the dossiers was necessary in order to allow them to be examined in detail and to allow Member States the possibility of granting provisional authorisations, for periods of up to three years, for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned, while complying with the conditions laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and, in particular, the condition relating to the detailed assessment of the active substances and the plant protection products in the light of the requirements laid down by that Directive.\n(6)\nFor these active substances, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicants. The rapporteur Member States submitted the respective draft assessment reports to the Commission on 15 July 2008 (amisulbrom), on 11 February 2009 (chlorantraniliprole), on 25 October 2006 (meptyldinocap) and on 30 November 2005 (pinoxaden).\n(7)\nFollowing submission of the draft assessment reports by the rapporteur Member States, it has been found to be necessary to request further information from the applicants and to have the rapporteur Member States examine that information and submit their assessment. Therefore, the examination of the dossiers is still ongoing and it will not be possible to complete the evaluation within the timeframe provided for in Directive 91/414/EEC, read in conjunction with Commission Decision 2008/724/EC (6) (pinoxaden).\n(8)\nAs the evaluation so far has not identified any reason for immediate concern, Member States should be given the possibility of prolonging provisional authorisations granted for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned for a period of 24 months in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of Directive 91/414/EEC so as to enable the examination of the dossiers to continue. It is expected that the evaluation and decision-making process with respect to a decision on a possible inclusion in Annex I to that Directive for amisulbrom, chlorantraniliprole, meptyldinocap and pinoxaden will have been completed within 24 months.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States may extend provisional authorisations for plant protection products containing amisulbrom, chlorantraniliprole, meptyldinocap or pinoxaden for a period ending on 30 June 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall expire on 30 June 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 June 2010.", "references": ["39", "37", "69", "66", "90", "50", "28", "86", "85", "43", "27", "11", "40", "31", "9", "95", "23", "78", "79", "56", "59", "36", "19", "91", "5", "33", "70", "96", "32", "8", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 September 2011\namending and extending the period of application of Decision 2007/641/EC on the conclusion of consultations with the Republic of the Fiji Islands under Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement and Article 37 of the Development Cooperation Instrument\n(2011/637/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1), as last amended in Ouagadougou on 22 June 2010 (2) (\u2018the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement\u2019), and in particular Article 96 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (\u2018the Development Cooperation Instrument\u2019) (4), and in particular Article 37 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Decision 2007/641/EC (5) was adopted to take appropriate measures following the violation of the essential elements referred to in Article 9 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and of the values referred to in Article 3 of the Development Cooperation Instrument.\n(2)\nThose measures have been extended by Council Decision 2009/735/EC (6), and subsequently by Council Decisions 2010/208/EU (7), 2010/589/EU (8) and 2011/219/EU (9), since not only has the Republic of Fiji yet to implement important commitments it made in consultations held in April 2007 concerning essential elements of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and the Development Cooperation Instrument, but there have also been important regressive developments concerning a number of these commitments.\n(3)\nDecision 2007/641/EC expires on 30 September 2011. It is appropriate to extend its validity, and to update the content of the appropriate measures accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2007/641/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 3, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 30 September 2012. It shall be reviewed regularly at least once every 6 months.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe Annex is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe letter in the Annex to this Decision shall be addressed to the Republic of Fiji.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 26 September 2011.", "references": ["84", "37", "81", "22", "28", "89", "43", "85", "31", "62", "15", "99", "56", "5", "2", "44", "13", "53", "18", "92", "12", "68", "97", "39", "59", "42", "14", "40", "67", "96", "No Label", "0", "1", "4", "9", "10", "61", "71", "95"], "gold": ["0", "1", "4", "9", "10", "61", "71", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 338/2012\nof 19 April 2012\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of April 2012 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 April 2012 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 April 2012 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 0,408411 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["25", "16", "33", "68", "90", "4", "0", "86", "12", "32", "8", "31", "97", "64", "6", "61", "15", "2", "5", "82", "11", "20", "44", "41", "87", "10", "72", "80", "36", "94", "No Label", "21", "22", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 772/2010\nof 1 September 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Article 103za, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPoint (d) of the first paragraph of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector (2) provides that the support for promotion and information on third-country markets lasts no longer than three years for a given beneficiary in a given third-country.\n(2)\nIn the light of the experience gained during the implementation of those support actions, it is necessary to foresee their renewal by two years at the most, given the specificity of the promotion and information actions in third countries, which for example require longer administrative formalities at Member State and third country level.\n(3)\nArticle 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 foresees that Member States shall lay down the application procedure, in particular to provide detailed rules on evaluating any given supported action. It is also necessary to provide an obligation for the Member States to lay down the procedure for the possible renewal of the support, as well as a prior evaluation of supported actions.\n(4)\nArticle 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 describes the financial management of restructuring and conversion of vineyards, without however establishing specific provisions relating to the control of the operations. The operations of restructuring and conversion of vineyards may in certain cases be subject to multiple on-the-spot checks without bringing an improvement of the administrative and financial costs they involve.\n(5)\nArticle 81 of Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 lays down provisions relating to monitoring of the production potential only. Although the operations of restructuring and conversion of vineyards are closely related to the operations relating to production potential, they are currently excluded from the application of that Article. In order to simplify the control system, it is necessary to establish rules concerning the verification of operations of restructuring and conversion of vineyards similar to the current rules concerning the verification of production potential operations.\n(6)\nIn order to simplify the verification of the operations of restructuring and conversion of vineyards, provisions should be made for allowing, in addition to the use of graphical tools, the use of equivalent instruments which also allow identification, measurement and localisation of the parcel.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 555/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 555/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 4, first paragraph, point (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nThe support for promotion and information lasts no longer than three years for a given beneficiary in a given third-country; however, if necessary, it may be renewed once, for a period no longer than two years;\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 5(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Member States shall lay down the application procedure and the procedure for the possible renewal, as referred to in point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 4, which shall in particular provide detailed rules on:\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nevaluating any given supported action. In case of renewal in accordance with point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 4, the results of the supported actions shall in addition be evaluated prior to the renewal.\u2019\n(3)\nIn Article 9(1), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Support shall be paid once it is ascertained that either a single operation or all the operations covered by the support application, according to the choice made by the Member State for the management of the measure, have been implemented and checked on-the-spot, in accordance with Article 81 of this Regulation.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 81 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 81\nControl related to the production potential and to the operations of restructuring and conversion of vineyards\n1. In order to verify the compliance with the provisions on production potential laid down in Section IVa of Chapter III of Title I of Part II of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, including the transitional prohibition on new planting laid down in Article 85g(1) of that Regulation, as well as with the provisions foreseen in Article 103q of that Regulation relating to operations of restructuring and conversion of vineyards, Member States shall make use of the vineyard register.\n2. When granting replanting rights as foreseen in Article 85i of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, areas shall be systematically verified before and after the execution of the grubbing up. The plots to be checked shall be those for which a replanting right is to be granted.\nThe control before the grubbing-up shall also cover the verification of the existence of the vineyard concerned.\nThis control shall be carried out by an on-the-spot check. However, if the Member State has available a reliable updated computerised vineyard register, the control may be carried out administratively and the obligation of an on-the-spot check before grubbing-up may be limited to 5 % of the applications, on an annual basis, in order to confirm the reliability of the administrative control system. Should such an on-the-spot check reveal significant irregularities or discrepancies in a region or part of a region, the competent authority shall appropriately increase the number of on-the-spot checks during the year concerned and the following year.\n3. Areas receiving a grubbing-up premium shall be systematically verified before and after the grubbing up. The plots to be verified shall be those which are subject to an application for aid.\nThe control before the grubbing-up shall also cover the verification of the existence of the vineyard concerned, the area planted determined in accordance with Article 75 and whether the given area has been properly tended.\nThis control shall be carried out by an on-the-spot check. However, if the Member State has available a graphical tool or an equivalent instrument that allows measurement of the area planted in accordance with Article 75 in the computerised vineyard register, and reliable updated information about the parcel being properly tended, the control may be carried out administratively and the obligation to carry out an on-the-spot check before the grubbing up, may be limited to 5 % of the applications in order to confirm the reliability of the administrative control system. Should such an on-the-spot check reveal significant irregularities or discrepancies in a region or part of a region, the competent authority shall increase the number of on-the-spot checks appropriately during the year concerned.\n4. The control that the grubbing-up has actually taken place, shall be carried out by an on-the-spot check. In the case of grubbing up of the entire vineyard parcel or if the resolution of the remote sensing is equal to or better than 1 m2, the verification may be carried out by remote sensing.\n5. As regards areas receiving a grubbing-up premium, without prejudice to paragraph 3, third subparagraph and paragraph 4, at least one of the two verifications mentioned in the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 shall be carried out by an on-the-spot check.\n6. Areas receiving aid for operations of restructuring and conversion of vineyards shall be systematically verified before and after the execution of the operations. The plots to be checked shall be those for which an application for aid has been submitted.\nThe control before the operations shall also cover the verification of the existence of the vineyard concerned, the area planted determined in accordance with Article 75 and the exclusion of the case of normal renewal of vineyards as defined in Article 6.\nThe control referred to in the second subparagraph shall be carried out by an on-the-spot check. However, if the Member State has available a graphical tool or an equivalent instrument that allows measurement of the area planted in accordance with Article 75 in the computerised vineyard register, and reliable updated information about the planted grape wine varieties, the control may be carried out administratively and, consequently, the obligation to carry out an on-the-spot check before the execution of the operations may be limited to 5 % of the applications in order to confirm the reliability of the administrative control system. Should such an on-the-spot check reveal significant irregularities or discrepancies in a region or part of a region, the competent authority shall increase the number of on-the-spot checks appropriately during the year concerned.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 September 2010.", "references": ["44", "65", "0", "18", "26", "31", "15", "8", "24", "5", "68", "90", "60", "94", "83", "6", "49", "80", "62", "73", "14", "40", "70", "59", "76", "19", "35", "37", "27", "96", "No Label", "4", "20", "61", "64", "66", "71", "75"], "gold": ["4", "20", "61", "64", "66", "71", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 538/2012\nof 22 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2012.", "references": ["34", "13", "95", "14", "47", "10", "15", "59", "41", "70", "27", "16", "69", "88", "53", "29", "18", "72", "11", "81", "76", "23", "62", "12", "8", "99", "50", "86", "71", "6", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 1 July 2010\non the allocation to Spain of additional days at sea within ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa excluding the Gulf of Cadiz\n(notified under document C(2010) 4330)\n(Only the Spanish text is authentic)\n(2010/370/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 of 16 January 2009 fixing for 2009 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of stocks, applicable in Community waters and for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (1), and in particular point 9 of Annex IIB thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPoint 7 of Annex IIB to Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 specifies the maximum number of days on which Union vessels of an overall length equal to or greater than 10 meters carrying on board trawls, Danish seines and similar gears of mesh size equal to or lager than 32 mm and gill-nets of mesh size equal to or lager than 60 mm and bottom long-lines may be present within ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa excluding the Gulf of Cadiz from 1 February 2009 to 31 January 2010.\n(2)\nPoint 9 of Annex IIB enables the Commission to allocate an additional number of days at sea on which a vessel may be present within the geographical area when carrying on board such fishing gears, on the basis of permanent cessations of fishing activities that have taken place since 1 January 2004.\n(3)\nOn 11 November 2009, Spain submitted data demonstrating that twelve fishing vessels have ceased activities since 1 January 2004. In view of the data submitted and having regard to the method of calculation laid down in point 9.1 of Annex IIB, nine additional days at sea for vessels carrying on board the fishing gears specified in point 3 of the same Annex should be allocated to Spain for the period from 1 February 2009 to 31 January 2010.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION\nArticle 1\nThe maximum number of days on which a fishing vessel flying the flag of Spain and carrying on board fishing gear, mentioned in point 3 of Annex IIB to Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 and not subject to any of the special conditions listed in point 7.2 of that Annex may be present in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa excluding the Gulf of Cadiz, as laid down in Table I of that Annex, shall be amended to 184 days per year.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2010.", "references": ["66", "9", "83", "59", "28", "30", "43", "63", "57", "36", "74", "77", "56", "32", "87", "1", "99", "48", "38", "71", "89", "55", "80", "11", "44", "45", "22", "64", "33", "16", "No Label", "13", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 15 July 2010\nexcluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)\n(notified under document C(2010) 4894)\n(only the Danish, English, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2010/399/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving consulted the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999, and Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the Commission is to carry out the necessary verifications, communicate to the Member States the results of these verifications, take note of the comments of the Member States, initiate a bilateral discussion so that an agreement may be reached with the Member States in question, and formally communicate its conclusions to them.\n(2)\nThe Member States have had an opportunity to request the launch of a conciliation procedure. That opportunity has been used in some cases and the reports issued on the outcome have been examined by the Commission.\n(3)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 and Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, only agricultural expenditure which has been incurred in a way that has not infringed European Union rules may be financed.\n(4)\nIn the light of the verifications carried out, the outcome of the bilateral discussions and the conciliation procedures, part of the expenditure declared by the Member States does not fulfil this requirement and cannot, therefore, be financed under the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the EAGF and the EAFRD.\n(5)\nThe amounts that are not recognised as being chargeable to the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the EAGF and the EAFRD should be indicated. Those amounts do not relate to expenditure incurred more than twenty-four months before the Commission\u2019s written notification of the results of the verifications to the Member States.\n(6)\nAs regards the cases covered by this decision, the assessment of the amounts to be excluded on grounds of non-compliance with European Union rules was notified by the Commission to the Member States in a summary report on the subject.\n(7)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to any financial conclusions that the Commission may draw from the judgments of the Court of Justice in cases pending on 30 April 2010 and relating to its content,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe expenditure itemised in the Annex hereto that has been incurred by the Member States\u2019 accredited paying agencies and declared under the EAGGF Guarantee Section, under the EAGF or under the EAFRD shall be excluded from European Union financing because it does not comply with European Union rules.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 15 July 2010.", "references": ["98", "65", "64", "49", "71", "93", "96", "88", "2", "85", "30", "95", "6", "19", "56", "22", "43", "80", "11", "47", "51", "28", "26", "91", "81", "5", "20", "9", "34", "79", "No Label", "8", "10", "17", "61"], "gold": ["8", "10", "17", "61"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 27 September 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/029 NL/Zuid-Holland and Utrecht Division 18 from the Netherlands)\n(2011/656/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nThe Netherlands submitted an application on 20 December 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 52 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (\u2018Printing and reproduction of recorded media\u2019) in the NUTS II regions of Zuid-Holland (NL33) and Utrecht (NL31) in the Netherlands, and supplemented it by additional information up to 3 March 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 649 148.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Netherlands,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 649 148 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 27 September 2011.", "references": ["82", "94", "58", "48", "39", "64", "0", "21", "20", "6", "22", "66", "12", "63", "17", "99", "50", "57", "28", "83", "84", "87", "88", "53", "1", "80", "95", "44", "59", "26", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "40", "41", "49", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "40", "41", "49", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 431/2010\nof 20 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2010.", "references": ["3", "0", "20", "4", "41", "51", "6", "17", "57", "58", "50", "81", "64", "29", "63", "10", "74", "24", "77", "43", "37", "45", "23", "66", "97", "27", "87", "14", "72", "92", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1025/2010\nof 12 November 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Kalix L\u00f6jrom (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Sweden\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Kalix L\u00f6jrom\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 November 2010.", "references": ["84", "92", "34", "12", "64", "50", "28", "0", "23", "63", "21", "18", "47", "13", "43", "54", "72", "29", "83", "52", "82", "39", "79", "61", "98", "5", "57", "86", "69", "85", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "67", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "67", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 158/2011\nof 21 February 2011\nentering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (\u2018\u0160pek\u00e1\u010dky\u2019/\u2018\u0160peka\u010dky\u2019 (TSG))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 9(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, the Czech Republic and Slovakia\u2019s joint application to register the name \u2018\u0160pek\u00e1\u010dky\u2019/\u2018\u0160peka\u010dky\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register.\n(3)\nProtection as referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has not been requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2011.", "references": ["2", "29", "81", "82", "28", "37", "59", "38", "33", "40", "53", "50", "83", "8", "73", "9", "69", "88", "17", "22", "46", "11", "95", "93", "74", "20", "36", "68", "18", "35", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 548/2010\nof 22 June 2010\ndetermining the extent to which the import licence applications submitted in June 2010 for certain milk products under certain tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 can be accepted\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImport licence applications lodged from 1 to 10 June 2010 for certain tariff quotas referred to in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 of 14 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas (3) relate to quantities greater than those available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor import licence applications lodged from 1 to 10 June 2010 for the tariff quotas referred to in parts I.A, I.F, I.H, I.I, and I.J of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, licences shall be issued for the quantities requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficient(s) set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2010.", "references": ["78", "28", "19", "49", "9", "99", "72", "63", "40", "57", "25", "55", "62", "74", "90", "69", "12", "58", "16", "24", "48", "34", "83", "29", "95", "71", "94", "80", "0", "13", "No Label", "21", "23", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "23", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 83/2011\nof 31 January 2011\nimplementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 July 2010, the Council adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2), establishing an updated list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies.\n(2)\nThe 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 610/2010. In the case of one group, an amended statement of reasons was provided in November 2010.\n(3)\nBy way of a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), the Council informed the persons, groups and entities listed in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010 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\u2019s reasons for putting them on the list where one had not already been communicated to them. In the case of five groups, an amended statement of reasons was made available in November 2010 (4).\n(4)\nThe 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.\n(5)\nSubject to the appeal pending in Case T-348/07, 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 (5), 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.\n(6)\nDue to the appeal pending in Case T-348/07, the Council has determined that Council Decision 2010/386/CFSP (6) should not be repealed with regard to one group. The review in respect of that group is ongoing.\n(7)\nThe list of the persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies should be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe list provided for in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 shall be replaced by the list set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010 is hereby repealed except in so far as it concerns the group mentioned in entry number 25 in Part 2 of the Annex thereto.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2011.", "references": ["99", "52", "81", "48", "82", "35", "47", "77", "6", "40", "32", "60", "92", "59", "61", "12", "78", "84", "2", "68", "25", "62", "5", "15", "51", "30", "56", "45", "88", "54", "No Label", "0", "3", "11", "91", "97"], "gold": ["0", "3", "11", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 417/2011\nof 28 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 April 2011.", "references": ["10", "86", "43", "15", "56", "18", "26", "62", "95", "28", "64", "8", "6", "12", "25", "78", "29", "41", "24", "66", "20", "94", "71", "59", "97", "67", "44", "23", "13", "21", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1097/2011\nof 25 October 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 lists the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under the Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 8 July 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council approved updates to the list of individuals and entities subject to the freezing of assets. Annex I should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["69", "98", "26", "27", "4", "28", "64", "36", "66", "31", "5", "70", "76", "38", "39", "72", "53", "18", "10", "86", "44", "22", "90", "40", "74", "62", "95", "0", "73", "21", "No Label", "3", "6", "23"], "gold": ["3", "6", "23"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 802/2010\nof 13 September 2010\nimplementing Article 10(3) and Article 27 of Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards company performance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on port State control (1), and in particular Article 10(3) and Article 27 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCompany performance is one of the generic parameters determining the risk profile of a ship.\n(2)\nWith a view to determining the performance of companies within the meaning of Directive 2009/16/EC, it is necessary that, when inspecting a ship, inspectors record the IMO number assigned to a company.\n(3)\nIn order to assess company performance, the deficiency and detention rates of all ships in a company\u2019s fleet, which have been subject to an inspection within the Union and within the region covered by the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on port State control (Paris MoU), should be taken into account.\n(4)\nIt is necessary to build upon the expertise acquired through the application of the Paris MoU with regard to the methodology used for assessing company performance.\n(5)\nThe Commission should rely on the European Maritime Safety Agency established by Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) for the publication on a public website of the list of companies with a low or very low performance.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIdentification of companies\nMember States shall ensure that the company as defined in Article 2(18) of Directive 2009/16/EC is identified through the IMO number where the ship has to comply with the International Safety Management Code (ISM Code) as referred to in Chapter IX of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention).\nArticle 2\nCriteria for assessing the company performance\n1. With a view to assessing the company performance referred to in point (e) of Part I.1 of Annex I to Directive 2009/16/EC, the criteria set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall be used.\n2. The level of company performance shall be updated daily and calculated on the basis of the 36 months preceding the assessment. For that purpose the calculation shall be made on the basis of data collected from 17 June 2009. Where less than 36 months have elapsed since 17 June 2009, the calculation shall be made on the basis of the available data.\n3. The companies shall be ranked as having a very low, low, medium or high performance as listed in point 3 of the Annex.\nArticle 3\nPublication of lists of companies with a low and very low performance\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) with a view to the regular publication on a public website of information on companies with a low and very low performance in accordance with Article 27 of Directive 2009/16/EC.\n2. EMSA shall publish and update on a daily basis on its public website the following information:\n(a)\nthe list of companies whose performance during the previous 36 months has been very low, for a period of at least 3 months on a continuous basis;\n(b)\nthe list of companies whose performance during the previous 36 months has been low or very low, for a period of at least 3 months on a continuous basis;\n(c)\nthe list of companies whose performance during the previous 36 months has been low for a period of at least 6 months on a continuous basis.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2010.", "references": ["70", "46", "72", "1", "50", "16", "6", "85", "90", "18", "95", "68", "65", "60", "74", "34", "62", "15", "92", "38", "87", "9", "58", "89", "79", "30", "25", "4", "35", "98", "No Label", "13", "39", "53", "54", "56", "76"], "gold": ["13", "39", "53", "54", "56", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 751/2012\nof 16 August 2012\ncorrecting Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (1), and in particular Article 33(3) and Article 38(d) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex IV to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 (2) as amended by Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 508/2012 (3) sets out the list of control bodies and control authorities competent to carry out controls and issue certificates in third countries for the purpose of equivalence.\n(2)\nIn relation to CERES Certification of Environmental Standards GmbH, Ecocert SA and Istituto Mediterraneo di Certificazione s.r.l., certain third countries, code numbers and product categories have been omitted from that list. In addition, for Ecocert SA a reference to an exception to the products covered is missing.\n(3)\nTherefore, Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 should be corrected accordingly.\n(4)\nFor the sake of legal certainty, this Regulation should apply from the date of application of Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 508/2012.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the regulatory Committee on organic production,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 is corrected in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2012.", "references": ["76", "66", "19", "5", "60", "65", "9", "47", "1", "87", "89", "3", "49", "2", "30", "48", "75", "80", "39", "56", "62", "58", "46", "21", "32", "34", "55", "92", "96", "17", "No Label", "4", "20", "22", "23", "72"], "gold": ["4", "20", "22", "23", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency measures taken to combat Newcastle disease in Spain in 2009\n(notified under document C(2011) 8717)\n(Only the Spanish text is authentic)\n(2011/797/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate Newcastle disease as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 3(6), first indent, of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nArticle 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Implementing Decision 2011/208/EU of 1 April 2011 on a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat Newcastle disease in Spain in 2009 (3) granted, amongst others, a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat Newcastle disease in Spain in 2009. An official request for reimbursement was submitted by Spain on 31 May 2011, as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(5)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union is to be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(6)\nSpain has in accordance with Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC without delay informed the Commission and the other Member States of the measures applied in accordance with Union legislation on notification and eradication and the results thereof. The request for reimbursement was, as required in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005, accompanied by a financial report, supporting documents, an epidemiological report on each holding where the animals have been slaughtered or destroyed, and the results of respective audits.\n(7)\nThe Commission\u2019s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Spain on 20 October 2011. Spain agreed by e-mail dated 20 October 2011.\n(8)\nConsequently the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred in connection with the eradication of Newcastle disease in Spain in 2009 can now be fixed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating Newcastle disease in Spain in 2009 is fixed at EUR 103 219,22.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision constituting a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["13", "47", "9", "30", "51", "26", "65", "43", "60", "31", "52", "83", "55", "62", "89", "73", "53", "45", "64", "86", "77", "19", "59", "24", "79", "22", "33", "6", "25", "75", "No Label", "4", "10", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 748/2010\nof 19 August 2010\ninitiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China by imports of certain plastic sacks and bags channelled via a Chinese company subject to a lower duty rate, and making such imports subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (the basic Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 13(3), 14(3) and 14(5) thereof,\nAfter having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has decided, pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation to investigate on its own initiative the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\nA. PRODUCT\n(2)\nThe product concerned by the possible circumvention is plastic sacks and bags, containing at least 20 % by weight of polyethylene and of sheeting of a thickness not exceeding 100 micrometers (\u03bcm), originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 3923 21 00, ex 3923 29 10 and ex 3923 29 90 (TARIC codes 3923210020, 3923291020, and 3923299020) (the product concerned).\n(3)\nThe product under investigation is plastic sacks and bags, containing at least 20 % by weight of polyethylene and of sheeting a thickness not exceeding 100 micrometers (\u03bcm), currently falling within the same codes as the product concerned declared as being manufactured by the company XIAMEN XINGXIA POLYMERS CO., LTD.\nB. EXISTING MEASURES\n(4)\nThe measures currently in force and possibly being circumvented are anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 (2), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 189/2009 (3).\nC. GROUNDS\n(5)\nThe Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of the product concerned produced by certain producers currently subject to the residual duty rate of 28,8 % (TARIC additional code A999) are being circumvented by means of reorganisation of patterns and channels of sales of the product concerned. These producers and exporters have eventually their products exported to the Union through a Chinese exporting producer benefiting from a duty rate for cooperating exporters not selected to be part of the sample of 8,4 % (XIAMEN XINGXIA POLYMERS CO., LTD), listed together with other non-sampled companies in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006), which is lower than the residual duty rate of 28,8 %.\nThe prima facie evidence at the Commission\u2019s disposal is as follows:\n(6)\nThere is a change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the People\u2019s Republic of China which has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned, without sufficient due cause or justification other than the imposition of the duty for such a change.\n(7)\nThis change in the pattern of trade appears to stem from exports to the Union of the product concerned produced by Chinese exporting producers subject to the residual duty rate through a Chinese exporting producer benefiting from a duty rate for cooperating exporters not selected to be part of the sample rate (XIAMEN XINGXIA POLYMERS CO., LTD), which is lower than the residual duty rate.\n(8)\nFurthermore, the evidence points to the fact that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned are being undermined in terms of price. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that the imports of the product under investigation are made at prices well below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures.\n(9)\nFinally, the Commission has sufficient prima facie evidence at its disposal that the prices of the product under investigation are dumped in relation to the normal value previously established for the product concerned.\n(10)\nShould circumvention practices covered by Article 13 of the basic Regulation, other than the ones mentioned above, be identified in the course of the investigation, the investigation may also cover these practices.\nD. PROCEDURE\n(11)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation and to make imports of the product under investigation subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation. Registration of imports should be limited to products declared as having been manufactured by XIAMEN XINGXIA POLYMERS CO., LTD which shall therefore be declared under a specific TARIC additional code A981 without affecting the level of duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006.\n(a) Questionnaires\n(12)\nIn order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to XIAMEN XINGXIA POLYMERS CO., LTD as well as to other companies allegedly have their products exported to the Union through XIAMEN XINGXIA POLYMERS CO., LTD.\n(13)\nIn any event, all interested parties should contact the Commission forthwith, but not later than the time limit set in Article 3 of this Regulation in order to find out whether they are known and, request a questionnaire within the time limit set in Article 3(1) of this Regulation, given that the time limit set in Article 3(2) of this Regulation applies to all interested parties.\n(14)\nThe authorities of the People\u2019s Republic of China will be notified of the initiation of the investigation.\n(b) Collection of information and holding of hearings\n(15)\nAll interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\nE. REGISTRATION\n(16)\nPursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation, namely plastic sacks and bags declared under TARIC additional code A981 should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied retroactively from the date of registration of such imports.\nF. TIME LIMITS\n(17)\nIn the interest of sound administration, time limits should be stated within which:\n-\ninterested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,\n-\ninterested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.\n(18)\nAttention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party\u2019s making itself known within the time limits mentioned in Article 3 of this Regulation.\nG. NON-COOPERATION\n(19)\nIn cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.\n(20)\nWhere it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.\nH. SCHEDULE OF THE INVESTIGATION\n(21)\nThe investigation will be concluded, according to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, within nine months of the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nI. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\n(22)\nIt is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (4).\nJ. HEARING OFFICER\n(23)\nIt is also noted that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of the Directorate General for Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views. For further information and contact details, interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer\u2019s web pages on the website of Directorate General for Trade (http://ec.europa.eu/trade),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. An investigation is hereby initiated pursuant to Article 13(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, in order to determine if imports into the Union of plastic sacks and bags, containing at least 20 % by weight of polyethylene and of sheeting of a thickness not exceeding 100 micrometers (\u03bcm), originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 3923 21 00, ex 3923 29 10 and ex 3923 29 90 (TARIC codes 3923210020, 3923291020, and 3923299020) are circumventing the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006.\n2. For the purpose of registration during this investigation, imports of plastic sacks and bags referred to in paragraph 1 declared as being manufactured by XIAMEN XINGXIA POLYMERS CO., LTD shall be declared under TARIC additional code A981. The duty rate of 8,4 % imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 for this company shall remain unchanged.\nArticle 2\nThe Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 13(3) and Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union identified in Article 1 of this Regulation.\nRegistration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 3\n1. Questionnaires should be requested from the Commission within 15 days from publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. Interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 37 days from the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.\n3. Interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 37-day time limit.\n4. Any information, any request for a hearing or for a questionnaire as well as any request for exemption from registration of imports or measures must be made in writing (not in electronic format, unless otherwise specified) and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers of the interested party. All written submissions, including the information requested in this Regulation, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labelled as \u2018Limited\u2019 (5) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labelled \u2018For inspection by interested parties\u2019.\nCommission address for correspondence:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N-105 4/92\nB-1049 Brussels\nBELGIUM\nFax (32 2) 295 65 05\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 August 2010.", "references": ["79", "60", "71", "68", "9", "40", "46", "37", "29", "47", "73", "58", "30", "65", "15", "38", "50", "42", "70", "4", "28", "16", "11", "13", "72", "59", "74", "92", "61", "62", "No Label", "8", "22", "48", "80", "95", "96"], "gold": ["8", "22", "48", "80", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 810/2011\nof 11 August 2011\napproving the active substance kresoxim-methyl, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Articles 13(2) and 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances listed in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 of 27 June 2007 on laying down the procedure of the renewal of the inclusion of a first group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and establishing the list of those substances (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Kresoxim-methyl is listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 737/2007.\n(2)\nThe approval of kresoxim-methyl, as set out in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (4), expires on 31 December 2011. A notification was submitted in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 for the renewal of the inclusion of kresoxim-methyl in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within the time period provided for in that Article.\n(3)\nThat notification was found to be admissible by Commission Decision 2008/656/EC of 28 July 2008 on the admissibility of the notifications concerning the renewal of the inclusion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances azimsulfuron, azoxystrobin, fluroxypyr, imazalil, kresoxim-methyl, prohexadione and spiroxamine, and establishing the list of the notifiers concerned (5).\n(4)\nWithin the time period provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007, the notifier submitted the data required in accordance with that Article together with an explanation as regards the relevance of each new study submitted.\n(5)\nThe rapporteur Member State prepared an assessment report in consultation with the co-rapporteur Member State and submitted it to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and the Commission. In addition to the assessment of the active substance, that report includes a list of the studies the rapporteur Member State relied on for its assessment.\n(6)\nThe Authority communicated the assessment report to the notifier and to the Member States for comments and forwarded the comments received to the Commission. The Authority also made the assessment report available to the public.\n(7)\nAt the request of the Commission, the assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority. The Authority presented its conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of kresoxim-methyl (6) to the Commission. The assessment report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for kresoxim-methyl.\n(8)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing kresoxim-methyl may be expected to continue to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve kresoxim-methyl.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions not provided for in the first inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that kresoxim-methyl should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(11)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(12)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing kresoxim-methyl. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(13)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(14)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should be amended accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance kresoxim-methyl, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing kresoxim-methyl as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing kresoxim-methyl as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing kresoxim-methyl as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing kresoxim-methyl as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2011.", "references": ["59", "41", "81", "11", "84", "52", "95", "74", "57", "16", "50", "86", "13", "60", "92", "9", "93", "63", "58", "85", "27", "43", "23", "31", "67", "38", "66", "1", "42", "32", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1293/2011\nof 9 December 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for industrial fish in Norwegian waters of IV by vessels flying the flag of a Member State of the European Union\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member States referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member States referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member States referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["74", "68", "76", "10", "83", "79", "11", "0", "49", "48", "1", "81", "34", "73", "58", "64", "77", "88", "99", "66", "17", "7", "61", "72", "62", "40", "91", "97", "22", "21", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "96"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 716/2012\nof 30 July 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 July 2012.", "references": ["96", "11", "76", "0", "73", "56", "10", "88", "13", "82", "26", "91", "94", "5", "28", "19", "60", "24", "52", "3", "58", "27", "77", "18", "81", "63", "6", "23", "65", "95", "No Label", "21", "72"], "gold": ["21", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 468/2012\nof 1 June 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 28/2012 laying down requirements for the certification for imports into and transit through the Union of certain composite products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 8(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 28/2012 (2) lays down rules on the certification of consignments of certain composite products introduced into the Union from third countries, including composite products containing processed egg products.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EU) No 28/2012, consignments of composite products introduced into or transited through the Union are to be accompanied by a health certificate in accordance with the models set out in Annexes I and II thereto and comply with the conditions established in that certificate.\n(3)\nThe model certificates set out in Annexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 28/2012 do not currently include detailed conditions as regards processed egg products contained in composite products which are being introduced into or transited through the Union.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (3) lays down veterinary certification requirements for imports into and transit, through the Union of certain commodities, including egg products. It provides that commodities imported into or transited through the Union are to be accompanied by a veterinary certificate for the commodity concerned and comply with the conditions set out therein.\n(5)\nProcessed egg products present a potential risk for animal health, also when they are used to manufacture certain composite products. It is therefore appropriate that the same conditions which must be complied with by egg products pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008, when those products are introduced into or transited through the Union, apply also to processed egg products used to manufacture composite products.\n(6)\nThe model certificates set out in Annexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 28/2012 include the condition that the country of origin of meat or milk products used to manufacture composite products imported into or transited through the Union is authorised by relevant Union legislation to export meat or milk products into the Union. In addition, those model certificates include the condition that the country of origin of the meat or milk products be the same as the country of export of the composite products.\n(7)\nThose two conditions ensure that meat and milk products originating from third countries and used to manufacture composite products comply with Union rules for human and animal health. However, the condition that the country of origin and the country of export be the same does not allow for the import into and transit through the Union of composite products exported from a third country but which contain meat and milk products originating in the Union.\n(8)\nMeat and milk products originating in the Union are in compliance with the human and animal health conditions laid down in Union legislation. It is therefore appropriate to amend the conditions included in the model certificates set out in Annexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 28/2012 to allow the use of meat and milk products originating in the Union to manufacture composite products in third countries authorised to export composite products to the Union.\n(9)\nCommission Decision 2007/777/EC of 29 November 2007 laying down the animal and public health conditions and model certificates for imports of certain meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption from third countries (4) provides that Member States are to authorise imports into the Union of certain meat products that comply with the conditions concerning origin and treatment set out in Annex II thereto. That Annex sets out rules on a non-specific treatment (treatment A) to which the imported products are to be subjected when they originate in third countries where the animal health status does not present a risk for the animal health status in the Union. Since those products may be directly imported into the Union, it is appropriate to amend the conditions included in the model certificates set out in Annexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 28/2012 to allow the use of such meat products to manufacture composite products in third countries authorised to export composite products to the Union, provided that the third country exporting the composite products ensures that those meat products comply with the health and origin requirements foreseen in Union legislation and that it is authorised to export itself the same meat products to the Union under the same conditions.\n(10)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 605/2010 of 2 July 2010 laying down animal and public health and veterinary certification conditions for the introduction into the European Union of raw milk and dairy products intended for human consumption (5) provides that Member States are to authorise the importation of consignments of raw milk and dairy products from the third countries or parts thereof listed in column A of Annex I thereto. In addition, Regulation (EU) No 605/2010 provides that Member States are to authorise the importation of consignments of certain dairy products from the third countries or parts thereof not at risk from foot-and-mouth disease listed in column B of Annex I thereto, provided that such dairy products have undergone, or been produced from raw milk which has undergone a pasteurisation treatment involving a single heat treatment as laid down in that Regulation. Since those dairy products may be directly imported into the Union, it is appropriate to amend the conditions included in the model certificates set out in Annexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 28/2012 to allow the use of such dairy products to manufacture composite products in third countries authorised to export composite products to the Union, provided that the third country exporting the composite products ensures that those milk products comply with the health and origin requirements foreseen in Union legislation and that it is authorised to export itself the same dairy products to the Union under the same conditions.\n(11)\nRegulation (EU) No 28/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nTo avoid any disruption of trade, the use of certificates issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 28/2012 prior to the entry into force of this Regulation should be authorised for a transitional period.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 28/2012 are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nFor a transitional period until 31 December 2012, consignments of composite products accompanied by certificates issued before 1 October 2012 in accordance with the models set out in Annexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 28/2012 before the amendments introduced by this Regulation may continue to be introduced into the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2012.", "references": ["87", "63", "4", "48", "51", "47", "83", "55", "95", "99", "76", "52", "77", "27", "45", "34", "74", "36", "91", "17", "23", "67", "80", "58", "75", "59", "40", "39", "7", "64", "No Label", "21", "22", "54", "61", "69", "70", "72", "73"], "gold": ["21", "22", "54", "61", "69", "70", "72", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 80/2012\nof 31 January 2012\nestablishing the list of biological or chemical substances provided for in Article 53(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty\n(codification)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 2288/83 of 29 July 1983 establishing the list of biological or chemical substances provided for in Article 60(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.\n(2)\nArticle 53(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 provides for admission with relief from import duties for biological or chemical substances imported exclusively for non-commercial purposes by public establishments, or those departments of public establishments, or by officially authorised private establishments, whose principal activity is education or scientific research. Such admission with relief from import duties is limited, however, to biological or chemical substances for which there is no equivalent production in the customs territory of the Union and which are included in a list drawn up in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 247a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (4).\n(3)\nAccording to information obtained from the Member States there is no equivalent production in the customs territory of the Union of the biological or chemical substances listed in Annex I to this Regulation.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe list of biological or chemical substances eligible for admission with relief from import duty provided for in Article 53(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 is set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EEC) No 2288/83 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex III.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2012.", "references": ["85", "14", "59", "3", "34", "23", "95", "29", "84", "49", "10", "90", "27", "72", "37", "19", "70", "63", "4", "76", "15", "71", "93", "6", "73", "69", "12", "62", "64", "46", "No Label", "8", "21", "22", "83"], "gold": ["8", "21", "22", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 732/2012\nof 10 August 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2012.", "references": ["24", "18", "88", "69", "28", "31", "32", "27", "40", "78", "91", "51", "81", "15", "37", "14", "13", "4", "21", "66", "83", "99", "42", "47", "33", "56", "77", "59", "89", "79", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 51/2012\nof 19 January 2012\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(s) and listed in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1062/2011 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nIn order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Part XIX of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 1062/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 January 2012.", "references": ["92", "37", "65", "39", "27", "21", "68", "32", "28", "67", "90", "48", "93", "49", "78", "85", "14", "47", "4", "7", "96", "40", "16", "91", "55", "12", "60", "56", "42", "29", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "69", "72"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1117/2011\nof 31 October 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Lough Neagh Eel (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Lough Neagh Eel\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["22", "17", "13", "35", "12", "27", "30", "80", "37", "43", "46", "4", "88", "53", "85", "69", "26", "16", "32", "75", "42", "61", "55", "38", "79", "51", "92", "72", "62", "74", "No Label", "24", "25", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 55/2011\nof 21 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 January 2011.", "references": ["44", "76", "59", "89", "3", "34", "1", "86", "43", "0", "85", "33", "20", "17", "16", "88", "53", "38", "49", "8", "52", "25", "64", "9", "67", "79", "42", "63", "39", "36", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 993/2011\nof 6 October 2011\napproving the active substance 8-hydroxyquinoline, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply, with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval, to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (3). 8-hydroxyquinoline is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish lists of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. These lists included 8-hydroxyquinoline.\n(3)\nFor 8-hydroxyquinoline no complete dossier was submitted within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, Commission Decision 2006/797/EC of 22 November 2006 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (6) was adopted on the non-inclusion of 8-hydroxyquinoline.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the regular procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 3 to 12 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to Spain, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. That application complies with the substantive and procedural requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nSpain evaluated the information submitted and prepared a draft assessment report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 3 August 2009. The Authority communicated the draft assessment report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments received to the Commission. The Authority also made the draft assessment report available to the public. In accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on the risk assessment of 8-hydroxyquinoline to the Commission on 17 December 2010 (7). The draft assessment report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 15 July 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for 8-hydroxyquinoline.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing 8-hydroxyquinoline may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve 8-hydroxyquinoline in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that 8-hydroxyquinoline should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(10)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (8) should be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance 8-hydroxyquinoline, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 October 2011.", "references": ["42", "68", "80", "85", "63", "46", "74", "12", "60", "32", "62", "22", "35", "23", "77", "50", "36", "66", "49", "19", "78", "14", "83", "39", "13", "48", "29", "75", "79", "15", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 478/2012\nof 4 June 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for megrims in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 June 2012.", "references": ["77", "69", "4", "90", "87", "60", "98", "39", "24", "5", "52", "41", "29", "75", "63", "64", "51", "15", "6", "37", "9", "27", "55", "35", "53", "1", "71", "89", "33", "62", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 890/2011\nof 5 September 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 861/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 September 2011.", "references": ["38", "85", "21", "15", "36", "93", "5", "20", "8", "58", "77", "42", "98", "34", "73", "44", "54", "48", "24", "7", "30", "57", "91", "11", "53", "99", "32", "60", "4", "19", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 December 2011\nestablishing harmonised efficiency reference values for separate production of electricity and heat in application of Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Decision 2007/74/EC\n(notified under document C(2011) 9523)\n(2011/877/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market and amending Directive 92/42/EEC (1), and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Directive 2004/8/EC the Commission established in Decision 2007/74/EC (2) harmonised efficiency reference values for separate production of electricity and heat, consisting of a matrix of values differentiated by relevant factors, including year of construction and types of fuel.\n(2)\nThe Commission is to review the harmonised efficiency reference values for separate production of electricity and heat for the first time on 21 February 2011 and every four years thereafter, to take account of technological developments and changes in the distribution of energy sources.\n(3)\nThe Commission has reviewed the harmonised efficiency reference values for separate production of electricity and heat, taking into account data from operational use under realistic conditions, provided by the Member States. Developments in the best available and economically justifiable technology which took place during the period 2006-2011 which was covered by the review, indicate that for the harmonised efficiency reference values for separate production of electricity, the distinction drawn in Decision 2007/74/EC relating to the year of construction of a cogeneration unit should not be maintained for plants that were constructed from 1 January 2006 onwards. However for cogeneration units built in 2005 or before the reference values should continue to be applied reflecting the year of construction, in order to take into account the observed developments in the best available and economically justifiable technology. Furthermore, on the basis of recent experience and analysis, the review confirmed that correction factors relating to the climatic situation should continue to be applied. In addition, the correction factors for avoided grid losses should also continue to be applied as grid losses have not changed in recent years. Additionally, the correction factors for avoided grid losses should also apply to plants that use wood fuels and biogas.\n(4)\nThe review has not produced evidence to indicate that the energy efficiency of boilers has changed in the period considered, and therefore the harmonised efficiency reference values for the separate production of heat should not relate to the year of construction. No correction factors relating to the climatic situation were required because the thermodynamics of generating heat from fuel do not depend significantly on the ambient temperature. In addition correction factors for heat grid losses are not required as heat is always used near the site of production.\n(5)\nStable conditions for investment in cogeneration and continued investor confidence are needed. From this perspective, it is also appropriate to extend the current harmonised reference values for electricity and heat to the period 2012-2015.\n(6)\nData from operational use under realistic conditions do not demonstrate a statistically significant improvement of the actual performance of state-of-the-art plants in the period under review. Therefore the reference values established for the period 2006-2011 in Decision 2007/74/EC should be maintained for the period 2012-2015.\n(7)\nThe review confirmed the validity of the existing correction factors relating to the climatic situation and to avoided grid losses.\n(8)\nThe use of a single set of reference values for the entire period and the waiving of correction factors for climatic differences and grid losses were also confirmed for heat generation.\n(9)\nTaking into consideration that the main aim of Directive 2004/8/EC is to promote cogeneration in order to save energy, an incentive for retrofitting older cogeneration units should be given in order to improve their energy efficiency. For these reasons the efficiency reference values for electricity applicable to a cogeneration unit should become higher from the 11th year after the year of its construction.\n(10)\nThis approach is consistent with the requirement for the harmonised efficiency reference values to be based on the principles mentioned in Annex III, point (f) of Directive 2004/8/EC.\n(11)\nRevised harmonised efficiency reference values for separate production of electricity and heat should be established. Decision 2007/74/EC should, therefore, be repealed.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Cogeneration Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEstablishment of the harmonised efficiency reference values\nThe harmonised efficiency reference values for separate production of electricity and heat shall be as set out in Annex I and Annex II respectively.\nArticle 2\nApplication of the harmonised efficiency reference values\n1. Member States shall apply the harmonised efficiency reference values set out in Annex I relating to the year of construction of a cogeneration unit. These harmonised efficiency reference values shall apply for 10 years from the year of construction of a cogeneration unit.\n2. From the 11th year following the year of construction of a cogeneration unit, Member States shall apply the harmonised efficiency reference values which by virtue of paragraph 1 apply to a cogeneration unit of 10 years of age. These harmonised efficiency reference values shall apply for one year.\n3. For the purpose of this Article the year of construction of a cogeneration unit shall mean the calendar year of the first electricity production.\nArticle 3\nCorrection factors for the harmonised efficiency reference values for separate production of electricity\n1. Member States shall apply the correction factors set out in Annex III, point (a) in order to adapt the harmonised efficiency reference values set out in Annex I to the average climatic situation in each Member State.\nIf on the territory of a Member State official meteorological data show differences in the annual ambient temperature of 5 \u00b0C or more, that Member State may, subject to notification to the Commission, use several climate zones for the purpose of the first subparagraph using the method set out in Annex III, point (b).\n2. Member States shall apply the correction factors set out in Annex IV in order to adapt the harmonised efficiency reference values set out in Annex I to avoided grid losses.\n3. Where Member States apply both the correction factors set out in Annex III, point (a) and those set out in Annex IV, they shall apply Annex III, point (a) before applying Annex IV.\nArticle 4\nRetrofitting of a cogeneration unit\nIf an existing cogeneration unit is retrofitted and the investment cost for the retrofitting exceeds 50 % of the investment cost for a new comparable cogeneration unit, the calendar year of first electricity production of the retrofitted cogeneration unit shall be considered as its year of construction for the purpose of Article 2.\nArticle 5\nFuel mix\nIf the cogeneration unit is operated with more than one fuel the harmonised efficiency reference values for separate production shall be applied proportionally to the weighted mean of the energy input of the various fuels.\nArticle 6\nRepeal\nDecision 2007/74/EC shall be repealed.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["39", "27", "80", "6", "3", "46", "44", "34", "19", "23", "85", "28", "35", "62", "91", "56", "94", "14", "5", "18", "2", "75", "65", "70", "77", "98", "99", "74", "96", "8", "No Label", "78", "81"], "gold": ["78", "81"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/87/EU\nof 3 December 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include fenbuconazole as active substance and amending Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included fenbuconazole.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the applicant withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of fenbuconazole.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter the applicant) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Article 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe United Kingdom evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 20 July 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on fenbuconazole to the Commission on 18 March 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 October 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for fenbuconazole.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing fenbuconazole may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include fenbuconazole in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit confirmatory data on residues of triazole derivative metabolites (TDMs) in primary crops, rotational crops and products of animal origin. To further refine the assessment of potential endocrine disrupting properties, it is appropriate to require that fenbuconazole be subjected to further testing as soon as OECD test guidelines on endocrine disruption, or, alternatively, Community agreed test guidelines exist.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing fenbuconazole to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nCommission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances provides for the non-inclusion of fenbuconazole and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning fenbuconazole in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning fenbuconazole in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31 October 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 November 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing fenbuconazole as an active substance by 1 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to fenbuconazole are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing fenbuconazole as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 30 April 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning fenbuconazole. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing fenbuconazole as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 April 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing fenbuconazole as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 April 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 May 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 December 2010.", "references": ["80", "73", "12", "44", "69", "83", "95", "70", "66", "13", "33", "24", "71", "60", "75", "0", "1", "4", "36", "48", "3", "46", "64", "19", "94", "98", "62", "67", "76", "43", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "41", "65"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "41", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 12 January 2011\namending Decision 2007/134/EC establishing the European Research Council\n(2011/12/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (1) and in particular Articles 2 and 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2006/972/EC of 19 December 2006 concerning the Specific Programme: \u2018Ideas\u2019 implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (2) and in particular Article 4(2) and (3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Research Council (ERC) was established by Commission Decision 2007/134/EC (3).\n(2)\nAccording to the Specific Programme \u2018Ideas\u2019, an independent review was carried out of the ERC\u2019s structures and mechanisms, against the criteria of scientific excellence, autonomy, efficiency and transparency and with the full involvement of the Scientific Council. The Review Panel suggested a number of adjustments in order to ensure a more effective European Research Council and a coherent presentation of the ERC\u2019s activities to stakeholders.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the review and the ambition to make the ERC fully sustainable, the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: \u2018The European Research Council - meeting the challenge of world class excellence\u2019 (4), sets out the aims for the second phase of the ERC\u2019s development. It includes a number of specific actions to improve the ERC\u2019s operations to ensure the effective and efficient implementation of the \u2018Ideas\u2019 Specific Programme.\n(4)\nIn accordance with that Communication, it is necessary to ensure a single clear and transparent vision and seamless liaison between the ERC\u2019s strategy and operational implementation, reflecting the activities of both the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA), established by Commission Decision 2008/37/EC (5) and the Scientific Council, and to develop and implement a coherent and integrated communication strategy.\n(5)\nIn order to recognise the personal commitment of the members of the Scientific Council, and especially the Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons, it is appropriate to introduce an honorarium for their attendance at the Scientific Council plenary meetings. The honorarium should reflect their responsibilities and be benchmarked against similar provisions in similar entities and Member States. It is also appropriate to provide for the financing of a standing Identification Committee for the identification of future Scientific Council members.\n(6)\nIt is necessary to continue the arrangements for the local support to the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairpersons of the Scientific Council, using the \u2018Coordination and Support Action\u2019 grant funding scheme of the Seventh Framework Programme.\n(7)\nThe term of office of the founding members of the Scientific Council expires on 1 February 2011 and there is a need for the staged renewal of the Scientific Council, as provided for in Article 4(6) of Decision 2007/134/EC. The identification of new members was carried out by means of an independent Identification Committee and in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(4) of Decision 2007/134/EC, including a report to Parliament and Council. This Committee made recommendations for the staged renewal of the Scientific Council and these recommendations have been accepted.\n(8)\nDecision 2007/134/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2007/134/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nEstablishment\nThe European Research Council is hereby established for the period from 2 February 2007 to 31 December 2013 for the implementation of the Specific Programme \u201cIdeas\u201d. It shall be composed of a Scientific Council and the European Research Council Executive Agency as established by Commission Decision 2008/37/EC (6).\n2.\nIn Article 3 the following paragraph 3 is added:\n\u20183. The Scientific Council shall cooperate with the European Research Council Executive Agency to ensure coherent and efficient implementation of the Specific Programme \u201cIdeas\u201d and close alignment of the scientific and administrative aspects of the ERC\u2019s operations. That cooperation shall include a coherent communication of the ERC\u2019s activities and the setting up of a common website covering the different aspects of the ERC\u2019s operations.\u2019\n3.\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Future members shall be appointed by the Commission based on the factors and criteria set out in Annex I and following an independent and transparent procedure for their identification, agreed with the Scientific Council, including a consultation of the scientific community and a report to the European Parliament and the Council. The appointment of future members shall be published in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. For this purpose, a high level standing Identification Committee of independent experts may be set up as an expert group with honoraria paid under the operational budget of the Specific Programme \u201cIdeas\u201d.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 9 is deleted.\n4.\nArticle 5 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Scientific Council shall be accountable to the Commission, maintain continuous close liaison with it and the European Research Council Executive Agency, and establish any necessary arrangements for this.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. The Commission shall provide information and assistance necessary for the work of the Scientific Council allowing it to operate under conditions of autonomy and independence. A Coordination and Support Action as referred to in Annex III to Decision No 1982/2006/EC may be used to provide local administrative or advisory support to the Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons of the Scientific Council.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraph 8 is added:\n\u20188. The Scientific Council is provided access to documents and data in possession of the European Research Council Executive Agency in accordance with the procedure set out in Annex III.\u2019\n5.\nArticle 6 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Scientific Council shall adopt its rules of procedure which shall include detailed provisions for the elections referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, as well as a code of conduct on confidentiality, potential conflict of interest, and processing of personal data in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\n4. The Scientific Council shall meet in plenary up to five times a year as required by its work. A summary minute of the plenary meetings shall be published on the ERC website.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph 6 is added:\n\u20186. The Scientific Council may set up, from amongst its members, Standing Committees, Working Groups and other structures addressing specific tasks of the Scientific Council.\u2019\n6.\nArticle 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8\nHonoraria and meeting expenses\n1. The Scientific Council members shall be compensated for the tasks they perform by means of an honorarium for their attendance at Scientific Council plenary meetings. The honoraria and travel and subsistence expenses shall be charged to the operational budget allocated to the Specific Programme \u201cIdeas\u201d. The honoraria and related implementation rules are set out in Annex IV.\n2. For other meetings than plenary meetings, the European Research Council Executive Agency shall reimburse travel expenses and, where appropriate, subsistence expenses of the members of the Scientific Council necessary for carrying out their activities, in accordance with the Commission\u2019s rules on the compensation of external experts (7). Subject to prior approval of the European Research Council Executive Agency, travel and subsistence expenses related to such other meetings, necessary for the conduct of the Scientific Council\u2019s work may be also covered.\n7.\nAnnex II is replaced as set out in the Annex to this Decision.\n8.\nAnnexes III and IV, as set out in the Annex to this Decision, are added.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 January 2011.", "references": ["25", "63", "78", "69", "64", "18", "41", "7", "21", "45", "30", "3", "65", "26", "22", "67", "68", "34", "0", "56", "54", "44", "27", "85", "24", "58", "71", "2", "37", "47", "No Label", "9", "76", "77"], "gold": ["9", "76", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 982/2010\nof 29 October 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 November 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 November 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 November 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 October 2010.", "references": ["73", "69", "47", "29", "7", "91", "58", "64", "53", "42", "9", "43", "89", "67", "34", "50", "24", "87", "12", "61", "27", "2", "63", "79", "11", "44", "13", "35", "57", "55", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 415/2010\nof 12 May 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Tettnanger Hopfen (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Tettnanger Hopfen\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2010.", "references": ["34", "21", "44", "15", "84", "42", "14", "85", "23", "6", "56", "74", "51", "30", "35", "75", "69", "80", "90", "98", "18", "39", "65", "33", "20", "40", "59", "77", "13", "76", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "71", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "71", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 May 2011\namending Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU on granting Union financial assistance to Ireland\n(2011/326/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUpon a request by Ireland, the Council granted it financial assistance (Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU (2)) in support of a strong economic and financial reform programme aiming at restoring confidence, enabling the return of the economy to sustainable growth, and safeguarding financial stability in Ireland, the euro area and the Union.\n(2)\nIn line with Article 3(9) of Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU, the Commission, together with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and in liaison with the European Central Bank (ECB), has conducted the first review of the authorities\u2019 progress on the implementation of the agreed measures as well as of the effectiveness and economic and social impact of those measures.\n(3)\nUnder the Commission\u2019s current projections for nominal GDP growth (- 3,6 % in 2010, 1,3 % in 2011, 2,8 % in 2012 and 4,0 % in 2013), the fiscal adjustment path is broadly in line with the Council Recommendation of 7 December 2010 with a view to bringing to an end the situation of an excessive deficit in Ireland, pursuant to Article 126(7) of the Treaty, and is consistent with a path for the debt-to-GDP ratio of 96,2 % in 2010, 112,0 % in 2011, 117,9 % in 2012 and 120,3 % in 2013. The debt-to-GDP ratio would therefore be stabilised in 2013 and be placed on a declining path thereafter, assuming further progress in the reduction of the deficit. Debt dynamics are affected by several below-the-line operations, including capital injection into banks in 2011 with net debt-increasing effect of around 6 percentage points of GDP, an assumption to maintain high cash reserves, and differences between accrued and cash interest payments.\n(4)\nThe recapitalisation of Allied Irish Bank, Bank of Ireland, and EBS Building Society to a 12 % core tier 1 capital ratio (based on the 2010 Prudential Capital Assessment Review (PCAR)), which was to be done by February 2011, was postponed by the outgoing government due to the impending general elections.\n(5)\nOn 31 March 2011, the Central Bank of Ireland announced the results of the PCAR and the Prudential Liquidity Assessment Review (PLAR). On the basis of these assessments, the four participating domestic banks (Allied Irish Bank, Bank of Ireland, EBS Building Society and Irish Life & Permanent) were found to need a total of EUR 24 billion in additional capital, including contingent capital of EUR 3 billion, to remain adequately capitalised under a stress scenario.\n(6)\nOn 31 March 2011 the new government, which was formed following the elections held on 25 February 2011, announced its strategy to strengthen and reform the domestic banks, including by ensuring that the capitalisation need identified by the PCAR/PLAR exercise be met. This would bring domestic banks\u2019 core tier 1 capital ratio by end July 2011 (subject to appropriate adjustment for expected asset sales in the case of Irish Life & Permanent) well above the level that had been envisaged to be reached by February 2011.\n(7)\nThe Central Bank of Ireland should require Allied Irish Bank, Bank of Ireland, EBS Building Society and Irish Life & Permanent to meet a target loan-to-deposit ratio (LDR) of 122,5 % by end-2013, while avoiding the fire sale of assets. In addition, the Irish authorities should closely monitor the evolution of the Net Stable Funding ratio and the Liquidity Coverage ratio of the banks so as to ensure convergence with the standards emerging within the Basel III framework. The authorities should ensure that targets are achieved by establishing a credible framework for monitoring progress based on interim targets and appropriately incentivised governance arrangements within the banks.\n(8)\nUpon taking office, the new government launched a comprehensive review of expenditure to identify efficiency savings and to closely align the priorities underpinning the fiscal consolidation to those for national recovery set out in the Programme for Government (2011-2016) announced on 7 March 2011.\n(9)\nIn light of these developments, Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 3 of Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin paragraph 5, point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\ntake action to ensure that domestic banks are adequately capitalised in the form of equity, if needed, so as to ensure that they respect the minimum regulatory requirement of a 10,5 % core tier 1 capital ratio for the entire duration of the EU financial assistance programme, while deleveraging towards the target loan-to-deposits ratio of 122,5 % by end-2013;\u2019;\n(2)\nparagraph 7 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (b) the following sentence is added:\n\u2018In consultation with the Commission, the IMF and the ECB, Ireland may introduce budgetary changes to the above specified measures to fully realise efficiencies that are to be identified by the ongoing Comprehensive Review of Expenditure and the priorities of the Programme for Government, consistent with the overall objective of ensuring that the budget for 2012 yields a fiscal consolidation of at least EUR 3,6 billion;\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nthe adoption of measures reinforcing a credible budgetary strategy and strengthening the budgetary framework. Ireland shall adopt and implement the fiscal rule that any additional unplanned revenues in 2011-2015 will be allocated to deficit and debt reduction. Ireland shall establish a fiscal advisory council to provide an independent assessment of the government\u2019s budgetary position and forecasts. Ireland shall adopt a fiscal responsibility law introducing a medium-term expenditure framework with binding multi-annual ceilings on expenditure in each area. This shall be made taking into account any revised economic governance reforms at Union level and build on reforms already in place;\u2019;\n(c)\npoint (g) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(g)\nthe recapitalisation of the domestic banks by end July 2011 (subject to appropriate adjustment for expected asset sales in the case of Irish Life & Permanent) in line with the findings of the 2011 PLAR and PCAR, as announced by the Central Bank of Ireland on 31 March 2011;\u2019;\n(d)\npoint (l) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(l)\nenhancing competition in open markets. To this end, legislation shall be reformed to generate more credible deterrence by ensuring the availability of effective sanctions for infringements of Irish competition law and Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty as well as ensuring the effective functioning of the Competition Authority. In addition, for the duration of the programme, the authorities will ensure that no further exemptions to the competition law framework will be granted unless they are entirely consistent with the goals of the Union financial assistance programme and the needs of the economy;\u2019;\n(e)\nthe following points are added:\n\u2018(n)\nthe deleveraging of the domestic banks towards the target for loan-to-deposit ratios established under the 2011 PLAR;\n(o)\nthe preparation of a plan to underpin the solvency and viability of undercapitalised institutions in the credit union sector, including by granting the Central Bank of Ireland the necessary powers to promote a higher degree of consolidation of the sector through mergers where appropriate, with government financial support if warranted;\n(p)\nthe submission of legislation to the Oireachtas to assist the credit unions with a strengthened regulatory framework including more effective governance and regulatory requirements.\u2019;\n(3)\nparagraph 8 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (a), the following sentence is added:\n\u2018In consultation with the European Commission, the IMF and the ECB, Ireland may introduce budgetary changes to the above specified measures to fully realise efficiencies that are to be identified by the ongoing Comprehensive Review of Expenditure and the priorities of the Programme for Government, consistent with the overall objective to ensure that the budget for 2013 yields a fiscal consolidation of at least EUR 3,1 billion;\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following point is added:\n\u2018(c)\nthe deleveraging of the domestic banks towards the loan-to-deposit ratio targets established under the 2011 PLAR.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to Ireland.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 30 May 2011.", "references": ["89", "43", "99", "65", "2", "38", "42", "79", "85", "49", "98", "37", "11", "39", "29", "10", "88", "72", "8", "28", "67", "20", "53", "23", "50", "1", "6", "27", "14", "55", "No Label", "15", "16", "19", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "16", "19", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 240/2011\nof 11 March 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Fagioli Bianchi di Rotonda (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Fagioli Bianchi di Rotonda\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 March 2011.", "references": ["53", "16", "37", "51", "4", "67", "82", "11", "59", "19", "42", "90", "88", "71", "35", "43", "46", "28", "83", "63", "77", "44", "39", "64", "18", "12", "84", "55", "47", "72", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 1080/2011/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 25 October 2011\ngranting an EU guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Union and repealing Decision No 633/2009/EC\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 209 and 212 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn addition to its core mission of financing investment in the European Union, the European Investment Bank (EIB) has since 1963 undertaken financing operations outside the Union in support of the Union\u2019s external policies. This allows the budget funds of the Union available to the external regions to be complemented by the financial strength of the EIB for the benefit of recipient countries. In undertaking such financing operations, the EIB contributes to the general guiding principles and policy objectives of the Union, including the development of third countries and the prosperity of the Union in the changed global economic circumstances. The EIB financing operations in support of Union external policies should continue to be conducted in accordance with the principles of sound banking practice.\n(2)\nArticle 209(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in conjunction with Article 208 thereof, provides that the EIB is to contribute, under the terms laid down in its Statute, to the implementation of the measures necessary to further the objectives of Union development cooperation policy.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 19 of the Statute of the EIB, applications made directly to the EIB for EIB financing operations to be carried out under this Decision are to be submitted to the Commission for an opinion (\u2018EIB financing application\u2019).\n(4)\nWith a view to supporting Union external action, and in order to enable the EIB to finance investments outside the Union without affecting the credit standing of the EIB, the majority of its operations in external regions have benefited from an EU budgetary guarantee (\u2018EU guarantee\u2019) administered by the Commission.\n(5)\nThe EU guarantee was established for the period 2007-2011 by Decision No 633/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 granting a Community Guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Community (2).\n(6)\nThe Guarantee Fund for external actions (\u2018Guarantee Fund\u2019), established by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 480/2009 of 25 May 2009 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (3), provides a liquidity cushion for the Union budget against losses incurred on EIB financing operations and other Union external action.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Decision No 633/2009/EC, the Commission and the EIB have prepared a mid-term review of EIB external financing, based on an independent external evaluation supervised by a steering committee of \u2018wise persons\u2019, a review by an external consultancy, and specific evaluations produced by the EIB. On 12 February 2010, the steering committee submitted a report to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the EIB containing its conclusions and recommendations.\n(8)\nIn its report the steering committee concluded that the EU guarantee is an efficient and powerful policy instrument with high financial and political leverage and that it should be maintained in order to cover risks of a political or sovereign nature. Some amendments to Decision No 633/2009/EC were proposed in order to ensure maximum added value and efficiency of the EIB\u2019s external operations.\n(9)\nIt is essential to establish a list of countries potentially eligible for EIB financing under the EU guarantee. It is also appropriate to extend the list of countries eligible for EIB financing under the EU guarantee, as currently set out in Annex I to Decision No 633/2009/EC.\n(10)\nIn order to reflect significant policy developments, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending Annex III to this Decision. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(11)\nThe amounts covered by the EU guarantee in each region should continue to represent ceilings for the EIB financing under the EU guarantee and not targets that the EIB is required to meet.\n(12)\nIn the framework of Union support to third countries to cope with the global economic and financial crisis, the EIB frontloaded its external lending activity in 2009 and 2010 mainly in the pre-accession and the neighbourhood and partnership countries under its current mandate. Moreover, the unrest in the southern Mediterranean in early 2011 calls for Union assistance in providing the affected countries with the means to rebuild and modernise their economies. Therefore, for the remaining period of the mandate, the General Mandate ceiling should be reviewed and increased by EUR 1 684 000 000 to better deal with these temporary and exceptional circumstances without prejudging the ceilings under the next multiannual financial framework.\n(13)\nThe EIB financing operations ensuing from the abovementioned increase in the General Mandate ceiling should respond to the political reforms undertaken by individual partner countries as assessed by the Commission with the involvement of the European External Action Service (EEAS) taking into account European Parliament resolutions and Council decisions and conclusions. The review of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the renewed emphasis on differentiation should also be reflected in that assessment. In pre-accession countries, the EIB financing will continue to complement Union assistance.\n(14)\nIn addition to the regional ceilings, the optional mandate of EUR 2 000 000 000 should be activated and allocated as an envelope to support EIB financing operations in the field of climate change mitigation and adaptation across the regions covered by the mandate. The EIB could contribute its expertise and resources, in close cooperation with the Commission, to support public authorities as well as the private sector in order to address the challenge of climate change and to make the best possible use of available financing. For mitigation and adaptation projects, the resources of the EIB should, where possible and appropriate, be complemented with concessional funds available under the Union budget through the efficient and consistent blending of grants and loans for climate change financing in the context of Union external assistance. In this regard, it is appropriate that the Commission\u2019s annual report to the European Parliament and the Council should contain a detailed report on the financial instruments used for financing these projects, identifying the amounts of EIB financing under the optional mandate and the corresponding amounts of grants.\n(15)\nEligibility to receive EIB financing for climate-change mitigation under the EU guarantee could be restricted under the Climate Change Mandate for countries that are deemed not to have committed themselves to meeting appropriate climate change-related targets. Any such restriction of eligibility should be based on complex and comprehensive political assessments. Therefore, the Council should have the power to decide, on a proposal from the Commission with the involvement of the EEAS, to restrict the eligibility of a country to receive EIB financing for climate-change mitigation under the EU guarantee. Such restriction should apply only to EIB financing operations for which an EIB financing application is submitted after the entry into force of this Decision and which are signed after 1 January 2012.\n(16)\nSome flexibility on regional allocation under the Climate Change Mandate should be provided to allow for the fastest and most effective possible uptake of available financing within the three-year period 2011-2013, while striving to ensure a balanced distribution across regions over that period, based on the established priorities for external aid under the General Mandate.\n(17)\nThe mid-term review of the implementation of the EIB external mandate showed that, although the EIB financing operations carried out in the period covered by the evaluation (2000-2009) were generally in line with Union external policies, the link between Union policy objectives and their operational implementation by the EIB should be strengthened and made more explicit and structured.\n(18)\nIn order to enhance the coherence of the mandate and strengthen the focus of the EIB external financing activity on supporting Union policies, and for the maximum benefit of beneficiaries, this Decision should set out horizontal high-level objectives in the mandate for EIB financing operations across all eligible regions and countries, building on the comparative strengths of the EIB in areas where it has a well-proven track record. In the regions covered by this Decision, the EIB should thus finance projects in the areas of climate change mitigation and adaptation (including via the transfer of technologies related to new energy sources), social and economic infrastructure (in particular, in transport, energy including renewable energy, energy security, energy infrastructure, environmental infrastructure including water and sanitation, as well as information and communication technology), and local private sector development, in particular in support of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It should be recalled that improving access to financing for SMEs can play an essential role in stimulating economic development and in combating unemployment. Within these areas, regional integration among partner countries, including economic integration between pre-accession countries, neighbourhood countries and the Union, should be an underlying objective for EIB financing operations. The EIB should be able to support Union presence in partner countries through foreign direct investment that contributes to promoting technology and knowledge transfer either under the EU guarantee for investments within the aforementioned areas or at its own risk.\n(19)\nIn order to effectively reach out to SMEs, the EIB should cooperate with local financial intermediary institutions in the eligible countries, in particular to ensure that part of the financial benefits is passed on to their clients and provide added value compared to other sources of finance. Where appropriate, through its cooperation agreements with those intermediary institutions, the EIB should request that their clients\u2019 projects be checked against agreed criteria in line with Union development goals so as to provide added value. The financial intermediaries\u2019 activities in support of SMEs should be fully transparent and be reported regularly to the EIB.\n(20)\nMoreover, EIB financing operations should contribute to the general principles guiding Union external action, as referred to in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), of promoting and consolidating democracy and the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to the implementation of international environmental agreements to which the Union is a party. In particular, in relation to developing countries, as defined in the list of official development assistance (ODA) recipients established by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), EIB financing operations should foster the following: their sustainable economic, social and environmental development, particularly in the most disadvantaged amongst them; their smooth and gradual integration into the world economy; the campaign against poverty; as well as compliance with objectives approved by the Union in the context of the United Nations and other competent international organisations.\n(21)\nWhile the EIB\u2019s strength remains its distinctiveness as an investment bank, the EIB should, under this Decision, frame the development impact of its external operations in close coordination with the Commission and under the democratic scrutiny of the European Parliament following the principles of the European Consensus on Development and those set out in Article 208 TFEU, as well as the principles of aid effectiveness outlined in the Paris Declaration of 2005 and the Accra Agenda for Action of 2008. This should be implemented through a number of concrete measures, in particular by reinforcing its capacity to appraise environmental, social and development aspects of projects, including human rights and conflict-related risks, and by promoting local consultation with public authorities and civil society. When carrying out due diligence in respect of the project, the EIB should, where appropriate and in line with the Union\u2019s social and environmental principles, require the project promoter to carry out local consultations and disclose their results to the public. Moreover, the EIB should increase its focus on sectors where it has sound expertise from financing operations within the Union and which will further the development of the country in question, such as access to financing for SMEs and micro-entities, environmental infrastructure including water and sanitation, sustainable transportation, and climate change mitigation, particularly in renewable energy. Financing could also include projects in support of health and education infrastructure when there is clear added value.\n(22)\nThe EIB should also progressively strengthen its activity in support of climate change adaptation, where appropriate working in cooperation with other international financial institutions (IFIs) and European bilateral financial institutions (EBFIs). The additional requirements introduced by this Decision would require access to concessional resources and a gradual adjustment in human resources while efficiency, effectiveness and synergies should be pursued and exploited. EIB activity should also be complementary to Union objectives and priorities relating to institution building and sector reforms. Finally, the EIB should define performance indicators which are linked to development and environment aspects of the projects and their results.\n(23)\nWith the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the function of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (\u2018High Representative\u2019) has been created with the aim of increasing the impact and coherence of Union external relations.\n(24)\nThere has also been a broadening and strengthening of Union external relations policies in recent years. This has in particular been the case for the Pre-Accession Strategy, the European Neighbourhood Policy, the Union Strategy for Central Asia, the renewed partnerships with Latin America and south-east Asia, and the Union\u2019s Strategic Partnerships with Russia, China and India. It is also the case for Union development cooperation policies, which have now been extended to include all developing countries. Since 2007, Union external relations have also been supported by new financial instruments, namely the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) and the Instrument for Stability.\n(25)\nIn light of the establishment of the EEAS and following the entry into force of this Decision, the Commission and the EIB should amend the memorandum of understanding on cooperation and coordination in the regions referred to in Council Decision 2006/1016/EC of 19 December 2006 granting a Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Community (4), and, as appropriate and with the approval of the High Representative, extend the new memorandum of understanding to the EEAS, in particular as regards the regular and systematic dialogue between the Commission and the EIB at the strategic level, which should include the EEAS, and other aspects within the competence of the EEAS.\n(26)\nWhile contributing to the implementation of the measures necessary to further the objectives of Union development cooperation policy in accordance with Article 209(3) TFEU, the EIB should strive to support indirectly the achievement of the 2015 Millennium Development Goals in all regions where it is active.\n(27)\nWith a view to enhancing the coherence of overall Union support in the regions concerned, opportunities should be seized to combine EIB financing with Union budgetary resources when and as appropriate, in the form of, for example, guarantees, risk capital and interest rate subsidies, investment co-financing, alongside technical assistance for project preparation and implementation, through the IPA, the ENPI, the DCI, the EIDHR and the Instrument for Stability. Whenever such a combination of EIB financing with other Union budgetary resources occurs, all financing decisions should clearly identify the resources to be employed. The Commission\u2019s annual report to the European Parliament and to the Council on EIB financing operations carried out under this Decision should contain a detailed breakdown of the budgetary resources and financial instruments used in combination with the EIB financing.\n(28)\nAt all levels, from upstream strategic planning to downstream project development, it should be ensured that EIB external financing operations comply with and support Union external policies and the high-level objectives set out in this Decision. With a view to increasing the coherence of Union external action, dialogue on policy and strategy should be further strengthened between the Commission, the EEAS and the EIB. To the same end, there should be enhanced cooperation and early mutual exchange of information between the Commission, the EEAS and the EIB at operational level. EIB offices outside the Union should primarily be located within Union delegations in order to foster such cooperation while sharing operating costs. It is of particular importance to have an early exchange of views between the Commission, the EEAS and the EIB, as appropriate, in the process of preparing programming documents in order to maximise synergies between the activities of these three Union bodies.\n(29)\nThe practical measures for linking the General Mandate objectives and their implementation are to be set out in regional technical operational guidelines. Such guidelines should be consistent with the wider Union regional policy framework set out in this Decision. These guidelines should reflect Union country strategies and aim to ensure that EIB financing is complementary to corresponding Union assistance policies, programmes and instruments in the different regions.\n(30)\nThe EIB should, in consultation with the Commission, prepare an indicative multiannual programme of the planned volume of signatures of EIB financing operations, so as to ensure appropriate budgetary planning for provisioning the Guarantee Fund and to ensure compatibility of the EIB\u2019s forecast financing with the ceilings established in this Decision. The Commission should take account of this forecast in its regular budget programming transmitted to the budgetary authority.\n(31)\nThe development of a Union platform for cooperation and development should be studied with a view to optimising the functioning of mechanisms for the blending of grants and loans in the external regions. For this purpose, the Commission should create a group of experts of Member States, the EEAS and the EIB which would assess the costs and benefits of such a platform. In its reflections, that group should consult other relevant actors, including European multilateral and bilateral finance institutions. Such a platform would continue to promote synergies and mutual reliance arrangements based on the comparative advantage of the different institutions while respecting the role and prerogatives of the Commission and of the EIB in implementing respectively the Union budget and EIB loans. Based on the findings of that group of experts, the Commission should report to the European Parliament and to the Council by mid-2012 and, if appropriate, make a proposal for the platform.\n(32)\nThe EIB should be encouraged to increase its operations and to diversify its financial instruments outside the Union without recourse to the EU guarantee so that use of the guarantee can be encouraged for countries and projects with poor access to the market, taking into account debt sustainability considerations, and where the guarantee therefore provides greater added value. Consequently, and always with the aim of supporting the objectives of the Union external relations policy, the EIB, while taking into account its own risk absorption capacity, should be encouraged to increase the amounts it lends at its own risk, including through the support of Union economic interests, particularly in pre-accession countries and neighbourhood countries and in investment grade countries in other regions, but also in sub-investment grade countries when the EIB has the appropriate third party guarantees. In consultation with the Commission, the EIB should develop a policy for deciding between the allocation of projects to either the mandate under EU guarantee or to EIB own-risk financing. Such a policy would in particular take into account the creditworthiness of the countries and projects concerned.\n(33)\nThe EIB should consider increasing its financing operations to be carried out under this Decision for sub-sovereign public entities, where such operations have an appropriate EIB credit risk assessment.\n(34)\nThe EIB should expand the range of new and innovative financing instruments it offers, including by focusing more on developing guarantee instruments in so far as is possible, taking account of the EIB\u2019s risk policies. Moreover, the EIB should be encouraged to provide loans in local currencies and issue bonds in local markets, provided that partner countries put in place the necessary structural reforms, in particular in the financial sector, as well as other measures to facilitate EIB activities.\n(35)\nIn order to ensure that the EIB meets the requirements of the mandate across regions and sub-regions, sufficient human and financial resources should, over time, be allocated to its external activities. This should in particular include having sufficient capacity to support Union development cooperation objectives, to increase focus on ex-ante appraisal of the environmental, social and development aspects of its activities, and to effectively monitor projects during implementation. Opportunities to further enhance efficiency and effectiveness should be exploited, and synergies should be actively pursued.\n(36)\nIn its financing operations outside the Union that fall within the scope of this Decision, the EIB should endeavour further to enhance coordination and cooperation with IFIs and EBFIs, including, where appropriate, cooperation on sector conditionality and mutual reliance on procedures, use of joint co-financing and participation in global initiatives, such as those promoting aid coordination and effectiveness. Such coordination and cooperation should strive to minimise possible duplication of costs and unnecessary overlap. These efforts are to be based on reciprocity. The principles set out in this Decision should also be applied when EIB financing is implemented through cooperation agreements with other IFIs and EBFIs.\n(37)\nIn particular, in the countries of common intervention outside the Union, the EIB should improve its cooperation with the other European financial institutions through agreements such as the tripartite memorandum of understanding between the Commission, the EIB Group and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), in respect of cooperation outside the Union and through allowing the EIB Group and the EBRD to act in a complementary way by relying on their respective comparative advantages.\n(38)\nThe reporting and transmission of information by the EIB to the Commission should be strengthened in order to allow the Commission to enhance its annual report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the EIB financing operations carried out under this Decision. The additional reporting requirements mentioned in this recital should apply only to EIB financing operations for which the EIB financing application is submitted after the date of entry into force of this Decision and which are signed after 1 January 2012. The report should in particular assess the compliance of EIB financing operations with this Decision, taking into account the regional technical operational guidelines, and should include sections on the following: EIB added value, such as support to Union external policies; mandate requirements; the quality of financed operations; the transfer of financial benefits to clients; and sections on cooperation, including co-financing, with the Commission and with other IFIs and bilateral donors. The report should also assess the extent to which the EIB has taken into account economic, financial, environmental and social sustainability in the design and monitoring of the projects financed. It should also contain a specific section devoted to a detailed evaluation of the measures taken by the EIB to comply with the current mandate as established by Decision No 633/2009/EC, paying particular attention to the EIB financing operations using financial vehicles situated in non-cooperative jurisdictions. In its financing operations the EIB should adequately implement its policies towards weakly regulated or non-cooperative jurisdictions to contribute to the international fight against tax fraud and tax evasion. The report should also include an appraisal of social and development-related aspects of projects. It should be made public, thus allowing civil society and recipient countries to express their views. Where necessary, the report should include references to significant changes in circumstances that would justify further amendments to the mandate before the end thereof. The report should in particular include a breakdown of EIB financing under this Decision in combination with all Union financial resources and other donors, thus giving an overview of the financial exposure of financing operations.\n(39)\nEIB financing operations should continue to be managed in accordance with the EIB\u2019s own rules and procedures, including appropriate control measures and measures taken to avoid tax evasion, as well as with the relevant rules and procedures concerning the Court of Auditors and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).\n(40)\nWhen submitting the proposal on the EU guarantee under the next multiannual financial framework, the Commission should be invited in particular to examine, in close cooperation with the EIB and taking into account the implications of the provisioning of the Guarantee Fund, the ceilings covered by the EU guarantee, the list of potentially eligible countries and the possibility for the EIB to provide micro-credit financing and other types of instruments. The Commission and the EIB should also examine the possibilities of enhancing, in the future, synergy between the financing through the IPA, the ENPI, the DCI, the EIDHR and the Instrument for Stability and the external mandate of the EIB.\n(41)\nThis Decision should be without prejudice to any negotiations and decisions on the next multiannual financial framework.\n(42)\nTherefore, and for the reasons of legal certainty and clarity, Decision No 633/2009/EC should be repealed,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEU guarantee\n1. The European Union shall grant the European Investment Bank (EIB) an EU budgetary guarantee for financing operations carried out outside the Union (\u2018EU guarantee\u2019). The EU guarantee shall be granted as a global guarantee in respect of payments not received by the EIB, but due to it, in connection with loans and loan guarantees for EIB investment projects that are eligible in accordance with paragraph 2. EIB financing activities shall comply with the general guiding principles, and contribute to the achievement of the objectives and policies, of Union external action. An objective for EIB financing in developing countries, as defined in the list of official development assistance (ODA) recipients established by the OECD, shall be to contribute indirectly to development objectives such as reducing poverty through inclusive growth and sustainable economic and social development.\n2. The EIB loans and loan guarantees that are eligible for the EU guarantee shall be those granted for investment projects carried out in the countries listed in Annex III, granted in accordance with the EIB\u2019s own rules and procedures, including the EIB\u2019s statement on social and environmental standards, and in support of the relevant Union external policy objectives, where EIB financing has been granted in accordance with a signed agreement which has neither expired nor been cancelled (\u2018EIB financing operations\u2019).\n3. The EU guarantee shall be restricted to 65 % of the aggregate amount of credits disbursed and guarantees provided under EIB financing operations, less amounts reimbursed, plus all related amounts.\n4. The EU guarantee shall cover EIB financing operations signed during the period from 1 February 2007 to 31 December 2013. EIB financing operations signed under Council Decisions 2006/1016/EC and 2008/847/EC (5) and under Decision No 633/2009/EC shall continue to benefit from the EU guarantee under this Decision.\n5. If, on expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 4, the European Parliament and the Council have not adopted a decision granting a new EU guarantee to the EIB for its financing operations outside the Union in accordance with Article 16, that period shall be automatically extended by six months.\nArticle 2\nMandate ceilings\n1. The maximum ceiling of the EIB financing operations under EU guarantee throughout the period 2007-2013, less amounts cancelled, shall not exceed EUR 29 484 000 000, broken down into two parts:\n(a)\na General Mandate of EUR 27 484 000 000;\n(b)\na Climate Change Mandate of EUR 2 000 000 000.\n2. The General Mandate shall be broken down into regional ceilings and sub-ceilings as laid down in Annex I. Within the regional ceilings, the EIB shall progressively ensure a balanced country distribution within the regions covered by the General Mandate.\n3. The General Mandate shall cover only EIB financing operations pursuing the objectives set out in Article 3.\n4. The Climate Change Mandate shall cover the EIB financing operations in all countries covered by this Decision, where such operations support the key Union policy objective of tackling climate change by supporting projects in climate change mitigation and adaptation which contribute to the overall objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in particular by avoiding or reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the areas of renewable energy, energy efficiency and sustainable transport, or by increasing resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change on vulnerable countries, sectors and communities. The Climate Change Mandate shall be implemented in close cooperation with the Commission, combining where possible and appropriate EIB financing with Union budget funds.\nThe Council may, where appropriate and on a proposal from the Commission, decide to restrict the eligibility of a country to receive EIB financing for climate-change mitigation under the EU guarantee. Any such restriction of eligibility under the Climate Change Mandate shall apply only to those EIB financing operations for which an EIB financing application is submitted after 30 October 2011 and which are signed after 1 January 2012.\n5. For the Climate Change Mandate, the EIB shall endeavour to ensure a balanced distribution of financing operations signed across the regions covered by Annex III, by the end of the period referred to in Article 1(4). In particular, the EIB will ensure that the region referred to under point A of Annex III does not receive more than 40 % of the amount allocated to this Mandate; the region under point B not more than 50 %; the region under point C not more than 30 %; and the region under point D not more than 10 %. Generally, the Climate Change Mandate shall be used to finance projects that are closely related to the EIB\u2019s core competences, that add value and that maximise the effect on adaptation and mitigation of climate change.\n6. Both the General Mandate and the Climate Change Mandate shall be managed in accordance with the principles of sound banking practices.\nArticle 3\nGeneral Mandate objectives\n1. The EU guarantee shall be granted for EIB financing operations which support any of the following general objectives:\n(a)\nlocal private sector development, in particular support to SMEs;\n(b)\ndevelopment of social and economic infrastructure, including transport, energy, environmental infrastructure, and information and communication technology;\n(c)\nclimate change mitigation and adaptation, as referred to in Article 2(4).\n2. Within the core competences of the EIB, its financing operations carried out under this Decision shall contribute to the general principles guiding Union external action, as referred to in Article 21 TEU and shall contribute to the implementation of international environmental agreements to which the Union is a party.\n3. Regional integration among partner countries, including economic integration between pre-accession countries, neighbourhood countries and the Union, shall be an underlying objective for EIB financing operations within areas covered by the general objectives listed in paragraph 1.\n4. The EIB shall consider increasing its activity in support of health and education infrastructure when there is clear added value in doing so.\nArticle 4\nCountries covered\n1. The list of countries potentially eligible for EIB financing under EU guarantee is set out in Annex II. The list of countries eligible for EIB financing under EU guarantee is set out in Annex III and shall include no countries other than those listed in Annex II. For countries not listed in Annex II, eligibility for EIB financing under EU guarantee shall be decided on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.\n2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 5 concerning amendments to Annex III. The Commission\u2019s decisions shall be based on an overall economic and political assessment, including aspects related to the democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as the relevant European Parliament resolutions and Council decisions and conclusions. Delegated acts amending Annex III shall not affect the EU guarantee coverage of EIB financing operations signed before the entry into force of those delegated acts.\n3. The EU guarantee shall cover only EIB financing operations carried out in eligible countries that have concluded a framework agreement with the EIB establishing the legal conditions under which such operations are to be carried out.\n4. The EU guarantee shall not cover EIB financing operations in a specific country with which the agreement concerning such operations has been signed after that country\u2019s accession to the Union.\nArticle 5\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 4 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from 30 October 2011.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 4 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 4 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or by the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 6\nContribution of EIB financing operations to Union policies\n1. The Commission shall develop, together with the EIB, regional technical operational guidelines for EIB financing under this Decision.\nThe regional technical operational guidelines, aiming at ensuring that EIB financing operations support Union policies, shall be consistent with the wider Union regional policy framework set out in Annex IV. In particular the regional technical operational guidelines will ensure that EIB financing under this Decision is complementary to corresponding Union assistance policies, programmes and instruments in the different regions.\nIn drawing up these guidelines, the Commission and the EIB will consult with the EEAS on policy issues, as appropriate, and shall take into account relevant European Parliament resolutions and Council decisions and conclusions.\nThe Commission shall transmit to the European Parliament and to the Council the guidelines, and any update thereof, as soon as they are established.\nWithin the framework set out by the regional technical operational guidelines, the EIB shall define corresponding financing strategies and ensure their implementation.\n2. The consistency of EIB financing operations with Union external policy objectives shall be monitored in accordance with Article 11. The EIB shall develop performance indicators in relation to development, environmental and human rights aspects of projects funded taking into account the relevant indicators under the Paris Declaration for Aid Effectiveness, in order to facilitate such monitoring. Indicators for environmental aspects of projects should include criteria for \u2018clean technology\u2019 which are oriented in principle at energy efficiency and technologies for reducing emissions.\n3. An EIB financing operation shall not be covered by the EU guarantee in the event that the Commission delivers a negative opinion on such an operation within the framework of the procedure provided for in Article 19 of the Statute of the EIB.\n4. In line with Union and international climate change objectives, the EIB shall, in cooperation with the Commission, present by 31 December 2012 a strategy on how to gradually and steadily increase under its external mandate the percentage of projects promoting the reduction of CO2 emissions and phase out financing projects detrimental to the achievement of Union climate objectives.\n5. With a view to the additional requirements introduced by this Decision, the EIB governing bodies shall ensure that EIB resources, including staff, are gradually adjusted in order to adequately meet the requirements laid down in this Decision. Opportunities to further enhance efficiency and effectiveness should be exploited, and synergies should be actively pursued.\nArticle 7\nEIB assessment of development-related aspects of projects\n1. The EIB shall carry out thorough due diligence and, where appropriate and in line with Union social and environmental principles, require the presence of appropriate local public consultation, on development-related aspects of projects covered by the EU guarantee.\nThe EIB\u2019s own rules and procedures shall include the necessary provisions on assessment of environmental and social impact of projects and of aspects related to human rights to ensure that only projects that are economically, financially, environmentally and socially sustainable are supported under this Decision.\nThe Commission shall include on an aggregate basis in the annual report to the European Parliament and to the Council an assessment of the development dimension of the activities of the EIB, based on the due diligence carried out for projects.\nWhere appropriate, the appraisal shall include an assessment of how the capacities of the beneficiaries of EIB financing can be reinforced throughout the project cycle with technical assistance.\n2. In addition to the ex-ante assessment of development-related aspects, the EIB shall require the project promoters to carry out thorough monitoring during project implementation until completion, inter alia, on the development, environmental and human rights impact of the project. The EIB shall assess the information provided by the project promoters. The EIB monitoring shall include, where possible, monitoring of the performance of financial intermediaries in support of SMEs. The results of monitoring shall, where possible, be disclosed.\n3. The EIB shall submit to the Commission annual reports assessing the estimated development impact of the operations financed during the year.\nThe reports shall be based on the EIB performance indicators referred to in Article 6(2). The Commission shall present the development reports of the EIB to the European Parliament and to the Council in the framework of the annual reporting exercise provided for in Article 11 and make them publicly available so that interested stakeholders, including civil society and recipient countries, are also able to express their views on the matter.\nThe European Parliament shall discuss the annual reports, taking into consideration the views of all interested parties.\n4. The requirements referred to in this Article shall apply only to the EIB financing operations for which the EIB financing application is submitted after 30 October 2011 and which are signed after 1 January 2012.\nArticle 8\nCooperation with the Commission and the EEAS\n1. The consistency of EIB external actions with Union external policy objectives shall be strengthened, with a view to maximising synergies between EIB financing and Union budgetary resources, in particular through the establishment of the regional technical operational guidelines referred to in Article 6, as well as through regular and systematic dialogue and early exchange of information on:\n(a)\nstrategic documents prepared by the Commission and/or the EEAS as appropriate, such as country and regional strategy papers, indicative programmes, action plans and pre-accession documents;\n(b)\nthe EIB\u2019s strategic planning documents and project pipelines;\n(c)\nother policy and operational aspects.\n2. The cooperation shall be carried out on a region-by-region basis, taking into consideration the EIB\u2019s role as well as the policies of the Union in each region.\nArticle 9\nCooperation with other public financing institutions\n1. EIB financing operations shall increasingly be carried out, where appropriate, in cooperation with other IFIs or EBFIs, in order to maximise synergies, cooperation and efficiency and to ensure prudent and reasonable sharing of risks and coherent project and sector conditionality, in order to minimise possible duplication of costs and unnecessary overlap.\n2. The cooperation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be facilitated by coordination, carried out in particular in the context of memoranda of understanding or other Union regional cooperation frameworks, where appropriate, between the Commission, the EIB and the main IFIs and EBFIs operating in the different regions, whilst taking into account the competences of the EEAS.\nArticle 10\nCoverage and terms of the EU guarantee\n1. For EIB financing operations entered into with a State, or guaranteed by a State, and for other EIB financing operations entered into with regional or local authorities, or government-owned and/or government-controlled public enterprises or institutions where such other EIB financing operations have an appropriate EIB credit risk assessment taking into account the credit risk situation of the country concerned, the EU guarantee shall cover all payments not received by the EIB, but due to it (\u2018Comprehensive Guarantee\u2019).\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the West Bank and Gaza Strip is represented by the Palestinian Authority and Kosovo (6) is represented by the United Nations Mission in Kosovo or by an administration designated in the regional technical operational guidelines referred to in Article 6.\n3. For EIB financing operations other than those indicated in paragraph 1, the EU guarantee shall cover all payments not received by the EIB, but due to it, where the non-receipt has been caused by the realisation of one of the following political risks (\u2018Political Risk Guarantee\u2019):\n(a)\nnon-transfer of currency;\n(b)\nexpropriation;\n(c)\nwar or civil disturbance;\n(d)\ndenial of justice upon breach of contract.\n4. The EIB shall, in consultation with the Commission, develop a clear and transparent allocation policy for deciding upon the source of financing of operations which are eligible both for coverage by the EU guarantee and for EIB own-risk financing.\n5. When the EU guarantee is called, the EIB shall assign to the Union the relevant rights in accordance with the agreement referred to in Article 13(2).\nArticle 11\nAnnual reporting and accounting\n1. The Commission shall report annually to the European Parliament and to the Council on EIB financing operations carried out under this Decision. The report shall include an assessment of EIB financing operations at project, sector, country and regional levels, as well as an assessment of the contribution of those financing operations to the fulfilment of Union external policy and strategic objectives. The report shall provide an overview of ongoing projects at an aggregated level.\nThe report shall in particular assess the compliance of EIB financing operations with this Decision, taking into account the regional technical operational guidelines referred to in Article 6, and shall include sections on added value for the achievement of Union policy objectives, on the assessment of the estimated development impact at an aggregated level and the extent to which the EIB has taken into account environmental and social sustainability in the design and monitoring of the projects financed, as well as on cooperation with the Commission and other IFIs and EBFIs, including co-financing.\nThe report shall in particular include a breakdown of all Union financial resources used in combination with EIB financing and other donors, thus giving an overview of the financial exposure of financing operations carried out under this Decision. Moreover, it shall contain a specific section devoted to a detailed evaluation of the measures taken by the EIB to comply with Article 1(2).\n2. The EIB shall continue to provide the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission with all its independent evaluation reports which assess the practical results achieved by the specific activities of the EIB under the external mandates.\n3. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the EIB shall provide the Commission with yearly reports on EIB financing operations carried out under this Decision at project, sector, country and regional levels and on the fulfilment of Union external policy and strategic objectives, including cooperation with the Commission, other IFIs and EBFIs, as well as a development impact assessment report, as referred to in Article 7. Any memoranda of understanding between the EIB and other IFIs or EBFIs relating to carrying out financing operations under this Decision shall be made public or, where that is not possible, notified to the European Parliament and to the Council as part of the Commission\u2019s annual reporting referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.\n4. The EIB shall provide the Commission with statistical, financial and accounting data on each of the EIB financing operations, as well as any additional information necessary to fulfil the Commission\u2019s reporting duties or requests by the Court of Auditors and an auditor\u2019s certificate on the outstanding amounts of the EIB financing operations.\n5. For the purposes of the Commission\u2019s accounting and reporting of the risks covered by the Comprehensive Guarantee, as defined in Article 10(1), the EIB shall provide the Commission with the EIB\u2019s risk assessment and grading information concerning EIB financing operations with borrowers or guaranteed obligors other than States.\n6. The EIB shall provide the information referred to in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 at its own expense.\n7. The EIB shall also make publicly available the information referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4, in general terms and excluding any confidential information.\n8. Information on whether the project is covered by the EU guarantee shall be included in the \u2018project summary\u2019 disclosed on the EIB website after the approval stage.\n9. The EIB shall include in its annual report a follow-up assessment of the functioning of the memorandum of understanding with the European Ombudsman in so far as that memorandum concerns EIB financing operations covered by this Decision.\n10. Where appropriate, the requirements mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 3 shall apply only to EIB financing operations for which the EIB financing application is submitted after 30 October 2011 and which are signed after 1 January 2012.\nArticle 12\nNon-cooperative jurisdictions\nIn its financing operations, the EIB shall not tolerate any activities carried out for illegal purposes, including money laundering, financing of terrorism, tax fraud and tax evasion. In particular the EIB shall not participate in any financing operation implemented in an eligible country through a foreign non-cooperative jurisdiction identified as such by the OECD, the Financial Action Task Force or other relevant international organisations.\nArticle 13\nRecovery of payments made by the Commission\n1. Where the Commission makes any payment under the EU guarantee, the EIB shall, in the name and on behalf of the Commission, pursue the recovery of claims for the amounts paid.\n2. No later than the date of conclusion of the guarantee agreement referred to in Article 14, the Commission and the EIB shall enter into an agreement laying down the detailed provisions and procedures relating to recovery of claims.\n3. In the interests of transparency, the Commission shall make publicly available on its website specific information relating to all cases of recoveries under the guarantee agreement referred to in Article 14 unless confidentiality is necessary.\nArticle 14\nGuarantee agreement\nThe Commission and the EIB shall enter into a guarantee agreement laying down the detailed provisions and procedures relating to the EU guarantee and shall inform the European Parliament accordingly.\nArticle 15\nAuditing by the Court of Auditors\nThe EU guarantee and the payments and recoveries under it attributable to the general budget of the European Union shall be audited by the Court of Auditors.\nArticle 16\nReview\nThe Commission shall present to the European Parliament and to the Council a proposal, as appropriate, for establishing the EU guarantee under the next multiannual financial framework.\nArticle 17\nFinal reporting\nBy 31 October 2014, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and to the Council a final report on the application of this Decision.\nArticle 18\nRepeal\nDecision No 633/2009/EC is hereby repealed.\nArticle 19\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["16", "48", "93", "17", "74", "71", "1", "13", "77", "64", "45", "11", "0", "52", "60", "90", "24", "84", "22", "47", "8", "35", "33", "26", "28", "23", "80", "30", "91", "76", "No Label", "4", "10", "31"], "gold": ["4", "10", "31"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 782/2011\nof 4 August 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 778/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 August 2011.", "references": ["75", "8", "55", "39", "25", "16", "24", "97", "83", "92", "84", "47", "80", "91", "89", "61", "58", "69", "13", "18", "95", "31", "66", "53", "12", "87", "64", "44", "99", "85", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 365/2012\nof 26 April 2012\non the issue of licences for importing rice under the tariff quotas opened for the April 2012 subperiod by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 of 7 December 2011 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (3), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nApril is the second subperiod for the quota provided for under Article 1(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011.\n(3)\nThe notifications sent in accordance with point (a) of Article 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 show that, for the quota with order number 09.4130, the applications lodged in the first 10 working days of April 2012 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 quota concerned.\n(4)\nThose notifications also show that, for the quotas with order number 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4129, the applications lodged in the first 10 working days of April 2012 under Article 4(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 cover a quantity less than that available.\n(5)\nThe 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, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 5 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. For import licence applications for rice under the quota with order number 09.4130 referred to in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 lodged in the first 10 working days of April 2012, licences shall be issued for the quantity requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficient set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The total quantity available for the following subperiod under the quotas with order number 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4129 - 09.4130, referred to in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011, is set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2012.", "references": ["88", "8", "66", "64", "31", "83", "26", "78", "54", "20", "80", "38", "77", "32", "82", "39", "16", "43", "87", "65", "23", "36", "50", "48", "6", "10", "63", "69", "2", "60", "No Label", "21", "22", "68", "93", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68", "93", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 499/2010\nof 9 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 June 2010.", "references": ["96", "88", "49", "87", "16", "39", "6", "1", "48", "92", "21", "40", "22", "97", "82", "98", "84", "42", "43", "81", "85", "50", "8", "93", "18", "57", "67", "95", "56", "99", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 October 2011\nappointing a Romanian member of the European Economic and Social Committee\n(2011/672/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Romanian Government,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Sorin Cristian STAN,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Liviu LUCA, Confedera\u021bia Na\u021bional\u0103 a Sindicatelor Libere din Rom\u00e2nia FR\u0102\u021aIA is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 10 October 2011.", "references": ["67", "88", "55", "81", "12", "35", "16", "11", "70", "17", "10", "30", "44", "18", "6", "4", "45", "38", "48", "86", "57", "31", "51", "46", "73", "49", "24", "37", "20", "21", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 611/2012\nof 9 July 2012\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1), and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe colour of the Community licence model is defined as \u2018Colour Pantone light blue\u2019 in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009.\n(2)\nThere is a need to specify the colour more precisely in order to encourage homogeneity and uniform interpretation and application of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009, in the fourth line, the sentence \u2018Colour Pantone light blue, format DIN A4 cellulose paper 100 g/m2 or more\u2019 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Colour Pantone light blue 290, or as close as possible to this colour, format DIN A4 cellulose paper 100 g/m2 or more\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 July 2012.", "references": ["10", "29", "38", "99", "12", "28", "51", "71", "39", "66", "92", "34", "78", "88", "16", "4", "46", "74", "32", "87", "61", "47", "35", "36", "95", "57", "72", "62", "69", "86", "No Label", "20", "25", "53", "55", "76"], "gold": ["20", "25", "53", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 593/2010\nof 6 July 2010\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Montes de Toledo (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Spain\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Montes de Toledo\u2019 registered in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1187/2000 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2010.", "references": ["66", "32", "27", "18", "34", "42", "37", "43", "22", "95", "19", "11", "58", "68", "77", "14", "94", "44", "45", "49", "31", "53", "88", "80", "59", "17", "63", "8", "40", "9", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 307/2012\nof 11 April 2012\nestablishing implementing rules for the application of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (1), and in particular Article 8(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRequests by Member States or on the initiative of the Commission, to initiate the procedure under Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 to prohibit, restrict or place under Union scrutiny a substance other than vitamins or minerals, or an ingredient containing a substance other than vitamins or minerals that is added to foods or used in the manufacture of foods should meet certain conditions and uniform rules should be established for checking that these conditions are met. One of the conditions laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 is that the intake of the substance should greatly exceed normal intake of a balanced and varied diet and it should present a potential risk to consumers as demonstrated by relevant scientific data. Further, Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 provides that the procedure should also be applied where the substance presents a potential risk to health for reasons other than a great excess of its normal intake. In addition, Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 provides that the substance should be added to foods or used in the manufacture of foods.\n(2)\nFor the purpose of the application of the condition mentioned above, dietary intakes of the concerned substance that greatly exceed those expected under normal conditions of consumption of a balanced and varied diet should reflect actual intake of the substance and not a theoretical assumption of intake, and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis in comparison with the average level of intake of the substance by the general adult population or other population groups for which potential risks to consumers have been identified.\n(3)\nThe Member State putting forward a request should provide the necessary information to demonstrate that the conditions required by Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 are met. This should include information on the placing on the market of food products containing the substance and the available and relevant generally accepted scientific evidence that associates the substance with a potential risk to consumers. Only those requests ascertained as complete should be sent to the European Food Safety Authority (hereafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) for a safety assessment based on the available information. The Authority should adopt an opinion on the safety of the substance within a specified time limit as laid down in Article 29(3) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2). Interested parties should be allowed to submit comments to the Commission following the publication of the opinion by the Authority.\n(4)\nArticle 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 states that food business operators, or any other interested parties, may at any time submit for evaluation to the Authority a file containing the scientific data demonstrating the safety of a substance listed in Annex III, Part C to that Regulation, under the conditions of its use in a food or in a category of foods and explaining the purpose of that use. Any such file submitted by a food business operator or interested party should be based on guidance documents adopted or endorsed by the Authority, such as the guidance on submissions for safety evaluation of sources of nutrients or of other ingredients proposed for use in the manufacture of food, or any further revised version of such guidance.\n(5)\nIn order for the Commission to take a decision concerning a substance included in Annex III, Part C to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 within the required deadline, it is necessary to take into consideration only those files submitted within 18 months from the date a substance has been included in that Annex. Furthermore, in order for the Commission to take a decision within the stipulated deadline, the Authority should give its opinion on the safety of the substance within a time limit of nine months from receiving a file that is considered to be valid and complete in accordance with the guidance documents adopted or endorsed by the Authority.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation establishes implementing rules for the application of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 and in particular:\n(a)\nthe conditions for the use of the procedure referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006; and\n(b)\nthe procedure referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 concerning substances listed in Annex III, Part C thereto.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018request\u2019 means the submission to the Commission by a Member State of information, including scientific data, for the purpose of initiating the procedure under paragraph 2 of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006;\n(b)\n\u2018file\u2019 means a file as referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 that is submitted by a food business operator or interested party to the Authority;\n(c)\n\u2018placing on the market\u2019 as defined by Article 3(8) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.\nArticle 3\nConditions to be met for the request\n1. In the assessment of the conditions under which the concerned substance is added to foods or used in the manufacture of foods, as laid down in paragraph 1 of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006, the placing on the market in one or more Member States of the food product to which the substance has been added shall be taken into account.\n2. Member States may submit a request to the Commission when the assessment referred to in paragraph 1 shows at least one of the following:\n(a)\na potential risk to consumers is associated with the ingestion of amounts of the substance that greatly exceed those reasonably expected under normal conditions of consumption of a balanced and varied diet, due to the conditions under which the substance is added to food or used in the manufacture of food;\n(b)\na potential risk to consumers is associated with the consumption of this substance by the general adult population or other specified population group for which a potential risk has been identified.\n3. For the purposes of this Regulation those conditions that would result in the ingestion of amounts of a substance greatly exceeding those reasonably expected to be ingested under normal conditions of consumption of a balanced and varied diet shall occur under actual circumstances and shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis in comparison with the average intake of the concerned substance by the general adult population or other specified population group for which health concerns have been raised.\n4. The conditions and requirements laid down in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article and the requirements laid down in Article 4 of this Regulation, shall apply mutatis mutandis where the procedure under Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 is initiated by the Commission.\nArticle 4\nContent of the request\n1. The request shall contain the available and relevant generally accepted scientific evidence demonstrating that the conditions specified in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 are met and shall include:\n(a)\nEvidence demonstrating the addition of the substance to food or use of the substance in the manufacture of food.\nSuch evidence shall include information on the current placing on the market of food products containing the substance as referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 3 of this Regulation.\n(b)\nIn cases referred to in Article 3(2)(a), evidence demonstrating that intake of the substance greatly exceeds normal conditions of consumption of a balanced and varied diet, as assessed in accordance with Article 3(3).\nSuch evidence shall include scientific data that represents actual dietary intake of the substance obtained from the most recently available dietary intake surveys or food consumption surveys. The inclusion of foods to which the substance has been added and/or food supplements containing the substance may be taken into account. Member States shall provide justification for the basis of their assessment of \u2018normal conditions of consumption of a balanced and varied diet\u2019 when making the request.\n(c)\nEvidence demonstrating a potential risk to consumers from consumption of the substance.\nThis evidence shall consist of relevant scientific data including unpublished validated reports, scientific opinions by a public risk assessment body or independent and peer-reviewed articles. A summary of the scientific data and the list of references of the scientific data shall be provided.\n2. The Commission may ask the Member State to provide clarifications or additional information if the request is incomplete.\n3. The Commission shall publish any complete request made by a Member State on its official website.\n4. The Commission shall send the request to the Authority accompanied by all the available information, following consultation of the Member States. The Authority shall adopt a scientific opinion within a specified time limit as laid down by Article 29(3) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.\n5. Interested parties may submit comments to the Commission within 30 days from the publication by the Authority of its opinion.\nArticle 5\nSubstance included in Annex III, Part C\n1. To be considered valid, a file submitted by a food business operator or any other interested party to the Authority in view of a safety assessment of the substance placed in Part C of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006, pursuant to the procedure provided under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006, shall be based on relevant guidance documents adopted or endorsed by the Authority.\nIn the case where it considers a file as not valid for the purpose of the first subparagraph, the Authority shall inform the food business operator or interested party that has submitted the file and the Commission, indicating the reasons why the file is not considered valid.\n2. Only files submitted within 18 months from the entry into force of a decision that includes a substance to Part C of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 shall be taken into account by the Authority as being a valid file for the purposes of a decision as laid down in paragraph 5 of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006.\nArticle 6\nOpinion of the Authority\n1. The Authority shall give its opinion on files referred to in Article 5(1) of this Regulation within nine months from the date of receipt of a valid file. The Authority shall assess the validity of the file within 30 days from receipt of the file.\n2. The Authority may request the food business operator or interested party to supplement the data or information submitted in a file within a specified time limit. When the Authority seeks supplementary information from the food business operator or any other interested party, the time limit referred to in paragraph 1 shall be extended only once by up to three months and shall include the time needed by the food business operator or any interested party to provide this supplementary information. The food business operator or interested party shall submit the requested information within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Authority\u2019s request.\nArticle 7\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2012.", "references": ["26", "87", "50", "55", "47", "9", "90", "44", "7", "4", "81", "19", "15", "2", "1", "53", "94", "29", "75", "79", "96", "22", "43", "33", "58", "27", "51", "39", "83", "18", "No Label", "8", "25", "38", "72", "74"], "gold": ["8", "25", "38", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/285/CFSP\nof 31 May 2012\nconcerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau and repealing Decision 2012/237/CFSP\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 3 May 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/237/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (1).\n(2)\nOn 18 May 2012, the United Nations Security Council adopted a Resolution 2048 (2012), which imposed a travel ban on persons seeking to prevent the restoration of the constitutional order or taking action that undermines stability in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, in particular those who played a leading role in the coup d\u2019\u00e9tat of 12 April 2012 and who aim, through their actions, at undermining the rule of law, curtailing the primacy of civilian power and furthering impunity and instability in the country.\n(3)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, additional persons should be included in the lists of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2012/237/CFSP.\n(4)\nDecision 2012/237/CFSP should therefore be repealed and replaced by this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of:\n(a)\npersons listed in the Annex to UNSCR 2048 (2012), and additional persons designated by the Security Council or by the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 9 of UNSCR 2048 (2012) (\u2018the Committee\u2019), in accordance with paragraph 6 of UNSCR 2048 (2012), as listed in Annex I;\n(b)\npersons not covered by Annex I engaging in or providing support for acts that threaten the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau and persons associated with them, as listed in Annex II.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1(a) shall not apply where the Committee determines that:\n(a)\ntravel is justified on the grounds of humanitarian need, including religious obligation; or\n(b)\nan exemption would further the objectives of peace and national reconciliation in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau and stability in the region.\n4. Paragraph 1(a) shall not apply where entry or transit is necessary for the fulfilment of a judicial proceeding.\n5. Paragraph 1(b) shall be without prejudice to the cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation of international law, namely:\n(a)\nas a host country of an international intergovernmental organisation;\n(b)\nas a host country to an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the United Nations;\n(c)\nunder a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities; or\n(d)\nunder the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran pact) concluded by the Holy See (State of the Vatican City) and Italy.\n6. Paragraph 5 shall be considered as applying also in cases where a Member State is host country of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).\n7. The Council shall be duly informed in all cases where a Member State grants an exemption pursuant to paragraph 5 or 6.\n8. Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed under paragraph 1(b) where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the Union, or hosted by a Member State holding the Chairmanship in office of the OSCE, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau.\n9. A Member State wishing to grant exemptions referred to in paragraph 8 shall notify the Council in writing. The exemption shall be deemed to be granted unless one or more of the Council members raise an objection in writing within two working days of receiving notification of the proposed exemption. Should one or more of the Council members raise an objection, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may none the less decide to grant the proposed exemption.\n10. In cases where, pursuant to paragraphs 5, 6, 8 and 9, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in Annex II, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\nArticle 2\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by natural or legal persons, entities or bodies engaging in or providing support for acts that threaten the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in Annex III, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex III.\n3. The competent authority of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources concerned are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of the persons listed in Annex III and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds and economic resources;\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the competent authority has notified the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted to the other competent authorities and the Commission at least two weeks prior to the authorisation.\nMember States shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this paragraph.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authority of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources in question are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 1 was included in Annex III or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds and economic resources will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a natural or legal person, entity or body listed in Annex III;\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgment is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\nMember States shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this paragraph.\n5. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to the provisions of this Decision;\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to paragraph 1.\nArticle 3\n1. The Council shall implement modifications to Annex I on the basis of the determinations made by the Security Council or by the Committee.\n2. The Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall adopt amendments to the lists contained in Annexes II and III as required.\n3. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for the listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body concerned listed in Annex III, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\n4. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the natural or legal person, entity or body concerned listed in Annex III accordingly.\nArticle 4\nIn order to maximise the impact of the measures set out in this Decision, the Union shall encourage third States to adopt restrictive measures similar to those contained in this Decision.\nArticle 5\n1. This Decision shall be reviewed, amended or repealed as appropriate, notably in the light of relevant decisions by the Security Council.\n2. The measures referred to in Articles 1(1)(b) and 2 shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months. They shall cease to apply in respect of the persons and entities concerned if the Council determines, in accordance with the procedure referred in Article 3(2), that the conditions for their application are no longer met.\nArticle 6\nDecision 2012/237/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2012.", "references": ["22", "63", "37", "84", "46", "13", "76", "67", "70", "20", "43", "79", "30", "41", "68", "4", "6", "32", "82", "11", "88", "96", "83", "10", "17", "85", "72", "92", "66", "55", "No Label", "3", "12", "94"], "gold": ["3", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1226/2011\nof 28 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 November 2011.", "references": ["37", "18", "46", "14", "83", "27", "50", "42", "99", "6", "97", "74", "95", "39", "26", "11", "78", "96", "71", "56", "65", "33", "48", "93", "86", "41", "57", "89", "29", "62", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 381/2012\nof 3 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 May 2012.", "references": ["8", "3", "11", "73", "83", "64", "2", "27", "39", "57", "87", "58", "26", "50", "25", "80", "76", "79", "43", "74", "54", "40", "69", "93", "60", "24", "37", "99", "12", "14", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/729/CFSP\nof 10 November 2011\namending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1970 (2011).\n(2)\nOn 23 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/178/CFSP (2) amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP and implementing UNSCR 1973 (2011).\n(3)\nOn 22 September 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/625/CFSP (3) amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP and implementing UNSCR 2009 (2011).\n(4)\nOn 27 October 2011, the United Nations Security Council adopted UNSCR 2016 (2011) which decided that the provisions of paragraphs 6 to 12 of UNSCR 1973 (2011) should be terminated on 31 October 2011.\n(5)\nDecision 2011/137/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 3a of Decision 2011/137/CFSP is hereby deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2011.", "references": ["51", "74", "50", "5", "10", "70", "9", "14", "98", "47", "26", "32", "41", "21", "81", "99", "75", "69", "60", "77", "13", "34", "36", "97", "24", "95", "11", "68", "38", "1", "No Label", "3", "53", "57", "94"], "gold": ["3", "53", "57", "94"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/018 DE/Heidelberger Druckmaschinen from Germany)\n(2010/811/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nGermany submitted an application on 27 May 2010 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Heidelberger Druckmaschinen, and supplemented it with additional information up to 1 July 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 8 308 555.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Germany,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 8 308 555 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["50", "59", "82", "52", "88", "65", "38", "11", "30", "8", "81", "39", "54", "86", "73", "36", "68", "22", "45", "24", "93", "69", "63", "76", "19", "98", "87", "37", "78", "40", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 29 March 2012\namending Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU on granting Union financial assistance to Portugal\n(2012/224/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn line with Article 3(9) of Council Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU (2), the Commission, together with the International Monetary Fund and in liaison with the European Central Bank, has conducted the third review of the Portuguese authorities\u2019 progress on the implementation of the agreed measures under the economic and financial adjustment programme (Programme) as well as of their effectiveness and economic and social impact.\n(2)\nThe review has found that Portugal\u2019s compliance with the conditionality for the fourth quarter of 2011 was satisfactory. In 2011, the general government deficit fell below the target of 5,9 % of GDP and it is now estimated at around 4 % of GDP, albeit by exceptionally resorting to a transfer of about EUR 6 billion (about 3,5 % of GDP) of the banks\u2019 pension funds to the State social security system. The 2012 budget is consistent with meeting the deficit target of 4,5 % of GDP in line with the Programme. Policy efforts to support financial system stability continue. Portuguese banks work towards meeting the higher capital requirements as required by the Programme, taking into account the implications of the European Banking Authority\u2019s requirement for a new temporary capital buffer for sovereign exposures, the special on-site inspection programme and the transfer of the banks\u2019 pension funds to the State social security system. Labour and product market reforms are also progressing: an agreement was reached with social partners on a broad and ambitious labour market reform and a significant revision of the competition legal framework has been submitted to the Parliament which will create conditions for an effective competition enforcement regime. The privatisation programme is being implemented under a new framework law. The energy company EDP and the energy network company REN have been sold. A strategy to restructure state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has been put in place. The legal framework for public procurement is being improved and the modernisation of the legal framework for the housing market is underway. The reform of the judicial system is making good progress.\n(3)\nIn the light of these developments, Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 3 of Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nparagraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. Portugal shall adopt the following measures during 2012, in line with specifications in the Memorandum of Understanding:\n(a)\nThe measures defined in points (b) and (c), amounting to at least EUR 9,8 billion, shall be included in the 2012 budget. Further measures, notably on the expenditure side, shall be taken to fill any possible gap arising from budgetary developments in 2012. The government shall adopt a supplementary budget in March which will incorporate various elements such as the implications of the transfer of the banks\u2019 pension funds to the State social security system, the financial agreement with the RAM, the fiscal impact of the deterioration of the economic outlook, lower interest payments and the strategy for the settlement of arrears. The supplementary budget shall leave the target for the 2012 general government deficit (corresponding to 4,5 % of GDP) unchanged.\n(b)\nPortugal shall aim to reduce expenditure in 2012 by at least EUR 6,8 billion, including by reducing public sector wages and employment; making cuts in pensions; carrying out a comprehensive reorganisation of the central administration, eliminating redundancies and other inefficiencies; reducing transfers to SOEs; reorganising and reducing the number of municipalities and parishes; making cuts in education and health; lowering transfers to regional and local authorities; and reducing capital expenditure and other expenditure as set out in the Programme.\n(c)\nOn the revenue side, Portugal shall implement revenue measures totalling around EUR 3 billion, including by broadening VAT bases through reducing exemptions and rearranging the lists of goods and services subject to reduced, intermediate and higher rates; increasing excise taxes; broadening the corporate and personal income tax bases by reducing tax deductions and special regimes; ensuring the convergence of personal income tax deductions applied to pensions and labour income; and changing property taxation by substantially reducing exemptions. These measures shall be complemented by action to fight tax evasion, fraud and informality.\n(d)\nPortugal shall adopt measures to reinforce public finance management. It shall implement the measures provided for in the new Budgetary Framework Law, including setting up a medium-term budgetary framework. The budgetary framework at local and regional levels shall be considerably strengthened, in particular by putting forward the key options for the alignment of the respective financing laws to the requirements of the Budgetary Framework Law. Portugal shall step up the reporting and monitoring of public finances and reinforce budgetary execution rules and procedures. The Portuguese Government shall prepare a strategy for the validation and settlement of arrears. The strategy shall lay out the prioritisation criteria for paying creditors, as well as governance arrangements to ensure a fair and transparent settling process across all sectors. Portugal shall put in place a strengthened legal and institutional framework for assessing fiscal risks prior to engaging in a PPP contract. Similarly, Portugal shall adopt a law to regulate the creation and functioning of SOEs at central, regional and local levels. Portugal shall not engage in any new PPP contract or create an SOE until the reviews and the new legal structure are in place.\n(e)\nLocal government administration in Portugal has currently 308 municipalities and 4 259 parishes. Portugal shall develop a consolidation plan to reorganise and significantly reduce the number of such entities. These changes shall come into effect by the beginning of the next local election cycle.\n(f)\nPortugal shall modernise the revenue administration by creating a single entity, reducing the number of municipal offices and addressing remaining bottlenecks in the tax appeal system.\n(g)\nPortugal shall implement the financial arrangement with the RAM.\n(h)\nPortugal shall adopt measures to improve the efficiency and sustainability of SOEs at central, regional and local level. Portugal shall implement a strategy to restructure and reduce the indebtedness of SOEs and to ensure improved conditions for market financing. Portugal shall implement this strategy to reach operational balance at sector level by the end of 2012.\n(i)\nPortugal shall continue implementing the privatisation programme. In particular, in 2012 the public sector shares in GALP, TAP and ANA shall be sold and the privatisation of the freight branch of Comboios de Portugal, Correios de Portugal as well as a number of smaller firms shall be launched. A strategy for Parp\u00fablica shall be prepared, considering its winding down or consolidation with the general government.\n(j)\nPortugal shall implement legislation to reform the unemployment insurance system, including by reducing the maximum duration of unemployment insurance benefits; placing a cap on unemployment benefits to 2,5 times the social support index; reducing benefits over the period of unemployment; reducing the minimum contributory period; and extending unemployment insurance to certain categories of self-employed.\n(k)\nThe Portuguese Government shall prepare a proposal to align the system for severance payments to reduce its level to the Union average of 8-12 days per year of work and create a compensation fund for severance payments;\n(l)\nRegulations on overtime pay shall be eased and flexibility of working time arrangements shall be increased.\n(m)\nPortugal shall promote wage developments consistent with the objectives of fostering job creation and improving firms\u2019 competitiveness with a view to correcting macroeconomic imbalances. Over the Programme period, any increase in minimum wages shall take place only if justified by economic and labour market developments. Measures shall be taken to address weaknesses in the current wage bargaining schemes, including legislation to redefine the criteria and modalities of the extension of collective agreements and to facilitate firm-level agreements. Until then, the application of extensions shall be suspended.\n(n)\nActive labour market policies shall be strengthened after a review of current practices and the establishment of an agreed action plan.\n(o)\nAn action plan shall be prepared to improve the quality of secondary and vocational education and training.\n(p)\nThe functioning of the judicial system shall be improved by implementing the measures proposed under the Judicial Reform Map and by conducting an audit of the backlog of cases in order to target measures to eliminate the court backlog and foster alternative dispute settlements.\n(q)\nPortugal shall continue opening up its economy to competition. The Portuguese Government shall take the necessary measures to ensure that obstacles to free movement of capital will not be created by their action and in particular that the Portuguese State or any public body does not conclude, in a shareholder capacity, agreements which may hinder the free movement of capital or influence the management control of companies. Professional services shall be liberalised by improving the professional qualification framework and by eliminating restrictions on regulated professions. In construction and real estate activities, Portugal shall make the requirements for cross-border providers less burdensome and review obstacles to the establishment of services providers.\n(r)\nThe competition and regulatory framework shall be improved. Portugal shall reinforce the independence and resources of the main national regulatory authorities; implement the Competition Law with a view to improving the speed and effectiveness of enforcement of competition rules; and make the specialised court for competition, regulation and supervision operational.\n(s)\nIn the energy sector, Portugal shall take measures to facilitate market entry and promote the establishment of the Iberian gas market and it shall take further steps towards the full transposition of the Third EU Energy Package. Portugal shall take measures to review the support and compensation schemes for the production of electricity. Portugal shall take measures to reduce excessive rents and eliminate the tariff debt by 2020, focusing on compensation schemes for power guarantee, special regime (renewables - excluding those granted under tender mechanisms - and cogeneration), and the ordinary regime (\u201cCMECs\u201d and \u201cCAEs\u201d).\n(t)\nIn other network industries, in particular transport, telecommunications and postal services, Portugal shall adopt additional measures to promote competition and flexibility.\n(u)\nPortugal shall adopt the revised public procurement code, thereby contributing to a more competitive business environment and to more efficient public spending.\n(v)\nPortugal shall implement legislation on the housing rental market to further balance the obligations of tenants and landlords, to increase incentives for renovation and to make the market more flexible and dynamic.\u2019;\n(2)\nparagraph 8 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoints (b) and (c) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nfollow closely the plans presented by the banks to reach a Core Tier 1 ratio of 10 % at the latest by the end of 2012. The capital requirements stemming from valuing sovereign debt based on market prices according to the European Banking Authority shall be met in June 2012 together with the capital implications from the special on-site inspections programme and the transfer of the banks\u2019 pension funds to the State social security system. If banks cannot reach the capital requirement thresholds on time, they might temporarily require public provision of capital, which for privately-owned banks shall be available through the EUR 12 billion bank solvency support facility established under the Programme;\n(c)\nensure a balanced and orderly deleveraging of the banking sector, which remains critical to eliminating funding imbalances on a permanent basis. Banks\u2019 funding plans aim at reducing the loan-to-deposit ratio to an indicative value of around 120 % by the end of the Programme and potentially reducing reliance on Eurosystem funding for the duration of the Programme. These funding plans shall be reviewed quarterly;\u2019;\n(b)\npoints (e) and (f) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nensure that the state-owned Caixa Geral de Dep\u00f3sitos (CGD) is streamlined to increase the capital base of its core banking arm as needed. The sale of its insurance arm is expected to take place in 2012 directly to a final buyer and to contribute to meeting that year\u2019s additional capital needs, while CGD will continue efforts to divest itself of non-strategic assets. Insofar as these needs cannot be met from internal group sources by the end of June 2012, CGD shall be provided with government capital support from cash buffers outside the bank solvency support facility;\n(f)\nensure that the proceeds associated with the partial transfer of the banks\u2019 pension funds to the State social security system shall be used respecting State aid rules of the Union. The Portuguese Government shall carry out, under strict eligibility criteria, a credit assignment of up to EUR 3 billion from the banks to the general government, while maintaining the contractual obligations of the debtor;\u2019;\n(c)\npoint (g) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(g)\ndevelop and implement a more effective strategy for the recovery of the distressed assets of special purpose vehicles with a view to maximising returns for the tax payer within a reasonable timeframe;\u2019;\n(d)\npoint (i) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(i)\nensure that banks have incorporated the available results of the special on-site inspections programme in the stress test exercise with a 6 % Core Tier 1 threshold.\u2019;\n(e)\npoint (j) is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 29 March 2012.", "references": ["99", "5", "3", "47", "90", "27", "72", "57", "7", "10", "65", "25", "67", "63", "6", "17", "61", "41", "66", "14", "94", "55", "37", "60", "77", "19", "28", "85", "84", "93", "No Label", "2", "11", "15", "30", "32", "33", "34", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "11", "15", "30", "32", "33", "34", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1281/2011\nof 8 December 2011\non the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the first partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/12 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, the Commission is to decide, in the light of the tenders received in response to a partial invitation to tender, either to fix a minimum customs duty or not to fix a minimum customs duty per eight digit CN code.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the first partial invitation to tender, a minimum customs duty should be fixed for certain eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701 and no minimum customs duty should be fixed for the other eight digit codes for sugar falling within that CN code.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the first partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 7 December 2011, a minimum customs duty has been fixed, or has not been fixed, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation for the eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2011.", "references": ["99", "94", "37", "0", "9", "58", "90", "19", "91", "72", "4", "13", "76", "17", "80", "57", "82", "41", "3", "92", "43", "36", "16", "2", "44", "53", "24", "78", "70", "88", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "61", "71"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "61", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1056/2011\nof 20 October 2011\nfixing the export refunds on poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2) and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in poultrymeat, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely in the Union and bear the identification mark provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products should also comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 946/2011 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements under Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the identification marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 946/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["64", "55", "82", "17", "88", "30", "38", "43", "71", "14", "79", "67", "87", "63", "80", "89", "97", "39", "42", "86", "5", "29", "33", "83", "52", "32", "25", "58", "53", "4", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 228/2012\nof 15 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 March 2012.", "references": ["69", "82", "29", "63", "16", "67", "87", "56", "6", "5", "51", "73", "24", "41", "54", "75", "71", "52", "32", "59", "37", "34", "74", "13", "53", "18", "3", "7", "76", "47", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 502/2011\nof 23 May 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 2 March 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Libya and in accordance with Council Implementing Decision 2011/300/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (2), an additional person and an additional entity should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe person and the entity listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["19", "65", "30", "47", "64", "25", "13", "68", "93", "49", "12", "57", "36", "34", "43", "21", "72", "76", "58", "90", "32", "55", "59", "10", "75", "80", "74", "41", "38", "20", "No Label", "3", "4", "5", "11", "14", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "5", "11", "14", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 544/2011\nof 10 June 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the data requirements for active substances\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular the first sentence of Article 8(4) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the dossier to be submitted for the approval of an active substance or for the authorisation of a plant protection product is to fulfil the same requirements in respect of the data requirements for the plant protection product as under the previously applicable rules which are set out in Annexes II and III to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2).\n(2)\nIt is therefore necessary for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to adopt a regulation containing those data requirements for active substances. Such a regulation is not to include any substantial modification,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe data requirements for the approval of an active substance provided for in Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 14 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 June 2011.", "references": ["24", "75", "52", "31", "43", "53", "63", "86", "59", "67", "16", "54", "11", "91", "13", "1", "6", "58", "33", "37", "62", "68", "64", "20", "89", "10", "46", "9", "97", "27", "No Label", "25", "65", "66"], "gold": ["25", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 172/2012\nof 28 February 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 159/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2012.", "references": ["33", "29", "26", "64", "2", "34", "99", "40", "59", "17", "14", "67", "21", "55", "39", "15", "88", "92", "23", "38", "85", "46", "7", "66", "11", "80", "94", "53", "58", "1", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 361/2012\nof 25 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 April 2012.", "references": ["56", "29", "55", "52", "67", "25", "93", "10", "84", "12", "36", "11", "26", "64", "90", "71", "15", "33", "24", "69", "72", "42", "32", "21", "59", "46", "20", "2", "19", "41", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 930/2010\nof 18 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed [Ov\u010d\u00ed sala\u0161n\u00edcky \u00faden\u00fd syr (TSG)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 9(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, Slovakia\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Ov\u010d\u00ed sala\u0161n\u00edcky \u00faden\u00fd syr\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register.\n(3)\nProtection as referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has not been requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 October 2010.", "references": ["82", "74", "90", "84", "36", "23", "37", "87", "6", "99", "29", "33", "17", "83", "53", "27", "39", "79", "35", "85", "18", "49", "2", "51", "12", "30", "5", "7", "61", "66", "No Label", "24", "63", "70", "72", "77", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "63", "70", "72", "77", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUJUST LEX-IRAQ/1/2011\nof 21 June 2011\nconcerning the appointment of the Head of Mission for the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ\n(2011/359/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/330/CFSP of 14 June 2010 on the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Decision 2010/330/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ (hereinafter referred to as \u2018EUJUST LEX-IRAQ\u2019), including in particular, the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nThe High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of the current Deputy Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ, Mr Carl TORNELL as Head of Mission from 1 July 2011 until the subsequent appointment of a new Head of Mission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Carl TORNELL is hereby appointed as Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ as from 1 July 2011 until the subsequent appointment of a new Head of Mission.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2011.", "references": ["45", "11", "99", "20", "79", "35", "49", "19", "97", "27", "63", "78", "41", "88", "98", "23", "6", "81", "4", "43", "7", "82", "72", "92", "48", "17", "59", "31", "21", "5", "No Label", "3", "52", "95"], "gold": ["3", "52", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 August 2010\nderogating from Regulation (EC) No 687/2008 as regards the deadlines for the delivery and takeover of cereals into intervention in Finland for the 2009/2010 marketing year\n(notified under document C(2010) 5659)\n(Only the Finnish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2010/456/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(a) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Commission Regulation (EC) No 687/2008 of 18 July 2008 establishing procedures for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies or paying agencies and laying down methods of analysis for determining the quality of cereals (2), should an offer be admissible, operators are to be informed as soon as possible of the delivery schedule. To that end, the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of the said Regulation lays down that, for cereals other than maize, the final delivery to the intervention centre for which the offer is made is to be not later than the end of the fourth month following the month during which the offer was received, without, however, being later than 31 July in the case of Finland.\n(2)\nArticle 6(6) of Regulation (EC) No 687/2008 lays down that the final takeover, in the case of cereals other than maize, must take place no later than the end of the second month following final delivery referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 2(4), and in any event no later than 31 August in the case of Finland.\n(3)\nArticle 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 687/2008 lays down that the physical and technical characteristics of the samples taken are to be analysed within 20 working days of the representative sample being made up.\n(4)\nThe cereals harvest in Finland for the 2009/2010 marketing year reached a record level of 4,3 million tonnes, including 2,2 million tonnes of barley. In view of the situation on the cereals market in Finland, characterised by relatively low producer prices, below intervention prices, substantial quantities have been offered for intervention in Finland during the 2009/2010 marketing year: some 823 000 tonnes, of which 796 000 tonnes of barley and 27 000 tonnes of common wheat. Since the start of the intervention period, the latest statistics available, established on 1 July 2010, show a total quantity of cereals taken into intervention of around 573 000 tonnes, of which 566 000 tonnes of barley and 7 000 tonnes of common wheat. A substantial quantity of offers for intervention yet to be delivered and analysed with a view to their takeover into intervention thus remains.\n(5)\nOn 24 June 2010 Finland informed the Commission that seeking additional storage capacity to deal with the abundant offers of cereals for intervention was taking time and a backlog had accumulated. The Finnish authorities therefore request, for the 2009/2010 marketing year, that the delivery deadline for cereals be extended to 30 September 2010, the deadline for taking them over be extended to 31 October 2010 and the deadline for quality analyses also be extended.\n(6)\nIn view of the circumstances and in order to enable cereals offered in respect of the 2009/2010 marketing year to be taken over, Finland\u2019s request should be granted by agreeing, by way of derogation from Regulation (EC) No 687/2008, to extend the delivery period, the period for qualitative analyses and the takeover period for products offered for intervention in respect of the marketing year in question.\n(7)\nFor offers submitted in Finland in respect of the 2009/2010 marketing year, it should be laid down that the measures provided for in this Decision are to apply.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 687/2008, for the 2009/2010 marketing year, the final delivery of cereals offered for intervention in Finland must take place no later than 30 September 2010.\nArticle 2\nBy way of derogation from Article 6(6) of Regulation (EC) No 687/2008, for the 2009/2010 marketing year, the final takeover of cereals offered for intervention in Finland must take place no later than 31 October 2010.\nArticle 3\nBy way of derogation from Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 687/2008, for the 2009/2010 marketing year, the period allowed in Finland for analysing the physical and technical characteristics of samples shall be 30 working days.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall apply to offers for intervention submitted in respect of the 2009/2010 marketing year.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Finland.\nDone at Brussels, 17 August 2010.", "references": ["65", "54", "1", "41", "93", "8", "57", "43", "17", "16", "10", "40", "23", "28", "98", "6", "74", "45", "70", "84", "49", "36", "60", "55", "12", "79", "29", "22", "58", "90", "No Label", "20", "24", "61", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "24", "61", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1148/2011\nof 11 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 November 2011.", "references": ["83", "62", "52", "25", "34", "5", "31", "19", "87", "73", "70", "37", "93", "38", "96", "53", "30", "28", "20", "76", "50", "13", "74", "59", "94", "56", "27", "86", "82", "18", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 15 December 2010\namending Decision 2004/211/EC as regards the entries for Brazil, Kuwait and Syria in the list of third countries and parts thereof from which the introduction into the European Union of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species are authorised\n(notified under document C(2010) 8950)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/776/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (1), and in particular Article 12(1) and (4), the introductory phrase of Article 19, and Article 19(i) and (ii) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992, laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (2), and in particular Article 17(3)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 90/426/EEC lays down animal health conditions for the importation into the Union of live equidae. It provides that imports of equidae into the Union are only authorised from third countries or parts of the territory thereof in which glanders is a notifiable disease and which have been free from glanders for a period of at least 6 months.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2004/211/EC of 6 January 2004 establishing the list of third countries and parts of territory thereof from which Member States authorise imports of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species, and amending Decisions 93/195/EEC and 94/63/EC (3) establishes a list of third countries, or parts thereof where regionalisation applies, from which Member States authorise the importation of equidae and semen, ova and embryos thereof, and indicates the other conditions applicable to such imports. That list is set out in Annex I to that Decision. Brazil, Kuwait and Syria are currently listed in that Annex.\n(3)\nIn April 2010, Brazil notified the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) of the confirmation of a case of glanders (Burkholderia mallei) in a horse in Distrito Federal. Therefore, Decision 2004/211/EC was amended by Commission Decision 2010/333/EU (4) in order to indicate that the introduction into the Union of equidae and of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine species are no longer authorised from Distrito Federal in Brazil.\n(4)\nOn 1 November, 2010 Brazil informed the OIE that this single case of glanders in Distrito Federal has been resolved. In particular, the authorities informed that no new outbreaks have been reported for at least 6 months, that restrictions on the movement of equidae from infected into free areas are in place and that surveillance carried out on about 5 000 equidae has not identified further cases.\n(5)\nIt is therefore appropriate to reinsert Distrito Federal in the list of approved areas for imports into the Union of equidae and semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine species, set out in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC.\n(6)\nIn October 2010, the OIE informed about the occurrence of glanders in Kuwait.\n(7)\nSyria has declared to the OIE that its glanders status is unknown since glanders is no longer a notifiable disease in that country. Horses from Syria were identified as the origin of glanders in countries of that region and a recent OIE inspection mission has not ruled out the presence of this disease in Syria.\n(8)\nThe introduction into the Union of any equidae and of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine species should therefore no longer be authorised from Kuwait and Syria. Therefore, those third countries should be deleted from Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC.\n(9)\nDecision 2004/211/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Decision 2004/211/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nThe entry for Brazil is replaced by the following:\n\u2018BR\nBrazil\nBR-0\nWhole country\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nBR-1\nThe States of:\nRio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Paran\u00e1, S\u00e3o Paulo, Mato Grosso do Sul, Goi\u00e1s, Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, Esp\u00edritu Santo, Rond\u00f4nia, Mato Grosso, and Distrito Federal.\nD\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\u2019\n2.\nThe entry for Kuwait is replaced by the following:\n\u2018KW\nKuwait\nKW-0\nWhole country\nE\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\u2019\n3.\nThe entry for Syria is replaced by the following:\n\u2018SY\nSyria\nSY-0\nWhole country\nE\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["95", "45", "72", "37", "64", "16", "68", "60", "87", "25", "57", "36", "48", "31", "20", "62", "0", "40", "76", "18", "24", "90", "54", "84", "88", "19", "75", "81", "43", "78", "No Label", "4", "21", "22", "23", "61", "65", "66"], "gold": ["4", "21", "22", "23", "61", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 1 December 2011\non the practical and procedural arrangements for the appointment by the Council of four members of the European panel for the European Union action for the European Heritage Label\n(2011/831/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 1194/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 establishing a European Union action for the European Heritage Label (1), and in particular Article 8 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 8 of Decision No 1194/2011/EU provides that a European panel of independent experts (\u2018European panel\u2019) is to be established and that this panel is to include 13 members appointed by the European institutions and bodies, four of whom are to be appointed for a three-year term by the Council.\n(2)\nEach institution and body should seek to ensure that the competences of the members of the European panel it appoints are as complementary as possible.\n(3)\nAt the time of submitting candidates to become members of the European panel, Member States which already have one or more experts in that panel who were appointed by an institution or body other than the Council, are encouraged to take into account enhancing geographical and gender balance within the European panel when deciding on their participation in the process.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate for the Council to decide on the practical and procedural arrangements for the appointment of its four members of the European panel.\n(5)\nThese arrangements should be fair, easy to implement, non-discriminatory, transparent, and should seek to ensure that the members appointed to the European panel duly fulfil their obligations.\n(6)\nThese arrangements should be adapted, if necessary, in the light of the results of the evaluations of the action for the European Heritage Label provided for in Article 18 of Decision No 1194/2011/EU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Council shall decide on the appointment of four members of the European panel in accordance with the practical and procedural arrangements laid down in Article 2.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall be invited to make submissions of candidates to become members of the European panel. The participation of Member States in the process shall be voluntary. Each Member State shall have the right to submit only one candidate. In order to ensure a balanced geographical representation, Member States which have experts appointed by the Council for the previous term shall be excluded from participation.\n2. Submissions shall be made in writing and clearly demonstrate that a given candidate is an independent expert with substantial experience and expertise in the fields relevant to the objectives of the action, and is committed to work on the European panel, in line with the requirements laid down in part 1 of the Annex. Those submissions shall also contain a duly signed declaration as set out in part 2 of the Annex.\n3. The submissions shall specify, for each candidate, one main category of expertise from among the following:\n-\nEuropean history and cultures,\n-\neducation and youth,\n-\ncultural management, including the heritage dimension,\n-\ncommunication and tourism.\n4. A draw shall be organised from among the submissions acknowledged by the relevant preparatory body of the Council with a view to selecting one candidate in each of the four categories referred to in paragraph 3. The first name drawn for each category shall be considered as selected. This selection shall subsequently be approved by the Council.\n5. If there are no candidates in one or more categories, one or more additional candidates shall be drawn from the categories in which there are most candidates. If there is only one candidate in a given category, that candidate is deemed to be selected without a draw.\n6. If a member of the European panel is not able to fulfil his or her mandate, the Member State that appointed that member shall appoint a replacement as soon as possible. This appointment shall fulfil the requirements laid down in parts 1 and 2 of the Annex and apply for the remainder of the term of office of that member.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2011.", "references": ["26", "39", "16", "0", "15", "85", "83", "25", "32", "52", "93", "78", "1", "30", "77", "79", "35", "61", "31", "19", "74", "76", "91", "47", "37", "88", "65", "71", "45", "99", "No Label", "7", "9", "36", "40"], "gold": ["7", "9", "36", "40"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 February 2011\nrecognising in principle the completeness of the dossiers submitted for detailed examination in view of the possible inclusion of sedaxane and Bacillus firmus I-1582 in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC\n(notified under document C(2011) 989)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/123/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 91/414/EEC provides for the development of a European Union list of active substances authorised for incorporation in plant protection products.\n(2)\nThe dossier for the active substance sedaxane was submitted by Syngenta Crop Protection AG to the authorities of France on 18 June 2010 with the application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nThe dossier for the active substance Bacillus firmus I-1582 was submitted by Bayer CropScience SAS to the authorities of France on 29 September 2010 with the application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(4)\nThe French authorities have indicated to the Commission that, on preliminary examination, the dossiers for the active substances concerned appear to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC. The dossiers submitted appear also to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substances concerned. In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, the dossiers were subsequently forwarded by the applicants to the Commission and other Member States, and were referred to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.\n(5)\nBy this Decision it should be formally confirmed at European Union level that the dossiers are considered as satisfying in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II and, for at least one plant protection product containing one of the active substances concerned, the requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe dossiers concerning the active substances identified in the Annex to this Decision, which were submitted to the Commission and the Member States with a view to obtaining the inclusion of those substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, satisfy in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to that Directive.\nThe dossiers also satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substance, taking into account the uses proposed.\nArticle 2\nThe rapporteur Member State shall pursue the detailed examination for the dossiers referred to in Article 1 and shall communicate to the Commission the conclusions of its examination accompanied by any recommendations on the inclusion or non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances referred to in Article 1 and any conditions for that inclusion as soon as possible and by 28 February 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2011.", "references": ["60", "22", "50", "62", "80", "16", "27", "58", "31", "96", "9", "98", "28", "54", "18", "93", "15", "33", "63", "86", "39", "17", "44", "88", "12", "20", "47", "30", "89", "90", "No Label", "2", "38", "41", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "38", "41", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 190/2012\nof 7 March 2012\non granting of no aid for private storage of olive oil in the framework of the tendering procedure opened by the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 111/2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(d), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 111/2012 of 9 February 2012 opening the tendering procedure for aid for private storage of olive oil (2) provides for two tendering sub-periods.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 13(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 of 20 August 2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products (3), on the basis of tenders notified by the Member States, the Commission either fixes a maximum amount of the aid or does not fix a maximum amount of the aid.\n(3)\nFollowing an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the second partial invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any aid for private storage of olive oil for the tendering sub-period ending on 1 March 2012.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the tendering sub-period ending on 1 March 2012 within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 111/2012, no aid shall be granted for any of the products referred to in the Annex to that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2012.", "references": ["12", "8", "46", "29", "88", "25", "17", "97", "91", "84", "36", "74", "95", "76", "51", "22", "38", "77", "61", "92", "44", "89", "41", "73", "75", "14", "47", "4", "79", "32", "No Label", "15", "20", "26", "62", "70"], "gold": ["15", "20", "26", "62", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 April 2011\nextending the transitional period concerning the acquisition of agricultural land in Slovakia\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/241/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia,\nHaving regard to the Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, and in particular Chapter 3 of Annex XIV thereto,\nHaving regard to the request made by Slovakia,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe 2003 Act of Accession provides that Slovakia may maintain in force, under the conditions laid down therein, for a 7-year period following the accession, expiring on 30 April 2011, prohibitions on the acquisition of agricultural land by natural and legal persons from other EU Member States who are neither established nor registered nor having a branch or an agency in Slovakia. This is a temporary exception to the free movement of capital as guaranteed by Articles 63 to 66 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This transitional period may only be extended once for a period of up to 3 years.\n(2)\nOn 20 January 2011, Slovakia requested to extend the transitional period concerning the acquisition of agricultural land by 3 years.\n(3)\nThe main reason for the transitional period was the need to safeguard the socioeconomic conditions for agricultural activities following the introduction of the single market and the transition to the common agricultural policy in Slovakia. In particular, it aimed to meet concerns raised about the possible impact on the agricultural sector of liberalising the acquisition of agricultural land due to initial large differences in land prices and income compared with Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (hereinafter the EU-15). The transitional period was also designed to ease the process of restitution and privatisation of agricultural land. In its Report of 16 July 2008 on the Review of the transitional measures for the acquisition of agricultural real estate set out in the 2003 Accession Treaty (hereinafter the \u2018Mid-Term Review\u2019), the Commission has already emphasised the importance of the completion of the abovementioned agricultural reform by the end of the foreseen transitional period (1).\n(4)\nAccording to data available to Eurostat, agricultural land prices in Slovakia are lower than the agricultural land prices in the EU. Complete convergence in agricultural land sales prices was neither expected nor seen as a necessary pre-condition for terminating the transitional period. Nevertheless, the noticeable differences in agricultural land prices between Slovakia and the EU-15 are such that they can hinder smooth progress towards price convergence. The risk of speculative activity on low value lands is also important.\n(5)\nSimilarly to the levels of agricultural land prices, the data from Eurostat show that the gap in per capita GDP in Purchasing Power Standards in Slovakia and the EU-15 still persists. Thus, existing agricultural land prices are high relative to the purchasing power in Slovakia.\n(6)\nAccording to Eurostat, the structure of land property in Slovakia is characterised by the predominance of small family farms of less than 2 ha which are mostly not market oriented. The consolidation process of these small farms is very slow and the average exploited agricultural area per holding of less than 2 ha increased from 0,5 ha to 0,6 ha between 2001 and 2007. Even though only 4,56 % of the total number of workers works in agriculture, almost half of the population lives in rural areas. According to the Slovak authorities many agricultural lands which are in private hands are not farmed.\n(7)\nConsolidation of agricultural land is also impeded by the unfinished process of restitution of ownership rights due to unsettled outstanding claims. Also, more than 360 000 ha of agricultural private lands are administrated by the Slovak Land Fund pending the identification of their legal owners. Approximately 130 000 ha of State-owned agricultural land remain under the administration of the Slovak Land Fund. These lands together with those which have uncertain legal situation represent almost one quarter of the total area of agricultural lands in the Slovak Republic. The lack of clarity on property rights inevitably hinders land transactions and consolidation of agricultural estates. Land fragmentation, in turn, further contributes to lower competitiveness and leads to less market-oriented farms.\n(8)\nAgainst this background, it may be anticipated, as do the Slovak authorities, that the lifting of the restrictions on 1 May 2011 would exert pressure on the land prices in Slovakia. Therefore, a threat of serious disturbances on the Slovak agricultural land market upon the expiry of the transitional period exists.\n(9)\nAn extension of 3 years to the transitional period referred to in Chapter 3 of Annex XIV to the 2003 Act of Accession should therefore be granted.\n(10)\nIn order to fully prepare the market for liberalisation, it continues to be of utmost importance, even amid adverse economic circumstances, to foster the improvement of factors such as credit and insurance facilities for farmers, and the completion of the agricultural reform during the transitional period, as already emphasised in the Mid-Term Review.\n(11)\nSince an open single market has always been at the heart of European prosperity, an increased inflow of foreign capital would also bring along potential benefits for the agricultural market in Slovakia. As emphasised in the Mid-Term Review of 2008, foreign investment in the agricultural sector would also have important long-term effects on the provision of capital and know-how, on the functioning of land markets and on agricultural productivity. The progressive loosening of the restrictions on foreign ownership during the transitional period would also contribute to preparing the market for full liberalisation.\n(12)\nFor the purpose of legal certainty and in order to avoid a legal vacuum in the national legal system of Slovakia after the expiry of the current transitional period, this Decision should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe transitional period concerning the acquisition of agricultural land in Slovakia referred to in Chapter 3 of Annex XIV to the 2003 Act of Accession shall be extended until 30 April 2014.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 14 April 2011.", "references": ["92", "80", "52", "62", "67", "85", "16", "0", "77", "83", "74", "86", "73", "7", "49", "24", "29", "47", "40", "79", "25", "10", "71", "37", "28", "65", "99", "78", "23", "72", "No Label", "9", "11", "15", "30", "35", "64", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "11", "15", "30", "35", "64", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 342/2012\nof 19 April 2012\nfixing the export refunds on pigmeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVII of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in pigmeat, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 49/2012 (5). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nIn order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the condition provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 49/2012 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["3", "92", "74", "5", "96", "60", "40", "33", "36", "18", "0", "58", "77", "67", "23", "73", "48", "54", "99", "14", "65", "75", "72", "21", "41", "11", "17", "87", "28", "7", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 July 2011\nabrogating Decision 2010/408/EU on the existence of an excessive deficit in Finland\n(2011/417/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 126(12) thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision 2010/408/EU (1), following a proposal from the Commission in accordance with Article 126(6) of the Treaty, the Council decided that an excessive deficit existed in Finland. In Decision 2010/408/EU, the Council noted that the general government deficit planned for 2010 was 4,1 % of GDP, above the 3 % of GDP Treaty reference value, while general government gross debt was planned to reach 49,9 % of GDP, below the 60 % of GDP Treaty reference value.\n(2)\nOn 13 July 2010, in accordance with Article 126(7) of the Treaty and Article 3(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (2), the Council adopted, on a recommendation from the Commission, a recommendation addressed to Finland with a view to bringing the excessive deficit situation to an end by 2011 at the latest. The recommendation was made public.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 126(12) of the Treaty, a Council Decision on the existence of an excessive deficit is to be abrogated when the excessive deficit in the Member State concerned has, in the view of the Council, been corrected.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol (No 12) on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaties, the Commission provides the data for the implementation of this procedure. As part of the application of this Protocol, Member States are to notify data on government deficits and debt and other associated variables twice a year, namely before 1 April and before 1 October, in accordance with Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 of 25 May 2009 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (3).\n(5)\nBased on data provided by the Commission (Eurostat) in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 following the notification by Finland before 1 April 2011 and on the Commission services\u2019 spring 2011 forecast, the following conclusions are warranted:\n-\nwhile the EDP notification of April 2010 planned for a deficit of 4,1 % of GDP in 2010, the actual outcome was considerably better at a deficit of 2,5 % of GDP,\n-\nthe better-than-planned deficit outturn is primarily explained by stronger-than-expected economic growth and an improved labour market situation boosting tax revenues (notably VAT and income tax), while expenditure growth remained overall contained,\n-\nthe Commission services\u2019 spring 2011 forecast projects the deficit to fall further to 1 % of GDP in 2011. Similarly, the 2011 update of the stability programme projects a deficit of 0,9 % of GDP in 2011. The improvement of the fiscal balance from the previous year is driven by cyclical factors, reflecting the expected continuation of relatively robust economic activity, and some discretionary tax increases (mostly energy and product taxes) worth about \u00bd % of GDP. The deficit is forecast by both the Commission services and the 2011 update of the stability programme to marginally improve further to 0,7 % of GDP in 2012,\n-\naccording to the Commission services\u2019 spring 2011 forecast and the structural balances (recalculated by the Commission services on the basis of the information in the latest stability programme update, using the commonly agreed methodology) in 2011, the structural balance is estimated to reach a more favourable level than the medium-term objective, which is set by the Finnish authorities at a structural surplus of 0,5 % of GDP. However, the structural balance is estimated to weaken somewhat and turn negative in the medium term. The apparent decline in the structural balance estimate results from a broadly stable headline deficit against the backdrop of favourable projections for economic growth closing the currently large output gap. As a result, and unless further measures are taken, in 2015 the budget balance net of cyclical factors and one-off and other temporary measures is currently estimated to move slightly below the minimum benchmark of - 1,2 % of GDP which under normal cyclical fluctuations ensures a safety margin against breaching the 3 % of GDP reference value. The stability programme projections, extending until 2015, forecast the general government deficit to settle at about 1 % of GDP over 2013-2015,\n-\nthe Commission services\u2019 spring 2011 forecast projects the debt ratio to climb from 48,4 % of GDP recorded in 2010 to 52,2 % of GDP in 2012. The stability programme update projects the debt ratio to climb to 51,3 % of GDP by 2012.\n(6)\nIt follows from these conclusions that the excessive deficit in Finland has been corrected and Decision 2010/408/EU should therefore be abrogated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFrom an overall assessment it follows that the excessive deficit situation in Finland has been corrected.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2010/408/EU is hereby abrogated.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Finland.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["45", "30", "81", "42", "17", "24", "43", "0", "8", "57", "31", "64", "93", "98", "27", "87", "63", "66", "61", "62", "78", "58", "34", "48", "37", "80", "65", "94", "38", "56", "No Label", "16", "28", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["16", "28", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 471/2010\nof 31 May 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008, as regards the list of third countries from which certain agricultural products obtained by organic production must originate to be marketed within the Union\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (1), and in particular Article 33(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, Annex III to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 of 8 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries (2) has established a list of third countries whose system of production and control measures for organic production of agricultural products are recognised as equivalent to those laid down in that Regulation. In the light of a new application and information received by the Commission from third countries since the last publication of the list, certain modifications should be taken into consideration and added or inserted in the list.\n(2)\nThe Australian authorities have informed the Commission that one control body has undergone a restructure and changed its name. The Australian authorities have provided the Commission with the necessary guarantees to satisfy it that the restructured control body meets the preconditions laid down in Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008.\n(3)\nCertain agricultural products imported from Japan are currently marketed in the Union pursuant to the transitional rules provided for in Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008. Japan submitted a request to the Commission to be included in the list provided for in Annex III to that Regulation and submitted the information required pursuant to Articles 7 and 8 of that Regulation. The examination of that information and consequent discussion with the Japanese authorities have led to the conclusion that in that country the rules governing production and controls of organic production are equivalent to those laid down in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. The Commission has examined on-the-spot the rules of production and the control measures actually applied in Japan, as provided for in Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. Consequently, the Commission should include Japan in the list provided for in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1235/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the regulatory Committee on organic production,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2010.", "references": ["43", "96", "33", "60", "26", "61", "19", "66", "30", "11", "57", "36", "89", "79", "56", "0", "90", "27", "49", "87", "74", "82", "59", "88", "38", "45", "50", "21", "81", "14", "No Label", "4", "22", "23", "25", "72", "76"], "gold": ["4", "22", "23", "25", "72", "76"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUPM/1/2011\nof 16 December 2011\nextending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUPM BiH)\n(2011/864/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/781/CFSP of 1 December 2011 on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Decision 2011/781/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of EUPM BiH, including, in particular, the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nOn 24 October 2008, the PSC, by Decision 2008/835/CFSP (2), appointed Mr Stefan FELLER as Head of Mission of EUPM BiH. His mandate was extended by Decision 2009/958/CFSP (3) until 31 December 2010 and subsequently by Decision 2010/754/CFSP (4) until 31 December 2011.\n(3)\nBy Decision 2011/781/CFSP, the Council, inter alia, extended the duration of EUPM BiH until 30 June 2012.\n(4)\nOn 7 December 2011, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed to the PSC to extend the mandate of Mr Stefan FELLER as Head of Mission of EUPM BiH for an additional 6 months, until 30 June 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Mr Stefan FELLER as Head of Mission of the European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUPM BiH) is hereby extended from 1 January 2012 until 30 June 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["20", "27", "32", "47", "40", "46", "56", "45", "33", "5", "19", "8", "37", "13", "48", "65", "18", "53", "25", "24", "38", "79", "23", "58", "67", "57", "49", "2", "21", "98", "No Label", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 1 July 2011\namending the SIRENE Manual\n(notified under document C(2011) 4574)\n(Only the Bulgarian, Czech, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2011/406/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 378/2004 of 19 February 2004 on procedures for amending the SIRENE Manual (1), and in particular Article 2 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2004/201/JHA of 19 February 2004 on procedures for amending the SIRENE Manual (2), and in particular Article 2 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe SIRENE Manual constitutes a set of instructions to operators in the SIRENE bureaux of each Member State which establishes the rules and procedures governing the bilateral or multilateral exchange of supplementary information which is required to implement correctly certain provisions of the Convention of 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of checks at common borders (3) (the Schengen Convention).\n(2)\nStandards of working procedures of the SIRENE bureaux and the Union law relevant to the supplementary information exchange between SIRENE bureaux have developed over time. The SIRENE Manual has not been amended since 2007. As a result, amendments are now required in order to guarantee uniformity of working procedures and ensure alignment with developments of the Union law relevant to the supplementary information exchange between SIRENE bureaux. Given the extent of the necessary amendments to the provisions of the SIRENE Manual it is appropriate to replace the current text of the SIRENE Manual with a revised version.\n(3)\nProvisions on the protection of personal data and security of data in the Schengen Information System are set out in the Schengen Convention. In the absence of specific provisions of the Convention, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (4) is applicable to the exchange of supplementary information relating to alerts for refusal of entry. In the absence of specific provisions of the Convention, Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (5) applies to the exchange of supplementary information relating to all other alerts.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the former Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark did not take part in the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 378/2004 and is not bound by it nor subject to its application. However, given that Regulation (EC) No 378/2004 built upon the Schengen acquis under the provisions of Title IV of Part Three of the former Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark, in accordance with Article 5 of the said Protocol, decided to implement this acquis in its national law. Denmark took part in the adoption of Decision 2004/201/JHA. It is therefore bound to implement this Decision.\n(5)\nThe United Kingdom is taking part in this Decision to the extent it does not concern supplementary information exchange in relation to Article 96 of the Schengen Convention, in accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Article 8(2) of Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (6).\n(6)\nIreland is taking part in this Decision to the extent it does not concern supplementary information exchange in relation to Article 96 of the Schengen Convention, in accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the acquis (7).\n(7)\nThis Decision constitutes an act building on the Schengen acquis or otherwise related to it within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession and Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession.\n(8)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (8) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point G, of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (9) on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement.\n(9)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the association of the Swiss Confederation with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (10), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point G, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decisions 2008/146/EC (11) and 2008/149/JHA (12).\n(10)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol signed between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point G, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decisions 2008/261/EC (13) and 2008/262/JHA (14).\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 378/2004 and Article 3 of Decision 2004/201/JHA,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe SIRENE Manual is replaced by the version in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2011.", "references": ["88", "1", "35", "71", "26", "20", "63", "97", "8", "76", "85", "86", "22", "77", "60", "18", "95", "92", "12", "53", "79", "11", "30", "15", "42", "87", "19", "9", "29", "3", "No Label", "13", "39", "41"], "gold": ["13", "39", "41"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 650/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 4 July 2012\non jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 81(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice in which the free movement of persons is ensured. For the gradual establishment of such an area, the Union is to adopt measures relating to judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications, particularly when necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market.\n(2)\nIn accordance with point (c) of Article 81(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, such measures may include measures aimed at ensuring the compatibility of the rules applicable in the Member States concerning conflict of laws and of jurisdiction.\n(3)\nThe European Council meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 endorsed the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and other decisions of judicial authorities as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in civil matters and invited the Council and the Commission to adopt a programme of measures to implement that principle.\n(4)\nA programme of measures for implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters (3), common to the Commission and to the Council, was adopted on 30 November 2000. That programme identifies measures relating to the harmonisation of conflict-of-laws rules as measures facilitating the mutual recognition of decisions, and provides for the drawing-up of an instrument relating to wills and succession.\n(5)\nThe European Council meeting in Brussels on 4 and 5 November 2004 adopted a new programme called \u2018The Hague Programme: strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union\u2019 (4). That programme underlines the need to adopt an instrument in matters of succession dealing, in particular, with the questions of conflict of laws, jurisdiction, mutual recognition and enforcement of decisions in the area of succession and a European Certificate of Succession.\n(6)\nAt its meeting in Brussels on 10 and 11 December 2009 the European Council adopted a new multiannual programme called \u2018The Stockholm Programme - An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens\u2019 (5). In that programme the European Council considered that mutual recognition should be extended to fields that are not yet covered but are essential to everyday life, for example succession and wills, while taking into consideration Member States\u2019 legal systems, including public policy (ordre public), and national traditions in this area.\n(7)\nThe proper functioning of the internal market should be facilitated by removing the obstacles to the free movement of persons who currently face difficulties in asserting their rights in the context of a succession having cross-border implications. In the European area of justice, citizens must be able to organise their succession in advance. The rights of heirs and legatees, of other persons close to the deceased and of creditors of the succession must be effectively guaranteed.\n(8)\nIn order to achieve those objectives, this Regulation should bring together provisions on jurisdiction, on applicable law, on recognition or, as the case may be, acceptance, enforceability and enforcement of decisions, authentic instruments and court settlements and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession.\n(9)\nThe scope of this Regulation should include all civil-law aspects of succession to the estate of a deceased person, namely all forms of transfer of assets, rights and obligations by reason of death, whether by way of a voluntary transfer under a disposition of property upon death or a transfer through intestate succession.\n(10)\nThis Regulation should not apply to revenue matters or to administrative matters of a public-law nature. It should therefore be for national law to determine, for instance, how taxes and other liabilities of a public-law nature are calculated and paid, whether these be taxes payable by the deceased at the time of death or any type of succession-related tax to be paid by the estate or the beneficiaries. It should also be for national law to determine whether the release of succession property to beneficiaries under this Regulation or the recording of succession property in a register may be made subject to the payment of taxes.\n(11)\nThis Regulation should not apply to areas of civil law other than succession. For reasons of clarity, a number of questions which could be seen as having a link with matters of succession should be explicitly excluded from the scope of this Regulation.\n(12)\nAccordingly, this Regulation should not apply to questions relating to matrimonial property regimes, including marriage settlements as known in some legal systems to the extent that such settlements do not deal with succession matters, and property regimes of relationships deemed to have comparable effects to marriage. The authorities dealing with a given succession under this Regulation should nevertheless, depending on the situation, take into account the winding-up of the matrimonial property regime or similar property regime of the deceased when determining the estate of the deceased and the respective shares of the beneficiaries.\n(13)\nQuestions relating to the creation, administration and dissolution of trusts should also be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. This should not be understood as a general exclusion of trusts. Where a trust is created under a will or under statute in connection with intestate succession the law applicable to the succession under this Regulation should apply with respect to the devolution of the assets and the determination of the beneficiaries.\n(14)\nProperty rights, interests and assets created or transferred otherwise than by succession, for instance by way of gifts, should also be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. However, it should be the law specified by this Regulation as the law applicable to the succession which determines whether gifts or other forms of dispositions inter vivos giving rise to a right in rem prior to death should be restored or accounted for for the purposes of determining the shares of the beneficiaries in accordance with the law applicable to the succession.\n(15)\nThis Regulation should allow for the creation or the transfer by succession of a right in immovable or movable property as provided for in the law applicable to the succession. It should, however, not affect the limited number (\u2018numerus clausus\u2019) of rights in rem known in the national law of some Member States. A Member State should not be required to recognise a right in rem relating to property located in that Member State if the right in rem in question is not known in its law.\n(16)\nHowever, in order to allow the beneficiaries to enjoy in another Member State the rights which have been created or transferred to them by succession, this Regulation should provide for the adaptation of an unknown right in rem to the closest equivalent right in rem under the law of that other Member State. In the context of such an adaptation, account should be taken of the aims and the interests pursued by the specific right in rem and the effects attached to it. For the purposes of determining the closest equivalent national right in rem, the authorities or competent persons of the State whose law applied to the succession may be contacted for further information on the nature and the effects of the right. To that end, the existing networks in the area of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters could be used, as well as any other available means facilitating the understanding of foreign law.\n(17)\nThe adaptation of unknown rights in rem as explicitly provided for by this Regulation should not preclude other forms of adaptation in the context of the application of this Regulation.\n(18)\nThe requirements for the recording in a register of a right in immovable or movable property should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. It should therefore be the law of the Member State in which the register is kept (for immovable property, the lex rei sitae) which determines under what legal conditions and how the recording must be carried out and which authorities, such as land registers or notaries, are in charge of checking that all requirements are met and that the documentation presented or established is sufficient or contains the necessary information. In particular, the authorities may check that the right of the deceased to the succession property mentioned in the document presented for registration is a right which is recorded as such in the register or which is otherwise demonstrated in accordance with the law of the Member State in which the register is kept. In order to avoid duplication of documents, the registration authorities should accept such documents drawn up in another Member State by the competent authorities whose circulation is provided for by this Regulation. In particular, the European Certificate of Succession issued under this Regulation should constitute a valid document for the recording of succession property in a register of a Member State. This should not preclude the authorities involved in the registration from asking the person applying for registration to provide such additional information, or to present such additional documents, as are required under the law of the Member State in which the register is kept, for instance information or documents relating to the payment of revenue. The competent authority may indicate to the person applying for registration how the missing information or documents can be provided.\n(19)\nThe effects of the recording of a right in a register should also be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. It should therefore be the law of the Member State in which the register is kept which determines whether the recording is, for instance, declaratory or constitutive in effect. Thus, where, for example, the acquisition of a right in immovable property requires a recording in a register under the law of the Member State in which the register is kept in order to ensure the erga omnes effect of registers or to protect legal transactions, the moment of such acquisition should be governed by the law of that Member State.\n(20)\nThis Regulation should respect the different systems for dealing with matters of succession applied in the Member States. For the purposes of this Regulation, the term \u2018court\u2019 should therefore be given a broad meaning so as to cover not only courts in the true sense of the word, exercising judicial functions, but also the notaries or registry offices in some Member States who or which, in certain matters of succession, exercise judicial functions like courts, and the notaries and legal professionals who, in some Member States, exercise judicial functions in a given succession by delegation of power by a court. All courts as defined in this Regulation should be bound by the rules of jurisdiction set out in this Regulation. Conversely, the term \u2018court\u2019 should not cover non-judicial authorities of a Member State empowered under national law to deal with matters of succession, such as the notaries in most Member States where, as is usually the case, they are not exercising judicial functions.\n(21)\nThis Regulation should allow all notaries who have competence in matters of succession in the Member States to exercise such competence. Whether or not the notaries in a given Member State are bound by the rules of jurisdiction set out in this Regulation should depend on whether or not they are covered by the term \u2018court\u2019 for the purposes of this Regulation.\n(22)\nActs issued by notaries in matters of succession in the Member States should circulate under this Regulation. When notaries exercise judicial functions they are bound by the rules of jurisdiction, and the decisions they give should circulate in accordance with the provisions on recognition, enforceability and enforcement of decisions. When notaries do not exercise judicial functions they are not bound by the rules of jurisdiction, and the authentic instruments they issue should circulate in accordance with the provisions on authentic instruments.\n(23)\nIn view of the increasing mobility of citizens and in order to ensure the proper administration of justice within the Union and to ensure that a genuine connecting factor exists between the succession and the Member State in which jurisdiction is exercised, this Regulation should provide that the general connecting factor for the purposes of determining both jurisdiction and the applicable law should be the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death. In order to determine the habitual residence, the authority dealing with the succession should make an overall assessment of the circumstances of the life of the deceased during the years preceding his death and at the time of his death, taking account of all relevant factual elements, in particular the duration and regularity of the deceased\u2019s presence in the State concerned and the conditions and reasons for that presence. The habitual residence thus determined should reveal a close and stable connection with the State concerned taking into account the specific aims of this Regulation.\n(24)\nIn certain cases, determining the deceased\u2019s habitual residence may prove complex. Such a case may arise, in particular, where the deceased for professional or economic reasons had gone to live abroad to work there, sometimes for a long time, but had maintained a close and stable connection with his State of origin. In such a case, the deceased could, depending on the circumstances of the case, be considered still to have his habitual residence in his State of origin in which the centre of interests of his family and his social life was located. Other complex cases may arise where the deceased lived in several States alternately or travelled from one State to another without settling permanently in any of them. If the deceased was a national of one of those States or had all his main assets in one of those States, his nationality or the location of those assets could be a special factor in the overall assessment of all the factual circumstances.\n(25)\nWith regard to the determination of the law applicable to the succession the authority dealing with the succession may in exceptional cases - where, for instance, the deceased had moved to the State of his habitual residence fairly recently before his death and all the circumstances of the case indicate that he was manifestly more closely connected with another State - arrive at the conclusion that the law applicable to the succession should not be the law of the State of the habitual residence of the deceased but rather the law of the State with which the deceased was manifestly more closely connected. That manifestly closest connection should, however, not be resorted to as a subsidiary connecting factor whenever the determination of the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death proves complex.\n(26)\nNothing in this Regulation should prevent a court from applying mechanisms designed to tackle the evasion of the law, such as fraude \u00e0 la loi in the context of private international law.\n(27)\nThe rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the authority dealing with the succession will, in most situations, be applying its own law. This Regulation therefore provides for a series of mechanisms which would come into play where the deceased had chosen as the law to govern his succession the law of a Member State of which he was a national.\n(28)\nOne such mechanism should be to allow the parties concerned to conclude a choice-of-court agreement in favour of the courts of the Member State of the chosen law. It would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending in particular on the issue covered by the choice-of-court agreement, whether the agreement would have to be concluded between all parties concerned by the succession or whether some of them could agree to bring a specific issue before the chosen court in a situation where the decision by that court on that issue would not affect the rights of the other parties to the succession.\n(29)\nIf succession proceedings are opened by a court of its own motion, as is the case in certain Member States, that court should close the proceedings if the parties agree to settle the succession amicably out of court in the Member State of the chosen law. Where succession proceedings are not opened by a court of its own motion, this Regulation should not prevent the parties from settling the succession amicably out of court, for instance before a notary, in a Member State of their choice where this is possible under the law of that Member State. This should be the case even if the law applicable to the succession is not the law of that Member State.\n(30)\nIn order to ensure that the courts of all Member States may, on the same grounds, exercise jurisdiction in relation to the succession of persons not habitually resident in a Member State at the time of death, this Regulation should list exhaustively, in a hierarchical order, the grounds on which such subsidiary jurisdiction may be exercised.\n(31)\nIn order to remedy, in particular, situations of denial of justice, this Regulation should provide a forum necessitatis allowing a court of a Member State, on an exceptional basis, to rule on a succession which is closely connected with a third State. Such an exceptional basis may be deemed to exist when proceedings prove impossible in the third State in question, for example because of civil war, or when a beneficiary cannot reasonably be expected to initiate or conduct proceedings in that State. Jurisdiction based on forum necessitatis should, however, be exercised only if the case has a sufficient connection with the Member State of the court seised.\n(32)\nIn order to simplify the lives of heirs and legatees habitually resident in a Member State other than that in which the succession is being or will be dealt with, this Regulation should allow any person entitled under the law applicable to the succession to make declarations concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved share, or concerning the limitation of his liability for the debts under the succession, to make such declarations in the form provided for by the law of the Member State of his habitual residence before the courts of that Member State. This should not preclude such declarations being made before other authorities in that Member State which are competent to receive declarations under national law. Persons choosing to avail themselves of the possibility to make declarations in the Member State of their habitual residence should themselves inform the court or authority which is or will be dealing with the succession of the existence of such declarations within any time limit set by the law applicable to the succession.\n(33)\nIt should not be possible for a person who wishes to limit his liability for the debts under the succession to do so by a mere declaration to that effect before the courts or other competent authorities of the Member State of his habitual residence where the law applicable to the succession requires him to initiate specific legal proceedings, for instance inventory proceedings, before the competent court. A declaration made in such circumstances by a person in the Member State of his habitual residence in the form provided for by the law of that Member State should therefore not be formally valid for the purposes of this Regulation. Nor should the documents instituting the legal proceedings be regarded as declarations for the purposes of this Regulation.\n(34)\nIn the interests of the harmonious functioning of justice, the giving of irreconcilable decisions in different Member States should be avoided. To that end, this Regulation should provide for general procedural rules similar to those of other Union instruments in the area of judicial cooperation in civil matters.\n(35)\nOne such procedural rule is a lis pendens rule which will come into play if the same succession case is brought before different courts in different Member States. That rule will then determine which court should proceed to deal with the succession case.\n(36)\nGiven that succession matters in some Member States may be dealt with by non-judicial authorities, such as notaries, who are not bound by the rules of jurisdiction under this Regulation, it cannot be excluded that an amicable out-of-court settlement and court proceedings relating to the same succession, or two amicable out-of-court settlements relating to the same succession, may be initiated in parallel in different Member States. In such a situation, it should be for the parties involved, once they become aware of the parallel proceedings, to agree among themselves how to proceed. If they cannot agree, the succession would have to be dealt with and decided upon by the courts having jurisdiction under this Regulation.\n(37)\nIn order to allow citizens to avail themselves, with all legal certainty, of the benefits offered by the internal market, this Regulation should enable them to know in advance which law will apply to their succession. Harmonised conflict-of-laws rules should be introduced in order to avoid contradictory results. The main rule should ensure that the succession is governed by a predictable law with which it is closely connected. For reasons of legal certainty and in order to avoid the fragmentation of the succession, that law should govern the succession as a whole, that is to say, all of the property forming part of the estate, irrespective of the nature of the assets and regardless of whether the assets are located in another Member State or in a third State.\n(38)\nThis Regulation should enable citizens to organise their succession in advance by choosing the law applicable to their succession. That choice should be limited to the law of a State of their nationality in order to ensure a connection between the deceased and the law chosen and to avoid a law being chosen with the intention of frustrating the legitimate expectations of persons entitled to a reserved share.\n(39)\nA choice of law should be made expressly in a declaration in the form of a disposition of property upon death or be demonstrated by the terms of such a disposition. A choice of law could be regarded as demonstrated by a disposition of property upon death where, for instance, the deceased had referred in his disposition to specific provisions of the law of the State of his nationality or where he had otherwise mentioned that law.\n(40)\nA choice of law under this Regulation should be valid even if the chosen law does not provide for a choice of law in matters of succession. It should however be for the chosen law to determine the substantive validity of the act of making the choice, that is to say, whether the person making the choice may be considered to have understood and consented to what he was doing. The same should apply to the act of modifying or revoking a choice of law.\n(41)\nFor the purposes of the application of this Regulation, the determination of the nationality or the multiple nationalities of a person should be resolved as a preliminary question. The issue of considering a person as a national of a State falls outside the scope of this Regulation and is subject to national law, including, where applicable, international Conventions, in full observance of the general principles of the European Union.\n(42)\nThe law determined as the law applicable to the succession should govern the succession from the opening of the succession to the transfer of ownership of the assets forming part of the estate to the beneficiaries as determined by that law. It should include questions relating to the administration of the estate and to liability for the debts under the succession. The payment of the debts under the succession may, depending, in particular, on the law applicable to the succession, include the taking into account of a specific ranking of the creditors.\n(43)\nThe rules of jurisdiction laid down by this Regulation may, in certain cases, lead to a situation where the court having jurisdiction to rule on the succession will not be applying its own law. When that situation occurs in a Member State whose law provides for the mandatory appointment of an administrator of the estate, this Regulation should allow the courts of that Member State, when seised, to appoint one or more such administrators under their own law. This should be without prejudice to any choice made by the parties to settle the succession amicably out of court in another Member State where this is possible under the law of that Member State. In order to ensure a smooth coordination between the law applicable to the succession and the law of the Member State of the appointing court, the court should appoint the person(s) who would be entitled to administer the estate under the law applicable to the succession, such as for instance the executor of the will of the deceased or the heirs themselves or, if the law applicable to the succession so requires, a third-party administrator. The courts may, however, in specific cases where their law so requires, appoint a third party as administrator even if this is not provided for in the law applicable to the succession. If the deceased had appointed an executor of the will, that person may not be deprived of his powers unless the law applicable to the succession allows for the termination of his mandate.\n(44)\nThe powers exercised by the administrators appointed in the Member State of the court seised should be the powers of administration which they may exercise under the law applicable to the succession. Thus, if, for instance, the heir is appointed as administrator he should have the powers to administer the estate which an heir would have under that law. Where the powers of administration which may be exercised under the law applicable to the succession are not sufficient to preserve the assets of the estate or to protect the rights of the creditors or of other persons having guaranteed the debts of the deceased, the administrator(s) appointed in the Member State of the court seised may, on a residual basis, exercise powers of administration to that end provided for by the law of that Member State. Such residual powers could include, for instance, establishing a list of the assets of the estate and the debts under the succession, informing creditors of the opening of the succession and inviting them to make their claims known, and taking any provisional, including protective, measures intended to preserve the assets of the estate. The acts performed by an administrator in exercise of the residual powers should respect the law applicable to the succession as regards the transfer of ownership of succession property, including any transaction entered into by the beneficiaries prior to the appointment of the administrator, liability for the debts under the succession and the rights of the beneficiaries, including, where applicable, the right to accept or to waive the succession. Such acts could, for instance, only entail the alienation of assets or the payment of debts where this would be allowed under the law applicable to the succession. Where under the law applicable to the succession the appointment of a third-party administrator changes the liability of the heirs, such a change of liability should be respected.\n(45)\nThis Regulation should not preclude creditors, for instance through a representative, from taking such further steps as may be available under national law, where applicable, in accordance with the relevant Union instruments, in order to safeguard their rights.\n(46)\nThis Regulation should allow for potential creditors in other Member States where assets are located to be informed of the opening of the succession. In the context of the application of this Regulation, consideration should therefore be given to the possibility of establishing a mechanism, if appropriate by way of the e-Justice portal, to enable potential creditors in other Member States to access the relevant information so that they can make their claims known.\n(47)\nThe law applicable to the succession should determine who the beneficiaries are in any given succession. Under most laws, the term \u2018beneficiaries\u2019 would cover heirs and legatees and persons entitled to a reserved share although, for instance, the legal position of legatees is not the same under all laws. Under some laws, the legatee may receive a direct share in the estate whereas under other laws the legatee may acquire only a claim against the heirs.\n(48)\nIn order to ensure legal certainty for persons wishing to plan their succession in advance, this Regulation should lay down a specific conflict-of-laws rule concerning the admissibility and substantive validity of dispositions of property upon death. To ensure the uniform application of that rule, this Regulation should list which elements should be considered as elements pertaining to substantive validity. The examination of the substantive validity of a disposition of property upon death may lead to the conclusion that that disposition is without legal existence.\n(49)\nAn agreement as to succession is a type of disposition of property upon death the admissibility and acceptance of which vary among the Member States. In order to make it easier for succession rights acquired as a result of an agreement as to succession to be accepted in the Member States, this Regulation should determine which law is to govern the admissibility of such agreements, their substantive validity and their binding effects between the parties, including the conditions for their dissolution.\n(50)\nThe law which, under this Regulation, will govern the admissibility and substantive validity of a disposition of property upon death and, as regards agreements as to succession, the binding effects of such an agreement as between the parties, should be without prejudice to the rights of any person who, under the law applicable to the succession, has a right to a reserved share or another right of which he cannot be deprived by the person whose estate is involved.\n(51)\nWhere reference is made in this Regulation to the law which would have been applicable to the succession of the person making a disposition of property upon death if he had died on the day on which the disposition was, as the case may be, made, modified or revoked, such reference should be understood as a reference to either the law of the State of the habitual residence of the person concerned on that day or, if he had made a choice of law under this Regulation, the law of the State of his nationality on that day.\n(52)\nThis Regulation should regulate the validity as to form of all dispositions of property upon death made in writing by way of rules which are consistent with those of the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 on the Conflicts of Laws Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions. When determining whether a given disposition of property upon death is formally valid under this Regulation, the competent authority should disregard the fraudulent creation of an international element to circumvent the rules on formal validity.\n(53)\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, any provision of law limiting the permitted forms of dispositions of property upon death by reference to certain personal qualifications of the person making the disposition, such as, for instance, his age, should be deemed to pertain to matters of form. This should not be interpreted as meaning that the law applicable to the formal validity of a disposition of property upon death under this Regulation should determine whether or not a minor has the capacity to make a disposition of property upon death. That law should only determine whether a personal qualification such as, for instance, minority should bar a person from making a disposition of property upon death in a certain form.\n(54)\nFor economic, family or social considerations, certain immovable property, certain enterprises and other special categories of assets are subject to special rules in the Member State in which they are located imposing restrictions concerning or affecting the succession in respect of those assets. This Regulation should ensure the application of such special rules. However, this exception to the application of the law applicable to the succession requires a strict interpretation in order to remain compatible with the general objective of this Regulation. Therefore, neither conflict-of-laws rules subjecting immovable property to a law different from that applicable to movable property nor provisions providing for a reserved share of the estate greater than that provided for in the law applicable to the succession under this Regulation may be regarded as constituting special rules imposing restrictions concerning or affecting the succession in respect of certain assets.\n(55)\nTo ensure uniform handling of a situation in which it is uncertain in what order two or more persons whose succession would be governed by different laws died, this Regulation should lay down a rule providing that none of the deceased persons is to have any rights in the succession of the other or others.\n(56)\nIn some situations an estate may be left without a claimant. Different laws provide differently for such situations. Under some laws, the State will be able to claim the vacant estate as an heir irrespective of where the assets are located. Under some other laws, the State will be able to appropriate only the assets located on its territory. This Regulation should therefore lay down a rule providing that the application of the law applicable to the succession should not preclude a Member State from appropriating under its own law the assets located on its territory. However, to ensure that this rule is not detrimental to the creditors of the estate, a proviso should be added enabling the creditors to seek satisfaction of their claims out of all the assets of the estate, irrespective of their location.\n(57)\nThe conflict-of-laws rules laid down in this Regulation may lead to the application of the law of a third State. In such cases regard should be had to the private international law rules of that State. If those rules provide for renvoi either to the law of a Member State or to the law of a third State which would apply its own law to the succession, such renvoi should be accepted in order to ensure international consistency. Renvoi should, however, be excluded in situations where the deceased had made a choice of law in favour of the law of a third State.\n(58)\nConsiderations of public interest should allow courts and other competent authorities dealing with matters of succession in the Member States to disregard, in exceptional circumstances, certain provisions of a foreign law where, in a given case, applying such provisions would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy (ordre public) of the Member State concerned. However, the courts or other competent authorities should not be able to apply the public-policy exception in order to set aside the law of another State or to refuse to recognise or, as the case may be, accept or enforce a decision, an authentic instrument or a court settlement from another Member State when doing so would be contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Article 21 thereof, which prohibits all forms of discrimination.\n(59)\nIn the light of its general objective, which is the mutual recognition of decisions given in the Member States in matters of succession, irrespective of whether such decisions were given in contentious or non-contentious proceedings, this Regulation should lay down rules relating to the recognition, enforceability and enforcement of decisions similar to those of other Union instruments in the area of judicial cooperation in civil matters.\n(60)\nIn order to take into account the different systems for dealing with matters of succession in the Member States, this Regulation should guarantee the acceptance and enforceability in all Member States of authentic instruments in matters of succession.\n(61)\nAuthentic instruments should have the same evidentiary effects in another Member State as they have in the Member State of origin, or the most comparable effects. When determining the evidentiary effects of a given authentic instrument in another Member State or the most comparable effects, reference should be made to the nature and the scope of the evidentiary effects of the authentic instrument in the Member State of origin. The evidentiary effects which a given authentic instrument should have in another Member State will therefore depend on the law of the Member State of origin.\n(62)\nThe \u2018authenticity\u2019 of an authentic instrument should be an autonomous concept covering elements such as the genuineness of the instrument, the formal prerequisites of the instrument, the powers of the authority drawing up the instrument and the procedure under which the instrument is drawn up. It should also cover the factual elements recorded in the authentic instrument by the authority concerned, such as the fact that the parties indicated appeared before that authority on the date indicated and that they made the declarations indicated. A party wishing to challenge the authenticity of an authentic instrument should do so before the competent court in the Member State of origin of the authentic instrument under the law of that Member State.\n(63)\nThe term \u2018the legal acts or legal relationships recorded in an authentic instrument\u2019 should be interpreted as referring to the contents as to substance recorded in the authentic instrument. The legal acts recorded in an authentic instrument could be, for instance, the agreement between the parties on the sharing-out or the distribution of the estate, or a will or an agreement as to succession, or another declaration of intent. The legal relationships could be, for instance, the determination of the heirs and other beneficiaries as established under the law applicable to the succession, their respective shares and the existence of a reserved share, or any other element established under the law applicable to the succession. A party wishing to challenge the legal acts or legal relationships recorded in an authentic instrument should do so before the courts having jurisdiction under this Regulation, which should decide on the challenge in accordance with the law applicable to the succession.\n(64)\nIf a question relating to the legal acts or legal relationships recorded in an authentic instrument is raised as an incidental question in proceedings before a court of a Member State, that court should have jurisdiction over that question.\n(65)\nAn authentic instrument which is being challenged should not produce any evidentiary effects in a Member State other than the Member State of origin as long as the challenge is pending. If the challenge concerns only a specific matter relating to the legal acts or legal relationships recorded in the authentic instrument, the authentic instrument in question should not produce any evidentiary effects in a Member State other than the Member State of origin with regard to the matter being challenged as long as the challenge is pending. An authentic instrument which has been declared invalid as a result of a challenge should cease to produce any evidentiary effects.\n(66)\nShould an authority, in the application of this Regulation, be presented with two incompatible authentic instruments, it should assess the question as to which authentic instrument, if any, should be given priority, taking into account the circumstances of the particular case. Where it is not clear from those circumstances which authentic instrument, if any, should be given priority, the question should be determined by the courts having jurisdiction under this Regulation, or, where the question is raised as an incidental question in the course of proceedings, by the court seised of those proceedings. In the event of incompatibility between an authentic instrument and a decision, regard should be had to the grounds of non-recognition of decisions under this Regulation.\n(67)\nIn order for a succession with cross-border implications within the Union to be settled speedily, smoothly and efficiently, the heirs, legatees, executors of the will or administrators of the estate should be able to demonstrate easily their status and/or rights and powers in another Member State, for instance in a Member State in which succession property is located. To enable them to do so, this Regulation should provide for the creation of a uniform certificate, the European Certificate of Succession (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Certificate\u2019), to be issued for use in another Member State. In order to respect the principle of subsidiarity, the Certificate should not take the place of internal documents which may exist for similar purposes in the Member States.\n(68)\nThe authority which issues the Certificate should have regard to the formalities required for the registration of immovable property in the Member State in which the register is kept. For that purpose, this Regulation should provide for an exchange of information on such formalities between the Member States.\n(69)\nThe use of the Certificate should not be mandatory. This means that persons entitled to apply for a Certificate should be under no obligation to do so but should be free to use the other instruments available under this Regulation (decisions, authentic instruments and court settlements). However, no authority or person presented with a Certificate issued in another Member State should be entitled to request that a decision, authentic instrument or court settlement be presented instead of the Certificate.\n(70)\nThe Certificate should be issued in the Member State whose courts have jurisdiction under this Regulation. It should be for each Member State to determine in its internal legislation which authorities are to have competence to issue the Certificate, whether they be courts as defined for the purposes of this Regulation or other authorities with competence in matters of succession, such as, for instance, notaries. It should also be for each Member State to determine in its internal legislation whether the issuing authority may involve other competent bodies in the issuing process, for instance bodies competent to receive statutory declarations in lieu of an oath. The Member States should communicate to the Commission the relevant information concerning their issuing authorities in order for that information to be made publicly available.\n(71)\nThe Certificate should produce the same effects in all Member States. It should not be an enforceable title in its own right but should have an evidentiary effect and should be presumed to demonstrate accurately elements which have been established under the law applicable to the succession or under any other law applicable to specific elements, such as the substantive validity of dispositions of property upon death. The evidentiary effect of the Certificate should not extend to elements which are not governed by this Regulation, such as questions of affiliation or the question whether or not a particular asset belonged to the deceased. Any person who makes payments or passes on succession property to a person indicated in the Certificate as being entitled to accept such payment or property as an heir or legatee should be afforded appropriate protection if he acted in good faith relying on the accuracy of the information certified in the Certificate. The same protection should be afforded to any person who, relying on the accuracy of the information certified in the Certificate, buys or receives succession property from a person indicated in the Certificate as being entitled to dispose of such property. The protection should be ensured if certified copies which are still valid are presented. Whether or not such an acquisition of property by a third person is effective should not be determined by this Regulation.\n(72)\nThe competent authority should issue the Certificate upon request. The original of the Certificate should remain with the issuing authority, which should issue one or more certified copies of the Certificate to the applicant and to any other person demonstrating a legitimate interest. This should not preclude a Member State, in accordance with its national rules on public access to documents, from allowing copies of the Certificate to be disclosed to members of the public. This Regulation should provide for redress against decisions of the issuing authority, including decisions to refuse the issue of a Certificate. Where the Certificate is rectified, modified or withdrawn, the issuing authority should inform the persons to whom certified copies have been issued so as to avoid wrongful use of such copies.\n(73)\nRespect for international commitments entered into by the Member States means that this Regulation should not affect the application of international conventions to which one or more Member States are party at the time when this Regulation is adopted. In particular, the Member States which are Contracting Parties to the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 on the Conflicts of Laws Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions should be able to continue to apply the provisions of that Convention instead of the provisions of this Regulation with regard to the formal validity of wills and joint wills. Consistency with the general objectives of this Regulation requires, however, that this Regulation take precedence, as between Member States, over conventions concluded exclusively between two or more Member States in so far as such conventions concern matters governed by this Regulation.\n(74)\nThis Regulation should not preclude Member States which are parties to the Convention of 19 November 1934 between Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden comprising private international law provisions on succession, wills and estate administration from continuing to apply certain provisions of that Convention, as revised by the intergovernmental agreement between the States parties thereto.\n(75)\nIn order to facilitate the application of this Regulation, provision should be made for an obligation requiring the Member States to communicate certain information regarding their legislation and procedures relating to succession within the framework of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters established by Council Decision 2001/470/EC (6). In order to allow for the timely publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of all information of relevance for the practical application of this Regulation, the Member States should also communicate such information to the Commission before this Regulation starts to apply.\n(76)\nEqually, to facilitate the application of this Regulation and to allow for the use of modern communication technologies, standard forms should be prescribed for the attestations to be provided in connection with the application for a declaration of enforceability of a decision, authentic instrument or court settlement and for the application for a European Certificate of Succession, as well as for the Certificate itself.\n(77)\nIn calculating the periods and time limits provided for in this Regulation, Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits (7) should apply.\n(78)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission with regard to the establishment and subsequent amendment of the attestations and forms pertaining to the declaration of enforceability of decisions, court settlements and authentic instruments and to the European Certificate of Succession. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (8).\n(79)\nThe advisory procedure should be used for the adoption of implementing acts establishing and subsequently amending the attestations and forms provided for in this Regulation in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n(80)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely the free movement of persons, the organisation in advance by citizens of their succession in a Union context and the protection of the rights of heirs and legatees and of persons close to the deceased, as well as of the creditors of the succession, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of this Regulation, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(81)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This Regulation must be applied by the courts and other competent authorities of the Member States in observance of those rights and principles.\n(82)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and are not bound by it or subject to its application. This is, however, without prejudice to the possibility for the United Kingdom and Ireland of notifying their intention of accepting this Regulation after its adoption in accordance with Article 4 of the said Protocol.\n(83)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to succession to the estates of deceased persons. It shall not apply to revenue, customs or administrative matters.\n2. The following shall be excluded from the scope of this Regulation:\n(a)\nthe status of natural persons, as well as family relationships and relationships deemed by the law applicable to such relationships to have comparable effects;\n(b)\nthe legal capacity of natural persons, without prejudice to point (c) of Article 23(2) and to Article 26;\n(c)\nquestions relating to the disappearance, absence or presumed death of a natural person;\n(d)\nquestions relating to matrimonial property regimes and property regimes of relationships deemed by the law applicable to such relationships to have comparable effects to marriage;\n(e)\nmaintenance obligations other than those arising by reason of death;\n(f)\nthe formal validity of dispositions of property upon death made orally;\n(g)\nproperty rights, interests and assets created or transferred otherwise than by succession, for instance by way of gifts, joint ownership with a right of survivorship, pension plans, insurance contracts and arrangements of a similar nature, without prejudice to point (i) of Article 23(2);\n(h)\nquestions governed by the law of companies and other bodies, corporate or unincorporated, such as clauses in the memoranda of association and articles of association of companies and other bodies, corporate or unincorporated, which determine what will happen to the shares upon the death of the members;\n(i)\nthe dissolution, extinction and merger of companies and other bodies, corporate or unincorporated;\n(j)\nthe creation, administration and dissolution of trusts;\n(k)\nthe nature of rights in rem; and\n(l)\nany recording in a register of rights in immovable or movable property, including the legal requirements for such recording, and the effects of recording or failing to record such rights in a register.\nArticle 2\nCompetence in matters of succession within the Member States\nThis Regulation shall not affect the competence of the authorities of the Member States to deal with matters of succession.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation:\n(a)\n\u2018succession\u2019 means succession to the estate of a deceased person and covers all forms of transfer of assets, rights and obligations by reason of death, whether by way of a voluntary transfer under a disposition of property upon death or a transfer through intestate succession;\n(b)\n\u2018agreement as to succession\u2019 means an agreement, including an agreement resulting from mutual wills, which, with or without consideration, creates, modifies or terminates rights to the future estate or estates of one or more persons party to the agreement;\n(c)\n\u2018joint will\u2019 means a will drawn up in one instrument by two or more persons;\n(d)\n\u2018disposition of property upon death\u2019 means a will, a joint will or an agreement as to succession;\n(e)\n\u2018Member State of origin\u2019 means the Member State in which the decision has been given, the court settlement approved or concluded, the authentic instrument established or the European Certificate of Succession issued;\n(f)\n\u2018Member State of enforcement\u2019 means the Member State in which the declaration of enforceability or the enforcement of the decision, court settlement or authentic instrument is sought;\n(g)\n\u2018decision\u2019 means any decision in a matter of succession given by a court of a Member State, whatever the decision may be called, including a decision on the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court;\n(h)\n\u2018court settlement\u2019 means a settlement in a matter of succession which has been approved by a court or concluded before a court in the course of proceedings;\n(i)\n\u2018authentic instrument\u2019 means a document in a matter of succession which has been formally drawn up or registered as an authentic instrument in a Member State and the authenticity of which:\n(i)\nrelates to the signature and the content of the authentic instrument; and\n(ii)\nhas been established by a public authority or other authority empowered for that purpose by the Member State of origin.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation, the term \u2018court\u2019 means any judicial authority and all other authorities and legal professionals with competence in matters of succession which exercise judicial functions or act pursuant to a delegation of power by a judicial authority or act under the control of a judicial authority, provided that such other authorities and legal professionals offer guarantees with regard to impartiality and the right of all parties to be heard and provided that their decisions under the law of the Member State in which they operate:\n(a)\nmay be made the subject of an appeal to or review by a judicial authority; and\n(b)\nhave a similar force and effect as a decision of a judicial authority on the same matter.\nThe Member States shall notify the Commission of the other authorities and legal professionals referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 79.\nCHAPTER II\nJURISDICTION\nArticle 4\nGeneral jurisdiction\nThe courts of the Member State in which the deceased had his habitual residence at the time of death shall have jurisdiction to rule on the succession as a whole.\nArticle 5\nChoice-of-court agreement\n1. Where the law chosen by the deceased to govern his succession pursuant to Article 22 is the law of a Member State, the parties concerned may agree that a court or the courts of that Member State are to have exclusive jurisdiction to rule on any succession matter.\n2. Such a choice-of-court agreement shall be expressed in writing, dated and signed by the parties concerned. Any communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement shall be deemed equivalent to writing.\nArticle 6\nDeclining of jurisdiction in the event of a choice of law\nWhere the law chosen by the deceased to govern his succession pursuant to Article 22 is the law of a Member State, the court seised pursuant to Article 4 or Article 10:\n(a)\nmay, at the request of one of the parties to the proceedings, decline jurisdiction if it considers that the courts of the Member State of the chosen law are better placed to rule on the succession, taking into account the practical circumstances of the succession, such as the habitual residence of the parties and the location of the assets; or\n(b)\nshall decline jurisdiction if the parties to the proceedings have agreed, in accordance with Article 5, to confer jurisdiction on a court or the courts of the Member State of the chosen law.\nArticle 7\nJurisdiction in the event of a choice of law\nThe courts of a Member State whose law had been chosen by the deceased pursuant to Article 22 shall have jurisdiction to rule on the succession if:\n(a)\na court previously seised has declined jurisdiction in the same case pursuant to Article 6;\n(b)\nthe parties to the proceedings have agreed, in accordance with Article 5, to confer jurisdiction on a court or the courts of that Member State; or\n(c)\nthe parties to the proceedings have expressly accepted the jurisdiction of the court seised.\nArticle 8\nClosing of own-motion proceedings in the event of a choice of law\nA court which has opened succession proceedings of its own motion under Article 4 or Article 10 shall close the proceedings if the parties to the proceedings have agreed to settle the succession amicably out of court in the Member State whose law had been chosen by the deceased pursuant to Article 22.\nArticle 9\nJurisdiction based on appearance\n1. Where, in the course of proceedings before a court of a Member State exercising jurisdiction pursuant to Article 7, it appears that not all the parties to those proceedings were party to the choice-of-court agreement, the court shall continue to exercise jurisdiction if the parties to the proceedings who were not party to the agreement enter an appearance without contesting the jurisdiction of the court.\n2. If the jurisdiction of the court referred to in paragraph 1 is contested by parties to the proceedings who were not party to the agreement, the court shall decline jurisdiction.\nIn that event, jurisdiction to rule on the succession shall lie with the courts having jurisdiction pursuant to Article 4 or Article 10.\nArticle 10\nSubsidiary jurisdiction\n1. Where the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death is not located in a Member State, the courts of a Member State in which assets of the estate are located shall nevertheless have jurisdiction to rule on the succession as a whole in so far as:\n(a)\nthe deceased had the nationality of that Member State at the time of death; or, failing that,\n(b)\nthe deceased had his previous habitual residence in that Member State, provided that, at the time the court is seised, a period of not more than five years has elapsed since that habitual residence changed.\n2. Where no court in a Member State has jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph 1, the courts of the Member State in which assets of the estate are located shall nevertheless have jurisdiction to rule on those assets.\nArticle 11\nForum necessitatis\nWhere no court of a Member State has jurisdiction pursuant to other provisions of this Regulation, the courts of a Member State may, on an exceptional basis, rule on the succession if proceedings cannot reasonably be brought or conducted or would be impossible in a third State with which the case is closely connected.\nThe case must have a sufficient connection with the Member State of the court seised.\nArticle 12\nLimitation of proceedings\n1. Where the estate of the deceased comprises assets located in a third State, the court seised to rule on the succession may, at the request of one of the parties, decide not to rule on one or more of such assets if it may be expected that its decision in respect of those assets will not be recognised and, where applicable, declared enforceable in that third State.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not affect the right of the parties to limit the scope of the proceedings under the law of the Member State of the court seised.\nArticle 13\nAcceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved share\nIn addition to the court having jurisdiction to rule on the succession pursuant to this Regulation, the courts of the Member State of the habitual residence of any person who, under the law applicable to the succession, may make, before a court, a declaration concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved share, or a declaration designed to limit the liability of the person concerned in respect of the liabilities under the succession, shall have jurisdiction to receive such declarations where, under the law of that Member State, such declarations may be made before a court.\nArticle 14\nSeising of a court\nFor the purposes of this Chapter, a court shall be deemed to be seised:\n(a)\nat the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court, provided that the applicant has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected on the defendant;\n(b)\nif the document has to be served before being lodged with the court, at the time when it is received by the authority responsible for service, provided that the applicant has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have the document lodged with the court; or\n(c)\nif the proceedings are opened of the court\u2019s own motion, at the time when the decision to open the proceedings is taken by the court, or, where such a decision is not required, at the time when the case is registered by the court.\nArticle 15\nExamination as to jurisdiction\nWhere a court of a Member State is seised of a succession matter over which it has no jurisdiction under this Regulation, it shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction.\nArticle 16\nExamination as to admissibility\n1. Where a defendant habitually resident in a State other than the Member State where the action was brought does not enter an appearance, the court having jurisdiction shall stay the proceedings so long as it is not shown that the defendant has been able to receive the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document in time to arrange for his defence, or that all necessary steps have been taken to that end.\n2. Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) (9) shall apply instead of paragraph 1 of this Article if the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document had to be transmitted from one Member State to another pursuant to that Regulation.\n3. Where Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 is not applicable, Article 15 of the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters shall apply if the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document had to be transmitted abroad pursuant to that Convention.\nArticle 17\nLis pendens\n1. Where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established.\n2. Where the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established, any court other than the court first seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.\nArticle 18\nRelated actions\n1. Where related actions are pending in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised may stay its proceedings.\n2. Where those actions are pending at first instance, any court other than the court first seised may also, on the application of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction if the court first seised has jurisdiction over the actions in question and its law permits the consolidation thereof.\n3. For the purposes of this Article, actions are deemed to be related where they are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable decisions resulting from separate proceedings.\nArticle 19\nProvisional, including protective, measures\nApplication may be made to the courts of a Member State for such provisional, including protective, measures as may be available under the law of that State, even if, under this Regulation, the courts of another Member State have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter.\nCHAPTER III\nAPPLICABLE LAW\nArticle 20\nUniversal application\nAny law specified by this Regulation shall be applied whether or not it is the law of a Member State.\nArticle 21\nGeneral rule\n1. Unless otherwise provided for in this Regulation, the law applicable to the succession as a whole shall be the law of the State in which the deceased had his habitual residence at the time of death.\n2. Where, by way of exception, it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that, at the time of death, the deceased was manifestly more closely connected with a State other than the State whose law would be applicable under paragraph 1, the law applicable to the succession shall be the law of that other State.\nArticle 22\nChoice of law\n1. A person may choose as the law to govern his succession as a whole the law of the State whose nationality he possesses at the time of making the choice or at the time of death.\nA person possessing multiple nationalities may choose the law of any of the States whose nationality he possesses at the time of making the choice or at the time of death.\n2. The choice shall be made expressly in a declaration in the form of a disposition of property upon death or shall be demonstrated by the terms of such a disposition.\n3. The substantive validity of the act whereby the choice of law was made shall be governed by the chosen law.\n4. Any modification or revocation of the choice of law shall meet the requirements as to form for the modification or revocation of a disposition of property upon death.\nArticle 23\nThe scope of the applicable law\n1. The law determined pursuant to Article 21 or Article 22 shall govern the succession as a whole.\n2. That law shall govern in particular:\n(a)\nthe causes, time and place of the opening of the succession;\n(b)\nthe determination of the beneficiaries, of their respective shares and of the obligations which may be imposed on them by the deceased, and the determination of other succession rights, including the succession rights of the surviving spouse or partner;\n(c)\nthe capacity to inherit;\n(d)\ndisinheritance and disqualification by conduct;\n(e)\nthe transfer to the heirs and, as the case may be, to the legatees of the assets, rights and obligations forming part of the estate, including the conditions and effects of the acceptance or waiver of the succession or of a legacy;\n(f)\nthe powers of the heirs, the executors of the wills and other administrators of the estate, in particular as regards the sale of property and the payment of creditors, without prejudice to the powers referred to in Article 29(2) and (3);\n(g)\nliability for the debts under the succession;\n(h)\nthe disposable part of the estate, the reserved shares and other restrictions on the disposal of property upon death as well as claims which persons close to the deceased may have against the estate or the heirs;\n(i)\nany obligation to restore or account for gifts, advancements or legacies when determining the shares of the different beneficiaries; and\n(j)\nthe sharing-out of the estate.\nArticle 24\nDispositions of property upon death other than agreements as to succession\n1. A disposition of property upon death other than an agreement as to succession shall be governed, as regards its admissibility and substantive validity, by the law which, under this Regulation, would have been applicable to the succession of the person who made the disposition if he had died on the day on which the disposition was made.\n2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, a person may choose as the law to govern his disposition of property upon death, as regards its admissibility and substantive validity, the law which that person could have chosen in accordance with Article 22 on the conditions set out therein.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall apply, as appropriate, to the modification or revocation of a disposition of property upon death other than an agreement as to succession. In the event of a choice of law in accordance with paragraph 2, the modification or revocation shall be governed by the chosen law.\nArticle 25\nAgreements as to succession\n1. An agreement as to succession regarding the succession of one person shall be governed, as regards its admissibility, its substantive validity and its binding effects between the parties, including the conditions for its dissolution, by the law which, under this Regulation, would have been applicable to the succession of that person if he had died on the day on which the agreement was concluded.\n2. An agreement as to succession regarding the succession of several persons shall be admissible only if it is admissible under all the laws which, under this Regulation, would have governed the succession of all the persons involved if they had died on the day on which the agreement was concluded.\nAn agreement as to succession which is admissible pursuant to the first subparagraph shall be governed, as regards its substantive validity and its binding effects between the parties, including the conditions for its dissolution, by the law, from among those referred to in the first subparagraph, with which it has the closest connection.\n3. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, the parties may choose as the law to govern their agreement as to succession, as regards its admissibility, its substantive validity and its binding effects between the parties, including the conditions for its dissolution, the law which the person or one of the persons whose estate is involved could have chosen in accordance with Article 22 on the conditions set out therein.\nArticle 26\nSubstantive validity of dispositions of property upon death\n1. For the purposes of Articles 24 and 25 the following elements shall pertain to substantive validity:\n(a)\nthe capacity of the person making the disposition of property upon death to make such a disposition;\n(b)\nthe particular causes which bar the person making the disposition from disposing in favour of certain persons or which bar a person from receiving succession property from the person making the disposition;\n(c)\nthe admissibility of representation for the purposes of making a disposition of property upon death;\n(d)\nthe interpretation of the disposition;\n(e)\nfraud, duress, mistake and any other questions relating to the consent or intention of the person making the disposition.\n2. Where a person has the capacity to make a disposition of property upon death under the law applicable pursuant to Article 24 or Article 25, a subsequent change of the law applicable shall not affect his capacity to modify or revoke such a disposition.\nArticle 27\nFormal validity of dispositions of property upon death made in writing\n1. A disposition of property upon death made in writing shall be valid as regards form if its form complies with the law:\n(a)\nof the State in which the disposition was made or the agreement as to succession concluded;\n(b)\nof a State whose nationality the testator or at least one of the persons whose succession is concerned by an agreement as to succession possessed, either at the time when the disposition was made or the agreement concluded, or at the time of death;\n(c)\nof a State in which the testator or at least one of the persons whose succession is concerned by an agreement as to succession had his domicile, either at the time when the disposition was made or the agreement concluded, or at the time of death;\n(d)\nof the State in which the testator or at least one of the persons whose succession is concerned by an agreement as to succession had his habitual residence, either at the time when the disposition was made or the agreement concluded, or at the time of death; or\n(e)\nin so far as immovable property is concerned, of the State in which that property is located.\nThe determination of the question whether or not the testator or any person whose succession is concerned by the agreement as to succession had his domicile in a particular State shall be governed by the law of that State.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall also apply to dispositions of property upon death modifying or revoking an earlier disposition. The modification or revocation shall also be valid as regards form if it complies with any one of the laws according to the terms of which, under paragraph 1, the disposition of property upon death which has been modified or revoked was valid.\n3. For the purposes of this Article, any provision of law which limits the permitted forms of dispositions of property upon death by reference to the age, nationality or other personal conditions of the testator or of the persons whose succession is concerned by an agreement as to succession shall be deemed to pertain to matters of form. The same rule shall apply to the qualifications to be possessed by any witnesses required for the validity of a disposition of property upon death.\nArticle 28\nValidity as to form of a declaration concerning acceptance or waiver\nA declaration concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved share, or a declaration designed to limit the liability of the person making the declaration, shall be valid as to form where it meets the requirements of:\n(a)\nthe law applicable to the succession pursuant to Article 21 or Article 22; or\n(b)\nthe law of the State in which the person making the declaration has his habitual residence.\nArticle 29\nSpecial rules on the appointment and powers of an administrator of the estate in certain situations\n1. Where the appointment of an administrator is mandatory or mandatory upon request under the law of the Member State whose courts have jurisdiction to rule on the succession pursuant to this Regulation and the law applicable to the succession is a foreign law, the courts of that Member State may, when seised, appoint one or more administrators of the estate under their own law, subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\nThe administrator(s) appointed pursuant to this paragraph shall be the person(s) entitled to execute the will of the deceased and/or to administer the estate under the law applicable to the succession. Where that law does not provide for the administration of the estate by a person who is not a beneficiary, the courts of the Member State in which the administrator is to be appointed may appoint a third-party administrator under their own law if that law so requires and there is a serious conflict of interests between the beneficiaries or between the beneficiaries and the creditors or other persons having guaranteed the debts of the deceased, a disagreement amongst the beneficiaries on the administration of the estate or a complex estate to administer due to the nature of the assets.\nThe administrator(s) appointed pursuant to this paragraph shall be the only person(s) entitled to exercise the powers referred to in paragraph 2 or 3.\n2. The person(s) appointed as administrator(s) pursuant to paragraph 1 shall exercise the powers to administer the estate which he or they may exercise under the law applicable to the succession. The appointing court may, in its decision, lay down specific conditions for the exercise of such powers in accordance with the law applicable to the succession.\nWhere the law applicable to the succession does not provide for sufficient powers to preserve the assets of the estate or to protect the rights of the creditors or of other persons having guaranteed the debts of the deceased, the appointing court may decide to allow the administrator(s) to exercise, on a residual basis, the powers provided for to that end by its own law and may, in its decision, lay down specific conditions for the exercise of such powers in accordance with that law.\nWhen exercising such residual powers, however, the administrator(s) shall respect the law applicable to the succession as regards the transfer of ownership of succession property, liability for the debts under the succession, the rights of the beneficiaries, including, where applicable, the right to accept or to waive the succession, and, where applicable, the powers of the executor of the will of the deceased.\n3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, the court appointing one or more administrators pursuant to paragraph 1 may, by way of exception, where the law applicable to the succession is the law of a third State, decide to vest in those administrators all the powers of administration provided for by the law of the Member State in which they are appointed.\nWhen exercising such powers, however, the administrators shall respect, in particular, the determination of the beneficiaries and their succession rights, including their rights to a reserved share or claim against the estate or the heirs under the law applicable to the succession.\nArticle 30\nSpecial rules imposing restrictions concerning or affecting the succession in respect of certain assets\nWhere the law of the State in which certain immovable property, certain enterprises or other special categories of assets are located contains special rules which, for economic, family or social considerations, impose restrictions concerning or affecting the succession in respect of those assets, those special rules shall apply to the succession in so far as, under the law of that State, they are applicable irrespective of the law applicable to the succession.\nArticle 31\nAdaptation of rights in rem\nWhere a person invokes a right in rem to which he is entitled under the law applicable to the succession and the law of the Member State in which the right is invoked does not know the right in rem in question, that right shall, if necessary and to the extent possible, be adapted to the closest equivalent right in rem under the law of that State, taking into account the aims and the interests pursued by the specific right in rem and the effects attached to it.\nArticle 32\nCommorientes\nWhere two or more persons whose successions are governed by different laws die in circumstances in which it is uncertain in what order their deaths occurred, and where those laws provide differently for that situation or make no provision for it at all, none of the deceased persons shall have any rights to the succession of the other or others.\nArticle 33\nEstate without a claimant\nTo the extent that, under the law applicable to the succession pursuant to this Regulation, there is no heir or legatee for any assets under a disposition of property upon death and no natural person is an heir by operation of law, the application of the law so determined shall not preclude the right of a Member State or of an entity appointed for that purpose by that Member State to appropriate under its own law the assets of the estate located on its territory, provided that the creditors are entitled to seek satisfaction of their claims out of the assets of the estate as a whole.\nArticle 34\nRenvoi\n1. The application of the law of any third State specified by this Regulation shall mean the application of the rules of law in force in that State, including its rules of private international law in so far as those rules make a renvoi:\n(a)\nto the law of a Member State; or\n(b)\nto the law of another third State which would apply its own law.\n2. No renvoi shall apply with respect to the laws referred to in Article 21(2), Article 22, Article 27, point (b) of Article 28 and Article 30.\nArticle 35\nPublic policy (ordre public)\nThe application of a provision of the law of any State specified by this Regulation may be refused only if such application is manifestly incompatible with the public policy (ordre public) of the forum.\nArticle 36\nStates with more than one legal system - territorial conflicts of laws\n1. Where the law specified by this Regulation is that of a State which comprises several territorial units each of which has its own rules of law in respect of succession, the internal conflict-of-laws rules of that State shall determine the relevant territorial unit whose rules of law are to apply.\n2. In the absence of such internal conflict-of-laws rules:\n(a)\nany reference to the law of the State referred to in paragraph 1 shall, for the purposes of determining the law applicable pursuant to provisions referring to the habitual residence of the deceased, be construed as referring to the law of the territorial unit in which the deceased had his habitual residence at the time of death;\n(b)\nany reference to the law of the State referred to in paragraph 1 shall, for the purposes of determining the law applicable pursuant to provisions referring to the nationality of the deceased, be construed as referring to the law of the territorial unit with which the deceased had the closest connection;\n(c)\nany reference to the law of the State referred to in paragraph 1 shall, for the purposes of determining the law applicable pursuant to any other provisions referring to other elements as connecting factors, be construed as referring to the law of the territorial unit in which the relevant element is located.\n3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, any reference to the law of the State referred to in paragraph 1 shall, for the purposes of determining the relevant law pursuant to Article 27, in the absence of internal conflict-of-laws rules in that State, be construed as referring to the law of the territorial unit with which the testator or the persons whose succession is concerned by the agreement as to succession had the closest connection.\nArticle 37\nStates with more than one legal system - inter-personal conflicts of laws\nIn relation to a State which has two or more systems of law or sets of rules applicable to different categories of persons in respect of succession, any reference to the law of that State shall be construed as referring to the system of law or set of rules determined by the rules in force in that State. In the absence of such rules, the system of law or the set of rules with which the deceased had the closest connection shall apply.\nArticle 38\nNon-application of this Regulation to internal conflicts of laws\nA Member State which comprises several territorial units each of which has its own rules of law in respect of succession shall not be required to apply this Regulation to conflicts of laws arising between such units only.\nCHAPTER IV\nRECOGNITION, ENFORCEABILITY AND ENFORCEMENT OF DECISIONS\nArticle 39\nRecognition\n1. A decision given in a Member State shall be recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure being required.\n2. Any interested party who raises the recognition of a decision as the principal issue in a dispute may, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Articles 45 to 58, apply for that decision to be recognised.\n3. If the outcome of the proceedings in a court of a Member State depends on the determination of an incidental question of recognition, that court shall have jurisdiction over that question.\nArticle 40\nGrounds of non-recognition\nA decision shall not be recognised:\n(a)\nif such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State in which recognition is sought;\n(b)\nwhere it was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the decision when it was possible for him to do so;\n(c)\nif it is irreconcilable with a decision given in proceedings between the same parties in the Member State in which recognition is sought;\n(d)\nif it is irreconcilable with an earlier decision given in another Member State or in a third State in proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier decision fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Member State in which recognition is sought.\nArticle 41\nNo review as to the substance\nUnder no circumstances may a decision given in a Member State be reviewed as to its substance.\nArticle 42\nStaying of recognition proceedings\nA court of a Member State in which recognition is sought of a decision given in another Member State may stay the proceedings if an ordinary appeal against the decision has been lodged in the Member State of origin.\nArticle 43\nEnforceability\nDecisions given in a Member State and enforceable in that State shall be enforceable in another Member State when, on the application of any interested party, they have been declared enforceable there in accordance with the procedure provided for in Articles 45 to 58.\nArticle 44\nDetermination of domicile\nTo determine whether, for the purposes of the procedure provided for in Articles 45 to 58, a party is domiciled in the Member State of enforcement, the court seised shall apply the internal law of that Member State.\nArticle 45\nJurisdiction of local courts\n1. The application for a declaration of enforceability shall be submitted to the court or competent authority of the Member State of enforcement communicated by that Member State to the Commission in accordance with Article 78.\n2. The local jurisdiction shall be determined by reference to the place of domicile of the party against whom enforcement is sought, or to the place of enforcement.\nArticle 46\nProcedure\n1. The application procedure shall be governed by the law of the Member State of enforcement.\n2. The applicant shall not be required to have a postal address or an authorised representative in the Member State of enforcement.\n3. The application shall be accompanied by the following documents:\n(a)\na copy of the decision which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity;\n(b)\nthe attestation issued by the court or competent authority of the Member State of origin using the form established in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 81(2), without prejudice to Article 47.\nArticle 47\nNon-production of the attestation\n1. If the attestation referred to in point (b) of Article 46(3) is not produced, the court or competent authority may specify a time for its production or accept an equivalent document or, if it considers that it has sufficient information before it, dispense with its production.\n2. If the court or competent authority so requires, a translation of the documents shall be produced. The translation shall be done by a person qualified to do translations in one of the Member States.\nArticle 48\nDeclaration of enforceability\nThe decision shall be declared enforceable immediately on completion of the formalities in Article 46 without any review under Article 40. The party against whom enforcement is sought shall not at this stage of the proceedings be entitled to make any submissions on the application.\nArticle 49\nNotice of the decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability\n1. The decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability shall forthwith be brought to the notice of the applicant in accordance with the procedure laid down by the law of the Member State of enforcement.\n2. The declaration of enforceability shall be served on the party against whom enforcement is sought, accompanied by the decision, if not already served on that party.\nArticle 50\nAppeal against the decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability\n1. The decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability may be appealed against by either party.\n2. The appeal shall be lodged with the court communicated by the Member State concerned to the Commission in accordance with Article 78.\n3. The appeal shall be dealt with in accordance with the rules governing procedure in contradictory matters.\n4. If the party against whom enforcement is sought fails to appear before the appellate court in proceedings concerning an appeal brought by the applicant, Article 16 shall apply even where the party against whom enforcement is sought is not domiciled in any of the Member States.\n5. An appeal against the declaration of enforceability shall be lodged within 30 days of service thereof. If the party against whom enforcement is sought is domiciled in a Member State other than that in which the declaration of enforceability was given, the time for appealing shall be 60 days and shall run from the date of service, either on him in person or at his residence. No extension may be granted on account of distance.\nArticle 51\nProcedure to contest the decision given on appeal\nThe decision given on the appeal may be contested only by the procedure communicated by the Member State concerned to the Commission in accordance with Article 78.\nArticle 52\nRefusal or revocation of a declaration of enforceability\nThe court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 50 or Article 51 shall refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only on one of the grounds specified in Article 40. It shall give its decision without delay.\nArticle 53\nStaying of proceedings\nThe court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 50 or Article 51 shall, on the application of the party against whom enforcement is sought, stay the proceedings if the enforceability of the decision is suspended in the Member State of origin by reason of an appeal.\nArticle 54\nProvisional, including protective, measures\n1. When a decision must be recognised in accordance with this Chapter, nothing shall prevent the applicant from availing himself of provisional, including protective, measures in accordance with the law of the Member State of enforcement without a declaration of enforceability under Article 48 being required.\n2. The declaration of enforceability shall carry with it by operation of law the power to proceed to any protective measures.\n3. During the time specified for an appeal pursuant to Article 50(5) against the declaration of enforceability and until any such appeal has been determined, no measures of enforcement may be taken other than protective measures against the property of the party against whom enforcement is sought.\nArticle 55\nPartial enforceability\n1. Where a decision has been given in respect of several matters and the declaration of enforceability cannot be given for all of them, the court or competent authority shall give it for one or more of them.\n2. An applicant may request a declaration of enforceability limited to parts of a decision.\nArticle 56\nLegal aid\nAn applicant who, in the Member State of origin, has benefited from complete or partial legal aid or exemption from costs or expenses shall be entitled, in any proceedings for a declaration of enforceability, to benefit from the most favourable legal aid or the most extensive exemption from costs or expenses provided for by the law of the Member State of enforcement.\nArticle 57\nNo security, bond or deposit\nNo security, bond or deposit, however described, shall be required of a party who in one Member State applies for recognition, enforceability or enforcement of a decision given in another Member State on the ground that he is a foreign national or that he is not domiciled or resident in the Member State of enforcement.\nArticle 58\nNo charge, duty or fee\nIn proceedings for the issue of a declaration of enforceability, no charge, duty or fee calculated by reference to the value of the matter at issue may be levied in the Member State of enforcement.\nCHAPTER V\nAUTHENTIC INSTRUMENTS AND COURT SETTLEMENTS\nArticle 59\nAcceptance of authentic instruments\n1. An authentic instrument established in a Member State shall have the same evidentiary effects in another Member State as it has in the Member State of origin, or the most comparable effects, provided that this is not manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State concerned.\nA person wishing to use an authentic instrument in another Member State may ask the authority establishing the authentic instrument in the Member State of origin to fill in the form established in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 81(2) describing the evidentiary effects which the authentic instrument produces in the Member State of origin.\n2. Any challenge relating to the authenticity of an authentic instrument shall be made before the courts of the Member State of origin and shall be decided upon under the law of that State. The authentic instrument challenged shall not produce any evidentiary effect in another Member State as long as the challenge is pending before the competent court.\n3. Any challenge relating to the legal acts or legal relationships recorded in an authentic instrument shall be made before the courts having jurisdiction under this Regulation and shall be decided upon under the law applicable pursuant to Chapter III. The authentic instrument challenged shall not produce any evidentiary effect in a Member State other than the Member State of origin as regards the matter being challenged as long as the challenge is pending before the competent court.\n4. If the outcome of proceedings in a court of a Member State depends on the determination of an incidental question relating to the legal acts or legal relationships recorded in an authentic instrument in matters of succession, that court shall have jurisdiction over that question.\nArticle 60\nEnforceability of authentic instruments\n1. An authentic instrument which is enforceable in the Member State of origin shall be declared enforceable in another Member State on the application of any interested party in accordance with the procedure provided for in Articles 45 to 58.\n2. For the purposes of point (b) of Article 46(3), the authority which established the authentic instrument shall, on the application of any interested party, issue an attestation using the form established in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 81(2).\n3. The court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 50 or Article 51 shall refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only if enforcement of the authentic instrument is manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State of enforcement.\nArticle 61\nEnforceability of court settlements\n1. Court settlements which are enforceable in the Member State of origin shall be declared enforceable in another Member State on the application of any interested party in accordance with the procedure provided for in Articles 45 to 58.\n2. For the purposes of point (b) of Article 46(3), the court which approved the settlement or before which it was concluded shall, on the application of any interested party, issue an attestation using the form established in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 81(2).\n3. The court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 50 or Article 51 shall refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only if enforcement of the court settlement is manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State of enforcement.\nCHAPTER VI\nEUROPEAN CERTIFICATE OF SUCCESSION\nArticle 62\nCreation of a European Certificate of Succession\n1. This Regulation creates a European Certificate of Succession (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Certificate\u2019) which shall be issued for use in another Member State and shall produce the effects listed in Article 69.\n2. The use of the Certificate shall not be mandatory.\n3. The Certificate shall not take the place of internal documents used for similar purposes in the Member States. However, once issued for use in another Member State, the Certificate shall also produce the effects listed in Article 69 in the Member State whose authorities issued it in accordance with this Chapter.\nArticle 63\nPurpose of the Certificate\n1. The Certificate is for use by heirs, legatees having direct rights in the succession and executors of wills or administrators of the estate who, in another Member State, need to invoke their status or to exercise respectively their rights as heirs or legatees and/or their powers as executors of wills or administrators of the estate.\n2. The Certificate may be used, in particular, to demonstrate one or more of the following:\n(a)\nthe status and/or the rights of each heir or, as the case may be, each legatee mentioned in the Certificate and their respective shares of the estate;\n(b)\nthe attribution of a specific asset or specific assets forming part of the estate to the heir(s) or, as the case may be, the legatee(s) mentioned in the Certificate;\n(c)\nthe powers of the person mentioned in the Certificate to execute the will or administer the estate.\nArticle 64\nCompetence to issue the Certificate\nThe Certificate shall be issued in the Member State whose courts have jurisdiction under Article 4, Article 7, Article 10 or Article 11. The issuing authority shall be:\n(a)\na court as defined in Article 3(2); or\n(b)\nanother authority which, under national law, has competence to deal with matters of succession.\nArticle 65\nApplication for a Certificate\n1. The Certificate shall be issued upon application by any person referred to in Article 63(1) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the applicant\u2019).\n2. For the purposes of submitting an application, the applicant may use the form established in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 81(2).\n3. The application shall contain the information listed below, to the extent that such information is within the applicant\u2019s knowledge and is necessary in order to enable the issuing authority to certify the elements which the applicant wants certified, and shall be accompanied by all relevant documents either in the original or by way of copies which satisfy the conditions necessary to establish their authenticity, without prejudice to Article 66(2):\n(a)\ndetails concerning the deceased: surname (if applicable, surname at birth), given name(s), sex, date and place of birth, civil status, nationality, identification number (if applicable), address at the time of death, date and place of death;\n(b)\ndetails concerning the applicant: surname (if applicable, surname at birth), given name(s), sex, date and place of birth, civil status, nationality, identification number (if applicable), address and relationship to the deceased, if any;\n(c)\ndetails concerning the representative of the applicant, if any: surname (if applicable, surname at birth), given name(s), address and representative capacity;\n(d)\ndetails of the spouse or partner of the deceased and, if applicable, ex-spouse(s) or ex-partner(s): surname (if applicable, surname at birth), given name(s), sex, date and place of birth, civil status, nationality, identification number (if applicable) and address;\n(e)\ndetails of other possible beneficiaries under a disposition of property upon death and/or by operation of law: surname and given name(s) or organisation name, identification number (if applicable) and address;\n(f)\nthe intended purpose of the Certificate in accordance with Article 63;\n(g)\nthe contact details of the court or other competent authority which is dealing with or has dealt with the succession as such, if applicable;\n(h)\nthe elements on which the applicant founds, as appropriate, his claimed right to succession property as a beneficiary and/or his right to execute the will of the deceased and/or to administer the estate of the deceased;\n(i)\nan indication of whether the deceased had made a disposition of property upon death; if neither the original nor a copy is appended, an indication regarding the location of the original;\n(j)\nan indication of whether the deceased had entered into a marriage contract or into a contract regarding a relationship which may have comparable effects to marriage; if neither the original nor a copy of the contract is appended, an indication regarding the location of the original;\n(k)\nan indication of whether any of the beneficiaries has made a declaration concerning acceptance or waiver of the succession;\n(l)\na declaration stating that, to the applicant\u2019s best knowledge, no dispute is pending relating to the elements to be certified;\n(m)\nany other information which the applicant deems useful for the purposes of the issue of the Certificate.\nArticle 66\nExamination of the application\n1. Upon receipt of the application the issuing authority shall verify the information and declarations and the documents and other evidence provided by the applicant. It shall carry out the enquiries necessary for that verification of its own motion where this is provided for or authorised by its own law, or shall invite the applicant to provide any further evidence which it deems necessary.\n2. Where the applicant has been unable to produce copies of the relevant documents which satisfy the conditions necessary to establish their authenticity, the issuing authority may decide to accept other forms of evidence.\n3. Where this is provided for by its own law and subject to the conditions laid down therein, the issuing authority may require that declarations be made on oath or by a statutory declaration in lieu of an oath.\n4. The issuing authority shall take all necessary steps to inform the beneficiaries of the application for a Certificate. It shall, if necessary for the establishment of the elements to be certified, hear any person involved and any executor or administrator and make public announcements aimed at giving other possible beneficiaries the opportunity to invoke their rights.\n5. For the purposes of this Article, the competent authority of a Member State shall, upon request, provide the issuing authority of another Member State with information held, in particular, in the land registers, the civil status registers and registers recording documents and facts of relevance for the succession or for the matrimonial property regime or an equivalent property regime of the deceased, where that competent authority would be authorised, under national law, to provide another national authority with such information.\nArticle 67\nIssue of the Certificate\n1. The issuing authority shall issue the Certificate without delay in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Chapter when the elements to be certified have been established under the law applicable to the succession or under any other law applicable to specific elements. It shall use the form established in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 81(2).\nThe issuing authority shall not issue the Certificate in particular if:\n(a)\nthe elements to be certified are being challenged; or\n(b)\nthe Certificate would not be in conformity with a decision covering the same elements.\n2. The issuing authority shall take all necessary steps to inform the beneficiaries of the issue of the Certificate.\nArticle 68\nContents of the Certificate\nThe Certificate shall contain the following information, to the extent required for the purpose for which it is issued:\n(a)\nthe name and address of the issuing authority;\n(b)\nthe reference number of the file;\n(c)\nthe elements on the basis of which the issuing authority considers itself competent to issue the Certificate;\n(d)\nthe date of issue;\n(e)\ndetails concerning the applicant: surname (if applicable, surname at birth), given name(s), sex, date and place of birth, civil status, nationality, identification number (if applicable), address and relationship to the deceased, if any;\n(f)\ndetails concerning the deceased: surname (if applicable, surname at birth), given name(s), sex, date and place of birth, civil status, nationality, identification number (if applicable), address at the time of death, date and place of death;\n(g)\ndetails concerning the beneficiaries: surname (if applicable, surname at birth), given name(s) and identification number (if applicable);\n(h)\ninformation concerning a marriage contract entered into by the deceased or, if applicable, a contract entered into by the deceased in the context of a relationship deemed by the law applicable to such a relationship to have comparable effects to marriage, and information concerning the matrimonial property regime or equivalent property regime;\n(i)\nthe law applicable to the succession and the elements on the basis of which that law has been determined;\n(j)\ninformation as to whether the succession is testate or intestate, including information concerning the elements giving rise to the rights and/or powers of the heirs, legatees, executors of wills or administrators of the estate;\n(k)\nif applicable, information in respect of each beneficiary concerning the nature of the acceptance or waiver of the succession;\n(l)\nthe share for each heir and, if applicable, the list of rights and/or assets for any given heir;\n(m)\nthe list of rights and/or assets for any given legatee;\n(n)\nthe restrictions on the rights of the heir(s) and, as appropriate, legatee(s) under the law applicable to the succession and/or under the disposition of property upon death;\n(o)\nthe powers of the executor of the will and/or the administrator of the estate and the restrictions on those powers under the law applicable to the succession and/or under the disposition of property upon death.\nArticle 69\nEffects of the Certificate\n1. The Certificate shall produce its effects in all Member States, without any special procedure being required.\n2. The Certificate shall be presumed to accurately demonstrate elements which have been established under the law applicable to the succession or under any other law applicable to specific elements. The person mentioned in the Certificate as the heir, legatee, executor of the will or administrator of the estate shall be presumed to have the status mentioned in the Certificate and/or to hold the rights or the powers stated in the Certificate, with no conditions and/or restrictions being attached to those rights or powers other than those stated in the Certificate.\n3. Any person who, acting on the basis of the information certified in a Certificate, makes payments or passes on property to a person mentioned in the Certificate as authorised to accept payment or property shall be considered to have transacted with a person with authority to accept payment or property, unless he knows that the contents of the Certificate are not accurate or is unaware of such inaccuracy due to gross negligence.\n4. Where a person mentioned in the Certificate as authorised to dispose of succession property disposes of such property in favour of another person, that other person shall, if acting on the basis of the information certified in the Certificate, be considered to have transacted with a person with authority to dispose of the property concerned, unless he knows that the contents of the Certificate are not accurate or is unaware of such inaccuracy due to gross negligence.\n5. The Certificate shall constitute a valid document for the recording of succession property in the relevant register of a Member State, without prejudice to points (k) and (l) of Article 1(2).\nArticle 70\nCertified copies of the Certificate\n1. The issuing authority shall keep the original of the Certificate and shall issue one or more certified copies to the applicant and to any person demonstrating a legitimate interest.\n2. The issuing authority shall, for the purposes of Articles 71(3) and 73(2), keep a list of persons to whom certified copies have been issued pursuant to paragraph 1.\n3. The certified copies issued shall be valid for a limited period of six months, to be indicated in the certified copy by way of an expiry date. In exceptional, duly justified cases, the issuing authority may, by way of derogation, decide that the period of validity is to be longer. Once this period has elapsed, any person in possession of a certified copy must, in order to be able to use the Certificate for the purposes indicated in Article 63, apply for an extension of the period of validity of the certified copy or request a new certified copy from the issuing authority.\nArticle 71\nRectification, modification or withdrawal of the Certificate\n1. The issuing authority shall, at the request of any person demonstrating a legitimate interest or of its own motion, rectify the Certificate in the event of a clerical error.\n2. The issuing authority shall, at the request of any person demonstrating a legitimate interest or, where this is possible under national law, of its own motion, modify or withdraw the Certificate where it has been established that the Certificate or individual elements thereof are not accurate.\n3. The issuing authority shall without delay inform all persons to whom certified copies of the Certificate have been issued pursuant to Article 70(1) of any rectification, modification or withdrawal thereof.\nArticle 72\nRedress procedures\n1. Decisions taken by the issuing authority pursuant to Article 67 may be challenged by any person entitled to apply for a Certificate.\nDecisions taken by the issuing authority pursuant to Article 71 and point (a) of Article 73(1) may be challenged by any person demonstrating a legitimate interest.\nThe challenge shall be lodged before a judicial authority in the Member State of the issuing authority in accordance with the law of that State.\n2. If, as a result of a challenge as referred to in paragraph 1, it is established that the Certificate issued is not accurate, the competent judicial authority shall rectify, modify or withdraw the Certificate or ensure that it is rectified, modified or withdrawn by the issuing authority.\nIf, as a result of a challenge as referred to in paragraph 1, it is established that the refusal to issue the Certificate was unjustified, the competent judicial authority shall issue the Certificate or ensure that the issuing authority re-assesses the case and makes a fresh decision.\nArticle 73\nSuspension of the effects of the Certificate\n1. The effects of the Certificate may be suspended by:\n(a)\nthe issuing authority, at the request of any person demonstrating a legitimate interest, pending a modification or withdrawal of the Certificate pursuant to Article 71; or\n(b)\nthe judicial authority, at the request of any person entitled to challenge a decision taken by the issuing authority pursuant to Article 72, pending such a challenge.\n2. The issuing authority or, as the case may be, the judicial authority shall without delay inform all persons to whom certified copies of the Certificate have been issued pursuant to Article 70(1) of any suspension of the effects of the Certificate.\nDuring the suspension of the effects of the Certificate no further certified copies of the Certificate may be issued.\nCHAPTER VII\nGENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 74\nLegalisation and other similar formalities\nNo legalisation or other similar formality shall be required in respect of documents issued in a Member State in the context of this Regulation.\nArticle 75\nRelationship with existing international conventions\n1. This Regulation shall not affect the application of international conventions to which one or more Member States are party at the time of adoption of this Regulation and which concern matters covered by this Regulation.\nIn particular, Member States which are Contracting Parties to the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 on the Conflicts of Laws Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions shall continue to apply the provisions of that Convention instead of Article 27 of this Regulation with regard to the formal validity of wills and joint wills.\n2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, this Regulation shall, as between Member States, take precedence over conventions concluded exclusively between two or more of them in so far as such conventions concern matters governed by this Regulation.\n3. This Regulation shall not preclude the application of the Convention of 19 November 1934 between Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden comprising private international law provisions on succession, wills and estate administration, as revised by the intergovernmental agreement between those States of 1 June 2012, by the Member States which are parties thereto, in so far as it provides for:\n(a)\nrules on the procedural aspects of estate administration as defined by the Convention and assistance in that regard by the authorities of the States Contracting Parties to the Convention; and\n(b)\nsimplified and more expeditious procedures for the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of succession.\nArticle 76\nRelationship with Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000\nThis Regulation shall not affect the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (10).\nArticle 77\nInformation made available to the public\nThe Member States shall, with a view to making the information available to the public within the framework of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters, provide the Commission with a short summary of their national legislation and procedures relating to succession, including information on the type of authority which has competence in matters of succession and information on the type of authority competent to receive declarations of acceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved share.\nThe Member States shall also provide fact sheets listing all the documents and/or information usually required for the purposes of registration of immovable property located on their territory.\nThe Member States shall keep the information permanently updated.\nArticle 78\nInformation on contact details and procedures\n1. By 16 January 2014, the Member States shall communicate to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe names and contact details of the courts or authorities with competence to deal with applications for a declaration of enforceability in accordance with Article 45(1) and with appeals against decisions on such applications in accordance with Article 50(2);\n(b)\nthe procedures to contest the decision given on appeal referred to in Article 51;\n(c)\nthe relevant information regarding the authorities competent to issue the Certificate pursuant to Article 64; and\n(d)\nthe redress procedures referred to in Article 72.\nThe Member States shall apprise the Commission of any subsequent changes to that information.\n2. The Commission shall publish the information communicated in accordance with paragraph 1 in the Official Journal of the European Union, with the exception of the addresses and other contact details of the courts and authorities referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1.\n3. The Commission shall make all information communicated in accordance with paragraph 1 publicly available through any other appropriate means, in particular through the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters.\nArticle 79\nEstablishment and subsequent amendment of the list containing the information referred to in Article 3(2)\n1. The Commission shall, on the basis of the notifications by the Member States, establish the list of the other authorities and legal professionals referred to in Article 3(2).\n2. The Member States shall notify the Commission of any subsequent changes to the information contained in that list. The Commission shall amend the list accordingly.\n3. The Commission shall publish the list and any subsequent amendments in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n4. The Commission shall make all information notified in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 publicly available through any other appropriate means, in particular through the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters.\nArticle 80\nEstablishment and subsequent amendment of the attestations and forms referred to in Articles 46, 59, 60, 61, 65 and 67\nThe Commission shall adopt implementing acts establishing and subsequently amending the attestations and forms referred to in Articles 46, 59, 60, 61, 65 and 67. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 81(2).\nArticle 81\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 82\nReview\nBy 18 August 2025 the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee a report on the application of this Regulation, including an evaluation of any practical problems encountered in relation to parallel out-of-court settlements of succession cases in different Member States or an out-of-court settlement in one Member State effected in parallel with a settlement before a court in another Member State. The report shall be accompanied, where appropriate, by proposals for amendments.\nArticle 83\nTransitional provisions\n1. This Regulation shall apply to the succession of persons who die on or after 17 August 2015.\n2. Where the deceased had chosen the law applicable to his succession prior to 17 August 2015, that choice shall be valid if it meets the conditions laid down in Chapter III or if it is valid in application of the rules of private international law which were in force, at the time the choice was made, in the State in which the deceased had his habitual residence or in any of the States whose nationality he possessed.\n3. A disposition of property upon death made prior to 17 August 2015 shall be admissible and valid in substantive terms and as regards form if it meets the conditions laid down in Chapter III or if it is admissible and valid in substantive terms and as regards form in application of the rules of private international law which were in force, at the time the disposition was made, in the State in which the deceased had his habitual residence or in any of the States whose nationality he possessed or in the Member State of the authority dealing with the succession.\n4. If a disposition of property upon death was made prior to 17 August 2015 in accordance with the law which the deceased could have chosen in accordance with this Regulation, that law shall be deemed to have been chosen as the law applicable to the succession.\nArticle 84\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 17 August 2015, except for Articles 77 and 78, which shall apply from 16 January 2014, and Articles 79, 80 and 81, which shall apply from 5 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["74", "4", "99", "42", "26", "91", "32", "76", "23", "89", "80", "77", "20", "45", "28", "67", "47", "27", "31", "92", "69", "63", "38", "3", "52", "12", "21", "82", "25", "72", "No Label", "8", "9", "11", "13", "39"], "gold": ["8", "9", "11", "13", "39"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 November 2011\non State aid No C 28/10 implemented by Portugal for the short-term export credit insurance scheme\n(notified under document C(2011) 7756)\n(Only the Portuguese text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2014/532/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThis decision concerns State aid put into effect by Portugal in the form of a short-term export credit insurance scheme (hereinafter \u2018the scheme\u2019).\n1. PROCEDURAL ASPECTS\n(2)\nOn 12 January 2009 Portugal notified a short-term export-credit insurance scheme under section 5.1 of the Commission Communication \u2018Temporary Community framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis\u2019 (2) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Temporary Framework\u2019).\n(3)\nAlthough the scheme was originally notified as short-term export-credit insurance for OECD countries, the scheme also covers domestic trade transactions.\n(4)\nInsofar as the Portuguese authorities confirmed that the scheme was implemented as of January 2009, the Commission informed Portugal by letter dated 19 April 2010 that the scheme had been transferred to the Non-Notified aid registry.\n(5)\nBy letter of 27 October 2010, the Commission informed Portugal of the opening of an investigation under Article 108(2) of the TFEU in relation to the scheme.\n(6)\nBy letter of 29 November 2010, the Portuguese authorities sent their observations on the Commission's letter of 27 October 2010. They attached two letters from credit insurers (CESCE and COSEC) dated 22 November 2010 and 23 November 2010 respectively.\n(7)\nThe Commission's decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 9 April 2011 (3). The Commission invited interested parties to submit comments on the scheme. No comments were received.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n2.1. OBJECTIVE\n(8)\nThe Portuguese authorities have alleged that the current financial crisis has resulted in an increased risk for commercial operations. This in turn has led to an increasingly conservative attitude on the part of credit insurers, reflected in the level of insurance cover for risks inherent in commercial operations.\n(9)\nThe objective of the scheme is to address a market failure due to the unavailability of credit insurance and to help restore confidence in the credit insurance market.\n(10)\nThose aims are pursued through the provision of credit insurance coverage to exporters and to companies that are temporarily confronted with the unavailability of export insurance cover in the private market for transactions with buyers in OECD countries or for domestic transaction.\n(11)\nAccording to the Portuguese authorities, the insurance sector has shrunk considerably since 2008, which resulted in the unavailability of cover. On 30 September 2010 the total value of the insured portfolio decreased by 32,84 % between 31 December 2009 and 31 December 2009 and by a further 22,4 % from 31 December 2009 to 30 September 2010. The total value of the insurance portfolio was down to EUR 15,9 billion in 2010 from EUR 30,6 billion at the end of 2008. The number of insured firms decreased from 3 709 at the end of 2008 to 2 290 in September 2010. Letters from insurers were also provided to justify the need for continuation of the scheme until the end of 2010, despite allegations in the letters that the maximum cover amount granted by the scheme would not be reached. Those letters explained the need for the scheme by referring to the increased risk of export credit insurance due to the general economic situation in times of recovery from the crisis, with a subsequent increase in prices and reduction of coverage from private insurers in certain sectors.\n2.2. LEGAL BASIS\n(12)\nThe national legal basis for the scheme is Decree-Law No 175/2008 establishing the Finova of 26 August 2008 and Decree-Law No 211/1998 of 16 July 1998 laying down the rules applicable to mutual guarantee societies (as amended by Decree-Laws No 19/2001 of 30 January 2001 and No 309-A/2007 of 7 September 2007).\n2.3. IMPLEMENTING BODY\n(13)\nThe scheme is implemented through the following private credit insurers active on the Portuguese market: COSEC, CESCE, Coface and Credito y Cauci\u00f3n.\n2.4. BENEFICIARIES\n(14)\nAccording to information submitted on 26 November 2010 by the Portuguese authorities, 399 beneficiaries were subscribed to the scheme at October 2010.\n(15)\nThe segmentation of the credit limits granted at October 2010 is reproduced in the following tables:\n(16)\nUtilization by intermediary insurer:\nInsurance company\nBeneficiaries\nCredit limit in euro\nNumber\n(%)\nValue\n(%)\nCOSEC\n273\n68,42\n151 693 571\n71,68\nCredito y Cauci\u00f3n\n43\n10,78\n28 259 171\n13,35\nCESCE\n55\n13,78\n24 747 850\n11,69\nCoface\n28\n7,02\n6 929 700\n3,27\nTotal\n399\n100\n211 630 292\n100\n(17)\nBreakdown by market size in euros into domestic and export transactions in October 2010:\nCredit limit effectively used (4)\nValue (EUR )\n(%)\nDomestic trade transactions\n137 175 542\n73,20\nExport transactions\n50 221 841\n26,80\nTotal\n187 397 383\n100\n(18)\nBreakdown by size of beneficiary:\nSize of beneficiary\nBeneficiaries\nCredit limit in euro\nNumber\n(%)\nValue (EUR )\n(%)\nBig firms\n126\n31,58\n101 135 009\n47,79\nMedium firms\n158\n39,60\n71 507 618\n33,79\nMicro-/Small firms\n115\n28,82\n38 987 665\n18,42\nTotal\n399\n100\n211 630 292\n100\n2.5. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF APPLICATION OF THE SCHEME\n(19)\nThe scheme covers commercial risks (such as insolvency and protracted default) linked to export transactions for periods of less than two years with OECD countries, and risks linked to domestic trade transactions.\n(20)\nThe public insurance operates as a risk-sharing facility (\u2018a top-up\u2019) with private insurers. It is granted only as a supplement to the cover provided by a private insurer.\n(21)\nThe public insurance is granted, according to the Portuguese authorities, under exactly the same terms and conditions as the private insurance. Thus, the amount covered by the public insurance may never exceed the amount covered by the private insurer. However, the applicable insurance premium is equal to 60 % of the premium charged by the private insurer. The average rate applicable under the scheme represented 0,21 % of turnover, while the market rate charged by private insurers represented on average 0,36 % of turnover in 2009. Even the average market rates - of 0,23 % and 0,24 % in 2007 and 2008 respectively - were higher than the average rate applicable under the scheme from 2009 onwards.\n(22)\nIn the event of occurrence of the insured event, any recovered amounts are divided between the State and the private insurer providing the basic cover, in proportion to the share of the total cover guaranteed, i.e. quota share. The recovery procedure is administered by the private insurer.\n2.6. DURATION\n(23)\nThe scheme was notified on 12 January 2009 for a duration from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2010. No prolongation has been notified to the Commission.\n2.7. BUDGET\n(24)\nAccording to the information submitted to the Commission by the Portuguese authorities, the maximum guarantee per single beneficiary is EUR 1,5 million.\n(25)\nAccording to the information submitted to the Commission by the Portuguese authorities, the overall budget of the scheme for both domestic and export transactions is EUR 2 billion (5).\n3. COMMISSION DECISION ON THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(26)\nIn its decision of 27 October 2010 initiating the formal investigation procedure, the Commission set out its preliminary assessment and expressed doubts as to the compatibility of the scheme with the internal market. The doubts expressed in that decision concerned:\n-\nThe application of the scheme to short-term export credit insurance, in which the pricing of the guarantee was below the level normally required pursuant to the Commission Communication on short-term export credit insurance (6) (hereinafter \u2018the Communication\u2019). The Commission expressed doubts that the remuneration was necessary and proportionate to attain the objective, considering the potential distortions of competition that it implies.\n-\nThe application of the scheme to domestic transactions. The Commission expressed doubts as to the compatibility of the measure and again questioned the pricing of the guarantee provided.\n4. COMMENTS BY PORTUGAL\n(27)\nIn their comments on the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, the Portuguese authorities argue that the Commission's claim that companies under the scheme benefit from an advantage that would otherwise not be available is not consistent with the objectives expressed in the Temporary Framework. To prove the market failure, the Portuguese authorities refer to the loss ratio, which had attained a record of 102 % in 2008, despite the fact that the number of firms covered by insurance had decreased by 29,41 % at the end of 2009 compared with the end of 2008 and by another 12,53 % by the end of September 2010. The value of the insured portfolio had decreased by 32,84 % at the end of 2009 compared to end 2008 and by another 22,36 % at September 2010. Portugal also argues that other Member States have also adopted such schemes.\n(28)\nAs regards the selective nature of the advantage, Portugal argues that the scheme is not selective, but instead constitutes a measure of general character which does not entail any intra-sectoral or cross-sectoral discrimination. Portugal also deplores the absence of a definition by the Commission of what constitutes a general measure. According to Portugal, the absence of discrimination is proven by: (i) the application of the scheme also to companies from other Member States which are active in Portugal; (ii) the acceptance of applications to the scheme from all four insurers active in Portugal, all of which are held at least in part by foreign entities; (iii) the absence of a change of the financing needs during the crisis; (iv) the major beneficiary of the scheme, which in October 2010 was the segment of operations relating to the national market (73,2 %); (v) the possibility of all firms operating in Portugal to use the scheme, independently of whether the nature of their activities is linked to trade in goods (the sectors \u2018construction\u2019, \u2018transport\u2019 and \u2018other services - excluding commerce\u2019 have benefitted from the scheme for the amounts of EUR 2 155 000, EUR 471 500 and EUR 4 580 000 respectively), although by their nature, export credits are mainly related to transactions in goods. Moreover, the top-up model would not be a source of discrimination, according to Portugal, as it does not prevent any firm from negotiating such a policy with a private insurer. The public authorities rely entirely on the risk assessment of the private insurers. Also, according to the Portuguese authorities, the maximum limit set per insurance does not prevent access to it by big firms, which have benefitted from the scheme (up to 47,79 % in terms of value of operations, as opposed to 33,79 % for medium-sized and 18,42 % for small-sized firms, but only up to 31,58 % in terms of number of beneficiaries, as opposed to 39,60 % for medium-sized firms and 28,82 % for small-sized firms). That maximum limit is designed to ensure that the State resources involved are proportional to the objectives pursued, and that risk is well diversified, while at the same time ensuring access to the scheme for a greater number of firms. The fact that the maximum amount of the scheme has not been used stands as a proof of the absence of discrimination for big firms, according to the Portuguese authorities. Finally, Portugal questions the link between the case law indicated by the Commission in point 36 of the decision to open the formal investigation procedure and the discrimination. It regrets that the Commission has not set out criteria that a measure must fulfil in order to be of a general nature.\n(29)\nPortugal justified the lower pricing of the scheme compared to that of private insurance, arguing that an adverse selection can be observed as firms chose to ensure the less risky operations under the scheme, leaving the riskier operations for coverage by the private insurance. In that respect, the reasoning of the Commission would not be relevant, according to the Portuguese authorities, in the sector of export credit, where risk does not increase with the amount of the credit as it does for bank credits. The low risk is also shown, according to the Portuguese authorities, by the fact that at October 2010 the volume of claims accumulated in the scheme increased by only 0,26 % of the total value of insurance contracted. Moreover, the pricing applied to the State guarantee corresponds, according to the Portuguese authorities, to the market pricing before the crisis and does therefore not entail an advantage for its beneficiaries.\n(30)\nFurther, according to the Portuguese authorities the scheme does not give rise to a distortion of competition between Member States, because: (i) it also covers national operations; (ii) the costs of insurance differ in the Member States, as shown by the different pricing of the insurance; and (iii) that type of service is unavailable on the market.\n5. COMMENTS BY OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES\n(31)\nFollowing the publication of the Commission Decision to open the formal investigation procedure in the Official Journal on 9 April 2011, the Commission received no comments from third parties.\n6. ASSESSMENT\n6.1. QUALIFICATION OF THE MEASURES AS STATE AID\n(32)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU states:\n\u2018Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\u2019\n(33)\nIn order for Article 107(1) TFEU to be applicable, there needs to be an aid measure imputable to the State which is granted by State resources, affects trade between Member States and distorts competition in the internal market by conferring a selective advantage on certain undertakings.\nState resources\n(34)\nAs explained in the Commission decision of 27 October 2010 initiating the formal investigation procedure, the insurance is directly provided by the State and any losses stemming from the scheme affect the national budget. The scheme therefore involves State resources. The involvement of State resources is not contested by Portugal.\nSelective advantage for insurers\n(35)\nThe Commission has analysed export credit insurance markets in its decisions on short-term export credit insurance schemes (7). Premium rates in the short-term export credit insurance market are typically fixed in contracts for periods of at least one year. Therefore, any change in the pricing of the cover offered is effective only with a time lag. Further, the market practice is to adjust the supply of credit insurance by increasing or decreasing the amounts of credit offered and not by changing the rate charged on the cover. This practice has also been observed since the beginning of the financial crisis, as evidenced by the letters of refusal of cover sent by Portugal and the letters of refusal sent in other cases of short-term export credit insurance schemes (8). In general, the letters of refusal from insurers do not offer exporters, as an alternative, a higher price for the cover of certain buyers. Evidence shows that as a consequence of the financial crisis, private insurers significantly reduced the cover offered, often withdrawing it altogether. Other data supplied by market operators confirm the above (9). Thus, competition between insurers is based chiefly on quantities rather than prices. Through the measure, the State responded to demand not covered by the existing private operators. However, in a competitive market with no state intervention, a new operator would have responded to the demand by granting additional insurance cover. Consequently, the effect of the State's intervention was to protect the market positions of the private operators already active on the Portuguese market.\n(36)\nShort-term export credit insurance is a product in which the insurer takes over the commercial and political risk of default by the buyer in a trade transaction. Banks also offer to take over the commercial risks of trade transactions through documentary credit and non-recourse factoring. Short-term export credit insurance offered by export credit insurance companies and documentary credit offered by banks are demand-side substitutes in the market for protection against the commercial risk of trade transactions. In the absence of State intervention, exporters might have resorted at least to some extent to documentary credit (letter of credit) offered by banks (10). Owing to the possible substitutability between short-term export credit insurance offered by insurers and the documentary credit offered by banks, the measure entails an advantage in favour of the sector of short-term export credit insurance, because it contributes to maintaining the market share of export credit insurers in the market for protection against the commercial and political risks of trade transactions. As banks are not eligible to apply for the scheme, under which public insurance is offered only as a supplement to the cover granted by private insurers, the advantage is selective.\n(37)\nIn the light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the measure confers a selective advantage on insurers.\nSelective advantage for exporters and domestic trading companies\n(38)\nExporters and trading companies subscribing to the scheme pay a premium which is lower than the market premium. This leads to a strengthening of the position of the companies that benefit from the scheme compared to those who would potentially receive their coverage only from private insurers at a market price. The mere strengthening, through measures of a scheme, of the position of some market players compared to their competitors in a comparable situation, has been considered to constitute an advantage (11). In the present case, strengthening of the position of those beneficiaries would not have been possible to the same extent without the intervention of the State.\n(39)\nFurthermore, as affirmed by Portugal, cover is unavailable on the market, at least to the same extent, for the risks covered under the scheme. Thus companies benefiting from the scheme receive a double advantage in the form of access to insurance cover that would otherwise be unavailable: not only do they benefit from a lower premium than the market price, but they also benefit from the existence of the additional cover.\n(40)\nThe Portuguese scheme is de facto selective.\n(41)\nAn initial indication that the scheme is selective is that the companies that benefit from the measure are almost exclusively companies that trade in goods, while companies that provide services benefit much less from it. In the context of the formal investigation proceedings, the Portuguese authorities state that there are no legal obstacles preventing companies not involved in commercial activities to benefit from the scheme and that the sectors \u2018construction\u2019, \u2018transport\u2019 and \u2018other services - excluding commerce\u2019 have benefitted from the scheme. However, Portugal also admits that by their nature, export credit insurance mainly concerns transactions in goods. Companies that supply transport and other services accounted for only 2,4 % of the insurance provided under the scheme at October 2010. Given that undertakings that supply services accounted for only 8 of a total of 361 undertakings that benefitted from the scheme and about 1,25 % of the share of credit limits, it is clear that the measure in question essentially aided companies that trade in goods.\n(42)\nThere are other elements that show that the scheme is de facto selective.\n(43)\nFirst, despite the claim of the Portuguese authorities that the scheme has a general character because the beneficiaries are defined by objective criteria which do not entail a discrimination against entities from other Member States, the conditions set under the scheme grant a certain margin of discretion in the choice of beneficiaries. The scheme follows a \u2018top-up\u2019 model, according to which only companies that have a credit limit with a private insurer are eligible for the scheme, while companies to which private credit insurers refuse cover completely are not eligible for the \u2018top-up\u2019. The scheme leaves it entirely to the private companies to judge the eligibility for cover. In the absence of uniform and objective criteria for determining the risk entailed in the transactions which each exporter or trader carries out, the scheme grants private operators a degree of latitude in judging the creditworthiness of the companies that are eligible to apply for cover. The Court of Justice has considered that to be considered as non-selective, a measure should be based on a criterion of application which is objective, has no geographic or sectoral connotation, and is in keeping with the objective of the measure (12). In the present case, the absence of objective criteria for the decision to grant private cover leads to potential discrimination between beneficiaries that are in a comparable factual situation (13).\n(44)\nSecond, even if the criteria for access to the scheme were to be considered objective, the Court has held that the mere existence of objective criteria does not prejudge the selective nature of the measure where the measure has the effect of advantaging certain undertakings to the detriment of others. Thus, the Court has stated that \u2018[t]he fact that the aid is not aimed at one or more specific recipients defined in advance, but that it is subject to a series of objective criteria pursuant to which it may be granted, within the framework of a predetermined overall budget allocation, to an indefinite number of beneficiaries who are not initially individually identified, cannot suffice to call in question the selective nature of the measure and, accordingly, its classification as State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty [107(1) TFEU].At the very most, that circumstance means that the measure in question is not an individual aid. It does not, however, preclude that public measure from having to be regarded as a system of aid constituting a selective, and therefore specific, measure if, owing to the criteria governing its application, it procures an advantage for certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, to the exclusion of others (14)\u2019. Thus, according to the Court of Justice, State interventions should not be judged on their causes or aims, but on their effects (15). In the case at hand, the scheme is de facto selective.\n(45)\nThird, in order to be of a general nature, a measure must not only be based on objective and horizontal criteria, but must also not be limited either in time or in its field of application. The scheme, despite Portugal's insistence on its general character, is limited both in time and in its field of application, including by the very nature of the top-up model, as has been explained above in recital 43.\n(46)\nFinally, the criteria under the scheme are not in conformity with the aim and logic of the measure (16). Even if the scheme were to be applied in an objective manner by the private insurers, only companies which saw their cover reduced during the crisis would be eligible under the scheme. Companies for which private insurers have cancelled credit limits completely are excluded from the scheme. Therefore, despite the aim of the scheme to address an alleged unavailability of cover on the private market, it does not cover the companies which are most severely affected by the reduction of the private insurance capacity in the market. In that respect, the design of the measure is not appropriate to address the identified market failure\n(47)\nOn the basis of the foregoing considerations, the advantages conferred on the exporters and trading companies subscribing to the scheme are of a selective nature.\nEffect on trade and distortion of competition\n(48)\nConcerning the effect on trade, the scheme covers export transactions and domestic transactions in tradable goods.\n(49)\nBy covering domestic transactions, the scheme may potentially affect trade between Member States to the extent that it could appreciably distort trade flows, for instance by diverting economic activities from exports into domestic transactions.\n(50)\nAs regards the distortion of competition, according to the case law of the Court of Justice, the mere fact that the competitive position of an undertaking is strengthened compared to other competing undertakings, by giving it an economic benefit which it would not otherwise have received in the normal course of its business, points to a possible distortion of competition (17).\n(51)\nAs the scheme applies to exports, including for other Member States, the measure clearly affects trade flows between Member States, as it facilitates the exercise of an export activity by beneficiaries.\n(52)\nThe scheme also affects trade insofar as it covers domestic transactions. It is well-established case-law that where aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of a company compared with other competing companies in intra-Union trade, the latter should be considered affected by that aid. In this regard, the fact that an economic sector has been liberalised at the level of the Union could serve to determine that the aid has a real or potential effect on the competition and affects trade between the Member States. Additionally, it is not necessary that the beneficiary company itself be involved in the trade within the Union. Aid granted by a Member State to a company may contribute to maintaining or increasing the activity in the domestic market, with the result that companies established in another Member States have fewer opportunities to penetrate the market of the Member State in question. Furthermore, the strengthening of an undertaking which, until then, was not involved in intra-Union trade may place that undertaking in a position that enables it to penetrate the market of another Member State (18).\n(53)\nIn the present case, the measure benefits companies active in various sectors open to trade within the European Union. Thus even advantages conferred on domestic transactions of companies active only in the Portuguese market affect trade between Member States.\n(54)\nMoreover, the purpose of the measure is to support the commercial trading activities of companies established in Portugal as opposed to undertakings established in other Member States. The measure may, therefore, distort competition in the internal market.\nConclusion\n(55)\nConsequently, this project constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFUE. The aid may be considered compatible with the common market if it can qualify for one of the exceptions provided for in the Treaty.\n6.2. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID TO INSURERS\n(56)\nThe Commission has laid down in its Communication conditions under which aid to insurers in the form of State-supported short-term export credit schemes is considered to be compatible. In the context of the financial crisis, the Temporary Framework sets out the conditions of application of the Communication.\n(57)\nPoint 2.5 of the Communication as amended (19) defines \u2018marketable risks\u2019 as the commercial and political risks relating to public and non-public debtors established in the countries listed in the Annex (20) to the Communication. Financial advantages in favour of export credit insurers that enter or cover a transaction qualified as a marketable risk are normally prohibited.\n(58)\nPoint 3.1 of the Communication states that factors that may distort competition between private and public or publicly supported export-credit insurers insuring marketable risks include de jure and de facto State guarantees of borrowing and losses. Such guarantees enable insurers to borrow at rates lower than the normal market rates or make it possible for them to borrow money at all. Furthermore, they obviate the need for insurers to reinsure themselves on the private market,\n(59)\nAs far as countries not listed in the Annex to the Communication are concerned, such risks are \u2018non-marketable\u2019 within the meaning of the Communication and public support for insuring them is not covered by the Communication.\n(60)\nPoint 4.2 of the Communication provides that \u2018marketable risks\u2019 cannot be covered by export credit insurance with aid from the Member States. However, point 4.4 of the Communication provides that under certain conditions, these risks can be temporarily covered by public or publicly-supported export credit insurers. In particular it states that risks incurred in respect of debtors established in countries listed in the Annex to the Communication are considered temporarily non-marketable only if it can be demonstrated that private insurance cover for the risks generally viewed as marketable is unavailable. Member States which wish to invoke that escape clause must provide a market report and produce evidence from two major, internationally recognised export credit insurers as well as a national credit insurer, both demonstrating the unavailability of cover for the risks in the private insurance market. Moreover, the publicly-supported export credit insurer must, as far as possible, align its premium rates for such non-marketable risks with the rates charged elsewhere by private export credit insurers for the type of risk in question and provide a description of the conditions which the public export credit insurer intends to apply in respect of such risks.\n(61)\nIn order to speed up the procedure, the Temporary Framework simplified, until 31 December 2010, the proof that Member States need to produce to demonstrate the unavailability of cover. To that end, Member States had to submit evidence supplied by a large internationally recognised private export credit insurer and a national credit insurer or by at least four well-established exporters in the domestic market. The Temporary Framework was prolonged until 31 December 2011 (21).\nUnavailability of cover\n(62)\nPortugal submitted a number of letters from exporters which show that they have been refused cover for a number of transactions. Nevertheless, the Commission has not found sufficient proof of the unavailability of cover in the letters provided by the Portuguese authorities. The reasons provided in those letters for refusal are either confidential or explicitly state that refusal is due to the customer's poor liquidity and financial position, which is a normal business practice in a properly functioning insurance market. Portugal provided data, in its reply to the Commission decision of 27 October 2010 initiating the formal investigation procedure, that shows a decline in the number of firms taking up insurance (there is a 29,41 % decline up to the end of 2009 compared with the previous year, and of another 12,53 % up to September 2010), as well as a decline in the value of the insured portfolio (32,84 % decline at the end of 2009 compared with the previous year, and of another 22,36 % until September 2010). However, of the two letters from private insurers provided by Portugal pointing to the unavailability of cover in the private market, one of them (from CESCE, dated 22 November 2010) states that the financing needs of firms have also diminished due to the decrease of the buying markets. Therefore, the alleged reduction of insured volumes is not sufficient proof of the unavailability of cover on the market.\n(63)\nMoreover, if indeed cover is unavailable in the private market and it then becomes available when the State grants a partial coverage, it could constitute a sign that the insurers have received State aid. As that market adjusts mainly by quantity not by prices, as explained in recital 35, the availability of credit deriving from the state aid allows the operators already present on the market to maintain their position.\nAlignment of premium rates with rates charged by private credit insurers\n(64)\nThe rates charged under the scheme represent 60 % of the rate charged by a private insurer to cover the same client. Further, contrary to the allegations of Portugal, the risk transferred to the State under the scheme can be considered higher than the risk covered by the private insurer on a stand-alone basis. It should be recalled that the risk of default increases when the insured amount increases. Thus, with a larger amount of insurance cover the exporter would accept to conclude more commercial transactions with a given buyer. The total volume of transactions could exceed the capacity to repay of the buyer.\n(65)\nThe Portuguese authorities consider that the risk of additional transactions is lower, considering that an exporter which obtained limited cover would first insure the riskiest buyers; with increased cover, the exporter would progressively insure buyers that are less risky. However, that argument overlooks the fact that credit limits are granted per buyer, and therefore the exporter does not have the choice to exclusively use the entirety of the limit granted for the least credit-worthy buyers.\n(66)\nMoreover, the argument of the Portuguese authorities that the additional transactions insured are of lower risk than the transactions insured by the private insurer would lead to the conclusion that the private insurers accept, for a given level of premium, a higher risk, while they refuse to cover transactions with lower risk for the same level of premium. If that argument was correct, a rational private insurer would insure more transactions, which would increase their premium income while decreasing the risk. In other words, the argument of the Portuguese authorities would point to an irrational behaviour of private insurers, who would agree to insure a riskier part of the portfolio instead of the less risky part. Therefore that argument cannot be accepted.\n(67)\nAs a result of the increased risk covered by the measure, the State assumes exposure to a higher expected ultimate loss than the private insurer, when granting and pricing the initial cover on a stand-alone basis. Therefore, in the case of a top-up scheme where the decision to extend the cover is taken only after the premium for the initial credit insurance limit has been set, the price of the top-up must reflect a higher risk of possible excess cover. The argument of the Portuguese authorities, according to which firms would operate an adverse selection which would ensure that the riskier operations would be covered by private insurance, is not supported by any concrete data nor by the known market practice. The most common form of private short-term credit insurance (whole turnover policy) requires that whole portfolio of credited sales is covered under the policy. Thus, the insured company is prevented from insuring their risks selectively. The Commission considers that the price of supplementary insurance should have taken into account the higher level of risk assumed. The pricing should therefore have been higher than the price charged for the base cover by the private insurers.\n(68)\nIn the present case, the rates charged under the scheme are lower than the current rates in the export credit insurance market, which is confirmed by Portugal in its reply to the Commission decision of 27 October 2010 initiating the formal investigation procedure. That pricing is also lower than the 2007 and 2008 market rates. For that reason, the argument brought forward by the Portuguese authorities, according to which the pricing corresponds to the market rates before the crisis, is also not confirmed. Moreover, the price should also take into account the level of risk assumed. Therefore, the pricing should in fact be higher than the market price.\n(69)\nIn the light of the foregoing, the scheme as applied to insurers is incompatible with the Communication and the Temporary Framework.\n6.3. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID TO EXPORTERS AND DOMESTIC TRADING COMPANIES\n6.3.1. Compatibility of the measure aimed at short-term export credit insurance\n(70)\nArticle 107(3)(c), applicable under normal market circumstances, and Article 107(3)(b) of the TFEU, applicable in periods of serious disturbance in the economy, allow aid to be considered compatible with the internal market under certain conditions.\n(71)\nThe Commission recalls that according to case law, Article 107(3)(b) of the TFEU must be applied restrictively and must tackle a disturbance in the entire economy of a Member State. (22)\n(72)\nIn line with the principles set out in the Temporary Framework (paragraph 5.1), as prolonged until 31 December 2012, in order to be deemed compatible, aid measures must fulfil the following criteria:\na.\nAppropriateness\nThe aid must be well-targeted in order to be able to effectively achieve the objective of remedying a serious disturbance in the economy. It would not be the case if the measure were not appropriate to remedy the disturbance.\nb.\nNecessity\nThe aid measure must, in its amount and form, be necessary to achieve the objective. Thus, it must be of the minimum amount necessary to reach the objective, and take the form most appropriate to remedy the disturbance. In other words, if a lesser amount of aid or a measure in a less distortive form were sufficient to remedy a serious disturbance in the entire economy, the measure in question would not be necessary. That analysis is confirmed by settled case law of the Court of Justice (23).\nc.\nProportionality\nThe positive effects of the measures must be properly balanced against the distortions of competition, in order for the distortions to be limited to the minimum necessary to reach the measures' objectives. Article 107(1) of the TFEU prohibits all selective public measures that are capable of distorting trade between Member States. Any derogation under Article 107(3)(b) of the TFEU which authorises State aid must ensure that such aid is limited to what is necessary to achieve its stated objective.\nAppropriateness\n(73)\nAs explained in recital 46, the design of the scheme excludes companies which are hardest hit by the crisis and therefore it is not appropriate to address the alleged market failure of unavailability of private cover.\nNecessity and proportionality: alignment of premium rates with rates charged by private credit insurers\n(74)\nAs stated above in recital 62, although the information provided by Portugal indicates strains in the private credit insurance market, it fails to prove an unavailability of cover. Therefore the necessity of the State intervention cannot be established.\n(75)\nAs explained in recitals 21 and 64, the rates charged under the scheme represent 60 % of the rates charged by private insurers to cover the same client.\n(76)\nAs explained above in recitals 65 to 67, in the case of a top-up scheme where the decision to extend the cover is taken only after the premium for the initial credit insurance limit has been set, the price of the top-up must reflect a higher risk of possible excess cover.\n(77)\nThe objective to provide the allegedly unavailable insurance cover could also be achieved through a scheme priced in such a way as to reflect the underlying risk assumed by the State. Therefore, the pricing of the scheme based on a premium lower than the premium which would be charged by the market for similar risks is not proportionate to the objective of the scheme.\n(78)\nIn view of the above, the export credit insurance part of the scheme cannot be considered to be compatible aid to exporters under Article 107(3)(b) of the TFEU and the Temporary Framework.\n(79)\nRegarding Article 107(3)(c), all the arguments in respect of appropriateness, necessity and proportionality are equally pertinent in the compatibility analysis under Article 107(3)(b). Therefore the aid to export credit insurers under the scheme affects trade conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.\n6.3.2. Compatibility of the scheme in relation to domestic trade insurance operations\n(80)\nAs regards the application of the scheme to domestic transactions, domestic trade insurance below market price could divert trade transactions away from exports in favour of domestic transactions and have a major impact on imports. Therefore, under normal market conditions State support in favour of domestic trade operations is strictly forbidden. However, subparagraphs (c) and (b) of Articles 107(3) of the TFEU allow aid to be considered compatible with the internal market under certain circumstances. In that context, the Communication and the Temporary Framework set criteria for the compatibility of aid measures for short-term export credit insurance. However, those texts do not cover domestic trade transactions.\n(81)\nNevertheless, Portugal notified the scheme in the context of the current financial crisis under the Temporary Framework. Therefore it must be established whether, in view of the far-reaching consequences of the current economic crisis, the scheme could be regarded as compatible directly under Article 107(3)(b) of the TFEU. If not, then it must be analysed whether the measure can be deemed compatible under Article 107(3)(c).\n(82)\nConcerning compatibility under Article 107(3)(b) of the TFEU, that provision enables the Commission to declare aid compatible with the internal market if it aims \u2018to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State\u2019.\n(83)\nThe Commission reiterates that Article 107(3)(b) of the TFEU needs to be applied restrictively and must tackle a disturbance that effects the entire economy of a Member State (24). It also recalls that, as stated above in recital 73, the measure must fulfil the principles of appropriateness, necessity and proportionality.\n(84)\nThe measure was put in place in the context of the current financial crisis and is limited in time.\n(85)\nThe Commission has received letters from exporters and private insurers indicating a reduction in insurance cover for domestic transactions The Portuguese authorities argue that the loss ratio has increased to 102 %. However, that observation is not conclusive since the increase follows a constant trend since 2004, as shown in the observations provided by the Portuguese authorities. That constant increase in the loss ratio even before the outbreak of the financial crisis may point, not to a market failure in domestic trade financing, but rather to a structural problem in the market. Therefore, the Commission has not found evidence that the scheme is appropriate to address a serious disturbance in the economy and considers the scheme cannot be declared compatible under the Temporary Framework or Article 107(3)(b).\n(86)\nConcerning the compatibility of the measure under the Communication and Article 107(3)(c), the aim of the scheme is to address the unavailability of cover in the insurance market. However, being a top-up scheme which leaves some degree of latitude in the choice of the beneficiary to private insurers, the scheme potentially excludes companies from cover which are in a comparable factual situation to the companies covered, but were more affected by the crisis. Such excluded companies would have had insurance cover completely withdrawn as opposed to only partially cancelled. Moreover, the measure not only provides additional cover to beneficiaries, it also provides an advantage in terms of pricing, given that the premiums are below market rates. As already noted, the rates charged under the scheme represent 60 % of the rates charged by a private insurer to cover the same client, while the fact that the cover limit is extended to double the initial limit implies a higher risk not reflected by the premium. The level of the pricing under the scheme is not justified in view of the need to address the unavailability of insurance cover. The scheme is not proportionate to achieving its stated objective given the potential distortions of competition.\n(87)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the State aid granted to domestic trade insurance operations does not fulfil the conditions under subparagraphs (b) or (c) of Articles 107(3) of the TFEU and is incompatible with the internal market.\n7. CONCLUSION\n(88)\nIn the light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the scheme grants State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU which cannot be declared compatible with the internal market.\n8. RECOVERY\n(89)\nAccording to Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (25), where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiaries. Only aid which is incompatible with the internal market shall be recovered.\n(90)\nThe purpose of recovery is to restore the situation that existed prior to the granting of the aid. It is achieved once the incompatible aids are repaid by the beneficiaries, which therefore forfeit the advantages which they enjoyed over their competitors. The amount to be recovered should be such as to eliminate the economic advantage given to the beneficiaries.\n(91)\nFor the exact quantification of the amount of aid, as no appropriate market price is available for remuneration of the State cover, a proper benchmark has to be defined. As set out in the first indent of point 4.2 of the Commission Notice on guarantees, (26) the \u2018cash grant equivalent\u2019 of a loan guarantee in a given year can be calculated in the same way as the grant equivalent of a soft loan. Hence the aid amount can be calculated as the difference between a theoretical market rate and the rate obtained thanks to the State guarantee after any premiums paid have been deducted.\n(92)\nIn respect of the aid to insurers, the advantage takes the form of the preservation of the market share of the insurers. In the absence of aid, cover could have been provided by another market player. In particular, as explained above in recital 35, competition in the market is based mainly on quantities and not on prices. Furthermore, market practice is to fix an average price for the entire portfolio which is then to be insured with the same insurer (27) to avoid cherry picking by the insured company. Cherry picking could occur if the insured company paid an average price only for clients with high risk and did not insure the lower risk clients or insure low risk clients with another insurer. Therefore, if another market player had provided cover to the exporters for the entire requested credit limits even at a higher price, exporters would probably have moved their entire insurance policies to the alternative cover provider. The advantage in monetary terms is the profit margin realised on the volume insured by each private insurer decreased by the costs associated to this volume. These elements, translated into the profits realised by the private insurers participating in the scheme over the period over which top-up cover was provided by the State, would have been recorded by another market player in the absence of the scheme. The aid in favour of the insurers is therefore quantified as the profits realised by the insurers participating in the scheme over the period it was in place as a result of their cover of individual exporters and domestic trading companies subscribing to the scheme. The advantage for the clients subscribing to the scheme should be calculated at the level of each individual insurer participating in the scheme and in case of profit exceeding the de minimis amount it should be recovered.\n(93)\nIn respect of the exporters, the beneficiaries should have paid remuneration for the State cover under market conditions. The aid amount should therefore be calculated as the difference between that actual market rate, adapted for the change in the level of risk. The Commission has developed a method for the calculation of the amount to be recovered (explained in the Annex to this Decision) based on reasonable assumptions and on common market practice. Under that method, a theoretical market price for the cover granted by the State is equal to 110 % of the price (in terms of premium rate) charged by the private insurer in the case of each individual exporter. As the price charged under the scheme is 60 % of the premiums charged by the private insurer, the amount to be recovered in each transaction is equal to the amount charged by the State under the scheme multiplied by 5/6.\n(94)\nThe amount referred to in recital 93 constitutes the amount to be recovered, plus the recovery interest effectively accrued on that amount from the date on which the aid was made available to the beneficiaries (date of the individual guarantees) until its actual recovery. The recovery interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (28) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 (29).\n(95)\nThe present decision shall be implemented immediately, in particular in respect of the recovery of all the individual aids granted under the scheme with the exception of the aids that fulfil the conditions laid down by Regulations adopted pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 (30) or by any other approved aid scheme up to the maximum aid intensity or de minimis limits applicable to this type of aid.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid involved in the short-term export-credit insurance scheme in application of Decree-Law No 175/2008 establishing the Finova of 26 August 2008 and Decree-Law No 211/1998 laying down the rules applicable to mutual guarantee societies of 16 July 1998 (as amended by Decree-Law No 19/2001 of 30 January 2001 and Decree-Law No 309-A/2007 of 7 September 2007), unlawfully granted by Portugal, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\nIndividual aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 which, at the time the aid is granted, fulfils the conditions laid down by a Regulation adopted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 994/98 or by any other approved aid scheme is compatible with the internal market, up to the maximum aid intensities or de minimis limits applicable to this type of aid.\nArticle 3\n1. Portugal shall recover the incompatible aid referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiaries.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were made available to the beneficiary until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 271/2008.\n4. Portugal shall immediately abolish the scheme referred to in Article 1 and cancel all outstanding payments of aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. Recovery of the aid grated under the scheme referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Portugal shall ensure that this decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 5\n1. Within two months following notification of this Decision, Portugal shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nThe list of beneficiaries that have received aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 and the total amount of aid received by each of them;\n(b)\nThe total amount (principal and recovery interest) to be recovered from each beneficiary;\n(c)\nA detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(d)\nDocuments demonstrating that the beneficiaries have been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Portugal shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiaries.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 23 November 2011.", "references": ["98", "60", "68", "89", "11", "99", "36", "16", "27", "41", "26", "35", "64", "52", "24", "34", "59", "61", "22", "76", "32", "47", "49", "58", "95", "69", "73", "10", "90", "88", "No Label", "15", "20", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "20", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 20 October 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs, amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products\n(2011/738/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (2) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Agricultural Agreement\u2019) entered into force on 1 June 2002.\n(2)\nArticle 12 of the Agricultural Agreement provides that the Agricultural Agreement may be reviewed at the request of either Party.\n(3)\nA Joint Declaration on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin of agricultural products and foodstuffs has been attached to the Final Act of the Agricultural Agreement.\n(4)\nThe Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Agreement\u2019), which amends the Agricultural Agreement by inserting a new Annex 12.\n(5)\nDecision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council, and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation (3) defines the internal procedure for adopting the Union\u2019s position on matters subject to decisions of the Joint Committee referred to in Article 6(3) of the Agricultural Agreement. The internal procedure for establishing the Union\u2019s position on matters relating to Annex 12 of that Agreement should likewise be defined.\n(6)\nThe Agreement should be approved on behalf of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs, amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to deposit, on behalf of the Union, the instrument of approval provided for in Article 3 of the Agreement, in order to express the consent of the European Union to be bound by the Agreement.\nArticle 3\nAs regards matters relating to Annex 12 to the Agricultural Agreement and the Appendices thereto, the Union\u2019s position on matters which are subject to the Decisions of the Joint Committee for Agriculture as referred to in Article 6(3) of the Agricultural Agreement shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption (4).\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["61", "20", "95", "5", "76", "18", "14", "22", "58", "51", "41", "56", "2", "52", "59", "12", "16", "31", "36", "6", "86", "64", "54", "82", "45", "42", "83", "73", "88", "68", "No Label", "3", "9", "25", "66", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "25", "66", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 October 2010\nextending the period of validity of Decision 2002/499/EC in respect of naturally or artificially dwarfed plants of Chamaecyparis Spach, Juniperus L. and Pinus L., originating in the Republic of Korea\n(notified under document C(2010) 7281)\n(2010/646/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2002/499/EC of 26 June 2002 authorizing derogations from certain provisions of Council Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of naturally or artificially dwarfed plants of Chamaecyparis Spach, Juniperus L. and Pinus L., originating in the Republic of Korea (2), authorises Member States to provide for derogations from Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of plants of Chamaecyparis Spach, Juniperus L. and Pinus L., other than fruits and seeds, originating in the Republic of Korea, for limited periods and subject to specific conditions.\n(2)\nThe derogations granted by Decision 2002/499/EC were limited in time and the dates foreseen in that Decision have been prolonged by Commission Decisions 2005/775/EC (3) and 2007/432/EC (4).\n(3)\nSince the circumstances justifying these derogations still apply and there is no new information giving cause for revision of the specific conditions, the authorisation for derogations should be extended. Moreover, experience has been gained from information collected by the Member States in accordance with Article 2 of Decision 2002/499/EC, as well as on the basis of contacts with the Republic of Korea. Furthermore, appropriate mechanisms are established in this Decision to ensure the monitoring of the conditions of application of the derogations. Therefore it is appropriate to extend the authorisations for derogations granted in this Decision for a longer period than the ones granted by previous Decisions, and namely until 31 December 2020.\n(4)\nHowever, and due to phytosanitary reasons, the import of naturally or artificially dwarfed plants of Juniperus L. originating in the Republic of Korea should take place only during a specific period of each year until 31 December 2020.\n(5)\nDecision 2002/499/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2002/499/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nIn the first and second paragraphs of Article 2, the sentence \u20181 August of each year from 2005 to 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u20181 August of each year\u2019.\n2.\nThe table in Article 4 is replaced by the following table:\n\u2018Plants\nPeriod\nChamaecyparis\n1.1.2011-31.12.2020\nJuniperus\n1.11. to 31.3. of each year until 31.12.2020\nPinus\n1.1.2011-31.12.2020\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 October 2010.", "references": ["6", "10", "36", "38", "2", "51", "63", "77", "67", "87", "1", "11", "40", "14", "5", "65", "15", "9", "79", "56", "24", "74", "30", "86", "60", "83", "25", "33", "0", "26", "No Label", "8", "22", "23", "61", "64", "66", "95", "96"], "gold": ["8", "22", "23", "61", "64", "66", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 610/2011\nof 22 June 2011\non the allocation of import rights for applications lodged for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 431/2008 for frozen meat of bovine animals\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 431/2008 of 19 May 2008 opening and providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for frozen meat of bovine animals covered by CN code 0202 and products covered by CN code 0206 29 91 (3) opens an import tariff quota for beef and veal products.\n(2)\nThe applications for import rights lodged for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import rights may be allocated should therefore be determined and an allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import right applications covered by the quota with the serial number 09.4003 have been lodged for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 under Regulation (EC) No 431/2008 shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 28,953811 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2011.", "references": ["33", "92", "86", "71", "6", "91", "77", "19", "81", "42", "74", "43", "80", "38", "30", "47", "32", "46", "20", "35", "79", "45", "27", "41", "49", "84", "55", "26", "73", "24", "No Label", "21", "22", "69", "72"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 25 June 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement\n(2012/341/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (the \u2018EEA Agreement\u2019) was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 90/2011 of 19 July 2011 (3), by virtue of which Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (4) was incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(2)\nThrough the inclusion of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 into the Air Transport Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation, the same regime has been established between the Union and Switzerland for Swiss and Community air carriers (5).\n(3)\nThrough the inclusion of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 into the Convention establishing the European Free Trade Association (Vaduz Convention) (6), the same regime has also been established between Switzerland and the EEA EFTA States for Swiss and EEA EFTA air carriers.\n(4)\nAnnex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended to grant Swiss air carriers the right to operate air services from a Member State of the Union to an EEA EFTA State and vice versa.\n(5)\nThe position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["93", "52", "74", "60", "27", "98", "38", "78", "45", "88", "41", "18", "31", "21", "76", "59", "43", "46", "54", "5", "55", "73", "10", "69", "81", "90", "40", "85", "2", "50", "No Label", "3", "9", "49", "57", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "49", "57", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK (EU) No 883/2011\nof 25 August 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 25/2009 concerning the balance sheet of the monetary financial institutions sector (ECB/2008/32)\n(ECB/2011/12)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to Article 5 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the collection of statistical information by the European Central Bank (1), and in particular to Articles 5(1) and 6(4),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC (3) allowed legal persons to issue electronic money without needing to obtain the status of credit institutions.\n(2)\nAs a consequence and in order to continue the collection of statistics in the monetary financial institutions (MFI) sector on electronic money institutions that are principally engaged in financial intermediation in the form of issuing electronic money, it is necessary to adjust the definition of MFIs, and therefore also to update the definitions of \u2018electronic money institution\u2019 and \u2018electronic money\u2019 in this Regulation. Electronic money institutions within the MFI sector should be classified under the category of \u2018other MFIs\u2019.\n(3)\nThe amendments to the definition of and the requirements placed on electronic money institutions pursuant to Directive 2009/110/EC have made the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 25/2009 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2008/32) (4) on the granting of derogations from reporting requirements to electronic money institutions obsolete and therefore the respective provisions of Regulation (EC) No 25/2009 (ECB/2008/32) should be deleted.\n(4)\nThe guidelines on a common definition of European money market funds (MMFs) issued on 19 May 2010 by the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR), the predecessor of the European Securities and Markets Authority, aim to improve investor protection by setting out criteria to be applied by any fund that wishes to market itself as an MMF and serve as a recommendation for European national legislators for supervisory purposes. In light of this, it is appropriate to introduce into Regulation (EC) No 25/2009 (ECB/2008/32) corresponding new identification criteria for MMFs for European System of Central Banks statistical purposes so that the population of MMFs is aligned with the identification criteria expected to apply for supervisory purposes following the abovementioned CESR Guidelines. At the same time, this change aims to increase market transparency and facilitate management reporting on funds,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 25/2009 (ECB/2008/32) is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe first indent is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\n\u201cmonetary financial institution\u201d (MFI) means a resident undertaking that belongs to any of the following sectors:\n(i)\ncentral banks;\n(ii)\ncredit institutions as defined in Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/48/EC;\n(iii)\nother MFIs, i.e. (1) other financial institutions whose business is (i) to receive deposits and/or close substitutes for deposits from entities other than MFIs; and (ii) for their own account, at least in economic terms, to grant credits and/or make investments in securities; or (2) such electronic money institutions that are principally engaged in financial intermediation in the form of issuing electronic money;\n(iv)\nmoney market funds (MMFs) as defined in Article 1a.\nConcerning the criterion under point (iii)(1)(i) above, the degree of substitutability between the instruments issued by other MFIs and the deposits placed with credit institutions shall determine their classification as MFIs, provided they fulfil the criterion under point (iii)(1)(ii),\u2019;\n(b)\nthe eighth indent is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\n\u201celectronic money institution\u201d and \u201celectronic money\u201d mean electronic money institution and electronic money as defined in Article 2(1) and 2(2) of Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, (5).\n(2)\nthe following Article 1a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 1a\nIdentification of MMFs\nFor the purpose of this legal act, collective investment undertakings complying with all the following criteria shall be treated as MMFs, where they:\n(a)\npursue the investment objective of maintaining a fund\u2019s principal and providing a return in line with the interest rates of money market instruments;\n(b)\ninvest in money market instruments which comply with the criteria for money market instruments set out in Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (6), or deposits with credit institutions or, alternatively, ensure that the liquidity and valuation of the portfolio in which they invest is assessed on an equivalent basis;\n(c)\nensure that the money market instruments they invest in are of high quality, as determined by the management company. The quality of a money market instrument shall be considered, inter alia, on the basis of the following factors:\n-\nthe credit quality of the money market instrument,\n-\nthe nature of the asset class represented by the money market instrument,\n-\nfor structured financial instruments, the operational and counterparty risk inherent within the structured financial transaction,\n-\nthe liquidity profile;\n(d)\nensure that their portfolio has a weighted average maturity (WAM) of no more than 6 months and a weighted average life (WAL) of no more than 12 months;\n(e)\nprovide daily net asset value (NAV) and a price calculation of their shares/units, and daily subscription and redemption of shares/units;\n(f)\nlimit investment in securities to those with a residual maturity until the legal redemption date of less than or equal to 2 years, provided that the time remaining until the next interest rate reset date is less than or equal to 397 days whereby floating rate securities should reset to a money market rate or index;\n(g)\nlimit investment in other collective investment undertakings to those complying with the definition of MMFs;\n(h)\ndo not take direct or indirect exposure to equity or commodities, including via derivatives and only use derivatives in line with the money market investment strategy of the fund. Derivatives which give exposure to foreign exchange may only be used for hedging purposes. Investment in non-base currency securities is allowed provided the currency exposure is fully hedged;\n(i)\nhave either a constant or fluctuating NAV.\n(3)\nin Article 8, paragraph 4 is deleted;\n(4)\nwithout prejudice to Article 2 of this Regulation, in Part 1 of Annex I, Section 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Section 2:\nSpecifications for the MMFs\u2019 identification criteria\nFor the purpose of Article 1a of this Regulation:\n(a)\nthe money market instrument shall be considered to be of a high credit quality, if it has been awarded one of the two highest available short-term credit ratings by each recognised credit rating agency that has rated the instrument or, if the instrument is not rated, it is of an equivalent quality as determined by the management company\u2019s internal rating process. Where a recognised credit rating agency divides its highest short-term rating into two categories, these two ratings shall be considered as a single category and therefore the highest rating available;\n(b)\nthe money market fund may, as an exception to the requirement in paragraph (a), hold sovereign issuance of at least investment grade quality, whereby \u2018sovereign issuance\u2019 means money market instruments issued or guaranteed by a central, regional or local authority or central bank of a Member State, the ECB, the European Union or the European Investment Bank;\n(c)\nwhen calculating WAL for securities, including structured financial instruments, the maturity calculation is based on the residual maturity until the legal redemption of the instruments. However, when a financial instrument embeds a put option, the exercise date of the put option may be used instead of the legal residual maturity only if the following conditions are fulfilled at all times:\n-\nthe put option may be freely exercised by the management company at its exercise date,\n-\nthe strike price of the put option remains close to the expected value of the instrument at the next exercise date,\n-\nthe investment strategy of the MMF implies that there is a high probability that the option will be exercised at the next exercise date;\n(d)\nwhen calculating both WAL and WAM, the impact of financial derivative instruments, deposits and efficient portfolio management techniques shall be taken into account;\n(e)\n\u2018weighted average maturity\u2019 (WAM) shall mean a measure of the average length of time to maturity of all of the underlying securities in the fund weighted to reflect the relative holdings in each instrument, assuming that the maturity of a floating rate instrument is the time remaining until the next interest rate reset to the money market rate, rather than the time remaining before the principal value of the security must be repaid. In practice, WAM is used to measure the sensitivity of a MMF to changing money market interest rates;\n(f)\n\u2018weighted average life\u2019 (WAL) shall mean the weighted average of the remaining maturity of each security held in a fund, meaning the time until the principal is repaid in full, disregarding interest and not discounting. Contrary to the calculation of the WAM, the calculation of the WAL for floating rate securities and structured financial instruments does not permit the use of interest rate reset dates and instead only uses a security\u2019s stated final maturity. WAL is used to measure the credit risk, as the longer the reimbursement of principal is postponed, the higher the credit risk. WAL is also used to limit the liquidity risk;\n(g)\n\u2018money market instruments\u2019 means instruments normally traded on the money market which are liquid and have a value which can be accurately determined at any time;\n(h)\n\u2018management company\u2019 means a company, the regular business of which is the management of the portfolio of an MMF.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nTransitional provision\nNational central banks (NCBs) may continue to collect statistical information under Regulation (EC) No 25/2009 (ECB/2008/32) from the MMFs resident in their Member States identified in accordance with the former Section 2 of Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 25/2009 (ECB/2008/32) until 31 January 2012 at the latest. They shall notify all MMFs concerned of their decision to apply this transitional provision. NCBs shall start collecting statistical information from MMFs identified in accordance with Article 1a of Regulation (EC) No 25/2009 (ECB/2008/32) from 1 February 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 25 August 2011.", "references": ["87", "90", "47", "33", "45", "55", "0", "85", "36", "23", "10", "92", "97", "63", "41", "76", "17", "22", "72", "96", "93", "11", "5", "60", "52", "3", "77", "88", "81", "38", "No Label", "28", "29", "30", "31"], "gold": ["28", "29", "30", "31"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1208/2011\nof 22 November 2011\namending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 288/2009 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the Community aid for supplying fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables and banana products to children in educational establishments, in the framework of a School Fruit Scheme\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 103h(f) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn the light of the experience acquired in the management of the School Fruit Scheme established by Article 103ga of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and in order to facilitate its implementation, it is necessary to clarify and simplify a number of provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 288/2009 (2).\n(2)\nArticle 103ga(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 requires Member States to adopt the accompanying measures necessary to make their scheme effective. Accompanying measures do not benefit from Union aid for the School Fruit Scheme. It is therefore necessary to distinguish such measures with more precision from the communication measures which are eligible for Union aid.\n(3)\nArticle 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 288/2009 provides for a list of costs which are eligible for Union aid. In order to ensure proper financial management and control of expenditure, it is necessary to set out more clearly which costs are eligible for Union aid. To ensure the effectiveness of the scheme, it is appropriate to provide that personnel costs should not benefit from Union aid, with the exception of certain personnel costs which are directly linked to the implementation of the scheme.\n(4)\nExperience has shown that the detailed rules on aid applications and the payment of aid provided in Regulation (EC) No 288/2009 are difficult to apply in respect of entities that could execute monitoring, evaluation and communication tasks in the framework of the School Fruit Scheme when such entities are not involved in the delivery of products. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the conditions under which aid should be granted in respect of monitoring, evaluation and communication activities.\n(5)\nIn order to limit the control requirements in respect of aid applicants that are solely responsible for dealing with monitoring, evaluation and communication tasks, rules on controls and checks should be simplified. By reason of the specific nature of those tasks, it is appropriate to exempt them from on-the-spot checks and to subject them only to full administrative checks.\n(6)\nIn the second sentence of Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 288/2009, there is an inconsistency in the language versions as regards the implementation of the School Fruit Scheme by Member States. It should be clarified in some language versions that if Member States choose to implement more than one scheme, they have to draw up a strategy for each scheme.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 288/2009 should therefore be amended and corrected accordingly.\n(8)\nFor programming purposes and in order to ensure that the rules do not change during the applicable period, it is necessary to apply the amendments introduced by this Regulation from the beginning of the current implementation period of the School Fruit Scheme, i.e. 1 August 2011.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment of Regulation (EC) No 288/2009\nRegulation (EC) No 288/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 3, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20274. Member States shall describe in their strategy which accompanying measures they adopt in order to ensure the successful implementation of their scheme. Those measures shall be educational and shall focus on improving the target group's knowledge of the fruit and vegetable sector or healthy eating habits and may involve teachers and parents.\u2027.\n(2)\nArticle 5 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nParagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nthe first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2027The following costs are eligible for the Union aid provided for in Article 103ga of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007:\n(a)\ncosts for fruits and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables and banana products covered by the School Fruit Scheme and delivered to an educational establishment;\n(b)\nrelated costs, which are costs that are directly linked to the implementation of a School Fruit Scheme and shall only include:\n(i)\ncosts for purchasing, renting, hiring and leasing of equipment, if provided for in the strategy;\n(ii)\ncosts for the monitoring and evaluation activities referred to in Article 12, which shall be directly linked to the School Fruit Scheme;\n(iii)\ncosts for communication, which shall be directly linked to informing the wider public about the School Fruit Scheme and which shall include the poster referred to in Article 14(1); those costs may also include one or more of the following communication measures and activities:\n-\ninformation campaigns by means of broadcasting, electronic communications, newspapers and similar communication means;\n-\ninformation sessions, conferences, seminars and workshops dedicated to informing the wider public about the scheme and similar events;\n-\ninformation and promotion material such as letters, leaflets, brochures, gadgets and similar.\u2027;\n(ii)\nthe following new subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Value added tax (VAT) and expenditure relating to personnel costs are not eligible for the Union aid provided for in Article 103ga of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, with the exception of personnel costs that form part of the costs related to the activities referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph, where those activities have been outsourced.\u2019\n(b)\nParagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20272. The total amount for costs under point (b)(iii) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall represent a fixed amount and be subject to a ceiling not exceeding 5% of the annual amount of the Union aid allocated to the Member State concerned, following the definitive allocation referred to in Article 4(4).\nThe total amount for costs under points (b)(i) and (ii) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall not exceed 10% of the annual amount of the Union aid allocated to the Member State concerned, following the definitive allocation referred to in Article 4(4).\u2027.\n(3)\nArticle 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u2027Article 7\nConditions for approval of aid applicants\n1. The competent authority shall make the approval of aid applicants conditional on the following written commitments by the applicant:\n(a)\nto use products financed under a School Fruit Scheme complying with this Regulation for consumption by the children of its educational establishment or of the establishments in respect of which it will apply for aid;\n(b)\nto use the aid for monitoring and evaluation of the School Fruit Scheme or for communication in accordance with purpose of the Scheme;\n(c)\nto reimburse any aid unduly paid for the quantities concerned, if it has been found that these products have not been distributed to the children referred to in Article 2 or have been paid for products that are not eligible under this Regulation;\n(d)\nin case of fraud or serious negligence, to pay an amount equal to the difference between the amount initially paid and the amount to which the applicant is entitled;\n(e)\nto make supporting documents available to the competent authorities at their request;\n(f)\nto undergo any check decided on by the competent authority of the Member State, in particular the scrutiny of records and physical inspection.\n2. In the case of aid applicants referred to in point (e)(ii) of Article 6(2), only points (b), (d) and (e) of paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply.\n3. Aid applicants referred to in points (c), (d) and (e)(i) of Article 6(2) shall make an additional written commitment to keep records of the names and addresses of the educational establishments or, where appropriate, educational authorities and the products and quantities sold or supplied to these establishments or authorities.\n4. Member States may require additional written commitments by the applicant.\u2027.\n(4)\nArticle 8 is deleted.\n(5)\nArticle 10 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nParagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20271. Aid applications shall be made in a manner which shall be specified by the competent authority of the Member State.\nAid applications lodged by the applicants referred to in points (a) to (d) and in point (e)(i) of Article 6(2) shall include at least the following information:\n(a)\nthe quantities distributed;\n(b)\nthe name and address or identification number of the educational establishment or educational authority to which the information referred to in point (a) of this paragraph relates;\n(c)\nthe number of children in the respective educational establishment of the target group as identified in the strategy of the Member State;\n(d)\nthe supporting documents to be defined by the Member States.\u2027;\n(b)\nIn paragraph 3, the following sentence is added:\n\u2027In the case of aid applications for the evaluation report carried out in accordance with Article 12, the deadline shall be the last day of the first month following the end of the evaluation deadline referred to in Article 12(2).\u2027\n(c)\nIn paragraph 4, the first sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2027The amounts claimed in the application shall be supported by documentary evidence held available to the competent authorities.\u2027.\n(6)\nArticle 11 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nIn paragraph 1, the introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u2027As regards aid applicants referred to in points (a) to (d) and in point (e)(i) of Article 6(2), aid shall only be paid:\u2027;\n(b)\nThe following new paragraph 1a is inserted:\n\u20271a. As regards aid applicants referred to in point (e)(ii) of Article 6(2), aid shall only be paid upon the delivery of the goods or services concerned and upon submission of related documentary evidence as required by the competent authorities of the Member States.\u2027;\n(c)\nIn paragraph 3, the second subparagraph is replaced by following:\n\u2027Once the time limit referred to in Article 10(3) is overrun by two months, the aid shall be further reduced by 1% per additional day.\u2027.\n(7)\nIn Article 12, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20272. Member States shall evaluate the implementation of their School Fruit Scheme and assess its effectiveness. For the implementation period running from 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2011, Member States shall notify the Commission of the results of their evaluation exercise by 29 February 2012. For subsequent implementation periods, Member States shall, by the end of February of every fifth year following 29 February 2012, submit to the Commission an evaluation report covering the preceding five-year implementation period.\u2027.\n(8)\nArticle 13 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nParagraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20271. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation. These measures shall include full administrative checking of all aid applications.\n2. In cases where an aid applicant referred to in points (a) to (d) and in point (e)(i) of Article 6(2) applies for the aid, the administrative checks shall include checking of supporting documents as defined by Member States, relating to product delivery. The administrative checks shall be supplemented by on-the-spot checks carried out in particular on:\n(a)\nthe records referred to in Article 7, including financial records such as purchase and sales invoices and bank extracts;\n(b)\nuse of the subsidised products in accordance with this Regulation, particularly if there are grounds for suspecting any irregularity.\u2027;\n(b)\nThe following new paragraph 2a is inserted:\n\u20272a. In cases where an applicant referred to in point (e)(ii) of Article 6(2) applies for the aid, the administrative checks shall include checking of the delivery of the goods and services and the veracity of the claimed expenditure.\u2027;\n(c)\nIn paragraph 3, the first subparagraph is replaced by following:\n\u2027The total number of on-the-spot checks carried out in respect of each period running from 1 August to 31 July shall cover at least 5% of the aid distributed at national level and at least 5% of all the applicants referred to in points (a) to (d) and in point (e)(i) of Article 6(2).\u2027;\n(d)\nIn the first sentence of paragraph 6, the reference to point (e) is replaced by the reference to point (e)(i) of Article 6(2).\n(9)\nArticle 14 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nParagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20272. Where Member States decide not to make use of the poster referred to in paragraph 1, they shall clearly explain in their strategy how they will inform the public about the European Union's financial contribution to their scheme.\u2027;\n(b)\nThe following new paragraph 2a is inserted:\n\u20272a. Websites or any other instrument of communication referred to in point (b)(iii) of Article 5(1) on a Member State's School Fruit Scheme shall in any event exhibit the European flag and mention the European \u2027School Fruit Scheme\u2027 and the financial support of the European Union.\u2027.\n(10)\nIn the second subparagraph of Article 15(1), points (a) and (b) are replaced by the following:\n\u2027(a)\nthe results of the monitoring exercise, as provided for in Article 12(1) to e-mail AGRI-HORT-SCHOOLFRUIT@ec.europa.eu;\n(b)\nthe details and findings of the on-the-spot checks carried out pursuant to Articles 13 and 16 to e-mail AGRI-J2@ec.europa.eu.\u2027.\nArticle 2\nCorrection of Regulation (EC) No 288/2009\nIn Article 3(5) the second sentence is replaced by the following:\n\"If they choose to implement more than one scheme, they shall draw up a strategy for each scheme.\"\nArticle 3\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2011.", "references": ["5", "11", "96", "82", "99", "78", "80", "23", "66", "88", "2", "13", "29", "26", "92", "89", "45", "6", "60", "93", "37", "41", "52", "71", "58", "35", "20", "70", "30", "90", "No Label", "1", "9", "10", "15", "24", "68"], "gold": ["1", "9", "10", "15", "24", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 155/2011\nof 18 February 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of February 2011 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 February 2011 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 February 2011 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 76,386457 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 February 2011.", "references": ["11", "75", "57", "39", "58", "3", "26", "68", "65", "19", "67", "43", "55", "31", "84", "10", "28", "49", "97", "73", "16", "80", "44", "70", "1", "20", "62", "48", "12", "66", "No Label", "21", "23", "24", "69", "76"], "gold": ["21", "23", "24", "69", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1008/2011\nof 10 October 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China as extended to imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Articles 9(4) and 11 paragraphs (2), (5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (Commission) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nThe Council, following an anti-dumping investigation (\u2018the original investigation\u2019), by Regulation (EC) No 1174/2005 (2), imposed, a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts currently falling within CN code ex 8427 90 00 and ex 8431 20 00 originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the definitive anti-dumping measures\u2019). The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty ranging between 7,6 % and 46,7 %.\n(2)\nThe Council, following an ex officio product scope interim review, by Regulation (EC) No 684/2008 (3), clarified the product scope of the original investigation.\n(3)\nFollowing an ex officio anti-circumvention investigation of the anti-dumping measures, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 499/2009 (4), extended the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019 imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1174/2005 to hand pallet trucks and their essential parts consigned from Thailand whether declared as originating in Thailand or not.\n2. Request for an expiry review\n(4)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry (5) of the definitive anti-dumping measures in force, the Commission received on 21 April 2010 a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged by two Union producers: BT Products AB and Lifter SRL (\u2018the applicants\u2019) representing a major proportion, in this case almost the total Union production of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts.\n(5)\nThe request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.\n3. Initiation of an expiry review\n(6)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 20 July 2010, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (6) (\u2018the Notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n4. Investigation\n4.1. Investigation period\n(7)\nThe investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the review investigation period (\u2018the period considered\u2019).\n4.2. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(8)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicants, exporting producers, importers, users known to be concerned, and the representatives of the exporting country of the initiation of the expiry review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the Notice of initiation.\n(9)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(10)\nIn view of the apparent large number of unrelated importers, it was considered appropriate, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to examine whether sampling should be used. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested, pursuant to Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the reviews and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the Notice of initiation. However, no unrelated importers came forward to cooperate. Sampling was therefore not necessary.\n(11)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to those who made themselves known within the deadlines set in the Notice of initiation. Replies were received from the two groups of Union producers which are the applicants. None of the known exporting producers in the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC) cooperated in the review. None of the importers came forward during the sampling exercise and no other importers or users supplied the Commission with any information or made themselves known in the course of the investigation.\n(12)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for a determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following interested parties:\nUnion producers\n-\nLifter SRL, Casole d\u2019Elsa, Italy,\n-\nBT Products AB, Mj\u00f6lby, Sweden.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(13)\nThe product concerned by this review is the same as the one in the original investigation and clarified by the product scope interim review, namely hand pallet trucks and their essential parts, i.e. chassis and hydraulics, originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes ex 8427 90 00 and ex 8431 20 00. For the purpose of this Regulation, hand pallet trucks shall be trucks with wheels supporting lifting fork arms for handling pallets, designed to be manually pushed, pulled and steered, on smooth, level, hard surfaces, by a pedestrian operator using an articulated tiller. The hand pallet trucks are only designed to raise a load, by pumping the tiller, to a height sufficient for transporting and do not have any other additional functions or uses such as for example (i) to move and to lift the loads in order to place them higher or assist in storage of loads (highlifters); (ii) to stack one pallet above the other (stackers); (iii) to lift the load to a working level (scissorlifts); or (iv) to lift and to weigh the loads (weighing trucks).\n(14)\nThe investigation confirmed that, as in the original investigation, the product concerned and the products manufactured and sold on the domestic market in the PRC, as well as those manufactured and sold in the EU by the Union producers, have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same uses and are, therefore, considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n(15)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(16)\nNineteen known Chinese exporting producers were contacted upon initiation. Only one company, Crown Equipment (Suzhou), initially came forward and agreed to be included in the sample, but withdrew its cooperation subsequently. Consequently, none of the exporting producers in the PRC cooperated with the investigation and findings on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping had to be based on facts available, in particular information submitted by the applicants, including information in the review request, Eurostat data, as well as official export statistics of the PRC.\n2. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n2.1. Analogue country\n(17)\nIn accordance with the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value had to be determined on the basis of the price or constructed normal value obtained in an appropriate market economy third country (the analogue country), or the price from the analogue country to other countries, including the Union, or, where those are not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit margin.\n(18)\nIn the original investigation, Canada served as an analogue country for the purposes of establishing normal value. Given that production in Canada had ceased, Brazil was envisaged as analogue country in the notice of initiation of the present review. However, none of the known Brazilian exporting producers agreed to cooperate. Alternatively, cooperation was sought from 27 Indian producers and two Taiwanese producers, but similarly no cooperation could be obtained. Interested parties have not put forward any other suggestions for an analogue country.\n(19)\nOne non-cooperating exporter claimed that the Commission did not demonstrate that the use of analogue country data was impossible in the current case. The suggestions given by the company have been checked. In some cases companies proposed by the non-cooperting exporter appeared not to be a producer of the product concerned. The company also suggested that Vietnam could have been used as an analogue country. However, Vietnam could not be taken into account because it is not considered as a market economy country. As explained in recitals 17 and 18 above, the Commission contacted a large number of companies in three potential analogue countries: Brazil, India and Taiwan. Despite these efforts no cooperation was obtained. Without any analogue country cooperation, in compliance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, the normal value had to be based on the price actually paid or payable in the European Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit margin. Therefore the claim had to be rejected.\n2.2. Normal value\n(20)\nIn view of lack of cooperation from an analogue country in the present review, the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit margin, was used as a basis to establish normal value. The same methodology was used for both the company that received MET in the original investigation as well as for the companies not granted MET in the original investigation.\n2.3. Export price\n(21)\nIn view of the fact that no cooperation was obtained from the Chinese exporting producers, the export price was established on the basis of facts available. Different sources of information were consulted in order to establish the export price: Eurostat data, offers of Chinese exporting producers as submitted by the applicants and export invoices collected from Member States\u2019 customs authorities.\n2.4. Comparison\n(22)\nThe weighted average normal value was compared with the weighted average export price, on an ex-works basis, at the same level of trade. In accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, and for the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison, differences in factors affecting price and price comparability were taken into account. Adjustments were made for ocean and domestic freight in the exporting country, as well as insurance.\n2.5. Dumping margin\n(23)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price. This comparison showed the existence of significant dumping during the RIP ranging from 97 % to 224 %. The significant difference in dumping margins is due to the different data used for establishing the export price.\n3. Development of imports should measures be repealed\n(24)\nFurther to the analysis of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood of continuation of dumping should measures be repealed was investigated. Given the fact that no exporting producer in the PRC cooperated in this investigation, the conclusions below rely on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, namely information provided in the review request as well as data provided by the applicants, Eurostat data and official export statistics of the PRC.\n(25)\nIn this respect, the following elements were analysed: development of imports from the PRC, spare capacity of the exporters and attractiveness of the Union market, Chinese domestic prices and export prices to third countries.\n3.1. Development of imports from the PRC\n(26)\nThe Chinese exporting producers continued to supply significant volumes of hand pallet trucks to the Union market following the imposition of the measures in 2005. The volume of imports from the PRC into the EU during the RIP, nearly 400 000 units, corresponding to 99 % of total EU imports, considerably exceeded the levels noted prior to the imposition of measures (ranging from 118 000 units in 2000 to 280 000 units in the original IP).\n3.2. Spare capacity of the exporters\n(27)\nIn the absence of other sources of information concerning production and capacity in the PRC, the analysis was made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation on the basis of information submitted by the applicants. The market information contained in the review request, which has not been challenged by the interested parties, points to a huge capacity in the PRC. Already the production levels in 2008 and 2009, respectively 1,5 million units and 800 000 units, were more than twice the size of the entire Union market. In addition, only a limited fraction of Chinese production (14 % in 2008 and 23 % in 2009) was sold on the Chinese domestic market.\n(28)\nThe levels of production clearly point to the conclusion that in the absence of measures, significant additional quantities of Chinese hand pallet trucks could be directed to the Union market.\n3.3. Attractiveness of the Union market, Chinese domestic prices and export prices to third countries\n(29)\nThe Union market remains to be attractive for the Chinese exporting producers in terms of prices. Imports from the PRC entered the EU at roughly one third of the prices charged by the Union industry to its unrelated EU customers.\n(30)\nBased on the Chinese export statistics, it was found that during the RIP the Union was the destination for 40 % of all Chinese exports of hand pallet trucks. The USA is the second largest export market for Chinese hand pallet trucks, accounting for 20 % of all Chinese exports, while the remaining volumes are fragmented among different destinations.\n(31)\nChinese export prices to the EU are overall in line with the average Chinese export prices to all third countries except the USA. However, it can be concluded that at least part of the Chinese exports to third countries other than the EU or the USA (40 % of total Chinese exports) could potentially be redirected to the EU should measures be repealed. Such a development is likely not only because higher prices could be achieved in the absence of measures but notably because of the fragmentation of those third country exports. Given the importance of the Union market and already established sales channels, it would be easier to handle one export destination instead of different countries.\n(32)\nChinese export prices to the EU are considerably higher than Chinese export prices to the USA (17 % more expensive during the RIP). Given the non-cooperation from Chinese exporters, it cannot be determined to what extent this price difference can be explained by differences in the product mix. Nevertheless, on the basis of the export data available, it cannot be excluded that hand pallet trucks currently exported to the USA at lower prices would be (partly) redirected to the Union market should measures be repealed. Such a development could be explained by the reasons mentioned in recital 31 above.\n(33)\nThe above price comparisons demonstrate that the EU remains a highly attractive destination for the Chinese exporting producers, which would in all likelihood continue to export large quantities of hand pallet trucks at low prices.\n3.4. Conclusion of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping\n(34)\nThe foregoing analysis demonstrates that Chinese imports continued to enter the Union market at dumped prices with very high dumping margins. Given most notably the analysis of price levels on the EU and other third country markets as well as capacities available in the PRC, it can be concluded there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping should measures be removed.\nD. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n1. Union production\n(35)\nWithin the Union, the like product is manufactured by the two groups of companies which are the applicants, as well as by a third Union producer of hand pallet trucks. The output of these companies constitutes the total Union production of the like product within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.\n2. Union industry\n(36)\nSince these producers account for the total Union production of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts, they are deemed to constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will hereinafter be referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\n(37)\nOne non-cooperating exporter claimed that that the Commission has used an inaccurate definition of the Union industry because it included a non-cooperating Union producer under the definition of Union industry and in the scope of its injury analysis. They argued that this was done in violation of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. However, pursuant to Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation, the Union industry includes Union producers of the like product as a whole. The non-cooperating producer therefore forms part of the Union industry according to the basic Regulation. As explained in recital 42, data for the non-cooperating Union producer have only been included with respect to the analysis of sales volumes to unrelated customers and market shares of the Union industry. It is also noted that in case the non-cooperating Union producer was excluded from the analysis, the findings of the investigation would remain unchanged.\nE. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Preliminary remark\n(38)\nGiven that no Chinese exporting producer of the product concerned cooperated in this investigation, data relating to imports of the product concerned into the European Union originating in the PRC (\u2018the country concerned\u2019) are based on Eurostat figures.\n2. Consumption in the Union market\n(39)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market and import data from Eurostat.\n(40)\nBetween 2007 and the RIP, Union consumption decreased by 40 %, with the main decrease occurring between 2008 and 2009.\nTable 1\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nTotal EU consumption (pieces)\n783 330\n654 843\n385 410\n468 557\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n84\n49\n60\n3. Volume, market share and prices of imports from the PRC\n(41)\nThe volume of imports originating in the PRC has decreased by 37 % over the period considered and reached a level of 387 907 pieces during the RIP. However, notwithstanding the significant decrease in Union demand, the market share of Chinese imports increased over the period considered since Chinese imports did not decrease at the same rate as Union consumption. The market share of imports from the country concerned therefore significantly increased between 2007 and the RIP, when it reached around 83 %. The average price of the Chinese imports have slightly varied over the period considered.\nTable 2\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nVolume of imports from the country concerned\n(pieces) (7)\n612 222\n522 573\n300 222\n387 907\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n85\n49\n63\nMarket share of imports from the country concerned (7)\n78 %\n80 %\n78 %\n83 %\nPrice of imports from the country concerned (EUR/piece) (7)\n96\n92\n100\n97\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n96\n104\n101\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(42)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry. For confidentiality reasons (only two producers - the applicants - cooperated in the review) only indices are disclosed below. As concerns the total EU sales volume to unrelated customers as well as the market share of the Union industry shown in Tables 6 and 7 below, in order to be consistent with Tables 1 and 2 above (consumption and Chinese market share), the data are based on all three Union producers, i.e. including the two applicant groups and the third manufacturer not cooperating in the review (the sales volume figures of the latter are based on the information submitted by the applicants).\n4.1. Production\n(43)\nIn the RIP, production decreased by 35 % compared to 2007.\nTable 3\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProduction (pieces)\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n84\n55\n65\n4.2. Capacity and capacity utilisation rates\n(44)\nProduction capacity remained stable between 2007 and the RIP. While capacity utilisation was already at a low level in 2007, the decrease in production between 2007 and the RIP led to a further significant decrease of capacity utilisation by 20 percentage points between 2007 and the RIP where capacity utilisation was at a very low level.\nTable 4\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProduction capacity (pieces)\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n100\n100\n100\nCapacity utilisation\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n84\n55\n65\n4.3. Stocks\n(45)\nThe level of closing stocks of the Union industry increased by 56 % between 2007 and the RIP.\nTable 5\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nClosing stock (pieces)\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n131\n59\n156\n4.4. Sales volume\n(46)\nThe sales by the Union industry on the Union market to unrelated customers decreased by 50 % over the period considered with the largest decrease between 2008 and 2009.\nTable 6\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nEU Sales volume to unrelated customers (pieces)\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n79\n55\n50\n4.5. Market share\n(47)\nThe market share held by the Union industry declined from an already low level in 2007 by further 16 % between 2007 and the RIP. Two of the four Union producers of the original investigation have stopped manufacturing hand pallet trucks. Both events can be seen as developing from the increased pressure that the Chinese dumped imports have been exercising on the Union market, which pressure was felt even more by the Union industry in a situation of strongly decreasing consumption.\nTable 7\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nMarket share of the Union industry\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n95\n111\n84\n4.6. Growth\n(48)\nBetween 2007 and the RIP, the Union consumption decreased by 40 %. The Union industry lost 3,2 percentage points of market share, whilst the imports concerned gained 5 percentage points of market share.\n4.7. Employment\n(49)\nThe level of employment of the Union industry declined by 17 % between 2007 and the RIP. This shows the efforts made by the Union industry to rationalise production in a situation of strongly decreasing demand.\nTable 8\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nEmployment product concerned (persons)\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n84\n76\n83\n4.8. Productivity\n(50)\nProductivity of the Union industry\u2019s workforce, measured as output per person employed per year, decreased by 22 % between 2007 and the RIP.\nTable 9\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProductivity (pieces per employee)\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n103\n74\n78\n4.9. Sales prices and factors affecting domestic prices\n(51)\nUnit sales prices of the Union industry slightly increased by 4 % between 2007 and the RIP.\nTable 10\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nUnit price EU market (EUR/piece)\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n101\n103\n104\n4.10. Wages\n(52)\nBetween 2007 and the RIP, the average wage per employee decreased by 29 %. This also shows the succesfull efforts made by the Union industry to contain costs, despite the problems caused by the drastic reduction in the volume of production.\nTable 11\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nAnnual labour cost per employee (thousand EUR)\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n91\n63\n71\n4.11. Investments\n(53)\nBetween 2007 and the RIP, the annual flow of investments in the product concerned made by the Union industry decreased sharply by 91 %.\nTable 12\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nNet investments (EUR)\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n58\n27\n9\n4.12. Profitability and return on investments\n(54)\nProfitability of the Union industry decreased substantially by 66 % between 2007 and the RIP.\n(55)\nThe return on investments (\u2018ROI\u2019) decreased also significantly, by 57 % during the period considered.\nTable 13\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nNet profit of EU sales to unrelated customers (% of net sales)\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n68\n-2\n34\nROI (net profit in % of net book value of investments)\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n80\n-2\n43\n4.13. Cash flow and ability to raise capital\n(56)\nThe net cash-flow from operating activities is reported in table 14 below. There were no indications that the Union industry encountered difficulties in raising capital, mainly due to the fact that some of the producers are incorporated in larger groups.\nTable 14\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nCash flow (EUR)\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n84\n65\n73\n4.14. Magnitude of dumping margin\n(57)\nGiven the volume, market share and prices of the imports from the PRC, the impact on the Union industry of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.\n4.15. Recovery from the effects of past dumping\n(58)\nThe indicators examined above show that, notwithstanding the imposition of the anti-dumping measures in 2005, the economic and financial situation of the Union industry has remained substantially fragile, because of the overwhelming presence of low priced chinese goods in the Union market. This already precarious situation has turned into a clearly injurious picture during 2009 and the RIP, when a substantial decrease in Union consumption has highlighted the full extent of the negative pressure exerced by the dumped chinese imports. During that period in fact, the Union industry has seen its production and sales volumes decrease at a higher rate than the Union consumption and has therefore experienced a substantial additional loss in market shares. Over the same period, and despite the measures, the market share of Chinese imports has further increased and Chinese products have continued to be imported at prices substantially lower than the prices of the Union industry. During the RIP, profits further decreased for the Union industry. Therefore, the Union industry was not able to recover from the effects of dumping and its situation has even further deteriorated during the RIP.\n4.16. Conclusions\n(59)\nBetween 2007 and the RIP, and notwithstanding the existence of the anti-dumping measures, a number of important indicators developed negatively: profitability decreased by 4,9 percentage points, production and sales volumes decreased by 35 % and 50 % respectively, capacity utilisation went down by 35 % and was followed by a decrease in employment. Although a part of these negative developments may be explained by the strong decrease in consumption, which declined by 40 % over the period considered, the Union industry\u2019s further decrease in market share (down by 4 percentage points between 2007 and the RIP) and the constant increase in market share of imports from the PRC is a clear sign of the increasing pressure resulting from the dumped Chinese imports. Given the quasi monopoly already reached by the Chinese imports in the Union market, any further increase of Chinese imports, also because of their significantly low prices, may reduce the level of production utilisation of the Union industry under the minimum necessary to ensure its sustainability. In this respect, it is recalled that two Union producers have been forced to leave the hand pallet truck business in the course of the period considered, as already mentioned at recital 47 above.\n(60)\nIn its comments to the disclosure one Chinese exporting producer claimed that certain indicators including production, sales volume, profitability, capacity utilisation, employment show in fact no negative development for the Union industry. However, the company had only looked at the development between 2009 and the RIP while for the assessment of injury the overall development of the Union industry during the period considered, i.e. between 2007 and the RIP needs to be assessed. As explained above (see recitals 43 to 49), all the injury indicators mentioned by the Chinese exporter developed in a negative direction during the period considered.\n(61)\nMoreover, the same exporter claimed that the Commission did not distinguish between the injurious effects caused by the dumped imports and other effects, in particular the slump of demand as a result of the economic crisis. However, while it is true that Union consumption decreased by 40 % over the period considered, Chinese exporters managed to significantly gain market share at the same time at the expense of the Union industry. In addition, as explained in recital 58 above, it is recalled that the impact of dumped imports was actually more injurious during the period of weak demand.\nIt is therefore concluded that, despite the existence of the antid-umping measures, the Union industry has suffered material injury during the RIP.\n5. Impact of dumped imports and other factors\n5.1. Impact of the dumped imports\n(62)\nDespite a decrease in consumption in the European Union over the period considered, the volume of imports from the country concerned did not decrease at the same rate, thereby resulting in the Chinese imports further increasing their market share. In the absence of cooperation from Chinese exporting producers, price undercutting and underselling were calculated on the basis of best facts available, which included various sources of information i.e. Eurostat data, offers from Chinese exporting producers as submitted by the applicants, and export invoices collected from Member States\u2019 customs authorities. The imports from the country concerned were found to clearly undercut the prices of the Union industry by between 43 % and 78 %, depending on the source of information used.\n5.2. Imports from other countries\n(63)\nImports from other countries are at a very low level and dropped further by 79 % between 2007 and the RIP. The market share of imports from other countries decreased during the RIP as well. For confidentiality reasons (two producers are constituting the Union industry) only indices are disclosed below.\nTable 15\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nVolume of imports from other countries (pieces)\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n60\n6\n21\nMarket share of imports from the other countries\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n71\n12\n34\n6. Conclusion\n(64)\nAs shown under recital 41 the imports from the country concerned have increased in terms of market share over the period considered, and this despite a significant drop in Union consumption. This has increased the market share held by Chinese imports to 83 % of Union consumption during the RIP. This increased pressure in terms of volumes, despite an overall shrinking demand, has been coupled with significantly low Chinese import prices to the Union, which considerably undercut the prices of the Union industry. It is therefore concluded that there is a causal link between the dumped imports from the PRC and the material injury suffered by the Union industry during the RIP.\nF. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF INJURY\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(65)\nAs already seen, the imposition of anti-dumping measures has not allowed the Union industry to recover from the injury suffered.\n2. Likely development of Chinese exports in case measures are repealed\n(66)\nAs mentioned at recital 27 above, huge production capacities are available in the PRC. The production levels in 2008 and 2009, respectively 1,5 million units and 800 000 units, were already more than twice the size of the entire Union market. In addition, only a limited fraction of Chinese production (14 % in 2008 and 23 % in 2009) was sold on the Chinese domestic market. In the absence of measures, therefore, significant additional quantities of Chinese hand pallet trucks could be directed to the Union market.\n(67)\nAs mentioned above at recital 31, Chinese export prices to the EU are overall in line with the average Chinese export prices to all third countries. However, it can be concluded that at least part of the Chinese exports to third countries other than the EU or the USA (40 % of total Chinese exports) could potentially be redirected to the EU should measures be repealed. Such a development is likely not only because higher prices could be achieved in the absence of measures but notably because of the fragmentation of those third country exports. Given the importance of the Union market and already established sales channels, it would be easier to handle one export destination instead of bulk of different countries.\n3. Conclusion\n(68)\nIn the light of the findings mentioned at recitals 66 and 67 above, it is concluded that there is likelihood that the material injury found during the RIP will continue should the measures be repealed. This is likely to lead to a further deterioration of the economic and financial situation of the Union industry, which could even jepodarsie its existence in the medium term.\nG. UNION INTEREST\n1. Introduction\n(69)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of the various interests involved, i.e. those of the Union industry, of importers, and of users.\n(70)\nIt should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the Union interest. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place, allows the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.\n(71)\nOn this basis it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a continuation of injurious dumping, it could be clearly concluded that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case.\n2. Interest of the Union industry\n(72)\nThe Union industry has consistently lost market share while imports from the country considered have substantially increased in market share over the period considered. Two of the original four Union producers have stopped the production of the product investigated. Moreover, the Union industry has suffered material injury during the period considered. Without the existence of the measures, the Union industry would likely be in an even worse situation.\n3. Interest of importers and users\n(73)\nNone of unrelated importers and users that were contacted came forward to cooperate. It is recalled that, in the original investigation, it was found that the impact of the imposition of measures would not be significant for the users. Despite the existence of measures for five years, importers/users in the Union continued to source their supply mainly from the PRC. No indications were brought forward either that there have been difficulties in finding other sources. Moreover, it is recalled that in the original investigation cooperating users remained neutral as to the imposition of measures and it was concluded that hand pallet trucks were of a minor importance in their business. No indications of the contrary were found in the course of this review. It is therefore concluded that the maintenance of the anti-dumping measures is not likely to have a serious effect on importers/users in the Union. In fact, without measures the Chinese dumped imports could monopolise the Union hand pallet trucks market.\n4. Conclusion\n(74)\nGiven the above, it cannot be clearly concluded that the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures would not be in the Union interest.\nH. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(75)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to submit comments subsequent to that disclosure. The submissions and comments were duly taken into consideration where warranted.\n(76)\nIn its comments to the disclosure, the Union industry stressed that the dumping and undercutting levels found in the review are much higher than in the original investigation and that there was increasing pressure from dumped Chinese imports. The Union industry therefore submitted that the Commission should also consider reassessing the level of the anti-dumping duties. In view of these comments, and also in view of the findings of this review, consideration is being given to the possibility of opening a full interim review limited to dumping.\n(77)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the PRC should be maintained. It is recalled that these measures consist of an ad valorem duty at different rates.\n(78)\nIt is recalled that the measures subject to the current review were extended by Regulation (EC) No 499/2009 to imports of the same product, consigned from Thailand whether originating in Thaliand or not. No new element was brought forward in this respect in the framework of this review. The definitive anti-dumping duty of 46,7 % and applicable \u2018for all other companies\u2019 to imports originating in the PRC should therefore be extended to imports of the same product consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not.\n(79)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation are solely applicable to imports of the product concerned produced by these companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imports of the product concerned manufactured by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(80)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (8) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for instance, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be amended accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts, i.e. chassis and hydraulics, currently falling within CN codes ex 8427 90 00 (TARIC codes 8427900011 and 8427900019) and ex 8431 20 00 (TARIC codes 8431200011 and 8431200019), originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China. For the purpose of this Regulation, hand pallet trucks shall be trucks with wheels supporting lifting fork arms for handling pallets, designed to be manually pushed, pulled and steered, on smooth, level, hard surfaces, by a pedestrian operator using an articulated tiller. The hand pallet trucks are only designed to raise a load, by pumping the tiller, to a height sufficient for transporting and do not have any other additional functions or uses such as for example (i) to move and to lift the loads in order to place them higher or assist in storage of loads (highlifters); (ii) to stack one pallet above the other (stackers); (iii) to lift the load to a working level (scissorlifts); or (iv) to lift and to weigh the loads (weighing trucks).\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, for the products described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nRate of duty\n(%)\nTARIC additional code\nNingbo Liftstar Material Transport Equipment Factory, Zhouyi Village, Zhanqi Town, Yin Zhou District, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, 315144, PRC\n32,2\nA600\nNingbo Ruyi Joint Stock Co. Ltd, 656 North Taoyuan Road, Ninghai, Zhejiang Province, 315600, PRC\n28,5\nA601\nNingbo Tailong Machinery Co. Ltd, Economic Developing Zone, Ninghai, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, 315600, PRC\n39,9\nA602\nZhejiang Noblelift Equipment Joint Stock Co. Ltd, 58, Jing Yi Road, Economy Development Zone, Changxin, Zhejiang Province, 313100, PRC\n7,6\nA603\nAll other companies\n46,7\nA999\n3. The definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019, as set out in paragraph 2, is hereby extended to imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts, i.e. chassis and hydraulics, as further defined in paragraph 1, currently falling within CN codes ex 8427 90 00 and ex 8431 20 00 (TARIC codes 8427900011 and 8431200011) and consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 10 October 2011.", "references": ["19", "43", "74", "83", "30", "58", "53", "12", "99", "84", "11", "9", "59", "82", "2", "80", "20", "46", "86", "35", "89", "49", "36", "88", "97", "79", "60", "63", "65", "0", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "85", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "85", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 April 2010\nsetting up the Expert Group on a Common Frame of Reference in the area of European contract law\n(2010/233/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Council at Tampere in October 1999 requested the Commission to study the need to harmonise legislation in the area of substantive civil law.\n(2)\nThe Commission issued a Communication on European contract law (1) in 2001 with the purpose of launching a process of consultation on potential problems and actions in the area of contract law, the responses to which indicated a clear consensus on the need to improve the consistency of the existing Union contract law legislation in order to ensure its uniform application and a smooth functioning of the internal market.\n(3)\nThe Commission issued an action plan entitled \u2018A more coherent European contract law\u2019 (2) in 2003 which proposed to improve the quality and coherence of Union contract law legislation through the establishment of a Common Frame of Reference, which would provide the Union with a non-binding reference tool containing principles, definitions and model rules to be used for the revision of existing Union legislation and the preparation of new legislation in the area of contract law.\n(4)\nAs a preparatory measure, the Commission financed in 2005, through a grant under the 6th Framework Programme for Research, a European academic network of researchers to carry out in-depth legal research which led to an academic Draft Common Frame of Reference (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Draft Common Frame of Reference\u2019).\n(5)\nThe Stockholm Programme for 2010-2014 invites the Commission to submit a proposal on a Common Frame of Reference in the area of European contract law which should be a non-binding set of fundamental principles, definitions and model rules to be used by the lawmakers at Union level to ensure greater coherence and quality in the lawmaking process.\n(6)\nThe Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (3) recognises the need to make it easier and less costly for businesses and consumers to conclude contracts with partners in other EU countries, inter alia, by making progress towards an optional European Contract Law.\n(7)\nIt is therefore necessary to set up a group of experts in the area of civil law, and in particular contract law, and to define its tasks and its structure.\n(8)\nThe group should assist the Commission in preparing a proposal for a Common Frame of Reference in the area of European contract law, including consumer and business contract law, using the Draft Common Frame of Reference as a starting point and taking into consideration other research work conducted in this area as well as the Union acquis. The group should, in particular, help the Commission select those parts of the Draft Common Frame of Reference which are of direct or indirect relevance for contract law, and restructure, revise and supplement the selected contents.\n(9)\nThe group should be composed of highly qualified experts with competence in the area of civil law, and in particular contract law, appointed in a personal capacity.\n(10)\nRules on disclosure of information by members of the group should be provided for, without prejudice to the Commission\u2019s rules on security as set out in the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom (4).\n(11)\nPersonal data relating to members of the group should be processed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5).\n(12)\nIt is appropriate to fix a period for the application of this Decision. The Commission will in due time consider the advisability of an extension,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nExpert Group on the Common Frame of Reference in the area of European contract law\nThe group of experts \u2018Expert Group on a Common Frame of Reference in the area of European contract law\u2019, hereinafter referred to as \u2018the group\u2019, is hereby set up.\nArticle 2\nTask\nThe group\u2019s task shall be to assist the Commission in the preparation of a proposal for a Common Frame of Reference in the area of European contract law, including consumer and business contract law, and in particular in:\n(a)\nselecting those parts of the Draft Common Frame of Reference which are of direct or indirect relevance to contract law; and\n(b)\nrestructuring, revising and supplementing the selected contents of the Draft Common Frame of Reference, taking also into consideration other research work conducted in this area as well as the Union acquis.\nArticle 3\nConsultation\nThe Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to the preparation of a proposal for a Common Frame of Reference in the area of European contract law.\nArticle 4\nMembership - Appointment\n1. The group shall be composed of up to 20 members.\n2. The members shall be appointed by the Director-General of DG Justice, Freedom and Security from specialists with outstanding competence in the area of civil law, and in particular contract law. The appointment of members shall be made in such a manner as to ensure, as far as possible, an adequate balance in terms of range of competencies, geographical origin and gender.\n3. The members shall be appointed in a personal capacity and shall act independently and in the public interest.\n4. The group shall include experts from the following categories:\n-\nscientific and research organisations, academia,\n-\nlegal practitioners,\n-\nexperts representing the civil society.\n5. Members of the group shall be appointed for a mandate ending on 26 April 2012.\n6. Members may not designate an alternate to replace them, except with the agreement of the Commission.\n7. Members who are no longer capable of contributing effectively to the group\u2019s deliberations, who resign or who do not comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 3 of this Article, or Article 339 of the Treaty, may be replaced for the remainder of their term of office.\n8. Members shall sign an undertaking to act in the public interest and a declaration indicating the absence or existence of any interest which may undermine their objectivity.\n9. The names of members shall be published in the Register of Commission expert groups and on the Internet site of DG Justice, Freedom and Security. The names of members shall be collected, processed and published in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\n10. Members who do not wish to have their names disclosed may apply for derogation from this rule. The request not to disclose the name of a member of an expert group shall be considered justified whenever publication could endanger his or her security or integrity or unduly prejudice his or her privacy.\nArticle 5\nOperation\n1. The group shall be chaired by the Commission.\n2. In agreement with the Commission, sub-groups may be set up to examine specific questions under terms of reference established by the group. Such sub-groups shall be dissolved as soon as their mandates are fulfilled.\n3. The Commission\u2019s representative may ask experts from outside the group with specific competence on a subject on the agenda or observers, in particular from the European Parliament and Council, to participate in the deliberations of the group or sub-group deliberations if this is useful and/or necessary.\n4. Information obtained by participating in the deliberations of a group or sub-group shall not be divulged if, in the opinion of the Commission, that information relates to confidential matters.\n5. The group and its sub-groups shall normally meet on Commission premises in accordance with the procedures and schedule established by it. The Commission shall provide secretarial services. Other Commission officials with an interest in the proceedings may attend meetings of the group and its sub-groups.\n6. The group shall adopt its rules of procedure on the basis of the standard rules of procedure for expert groups adopted by the Commission.\n7. The Commission may publish, in the original language of the document concerned, any summary, conclusion, or partial conclusion or working document of the group.\nArticle 6\nMeeting expenses\n1. Participants in the activities of the group shall not be remunerated for the services they render.\n2. The Commission shall reimburse travel and, where appropriate, subsistence expenses incurred by participants in connection with the activities of the group in accordance with the Commission\u2019s rules on the compensation of external experts.\n3. Meeting expenses shall be reimbursed within the limits of the annual budget allocated to the group by the responsible Commission services.\nArticle 7\nApplicability\nThe Decision shall apply until 26 April 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["43", "58", "76", "51", "61", "4", "77", "17", "97", "69", "60", "67", "35", "50", "56", "30", "81", "74", "24", "86", "42", "73", "38", "3", "62", "21", "88", "13", "9", "36", "No Label", "7", "8", "11"], "gold": ["7", "8", "11"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 July 2011\non State aid C 15/09 (ex N 196/09), which Germany implemented and is planning to implement for Hypo Real Estate\n(notified under document C(2011) 5157)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/118/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions (2) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 2 October 2008 the European Commission authorised State aid to Hypo Real Estate Holding AG in the form of a State guarantee of EUR 35 billion (registered under case number N 44/08) (3) temporarily, that is for six months or until the submission of a credible and substantiated restructuring plan for the bank. Germany notified the measure on 30 September 2008.\n(2)\nOn 1 April 2009, Germany notified a restructuring plan for Hypo Real Estate Group (\u2018HRE\u2019) (registered under case number N 196/09). By letter dated 17 April 2009 Germany supplemented the notification of the restructuring plan by informing the Commission of a capital injection of EUR 60 million and a prolongation of State guarantees of EUR 52 billion which had been granted under the approved bank support scheme (4).\n(3)\nBy letter dated 7 May 2009 (5), the Commission informed Germany that it had initiated the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. That decision (\u2018opening decision\u2019) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (6), calling on interested parties to submit comments.\n(4)\nOn 3 June 2009 Germany notified a capital injection amounting to EUR 2,96 billion, registered under case number N 333/09.\n(5)\nOn 17 August 2009 Germany informed the Commission (registered under case number C 15/09) that it intended to again prolong guarantees previously granted by the Sonderfonds Finanzmarktstabilisierung (\u2018SoFFin\u2019) amounting to EUR 52 billion for HRE (cf. recital 2).\n(6)\nOn 20 and 21 October 2009, Germany provided another update of the restructuring plan, notified the Commission of further intended measures for HRE (creation of a winding-up institution, grant of additional guarantees) and informed the Commission about a further prolongation, i.e. the third prolongation, of the existing SoFFin guarantees of EUR 52 billion (registered under case number N 557/09).\n(7)\nOn 26 October 2009 Germany notified, under case number N 557/09, a further capital injection amounting to EUR 3,0 billion, SoFFin guarantees amounting to a total of EUR 18 billion for HRE, as well as a SoFFin guarantee amounting to EUR 2 billion for HRE\u2019s winding-up institution (7). The Commission did not approve the SoFFin guarantee amounting to EUR 2 billion.\n(8)\nOn 13 November 2009, the Commission extended the formal investigation procedure and temporarily approved capital injections of EUR 60 million, EUR 2,96 billion and EUR 3 billion (in cases: C 15/09, N 333/09 and N 557/09) until the Commission has taken a final decision on the restructuring plan. That decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (8), calling on interested parties to submit comments.\n(9)\nOn 15, 16 and 17 December 2009 (registered under case number N 694/09) the German authorities complemented the notification of 26 October 2009 by submitting further information regarding the SoFFin guarantees of EUR 18 billion.\n(10)\nOn 21 December 2009 the Commission temporarily authorised the SoFFin guarantees of EUR 18 billion for one year maximum (case number N 694/09) (9).\n(11)\nOn 30 April 2010 Germany notified a SoFFin capital injection of EUR 1,85 billion (case number N 161/10).\n(12)\nOn 19 May 2010 the Commission temporarily authorised the EUR 1,85 billion capital injection until the Commission has taken a final decision on the restructuring plan (10).\n(13)\nOn 2 September 2010 Germany notified a SoFFin liquidity guarantee amounting to EUR 20 billion (case number N 380/10).\n(14)\nOn 10 September 2010 Germany notified an impaired asset measure - i.e. the intent to transfer assets from HRE to FMS Wertmanagement A\u00f6R (11) (\u2018FMS-WM\u2019) - and a capital injection of up to approximately EUR 2,13 billion, as well as an additional guarantee, i.e. a settlement guarantee of up to EUR 20 billion (case number N 380/10).\n(15)\nOn 24 September 2010 the Commission again extended the formal investigation procedure and temporarily authorised the impaired asset measure, the liquidity guarantee of EUR 20 billion and the settlement guarantee of up to EUR 20 billion. That decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (12), calling on interested parties to submit comments. The Commission decision of 24 September 2010 did not cover the capital injection of up to EUR 2,13 billion that was notified by Germany on 10 September 2010; i.e. that capital injection was not approved by the Commission.\n(16)\nOn 14 June 2011 Germany submitted a final update of the restructuring plan. On 15 June 2011 Germany submitted a list of related commitments, which was supplemented on 1 July 2011.\n(17)\nOn 14 June 2011, Germany clarified that the next capital injection will not amount to EUR 2,13 billion as notified on 10 September 2010, but that it will amount to EUR 2,08 billion and that the reduced amount will be made available to FMS-WM.\n(18)\nIn the course of time several meetings and telephone conferences have taken place and further correspondence has been shared between the Commission departments, Germany and HRE.\n(19)\nThe Commission received comments from interested parties, forwarded them to Germany, and received observations from Germany by letter dated 24 March 2010.\nII. THE BENEFICIARY AND THE AID MEASURES\nII.1. The beneficiary\n(20)\nIn October 2003 HRE was established as a spin-off of parts of the commercial real estate financing business of HVB Group. In 2007, HRE took over Dublin-based DEPFA Bank plc and extended its business to public sector and infrastructure finance. The HRE group (13) currently consists of Hypo Real Estate Holding AG (\u2018HRE Holding\u2019) and its three subsidiaries pbb Deutsche Pfandbriefbank AG (\u2018PBB\u2019), DEPFA Bank plc and Hypo Real Estate Finance BV in Liquidation (\u2018HRE Finance i.L.\u2019). DEPFA Bank plc and PBB each have a number of further subsidiaries and participations. PBB is the renamed core bank of the group and the only one of the three subsidiaries of HRE Holding which will continue to generate new business. Its sectors of activity are real estate finance and public investment finance (\u2018PIF\u2019). DEPFA Bank plc is in run-down and will not contract any new business as of notification of this Commission decision. Its core activities mainly included public sector finance lending businesses and budget credit and the financing of infrastructure projects (e.g. roads, bridges, tunnels and public buildings). As its name suggests, HRE Finance i.L. is a company in liquidation (14).\n(21)\nFMS-WM, the winding-up institution for HRE, was established in 2010. It manages the assets and derivatives of the HRE group that it has taken over because they were either non-strategic or contained an unacceptable risk or capital burden. FMS-WM has in the course of time taken over a considerable part of HRE\u2019s assets. FMS-WM does not have a banking licence.\n(22)\nHRE reported losses of EUR 5,5 billion for the financial year 2008, losses of EUR 2,2 billion for 2009 and losses of EUR 0,9 billion for 2010.\n(23)\nBy injecting capital amounting to approximately EUR 3,02 billion (EUR 60 million in March 2009, EUR 2,96 billion in June 2009), Germany became 90 % owner of HRE. In autumn 2009 a squeeze-out of minority shareholders took place. Germany acquired the remaining shares, paying EUR 1,30 per share, and becoming 100 % owner of HRE. A restructuring process was subsequently initiated for HRE.\nII.2. HRE\u2019s difficulties in the context of the financial crisis\n(24)\nAt the end of September 2008, HRE faced a liquidity shortage, which put the bank on the brink of insolvency. HRE was not able to obtain short-term financing on the markets because the financial market crisis led to the collapse of some financing markets. After Lehman Brothers applied for creditor protection, the interbank market in particular came to an almost complete standstill in mid-September 2008.\n(25)\nThe business model of DEPFA Bank plc, a wholly owned subsidiary of HRE since October 2007 that was highly dependent on funding from the interbank market and other short-term unsecured funding sources, proved to be extremely fragile in the face of the liquidity crisis, and the resulting problems threatened its very existence.\n(26)\nHRE had to cover the short-term liquidity needs of DEPFA Bank plc. However, the volume of the credit lines which became due on 30 September 2008 was too big to be supported by HRE. Furthermore, internal transactions and activities within the HRE group, such as receivables, guarantees and letters of comfort, meant that most companies in the HRE group were in the same situation. The liquidity problems therefore posed a serious threat to the existence of the HRE group.\n(27)\nHRE\u2019s difficulties were, inter alia, also attributable to a legacy problem stemming from assets that did not show an appropriate return on investment if their actual risk profile was taken into account, and to the fact that HRE was the product of a merger of several smaller banking institutes which were using different IT systems, [\u2026] (15).\nII.3. The State aid measures\n(28)\nOverall, the German State has provided or will provide HRE with capital injections totalling up to approximately EUR 9,95 billion (FMS-WM has received or will receive part of that capital) and guarantees of EUR 145 billion. HRE also benefited from an asset relief measure with an aid element of approximately EUR 20 billion.\nII.3.1. Capital injections\nII.3.1.1. Capital injection of EUR 60 million\n(29)\nAs part of Germany\u2019s intention to gain full control over HRE by acquiring all its shares in several steps, on 30 March 2009 SoFFin bought 20 million new HRE shares at their nominal value of EUR 3 per share, resulting in a capital injection to HRE of EUR 60 million and giving SoFFin an 8,65 % share in the equity. That capital injection was temporarily approved by the Commission on 13 November 2009.\nII.3.1.2. Capital injection of EUR 2,96 billion\n(30)\nOn 2 June 2009, HRE shareholders approved a capital injection amounting to EUR 2,96 billion into HRE by issuing new shares to be acquired by SoFFin. As a result, SoFFin held 90 % of the shares of HRE. Those newly issued shares were registered in the commercial register on 8 June 2009. This capital injection was temporarily approved by the Commission on 13 November 2009.\nII.3.1.3. Capital injection of EUR 3 billion\n(31)\nThe capital injection notified on 26 October 2009, amounting to EUR 3,0 billion in total, was structured as follows:\n(a)\nEUR 2 billion was injected into the uncommitted reserves (\u2018freie R\u00fccklagen\u2019) of HRE Holding and PBB. After the squeeze-out of minority shareholders, HRE was entirely owned by Germany/SoFFin;\n(b)\nEUR 1 billion was injected as a silent participation in PBB, with a profit-dependent coupon of 10 % p.a.\n(32)\nThe contracts for that EUR 3 billion capital injection were signed on 16 November 2009. The capital injection was temporarily approved by the Commission on 13 November 2009.\nII.3.1.4. Capital injection of up to EUR 1,85 billion\n(33)\nThe capital injection of up to EUR 1,85 billion, into the uncommitted reserves (\u2018freie R\u00fccklagen\u2019) of HRE, was divided into two tranches:\n(a)\na capital injection of EUR 1,4 billion (that tranche was temporarily approved by the Commission on 19 May 2010 and was injected thereafter);\n(b)\na capital injection of up to EUR 450 million (that tranche was also temporarily approved by the Commission on 19 May 2010, contingent on the existence of certain circumstances (16). It has not yet been injected as those circumstances have not yet occurred).\n(34)\nThe capital injection of EUR 1,85 billion is part of a total capital need set out in the restructuring plan for HRE. EUR 1,4 billion of this capital injection was injected in order to comply with regulatory capital requirements and to have a risk buffer. The contract for that EUR 1,4 billion capital injection was signed on 20 May 2010. Germany expects the other part of the EUR 1,85 billion, i.e. EUR 450 million, to be injected in the third quarter of 2011.\nII.3.1.5. Capital injection of EUR 2,08 billion\n(35)\nOn 10 September 2010 the German authorities notified a capital injection of up to EUR 2,13 billion for HRE. On 14 June 2011, Germany clarified that the capital injection would not amount to EUR 2,13 billion but to EUR 2,08 billion and that the amount would be injected into FMS-WM. According to Germany, the EUR 2,08 billion would be injected in the third quarter of 2011. SoFFin put the EUR 2,08 billion, subject to agreement by the European Commission, as a capital claim (\u2018Einlageanspruch\u2019) into the capital reserve (\u2018Kapitalr\u00fccklage\u2019) of HRE Holding. HRE Holding transferred that capital claim to FMS-WM as of 1 October 2010.\nII.3.2. Guarantees\nII.3.2.1. Guarantees of EUR 35 billion\n(36)\nOn 13 November 2008 Germany provided State guarantees of EUR 35 billion to bridge the refinancing needs of HRE. The guarantees were temporarily approved by the Commission on 2 October 2008.\n(37)\nThese guarantees were provided for a liquidity line amounting to EUR 20 billion provided by the Deutsche Bundesbank and for guaranteed notes amounting to EUR 15 billion taken up by a consortium of German financial institutions.\n(38)\nHRE paid a guarantee premium to the State for the EUR 35 billion guarantee consisting of a basic premium and a performance-related premium. The basic premium consisted of 1 % p.a. on the so-called \u2018First-Loss-Guarantee-Amount\u2019 and of 0,5 % p.a. on the so-called \u2018Second-Loss-Guarantee-Amount\u2019. The performance-related premium consisted of 1,25 % p.a. on the \u2018First-Loss-Guarantee-Amount\u2019 and of 0,25 % p.a. on the \u2018Second-Loss-Guarantee-Amount\u2019.\nII.3.2.2. Guarantees of EUR 52 billion\n(39)\nBetween November 2008 and February 2009 HRE received guarantees of a total amount of EUR 52 billion from SoFFin on the basis of the approved German banking rescue scheme (17).\n(40)\nHRE paid a guarantee fee of 0,5 % for the parts of the guarantee actually used to cover bonds and a commitment fee of 0,1 % for parts not used.\nII.3.2.3. Guarantee of EUR 8 billion\n(41)\nThe \u2018secured notes\u2019 expiring on 23 December 2009 were replaced by a SoFFin guarantee for EUR 8 billion. The Commission temporarily approved that guarantee on 21 December 2009.\n(42)\nHRE paid a guarantee premium to SoFFin amounting to 0,5 % p.a. of the guaranteed sum. For parts of the guarantee that were not used, a commitment fee of 0,1 % p.a. was applicable.\nII.3.2.4. Guarantee of EUR 10 billion\n(43)\nOn 21 December 2009 a SoFFin guarantee of EUR 10 billion, lasting for one year at most, was temporarily approved by the Commission, in order to ensure the liquidity needs of HRE.\n(44)\nHRE paid a guarantee premium to SoFFin amounting to 0,5 % p.a. of the guaranteed sum. For parts of the guarantee that were not used, a commitment fee of 0,1 % p.a. was applicable.\nII.3.2.5. Guarantee of EUR 20 billion\n(45)\nHRE needed an additional EUR 20 billion liquidity guarantee because of adverse developments on the capital and interest rates futures markets, which affected HRE until the assets had been transferred to the winding-up institution FMS-WM. The guarantee was temporarily approved by the Commission on 24 September 2010.\n(46)\nHRE paid a guarantee premium of 0,8 % p.a. For the part of the guarantee not used a commitment fee of 0,1 % p.a. was applicable.\nII.3.2.6. Guarantee of up to EUR 20 billion\n(47)\nA settlement guarantee of up to EUR 20 billion was needed because of the remaining uncertainties regarding the technically complicated procedures in connection with the transfer of assets to the winding-up institution. The guarantee was temporarily approved by the Commission on 24 September 2010.\n(48)\nHRE paid a guarantee premium to SoFFin of 0,8 % p.a. For the unused part of the guarantee a commitment fee of 0,1 % p.a. was applicable.\nII.3.3. Transfer of assets to a winding-up institution\n(49)\nOn 10 September 2010, Germany also notified the transfer of a notional amount of about EUR 210 billion of assets and about EUR 280 billion of derivatives to the winding-up institution FMS-WM. FMS-WM was created by a board decision of 8 July 2010 in accordance with the German Finanzmarktstabilisierungsfondsgesetz [Financial Market Stabilisation Fund Act] (\u00a7 8a of the FMStFG). It manages assets and derivatives of the HRE group that it has taken over because they were either non-strategic or contained an unacceptable risk and capital burden. FMS-WM acts independently of HRE and benefits from an obligation on the part of SoFFin to compensate losses (\u2018Verlustausgleichspflicht\u2019). However, FMS-WM does not have a banking licence. As a result, many of the HRE assets could only be synthetically transferred; a variety of \u2018transfer\u2019 mechanisms, depending on the specific circumstances, were devised to obtain a similar regulatory capital relief effect for PBB and the HRE group.\n(50)\nThe transfer was temporarily approved by the Commission on 24 September 2010. The measure transferred non-strategic and non-performing assets such as government bonds or non-performing property loans (or, as described in recital 49, only their regulatory capital usage) into a government-backed vehicle to be wound down over a number of years. The transferred non-strategic assets also included those that could not be used as collateral for covered bonds.\n(51)\nThe effective transfer date was 30 September 2010. By that time, due to amortisation, the portfolio earmarked for the transfer had a book value of EUR 173 billion. In accordance with the Communication from the Commission on the treatment of impaired assets in the Community banking sector (\u2018Impaired Asset Communication\u2019 or \u2018IAC\u2019) (18), the Commission appointed external experts to support it in valuing the portfolio, determining the aid element and assessing whether and to what extent the value of the transfer made was above the real economic value (REV) of the portfolio. As laid down in the IAC, Germany also commissioned an external expert to perform an independent valuation.\n(52)\nThe portfolio included about EUR 30 billion of commercial real estate loans, which are geographically diversified and composed mainly of financing of office buildings and shopping centres. They are of a relatively short duration (three years) but of inferior credit quality.\n(53)\nThe non-commercial real estate part of the portfolio was composed of public sector finance or bonds and loans to public entities or utilities. Most of that business consisted of standard bonds (\u2018plain vanilla bonds\u2019), but it also included EUR 31 billion of \u2018structured credit instruments\u2019 and another EUR 30 billion of public sector loans. The quality of the assets in this part of the portfolio was significantly better than that of the commercial real estate loans. However, due to their long maturities and with the market credit spread widening since acquisition, the securities suffered from a significant discount in terms of market price.\n(54)\nThe Commission\u2019s experts found that, in contrast to some other State aid cases, the complex commercial real estate loans and structured credit assets categories (mainly consisting of student loan backed securities, public sector asset backed securities and EUR 5 billion in a total return swap investment) were overall safe. They expected only limited losses on those categories, albeit higher than estimated by Germany\u2019s experts, mainly due to the valuation of cash bonds in the Halcyon/Pegasus structures as well as the negative basis and the implicit funding cost in the total return swaps. By contrast, the \u2018plain vanilla\u2019 bonds were transferred at an asset swap level close to parity, considerably above their REV. In addition, they belonged to markets that were not particularly impaired, so that their REV should in fact be close to their market value. As a result, the Commission\u2019s experts concluded that the REV of that part of the portfolio would be considerably below the value at which HRE transferred it to FMS-WM.\n(55)\nFor the derivatives portfolio, the Commission\u2019s experts largely agreed with the findings of Germany\u2019s experts. In addition, they estimated the countervalue of the credit risk to be slightly higher than the level found by Germany\u2019s experts and incorporated some findings from their sample as well as a general \u2018operational risk\u2019 charge, motivated by prudent assumptions surrounding shortcomings in the overall hedge effectiveness.\n(56)\nThe table below summarises the findings of the Commission\u2019s experts:\n(in EUR billion)\nPortfolio\nNotional value\nTransfer value (TV)\n\u0394 REV-TV\n(Germany\u2019s figures)\n\u0394 REV-TV\n(Commission\u2019s experts\u2019 figures)\nDivergence\n(Commission v Germany)\nBonds\n83,444\n93,960\n-0,902\n-7,590\n-6,688\nStructured Credit\n31,199\n30,111\n-0,765\n-1,981\n-1,216\nCRE loans\n26,312\n23,874\n-1,211\n-2,800\n-1,589\nNon-CRE loans\n29,834\n31,115\n-0,222\n-1,084\n-0,862\nDerivatives\n280,255\n-13,106\n-2,149/\n-2,531\n-2,786\n-0,255\nTotal\n451,044\n165,954\n-5,249/\n-5,631\n-16,241\n-10,610\n(57)\nAs a result, the aid amount that, in line with the IAC, is not a priori compatible with the internal market (which is defined as the difference between REV and transfer value) is determined by the experts as being about EUR 16,2 billion. The total aid amount, i.e. the difference between transfer value and market value, is difficult to establish due to the lack of easily available market prices for the loan part of the portfolio. The extreme assumption that the market value of the loan book is zero would give a total aid amount of EUR 90 billion. Assuming that the loans trade in the same way as liquid bonds of similar maturity and credit quality, the total aid would be around EUR 20 billion.\nII.4. Grounds for initiating and extending the in-depth investigation\n(58)\nOn 7 May 2009, the Commission opened an in-depth investigation into State aid measures for HRE, mainly based on doubts regarding HRE\u2019s viability, in particular in the light of HRE\u2019s refinancing strategy and needs. The initial restructuring plan submitted to the Commission on 1 April 2009 only identified external factors as reasons for HRE\u2019s financial problems and targeted a balance sheet reduction of only 25 %, meaning that the refinancing volume would have remained high. HRE planned to reduce the group balance sheet by selling assets on the market, not by transferring them to a winding-up institution. One of the core business fields described in the restructuring plan was budget finance activities that generate low margins, and the plan contained very little information on issues that are vital to the restructuring process such as the modification and integration of the IT systems. At that stage, the Commission also had doubts that there were sufficient measures to limit distortions of competition and sufficient burden-sharing measures.\n(59)\nThe in-depth investigation was extended on 13 November 2009 because:\n(a)\nthe additional State aid measures for HRE, in the form of a capital injection of EUR 2,96 billion (cf. recital 30), a capital injection of EUR 3 billion (cf. recitals 31 and 32), a guarantee of EUR 8 billion (cf. recitals 41 and 42), a guarantee of EUR 10 billion (cf. recitals 43 and 44) and a guarantee of EUR 2 billion (19) for refinancing a possible winding-down solution, plus capital injections amounting to a total of EUR 4 billion (structured as follows: the capital injection of EUR 1,85 billion referred to in recitals 33 and 34 and the capital injection of EUR 2,08 billion discussed in recital 35) had to be covered; and\n(b)\nthe Commission had doubts that the restructuring measures were compatible with the Commission communication on the return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules (20) (Restructuring Communication).\n(60)\nOn 24 September 2010 the in-depth investigation was extended once more because:\n(a)\nthe additional State aid measures for HRE, namely a guarantee of EUR 20 billion (cf. recitals 45 and 46), a further guarantee of up to EUR 20 billion (cf. recitals 47 and 48) and the transfer of assets to a winding-up institution (cf. recitals 49 to 57) had to be covered; and\n(b)\nthe Commission had doubts regarding the compatibility of the asset relief measure with the IAC, in particular with respect to transparency, valuation, burden sharing and remuneration, and had noted that the restructuring plan had shortcomings with regard to demonstrating the restoration of viability, proper burden sharing and appropriate mitigation of distortions of competition.\nII.5. Main features of the restructuring plan\n(61)\nOn 1 April 2009 Germany notified a first draft of a restructuring plan for HRE and, after several modifications, it submitted the final update of the plan on 14 June 2011. Unless otherwise specified, all references to the restructuring plan in the remainder of this Decision are to this final version of 14 June 2011.\n(62)\nAccording to the restructuring plan, HRE - having been freed from its legacy of impaired assets with a nominal value of EUR 210 billion by transferring them to the winding-up institution FMS-WM - will redesign its business activities in such a way that its core bank PBB can carry out its activities based on a stable funding approach and improved internal control systems. Its future activities will be on a considerably smaller scale than HRE\u2019s activities before the crisis, regardless of whether measured in terms of balance sheet size, volume of new business, workforce, branch network or geographical scope.\n(63)\nCompared with the situation before the crisis, PBB\u2019s strategic balance sheet size at the end of 2011 - corrected for items that are in run-down mode or have been synthetically transferred to FMS-WM - accounts for approximately 15 % of HRE\u2019s balance sheet size at the end of 2008. New business in real estate finance will, for example, be reduced to approximately 30 % of its pre-crisis level (HRE\u2019s new business in commercial real estate finance amounted to EUR 32,1 billion in 2007). The workforce has been reduced by approximately 30 %, and all the executive board members of HRE who held office before the crisis have been replaced. More than 30 participations, one third of which are outside Europe, have already been divested or liquidated, or are in the process of liquidation. Some 26 out of 32 branches have been closed. In addition, a multi-year, group-wide transformation project called \u2018New Evolution\u2019 with a budget of approximately EUR 180 million has been launched to improve and integrate the IT systems.\n(64)\nPBB will continue two strategic business lines, real estate finance (REF) and public investment finance (PIF). Both business lines target assets that are eligible for German covered bonds, either in the form of German mortgage bonds (\u2018Hypothekenpfandbriefe\u2019) or in the form of German public sector bonds (\u2018\u00f6ffentliche Pfandbriefe\u2019). All other activities, in particular budget finance business, infrastructure finance, capital markets and asset management activities, will be terminated.\n(65)\nThe arrangements for the two other subsidiaries of HRE Holding are as follows: DEPFA Bank plc is put into run-down as of the date of notification of this Decision and will not generate any new business. The same applies to its subsidiaries. HRE Finance is in liquidation and also not carrying out new business.\n(66)\nGermany claims that the fundamental decision to pursue a more conservative commercial strategy and to focus on German covered bonds as the primary refinancing source ensures a qualitative improvement of the lending activities because they are subject to the legal framework of the German Pfandbriefgesetz [Pfandbrief Act], which has specific requirements regarding the management, monitoring and control of risks, and provides for protective measures such as limitation of the loan-to-value ratio. That funding strategy considerably reduces HRE\u2019s previous dependency on the interbank money market, which in future is only needed for the warehousing period preceding the issuance of covered bonds.\nIII. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(67)\nThe Commission received comments from interested parties, as summarised below:\n(a)\nSummary of comments from Verband deutscher Pfandbriefbanken (vdp) (November 2009):\n-\nvdp is convinced that a business model which is aligned on Pfandbrief-eligible business is promising and capable of ensuring the long-term viability and profitability of a bank without State guarantees.\n(b)\nSummary of comments from Heisse Kursawe Eversheds (November 2009):\n-\nHeisse Kursawe Eversheds is of the opinion that the State aid violates the rights of certain shareholders, that the planned acquisition of all HRE shares by SoFFin by excluding minority shareholders (squeeze-out) constitutes further State aid, that the squeeze-out is not appropriate aid and that it violates the principle of free movement of capital.\n(c)\nSummary of comments from Heisse Kursawe Eversheds (February 2010):\n-\nIn its further comments, Heisse Kursawe Eversheds is of the opinion that the exclusion of the minority shareholders of HRE (squeeze-out) is State aid within the meaning of Article 107 et seq. TFEU, that such State aid violates the freedom of movement of capital, and that State aid for HRE may only be authorised if HRE will be continued on the basis of a sustainable restructuring plan.\n(d)\nSummary of comments from Bohdan Kalwarowskyj (February 2010):\n-\nMr Kalwarowskyj is of the opinion that, based on the valuation documents of HRE presented in the context of the squeeze-out on 5 October 2009, it is evident that HRE will be viable and profitable, and that SoFFin in cooperation with HRE aims to manipulate the company value downwards.\nIV. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY ON THE COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(68)\nOn 24 March 2010 the Commission received comments from Germany on the comments from interested parties:\n(a)\nSummary of comments regarding Verband deutscher Pfandbriefbanken (vdp):\n-\nAccording to Germany, the comments from vdp confirm that the planning of HRE\u2019s business model is based on plausible assumptions.\n(b)\nSummary of comments regarding Heisse Kursawe Eversheds:\n-\nGermany is of the opinion that the squeeze-out does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. As the squeeze-out does not constitute State aid, the question whether there is a violation of the principle of free movement of capital (which is not the case in Germany\u2019s opinion) is not relevant to the in-depth investigation at hand.\n(c)\nSummary of comments regarding Bohdan Kalwarowskyj:\n-\nGermany agrees with Mr Kalwarowskyj that, on the basis of the planned restructuring measures, the long-term viability of HRE would be secured.\nV. POSITION OF GERMANY\n(69)\nGermany accepts that the measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(70)\nIn order to ensure that the business model set out in the restructuring plan is put into action, and to ensure that adequate burden sharing is achieved and distortions of competition are limited to the minimum necessary, on 15 June 2011 Germany submitted a number of commitments, supplemented on 1 July 2011 (21), which can be summarised as follows:\n(a) Implementation of the restructuring plan and the commitments: Germany will ensure that the restructuring plan as set out in its final version and the commitments are fully implemented.\n(b) Duration of the commitments: In principle the commitments are valid until the end of the restructuring period, i.e. 31 December 2015. However, commitments regarding DEPFA Bank plc and its subsidiaries will in principle end as soon as DEPFA Bank plc is reprivatised, if that happens sooner. In such a case, Germany would notify the Commission of the sale in advance and would not implement the sale without the Commission\u2019s approval, if it were to take place before 31 December 2013. Commitments regarding PBB will end as soon as PBB is reprivatised, but in any event not before 31 December 2013\n(c) Business lines: Germany will ensure that only PBB will pursue new business and will do so only in two business lines, real estate finance and public investment finance. All other business lines are stopped (the budget finance portfolio will remain on the PBB balance sheet but in run-down mode) and all other entities of the HRE group will stop their business activities.\n(d) Reprivatisation of PBB: Germany will reprivatise PBB as soon as possible, and by 31 December 2015 at the latest.\n(e) Restriction of growth of PBB: Germany will ensure that the growth rates of PBB remain within defined limits, measured in terms of balance sheet size as well as volume of new business.\n(f) Winding-up institution: Germany will ensure that, after 30 September 2013, PBB will provide neither asset management services nor refinancing services for the winding-up institution FMS-WM and that, from an organisational point of view, those services can be taken over by third parties.\n(g) Market presence: Germany will ensure that PBB will acquire new business only on the following geographic markets:\n(i)Real estate finance:\n-\nCore markets (22): Germany, United Kingdom, France and Spain.\n-\nFurther markets: Sweden, Poland, Czech Republic, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Slovakia and Hungary.\n(ii)Public investment finance:\n-\nCore markets: Germany, France, Spain and Italy.\n-\nFurther markets: Switzerland, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and United Kingdom.\n(h) Remuneration for using the winding-up institution: Germany will ensure that HRE, within the limits of its abilities, pays adequate remuneration in return for using the winding-up institution FMS-WM. Specifically, Germany will ensure that the Bundesanstalt f\u00fcr Finanzmarktstabilisierung (\u2018FMSA\u2019) orders HRE to pay an amount of EUR 1,59 billion to FMS-WM either directly or via its subsidiaries. Those subsidiaries of HRE which transferred assets to the winding-up institution and which have a core capital quota exceeding 15 % are in principle liable for that payment. PBB will retain and accumulate profits in order to pay back the silent participation.\n(i) Restrictions regarding coupon payments and profit distribution: Germany will ensure that HRE and its subsidiaries refrain, within the legal limits, from coupon payments and other measures of profit distribution.\n(j) Restrictions regarding paybacks: Germany will ensure that HRE and its subsidiaries refrain from paying back existing financial instruments.\n(k) Acquisition ban: Germany will ensure that HRE and its companies do not acquire other businesses during the restructuring period.\n(l) Commitments relating to information technology of HRE/PBB: Germany will ensure that the project set up to improve the bank\u2019s IT systems is fully implemented.\n(m) Commitment relating to RAROC: Germany will ensure that PBB\u2019s strategic new business does not issue any new loans that have a risk-adjusted return on capital (RAROC) of less than 10 % on a transaction-by-transaction basis.\n(n) Monitoring trustee: Germany will ensure that the restructuring plan and all commitments are correctly implemented and that the implementation is constantly monitored by a sufficiently qualified monitoring trustee.\nVI. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\nVI.1. Existence of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU and potential beneficiaries\n(71)\nThe various measures in question were provided either directly by Germany or by SoFFin, an entity set up and controlled by the German Government, and thus involve State resources. The measures provide a selective advantage to HRE, enabling it to obtain new capital and guarantees and benefit from asset relief measures on more favourable conditions than could normally have been found on the market. HRE is an internationally active bank, competing with other banks in Germany and other countries. Therefore, for the same reasons as already outlined in the previous Commission decisions on HRE (23), the measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(72)\nWithin the HRE group only PBB (and its subsidiaries) is pursuing new economic activities and is thus active on the markets. PBB can thus be regarded as the entity continuing the activities of the former HRE (albeit to a limited extent, as explained in recital 63). All other entities of the HRE group (i.e. DEPFA Bank plc and its subsidiaries and HRE Finance i.L.) are in run-down mode and their activities are limited to what is necessary to allow for an orderly run-down, but they do not generate new business.\n(73)\nThe final objective and effect of all the aid measures (irrespective of whether they were formally granted to HRE, HRE Holding, PBB or DEPFA Bank plc) is to enable PBB to continue to be active on the markets. It is thus PBB\u2019s continued existence on the markets which is distorting competition. DEPFA Bank plc can (like FMS-WM) be considered merely as a winding-up institution for assets which for various reasons were not transferred to FMS-WM (the \u2018bad bank\u2019). It will realise its assets as they mature or by selling them on the market, but will not contract new business as of the date of notification of this Decision (24).\n(74)\nIn view of the fact that PBB is therefore the economic continuation of HRE and, in line with the Commission\u2019s decision-making practice (25), PBB is considered the beneficiary of the aid, the assessment of the compatibility of the aid which follows will therefore concentrate on PBB.\n(75)\nAs regards the view expressed by Heisse Kursawe Eversheds that the squeeze-out constitutes State aid, the Commission notes that, while the capital injections into HRE constitute State aid, the squeeze-out of minority shareholders (i.e. the acquisition of their shares against payment to those shareholders) does not in itself contain State aid elements because it does not provide the bank with an advantage stemming from State resources. The squeeze-out involved a payment from the State to the minority shareholders, but this had no economic effect on HRE. From HRE\u2019s perspective only its ownership structure changed. As a result, the question whether the squeeze-out infringes the Treaty provisions on free movement of capital does not need to be assessed within this Decision.\nVI.2. Compatibility of the aid with the internal market\nVI.2.1. Application of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU\n(76)\nUnder Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, aid may be considered to be compatible with the internal market if it remedies a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State. As the breakdown of a systemically relevant bank can directly affect the financial markets and indirectly affect the entire economy of a Member State, the Commission currently, in the light of the ongoing fragile situation on the financial markets, bases its assessment of State aid measures in the banking sector under State aid law on that provision.\n(77)\nThe Commission has no grounds to doubt Germany\u2019s qualification of HRE as a bank of systemic relevance, in particular in the light of the position it previously held in the German Pfandbrief market, the original size of HRE\u2019s balance sheet and the amount of derivatives previously held by HRE.\n(78)\nThe Commission observes that HRE has received rescue aid which the Commission has found to be compatible with the internal market; however, that aid will now have to be assessed to determine whether it may be considered to be restructuring aid which is compatible with the internal market. Therefore the Commission must now assess the compatibility of those measures and all further restructuring measures, i.e. the guarantees of EUR 52 billion and the capital injection of EUR 2,08 billion, on the basis of the Impaired Asset Communication and the Restructuring Communication.\nVI.2.2. Assessment on the basis of the Impaired Asset Communication (IAC)\n(79)\nAny asset transfer to a winding-up institution must take place in accordance with the IAC. Furthermore, the Restructuring Communication clearly states that adequate remuneration of any State intervention generally is one of the most appropriate limitations of distortions of competition, as it limits the amount of State aid. A limit on the bank\u2019s expansion in certain business or geographical areas may also be required, for instance via market-oriented remedies such as specific capital requirements, where the market would be weakened by direct restrictions on expansion, or to limit moral hazard.\n(80)\nAs regards the eligibility of assets earmarked for transfer, paragraph 34 of the IAC recognises the necessity of a pragmatic and flexible approach to the selection of asset types for impaired assets measures. The Commission has applied that flexibility in other State aid cases and accepted the transfer of assets which, strictly speaking, were not distressed but were non-strategic in view of the profound change in the business model of the bank in question.\n(81)\nAs set out in paragraph 46 of the IAC, in order to facilitate the bank\u2019s focus on the restoration of viability and to prevent possible conflicts of interest, it is necessary to ensure clear functional and organisational separation between the beneficiary bank and its impaired assets. The Commission understands that when the winding-up institution was created it was not possible, in particular for technical reasons, to immediately cut the links between PBB and FMS-WM. However, that situation must be remedied as quickly as possible. On that basis, Germany has committed that PBB will establish the full organisational independence of the related services and will no longer provide them to FMS-WM after 30 September 2013.\n(82)\nAs regards valuation and burden sharing, paragraph 21 of the IAC notes that correct remuneration is an element of the burden-sharing requirement. The Commission will ensure, as noted in Annex IV to the IAC, that any pricing of the asset relief includes remuneration for the State that adequately takes account of the risks of future losses exceeding those that are projected in the determination of the REV. In line with the Commission\u2019s decision-making practice on asset relief measures (26), the assessment of necessary remuneration of the capital relief effect will be based on a transfer at the REV, even if that is lower than the transfer value.\n(83)\nParagraph 41 of the IAC states that the transfer value should correspond to the REV. Where a Member State considers it necessary - in particular to avoid technical insolvency - to use a transfer value for assets that exceeds their REV, it can only be accepted if accompanied by far-reaching restructuring and the introduction of conditions allowing the recovery of that additional aid at a later stage, for example through a claw-back mechanism.\n(84)\nOn that basis, the Commission comes to the conclusion that the difference between the REV and the transfer value, which is to be recovered at a later stage and which was established with the support of the Commission\u2019s independent experts, is at the level of EUR 16,2 billion, and calls for a particularly thorough restructuring and downsizing of the bank. No additional remuneration is required, pursuant to paragraph 21 of the IAC, because, after an a priori capital deduction of EUR 16,2 billion, the measure does not entail any further capital relief effect (27).\n(85)\nThe Commission observes that Germany has not explicitly provided for recovery of that amount. However, it has introduced clauses allowing for recovery as far as possible. They consist of:\n(a)\na contingent payment of EUR 1,59 billion from HRE to the winding-up institution;\n(b)\nthe use by PBB of retained profits to redeem the silent participation of the Federal Republic of Germany;\n(c)\nafter the payment of EUR 1,59 billion has been made in full, the DEPFA Bank plc sub-group (i.e. parent company and all subsidiaries) must pay to Germany an adequate remuneration for the State support;\n(d)\nalthough HRE has been nationalised, Germany plans to reprivatise PBB, which means that Germany will receive proceeds from any subsequent reprivatisation. Due to the fact that the State has taken the bank into public ownership and now plans to reprivatise it, it can also be argued that the State will try to recuperate as much of its contribution as possible and that former shareholders have contributed adequately.\nMoreover, the proposed restructuring is very far-reaching and includes a dramatic downsizing of the \u2018good\u2019 core bank, to approximately 15 % of HRE\u2019s size at the end of 2008. Together with commitments on growth restriction, product range limitations, corporate governance and reprivatisation through a public tender, the complete restructuring package can be considered sufficiently far-reaching within the meaning of the IAC.\n(86)\nThe Commission also observes that the doubts it raised about Germany\u2019s and HRE\u2019s willingness and ability to provide full ex ante transparency and disclosure of the impairments have been alleviated by the extensive data delivery from a dedicated team at the bank. In addition, partly at the Commission\u2019s request, HRE has had its data sets audited for consistency and quality, which facilitated the final assessment by the Commission\u2019s experts. Furthermore, Germany and PBB have committed to far-reaching improvements to the risk management and reporting systems in order to alleviate the Commission\u2019s concerns about potential gaps in management information systems in the future.\nVI.2.3. Compatibility with the Restructuring Communication\n(87)\nThe Restructuring Communication sets out the State aid rules applicable to the restructuring of financial institutions in the current crisis. According to the Restructuring Communication, in order to be compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, the restructuring of a financial institution in the context of the current financial crisis must lead to the restoration of the long-term viability of the bank, include a sufficient own contribution by the beneficiary (burden sharing) and contain sufficient measures limiting the distortion of competition (28).\n(88)\nThe amount of capital injections already granted, the amount of capital injection still envisaged and the amount of State aid resulting from the asset transfer together represent more than 20 % of HRE\u2019s pre-crisis risk weighted assets.\nVI.2.3.1. Restoration of the long-term viability of PBB\n(89)\nIn line with section 2 of the Restructuring Communication, Germany submitted a comprehensive and detailed restructuring plan which identifies the causes of the financial difficulties faced by HRE and provides detailed information about the business model.\n(90)\nThe restructuring plan and the complementary information provided by Germany show that HRE\u2019s difficulties were mainly attributable to:\n(a)\nthe status of HRE, and in particular its subsidiary DEPFA Bank plc, as a purely wholesale financed bank without franchise funding, so that it was highly dependent on an intact interbank money market, which temporarily came to a complete standstill after the collapse of Lehman Brothers;\n(b)\na legacy problem stemming from assets that do not show an appropriate return on investment if their actual risk profile is taken into account; and\n(c)\nthe fact that HRE was the product of a merger of several smaller banks with different IT applications that were not integrated into a comprehensive, coordinated risk management system.\n(91)\nAs set out above, the restructuring and the planned measures, which relate primarily to the funding of the bank and internal control systems, are intended to ensure that the liquidity problems that put the bank on the brink of insolvency cannot be repeated. The restructuring plan addresses the main concerns very specifically by focusing on a more stable, Pfandbrief-based funding concept, by considerably reducing the previous dependence on the interbank money market, by improving and integrating its IT systems and by reducing the geographical scope, the branch network and the absolute size of the business. Terminating other activities and treating them as a run-down portfolio on the PBB balance sheet is the logical complement to that concept.\n(92)\nConsequently, the two remaining business lines of PBB will only target assets which are eligible for German covered bonds, either in the form of mortgage bonds (\u2018Hypothekenpfandbriefe\u2019) or that of public sector bonds (\u2018\u00f6ffentliche Pfandbriefe\u2019). The argument that a more conservative commercial strategy of that kind should lead to a qualitative improvement of the lending activities is credible, in particular in the light of the specific requirements of the German Pfandbrief Act regarding the management, monitoring and control of risks, and its protective measures such as limits to the loan-to-value ratio.\n(93)\nIn recital 92 of the extension decision of 24 September 2010 (cf. recital 15 of this Decision) the Commission expressed doubts that the bank could achieve sufficient margins with its future business activities, in particular those in the public finance sector, which is characterised by low margins. Some of HRE\u2019s former public sector finance activities, namely the PIF activities, are to be continued. However, the PIF activities will only involve financing for products linked to investments by public-sector customers. Hence they can be distinguished from budget finance activities, i.e. uncommitted financing of public authorities, which are characterised by particularly low margins. In the adjusted business model low-margin budget finance activities are terminated (they are equivalent to approximately 75 % of the former public sector finance activities) and the resulting portfolio is put in run-down mode on the PBB balance sheet, so that those concerns of the Commission are alleviated. Moreover, the commitment from Germany to ensure that PBB in its strategic new business will not contract new loans which have a RAROC of less than 10 % on a single transaction basis helps to alleviate those concerns.\n(94)\nThe Commission also notes that keeping PIF as a second business line of PBB will mitigate concerns of market players and rating agencies about the lack of diversification on the part of banks which restrict their activities to a single business line (known as \u2018monoline banks\u2019) and are therefore overly dependent on a single business area. Having two business lines, with potentially different business cycles, should enable PBB to secure more stable and predictable revenues and to achieve the required visibility among institutional investors.\n(95)\nThe restructuring concept will result in a clearer organisational structure, as fringe activities such as capital markets and asset management activities are terminated and the branch network is considerably reduced. A substantial number of sales offices have already been closed; according to the more detailed and regional business model, four of those sales offices (Berlin, Hamburg, the Rhine/Ruhr area and Stockholm) will be re-opened.\n(96)\nThe restructuring plan ensures that PBB will not unduly increase its presence on the markets. New lending is capped for both business lines. On its respective core markets PBB targets market shares of 1 % to 2 % with its PIF activities and 2 % to 6 % with its REF activities.\n(97)\nThe Commission notes that the bank has started to address the weaknesses of its IT system, which was initially rather heterogeneous and seriously deficient, in particular with regard to risk-management functionality and applications. In 2009 HRE set up a multi-year, group-wide project called \u2018New Evolution\u2019 with a budget of approximately EUR 180 million to transform the IT landscape. The project will roll out various system improvements in six successive releases. The scope of the project covers, inter alia, operational improvements such as the consolidation of credit management systems, risk management related improvements of the IT system with respect to credit, market and liquidity risks, standardisation of front office systems, and improvements to the accuracy, detail and quality of information and data. The information provided on the content and progress of the IT transformation process suggests that the initial problems have been adequately addressed and can be resolved to the required extent during PBB\u2019s restructuring period. It is the Commission\u2019s view that the future IT system will be a functional, efficient platform for timely and prudent risk management which is appropriate to the business processes. Its full implementation is therefore crucial.\n(98)\nLiquidity, solvency and profitability of PBB (29) are taken as the main indicators of the viability of the bank, assessed under both a base case and a stress case scenario (30).\n(99)\nAccording to the restructuring plan, PBB will no longer benefit from State guarantees on its refinancing. PBB nevertheless remains a wholesale funded institution without franchise funding. That situation is mitigated by PBB\u2019s strategy to significantly reduce the amount of unsecured funding required and instead to issue covered bonds, considered to be a more stable source of funding.\n(100)\nAs an acute liquidity shortage was one of the main causes of HRE\u2019s problems that ultimately led to the need for State support, the restructuring plan provides for an adequate cash and liquidity reserve, taking into account effects that might result from Basel III requirements. That reserve is greatest at the beginning of the restructuring period and will gradually decrease over time. In the base case scenario the cash and liquidity reserve would be approximately [12-17] % of PBB\u2019s balance sheet by the end of 2011 and reach a level of approximately [7-17] % by the end of 2015. In the stress case scenario the cash and liquidity reserve would exceed [7-10] % of PBB\u2019s balance sheet by the end of 2011, and reach a level of approximately [7-10] % by the end of 2015. In the Commission\u2019s view, the liquidity situation seems to be appropriate in both a base case and a stress case scenario.\n(101)\nWith a core capital ratio (calculated on the Basel II internal ratings-based approach) projected at 12,9 % at the end of 2011 in the base case scenario or 10,5 % in the stress test scenario, PBB is sufficiently capitalised and will meet minimum capital requirements over the restructuring period. According to the assumptions used in the restructuring plan, the core capital ratio at the end of 2015 will be 12,4 % in the base case scenario or 11,3 % in the stress case scenario. However, the decline in the core capital ratio in the base case scenario is due mainly to the projected increase in risk-weighted assets resulting from the planned growth and not to losses (in the base case scenario, PBB shows a positive result after tax between 2011 and 2015; only in the stress case scenario would PBB show a loss after tax in 2011 and 2012).\n(102)\nThe profitability of PBB is expected to improve over the restructuring period. According to the restructuring plan, in the base case scenario PBB\u2019s profit after taxes will amount to EUR [110-150] million in 2011 and to EUR [280-320] million in 2015. In 2011 that result would correspond to a return on equity (after taxes) of just [3-6] %, but at the end of the restructuring period in 2015 it would correspond to a return on equity (after taxes) of [8-11] %. The targeted profitability in the base case can hence be considered satisfactory for a bank pursuing the business targeted in the restructuring plan, both from a viability point of view and in the light of the planned reprivatisation of PBB. According to Germany, for PBB profits after tax will be offset by losses from previous years. In view of the losses carried forward, this means that PBB will record balance sheet losses (\u2018Bilanzverluste\u2019) until 201[\u2026] but will not do so in 201[\u2026], in the context of the redemption of the silent participation.\n(103)\nTable 1: PBB profit and loss forecast, International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) (base case scenario), according to the restructuring plan\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\nNet interest income and similar earnings\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nNet commission income\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nOperating income\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nLoan loss provisions\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nAdministrative expenses\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nBalance of other income/expenses\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nPre-tax profit/loss\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTaxes\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nProfit/loss after taxes\nEUR million\n[110-150]\n[140-160]\n[170-220]\n[240-270]\n[280-320]\n(104)\nAssessing PBB\u2019s main profitability drivers, two sources of profitability can be identified: first, PBB\u2019s revenues stemming from its commercial activities will increase and, second, operating costs will decrease.\n(105)\nAs regards the increase of revenues, the restructuring plan assumes that the average margin on loans can be improved, in particular by underwriting new and more profitable business. With regard to the REF business line, net margins calculated for the current portfolios are assumed to improve from [85-100] bps (basis points) to [105-120] bps in 2011, [105-110] bps in 2012 and [95-100] bps thereafter. The PIF business line will generate a net margin of [27-35] bps during the whole restructuring period, which is a considerable improvement on the net margin of [6-12] bps calculated for the existing portfolio of public sector finance activities (31). That improvement is largely due to the fact that budget finance activities, which are characterised by particularly low margins, will no longer be pursued.\n(106)\nGiven the importance of securing sufficiently high margins, Germany\u2019s commitment that PBB\u2019s strategic new business will not contract new loans with a RAROC of less than 10 % on a transaction-by-transaction basis is appropriate and necessary.\n(107)\nIn 2011 and 2012, fees generated from asset management services provided for FMS-WM (HRE\u2019s \u2018bad bank\u2019) represent an important source of income for PBB. As set out in the IAC, in order to facilitate the bank\u2019s focus on the restoration of viability and to prevent possible conflicts of interest, it is necessary to ensure a clear functional and organisational separation between the beneficiary bank and its impaired assets. The Commission understands that when the winding-up institution was created it was not possible, in particular for technical reasons, to immediately cut the links between PBB and FMS-WM. However, that situation needs to be remedied as quickly as possible. On that basis, Germany has committed that PBB will establish full organisational independence of the related services and will no longer provide those services to FMS-WM after 30 September 2013. The same applies to the refinancing of FMS-WM. That commitment also helps to ensure that in the medium term PBB\u2019s profitability is self contained and no longer based on fee income related to the transfer of impaired assets.\n(108)\nThe Commission notes that PBB intends to reduce its operating costs considerably. Over the restructuring period, the cost-income ratio will improve significantly from [64-79] % in 2011 to [32-42] % in 2015 in the base case scenario.\n(109)\nPBB has adopted some decisive restructuring measures that affect its cost base. It has closed a considerable number of sales offices and reduced its workforce by approximately 30 % (1 366 employees at the end of 2010, compared with 2 000 employees at the end of 2007) (32). While those measures will have a positive impact on operating expenses in the medium and long term, the restructuring process brings about extraordinary expenses in the short term, in particular for redundancy and early retirement payments, fees for lawyers and consultants, etc. In the Commission\u2019s view, the assumption that operating costs will stabilise at a considerably lower level once the restructuring process has been completed therefore seems credible.\n(110)\nAfter the transfer of impaired assets to FMS-WM, resulting in a significant reduction of the balance sheet, the base case scenario shows that PBB\u2019s loan loss provisions are stable for the restructuring period.\n(111)\nThe Commission considers that the targeted profitability of PBB is also sufficiently robust against the assumptions made in the stress case scenario, as neither the viability of the bank nor the prospects of reprivatising PBB are put at risk. According to the restructuring plan, in the stress case scenario PBB would record losses of EUR [100-125] million in 2011, yet at the end of the restructuring period in 2015 PBB is expected to show profits of EUR [270-310] million. The return on equity (after taxes) would be negative in 2011 (- [2,8-3,8] %) and in 2012, but in that scenario the expected return on equity in 2015 would be nearly [9-12] %.\n(112)\nTable 2: PBB profit and loss forecasts, International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) (stress case scenario), according to the restructuring plan\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\nNet interest income and similar earnings\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nNet commission income\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nOperating income\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nLoan loss provisions\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nAdministrative expenses\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nBalance of other income/expenses\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nPre-tax profit/loss\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTaxes\nEUR million\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nProfit/loss after taxes\nEUR million\n- [100-125]\n- [75-90]\n[230-290]\n[250-290]\n[270-310]\n(113)\nIn the light of the improvements to the business model, the technical infrastructure and the organisational set-up, and their impact on PBB\u2019s situation as to expected liquidity, solvency and profitability, the Commission considers that the restructuring plan fulfils the requirements of the Restructuring Communication with regard to the restoration of long-term viability.\nVI.2.3.2. Own contribution/burden sharing\n(114)\nThe Restructuring Communication stipulates that the beneficiary must make an appropriate contribution to the restructuring costs. The principles are laid down as follows in Section 3 of the Restructuring Communication:\n(a)\nRestructuring aid should be limited to covering costs which are necessary for the restoration of viability.\n(b)\nIn order to limit the aid amount to the minimum necessary, the beneficiary bank should first use its own resources to finance restructuring, for example, through the sale of assets.\n(c)\nThe costs associated with the restructuring should not be borne solely by the State but should also be borne by those who invested in the bank by absorbing losses with available capital and by paying an adequate remuneration for State interventions. The objective of burden sharing is twofold: to limit distortions of competition and to address moral hazard (33).\n(115)\nThe Commission\u2019s doubts as to whether the aid is limited to the minimum necessary to restore the long-term viability of PBB have been allayed. Altogether Germany has invested or will invest nearly EUR 10 billion in HRE. Part of those capital injections, i.e. EUR 2,08 billion, will be used to recapitalise the winding-up institution FMS-WM, while another EUR 1,59 billion will be transferred to FMS-WM in the course of the restructuring. Approximately 63 % of the capital of nearly EUR 10 billion remains within the HRE group.\n(116)\nPBB is the only entity within the HRE group that will undertake new business in future and hence actively participate in competition. In the base case scenario its core capital ratios (based on the Basel II RBA method) are projected to be 12,9 % at the end of 2011, declining slightly over the restructuring period to reach 12,4 % by the end of 2015. The restructuring plan does not raise doubts that the bank will meet minimum capital requirements over the restructuring period. The projected core capital ratio is strong, yet in line with capital ratios of competitors. In reaction to the financial crisis, banks are now generally expected to show higher capital ratios than before the crisis. It also needs to be borne in mind that PBB, due to its problems within the crisis, needs a strong capital base in order to convince market players that it is a reliable business partner. In the Commission\u2019s view, the amount of capital provided and the resulting capital ratios are therefore deemed to be adequate and limited to the minimum necessary.\n(117)\nHRE has furthermore benefited from the provision of guarantees amounting to EUR 145 billion in total, of which EUR 124 billion have actually been used. Those guarantees were necessary in order to enable the continued operation of the bank when it faced insolvency, at least until HRE was in a position to transfer its impaired assets to FMS-WM. All the guarantees that were used by the HRE group, amounting to a total of EUR 124 billion, were transferred to FMS-WM with effect from 1 October 2010. The operation of PBB therefore no longer relies on State guarantees. That transfer helped to ensure that the aid in the form of guarantees was limited to the minimum period necessary.\n(118)\nAs stated in the Restructuring Communication, beneficiary banks should first use their own resources to finance their restructuring, which is typically done by selling assets. HRE has hived off a considerable part of its assets by transferring a notional amount of about EUR 210 billion of assets as well as about EUR 280 billion of derivatives to the winding-up institution FMS-WM, thereby effectively cutting its balance sheet in half. However, that transaction has not created any accounting surplus that could have contributed to the financing of the restructuring costs. Rather, the transfer should be classified as a State aid measure itself, as the price that HRE received for the assets exceeded the REV of the assets by some EUR 16,2 billion. Nevertheless, the company has sold and is in the process of selling several participations in companies (e.g. Arsago ACM GmbH (Frankfurt), Arsago Holding AG (Switzerland), DEPFA First Albany Securities LLC (New York) and Collineo Asset Management GmbH).\n(119)\nHRE has paid interest to SoFFin on all guarantees given by Germany, the respective interest rates ranging from 0,5 % to 0,8 % per annum. It has thus, in line with the Commission communication on the application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis (34) (\u2018Banking Communication\u2019), adequately remunerated that part of the State aid. By contrast, up to now the bank has remunerated neither the capital received nor the capital relief arising from the asset relief measure, and is not capable of ensuring an adequate claw-back mechanism for the aid element received in the form of a transfer value of the assets which was higher than their REV.\n(120)\nIn the light of the overall economic situation of HRE, it can be concluded that the bank was simply not in a position to make any meaningful further own contribution to the restructuring costs (35). Therefore the lack of own contribution has to be compensated for by particularly far-reaching structural measures in the restructuring plan, in order to ensure that the bank and its shareholders adequately share the burden of the rescue of the bank. Overall, the Commission considers that the amount of downsizing laid down in the restructuring plan in terms of organisational size, market presence, scope of activities and balance sheet size is, given the specific circumstances of this case, an adequate substitute for the lack of adequate own contribution.\n(121)\nIt should also be borne in mind that the bank was taken into public ownership and that the compensation received by its former shareholders was based on the value of the company without State support (36). That outcome is a positive element from a State aid point of view and means that the former shareholders have been wiped out and thus can be considered as having sufficiently contributed to the costs of the restructuring of HRE.\n(122)\nFurthermore, as regards HRE\u2019s subordinated debt holders, Germany has provided a commitment that HRE will not make discretionary payments on profit-related financial instruments to third parties, thereby ensuring that Tier 2 capital holders will get little or no compensation for their investment and will thus participate in the burden sharing in the same way as Tier 1 capital holders.\n(123)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that HRE\u2019s shareholders have adequately contributed to the restructuring costs and that as a consequence the risk of moral hazard is adequately addressed.\nVI.2.3.3. Measures limiting the distortion of competition\n(124)\nAs regards the measures limiting the distortion of competition, the Restructuring Communication sets out that the Commission has to take into account, in its assessment the amount of aid, the degree of burden sharing and the position the financial institution will have on the market after the restructuring. On the basis of that analysis, suitable measures should be put into place.\n(125)\nThe distortions of competition caused by HRE are significant. Overall, the German State has provided or will provide for HRE capital injections totalling up to approximately EUR 9,95 billion (FMS-WM is the recipient of part of that capital) and guarantees of EUR 145 billion. HRE also benefited from an asset relief measure with an aid element of about EUR 20 billion. In view of that considerable State support, a deep restructuring of HRE must be carried out.\n(126)\nHRE\u2019s successor, PBB, will be well funded and relieved of the burden of the risky lending made by HRE in the past. A large amount of aid has been necessary in order to keep PBB in business and to facilitate the split-up. However, PBB will be a much smaller bank, and sufficient measures limiting any distortion of competition have been put in place by Germany.\n(127)\nFirst, PBB will be an economic entity that is rather different from the former HRE. It has been taken into public ownership and is currently undergoing in-depth restructuring. As a result, PBB is a much smaller bank than HRE was. After the transfer of a series of assets to FMS-WM, PBB\u2019s strategic balance sheet size - which does not take into consideration those balance sheet items which are in run-down mode or have been synthetically transferred to FMS-WM - is around 15 % of HRE\u2019s balance sheet at the end of 2008.\n(128)\nSecond, Germany has provided the Commission with several commitments aimed at limiting PBB\u2019s market presence, which have been described in more detail in Section V. PBB will only pursue new business in two business lines, REF and PIF. Those two business lines have only limited room for growth during the restructuring period because new business, the balance sheet and portfolio sizes must all stay within defined boundaries, effectively restricting PBB\u2019s ability to expand on the market and thus distort competition. Those caps on growth will remain in place until at least 31 December 2013 and potentially longer if PBB is not reprivatised by then. All other entities of the HRE group must stop business and run down their portfolios, in particular infrastructure finance, capital markets and asset management, and activities related to budget finance.\n(129)\nThird, in order to allay the Commission\u2019s concerns that PBB might harm competition and competitors through overly aggressive pricing strategies, Germany has given a commitment that PBB\u2019s strategic new business will not issue new loans with a RAROC of less than 10 % on a transaction-by-transaction basis. In the Commission\u2019s view, that commitment will be another effective measure against undue distortions of competition.\n(130)\nFourth, PBB\u2019s activities will be limited by behavioural constraints which include an acquisition ban and a ban on invoking State support in its advertising.\n(131)\nFinally, Germany has committed to reprivatise PBB as soon as possible, i.e. by 31 December 2015 at the latest. The sale of PBB will allow the Federal Republic of Germany to recover (part of) the funds invested in HRE. In addition, the Commission notes that timely reprivatisation can ensure that third parties have the opportunity to acquire PBB.\nVII. MONITORING\n(132)\nGermany has committed that the implementation of the HRE restructuring plan and the implementation of the commitments will be monitored by a monitoring trustee, who will submit reports to the Commission on a quarterly basis.\nVIII. CONCLUSION\n(133)\nThe Commission concludes that the measures analysed above constitute State aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(134)\nThe Commission further concludes that the restructuring aid is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU subject to the implementation of the restructuring plan which was finally updated on 14 June 2011 and subject to the fulfilment of the commitments set out in the Annex to this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid which Germany implemented and is planning to implement in favour of Hypo Real Estate Group, consisting of:\n-\ncapital injection of EUR 60 million, notified on 17 April 2009,\n-\ncapital injection of EUR 2,96 billion, notified on 3 June 2009,\n-\ncapital injection of EUR 3 billion, notified on 26 October 2009,\n-\ncapital injection of EUR 1,85 billion, notified on 30 April 2010, of which EUR 450 million is contingent on the existence of certain circumstances,\n-\ncapital injection of EUR 2,08 billion, notified on 10 September 2010,\n-\nguarantees of EUR 35 billion, notified on 30 September 2008,\n-\nguarantees of EUR 52 billion, notified on 17 April 2009,\n-\nguarantee of EUR 8 billion, notified on 26 October 2009,\n-\nguarantee of EUR 10 billion, notified on 26 October 2009,\n-\nliquidity guarantee of EUR 20 billion, notified on 2 September 2010,\n-\nsettlement guarantee of EUR 20 billion, notified on 10 September 2010 and\n-\nassets transfer to the winding-up institution FMS Wertmanagement A\u00f6R, notified on 10 September 2010,\nis compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in the light of the commitments set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nGermany shall ensure that, from the notification of this Decision, detailed quarterly reports are submitted to the Commission on the measures taken to comply with it, in line with the time schedule set out in the Annex to the commitments.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["5", "1", "66", "18", "98", "75", "30", "16", "32", "23", "27", "39", "17", "57", "25", "50", "90", "12", "78", "77", "69", "61", "14", "28", "7", "52", "34", "94", "92", "19", "No Label", "15", "20", "29", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "20", "29", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 870/2011\nof 31 August 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 September 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 September 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 September 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 August 2011.", "references": ["76", "51", "84", "9", "14", "90", "63", "40", "69", "4", "57", "78", "71", "96", "35", "88", "41", "33", "81", "83", "27", "56", "48", "43", "3", "62", "46", "16", "61", "59", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 1 September 2010\non the adequacy of the competent authorities of Australia and the United States pursuant to Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 5676)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/485/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 47(3) thereof,\nAfter having consulted the European Data Protection Supervisor,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 47(1) and Article 53 of Directive 2006/43/EC, as of 29 June 2008, in case of inspections or investigations of statutory auditors or audit firms, competent authorities of Member States may allow the transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms to the competent authorities of a third country only if those authorities have been declared adequate by the Commission and there are reciprocal working arrangements between them and the competent authorities of the Member States concerned. It therefore needs to be determined which competent authorities of third countries are adequate for the purpose of the transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms to the competent authorities of a third country.\n(2)\nA transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms to the competent authorities of a third country reflects a substantial public interest related to carrying out independent public oversight. Accordingly, any such transfer by the competent authorities of Member States should be made solely for the purpose of the exercise of the competences of public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms by the competent authorities of the third country concerned. Member States should ensure that the bilateral working arrangements which allow the transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms between their competent authorities and the competent authorities of Australia and the United States contain appropriate safeguards with regard to the protection of personal data as well as the protection of professional secrets and sensitive commercial information related to the companies whose financial statements are audited as well as the auditors of such companies comprised in such papers. The persons employed or formerly employed by competent authorities of the third country that receive the information are subject to obligations of professional secrecy.\n(3)\nWithout prejudice to Article 47(4) of Directive 2006/43/EC, Member States should ensure that, for the purpose of public oversight, quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms, and contacts between the auditors or audit firms of the Member States and the competent authorities of Australia and the United States take place via the competent authorities of the Member State concerned.\n(4)\nMember States may decide to accept joint inspections in exceptional circumstances where this is necessary to ensure effective supervision. Member States may allow that cooperation with the competent authorities of Australia and the United States takes place under the form of joint inspections or through observers without inspection or investigation powers and without access to the confidential audit working papers or to other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms. Such cooperation should always take place under the conditions set out in Article 47(2) of Directive 2006/43/EC and in this Decision, in particular as regards the need to respect sovereignty, confidentiality and reciprocity. Member States should ensure that any joint inspections carried out by their competent authorities and the competent authorities of Australia and the United States on the territory of Member States pursuant to Article 47 of Directive 2006/43/EC should be under the leadership of the competent authority of the Member State concerned.\n(5)\nDirective 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (2) applies to the processing of personal data carried out pursuant to that Directive. Accordingly, where a transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms to the competent authorities of Australia or the United States involves the disclosure of personal data, it should always be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC. Member States should ensure appropriate safeguards with regard to the protection of personal data transferred, in particular, through binding agreements in accordance with Chapter IV of Directive 95/46/EC between their competent authorities and the competent authorities of Australia and the United States and that the latter would not further disclose personal data comprised in transferred audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms without the prior agreement of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.\n(6)\nThe adequacy of competent authorities of a third country should be assessed in the light of the cooperation requirements pursuant to Article 36 of Directive 2006/43/EC or essentially equivalent functional results. In particular, the adequacy should be assessed in the light of the competences exercised by the competent authorities of Australia and the United States, the safeguards against breaching professional secrecy and confidentiality rules implemented by them and their ability under their laws and regulations to cooperate with the competent authorities of Member States.\n(7)\nAs auditors and audit firms of companies of the Union which have issued securities in Australia or the United States, or which form part of a group issuing statutory consolidated accounts in those countries, are regulated under the domestic laws of those countries, it should be decided whether the competent authorities of Member States may transfer audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms to the competent authorities of those countries solely for the purposes of the exercise of their competences of public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms.\n(8)\nAdequacy assessments for the purposes of Article 47 of Directive 2006/43/EC have been carried out with respect to the competent authorities of Australia and the United States. Adequacy decisions should be taken on the basis of these assessments with respect to those authorities.\n(9)\nThe Australian Securities and Investments Commission has competence in the public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms. It implements adequate safeguards banning and sanctioning disclosure by its current or former employees of confidential information to any third person or authority. It would use the transferred audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms solely for purposes related to the public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms. Under the laws and regulations of Australia, it may transfer audit working papers or other documents held by Australian auditors or audit firms to the competent authorities of any Member State. On this basis, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission should be declared adequate for the purpose of Article 47(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC.\n(10)\nThe Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America has competence in investigating auditors and audit firms; this Decision should only cover the competences of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America to investigate auditors and audit firms. The Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America implements adequate safeguards banning and sanctioning disclosure by its current and former employees of confidential information to any third person or authority. It would use transferred audit working or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms papers solely for purposes related to investigations of auditors and audit firms. Under the laws and regulations of the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission has the ability to transfer audit working papers or other documents held by United States auditors or audit firms which relate to investigations it may perform on such auditors and audit firms to the competent authorities of any Member State. On this basis, the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America should be declared adequate for the purpose of Article 47(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC.\n(11)\nThe Public Company Accounting Oversight Board of the United States of America has competence in the public oversight, external quality assurance and investigation of auditors and audit firms. It implements adequate safeguards banning and sanctioning disclosure by its current and former employees of confidential information to any third person or authority. It would use transferred audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms solely for purposes related to the public oversight, external quality assurance and investigation of auditors and audit firms. Under the laws and regulations of the United States, it may provide direct access to the competent authorities of any Member State to the audit working papers or other documents held by United States auditors or audit firms, but it cannot, under United States law, transfer such documents to the competent authorities of Member States.\n(12)\nHowever, the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America can provide the competent authorities of any Member State with the inspection reports issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board of the United States of America in respect of United States auditors and audit firms and, upon prior request and justification of the reasons for the request, with the audit working papers or other documents held by United States auditors or audit firms relevant to such inspections. Therefore, cooperation on inspections of auditors and audit firms between the competent authorities of the Member States and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board of the United States of America leads to essentially equivalent results to the direct exchange of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms provided for in Article 36 of Directive 2006/43/EC. On this basis, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board of the United States of America should be declared adequate for the purpose of Article 47(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC.\n(13)\nTransfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms should include access to or transmission to the authorities declared adequate under this Decision of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms, upon prior agreement of the competent authorities of Member States, and access to or transmission of such papers by the competent authorities of Member States to those authorities. As a consequence, in case of inspections or investigations, statutory auditors and audit firms should not be allowed to grant access, nor to transmit audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms to those authorities under other conditions than the ones set out in this Decision and in Article 47 of Directive 2006/43/EC, for example on the basis of consent of the statutory auditor, the audit firms or the client company.\n(14)\nThis Decision should be without prejudice to the cooperation arrangements referred to in Article 25(4) of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (3).\n(15)\nAs this Decision is taken in the context of the transitional period granted to certain third country auditors and audit firms by Commission Decision 2008/627/EC of 29 July 2008 concerning a transitional period for audit activities of certain third country auditors and audit entities (4), this Decision should not pre-empt any final equivalence decisions that the Commission may adopt pursuant to Article 46 of Directive 2006/43/EC.\n(16)\nThis Decision aims at facilitating effective cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States and those of Australia and the United States to allow the exercise of their functions of public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations and, at the same time, to protect the rights of the parties concerned. Member States should communicate to the Commission the working arrangements concluded with those authorities to allow the Commission to assess if cooperation takes place in accordance with Article 47 of the Directive 2006/43/EC.\n(17)\nThe ultimate objective of cooperation with Australia and the United States in audit oversight is to reach mutual reliance on each other\u2019s oversight systems where transfers of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms would be exceptional. The mutual reliance would be based on the equivalence of the Union and those countries\u2019 auditor oversight systems.\n(18)\nThe Public Company Accounting Oversight Board of the United States of America would like to evaluate further the auditor oversight systems of the Member States before deciding to rely on the oversight performed by their competent authorities. Therefore, the mechanism of cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board of the United States of America and the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America should be reviewed to assess the progress made towards reaching mutual reliance on each other. For these reasons, this Decision should cease to apply on 31 July 2013 in respect of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board of the United States of America and the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America.\n(19)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 48(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following competent authorities of third countries shall be considered adequate for the purpose of Article 47(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC:\n1.\nThe Australian Securities and Investments Commission;\n2.\nThe Public Company Accounting Oversight Board of the United States of America;\n3.\nThe Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America.\nArticle 2\n1. In accordance with Article 53 of Directive 2006/43/EC, as of 29 June 2008, in case of inspections or investigations of statutory auditors or audit firms, any transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms shall be either subject to prior approval by the competent authority of the Member State concerned, or it shall be carried out by the competent authority of the Member State concerned.\n2. The transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms shall not serve any other purpose than the public oversight, external quality assurance or investigations of auditors and audit firms.\n3. Where audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms are exclusively held by a statutory auditor or audit firm registered in a Member State other than the Member State where the group auditor is registered and whose competent authority has received a request from any of the authorities referred to in Article 1, such papers or documents shall be transferred to the competent authority of the third country concerned only if the competent authority of the first Member State has given its express agreement to the transfer.\n4. Member States shall ensure that the bilateral working arrangements which allow the transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms between their competent authorities and the competent authorities of Australia and the United States contain appropriate safeguards with regard to the protection of personal data as well as the protection of professional secrets and sensitive commercial information related to the companies whose financial statements are audited as well as the auditors of such companies comprised in such papers.\n5. Without prejudice to Article 47(4) of Directive 2006/43/EC, Member States shall ensure that, for the purpose of public oversight, quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms, the bilateral working arrangements which allow the transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms between their competent authorities and the competent authorities of Australia and the United States provide that contacts between the auditors or audit firms of the Member States and the competent authorities of Australia and the United States take place via the competent authorities of the Member State concerned.\n6. Member States may agree to joint inspections only where necessary. They shall ensure that any joint inspections carried out by their competent authorities and the competent authorities of Australia and the United States on the territory of Member States pursuant to Article 47 of Directive 2006/43/EC shall, as a general rule, be under the leadership of the competent authority of the Member State concerned.\n7. Member States shall ensure that any bilateral working arrangements between their competent authorities and the competent authorities of Australia and the United States comply with the conditions for cooperation set out in this Decision.\nArticle 3\nWith respect to the competent authorities referred to in Article 1(2) and (3), this Decision shall cease to apply on 31 July 2013.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 September 2010.", "references": ["10", "6", "59", "43", "16", "8", "4", "33", "81", "71", "85", "89", "44", "74", "26", "67", "57", "19", "38", "49", "30", "39", "90", "64", "3", "82", "56", "21", "40", "31", "No Label", "46", "47", "50", "93", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["46", "47", "50", "93", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 9 June 2011\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in France\n(2011/355/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (2), in particular Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1 of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(5)\nFrance has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on dactyloscopic data exchange.\n(6)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by France with Spain, Germany and Luxembourg.\n(7)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in France and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the Spanish/German/Luxembourgish evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(8)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning dactyloscopic data exchange has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching of dactyloscopic data, France has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Article 9 of that Decision as from the date of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 9 June 2011.", "references": ["52", "43", "58", "64", "79", "9", "14", "12", "38", "73", "75", "30", "65", "10", "19", "55", "21", "37", "77", "60", "61", "86", "63", "80", "16", "5", "23", "24", "25", "50", "No Label", "1", "36", "40", "41", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["1", "36", "40", "41", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 561/2011\nof 10 June 2011\nclosing the sale provided for in Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 opening the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction of Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSales by a tendering procedure of skimmed milk powder were open by Commission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) in accordance with the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn respect of the 2012 food distribution plan, the overall quantities of skimmed milk powder requested by Member States in accordance with Article 1(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 of 14 September 2010 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Union (4) exceed the currently available quantity. It is therefore appropriate to reserve all remaining quantity of skimmed milk powder in intervention stocks.\n(3)\nThe sales by a tendering procedure of skimmed milk powder opened by Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 should therefore be closed and that Regulation should be repealed. Consequently, the offers received by the intervention agencies of the Member States from 17 May 2011 from 11.00 (Brussels time) have become devoid of purpose.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe sales by a tendering procedure of skimmed milk powder, opened by Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, are closed.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 447/2010 is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 June 2011.", "references": ["84", "13", "21", "42", "16", "40", "82", "58", "33", "25", "4", "66", "72", "38", "55", "50", "48", "51", "28", "83", "97", "79", "91", "60", "94", "41", "22", "85", "95", "30", "No Label", "20", "70", "96"], "gold": ["20", "70", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 1 December 2011\nappointing a Belgian member of the European Economic and Social Committee\n(2011/811/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Belgian Government,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Robert de M\u00dbELENAERE,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBaron Philippe de BUCK van OVERSTRAETEN, Director-General, BusinessEurope, is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2011.", "references": ["45", "3", "94", "88", "61", "33", "15", "30", "36", "70", "54", "69", "66", "60", "39", "31", "86", "68", "1", "82", "51", "48", "52", "8", "37", "22", "18", "77", "50", "90", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2012/37/CFSP\nof 23 January 2012\nimplementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (1) and in particular Article 21(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["15", "86", "18", "68", "66", "64", "7", "6", "34", "78", "82", "39", "70", "98", "16", "60", "14", "83", "88", "30", "27", "97", "55", "33", "71", "79", "10", "67", "45", "4", "No Label", "3", "12", "95"], "gold": ["3", "12", "95"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION\nof 13 October 2011\non the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/695/EU)\nTHE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area,\nHaving regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission (1), and in particular Article 22 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder the system for competition law enforcement established under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter \u2018the Treaty\u2019), the Commission investigates and decides on cases by administrative decision, subject to judicial review by the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter \u2018the Court of Justice\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Commission has to conduct its competition proceedings fairly, impartially and objectively and must ensure respect of the procedural rights of the parties concerned as set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (2), Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (3), Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (4), and Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 of 7 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (5), as well as in the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice. In particular, the right of the parties concerned to be heard before the adoption of any individual decision adversely affecting them is a fundamental right of European Union law recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in particular Article 41 thereof (6).\n(3)\nIn order to ensure the effective exercise of the procedural rights of the parties concerned, other involved parties within the meaning of Article 11(b) of Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (hereinafter \u2018other involved parties\u2019), complainants within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (hereinafter \u2018complainants\u2019) and persons other than those referred to in Articles 5 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and third persons within the meaning of Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (hereinafter \u2018third persons\u2019) involved in competition proceedings, responsibility for safeguarding the observance of such rights should be entrusted to an independent person experienced in competition matters who has the integrity necessary to contribute to the objectivity, transparency and efficiency of those proceedings.\n(4)\nThe Commission created the function of hearing officer for these purposes in 1982, revised it in Commission Decision 94/810/ECSC, EC of 12 December 1994 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in competition procedures before the Commission (7) and in Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings (8). It is now necessary to clarify and further strengthen the role of the hearing officer and to adapt the terms of reference of the hearing officer in the light of developments in Union competition law.\n(5)\nThe function of the hearing officer has been generally perceived as an important contribution to the competition proceedings before the Commission due to the independence and expertise that hearing officers have brought to these proceedings. In order to ensure the continued independence of the hearing officer from the Directorate-General for Competition, he or she should be attached, for administrative purposes, to the member of the Commission with special responsibility for competition.\n(6)\nThe hearing officer should be appointed in accordance with the rules laid down in the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. In accordance with those rules, consideration may also be given to candidates who are not officials of the Commission. Transparency as regards the appointment, termination of appointment and transfer of hearing officers should be ensured.\n(7)\nThe Commission may appoint one or more hearing officers and should provide for their supporting staff. Where the hearing officer perceives a conflict of interests in the performance of his or her functions, the hearing officer should cease from acting on a case. If the hearing officer is unable to act, his or her role should be carried out by another hearing officer.\n(8)\nThe hearing officer should operate as an independent arbiter who seeks to resolve issues affecting the effective exercise of the procedural rights of the parties concerned, other involved parties, complainants or interested third persons where such issues could not be resolved through prior contacts with the Commission services responsible for the conduct of competition proceedings, which must respect these procedural rights.\n(9)\nThe terms of reference of the hearing officer in competition proceedings should be framed in such a way as to safeguard the effective exercise of procedural rights throughout proceedings before the Commission pursuant to Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty and Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, in particular the right to be heard.\n(10)\nIn order to strengthen this role, the hearing officer should be attributed with the function of safeguarding the effective exercise of procedural rights of undertakings and associations of undertakings in the context of the Commission\u2019s powers of investigation under Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as well as pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 which empowers the Commission to impose fines on undertakings and associations of undertakings. The hearing officer should also be attributed with specific functions during this investigative phase in relation to claims for legal professional privilege, the privilege against self-incrimination, deadlines for replying to decisions requesting information pursuant to Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as well as with regard to the right of undertakings and associations of undertakings subject to an investigative measure by the Commission under Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to be informed of their procedural status, namely whether they are subject to an investigation and, if so, the subject matter and purpose of that investigation. In assessing claims made in relation to privilege against self-incrimination, the hearing officer may consider whether undertakings make clearly unfounded claims for protection merely as a delaying tactic.\n(11)\nThe hearing officer should be able to facilitate the resolution of claims that a document is covered by legal professional privilege. To this end, if the undertaking or association of undertakings making the claim agrees, the hearing officer will be allowed to examine the document concerned and make an appropriate recommendation, referring to the applicable case-law of the Court of Justice.\n(12)\nThe hearing officer should be responsible for deciding whether a third person shows a sufficient interest to be heard. Consumer associations that apply to be heard should be generally regarded as having a sufficient interest, where the proceedings concern products or services used by end-consumers or products or services that constitute a direct input into such products or services.\n(13)\nThe hearing officer should decide whether to admit complainants and interested third persons to the oral hearing, taking into account the contribution they can make to the clarification of the relevant facts of the case.\n(14)\nThe right of the parties concerned to be heard before a final decision adversely affecting their interests is taken is guaranteed through their right to reply in writing to the preliminary position of the Commission, as set out in the statement of objections and their right to develop their arguments, if they so request, at the oral hearing. In order to exercise these rights effectively, parties to whom a statement of objections has been addressed have the right of access to the Commission\u2019s investigation file.\n(15)\nIn order to safeguard the effective exercise of the rights of defence of parties to whom a statement of objections has been addressed, the hearing officer should be responsible for ensuring that disputes about access to the file or about the protection of business secrets and other confidential information between those parties and the Commission\u2019s Directorate-General for Competition are resolved. In exceptional circumstances, the hearing officer may suspend the running of the time period in which an addressee of a statement of objections should reply to that statement until a dispute about access to file has been resolved, if the addressee would not be in a position to reply within the deadline granted and an extension would not be an adequate solution at that point in time.\n(16)\nIn order to safeguard the effective exercise of procedural rights while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality, the hearing officer should, where appropriate, be able to order specific measures for access to the Commission\u2019s file. In particular, the hearing officer should have the power to decide that parts of the file are made accessible to the party requesting access in a restricted manner, for example by limiting the number or category of persons having access, and the use of the information being accessed.\n(17)\nThe hearing officer should be responsible for deciding on requests for the extension of time limits set for the reply to a statement of objections, a supplementary statement of objections or a letter of facts or time limits within which other involved parties, complainants or interested third persons may make comments, in case of disagreement between any such person and the Directorate-General for Competition.\n(18)\nThe hearing officer should promote the effectiveness of the oral hearing, by, inter alia, taking all appropriate preparatory measures, including the circulation, in due time before the hearing, of a provisional list of participants and a provisional agenda.\n(19)\nThe oral hearing allows the parties to whom the Commission has addressed a statement of objections and other involved parties to further exercise their right to be heard by developing their arguments orally before the Commission, which should be represented by the Directorate-General for Competition as well as other services that contribute to the further preparation of a decision to be taken by the Commission. It should provide an additional opportunity to ensure that all relevant facts - whether favourable or unfavourable to the parties concerned, including the factual elements relating to the gravity and duration of the alleged infringement - are clarified as much as possible. The oral hearing should also allow the parties to present their arguments as to the matters that may be of importance for the possible imposition of fines.\n(20)\nTo ensure the effectiveness of oral hearings, the hearing officer may allow the parties to whom a statement of objections has been addressed, other involved parties, complainants, other persons invited to the hearing, the Commission services and the authorities of the Member States to ask questions during the hearing. The oral hearing should not be public so as to guarantee that all participants can express themselves freely. Therefore, information disclosed during the oral hearing should not be used for a purpose other than judicial and/or administrative proceedings for the application of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty. Where justified to protect business secrets and other confidential information, the hearing officer should be able to hear persons in a closed session.\n(21)\nParties to the proceedings which offer commitments pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as well as parties which engage in settlement procedures in cartel cases pursuant to Article 10a of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, should be able to call upon the hearing officer in relation to the effective exercise of their procedural rights.\n(22)\nThe hearing officer should report on the respect for the effective exercise of procedural rights throughout competition proceedings. Moreover, and separately from his or her reporting function, the hearing officer should also be able to make observations on the further progress and objectivity of the proceedings and thereby contribute to ensuring that competition proceedings are concluded on the basis of a sound assessment of all relevant facts.\n(23)\nWhen disclosing information about natural persons, the hearing officer should have regard, in particular, to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (9).\n(24)\nDecision 2001/462/EC, ECSC should be repealed,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nCHAPTER 1\nROLE, APPOINTMENT AND DUTIES OF THE HEARING OFFICER\nArticle 1\nThe Hearing Officer\n1. There shall be one or more hearing officers for competition proceedings, whose powers and functions are laid down in the present decision.\n2. The hearing officer shall safeguard the effective exercise of procedural rights throughout competition proceedings before the Commission for the implementation of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty, and under Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (hereinafter \u2018competition proceedings\u2019).\nArticle 2\nAppointment, Termination of Appointment and Deputising\n1. The Commission shall appoint the hearing officer. The appointment shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Any interruption, termination or transfer of the hearing officer shall be the subject of a reasoned decision of the Commission. That decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. The hearing officer shall be attached, for administrative purposes, to the member of the Commission with special responsibility for competition (hereinafter \u2018the competent member of the Commission\u2019).\n3. Where the hearing officer is unable to act, his or her role shall be carried out by another hearing officer. If no hearing officer is able to act, the competent member of the Commission, where appropriate after consultation of the hearing officer, shall designate another competent Commission official, who is not involved in the case in question, to carry out the hearing officer\u2019s duties.\n4. In case of an actual or potential conflict of interests, the hearing officer shall refrain from acting on a case. Paragraph 3 shall apply.\nArticle 3\nMethod of Operation\n1. In exercising his or her functions, the hearing officer shall act independently.\n2. In exercising his or her functions, the hearing officer shall take account of the need for effective application of the competition rules in accordance with Union legislation in force and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice.\n3. In exercising his or her functions, the hearing officer shall have access to any files relating to competition proceedings.\n4. The hearing officer shall be kept informed by the director responsible for investigating the case in the Directorate-General for Competition (hereinafter \u2018the director responsible\u2019) about the development of the procedure.\n5. The hearing officer may present observations on any matter arising out of any Commission competition proceeding to the competent member of the Commission.\n6. If the hearing officer makes reasoned recommendations to the competent member of the Commission or takes decisions as foreseen in this decision, the hearing officer shall provide a copy of these documents to the director responsible and the Legal Service of the Commission.\n7. Any issue regarding the effective exercise of the procedural rights of the parties concerned, other involved parties within the meaning of Article 11(b) of Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (hereinafter \u2018the other involved parties\u2019), complainants within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (hereinafter \u2018complainants\u2019) and interested third persons within the meaning of Article 5 of this Decision involved in such proceedings shall first be raised by those persons with the Directorate-General for Competition. If the issue is not resolved, it may be referred to the hearing officer for independent review. Requests related to a measure for which a time limit applies must be made in due time, within the original time limit.\nCHAPTER 2\nINVESTIGATION\nArticle 4\nProcedural rights in the investigation phase\n1. The hearing officer shall safeguard the effective exercise of procedural rights which arise in the context of the exercise of the Commission\u2019s powers of investigation under Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and in proceedings that can result in the imposition of fines pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.\n2. In particular, the hearing officer shall have the following functions, subject to Article 3(7):\n(a)\nThe hearing officer may be asked by undertakings or associations of undertakings to examine claims that a document required by the Commission in the exercise of powers conferred on it pursuant to Article 18, 20 or 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, in inspections pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 or in the context of investigatory measures in proceedings that can result in the imposition of fines pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and which was withheld from the Commission is covered by legal professional privilege, within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice. The hearing officer may only review the matter if the undertaking or association of undertakings making the claim consent to the hearing officer viewing the information claimed to be covered by legal professional privilege as well as related documents that the hearing officer considers necessary for his or her review. Without revealing the potentially privileged content of the information, the hearing officer shall communicate to the director responsible and the undertaking or association of undertakings concerned his or her preliminary view, and may take appropriate steps to promote a mutually acceptable resolution. Where no resolution is reached, the hearing officer may formulate a reasoned recommendation to the competent member of the Commission, without revealing the potentially privileged content of the document. The party making the claim shall receive a copy of this recommendation.\n(b)\nWhere the addressee of a request for information pursuant to Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 refuses to reply to a question in such a request invoking the privilege against self-incrimination, as determined by the case-law of the Court of Justice, it may refer the matter, in due time following the receipt of the request, to the hearing officer. In appropriate cases, and having regard to the need to avoid undue delay in proceedings, the hearing officer may make a reasoned recommendation as to whether the privilege against self-incrimination applies and inform the director responsible of the conclusions drawn, to be taken into account in case of any decision taken subsequently pursuant to Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. The addressee of the request shall receive a copy of the reasoned recommendation.\n(c)\nWhere the addressee of a decision requesting information pursuant to Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 considers that the time limit imposed for its reply is too short, it may refer the matter to the hearing officer, in due time before the expiry of the original time limit set. The hearing officer shall decide on whether an extension of the time limit should be granted, taking account of the length and complexity of the request for information and the requirements of the investigation.\n(d)\nUndertakings or associations of undertakings subject to an investigative measure by the Commission under Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 shall have the right to be informed of their procedural status, namely whether they are subject to an investigation and, if so, the subject matter and purpose of that investigation. If such an undertaking or association of undertakings considers that it has not been properly informed by the Directorate-General for Competition of its procedural status, it may refer the matter to the hearing officer for resolution. The hearing officer shall take a decision that the Directorate-General for Competition will inform the undertaking or association of undertakings that made the request of their procedural status. This decision shall be communicated to the undertaking or association of undertakings that made the request.\nCHAPTER 3\nAPPLICATIONS TO BE HEARD\nArticle 5\nInterested third persons\n1. Applications to be heard from persons other than those referred to in Articles 5 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and third persons within the meaning of Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (hereinafter \u2018third persons\u2019) shall be made in accordance with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 802/2004. Applications shall be submitted in writing and explain the applicant\u2019s interest in the outcome of the procedure.\n2. The hearing officer shall decide as to whether third persons are to be heard after consulting the director responsible. In assessing whether a third person shows a sufficient interest, the hearing officer shall take into account whether and to what extent the applicant is sufficiently affected by the conduct which is the subject of the competition proceedings or whether the applicant fulfils the requirements of Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.\n3. Where the hearing officer considers that an applicant has not shown a sufficient interest to be heard, he or she shall inform the applicant in writing of the reasons thereof. A time limit shall be fixed within which the applicant may make known its views in writing. If the applicant makes known its views in writing within the time limit set by the hearing officer and the written submission does not lead to a different assessment, that finding shall be stated in a reasoned decision which shall be notified to the applicant.\n4. The hearing officer shall inform parties to competition proceedings as from the initiation of proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 or Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of the identities of interested third persons to be heard, unless such disclosure would significantly harm a person or undertaking.\nArticle 6\nRight to an oral hearing; participation of complainants and third persons in the oral hearing\n1. At the request of parties to whom the Commission has addressed a statement of objections or other involved parties, the hearing officer shall conduct an oral hearing so that such parties can further develop their written submissions.\n2. The hearing officer may, where appropriate and after consulting the director responsible, decide to afford complainants and interested third persons within the meaning of Article 5 the opportunity to express their views at the oral hearing of the parties to which a statement of objections has been issued, provided they so request in their written comments. The hearing officer may also invite representatives from competition authorities from third countries to attend the oral hearing as observers in accordance with agreements concluded between the Union and third countries.\nCHAPTER 4\nACCESS TO FILE, CONFIDENTIALITY AND BUSINESS SECRETS\nArticle 7\nAccess to File and Access to Documents and Information\n1. Where a party which has exercised its right of access to the file has reason to believe that the Commission has in its possession documents which have not been disclosed to it and that those documents are necessary for the proper exercise of the right to be heard, it may make a reasoned request for access to these documents to the hearing officer, subject to Article 3(7).\n2. Subject to Article 3(7), other involved parties, complainants and interested third persons within the meaning of Article 5 may make a reasoned request to the hearing officer in the circumstances listed hereafter:\n(a)\nOther involved parties who have reason to believe that they have not been informed of the objections addressed to the notifying parties in accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 802/2004.\n(b)\nA complainant who has been informed by the Commission of its intention to reject a complaint pursuant to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and has reason to believe that the Commission has in its possession documents which have not been disclosed to it and that those documents are necessary for the proper exercise of its rights in accordance with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004.\n(c)\nA complainant who considers that it has not received a copy of the non-confidential version of the statement of objections in accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 or that the non-confidential version of the statement of objections has not been established in a manner which enables it to exercise its rights effectively, with the exception of cases where the settlement procedure applies.\n(d)\nAn interested third person within the meaning of Article 5 of this Decision who has reason to believe that it has not been informed of the nature and subject matter of a procedure in accordance with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 802/2004. The same applies to a complainant in a case to which the settlement procedure applies who has reason to believe that it has not been informed of the nature and subject matter of the procedure in accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004.\n3. The hearing officer shall take a reasoned decision on a request addressed to him or her under paragraph 1 or 2 and communicate such decision to the person that made the request and to any other person concerned by the procedure.\nArticle 8\nBusiness secrets and other confidential information\n1. Where the Commission intends to disclose information which may constitute a business secret or other confidential information of any undertaking or person, the latter shall be informed in writing of this intention and the reasons thereof by the Directorate-General for Competition. A time limit shall be fixed within which the undertaking or person concerned may submit any written comments.\n2. Where the undertaking or person concerned objects to the disclosure of the information it may refer the matter to the hearing officer. If the hearing officer finds that the information may be disclosed because it does not constitute a business secret or other confidential information or because there is an overriding interest in its disclosure that finding shall be stated in a reasoned decision which shall be notified to the undertaking or person concerned. The decision shall specify the date after which the information will be disclosed. This date shall not be less than 1 week from the date of notification.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the disclosure of information by publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n4. Where appropriate in order to balance the effective exercise of a party\u2019s rights of defence with legitimate interests of confidentiality, the hearing officer may decide that parts of the file which are indispensable for the exercise of the party\u2019s rights of defence will be made accessible to the party requesting access in a restricted manner, the details of which shall be determined by the hearing officer.\nCHAPTER 5\nEXTENSION OF TIME LIMITS\nArticle 9\nRequests for extension of time limits\n1. If an addressee of a statement of objections considers that the time limit imposed for its reply to the statement of objections is too short, it may seek an extension of that time limit by means of a reasoned request addressed to the director responsible. Such a request must be made in due time before the expiry of the original time limit in proceedings pursuant to Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty and at least 5 working days before the expiry of the original time limit in proceedings under Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. If such a request is not granted or the addressee of the statement of objections making the request disagrees with the length of the extension granted, it may refer the matter to the hearing officer for review before the expiry of the original time limit. After hearing the director responsible, the hearing officer shall decide on whether an extension of the time limit is necessary to allow the addressee of a statement of objections to exercise its right to be heard effectively, while also having regard to the need to avoid undue delay in proceedings. In proceedings pursuant to Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty, the hearing officer shall take into account, among others, the following elements:\n(a)\nthe size and complexity of the file;\n(b)\nwhether the addressee of the statement of objections making the request has had prior access to information;\n(c)\nany other objective obstacles which may be faced by the addressee of the statement of objections making the request in providing its observations.\nFor the purposes of assessing point (a) of the first subparagraph, the number of infringements, the alleged duration of the infringement(s), the size and number of documents and the size and complexity of expert studies may be taken into consideration.\n2. If other involved parties, a complainant or an interested third person within the meaning of Article 5 considers that the time limit to make its views known is too short, it may seek an extension of that time limit by means of a reasoned request addressed to the director responsible in due time before the expiry of the original time limit. If such a request is not granted or the other involved party, complainant or interested third person disagrees with this decision, it may refer the matter to the hearing officer for review. After hearing the director responsible, the hearing officer shall decide on whether an extension of the time limit should be granted.\nCHAPTER 6\nTHE ORAL HEARING\nArticle 10\nOrganisation and function\n1. The hearing officer shall organise and conduct the hearings provided for in the provisions implementing Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty and Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.\n2. The oral hearing shall be conducted by the hearing officer in full independence.\n3. The hearing officer shall ensure that the hearing is properly conducted and shall contribute to the objectivity of the hearing itself and of any decision taken subsequently.\n4. The hearing officer shall ensure that the oral hearing provides addressees of the statement of objections, other involved parties, as well as complainants and interested third persons within the meaning of Article 5 which have been admitted to the oral hearing, with sufficient opportunity to develop their views as to the preliminary findings of the Commission.\nArticle 11\nPreparation of the oral hearing\n1. The hearing officer shall be responsible for the preparation of the oral hearing and shall take all appropriate measures in that regard. In order to ensure the proper preparation of the oral hearing, the hearing officer may, after consulting the director responsible, supply in advance to the persons invited to the hearing a list of questions on which they are invited to make known their views. The hearing officer may also indicate to the persons invited to the hearing the focal areas for debate, having regard, in particular, to the facts and issues that the addressees of a statement of objections who have requested an oral hearing want to raise.\n2. For this purpose, after consulting the director responsible, the hearing officer may hold a meeting with the persons invited to the hearing and, where appropriate, the Commission services, in order to prepare for the hearing itself.\n3. The hearing officer may also ask for prior written notification of the essential contents of the intended statements of persons invited to the hearing.\n4. The hearing officer may set a time limit for all persons invited to the oral hearing to provide a list of participants who will attend on their behalf. The hearing officer shall make this list available to all persons invited to the oral hearing in due time before the date of the hearing.\nArticle 12\nTiming and conduct\n1. After consulting the director responsible, the hearing officer shall determine the date, the duration and the place of the hearing. Where a postponement is requested, the hearing officer shall decide whether or not to allow it.\n2. The hearing officer shall decide whether new documents should be admitted during the hearing and which persons should be heard on behalf of a party.\n3. The hearing officer may allow the parties to whom a statement of objections has been addressed, other involved parties, complainants, other persons invited to the hearing, the Commission services and the authorities of the Member States to ask questions during the hearing. To the extent that, exceptionally, a question cannot be answered in whole or in part at the oral hearing, the hearing officer may allow the reply to be given in writing within a set time limit. Such written reply shall be distributed to all participants in the oral hearing, unless the hearing officer decides otherwise in order to protect the rights of defence of an addressee of a statement of objections or the business secrets or other confidential information of any person.\n4. Where required by the need to ensure the right to be heard, the hearing officer may, after consulting the director responsible, afford the parties concerned, other involved parties, complainants or interested third persons within the meaning of Article 5 the opportunity to submit further written comments after the oral hearing. The hearing officer shall fix a date by which such submissions may be made. The Commission shall not be obliged to take into account written comments received after that date.\nArticle 13\nProtection of business secrets and confidentiality at the oral hearing\nEach person shall normally be heard in the presence of all other persons invited to attend the oral hearing. The hearing officer may also decide to hear persons separately in a closed session, having regard to their legitimate interest in the protection of their business secrets and other confidential information.\nCHAPTER 7\nINTERIM REPORT AND RIGHT TO MAKE OBSERVATIONS\nArticle 14\nInterim report and observations\n1. The hearing officer shall submit an interim report to the competent member of the Commission on the hearing and the conclusions he or she draws with regard to the respect for the effective exercise of procedural rights. The observations in this report shall concern procedural issues including the following:\n(a)\ndisclosure of documents and access to the file;\n(b)\ntime limits for replying to the statement of objections;\n(c)\nthe observance of the right to be heard;\n(d)\nthe proper conduct of the oral hearing.\nA copy of the report shall be given to the Director-General for Competition, to the director responsible and to the other competent services of the Commission.\n2. In addition to, and separately from, the report referred to in paragraph 1, the hearing officer may make observations on the further progress and impartiality of the proceedings. In so doing, the hearing officer shall seek to ensure in particular that, in the preparation of draft Commission decisions, due account is taken of all the relevant facts, whether favourable or unfavourable to the parties concerned, including the factual elements relevant to the gravity and duration of any infringement. Such observations may relate to, inter alia, the need for further information, the withdrawal of certain objections, the formulation of further objections or suggestions for further investigative measures pursuant to Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.\nThe Director-General for Competition, the director responsible and the Legal Service shall be informed of such observations.\nCHAPTER 8\nCOMMITMENTS AND SETTLEMENTS\nArticle 15\nCommitments and settlements\n1. Parties to the proceedings which offer commitments to meet the concerns expressed to them by the Commission in its preliminary assessment pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 may call upon the hearing officer at any stage in the procedure pursuant to Article 9, in order to ensure the effective exercise of their procedural rights.\n2. Parties to proceedings in cartel cases which engage in settlement discussions pursuant to Article 10a of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 may call upon the hearing officer at any stage during the settlement procedure in order to ensure the effective exercise of their procedural rights.\nCHAPTER 9\nFINAL REPORT\nArticle 16\nContent and transmission prior to the adoption of a decision\n1. The hearing officer shall, on the basis of the draft decision to be submitted to the Advisory Committee in the case in question, prepare a final report in writing on the respect for the effective exercise of procedural rights, as referred to in Article 14(1), at any stage of the proceedings. That report will also consider whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views.\n2. The final report shall be submitted to the competent member of the Commission, the Director-General for Competition, the director responsible and the other competent services of the Commission. It shall be communicated to the competent authorities of the Member States and, in accordance with the provisions on cooperation laid down in Protocols 23 and 24 of the EEA Agreement, to the EFTA Surveillance Authority.\nArticle 17\nSubmission to the Commission and publication\n1. The hearing officer\u2019s final report shall be presented to the Commission together with the draft decision submitted to it, in order to ensure that, when it reaches a decision on an individual case, the Commission is fully apprised of all relevant information as to the course of the procedure and that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected throughout the proceedings.\n2. The final report may be modified by the hearing officer in the light of any amendments to the draft decision prior to its adoption by the Commission.\n3. The Commission shall communicate the hearing officer\u2019s final report, together with the decision, to the addressees of the decision. It shall publish the hearing officer\u2019s final report in the Official Journal of the European Union, together with the decision, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.\nCHAPTER 10\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 18\nRepeal and transitional provision\n1. Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC is repealed.\n2. Procedural steps already taken under Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC shall continue to have effect. In relation to investigatory measures that were taken before the entry into force of this Decision, the hearing officer may decline to exercise his or her powers pursuant to Article 4.\nIn cases where the initiation of proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 or the initiation of proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 took place before the entry into force of the present Decision, the interim report pursuant to Article 14 of the present Decision and the final report pursuant to Article 16 shall not cover the investigation phase, unless the hearing officer decides otherwise.\nArticle 19\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 13 October 2011.", "references": ["36", "86", "42", "75", "19", "84", "63", "76", "33", "23", "32", "85", "13", "0", "82", "41", "97", "62", "35", "61", "70", "95", "71", "93", "52", "51", "96", "16", "43", "47", "No Label", "2", "7", "14", "48"], "gold": ["2", "7", "14", "48"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 333/2012\nof 19 April 2012\nconcerning the authorisation of a preparation of potassium diformate as a feed additive for all animal species and amending Regulation (EC) No 492/2006\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).\n(2)\nPotassium diformate, CAS number 20642-05-1, was authorised without a time limit in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC as a feed additive for use on all animal species by Commission Regulation (EC) No 492/2006 (3). That additive was subsequently entered in the Community Register of feed additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 thereof, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of potassium diformate as a feed additive for all animal species, requesting that additive to be classified in the additive category \u2018technological additives\u2019. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 13 December 2011 (4) that, under the proposed conditions of use, potassium diformate does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer health or the environment, and that it is effective in increasing the storage time of raw fish and fish by-products. It concluded that no safety concerns would arise for users provided that appropriate protective measures are taken. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of potassium diformate shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that substance should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nAs a consequence of a new authorisation being granted by this Regulation, Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 492/2006 and Annex III thereto should be deleted.\n(7)\nSince the modifications to the conditions of authorisation of the feed additive are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for the disposal of existing stocks of pre-mixtures and compound feed containing this preparation, as authorised by Regulation (EC) No 492/2006.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018technological additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018preservatives\u2019 is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 492/2006 and Annex III thereto are deleted.\nArticle 3\nPremixtures and compound feed labelled in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC before the entry into force of this Regulation and containing potassium diformate, as authorised by Regulation (EC) No 492/2006, may continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["36", "52", "68", "31", "61", "27", "91", "93", "59", "62", "84", "80", "46", "51", "76", "81", "77", "3", "42", "37", "88", "70", "53", "83", "64", "87", "4", "98", "34", "55", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 814/2012\nof 12 September 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2012.", "references": ["54", "78", "33", "41", "64", "0", "14", "6", "38", "4", "25", "3", "17", "32", "98", "46", "84", "28", "2", "83", "92", "76", "55", "20", "53", "81", "5", "44", "52", "99", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1040/2011\nof 17 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for hake in VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 October 2011.", "references": ["68", "76", "55", "14", "98", "26", "35", "78", "51", "2", "34", "71", "92", "72", "20", "80", "60", "82", "10", "84", "0", "69", "37", "62", "86", "43", "87", "39", "24", "94", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 31 March 2011\namending and extending the period of application of Decision 2007/641/EC on the conclusion of consultations with the Republic of Fiji pursuant to Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement and Article 37 of the Development Cooperation Instrument\n(2011/219/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1) as last amended in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, on 22 June 2010 (2) (the \u2018ACP-EU Partnership Agreement\u2019), and in particular Article 96 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (4) (the \u2018Development Cooperation Instrument\u2019), and in particular Article 37 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Decision 2007/641/EC (5) concluding consultations with the Republic of Fiji pursuant to Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and Article 37 of the Development Cooperation Instrument was adopted to implement appropriate measures following the violation of the essential elements referred to in Article 9 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, and the values referred to in Article 3 of the Development Cooperation Instrument.\n(2)\nThose measures have been extended by Council Decision 2009/735/EC (6), and subsequently by Council Decisions 2010/208/EU (7) and 2010/589/EU (8) since not only are important commitments agreed by Fiji in consultations held in April 2007 concerning essential elements of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and the Development Cooperation Instrument yet to be implemented by Fiji, but there have also been important regressive developments concerning a number of these commitments.\n(3)\nDecision 2007/641/EC expires on 31 March 2011. It is appropriate to extend its validity, and to update the appropriate measures contained therein accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2007/641/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 3, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 30 September 2011. It shall be reviewed regularly at least once every 6 months.\u2019;\n2.\nthe Annex is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe letter in the Annex to this Decision shall be addressed to the Republic of Fiji.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["7", "52", "26", "23", "83", "86", "18", "20", "33", "62", "64", "47", "80", "48", "46", "74", "89", "72", "85", "68", "81", "8", "79", "5", "11", "59", "78", "87", "66", "70", "No Label", "0", "1", "4", "9", "10", "14", "61", "95"], "gold": ["0", "1", "4", "9", "10", "14", "61", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 961/2011\nof 27 September 2011\nimposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station and repealing Regulation (EU) No 297/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53 (1) (b)(ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 provides for the possibility to adopt appropriate Union emergency measures for food and feed imported from a third country in order to protect public health, animal health or the environment, where the risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member States individually.\n(2)\nFollowing the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station on 11 March 2011, the Commission was informed that radionuclide levels in certain food products originating in Japan such as milk and spinach exceeded the action levels in food applicable in Japan. Such contamination may constitute a threat to public and animal health in the Union and therefore Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 297/2011 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station (2) was adopted.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 297/2011 has been amended at several occasions to take into account the development of the situation. These amendments concerned the adoption of maximum levels of radioactivity to be applied for feed and food originating from Japan, addition of prefectures to the zone for which specific restrictions apply after contamination in these prefectures was found at levels above the maximum levels and removing prefectures from the zone with restrictions in case extensive monitoring has provided evidence that these prefectures were not affected to a significant extent by radioactive contamination.\n(4)\nSince mid July 2011, the Commission was informed by the Japanese authorities of findings of high levels of caesium in beef from cattle grown in different prefectures in Japan. As the import of beef from Japan into the EU is not allowed for animal and public health reasons other than radioactivity, these findings do not affect the European consumer. Also recently, new food products have been found to contain levels of radioactivity above the maximum levels. These findings and the fact that new/other agricultural/horticultural crops are grown and harvested in the contaminated zone provide evidence that it is appropriate to maintain the current measures after 30 September 2011. It is therefore appropriate to continue to implement the present Regulation until 31 December 2011, instead of 30 September 2011 as initially foreseen. The principle of a monthly review of the implementation of the Regulation is maintained.\n(5)\nGiven that Regulation (EU) No 297/2011 has been amended several times in a short period of time it is appropriate to replace Regulation (EU) No 297/2011 by a new Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to feedstuffs and foodstuffs within the meaning of Article 1 (2) of Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87 (3) originating in or consigned from Japan, with the exclusion of products which left Japan before 28 March 2011 and of products which have been harvested and/or processed before 11 March 2011.\nArticle 2\nAttestation\n1. All consignments of products referred to in Article 1 shall be subject to the conditions laid down in this Regulation.\n2. Consignments of products referred to in Article 1 falling outside the scope of Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community for third countries (4) shall be introduced into the Union through a designated point of entry within the meaning of Article 3 (b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (hereinafter \"designated point of entry\") (5).\n3. Each consignment of products referred to in Article 1 shall be accompanied by a declaration, attesting that:\n(a)\nthe product has been harvested and/or processed before 11 March 2011, or\n(b)\nthe product originates in and is consigned from a prefecture other than Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Nagano, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa and Shizuoka, or\n(c)\nthe product is consigned from Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Nagano, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa and Shizuoka prefectures, but does not originate in one of those prefectures and has not been exposed to radioactivity during transiting, or\n(d)\nwhere a product originates in Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Nagano, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa and Shizuoka prefectures, the product does not contain levels of radionuclides iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 above the maximum levels provided for in Annex II to this Regulation.\n4. Point (d) of paragraph 3 shall apply also to products caught or harvested in the coastal waters of the prefectures referred to therein, irrespective of where such products are landed.\n5. The declaration referred to in paragraph 3 shall be drawn up in accordance with the model set out in Annex I. It shall be signed by an authorised representative of the competent authority of Japan. For the products referred to in point (d) of paragraph 3, the declaration shall be accompanied by an analytical report containing the results of sampling and analysis.\nArticle 3\nIdentification\nEach consignment of the products referred to in Article 1 shall be identified by means of a code which shall be indicated on the declaration referred to in Article 2(3), on the analytical report referred to in Article 2(5), on the sanitary certificate and on any commercial documents accompanying the consignment.\nArticle 4\nPrior notification\nFeed and food business operators or their representatives shall give prior notification of the arrival of each consignment of the products referred to in Article 1, at least two working days prior to the physical arrival of the consignment, to the competent authorities at the Border Inspection Post or at the designated point of entry.\nArticle 5\nOfficial controls\n1. The competent authorities of the border inspection post or designated point of entry shall carry out:\n(a)\ndocumentary and identity checks on all consignments of products referred to in Article 1, and\n(b)\nphysical checks, including laboratory analysis on the presence of iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137, on at least:\n-\n10 % of the consignments of products referred to in Article 2 (3) (d) and\n-\n20 % of the consignments of products referred to in Article 2 (3) (b) and (c).\n2. Consignments shall be kept under official control, for a maximum of 5 working days, pending the availability of the results of the laboratory analysis.\n3. The release for free circulation of consignments shall be subject to the presentation by the feed and food business operator or its representative to the customs authorities of the declaration referred to Article 2(3), duly endorsed by the competent authority at the border inspection post or designated point of entry, giving evidence that the official controls referred to in paragraph 1 have been carried out and that the results from physical checks, where such checks were carried out, have been favourable.\nArticle 6\nCosts\nAll costs resulting from the official controls referred to in Article 5(1) and 5(2) and any measures taken following non-compliance, shall be borne by the feed and food business operator.\nArticle 7\nNon-compliant products\nFeed and food originating in or consigned from Japan which do not comply with the maximum levels referred to in Annex II shall not be placed on the market. Such non-compliant feed and food shall be safely disposed of or returned to the country of origin.\nArticle 8\nReports\nMember States shall inform the Commission monthly through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and the European Union's Urgent Radiological Information Exchange system (ECURIE) of all analytical results obtained.\nArticle 9\nRepeal\nRegulation (EU) No 297/2011 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 10\nEntry into force and period of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the date of entry into force until 31 December 2011. The Regulation will be reviewed monthly taking into account the development of the contamination situation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2011.", "references": ["41", "53", "25", "98", "10", "13", "40", "9", "46", "8", "74", "21", "84", "68", "97", "94", "51", "59", "90", "12", "52", "82", "11", "5", "19", "37", "14", "34", "0", "70", "No Label", "22", "38", "60", "61", "66", "72", "81", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "38", "60", "61", "66", "72", "81", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 686/2010\nof 28 July 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 as regards specifications of Bacoma window and T90 trawl in fisheries carried out in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound (1), and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 2187/2005 sets specific technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound. That Regulation provides specific provisions relating to size and type of all components of fishing gear, including mesh sizes, among other measures.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1226/2009 of 20 November 2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2010 (2), provides for an increase in the mesh size and the length of the Bacoma window and the mesh size of the T90 trawl in ICES subdivisions 22-32. As Regulation (EC) No 1226/2009 is limited to 2010, and since those provisions are of a permanent nature since they constitute selectivity improvements, it is appropriate to incorporate those increases into Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 as from January 2011 and to amend it accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAppendices 1 and 2 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2010.", "references": ["1", "80", "41", "6", "28", "65", "35", "45", "36", "42", "38", "63", "25", "97", "51", "12", "19", "11", "93", "20", "10", "71", "48", "56", "95", "89", "30", "4", "0", "74", "No Label", "59", "67"], "gold": ["59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/236/CFSP\nof 12 April 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 8(1) and (2) thereof, in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Treaty on European Union,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Libya, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP.\n(3)\nFurthermore, one person should be removed from the lists in Annexes II and IV, and the information relating to certain persons and entities on the lists in Annexes I, II, III, and IV to that Decision should be updated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I, II, III, and IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP shall be replaced by the text set out in Annexes I, II, III, and IV respectively to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 12 April 2011.", "references": ["91", "89", "88", "65", "43", "86", "50", "85", "70", "98", "33", "60", "59", "68", "31", "24", "2", "37", "87", "47", "78", "93", "99", "77", "44", "56", "28", "7", "6", "72", "No Label", "3", "4", "11", "12", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "11", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 747/2011\nof 28 July 2011\non the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the second partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2010/2011 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011, the Commission is to decide, in the light of the tenders received in response to a partial invitation to tender, either to fix a minimum customs duty or not to fix a minimum customs duty per eight digit CN code.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the second partial invitation to tender, a minimum customs duty should be fixed for certain eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701 and no minimum customs duty should be fixed for the other eight digit codes for sugar falling within that CN code.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the second partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 27 July 2011, a minimum customs duty has been fixed, or has not been fixed, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation for the eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2011.", "references": ["37", "77", "40", "95", "44", "17", "76", "87", "41", "53", "52", "61", "0", "11", "65", "27", "80", "5", "81", "6", "64", "58", "68", "15", "96", "29", "47", "60", "51", "42", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "71", "73"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "71", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 413/2011\nof 28 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on cucumbers and cherries, other than sour cherries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2) provides for surveillance of imports of the products listed in Annex XVII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2008, 2009 and 2010, the trigger levels for additional duties of cucumbers and cherries other than sour cherries should be adjusted.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 April 2011.", "references": ["66", "39", "96", "3", "49", "79", "94", "46", "56", "30", "54", "47", "51", "48", "99", "52", "93", "69", "77", "27", "13", "42", "2", "6", "80", "83", "90", "1", "20", "41", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 May 2012\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on certain aspects of air services\n(2013/100/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy its Decision of 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with an agreement at Union level.\n(2)\nOn behalf of the Union, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement with the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on certain aspects of air services (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision of 5 June 2003.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be signed and applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on certain aspects of air services is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nPending its entry into force, the Agreement shall be applied on a provisional basis, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the Agreement, as from the date of its signature (1).\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2012.", "references": ["34", "69", "42", "94", "72", "93", "36", "79", "83", "2", "15", "32", "70", "17", "39", "0", "28", "31", "89", "5", "71", "8", "10", "16", "26", "20", "38", "75", "12", "97", "No Label", "3", "9", "57", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "57", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 223/2011\nof 4 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 March 2011.", "references": ["27", "96", "76", "12", "53", "60", "54", "4", "51", "91", "30", "70", "94", "85", "39", "47", "57", "59", "5", "66", "84", "67", "83", "34", "18", "7", "38", "41", "99", "73", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 815/2012\nof 13 September 2012\nlaying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, as regards special schemes for non-established taxable persons supplying telecommunications, broadcasting or electronic services to non-taxable persons\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax (1), and in particular Article 44(1), second subparagraph of Article 44(2), Article 45(1) and (2), and Article 51(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 904/2010 lays down the rules for the administrative cooperation and the fight against fraud in the field of value added tax (VAT). Articles 44 and 45 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 specifically concern the exchange of information relating to the special schemes for telecommunications, broadcasting or electronic services provided for in Chapter 6 of Title XII of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (2). Those special schemes involve a taxable person established outside the Member State of consumption declaring the VAT due on relevant sales in the Member State of consumption via an electronic interface in the Member State of identification (one-stop shop).\n(2)\nCertain information relating to transactions carried out under those special schemes is to be collected and exchanged between Member States. Specifically, that relates to the exchange of identification and the collection and exchange of VAT return details, including corrections to those VAT returns, between Member States.\n(3)\nTo ensure that information is exchanged in a uniform manner, it is necessary to adopt the technical details for such exchange, including a common electronic message. This would also allow for the uniform development of the technical and functional specifications, as they would follow a regulated framework.\n(4)\nCertain information relating to changes to the identification details such as the exclusion from the special schemes, the voluntary cessation or the change of Member State of identification should also be exchanged, without delay, in a uniform manner in order to allow Member States to monitor the correct application of the special schemes and to combat fraud. To that end, common arrangements for the electronic exchange of such information should be provided.\n(5)\nIn order to keep the administrative burden to a minimum, it is necessary to establish certain requirements for the electronic interface that facilitate submission of identification information and VAT returns by taxable persons. Member States should not be prevented from providing additional functionalities to further reduce administrative burdens.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure that the information relating to registration into the scheme, and VAT returns rendered under the scheme, can be transmitted and processed effectively Member States should develop their electronic interface in a uniform manner. It is therefore necessary to establish the common electronic message for the transmission of that information.\n(7)\nIt is necessary to clarify the information to be submitted in cases where no sales under the special schemes are made in a particular period in one or all Member States.\n(8)\nWith a view to enabling Member States and taxable persons to refer to the VAT returns in an unequivocal way in their subsequent communications, including on the payment of the tax, the Member State of identification should allocate a unique reference number to each VAT return.\n(9)\nThis Regulation should apply from the same day from which Articles 44 and 45 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 apply.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Administrative Cooperation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:\n(1)\n\u2018non-Union scheme\u2019 means the special scheme for telecommunications services, broadcasting services or electronic services supplied by taxable persons not established within the Community provided for in Section 2 of Chapter 6 of Title XII of Directive 2006/112/EC;\n(2)\n\u2018Union scheme\u2019 means the special scheme for telecommunications services, broadcasting services or electronic services supplied by taxable persons established within the Community but not in the Member State of consumption provided for in Section 3 of Chapter 6 of Title XII of Directive 2006/112/EC;\n(3)\n\u2018special schemes\u2019 means non-Union scheme and Union scheme.\nArticle 2\nFunctionalities of the electronic interface\nThe electronic interface in the Member State of identification by which a taxable person registers the use of one of the special schemes, and via which that person submits the value added tax (VAT) returns under that scheme to the Member State of identification, shall have the following functionalities:\n(a)\nit must offer the facility to save the identification details pursuant to Article 361 of Directive 2006/112/EC, or the VAT return pursuant to Articles 365 and 369g of Directive 2006/112/EC, before they are submitted;\n(b)\nit must allow for the taxable person to submit the relevant information relating to the VAT returns via an electronic file transfer in accordance with conditions laid down by the Member State of identification.\nArticle 3\nTransmission of identification information\n1. The Member State of identification shall transmit the following to the other Member States, via the CCN/CSI network:\n(a)\ninformation to identify the taxable person using the non-Union scheme;\n(b)\nsimilar details to identify the taxable person using the Union scheme;\n(c)\nallocated identification number.\nThe common electronic message set out in Annex I shall be used to transmit the information referred to in the first subparagraph. Column B of the common electronic message set out in Annex I shall be used for the non-Union scheme and column C of that common electronic message shall be used for the Union scheme.\n2. The Member State of identification shall without delay inform the other Member States via the CCN/CSI network, using the common electronic message set out in Annex II to this Regulation, where the taxable person:\n(a)\nis excluded from one of the special schemes;\n(b)\nvoluntarily ceases to use one of the special schemes;\n(c)\nchanges the Member State of identification within the Union scheme.\nArticle 4\nSubmission of VAT return by the taxable person\n1. The taxable person shall submit the VAT returns with the details pursuant to Articles 365 and 369g of Directive 2006/112/EC to the Member State of identification using the common electronic message set out in Annex III to this Regulation. Column B of the common electronic message set out in Annex III shall be used for the non-Union scheme and column C of that common electronic message shall be used for the Union scheme.\n2. Where a taxable person makes no supplies of services under the special schemes in any Member State during a return period, a nil VAT return shall be completed. For that purpose, only boxes 1, 2 and 21 of the common electronic message set out in Annex III shall be completed for the Union scheme and boxes 1, 2 and 11 for the non-Union scheme.\n3. The taxable person shall only be required to insert the supplies relating to a Member State of consumption and from a Member State of establishment if supplies of services under the special schemes have been made in or from that Member State respectively within the return period.\nArticle 5\nTransmission of information contained in VAT return\nThe information contained in the VAT return referred to in Article 4(1) shall be sent by the Member State of identification to each Member State of consumption and establishment mentioned on the VAT return, via the CCN/CSI network, using the common electronic message set out in Annex III to this Regulation.\nFor the purpose of the first paragraph, the Member State of identification shall transmit to the Member State of consumption and establishment in which or from which supplies have been made, the general information contained in part 1 of the common electronic message set out in Annex III, together with the information in part 2 of that common electronic message relating to that particular Member State of consumption or establishment.\nThe Member State of identification shall transmit the information contained in the VAT return only to those Member States which have been indicated on that VAT return.\nArticle 6\nUnique reference number\nThe information transmitted pursuant to Article 5 shall contain a reference number allocated by the Member State of identification which is unique to the specific VAT return.\nArticle 7\nCorrections to VAT returns\nThe Member State of identification shall allow the taxable person to correct any VAT returns via the electronic interface referred to in Article 2. The Member State of identification shall transmit information on corrections to the Member State(s) of consumption and establishment concerned in accordance with Article 5, and allocate a timestamp to that information.\nArticle 8\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2015.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2012.", "references": ["80", "87", "98", "91", "73", "53", "26", "44", "15", "13", "65", "94", "88", "99", "64", "4", "63", "1", "39", "58", "7", "59", "48", "0", "92", "24", "16", "77", "90", "22", "No Label", "12", "25", "34", "40", "41", "42", "86"], "gold": ["12", "25", "34", "40", "41", "42", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 592/2011\nof 20 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["9", "95", "73", "59", "46", "48", "89", "2", "54", "84", "82", "96", "78", "5", "6", "47", "20", "45", "94", "4", "18", "83", "71", "68", "12", "92", "15", "40", "58", "17", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 April 2012\non the signing on behalf of the European Union of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Brazil pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions with respect to processed poultrymeat provided for in the EU Schedule annexed to GATT 1994, and of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Thailand pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions with respect to processed poultrymeat provided for in the EU Schedule annexed to GATT 1994\n(2012/231/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 207(4) in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 May 2009 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations under Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 with a view to the renegotiation of concessions on poultrymeat tariff lines under Chapter 16 of the Combined Nomenclature as provided for in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1) (hereinafter \u2018CN\u2019).\n(2)\nThose negotiations resulted in Agreements in the form of Exchanges of Letters initialled with Thailand on 22 November 2011 and with Brazil on 7 December 2011 (hereinafter \u2018the Agreements\u2019).\n(3)\nThe Agreements should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign on behalf of the Union the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Brazil pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions with respect to processed poultrymeat provided for in the EU Schedule annexed to GATT 1994, and the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Thailand pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions with respect to processed poultrymeat provided for in the EU Schedule annexed to GATT 1994 (2).\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 23 April 2012.", "references": ["75", "60", "83", "8", "79", "36", "57", "37", "13", "78", "99", "74", "16", "67", "59", "41", "15", "24", "77", "88", "56", "97", "46", "43", "12", "52", "68", "28", "63", "73", "No Label", "3", "9", "21", "22", "23", "66", "69", "93", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "21", "22", "23", "66", "69", "93", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 340/2011\nof 7 April 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 326/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 April 2011.", "references": ["59", "32", "45", "47", "80", "50", "18", "73", "82", "34", "4", "41", "29", "56", "5", "53", "54", "88", "49", "90", "64", "40", "31", "44", "26", "20", "27", "79", "87", "46", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 699/2010\nof 4 August 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Fagiolo Cannellino di Atina (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Fagiolo Cannellino di Atina\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 August 2010.", "references": ["57", "6", "34", "28", "2", "75", "23", "19", "95", "64", "93", "66", "8", "52", "49", "76", "36", "10", "50", "90", "9", "14", "87", "88", "92", "70", "54", "44", "35", "31", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 712/2011\nof 20 July 2011\nfixing the export refunds on pigmeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVII of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in pigmeat, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 399/2011 (5). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the condition provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 399/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["36", "87", "98", "94", "44", "93", "73", "58", "92", "68", "75", "70", "61", "9", "50", "3", "34", "96", "57", "51", "40", "27", "48", "45", "64", "35", "84", "63", "33", "17", "No Label", "20", "22", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 552/2012\nof 21 June 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural, fishery and industrial products\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt is in the interest of the Union to suspend totally the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on a certain number of products currently not listed in the Annex to Council Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 (1).\n(2)\nSix products with TARIC codes 2914390020, 2918300050, 3206110020, 3815120020, 3815120030 and 8302420080, which are currently listed in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 should be deleted because it is no longer in the interest of the Union to maintain the suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for those products.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to modify the product description of the product with CN code 2819 10 00 and the products with TARIC codes 2914199040, 2914700050, 2922498510, 3815199010, 3919900051, 3920102891, 3920510030, 3920910093, 8529909250 and 9401908010 in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 in order to take account of technical product developments and economic trends on the market. Moreover, the existing TARIC codes 2009419270, 2009897992 and 8505199031 should be changed. In addition, for the product with TARIC code 3904400091 double classification is considered necessary.\n(4)\nThose suspensions, for which technical modifications are necessary should be deleted from the list of suspensions in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 and should be reinserted in that list with new product descriptions, or new CN or TARIC codes.\n(5)\nIn view of their temporary nature, the suspensions listed in Annex I should be reviewed systematically, at the latest five years after their application or renewal. Moreover, closure of certain suspensions should be warranted at any time, as a result of a proposal of the Commission on the basis of a review carried out on initiative of the Commission or on request of one or more Member States if the suspensions are no longer in the Union\u2019s interest to be maintained or due to technical product developments, to changed circumstances or to economic trends on the market.\n(6)\nSince the suspensions laid down in this Regulation should take effect from 1 July 2012, this Regulation should apply from that date and should enter into force immediately upon its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nRegulation (EU) No 1344/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe rows for the products listed in Annex I to this Regulation are inserted;\n(2)\nthe rows for the products for which the CN and TARIC codes are set out in Annex II to this Regulation are deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 21 June 2012.", "references": ["40", "99", "84", "92", "73", "70", "6", "19", "27", "42", "16", "90", "54", "46", "28", "65", "4", "35", "45", "48", "26", "87", "81", "50", "68", "55", "25", "59", "32", "91", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "66", "67", "76", "82"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "66", "67", "76", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 731/2011\nof 22 July 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Prosciutto Amatriciano (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Prosciutto Amatriciano\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2011.", "references": ["26", "89", "49", "62", "4", "13", "19", "59", "3", "61", "90", "84", "5", "83", "12", "92", "17", "28", "81", "82", "37", "93", "54", "6", "41", "18", "38", "77", "70", "21", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/205/CFSP\nof 23 April 2012\namending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and in particular Article 23(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP.\n(2)\nThe Council considers that there are no longer grounds for keeping one person and two entities on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.\n(3)\nThe list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe person and entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 23 April 2012.", "references": ["72", "49", "62", "24", "11", "17", "75", "45", "99", "20", "46", "90", "31", "81", "65", "16", "0", "48", "76", "53", "57", "42", "58", "80", "70", "55", "9", "15", "21", "41", "No Label", "3", "12", "95"], "gold": ["3", "12", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 597/2011\nof 21 June 2011\namending for the 150th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a), and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 9 June 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove two natural persons from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply and amended nine entries on the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2011.", "references": ["47", "31", "97", "87", "61", "59", "96", "44", "41", "5", "0", "14", "9", "55", "33", "69", "43", "83", "79", "46", "7", "32", "92", "64", "23", "88", "68", "81", "84", "15", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 March 2012\non State aid SA.12522 (C 37/08) - France - Enforcing the Sernam 2 Decision\n(notified under document C(2012) 1616)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/398/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions (2),\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. GENERAL PROCEDURAL CONTEXT\n(1)\nOn 23 May 2001, the Commission approved aid for the restructuring of SCS Sernam (limited partnership), which became Sernam SA in December 2001 (\u2018the Sernam 1 Decision\u2019) (3).\n(2)\nOn 20 October 2004, the Commission adopted a final decision in which it confirms that the aid approved under the Sernam 1 Decision, amounting to EUR 503 million, is compatible with the internal market under certain conditions (\u2018the Sernam 2 Decision\u2019) (4). This Decision also establishes the presence of supplementary aid amounting to EUR 41 million which is incompatible with the internal market, to be recovered by France.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 24 June 2005, a first third party (\u2018the first complainant\u2019) complained about the incorrect application of the Sernam 2 Decision (5).\n(4)\nOn 22 February 2006, this first complainant also brought proceedings for failure to act against the Commission, in so far as the latter, at the time, had taken no action on the complaint.\n(5)\nBy letter dated 10 April 2006, a second interested party, the Mory Group company (\u2018the second complainant\u2019) also complained to the Commission (6).\n(6)\nThe two complainants essentially considered that the Sernam 2 Decision had been incorrectly applied and asked the Commission to initiate a new formal investigation procedure on the application by France of the Sernam 2 Decision.\n(7)\nBy letter dated 16 July 2008, the Commission informed France of its decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU concerning the application by France of the Sernam 2 Decision (\u2018the opening decision\u2019). The Commission in particular expressed doubts as to the compatibility with the Sernam 2 Decision of France\u2019s chosen arrangements purportedly to apply this Decision, and the possibility that these arrangements involve new State aid.\n(8)\nThis Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (7). The arguments of the two complainants are summarised in recital 16 of that decision. By means of the same decision, the Commission called on interested parties to submit comments on the application by France of the Sernam 2 Decision.\n(9)\nOn 8 October 2008, the French authorities presented comments on the opening decision.\n(10)\nThe Commission received comments on this matter from interested parties. The first complainant submitted comments on 13 November 2008, the Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 nationale des chemins de fer (\u2018SNCF\u2019) on 6 February 2009, and the investment fund Butler Capital Partners (\u2018BCP\u2019) on 9 February 2009. The Commission forwarded the comments received to France on 25 March 2009, asking it to comment, which the French authorities did with respect to the first complainant\u2019s comments on 7 May 2009.\n(11)\nOn 15 March 2011, the second complainant served notice on the Commission to implement \u2018investigation measures\u2019 for the purposes of verifying the conditions of application of the Sernam 2 Decision. The Commission replied to this on 18 May 2011, indicating the investigation measures taken since the adoption of the opening decision.\n(12)\nOn 25 November 2009 and 29 November 2011, the Commission sent requests for information to the French authorities. Replies were received on 15 January 2010 and 25 January 2012 respectively.\n1.2. NATIONAL PROCEDURAL CONTEXT\n(13)\nOn 3 January 2007, the Mory group company asked the French authorities to issue two repayment orders: (1) one against Sernam SA concerning the EUR 41 million aid declared to be incompatible with the common market by the Sernam 2 Decision and which, in its opinion, had not in fact been recovered by France and (2) the other against the (undesignated) beneficiary of aid for restructuring Sernam SA allegedly granted by France with a view to the Sernam SA asset transfer operation (for the details of this operation, see section 2.4 of the present decision).\n(14)\nThe Minister for the Economy, Finance and Industry rejected the requests made by the second complainant by letter. The Mory group company appealed against this rejection decision on grounds of ulta vires before the Paris Administrative Court. As far as the Commission knows, this litigation is still pending.\n(15)\nIn addition, compulsory administration proceedings were brought on 31 January 2012 against the company Sernam Xpress (\u2018Sernam Xpress\u2019). Sernam Xpress is the company which received the assets and non-financial liabilities from Sernam SA at the time of the Sernam SA asset transfer operation (for the details of this operation, see section 2.4). The Nanterre Commercial Court ordered an observation period of six months and arranged a new hearing for 27 March 2012.\n2. DESCRIPTION\n2.1. SERNAM\n(16)\nSince it was set up in 1970 as part of SNCF, Sernam\u2019s activities have consisted in mail and express parcel and pallet delivery services (8).\n(17)\nOn 1 February 2000, all Sernam\u2019s business activities were assigned to a subsidiary and SCS Sernam (limited partnership) was thereby formed. SCS Sernam was transformed into a public limited company (Sernam SA) on 21 December 2001. In 2005, Sernam SA had 10 operating subsidiaries and a road transport service company, Sernam Transport Route.\n(18)\nOn 17 October 2005, Sernam Xpress received the assets and non-financial liabilities of Sernam SA on the transfer of Sernam SA\u2019s activities to Financi\u00e8re Sernam (for the details of this operation, see section 2.4). Sernam Xpress was at the time a wholly-owned subsidiary of Financi\u00e8re Sernam.\n(19)\nDuring 2006, BCP took a 51,8 % stake in the capital of Sernam Xpress. At the same time, Sernam Xpress acquired the company Coulonge, a transport firm established in Limoges.\n(20)\nDuring 2011, the companies Financi\u00e8re Sernam and Sernam Xpress found themselves obliged to recapitalise before the end of the financial year. Since BCP did not contribute the necessary capital, two operations were undertaken.\n(21)\nFirstly, in May 2011, Sernam Xpress contributed the Sernam brand to its operating subsidiary, Sernam Services (this contribution is valued at EUR 15 million).\n(22)\nSecondly, on 30 June 2011, the company Sernam Xpress was wound up and the company Financi\u00e8re Sernam, the sole partner, absorbed its assets and liabilities (an operation referred to as the \u2018transfer of all assets and liabilities\u2019).\n(23)\nConsequently, the Sernam group now consists of Financi\u00e8re Sernam and the subsidiaries of the ex-Sernam Xpress, which are Sernam Services, already mentioned, and the company Aster (\u2018Aster\u2019). Aster is the former company Sernam Transport Route. Sernam Xpress had sold this subsidiary in December 2005, and had granted a turnover guarantee to the purchaser. In March 2008, Sernam Xpress repurchased the company, which in the meantime had changed its name to Aster. At the time of the takeover, Sernam Xpress made a current account contribution of EUR 5 million to ASTER. This amount in current account was made over to ASTER during a board meeting held in July. In December 2011, Financi\u00e8re Sernam, which in the meantime had taken over Sernam Xpress (see recital 22), recapitalised the company ASTER by making over EUR 5 599 998, entered in its current account.\n(24)\nSince the financial situation of the Sernam group continued to deteriorate, compulsory administration proceedings were initiated on 31 January 2011 against the companies Financi\u00e8re Sernam and Sernam Services. On 3 February 2011, the subsidiary Aster was put into liquidation with temporary continuation of business. The Nanterre Commercial Court ordered an observation period of six months and arranged a new hearing for 27 March 2012.\n2.2. THE SERNAM 1 DECISION OF 23 MAY 2001\n(25)\nIn its Sernam 1 decision, the Commission authorised aid totalling EUR 503 million for restructuring SCS Sernam. The authorisation of this aid was based in particular on a commitment by France to sell the undertaking. 60 % of SCS Sernam\u2019s capital was to be taken over by G\u00e9odis SA (9), a transport and logistics company under general law quoted on the second market of the Paris Stock Exchange. In this way, G\u00e9odis SA should have become entirely liable for SCS Sernam\u2019s debts without limitation (10) and covered the additional costs of Sernam\u2019s restructuring up to EUR 67 million. In turn, SCS Sernam undertook to reduce the number of its operating sites from 107 to 72 over the period from 1999 to 2004, reduce its turnover by 18 %, reduce its staff and implement restructuring with the above-mentioned budget and within the prescribed timeframe, i.e. before the beginning of 2004.\n2.3. THE SERNAM 2 DECISION OF 20 OCTOBER 2004\n(26)\nIn its Sernam 2 Decision, the Commission found that the aid amounting to EUR 503 millions authorised under the Sernam 1 Decision, was paid out on conditions differing from those provided for in the Sernam 1 Decision, in particular the takeover by G\u00e9odis of 15 % (instead of the envisaged 60 %) of the shares in SCS Sernam. G\u00e9odis also renounced contributing itself to the restructuring costs of the undertaking to the amount of EUR 67 million.\n(27)\nIn the light of these factors, the Commission imposed conditions on the authorisation of the EUR 503 million of restructuring aid paid to Sernam SA. Article 3 of the Sernam 2 Decision, which contains these conditions, is worded as follows:\n\u2018Article 3\n1. Subject to paragraph 2, the following conditions shall be complied with:\n(a)\nSernam may develop only its activities to carry mail by railway in accordance with the Train Bloc Express (TBE) concept. In this regard, SNCF guarantees that it will offer to any other operator who so requests the same conditions as those granted to Sernam to develop TBE freight transport by rail.\n(b)\nIn return, Sernam shall, in the next two years as from the day on which this Decision is notified, fully replace its own road transport resources and services by road transport resources and services of one or more companies that are legally and economically independent of SNCF and are chosen in accordance with an open, transparent and non-discriminatory procedure.\nSernam\u2019s own road transport resources and services means all of the road resources - i.e. road transport vehicles - of the Sernam company of which it has full ownership or which it leases or rents.\nThe companies that take over Sernam\u2019s road activities shall perform the road transport services using their own resources.\n2. In the event that Sernam sells its assets en bloc by 30 June 2005 at market price, through a transparent and open procedure, to a company that has no legal link with SNCF, the conditions of paragraph 1 shall not be applicable.\u2019\n(28)\nIn the Sernam 2 Decision, the Commission also pointed out that the French authorities had paid additional aid amounting to EUR 41 million to Sernam. It considered this aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordered its recovery by France.\n2.4. THE TRANSFER OF THE ACTIVITIES OF SERNAM SA TO FINANCI\u00c8RE SERNAM\n(29)\nFor the purposes of implementing the Sernam 2 Decision, France claims to have respected the condition provided for in Article 3(2). It explains that SNCF, in a press release (11), invited any interested party to contact Bank ABN AMRO. Thirty-four industrial groups, financial groups or consortiums were allegedly invited to examine the file. The letters of invitation for the first round, sent by ABN AMRO to the parties which had requested the file, contain a call for tenders concerning the takeover of all the assets of Sernam SA.\n(30)\nAccording to the French authorities, Sernam\u2019s economic situation failed to elicit any proposals based on a positive valuation. Apparently, all the offers submitted under this procedure concluded that the value was very negative:\n-\n[candidate 1] (preliminary offer): EUR -120 million;\n-\n[candidate 2] (preliminary offer): EUR -90,4 million;\n-\n[candidate 3] (preliminary offer): EUR -90,4 million;\n-\n[candidate 4] (second-round offer): EUR -65,2 million;\n-\n[candidate 5] (second-round offer): EUR -56,4 million.\n(31)\nIn view of the absence of a firm offer, the Sernam SA management team, through a company still to be set up and initially called Bidco, then Financi\u00e8re Sernam, made a takeover offer.\n2.4.1. Effective date of the operations for the transfer of Sernam\u2019s activities to Financi\u00e8re Sernam\n(32)\nThis offer was forwarded to SNCF on 30 June 2005 and accepted in principle by the SNCF General Management on the same day. However, formalities were necessary for the formal conclusion of the memorandum of understanding between all the parties involved. The memorandum of understanding between SNCF, Sernam SA, Sernam Xpress (one of the 10 wholly-owned subsidiaries of Sernam SA, set up in 2002) and the managers of the future company Financi\u00e8re Sernam, was signed on 21 July 2005 (hereinafter: the \u2018memorandum of understanding of 21 July 2005\u2019). Financi\u00e8re Sernam was registered in the trade register on 14 October 2005. The various operations for the transfer of Sernam\u2019s activities to Financi\u00e8re Sernam, described in detail in the recitals below, were carried out on 17 October 2005.\n2.4.2. The various operations for the transfer of Sernam\u2019s activities to Financi\u00e8re Sernam\n(33)\nThe French authorities indicated that the transfer of Sernam\u2019s activities to Financi\u00e8re Sernam took place in four stages:\n(a)\nSNCF recapitalised its wholly-owned subsidiary Sernam SA to the amount of EUR 57 million;\n(b)\nSernam SA made a contribution to its wholly-owned subsidiary Sernam Xpress of all the assets, including the EUR 57 million from the recapitalisation described in point (a), and the liabilities of Sernam with the sole exception of the \u2018financial\u2019 liabilities (equity loan contracted by Sernam SA with the SNCF group, liability relating to the cancellation of the \u2018IBM-GPS\u2019 contract) amounting to EUR 38,5 million (12). In return for this contribution, Sernam SA received a share in Sernam Xpress with a nominal value of EUR 100;\n(c)\nSernam Xpress then undertook a capital increase of EUR 2 million which was underwritten in full by SNCF; following this operation, SNCF held the majority of the shares in Sernam Xpress;\n(d)\nSernam SA and SNCF assigned to Financi\u00e8re Sernam, for a price of EUR 2 million, all their shares in Sernam Xpress, which represented the entire capital of the latter.\n(34)\nSernam SA was put into compulsory liquidation on 15 December 2005. The amount of EUR 41 million repayable to SNCF under the Sernam 2 Decision was entered in the liabilities of the liquidation account. (13)\n(35)\nThe operations are shown in the following table:\n(36)\nThe memorandum of understanding of 21 July 2005, besides the recapitalisation by SNCF, of Sernam SA by EUR 57 million and of Sernam Xpress by EUR 2 million, provided for guarantees granted by SNCF to Financi\u00e8re Sernam (described in detail in recitals 72 to 85 of the opening decision) and a cancellation clause in the case of a negative decision by the Commission within five years following the conclusion of the memorandum of understanding (described in detail in recital 117 of the opening decision).\n2.5. REASONS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(37)\nIn its decision of 16 July 2008, the Commission wished to verify whether France had in fact, as it claims, complied with Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision and whether the procedure for the recovery of the incompatible aid amounting to EUR 41 million chosen by France, i.e. entering the debt to the State in the liabilities of the liquidation account of Sernam SA, in fact enabled the distortion of competition caused by this aid to be eliminated. In addition, the Commission wished to check whether the operation transferring the assets of Sernam SA did not give rise to new State aid to be regarded as incompatible with the internal market.\n2.6. COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES\n2.6.1. Comments by the complainants\n(38)\nFirstly, the first complainant considers that the conditions laid down in the Sernam 2 Decision for the sale of Sernam SA\u2019s assets were not complied with.\n(39)\nTo start with, it was alleged that the deadline imposed by the Sernam 2 Decision, i.e. 30 June 2005, to make the sale was not respected, as the transfer operations were approved only on 17 October 2005 and the sale of the shares should have occurred on the same day.\n(40)\nThen, regarding the price of the transfer, the first complainant considers that it was set solely by reference to the offer made by Financi\u00e8re Sernam. This offer was purportedly unlawful as it implied the granting of new aid, and in particular the recapitalisation of Sernam SA. Finally, the first complainant emphasises that Sernam Xpress was not a company independent of Sernam SA, as shown by the Commission in its opening decision.\n(41)\nMoreover, it is alleged that the transfer operations in reality constitute a share deal, i.e. the beneficiary entity is kept on the market with a mere change of owner.\n(42)\nIt also criticises the infringement of the condition of organising the sale through a transparent and open procedure. In its opinion, the sale of Sernam Xpress should have been subject to public consultation and invitation to tender after the dual recapitalisation of Sernam SA and Sernam Xpress, rather than that of Sernam SA.\n(43)\nSecond, the first complainant criticises manipulations in the valuation of the assets and liabilities transferred and the undervaluation of the entity sold.\n(44)\nThird, the first complainant lists a series of measures which, in its opinion, constitute new aid: the recapitalisation of EUR 57 million, the non-recovery of the EUR 41 million in unlawful aid, the write-off of Sernam SA\u2019s financial debts to SNCF. All these measures, in its opinion, constitute aid which is incompatible with the internal market.\n(45)\nFourth, the first complainant emphasises that Sernam SA should have been wound up rather than sold. It shares the Commission\u2019s doubts that certain costs were taken into account in the calculation of the liquidation and considers that it is not shown at any time that the real cost of restructuring Sernam was less than that of liquidation.\n(46)\nThe first complainant concludes from this that the French authorities have not only eluded the obligation to recover EUR 41 million in aid declared to be incompatible, but have also granted new aid amounting to at least EUR 95 million, to which should be added various aid measures granted in the form of guarantees.\n(47)\nThe second complainant, for its part, did not submit comments on the opening decision.\n2.6.2. Comments by interested parties considering that the Sernam 2 Decision was duly complied with\n2.6.2.1. Comments by SNCF\n(48)\nSNCF considers that it respected the condition provided for in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision. It claims to have sold all of Sernam\u2019s assets en bloc, before 30 June 2005, at market price, to a company that has no legal link, through a transparent and open procedure.\n(49)\nAccording to SNCF, the transfer operations were indissociable and simultaneous. The Commission could not therefore break them down artificially.\n(50)\nIt considers that in the case of a negative price, the principle of the private investor in a market economy would be respected if the cost of the transfer is lower than the cost of winding up, which the State would have borne as shareholder, and submits detailed observations to prove this.\n(51)\nFinally, it emphasises that the obligation relating to the recovery of the aid amounting to EUR 41 million has been entered in the liabilities of the liquidation account of Sernam SA.\n2.6.2.2. Comments by Butler Capital Partners\n(52)\nFirstly, BCP provides details of its involvement in the capital of Sernam Xpress.\n(53)\nSecondly, BCP specifies the objective pursued by the takeover of the company Coulonge.\n(54)\nThirdly, BCP denies that Sernam Xpress had a cash surplus following the capital injections of EUR 57 million and EUR 2 million. BCP would have had to reinject EUR 6 million to bring the cash flow to an acceptable level given the losses to be financed.\n(55)\nFourthly, BCP disputes that the benefit of the aid of EUR 41 million was transferred to Sernam Xpress. BCP considers that such a situation would be conceivable only if it were proved that the transfer of Sernam SA\u2019s activities was not made at market price. However, according to BCP, the transfer was made following an open, transparent and non-discriminatory procedure. BCP recalls too that the transfer process was accompanied by an expert valuation.\n(56)\nFinally, regarding the consequences of its takeover of Sernam, BCP analyses the capital increase as a sale and considers that, in accordance with the Banks (14) and SMI (15) case-law, the recovery of hypothetical aid cannot be imposed on Financi\u00e8re Sernam or its subsidiary Sernam Xpress.\n2.7. COMMENTS BY FRANCE\n2.7.1. Concerning compliance with the Sernam 2 Decision\n2.7.1.1. Concerning observance of the deadline for the sale\n(57)\nThe French authorities consider that the firm takeover offer, which is legally binding on the purchaser, was submitted on 30 June 2005 and accepted on the same day by SNCF, which made the agreement irrevocable under French contract law.\n2.7.1.2. Concerning the selling price\n(58)\nThe French authorities consider that the Sernam 2 Decision did not prohibit sale at a negative price and that case-law recognises that this can constitute a market price.\n(59)\nThe assets were apparently sold at the negative price of EUR 57 million, corresponding to the amount of the recapitalisation of Sernam SA by SNCF. This price was allegedly better than the indicative offers initially presented and constituted the only firm offer proposed by the market to SNCF. It was purportedly endorsed by several independent valuations (ABN Amro, Oddo Corporate Finance/Paul Hastings and the French Privatisations Board).\n(60)\nAccording to the French authorities, the prior recapitalisation undertaken by SNCF is merely an implementation arrangement. The Commission could not therefore refer to this recapitalisation to challenge the market value of the Sernam assets, since the existence of a market price precluded any categorisation as aid for the entire negative price.\n2.7.1.3. Concerning the sale of assets\n(61)\nThe French authorities consider the Commission\u2019s analysis, according to which the transfer of Sernam SA\u2019s activities to Financi\u00e8re Sernam comprises two successive operations, i.e.: (1) an intra-group transfer of assets en bloc from Sernam SA to Sernam Xpress (at this stage a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sernam SA), then (2) a sale of Sernam Xpress to Financi\u00e8re Sernam, corresponding to a share deal and not to a sale of assets, to be artificial and unjustified.\n(62)\nFirstly, the transfer operations were considered to correspond to a \u2018contribution and disposal operation\u2019 implemented through recapitalisation, i.e. an operation which is inextricably linked and undertaken for two reasons: (1) French law did not permit a sale of assets to be undertaken at a negative price, and (2) it was appropriate to ensure that the acquiring party has no legal link with SNCF.\n(63)\nSince its economic situation continued to be in deficit (the cumulated losses of the four financial years prior to the disposal amounted to EUR 309,2 million), the total value of Sernam SA\u2019s assets would have been negative.\n(64)\nTo comply with the prohibition of a sale at a negative price under French law and to ensure the economic neutrality of the disposal operation, it is customary for practitioners in the case of negative value of assets to be transferred (1) to provide that the price paid by the purchaser is symbolic and (2) to set up an arrangement intended to compensate the purchaser (either participation by the seller in a capital increase prior to the disposal or write-off by the seller of debts owed to it by the transferred company).\n(65)\nIn addition, in order to avoid Sernam SA\u2019s creditors calling into question the validity of the operation or exercising their right to oppose it, it was appropriate for the assets en bloc to be accompanied by the liabilities necessary to continue Sernam\u2019s business. Merely selling the assets would not have allowed inclusion of these liabilities.\n(66)\nIt was therefore appropriate to undertake a partial contribution of assets subject to the regulations on divisions under Articles L.236-16 to L.236-21 of the French Commercial Code. In this respect, the French authorities specify that the contribution is equivalent to a sale in that it also entails a transfer of ownership, through remuneration by shares issued by the company in receipt of the contribution.\n(67)\nAs, pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision, the acquiring party could have no legal link with SNCF, it was not possible to carry out the contribution of assets en bloc directly to Financi\u00e8re Sernam as, in this case, Sernam SA would automatically have become shareholder of Financi\u00e8re Sernam through the contribution. This would explain why there was a partial contribution of assets to Sernam Xpress then disposal of Sernam Xpress to Financi\u00e8re Sernam.\n(68)\nAccording to the French authorities, the partial contribution of assets to Sernam Xpress is not an intra-group transfer in any case, since Sernam Xpress is a \u2018shell company\u2019 used to accommodate the assets en bloc of Sernam SA for the sole purposes of permitting their simultaneous disposal to the acquiring party - the company Financi\u00e8re Sernam - and not to continue the business of the parent company. These assets were purportedly accommodated and contributed at their market value to Sernam Xpress for the purposes of carrying out the operation. In any case, the contribution of assets would have implied transfer of ownership, for which Sernam Xpress had issued a share with a nominal value of EUR 100. According to the French authorities, this share represents the price of the real value of the assets and liabilities contributed, once recapitalised to the amount of EUR 57 million.\n(69)\nThe French authorities enclosed with their comments in response to the opening decision the opinion of Nicolas Molfessis, Law Professor, according to which \u2018Under French law \u2026 SNCF would not be permitted to dispose of Sernam's assets directly en bloc to Financi\u00e8re Sernam; under the legal rules applicable, SNCF was obliged to set up a contribution and disposal operation to comply with the constraints imposed by the Commission:\n-\nsince French law makes no provision for the very concept of sale at a negative price, the operation could not be undertaken at market price, as imposed by the Commission, without prior recapitalisation;\n-\nsince French law makes no provision for the concept of the assignment of debt, and makes the assignment of contract conditional upon the prior agreement of all the contractors assigned, an agreement which is impossible to obtain in practice, the assignment of the operating liabilities necessary to continue the business called for recourse to the technique of the partial contribution of assets to overcome this obstacle. Recourse to the technique of the partial contribution of assets required the intervention of a company, Sernam Xpress, to comply with the condition of absence of legal link between the assignor and the assignee imposed by the Commission.\nThe arrangement put in place by Sernam must be assimilated to a disposal of the assets en bloc:\n-\nThe contribution and disposal operation, which is well-known in practice, has been assimilated by the Court of Cassation to a disposal of assets whenever indicators showed that the two operations were inextricably linked, since in the end their sole aim is the transfer of the assets;\n-\nSuch an inextricable link is perfectly obvious in the present case, since the various agreements signed between the parties very clearly show the will of the parties to regard the various operations as interdependent, and having the sole objective of the disposal of Sernam\u2019s assets to Financi\u00e8re Sernam.\u2019\n(70)\nAccording to the French authorities, Sernam SA\u2019s assets were sold en bloc to a company that has no legal link with SNCF, at a negative price corresponding to a market price, following negotiation of the disposal conducted in the context of an open, transparent, unconditional and non-discriminatory tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision.\n2.7.1.4. Concerning the open and transparent nature of the selection process\n(71)\nFor the French authorities, the assertion that the file transmitted to potential buyers of Sernam SA\u2019s assets did not refer to the sale of Sernam Xpress but to the sale of Sernam SA\u2019s assets is materially incorrect. Moreover, the requirement of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tendering procedure would not imply undertaking a new tendering procedure after the recapitalisation, since this is merely the direct result of the tendering procedure and the negative price resulting from it.\n2.7.1.5. Concerning legitimate expectations\n(72)\nThe French authorities consider that by providing explicitly for the possibility to undertake the disposal of Sernam\u2019s assets en bloc, the Sernam 2 Decision gave rise to expectations on the part of SNCF and the French authorities based on the fact that they were authorised to proceed in this way. Initiating the State aid investigation procedure would therefore ignore the legitimate expectations that the French authorities had placed in the Sernam 2 Decision, especially as they had acted with total transparency in relation to the Commission, providing it with all the relevant explanations on the terms and conditions of this disposal.\n2.7.2. Concerning the alleged manipulations carried out at the time of the valuation of the assets and liabilities transferred from Sernam SA to Sernam Xpress\n(73)\nConcerning the alleged manipulations carried out at the time of the valuation, the French authorities firstly reject the discount of EUR 22 million purportedly made on the valuation of the assets. In fact, since the operation in question was a partial contribution of assets followed by a disposal, the accounting rules applicable required valuation not at net accounting value as the first complainant claims, but based on the current value of the assets and liabilities contributed. These values were assessed in accordance with the market price or valuations by independent experts. The accounting rules in force were also applied for the valuation of the deferred tax credits. As regards the valuation of the brand portfolio, this was based on an estimate made by the European Commission on 23 May 2001 at the time of a contribution by SNCF to SCS Sernam.\n(74)\nWith regard to the valuation of the liabilities, the French authorities consider that only the liabilities necessary to continue the business of the company in receipt of the contribution were transferred. Moreover, in their view, the valuation of the badwill corresponds only to the entry in the accounts of the negative market value of EUR 57 million.\n2.7.3. Concerning the absence of obligation to recover the aid amounting to EUR 41 million from Sernam Xpress\n(75)\nThe French authorities emphasise that the distinction between share deal and asset deal, which forms the basis for the Commission\u2019s arguments developed in the context of the SMI (16) and CDA (17) cases, is not relevant in the present case.\n2.7.3.1. Concerning the breakdown of the operation into intra-group transfer and share deal\n(76)\nFor the reasons described in recitals 61 to 70, the French authorities consider that the operations for the transfer of the activities from Sernam SA to Financi\u00e8re Sernam do not constitute an intra-group transfer followed by a share deal, but a disposal of assets to a third party.\n(77)\nIn the alternative, they emphasise that the market price of Sernam Xpress would necessarily have taken into account the existence of the debt of EUR 41 million if the aid had been transferred. Under this assumption, the negative price would have been EUR 98 million (57 + 41). However, the negative price \u2018paid\u2019 - in reality received - by Financi\u00e8re Sernam was allegedly only EUR 57 million. Consequently, the seller would have saved EUR 41 million, but it is therefore the seller who would have kept the economic benefit of the aid. They refer in this context to the Banks judgment (18).\n2.7.3.2. Concerning compliance with the conditions of the CDA and SMI judgments\n(78)\nThe French authorities maintain that, in its CDA judgment, the General Court considered that the fact that CDA continued the business of the undertakings which have benefited from aid does not, as such, prove the existence of an intention to evade the effects of a recovery order (19).\n(79)\nThe General Court specified that there was no intention to evade the effects of the recovery order in so far as a purchase price in line with the market was paid by CDA for the takeover of the company LCA\u2019s assets (20).\n(80)\nAccording to the French authorities, since Sernam Xpress had acquired ownership of the assets and part of the liabilities from Sernam SA at their market value, this operation did not transfer to Sernam Xpress the actual benefit of the advantage generated by the granting of aid of EUR 41 million. Furthermore, the Commission cannot argue that, as a result of the takeover of its assets, Sernam SA remains like an empty shell from which it is not possible to secure repayment of the unlawful aid. Such an argument, already developed in the CDA judgment, was rejected by the General Court (21).\n(81)\nThe French authorities emphasise that the disposal of Sernam SA\u2019s assets en bloc was a possibility explicitly considered by the Commission. For SNCF, the fact of transferring Sernam\u2019s assets to a company en bloc, at market price, through an open and transparent procedure, could not therefore under any circumstances be considered an evasion.\n(82)\nThis is all the more compelling as the Commission itself apparently considered that such an evasion was ruled out \u2018where, in addition to taking place at the market price, the transfer of the beneficiary company\u2019s assets \u2018en bloc\u2019 is made as part of an unconditional procedure that is open to all the company\u2019s competitors\u2019 (22).\n(83)\nConcerning the Commission\u2019s argument (23) that the operation not only allowed the assets to be sheltered as authorised by the CDA judgment, but also a structure to be created permitting the financing of new investments such as the takeover of the company Coulonge, it sufficed to observe that the acquisition of the company Coulonge Services by Sernam Xpress was carried out simultaneously with the takeover of Sernam Xpress by BCP and that Sernam Xpress was able to draw on the takeover by BCP by injection of new capital to undertake this acquisition.\n(84)\nConsequently, contrary to the doubts expressed by the Commission, \u2018the third criterion\u2019 of the CDA judgment, as identified by the French authorities, is therefore also complied with.\n2.7.4. Concerning the new aid to Sernam Xpress and/or Financi\u00e8re Sernam\n(85)\nConcerning the existence of new aid in the memorandum of understanding of 21 July 2005 (recapitalisation of Sernam SA by SNCF amounting to EUR 57 million; recapitalisation of Sernam Xpress by SNCF amounting to EUR 2 million; guarantees granted by SNCF to Financi\u00e8re Sernam; cancellation clause), the French authorities consider that, where a sale took place at market price following a tendering procedure which was open and transparent and at a cost lower than the cost of winding-up, this does not include any aid components.\n(86)\nIn addition, the negative price presented by Financi\u00e8re Sernam allegedly corresponds to the estimates made by independent experts.\n(87)\nMoreover, the French authorities specify that the cancellation clause was included in the memorandum of understanding of 21 July 2005 at the request of Financi\u00e8re Sernam and solely to protect it against the risk of a negative decision by the Commission. The French authorities consider that no disposal would have been possible without this type of clause and claim that the Commission did not call this clause into question in a previous case (24).\n3. ASSESSMENT BY THE COMMISSION\n3.1. REMINDER OF REASONING BEHIND ARTICLE 3 OF THE SERNAM 2 DECISION\n(88)\nFirstly, the Commission recalls that the present procedure was initiated under Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (25), as the Commission had received indications that France has misused the aid authorised, subject to conditions, by the Sernam 2 Decision, following the misuse of aid authorised, also subject to conditions, by the Sernam 1 decision.\n(89)\nThe Commission considers it appropriate to recall the reasons which led to it imposing the conditions provided for by Article 3 of the Sernam 2 Decision (26):\n\u2018[\u2026] taking account of the misuse of aid established above and the extension of the period of the restructuring plan, the Commission takes the view that Sernam should take a specific compensatory measure by permanently withdrawing from market segments with overcapacity so as to warrant approval of part of the aid at issue.\nThe immediate consequence of granting State aid in markets with structural overcapacity or in decline is that a company that would have had to give up its business on account of the stated difficulties would be enabled to artificially occupy market shares for which there is a very strong demand, to the detriment of financially sound competing companies. Care should therefore be taken to avoid driving away financially sound competitors from the market to the benefit of those that appear to be unable to survive by their own efforts.\nBearing this in mind, the Commission is of the opinion that Sernam should permanently withdraw from market segments with overcapacity, in this case the market segment of groupage/traditional mail carried by road.\nEven though Sernam has already started this withdrawal, the Commission believes that it is not enough and that such it should be sustained. The Commission therefore considers it necessary to impose conditions which (i) will enable Sernam to continue moving through innovative diversification towards a market segment to be developed (and therefore without overcapacity) and (ii) will make it possible to replace Sernam\u2019s services by services of other operators (which will have the effect of freeing up Sernam\u2019s market shares in these segments) in market segments with overcapacity or stagnation or in decline.\n[\u2026]\nThe Commission also recalls that, if Sernam is sold in its entirety (assets and liabilities) as intended by the French authorities, the conditions of the decision (takeover of Sernam\u2019s road activities by other companies and diversification of its activities towards rail freight) should in any case apply. On the other hand, should Sernam sell its assets en bloc, the Commission recalls that the above two conditions concerning the company\u2019s restructuring will not apply as Sernam will no longer operate in its current legal form and will cede its market shares to the independent acquiring party (which will de facto continue its activities with Sernam\u2019s assets).\u2019\n(90)\nThe Sernam 2 Decision therefore considers two different sale scenarios for Sernam SA: sale of the whole of Sernam SA (assets and liabilities), and sale of the assets only. Under the first hypothesis, the company acquiring the assets and liabilities is subject to the conditions set out in Article 3(1) of the Sernam 2 Decision; under the second, these conditions do not apply.\n(91)\nFurthermore, the broader context of the Commission\u2019s Sernam 1 and Sernam 2 Decisions should be recalled. Sernam SA, a constantly loss-making company, was the beneficiary of State operating aid, which was paid to it by its parent company, SNCF, and was necessary for the survival of the undertaking.\n(92)\nIt was necessary to put an end to the artificial survival of a company which was unduly occupying market shares when it was not competitive. This resulted, on the one hand, in the process of regular replenishment of the company Sernam by the State being brought to an end, and, on the other hand in the distortions of competition created by this replenishment having to either disappear or give rise to compensatory measures. In this way, the EUR 41 million of unlawful, incompatible aid granted to the company Sernam between 2001 and 2004 was to be recovered and compensatory measures were to be adopted releasing market shares in exchange for the EUR 503 million in restructuring aid.\n(93)\nHowever, the Commission observes straight away that the way in which France intended to implement the 2004 decision is directly counter to the objectives thus pursued. In fact, the French authorities continued to grant operating aid, under cover of implementing this decision, and endeavoured to preserve the economic continuity of the undertaking without releasing market share and on the contrary trying to strengthen its competitive position.\n(94)\nAt this stage, it is appropriate to carry out a methodical examination of the means implemented by the French authorities to achieve their objectives.\n3.2. MISUSE OF THE AID AUTHORISED BY THE SERNAM 2 DECISION\n(95)\nThe French authorities confirm non-compliance with the conditions set out in Article 3(1) of the Sernam 2 Decision. Consequently, the Commission can confine itself to verifying whether France complied with the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision. As a reminder, this paragraph is worded as follows:\n\u2018In the event that Sernam sells its assets en bloc by 30 June 2005, at market price through a transparent and open procedure to a company that has no legal link with SNCF, the conditions of paragraph 1 shall not be applicable.\u2019\n(96)\nAs will be shown below, France failed to comply with these conditions.\n3.2.1. The transfer of the activities was not completed by 30 June 2005\n(97)\nThe observations of the French authorities and the first complainant show that, on 30 June 2005, the SNCF management only accepted the firm offer of Financi\u00e8re Sernam in principle. However, the memorandum of understanding which is binding on all the parties to the transaction was not signed until 21 July 2005 and the various transfer operations were carried out only on 17 October 2005.\n(98)\nThe Commission concludes from this that the transfer of the activities of Sernam SA to Financi\u00e8re Sernam did not take place by 30 June 2005 at the latest, even though this was a requirement under the Sernam 2 Decision. This reason alone would already suffice to conclude that France misused the aid authorised conditionally by the Sernam 2 Decision.\n3.2.2. The transfer of activities does not constitute a sale (27)\n(99)\nA contract of sale under the legal systems of the Member States of the Union is based on principles developed in Roman law (emptio venditio). The sale consists in the transfer of ownership of a good against the payment of a price. This price, as the French Government emphasises in respect of French law, must be a positive price.\n(100)\nA transaction by which the person wishing to transfer ownership of one or more goods offers money to the person who acquires them is not a sale, but a different type of contract.\n(101)\nIn the present case, SNCF paid EUR 59 million, by undertaking the recapitalisation of Sernam SA for EUR 57 million and of Sernam Xpress for EUR 2 million respectively, and granted various guarantees to Financi\u00e8re Sernam. The payment of EUR 2 million by Financi\u00e8re Sernam in favour of SNCF and Sernam SA neutralises the recapitalisation of Sernam Xpress, but not the other components of the transaction. Consequently, the contract concluded between SNCF and Financi\u00e8re Sernam cannot be termed a sales contract. For that matter, this is not disputed by the French authorities, which explain that the various operations for the transfer of the activities of Sernam SA to Financi\u00e8re Sernam do not constitute a sale as French law does not permit them to carry out a sale which would have led to this result.\n(102)\nThe Commission concludes that the contract concluded between SNCF and Financi\u00e8re Sernam is not a sale. For this reason too, Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision has not been observed as there was no sale. Consequently, France has misused the aid authorised conditionally by the Sernam 2 Decision.\n3.2.3. The transfer of the activities is not a sale of assts but a transfer of Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities)\n(103)\nEven if the transfer of the activities of Sernam SA to Financi\u00e8re Sernam did constitute a sale, compliance with Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision presupposes that this sale relates solely to the assets, and not to Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities). This results from recital 217 of the Sernam 2 Decision, cited at recital 89 of the present decision.\n(104)\nAs stated in section 2.4, the transfer of Sernam SA\u2019s activities by SNCF to Financi\u00e8re Sernam is based on the use by Sernam SA of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Sernam Xpress, to which Sernam SA\u2019s assets were transferred together with its liabilities, with the exception of some of its debts to its parent company, SNCF. Before this transfer, Sernam SA had been recapitalised by SNCF to the amount of EUR 57 million and this new capital was included in the assets transferred. Once the transfer had been made, Sernam Xpress was in turn recapitalised by SNCF to the amount of EUR 2 million. The Sernam Xpress shares were then sold to Financi\u00e8re Sernam for the same amount (EUR 2 million).\n(105)\nAs indicated in section 2.7.1.3, the French authorities justify this operation by the two-fold constraint of French law and the Sernam 2 Decision.\n(106)\nThey point out that the overall result of the operation is identical to that of the sale of the assets. It should therefore be assimilated to a sale of Sernam SA\u2019s assets en bloc within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision.\n(107)\nThe Commission comes to a different conclusion, for two reasons.\n3.2.3.1. The transfer consists in an intra-group transfer en bloc of the assets and liabilities, followed by a sale of shares (share deal) of the subsidiary which received them\n(108)\nThe operation carried out by SNCF enabled Financi\u00e8re Sernam to acquire the shares of Sernam Xpress and therefore to undertake a sale of shares (\u2018share deal\u2019).\n(109)\nFirst, it is true that SNCF undertook an operation termed under French law, according to the French authorities, a \u2018partial contribution of assets\u2019 (in reality of assets and liabilities). However, even analysed in isolation, this operation could not be termed a \u2018sale of assets to a third party\u2019. It took place for a negative price of EUR 57 million and does not therefore constitute a sale (see section 3.2.2). In addition, it relates not only to the assets, but also to the entire liabilities, with the exception of certain debts of Sernam SA to its parent company, SNCF. It was therefore a transfer of Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities) and not a sale of the assets only (also see section 3.2.3.2).\n(110)\nFinally, this transfer was made to a wholly-owned subsidiary, i.e. Sernam Xpress, an ad hoc entity intended to receive Sernam SA\u2019s assets and liabilities for the sole purposes of itself being sold to Financi\u00e8re Sernam. Therefore this contribution was not made to a third-party undertaking independent of SNCF.\n(111)\nSecondly, the Sernam Xpress shares were sold to Financi\u00e8re Sernam, which does not constitute a sale of assets to a third party either, but a transfer of shares or share deal (and therefore a transfer of the undertaking in its entirety).\n(112)\nConsequently, none of the operations carried out by SNCF constitutes a sale of Sernam SA\u2019s assets en bloc to a company that has no legal link with SNCF and the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision were not observed.\n3.2.3.2. The transfer is not limited to the assets, but comprises Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities)\n(113)\nRecital 217 of the Sernam 2 Decision, cited at recital 89 of the present decision, establishes a clear distinction between a sale of assets, on the one hand, and a sale of Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities), on the other. This recital clearly shows that if the French authorities were to undertake a sale of Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities), as they intended at the time of the adoption of the Sernam 2 Decision, they were obliged to comply with the conditions set out in Article 3(1) of the Sernam 2 Decision.\n(114)\nThe result of the various transfer operations is that Financi\u00e8re Sernam, through its acquisition of Sernam Xpress, acquires Sernam SA\u2019s assets and liabilities in their entirety at the time of the adoption of the Sernam 2 Decision, apart from the following exceptions: on the one hand, the assets were boosted by the injections of EUR 57 million in favour of Sernam SA and EUR 2 million in favour of Sernam Xpress (also see section 3.2.4 of the present decision) and, on the other hand, the liabilities were reduced by the amount of the equity loan contracted by the company Sernam SA with the SNCF group, a liability relating to the cancellation of the \u2018IBM-GPS\u2019 contract, and the amount of the obligation to repay the incompatible aid amounting to EUR 41 million.\n(115)\nHowever, these marginal adjustments cannot hide the fact that the bulk of Sernam SA\u2019s assets and liabilities were indeed transferred first to Sernam Xpress and then to Financi\u00e8re Sernam.\n(116)\nThe transfer of the business is not therefore a sale of assets, but a sale of Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities), barring a few exceptions. Consequently, and for this reason too, the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision were not observed.\n3.2.4. The transfer is not limited to the assets owned by Sernam SA at the time of the Sernam 2 Decision, but were increased by EUR 59 million\n(117)\nOn the assets side, the Commission also notes that the sum of EUR 59 million was added by the recapitalisations of Sernam SA and Sernam Xpress and that, at economic level, taking account of the payment of EUR 2 million by Financi\u00e8re Sernam, this addition comes to EUR 57 million. Such an addition to the assets is not authorised by Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision.\n3.2.5. The transfer of the business did not take place through a transparent and open procedure\n(118)\nThe French authorities at first organised a transparent and open procedure. However, at the end of this procedure, SNCF had not received any binding offer.\n(119)\nFollowing the failure of the transparent and open procedure, the contract concerning the various operations for the transfer of Sernam SA\u2019s business was concluded with Financi\u00e8re Sernam. Since the latter did not participate as such and in an autonomous manner in the transparent and open procedure, the transfer of the business finally did not take place through a transparent and open procedure.\n(120)\nFor this reason too, the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision were not observed.\n3.2.6. The ultimate purpose of a sale of assets was not observed\n(121)\nRecital 217 of the Sernam 2 Decision explains the ultimate purpose of a sale of assets as follows:\n\u2018Sernam [\u2026] will cede its market shares to the independent acquiring party (which will de facto continue its activities with Sernam\u2019s assets).\u2019\n(122)\nThe ultimate purpose of a sale of assets was therefore to cede market shares and Sernam SA\u2019s assets, and to allow a third party to use these assets. The sale of the assets therefore aimed to break off Sernam SA\u2019s economic activity.\n(123)\nHowever, in the present case, Sernam SA was acquired in its entirety by its management, regrouped in the future Financi\u00e8re Sernam. The economic continuity is total; furthermore, the undertaking has been released from a significant part of its debt and received new capital amounting to EUR 59 million, of which EUR 57 million remains the economic responsibility of SNCF. Consequently, apart from the fact that the operation put in place does not comply with the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision, it does not allow the objectives pursued by this decision to be attained either. On the contrary, it leads to strengthening of the economic entity which is liable to increase the distortions of competition that the measures imposed by the decision aimed precisely to allay.\n3.2.7. The arguments presented by France do not allow compliance with Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision to be shown\n(124)\nFrance\u2019s argument that the operations taken as a whole are equivalent to a sale of assets en bloc cannot be accepted. In fact, through its nature, the first characteristic of a sale of assets en bloc is that it is not based on a sale of shares. Consequently, the Commission cannot accept the argument that several different legal instruments (partial contribution of assets and liabilities, then share deal) are equivalent to a given legal instrument (sale of assets) since one of the legal instruments actually implemented is the negation of the legal instrument sought.\n(125)\nLikewise, the argument that a direct sale of Sernam SA\u2019s assets to Financi\u00e8re Sernam is not possible under French law cannot be accepted. Firstly, it should be recalled that the Sernam 2 Decision left France two alternative means of implementing this decision. Assuming that the sale of the assets proved inapplicable, the French authorities could always implement the decision by following the possibility provided for by Article 3(1) of the Sernam 2 Decision (confining of Sernam SA\u2019s own activities to carrying mail by railway, with the road transport subcontracted). Secondly, if the third-party creditors were really opposed to a sale at a negative price, Sernam SA could have been the subject of a collective procedure, which means that the sale of assets could have taken place under this procedure.\n(126)\nFinally, if the French authorities were experiencing difficulties in implementing the Sernam 2 Decision, they should have recontacted the Commission to find a solution, in agreement with it, concerning other arrangements pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation provided for in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). Although the French authorities did visit the Commission on 24 November 2004 and wrote to it officially on 21 December 2004 to inform it of the choice to sell the assets en bloc, without describing the key components, it should be stressed that at no time did France notify the Commission of any changes to the restructuring plan conditionally approved by the latter in the Sernam 2 Decision. On the other hand, section 3.2.3 of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (28) confirms that a Member State may not deviate from the restructuring plan without notifying and obtaining the prior approval of the Commission.\n(127)\nThe Commission never gave its approval to the transfer of Sernam SA\u2019s activities to Financi\u00e8re Sernam, implemented by France.\n3.2.8. Conclusion: France failed to comply with Article 3 of the Sernam 2 Decision and misused the aid of EUR 503 million\n(128)\nIn conclusion, in the Commission\u2019s opinion, Article 3 of the Sernam 2 Decision was not respected. Consequently, the restructuring aid of EUR 503 million conditionally authorised by the Sernam 2 Decision was improperly used.\n3.2.9. The aid of EUR 503 million is incompatible with the internal market\n(129)\nSince the aid of EUR 503 million was used by the recipient in breach of the Sernam 2 Decision, it is not compatible with the internal market on the basis of this decision.\n(130)\nAccording to the Court of Justice case-law, it is for the Member State to invoke the reasons for compatibility of aid. Since France has not invoked any reason for compatibility, the Commission concludes that the aid of EUR 503 million is incompatible with the internal market and must be recovered, together with interest from the date on which it was made available.\n(131)\nThis recovery must be made from Financi\u00e8re Sernam and its subsidiaries, and notably Sernam Services and Aster, which are currently continuing the economic activity which received the aid, previously engaged in by Sernam SA (now wound up) and then by Sernam Xpress (the assets and liabilities of which were absorbed by Financi\u00e8re Sernam following a transfer of all assets and liabilities). In fact, it is appropriate to consider, firstly, that Sernam Xpress took over all the assets and a portion of the liabilities from Sernam SA following a transaction which took place within the group. Sernam Xpress therefore continued the economic activity of Sernam SA (also see the detailed account in section 3.3). Then, on account of the transfer of all assets and liabilities, Financi\u00e8re Sernam is the legal successor to Sernam Xpress. Finally, Financi\u00e8re Sernam and its subsidiaries, and notably Sernam Service and Aster, are continuing the business of Sernam SA and Sernam Xpress and therefore continuing to benefit from the aid of EUR 503 million initially granted to Sernam SA.\n3.3. THE RECOVERY OF THE AID OF EUR 41 MILLION\n(132)\nThe State aid of EUR 41 million which was to be recovered by France from its recipient under the Sernam 2 Decision has been entered in the liabilities of the liquidation account of the company Sernam SA.\n(133)\nThe French authorities consider that pursuant to Article 4 of the Sernam 2 Decision, the transfer of the activities of Sernam SA to Financi\u00e8re Sernam through a procedure that they term transparent and open has the consequence of confining the recovery obligation to the company Sernam SA only.\n(134)\nArticle 4 of the Sernam 2 Decision is worded as follows:\n\u2018Any partial or full sale of Sernam shall be effected at market price and through a transparent procedure that is open to all its competitors. Under these conditions, the Sernam company shall, if it continues to exist, be responsible for paying back the aid of EUR 41 million.\u2019\n(135)\nArticle 4 draws a distinction according to whether or not there has been an interruption of Sernam\u2019s economic activity. In the case of the disappearance of this activity, recovery is not necessary from the parties who have acquired the assets at market price through a transparent and open procedure.\n(136)\nThe Commission notes moreover that in their case-law, the Court of Justice and the General Court attach decisive importance to these same factors.\n(137)\nThe SMI judgment (29) draws a distinction between two hypotheses in the case of the sale of the activities for which aid has been received, i.e. the sale of the shares of the undertaking, following which the undertaking that has benefited from aid retains its legal personality (share deal), and the sale of all or part of the assets of the undertaking to another undertaking, following which the assisted economic activity is no longer carried out by the same legal person (asset deal).\n(138)\nAs regards the share deal, the Court of Justice ruled that (30):\n\u2018[\u2026] where an undertaking that has benefited from unlawful State aid is bought at the market price, that is to say at the highest price which a private investor acting under normal competitive conditions was ready to pay for that company in the situation it was in, in particular after having enjoyed State aid, the aid element was assessed at the market price and included in the purchase price. In such circumstances, the buyer cannot be regarded as having benefited from an advantage in relation to other market operators (see, to that effect, Case 305/89 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1603, paragraph 40).\nIn the present case, the undertaking to which unlawful State aid was granted retains its legal personality and continues to carry out, for its own account, the activities subsidised by the State aid. Therefore, it is normally this undertaking that retains the competitive advantage connected with that aid and it is therefore this undertaking that must be required to repay an amount equal to that aid. [\u2026]\u2019\n(139)\nAs regards the asset deal, the Court of Justice continues as follows (31):\n\u2018It is certainly possible that, in the event that hive-off companies are created in order to continue some of the activities of the undertaking that received the aid, where that undertaking has gone bankrupt, those companies may also, if necessary, be required to repay the aid in question, where it is established that they actually continue to benefit from the competitive advantage linked with the receipt of the aid. This could be the case, inter alia, where those hive-off companies acquire the assets of the company in liquidation without paying the market price in return or where it is established that the creation of such companies evades the obligation to repay that aid.\u2019\n(140)\nThe same distinction is to be found in the Seleco judgment (32). In this judgment, the Court of Justice confirms that the Commission may be compelled to require that the recovery is not restricted to the original firm but is extended to the firm which continues the activity, using the transferred means of production, in cases where certain elements of the transfer point to economic continuity between the two firms. The Court also accepted the relevance of the following indicators to establish economic continuity: the purpose of the transfer (assets and liabilities, continuity of the workforce, bundled assets), the transfer price, the identity of the shareholders or owners of the acquiring firm and of the original firm, the moment at which the transfer was carried out (after the start of the investigation, the initiation of the procedure or the final decision) and, lastly, the economic logic of the transaction (33).\n(141)\nIt seems appropriate also to emphasise that the sales of assets in the SMI and Seleco cases were undertaken under collective proceedings, under the supervision of a court. They concerned only part of the assets of the undertakings subject to the collective proceedings. In addition, according to the Court, it was not established that they did not correspond to market conditions.\n(142)\nThe General Court analysed an asset deal in the CDA judgment (34) and in particular checked whether in the case in point there was evidence permitting the conclusion that the recovery order was being evaded through a partial sale of assets. The General Court considered that such an intention had not been established by the Commission in this case and that CDA did not retain the actual benefit of the competitive advantage connected with the receipt of the aid granted. The General Court based this finding on two matters of fact: the sale was confined to part of the assets, sold en bloc and proceeding in that way (i.e. sale en bloc) made it possible to obtain a higher sum than would have been obtained by selling the assets in question separately.\n(143)\nIt is therefore appropriate to examine the transfer of Sernam SA\u2019s activities to Financi\u00e8re Sernam in the light of the criteria developed by the Court of Justice and General Court in order to establish whether it is appropriate to extend the recovery to Financi\u00e8re Sernam and its subsidiaries, Sernam Services and Aster.\n(144)\nAs regards firstly the transfer of all the assets and liabilities, with the exception of the three financial liabilities (equity loan contracted by the company Sernam SA with the SNCF group, liability relating to the cancellation of the \u2018IBM-GPS\u2019 contract; obligation to repay the incompatible aid of EUR 41 million), from Sernam SA to Sernam Xpress, the Commission points out that this transfer covered the undertaking in its entirety (see section 3.2.3). There is therefore economic continuity between Sernam SA and Sernam Xpress. This distinguishes the present case from the facts which gave rise to the SMI, Seleco and CDA judgments, which concerned the sale of only part of the assets. In addition, the transfer took place within a group. It took place after a final decision by the Commission ordering the recovery of the aid and its only economic logic is to allow the continuation of the Sernam SA\u2019s activities, without having to comply with the conditions imposed by Article 3 of the Sernam 2 Decision. All the criteria evidencing economic continuity within the meaning of the decision and the Seleco judgment are therefore met.\n(145)\nThe Commission points out incidentally that the transfer to Sernam Xpress does not correspond to market conditions. The transfer to Sernam Xpress was made at a negative price and is not the result of a transparent and open procedure (see section 3.2.5). To the negative price of EUR 57 million, which is perceived as operating aid enabling the losses of Sernam Xpress to be covered for the years from 2005 to 2008 (35), is added the write-off of Sernam SA debts to SNCF amounting to EUR 38,5 million (see recital 27). Finally, the Commission points out too that the liabilities remaining in Sernam SA are debts to third parties and not to SNCF. Through the capital injection of EUR 57 million, SNCF enabled Sernam Xpress, at least for the period from 2005 to 2008, to honour these debts in their entirety. If, on the other hand, SNCF had sold only the assets at a positive price, the debts of Sernam SA in relation to third parties would have been honoured only up to the proceeds from the sale. This is an additional indicator that the contractual balance between SNCF and Financi\u00e8re Sernam does not correspond to market conditions.\n(146)\nIt should also be pointed out that the negative price of EUR 57 million is higher than the best offer received during the unsuccessful tendering procedure which had been a negative price of EUR 56,4 million (second-round offer [candidate 5]).\n(147)\nThe transfer enabled Sernam Xpress to elude the recovery order for EUR 41 million imposed on Sernam SA, and enabled it to continue Sernam SA\u2019s activities without having to repay this aid and without having to comply with the conditions of Article 3 of the Sernam 2 Decision.\n(148)\nFor these reasons, the Commission concludes that the transfer of the activities from Sernam SA to Sernam Xpress had the consequence that Sernam Xpress continued to benefit from the competitive advantage linked with the receipt of the aid granted. In fact, there was economic continuity between the two companies and the transfer corresponds to an evasion of the recovery order imposed on Sernam SA.\n(149)\nAs explained in the SMI and Seleco judgments, the sale of shares in a company which is the beneficiary of unlawful aid by a shareholder to a third party does not affect the requirement for recovery from the recipient company. Consequently, the sale of the Sernam Xpress shares to Financi\u00e8re Sernam did not have the consequence of releasing Sernam Xpress from the requirement to repay the aid of EUR 41 million.\n(150)\nFollowing the merger between Sernam Xpress and Financi\u00e8re Sernam, the obligation regarding recovery was transferred to Financi\u00e8re Sernam. Furthermore, the latter and its subsidiaries, and notably Sernam Services and Aster, are continuing the business of Sernam SA and Sernam Xpress and are therefore continuing to benefit from the aid of EUR 41 million initially granted to Sernam SA.\n(151)\nFurthermore, for the reasons set out under point 3.4 below, the arguments inferred by the French authorities from the application of the principle of the private investor in a market economy must be discounted.\n3.4. CONCERNING THE NEW AID GRANTED TO SERNAM XPRESS\n(152)\nThe memorandum of understanding of 21 July 2005 provides for a certain number of measures, which may constitute new aid (cf. recital 36 above). The Commission must check whether these measures constitute new aid and whether, if appropriate, this aid can be declared compatible with the internal market.\n(153)\nAccording to the French authorities, all these measures conform to the principle of the private investor in a market economy. SNCF allegedly transferred the activities of Sernam SA to the company having submitted the best offer received during a transparent and open tendering procedure and this offer, even though it consists of a negative price, is purportedly less costly for the State as shareholder than the winding-up of Sernam.\n(154)\nThe Commission considers that in a situation of recovery of the aid, it is not appropriate to apply the private investor principle. On recovery of aid, the State acts under the obligations incumbent upon it under Union law and not as a State which is a shareholder.\n(155)\nFurthermore, the Commission points out that Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision perceived the sale of assets as an equivalent to the compensatory measures imposed by Article 3(1). According to point 40 of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (36), the divestment of a loss-making activity cannot be considered as a compensatory measure. The negative price agreed between SNCF and Financi\u00e8re Sernam shows that a divestment of a loss-making activity is involved which cannot be the equivalent of a compensatory measure. In this case, the negative price corresponds to operating aid to the undertaking, which is therefore inherently ill-suited to reduce distortions of competition.\n(156)\nMoreover, if the position maintained by France were to be accepted, France could evade its obligation to recover from Sernam SA and from any other company which continues its economic activity the aid of EUR 41 million, declared incompatible by the Sernam 2 Decision, and the aid of EUR 503 million used improperly. Such a result would be in flagrant contradiction with the case-law of the Court of Justice, according to which the Member State is required to recover the aid without delay, using all the legal means at its disposal, including seizure of the firm\u2019s assets and, where necessary, its liquidation if it is unable to repay the amounts in question (37).\n(157)\nAcceptance of the position maintained by France would also lead to discrimination between a private undertaking and a public undertaking. Whereas the State would take measures for recovery from the private undertaking, where necessary going as far as its liquidation, the public undertaking could escape this fate on the sole condition that it proves to be cheaper for the State to sell it at a negative price rather than recover the illegal, incompatible aid it has received.\n(158)\nFor these reasons, the Commission considers that the principle of the private operator in the market economy cannot be invoked by France to have the measures provided for in the memorandum of understanding of 21 July 2005 escape the concept of State aid.\n(159)\nIt is therefore necessary to establish whether the measures in question conferred an advantage upon Sernam Xpress or Financi\u00e8re Sernam. Since these two undertakings merged subsequently, there is no need to distinguish between the advantages granted to one or the other. The three other criteria evidencing the presence of aid are met: the measures are granted from the resources of a public undertaking, SNCF; SNCF is an EPIC [industrial and commercial public undertaking] subject to very close scrutiny by the State; the granting of the advantage is therefore also imputable to the State. Since Sernam Xpress/Financi\u00e8re Sernam operate in road transport, which is open to competition within the Union, the advantage is liable to create distortions of competition and affect trade between Member States.\n3.4.1. Concerning the EUR 57 million capital injection by SNCF in Sernam SA\n(160)\nAs a result of the EUR 57 million capital injection by SNCF in Sernam SA, Sernam SA received a considerable financial advantage which is not available to its competitors. This advantage was then transferred with the other assets and liabilities to Sernam Xpress.\n3.4.2. Concerning the EUR 2 million capital injection by SNCF in Sernam Xpress\n(161)\nAs a result of the EUR 2 million capital injection by SNCF in Sernam Xpress, Sernam Xpress received a considerable financial advantage which is not available to its competitors. However, the Commission notes that SNCF received a payment of EUR 2 million from Financi\u00e8re Sernam, which neutralises the EUR 2 million capital injection, which consequently did not confer any advantage.\n3.4.3. Concerning the write-off of Sernam SA\u2019s debts to SNCF\n(162)\nAs explained in recital 33, the transfer of Sernam SA\u2019s activities to Financi\u00e8re Sernam does not include two of Sernam SA\u2019s debts to SNCF amounting to EUR 38,5 million. By writing off these debts, SNCF grants an advantage for an equivalent amount to Sernam Xpress/Financi\u00e8re Sernam.\n3.4.4. Concerning the guarantees granted by SNCF\n(163)\nOn the transfer of Sernam SA\u2019s activities to Financi\u00e8re Sernam, SNCF granted the following guarantees:\n-\nIt undertook to complete, within a fixed time limit, the development of a specific site (Valenton) necessary for the running of Train Bloc Express (TBE), on pain of a fine of EUR 1 million in the event of delay;\n-\nIt undertook to cover any increase in rent for the new operating sites, limited to a differential of a maximum of EUR 3 million;\n-\nIt extended by three years the right to return of [\u2026] railwaymen seconded within Sernam;\n-\nIt extended by three years a social protocol guaranteeing to [\u2026] Sernam employees re-employment within SNCF in the event of redundancy (by Sernam);\n-\nSNCF guaranteed \u2018the continuity of the Train Bloc Express (TBE)\u2019 (38) and access to the TBE (39). In this connection, SNCF paid EUR 3 million to Sernam Xpress.\n(164)\nThe first two guarantees obviously confer an advantage on Sernam Xpress/Financi\u00e8re Sernam. In fact, in the absence of these two guarantees, Sernam Xpress/Financi\u00e8re Sernam would have had to bear the costs in question themselves.\n(165)\nThe TBE guarantees, in the Commission\u2019s view, significantly reduce the risk incurred by Sernam Xpress/Financi\u00e8re Sernam and therefore confer an advantage.\n(166)\nAccording to France, the guarantee granted to the railwaymen would in fact benefit SNCF. In fact SNCF apparently posted a certain number of railwaymen within Sernam SA. These railwaymen, the cost of whom was borne by Sernam SA, apparently had the right to be reintegrated into SNCF on request. In the light of the fears to which privatisation could give rise, SNCF then extended the period during which the railwaymen could exercise this right with a view to avoiding their return en masse which would have been more onerous for SNCF.\n(167)\nThe Commission considers that in the absence of this guarantee, the railwaymen would have been very likely to have applied for reintegration in SNCF at the time of the transfer of the activities. Sernam Xpress would have had to replace them with new employees under private status. The Commission considers it likely that in this case the salary of these new employees would have been less high than that of the railwaymen, which would have offset the additional cost for Sernam Xpress resulting from their more limited experience or difficulties in recruiting a large number of new employees in a very short time.\n(168)\nFrance considers the three-year extension of the guarantee of re-employment to be a personal right granted to certain employees by SNCF. Neither Financi\u00e8re Sernam nor Sernam Xpress were apparently parties to this agreement.\n(169)\nThe Commission does not concur with this analysis. In fact, this guarantee makes it more attractive to remain employed at Sernam Xpress during the period in question, without Sernam Xpress having to bear the slightest additional cost.\n(170)\nThe Commission concludes that the guarantees granted by SNCF in the memorandum of understanding of 21 July 2005, with the exception of the guarantee for the railwaymen, confer an advantage on Sernam Xpress/Financi\u00e8re Sernam.\n(171)\nWhereas it is easy to put a figure on the value of the first three guarantees (EUR 1 million, EUR 3 million and EUR 3 million respectively), this is not the case for the guarantee of re-employment of employees. France should have established the salary increase that Sernam Xpress/Financi\u00e8re Sernam should have awarded to the employees in the absence of these guarantees to achieve the same objective.\n3.4.5. Concerning the selling price\n(172)\nIn recital 164 of the opening decision, the Commission also considered the question whether the negative price \u2018paid\u2019 by Financi\u00e8re Sernam did in fact correspond to market value. In this respect, the Commission observes that in the meantime, the merger had taken place between Sernam Xpress and Financi\u00e8re Sernam, and that possible aid to Financi\u00e8re Sernam consisting in too high a negative price would not exceed the EUR 57 million of aid that Sernam Xpress received as new aid. Consequently, it is no longer necessary to decide on the question of possible aid to the purchaser.\n3.4.6. Conclusion on the presence of new aid\n(173)\nThe measures provided for in the memorandum of understanding of 21 July 2005 described in the present section 3.4 constitute new aid for Sernam Xpress/Financi\u00e8re Sernam.\n3.4.7. Incompatibility with the internal market and recovery\n(174)\nAccording to the Court of Justice case-law, it is for the Member State to invoke the reasons for compatibility of aid. Since France invoked no reason for compatibility, the Commission concludes that this aid is incompatible with the internal market and must be recovered, together with interest.\n(175)\nThis recovery must be made from Financi\u00e8re Sernam and its subsidiaries, and notably Sernam Service and Aster, which are currently continuing the economic activity which received the aid, previously carried out by Sernam Xpress (merged with Financi\u00e8re Sernam).\n3.5. CONCERNING THE CANCELLATION CLAUSE\n(176)\nThe memorandum of understanding of 21 July 2005 contains a cancellation clause in case of a negative decision by the European Commission within five years following the conclusion of the memorandum of understanding. This clause could also constitute new aid. However, in such a case, the remedy would consist in its inapplicability. Since the clause has not in fact been applied, this result has been achieved. There is therefore no need for further analysis of the clause in question.\n3.6. CONCERNING LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS\n(177)\nThe argument put forward by the French authorities that the steps taken in good faith in relation to the Commission in accordance with their duty of cooperation (such as their visit to the Commission on 24 November 2004 and their letter of 21 December 2004), gave rise to legitimate expectations concerning the conformity of the transfer of Sernam SA\u2019s activities to Financi\u00e8re Sernam with the Sernam 2 Decision and Union law, cannot be accepted.\n(178)\nIn fact, the information communicated by France was confined to informing the Commission of the choice to sell the assets en bloc without describing the key components of the operation for the transfer of Sernam SA\u2019s assets. In particular, the information note of 21 December 2004 to the Commission is confined to indicating certain aspects relating to the organisation of the asset transfer procedure and its open and transparent nature, with a view to achieving a sale at market price by 30 June 2005.\n(179)\nNone of the following facts were brought to the Commission\u2019s attention:\n(1)\nthe fact that the planned disposal would be based on an intra-group transfer of the assets and liabilities to another legal entity (Sernam Xpress), followed by divestiture of that other entity (share deal);\n(2)\nthe fact that part of the liabilities would be transferred with the assets and that only the recovery order relating to the aid of EUR 41 million and the debts to the SNCF amounting to EUR 38,5 million will remain in the liabilities of Sernam SA;\n(3)\nthe fact that France was prepared to recapitalise Sernam SA and Sernam Xpress in the event of a takeover offer at a negative price.\n(180)\nIn the absence of information on these factors, it was not possible for the Commission to foresee how France finally implemented the Sernam 2 Decision. On the contrary, the note of 21 December 2004 gives the impression that the disposal would be carried out without distinction between the liabilities and at a positive price, since it indicates that \u2018as soon as the disposal has been carried out, the proceeds will be used to repay the liabilities of the legal person Sernam, including the incompatible aid, under normal national procedures\u2019.\n(181)\nAlthough, considering the negative nature of the prices offered for Sernam SA\u2019s assets, the possibility of recapitalisation (fact 3) arose only on receipt of the offers, at least the principle of a sale of the assets with part of the liabilities (fact 2) must in principle already have been known by France when it drew up its note of 21 December 2004. Be that as it may, the French authorities cannot claim the benefit of legitimate expectations without having voluntarily informed the Commission of these material facts on 21 December 2004 or later.\n(182)\nFinally and above all, if the French authorities were experiencing difficulties in implementing the Sernam 2 Decision, they should have recontacted the Commission to find a solution, in agreement with it, concerning other arrangements pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation provided for in Article 4(3) TEU. Section 3.2.3 of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (40) confirms that, in application of this general principle, a Member State may not deviate from the restructuring plan without notification and prior approval of the Commission.\n(183)\nFurthermore, the Commission never gave any agreement of any kind on the transfer of Sernam SA\u2019s activities to Financi\u00e8re Sernam implemented by France.\n(184)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that neither France, nor the beneficiaries of the aid can invoke legitimate expectations of any kind.\n4. RECOVERY\n(185)\nThe Commission has concluded that the conditions of the Sernam 2 Decision were not respected. Consequently, the aid measures authorised by the Sernam 2 Decision were implemented improperly within the meaning of Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. In the absence of France presenting reasons for compatibility of this aid, it is incompatible with the internal market. France must therefore take all necessary steps to recover this aid, together with interest.\n(186)\nThis aid comes to a total of EUR 503 million. It consists of various restructuring aid amounting to FRF 2 938 million or EUR 448 million. This aid is presented in Table 3 of the decision of 30 April 2003, the main components of which are shown in the table below:\n(FRF million)\nInitial capital\n44\nFinancing of losses 2000\n698\nFinancing of losses 2001\n252\nFinancing of restructuring: SNCF contribution\n1 300\nFinancing of restructuring: equity loan from SNCF\n250\nAdditional costs for railwaymen\n394\nTotal restructuring aid\n2 938\n(187)\nTo reach the amount of EUR 503 million, it is necessary to add the amount of aid paid under contracts for the transport of customer baggage and newspapers amounting to EUR 34 million and under contracts for supplies amounting to EUR 21 million.\n(188)\nFor further details, reference is made to the Sernam 1 decision of 23 May 2001.\n(189)\nIn order to undertake the effective and immediate recovery of the aid, the French authorities must supply each date on which aid was made available to the beneficiary (41). It is on the basis of this date that the interest on the sums to be recovered must be calculated for each measure on a compound basis pursuant to Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (42).\n(190)\nLikewise, the aid of EUR 41 million already considered incompatible by the Sernam 2 Decision must be recovered, together with interest calculated using the same method.\n(191)\nFinally, the recapitalisation of EUR 57 million, the write-off of Sernam SA\u2019s debts by SNCF amounting to EUR 38.5 million and the guarantees granted by SNCF on the transfer of Sernam SA\u2019s activities to Financi\u00e8re Sernam, with the exception of the guarantee granted to the railwaymen, also constitute State aid which is incompatible with the internal market. This new aid must be recovered, together with interest calculated using the same method. The Commission refers to recitals 171 and 189 of the present decision for the calculation of the amounts to be recovered.\n(192)\nTo establish the amount of aid to be recovered, France may take into account any sums received by SNCF under the liquidation of the company Sernam SA as repayment for the aid of EUR 41 million plus interest and/or the equity loan plus interest.\n(193)\nIn the event of SNCF having received a lump-sum repayment of all its claims, France will be able to take into account any amounts recovered by SNCF following the winding-up of Sernam SA only in proportion to the ratio between the amount of the first two aid measures recorded and the total amount of the debt entered in the liabilities of the company Sernam SA.\n(194)\nThese amounts, including that of the aid originally granted to Sernam SA and Sernam Xpress, must be recovered from Financi\u00e8re Sernam and its subsidiaries, Sernam Service and Aster, which are currently carrying out the economic activity in receipt of aid, previously carried out by Sernam Xpress (having merged with Financi\u00e8re Sernam) and, prior to this, by Sernam SA.\n(195)\nThere is in fact no doubt that Sernam Xpress and its operating subsidiaries Sernam Services and Aster continued the economic activity of Sernam SA, since this was precisely the objective of the transfer of Sernam SA\u2019s activities to Financi\u00e8re Sernam, implemented by France. Furthermore, it emerges from the case file that Sernam Xpress, Sernam Services and Aster did indeed continue to run the business which had received aid according to the current business plan of Sernam SA and with the same staff. Then, on 30 June 2011, Financi\u00e8re Sernam, the sole partner, dissolved the company Sernam Xpress and took over its assets and liabilities. Financi\u00e8re Sernam is therefore the legal successor of Sernam Xpress and its economic successor since it (Financi\u00e8re Sernam) currently holds and controls directly the operating subsidiaries Sernam Services and Aster. In addition, Financi\u00e8re Sernam and its subsidiaries, and notably Sernam Services and Aster, are continuing the business of Sernam SA and Sernam Xpress and therefore continuing to benefit from the aid. Furthermore, in May 2011, Sernam Services received a contribution of assets, with the transfer of the Sernam brand, which is valued at EUR 15 million, without paying adequate compensation. Aster, for its part, benefited in March 2008 from a contribution of EUR 5 million in current account, an amount which was assigned to it in July 2008, on the one hand, and was recapitalised in December 2011 by the assignment of EUR 5 599 998 in current account, on the other. These two subsidiaries therefore benefited from the aid initially granted to Sernam SA and Sernam Xpress not only as companies belonging to the group and on account of the fact that they are continuing its business, but also on account of the transfer of certain assets or recapitalisation measures in their favour.\n(196)\nIt should be specified that Sernam SA itself stems from the transformation of Sernam SCS into a public limited company at the end of 2001 (on this subject, see Sernam 2 Decision, recital 11). Sernam SCS was therefore the original beneficiary of part of the aid in question.\n(197)\nThe company Financi\u00e8re Sernam and its subsidiary Sernam Services having been put into receivership on 31 January 2012, and Aster, subsidiary of Financi\u00e8re Sernam, having been put into compulsory liquidation on 3 February 2012, the French authorities are requested to determine the amount of the aid, together with interest, to be recovered as soon as possible so as to have it entered in the liabilities of these undertakings,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The State aid of EUR 503 million, granted by France to Sernam SCS (which became Sernam SA) and approved by the Commission by Decision 2006/367/EC (43) was used improperly. It is incompatible with the internal market. This aid also benefited Sernam Xpress, as well as Financi\u00e8re Sernam and its subsidiaries, Sernam Services and Aster.\n2. The State aid of EUR 41 million, granted by France to Sernam SCS and declared incompatible by the Sernam 2 Decision, also benefited Sernam Xpress, as well as Financi\u00e8re Sernam and its subsidiaries, and notably Sernam Services and Aster.\n3. The recapitalisation of EUR 57 million of Sernam SA by SNCF, the write-off of Sernam SA\u2019s debts to SNCF amounting to EUR 38,5 million and the guarantees granted by SNCF on the transfer of the business of Sernam SA to Financi\u00e8re Sernam, with the exception of the guarantee granted to the railwaymen, constitute State aid which is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\n1. France shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1 from Financi\u00e8re Sernam and its subsidiaries, Sernam Services and Aster.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were made available to the beneficiary until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis pursuant to Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004.\nArticle 3\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. France shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.\n3. In implementing this Decision, France may take account of any sums recovered by SNCF as a result of the winding-up of Sernam SA under the conditions set out above.\nArticle 4\n1. Within two months of the date on which this decision is notified, France shall communicate the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe date on which aid under each measure was made available to the beneficiary and the total amount (principal and interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary for each aid measure;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments showing that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. France shall keep the Commission informed of the progress in the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and the interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2012.", "references": ["6", "40", "80", "23", "57", "64", "22", "87", "89", "13", "63", "56", "65", "75", "68", "61", "60", "10", "38", "44", "69", "74", "93", "66", "31", "58", "98", "14", "81", "45", "No Label", "15", "48", "55", "82", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "48", "55", "82", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 211/2012\nof 12 March 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of 3 months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of 3 months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 March 2012.", "references": ["96", "1", "10", "87", "68", "76", "71", "8", "41", "72", "82", "46", "79", "51", "16", "55", "53", "49", "54", "63", "14", "83", "73", "7", "2", "94", "40", "5", "90", "75", "No Label", "21", "74", "78"], "gold": ["21", "74", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 21 September 2011\nestablishing a questionnaire to be used for reporting on the implementation of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning integrated pollution prevention and control\n(notified under document C(2011) 6502)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/631/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1), and in particular Article 17(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Directive 2008/1/EC, Member States are required to report on the implementation of that Directive every 3 years on the basis of a questionnaire established by the Commission.\n(2)\nFour questionnaires were established by the Commission. The fourth one, established by Commission Decision 2010/728/EU (2), covered the years 2009, 2010 and 2011.\n(3)\nSince the questionnaire established by Decision 2010/728/EU is to be used for reporting until 31 December 2011, a new questionnaire should be established for the next 3-year reporting period, taking into account the experience gained in the implementation of Directive 2008/1/EC and in the use of the previous questionnaires. However, given that Directive 2008/1/EC will be repealed from 7 January 2014 and replaced by Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (3), the new questionnaire should cover only 2 years, namely 2012 and 2013. For the sake of clarity, Decision 2010/728/EU should be replaced.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 6 of Council Directive 91/692/EEC (4).\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Member States shall use the questionnaire set out in the Annex for reporting on the implementation of Directive 2008/1/EC.\n2. The reports to be submitted shall cover the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2010/728/EU is repealed from 1 January 2013.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 September 2011.", "references": ["91", "72", "31", "61", "89", "73", "32", "37", "65", "48", "38", "22", "27", "94", "76", "13", "93", "83", "46", "20", "62", "3", "33", "97", "49", "9", "54", "0", "2", "60", "No Label", "8", "42", "58"], "gold": ["8", "42", "58"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 April 2010\nsupplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union\n(2010/252/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (1), and in particular Article 12(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe purpose of border surveillance is to prevent unauthorised border crossings, to counter cross-border criminality and to apprehend or take other measures against persons who have crossed the border illegally. Border surveillance should be effective in preventing and discouraging persons from circumventing the checks at border crossing points, and in detecting the unauthorised crossing of the external borders.\n(2)\nThe European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agency\u2019) is responsible for the coordination of operational cooperation between Member States to facilitate the application of Union law, including with regard to border surveillance. Additional rules are necessary with regard to border surveillance activities carried out by maritime and aerial units of one Member State at the sea border of other Member States in the context of the operational cooperation coordinated by the Agency and the further strengthening of such cooperation.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 and general principles of Union law, measures taken in the course of the surveillance operation should be proportionate to the objectives pursued and fully respect fundamental rights and the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, including, in particular, the prohibition of refoulement. Member States are bound by the provisions of the asylum acquis, and in particular of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (2), with regard to applications for asylum made in the territory, including at the border, or in the transit zones of Member States.\n(4)\nAt its meetings of 18 and 19 June 2009 and of 29 and 30 October 2009, the European Council underlined the need for strengthened border control operations coordinated by the Agency and for clear rules of engagement for joint patrolling. The European Council in June also stressed the need for rules on disembarkation of rescued persons.\n(5)\nAccount should be taken of the fact that border surveillance operations coordinated by the Agency are conducted in accordance with an operational plan and with the schedule and instructions issued by a coordination centre in which participating Member States and the Agency are represented, and that one or more host Member States whose border will be surveyed are identified before the start of the operation.\n(6)\nImplementation of this Decision does not prejudice the division of competence between the Union and the Member States, and does not affect obligations of Member States under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and its Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and other relevant international instruments.\n(7)\nWhen conducting a border surveillance operation at sea, a situation may occur where it will be necessary to render assistance to persons found in distress.\n(8)\nIn accordance with international law, every State has to require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers, to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost and to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress. Such assistance should be provided regardless of the nationality or status of the persons to be assisted or of the circumstances in which they are found.\n(9)\nIn order to provide for better coordination among the Member States participating in the operations with regard to such situations and to facilitate the conduct of such operations, non-binding guidelines should be included in this Decision. This Decision should not affect the responsibilities of search and rescue authorities, including for ensuring that coordination and cooperation is carried out in such a way that the persons rescued can be delivered to a place of safety.\n(10)\nThis Decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably human dignity, prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, right to liberty and security, non-refoulement, non-discrimination and the rights of the child. This Decision should be applied by the Member States in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(11)\nSince the objectives of this Decision, namely the adoption of additional rules for the surveillance of the sea borders by border guards operating under the coordination of the Agency, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States due to the differences in their laws and practices, and can therefore, by reason of the multinational character of the operations, be better achieved at the level of the Union, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(12)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Decision builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of 6 months after the date of adoption of this Decision whether it will implement it in its national law.\n(13)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters' association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (3) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A, of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (4) of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement.\n(14)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (5), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (6) of 28 January 2008 on the conclusion of that Agreement on behalf of the European Community.\n(15)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/261/EC (7) of 28 February 2008 on the signature of that protocol on behalf of the European Community.\n(16)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (8). The United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(17)\nThis 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 of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (9). Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(18)\nThe Schengen Borders Code Committee, consulted on 19 October 2009, did not deliver an opinion, with the consequence that the Commission, in accordance with point (a) of Article 5a(4) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (10), submitted a proposal relating to the measures to be taken to the Council and forwarded it to the European Parliament at the same time,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of the operational cooperation between Member States coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (the Agency) shall be governed by the rules laid down in Part I to the Annex. Those rules and the non-binding guidelines laid down in Part II to the Annex shall form part of the operational plan drawn up for each operation coordinated by the Agency.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["0", "50", "74", "26", "2", "83", "12", "40", "81", "99", "61", "43", "18", "3", "55", "32", "9", "69", "48", "84", "70", "77", "28", "90", "68", "92", "73", "10", "56", "33", "No Label", "1", "7", "13"], "gold": ["1", "7", "13"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 267/2011\nof 17 March 2011\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 March 2011.", "references": ["44", "79", "37", "60", "93", "55", "20", "1", "2", "70", "85", "21", "63", "67", "34", "12", "62", "38", "91", "88", "54", "3", "45", "13", "78", "81", "52", "66", "90", "17", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 635/2011\nof 29 June 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceite Campo de Calatrava (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Aceite Campo de Calatrava\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2011.", "references": ["84", "14", "18", "4", "3", "66", "57", "99", "5", "83", "17", "51", "8", "7", "19", "49", "67", "44", "41", "60", "46", "63", "71", "74", "69", "98", "13", "59", "89", "6", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 20 October 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2009/023 PT/Qimonda from Portugal)\n(2010/660/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nPortugal submitted an application on 17 December 2009 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Qimonda Portugal SA, and supplemented it by additional information up to 28 April 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 405 671.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Portugal,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 405 671 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["87", "42", "23", "0", "82", "71", "81", "83", "76", "67", "40", "94", "70", "44", "72", "62", "39", "5", "21", "60", "2", "85", "14", "98", "51", "4", "59", "93", "8", "64", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 16 November 2011\nestablishing detailed rules and procedures for implementing the eligibility criteria for central securities depositories to access TARGET2-Securities services\n(ECB/2011/20)\n(2011/789/EU)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Articles 3.1 and 12.1 and Articles 17, 18 and 22 thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,\nHaving regard to Guideline ECB/2010/2 of 21 April 2010 on TARGET2-Securities (2), and in particular Article 4(2)(d) and Article 15 thereof,\nHaving regard to Decision ECB/2009/6 of 19 March 2009 on the establishment of the TARGET2-Securities Programme Board (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 15 of Guideline ECB/2010/2 lays down the eligibility criteria for a Central Security Depository (CSD) to access TARGET2-Securities (T2S) services.\n(2)\nIt is necessary to establish the application procedure for a CSD to access T2S services and the procedure for a CSD to request derogation from CSD access criterion 5,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision:\n(1)\n\u2018assessment report\u2019 means written documentation containing: (a) a report drawn up by the relevant competent authorities assessing a CSD\u2019s compliance with CSD access criterion 2; and (b) a CSD self-assessment of its compliance with CSD access criteria 1, 3, 4 and 5;\n(2)\n\u2018central bank (CB)\u2019 means the European Central Bank, the national central banks (NCBs) of the Member States whose currency is the euro, the NCBs of the Member States whose currency is not the euro (hereinafter \u2018non-euro area NCBs\u2019), any European Economic Area (EEA) central bank or relevant competent authority (hereinafter \u2018EEA central bank\u2019) and any central bank or relevant competent authority of a country outside the EEA (hereinafter \u2018other central bank\u2019), where the currency of such a non-euro area NCB, EEA or other central bank is considered eligible in accordance with Article 18 of Guideline ECB/2010/2;\n(3)\n\u2018CSD access criterion 1\u2019 means the criterion laid down in Article 15(1)(a) of Guideline ECB/2010/2, i.e. that CSDs are eligible for access to T2S services provided that they have been notified to the European Securities and Markets Authority pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 98/26/EC or, in the case of a CSD from a non-EEA country, they operate under a legal and regulatory framework that is equivalent to that in force in the Union;\n(4)\n\u2018CSD access criterion 2\u2019 means the criterion laid down in Article 15(1)(b) of Guideline ECB/2010/2, i.e. that CSDs are eligible for access to T2S services provided that they have been positively assessed by the competent authorities against the European System of Central Banks/Committee of European Securities Regulators Recommendations for Securities Settlement Systems (hereinafter the \u2018ESCB/CESR recommendations\u2019) (4);\n(5)\n\u2018CSD access criterion 3\u2019 means the criterion laid down in Article 15(1)(c) of Guideline ECB/2010/2, i.e. that CSDs are eligible for access to T2S services provided that they make each security/International Securities Identification Number for which they are an issuer CSD, or technical issuer CSD, available to other CSDs in T2S upon request;\n(6)\n\u2018CSD access criterion 4\u2019 means the criterion laid down in Article 15(1)(d) of Guideline ECB/2010/2, i.e. that CSDs are eligible for access to T2S services provided that they commit to offer to other CSDs in T2S basic custody service on a non-discriminatory basis;\n(7)\n\u2018CSD access criterion 5\u2019 means the criterion laid down in Article 15(1)(e) of Guideline ECB/2010/2, i.e. that CSDs are eligible for access to T2S services provided that they commit towards other CSDs in T2S to carry out their central bank money settlement in T2S if the currency is available in T2S;\n(8)\n\u2018relevant competent authorities\u2019 means the CBs and the regulators with oversight and/or supervisory competence over a specific CSD and responsible for assessing CSDs against applicable recognised standards;\n(9)\n\u2018directly connected party\u2019 means a T2S Party with a technical facility allowing it to access T2S and use its securities settlement services without the need for a CSD to act as a technical interface;\n(10)\n\u2018T2S Party\u2019 means a legal entity or, in some markets, an individual, that has a contractual relationship with a CSD in T2S for the processing of its settlement-related activities in T2S, and does not necessarily hold a securities account with the CSD;\n(11)\n\u2018T2S Programme Board\u2019 means the Eurosystem management body established pursuant to Decision ECB/2009/6, as defined in Article 2 of Guideline ECB/2010/2, or its successor;\n(12)\n\u2018T2S Advisory Group (AG)\u2019 means the forum defined in Article 7 of Guideline ECB/2010/2;\n(13)\n\u2018Currency Participation Agreement (CPA)\u2019 means an agreement to be entered into by the Eurosystem and a non-euro area NCB, or an authority responsible for a currency other than the euro, for the purpose of settling securities transaction in central bank money in currencies other than the euro.\nArticle 2\nSubject matter and scope\n1. The five criteria determining the eligibility of CSDs to access T2S services laid down in Article 15 of Guideline ECB/2010/2 (hereinafter the \u2018five CSD access criteria\u2019) shall be implemented in accordance with the procedures laid down in Articles 3 to 5 of this Decision and the rules in the Annex.\n2. This Decision shall not apply to directly connected parties having a legal relationship with the CSDs.\nArticle 3\nApplication procedure\n1. To apply for T2S services, a CSD shall submit: (a) an application to the Governing Council; and (b) at the time of its migration to T2S, an assessment report.\n2. The assessment report shall provide evidence that the CSD complies with the five CSD access criteria at the time of its migration to T2S, and state the degree of implementation of each CSD access criterion according to the following categories: compliant, partly compliant and not applicable, and shall set out the CSD\u2019s reasons, explanations and relevant evidence.\n3. The T2S Programme Board shall submit a proposal to the Governing Council, based on the abovementioned documentation, on a CSD\u2019s application to access T2S services. To prepare its proposal, the T2S Programme Board may request clarifications from or submit questions to the applying CSD.\n4. Following submission of the proposal by the T2S Programme Board, the Governing Council shall make a decision on a CSD\u2019s application and communicate it in writing to that CSD no later than 2 months following: (a) the date of receipt of the application; or (b) the date of receipt of the reply to any request for clarifications or submission of questions by the T2S Programme Board under paragraph 3. Where the Governing Council rejects an application, it shall give reasons for doing so.\nArticle 4\nProcedure for obtaining a derogation from CSD access criterion 5\n1. A CSD may submit a request for a derogation from CSD access criterion 5 based on its specific operational or technical situation.\n2. For a derogation request to be assessed, the CSD shall submit a request to the T2S Programme Board and provide evidence of the following:\n(a)\nthe derogation is for a very limited amount of settlement volume as a proportion of the total average daily delivery-versus-payment instructions received over a month at the CSD, and the cost of settling these operations in T2S would be excessive for the CSD;\n(b)\nthe CSD has set technical and operational safeguards ensuring that the derogation will remain within the threshold set out in point (a);\n(c)\nthe CSD has made every effort to meet CSD access criterion 5.\n3. Following receipt of such request for a derogation:\n(a)\nthe T2S Programme Board shall submit the CSD\u2019s request and its pre-assessment to the T2S Advisory Group;\n(b)\nthe T2S Advisory Group shall provide the T2S Programme Board with advice on the request without delay and in due time for it to be considered;\n(c)\nfollowing receipt of advice from the T2S Advisory Group, the T2S Programme Board shall prepare a final assessment and submit it, together with the entire set of documents, to the Governing Council;\n(d)\nthe Governing Council shall issue a reasoned decision on the request for a derogation;\n(e)\nthe T2S Programme Board shall inform the CSD and the T2S Advisory Group in writing of the Governing Council\u2019s reasoned decision.\n4. A CSD designated by a CB that has signed a CPA and has opted for settlement of its monetary policy transactions in central bank money outside T2S, shall submit a request for a derogation in order to be able to settle such monetary policy transactions in central bank money outside T2S. In such case, a derogation shall be granted provided that: (a) the Eurosystem has received all relevant information on the technical functioning of such settlement; and (b) such settlement does not require changes to or negatively affect T2S functionality. The designating CB should be invited to provide its opinion on such request for a derogation.\n5. A CSD with a derogation shall provide a monthly report to the T2S Programme Board proving that it continues to comply with the derogation, including the agreed threshold set out in paragraph 2(a). A CSD with a derogation pursuant to paragraph 4 shall provide a monthly report to the T2S Programme Board on the situation.\n6. Where a CSD with a derogation consistently exceeds the agreed threshold set out in paragraph 2(a) within a 6-month period, the Governing Council shall withdraw the derogation due to non-compliance with CSD access criterion 5 and the T2S Programme Board shall notify the CSD accordingly.\n7. Following the withdrawal of a derogation, a CSD may submit a new request for a derogation in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Article.\n8. Where there is a crisis situation that could impact the financial stability of a country or the relevant CB\u2019s task to safeguard the integrity of its currency and has led the CB of the country concerned to move to a contingency type settlement as part of its crisis management plan, a CSD designated by that CB shall submit a request to the T2S Programme Board for a temporary derogation from CSD access criterion 5, and may temporarily carry out settlement by other means. The Governing Council shall issue a reasoned decision on such request taking into account the relevant CB\u2019s opinion on the situation warranting the temporary derogation from CSD access criterion 5. The relevant CB shall provide the T2S Programme Board with a report, at least on a monthly basis, on its evaluation of the situation.\nArticle 5\nOngoing compliance with the five CSD access criteria\n1. A CSD with access to T2S services shall comply, after it has migrated to T2S, with the five CSD access criteria on an ongoing basis and shall:\n(a)\nensure, in particular, through a reliable self-assessment conducted each year and supported by relevant documentation that it continues to comply with CSD access criteria 1, 3, 4 and 5. The self-assessment shall be accompanied by the most recent assessment by the relevant competent authorities of the CSD\u2019s compliance with criterion 2;\n(b)\npromptly provide the T2S Programme Board with the most recent regular or ad hoc assessment by the relevant competent authorities of its compliance with CSD access criterion 2;\n(c)\nrequest a new assessment by the relevant competent authorities of its compliance with CSD access criterion 2 in the event of material changes to the CSD\u2019s system;\n(d)\nnotify the T2S Programme Board where a relevant competent authority assessment or a self-assessment has established non-compliance with any of the five CSD access criteria;\n(e)\nfollowing a request from the T2S Programme Board, provide an assessment report demonstrating that the CSD still complies with the five CSD access criteria.\n2. With the exception of CSD access criterion 2, the T2S Programme Board may carry out its own evaluation and monitor compliance with the five CSD access criteria or request information from a CSD. Where the T2S Programme Board decides that a CSD does not comply with one of the five CSD access criteria, it shall initiate the procedure laid down in the contracts with the CSDs pursuant to Article 16 of Guideline ECB/2010/2.\nArticle 6\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["23", "25", "59", "75", "31", "87", "80", "73", "78", "99", "12", "94", "66", "53", "47", "50", "98", "84", "41", "86", "58", "1", "49", "85", "26", "9", "39", "38", "21", "32", "No Label", "4", "7", "28", "30"], "gold": ["4", "7", "28", "30"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 641/2012\nof 16 July 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 356/2010 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain natural or legal persons, entities or bodies, in view of the situation in Somalia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(1) and (2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/231/CFSP of 26 April 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Somalia (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 356/2010 (2) imposes restrictive measures against the persons entities and bodies identified in Annex I to that Regulation, as provided for in United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1844 (2008).\n(2)\nOn 22 February 2012, the UN Security Council adopted UNSCR 2036 (2012), by which it confirms its assessment, in paragraph 23, that the export of charcoal from Somalia may pose a threat to the peace, security or stability of Somalia.\n(3)\nOn 17 February 2012, the Security Council Sanctions Committee established pursuant to UNSCR 751 (1992) concerning Somalia updated the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(4)\nOn 16 July 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/388/CFSP (3), to give effect to UNSCR 751 (1992) by adding one further person to the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures in Decision 2010/231/CFSP.\n(5)\nThis measure falls within the scope of the Treaty and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement it, in particular with a view to ensuring its uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(6)\nAdditionally, UNSCR 2002 (2011) clarified the exemption, already provided for in Regulation (EU) No 356/2010, permitting the making available of funds, other financial assets or economic resources necessary to ensure the timely delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance in Somalia by the UN, its specialised agencies or programmes, humanitarian organisations having observer status with the United Nations General Assembly that provide humanitarian assistance, and their implementing partners. This clarification should be included in Regulation (EU) No 356/2010.\n(7)\nRegulation (EU) No 356/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 356/2010 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 2, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Annex I shall consist of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies designated by the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee in accordance with UNSCR 1844 (2008) as:\n(a)\nengaging in or providing support for acts that threaten the peace, security or stability of Somalia, including acts that threaten to infringe the Djibouti Agreement of 18 August 2008 or the political process, or threaten the TFIs or AMISOM by force;\n(b)\nhaving acted in violation of the arms embargo and related measures as reaffirmed in paragraph 6 of UNSCR 1844 (2008);\n(c)\nobstructing the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Somalia, or access to, or distribution of, humanitarian assistance in Somalia;\n(d)\nbeing political or military leaders recruiting or using children in armed conflicts in Somalia in violation of the applicable international law; or\n(e)\nbeing responsible for violations of applicable international law in Somalia involving the targeting of civilians, including children and women, in situations of armed conflict, including killing and maiming, sexual and gender-based violence, attacks on schools and hospitals and abduction and forced displacement.\u2019.\n(2)\nIn Article 4, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Article 2(1) and (2) shall not apply to the making available of funds or economic resources necessary to ensure the timely delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance in Somalia by the UN, its specialised agencies or programmes, humanitarian organisations having observer status with the United Nations General Assembly that provide humanitarian assistance, and their implementing partners, including bilaterally or multilaterally funded NGOs participating in the UN Consolidated Appeal for Somalia.\u2019.\n(3)\nThe person listed in Annex II to this Regulation shall be added to the list of persons set out in Section I of Annex I.\n(4)\nAnnex II shall be replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["71", "50", "62", "58", "10", "89", "27", "34", "57", "65", "7", "20", "98", "67", "82", "19", "12", "38", "45", "1", "68", "43", "61", "35", "2", "30", "76", "31", "11", "28", "No Label", "3", "4", "5", "14", "23", "79", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "5", "14", "23", "79", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 302/2011\nof 28 March 2011\nopening an exceptional import tariff quota for certain quantities of sugar in the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organization of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe world market prices for sugar have been at a constant high level since the beginning of the 2010/11 marketing year. Forecasts of world market prices based on the New York sugar futures exchange market for the terms of May, July and October 2011 indicate that world market price will remain high.\n(2)\nThe negative difference between availability and utilisation of sugar on the Union market over the last 2 marketing years is estimated at 1,0 million tonnes. This results in the lowest level of ending stocks since the implementation of the 2006 reform of the sugar sector. Any further shortfall of imports threatens to disrupt the availability of supply on the Union sugar market and to increase the internal sugar market price. To limit the negative difference between availability and utilisation of sugar on the Union market in the 2010/11 marketing year, it is necessary to fully utilise all existing import flows: the import tariff rate quotas and the 1,95 million tonnes of imports resulting from Economic Partnership Agreements/Everything But Arms (EPA/EBA) trade arrangements.\n(3)\nHowever, EPA/EBA imports registered during the 2009/10 marketing year were 1,5 million tonnes. Based on the current world market situation, this quantity is unlikely to increase in the short term. This would inevitably lead to a further shortfall in the supply on the EU market. This situation is caused by high prices on the world market for sugar and for that reason, it is necessary to suspend import duty for certain quantities of sugar.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2) provides for the administration of the tariff quotas for imports of sugar products pursuant to Article 187 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 with order number 09.4380 (exceptional import sugar). However, in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 the quantities of those products for which import duties are to be suspended has to be determined by a separate legal act.\n(5)\nThe exceptional quantity of sugar that can be imported at zero duty in the 2011/12 marketing year need to be set accordingly.\n(6)\nTo avoid import licence trading, the rights deriving from the import licence should not be transferable.\n(7)\nThe level of the security should be set at a sufficiently high level to ensure full utilisation of the issued import licences under the current, volatile world sugar prices.\n(8)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe import duties for sugar falling within CN 1701 and with order number 09.4380 shall be suspended for a quantity of 300 000 tonnes from 1 April to 30 September 2011.\nRegulation (EC) No 891/2009 shall apply for the administration of the quota referred to in the first paragraph.\nArticle 2\nBy way of derogation from Article 8(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 (3), the rights deriving from the import licence shall not be transferable.\nArticle 3\nBy way of derogation from Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, the amount of the security shall be EUR 150 per tonne.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 April 2011.\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 March 2011.", "references": ["40", "18", "31", "74", "2", "96", "17", "79", "95", "76", "27", "52", "63", "28", "44", "78", "3", "4", "72", "93", "9", "77", "35", "6", "13", "57", "16", "64", "59", "83", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "71"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "71"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 938/2010/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 20 October 2010\nproviding macro-financial assistance to the Republic of Moldova\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 212 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRelations between the Republic of Moldova (\u2018Moldova\u2019) and the European Union are developing within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy. In 2005, the Community and Moldova agreed on a European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan identifying medium-term priorities in EU-Moldova relations. The framework of those bilateral relations is further enhanced by the recently launched Eastern Partnership. In January 2010 the European Union and Moldova started negotiating an Association Agreement that is expected to replace the existing Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.\n(2)\nThe Moldovan economy has been severely affected by the international financial crisis, with dramatically declining output, a deteriorating fiscal position and rising external financing needs.\n(3)\nMoldova\u2019s economic stabilisation and recovery are supported by financial assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF financing arrangement for Moldova was approved on 29 January 2010.\n(4)\nMoldova has requested Union macro-financial assistance in view of the deteriorating economic situation and outlook.\n(5)\nGiven that a residual financing gap in 2010-2011 remains in Moldova\u2019s balance of payments, macro-financial assistance is considered an appropriate response to Moldova\u2019s request to support economic stabilisation in conjunction with the current IMF programme. This macro-financial assistance is also expected to contribute to alleviating the external financing needs of the State budget.\n(6)\nThe Union macro-financial assistance should not merely supplement programmes and resources from the IMF and the World Bank, but should ensure the added value of Union involvement.\n(7)\nThe Commission should ensure that the Union macro-financial assistance is legally and substantially in line with the measures taken within the different areas of external action and other relevant Union policies.\n(8)\nThe specific objectives of the Union macro-financial assistance should strengthen efficiency, transparency and accountability. These objectives should be regularly monitored by the Commission.\n(9)\nThe conditions underlying the provision of the Union macro-financial assistance should reflect key principles and objectives of Union policy towards Moldova.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure efficient protection of the Union\u2019s financial interests linked to this macro-financial assistance, it is necessary that Moldova adopt appropriate measures relating to the prevention of, and the fight against, fraud, corruption and any other irregularities linked to this assistance. It is also necessary that the Commission provide for appropriate controls and that the Court of Auditors provide for appropriate audits.\n(11)\nThe release of the Union macro-financial assistance is without prejudice to the powers of the budgetary authority.\n(12)\nThe Union macro-financial assistance should be managed by the Commission. In order to ensure that the European Parliament and the Economic and Financial Committee are able to follow the implementation of this Decision, the Commission should regularly inform them of developments relating to the assistance and provide them with relevant documents.\n(13)\nAccording to Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers are to be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (2) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Union shall make available to Moldova macro-financial assistance in the form of a grant of a maximum amount of EUR 90 million with a view to supporting Moldova\u2019s economic stabilisation and alleviating its balance of payments and budgetary needs, as identified in the current IMF programme.\n2. The release of the Union macro-financial assistance shall be managed by the Commission in a manner consistent with the agreements or understandings reached between the IMF and Moldova and with the key principles and objectives of economic reform set out in the EU-Moldova Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and Action Plan. The Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament and the Economic and Financial Committee of developments in the management of the assistance and provide them with relevant documents.\n3. The Union macro-financial assistance shall be made available for two years and six months starting from the first day after the entry into force of the Memorandum of Understanding referred to in Article 2(1).\nArticle 2\n1. The Commission, acting in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 5(2), shall be empowered to agree with the Moldovan authorities on the economic policy conditions attached to the Union macro-financial assistance, to be laid down in a Memorandum of Understanding which shall include a timeframe for their fulfilment (hereinafter the \u2018Memorandum of Understanding\u2019). The conditions shall be consistent with the agreements or understandings reached between the IMF and Moldova and with the key principles and objectives of economic reform set out in the EU- Moldova Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and Action Plan. These principles and objectives aim at strengthening the efficiency, transparency and accountability of the assistance, including in particular public finance management systems in Moldova. Progress in attaining those objectives shall be regularly monitored by the Commission. The detailed financial terms of the assistance shall be laid down in a Grant Agreement to be agreed between the Commission and the Moldovan authorities.\n2. During the implementation of the Union macro-financial assistance, the Commission shall monitor the soundness of the financial arrangements, administrative procedures and internal and external control mechanisms in Moldova which are relevant to such assistance and the adherence to the agreed timeframe.\n3. The Commission shall verify at regular intervals that Moldova\u2019s economic policies are in accordance with the objectives of the Union macro-financial assistance and that the agreed economic policy conditions are being satisfactorily fulfilled. To this end the Commission shall coordinate closely with the IMF and the World Bank, and, when required, with the Economic and Financial Committee.\nArticle 3\n1. Subject to the conditions of paragraph 2, the Union macro-financial assistance to Moldova shall be made available by the Commission in not less than three grant instalments. The size of each instalment shall be laid down in the Memorandum of Understanding.\n2. The Commission shall decide on the release of the instalments subject to satisfactory implementation of the economic policy conditions agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding. The disbursement of the second and the subsequent instalments shall not take place earlier than three months after the release of the previous instalment.\n3. The Union funds shall be paid to the National Bank of Moldova. Subject to provisions to be agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding, including a confirmation of residual budgetary financing needs, the Union funds may be transferred to the State Treasury of Moldova as the final beneficiary.\nArticle 4\nThe Union macro-financial assistance shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3) and its implementing rules (4). In particular, the Memorandum of Understanding and the Grant Agreement to be agreed with the Moldovan authorities shall provide for specific measures to be implemented by Moldova in relation to the prevention of, and the fight against, fraud, corruption and other irregularities affecting the assistance. In order to ensure greater transparency in the management and disbursement of the Union funds, the Memorandum of Understanding and the Grant Agreement shall also provide for controls including on-the-spot checks and inspections, to be carried out by the Commission, including the European Anti-Fraud Office. They shall in addition provide for audits, including where appropriate on-the-spot audits, by the Court of Auditors.\nArticle 5\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 3 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\nArticle 6\n1. By 31 August of each year the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation of this Decision in the preceding year, including an evaluation thereof. The report shall indicate the connection between the policy conditions as laid down in the Memorandum of Understanding, Moldova\u2019s ongoing economic and fiscal performance, and the Commission\u2019s decision to release the instalments of the assistance.\n2. No later than two years after the expiry of the availability period referred to in Article 1(3), the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council an ex post evaluation report.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["87", "50", "53", "82", "36", "61", "99", "56", "81", "38", "86", "29", "33", "72", "62", "58", "13", "94", "80", "34", "10", "88", "69", "65", "12", "20", "41", "7", "23", "76", "No Label", "4", "9", "15", "16", "19", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "9", "15", "16", "19", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 666/2011\nof 11 July 2011\nrefusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children\u2019s development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 18(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on foods are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Authority\u2019.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission thereof and to deliver an opinion on the health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nFollowing an application from Synbiotec S.r.l., submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Synbio on maintenance and improvement of intestinal well-being (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00889) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Synbio persists in the intestinal tract and favours the natural regularity contributing to maintain and improve human intestinal well-being\u2019.\n(6)\nOn 27 September 2010, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Synbio and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(7)\nFollowing an application from MILTE ITALIA SpA, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Silymarin BIO-C\u00ae on increase in production of breast milk (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00957) (3). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded, inter alia, as follows: \u2018Suggested for improving the physiological production of breast milk during breast feeding\u2019.\n(8)\nOn 28 September 2010, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Silymarin BIO-C\u00ae and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(9)\nAll the health claims subject to this Regulation are health claims as referred to in point (a) of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and may benefit from the transition period laid down in Article 28(5) of that Regulation. As the Authority concluded that cause and effect relationships have not been established between the foods and the respective claimed effects, the two claims do not comply with Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and therefore they may not benefit from the transition period provided for in that Article.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure that this Regulation is fully complied with, both food business operators and the national competent authorities should take the necessary actions to ensure that, at the latest 6 months following the entry into force of this Regulation, products bearing the health claims listed in its Annex are no longer present on the market.\n(11)\nThe comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(12)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The health claims listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall not be included in the Union list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\n2. However, products bearing these health claims placed on the market or labelled prior to the date of entry into force of this Regulation may remain on the market for a maximum period of 6 months after that date.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 July 2011.", "references": ["61", "63", "78", "94", "71", "82", "45", "66", "97", "36", "13", "33", "65", "79", "37", "59", "28", "62", "23", "14", "40", "6", "21", "46", "81", "49", "93", "73", "43", "1", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 29 March 2011\nestablishing a specific control and inspection programme related to the recovery of bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean\n(notified under document C(2011) 1984)\n(2011/207/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 95 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn 2006 the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) adopted a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. That plan was transposed into Union law by Council Regulation (EC) No 1559/2007 (2).\n(2)\nICCAT amended the recovery plan on 24 November 2008 by Recommendation 08-05. The plan thus amended was transposed into Union law by Council Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 (3).\n(3)\nTo ensure the success full implementation of the amended multiannual recovery plan, Commission Decision 2009/296/EC (4) established a specific control and inspection programme covering a period of two years, from 15 March 2009 to 15 March 2011.\n(4)\nThe specific control and inspection programme related to the recovery of bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, as established by Decision 2009/296/EC, is to expire on the 15 March 2011. A new Commission Decision should be adopted with a view of ensuring the continuity of that programme and implementing immediately certain provisions of ICCAT Recommendation 10-04, notably those on the early submission of required fishing and inspection plans.\n(5)\nThe new specific control and inspection programme should be set up for the period from 15 March 2011 to 15 March 2014. The results obtained through its application should be periodically evaluated in cooperation with the Member States concerned.\n(6)\nIn order to harmonise the control and inspection of the bluefin tuna fishery at Union level, it is appropriate to draw up common rules for the control and inspection activities to be carried out by the competent authorities of the Member States concerned, and that Member States adopt national control action programmes in order to comply with such common rules. To that end, benchmarks for the intensity of control and inspection activities should be fixed, as well as control and inspection priorities and procedures.\n(7)\nTo ensure the follow-up of infringements, this Decision should set up amongst others, the procedures under which the authorities concerned may exchange relevant information in accordance with Article 117 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\n(8)\nJoint inspection and surveillance activities should be carried out in accordance with joint deployment plans established by the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) set up by Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 (5).\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision establishes a specific control and inspection programme in order to ensure the harmonised implementation of the multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) in 2006 as transposed by Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 as last amended by ICCAT Recommendation 10-04 of 27 November 2010.\nArticle 2\nTemporal and territorial scope\nThe specific control and inspection programme shall apply until 15 March 2014 in the ICCAT Convention area.\nArticle 3\nMaterial scope\nThe specific control and inspection programme shall cover the following activities:\n1.\nall fishing activities, including by-catches, by fishing vessels and traps, including joint fishing operations;\n2.\nall catches, landings, transfers, transhipments and caging operations;\n3.\nall related activities of farms and operators engaged in caging, fattening, farming, harvesting or processing of bluefin tuna and/or in trade of bluefin tuna products, including domestic trade, importation, exportation and re-exportation, transport and storage;\n4.\nsport and recreational fisheries.\nCHAPTER II\nOBJECTIVES, PRIORITIES, BENCHMARKS AND PROCEDURES\nArticle 4\nObjectives\nControl and inspection activities shall aim at ensuring compliance with the following provisions:\n1.\nannual fishing plans, as provided for by Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009;\n2.\nthe prohibition to use spotting aircrafts and helicopters, as provided for by Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009;\n3.\nmeasures on fishing and farming capacities, as provided for by Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009;\n4.\nthe implementation of any observer programme in the Union, including the Member States\u2019 observer programme, and the ICCAT Regional Observer Programme, as provided for by points 90, 91, 92 and Annex 7 of ICCAT Recommendation 10-04;\n5.\nrules on recording of authorised catching vessels and other fishing vessels, as provided for by Articles 14 and 15 of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009;\n6.\nspecific technical measures and conditions for fishing for bluefin tuna as provided in ICCAT Recommendation 10-04, in particular minimum size rules and associated conditions;\n7.\nquantitative restrictions on catches and any specific conditions associated therewith, including the monitoring of quota uptake, as provided for by ICCAT Recommendation 10-04;\n8.\ndocumentation rules applicable to bluefin tuna, as provided for by ICCAT Recommendation 10-04.\nArticle 5\nPriorities\nDifferent gear categories shall be subject to different levels of prioritisation, according to the annual fishing plan. For that reason, each Member State shall set specific priorities.\nArticle 6\nBenchmarks\nThe inspection benchmarks are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 7\nProcedures\nControl and inspection activities shall be carried out in accordance with the following procedural provisions:\n1.\nthe ICCAT Scheme of Joint International Inspection, as provided for by points 99, 100, 101 and Annex 8 of ICCAT Recommendation 10-04;\n2.\nthe methodology of inspection as provided for by ICCAT Recommendation 10-04, and in particular its Annex 8;\n3.\nthe procedures to be followed by officials as laid down the Annex II to this Decision;\n4.\nthe procedures to be followed by Member States as laid down in Articles 8 to 13 of this Decision.\nArticle 8\nJoint procedures\nMember States referred to in Article 12 shall ensure that officials from other Member States concerned are invited to participate in joint inspection and surveillance activities and establish joint operational procedures applicable to their surveillance crafts.\nArticle 9\nNotification of surveillance and inspection activities\n1. A Member State intending to conduct surveillance and inspect fishing vessels in the waters under the jurisdiction of another Member State in the framework of a Joint Deployment Plan shall notify its intentions to the contact point of the coastal Member State concerned, as referred to in Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1042/2006 (6), and to the CFCA.\n2. The notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall contain the following information:\n(a)\ntype, name and call sign of the inspection vessels and inspection aircraft on the basis of the list referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1042/2006;\n(b)\nthe areas where the surveillance and inspection operations shall be carried out;\n(c)\nthe duration of the surveillance and inspection activities.\nArticle 10\nInformation of infringements\nIn addition to Articles 82 and 83 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Member States whose officials detect any infringement while carrying out an inspection of the activities listed in Article 3 shall inform without delay the third country and the Commission of the date of inspection and the details of the infringement.\nArticle 11\nImmediate enforcement measures in case of serious infringements\n1. If a serious infringement is discovered onboard a Union fishing vessel, the flag Member State shall ensure that, following the inspection, the fishing vessel flying its flag ceases all fishing activities and shall inform the Commission in a timely manner.\n2. If the Union fishing vessel is not called to port, the flag Member State shall provide due justification to the Commission within 72 hours.\nCHAPTER III\nIMPLEMENTATION\nArticle 12\nNational control action programmes\n1. The specific control and inspection programme shall be implemented through the national control action programmes, as referred to in Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No1224/2009, adopted by Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Malta and Portugal.\n2. National control action programmes shall be set up in accordance with the objectives, the priorities, the benchmarks and procedures laid down in this Decision and shall contain all data listed in Annex III.\n3. National control action programmes shall be accompanied by annual implementation schedules which shall include details as regards the human and material resources allocated and the zones where those resources are to be deployed. The annual implementation schedules shall take into account the benchmarks set out in Annex I.\n4. For the 2012 and 2013 fishing seasons, Member States shall submit their national control action programmes and annual implementation schedules respectively by 15 September 2011 and 2012. They shall make them available on the secure part of their website by the 1 January 2012 and 2013.\nArticle 13\nCooperation between Member States\nAll Member States shall cooperate with the Member States referred to in Article 12(1) in the implementation of the specific control and inspection programme.\nArticle 14\nJoint inspection and surveillance activities\nPart or the whole of the national control action programmes referred to in Article 12 may be implemented by way of a joint deployment plan adopted by the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 768/2005.\nArticle 15\nReport on the implementation of national control action programmes\n1. Member States referred to in Article 12(1) shall communicate to the Commission and to the CFCA a report indicating the implementation of their national control action programme referred to in Article 12.\n2. Interim reports shall be communicated on 1 July and 15 September every year and a final report on the 15 December of the same year.\n3. This report shall contain the following information, in accordance with the table set out in Annex II:\n(a)\nthe inspection and control activities carried out on a monthly basis;\n(b)\nall infringements detected, including for each infringement the identification of:\n(i)\nthe fishing vessel (name, flag and external identification code), the trap, the farm or the enterprise engaged in the processing and/or trade of bluefin tuna products concerned;\n(ii)\nthe date, time and location of the inspection;\n(iii)\nthe nature of the infringement, including information on serious infringements or violations referred to in Articles 10 and 11;\n(iv)\nthe current state of play concerning the follow-up of infringements detected (e.g. case pending, under appeal, still under investigation);\n(v)\nthe description, in specific terms, of any penalties imposed (e.g. level of fines, value of forfeited fish and/or gear, written warning given), together with the supportive documents;\n(vi)\nan explanation if no action has been taken;\n(c)\nany relevant coordination and cooperation actions between Member States.\n4. An infringement shall continue to be listed on each subsequent report until the action is concluded under the law of the Member State concerned.\nArticle 16\nAdditional information\nMember States shall provide the Commission with any additional information that may be requested on the implementation of this Decision.\nArticle 17\nUnion inspection plan and report\n1. Based on the current Decision and on national control action programmes, and after consultation with the Member States, the Commission shall submit the Union inspection plan to the ICCAT Commission one month before its annual meeting according to point 9 of ICCAT Recommendation 10-04.\n2. The Commission shall convene once a year a meeting of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture to evaluate the compliance with and the results of the specific control and inspection programme with a view to prepare the report the Union is required to provide to the ICCAT Secretariat on 15 October each year.\nCHAPTER IV\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 18\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 March 2011.", "references": ["39", "82", "51", "20", "53", "0", "4", "72", "99", "81", "49", "16", "90", "29", "73", "57", "92", "94", "37", "3", "31", "80", "75", "95", "85", "97", "78", "60", "55", "28", "No Label", "12", "59", "67"], "gold": ["12", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 3 March 2011\nconcerning the non-inclusion of ethoxyquin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC\n(notified under document C(2011) 1265)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/143/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 1112/2002 (2) and (EC) No 2229/2004 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included ethoxyquin.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 24e of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/941/EC of 8 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) on the non-inclusion of ethoxyquin was adopted.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Germany, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/941/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nGermany evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 16 October 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on ethoxyquin to the Commission on 20 August 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for ethoxyquin.\n(6)\nDuring the evaluation of this active substance, a number of concerns have been identified. In particular, it was not possible to perform a reliable consumer, operator and worker exposure assessment, due to the limited toxicological data package, considered insufficient to set the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), the Acute Reference Dose (ARfD) and the Acceptable Operator Exposure Level (AOEL). Furthermore, the data submitted were insufficient to set a residue definition for ethoxyquin and its metabolites. In addition, data were missing to conclude on the genotoxic potential and the ecotoxicity of an impurity in the technical specifications, for confidentiality reasons referred to as impurity 7. Finally, the data available were not sufficient to fully assess the risks to the environment and to non-target organisms. Consequently, it was not possible to conclude on the basis of the information available that ethoxyquin met the criteria for inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(7)\nThe Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the results of the peer review. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the applicant to submit comments on the draft review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(8)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns identified could not be eliminated, and assessments made on the basis of the information submitted and evaluated during the Authority expert meetings have not demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing ethoxyquin satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(9)\nEthoxyquin should therefore not be included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThis Decision does not prejudice the submission of a further application for ethoxyquin pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(11)\nIn the interest of clarity, the entry for ethoxyquin in the Annex to Decision 2008/941/EC should be deleted.\n(12)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/941/EC accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEthoxyquin shall not be included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nauthorisations for plant protection products containing ethoxyquin are withdrawn by 3 September 2011;\n(b)\nno authorisations for plant protection products containing ethoxyquin are granted or renewed from the date of publication of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nAny period of grace granted by Member States in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(6) of Directive 91/414/EEC, shall be as short as possible and shall expire on 3 September 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 4\nIn the Annex to Decision 2008/941/EC, the entry for \u2018ethoxyquin\u2019 is deleted.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 March 2011.", "references": ["8", "90", "36", "75", "97", "96", "51", "28", "3", "6", "47", "70", "24", "30", "39", "78", "10", "5", "64", "74", "87", "99", "0", "22", "27", "43", "81", "56", "40", "73", "No Label", "20", "25", "38", "60", "61"], "gold": ["20", "25", "38", "60", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/19/EU\nof 2 March 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include tau-fluvalinate as active substance and amending Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included tau-fluvalinate.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of tau-fluvalinate.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Denmark, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nDenmark evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 1 October 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on tau-fluvalinate to the Commission on 17 June 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for tau-fluvalinate.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing tau-fluvalinate may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include tau-fluvalinate in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information confirming the results of the risk assessment on the basis of most recent scientific knowledge, as regards the risk to aquatic organisms, the risk to non-target arthropods and on the possible impact on the environment of the potential enantio-selective degradation in environmental matrices.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing tau-fluvalinate to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of tau-fluvalinate and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning tau-fluvalinate in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning tau-fluvalinate in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing tau-fluvalinate as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to tau-fluvalinate are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing tau-fluvalinate as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning tau-fluvalinate. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing tau-fluvalinate as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing tau-fluvalinate as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2011.", "references": ["67", "18", "87", "15", "94", "97", "98", "5", "95", "76", "0", "85", "27", "77", "48", "57", "63", "13", "61", "84", "39", "90", "42", "8", "60", "91", "17", "51", "64", "62", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "41", "65"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "41", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 349/2012\nof 16 April 2012\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9(4) and Article 11(2), 11(5) and 11(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Previous investigations and measures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 130/2006 (2) (the original Regulation), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty, ranging from 0 % to 34,9 %, on imports of tartaric acid (TA) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018China\u2019). It is recalled that the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on TA produced by the Chinese exporting producer Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (\u2018Hangzhou Bioking\u2019) was 0 % while it ranged between 4,7 % and 34,9 % for other Chinese exporting producers.\n(2)\nOn 22 February 2008, following a review initiated on the basis of Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 150/2008 (3), amended the scope of the abovementioned measures.\n(3)\nOn 16 April 2012, following a review of the existing measures on Hangzhou Bioking initiated on the basis of Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001, in light of the WTO Appellate Body report entitled \u2018Mexico - Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice\u2019 (4), which found, in paragraphs 305 and 306, that an exporting producer not found to be dumping in an original investigation has to be excluded from the scope of the definitive measure imposed as a result of such investigation and cannot be made subject to administrative and changed circumstances review, the Council, by Regulation (EU) No 332/2012 (5), amended the measures regarding Hangzhou Bioking.\n(4)\nThe investigation that led to the measures imposed by the original Regulation will be hereinafter referred to as \u2018the original investigation\u2019.\n2. Request for an expiry review\n(5)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry (6) of the anti-dumping measures in force, the Commission received on 27 October 2009 a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged by the following producers (\u2018the applicants\u2019): Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Industria Chimica Valenzana SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA, Caviro Distillerie SRL and Comercial Qu\u00edmica Sarasa SL representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of TA.\n(6)\nThe request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures imposed on imports of TA originating in China would be likely to result in a continuation of dumping and injury to the Union industry.\n3. Initiation of an expiry review\n(7)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 26 January 2011 the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (7) (\u2018notice of initiation\u2019).\n4. Parallel cases\n(8)\nThe Commission also announced on 29 July 2011 the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding (8) pursuant to Article 5 on imports of TA originating in China, limited to one Chinese exporting producer, Hangzhou Bioking.\n(9)\nOn the same day, the Commission announced the initiation of a partial interim review (9) pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of TA originating in China limited to the examination of dumping as far as two Chinese exporting produces are concerned, namely Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd, Changzhou City, and Ninghai Organic Chemical Factory, Ninghai.\n5. Investigation\n5.1. Review investigation period and the period considered\n(10)\nThe investigation of continuation of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the review investigation period (\u2018the period considered\u2019).\n5.2. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(11)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicants, other known Union producers, exporting producers, importers, users in the Union known to be concerned and their associations, and the representatives of the exporting country concerned of the initiation of the expiry review.\n(12)\nInterested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(13)\nIn view of the apparent large number of exporting producers from China, unrelated importers in the Union and Union producers involved in the investigation, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested, pursuant to Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within 15 days of the publication of the notice of initiation and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation.\n(14)\nIn view of the replies received it was decided to apply sampling in respect of Union producers. No unrelated importers in the Union cooperated in the investigation. As regards exporting producers from China, only two exporting producers manifested their willingness to cooperate in the investigation. It was therefore decided that sampling was not necessary as regards exporting producers.\n(15)\nSix Union producers provided the information requested in the notice of initiation and agreed to be included in the sample. On the basis of the information received from these Union producers, the Commission selected a sample of four Union producers which were found to be representative of the Union industry in terms of sales volumes of the like product in the Union. Their combined sales volume represented 61 % of the sales volume in the Union market.\n(16)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from the four sampled Union producers, two users in the Union, and two exporting producers in China. In addition, two cooperating Union producers provided the requested general data for the injury analysis.\n(17)\nExports made by Hangzhou Bioking, whose individual dumping margin in the original investigation was zero, have been excluded from both dumping and injury analysis, including the likelihood of continuation of dumping and risk of recurrence of injury resulting from dumped imports. The analysis in the present review was therefore based on exports of product concerned from China to the Union during the RIP excluding the exports made by the producer Hangzhou Bioking and is also referred to as \u2018exports subject to measures\u2019 in this Regulation.\n(18)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for a determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and for the determination of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nUnion producers:\n-\nComercial Qu\u00edmica Sarasa SL,\n-\nAlcoholera Vin\u00edcola Europea SA,\n-\nDistillerie Mazzari SpA,\n-\nDistillerie Bonollo SpA;\n(b)\nexporting producers in China:\n-\nChangmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd,\n-\nNinghai Organical Chemical Factory;\n(c)\nusers:\n-\nDanisco A/S,\n-\nKerry (NL) BV;\n(d)\nproducer in the analogue country:\n-\nTarcol SA, Argentina.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(19)\nThe product concerned by this review is the same as the one defined in Regulation (EC) No 150/2008, which amended the scope of the measures established by the original Regulation as explained above. Namely, the product concerned is tartaric acid, excluding D-(-)-tartaric acid with a negative optical rotation of at least 12,0 degrees, measured in a water solution according to the method described in the European Pharmacopoeia, originating in China, currently falling within CN code ex 2918 12 00 (TARIC code 2918120090) (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n(20)\nThe review investigation confirmed that, as in the original investigation, the product concerned imported into the Union market and the products manufactured and sold by the exporting producers on the domestic markets, as well as those manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union Industry (\u2018the like product\u2019), have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and uses. Therefore, these products are considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF DUMPING\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(21)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the existing measures would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.\n(22)\nAs mentioned in recital 13, in view of the potentially large number of exporting producers involved in this review, sampling was foreseen in the notice of initiation. From the 20 known exporting producers, only the two companies, both benefiting from market economy treatment, came forward and agreed to cooperate. These two companies cover most of the imports of product concerned from China to the Union during the RIP excluding the exports made by the company Hangzhou Bioking, whose individual dumping margin in the original investigation was zero.\n2. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n2.1. Analogue country\n(23)\nSince China is an economy in transition and in accordance with the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for exporting producers not granted market economy treatment (MET) has to be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in an appropriate market economy third country (\u2018analogue country\u2019).\n(24)\nAs in the original investigation, Argentina was proposed as analogue country in the notice of initiation for the purpose of establishing normal value. Interested parties were given the opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of this choice.\n(25)\nOne industrial consumer of tartaric acid highlighted some constraints linked to the choice of Argentina as analogue market arguing that it should not be the sole benchmark for the purpose of determining normal value. The party concerned addressed in particular alleged differences in the production processes between China and Argentina, the limited amount of annual production as compared to world production and currency exchange rates fluctuation. However, none of these arguments were substantiated by any documentary evidence.\n(26)\nIn any event, the different production processes in Argentina and China and the resulting impact on the costing and the valuation of the product concerned were already carefully considered in the original investigation and it was concluded that it did not alter the comparability of the products that were found to be similar. As the allegation of the industrial consumer did not bring any new element and its claims were not substantiated, the argument is rejected. The findings of the current expiry review, therefore confirm the findings of the original investigation, i.e. that the differences in production processes did not have an impact on the comparability of the products.\n(27)\nThe limited size of the annual production in Argentina as compared to the world market of TA is not a relevant argument when assessing whether a specific market is suitable to establish normal value in an analogue market. Indeed, the investigation confirmed that Argentina is an open and competitive market with at least two operators. On these grounds, the argument is rejected.\n(28)\nThe argument of significant currency exchange fluctuation between regions was not substantiated. In addition, the on spot investigation did not gather any element pointing to any distortion of currency rates between regions. On these grounds, the argument is also rejected.\n(29)\nTherefore, as in the original investigation, it was concluded that Argentina was an appropriate analogue country from which normal value will be determined.\n(30)\nTwo known Argentinean companies were contacted but only one of them agreed to cooperate, to reply to the questionnaire and to accept a verification visit. Its figures have been used for the determination of the normal value.\n2.2. Normal value\n(31)\nFor the two companies granted MET in the original investigation, normal value has been established based on their respective data. In accordance with Article 2 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the domestic sales of tartaric acid to independent customers were representative during the RIP, i.e. if the sales volume of the product intended for domestic consumption represents 5 % or more of their exports of the product concerned to the Union.\n(32)\nFor one company granted MET, normal value had to be constructed since its domestic sales were not sufficient to be considered representative as explained in recital 31. Therefore, the established normal value was calculated using the company\u2019s cost of manufacturing and adding selling, general and administrative costs (SG&A) and profit achieved on the domestic sale made in the ordinary course of trade.\n(33)\nFor the other company granted MET, since the domestic sales were representative and made in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was established on the prices paid by independent customers in the exporting country.\n(34)\nAs far as the companies not granted MET in the original investigation are concerned, pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value was established on the basis of information collected from the cooperating producer in the analogue country.\n(35)\nTherefore, the domestic sales to independent customers in the analogue country were also assessed in accordance with the criterion defined in Article 2 of the basic Regulation. The Commission could verify that these sales were made in sufficient quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and could thus be used to determine normal value for the companies not granted MET.\n2.3. Export price\n(36)\nAll export sales to the Union of the cooperating exporting producers were made directly to independent customers established in the Union. In accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, the export price was established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable.\n(37)\nFor the export price of all other producers established in China, information was taken from imports statistics made available in the Article 14(6) database.\n2.4. Comparison\n(38)\nThe comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis.\n(39)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price of the cooperating exporting producers, and in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made with regard to certain differences in transport, insurance, taxes and credit costs which affected prices and price comparability.\n(40)\nIn order to fairly compare the ex-works normal value from the analogue country and the export price as mentioned in recital 37, the CIF export prices were adjusted to ex-works using data collected during the verification visits.\n2.5. Dumping margin\n(41)\nAs provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price.\n(42)\nFor the cooperating exporting producers, granted MET in the original investigation this comparison showed that these companies continued dumping although at a slightly lower level.\n(43)\nThe residual duty calculated showed a significant level of dumping even higher than in the original investigation.\n3. Likelihood of continuation of dumping\n(44)\nFurther to the analysis of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood of continuation of dumping was also investigated.\n(45)\nIn this respect, the following elements were analysed: the volume and prices of dumped imports from China, the production capacity and the spare capacity in China, the attractiveness of the Union market and other third markets.\n3.1. Volume and prices of dumped imports from China\n(46)\nAfter imposition of definitive measures in January 2006, dumped imports from China continued to increase, raising from 3 034 metric tonnes (MT) in 2007 to 3 649 MT in the RIP, i.e. an increase of around 20 %. In parallel, market share of dumped imports from China gained 1,0 percentage points in the period considered from 12,6 % in 2007 to 13,5 % in the RIP.\n(47)\nIn the same period, prices of dumped imports from China remained relatively stable with an increase of 12,6 % between 2007 and 2008 followed by a continued reduction in 2009 and the RIP, to reach in the latter period the level achieved in 2007.\n3.2. Production capacity and spare capacity in China\n(48)\nAs far as the total production capacity of TA in China is concerned, different sources of information publicly available (10) point to a production capacity that is largely in excess of demand on the Chinese domestic market.\n(49)\nTotal production capacity in China has been assessed at around 25 000 MT, taking into account information gathered on spot during the investigation and following market researches (11). The Chinese market is small when compared to the available capacity in China with an estimated consumption of 5 000 MT.\n(50)\nIn addition, there are strong indications that capacity in China is even higher than 25 000 MT. Indeed, total capacity of the two cooperating Chinese exporters went up by more than 200 % comparing data for the original IP to the current RIP. The corresponding spare capacity was of around 20 % of total capacity in the RIP.\n(51)\nFurthermore, information collected from extracts of the reports mentioned above in recital 48 and publicly available information show that at least two new producers of tartaric acid were set up in 2007.\n(52)\nOn these grounds, it is clear that capacity in China is disproportionate as compared to domestic consumption, which confirms a clear need for the Chinese producers to increase their position on export markets.\n3.3. Attractiveness of the Union market and other third markets\n(53)\nFrom the information gathered at the Chinese cooperating companies, the level of prices to third countries is in line with the level of prices that they could obtain in the Union market. As mentioned above, there is an important production overcapacity on the Chinese domestic market suggesting a strong and natural need to find alternative markets to absorb this excess in production capacity.\n(54)\nThe Union market is by far the biggest in the world reaching around 40 % of the world consumption of tartaric acid and is still growing as mentioned in recital 60. It is also clear, based on information collected during the investigation that Chinese companies have shown a big interest in developing their presence on the biggest market in the world and maintaining a significant market share on the Union market.\n4. Conclusion of the likelihood of continuation of dumping\n(55)\nIn view of the findings described above, it can be concluded that significant volumes of imports from China are still being dumped and that there is a strong likelihood of continuation of dumping. Given the potential spare capacity in China including the new producers that appeared on the Chinese market and the fact that the Union market is the biggest market in the world with attractive level of prices, it can be concluded that the Chinese exporters are likely to further increase their exports to the Union at dumped prices should the anti-dumping measures be allowed to lapse.\nD. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(56)\nDuring the RIP, the like product was produced by nine producers in the Union. Of these nine producers, six producers fully cooperated with the investigation, submitted sampling forms and requested to be included in the sample. These six producers were found to account for a major proportion, in this case more than 73 %, of the total Union production of the like product. As mentioned in recital 57 below, nine producers having provided the data in the review request, are hereafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019 within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(57)\nFor the purpose of the injury analysis, the injury indicators have been established at the following two levels:\n-\nthe macroeconomic elements (production, capacity, capacity utilisation, productivity, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, and magnitude of dumping margins and recovery from the effects of past dumping) were assessed at the level of the whole Union production, on the basis of the information collected from the producers that came forward in the context of the sampling exercise and on an estimation based on the data from the review request for the other three Union producers,\n-\nthe analysis of microeconomic elements (average unit prices stocks, wages, profitability, return on investments, cash flow, ability to raise capital and investments) was carried out on the basis of information provided by the sampled Union producers.\n(58)\nIt is noted that the Union market for TA is characterised by a relatively small number of producers, mostly small and medium enterprises located in Italy and Spain. With the exception of one producer established in Spain, which only produces TA, all other producers are vertically integrated, with the main activity being producing alcohol from wine lees, a process for which TA is a by-product.\nE. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Consumption in the Union market\n(59)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market, the Chinese export database and the imports volumes data for the Union market obtained from Eurostat and, concerning the other Union producers, from estimation based on the review request.\n(60)\nUnion consumption of TA increased between 2007 and the RIP by 11 %. In details, the apparent demand went down from 2007 to 2009 by 15 %. However, during the RIP the Union consumption reached 29 964 tonnes, representing a significant increase of 26 percentage points as compared to the previous year. This increase is explained by the high price elasticity of the TA. Indeed, when prices are low, as was the case during the RIP, TA can be used in additional applications as a substitute for other raw material chemical products such as citric acid and malic, hence an increase of the total Union consumption.\nTable 1\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nTotal EU consumption (tonnes)\n26 931\n25 333\n22 983\n29 964\nIndex\n100\n94\n85\n111\nSource: Questionnaire replies, Chinese export database, Eurostat.\n2. Volume, market share and prices of imports from China\n2.1. Volume and market share\n(61)\nThe volume of all imports of the product concerned from China into the Union increased by 45 % during the period considered. It reached 8 495 tonnes in the RIP corresponding to a market share of 28,4 %.\n(62)\nThe volume of imports of TA from Chinese exporters being subject to anti-dumping measures into the Union increased by 20 % and reached 3 649 tonnes in the RIP corresponding to a market share of 12,2 %, up from 11,3 % at the beginning of the period considered. The remaining imports, 4 846 tonnes, were made by a Chinese exporter subject to a 0 % and which also increased its share in total Chinese exports to the Union during the period considered (+ 9 percentage points).\nTable 2\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nVolume of imports subject to measures from China (tonnes)\n3 035\n3 042\n2 945\n3 649\nIndex = 100\n100\n100\n97\n120\nMarket share of imports subject to measures from China\n11,3 %\n12,0 %\n12,8 %\n12,2 %\nIndex = 100\n100\n106\n113\n107\n2.2. Prices and undercutting\n(63)\nThe following table shows the development of average CIF EU frontier prices of imports under measures from China and the relevant average sales prices of the Union industry.\nTable 3\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nPrice of Chinese imports (EUR/tonne) subject to measures\n1 834\n2 060\n1 966\n1 819\nIndex = 100\n100\n112\n107\n99\nSource: Questionnaire replies, Article 14(6) database.\n(64)\nAverage unit selling prices of Chinese exports subject to measures at CIF level in the RIP reached 1 819 EUR/MT, corresponding, over the period considered, to an increase of 20 %.\n(65)\nConcerning the selling price on the Union market of the TA during the RIP, a comparison was made between the prices of TA produced and sold by the Union industry and those of the imports subject to measures from China. The relevant sales prices of the Union industry were those to independent customers, adjusted where necessary to an ex-works level, i.e. excluding freight costs in the Union and after deduction of discounts and rebates. These prices were compared with the sales prices charged by the aforementioned Chinese exporting producers net of discounts and adjusted where necessary to CIF EU frontier with an appropriate adjustment for the customs clearance costs and post importation costs. The Union weighted average selling price during the RIP was 2 496 EUR/MT.\n(66)\nThe comparison on a type by type basis showed that, during the RIP, imports subject to measures from China of the product concerned were sold in the Union at prices which significantly undercut the Union industry\u2019s prices, when expressed as a percentage of the latter, by 32,6 %.\n3. Imports from other third countries\n(67)\nThe following table shows the development of imports from other third countries during the period considered in terms of volume and market share, as well as the average price of these imports.\nTable 4\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nVolume of imports from other countries (tonne)\n590\n135\n156\n845\nIndex = 100\n100\n23\n26\n143\nMarket share of imports from other third countries\n2,2 %\n0,5 %\n0,7 %\n2,8 %\nIndex = 100\n100\n24\n31\n129\nPrice of imports (EUR/tonne)\n2 503\n2 874\n2 300\n2 413\nSource: Eurostat, Article 14(6) database.\n(68)\nThe volume of imports from other third countries of the TA into the EU increased in the period considered, by 43 % and reached 845 tonnes in the RIP. Prices of these imports are relatively high and significantly above the respective prices from China and only slightly below the average level of prices of the Union industry. However, it can be considered that exports from other third countries were marginal since during the RIP they represented only a market share of 2,8 % despite their steep increase in percentage terms at the end of the period considered.\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(69)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered have been examined.\n4.1. Preliminary remarks\n(70)\nIn view of the fact that sampling was used with regard to the Union industry, for the purpose of the injury analysis, the injury indicators have been established at two levels as mentioned in recital 57 above.\n4.2. Macroeconomic elements\n(a) Production\n(71)\nThe Union production increased by 5 % between 2007 and the RIP. More specifically, it increased by 19 percentage points between 2009 and RIP to around 30,5 thousand MT, following a sharp decrease between 2007 and 2009 of 14 %. Increased production levels have allowed the Union industry to contain the increase of production costs and had a positive impact on the overall Union industry profitability.\nTable 5\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProduction in volume (tonne)\n29 000\n27 500\n25 000\n30 588\nIndex = 100\n100\n95\n86\n105\nSource: Questionnaire replies, review request.\n(b) Production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(72)\nThe production capacity of the Union producers decreased by 2 % throughout the period considered.\n(73)\nCapacity utilisation was 63 % in 2007 and dropped to 56 % in 2009, to reach 68 % in the RIP. The lower utilisation rate in 2009 reflected the negative effects of the crisis. Total capacity utilisation increased by 8 % over the period considered, which contributed to a further dilution of fixed costs.\nTable 6\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProduction capacity (tonne)\n46 000\n46 000\n45 000\n45 000\nIndex = 100\n100\n100\n98\n98\nCapacity utilisation\n63 %\n60 %\n56 %\n68 %\nIndex = 100\n100\n95\n88\n108\nSource: Questionnaire replies, review request.\n(c) Sales volume\n(74)\nThe sales volume of the Union producers to unrelated customers on the Union market modestly increased in RIP by 1 %. First they decreased by 11 % between 2007 and 2008, followed by a further decrease by 9 % in 2009, to reach almost the same level at the end of the period considered as the beginning of the period considered, thus showing wide variations mainly due to the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009.\nTable 7\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nSales to unrelated parties in the Union (tonne)\n20 489\n18 165\n16 709\n20 623\nIndex = 100\n100\n89\n82\n101\nSource: Questionnaire replies, review request.\n(d) Market share\n(75)\nDuring the period considered, the Union producers lost 7,3 percentage points in market share, which decreased from 76,1 % in 2007 to 68,8 % in the RIP. This loss of market share reflects the fact that, despite an increase in consumption, the Union industry\u2019s sales were not able to progress at the same pace in the period considered but remained somewhat stable.\nTable 8\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nMarket share of the Union producers\n76,1 %\n71,7 %\n72,7 %\n68,8 %\nIndex = 100\n100\n94\n95\n90\nSource: Questionnaire replies, review request and Eurostat.\n(e) Growth\n(76)\nBetween 2007 and the RIP, whilst the Union consumption increased by 11 %, the volume of sales by the Union industry on the Union market remained stable and the Union industry market share decreased by 10 %. It is thus concluded that the Union producers could not benefit from any growth of the market.\n(f) Employment\n(77)\nThe employment level of the Union industry shows a decrease of 28 % between 2007 and the RIP. More specifically, the number of persons employed decreased significantly from 320 in 2007 and 2008 to 280 in 2009 and 230 in the RIP. The drop in 2009 is a reflection of the restructuring efforts by a number of Union producers.\nTable 9\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nEmployment (persons)\n320\n320\n280\n230\nIndex = 100\n100\n100\n88\n72\nSource: Questionnaire replies, review request.\n(g) Productivity\n(78)\nProductivity of the Union industry workforce, measured as output (tonnes) per person employed per year, increased by 47 % in the period considered. This reflects that production increased by 5 %, whilst employment levels decreased by 28 % and is an indication of the increased efficiency by the Union industry. This is particularly obvious in the RIP, when production increased while the employment level continued to decrease and productivity was 48 percentage points higher than in 2009.\nTable 10\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProductivity (tonnes per employee)\n90\n85\n89\n132\nIndex = 100\n100\n94\n99\n147\nSource: Questionnaire replies and review request.\n4.3. Data relating to the sampled Union producers\n(h) Factors affecting sales prices\n(79)\nThe annual average sales prices of the sampled producers on the Union market to unrelated customers increased by 8 % between 2007 and 2009, however, they decreased by 6 % during the period considered as in the RIP the annual average sale price reached 2 496 EUR/tonne from 2 667 EUR/tonne in 2007. The availability of calcium tartrate, which is produced out of wine lees and represents 66 % of total costs of manufacturing of TA, varies according to the quality of the grape wine harvest. Therefore, favourable or poor climatic conditions have an effect on the overall supply of calcium tartrate, which in turn has an impact on the annual averages sales prices. It should be noted that 2007 and 2008 have not been two favourable years as far as the grape wine harvest is concerned, which subsequently led to an increase of the costs of raw materials and sales prices after the production period (as it is a seasonal product, effects materialise only several months following the harvest period). Conversely, as 2009 has been a good wine harvesting year hence, the annual average sale prices in the RIP was 14 % lower compared to the previous year.\nTable 11\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nUnit price EU market (EUR/tonne)\n2 667\n2 946\n2 881\n2 496\nIndex = 100\n100\n110\n108\n94\nSource: Questionnaire replies, review request.\n(i) Magnitude of dumping margin and recovery from past dumping\n(80)\nGiven the level of dumping found in this investigation, no full recovery from the past dumping could be established and it was considered that the Union industry remains vulnerable to the injurious effect of any dumped imports in the Union market. It is recalled that in the original investigation dumping margins of 4,7 % and 10,1 % were found for the respective two cooperating Chinese producers being granted MET. The dumping margin for all other companies is 34,9 %. Furthermore, as mentioned in recital 7 above, an anti-dumping proceeding limited to one Chinese exporting producer, Hangzhou Bioking, which is not subject to measures was initiated and it cannot be excluded that this exporting producer could be found to practise dumping. In addition, as stated in recitals 48 to 54 above, a likelihood of continuation of dumping was established mainly based on available excess production capacity in China and the rather small size of the Chinese domestic market. As regards recovery from past dumped imports from China, it is important to recall that after the imposition of definitive measures in January 2006, imports from China subject to measures continue to increase, as mentioned in recital 46 above. Thus, no actual recovery from the past dumping could be established and it is considered that the Union industry remains vulnerable to the injurious effects of any dumped imports in the Union market.\n(j) Stocks\n(81)\nVolume of stock remained stable during the period considered with a modest increase of 2 %. More specifically, it sharply increased by 65 % in 2008 as a direct consequence of the evolution of sales as mentioned in recital 74 above. Between 2008 and the RIP volume of stock decreased as sales to unrelated parties increased during the same period.\nTable 12\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nClosing stock (tonne)\n863\n1 428\n933\n879\nIndex = 100\n100\n165\n108\n102\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(k) Wages\n(82)\nThe average labour cost increased by 19 % during the period considered despite the labour cost reducing efforts of the sampled producers in particular with regard to unskilled workers, as reflected in the reduction of the overall workforce mentioned in recital 77 above.\nTable 13\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nAverage wage (EUR)\n28 686\n31 871\n31 574\n34 245\nIndex = 100\n100\n111\n110\n119\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(l) Profitability and return on investments\n(83)\nDuring the period considered, the profitability of the sampled producers\u2019 sales of the like product on the Union market to unrelated customers, expressed as a percentage of net sales, increased by more than 6 percentage points. More specifically, the situation with regard to profitability of the sampled producers dropped by 3,7 percentage points between 2007 and 2008 to a level of 7,7 %, which was considered to be below the target profit and increased in 2009 and the RIP to reach 17,6 %.\n(84)\nThe return on investments (ROI), expressed as the profit in percent of the net book value of investments, broadly followed the profitability trend. It decreased from a level of 36,4 % in 2007 to 21,9 % in 2008. It increased to 44,4 % in 2009 and increased again in the RIP to 142,9 %. Overall, the return on investments remained very positive over the period considered.\nTable 14\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProfitability of EU (% of net sales)\n11,4 %\n7,7 %\n12,5 %\n17,6 %\nIndex = 100\n100\n67\n109\n153\nROI (profit in % of net book value of investments)\n36,4 %\n21,9 %\n44,4 %\n142,9 %\nIndex = 100\n100\n60\n122\n393\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(m) Cash flow and ability to raise capital\n(85)\nThe net cash flow from operating activities was positive at EUR 4,6 million in 2007. It dropped to EUR 1,8 million in 2008 and improved significantly until the end of the period considered to reach a level of EUR 6,8 million in the RIP. Overall, cash flow has been constantly positive in the period considered.\n(86)\nThere were no indications that the Union industry encountered difficulties in raising capital, mainly due to the fact that, as mentioned in recital 58 above, most of the sampled producers are integrated companies.\nTable 15\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nCash flow (EUR)\n4 691 458\n1 841 705\n4 706 092\n6 802 164\nIndex = 100\n100\n39\n100\n145\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(n) Investments\n(87)\nThe sampled producers\u2019 annual investments in the production of the like product decreased by 23 % between 2007 and the RIP. More specifically, it increased by 5 % between 2007 and 2008 and then it further increased by 32 percentage points in 2009. The sharp drop in investments observed between 2009 and the RIP (- 60 percentage points) can be partially explained by the fact that investigated companies had already during the period considered achieved their necessary scheduled main investments.\nTable 16\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nNet investments (EUR)\n2 518 189\n2 632 013\n3 461 990\n1 943 290\nIndex = 100\n100\n105\n137\n77\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n5. Conclusion on the situation of the Union industry\n(88)\nThe analysis of the macroeconomic data shows that the Union industry increased its production and sales during the period considered. However, the observed increase which was not significant as such, should be seen in the context of increased demand between 2007 and the RIP, which resulted in the Union producers\u2019 market share dropping by 7,3 percentage points to 68,8 %.\n(89)\nAt the same time the relevant microeconomic indicators show an improvement regarding the economic situation of the Union industry. The profitability and return on investment remained positive and the cash flow also remained positive in the RIP.\n(90)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the Union industry has not suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation. However, the overall absence of material injury during the RIP should be considered in the light of other important injury indicators, which developed negatively during the period considered, in particular sales prices, loss of market share and employment. Therefore, the situation of the Union industry is considered to be still vulnerable and in some aspects, far from the levels that could be expected had it recovered fully from the injury found in the original investigation.\nF. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY\n1. Impact of the projected volume of imports and price effects in case of repeal of measures\n(91)\nAs concluded in recitals 48 to 52 above, the exporting producers in China have considerable spare capacities and a clear potential to increase their export volumes to the Union market significantly including redirecting exports from other markets.\n(92)\nThe CIF export prices to the Union of TA practised by the Chinese exporters currently subject to measures were significantly lower than the prices of the Union industry in the RIP and on a type by type basis undercut it by 32,6 %.\n(93)\nAn analysis of Chinese exports (12) of TA to the rest of the world after the RIP shows that their volume was decreasing significantly, from 10 862 MT in the RIP to 8 118 MT at the end of July 2011 (- 25 %). This decrease in Chinese exports volume of 2 744 tonnes to other markets could create an additional flow of Chinese exports towards the Union market.\n(94)\nConsidering existing spare capacities for TA in China, combined with the attractiveness of the Union market as mentioned above, exporters in China would in all likelihood try to increase their market shares in the Union thereby materially injuring the Union industry. Consequently, in the absence of anti-dumping duties on imports of TA originating in China, any increased volumes of dumped imports from China would exercise an even stronger price pressure on the Union industry and cause material injury.\n(95)\nAs mentioned in recital 79 climatic/harvest-related conditions partly play a role in the overall financial situation of the Union industry. It is recalled that the TA, used also by wine producers, can be obtained either from the by-products of winemaking or, as is the case of Chinese exporters, via chemical synthesis, from petrochemical or coal-related compounds such as benzene.\n(96)\nConsequently, it should be further noted that there are no significant constraints in production volumes for Chinese production given their synthetic production methods, unlike the Union industry producers using natural raw materials - wine lees.\n(97)\nGiven that the profitability of the Union industry is in part dependent on climatic conditions, it appears that the good profitability achieved in the RIP cannot be considered as lasting. Indeed, even during the period considered, the Union industry was not always able to achieve its target profit of 8 %. Moreover, in the six-month period following the end of the RIP, the Union industry\u2019s profitability already fell significantly to around 3 % with the industry again finding itself in a vulnerable position.\n2. Conclusion on the likelihood of recurrence of injury\n(98)\nOn this basis, it is concluded that the repeal of the measures would in all likelihood result in an increase of dumped exports originating in China resulting in a downwards pressure on Union industry prices and a worsening of the economic situation of the Union industry. It is therefore concluded that the repeal of measures against China would in all likelihood result in the recurrence of injury to the Union industry.\nG. UNION INTEREST\n1. Introduction\n(99)\nIn compliance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures against China would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved. All interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known pursuant to Article 21(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(100)\nIt should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place, allows the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.\n(101)\nOn this basis, it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures against imports originating in China.\n2. Interest of the Union industry and other Union producers\n(102)\nThe Union industry has proven to be in general a viable industry. This was confirmed by the positive development of its economic situation observed during the period considered partly due to its restructuring efforts and the measures in place. In particular, the Union industry improved its cost structure and profit situation and production volume along the period considered.\n(103)\nIt can reasonably be expected that the Union industry will continue to benefit from the measures to be maintained. Should the measures against imports originating in China not be maintained, it is likely that the Union industry will again suffer material injury from substantial volumes of dumped imports from China, causing a serious deterioration of its financial situation. Indeed, there is a clear likelihood of injurious dumping in substantial volumes which the Union industry could not withstand. The Union industry would therefore continue to benefit from the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.\n(104)\nAccordingly, it is concluded that the maintenance of anti-dumping measures against China would clearly be in the interest of the Union industry.\n3. Interest of importers\n(105)\nIt is recalled that in the previous investigations it was found that the impact of the imposition of measures would not be significant. No traders/importers cooperated in the current investigation. Bearing in mind that there is no evidence suggesting that the measures in force considerably affected importers, it is concluded that the continuation of measures will not affect the Union importers to any significant extent.\n4. Interest of users\n(106)\nTA is mainly used in the wine and food industry as a food and beverage additive, and in the construction industry as a retardant in the production of gypsum.\n(107)\nAll known users have been contacted in this investigation.\n(108)\nThere was no cooperation from users from the construction industry. As established in the original investigation, TA represents less than 2 % of the costs of the gypsum products where it is used. Therefore it was concluded that the continuation of the measures would have a negligible influence on the costs and the competitive position of the construction industry.\n(109)\nTwo major importers/users from the food sector cooperated fully in the proceeding. It could be determined that both companies were profitable, including their product lines using the product concerned as one of the raw materials. Besides sales of products manufactured using the product concerned represented only a minor percentage of their total turnover. Thus it can be concluded that the continuation of the measures would not unduly affect the users of the food industry. Moreover for these users the existence of diverse supply sources for the product concerned was quite important.\n5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(110)\nTaking into account all of the factors outlined above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.\nH. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(111)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained on imports of the product concerned originating in China. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure.\n(112)\nA user from the construction sector claimed that the extension of the measures in force would cause a shortage of the product concerned, might increase their production costs and thus result in increased prices of their finished products. No evidence was submitted to support these claims. Therefore, due to the lack of justification of the claims along with the lack of cooperation from users from the construction sector, it was not possible to verify these claims.\n(113)\nThe two users from the food sector that cooperated in the investigation claimed that the impact of the continuation of the measures on the food industry had not been sufficiently considered, and one of them requested a hearing with the Hearing Officer.\n(114)\nDuring the hearing, this user did not disagree with the conclusion that the continuation of the measures would overall not negatively affect the profitability of the company as a whole but claimed that the impact on the profitability of the specific production line using the product concerned, which represents only a minor percentage of the total turnover, would be in their view significant. It also claimed that domestic prices for tartaric acid had considerably increased after the review investigation period and that these price levels would again significantly reduce their product profitability. Nevertheless this user did not deny that the price increase was a result of a lack of raw material supply on the Union market whose level fluctuates regularly depending on the wine harvest and cannot therefore be considered as lasting nor being caused by the anti-dumping measures in force.\n(115)\nThe other cooperating user, during a hearing with the investigation team, argued against the extension of the measures with arguments of similar nature. Therefore, these arguments were similarly rejected (see the previous recital).\n(116)\nA cooperating Chinese exporting producer argued that the Union industry could not be considered as still being vulnerable, that the essential cause influencing the Union industry situation was closely associated with climatic conditions and that, in consequence, it was against the continuation of the measures. These claims were not supported by evidence and hence could not be accepted. Furthermore, they were not of a nature as to change the findings as to the situation of the Union industry.\n(117)\nFinally the Union industry, in consideration of its profitability figures during the period considered, justified that the closure in mid-2008 of the sole French producer had, in the short run, diminished the quantity of product concerned available in the domestic market, thus temporarily increasing sales prices and, accordingly, increasing their profitability. The Union industry argued that given these circumstances, these changes could not in any case be considered as been of a lasting nature. Thus, the findings as regard the situation of the Union industry remain unchanged.\n(118)\nIn summary, after having considered all the comments submitted following disclosure to interested parties of the conclusions of the investigation, it was considered that none of them was of such a nature as to change the conclusions reached during the investigation.\n(119)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of tartaric acid originating in China should be maintained for an additional period of five years,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of tartaric acid, excluding D-(-)-tartaric acid with a negative optical rotation of at least 12,0 degrees, measured in a water solution according to the method described in the European Pharmacopoeia, currently falling within CN code ex 2918 12 00 (TARIC code 2918120090) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable, to the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, for the products manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nAnti-dumping duty\nTARIC additional code\nChangmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd, Changzou City, People\u2019s Republic of China\n10,1 %\nA688\nNinghai Organic Chemical Factory, Ninghai, People\u2019s Republic of China\n4,7 %\nA689\nAll other companies (except Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd, Hangzhou City, People\u2019s Republic of China - TARIC additional code A687)\n34,9 %\nA999\n3. The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the duty rate applicable to all other companies shall apply.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 April 2012.", "references": ["69", "1", "99", "3", "62", "63", "16", "36", "61", "82", "7", "33", "76", "21", "87", "91", "57", "13", "17", "93", "54", "26", "40", "12", "6", "15", "98", "68", "59", "84", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 38/2012\nof 18 January 2012\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for import licences lodged from 6 to 13 January 2012 under subquota III in the context of the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 for common wheat of a quality other than high quality\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 (3) opens an overall annual import tariff quota of 3 112 030 tonnes of common wheat of a quality other than high quality. That quota is divided into four subquotas.\n(2)\nArticle 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 divides subquota III (order number 09.4125) into four quarterly subperiods and has fixed the quantity at 594 597 tonnes for subperiod 1, for the period from 1 January to 31 March 2012.\n(3)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1324/2011 (4) derogates from Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 for 2012 by merging subperiods 1 and 2 of subquota III (order number 09.4125) and fixes the quantity at 1 189 194 tonnes for subperiod 1, which runs from 1 January to 30 June 2012.\n(4)\nBased on the notification made pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008, the applications lodged from 13.00 on 6 January 2012 to 13.00 on 13 January 2012 (Brussels time) in accordance with Article 4(1), subparagraph 2, of that Regulation, relate to quantities in excess of those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined and the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities applied for should be fixed.\n(5)\nNo further import licences should be issued under subquota III as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 for the current quota subperiod.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure for issuing import licences, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Each import licence application in respect of subquota III referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 and lodged from 13.00 on 6 January 2012 to 13.00 on 13 January 2012 (Brussels time) shall give rise to the issue of a licence for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 65,561415 %.\n2. The issue of licences for the quantities applied for from 13.00 on 13 January 2012 (Brussels time) falling within subquota III as referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 is hereby suspended for the current quota subperiod.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2012.", "references": ["33", "84", "43", "66", "9", "29", "93", "10", "81", "92", "58", "67", "75", "80", "99", "57", "17", "89", "20", "45", "62", "86", "3", "18", "50", "98", "95", "38", "97", "82", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 21 December 2011\namending Decision 2009/852/EC on transitional measures under Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regard the processing of non-compliant raw milk in certain milk-processing establishments in Romania and the structural requirements of such establishments\n(notified under document C(2011) 9562)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/898/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (1) and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 12 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2) and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 852/2004 lays down general rules for food business operators on the hygiene of foodstuffs based amongst others on the principles of hazard analysis and critical control points. It provides that food business operators are to comply with certain procedures based on those principles.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business operators and supplements the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004. The rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 include structural requirements for milk-processing establishments and the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 include structural requirements for such establishments as well as hygiene requirements concerning raw milk and dairy products.\n(3)\nArticle 2 of Commission Decision 2009/852/EC (3) provides that certain structural requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 and in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 are not to apply, until 31 December 2011, to the milk-processing establishments in Romania listed in Annex I to that Decision.\n(4)\nDecision 2009/852/EC also provides that, by way of derogation from the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, the milk-processing establishments listed in Annex II thereto may process, until 31 December 2011, compliant and non-compliant milk, provided that such processing is carried out on separate production lines.\n(5)\nIn addition, Decision 2009/852/EC provides that the milk-processing establishments listed in Annex III thereto may process, until 31 December 2011, compliant and non-compliant milk without separate production lines.\n(6)\nIn September 2011 Romania has informed the Commission that, starting from January 2012, all the milk-processing establishments which are currently listed in Annex I to Decision 2009/852/EC will be in compliance with the structural requirements laid down in Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004. Consequently Article 2 of Decision 2009/852/EC should be deleted.\n(7)\nAnnexes II and III to Decision 2009/852/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nIn addition, Romania has informed the Commission that, since the entry into force of Decision 2009/852/EC, the proportion of raw milk that complies with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, delivered to milk-processing establishments in that Member State, has considerably increased. Romania has also established an action plan aimed at covering the entire production chain of milk in that Member State ensuring compliance with the EU rules.\n(9)\nHowever, according with the report submitted by Romania on the basis of Article 6 of Decision 2009/852/EC and on the information provided by Romanian authorities during the Standing Committee of Food Chain and Animal Health of 17 October 2011, the situation of the milk sector in Romania is still not in conformity with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\n(10)\nTaking into account the current situation, and in order to avoid frustrating the efforts made by the Romanian authorities, it is appropriate to extend the application of the measures provided for in Decision 2009/852/EC.\n(11)\nRomania should continue the process of bringing the raw milk processed by the establishments listed in Annexes II and III to Decision 2009/852/EC in compliance with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\n(12)\nIn particular, Romania should continue to monitor the situation and submit to the Commission regular reports on progress towards full compliance with those requirements. Based on the conclusions of those reports, appropriate measures should be taken.\n(13)\nDecision 2009/852/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2009/852/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 2 is deleted;\n2.\nin Article 3, the date \u201831 December 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2013\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 4, the date \u201831 December 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2013\u2019;\n4.\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\n1. Romania shall submit annual reports to the Commission on progress made in bringing the following in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 853/2004:\n(a)\nproduction holdings producing non-compliant milk;\n(b)\nthe system for collecting and transporting non-compliant milk.\nThe first annual report shall be submitted to the Commission by 31 December 2012, at the latest, and the second annual report by 31 October 2013, at the latest.\nThe reports shall be submitted in the form set out in Annex IV.\n2. The Commission shall closely monitor the progress in bringing the raw milk processed by the establishments listed in Annexes II and III in compliance with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\nIf, on the basis of the reports submitted by Romania, the Commission considers that compliance is not likely to be achieved by 31 December 2013, it shall propose appropriate measures in order to remedy the situation.\u2019;\n5.\nin Article 7, the date \u201831 December 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2013\u2019;\n6.\nAnnexes I, II and III are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["81", "92", "18", "45", "71", "77", "2", "55", "72", "61", "3", "60", "87", "57", "56", "35", "17", "41", "13", "40", "32", "58", "37", "82", "19", "85", "62", "36", "64", "89", "No Label", "9", "38", "70", "73", "74", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "38", "70", "73", "74", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 232/2012\nof 16 March 2012\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the conditions of use and the use levels for Quinoline Yellow (E 104), Sunset Yellow FCF/Orange Yellow S (E 110) and Ponceau 4R, Cochineal Red A (E 124)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Article 10(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 lays down a Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and their conditions of use.\n(2)\nQuinoline Yellow (E 104), Sunset Yellow FCF/Orange Yellow S (E 110) and Ponceau 4R, Cochineal Red A (E 124) are food colours currently approved for use and listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. The current approval takes into account the Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADI) established by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1983 (2).\n(3)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter: \u2018the Authority\u2019) issued an Opinion on 23 September 2009 (3) related to the re-evaluation on the safety of Quinoline Yellow (E 104) as a food additive. In that Opinion, the Authority recommends to lower the ADI of that food colour from 10 mg/kg bw/day to 0,5 mg/kg bw/day. In addition, the Authority considers that the refined exposure estimates (Tier 2 and Tier 3) are generally well over the revised ADI of 0,5 mg/kg bw/day. It is therefore appropriate to amend the conditions of use and use levels for Quinoline Yellow (E 104) to ensure that the new ADI recommended by the Authority is not exceeded.\n(4)\nThe Authority issued an Opinion on 27 September 2009 (4) related to the re-evaluation on the safety of Sunset Yellow FCF/Orange Yellow S (E 110) as a food additive. In that Opinion, the Authority recommends to lower the ADI for Sunset Yellow FCF/Orange Yellow S (E 110) from 2,5 to 1 mg/kg bw/day. In addition, the Authority considers that the refined exposure estimates (Tier 3) are generally well over the revised temporary ADI of 1 mg/kg bw/day for high-consumer children. It is therefore appropriate to amend the conditions of use and use levels for Sunset Yellow FCF/Orange Yellow S (E 110) to ensure that the new temporary ADI recommended by the Authority is not exceeded.\n(5)\nThe Authority issued an Opinion on 23 September 2009 (5) related to the re-evaluation on the safety of Ponceau 4R, Cochineal Red A (E 124) as a food additive. In that Opinion, the Authority recommends to lower the ADI from 4 mg/kg bw/day to 0,7 mg/kg bw/day. In addition, the Authority considers that the refined exposure estimates (Tier 3) are generally well over the revised ADI of 0,7 mg/kg bw/day for high-consumer children. It is therefore appropriate to amend the conditions of use and use levels for Ponceau 4R, Cochineal Red A (E 124) to ensure that the new ADI recommended by the authority is not exceeded.\n(6)\nIt is necessary to remove these substances from Group III listed in Part C(3) of Annex II. However the combined maximum limit when the substances are used together with the remaining substances belonging to Group III should be maintained.\n(7)\nIn order to reduce the exposure below the recommended ADI, maximum limits should be revised. In particular they should be reduced by the same factor as the reduction in daily intake which is aimed at. Certain exceptions with higher levels should be allowed for some traditional products which do not significantly contribute to the exposure. Some provisions have also been deleted.\n(8)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nIn order to allow the necessary time for the food industry to adjust their production to the new conditions of use and the use levels laid down in this Regulation, it is appropriate to provide for transitional arrangements.\n(10)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall apply from 1 June 2013.\nFoods containing Quinoline Yellow (E 104), Sunset Yellow FCF/Orange Yellow S (E 110) and Ponceau 4R, Cochineal Red A (E 124) that have been lawfully placed on the market before 1 June 2013 but that do not comply with the provisions of this Regulation, may continue to be marketed until stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 March 2012.", "references": ["31", "18", "35", "36", "77", "57", "34", "66", "3", "97", "51", "60", "86", "45", "68", "24", "95", "5", "25", "33", "6", "70", "56", "54", "84", "32", "20", "0", "76", "90", "No Label", "38", "72", "74"], "gold": ["38", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 486/2012\nof 30 March 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 as regards the format and the content of the prospectus, the base prospectus, the summary and the final terms and as regards the disclosure requirements\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (1), and in particular Articles 5(5) and 7(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 of 29 April 2004 implementing Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards information contained in prospectuses as well as the format, incorporation by reference and publication of such prospectuses and dissemination of advertisements (2) sets out in detail information which must be included in a prospectus for different kinds of securities in order to comply with Article 5(1) of Directive 2003/71/EC.\n(2)\nAs a consequence of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (3), the requirement for the issuer to provide annually a document containing or referring to all information published in the 12 months preceding the issuance of the prospectus as laid down in Article 10 of Directive 2003/71/EC was deleted by Directive 2010/73/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 amending Directives 2003/71/EC on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (4). This amendment should be reflected in Regulation (EC) No 809/2004.\n(3)\nThe threshold relating to the obligation to publish a prospectus established by Article 3 of Directive 2003/71/EC was increased from EUR 50 000 to EUR 100 000 by Directive 2010/73/EU. This change should also be introduced in Regulation (EC) No 809/2004.\n(4)\nDirective 2010/73/EU introduced new provisions in order to enhance investor protection, reduce administrative burdens for companies when raising capital in the securities markets in the Union, and increase efficiency in the prospectus regime, which makes it necessary to adopt amendments to Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 in relation to the format of the final terms of a base prospectus, the format of the summary of the prospectus, and the detailed content and specific form of the key information to be included in the summary.\n(5)\nIn order to avoid that the final terms of a base prospectus contain information that needs to be approved by the competent authorities, the base prospectus should contain all information which the issuer knew at the time of drawing up the prospectus.\n(6)\nIt should be provided that the base prospectus may contain options in relation to all information required for the relevant securities note schedules and building blocks. Final terms should then state which of those options are applicable to the individual issue by referring to the relevant sections of the base prospectus or by reproducing such information. It should be allowed to include certain additional information which does not relate to the securities note in the final terms, if it is considered useful for the investors. That additional information should be specified in this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe final terms should not amend or replace any information contained in the base prospectus as any new information which may affect the investor\u2019s assessment of the issuer and of the securities is to be included in a supplement or a new base prospectus, which is subject to prior approval by the competent authority. Accordingly, the final terms should not include any new description of any new payment conditions which was not included in the base prospectus.\n(8)\nThe summary should provide the investors with key information as required by Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/71/EC. For that purpose, the summary specific to the individual issue should combine that information in the summary of the base prospectus which is only relevant to the individual issue with the relevant parts of the final terms. The summary of the individual issue should be annexed to the final terms.\n(9)\nFor securities linked to or backed by an underlying asset, the base prospectus should disclose all information about the type of underlying asset already known at the date of its approval. Therefore, only issue specific details in relation to this underlying asset should be included in the final terms as the choice of the relevant underlying asset may be influenced by market conditions.\n(10)\nProvisions on the format and the content of the summary of the prospectus should be laid down so that equivalent information appears in the same position in the summaries and that similar products can be easily compared. Accordingly, where an element is not applicable to a prospectus, that element should appear in the summary with the mention \u2018not applicable\u2019.\n(11)\nA summary should be a self-contained part of the prospectus. Where an issuer, an offeror or a person asking for admission to trading on a regulated market is not under an obligation to include a summary in a prospectus but wishes to produce an overview section in the prospectus, this section should not be entitled \u2018Summary\u2019 unless the overview section complies with all the disclosure requirements for summaries. Summaries should be drafted in plain language, presenting the information in an easily accessible way.\n(12)\nIn order to improve the efficiency of the Union\u2019s securities markets and reduce the administrative costs for issuers when raising capital, a proportionate disclosure regime, as required by Article 7(2)(g) of Directive 2003/71/EC, should be introduced for offers of shares to existing shareholders who can either subscribe the shares or sell the right to subscribe the shares.\n(13)\nAs required by Article 7(2)(e) of Directive 2003/71/EC, a proportionate disclosure regime should adequately take into account the size of issuers, in particular credit institutions issuing non-equity securities referred to in Article 1(2)(j) of Directive 2003/71/EC, which chose to opt into the regime of Directive 2003/71/EC, small and medium-sized enterprises and companies with reduced market capitalisation. However, such issuers should be allowed to choose between schedules with proportionate requirements and the full disclosure regime.\n(14)\nThe proportionate disclosure regimes should take into account the need to improve investor protection and the amount of information already disclosed to the markets.\n(15)\nAdvertisements should inform investors when no prospectus is required in accordance with Directive 2003/71/EC unless the issuer, the offeror or the person asking for admission to trading on a regulated market chooses to publish a prospectus that complies with the requirements of Directive 2003/71/EC and this Regulation.\n(16)\nIn consideration of the need to provide issuers with a transitional period to adapt to the new requirements introduced by this Regulation, this Regulation should only apply to prospectuses and base prospectuses which have been approved by a competent authority on the date of or after its entry into force.\n(17)\nRegulation (EC) No 809/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 809/2004\nRegulation (EC) No 809/2004 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, point 3 is deleted;\n(2)\nin Article 2, the following point 13 is added:\n\u201813.\n\u201cRights issue\u201d, means any issue of statutory pre-emption rights which allow for the subscription of new shares and is addressed only to existing shareholders. Rights issue also includes an issue where such statutory pre-emption rights are disabled and replaced by an instrument or a provision conferring near identical rights to existing shareholders when those rights meet the following conditions:\n(a)\nshareholders are offered the rights free of charge;\n(b)\nshareholders are entitled to take up new shares in proportion to their existing holdings, or, in the case of other securities giving a right to participate in the share issue, in proportion to their entitlements to the underlying shares;\n(c)\nthe rights to subscribe are negotiable and transferable or, if not, the shares arising from the rights are sold at the end of the offer period for the benefit of those shareholders who did not take up those entitlements;\n(d)\nthe issuer is able, as regards the entitlements referred to in point (b), to impose limits or restrictions or exclusions and make arrangements it considers appropriate to deal with treasury shares, fractional entitlements and requirements laid down by law or by a regulatory authority in any country or territory;\n(e)\nthe minimum period during which shares may be taken up is the same as the period for the exercise of statutory pre-emption rights laid down in Article 29(3) of Council Directive 77/91/EEC (5);\n(f)\nthe rights lapse at the expiration of the exercise period.\n(3)\nin Chapter I, the following Article 2a is added:\n\u2018Article 2a\nCategories of information in the base prospectus and the final terms\n1. The categories set out in Annex XX shall determine the degree of flexibility by which the information can be given in the base prospectus or the final terms. The categories shall be defined as follows:\n(a)\n\u201cCategory A\u201d means the relevant information which shall be included in the base prospectus. This information cannot be left in blank for later insertion in the final terms;\n(b)\n\u201cCategory B\u201d means that the base prospectus shall include all the general principles related to the information required, and only the details which are unknown at the time of the approval of the base prospectus can be left in blank for later insertion in the final terms;\n(c)\n\u201cCategory C\u201d means that the base prospectus may contain a reserved space for later insertion for the information which was not known at the time of the approval of the base prospectus. Such information shall be inserted in the final terms.\n2. Where the conditions of Article 16(1) of Directive 2003/71/EC apply, a supplement shall be required.\nWhere those conditions do not apply, the issuer, the offeror or the person asking for admission to trading on a regulated market shall publish a notice of the change.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\nMinimum information to be included in a prospectus\nA prospectus shall be drawn up by using one or a combination of the schedules and building blocks set out in this Regulation.\nA prospectus shall contain the information items required in Annexes I to XVII and Annexes XX to XXIX depending on the type of issuer or issues and securities involved. Subject to Article 4a(1), a competent authority shall not request that a prospectus contains information items which are not included in Annexes I to XVII or Annexes XX to XXIX.\nIn order to ensure conformity with the obligation referred to in Article 5(1) of Directive 2003/71/EC, the competent authority of the home Member State, when approving a prospectus in accordance with Article 13 of that Directive, may, on a case-by-case basis, require the information provided by the issuer, the offeror or the person asking for admission to trading on a regulated market to be completed, for each of the information items.\nWhere the issuer, the offeror or the person asking for the admission to trading on a regulated market is required to include a summary in a prospectus, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/71/EC, the competent authority of the home Member State, when approving the prospectus in accordance with Article 13 of that Directive, may, on a case-by-case basis, require certain information provided in the prospectus, to be included in the summary.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 4a is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, the introductory phrase of the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The competent authority shall base any request pursuant to the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 on the requirements set out in item 20.1 of Annex I, item 15.1 of Annex XXIII, item 20.1 of Annex XXV, item 11.1 of Annex XXVII and item 20.1 of Annex XXVIII as regards the content of financial information and the applicable accounting and auditing principles, subject to any modification which is appropriate in view of any of the following factors:\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 4, point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nits entire business undertaking at the time that the prospectus is drawn up is not accurately represented in the historical financial information which it is required to provide under item 20.1 of Annex I, item 15.1 of Annex XXIII, item 20.1 of Annex XXV, item 11.1 of Annex XXVII and item 20.1 of Annex XXVIII;\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. For the purposes of paragraph 5 of this Article, and of item 20.2 of Annex I, item 15.2 of Annex XXIII and item 20.2 of Annex XXV, a significant gross change means a variation of more than 25 %, relative to one or more indicators of the size of the issuer\u2019s business, in the situation of an issuer.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Articles 7, 8, 12, 16 and 21, and in Annexes IV, V, VII to X, XII, XIII, XV and XVIII, the figure \u201850 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018100 000\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 9, the following second paragraph is added:\n\u2018Item 3 of Annex VI shall not apply where a Member State acts as guarantor.\u2019;\n(8)\nin Article 21, the following paragraph 3 is added:\n\u20183. The issuer, the offeror and the person asking for admission to trading on a regulated market may choose to draw up a prospectus in accordance with the proportionate schedules set out in Annexes XXIII to XXIX instead of the schedules set out in Annexes I, III, IV, IX, X and XI as described in the second subparagraph provided that the respective conditions laid down in Articles 26a, 26b and 26c are fulfilled.\nWhere the issuer, the offeror and the person asking for admission to trading on a regulated market makes that choice:\n(a)\nthe reference to Annex I in Annex XVIII shall be read as a reference to Annex XXIII or XXV;\n(b)\nthe reference to Annex III in Annex XVIII shall be read as a reference to Annex XXIV;\n(c)\nthe reference to Annex IV in Annex XVIII shall be read as a reference to Annex XXVI;\n(d)\nthe reference to Annex IX in Annex XVIII shall be read as a reference to Annex XXVII;\n(e)\nthe reference to Annex X in Annex XVIII shall be read as a reference to Annex XXVIII;\n(f)\nthe reference to Annex XI in Annex XVIII shall be read as a reference to Annex XXIX.\u2019;\n(9)\nArticle 22 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. A base prospectus shall be drawn up using one or a combination of schedules and building blocks provided for in this Regulation according to the combinations for various types of securities set out in Annex XVIII.\nA base prospectus shall contain the information items required in Annexes I to XVII, Annex XX and Annexes XXIII to XXIX depending on the type of issuer and securities involved, provided for in the schedules and building blocks set out in this Regulation. A competent authority shall not request that a base prospectus contains information items which are not included in Annexes I to XVII, Annex XX or Annexes XXIII to XXIX.\nIn order to ensure conformity with the obligation referred to in Article 5(1) of Directive 2003/71/EC, the competent authority of the home Member State, when approving a base prospectus in accordance with Article 13 of that Directive, may, on a case-by-case basis, require the information provided by the issuer, the offeror or the person asking for admission to trading on a regulated market to be completed for each of the information items.\nWhere the issuer, the offeror or the person asking for the admission to trading on a regulated market is required to include a summary in a base prospectus, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/71/EC, the competent authority of the home Member State, when approving the base prospectus in accordance with Article 13 of that Directive, may, on a case-by-case basis, require certain information provided in the base prospectus to be included in the summary.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph 1a is inserted:\n\u20181a. The base prospectus may contain options with regard to information categorised as Category A, Category B and Category C, required by the relevant securities note schedules and building blocks, and set out in Annex XX. The final terms shall determine which of these options is applicable to the individual issue, by referring to the relevant sections of the base prospectus or by replicating such information.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The final terms attached to a base prospectus shall only contain the following:\n(a)\nwithin the various securities notes schedules according to which the base prospectus is drawn up, the information items in Categories B and C listed in Annex XX. When an item is not applicable to a prospectus, the item shall appear in the final terms with the mention \u201cnot applicable\u201d;\n(b)\non a voluntary basis, any \u201cadditional information\u201d set out in Annex XXI;\n(c)\nany replication of, or reference to, options already provided for in the base prospectus which are applicable to the individual issue.\nThe final terms shall not amend or replace any information in the base prospectus.\u2019;\n(d)\nin paragraph 5, the following point 1a is inserted:\n\u20181a.\na section containing a template, the \u201cform of the final terms\u201d, which has to be filled out for each individual issue;\u2019;\n(e)\nin paragraph 7, the following second subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Where the issuer needs to prepare a supplement concerning information in the base prospectus that relates to only one or several specific issues, the right of investors to withdraw their acceptances pursuant to Article 16(2) of Directive 2003/71/EC shall only apply to the relevant issues and not to any other issues of securities under the base prospectus.\u2019;\n(10)\nArticle 24 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 24\nContent of the summary of the prospectus, of the base prospectus and of the individual issue\n1. The issuer, the offeror or the person asking for the admission to trading on a regulated market shall determine the detailed content of the summary referred to in Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/71/EC in accordance with this Article.\nA summary shall contain the key information items set out in Annex XXII. Where an item is not applicable to a prospectus, such item shall appear in the summary with the mention \u201cnot applicable\u201d. The length of the summary shall take into account the complexity of the issuer and of the securities offered, but shall not exceed 7 % of the length of a prospectus or 15 pages, whichever is the longer. It shall not contain cross-references to other parts of the prospectus.\nThe order of the sections and of the elements of Annex XXII shall be mandatory. The summary shall be drafted in clear language, presenting the key information in an easily accessible and understandable way. Where an issuer is not under an obligation to include a summary in a prospectus pursuant to Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/71/EC, but produces an overview section in the prospectus, this section shall not be entitled \u201cSummary\u201d unless the issuer complies with all disclosure requirements for summaries laid down in this Article and Annex XXII.\n2. The summary of the base prospectus may contain the following information:\n(a)\ninformation included in the base prospectus;\n(b)\noptions for information required by the securities note schedule and its building block(s);\n(c)\ninformation required by the securities note schedule and its building block(s) left in blank for later insertion in the final terms.\n3. The summary of the individual issue shall provide the key information of the summary of the base prospectus combined with the relevant parts of the final terms. The summary of the individual issue shall contain the following:\n(a)\nthe information of the summary of the base prospectus which is only relevant to the individual issue;\n(b)\nthe options contained in the base prospectus which are only relevant to the individual issue as determined in the final terms;\n(c)\nthe relevant information given in the final terms which has been previously left in blank in the base prospectus.\nWhere the final terms relate to several securities which differ only in some very limited details, such as the issue price or maturity date, one single summary of the individual issue may be attached for all those securities, provided the information referring to the different securities is clearly segregated.\nThe summary of the individual issue shall be subject to the same requirements as the final terms and shall be annexed to them.\u2019;\n(11)\nin Article 25(5), the following third subparagraph is added:\n\u2018In any case, a new filing of final terms and summary of the individual issue annexed thereto corresponding to offers made prior to the production of a new summary or a supplement to the summary shall not be required.\u2019;\n(12)\nin Article 26, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. The final terms shall be presented in the form of a separate document or be included in the base prospectus. The final terms shall be prepared in an easily analysable and comprehensible form.\nThe items of the relevant securities note schedule and its building blocks, which are included in the base prospectus, shall not be reproduced in the final terms.\nThe issuer, the offeror or the person asking for admission to trading on a regulated market may include any of the additional information set out in Annex XXI in the final terms.\nA clear and prominent statement shall be inserted in the final terms indicating:\n(a)\nthat the final terms have been prepared for the purpose of Article 5(4) of Directive 2003/71/EC and must be read in conjunction with the base prospectus and its supplement(s);\n(b)\nwhere the base prospectus and its supplement(s) are published in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2003/71/EC;\n(c)\nthat in order to get the full information both the base prospectus and the final terms must be read in conjunction;\n(d)\nthat a summary of the individual issue is annexed to the final terms.\nThe final terms may include the signature of the legal representative of the issuer or the person responsible for the prospectus according to the relevant national law or the signature of both.\n5a. The final terms and the summary of the individual issue shall be drawn up in the same language respectively as the approved version of the form of the final terms of the base prospectus and as the summary of the base prospectus.\nWhen the final terms are communicated to the competent authority of the host Member State or, if there is more than one host Member State, to the competent authorities of the host Member States, in accordance with Article 5(4) of Directive 2003/71/EC, the following language rules shall apply to the final terms and the annexed summary:\n(a)\nwhere the summary of the base prospectus is to be translated pursuant to Article 19 of Directive 2003/71/EC, the summary of the individual issue annexed to the final terms shall be subject to the same translation requirements as the summary of the base prospectus;\n(b)\nwhere the base prospectus is to be translated pursuant to Article 19 of Directive 2003/71/EC, the final terms and the summary of the individual issue annexed thereto, shall be subject to the same translation requirements as the base prospectus.\nThe issuer shall communicate those translations, together with the final terms, to the competent authority of the host Member State or, if there is more than one host Member State, to the competent authorities of the host Member States.\u2019;\n(13)\nthe following Chapter IIIa is inserted:\n\u2018CHAPTER IIIa\nPROPORTIONATE DISCLOSURE REGIME\nArticle 26a\nProportionate schedule for rights issues\n1. The proportionate schedules set out in Annexes XXIII and XXIV shall apply to rights issues, provided that the issuer has shares of the same class already admitted to trading on a regulated market or a multilateral trading facility as defined in point 15 of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6).\n2. Issuers whose shares of the same class are already admitted to trading on a multilateral trading facility can only make use of the schedules set out in Annexes XXIII and XXIV when the rules of that multilateral trading facility contain the following:\n(a)\nprovisions requiring issuers to publish annual financial statements and audit reports within 6 months after the end of each financial year, half yearly financial statements within 4 months after the end of the first 6 months of each financial year and make public inside information as defined in point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Directive 2003/6/EC pursuant to Article 6 of that Directive;\n(b)\nprovisions requiring issuers to make the reports and information referred to in point (a) available to the public by publishing them on their websites;\n(c)\nprovisions preventing insider dealing and market manipulation in accordance with Directive 2003/6/EC.\n3. A statement at the beginning of the prospectus shall indicate clearly that the rights issue is addressed to shareholders of the issuer and that the level of disclosure of the prospectus is proportionate to that type of issue.\nArticle 26b\nProportionate schedules for small and medium-sized enterprises and companies with reduced market capitalisation\nThe proportionate schedules set out in Annexes XXV to XXVIII shall apply when securities issued by small and medium-sized enterprises and companies with reduced market capitalisation are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market situated or operating within a Member State.\nHowever, small and medium-sized enterprises and companies with reduced market capitalisation may instead choose to draw up a prospectus in accordance with the schedules set out Annexes I to XVII and XX to XXIV.\nArticle 26c\nProportionate requirements for issues by credit institutions referred to in Article 1(2)(j) of Directive 2003/71/EC\nCredit institutions issuing securities referred to in Article 1(2)(j) of Directive 2003/71/EC that draw up a prospectus in accordance with Article 1(3) of that Directive may choose to include in their prospectus historical financial information covering only the last financial year, or such shorter period that the issuer has been in operation, in accordance with Annex XXIX to this Regulation.\n(14)\nArticle 27 is deleted;\n(15)\nin Article 34, the following second paragraph is added:\n\u2018Where no prospectus is required in accordance with Directive 2003/71/EC, any advertisement shall include a warning to that effect unless the issuer, the offeror or the person asking for admission to trading on a regulated market chooses to publish a prospectus which complies with Directive 2003/71/EC and this Regulation.\u2019;\n(16)\nin Article 35, paragraph 5a is replaced by the following:\n\u20185a. Third country issuers are not subject to a requirement under item 20.1 of Annex I, item 13.1 of Annex IV, item 8.2 of Annex VII, item 20.1 of Annex X, item 11.1 of Annex XI, item 15.1 of Annex XXIII, item 20.1 of Annex XXV, item 13.1 of Annex XXVI, item 20.1 of Annex XXVIII or item 11 of Annex XXIX, to restate historical financial information included in a prospectus and relevant for the financial years prior to financial years starting on or after 1 January 2015, or to a requirement under item 8.2.a of Annex VII, item 11.1 of Annex IX, item 20.1.a of Annex X, item 11.1 of Annex XXVII or item 20.1 of Annex XXVIII to provide a narrative description of the differences between International Financial Reporting Standards adopted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 and the accounting principles in accordance with which such information is drawn up relating to the financial years prior to financial years starting on or after 1 January 2015, provided that the historical financial information is prepared in accordance with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of the Republic of India.\u2019;\n(17)\nin Annex V, item 4.7 is replaced by the following:\n4.7. The nominal interest rate and provisions relating to interest payable:\n-\nthe date from which interest becomes payable and the due dates for interest,\n-\nthe time limit on the validity of claims to interest and repayment of principal.\nWhere the rate is not fixed, a statement setting out the type of underlying and a description of the underlying on which it is based and of the method used to relate the underlying and the rate and an indication where information about the past and the further performance of the underlying and its volatility can be obtained.\n-\na description of any market disruption or settlement disruption events that affect the underlying,\n-\nadjustment rules with relation to events concerning the underlying,\n-\nname of the calculation agent.\nIf the security has a derivative component in the interest payment, provide a clear and comprehensive explanation to help investors understand how the value of their investment is affected by the value of the underlying instrument(s), especially under the circumstances when the risks are most evident.\u2019;\n(18)\nin Annex XIII, item 4.8 is replaced by the following:\n4.8. The nominal interest rate and provisions relating to interest payable:\n-\nthe date from which interest becomes payable and the due dates for interest,\n-\nthe time limit on the validity of claims to interest and repayment of principal.\nWhere the rate is not fixed, a statement setting out the type of underlying and a description of the underlying on which it is based and of the method used to relate the underlying and the rate:\n-\na description of any market disruption or settlement disruption events that affect the underlying,\n-\nadjustment rules with relation to events concerning the underlying,\n-\nname of the calculation agent.\u2019.\n(19)\nAnnexes XX to XXIX, the text of which is set out in the Annex to this Regulation, are added.\nArticle 2\nTransitional provision\n1. Point (3), points (9)(a) to (d), and points (10), (11) and (12) of Article 1 shall not apply to the approval of a supplement to a prospectus or base prospectus where the prospectus or base prospectus was approved before 1 July 2012.\n2. Where in accordance with Article 18 of Directive 2003/71/CE the competent authority of the home Member State notifies the competent authority of the host Member State with a certificate of approval in relation to a prospectus or a base prospectus approved before 1 July 2012, the competent authority of the home Member State shall clearly and explicitly indicate in the certificate that the prospectus or base prospectus was approved before 1 July 2012.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 March 2012.", "references": ["0", "62", "79", "65", "37", "51", "56", "71", "78", "5", "3", "76", "4", "97", "17", "40", "47", "50", "59", "7", "86", "27", "25", "41", "36", "81", "18", "45", "69", "77", "No Label", "30", "39", "42"], "gold": ["30", "39", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 July 2011\non the publication of references of standard EN 15947 regarding the essential safety requirements set out in Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on pyrotechnic articles\n(notified under document C(2011) 5310)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/482/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles (1), and in particular Article 8 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Standing Committee set up by Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 20 September 2010, the Swedish authorities have raised a formal objection in respect of parts 3, 4 and 5 of standard EN 15947, in particular relating to the requirements for batteries and combinations.\n(2)\nStandard EN 15947 considers batteries and combinations to be in conformity with the essential safety requirements of Directive 2007/23/EC if they are embedded into soft ground or fixed to a post in order to stay upright during functioning.\n(3)\nAccording to the Swedish authorities, standard EN 15947 does not satisfy the essential safety requirements set out in point 3 of Annex I to Directive 2007/23/EC. Batteries and combinations are commonly used on hard ground, such as frozen ground and pavement, asphalt surfaces or concrete. Standard EN 15947 does not provide for a test for those batteries and combinations on hard surface. Therefore, there is a risk that those batteries and combinations will not stay upright during functioning on hard ground. Standard EN 15947 does not satisfy the essential safety requirement on the instructions for use set out in point 3(h) of Annex I to Directive 2007/23/EC. Due to the nature of fireworks, they are often used in late evening or at night when, because of poor visibility, instructions are difficult to read.\n(4)\nConcerns raised by Sweden were addressed in the framework of European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), with several Member States insisting that, in the light of their climatic conditions and national regulations for the use of fireworks, batteries and combinations that are to be embedded in the ground or to be fixed to a post should be included in standard EN 15947. As a result, batteries and combinations that are to be embedded in the ground or have to be fixed to a post were included in that standard as they satisfy essential safety requirements set out in Directive 2007/23/EC when accompanied by the instructions for use.\n(5)\nThe Commission considers that in Member States where fireworks are used primarily in public spaces, certain batteries and combinations, despite labelling requiring them to be fixed to a post or embedded in soft ground, are in practice often only placed on hard ground or hard surfaces. In other Member States, where fireworks are primarily being used on private property, the requirement to embed batteries and combinations into soft ground or to fix them to a post actually increases safety. Therefore, in order to protect users and bystanders from injuries, it is necessary to revise the relevant parts of standard EN 15947 in order to introduce different types of batteries and combinations and take account of the distinctions between them. A distinction should be made between batteries and combinations that are intended and suitable to be placed on a hard flat surface and have to be tested in that manner, and those batteries and combinations that must be embedded in soft ground or attached to a post and tested in that manner. Batteries and combinations which are neither intended and suitable to be placed on a hard flat surface, nor embedded in soft ground or attached to a post should be included in a third, additional type.\n(6)\nAs a result of the need to revise parts 3, 4 and 5 of standard EN 15947 with regard to batteries and combinations, reference to those parts should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union with an additional notice.\n(7)\nOn 27 September 2010, the French authorities have raised a formal objection in respect of parts 3, 4 and 5 of standard EN 15947, relating to the absence of a drop test and to failure to set different safety distances for operators and for the public.\n(8)\nFollowing discussion in the framework of CEN it was decided not to include the drop test in the standard as proposed by France. Mechanical conditioning according to the descriptions in standard EN 15947 had already been part of the previous standard series EN 14035 and has been very well established in the past. This test method covers the requirements regarding sensitivity to normal, foreseeable handling and transportation set out in Directive 2007/23/EC.\n(9)\nThe Commission considers that the mechanical conditioning test already contained in EN 15947 sufficiently covers the requirements regarding sensitivity to normal, foreseeable handling and transportation set out in Directive 2007/23/EC.\n(10)\nFrance also expressed concern that the safety distances set in part 3 of the standard EN 15947 do not protect the public in every case, but only protect the firer. For example, if products are fired in the vicinity of tall buildings, there is a risk of damaging the exterior of these buildings or injure persons on balconies or terraces. France has therefore proposed to determine the safety distances of each pyrotechnic article by taking into account its maximum vertical range.\n(11)\nCEN discussions regarding safety distances clearly revealed that it was necessary to have the same safety distance for each article within a certain category. A deviation from this principle entailed significant risks, as the user without specialist knowledge would have to adjust the safety distance prior to use.\n(12)\nThe Commission considers that too many differing safety distances for pyrotechnic articles of the same category, especially different ones for users without specialist knowledge and their public, will confuse users. Therefore it is not necessary to revise parts 3, 4 and 5 of the standard EN 15947 in this regard, as it already satisfies the essential safety requirements set out in Directive 2007/23/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe references of parts 3, 4 and 5 of standard EN 15947 shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 2\n1. The publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of references of parts 3, 4 and 5 of standard EN 15947 shall be accompanied by the following additional notice:\n\u2018Until that standard is reviewed and republished, Member States shall consider batteries and combinations which comply with standard EN 15947 to be in conformity with the essential safety requirements set out in Annex I to Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council only if, before being placed on the market, they have been clearly labelled as indicated below.\nFor batteries and combinations to be placed on flat ground:\n\u201cPlace battery on flat ground\u201d or \u201cPlace combination on flat ground\u201d.\nFor batteries and combinations to be embedded into soft ground or material:\n\u201cInsert battery upright in soft ground or other non-flammable material, e.g. sand\u201d or \u201cInsert combination upright in soft ground or other non-flammable material, e.g. sand\u201d.\nFor batteries and combinations to be fixed to a post:\n\u201cFix battery firmly and upright to a solid post\u201d, \u201cEnsure top of battery clears post\u201d or \u201cFix combination firmly and upright to a solid post\u201d, \u201cEnsure top of combination clears post\u201d. The method and means for fixing the battery or combination to a post shall be described in sufficient detail and in terminology which can be easily understood by non-professional users in accompanying instructions for use.\nFor other batteries and combinations: [specify other safety precautions if not intended and suitable to be placed on flat ground, or to be embedded into soft ground or material or attached to a post].\u2019.\n2. The publication of the reference number of a national standard transposing standard EN 15947 shall be accompanied by the notice referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2011.", "references": ["60", "14", "73", "29", "67", "26", "31", "91", "72", "85", "66", "47", "0", "39", "49", "16", "82", "1", "9", "89", "15", "92", "17", "5", "69", "63", "61", "21", "74", "77", "No Label", "24", "25", "76", "83", "86"], "gold": ["24", "25", "76", "83", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 July 2012\namending Decision 2009/821/EC as regards the list of border inspection posts\n(notified under document C(2012) 5187)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/450/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 20(1) and (3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (2), and in particular the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (3), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/821/EC of 28 September 2009 drawing up a list of approved border inspection posts, laying down certain rules on the inspections carried out by Commission veterinary experts and laying down the veterinary units in TRACES (4) lays down a list of border inspection posts approved in accordance with Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC. That list is set out in Annex I to that Decision.\n(2)\nFollowing communication from the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom, the entries for the border inspection posts in those Member States should be amended in the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(3)\nFollowing satisfactory inspections by the Commission inspection services, the Food and Veterinary Office, new border inspection posts at Jade-Weser-Port Wilhelmshaven in Germany, at Riga airport in Latvia and at Edinburgh airport in the United Kingdom should be added to the entries for those Member States in the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(4)\nIn addition, Italy has communicated that the border inspection post at Milano-Linate airport should be temporarily suspended and that the temporary suspension of the border inspection post at Torino-Caselle should be lifted. The list of entries for that Member State as set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nIn addition, Latvia has communicated that the border inspection post at Patarnieki should be temporarily suspended and the relevant entry for that Member State as set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nDecision 2009/821/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Decision 2009/821/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2012.", "references": ["99", "88", "34", "58", "48", "38", "45", "47", "57", "62", "80", "39", "82", "67", "5", "26", "73", "16", "14", "40", "17", "86", "10", "89", "15", "18", "75", "0", "44", "22", "No Label", "21", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1072/2010\nof 22 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for northern prawn in NAFO 3L by vessels flying the flag of Lithuania\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["18", "50", "72", "15", "20", "0", "49", "59", "32", "53", "89", "21", "93", "58", "80", "51", "98", "55", "6", "27", "73", "64", "16", "11", "1", "29", "54", "34", "22", "62", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 February 2012\non the position of the European Union in relation to the draft Regulation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on pedestrian safety and to the draft Regulation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on Light Emitting Diode (LED) light sources\n(2012/143/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 97/836/EC of 27 November 1997 with a view to accession by the European Community to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 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 (\u2018Revised 1958 Agreement\u2019) (1), and in particular the second indent of Article 4(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the assent of the European Parliament (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe standardised requirements of the draft Regulation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) on uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to their pedestrian safety performance (3) and the draft UNECE Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of Light Emitting Diode (LED) light sources for use in approved signalling lamp units on power-driven vehicles and their trailers (4) are intended to remove technical barriers to the trade in motor vehicles between the Contracting Parties to the Revised 1958 Agreement and to ensure that such vehicles offer a high level of safety and protection.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to define the position of the European Union with regard to those draft Regulations and consequently to provide for the Union, represented by the Commission, to vote in favour of them.\n(3)\nThe draft Regulations on pedestrian safety and on Light Emitting Diode (LED) light sources should be incorporated into the EU type-approval system for motor vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe draft UNECE Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to their pedestrian safety performance, as contained in document ECE TRANS/WP.29/2010/127, is hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThe draft UNECE Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of Light Emitting Diode (LED) light sources for use in approved signalling lamp units on power-driven vehicles and their trailers, as contained in document ECE TRANS/WP.29/2010/44 together with its corrigenda, is hereby approved.\nArticle 3\nThe Union, represented by the Commission, shall vote in favour of the draft UNECE Regulations referred to in Articles 1 and 2 at a forthcoming meeting of the Administrative Committee of the UNECE World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicles Regulations.\nArticle 4\nIn accordance with Articles 35 and 36 of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (5), the equivalence of the requirements of the draft UNECE Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to their pedestrian safety performance and those set out in Annex I, paragraphs 3.1, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5, to Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users (6), shall be recognised.\nArticle 5\nThe draft UNECE Regulations referred to in Articles 1 and 2 shall become part of the EU type-approval system for motor vehicles.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 14 February 2012.", "references": ["80", "69", "43", "0", "3", "44", "48", "62", "89", "9", "86", "46", "63", "42", "64", "94", "30", "31", "68", "37", "36", "27", "51", "18", "41", "29", "38", "75", "8", "11", "No Label", "53", "54", "55", "76", "99"], "gold": ["53", "54", "55", "76", "99"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\nestablishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organization as regards requests for granting and/or extending certain WTO waivers\n(2011/810/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(9), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle IX of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement) sets out the procedures for the granting of waivers concerning the Multilateral Trade Agreements in Annex 1A or 1B or 1C to the WTO Agreement and their annexes.\n(2)\nWhen waiver requests are made in the WTO, often a very limited time-frame is given for the final decision by the relevant WTO body on these requests, while prompt reaction from the WTO Members is required.\n(3)\nIt is in the interest of the Union that there be approved in an expeditious manner the requests for granting and/or extending the annual waivers relating to the introduction of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System (so-called Harmonised System, HS) on 1 January 1988, and its first, second, third, fourth and fifth amendments, recommended by the Council of the World Customs Organization, respectively called \u2018HS92 changes\u2019 (entered into force on 1 January 1992), \u2018HS96 changes\u2019 (entered into force on 1 January 1996), \u2018HS2002 changes\u2019 (entered into force on 1 January 2002), \u2018HS2007 changes\u2019 (entered into force on 1 January 2007) and \u2018HS2012 changes\u2019 (will enter into force on 1 January 2012), as well as future HS amendments, which establish the obligation to introduce these changes to Members\u2019 schedules of concessions (transposing schedules of tariff concessions into the HS nomenclature).\n(4)\nThe current waiver allowing Cape Verde to extend the period for the full implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and of the WTO Agreement on Customs Valuation will expire on 31 December 2011. Any extension of that waiver would be of minimal economic and trade importance to the Union.\n(5)\nThe current waiver relating to Canada\u2019s trade preference programme CARIBCAN will expire on 31 December 2011. Any extension of that waiver would be of minimal economic and trade importance to the Union and would also be in line with the Union\u2019s policy to support the economic development of developing countries through trade preferences.\n(6)\nThe current waiver allowing Cuba to derogate from paragraph 6 of Article XV GATT 1994 will expire on 31 December 2011. Any extension of that waiver would be of minimal economic and trade importance to the Union.\n(7)\nThe current waiver allowing countries participating in the Kimberley Process certification scheme to impose certain restrictions on the trade of so-called \u2018blood diamonds\u2019 will expire on 31 December 2011. Any extension of that waiver would be of minimal economic and trade importance to the Union while being of great relevance for its overall trade relations.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate, therefore, to establish the position to be taken by the Union within the WTO General Council concerning those waivers,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organization is to support the following requests relating to the WTO waivers pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article IX of the WTO Agreement:\n(a)\nrequests for granting and/or extending the waivers relating to the introduction of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) and its amendments from 1992 (\u2018HS92 changes\u2019), 1996 (\u2018HS96 changes\u2019), 2002 (\u2018HS2002 changes\u2019), 2007 (\u2018HS2007 changes\u2019) and 2012 (\u2018HS2012 changes\u2019), as well as future HS amendments, which establish the obligation to introduce these changes to Members\u2019 schedules of concessions;\n(b)\nrequests for extending the waiver allowing Cape Verde to extend the period for the full implementation of Article VII GATT 1994 and of the WTO Agreement on Customs Valuation;\n(c)\nrequests for extending the waiver allowing Canada to grant preferential treatment to selected developing countries (CARIBCAN programme);\n(d)\nrequests for extending the waiver allowing Cuba to derogate from paragraph 6 of Article XV GATT 1994;\n(e)\nrequests for extending the waiver relating to the Kimberley Process certification scheme.\nArticle 2\nThe Commission shall inform the Council via the Trade Policy Committee sufficiently in advance of any meeting of the relevant WTO body at which a decision may be taken on a request covered by this Decision. Within 10 working days of the date where the Commission has informed the Trade Policy Committee, the Council may request that the procedure for the adoption of an individual Council decision on the waiver request in question be pursued.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["62", "44", "71", "91", "78", "23", "88", "7", "1", "72", "90", "28", "10", "81", "33", "52", "36", "18", "58", "82", "84", "42", "24", "64", "68", "80", "8", "19", "26", "48", "No Label", "20", "93", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "93", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 9 March 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on Scientific and Technological Cooperation\n(2011/343/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 186, in conjunction with point (v) of Article 218(6)(a), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission negotiated, on behalf of the Community, an Agreement between the European Community and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on Scientific and Technological Cooperation.\n(2)\nThat Agreement was signed by the representatives of the Parties on 30 November 2009 in Brussels, and has been provisionally applied upon signature pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Agreement, pending its conclusion.\n(3)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be concluded on behalf of the Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on Scientific and Technological Cooperation is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (1).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 7(2) of the Agreement and make the following notification to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d in the text of the Agreement are, where appropriate, to be read as \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2011.", "references": ["33", "74", "46", "11", "10", "72", "8", "19", "39", "78", "21", "57", "87", "20", "5", "76", "84", "48", "75", "14", "69", "16", "50", "66", "42", "96", "54", "89", "30", "56", "No Label", "3", "4", "9", "95"], "gold": ["3", "4", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 October 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the Joint Committee on Agriculture set up by the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products, as regards the amendment of Annex 9 to the Agreement\n(2011/793/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council, and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation (1), and in particular the sixth indent of the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (2) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) entered into force on 1 June 2002.\n(2)\nArticle 6 of the Agreement sets up a Joint Committee on Agriculture (hereinafter \u2018the Committee\u2019) to be responsible for the administration of the Agreement and ensure its proper functioning.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 6(4) and (7) of the Agreement, on 21 October 2003 the Committee adopted its Rules of Procedure (3) and set up the working groups needed to administer the Annexes to the Agreement (4).\n(4)\nThe bilateral Working Group on Organic Products met to examine, in particular, the scope of Annex 9, the import rules applied by the two Parties and the exchanges of information between them to make recommendations on this to the Committee with a view to adapting Annex 9 to the Agreement.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 11 of the Agreement, the Committee may decide to amend the Annexes to the Agreement.\n(6)\nThe Head of the European Union Delegation within the Joint Committee on Agriculture expresses the European Union\u2019s support for the final version of the draft Decision of the Joint Committee.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for by this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 37 of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (5),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe European Union position within the Joint Committee on Agriculture set up by Article 6 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products is based on the draft Decision of the Joint Committee on Agriculture annexed to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Decision of the Joint Committee on Agriculture shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union after its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 October 2011.", "references": ["15", "51", "14", "13", "93", "17", "48", "22", "60", "38", "33", "11", "49", "69", "46", "76", "85", "74", "0", "10", "62", "94", "57", "64", "95", "86", "24", "6", "99", "67", "No Label", "7", "9", "41", "66", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "9", "41", "66", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2011/84/EU\nof 20 September 2011\namending Directive 76/768/EEC, concerning cosmetic products, for the purpose of adapting Annex III thereto to technical progress\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe use of hydrogen peroxide is already subject to restrictions and conditions laid down in Annex III, Part 1 to Directive 76/768/EEC.\n(2)\nThe Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, which has been replaced by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (hereinafter SCCS) pursuant to Commission Decision 2008/721/EC of 5 August 2008 setting up an advisory structure of Scientific Committees and experts in the field of consumer safety, public health and the environment and repealing Decision 2004/210/EC (2), has confirmed that a maximum concentration of 0,1 % of hydrogen peroxide present in oral products or released from other compounds or mixtures in those products is safe. It should therefore be possible to continue to use hydrogen peroxide in that concentration in oral products, including tooth whitening or bleaching products.\n(3)\nThe SCCS considers that the use of tooth whitening or bleaching products containing more than 0,1 % and up to 6 % of hydrogen peroxide present or released from other compounds or mixtures in these products may be safe if the following conditions are satisfied: an appropriate clinical examination is carried out in order to ensure there are no risk factors or any other oral pathology of concern and that exposure to these products is limited so as to ensure that the products are used only as intended in terms of frequency and duration of application. These conditions should be fulfilled in order to avoid reasonably foreseeable misuse.\n(4)\nThose products should therefore be regulated in a way that ensures that they are not directly available to the consumer. For each cycle of use of those products, the first use should be limited to dental practitioners, as defined under Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (3) or under their direct supervision if an equivalent level of safety is ensured. Dental practitioners should then provide access to those products for the rest of the cycle of use.\n(5)\nAn appropriate labelling regarding the concentration in hydrogen peroxide of the tooth whitening or bleaching products containing more than 0,1 % of this substance should be provided for in order to ensure the appropriate use of these products. For this purpose, the exact concentration in percentage of hydrogen peroxide present or released from other compounds and mixtures in those products should be clearly indicated on the label.\n(6)\nDirective 76/768/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe Standing Committee on Cosmetic Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Directive 76/768/EEC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Before 30 October 2012 Member States shall adopt and publish the provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nThey shall apply these provisions from 31 October 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2011.", "references": ["20", "94", "97", "39", "68", "29", "70", "0", "86", "32", "43", "3", "27", "64", "19", "17", "58", "10", "49", "26", "33", "95", "79", "54", "81", "7", "23", "75", "80", "51", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "76", "83"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "76", "83"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 27 September 2011\non mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/007 AT/Steiermark and Nieder\u00f6sterreich from Austria)\n(2011/652/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nAustria submitted an application on 9 March 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 54 enterprises in NACE Revision 2 Division 24 (\u2018Manufacture of basic metals\u2019) in the contiguous NUTS II regions of Steiermark (Styria, AT22) and Nieder\u00f6sterreich (Lower Austria, AT12) in Austria, and supplemented it by additional information up to 27 January 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 8 284 908.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Austria,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 8 284 908 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 27 September 2011.", "references": ["98", "77", "54", "94", "3", "11", "40", "89", "8", "37", "14", "76", "74", "18", "29", "53", "52", "61", "48", "67", "82", "57", "73", "7", "80", "85", "65", "41", "62", "60", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "84", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "84", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2012/393/CFSP\nof 16 July 2012\nimplementing Decision 2011/486/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/486/CFSP of 1 August 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 5 and Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 August 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/486/CFSP.\n(2)\nOn 11 June 2012, the Committee, established pursuant to paragraph 30 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1988 (2011), deleted two persons from the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(3)\nOn 27 June 2012, the Committee added one person to the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(4)\nFurthermore, on 28 June 2012, the Committee added another two persons and two entities to the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(5)\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/486/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe entries for the persons and entities appearing in Annex I to this Decision are added to the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/486/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThe entries for the persons appearing in Annex II to this Decision are deleted from the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/486/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["17", "20", "9", "44", "21", "18", "52", "57", "72", "24", "83", "86", "19", "45", "66", "65", "79", "85", "74", "13", "27", "42", "30", "10", "25", "88", "93", "58", "12", "34", "No Label", "3", "5", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 601/2012\nof 21 June 2012\non the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1) and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe complete, consistent, transparent and accurate monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, in accordance with the harmonised requirements laid down in this Regulation, are fundamental for the effective operation of the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme established pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC. During the second compliance cycle of the greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, covering the years 2008 to 2012, industrial operators, aviation operators, verifiers and competent authorities have gained experience with monitoring and reporting pursuant to Commission Decision 2007/589/EC of 18 July 2007 establishing guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2). The rules for the third trading period of the Union\u2019s greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme which begins on 1 January 2013 and for the following trading periods should build on that experience.\n(2)\nThe definition of biomass in this Regulation should be consistent with the definition of the terms \u2018biomass\u2019, \u2018bioliquids\u2019 and \u2018biofuels\u2019 set out in Article 2 of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (3), in particular since preferential treatment with regard to allowance surrender obligations under the Union\u2019s greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC constitutes a \u2018support scheme\u2019 within the meaning of Article 2(k) and consequently financial support within the meaning of Article 17(1)(c) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(3)\nFor reasons of consistency, definitions laid down in Commission Decision 2009/450/EC of 8 June 2009 on the detailed interpretation of the aviation activities listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (5) should apply to this Regulation.\n(4)\nTo make the operation of the monitoring and reporting system optimal, the Member States which designate more than one competent authority should ensure that those competent authorities coordinate their work in line with the principles set out in this Regulation.\n(5)\nThe monitoring plan, setting out detailed, complete and transparent documentation concerning the methodology of a specific installation or aircraft operator should be a core element of the system established by this Regulation. Regular updates of the plan should be required, both to respond to the verifier\u2019s findings and on the basis of the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s own initiative. The main responsibility for the implementation of the monitoring methodology, parts of which are specified by procedures required by this Regulation, should remain with the operator or the aircraft operator.\n(6)\nIt is necessary to establish basic monitoring methodologies to minimise the burden on operators and aircraft operators and facilitate the effective monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC. Those methodologies should include basic calculation and measurement methodologies. The calculation methodologies should be further differentiated into a standard methodology and a mass balance methodology. Flexibility should be provided to allow a combination of measurement methodologies, standard calculation methodology and mass balance within the same installation, provided the operator ensures that omissions or double counting do not occur.\n(7)\nTo further minimise the burden on operators and aircraft operators, simplification with regard to the uncertainty assessment requirement, without reducing accuracy, should be introduced. Considerably reduced requirements with regard to uncertainty assessment should be applied where measuring instruments are used under type-conform conditions, in particular where measuring instruments are under national legal metrological control.\n(8)\nIt is necessary to define calculation factors which can be either default factors or determined by analysis. Requirements for analysis should retain the preference for use of laboratories accredited in accordance with the harmonised standard General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories (EN ISO/IEC 17025) for the relevant analytical methods, and introduce more pragmatic requirements for demonstrating robust equivalence in the case of non-accredited laboratories, including in conformity with the harmonised standard Quality management systems - Requirements (EN ISO/IEC 9001) or other relevant certified quality management systems.\n(9)\nA more transparent and consistent manner of determining unreasonable costs should be laid down.\n(10)\nThe measurement-based methodology should be set on a more equal footing with the calculation-based methodology in order to recognise the increased confidence in continuous emissions monitoring systems and underpinning quality assurance. That requires more proportional requirements concerning cross-checks with calculations as well as the clarification of data handling and other quality assurance requirements.\n(11)\nImposing a disproportionate monitoring effort on installations with lower, less consequential annual emissions should be avoided, while ensuring that an acceptable level of accuracy is maintained. In that regard, special conditions for installations considered having low emissions and for aircraft operators considered small emitters should be set out.\n(12)\nArticle 27 of Directive 2003/87/EC allows Member States to exclude small installations, subject to equivalent measures, from the Union\u2019s greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme provided that the conditions contained in that Article are met. This Regulation should not apply directly to those installations excluded pursuant to Article 27 of Directive 2003/87/EC unless the Member State decides that this Regulation should apply.\n(13)\nTo close potential loopholes connected to the transfer of inherent or pure CO2, such transfers should only be allowed subject to very specific conditions. Those conditions are that the transfer of inherent CO2 should only be to other EU-ETS installations and the transfer of pure CO2 should only occur for the purposes of storage in a geological storage site pursuant to the Union\u2019s greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme, which is at present the only form of permanent storage of CO2 accepted under the Union\u2019s greenhouse gas emission trading scheme. Those conditions should not, nevertheless, exclude the possibility of future innovations.\n(14)\nSpecific aviation-related provisions on monitoring plans and monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions should be laid down. One provision should be the determination of density by onboard measurement and by fuel invoices as equivalent options. Another provision should be the raising of the threshold for consideration of an aircraft operator as a small emitter from 10 000 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year to 25 000 tonnes of CO2 per year.\n(15)\nThe estimation of missing data should be made more consistent, by requiring the use of conservative estimation procedures recognised in the monitoring plan or, where this is not possible, through the approval by the competent authority and the inclusion of an appropriate procedure in the monitoring plan.\n(16)\nThe implementation of the improvement principle requiring operators to regularly review their monitoring methodology for improvement and to consider recommendations made by verifiers as part of the verification process should be strengthened. Where a methodology is used, which is not based on tiers, or where the highest tier methodologies are not met, operators should regularly report on the steps being taken to meet a monitoring methodology based on the tier system and to reach the highest tier required.\n(17)\nAircraft operators may, pursuant to Article 3e(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, apply for an allocation of emission allowances free of charge, in respect of activities listed in Annex I to that Directive, based on verified tonne-kilometre data. However, in the light of the principle of proportionality, where an aircraft operator is objectively unable to provide verified tonne-kilometre data by the relevant deadline because of serious and unforeseeable circumstances outside of its control, that aircraft operator should be able to submit the best tonne-kilometre data available, provided the necessary safeguards are in place.\n(18)\nThe use of information technology, including requirements for data exchange formats and the use of automated systems, should be promoted and the Member States should be therefore allowed to require the economic operators to use such systems. The Member States should be also allowed to elaborate electronic templates and file format specifications which should, however, conform to minimum standards published by the Commission.\n(19)\nDecision 2007/589/EC should be repealed. However, the effects of its provisions should be maintained for the monitoring, reporting and verification of the emissions and activity data occurring during the first and second trading periods of the Union\u2019s greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme.\n(20)\nMember States should be provided sufficient time to adopt the necessary measures and establish the appropriate national institutional framework to ensure the effective application of this Regulation. This Regulation should therefore apply from the date of the beginning of the third trading period.\n(21)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nSECTION 1\nSubject matter and definitions\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down rules for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and activity data pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC in the trading period of the Union emissions trading scheme commencing on 1 January 2013 and subsequent trading periods.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions specified in relation to the activities listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC and activity data from stationary installations, from aviation activities and to the monitoring and reporting of tonne-kilometre data from aviation activities.\nIt shall apply to emissions and activity data occurring from 1 January 2013.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:\n(1)\n\u2018activity data\u2019 means the data on the amount of fuels or materials consumed or produced by a process as relevant for the calculation-based monitoring methodology, expressed in terajoules, mass in tonnes, or for gases as volume in normal cubic metres, as appropriate;\n(2)\n\u2018trading period\u2019 means an eight-year period referred to in Article 13(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n(3)\n\u2018tonne-kilometre\u2019 means a tonne of payload carried a distance of one kilometre;\n(4)\n\u2018source stream\u2019 means any of the following:\n(a)\na specific fuel type, raw material or product giving rise to emissions of relevant greenhouse gases at one or more emission sources as a result of its consumption or production;\n(b)\na specific fuel type, raw material or product containing carbon and included in the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions using a mass balance methodology;\n(5)\n\u2018emission source\u2019 means a separately identifiable part of an installation or a process within an installation, from which relevant greenhouse gases are emitted or, for aviation activities, an individual aircraft;\n(6)\n\u2018uncertainty\u2019 means a parameter, associated with the result of the determination of a quantity, that characterises the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the particular quantity, including the effects of systematic as well as of random factors, expressed in per cent, and describes a confidence interval around the mean value comprising 95 % of inferred values taking into account any asymmetry of the distribution of values;\n(7)\n\u2018calculation factors\u2019 means net calorific value, emission factor, preliminary emission factor, oxidation factor, conversion factor, carbon content or biomass fraction;\n(8)\n\u2018tier\u2019 means a set requirement used for determining activity data, calculation factors, annual emission and annual average hourly emission, as well as for payload;\n(9)\n\u2018inherent risk\u2019 means the susceptibility of a parameter in the annual emissions report or tonne-kilometre data report to misstatements that could be material, individually or when aggregated with other misstatements, before taking into consideration the effect of any related control activities;\n(10)\n\u2018control risk\u2019 means the susceptibility of a parameter in the annual emissions report or tonne-kilometre report to misstatements that could be material, individually or when aggregated with other misstatements, and not prevented or detected and corrected on a timely basis by the control system;\n(11)\n\u2018combustion emissions\u2019 means greenhouse gas emissions occurring during the exothermic reaction of a fuel with oxygen;\n(12)\n\u2018reporting period\u2019 means one calendar year during which emissions have to be monitored and reported, or the monitoring year as referred to in Articles 3e and 3f of Directive 2003/87/EC for tonne-kilometre data;\n(13)\n\u2018emission factor\u2019 means the average emission rate of a greenhouse gas relative to the activity data of a source stream assuming complete oxidation for combustion and complete conversion for all other chemical reactions;\n(14)\n\u2018oxidation factor\u2019 means the ratio of carbon oxidised to CO2 as a consequence of combustion to the total carbon contained in the fuel, expressed as a fraction, considering CO emitted to the atmosphere as the molar equivalent amount of CO2;\n(15)\n\u2018conversion factor\u2019 means the ratio of carbon emitted as CO2 to the total carbon contained in the source stream before the emitting process takes place, expressed as a fraction, considering carbon monoxide (CO) emitted to the atmosphere as the molar equivalent amount of CO2;\n(16)\n\u2018accuracy\u2019 means the closeness of the agreement between the result of a measurement and the true value of the particular quantity or a reference value determined empirically using internationally accepted and traceable calibration materials and standard methods, taking into account both random and systematic factors;\n(17)\n\u2018calibration\u2019 means the set of operations, which establishes, under specified conditions, the relations between values indicated by a measuring instrument or measuring system, or values represented by a material measure or a reference material and the corresponding values of a quantity realised by a reference standard;\n(18)\n\u2018passengers\u2019 means the persons onboard the aircraft during a flight excluding its on duty crew members;\n(19)\n\u2018conservative\u2019 means that a set of assumptions is defined in order to ensure that no under-estimation of annual emissions or over-estimation of tonne-kilometres occurs;\n(20)\n\u2018biomass\u2019 means the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues from biological origin from agriculture (including vegetal and animal substances), forestry and related industries including fisheries and aquaculture, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste; it includes bioliquids and biofuels;\n(21)\n\u2018bioliquids\u2019 means liquid fuel for energy purposes other than for transport, including electricity and heating and cooling, produced from biomass;\n(22)\n\u2018biofuels\u2019 means liquid or gaseous fuel for transport produced from biomass;\n(23)\n\u2018legal metrological control\u2019 means the control of the measurement tasks intended for the field of application of a measuring instrument, for reasons of public interest, public health, public safety, public order, protection of the environment, levying of taxes and duties, protection of the consumers and fair trading;\n(24)\n\u2018maximum permissible error\u2019 means the error of measurement allowed as specified in Annex I and instrument-specific Annexes to Directive 2004/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), or national rules on legal metrological control, as appropriate;\n(25)\n\u2018data flow activities\u2019 mean activities related to the acquisition, processing and handling of data that are needed to draft an emissions report from primary source data;\n(26)\n\u2018tonnes of CO2(e)\u2019 means metric tonnes of CO2 or CO2(e);\n(27)\n\u2018CO2(e)\u2019 means any greenhouse gas, other than CO2 listed in Annex II to Directive 2003/87/EC with an equivalent global-warming potential as CO2;\n(28)\n\u2018measurement system\u2019 means a complete set of measuring instruments and other equipment, such as sampling and data processing equipment, used for the determination of variables like the activity data, the carbon content, the calorific value or the emission factor of the CO2 emissions;\n(29)\n\u2018net calorific value\u2019 (NCV) means the specific amount of energy released as heat when a fuel or material undergoes complete combustion with oxygen under standard conditions less the heat of vaporisation of any water formed;\n(30)\n\u2018process emissions\u2019 means greenhouse gas emissions other than combustion emissions occurring as a result of intentional and unintentional reactions between substances or their transformation, including the chemical or electrolytic reduction of metal ores, the thermal decomposition of substances, and the formation of substances for use as product or feedstock;\n(31)\n\u2018commercial standard fuel\u2019 means the internationally standardised commercial fuels which exhibit a 95 % confidence interval of not more than 1 % for their specified calorific value, including gas oil, light fuel oil, gasoline, lamp oil, kerosene, ethane, propane, butane, jet kerosene (jet A1 or jet A), jet gasoline (Jet B) and aviation gasoline (AvGas);\n(32)\n\u2018batch\u2019 means an amount of fuel or material representatively sampled and characterised and transferred as one shipment or continuously over a specific period of time;\n(33)\n\u2018mixed fuel\u2019 means a fuel which contains both biomass and fossil carbon;\n(34)\n\u2018mixed material\u2019 means a material which contains both biomass and fossil carbon;\n(35)\n\u2018preliminary emission factor\u2019 means the assumed total emission factor of a mixed fuel or material based on the total carbon content composed of biomass fraction and fossil fraction before multiplying it with the fossil fraction to result in the emission factor;\n(36)\n\u2018fossil fraction\u2019 means the ratio of fossil carbon to the total carbon content of a fuel or material, expressed as a fraction;\n(37)\n\u2018biomass fraction\u2019 means the ratio of carbon stemming from biomass to the total carbon content of a fuel or material, expressed as a fraction;\n(38)\n\u2018energy balance method\u2019 means a method to estimate the amount of energy used as fuel in a boiler, calculated as sum of utilisable heat and all relevant losses of energy by radiation, transmission and via the flue gas;\n(39)\n\u2018continuous emission measurement\u2019 means a set of operations having the objective of determining the value of a quantity by means of periodic measurements, applying either measurements in the stack or extractive procedures with a measuring instrument located close to the stack, whilst excluding measurement methodologies based on the collection of individual samples from the stack;\n(40)\n\u2018inherent CO2\u2019 means CO2 which is part of a fuel;\n(41)\n\u2018fossil carbon\u2019 means inorganic and organic carbon that is not biomass;\n(42)\n\u2018measurement point\u2019 means the emission source for which continuous emission measurement systems (CEMS) are used for emission measurement, or the cross-section of a pipeline system for which the CO2 flow is determined using continuous measurement systems;\n(43)\n\u2018mass and balance documentation\u2019 means the documentation as specified in international or national implementation of the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), as laid down in Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944, and as specified in Subpart J Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (7), or equivalent applicable international rules;\n(44)\n\u2018distance\u2019 means the Great Circle Distance between the aerodrome of departure and the aerodrome of arrival, in addition to a fixed factor of 95 km;\n(45)\n\u2018aerodrome of departure\u2019 means the aerodrome at which a flight constituting an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC begins;\n(46)\n\u2018aerodrome of arrival\u2019 means the aerodrome at which a flight constituting an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC ends;\n(47)\n\u2018payload\u2019 means the total mass of freight, mail, passengers and baggage carried onboard the aircraft during a flight;\n(48)\n\u2018fugitive emissions\u2019 means irregular or unintended emissions from sources which are not localised, or too diverse or too small to be monitored individually;\n(49)\n\u2018aerodrome pair\u2019 means a pair constituted by the aerodrome of departure and the aerodrome of arrival;\n(50)\n\u2018standard conditions\u2019 means temperature of 273,15 K and pressure conditions of 101 325 Pa defining normal cubic metres (Nm3);\n(51)\n\u2018CO2 capture\u2019 means the activity of capturing from gas streams carbon dioxide (CO2), which would otherwise be emitted, for the purposes of transport and geological storage in a storage site permitted under Directive 2009/31/EC;\n(52)\n\u2018CO2 transport\u2019 means the transport of CO2 by pipelines for geological storage in a storage site permitted under Directive 2009/31/EC;\n(53)\n\u2018vented emissions\u2019 means emissions deliberately released from the installation by provision of a defined point of emission;\n(54)\n\u2018enhanced hydrocarbon recovery\u2019 means the recovery of hydrocarbons in addition to those extracted by water injection or other means;\n(55)\n\u2018proxy data\u2019 means annual values which are empirically substantiated or derived from accepted sources and which an operator uses to substitute the activity data or the calculation factors for the purpose of ensuring complete reporting when it is not possible to generate all the required activity data or calculation factors in the applicable monitoring methodology.\nIn addition, the definitions of \u2018flight\u2019 and \u2018aerodrome\u2019 laid down in the Annex to Decision 2009/450/EC and the definitions laid down in points (1), (2), (3), (5), (6) and (22) of Article 3 of Directive 2009/31/EC shall apply to this Regulation.\nSECTION 2\nGeneral principles\nArticle 4\nGeneral obligation\nOperators and aircraft operators shall carry out their obligations related to monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions under Directive 2003/87/EC in accordance with the principles laid down in Articles 5 to 9.\nArticle 5\nCompleteness\nMonitoring and reporting shall be complete and cover all process and combustion emissions from all emission sources and source streams belonging to activities listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC and other relevant activities included pursuant to Article 24 of that Directive, and of all greenhouse gases specified in relation to those activities while avoiding double-counting.\nOperators and aircraft operators shall apply appropriate measures to prevent any data gaps within the reporting period.\nArticle 6\nConsistency, comparability and transparency\n1. Monitoring and reporting shall be consistent and comparable over time. To that end, operators and aircraft operators shall use the same monitoring methodologies and data sets subject to changes and derogations approved by the competent authority.\n2. Operators and aircraft operators shall obtain, record, compile, analyse and document monitoring data, including assumptions, references, activity data, emission factors, oxidation factors and conversion factors, in a transparent manner that enables the reproduction of the determination of emissions by the verifier and the competent authority.\nArticle 7\nAccuracy\nOperators and aircraft operators shall ensure that emission determination is neither systematically nor knowingly inaccurate.\nThey shall identify and reduce any source of inaccuracies as far as possible.\nThey shall exercise due diligence to ensure that the calculation and measurement of emissions exhibit the highest achievable accuracy.\nArticle 8\nIntegrity of methodology\nThe operator or aircraft operator shall enable reasonable assurance of the integrity of emission data to be reported. They shall determine emissions using the appropriate monitoring methodologies set out in this Regulation.\nReported emission data and related disclosures shall be free from material misstatement, avoid bias in the selection and presentation of information, and provide a credible and balanced account of an installation\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s emissions.\nIn selecting a monitoring methodology, the improvements from greater accuracy shall be balanced against the additional costs. Monitoring and reporting of emissions shall aim for the highest achievable accuracy, unless this is technically not feasible or incurs unreasonable costs.\nArticle 9\nContinuous improvement\nOperators and aircraft operators shall take account of the recommendations included in the verification reports issued pursuant to Article 15 of Directive 2003/87/EC in their consequent monitoring and reporting.\nArticle 10\nCoordination\nWhere a Member State designates more than one competent authority pursuant to Article 18 of Directive 2003/87/EC, it shall coordinate the work of those authorities undertaken pursuant to this Regulation.\nCHAPTER II\nMONITORING PLAN\nSECTION 1\nGeneral rules\nArticle 11\nGeneral obligation\n1. Each operator or aircraft operator shall monitor greenhouse gas emissions, based on a monitoring plan approved by the competent authority in accordance with Article 12, taking into account the nature and functioning of the installation or aviation activity to which it applies.\nThe monitoring plan shall be supplemented by written procedures which the operator or aircraft operator establishes, documents, implements and maintains for activities under the monitoring plan, as appropriate.\n2. The monitoring plan referred to in paragraph 1 shall describe the instructions to the operator or aircraft operator in a logical and simple manner, avoiding duplication of effort and taking into account the existing systems in place at the installation or used by the operator or aircraft operator.\nArticle 12\nContent and submission of the monitoring plan\n1. An operator or an aircraft operator shall submit a monitoring plan to the competent authority for approval.\nThe monitoring plan shall consist of a detailed, complete and transparent documentation of the monitoring methodology of a specific installation or aircraft operator and shall contain at least the elements laid down in Annex I.\nTogether with the monitoring plan, the operator or aircraft operator shall submit all of the following supporting documents:\n(a)\nevidence for each source stream and emission source demonstrating compliance with the uncertainty thresholds for activity data and calculation factors, where applicable, for the applied tiers as defined in Annex II and Annex III;\n(b)\nthe results of a risk assessment providing evidence that the proposed control activities and procedures for control activities are commensurate with the inherent risks and control risks identified.\n2. Where Annex I makes a reference to a procedure, an operator or an aircraft operator shall establish, document, implement and maintain such a procedure separately from the monitoring plan.\nThe operator or the aircraft operator shall summarise the procedures in the monitoring plan providing the following information:\n(a)\nthe title of the procedure;\n(b)\na traceable and verifiable reference for identification of the procedure;\n(c)\nidentification of the post or department responsible for implementing the procedure and for the data generated from or managed by the procedure;\n(d)\na brief description of the procedure allowing the operator or aircraft operator, the competent authority and the verifier to understand the essential parameters and operations performed;\n(e)\nthe location of relevant records and information;\n(f)\nthe name of the computerised system used, where applicable;\n(g)\na list of EN standards or other standards applied, where relevant.\nThe operator or aircraft operator shall make any written documentation of the procedures available to the competent authority upon request. They shall also make them available for the purposes of verification pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU) No 600/2012 (8).\n3. In addition to the elements referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, Member States may require further elements to be included in the monitoring plan of installations to meet the requirements of Article 24(1) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (9), including a summary of a procedure ensuring the following:\n(a)\nthe operator regularly checks if information regarding any planned or effective changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of an installation is relevant under that Decision;\n(b)\nthe information referred to in point (a) is submitted by the operator to the competent authority by 31 December of each year.\nArticle 13\nStandardised and simplified monitoring plans\n1. Member States may allow operators and aircraft operators to use standardised or simplified monitoring plans, without prejudice to Article 12(3).\nFor that purpose, Member States may publish templates for those monitoring plans, including the description of data flow and control procedures referred to in Article 57 and Article 58, based on the templates and guidelines published by the Commission.\n2. Before the approval of any simplified monitoring plan referred to in paragraph 1, the competent authority shall carry out a simplified risk assessment as to whether the proposed control activities and procedures for control activities are commensurate with the inherent risks and control risks identified, and justify the use of such a simplified monitoring plan.\nMember States may require the operator or aircraft operator to carry out the risk assessment pursuant to the previous subparagraph itself, where appropriate.\nArticle 14\nModifications of the monitoring plan\n1. Each operator or aircraft operator shall regularly check if the monitoring plan reflects the nature and functioning of the installation or aviation activity in accordance with Article 7 of Directive 2003/87/EC, and whether the monitoring methodology can be improved.\n2. The operator or aircraft operator shall modify the monitoring plan in any of the following situations:\n(a)\nnew emissions occur due to new activities carried out or due to the use of new fuels or materials not yet contained in the monitoring plan;\n(b)\nthe change of availability of data, due to the use of new measuring instrument types, sampling methods or analysis methods, or for other reasons, leads to higher accuracy in the determination of emissions;\n(c)\ndata resulting from the previously applied monitoring methodology has been found incorrect;\n(d)\nchanging the monitoring plan improves the accuracy of the reported data, unless this is technically not feasible or incurs unreasonable costs;\n(e)\nthe monitoring plan is not in conformity with the requirements of this Regulation and the competent authority requests the operator or aircraft operator to modify it;\n(f)\nit is necessary to respond to the suggestions for improvement of the monitoring plan contained in a verification report.\nArticle 15\nApproval of modifications of the monitoring plan\n1. The operator or aircraft operator shall notify any proposals for modification of the monitoring plan to the competent authority without undue delay.\nHowever, the competent authority may allow the operator or aircraft operator to notify, by 31 December of the same year, modifications of the monitoring plan that are not significant within the meaning of paragraph 3.\n2. Any significant modification of the monitoring plan within the meaning of paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be subject to approval by the competent authority.\nWhere the competent authority considers a modification not significant, it shall inform the operator or aircraft operator thereof without undue delay.\n3. Significant modifications to the monitoring plan of an installation shall include the following:\n(a)\nchanges of the category of the installation;\n(b)\nnotwithstanding Article 47(8), changes regarding whether the installation is considered an installation with low emissions;\n(c)\nchanges to emission sources;\n(d)\na change from calculation-based to measurement-based methodologies, or vice versa, used to determine emissions;\n(e)\na change in the tier level applied;\n(f)\nthe introduction of new source streams;\n(g)\na change in the categorisation of source streams - between major, minor or de-minimis source streams;\n(h)\na change of the default value for a calculation factor, where the value is to be laid down in the monitoring plan;\n(i)\nthe introduction of new procedures related to sampling, analysis or calibration, where the changes of those procedures have a direct impact on the accuracy of emissions data;\n(j)\nthe implementation or adaption of a quantification methodology for emissions from leakage at storage sites.\n4. Significant changes to the monitoring plans of an aircraft operator shall include:\n(a)\nwith regard to the emission monitoring plan:\n(i)\na change of tiers related to fuel consumption;\n(ii)\na change of emission factor values laid down in the monitoring plan;\n(iii)\na change between calculation methods as laid down in Annex III;\n(iv)\nthe introduction of new source streams;\n(v)\na change in the categorisation of source streams where a minor source stream changes to a major source stream;\n(vi)\nchanges in the status of the aircraft operator as a small emitter within the meaning of Article 54(1);\n(b)\nwith regard to the tonne-kilometre data monitoring plan:\n(i)\na change between a non-commercial and commercial status of the air transport service provided;\n(ii)\na change in the object of the air-transport service, the object being passengers, freight or mail.\nArticle 16\nImplementation and recordkeeping of modifications\n1. Prior to receiving the approval or information in accordance with Article 15(2), the operator or aircraft operator may carry out monitoring and reporting using the modified monitoring plan where they can reasonably assume that the proposed modifications are not significant, or where monitoring in accordance with the original monitoring plan would lead to incomplete emission data.\nIn case of doubt, the operator or aircraft operator shall carry out all monitoring and reporting, and in the interim documentation, in parallel, using both the modified and the original monitoring plan.\n2. Upon the receipt of the approval or information in accordance with Article 15(2), the operator or aircraft operator shall only use the data relating to the modified monitoring plan and carry out all monitoring and reporting using only the modified monitoring plan.\n3. The operator or aircraft operator shall keep records of all modifications of the monitoring plan. In each record, the following shall be specified:\n(a)\ntransparent description of the modification;\n(b)\na justification for the modification;\n(c)\nthe date of notification of the modification to the competent authority;\n(d)\nthe date of acknowledgement, by the competent authority, of the receipt of the notification referred to in Article 15(1), where available, and the date of the approval or information referred to in Article 15(2);\n(e)\nthe starting date of implementation of the modified monitoring plan in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.\nSECTION 2\nTechnical feasibility and unreasonable costs\nArticle 17\nTechnical feasibility\nWhere an operator or aircraft operator claims that applying a specific monitoring methodology is technically not feasible, the competent authority shall assess the technical feasibility taking the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s justification into account. That justification shall be based on the operator or aircraft operator having technical resources capable of meeting the needs of a proposed system or requirement that can be implemented in the required time for the purposes of this Regulation. Those technical resources shall include availability of required techniques and technology.\nArticle 18\nUnreasonable costs\n1. Where an operator or aircraft operator claims that applying a specific monitoring methodology incurs unreasonable costs, the competent authority shall assess the unreasonable nature of the costs, taking into account the operator\u2019s justification.\nThe competent authority shall consider costs unreasonable where the cost estimation exceeds the benefit. To that end, the benefit shall be calculated by multiplying an improvement factor with a reference price of EUR 20 per allowance and costs shall include an appropriate depreciation period based on the economic lifetime of the equipment.\n2. When assessing the unreasonable nature of the costs with regard to the choice of tier levels for activity data, the competent authority shall use as the improvement factor referred to in paragraph 1 the difference between the uncertainty currently achieved and the uncertainty threshold of the tier which would be achieved by the improvement multiplied by the average annual emissions caused by that source stream over the three most recent years.\nIn the absence of the average annual emissions caused by that source stream over the three most recent years, the operator or aircraft operator shall provide a conservative estimate of the annual average emissions, with the exclusion of CO2 stemming from biomass and before subtraction of transferred CO2. For measuring instruments under national legal metrological control, the uncertainty currently achieved may be substituted by the maximum permissible error in service allowed by the relevant national legislation.\n3. When assessing the unreasonable nature of the costs with regard to measures increasing the quality of reported emissions but without direct impact on the accuracy of activity data, the competent authority shall use an improvement factor of 1 % of the average annual emissions of the respective source streams of the three most recent reporting periods. Those measures may include:\n(a)\na switch from default values to analyses for the determination of calculation factors;\n(b)\nan increase of the number of analyses per source stream;\n(c)\nwhere the specific measuring task does not fall under national legal metrological control, the substitution of measuring instruments with instruments complying with relevant requirements of legal metrological control of the Member State in similar applications, or to measuring instruments meeting national rules adopted pursuant to Directive 2004/22/EC or Directive 2009/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (10);\n(d)\nshortening of calibration and maintenance intervals of measuring instruments;\n(e)\nimprovements of data flow activities and control activities reducing the inherent or control risk significantly.\n4. Measures relating to the improvement of an installation\u2019s monitoring methodology in accordance with Article 69 shall not be deemed to incur unreasonable costs up to an accumulated amount of EUR 2 000 per reporting period. For installations with low emissions that threshold shall be EUR 500 per reporting period.\nCHAPTER III\nMONITORING OF EMISSIONS OF STATIONARY INSTALLATIONS\nSECTION 1\nGeneral provisions\nArticle 19\nCategorisation of installations and source streams\n1. Each operator shall determine the category of its installation pursuant to paragraph 2, and, where relevant, of each source stream pursuant to paragraph 3 for the purpose of monitoring emissions and determining the minimum requirements for tiers.\n2. The operator shall classify each installation in one of the following categories:\n(a)\na category A installation, where average verified annual emissions of the trading period immediately preceding the current trading period, with the exclusion of CO2 stemming from biomass and before subtraction of transferred CO2, are equal to or less than 50 000 tonnes of CO2(e);\n(b)\na category B installation, where the average verified annual emissions of the trading period immediately preceding the current trading period, with the exclusion of CO2 stemming from biomass and before subtraction of transferred CO2, are more than 50 000 tonnes of CO2(e) and equal to or less than 500 000 tonnes of CO2(e);\n(c)\na category C installation, where the average verified annual emissions of the trading period immediately preceding the current trading period, with the exclusion of CO2 stemming from biomass and before subtraction of transferred CO2, are more than 500 000 tonnes of CO2(e).\n3. The operator shall classify each source stream, comparing the source stream against the sum of all absolute values of fossil CO2 and CO2(e) corresponding to all source streams included in calculation-based methodologies and of all emissions of emission sources monitored using measurement-based methodologies, before subtraction of transferred CO2, in one of the following categories:\n(a)\nminor source streams, where the source streams selected by the operator jointly correspond to less than 5 000 tonnes of fossil CO2 per year or to less than 10 %, up to a total maximum contribution of 100 000 tonnes of fossil CO2 per year, whichever is the highest in terms of absolute value;\n(b)\nde-minimis source streams, where the source streams selected by the operator jointly correspond to less than 1 000 tonnes of fossil CO2 per year or to less than 2 %, up to a total maximum contribution of 20 000 tonnes of fossil CO2 per year, whichever is the highest in terms of absolute value;\n(c)\nmajor source streams, where the source streams do not classify in any category referred to in points (a) and (b).\n4. Where the average annual verified emissions of the trading period immediately preceding the current trading period for the installation are not available or inaccurate, the operator shall use a conservative estimate of annual average emissions, with the exclusion of CO2 stemming from biomass and before subtraction of transferred CO2, to determine the category of the installation.\nArticle 20\nMonitoring boundaries\n1. An operator shall define the monitoring boundaries for each installation.\nWithin those boundaries, the operator shall include all relevant greenhouse gas emissions from all emission sources and source streams belonging to activities carried out at the installation and listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC, as well as from activities and greenhouse gases included by a Member State pursuant to Article 24 of Directive 2003/87/EC.\nThe operator shall also include emissions from regular operations and abnormal events including start-up and shut-down and emergency situations over the reporting period, with the exception of emissions from mobile machinery for transportation purposes.\n2. When defining the monitoring and reporting process, the operator shall include the sector specific requirements laid down in Annex IV.\n3. Where leakages from a storage complex pursuant to Directive 2009/31/EC are identified and lead to emissions, or release of CO2 to the water column, they shall be considered as emission sources for the respective installation and shall be monitored in accordance with section 23 of Annex IV to this Regulation.\nThe competent authority may allow the exclusion of a leakage emission source from the monitoring and reporting process, once corrective measures pursuant to Article 16 of Directive 2009/31/EC have been taken and emissions or release into the water column from that leakage can no longer be detected.\nArticle 21\nChoice of the monitoring methodology\n1. For the monitoring of the emissions of an installation, the operator shall choose to apply either a calculation-based methodology or a measurement-based methodology, subject to specific provisions of this Regulation.\nA calculation-based methodology shall consist in determining emissions from source streams based on activity data obtained by means of measurement systems and additional parameters from laboratory analyses or default values. The calculation-based methodology may be implemented through the standard methodology set out in Article 24 or the mass balance methodology set out in Article 25.\nA measurement-based methodology shall consist in determining emissions from emission sources by means of continuous measurement of the concentration of the relevant greenhouse gas in the flue gas and of the flue gas flow, including the monitoring of CO2 transfers between installations where the CO2 concentration and the flow of the transferred gas are measured.\nWhere the calculation-based methodology is applied, the operator shall for each source stream define, in the monitoring plan, whether the standard methodology or the mass balance methodology is used, including the relevant tiers in accordance with Annex II.\n2. An operator may combine, subject to approval by the competent authority, standard methodology, mass balance and measurement-based methodologies for different emission sources and source streams belonging to one installation, provided that neither gaps nor double counting concerning emissions occur.\n3. Where the operator does not choose a measurement-based methodology, the operator shall choose the methodology required by the relevant section of Annex IV, unless he provides evidence to the competent authorities that the use of such methodology is technically not feasible or incurs unreasonable costs, or that another methodology leads to a higher overall accuracy of emissions data.\nArticle 22\nMonitoring methodology not based on tiers\nBy way of derogation from Article 21(1), the operator may use a monitoring methodology that is not based on tiers (hereinafter \u2018the fall-back methodology\u2019) for selected source streams or emission sources, provided that all of the following conditions are met:\n(a)\napplying at least tier 1 under the calculation-based methodology for one or more major source streams or minor source streams and a measurement-based methodology for at least one emission source related to the same source streams is technically not feasible or would incur unreasonable costs;\n(b)\nthe operator assesses and quantifies each year the uncertainties of all parameters used for the determination of the annual emissions in accordance with the ISO Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (JCGM 100:2008), or another equivalent internationally accepted standard, and includes the results in the annual emissions report;\n(c)\nthe operator demonstrates to the satisfaction of the competent authority that by applying such a fall-back monitoring methodology, the overall uncertainty thresholds for the annual level of greenhouse gas emissions for the whole installation do not exceed 7,5 % for category A installations, 5,0 % for category B installations and 2,5 % for category C installations.\nArticle 23\nTemporary changes to the monitoring methodology\n1. Where it is for technical reasons temporarily not feasible to apply the tier in the monitoring plan for the activity data or each calculation factor of a fuel or material stream as approved by the competent authority, the operator concerned shall apply the highest achievable tier until the conditions for application of the tier approved in the monitoring plan have been restored.\nThe operator shall take all necessary measures to allow the prompt restoration of the tier in the monitoring plan as approved by the competent authority.\n2. The operator concerned shall notify the temporary change referred to in paragraph 1 to the monitoring methodology without undue delay to the competent authority, specifying:\n(a)\nthe reasons for the deviation from the tier;\n(b)\nin detail the interim monitoring methodology that the operator uses to determine the emissions until the conditions for the application of the tier in the monitoring plan have been restored;\n(c)\nthe measures the operator is taking to restore the conditions for the application of the tier in the monitoring plan approved by the competent authority;\n(d)\nthe anticipated point in time when application of the tier as approved by the competent authority will be resumed.\nSECTION 2\nCalculation-based methodology\nSubsection 1\nGeneral\nArticle 24\nCalculation of emissions under the standard methodology\n1. Under the standard methodology, the operator shall calculate combustion emissions per source stream by multiplying the activity data related to the amount of fuel combusted, expressed as terajoules based on net calorific value (NCV), with the corresponding emission factor, expressed as tonnes CO2 per terajoule (t CO2/TJ) consistent with the use of NCV, and with the corresponding oxidation factor.\nThe competent authority may allow the use of emission factors for fuels, expressed as t CO2/t or t CO2/Nm3. In that case, the operator shall determine combustion emissions by multiplying the activity data related to the amount of fuel combusted, expressed as tonnes or normal cubic metres, with the corresponding emission factor and the corresponding oxidation factor.\n2. The operator shall determine process emissions per source stream by multiplying the activity data related to the material consumption, throughput or production output, expressed in tonnes or normal cubic metres with the corresponding emission factor, expressed in t CO2/t or t CO2/Nm3, and the corresponding conversion factor.\n3. Where a tier 1 or tier 2 emission factor already includes the effect of incomplete chemical reactions, the oxidation factor or conversion factor shall be set to 1.\nArticle 25\nCalculation of emissions under the mass balance methodology\n1. Under the mass balance methodology, the operator shall calculate the CO2 quantity corresponding to each source stream included in the mass balance by multiplying the activity data related to the amount of material entering or leaving the boundaries of the mass balance, with the material\u2019s carbon content multiplied by 3 664 t CO2/t C, applying section 3 of Annex II.\n2. Notwithstanding Article 49, the emissions of the total process covered by the mass balance shall be the sum of the CO2 quantities corresponding to all source streams covered by the mass balance. CO emitted to the atmosphere shall be calculated in the mass balance as emission of the molar equivalent amount of CO2.\nArticle 26\nApplicable tiers\n1. When defining the relevant tiers in accordance with Article 21(1), to determine the activity data and each calculation factor, each operator shall apply the following:\n(a)\nat least the tiers listed in Annex V, in the case of an installation that is a category A installation, or where a calculation factor is required for a source stream that is a commercial standard fuel;\n(b)\nin other cases than those referred to in point (a), the highest tier as defined in Annex II.\nHowever, the operator may apply a tier one level lower than required in accordance with the first subparagraph for category C installations and up to two levels lower for category A and B installations, with a minimum of tier 1, where it shows to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the tier required in accordance with the first subparagraph is technically not feasible or incurs unreasonable costs.\nThe competent authority may, for a transitional period of up to three years, allow an operator to apply lower tiers than those referred to in the second subparagraph, with a minimum of tier 1, provided that both of the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe operator shows to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the tier required pursuant to the second subparagraph is technically not feasible or incurs unreasonable costs;\n(b)\nthe operator provides an improvement plan indicating how and by when at least the tier required pursuant to the second subparagraph will be reached.\n2. For activity data and each calculation factor for minor source streams, the operator shall apply the highest tier which is technically feasible and does not incur unreasonable costs, with a minimum of tier 1.\n3. For activity data and each calculation factor for de-minimis source streams, the operator may determine activity data and each calculation factor by using conservative estimations instead of using tiers, unless a defined tier is achievable without additional effort.\n4. For the oxidation factor and conversion factor, the operator shall, as a minimum, apply the lowest tiers listed in Annex II.\n5. Where the competent authority has allowed the use of emission factors expressed as t CO2/t or t CO2/Nm3 for fuels, and for fuels used as process input or in mass balances in accordance with Article 25, the net calorific value may be monitored using lower tiers than the highest tier as defined in Annex II.\nSubsection 2\nActivity data\nArticle 27\nDetermination of activity data\n1. The operator shall determine the activity data of a source stream in one of the following ways:\n(a)\nbased on continual metering at the process which causes the emissions;\n(b)\nbased on aggregation of metering of quantities separately delivered taking into account relevant stock changes.\n2. For the purposes of point (b) of paragraph 1, the quantity of fuel or material processed during the reporting period shall be calculated as the quantity of fuel or material purchased during the reporting period, minus the quantity of fuel or material exported from the installation, plus the quantity of fuel or material in stock at the beginning of the reporting period, minus the quantity of fuel or material in stock at the end of the reporting period.\nWhere it is technically not feasible or would incur unreasonable costs to determine quantities in stock by direct measurement, the operator may estimate those quantities based on one of the following:\n(a)\ndata from previous years and correlated with output for the reporting period;\n(b)\ndocumented procedures and respective data in audited financial statements for the reporting period.\nWhere the determination of activity data for the entire calendar year is technically not feasible or would incur unreasonable costs, the operator may choose the next most appropriate day to separate a reporting year from the following one, and reconcile accordingly to the calendar year required. The deviations involved for one or more source streams shall be clearly recorded, form the basis of a value representative for the calendar year, and be considered consistently in relation to the next year.\nArticle 28\nMeasurement systems under the operator\u2019s control\n1. For determining the activity data in accordance with Article 27, the operator shall use metering results based on measurement systems under its own control at the installation, provided that all of the following conditions are complied with:\n(a)\nthe operator must carry out an uncertainty assessment and ensures that the uncertainty threshold of the relevant tier level is met;\n(b)\nthe operator must ensure at least once per year, and after each calibration of measuring instruments, that the calibration results multiplied by a conservative adjustment factor based on an appropriate time series of previous calibrations of that or similar measuring instruments for taking into account the effect of uncertainty in service, are compared with the relevant uncertainty thresholds.\nWhere tier thresholds approved in accordance with Article 12 are exceeded or equipment found not to conform to other requirements, the operator shall take corrective action without undue delay and notify the competent authority thereof.\n2. The operator shall provide the uncertainty assessment referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 to the competent authority when notifying a new monitoring plan or when it is relevant for a change to the approved monitoring plan.\nThe assessment shall comprise the specified uncertainty of the applied measuring instruments, uncertainty associated with the calibration, and any additional uncertainty connected to how the measuring instruments are used in practice. Uncertainty related to stock changes shall be included in the uncertainty assessment where the storage facilities are capable of containing at least 5 % of the annual used quantity of the fuel or material considered. When carrying out the assessment, the operator shall take into account the fact that the stated values used to define tier uncertainty thresholds in Annex II refer to the uncertainty over the full reporting period.\nThe operator may simplify the uncertainty assessment by assuming that the maximum permissible errors specified for the measuring instrument in service, or where lower, the uncertainty obtained by calibration, multiplied by a conservative adjustment factor for taking into account the effect of uncertainty in service, is to be regarded as the uncertainty over the whole reporting period as required by the tier definitions in Annex II, provided that measuring instruments are installed in an environment appropriate for their use specifications.\n3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, the competent authority may allow the operator to use metering results based on measurement systems under its own control at the installation, where the operator provides evidence that the measuring instruments applied are subject to relevant national legal metrological control.\nFor that purpose, the maximum permissible error in service allowed by the relevant national legislation on legal metrological control for the relevant measuring task may be used as the uncertainty value without providing further evidence.\nArticle 29\nMeasurement systems outside the operator\u2019s own control\n1. Where, based on a simplified uncertainty assessment, the use of measurement systems outside the operator\u2019s own control, compared to the use of those within the operator\u2019s own control pursuant to Article 28, allows the operator to comply with at least as high a tier, gives more reliable results and is less prone to control risks, the operator shall determine the activity data from measurement systems outside its own control.\nTo that end, the operator may revert to one of the following data sources:\n(a)\namounts from invoices issued by a trade partner, provided that a commercial transaction between two independent trade partners takes place;\n(b)\ndirect readings from the measurement systems.\n2. The operator shall ensure compliance with the applicable tier pursuant to Article 26.\nTo that end, the maximum permissible error in service allowed by relevant legislation for national legal metrological control for the relevant commercial transaction may be used as uncertainty without providing further evidence.\nWhere the applicable requirements under national legal metrological control are less stringent than the applicable tier pursuant to Article 26, the operator shall obtain evidence on the applicable uncertainty from the trade partner responsible for the measurement system.\nSubsection 3\nCalculation factors\nArticle 30\nDetermination of calculation factors\n1. The operator shall determine calculation factors either as default values or values based on analysis depending on the applicable tier.\n2. The operator shall determine and report calculation factors consistently with the state used for related activity data, referring to the fuel\u2019s or material\u2019s state in which the fuel or material is purchased or used in the emission causing process, before it is dried or otherwise treated for laboratory analysis.\nWhere such an approach incurs unreasonable costs, or where higher accuracy can be achieved, the operator may consistently report activity data and calculation factors referring to the state in which laboratory analyses are carried out.\nArticle 31\nDefault values for calculation factors\n1. Where the operator determines calculation factors as default values, it shall, in accordance with the requirement of the applicable tier, as set out in Annexes II and VI, use one of the following values:\n(a)\nstandard factors and stoichiometric factors listed in Annex VI;\n(b)\nstandard factors used by the Member State for its national inventory submission to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;\n(c)\nliterature values agreed with the competent authority, including standard factors published by the competent authority, which are compatible with factors referred to in point (b), but they are representative of more disaggregated sources of fuel streams;\n(d)\nvalues specified and guaranteed by the supplier of a material where the operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the carbon content exhibits a 95 % confidence interval of not more than 1 %;\n(e)\nvalues based on analyses carried out in the past, where the operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority that those values are representative for future batches of the same material.\n2. The operator shall specify all default values used in the monitoring plan.\nWhere the default values change on an annual basis, the operator shall specify the authoritative applicable source of that value in the monitoring plan.\n3. The competent authority may only approve a change of default values for a calculation factor in the monitoring plan pursuant to Article 15(2), where the operator provides evidence that the new default value leads to a more accurate determination of emissions.\n4. Upon application by the operator, the competent authority may allow that the net calorific value and emission factors of fuels are determined using the same tiers as required for commercial standard fuels provided that the operator submits, at least every three years, evidence that the 1 % interval for the specified calorific value has been met during the last three years.\nArticle 32\nCalculation factors based on analyses\n1. The operator shall ensure that any analyses, sampling, calibrations and validations for the determination of calculation factors are carried out by applying methods based on corresponding EN standards.\nWhere such standards are not available, the methods shall be based on suitable ISO standards or national standards. Where no applicable published standards exist, suitable draft standards, industry best practice guidelines or other scientifically proven methodologies shall be used, limiting sampling and measurement bias.\n2. Where online gas chromatographs or extractive or non-extractive gas analysers are used for emission determination, the operator shall obtain approval from the competent authority for the use of such equipment. The equipment shall be used only with regard to composition data of gaseous fuels and materials. As minimum quality assurance measures, the operator shall ensure that an initial validation and annually repeated validations of the instrument are performed.\n3. The result of any analysis shall be used only for the delivery period or batch of fuel or material for which the samples have been taken, and for which the samples were intended to be representative.\nFor the determination of a specific parameter the operator shall use the results of all analyses made with regards to that parameter.\nArticle 33\nSampling plan\n1. Where calculation factors are determined by analyses, the operator shall submit to the competent authority for approval for each fuel or material a sampling plan in the form of a written procedure, which contains information on methodologies for the preparation of samples, including information on responsibilities, locations, frequencies and quantities, and methodologies for the storage and transport of samples.\nThe operator shall ensure that the derived samples are representative for the relevant batch or delivery period and free of bias. Relevant elements of the sampling plan shall be agreed with the laboratory carrying out the analysis for the respective fuel or material, and evidence of that agreement shall be included in the plan. The operator shall make the plan available for the purposes of verification pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 600/2012.\n2. The operator shall, in agreement with the laboratory carrying out the analysis for the respective fuel or material and subject to the approval of the competent authority, adapt the elements of the sampling plan where analytical results indicate that the heterogeneity of the fuel or material significantly differs from the information on heterogeneity on which the original sampling plan for that specific fuel or material was based.\nArticle 34\nUse of laboratories\n1. The operator shall ensure that laboratories used to carry out analyses for the determination of calculation factors are accredited in accordance with EN ISO/IEC 17025, for the relevant analytical methods.\n2. Laboratories not accredited in accordance with EN ISO/IEC 17025 may only be used for the determination of calculation factors where the operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority that access to laboratories referred to in paragraph 1 is technically not feasible or would incur unreasonable costs and that the non-accredited laboratory meets requirements equivalent to EN ISO/IEC 17025.\n3. The competent authority shall deem a laboratory to meet the requirements equivalent to EN ISO/IEC 17025 within the meaning of paragraph 2 where the operator provides, to the extent feasible, in the form of and to a similar level of detail required for procedures pursuant to Article 12(2), evidence in accordance with the second and the third subparagraph of this paragraph.\nWith respect to quality management, the operator shall produce an accredited certification of the laboratory in conformity with EN ISO/IEC 9001, or other certified quality management systems that cover the laboratory. In the absence of such certified quality management systems, the operator shall provide other appropriate evidence that the laboratory is capable of managing its personnel, procedures, documents and tasks in a reliable manner.\nWith respect to technical competence, the operator shall provide evidence that the laboratory is competent and able to generate technically valid results using the relevant analytical procedures. Such evidence shall cover at least the following elements:\n(a)\nmanagement of the personnel\u2019s competence for the specific tasks assigned;\n(b)\nsuitability of accommodation and environmental conditions;\n(c)\nselection of analytical methods and relevant standards;\n(d)\nwhere applicable, management of sampling and sample preparation, including control of sample integrity;\n(e)\nwhere applicable, development and validation of new analytical methods or application of methods not covered by international or national standards;\n(f)\nuncertainty estimation;\n(g)\nmanagement of equipment, including procedures for calibration, adjustment, maintenance and repair of equipment, and record keeping thereof;\n(h)\nmanagement and control of data, documents and software;\n(i)\nmanagement of calibration items and reference materials;\n(j)\nquality assurance for calibration and test results, including regular participation in proficiency testing schemes, applying analytical methods to certified reference materials, or inter-comparison with an accredited laboratory;\n(k)\nmanagement of outsourced processes;\n(l)\nmanagement of assignments, customer complaints, and ensuring timely corrective action.\nArticle 35\nFrequencies for analyses\n1. The operator shall apply the minimum frequencies for analyses for relevant fuels and materials listed in Annex VII. Annex VII will be reviewed on a regular basis and in the first instance not more than two years from this Regulation entering into force.\n2. The competent authority may allow the operator to use a different frequency than those referred to in paragraph 1, where minimum frequencies are not available or where the operator demonstrates one of the following:\n(a)\nbased on historical data, including analytical values for the respective fuels or materials in the reporting period immediately preceding the current reporting period, any variation in the analytical values for the respective fuel or material does not exceed 1/3 of the uncertainty value to which the operator has to adhere with regard to the activity data determination of the relevant fuel or material;\n(b)\nusing the required frequency would incur unreasonable costs.\nSubsection 4\nSpecific calculation factors\nArticle 36\nEmission factors for CO2\n1. The operator shall determine activity-specific emission factors for CO2 emissions.\n2. Emission factors of fuels, including when used as process input, shall be expressed as t CO2/TJ.\nThe competent authority may allow the operator to use an emission factor for a fuel expressed as t CO2/t or t CO2/Nm3 for combustion emissions, where the use of an emission factor expressed as t CO2/TJ incurs unreasonable costs or where at least equivalent accuracy of the calculated emissions can be achieved by using such an emission factor.\n3. For the conversion of the carbon content into the respective value of a CO2 related emission factor or vice versa, the operator shall use the factor 3 664 t CO2/t C.\nArticle 37\nOxidation and conversion factors\n1. The operator shall use as a minimum tier 1 to determine oxidation or conversion factors. The operator shall use a value of 1 for oxidation or for a conversion factor where the emission factor includes the effect of incomplete oxidation or conversion.\nHowever, the competent authority may require operators to always use tier 1.\n2. Where several fuels are used within an installation and tier 3 is to be used for the specific oxidation factor, the operator may ask for the approval of the competent authority for one or both of the following:\n(a)\nthe determination of one aggregate oxidation factor for the whole combustion process and to apply it to all fuels;\n(b)\nthe attribution of the incomplete oxidation to one major source stream and use of a value of 1 for the oxidation factor of the other source streams.\nWhere biomass or mixed fuels are used, the operator shall provide evidence that application of points (a) or (b) of the first subparagraph does not lead to an underestimation of emissions.\nSubsection 5\nTreatment of biomass\nArticle 38\nBiomass source streams\n1. The operator may determine the activity data of biomass source streams without using tiers and providing analytical evidence regarding the biomass content, where that source stream consists exclusively of biomass and the operator can ensure that it is not contaminated with other materials or fuels.\n2. The emission factor of biomass shall be zero.\nThe emission factor of a mixed fuel or material shall be calculated and reported as the preliminary emission factor determined in accordance with Article 30 multiplied by the fossil fraction of the fuel or material.\n3. Peat, xylite and fossil fractions of mixed fuels or materials shall not be considered biomass.\n4. Where the biomass fraction of mixed fuels or materials is equal or higher than 97 %, or where due to the amount of the emissions associated with the fossil fraction of the fuel or material it qualifies as a de-minimis source stream, the competent authority may allow the operator to apply no-tier methodologies, including the energy balance method, for determining activity data and relevant calculation factors, unless the respective value is to be used for the subtraction of biomass derived CO2 from emissions determined by means of continuous emission measurement.\nArticle 39\nDetermination of biomass and fossil fraction\n1. Where subject to the tier level required and to the availability of appropriate default values as referred to in Article 31(1), the biomass fraction of a specific fuel or material are determined using analyses, the operator shall determine that biomass fraction on the basis of a relevant standard and the analytical methods therein, and apply that standard only if approved by the competent authority.\n2. Where the determination of the biomass fraction of a mixed fuel or material by analysis in accordance with paragraph 1 is technically not feasible or would incur unreasonable costs, the operator shall base its calculation on standard emission factors and biomass fraction values for mixed fuels and materials and estimation methods published by the Commission.\nIn the absence of such standard factors and values, the operator shall either assume the absence of a biomass share or submit an estimation method to determine the biomass fraction to the competent authority for approval. For fuels or materials originating from a production process with defined and traceable input streams, the operator may base such estimation on a mass balance of fossil and biomass carbon entering and leaving the process.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2 and Article 30, where the guarantee of origin has been established in accordance with Articles 2(j) and 15 of Directive 2009/28/EC for biogas injected into and subsequently removed from a gas network, the operator shall not use analyses for the determination of the biomass fraction.\nSECTION 3\nMeasurement-based methodology\nArticle 40\nUse of the measurement-based monitoring methodology\nThe operator shall use measurement-based methodologies for all emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) as laid down in Annex IV, and for quantifying CO2 transferred pursuant to Article 49.\nIn addition, the operator may use measurement-based methodologies for CO2 emission sources where it can provide evidence that for each emission source the tiers required in accordance with Article 41 are complied with.\nArticle 41\nTier requirements\n1. For each emission source which emits more than 5 000 tonnes of CO2(e) per year, or which contributes more than 10 % of the total annual emissions of the installation, whichever is higher in terms of absolute emissions, the operator shall apply the highest tier listed in section 1 of Annex VIII. For all other emission sources, the operator shall apply at least one tier lower than the highest tier.\n2. Only where the operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority that application of the tier required under paragraph 1 is technically not feasible or incurs unreasonable costs and application of a calculation methodology using the tier levels required by Article 26 is technically not feasible or incurs unreasonable costs, may a next lower tier be used for the relevant emission source, with a minimum of tier 1.\nArticle 42\nMeasurement standards and laboratories\n1. All measurements shall be carried out applying methods based on EN 14181 Stationary source emissions - Quality assurance of automated measuring systems, EN 15259 Air quality - Measurement of stationary source emissions - Requirements for measurement sections and sites and for the measurement objective, plan and report, and other corresponding EN standards.\nWhere such standards are not available, the methods shall be based on suitable ISO standards, standards published by the Commission or national standards. Where no applicable published standards exist, suitable draft standards, industry best practice guidelines or other scientifically proven methodologies shall be used, limiting sampling and measurement bias.\nThe operator shall consider all relevant aspects of the continuous measurement system, including the location of the equipment, calibration, measurement, quality assurance and quality control.\n2. The operator shall ensure that laboratories carrying out measurements, calibrations and relevant equipment assessments for continuous emission measurement systems (CEMS) shall be accredited in accordance with EN ISO/IEC 17025 for the relevant analytical methods or calibration activities.\nWhere the laboratory does not have such accreditation, the operator shall ensure that equivalent requirements of Article 34(2) and (3) are met.\nArticle 43\nDetermination of emissions\n1. The operator shall determine the annual emissions from an emission source over the reporting period by summing up over the reporting period all hourly values of the measured greenhouse gas concentration multiplied by the hourly values of the flue gas flow, where the hourly values shall be averages over all individual measurement results of the respective operating hour.\nIn the case of CO2 emissions, the operator shall determine annual emission on the basis of equation 1 in Annex VIII. CO emitted to the atmosphere shall be treated as the molar equivalent amount of CO2.\nIn the case of nitrous oxide (N2O), the operator shall determine annual emissions on the basis of the equation in subsection B.1 of section 16 of Annex IV.\n2. Where several emission sources exist in one installation and cannot be measured as one emission source, the operator shall measure emissions from those sources separately and add the results to obtain the total emissions of the specific gas over the reporting period.\n3. The operator shall determine the greenhouse gas concentration in the flue gas by continuous measurement at a representative point through one of the following:\n(a)\ndirect measurement;\n(b)\nin the case of a high concentration in the flue gas, calculation of the concentration using an indirect concentration measurement applying Equation 3 of Annex VIII and taking into account the measured concentration values of all other components of the gas stream as laid down in the operator\u2019s monitoring plan.\n4. Where relevant, the operator shall determine separately any CO2 amount stemming from biomass using calculation-based monitoring methodologies and subtract it from the total measured CO2 emissions.\n5. The operator shall determine the flue gas flow for the calculation in accordance with paragraph 1 by one of the following methods:\n(a)\ncalculation by means of a suitable mass balance, taking into account all significant parameters on the input side, including for CO2 emissions at least input material loads, input airflow and process efficiency, as well as on the output side including at least the product output, the O2, SO2 and NOx concentration;\n(b)\ndetermination by continuous flow measurement at a representative point.\nArticle 44\nData aggregation\n1. The operator shall calculate hourly averages for each parameter, including concentrations and flue gas flow, relevant for determining emissions using a measurement-based methodology by using all data points available for that specific hour.\nWhere an operator can generate data for shorter reference periods without additional cost, he shall use those periods for the determination of the annual emissions in accordance with Article 43(1).\n2. Where the continuous measurement equipment for a parameter is out of control, out of range or out of operation for part of the hour or reference period referred to in paragraph 1, the operator shall calculate the related hourly average pro rata to the remaining data points for that specific hour or shorter reference period provided that at least 80 % of the maximum number of data points for a parameter are available. Article 45(2) to (4) shall apply where less than 80 % of the maximum number of data points for a parameter are available.\nArticle 45\nMissing data\n1. Where a piece of measurement equipment within the continuous emissions monitoring system is out of operation for more than five consecutive days in any calendar year, the operator shall inform the competent authority without undue delay and propose adequate measures to improve the quality of the continuous emissions monitoring system affected.\n2. Where a valid hour or shorter reference period in accordance with Article 44(1) of data cannot be provided for one or more parameters of the measurement-based methodology due to the equipment being out of control, out of range or out of operation, the operator shall determine values for substitution of each missing hour of data.\n3. Where a valid hour or shorter reference period of data cannot be provided for a parameter directly measured as concentration, the operator shall calculate a substitution value as the sum of an average concentration and twice the standard deviation associated with that average, using Equation 4 in Annex VIII.\nWhere the reporting period is not applicable for determining such substitution values due to significant technical changes at the installation, the operator shall agree with the competent authority a representative timeframe for determining the average and standard deviation, where possible with the duration of one year.\n4. Where a valid hour of data cannot be provided for a parameter other than concentration, the operator shall obtain substitute values of that parameter through a suitable mass balance model or an energy balance of the process. The operator shall validate the results by using the remaining measured parameters of the measurement-based methodology and data at regular working conditions considering a time period of the same duration as the data gap.\nArticle 46\nCorroborating with calculation of emissions\nThe operator shall corroborate emissions determined by a measurement-based methodology, with the exception of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from nitric acid production and greenhouse gases transferred to a transport network or a storage site, by calculating the annual emissions of each considered greenhouse gas for the same emission sources and source streams.\nThe use of tier methodologies shall not be required.\nSECTION 4\nSpecial provisions\nArticle 47\nInstallations with low emissions\n1. The competent authority may allow the operator to submit a simplified monitoring plan in accordance with Article 13, provided that it operates an installation with low emissions.\nThe first subparagraph shall not apply to installations carrying out activities for which N2O is included pursuant to Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC.\n2. For the purposes of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, an installation shall be considered an installation with low emissions where at least one of the following conditions is met:\n(a)\nthe average annual emissions of that installation reported in the verified emission reports during the trading period immediately preceding the current trading period, with the exclusion of CO2 stemming from biomass and before subtraction of transferred CO2, were less than 25 000 tonnes of CO2(e) per year;\n(b)\nthe average annual emissions referred to in point (a) are not available or are no longer applicable because of changes in the installation\u2019s boundaries or changes to the operating conditions of the installation, but the annual emissions of that installation for the next five years, with the exclusion of CO2 stemming from biomass and before subtraction of transferred CO2, will be, based on a conservative estimation method, less than 25 000 tonnes of CO2(e) per year.\n3. The operator of an installation with low emissions shall not be required to submit the supporting documents referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 12(1), and shall be exempt from the requirement of reporting on improvement referred to in Article 69(4).\n4. By way of derogation from Article 27, the operator of an installation with low emissions may determine the amount of fuel or material by using available and documented purchasing records and estimated stock changes. The operator shall also be exempt from the requirement to provide the uncertainty assessment referred to in Article 28(2) to the competent authority.\n5. The operator of an installation with low emissions shall be exempt from the requirement of Article 28(2) to determine stock data at the beginning and the end of the reporting period, where the storage facilities are capable of containing at least 5 % of the annual consumption of fuel or material during the reporting period, in order to include related uncertainty in an uncertainty assessment.\n6. By way of derogation from Article 26(1) the operator of an installation with low emissions may apply as a minimum tier 1 for the purposes of determining activity data and calculation factors for all source streams, unless higher accuracy is achievable without additional effort for the operator, without providing evidence that applying higher tiers is technically not feasible or would incur unreasonable costs.\n7. For the purpose of determining calculation factors on the basis of analyses in accordance with Article 32, the operator of an installation with low emissions may use any laboratory that is technically competent and able to generate technically valid results using the relevant analytical procedures, and provides evidence for quality assurance measures as referred to in Article 34(3).\n8. Where an installation with low emissions subject to simplified monitoring exceeds the threshold referred to in paragraph 2 in any calendar year, its operator shall notify the competent authority thereof without undue delay.\nThe operator shall, without undue delay, submit a significant modification of the monitoring plan within the meaning of point (b) of Article 15(3), to the competent authority for approval.\nHowever, the competent authority shall allow that the operator continues simplified monitoring provided that that operator demonstrates to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the threshold referred to in paragraph 2 has not already been exceeded within the past five reporting periods and will not be exceeded again from the following reporting period onwards.\nArticle 48\nInherent CO2\n1. Inherent CO2 which is transferred into an installation, including that contained in natural gas or a waste gas including blast furnace gas or coke oven gas, shall be included in the emission factor for that fuel.\n2. Where inherent CO2 originates from activities covered by Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC or included pursuant to Article 24 of that Directive and is subsequently transferred out of the installation as part of a fuel to another installation and activity covered by that Directive, it shall not be counted as emissions of the installation where it originates.\nHowever, where inherent CO2 is emitted, or transferred out of the installation to entities not covered by that Directive, it shall be counted as emissions of the installation where it originates.\n3. The operators may determine quantities of inherent CO2 transferred out of the installation both at the transferring and at the receiving installation. In that case, the quantities of respectively transferred and received inherent CO2 shall be identical.\nWhere the quantities of transferred and received inherent CO2 are not identical, the arithmetic average of both measured values shall be used in both the transferring and receiving installations\u2019 emission reports, where the deviation between the values can be explained by the uncertainty of the measurement systems. In such case, the emission report shall refer to the alignment of that value.\nWhere the deviation between the values cannot be explained by the approved uncertainty range of the measurement systems, the operators of the transferring and receiving installations shall align the values by applying conservative adjustments approved by the competent authority.\nArticle 49\nTransferred CO2\n1. The operator shall subtract from the emissions of the installation any amount of CO2 originating from fossil carbon in activities covered by Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC, which is not emitted from the installation, but transferred out of the installation to any of the following:\n(a)\na capture installation for the purpose of transport and long-term geological storage in a storage site permitted under Directive 2009/31/EC;\n(b)\na transport network with the purpose of long-term geological storage in a storage site permitted under Directive 2009/31/EC;\n(c)\na storage site permitted under Directive 2009/31/EC for the purpose of long-term geological storage.\nFor any other transfer of CO2 out of the installation, no subtraction of CO2 from the installation\u2019s emissions shall be allowed.\n2. The operator of the installation out of which the CO2 transferred shall provide in its annual emission report the receiving installation\u2019s installation identification code recognised in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1193/2011 of 18 November 2011 establishing a Union Registry for the trading period commencing on 1 January 2013, and subsequent trading periods, of the Union emissions trading scheme pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations (EC) No 2216/2004 and (EU) No 920/2010 (11).\nThe first subparagraph shall also apply to the receiving installation with respect to the transferring installation\u2019s installation identification code.\n3. For the determination of the quantity of CO2 transferred from one installation to another, the operator shall apply a measurement-based methodology including in accordance with Articles 43, 44 and 45. The emission source shall correspond to the measurement point and the emissions shall be expressed as the quantity of CO2 transferred.\n4. For determining the quantity of CO2 transferred from one installation to another, the operator shall apply tier 4 as defined in section 1 of Annex VIII.\nHowever, the operator may apply the next lower tier provided that it establishes that applying tier 4 as defined in section 1 of Annex VIII is technically not feasible or incurs unreasonable costs.\n5. The operators may determine quantities of CO2 transferred out of the installation both at the transferring and at the receiving installation. In that case, Article 48(3) shall apply.\nCHAPTER IV\nMONITORING OF EMISSIONS AND TONNE-KILOMETRE DATA FROM AVIATION\nArticle 50\nGeneral provisions\n1. Each aircraft operator shall monitor and report emissions from aviation activities for all flights included in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC that are performed by that aircraft operator during the reporting period and for which the aircraft operator is responsible.\nTo that end, the aircraft operator shall attribute all flights to the calendar year according to the time of departure measured in Coordinated Universal Time.\n2. The aircraft operator intending to apply for an allocation of allowances free of charge pursuant to Articles 3e or 3f of Directive 2003/87/EC shall also monitor tonne-kilometre data for the same flights during the respective monitoring years.\n3. For the purpose of identifying the unique aircraft operator referred to in point (o) of Article 3 of Directive 2003/87/EC that is responsible for a flight, the call sign used for air traffic control purposes, shall be used. The call sign shall be one of the following:\n(a)\nthe ICAO designator laid down in box 7 of the flight plan;\n(b)\nwhere the ICAO designator of the aircraft operator is not available, the registration markings of the aircraft.\n4. Where the identity of the aircraft operator is not known, the competent authority shall consider the owner of the aircraft as aircraft operator unless it proves the identity the aircraft operator responsible.\nArticle 51\nSubmission of monitoring plans\n1. At the latest four months before an aircraft operator commences aviation activities covered by Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC, it shall submit to the competent authority a monitoring plan for the monitoring and reporting of emissions in accordance with Article 12.\nBy way of derogation from the first subparagraph, an aircraft operator that performs an aviation activity covered by Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC for the first time that could not be foreseen four months in advance of the activity, shall submit a monitoring plan to the competent authority without undue delay, but no later than six weeks after performance of that activity. The aircraft operator shall provide adequate justification to the competent authority why a monitoring plan could not be submitted four months in advance of the activity.\nWhere the administering Member State referred to in Article 18a of Directive 2003/87/EC is not known in advance, the aircraft operator shall without undue delay submit the monitoring plan when information on the competent authority of the administering Member State becomes available.\n2. Where the aircraft operator is intending to apply for an allocation of allowances free of charge pursuant to Articles 3e or 3f of Directive 2003/87/EC, it shall also submit a monitoring plan for the monitoring and reporting of tonne-kilometre data. That monitoring plan shall be submitted at the latest four months prior to the start of one of the following:\n(a)\nthe monitoring year mentioned in Article 3e(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC for applications pursuant to that Article;\n(b)\nthe second calendar year of the period referred to in Article 3c(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC for applications pursuant to Article 3f of that Directive.\nArticle 52\nMonitoring methodology for emissions from aviation activities\n1. Each aircraft operator shall determine the annual CO2 emissions from aviation activities by multiplying the annual consumption of each fuel expressed in tonnes by the respective emission factor.\n2. Each aircraft operator shall determine the fuel consumption for each flight and for each fuel, including fuel consumed by the auxiliary power unit. For that purpose, the aircraft operator shall use one of the methods laid down in section 1 of Annex III. The aircraft operator shall choose the method which provides for the most complete and timely data combined with the lowest uncertainty without incurring unreasonable costs.\n3. Each aircraft operator shall determine the fuel uplift referred to in section 1 of Annex III based on one of the following:\n(a)\nthe measurement by the fuel supplier, as documented in the fuel delivery notes or invoices for each flight;\n(b)\ndata from aircraft onboard measurement systems recorded in the mass and balance documentation, in the aircraft technical log or transmitted electronically from the aircraft to the aircraft operator.\n4. The aircraft operator shall determine fuel contained in the tank using data from aircraft onboard measurement systems and recorded in the mass and balance documentation, in the aircraft technical log or transmit it electronically from the aircraft to the aircraft operator.\n5. Aircraft operators shall apply tier 2 as set out in section 2 of Annex III.\nHowever, aircraft operators having reported average annual emissions over the trading period immediately preceding the current trading period, which were equal to or less than 50 000 tonnes of fossil CO2 may apply as a minimum tier 1 as defined in section 2 of Annex III. All aircraft operators may apply as a minimum tier 1 as defined in section 2 of Annex III for source streams jointly corresponding to less than 5 000 tonnes of fossil CO2 per year or less than 10 %, up to a maximum contribution of 100 000 tonnes of fossil CO2 per year, whichever is highest in terms of absolute value. Where, for the purposes of this subparagraph reported emissions are not available or no longer applicable, the aircraft operator may use a conservative estimate or projection to determine the average annual emissions.\n6. Where the amount of fuel uplift or the amount of fuel remaining in the tanks is determined in units of volume, expressed in litres, the aircraft operator shall convert that amount from volume to mass by using actual density values. The aircraft operator shall determine the actual density by using one of the following:\n(a)\non-board measurement systems;\n(b)\nthe density measured by the fuel supplier at fuel uplift and recorded on the fuel invoice or delivery note.\nThe actual density shall be expressed in kg/litre and determined for the applicable temperature for a specific measurement.\nIn cases for which actual density values are not available, a standard density factor of 0,8 kg/litre shall be applied upon approval by the competent authority.\n7. For the purposes of the calculation referred to in paragraph 1, the aircraft operator shall use the default emission factors set out in Table 2 in Annex III.\nFor reporting purposes, that approach shall be considered as tier 1. For fuels not listed in that table, the aircraft operator shall determine the emission factor in accordance with Article 32, considered as tier 2. For such fuels, the net calorific value shall be determined and reported as a memo-item.\n8. By way of derogation from paragraph 7, the aircraft operator may, upon approval by the competent authority, derive the emission factor or the carbon content, on which it is based, or the net calorific value for commercially traded fuels from the purchasing records for the respective fuel provided by the fuel supplier, provided that those have been derived based on internationally accepted standards and the emission factors listed in Table 2 in Annex III cannot be applied.\nArticle 53\nSpecific provisions for biomass\nArticle 39 shall apply accordingly to the determination of the biomass fraction of a mixed fuel.\nNotwithstanding Article 39(2), the competent authority shall allow the use of a methodology uniformly applicable in all Member States for the determination of the biomass fraction, as appropriate.\nUnder that methodology, the biomass fraction, net calorific value and emission factor or carbon content of the fuel used in an EU ETS aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC shall be determined using fuel purchase records.\nThe methodology shall be based on the guidelines provided by the Commission to facilitate its consistent application in all Member States.\nThe use of biofuels for aviation shall be assessed in accordance with Article 18 of Directive 2009/28/EC.\nArticle 54\nSmall emitters\n1. Aircraft operators operating fewer than 243 flights per period for three consecutive four-month periods and aircraft operators operating flights with total annual emissions lower than 25 000 tonnes CO2 per year shall be considered small emitters.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 52, small emitters may estimate the fuel consumption using tools implemented by Eurocontrol or another relevant organisation, which can process all relevant air traffic information corresponding to that available to Eurocontrol and avoid any underestimations of emissions.\nThe applicable tools may only be used if they are approved by the Commission including the application of correction factors to compensate for any inaccuracies in the modelling methods.\n3. By way of derogation from Article 12, a small emitter who intends to make use of any of the tools referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article may submit only the following information in the monitoring plan for emissions:\n(a)\ninformation required pursuant to point 1 of section 2 of Annex I;\n(b)\nevidence that the thresholds for small emitters set out in paragraph 1 of this Article are met;\n(c)\nthe name of or reference to the tool as referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article that will be used for estimating the fuel consumption.\nA small emitter shall be exempted from the requirement to submit the supporting documents referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 12(1).\n4. Where an aircraft operator uses any of the tools referred to in paragraph 2 and exceeds the thresholds referred to in paragraph 1 during a reporting year, the aircraft operator shall notify the competent authority thereof without undue delay.\nThe aircraft operator shall, without undue delay, submit a significant modification of the monitoring plan within the meaning of point (vi) of Article 15(4)(a) to the competent authority for approval.\nHowever, the competent authority shall allow that the aircraft operator continues to use a tool referred to in paragraph 2 provided that that aircraft operator demonstrates to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the thresholds referred to in paragraph 1 have not already been exceeded within the past five reporting periods and will not be exceeded again from the following reporting period onwards.\nArticle 55\nSources of uncertainty\n1. The aircraft operator shall identify sources of uncertainty and their associated levels of uncertainty. The aircraft operator shall consider that information when selecting the monitoring methodology pursuant to Article 52(2).\n2. Where the aircraft operator determines fuel uplifts in accordance with point (a) of Article 52(3), it shall not be required to provide further proof of the associated uncertainty level.\n3. Where on-board systems are used for measuring fuel uplift or fuel contained in tanks in accordance with point (b) of Article 52(3), the level of uncertainty associated with fuel measurements shall be supported by all of the following:\n(a)\nthe aircraft manufacturer\u2019s specifications determining uncertainty levels of on-board fuel measurement systems;\n(b)\nevidence of carrying out routine checks of the satisfactory operation of the fuel measurement systems.\n4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 2 and 3, the aircraft operator may base uncertainties for all other components of the monitoring methodology on conservative expert judgement taking into account the estimated number of flights within the reporting period.\n5. The aircraft operator shall regularly perform suitable control activities, including cross-checks between the fuel uplift quantity as provided by invoices and the fuel uplift quantity indicated by on-board measurement, and take corrective action if notable deviations are observed.\nArticle 56\nDetermination of tonne-kilometre data\n1. The aircraft operator intending to apply for an allocation of allowances free of charge pursuant to Articles 3e or 3f of Directive 2003/87/EC shall monitor tonne-kilometre data for all flights covered by Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC in the monitoring years relevant for such applications.\n2. The aircraft operator shall calculate tonne-kilometre data by multiplying the distance, calculated in accordance with section 4 of Annex III and expressed in kilometres (km), with the payload, calculated as the sum of the mass of freight, mail, passengers and checked baggage expressed in tonnes (t).\n3. The aircraft operator shall determine the mass of freight and mail on the basis of the actual or standard mass contained in the mass and balance documentation for the relevant flights.\nAircraft operators not required to have a mass and balance documentation shall propose in the monitoring plan a suitable methodology for determining the mass of freight and mail, while excluding the tare weight of all pallets and containers that are not payload and the service weight.\n4. The aircraft operator shall determine the mass of passengers using one of the following tiers:\n(a)\nTier 1: consisting in a default value of 100 kg for each passenger including their checked baggage;\n(b)\nTier 2: consisting in the mass for passengers and checked baggage contained in the mass and balance documentation for each flight.\nHowever, the tier selected shall apply to all flights in the monitoring years relevant for applications pursuant to Articles 3e or 3f of Directive 2003/87/EC.\nCHAPTER V\nDATA MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL\nArticle 57\nData flow activities\n1. The operator or aircraft operator shall establish, document, implement and maintain written procedures for data flow activities for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and ensure that the annual emission report resulting from data flow activities, does not contain misstatements and is in conformance with the monitoring plan, those written procedures and this Regulation.\nWhere the aircraft operator intends to apply for an allocation of allowances free of charge pursuant to Articles 3e or 3f of Directive 2003/87/EC, the first subparagraph shall also apply to the monitoring and reporting of tonne-kilometre data.\n2. Descriptions of written procedures for data flow activities in the monitoring plan shall at least cover the following elements:\n(a)\nthe items of information listed in Article 12(2);\n(b)\nidentification of the primary data sources;\n(c)\neach step in the data flow from primary data to annual emissions or tonne-kilometre data which shall reflect the sequence and interaction between the data flow activities;\n(d)\nthe relevant processing steps related to each specific data flow activity including the formulas and data used to determine the emissions or tonne-kilometre data;\n(e)\nrelevant electronic data processing and storage systems used as well as the interaction between such systems and other inputs including manual input;\n(f)\nthe way outputs of data flow activities are recorded.\nArticle 58\nControl system\n1. The operator or aircraft operator shall establish, document, implement and maintain an effective control system to ensure that the annual emission report and, where applicable, the tonne-kilometre report resulting from data flow activities does not contain misstatements and is in conformity with the monitoring plan and this Regulation.\n2. The control system referred to in paragraph 1 shall consist of the following:\n(a)\nan operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s assessment of inherent risks and control risks;\n(b)\nwritten procedures related to control activities that are to mitigate the risks identified.\n3. Written procedures related to control activities as referred to in point (b) of paragraph 2 shall at least include:\n(a)\nquality assurance of the measurement equipment;\n(b)\nquality assurance of the information technology system used for data flow activities, including process control computer technology;\n(c)\nsegregation of duties in the data flow activities and control activities as well as management of necessary competencies;\n(d)\ninternal reviews and validation of data;\n(e)\ncorrections and corrective action;\n(f)\ncontrol of out-sourced processes;\n(g)\nkeeping records and documentation including the management of document versions.\n4. The operator or aircraft operator shall monitor the effectiveness of the control system, including by carrying out internal reviews and taking into account the findings of the verifier during the verification of annual emission reports and, where applicable, tonne-kilometre data reports, carried out pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 600/2012.\nWhenever the control system is found to be ineffective or not commensurate with the risks identified, the operator or aircraft operator shall seek to improve the control system and update the monitoring plan or the underlying written procedures for data flow activities, risk assessments and control activities as appropriate.\nArticle 59\nQuality assurance\n1. For the purposes of point (a) of Article 58(3), the operator or aircraft operator shall ensure that all relevant measuring equipment is calibrated, adjusted and checked at regular intervals including prior to use, and checked against measurement standards traceable to international measurement standards, where available, in accordance with the requirements of this Regulation and proportionate to the risks identified.\nWhere components of the measuring systems cannot be calibrated, the operator or aircraft operator shall identify those in the monitoring plan and propose alternative control activities.\nWhen the equipment is found not to comply with required performance, the operator or aircraft operator shall promptly take necessary corrective action.\n2. With regard to continuous emission measurement systems, the operator shall apply quality assurance based on the standard Quality assurance of automated measuring systems (EN 14181), including parallel measurements with standard reference methods at least once per year, performed by competent staff.\nWhere such quality assurance requires emission limit values (ELVs) as necessary parameters for the basis of calibration and performance checks, the annual average hourly concentration of the greenhouse gas shall be used as a substitute for such ELVs. Where the operator finds a non-compliance with the quality assurance requirements, including that recalibration has to be performed, it shall report that circumstance to the competent authority and take corrective action without undue delay.\nArticle 60\nQuality assurance of information technology\nFor the purposes of point (b) of Article 58(3), the operator or aircraft operator shall ensure that the information technology system is designed, documented, tested, implemented, controlled and maintained in a way to process reliable, accurate and timely data in accordance with the risks identified in accordance with point (a) of Article 58(2).\nThe control of the information technology system shall include access control, control of back up, recovery, continuity planning and security.\nArticle 61\nSegregation of duties\nFor the purposes of point (c) of Article 58(3), the operator or aircraft operator shall assign responsible persons for all data flow activities and for all control activities in a way to segregate conflicting duties. In the absence of other control activities, it shall ensure for all data flow activities commensurate with the identified inherent risks that all relevant information and data shall be confirmed by at least one person who has not been involved in the determination and recording of that information or data.\nThe operator or aircraft operator shall manage the necessary competencies for the responsibilities involved, including the appropriate assignment of responsibilities, training, and performance reviews.\nArticle 62\nInternal reviews and validation of data\n1. For the purposes of point (d) of Article 58(3) and based on the inherent risks and control risks identified in the risk assessment referred to in point (a) of Article 58(2), the operator or aircraft operator shall review and validate data resulting from the data flow activities referred to in Article 57.\nSuch review and validation of the data shall at least include:\n(a)\na check as to whether the data are complete;\n(b)\na comparison of the data that the operator or aircraft operator has obtained, monitored and reported over several years;\n(c)\na comparison of data and values resulting from different operational data collection systems, including the following comparisons, where applicable:\n(i)\na comparison of fuel or material purchasing data with data on stock changes and data on consumption for the applicable source streams;\n(ii)\na comparison of calculation factors that have been determined by analysis, calculated or obtained from the supplier of the fuel or material, with national or international reference factors of comparable fuels or materials;\n(iii)\na comparison of emissions obtained from measurement-based methodologies and the results of the corroborating calculation pursuant to Article 46;\n(iv)\na comparison of aggregated data and raw data.\n2. The operator or aircraft operator shall, to the extent possible, ensure the criteria for rejecting data as part of the review and validation are known in advance. For that purpose the criteria for rejecting data shall be laid down in the documentation of the relevant written procedures.\nArticle 63\nCorrections and corrective action\n1. Where any part of the data flow activities referred to in Article 57 or control activities referred to in Article 58 is found not to function effectively, or to function outside boundaries that are set in documentation of procedures for those data flow activities and control activities, the operator or aircraft operator shall make appropriate corrections and correct rejected data whilst avoiding underestimation of emissions.\n2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, the operator or aircraft operator shall at least proceed to all of the following:\n(a)\nassessment of the validity of the outputs of the applicable steps in the data flow activities referred to in Article 57 or control activities referred to in Article 58;\n(b)\ndetermination of the cause of the malfunctioning or error concerned;\n(c)\nimplementation of appropriate corrective action, including correcting any affected data in the emission report or tonne-kilometre report, as appropriate.\n3. The operator or aircraft operator shall carry out the corrections and corrective actions pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article such that they are responsive to the inherent risks and control risks identified in the risk assessment referred to in Article 58.\nArticle 64\nOut-sourced processes\nWhere the operator or aircraft operator outsources one or more data flow activities referred to in Article 57 or control activities referred to in Article 58, the operator or aircraft operator shall proceed to all of the following:\n(a)\ncheck the quality of the outsourced data flow activities and control activities in accordance with this Regulation;\n(b)\ndefine appropriate requirements for the outputs of the outsourced processes as well as the methods used in those processes;\n(c)\ncheck the quality of the outputs and methods referred to in point (b) of this Article;\n(d)\nensure that outsourced activities are carried out such that those are responsive to the inherent risks and control risks identified in the risk assessment referred to in Article 58.\nArticle 65\nTreatment of data gaps\n1. Where data relevant for the determination of the emissions of an installation are missing, the operator shall use an appropriate estimation method for determining conservative surrogate data for the respective time period and missing parameter.\nWhere the operator has not laid down the estimation method in a written procedure, it shall establish such written procedure and submit to the competent authority an appropriate modification of the monitoring plan in accordance with Article 15 for approval.\n2. Where data relevant for the determination of an aircraft operator\u2019s emissions for one flight or more flights are missing, the aircraft operator shall use surrogate data for the respective time period calculated in accordance with the alternative method defined in the monitoring plan.\nWhere surrogate data cannot be determined in accordance with the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the emissions for that flight or those flights may be estimated by the aircraft operator from the fuel consumption determined by using a tool referred to in Article 54(2).\nArticle 66\nRecords and documentation\n1. The operator or aircraft operator shall keep records of all relevant data and information, including information as listed in Annex IX, for at least 10 years.\nThe documented and archived monitoring data shall allow for the verification of the annual emissions report or tonne-kilometre data in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 600/2012. Data reported by the operator or aircraft operator contained in an electronic reporting and data management system set up by the competent authority may be considered to be retained by the operator or aircraft operator, if they can access those data.\n2. The operator or aircraft operator shall ensure that relevant documents are available when and where they are needed to perform the data flow activities as well as control activities.\nThe operator or aircraft operator shall, upon request, make those documents available to the competent authority as well as to the verifier verifying the emissions report or tonne-kilometre data report in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 600/2012.\nCHAPTER VI\nREPORTING REQUIREMENTS\nArticle 67\nTiming and obligations for reporting\n1. The operator or aircraft operator shall submit to the competent authority by 31 March of each year an emission report that covers the annual emissions of the reporting period and that is verified in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 600/2012.\nHowever, competent authorities may require operators or aircraft operators to submit the verified annual emission report earlier than by 31 March, but by 28 February at the earliest.\n2. Where the aircraft operator chooses to apply for the allocation of emission allowances free of charge pursuant to Article 3e or 3f of Directive 2003/87/EC, the aircraft operator shall submit to the competent authority by 31 March of the year following the monitoring year referred to in Article 3e or 3f of that Directive a tonne-kilometre data report that covers the tonne-kilometre data of the monitoring year and that is verified in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 600/2012.\n3. The annual emission reports and tonne-kilometre data reports shall at least contain the information listed in Annex X.\nArticle 68\nForce majeure\n1. Where an aircraft operator cannot provide verified tonne-kilometre data to the competent authority by the relevant deadline pursuant to Article 3e(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC because of serious and unforeseeable circumstances outside of its control, that aircraft operator shall submit to the competent authority, for the purposes of that provision, the best tonne-kilometre data that can be made available given the circumstances, including data based, where necessary, on credible estimates.\n2. Where the conditions set out in paragraph 1 are met, the Member State shall, for the purposes of the application referred to in Article 3e(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC and in accordance with paragraph 2 of that Article, submit the data received in respect of the aircraft operator concerned, together with an explanation of the circumstances that led to the absence of a report verified in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 600/2012, to the Commission.\nThe Commission and the Member States shall use those data for the purposes of Article 3e(3) and (4) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n3. Where the Member State submits data received in respect of an aircraft operator to the Commission pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article, the aircraft operator concerned shall ensure a verification of the submitted tonne-kilometre data in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 600/2012 as soon as possible and, in any case, upon termination of the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.\nThe aircraft operator shall, without undue delay, submit the verified data to the competent authority.\nThe competent authority concerned shall reduce and publish the revised allocation of free allowances for the aircraft operator pursuant to Article 3e(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC as appropriate. The relevant allocation shall not be increased. Where applicable, the aircraft operator shall return any excess allowances received pursuant to Article 3e(5) of that Directive.\n4. The competent authority shall put into place effective measures to ensure that the aircraft operator concerned complies with its obligations pursuant to paragraph 3.\nArticle 69\nReporting on improvements to the monitoring methodology\n1. Each operator or aircraft operator shall regularly check whether the monitoring methodology applied can be improved.\nAn operator of an installation shall submit to the competent authority for approval a report containing the information referred to in paragraph 2 or 3, where appropriate, by the following deadlines:\n(a)\nfor a category A installation, by 30 June every four years;\n(b)\nfor a category B installation, by 30 June every two years;\n(c)\nfor a category C installation, by 30 June every year.\nHowever, the competent authority may set an alternative date for submission of the report, but no later date than 30 September of the same year.\n2. Where the operator does not apply at least the tiers required pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 26(1) and to Article 41(1), the operator shall provide a justification as to why it is technically not feasible or would incur unreasonable costs to apply the required tiers.\nHowever, where evidence is found that measures needed for reaching those tiers have become technically feasible and do not any more incur unreasonable costs, the operator shall notify the competent authority of appropriate modifications of the monitoring plan in accordance with Article 15, and submit proposals for implementing the related measures and its timing.\n3. Where the operator applies a fall-back monitoring methodology referred to in Article 22, the operator shall provide: a justification as to why it is technically not feasible or would incur unreasonable costs to apply at least tier 1 for one or more major or minor source streams.\nHowever, where evidence is found that measures needed for reaching at least tier 1 for those source streams have become technically feasible and do not any more incur unreasonable costs, the operator shall notify the competent authority of appropriate modifications of the monitoring plan in accordance with Article 15 and submit proposals for implementing the related measures and its timing.\n4. Where the verification report established in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 600/2012 states outstanding non-conformities or recommendations for improvements, in accordance with Articles 27, 29 and 30 of that Regulation, the operator or aircraft operator shall submit to the competent authority for approval a report by 30 June of the year in which that verification report is issued by the verifier. That report shall describe how and when the operator or aircraft operator has rectified or plans to rectify the non-conformities identified by the verifier and to implement recommended improvements.\nWhere applicable, such report may be combined with the report referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.\nWhere recommended improvements would not lead to an improvement of the monitoring methodology, the operator or aircraft operator shall provide a justification of why that is the case. Where the recommended improvements would incur unreasonable costs, the operator or aircraft operator shall provide evidence of the unreasonable nature of the costs.\nArticle 70\nDetermination of emissions by the competent authority\n1. The competent authority shall make a conservative estimate of the emissions of an installation or aircraft operator in any of the following situations:\n(a)\nno verified annual emission report has been submitted by the operator or aircraft operator by the deadline required pursuant to Article 67(1);\n(b)\nthe verified annual emission report referred to in Article 67(1) is not in compliance with this Regulation;\n(c)\nthe emission report of an operator or aircraft operator has not been verified in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 600/2012.\n2. Where a verifier has stated, in the verification report pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 600/2012, the existence of non-material misstatements which have not been corrected by the operator or aircraft operator before issuing the verification statement, the competent authority shall assess those misstatements, and make a conservative estimate of the emissions of the installation or aircraft operator where appropriate. The competent authority shall inform the operator or aircraft operator whether and which corrections are required to the emissions report. The operator or aircraft operator shall make that information available to the verifier.\n3. Member States shall establish an efficient exchange of information between competent authorities responsible for approval of monitoring plans and competent authorities responsible for acceptance of annual emission reports.\nArticle 71\nAccess to information\nEmission reports held by the competent authority shall be made available to the public by that authority subject to national rules adopted pursuant to Directive 2003/4/EC. With regard to the application of the exception, as specified in Article 4(2)(d) of that Directive, operators or aircraft operators may indicate in their report which information they consider commercially sensitive.\nArticle 72\nRounding of data\n1. Total annual emissions shall be reported as rounded tonnes of CO2 or CO2(e).\nTonne-kilometres shall be reported as rounded values of tonne-kilometres.\n2. All variables used to calculate the emissions shall be rounded to include all significant digits for the purpose of calculating and reporting emissions.\n3. All data per flights shall be rounded to include all significant digits for the purpose of calculating the distance and payload pursuant to Article 56 as well as reporting the tonne-kilometre data.\nArticle 73\nEnsuring consistency with other reporting\nEach activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC that is carried out by an operator or aircraft operator shall be labelled using the codes, where applicable, from the following reporting schemes:\n(a)\nthe Common Reporting Format for national greenhouse gas inventory systems as approved by the respective bodies of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;\n(b)\nthe installation\u2019s identification number in the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (12);\n(c)\nthe IPPC activity of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 166/2006;\n(d)\nthe NACE code in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (13).\nCHAPTER VII\nINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS\nArticle 74\nElectronic data exchange formats\n1. Member States may require the operator and aircraft operator to use electronic templates or specific file formats for submission of monitoring plans and changes to the monitoring plan, as well as for submission of annual emissions reports, tonne-kilometre data reports, verification reports and improvement reports.\nThose templates or file format specifications established by the Member States shall, at least, contain the information contained in electronic templates or file format specifications published by the Commission.\n2. When establishing the templates or file format specifications referred to in paragraph 1, the Member States may choose one or both of the following options:\n(a)\nfile format specifications using a standardised electronic reporting language (hereinafter the \u2018EU ETS reporting language\u2019) based on XML for the use in connection with advanced automated systems;\n(b)\ntemplates published in a form usable by standard office software, including spreadsheets and word processor files.\nArticle 75\nUse of automated systems\n1. Where a Member State chooses to use automated systems for electronic data exchange based on the EU ETS reporting language in accordance with point (a) of Article 74(2), those systems shall ensure in a cost efficient way, through the implementation of technological measures in accordance with the current state of technology:\n(a)\nintegrity of data, preventing modification of electronic messages during transmission;\n(b)\nconfidentiality of data, through the use of security techniques, including encryption techniques, such that the data is only accessible to the party for which it was intended and that no data can be intercepted by unauthorised parties;\n(c)\nauthenticity of data, such that the identity of both the sender and receiver of data is known and verified;\n(d)\nnon-repudiation of data, such that one party of a transaction cannot deny having received a transaction nor can the other party deny having sent a transaction, by applying methods such as signing techniques, or independent auditing of system safeguards.\n2. Any automated systems used by Member States based on the EU ETS reporting language for communication between the competent authority, operator and aircraft operator, as well as verifier and accreditation body within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 600/2012, shall meet the following non-functional requirements, through implementation of technological measures in accordance with the current state of technology:\n(a)\naccess control, such that the system is only accessible to authorised parties and no data can be read, written or updated by unauthorised parties, through implementation of technological measures in order to achieve the following:\n(i)\nrestriction of physical access to the hardware on which automated systems run through physical barriers;\n(ii)\nrestriction of logical access to the automated systems through the use of technology for identification, authentication and authorisation;\n(b)\navailability, such that data accessibility is ensured, even after significant time and the introduction of possible new software;\n(c)\naudit trail, such that it is ensured that changes to data can always be found and analysed in retrospect.\nCHAPTER VIII\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 76\nRepeal of Decision 2007/589/EC and transitional provisions\n1. Decision 2007/589/EC is repealed.\n2. The provisions of Decision 2007/589/EC shall continue to apply to the monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions and, where applicable, activity data occurring prior to 1 January 2013.\nArticle 77\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2012.", "references": ["80", "3", "29", "1", "90", "2", "47", "82", "31", "35", "46", "96", "4", "52", "61", "39", "0", "89", "41", "95", "32", "9", "40", "99", "6", "14", "34", "73", "91", "63", "No Label", "42", "58", "60", "76"], "gold": ["42", "58", "60", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 19 June 2010\namending Decision 2004/388/EC on an Intra-Community transfer of explosives document\n(notified under document C(2010) 3666)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/347/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonization of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses (1), and in particular Article 13(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe system for transferring explosives within the territory of the Union established by Directive 93/15/EEC provides for the approval of the different competent authorities responsible for the zones of origin, transit and destination of the explosives.\n(2)\nA model document to be used for the transfer of explosives, comprising the information required for the purposes of Article 9(5) and (6) of Directive 93/15/EEC, has been established by Commission Decision 2004/388/EC of 15 April 2004 on an Intra-Community transfer of explosives document (2) in order to facilitate transfers of explosives between Member States while preserving the necessary security requirements for the transfer of these products.\n(3)\nDecision 2004/388/EC should be adapted in order to take into account that an electronic system for transfer approvals has been developed and is available to all Member States.\n(4)\nIn particular, it should be possible for the competent authority of the Member State of origin to print out all necessary documents and issue the intra-Community transfer of explosives document to the supplier after it has verified that all competent authorities of the Member States concerned have given their approval to the transfer, as this will reduce the administrative burden for companies and Member States authorities.\n(5)\nThe evaluation study on the implementation of Directive 93/15/EEC, performed on behalf of the European Commission, concluded that the procedure for granting transfer approvals by the Member States needs to be shortened. Use of a common electronic system should be introduced to overcome this situation.\n(6)\nIn the \u2018Small Business Act\u2019 for Europe (3) and in the Third Strategic Review of Better Regulation in the European Union (4) the European Commission has committed to the objective of increasing predictability and helping business to better prepare for legislative changes. Specifically a system of common commencement dates to ensure that, where possible, the date of application of legislation affecting business corresponds to certain fixed dates during the year has been identified as a measure to achieve this objective. This should be taken into account when setting the date of application of this Decision.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established pursuant to Article 13(1) of Directive 93/15/EEC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2004/388/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nThe following Article 3(a) is inserted:\n\u2018Article 3a\nWhere the Member State of origin, the Member State of the recipient and any transit Member States all use a common electronic system for the approval of the transfer of explosives within the Union, the procedure set out in the second to fifth subparagraphs shall apply.\nThe consignee shall submit the intra-Community transfer of explosives document in paper version or in an electronic version with sections 1 to 4 completed only to the competent authority of the recipient Member State for approval.\nAfter giving its own approval, the recipient Member State shall send the approval to the Member State of origin using the common electronic system.\nAfter giving its own approval, the competent authority of the Member State of origin shall seek the approval from the competent authorities of all transit Member States using the common electronic system.\nAfter having received all approvals, the competent authority of the Member State of origin shall issue the intra-Community transfer of explosives document indicating the agreement of all Member States concerned to the supplier on securely identifiable paper and in the language(s) of the Member State of origin, the Member State(s) of transit (if applicable), the recipient Member State and in English.\u2019\n2.\nIn the Annex, in point 2 of the Explanatory Notes, the following sentence is added at the end of the paragraph: \u2018This point does not apply in case the common electronic system described in Article 3a is used.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 29 October 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 June 2010.", "references": ["99", "81", "3", "91", "57", "21", "68", "37", "97", "94", "66", "2", "72", "61", "13", "28", "82", "34", "67", "93", "77", "15", "75", "24", "89", "47", "74", "64", "27", "48", "No Label", "20", "40", "41", "53", "83"], "gold": ["20", "40", "41", "53", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 506/2011\nof 23 May 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 297/2011 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53 (1) (b)(ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 provides for the possibility to adopt appropriate Union emergency measures for food and feed imported from a third country in order to protect public health, animal health or the environment, where the risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member States individually.\n(2)\nFollowing the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station on 11 March 2011, the Commission was informed that radionuclide levels in certain food products originating in Japan such as milk and spinach exceeded the action levels in food applicable in Japan. Such contamination may constitute a threat to public and animal health within the Union and therefore Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 297/2011 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station (2) was adopted on 25 March 2011.\n(3)\nOn 12 May 2011, the Commission was informed of the finding of a high level of the radioactive caesium in green tea leaves, originating in the prefecture Kanagawa. This finding was confirmed on 13 May 2011 by three other findings of high level of the radioactive caesium in green tea leaves from this prefecture. This prefecture is not among the 12 prefectures of the affected zone, where a testing of all feed and food originating from these prefectures is required before export to the EU. Given these recent findings it is appropriate to add Kanagawa as 13th prefecture to the affected zone.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to clarify the requirements for products consigned from the affected zone but originating in a region outside the affected zone.\n(5)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Regulation (EU) No 297/2011 accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 297/2011 is amended as follows\n(1)\nArticle 2, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Each consignment of the products referred to in Article 1, which leaves Japan from the date of entry into force of this Regulation, shall be accompanied by a declaration, attesting that\n-\nthe product has been harvested and/or processed before 11 March 2011, or\n-\nthe product is originating in and consigned from a prefecture other than Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamagata, Niigata, Nagano, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba and Kanagawa, or\n-\nthe product is consigned from the prefectures Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamagata, Niigata, Nagano, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba and Kanagawa, but not originating in one of these prefectures and has not been exposed to radioactivity during transiting, or\n-\nin case the product is originating in the prefectures Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamagata, Niigata, Nagano, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba and Kanagawa, the product does not contain levels of the radionuclides iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 above the maximum levels provided for in Annex II to this Regulation. This provision applies also to products originating in the coastal waters of these prefectures, irrespective of where such products are landed.\u2019\n(2)\nArticle 5, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The competent authorities of the BIP or DPE shall carry out documentary and identity checks on all consignments of products referred to in Article 1 within the scope of the present Regulation, and physical checks, including laboratory analysis on the presence of iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137, on at least 10 % of such consignments of the products referred to in Article 2 (3), 4th indent and on at least 20 % of such consignments of the products referred to in Article 2 (3) 2nd and 3rd indent.\u2019\n(3)\nIn Article 9, the second sub paragraph, the date of 30 June 2011 is replaced by 30 September 2011.\n(4)\nAnnex I is replaced by the text in Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["18", "77", "32", "83", "36", "12", "48", "84", "79", "66", "43", "6", "52", "65", "88", "37", "56", "99", "42", "76", "23", "93", "86", "8", "92", "63", "90", "53", "33", "68", "No Label", "22", "24", "38", "60", "72", "81", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "24", "38", "60", "72", "81", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 416/2012\nof 15 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 May 2012.", "references": ["21", "31", "9", "48", "58", "53", "41", "93", "5", "90", "78", "20", "38", "23", "3", "96", "49", "14", "73", "43", "66", "94", "88", "19", "25", "18", "95", "57", "56", "15", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 357/2011\nof 12 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 April 2011.", "references": ["34", "95", "21", "92", "84", "63", "97", "69", "55", "70", "18", "20", "52", "45", "19", "12", "2", "50", "26", "33", "58", "36", "54", "75", "11", "53", "94", "14", "67", "10", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 775/2010\nof 2 September 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Los Pedroches (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Los Pedroches\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2010.", "references": ["56", "13", "61", "58", "71", "48", "2", "40", "19", "80", "87", "30", "34", "94", "17", "73", "11", "98", "85", "27", "39", "81", "64", "75", "67", "35", "15", "42", "0", "3", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 781/2010\nof 2 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 3 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2010.", "references": ["98", "54", "27", "15", "57", "55", "31", "30", "51", "77", "53", "67", "87", "42", "3", "65", "18", "32", "89", "0", "14", "36", "9", "70", "23", "78", "41", "99", "64", "34", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1027/2010\nof 11 November 2010\namending for the 139th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 4 November 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add two natural persons to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 November 2010.", "references": ["79", "4", "98", "37", "35", "65", "17", "16", "6", "78", "72", "36", "51", "15", "99", "83", "5", "82", "54", "76", "73", "13", "90", "66", "26", "12", "27", "71", "80", "31", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 229/2011\nof 8 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2011.", "references": ["32", "97", "4", "0", "3", "75", "44", "9", "64", "88", "74", "67", "92", "57", "7", "33", "82", "34", "40", "24", "28", "5", "81", "91", "45", "86", "26", "72", "12", "8", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 711/2010\nof 6 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 August 2010.", "references": ["13", "20", "63", "5", "97", "15", "9", "7", "43", "16", "72", "85", "3", "91", "37", "82", "24", "77", "28", "25", "36", "93", "40", "12", "11", "96", "53", "38", "83", "4", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 672/2011\nof 13 July 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 12 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 (2) provides that the period for dismantling production facilities and for complying with the social and environmental commitments referred to in Article 3(3)(c) and Article 3(4)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 may be extended until 30 September 2011 at the latest.\n(2)\nCertain sugar producers will not be able to fully dismantle their production facilities in time, unless that deadline is extended even further. However, the extension should not go beyond of what is absolutely necessary to finish the remaining dismantling works. Based on the information available to the Commission, the deadline shall accordingly be extended until 31 March 2012 at the latest.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 968/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 968/2006, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018By way of derogation from point (b) of the first subparagraph, upon a motivated request of the undertaking concerned, the Member States can grant an extension of the deadline fixed in that point until 31 March 2012 at the latest. In such case, the undertaking shall submit an amended restructuring plan according to Article 11.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2011.", "references": ["40", "64", "8", "83", "41", "85", "94", "59", "72", "69", "5", "93", "79", "24", "52", "87", "21", "45", "4", "11", "99", "34", "9", "57", "98", "84", "1", "2", "16", "51", "No Label", "10", "15", "73", "82"], "gold": ["10", "15", "73", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 33/2011\nof 17 January 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 30/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 January 2011.", "references": ["64", "53", "25", "11", "4", "85", "87", "38", "74", "2", "99", "58", "89", "91", "12", "65", "31", "97", "37", "73", "82", "1", "56", "32", "21", "34", "81", "20", "68", "66", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1011/2011\nof 13 October 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.\n(2)\nOn 2 September 2011 (3), the Council amended Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 to extend the measures against Syria, including an expansion of the listing criteria, and a prohibition on the purchase, import or transportation of crude oil from Syria. On 23 September 2011 (4), the Council again amended Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 extending further the measures against Syria, to include a prohibition on investment in the crude oil sector, the addition of further listings, and a prohibition of the delivery of Syrian banknotes and coins to the Central Bank of Syria.\n(3)\nCouncil Decision 2011/684/CFSP (5) amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP provides for an additional measure, namely the listing of an additional entity, together with a derogation permitting, for a limited period, the use of frozen funds subsequently received by that entity in connection with the financing of trade with non-designated persons and entities.\n(4)\nThat measure falls within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement it, in particular with a view to ensuring its uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the measure provided for in this Regulation is effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately upon its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 442/2011 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(2), and 5(3), and in point (a) of Article 6, the words \u2018Annex II\u2019 shall be replaced by the words \u2018Annexes II and IIa\u2019;\n(2)\nin points (a) and (c) of Article 7, and in Articles 9 and 14(1), the words \u2018Annex II\u2019 shall be replaced by the words \u2018Annex II or Annex IIa\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 5, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Annexes II and IIa shall consist of the following:\n(a)\nAnnex II shall consist of a list of natural or legal persons, entities and bodies who, in accordance with Article 4(1) of Decision 2011/273/CFSP, have been identified by the Council as being persons or entities responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime, and natural or legal persons and entities associated with them, and to whom Article 9a shall not apply;\n(b)\nAnnex IIa shall consist of a list of entities which, in accordance with Article 4(1) of Decision 2011/273/CFSP, have been identified by the Council as being entities associated with the persons or entities responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, or with persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime, and to which Article 9a shall apply.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 14, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The lists in Annexes II and IIa shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months.\u2019;\n(5)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 9a\nBy way of derogation from Article 4(1), an entity listed in Annex IIa may, for a period of two months from the date on which it was designated, make a payment from frozen funds or economic resources which were received by that entity after the date on which it was designated, provided that:\n(a)\nsuch payment is due under a trade contract; and\n(b)\nthe competent authority of the relevant Member State has determined that the payment will not directly or indirectly be received by a person or entity listed in Annex II or Annex IIa.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAnnex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 is hereby amended as set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThe text of Annex I to this Regulation shall be inserted as Annex IIa to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011.\nArticle 4\nThe text of Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 is hereby replaced by Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 October 2011.", "references": ["63", "65", "78", "67", "29", "27", "18", "82", "21", "19", "57", "35", "37", "89", "58", "30", "94", "62", "8", "84", "47", "92", "14", "7", "83", "85", "90", "69", "34", "93", "No Label", "3", "23", "80", "95"], "gold": ["3", "23", "80", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 21 October 2010\namending Decisions 2006/920/EC and 2008/231/EC concerning the technical specifications of interoperability relating to the subsystem \u2018Traffic Operation and Management\u2019 of the trans-European conventional and high-speed rail systems\n(notified under document C(2010) 7179)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/640/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendations of the European Railway Agency of 17 July 2009 on consistent ERTMS rules in Control-Command and Signalling and Traffic Operation and Management TSIs (ERA/REC/2009-02/INT), on revised Annex P of Traffic Operation and Management TSIs for high-speed and conventional rail (ERA/REC/2009-03/INT), on revised Annex T of Traffic Operation and Management TSI for conventional rail (ERA/REC/2009-04/INT) and on an amendment aiming to achieve consistency between Directive 2007/59/EC and Traffic Operation and Management TSIs in respect to train driver competence provisions (ERA/REC/2009-05/INT),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 12 of Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) requires that the European Rail Agency (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019) shall ensure that the technical specifications for interoperability (hereinafter \u2018TSIs\u2019) are adapted to technical progress and market trends and to the social requirements and propose to the Commission the amendments to the TSIs which it considers necessary.\n(2)\nBy Decision C(2007) 3371 of 13 July 2007, the Commission gave a framework mandate to the Agency to perform certain activities under Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (3) and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (4). Under the terms of this framework mandate, the Agency was requested to perform the revision of the conventional rail TSI on Traffic Operation and Management, adopted by Commission Decision 2006/920/EC (5), and of the revised high-speed TSI on Traffic Operation and Management, adopted by Commission Decision 2008/231/EC (6), as well as to provide technical opinions on critical errors and to publish a list of detected minor errors.\n(3)\nA European Train Control System (hereinafter \u2018ETCS\u2019) and a Global System for Mobile communications - Railways (hereinafter \u2018GSM-R\u2019) are considered as important means on the way to a harmonised trans-European railway system. It is therefore necessary to harmonise the rules for these systems as early as possible. Following this principle, ETCS and GSM-R are specified in TSIs.\n(4)\nIt is vital that the requirements laid down in TSIs are coherent and unambiguous. This means also that different TSIs may not refer to technical requirements in different stages of development All TSIs should therefore refer to identical technical requirements.\n(5)\nIn order to harmonise the relevant rules in the TSIs for the trans-European conventional and high-speed rail system, the rules regarding operational aspects should be published as a Technical Document on the website of the Agency.\n(6)\nThe TSI on Traffic Operation and Management for conventional rail should contain the same reference as the revised TSI on Traffic Operation and Management for high speed.\n(7)\nThe revision of the technical document \u2018Annex A of TSI OPE\u2019 should follow the \u2018Change Control Management process (CCM)\u2019 which is applied for validations of technical ERTMS specifications.\n(8)\nAccording to Article 32(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC, each vehicle must receive a European Vehicle Number (EVN) when the first authorisation for placing in service is granted. According to Commission Decision 2007/756/EC of 9 November 2007 adopting a common specification of the national vehicle register provided for under Articles 14(4) and (5) of Directives 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC (7), the EVN is registered in the national vehicle register which is kept and updated by the national body designated by the Member State concerned.\n(9)\nThe requirements on Vehicle Identification stipulated in Annex P of the TSI on Traffic Operation and Management (for high speed and conventional rail) need to be revised, taking also into account the development of the legal frame given by Directive 2008/57/EC and Decision 2007/756/EC. As a number of technical codes are of an evolving nature due to technical progress, the Agency should be given the task of publishing and updating such lists of technical codes.\n(10)\nThe requirements on braking performance are an open point in the TSI on Traffic Operation and Management for conventional rail. The operational aspects of braking performance should be harmonised.\n(11)\nRequirements on professional competence, physical and psychological fitness of train drivers are set out in Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (8). In order to avoid overlapping and duplication, the TSIs on Traffic Operation and Management should not include such requirements.\n(12)\nDecisions 2006/920/EC and 2008/231/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Decision 2006/920/EC\nDecision 2006/920/EC is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following Articles 1a and 1b are inserted:\n\u2018Article 1a\nManagement of technical codes\n1. The European Railway Agency (ERA) shall publish on its website the lists of technical codes referred in Annexes P.9, P.10, P.11, P.12 and P.13.\n2. The ERA shall keep the lists of codes referred to in paragraph 1 up to date and inform the Commission of their evolution. The Commission shall inform the Member States of the evolution of these technical codes through the Committee established under Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC.\nArticle 1b\nUntil 31 December 2013, if a vehicle is sold or rented for a continuous period exceeding 6 months and if all technical characteristics under which the vehicle has been authorised to be placed in service remain unchanged, its European Vehicle Number (EVN) may be changed through a new registration of the vehicle and withdrawal of the first registration.\nIf this new registration concerns a Member State which is different from that of the first registration, the registering entity competent for the new registration may require a copy of the documentation related to the former registration.\nSuch change of EVN is without prejudice to the application of Articles 21 to 26 of Directive 2008/57/EC as far as the authorisation procedures are concerned.\nThe administrative costs incurred to change the EVN shall be covered by the applicant requesting the change of EVN.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe Annexes are amended as set out in Annex I.\nArticle 2\nAmendment to Decision 2008/231/EC\nDecision 2008/231/EC is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following Articles 1a and 1b are inserted:\n\u2018Article 1a\nManagement of technical codes\n1. The European Railway Agency (ERA) shall publish on its website the lists of technical codes referred in Annexes P.9, P.10, P.11, P.12 and P.13.\n2. The ERA shall keep the lists of codes referred to in paragraph 1 up to date and inform the Commission of their evolution. The Commission shall inform the Member States of the evolution of these technical codes through the Committee established under Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC.\nArticle 1b\nUntil 31 December 2013, if a vehicle is sold or rented for a continuous period exceeding 6 months and if all technical characteristics under which the vehicle has been authorised to be placed in service remain unchanged, its European Vehicle Number (EVN) may be changed through a new registration of the vehicle and withdrawal of the first registration.\nIf this new registration concerns a Member State which is different from that of the first registration, the registering entity competent for the new registration may require a copy of the documentation related to the former registration.\nSuch change of EVN is without prejudice to the application of Articles 21 to 26 of Directive 2008/57/EC as far as the authorisation procedures are concerned.\nThe administrative costs incurred to change the EVN shall be covered by the applicant requesting the change of EVN.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe Annexes are amended as set out in Annex II.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall apply from 25 October 2010.\nHowever point 6 of Annex I and point 5 of Annex II shall apply from 1 January 2014.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["3", "39", "20", "43", "19", "99", "94", "16", "57", "97", "71", "14", "86", "33", "72", "65", "75", "0", "95", "49", "52", "31", "42", "26", "84", "21", "41", "89", "27", "30", "No Label", "9", "53", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["9", "53", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 850/2011\nof 23 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 August 2011.", "references": ["66", "33", "83", "56", "4", "58", "32", "24", "26", "89", "42", "45", "21", "0", "40", "30", "82", "94", "1", "27", "80", "38", "63", "75", "59", "41", "8", "85", "15", "81", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1085/2011\nof 27 October 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 501/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 of 17 December 2007 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries (1), and in particular Article 15 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 501/2008 (2) provides rules for the drawing-up, selection, implementation, financing and checking of programmes referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 3/2008.\n(2)\nTo increase the efficiency of the scheme, trade and inter-trade organisations should be given the opportunity to submit programmes to be implemented twice a year on the internal market and in third countries. The submission and selection schedule should be adjusted in order to give another chance to programmes that have been rejected in the previous round. To ease the transition to a new submission and selection schedule, it should be provided that the schedule for the first submission of programmes in 2012 should not be affected by the schedule change.\n(3)\nTo reduce unnecessary administrative burden, the requirement to send to the Commission a number of documents (a copy of the contract concluded with proposing organisations and proof that a performance security has been lodged; a copy of the contract signed with the implementing body; a copy of each application for an advance payment and proof that the corresponding security has been lodged; and the quarterly reports on the implementation of the contract) should be abolished except if the Commission specifically requests it.\n(4)\nIt should be specified that messages referring to the impact on health of a product must be accepted by the national authority responsible for public health and that the material approved by a Member State should be sent to the Commission.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 501/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 501/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 4(3), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Messages referring to such effects must be accepted by the national authority responsible for public health.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 8(1), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Trade and inter-trade organisations in the Union which are representative of the sectors concerned (hereinafter referred to as \u201cproposing organisations\u201d) shall submit their programmes to the Member State no later than 30 September (\u201cthe first submission of programmes\u201d) and 15 April (\u201cthe second submission of programmes\u201d) each year. For 2012 the first submission of programmes may take place until 30 November 2011.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 11 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall send to the Commission the list referred to in Article 9(1) including, if applicable, the list of implementing bodies which they have selected, if these have already been selected in accordance with Article 8(3), and a copy of each programme. It shall be submitted both electronically and by post and received by the Commission no later than 30 November regarding the first submission of programmes and 15 June regarding the second submission of programmes.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. No later than 31 January regarding the first submission of programmes and 16 August regarding the second submission of programmes, the Commission shall inform the Member States concerned if it finds that all or part of a programme submitted does not comply with:\n(a)\nthe Union rules; or\n(b)\nthe guidelines, in the case of the internal market; or\n(c)\nthe criteria referred to in Article 9(2), in the case of third countries.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018After checking the amended programmes the Commission shall decide, no later than 30 April regarding the first submission of programmes and 15 November regarding the second submission of programmes, which programmes it may part-finance in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 3/2008.\u2019;\n(d)\nthe following paragraph 5 is added:\n\u20185. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, the following deadlines are set for the first submission of programmes in 2012:\n(a)\nthe list referred to in paragraph 1 shall be submitted by Member States and received by the Commission not later than 15 February 2012;\n(b)\nthe Commission shall send to the Member States the information provided in paragraph 2 by 26 April 2012; and\n(c)\nthe Commission shall decide no later than 30 June 2012 which programmes it may part-finance.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 16, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. A Member State shall send to the Commission upon its request and within 10 working days a copy of the contract and proof that the performance security has been lodged.\nA Member State shall also send to the Commission upon its request and within 10 working days a copy of the contract concluded by the selected proposing organisation with the implementing body. That contract shall contain the provision that the implementing body must submit to the checks provided for in Article 25.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 17(3), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The advance shall be paid on condition that the contracting organisation lodges a security equal to 110 % of that advance in favour of the Member State in accordance with Title III of Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85. The Member State shall forward to the Commission upon its request and within 10 working days a copy of each application for an advance payment and proof that the corresponding security has been lodged.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 22, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. A Member State shall send to the Commission upon its request and within 10 working days a copy of the quarterly reports required for intermediate payments in accordance with Article 18.\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 23(1), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018They shall send to the Commission the material approved.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["41", "44", "75", "38", "49", "68", "81", "82", "77", "8", "20", "51", "63", "93", "64", "31", "61", "14", "62", "86", "19", "11", "39", "96", "53", "0", "43", "72", "18", "37", "No Label", "2", "4", "7", "9", "24", "25", "66"], "gold": ["2", "4", "7", "9", "24", "25", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/70/CFSP\nof 31 January 2011\nupdating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 December 2001, the Council adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (1).\n(2)\nOn 12 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/386/CFSP updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (2).\n(3)\nIn 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 2010/386/CFSP applies.\n(4)\nThis 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.\n(5)\nSubject to the appeal pending in Case T-348/07, 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.\n(6)\nDue to the appeal pending in Case T-348/07, the Council has determined that Decision 2010/386/CFSP should not be repealed with regard to one group. The review in respect of that group is ongoing.\n(7)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply shall be that set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2010/386/CFSP is hereby repealed except in so far as it concerns the group mentioned in entry number 25 in Part 2 of the Annex thereto.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2011.", "references": ["63", "95", "68", "20", "28", "26", "41", "19", "32", "97", "84", "22", "11", "62", "35", "49", "65", "87", "8", "34", "77", "96", "91", "18", "38", "37", "9", "45", "69", "42", "No Label", "1", "3", "4", "5"], "gold": ["1", "3", "4", "5"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 594/2011\nof 20 June 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of June 2011 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for certain products in the egg sector and for egg albumin\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 of 15 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the egg sector and for egg albumin (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 539/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of egg products and egg albumin.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of June 2011 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["26", "59", "17", "61", "85", "50", "80", "9", "76", "65", "56", "84", "25", "94", "49", "53", "32", "86", "96", "66", "95", "24", "1", "60", "75", "46", "19", "37", "23", "7", "No Label", "21", "69", "72"], "gold": ["21", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 June 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the relevant Committees of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe regarding the adaptation to technical progress of Regulations Nos 11, 13H, 30, 44, 49, 54, 64, 101, 106 and 121 and regarding the adaptation to technical progress of Global Technical Regulation No 1 concerning door locks and retention components of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe\n(2012/348/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 and Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 97/836/EC (1), the Community acceded to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (\u2018UNECE\u2019) 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 (\u2018Revised 1958 Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nIn accordance with 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 (\u2018Parallel Agreement\u2019).\n(3)\nDirective 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (3) replaced the Member States\u2019 approval systems with a Union approval procedure, establishing a harmonised framework containing the administrative provisions and general technical requirements for all new vehicles, systems, components and separate technical units. That Directive incorporated UNECE Regulations in the EU vehicle type-approval system, either as requirements for type-approval or as alternatives to Union legislation. Since the adoption of Directive 2007/46/EC, UNECE Regulations have increasingly replaced Union legislation in the framework of EU vehicle type-approval.\n(4)\nIn the light of experience and technical developments, the requirements relating to certain elements or features covered by UNECE Regulations Nos 11, 13H, 30, 44, 49, 54, 64, 101, 106 and 121 and Global Technical Regulation No 1 of the UNECE need to be adapted.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to establish the position to be adopted on the Union\u2019s behalf in the Administrative Committee of the Revised 1958 Agreement and in the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement concerning the amendments to be made to the aforementioned UNECE acts.\n(6)\nThe measures laid down in this Decision are in accordance with the view of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the Administrative Committee of the Revised 1958 Agreement and the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement on 25 to 29 June 2012 shall be to vote in favour of the proposed amendments listed in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 18 June 2012.", "references": ["51", "8", "2", "10", "39", "4", "48", "72", "73", "26", "46", "11", "59", "15", "24", "18", "30", "96", "60", "27", "44", "80", "83", "67", "70", "20", "35", "94", "89", "62", "No Label", "54", "76"], "gold": ["54", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 109/2011\nof 27 January 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards type-approval requirements for certain categories of motor vehicles and their trailers as regards spray suppression systems\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 is a separate Regulation for the purposes of the type-approval procedure provided for by Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 repeals Council Directive 91/226/EEC of 27 March 1991 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the spray suppression systems of certain categories of motor vehicles and their trailers (3).\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 lays down fundamental provisions on requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their spray suppression systems and the type-approval of spray suppression systems as separate technical units. It is now necessary to set out the specific procedures, tests and requirements for such type-approval.\n(4)\nIn so doing, it is appropriate to carry over to this Regulation the requirements set out in Directive 91/226/EEC adapted where necessary to the development of scientific and technical knowledge.\n(5)\nThe scope of this Regulation should be in line with that of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 and thus limited to vehicles of categories N and O. The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation applies to vehicles of categories N and O, as defined in Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC, which are fitted with a spray suppression system, as well as to spray suppression systems intended for fitment to vehicles of categories N and O.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018spray-suppression system\u2019 means a system intended to reduce the pulverisation of water thrown upwards by the tyres of a vehicle in motion and which is made up of a mudguard, rain flaps and valances equipped with a spray-suppression device;\n(2)\n\u2018mudguard\u2019 means a rigid or semi-rigid component intended to trap the water thrown up by tyres in motion and to direct it towards the ground and which may entirely or partially form an integral part of the vehicle bodywork or other parts of the vehicle such as the lower part of the load platform;\n(3)\n\u2018rain flap\u2019 means a flexible component mounted vertically behind the wheel, on the lower part of the chassis or the loading surface, or on the mudguard and which must also reduce the risk of small objects, in particular pebbles, being picked up from the ground by the tyres and thrown upwards or sidewards towards other road users;\n(4)\n\u2018spray-suppression device\u2019 means part of the spray-suppression system, which may comprise an air/water separator and an energy absorber;\n(5)\n\u2018air/water separator\u2019 means a component forming part of the valance and/or of the rain flap through which air can pass whilst reducing pulverised water emissions;\n(6)\n\u2018energy absorber\u2019 means a component forming part of the mudguard and/or valance and/or rain flap which absorbs the energy of water spray, thus reducing pulverised water spray;\n(7)\n\u2018outer valance\u2019 means a component located approximately within a vertical plane that is parallel to the longitudinal plane of the vehicle and which may form part of a mudguard or of the vehicle bodywork;\n(8)\n\u2018steered wheels\u2019 means the wheels actuated by the vehicle\u2019s steering system;\n(9)\n\u2018self-tracking axle\u2019 means an axle pivoted about a central point in such a way that it can describe a horizontal arc;\n(10)\n\u2018self-steered wheels\u2019 means wheels not actuated by the vehicle\u2019s steering device, which may swivel through an angle not exceeding 20\u00b0 owing to the friction exerted by the ground.;\n(11)\n\u2018retractable axle\u2019 means an axle as defined in point 2.15 of Annex I to Directive 97/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4);\n(12)\n\u2018unladen vehicle\u2019 means a vehicle in running order as stated in point 2.6 of Annex I to Directive 2007/46/EC;\n(13)\n\u2018tread\u2019 is the part of the tyre as defined in point 2.8 of Annex II to Council Directive 92/23/EEC (5);\n(14)\n\u2018type of spray-suppression device\u2019 means devices which do not differ with respect to the following main characteristics:\n(a)\nthe physical principle adopted in order to reduce emissions (water-energy absorption, air/water separator),\n(b)\nmaterials,\n(c)\nshape,\n(d)\ndimensions, in so far as they may influence the behaviour of the material;\n(15)\n\u2018semi-trailer towing vehicle\u2019 means a towing vehicle as defined in point 2.1.1.2.2 of Annex I to Directive 97/27/EC;\n(16)\n\u2018technically permissible maximum laden mass (M)\u2019 means the maximum technically permissible maximum laden mass stated by the manufacturer as described in point 2.8 of Annex I to Directive 2007/46/EC;\n(17)\n\u2018vehicle type with regard to spray suppression\u2019 means complete, incomplete or completed vehicles, which do not differ with respect to the following aspects:\n-\ntype of spray suppression device installed on the vehicle,\n-\nmanufacturer\u2019s spray suppression system type designation.\nArticle 3\nEC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to spray suppression systems\n1. The manufacturer or the representative of the manufacturer shall submit to the approval authority the application for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to its spray suppression systems.\n2. The application shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Part 1 of Annex I.\n3. If the relevant requirements set out in Annexes III and IV to this Regulation are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC type-approval and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nAn approval authority may not assign the same number to another vehicle type.\n4. For the purposes of paragraph 3, the approval authority shall deliver an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 4\nEC separate technical unit type-approval of spray suppression systems\n1. The manufacturer or his representative shall submit to the approval authority the application for EC separate technical unit type-approval for a type of spray suppression system.\nThe application shall be drawn up in accordance with the model information document set out in Part 1 of Annex II.\n2. If the relevant requirements set out in Annexes III and IV to this Regulation are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC separate technical unit type-approval and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nAn approval authority may not assign the same number to another type of separate technical unit.\n3. For the purposes of paragraph 2, the approval authority shall deliver an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex II.\nArticle 5\nEC separate technical unit type-approval mark\nEvery separate technical unit conforming to a type in respect of which EC separate technical unit type-approval has been granted pursuant to this Regulation shall bear an EC separate technical unit type-approval mark as set out in Part 3 of Annex II.\nArticle 6\nValidity and extension of approvals granted under Directive 91/226/EEC\nNational authorities shall permit the sale and entry into service of vehicles and separate technical units type-approved under Directive 91/226/EEC before 1 November 2012 and continue to grant extension of approvals to those vehicles and separate technical units under the terms of Directive 91/226/EEC.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 January 2011.", "references": ["38", "46", "10", "43", "97", "6", "4", "57", "49", "83", "0", "24", "50", "84", "41", "18", "58", "28", "47", "32", "92", "85", "23", "52", "51", "13", "31", "77", "90", "53", "No Label", "8", "54", "76"], "gold": ["8", "54", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 2 August 2012\nadjusting the weightings applicable from 1 August 2010, 1 September 2010, 1 October 2010, 1 November 2010, 1 December 2010, 1 January 2011, 1 February 2011, 1 March 2011, 1 April 2011, 1 May 2011 and 1 June 2011 to the remuneration of officials, temporary staff and contract staff of the European Union serving in third countries\n(2012/465/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 336 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, as laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council (1), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, the weightings to be applied from 1 July 2010 to the remuneration of officials, temporary staff and contract staff of the European Union serving in third countries payable in the currency of their country of employment were laid down by Council Regulation (EU) No 964/2011 (2).\n(2)\nSome of these weightings need to be adjusted in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, with effect from 1 August, 1 September, 1 October, 1 November, 1 December 2010 and 1 January, 1 February, 1 March, 1 April, 1 May and 1 June 2011 since the statistics available to the Commission show that in certain third countries the variation in the cost of living measured on the basis of the weighting and the corresponding exchange rate has exceeded 5 % since weightings were last laid down,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe weightings applied to the remuneration of officials, temporary staff and contract staff of the European Union serving in third countries, payable in the currency of the country of employment, shall be adjusted for certain countries as shown in the Annex hereto. It contains 11 monthly tables showing which countries are affected and the applicable dates for each one.\nThe exchange rates used for the calculation of this remuneration shall be established in accordance with the detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation and correspond to the dates referred to in the first paragraph.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the first day of the month following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2012.", "references": ["5", "17", "48", "88", "93", "62", "63", "32", "28", "25", "12", "29", "40", "43", "80", "85", "50", "56", "95", "69", "19", "71", "60", "67", "55", "78", "0", "94", "45", "16", "No Label", "4", "7", "52"], "gold": ["4", "7", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 November 2010\namending Chapter 3 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/685/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks (1), and in particular Article 23(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 715/2009 sets up guidelines on the definition of the technical information necessary for network users to gain effective access to the system.\n(2)\nThe guidelines should introduce transparency requirements in order to ensure effective access to natural gas transmission systems and to provide a minimum guarantee of equal market access conditions in practice.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nChapter 3 of the Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 3 March 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2010.", "references": ["12", "99", "56", "54", "5", "45", "25", "89", "71", "86", "7", "16", "66", "46", "55", "48", "92", "8", "31", "9", "27", "10", "82", "42", "41", "85", "49", "75", "90", "15", "No Label", "20", "78", "80"], "gold": ["20", "78", "80"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 125/2011\nof 11 February 2011\nfixing the amount of the carry-over aid and the flat-rate aid for certain fishery products for the 2011 fishing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2814/2000 of 21 December 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards the grant of carry-over aid for certain fishery products (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 939/2001 of 14 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards the grant of flat-rate aid for certain fishery products (3), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 104/2000 provides that aid may be granted for quantities of certain fresh products withdrawn from the market and either processed to stabilise them and stored or preserved.\n(2)\nThe purpose of that aid is to give suitable encouragement to producers\u2019 organisations to process or preserve products withdrawn from the market so that their destruction can be avoided.\n(3)\nThe aid level should not be such as to disturb the balance of the market for the products in question or distort competition.\n(4)\nThe aid level should not exceed the technical and financial costs associated with the operations essential to stabilising and storage recorded in the Union during the fishing year preceding the year in question.\n(5)\nIn order not to hinder the operation of the intervention system in the year 2011, this Regulation should apply retroactively from 1 January 2011.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 2011 fishing year, the amounts of the carry-over aid referred to in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, and the amounts of the flat-rate aid referred to in Article 24(4) of that Regulation, are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 February 2011.", "references": ["54", "35", "97", "11", "94", "22", "90", "96", "44", "91", "32", "10", "72", "31", "5", "85", "92", "76", "57", "50", "49", "17", "40", "56", "99", "9", "41", "60", "4", "51", "No Label", "15", "20", "62", "67"], "gold": ["15", "20", "62", "67"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 2 December 2010\non the signature of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols 1, 2 and 3 and their Annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part\n(2012/496/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 16 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Association Agreement\u2019), which has been in force since 1 March 2000, provides for the gradual implementation of greater liberalisation of reciprocal trade in agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products.\n(2)\nIn July 2005, the EU-Morocco Association Council adopted an Action Plan of the European Neighbourhood Policy, including a specific provision having the objective of the further liberalisation of trade in agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products.\n(3)\nOn 14 October 2005, the Council authorised the Commission to conduct negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco within the framework of the Association Agreement, in order to achieve that objective.\n(4)\nOn 14 December 2009, the Commission concluded negotiations on behalf of the Union in respect of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters (hereinafter the \u2018Agreement\u2019) with the aim of amending the Association Agreement.\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signature of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters (hereinafter the \u2018Agreement\u2019) between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols No 1, 2 and 3 and their Annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union, subject to its conclusion (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is authorised to appoint the person empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the European Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["84", "4", "18", "85", "12", "93", "8", "54", "22", "77", "56", "28", "2", "32", "89", "51", "75", "80", "90", "33", "59", "76", "57", "99", "16", "50", "88", "27", "47", "25", "No Label", "3", "9", "23", "66", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "23", "66", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 873/2011\nof 27 July 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that, subject to the measures in force in the European Union relating to double checking systems and to prior and retrospective surveillance of textile products on importation into the European Union, binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature and which is not in accordance with this Regulation, may continue to be relied on for a period of 60 days by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nSubject to the measures in force in the European Union relating to double checking systems and to prior and retrospective surveillance of textile products on importation into the European Union, binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States which is not in accordance with this Regulation, may continue to be relied on for a period of 60 days, under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2011.", "references": ["6", "12", "15", "44", "18", "29", "27", "37", "52", "20", "17", "71", "86", "11", "38", "75", "84", "89", "28", "99", "55", "8", "98", "31", "82", "32", "19", "60", "87", "25", "No Label", "21", "83"], "gold": ["21", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 590/2012\nof 4 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["5", "59", "66", "36", "64", "75", "92", "49", "45", "43", "12", "63", "99", "20", "89", "9", "71", "79", "91", "93", "15", "78", "58", "53", "83", "32", "10", "76", "27", "21", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 May 2012\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Mongolia, of the other part\n(2012/273/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(3) and Articles 207 and 209, in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 July 2009, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation with Mongolia (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nThe provisions of the Agreement that fall within the scope of Part Three, Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union bind the United Kingdom and Ireland as separate Contracting Parties, and not as part of the European Union, unless the European Union together with the United Kingdom and/or Ireland have jointly notified Mongolia that the United Kingdom or Ireland is bound as part of the European Union in accordance with the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. If the United Kingdom and/or Ireland cease(s) to be bound as part of the European Union in accordance with Article 4a of the Protocol (No 21), the European Union together with the United Kingdom and/or Ireland are to immediately inform Mongolia of any change in their position in which case they are to remain bound by the provisions of the Agreement in their own right. The same applies to Denmark in accordance with the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to those Treaties.\n(3)\nWhere the United Kingdom and/or Ireland has/have not provided the notification required under Article 3 of the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice, they do not take part in the adoption by the Council of this Decision to the extent that it covers provisions pursuant to Part Three, Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The same applies to Denmark in accordance with the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be signed subject to its conclusion at a later date,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Mongolia, of the other part, is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (1).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 May 2012.", "references": ["20", "40", "29", "44", "32", "72", "70", "33", "0", "99", "86", "91", "1", "26", "98", "16", "38", "76", "94", "24", "75", "42", "74", "25", "47", "52", "71", "82", "66", "18", "No Label", "3", "9", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 July 2010\nrenewing the authorisation for continued marketing of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 (SYN-BT\u00d811-1), authorising foods and food ingredients containing or consisting of field maize Bt11 (SYN-BT\u00d811-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Decision 2004/657/EC\n(notified under document C(2010) 5129)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/419/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 7(3), 11(3), 19(3) and 23(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 17 April 2007, Syngenta Seeds SAS on behalf of Syngenta Crop Protection AG, submitted to the Commission an application, in accordance with Articles 5, 11, 17 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for renewal of the authorisation for continued marketing of existing foods and food ingredients produced from Bt11 maize (including food additives), and renewal of the authorisation for continued marketing of existing feed containing, consisting of or produced from Bt11 maize (including feed additives and feed materials) and products other than food and feed containing and consisting of Bt11 maize with the exception of cultivation (the application) which were previously notified in accordance with Article 8(1)(a)(b) and Article 20(1)(a)(b) of that Regulation. The application also covers the renewal of the authorisation for the placing on the market of foods and food ingredients which are authorised under Commission Decision 2004/657/EC of 19 May 2004 authorising the placing on the market of sweet corn from genetically modified maize line Bt11 as a novel food or novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2). Within its application, Syngenta Seeds SAS also requested the authorisation of foods and food ingredients containing or consisting of Bt11 field maize which were never authorised in the Union.\n(2)\nOn 17 February 2009, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave a favourable opinion (3) in accordance with Article 6 and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and concluded that the new information provided in the application and the review of the literature that has been published since the previous scientific opinion on Bt11 maize (4) by EFSA does not require changes and confirmed the previous conclusion that Bt11 maize is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart and that it is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment in the context of its proposed uses which also applies to the products which are subject of the application.\n(3)\nIn its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Article 6(4) and Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(4)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.\n(5)\nTaking into account these considerations, the fact that the company Syngenta Crop Protection AG Switzerland which absorbed Syngenta Seeds AG, addressee of Decision 2004/657/EC is the same legal entity, on behalf of which the applicant asked for the renewal of authorisation, that it confirmed that the scope of its application also covers the request for authorisation of foods and food ingredients containing or consisting of Bt11 field maize and that it intended to ask for a renewal of products covered by Decision 2004/657/EC prior to the expiration of the authorisation mentioned in that Decision so that a single Decision covering these products may be adopted which will take effect on the same date, renewal of the authorisation for continued marketing of the existing products, renewal of the authorisation of foods and food ingredients containing, consisting of or produced from Bt11 sweet maize (sweet maize fresh or canned) and authorisation of food and foods ingredients containing or consisting of Bt11 field maize should be granted. Consequently, Decision 2004/657/EC should be repealed.\n(6)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (5).\n(7)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from Bt11 maize. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which renewal of the authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(8)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6).\n(9)\nThe EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in Article 6(5)(e) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(10)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation or the renewal of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(11)\nArticle 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (7), lays down labelling requirements for products consisting of, or containing GMOs.\n(12)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (8).\n(13)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(14)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman.\n(15)\nAt its meeting on 29 June 2010, the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal. The Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded. It is accordingly for the Commission to adopt the measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified maize Bt11 (Zea mays L.), as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier SYN-BT\u00d811-1, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Article 4(2) and Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of or produced from SYN-BT\u00d811-1 maize;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from SYN-BT\u00d811-1 maize;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of SYN-BT\u00d811-1 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018maize\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of SYN-BT\u00d811-1 maize referred to in Article 2(b) and (c).\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nCommunity register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Syngenta Seeds SAS, France, representing Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Switzerland.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nRepeal\nDecision 2004/657/EC is repealed.\nArticle 9\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Syngenta Seeds SAS, Chemin de l\u2019Hobit 12, BP 27, 31790 Saint-Sauveur, France, representing Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Switzerland.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2010.", "references": ["3", "52", "51", "55", "92", "2", "77", "10", "7", "5", "90", "84", "16", "36", "47", "17", "39", "44", "72", "33", "40", "28", "83", "60", "0", "95", "45", "32", "42", "26", "No Label", "25", "38", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 July 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms\n(2012/425/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 165 and Article 192(1) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nProtocol 31 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (the \u2018EEA Agreement\u2019) contains provisions and arrangements concerning cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement to include Regulation (EC) No 401/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network (3).\n(3)\nIt is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement to the field of sport.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 401/2009 repeals Council Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 of 7 May 1990 on the establishment of the European Environment Agency and the European environment information and observation network (4) which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement. The EEA Agreement should therefore be amended to take account of Regulation (EC) No 401/2009.\n(5)\nProtocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms, shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["13", "44", "89", "38", "16", "22", "85", "33", "74", "14", "57", "48", "25", "5", "49", "51", "90", "86", "39", "0", "76", "34", "81", "2", "10", "56", "12", "60", "61", "55", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "41", "58"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "41", "58"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 4 July 2012\non mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (EGF/2012/000 TA 2012 - Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission)\n(2012/408/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1927/2006 provides that 0,35 % of the annual maximum amount can be made available each year for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission. The budgetary authority proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 730 000.\n(4)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 730 000 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["56", "71", "75", "70", "97", "81", "27", "94", "19", "77", "72", "38", "21", "76", "9", "18", "64", "82", "60", "17", "83", "44", "0", "95", "7", "63", "74", "54", "98", "85", "No Label", "4", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49"], "gold": ["4", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 47/2012\nof 19 January 2012\nfixing the export refunds on eggs\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in eggs, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely within the Union and comply with requirements under Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2) and of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3), as well as marking requirements under point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1057/2011 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nIn order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 and those defined in point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 1057/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 January 2012.", "references": ["53", "35", "48", "97", "58", "12", "59", "39", "25", "38", "47", "68", "56", "41", "15", "42", "44", "73", "6", "29", "52", "82", "31", "74", "70", "34", "98", "49", "91", "60", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 901/2011\nof 7 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 September 2011.", "references": ["79", "27", "39", "13", "15", "19", "99", "63", "44", "42", "49", "95", "21", "71", "37", "23", "92", "33", "52", "59", "81", "93", "40", "94", "80", "73", "57", "54", "0", "78", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 670/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 11 July 2012\namending Decision No 1639/2006/EC establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) and Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 172, and Article 173(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision No 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) establishes the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) with different types of implementing measures pursued by specific programmes, of which \u2018the Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) Policy Support Programme\u2019 provides support for the strengthening of the internal market for ICT products and services and ICT-based products and services, and aims at stimulating innovation through the wider adoption of, and investment in, ICT.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 680/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) lays down the general rules for the granting of Union financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks and creates also the risk-sharing instrument \u2018Loan Guarantee instrument for TEN-Transport (\u201cTEN-T\u201d) projects\u2019.\n(3)\nOver the next decade, according to Commission estimates, unprecedented volumes of investment in Europe\u2019s transport, energy, information and communication networks will be needed in order to contribute to the achievement of the Europe 2020 policy objectives, in particular climate goals and the transition to a resource-efficient low-carbon economy by developing smart, upgraded and fully interconnected infrastructures, and to foster the completion of the internal market.\n(4)\nDebt capital market financing is not readily available for infrastructure projects in the Union. The difficulties for infrastructure projects in gaining access to long-term private finance or public funding should not lead to a deterioration in performance on the part of transport, telecommunication and energy systems nor the slowing down of broadband penetration. Due to the fragmentation of the bond markets across the Union, combined with unknown demand as well as the size and complexity of infrastructure projects which require long lead times for project preparation, it is appropriate to address this issue at Union level.\n(5)\nFinancial instruments, as governed by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), can, in some cases, improve the efficiency of budget spending and achieve high multiplier effects in terms of attracting private sector financing. This is particularly relevant in the context of difficult access to credit, constraints on public finances, and in view of the need to underpin Europe\u2019s economic recovery.\n(6)\nIn its resolution of 8 June 2011 on Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe, the European Parliament welcomed the Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative, a risk-sharing mechanism with the EIB providing capped support from the Union budget, that is designed to leverage the Union funds and attract additional interest from private investors for participating in priority projects that are in line with Europe 2020 objectives. In its conclusions of 12 July 2011 on the Single Market Act, the Council recalled that financial instruments need to be assessed in terms of leverage effects in comparison to existing instruments, risks that would be added to government balance sheets and possible crowding out of private institutions. The Commission Communication on a pilot for the Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative and the related impact assessment, which draw on a public consultation, should be seen in this context.\n(7)\nA pilot phase for the Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative should be launched, the aim of which is to help finance priority projects with a clear EU added value, and to facilitate greater private sector involvement in the long-term capital market financing of economically viable projects in the field of transport, energy and ICT infrastructure. The instrument will benefit projects with similar financing needs and, thanks to synergies between the sectors, should produce greater benefits in terms of market impact, administrative efficiency and resource utilisation. It should provide infrastructure stakeholders such as financiers, public authorities, infrastructure managers, construction companies and operators with a coherent instrument and will be driven by market demand.\n(8)\nDuring the pilot phase for the Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative, the Union budget is to be used along with financing from the EIB in the form of a joint risk-sharing instrument for project bonds issued by project companies. That instrument seeks to mitigate the debt-service risk of a project and the credit risk of bondholders to such an extent that capital market participants, such as pension funds, insurance companies and other interested parties, are willing to invest in a larger volume of infrastructure project bonds than would be possible without Union support.\n(9)\nIn light of the EIB\u2019s long-standing expertise and given that it is the major financier of infrastructure projects and the EU financial body established by the Treaty, the Commission should involve the EIB in the implementation of the pilot phase. The main terms, conditions and procedures of the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds should be laid down by means of this Regulation. More detailed terms and conditions, including risk sharing, remuneration, monitoring and control, should be laid down in a cooperation agreement between the Commission and the EIB. That cooperation agreement should be approved by the Commission and the EIB according to their respective procedures.\n(10)\nThe pilot phase for the Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative should be launched as soon as possible during the current financial framework and implemented without undue delay in order to ascertain whether, and to what extent, such risk-sharing financial instruments offer added value in the area of infrastructure financing and for the development of debt capital market financing of infrastructure projects.\n(11)\nThe pilot phase should be funded by means of budget redeployment in the 2012 and 2013 budgets from existing transport, energy and telecommunication programmes. For this purpose, it should be possible for up to EUR 200 million to be redeployed for this initiative from the TEN-T budget, up to EUR 20 million from the budget of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme and up to EUR 10 million from the TEN-Energy (\u2018TEN-E\u2019) budget. The budgetary funds available limit both the scope of the initiative and the number of projects that can be supported.\n(12)\nBudgetary funds should be requested by the EIB on the basis of a range of projects, which the EIB and the Commission deem to be suitable, to be in line with the Union\u2019s long-term policy objectives and likely to be realised. Any such requests and the corresponding budgetary commitments should be made no later than 31 December 2013. Due to the complexity of large infrastructure projects, it should be possible for the actual approval by the EIB\u2019s Board of Directors to take place at a later date, but no later than 31 December 2014.\n(13)\nApplication for support, and selection and implementation of all projects should be subject to Union law, in particular with regard to state aid, and should seek to avoid creating or adding to market distortions.\n(14)\nIn addition to the reporting requirements under point 49 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (6), the Commission should, with the support of the EIB, report every six months during the pilot phase to the European Parliament and the Council after the signature of the cooperation agreement and submit an interim report to the European Parliament and the Council in the second half of 2013. An independent full-scale evaluation should be carried out in 2015.\n(15)\nDrawing upon that independent full-scale evaluation, the Commission should assess the relevance of the Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative as well as its effectiveness in increasing the volume of investments in priority projects and enhancing the efficiency of Union spending.\n(16)\nThe pilot phase of the Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative should be launched in preparation for the Connecting Europe Facility proposed by the Commission. It is without prejudice to any decisions concerning the Union\u2019s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) after 2013 and concerning the possible re-use of reflows from financial instruments in the context of the negotiations on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the annual budget of the Union.\n(17)\nIn order to implement the pilot phase of the Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative, Decision No 1639/2006/EC and Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 should be amended accordingly.\n(18)\nIn order for the measures provided for in this Regulation to be effective, in view of the limited duration of the pilot phase, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Decision No 1639/2006/EC\nDecision No 1639/2006/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 8, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20185a. Without prejudice to paragraphs 1 to 5, for projects carried out under the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds referred to in Article 31(2), the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) shall submit an interim report to the European Parliament and the Council in the second half of 2013. An independent full-scale evaluation shall be carried out in 2015.\nOn the basis of that evaluation, the Commission shall assess the relevance of the Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative and its effectiveness in increasing the volume of investments in priority projects and enhancing the efficiency of Union spending. In the light of that assessment, taking into account all options, the Commission shall consider proposing appropriate regulatory changes, including legislative changes, in particular if the predicted market uptake is not satisfactory or in the event that alternative sources of long-term debt financing become sufficiently available.\nThe interim report referred to in the first subparagraph shall include a list of the projects which have benefited from the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds referred to in Article 31(2a) to (2e), with information on the terms of the bonds issued and the types of current and potential future investors.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 26(2), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nstimulation of innovation through the wider adoption of, and investment in, ICT and broadband;\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 31 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The projects referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall aim to promote innovation, technology transfer and the dissemination of new technologies that are ready for market uptake.\nThe Union may award a grant to contribute to the budget of those projects.\nThe Union may, alternatively, make, during a pilot phase in 2012 and 2013, a financial contribution to the EIB towards the provisioning and capital allocation for debt instruments or guarantees to be issued by the EIB from its own resources under the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraphs are inserted:\n\u20182a. The risk-sharing instrument for project bonds referred to in the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 is a joint instrument by the Commission and the EIB which provides added value as a Union intervention, addresses sub-optimal investment situations when projects do not receive adequate financing from the market, and provides additionality. It avoids distortion of competition, aims to secure a multiplier effect and aligns interests in the form of a credit enhancement. The risk-sharing instrument for project bonds shall:\n(a)\ntake the form of a debt instrument or a guarantee granted by the EIB with the support of a Union budget contribution in favour of financing provided to projects in the field of ICT and broadband, complementing or attracting financing by Member States or the private sector;\n(b)\nmitigate the debt service risk of a project and the credit risk of bond holders;\n(c)\nbe used only for projects whose financial viability is based on project revenues.\n2b. The Union exposure to the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds, including management fees and other eligible costs, shall in no case exceed the amount of the Union contribution to the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds nor extend beyond the maturity of the underlying portfolio of credit enhancement facilities. There shall be no further liability on the general budget of the Union. The residual risk related to project bond operations shall always be borne by the EIB.\n2c. The main terms, conditions and procedures of the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds are laid down in Annex IIIa. The detailed terms and conditions for implementing the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds, including risk sharing, remuneration, monitoring and control, shall be laid down in a cooperation agreement between the Commission and the EIB. That cooperation agreement shall be approved by the Commission and the EIB according to their respective procedures.\n2d. In 2013, an amount of up to EUR 20 million may be used from the budget allocated for the pursuance of ICT and broadband policy in accordance with the rule set out in point (b) of Annex I. Given the limited duration of the pilot phase, the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds may reuse any revenues received before 31 December 2013 for new debt instruments and guarantees within the same risk-sharing facility and for projects fulfilling the same eligibility criteria in order to maximise the volume of investments supported. In the event that the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds is not extended into the next multiannual financial framework, any remaining funds shall be returned to the revenue side of the general budget of the Union.\n2e. In addition to the reporting requirements set out in point 49 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management, and without prejudice to any other regulatory reporting requirements, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council every six months during the pilot phase on the performance of the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds, including the financial terms and placement of any project bonds issued.\u2019;\n(4)\nthe following Annex is added:\n\u2018ANNEX IIIa\nMain terms, conditions and procedures of the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds referred to in Article 31(2c)\nThe EIB shall be a risk-sharing partner and shall manage the Union contribution to the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds on behalf of the Union. More detailed terms and conditions for implementing that instrument, including its monitoring and control, shall be laid down in a cooperation agreement between the Commission and the EIB, taking into account the provisions laid down in this Annex.\n(a) The EIB facility\n1.\nThe risk-sharing instrument for project bonds will be designed for each eligible project as a subordinated facility, in the form of a debt instrument or a contingent (guarantee) facility or both, in order to facilitate the issue of a project bond.\n2.\nShould the EIB be or become a creditor to a project, the EIB\u2019s rights under the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds shall rank behind the debt service of the senior debt and ahead of equity and any financing related to equity.\n3.\nThe facility shall not exceed 20 % of the total amount of the senior debt issued.\n(b) Budget\nICT:\n2013: Up to EUR 20 million.\nThe request for transfer of the sums above shall be issued by 31 December 2012 and shall be supported by a forecast of the need for the scheduled Union contribution.\nIf necessary, that forecast may serve as the basis for a demand-based reduction of the 2013 amount which shall be decided in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 46(2).\n(c) Fiduciary account\n1.\nThe EIB shall set up a fiduciary account to hold the Union contribution and revenues resulting from the Union contribution.\n2.\nGiven the limited duration of the pilot phase, the interest earned on the fiduciary accounts and other revenues resulting from the Union contribution, such as guarantee premiums, interest and risk margins on sums disbursed by the EIB, shall be added to the resources of the fiduciary account. However, the Commission may decide, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 46(2), that they are to be returned to the CIP ICT budget line.\n(d) Use of the Union contribution\nThe Union contribution shall be used by the EIB:\n1.\ntowards risk provisioning on a first-loss basis for the subordinated facilities of the eligible project portfolio, in accordance with the relevant rules of the EIB and a risk assessment performed by the EIB under its applicable policies;\n2.\nto cover any non-project-related eligible costs associated with the establishment and administration of the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds, including its evaluation.\n(e) Risk and revenue sharing\nThe risk-sharing pattern resulting from point (d) shall be reflected in an appropriate sharing between the Union and the EIB of the risk remuneration charged by the EIB to its counterpart in respect of each facility within the project portfolio.\n(f) Pricing\nThe pricing of the project bond facilities is based upon the risk remuneration in accordance with relevant standard rules and criteria of the EIB.\n(g) Application procedure\nApplications for risk coverage under the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds shall be addressed to the EIB in accordance with the EIB\u2019s standard application procedure.\n(h) Approval procedure\nThe EIB shall carry out risk, financial, technical and legal due diligence and shall decide upon the use of the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds and select the appropriate type of subordinated facility in accordance with its standard rules and criteria, notably EIB Credit Risk Policy Guidelines, and the EIB\u2019s selection criteria in the social, environmental and climate field.\n(i) Duration\n1.\nThe Union contribution to the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds shall be committed no later than 31 December 2013. The actual approval of project bond facilities by the EIB\u2019s Board of Directors shall be finalised by 31 December 2014.\n2.\nIn the event of termination of the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds during the current multiannual financial framework, any balances on the fiduciary account, other than funds committed and funds needed to cover other eligible costs and expenses, shall be returned to the CIP ICT budget line.\n3.\nFunds allocated to the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds shall be reimbursed to the relevant fiduciary account as facilities expire or are repaid, provided risk coverage remains sufficient.\n(j) Reporting\nAnnual reporting methods on the implementation of the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds shall be agreed between the Commission and the EIB.\nIn addition, the Commission shall, with the support of the EIB, report on implementation every six months to the European Parliament and the Council, starting six months after the signature of the cooperation agreement referred to in Article 31(2c).\n(k) Monitoring, control and evaluation\nThe Commission shall monitor the implementation of the instrument, including through on-the-spot controls as appropriate, and shall perform verification and controls in line with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (7).\nThe EIB shall manage subordinated facilities in accordance with EIB\u2019s own rules and procedures, including appropriate audit, control and monitoring measures. Furthermore, the EIB\u2019s Board of Directors, on which the Commission and Member States are represented, shall approve each subordinated facility and monitor that the EIB is managed in accordance with its Statute and with the general directives laid down by its Board of Governors.\nThe Commission and the EIB shall submit an interim report on the functioning of the pilot risk-sharing instrument for project bonds to the European Parliament and the Council in the second half of 2013 with a view to optimising the design of that instrument.\nA full-scale independent evaluation shall be undertaken in 2015 after approval of the final project bond operations. It shall cover, inter alia, the value added, additionality compared to other Union or Member State instruments and other existing forms of long-term debt financing, the achieved multiplier effect, an assessment of the risks involved as well as the creation or correction of distortive effects, if any. The evaluation shall also cover the impact on projects\u2019 financial viability, volume, terms and costs of bond issuance, the effect on the wider bond markets as well as controlling creditor and procurement aspects. It shall also provide, if possible, a cost comparison with alternative means of project finance including bank loans. During the pilot phase, each selected project shall be assessed.\nArticle 2\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 680/2007\nRegulation (EC) No 680/2007 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2 the following points are added:\n\u2018(14)\nThe \u201crisk-sharing instrument for project bonds\u201d means a joint instrument by the Commission and the EIB which provides added value as a Union intervention, addresses sub-optimal investment situation when projects do not receive adequate financing from the markets, and provides additionality, by complementing or attracting financing by Member States or the private sector. It avoids distortion of competition, aims to secure a multiplier effect and aligns interests. The risk-sharing instrument for project bonds takes the form of a credit enhancement to projects of common interest, mitigates the debt service risk of a project and the credit risk of bond holders and is used only for projects whose financial viability is based on project revenues.\n(15)\n\u201cCredit enhancement\u201d means the improvement of the credit quality of a project debt by means of a subordinated facility in the form of an EIB debt instrument or of an EIB guarantee or both, supported by a contribution from the Union budget.\u2019;\n(2)\nin the first paragraph of Article 4 the following sentence is added:\n\u2018Applications for risk coverage under the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds under Article 6(1)(g) shall be addressed to the EIB in accordance with the EIB\u2019s standard application procedure.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 6(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (d), the following sentence is added:\n\u2018In 2012 and 2013, an amount of up to EUR 200 million may be redeployed for the pilot phase of the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds in the transport sector.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following point is added:\n\u2018(g)\nduring a pilot phase in 2012 and 2013, a financial contribution to the EIB towards the provisioning and capital allocation for debt instruments or guarantees to be issued by the EIB from its own resources under the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds in the field of TEN-T and TEN-E. The Union exposure to the risk-sharing instrument, including management fees and other eligible costs, shall in no case exceed the amount of the Union contribution to the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds, nor extend beyond the maturity of the portfolio of underlying credit enhancement facilities. There shall be no further liability on the general budget of the Union. The residual risk related to these project bond operations shall always be borne by the EIB.\nThe main terms, conditions and procedures of the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds are laid down in Annex Ia. The detailed terms and conditions for implementing the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds, including risk-sharing, remuneration, monitoring and control, shall be laid down in a cooperation agreement between the Commission and the EIB. This cooperation agreement shall be approved by the Commission and the EIB according to their respective procedures.\nIn 2012 and 2013, an amount of up to EUR 210 million, of which up to EUR 200 million for transport projects and up to EUR 10 million for energy projects, may be redeployed for the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 15(2) from the budget lines for the loan guarantee instrument for TEN-T projects, referred to in Annex I, and for TEN-E respectively.\nIn addition to the reporting requirements set out in point 49 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management, and without prejudice to any other regulatory reporting requirements, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council every six months during the pilot phase on the performance of the risk-sharing instrument, including the financial terms and placement of any project bonds issued.\nGiven the limited duration of the pilot phase, interest and other revenue generated by the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds which is received before 31 December 2013 may be reused for new debt instruments and guarantees within the same risk-sharing facility and for projects fulfilling the same eligibility criteria in order to maximise the volume of investments supported. If the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds is not extended into the next financial framework, any remaining funds shall be returned to the revenue side of the general budget of the Union.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 16, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20182a. Without prejudice to paragraphs 1 and 2, for projects carried out under the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds referred to in Article 6(1)(g), the Commission and the EIB shall submit an interim report to the European Parliament and the Council in the second half of 2013. An independent full-scale evaluation shall be carried out in 2015.\nOn the basis of that evaluation, the Commission shall assess the relevance of the Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative and its effectiveness in increasing the volume of investments in priority projects and enhancing the efficiency of Union spending. In the light of that assessment, taking into account all options, the Commission shall consider proposing appropriate regulatory changes, including legislative changes, in particular if the predicted market uptake is not satisfactory or in the event that alternative sources of long-term debt financing become sufficiently available.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 17(1), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018The interim report referred to in Article 16(2a) shall also contain a list of the projects which have benefited from the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds referred to in Article 6(1)(g), with information on the terms of the bonds issued and the types of current and potential future investors.\u2019;\n(6)\nthe Annex is renumbered Annex I and the words \u2018the Annex\u2019 in Article 6(1)(d) are accordingly replaced with \u2018Annex I\u2019;\n(7)\nthe following Annex is added:\n\u2018ANNEX Ia\nMain terms, conditions and procedures of the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds referred to in Article 6(1)(g)\nThe EIB shall be a risk-sharing partner and shall manage the Union contribution to the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds on behalf of the Union. More detailed terms and conditions for implementing that instrument, including its monitoring and control, shall be laid down in a cooperation agreement between the Commission and the EIB, taking into account the provisions laid down in this Annex.\n(a) The EIB facility\n1.\nThe risk-sharing instrument for project bonds will be designed for each eligible project as a subordinated facility, in the form of a debt instrument or a contingent (guarantee) facility or both, in order to facilitate the issue of a project bond.\n2.\nShould the EIB be or become a creditor to a project, the EIB\u2019s rights under the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds shall rank behind the debt service of the senior debt and ahead of equity and any financing related to equity.\n3.\nThe facility shall not exceed 20 % of the total amount of the senior debt issued.\n(b) Budget\nTEN-T:\n-\n2012: Up to EUR 100 million\n-\n2013: Up to the cumulated amount of EUR 200 million\nto be reallocated from the TEN-T budget dedicated to the loan guarantee instrument for TEN-T projects, referred to in Annex I, but unspent.\nTEN-E:\n2013: Up to EUR 10 million.\nThe request for transfer of the 2012 amount shall be issued without undue delay following the signature of the cooperation agreement.\nThe transfer requests in subsequent years shall be issued by 31 December of the preceding year.\nIn all cases the transfer request shall be supported by a forecast of the need for the scheduled Union contribution.\nIf necessary, that forecast may serve as the basis for a demand-based reduction of the amounts which shall be decided in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 15(2).\n(c) Fiduciary account\n1.\nThe EIB shall set up two fiduciary accounts (one for projects under TEN-T, the other for projects under TEN-E) to hold the Union contributions and revenues resulting from the Union contributions. The fiduciary account for TEN-T may be merged with the fiduciary account set up for the loan guarantee instrument for TEN-T projects, referred to in Annex I, provided such measure does not impede the quality of reporting and monitoring as stipulated under points (j) and (k).\n2.\nGiven the limited duration of the pilot phase, the interest earned on the fiduciary accounts and other revenues resulting from the Union contribution, such as guarantee premiums, interest and risk margins on sums disbursed by the EIB, shall be added to the resources of the fiduciary account. However, the Commission may decide, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 15(2), that they are to be returned to the TEN-T or TEN-E budget lines.\n(d) Use of the Union contribution\nThe Union contribution shall be used by the EIB:\n1.\ntowards risk provisioning on a first-loss basis for the subordinated facilities of the eligible project portfolio, in accordance with the relevant rules of the EIB and a risk assessment performed by the EIB under its applicable policies;\n2.\nto cover any non-project-related eligible costs associated with the establishment and administration of the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds including its evaluation.\n(e) Risk and revenue sharing\nThe risk-sharing pattern resulting from point (d) shall be reflected in an appropriate sharing between the Union and the EIB of the risk remuneration charged by the EIB to its counterpart in respect of each facility constituting the portfolio.\nNotwithstanding the provisions applying to risk sharing for the loan guarantee instrument for TEN-T projects, referred to in Annex I, the risk-sharing pattern for project bonds shall also apply to that instrument including the operations of its existing portfolio.\n(f) Pricing\nThe pricing of the project bond facilities is based upon the risk remuneration in accordance with relevant standard rules and criteria of the EIB.\n(g) Application procedure\nApplications for risk coverage under the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds shall be addressed to the EIB in accordance with the EIB\u2019s standard application procedure.\n(h) Approval procedure\nThe EIB shall carry out risk, financial, technical and legal due diligence and shall decide upon the use of the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds and select the appropriate type of subordinated facility in accordance with its standard rules and criteria, notably EIB Credit Risk Policy Guidelines, and the EIB\u2019s selection criteria in the social, environmental and climate field.\n(i) Duration\n1.\nThe last tranche of the Union contribution to the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds shall be committed no later than 31 December 2013. The actual approval of project bond facilities by the EIB\u2019s Board of Directors shall be finalised no later than 31 December 2014.\n2.\nIn the event of termination of the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds during the current multiannual financial framework any balances on the fiduciary accounts, other than funds committed and funds needed to cover other eligible costs and expenses, shall be returned to the TEN-T, TEN-E budget lines.\n3.\nFunds allocated to the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds shall be reimbursed to the relevant fiduciary account as facilities expire or are repaid provided risk coverage remains sufficient.\n(j) Reporting\nAnnual reporting methods on the implementation of the risk-sharing instrument for project bonds shall be agreed between the Commission and the EIB.\nIn addition, the Commission shall, with the support of the EIB, report on implementation every six months to the European Parliament and the Council, starting six months after the signature of the cooperation agreement referred to in Article 6(1)(g).\n(k) Monitoring, control and evaluation\nThe Commission shall monitor the implementation of the instrument, including through on-the-spot controls as appropriate, and shall perform verification and controls in line with Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.\nThe EIB shall manage subordinated facilities in accordance with EIB\u2019s own rules and procedures, including appropriate audit, control and monitoring measures. Furthermore, the EIB\u2019s Board of Directors, on which the Commission and Member States are represented, shall approve each subordinated facility and monitor that the EIB is managed in accordance with its Statute and with the general directives laid down by its Board of Governors.\nThe Commission and the EIB shall submit an interim report on the functioning of the pilot risk-sharing instrument for project bonds to the European Parliament and the Council in the second half of 2013 with a view to optimising the design of that instrument.\nA full-scale independent evaluation shall be undertaken in 2015 after approval of the final project bond operations. It shall cover, inter alia, the value added, additionality compared to other Union or Member State instruments and other existing forms of long-term debt financing, the achieved multiplier effect, an assessment of the risks involved as well as the creation or correction of distortive effects, if any. The evaluation shall also cover the impact on projects\u2019 financial viability, volume, terms and costs of bond issuance, the effect on the wider bond markets as well as controlling creditor and procurement aspects. It shall also provide, if possible, a cost comparison with alternative means of project finance including bank loans. During the pilot phase, each selected project shall be assessed.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 July 2012.", "references": ["98", "52", "48", "21", "49", "99", "36", "13", "94", "69", "56", "97", "93", "90", "6", "72", "4", "23", "89", "67", "27", "37", "24", "15", "87", "25", "11", "1", "82", "63", "No Label", "9", "10", "30", "31", "40", "54", "78"], "gold": ["9", "10", "30", "31", "40", "54", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1117/2010\nof 2 December 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of a preparation of citric acid, sorbic acid, thymol and vanillin as a feed additive for weaned piglets (holder of the authorisation Vetagro SpA)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of a preparation of citric acid, sorbic acid, thymol and vanillin as a feed additive for weaned piglets, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 25 May 2010 (2) that the preparation set out in the Annex, under the proposed conditions of use, do not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that this additive has the potential to increase the growth rate and improve the feed to gain ratio of the target species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of the preparation shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018other zootechnical additives\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["71", "45", "78", "30", "60", "81", "34", "54", "56", "84", "51", "97", "46", "68", "2", "62", "17", "92", "18", "0", "10", "40", "8", "94", "6", "33", "55", "64", "32", "19", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 601/2011\nof 21 June 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 587/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2011.", "references": ["84", "30", "42", "89", "81", "39", "97", "0", "98", "99", "25", "17", "29", "26", "56", "46", "41", "16", "51", "7", "77", "68", "57", "63", "40", "24", "58", "23", "70", "65", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1231/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 as regards the rules for the implementation of voluntary modulation of direct payments under the common agricultural policy\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 of 27 March 2007 laying down rules for voluntary modulation of direct payments provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (3) confers on the Commission powers to implement certain provisions of that Regulation.\n(2)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the powers conferred on the Commission under Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 need to be aligned with Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 in the Member States concerned, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission.\n(4)\nThe implementing powers relating to the adoption of specific provisions for the integration of voluntary modulation in the rural development programming and for the financial management of voluntary modulation should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (4).\n(5)\nThe Commission should, by means of implementing acts and, given their special nature, acting without the application of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, fix the net amounts resulting from the application of voluntary modulation.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 378/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 378/2007 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 4(1), the introductory wording is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The net amounts resulting from the application of voluntary modulation shall be fixed by the Commission, by means of implementing acts without the application of Article 6a, based on:\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\n1. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt specific provisions for the integration of voluntary modulation in the rural development programming. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 6a(1).\n2. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt specific provisions for the financial management of voluntary modulation. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 6a(2).\u2019;\n(3)\nthe following Article is added:\n\u2018Article 6a\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Rural Development Committee established by Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. That committee is a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (5).\nWhere reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\n2. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee on the agricultural funds established by Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005. That committee is a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\nWhere reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["65", "27", "81", "15", "59", "43", "99", "19", "2", "46", "78", "91", "71", "58", "92", "37", "16", "64", "84", "35", "42", "69", "55", "95", "72", "79", "12", "31", "56", "40", "No Label", "4", "10", "17", "61", "63"], "gold": ["4", "10", "17", "61", "63"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 850/2010\nof 27 September 2010\ninitiating a \u2018new exporter\u2019 review of Council Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, repealing the duty with regard to imports from one exporter in this country and making these imports subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) (1) and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. REQUEST FOR A REVIEW\n(1)\nThe Commission has received an application for a \u2018new exporter\u2019 review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. The application was lodged by TRL China Ltd (\u2018the applicant\u2019), an exporting producer in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the country concerned\u2019).\nB. PRODUCT\n(2)\nThe product under review is chemically bonded, unfired magnesia bricks, whose magnesia component contains at least 80 % MgO, whether or not containing magnesite, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the product concerned\u2019), currently falling within CN codes ex 6815 91 00, ex 6815 99 10 and ex 6815 99 90 (TARIC codes 6815910010, 6815991020 and 6815999020).\nC. EXISTING MEASURES\n(3)\nThe measures currently in force are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 (2) under which imports into the Union of the product concerned originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, including the product concerned produced by the applicant, are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty of 39,9 % with the exception of several companies specifically mentioned which are subject to individual duty rates.\nD. GROUNDS FOR THE REVIEW\n(4)\nThe applicant alleges that it operates under market economy conditions as defined in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation or alternatively claims individual treatment in conformity with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. It further alleges that it did not export the product concerned to the Union during the period of investigation on which the anti-dumping measures were based, i.e. the period from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 (\u2018the original investigation period\u2019) and that it is not related to any of the exporting producers of the product which are subject to the above mentioned anti-dumping measures.\n(5)\nThe applicant further alleges that it has begun exporting the product concerned to the Union after the end of the original investigation period.\nE. PROCEDURE\n(6)\nUnion producers known to be concerned have been informed of the above application and have been given an opportunity to comment.\n(7)\nHaving examined the evidence available, the Commission concludes that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of a \u2018new exporter\u2019 review, pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. Upon receipt of the claim mentioned below under recital 13, it will be determined whether the applicant operates under market economy conditions as defined in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation or alternatively whether the applicant fulfils the requirements to have an individual duty established in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. If so, the applicant\u2019s individual margin of dumping shall be calculated and, should dumping be found, the level of the duty to which its imports of the product concerned into the Union should be subject shall be determined.\n(8)\nIf it is determined that the applicant fulfils the requirements to have an individual duty established, it may be necessary to amend the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the product concerned from companies not individually mentioned in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005.\n(a) Questionnaires\n(9)\nIn order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send a questionnaire to the applicant.\n(b) Collection of information and holding of hearings\n(10)\nAll interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence.\n(11)\nFurthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing showing that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\n(12)\nAttention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the parties making themselves known within the period provided for by the present Regulation.\n(c) Market economy treatment/individual treatment\n(13)\nIn the event that the applicant provides sufficient evidence that it operates under market economy conditions, i.e. that it meets the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, normal value will be determined in accordance with Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation. For this purpose, duly substantiated claims must be submitted within the specific time limit set in Article 4(3) of this Regulation. The Commission will send claim forms to the applicant, as well as to the authorities of the People\u2019s Republic of China. This claim form may also be used by the applicant to claim individual treatment, i.e. that it meets the criteria laid down in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(d) Selection of the market economy country\n(14)\nIn the event that the applicant is not granted market economy treatment but fulfils the requirements to have an individual duty established in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, an appropriate market economy country will be used for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of the People\u2019s Republic of China in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. The Commission envisages using the United States of America again for this purpose as was done in the investigation which led to the imposition of measures on imports of the product concerned from the People\u2019s Republic of China. Interested parties are hereby invited to comment on the appropriateness of this choice within the specific time limit set in Article 4(2) of this Regulation.\n(15)\nFurthermore, in the event that the applicant is granted market economy treatment, the Commission may, if necessary, also use findings concerning the normal value established in an appropriate market-economy country, e.g. for the purpose of replacing any unreliable cost or price elements in the People\u2019s Republic of China which are needed in establishing the normal value, if reliable required data are not available in the People\u2019s Republic of China. The Commission envisages using the United States of America also for this purpose.\nF. REPEAL OF THE DUTY IN FORCE AND REGISTRATION OF IMPORTS\n(16)\nPursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping duty in force should be repealed with regard to imports of the product concerned which are produced and sold for export to the Union by the applicant. At the same time, such imports should be made subject to registration in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, in order to ensure that, should the review result in a finding of dumping in respect of the applicant, anti-dumping duties can be levied retroactively from the date of the initiation of this review. The amount of the applicant\u2019s possible future liabilities cannot be estimated at this stage of the proceeding.\nG. TIME LIMITS\n(17)\nIn the interest of sound administration, time limits should be stated within which:\n-\ninterested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit the replies to the questionnaire mentioned in recital 8(a) of this Regulation or provide any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,\n-\ninterested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission,\n-\ninterested parties may comment on the appropriateness of the United States of America which, in the event that the applicant will not be granted market economy treatment, is envisaged as a market-economy country for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of the People\u2019s Republic of China,\n-\nthe applicant should submit a duly substantiated claim for market economy treatment.\nH. NON-COOPERATION\n(18)\nIn cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.\n(19)\nWhere it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, of the facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially, and findings are therefore based on the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.\nI. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\n(20)\nPlease note that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3).\nJ. HEARING OFFICER\n(21)\nPlease note that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of the Directorate-General for Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views. For further information and contact details, interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer\u2019s web pages on the website of the Directorate-General for Trade (http://ec.europa.eu/trade),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nA review of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 is hereby initiated pursuant to Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 in order to determine if and to what extent the imports of chemically bonded, unfired magnesia bricks, whose magnesia component contains at least 80 % MgO, whether or not containing magnesite, currently falling within CN codes ex 6815 91 00, ex 6815 99 10 and ex 6815 99 90 (TARIC codes 6815910010, 6815991020 and 6815999020), originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, produced and sold for export to the Union by TRL China Ltd (TARIC additional code A985) should be subject to the anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005.\nArticle 2\nThe anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 is hereby repealed with regard to the imports identified in Article 1 of this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThe customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports identified in Article 1 of this Regulation. Registration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 4\n1. Interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit the replies to the questionnaire mentioned in recital 8(a) of this Regulation or any other information, unless otherwise specified, within 37 days of the entry into force of this Regulation.\nInterested parties may also apply in writing to be heard by the Commission within the same 37-day time limit.\n2. Parties to the investigation wanting to comment on the appropriateness of the United States of America, which is envisaged as a market economy third country for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of the People\u2019s Republic of China, must submit their comments within 10 days of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n3. A duly substantiated claim for market economy treatment must reach the Commission within 15 days of the date of the entry into force of this Regulation.\n4. All submissions and requests made by interested parties must be made in writing (not in electronic format, unless otherwise specified) and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers of the interested party. All written submissions, including the information requested in this Regulation, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labelled as \u2018Limited\u2019 (4) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labelled \u2018For inspection by interested parties\u2019.\nAny information relating to the matter and/or any request for a hearing should be sent to the following address:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N105 4/92\nB-1049 Brussels\nBELGIUM\nFax +32 22956505\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["82", "94", "72", "19", "50", "41", "74", "90", "91", "58", "37", "31", "47", "35", "45", "71", "5", "39", "62", "15", "38", "17", "29", "60", "14", "53", "76", "11", "49", "66", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "87", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "87", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/33/EU\nof 8 March 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include 1-decanol as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 1112/2002 (2) and (EC) No 2229/2004 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included 1-decanol.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 24e of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/941/EC of 8 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of 1-decanol.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the application of the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/941/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe United Kingdom evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 10 December 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on 1-decanol to the Commission on 27 August 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for 1-decanol.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing 1-decanol may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include 1-decanol in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit confirmatory information as regards the risk to aquatic organisms and of information confirming the groundwater, surface water and sediment exposure assessments.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing 1-decanol to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/941/EC provides for the non-inclusion of 1-decanol and the withdrawal of authorisation of plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning 1-decanol in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/941/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning 1-decanol in the Annex to Decision 2008/941/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing 1-decanol as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to 1-decanol are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing 1-decanol as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 July 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning 1-decanol. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing 1-decanol as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing 1-decanol as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2011.", "references": ["1", "81", "37", "24", "94", "64", "29", "62", "52", "54", "23", "13", "80", "26", "12", "67", "79", "89", "53", "39", "73", "47", "74", "70", "51", "85", "55", "57", "91", "14", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1311/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as regards certain provisions relating to financial management for certain Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 177 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe unprecedented global financial crisis and economic downturn have seriously damaged economic growth and financial stability and provoked a strong deterioration in financial, economic and social conditions in several Member States. In particular, certain Member States are experiencing serious difficulties or are threatened with such difficulties, notably with problems concerning their economic growth and financial stability and with a deterioration in their deficit and debt position, also due to the international economic and financial environment.\n(2)\nWhilst important actions to counterbalance the negative effects of the crisis have already been taken, including amendments to the legislative framework, the impact of the financial crisis on the real economy, the labour market and citizens is being widely felt. Pressure on national financial resources is increasing and further steps should be taken rapidly to alleviate that pressure through the maximal and optimal use of funding from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 122(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which provides for the possibility of granting Union financial assistance to a Member State in difficulties or seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by exceptional occurrences beyond its control, Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (3) established such a mechanism with a view to preserving the financial stability of the Union.\n(4)\nBy Council Implementing Decisions 2011/77/EU (4) and 2011/344/EU (5) Ireland and Portugal, respectively, were granted such financial assistance.\n(5)\nGreece was already experiencing serious difficulties with respect to its financial stability before the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 407/2010. Financial assistance to Greece could not, therefore, be based on that Regulation.\n(6)\nThe Intercreditor Agreement and the Loan Facility Agreement for Greece, concluded on 8 May 2010, entered into force on 11 May 2010. Provision is made for the Intercreditor Agreement to remain in full force and effect for a three-year programme period as long as there are any amounts outstanding under the Loan Facility Agreement.\n(7)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States\u2019 balances of payments (6) provides that the Council is to grant medium-term financial assistance where a Member State, which has not adopted the euro, is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with difficulties as regards its balance of payments.\n(8)\nBy Council Decisions 2009/102/EC (7), 2009/290/EC (8) and 2009/459/EC (9), Hungary, Latvia and Romania, respectively, were granted such financial assistance.\n(9)\nThe period during which financial assistance is available to Ireland, Hungary, Latvia, Portugal and Romania is set out in the relevant Council Decisions. The period during which financial assistance was made available to Hungary expired on 4 November 2010.\n(10)\nThe period during which financial assistance under the Intercreditor Agreement and the Loan Facility Agreement is available to Greece is different as far as each Member State participating in those instruments is concerned.\n(11)\nOn 11 July 2011, the finance ministers of the 17 euro area Member States signed the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). Under that Treaty, which follows the European Council Decision 2011/199/EU of 25 March 2011 amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro (10), the ESM will assume the tasks currently fulfilled by the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM), by 2013. The ESM should therefore already be taken into account by this Regulation.\n(12)\nIn its conclusions of 23 and 24 June 2011 the European Council welcomed the Commission\u2019s intention to enhance the synergies between the loan programme for Greece and Union funds, and supported efforts to increase Greece\u2019s capacity to absorb Union funds in order to stimulate growth and employment by refocusing on improving competitiveness and employment creation. Moreover, it welcomed and supported the preparation by the Commission, together with the Member States, of a comprehensive programme of technical assistance to Greece. This amendment to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund (11) contributes to such synergy efforts.\n(13)\nIn order to facilitate the management of Union funding, to help accelerate investments in Member States and regions and to improve the availability of funding to implement the cohesion policy it is necessary to allow, in justified cases, temporarily and without prejudice to the 2014 to 2020 programming period, an increase of interim payments and payments of the final balance from the Structural Funds as well as from the Cohesion Fund, by an amount corresponding to ten percentage points above the co-financing rate applicable for each priority axis, for Member States which are facing serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability, and have requested to benefit from this measure. As a result, the required national counterpart will be reduced accordingly. Due to the temporary nature of that increase and in order to maintain the original co-financing rates as the reference point for calculation of the temporarily increased amounts, the changes resulting from application of the mechanism should not be reflected in the financial plan included in the operational programme. However, operational programmes may need to be updated in order to concentrate the Funds on competitiveness, growth and employment and in order to align their targets and objectives with the decrease of total funding available.\n(14)\nThe Member State making a request to the Commission to benefit from the derogation under Article 77(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 should clearly specify in its request the date from which it considers the derogation to be justified. In its request, the Member State concerned should submit all the information necessary to establish, by means of data on its macroeconomic and fiscal situation, that resources for the national counterpart are unavailable. It should also show that an increase of payments from the derogation is necessary to safeguard the continued implementation of operational programmes and that the absorption capacity problems persist even if the maximum ceilings applicable to co-financing rates set out in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 are used. The Member State concerned should also provide the reference to the relevant Council Decision or other legal act making it eligible to benefit from the derogation. The Commission should verify whether the submitted information is correct and should have 30 days from the submission to raise an objection. In order to make the derogation effective and operational, there should be a presumption that a Member State\u2019s request is justified if the Commission does not raise an objection. However, the Commission should be empowered to adopt, by way of an implementing act, a decision on any objection to the Member State\u2019s request, in which case, the Commission should give its reasons.\n(15)\nThe rules on calculation of interim payments and payments of the final balance for operational programmes during the period in which the Member States receive financial assistance for addressing serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability should be revised accordingly.\n(16)\nIt is necessary to ensure that there is appropriate reporting on the use of the increased amounts made available to the Member States benefiting from a temporary increase of interim payments and of payments of the final balance in accordance with the derogation under Article 77(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.\n(17)\nAfter the end of the period during which financial assistance has been made available, evaluations carried out in accordance with Article 48(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 might need to, inter alia, assess whether the reduction of the national co-funding leads to a significant departure from the goals that were initially established. Such evaluations might lead to the revision of the operational programme.\n(18)\nAs the unprecedented crisis affecting international financial markets, and the economic downturn, which have seriously damaged the financial stability of several Member States, necessitate a rapid response in order to counter the effects on the economy as a whole, this Regulation should enter into force as soon as possible. Given the exceptional circumstances of the Member States concerned, it should apply retroactively starting either from the budgetary year of 2010 or from the date, on which the financial assistance was made available, depending on the requesting Member State\u2019s status, for the periods during which the Member States received financial assistance from the Union or from other euro area Member States in order to address serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability.\n(19)\nWhere a temporary increase of interim payments or of payments of the final balance is envisaged in accordance with the derogation under Article 77(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, it should also be considered in the context of the budgetary restraints facing all Member States, which should be reflected appropriately in the general budget of the European Union. In addition, since the main purpose of the mechanism is to address specific current difficulties, its application should be limited in time. Therefore application of the mechanism should start on 1 January 2010 and its duration should be limited until the end of 31 December 2013.\n(20)\nRegulation (EC) No 1083/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 77 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 77\nCommon rules for calculating interim payments and payments of the final balance\n1. Interim payments and payments of the final balance shall be calculated by applying the co-financing rate laid down in the decision on the operational programme concerned for each priority axis to the eligible expenditure indicated under that priority axis in each statement of expenditure certified by the certifying authority.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 53(2), from the second sentence of Article 53(4) and from the ceilings set out in Annex III, interim payments and payments of the final balance shall be increased by an amount corresponding to 10 percentage points above the co-financing rate applicable to each priority axis, but not exceeding 100 %, to be applied to the amount of eligible expenditure newly declared in each certified statement of expenditure submitted during the period in which a Member State meets one of the following conditions:\n(a)\nfinancial assistance is made available to it in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (12) or financial assistance is made available to it by other euro area Member States before the entry into force of that Regulation;\n(b)\nmedium-term financial assistance is made available to it in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States\u2019 balances of payments (13);\n(c)\nfinancial assistance is made available to it in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism following its entry into force.\n3. A Member State seeking to benefit from a derogation under paragraph 2, shall submit a written request to the Commission by 21 February 2012 or within 2 months from the date on which the Member State meets one of the conditions referred to in paragraph 2.\n4. In its request under paragraph 3, the Member State shall justify the need for the derogation, by providing information necessary to establish:\n(a)\nby means of data on its macroeconomic and fiscal situation, that no resources for the national counterpart are available;\n(b)\nthat an increase of payments, as referred to in paragraph 2, is necessary to safeguard the continued implementation of operational programmes;\n(c)\nthat problems persist even if the maximum ceilings applicable to co-financing rates set out in Annex III are used;\n(d)\nthat it meets one of the conditions referred to in points (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 2, by providing a reference to a Council Decision or other legal act, as well as the concrete date from which the financial assistance was made available to the Member State.\nThe Commission shall verify whether the information submitted justifies granting a derogation under paragraph 2. The Commission shall have 30 days from the date of submission of the request to raise an objection as to the correctness of the submitted information.\nIf the Commission decides to object to the Member State\u2019s request, the Commission shall adopt a decision, by means of an implementing act, stating its reasons.\nIf the Commission does not raise an objection to the Member State\u2019s request under paragraph 3, the request shall be considered to be justified.\n5. The Member State\u2019s request shall also detail the intended use of the derogation provided for in paragraph 2, and give information about complementary measures foreseen in order to concentrate the Funds on competitiveness, growth and employment, including, where appropriate, a modification of operational programmes.\n6. The derogation provided for in paragraph 2 shall not apply for statements of expenditure submitted after 31 December 2013.\n7. For the purpose of calculating interim payments and payments of the final balance after a Member State ceases to benefit from the financial assistance referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall not take into account the increased amounts paid in accordance with that paragraph.\nHowever, those amounts shall be taken into account for the purpose of Article 79(1).\n8. The increased interim payments resulting from the application of paragraph 2 shall be made available as soon as possible to the managing authority and shall only be used for making payments in the implementation of the operational programme.\n9. In the context of strategic reporting under Article 29(1), Member States shall provide the Commission with appropriate information on the use of the derogation, provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article, showing how the increased amount of support has contributed to promote competitiveness, growth and employment in the Member State concerned. That information shall be taken into account by the Commission in the preparation of the strategic report referred to in Article 30(1).\n10. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, the Union contribution through interim payments and payments of the final balance shall not be higher than the public contribution and the maximum amount of assistance from the Funds for each priority axis as laid down in the decision of the Commission approving the operational programme.\n11. Paragraphs 2 to 9 shall not apply to operational programmes under the European territorial cooperation objective.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nHowever, it shall apply retroactively to the following Member States: in the case of Ireland, Greece and Portugal, with effect from the date on which the financial assistance was made available to those Member States as mentioned in Article 77(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, and in the case of Hungary, Latvia and Romania, with effect from 1 January 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["27", "78", "68", "76", "70", "61", "52", "67", "63", "83", "7", "79", "12", "49", "64", "38", "73", "32", "44", "88", "29", "26", "77", "86", "87", "60", "39", "17", "82", "53", "No Label", "4", "9", "10", "16", "31", "46", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "9", "10", "16", "31", "46", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 1 October 2010\nauthorising a laboratory in Russia to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines\n(notified under document C(2010) 6684)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/591/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2000/258/EC of 20 March 2000 designating a specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2000/258/EC designates the laboratory of the Agence fran\u00e7aise de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire des aliments de Nancy (\u2018AFSSA, Nancy\u2019), as the specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines. That Decision also lays down the duties of that laboratory.\n(2)\nIn particular, AFSSA, Nancy is to appraise the laboratories in Member States and third countries for the purposes of their authorisation to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines.\n(3)\nThe competent authority of Russia has submitted an application for approval of one laboratory in that third country to perform those serological tests.\n(4)\nAFSSA, Nancy has carried out an appraisal of that laboratory and provided the Commission with a favourable report of that appraisal on 19 February 2010.\n(5)\nThat laboratory should therefore be authorised to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines in dogs, cats and ferrets.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following laboratory is authorised to perform the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines in dogs, cats and ferrets, as provided for in Article 3(2) of Decision 2000/258/EC:\n\u2018Federal Centre for Animal Health (FGI \u201cARRIAH\u201d), 600901 Vladimir, Urjvets, Russia\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 15 October 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 October 2010.", "references": ["78", "49", "36", "44", "70", "61", "45", "20", "14", "6", "93", "12", "23", "94", "74", "11", "52", "57", "87", "68", "64", "83", "1", "63", "21", "35", "2", "67", "46", "43", "No Label", "38", "66", "76", "77", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "66", "76", "77", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 6 October 2011\namending Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU on emergency measures applicable to fenugreek seeds and certain seeds and beans imported from Egypt\n(notified under document C(2011) 7027)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/662/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1)(b)(i) and Article 53(1)(b)(iii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 178/2002 lays down the general principles governing food and feed in general, and food and feed safety in particular, at Union and national level. It provides for emergency measures where it is evident that food or feed imported from a third country is likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment, and that such risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member State(s) concerned.\n(2)\nCertain lots of fenugreek seeds from Egypt have been identified to be the causative agent of an outbreak in the EU, of Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli bacteria (STEC), serotype O104:H4. Commission Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU of 6 July 2011 on emergency measures applicable to fenugreek seeds and certain seeds and beans imported from Egypt (2) introduced a ban on imports of products of specific tax codes listed in the Annex.\n(3)\nFrom 21 August to 25 August 2011, the Commission\u2019s Food and Veterinary Office conducted an audit in Egypt in order to trace back the possible source of infection of the recent E. coli outbreaks (O104:H4 serotype) in the northern part of Germany and Bordeaux, France, and to evaluate the production and processing conditions of the suspect seeds.\n(4)\nWhile the findings of the audit and the actions being taken by Egypt are still under review, shortcomings were identified in the production of seeds for human consumption that may potentially be sprouted. The same shortcomings were however not present in the production sites of fresh leguminous vegetables for direct human consumption. In addition, since fresh or chilled leguminous vegetables are traded when seeds are not ripe yet, such seeds cannot be used for sprouting.\n(5)\nFresh or chilled leguminous vegetables other than sprouts, imported from Egypt should no longer be considered as a food safety risk and be re-authorised for import. The emergency measures in Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU should therefore be reviewed based on this new information. The Annex to Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU should be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nImplementing Decision 2011/402/EU differentiates between mustard seeds for sowing and other mustard seeds under CN code 1207 50. Since these seeds represent all seeds under code CN 1207 50, the wording in Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU should be simplified. As well the sequence of the CN codes should be brought in line with the custom code nomenclature.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU shall be replaced with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 October 2011.", "references": ["58", "15", "6", "3", "89", "63", "93", "1", "98", "71", "88", "24", "12", "66", "20", "84", "49", "64", "92", "19", "83", "91", "33", "82", "78", "41", "2", "70", "57", "36", "No Label", "21", "22", "38", "65", "68", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "38", "65", "68", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/423/CFSP\nof 18 July 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures against Sudan and South Sudan and repealing Common Position 2005/411/CFSP\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 30 May 2005, the Council adopted Common Position 2005/411/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against Sudan. Common Position 2005/411/CFSP integrated the measures imposed by Common Position 2004/31/CFSP (2) and the measures to be imposed pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1591 (2005) (\u2018UNSCR 1591 (2005)\u2019) into a single legal instrument.\n(2)\nThe scope of the restrictive measures imposed by Common Position 2005/411/CFSP should be adapted, and that Common Position should be replaced.\n(3)\nThe procedure for amending the Annex to this Decision should include a requirement to communicate to the designated persons and entities the grounds for listing, as provided by the Sanctions Committee established under UNSCR 1591 (2005), so as to give them an opportunity to present observations. Where observations are submitted or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in the light thereof and inform the person or entity concerned accordingly.\n(4)\nThis Decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the right to property and the right to the protection of personal data. This Decision should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(5)\nThis Decision also fully respects the obligations of Member States under the United Nations Charter and the legally binding nature of United Nations Security Council Resolutions.\n(6)\nThe Union implementing measures are set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 131/2004 of 26 January 2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Sudan (3) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1184/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons impeding the peace process and breaking international law in the conflict in the Darfur region in Sudan (4),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1591 (2005), restrictive measures as set out in Articles 2(1) and 3(1) of this Decision shall be imposed against those individuals who impede the peace process, constitute a threat to stability in Darfur and the region, commit violations of international humanitarian or human rights law or other atrocities, violate the arms embargo and/or are responsible for offensive military overflights in and over the Darfur region, as designated by the Committee established by paragraph 3 of UNSCR 1591 (2005) (the \u2018Sanctions Committee\u2019).\nThe relevant persons are listed in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the persons referred to in Article 1.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where the Sanctions Committee determines that travel is justified on the grounds of humanitarian need, including religious obligation, or where the Sanctions Committee concludes that an exemption would further the objectives of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions for the creation of peace and stability in Sudan and the region.\n4. In cases where pursuant to paragraph 3, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons designated by the Sanctions Committee, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\nArticle 3\n1. All funds, other financial assets and economic resources owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the persons referred to in Article 1 or held by entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons or by any persons acting on their behalf or at their direction, as identified in the Annex, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds, financial assets or economic resources shall be made available directly or indirectly to or for the benefit of such persons or entities.\n3. Exemptions may be made for funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are:\n(a)\nnecessary for basic expenses, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges, in accordance with national laws, for the routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds, other financial assets and economic resources;\nafter notification by the Member State concerned to the Sanctions Committee of the intention to authorise, where appropriate, access to such funds, other financial assets and economic resources and in the absence of a negative decision by the Sanctions Committee within 2 working days of such notification;\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, after notification by the Member State concerned to and approval by the Sanctions Committee;\n(e)\nthe subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien or judgement, in which case the funds, other financial assets and economic resources may be used to satisfy that lien or judgement provided that the lien or judgement was entered prior to the date of the UNSCR 1591 (2005), and is not for the benefit of a person or entity referred to in this Article, after notification by the Member State concerned to the Sanctions Committee.\n4. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to restrictive measures;\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to paragraph 1.\nArticle 4\n1. The sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned to Sudan or South Sudan by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, shall be prohibited whether originating or not in their territories.\n2. It shall also be prohibited to:\n(a)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance, brokering services or other services related to the items referred to in paragraph 1 or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of such items, to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Sudan or South Sudan;\n(b)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the items referred to in paragraph 1, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for the provision of related technical assistance, brokering services or other services to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Sudan or South Sudan;\n(c)\nparticipate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities, the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) or (b).\nArticle 5\n1. Article 4 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian, human rights monitoring or protective use, or for institution building programmes of the United Nations (UN), the African Union, the European Union, or of material intended for European Union, UN and African Union crisis management operations;\n(b)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of non-combat vehicles which have been manufactured or fitted with materials to provide ballistic protection, intended solely for protective use of personnel of the European Union and its Member States in Sudan or South Sudan;\n(c)\nthe provision of technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to such equipment or to such programmes and operations;\n(d)\nthe provision of financing and financial assistance related to such equipment or to such programmes and operations;\n(e)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of de-mining equipment and materiel for use in de-mining operations;\n(f)\nthe provision of technical assistance, brokering and other services and financial assistance, and sales, supplies, transfers or exports in support of the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement;\n(g)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal military equipment intended solely for the support of the process of Security Sector Reform in South Sudan as well as the provision of financing, financial assistance or technical assistance related to such equipment;\non condition that such deliveries have been approved in advance by the competent authority of the Member State in question.\n2. Article 4 shall also not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to Sudan or South Sudan by United Nations personnel, personnel of the European Union, or its Member States, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only.\n3. Member States shall consider deliveries under this Article on a case-by-case basis, taking full account of the criteria set out in Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment (5). Member States shall require adequate safeguards against misuse of authorisations granted under this Article and, where appropriate, make provisions for repatriation of the equipment.\nArticle 6\nThe Council shall establish the list contained in the Annex and implement any modifications thereof on the basis of determinations made by the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 7\n1. Where the United Nations Security Council or the Sanctions Committee lists a person or entity, the Council shall include such person or entity in the Annex. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the person or entity concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person or entity an opportunity to present observations.\n2. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person or entity concerned accordingly.\nArticle 8\n1. The Annex shall include the grounds for the listing of listed persons and entities as provided by the United Nations Security Council or the Sanctions Committee.\n2. The Annex shall also include, where available, information provided by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee necessary to identify the persons or entities concerned. With regard to persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and identity card numbers, gender, address, if known, and function or profession. With regard to entities, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. The Annex shall also include the date of designation by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 9\n1. The measures referred to in Articles 2 and 3 shall be reviewed by 19 July 2012, in the light of the determinations of the United Nations Security Council regarding the situation in Sudan.\n2. The measures referred to in Article 4 shall be reviewed by the date referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, and every 12 months thereafter. They shall be repealed if the Council deems that their objectives have been met.\nArticle 10\nCommon Position 2005/411/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 11\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["57", "62", "40", "70", "63", "0", "56", "59", "69", "85", "92", "88", "15", "12", "6", "44", "91", "58", "28", "9", "82", "11", "61", "79", "2", "41", "26", "39", "95", "77", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 752/2010\nof 18 August 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for blue ling in EU waters and international waters of VI, VII by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 August 2010.", "references": ["79", "40", "20", "61", "69", "6", "90", "59", "78", "51", "80", "70", "16", "33", "46", "34", "98", "86", "8", "26", "48", "2", "65", "60", "87", "39", "83", "81", "37", "55", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1034/2011\nof 17 October 2011\non safety oversight in air traffic management and air navigation services and amending Regulation (EU) No 691/2010\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (\u2018the service provision Regulation\u2019) (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the organisation and use of the airspace in the single European sky (\u2018the airspace Regulation\u2019) (2), and in particular Article 6 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (3), and in particular Article 8b thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, the Commission, assisted by the European Aviation Safety Agency (\u2018the Agency\u2019), is required to adopt the relevant implementing rules to provide a set of safety regulatory requirements for the implementation of an effective air traffic management (ATM) safety oversight function. Article 8b of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 requires these implementing rules to be developed based on the regulations adopted pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (\u2018the framework Regulation\u2019) (4). This Regulation is based on Commission Regulation (EC) No 1315/2007 of 8 November 2007 on safety oversight in air traffic management and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 (5).\n(2)\nThere is a need to further define the role and functions of competent authorities based on the provisions of Regulations (EC) No 216/2008, (EC) No 549/2004, (EC) No 550/2004, and (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network (\u2018the interoperability Regulation\u2019) (6). These regulations include requirements on the safety of air navigation services. While providers are responsible for the safe provision of air navigation services, Member States should ensure effective supervision through competent authorities.\n(3)\nThis Regulation should not cover military operations and training, as provided for in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 and Article 1(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n(4)\nCompetent authorities should conduct safety regulatory audits and reviews in accordance with this Regulation as part of the proper inspections and surveys required by Regulations (EC) No 216/2008 and (EC) No 550/2004.\n(5)\nCompetent authorities should consider using the safety oversight approach of this Regulation in other areas of oversight as appropriate in order to deliver efficient and coherent supervision.\n(6)\nAir navigation services, as well as air traffic flow management (ATFM) and airspace management (ASM), use functional systems that enable the management of air traffic. Therefore any changes to functional systems should be subject to a safety oversight.\n(7)\nCompetent authorities should take all necessary measures in case a system or a constituent of a system does not comply with the relevant requirements. In this context, and in particular when a safety directive has to be issued, the competent authority should consider instructing the notified bodies involved in issuing the Declaration referred to in Article 5 or 6 of Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 to conduct specific investigations with regard to that technical system.\n(8)\nAnnual safety oversight reporting by competent authorities should contribute to the transparency and accountability of safety oversight. Such reports should be addressed to the Commission, the Agency and the Member State nominating or establishing the competent authority. Furthermore, annual safety oversight reports should be used in the context of regional cooperation, standardisation inspections under Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and international safety oversight monitoring. The content of the reports should include relevant information with regard to the monitoring of safety performance, compliance with applicable safety regulatory requirements by supervised organisations, the programme of safety regulatory audits, the review of the safety arguments, changes to functional systems implemented by supervised organisations in accordance with procedures accepted by the competent authority and safety directives issued by such authority.\n(9)\nPursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004, competent authorities should make appropriate arrangements for close cooperation with each other to ensure adequate supervision of air navigation service providers which provide services relating to the airspace falling under the responsibility of a Member State different from the Member State which issued the certificate. Pursuant to Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, competent authorities should exchange in particular appropriate information about the safety oversight of organisations.\n(10)\nThe Agency should further evaluate the provisions of this Regulation, in particular those related to the safety oversight of changes, and issue an opinion to adapt such changes towards a total system approach, taking into account the integration of these provisions into the future common regulatory structure for civil aviation safety and the experience gained by stakeholders and competent authorities. The Agency\u2019s opinion should further aim at facilitating the implementation of the State Safety Programme (SSP) of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) within the Union as part of this total system approach.\n(11)\nThe safe execution of some of the network functions set up according to Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 requires that the entity involved should be subject to certain safety requirements. These requirements, which aim to ensure that such entity or organisation operates in a safe manner, are laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 677/2011 of 7 July 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of air traffic management (ATM) network functions and amending Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 (7). These are organisation safety requirements which are very similar to those general requirements laid down in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1035/2011 (8), but adapted to the safety responsibilities of the network functions. In order to support a total system approach for safety regulation in the field of civil aviation, the execution of these requirements needs to be overseen in the same manner as air navigation service providers are overseen.\n(12)\nIn its recommendations of July 2007, the High Level Group for the Future European Aviation Regulatory Framework highlighted the need to separate regulatory oversight from the provision of services or functions. In line with this principle, Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 provides that the entity nominated to perform the network functions needs to be subject to appropriate oversight arrangements. Since the Agency already carries out the independent safety oversight function of the pan-European ATM/ANS providers in accordance with Article 22a of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, it would be fully in line with the European aviation safety policy to entrust it with supporting the Commission in performing the same tasks concerning the European network functions.\n(13)\nRegulation (EC) No 1315/2007 should therefore be repealed.\n(14)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 (9) should be amended in order to be adapted to this Regulation.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation establishes requirements to be applied to the exercise of the safety oversight function by competent authorities concerning air navigation services, air traffic flow management (ATFM), airspace management (ASM) for general air traffic and other network functions.\n2. This Regulation shall apply to the activities of competent authorities and qualified entities acting on their behalf regarding the safety oversight of air navigation services, ATFM, ASM and other network functions.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 and Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 apply. However, the definition of \u2018certificate\u2019 in Article 2(15) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 does not apply.\nThe following definitions also apply:\n(1)\n\u2018corrective action\u2019 means an action to eliminate the cause of a detected non-conformity;\n(2)\n\u2018functional system\u2019 means a combination of systems, procedures and human resources organised to perform a function within the context of ATM;\n(3)\n\u2018Network Manager\u2019 means the impartial and competent body entrusted pursuant to Article 6(2) or (6) of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 to perform the duties described in that Article and this Regulation;\n(4)\n\u2018network functions\u2019 means the specific functions described in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004;\n(5)\n\u2018organisation\u2019 means either an air navigation service provider or an entity providing ATFM or ASM or other network functions;\n(6)\n\u2018process\u2019 means a set of interrelated or interacting activities which transforms inputs into outputs;\n(7)\n\u2018safety argument\u2019 means the demonstration and evidence that a proposed change to a functional system can be implemented within the targets or standards established through the existing regulatory framework consistently with the safety regulatory requirements;\n(8)\n\u2018safety directive\u2019 means a document issued or adopted by a competent authority which mandates actions to be performed on a functional system to restore safety, when evidence shows that aviation safety may otherwise be compromised;\n(9)\n\u2018safety objective\u2019 means a qualitative or quantitative statement that defines the maximum frequency or probability at which a hazard can be expected to occur;\n(10)\n\u2018safety regulatory audit\u2019 means a systematic and independent examination conducted by, or on behalf of, a competent authority to determine whether complete safety-related arrangements or elements thereof, related to processes and their results, products or services, comply with required safety-related arrangements and whether they are implemented effectively and are suitable to achieve expected results;\n(11)\n\u2018safety regulatory requirements\u2019 means the requirements established by the Union or national regulations for the provision of air navigation services or ATFM and ASM functions or other network functions as well as concerning the technical and operational competence and suitability to provide these services and functions, their safety management, as well as systems, their constituents and associated procedures;\n(12)\n\u2018safety requirement\u2019 means a risk mitigation, defined from the risk mitigation strategy that achieves a particular safety objective, including organisational, operational, procedural, functional, performance and interoperability requirements or environmental characteristics;\n(13)\n\u2018verification\u2019 means confirmation through the provision of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled;\n(14)\n\u2018pan-European ATM/ANS\u2019 means an activity which is designed and established for users within most or all Member States and which may also extend beyond the airspace of the territory to which the Treaty applies.\nArticle 3\nCompetent authorities for oversight\nFor the purpose of this Regulation and without prejudice to the mutual recognition of air navigation service providers certificates in accordance with Article 7(8) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 and Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, competent authorities for oversight shall be:\n(a)\nfor organisations having their principal place of operation and, if any, their registered office located in a Member State while providing air navigation services in the territory of that Member State, the national supervisory authority nominated or established by that Member State;\n(b)\nfor organisations for which under the agreements concluded among Member States in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004, the responsibilities for safety oversight have been allocated differently from point (a), the competent authorities nominated or established under those agreements. These agreements shall comply with the requirements of Article 2(3) to (6) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004;\n(c)\nfor organisations providing ATM/air navigation services in the airspace of the territory to which the Treaty applies and having their principal place of operation and, if any, their registered office located outside the territory subject to the provisions of the Treaty, the European Aviation Safety Agency (\u2018the Agency\u2019);\n(d)\nfor organisations providing pan-European ATM/ANS as well as for all other network functions in the airspace of the territory to which the Treaty applies, the Agency.\nArticle 4\nSafety oversight function\n1. Competent authorities shall exercise safety oversight as part of their supervision of requirements applicable to air navigation services as well as to ATFM, ASM and other network functions, in order to monitor the safe provision of these activities and to verify that the applicable safety regulatory requirements and their implementing arrangements are met.\n2. When concluding an agreement on the supervision of organisations active in functional airspace blocks which extend across the airspace falling under the responsibility of more than one Member State or in cases of cross-border provision, Member States concerned shall identify and allocate the responsibilities for safety oversight in a manner which ensures that:\n(a)\nspecific points of responsibility exist to implement each provision of this Regulation;\n(b)\nMember States have visibility of the safety oversight mechanisms and their results;\n(c)\nrelevant information exchange is ensured between the overseeing authorities and the certifying authority.\nMember States shall regularly review the agreement and its practical implementation in particular in the light of achieved safety performance.\n3. When concluding an agreement on the supervision of organisations active in functional airspace blocks or in cross-border activities in which the Agency is the competent authority for at least one of the organisations in accordance with Article 3(b), the Member States concerned shall coordinate with the Agency so as to ensure that points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 are met.\nArticle 5\nMonitoring of safety performance\n1. Competent authorities shall provide regular monitoring and assessment of the levels of safety achieved in order to determine whether they comply with the safety regulatory requirements applicable in the airspace blocks under their responsibility.\n2. Competent authorities shall use the results of the monitoring of safety in particular to determine areas in which the verification of compliance with safety regulatory requirements is necessary as a matter of priority.\nArticle 6\nVerification of compliance with safety regulatory requirements\n1. Competent authorities shall establish a process in order to verify:\n(a)\ncompliance with applicable safety regulatory requirements prior to the issue or renewal of a certificate necessary to provide air navigation services including safety-related conditions attached to it;\n(b)\ncompliance with any safety-related obligations in the designation act issued in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004;\n(c)\nongoing compliance of the organisations with applicable safety regulatory requirements;\n(d)\nimplementation of safety objectives, safety requirements and other safety-related conditions identified in:\n(i)\ndeclarations of verification of systems, including any relevant declaration of conformity or suitability for use of constituents of systems issued in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 552/2004;\n(ii)\nrisk assessment and mitigation procedures required by safety regulatory requirements applicable to air navigation services, ATFM, ASM and the Network Manager;\n(e)\nthe implementation of safety directives.\n2. The process referred to in paragraph 1 shall:\n(a)\nbe based on documented procedures;\n(b)\nbe supported by documentation specifically intended to provide safety oversight personnel with guidance to perform their functions;\n(c)\nprovide the organisations concerned with an indication of the results of the safety oversight activity;\n(d)\nbe based on safety regulatory audits and reviews conducted in accordance with Articles 7, 9 and 10;\n(e)\nprovide competent authorities with the evidence needed to support further action, including measures foreseen by Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, Article 7(7) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 and by Articles 10, 25 and 68 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 in situations where safety regulatory requirements are not being complied with.\nArticle 7\nSafety regulatory audits\n1. Competent authorities, or qualified entities as delegated by them shall conduct safety regulatory audits.\n2. The safety regulatory audits referred to in paragraph 1 shall:\n(a)\nprovide competent authorities with evidence of compliance with applicable safety regulatory requirements and with implementing arrangements by evaluating the need for improvement or corrective action;\n(b)\nbe independent of internal auditing activities undertaken by the organisation concerned as part of its safety or quality management systems;\n(c)\nbe conducted by auditors qualified in accordance with the requirements of Article 12;\n(d)\napply to complete implementing arrangements or elements thereof, and to processes, products or services;\n(e)\ndetermine whether:\n(i)\nimplementing arrangements comply with safety regulatory requirements;\n(ii)\nactions taken comply with the implementing arrangements;\n(iii)\nthe results of actions taken match the results expected from the implementing arrangements;\n(f)\nlead to the correction of any identified non-conformities in accordance with Article 8.\n3. Within the inspection programme required by Article 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1035/2011, competent authorities shall establish and update at least annually a programme of safety regulatory audits in order to:\n(a)\ncover all the areas of potential safety concern, with a focus on those areas where problems have been identified;\n(b)\ncover all the organisations, services and network functions operating under the supervision of the competent authority;\n(c)\nensure that audits are conducted in a manner commensurate to the level of risk posed by the organisations\u2019 activities;\n(d)\nensure that sufficient audits are conducted over a period of 2 years to check the compliance of all these organisations with applicable safety regulatory requirements in all the relevant areas of the functional system;\n(e)\nensure follow up of the implementation of corrective actions.\n4. Competent authorities may decide to modify the scope of pre-planned audits and to include additional audits, wherever that need arises.\n5. Competent authorities shall decide which arrangements, elements, services, functions, products, physical locations and activities are to be audited within a specified time frame.\n6. Audit observations and identified non-conformities shall be documented. The latter shall be supported by evidence, and identified in terms of the applicable safety regulatory requirements and their implementing arrangements against which the audit has been conducted.\n7. An audit report, including the details of the non-conformities, shall be drawn up.\nArticle 8\nCorrective actions\n1. Competent authorities shall communicate the audit findings to audited organisations and shall simultaneously request corrective actions to address the non-conformities identified without prejudice to any additional action required by the applicable safety regulatory requirements.\n2. Audited organisations shall determine the corrective actions deemed necessary to correct non-conformities and the time frame for their implementation.\n3. Competent authorities shall assess the corrective actions as well as their implementation as determined by audited organisations and accept them if the assessment concludes that they are sufficient to address the non-conformities.\n4. Audited organisations shall initiate the corrective actions accepted by competent authorities. These corrective actions and the subsequent follow-up process shall be completed within the time period accepted by competent authorities.\nArticle 9\nSafety oversight of changes to functional systems\n1. Organisations shall only use procedures accepted by the relevant competent authority when deciding whether to introduce a safety-related change to their functional systems. In case of air traffic service providers and communication, navigation or surveillance service providers, the relevant competent authority shall accept these procedures in the framework of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1035/2011.\n2. Organisations shall notify the relevant competent authority of all planned safety-related changes. To this effect, competent authorities shall establish appropriate administrative procedures in accordance with national law.\n3. Unless Article 10 applies, organisations may implement notified changes following the procedures referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.\nArticle 10\nReview procedure of the proposed changes\n1. Competent authorities shall review the safety arguments associated with new functional systems or changes to existing functional systems proposed by an organisation when:\n(a)\nthe severity assessment conducted in accordance with Annex II, point 3.2.4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1035/2011 determines a severity class 1 or a severity class 2 for the potential effects of the hazards identified; or\n(b)\nthe implementation of the changes requires the introduction of new aviation standards.\nWhen competent authorities determine the need for a review in situations other than those referred to in points (a) and (b), they shall notify the organisation that they will undertake a safety review of the notified changes.\n2. Reviews shall be conducted in a manner commensurate with the level of risk posed by the new functional systems or by the proposed changes to existing functional systems.\nReviews shall:\n(a)\nuse documented procedures;\n(b)\nbe supported by documentation specifically intended to provide safety oversight personnel with guidance to perform their functions;\n(c)\nconsider the safety objectives, safety requirements and other safety-related conditions that are related to the changes under consideration identified in:\n(i)\ndeclarations of verification of systems referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 552/2004;\n(ii)\ndeclarations of conformity or suitability for use of constituents of systems referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 552/2004; or\n(iii)\nrisk assessment and mitigation documentation established in accordance with applicable safety regulatory requirements;\n(d)\nidentify additional safety-related conditions associated to the implementation of the changes, wherever needed;\n(e)\nassess the acceptability of safety arguments presented, taking account of:\n(i)\nthe identification of hazards;\n(ii)\nthe consistency of the allocation of severity classes;\n(iii)\nthe validity of the safety objectives;\n(iv)\nthe validity, effectiveness and feasibility of safety requirements and any other safety-related conditions identified;\n(v)\nthe demonstration that the safety objectives, safety requirements and other safety-related conditions are continuously met;\n(vi)\nthe demonstration that the process used to produce the safety arguments meets the applicable safety regulatory requirements;\n(f)\nverify the processes used by organisations to produce the safety arguments in relation to the new functional system or changes to existing functional systems under consideration;\n(g)\nidentify the need for the verification of ongoing compliance;\n(h)\ninclude any necessary coordination activities with the authorities responsible for the safety oversight of airworthiness and flight operations;\n(i)\nprovide notification of the acceptance, with conditions where applicable, or the non-acceptance, with supporting reasons, of the change under consideration.\n3. The introduction into service of the changes under consideration in the review shall be subject to acceptance by competent authorities.\nArticle 11\nQualified entities\n1. When a competent authority decides to delegate to a qualified entity the conduct of safety regulatory audits or reviews in accordance with this Regulation, it shall ensure that the criteria used to select an entity amongst those qualified in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 and Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 include the following:\n(a)\nthe qualified entity has prior experience in assessing safety in aviation entities;\n(b)\nthe qualified entity is not simultaneously involved in internal activities within the safety or quality management systems of the organisation concerned;\n(c)\nall personnel concerned with the conduct of safety regulatory audits or reviews are adequately trained and qualified and meet the qualification criteria of Article 12(3) of this Regulation.\n2. The qualified entity shall accept the possibility of being audited by the competent authority or any body acting on its behalf.\n3. Competent authorities shall maintain a record of the qualified entities commissioned to conduct safety regulatory audits or reviews on their behalf. Such records shall document compliance with the requirements contained in paragraph 1.\nArticle 12\nSafety Oversight capabilities\n1. Member States and the Commission shall ensure that competent authorities have the necessary capability to ensure the safety oversight of all organisations operating under their supervision, including sufficient resources to carry out the actions identified in this Regulation.\n2. Competent authorities shall produce and update every 2 years, an assessment of the human resources needed to perform their safety oversight functions, based on the analysis of the processes required by this Regulation and their application.\n3. Competent authorities shall ensure that all persons involved in safety oversight activities are competent to perform the required function. In that regard they shall:\n(a)\ndefine and document the education, training, technical and operational knowledge, experience and qualifications relevant to the duties of each position involved in safety oversight activities within their structure;\n(b)\nensure specific training for those involved in safety oversight activities within their structure;\n(c)\nensure that personnel designated to conduct safety regulatory audits, including auditing personnel from qualified entities, meet specific qualification criteria defined by the competent authority. The criteria shall address:\n(i)\nthe knowledge and understanding of the requirements related to air navigation services, ATFM, ASM and other network functions against which safety regulatory audits may be performed;\n(ii)\nthe use of assessment techniques;\n(iii)\nthe skills required for managing an audit;\n(iv)\nthe demonstration of competence of auditors through evaluation or other acceptable means.\nArticle 13\nSafety directives\n1. Competent authorities shall issue a safety directive when they have determined the existence of an unsafe condition in a functional system requiring immediate action.\n2. Safety directives shall be forwarded to the organisations concerned and contain, as a minimum, the following information:\n(a)\nthe identification of the unsafe condition;\n(b)\nthe identification of the affected functional system;\n(c)\nthe actions required and their rationale;\n(d)\nthe time limit for compliance of the required actions with the safety directive;\n(e)\nits date of entry into force.\n3. Competent authorities shall forward a copy of the safety directive to the Agency and any other competent authorities concerned, in particular those involved in the safety oversight of the functional system, and to the Commission.\n4. Competent authorities shall verify the compliance with applicable safety directives.\nArticle 14\nSafety oversight records\nCompetent authorities shall keep and maintain access to the appropriate records related to their safety oversight processes, including the reports of all safety regulatory audits and other safety-related records related to certificates, designations, the safety oversight of changes, safety directives and the use of qualified entities.\nArticle 15\nSafety oversight reporting\n1. Competent authorities shall report annually on safety oversight actions pursuant to this Regulation. The annual safety oversight report shall also include information on the following:\n(a)\norganisational structure and procedures of the competent authority;\n(b)\nairspace falling under the responsibility of Member States which established or nominated the competent authority, if applicable, and organisations falling under the supervision of that competent authority;\n(c)\nqualified entities commissioned to conduct safety regulatory audits;\n(d)\nexisting levels of resources of the competent authority;\n(e)\nany safety issues identified through the safety oversight processes operated by the competent authority.\n2. Member States shall use the reports produced by their competent authorities when submitting their annual reports to the Commission as required by Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004.\nThe annual safety oversight reports shall be made available to the Member States concerned in the case of functional airspace blocks, to the Agency and to the programmes or activities conducted under agreed international arrangements to monitor or audit the implementation of the safety oversight of air navigation services, ATFM, ASM and other network functions.\nArticle 16\nInformation exchange between competent authorities\nCompetent authorities shall make arrangements for close cooperation in accordance with Articles 10 and 15 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 and exchange any appropriate information to ensure the safety oversight of all organisations providing cross-border services or functions.\nArticle 17\nTransitional provisions\n1. Actions initiated before the entry into force of this Regulation on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1315/2007 shall be managed in accordance with this Regulation.\n2. The authority of a Member State which has had the responsibility for the safety oversight of organisations for which the Agency is the competent authority in accordance with Article 3 shall transfer to the Agency the safety oversight function of these organisations 12 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation, except in the case of the safety oversight of the Network Manager where the transfer, if any, to the Commission, assisted by the Agency, shall be made on the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 18\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 1315/2007 is repealed.\nArticle 19\nAmendment to Regulation (EU) No 691/2010\nIn Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 691/2010, point 1.1(e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nNSA safety reports as referred to in Articles 7, 8 and 14 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1034/2011 (10) as well as NSA reports on resolution of safety deficiencies identified that are subject to corrective action plans;\nArticle 20\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 October 2011.", "references": ["41", "5", "6", "96", "33", "61", "25", "3", "0", "16", "10", "28", "66", "69", "91", "43", "95", "9", "80", "2", "74", "27", "77", "60", "15", "93", "86", "51", "92", "97", "No Label", "7", "13", "42", "46", "53", "57", "76"], "gold": ["7", "13", "42", "46", "53", "57", "76"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 995/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 20 October 2010\nlaying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nForests provide a broad variety of environmental, economic and social benefits including timber and non-timber forest products and environmental services essential for humankind, such as maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem functions and protecting the climate system.\n(2)\nDue to the growing demand for timber and timber products worldwide, in combination with the institutional and governance deficiencies that are present in the forest sector in a number of timber-producing countries, illegal logging and the associated trade have become matters of ever greater concern.\n(3)\nIllegal logging is a pervasive problem of major international concern. It poses a significant threat to forests as it contributes to the process of deforestation and forest degradation, which is responsible for about 20 % of global CO2 emissions, threatens biodiversity, and undermines sustainable forest management and development including the commercial viability of operators acting in accordance with applicable legislation. It also contributes to desertification and soil erosion and can exacerbate extreme weather events and flooding. In addition, it has social, political and economic implications, often undermining progress towards good governance and threatening the livelihood of local forest-dependent communities, and it can be linked to armed conflicts. Combating the problem of illegal logging in the context of this Regulation is expected to contribute to the Union\u2019s climate change mitigation efforts in a cost-effective manner and should be seen as complementary to Union action and commitments in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.\n(4)\nDecision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme (3) identifies as a priority action the examination of the possibility of taking active measures to prevent and combat trade in illegally harvested wood and the continuation of the active participation of the Union and of Member States in the implementation of global and regional resolutions and agreements on forest-related issues.\n(5)\nThe Commission Communication of 21 May 2003 entitled \u2018Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT): Proposal for an EU Action Plan\u2019 proposed a package of measures to support international efforts to tackle the problem of illegal logging and associated trade in the context of overall efforts of the Union to achieve sustainable forest management.\n(6)\nThe European Parliament and the Council welcomed that Communication and recognised the need for the Union to contribute to global efforts to address the problem of illegal logging.\n(7)\nIn accordance with the aim of that Communication, namely to ensure that only timber products which have been produced in accordance with the national legislation of the timber-producing country enter the Union, the Union has been negotiating Voluntary Partnership Agreements (FLEGT VPAs) with timber-producing countries (partner countries), which create a legally binding obligation for the parties to implement a licensing scheme and to regulate trade in timber and timber products identified in those FLEGT VPAs.\n(8)\nGiven the major scale and urgency of the problem, it is necessary to support the fight against illegal logging and related trade actively, to complement and strengthen the FLEGT VPA initiative and to improve synergies between policies aimed at the conservation of forests and the achievement of a high level of environmental protection, including combating climate change and biodiversity loss.\n(9)\nThe efforts made by countries which have concluded FLEGT VPAs with the Union and the principles incorporated in them, in particular with regard to the definition of legally produced timber, should be recognised and further encouragement for countries to conclude FLEGT VPAs should be given. It should be also taken into account that under the FLEGT licensing scheme only timber harvested in accordance with the relevant national legislation and timber products derived from such timber are exported into the Union. Therefore, timber embedded in timber products listed in Annexes II and III to Council Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 of 20 December 2005 on the establishment of a FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of timber into the European Community (4), originating in partner countries listed in Annex I to that Regulation, should be considered to have been legally harvested provided those timber products comply with that Regulation and any implementing provisions.\n(10)\nAccount should also be taken of the fact that the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) places a requirement on parties to CITES only to grant a CITES permit for export when a CITES-listed species has been harvested, inter alia, in compliance with national legislation in the exporting country. Therefore timber of species listed in Annex A, B or C to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (5) should be considered to have been legally harvested provided it complies with that Regulation and any implementing provisions.\n(11)\nBearing in mind that the use of recycled timber and timber products should be encouraged, and that including such products in the scope of this Regulation would place a disproportionate burden on operators, used timber and timber products that have completed their lifecycle, and would otherwise be disposed of as waste, should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation.\n(12)\nThe placing on the internal market for the first time of illegally harvested timber or timber products derived from such timber should be prohibited as one of the measures of this Regulation. Taking into account the complexity of illegal logging, its underlying causes and its impacts, specific measures should be taken, such as those that target the behaviour of operators.\n(13)\nIn the context of the FLEGT Action Plan the Commission and, where appropriate, Member States may support and conduct studies and research on the levels and nature of illegal logging in different countries and make such information publicly available, as well as support the provision of practical guidance to operators on applicable legislation in timber-producing countries.\n(14)\nIn the absence of an internationally agreed definition, the legislation of the country where the timber was harvested, including regulations as well as the implementation in that country of relevant international conventions to which that country is party, should be the basis for defining what constitutes illegal logging.\n(15)\nMany timber products undergo numerous processes before and after they are placed on the internal market for the first time. In order to avoid imposing any unnecessary administrative burden, only operators that place timber and timber products on the internal market for the first time should be subject to the due diligence system, while a trader in the supply chain should be required to provide basic information on its supplier and its buyer to enable the traceability of timber and timber products.\n(16)\nOn the basis of a systemic approach, operators placing timber and timber products for the first time on the internal market should take the appropriate steps in order to ascertain that illegally harvested timber and timber products derived from such timber are not placed on the internal market. To that end, operators should exercise due diligence through a system of measures and procedures to minimise the risk of placing illegally harvested timber and timber products derived from such timber on the internal market.\n(17)\nThe due diligence system includes three elements inherent to risk management: access to information, risk assessment and mitigation of the risk identified. The due diligence system should provide access to information about the sources and suppliers of the timber and timber products being placed on the internal market for the first time, including relevant information such as compliance with the applicable legislation, the country of harvest, species, quantity, and where applicable sub-national region and concession of harvest. On the basis of this information, operators should carry out a risk assessment. Where a risk is identified, operators should mitigate such risk in a manner proportionate to the risk identified, with a view to preventing illegally harvested timber and timber products derived from such timber from being placed on the internal market.\n(18)\nIn order to avoid any unnecessary administrative burden, operators already using systems or procedures which comply with the requirements of this Regulation should not be required to set up new systems.\n(19)\nIn order to recognise good practice in the forestry sector, certification or other third party verified schemes that include verification of compliance with applicable \u013aegislation may be used in the risk assessment procedure.\n(20)\nThe timber sector is of major importance for the economy of the Union. Organisations of operators are important actors in the sector as they represent the interests of the latter on a large scale and interact with a diverse range of stakeholders. Those organisations also have the expertise and capacity to analyse relevant legislation and facilitate the compliance of their members, but should not use this competence to dominate the market. In order to facilitate the implementation of this Regulation and to contribute to the development of good practices it is appropriate to recognise organisations which have developed due diligence systems meeting the requirements of this Regulation. Recognition and withdrawal of recognition of monitoring organisations should be performed in a fair and transparent manner. A list of such recognised organisations should be made public in order to enable operators to use them.\n(21)\nCompetent authorities should carry out checks at regular intervals on monitoring organisations to verify that they effectively fulfil the obligations laid down in this Regulation. Moreover, competent authorities should endeavour to carry out checks when in possession of relevant information, including substantiated concerns from third parties.\n(22)\nCompetent authorities should monitor that operators effectively fulfil the obligations laid down in this Regulation. For that purpose the competent authorities should carry out official checks, in accordance with a plan as appropriate, which may include checks on the premises of operators and field audits, and should be able to require operators to take remedial actions where necessary. Moreover, competent authorities should endeavour to carry out checks when in possession of relevant information, including substantiated concerns from third parties.\n(23)\nCompetent authorities should keep records of the checks and the relevant information should be made available in accordance with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information (6).\n(24)\nTaking into account the international character of illegal logging and related trade, competent authorities should cooperate with each other and with the administrative authorities of third countries and the Commission.\n(25)\nIn order to facilitate the ability of operators who place timber or timber products on the internal market to comply with the requirements of this Regulation, taking into account the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises, Member States, assisted by the Commission where appropriate, may provide operators with technical and other assistance and facilitate the exchange of information. Such assistance should not release operators from their obligation to exercise due diligence.\n(26)\nTraders and monitoring organisations should refrain from measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objective of this Regulation.\n(27)\nMember States should ensure that infringements of this Regulation, including by operators, traders and monitoring organisations, are sanctioned by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties. National rules may provide that, after effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties are applied for infringements of the prohibition of placing on the internal market of illegally harvested timber or timber products derived from such timber, such timber and timber products should not necessarily be destroyed but may instead be used or disposed of for public interest purposes.\n(28)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) concerning the procedures for the recognition and withdrawal of recognition of monitoring organisations, concerning further relevant risk assessment criteria that may be necessary to supplement those already provided for in this Regulation and concerning the list of timber and timber products to which this Regulation applies. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(29)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for implementation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt detailed rules with regard to the frequency and the nature of the checks by competent authorities on monitoring organisations and to the due diligence systems except as regards further relevant risk assessment criteria. In accordance with Article 291 TFEU, rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers are to be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new regulation Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (7) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable.\n(30)\nOperators and competent authorities should be given a reasonable period in order to prepare themselves to meet the requirements of this Regulation.\n(31)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely the fight against illegal logging and related trade, cannot be achieved by the Member States individually and can therefore, by reason of its scale, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the internal market for the first time, as well as the obligations of traders.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018timber and timber products\u2019 means the timber and timber products set out in the Annex, with the exception of timber products or components of such products manufactured from timber or timber products that have completed their lifecycle and would otherwise be disposed of as waste, as defined in Article 3(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste (8),\n(b)\n\u2018placing on the market\u2019 means the supply by any means, irrespective of the selling technique used, of timber or timber products for the first time on the internal market for distribution or use in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge. It also includes the supply by means of distance communication as defined in Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (9). The supply on the internal market of timber products derived from timber or timber products already placed on the internal market shall not constitute \u2018placing on the market\u2019;\n(c)\n\u2018operator\u2019 means any natural or legal person that places timber or timber products on the market;\n(d)\n\u2018trader\u2019 means any natural or legal person who, in the course of a commercial activity, sells or buys on the internal market timber or timber products already placed on the internal market;\n(e)\n\u2018country of harvest\u2019 means the country or territory where the timber or the timber embedded in the timber products was harvested;\n(f)\n\u2018legally harvested\u2019 means harvested in accordance with the applicable legislation in the country of harvest;\n(g)\n\u2018illegally harvested\u2019 means harvested in contravention of the applicable legislation in the country of harvest;\n(h)\n\u2018applicable legislation\u2019 means the legislation in force in the country of harvest covering the following matters:\n-\nrights to harvest timber within legally gazetted boundaries,\n-\npayments for harvest rights and timber including duties related to timber harvesting,\n-\ntimber harvesting, including environmental and forest legislation including forest management and biodiversity conservation, where directly related to timber harvesting,\n-\nthird parties\u2019 legal rights concerning use and tenure that are affected by timber harvesting, and\n-\ntrade and customs, in so far as the forest sector is concerned.\nArticle 3\nStatus of timber and timber products covered by FLEGT and CITES\nTimber embedded in timber products listed in Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 which originate in partner countries listed in Annex I to that Regulation and which comply with that Regulation and its implementing provisions shall be considered to have been legally harvested for the purposes of this Regulation.\nTimber of species listed in Annex A, B or C to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and which complies with that Regulation and its implementing provisions shall be considered to have been legally harvested for the purposes of this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nObligations of operators\n1. The placing on the market of illegally harvested timber or timber products derived from such timber shall be prohibited.\n2. Operators shall exercise due diligence when placing timber or timber products on the market. To that end, they shall use a framework of procedures and measures, hereinafter referred to as a \u2018due diligence system\u2019, as set out in Article 6.\n3. Each operator shall maintain and regularly evaluate the due diligence system which it uses, except where the operator makes use of a due diligence system established by a monitoring organisation referred to in Article 8. Existing supervision systems under national legislation and any voluntary chain of custody mechanism which fulfil the requirements of this Regulation may be used as a basis for the due diligence system.\nArticle 5\nObligation of traceability\nTraders shall, throughout the supply chain, be able to identify:\n(a)\nthe operators or the traders who have supplied the timber and timber products; and\n(b)\nwhere applicable, the traders to whom they have supplied timber and timber products.\nTraders shall keep the information referred to in the first paragraph for at least five years and shall provide that information to competent authorities if they so request.\nArticle 6\nDue diligence systems\n1. The due diligence system referred to in Article 4(2) shall contain the following elements:\n(a)\nmeasures and procedures providing access to the following information concerning the operator\u2019s supply of timber or timber products placed on the market:\n-\ndescription, including the trade name and type of product as well as the common name of tree species and, where applicable, its full scientific name,\n-\ncountry of harvest, and where applicable:\n(i)\nsub-national region where the timber was harvested; and\n(ii)\nconcession of harvest,\n-\nquantity (expressed in volume, weight or number of units),\n-\nname and address of the supplier to the operator,\n-\nname and address of the trader to whom the timber and timber products have been supplied,\n-\ndocuments or other information indicating compliance of those timber and timber products with the applicable legislation;\n(b)\nrisk assessment procedures enabling the operator to analyse and evaluate the risk of illegally harvested timber or timber products derived from such timber being placed on the market.\nSuch procedures shall take into account the information set out in point (a) as well as relevant risk assessment criteria, including:\n-\nassurance of compliance with applicable legislation, which may include certification or other third-party-verified schemes which cover compliance with applicable legislation,\n-\nprevalence of illegal harvesting of specific tree species,\n-\nprevalence of illegal harvesting or practices in the country of harvest and/or sub-national region where the timber was harvested, including consideration of the prevalence of armed conflict,\n-\nsanctions imposed by the UN Security Council or the Council of the European Union on timber imports or exports,\n-\ncomplexity of the supply chain of timber and timber products.\n(c)\nexcept where the risk identified in course of the risk assessment procedures referred to in point (b) is negligible, risk mitigation procedures which consist of a set of measures and procedures that are adequate and proportionate to minimise effectively that risk and which may include requiring additional information or documents and/or requiring third party verification.\n2. Detailed rules necessary to ensure the uniform implementation of paragraph 1, except as regards further relevant risk assessment criteria referred to in the second sentence of paragraph 1(b) of this Article, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 18(2). Those rules shall be adopted by 3 June 2012.\n3. Taking into account market developments and the experience gained in the implementation of this Regulation, in particular as identified through the exchange of information referred to in Article 13 and the reporting referred to in Article 20(3), the Commission may adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU as regards further relevant risk assessment criteria that may be necessary to supplement those referred to in the second sentence of paragraph 1(b) of this Article with a view to ensuring the effectiveness of the due diligence system.\nFor the delegated acts referred to in this paragraph the procedures set out in Articles 15, 16 and 17 shall apply.\nArticle 7\nCompetent authorities\n1. Each Member State shall designate one or more competent authorities responsible for the application of this Regulation.\nMember States shall inform the Commission of the names and addresses of the competent authorities by 3 June 2011. Member States shall inform the Commission of any changes to the names or addresses of the competent authorities.\n2. The Commission shall make publicly available, including on the Internet, a list of the competent authorities. The list shall be regularly updated.\nArticle 8\nMonitoring organisations\n1. A monitoring organisation shall:\n(a)\nmaintain and regularly evaluate a due diligence system as set out in Article 6 and grant operators the right to use it;\n(b)\nverify the proper use of its due diligence system by such operators;\n(c)\ntake appropriate action in the event of failure by an operator to properly use its due diligence system, including notification of competent authorities in the event of significant or repeated failure by the operator.\n2. An organisation may apply for recognition as a monitoring organisation if it complies with the following requirements:\n(a)\nit has legal personality and is legally established within the Union;\n(b)\nit has appropriate expertise and the capacity to exercise the functions referred to in paragraph 1; and\n(c)\nit ensures the absence of any conflict of interest in carrying out its functions.\n3. The Commission, after consulting the Member State(s) concerned, shall recognise as a monitoring organisation an applicant that fulfils the requirements set out in paragraph 2.\nThe decision to grant recognition to a monitoring organisation shall be communicated by the Commission to the competent authorities of all the Member States.\n4. The competent authorities shall carry out checks at regular intervals to verify that the monitoring organisations operating within the competent authorities\u2019 jurisdiction continue to fulfil the functions laid down in paragraph 1 and comply with the requirements laid down in paragraph 2. Checks may also be carried out when the competent authority of the Member State is in possession of relevant information, including substantiated concerns from third parties or when it has detected shortcomings in the implementation by operators of the due diligence system established by a monitoring organisation. A report of the checks shall be made available in accordance with Directive 2003/4/EC.\n5. If a competent authority determines that a monitoring organisation either no longer fulfils the functions laid down in paragraph 1 or no longer complies with the requirements laid down in paragraph 2, it shall without delay inform the Commission.\n6. The Commission shall withdraw recognition of a monitoring organisation when, in particular on the basis of the information provided pursuant to paragraph 5, it has determined that the monitoring organisation no longer fulfils the functions laid down in paragraph 1 or the requirements laid down in paragraph 2. Before withdrawing recognition of a monitoring organisation, the Commission shall inform the Member States concerned.\nThe decision to withdraw recognition of a monitoring organisation shall be communicated by the Commission to the competent authorities of all the Member States.\n7. In order to supplement the procedural rules with regard to the recognition and withdrawal of recognition of monitoring organisations and, if experience so requires, to amend them, the Commission may adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU, while ensuring that the recognition and withdrawal of recognition are performed in a fair and transparent manner.\nFor the delegated acts referred to in this paragraph the procedures set out in Articles 15, 16 and 17 shall apply. Those acts shall be adopted by 3 March 2012.\n8. Detailed rules concerning the frequency and the nature of the checks referred to in paragraph 4, necessary to ensure the effective oversight of monitoring organisations and the uniform implementation of that paragraph, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 18(2). Those rules shall be adopted by 3 June 2012.\nArticle 9\nList of monitoring organisations\nThe Commission shall publish the list of the monitoring organisations in the Official Journal of the European Union, C series, and shall make it available on its website. The list shall be regularly updated.\nArticle 10\nChecks on operators\n1. The competent authorities shall carry out checks to verify if operators comply with the requirements set out in Articles 4 and 6.\n2. The checks referred to in paragraph 1 shall be conducted in accordance with a periodically reviewed plan following a risk-based approach. In addition, checks may be conducted when a competent authority is in possession of relevant information, including on the basis of substantiated concerns provided by third parties, concerning compliance by an operator with this Regulation.\n3. The checks referred to in paragraph 1 may include, inter alia:\n(a)\nexamination of the due diligence system, including risk assessment and risk mitigation procedures;\n(b)\nexamination of documentation and records that demonstrate the proper functioning of the due diligence system and procedures;\n(c)\nspot checks, including field audits.\n4. Operators shall offer all assistance necessary to facilitate the performance of the checks referred to in paragraph 1, notably as regards access to premises and the presentation of documentation or records.\n5. Without prejudice to Article 19, where, following the checks referred to in paragraph 1, shortcomings have been detected, the competent authorities may issue a notice of remedial actions to be taken by the operator. Additionally, depending on the nature of the shortcomings detected, Member States may take immediate interim measures, including inter alia:\n(a)\nseizure of timber and timber products;\n(b)\nprohibition of marketing of timber and timber products.\nArticle 11\nRecords of checks\n1. The competent authorities shall keep records of the checks referred to in Article 10(1), indicating in particular their nature and results, as well as of any notice of remedial actions issued under Article 10(5). Records of all checks shall be kept for at least five years.\n2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made available in accordance with Directive 2003/4/EC.\nArticle 12\nCooperation\n1. Competent authorities shall cooperate with each other, with the administrative authorities of third countries and with the Commission in order to ensure compliance with this Regulation.\n2. The competent authorities shall exchange information on serious shortcomings detected through the checks referred to in Articles 8(4) and 10(1) and on the types of penalties imposed in accordance with Article 19 with the competent authorities of other Member States and with the Commission.\nArticle 13\nTechnical assistance, guidance and exchange of information\n1. Without prejudice to the operators\u2019 obligation to exercise due diligence under Article 4(2), Member States, assisted by the Commission where appropriate, may provide technical and other assistance and guidance to operators, taking into account the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises, in order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of this Regulation, in particular in relation to the implementation of a due diligence system in accordance with Article 6.\n2. Member States, assisted by the Commission where appropriate, may facilitate the exchange and dissemination of relevant information on illegal logging, in particular with a view to assisting operators in assessing risk as set out in Article 6(1)(b), and on best practices regarding the implementation of this Regulation.\n3. Assistance shall be provided in a manner which avoids compromising the responsibilities of competent authorities and preserves their independence in enforcing this Regulation.\nArticle 14\nAmendments of the Annex\nIn order to take into account, on the one hand, the experience gained in the implementation of this Regulation, in particular as identified through the reporting referred to in Article 20(3) and (4) and through the exchange of information as referred to in Article 13, and, on the other hand, developments with regard to technical characteristics, end-users and production processes of timber and timber products, the Commission may adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU by amending and supplementing the list of timber and timber products set out in the Annex. Such acts shall not create a disproportionate burden on operators.\nFor the delegated acts referred to in this Article the procedures set out in Articles 15, 16 and 17 shall apply.\nArticle 15\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Articles 6(3), 8(7) and 14 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of seven years from 2 December 2010. The Commission shall make a report in respect of the delegated powers not later than three months before the end of a three-year period after the date of application of this Regulation. The delegation of powers shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 16.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 16 and 17.\nArticle 16\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of powers referred to in Articles 6(3), 8(7) and 14 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of powers shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 17\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of two months from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council this period shall be extended by two months.\n2. If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, the act shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 18\nCommittee\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Committee established under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\nThe period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.\nArticle 19\nPenalties\n1. The Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented.\n2. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and may include, inter alia:\n(a)\nfines proportionate to the environmental damage, the value of the timber or timber products concerned and the tax losses and economic detriment resulting from the infringement, calculating the level of such fines in such way as to make sure that they effectively deprive those responsible of the economic benefits derived from their serious infringements, without prejudice to the legitimate right to exercise a profession, and gradually increasing the level of such fines for repeated serious infringements;\n(b)\nseizure of the timber and timber products concerned;\n(c)\nimmediate suspension of authorisation to trade.\n3. The Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendments affecting them.\nArticle 20\nReporting\n1. Member States shall submit to the Commission, by 30 April of every second year following 3 March 2013, a report on the application of this Regulation during the previous two years.\n2. On the basis of those reports the Commission shall draw up a report to be submitted to the European Parliament and to the Council every two years. In preparing the report, the Commission shall have regard to the progress made in respect of the conclusion and operation of the FLEGT VPAs pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 and their contribution to minimising the presence of illegally harvested timber and timber products derived from such timber on the internal market.\n3. By 3 December 2015 and every six years thereafter, the Commission shall, on the basis of reporting on and experience with the application of this Regulation, review the functioning and effectiveness of this Regulation, including in preventing illegally harvested timber or timber products derived from such timber being placed on the market. It shall in particular consider the administrative consequences for small and medium-sized enterprises and product coverage. The reports may be accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate legislative proposals.\n4. The first of the reports referred to in paragraph 3 shall include an evaluation of the current Union economic and trade situation with regard to the products listed under Chapter 49 of the Combined Nomenclature, taking particularly into account the competitiveness of the relevant sectors, in order to consider their possible inclusion in the list of timber and timber products set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nThe report referred to in the first subparagraph shall also include an assessment of the effectiveness of the prohibition of the placing on the market of illegally harvested timber and timber products derived from such timber as set out in Article 4(1) as well as of the due diligence systems set out in Article 6.\nArticle 21\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply as from 3 March 2013. However, Articles 6(2), 7(1), 8(7) and 8(8) shall apply as from 2 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["98", "13", "82", "29", "51", "34", "63", "76", "86", "67", "71", "53", "99", "57", "36", "25", "94", "74", "52", "20", "73", "39", "0", "41", "64", "1", "11", "5", "27", "8", "No Label", "15", "22", "23", "58", "88"], "gold": ["15", "22", "23", "58", "88"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 614/2011\nof 23 June 2011\nfixing the export refunds on beef and veal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XV of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in beef and veal, export refunds should therefore be set in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167, 168 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007 of 21 November 2007 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals (5) provides for a reduction of the special refund if the quantity of cuts of boned meat to be exported amounts to less than 95 %, but not less than 85 %, of the total weight of cuts produced by boning.\n(6)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 265/2011 (6). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004, and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nIn the case referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007, the rate of the refund on products falling within product code 0201 30 00 9100 shall be reduced by EUR 3,5/100 kg.\nArticle 3\nRegulation (EU) No 265/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 June 2011.", "references": ["84", "14", "38", "55", "74", "15", "56", "5", "23", "96", "1", "37", "26", "93", "99", "28", "41", "81", "7", "98", "86", "21", "65", "16", "57", "3", "97", "83", "58", "13", "No Label", "20", "69"], "gold": ["20", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 476/2010\nof 31 May 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 June 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 4 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 June 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 June 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2010.", "references": ["36", "80", "25", "45", "82", "43", "16", "37", "98", "58", "85", "90", "54", "31", "63", "4", "39", "87", "9", "24", "96", "84", "15", "65", "95", "26", "17", "49", "88", "47", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\non the conclusion of an Agreement on civil aviation safety between the European Community and Canada\n(2011/466/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) and Article 218(7) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated on behalf of the Union an Agreement on civil aviation safety between the European Community and Canada (2) (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) in accordance with the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations.\n(2)\nThe Agreement was signed on 6 May 2009 on behalf of the Union subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Council Decision 2009/469/EC (3).\n(3)\nFollowing the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union should make a notification to Canada as regards the succession of the European Community by the European Union.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be approved.\n(5)\nIt is necessary to lay down procedural arrangements for the participation of the Union in the joint bodies established by the Agreement, as well as for the adoption of certain decisions concerning in particular the amendment of the Agreement and its Annexes, the addition of new annexes, the termination of individual annexes, consultations and dispute resolution and the adoption of safeguard measures.\n(6)\nThe Member States should take the necessary measures in order to ensure that their bilateral agreements with Canada on the same subject are terminated as of the date of entry into force of the Agreement,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement on civil aviation safety between the European Community and Canada (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement (4) is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to make the notification provided in Article 16(1) of the Agreement and make the following notification:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to the \u201cEuropean Community\u201d in the text of the Agreement are, where appropriate, to be read as the \u201cEuropean Union\u201d.\u2019.\nArticle 3\n1. The Union shall be represented in the Joint Committee of the Parties established in Article 9 of the Agreement by the European Commission assisted by the European Aviation Safety Agency and accompanied by the Aviation Authorities as representatives of the Member States.\n2. The Union shall be represented in the Joint Sectorial Committee on Certification provided for in paragraph 2 of Annex A to the Agreement and in the Joint Sectorial Committee on Maintenance provided in paragraph 4 of Annex B to the Agreement by the European Aviation Safety Agency assisted by the Aviation Authorities directly concerned by the agenda of each meeting.\nArticle 4\n1. The Commission, after consultation with the special committee appointed by the Council, shall determine the position to be taken by the Union in the Joint Committee of the Parties with respect to the following matters:\n-\nthe adoption or amendment of the rules of procedures of the Joint Committee of the Parties provided for in Article 9(3) of the Agreement.\n2. The Commission, after consultation with the special committee referred to in paragraph 1 and taking full account of its opinion, may take the following action:\n-\nadopt safeguard measures in accordance with Article 6 of the Agreement,\n-\nrequest consultations in accordance with Article 15 of the Agreement,\n-\ntake measures for suspension in accordance with Article 10 of the Agreement,\n-\nprovided that the Commission has submitted a thorough factual analysis of the effects and feasibility of the intended modifications, amend annexes to the Agreement in accordance with Article 16(5) of the Agreement in so far as such amendments are consistent with, and do not entail any modification of, relevant Union legal acts,\n-\nremove individual annexes in accordance with Article 16(3) and (5) of the Agreement,\n-\nany other action to be taken by a Party as provided for in the Agreement, subject to paragraph 3 of this Article and EU law.\n3. The Council shall decide, acting by qualified majority, on a proposal from the Commission and in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, with respect to any other amendments to the Agreement not falling within the scope of paragraph 2 of this Article.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["1", "82", "87", "52", "34", "81", "46", "92", "25", "15", "17", "88", "11", "0", "51", "30", "47", "58", "28", "61", "12", "54", "41", "8", "75", "67", "20", "59", "91", "68", "No Label", "9", "53", "57", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "53", "57", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1190/2011\nof 18 November 2011\namending Regulations (EC) No 1730/2006 and (EC) No 1138/2007 as regards the name of the holder of the authorisation of the feed additive benzoic acid (VevoVitall)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1) and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nEmerald Kalama Chemical BV has submitted applications under Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 proposing to change the name of the holder of the authorisation as regards Commission Regulation (EC) No 1730/2006 of 23 November 2006 concerning the authorisation of benzoic acid (VevoVitall) as a feed additive (2) and as regards Commission Regulation (EC) No 1138/2007 of 1 October 2007 concerning the authorisation of a new use of benzoic acid (VevoVitall) as a feed additive (3).\n(2)\nThe applicant claims that, with effect from 26 May 2011, DSM Special Products BV was converted into Emerald Kalama Chemical BV which now owns the marketing rights for that additive. The applicant has submitted documents supporting its allegations.\n(3)\nThe proposed change of the terms of the authorisation is purely administrative in nature and does not entail a fresh assessment of the additive concerned. The European Food Safety Authority was informed of the application.\n(4)\nTo allow the applicant to exploit its marketing rights under the name of Emerald Kalama Chemical BV it is necessary to change the terms of the authorisations.\n(5)\nRegulations (EC) No 1730/2006 and (EC) No 1138/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nSince the modifications to the conditions of authorisation are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to provide for a transitional period during which existing stocks may be used up.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn column 2 of the Table of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1730/2006, the words \u2018DSM Special Products\u2019 are replaced by \u2018Emerald Kalama Chemical BV\u2019.\nArticle 2\nIn column 2 of the Table of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1138/2007, the words \u2018DSM Special Products\u2019 are replaced by \u2018Emerald Kalama Chemical BV\u2019.\nArticle 3\nExisting stocks which are in conformity with the provisions applying before the date of entry into force of this Regulation may continue to be placed on the market and used until 9 June 2012.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["68", "23", "98", "65", "49", "55", "35", "41", "76", "29", "91", "75", "0", "85", "1", "12", "24", "39", "53", "86", "10", "45", "54", "4", "8", "9", "27", "44", "31", "34", "No Label", "25", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/168/CFSP\nof 23 March 2012\namending Decision 2011/235/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 April 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/235/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nOn the basis of a review of Decision 2011/235/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 13 April 2013.\n(3)\nFurthermore, in view of the gravity of the human rights situation in Iran, additional persons should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/235/CFSP.\n(4)\nIn this context, it is should be noted that, in line with recital (4) of Decision 2011/235/CFSP, the persons targeted by the restrictive measures may also include members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Basij and Ansar-e-Hezbollah.\n(5)\nIn addition, the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment or software intended primarily for use in the monitoring or interception by the Iranian regime of the Internet and of telephone communications on mobile or fixed networks in Iran should be prohibited.\n(6)\nFurthermore, in consideration of its objectives, the prohibition on the supply, sale or transfer of equipment which might be used for internal repression should be included in Decision 2011/235/CFSP. At the same time, Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures directed against Iran (2) is to be amended so that it no longer includes that prohibition.\n(7)\nDecision 2011/235/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2011/235/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nThe following Articles are inserted:\n\"Article 2a\nThe sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment or software intended primarily for use in the monitoring or interception by the Iranian regime, or on its behalf, of the Internet and of telephone communications on mobile or fixed networks in Iran and the provision of assistance to install, operate or update such equipment or software shall be prohibited.\nThe Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant elements to be covered by this Article.\nArticle 2b\n1. The sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment which might be used for internal repression to Iran by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States or using their flag vessels or aircraft, shall be prohibited, whether or not originating in their territories.\n2. It shall also be prohibited to:\n(a)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance, brokering services or other services related to the items referred to in paragraph 1 or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of such items, to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for the use in, Iran.\n(b)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, related to the items referred to in paragraph 1, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for the provision of related technical assistance, brokering services or other services to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Iran.\".\n(2)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\"Article 4a\nIt shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the measures referred to in Articles 2a and 2b.\".\n(3)\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\"Article 6\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall apply until 13 April 2013. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\".\nArticle 2\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/235/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["44", "31", "29", "15", "6", "94", "28", "80", "75", "78", "38", "86", "68", "76", "77", "56", "25", "16", "81", "88", "60", "21", "47", "97", "50", "91", "66", "10", "89", "45", "No Label", "1", "3", "12", "14", "23", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "12", "14", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 June 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 \u00d7 MON 88017 (MON-89\u00d834-3xMON-88\u00d817-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 4164)\n(Only the Dutch and French texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/366/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Article 7(3) and Article 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 6 February 2007, Monsanto Europe SA submitted to the competent authority of the Netherlands an application, in accordance with Article 5 and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON 89034 \u00d7 MON 88017 maize (the application).\n(2)\nThe application also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of MON 89034 \u00d7 MON 88017 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with Article 5(5) and Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.\n(3)\nOn 30 March 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Article 6 and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It considered that maize MON 89034 \u00d7 MON 88017 is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment. Therefore it concluded that it is unlikely that the placing on the market of the products containing, consisting of, or produced from MON 89034 \u00d7 MON 88017 maize as described in the application (the products) will have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment in the context of their intended uses (3). In its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Article 6(4) and Article 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(4)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.\n(5)\nTaking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products.\n(6)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).\n(7)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON 89034 \u00d7 MON 88017 maize. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (5), lays down labelling requirements in Article 4(6) for products containing or consisting of GMOs. Traceability requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs are laid down in paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article 4 and for food and feed produced from GMOs are laid down in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(9)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). The EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in point (e) of Article 6(5) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(10)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(11)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).\n(12)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(13)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chair and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures. Since, at its meeting on 17 March 2011, the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal and the Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded, these measures are to be adopted by the Commission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) MON 89034 \u00d7 MON 88017, as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier MON-89\u00d834-3xMON-88\u00d817-3, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Article 4(2) and Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-89\u00d834-3xMON-88\u00d817-3 maize;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-89\u00d834-3xMON-88\u00d817-3 maize;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of MON-89\u00d834-3xMON-88\u00d817-3 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018maize\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of MON-89\u00d834-3xMON-88\u00d817-3 maize referred to in Article 2(b) and (c).\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nCommunity register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Monsanto Europe SA, Belgium, representing Monsanto Company, United States.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Monsanto Europe SA, Avenue de Tervuren 270-272, 1150 Brussels, Belgium.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2011.", "references": ["7", "53", "2", "42", "71", "50", "79", "48", "95", "24", "96", "63", "20", "35", "40", "70", "61", "87", "28", "84", "69", "55", "59", "15", "22", "94", "77", "8", "46", "75", "No Label", "25", "66", "68", "72", "76"], "gold": ["25", "66", "68", "72", "76"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUPOL AFGHANISTAN/1/2012\nof 10 July 2012\non the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN)\n(2012/456/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/279/CFSP of 18 May 2010 on the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) (1) and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 10(1) of Decision 2010/279/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EUPOL AFGHANISTAN mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nThe High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Mr Karl \u00c5ke ROGHE as Head of Mission from 1 August 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Karl \u00c5ke ROGHE is hereby appointed Head of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan as from 1 August 2012 until 31 May 2013.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["36", "82", "70", "15", "46", "19", "69", "55", "76", "37", "39", "5", "38", "61", "50", "60", "58", "18", "13", "65", "20", "83", "28", "85", "92", "35", "30", "66", "77", "75", "No Label", "7", "9", "95"], "gold": ["7", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 13/2011\nof 7 January 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 8/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 January 2011.", "references": ["77", "42", "84", "31", "48", "64", "83", "50", "32", "5", "28", "69", "16", "74", "9", "95", "90", "60", "81", "65", "93", "51", "7", "19", "67", "29", "76", "37", "30", "80", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 4 May 2010\nauthorising the French Republic to conclude an agreement with the Principality of Monaco for transfers of funds between the French Republic and the Principality of Monaco to be treated as transfers of funds within the French Republic, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 2634)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(2010/259/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 on information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds (1), and in particular Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the application from the French Republic,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 November 2007, the French Republic requested a derogation pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 for the transfers of funds between the Principality of Monaco and the French Republic.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006, transfers of funds between the Principality of Monaco and the French Republic have been provisionally treated as transfers of funds within the French Republic from 4 December 2007.\n(3)\nMember States were informed at the meeting of the Committee on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing of 17 December 2009 that the Commission considered that it had received the information necessary for appraising the request made by the French Republic.\n(4)\nThe Principality of Monaco does not form part of the territory of the Community as determined in accordance with Article 52 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 355 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union but it concluded a Monetary Agreement with the European Community represented by the French Republic. On the basis of the Agreement of 26 December 2001, the Principality of Monaco is entitled to use the euro as its official currency and to grant legal tender status to banknotes and coins in euro. The Principality of Monaco therefore complies with the criterion set out in Article 17(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006.\n(5)\nPayment services providers in the Principality of Monaco participate directly in payment and settlement systems in the French Republic, be it CORE, Target2-Banque de France or ESES France (the Euro Settlement for Euronext-zone Securities). They therefore comply with the criterion set out in Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006.\n(6)\nThe Principality of Monaco has incorporated into its legal order provisions corresponding to those of Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 in particular through Sovereign Order No 1630 of 30 April 2008 amending Sovereign Order No 631 of 10 August 2006 on the participation of financial institutions to the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.\n(7)\nThe Sovereign Orders No 1674 and No 1675 of 10 June 2008 concerning the freezing of assets notably in the fight against terrorism financing ensure that appropriate measures are in place in the Principality of Monaco to impose financial penalties vis-\u00e0-vis entities or persons listed by the United Nations or the European Union.\n(8)\nAct No 1362 of 3 August 2009 relating to the fight against money laundering, financing of terrorism and corruption (Loi no 1362 du 3 ao\u00fbt 2009 relative \u00e0 la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux, le financement du terrorisme et la corruption) repealed and replaced Act No 1162 of 7 July 1993 relating to the participation of financial undertakings in countering money laundering and terrorism financing. This new Act together with Sovereign Order No 2318 of 3 August 2009 addresses the shortcomings identified in the 2008 Third Round Mutual Evaluation Report of the Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism - MONEYVAL concerning the Principality of Monaco; it ensures that the Principality of Monaco has in place an anti-money laundering regime equivalent to that in application on the French territory as regards transfers of funds.\n(9)\nTherefore, the Principality of Monaco has adopted the same rules as those established pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 and requires their respective payment services providers to apply them, thus fulfilling the criterion set out in Article 17(1)(c) of that Regulation.\n(10)\nIt is therefore appropriate to grant to the French Republic the requested derogation.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe French Republic shall be authorised to conclude an agreement with the Principality of Monaco, to the effect that the transfers of funds between the Principality of Monaco and the French Republic are treated as transfers of funds within the French Republic for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2010.", "references": ["51", "4", "45", "21", "22", "44", "90", "16", "78", "8", "72", "55", "93", "63", "29", "11", "62", "13", "26", "23", "75", "89", "56", "81", "88", "7", "54", "61", "64", "42", "No Label", "27", "28", "30", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["27", "28", "30", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 509/2011\nof 24 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 May 2011.", "references": ["69", "27", "97", "81", "92", "39", "49", "76", "14", "37", "24", "85", "44", "23", "8", "59", "54", "16", "18", "38", "46", "52", "90", "80", "64", "98", "50", "75", "43", "82", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 480/2010\nof 1 June 2010\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Spressa delle Giudicarie (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Spressa delle Giudicarie\u2019 registered in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2275/2003 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2010.", "references": ["84", "11", "0", "79", "50", "78", "51", "15", "54", "47", "60", "2", "3", "31", "64", "93", "17", "12", "58", "13", "1", "95", "73", "44", "21", "5", "14", "32", "66", "81", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 210/2012\nof 9 March 2012\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for import licences for olive oil lodged from 5 to 6 March 2012 under the Tunisian tariff quota and suspending the issue of import licences for the month of March 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(1) and (2) of Protocol No 1 (3) to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part (4), opens a tariff quota at a zero rate of duty for imports of untreated olive oil falling within CN codes 1509 10 10 and 1509 10 90, wholly obtained in Tunisia and transported direct from that country to the European Union, up to the limit laid down for each year.\n(2)\nArticle 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 of 20 December 2006 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quota for olive oil originating in Tunisia (5) lays down monthly quantitative limits for the issue of import licences.\n(3)\nImport licence applications have been submitted to the competent authorities under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 in respect of a total quantity exceeding the limit laid down for the month of March in Article 2(2) of that Regulation.\n(4)\nIn these circumstances, the Commission must set an allocation coefficient allowing import licences to be issued in proportion to the quantity available.\n(5)\nSince the limit for the month of March has been reached, no more import licences can be issued for that month,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications were lodged for 5 and 6 March 2012 under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 57,099350 %.\nThe issue of import licences in respect of amounts applied for as from 12 March 2012 shall be suspended for March 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 March 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2012.", "references": ["72", "18", "80", "56", "43", "2", "63", "79", "57", "69", "75", "33", "41", "38", "31", "54", "27", "95", "62", "16", "34", "55", "32", "3", "85", "66", "30", "49", "78", "42", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "61", "70", "94"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "61", "70", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/27/EU\nof 23 April 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include triflumizole as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included triflumizole. By Commission Decision 2008/748/EC (4) it was decided not to include triflumizole in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier submitted a new application requesting the application of the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(3)\nThe application was submitted to the Netherlands, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/748/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(4)\nThe Netherlands evaluated the new information and data submitted by the notifier and prepared an additional report on 6 March 2009.\n(5)\nThe additional report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the EFSA and presented to the Commission on 14 December 2009 in the format of the EFSA Conclusions for triflumizole (6). This report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 12 March 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for triflumizole.\n(6)\nThe new assessment by the rapporteur Member State and the conclusion by the EFSA concentrated on the concerns that led to the non-inclusion. Those concerns were the unacceptable risk assessment for operators and workers.\n(7)\nThe new data submitted by the notifier show that the exposure of operators and workers may be considered as acceptable provided that additional protective equipment is worn.\n(8)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing triflumizole may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include triflumizole in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance may be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(9)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 November 2010 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 July 2010.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2010.", "references": ["63", "93", "38", "8", "79", "99", "49", "57", "66", "75", "26", "62", "40", "39", "14", "29", "6", "37", "9", "48", "55", "19", "15", "88", "16", "80", "83", "56", "23", "3", "No Label", "25", "41", "65", "76"], "gold": ["25", "41", "65", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 524/2012\nof 20 June 2012\namending Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular Article 142(i) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishes the list of support schemes giving right to a direct payment under that Regulation.\n(2)\nArticle 129(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 gives new Member States applying the single area payment scheme the possibility to grant a separate soft fruit payment from 2012. Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland have decided to use that possibility.\n(3)\nThe separate soft fruit payment is not listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. However, by its very nature, that payment should be considered a direct payment as defined in Article 2(d) of that Regulation since it replaces, from the 2012 calendar year, the transitional soft fruit payment granted pursuant to Article 98 of that Regulation, which is listed in Annex I to that Regulation as a direct payment. Moreover, according to Article 129(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 the separate soft fruit payment is to be granted within the limits of the amounts referred to in Annex XII to that Regulation corresponding to the soft fruit payment.\n(4)\nFor that reason, the non-inclusion of the separate soft fruit payment in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 constitutes an omission that needs to be remedied.\n(5)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nSince the separate soft fruit payment may be granted from 2012, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2012.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the following entry is inserted after the entry \u2018Fruit and vegetables\u2019:\n\u2018Fruit and vegetables\nArticle 129(1) of this Regulation\nSeparate soft fruit payment\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2012.", "references": ["26", "87", "6", "41", "55", "48", "53", "13", "98", "15", "76", "50", "25", "89", "88", "80", "16", "5", "17", "64", "32", "74", "30", "20", "59", "71", "33", "22", "36", "56", "No Label", "61", "68"], "gold": ["61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 34/2013\nof 16 January 2013\namending Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for 2-phenylphenol, ametoctradin, Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941, cyproconazole, difenoconazole, dithiocarbamates, folpet, propamocarb, spinosad, spirodiclofen, tebufenpyrad and tetraconazole in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor 2-phenylphenol, diquat, dithiocarbamates and folpet maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For ametoctradin, bixafen, cyproconazole, difenoconazole, epoxiconazole, propamocarb, spinosad, spirodiclofen, tebufenpyrad and tetraconazole MRLs were set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941, no specific MRLs were set in Annex II and III nor was the substance included in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, so the default value of 0.01 mg/kg applies.\n(2)\nIn the context of a procedure for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance ametoctradin on leek an application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing MRLs.\n(3)\nAs regards bixafen, such an application was made for oilseed rape, linseed, poppy seed and mustard seed. As regards cyproconazole, such an application was made for poppy seed. As regards difenoconazole, such an application was made for raspberries, blackberries and cucurbits (edible peel). As regards diquat, such an application was made for borage. As regards dithiocarbamates, such an application was made for garlic, onions, shallots, cucurbits and asparagus. As regards epoxiconazole, such an application was made for products of animal origin considering residue levels in feed items resulting from the use of epoxiconazole on maize. As regards folpet, such an application was made for wine grapes. As regards propamocarb, such an application was made for kale. As regards spinosad, such an application was made for celery, fennel, raspberries and blackberries. As regards spirodiclofen, such an application was made for strawberries and bananas. As regards tebufenpyrad, such an application was made for cucumbers and courgettes. As regards tetraconazole, such an application was made for rape seed.\n(4)\nIn the context of a procedure for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941, an application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for the inclusion of that active substance in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 an application was made for ametoctradin on potatoes, tropical root and tuber vegetables, onions, garlic, shallots, spring onions, tomatoes, peppers, aubergines, okra, other solanaceae, cucumbers, gherkins, courgettes, other cucurbits (edible peel), cucurbits (inedible peel), broccoli, head cabbage, Chinese cabbage, lettuce, scarole, cress, land cress, rucola/rocket, red mustard, leaves and sprouts of Brassica spp., spinach, beet leaves, purslane, celery, fennel and hops. The applicant claims that the authorised use of ametoctradin on such crops in the United States and Canada leads to residues exceeding the MRLs in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 and that higher MRLs are necessary to avoid trade barriers for the importation of these crops.\n(6)\nAs regards spirodiclofen, such an application was made to raise the current MRLs for papaya, avocado and mango because the authorised use of that substance on such crops in the United States leads to residues exceeding the MRLs in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. To avoid trade barriers for the importation of these crops higher MRLs are necessary.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 these applications were evaluated by the Member States concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission.\n(8)\nThe European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \"the Authority\", assessed the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs (2). It forwarded these opinions to the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public.\n(9)\nThe Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that, as regards the use of ametoctradin on spring onions, the submitted data are not sufficient to set a new MRL. For tomatoes and peppers the submitted data do not show a need to modify the existing MRLs. As regards the use of bixafen on oilseed rape, linseed, poppy seed and mustard seed, the submitted data are not sufficient to set a new MRL. As regards diquat, the Authority concluded that the intended use is not sufficiently supported by residue data and that no new uses can be currently authorised before a comprehensive review of the existing MRLs has been performed. As regards residues of epoxiconazole in animal products, the submitted data do not show a need to modify the existing MRLs. As regards the use of spirodiclofen on strawberries, the submitted data are not sufficient to set a new MRL.\n(10)\nAs regards dithiocarbamates deriving from the use of metiram on asparagus, onions shallots and cucurbits (edible peel), no modification of the MRLs is necessary, since the MRLs set out in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are identical with those requested.\n(11)\nAs regards Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941, the Authority concluded that its inclusion in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 is appropriate.\n(12)\nAs regards all other applications, the Authority concluded that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs requested by the applicants were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime exposure to these substances via consumption of all food products that may contain these substances, nor the short-term exposure due to extreme consumption of the relevant crops and products showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference dose (ARfD) is exceeded.\n(13)\nAs regards 2-phenylphenol in citrus fruit, in Regulation (EC) No 304/2010 (3) MRLs were set until 30 September 2012, pending the submission and evaluation of two additional residue trials on citrus fruit and valid storage stability studies. Those trials and data were submitted to Spain, rapporteur Member State for that substance, in March 2012. Spain evaluated those data and prepared an evaluation report, which was submitted to the Commission on 18 July 2012. In order to to provide the necessary time for the Authority to evaluate that report and for the Commission to take its decision, it is appropriate to extend the validity of these MRLs until 30 September 2014.\n(14)\nBased on the reasoned opinions of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(15)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(16)\nIn the interest of legal certainty, the amendment concerning 2-phenylphenol should apply from 1 October 2012.\n(17)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nPoint (1)(a) of the Annex shall apply from 1 October 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 January 2013.", "references": ["11", "83", "10", "27", "39", "63", "71", "85", "67", "22", "97", "32", "48", "4", "5", "1", "35", "55", "96", "54", "34", "0", "3", "31", "95", "88", "52", "43", "92", "45", "No Label", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "66", "69", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "66", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUAVSEC-SOUTH SUDAN/1/2012\nof 10 August 2012\non the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Aviation Security CSDP Mission in South Sudan (EUAVSEC-South Sudan)\n(2012/487/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2012/312/CFSP of 18 June 2012 on the European Union Aviation Security CSDP Mission in South Sudan (1), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Article 9(1) of Decision 2012/312/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EUAVSEC-South Sudan, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nThe High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Mr Lasse ROSENKRANDS CHRISTENSEN as Head of Mission of EUAVSEC-South Sudan until 18 January 2014,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Lasse ROSENKRANDS CHRISTENSEN is hereby appointed Head of European Union Aviation Security CSDP Mission in South Sudan (EUAVSEC-South Sudan) until 18 January 2014.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2012.", "references": ["51", "37", "82", "33", "30", "74", "66", "15", "0", "48", "91", "28", "93", "29", "14", "61", "41", "55", "47", "16", "88", "89", "40", "69", "56", "13", "6", "50", "72", "1", "No Label", "3", "5", "9", "52", "53", "57", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "9", "52", "53", "57", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 503/2012\nof 13 June 2012\nprohibiting fishing activities for purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Greece or Italy, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and in the Mediterranean Sea\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules on the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36, paragraph 2 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2) fixes the amount of bluefin tuna which may be fished in 2012 in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea by European Union fishing vessels.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 of 6 April 2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, amending Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1559/2007 (3), requires Member States to inform the Commission of the individual quota allocated to their vessels over 24 metres.\n(3)\nThe Common Fisheries Policy is designed to ensure the long-term viability of the fisheries sector through sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources based on the precautionary approach.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, where the Commission finds that, on the basis of information provided by Member States and of other information in its possession fishing opportunities available to the European Union, a Member State or group of Member States are deemed to have been exhausted for one or more gears or fleets, the Commission shall inform the Member States concerned thereof and shall prohibit fishing activities for the respective area, gear, stock, group of stocks or fleet involved in those specific fishing activities.\n(5)\nThe information in the Commission\u2019s possession indicates that the fishing opportunities for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea allocated to purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Greece or Italy have been exhausted on 7 June 2012.\n(6)\nOn 8 June, Greece informed the Commission of the fact that it had imposed a stop on the fishing activities of its purse seine vessel active in the 2012 bluefin tuna fishery as of 8 June 2012 at 8.00.\n(7)\nOn 3, 5 and 8 June 2012 Italy informed the Commission of the fact that it had imposed a stop on the fishing activities of its 12 purse seine vessels active in the 2012 bluefin tuna fishery, with effect from 3 June for four vessels, with effect of 5 June for four vessels and with effect of 8 June for the remaining four vessels, resulting in the prohibition of all the activities as of 8 June 2012 at 11.30.\n(8)\nWithout prejudice to the actions by Greece and Italy mentioned above, it is necessary that the Commission confirms the prohibition of fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W and the Mediterranean Sea, as from 8 June 2012 by purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Greece or Italy,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean by purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Greece shall be prohibited as from 8 June 2012 at 8.00.\nIt shall also be prohibited to retain on board, place in cages for fattening or farming, tranship, transfer or land such stock caught by those vessels as from that date.\nArticle 2\nFishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean by purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Italy shall be prohibited as from 8 June 2012 at 11.30 at the latest.\nIt shall also be prohibited to retain on board, place in cages for fattening or farming, tranship, transfer or land such stock caught by those vessels as from that date.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 June 2012.", "references": ["81", "72", "13", "44", "70", "31", "51", "79", "52", "27", "74", "32", "0", "82", "24", "68", "33", "36", "47", "55", "87", "2", "14", "94", "7", "61", "65", "69", "46", "5", "No Label", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2012/478/CFSP\nof 16 August 2012\nimplementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision 2011/782/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 21(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\n(2)\nAn additional entity should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe entity listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2012.", "references": ["67", "69", "24", "66", "59", "20", "78", "36", "6", "96", "38", "44", "53", "62", "41", "89", "23", "4", "16", "27", "82", "0", "15", "90", "12", "49", "86", "17", "88", "74", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 27 October 2011\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Latvia\n(2011/715/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 2(3) and Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2), in particular Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nLatvia has informed the General Secretariat of the Council of the national DNA analysis files to which Articles 2 to 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA apply and the conditions for automated searching as referred to in Article 3(1) of that Decision in accordance with Article 36(2) of that Decision.\n(5)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1, of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(6)\nLatvia has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on DNA data exchange.\n(7)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by Latvia with Germany.\n(8)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in Latvia and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the German evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(9)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning DNA data exchange has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching and comparison of DNA data, Latvia has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of that Decision as from the day of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["17", "50", "90", "39", "71", "26", "74", "22", "21", "52", "3", "68", "37", "45", "5", "7", "34", "88", "53", "19", "18", "28", "99", "27", "30", "79", "15", "62", "93", "48", "No Label", "36", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91"], "gold": ["36", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU, EURATOM) No 741/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 11 August 2012\namending the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex I thereto\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first and second paragraphs of Article 257 and the second paragraph of Article 281 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the request of the Court of Justice,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to increase the participation of all the Judges in the decisions of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice, there should be an increase in the number of Judges who may participate in the Grand Chamber, and the automatic participation of all of the Presidents of the chambers of five Judges should cease.\n(2)\nCorresponding adjustments should be made to the quorum of the Grand Chamber and of the full Court.\n(3)\nThe increasing responsibilities of the President of the Court of Justice and of the President of the General Court require the establishment in each of those Courts of an office of Vice-President in order to assist the President in carrying out those responsibilities.\n(4)\nAs a consequence of the progressive expansion of its jurisdiction since its creation, the number of cases before the General Court has been steadily increasing.\n(5)\nThe number of cases brought before the General Court exceeds the number of cases disposed of each year, resulting in a significant increase in the number of cases pending before that Court and an increase in the duration of proceedings.\n(6)\nThere is a continuing need to tackle delays arising from the heavy workload of the General Court, and it is, therefore, appropriate to work towards putting in place appropriate measures by the time of the partial renewal of the membership of that Court in 2013.\n(7)\nWith a view to the partial renewal of the Court of Justice on 7 October 2012 and in accordance with the letter of the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 8 May 2012, as a first step, only amendments to the Statute concerning the organisation of the Court of Justice and the General Court should be adopted. Examination of the part of the request on the membership of the General Court submitted by the Court of Justice should be reserved for a later stage.\n(8)\nIn view of the urgent need to find a solution that guarantees its proper functioning, the amendments concerning the Civil Service Tribunal should be adopted together with the amendments concerning the Court of Justice.\n(9)\nIn order to enable the specialised courts to continue to function satisfactorily in the absence of a Judge who, while not suffering from disablement deemed to be total, is prevented from participating in the disposal of cases for a lengthy period of time, provision should be made for the possibility of attaching temporary Judges to those courts.\n(10)\nProtocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex I thereto should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nProtocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 9a\nThe Judges shall elect the President and the Vice-President of the Court of Justice from among their number for a term of three years. They may be re-elected.\nThe Vice-President shall assist the President in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Rules of Procedure. He shall take the President\u2019s place when the latter is prevented from attending or when the office of President is vacant.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 16, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Grand Chamber shall consist of 15 Judges. It shall be presided over by the President of the Court. The Vice-President of the Court and, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Rules of Procedure, three of the Presidents of the chambers of five Judges and other Judges shall also form part of the Grand Chamber.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 17, the third and fourth paragraphs are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Decisions of the Grand Chamber shall be valid only if 11 Judges are sitting.\nDecisions of the full Court shall be valid only if 17 Judges are sitting.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 20, the fourth paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The oral procedure shall consist of the hearing by the Court of agents, advisers and lawyers and of the submissions of the Advocate-General, as well as the hearing, if any, of witnesses and experts.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 39, the second paragraph is replaced by the following two paragraphs:\n\u2018The powers referred to in the first paragraph may, under the conditions laid down in the Rules of Procedure, be exercised by the Vice-President of the Court of Justice.\nShould the President and the Vice-President be prevented from attending, another Judge shall take their place under the conditions laid down in the Rules of Procedure.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 47, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The first paragraph of Article 9, Article 9a, Articles 14 and 15, the first, second, fourth and fifth paragraphs of Article 17 and Article 18 shall apply to the General Court and its members.\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 62c, the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with Article 257 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, may attach temporary Judges to the specialised courts in order to cover the absence of Judges who, while not suffering from disablement deemed to be total, are prevented from participating in the disposal of cases for a lengthy period of time. In that event, the European Parliament and the Council shall lay down the conditions under which the temporary Judges shall be appointed, their rights and duties, the detailed rules governing the performance of their duties and the circumstances in which they shall cease to perform those duties.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nIn Article 2 of Annex I to Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the existing text becomes paragraph 1 and the following paragraph is added:\n\u20182. Temporary Judges shall be appointed, in addition to the Judges referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, in order to cover the absence of Judges who, while not suffering from disablement deemed to be total, are prevented from participating in the disposal of cases for a lengthy period of time.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the first day of the month following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nPoints 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 1 shall apply from the first occasion when the Judges are partially replaced, as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 9 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2012.", "references": ["53", "52", "62", "14", "74", "72", "85", "97", "99", "81", "21", "12", "28", "4", "67", "58", "45", "51", "6", "33", "88", "77", "46", "93", "90", "36", "25", "79", "9", "60", "No Label", "0", "1", "7"], "gold": ["0", "1", "7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 557/2011\nof 9 June 2011\nprohibiting bluefin tuna fishing activities in the eastern Atlantic and in the Mediterranean for purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules on the common fisheries policy, (1) and in particular Article 36 (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), fixes the amount of bluefin tuna which may be fished in 2011 in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea by European Union fishing vessels.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 of 6 April 2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean (3), amending Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1559/2007, requires Member States to inform the Commission of the individual quota allocated to their vessels over 24 metres.\n(3)\nThe Common Fisheries Policy is designed to ensure the long-term viability of the fisheries sector through sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources based on the precautionary approach.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 36 (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, on the basis of information to be provided by Member States or on its own initiative, where the Commission finds that fishing opportunities available to the European Union, a Member State or group of Member States are deemed to have been exhausted, the Commission shall inform the Member States concerned thereof and shall prohibit fishing activities for the respective area, gear, stock, group of stocks or fleet involved in those specific fishing activities.\n(5)\nThe information in the Commission's possession indicates that the fishing opportunities for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea allocated to purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Spain are deemed to be exhausted on 9 June 2011.\n(6)\nIt is therefore necessary that the Commission prohibits as from 10 June, 17.00, the fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W and the Mediterranean Sea by purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Spain.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nBluefin tuna fishing activities carried out in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea by purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Spain shall be prohibited as from 10 June 2011, 17.00.\nIt shall also be prohibited to retain on board, place in cages for fattening or farming, tranship, transfer or land such stock caught by those vessels as from that date.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 June 2011.", "references": ["39", "88", "34", "90", "57", "98", "31", "50", "69", "9", "81", "28", "18", "80", "70", "16", "23", "5", "84", "14", "54", "46", "89", "94", "45", "11", "64", "93", "12", "36", "No Label", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUPOL AFGHANISTAN/1/2010\nof 18 May 2010\nconcerning the appointment of the Head of Mission of EUPOL Afghanistan ad interim\n(2010/292/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/279/CFSP of 18 May 2010 on the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL Afghanistan) (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 10(1) of Decision 2010/279/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EUPOL Afghanistan mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nThe High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of the current Deputy Head of Mission, Chief Superintendent Nigel THOMAS, as Head of Mission ad interim from 31 May 2010 until the subsequent appointment of a new Head of Mission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nChief Superintendent Nigel THOMAS is hereby appointed Head of Mission of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan as from 31 May 2010 until the subsequent appointment of a new Head of Mission.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply until the subsequent appointment of a new Head of Mission.\nDone at Brussels, 18 May 2010.", "references": ["70", "82", "55", "6", "51", "48", "88", "26", "66", "8", "58", "99", "78", "50", "62", "83", "20", "39", "42", "46", "36", "33", "65", "11", "92", "45", "30", "56", "23", "72", "No Label", "4", "5", "9", "52", "95"], "gold": ["4", "5", "9", "52", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 582/2011\nof 25 May 2011\nimplementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and amending Annexes I and III to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on type-approval of motor vehicles and engines with respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and Directive 2007/46/EC and repealing Directives 80/1269/EEC, 2005/55/EC and 2005/78/EC (1), and in particular Articles 4(3), 5(4) and 6(2) and Article 12 thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2), and in particular Article 39(7) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 595/2009 is one of the separate regulatory acts under the type-approval procedure laid down by Directive 2007/46/EC.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 595/2009 requires new heavy duty vehicles and engines to comply with new emission limits and introduces additional requirements on access to information. The technical requirements will apply from 31 December 2012 for new types of vehicles and from 31 December 2013 for all new vehicles. The specific technical provisions necessary to implement Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 should be adopted. Therefore, the present Regulation aims at setting the requirements necessary for the type-approval of Euro VI specification vehicles and engines.\n(3)\nArticle 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 requires the Commission to adopt implementing legislation setting out specific technical requirements relating to the control of emissions from vehicles. Therefore, it is appropriate to adopt those requirements.\n(4)\nFollowing the adoption of the main requirements for type-approval of heavy duty motor vehicles and engines by Regulation (EC) No 595/2009, it is necessary to establish administrative provisions for that EC type-approval. Those administrative requirements should include provisions for conformity of production and in-service conformity to ensure continued good performance of production vehicles and engines.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009, it is also necessary to establish requirements to ensure that vehicle on-board diagnostic (hereinafter \u2018OBD\u2019) and vehicle repair and maintenance information is readily accessible, so as to ensure that independent operators have access to such information.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 595/2009, the measures provided for in this Regulation regarding access to vehicle repair and maintenance information, information for diagnostic tools and the compatibility of replacement parts with vehicle OBD systems, should not be restricted to emission-related components and systems but cover all aspects of a vehicle subject to type-approval within the scope of this Regulation.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009, the Commission should adopt measures for implementing the use of portable measurement systems for verifying the actual in-use emissions and verifying and limiting the off-cycle emissions. It is therefore necessary to set out, within an appropriate timeframe, provisions on off-cycle emissions both at type-approval and for verifying and limiting the off-cycle emissions in actual use of the vehicles. For the purpose of in-service conformity a procedure using portable emissions measurement systems (hereinafter \u2018PEMS\u2019) should be introduced. The PEMS procedures introduced through this Regulation should be subject to an assessment on the basis of which the Commission should be empowered to amend the in-use provisions.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 5(4)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009, it is necessary to establish requirements for type-approval of replacement pollution control devices so as to ensure that they function correctly.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 5(4)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009, it is necessary to establish requirements for determining deterioration factors to be used for verifying the durability of engine systems. In addition and subject to the results of research and development on methods for bench ageing of engine systems the Commission should be empowered to amend the provisions for determining deterioration factors.\n(10)\nAs provided for by Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009, new limit values and a measurement procedure for the number of particles emitted should be introduced. The measurement procedure should be based on the work of the Particulate Measurement Programme (PMP) of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (hereinafter \u2018UN/ECE\u2019).\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009, limit values for the World Harmonized Transient Driving Cycle (hereinafter \u2018WHTC\u2019) and the Worldwide Harmonised Steady state Cycle (hereinafter \u2018WHSC\u2019) as specified in Annex 4B to Regulation No 49 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) - Uniform provisions concerning the measures to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from compression-ignition engines for use in vehicles, and the emission of gaseous pollutants from positive-ignition engines fuelled with natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas for use in vehicles (3) should be introduced.\n(12)\nThe Commission should assess the need for specific measures regarding multi-setting engines, and should be empowered to amend the provisions in accordance with the results of that assessment.\n(13)\nRegulation (EC) No 595/2009 and Directive 2007/46/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down measures for the implementation of Articles 4, 5, 6 and 12 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009.\nIt also amends Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 and Directive 2007/46/EC.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018engine system\u2019 means the engine, the emission control system and the communication interface (hardware and messages) between the engine system electronic control unit or units (hereinafter \u2018ECU\u2019) and any other powertrain or vehicle control unit;\n(2)\n\u2018service accumulation schedule\u2019 means the ageing cycle and the service accumulation period for determining the deterioration factors for the engine-aftertreatment system family;\n(3)\n\u2018engine family\u2019 means a manufacturers grouping of engines which, through their design as defined in Section 6 of Annex I, have similar exhaust emission characteristics; all members of the family shall comply with the applicable emission limit values;\n(4)\n\u2018engine type\u2019 means a category of engines which do not differ in essential engine characteristics as set out in Appendix 4 to Annex I;\n(5)\n\u2018vehicle type with regard to emissions and vehicle repair and maintenance information\u2019 means a group of vehicles which do not differ in essential engine and vehicle characteristics as set out in Appendix 4 to Annex I;\n(6)\n\u2018deNOx system\u2019 means a selective catalytic reduction (hereinafter \u2018SCR\u2019) system, NOx adsorber, passive or active lean NOx catalyst or any other exhaust after-treatment system designed to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx);\n(7)\n\u2018exhaust after-treatment system\u2019 means a catalyst (oxidation, 3-way or any other), particulate filter, deNOx system, combined deNOx particulate filter, or any other emission reducing device, that is installed downstream of the engine;\n(8)\n\u2018on-board diagnostic (OBD) system\u2019 means a system on-board a vehicle or engine which has the capability:\n(a)\nof detecting malfunctions, affecting the emission performance of the engine system; and\n(b)\nof indicating their occurrence by means of an alert system; and\n(c)\nof identifying the likely area of the malfunction by means of information stored in computer memory and communicating that information off-board;\n(9)\n\u2018qualified deteriorated component or system\u2019 (hereinafter \u2018QDC\u2019) means a component or system that has been intentionally deteriorated such as by accelerated ageing or by having been manipulated in a controlled manner and which has been accepted by the approval authority according to the provisions set out in Section 6.3.2 of Annex 9B to UN/ECE Regulation No 49 and point 2.2 of Appendix 3 of Annex X to this Regulation for use when demonstrating the OBD performance of the engine system;\n(10)\n\u2018ECU\u2019 means the engine system electronic control unit;\n(11)\n\u2018diagnostic trouble code\u2019 (hereinafter \u2018DTC\u2019) means a numeric or alphanumeric identifier which identifies or labels a malfunction;\n(12)\n\u2018portable emissions measurement system\u2019 (hereinafter \u2018PEMS\u2019) means a portable emissions measurement system meeting the requirements specified in Appendix 2 to Annex II;\n(13)\n\u2018malfunction indicator\u2019 (hereinafter \u2018MI\u2019) means an indicator which is part of the alert system and which clearly informs the driver of the vehicle in the event of a malfunction;\n(14)\n\u2018ageing cycle\u2019 means the vehicle or engine operation (speed, load, power) to be executed during the service accumulation period;\n(15)\n\u2018critical emission-related components\u2019 means the following components which are designed primarily for emission control: any exhaust after-treatment system, the ECU and its associated sensors and actuators, and the exhaust gas recirculation (hereinafter \u2018EGR\u2019) system including all related filters, coolers, control valves and tubing;\n(16)\n\u2018critical emission-related maintenance\u2019 means the maintenance to be performed on critical emission-related components;\n(17)\n\u2018emission related maintenance\u2019 means the maintenance which substantially affects emissions or which is likely to affect emissions deterioration of the vehicle or the engine during normal in-use operation;\n(18)\n\u2018engine aftertreatment system family\u2019 means a manufacturer\u2019s grouping of engines that comply with the definition of engine family, but which are further grouped into engines utilising a similar exhaust after-treatment system;\n(19)\n\u2018Wobbe index (lower Wl or upper Wu)\u2019 means the ratio of the corresponding calorific value of a gas per unit volume and the square root of its relative density under the same reference conditions:\n(20)\n\u2018\u03bb-shift factor\u2019 (hereinafter \u2018S\u03bb\u2019) means an expression that describes the required flexibility of the engine management system regarding a change of excess-air-ratio \u03bb if the engine is fuelled with a gas composition different from pure methane as specified in Section 4.1 of Annex 6 to UN/ECE Regulation No 49;\n(21)\n\u2018non-emission-related maintenance\u2019 means the maintenance which does not substantially affect emissions and which does not have a lasting effect on the emissions deterioration of the vehicle or the engine during normal in-use operation once the maintenance is performed;\n(22)\n\u2018OBD engine family\u2019 means a manufacturer\u2019s grouping of engine systems having common methods of monitoring and diagnosing emission-related malfunctions;\n(23)\n\u2018scan-tool\u2019 means an external test equipment used for standardised off-board communication with the OBD system in accordance with the requirements of this Regulation;\n(24)\n\u2018Auxiliary Emission Strategy\u2019 (hereinafter \u2018AES\u2019) means an emission strategy that becomes active and replaces or modifies a base emission strategy for a specific purpose and in response to a specific set of ambient and/or operating conditions and only remains operational as long as those conditions exist;\n(25)\n\u2018Base Emission Strategy\u2019 (hereinafter \u2018BES\u2019) means an emission strategy that is active throughout the speed and load operating range of the engine unless an AES is activated;\n(26)\n\u2018in-use performance ratio\u2019 means the ratio of the number of times that the conditions have existed under which a monitor, or group of monitors, should have detected a malfunction to the number of driving cycles of relevance to that monitor or group of monitors;\n(27)\n\u2018engine start\u2019 consists of the ignition-On, cranking and start of combustion, and is completed when the engine speed reaches 150 min-1 below the normal, warmed-up idle speed;\n(28)\n\u2018operating sequence\u2019 means a sequence consisting of an engine start, an operating period (of the engine), an engine shut-off, and the time until the next start, where a specific OBD monitor runs to completion and a malfunction would be detected if present;\n(29)\n\u2018emission threshold monitoring\u2019 means monitoring of a malfunction that leads to an excess of the OBD threshold limits (OTLs) and which consists of either or both of the following:\n(a)\ndirect emissions measurement via a tailpipe emissions sensor(s) and a model to correlate the direct emissions to specific emissions of the applicable test-cycle;\n(b)\nindication of an emissions increase via correlation of computer input and output information to test-cycle specific emissions;\n(30)\n\u2018performance monitoring\u2019 means malfunction monitoring that consists of functionality checks, and the monitoring of parameters that are not directly correlated to emission thresholds, that is done on components or systems to verify that they are operating within the proper range;\n(31)\n\u2018rationality failure\u2019 means a malfunction where the signal from an individual sensor or component differs from that expected when assessed against signals available from other sensors or components within the control system including cases where all of the measured signals and component output data are individually within the range associated with normal operation of the associated sensor or component and where none of the sensors or components is individually indicating a malfunction;\n(32)\n\u2018total functional failure monitoring\u2019 means monitoring in order to detect a malfunction which will lead to a complete loss of the desired function of a system;\n(33)\n\u2018malfunction\u2019 means a failure or deterioration of an engine system, including the OBD system, that might reasonably be expected to lead either to an increase in any of the regulated pollutants emitted by the engine system or to a reduction in the effectiveness of the OBD system;\n(34)\n\u2018general denominator\u2019 means a counter indicating the number of times a vehicle has been operated, taking into account general conditions;\n(35)\n\u2018ignition cycle counter\u2019 means a counter indicating the number of engine starts a vehicle has experienced;\n(36)\n\u2018Driving cycle\u2019 means a sequence consisting of an engine start, an operating period (of the vehicle), an engine shut-off, and the time until the next engine start;\n(37)\n\u2018group of monitors\u2019 means, for the purpose of assessing the in-use performance of an OBD engine family, a set of OBD monitors used for determining the correct operation of the emission control system;\n(38)\n\u2018net power\u2019 means the power obtained on a test bench at the end of the crankshaft or its equivalent at the corresponding engine or motor speed with the auxiliaries according to Annex XIV and determined under reference atmospheric conditions;\n(39)\n\u2018maximum net power\u2019 means the maximum value of the net power measured at full engine load;\n(40)\n\u2018wall-flow diesel particulate filter\u2019 means a diesel particulate filter (hereinafter \u2018DPF\u2019) in which all the exhaust gas is forced to flow through a wall which filters out the solid matter;\n(41)\n\u2018continuous regeneration\u2019 means the regeneration process of an exhaust after-treatment system that occurs either permanently or at least once per World Harmonized Transient Driving Cycle (hereinafter \u2018WHTC\u2019) hot start test.\nArticle 3\nRequirements for type-approval\n1. In order to receive an EC type-approval of an engine system or engine family as a separate technical unit, EC type-approval of a vehicle with an approved engine system with regard to emissions and vehicle repair and maintenance information, or an EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to emissions and vehicle repair and maintenance information the manufacturer shall, in accordance with the provisions of Annex I, demonstrate that the vehicles or engine systems are subject to the tests and comply with the requirements set out in Annexes III to VIII, X, XIII, and XIV. The manufacturer shall also ensure compliance with the specifications of reference fuels set out in Annex IX.\n2. In order to receive EC type-approval of a vehicle with an approved engine system with regard to emissions and vehicle repair and maintenance information, or an EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to emissions and vehicle repair and maintenance information the manufacturer shall ensure compliance with the installation requirements set out in Section 4 of Annex I.\n3. In order to receive an extension of the EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to emissions and vehicle repair and maintenance information type-approved under this Regulation with a reference mass exceeding 2 380 kg but not exceeding 2 610 kg the manufacturer shall meet the requirements set out in Appendix 1 to Annex VIII.\n4. The provisions for alternative approval specified in point 2.4.1 to Annex X and point 2.1 to Annex XIII shall not apply for the purpose of an EC type-approval of an engine system or engine family as a separate technical unit.\n5. Any engine system and any element of design liable to affect the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants shall be designed, constructed, assembled and installed so as to enable the engine, in normal use, to comply with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 and those of this Regulation. The manufacturer shall also ensure compliance with off-cycle requirements set out in Article 14 and Annex VI to this Regulation.\n6. In order to receive an EC type-approval of an engine system or engine family as a separate technical unit or an EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to emissions and vehicle repair and maintenance information the manufacturer shall ensure compliance with the requirements on fuel range for a universal fuel approval or in case of a positive-ignition engine fuelled with natural gas and LPG a restricted fuel range approval as specified in Section 1 of Annex I.\n7. In order to receive an EC type-approval in the case of a petrol or E85 fuelled engine, the manufacturer shall ensure that the specific requirements for inlets to fuel tanks for petrol and E85 fuelled vehicles laid down in Section 4.3 of Annex I are fulfilled.\n8. In order to receive an EC type-approval the manufacturer shall ensure that the specific requirements for electronic system security laid down in point 2.1 of Annex X are fulfilled.\n9. The manufacturer shall take technical measures so as to ensure that the tailpipe emissions are effectively limited, in accordance with this Regulation, throughout the normal life of the vehicle and under normal conditions of use. Those measures shall include ensuring that the security of hoses, joints and connections, used within the emission control systems, are constructed so as to conform to the original design intent.\n10. The manufacturer shall ensure that the emissions test results comply with the applicable limit value under the test conditions specified in this Regulation.\n11. The manufacturer shall determine deterioration factors that will be used to demonstrate that the gaseous and particulate emissions of an engine family or engine-aftertreatment system family remain in conformity with the emission limits set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 over the normal useful life periods set out in Article 4(2) of that Regulation.\nThe procedures for demonstrating the compliance of an engine system or engine-aftertreatment system family over the normal useful life periods are set out in Annex VII to this Regulation.\n12. For positive-ignition engines subject to the test set out in Annex IV, the maximum permissible carbon monoxide content in the exhaust gases at normal engine idling speed shall be that stated by the vehicle manufacturer. However, the maximum carbon monoxide content shall not exceed 0,3 % vol.\nAt high idle speed, the carbon monoxide content by volume of the exhaust gases shall not exceed 0,2 % vol., with the engine speed being at least 2 000 min-1 and Lambda being 1 \u00b1 0,03 or in accordance with the specifications of the manufacturer.\n13. In the case of a closed crankcase, manufacturers shall ensure that for the test set out in Annex V, the engine\u2019s ventilation system does not permit the emission of any crankcase gases into the atmosphere. If the crankcase is of an open type the emissions shall be measured and added to the tailpipe emissions following the provisions set out in Annex V.\n14. When applying for type-approval, manufacturers shall present to the approval authority information showing that the deNOx system retains its emission control function during all conditions regularly pertaining in the territory of the Union, especially at low temperatures.\nIn addition, manufacturers shall provide the approval authority with information on the operating strategy of any EGR system, including its functioning at low ambient temperatures.\nThis information shall also include a description of any effects on emissions of operating the system under low ambient temperatures.\n15. Vehicles and engines shall only be type-approved according to Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 and this Regulation once measurement procedures for measuring PM number as set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 595/2009, any specific provisions regarding multi-setting engines that are needed and provisions implementing Article 6 of that Regulation have been adopted.\nArticle 4\nOn-board diagnostics\n1. Manufacturers shall ensure that all engine systems and vehicles are equipped with an OBD system.\n2. The OBD system shall be designed, constructed and installed on a vehicle in accordance with Annex X, so as to enable it to identify, record, and communicate the types of deterioration or malfunction specified in that Annex over the entire life of the vehicle.\n3. The manufacturer shall ensure that the OBD system complies with the requirements set out in Annex X, including the OBD in-use performance requirements, under all normal and reasonably foreseeable driving conditions encountered in the Union, including the conditions of normal use specified in Annex X.\n4. When tested with a qualified deteriorated component, the OBD system malfunction indicator shall be activated in accordance with Annex X. The OBD system malfunction indicator may also be activated at levels of emissions below the OBD thresholds limits specified in Annex X.\n5. The manufacturer shall ensure that the provisions for in-use performance of an OBD engine family laid down in Annex X are followed.\n6. The OBD in-use performance related data shall be stored and made available without any encryption through the standard OBD communication protocol by the OBD system in accordance with the provisions of Annex X.\n7. If the manufacturer chooses, during a period of 3 years after the dates specified in Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 OBD systems may comply with alternative provisions as specified in Annex X to this Regulation and referring to this paragraph.\n8. If the manufacturer chooses, until 1 September 2014 in the case of new types of vehicles or engines and until 1 September 2015 for all new vehicles sold, registered or put into service within the Union, he may use alternative provisions for the monitoring of the DPF as set out in point 2.3.3.3 of Annex X.\nArticle 5\nApplication for EC type-approval of an engine system or engine family as a separate technical unit\n1. The manufacturer shall submit to the approval authority an application for EC type-approval of an engine system or engine family as a separate technical unit.\n2. The application referred to in paragraph 1 shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Appendix 4 to Annex I. For that purpose Part 1 of that Appendix shall apply.\n3. Together with the application, the manufacturer shall provide a documentation package that fully explains any element of design which affects emissions, the emission control strategy of the engine system, the means by which the engine system controls the output variables which have a bearing upon emissions, whether that control is direct or indirect, and fully explains the warning and inducement system required by Sections 4 and 5 of Annex XIII. The documentation package shall consist of the following parts including the information set out in Section 8 to Annex I:\n(a)\na formal documentation package that shall be retained by the approval authority. The formal documentation package may be made available to interested parties upon request;\n(b)\nan extended documentation package that shall remain confidential. The extended documentation package may be kept by the approval authority, or be retained by the manufacturer, at the discretion of the approval authority, but shall be made available for inspection by the approval authority at the time of approval or at any time during the validity of the approval. When the documentation package is retained by the manufacturer, the approval authority shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the documentation is not being altered after approval.\n4. In addition to the information referred to in paragraph 3, the manufacturer shall submit the following information:\n(a)\nin the case of positive-ignition engines, a declaration by the manufacturer of the minimum percentage of misfires out of a total number of firing events that either would result in emissions exceeding the limits set out in Annex X if that percentage of misfire had been present from the start of the emission test as set out in Annex III or could lead to an exhaust catalyst, or catalysts, overheating prior to causing irreversible damage;\n(b)\na description of the provisions taken to prevent tampering with and modification of the emission control computer(s) including the facility for updating using a manufacturer-approved programme or calibration;\n(c)\ndocumentation of the OBD system, in accordance with the requirements set out in Section 5 to Annex X;\n(d)\nOBD related information for the purpose of access to OBD and repair and maintenance information, in accordance with the requirements of this Regulation;\n(e)\na Statement of Off-Cycle Emission compliance with the requirements of Article 14 and Section 9 to Annex VI;\n(f)\na Statement of OBD in-use Performance compliance with the requirements of Appendix 6 to Annex X;\n(g)\na Statement of compliance with the requirements on access to OBD and repair and maintenance information;\n(h)\nthe initial plan for in-service testing according to point 2.4 of Annex II;\n(i)\nwhere appropriate, copies of other type-approvals with the relevant data to enable extension of approvals and establishment of deterioration factors.\n5. The manufacturer shall submit to the technical service responsible for the type-approval tests an engine or, as appropriate, a parent engine representative of the type to be approved.\n6. Changes to the make of a system, component or separate technical unit that occur after a type-approval shall not automatically invalidate a type-approval, unless its original characteristics or technical parameters are changed in such a way that the functionality of the engine or pollution control system is affected.\nArticle 6\nAdministrative provisions for EC type-approval of an engine system or engine family as a separate technical unit\n1. If all the relevant requirements are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC type-approval of an engine system or engine family as a separate technical unit and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nWithout prejudice to the provisions of Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC, Section 3 of the type-approval number shall be drawn up in accordance with Appendix 9 to Annex I to this Regulation.\nAn approval authority shall not assign the same number to another engine type.\n2. When granting an EC type-approval under paragraph 1, the approval authority shall issue an EC type-approval certificate using the model set out in Appendix 5 to Annex I.\nArticle 7\nApplication for EC type-approval of a vehicle with an approved engine system with regard to emissions and access to vehicle repair and maintenance information\n1. The manufacturer shall submit to the approval authority an application for EC type-approval of a vehicle with an approved engine system with regard to emissions and access to vehicle repair and maintenance information.\n2. The application referred to in paragraph 1 shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Part 2 of Appendix 4 to Annex I. This application shall be accompanied by a copy of the EC type-approval certificate for the engine system or engine family as a separate technical unit issued in accordance with Article 6.\n3. The manufacturer shall provide a documentation package that fully explains the elements of the warning and inducement system that is on board the vehicle and required by Annex XIII. This documentation package shall be provided in accordance with Article 5(3).\n4. In addition to the information referred to in paragraph 3, the manufacturer shall submit the following information:\n(a)\na description of the measures taken to prevent tampering with and modification of the vehicle control units covered by this Regulation including the facility for updating using a manufacturer-approved programme or calibration;\n(b)\na description of the OBD components on board of the vehicle, in accordance with the requirements of Section 5 of Annex X;\n(c)\ninformation related to the OBD components on board the vehicle for the purpose of access to OBD and repair and maintenance information;\n(d)\na statement of compliance with the requirements on access to OBD and repair and maintenance information;\n(e)\nwhere appropriate, copies of other type-approvals with the relevant data to enable extension of approvals.\n5. Changes to the make of a system, component or separate technical unit that occur after a type-approval shall not automatically invalidate a type-approval, unless its original characteristics or technical parameters are changed in such a way that the functionality of the engine or pollution control system is affected.\nArticle 8\nAdministrative provisions for EC type-approval of a vehicle with an approved engine system with regard to emissions and access to vehicle repair and maintenance information\n1. If all the relevant requirements are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC type-approval of a vehicle with an approved engine system with regard to emissions and access to vehicle repair and maintenance information and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nWithout prejudice to the provisions of Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC, Section 3 of the type-approval number shall be drawn up in accordance with Appendix 9 to Annex I to this Regulation.\nAn approval authority shall not assign the same number to another vehicle type.\n2. When granting an EC type-approval under paragraph 1, the approval authority shall issue an EC type-approval certificate using the model set out in Appendix 6 to Annex I.\nArticle 9\nApplication for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to emissions and access to vehicle repair and maintenance information\n1. The manufacturer shall submit to the approval authority an application for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to emissions and access to vehicle repair and maintenance information.\n2. The application referred to in paragraph 1 shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Appendix 4 to Annex I. For that purpose Parts 1 and 2 of that Appendix shall apply.\n3. The manufacturer shall provide a documentation package that fully explains any element of design which affects emissions, the emission control strategy of the engine system, the means by which the engine system controls the output variables which have a bearing upon emissions, whether that control is direct or indirect, and fully explains the warning and inducement system required by Annex XIII. This documentation package shall be provided in accordance with Article 5(3).\n4. In addition to the information referred to in paragraph 3, the manufacturer shall submit the information required by Article 5(4)(a) to (i) and Article 7(4)(a) to (e).\n5. The manufacturer shall submit to the technical service responsible for the type-approval tests an engine representative of the type to be approved.\n6. Changes to the make of a system, component or separate technical unit that occur after a type-approval shall not automatically invalidate a type-approval, unless its original characteristics or technical parameters are changed in such a way that the functionality of the engine or pollution control system is affected.\nArticle 10\nAdministrative provisions for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to emissions and access to vehicle repair and maintenance information\n1. If all the relevant requirements are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to emissions and access to vehicle repair and maintenance information and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nWithout prejudice to the provisions of Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC, Section 3 of the type-approval number shall be drawn up in accordance with Appendix 9 to Annex I to this Regulation.\nAn approval authority shall not assign the same number to another vehicle type.\n2. When granting an EC type-approval under paragraph 1, the approval authority shall issue an EC type-approval certificate using the model set out in Appendix 7 to Annex I.\nArticle 11\nConformity of production\n1. Measures to ensure the conformity of production shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of Directive 2007/46/EC.\n2. Conformity of production shall be checked on the basis of the description in the type-approval certificates set out in Appendices 5, 6 and 7 to Annex I, as applicable.\n3. Conformity of production shall be assessed in accordance with the specific conditions laid down in Section 7 of Annex I and the relevant statistical methods laid down in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to that Annex.\nArticle 12\nIn-service conformity\n1. Measures to ensure in-service conformity of vehicles or engine systems type-approved under this Regulation or Directive 2005/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) shall be taken in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 2007/46/EC, and complying with the requirements of Annex II to this Regulation in the case of vehicles or engine systems type-approved under this Regulation and with the requirements of Annex XII to this Regulation in the case of vehicles or engine systems type-approved under Directive 2005/55/EC.\n2. The technical measures taken by the manufacturer shall be such as to ensure that the tailpipe emissions are effectively limited, throughout the normal life of the vehicles under normal conditions of use. The conformity with the provisions of this Regulation shall be checked over the normal useful life of an engine system installed in a vehicle under normal conditions of use as specified in Annex II to this Regulation.\n3. The manufacturer shall report the results of the in-service testing to the approval authority which granted the original type-approval in accordance with the initial plan submitted at type-approval. Any deviation from the initial plan shall be justified to the satisfaction of the approval authority.\n4. If the approval authority which granted the original type-approval is not satisfied with the manufacturer\u2019s reporting in accordance with Section 10 of Annex II, or has reported evidence of unsatisfactory in-service conformity, the authority may order the manufacturer to run a test for confirmatory purposes. The approval authority shall examine the confirmatory test report supplied by the manufacturer.\n5. Where the approval authority which granted the original type-approval is not satisfied with the results of in-service tests or confirmatory tests in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex II, or based on in-service testing conducted by a Member State, it shall require the manufacturer to submit a plan of remedial measures to remedy the non-conformity in accordance with Article 13 and Section 9 of Annex II.\n6. Any Member State may conduct and report its own surveillance testing, based on the in-service conformity testing procedure set out in Annex II. Information on the procurement, maintenance, and manufacturer\u2019s participation in the activities shall be recorded. On request by an approval authority the approval authority that granted the original type-approval shall provide the necessary information about the type-approval to enable testing in accordance with the procedure set out in Annex II.\n7. If a Member State demonstrates that an engine or vehicle type does not conform to the applicable requirements of this Article and Annex II, it shall notify through its own approval authority without delay the approval authority which granted the original type-approval in accordance with the requirements of Article 30(3) of Directive 2007/46/EC.\nFollowing that notification and subject to the provision of Article 30(6) of Directive 2007/46/EC, the approval authority of the Member State which granted the original type-approval shall promptly inform the manufacturer that an engine or vehicle type fails to satisfy the requirements of these provisions.\n8. Following the notification referred to in paragraph 7 and in cases where earlier in-service conformity testing showed conformity, the approval authority which granted the original type-approval may require the manufacturer to perform additional confirmatory tests after consultation with the experts of the Member State that reported the failing vehicle.\nIf no such test data is available, the manufacturer shall, within 60 working days after receipt of the notification referred to in paragraph 7, either submit to the approval authority which granted the original type-approval a plan of remedial measures in accordance with Article 13 or perform additional in-service conformity testing with an equivalent vehicle to verify whether the engine or vehicle type fails the requirements. In the case where the manufacturer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the approval authority that further time is required to perform additional testing, an extension may be granted.\n9. Experts of the Member State that reported the failing engine or vehicle type in accordance with paragraph 7 shall be invited to witness the additional in-service conformity tests referred to in paragraph 8. Additionally, the results of the tests shall be reported to that Member State and the approval authorities.\nIf these in-service conformity tests or confirmatory tests confirm the non-conformance of the engine or vehicle type, the approval authority shall require the manufacturer to submit a plan of remedial measures to remedy the non-conformity. The plan of remedial measures shall comply with the provisions of Article 13 and Section 9 of Annex II.\nIf those in-service conformity tests or confirmatory tests show conformity the manufacturer shall submit a report to the approval authority which granted the original type-approval. The report shall be submitted by the approval authority which granted the original type-approval to the Member State that reported the failing vehicle type and the approval authorities. It shall contain the test results according to Section 10 of Annex II.\n10. The approval authority which granted the original type-approval shall keep the Member State which had established that the engine or vehicle type did not conform to the applicable requirements informed of the progress and results of the discussions with the manufacturer, the verification tests and the remedial measures.\nArticle 13\nRemedial measures\n1. On request of the approval authority and following in-service testing in accordance with Article 12 the manufacturer shall submit the plan of remedial measures to the approval authority no later than 60 working days after receipt of the notification from the approval authority. Where the manufacturer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the approval authority that further time is required to investigate the reason for the non-compliance in order to submit a plan of remedial measures, an extension may be granted.\n2. The remedial measures shall apply to all engines in service belonging to the same engine families or OBD engine families and be extended also to engine families or OBD engine families which are likely to be affected with the same defects. The need to amend the type-approval documents shall be assessed by the manufacturer and the result reported to the approval authority.\n3. The approval authority shall consult the manufacturer in order to secure agreement on a plan of remedial measures and on executing the plan. If the approval authority which granted the original type-approval establishes that no agreement can be reached, the procedure set out in Article 30(1) and 30(5) of Directive 2007/46/EC shall be initiated.\n4. The approval authority shall within 30 working days from the date on which it has received the plan of remedial measures from the manufacturer, approve or reject the plan of remedial measures. The approval authority shall within the same time also notify the manufacturer and all Member States of its decision to approve or reject the plan of remedial measures.\n5. The manufacturer shall be responsible for the execution of the approved plan of remedial measures.\n6. The manufacturer shall keep a record of every engine system or vehicle recalled and repaired or modified and of the workshop which performed the repair. The approval authority shall have access to that record on request during the execution and for a period of 5 years after the completion of the execution of the plan.\n7. Any repair or modification referred to in paragraph 6 shall be recorded in a certificate supplied by the manufacturer to the owner of the engine or vehicle.\nArticle 14\nRequirements to limit off-cycle emissions\n1. The manufacturer shall take all necessary measures, in accordance with this Regulation and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009, so as to ensure that the tailpipe emissions are effectively limited throughout the normal life of the vehicle and under all normal conditions of use.\nThose measures shall take the following into account:\n(a)\nthe general requirements including the performance requirements and the prohibition of defeat strategies;\n(b)\nthe requirements to effectively limit the tailpipe emissions under the range of ambient conditions under which the vehicle may be expected to operate, and under the range of operating conditions that may be encountered;\n(c)\nthe requirements with respect to off-cycle laboratory testing at type-approval;\n(d)\nany additional requirements with respect to off-cycle in-use vehicle testing, as provided for in this Regulation;\n(e)\nthe requirement for the manufacturer to provide a statement of compliance with the requirements limiting off-cycle emissions.\n2. The manufacturer shall fulfil the specific requirements, together with the associated test procedures, set out in Annex VI.\n3. Any additional requirements with respect to off-cycle in-use vehicle testing referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1 shall be introduced after the assessment of the PEMS procedures set out in Annex II. The assessment shall be finalised by 31 December 2014.\nArticle 15\nPollution control devices\n1. The manufacturer shall ensure that replacement pollution control devices intended to be fitted to EC type-approved engine systems or vehicles covered by Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 are EC type-approved, as separate technical units in accordance with the requirements of this Article and of Articles 16 and 17.\nCatalytic converters, deNOx devices and particulate filters shall be considered to be pollution control devices for the purposes of this Regulation.\n2. Original replacement pollution control devices, which fall within the type covered by point 3.2.12 of Appendix 4 to Annex I and are intended for fitment to a vehicle to which the relevant type-approval document refers, do not need to comply with all provisions of Annex XI provided that they fulfil the requirements of points 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of that Annex.\n3. The manufacturer shall ensure that the original pollution control device carries identification markings.\n4. The identification markings referred to in paragraph 3 shall comprise the following:\n(a)\nthe vehicle or engine manufacturer's name or trade mark;\n(b)\nthe make and identifying part number of the original pollution control device as recorded in the information referred to in point 3.2.12.2 of Appendix 4 to Annex I.\n5. Replacement pollution control devices shall only be type-approved according to Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 and this Regulation once the specific testing requirements are introduced in Annex XI to this Regulation.\nArticle 16\nApplication for EC type-approval of a type of replacement pollution control device as a separate technical unit\n1. The manufacturer shall submit to the approval authority an application for EC type-approval of a type of replacement pollution control device as a separate technical unit.\n2. The application shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Appendix 1 to Annex XI.\n3. The manufacturer shall submit a statement of compliance with the requirements on access to OBD and repair and maintenance information.\n4. The manufacturer shall submit to the technical service responsible for the type-approval test the following:\n(a)\nan engine system or engine systems of a type-approved in accordance with this Regulation equipped with a new original equipment pollution control device;\n(b)\none sample of the type of the replacement pollution control device;\n(c)\nan additional sample of the type of the replacement pollution control device, in the case of a replacement pollution control device intended to be fitted to a vehicle equipped with an OBD system.\n5. For the purposes of point (a) of paragraph 4, the test engines shall be selected by the applicant with the agreement of the approval authority.\nThe test conditions shall comply with the requirements set out in Section 6 of Annex 4B to UN/ECE Regulation No 49.\nThe test engines shall respect the following requirements:\n(a)\nthey shall have no emission control system defects;\n(b)\nany malfunctioning or excessively worn emission-related original part shall be repaired or replaced;\n(c)\nthey shall be tuned properly and set to the manufacturer's specification prior to emission testing.\n6. For the purposes of points (b) and (c) of paragraph 4, the sample shall be clearly and indelibly marked with the applicant's trade name or mark and its commercial designation.\n7. For the purposes of point (c) of paragraph 4, the sample shall be a qualified deteriorated component.\nArticle 17\nAdministrative provisions for EC type-approval of replacement pollution control device as separate technical unit\n1. If all the relevant requirements are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC type-approval for replacement pollution control devices as separate technical units and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nThe approval authority shall not assign the same number to another replacement pollution control device type.\nThe same type-approval number may cover the use of that replacement pollution control device type on a number of different vehicle or engine types.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the approval authority shall issue an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Appendix 2 to Annex XI.\n3. If the manufacturer is able to demonstrate to the approval authority that the replacement pollution control device is of a type referred to in point 3.2.12.2 of Appendix 4 to Annex I, the granting of a type-approval shall not be dependent on verification of compliance with the requirements set out in Section 4 of Annex XI.\nArticle 18\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 595/2009\nRegulation (EC) No 595/2009 is amended in accordance with Annex XV to this Regulation.\nArticle 19\nAmendments to Directive 2007/46/EC\nDirective 2007/46/EC is amended in accordance with Annex XVI to this Regulation.\nArticle 20\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2011.", "references": ["89", "5", "77", "98", "88", "39", "91", "32", "27", "18", "1", "7", "42", "83", "61", "4", "64", "52", "94", "43", "84", "20", "16", "28", "21", "19", "56", "69", "10", "80", "No Label", "54", "55", "58", "60", "75", "76", "85"], "gold": ["54", "55", "58", "60", "75", "76", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 87/2012\nof 1 February 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance clethodim\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2)(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Directive 2011/21/EU (2) clethodim was included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC for uses as herbicide on sugar beet. Since the replacement of Directive 91/414/EEC by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, this substance is deemed to have been approved under that Regulation and is listed in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (3).\n(2)\nOn 14 February 2011 Arysta LifeScience, at whose request clethodim was included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, submitted an application for an amendment to the conditions of inclusion of clethodim to allow its use as a herbicide on crops other than sugar beet. That application was accompanied by additional information. It was submitted to the Netherlands, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 (4).\n(3)\nThe Netherlands evaluated the additional information submitted by the applicant and prepared an addendum to the draft assessment report. It submitted that addendum to the Commission on 28 March 2011. The Netherlands communicated the addendum to the other Member States and to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) for comments and forwarded the comments received to the Commission.\n(4)\nThe Authority organised a consultation of experts on the addendum to the draft assessment report. On 15 October 2011 the Authority communicated its conclusion to the applicant, the Member States and the Commission and made it available to the public. Taking into account the comments received from the applicant, the Authority modified its conclusion. It submitted its modified conclusion to the applicant, the Member States and the Commission and made it available to the public on 18 November 2011 (5).\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the review report for clethodim. The notifier submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(6)\nThe addendum to the draft assessment report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and were finalised on 9 December 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for clethodim.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations carried out that the restriction to sugar beets of the use of plant protection products consisting of or containing clethodim may be lifted.\n(8)\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nPart A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 February 2012.", "references": ["7", "94", "82", "11", "58", "76", "73", "45", "64", "55", "13", "97", "87", "1", "38", "89", "20", "71", "74", "99", "24", "67", "93", "30", "26", "15", "98", "70", "21", "88", "No Label", "25", "61", "65", "68"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 599/2012\nof 5 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2012.", "references": ["49", "52", "10", "62", "84", "65", "83", "72", "25", "93", "77", "59", "56", "37", "71", "86", "60", "41", "79", "6", "45", "91", "12", "0", "67", "23", "48", "70", "32", "55", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 199/2011\nof 28 February 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 180/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["5", "13", "39", "62", "19", "66", "59", "30", "27", "8", "53", "15", "42", "87", "70", "79", "21", "26", "24", "56", "37", "36", "33", "16", "25", "1", "54", "83", "18", "68", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 25 July 2011\nrejecting two applications for entry in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (Eilenburger Sachsenquelle (PDO)), (Eilenburger Sanusquelle (PDO))\n(notified under document C(2011) 5251)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2011/462/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 6(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 5 November 1999, Germany notified to the Commission two applications for registration under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (2) concerning the two names of mineral waters listed in the Annex. However, these names are not included in the list of natural mineral waters recognised by Member States (3) in accordance with Article 1 of Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (4). Consequently, as these names cannot be recognised in the internal market as marketable mineral waters, they should not be registered.\n(2)\nIn the light of the above, the two applications for registration of the designations listed in the Annex to this Decision should be rejected.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision comply with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Protected Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe applications for registration of the designations listed in the Annex to this Decision are rejected.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2011.", "references": ["68", "3", "42", "50", "88", "73", "1", "26", "46", "75", "10", "38", "80", "52", "83", "29", "5", "60", "51", "7", "16", "62", "12", "36", "98", "37", "89", "33", "27", "82", "No Label", "24", "25", "71", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "71", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 798/2012\nof 4 September 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 September 2012.", "references": ["98", "57", "56", "47", "48", "91", "54", "67", "95", "39", "17", "36", "15", "83", "71", "3", "58", "76", "50", "10", "63", "96", "64", "0", "69", "80", "94", "78", "66", "46", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 308/2011\nof 29 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 March 2011.", "references": ["15", "11", "18", "6", "81", "79", "95", "23", "92", "36", "21", "90", "4", "57", "85", "39", "98", "1", "73", "42", "22", "59", "52", "16", "31", "72", "99", "20", "46", "9", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/25/EU\nof 3 March 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include bupirimate as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included bupirimate.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of bupirimate.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the Netherlands, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe Netherlands evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 26 November 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on bupirimate to the Commission on 20 September 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for bupirimate.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing bupirimate may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include bupirimate in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information to confirm the soil degradation, the kinetic parameters, the adsorption and the desorption parameter for the major soil metabolite de-ethyl-bupirimate (DE-B).\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing bupirimate to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of bupirimate and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning bupirimate in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning bupirimate in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing bupirimate as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to bupirimate are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing bupirimate as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning bupirimate. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing bupirimate as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing bupirimate as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 March 2011.", "references": ["92", "55", "27", "9", "59", "3", "76", "67", "12", "50", "38", "85", "21", "15", "71", "99", "66", "84", "6", "35", "86", "29", "88", "37", "20", "69", "78", "45", "23", "94", "No Label", "2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 20 June 2011\nauthorising Sweden to apply a reduced rate of electricity tax to electricity directly provided to vessels at berth in a port (\u2018shore-side electricity\u2019) in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC\n(2011/384/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1), and in particular Article 19 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter of 4 March 2010, Sweden sought authorisation to apply a reduced rate of electricity tax to electricity directly provided to vessels at berth in a port (shore-side electricity) pursuant to Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC.\n(2)\nWith the tax reduction it intends to apply, Sweden aims to promote a more widespread use of shore-side electricity as an environmentally less harmful way for ships to satisfy their electricity needs while lying at berth in ports as compared to the burning of bunker fuels on board the vessels.\n(3)\nIn so far as the use of shore-side electricity avoids emissions of air pollutants associated with the burning of bunker fuels on board the vessels at berth, it contributes to an improvement of local air quality in port cities. Under the specific conditions of the electricity generation structure in the region concerned, i.e. the Nordic electricity market including Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway, the use of electricity from the onshore grid instead of electricity generated by burning bunker fuels on board is furthermore expected to avoid CO2 emissions. The measure is therefore expected to contribute to the Union\u2019s environmental, health and climate policy objectives.\n(4)\nAllowing Sweden to apply a reduced rate of electricity taxation to shore-side electricity does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the above mentioned objective, since on-board generation will remain the more competitive alternative in most cases. For the same reason, and because of the current relatively low degree of market penetration of the technology, the measure is unlikely to lead to significant distortions in competition during its lifetime and will thus not negatively affect the proper functioning of the internal market.\n(5)\nIt follows from Article 19(2) of Directive 2003/96/EC that each authorisation granted under that provision is to be strictly limited in time. Given the need for a period long enough in order not to discourage port operators from making the necessary investments, but also the need not to undermine future developments of the existing legal framework, it is appropriate to grant the authorisation requested for a period of 3 years, subject however to the entry into application of general provisions in the matter, at a point in time earlier than the expiry thus foreseen,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSweden is hereby authorised to apply a reduced rate of electricity taxation to electricity directly supplied to vessels, other than private pleasure craft, berthed in ports (shore-side electricity) provided that the minimum levels of taxation pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 2003/96/EC are respected.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nIt shall expire on 25 June 2014.\nHowever, should the Council, acting on the basis of Article 113 of the Treaty, provide for general rules on tax advantages for shore-side electricity, this Decision shall expire on the day on which those general rules become applicable.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Sweden.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["88", "45", "16", "5", "20", "13", "82", "51", "62", "93", "63", "26", "44", "73", "84", "78", "28", "24", "33", "36", "52", "60", "42", "9", "43", "17", "57", "90", "85", "75", "No Label", "34", "56", "67", "81", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["34", "56", "67", "81", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 642/2011\nof 30 June 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 July 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 July 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 July 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 June 2011.", "references": ["39", "85", "52", "17", "69", "16", "15", "57", "23", "34", "73", "13", "77", "58", "78", "56", "90", "6", "37", "18", "25", "35", "72", "32", "42", "19", "41", "67", "81", "38", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 294/2011\nof 24 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 March 2011.", "references": ["66", "23", "88", "71", "42", "45", "84", "55", "5", "96", "46", "75", "3", "32", "9", "17", "31", "30", "74", "67", "82", "62", "89", "69", "51", "92", "65", "41", "12", "85", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 511/2010\nof 14 June 2010\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (Commission) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Provisional measures\n(1)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 1247/2009 (2) (the \u2018provisional Regulation\u2019) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019 or \u2018country concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged by the European Association of Metals (EUROMETAUX) (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of a producer representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of molybdenum wires.\n(3)\nAs set out in recital 13 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of the trends for the assessment of injury covered the period from March 2005 to the end of the IP (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n1.2. Subsequent procedure\n(4)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (\u2018provisional disclosure\u2019), several interested parties made written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and, where appropriate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly.\n(5)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (\u2018final disclosure\u2019). They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(6)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the product concerned and the like product, recitals (14) to (17) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. DUMPING\n3.1. Market Economy Treatment (MET) - Individual Treatment (IT)\n(7)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the MET and IT findings, recitals (18) to (23) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.2. Normal value\n(8)\nFollowing the disclosure of the provisional findings, the cooperating exporting producer contested the use of the export prices from the USA to other countries (including the Union) as a basis for the determination of the normal value for the PRC. Instead, it proposed to use the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product because it considered that normal value determined on this basis would yield a lower dumping margin for the PRC.\n(9)\nThe same producer claimed that the normal value should be adjusted downwards in order to account for the efficiencies it enjoys as a vertically integrated producer in comparison with the complainant or the analogue country producer which do not have mining facilities for the main raw material, the molybdenum ore.\n(10)\nRegarding the first claim it is noted that the use of prices paid or payable in the Union is an option provided for in Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation to be used only when the other options provided for in the same Article cannot be applied. Since in this proceeding cooperation was obtained from a third country producer, and it was thus possible to use the option of a price from the market economy third country to other countries, there is no legal justification to apply the residual option of Article 2(7)(a). The claim was therefore, rejected.\n(11)\nRegarding the second claim it is noted that that the cooperating producer did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that the level of integration of producers is a factor that affects prices and price comparability. The claim was therefore rejected.\n(12)\nCertain parties questioned the choice of the analogue country producer in view of the fact that this company in the USA is a daughter company of the complainant. In this regard it is noted that the fact that a company in the proposed analogue country is a related company of the complainant did not preclude that the information obtained was reliable and verifiable.\n(13)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the normal value, which would alter the provisional findings, recitals (24) to (25) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.3. Export price\n(14)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the export price, recital (26) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n3.4. Comparison\n(15)\nIt is noted that the indirect taxation adjustment mentioned in recital (27) of the provisional Regulation is 5 % and represents the difference between the VAT payable on domestic sales and that payable on the export sales transactions due account being taken of the VAT refund rate on export sales. The cooperating exporting producer contested the manner in which this adjustment was applied and claimed that it should rather be calculated as a factor decreasing the export price.\n(16)\nRegarding this claim it is noted that the adjustment was based on the provisions of Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation which provides for an adjustment to normal value for import charges and indirect taxes - a category which includes VAT. On this basis the claim was rejected.\n(17)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the comparison, which would alter the provisional findings, recital (27) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n3.5. Dumping margins\n(18)\nBased on the above, the country-wide dumping established in recitals (28) to (29) of the provisional Regulation at 68,4 % is hereby confirmed.\n4. INJURY\n4.1. Union production\n(19)\nIt is recalled that in order to protect the business confidential information of the sole Union producer that fully cooperated, all the figures related to sensitive data provided below have been indexed or given in a range.\n(20)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the Union production recitals (30) to (31) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4.2. Definition of the Union industry\n(21)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the definition of the Union industry, recital (32) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n(22)\nRegarding recital (33) of the provisional Regulation it is noted that on the basis of comments received by one interested party a clerical error was detected. The fiscal year (\u2018FY\u2019) 2005 of the Union producer covers the period from 1 March 2005 to 28 February 2006 and not the period from 1 March 2004 to 28 February 2005 as indicated in that recital. Hence, the starting point of the injury assessment was effectively March 2005.\n4.3. Union consumption\n(23)\nIt is recalled that the Union consumption was established by adding to the sales volume of the known producers in the Union all the imports from third countries extracted from Eurostat. It is also recalled that since the CN code under which the product concerned is declared also includes other products which fall outside the scope of this investigation and given that there are no specific import statistics available only for the product concerned, the Eurostat data was adjusted in accordance with the method suggested in the complaint. This methodology is based on a comparison of the import values from the PRC with the Union producer\u2019s sales values.\n(24)\nHowever, at provisional stage the import data used corresponded to the calendar years whereas the sales volume of the known producers were based on the fiscal years. One interested party contested this discrepancy in the period used for the determination of consumption and claimed that the imports should also be based on the fiscal years.\n(25)\nThis claim was considered to be valid and, therefore, Eurostat data was adjusted to correspond to the same periods, namely fiscal years. As a result, the Union consumption figures provided in table 1 of the provisional Regulation were amended; the new figures being as provided in Table 1 herein:\nTable 1\nUnion Consumption\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nTonnes\n403\n396\n430\n396\n358\nIndex 2005 = 100\n100\n98\n107\n98\n89\n(26)\nOverall, the Union consumption of molybdenum wires decreased by 11 % over the period considered. The demand decreased slightly by 2 % in 2006 and went up in 2007 by 9 % after which it dropped in 2008 and in the IP, in connection with the negative impact of the economic crisis.\n4.4. Imports into the European Union from the PRC\n4.4.1. Volumes and market share of the imports from the PRC\n(27)\nFollowing the acceptance of the argument mentioned in recital (25), the table below shows the revised total import volumes, market shares and prices of Chinese molybdenum wires into the Union market during the period considered. It is noted that this revision did not affect the import volumes from the country concerned in the IP.\nTable 2\nAll imports from the PRC\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nTonnes\n42\n56\n87\n100\n97\nIndex 2005 = 100\n100\n133\n207\n238\n231\nMarket share\nIndex 2005 = 100\n100\n136\n194\n243\n261\nPrices (EUR/tonne)\n53 202\n62 198\n56 046\n51 512\n50 892\nIndex\n100\n117\n105\n97\n96\nSource: Eurostat and complaint data\n(28)\nThe revised figures in Table 2 showed that overall the trends of import volumes and market shares from the country concerned presented in the table of recital (36) of the provisional Regulation remained unchanged. The dumped imports from the PRC increased significantly from 42 tonnes in 2005 to 100 tonnes in 2008, i.e. more than doubled. Following a peak in 2008, these imports decreased during the IP in line with the evolution of the Union consumption. Moreover, the market share of the dumped imports more than doubled over the period considered.\n(29)\nThe revised figures concerning the average import prices, however, now show a declining trend between 2005 and the IP. It was found that over the period considered the average import prices from the PRC decreased by 4 %.\n4.4.2. Price undercutting\n(30)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning price undercutting, recitals (39) and (40) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4.5. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(31)\nIt is recalled that, as mentioned in recital (41) of the provisional Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators for an assessment of the state of the Union industry from March 2005 to the end of the IP.\n(32)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to production, production capacity and capacity utilisation, the provisional conclusions as outlined in recitals (41) to (43) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(33)\nSubsequent to the provisional Regulation and following the minor revision made to the Union consumption in Table 1, the market share of the Union industry has been revised as follows, while the sales volume and average sales prices remained unchanged:\nTable 3\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nSales volume in the Union market\nIndex\n100\n99\n92\n75\n68\nMarket share\nIndex\n100\n101\n86\n76\n77\nAverage sales prices\nIndex\n100\n86\n96\n95\n92\n(34)\nAs mentioned in recital (45) of the provisional Regulation, the sales volume of the Union industry to independent customers on the Union market decreased significantly by 32 % over the period considered. This decrease significantly exceeded the decrease in consumption which as shown in table 2 decreased by 11 % over the same period. This resulted in a significant drop of 23 % in the market share of the Union industry in the same period.\n(35)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the development of the sales prices, stocks, employment, the financial performance indicators of the Union industry, the provisional conclusions as outlined in recitals (46) to (57) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(36)\nThe conclusion that the Union industry suffered material injury, as set out in recitals (58) to (61) of the provisional Regulation, is also confirmed.\n5. CAUSALITY\n5.1. Effect of the dumped imports\n(37)\nIn accordance with Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation, at provisional stage it was examined whether the dumped imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC caused material injury to the Union industry to a degree that can be considered as material.\n(38)\nIt is recalled that the deterioration in the economic situation of the Union industry coincided with the surge of the dumped imports from the PRC. Subsequent to the provisional measures and following the revisions to the import figures originating from the PRC as provided in recital (25), the imported volume and the market share of the Chinese exporters more then doubled between 2005 and IP.\n(39)\nAs a result of the revisions the import prices of the dumped imports decreased over the period considered by 4 % while remaining constantly below the prices of the Union industry, undercutting them by 30 to 35 % during the IP. Consequently, the Union industry was facing price pressure by the Chinese exporters on a continued basis in order to remain competitive on the Union market.\n(40)\nOne interested party contested the existence of a causal link between the dumped imports from the PRC and the material injury suffered by the Union industry. It argued that there is no correlation between the financial performance of the Union industry and the surge of dumped imports. It stressed that while the imports from the PRC had increased significantly in 2007 in relation to the earlier periods, the Union industry moved from a loss making to a profitable situation in that year.\n(41)\nIn this respect it is firstly noted that, between 2005 and the IP, while the imports more than doubled, the sales volume of the Union industry decreased significantly by 32 % leading to a loss of market share by 33 % during the same period. At the same time all the other injury indicators, such as production, capacity utilisation, investments, profitability and cash flow showed significant declining trends during that period. Secondly, the investigation showed that the weak performance of the Union industry was linked to the lowering of prices in its attempt to gain back the important customers lost to the Chinese exporters. As regards 2007, the Union industry continued its attempts to win back its customers by rationalisation efforts in order to keep the cost prices low and to be competitive with the low priced dumped imports. Accordingly, it is considered that the conclusions made in recitals (63) to (66) of the provisional Regulation are valid and therefore this claim had to be rejected.\n(42)\nFollowing the above, it can be confirmed that the surge of low-priced dumped imports from the PRC had a considerable negative impact on the economic situation of the Union industry during the IP.\n5.2. Effect of other factors\n(43)\nIt is recalled that other factors were also examined in the causality analysis, namely the development of the demand, the evolution of the costs of the Union industry, its export performance and finally the possible impact of the imports from other countries.\n(44)\nOne interested party claimed that the material injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by factors other than the dumped imports, namely by (i) the contraction of demand due to the economic crisis and due to changes in technology, and (ii) the export performance of the Union industry.\n(45)\nAs regards the decrease in consumption it is noted that the sales volumes of the Union industry decreased considerably more (- 32 %) than the decrease in Union consumption (- 11 %), leading to market share loss of 33 %. At the same time, the market share of the Chinese exporters increased significantly by more than two times. Therefore, it is considered that the conclusion made in recital (69) of the provisional Regulation can be confirmed and therefore this claim had to be rejected.\n(46)\nAs regards the export performance, there was indeed a declining trend in the export sales of the Union industry for reasons provided in recital (72) of the provisional Regulation (i.e. in line with the negative worldwide situation in the automotive sector as from 2008). The investigation showed, however, that the export sales was not the core business of the Union industry as these sales never exceeded 17 % of its Union sales during the period considered. More importantly, however, in addition to recitals (71) and (72) of the provisional Regulation it is noted that its sales prices in the export market remained above the sales prices within the Union. Hence, any negative impact caused by the decrease in export sale volume is considered to be very limited. Therefore, this claim had to be rejected.\n(47)\nIn the light of the foregoing and in the absence of any other comments recitals (67) to (80) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.\n6. UNION INTEREST\n6.1. Interest of the Union industry\n(48)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the interest of the Union industry, the provisional conclusions as outlined in recitals (83) to (86) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6.2. Interest of importers, traders and users in the Union\n(49)\nIt is recalled that despite the fact that numerous parties were contacted, the level of cooperation with the investigation at the provisional stage of importers, traders and users was very low.It is recalled that only one trader, located in Germany, and one user, located in Italy, had cooperated fully at provisional stage.\n(50)\nThe cooperating user argued that the negative impact of the anti-dumping measures on its business has been underestimated in the analysis of the Union interest made at provisional stage, and claimed that in fact it would have difficulties in passing on the cost increase to its customers.\n(51)\nIt is recalled that the share of the business regarding the product concerned in this user activity accounts for between 15 to 25 % of its total business activity. Further analysis made after the imposition of provisional measures confirmed that the impact on the overall profit of the company would be limited. This user has a strong position in the business segment involving the product concerned, in particular in terms of reliability and supply security towards its customers. This element would indicate that this user is likely to be able to pass at least part of the cost increase to its customers. On that basis, the claim had to be rejected.\n(52)\nSubsequent to the publication of the provisional Regulation, two users and one importer came forward and claimed that their activity will be negatively impacted by the imposition of the anti-dumping duty.\n(53)\nAccording to the data submitted by one of these two users, the business segment that includes molybdenum wire represents between 10 to 20 % of its total activity. On the basis of the elements provided, there are indications that, while the imposition of the anti-dumping duty is likely to have a negative impact on the part of the activity incorporating molybdenum wire, this user would still remain profitable. As for the other user, no data was provided that would substantiate its claim.\n(54)\nRegarding the importer, it is noted that it only provided overall basic data according to which it appeared that the imports of molybdenum wire from the PRC would account for between 10 and 20 % of the total imports from the PRC during the IP. In terms of the share of the molybdenum business in relation to the total company business - this would account for less than 7 %. Based on the information available it could, therefore, be concluded that while anti-dumping measures would have a negative impact on the business segment including molybdenum wire, the overall impact on the total company business would be limited.\n(55)\nIn view of the above and in absence of any other comments, recitals (93) to (96) of the findings and conclusion of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6.3. Competition and trade distorting effects\n(56)\nSubsequent to the publication of the provisional Regulation, some parties came forward and argued that the anti-dumping measures would lead to limited competition in the Union market.\n(57)\nAs regards this claim, it should be reiterated that since the anti-dumping duties would re-establish a level playing field, the Chinese imports would likely continue entering the Union market, albeit at non-injurious prices. In addition, it is recalled that some alternative sources of supply exist. No substantiated evidence invalidating this conclusion was provided and therefore the conclusions made in recitals (97) to (99) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6.4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(58)\nBased on the above, it is confirmed that there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of anti-dumping duties against imports of molybdenum wire originating in the PRC in the present case.\n7. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n7.1. Injury elimination level\n(59)\nIn the absence of any substantiated comments that would alter the conclusion regarding the injury elimination level, recitals (101) to (104) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n7.2. Definitive measures\n(60)\nIn the light of the foregoing and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at a level sufficient to eliminate the injury caused by the dumped imports without exceeding the dumping margin found. In this case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the injury margin found, i.e. 64,3 %.\n(61)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. The comments submitted by the parties were duly considered, and, where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly.\n7.3. Undertakings\n(62)\nThe cooperating Chinese exporting producer expressed its willingness to offer a price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(63)\nHowever, this company was not granted either MET or IT, and it is, in general, the Commission\u2019s practice not to accept undertakings in such a case, since no individual determination of the duty margin could be established. On this basis, price undertakings could not be considered further.\n7.4. Definitive collection of provisional duty\n(64)\nIn view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation be definitively collected,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN code ex81029600 (TARIC code 8102960010).\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 shall be 64,3 %.\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nAmounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1247/2009 on imports of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, currently falling within CN code ex81029600 (TARIC code 8102960010), and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, shall be definitively collected.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 14 June 2010.", "references": ["2", "43", "63", "45", "38", "64", "26", "0", "7", "89", "6", "87", "97", "70", "83", "75", "9", "73", "17", "31", "27", "50", "44", "30", "57", "8", "25", "51", "67", "39", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 553/2010\nof 23 June 2010\non the allocation of import rights for applications lodged for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 431/2008 for frozen meat of bovine animals\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 431/2008 of 19 May 2008 opening and providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for frozen meat of bovine animals covered by CN code 0202 and products covered by CN code 0206 29 91 (3) opens an import tariff quota for beef and veal products.\n(2)\nThe applications for import rights lodged for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import rights may be allocated should therefore be determined and an allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import right applications covered by the quota with the serial number 09.4003 have been lodged for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 under Regulation (EC) No 431/2008 shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 24,413883 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 June 2010.", "references": ["0", "59", "34", "13", "24", "28", "43", "52", "55", "60", "89", "29", "50", "16", "66", "68", "8", "96", "15", "27", "30", "77", "46", "73", "23", "98", "71", "41", "35", "85", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "69", "72"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 515/2011\nof 25 May 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of vitamin B6 as a feed additive for all animal species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition, (1) and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).\n(2)\nVitamin B6 was authorised without time limit as a feed additive for use in all animal species by Directive 70/524/EEC as part of the group \u2018Vitamins, pro-vitamins and chemically well-defined substances having similar effect\u2019. The additive was subsequently entered in the Register of Feed Additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 of that Regulation, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of vitamin B6 as a feed additive for all animal species, requesting it to be classified in the additive category \u2018nutritional additives\u2019. The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 9 November 2010 that, under the proposed conditions of use, vitamin B6 does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer health or the environment (3). It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory for Feed Additives set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of vitamin B6 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of the additive should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nSince the modifications on the conditions of the authorisation are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to permit a transitional period for the use of existing stocks of the premixtures and compound feed containing this additive.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018nutritional additives\u2019 is authorised as additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nFeed containing vitamin B6 labelled in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC or Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 may continue to be placed on the market and used until stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2011.", "references": ["28", "41", "49", "83", "51", "95", "30", "79", "34", "24", "89", "81", "25", "40", "1", "37", "59", "88", "19", "56", "10", "47", "17", "18", "94", "9", "73", "21", "69", "61", "No Label", "38", "66", "72", "74"], "gold": ["38", "66", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/94/EU\nof 28 November 2011\namending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (1), and in particular Article 8 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Directive 2006/126/EC sets out the model on the basis of which Member States are required to introduce national driving licences. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the reference to the Community on the driving licence should be replaced with a reference to the European Union. The model should also be updated to reflect the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Annex I of Directive 2006/126/EC the European Union model driving licence should indicate the category of vehicle the holder is entitled to drive\n(3)\nIt is necessary to update the European Union model driving licence in the light of the new categories of vehicles introduced by Directive 2006/126/EC. In particular driving licences for category AM (mopeds) and category A2 (motorcycles) have been introduced and will be applicable as from 19 January 2013. Therefore, the European Union model driving licence should be adjusted.\n(4)\nDirective 2006/126/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nMember States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own table illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on driving licences,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 2006/126/EC is amended as set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 June 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 19 January 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 November 2011.", "references": ["35", "83", "95", "68", "28", "79", "50", "85", "60", "23", "94", "82", "67", "11", "31", "69", "48", "66", "87", "56", "26", "24", "92", "45", "51", "72", "42", "90", "86", "57", "No Label", "8", "53", "55", "76"], "gold": ["8", "53", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 July 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement\n(2012/442/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) and Article 168(4)(b), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019) entered into force on 1 January 1994.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 98 of the EEA Agreement, the EEA Joint Committee may decide to amend, among others, Annex II to the EEA Agreement.\n(3)\nAnnex II to the EEA Agreement contains provisions and arrangements concerning technical regulations, standards, testing and certification.\n(4)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1274/2011 of 7 December 2011 concerning a coordinated multiannual control programme of the Union for 2012, 2013 and 2014 to ensure compliance with maximum residue levels of pesticides and to assess the consumer exposure to pesticide residues in and on food of plant and animal origin (3) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1213/2008 of 5 December 2008 concerning a coordinated multiannual Community control programme for 2009, 2010 and 2011 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of and to assess the consumer exposure to pesticide residues in and on food of plant and animal origin (4) was incorporated into the EEA Agreement with certain adaptations for the EEA EFTA States.\n(6)\nSince the Regulation (EC) No 1213/2008 has been repealed and should consequently be repealed under the EEA Agreement, those adaptations should be carried over to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1274/2011. They concern the number of pesticides to be monitored by Iceland and the number of samples of each product to be taken and analysed by Iceland and Norway and take into account, in particular, the limited capacity of Icelandic laboratories.\n(7)\nAnnex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee on amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["78", "66", "28", "18", "69", "92", "55", "4", "74", "1", "19", "33", "25", "81", "75", "79", "56", "23", "5", "14", "45", "17", "83", "99", "21", "71", "51", "59", "26", "36", "No Label", "3", "9", "24", "38", "60", "65", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "24", "38", "60", "65", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 2 December 2010\non submitting 4-methylmethcathinone (mephedrone) to control measures\n(2010/759/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances (1), and in particular Article 8(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the initiative of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA Risk Assessment Report on 4-methylmethcathinone (mephedrone) was drawn up on the basis of Article 6 of Decision 2005/387/JHA by a special session of the extended Scientific Committee of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, and was subsequently received by the Commission on 3 August 2010.\n(2)\nMephedrone is a synthetic cathinone which is legally produced and distributed mainly in Asia, while final packaging seems to occur in Europe. Mephedrone is mostly sold as powder, but also as capsules or tablets. It is commercially available on the Internet, from \u2018head shops\u2019 and from street-level dealers. On the Internet, mephedrone is often marketed as \u2018plant food\u2019, \u2018bath salt\u2019, or \u2018research chemical\u2019. It is very rarely marketed as a \u2018legal high\u2019 (licit psychoactive substance) and there is usually no reference or concrete information about its potential psychoactive effects.\n(3)\nMephedrone\u2019s specific effects are difficult to assess because it is primarily used in combination with substances like alcohol and other stimulants. Mephedrone is deemed to have similar physical effects to other stimulant drugs, in particular ecstasy (MDMA). However, its relatively short duration of action, leading to repeated dosing, is more analogous to cocaine. Some evidence suggests that it may be used as an alternative to illicit stimulants, that it has a high abuse liability and a potential to cause dependency. More in-depth studies would be required to explore in detail the dependence potential of this drug.\n(4)\nThere are two reported fatalities in the Union in which mephedrone appears to be the sole cause of death. There are at least another 37 deaths in which mephedrone has been detected in post-mortem samples.\n(5)\nTwenty two Member States have reported seizures of mephedrone in powder or tablets. There is little information that may suggest large-scale processing or distribution of mephedrone and the involvement of organised crime. Some evidence suggests that where mephedrone has been controlled, the drug continues to be available on the illicit market.\n(6)\nMephedrone has no established or acknowledged medical value or use in the Union and there is no indication that it may be used for any other legitimate purposes.\n(7)\nMephedrone is currently not under assessment and has not been under assessment by the United Nations system. Eleven Member States control mephedrone under drug control legislation by virtue of their obligations under the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Two Member States apply control measures to mephedrone under their medicines legislation.\n(8)\nThe Risk Assessment reveals limited scientific evidence and points out that further studies are needed on the overall health and social risks of mephedrone. However, because of its stimulant properties, its ability to produce dependence in users, its potential attractiveness, the risk to health, the lack of medical benefits, and therefore the need to apply precaution, mephedrone should be controlled.\n(9)\nSince eleven Member States already control mephedrone, placing it under control across the Union may help avoid problems in cross-border law enforcement and judicial cooperation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States shall take the necessary measures, in accordance with their national law, to submit 4-methylmethcathinone (mephedrone) to control measures and criminal penalties, as provided for under their legislation complying with their obligations under the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["94", "21", "3", "45", "34", "72", "78", "13", "68", "57", "48", "12", "61", "64", "92", "91", "15", "59", "73", "43", "63", "85", "28", "31", "90", "16", "32", "80", "83", "23", "No Label", "38", "41", "82"], "gold": ["38", "41", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1057/2011\nof 20 October 2011\nfixing the export refunds on eggs\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in eggs, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely within the Union and comply with requirements under Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2) and of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3), as well as marking requirements under point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 710/2011 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 and those defined in point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 710/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["43", "46", "48", "42", "62", "89", "98", "95", "86", "78", "66", "5", "13", "32", "64", "41", "72", "90", "1", "79", "3", "57", "58", "17", "85", "6", "53", "60", "35", "11", "No Label", "20", "22", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 June 2011\nconcerning the monthly payments by the EAGF of the expenditure effected by the paying agencies of the Member States for May 2011\n(notified under document C(2011) 4497)\n(2011/379/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 15(2) and Article 16 thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the keeping of accounts by the paying agencies, declarations of expenditure and revenue and the conditions for reimbursing expenditure under the EAGF and the EAFRD (2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Articles 14(1) and 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the Commission decides on the monthly payments to reimburse to the Member States the expenditure effected by accredited paying agencies during a reference period under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), and makes the necessary financial resources available to them. That decision is taken on the basis of information supplied to the Commission by the Member States pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2006.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 17(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 the Commission may, without prejudice to the decisions referred to in Articles 30 and 31 of that Regulation in connection with the clearance of accounts, reduce or temporarily suspend monthly payments to the Member States where, on the basis of the declarations of expenditure or the information supplied by them, it is unable to establish that the commitment of funds is in conformity with the applicable Community rules. Before doing so, the Commission must have given the Member States concerned an opportunity to submit their comments.\n(3)\nThe Commission must ensure compliance by the Member States with the conditions and time limits laid down in Community legislation for the payment of aid or premiums to beneficiaries as an element in the correctness of such expenditure. It is required, pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, to consider ineligible any payments made outside the deadlines laid down by Community legislation. In doing so, the Commission must reduce the amount of the monthly payments granted to the Member States and adjust the financial impact of the reduction in proportion to the delay in payment by applying the different rates provided for in Article 9(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2006. It nevertheless applies, pursuant to Article 9(3) of that Regulation, lower reductions or none at all if exceptional management conditions are encountered for certain measures or if justified reasons are advanced by the concerned Member States.\n(4)\nThe Commission has noted that some of the expenditure effected up to 31 March 2011 by Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom occurred after the statutory time limits.\n(5)\nThe Commission considers that particular management problems have occurred in the case of certain measures or that valid explanations have been provided by Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom and that it is therefore appropriate to apply in those cases lower or zero reductions as specified below.\n(6)\nThe following payments made outside of the statutory time limits should be deducted from the monthly payments to be made to the Member States concerned: EUR 13 215,75 for Ireland, EUR 1 599 146,78 for Greece, EUR 1 678 840,21 for Spain, EUR 6 820 961,97 for France, EUR 1 238 597,55 for Italy, EUR 1 840 302,79 for Portugal, EUR 82 816,73 for Romania, EUR 346 334,22 for Slovakia and EUR 156 316,53 for the United Kingdom.\n(7)\nThe Member States concerned have been informed of the proposed reductions. They have been asked to provide information and present their own viewpoint. The reductions were calculated in the light of the information received by the Commission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe monthly payments to cover the expenditure effected by the paying agencies of the Member States, under the EAGF, for May 2011 are hereby fixed in accordance with the table shown in the Annex hereto.\nThis Decision is without prejudice to further decisions which the Commission may take in the framework of the clearance of accounts and conformity clearance procedures, and of the procedures foreseen by Articles 17 and 17a of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2011.", "references": ["73", "93", "97", "21", "54", "23", "27", "52", "2", "83", "18", "79", "77", "37", "16", "55", "70", "38", "49", "39", "53", "26", "12", "72", "0", "98", "74", "84", "7", "33", "No Label", "10", "15", "96"], "gold": ["10", "15", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1096/2010\nof 17 November 2010\nconferring specific tasks upon the European Central Bank concerning the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 127(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe financial crisis has revealed important shortcomings in financial supervision, which has failed to anticipate adverse macro-prudential developments and prevent the accumulation of excessive risks in the financial sector, and has in particular highlighted the weaknesses of the existing macro-prudential oversight.\n(2)\nIn November 2008, the Commission mandated a High Level Group chaired by Mr Jacques de Larosi\u00e8re (the de Larosi\u00e8re Group) to make recommendations on how to strengthen European supervisory arrangements with a view to better protecting the citizen and rebuilding trust in the financial system.\n(3)\nIn its final report presented on 25 February 2009, the de Larosi\u00e8re Group recommended, among other things, the establishment of a body at the level of the Union charged with overseeing risk in the financial system as a whole.\n(4)\nIn its Communication of 4 March 2009 entitled \u2018Driving European Recovery\u2019, the Commission welcomed and broadly supported the recommendations of the de Larosi\u00e8re Group. At its meeting of 19 and 20 March 2009, the European Council agreed on the need to improve the regulation and supervision of financial institutions within the Union and to use the de Larosi\u00e8re Group\u2019s report as a basis for action.\n(5)\nIn its Communication of 27 May 2009 entitled \u2018European Financial Supervision\u2019, the Commission set out a series of reforms to the current arrangements for safeguarding financial stability at the level of the Union, notably including the creation of a European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) responsible for macro-prudential oversight. The Council, on 9 June 2009, and the European Council, at its meeting of 18 and 19 June 2009, supported the view of the Commission and welcomed the Commission\u2019s intention to bring forward legislative proposals so that the new framework could be fully established.\n(6)\nRegulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) established macro-prudential oversight of the financial system at the level of the Union and a European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB).\n(7)\nGiven its expertise on macro-prudential issues, the European Central Bank (ECB) can make a significant contribution to the effective macro-prudential oversight of the Union\u2019s financial system.\n(8)\nThe Secretariat of the ESRB (the Secretariat) should be ensured by the ECB and, to this effect, the ECB should provide sufficient human and financial resources. The staff of the Secretariat should therefore be subject to the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the ECB. In particular, according to the preamble of the Decision of the ECB of 9 June 1998 on the adoption of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank as amended on 31 March 1999 (ECB/1998/4) (4), the staff of the ECB should be recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of the Member States.\n(9)\nOn 9 June 2009, the Council concluded that the ECB should provide analytical, statistical, administrative and logistical support to the ESRB. As it is the task of the ESRB to cover all aspects and areas of financial stability, the ECB should involve national central banks and supervisors to provide their specific expertise. The option to confer specific tasks concerning policies relating to prudential supervision upon the ECB provided for by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should therefore be exercised, by conferring on the ECB the task of ensuring the Secretariat to the ESRB.\n(10)\nThe ECB should be entrusted with the task of providing statistical support to the ESRB. The collection and processing of information as set out in this Regulation and as necessary for the performance of the tasks of the ESRB should therefore fall under Article 5 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the ECB, and under Council Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the collection of statistical information by the European Central Bank (5). Accordingly, confidential statistical information collected by the ECB or the European System of Central Banks should be shared with the ESRB. In addition, this Regulation should be without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (6).\n(11)\nThe Secretariat should prepare the meetings of the ESRB and support the work of the General Board, the Steering Committee, the Advisory Technical Committee and the Advisory Scientific Committee of the ESRB. On behalf of the ESRB, the Secretariat should collect all information necessary for the achievement of the tasks of the ESRB,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nMembership\nThe President and Vice-President of the European Central Bank (ECB) shall be Members of the General Board of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) as set up by Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010.\nArticle 2\nSupport of the ESRB\nThe ECB shall ensure a Secretariat, and thereby provide analytical, statistical, logistical and administrative support to the ESRB. The mission of the Secretariat as defined in Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010, shall include in particular:\n(a)\nthe preparation of the ESRB meetings;\n(b)\nin accordance with Article 5 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and the European Central Bank and Article 5 of this Regulation, the collection and processing of information, including statistical information, on behalf and for the benefit of the fulfilment of the tasks of the ESRB;\n(c)\nthe preparation of the analyses necessary to carry out the tasks of the ESRB, drawing on technical advice from national central banks and supervisors;\n(d)\nthe support to the ESRB in its international cooperation at administrative level with other relevant bodies on macro-prudential issues;\n(e)\nthe support to the work of the General Board, the Steering Committee, the Advisory Technical Committee and the Advisory Scientific Committee.\nArticle 3\nOrganisation of the Secretariat\n1. The ECB shall provide sufficient human and financial resources for the fulfilment of its task of ensuring the Secretariat.\n2. The head of the Secretariat shall be appointed by the ECB, in consultation with the General Board of the ESRB.\nArticle 4\nManagement\n1. The ESRB\u2019s Chair and its Steering Committee shall give directions to the head of the Secretariat on behalf of the ESRB.\n2. The head of the Secretariat or his representative shall attend the meetings of the General Board, the Steering Committee, the Advisory Technical Committee and the Advisory Scientific Committee of the ESRB.\nArticle 5\nCollection of information on behalf of the ESRB\n1. The ESRB shall determine the information necessary for the purposes of the performance of its tasks, as set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010. In view thereof, the Secretariat shall collect all the necessary information on behalf of the ESRB on a regular and ad hoc basis, in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 and subject to Article 6 of this Regulation.\n2. On behalf of the ESRB, the Secretariat shall make available to the European Supervisory Authorities the information on risks necessary for the performance of their tasks.\nArticle 6\nConfidentiality of information and documents\n1. Without prejudice to the application of criminal law, any confidential information received by the Secretariat while performing its duties may not be divulged to any person or authority outside the ESRB whatsoever, except in summary or aggregate form, such that individual financial institutions cannot be identified.\n2. The Secretariat shall ensure that documents are submitted to the ESRB in a manner which ensures their confidentiality.\n3. The ECB shall ensure the confidentiality of the information received by the Secretariat for the performance of the tasks of the ECB under this Regulation. The ECB shall establish internal mechanisms and adopt internal rules to ensure the protection of information collected by the Secretariat on behalf of the ESRB. The ECB staff shall comply with the applicable rules relating to professional secrecy.\n4. Information acquired by the ECB as a result of the application of this Regulation shall only be used for the purposes mentioned in Article 2.\nArticle 7\nAccess to documents\n1. The Secretariat shall ensure the application of Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3) (7).\n2. The practical arrangements for the application of Decision ECB/2004/3 to documents relating to the ESRB, shall be adopted by 17 June 2011.\nArticle 8\nReview\nBy 17 December 2013, the Council shall examine this Regulation, on the basis of a report from the Commission. After having received opinions from the ECB and from the European Supervisory Authorities, it shall determine whether this Regulation should be reviewed.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 16 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 November 2010.", "references": ["9", "95", "49", "94", "58", "77", "71", "89", "39", "93", "45", "5", "15", "37", "31", "85", "80", "60", "68", "13", "12", "61", "17", "63", "41", "4", "47", "0", "40", "81", "No Label", "7", "28", "29", "30"], "gold": ["7", "28", "29", "30"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 908/2010\nof 11 October 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 903/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 October 2010.", "references": ["38", "76", "23", "12", "65", "3", "26", "6", "86", "45", "2", "36", "73", "31", "87", "85", "49", "61", "91", "14", "20", "27", "90", "88", "19", "66", "24", "7", "28", "41", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 609/2010\nof 9 July 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 576/2010 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 July 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 July 2010 were fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 576/2010 (3).\n(2)\nAs the average of the import duties calculated differs by more than EUR 5/tonne from that fixed, a corresponding adjustment must be made to the import duties fixed by Regulation (EU) No 576/2010.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 576/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 576/2010 are hereby replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 10 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 July 2010.", "references": ["64", "39", "93", "87", "90", "2", "6", "18", "35", "37", "70", "89", "82", "34", "48", "42", "21", "20", "16", "17", "57", "80", "52", "83", "49", "91", "25", "85", "61", "92", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 13 September 2011\non the notification of a proposal for amendment to the Annexes to the EC-US Agreement on trade in wine\n(2011/751/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2006/232/EC of 20 December 2005 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Annexes to the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine should be amended in order to take into account legislative changes regarding oenological practices in the Union, new Union names of origin, new US names of viticultural significance and changes in addresses.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11(5) of the Agreement it is necessary in order to amend an Annex to the Agreement to notify the other Party in writing of a proposal for amendment.\n(3)\nThe attached proposal for amendment should therefore be notified to the United States of America.\n(4)\nThe measure provided for in this Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nIn accordance with Article 11(3)(b) of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine, the proposal for amendment to the Annexes to the Agreement set out in the Annex shall be notified in writing to the United States of America.\nArticle 2\nThe Director General for Agriculture and Rural Development is hereby authorised to notify the proposal for amendment on behalf of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2011.", "references": ["31", "32", "59", "29", "81", "61", "34", "22", "13", "33", "68", "52", "21", "43", "80", "11", "75", "95", "37", "63", "54", "26", "86", "66", "5", "8", "1", "15", "94", "18", "No Label", "3", "9", "25", "71", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "25", "71", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 170/2012\nof 28 February 2012\nimplementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (1), and in particular Article 8a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 May 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus, certain persons should be included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex IB to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.\n(3)\nThe information relating to persons on the list in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 should be updated.\n(4)\nAnnexes IA and IB to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, the entries for the following persons:\n1.\nKhadanevich, Aliaksandr Alyaksandrauvich\n2.\nPykina, Natallia\n3.\nSaikouski, Uladzimir\n4.\nChubkavets, Kiril\n5.\nKhrobastau, Uladzimir Ivanavich\n6.\nShylko, Alena Mikalaeuna\n7.\nStsiapurka, Uladzimir Mikhailavich\nshall be replaced by the entries set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe text in Annex IB to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 shall be replaced by the text as set out in in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2012.", "references": ["71", "31", "88", "89", "63", "0", "14", "5", "57", "59", "58", "53", "86", "60", "48", "62", "47", "40", "36", "79", "90", "66", "95", "10", "96", "68", "64", "92", "70", "49", "No Label", "3", "11", "16", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "11", "16", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 12 December 2011\ncorrecting Decision 2010/399/EU excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)\n(notified under document C(2011) 9130)\n(only the Slovenian text is authentic)\n(2011/837/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving consulted the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision 2010/399/EU (3) the Commission excluded from European Union financing an amount of EUR 2 280 860,00 for Slovenia, concerning rural development measures agri-environment and less-favoured areas, as regards amounts which had not yet been recovered from the beneficiaries as of 23 June 2009. The above figure resulted from data which had been supplied by Slovenia to the Commission. Slovenia was informed that any recoveries of those amounts made after 23 June 2009 shall neither be declared nor reimbursed to the Commission.\n(2)\nWhen submitting the final declaration of expenditure and final payment claim to the European Commission for the closure of the Transitional Rural Development programmes Slovenia incorrectly included amounts recovered and which were subjected to the abovementioned financial correction in their final declarations. On the basis of the amounts supplied by Slovenia, the Commission Decision 2009/984/EU (4) laying down the final balance to be paid or recovered at programme closure in the field of transitional rural development programmes financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) by the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia was adopted.\n(3)\nAfter receipt of the recovery order for the correction from Decision 2010/399/EU Slovenia informed the Commission that part of the correction has been already deducted in Decision 2009/984/EU. After a thorough analysis and confirmation by the Slovenia Paying Agency\u2019s Certification Body, an overlap of EUR 2 170 331,88 was confirmed.\n(4)\nTherefore Slovenia is liable to the Commission only for the difference between the amount of the original correction of EUR 2 280 860 in Decision 2010/399/EU and the amount of the recoveries declared in Decision 2009/984/EU of EUR 2 170 331,88. This difference equals EUR 110 528,12. The original recovery order will be replaced with a new one with the amount of EUR 110 528,12.\n(5)\nDecision 2010/399/EU should therefore be corrected accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAll entries in the Annex to Decision 2010/399/EU concerning Slovenia shall be replaced by those set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Slovenia.\nDone at Brussels, 12 December 2011.", "references": ["39", "31", "18", "86", "14", "11", "32", "26", "29", "23", "69", "41", "38", "99", "87", "80", "95", "70", "42", "7", "44", "98", "28", "49", "50", "16", "12", "40", "20", "82", "No Label", "10", "15", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1185/2010\nof 13 December 2010\nimposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 15(1), Article 18 and Article 22(1), (2) and (3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nThe Council, following an anti-subsidy investigation (\u2018the original investigation\u2019), by Regulation (EC) No 1628/2004 (2), imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain graphite electrodes currently falling within CN code ex85451100 and nipples used for such electrodes currently falling within CN code ex85459090 originating in India (\u2018the definitive countervailing measures\u2019). The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty of 15,7 %, with the exception of one company for which the duty rate was 7 %.\n(2)\nThe Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1629/2004 (3), imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain graphite electrodes currently falling within CN codes ex85451100 and nipples used for such electrodes currently falling within CN code ex85459090 originating in India (\u2018the definitive anti-dumping measures\u2019). The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty of 0 %.\n(3)\nFollowing an ex officio partial interim review of the countervailing measures, the Council by Regulation (EC) No 1354/2008 (4) amended Regulations (EC) No 1628/2004 and (EC) No 1629/2004. The definitive countervailing duties were amended to 6,3 % and 7,0 % for imports from individually named exporters with a residual duty rate of 7,2 %. The definitive anti-dumping duties were amended to 9,4 % and 0 % for imports from individually named exporters with a residual duty rate of 8,5 %.\n2. Request for an expiry review\n(4)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry (5) of the definitive countervailing measures in force, the Commission, on 18 June 2009, received a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures, pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged by three Union producers of the like product: Graftech International, SGL Carbon GmbH, and Tokai ERFTCARBON GmbH (\u2018the applicants\u2019) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 90 % of the total Union production of certain graphite electrode systems.\n(5)\nThe request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury to the Union industry.\n(6)\nPrior to the initiation of the expiry review, and in accordance with Articles 22(1) and 10(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission notified the Government of India (\u2018the GOI\u2019) that it had received a properly documented review request and invited the GOI for consultations with the aim of clarifying the situation as regards the contents of the review request and arriving at a mutually agreed solution. The GOI accepted the offer of consultations and consultations were subsequently held on 16 September 2009. During the consultations, no mutually agreed solution could be reached. However, due note was taken of the comments submitted by the authorities of the GOI.\n3. Initiation of an expiry review\n(7)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 17 September 2009, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (6) (\u2018the notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation.\n4. Parallel investigations\n(8)\nBy a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 17 September 2009 (7), the Commission also announced the initiation of an expiry review investigation pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (8) of the definitive anti-dumping measures.\n5. Investigation\n5.1. Investigation period\n(9)\nThe investigation of continuation or recurrence of subsidisation covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the review investigation period (\u2018the period considered\u2019).\n5.2. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(10)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicants, other known Union producers, exporting producers, importers, users known to be concerned, and the GOI of the initiation of the expiry review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(11)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(12)\nIn view of the apparent large number of unrelated importers, it was considered appropriate, in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation, to examine whether sampling should be used. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested, pursuant to Article 27 of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the reviews and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the Notice of initiation. However, no unrelated importers came forward to cooperate. Sampling was therefore not necessary.\n(13)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to those who made themselves known within the deadlines set in the notice of initiation. Replies were received from 3 groups of Union producers (i.e. the applicants), 1 exporting producer and 17 users, and the GOI. None of the importers came forward during the sampling exercise and no other importers supplied the Commission with any information or made themselves known in the course of the investigation.\n(14)\nOnly one of the two known exporting producers in India, namely HEG Limited (\u2018HEG\u2019), fully cooperated in the review by submitting a response to the questionnaire. It should be noted in this regard that in the original investigation the full, official name of that company was Hindustan Electro Graphite Limited. Subsequently, the company changed its name into HEG Limited. The second exporting producer cooperating in the original investigation, namely Graphite India Limited (\u2018GIL\u2019), decided not to submit a questionnaire reply in the present review.\n(15)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for a determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and resulting injury of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following interested parties:\n(a)\nUnion producers:\n-\nSGL Carbon GmbH, Wiesbaden and Meitingen, Germany,\n-\nGraftech Switzerland SA, Bussigny, Switzerland,\n-\nGraftech Iberica S.L., Ororbia, Spain,\n-\nTokai ERFTCARBON GmbH, Grevenbroich, Germany,\n(b)\nExporting producer in India:\n-\nHEG Limited, Bhopal,\n(c)\nGovernment of India (\u2018GOI\u2019).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(16)\nThe product concerned by this review is the same as the one in the original investigation, namely graphite electrodes of a kind used for electric furnaces, with an apparent density of 1,65 g/cm3 or more and an electrical resistance of 6,0 \u03bc\u03a9.m or less, currently falling within CN code ex85451100, and nipples used for such electrodes, currently falling within CN code ex85459090, whether imported together or separately originating in India (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n(17)\nThe investigation confirmed that, as in the original investigation, the product concerned and the products manufactured and sold by the exporting producer on the domestic market in India, as well as those manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers, have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same uses and are, therefore, considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the basic Regulation.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF SUBSIDISATION\n1. Introduction\n(18)\nOn the basis of the information contained in the review request and the replies to the Commission\u2019s questionnaire, the following schemes, which allegedly involve the granting of subsidies, were investigated:\nNationwide schemes\n(a)\nAdvance Authorisation Scheme (\u2018AAS\u2019);\n(b)\nDuty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (\u2018DEPBS\u2019);\n(c)\nExport Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (\u2018EPCGS\u2019);\nRegional Scheme\n(d)\nElectricity Duty Exemption Scheme (\u2018EDES\u2019).\n(19)\nThe schemes specified in points (a) to (c) above are based on the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 (No 22 of 1992) which entered into force on 7 August 1992 (\u2018Foreign Trade Act\u2019). The Foreign Trade Act authorises the GOI to issue notifications regarding the export and import policy. These are summarised in \u2018Foreign Trade Policy\u2019 documents, which are issued by the Ministry of Commerce every 5 years and updated regularly. Two Foreign Trade Policy documents are relevant to the RIP of this case, i.e. FT-policy 04-09 and FT-policy 09-14. The latter entered into force in April 2009. In addition, the GOI also sets out the procedures governing the FT-policy 04-09 and FT-policy 09-14 in a \u2018Handbook of Procedures, Volume I\u2019 (\u2018HOP I 04-09\u2019 and \u2018HOP I 09-14\u2019 respectively). The Handbook of Procedures is also updated on a regular basis.\n(20)\nThe scheme specified in point (d) above is managed by the authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh.\n2. Advance Authorisation Scheme (\u2018AAS\u2019)\n(21)\nIn the course of the investigation it was found that the cooperating Indian producer did not obtain any benefits under the AAS scheme during the RIP. It was therefore not necessary to further analyse this scheme in this investigation.\n3. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (\u2018DEPBS\u2019)\n(a) Legal Basis\n(22)\nThe detailed description of the DEPBS is contained in paragraph 4.3 of the FT-policy 04-09 and FT-policy 09-14 as well as in Chapter 4 of the HOP I 04-09 and of the HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(23)\nAny manufacturer-exporter or merchant-exporter is eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation of the DEPBS\n(24)\nAn eligible exporter can apply for DEPBS credits which are calculated as a percentage of the value of products exported under this scheme. Such DEPBS rates have been established by the Indian authorities for most products, including the product concerned. They are determined on the basis of Standard Input Output Norm (\u2018SION\u2019), which is a norm taking into account a presumed import content of inputs in the exported product and the customs duty incidence on such presumed imports, regardless of whether import duties have actually been paid or not.\n(25)\nTo be eligible for benefits under this scheme, a company must export. At the point in time of the export transaction, a declaration must be made by the exporter to the authorities in India indicating that the export is taking place under the DEPBS. In order for the goods to be exported, the Indian customs authorities issue, during the dispatch procedure, an export shipping bill. This document shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction. At this point in time, the exporter knows the benefit it will receive. Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill, the GOI has no discretion over the granting of a DEPBS credit. The relevant DEPBS rate to calculate the benefit is that which applied at the time the export declaration was made. Therefore, there is no possibility for a retroactive amendment to the level of the benefit.\n(26)\nIt was found that in accordance with Indian accounting standards, DEPBS credits can be booked on an accrual basis as income in the commercial accounts, upon fulfilment of the export obligation. Such credits can be used for payment of customs duties on subsequent imports of any goods unrestrictedly importable, except capital goods. Goods imported against such credits can be sold on the domestic market (subject to sales tax) or used otherwise. DEPBS credits are freely transferable and valid for a period of 12 months from the date of issue.\n(27)\nApplications for DEPBS credits are electronically filed and can cover an unlimited amount of export transactions. De facto, no strict deadlines to apply for DEPBS credits exist. The electronic system used to manage DEPBS does not automatically exclude export transactions exceeding the deadline submission periods mentioned in Chapter 4.47 of the HOP I 04-09 and 09-14. Furthermore, as clearly provided in Chapter 9.3 of the HOP I 04-09 and 09-14, applications received after the expiry of submission deadlines can always be considered with the imposition of a minor penalty fee (i.e. 10 % of the entitlement).\n(28)\nIt was found that the cooperating Indian exporting producer used this scheme during the RIP.\n(d) Conclusions on the DEPBS\n(29)\nThe DEPBS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. A DEPBS credit is a financial contribution by the GOI, since the credit will eventually be used to offset import duties, thus decreasing the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, the DEPBS credit confers a benefit upon the exporter, because it improves its liquidity.\n(30)\nFurthermore, the DEPBS is contingent in law upon export performance, and is therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable pursuant to Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation.\n(31)\nThis scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation as claimed by the cooperating Indian exporting producer. It does not conform to the strict rules laid down in Annexes I (item (i)), II (definition and rules for drawback) and III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. An exporter is under no obligation to actually consume the goods imported free of duty in the production process and the amount of credit is not calculated in relation to actual inputs used. Moreover, there is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production process of the exported product or whether an excess payment of import duties occurred within the meaning of item (i) of Annex I, and Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation. Lastly, an exporter is eligible for the DEPBS benefits regardless of whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported. Thus, even exporters which procure all of their inputs locally and do not import any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled to benefit from the DEPBS.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(32)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) and Article 5 of the basic Regulation, the amount of countervailable subsidies was calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to exist during the review investigation period. In this regard, it was considered that the benefit is conferred on the recipient at the point in time when an export transaction is made under this scheme. At this moment, the GOI is liable to forego the customs duties, which constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation.\n(33)\nIn light of the above, it is considered appropriate to assess the benefit under the DEPBS as being the sum of the credits earned on all export transactions made under this scheme during the RIP.\n(34)\nThe cooperating Indian exporting producer claimed that in their case all the DEPBS credits obtained had been used to import materials used solely in the production of the product concerned, despite being in principle allowed to sell them or use them for the import of other materials. The company claimed that therefore DEPBS was a normal duty drawback system, and only the excess remission should be countervailed. This claim has to be rejected, however, since, as explained above in recital 31, DEPBS is not considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system, which has been also admitted by the GOI. It is therefore not relevant what the exporter actually does with the licences obtained under this scheme. It is at the moment of the export transactions made under this scheme that an exporter obtains an irrevocable conferral of a benefit, not at the moment of subsequent usage of the licence.\n(35)\nWhere justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the credits so established to arrive at the subsidy amounts as numerator, pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(36)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation these subsidy amounts have been allocated over the total export turnover during the review investigation period as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(37)\nBased on the above, the subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the cooperating exporting producer during the RIP amounts to 5,7 %.\n4. Export Promotion Capital Goods scheme (\u2018EPCGS\u2019)\n(a) Legal basis\n(38)\nThe detailed description of the EPCGS is contained in Chapter 5 of the FT-policy 04-09 and of the FT-policy 09-14 as well as in Chapter 5 of the HOP I 04-09 and of the HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(39)\nManufacturer-exporters, merchant-exporters \u2018tied to\u2019 supporting manufacturers and service providers are eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(40)\nUnder the condition of an export obligation, a company is allowed to import capital goods (new and - since April 2003 - second-hand capital goods up to 10 years old) at a reduced rate of duty. To this end, the GOI issues, upon application and payment of a fee, an EPCGS licence. Since April 2000, the scheme provides for a reduced import duty rate of 5 % applicable to all capital goods imported under the scheme. Until 31 March 2000, an effective duty rate of 11 % (including a 10 % surcharge) and, in case of high value imports, a zero duty rate, was applicable. In order to meet the export obligation, the imported capital goods must be used to produce a certain amount of export goods during a certain period. Under a new FT-policy 09-14, the capital goods can be imported with 0 % duty rate under the EPCGS but in such case the time period for fulfilment of the export obligation is shorter.\n(41)\nThe EPCGS licence holder can also source the capital goods indigenously. In such case, the indigenous manufacturer of capital goods may avail himself of the benefit for duty free import of components required to manufacture such capital goods. Alternatively, the indigenous manufacturer can claim the benefit of deemed export in respect of supply of capital goods to an EPCGS licence holder.\n(42)\nIt was found that the cooperating exporting producer used this scheme during the RIP.\n(d) Conclusion on EPCGS\n(43)\nThe EPCGS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. The duty reduction constitutes a financial contribution by the GOI, since this concession decreases the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, the duty reduction confers a benefit upon the exporter, because the duties saved upon importation improve the company\u2019s liquidity.\n(44)\nFurthermore, the EPCGS is contingent in law upon export performance, since such licences cannot be obtained without a commitment to export. Therefore it is deemed to be specific and countervailable pursuant to Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation. It has been claimed by the cooperating exporting producer that EPCGS subsidies with regard to the purchase of capital goods where the export obligation was already fulfilled before the RIP, should no longer be treated as contingent upon export performance. Therefore, they should not be treated as specific subsidies and should not be countervailed. However, this claim has to be rejected. It has to be underlined that the subsidy itself was contingent upon export performance, i.e. it would not have been granted had the company not accepted a certain export obligation.\n(45)\nThe EPCGS cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Capital goods are not covered by the scope of such permissible systems, as set out in Annex I, item (i), of the basic Regulation, because they are not consumed in the production of the exported products.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(46)\nThe subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods spread across a period which reflects the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in the industry concerned. Interests were added to this amount in order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. The commercial interest rate during the review investigation period in India was considered appropriate for this purpose.\n(47)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) and (3) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount has been allocated over the export turnover during the RIP as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance.\n(48)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the cooperating exporting producer during the RIP amounts to 0,9 %.\n5. Electricity Duty Exemption Scheme (EDES) - regional scheme of the State of Madhya Pradesh\n(49)\nUnder the Industrial Promotion Policy of 2004, the State of Madhya Pradesh (MP) offers exemption of electricity duty to industrial companies investing in electricity generation for captive consumption.\n(a) Legal basis\n(50)\nThe detailed description of the EDES is contained in the Government of Madhya Pradesh Notification No 29 of 21 July 2006 and Order No 4238-XIII-2006 Annexure C of 12 July 2006.\n(b) Eligibility\n(51)\nEvery manufacturer which invests a certain amount of capital in the set-up of a power plant within the State of Madhya Pradesh is eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(52)\nThe EDES provides for exemption from the payment of the electricity duty - local sales tax normally due in Madhya Pradesh - for companies which invested a certain amount of capital in the building of a power plant. The exemption is granted for a certain period depending on the value of investment. The aim of the scheme is to develop infrastructure as the state-owned power plants cannot provide companies in the area with sufficient electricity. The duty exemption is granted only for the captive use of energy.\n(53)\nIt was found that the cooperating exporting producer used this scheme during the RIP.\n(d) Conclusion on EDES\n(54)\nThe EDES provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. The duty exemption constitutes a financial contribution by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, since this concession decreases the State Government\u2019s duty revenue which would otherwise be due. In addition, the tax reduction confers a benefit upon the exporter, because the duty saved upon purchases of electricity improve its liquidity.\n(55)\nThe EDES is not contingent in law upon export performance. In addition, it is not limited in law to certain geographical areas within the State of Madhya Pradesh or to only some companies or branches of industry. Therefore, it was claimed by the cooperating exporting producer that this scheme should not be considered specific and therefore should not be countervailed, as its eligibility is based on objective and neutral economic criteria.\n(56)\nHowever, due to the lack of cooperation of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, the Commission was unable to make a firm conclusion on this scheme as regards the specificity and practical application of this law and the level of discretion the granting authority enjoys when deciding on the applications. Indeed, it cannot be determined with certainty whether Article 4(2), first subparagraph, point (b) is fulfilled, given that it could not be established that the State Government of Madhya Pradesh applied objective criteria or conditions for granting the subsidy. Therefore, even if the scheme was shown not to be specific in law, it is still not clear that it is not specific de facto. As a result it is deemed to be specific and countervailable pursuant to Article 4(2), first subparagraph, point (c) and Article 4(2), fourth subparagraph of the basic Regulation.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(57)\nThe subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the unpaid sales duty on electricity purchased in the RIP (the numerator) and the total sales turnover of the company (the denominator) as EDES is neither contingent upon export performance nor was the use of electricity limited only to the production of the product concerned.\n(58)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the cooperating exporting producer during the RIP amounts to 0,5 %.\n6. Amount of countervailable subsidies\n(59)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidies determined in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the investigated exporting producer amounts to 7,1 %. These amounts of subsidisation exceed the de minimis threshold mentioned pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(60)\nThe level of the subsidisation established in the current procedure corresponds to the level of subsidisation of 7,2 % found for the same exporting producer during the most recent interim review.\n(61)\nIt is therefore considered that, pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, subsidisation continued during the RIP.\nSCHEMES\nAAS\nDEPBS\nEPCGS\nEDES\nTotal\nHEG Ltd\nNil\n5,7 %\n0,9 %\n0,5 %\n7,1 %\n7. Conclusions on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidisation\n(62)\nIn accordance with Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the measures in force would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of subsidisation.\n(63)\nIn this respect it is recalled that only one of the two known exporting producers of the product concerned cooperated. It was established that during the RIP, the cooperating exporting producer continued to benefit from countervailable subsidisation by the Indian authorities. The subsidy schemes analysed above give recurring benefits and there are no indications that these programmes would be phased out or modified in the foreseeable future or that the cooperating exporting producer would stop obtaining benefits under these schemes. The schemes in question are still maintained in the FT-policy 09-14.\n(64)\nAs regards the other known exporting producer in India, according to the review request, it continued to benefit from the subsidy schemes analysed above. There is no information available which would indicate that this was not the case. It is therefore concluded that the subsidisation at country-wide level continued.\n(65)\nIn view of the findings described above, it is concluded that subsidisation continued during the RIP and would be likely to continue in the future.\n(66)\nSince it has been demonstrated that subsidisation continued during the RIP and that it is likely to continue in the future, the issue of likelihood of recurrence of subsidisation is irrelevant.\nD. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n1. Union production\n(67)\nWithin the Union, the like product is manufactured by five companies or groups of companies whose output constitutes the total Union production of the like product within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation.\n2. Union industry\n(68)\nTwo of the five groups of companies did not come forward to support the request and did not cooperate in the review investigation by submitting a response to the questionnaire. The following three groups of producers lodged the request and agreed to cooperate: Graftech International, SGL Carbon GmbH, and Tokai ERFTCARBON GmbH.\n(69)\nThese three groups of producers account for a major proportion of the total Union production of the like product, since they represent over 90 % of the total Union production of certain graphite electrode systems, as indicated at recital 4 above. They are therefore deemed to constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Articles 9(1) and 10(8) of the basic Regulation and will hereinafter be referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\nE. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Preliminary remark\n(70)\nGiven that only one Indian exporting producer of the product concerned cooperated in this investigation, data relating to imports of the product concerned into the Union originating in India are not presented in precise figures in order to preserve confidentiality pursuant to Article 29 of the basic Regulation.\n(71)\nThe situation of the graphite electrode industry is closely linked to that of the steel sector since graphite electrodes are primarily used in the electrical steel industry. In this context, it should be noted that in 2007, and up to the first three quarters of 2008, very positive market conditions prevailed within the steel sector, and as a consequence, also for the graphite electrode industry.\n(72)\nIt should be noted that sales volumes of graphite electrodes move more or less in line with the volume of steel production. However, supply contracts for graphite electrodes, covering prices and quantities, are usually negotiated for 6-12 month periods. There is, therefore, generally a time lag between developments in sales volume resulting from changes in demand and any consequential effect on prices.\n2. Consumption in the Union market\n(73)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market, an estimation of the sales volumes of the other Union producers on the Union market, import data from Eurostat, and data collected in accordance with Article 24(6) of the basic Regulation. As had been done in the original investigation (9), some imports were disregarded because, on the basis of the information available, they appeared not to be the product under investigation.\n(74)\nBetween 2006 and the RIP, Union consumption decreased by almost 25 %, with the main decrease occurring between 2008 and the RIP. It should be noted that, due to very positive market conditions at the beginning of the period considered, Union consumption was at very high levels and had increased by 30 % between the investigation period of the original investigation and 2006.\nTable 1\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nTotal Union consumption (tonnes)\n170 035\n171 371\n169 744\n128 437\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n101\n100\n76\n3. Volume, market share and prices of imports from India\n(75)\nThe volume of imports originating in India (\u2018the country concerned\u2019) has increased steadily by 143 percentage points over the period considered and reached a level of 5 000 to 7 000 tonnes during the RIP. The market share of imports from the country concerned more than tripled between 2006 and the RIP, when it reached the level of around 5 %. Market share was still growing during the RIP, notwithstanding the significant decrease in demand. The prices of imports from the country concerned increased by 52 % over the period considered, following a similar trend to that for the Union industry\u2019s prices, but remained consistently lower than those of the Union industry. The data in Table 2 are not given in precise figures for reasons of confidentiality, since there are only two known exporting producers in India.\nTable 2\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from the country concerned (tonnes)\n2 000 to\n3 000\n3 000 to\n4 000\n7 000 to\n9 000\n5 000 to\n7 000\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n123\n318\n243\nMarket share of imports from the country concerned\nAround\n1,5 %\nAround\n2 %\nAround\n5 %\nAround\n5 %\nPrice of imports from the country concerned (EUR/tonne)\nAround\n2 000\nAround\n2 600\nAround\n3 000\nAround\n3 200\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n133\n145\n152\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(76)\nPursuant to Article 8(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry.\n4.1. Production\n(77)\nIn the RIP, production decreased by 29 % compared to 2006. The Union industry\u2019s production first increased by 2 % in 2007 compared to 2006, before declining sharply, particularly during the RIP.\nTable 3\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProduction (tonnes)\n272 468\n278 701\n261 690\n192 714\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n102\n96\n71\n4.2. Capacity and capacity utilisation rates\n(78)\nProduction capacity decreased marginally (by 2 % overall) between 2006 and the RIP. As production also decreased in 2008, and in particular during the RIP, the resulting capacity utilisation showed an overall decrease of 25 percentage points between 2006 and the RIP.\nTable 4\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProduction capacity (tonnes)\n298 500\n292 250\n291 500\n293 500\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n98\n98\n98\nCapacity utilisation\n91 %\n95 %\n90 %\n66 %\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n104\n98\n72\n4.3. Stocks\n(79)\nThe level of closing stocks of the Union industry remained stable in 2007 compared to 2006 and then decreased by 10 % in 2008. In the RIP, the level of stocks increased somewhat, but was 5 % lower than in 2006.\nTable 5\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nClosing stock (tonnes)\n21 407\n21 436\n19 236\n20 328\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n100\n90\n95\n4.4. Sales volume\n(80)\nThe sales by the Union industry on the Union market to unrelated customers decreased by 39 % over the period considered. They were very high at the beginning of the period considered, having increased by nearly 70 % compared to the investigation period of the original investigation. Sales volumes decreased slightly in 2007 and 2008 but remained at a relatively high level (in 2008 they were still 47 % above the level of the investigation period of the original investigation). However, sales volumes dropped significantly between 2008 and the RIP (by almost one-third).\nTable 6\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nUnion Sales volume to unrelated customers (tonnes)\n143 832\n139 491\n124 463\n88 224\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n97\n87\n61\n4.5. Market share\n(81)\nThe market share held by the Union industry declined progressively by almost 16 percentage points between 2006 and the RIP (from 84,6 % to 68,7 %).\nTable 7\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nMarket share of the Union industry\n84,6 %\n81,4 %\n73,3 %\n68,7 %\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n96\n87\n81\n4.6. Growth\n(82)\nBetween 2006 and the RIP, the Union consumption decreased by almost 25 %. The Union industry lost almost 16 percentage points of market share, whilst the imports concerned gained 3,4 percentage points of market share.\n4.7. Employment\n(83)\nThe level of employment of the Union industry declined by 7 % between 2006 and the RIP.\nTable 8\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nEmployment product concerned (persons)\n1 942\n1 848\n1 799\n1 804\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n95\n93\n93\n4.8. Productivity\n(84)\nProductivity of the Union industry\u2019s workforce, measured as output per person employed per year, decreased by 24 % between 2006 and the RIP. It increased slightly during 2007 and 2008, before decreasing by almost 25 % during the RIP.\nTable 9\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProductivity (tonnes per employee)\n140\n151\n146\n107\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n107\n104\n76\n4.9. Sales prices and factors affecting domestic prices\n(85)\nUnit sales prices of the Union industry show a positive trend, having increased by 40 % during the period considered. This is due to: (i) the general level of prices in the market; (ii) the need to recover increases in costs of production; and (iii) the way supply contract prices are established.\n(86)\nIn 2007 and 2008 the Union industry was able to increase its prices in the context of generally increasing market prices, which was due to continued strong demand for graphite electrodes. This demand was a result of the very positive market conditions prevailing within the steel sector up until the first three quarters of 2008, as described in recital 71.\n(87)\nPrices also increased in 2007 and 2008, in part, in order to cover increasing costs of production and in particular those of raw materials. Between 2006 and 2008 costs increased by 23 %. However, the Union industry was able to cover this by increasing its prices considerably (+ 33 %).\n(88)\nPrices still increased, although to a lesser extent (+ 5 %), in the RIP. The fact that prices did not fall during a period when demand dropped is explained by the way supply contracts are established in the market and the fact that most supply contracts for 2009 were concluded in 2008. As indicated in recital 72, sales volumes of graphite electrodes move more or less in line with steel production. However, the negotiation of supply contracts for graphite electrodes for periods of 6 to 12 months can lead to a delay in the effect of any change (increase or decrease) in demand on prices. Contracts are negotiated on the basis of anticipated sales volumes, which may be different from the actual sales level achieved, with the result that the price trend in a particular period may not necessarily follow the trend in sales volumes for the same period. This was the case in the RIP when sales volumes decreased but prices remained high because most supply contracts for 2009 were concluded in 2008 and some deliveries foreseen for 2008 were deferred until 2009. The 5 % increase in prices during the RIP was, nevertheless, not sufficient to cover cost increases (+ 13 %), as had been possible during the previous periods. Prices were renegotiated at lower levels from after the RIP.\n(89)\nAs explained in recital 75, the prices of imports from the country concerned followed a trend similar to that of the Union industry, but were consistently lower than the prices of the Union industry.\nTable 10\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nUnit price Union market (EUR/tonne)\n2 569\n3 103\n3 428\n3 585\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n121\n133\n140\n4.10. Wages\n(90)\nBetween 2006 and the RIP, the average wage per employee increased by 15 %.\nTable 11\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nAnnual labour cost per employee (thousand EUR)\n52\n56\n61\n60\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n108\n118\n115\n4.11. Investments\n(91)\nBetween 2006 and the RIP, the annual flow of investments in the product concerned made by the Union industry increased by 37 %. However, during the RIP investments decreased by 14 % compared to 2008.\nTable 12\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nNet investments (EUR)\n30 111 801\n45 383 433\n47 980 973\n41 152 458\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n151\n159\n137\n4.12. Profitability and return on investments\n(92)\nWith an increase in costs of 40 % occurring over the period considered, the Union industry still managed, between 2006 and 2007, to increase its prices by more than its increase in costs. This led to a profit increase from the level of 19 % in 2006 to 26 % in 2007. From 2007 to 2008 prices and costs increased in the same proportion so that the Union industry\u2019s margin remained stable at the level of 2007. Profits then decreased again to 19 % in the RIP due to the effect on costs of lower production capacity utilisation and higher raw material prices. Profits decreased further in 2009, since the Union industry had to adjust its prices downwards in order to reflect the general decrease of selling prices in the graphite electrode market, due to the shrinking demand within the steel sector.\n(93)\nThe return on investments (\u2018ROI\u2019) increased from a level of 71 % in 2006 to 103 % in 2007. In 2008 it increased to 119 % before decreasing to 77 % during the RIP. Overall, the return on investments only increased by 6 percentage points between 2006 and the RIP.\nTable 13\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nNet Profit of Union sales to unrelated customers (% of net sales)\n19 %\n26 %\n25 %\n19 %\nROI (net profit in % of net book value of investments)\n71 %\n103 %\n119 %\n77 %\n4.13. Cash flow and ability to raise capital\n(94)\nThe net cash-flow from operating activities increased between 2006 and 2007. This increase continued in 2008 before decreasing during the RIP. Overall, cash flow was 28 % higher in the RIP than at the start of the period considered.\n(95)\nThere were no indications that the Union industry encountered difficulties in raising capital, mainly due to the fact that some of the producers are incorporated in larger groups.\nTable 14\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nCash flow (EUR)\n109 819 535\n159 244 026\n196 792 707\n140 840 498\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n145\n179\n128\n4.14. Magnitude of subsidisation\n(96)\nGiven the volume, market share and prices of the imports from India, the impact on the Union industry of the actual subsidy margins cannot be considered to be negligible.\n4.15. Recovery from the effects of past subsidisation and of past dumping\n(97)\nThe indicators examined above show some improvement in the economic and financial situation of the Union industry following the imposition of definitive countervailing and anti-dumping measures in 2004. In particular, between 2006 and 2008, the Union industry benefited from increased prices and profits. This was due to very positive market conditions, which allowed a high level of prices and profitability to be maintained, even though, as explained in recital 81, the market share of the Union industry was declining. However, over the same period, and despite the measures, the market share of Indian imports has increased and Indian products have been imported at prices lower than those of the Union industry. During the RIP, profits already started to decrease for the Union industry and decreased further in 2009 due to increased costs and limited price increases.\n5. Impact of subsidised imports and other factors\n5.1. Impact of the subsidised imports\n(98)\nDespite a decrease in consumption in the Union over the period considered, the volume of imports from the country concerned more than doubled and the market share of those imports more than tripled (see recital 75). If the anti-dumping and countervailing duties are not taken into consideration, the imports from the country concerned undercut the prices of the Union industry, although by less than 2 %, during the RIP.\n5.2. Impact of the economic crisis\n(99)\nDue to the very positive economic conditions prevailing in the steel and related industries, including graphite electrodes, in 2007 and in the first three quarters of 2008, the Union industry was in a relatively good economic condition when the economic crisis started at the end of 2008. The fact that supply contracts for graphite electrodes are usually negotiated for 6-12 months means that there is a delay in the effect of any change (increase or decrease) in demand on prices. Since contracts for the RIP were negotiated at a stage when the effects of the economic crisis could not be foreseen, the impact of the economic crisis during the RIP was mainly in terms of volumes, since, in terms of prices, any impact would be felt by the Union industry with a delay. In that context it has to be noted that the situation of the Union industry has deteriorated in some respect, even during the period of positive economic conditions, by losing market share to imports from the country concerned. The fact that this deterioration did not lead to more significant negative effects was partly due to the high level of demand in 2007-08 which had allowed the Union industry to maintain high volumes of production and sales and partly due to the fact that when these volumes decreased in the RIP, the prices could still be maintained due to the time-lag described above.\n5.3. Imports from other countries\n(100)\nDue to the inclusion of products other than the product under investigation in the import data available at CN code level from Eurostat, the following analysis has been made on the basis of import data at Taric code level, supplemented by information from data collected in accordance with Article 24(6) of the basic Regulation. Some imports were disregarded because, on the basis of the information available, they appeared not to be the product under investigation.\n(101)\nIt is estimated that the volume of imports from other third countries increased by 63 % from around 11 000 tonnes in 2006 to around 18 500 tonnes in the RIP. The market share of imports from other countries increased from 6,6 % in 2006 to 14,4 % in the RIP. The average price of imports from other third countries increased by 42 % between 2006 and the RIP. The main imports appear to be from the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019), Russia, Japan, and Mexico, which were the only countries with individual market shares higher than 1 % during the RIP. Imports from these countries are further examined in the following recitals. Imports from nine other countries account for a total market share of only around 2 % and are not examined further.\n(102)\nThe market share of Chinese imports increased by 2,4 percentage points over the period considered (from 0,2 % to 2,6 %). The available information indicates that these imports were made at prices which were lower than those of the Union industry and also lower than those of the imports originating in India.\n(103)\nThe market share of imports from Russia increased by 4,2 percentage points over the period considered (from 1,9 % to 6,1 %). The available information indicates that these imports were made at prices which were slightly lower than those of the Union industry, but higher than those of the imports originating in India.\n(104)\nThe market share of imports from Japan decreased by 0,4 percentage points over the period considered (from 2,0 % to 1,6 %). The available information indicates that these imports were made at prices which were similar to, or above, those of the Union industry and also higher than those of the imports originating in India.\n(105)\nThe market share of imports from Mexico increased by 1,0 percentage points over the period considered (from 0,9 % to 1,9 %). The available information indicates that these imports were made at prices which were higher than those of the Union industry and also higher than those of the imports originating in India.\n(106)\nIn conclusion, it cannot be excluded that the development of imports from the PRC and from Russia could have contributed to some extent to the deterioration in the market share of the Union industry. However, given the general nature of the data available from the import statistics, which does not allow a price comparison by product type, as was possible for India on the basis of the detailed information provided by the exporting producer, the impact of the imports from the PRC and Russia cannot be established with certainty.\nTable 15\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from other countries (tonnes)\n11 289\n11 243\n19 158\n18 443\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n100\n170\n163\nMarket share of imports from the other countries\n6,6 %\n6,6 %\n11,3 %\n14,4 %\nPrice of imports from the other countries (EUR/tonne)\n2 467\n3 020\n3 403\n3 508\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n122\n138\n142\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from the PRC (tonnes)\n421\n659\n2 828\n3 380\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n157\n672\n804\nMarket share of imports from the PRC\n0,2 %\n0,4 %\n1,7 %\n2,6 %\nPrice of imports from the PRC (EUR/tonne)\n1 983\n2 272\n2 818\n2 969\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n115\n142\n150\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from Russia (tonnes)\n3 196\n2 887\n8 441\n7 821\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n90\n264\n245\nMarket share of imports from Russia\n1,9 %\n1,7 %\n5,0 %\n6,1 %\nPrice of imports from Russia (EUR/tonne)\n2 379\n2 969\n3 323\n3 447\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n125\n140\n145\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from Japan (tonnes)\n3 391\n2 223\n3 731\n2 090\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n66\n110\n62\nMarket share of imports from Japan\n2,0 %\n1,3 %\n2,2 %\n1,6 %\nPrice of imports from Japan (EUR/tonne)\n2 566\n3 131\n3 474\n3 590\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n122\n135\n140\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from Mexico (tonnes)\n1 478\n2 187\n2 115\n2 465\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n148\n143\n167\nMarket share of imports from Mexico\n0,9 %\n1,3 %\n1,2 %\n1,9 %\nPrice of imports from Mexico (EUR/tonne)\n2 634\n3 629\n4 510\n4 554\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n138\n171\n173\n6. Conclusion\n(107)\nAs indicated in recital 75 the volume of imports from the country concerned has more than doubled between 2006 and the RIP. Given that consumption declined by almost 25 % over the same period, this resulted in a sharp rise in the market share held by Indian exporters from around 1,5 % in 2006 to around 5 % during the RIP. While Indian export prices to the Union increased considerably during the period considered as an effect of generally high market prices, they were still undercutting the prices of the Union industry.\n(108)\nBetween 2006 and the RIP, and notwithstanding the existence of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures, a number of important indicators developed negatively: production and sales volumes decreased by 29 % and 39 % respectively, capacity utilisation went down by 28 % and was followed by a decrease in employment and productivity levels. Although a part of these negative developments may be explained by the strong decrease in consumption, which declined by almost 25 % over the period considered, the Union industry\u2019s strong decrease in market share (down by 15,9 percentage points between 2006 and the RIP) must also be interpreted in the light of the constant increase in market share of imports from India.\n(109)\nAs for the relatively high level of profits during the RIP, this was mainly due to the continued high level of prices, for the reasons explained in recital 88. It is concluded that the Union industry\u2019s situation deteriorated overall during the period considered and that the Union industry was in a fragile situation at the end of the RIP, despite a relatively high level of profit at that stage, when its efforts to maintain sales volumes and a sufficient level of prices, in a situation of weakened demand, were hampered by the increased presence of the Indian subsidised imports.\nF. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION AND RECURRENCE OF INJURY\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(110)\nAs already seen, the imposition of countervailing measures has allowed the Union industry to recover only to some extent from the injury suffered. However, when the high levels of Union consumption experienced during most of the period considered disappeared during the RIP, the Union industry appeared in a fragile and vulnerable situation and still exposed to the injurious effect of the subsidised imports from India. In particular, the ability of the Union industry to recover increased costs was weak at the end of the RIP.\n2. Relationship between export volumes and prices to third countries and export volumes and prices to the Union\n(111)\nIt was found that the average export price of Indian sales to non-EU countries was below the average export price to the Union and also below the prices on the domestic market. The Indian exporter\u2019s sales to non-EU countries were made in significant quantities, accounting for the majority of its total export sales. Therefore, it was considered that, should measures lapse, Indian exporters would have an incentive to shift significant quantities of exports from other third countries to the more attractive Union market, at price levels, which, even if they were higher than the prices to third countries, would likely still be below the current export price levels to the Union.\n3. Unused capacity and stocks in the Indian market\n(112)\nThe cooperating Indian producer had significant spare capacities and planned to increase its capacity in 2010/2011. Therefore, the capacity to significantly increase export quantities to the Union exists, in particular because there are no indications that third country markets or the domestic market could absorb any additional production.\n(113)\nIn its comments to the disclosure, the cooperating Indian producer alleged that its spare capacity was mainly due to the economic crisis and the related decrease in demand. However, a significant part of the company\u2019s spare capacity can be explained by the fact that the company substantially increased its capacity between 2006 and the RIP. Furthermore, it should be noted that the company has planned additional increased capacity. Moreover, it should also be pointed out that there is another Indian producer which did not cooperate, that has similar capacity and utilisation and has also announced recently an even more substantial increase in capacity.\n4. Conclusion\n(114)\nThe producers in the country concerned have the potential to raise and/or redirect their export volumes to the Union market. Moreover, the prices of Indian exports to third countries are lower than those to the Union. The investigation showed that, on the basis of comparable product types, the cooperating exporting producer sold the product concerned at prices lower than those of the Union industry. These low prices would most likely decrease in line with the lower prices charged to the rest of the world. Such price behaviour, coupled with the ability of the exporters in the country concerned to deliver significant quantities of the product concerned to the Union market, would, in all likelihood, have a negative impact on the economic situation of the Union industry.\n(115)\nAs shown above, the situation of the Union industry remains vulnerable and fragile. If the Union industry were to be exposed to increased volumes of imports from the country concerned at subsidised prices, this would be likely to result in a deterioration of its sales, market share, sales prices, as well as a consequent deterioration of its financial situation to the levels found in the original investigation. On this basis, it is therefore concluded that the repeal of the measures would in all likelihood result in a worsening of the already fragile situation, and a recurrence of material injury to the Union industry.\nG. UNION INTEREST\n1. Introduction\n(116)\nIn accordance with Article 31 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing countervailing measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of the various interests involved, i.e. those of the Union industry, of importers, and of users.\n(117)\nIt should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which countervailing measures have already been in place, allows the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current countervailing measures.\n(118)\nOn this basis it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injurious subsidisation, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case.\n2. Interest of the Union industry\n(119)\nThe Union industry has proven to be a structurally viable industry. This was confirmed by the positive development of its economic situation observed after the imposition of the countervailing measures in 2004. In particular, the fact that the Union industry increased its profitability in the few years before the RIP contrasts sharply with the situation preceding the imposition of the measures. However, the Union industry has consistently lost market share while imports from the country considered have substantially increased in market share over the period considered. Without the existence of the measures, the Union industry would likely be in an even worse situation.\n3. Interest of importers/users\n(120)\nNone of the nine unrelated importers that were contacted came forward to cooperate.\n(121)\n17 users came forward and submitted questionnaire replies. While most users have not sourced graphite electrodes from India for several years, and therefore remained neutral with respect to a possible continuation of the measures, six users have, at least to some extent, used Indian electrodes. Four users claimed that a continuation of measures would have a negative impact on competition. One association (Eurofer) strongly opposed a continuation of the measures and claimed that the measures resulted in Indian exporters largely withdrawing from the EU market. The association alleges that the continuation of measures would hamper steel producers in developing alternative sources of supply and would allow the Union industry to continue having a dominant, near duopoly position. However, it is clear from the development of the Indian imports after the imposition of the measures, that such a large withdrawal has not taken place; instead imports from India have increased significantly during the period considered. In addition, the investigation has shown that the graphite electrodes are increasingly entering the Union market from a number of other third countries. As for the strength of the position of the Union industry in the market, it is recalled that its market share has decreased by almost 16 percentage points over the period considered (see recital 81 above). Finally, this association also admitted that graphite electrodes represent only a relatively small component of the total costs of steel manufacturers.\n(122)\nIt is further recalled that, in the original investigation, it was found that the impact of the imposition of measures would not be significant for the users (10). Despite the existence of measures for 5 years, importers/users in the Union continued to source their supply, inter alia, from India. No indications were brought forward either that there have been difficulties in finding other sources. Moreover, it is recalled that, as regards the effect of the imposition of measures on users, it was concluded in the original investigation that, given the negligible incidence of the cost of graphite electrodes on user industries, any cost increase was unlikely to have a significant effect on the user industry. No indications of the contrary were found after the imposition of measures. It is therefore concluded that the maintenance of the countervailing measures is not likely to have a serious effect on importers/users in the Union.\n4. Conclusion\n(123)\nGiven the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current countervailing measures.\nH. COUNTERVAILING MEASURES\n(124)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to submit comments subsequent to this disclosure. The submissions and comments were taken duly into consideration where warranted.\n(125)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation, the countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain graphite electrodes originating in India should be maintained. It is recalled that these measures consist of ad valorem duties.\n(126)\nThe individual company countervailing duty rates specified in this Regulation are solely applicable to imports of the product concerned produced by these companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imports of the product concerned manufactured by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(127)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual countervailing duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (11) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for instance, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be amended accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive countervailing duty is hereby imposed on imports of graphite electrodes of a kind used for electric furnaces, with an apparent density of 1,65 g/cm3 or more and an electrical resistance of 6,0 \u03bc\u03a9.m or less, currently falling within CN code ex85451100 (TARIC code 8545110010), and nipples used for such electrodes, currently falling within CN code ex85459090 (TARIC code 8545909010), whether imported together or separately originating in India.\n2. The rate of duty applicable to the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, for the products described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nDefinitive Duty\n(%)\nTARIC Additional Code\nGraphite India Limited (GIL), 31 Chowringhee Road, Kolkatta - 700016, West Bengal\n6,3\nA530\nHEG Limited, Bhilwara Towers, A-12, Sector-1, Noida - 201301, Uttar Pradesh\n7,0\nA531\nAll other companies\n7,2\nA999\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["33", "7", "51", "68", "2", "56", "48", "74", "87", "54", "52", "97", "8", "71", "37", "72", "85", "17", "84", "55", "1", "53", "69", "92", "13", "43", "0", "40", "96", "93", "No Label", "4", "20", "21", "23"], "gold": ["4", "20", "21", "23"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 895/2011\nof 22 August 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pimiento Asado del Bierzo (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Spain\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Pimiento Asado del Bierzo\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 417/2006 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 August 2011.", "references": ["52", "35", "36", "73", "5", "34", "0", "23", "12", "84", "57", "82", "69", "59", "6", "33", "64", "88", "61", "54", "31", "51", "8", "42", "11", "7", "62", "60", "86", "9", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 November 2011\non the signing of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT)\n(2011/790/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(3), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn May 2003 the European Commission adopted a Communication to the European Parliament and to the Council entitled \u2018Forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT): proposal for an EU action plan\u2019 which called for measures to address illegal logging through the development of voluntary partnership agreements with timber-producing countries. Council conclusions on that Action Plan were adopted in October 2003 (1) and the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the subject on 11 July 2005 (2).\n(2)\nOn 5 December 2005 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations on partnership agreements to implement the FLEGT.\n(3)\nOn 20 December 2005 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 (3) which established a FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of timber into the Union from countries with which the Union has concluded voluntary partnership agreements.\n(4)\nThe negotiations with the Central African Republic have been concluded, and the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was initialled on 21 December 2010.\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be signed subject to its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (hereinafter \u2018FLEGT\u2019) is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (4).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["6", "85", "28", "5", "71", "29", "44", "81", "66", "80", "97", "99", "68", "11", "24", "13", "37", "73", "67", "75", "0", "46", "86", "27", "52", "63", "72", "89", "65", "93", "No Label", "3", "9", "22", "88", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "22", "88", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 282/2011\nof 15 March 2011\nlaying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(recast)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1), and in particular Article 397 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA number of substantial changes are to be made to Council Regulation (EC) No 1777/2005 of 17 October 2005 laying down implementing measures for Directive 77/388/EEC on the common system of value added tax (2). It is desirable, for reasons of clarity and rationalisation, that the provisions in question should be recast.\n(2)\nDirective 2006/112/EC contains rules on value added tax (VAT) which, in some cases, are subject to interpretation by the Member States. The adoption of common provisions implementing Directive 2006/112/EC should ensure that application of the VAT system complies more fully with the objective of the internal market, in cases where divergences in application have arisen or may arise which are incompatible with the proper functioning of such internal market. These implementing measures are legally binding only from the date of the entry into force of this Regulation and are without prejudice to the validity of the legislation and interpretation previously adopted by the Member States.\n(3)\nChanges resulting from the adoption of Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the place of supply of services (3) should be reflected in this Regulation.\n(4)\nThe objective of this Regulation is to ensure uniform application of the current VAT system by laying down rules implementing Directive 2006/112/EC, in particular in respect of taxable persons, the supply of goods and services, and the place of taxable transactions. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve this objective. Since it is binding and directly applicable in all Member States, uniformity of application will be best ensured by a Regulation.\n(5)\nThese implementing provisions contain specific rules in response to selective questions of application and are designed to bring uniform treatment throughout the Union to those specific circumstances only. They are therefore not conclusive for other cases and, in view of their formulation, are to be applied restrictively.\n(6)\nIf a non-taxable person changes residence and transfers a new means of transport, or a new means of transport returns to the Member State from which it was originally supplied exempt of VAT to the non-taxable person returning it, it should be clarified that such a transfer does not constitute the intra-Community acquisition of a new means of transport.\n(7)\nFor certain services, it is sufficient for the supplier to demonstrate that the customer for these services, whether or not a taxable person, is located outside the Community for the supply of those services to fall outside the scope of VAT.\n(8)\nIt should be specified that the allocation of a VAT identification number to a taxable person who makes or receives a supply of services to or from another Member State, and for which the VAT is payable solely by the customer, does not affect the right of that taxable person to benefit from non-taxation of his intra-Community acquisitions of goods. However, if the taxable person communicates his VAT identification number to the supplier in respect of an intra-Community acquisition of goods, he is in any event deemed to have opted to make those transactions subject to VAT.\n(9)\nThe further integration of the internal market has led to an increased need for cooperation by economic operators established in different Member States across internal borders and the development of European economic interest groupings (EEIGs), constituted in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) (4). It should therefore be clarified that EEIGs are taxable persons where they supply goods or services for consideration.\n(10)\nIt is necessary to clearly define restaurant and catering services, the distinction between the two, and the appropriate treatment of these services.\n(11)\nIn order to enhance clarity, the transactions identified as electronically supplied services should be listed without the lists being definitive or exhaustive.\n(12)\nIt is necessary, on the one hand, to establish that a transaction which consists solely of assembling the various parts of a machine provided by a customer must be considered as a supply of services, and, on the other hand, to establish the place of such supply when the service is supplied to a non-taxable person.\n(13)\nThe sale of an option as a financial instrument should be treated as a supply of services separate from the underlying transactions to which the option relates.\n(14)\nTo ensure the uniform application of rules relating to the place of taxable transactions, concepts such as the place where a taxable person has established his business, fixed establishment, permanent address and the place where a person usually resides should be clarified. While taking into account the case law of the Court of Justice, the use of criteria which are as clear and objective as possible should facilitate the practical application of these concepts.\n(15)\nRules should be established to ensure the uniform treatment of supplies of goods once a supplier has exceeded the distance selling threshold for supplies to another Member State.\n(16)\nIt should be clarified that the journey of the means of transport determines the section of a passenger transport operation effected within the Community, and not the journey of the passengers within it.\n(17)\nIn the case of intra-Community acquisition of goods, the right of the Member State of acquisition to tax the acquisition should remain unaffected by the VAT treatment of the transaction in the Member States of departure.\n(18)\nThe correct application of the rules governing the place of supply of services relies mainly on the status of the customer as a taxable or non-taxable person, and on the capacity in which he is acting. In order to determine the customer\u2019s status as a taxable person, it is necessary to establish what the supplier should be required to obtain as evidence from his customer.\n(19)\nIt should be clarified that when services supplied to a taxable person are intended for private use, including use by the customer\u2019s staff, that taxable person cannot be deemed to be acting in his capacity as a taxable person. Communication by the customer of his VAT identification number to the supplier is sufficient to establish that the customer is acting in his capacity as a taxable person, unless the supplier has information to the contrary. It should also be ensured that a single service acquired for the business but also used for private purposes is only taxed in one place.\n(20)\nIn order to determine the customer\u2019s place of establishment precisely, the supplier of the service is required to verify the information provided by the customer.\n(21)\nWithout prejudice to the general rule on the place of supply of services to a taxable person, where services are supplied to a customer established in more than one place, there should be rules to help the supplier determine the customer\u2019s fixed establishment to which the service is provided, taking account of the circumstances. If the supplier of the services is not able to determine that place, there should be rules to clarify the supplier\u2019s obligations. Those rules should not interfere with or change the customer\u2019s obligations.\n(22)\nThe time at which the supplier of the service must determine the status, the capacity and the location of the customer, whether a taxable person or not, should also be specified.\n(23)\nWithout prejudice to the general application of the principle with respect to abusive practices to the provisions of this Regulation, it is appropriate to draw specific attention to its application to certain provisions of this Regulation.\n(24)\nCertain specific services such as the assignment of television broadcasting rights in respect of football matches, the translation of texts, services for claiming VAT refunds, and services as an intermediary to a non-taxable person involve cross-border scenarios or even the participation of economic operators established outside the Community. The place of supply of these services needs to be clearly determined in order to create greater legal certainty.\n(25)\nIt should be specified that services supplied by an intermediary acting in the name and on behalf of another person who takes part in the provision of accommodation in the hotel sector are not governed by the specific rule for the supply of services connected with immovable property.\n(26)\nWhere various services supplied in the framework of organising a funeral form part of a single service, the rule on the place of supply should also be determined.\n(27)\nIn order to ensure uniform treatment of supplies of cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, educational, entertainment and similar services, admission to such events and ancillary services which are related to admission need to be defined.\n(28)\nIt is necessary to clarify the treatment of restaurant services and catering services supplied on board a means of transport when passenger transport is being carried out on the territory of several countries.\n(29)\nGiven that particular rules for the hiring of a means of transport depend on the duration of its possession or use, it is necessary not only to establish which vehicles should be considered means of transport, but also to clarify the treatment of such a supply where one successive contract follows another. It is also necessary to determine the place where a means of transport is actually put at the disposal of the customer.\n(30)\nIn certain specific circumstances a credit or debit card handling fee which is paid in connection with a transaction should not reduce the taxable amount for that transaction.\n(31)\nIt is necessary to clarify that the reduced rate may be applied to the hiring out of tents, caravans and mobile homes installed on camping sites and used as accommodation.\n(32)\nVocational training or retraining should include instruction relating directly to a trade or profession as well as any instruction aimed at acquiring or updating knowledge for vocational purposes, regardless of the duration of a course.\n(33)\nPlatinum nobles should be treated as being excluded from the exemptions for currency, bank notes and coins.\n(34)\nIt should be specified that the exemption of the supply of services relating to the importation of goods the value of which is included in the taxable amount of those goods should cover transport services carried out during a change of residence.\n(35)\nGoods transported outside the Community by the purchaser thereof and used for the equipping, fuelling or provisioning of means of transport used for non-business purposes by persons other than natural persons, such as bodies governed by public law and associations, should be excluded from the exemption for export transactions.\n(36)\nTo guarantee uniform administrative practices for the calculation of the minimum value for exemption on exportation of goods carried in the personal luggage of travellers, the provisions on such calculations should be harmonised.\n(37)\nIt should be specified that the exemption for certain transactions treated as exports should also apply to services covered by the special scheme for electronically supplied services.\n(38)\nA body to be set up under the legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) should only qualify as an international body for the purposes of exemption from VAT where it fulfils certain conditions. The features necessary for it to benefit from exemption should therefore be identified.\n(39)\nSupplies of goods and services under diplomatic and consular arrangements, or to recognised international bodies, or to certain armed forces are exempt from VAT subject to certain limits and conditions. In order that a taxable person making such a supply from another Member State can establish that the conditions and limits for this exemption are met, an exemption certificate should be established.\n(40)\nElectronic import documents should also be admitted to exercise the right to deduct, where they fulfil the same requirements as paper-based documents.\n(41)\nWhere a supplier of goods or services has a fixed establishment within the territory of the Member State where the tax is due, the circumstances under which that establishment should be liable for payment of VAT should be specified.\n(42)\nIt should be clarified that a taxable person who has established his business within the territory of the Member State where the tax is due must be deemed to be a taxable person established in that Member State for the purposes of liability for the tax, even when that place of business is not involved in the supply of goods or services.\n(43)\nIt should be clarified that every taxable person is required to communicate his VAT identification number, as soon as he has one, for certain taxable transactions in order to ensure fairer collection of the tax.\n(44)\nWeights for investment gold which are definitely accepted by the bullion market should be named and a common date for establishing the value of gold coins be determined to ensure equal treatment of economic operators.\n(45)\nThe special scheme for taxable persons not established in the Community, supplying services electronically to non-taxable persons established or resident within the Community, is subject to certain conditions. Where those conditions are no longer fulfilled, the consequences thereof should, in particular, be made clear.\n(46)\nCertain changes result from Directive 2008/8/EC. Since those changes concern, on the one hand, the taxation of the long-term hiring of means of transport as from 1 January 2013 and, on the other, the taxation of electronically supplied services as from 1 January 2015, it should be specified that the corresponding Articles of this Regulation apply only as from those dates,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT MATTER\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation lays down measures for the implementation of certain provisions of Titles I to V, and VII to XII of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nCHAPTER II\nSCOPE\n(TITLE I OF DIRECTIVE 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 2\nThe following shall not result in intra-Community acquisitions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC:\n(a)\nthe transfer of a new means of transport by a non-taxable person upon change of residence provided that the exemption provided for in point (a) of Article 138(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC could not apply at the time of supply;\n(b)\nthe return of a new means of transport by a non-taxable person to the Member State from which it was initially supplied to him under the exemption provided for in point (a) of Article 138(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nArticle 3\nWithout prejudice to point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 59a of Directive 2006/112/EC, the supply of the following services is not subject to VAT if the supplier demonstrates that the place of supply determined in accordance with Subsections 3 and 4 of Section 4 of Chapter V of this Regulation is outside the Community:\n(a)\nfrom 1 January 2013, the service referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 56(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC;\n(b)\nfrom 1 January 2015, the services listed in Article 58 of Directive 2006/112/EC;\n(c)\nthe services listed in Article 59 of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nArticle 4\nA taxable person who is entitled to non-taxation of his intra-Community acquisitions of goods, in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 2006/112/EC, shall remain so where, pursuant to Article 214(1)(d) or (e) of that Directive, a VAT identification number has been attributed to that taxable person for the services received for which he is liable to pay VAT or for the services supplied by him within the territory of another Member State for which VAT is payable solely by the recipient.\nHowever, if that taxable person communicates this VAT identification number to a supplier in respect of an intra-Community acquisition of goods, he shall be deemed to have exercised the option provided for in Article 3(3) of that Directive.\nCHAPTER III\nTAXABLE PERSONS\n(TITLE III OF DIRECTIVE 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 5\nA European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) constituted in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 which supplies goods or services for consideration to its members or to third parties shall be a taxable person within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nCHAPTER IV\nTAXABLE TRANSACTIONS\n(ARTICLES 24 TO 29 OF DIRECTIVE 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 6\n1. Restaurant and catering services mean services consisting of the supply of prepared or unprepared food or beverages or both, for human consumption, accompanied by sufficient support services allowing for the immediate consumption thereof. The provision of food or beverages or both is only one component of the whole in which services shall predominate. Restaurant services are the supply of such services on the premises of the supplier, and catering services are the supply of such services off the premises of the supplier.\n2. The supply of prepared or unprepared food or beverages or both, whether or not including transport but without any other support services, shall not be considered restaurant or catering services within the meaning of paragraph 1.\nArticle 7\n1. \u2018Electronically supplied services\u2019 as referred to in Directive 2006/112/EC shall include services which are delivered over the Internet or an electronic network and the nature of which renders their supply essentially automated and involving minimal human intervention, and impossible to ensure in the absence of information technology.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall cover, in particular, the following:\n(a)\nthe supply of digitised products generally, including software and changes to or upgrades of software;\n(b)\nservices providing or supporting a business or personal presence on an electronic network such as a website or a webpage;\n(c)\nservices automatically generated from a computer via the Internet or an electronic network, in response to specific data input by the recipient;\n(d)\nthe transfer for consideration of the right to put goods or services up for sale on an Internet site operating as an online market on which potential buyers make their bids by an automated procedure and on which the parties are notified of a sale by electronic mail automatically generated from a computer;\n(e)\nInternet Service Packages (ISP) of information in which the telecommunications component forms an ancillary and subordinate part (i.e. packages going beyond mere Internet access and including other elements such as content pages giving access to news, weather or travel reports; playgrounds; website hosting; access to online debates etc.);\n(f)\nthe services listed in Annex I.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not, in particular, cover the following:\n(a)\nradio and television broadcasting services;\n(b)\ntelecommunications services;\n(c)\ngoods, where the order and processing is done electronically;\n(d)\nCD-ROMs, floppy disks and similar tangible media;\n(e)\nprinted matter, such as books, newsletters, newspapers or journals;\n(f)\nCDs and audio cassettes;\n(g)\nvideo cassettes and DVDs;\n(h)\ngames on a CD-ROM;\n(i)\nservices of professionals such as lawyers and financial consultants, who advise clients by e-mail;\n(j)\nteaching services, where the course content is delivered by a teacher over the Internet or an electronic network (namely via a remote link);\n(k)\noffline physical repair services of computer equipment;\n(l)\noffline data warehousing services;\n(m)\nadvertising services, in particular as in newspapers, on posters and on television;\n(n)\ntelephone helpdesk services;\n(o)\nteaching services purely involving correspondence courses, such as postal courses;\n(p)\nconventional auctioneers\u2019 services reliant on direct human intervention, irrespective of how bids are made;\n(q)\ntelephone services with a video component, otherwise known as videophone services;\n(r)\naccess to the Internet and World Wide Web;\n(s)\ntelephone services provided through the Internet.\nArticle 8\nIf a taxable person only assembles the various parts of a machine all of which were provided to him by his customer, that transaction shall be a supply of services within the meaning of Article 24(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nArticle 9\nThe sale of an option, where such a sale is a transaction falling within the scope of point (f) of Article 135(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC, shall be a supply of services within the meaning of Article 24(1) of that Directive. That supply of services shall be distinct from the underlying transactions to which the services relate.\nCHAPTER V\nPLACE OF TAXABLE TRANSACTIONS\nSECTION 1\nConcepts\nArticle 10\n1. For the application of Articles 44 and 45 of Directive 2006/112/EC, the place where the business of a taxable person is established shall be the place where the functions of the business\u2019s central administration are carried out.\n2. In order to determine the place referred to in paragraph 1, account shall be taken of the place where essential decisions concerning the general management of the business are taken, the place where the registered office of the business is located and the place where management meets.\nWhere these criteria do not allow the place of establishment of a business to be determined with certainty, the place where essential decisions concerning the general management of the business are taken shall take precedence.\n3. The mere presence of a postal address may not be taken to be the place of establishment of a business of a taxable person.\nArticle 11\n1. For the application of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC, a \u2018fixed establishment\u2019 shall be any establishment, other than the place of establishment of a business referred to in Article 10 of this Regulation, characterised by a sufficient degree of permanence and a suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources to enable it to receive and use the services supplied to it for its own needs.\n2. For the application of the following Articles, a \u2018fixed establishment\u2019 shall be any establishment, other than the place of establishment of a business referred to in Article 10 of this Regulation, characterised by a sufficient degree of permanence and a suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources to enable it to provide the services which it supplies:\n(a)\nArticle 45 of Directive 2006/112/EC;\n(b)\nfrom 1 January 2013, the second subparagraph of Article 56(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC;\n(c)\nuntil 31 December 2014, Article 58 of Directive 2006/112/EC;\n(d)\nArticle 192a of Directive 2006/112/EC.\n3. The fact of having a VAT identification number shall not in itself be sufficient to consider that a taxable person has a fixed establishment.\nArticle 12\nFor the application of Directive 2006/112/EC, the \u2018permanent address\u2019 of a natural person, whether or not a taxable person, shall be the address entered in the population or similar register, or the address indicated by that person to the relevant tax authorities, unless there is evidence that this address does not reflect reality.\nArticle 13\nThe place where a natural person \u2018usually resides\u2019, whether or not a taxable person, as referred to in Directive 2006/112/EC shall be the place where that natural person usually lives as a result of personal and occupational ties.\nWhere the occupational ties are in a country different from that of the personal ties, or where no occupational ties exist, the place of usual residence shall be determined by personal ties which show close links between the natural person and a place where he is living.\nSECTION 2\nPlace of supply of goods\n(Articles 31 to 39 of Directive 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 14\nWhere in the course of a calendar year the threshold applied by a Member State in accordance with Article 34 of Directive 2006/112/EC is exceeded, Article 33 of that Directive shall not modify the place of supplies of goods other than products subject to excise duty carried out in the course of the same calendar year which are made before the threshold applied by the Member State for the calendar year then current is exceeded provided that all of the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe supplier has not exercised the option provided for under Article 34(4) of that Directive;\n(b)\nthe value of his supplies of goods did not exceed the threshold in the course of the preceding calendar year.\nHowever, Article 33 of Directive 2006/112/EC shall modify the place of the following supplies to the Member State in which the dispatch or transport ends:\n(a)\nthe supply of goods by which the threshold applied by the Member State for the calendar year then current was exceeded in the course of the same calendar year;\n(b)\nany subsequent supplies of goods within that Member State in that calendar year;\n(c)\nsupplies of goods within that Member State in the calendar year following the calendar year in which the event referred to in point (a) occurred.\nArticle 15\nThe section of a passenger transport operation effected within the Community referred to in Article 37 of Directive 2006/112/EC, shall be determined by the journey of the means of transport and not by the journey completed by each of the passengers.\nSECTION 3\nPlace of intra-Community acquisitions of goods\n(Articles 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 16\nWhere an intra-Community acquisition of goods within the meaning of Article 20 of Directive 2006/112/EC has taken place, the Member State in which the dispatch or transport ends shall exercise its power of taxation irrespective of the VAT treatment applied to the transaction in the Member State in which the dispatch or transport began.\nAny request by a supplier of goods for a correction in the VAT invoiced by him and reported by him to the Member State where the dispatch or transport of the goods began shall be treated by that Member State in accordance with its own domestic rules.\nSECTION 4\nPlace of supply of services\n(Articles 43 to 59 of Directive 2006/112/EC)\nSubsection 1\nStatus of the customer\nArticle 17\n1. If the place of supply of services depends on whether the customer is a taxable or non-taxable person, the status of the customer shall be determined on the basis of Articles 9 to 13 and Article 43 of Directive 2006/112/EC.\n2. A non-taxable legal person who is identified or required to be identified for VAT purposes under point (b) of Article 214(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC because his intra-Community acquisitions of goods are subject to VAT or because he has exercised the option of making those operations subject to VAT shall be a taxable person within the meaning of Article 43 of that Directive.\nArticle 18\n1. Unless he has information to the contrary, the supplier may regard a customer established within the Community as a taxable person:\n(a)\nwhere the customer has communicated his individual VAT identification number to him, and the supplier obtains confirmation of the validity of that identification number and of the associated name and address in accordance with Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax (5);\n(b)\nwhere the customer has not yet received an individual VAT identification number, but informs the supplier that he has applied for it and the supplier obtains any other proof which demonstrates that the customer is a taxable person or a non-taxable legal person required to be identified for VAT purposes and carries out a reasonable level of verification of the accuracy of the information provided by the customer, by normal commercial security measures such as those relating to identity or payment checks.\n2. Unless he has information to the contrary, the supplier may regard a customer established within the Community as a non-taxable person when he can demonstrate that the customer has not communicated his individual VAT identification number to him.\n3. Unless he has information to the contrary, the supplier may regard a customer established outside the Community as a taxable person:\n(a)\nif he obtains from the customer a certificate issued by the customer\u2019s competent tax authorities as confirmation that the customer is engaged in economic activities in order to enable him to obtain a refund of VAT under Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory (6);\n(b)\nwhere the customer does not possess that certificate, if the supplier has the VAT number, or a similar number attributed to the customer by the country of establishment and used to identify businesses or any other proof which demonstrates that the customer is a taxable person and if the supplier carries out a reasonable level of verification of the accuracy of the information provided by the customer, by normal commercial security measures such as those relating to identity or payment checks.\nSubsection 2\nCapacity of the customer\nArticle 19\nFor the purpose of applying the rules concerning the place of supply of services laid down in Articles 44 and 45 of Directive 2006/112/EC, a taxable person, or a non-taxable legal person deemed to be a taxable person, who receives services exclusively for private use, including use by his staff, shall be regarded as a non-taxable person.\nUnless he has information to the contrary, such as information on the nature of the services provided, the supplier may consider that the services are for the customer\u2019s business use if, for that transaction, the customer has communicated his individual VAT identification number.\nWhere one and the same service is intended for both private use, including use by the customer\u2019s staff, and business use, the supply of that service shall be covered exclusively by Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC, provided there is no abusive practice.\nSubsection 3\nLocation of the customer\nArticle 20\nWhere a supply of services carried out for a taxable person, or a non-taxable legal person deemed to be a taxable person, falls within the scope of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC, and where that taxable person is established in a single country, or, in the absence of a place of establishment of a business or a fixed establishment, has his permanent address and usually resides in a single country, that supply of services shall be taxable in that country.\nThe supplier shall establish that place based on information from the customer, and verify that information by normal commercial security measures such as those relating to identity or payment checks.\nThe information may include the VAT identification number attributed by the Member State where the customer is established.\nArticle 21\nWhere a supply of services to a taxable person, or a non-taxable legal person deemed to be a taxable person, falls within the scope of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC, and the taxable person is established in more than one country, that supply shall be taxable in the country where that taxable person has established his business.\nHowever, where the service is provided to a fixed establishment of the taxable person located in a place other than that where the customer has established his business, that supply shall be taxable at the place of the fixed establishment receiving that service and using it for its own needs.\nWhere the taxable person does not have a place of establishment of a business or a fixed establishment, the supply shall be taxable at his permanent address or usual residence.\nArticle 22\n1. In order to identify the customer\u2019s fixed establishment to which the service is provided, the supplier shall examine the nature and use of the service provided.\nWhere the nature and use of the service provided do not enable him to identify the fixed establishment to which the service is provided, the supplier, in identifying that fixed establishment, shall pay particular attention to whether the contract, the order form and the VAT identification number attributed by the Member State of the customer and communicated to him by the customer identify the fixed establishment as the customer of the service and whether the fixed establishment is the entity paying for the service.\nWhere the customer\u2019s fixed establishment to which the service is provided cannot be determined in accordance with the first and second subparagraphs of this paragraph or where services covered by Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC are supplied to a taxable person under a contract covering one or more services used in an unidentifiable and non-quantifiable manner, the supplier may legitimately consider that the services have been supplied at the place where the customer has established his business.\n2. The application of this Article shall be without prejudice to the customer\u2019s obligations.\nArticle 23\n1. From 1 January 2013, where, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 56(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, a supply of services is taxable at the place where the customer is established, or, in the absence of an establishment, where he has his permanent address or usually resides, the supplier shall establish that place based on factual information provided by the customer, and verify that information by normal commercial security measures such as those relating to identity or payment checks.\n2. Where, in accordance with Articles 58 and 59 of Directive 2006/112/EC, a supply of services is taxable at the place where the customer is established, or, in the absence of an establishment, where he has his permanent address or usually resides, the supplier shall establish that place based on factual information provided by the customer, and verify that information by normal commercial security measures such as those relating to identity or payment checks.\nArticle 24\n1. From 1 January 2013, where services covered by the first subparagraph of Article 56(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, are supplied to a non-taxable person who is established in more than one country or has his permanent address in one country and his usual residence in another, priority shall be given to the place that best ensures taxation at the place of actual consumption when determining the place of supply of those services.\n2. Where services covered by Articles 58 and 59 of Directive 2006/112/EC are supplied to a non-taxable person who is established in more than one country or has his permanent address in one country and his usual residence in another, priority shall be given to the place that best ensures taxation at the place of actual consumption when determining the place of supply of those services.\nSubsection 4\nCommon provision regarding determination of the status, the capacity and the location of the customer\nArticle 25\nFor the application of the rules governing the place of supply of services, only the circumstances existing at the time of the chargeable event shall be taken into account. Any subsequent changes to the use of the service received shall not affect the determination of the place of supply, provided there is no abusive practice.\nSubsection 5\nSupply of services governed by the general rules\nArticle 26\nA transaction whereby a body assigns television broadcasting rights in respect of football matches to taxable persons, shall be covered by Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nArticle 27\nThe supply of services which consist in applying for or receiving refunds of VAT under Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (7) shall be covered by Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nArticle 28\nIn so far as they constitute a single service, the supply of services made in the framework of organising a funeral shall fall within the scope of Articles 44 and 45 of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nArticle 29\nWithout prejudice to Article 41 of this Regulation, the supply of services of translation of texts shall fall within the scope of Articles 44 and 45 of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nSubsection 6\nSupply of services by intermediaries\nArticle 30\nThe supply of services of intermediaries as referred to in Article 46 of Directive 2006/112/EC shall cover the services of intermediaries acting in the name and on behalf of the recipient of the service procured and the services performed by intermediaries acting in the name and on behalf of the provider of the services procured.\nArticle 31\nServices supplied by intermediaries acting in the name and on behalf of another person consisting of the intermediation in the provision of accommodation in the hotel sector or in sectors having a similar function shall fall within the scope of:\n(a)\nArticle 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC if supplied to a taxable person acting as such, or a non-taxable legal person deemed to be a taxable person;\n(b)\nArticle 46 of that Directive, if supplied to a non-taxable person.\nSubsection 7\nSupply of cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, educational, entertainment, and similar services\nArticle 32\n1. Services in respect of admission to cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, educational, entertainment or similar events as referred to in Article 53 of Directive 2006/112/EC shall include the supply of services of which the essential characteristics are the granting of the right of admission to an event in exchange for a ticket or payment, including payment in the form of a subscription, a season ticket or a periodic fee.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall apply in particular to:\n(a)\nthe right of admission to shows, theatrical performances, circus performances, fairs, amusement parks, concerts, exhibitions, and other similar cultural events;\n(b)\nthe right of admission to sporting events such as matches or competitions;\n(c)\nthe right of admission to educational and scientific events such as conferences and seminars.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not cover the use of facilities such as gymnastics halls and suchlike, in exchange for the payment of a fee.\nArticle 33\nThe ancillary services referred to in Article 53 of Directive 2006/112/EC shall include services which are directly related to admission to cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, educational, entertainment or similar events and which are supplied separately for a consideration to a person attending an event.\nSuch ancillary services shall include in particular the use of cloakrooms or sanitary facilities but shall not include mere intermediary services relating to the sale of tickets.\nSubsection 8\nSupply of ancillary transport services and valuations of and work on movable property\nArticle 34\nExcept where the goods being assembled become part of immovable property, the place of the supply of services to a non-taxable person consisting only of the assembly by a taxable person of the various parts of a machine, all of which were provided to him by his customer, shall be established in accordance with Article 54 of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nSubsection 9\nSupply of restaurant and catering services on board means of transport\nArticle 35\nThe section of a passenger transport operation effected within the Community as referred to in Article 57 of Directive 2006/112/EC shall be determined by the journey of the means of transport and not by the journey completed by each of the passengers.\nArticle 36\nWhere restaurant services and catering services are supplied during the section of a passenger transport operation effected within the Community, that supply shall be covered by Article 57 of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nWhere restaurant services and catering services are supplied outside such a section but on the territory of a Member State or a third country or third territory, that supply shall be covered by Article 55 of that Directive.\nArticle 37\nThe place of supply of a restaurant service or catering service carried out within the Community partly during a section of a passenger transport operation effected within the Community, and partly outside such a section but on the territory of a Member State, shall be determined in its entirety according to the rules for determining the place of supply applicable at the beginning of the supply of the restaurant or catering service.\nSubsection 10\nHiring of means of transport\nArticle 38\n1. \u2018Means of transport\u2019 as referred to in Article 56 and point (g) of the first paragraph of Article 59 of Directive 2006/112/EC shall include vehicles, whether motorised or not, and other equipment and devices designed to transport persons or objects from one place to another, which might be pulled, drawn or pushed by vehicles and which are normally designed to be used and actually capable of being used for transport.\n2. The means of transport referred to in paragraph 1 shall include, in particular, the following vehicles:\n(a)\nland vehicles, such as cars, motor cycles, bicycles, tricycles and caravans;\n(b)\ntrailers and semi-trailers;\n(c)\nrailway wagons;\n(d)\nvessels;\n(e)\naircraft;\n(f)\nvehicles specifically designed for the transport of sick or injured persons;\n(g)\nagricultural tractors and other agricultural vehicles;\n(h)\nmechanically or electronically propelled invalid carriages.\n3. Vehicles which are permanently immobilised and containers shall not be considered to be means of transport as referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 39\n1. For the application of Article 56 of Directive 2006/112/EC, the duration of the continuous possession or use of a means of transport which is the subject of hiring shall be determined on the basis of the contract between the parties involved.\nThe contract shall serve as a presumption which may be rebutted by any means in fact or law in order to establish the actual duration of the continuous possession or use.\nThe fact that the contractual period of short-term hiring within the meaning of Article 56 of Directive 2006/112/EC is exceeded on grounds of force majeure shall have no bearing on the determination of the duration of the continuous possession or use of the means of transport.\n2. Where hiring of one and the same means of transport is covered by consecutive contracts between the same parties, the duration shall be that of the continuous possession or use of the means of transport provided for under the contracts as a whole.\nFor the purposes of the first subparagraph a contract and its extensions shall be consecutive contracts.\nHowever, the duration of the short-term hire contract or contracts preceding a contract which is regarded as long-term shall not be called into question provided there is no abusive practice.\n3. Unless there is abusive practice, consecutive contracts between the same parties for different means of transport shall not be considered to be consecutive contracts for the purposes of paragraph 2.\nArticle 40\nThe place where the means of transport is actually put at the disposal of the customer as referred to in Article 56(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC, shall be the place where the customer or a third party acting on his behalf takes physical possession of it.\nSubsection 11\nSupply of services to non-taxable persons outside the Community\nArticle 41\nThe supply of services of translation of texts to a non-taxable person established outside the Community shall be covered by point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 59 of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nCHAPTER VI\nTAXABLE AMOUNT\n(TITLE VII OF DIRECTIVE 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 42\nWhere a supplier of goods or services, as a condition of accepting payment by credit or debit card, requires the customer to pay an amount to himself or another undertaking, and where the total price payable by that customer is unaffected irrespective of how payment is accepted, that amount shall constitute an integral part of the taxable amount for the supply of the goods or services, under Articles 73 to 80 of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nCHAPTER VII\nRATES\nArticle 43\n\u2018Provision of holiday accommodation\u2019 as referred to in point (12) of Annex III to Directive 2006/112/EC shall include the hiring out of tents, caravans or mobile homes installed on camping sites and used as accommodation.\nCHAPTER VIII\nEXEMPTIONS\nSECTION 1\nExemptions for certain activities in the public interest\n(Articles 132, 133 and 134 of Directive 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 44\nVocational training or retraining services provided under the conditions set out in point (i) of Article 132(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC shall include instruction relating directly to a trade or profession as well as any instruction aimed at acquiring or updating knowledge for vocational purposes. The duration of a vocational training or retraining course shall be irrelevant for this purpose.\nSECTION 2\nExemptions for other activities\n(Articles 135, 136 and 137 of Directive 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 45\nThe exemption provided for in point (e) of Article 135(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC shall not apply to platinum nobles.\nSECTION 3\nExemptions on importation\n(Articles 143, 144 and 145 of Directive 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 46\nThe exemption provided for in Article 144 of Directive 2006/112/EC shall apply to transport services connected with the importation of movable property carried out as part of a change of residence.\nSECTION 4\nExemptions on exportation\n(Articles 146 and 147 of Directive 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 47\n\u2018Means of transport for private use\u2019 as referred to in point (b) of Article 146(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC shall include means of transport used for non-business purposes by persons other than natural persons, such as bodies governed by public law within the meaning of Article 13 of that Directive and associations.\nArticle 48\nIn order to determine whether, as a condition for the exemption of the supply of goods carried in the personal luggage of travellers, the threshold set by a Member State in accordance with point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 147(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC has been exceeded, the calculation shall be based on the invoice value. The aggregate value of several goods may be used only if all those goods are included on the same invoice issued by the same taxable person supplying goods to the same customer.\nSECTION 5\nExemptions relating to certain transactions treated as exports\n(Articles 151 and 152 of Directive 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 49\nThe exemption provided for in Article 151 of Directive 2006/112/EC shall also apply to electronic services where these are provided by a taxable person to whom the special scheme for electronically supplied services provided for in Articles 357 to 369 of that Directive applies.\nArticle 50\n1. In order to qualify for recognition as an international body for the application of point (g) of Article 143(1) and point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 151(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC a body which is to be set up as a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC), as referred to in Council Regulation (EC) No 723/2009 of 25 June 2009 on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) (8) shall fulfil all of the following conditions:\n(a)\nit shall have a distinct legal personality and full legal capacity;\n(b)\nit shall be set up under and shall be subject to European Union law;\n(c)\nits membership shall include Member States and, where appropriate, third countries and inter-governmental organisations, but exclude private bodies;\n(d)\nit shall have specific and legitimate objectives that are jointly pursued and essentially non-economic in nature.\n2. The exemption provided for in point (g) of Article 143(1) and point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 151(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC shall apply to an ERIC referred to in paragraph 1 where it is recognised as an international body by the host Member State.\nThe limits and conditions of such an exemption shall be laid down by agreement between the members of the ERIC in accordance with point (d) of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 723/2009. Where the goods are not dispatched or transported out of the Member State in which the supply takes place, and in the case of services, the exemption may be granted by means of a refund of the VAT in accordance with Article 151(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nArticle 51\n1. Where the recipient of a supply of goods or services is established within the Community but not in the Member State in which the supply takes place, the VAT and/or excise duty exemption certificate set out in Annex II to this Regulation shall, subject to the explanatory notes set out in the Annex to that certificate, serve to confirm that the transaction qualifies for the exemption under Article 151 of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nWhen making use of that certificate, the Member State in which the recipient of the supply of goods or services is established may decide to use either a common VAT and excise duty exemption certificate or two separate certificates.\n2. The certificate referred to in paragraph 1 shall be stamped by the competent authorities of the host Member State. However, if the goods or services are intended for official use, Member States may dispense the recipient from the requirement to have the certificate stamped under such conditions as they may lay down. This dispensation may be withdrawn in the case of abuse.\nMember States shall inform the Commission of the contact point designated to identify the services responsible for stamping the certificate and the extent to which they dispense with the requirement to have the certificate stamped. The Commission shall inform the other Member States of the information received from Member States.\n3. Where direct exemption is applied in the Member State in which the supply takes place, the supplier shall obtain the certificate referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article from the recipient of the goods or services and retain it as part of his records. If the exemption is granted by means of a refund of the VAT, pursuant to Article 151(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the certificate shall be attached to the request for refund submitted to the Member State concerned.\nCHAPTER IX\nDEDUCTIONS\n(TITLE X OF DIRECTIVE 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 52\nWhere the Member State of importation has introduced an electronic system for completing customs formalities, the term \u2018import document\u2019 in point (e) of Article 178 of Directive 2006/112/EC shall cover electronic versions of such documents, provided that they allow for the exercise of the right of deduction to be checked.\nCHAPTER X\nOBLIGATIONS OF TAXABLE PERSONS AND CERTAIN NON-TAXABLE PERSONS\n(TITLE XI OF DIRECTIVE 2006/112/EC)\nSECTION 1\nPersons liable to pay the VAT\n(Articles 192a to 205 of Directive 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 53\n1. For the application of Article 192a of Directive 2006/112/EC, a fixed establishment of the taxable person shall be taken into consideration only when it is characterised by a sufficient degree of permanence and a suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources to enable it to make the supply of goods or services in which it intervenes.\n2. Where a taxable person has a fixed establishment within the territory of the Member State where the VAT is due, that establishment shall be considered as not intervening in the supply of goods or services within the meaning of point (b) of Article 192a of Directive 2006/112/EC, unless the technical and human resources of that fixed establishment are used by him for transactions inherent in the fulfilment of the taxable supply of those goods or services made within that Member State, before or during this fulfilment.\nWhere the resources of the fixed establishment are only used for administrative support tasks such as accounting, invoicing and collection of debt-claims, they shall not be regarded as being used for the fulfilment of the supply of goods or services.\nHowever, if an invoice is issued under the VAT identification number attributed by the Member State of the fixed establishment, that fixed establishment shall be regarded as having intervened in the supply of goods or services made in that Member State unless there is proof to the contrary.\nArticle 54\nWhere a taxable person has established his place of business within the territory of the Member State where the VAT is due, Article 192a of Directive 2006/112/EC shall not apply whether or not that place of business intervenes in the supply of goods or services he makes within that Member State.\nSECTION 2\nMiscellaneous provisions\n(Articles 272 and 273 of Directive 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 55\nFor the transactions referred to in Article 262 of Directive 2006/112/EC, taxable persons to whom a VAT identification number has been attributed in accordance with Article 214 of that Directive and non-taxable legal persons identified for VAT purposes shall be required, when acting as such, to communicate their VAT identification number forthwith to those supplying goods and services to them.\nThe taxable persons referred to in point (b) of Article 3(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC, who are entitled to non-taxation of their intra-Community acquisitions of goods in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 4 of this Regulation, shall not be required to communicate their VAT identification number to those supplying goods to them when a VAT identification number has been attributed to them in accordance with Article 214(1)(d) or (e) of that Directive.\nCHAPTER XI\nSPECIAL SCHEMES\nSECTION 1\nSpecial scheme for investment gold\n(Articles 344 to 356 of Directive 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 56\n\u2018Weights accepted by the bullion markets\u2019 as referred to in point (l) of Article 344(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC shall at least cover the units and the weights traded as set out in Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 57\nFor the purposes of establishing the list of gold coins referred to in Article 345 of Directive 2006/112/EC, \u2018price\u2019 and \u2018open market value\u2019 as referred to in point (2) of Article 344(1) of that Directive shall be the price and open market value on 1 April of each year. If 1 April does not fall on a day on which those values are fixed, the values of the next day on which they are fixed shall be used.\nSECTION 2\nSpecial scheme for non-established taxable persons supplying electronic services to non-taxable persons\n(Articles 357 to 369 of Directive 2006/112/EC)\nArticle 58\nWhere, in the course of a calendar quarter, a non-established taxable person using the special scheme for electronically supplied services provided for in Articles 357 to 369 of Directive 2006/112/EC meets at least one of the criteria for exclusion laid down in Article 363 of that Directive, the Member State of identification shall exclude that non-established taxable person from the special scheme. In such cases the non-established taxable person may subsequently be excluded from the special scheme at any time during that quarter.\nIn respect of services supplied electronically prior to exclusion but during the calendar quarter in which exclusion occurs, the non-established taxable person shall submit a VAT return for the entire quarter in accordance with Article 364 of Directive 2006/112/EC. The requirement to submit this return shall have no effect on the requirement, if any, to be identified for VAT purposes in a Member State under the normal rules.\nArticle 59\nAny return period (calendar quarter) within the meaning of Article 364 of Directive 2006/112/EC shall be a separate return period.\nArticle 60\nOnce a VAT return has been submitted as provided for under Article 364 of Directive 2006/112/EC, any subsequent changes to the figures contained therein may be made only by means of an amendment to that return and not by an adjustment to a subsequent return.\nArticle 61\nAmounts on VAT returns made under the special scheme for electronically supplied services provided for in Articles 357 to 369 of Directive 2006/112/EC shall not be rounded up or down to the nearest whole monetary unit. The exact amount of VAT shall be reported and remitted.\nArticle 62\nA Member State of identification which receives a payment in excess of that resulting from the VAT return submitted for electronically supplied services under Article 364 of Directive 2006/112/EC shall reimburse the overpaid amount directly to the taxable person concerned.\nWhere the Member State of identification has received an amount pursuant to a VAT return subsequently found to be incorrect, and that Member State has already distributed that amount among the Member States of consumption, those Member States shall directly reimburse the overpayment to the non-established taxable person and inform the Member State of identification of the adjustment to be made.\nArticle 63\nAmounts of VAT paid under Article 367 of Directive 2006/112/EC shall be specific to the VAT return submitted pursuant to Article 364 of that Directive. Any subsequent amendments to the amounts paid may be effected only by reference to that return and may not be allocated to another return, or adjusted on a subsequent return.\nCHAPTER XII\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 64\nRegulation (EC) No 1777/2005 is hereby repealed.\nReferences made to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex IV.\nArticle 65\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nHowever:\n-\npoint (a) of Article 3, point (b) of Article 11(2), Article 23(1) and Article 24(1) shall apply from 1 January 2013,\n-\npoint (b) of Article 3 shall apply from 1 January 2015,\n-\npoint (c) of Article 11(2) shall apply until 31 December 2014.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 March 2011.", "references": ["22", "43", "72", "4", "64", "94", "70", "32", "44", "49", "80", "66", "46", "75", "79", "12", "38", "57", "97", "96", "6", "47", "35", "91", "41", "81", "24", "48", "33", "55", "No Label", "8", "25", "26", "34"], "gold": ["8", "25", "26", "34"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 July 2012\namending Decisions 2006/861/EC, 2008/163/EC, 2008/164/EC, 2008/217/EC, 2008/231/EC, 2008/232/EC, 2008/284/EC, 2011/229/EU, 2011/274/EU, 2011/275/EU, 2011/291/EU and 2011/314/EU concerning technical specifications for interoperability\n(notified under document C(2012) 4985)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/464/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 12 of Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 establishing a European railway agency (Agency Regulation) (2) requires the European Railway Agency (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agency\u2019) to ensure that the technical specifications for interoperability (hereinafter referred to as \u2018TSIs\u2019) are adapted to technical progress and market trends and to the social requirements and to propose to the Commission the amendments to the TSIs which it considers necessary.\n(2)\nBy Decision C(2007)3371 of 13 July 2007, the Commission gave a framework mandate to the Agency to perform certain activities under Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (3) and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (4). Under the terms of that framework mandate, the Agency was requested to revise the TSIs on high-speed rolling stock, freight wagons, locomotives and passenger rolling stock, noise, infrastructure, energy, control-command and signalling, operation and traffic management, telematic applications for freight and passenger services, safety on railway tunnels and accessibility to persons with reduced mobility.\n(3)\nOn 31 March 2011, the Agency issued a recommendation on the specification of the register of infrastructure, the procedure of demonstrating the level of compliance with the basic parameters of the TSIs for existing lines, and subsequent amendments to TSIs (ERA/REC/04-2011/INT).\n(4)\nOn 9 June 2011, the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC gave a positive opinion on the draft Commission Implementing Decision on the European register of authorised types of railway vehicles and on the draft Commission Implementing Decision on the common specifications of the register of railway infrastructure. Following the adoption of the two Commission acts based on these drafts, namely Commission Implementing Decision 2011/633/EU of 15 September 2011 on the common specifications of the register of railway infrastructure (5) and Commission Implementing Decision 2011/665/EU of 4 October 2011 on the European register of authorised types of railway vehicles (6), the relevant TSIs need to be updated to ensure global consistency.\n(5)\nAppendix A of the current TSIs on Operation and Traffic Management refer to version 1 of European Railway Traffic Management System (ERTMS) operating rules that were developed on the basis of European Train Control System (ETCS) System Requirements Specifications (SRS) version 2.2.2.\n(6)\nETCS SRS have reached a stable version 2.3.0.d. This needs to be reflected by updated ERTMS operating rules in the TSIs on operation and traffic management, for both conventional rail and high-speed.\n(7)\nOn 20 July 2011, the Agency issued a recommendation on revised ERTMS operational principles and rules\u2019 in TSIs on Operation and Traffic management for conventional rail and high-speed rail (ERA/REC/08-2011/INT-ERTMS).\n(8)\nOn 8 September 2011, the Agency issued a recommendation on further amendments to TSIs to correct errors and deficiencies (ERA/REC/07-2011/INT).\n(9)\nFor practical reasons, it is preferable to amend a series of TSIs by a single Commission Decision to implement particular corrections and updates in the legal texts. These corrections and updates are not arising from a global revision of the TSIs or from the extension of their geographical scope.\n(10)\nIt is therefore necessary to amend the following Decisions:\n-\nCommission Decision 2006/861/EC of 28 July 2006 concerning the technical specification of interoperability relating to the subsystem rolling stock - freight wagons of the trans-European conventional rail system (7),\n-\nCommission Decision 2008/163/EC of 20 December 2007 concerning the technical specification of interoperability relating to safety in railway tunnels in the trans-European conventional and high-speed rail system (8),\n-\nCommission Decision 2008/164/EC of 21 December 2007 concerning the technical specification of interoperability relating to persons with reduced mobility in the trans-European conventional and high-speed rail system (9),\n-\nCommission Decision 2008/217/EC of 20 December 2007 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the infrastructure sub-system of the trans-European high-speed rail system (10),\n-\nCommission Decision 2008/231/EC of 1 February 2008 concerning the technical specification of interoperability relating to the operation subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system adopted referred to in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 96/48/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2002/734/EC of 30 May 2002 (11),\n-\nCommission Decision 2008/232/EC of 21 February 2008 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock sub-system of the trans-European high-speed rail system (12),\n-\nCommission Decision 2008/284/EC of 6 March 2008 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the energy sub-system of the trans-European high-speed rail system (13),\n-\nCommission Decision 2011/229/EU of 4 April 2011 concerning the technical specifications of interoperability relating to the subsystem rolling stock - noise of the trans-European conventional rail system (14),\n-\nCommission Decision 2011/274/EU of 26 April 2011 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the energy subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system (15),\n-\nCommission Decision 2011/275/EU of 26 April 2011 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the infrastructure subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system (16),\n-\nCommission Decision 2011/291/EU of 26 April 2011 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock subsystem - locomotives and passenger rolling stock of the trans-European conventional rail system (17),\n-\nCommission Decision 2011/314/EU of 12 May 2011 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the operation and traffic management subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system (18).\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in conformity with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2006/861/EC is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Annex to Decision 2008/163/EC is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThe Annex to Decision 2008/164/EC is amended in accordance with Annex III to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThe Annex to Decision 2008/217/EC is amended in accordance with Annex IV to this Decision.\nArticle 5\nThe Annex to Decision 2008/231/EC is amended in accordance with Annex V to this Decision.\nArticle 6\nThe Annex to Decision 2008/232/EC is amended in accordance with Annex VI to this Decision.\nArticle 7\nThe Annex to Decision 2008/284/EC is amended in accordance with Annex VII to this Decision.\nArticle 8\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/229/EU is amended in accordance with Annex VIII to this Decision.\nArticle 9\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/274/EU is amended in accordance with Annex IX to this Decision.\nArticle 10\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/275/EU is amended in accordance with Annex X to this Decision.\nArticle 11\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/291/EU is amended in accordance with Annex XI to this Decision.\nArticle 12\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/314/EU is amended in accordance with Annex XII to this Decision.\nArticle 13\nThis Decision shall apply from 24 January 2013.\nArticle 14\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["72", "16", "24", "80", "14", "50", "71", "61", "83", "6", "2", "52", "84", "3", "69", "90", "70", "4", "98", "33", "40", "97", "81", "66", "65", "8", "28", "25", "12", "15", "No Label", "7", "9", "36", "53", "54", "55", "60", "76"], "gold": ["7", "9", "36", "53", "54", "55", "60", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 752/2012\nof 17 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 August 2012.", "references": ["43", "9", "25", "29", "65", "66", "12", "5", "88", "13", "10", "39", "11", "31", "55", "71", "95", "18", "82", "75", "89", "40", "77", "32", "4", "14", "85", "21", "52", "16", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 420/2011\nof 29 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (2) sets maximum levels for contaminants in a range of foodstuffs.\n(2)\nTaking into account the different interpretations with regard to the portion of crabs to be analysed for comparison with the maximum level for cadmium, it should therefore be clarified that the maximum level set for cadmium in crustaceans in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 applies to muscle meat from appendages (legs and claws) and abdomen. For crabs and crab-like crustaceans, the maximum level applies to the appendages only. This definition excludes other parts of crustaceans, such as the cephalothorax of crabs and inedible parts (shell, tail). The cephalothorax comprises the digestive organs (hepatopancreas) which are known to contain high levels of cadmium. As in some Member States consumers may eat parts of the cephalothorax on a regular basis, consumer advice at a Member State level to limit consumption of these parts may be appropriate to reduce exposure to cadmium. An Information Note on this issue has been made available on the website of the Health and Consumers Directorate General of the European Commission (3).\n(3)\nFor reasons of consistency the portion of crustaceans to which the maximum levels apply should be modified for other contaminants (lead, mercury, dioxins and PCBs and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) accordingly.\n(4)\nBivalve molluscs such as green shell mussels and oysters can accumulate cadmium similarly to seaweed. Since green shell mussel powder and oyster powder, like dried seaweed, are sold as food supplements, the maximum level for cadmium in dried bivalve mollusc should be the same as the one currently established for dried seaweed and products derived from seaweed.\n(5)\nThe provisions for leafy brassica should be aligned with those of other leaf vegetables. Leafy brassica should therefore be excluded from the default maximum level for cadmium in \u2018vegetables and fruit\u2019 in point 3.2.15 and should be included in point 3.2.17.\n(6)\nThe default maximum levels for lead and cadmium in fruit and vegetables are not realistic for seaweed, which can naturally contain higher levels. Seaweed should therefore be exempted from the default maximum levels for lead and cadmium in fruit and vegetables (points 3.1.10 and 3.2.15). More occurrence data should be collected to decide about the need for specific more realistic maximum levels for lead and cadmium in seaweed.\n(7)\nSome inconsistencies exist with regard to the names of the foodstuffs/product groups in Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 and the names of the foodstuffs/product groups listed in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4). Since Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 refers to the product groups listed in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 these names should be aligned to that Regulation.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate to update the provisions on monitoring and reporting taking into account recent monitoring recommendations on ethylcarbamate (5), perfluoroalkylated substances (6), and acrylamide (7). Since Commission Decision 2006/504/EC (8) has been repealed and replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1152/2009 (9), the reference to Decision 2006/504/EC should be replaced by a reference to Regulation (EC) No 1152/2009. Furthermore, it should be clarified which data is reported to the Commission and which to EFSA.\n(9)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1881/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 9 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Member States and interested parties shall communicate each year to the Commission the results of investigations undertaken and the progress with regard to the application of prevention measures to avoid contamination by ochratoxin A, deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, fumonisin B1 and B2, T-2 and HT-2 toxin. The Commission shall make the results available to the Member States. The related occurrence data shall be reported to EFSA.\n3. Member States shall report to the Commission findings on aflatoxins obtained in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1152/2009 (10). Member States should report to EFSA findings on furan, ethylcarbamate, perfluoroalkylated substances and acrylamide obtained in accordance with Commission Recommendations 2007/196/EC (11), 2010/133/EU (12), 2010/161/EU (13) and 2010/307/EU (14).\n(b)\nthe following paragraph 4 is added:\n\u20184. Occurrence data on contaminants collected by Member States should, if appropriate, also be reported to EFSA.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe Annex is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 April 2011.", "references": ["46", "33", "58", "80", "70", "84", "83", "51", "43", "31", "85", "54", "36", "14", "18", "13", "98", "81", "20", "27", "50", "62", "97", "78", "68", "74", "86", "79", "89", "16", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "40", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "40", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 258/2011\nof 16 March 2011\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (\u2018the Union\u2019),\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 19 June 2010, the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (\u2018Notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of ceramic tiles originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018China\u2019 or \u2018the country concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged by the European Ceramic Tile Manufacturers\u2019 Federation (CET) (\u2018the complainants\u2019) on behalf of 69 producers representing more than 30 % of the total Union production of ceramic tiles. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainants, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers in China, the representatives of China, and known importers and users of the initiation of the proceeding. The Commission also advised producers in the United States (\u2018the USA\u2019), Nigeria, Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia and Thailand, as these countries were envisaged as a possible analogue country. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. All interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\n(4)\nIn view of the apparent high number of exporting producers in China, unrelated importers and Union producers, sampling was envisaged in the Notice of initiation for the determination of dumping and injury in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary, and if so to select a sample, all known exporting producers in China, importers and Union producers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the Notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the period from 1 April 2009 to 1 March 2010. The authorities of China were also consulted.\n2.1. Sampling of Chinese exporting producers\n(5)\nOne hundred and five valid responses were received to the sampling exercise from exporting producers in China, covering 47 % of imports during the investigation period, as defined in recital 24 below. Therefore, the cooperation is considered to be low.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of exporting producers based on the largest representative volume of exports of the product concerned to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sample selected consisted of three groups, representing 10 individual producers, which accounted for 14,4 % of the total volume of exports from China to the Union and 31,3 % of the total volume of the cooperating exporters during the IP. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned and the Chinese authorities were consulted on the selection of sample. A number of comments were received in relation to the proposed sample. Comments considered appropriate were taken into account in the selection of the final sample.\n2.2. Sampling of Union producers\n(7)\nThe European Ceramic Tile Manufacturers\u2019 Federation (CET) confirmed in a letter sent to the Commission that all complaining companies agreed to be considered for the inclusion in the sample. Including other companies which came forward, the Commission was thus provided with information from 73 Union producers.\n(8)\nIn the sampling exercise the high fragmentation of the ceramic tiles sector has been taken into consideration. In order to ensure that the results of large companies did not dominate the injury analysis but that the situation of the small companies, collectively accounting for the largets share of the Union production, was properly reflected, it was considered that all segments, i.e. small, medium-sized and large companies should be represented in the sample.\n(9)\nThree segments have been distinguished based on the volume of yearly production:\n- Segment 1: large companies - production in excess of 10 million m2,\n- Segment 2: medium-sized companies - production between 5 and 10 million m2,\n- Segment 3: small companies - production below 5 million m2.\n(10)\nIn the analysis of micro-economic indicators, the results of the sampled companies in the specific segment have been weighted in accordance with the share of that segment in the total Union production (using the specific weight of each segment in the total ceramic tile sector). According to the information collected during the investigation, the producers in Segments 1 and 2 account each for around one quarter of total Union production while in segment 3, producers account for around half of the total Union production. More than 350 companies belong to the segment of small companies. More than 40 companies belong to the medium-sized segment and more than 20 to the segment of large companies.\n(11)\nTen companies were sampled. They are the largest of each of the three segments, taking into account sales, production and geographical location. One sampled company belongs to the segment of large companies, four to the segment of medium-sized companies and five to the segment of small companies. The selected companies are based in six Member States (Italy, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Germany and France) which together account for over 90 % of the total Union production. This sample represented 24 % of total production by the cooperating producers and 7 % of the total Union production.\n(12)\nDuring the investigation, one sampled company from Poland decided to discontinue its cooperation with the investigation. The Commission could not obtain cooperation from any other producer based in Poland.\n(13)\nNotwithstanding the withdrawal of the Polish producer, the representativeness of the sample remained high according to all the criteria mentioned in recitals 8 and 10. It has been thus decided that the proceeding could continue with a sample of nine producers from five Member States.\n(14)\nComplainants requested their names to be kept confidential. The Commission accepted the request.\n2.3. Sampling for importers\n(15)\nThe Commission received 24 replies from importers. Three large importers were excluded from the sampling exercise: two related to Chinese exporters and one related to a Union producer (the imports are marginal compared to the total sales of that producer).\n(16)\nThe unrelated cooperating importers represent around 6 % of the total imports from China.\n(17)\nSeven companies were sampled, representing 95 % of the imports made by the unrelated cooperating companies. One of these companies was as well a user of the product concerned. The sample was also representative in terms of geographical spread. The sample thus covers Member States which account for more than 49 % of the imports into the Union, which corroborated its representativeness.\n2.4. Questionnaires replies and verifications\n(18)\nIn order to allow sampled exporting producers in China to submit a claim for market economy treatment (\u2018MET\u2019) or individual treatment (\u2018IT\u2019), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the sampled exporting producers. One group of exporting producers requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation or IT should the investigation establish that they did not meet the conditions for MET. The other groups of exporting producers only requested IT.\n(19)\nClaims for individual examination were received from eight non-sampled companies or groups of related companies. The examination of these claims at provisional stage would have been too burdensome to be carried out. A decision whether individual examination will be granted to any of these companies will be taken at definitive stage.\n(20)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the sampled exporting producers, as well as to the non-sampled exporting producers that had stated their intention to request individual examination as per Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation, to the sampled Union producers, the cooperating unrelated importers and to all known users in the Union.\n(21)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from three sampled groups of exporting producers, from eight non-sampled exporting producers or groups of exporting producers, from nine sampled Union producers and from five importers not related to an exporting producer. Submissions were also received from the European association of producers (Cerame-Unie), national associations of producers, importers, associations of importers and users.\n(22)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the purpose of analysis of MET/IT and for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest and carried out verifications at the premises of nine Union sampled producers and the following companies:\n(a)\nExporting producers in China\n-\nBecarry Group, composed of:\n-\nFoshan Becarry Ceramics Co., Ltd\n-\nHeyuan Becarry Ceramics Co., Ltd\n-\nHeyuan Hairi Ceramic Co., Ltd\n-\nShandong Yadi Ceramics Co., Ltd\n-\nXinruncheng Group, composed of:\n-\nGuangdong Xinruncheng Ceramics Co. Ltd\n-\nFoshan City Nanhai Chongfa Ceramics Co. Ltd\n-\nWonderful Group, composed of:\n-\nDongguan City Wonderful Ceramics Industrial Park Co., Ltd\n-\nGuangdong Jiamei Ceramics Co., Ltd\n-\nQingyuan Gani Ceramics Co. Ltd\n-\nFoshan Gani Ceramics Co. Ltd\n-\nGiavelli S.r.l., a related Italian importer\n(b)\nTraders in China\n-\nFoshan Changwei Enterprise Co., Ltd\n(c)\nTraders in Hong Kong\n-\nCayenne Trading International Ltd\n-\nGreat Prosperity Development Ltd\n-\nGood East Development Ltd\n(d)\nUnrelated importers\n-\nEnmon GmbH, Germany\n(e)\nNational associations of producers\n-\nConfindustria Ceramica (Italy)\n-\nSpanish Ceramic Tile Manufacturer\u2019s Association (ASCER)\n-\nAPICER (Portugal).\n(23)\nIn view of the need to establish a normal value for the exporting producers in China to which MET might not be granted, a verification to establish normal value on the basis of data from the USA as analogue country took place at the premises of two producers. These producers claimed confidentiality regarding their identity.\n3. Investigation period\n(24)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the investigation period (\u2018period considered\u2019).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(25)\nThe product concerned is glazed and unglazed ceramic flags and paving, hearth or wall tiles; glazed and unglazed ceramic mosaic cubes and the like, whether or not on a backing (\u2018ceramic tiles\u2019 or the \u2018product concerned\u2019), currently falling within CN codes 6907 10 00, 6907 90 20, 6907 90 80, 6908 10 00, 6908 90 11, 6908 90 20, 6908 90 31, 6908 90 51, 6908 90 91, 6908 90 93 and 6908 90 99.\n(26)\nCeramic tiles are mainly used in the construction industry to cover walls and floors.\n2. Like product\n(27)\nOne party claimed that the product imported from China and that produced by the Union industry were not comparable.\n(28)\nIt is recalled that the Commission based the price comparisons on product types distinguished on the basis of product control numbers (\u2018PCN\u2019) based on eight characteristics.\n(29)\nThe party in question presented its arguments during a hearing before the Hearing Officer. According to the arguments the lack of comparability was due to different technology, material, polishing and design used for production of Union and Chinese tiles. Technologically advanced lines produced high quality tiles with screen printing and several colours. The company explained that there were different printing technologies for screen printing, roto-printing and inkjet printing.\n(30)\nDespite requests for detailed submission elaborating on all these aspects of product comparability, the party failed to substantiate its claims. Also the argument on improving the comparability has not been supported by any evidence. Further, the party itself acknowledged that the product types that would be covered by adding the four suggested criteria, would represent only 0,5 % of the tiles\u2019 market. As stated in the report produced by the Hearing Officer, which summarized the position of the company concerned, the remaining 99,5 % products falling under the same PCNs were similar.\n(31)\nAs mentioned above the party did not substantiate the need to introduce the additional criteria nor their potential impact on prices. Hence, in view of the negligible market share of the product types concerned and the explicit acknowledgment by the party that 99,5 % of the tiles were comparable under the PCN concerned, the claim to add additional criteria to the PCN structure had to be provisionally rejected.\n(32)\nIt is concluded that the product concerned, the product produced and sold on the domestic market of China and on the domestic market of the USA, which served provisionally as the analogue country, as well as the product manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers were found to have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses. They are therefore provisionally considered as alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n1. Market Economy Treatment (\u2018MET\u2019)\n(33)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in China, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. Briefly and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in summarised form below:\n1)\nbusiness decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values;\n2)\nfirms have one clear set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and are applied for all purposes;\n3)\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;\n4)\nbankruptcy and property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty; and\n5)\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates.\n(34)\nTwo groups of exporting producers in China requested MET in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.\n(35)\nIt was found that the parties (two producers; one Chinese trader and one Hong Kong trader) allegedly forming one of these groups were not in fact related. In these circumstances, the MET claims of the two Chinese producers (Becarry Group and Shandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd) were treated separately.\n(36)\nRegarding the other group of companies, namely the Wonderful Group, which consisted of two producer groups related to each other through ownership by the same holding company, only one of the related groups requested MET, while the second one requested only individual treatment (IT). Since MET criteria must, however, be requested and fulfilled for all companies within the same group, this MET claim was incomplete and was therefore not considered. MET could thus not be granted to the group.\n(37)\nConcerning the Becarry Group, as far as criterion 1 is concerned the investigation established that the producer had an export sales restriction in its business licence which was applied in practice. It was therefore considered that sales decisions were not taken freely but were subject to significant State interference. Furthermore, for several companies within the group, it could not establish whether and who paid the initial capital into the company. With regard to criterion 2, the accounting showed several serious shortcomings which were not mentioned in the audit report. Finally, regarding criterion 3 it was also found that there were several distortions carried over from the non-market economy system as major assets were not correctly recorded or depreciated in the accounts and no proof of payment could be provided that the company had paid for its land use right.\n(38)\nRegarding Shandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd, with respect to criterion 1 the investigation found that the company could not demonstrate whether and who paid the initial capital into the company when it was established. It could thus not be excluded that some funds were provided by the State. As far as criterion 2 is concerned, the accounting records showed serious shortcomings not mentioned in the audit report and therefore the accounts were not considered to be audited in line with international accounting standards. Finally, with regard to criterion 3 there were also several distortions carried over from the non-market economy system as no proof of payment could be provided that the company paid for its land use rights or proof of payment for certain assets.\n(39)\nThe Commission disclosed the results of the MET findings to the exporting producers concerned, to the Chinese authorities and the complainants, and invited them to submit comments.\n(40)\nFollowing the disclosure of the MET findings, comments were received from the two sampled exporting producers which were not granted MET. However, these comments were not such as to change the findings in this regard as they only attempted to rebut part of the findings, and did not submit any additional evidence in support of the comments.\n2. Individual Treatment (\u2018IT\u2019)\n(41)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet the criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below:\n-\nin the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits,\n-\nexport prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined,\n-\nthe majority of the shares belong to private persons. State officials appearing on the Boards of Directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is none the less sufficiently independent from State interference,\n-\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate, and\n-\nState interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.\n(42)\nThe sampled exporting producers which requested MET - Becarry Group and Shandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd - also claimed IT in the event they would not be granted MET. The Wonderful Group and the Xinruncheng Group also claimed IT.\n(43)\nRegarding Becarry Group, it was found that sales were not freely determined due to the export sales restriction mentioned in recital (37) above, and its IT claim was therefore rejected.\n(44)\nThe other exporting producers were found to meet the conditions of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and thus could be granted IT. Thus, on the basis of the information available, it was provisionally established that the following Chinese exporting producers which were included in the sample meet all the requirements for IT as set forth in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation:\n-\nShandong Yadi Ceramics Co., Ltd\n-\nXinruncheng Group\n-\nWonderful Group.\n3. Normal value\n(a) Choice of the analogue country\n(45)\nAccording to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for exporting producers not granted MET shall be established on the basis of the domestic prices or constructed normal value in an analogue country.\n(46)\nIn the Notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its intention to use the USA as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for China, and invited interested parties to comment thereon.\n(47)\nA number of comments were received and several other countries were proposed to serve as an alternative, in particular Brazil, Turkey, Nigeria, Thailand, and finally Indonesia.\n(48)\nThe Commission therefore decided to seek cooperation from known producers in these countries including the USA. However, only two producers of the product concerned in the USA replied to the questionnaires. A Thai producer also submitted an incomplete reply to the questionnaire; and in any case its product range was not fully comparable to the cooperating Chinese producers.\n(49)\nThe investigation revealed that the USA was a competitive market for the product concerned. Several producers were active on the US domestic market and the import volumes were high. The investigation has further shown that the ceramic tiles originating in China and in the USA have basically the same physical characteristics and uses and that production processes were similar.\n(50)\nIt was argued that since the US market is mainly characterized by imports, the ceramic tiles manufactured in the USA and those manufactured in China cover different segments of the market. Therefore, the domestically produced product types which would serve as a basis to establish normal value would not be comparable to the product types exported by China to the Union. However the investigation has shown that the US production covers a wide range of product types comparable to the ones produced in and exported from China, as mentioned above in recital 49.\n(51)\nIt was also argued that the USA would be a relatively minor player in the worldwide ceramic tiles market. However, circa 600 million m2 were produced domestically in 2009 which is considered significant. For comparison, China, the world\u2019s major producer, manufactured 2 000 million m2 in the same period.\n(52)\nOne party argued that the USA had strict quality standards and effectively created non-tariff barriers for Chinese imports. However, the investigation revealed that as mentioned above import volumes from China in the USA were high and constituted the major share of the US domestic consumption. Therefore, the argument that non-tariff barriers in the USA affect imports and thus competition was rejected.\n(53)\nThe data submitted in their reply by the two cooperating US producers were verified on spot. Only data from one producer visited was finally considered, as it was found to be reliable information on which a normal value could be based. The data from the second producer visited were found not to be reliable and had to be discarded, as this producer only reported part of its domestic sales and costs could not be fully reconciled with the accounts.\n(54)\nIt is therefore provisionally concluded that the USA is an appropriate and reasonable analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.\n(b) Determination of normal value\n(55)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation normal value was established on the basis of verified information received from the producer in the analogue country as set out below.\n(56)\nThe domestic sales of the US producer of the like product were found to be representative in terms of volume compared to the volume of the product concerned exported to the Union by the cooperating exporting producers.\n(57)\nDuring the investigation period, sales on the domestic market to unrelated customers were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade for all types of the like product manufactured by the US producer. However, because of differences in quality between the like product produced and sold in the USA and the product concerned exported from China to the Union, for certain product types it was considered more appropriate to construct normal value in order to be able to take into account these differences and ensure fair comparison as described in recital 61.\n(58)\nNormal value was constructed by adding to the cost of manufacturing of the US producer its SG&A and profit. Pursuant to Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, the amounts for SG&A and profit were established on the basis of the actual data pertaining to production and sales in the ordinary course of trade of the like product of the US producer.\n(c) Export prices for the exporting producers\n(59)\nThe export prices of the sampled Chinese exporters were based on the export prices actually paid or payable, to the first independent customer. Where sales were made via a related importer in the Union, prices were constructed pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale including sales, general and administrative expenses and profit. With respect to profit margin, the profit realised by an unrelated importer of the product concerned was used since the actual profit of the related importer was not considered reliable because of the relationship between the exporting producer and the related importer.\n(d) Comparison\n(60)\nThe dumping margins were established by comparing the individual ex-works export prices of the sampled exporters to the domestic sales prices or to the constructed normal value (CNV) as appropriate.\n(61)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. The normal value was adjusted for differences in characteristics - mainly due to OEM branding and for quality differences for certain types not produced by the analogue country producer - for the lower cost of non-porcelain tiles. Further adjustments were made, where appropriate, in respect of ocean freight, insurance, handling and ancillary costs, packing, credit, bank charges and commissions in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.\n4. Dumping margins\n(a) For the cooperating sampled exporting producers granted IT\n(62)\nPursuant to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margins for the sampled cooperating exporting producers granted IT were established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value established for the analogue country with each company\u2019s weighted average export price of the product concerned to the Union as established above.\n(63)\nOn this basis, the provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:\nProvisional dumping margin\nGroup Xinruncheng\n35,5 %\nShandong Yadi Ceramics Co., Ltd\n36,6 %\nWonderful Group\n26,2 %\n(b) For all other cooperating exporting producers\n(64)\nThe dumping margin for other cooperating exporting producers in China, not included in the sample, was calculated as a weighted average of the sampled exporting producers\u2019 dumping margins, in accordance with Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation.\n(65)\nThe dumping margin for the cooperating exporting producer in China, included in the sample but not granted IT (Heyuan Becarry Ceramics Co. Ltd), was also calculated as described above in recital 64.\n(c) All other (non-cooperating) exporting producers\n(66)\nThe country-wide dumping margin applicable to all other non-cooperating exporting producers in China was established by using the highest of the dumping margins found for a representative product type from a cooperating exporting producer.\n(67)\nOn this basis the provisional sample weighted average dumping margin and the country-wide level of dumping as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid are:\nSample Weighted Average for the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample or not granted IT (see Annex I)\n32,3 %\nResidual for non-cooperating exporting producers\n73,0 %\nD. INJURY\n1. Union production and Union industry\n(68)\nAs mentioned in recital (8) the Union ceramic tiles industry is highly fragmented. Ceramic tiles are produced by more than 500 producers.\n(69)\nAs mentioned above, the Union industry was divided into three segments: small, medium-sized and large companies. Small companies make up half of the total Union production.\n(70)\nData provided by the national and European associations is estimated to cover around 75 % of Union production. These data have been cross-checked with data provided by individual producers and national associations but also with statistical sources, like Prodcom. The volume and value of remaining production has been extrapolated on the basis of the same sources of information. On that basis, the total Union production was found to amount to 895 million m2 in the IP. All Union producers (accounting for the total Union production) constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will be thereafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\n2. Union consumption\n(71)\nThe Union consumption was established by adding imports based on Eurostat data to the sales of Union producers on the Union market. Data concerning total Union sales of the product concerned has been based on verified data provided by both national and European associations of producers. The extrapolations were made on the basis of the associations\u2019 and Prodcom data to arrive to total Union sales.\n(72)\nOver the period considered, i.e. between 2007 and the IP, the Union consumption decreased by 29 %, with the main decrease by 13 % between 2007 and 2008. In the IP, consumption decreased by 8 % as compared to 2009.\nTable 1\nConsumption\nVolume (thousand m2)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\n+ Total imports\n157 232\n140 715\n115 676\n119 689\n+ Union production sold on the Union market\n1 275 486\n1 099 092\n992 204\n895 140\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n86\n78\n70\n= Consumption\n1 432 718\n1 239 807\n1 107 880\n1 014 829\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n87\n77\n71\nyear-on-year decrease\n- 13 %\n- 11 %\n- 8 %\n3. Imports from China\n3.1. Volume, market share and prices of imports of the product concerned\n(73)\nThe volume, market share and average prices of imports from China developed as set out below. The following quantity and price trends are based on Eurostat data.\nTable 2\nImports from China\nVolume (thousand m2)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nVolume of imports from the country concerned\n68 081\n65 122\n62 120\n66 023\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n96\n91\n97\nYear-on-year basis\n- 4 %\n- 5 %\n+ 6 %\nMarket share of imports from the country concerned\n4,8 %\n5,3 %\n5,6 %\n6,5 %\nPrice of imports from the country concerned (EUR/m2)\n4,7\n4,9\n4,4\n4,5\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n105\n95\n97\nYear-on-year basis\n+ 4 %\n- 10 %\n+ 2 %\n(74)\nThe volume of total imports from China decreased by 3 % over the period considered and amounted to around 66 million m2 during the IP. The decreasing trend as such is in line with the decreasing trend of consumption but it is far less pronounced and occurred between 2007 and 2009. Between 2009 and the IP, the volumes of imports from China increased by 6 %. Also, when analysed from the perspective of the whole period considered, the market share of Chinese imports increased by 35 %, from 4,8 % in 2007 to 6,5 % in the IP.\n(75)\nPrices of Chinese imports decreased by 4 % during the period considered, from 4,7 EUR/m2 to 4,5 EUR/m2.\n3.2. Price undercutting\n(76)\nFor the purposes of analyzing price undercutting, the weighted average sales prices of the Union producers to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, were compared per product type to the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports from China to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a CIF basis with appropriate adjustments for the existing customs duties, post-importation costs and level of trade.\n(77)\nThe comparison showed that during the IP, imports of the product concerned were sold in the Union at prices which undercut those of the Union industry. When expressed as a percentage of the latter the level of undercutting ranged from 44 % to 57 %. The calculations were based on the data submitted by the sampled Union producers and sampled exporting producers from China.\n4. Imports from third countries other than China\n(78)\nThe volume of imports from other third countries during the period considered is shown in the table below. The quantity and price trends are based on Eurostat.\nTable 3\nImports from other third countries\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nImports from other counties (thousand m2)\n89 151\n75 593\n53 557\n53 665\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n85\n60\n60\nMarket share of imports from other countries\n6,2 %\n6,1 %\n4,8 %\n5,3 %\nAverage price (EUR/m2)\n4,38\n4,94\n5,35\n5,35\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n113\n122\n122\nImports from Turkey (thousand m2)\n50 210\n44 590\n30 930\n31 343\nTurkey Market share\n3,5 %\n3,6 %\n2,8 %\n3,1 %\nAverage price (EUR/m2)\n4,35\n4,75\n5,25\n5,32\nImports from countries other than China & Turkey\n38 941\n31 002\n22 627\n22 322\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n80\n58\n57\nAverage price (EUR/m2)\n4,43\n5,21\n5,49\n5,38\n(79)\nThe imports from third countries decreased by 40 % over the period considered. Thereby the market share of these imports decreased by 14 %, from 6,2 % to 5,3 %.\n(80)\nIt should be noted that average import prices from other third countries increased by 22 % during the period considered, remaining consistently higher than the average selling price of Chinese export sales (by 19 % during the IP).\n5. Situation of the Union industry\n5.1. General\n(81)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry.\n(82)\nThe macroeconomic indicators (production, capacity, capacity utilization, sales volume, market share, growth and magnitude of dumping margins) were assessed at the level of the whole Union industry. The assessment was based on the information provided by the European and national associations, cross-checked with data provided by the producers and available official statistics.\n(83)\nThe analysis of microeconomic indicators (average unit prices, employment, wages, productivity, stocks, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, ability to raise capital) was carried out at the level of the sampled Union producers. The assessment was based on their information, duly verified.\n5.2. Macro-economic indicators\n5.2.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(84)\nProduction of the Union industry decreased substantially by 32 % over the period considered. The reduction in overall terms (over the period considered) reflected the substantial decrease in consumption (by 29 % over the period considered, see recital 72 above). However, it followed a different trend. It decreased between 2007 and 2009 by 32 %, with the largest drop of 23 % between 2008 and 2009. It then stabilized between 2009 and the IP.\nTable 4\nTotal Union production\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nVolume (thousand m2)\nProduction\n1 614 668\n1 434 844\n1 100 052\n1 094 660\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n89\n68\n68\n(85)\nThe Union industry\u2019s production capacity decreased by 5 % between 2007 and 2008, and 2 % between 2008 and the IP. The resulting capacity utilisation showed an overall decrease of 27 % between 2007 and the IP.\nTable 5\nProduction capacity and capacity utilisation\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nVolume (thousand m2)\nProduction capacity\n1 849 252\n1 760 720\n1 720 180\n1 718 023\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n95\n93\n93\nCapacity utilisation\n87 %\n81 %\n64 %\n64 %\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n93\n73\n73\n5.2.2. Sales volumes and market share\n(86)\nIn line with the development of the production volumes, the sales of the Union industry on the Union market to unrelated customers fell at a rate comparable to that of decrease in consumption, i.e. by 30 % during the period considered. The sales of the Union industry have been following a similar trend as consumption in terms of yearly decreases.\nTable 6\nSales volume to unrelated customers\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nVolume (thousand m2)\nSales in the Union\n1 275 486\n1 099 092\n992 204\n895 140\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n86\n78\n70\n(87)\nThe market share held by the Union industry decreased by 1 percentage point over the period considered.\nTable 7\nEU Market share\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nUnion Market share\n89 %\n89 %\n90 %\n88 %\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n100\n101\n99\n5.2.3. Employment and productivity\n(88)\nThe employment decreased by 11 % between 2007 and 2008. During the period considered it fell by 16 %.\nTable 8\nEmployment\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nAverage period\nTotal employment\n92 588\n82 214\n79 518\n77 458\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n89\n86\n84\n(89)\nProductivity of the Union industry\u2019s workforce, measured as output per person employed per year, was stable between 2007 and 2008. However, from 2008 to the IP there was a decline in productivity of 19 % linked to the fall in production.\nTable 9\nProductivity\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nProductivity (m2 per year/employee)\n17 439\n17 453\n13 834\n14 132\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n100\n79\n81\n5.2.4. Magnitude of the dumping margin\n(90)\nThe dumping margins are specified above in the dumping section. All margins established are significantly above the de minimis level. Furthermore, given the volumes and the prices of dumped imports, the impact of the actual margin of dumping cannot be considered negligible.\n5.3. Micro-economic indicators\n(91)\nThe analysis of microeconomic elements (stocks, sales prices, cash flow, profitability, return on investments, ability to raise capital, investments and wages) was carried out for the individual companies, i.e. at the level of those Union producers that were included in the sample.\n5.3.1. General remark\n(92)\nFor some micro-economic indicators (sales price, cost of production, profitability and return on investments, i.e. indicators expressed in other than absolute values, i.e. only values expressed in percentages) the results of the sampled companies in the specific segment have been weighted in accordance with the share of that segment in the total Union production (using the specific weight of each segment in the total ceramic tile sector - 52 % for small companies, 24 % each for the medium-sized and large companies). As a consequence it has been ensured that the results of large companies did not dominate the injury analysis but that the situation of the small companies, collectively accounting for the largest share of the Union production, was properly reflected.\n5.3.2. Stocks\n(93)\nAlthough the level of closing stocks of the Union industry decreased in absolute terms by 14 % over the period considered, when expressed as percentage of production it substantially increased (by 37 %).\nTable 10\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nStocks (thousand m2)\n48 554\n50 871\n39 689\n41 887\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n105\n82\n86\nStocks as percentage of production\n43 %\n49 %\n55 %\n59 %\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n114\n128\n137\n(94)\nThe increase in stocks is a telling injury factor. Companies in the sector normally keep stocks of three months of production but the pressure of the Chinese dumped imports has forced them to increase their stocks up to six months of production. Indeed an even and steady yearly increase of stocks from 43 % in 2007 to 59 % in the IP was observed.\n(95)\nThis increase of stocks is explained by the fact that Chinese exporting producers focused on sales of large batches of homogenous product whereas the Union industry offered a much larger variety of products in terms of types, colours, sizes. In order to react within a very short time to very specific orders the Union industry had to increase stocks.\n5.3.3. Sales prices\n(96)\nUnit sales prices of the Union industry increased by 10 % during the period considered.\nTable 11\nUnit price EU market\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nUnit prices of Union sales (EUR/m2)\n8,0\n8,4\n8,7\n8,8\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n104\n108\n110\n(97)\nThe price increase was due to a variety of factors. First it was the need to recover increases in costs of production that during the same period increased by 14 % (see recital 106). The price increase was further due to the increasing stocks (see above recital 95) and to the changed product mix offered by the Union industry. The imports from China concentrated on large batches of homogeneous product. The Union industry had to thus focus on small batches of the product concerned where demand was more fragmented with lower quantities and a larger variety in terms of types, colours, and sizes.\n(98)\nHowever, despite the increase in unit prices, the Union industry operated below target profit. In fact, the segment of small companies was loss-making.\n(99)\nThe development of prices of imports from China has been outlined in recital 75. As can be seen, these prices followed a different trend to that of the Union industry and were consistently lower. During the IP, prices from China were half of the Union industry prices.\n5.3.4. Profitability, cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital, investments and wages\n(100)\nAs mentioned above, the increase in cost of production was higher than the increase in sales prices. With an increase in costs of 14 % occurring over the period considered, the Union industry managed to increase its prices by only 9 %. Profitability then decreased from 3,9 % in 2007 to 0,4 % in the IP. The industry achieved the lowest profit in 2009, when it was unable to cover its cost with a loss of 1,2 %. Out of three segments, the most affected segment was the one of small companies which has been registering a loss since 2008. Large and medium-sized companies, despite substantial decreases in profitability, managed to sell at modest albeit not sustainable profits.\n(101)\nProfits achieved by the large and medium-sized companies cannot be disclosed due to confidentiality reasons. In the segment of large companies calculation of profits has been based on data of one company, while disclosure of results of medium-sized companies would allow other companies to calculate the profits of other segments since the overall weighted profits are known.\nTable 12\nProfitability, cash flow, ROI, investments and wages\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nNet Profit of Union sales to unrelated customers (% of net sales)\n3,9 %\n0,6 %\n- 1,2 %\n0,4 %\nCash flow (thousand EUR)\n86 663\n55 131\n41 599\n40 256\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n64\n48\n46\nROI (net profit in % of net book value of investments)\n8,3 %\n4,0 %\n- 0,5 %\n1,1 %\nNet investments (thousand EUR)\n15 733\n15 673\n11 005\n11 283\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n100\n70\n72\nAnnual labour cost per employee\n38 910\n39 714\n37 366\n37 242\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n102\n96\n96\n(102)\nThe trend of cash-flow, which is the ability of an industry to self-finance its activities, remained positive during the period considered. However, between 2007 and the IP, it decreased by around 54 %.\n(103)\nThe return on investments (\u2018ROI\u2019) broadly followed the profitability trend over the whole period considered.\n(104)\nBetween 2007 and the IP, the annual flow of investments in the product concerned made by the Union industry decreased by 28 %.\n(105)\nBetween 2007 and the IP, the average wage per employee decreased by 4 %.\n5.3.5. Cost of production\nTable 13\nCost of production\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nCost of production EUR/m2\n7,7\n8,3\n8,8\n8,8\nIndex\n100\n108\n114\n114\n(106)\nAs indicated above, the cost of production increased over the period considered by 14 %. This increase was due to the increase in stocks (see above recital 95) and to the changed product mix offered by the Union industry (more variety of products in terms of types, colours, sizes) whereas the Chinese imports concentrated on large batches of homogeneous product. The Union industry had to increase its stocks in order to be able to react in a short time to very specific orders and also has to provide a larger variety of product.\n6. Conclusion on injury\n(107)\nThe investigation has shown that the injury indicators such as production volume, capacity utilization, sales to unrelated customers and employment deteriorated during the period considered. Although it cannot be disregarded that the negative evolution of consumption has had a negative effect on the Union industry, it is noteworthy that the Chinese imports managed to increase their market share, through price pressure.\n(108)\nIn addition, the injury indicators related to the financial performance of the Union producers - such as profitability, return on investments and cash-flow were seriously negatively affected during the period considered. A telling injury factor is the substantial increase in stocks (by 37 %) over the period considered. This increase is explained by the fact that Chinese exporting producers focused on sales of large batches of homogenous product whereas the Union industry offered a much larger variety of products in terms of types, colours, sizes. The Union industry had to increase its stocks in order to be able to react in a short time to very specific orders and to provide a larger variety of products.\n(109)\nAlthough the selling prices of the Union industry increased over the period considered, this is mainly due to the increase in cost of production. Overall, the profitability deteriorated over the period considered. In fact, the segment of small companies which constituted half of the Union industry was loss making since 2008. Hence, even despite the increase in sales prices, the industry was unable to reach a sufficient profit. The industry was not in a position to increase their sales prices to a level that would have profitability rates necessary for long-term viability.\n(110)\nThe analysis of price trends based on Eurostat figures showed that the price differential between the dumped imports from China and the Union industry prices increased from around 40 % in 2007 and 2008 to around 50 % in 2009 and the IP.\n(111)\nConsidering the above, it is provisionally concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\nE. CAUSATION\n1. Introduction\n(112)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether the material injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by the dumped imports from the country concerned. Furthermore, known factors other than dumped imports, which might have caused injury to the Union industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those factors was not attributed to dumped imports.\n2. Impact of the imports from China\n(113)\nThe increasing market share of Chinese exporting producers over the period considered coincided in time with a decrease of the Union industry\u2019s profits and a substantial increase of its stocks.\n(114)\nThis also coincided with a decrease in Union consumption. However, while the Chinese imports decreased in volume by 9 percentage points between 2007 and 2009, in line with the shrinking consumption (although not at the same pace - consumption shrank by 23 percentage points over the same period), since 2007 the Chinese market share was steadily growing. Moreover, between 2009 and the IP, despite further decrease in consumption by 6 percentage points, Chinese imports increased by 6 percentage points.\n(115)\nThe price differential (based on Eurostat average figures) between Chinese imports and the prices of the Union industry was very significant during the whole period considered. The fact that already in 2007 it amounted to over 40 % suggests that the price strategy by the Chinese exporting producers started before the economic crisis. Also, this differential increased post-crisis reaching 50 % in the IP.\n(116)\nThe increasing market share of the Chinese imports combined with decreasing prices and the increasing price differential between Union and Chinese prices coincided in time with the deterioration of the situation of the Union industry.\n3. Effects of other factors\n3.1. Impact of imports from third countries other than China\n(117)\nThe volume of imports from third countries other than China decreased by 40 % over the period considered. The market share of those imports also slightly decreased over the same period (around 1 %). Whereas the prices of those imports were comparable with Chinese prices in 2007, the price differential increased to 18 % in 2009 and 16 % in the IP.\n(118)\nTurkey is the second largest exporter to the Union with a market share of 3 % in the IP. This market share remained stable (decreased slightly by 0,4 %) over the period considered. The volume of imports from Turkey decreased by 37 % over the period considered. Although the prices of Turkish imports were below those of the Union industry (by about 40 % over the period considered), the price differential between Turkish and Chinese imports increased to 16 % in 2009 and the IP following a 22 % increase in Turkish prices. On these grounds it cannot be excluded that imports from third countries other than China might have contributed to a very limited extent to the material injury suffered by the Union industry. However, they did not break the causal link established with the dumped imports from China.\n4. Impact of the high fragmentation of the Union industry\n(119)\nThe Union tile industry is highly fragmented. However, the overall number of companies decreased during the period considered due to a consolidation process which has been ongoing over the past two decades. Most importantly, however, in those Member States with the largest share of production, where at the same time the fragmentation is more pronounced, the investigation showed that companies operate in clusters. This structure guarantees efficient allocation of resources. In fact fragmentation allows large companies to subcontract to small companies the production of certain types of products (in terms of colours, sizes, etc). With the help of the small companies the industry is able to supply many types of products in a short time. This became particularly important in light of the Chinese competition selling large batches of the homogeneous product where there is no space for flexibility in design, colours etc. In these circumstances, a causal link between fragmentation and the deterioration of the situation of the Union industry in the period considered cannot be established.\n4.1. Impact of the economic crisis\n(120)\nThe investigation showed that the economic crisis undoubtedly impacted on the situation of the Union industry.\n(121)\nThe impact was mainly related to the downturn in the construction industry, which has been reflected in the decreasing consumption of ceramic tiles. Generally, in 2009 the decline in the overall EU construction activity amounted to 7,5 % (3). The more precise impact of the general economic climate on the construction industry would differ depending on the specific segment within that industry (4). In 2009 the decrease in construction activity has largely been concentrated in the new-house building and private non-residential building segments. In contrast, civil engineering has been affected less and the public non-residential segment even grew by 1,1 % in 2009. According to the European Construction Industry Federation these trends reflected governmental actions to uphold or even increase expenditure on public buildings and infrastructure, as part of the national stimulus packages. Similarly fiscal incentives for energy efficient solutions mitigated the impact of economic downturn on renovation and maintenance activities.\n(122)\nThe aforementioned developments had a positive effect on renovations and maintenance segments (positive implications for the production, sales and profitability of the down-stream industry as profit margins are higher in the retail segment). In any case those segments were affected less by the economic downturn.\n(123)\nThe following analysis demonstrates that, although the economic downturn might have impacted on the situation of the Union industry, the material injury suffered by the Union industry was indeed caused by the dumped imports from China.\n(124)\nFirstly, the investigation showed that the construction industry started to recover from the effects of the economic downturn in the IP, whereas the indicators of the Union industry continued to show a downward trend.\n(125)\nSecondly, an important element is the development of stocks, which in this case serves as a telling injury indicator (see above recital 93). A rather steady yearly increase in stocks has been observed. This type of even and steady increase suggests that the Union industry was in fact mainly under the constant pressure by the Chinese exporting producers. If the increase of stocks were to be attributed to the economic downturn a substantial increase in the years of the crisis would have probably been observed rather than a steady trend over the whole period considered.\n(126)\nFinally, the analysis of the profitability figures, especially of the small companies, which accounted for almost 50 % of the Union production during the IP, shows that those companies achieved only a very modest profit of 0,3 % already in 2007 and were loss-making ever since. This suggested that their situation started to deteriorate already before the crisis.\n(127)\nIn the light of the above, it is considered that the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry was mainly caused by the dumped imports from China. Even though the economic crisis, and the resulting contraction in demand, might have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry, its impact was not such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from China and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n4.2. Claims with regard to self-inflicted injury\n(128)\nOne importer claimed that the main cause of injury were low-priced sales by Polish tiles producers. In this respect it has to be noted that the injury analysis should be conducted at the level of the Union industry as a whole and not in relation to a part of it. The Commission nevertheless analysed the situation of the Polish market on the basis of the information available (it is recalled that the sampled Polish company decided to discontinue its cooperation and no other Polish company agreed to cooperate).\n(129)\nFirstly it was found that, in terms of volumes, the Polish sales onto the rest of the Union market represented a market share of less than 3 % during the IP.\n(130)\nSecondly, had the Polish companies cooperated in the investigation and their prices were taken into account in the undercutting analysis, this would have had a very limited weight on the overall undercutting calculation. Due to the lack of cooperation on the part of the Polish company, detailed price information per PCN was not available. But even under a \u2018maximum impact\u2019 approach, assuming that all Polish sales would have been included in the calculation, the impact would have been marginal and would have not changed the overall picture in view of the relative low sales volumes (5).\n(131)\nOn this basis the impact of the Polish sales on the injury suffered by the Union industry, if any, was limited.\n(132)\nAnother claim alleging self-inflicted injury was that some Union producers would have completed their catalogues with imports of Chinese tiles and re-sold them under their own brand names. This claim was however not substantiated and in addition evidence collected during the investigation showed that those imports were marginal. Hence, it cannot be concluded that those imports by the EU producers, contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n5. Export performance for the Union industry\n(133)\nExport performance was also examined as one of the known factors other than the dumped imports, which could have injured the Union industry, to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports. The analysis of Eurostat data showed that indeed the exports from the Union decreased by 44 %. However the prices of those exports increased by 32 %. For the cooperating sampled producers the decrease was less pronounced (- 24 %). The investigation also showed that the share of exports expressed as percentage of total sales of the Union industry increased from 17 % in 2007 to 19 % in 2009. Further, even though exports volumes for the cooperating Union producers decreased, that decrease was less pronounced than the fall of sales on the Union market (- 24 % for exports as compared with - 30 % for Union sales). Hence, it is considered that the decrease in export volume cannot explain the level of injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(134)\nOn the basis of the above, it is provisionally concluded that the export performance of the Union industry did not contribute to the material injury suffered by it.\n6. Conclusion on causation\n(135)\nIt was thus concluded that there is a causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from China. The economic crisis and imports from third countries other than China had an impact on the situation of the Union industry but it was not such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from China and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(136)\nBased on the above analysis of the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry, it was therefore provisionally concluded that there is a causal link between the dumped imports from China and the material injury suffered by the Union industry during the IP.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n1. Interest of the Union industry\n(137)\nThere was a high level of cooperation and support from the European Association (Cerame-Unie) and the major national associations of producers. Moreover, no Union producers have declared their opposition to the initiation of the investigation or the imposition of measures. This suggests that the imposition of measures is clearly in the interest of the Union producers.\n(138)\nThe investigation showed that the Union industry is suffering material injury because of the effects of dumped imports which undercut its prices, as elaborated in recital 76 et seq.\n(139)\nIt can be expected that the Union industry would benefit from the measures which would likely prevent a further surge of dumped, low-priced imports.\n(140)\nShould measures not be imposed, it can be expected that the increase of imports of dumped, low-priced ceramic tiles would continue, if not increase. The effect of depression of sales prices exerted by the dumped imports from China would continue to compress Union producers\u2019 sales prices and profits.\n(141)\nAs the financial situation and profitability of the Union industry is not strong enough to withstand further price pressure exerted by dumped imports that considerably undercut their prices, this would lead very likely to the progressive demise of a large number of Union producers.\n2. Interest of importers\n(142)\nThe cooperation of unrelated importers and users accounted for around 6 % of the total volume of imports from China. In the sampling exercise (see recital 15), seven unrelated importers (one being a user) were selected. They accounted for around 5 % of total imports from China. The cooperating importers were mainly trading tiles, with an exception of one importer for whom tiles\u2019 trade represents a small fraction of its overall business. For those cooperating importers the share of imports from China of their total purchases was very significant (above 3/4). Although it appears that there is margin to absorb a price increase of Chinese imports, since the importers\u2019 mark-up on those imports is around 50 %, they normally report profits of around 5 %.\n(143)\nConsequently, from a simple cost perspective, should measures be imposed they would in all likelihood have an impact on the importers\u2019 business.\n(144)\nHowever, the investigation revealed that it is possible for importers and users to switch to products sourced from third countries or from within the Union. This change can occur quite easily since the product under investigation is manufactured in several countries, both in the Union and outside (Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Brazil, countries of South-East Asia, and others).\n(145)\nOne importer declared that it tried to switch suppliers, as a consequence of the initiation of the investigation, but its efforts were unsuccessful. On the other hand, another importer declared that this process was already ongoing at the time of the investigation and was successful. A third one claimed that it would expand its portfolio to non-Chinese producers and that this would be easily done.\n(146)\nIt is therefore provisionally concluded that the imposition of measures would not hamper Union importers from buying similar products from other sources. Further, the aim of the anti-dumping duties is not to seal off specific trade channels but to restore the level playing field and counter-act unfair trade practices.\n(147)\nFinally, the rather low level of cooperation of unrelated importers could suggest that the imposition of measures would not have a significant impact on their activity.\n3. Interest of users\n(148)\nThe Commission contacted two major users\u2019 association in the Union.\n(149)\nThe construction sector (represented by the European Construction Industry Federation) decided not to cooperate actively in the investigation. It replied to Commission\u2019s initial enquiry, but thereafter ceased to cooperate due to the lack of interest from its members.\n(150)\nThis low level of cooperation from users would suggest that the sector does not rely heavily on Chinese imports or that, in case of measures, it would not be harmed significantly. This seems particularly true in the construction sector, where, as declared by producers during verification visits, ceramic tiles have a marginal bearing on final costs. This would appear reasonable given the cost of other materials in new constructions or renovations. Also, as mentioned above, the sources of supply could be switched relatively easily.\n(151)\nThe European Do-It-Yourself Association (EDRA) contacted the Commission on behalf of its members. This association submitted its comments at the beginning of the investigation, claiming that duties would lead to an increase in consumer prices and a switch to other sources of supply would trigger a high cost, both for distributors and customers. These claims have, however, not been substantiated.\n4. Interest of final consumers\n(152)\nThe Commission contacted one association of consumers which replied that it was not interested in cooperating. No other consumers\u2019 association made itself known.\n(153)\nThe impact of anti-dumping duties on consumers is likely to be limited, since the mark-up applied by resellers is normally very high. Even in case of price increases, these would rather have a limited impact on consumers given that the cost increase would range between EUR 1,5 and EUR 3 per m2 (based on average price of Chinese imports of EUR 4,5 in the IP). Individual consumers buy limited quantities of tiles and not too frequently. Further, short-term price increase might have beneficial long term effects for consumers in ensuring competition on the market. Lack of competition in the long run might lead to even higher price increase and disappearance of low priced imports.\n5. Interest of suppliers\n(154)\nNeither suppliers nor association of suppliers made themselves known during the investigation.\n(155)\nThe investigation revealed that the suppliers that could be mostly interested by the ongoing proceeding were the manufacturers of equipment for the production of tiles. The investigation showed that certain Chinese producers purchased such equipment from suppliers based in the Union. Nevertheless, it appeared from official data that sales from the Union to China followed a stable, slightly decreasing trend during the last decade, and that China represented a sizeable, but not an overwhelming part of their sales (around 10 %). Indeed the main customers of the suppliers were Union producers hence the suppliers are vitally interested in and depend upon the performance of the Union industry.\n(156)\nMoreover, the lack of cooperation from this sector suggested that suppliers do not consider that anti-dumping measures against imports of the product concerned would significantly harm their situation.\n6. Conclusion on Union interest\n(157)\nIn view of the above, it was provisionally concluded that overall there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of provisional measures on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China.\nG. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n1. Injury elimination level\n(158)\nIn view of the conclusions reached above with regard to dumping, resulting injury, causation and Union interest, provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of the product concerned from China should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.\n2. Provisional measures\n(159)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in respect of imports originating in China at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(160)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(161)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (6) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(162)\nIn order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the residual duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.\n(163)\nIn order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in the duty rates, it is considered that special measures are needed in this case to ensure the proper application of the anti-dumping duties. These special measures include the following: The presentation to the Customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all other exporters.\n(164)\nShould the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, [a percentage may be introduced, depending on the case] such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances and provided the conditions are met an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rate(s) and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.\n(165)\nThe following proposed duty rates are based on dumping margins established by the investigation since they were lower than injury margins. The provisional anti-dumping duties are established as follows:\nCompany\nDumping margin\nProvisional duty\nGuangdong Xinruncheng Ceramics Co. Ltd\n35,5 %\n35,5 %\nShandong Yadi Ceramics Co., Ltd\n36,6 %\n36,6 %\nDongguan City Wonderful Ceramics Industrial Park Co., Ltd;\nGuangdong Jiamei Ceramics Co., Ltd;\nQingyuan Gani Ceramics Co. Ltd;\nFoshan Gani Ceramics Co. Ltd\n26,2 %\n26,2 %\nAll other cooperating producers\n32,3 %\n32,3 %\nAll other\n73,0 %\n73,0 %\nH. FINAL PROVISION\n(166)\nThe above provisional findings are disclosed to all interested parties which are invited to make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Their comments will be analysed and taken into consideration where warranted before any definitive determinations are made. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of anti-dumping duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purposes of any definitive findings,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of glazed and unglazed ceramic flags and paving, hearth or wall tiles; glazed and unglazed ceramic mosaic cubes and the like, whether or not on a backing, currently falling within CN codes 6907 10 00, 6907 90 20, 6907 90 80, 6908 10 00, 6908 90 11, 6908 90 20, 6908 90 31, 6908 90 51, 6908 90 91, 6908 90 93 and 6908 90 99, and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies below shall be:\nCompany\nDuty\nTARIC additional code\nGuangdong Xinruncheng Ceramics Co. Ltd\n35,5 %\nB009\nShandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd\n36,6 %\nB010\nDongguan City Wonderful Ceramics Industrial Park Co. Ltd;\nGuangdong Jiamei Ceramics Co. Ltd;\nQingyuan Gani Ceramics Co. Ltd;\nFoshan Gani Ceramics Co. Ltd\n26,2 %\nB011\nCompanies listed in Annex I\n32,3 %\nB012\nAll other companies\n73,0 %\nB999\n3. The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex II. If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall apply.\n4. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n5. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Without prejudice to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 March 2011.", "references": ["86", "11", "14", "77", "68", "64", "29", "66", "54", "60", "10", "62", "58", "6", "12", "76", "35", "91", "28", "15", "30", "13", "7", "44", "32", "43", "16", "34", "65", "8", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "87", "90", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "87", "90", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 405/2012\nof 4 May 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for northern prawn in Norwegian waters south of 62\u00b0 N by vessels flying the flag of Sweden\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2012.", "references": ["33", "25", "4", "6", "71", "83", "21", "28", "58", "41", "23", "5", "95", "46", "93", "20", "89", "81", "53", "63", "32", "2", "37", "1", "80", "87", "11", "68", "14", "66", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 795/2010\nof 9 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 September 2010.", "references": ["70", "1", "94", "22", "56", "12", "15", "34", "42", "37", "16", "81", "89", "4", "59", "87", "58", "30", "97", "32", "82", "91", "17", "54", "13", "38", "23", "73", "47", "50", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 December 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Russian Federation relating to the introduction or increase of export duties on raw materials\n(2012/108/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4) in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn view of the economic importance for the Union of access to raw materials and the importance that the Russian Federation has for the Union as a supplier of raw materials, the Commission has negotiated with the Russian Federation commitments by the latter to reduce or eliminate its currently applied export duties.\n(2)\nThese commitments, which are to be included in the Protocol of Accession of the Russian Federation to the World Trade Organization (WTO), do not cover raw materials for which the Russian Federation does not currently apply export duties.\n(3)\nIn order to reduce the risk of new export duties being introduced by the Russian Federation in the future, and the resulting effect on the supply of raw materials, the Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, with the Russian Federation an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters relating to the introduction or increase of export duties on raw materials (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be signed.\n(5)\nIn view of the need to ensure that the commitments of the Russian Federation regarding new export duties on raw materials apply as from the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, the Agreement should be applied on a provisional basis from that date, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Russian Federation relating to the introduction or increase of export duties on raw materials, is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nIn accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, it shall be applied on a provisional basis as from the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, pending the completion of the procedures for the conclusion of the Agreement (1).\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Geneva, 14 December 2011.", "references": ["53", "89", "61", "67", "22", "56", "99", "92", "63", "83", "68", "33", "59", "21", "4", "10", "13", "43", "45", "20", "11", "5", "26", "52", "39", "54", "44", "46", "7", "82", "No Label", "3", "9", "23", "34", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "23", "34", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 1 March 2012\nconcerning the national provisions notified by the German Federal Government maintaining the limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury and nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys beyond the entry into application of Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of toys\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/160/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114(4) and (6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 20 January 2011, the German Federal Government requested the Commission, pursuant to Article 114(4) TFEU, the permission to retain the existing provisions provided in German law for the five elements: lead, arsenic, mercury, barium and antimony, as well as for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances released from toy material, beyond the date of entry into force of Annex II, Part III, to Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Directive\u2019).\n(2)\nArticle 114(4) and (6) TFEU provides:\n\u20184. If, after the adoption by the Council or by the Commission of a harmonisation measure, a Member State deems it necessary to maintain national provisions on grounds of major needs referred to in Article 36, or relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment, it shall notify the Commission of these provisions as well as the grounds for maintaining them.\n(\u2026)\n6. The Commission shall, within six months of the notifications (\u2026), approve or reject the national provisions involved after having verified whether or not they are a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction to trade between Member States and whether or not they shall constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market.\nIn the absence of a Decision by the Commission within this period the national provisions referred to in paragraphs 4 (\u2026) shall be deemed to have been approved.\nWhen justified by the complexity of the matter and in the absence of danger for human health, the Commission may notify the Member State concerned that the period referred to in this paragraph may be extended for a further period of up to six months.\u2019\n(3)\nThe Directive lays down rules on the safety of toys and on their free movement in the European Union. According to Article 54, Member States shall bring into force national provisions complying with this Directive by 20 January 2011, and they shall apply them as from 20 July 2011. Part III of Annex II to the Directive will be applicable as from 20 July 2013.\n(4)\nThe Directive contains, in Annex II, Part III, point 8, specific values for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances. These substances shall be prohibited for use in toys intended for use by children under 36 months or in other toys intended to be placed in the mouth if the migration of the substances is equal to or higher than 0,05 mg/kg for nitrosamines and 1 mg/kg for nitrosatable substances. Point 13 of Part III of Annex II to the Directive contains specific migration limits for several elements, including lead, arsenic, mercury, barium and antimony. Three different migration limits exist, related to the type of toy material: dry, brittle, powder-like or pliable toy material, liquid or sticky toy material and scraped-off toy material. The following limits shall respectively not be exceeded: 13,5, 3,4 and 160 mg/kg for lead, 3,8, 0,9 and 47 mg/kg for arsenic, 7,5, 1,9 and 94 mg/kg for mercury, 4 500, 1 125 and 56 000 mg/kg for barium, and 45, 11,3 and 560 mg/kg for antimony.\n(5)\nThe German Consumer Goods Ordinance (Bedarfsgegenst\u00e4ndeverordnung) sets requirements for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances. These provisions were adopted in 2008, in the context of the absence of specific EU provisions on nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys. The Consumer Goods Ordinance (Bedarfsgegenst\u00e4ndeverordnung) requires that for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys made of natural or synthetic rubber designed for children under 36 months and intended or likely to be placed in the mouth, the amount released as a result of migration must be so small as not to be laboratory detectable. The abovementioned Ordinance currently requires the migration of nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances to be below 0,01 mg/kg for nitrosamines and below 0,1 mg/kg for nitrosatable substances. The detailed provisions on nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances are laid down in Annex 4, point 1.b, and Annex 10, point 6, to the Consumer Goods Ordinance (Bedarfsgegenst\u00e4ndeverordnung), published on 23 December 1997, and most recently amended by the Ordinance of 6 March 2007.\n(6)\nThe Second Equipment and Product Safety Act Ordinance (Verordnung \u00fcber die Sicherheit von Spielzeug - 2. GPSGV) concerns in particular the following elements: lead, arsenic, mercury, barium and antimony. The limit values for the abovementioned elements contained in the Second Equipment and Product Safety Act Ordinance (Verordnung \u00fcber die Sicherheit von Spielzeug - 2. GPSGV) are those laid down in Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of toys (2). These limits have been applicable in the EU since 1990. The maximum daily bioavailability is 0,7 \u03bcg for lead, 0,1 \u03bcg for arsenic, 0,5 \u03bcg for mercury, 25,0 \u03bcg for barium, and 0,2 \u03bcg for antimony. The detailed provisions on the abovementioned elements are laid down in \u00a7 2 of the Second Equipment and Product Safety Act Ordinance (Verordnung \u00fcber die Sicherheit von Spielzeug - 2. GPSGV).\n(7)\nWith a first letter of its Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, received on 20 January 2011, the German Federal Government requested the Commission, pursuant to Article 114(4) TFEU, the permission to retain the existing provisions provided in German law for the five elements: lead, arsenic, mercury, barium and antimony, as well as for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances released from toy material, beyond the date of entry into force of Annex II, Part III, to the Directive. A complete justification of the request has been sent by the German Federal Government with letter from the Office of its Permanent Representative, dated 2 March 2011. The detailed justification contained several annexes including scientific studies on the health assessment of the abovementioned substances from the Bundesinstitut f\u00fcr Risikobewertung (hereinafter \u2018BfR\u2019), dated January 2011.\n(8)\nThe Commission confirmed receipt of the request with letters dated 24 February 2011 and 14 March 2011 and set the deadline for her reaction to 5 September 2011 in accordance with Article 114(6) TFEU.\n(9)\nBy letter of 24 June 2011 the Commission consulted the other Member States on the notification received from the German Federal Government. The Commission also published a notice regarding the notification in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) in order to inform other interested parties of the national provisions the German Federal Government intends to maintain as well as the grounds invoked to that effect.\n(10)\nThe Commission received comments from The Czech Republic, Poland, Sweden, and several concerned stakeholders.\n(11)\nThe Czech Republic considers that the measures notified by Germany constitute a barrier to trade as it will prevent economic operators complying with the Directive from placing toys on the German market. The Czech authorities support a higher level of protection for children from dangerous chemicals, however hold the opinion that such measures should be taken at European level, within the framework of the Directive.\n(12)\nPoland considers that the German measures are an obstacle to the free movement of toys within the EU and therefore unacceptable. Poland holds the opinion that one Member State can not, unilaterally, maintain different safety requirements, and create obstacles to the functioning of the toy market.\n(13)\nSweden considers the justifications put forward by Germany as convincing and supports the request.\n(14)\nBy letter to the Commission, Toy Industries of Europe, the European association of writing materials manufacturers, the French association of toy manufacturers and the European Balloons Council shared their concerns with regard to the obstacles the German measures, if accepted, will create on the functioning of the toys internal market.\n(15)\nBy Decision of 4 August 2011 (4), the Commission informed the German Federal Government that, pursuant to Article 114(6), third subparagraph, TFEU, the period of 6 months referred to in its first subparagraph to approve or reject the national provisions concerning the five elements (lead, arsenic, mercury, barium and antimony), as well as for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances, notified by Germany on 2 March 2011, pursuant to Article 114(4), is extended until 5 March 2012.\n(16)\nThe Commission considered, in its Decision of 4 August 2011, that the application submitted by Germany with a view to obtaining authorisation to maintain its national provisions on the five elements: lead, arsenic, mercury, barium and antimony, as well as for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances is admissible.\n(17)\nIn accordance with the provisions of Article 114 of the TFEU, the Commission has to assure that all conditions enabling a Member State to avail of the possibilities of derogation provided for in this Article are met. The Commission has to verify whether the provisions notified are justified by the major needs of protection referred to in Article 36, or relating to the environment or working environment. In addition, the Commission has to verify whether or not these measures, when justified, are a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between the Member States, and whether or not they constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market.\n(18)\nThe German Federal Government has based its request on the need of protection of human health. In support of this request, the German authorities provided detailed justification including scientific studies on the health assessment of the concerned substances from the BfR.\n(19)\nThe limit values for arsenic, lead, antimony, barium and mercury set out in the Second Equipment and Product Safety Act Ordinance (Verordnung \u00fcber die Sicherheit von Spielzeug - 2. GPSGV) are those laid down in Directive 88/378/EEC, applicable in the EU since 1990. These limits were set out on the basis of scientific evidence available at that time, namely the scientific opinion of the Scientific Advisory Committee to examine the toxicity and ecotoxicity of chemical compounds from 1985, entitled Report EUR 12964(EN), Chapter III \u2018Chemical properties of toys\u2019. To set up limit values, estimated food intakes for adults were used as a basis. It was assumed that children, with an estimated body weight up to 12 kg, would have an intake of maximum 50 % of the adults\u2019 intake, and that leaking from toys should not contribute more than 10 %.\n(20)\nThe Directive, adopted in 2009, replaced Directive 88/378/EEC and modernised the legal framework applicable to chemicals, by taking into account the latest scientific evidences available at the time of the revision.\n(21)\nThe limit values for arsenic, lead, antimony, barium and mercury set out in the Directive are calculated as follows: based on the recommendations of the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) made in the 2008 report entitled \u2018Chemicals in Toys. A general methodology for assessment of chemical safety of toys with a focus on elements\u2019, exposure of children to chemicals in toys may not exceed a certain level, called \u2018tolerable daily intake\u2019. Since children are exposed to chemicals via other sources than toys, only a percentage of the tolerable daily intake should be allocated to toys. The Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) recommended in its 2004 report that a maximum of 10 % of the tolerable daily intake may be allocated to toys. However, for particularly toxic substances (for example arsenic, lead, mercury) the Legislator decided that the recommended allocation should not exceed 5 % of the tolerable daily intake, in order to ensure that only traces that are compatible with good manufacturing practice will be present. In order to obtain limit values, the maximum percentage of the tolerable daily intake should be multiplied by the weight of a child, estimated at 7,5 kg, and divided by the quantity of toy material ingested, estimated by the RIVM at 8 mg per day for scraped-off toy material, 100 mg for brittle toy material and 400 mg for liquid or sticky toy material. Those ingestion limits were supported by the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) in its opinion entitled \u2018Risks from organic CMR substances in toys\u2019 adopted on 18 May 2010. As the tolerable daily intakes are established by scientific studies, and science may evolve, the Legislator has foreseen the possibility to amend these limits when new scientific evidence is made available.\n(22)\nThe Directive establishes migration limits, while the national values Germany wants to maintain are expressed in bioavailability. Bioavailability is defined as the amount of chemicals which actually comes out of a toy and can but may not necessarily be absorbed by the human body. Migration is defined as the amount which actually comes out of a toy and is actually absorbed by the human body. The Commission acknowledges that the bioavailability limits set out in 1990 were transformed in migration limits in standard EN 71-3 - Migration of certain elements. However, calculations made for the purpose of this transformation were approximate. The tolerable daily intakes used are based on recommendations from 1985. A daily intake of 8 mg of toy material was assumed, and adjustments were made to minimise the exposure of children to toxic elements by lowering, for example, the migration limit for barium, and to ensure analytical feasibility by increasing, for example, the migration limit for antimony and arsenic.\n(23)\nThe Commission notes that standards are not mandatory, but used on a voluntary basis by industry in the framework on the conformity assessment procedures set out in the legislation. In addition, standard EN 71-3 is currently under revision in order to give presumption of conformity with the new limits values established in the Directive.\n(24)\nIn conclusion, different scientific considerations were taken into account when establishing the limits under the Directive and under standard EN 71-3. Those established under the Directive are based on a consistent and transparent scientific-toxicological approach to ensure safety, and can therefore be considered as more appropriate.\n(25)\nArsenic is a metal naturally occurring in the earth\u2019s crust. It occurs in inorganic and numerous organic forms that differ not only in their physical and chemical properties but also in their occurrence and toxicity. Activities such as mining, waste incineration and wood preservation are the major source for arsenic in the environment. Drinking water and food (in particular seafood) are the main source of human exposure. In toys, traces of arsenic can be found due to the use of natural raw materials which may be naturally contaminated. Arsenic is highly toxic for humans, and can impair the central nervous system, leading to a deterioration of the cognitive functions. Elevated chronic intake of inorganic arsenic may have carcinogenic effects.\n(26)\nThe migration limits for arsenic in the Directive are based on the tolerable daily intake established by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Health Organisation Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1989, as recommended by RIVM.\n(27)\nTo support their request, the German authorities refer to the 2009 EFSA study (5) assessing the arsenic effects on health. In EFSA\u2019s opinion, the tolerable daily intake established by JECFA in 1989 is no longer appropriate. In addition, EFSA concluded that no tolerable daily intake can be established due to scientific uncertainties.\n(28)\nThe German authorities pointed out that EFSA recommends reducing as far as possible exposure to arsenic, while the limit values for arsenic in scraped-off materials in the Directive increased compared to the limits contained in standard EN 71-3.\n(29)\nAlso, Germany underlines that toys are the most significant contribution after food to the overall exposure of children to arsenic.\n(30)\nIn conclusion, Germany requests maintaining national limits for arsenic.\n(31)\nThe Commission was made aware of the 2009 EFSA study on arsenic, and considered it as new scientific evidence which may trigger the revision of the arsenic limit values. The study was sent to the SCHER committee. In its opinion (6), SCHER notes that EFSA has not derived a tolerable daily intake, but used a risk-based value. SCHER concluded in previous opinions (7) that \u2018arsenic shows a non-linear dose response regarding cancer\u2019. Using the present legal limit for drinking water (10 \u03bcg/L) and the food exposure defined by EFSA for the average consumer, SCHER concludes that the daily human exposure to arsenic is approximately 1 \u03bcg/kg body weight/day and does not increase tumour incidence. This value can be used as a pragmatic tolerable daily intake, and exposure of children via toys should not exceed 10 %.\n(32)\nThe value on which SCHER concluded corresponds to the tolerable daily intake recommended by RIVM and used to calculate migration of arsenic from toys in the Directive. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the limit values for arsenic should not be amended, as no new tolerable intake, which may question the level of protection granted by the Directive, was established.\n(33)\nFurthermore, the Commission would like to stress that the German authorities justified their request to maintain national levels for arsenic by referring to the range of daily intake doses established in the 2009 EFSA study. The Commission notes that the measures notified do not appear consistent with this justification. The limits notified are derived from estimated food intakes established in 1985, not from the doses recommended by EFSA in 2009.\n(34)\nThe German authorities further stated that the limits for arsenic in scraped-off materials (47 mg/kg of material) increased compared to the limits established in standard EN 71-3.\n(35)\nThe Commission considers that different scientific considerations were taken into account when establishing the limits under the Directive and under standard EN 71-3. Those established under the Directive are based on a consistent and transparent scientific-toxicological approach to ensure safety, and can therefore be considered as more appropriate.\n(36)\nThe migration limits for arsenic in scraped-off toy material are based on the tolerable daily intake recommended by RIVM in 2007, and on the assumption that contribution from toys should not exceed 5 %. This percentage was multiplied by the estimated weight of a child (7,5 kg), and divided by the estimated quantity of toy material ingested (8 mg/kg for scraped off materials). The migration limits for arsenic in standard EN 71-3 were derived from the bioavailability limits established in Directive 88/378/EEC, based on estimated food intakes established in 1985. The calculation method applied did not take into account the weight of the child nor the differences between toy materials, as does the Directive. Thus, the Commission considers the limit values established in the Directive as more appropriate.\n(37)\nGermany further underlines that toys are the most significant contribution after food to the overall exposure of children to arsenic. The Commission notes that, based on scientific data available (8), soils and treated wood are the most significant contribution after food to the overall exposure of children to arsenic. However, regardless of the actual contributions from different compartments to the overall exposure, the Legislator considered that contribution from toys should not exceed 5 % of the overall exposure, in order to assure safety.\n(38)\nIn the light of the above considerations, the Commission is of the opinion that the measures notified by Germany with regard to arsenic can not be considered as justified on grounds of major need of protection of human health.\n(39)\nAntimony is a semi-metallic chemical element which can exist in two forms, namely metallic and non-metallic form. Antimony occurs naturally in the environment, but also enters the environment through several industrial applications. Antimony is used to make certain types of semi-conductor devices, such as diodes and infrared detectors. Antimony alloys are also used in batteries, low-friction metals, type metal and cable sheathing, among other products. Antimony compounds are used to make flame-proofing materials and paints. Inhalation of antimony can cause irritation of the eyes, skin and lungs. Prolonged exposure can cause lung diseases, heart problems, diarrhoea, severe vomiting and ulcers. In toys, antimony can be used as a flame retardant.\n(40)\nThe German authorities noted an increase in the limit values for antinomy in scrapped-off toy materials, as established in the Directive, when compared to the limits contained in standard EN 71-3. Although Germany agrees that no adverse effects on human health are expected from the limits set out in the Directive, this increase is considered as unnecessary. Therefore Germany requests maintaining national limits.\n(41)\nAs previously stated, the Commission holds the opinion that the limit values established under the Directive are more appropriate, since they are based on a consistent and transparent scientific-toxicological approach to assure safety.\n(42)\nThe migration limits for antimony in scraped-off toy material are based on the tolerable daily intake derived by the WHO (9) in 2003 and recommended by RIVM in 2007, and on the assumption that contribution from toys should not exceed 10 %. This percentage was multiplied by the estimated weight of a child (7,5 kg), and divided by the estimated quantity of toy material ingested (8 mg/kg for scraped-off materials). The migration limits for antimony in standard EN 71-3 were derived from the bioavailability limits established in Directive 88/378/EEC, based on estimated food intakes established in 1985. The calculation method applied did not take into account the weight of the child nor the differences between toy materials, as does the Directive. Thus, the Commission considers the limit values established in the Directive to be more appropriate.\n(43)\nIn addition, the Commission acknowledges that Germany, in the justification brought forward, admits that no adverse effect on human health is expected from the limit values for antimony as established in the Directive. The Commission notes furthermore that Germany did not provide any evidence demonstrating that the Directive does not offer an appropriate level of protection to children, nor that the German measures would assure a higher level of protection.\n(44)\nIn the light of the above considerations, the Commission is of the opinion that the measures notified by Germany with regard to antimony can not be considered as justified on grounds of major need of protection of human health.\n(45)\nBarium is present in the earth\u2019s crust, mostly as barium sulphate and barium carbonate. These forms are insoluble in water. Other barium salt such as barium chloride and barium nitrate, however, readily dissolves in water. Barium is present surface water and drinking water (natural occurrence). The barium content in drinking water depends on regional geochemical conditions. Food also contains barium. Ingestion of barium can cause increased blood pressure, stomach irritation, and muscle weakness, damage to the liver, kidney, heart, and spleen. Barium has few industrial applications. As barium naturally occurs in the environment, traces of barium can be found in toys when manufactured with natural raw materials.\n(46)\nThe German authorities consider that there are uncertainties with regard to the tolerable daily intake used for calculating migration limits for barium in the Directive. RIVM used a tolerable daily intake of 600 \u03bcg/kg body weight/day, based on animal experiments data (Engelen et al. 2008). According to Germany, the use of this tolerable daily intake resulted in higher migration limits for barium in scraped-off materials, compared to those set out in standard EN 71-3. Germany considers the choice of RIVM to be questionable, since WHO (10) determined considerably lower tolerable daily intakes. Thus Germany requests maintaining national limits with regard to barium.\n(47)\nThe Commission notes that there are uncertainties with regard to the tolerable daily intake for barium. Although human data are considered as a more appropriate basis for deriving a tolerable daily intake, RIVM considered that the studies providing these data contained important flaws. Therefore animal experiments data, more reliable for deriving a tolerable daily intake, were used.\n(48)\nThe WHO assessment, based on human data, recommends a lower tolerable daily intake. The Commission recognises that this assessment, likely to offer a higher level of protection to children, may not have been appropriately considered by RIVM.\n(49)\nThus, the Commission sent a request for an opinion to the SCHER committee, asking for an additional evaluation of the migration limits for barium, and recommendations with regard to the tolerable daily intake to be used, in the light of the WHO assessment document. The opinion is expected to be delivered in March 2012.\n(50)\nBased on the outcome of the SCHER opinion, the Commission may proceed, if deemed necessary, to the revision of the migration limits for barium as established in the Directive.\n(51)\nIn the light on the above considerations, the Commission is of the opinion that the measures notified by Germany with regard to barium are considered as justified on grounds of major need of protection of human health.\n(52)\nLead is a particularly toxic metal which takes both organic and inorganic form. Given that lead is considered as a non-threshold toxic substance for neurotoxic effects and given the specific vulnerability of children, their exposure to lead should be reduced to the maximum extent possible. The exposure to lead can cause damage to a child\u2019s central nervous system, thus adversely impacting his/her development. Lead exposure mainly arises from food products (cereals, vegetables and tap water being the major contributors to lead exposure). Another important exposure source is the environment, in particular house dust. An additional exposure source is the contact with consumer products, including toys. Given the high exposure from food and environment, limit values for lead in toys were set out in such way that exposure from toys does not exceed a certain amount of all exposure sources. Lead may be found in toys paints and softened plastic. Children are exposed to lead through ingestion, in particular through hand-to-mouth or mouthing behaviour. As paint deteriorates, it peels, pulverises and then can be ingested or remains on the hands and fingers from where it can be ingested or inhaled. Considering lead toxicological characteristic, the dermal exposure does not seem to represent any health risk (11).\n(53)\nThe German authorities refer to the 2010 EFSA study carrying out a comprehensive assessment on lead. In EFSA\u2019s opinion, there is no scientifically justified threshold dose for the adverse effects of lead on human health. Therefore Germany considers that the migration limits for lead, as established in the Directive, are no longer scientifically based and request maintaining national measures.\n(54)\nThe Commission acknowledges that the migration limits for lead as established in the Directive no longer offer an appropriate level of protection for children. The tolerable daily intake used for calculating the limits was questioned by EFSA and JECFA in 2010, after the revision of the toy safety legislation. Taking this into account, the Commission already undertook the revision of the abovementioned limits.\n(55)\nIn the light of the above considerations, the Commission is of the opinion that the measures notified by Germany with regard to lead are considered as justified on grounds of major need of protection of human health.\n(56)\nMercury is a naturally occurring element in the Earth\u2019s crust. The main source of exposure to mercury occurs from dental amalgam. Other sources are drinking water and consumption of fish and other marine organisms. Mercury is also used in fluorescent tubes, batteries and thermometers. Exposure to mercury at critical levels can cause tremors, emotional changes, insomnia, neuromuscular changes, headaches, disturbances in sensations, changes in nerve responses. At higher exposures there may be kidney effects, respiratory failure and death.\n(57)\nGermany notes that the bioavailability limits for mercury established in Directive 88/378/EEC, and consequently in the national measures notified, are 0,5 \u03bcg/day, transformed, in standard EN 71-3, in migration limits of 60 mg/kg.\n(58)\nBy comparison to the migration limits of mercury in scraped-off materials as established in the Directive (94 mg/kg), Germany concludes to an increase which contradicts the European objective of reduction of human exposure to mercury.\n(59)\nThus, Germany requests maintaining national measures, regardless of the fact that Germany expects no damage to health from the values established in the Directive.\n(60)\nAs previously explained, the Commission holds the opinion that limit values established under the Directive can be considered more appropriate since they are based on a consistent and transparent scientific-toxicological approach to assure safety.\n(61)\nThe migration limits for mercury in scraped-off toy material are based on the tolerable daily intake recommended by RIVM in 2007, and on the assumption that the contribution from toys should not exceed 10 %. This percentage was multiplied by the estimated weight of a child (7,5 kg), and divided by the estimated quantity of toy material ingested (8 mg/kg for scraped-off materials). The migration limits for mercury in standard EN 71-3 were derived from the bioavailability limits established in Directive 88/378/EEC, based on estimated food intakes established in 1985. The calculation method applied did not take into account the weight of the child nor the differences between toy materials, as does the Directive. Therefore, the Commission considers the limit values established in the Directive to be more appropriate.\n(62)\nIn addition, the Commission acknowledges that Germany, in the justification brought forward, admits that no adverse effect on human health is expected from the limit values for mercury as established in the Directive. In addition, the Commission notes that Germany did not provide any evidence demonstrating that German measures notified would assure a higher level of protection.\n(63)\nIn accordance to the European strategy concerning mercury (12), measures have been taken in order to reduce mercury exposure, specifically in the areas generating major exposure. With regard to toys, mercury is used in batteries, which must be inaccessible to children. Therefore, due to the inaccessibility of the batteries, children are not exposed to mercury via toys. Germany did not provide any exposure data supporting the contrary. Also, as acknowledged by Germany in the justifications put forward, in recent years, no Member State notified to the Commission measures against toys containing mercury found on the market.\n(64)\nIn the light of the above considerations, the Commission is of the opinion that the measures notified by Germany with regard to mercury, though based on public health considerations, are considered as not justified on grounds of major need of protection of human health.\n(65)\nNitrosamines are a class of chemical compounds produced under certain conditions (acidic pH, high temperature, presence of certain reducing agents) in a variety of compartments (consumer products, biological systems, air, etc.), when nitrites react with the so-called nitrosatable substances. Nitrosamines have been detected as contaminants in a number of products including foods, beer, tobacco products, rubber products, and cosmetics. The two most common nitrosamines, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) are classified as carcinogens: NDMA is classified in the EU as a carcinogen 1B (\u2018presumed to have carcinogenic potential for humans\u2019) (13). NDEA is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a carcinogen category 2A (\u2018probably carcinogenic to humans\u2019) (14). In toys, nitrosamines can be found in rubber toys and finger paints.\n(66)\nDirective 88/378/EEC does not contain specific provisions on nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances. Migration limits were introduced in the Directive for toys intended for children under 3 and other toys intended to be placed in the mouth, applicable as from 20 July 2013. The limits are based on the Scientific Committee on Consumer products (SCCP) opinion from 2007, related to the presence and release of nitrosamines and nitrosatable compounds from rubber balloons.\n(67)\nGermany agrees that the limits set out by the SCCP with regard to balloons are to be considered as posing a negligible risk. However, the German authorities consider that these limits can not be extended to all toys made of synthetic and natural rubber and intended for children under 3, as the exposure parameters are assumed to be different.\n(68)\nSCCP assumed the children are exposed to balloons for 5 hours/year. Germany notes that the mouthing behaviour of children under 3 is assumed to be 3 hours/day. The German authorities concludes that exposure of children under 3 to rubber toys is much higher than exposure to balloons only.\n(69)\nGermany further considers that children are exposed to nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances via all toys made of rubber, regardless of their intended use. Point 8 of Annex II, Part III, to the Directive addresses, in Germany\u2019s opinion, only toys for children under 3 and other toys intended to be placed in the mouth. Thus, Germany invites the Commission to consider enlarging the scope of the Directive in order to include toys which are not intended but likely to be put in the mouth, regardless of the age of the users.\n(70)\nIn addition, the German authorities note that, according to the technological state of the art, the formation of nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances during the manufacture of natural or synthetic rubber can largely be avoided by using appropriate vulcanisation accelerators.\n(71)\nIn the light of the above justifications, Germany requests maintaining national measures related to nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys for children under 3, intended or likely to be put in the mouth, and made of synthetic or natural rubber.\n(72)\nThe Commission notes that the German measures related to nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances were adopted in 2008. At that time, the risk on human health due to exposure of small children to nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in rubber toys was not addressed by Directive 88/378/EEC. This risk was confirmed by the SCCP in 2007, and addressed by the Legislator within the revision of the abovementioned Directive.\n(73)\nPoint 8 of Annex II, Part III, to the Directive prohibits the use of nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys intended for children under 3 and other toys intended to the placed in the mouth, when the migration of substances is equal or higher that 0,05 mg/kg for nitrosamines and 1 mg/kg for nitrosatable substances.\n(74)\nThese limits are based on the values considered by SCCP, when evaluating exposure to balloons, as posing a negligible risk to health. Due to the lack of realistic data necessary for evaluating exposure to rubber toys, acknowledged by Germany in the justifications put forward, the limit values recommended for balloons were extended to other types of toys likely to contain nitrosamines or nitrosatable substances.\n(75)\nIn the absence of precise data, the Commission agrees that, with regard to toys intended to be placed in the mouth, data on children\u2019s mouthing behaviour is more relevant than data on exposure to balloons for assuming exposure parameters.\n(76)\nThe Commission also agrees that, taking into account the technological state of the art, the formation of nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances during the manufacture of natural of synthetic rubber can largely be avoided by using appropriate vulcanisation accelerators. The SCCP reached the same conclusions in its 2007 opinion. In addition, it is proven to be technically feasible for the manufacture of rubber teats and soothers, where migration of nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances shall not exceed 0,01 and respectively 0,1 mg/kg (15).\n(77)\nIn addition, the Commission notes that a specific standard is being developed by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) for testing the presence of nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys. The Commission is aware that the limits for nitrosamines in finger paints are going to be lowered from 0,05 mg/kg to 0,01 mg/kg within the development of this standard, in order to better take into account children\u2019s exposure. The Commission will ask CEN to consider data on small children\u2019s mouthing behaviour for all toys covered by point 8 of Annex II, Part III, to the Directive.\n(78)\nIn the light of the above considerations, the Commission is of the opinion that the measures notified by Germany with regard to nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys for children under 3 and made of synthetic or natural rubber are considered as justified on grounds of major need of protection of human health.\n(79)\nAs regards extending the scope of these provisions to toys which are not intended but likely to be placed in the mouth, the Commission notes that such requirement is neither in force in Germany, nor part of the national legislation notified pursuant to Article 114(4). Thus such request can not be considered as admissible pursuant to Article 114(4).\n(80)\nHowever the Commission considers that the Directive addresses appropriately the categories of toys likely to release nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances. All toys intended for children under 3 are concerned, as these children have a pronounced mouthing behaviour (i.e. tendency to put all products into the mouth, even when this is not intended). Toys for older children are concerned only when intended to be placed in the mouth, as the mouthing behaviour is less relevant than for children under 3. The Commission is aware that children under 3 can be in contact with toys intended for older children. However this risk can be addressed by other means, less restrictive, such as appropriate warnings indicating the toys are not suitable for children under 3. The Directive contains provisions for such warnings.\n(81)\nArticle 114(6) requires the Commission to verify that the national provisions notified pursuant to Article 114(4) are not a means of arbitrary discrimination. The absence of discrimination, according to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, means that no different treatment should be given to similar situations, nor similar treatment to different situations.\n(82)\nSince the measures related to mercury, arsenic, and antimony are not justified by the need to protect the human health, the Commission does not have to verify whether this condition is satisfied.\n(83)\nThe German national measures related to lead, barium, nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys apply without distinction to all products, whether manufactured in Germany or imported from other Member States. Therefore, there is no evidence that the German measures have been used as a means of arbitrary discrimination between economic operators in the EU.\n(84)\nNational measures derogating from the provisions of a European directive normally constitute a barrier to trade. Products which can be legally placed on the market in the rest of the EU cannot be placed on the concerned Member State\u2019s market. Article 114(6) intends to prevent that national measures notified under Article 114(4) are applied for inappropriate reasons, and in reality constitute economic measures intended to indirectly protect national production.\n(85)\nSince the measures related to mercury, arsenic and antimony are not justified by the need to protect the human health, the Commission does not have to verify whether this condition is satisfied.\n(86)\nWith regard to lead, the Commission agrees that the limit values established in the Directive do no longer offer an appropriate level of protection, since the scientific background for setting the values evolved. Consequently, the Commission undertook a revision of these measures. Thus, the Commission considers that the German request is based on a real concern with regard to children\u2019s health, and does not constitute a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.\n(87)\nWith regard to barium, the Commission agrees that the WHO assessment was not appropriately considered by RIVM when recommending a tolerable daily intake. Thus, uncertainties exist with regard to the level of protection offered by the Directive. The Commission asked clarifications to SCHER and will consider, as soon as SCHER has adopted its opinion, the revision of the limits if necessary. Therefore, the Commission considers that the German request is based on a real concerns with regard to children\u2019s health, and does not constitute a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.\n(88)\nWith regard to nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances, the Commission agrees that exposure parameters with regard to children\u2019s mouthing behaviour where not appropriately considered when establishing limit values in the Directive. The Commission will require CEN to consider these parameters to lower the limit values within the standardisation process. Thus, the Commission considers that the German request is based on a real concern with regard to children\u2019s health, and do not constitute a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.\n(89)\nArticle 114(6) prohibits the approval of any national measure likely to affect the functioning of the internal market. However, this requirement can not be interpreted as prohibiting the approval of all measures likely to affect the functioning of the internal market. All measures derogating from a harmonisation measure constitute a measure that is likely to affect the functioning of the internal market. Thus, the Commission considers that the concept of obstacle to the functioning of the internal market as referred to in Article 114(6) has to be understood as a disproportionate effect in relation to the pursued objective, in order to preserve the useful character of the procedure.\n(90)\nSince the measures related to mercury, arsenic and antimony are not justified by the need to protect the human health, the Commission does not have to verify whether this condition is satisfied.\n(91)\nWith regard to lead and barium, the Commission notes that manufacturers, when applying the provisions of the Directive, will be able to market toys in all Member States, except for Germany. Manufacturers are not likely to develop two sets of different toys, but align on the derogating provisions in order to have toys which can be marketed in all Member States. The Commission further notes that the German limits for lead and barium are those that have been applicable in the EU since 1990 on the basis of Directive 88/378/EEC, and therefore can be technically met by manufacturers. Toy manufacturers have confirmed this assumption when expressing their position on the German measures. The Commission has therefore reasons to consider that the effect on the functioning of the internal market is proportionate in relation to the objective of protecting children\u2019s health.\n(92)\nWith regard to nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances, the Commission concludes similarly. The German measures on nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances are applicable in Germany since 2008. Manufacturers did not, to the Commission\u2019s knowledge, develop two sets of different toys, but aligned to the German provisions in order to have toys which can be marketed in all Member States. With the entry into application of the Directive, less strict that the German measures, the Commission expects manufacturers to align on the strictest provisions in order to have toys which can be marketed in all Member States. The Commission further notes that meeting the German limits is technically feasible, as manufacturers comply with them since 2008. The Commission has therefore reasons to consider that the effect on the functioning of the internal market is proportionate in relation to the objective of protecting children\u2019s health.\n(93)\nIn the light of the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the national provisions notified by Germany with regard to mercury, arsenic and antimony are not justified on grounds of major need of protection of human health. Therefore, the Commission considers that those national provisions notified can not be approved.\n(94)\nWith regard to the national measures notified by Germany in relation to lead and barium, the Commission concludes that these measures are considered as justified by the need to protect human health, and that they do not constitute either a means of arbitrary discrimination, a disguised restriction on trade between Member States, or a disproportionate obstacle to the functioning of the internal market. The Commission has therefore reasons to consider that the national measures notified can be approved, subject to a limitation in time.\n(95)\nWith regard to the national measures notified in relation to nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances, the Commission concludes that these measures are justified by the need to protect the human health, and that they do not constitute either a means of arbitrary discrimination, a disguised restriction on trade between Member States or a disproportionate obstacle to the functioning of the internal market. The Commission has reason to consider that the national provisions notified can be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe German measures related to antimony, arsenic and mercury notified pursuant to Article 114(4) of the TFEU are not approved.\nThe German measures related to lead and notified pursuant to Article 114(4) of the TFEU are approved until the date of entry into force of EU provisions setting new limits for lead in toys or 21 July 2013, whichever comes first.\nThe German measures related to barium and notified pursuant to Article 114(4) of the TFEU are approved until the date of entry into force of EU provisions setting new limits for barium in toys or 21 July 2013, whichever comes first.\nThe German measures related to nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances notified pursuant to Article 114(4) of the TFEU are approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2012.", "references": ["48", "86", "52", "38", "43", "85", "3", "49", "4", "6", "65", "69", "77", "89", "11", "41", "94", "75", "28", "9", "34", "62", "95", "80", "70", "29", "0", "56", "73", "14", "No Label", "8", "24", "83", "84", "90", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "24", "83", "84", "90", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 594/2010\nof 6 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2010.", "references": ["23", "31", "40", "34", "70", "99", "64", "84", "82", "15", "78", "69", "54", "25", "45", "83", "62", "65", "50", "58", "98", "60", "9", "22", "0", "85", "44", "1", "17", "47", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 929/2010\nof 18 October 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1033/2006 as regards the ICAO provisions referred to in Article 3(1)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network (the interoperability Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 3(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (2), and in particular Article 8(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1033/2006 of 4 July 2006 laying down the requirements on procedures for flight plans in the pre-flight phase for the single European sky (3) refers to various provisions laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (hereinafter ICAO). Since the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1033/2006 those provisions have been amended by ICAO. The references in Regulation (EC) No 1033/2006 should be updated in order to meet the international legal obligations of Member States and ensure coherence with the international regulatory framework.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1033/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1033/2006, points 1, 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181.\nChapter 3, Section 3.3 (Flight plans) of ICAO Annex 2 - Rules of the Air (10th edition of July 2005 including all amendments up to No 42).\n2.\nChapter 4, Section 4.4 (Flight plans) and Chapter 11, Paragraph 11.4.2.2 (Movement messages) of ICAO PANS-ATM Doc. 4444 (15th edition of 2007 including all amendments up to No 2).\n3.\nChapter 2 (Flight plans) and Chapter 6, Paragraph 6.12.3 (Boundary estimates) of Regional Supplementary Procedures, Doc. 7030, European (EUR) Regional Supplementary Procedures (5th edition of 2008 including all amendments up to No 2).\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 15 November 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 October 2010.", "references": ["59", "11", "46", "99", "17", "73", "4", "71", "14", "55", "78", "68", "20", "5", "53", "36", "44", "85", "52", "77", "81", "0", "32", "61", "80", "12", "51", "39", "2", "16", "No Label", "9", "13", "54", "57"], "gold": ["9", "13", "54", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1013/2011\nof 11 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for bigeye tuna in the Atlantic Ocean by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 October 2011.", "references": ["29", "85", "38", "51", "81", "23", "3", "64", "66", "76", "68", "21", "45", "70", "63", "54", "2", "75", "99", "25", "30", "47", "6", "24", "18", "80", "42", "94", "49", "83", "No Label", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 January 2011\nappointing one Polish member and one Polish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/42/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Polish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Jerzy KROPIWNICKI.\n(3)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat will become vacant following the appointment of Mr Tadeusz TRUSKOLASKI as a member of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas a member:\n-\nTadeusz TRUSKOLASKI, Prezydent Miasta Bia\u0142egostoku;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate member:\n-\nPawel ADAMOWICZ, Prezydent Miasta Gda\u0144ska.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["98", "62", "70", "72", "37", "46", "53", "66", "99", "51", "87", "69", "79", "73", "3", "65", "82", "41", "86", "12", "95", "5", "33", "36", "49", "19", "52", "80", "14", "84", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 6 March 2012\non the financing of emergency surveillance measures for rabies in northern Greece\n(notified under document C(2012) 1354)\n(Only the Greek text is authentic)\n(2012/141/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2009/470/EC provides that where a Member State is directly threatened by the occurrence or the development, in the territory of a third country or Member State, of one of the diseases listed in Annex I to that Decision, it may be decided to adopt measures appropriate to the situation and to grant a Union financial contribution towards the measures deemed particularly necessary for the success of the actions undertaken.\n(2)\nRabies is an animal disease that mainly affects wild and domestic carnivores and has serious public health implications. It is one of the diseases listed in Annex I to Decision 2009/470/EC.\n(3)\nNo case of rabies has been detected in Greece since 1987. However, following recent detection of that disease in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, it is necessary that rabies surveillance in northern Greece is urgently reinforced in order to define whether that disease is spreading to the territory of that Member State and to which extent there is a need for oral immunisation of wild carnivores in order to stop the spread and eradicate that disease.\n(4)\nOn 27 January 2012, Greece submitted to the Commission an emergency plan for the reinforced surveillance of rabies (\u2018the plan\u2019). The Commission has assessed the plan and found it to be acceptable. It is therefore appropriate that certain measures under that plan receive a Union financial contribution.\n(5)\nGreece has informed the Commission of the lack of personnel in its national reference laboratory for rabies in order to carry out the increased number of tests required to implement the plan. Given the current unfavourable financial situation and the urgency to set up and implement the plan, it is appropriate that the cost for laboratory staff specifically hired for carrying laboratory tests under the plan should be included in the costs eligible for a Union financial contribution.\n(6)\nTaking into account the urgency to implement the plan, it is justified that the Union financial contribution is made available for measures taken from 27 January 2012 when the plan was submitted to the Commission for financing.\n(7)\nThis Decision constitutes a financing Decision within the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe \u2018Emergency plan for the surveillance of rabies\u2019 submitted by Greece to the Commission on 27 January 2012 (\u2018the plan\u2019) is hereby approved for the grant of a Union financial contribution for the period from 27 January 2012 to 31 December 2012 (\u2018the financial contribution\u2019).\nArticle 2\n1. The financial contribution shall not exceed, in total, EUR 60 000.\n2. The financial contribution shall include a lump sum of EUR 5 per wild animal collected and sent for rabies investigation under the plan.\n3. The financial contribution shall be at the rate of 75 % of the costs to be incurred under the plan for the laboratory tests for the detection of rabies infection and for the isolation and characterisation of rabies virus.\nThose costs shall include:\n(a)\nthe costs paid for the purchase of test kits, reagents and all consumables used to carry out the laboratory tests;\n(b)\noverheads equal to 7 % of the total sum of the costs referred to in point (a).\nHowever, the maximum amount of the costs to be reimbursed for a fluorescent antibody test (FAT) shall not exceed, in total, EUR 12 per test.\n4. The financial contribution shall be at the rate of 75 % of the costs for personnel specifically hired for carrying out the laboratory tests referred to in paragraph 3.\nThose costs shall include:\n(a)\nthe fee paid for the personnel or their actual salaries plus social security charges and other statutory costs included in their remuneration;\n(b)\noverheads equal to 7 % of the total sum of the costs referred to in point (a).\nHowever, the maximum amount of the costs to be reimbursed for such personnel shall not exceed, in total, EUR 25 000.\nArticle 3\n1. The financial contribution shall be granted provided that Greece:\n(a)\nimplements the plan in accordance with the relevant provisions of Union law, including rules on competition, the award of public contracts and State aid;\n(b)\nsubmits interim technical reports to the Commission in accordance with Annex I by the latest on:\n(i)\n31 May 2012, covering the period from 27 January 2012 to 30 April 2012;\n(ii)\n30 September 2012, covering the period from 1 May 2012 to 31 August 2012;\n(c)\nsubmits a final technical report and a financial report in accordance with Annexes I and II, covering the period from 27 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, by the latest on 28 February 2013;\n(d)\nimplements satisfactorily the measures foreseen in the plan.\n2. In the event that Greece does not comply with the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, the Commission shall reduce the financial contribution taking into account the nature and gravity of the non-compliance and the financial loss incurred by the Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall apply from 27 January 2012.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 6 March 2012.", "references": ["30", "22", "95", "40", "56", "51", "16", "37", "10", "82", "5", "28", "93", "84", "20", "39", "99", "92", "14", "98", "32", "76", "52", "73", "1", "86", "2", "23", "90", "49", "No Label", "4", "15", "38", "61", "66", "77", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "15", "38", "61", "66", "77", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION No 896/2011/EU\nof 19 December 2011\namending Decision 2007/659/EC as regards its period of application and the annual quota benefiting from a reduced rate of excise duty\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 349 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Decision 2007/659/EC of 9 October 2007 authorising France to apply a reduced rate of excise duty on \u2018traditional\u2019 rum produced in its overseas departments (2) authorises France to apply to \u2018traditional\u2019 rum produced in its overseas departments and sold on the French mainland a reduced rate of excise duty which may be lower than the minimum rate of excise duty on alcohol set by Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (3) but not more than 50 % lower than the standard national excise duty on alcohol. The \u2018traditional\u2019 rum to which the reduced rate of excise duty applies is now defined in point 1(f) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks (4). The reduction in excise duty is confined to an annual quota of 108 000 hectolitres of pure alcohol. The derogation expires on 31 December 2012.\n(2)\nIn order to adapt the terms of Decision 2007/659/EC to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and bearing in mind that \u2018traditional\u2019 rum is produced only in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and R\u00e9union, therefore, a reference should be made in this amending Decision exclusively to those four outermost regions.\n(3)\nOn 29 June 2010, the French authorities sent the Commission the report provided for in Article 4 of Decision 2007/659/EC. The report contains two requests. First, the French authorities ask that the annual quota be increased from 108 000 hectolitres to 125 000 hectolitres of pure alcohol to reflect trends on the market for rum in the Union. Secondly, they request an extension by 1 year, i.e. to 31 December 2013, of the period of application of Decision 2007/659/EC so as to bring it into line with that of a State aid decision on the same issue adopted by the Commission on 27 June 2007 (5) (hereinafter: \u2018the State aid Decision\u2019).\n(4)\nThe information provided by the French authorities shows that quantities of \u2018traditional\u2019 rum coming onto the market at the reduced rate of excise duty have grown since the adoption of Decision 2007/659/EC, from 96 100 hectolitres of pure alcohol in 2007 to 105 700 hectolitres in 2010, i.e. an annual increase of 3,2 %. Provided that this trend continues, the quantities of \u2018traditional\u2019 rum coming onto the market should be around 109 100 hectolitres of pure alcohol in 2011, 112 600 hectolitres in 2012 and 116 200 hectolitres in 2013, thus exceeding the 108 000 hectolitre quota provided for by Decision 2007/659/EC.\n(5)\nRecital 9 of Decision 2007/659/EC underlines that since the competitiveness of \u2018traditional\u2019 rum from the overseas departments needs to be supported on the market in mainland France in order to safeguard the activity of their sugar-cane rum sector, the quantities of traditional rum originating in the overseas departments eligible for a reduced rate of excise duty when released for consumption on that market should be reviewed. The 108 000 hectolitre annual quota established by Decision 2007/659/EC should be, therefore, increased to 120 000 hectolitres, including the quota for 2011 in order to ensure continuity, taking into account the increase forecasted for that year. This increase would cover annual growth of 4,3 %, i.e. a little more than the 3,2 % increase witnessed in 2007-10.\n(6)\nIt is also necessary to extend the period of application of Decision 2007/659/EC by 1 year so that it expires at the same time as that of the State aid Decision.\n(7)\nDecision 2007/659/EC should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2007/659/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n(2)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, France is authorised to extend the application on the French mainland, to \u2018traditional\u2019 rum produced in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and R\u00e9union, of a rate of excise duty lower than the full rate for alcohol set by Article 3 of Directive 92/84/EEC.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe derogation referred to in Article 1 shall be confined to rum as defined in point 1(f) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks (6) produced in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and R\u00e9union from sugar cane harvested in the place of manufacture, having a content of volatile substances other than ethyl and methyl alcohol equal to or exceeding 225 grams per hectolitre of pure alcohol and an alcoholic strength by volume of 40 % or more.\n(4)\nArticle 3(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The reduced rate of excise duty applicable to the product referred to in Article 2 shall be confined to an annual quota of 108 000 hectolitres of pure alcohol for the period up to 31 December 2010. For the period between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2013, it shall be confined to an annual quota of 120 000 hectolitres.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 5, the date 31 December 2012 is replaced by that of 31 December 2013.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["90", "16", "58", "27", "32", "29", "4", "75", "40", "77", "61", "9", "92", "62", "20", "44", "74", "84", "87", "57", "65", "12", "14", "68", "83", "19", "39", "5", "95", "6", "No Label", "23", "34", "71", "91", "93", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "34", "71", "91", "93", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1382/2011\nof 22 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2011.", "references": ["57", "59", "15", "74", "14", "97", "65", "25", "45", "40", "81", "94", "31", "60", "93", "83", "23", "3", "87", "63", "69", "84", "38", "44", "75", "64", "5", "88", "17", "73", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 24 June 2011\nexempting exploration for oil and gas and exploitation of oil in Italy from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors\n(notified under document C(2011) 4253)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/372/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1), and in particular Article 30(5) and (6) thereof,\nWhereas:\nI. FACTS\n(1)\nOn 23 March 2011 the Italian Petroleum and Mining Industry Association - Assomineraria transmitted a request pursuant to Article 30(5) of Directive 2004/17/EC to the Commission by e-mail. In accordance with Article 30(5) first subparagraph, the Commission informed the Italian authorities thereof by letter of 1 April 2011, to which the said authorities answered on 19 April 2011. The request submitted by Assomineraria concerns the exploration for oil and gas and exploitation of oil in Italy. In line with previous Commission Merger Decisions (2), two distinct activities have been described in the request, namely:\n(a)\nexploration for oil and natural gas; and\n(b)\nproduction of oil.\n(2)\nIn accordance with the abovementioned Commission Decisions, \u2018production\u2019 will for the purposes of this Decision be taken to include also \u2018development\u2019, i.e. the setting up of adequate infrastructure for future production (oil platforms, pipelines, terminals, etc.). Furthermore, established Commission practice also found that \u2018the development, production and sales of crude oil\u2019 constitutes \u2018one relevant product market\u2019 (3). Thus, for the purposes of this Decision, \u2018production\u2019 will be taken as including both \u2018development\u2019 as well as (first) sale of oil.\n(3)\nAssomineraria is a trade association which, in this context, acts on behalf of the main undertakings operating in the exploration and production of hydrocarbons sector in Italy. The four main companies affiliated to the association are ENI SpA, Edison SpA, Shell Italia E&P SpA and Total E&P Italia SpA.\nII. LEGAL FRAMEWORK\n(4)\nArticle 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC provides that contracts intended to enable the performance of one of the activities to which Directive 2004/17/EC applies shall not be subject to that Directive if, in the Member State in which it is carried out, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted. Direct exposure to competition is assessed on the basis of objective criteria, taking account of the specific characteristics of the sector concerned. Access is deemed to be unrestricted if the Member State has implemented and applied the relevant EU legislation opening a given sector or a part of it.\n(5)\nSince Italy has implemented and applied Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (4), access to the market should be deemed not to be restricted in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 30(3) of Directive 2004/17/EC. Direct exposure to competition in a particular market should be evaluated on the basis of various criteria, none of which are, necessarily and per se, decisive.\n(6)\nFor the purposes of assessing whether the relevant operators are subject to direct competition in the markets concerned by this Decision, the market share of the main players and the degree of concentration of those markets shall be taken into account. As the conditions vary for the different activities that are concerned by this Decision, a separate assessment shall be undertaken for each activity/market.\n(7)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to the application of the rules on competition.\nIII. ASSESSMENT\n(8)\nEach of the two activities that are the subject of this request (exploration for oil and natural gas and production of oil) have been considered to constitute separate product markets in the previous Commission Decisions referred to in recitals 1 and 2 above. They should therefore be examined separately.\n(9)\nAccording to Commission practice (5), exploration for oil and natural gas constitutes one relevant product market, since it is not possible from the outset to determine whether the exploration will result in finding oil or natural gas. On the exploration market, exploration companies acquire exploration licenses granted by \u2018host countries\u2019 usually via bidding procedures (6). It has furthermore been established through the same, long-standing, Commission practice, that the geographical scope of that market is worldwide. Given that there is no indication that the definition would be different in this case, it will be maintained for the purposes of this Decision.\n(10)\nThe market shares of operators active in exploration can be measured by reference to three variables: the capital expenditure, proven reserves and expected production. The use of capital expenditure to measure the market shares of operators on the exploration market has been found to be unsuitable, inter alia, because of the large differences between the required levels of investments that are necessary in different geographic areas. Thus, larger investments are needed to explore for oil and gas in the North Sea than is the case for exploration in, e.g. the Middle East.\n(11)\nTwo other parameters have typically been applied to assess the market shares of economic operators within this sector, namely, their share of proven reserves and of the expected production (7).\n(12)\nAs of 31 December 2009, the global, proven oil and gas reserves amounted to a total of 385,58 billion standard cubic metres oil equivalent (in the following Sm3 o. e.) worldwide, according to the available information (8). As of 1 January 2010, the combined, proven oil and gas reserves in Italy amounted to slightly more than 0,205 billion Sm3 o. e. (9), or slightly more than 0,05 %. The share thereof of the individual contracting entities operating in Italy is necessarily even smaller. According to the available information, there is a direct correlation between proven reserves of oil and gas and expected future production. Nothing in the available information therefore indicates that the market share of the individual contracting entities operating in Italy would be substantially different if measured in terms of expected production rather than in terms of its share of proven reserves. Given the links between proven reserves and actual production these facts can be taken as an indication also of the state of competition on the market concerned here.\n(13)\nThe exploration market is not highly concentrated. Apart from the state-owned companies, the market is characterised by the presence of international vertically integrated private players named the super majors (BP and ExxonMobil and Shell) as well as a certain number of so-called \u2018majors\u2019. These elements are an indication of direct exposure to competition.\n(14)\nAccording to established Commission practice (10), development, production and sales of (crude) oil is a separate product market whose geographic scope is worldwide. Given that there is no indication that the definition would be different in this case it will be maintained for the purposes of this Decision.\n(15)\nAccording to the available information (11), the total, daily production of oil worldwide amounted to 79,948 million barrels in 2009. That same year, a total of 0,095 million barrels per day were produced in Italy giving it a market share of 0,11 %. Looking at the 2009 share of the individual contracting entities operating in Italy, the situation is as follows: with a worldwide production of 1 007 thousand (12) barrels per day, ENI has a share of 1,26 % of oil production worldwide; Shell\u2019s worldwide production of 1 581 thousand barrels of oil per day (13) gives it a market share amounting to 1,98 % of oil production in the world; Total has a worldwide production of 1 381 thousand barrels of oil per day (14) which gives it a market share amounting to 1,73 % of oil production worldwide; finally Edison has a worldwide daily production of 5 thousand barrels of oil per day (15) which gives it a market share amounting to 0,006 % of oil production in the world.\n(16)\nFor the purposes of this analysis, it is important to have regard to the degree of concentration in the relevant market as a whole. In this view, the Commission notes that the market for crude oil production is characterised by the presence of big state-owned companies and three international vertically integrated private players (the so called \u2018super majors\u2019: BP, ExxonMobil and Shell whose parts of oil production in 2009 amounted to: 3,2 %, 3,0 % and 2,0 % respectively (16)) as well as a certain number of so-called \u2018majors\u2019 (17). These factors suggest that the market comprises a number of players between whom effective competition can be presumed.\nIV. CONCLUSIONS\n(17)\nIn view of the factors examined in recitals 8 to 16 the condition of direct exposure to competition laid down in Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC should be considered to be met in Italy in respect of the following services:\n(a)\nexploration for oil and natural gas; and\n(b)\nproduction of oil.\n(18)\nSince the condition of unrestricted access to the market is deemed to be met, Directive 2004/17/EC should not apply when contracting entities award contracts intended to enable the services listed in points (a) and (b) of recital 17 to be carried out in Italy, nor when design contests are organised for the pursuit of such an activity in those geographic areas.\n(19)\nAccording to the application, in Italy most of exploitation fields produce both oil and gas, in different percentages (18). The production of gas is not subject to this exemption request, and for this sector the provisions of Directive 2004/17/EC continue to apply. In this context, it is recalled that procurement contracts covering several activities shall be treated in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2004/17/EC. This means that, when a contracting entity is engaged in \u2018mixed\u2019 procurement, that is procurement used to support the performance of both, activities exempted from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC and activities not exempted, regard shall be had to the activities for which the contract is principally intended. In the event of such mixed procurement, where the purpose is principally to support the production of gas, the provision of Directive 2004/17/EC shall apply. If it is objectively impossible to determine for which activity the contract is principally intended, the contract shall be awarded in accordance with the rules referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 9 of Directive 2004/17/EC.\n(20)\nThis Decision is based on the legal and factual situation as of March 2011 to April 2011 as it appears from the information submitted by Assomineraria, and BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2010 and the Italian authorities. It may be revised, should significant changes in the legal or factual situation mean that the conditions for the applicability of Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC are no longer met.\n(21)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Committee for Public Contracts,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2004/17/EC shall not apply to contracts awarded by contracting entities and intended to enable the following services to be carried out in Italy:\n(a)\nexploration for oil and natural gas; and\n(b)\nproduction of oil.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 24 June 2011.", "references": ["42", "48", "54", "61", "24", "25", "34", "30", "69", "99", "87", "39", "58", "71", "28", "23", "11", "35", "45", "44", "74", "82", "66", "7", "10", "51", "62", "95", "86", "68", "No Label", "8", "20", "80", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "20", "80", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 53/2011\nof 21 January 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 606/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards the categories of grapevine products, oenological practices and the applicable restrictions\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), in particular the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 121 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 606/2009 (2), the authorised oenological practices are laid down in Annex I to that Regulation. The International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) has adopted new oenological practices. In order to meet the international standards in this field and to provide EU producers with the new possibilities available to third country producers, these new oenological practices should be authorised in the EU under the conditions of use defined by the OIV.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 606/2009 authorises clarification by means of pectolytic enzymes and enzymatic preparations of beta-glucanase. These enzymes and other enzymatic preparations are also used for maceration, clarification, stabilisation, filtration and for revealing the aromatic precursors of grapes present in the must and the wine. These oenological practices have been adopted by the OIV and they should be authorised under the conditions of use defined by the OIV.\n(3)\nWines entitled to the protected designations of origin \u2018Malta\u2019 and \u2018Gozo\u2019 have a sugar content greater than 45 g/l and are produced in small quantities. Likewise, certain French white wines with a protected geographical indication may have a total alcoholic strength by volume greater than 15 % vol. and a sugar content greater than 45 g/l. In order to ensure the preservation of these wines, the Member States concerned, i.e., Malta and France, respectively, requested a derogation to the maximum sulphur dioxide contents given in Annex I B to Regulation (EC) No 606/2009. These wines should be mentioned in the list of wines having a maximum sulphur dioxide content of 300 milligrams per litre.\n(4)\nWines entitled to the traditional expression \u2018K\u00e9s\u0151i sz\u00fcretel\u00e9s\u0171 bor\u2019 have a very high sugar content and are produced in small quantities. In order to ensure the preservation of these wines, Hungary requested a derogation to the maximum sulphur dioxide content. A maximum sulphur dioxide content of 350 milligrams per litre should be authorised for these wines.\n(5)\nWines entitled to the protected designation of origin \u2018Douro\u2019 followed by the statement \u2018colheita tardia\u2019 derogate from the maximum sulphur dioxide content. Wines entitled to the protected designation of origin \u2018Duriense\u2019 have the same characteristics as these wines. On the basis of this, Portugal requested a derogation from the maximum sulphur dioxide content. A maximum sulphur dioxide content of 400 milligrams per litre should be authorised for these wines.\n(6)\nIn order to render the names of vine varieties clearer, the names of the varieties should be given in the different languages of the countries where these varieties are used.\n(7)\nCertain provisions concerning certain liqueur wines differ from the requirements laid down in the specifications for these wines. These provisions should be amended in accordance with the requirements in question.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 606/2009 should be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe making of wine from grapes harvested during the 2010 wine-growing year has already begun. In order not to distort competition between wine producers, the new oenological practices should be authorised for all these producers starting at the beginning of the 2010 wine-growing year. This regulation should apply retroactively from 1 August 2010, which marks the start of the 2010 wine-growing year.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Regulatory Committee established by Article 195(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 606/2009 shall be amended as follows:\n(a)\nAnnex I A is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation;\n(b)\nAnnex I B is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation;\n(c)\nAnnex II is amended in accordance with Annex III to this Regulation;\n(d)\nAnnex III is amended in accordance with Annex IV to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 January 2011.", "references": ["47", "92", "38", "27", "53", "19", "89", "26", "45", "5", "16", "94", "82", "40", "90", "1", "51", "42", "29", "23", "76", "49", "87", "84", "28", "2", "31", "20", "95", "68", "No Label", "66", "71", "74", "75"], "gold": ["66", "71", "74", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 November 2011\namending its Rules of Procedure\n(2011/737/EU, Euratom)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 249 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Decision 2010/138/EU, Euratom, of 24 February 2010 amending its Rules of Procedure (1),\nHaving regard to the Decision of the President of the Commission C(2011)8000 of 27 October 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, a new point 5 shall be added, worded as follows:\n\u201c5. Any Member of the Commission wishing to suspend a written procedure in the field of coordination and surveillance of the economic and budgetary policies of the Member States, in particular of the euro area, shall send a reasoned request to that effect to the President, explicitly indicating the aspects of the draft decision to which it relates, based on an impartial and objective assessment of the timing, structure, reasoning or result of the proposed decision.\nIf the President considers that the reasons given are not well-founded, and if the request for suspension is maintained, he or she may refuse to allow the suspension and may decide that the written procedure shall continue; in that case, the Secretary-General shall ask the other Members of the Commission for their position to ensure that the quorum laid down in Article 250 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has been met. The President may also include the item on the agenda of the next Commission meeting with a view to its adoption.\u201d\nArticle 2\nIn Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, a new point 5a shall be added, worded as follows:\n\u201c5a. The Directorate-General responsible for economic and financial affairs must be consulted on all initiatives relating to or having a potential impact on growth, competitiveness or economic stability in the European Union or in the euro area.\u201d\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2011.", "references": ["36", "57", "42", "52", "66", "22", "78", "29", "45", "53", "38", "73", "76", "4", "83", "55", "85", "87", "54", "65", "47", "44", "16", "19", "71", "35", "60", "77", "24", "51", "No Label", "1", "7", "15", "32"], "gold": ["1", "7", "15", "32"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 449/2011\nof 6 May 2011\nentering certain names in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ( (Shaanxi ping guo) (PDO), (Longjing Cha) (PDO), (Guanxi Mi You) (PDO), (Lixian Ma Shan Yao) (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the applications of the People\u2019s Republic of China to register the names \u2018\n(Shaanxi ping guo)\u2019, \u2018\n(Longjing Cha)\u2019, \u2018\n(Guanxi Mi You)\u2019 and \u2018\n(Lixian Ma Shan Yao)\u2019 were published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, these names should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe names contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2011.", "references": ["93", "37", "58", "4", "40", "12", "43", "28", "21", "23", "66", "83", "9", "26", "84", "13", "53", "70", "63", "64", "97", "47", "7", "52", "98", "56", "49", "27", "80", "71", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "95", "96"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1204/2011\nof 18 November 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["27", "73", "72", "42", "87", "11", "37", "76", "79", "70", "61", "89", "41", "53", "67", "4", "51", "50", "56", "82", "34", "95", "1", "98", "96", "63", "64", "39", "71", "22", "No Label", "21", "38", "86", "90"], "gold": ["21", "38", "86", "90"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1078/2010\nof 23 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in EU waters of IIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of Germany\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 November 2010.", "references": ["29", "64", "49", "57", "85", "51", "61", "40", "14", "47", "74", "73", "98", "80", "11", "48", "79", "33", "24", "2", "60", "20", "99", "78", "26", "59", "7", "38", "66", "92", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 525/2011\nof 27 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2011.", "references": ["68", "74", "89", "24", "82", "53", "69", "7", "84", "88", "0", "16", "62", "5", "39", "76", "51", "52", "10", "14", "41", "80", "54", "31", "26", "36", "81", "15", "4", "23", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1184/2010\nof 14 December 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1111/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["98", "41", "82", "92", "36", "31", "60", "95", "2", "5", "91", "39", "34", "90", "55", "13", "33", "59", "32", "88", "70", "49", "47", "20", "11", "66", "78", "14", "9", "42", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 822/2012\nof 12 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in area VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2012.", "references": ["25", "37", "80", "53", "94", "23", "70", "12", "72", "32", "35", "89", "15", "98", "36", "21", "22", "9", "26", "85", "78", "45", "93", "7", "62", "8", "87", "64", "2", "82", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 11 October 2011\nallowing Member States to extend provisional authorisations granted for the new active substances benalaxyl-M, gamma-cyhalothrin and valifenalate\n(notified under document C(2011) 7092)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/671/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (2), and in particular Article 80(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Directive 91/414/EEC shall continue to apply to active substances for which a decision has been adopted in accordance with Article 6(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC before 14 June 2011.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in February 2002 Portugal received an application from ISAGRO IT for the inclusion of the active substance benalaxyl-M in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2003/35/EC (3) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in August 2001 the United Kingdom received an application from Pytech Chemicals GmbH for the inclusion of the active substance gamma-cyhalothrin in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2004/686/EC (4) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in September 2005 Hungary received an application from ISAGRO SpA for the inclusion of the active substance valifenalate, previously referred to as valiphenal, in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2006/586/EC (5) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(5)\nConfirmation of the completeness of the dossiers was necessary in order to allow them to be examined in detail and to allow Member States the possibility of granting provisional authorisations, for periods of up to 3 years, for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned, while complying with the conditions laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and, in particular, the conditions relating to the detailed assessment of the active substances and the plant protection products in the light of the requirements laid down by that Directive.\n(6)\nFor these active substances, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicants. The rapporteur Member States submitted the respective draft assessment reports to the Commission on 21 November 2003 (benalaxyl-M), on 25 January 2008 (gamma-cyhalothrin) and on 19 February 2008 (valifenalate).\n(7)\nFollowing submission of the draft assessment reports by the rapporteur Member States, it has been found to be necessary to request further information from the applicants and to have the rapporteur Member States examine that information and submit their assessment. Therefore, the examination of the dossiers is still ongoing and it will not be possible to complete the evaluation within the time-frame provided for in Directive 91/414/EEC, read in conjunction with Commission Decisions 2009/579/EC (6) (benalaxyl-M) and 2009/865/EC (7) (gamma-cyhalothrin).\n(8)\nAs the evaluation so far has not identified any reason for immediate concern, Member States should be given the possibility of prolonging provisional authorisations granted for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned for a period of 24 months in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of Directive 91/414/EEC so as to enable the examination of the dossiers to continue. It is expected that the evaluation and decision-making process with respect to a decision on a possible approval in accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 for benalaxyl-M, gamma-cyhalothrin and valifenalate will have been completed within 24 months.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States may extend provisional authorisations for plant protection products containing benalaxyl-M, gamma-cyhalothrin or valifenalate for a period ending on 31 October 2013 at the latest.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall expire on 31 October 2013.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 October 2011.", "references": ["32", "29", "17", "3", "43", "60", "76", "84", "92", "23", "14", "40", "54", "97", "33", "94", "21", "10", "35", "22", "63", "98", "49", "0", "80", "70", "45", "55", "96", "73", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/90/EU\nof 7 December 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include pyridaben as active substance and amending Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included pyridaben.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the applicant withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of pyridaben.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the Netherlands, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe Netherlands evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 15 June 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on pyridaben to the Commission on 28 May 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 October 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for pyridaben.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing pyridaben may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include pyridaben in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information to confirm the results of the risk assessment on the basis of most recent scientific knowledge as regards the exposure to the aqueous photolysis metabolites W-1 and B-3, the long term risk for mammals, the assessment of fat soluble residues.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing pyridaben to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8 (2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of pyridaben and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning pyridaben in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning pyridaben in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31 October 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 November 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing pyridaben as an active substance by 1 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to pyridaben are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing pyridaben as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 30 April 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning pyridaben. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing pyridaben as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 April 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing pyridaben as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 April 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 May 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2010.", "references": ["53", "22", "13", "21", "92", "71", "93", "54", "88", "96", "47", "4", "62", "32", "86", "73", "48", "85", "19", "8", "72", "43", "29", "80", "39", "51", "6", "55", "7", "18", "No Label", "2", "25", "41", "65", "76"], "gold": ["2", "25", "41", "65", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 101/2012\nof 6 February 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1), and in particular Article 19(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 338/97 lists animal and plant species in respect of which trade is restricted or controlled. Those lists incorporate the lists set out in the Appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), hereinafter \u2018the Convention\u2019.\n(2)\nThe following species have been included recently in Appendix III to the Convention: Calyptocephalella gayi at the request of Chile; Agrias amydon boliviensis, Morpho godartii lachaumei, and Prepona praeneste buckleyana at the request of Bolivia; Cedrela fissilis and Cedrela lilloi (both with annotation) at the request of Bolivia; Cedrela odorata (with annotation) at the request of Bolivia and Brazil; Lodoicea maldivica at the request of the Seychelles; Pinus koraiensis at the request of Russia.\n(3)\nLamna nasus is subject to conservation and management measures within the Union, in particular to those provided for in Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2). With a view to fostering international cooperation for the control of trade in specimens of the Lamna nasus species, the Commission intends to propose that the Member States include the species in Appendix III to the Convention; Lamna nasus should therefore be included in Annex C of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and that inclusion applies as soon as the inclusion in Appendix III to the Convention takes effect.\n(4)\nThe amendments made to Appendix III to the Convention therefore necessitate amendments to Annex C of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 338/97.\n(5)\nIt has been established that the introduction of live specimens belonging to three squirrel species (Callosciurus erythraeus, Sciurus carolinensis and Sciurus niger) into the natural habitat of the Union would constitute an ecological threat to endangered wild species of fauna indigenous to the Union. Threats, and/or potential threats, to the Eurasian red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris), as well as to plant communities and habitats have been demonstrated or anticipated by several ad hoc studies and surveys. Threats for the Eurasian red squirrel are a combination of competitive exclusion (over food resources or habitat) and resistance to disease. Threats on ecosytems include predation on birds\u2019 eggs and chicks and competition with woodland birds for nest sites and food, and damage to woodland and timber plantations through bark-stripping. Specimens of those three invasive species are currently traded into the Union and the species should therefore be included in Annex B of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 in accordance with Article 3(2)(d) thereof.\n(6)\nTrade in specimens from the species Haliotis midae needs to be monitored. This species should therefore be included in Annex D of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 338/97.\n(7)\nA definition of the term \u2018cultivar\u2019 should be inserted in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 in order to implement CITES Resolution Conf. 11.11 (Rev. CoP 15) on Regulation of Trade in Plants.\n(8)\nIn order to distinguish between wild and artificially propagated specimens of Tillandsia xerographica, this species already included in Annex B needs to be accompanied by an annotation which specifies that trade of artificially propagated specimens is allowed only for those specimens which possess certain recognizable morphological characteristics (cataphylls).\n(9)\nAn inconsistency in the nomenclatural references in Annex D of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 as regards the family Gerrhosauridae should be corrected.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 338/97 should therefore be amended accordingly. In view of the extent of the amendments it is appropriate, for clarity purposes, to replace the Annex to that Regulation in its entirety.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora established pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 February 2012.", "references": ["10", "14", "12", "70", "63", "77", "86", "79", "65", "37", "34", "43", "72", "25", "73", "60", "45", "82", "75", "20", "30", "80", "39", "74", "27", "68", "44", "95", "84", "90", "No Label", "23", "58", "59"], "gold": ["23", "58", "59"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 79/2012\nof 31 January 2012\nlaying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 concerning administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax\n(recast)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax (1) and, in particular Articles 14, 32, 48 and 49 and Article 51(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nTo improve and supplement the instruments to combat fraud, Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 of 7 October 2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 (2) has been recast and repealed by Regulation (EU) No 904/2010. The rules as they can be found in Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 should be reflected at the level of the acts implementing Regulation (EU) No 904/2010.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1925/2004 of 29 October 2004 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 concerning administrative cooperation in the field of value-added tax (3) has been substantially amended. Since further amendments are to be made following the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 and in order to have a single set of rules on the exchange of information it should be recast in the interests of clarity together with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1174/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down rules for the implementation of Articles 34a and 37 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 as regards refunds of value added tax under Council Directive 2008/9/EC (4).\n(3)\nIn order to facilitate the exchange of information between Member States it is necessary to specify the exact categories of information to be exchanged without prior request, as well as the frequency with which those exchanges are to be made, and the relevant practical arrangements. To the extent that Member States intend to abstain from such exchange, they should notify it to the Commission in accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 information shall be communicated between tax authorities as far as possible by electronic means. Consequently, the practical arrangements and technical details should be laid down.\n(5)\nPractical arrangements should be determined for the provision of information relating to invoicing rules, value added tax (VAT) rates applicable in the context of the special schemes applicable to non-established taxable persons and the additional electronic coded information referred to in Article 9(2) of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (5).\n(6)\nIn order to ensure that Member States are able to effectively make use of the possibilities to require the information foreseen by certain provisions of Directive 2008/9/EC, it is necessary to specify the relevant harmonised codes to be applied when exchanging the relevant information, including the means through which such exchange should take place, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 904/2010.\n(7)\nArticle 9(2) of Directive 2008/9/EC provides that the Member State of refund may require the applicant to provide additional electronic coded information supplementing the codes set out in Article 9(1) of Directive 2008/9/EC, to the extent that such information is necessary due to any restrictions on the right of deduction under Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (6), or for the implementation of a derogation received by the Member State of refund under Article 395 or 396 of that Directive.\n(8)\nPursuant to Article 48(2) of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, the competent authorities of the Member State of refund are to notify by electronic means the competent authorities of the other Member States of any information required by them under Article 9(2) of Directive 2008/9/EC.\n(9)\nFor that purpose, the technical details for the transmission of the additional information required by Member States under Article 9(2) of Directive 2008/9/EC should be determined. In particular, the codes to be used for the transmission of this information should be specified. The codes set out in Annex III to this Regulation have been developed by the Standing Committee on Administrative Cooperation (SCAC) on the basis of the information required by Member States for the purposes of applying Article 9(2) of Directive 2008/9/EC.\n(10)\nApplicants may be required according to Article 11 of Directive 2008/9/EC to provide a description of their business activity using harmonised codes. For that purpose, the commonly used codes provided for in Article 2(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the statistical classification of economic activities NACE Revision 2 and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 as well as certain EC Regulations on specific statistical domains (7) should be employed.\n(11)\nArticle 25 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 states that the requested authority shall, at the request of the requesting authority, notify the addressee of all instruments and decisions emanating from the administrative authorities and concerning the application of VAT legislation in the Member State in which the requesting authority is established.\n(12)\nWhere a Member State of refund requests the Member State of establishment to notify the applicant of its decisions and instruments for the purposes of the application of Directive 2008/9/EC, for reasons of data protection, it should be possible that such notification be made via the common communication network/common system interface (CCN/CSI) as defined in Article 2(1)(q) of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010.\n(13)\nRules should be laid down implementing, inter alia, Article 48 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 as regards the introduction of administrative cooperation and the exchange of information concerning the rules relating to the place of supply of services, the special schemes and the refund procedure for value added tax.\n(14)\nFinally, it is necessary to establish a list of the statistical data needed for the evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Administrative Cooperation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down detailed rules for implementing Articles 14, 32, 48 and 49 and Article 51(1) of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010.\nArticle 2\nCategories of information to be exchanged without prior request\nThe categories of information subject to automatic exchange, in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, shall be the following:\n(1)\ninformation on non-established traders;\n(2)\ninformation on new means of transport.\nArticle 3\nSubcategories of information to be exchanged without prior request\n1. In respect of non-established traders the information subject to automatic exchange shall be the following:\n(a)\ninformation on the allocation of VAT identification numbers to taxable persons established in another Member State;\n(b)\ninformation on VAT refunds to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State pursuant to Council Directive 2008/9/EC.\n2. In respect of new means of transport, the information subject to automatic exchange shall be the following:\n(a)\ninformation on supplies exempted in accordance with Article 138(2)(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC, of new means of transport as defined in Article 2(2), (a) and (b)of that Directive, by persons regarded as taxable persons pursuant to Article 9(2) of that Directive who are identified for VAT purposes;\n(b)\ninformation on supplies exempted in accordance with Article 138(2)(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC, of new vessels and aircraft as defined in Article 2(2), (a) and (b) of that Directive, by taxable persons identified for VAT purposes, other than those referred to in point (a), to persons not identified for VAT purposes;\n(c)\ninformation on supplies exempted in accordance with Article 138(2)(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC, of new motorised land vehicles as defined in Article 2(2), (a) and (b) of that Directive, by taxable persons identified for VAT purposes, other than those referred to in point (a), to persons not identified for VAT purposes.\nArticle 4\nNotification of abstention from participation in the exchange of information without prior request\nBy 20 May 2012 each Member State shall notify the Commission in writing of its decision, taken in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, as to whether it is going to abstain from taking part in the automatic exchange of one or more categories or subcategories of information referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of this Regulation. The Commission shall inform the other Member States accordingly of the categories for which a Member State has abstained.\nArticle 5\nFrequency of the transmission of the information\nIn cases where the automatic exchange system is being used, information concerning the categories and subcategories referred to respectively in Articles 2 and 3 shall be provided as soon as it becomes available, and in any event within 3 months of the end of the calendar quarter during which that information has become available.\nArticle 6\nTransmission of communications\n1. Information communicated pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 shall, as far as possible, be transmitted only by electronic means via the CCN/CSI network, with the exception of the following:\n(a)\nthe request for notification referred to in Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 and the instrument or decision of which notification is requested;\n(b)\noriginal documents provided pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010.\n2. The competent authorities of the Member States may agree to communicate the information referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 by electronic means.\nArticle 7\nInformation to taxable persons\n1. Member States shall provide the details on invoicing listed in Annex I to this Regulation in accordance with Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 via the web portal established by the Commission.\n2. The Commission shall make the web portal referred to in paragraph 1 available for those Member States choosing to publish the following additional information:\n(a)\nthe information on storage of invoices listed in Annex II;\n(b)\nthe additional electronic coded information required by Member States pursuant to Article 9(2) of Directive 2008/9/EC;\n(c)\nuntil 31 December 2014 the standard tax rate referred to in the second paragraph of Article 42 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010;\n(d)\nas from 1 January 2015 the tax rate applicable for supplies of telecommunication services, broadcasting services and electronically supplied services referred to in the second paragraph of Article 47 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010.\nArticle 8\nInformation exchanged in the framework of VAT refund\nWhere a Member State of refund notifies other Member States that it requires additional electronic coded information as provided for in Article 9(2) of Directive 2008/9/EC, the codes specified in Annex III to this Regulation shall be used for the purposes of transmitting this information.\nArticle 9\nDescription relating to the business activity exchanged in the framework of VAT refund\nWhere a Member State of refund requires a description of the applicants business activity as provided for in Article 11 of Directive 2008/9/EC, such information shall be given at the fourth level of the NACE Rev. 2 codes, as provided for in Article 2(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006.\nArticle 10\nNotification of instruments and decisions relating to a VAT refund\nWhere a Member State of refund requests a Member State of establishment of an addressee to notify instruments and decisions relating to a refund under Directive 2008/9/EC to the addressee, that notification request may be transmitted via the CCN/CSI network as defined in Article 2(1)(q) of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010.\nArticle 11\nStatistical data\nThe list of statistical data referred to in Article 49(3) of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 is set out in Annex IV.\nEach Member State shall, before 30 April each year by electronic means, communicate to the Commission the statistical data referred to in the first paragraph, using the model set out in Annex IV.\nArticle 12\nCommunication of national measures\nMember States shall communicate to the Commission the text of any laws, regulations or administrative provisions which they apply in the field covered by this Regulation.\nThe Commission shall communicate those measures to the other Member States.\nArticle 13\nRepeal\nRegulations (EC) No 1925/2004 and (EC) No 1174/2009 are repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulations shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex VI.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2012.", "references": ["91", "76", "73", "25", "6", "5", "58", "99", "64", "81", "53", "27", "56", "57", "10", "86", "24", "50", "79", "12", "22", "55", "1", "46", "18", "88", "75", "83", "72", "38", "No Label", "2", "19", "34", "40", "41", "54"], "gold": ["2", "19", "34", "40", "41", "54"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/735/CFSP\nof 14 November 2011\namending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1).\n(2)\nOn 23 October 2011, the European Council stated that the EU would impose further measures against the Syrian regime as long as the repression of the civilian population continued.\n(3)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, the Council considers it necessary to impose additional restrictive measures.\n(4)\nThe European Investment Bank should suspend the disbursement or other payments under or in connection with existing loan agreements with Syria as well as existing Technical Assistance Service Contracts for sovereign projects located in Syria.\n(5)\nFurthermore, the information relating to one person on the list in Annex I to Decision 2011/273/CFSP should be updated.\n(6)\nDecision 2011/273/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Decision 2011/273/CFSP, the following article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 2e\nThe following shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nany disbursement or payment by the European Investment Bank (EIB) under or in connection with any existing loan agreements entered into between Syria and the EIB;\n(b)\nthe continuation by the EIB of any existing Technical Assistance Service Contracts for sovereign projects located in Syria.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex I to Decision 2011/273/CFSP, the entry for Nizar AL-ASSAAD shall be replaced by the entry set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["93", "82", "40", "5", "70", "27", "57", "99", "9", "51", "52", "78", "97", "42", "34", "13", "47", "53", "35", "31", "48", "86", "63", "36", "15", "81", "26", "59", "37", "32", "No Label", "3", "10", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "10", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 231/2011\nof 9 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2011.", "references": ["38", "2", "58", "25", "3", "24", "49", "55", "89", "44", "17", "79", "15", "14", "75", "78", "41", "1", "39", "65", "98", "64", "80", "18", "56", "51", "30", "96", "83", "87", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 740/2011\nof 27 July 2011\napproving the active substance bispyribac, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply, with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval, to active substances for which a decision has been adopted in accordance with Article 6(3) of that Directive before 14 June 2011. For bispyribac the conditions of Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 are fulfilled by Commission Decision 2003/305/EC (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC Italy received on 26 February 2002 an application from Bayer CropScience for the inclusion of the active substance bispyribac (also called bispyribac sodium, according to the form in which the active substance is contained in the representative formulation on which the dossier is based) in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Decision 2003/305/EC confirmed that the dossier was \u2018complete\u2019 in the sense that it could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annexes II and III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nFor that active substance, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicant. The designated rapporteur Member State submitted a draft assessment report on 1 August 2003.\n(4)\nThe draft assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the format of the EFSA conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance bispyribac on 12 July 2010 (4). This report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and was finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for bispyribac.\n(5)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing bispyribac may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) and Article 5(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve bispyribac.\n(6)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing bispyribac. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(7)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (5) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (6) should be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nIn the interest of clarity, Commission Directive 2011/22/EU of 3 March 2011 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include bispyribac as active substance (7) should be repealed.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance bispyribac, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing bispyribac as active substance by 31 January 2012.\nBy that date, they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing bispyribac as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 July 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing bispyribac as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 January 2013 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing bispyribac as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 January 2013 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nRepeal\nDirective 2011/22/EU is repealed.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2011.", "references": ["26", "50", "11", "80", "90", "92", "63", "7", "30", "32", "69", "2", "33", "85", "83", "28", "70", "86", "31", "74", "46", "73", "84", "97", "72", "34", "62", "45", "75", "15", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 970/2010\nof 28 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Lapin Poron kuivaliha (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Finland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Lapin Poron kuivaliha\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 October 2010.", "references": ["0", "85", "86", "61", "55", "80", "36", "79", "92", "42", "28", "37", "22", "53", "19", "56", "31", "30", "43", "99", "40", "94", "2", "33", "87", "49", "47", "6", "57", "1", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 988/2011\nof 4 October 2011\nestablishing a derogation from Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 as regards the minimum distance from coast and the minimum sea depth for boat seines fishing for transparent goby (Aphia minuta) in certain territorial waters of Italy\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea (1), and in particular Article 13(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 prohibits the use of towed gears within 3 nautical miles of the coast or within the 50 m isobath where that depth is reached.\n(2)\nAt the request of a Member State, the Commission may allow a derogation from the prohibition set out in Article 13(1)of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006, provided that a number of conditions set out in Article 13(5) and(9) are fulfilled.\n(3)\nOn 16 March 2010 Italy has requested a derogation from Article 13(1) of that Regulation for the use of boat seines fishing for transparent goby (Aphia minuta) in the territorial waters of the Geographical Sub-Area 9 (GSA 9), as defined under the Agreement establishing the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (2).\n(4)\nThe request covers vessels registered in the maritime Directorates of Genoa and Livorno which have a track record in the fishery of more than 5 years and operate under a management plan regulating boat seines fishing for transparent goby (Aphia minuta) in GSA 9.\n(5)\nThe Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) has assessed the derogation requested by Italy and the related draft management plan at its plenary session held from 8 to 12 November 2010.\n(6)\nItaly has adopted the management plan by Decree (3) in accordance with Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.\n(7)\nThe derogation requested by Italy complies with the conditions set out in Article 13(5) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.\n(8)\nIn particular, given both the limited size of the continental shelf and the spatial distribution of the target species, which is exclusively limited to certain zones in the coastal areas at depths smaller than 50m, the fishing grounds are limited.\n(9)\nMoreover, the fishery cannot be undertaken with other gears, has no significant impact on protected habitats and is very selective, since the seines are hauled in the water column and do not touch the seabed because collection of material from the seabed would damage the target species and make the selection of the fished species virtually impossible due to their very small size.\n(10)\nThe derogation requested by Italy affects a limited number of vessels, i.e. 142 vessels.\n(11)\nThe fishing activities concerned fulfil the requirements of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 since the Italian management plan explicitly prohibits to fish above protected habitats.\n(12)\nThe requirements of Article 8(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 are not applicable since they relate to trawlers.\n(13)\nSince the fishing activities concerned are highly selective, have a negligible effect on the environment and are not carried out above protected habitats, they are eligible for the derogation to the minimum mesh size referred to in Article 9(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006. Therefore, the minimum mesh size rules set by Article 9(3)(2) do not apply.\n(14)\nThe Italian management plan includes measures for the monitoring of fishing activities, thus fulfilling the conditions set out in Article 23 and in the third subparagraph of Article 13(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.\n(15)\nThe fishing activities concerned take place at a very short distance from the coast and therefore do not interfere with the activities of other vessels.\n(16)\nThe Italian management plan ensures that catches of species mentioned in Annex III are minimal and that the fishing activities do not target cephalopods.\n(17)\nItaly communicated to the Commission the list of authorised fishing vessels and their characteristics, as well as the comparison with the characteristics of that fleet on 1 January 2000.\n(18)\nAccordingly, the requested derogation should be granted.\n(19)\nItaly should report to the Commission in due time and in accordance with the monitoring plan provided for in the Italian management plan.\n(20)\nIn line with the request by Italy, a limitation in duration of the derogation will allow ensuring prompt corrective management measures in case the report to the Commission will show a poor conservation status of the exploited stock while providing scope to improve the scientific basis for an improved management plan.\n(21)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDerogation\nArticle 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 shall not apply, in territorial waters of Italy adjacent to the coast of Liguria and Tuscany, to fishing for transparent goby (Aphia minuta) by boat seines which are used by vessels:\n(a)\nregistered in the maritime Directorates (Direzioni Marittime) of Genoa and Livorno respectively;\n(b)\nhaving a track record in the fishery of more than 5 years; and\n(c)\nholding a fishing authorisation and operating under the management plan adopted by Italy in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the management plan\u2019) (4).\nThis derogation shall apply until 31 March 2014.\nArticle 2\nMonitoring plan and report\nItaly shall communicate to the Commission, by 1 May 2014, a report drawn up in accordance with the monitoring plan established in the management plan.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 October 2011.", "references": ["24", "82", "11", "45", "95", "51", "86", "66", "34", "10", "80", "46", "4", "56", "17", "2", "9", "69", "22", "59", "88", "61", "39", "21", "89", "78", "19", "31", "41", "48", "No Label", "8", "13", "67", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "13", "67", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 21 October 2010\non guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States\n(2010/707/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 148(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (3),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee (4),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) stipulates in Article 145 that Member States and the Union shall work towards developing a coordinated strategy for employment and particularly for promoting a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce as well as labour markets that are responsive to economic change and with a view to achieving the objectives defined in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). Member States, having regard to national practices related to the responsibilities of management and labour, shall regard promoting employment as a matter of common concern and shall coordinate their action in this respect within the Council, in accordance with the provisions of Article 148 of the TFEU.\n(2)\nThe TEU stipulates in Article 3(3) that the Union shall aim at full employment and shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection and provides for the Union\u2019s initiatives to ensure coordination of Member States\u2019 social policies. Article 8 of the TFEU stipulates that in all its activities, the Union shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women. Article 9 thereof provides that in defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education and training.\n(3)\nThe TFEU provides that employment guidelines and broad economic policy guidelines are to be adopted by the Council to guide Member States\u2019 policies.\n(4)\nThe Lisbon Strategy, launched in 2000, was based on an acknowledgement of the EU\u2019s need to increase its employment, productivity and competitiveness, while enhancing social cohesion, in the face of global competition, technological change, environmental challenges and an ageing population. The Lisbon Strategy was relaunched in 2005, after a mid-term review which led to greater focus on growth and more and better jobs.\n(5)\nThe Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs helped forge consensus around the broad direction of the EU\u2019s economic and employment policies. Under the strategy, both broad economic policy guidelines and employment guidelines were adopted by the Council Decision 2005/600/EC (5) and revised in Council Decision 2008/618/EC (6). The 24 guidelines laid the foundations for the National Reform Programmes, outlining the key macroeconomic, microeconomic and labour market reform priorities for the Union as a whole. However, experience shows that the guidelines did not set clear enough priorities and that links between them could have been stronger. This limited their impact on national policymaking.\n(6)\nThe financial and economic crisis that started in 2008 resulted in a significant loss in jobs and potential output and has led to a dramatic deterioration in public finances. The European Economic Recovery Plan has nevertheless helped Member States to deal with the crisis, partly through a coordinated fiscal stimulus, with the euro providing an anchor for macroeconomic stability. The crisis therefore showed that when the coordination of Union policies is strengthened and rendered effective, it can deliver significant results. The crisis also underscored the close interdependence of the Member States\u2019 economic and employment performance.\n(7)\nThe Commission proposed to set up a new strategy for the next decade, known as \u2018the Europe 2020 Strategy\u2019, to enable the Union to emerge stronger from the crisis, and to turn its economy towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, accompanied by high level employment, productivity and social cohesion. Five headline targets, listed under the relevant guidelines, constitute shared objectives which guide the action of the Member States, taking into account their relative starting positions and national circumstances, and which also guide the action of the Union. The Member States should, furthermore, make every effort to meet the national targets and to remove the bottlenecks that constrain growth.\n(8)\nAs part of comprehensive \u2018exit strategies\u2019 for the economic crisis, Member States should carry out ambitious reforms to ensure macroeconomic stability, the promotion of more and better jobs and the sustainability of public finance, improve competitiveness and productivity, reduce macroeconomic imbalances and enhance labour market performance. The withdrawal of the fiscal stimulus should be implemented and coordinated within the framework of the Stability and Growth Pact.\n(9)\nWithin the Europe 2020 strategy, Member States and the Union should implement reforms aimed at \u2018smart growth\u2019, i.e. growth driven by knowledge and innovation. Reforms should aim at improving the quality of education and ensuring access for all, as well as strengthening research, business performance and further improving the regulatory framework in order to promote innovation and knowledge transfer throughout the Union. Reforms should encourage entrepreneurship, the development of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and help to turn creative ideas into innovative products, services and processes that can create growth, quality and sustainable jobs, territorial, economic and social cohesion, and address more efficiently European and global societal challenges. Making the most of information and communication technologies is essential in this context.\n(10)\nThe policies of the Union and of Member States, including their reform programmes, should aim at \u2018sustainable growth\u2019. Sustainable growth means building an energy and resource-efficient, sustainable and competitive economy, a fair distribution of the cost and benefits and exploiting Europe\u2019s leadership in the race to develop new processes and technologies, including green technologies. Member States and the Union should implement the necessary reforms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and use resources efficiently, which will also help to prevent environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. They should also improve the business environment, stimulate the creation of green jobs and help enterprises to modernise their industrial base.\n(11)\nThe policies of the Union and Member States\u2019 reform programmes should also aim at \u2018inclusive growth\u2019. Inclusive growth means building a cohesive society in which people are empowered to anticipate and manage change and consequently to actively participate in society and the economy. Member States\u2019 reforms should therefore ensure access and opportunities for all throughout their lifecycle, thus reducing poverty and social exclusion through removing barriers to labour market participation, especially for women, older workers, young people, people with disabilities and legal migrants. They should also make sure that the benefits of economic growth reach all citizens and all regions and foster employment-enhancing growth, based on decent work. Ensuring the effective functioning of the labour markets through investing in successful transitions, education and training systems, appropriate skills development, raising job quality, and fighting segmentation, structural unemployment, youth unemployment, and inactivity while ensuring adequate, sustainable social protection and active inclusion to prevent and reduce poverty, with particular attention to combating in-work poverty and reducing poverty amongst the groups most at risk from social exclusion, including children and young people, while at the same time adhering to agreed fiscal consolidation, should therefore be at the heart of Member States\u2019 reform programmes.\n(12)\nIncreased labour market participation by women is a precondition for boosting growth and for tackling the demographic challenges. A visible gender equality perspective, integrated into all relevant policy areas, is therefore crucial for the implementation of all aspects of the guidelines in the Member States. Conditions should be created to support the supply of adequate, affordable, high-quality childcare services for pre-school age children. The principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value should be applied.\n(13)\nThe Union\u2019s and Member States\u2019 structural reforms can effectively contribute to growth and jobs if they enhance the Union\u2019s competitiveness in the global economy, open up new opportunities for Europe\u2019s exporters and provide competitive access to vital imports. Reforms should therefore take into account their external competitiveness implications to foster European growth and participation in open and fair markets worldwide.\n(14)\nThe Europe 2020 strategy has to be underpinned by an integrated set of European and national policies, which Member States and the Union should implement fully and in a timely manner, in order to achieve the positive spillover effects of coordinated structural reforms and a more consistent contribution from European policies to the strategy\u2019s objectives. The guidelines are a framework for Member States in devising, implementing and monitoring national policies in the context of the overall EU strategy. The Europe 2020 headline targets listed under the relevant guidelines should guide the Member States in defining their own national targets and any sub-targets, taking account of their relative starting positions and national circumstances, and according to their national decision-making procedures. Where they do so, Member States may wish to draw on the indicators developed by the Employment Committee or the Social Protection Committee, as appropriate. The headline employment target draws attention to reducing unemployment of vulnerable groups, including young people.\n(15)\nCohesion policy and its structural funds are amongst a number of important delivery mechanisms to achieve the priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in Member States and regions. In its conclusions of 17 June 2010, the European Council stressed the importance of promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion in order to contribute to the success of the new Europe 2020 strategy.\n(16)\nWhen designing and implementing their National Reform Programmes taking account of these guidelines, Member States should ensure effective governance of employment policy. While these guidelines are addressed to Member States, the Europe 2020 strategy should, as appropriate, be implemented, monitored and evaluated in partnership with all national, regional and local authorities, closely associating parliaments, as well as social partners and representatives of civil society, who shall contribute to the elaboration of National Reform Programmes, to their implementation and to the overall communication on the strategy.\n(17)\nThe Europe 2020 strategy is underpinned by a smaller set of guidelines, replacing the previous set of 24 and addressing employment and broad economic policy issues in a coherent manner. The guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, annexed to this Decision, are intrinsically linked with the guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union, annexed to Council Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union (7). Together, they form the \u2018Europe 2020 integrated guidelines\u2019.\n(18)\nThese new integrated guidelines are in line with the conclusions of the European Council. They give precise guidance to the Member States on defining their National Reform Programmes and implementing reforms, reflecting interdependence and in line with the Stability and Growth Pact. The employment guidelines should form the basis for any country-specific recommendations that the Council may address to the Member States pursuant to Article 148(4) of the TFEU, in parallel with the country-specific recommendations addressed to the Member States pursuant to Article 121(4) of that Treaty, in order to form a coherent package of recommendations. The employment guidelines should also form the basis for the establishment of the Joint Employment Report sent annually by the Council and the Commission to the European Council.\n(19)\nThe Employment Committee and the Social Protection Committee should monitor progress in relation to the employment and social aspects of the employment guidelines, in line with their respective Treaty-based mandates. This should in particular build on the activities of the open method of coordination in the fields of employment and of social protection and social inclusion. In addition the Employment Committee should maintain close contact with other relevant Council preparatory instances, including in the field of education.\n(20)\nEven though they must be drawn up each year, these guidelines should remain stable until 2014 to ensure a focus on implementation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe guidelines for Member States\u2019 employment policies, as set out in the Annex, are hereby adopted.\nArticle 2\nThe guidelines shall be taken into account in the employment policies of the Member States, which shall be reported upon in National Reform Programmes.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["99", "16", "68", "38", "40", "21", "3", "81", "71", "36", "97", "56", "22", "66", "17", "41", "83", "14", "59", "7", "63", "70", "34", "58", "67", "82", "12", "84", "93", "74", "No Label", "9", "37", "47", "49", "50", "51"], "gold": ["9", "37", "47", "49", "50", "51"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 818/2012\nof 12 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for megrims in areas VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2012.", "references": ["52", "83", "70", "9", "94", "2", "98", "8", "40", "21", "77", "17", "38", "80", "88", "24", "81", "58", "55", "62", "37", "86", "34", "85", "61", "64", "4", "53", "82", "26", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/486/CFSP\nof 1 August 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 May 2002, the Council adopted Common Position 2002/402/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Usama bin Laden, members of the Al-Qaida organisation and the Taliban and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them (1).\n(2)\nOn 17 June 2011, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution (\u2018UNSCR\u2019) 1988 (2011) recognising that the security situation in Afghanistan has evolved and that some members of the Taliban have reconciled with the Government of Afghanistan, have rejected the terrorist ideology of Al-Qaida and its followers, and support a peaceful resolution to the continuing conflict in Afghanistan.\n(3)\nUNSCR 1988 (2011) also recognised that notwithstanding the evolution of the situation in Afghanistan and progress in reconciliation, the situation remains a threat to international peace and security and reaffirmed the need to combat that threat.\n(4)\nUNSCR 1988 (2011) also imposed certain restrictive measures with respect to individuals and entities designated prior to 17 June 2011 as the Taliban, and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them, as specified in section A (\u2018Individuals associated with the Taliban\u2019) and section B (\u2018entities and other groups and undertaking associated with the Taliban\u2019) of the Consolidated List of the Committee established pursuant to UNSCR 1267 (1999) and UNSCR 1333 (2000) as of 17 June 2011, as well as other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with the Taliban in constituting a threat to the peace, stability and security of Afghanistan as designated by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to paragraph 30 of UNSCR 1988 (2011) (hereinafter the \u2018Sanctions Committee\u2019).\n(5)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Restrictive measures as provided for in Article 2, Articles 3(1) and 4(1) and (2) shall be imposed with respect to individuals and entities designated prior to 17 June 2011 as the Taliban, and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them, as specified in section A (\u2018Individuals associated with the Taliban\u2019) and section B (\u2018entities and other groups and undertaking associated with the Taliban\u2019) of the Consolidated List of the Committee established pursuant to UNSCR 1267 (1999) and UNSCR 1333 (2000) as of 17 June 2011, as well as other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with the Taliban in constituting a threat to the peace, stability and security of Afghanistan as designated by the Sanctions Committee.\n2. The relevant individuals, groups, undertakings and entities are listed in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nWith respect to the individuals, groups, undertakings and entities referred to in Article 1, Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the direct and indirect supply, sale or transfer to them, from the territories of Member States or by nationals of Member States, or using flag vessels or aircraft of Member States, of arms and related materiel of all types including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, and technical advice, assistance or training related to military activities.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of individuals referred to in Article 1.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where the entry or transit is necessary for the fulfilment of a judicial process or the Sanctions Committee determines on a case-by-case basis only that entry or transit is justified, including where this directly relates to supporting efforts by the Government of Afghanistan to promote reconciliation.\n4. In cases where, pursuant to paragraph 3, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of individuals designated by the Sanctions Committee, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the individuals concerned therewith.\nArticle 4\n1. All funds and other financial assets or economic resources of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities referred to in Article 1, including funds derived from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly, by them or by persons acting on their behalf or at their direction, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds, financial assets or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. Member States may allow for exemptions from the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 in respect of funds and other financial assets or economic resources which are:\n(a)\nnecessary for basic expenses, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgages, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for the routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds, other financial resources or economic resources;\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, after notification by the Member State concerned to, and approval by, the Sanctions Committee;\n4. The exemptions referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 3 may be made after notification to the Sanctions Committee by the Member State concerned of its intention to authorise, where appropriate, access to such funds, assets or resources, and in the absence of a negative decision by the Sanctions Committee within three working days of such notification.\n5. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to restrictive measures,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments remain subject to paragraph 1.\nArticle 5\nThe Council shall establish the list contained in the Annex and amend it in accordance with determinations made by either the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 6\n1. Where the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee lists an individual, group, undertaking or entity, the Council shall include such individual, group, undertaking or entity in the Annex. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the individual, group, undertaking or entity concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such individual, group, undertaking or entity an opportunity to present observations.\n2. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the individual, group, undertaking or entity accordingly.\nArticle 7\n1. The Annex shall include the grounds for listing of listed individuals, groups, undertakings or entities as provided by the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee.\n2. The Annex shall also include, where available, information provided by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee necessary to identify the individuals, groups, undertakings or entities concerned. With regard to individuals, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and identity card numbers, gender, address, if known and function or profession. With regard to groups, undertakings or entities such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. The Annex shall also include the date of designation by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision shall be reviewed, amended or repealed, as appropriate, in accordance with relevant decisions of the Security Council.\nArticle 9\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 1 August 2011.", "references": ["99", "88", "8", "50", "97", "48", "51", "90", "0", "55", "35", "62", "76", "1", "83", "43", "63", "41", "10", "45", "33", "42", "96", "58", "67", "49", "94", "28", "77", "40", "No Label", "3", "5", "12", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "12", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 932/2010\nof 18 October 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of October 2010 under tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 of 4 June 2007 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat originating in Brazil, Thailand and other third countries (3), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 616/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of products in the poultrymeat sector.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of October 2010 for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined and an allocation coefficient\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 October 2010.", "references": ["8", "91", "68", "98", "35", "14", "46", "43", "57", "61", "63", "59", "3", "77", "65", "89", "24", "41", "67", "83", "39", "66", "18", "82", "52", "20", "50", "80", "90", "55", "No Label", "4", "21", "23", "69", "93", "95", "96"], "gold": ["4", "21", "23", "69", "93", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 270/2011\nof 21 March 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2011/172/CFSP provides for the freezing of funds and economic resources of certain persons having been identified as responsible for the misappropriation of Egyptian State funds, and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, who are thus depriving the Egyptian people of the benefits of the sustainable development of their economy and society and undermining the development of democracy in the country. These natural or legal persons, entities and bodies are listed in the Annex to Decision 2011/172/CFSP.\n(2)\nThese measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, notably with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement them.\n(3)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the right to the protection of personal data. This Regulation should be applied in accordance with those rights.\n(4)\nThe power to amend the list in Annex I to this Regulation should be exercised by the Council, in view of the seriousness of the political and security situation in Egypt and to ensure consistency with the process for amending and reviewing the Annex to Decision 2011/172/CFSP.\n(5)\nThe procedure for amending the list in Annex I to this Regulation should include providing natural or legal persons, entities or bodies concerned with the grounds for their listing, so as to give them an opportunity to submit observations. Where observations are submitted, or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision on Annex I in light of those observations and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n(6)\nFor the implementation of this Regulation, and in order to create maximum legal certainty within the Union, the names and other relevant data concerning natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources must be frozen in accordance with this Regulation, must be made public. Any processing of personal data should comply with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (2) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (3).\n(7)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, it should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018funds\u2019 means financial assets and benefits of every kind, including but not limited to:\n(i)\ncash, cheques, claims on money, drafts, money orders and other payment instruments;\n(ii)\ndeposits with financial institutions or other entities, balances on accounts, debts and debt obligations;\n(iii)\npublicly and privately traded securities and debt instruments, including stocks and shares, certificates representing securities, bonds, notes, warrants, debentures and derivatives contracts;\n(iv)\ninterest, dividends or other income on or value accruing from or generated by assets;\n(v)\ncredit, right of set-off, guarantees, performance bonds or other financial commitments;\n(vi)\nletters of credit, bills of lading and bills of sale;\n(vii)\ndocuments evidencing an interest in funds or financial resources;\n(b)\n\u2018freezing of funds\u2019 means preventing any move, transfer, alteration, use of, access to, or dealing with funds in any way that would result in any change in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination or other change that would enable the funds to be used, including portfolio management;\n(c)\n\u2018economic resources\u2019 means assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which are not funds but may be used to obtain funds, goods or services;\n(d)\n\u2018freezing of economic resources\u2019 means preventing their use to obtain funds, goods or services in any way, including, but not limited to, by selling, hiring or mortgaging them;\n(e)\n\u2018territory of the Union\u2019 means the territories of the Member States to which the Treaty is applicable, under the conditions laid down in the Treaty, including their airspace.\nArticle 2\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by, persons who, as referred to in Article 1(1) of Decision 2011/172/CFSP, have been identified as being responsible for the misappropriation of Egyptian State funds, and natural or legal persons, entities and bodies associated with them, as listed in Annex I, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I.\n3. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited.\nArticle 3\n1. Annex I shall include the grounds for listing of listed natural or legal persons, entities and bodies concerned.\n2. Annex I shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies concerned. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names, including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, entities and bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\nArticle 4\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of natural persons listed in Annex I and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees or the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the Member State concerned has notified all other Member States and the Commission of the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted, at least 2 weeks prior to the authorisation.\n2. The Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraph 1.\nArticle 5\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities in the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources in question are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 2 was listed in Annex I, or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources in question will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a person, entity or body listed in Annex I; and\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgment is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\n2. The Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraph 1.\nArticle 6\n1. Article 2(2) shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 2 has been listed in Annex I,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments will also be frozen in accordance with Article 2(1).\n2. Article 2(2) shall not prevent financial or credit institutions in the Union from crediting frozen accounts where they receive funds transferred to the account of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, provided that any additions to such accounts will also be frozen. The financial or credit institution shall inform the relevant competent authority about any such transaction without delay.\nArticle 7\nBy way of derogation from Article 2 and provided that a payment by a natural or legal person, entity or body listed in Annex I is due under a contract or agreement that was concluded by, or an obligation that arose for, the person, entity or body concerned, before the date on which that person, entity or body was listed in Annex I, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe competent authority concerned has determined that:\n(i)\nthe funds or economic resources shall be used for a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex I; and\n(ii)\nthe payment is not in breach of Article 2(2);\n(b)\nthe Member State concerned has, at least 2 weeks prior to the grant of the authorisation, notified the other Member States and the Commission of that determination and its intention to grant an authorisation.\nArticle 8\n1. The freezing of funds and economic resources or the refusal to make funds or economic resources available, carried out in good faith on the basis that such action is in accordance with this Regulation, shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal person or entity or body implementing it, or its directors or employees, unless it is proved that the funds and economic resources were frozen or withheld as a result of negligence.\n2. The prohibition set out in Article 2(2) shall not give rise to any liability of any kind on the part of the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies who made funds or economic resources available if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe the prohibition in question.\nArticle 9\n1. Without prejudice to the applicable rules concerning reporting, confidentiality and professional secrecy, natural and legal persons, entities and bodies shall:\n(a)\nsupply immediately any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 2(1), to the competent authority in the Member State where they are resident or located, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II, and shall transmit such information, either directly or through the Member States, to the Commission; and\n(b)\ncooperate with that competent authority in any verification of this information.\n2. Any information provided or received in accordance with this Article shall be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.\nArticle 10\nThe Commission and Member States shall immediately inform each other of the measures taken under this Regulation and shall supply each other with any other relevant information at their disposal in connection with this Regulation, in particular information in respect of violation and enforcement problems and judgments handed down by national courts.\nArticle 11\nThe Commission shall be empowered to amend Annex II on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\nArticle 12\n1. Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to the measures referred to in Article 2(1), it shall amend Annex I accordingly.\n2. The Council shall communicate the decision referred to in paragraph 1, including the grounds for listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review the decision referred to in paragraph 1 and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n4. The list in Annex I shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months as from 21 March 2011.\nArticle 13\n1. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules without delay after the entry into force of this Regulation and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment to them.\nArticle 14\nWhere there is, in this Regulation, a requirement to notify, inform or otherwise communicate with the Commission, the address and other contact details to be used for such communication shall be those indicated in Annex II.\nArticle 15\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\nArticle 16\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["68", "54", "47", "24", "61", "95", "31", "49", "30", "88", "93", "34", "89", "2", "80", "46", "75", "21", "84", "40", "90", "66", "41", "74", "20", "43", "73", "78", "44", "48", "No Label", "1", "3", "5", "11", "36", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["1", "3", "5", "11", "36", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 July 2011\nconcerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (State aid C 44/08 (ex NN 45/04))\n(notified under document C(2011) 5457)\n(Only the French and Dutch texts are authentic)\n(2011/678/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving invited interested parties to submit their comments in accordance with that Article (2),\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nFollowing complaints received in January and February 2004, the Commission undertook a preliminary examination of the aid granted by Belgium to cover the costs of screening tests for BSE in bovine animals.\n(2)\nFollowing those complaints, the Commission sent a letter to the Belgian authorities on 27 January 2004, asking for information on the measure in question. At the same time, an aid measure to finance screening for TSE in animals was notified by the Belgian authorities in accordance with Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (by letter of 23 January 2004, registered on 28 January 2004) and entered under the number N 54/04.\n(3)\nThe Belgian authorities provided written information to the Commission by letters of 6 February 2004 and 14 May 2004, registered on 11 February 2004 and 19 May 2004 respectively.\n(4)\nBy letter of 19 July 2004 the Commission informed Belgium that the measure had been transferred to the register of non-notified aid under the number NN 45/04, since it had become apparent that part of the funds had already been paid out.\n(5)\nAn informal meeting between the Belgian authorities and the Commission took place on 1 September 2004.\n(6)\nAdditional information was provided by the Belgian authorities by letters of 16 September 2004 and 22 February 2007, registered on 20 September 2004 and 22 February 2007 respectively.\n(7)\nBy letter of 26 November 2008 the Commission informed Belgium of its decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the TFEU in respect of that measure. The decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure in question.\n(8)\nBy letter of 19 December 2008, registered on 26 December 2008, Belgium asked for an extension to the deadline for reply. That extension was granted by letter of 13 January 2009. Belgium provided comments by letter of 25 February 2009, registered on 6 March 2009.\n(9)\nThe Commission did not receive any comments from interested parties.\n(10)\nBy letter of 17 July 2009 the Commission asked Belgium additional questions relating to the comments submitted by Belgium. By letter of 4 September 2009, registered on 8 September 2009, Belgium asked for an extension to the deadline for reply. Belgium\u2019s reply reached the Commission by letter of 16 October 2009, registered on 20 October 2009.\n(11)\nTwo meetings took place between the Belgian authorities and the Commission, on 2 October 2009 and 30 October 2009.\n(12)\nFollowing those meetings, additional information was sent by Belgium on 14 December 2009, registered on 16 December 2009. Following the simultaneous enquiry by the Belgian competition authorities concerning possible agreements between the laboratories, reply deadline extension requests were submitted by Belgium on 21 January 2010, 29 September 2010 and 17 January 2011. Those extensions were granted by the Commission.\n(13)\nA last request for information was sent by the Commission on 22 February 2011, to which the Belgian authorities responded by letter of 6 April 2011. The Commission granted an additional extension to enable Belgium to answer the questions pending the outcome of the enquiry by the Belgian competition authorities.\n(14)\nThe Belgian authorities replied by letter of 19 May 2011, registered on 25 May 2011.\n2. DESCRIPTION\n2.1. Background (4)\n(15)\nIn January 2004 the Commission received a complaint concerning a draft royal decree which would have introduced a parafiscal charge to finance BSE tests.\n(16)\nFollowing that complaint, the Commission asked the Belgian authorities for explanations. In response the Belgian authorities stated that, since 1 January 2001, BSE tests had been compulsory for bovine animals aged more than 30 months and for those aged more than 24 months undergoing emergency slaughter (5). They also notified a draft royal decree relating to the financing of screening for TSE in animals (hereinafter the TSE royal decree). That draft royal decree was registered under the number N 54/04. The Belgian authorities stated that this new draft royal decree was an amendment to the draft royal decree notified in 2001 by Belgium and approved by the Commission by Decision N 21/02 of 13 February 2002 (6), as well as to another draft discussed informally with the Commission in 2003. Neither of those two drafts had been implemented, however, and the decree notified in 2004 constituted their recasting.\n(17)\nIt is clear from the information submitted by Belgium that the public purse had accepted, since 1 January 2001 (7), the costs of BSE tests (i.e. the costs of sampling and analysis). From 1 January 2002 onwards the costs of these tests have been prefinanced by the Belgian Intervention and Refund Bureau (BIRB), pending a political decision on the system of financing to be chosen.\n(18)\nFollowing certain comments made by the Commission regarding the notified draft royal decree (N 54/04), in May 2004 the Belgian authorities submitted a new draft royal decree which attempted to respond to the comments made by the Commission and which provided for a system of fees of EUR 10,70 per bovine presented for slaughter from 1 January 2003 onwards and having to undergo a rapid BSE test. The Belgian authorities referred to the fact that the tests carried out and prefinanced during 2002 had been entirely financed by indirect State aid, i.e. by parafiscal charges. The Belgian authorities also stated that a maximum amount of EUR 40 per test had been financed from 1 January 2003 onwards through parafiscal charges. The Belgian authorities provided detailed tables showing the cost of the BSE tests from 2003 onwards and a forecast of financing those tests by parafiscal charges and fees. The Belgian authorities stated that the dates scheduled for implementing the financing scheme were 1 July 2004 for the fees and 1 January 2005 for the parafiscal charges.\n(19)\nAs the notified draft royal decree states that aid had already been granted and taxes levied since 1 January 2002, the measure was registered as non-notified on 19 July 2004 under number NN 45/04. The notification registered under the number N 54/04 was withdrawn by Belgium.\n(20)\nIt follows from the information submitted by Belgium in 2004 that the general intention was to prefinance the tests, the amount being refunded subsequently, the idea being to allocate part of the amount of the contributions to refunding the costs of the prefinanced tests.\n(21)\nIn their letter of 16 September 2004 the Belgian authorities referred to a new draft royal decree in which the idea of a fee of EUR 10,70 per bovine tested was maintained for the future. The whole amount stated in that new draft royal decree would serve to finance BSE tests on bovine animals which would be slaughtered from the entry into force of that draft. The reimbursement of the amounts exceeding the EUR 40 authorised by the Community guidelines for State aid concerning TSE tests, fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste (8) of 24 December 2002 (the TSE guidelines), and which were prefinanced after 1 January 2003, would be the subject of another draft which would be submitted to the Commission and which would address the reimbursement of that prefinancing. That royal decree was adopted on 15 October 2004 (9) and entered into force on 1 December 2004.\n(22)\nAccording to the information provided by the Belgian authorities, the total amount of prefinanced costs beyond the maximum amount of EUR 40 for the period from 1 January 2003 (10) to 30 June 2004 comprises EUR 15 237 646. According to the Belgian authorities, from 30 June 2004 the maximum amount of EUR 40 has been complied with (11).\n(23)\nIn the same letter of 16 September 2004 the Belgian authorities provided two information sheets in accordance with Article 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products (12).\n(24)\nThese two measures were the subject of two exemptions, under numbers XA 53/04 and XA 54/04. As stated in points 19 et seq. of the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure, the measure exempted under number XA 53/04 covers the prefinancing of the BSE tests (13) with a maximum aid intensity of EUR 40 per test, and was implemented on 1 January 2003. The legal basis for this measure is the Law of 27 December 2002 on the general budget of expenditure for 2003. The measure exempted under number XA 54/04 provides for a maximum aid intensity of EUR 33,38 per test, and was implemented on 15 October 2004. This aid measure is of indeterminate duration. Its legal basis is the Law of 27 December 2003 on the general budget of expenditure for 2004.\n(25)\nIn the same letter of 16 September 2004, and in response to questions raised by the Commission, the Belgian authorities stated that the laboratories chosen to carry out the tests had to comply with very strict conditions in order to conduct the analyses in question.\n(26)\nShortly after the letters of 14 May 2004 and 16 September 2004 the Belgian authorities notified two draft royal decrees concerning the financing of the activities of the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (FASFC). The purpose of these measures was to introduce a contribution and a fee covering the activities of the FASFC. They were the subject of decision C(2005)4203 of 9 November 2005 on State aid N 9/05 and N 10/05 (the N 9/05 and N 10/05 decision) referred to in the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure. These measures were adopted by the Royal Decree of 10 November 2005 fixing the contributions referred to in Article 4 of the Law of 9 December 2004 on the financing of the FASFC (14), and by the Royal Decree of 10 November 2005 on the fees referred to in Article 5 of the Law of 9 December 2004 on financing the FASFC (15). Both these Royal Decrees entered into force on 1 January 2006. The Royal Decree on contributions provides for the repeal of the Royal Decree of 15 October 2004 referred to in recital 21.\n(27)\nMore specifically, the Royal Decree on fees provides for slaughterhouses to have to pay a fee of EUR 10,70 for each bovine animal or soliped tested. The Royal Decree on contributions provides for financing part of the BSE tests and is charged to different sectors. The total cost of the BSE test is EUR 44,08, comprising EUR 12 for sampling (financed at EUR 10,70 by the slaughterhouse under the Royal Decree on fees, and EUR 1,30 by the contribution), and EUR 32,08 financed by the contribution, and is paid directly to the laboratories by the FASFC. In the N 9/05 and N 10/05 decision the Commission concluded that the financing of the FASFC by fees did not constitute State aid, that the financing of overall random controls by flat-rate contributions did not constitute State aid, that financing part of the costs of the BSE tests by contributions was compatible State aid, and that the financing of the costs of other tests/controls relating to production/marketing was compatible State aid.\n(28)\nIn December 2006 the Commission sent Belgium new questions concerning case NN 45/04. Those questions related in particular to the reimbursement of the amounts paid under prefinancing since 1 January 2003.\n(29)\nIn their reply, dated 22 February 2007, the Belgian authorities stated that they wished to effect an overall reimbursement of all the expenditure related to the BSE analyses over a period of 15 years. In practice, a solidarity-based recovery system was introduced through the new system of financing the FASFC. Since 1 January 2006 each operator pays a contribution to the FASFC and part of that contribution goes to recovering past costs related to the prefinancing of the BSE tests. All active operators who kept bovine animals during the period in question contribute equally to this system.\n2.2. Content of the complaints lodged against the draft royal decree on TSE\n(30)\nAccording to the complaints concerning the draft royal decree on TSE, the contribution is applied to all types of animal slaughtered in Belgian slaughterhouses, including imported products. One complainant asserted that a substantial percentage of animals slaughtered in Belgian slaughterhouses came from other Member States. According to the complainants, the contribution was discriminatory with regard to imported animals since the revenue from it was used to recover the costs of BSE tests carried out on Belgian bovine animals.\n2.3. Doubts raised by the Commission within the framework of initiating the formal investigation procedure\n(31)\nFirstly, it must be pointed out that the initiation of the formal investigation procedure concerns the aid for financing TSE screening for animals in Belgium since 1 January 2001 and the mechanisms for financing that aid, with the exception of the aid approved by Commission decision because of its compatibility with the internal market. Specifically, this means that the aid approved by decisions N 9/05 and N 10/05 (which relate to the contributions and fees financing the FASFC) will not be assessed as regards compatibility with the rules on State aid applicable when the aid was granted. This decision therefore relates solely to the aid financing the BSE tests for the period 2001-06 and to their system of financing given that the aid for the BSE tests during that period was prefinanced and that that prefinancing is the subject of reimbursement spread over several years.\n(32)\nIn the interests of clarity it is necessary to bear in mind the terminological distinction between a fee and a contribution: on the one hand there are duties or fees which cover the costs of a service provided. In the case at issue, these come to EUR 10,70 and have been levied since 1 December 2004 on the basis of the Royal Decree on TSE and subsequently on the basis of the Royal Decree on fees financing the FASFC. On the other hand there are levies or contributions which are levied on the basis of the Royal Decree of 10 November 2005, are charged by the FASFC, due by entities on Belgian territory and broken down among 7 sectors (see recital 29 of decision N 9/05 and N 10/05).\n(33)\nThe Commission noted, in its decision initiating the formal investigation procedure, that the aid measures for financing BSE tests are and were financed in Belgium by subsidies and a system of parafiscal charges comprising both fees and contributions. Part of the revenue from those fees and contributions reimbursed the prefinancing of the tests.\n(34)\nThe Commission had raised several problems and stated that it lacked information for reaching a final assessment of the measures in question: firstly, questions arose as to the existence of an advantage for beneficiaries of the services. It was not clear whether the fees for the BSE tests covered the part of the cost of the tests which was not covered by compatible State aid. The exact cost of the tests was not known, nor was the source of additional financing in the event that the fees were not sufficient to cover the total costs of the BSE tests. Nor had it been established whether the conditions under which the FASFC provided the services corresponded to market prices, in particular because the Belgian authorities had not stated clearly that the choice of laboratories had been made by means of an open and transparent procedure.\n(35)\nSecondly, the mechanism of levies was not clear: in particular, the beneficiaries and the contributors were not clearly established and the mechanism for reimbursement of the prefinancing of the costs of the BSE tests was not clear. There were also questions about the conditions which the parafiscal charges had to meet in order to be considered as complying with the rules on State aid, in particular as regards the exclusion of imported products from the parafiscal charges, as regards whether exported products profited from the aid measure financed by the charges, and whether the charges influenced the price of the final products given that this was determined by changes in supply and demand on the free market.\n3. COMMENTS BY BELGIUM\n(36)\nOn 27 February 2009 Belgium commented in reply to the Commission\u2019s doubts expressed in its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure. These comments can be summarised as follows:\n3.1. Classification of the financing of ESB tests as State aid\n(37)\nBy definition, Belgium contests the Commission\u2019s classification of the financing of BSE tests as State aid due to the obligatory nature of these tests. Belgium claims that the obligation to carry out the BSE tests is imposed by Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (16) to protect public health. In support of its claim Belgium quotes two judgments (17) in which the Court of Justice held that the costs of controls carried out to protect public health cannot be considered as compensation for a service and that the authority itself must bear these costs. While Belgium recognises that the judgments in question involve the free circulation of goods rather than State aid, it feels that this rationale can be applied to State aid.\n(38)\nMoreover, Belgium states that as Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 does not oblige enterprises to bear the costs of controls, a Member State may decide to use the \u2018normal\u2019 system of financing BSE tests. Therefore, according to Belgium, the selectivity criterion for State aid must be seen in relation to this normal system (18). This could only be State aid in that certain sectors or enterprises might enjoy special treatment compared to the normal Belgian system. Belgium states that the Commission appears to think that normally the costs had to be borne by the farmers; this does not, however, fall under the applicable texts. If different systems of financing BSE tests can lead to distortions of competition this problem can in Belgium\u2019s view be solved through harmonisation of legislation (19); this is in no way a State aid issue. Belgium also quotes the GEMO judgment (20), but does not consider that this changes its line in this particular case. In its letter of 16 October 2009 Belgium reiterates that it does not agree with the Commission\u2019s classification of the financing as State aid in its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure. Nonetheless, in a spirit of cooperation, Belgium applied the Commission\u2019s arguments in order to clarify the issues raised in that decision.\n3.2. Classification of the fee\n(39)\nIn Belgium\u2019s view the fee of EUR 10,70 per tested bovine animal cannot be considered as State aid.\n(40)\nAccording to Belgium State aid can only be present if an advantage is given to one or several enterprises. As a result, a received fee can only represent an advantage if it is greater than the amount paid. If part of the BSE tests is financed by the authorities, the final advantage to the farmer corresponds to the cost of the test minus the fee paid.\n(41)\nBelgium takes this argument further by stating that, if the costs were recovered, this would mean demanding a higher global payment from the farmer. In other words, if the total cost of the test has to be repaid, this would mean that in the end this cost is added to the fee already paid.\n(42)\nBelgium stresses that in the Court\u2019s judgments State aid is present only when the revenue from fees is used to favour a specific group and does not equally benefit all those who paid a fee (21). In this case the fee of EUR 10,70 per tested bovine animal is paid to economic actors in the bovine meat production sector. The EUR 10,70 used for the test does not represent any economic advantage to these actors and therefore cannot be considered as State aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the TFEU.\n(43)\nAccording to Belgium the Commission used a similar argument in decision N 9/05 and N 10/05. Belgium states that in this decision the fee of EUR 10,70 was not qualified as State aid (see recital 98 of the decision). A similar rationale was used in decision N 21/02, where part of the costs of BSE tests partially financed out of fees paid by the sector was not considered to be State aid.\n(44)\nIn its letter of 16 October 2009 Belgium indicates that the fee was charged to the farmer and that it concerned part of the economic costs of the BSE tests. Replying to the Commission\u2019s question, i.e. whether the fee corresponded to the true economic cost of the laboratories\u2019 services, Belgium states that the fee only related to part of the costs of the BSE tests, as indicated in decision N 9/05 and N 10/05. The Commission\u2019s reasoning in recitals 61-66 of that decision, that the costs of the services and the amount of the fees were equal, related to services other than the BSE tests. Belgium reiterates that, regarding the BSE tests, decision N 9/05 and N 10/05 concluded that while the service in the form of BSE tests was State aid, the amount of the fee (EUR 10,70) was not aid and should be subtracted from the cost of the tests.\n3.3. Absence of overcompensation and test prices\u2019 conformity with market prices\n(45)\nBelgium refers to point 132 of the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013 (22) (agriculture guidelines 2007-13) which states that EUR 40 per test is \u2018the best price currently available in the Community\u2019. Since July 2005 the FASFC\u2019s proposed prices have been less than EUR 40. In the opinion of the Belgian authorities this shows that the prices charged in Belgium are in line with market prices. In decision N 9/05 and N 10/05 the Commission recognised that the laboratories were selected using open, transparent and non-discriminatory procedures, and that the service providers (i.e. the laboratories) could not be seen as receiving State aid. The situation has not changed in the meantime. In addition, the Belgian competition authorities are currently carrying out a survey of price-fixing between the laboratories regarding BSE tests. This clearly shows, according to Belgium, that there was no wish whatsoever to pay a supplementary price to the laboratories. In its letter of 16 October 2009 Belgium stated that the investigation of possible price-fixing between the laboratories would be carried out and should in principle be completed during the first quarter of 2010.\n3.4. Levy on imports and exports\n(46)\nThe Belgian authorities state that the contributions and fee were never applied to imports and exports. Only enterprises based in Belgium have to pay a contribution and only bovine animals slaughtered in Belgium and over 30 months old are subject to a fee of EUR 10,70.\n(47)\nBelgium stresses that the Commission already looked at these measures in decision N 9/05 and N 10/05 and concluded that the contributions were not discriminatory towards imported or exported products and were not contrary to the provisions of the Treaty.\n3.5. Absence of a mechanism through which the slaughterhouses pass on the fee to producers or other market actors\n(48)\nThe Belgian authorities indicate that the slaughterhouses pass on the cost of fees to their clients just as any normal enterprise passes on costs incurred to its clients. Normal market mechanisms therefore apply to this passing on of costs. Moreover, itemising the cost of fees separately on the invoices submitted to producers is normal practice. In this connection Belgium quotes recitals 93 and 95 of decision N 9/05 and N 10/05, where the criteria in point 25 of the TSE guidelines are considered to be met.\n3.6. Classification of the beneficiaries as small and medium-sized enterprises (SME)\n(49)\nBelgium states that all Belgian farmers are SMEs, based on the following criteria: they employ less than 250 people, their annual turnover does not exceed EUR 40 million or their annual balance sheet total is less than EUR 27 million, and 25 % or more of the enterprise is not owned by another company or companies which are not SMEs.\n3.7. Comments on the compatibility of aid during the three periods identified in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure (2001-2003; 2003-2007; after 2007)\n(50)\nBelgium has no particular comment to make regarding the period from 1 January 2001 to 1 January 2003, given that the Commission itself assumes, in recital 80 of the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, that the aid was probably compatible. Belgium does, however, state that the aid was not more than 100 % of the costs incurred and that it agrees to provide further information in this regard if necessary.\n(51)\nHowever, Belgium insists that this information is only given in passing, since its initial point of view is that State aid is not an issue in this case, because it is up to Belgium to choose how it finances BSE tests.\n(52)\nDuring the period 1 January 2003 to 1 January 2007, Belgium indicates that no aid in excess of 100 % of the test costs was paid. It refers to decision N 9/05 and N 10/05 which already dealt with this issue.\n(53)\nRegarding the period from 1 January 2007, Belgium never granted aid exceeding EUR 40, as the cost of the tests was less than that amount.\n(54)\nBelgium, as an enclosure to its comments, submits a detailed sequence of the measures taken with regard to the financing of BSE tests. As this information is largely repeated in the descriptive part of this decision, the sequence in this section is not exhaustive. Some elements are, however, repeated below.\n(55)\nThe sequence of BSE test financing is as follows:\n-\n1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001: tests entirely financed by the Exchequer,\n-\n1 January 2002 to 30 June 2004: tests prefinanced by the BIRB. The total amount prefinanced is EUR 67 156 527,65,\n-\n1 July 2004 to 30 November 2004: tests prefinanced by FASFC,\n-\n1 December 2004 to 31 December 2005: a fee of EUR 10,70 for each bovine animal tested pursuant to the Royal Decree of 15 October 2004, as well as financing by the FASFC out of its reserves and the reimbursable advance provided by the Exchequer,\n-\nfrom 1 January 2006: financing via a fee of EUR 10,70 for each bovine animal tested and from contributions imposed on seven different sectors (23). These contributions are also designed to reimburse the costs of the BSE tests prefinanced since 1 January 2002. The fee was then indexed at EUR 11,07 from 1 January 2008.\n(56)\nThe prices of the BSE tests are as follows:\n(EUR)\nPeriod\nTotal cost of tests (24)\nAmount of fee\n01.01.2001-31.01.2001\n111,81\n/\n01.02.2001-31.03.2001\n89,50\n/\n01.04.2001-31.12.2001\n64,71\n/\n01.01.2002-15.03.2002\n64,74\n/\n16.03.2002-31.12.2003\n63,45\n/\n01.01.2004-15.01.2004\n63,42\n/\n16.01.2004-30.06.2004\n53,88\n/\n01.07.2004-30.11.2004\n43,44\n/\n01.12.2004-31.12.2004\n43,44\n10,70\n01.01.2005-30.06.2005\n43,47\n10,70\n01.07.2005-31.12.2005\n38,62\n10,70\n01.01.2006-30.09.2006\n40,35\n10,70\n01.10.2006-31.12.2006\n39,32\n10,70\n01.01.2007-31.12.2007\n39,35\n10,70\n01.01.2008-31.12.2008\n39,38\n11,07\n3.8. Replies to additional questions asked by the Commission\n(57)\nIn its letter of 16 October 2009 Belgium makes several clarifications in reply to the questions asked by the Commission on 24 July 2009 after receiving Belgium\u2019s comments. Belgium begins by reiterating its position that a Member State is not obliged to make economic actors bear the costs of the BSE tests. Since these are linked to public health protection, the costs of controls imposed by public authorities cannot be seen as compensation for a service and passed on to the economic actors. However, in a spirit of cooperation, Belgium has decided to reply to the Commission\u2019s questions by using the logic expressed in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure.\n(58)\nConcerning the share of Community funding, Belgium confirms that this had been included in the previously communicated figures.\n(59)\nBelgium then indicated that, with regard to funding during the period from 30 June 2004 to 31 December 2005, this had been carried out by FASFC based on sources of funding available to it and taken from the former bodies from which it had been created. No parafiscal charges had been levied during this period.\n(60)\nThe Commission had asked about the link between the amount of EUR 15 237 646 and that of EUR 67 156 527,65 mentioned in Belgium\u2019s comments (see recital 55). Belgium replied that the first sum was an integral part of the second amount. The Belgian authorities also indicated their willingness to perform calculations to verify the correctness of the amount mentioned.\n(61)\nRegarding fees, Belgium states that these were borne by the farmers and therefore could not be State aid. Here Belgium refers to decision N 9/05 and N 10/05 which indicated that only EUR 33,38 of the EUR 44,08 total cost represented State aid. The other EUR 10,70 was not State aid and was therefore subtracted from the price of the test during the evaluation of its conformity with the maximum aid intensity of EUR 40 per test.\n(62)\nFor reference, Belgium states that the only difference between its system and that approved by the Commission in decision N 9/05 and N 10/05 was the indexation of the fee which increased from EUR 10,70 to EUR 11,07.\n(63)\nIn its letter of 1 December 2009, Belgium corrects its previous figures regarding the number of tests carried out. It indicated that these figures replaced those previously given in the letters preceding and following the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure.\n(64)\nThese changes were due to the fact that the number of samples taken into consideration before was incorrect. The original calculations had been based on a theoretical rate of 3 samples per hour, while in reality 12 samples had been taken per hour on the ground. This increase in the number of tests meant a lower price for each sample, also affecting the total price per test, as the cost of the tests included a cost per hour, which decreased due to the larger number of samples taken per hour. In addition, the number of animals slaughtered in 2003 and 2004 was revised downwards compared to the previous figures. The figures mentioned in the Belgian letter of 1 December 2009 are those for bovine animals slaughtered for human consumption, reported to the Commission for 2003 and 2004.\n(EUR)\n2003\nLaboratory costs\nHourly fee: veterinary surgeon\nCost of sampling\nCost of test kit\nTotal cost\nIntervention\n> EUR 40 per test\nJanuary\n52,06\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n55,42\n15,42\nFebruary\n52,06\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n55,42\n15,42\nMarch\n52,06\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n55,42\n15,42\nApril\n52,06\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n55,42\n15,42\nMay\n52,06\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n55,42\n15,42\nJune\n52,06\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n55,42\n15,42\nJuly\n52,06\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n55,42\n15,42\nAugust\n52,06\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n55,42\n15,42\nSeptember\n52,06\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n55,42\n15,42\nOctober\n52,06\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n55,42\n15,42\nNovember\n52,06\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n55,42\n15,42\nDecember\n52,06\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n55,42\n15,42\n(EUR)\n2004\nLaboratory costs\nHourly fee: veterinary surgeon\nCost of sampling\nCost of test kit\nTotal cost\nIntervention\n> EUR 40 per test\n1-15 January\n52,06\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n55,42\n15,42\n16-31 January\n42\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n45,36\n5,36\nFebruary\n42\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n45,36\n5,36\nMarch\n42\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n45,36\n5,36\nApril\n42\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n45,36\n5,36\nMay\n42\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n45,36\n5,36\nJune\n42\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n45,36\n5,36\nJuly\n31,90\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n35,26\n-4,74\nAugust\n31,90\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n35,26\n-4,74\nSeptember\n31,90\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n35,26\n-4,74\nOctober\n31,90\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n35,26\n-4,74\nNovember\n31,90\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n35,26\n-4,74\nDecember\n31,90\n32,02\n2,67\n0,69\n35,26\n-4,74\n(65)\nBased on the table in recital 64, Belgium concludes that the total cost of BSE tests has been less than EUR 40 since 1 July 2004.\n(66)\nOn this basis the Belgian authorities also correct the table provided prior to the initiation of the formal investigation procedure and mentioned in recital 25 of the decision to initiate that procedure. These latest figures are real rather than estimates as previously provided. It can be derived from this data that the total prefinanced amount was not EUR 15 237 789,90 as previously estimated but EUR 6 619 810,74.\nPeriod\nTest price (EUR)\nNumber of tests\nTotal (EUR)\n1.1.2003\n15.1.2004\nIndirect State aid\n40,00\n373 550\n14 942 015,90\nCost of test > EUR 40\n31,08\n373 550\n5 759 524,54\nTotal\n71,08\n373 550\n20 701 540,44\n16.1.2004\n30.6.2004\nIndirect State aid\n40,00\n160 551\n6 422 043,10\nDuty\n22,02\n160 551\n860 286,19\nTotal\n62,02\n160 551\n7 282 329,29\n1.1.2003\n30.6.2004\nTotal pre-financed budget above maximum of EUR 40\n6 619 810,74\n(67)\nBelgium also states that, if the competition authority\u2019s inquiry reveals that the prices for laboratory BSE tests were increased due to possible illegal price fixing, it would do all it could to recover the surplus, if necessary by taking the laboratories to court.\n(68)\nIn their letter of 6 April 2011 the Belgian authorities confirm that the fee of EUR 10,70 was solely for the payment of the BSE test by the beneficiary at that moment, rather than as reimbursement of the prefinancing of previous BSE tests.\n(69)\nIn that same letter Belgium indicates that the total amount prefinanced by the BIRB was EUR 67 156 527,65. FASFC reimbursed part of that amount as follows:\nReimbursed by FASFC\n2005\nEUR 4 477 102\n2006\nEUR 4 477 102\n2007\nNo reimbursement (a request for extension was made and granted subject to the payment of interest)\n2008\nEUR 194 901 (interest on the reported reimbursement)\nFrom 2008\nNo more reimbursements to the BIRB - programme act of 22 December 2008\nStill to be reimbursed\nEUR 58 202 323\n(70)\nBelgium states that the government had decided to suspend the prefinancing reimbursement to the BIRB, and that the recovered amounts would therefore be included in FASFC\u2019s positive balance. This surplus must be seen as the reimbursement of the BSE tests.\n(71)\nConcerning the payment of the cost of BSE tests by the producer, Belgium reiterates that there was no specific system obliging the slaughterhouses to bill the fee for the BSE test to the producer, but this took place in a spontaneous way. Belgium submitted several invoices clearly showing that the fee was billed as a separate item. One is the slaughterhouse\u2019s bill to the producer, where the fee is deducted from the total amount payable by the slaughterhouse to the producer for the animal. In Belgium\u2019s opinion this is evidence that the producer is the person finally liable for payment of the BSE test to FASFC.\n(72)\nIn its final letter of 25 May 2011 Belgium states that the aid amounts could be the subject of a cumulative application for de minimis aid pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 of 6 October 2004 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the agriculture and fisheries sectors (25) and of the EUR 40 of compatible aid per test, for the Regulation\u2019s period of application.\n4. THIRD-PARTY COMMENTS\n(73)\nDuring this procedure the Commission did not receive any comments from interested third parties.\n5. ASSESSMENT\n5.1. Evaluation of whether there is aid\n(74)\nFirst of all, Belgium indicated in its comments on the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure that it considered that the costs of the BSE tests were financed by the Member States because of their compulsory nature and that no Community rules required enterprises to bear the costs of controls. The agricultural guidelines for 2007-13 and the Commission\u2019s practice clearly indicate that the different levels of test costs may distort competition, and that most States grant aid to cover the costs of these tests, whence the need the regulate its intensity in order to limit the distortions of competition caused by this aid. In particular, the TSE guidelines clearly state that the aid awarded by the States risks distorting competition. Point 24 of the TSE guidelines, for example, states that \u2018from 1 January 2003, as far as compulsory BSE testing of bovine animals slaughtered for human consumption is concerned, direct and indirect State aid, including Community payments, may not be more than EUR 40 per test. The obligation for testing may be based on national or Community legislation.\u2019 These guidelines were presented to the Member States, who were asked to take the appropriate measures and bring their schemes into line with these guidelines. Likewise, as far as the agricultural guidelines for 2007-13 are concerned, what qualifies as State aid with regard to the BSE tests is set out in points 132(f) and subsequent. Furthermore, it is important to emphasise that Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05, where a part of the financing of the BSE tests was classified as aid, was not the subject of an appeal by the Belgian authorities, which implicitly means that the Belgian authorities accepted this classification of the aid for financing BSE tests as State aid.\n(75)\nFrom these elements, we can deduce that Belgium\u2019s calling into question of the classification of the aid for financing BSE tests as State aid by virtue of the obligatory nature of these tests has no basis given the texts that apply and that have applied for many years.\n(76)\nConsequently, the Commission is examining the measures in question on the basis of Article 107 of the TFEU. Article 107(1) of the TFEU provides: \u2018Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain enterprises or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(77)\nFor a measure to be covered by Article 107(1) of the TFEU, each of the following four conditions must be cumulatively met: 1) the measure must be financed by the State or through State resources and be attributable to the State; 2) it must selectively concern certain enterprises or sectors of production; 3) it must involve an economic advantage for the recipient enterprises; 4) it must affect trade within the EU and distort or threaten to distort competition.\n(78)\nIn the following recitals, these four criteria will be applied to the measures which may constitute State aid.\n(79)\nAs indicated in recital 55, several financing systems were used to finance the costs of the BSE tests. As part of the examination of the criterion of the presence of State resources, this Decision makes a distinction between the different means of financing the BSE tests.\n5.1.1. Presence of State resources\n5.1.1.1. From 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001\n(80)\nDuring the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001, the BSE tests were financed entirely by the national exchequer. There is no doubt that this was a case of financing through State resources.\n5.1.1.2. From 1 January 2002 to 30 June 2004\n(81)\nDuring the following period, that is from 1 January 2002 to 30 June 2004, the tests were pre-financed by the BIRB, pending a structural solution for financing the tests. The BIRB is a federal public institution with a legal personality, resulting from the merger of the former Office Belge de l\u2019\u00c9conomie et de l\u2019Agriculture (OBEA) and the agriculture division of the former Office Central des Contingents et Licences (OCCL). It is a category B para-state organisation reporting to the Minister for agriculture, SMEs and the self-employed. The BIRB is an accredited paying agency in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy, and financed by the EAGGF (26). It may also be entrusted with tasks arising from the federal or regional governments\u2019 agricultural policy. To balance its administrative budget, the BIRB has a government endowment entered in the budget for its supervisory role at federal level (the Federal Public Service Economy) and some revenue of its own (revenue from some fees and limited assets). In view of the above, financing through the BIRB constitutes financing through State resources.\n5.1.1.3. From 1 July 2004 to 30 November 2004\n(82)\nFrom 1 July 2004 to 30 November 2004, the tests were prepaid by the FASFC (Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain). The legislation in force at the time (that is, chiefly the Law of 4 February 2000 on the creation of the FASFC (27)) indicated that the FASFC was financed mainly by revenue sources such as the product of duties, charges and fees, the products of administrative fines, occasional revenue, gifts and legacies, etc. (28). The FASFC is a public institution with legal status, classed as Category A under the Law of 16 March 1954 on the supervision of certain bodies of public interest (29). Consequently, it follows from these considerations that the funds provided by the FASFC constitute State resources and that their allocation is decided by public authority, the FASFC being subject to the hierarchical authority of the Minister responsible for public health.\n5.1.1.4. From 1 December 2004 to 31 December 2005\n(83)\nAs far as the period between 1 December 2004 (date on which Royal Decree of 15 October 2004 entered into force) and 31 December 2005 (date on which the Royal Decrees of 10 November 2005 entered into force) is concerned, the BSE tests were financed by a fee of EUR 10,70 per bovine tested in addition to financing by the FASFC from its reserves and from the repayable advance made available to it by the national exchequer.\n(84)\nThe partial financing from the FASFC provided from its own funds constitutes a State resource (see recital 82).\n(85)\nWith regard to the question of whether the fees constitute State resources, they may be State resources if they do not cover the real full costs of the services they are intended to pay for. Indeed, if the fee and the cost of the service provided are not the same, the surplus constitutes a State resource at the disposal of the State body to whom the fee is paid. This is why it is important to verify whether the fees paid to the FASFC for the BSE tests represent payments for the FASFC\u2019s services effectively provided to the enterprises and whether or not they were based on market prices (see recital 54 of the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure). This question is dealt with below, during the examination of the concept of advantage.\n5.1.1.5. From 1 January 2006 on\n(86)\nAs far as the period following the entry into force of the Royal Decrees of 10 November 2005, i.e. the period starting on 1 January 2006, is concerned, it is necessary to examine whether the fees and the contributions set by these Decrees constitute State resources. This question was already examined in the context of Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05. In recital 44 there was a general indication that the contributions constituted State resources and that the fees could constitute State resources if those fees did not cover the real full costs of the services they were intended to pay for. The BSE tests were part-financed by the fees and part-financed by the contributions. Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05 concluded that the part-financing of the costs of the BSE tests by the fees did not constitute State aid and that the financing by the contributions was a compatible form of State aid. As indicated in recital 34 of the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure, the aid approved by Commission Decision is not the subject of this decision and will not be re-examined here.\n(87)\nHowever, in light of the information provided by Belgium following the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, it emerged that the revenue from the contributions was used in part in 2005 and 2006 to reimburse the pre-financing of the BSE tests exceeding EUR 40 during the period from 1 January 2003 to 1 December 2004. However, this had not been mentioned in Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05. Consequently, a part of the contributions was used to finance the BSE tests conducted during the period between 1 January 2003 and 1 December 2004, the aim being to recover from the farmers in a non-individual fashion the pre-financed costs of the compulsory BSE tests that exceeded the maximum amount of EUR 40.\n(88)\nAllocating part of the receipts of these contributions to the reimbursement of the pre-financing of the tests does not in any way change the classification as State resources as per Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05.\n5.1.2. Selective advantage for an enterprise\n(89)\nIn examining the existence of an advantage, it is necessary to distinguish, on the one hand, the measures financed by State resources, including contributions, and the measures financed by fees.\n(90)\nWith regard to the measures financed through State resources, including the contributions, the Commission has constantly held the opinion (30) that if the State finances the costs of the obligatory controls that concern the production or the marketing of products, this has to be considered as a selective advantage for the enterprises (31). Indeed, the State reduced the charges that are normally included in the budget of an enterprise. It can be deduced from the above that the farmers, the slaughterhouses and other entities which process, handle, sell or market products from bovine animals for whom BSE tests are obligatory by virtue of the legislation in force during the period in question, are conducting an economic activity and have benefited from State aid for the financing of the BSE tests by the State, and this since 1 January 2001.\n(91)\nThe arguments put forward by Belgium (see recitals 37 et seq.) according to which the financing of the BSE tests was compulsory with a view to protecting public health and that it is up to the Member State to decide on the normal system of financing BSE tests may not be accepted for the reasons set out in recital 74. In the more specific context of the selectivity assessment, Belgium argued that one could not speak of selectivity except where certain sectors or enterprises would benefit from preferential treatment in comparison with the normal system. The fact of there being differences between the various Member States as regards the financing of the BSE tests and that this could lead to distortions of competition is not, in Belgium\u2019s view, a question of State aid but of harmonisation of legislations.\n(92)\nHowever, this argument cannot be accepted. As indicated in Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05, the selectivity criterion is met when the advantage is reserved for some enterprises or one sector. In this case, at national level, the financing of the BSE tests by the State only benefited one given sector, namely the sector involved in breeding animals subject to BSE tests. At Community level, the fact that the BSE tests were financed by the State or through State resources favoured Belgian enterprises and gave those enterprises an advantage over their foreign competitors for whom the mandatory BSE tests were not financed by the State or through State resources. In the preamble to the TSE guidelines (points 8 and 9), it was clearly indicated that the ongoing harmonisation obliging the sector to support the costs was slow, and that the Commission had thus decided to clarify and modify its policy on State aids with regard to the costs generated by the BSE tests. Point 24 of the TSE guidelines, for its part, indicates that the examination requirement could be based on Community or national legislation. This point clearly indicates that there is no Community harmonisation with regard to the obligation to perform the tests, which implies that this could also lead to an aid selectively benefiting the enterprises of a given Member State. In conclusion, the measures financed through State resources, including the contributions, give a selective advantage to farmers, slaughterhouses and other entities that process, handle, sell or trade in bovine animal products that are subject to compulsory BSE testing under the applicable legislation, by reducing the costs they must pay. These advantages are not conferred by direct payments, but by the public authorities covering the costs of the BSE tests by directly paying the laboratories which perform the tests on request from the slaughterhouses and invoice the costs to the FASFC.\n(93)\nAs far as the aid measures financed by the fees are concerned, whether an advantage is conferred through these fees must be verified. As indicated in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure (in recitals 61 and 62), there would be no question of an advantage if those fees were less than the real costs to the economic operators of the services effectively provided by the FASFC. Whether the charges represent payments for the FASFC services effectively provided to the enterprises must be verified. More specifically, the question arises of whether an advantage was conferred on the slaughterhouses and producers who paid the fee of EUR 10,70 per bovine tested during the period between 1 December 2004 and 31 December 2005, and whether they effectively benefited from the services provided by the FASFC.\n(94)\nThe Belgian authorities indicated in the response to the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure that the fee of EUR 10,70 per bovine tested was the only source of financing for the FASFC to support the costs of the BSE tests, with the exception of the FASFC reserves and the recoverable advances from the national exchequer. The fee was paid by the slaughterhouses. The Belgian authorities mentioned that there was no legal obligation for the slaughterhouses to invoice the amount of the fee to their clients, but that the slaughterhouses\u2019 practice was to separately invoice the cost of the fee to the producers. This was proved by Belgium by means of the invoices provided by way of example, where it is clearly visible that the slaughterhouses separately invoice the cost of the fee to the producers. Belgium considers that there is no need to formally regulate the way in which the slaughterhouses repay the fee to the producers or other potential beneficiaries of the services, given that this cost is invoiced to producers in a similar way to the other costs incurred during slaughtering and invoiced to producers.\n(95)\nConsequently, from the above we can deduce that the doubt expressed during the opening of the formal investigation procedure, in recital 44, which indicates that the charge for the slaughterhouses was a lot higher than for other beneficiaries of the service, had arisen from the information Belgium submitted on how the amount of this fee was invoiced to the producers.\n(96)\nAs for whether the price for the BSE tests was the market price, Belgium firstly indicated to the Commission that since July 2005 the prices proposed by the FASFC were less than EUR 40, while the agricultural guidelines for 2007-13 cite EUR 40 as the lowest price available in the Community at that time. This is an indication that the prices were in line with prices elsewhere in Europe during the period in question. Secondly, Belgium responded to the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure by saying that the situation was identical to the one examined in Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05, which concluded that the service providers were designated in accordance with open and non-discriminatory procedures (see recital 82 of Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05). Thirdly, the Commission noted the commitment made by Belgium to take all possible legal measures to recover payments made in excess of the price of the tests, in the event of the Belgium competition authority\u2019s enquiries concluding that there was an illegal agreement between the laboratories, the effect of which was to increase the price of the tests. On the basis of these considerations, the Commission concludes that the fees may not be considered as State resources, in that these fees paid to the FASFC for the BSE tests represent payments for the FASFC services effectively provided to the enterprises and were based on market prices.\n(97)\nIt can be concluded, in accordance with Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05, that this fee did not give any advantage to the slaughterhouses or the producers, because the fee covers a payment for a service from which the person who paid the fee benefited, and that the test price was based on the market price. This conclusion also permits the conclusion that there was no financing through State resources, given that the test price was in line with the market price.\n5.1.3. Distortion of competition and effect on trade within the EU\n(98)\nAs far as the other conditions governing the application of Article 107(1) of the TFEU are concerned, the measure may have an effect on Belgium\u2019s position in this sector (32). As the Belgian undertakings are active in a highly competitive international market, the measure distorts or threatens to distort competition (33) and affects trade between Member States.\n5.1.4. Conclusions on the nature of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU\n(99)\nIn light of the above, the Commission considers that the financing of the BSE tests through contributions and other State resources as indicated above is an advantage, financed through State resources. This advantage distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain enterprises and certain productions and is thereby likely to affect trade between Member States. The advantage is conferred to farmers, slaughterhouses and other entities which process, handle, sell or market products from bovine animals subject to a mandatory BSE test by virtue of the applicable legislation. Consequently, the Commission concludes that these measures fall within the scope of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. However, the part of the BSE tests that is financed by the fees does not constitute aid, given that those who pay the fee benefit from the services provided at the market price.\n5.2. Unlawfulness of the aid\n(100)\nSince 1 January 2001 the Belgian authorities have not notified the Commission, within the meaning of Article 108(3) of the TFEU, of the aid measures involved in the financing of the BSE tests. Aid measures that fall under Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 are exempt from the reporting obligation, provided that they meet the conditions set out in that Regulation. Consequently, they are unlawful if they do not meet those conditions.\n5.3. Financing the aid\n(101)\nWith regard to State aid part-financed by a para-fiscal tax, i.e. the contribution, the measures financed by the aid and the financing of the aid itself must be assessed by the Commission. Indeed, the possible incompatibility of the financing of a State aid measure with the internal market would also make the aid itself incompatible, even where the awarding of the aid had respected the relevant competition rules.\n(102)\nAccording to established case-law, taxes do not fall within the scope of the provisions of the TFEU concerning State aid unless they constitute the means of financing an aid measure, such that they form an integral part of that measure (34). For a tax or part of a tax to be considered as forming an integral part of an aid measure, it must be hypothecated to the aid measure under the relevant national rules, in the sense that the revenue from the tax must be allocated for the financing of the aid measure (35). If such a hypothecation exists, the revenue from the tax directly influences the amount of the aid (36) and, consequently, the assessment of the compatibility of this aid with the internal market. (37)\n(103)\nTherefore, consideration has to be given to whether the contribution levied since 1 July 2004 meets the criteria set out in recital 102, and distinctions must be made by the legal instruments applicable during the different periods. The aid financed was the subject of an exemption, but this exemption does not cover the system for financing the aid, so consequently the lawfulness of the financing system throughout the entire period in question must be examined.\n5.3.1. From 1 July 2004 to 31 December 2005\n(104)\nDuring this period the aid was pre-financed by the FASFC and by the fees in virtue of the Royal Decree of 15 October 2004 (although the latter are not covered by this section, given that they are not considered as aid - see recital 97). It is necessary to determine whether the financing system is an integral part of the aid measure. The legislation in force does not suggest that the means of financing of the FASFC be hypothecated to the financing of the BSE tests, nor that the revenue from the tax must be allocated to financing the aid. In fact, the Law of 4 February 2000 creating the FASFC provides for different sources of financing for the FASFC (see recital 82). Furthermore, it cannot be concluded that the revenue from the tax directly influences the amount of the aid, given that the tests are financed by both fees and by the FASFC for the remainder. Consequently, the amount of aid paid by the FASFC varies on the basis of the price of the tests and not on the basis of the contributions paid to the FASFC. In conclusion, there is no hypothecation between the revenue from the contributions and the reimbursement of the pre-financing.\n5.3.2. From 1 January 2006 on\n(105)\nSince that date, the question of the contributions is regulated by the Royal Decree on the contributions for financing the FASFC. Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05 examined the system of financing through contributions and concluded that the part-financing of the costs connected with the BSE tests did not involve discrimination against imported or exported products and was not contrary to the provisions of the Treaty (38). As indicated in recital 31, this Decision does not have any bearing on previously approved measures. However, given that Belgium indicated that a part of the contributions were used, from 1 January 2006, to reimburse the pre-financing of earlier BSE tests, the Commission is entitled to examine the financing system with regard to the contributions financing the reimbursement of the pre-financing of the BSE tests.\n(106)\nBelgium has indicated that the financing system was unchanged, apart from the indexation of the fee. The only element that was changed is the use of revenue from the contributions to reimburse the pre-financing of the BSE costs in 2006.\n(107)\nAs for the question of whether this financing is an integral part of the aid measure, the answer is no. The allocation of the contributions after 2006 for reimbursing the pre-financing of the tests did not affect the amount of aid awarded. Furthermore, the Belgian authorities indicated that the recovery system was a solidarity-based recovery system whereby each operator paid a contribution to the FSCA and a part of that contribution went to recovering past costs linked to pre-financing the BSE tests. All active operators that had bovine animals in the period in question contributed equally to that system, but they were not the only contributors. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the financing of the aid was not an integral part of the aid measure in question.\n5.4. Appraisal of the compatibility of the aid measures\n(108)\nWhere the aid constitutes State aid and falls under Article 107(1) of the TFEU, it is necessary to examine whether it can be considered compatible with the internal market by virtue of Article 107(2) and (3) of the TFEU.\n(109)\nIn the light of the measure in question, only Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU, which stipulates that aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may be considered to be compatible with the internal market where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, could apply.\n(110)\nPursuant to point 23.3 of the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector (39) for the period 2000-06 (hereinafter \u2018the 2000-06 agricultural guidelines\u2019) and the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid (40), all unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (41) must be assessed in accordance with the rules and guidelines in force at the time the aid was granted. In 2002, the Commission adopted the TSE guidelines. They applied between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2006 (42). Point 44 of the TSE guidelines provides that, except for cases relating in particular to BSE tests, unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 is to be examined in accordance with the rules and guidelines applicable at the time the aid was granted. Given that the aid was granted between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2005, the TSE guidelines are the appropriate framework for examining this aid.\n(111)\nIn accordance with point 194(c) of the 2007-13 agricultural guidelines, the Commission will cease to apply the TSE guidelines from 1 January 2007, except for unlawful aid as set out in point 43 et seq. of those guidelines.\n(112)\nTwo periods can be distinguished on the basis of the different legal provisions that apply.\n5.4.1. Period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2002: application of point 11.4 of the 2000-06 agricultural guidelines as referred to in point 45 of the TSE guidelines\n(113)\nPoint 45 of the TSE guidelines provides that, as regards unlawful State aid towards the costs of BSE tests granted before the date of application of the TSE guidelines (i.e. 1 January 2003), the Commission is to evaluate the compatibility of such aid in line with point 11.4 of the 2000-06 agriculture guidelines and its practice since 2001 of accepting such aid of up to 100 %.\n(114)\nIn order to be considered compatible, in accordance with point 11.4 of the 2000-06 agricultural guidelines:\n-\nthe measure must be part of an appropriate programme at Community, national or regional level for the prevention, control or eradication of the disease concerned (point 11.4.2),\n-\nthe objective of the measure should be either preventive or compensatory, or a combination of the two (point 11.4.3),\n-\nthe measure should be compatible both with the objectives and the specific provisions laid down in Community veterinary and phytosanitary legislation (point 11.4.4),\n-\nthe aid intensity should not exceed 100 % of the eligible costs (point 11.4.5).\nIf the aid is provided under Community and/or national and/or regional aid schemes, the Commission is to require evidence that there is no possibility of overcompensation through the cumulation of measures under different schemes. Where Community aid has been approved, the date and references of the relevant Commission decision should be provided.\n(115)\nAs regards the first three conditions, the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure already concluded that they had been met (see recital 80 of that decision). Furthermore, the Belgian authorities confirmed this approach in their comments on the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure. BSE is a transmissible disease and poses a threat to human health. It is an animal disease of which a primary outbreak must be notified directly to the Commission and other Member States (43). The objective of the aid measure is to control BSE by testing slaughtered animals and fallen stock. Compensating the costs of farmers should ensure that the measures are actually implemented. All the measures arise under, or are recommended by, Community law (44).\n(116)\nAs regards the fourth condition, the information provided by Belgium refers to financing of BSE tests with a cost varying between EUR 111,81 and EUR 63,45 during this period (see recital 56). This covers the cost of the laboratory analysis, the cost of having a sample taken by a vet and the cost of the test kit. The Commission is of the opinion that these costs are in line with those mentioned in point 11.4.5 of the 2000-06 agricultural guidelines, which include health checks, tests and other screening measures among the actual costs incurred.\n(117)\nIn conclusion, the aid granted in the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2002 is compatible.\n5.4.2. Period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005: application of point 21 et seq. of the TSE guidelines\n(118)\nIn accordance with point 23 of the TSE guidelines, the Commission decided to continue to approve aid of up to 100 % of the costs of BSE tests meeting the principles set out in point 11.4 of the 2000-06 agriculture guidelines (see recital 114).\n(119)\nIn addition, the following conditions must also be met in line with the TSE guidelines:\n-\nfrom 1 January 2003, as far as compulsory BSE testing of bovine animals slaughtered for human consumption is concerned, support, including Community payments, may not be more than EUR 40 per test (see point 24 of the TSE guidelines),\n-\nState aid towards the costs of BSE tests must be paid to the operator where the samples for the tests have to be taken. If the aid is paid to laboratories, it must be demonstrated that the full amount of State aid paid is passed on to the operator (point 25 of the TSE guidelines).\n(120)\nAs indicated in recitals 115 and 116, the four conditions set in the 2000-06 agricultural guidelines have been met.\n(121)\nAs regards the condition concerning the maximum amount of EUR 40 per test, the Commission notes that this limit was exceeded between 1 January 2003 and 30 June 2004. According to the information provided by Belgium, the total amount of the excess payments during this period was EUR 6 619 810,74. From 1 July 2004, the total cost of the test was below EUR 40 (see recital 64). The Belgian authorities have indicated that these amounts covered both national and Community payments (see recital 58).\n(122)\nAs regards the requirement that the aid must be paid to the operator where the samples for the test are taken or that, if the aid is paid to laboratories, it must be demonstrated that the full amount of State aid is passed on to the operator (point 25 of the TSE guidelines), the Commission concludes that this requirement has been met.\n(123)\nAs indicated in the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure, the Belgian authorities stated that the costs of BSE tests are paid directly to the laboratories. Operators do not have to pay any laboratory costs for BSE tests on bovine animals. This appraisal is in line with what was decided for the similar system in recital 95 of decision N 9/05 and N 10/05. As already stated, the only cost passed on to producers is the fee (see recital 93 et seq.), but this part of the financing of the BSE test does not constitute aid. Consequently, the full amount of the aid is passed on to the operator.\n5.4.3. From 1 January 2006\n(124)\nFor the period after 1 January 2006, the Commission refers to decision N 9/05 and N 10/05, as it is not the purpose of this Decision to go back over the aid approved there.\n5.4.4. Conclusion\n(125)\nTo conclude, the aid granted to finance BSE tests in excess of EUR 40 per test during the period from 1 January 2003 to 30 June 2004, which amounts to EUR 6 619 810,74 in total, is incompatible with the internal market.\n5.5. Repayment of prefinanced budget\n(126)\nAs mentioned above, the tests were financed from State resources over and above the limit of EUR 40 per test during the period from 1 January 2003 to 30 June 2004.\n(127)\nBelgium decided to start repaying this excess from the contributions levied to finance the FASFC from 1 January 2006, initially spread over a period of 15 years, but this was subsequently abandoned. According to the Belgian authorities, the reason for this global approach is that, in practice, it was difficult to enforce recovery on an individual basis, as some operators had died or ceased operating.\n(128)\nIn a subsequent letter dated 6 April 2011, the Belgian authorities indicated that the FASFC had started repayment using FASFC resources in 2005-06.\n(129)\nHowever, the recovery system proposed does not meet the requirements for the recovery of unlawful and incompatible aid. Under case law, the purpose of recovery is to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid. The objective of re-establishing the previously existing situation is achieved once the unlawful and incompatible aid is repaid by the recipient, who thereby forfeits the advantage which he enjoyed over his competitors in the market, and the situation as it existed prior to the granting of the aid is restored (45). The aid to be recovered includes interest, at an appropriate rate fixed by the Commission, from the date on which the unlawful aid was placed at the disposal of the beneficiary until the date of its recovery (46). Under Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (47), interest must be calculated on a compound basis, which is not the case here. Furthermore, Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 stipulates that Member States must take all necessary measures to ensure the immediate and effective execution of the Commission\u2019s decision. Recovery as proposed and partially implemented by Belgium does not meet the above requirements and cannot be considered recovery as provided for in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.\n6. CONCLUSIONS\n(130)\nThe Commission concludes that financing BSE tests through fees does not constitute aid.\n(131)\nThe Commission concludes that financing BSE tests from State resources constitutes aid for farmers, slaughterhouses and other entities that process, handle, sell or trade in bovine animal products that are subject to compulsory BSE testing under the applicable legislation. This aid is compatible for the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2002 and from 1 July 2004 to 31 December 2005. It is incompatible for the period from 1 January 2003 to 30 June 2004. The incompatible portion of the aid consists of the amount in excess of EUR 40 per test and has been assessed by Belgium as EUR 6 619 810,74.\n(132)\nThe Commission notes that Belgium unlawfully implemented aid to finance BSE tests in breach of Article 108(3) of the TFEU during the period from 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2004. From 1 January 2003, the aid was covered by an exemption regulation, but as the conditions of the exemption regulation were not complied with, the aid is unlawful.\n(133)\nThe unlawful and incompatible aid exceeding the maximum amount of EUR 40 per test must be recovered, with the exception of aid granted to specific projects which, at the time the aid was granted, met all the conditions set in the applicable de minimis Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The measures financed through fees do not constitute aid.\n2. For the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2002 and for the period from 1 July 2004 to 31 December 2005, financing of BSE tests from State resources constitutes aid compatible with the internal market for farmers, slaughterhouses and other entities that process, handle, sell or trade in bovine animal products that are subject to compulsory BSE testing.\n3. For the period from 1 January 2003 to 30 June 2004, financing of BSE tests from State resources constitutes aid compatible with the internal market for farmers, slaughterhouses and other entities that process, handle, sell or trade in bovine animal products that are subject to compulsory BSE testing for amounts of up to EUR 40 per test. Amounts in excess of EUR 40 per test are incompatible with the internal market and must be recovered, with the exception of aid granted to specific projects which, at the time the aid was granted, met all the conditions set in the applicable de minimis Regulation.\n4. Belgium unlawfully implemented aid to finance BSE tests in breach of Article 108(3) of the TFEU during the period from 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2004.\nArticle 2\n1. Belgium shall take all necessary measures to recover the unlawful and incompatible aid referred to in Article 1(3) and (4) from its beneficiaries.\n2. The aid to be recovered shall include interest calculated from the date on which it was placed at the disposal of the beneficiaries until the date of its recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\n4. Recovery shall be effected without delay in accordance with the procedures provided for in national law, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nRecovery of the aid referred to in Article 1(3) and (4) shall be immediate and effective.\nBelgium shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within 4 months of the date of its notification.\nArticle 4\n1. Within 2 months of notification of this Decision, Belgium shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\na list of beneficiaries who received the aid referred to in Article 1(3) and (4) and the total amount of aid received by each one;\n(b)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interest) to be recovered from the beneficiaries;\n(c)\na detailed description of the measures already taken or planned to comply with this Decision;\n(d)\ndocuments demonstrating that orders to return the aid have been sent to the beneficiaries.\n2. Belgium shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1(3) and (4) has been completed.\n3. After the 2-month period referred to in paragraph 1, Belgium shall submit, at the Commission\u2019s request, a report on the measures already taken and those planned to comply with this Decision. That report shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiaries.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2011.", "references": ["70", "75", "43", "62", "16", "9", "42", "34", "13", "23", "95", "51", "79", "33", "24", "39", "40", "4", "60", "54", "81", "86", "57", "1", "74", "5", "76", "37", "31", "90", "No Label", "8", "15", "38", "48", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "38", "48", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 31 July 2012\non recognition of the \u2018NTA 8080\u2019 scheme for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria under Directives 98/70/EC and 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(2012/452/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1), and in particular Article 18(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels (2) as amended by the Directive 2009/30/EC (3), and in particular Article 7c(6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee established by Article 25, paragraph 2 of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 98/70/EC and 2009/28/EC both lay down sustainability criteria for biofuels. Provisions of Article 7b, 7c and Annex IV of Directive 98/70/EC are similar to provisions of Articles 17, 18 and Annex V of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(2)\nWhere biofuels and bioliquids are to be taken into account for the purposes referred to in Article 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2009/28/EC Member States should require economic operators to show the compliance of biofuels and bioliquids with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(2) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(3)\nRecital 76 of Directive 2009/28/EC states that the imposition of an unreasonable burden on industry should be avoided and voluntary schemes can help create efficient solutions for proving compliance with these sustainability criteria.\n(4)\nThe Commission may decide that a voluntary national or international scheme demonstrates that consignments of biofuel comply with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(3) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC or that a voluntary national or international scheme to measure greenhouse gas emission savings contains accurate data for the purposes of Article 17(2) of this Directive.\n(5)\nThe Commission may recognise such a voluntary scheme for a period of five years.\n(6)\nWhen an economic operator provides proof or data obtained in accordance with a voluntary scheme that has been recognised by the Commission, to the extent covered by the recognition decision, a Member State should not require the supplier to provide further evidence of compliance with the sustainability criteria.\n(7)\nThe \u2018NTA 8080\u2019 scheme was submitted on 15 March 2012 to the Commission with the request for recognition. The NTA 8080 scheme that consists of the NTA 8080 standard, the 8081 standard and additional scheme documents can cover a wide range of different biofuels and bioliquids. The recognised scheme should be made available at the transparency platform established under Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission should take into account considerations of commercial sensitivity and may decide to only partially publish the scheme.\n(8)\nAssessment of the \u2018NTA 8080\u2019 scheme found it to adequately cover the sustainability criteria in Article 7b(3)(a), 7b(3)(b), Article 7b(4) and 7b(5) of Directive 98/70/EC and Article 17(3)(a), 17(3)(b), Article 17(4) and 17(5) of Directive 2009/28/EC, as well as applying a mass balance methodology in line with the requirements of Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC and Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(9)\nThe evaluation of the \u2018NTA 8080\u2019 scheme found that it meets adequate standards of reliability, transparency and independent auditing and also complies with the methodological requirements in Annex IV to Directive 98/70/EC and Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(10)\nAny additional sustainability elements covered by the \u2018NTA 8080\u2019 scheme are not part of the consideration of this Decision. These additional sustainability elements are not mandatory to show compliance with sustainability requirements provided for by Directives 98/70/EC and 2009/28/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018NTA 8080\u2019 for which the request for recognition was submitted to the Commission on 15 March 2012 demonstrates that consignments of biofuels comply with the sustainability criteria as laid down in Article 17(3)(a), 17(3)(b), Article 17(4) and 17(5) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(3)(a), 7b(3)(b), 7b(4) and 7b(5) of Directive 98/70/EC. The scheme also contains accurate data for purposes of Article 17(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(2) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018NTA 8080\u2019 may be used for demonstrating compliance with Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC and Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\nArticle 2\nThe Decision is valid for a period of five years after it enters into force. If the scheme, after adoption of this Decision, undergoes changes to its contents in a way that might affect the basis of this Decision, such changes shall be notified to the Commission without delay. The Commission shall assess the notified changes with a view to establish whether the scheme is still adequately covering the sustainability criteria for which it is recognised.\nIf it has been clearly demonstrated that the scheme has not implemented elements considered to be decisive for this Decision and if severe and structural breach of those elements has taken place, the Commission may repeal this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 31 July 2012.", "references": ["62", "75", "81", "74", "83", "65", "88", "27", "94", "91", "60", "80", "56", "69", "42", "22", "85", "52", "49", "5", "97", "86", "39", "25", "7", "54", "92", "59", "14", "63", "No Label", "58", "76", "77", "78"], "gold": ["58", "76", "77", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 638/2011\nof 29 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2011.", "references": ["91", "33", "37", "96", "86", "5", "38", "75", "31", "18", "9", "20", "23", "13", "22", "0", "28", "40", "51", "32", "94", "64", "52", "10", "47", "26", "90", "19", "68", "36", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION ATALANTA/1/2012\nof 25 May 2012\non the appointment of an EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)\n(2012/284/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (Atalanta), and in particular Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6(1) of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\n(2)\nOn 2 December 2011, the PSC adopted Decision Atalanta/4/2011 (2) appointing Captain Jorge MANSO as EU Force Commander.\n(3)\nThe EU Operation Commander has recommended the appointment of Rear-Admiral Jean-Baptiste DUPUIS as the new EU Force Commander.\n(4)\nThe EU Military Committee supports that recommendation.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nRear-Admiral Jean-Baptiste DUPUIS is hereby appointed EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption\nIt shall apply from 6 April 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2012.", "references": ["29", "4", "14", "82", "3", "19", "41", "75", "1", "96", "43", "50", "69", "31", "22", "45", "37", "76", "27", "52", "54", "30", "87", "11", "70", "90", "49", "86", "42", "83", "No Label", "6", "7", "9", "12", "94"], "gold": ["6", "7", "9", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 959/2011\nof 26 September 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 953/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 September 2011.", "references": ["70", "80", "41", "67", "26", "93", "44", "18", "19", "63", "12", "84", "65", "68", "79", "88", "45", "15", "54", "49", "9", "62", "73", "4", "6", "32", "95", "87", "36", "58", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 639/2012\nof 13 July 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 July 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 July 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 July 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2012.", "references": ["62", "53", "84", "83", "17", "85", "29", "27", "90", "67", "14", "78", "76", "98", "80", "20", "47", "11", "35", "41", "3", "54", "25", "73", "95", "69", "50", "94", "16", "56", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 485/2011\nof 18 May 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Karp zatorski (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Karp zatorski\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 May 2011.", "references": ["6", "27", "55", "42", "33", "92", "22", "77", "14", "83", "79", "86", "45", "93", "38", "49", "44", "20", "39", "43", "99", "41", "80", "58", "48", "47", "30", "70", "5", "56", "No Label", "24", "25", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/336/CFSP\nof 14 June 2010\non EU activities in support of the Arms Trade Treaty, in the framework of the European Security Strategy\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 26(2) and Article 31(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 December 2003 the European Council adopted a European Security Strategy that called for an international order based on effective multilateralism. The European Security Strategy acknowledges the United Nations (UN) Charter as the fundamental framework for international relations. Strengthening the UN and equipping it to fulfil its responsibilities and to act effectively, is a priority of the European Union.\n(2)\nOn 6 December 2006 the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 61/89 entitled \u2018Towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms\u2019.\n(3)\nIn its conclusions of 11 December 2006, the Council welcomed the formal start of the process towards the elaboration of a legally binding international Arms Trade Treaty (hereinafter referred to as \u2018ATT\u2019) and noted with appreciation that a clear majority of UN Member States had supported UN General Assembly resolution 61/89, including all Member States of the Union. The Council reaffirmed that the Union and its Member States would play an active role in this process, and underlined the importance of cooperation in this process with other States and regional organisations.\n(4)\nThe UN Secretary-General set up a Group of Governmental Experts (hereinafter referred to as \u2018GGE\u2019), comprising 28 members, to continue the consideration of a possible ATT. The GGE met throughout 2008 and concluded that further consideration was required and that efforts should be carried out, on a step-by-step basis, in an open and transparent manner, within the framework of the UN. The GGE encouraged those States in a position to do so, to render assistance to States in need, upon request.\n(5)\nIn its conclusions of 10 December 2007, the Council welcomed the establishment of a UN GGE and expressed its firm belief that a comprehensive, legally binding instrument, consistent with existing responsibilities of States under relevant international law and establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, would be a major contribution to tackling the undesirable and irresponsible proliferation of conventional arms.\n(6)\nThe United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) supported this process by undertaking a two-part study consisting of two in-depth analyses of UN Member States\u2019 views on the feasibility, scope and draft parameters of an ATT. The analyses, produced in December 2007 and January 2008 served as a useful input to the GGE.\n(7)\nOn 24 December 2008 the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 63/240 entitled \u2018Towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms\u2019 establishing an Open Ended Working Group (hereinafter referred to as \u2018OEWG\u2019) to further consider those elements in the report of the GGE where consensus could be developed for their inclusion in an eventual legally binding treaty on the import, export and transfer of conventional arms. The OEWG met twice in 2009, and submitted a report to the UN General Assembly noticing that the problem of unregulated trade in conventional weapons and their diversion to the illicit market should be addressed through international action.\n(8)\nBased on the above mentioned Council conclusions, the Union decided to support the ATT process, by opening the debate to include States not members of the GGE, as well as to other actors such as civil society and industry, to develop the understanding of the issue and to contribute to the work of the OEWG. For this purpose, on 19 January 2009 the Council adopted Council Decision 2009/42/CFSP (1) on support for EU activities in order to promote among third countries the process leading towards an Arms Trade Treaty, in the framework of the European Security Strategy.\n(9)\nWithin the framework of the implementation of Decision 2009/42/CFSP, UNIDIR, as the implementing agency of the Decision, organised six regional seminars, a side-event and opening and concluding events between February 2009 and February 2010. These activities allowed relevant stakeholders, including representatives of civil society, industry and countries who did not participate in the GGE, to participate in open informal discussions on an ATT. The implementation of Decision 2009/42/CFSP also offered an opportunity to integrate national and regional approaches to the international process underway, and to contribute to identifying the scope and implications of a treaty on the trade in conventional arms.\n(10)\nOn 2 December 2009 the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 64/48 entitled \u2018The arms trade treaty\u2019 that decided to convene the UN Conference on the ATT in 2012 to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms. The resolution also decided that the remaining sessions of the OEWG shall be considered as Preparatory Committee Meetings for the UN Conference.\n(11)\nConsidering the activities of Decision 2009/42/CFSP which expires in May 2010, the need to prepare for a successful UN Conference on the ATT in 2012, and the recommendation contained in resolution 64/48 to ensure the widest possible and effective participation in the Conference, the Union should support the preparatory process leading up to the UN Conference to ensure that it is as inclusive as possible and able to make concrete recommendations on the elements of a future ATT. The Union\u2019s support to the ATT process should include measures in support of national export and import control systems in third countries that would have to comply with a future ATT,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. For the purpose of supporting the Arms Trade Treaty (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018ATT\u2019), the Union shall undertake activities with the following objectives:\n-\nto support the preparatory process leading up to the UN Conference on the ATT to ensure that it is as inclusive as possible and able to make concrete recommendations on the elements of the future ATT,\n-\nto support UN Member States in developing and improving national and regional expertise to implement effective arms transfer controls, in order to ensure that the future ATT when coming into force, will be as effective as possible.\n2. In order to achieve the objectives referred to in paragraph 1, the Union will undertake the following project:\n-\norganisation of seven regional seminars, a launching and a concluding event, up to three side-events, and dissemination of results.\nA detailed description of the project referred to above is set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018HR\u2019) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.\n2. The implementation of the project referred to in Article 1(2) shall be carried out by the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR).\n3. UNIDIR shall perform its task under the responsibility of the HR. For this purpose, the HR shall enter into the necessary arrangements with UNIDIR.\nArticle 3\n1. The financial reference amount for the implementation of the project referred to in Article 1(2) shall be EUR 1 520 000.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The European Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 1. For this purpose, it shall conclude a financing agreement with UNIDIR. The agreement shall stipulate that UNIDIR is to ensure the visibility of the contribution of the Union, appropriate to its size.\n4. The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the financing agreement.\nArticle 4\nThe HR shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular reports following the organisation of each of the regional seminars, the final and opening seminars, as well as the side events. The reports will be prepared by UNIDIR and they shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council. The Commission shall provide information on the financial aspects of the implementation of the project referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 5\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall expire 24 months after the date of conclusion of the financing agreement referred to in Article 3(3). It shall expire six months after the date of its entry into force if that financing agreement has not been concluded by that time.\nDone at Luxembourg, 14 June 2010.", "references": ["79", "85", "53", "8", "37", "2", "23", "82", "5", "97", "94", "58", "66", "50", "81", "80", "69", "98", "16", "30", "4", "62", "59", "67", "89", "74", "26", "28", "95", "36", "No Label", "3", "6", "9", "10", "20", "76"], "gold": ["3", "6", "9", "10", "20", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 29 November 2011\nauthorising Member States temporarily to take emergency measures against the dissemination of Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. as regards Egypt\n(notified under document C(2011) 8618)\n(2011/787/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 16(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRalstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. (also known as Pseudomonas solanacearum (Smith) Smith) is an organism harmful to tubers of Solanum tuberosum L. and as such is subject to measures provided for by Directive 2000/29/EC and Council Directive 98/57/EC of 20 July 1998 on the control of Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al (2).\n(2)\nFollowing interceptions in the Union of Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. on tubers of Solanum tuberosum L. originating in Egypt, the Commission adopted Decision 2004/4/EC of 22 December 2003 authorising Member States temporarily to take emergency measures against the dissemination of Pseudomonas solanacearum (Smith) Smith as regards Egypt (3). That Decision prohibited the entry into the Union of tubers of Solanum tuberosum L. originating in Egypt unless certain requirements were complied with.\n(3)\nDuring the last years further interceptions of Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. have occurred on tubers of Solanum tuberosum L. originating in Egypt. Therefore, emergency measures against the dissemination of the harmful organism concerned should continue to be in place with regard to the entry into the Union of tubers of Solanum tuberosum L. originating in Egypt.\n(4)\nHowever, those emergency measures should be adapted to respond to a situation which has improved as a result of actions taken by Egypt, in particular a new control regime for the production and export of tubers of Solanum tuberosum L. to the Union presented by Egypt. In addition, during the 2010/2011 import season no interception of Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. has been recorded in the Union.\n(5)\nTherefore, the entry into the Union of tubers of Solanum tuberosum L. originating in Egypt should be permitted if they have been grown in certain areas established by Egypt in accordance with the relevant international standards. The Commission should convey the list of those areas, submitted by Egypt, to the Member States to allow them to carry out import controls and to enable traceability of consignments. Provision should be made for updating that list in the case of an interception of Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. In addition, the Union control requirements for the import of tubers of Solanum tuberosum L. originating in Egypt should be limited to an intensive inspection regime at the arrival of those tubers in the Union.\n(6)\nMember States should provide the Commission and the other Member States after every import season with detailed information on the imports made in order that the application of this Decision to be assessed.\n(7)\nIn the interest of clarity and rationality, Decision 2004/4/EC should therefore be repealed and replaced by this Decision.\n(8)\nIt is necessary to provide for the possibility to review this Decision.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nPest-free areas\n1. The entry into the territory of the Union of tubers of Solanum tuberosum L. which originate in Egypt shall be permitted if they have been grown in areas included in the list of pest-free areas referred to in paragraph 2 and if the requirements laid down in the Annex are complied with.\n2. The Commission shall convey to the Member States a list of pest-free areas submitted by Egypt before each import season and which contains the pest-free areas established in accordance with the \u2018FAO International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures No 4: Pest Surveillance - Requirements for the Establishment of Pest-Free Areas\u2019.\n3. When an interception of Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. is notified to the Commission and Egypt, the area in which the intercepted tubers of Solanum tuberosum L. originate shall be excluded from the list of pest-free areas, referred to in paragraph 2, pending the outcome of investigations carried out by Egypt. The Commission shall convey to the Member States the results of those investigations and, if relevant, an updated list of pest-free areas, as submitted by Egypt.\nArticle 2\nSubmission of information and notifications\n1. The importing Member States shall submit to the Commission and the other Member States, each year before 31 August, information on the amounts imported under this Decision during the previous import season, a detailed technical report on the inspections referred to in point 4 of the Annex and testing on latent infection referred to in point 5 of the Annex and copies of all official phytosanitary certificates.\n2. When Member States notify to the Commission a suspect or confirmed finding of Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. in accordance with point 6 of the Annex, that notification shall be accompanied by copies of the relevant official phytosanitary certificates and their attached documents.\n3. The notification referred to in paragraph 2 shall cover only the consignment, where it is composed of lots which all have the same provenance.\nArticle 3\nRepeal\nDecision 2004/4/EC is repealed.\nArticle 4\nReview\nThe Commission shall review this Decision by 30 September 2012.\nArticle 5\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2011.", "references": ["71", "8", "63", "16", "60", "84", "88", "11", "75", "6", "40", "55", "95", "67", "42", "91", "89", "90", "45", "29", "1", "28", "3", "5", "30", "31", "54", "39", "76", "47", "No Label", "20", "22", "23", "43", "61", "66", "68", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "22", "23", "43", "61", "66", "68", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 353/2010\nof 23 April 2010\napproving minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Mirabelles de Lorraine (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the second sentence of Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined France's application for approval of an amendment to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Mirabelles de Lorraine\u2019, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/1996 (2).\n(2)\nThe application is for the specification to be amended by the inclusion of deep-frozen mirabelles. Some other amendments have been made, in particular as regards the proof of origin and the labelling.\n(3)\nThe Commission has examined the amendment in question and decided that it is justified. Since the amendment is minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission may approve it without following the procedure set out in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Mirabelles de Lorraine\u2019 is hereby amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAnnex II to this Regulation contains the Single Document setting out the main points of the specification.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2010.", "references": ["69", "55", "34", "36", "45", "2", "4", "60", "48", "86", "81", "31", "97", "51", "27", "91", "40", "98", "74", "26", "18", "50", "32", "82", "95", "61", "44", "20", "30", "10", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "92"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "92"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 75/2011\nof 28 January 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for blue marlin in the Atlantic Ocean by vessels flying the flag of a Member State of the European Union\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member States referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member States referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member States referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 January 2011.", "references": ["52", "57", "64", "26", "97", "51", "0", "24", "79", "2", "19", "33", "87", "41", "84", "95", "3", "30", "75", "45", "70", "22", "31", "65", "83", "82", "61", "98", "16", "20", "No Label", "56", "59", "67", "96"], "gold": ["56", "59", "67", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 782/2012\nof 28 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 August 2012.", "references": ["48", "76", "86", "28", "62", "30", "81", "10", "33", "23", "83", "53", "27", "58", "60", "1", "16", "70", "12", "36", "14", "57", "78", "46", "25", "4", "90", "67", "95", "49", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 6 December 2010\non the duty-free importation of goods intended to be distributed or made available free of charge to victims of the floods which occurred in Spring 2010 in Hungary\n(notified under document C(2010) 8482)\n(Only the Hungarian text is authentic)\n(2010/760/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (1), and in particular Article 76 thereof,\nHaving regard to the request, made by the Government of Hungary dated 2 June 2010 seeking the duty-free importation of goods intended to be made available free of charge to victims of the floods which occurred in Spring 2010 in Hungary,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA flood constitutes a disaster within the meaning of Title XVII C of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009; whereas there is consequently reason to authorize the duty-free importation of goods which satisfy the requirements of Articles 74 to 80 of the abovementioned Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009.\n(2)\nIn order that the Commission may be suitably informed of the use made of the goods admitted duty-free, the Government of Hungary must communicate the measures taken to prevent such goods imported duty-free from being employed otherwise than for the use laid down.\n(3)\nThe Commission should also be informed of the extent and the nature of the importations made.\n(4)\nOther Member States have been consulted as laid down in Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Goods imported for release for free circulation by State bodies or by organizations approved by the competent Hungarian authorities for the purpose of being distributed by them free of charge to the victims of the floods which occurred in Spring 2010 in Hungary, or made available to them free of charge while remaining the property of the organizations in question shall be admitted free of import duties within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009.\n2. Goods imported for release for free circulation by relief agencies in order to meet their needs during the period of their activity shall also be admitted duty-free.\nArticle 2\nThe Government of Hungary shall communicate to the Commission at the latest on 31 January 2011 the list of approved organizations referred to in Article 1(1).\nArticle 3\nThe Government of Hungary shall communicate to the Commission at the latest on 31 January 2011 by broad category of products, all information regarding the nature and quantities of the various goods admitted free of duty in pursuance of Article 1.\nArticle 4\nThe Government of Hungary shall communicate to the Commission at the latest on 31 January 2011 the measures which it takes to ensure that Articles 78, 79 and 80 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 are respected.\nArticle 5\nArticle 1 of this Decision shall apply to importations made on or after 1 May 2010 and not later than 31 December 2010.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to Hungary.\nDone at Brussels, 6 December 2010.", "references": ["40", "58", "15", "16", "0", "89", "48", "56", "87", "62", "53", "28", "80", "57", "94", "71", "90", "36", "47", "64", "50", "92", "25", "70", "37", "65", "54", "99", "51", "35", "No Label", "4", "10", "12", "21", "22", "60", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "12", "21", "22", "60", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 195/2012\nof 8 March 2012\nfixing the Union selling prices for the fishery products listed in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 for the 2012 fishing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1), and in particular Article 25(1) and (6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA Union selling price is to be fixed for each of the products listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 before the beginning of the fishing year, at a level at least equal to 70 % and not exceeding 90 % of the guide price.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1388/2011 (2) fixes the guide prices for the 2012 fishing year for all the products concerned.\n(3)\nMarket prices vary considerably depending on the species and how the products are presented, particularly in the case of squid and hake.\n(4)\nConversion factors should therefore be fixed for the different species and presentations of frozen products landed in the Union in order to determine the price level that trigger the intervention measure provided for in Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000.\n(5)\nIn order not to hinder the operation of the intervention system in the year 2012, this Regulation should apply retroactively from 1 January 2012.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Union selling prices, as referred to in Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, applicable during the 2012 fishing year for the products listed in Annex II to that Regulation and the presentations and conversion factors to which they relate are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2012.", "references": ["60", "15", "31", "22", "23", "89", "65", "4", "11", "69", "55", "82", "66", "62", "7", "39", "73", "84", "5", "10", "54", "3", "49", "8", "97", "61", "59", "93", "30", "42", "No Label", "35", "67", "72"], "gold": ["35", "67", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 340/2012\nof 19 April 2012\nfixing the export refunds on eggs\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in eggs, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely within the Union and comply with requirements under Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2) and of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3), as well as marking requirements under point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 47/2012 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nIn order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 and those defined in point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 47/2012 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["81", "49", "82", "59", "10", "70", "88", "60", "18", "89", "94", "62", "29", "37", "46", "1", "32", "90", "65", "19", "33", "96", "56", "30", "58", "0", "11", "5", "21", "99", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 109/2012\nof 9 February 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (CMR substances)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Article 68(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, in its entries 28 to 30, prohibits the sale to the general public of substances that are classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR), categories 1A or 1B or of mixtures containing them in concentration above specified concentration limits. The substances concerned are listed in Appendices 1 to 6 to Annex XVII.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (2) was amended on 5 September 2009 by Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 (3) in order to include a number of newly classified CMR substances. Appendices 1 to 6 to Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 should be amended in order to align them to the entries concerning CMR substances in Regulation (EC) No 790/2009.\n(3)\nUnder Article 68 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, restrictions may be proposed on the consumer use of CMR substances categories 1A and 1B on their own, in a mixture or in an article.\n(4)\nA number of boron compounds were found to be toxic for reproduction and were classified as toxic for reproduction, hazard class and category Repr. 1B, hazard statement H360FD under the Regulation (EC) No 790/2009. A market survey conducted for the Commission (4) on the uses of borates in mixtures sold to the general public reported that sodium perborate, tetra and monohydrate, are used in a concentration exceeding their specific concentration limit specified in Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 in household detergents and cleaners.\n(5)\nOn 29 April 2010, the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) gave an opinion on the use of boron compounds in photographic applications (5). In its opinion, the RAC noted that there were \u2018more possible sources that contribute to the total exposure to boron of consumers\u2019, and that these \u2018additional sources have to be considered in the risk assessment of boron compounds\u2019. Multiple sources of exposure to boron of consumers were not considered in previous risk assessments, in contrast with current concerns with multiple sources of exposure in general.\n(6)\nSodium perborate, tetra and monohydrate, are mainly used as bleaching agents in laundry detergents and machine dishwashing products. The Rapporteur Member State, responsible for conducting the risk evaluation on sodium perborate under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (6), submitted a dossier in accordance with Annex XV of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Article 136 of that Regulation. That risk assessment, published in 2007, concluded that the use of sodium perborate in laundry detergents and household cleaners, considered in isolation as a single source of exposure to boron, did not pose an unacceptable risk to the general public. Nevertheless, because the sources of exposure of the general public to boron are multiple, as expressed in the 2010 opinion of the RAC, and due to its reproductive toxicity it is desirable to reduce the exposure of the general public to boron. Moreover, because the consumer population exposed to boron from household detergents and cleaners is considerable, and because alternatives to perborates are available in these applications, it is appropriate to restrict the use of perborates in household detergents and cleaners. However, in order to allow certain manufacturers to adapt and replace, where necessary, boron compounds with alternatives in these applications, a time-limited derogation should be granted.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply on 1 June 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 February 2012.", "references": ["61", "58", "97", "26", "90", "86", "89", "4", "72", "92", "5", "28", "71", "48", "39", "12", "88", "68", "77", "96", "44", "7", "31", "64", "46", "66", "70", "87", "42", "85", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "60", "84"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "60", "84"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 May 2011\nappointing one Danish member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/311/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Danish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nOne member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Henning JENSEN,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby reappointed to the Committee of the Regions as a member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr Henning JENSEN, Byr\u00e5dsmedlem (change of mandate).\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 May 2011.", "references": ["0", "42", "57", "92", "41", "30", "18", "63", "98", "17", "49", "80", "83", "23", "36", "13", "72", "26", "67", "70", "4", "56", "33", "84", "78", "74", "95", "77", "50", "6", "No Label", "7", "52", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "52", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 515/2010\nof 15 June 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1137/2007 as regards the use of the feed additive Bacillus subtilis (O35) in feed containing lasalocid sodium, maduramycin ammonium, monensin sodium, narasin, salinomycin sodium and semduramycin sodium\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the possibility to modify the authorisation of a feed additive further to a request from the holder of the authorisation and an opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (the Authority).\n(3)\nThe use of the micro-organism preparation of Bacillus subtilis DSM 17299 was authorised for 10 years for chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1137/2007 of 1 October 2007 concerning the authorisation of Bacillus subtilis (O35) as a feed additive (2).\n(4)\nThe holder of the authorisation submitted an application for a modification of the authorisation of this additive to allow its use in feed containing the coccidiostats lasalocid sodium, maduramycin ammonium, monensin sodium, narasin, salinomycin sodium and semduramycin sodium for chickens for fattening. The holder of the authorisation submitted the relevant data to support its request.\n(5)\nThe Authority concluded in its opinion of 10 March 2010 that the additive Bacillus subtilis DSM 17299 is compatible with lasalocid sodium, maduramycin ammonium, monensin sodium, narasin, salinomycin sodium and semduramycin sodium (3).\n(6)\nThe conditions provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 are satisfied.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1137/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1137/2007 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2010.", "references": ["0", "78", "62", "87", "10", "63", "51", "69", "55", "13", "50", "88", "83", "73", "77", "97", "59", "17", "72", "45", "37", "92", "82", "3", "22", "71", "44", "53", "54", "34", "No Label", "25", "38", "43", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "43", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/619/CFSP\nof 15 October 2010\namending Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (1), EULEX KOSOVO\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 4 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP (2).\n(2)\nOn 9 June 2009, the Council adopted Joint Action 2009/445/CFSP (3), which amended Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP by increasing the financial reference amount to cover the expenditure of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (hereinafter \u2018EULEX KOSOVO\u2019) until the expiry of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP.\n(3)\nOn 8 June 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/322/CFSP (4), which amended and extended Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP for a period of two years until 14 June 2012, and laid down the financial reference amount of EUR 265 000 000 until 14 October 2010.\n(4)\nEULEX KOSOVO will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the common foreign and security policy as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty.\n(5)\nJoint Action 2008/124/CFSP should be amended to provide a new financial reference amount until 14 October 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 16(1) of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure of EULEX KOSOVO until 14 October 2010 shall be EUR 265 000 000.\nThe financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure of EULEX KOSOVO until 14 October 2011 shall be EUR 165 000 000.\nThe financial reference amount for the subsequent period for EULEX KOSOVO shall be decided by the Council.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 15 October 2010.", "references": ["66", "68", "67", "34", "5", "30", "73", "1", "52", "28", "74", "58", "81", "54", "45", "62", "24", "38", "44", "20", "97", "23", "49", "37", "75", "31", "77", "50", "47", "40", "No Label", "0", "3", "9", "91", "96"], "gold": ["0", "3", "9", "91", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 July 2010\non the signing and provisional application of a Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Moldova in Union programmes\n(2011/27/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 114, 168, 169, 172, 173(3), 188 and 192, in conjunction with Article 218(5) and the second subparagraph of Article 218(8), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 June 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part (1), on a Framework Agreement on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Moldova in Union programmes (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019).\n(2)\nThose negotiations have been concluded to the satisfaction of the Commission.\n(3)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nThe Protocol should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion at a later date.\n(5)\nArticle 10 of the Protocol provides for the provisional application of the Protocol before its entry into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign, on behalf of the Union, the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Moldova in Union programmes (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019).\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Protocol shall be applied provisionally as from the date of its signature, pending its conclusion at a later date.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2010.", "references": ["57", "41", "37", "48", "95", "8", "66", "46", "87", "67", "81", "12", "76", "40", "26", "88", "30", "89", "51", "45", "20", "80", "50", "16", "15", "22", "43", "28", "38", "70", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 577/2011\nof 16 June 2011\namending for the 149th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a), and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 26 May 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove two natural persons from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply and on 12 May amended seventy entries on the list.\n(3)\nAdditionally, a further deletion should be made following the Sanctions Committee\u2019s decision of 20 April 2011 to amend three entries on its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. The Commission adopted Regulation (EU) No 480/2011 (2) in order to give effect to the Sanctions Committee\u2019s decision of 20 April 2011. However, the amendment of the entry \u2018Benevolence International Foundation\u2019 should be complemented by the deletion of an separate entry, \u2018Stichting Benevolence International Nederland\u2019, from Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002.\n(4)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 June 2011.", "references": ["57", "43", "0", "80", "18", "58", "64", "16", "44", "27", "31", "49", "74", "13", "29", "22", "15", "89", "81", "54", "50", "91", "85", "28", "26", "9", "42", "4", "2", "34", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 2 July 2010\non the safety requirements to be met by European standards for certain products in the sleep environment of children pursuant to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(2010/376/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (1), and in particular Article 4(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2001/95/EC provides for European standards to be established by European standardisation bodies. These standards should ensure that products satisfy the general safety requirement of the Directive.\n(2)\nUnder Directive 2001/95/EC a product is presumed safe, as far as the risks and risk categories covered by national standards are concerned, when it complies with voluntary national standards transposing European standards.\n(3)\nIn 2006 the European Commission commissioned a study (2) to assess the safety of several child-care articles commonly used to care for babies and young children from 0 until 5 years of age. The study was carried out in cooperation with national authorities, national standardisation bodies, consumer associations, product safety organisations, economic operators and testing laboratories.\n(4)\nFor these products, the study compiled statistics on accidents and injuries in the Union and worldwide and carried out a complete risk assessment, based on an identification of the main hazards and an assessment of exposure scenarios.\n(5)\nFive types of products assessed by the study, which are regularly found in the sleep environment of newborns and young children, were identified for follow-up to the study. These are cot mattresses, cot bumpers, suspended baby beds, children\u2019s duvets and children\u2019s sleep bags.\n(6)\nEvery day, newborns sleep for on average at least 16 hours, and at 3-5 years children still sleep for 11-13 hours a day. Including awake periods, babies and young children spend at least half of the day in a sleep environment during their first five years of life. Products in the sleep environment must be safe, because that is where babies and young children are commonly left unattended for longer periods during the day and the night.\n(7)\nAccording to the European Injury Database IDB, between 2005 and 2007, 17 000 accidents involving children from 0 to 4 years happened in the cot in the European Union (3). According to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), every year more babies die in incidents involving cots and cot-related products than with any other child-care product (4).\n(8)\nSome models of cot bumpers and children\u2019s sleep bags have been notified through the European rapid alert system RAPEX as posing risks of suffocation and choking and consequently withdrawn from the market or recalled. In 1992, the French Consumer Safety Commission recommended action to inform consumers and improve the safety of children\u2019s duvets, due to risks of flammability, overheating and suffocation. (5) In 2002, 2007 and 2008 the US CPSC ordered the recall of some models of mattresses for cots due to entrapment hazards and unfounded claims (6).\n(9)\nCot bumpers, mattresses, and children\u2019s duvets, if unsafe or supplied without essential safety warnings, may increase the incidence of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) due to the risk of overheating and asphyxia (7).\n(10)\nAt the same time, research has found that children\u2019s sleep bags may have a protective effect against SIDS (8), since they reduce the incidence of turning to a prone position and prevent bedding from coming up over the face and the head during sleep. If their use is to be encouraged for these reasons, it is necessary to ensure their safety against other risks, such as choking on small parts and entrapment.\n(11)\nNo European standards exist for the abovementioned five types of products. It is therefore necessary to determine specific requirements pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2001/95/EC, with the view to requesting the standardisation bodies to develop standards to reduce the risks associated with the use of those products.\n(12)\nThese standards should be developed according to the procedure laid down in Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (9). The reference of the standard adopted should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC.\n(13)\nOnce the relevant standards are available, and provided that the Commission decides to publish their reference in the Official Journal, according to the procedure laid down in Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC, cot mattresses, cot bumpers, suspended baby beds, children\u2019s duvets and children\u2019s sleep bags manufactured in compliance with such standards should be presumed to comply with the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC, as far as the safety requirements covered by the standards are concerned.\n(14)\nThis Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up pursuant to Article 15 of Directive 2001/95/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision:\n-\n\u2018cot mattress\u2019 means a product providing support for newborns and children sleeping in a cot. It usually measures 60 \u00d7 120 cm or 70 \u00d7 140 cm and varies in thickness between 6 and 15 cm. It can also be foldable,\n-\n\u2018cot bumper\u2019 means an upholstered accessory for a cot attached to the inner part of it, generally used to improve the comfort of the child. It can cover at least one side of the cot,\n-\n\u2018suspended baby bed\u2019 means a cot or a crib, often with a non-rigid or other flat surface suspended with cords, straps or slings from one or more anchorage points. It is used to lay down a young baby who cannot kneel or sit up unaided,\n-\n\u2018duvet for children\u2019 means a fabric bag containing a soft filling for use in the cot to increase comfort when sleeping and prevent hypothermia,\n-\n\u2018children\u2019s sleep bag\u2019 means a warmly lined or padded body-length bag, in which the baby is placed and designed to prevent hypothermia and suffocation while sleeping or lying in a cot.\nArticle 2\nRequirements\nThe specific safety requirements for the products referred to in Article 1 to be met by European standards pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2001/95/EC are set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 2 July 2010.", "references": ["44", "14", "47", "78", "77", "18", "36", "27", "88", "65", "12", "35", "56", "62", "38", "23", "69", "20", "54", "86", "10", "64", "21", "15", "28", "7", "70", "67", "25", "79", "No Label", "24", "76"], "gold": ["24", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 607/2010\nof 9 July 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1542/2007 on landing and weighing procedures for herring, mackerel and horse mackerel\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 5(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nProcedures for landing and weighing have been developed in close cooperation between the Community and Norway and the Faeroe Islands. These are established in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1542/2007 (2). The scope of those rules was limited to the stocks which were subject to cooperation with Norway and the Faeroe Islands. However, the zones corresponding to the southern component of mackerel and horse mackerel, as well as other zones subject to catch limitations were not covered. It is appropriate to extend the scope of those rules to all zones where catch limitations are established and where the conservation status of the stocks and the need to ensure effective control so require.\n(2)\nAccording to Article 9 paragraph 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1542/2007, a weighing logbook is to be kept by the party weighing the fish, but there is no indication as to the time-frame for complying with this obligation. In order to avoid any uncertainty in the interpretation of this provision, a clear deadline for the completion of the logbook should be specified.\n(3)\nAccording to Article 9 paragraph 3(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1542/2007, each tanker load used to transport fish from the quayside to the processing plant is to be weighed and recorded separately. However, to avoid undue delay to the discharge of the cargo, it should be made possible to only record the total weight of all tanker loads from the same vessel provided that these tanker loads are weighed consecutively and without interruption.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1542/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nArticle 60 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (3) establishes the general rules for the weighing of fisheries products and empowers the Commission to adopt detailed rules for its application. Considering that this Article will only apply from 1 January 2011 and having regard to the urgency for the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1542/2007 to apply during the 2010 fishing season, it is appropriate to make use of Article 5(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 as legal basis for this amendment.\n(6)\nThe Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1542/2007 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to landings in the European Union (EU) by EU vessels and third country fishing vessels, or by EU fishing vessels in third countries, of quantities per landing exceeding 10 tonnes of herring (Clupea harengus), mackerel (Scomber scombrus) and horse mackerel (Trachurus spp.) or a combination thereof, taken in\n(a)\nfor herring in ICES zones (4) I, II, IIIa, IV, Vb, VI and VII;\n(b)\nfor mackerel in ICES zones: IIa, IIIa, IV, Vb, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII, XIV and EU waters of CECAF (5);\n(c)\nfor horse mackerel: ICES zones IIa, IV, Vb, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII, XIV and EU waters of CECAF.\n2.\nin Article 9, paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The party weighing the fish shall for each weighing system keep a bound, paginated logbook (weighing logbook). It shall be completed immediately after the completion of weighing of an individual landing and at the latest by 23.59 local time of the day of completion of weighing. The weighing logbook shall indicate:\n(a)\nthe name and registration number of the vessel from which the fish has been landed;\n(b)\nthe identity number of the tankers in cases where fish has been transported from the port of landing before weighing in accordance with Article 7. Each tanker load shall be weighed and recorded separately. However, the total weight of all the tanker loads from the same vessel may be recorded as a whole in case these tanker loads are weighed consecutively and without interruption;\n(c)\nthe species of fish;\n(d)\nthe weight of each landing;\n(e)\nthe date and time of the beginning and end of the weighing.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 July 2010.", "references": ["49", "92", "62", "91", "68", "51", "94", "63", "93", "69", "25", "52", "21", "14", "66", "36", "40", "76", "26", "39", "95", "43", "65", "50", "88", "0", "15", "48", "29", "72", "No Label", "2", "42", "54", "56", "67"], "gold": ["2", "42", "54", "56", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/91/EU\nof 10 December 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include metosulam as active substance and amending Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included metosulam.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the applicant withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of metosulam.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u201cthe applicant\u201d) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to France, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nFrance evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 7 August 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on metosulam to the Commission on 23 April 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 October 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for metosulam.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing metosulam may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1) (a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include metosulam in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information to confirm the results of the risk assessment on the basis of most recent scientific knowledge as regards the potential pH dependence of soil adsorption, groundwater leaching and surface water exposure for metabolites M01 and M02, potential genotoxicity of one impurity and on the specification of the active substance as manufactured.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing metosulam to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of metosulam and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning metosulam in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning metosulam in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31st October 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 November 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing metosulam as an active substance by 1 November 2011. By that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to metosulam are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing metosulam as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 30 April 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning metosulam. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing metosulam as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 April 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing metosulam as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 April 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 May 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 December 2010.", "references": ["45", "96", "18", "76", "46", "54", "68", "10", "35", "89", "39", "0", "84", "47", "41", "36", "75", "14", "63", "72", "7", "74", "64", "56", "92", "87", "43", "91", "48", "85", "No Label", "2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 708/2010\nof 5 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2010.", "references": ["27", "86", "60", "91", "20", "24", "12", "6", "1", "52", "50", "62", "96", "31", "72", "98", "15", "71", "89", "17", "56", "57", "82", "4", "47", "16", "77", "97", "67", "55", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 882/2011\nof 2 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 3 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2011.", "references": ["36", "62", "39", "37", "49", "38", "85", "80", "14", "43", "82", "47", "20", "5", "96", "72", "57", "34", "25", "89", "81", "59", "16", "86", "41", "51", "26", "95", "91", "9", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 542/2010\nof 3 June 2010\namending Decision 2008/839/JHA on migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 74 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) was established by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (1) and by Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (2).\n(2)\nThe conditions, procedures and responsibilities applicable to the migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II are laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1104/2008 of 24 October 2008 on migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (3) and Decision 2008/839/JHA (4). However, those instruments will expire at the latest on 30 June 2010.\n(3)\nThe preconditions for migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II will not be met by 30 June 2010. In order for SIS II to become operational as required by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Decision 2007/533/JHA, Regulation (EC) No 1104/2008 and Decision 2008/839/JHA should therefore continue to apply until migration has been completed.\n(4)\nThe Commission and the Member States should continue to cooperate closely during all steps of the development and the migration in order to complete the process. In the Council Conclusions on the SIS II of 26-27 February 2009 and 4-5 June 2009, an informal body consisting of the experts of the Member States and designated as the Global Programme Management Board, was established to enhance the cooperation and to provide direct Member States support to the central SIS II project. The positive result of the work of the group and the necessity to further enhance the cooperation and the transparency of the project justify the formal integration of the group into the SIS II management structure. A group of experts, called the Global Programme Management Board should therefore be formally established to complement the current organisational structure. In order to ensure efficiency as well as cost effectiveness the number of experts should be limited. This group of experts should be without prejudice to the responsibilities of the Commission and of the Member States.\n(5)\nThe Commission should remain responsible for the Central SIS II and its communication infrastructure. It is necessary to maintain and, where appropriate, further develop the Central SIS II and its communication infrastructure. Additional development of the Central SIS II should at all times include the correction of errors. The Commission should provide coordination and support for the joint activities.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Decision 2007/533/JHA provide that the best available technology, subject to a cost-benefit analysis, should be used for Central SIS II. The Annex to the Council Conclusions on the further direction of SIS II from 4-5 June 2009 laid down milestones which should be met in order to continue with the current SIS II project. In parallel, a study has been conducted concerning the elaboration of an alternative technical scenario for developing SIS II based on SIS 1+ evolution (SIS 1+ RE) as the contingency plan, in case the tests demonstrate non-compliance with the milestone requirements. Based on these parameters, the Council may decide to invite the Commission to switch to the alternative technical scenario.\n(7)\nThe description of the technical components of the migration architecture therefore should be adapted to allow for another technical solution, and in particular the SIS 1+ RE regarding the development of Central SIS II. SIS 1+ RE is a possible technical solution to develop Central SIS II and to achieve the objectives of the SIS II laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Decision 2007/533/JHA.\n(8)\nThe SIS 1+ RE is characterised by uniqueness of means between SIS II development and SIS 1+. The references in this Regulation to the technical architecture of SIS II and to the migration process should therefore, in case of implementation of an alternative technical scenario, be read as the references to SIS II based on another technical solution, as applied mutatis mutandis to the technical specificities of this solution, in keeping with the objective to develop Central SIS II.\n(9)\nAs regards the financing of the development of the Central SIS II based on an alternative technical solution, it should be covered by the general budget of the Union while respecting the principle of sound financial management. In accordance with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), the Commission may delegate budget implementation tasks to national public sector bodies. Following the political orientation and subject to the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, the Commission would be invited, in case of switchover to the alternative solution, to delegate the budget implementation tasks related to the development of the SIS II based on SIS 1+ RE to France.\n(10)\nIn any technical scenario, the result of migration at central level should be availability of the SIS 1+ database and new SIS II functionalities, including additional data categories, in the Central SIS II.\n(11)\nThe Member States should remain responsible for their national systems (N.SIS II). It is still necessary to maintain and, where appropriate, further develop the N.SIS II.\n(12)\nFrance should remain responsible for technical support function (C.SIS).\n(13)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely setting up the interim migration architecture and migrating the data from SIS 1+ to SIS II, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore by reason of the scale and effects of the 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 the European Union. 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.\n(14)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Regulation builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of 6 months after the Council has decided on this Regulation whether it will implement it in its national law.\n(15)\nThe United Kingdom is taking part in this Regulation, in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Protocol (No 19) on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Article 8(2) of Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (6).\n(16)\nIreland is taking part in this Regulation in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Protocol (No 19) on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (7).\n(17)\nThis Regulation is without prejudice to the arrangements for the United Kingdom\u2019s and Ireland\u2019s partial participation in the Schengen acquis as determined by the Council Decision 2000/365/EC and Decision 2002/192/EC respectively.\n(18)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latter\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (8), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point G of Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement (9).\n(19)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (10) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point G of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/149/JHA (11).\n(20)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol signed between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point G of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/262/JHA (12),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2008/839/JHA is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nthe following paragraph is added to Article 1:\n\u20183. The development of SIS II may be achieved by implementing an alternative technical scenario characterised by its own technical specifications.\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 4 the introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In order to ensure the migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II, the following components shall be made available to the extent necessary:\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 10(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. To the extent necessary, the converter shall convert data in two directions between the C.SIS and Central SIS II and keep C.SIS and Central SIS II synchronised.\u2019;\n4.\nArticle 11(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The Member States participating in SIS 1+ shall migrate from N.SIS to N.SIS II using the interim migration architecture, with the support of France and of the Commission.\u2019;\n5.\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 17a\nGlobal Programme Management Board\n1. Without prejudice to the respective responsibilities and activities of the Commission, the Committee referred to in Article 17, France and the Member States participating in SIS 1+, a group of technical experts, called the Global Programme Management Board (hereinafter \u201cthe Board\u201d), is hereby set up. The Board shall be an advisory body for assistance to the central SIS II project and shall facilitate consistency between central and national SIS II projects. The Board shall have no decision-making power nor any mandate to represent the Commission or Member States.\n2. The Board shall be composed of a maximum of 10 members, meeting on a regular basis. A maximum of 8 experts and an equal number of alternates shall be designated by the Member States acting within the Council. A maximum of two experts and two alternates shall be designated by the Director-General of the responsible Directorate-General of the Commission from among the Commission officials.\nThe meetings of the Board may be attended by other Member States\u2019 experts and Commission officials directly involved in the development of the SIS II projects, at the expense of their respective administration or institution.\nThe Board may invite other experts to participate in the Board\u2019s meetings as defined in the terms of reference referred to in paragraph 5, at the expense of their respective administration, institution or company.\n3. Experts designated by the Member States acting as Presidency and incoming Presidency shall always be invited to participate in the Board\u2019s meetings.\n4. The Board\u2019s secretariat shall be ensured by the Commission.\n5. The Board shall draw up its own terms of reference which shall include in particular procedures on:\n-\nalternative chairmanship between the Commission and the Presidency,\n-\nmeeting venues,\n-\npreparation of meetings,\n-\nadmission of other experts,\n-\ncommunication plan ensuring full information to non-participating Member States.\nThe terms of reference shall take effect after a favourable opinion has been given by the Director-General of the responsible Directorate-General of the Commission and by Member States meeting within the framework of the Committee referred to in Article 17.\n6. The Board shall regularly submit written reports about the progress of the project including advice which has been given, and its justification, to the Committee referred to in Article 17 or, as appropriate, to the relevant Council preparatory bodies.\n7. Without prejudice to Article 15(2), the administrative costs and travel expenses arising from the activities of the Board shall be borne by the general budget of the Union, to the extent that they are not reimbursed from other sources. As regards travel expenses of the members in the Board designated by the Member States acting within the Council and experts invited pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article which arise in connection with the work of the Board, the Commission\u2019s \u201cRules on the reimbursement of expenses incurred by people from outside the Commission invited to attend meetings in an expert capacity\u201d shall apply.\u2019;\n6.\nin Article 19, the last sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on a date to be fixed by the Council, acting in accordance with Article 71(2) of Decision 2007/533/JHA, and in any case no later than on 31 March 2013 or on 31 December 2013 in case of a switchover to an alternative technical scenario as referred to in Article 1(3).\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["74", "86", "60", "92", "98", "72", "79", "69", "21", "19", "95", "14", "91", "62", "20", "65", "47", "36", "34", "33", "75", "57", "55", "66", "11", "81", "84", "0", "53", "5", "No Label", "1", "13", "40", "41", "46", "76", "96"], "gold": ["1", "13", "40", "41", "46", "76", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 October 2010\non State aid No C 15/08 (ex N 318/07, N 319/07, N 544/07 and N 70/08) which Italy plans to implement for Cantiere Navale De Poli\n(notified under document C(2010) 7253)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2013/197/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision(s) (1) cited above and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letters dated 6 June 2007, 24 September 2007 and 6 February 2008, Italy notified requests for the extension of the three-year delivery limit for four chemical tankers (denominated as vessels C 241, C 242, C 243 and C 244) to be built by the Italian shipyard Cantiere Navale De Poli (hereinafter \"De Poli\" or \"the shipyard\") (2). In particular, Italy requested the extension of the delivery deadline by 8 months for vessel C 241, 6 months for vessel C 242, 9 months for vessel C 243 and 10 months for vessel C 244.\n(2)\nThe notifications related to aid granted by Italy to De Poli under the Italian aid scheme N 59/2004, approved by the Commission on 19 May 2004 (3) on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 of 27 June 2002 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding (4), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 502/2004 (5) (hereinafter the \"Italian TDM scheme\" and the \"TDM Regulation\" respectively).\n(3)\nBy letters dated 31 July 2007, 31 August 2007, 7 September 2007, 12 November 2007 and 25 January 2008, Italy provided the Commission with additional information in relation to these notifications.\n(4)\nBy letter dated 16 April 2008, the Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (6) in respect of the notified extension requests. The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (7). Interested parties were invited to submit comments.\n(5)\nItaly submitted comments on the decision to initiate the procedure by letter of 16 June 2008 (registered on 17 June 2008). The Commission received comments from De Poli by letter also dated 16 June 2008 (registered on 17 June 2008). Italy provided additional information by letter of 30 June 2008 (registered on the same date) and by letter of 29 October 2008 (registered on 3 November 2008).\n(6)\nBy letter of 15 July 2008 (registered on 22 July 2008), Italy requested a second extension of the delivery deadline for two of the vessels, as follows: until 30 September 2008 for vessel C 242 and until 30 September 2008 for vessel C 244.\n(7)\nBy letter of 20 January 2009 (registered on 22 January 2009), Italy requested a third extension of the delivery deadlines, namely until 31 December 2008 for vessel C 242 and until 28 February 2009 for vessel C 243. By letter of 14 April 2009 (registered on 15 April 2009), Italy requested a fourth extension of the delivery deadlines, namely until 30 June 2009 for vessel C 242, until 30 September 2009 for vessel C 243 and until 30 November 2009 for vessel C 244.\n(8)\nBy letter of 8 May 2009 (registered on the same date) the Commission asked Italy to provide further information, with a reminder sent on 12 June 2009. Italy responded by letter dated 23 September 2009 (8) merely to inform the Commission that De Poli had been admitted to the collective insolvency procedure known as \"concordato preventivo\" (9).\n(9)\nBy letter of 28 January 2010 (registered on 1 February 2010), Italy formally withdrew the extension requests submitted with respect to vessels C 242 and C 243 (10).\n(10)\nBy e-mail dated 2 March 2010, the Commission asked Italy to clarify the status of the notifications concerning vessels C 241 and C 244.\n(11)\nBy e-mail of 10 June 2010 (registered on 17 June 2010), Italy informed the Commission that vessel C 241 had been completed on 31 August 2008 and delivered on 3 November 2008 and that the notification of the extension request for the delivery of this vessel was maintained.\n(12)\nBy letter of 16 June 2010 (registered on 28 June 2010), Italy formally withdrew the extension requests for vessel C 244.\nII. BACKGROUND\n(13)\nThe following facts only concern vessel C 241, given the withdrawal by Italy of the extension requests for vessels C 242, C 243 and C 244.\n(14)\nDe Poli is an Italian shipyard located in Pellestrina (Venice), which since the 1990s had specialised in the construction of chemical and product tankers. In 2007, the shipyard's workforce totalled 320 workers, including subcontractors, and its annual turnover was EUR 70 million. On 11 February 2010 the competent Italian court confirmed the arrangements for the collective insolvency procedure concerning the shipyard (11).\n(15)\nOn 28 January 2005, De Poli concluded with Arcotur Srl a contract for the construction of vessel C 241. According to this contract, vessel C 241 was a chemical tanker with the following main technical characteristics: length overall 125 metres, moulded breadth 19 metres, deadweight tonnage approximately 7 300 tonnes and speed at 85 % of maximum continuous power 15 knots. The sales contract stipulated that the vessel C 241 was to be delivered to the purchaser Arcotur Srl by 31 December 2007 for a total sales price of EUR 30 million.\n(16)\nOn 26 May 2006, the shipyard ordered from a supplier (hereinafter \"the supplier\") the gearbox for the vessel, an order, confirmed by the supplier, which was due to be delivered by 3 September 2007. According to the information submitted by De Poli, the gearbox for vessel C 241 was a made-to-measure model with unique characteristics, which differed in several technical aspects from the standard gearbox model produced by the same supplier.\n(17)\nOn 6 July 2006, Arcoin SpA (formerly Arcotur Srl) and De Poli amended the contract signed on 28 January 2005 to make the following modifications to the technical specifications for the vessel: length overall 112 metres, moulded breadth 16,8 metres, and deadweight tonnage 5 300 tonnes, with a reduction in the price to EUR 23 million.\n(18)\nOn 20 July 2006, Arcoin SpA transferred the contract for vessel C 241 to Elbana di Navigazione SpA.\n(19)\nOn 3 September 2007, the date agreed for delivery, the gearbox ordered on 26 May 2006 was not ready. Indeed, by letter of 23 October 2007, the supplier informed De Poli that, due to a shortage of raw materials on the market and consequent late delivery by its subcontractors, the gearbox could not be delivered on time. The supplier confirmed on 18 January 2008 that the gearbox would instead be delivered in February 2008, i.e. six months later than the initial delivery deadline.\n(20)\nItaly therefore requested an extension to the delivery deadline for vessel C 241 until 31 August 2008, an extension of eight months from the contractual deadline for delivery of the vessel (31 December 2007).\n(21)\nFinally, on the basis of the information received, the Commission notes that vessel C 241 was delivered on 3 November 2008 (12).\nIII. THE AID\n(22)\nThe TDM Regulation (13) laid down exceptional and temporary measures to assist EU shipyards in those segments that had at the time suffered serious adverse effects caused by unfair competition from South Korea (14).\n(23)\nThe TDM Regulation provided that direct aid up to 6 % of the value of the shipbuilding contract before aid (15) for the building of specific categories of merchant vessels (container ships, chemical and product tankers and liquefied natural gas carriers (16)) could be considered compatible with the internal market if the following conditions were met: there was competition for the same contract from a South Korean shipyard offering a lower price (17); the final contract was signed before the expiry of the TDM Regulation (31 March 2005) (18); and the ship was to be delivered within three years from the date of signing the final contract (19).\n(24)\nArticle 2(4) of the TDM Regulation authorised the Commission to grant extensions to the three-year delivery limit when justified by \"the technical complexity of the individual shipbuilding project concerned or by delays resulting from unexpected disruptions of a substantial and defensible nature in a working programme of a yard due to exceptional circumstances, unforeseeable and external to the company\".\n(25)\nIn May 2004 the Commission, on the basis of the TDM Regulation, approved the Italian TDM scheme which made available aid for shipbuilding (20) on conditions corresponding to those in the TDM Regulation. In particular, the Italian TDM scheme provided that aid up to 6 % of the value of the contract before aid could be granted in respect of ships delivered within three years of the date of signing the final contract, and that an extension to this period could be allowed only when the Commission found it justified \"by the technical complexity of the individual shipbuilding project concerned or by delays resulting from unexpected disruptions of a substantial and defensible nature in a working programme of a yard due to exceptional circumstances, unforeseeable and external to the company\" (paragraph 29 of the Italian scheme).\n(26)\nOn 31 January 2005, De Poli applied to the Italian authorities for aid under the Italian scheme in relation to the construction of vessel C 241, for an amount of EUR 1,3 million.\n(27)\nOn 25 January 2008, De Poli asked the Italian authorities for an extension to the delivery deadline for vessel C 241 from 31 December 2007 until 31 August 2008.\n(28)\nItaly confirmed that the aid has not been disbursed. It further noted that, following the Commission decision of 21 October 2008 (21), which did not find compatible the increase in the budget of the Italian TDM scheme by EUR 10 million, at present there are no funds available for providing this aid.\nIV. THE DECISION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS\n(29)\nIn the decision to initiate proceedings, the Commission doubted that the circumstances invoked by Italy and De Poli to justify the delay in the delivery of vessel C 241 (as well as vessels C 242, C 243 and C 244, no longer under assessment) qualified as \"delays resulting from unexpected disruptions of a substantial and defensible nature in the working programme of the yard due to exceptional circumstances unforeseeable and external to the company\" within the meaning of paragraph 29 of the Italian TDM scheme.\n(30)\nAlthough the doubts expressed in the decision to initiate proceedings concerned four vessels (C 241, C 242, C 243 and C 244), they remain relevant for the assessment of vessel C 241 on its own.\n(31)\nIn the decision, the Commission questioned first whether the contracts signed with Arcoin SpA were final contracts or whether they were a means for De Poli to have the contracts secured before the final deadline for shipbuilding contracts to be eligible for aid, with a view to later finding final buyers for the ships.\n(32)\nSecond, the Commission questioned whether the transfer of the sales contracts between shipowners was in itself another cause of the delay in delivery.\n(33)\nThird, the Commission deemed that De Poli might have taken more orders than its actual production capacity enabled it to deliver, since over the period 2005-2008 the shipyard planned to build 18 vessels, half of which were to be constructed on its two main slipways and the other half to be constructed in a smaller infrastructure.\n(34)\nFinally, the Commission doubted that the alleged delays in the supply of essential parts were indeed unforeseeable as claimed by Italy or whether they might constitute normal commercial risks which a diligent shipyard should anticipate in its working programme. In particular, the Commission considered that De Poli might have increased the risk of delay by ordering some parts of the vessels too late.\n(35)\nAs far as vessel C 241 is concerned, in its comments on the decision to initiate proceedings of 16 June 2008, Italy argues that De Poli had the capacity to deliver the vessel within 36 months from the date of signature of the sales contract. The only reason that delivery was delayed was because of the late delivery of the gearbox by the supplier, a factor which Italy qualifies as substantial, exceptional, unforeseeable and external to the company within the meaning of paragraph 29 of the Italian TDM scheme.\n(36)\nIn its submission of the same date, De Poli argues that the fact that both the shipyard and Arcoin SpA belong to members of the De Poli family is not sufficient to doubt the authenticity of the contract initially signed on 28 January 2005. This argument is supported by the Italian authorities, which point out that, at the time when the contract for vessel C 241 was signed, there were no direct ownership links between the shipyard and Arcoin SpA (other than the fact that Arcoin SpA was held by members of the De Poli family, but not entirely the same ones as held stakes in De Poli).\n(37)\nOn this point, De Poli contends that the practice of transferring sales contracts during the construction of vessels, or even after finalising the work, is not uncommon in the shipbuilding industry.\n(38)\nIn relation to the scheduling of the work for vessel C 241, De Poli observes that, due to the technical complexity of shipbuilding projects, it is normal practice for work to begin several months after the conclusion of the sales contracts. The shipyard argues that it is common for a certain period of time to elapse between the signature of the contract and the actual start of the works, and this period of time is necessary for preparatory operations, such as drafting the technical project and carrying out negotiations with the various suppliers.\n(39)\nAccording to the initial working programme submitted by De Poli to the Italian authorities (22), the construction of vessel C 241 was scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2006, and delivery was foreseen for the second half of 2007. However, according to the revised working programme, work on vessel C 241 was scheduled to begin on 28 September 2006 on the \"Scalo Sud\" (one of the shipyard's two slipways).\n(40)\nAccording to De Poli, delivery of the gearbox is an essential stage in the building of a vessel - it is followed by assembly of the gearbox with the engine, the fixing of the propeller and completion of the hull. Various assembly and preparation/construction operations can only be performed after installing the gearbox. De Poli claims that it is not normal practice to order the delivery of parts such as the gearbox in advance, to avoid outlays on storage and advance payment, and emphasises that the supplier it contacted is the sector leader with proven experience, so there was no reason to suspect that the gearbox would not be delivered on time.\n(41)\nDe Poli insists that it had the capacity to deliver the 18 vessels ordered during the 2005-2008 period on time, since the total deadweight capacity relating to those orders amounted to 10 000 tonnes per year, whereas the shipyard's historical annual capacity was over 12 000 tonnes per year. Furthermore, it emphasised that 9 of the 18 vessels ordered over this period were small (of lengths overall of 20 metres and deadweight capacities of 25 tonnes), while only the other 9 vessels were of the same general size as vessel C 241. According to De Poli, this demonstrates that the shipyard had the capacity to deliver all the orders it took within the deadlines set and that it did not take on orders beyond its production capacity.\n(42)\nDe Poli further notes that in the past the Commission had on several occasions - including for De Poli itself - approved requests for extensions to delivery deadlines arising from the late delivery of critical components.\nVI. ASSESSMENT\n(43)\nAs a preliminary point, in the light of the formal withdrawal by Italy of the notifications consisting of requests for extension to the delivery deadlines for vessels C 242, C 243 and C 244, and the fact that no monies were disbursed, the formal investigation procedure concerning the requests submitted by Italy in relation to the aforementioned three vessels has become devoid of purpose, and will be closed without any assessment being necessary.\n(44)\nThe following assessment therefore relates only to vessel C 241 and any references to vessels C 242, C 243 and C 244 will be made only in so far as is relevant to this assessment.\n(45)\nUnder Article 107(1) TFEU, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between the Member States, be incompatible with the internal market. Article 107(1) TFEU therefore establishes the cumulative conditions under which a state measure qualifies as state aid: the measure confers a selective advantage, involves state resources, generates competition-distorting effects and has a negative impact on trade between Member States.\n(46)\nThere is no dispute that the measure which Italy plans to implement to support the construction of vessel C 241 by De Poli, consisting of a financial contribution of up to 6 % of the value of the contract before aid (approximately EUR 1,3 million), constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The measure is financed by the Italian Government. The monies confer an advantage on De Poli in so far as they are designed to cover costs normally borne by the shipyard when building a ship. The measure is selective since it benefits De Poli alone, and to the extent that it enhances the position of De Poli vis-\u00e0-vis its European competitors, it has the potential to distort competition in the European shipbuilding market and affect trade between Member States.\n(47)\nTwo aspects of the case under consideration prompted the Commission to have doubts as to the compatibility of the aid to De Poli with the internal market. Paragraph 29 of the Italian TDM scheme stipulates that aid can only be granted concerning vessels delivered within three years of the date of signing the final contract and paragraph 33 that the final contracts must have been signed before the expiry of the TDM Regulation (i.e. 31 March 2005).\n(48)\nWith respect to the second point, the Italian authorities have explained that the transfer of contracts between shipowners after the expiry of the TDM Regulation cannot be interpreted as indicating that the original contract for vessel C 241, signed on 28 January 2005, was not the \"final contract\" within the meaning of paragraph 29 of the Italian TDM scheme.\n(49)\nThe Commission acknowledges that the practice of transferring a contract to a third party appears to be a common one in the shipbuilding industry. For instance, in a previous decision (23) also concerning the extension of the three-year delivery limit for two ships, the Commission concluded that, despite the transfer of contracts, the first contract could be considered final, given that the product type remained the same and the new owner took over the rights and obligations from the previous owner. In that case the Commission thus concluded that the transfer of ownership had not in itself changed the nature of the contracts and therefore their eligibility for aid.\n(50)\nIn the present case, the transfer of the contract between shipowners did not involve a change in the product type or the nature of the contract and the new owner essentially took on the same rights and obligations as the original contracting party. On this basis, the Commission holds that the original contract can be regarded as final, and thus eligible for aid under the Italian TDM scheme.\n(51)\nAs for the doubts expressed in relation to the conditions for granting an extension to the three-year delivery deadline, the Italian TDM scheme stipulates that the Commission may grant an extension when justified by \"the technical complexity of the individual shipbuilding project concerned or by delays resulting from unexpected disruptions of a substantial and defensible nature in the working programme of a yard due to exceptional circumstances, unforeseeable and external to the company\".\n(52)\nThe Commission must therefore assess whether Italy has satisfactorily demonstrated that the conditions for granting the exception stipulated in the Italian TDM scheme have been met in the case of the delays incurred in the delivery of vessel C 241.\n(53)\nBefore assessing Italy's submissions, the Commission notes as a preliminary point that in the Astilleros Zamacona judgment of 16 March 2004 (24), the Court of First Instance of the European Union ruled that the provision (concerning exceptional circumstances) establishing a system that is in derogation from the principles set out in the first subparagraph of that provision (the three-year limit) had to be given \"a restrictive interpretation\". According to the Court, the very wording \"exceptional circumstances\" in the provision shows that the Community legislature intended to reserve its application for very specific situations. The Court therefore held that it is for the Member State concerned to demonstrate that the alleged exceptional circumstances constituted a sufficient disruption as to affect the working programme of the yard and delay delivery of the vessel by establishing a causal link between the two events.\n(54)\nThe Italian authorities contend that the delay in the delivery of vessel C 241 is due to the delay (6 months) in supplying the gearbox and the ensuing one-month delay in the assembly operations. The Commission notes that this is the only ground for delay invoked by Italy; in particular, the request for an extension does not refer to the new specifications deriving from the transfer of the contract.\n(55)\nAccording to established Commission practice (25), the condition that the circumstances must be \"exceptional\" excludes common or at least normal events with which the shipyard should reasonably have reckoned in its working programme. Long delays in the delivery of critical parts could be considered exceptional, but minor delays are not necessarily viewed as exceptional in processes as long and complex as shipbuilding projects. Moreover, in the light of the restrictive interpretation to be given to the exception, the Commission assesses carefully whether indications exist that the shipyard concerned could have anticipated and avoided, or at least mitigated, these delays, looking for instance at the timing of orders in view of the relevant work programme. The condition that the event must be unforeseeable excludes any factor that the parties could reasonably have anticipated.\n(56)\nThe Commission acknowledges that there may be a causal link between the late delivery of critical components for the production of the vessel and the request for extension of the delivery deadline (26). However, in the specific circumstances of the present case, it is primarily the existence of the alleged exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances which the Commission doubts: the elements necessary to conclude that the delay invoked complies with the conditions laid down in paragraph 29 of the Italian TDM scheme do not appear to be present in this case.\n(57)\nAs noted above, the Commission has, in the past, acknowledged that long delays in the delivery of critical parts could be considered exceptional. However, a request for extension must always be assessed in the specific circumstances of each case. To the extent that De Poli has encountered the same type of disruption on several occasions (not only has it been behind similar requests for extensions in the past (27), the other three contracts which were signed on the same day as the contract for vessel C 241 were also the subject of repeated requests for extensions - see recitals 1, 6 and 7 above), the Commission concludes that such delays can no longer be considered to be genuinely exceptional. In so far as they occurred repeatedly, the disruptions resulting from such repeated delays cannot be viewed as entirely unforeseeable.\n(58)\nIndeed, it is in the light of these past disruptions that De Poli does not appear to have acted diligently in the planning of its production.\n(59)\nIn the initial working programme, the production of vessel C 241 was scheduled to start in the first quarter of 2006 with delivery scheduled for the second half of 2007, a lead time of between 15 and 24 months.\n(60)\nIn the revised working programme, however, production was only to start on 28 September 2006 and delivery of the vessel was to take place on 30 December 2007, that is just one month before the ultimate delivery deadline of 28 January 2008. This change in planning allowed for a lead time of only 15 months in all to produce the vessel according to the terms of the contract. According to the information provided by Italy, the planning of vessels of the same type or even of a smaller size to be produced on the same \"Scalo Sud\" (i.e. vessels C 229 and C 240) allowed for 22 months and 20 months respectively from the start of production to delivery.\n(61)\nIn addition, the fact that production was only due to begin on 28 September 2006 and delivery of the vessel was planned for 30 December 2007, that is only one month before the ultimate delivery deadline of 28 January 2008, left no margin for any delays in the production process, when the shipyard had previous experience of delays occurring both in the supply of parts and in the production process itself, as evidenced by the other requests for extensions to deadlines made by De Poli.\n(62)\nFurthermore, the fact that it was a period of high demand (Italy provided evidence concerning an increase of around 60 % in orders for diesel engines between 2003 and 2005) leads to the conclusion that it would have been reasonable to engage in some forward planning in the ordering and agreed delivery dates for critical parts such as the gearbox. The statement by De Poli that this is not normal practice is not sufficient, in particular given the high level of demand and previous experience of delays, to conclude that the behaviour of the shipyard was defensible, in that reasonable action was taken to avoid or mitigate delays.\n(63)\nIndeed, the Commission notes that the gearbox was ordered on 26 May 2006 for delivery in September 2007, leaving little, if any, margin for possible delays in view of the vessel's delivery deadline of 31 December 2007. De Poli itself emphasised that considerable work is required after delivery of the gearbox (see recital 39 above) and this would appear to confirm that a certain margin for delays in the delivery of critical parts should normally be factored into the production schedule of a shipyard.\n(64)\nAs for the doubts expressed by the Commission in its decision to initiate the investigation procedure as to whether the fact that the contract was transferred to a new owner was in itself a cause of delay, the Commission notes in particular that the transfer of the contract between Arcoin SpA and Elbana di Navigazione SpA only took place on 20 July 2006, several months after work was originally scheduled to begin (first quarter of 2006). It cannot, therefore, be excluded in the present case that the transfer of contracts between shipowners was in itself a cause of delay in beginning production and of the ensuing late delivery of the vessel, especially bearing in mind that the transfer of the contract to another shipowner implied some modifications to the vessel's specifications.\n(65)\nTo conclude, in the light of the restrictive interpretation which must be attributed to requests for exceptional extensions, Italy has not been able to substantiate coherently the reasons why the circumstances invoked could not have been avoided or why the adverse effects of those circumstances could not have been significantly limited by diligent planning and administration of orders by De Poli. The above considerations lead the Commission to conclude that the circumstances invoked in support of the extension request cannot be characterised as exceptional and unforeseeable such that the delay in delivering vessel C 241 was not unexpected or defensible within the meaning of paragraph 29 of the Italian TDM scheme.\n(66)\nIn addition, Italy submitted a request for an eight-month extension to the delivery date of vessel C 241, from 31 December 2007 to 31 August 2008, but only provided some justification for seven of the eight months thereof.\n(67)\nIn contrast to previous extension requests concerning vessels being built by De Poli (28), the length of the extension requested by Italy in the present case is longer than the delay invoked by the Italian authorities as the only reason for the request (the late delivery of the gearbox); the existence of a causal link between the delay which forms the basis for the extension request and the delay in the supply of critical parts cannot therefore be said to have been established.\n(68)\nDe Poli only actually delivered the vessel on 3 November 2008. In other words, the delay was not only longer than that attributable to the factors invoked as grounds for an extension, but continued beyond the requested deadline. Italy has provided no explanations for this additional delay of more than two months in the delivery of the vessel and the Commission has received no extension request for the two months concerned.\n(69)\nConsequently, even if the initial delay had been justified and the extension requested had been granted by the Commission, construction of vessel C 241 would not have been eligible for aid under the Italian TDM scheme since even that extended deadline would not have been met.\nVII. CONCLUSION\n(70)\nAs regards vessels C 242, C 243 and C 244, in the light of the formal withdrawal by Italy of the notifications consisting of requests for extension to the delivery deadlines and the fact that no monies were disbursed, the formal investigation procedure is devoid of purpose and shall be closed as such.\n(71)\nAs regards vessel C-241, in the light of the above assessment, the conditions required for granting an extension to the three-year delivery limit have not been substantiated and, in any event, the actual delivery of the vessel took place beyond the deadline that would have resulted from granting the extension requested. The construction of vessel C 241 is therefore not eligible for aid under the Italian TDM scheme N 59/04, based on the TDM Regulation.\n(72)\nGiven that the Italian authorities confirmed that the aid has not been paid out to De Poli, no recovery of incompatible aid will be necessary,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe state aid which Italy is planning to implement for De Poli, namely the extension of the three-year delivery limit for vessel C 241 on the basis of the Italian scheme N 59/04, based on the TDM Regulation, is incompatible with the internal market.\nThe aid may accordingly not be implemented.\nArticle 2\nItaly shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.\nArticle 3\nAs regards vessels C 242, C 243 and C 244, in the light of the formal withdrawal by Italy of the notifications consisting of requests for extension of the delivery deadlines, the formal investigation procedure is devoid of purpose and shall be closed as such.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2010.", "references": ["2", "79", "9", "75", "69", "44", "74", "31", "23", "3", "61", "55", "13", "94", "45", "22", "84", "7", "99", "78", "5", "88", "6", "29", "0", "21", "53", "16", "10", "89", "No Label", "15", "48", "54", "56", "83", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "48", "54", "56", "83", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 27 September 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/030 NL/Noord-Holland and Flevoland Division 18 from the Netherlands)\n(2011/657/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nThe Netherlands submitted an application on 20 December 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 26 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (\u2018Printing and reproduction of recorded media\u2019) in the NUTS II regions of Noord-Holland (NL32) and Flevoland (NL23) in the Netherlands and supplemented it by additional information up to 3 March 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 849 086.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Netherlands,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 849 086 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 27 September 2011.", "references": ["7", "2", "18", "55", "87", "76", "62", "22", "19", "63", "53", "6", "35", "67", "78", "70", "5", "4", "48", "98", "34", "81", "93", "29", "17", "64", "90", "31", "59", "69", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "40", "41", "49", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "40", "41", "49", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 705/2010\nof 4 August 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 696/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 August 2010.", "references": ["9", "58", "69", "47", "51", "73", "33", "60", "88", "70", "45", "1", "44", "61", "62", "37", "57", "87", "55", "63", "34", "19", "91", "4", "83", "56", "41", "65", "15", "67", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EULEX KOSOVO/1/2011\nof 14 October 2011\nextending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (1), EULEX KOSOVO\n(2011/688/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP of 4 February 2008 on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (2), and in particular Article 12(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX KOSOVO), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nOn 8 June 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/322/CFSP (3) extending the duration of EULEX KOSOVO until 14 June 2012.\n(3)\nBy Decision 2010/431/CFSP (4), following a proposal by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affaires and Security Policy (HR), the PSC appointed Mr Xavier BOUT DE MARNHAC as Head of Mission of EULEX KOSOVO with effect from 15 October 2010. That Decision applies until 14 October 2011.\n(4)\nOn 23 September 2011, the HR proposed the extension of the mandate of Mr Xavier BOUT DE MARNHAC as Head of Mission of EULEX KOSOVO,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Mr Xavier BOUT DE MARNHAC as Head of Mission of EULEX KOSOVO is hereby extended until 14 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2011.", "references": ["34", "29", "1", "35", "54", "37", "17", "19", "68", "62", "60", "59", "50", "77", "98", "75", "79", "95", "22", "27", "53", "23", "92", "78", "31", "25", "57", "83", "14", "30", "No Label", "0", "3", "7", "9", "91", "96"], "gold": ["0", "3", "7", "9", "91", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 11 January 2012\non State aid C 21/10 (ex E 1/10) - Finland following the non-acceptance of the appropriate measures for the Fisheries Insurance Scheme after the adoption by the Commission of revised Guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture\n(notified under document C(2011) 10065)\n(Only the Finnish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/287/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 108 thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments (1) pursuant to the provisions cited above,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nIn 2004, the Commission adopted revised Guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture (thereafter \u2018the Guidelines\u2019) (2). By letter of 21 October 2004, pursuant to point 5.2 of these Guidelines, the Commission requested Member States, inter alia Finland, to modify their existing aid schemes in order to make them compatible with these new Guidelines at the latest for 1 January 2005 and to confirm in writing that they accept the proposals for appropriate measures no later than 15 November 2004 (3).\n(2)\nBy letters of 15 November 2004, 20 January 2005 and 14 June 2005, Finland indicated that they did not agree to amend the aid scheme \u2018Fisheries Insurance Scheme\u2019 in order to make it compatible with these new Guidelines. That scheme was notified to the Commission on 27 April 1995 on the basis of Article 144 (a) of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Finland to the European Union, and subsequently was deemed to be existing aid within the meaning of Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 108 TFEU).\n(3)\nA meeting was held between the Commission and Finland on 11 October 2005. Finland sent additional information by letter of 24 November 2005.\n(4)\nThe Guidelines were again revised in 2008 (4) and the Commission requested also Member States, by letters of 15 April 2008, to modify their existing schemes by 1 September 2008 at the latest (5).\n(5)\nFinland replied by letter of 30 May 2008 that it was still prepared to amend its Fisheries Insurance Scheme as proposed in 2005 but not to the extent required by the appropriate measures. A new meeting was held on 6 March 2009 between the Commission and Finland.\n(6)\nA last request for information was sent by the Commission on 1 October 2009, indicating that, in case Finland does not accept the proposed appropriate measures, the Commission would be obliged to follow the procedure of Articles 19(2) and Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (6) and initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU. Finland replied by letter of 18 November 2009.\n(7)\nAs Finland has not accepted in its entirety the proposal for modification in respect of this scheme, the Commission decided to initiate that procedure. That decision was notified by letter of 15 September 2010 which was published in the Official Journal (7).\n(8)\nFinland replied by letter of 15 November 2010. In addition, following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal, the Commission received comments by three interested parties: two letters sent by two associations representing Finnish professional fishermen, Suomen Ammatikalastajalitto SAKL ry (letter of 8 November 2011) and Kalatalouden Keskusliitto (letter of 16 November 2010) and a letter sent by the six fisheries insurance associations existing in Finland (letter of 16 November 2010). Copies of these letters were sent to the Finnish authorities on 6 December 2010. Later, representatives of these associations came to meet the Commission services on 13 January 2011 and provided complementary documents.\n(9)\nAs the Commission needed some clarification on the information contained in the letter sent by on 15 November 2010, a meeting was held with the Finnish authorities in the Commission premises on 4 April 2011. The Finnish authorities sent also additional information by messages of 13 April and 13 May 2011.\n(10)\nFinally, as it stemmed from the information sent by Finland that it was ready to amend the scheme in such a way that it would bring it compatible with the internal market, the Commission requested Finland, by letter of 6 July 2011, to confirm its official commitment to amend the legislation which constitutes the legal basis of that scheme. Finland replied positively by letter of 19 September 2011.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\n(11)\nThis aid scheme is based on Law No 331 of 23 July 1958, last amended by law No 1236 of 29 January 1999 (8). Finland communicated this scheme to the Commission just after it joined the European Community, on the basis of Article 144 (a) of the Treaty of Accession of Finland to the European Union. Since then, this aid scheme has been deemed to be existing aid in the meaning of Article 88 of the EC Treaty (now Article 108(1) TFEU).\n(12)\nThe beneficiaries of this insurance scheme are the fishing enterprises permanently exercising the fishing activity in Finland. This insurance is provided by six fisheries insurance associations covering the whole of Finland. Each association covers a determined geographical area.\n(13)\nAccording to Article 7 of that law, an annual State aid payment is made to the fishery association amounting to a part of the claims which the association has paid out under insurance contracts covered by this law. According to Article 2, the claims may cover the following damages:\n-\ndamages to nets, salmon-lines, longlines and to the anchors attached thereto, ropes and other ancillary gear,\n-\ndamages to fishing vessels registered in Finland,\n-\ndamages to transport and haulage vehicles used for winter fishing on the ice, fishing huts and seine floating or trawling gear.\n(14)\nThe law describes also the conditions required for the claims to be considered. The following conditions are particularly relevant for the Commission\u2019s assessment: the items insured must be sufficiently well-made and fully serviceable; the equipment must have been insured at application for its full value; the damage must be reliably shown.\n(15)\nIn its letter of 15 November 2004, Finland has explained how this aid scheme works in relation with the damages suffered by the fishing enterprises. First, there is a franchise linked to the amount of the eligible claim, corresponding to 25 % in the case of damages not exceeding EUR 504,56 or a maximum of 5 % in the case of damages exceeding that figure; the subtraction of this franchise gives the amount of the compensation paid to the enterprise by the fisheries insurance association concerned. The reimbursement paid to the fisheries insurance association by the State is then equal to 40 % of the compensation paid out when the amount of damages is up to EUR 504,56 and 90 % when this amount is beyond EUR 504,56.\n(16)\nIn its subsequent letter of 24 November 2005, Finland proposed that this scheme be amended so that State aid would be paid only to compensate for damages caused by the particular conditions pertaining in Finland, including the condition that the damage occurs north of the 59th parallel.\n(17)\nFinland described in its letter of 15 November 2004 what it considers as specific conditions pertaining to Finland for the fishing activity. These conditions are caused by the climatic conditions with inter alia ice formation which can cause damage to both vessels and gear and freezing temperatures which can affect the engine of the vessel. These specific conditions are aggravated by factors such as the marine topography of Finland with shallow waters and uneven sea bottom in a dense archipelago; in these conditions, the risks of shipwreck associated with storms and currents in icy conditions is rather high. In addition, there is a large seal population which cause significant losses to the fishing industry by damaging the gear; damages can also sometimes be caused to the gear (gill nets) by the cormorants.\n(18)\nFrom the year 2004 to the year 2009, the annual number of events which have resulted in compensation, the global annual compensation paid by the fisheries insurance associations and the part reimbursed by the State are as follows:\nYear\nEnterprises covered\nNumber of cases\nCompensation paid (EUR)\nReimbursement by the State (EUR)\n2009\n472\n470\n1 296 961\n1 026 132\n2008\n486\n459\n1 256 200\n980 065\n2007\n503\n530\n1 564 340\n1 197 217\n2006\n519\n496\n1 234 761\n920 167\n2005\n543\n539\n1 333 027\n992 826\n2004\n576\n568\n1 607 919\n1 111 195\n(19)\nThe payments made by the associations are related around 50 % to the gear, 45 % to the vessels and 5 % to the other equipment.\n3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(20)\nAs indicated above (9), this aid scheme was notified to the Commission in 1995 on the basis of Article 144 (a) of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Finland to the European Union and subsequently was deemed to be existing aid within the meaning of Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty. The Guidelines which were applying until the 2004 revision contained a specific provision on aid for insurance premiums and it was on that basis that this aid scheme was considered compatible with the internal market. That provision was taken out with the 2004 revision.\n(21)\nThe Commission considered in the initiating of this procedure that the damages covered by the Fisheries Insurance Scheme cannot be considered caused by an exceptional occurrence or a natural disaster but rather caused by a permanent and structural situation, that is to say the permanent and structural context within which fishing activity is exercised in Finnish waters.\n(22)\nFor that reason, in accordance with the Guidelines (10), the Commission considered that this aid was an operating aid which is in principle incompatible since it has the effect to increase the business liquidity of the enterprises which benefit from it and was granted without imposing any obligation on the part of recipients.\n(23)\nThe Commission did not agree with the argumentation of the Finnish authorities which justified this aid scheme by qualifying it as a service of general economic interest in the sense of Article 106(2) of the TFEU. Finland did not provide any specific argument justifying that the provision of insurance to fisheries undertakings could be qualified as a service of that kind and the Commission did not find, with regard to the characteristics of that scheme, that it could be qualified as such. In particular, the Commission observed that the fisheries insurance associations provide insurance services to only a specific group of enterprises having an economic activity consisting in the production of goods sold on the market, those active in the fishing sector. The Commission had therefore strong doubts that the providing of commercial insurance to a selected group of economic undertakings might qualify as a service of general economic interest.\n4. COMMENTS FROM THE FINNISH AUTHORITIES AND FROM THE THIRD PARTIES INTERESTED\n4.1. Comments from the Finnish authorities\n(24)\nThe Finnish authorities have reminded the main characteristics of the functioning of this insurance system. They have also brought a thorough description of the specific conditions that the fishing industry is facing in Finland: specific climatic conditions with ice and darkness in winter, the topography of the coastal waters with shallow waters and uneven sea-bottom, the existence of a large seal population.\n(25)\nThey have also brought information on the lack of offer for coverage insurance from the private insurance sector to the fishing industry with the same level of coverage for this kind of damages. To support their position, they have attached to their reply a letter from the Finnish Confederation of the Financial Sector Finanssialan Keskusliitto.\n(26)\nIn addition, they have indicated that the value of the imports corresponds to 6,8 times the value of the exports. In 2009, Finland has imported 95 046 tonnes of fish for a value of EUR 244,5 million while it has exported 59 905 tonnes for a value of EUR 36 million. Only 30 % of the fish consumed is originating from Finland. The annual consumption of Finnish fish has decreased between 2000 and 2009 from 6,1 to 4,5 kg while the one of imported fish has increased from 6,6 to 11,2 kg. According to the Finnish authorities, this shows that this State aid scheme cannot have any negative effect on competition.\n(27)\nThe Finnish authorities remind that the Commission, in its decision for the initiating of the procedure, observed that the deletion of the provision on aid for insurance premiums in the Guidelines 2004 meant that this kind of State aid was not anymore allowed. The Finnish authorities do not agree with that position. First of all, this insurance scheme remains fully justified by the specific climatic and geographic conditions occurring to Finnish waters. In addition, this scheme was considered compatible in 2000, although such aid was not among those listed as allowed to be considered compatible by the Guidelines 1997 (11) which were applying at that time, in a context which is similar to the one existing from 2004 with the Guidelines 2004 and 2008.\n(28)\nHowever, in these comments, Finland indicates that it is ready to modify its scheme as follows:\n-\nexclusion of the vessels exercising fishing in open sea, which means in practice the exclusion of the vessels over 12 metres long,\n-\neligibility only for damages suffered in territorial waters of Finland or in its economic exclusive zone,\n-\ncoverage of the damages which are caused only by the specific conditions of Finland and thus caused by the adverse climatic or geographical conditions (ice, snow, strong storms, reefs in shallow waters) or by the seals and cormorants, and suffered by the vessels and fishing gear as well as transport and haulage vehicles and other specific equipment used for winter fishing.\n(29)\nFinland considers that this modification could be done within 31 December 2012. This delay is necessary for two reasons: first, the need to amend the current legislation in force and constituting the legal basis of this scheme (Law No 331 of 23 July 1958) and, second, the need to terminate the current contracts under the existing scheme. The new Fisheries Insurance Scheme would then enter into force on 1 January 2013.\n(30)\nAs indicated above (12), the Finnish authorities confirmed by letter of 19 September 2011 their commitment to amend the legislation which constitutes the legal basis of that scheme. They indicated that, if the Commission takes its final decision within a reasonable period of time, they will be able to present a proposal to its Parliament early enough in 2012 to enable the law to come into force on 1 January 2013. However, they stressed that a transitional period is needed for introducing the new rules because changes in the terms of the insurance contracts in force will be required. For that purpose, they consider that these changes in these contracts could be done by 1 January 2014 and the amended conditions be applied to the aid granted to the insurers from that date onwards.\n4.2. Comments from third parties\n(31)\nTwo fishermen\u2019s associations sent comments to the Commission: Suoman Ammattikalastajaliitto and Katatalouden Keskuliitto. On the same line than the Finnish authorities, both associations put the emphasis on the specific conditions of fishing in Finland and the unavailability of insurance offer for the damages covered. One of them (Suoman Ammattikalastajaliitto) observed that the Commission has not provided any evidence that this aid scheme is likely to affect competition between Member States, noting in particular that professional fishing is currently the source of only 7 % of the fish consumed in the country and Finland\u2019s fishing industry and fish market are therefore dependent on imported fish. For that reason, this association regards the preliminary conclusion expressed in the initiating of the procedure as unfounded.\n(32)\nThe Fisheries Insurance Associations support also the position expressed by the Finnish authorities. They point out that fishing industry in Finnish waters is facing very specific climatic and geographic conditions. They indicate that this insurance system was established because of the lack of offer from the private insurance sector which was not ready to cover such risks for the fishing activity which is an activity of marginal importance. In addition, the Fisheries Insurance Associations are obliged to insure all fishermen established in the region of their competence.\n5. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n5.1. Existence of State aid\n(33)\nArticle 107(1) of the TFEU states that \u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(34)\nThe compensation paid to the fishing enterprises by the fisheries insurance associations comes partly from monies granted to these associations by the State. These monies come from the State budget. As this compensation brings a financial advantage to the enterprises of the fishing sector, it is a sectorial advantage granted through State resources.\n(35)\nAccording to the case law of the Court of Justice, the mere fact that the competitive position of an undertaking is strengthened compared with other competing undertakings, by giving it an economic benefit which it would not otherwise have received in the normal course of its business, points to a possible distortion of competition (13). Further, aid for an undertaking that operates in a market open to intra-Union trade is liable to affect trade between Member States (14).\n(36)\nGiven that there is substantial trade in fisheries products inside the European Union, this measure reinforces the position of these enterprises on the Union market and hence is liable to distort or threatens to distort competition and affect intra-Union trade (15). The fact that the imports are higher than the exports or that most of the fish consumed comes from other countries is not relevant. On the contrary, this shows that the market for fisheries products in Finland is indeed very open and suggests then that aid to the Finnish undertakings supports their position with regard to the undertakings established in the other Member States and distorts or threatens to distort competition. Even the fact that the quantity of imported fish consumed may have increased compared to the one of non imported fish consumed does not change anything from that point of view; it could only suggest that the Finnish undertakings have not made the adaptations which were necessary to follow the evolution of the economic conditions pertaining to the market of fisheries products in Finland. In any event, these undertakings benefit from aid which supports their position on the internal market with regard to foreign undertakings.\n(37)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it can be concluded that the conditions set out in Article 107(1) are fulfilled and that the compensation paid to the fisheries enterprises and coming from the State budget is a State aid in the sense of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n5.2. Compatibility with the internal market\n5.2.1. Nature of this aid scheme\n(38)\nThe Fisheries Insurance Scheme is aimed at covering expenses which are partially covered by insurance premiums. It is not per se an aid for insurance premiums; it is not aimed at covering a part of insurance premiums, but at covering a part of the claims for compensation submitted by the enterprises to the fisheries insurance associations.\n(39)\nHowever, as these claims are submitted to these associations which have to pay out for the eligible amount of damages suffered, the Commission considers that the effect of this aid is to lower the premiums that the fishing enterprises should have paid if the fisheries insurance associations concerned had not expected to get monies from the State. Thus, it has the same effect as an aid scheme for insurance premiums. This scheme can therefore be considered as an aid scheme for insurance premiums.\n5.2.2. Compatibility with the internal market\n(40)\nThe Commission cannot concur with the opinion of the Finnish authorities when they say that the situation with regard to the Guidelines 2004 and 2008 is comparable to the one with the Guidelines 1997 by considering that no provision on aid for insurance premiums has been laid down in any of them. The deletion in 2004 of the specific provision on such aid which was beforehand enshrined in the Guidelines 2001 (16) shows that the Commission, with the 2004 revision, has clearly considered that such aid could not anymore benefit of a derogation from the principle of incompatibility of State aid with the internal market and be considered compatible with it from the date of entry into force of the Guidelines 2004. That policy decision has remained unchanged with the next revision, i.e. the Guidelines 2008.\n(41)\nMoreover, the overall framework within which the Commission is assessing State aid for insurance premiums has changed. This State aid scheme was considered compatible by the Commission in 2000 (17) for the compensation resulting from the \u2018exceptional conditions specific of Finnish weather and coastal zones\u2019. To reach that decision, the Commission referred in its reasoning to the situation in the agriculture sector for which no provision in the Guidelines applying to the agriculture sector neither existed, but where the Commission had a practice to decide positively on a case-by-case basis for aid measure in connection with insurance against natural disasters and exceptional insurances. In 2000, for both agriculture and fisheries sector, the Commission has clarified its policy by laying down criteria to be followed for the assessment (18) of such kind of aid in the respective Guidelines. Since then, such criteria still exist in the agriculture Guidelines (19) while they do not exist anymore in the fisheries Guidelines. Thus, while the Commission, in the agriculture sector, has laid down precise criteria for considering aid for insurance premiums compatible with the internal market, those criteria have been deleted in the fisheries Guidelines. For the fisheries sector, the Commission is then obliged to revert to the general principle of incompatibility of State aid and assess the compatibility or incompatibility of a scheme of that kind on the basis of the provisions which may apply.\n(42)\nThe provision of the current Guidelines which may apply is paragraph 4.9 which says that the aid measures for which there is no applicable provision in the other paragraphs listing the different categories of aid which may be considered compatible with the internal market cannot in principle be considered compatible.\n(43)\nBy exception, an aid scheme can however be considered compatible if the Member State demonstrates that it complies with the various principles set out in those Guidelines and serves the objectives of the common fisheries policy.\n(44)\nIn its reply to the initiating of the procedure, Finland has made concrete proposals to amend the scheme in a restrictive manner (20). In addition it has justified its continuation by the existence of a market failure in the insurance market for the coverage of a significant part of these damages.\n(45)\nIn its letter attached to this reply, the Finnish Confederation of the Financial Sector Finanssialan Keskusliitto recognises that they would not be able to cover all the damages as it now stands with the Fisheries Insurance Associations. This coverage would be a very partial coverage or even in some cases, for instance for the damages to gear, would not be possible. Insurance companies cannot consider such damages as insurable or, to consider them so, the insurance premiums would be beyond a reasonable rate.\n(46)\nThis shows that the fisheries insurance associations are not in a position to distort competition with respect to the private insurance companies. This characterises the existence of a market failure in Finland for the coverage of these damages by private companies.\n(47)\nThe Commission considers that a State aid measure which addresses a market failure can be considered compatible with the internal market when it fulfils objectives of common interest. This meets the requirements of point 4.9 of the Guidelines concerning compliance with the principles set out in the Guidelines and with the objectives of the common fisheries policy.\n(48)\nThe objectives of the common fishery policy are to ensure the exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions (21). The Commission considers that this scheme, as amended in accordance with the modifications described by Finland, would contribute to provide such conditions. Along with the application of the conservation and management rules for the exploitation of these resources, it would allow continuation of fishing in conditions which are those specific to the coastal waters of Finland, including damages caused to the equipment (fishing nets) by seals and, sometimes, cormorants. This would help providing them sound economic, environmental and social conditions to the fishing enterprises facing the specific constraints of the exercise of fishing in these waters. This would also help maintaining the socioeconomic fabric of the coastal communities concerned.\n(49)\nThe Commission observes in addition that this aid scheme, when amended, will not in any event offer a full compensation for the damages concerned. The current system, with first a franchise and, second, only a partial reimbursement of the compensation paid (22), will remain in place. Thus, the existence of a counterpart needed from the beneficiaries of this aid scheme, as requested by point 3.3 of the Guidelines, still remains.\n(50)\nFinally, the Commission considers that the period that Finland considers necessary to amend the scheme (23) is acceptable. Taking into account the necessary legislative procedure, the deadline of 1 January 2013 for the entrance into force of the law amending the current legal basis of this scheme is a reasonable one. In addition, at that time, the insurance contracts in force between the fishing enterprises and the fisheries insurance associations will have been renewed during the year 2012 under the conditions applying at that date, with expiration during the year 2013. It is reasonable to allow these contracts to run until their expiration under the terms agreed. They will then be renewed again in 2013 in accordance with the new conditions applying at this time. Therefore, the ultimate deadline of 31 December 2013 with entry into force of such adapted contracts the day after, i.e. 1 January 2014, is justified.\n6. CONCLUSION\n(51)\nIn the light of the foregoing analysis, the Commission concludes that the \u2018Fisheries Insurance Scheme\u2019 can be considered compatible with the internal market when it is amended in accordance with the following principles:\n-\nexclusion of the vessels exercising fishing in the open sea, which means in practice the exclusion of the vessels over 12 metres long,\n-\neligibility only for damages suffered in territorial waters of Finland or in its economic exclusive zone,\n-\nonly coverage of the damages which are caused by the specific conditions of Finland and thus caused by the adverse climatic or geographical conditions (ice, snow, strong storms, reefs in shallow waters) or by the seals and cormorants, and suffered by the vessels and fishing gear as well as transport and haulage vehicles and other specific equipment used for winter fishing.\n(52)\nThe Commission takes note of the commitment of the Finnish authorities to amend the legal basis of that aid scheme at the latest by 1 January 2013 in order that the terms of the insurance contracts be changed at the latest by 1 January 2014,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The existing aid scheme \u2018Fisheries Insurance Scheme\u2019 which was subject to a proposal for appropriate measures after the revision of the Guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture is compatible with the internal market when it is amended in accordance with the following commitment made by Finland:\n-\nexclusion of the vessels exercising fishing in the open sea, which means in practice the exclusion of the vessels over 12 metres long,\n-\neligibility only for damages suffered in territorial waters of Finland or in its economic exclusive zone,\n-\nonly coverage of the damages which are caused by the specific conditions of Finland and thus caused by the adverse climatic or geographical conditions (ice, snow, strong storms, reefs in shallow waters) or by the seals and cormorants, and suffered by the vessels and fishing gear as well as transport and haulage vehicles and other specific equipment used for winter fishing.\n2. The legal provisions amending this scheme shall enter into force at the latest by 1 January 2013 and the relevant insurance contracts concluded on their basis shall enter into force at the latest by 1 January 2014.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Finland.\nDone at Brussels, 11 January 2012.", "references": ["44", "84", "88", "38", "42", "37", "64", "52", "10", "32", "59", "60", "7", "26", "98", "89", "49", "34", "79", "20", "33", "75", "3", "66", "17", "2", "93", "4", "72", "29", "No Label", "15", "48", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "48", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 16 August 2011\namending Decision 2005/240/EC authorising methods for grading pig carcasses in Poland\n(notified under document C(2011) 5745)\n(Only the Polish text is authentic)\n(2011/506/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(m), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Decision 2005/240/EC (2), the use of four methods for grading pig carcasses in Poland was authorised.\n(2)\nPoland has stated that since the adoption of Decision 2005/240/EC the slaughter value of the fatteners in Poland has improved considerably. It is therefore necessary to update the formula of the methods after nearly 6 years of use since their approval and to obtain and use new, up-to-date grading methods with a view to increasing competition as well as to introduce cheaper grading methods.\n(3)\nPoland has requested the Commission to authorise the replacement of the formula used in the \u2018CAPTEUR GRAS/MAIGRE - SYDEL (CGM)\u2019, \u2018ULTRA FOM 300\u2019, \u2018FULLY AUTOMATIC ULTRASONIC CARCASE GRADING (AUTOFOM)\u2019 and \u2018IM-03\u2019, methods of grading pig carcasses as well as to authorise four new methods for grading pig carcasses on its territory and has presented a detailed description of the dissection trial, indicating the principles on which that method is based, the results of its dissection trial and the equations used for assessing the percentage of lean meat in the protocol provided for in Article 23(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/2008 of 10 December 2008 laying down detailed rules on the implementation of the Community scales for the classification of beef, pig and sheep carcasses and the reporting of prices thereof (3).\n(4)\nExamination of that request has revealed that the conditions for authorising those grading methods are fulfilled. Those grading methods should therefore be authorised in Poland.\n(5)\nDecision 2005/240/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nModifications of the apparatus or grading methods should not be allowed, unless they are explicitly authorised by Commission Decision.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2005/240/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThe use of the following methods is authorised for grading pig carcasses pursuant to point 1 of Section B.IV of Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (4) in Poland:\n(a)\nthe \u201cCapteur Gras/Maigre - Sydel (CGM)\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 1 of the Annex;\n(b)\nthe \u201cUltra FOM 300\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 2 of the Annex;\n(c)\nthe \u201cFully automatic ultrasonic carcass grading (Autofom)\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 3 of the Annex;\n(d)\nthe \u201cIM-03\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 4 of the Annex;\n(e)\nthe \u201cAutofom III\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 5 of the Annex;\n(f)\nthe \u201cCSB Image-Meater (CSB)\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 6 of the Annex;\n(g)\nthe \u201cFat-O-Meater II (FOM II)\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 7 of the Annex;\n(h)\nthe \u201cmanual method (ZP)\u201d and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 8 of the Annex.\nAs regards the apparatus \u201cUltra FOM 300\u201d, referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph, after the end of the measurement procedure it must be possible to verify on the carcass that the apparatus measured the values of measurement F1 and F2 on the site provided for in the Annex, Part 2, point 3. The corresponding marking of the measurement site must be made at the same time as the measurement procedure.\nThe manual method ZP, referred to in point (h) of the first subparagraph, shall only be authorised for abattoirs having a slaughter line with a capacity to process no more than 40 pigs per hour.\n(2)\nthe Annex is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 12 December 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Poland.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2011.", "references": ["78", "20", "70", "77", "17", "59", "81", "45", "62", "43", "11", "87", "33", "8", "89", "93", "28", "99", "82", "21", "1", "26", "50", "23", "30", "38", "64", "67", "34", "44", "No Label", "19", "65", "69", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["19", "65", "69", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 661/2012\nof 19 July 2012\ncorrecting the Slovenian version of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 113(1)(a) and 121(h) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Slovenian language version of Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 61/2011 (2) contains an error, i.e. in Annex XX, point 4.2, the wording \"the purity must be checked\" is erroneous. Therefore a correction of the Slovenian language version is necessary. The other language versions are not affected.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2568/91 should therefore be corrected accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nConcerns only the Slovenian language version.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2012.", "references": ["41", "23", "5", "89", "62", "72", "91", "49", "32", "81", "20", "87", "0", "66", "40", "21", "37", "75", "83", "45", "97", "78", "42", "19", "99", "61", "73", "86", "9", "8", "No Label", "43", "70", "77"], "gold": ["43", "70", "77"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 925/2011\nof 15 September 2011\nimplementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\nIn view of the developments in Libya, the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entry for the entity set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 September 2011.", "references": ["21", "15", "8", "73", "17", "78", "59", "41", "39", "38", "14", "20", "81", "84", "6", "33", "9", "23", "79", "98", "86", "64", "68", "90", "92", "0", "88", "71", "85", "4", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/48/EU\nof 5 July 2010\nadapting to technical progress Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn the interests of road-safety, environmental protection and fair competition it is important to ensure that vehicles in operation are properly maintained and tested, in order to maintain their performance as guaranteed by type-approval, without excessive degradation, throughout their life-time.\n(2)\nStandards and methods, as referred to in Art. 6 (1) of Directive 2009/40/EC, should be further defined and adapted to reflect technical progress, in order to improve motor vehicle roadworthiness testing in the European Union in a cost-effective manner.\n(3)\nThe findings of two projects, Autofore (2) and Idelsy (3) which recently dealt with future options for roadworthiness testing, and the outcome of an open and factual dialogue with stakeholders should be taken into account.\n(4)\nThe current state of vehicle technology requires modern electronic systems to be included in the list of items to be tested.\n(5)\nIn order to achieve further harmonisation of roadworthiness testing, testing methods should be introduced for each of the test items.\n(6)\nTo facilitate further harmonisation and for reasons of consistency of standards, a non-exhaustive list of the main reasons for failure, as already exists for braking systems, should now be included for all test items.\n(7)\nRoadworthiness tests should cover all items relevant to the specific design, construction and equipment of the tested vehicle. Therefore, where necessary, specific requirements for particular vehicle categories should be added.\n(8)\nMember States have extended the periodic test requirement pursuant to Article 5(e) of Directive 2009/40/EC to other categories of vehicles. For the purpose of further harmonised testing, methods and standards for those categories of vehicles should be included. The tests should be carried out using techniques and equipment currently available, and without the use of tools to dismantle or remove any part of the vehicle.\n(9)\nIn addition to the items related to safety, security and environmental protection, the test also needs to cover identification of the vehicle in order to ensure that the correct tests and standards are applied, to enable the results of the test to be recorded and to enable enforcement of other legal requirements.\n(10)\nTo facilitate the functioning of the internal market, and to improve methods of roadworthiness testing, the results of a test should be set out in a roadworthiness certificate covering certain core elements.\n(11)\nFurther work needs to be done in the field of developing alternative test procedures to check the maintenance condition of diesel driven vehicles, particularly concerning NOx and particulates taking into account new emission after-treatment systems.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the committee on the adaptation to technical progress of the Directive on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers instituted by Article 7 of Directive 2009/40/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Directive 2009/40/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 December 2011 at the latest, with the exception of the provisions of paragraph 3 of Annex II, which shall apply as of 31 December 2013. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2010.", "references": ["26", "41", "22", "35", "82", "96", "4", "40", "47", "56", "19", "18", "43", "25", "57", "93", "94", "21", "74", "98", "28", "29", "23", "72", "5", "90", "42", "61", "78", "31", "No Label", "8", "53", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["8", "53", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 February 2012\nconcerning preventive vaccination against low pathogenic avian influenza in mallard ducks in Portugal and certain measures restricting the movements of such poultry and their products\n(notified under document C(2012) 676)\n(Only the Portuguese text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/110/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and repealing Directive 92/40/EEC (1), and in particular Article 57(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2005/94/EC sets out certain preventive measures relating to the surveillance and the early detection of avian influenza and increasing the level of the competent authorities\u2019 and the farming community\u2019s awareness of, and preparation for, the risks of that disease.\n(2)\nFollowing outbreaks of low pathogenic avian influenza in 2007 and 2008 in certain poultry holdings in central and western Portugal, in particular in holdings that keep poultry intended for re-stocking supplies of game, an emergency vaccination plan was carried out pursuant to Commission Decision 2008/285/EC of 19 March 2008 concerning emergency vaccination against low pathogenic avian influenza in mallard ducks in Portugal and certain measures restricting the movements of such poultry and their products (2) and that disease was successfully eradicated.\n(3)\nHowever, based on a risk assessment it was decided that high value mallard breeding ducks kept on one holding located in the region of Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, Ribatejo Norte, Vila Nova da Barquinha continued to be exposed to the potential risk of avian influenza infection, in particular by possible indirect contact with wild birds (\u2018the holding\u2019).\n(4)\nPortugal therefore submitted a preventive vaccination plan against avian influenza to be carried out as a long term measure until 31 July 2009 which was approved by Commission Decision 2008/838/EC of 3 November 2008 concerning preventive vaccination against low pathogenic avian influenza in mallard ducks in Portugal and certain measures restricting the movements of such poultry and their products (3). A further preventive vaccination plan approved by Commission Decision 2010/189/EU of 29 March 2010 concerning preventive vaccination against low pathogenic avian influenza in mallard ducks in Portugal and certain measures restricting the movements of such poultry and their products (4) was implemented by Portugal until 31 July 2011.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Decision 2010/189/EU Portugal has submitted a report on the implementation of the preventive vaccination plan to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.\n(6)\nOn 28 November 2011, Portugal submitted a new preventive vaccination plan to the Commission for approval which is to be applied until 31 July 2013 (\u2018the preventive vaccination plan\u2019).\n(7)\nIn its scientific opinions on the use of vaccination to control avian influenza issued by the European Food Safety Authority in 2005 (5), 2007 (6) and 2008 (7), the Animal Health and Welfare Panel stated that emergency and preventive vaccination against avian influenza is a valuable tool to complement the control measures for that disease.\n(8)\nIn addition, the Commission has examined the preventive vaccination plan submitted by Portugal which concerns the holding mentioned above, and is satisfied that the plan conforms to the relevant Union legislation. In view of the epidemiological situation as regards low pathogenic avian influenza in Portugal, the type of holding to be vaccinated and the limited scope of the preventive vaccination plan, it should be approved.\n(9)\nFor the purposes of the preventive vaccination plan to be carried out by Portugal, only vaccines authorised in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (8) or Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (9) should be used.\n(10)\nIn addition, surveillance and laboratory testing in the holding keeping the vaccinated mallard ducks and unvaccinated sentinel birds should be carried out as set out in the preventive vaccination plan.\n(11)\nIt is also appropriate to introduce certain restrictions on the movement of vaccinated mallard ducks, their hatching eggs and mallard ducks derived from such ducks in accordance with the preventive vaccination plan. Due to the small number of mallard ducks present on the holding where preventive vaccination is to be carried out, as well as for reasons of traceability and logistics, vaccinated mallard ducks should not be moved from that holding, but killed after the end of their reproductive cycle in accordance with the requirements of Article 10(1) of Council Directive 93/119/EEC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. (10)\n(12)\nIn relation to trade in poultry intended for re-stocking supplies of game, additional measures have been taken by Portugal pursuant to Commission Decision 2006/605/EC of 6 September 2006 on certain protection measures in relation to intra-Community trade in poultry intended for re-stocking of wild game supplies (11).\n(13)\nIn order to reduce the economic impact on the holding concerned, certain derogations from movement restrictions for mallard ducks derived from vaccinated mallard ducks should be provided for, since such movements do not pose a specific risk for the spread of disease and provided that official surveillance is carried out and that the specific animal health requirements for trade within the Union are complied with.\n(14)\nThe preventive vaccination plan should be approved so that it can be implemented until 31 July 2013. Accordingly, this Decision should apply until that date.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Decision lays down certain measures to be applied in Portugal where preventive vaccination of mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) intended for re-stocking supplies of game (\u2018mallard ducks\u2019) is carried out in a holding, which is exposed to the risk of avian influenza.\nThose measures include certain restrictions on the movement within and dispatch from Portugal of the vaccinated mallard ducks, their hatching eggs and mallard ducks derived thereof.\n2. This Decision shall apply without prejudice to the protection measures to be taken by Portugal in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC and Decision 2006/605/EC.\nArticle 2\nApproval of the preventive vaccination plan\n1. The plan for preventive vaccination against low pathogenic avian influenza in Portugal, as submitted by Portugal to the Commission on 28 November 2011, to be implemented on a holding in the region of Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, Ribatejo Norte, Vila Nova da Barquinha until 31 July 2013 (\u2018the preventive vaccination plan\u2019) is approved.\n2. The Commission shall publish the preventive vaccination plan.\nArticle 3\nConditions for implementing the preventive vaccination plan\n1. Portugal shall ensure that the mallard ducks are vaccinated, in accordance with the preventive vaccination plan, with a monovalent inactivated vaccine containing the avian influenza subtype H5 authorised by that Member State in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC or Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\n2. Portugal shall ensure that surveillance and laboratory testing of the holding keeping the vaccinated mallard ducks and unvaccinated sentinel ducks, as set out in the preventive vaccination plan, is carried out.\n3. Portugal shall ensure that the preventive vaccination plan is implemented efficiently.\nArticle 4\nMarking and restrictions on the movement and dispatch and disposal of vaccinated mallard ducks\nThe competent authority shall ensure that vaccinated mallard ducks on the holding referred to in Article 2(1) are:\n(a)\nmarked individually;\n(b)\nnot moved to other poultry holdings within Portugal; or\n(c)\ndispatched from Portugal.\nAfter their reproductive period, such ducks shall be killed on the holding referred to in Article 2(1) of this Decision, in accordance with the requirements in Article 10(1) of Directive 93/119/EEC, and their carcases safely disposed of.\nArticle 5\nRestrictions on the movement and dispatch of hatching eggs derived from mallard ducks on the holding referred to in Article 2(1)\nThe competent authority shall ensure that hatching eggs derived from mallard ducks on the holding referred to in Article 2(1) may only be moved to a hatchery within Portugal and not dispatched from Portugal.\nArticle 6\nRestrictions on the movement and dispatch of mallard ducks derived from vaccinated mallard ducks\n1. The competent authority shall ensure that mallard ducks derived from the vaccinated mallard ducks may only be moved after hatching to a holding located in a surrounding area established by Portugal in relation to the holding referred to in Article 2(1) as set out in the preventive vaccination plan.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, and provided that the mallard ducks derived from the vaccinated mallard ducks are more than four month old, they may be:\n(a)\nreleased into the wild in Portugal; or\n(b)\ndispatched from Portugal provided that:\n(i)\nthe results of the surveillance and laboratory tests as set out in the preventive vaccination plan, are favourable; and\n(ii)\nthe conditions for dispatch of poultry for re-stocking supplies of wild game laid down in Decision 2006/605/EC are met.\nArticle 7\nHealth certification for trade within the Union in mallard ducks derived from vaccinated mallard ducks\nPortugal shall ensure that health certificates for trade within the Union in poultry intended for re-stocking supplies of game referred to in Article 6(2)(b) include the following sentence:\n\u2018The animal health conditions of this consignment are in accordance with Commission Implementing Decision 2012/110/EU (12).\nArticle 8\nReports\nPortugal shall submit to the Commission a report on the implementation of the preventive vaccination plan within one month from the date of application of this Decision and report every six months thereafter at the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health thereafter.\nArticle 9\nApplicability\nThis Decision shall apply until 31 July 2013.\nArticle 10\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["93", "52", "99", "41", "33", "98", "95", "17", "30", "39", "64", "55", "1", "59", "12", "27", "43", "78", "94", "44", "49", "4", "73", "87", "3", "28", "77", "20", "31", "63", "No Label", "21", "23", "38", "61", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "23", "38", "61", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 September 2011\non benchmarks to allocate greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge to aircraft operators pursuant to Article 3e of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/638/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Article 3e(3)(e) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt is necessary to adopt benchmarks to be used to allocate allowances free of charge to aircraft operators in the trading period from 1 January to 31 December 2012, referred to in Article 3c(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC and in the trading period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020, referred to in Article 13(1) in conjunction with Article 3c(2) of that Directive.\n(2)\nAllocations according to those benchmarks should be fixed until 2020 except where acts adopted pursuant to Article 25a of Directive 2003/87/EC require consequential modifications.\n(3)\nFollowing the incorporation into the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement of Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (2) by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 6/2011 of 1 April 2011 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement (3), the benchmarks are to be applied within the EEA.\n(4)\nIt is therefore necessary to base the benchmarks on the EEA-wide number of free allowances fixed by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 93/2011 of 20 July 2011 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement (4).\n(5)\nThe benchmarks should be calculated by dividing the EEA-wide numbers of allowances applicable to the trading period from 1 January to 31 December 2012 and those applicable to the trading period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020 by the sum of figures in the tonne-kilometre data included in applications submitted to the Commission in accordance with Article 3e(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Without prejudice to Article 25a of Directive 2003/87/EC, the benchmark to be used to allocate allowances free of charge to aircraft operators pursuant to Article 3e(1) of that Directive for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2012 shall be 0,000679695907431681 allowances per tonne-kilometre.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 25a of Directive 2003/87/EC, the benchmark to be used to allocate allowances free of charge to aircraft operators pursuant to Article 3e(1) of that Directive for the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020 shall be 0,000642186914222035 allowances per tonne-kilometre.\nArticle 2\nCalculations relating to a number of allowances to be allocated in accordance with the benchmarks set out in Article 1 shall be rounded down to the nearest allowance.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 3rd day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 26 September 2011.", "references": ["38", "89", "15", "30", "37", "40", "93", "43", "1", "31", "96", "32", "34", "69", "74", "82", "73", "17", "66", "3", "19", "49", "20", "29", "67", "2", "13", "44", "64", "61", "No Label", "57", "58", "60"], "gold": ["57", "58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 334/2010\nof 22 April 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 721/2008 as regards the composition of feed additives\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 721/2008 (2) authorises a preparation of red carotenoid-rich bacterium Paracoccus carotinifaciens as a feed additive for salmon and trout until 15 August 2018. That feed additive is classified in the category \u2018sensory additives\u2019, functional group \u2018a (ii). Colourants; substances which when fed to animals add colours to food of animal origin\u2019.\n(2)\nThe Commission received an application requesting a modification of the conditions of the authorisation as regards the composition of the feed additive. That application was accompanied by the relevant supporting data. The Commission forwarded that application to the European Food Safety Authority (the Authority).\n(3)\nThe Authority concluded in its opinion of January 2010 that the requested modification would not affect the safety and efficacy of the product (3).\n(4)\nThe assessment of the modified preparation shows that it satisfies the conditions for authorisation, provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 721/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 721/2008, in the third column, \u2018Composition, chemical formula, description, analytical method\u2019,\nthe words\n\u2018-\n10-15 g/kg adonirubin\n-\n3-5 g/kg canthaxanthin\u2019\nare replaced by the words\n\u2018-\n7-15 g/kg adonirubin\n-\n1-5 g/kg canthaxanthin\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 April 2010.", "references": ["44", "46", "78", "32", "23", "7", "1", "80", "68", "9", "26", "39", "33", "94", "42", "20", "12", "17", "51", "37", "69", "83", "16", "97", "10", "75", "96", "91", "35", "19", "No Label", "38", "58", "66", "74"], "gold": ["38", "58", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/50/CFSP\nof 27 January 2012\namending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 31 January 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/72/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nOn the basis of a review of Decision 2011/72/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be extended until 31 January 2013.\n(3)\nDecision 2011/72/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 5 of Decision 2011/72/CFSP is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nThis Decision shall apply until 31 January 2013. It shall be kept under constant review. It may be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 27 January 2012.", "references": ["99", "48", "8", "51", "85", "28", "18", "95", "92", "10", "9", "52", "46", "49", "79", "11", "36", "96", "32", "57", "74", "56", "15", "22", "38", "0", "40", "23", "98", "17", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 5 October 2010\non the Union financial contribution to national programmes of France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector in the year 2010\n(notified under document C(2010) 6744)\n(2010/630/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea (1), and in particular Article 24(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 861/2006 lays down the conditions whereby Member States may receive a contribution from the European Union for expenditure incurred in their national programmes for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector.\n(2)\nThose programmes are to be drawn up in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 (3) laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008.\n(3)\nBelgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom submitted national programmes for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector in the years 2009-10 as provided for in Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. Those programmes were approved in 2009 in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008.\n(4)\nBy Commission Decision 2010/369/EU (4), the Commission decided on the Union financial contribution to those national programmes for the year 2010, except for France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom.\n(5)\nFrance, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom submitted amendments to their national programmes for the year 2010, pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. Those amendments were approved by the Commission in 2010 in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008.\n(6)\nThose Member States also submitted annual budget forecasts for the year 2010 pursuant to Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States for the collection and management of the basic fisheries data (5). The Commission has evaluated the annual budget forecasts in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008, by taking into account the approved amendments to the national programmes.\n(7)\nArticle 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 establishes that the Commission is to approve the annual budget forecasts and is to decide on the annual Union financial contribution to each national programme in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and on the basis of the outcome of the evaluation of the annual budget forecasts as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008.\n(8)\nArticle 24(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 establishes that a Commission Decision is to fix the rate of the financial contribution. Article 16 of that Regulation provides that Union financial measures in the area of basic data collection are not to exceed 50 % of the costs incurred by Member States in carrying out the programme of collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector. Article 24(2) provides that priority shall be given to the actions which are most appropriate in order to improve the collection of data necessary for the Common Fisheries Policy.\n(9)\nThis Decision is to constitute the financing decision within the meaning of Article 75(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (6).\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe maximum global amounts of the Union financial contribution to be granted to France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for 2010, and the rate of the Union financial contribution, are established in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 October 2010.", "references": ["12", "86", "7", "74", "98", "33", "19", "38", "0", "82", "48", "22", "59", "88", "85", "9", "6", "40", "4", "25", "56", "52", "61", "95", "78", "21", "20", "44", "93", "34", "No Label", "10", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 22 November 2011\non the application of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles\n(notified under document C(2011) 8289)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/754/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (1), and in particular Article 2 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 30 May 2002 the Agreement between the national insurers\u2019 bureaux of the Member States of the European Economic Area and other Associate States, hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019, was concluded. Under the terms of the Agreement each national bureau guaranteed the settlement of claims, in accordance with the provisions of national law on compulsory insurance, in respect of accidents occurring in its territory, caused by vehicles normally based in the territory of another Member State or in the territory of Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia or Switzerland, whether or not such vehicles are insured.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2003/564/EC of 28 July 2003 on the application of Council Directive 72/166/EEC, relating to checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (2) provided that from 1 August 2003 Member States were to refrain from making checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of vehicles which are normally based in the territory of another Member State or in the territory of Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia or Switzerland.\n(3)\nThe Agreement was extended, by Addendum No 1 thereto, to include the bureaux of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Poland. Commission Decision 2004/332/EC of 2 April 2004 on the application of Council Directive 72/166/EEC with regard to checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (3) provided that from 30 April 2004 Member States were to refrain from making checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of vehicles which are normally based in the territory of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta or Poland.\n(4)\nThe Agreement was extended, by Addendum No 2 thereto, to include the bureau of Andorra. Commission Decision 2005/849/EC of 29 November 2005 on the application of Council Directive 72/166/EEC with regard to checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (4) provided that from 1 January 2006 Member States were to refrain from making checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of vehicles which are normally based in the territory of Andorra.\n(5)\nThe Agreement was extended, by Addendum No 3 thereto, to include the bureaux of Bulgaria and Romania. Commission Decision 2007/482/EC of 9 July 2007 on the application of Council Directive 72/166/EEC with regard to checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (5) provided that from 1 August 2007 Member States were to refrain from making checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of vehicles which are normally based in the territory of Bulgaria or Romania. On 29 May 2008, the national insurers\u2019 bureaux consolidated the Agreement integrating the Addenda Nos 1-3.\n(6)\nOn 26 May 2011 the national insurers\u2019 bureaux of the Member States and those of Andorra, Croatia, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland signed Addendum No 1 to the consolidated Agreement by which the Agreement was extended to include the national insurers\u2019 bureau of Serbia. The Addendum provides for the practical arrangements to abolish insurance checks in respect of vehicles normally based in the territory of Serbia and which are subject to the Agreement.\n(7)\nTherefore, all the conditions for the removal of checks on motor insurance against civil liability in accordance with Directive 2009/103/EC in respect of vehicles normally based in the territory of Serbia are fulfilled,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAs from 1 January 2012, Member States shall refrain from making checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of vehicles which are normally based in the territory of Serbia and which are subject to Addendum No 1 to the Agreement between the national insurers\u2019 bureaux of the Member States of the European Economic Area and other Associate States.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall forthwith inform the Commission of measures taken to apply this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2011.", "references": ["9", "33", "17", "7", "54", "59", "63", "61", "21", "55", "70", "18", "82", "12", "2", "10", "83", "14", "25", "37", "57", "47", "71", "50", "74", "39", "98", "80", "89", "52", "No Label", "1", "44", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["1", "44", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 815/2010\nof 15 September 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 809/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 September 2010.", "references": ["28", "39", "4", "1", "14", "54", "25", "23", "38", "27", "19", "81", "92", "41", "96", "50", "20", "48", "37", "80", "3", "88", "99", "95", "77", "53", "97", "76", "61", "82", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 7 December 2011\non the recognition of Bangladesh pursuant to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers\n(notified under document C(2011) 8999)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/822/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 19(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the requests from Cyprus on 26 July 2007, from Italy on 24 December 2007 and from Belgium on 25 June 2008,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Directive 2008/106/EC Member States may decide to endorse seafarers' appropriate certificates issued by third countries, provided that the third country concerned is recognised by the Commission. Those third countries have to meet all the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW Convention) (2), as revised in 1995.\n(2)\nRequests for the recognition of Bangladesh have been submitted by letters of 26 July 2007 from Cyprus, of 24 December 2007 from Italy and of 25 June 2008 from Belgium. Following these requests, the Commission assessed the training and certification system in Bangladesh in order to verify whether Bangladesh meets all the requirements of the STCW Convention and whether the appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. That assessment was based on the results of an inspection carried out by experts of the European Maritime Safety Agency in February 2008. During that inspection certain deficiencies in the training and certification systems were identified.\n(3)\nThe Commission provided the Member States with a report on the results of the assessment.\n(4)\nBy letters of 26 March 2009, 9 December 2009 and 28 September 2010, the Commission requested Bangladesh to provide evidence demonstrating that the deficiencies identified had been corrected.\n(5)\nBy letters of 29 March 2009, 21 May 2009, 12 July 2009, 4 January 2010, 27 February 2011 and 14 March 2011, Bangladesh provided the requested information and evidence concerning the implementation of appropriate and sufficient corrective action to address most of the deficiencies identified during the assessment of compliance.\n(6)\nThe remaining shortcomings concern, on the one hand, the lack of certain training equipment in one of the maritime education and training institutions of Bangladesh, and on the other hand training for preparatory courses relating to Section A-II/1 of the STCW Code. Bangladesh has therefore been invited to implement further corrective action in this respect. However, these shortcomings do not warrant calling into question the overall level of compliance of Bangladesh with STCW requirements on training and certification of seafarers.\n(7)\nThe outcome of the assessment of compliance and the evaluation of the information provided by Bangladesh demonstrates that Bangladesh complies with the relevant requirements of the STCW Convention, while this country has taken appropriate measures to prevent fraud involving certificates.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of Article 19 of Directive 2008/106/EC, Bangladesh is recognised as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2011.", "references": ["72", "75", "83", "94", "10", "44", "67", "20", "32", "35", "53", "17", "73", "52", "34", "81", "80", "0", "64", "19", "59", "78", "15", "1", "46", "45", "28", "22", "3", "38", "No Label", "49", "54", "56", "95", "96"], "gold": ["49", "54", "56", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1316/2011\nof 15 December 2011\non the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the second partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/12 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, the Commission is to decide, in the light of the tenders received in response to a partial invitation to tender, either to fix a minimum customs duty or not to fix a minimum customs duty per eight digit CN code.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the second partial invitation to tender, a minimum customs duty should be fixed for certain eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701 and no minimum customs duty should be fixed for the other eight digit codes for sugar falling within that CN code.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the second partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 14 December 2011, a minimum customs duty has been fixed, or has not been fixed, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation for the eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2011.", "references": ["3", "51", "41", "60", "43", "4", "52", "23", "62", "38", "35", "58", "27", "11", "37", "96", "14", "53", "68", "40", "0", "25", "24", "10", "82", "83", "78", "97", "98", "92", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "71", "73"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "71", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 972/2011\nof 29 September 2011\nfixing the representative prices and additional import duties applicable to molasses in the sugar sector from 1 October 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), lays down that the cif import price for molasses is to be considered the representative price. That price is fixed for the standard quality defined in Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(2)\nFor the purposes of fixing the representative prices, account must be taken of all the information provided for in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, except in the cases provided for in Article 30 of that Regulation and those prices should be fixed, where appropriate, in accordance with the method provided for in Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nPrices not relating to the standard quality should be adjusted upwards or downwards, according to the quality of the molasses offered, in accordance with Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(4)\nWhere there is a difference between the trigger price for the product concerned and the representative price, additional import duties should be fixed under the terms laid down in Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006. Should the import duties be suspended pursuant to Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, specific amounts for these duties should be fixed.\n(5)\nThe representative prices and additional import duties for the products concerned should be fixed in accordance with Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and the additional duties applying to imports of the products referred to in Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 September 2011.", "references": ["9", "26", "65", "44", "36", "55", "94", "82", "28", "91", "86", "1", "51", "61", "70", "85", "25", "53", "45", "11", "49", "92", "23", "17", "96", "42", "99", "24", "59", "2", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1003/2011\nof 11 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 October 2011.", "references": ["50", "81", "31", "32", "43", "79", "41", "49", "12", "17", "88", "60", "16", "85", "99", "42", "27", "64", "67", "26", "4", "89", "59", "76", "18", "25", "94", "0", "84", "72", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 636/2012\nof 13 July 2012\nextending for six months the application of Regulation (EU) No 161/2012 on emergency measures for the protection of haddock stocks in waters to the west of Scotland\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nEvidence of serious threats to the conservation of certain stocks of haddock in waters to the west of Scotland led the Commission to adopt Regulation (EU) No 161/2012 of 23 February 2012 on emergency measures for the protection of haddock stocks in waters to the west of Scotland (2), on the basis of the provisions laid down Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 2371/2002 states that the emergency measures are to last no more than six months and that the Commission may take a new decision to extend them for an additional period of no more than six months.\n(3)\nThe rationale that underlies the adoption of the emergency measures in issue remains valid for the duration of the fishery this season. Otherwise the positive effects they have yielded until now could be nullified. Since the relevant fisheries are indeed still ongoing, the lapse of the emergency measures would re-introduce the catch composition requirements, entailing increased discarding and thus considerable increase in fishing pressure on haddock and other stocks as fishermen seek to legitimately land their quotas.\n(4)\nMeasures on permanent protection of the haddock stocks concerned by Commission Regulation (EU) No 161/2012 might not be in place before the expiry date of application of that Regulation. Meanwhile, the threats for the conservation of the haddock stocks persist.\n(5)\nIt is therefore appropriate to extend for six months the emergency measures provided for in Regulation (EU) No 161/2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe application of Regulation (EU) No 161/2012 shall be extended until 25 February 2013.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2012.", "references": ["62", "85", "19", "84", "21", "37", "11", "69", "95", "26", "78", "22", "61", "83", "97", "75", "88", "8", "51", "65", "43", "79", "80", "29", "20", "70", "0", "31", "74", "64", "No Label", "13", "59", "67"], "gold": ["13", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 448/2011\nof 6 May 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (\u03a3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u0397\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (Stafida Ilias) (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Greece\u2019s application to register the name \u2018\u03a3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u0397\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (Stafida Ilias)\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2011.", "references": ["88", "78", "61", "28", "23", "41", "64", "50", "95", "22", "1", "74", "15", "0", "80", "35", "16", "90", "43", "48", "92", "82", "7", "42", "8", "85", "57", "60", "58", "77", "No Label", "24", "25", "66", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "66", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 611/2010\nof 12 July 2010\napproving minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Basilico Genovese (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the second sentence of Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and by virtue of Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for approval of amendments to details in the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Basilico Genovese\u2019, registered by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1623/2005 (3).\n(2)\nThe request to change the specification concerns adding a provision on affixing to the product\u2019s packaging the logo of the name \u2018Basilico Genovese\u2019, the graphical specifications of which are described.\n(3)\nThe Commission has examined the amendment in question and decided that it is justified. Since the amendment is a minor one within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission can approve it without recourse to the procedure laid down in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the said Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Basilico Genovese\u2019 is hereby amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe updated Single Document is set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2010.", "references": ["49", "85", "5", "6", "87", "93", "20", "27", "42", "9", "22", "81", "1", "2", "50", "88", "46", "13", "76", "90", "29", "82", "35", "45", "86", "0", "16", "92", "12", "15", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1173/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\non the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 136, in combination with Article 121(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMember States whose currency is the euro have a particular interest in and a responsibility to conduct economic policies that promote the proper functioning of the economic and monetary union and to avoid policies that jeopardise that functioning.\n(2)\nThe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) allows the adoption of specific measures in the euro area which go beyond the provisions applicable to all Member States, for the purpose of ensuring the proper functioning of the economic and monetary union.\n(3)\nExperience gained and mistakes made during the first decade of the economic and monetary union show a need for improved economic governance in the Union, which should be built on stronger national ownership of commonly agreed rules and policies and on a more robust framework at the level of the Union for the surveillance of national economic policies.\n(4)\nThe improved economic governance framework should rely on several interlinked and coherent policies for sustainable growth and jobs, in particular a Union strategy for growth and jobs, with particular focus on developing and strengthening the internal market, fostering international trade and competitiveness, a European Semester for strengthened coordination of economic and budgetary policies, an effective framework for preventing and correcting excessive government deficits (the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)), a robust framework for preventing and correcting macroeconomic imbalances, minimum requirements for national budgetary frameworks, and enhanced financial market regulation and supervision, including macroprudential supervision by the European Systemic Risk Board.\n(5)\nThe SGP and the complete economic governance framework should complement and be compatible with the Union strategy for growth and jobs. The interlinks between different strands should not provide for exemptions from the provisions of the SGP.\n(6)\nAchieving and maintaining a dynamic internal market should be considered an element of the proper and smooth functioning of the economic and monetary union.\n(7)\nThe Commission should play a stronger role in the enhanced surveillance procedure as regards assessments that are specific to each Member State, monitoring, on-site missions, recommendations and warnings. When taking decisions on sanctions, the role of the Council should be limited, and reversed qualified majority voting should be used.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure a permanent dialogue with the Member States aiming at achieving the objectives of this Regulation, the Commission should carry out surveillance missions.\n(9)\nA broad evaluation of the economic governance system, in particular of the effectiveness and adequacy of its sanctions, should be undertaken by the Commission at regular intervals. Such evaluations should be complemented by relevant proposals if necessary.\n(10)\nWhen implementing this Regulation, the Commission should take into account the current economic situation of the Member States concerned.\n(11)\nThe strengthening of economic governance should include a closer and a more timely involvement of the European Parliament and the national parliaments.\n(12)\nAn economic dialogue with the European Parliament may be established, enabling the Commission to make its analyses public and the President of the Council, the Commission and, where appropriate, the President of the European Council or the President of the Eurogroup to discuss. Such a public debate could enable discussion of the spill-over effects of national decisions and enable public peer pressure to be brought to bear on the relevant actors. While recognising that the counterparts of the European Parliament in the framework of that dialogue are the relevant institutions of the Union and their representatives, the competent committee of the European Parliament may offer an opportunity to participate in an exchange of views to a Member State which is the subject of a Council decision taken pursuant to Articles 4, 5 and 6 of this Regulation. The Member State\u2019s participation in such an exchange of views is voluntary.\n(13)\nAdditional sanctions are necessary to make the enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area more effective. Those sanctions should enhance the credibility of the fiscal surveillance framework of the Union.\n(14)\nThe rules laid down in this Regulation should ensure fair, timely, graduated and effective mechanisms for compliance with the preventive and the corrective parts of the SGP, in particular Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (4) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (5), where compliance with the budgetary discipline is examined on the basis of the government deficit and government debt criteria.\n(15)\nSanctions under this Regulation and based upon the preventive part of the SGP in respect of Member States whose currency is the euro should provide incentives for adjusting to and maintaining the medium-term budgetary objective.\n(16)\nIn order to deter against the misrepresentation, whether intentional or due to serious negligence, of government deficit and debt data, which data is an essential input to economic policy coordination in the Union, fines should be imposed on Member States responsible.\n(17)\nIn order to supplement the rules on calculation of the fines for manipulation of statistics as well as the rules on the procedure to be followed by the Commission for the investigation of such actions, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of detailed criteria for establishing the amount of the fine and for conducting the Commission\u2019s investigations. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and the Council.\n(18)\nIn respect of the preventive part of the SGP, adjustment and adherence to the medium-term budgetary objective should be ensured through an obligation imposed on a Member State whose currency is the euro that is making insufficient progress with budgetary consolidation to lodge temporarily an interest-bearing deposit. This should be the case when a Member State, including a Member State with a deficit below the 3 % of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) reference value, deviates significantly from the medium-term budgetary objective or the appropriate adjustment path towards that objective and fails to correct the deviation.\n(19)\nThe interest-bearing deposit imposed should be released to the Member State concerned together with the interest accrued on it once the Council has been satisfied that the situation giving rise to the obligation to lodge that deposit has come to an end.\n(20)\nIn respect of the corrective part of the SGP, sanctions for Member States whose currency is the euro should take the form of an obligation to lodge a non-interest-bearing deposit linked to a Council decision establishing the existence of an excessive deficit if an interest-bearing deposit has already been imposed on the Member State concerned in the preventive part of the SGP or in cases of particularly serious non-compliance with the budgetary policy obligations laid down in the SGP, or the obligation to pay a fine in the event of non-compliance with a Council recommendation to correct an excessive government deficit.\n(21)\nIn order to avoid the retroactive application of the sanctions under the preventive part of the SGP provided for in this Regulation, they should apply only in respect of the relevant decisions adopted by the Council under Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 after the entry into force of this Regulation. Similarly, in order to avoid the retroactive application of the sanctions under the corrective part of the SGP provided for in this Regulation, they should apply only in respect of the relevant recommendations and decisions to correct an excessive government deficit adopted by the Council after the entry into force of this Regulation.\n(22)\nThe amount of the interest-bearing deposits, of the non-interest-bearing deposits and of the fines provided for in this Regulation should be set in such a way as to ensure a fair graduation of sanctions in the preventive and corrective parts of the SGP and to provide sufficient incentives for the Member States whose currency is the euro to comply with the fiscal framework of the Union. Fines under Article 126(11) TFEU and as specified in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 are composed of a fixed component that equals 0,2 % of GDP and of a variable component. Thus, graduation and equal treatment between Member States are ensured if the interest-bearing deposit, the non-interest-bearing deposit and the fine specified in this Regulation are equal to 0,2 % of GDP, that being the amount of the fixed component of the fine under Article 126(11) TFEU.\n(23)\nA possibility should be provided for the Council to reduce or to cancel the sanctions imposed on Member States whose currency is the euro on the basis of a Commission recommendation following a reasoned request by the Member State concerned. In the corrective part of the SGP, the Commission should also be able to recommend reducing the amount of a sanction or cancelling it on grounds of exceptional economic circumstances.\n(24)\nThe non-interest-bearing deposit should be released upon correction of the excessive deficit, while the interest on such deposits and the fines collected should be assigned to stability mechanisms to provide financial assistance, created by Member States whose currency is the euro in order to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole.\n(25)\nThe power to adopt individual decisions for the application of the sanctions provided for in this Regulation should be conferred on the Council. As part of the coordination of the economic policies of the Member States conducted within the Council as provided for in Article 121(1) TFEU, those individual decisions are an integral follow-up to the measures adopted by the Council in accordance with Articles 121 and 126 TFEU and Regulations (EC) No 1466/97 and (EC) No 1467/97.\n(26)\nSince this Regulation contains general rules for the effective enforcement of Regulations (EC) No 1466/97 and (EC) No 1467/97, it should be adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure referred to in Article 121(6) TFEU.\n(27)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely to create a system of sanctions for enhancing the enforcement of the preventive and corrective parts of the SGP in the euro area, cannot be sufficiently achieved at the level of the Member States, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principles 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 in order to achieve that objective,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT MATTER, SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation sets out a system of sanctions for enhancing the enforcement of the preventive and corrective parts of the Stability and Growth Pact in the euro area.\n2. This Regulation shall apply to Member States whose currency is the euro.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:\n(1)\n\u2018preventive part of the Stability and Growth Pact\u2019 means the multilateral surveillance system as organised by Regulation (EC) No 1466/97;\n(2)\n\u2018corrective part of the Stability and Growth Pact\u2019 means the procedure for the avoidance of Member States\u2019 excessive deficit as regulated by Article 126 TFEU and Regulation (EC) No 1467/97;\n(3)\n\u2018exceptional economic circumstances\u2019 means circumstances where an excess of a government deficit over the reference value is considered exceptional within the meaning of the second indent of point (a) of Article 126(2) TFEU and as specified in Regulation (EC) No 1467/97.\nCHAPTER II\nECONOMIC DIALOGUE\nArticle 3\nEconomic dialogue\nIn order to enhance the dialogue between the institutions of the Union, in particular the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and to ensure greater transparency and accountability, the competent committee of the European Parliament may invite the President of the Council, the Commission and, where appropriate, the President of the European Council or the President of the Eurogroup to appear before the committee to discuss decisions taken pursuant to Articles 4, 5 and 6 of this Regulation.\nThe competent committee of the European Parliament may offer the opportunity to the Member State concerned by such decisions to participate in an exchange of views.\nCHAPTER III\nSANCTIONS IN THE PREVENTIVE PART OF THE STABILITY AND GROWTH PACT\nArticle 4\nInterest-bearing deposits\n1. If the Council adopts a decision establishing that a Member State failed to take action in response to the Council recommendation referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the Commission shall, within 20 days of adoption of the Council\u2019s decision, recommend that the Council, by a further decision, require the Member State in question to lodge with the Commission an interest-bearing deposit amounting to 0,2 % of its GDP in the preceding year.\n2. The decision requiring a lodgement shall be deemed to be adopted by the Council unless it decides by a qualified majority to reject the Commission\u2019s recommendation within 10 days of the Commission\u2019s adoption thereof.\n3. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may amend the Commission\u2019s recommendation and adopt the text so amended as a Council decision.\n4. The Commission may, following a reasoned request by the Member State concerned addressed to the Commission within 10 days of adoption of the Council\u2019s decision establishing that a Member State failed to take action referred to in paragraph 1, recommend that the Council reduce the amount of the interest-bearing deposit or cancel it.\n5. The interest-bearing deposit shall bear an interest rate reflecting the Commission\u2019s credit risk and the relevant investment period.\n6. If the situation giving rise to the Council\u2019s recommendation referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 no longer exists, the Council, on the basis of a further recommendation from the Commission, shall decide that the deposit and the interest accrued thereon be returned to the Member State concerned. The Council may, acting by a qualified majority, amend the Commission\u2019s further recommendation.\nCHAPTER IV\nSANCTIONS IN THE CORRECTIVE PART OF THE STABILITY AND GROWTH PACT\nArticle 5\nNon-interest-bearing deposits\n1. If the Council, acting under Article 126(6) TFEU, decides that an excessive deficit exists in a Member State which has lodged an interest-bearing deposit with the Commission in accordance with Article 4(1) of this Regulation, or where the Commission has identified particularly serious non-compliance with the budgetary policy obligations laid down in the SGP, the Commission shall, within 20 days of adoption of the Council\u2019s decision, recommend that the Council, by a further decision, require the Member State concerned to lodge with the Commission a non-interest-bearing deposit amounting to 0,2 % of its GDP in the preceding year.\n2. The decision requiring a lodgement shall be deemed to be adopted by the Council unless it decides by a qualified majority to reject the Commission\u2019s recommendation within 10 days of the Commission\u2019s adoption thereof.\n3. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may amend the Commission\u2019s recommendation and adopt the text so amended as a Council decision.\n4. The Commission may, on grounds of exceptional economic circumstances or following a reasoned request by the Member State concerned addressed to the Commission within 10 days of adoption of the Council\u2019s decision under Article 126(6) TFEU referred to in paragraph 1, recommend that the Council reduce the amount of the non-interest-bearing deposit or cancel it.\n5. The deposit shall be lodged with the Commission. If the Member State has lodged an interest-bearing deposit with the Commission in accordance with Article 4, that interest-bearing deposit shall be converted to a non-interest-bearing deposit.\nIf the amount of an interest-bearing deposit lodged in accordance with Article 4 and of the interest accrued thereon exceeds the amount of the non-interest-bearing deposit to be lodged under paragraph 1 of this Article, the excess shall be returned to the Member State.\nIf the amount of the non-interest-bearing deposit exceeds the amount of an interest-bearing deposit lodged in accordance with Article 4 and the interest accrued thereon, the Member State shall make up the shortfall when it lodges the non-interest-bearing deposit.\nArticle 6\nFines\n1. If the Council, acting under Article 126(8) TFEU, decides that a Member State has not taken effective action to correct its excessive deficit, the Commission shall, within 20 days of that decision, recommend that the Council, by a further decision, impose a fine, amounting to 0,2 % of the Member State\u2019s GDP in the preceding year.\n2. The decision imposing a fine shall be deemed to be adopted by the Council unless it decides by a qualified majority to reject the Commission\u2019s recommendation within 10 days of the Commission\u2019s adoption thereof.\n3. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may amend the Commission\u2019s recommendation and adopt the text so amended as a Council decision.\n4. The Commission may, on grounds of exceptional economic circumstances or following a reasoned request by the Member State concerned addressed to the Commission within 10 days of adoption of the Council\u2019s decision under Article 126(8) TFEU referred to in paragraph 1, recommend that the Council reduce the amount of the fine or cancel it.\n5. If the Member State has lodged a non-interest-bearing deposit with the Commission in accordance with Article 5, the non-interest-bearing deposit shall be converted into the fine.\nIf the amount of a non-interest-bearing deposit lodged in accordance with Article 5 exceeds the amount of the fine, the excess shall be returned to the Member State.\nIf the amount of the fine exceeds the amount of a non-interest-bearing deposit lodged in accordance with Article 5, or if no non-interest-bearing deposit has been lodged, the Member State shall make up the shortfall when it pays the fine\nArticle 7\nReturn of non-interest-bearing deposits\nIf the Council, acting under Article 126(12) TFEU, decides to abrogate some or all of its decisions, any non-interest-bearing deposit lodged with the Commission shall be returned to the Member State concerned.\nCHAPTER V\nSANCTIONS CONCERNING THE MANIPULATION OF STATISTICS\nArticle 8\nSanctions concerning the manipulation of statistics\n1. The Council, acting on a recommendation by the Commission, may decide to impose a fine on a Member State that intentionally or by serious negligence misrepresents deficit and debt data relevant for the application of Articles 121 or 126 TFEU, or for the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU.\n2. The fines referred to in paragraph 1 shall be effective, dissuasive and proportionate to the nature, seriousness and duration of the misrepresentation. The amount of the fine shall not exceed 0,2 % of GDP of the Member State concerned.\n3. The Commission may conduct all investigations necessary to establish the existence of the misrepresentations referred to in paragraph 1. It may decide to initiate an investigation when it finds that there are serious indications of the existence of facts liable to constitute such a misrepresentation. The Commission shall investigate the putative misrepresentations taking into account any comments submitted by the Member State concerned. In order to carry out its tasks, the Commission may request the Member State to provide information, and may conduct on-site inspections and accede to the accounts of all government entities at central, state, local and social-security level. If the law of the Member State concerned requires prior judicial authorisation for on-site inspections, the Commission shall make the necessary applications.\nUpon completion of its investigation, and before submitting any proposal to the Council, the Commission shall give to the Member State concerned the opportunity of being heard in relation to the matters under investigation. The Commission shall base any proposal to the Council only on facts on which the Member State concerned has had the opportunity to comment.\nThe Commission shall fully respect the rights of defence of the Member State concerned during the investigations.\n4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 11 concerning:\n(a)\ndetailed criteria establishing the amount of the fine referred to in paragraph 1;\n(b)\ndetailed rules concerning the procedures for the investigations referred to in paragraph 3, the associated measures and the reporting on the investigations;\n(c)\ndetailed rules of procedure aimed at guaranteeing the rights of the defence, access to the file, legal representation, confidentiality and provisions as to timing and the collection of the fines referred to in paragraph 1.\n5. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have unlimited jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Council imposing fines under paragraph 1. It may annul, reduce or increase the fine so imposed.\nCHAPTER VI\nADMINISTRATIVE NATURE OF THE SANCTIONS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE INTEREST AND FINES\nArticle 9\nAdministrative nature of the sanctions\nThe sanctions imposed pursuant to Articles 4 to 8 shall be of an administrative nature.\nArticle 10\nDistribution of the interest and fines\nThe interest earned by the Commission on deposits lodged in accordance with Article 5 and the fines collected in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 shall constitute other revenue, as referred to in Article 311 TFEU, and shall be assigned to the European Financial Stability Facility. When the Member States whose currency is the euro create another stability mechanism to provide financial assistance in order to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole, the interest and the fines shall be assigned to that mechanism.\nCHAPTER VII\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 11\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 8(4) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 3 years from 13 December 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 9 months before the end of that 3-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than 3 months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 8(4) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 8(4) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 12\nVoting in the Council\n1. For the measures referred to in Articles 4, 5, 6 and 8, only members of the Council representing Member States whose currency is the euro shall vote, and the Council shall act without taking into account the vote of the member of the Council representing the Member State concerned.\n2. A qualified majority of the members of the Council referred to in paragraph 1 shall be defined in accordance with point (b) of Article 238(3) TFEU.\nArticle 13\nReview\n1. By 14 December 2014 and every 5 years thereafter, the Commission shall publish a report on the application of this Regulation.\nThat report shall evaluate, inter alia:\n(a)\nthe effectiveness of this Regulation, including the possibility to enable the Council and the Commission to act in order to address situations which risk jeopardising the proper functioning of the monetary union;\n(b)\nthe progress in ensuring closer coordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of economic performances of the Member States in accordance with the TFEU.\n2. Where appropriate, that report shall be accompanied by a proposal for amendments to this Regulation.\n3. The report shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n4. Before the end of 2011 the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the possibility of introducing euro-securities.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["21", "70", "5", "42", "64", "91", "47", "14", "55", "30", "73", "20", "13", "29", "81", "41", "56", "69", "89", "74", "68", "85", "36", "25", "17", "57", "40", "95", "72", "79", "No Label", "8", "12", "27", "28", "32", "33"], "gold": ["8", "12", "27", "28", "32", "33"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/33/CFSP\nof 23 January 2012\nappointing the European Union Special Representative for the Middle East peace process\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 21 July 2003, the Council adopted Joint Action 2003/537/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Marc OTTE as the European Union Special Representative (\u2018EUSR\u2019) for the Middle East peace process.\n(2)\nMr Andreas REINICKE should be appointed as EUSR for the Middle East peace process from 1 February 2012 to 30 June 2013.\n(3)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nMr Andreas REINICKE is appointed as the European Union Special Representative (\u2018EUSR\u2019) for the Middle East peace process (\u2018peace process\u2019) from 1 February 2012 until 30 June 2013. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, upon a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (\u2018HR\u2019).\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\n1. The mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the Union\u2019s policy objectives regarding the peace process.\n2. These objectives include, inter alia:\n(a)\na comprehensive peace that should be achieved on the basis of the relevant United Nations (\u2018UN\u2019) Security Council Resolutions, the Madrid principles, the Roadmap, the agreements previously reached by the parties and the Arab Peace Initiative;\n(b)\na two-State solution with Israel and a democratic, contiguous, viable, peaceful and sovereign Palestinian State living side by side within secure and recognised borders enjoying normal relations with their neighbours in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002) and 1402 (2002) and the Madrid principles;\n(c)\na solution to the Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese conflicts;\n(d)\na solution to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states and a just, viable and agreed solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees;\n(e)\nfollowing-up of the peace process towards a final status agreement and the creation of a Palestinian state including strengthening the role of the Middle East Quartet (\u2018the Quartet\u2019) as guardian of the Roadmap, particularly in view of the monitoring of the implementation of the obligations which both parties have under the Roadmap and in line with all international efforts to bring about a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace.\n3. These objectives are based on the Union\u2019s commitment to work with the parties and with partners in the international community, especially within the framework of the Quartet, to pursue every opportunity for peace and for a decent future for all people in the region.\n4. The EUSR shall support the work of the HR in the region, including within the framework of the Quartet.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the policy objectives, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\nprovide an active and efficient Union contribution to actions and initiatives leading to a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and of the Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese conflicts;\n(b)\nfacilitate and maintain close contact with all the parties to the peace process, other countries of the region, members of the Quartet and other relevant countries, as well as the UN and other relevant international organisations, in order to work with them in strengthening the peace process;\n(c)\nensure continued presence of the Union in relevant international forums and contribute to crisis management and prevention;\n(d)\nobserve and support peace negotiations between the parties and put forward Union proposals, on its behalf, in the context of those negotiations;\n(e)\ncontribute, where requested, to the implementation of international agreements reached between the parties and engage with them diplomatically in the event of non-compliance with the terms of those agreements;\n(f)\npay particular attention to factors affecting the regional dimension of the peace process;\n(g)\nengage constructively with signatories to agreements within the framework of the peace process in order to promote compliance with the basic norms of democracy, including respect for human rights and the rule of law;\n(h)\nmake proposals for Union intervention in the peace process and on the best way of pursuing Union initiatives and ongoing peace process-related Union efforts, such as the Union\u2019s contribution to Palestinian reforms and including the political aspects of relevant Union development projects;\n(i)\nmonitor actions by both sides on the implementation of the Roadmap and on issues that might prejudice the outcome of the permanent status negotiations to enable the Quartet to better assess the parties\u2019 compliance;\n(j)\nas Envoy to the Quartet, report on progress and evolution in the negotiations and contribute to the preparation of Quartet Envoys meetings on the basis of Union positions and through coordination with other Quartet members;\n(k)\ncontribute to the implementation of the Union\u2019s human rights policy, including the Union Guidelines on human rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and Union policy regarding UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security, including by monitoring and reporting on developments as well as formulating recommendations in this regard;\n(l)\ncontribute to a better understanding of the role of the Union among opinion leaders in the region.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR. In order to fulfil his mandate and specific responsibilities in the field the EUSR shall be fully dedicated to the Mission.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (\u2018PSC\u2019) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (\u2018EEAS\u2019).\n4. Particularly in the course of his missions, the EUSR shall work closely with the EU Representative Office in Jerusalem, the Union Delegation in Tel Aviv as well as with all other relevant Union delegations in the region.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 February 2012 to 30 June 2013 shall be EUR 1 300 000.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount stipulated in paragraph 1 shall be eligible as from 1 February 2012. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of his mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting his team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall promptly and regularly inform the Council and the Commission of the composition of his team.\n2. Member States, institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of personnel to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the Union institutions or the EEAS may also be posted to work with the EUSR. Internationally contracted personnel shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, the Union institution or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and his personnel\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of his staff shall be agreed with the host party or parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of his team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. Union delegations and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with his mandate and the security situation in his geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under his direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as management of security incidents and including a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of his team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the EEAS;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the HR, the Council and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report, as necessary, to Council working parties. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR shall provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote overall Union political coordination. He shall help to ensure that all Union instruments in the field are engaged coherently to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission as well as those of other EUSRs active in the region, including the EUSR for the Southern Mediterranean Region, as appropriate. The EUSR shall provide Member States\u2019 missions and Union delegations with regular briefings.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegations and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make every effort to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR, in close coordination with the Head of the Union Delegation in Tel Aviv, shall provide the Heads of the European Union Police Mission in the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) and of the European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) with local political guidance. The EUSR and the Civilian Operation Commander shall consult each other as required. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the HR, the Council and the Commission with a progress report before the end of November 2012 and with a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["66", "65", "75", "57", "38", "4", "93", "90", "9", "31", "6", "25", "62", "21", "17", "82", "11", "97", "67", "73", "79", "46", "69", "92", "43", "78", "13", "80", "87", "49", "No Label", "3", "5", "7", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "5", "7", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1227/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 25 October 2011\non wholesale energy market integrity and transparency\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on Functioning of European Union, and in particular Article 194(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions of the European Union,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt is important to ensure that consumers and other market participants can have confidence in the integrity of electricity and gas markets, that prices set on wholesale energy markets reflect a fair and competitive interplay between supply and demand, and that no profits can be drawn from market abuse.\n(2)\nThe goal of increased integrity and transparency of wholesale energy markets should be to foster open and fair competition in wholesale energy markets for the benefit of final consumers of energy.\n(3)\nThe advice of the Committee of European Securities Regulators and the European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas confirmed that the scope of existing legislation might not properly address market integrity issues on the electricity and gas markets and recommended the consideration of an appropriate legislative framework tailored to the energy sector which prevents market abuse and takes sector-specific conditions into account which are not covered by other directives and regulations.\n(4)\nWholesale energy markets are increasingly interlinked across the Union. Market abuse in one Member State often affects not only wholesale prices for electricity and natural gas across national borders, but also retail prices to consumers and micro-enterprises. Therefore the concern to ensure the integrity of markets cannot be a matter only for individual Member States. Strong cross-border market monitoring is essential for the completion of a fully functioning, interconnected and integrated internal energy market.\n(5)\nWholesale energy markets encompass both commodity markets and derivative markets, which are of vital importance to the energy and financial markets, and price formation in both sectors is interlinked. They include, inter alia, regulated markets, multilateral trading facilities and over-the-counter (OTC) transactions and bilateral contracts, direct or through brokers.\n(6)\nTo date, energy market monitoring practices have been Member State and sector-specific. Depending on the overall market framework and regulatory situation, this can result in trading activities being subject to multiple jurisdictions with monitoring carried out by several different authorities, possibly located in different Member States. This can result in a lack of clarity as to where responsibility rests and even to a situation where no such monitoring exists.\n(7)\nBehaviour which undermines the integrity of the energy market is currently not clearly prohibited on some of the most important energy markets. In order to protect final consumers and guarantee affordable energy prices for European citizens, it is essential to prohibit such behaviour.\n(8)\nDerivative trading, which may be either physically or financially settled, and commodity trading are used together on wholesale energy markets. It is therefore important that the definitions of insider trading and market manipulation, which constitute market abuse, be compatible between derivatives and commodity markets. This Regulation should in principle apply to all transactions concluded but at the same time should take into account the specific characteristics of the wholesale energy markets.\n(9)\nRetail contracts which cover the supply of electricity or natural gas to final customers are not susceptible to market manipulation in the same way as wholesale contracts which are easily bought and sold. None the less, the consumption decisions of the largest energy users can also affect prices on wholesale energy markets, with effects across national borders. Therefore it is appropriate to consider the supply contracts of such large users in the context of ensuring the integrity of wholesale energy markets.\n(10)\nTaking account of the results of the examination set out in the Commission Communication of 21 December 2010 entitled \u2018Towards an enhanced market oversight framework for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme\u2019, the Commission should consider bringing forward a legislative proposal to tackle the identified shortcomings in the transparency, integrity and supervision of the European carbon market in an appropriate time-frame.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity (3) and Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks (4) recognise that equal access to information on the physical status and efficiency of the system is necessary to enable all market participants to assess the overall demand and supply situation and identify the reasons for fluctuations in the wholesale price.\n(12)\nThe use or attempted use of inside information to trade either on one's own account or on the account of a third party should be clearly prohibited. Use of inside information can also consist in trading in wholesale energy products by persons who know, or ought to know, that the information they possess is inside information. Information regarding the market participant's own plans and strategies for trading should not be considered as inside information. Information which is required to be made public in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 or (EC) No 715/2009, including guidelines and network codes adopted pursuant to those Regulations, may serve, if it is price-sensitive information, as the basis of market participants' decisions to enter into transactions in wholesale energy products and therefore could constitute inside information until it has been made public.\n(13)\nManipulation on wholesale energy markets involves actions undertaken by persons that artificially cause prices to be at a level not justified by market forces of supply and demand, including actual availability of production, storage or transportation capacity, and demand. Forms of market manipulation include placing and withdrawal of false orders; spreading of false or misleading information or rumours through the media, including the internet, or by any other means; deliberately providing false information to undertakings which provide price assessments or market reports with the effect of misleading market participants acting on the basis of those price assessments or market reports; and deliberately making it appear that the availability of electricity generation capacity or natural gas availability, or the availability of transmission capacity is other than the capacity which is actually technically available where such information affects or is likely to affect the price of wholesale energy products. Manipulation and its effects may occur across borders, between electricity and gas markets and across financial and commodity markets, including the emission allowances markets.\n(14)\nExamples of market manipulation and attempts to manipulate the market include conduct by a person, or persons acting in collaboration, to secure a decisive position over the supply of, or demand for, a wholesale energy product which has, or could have, the effect of fixing, directly or indirectly, prices or creating other unfair trading conditions; and the offering, buying or selling of wholesale energy products with the purpose, intention or effect of misleading market participants acting on the basis of reference prices. However, accepted market practices such as those applying in the financial services area, which are currently defined by Article 1(5) of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (5) and which may be adapted if that Directive is amended, could be a legitimate way for market participants to secure a favourable price for a wholesale energy product.\n(15)\nThe disclosure of inside information in relation to a wholesale energy product by journalists acting in their professional capacity should be assessed taking into account the rules governing their profession and the rules governing the freedom of the press, unless those persons derive, directly or indirectly, an advantage or profits from the dissemination of the information in question or when disclosure is made with the intention of misleading the market as to the supply of, demand for, or price of wholesale energy products.\n(16)\nAs financial markets develop, the concepts of market abuse applying to those markets will be adapted. In order to ensure the necessary flexibility to respond quickly to these developments therefore, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of technical updating of the definitions of inside information and market manipulation for the purpose of ensuring coherence with other relevant Union legislation in the fields of financial services and energy. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission should, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and the Council.\n(17)\nEfficient market monitoring at Union level is vital for detecting and deterring market abuse on wholesale energy markets. The Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators established by Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) (\u2018the Agency\u2019) is best placed to carry out such monitoring as it has both a Union-wide view of electricity and gas markets, and the necessary expertise in the operation of electricity and gas markets and systems in the Union. National regulatory authorities, which have a comprehensive understanding of developments on energy markets in their Member State, should have an important role in ensuring efficient market monitoring at national level. Close cooperation and coordination between the Agency and national authorities is therefore necessary to ensure proper monitoring and transparency of energy markets. The collection of data by the Agency is without prejudice to the right of national authorities to collect additional data for national purposes.\n(18)\nEfficient market monitoring requires regular and timely access to records of transactions as well as access to structural data on capacity and use of facilities for production, storage, consumption or transmission of electricity or natural gas. For this reason market participants, including transmission system operators, suppliers, traders, producers, brokers and large users, who trade wholesale energy products should be required to provide that information to the Agency. The Agency may for its part establish strong links with major organised market places.\n(19)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the provisions on data collection, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (7). Reporting obligations should be kept to a minimum and not create unnecessary costs or administrative burdens for market participants. The uniform rules on the reporting of information should therefore undergo an ex-ante cost-benefit analysis, should avoid double reporting, and should take account of reporting frameworks developed under other relevant legislation. Furthermore, the required information or parts thereof should be collected from other persons and existing sources where possible. Where a market participant or a third party acting on its behalf, a trade reporting system, an organised market, a trade-matching system, or other person professionally arranging transactions has fulfilled its reporting obligations to a competent authority in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (8) or applicable Union legislation on derivative transactions, central counterparties and trade repositories, its reporting obligation should be considered fulfilled also under this Regulation, but only to the extent that all the information required under this Regulation has been reported.\n(20)\nIt is important that the Commission and the Agency work closely together in implementing this Regulation and consult appropriately with the European Networks of Transmission System Operators for Electricity and for Gas and the European Securities and Markets Authority established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9) (ESMA), with national regulatory authorities, competent financial authorities and other Member State authorities such as national competition authorities, and with stakeholders such as organised market places (e.g. energy exchanges) and market participants.\n(21)\nA European register of market participants, based on national registers, should be established to enhance the overall transparency and integrity of wholesale energy markets. One year after the establishment of that register, the Commission should assess in cooperation with the Agency, in line with the reports submitted by the Agency to the Commission, and with the national regulatory authorities, the functioning and the usefulness of the European register of market participants. If deemed appropriate based on that assessment, the Commission should consider presenting further instruments to enhance the overall transparency and integrity of wholesale energy markets and to ensure a Union-wide level playing field for market participants.\n(22)\nIn order to facilitate efficient monitoring of all aspects of trading in wholesale energy products, the Agency should establish mechanisms to give access to the information which it receives on transactions on wholesale energy markets to other relevant authorities, in particular to ESMA, national regulatory authorities, competent financial authorities of the Member States, national competition authorities, and other relevant authorities.\n(23)\nThe Agency should ensure the operational security and protection of the data which it receives, prevent unauthorised access to the information kept by the Agency, and establish procedures to ensure that the data it collects are not misused by persons with an authorised access to them. The Agency should also ascertain whether those authorities which have access to the data held by the Agency are able to maintain an equally high level of security and are bound by appropriate confidentiality arrangements. The operational security of the IT systems used for processing and transmitting the data therefore also needs to be ensured. For setting up an IT system that ensures the highest possible level of data confidentiality, the Agency should be encouraged to work closely with the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA). These rules should also apply to other authorities that are entitled to access to the data for the purpose of this Regulation.\n(24)\nThis Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as referred to in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and the constitutional traditions in the Member States and should be applied in accordance with the right to freedom of expression and information recognised in Article 11 of the Charter.\n(25)\nWhere information is not, or no longer, sensitive from a commercial or security viewpoint, the Agency should be able to make that information available to market participants and the wider public with a view to contributing to enhanced market knowledge. Such transparency will help build confidence in the market and foster the development of knowledge about the functioning of wholesale energy markets. The Agency should establish and make publicly available rules on how it will make that information available in a fair and transparent manner.\n(26)\nNational regulatory authorities should be responsible for ensuring that this Regulation is enforced in the Member States. To this end they should have the necessary investigatory powers to allow them to carry out that task efficiently. These powers should be exercised in conformity with national law and may be subject to appropriate oversight.\n(27)\nThe Agency should ensure that this Regulation is applied in a coordinated way across the Union, coherent with the application of Directive 2003/6/EC. To that effect, the Agency should publish non-binding guidance on the application of the definitions set out in this Regulation, as appropriate. That guidance should address, inter alia, the issue of accepted market practices. Furthermore, since market abuse on wholesale energy markets often affects more than one Member State, the Agency should have an important role in ensuring that investigations are carried out in an efficient and coherent way. To achieve this, the Agency should be able to request cooperation and to coordinate the operation of investigatory groups comprised of representatives of the concerned national regulatory authorities and, where appropriate, other authorities including national competition authorities.\n(28)\nThe Agency should be provided with the appropriate financial and human resources, in order to adequately fulfil the additional tasks assigned to it under this Regulation. For this purpose, the procedure for the establishment, implementation and control of its budget as set out in Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 should take due account of these tasks. The budgetary authority should ensure that the best standards of efficiency are met.\n(29)\nNational regulatory authorities, competent financial authorities of the Member States and, where appropriate, national competition authorities should cooperate to ensure a coordinated approach to tackling market abuse on wholesale energy markets which encompasses both commodity markets and derivatives markets. That cooperation should include the mutual exchange of information regarding suspicions that acts which are likely to constitute a breach of this Regulation, Directive 2003/6/EC, or competition law are being or have been carried out on wholesale energy markets. Furthermore, that cooperation should contribute to a coherent and consistent approach to investigations and judicial proceedings.\n(30)\nIt is important that the obligation of professional secrecy applies to those who receive confidential information in accordance with this Regulation. The Agency, national regulatory authorities, competent financial authorities of the Member States and national competition authorities should ensure the confidentiality, integrity and protection of the information which they receive.\n(31)\nIt is important that the penalties for breaches of this Regulation are proportionate, effective and dissuasive, and reflect the gravity of the infringements, the damage caused to consumers and the potential gains from trading on the basis of inside information and market manipulation. The application of these penalties should be carried out in accordance with national law. Recognising the interactions between trading in electricity and natural gas derivative products and trading in actual electricity and natural gas, the penalties for breaches of this Regulation should be in line with the penalties adopted by the Member States in implementing Directive 2003/6/EC. Taking account of the consultation on the Commission Communication of 12 December 2010 entitled \u2018Reinforcing sanctioning regimes in the financial services sector\u2019, the Commission should consider presenting proposals to harmonise minimum standards for the penalties systems of Member States in an appropriate time-frame. This Regulation affects neither national rules on the standard of proof nor obligations of national regulatory authorities and courts of the Member States to ascertain the relevant facts of a case, provided that such rules and obligations are compatible with general principles of Union law.\n(32)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely the provision of a harmonised framework to ensure wholesale energy market transparency and integrity, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter, scope and relationship with other Union legislation\n1. This Regulation establishes rules prohibiting abusive practices affecting wholesale energy markets which are coherent with the rules applicable in financial markets and with the proper functioning of those wholesale energy markets whilst taking into account their specific characteristics. It provides for the monitoring of wholesale energy markets by the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (\u2018the Agency\u2019) in close collaboration with national regulatory authorities and taking into account the interactions between the Emissions Trading Scheme and wholesale energy markets.\n2. This Regulation applies to trading in wholesale energy products. Articles 3 and 5 of this Regulation shall not apply to wholesale energy products which are financial instruments and to which Article 9 of Directive 2003/6/EC applies. This Regulation is without prejudice to Directives 2003/6/EC and 2004/39/EC as well as to the application of European competition law to the practices covered by this Regulation.\n3. The Agency, national regulatory authorities, ESMA, competent financial authorities of the Member States and, where appropriate, national competition authorities shall cooperate to ensure that a coordinated approach is taken to the enforcement of the relevant rules where actions relate to one or more financial instruments to which Article 9 of Directive 2003/6/EC applies and also to one or more wholesale energy products to which Articles 3, 4 and 5 of this Regulation apply.\n4. The Agency's Administrative Board shall ensure that the Agency carries out the tasks assigned to it under this Regulation in accordance with this Regulation and Regulation (EC) No 713/2009.\n5. The Director of the Agency shall consult the Agency's Board of Regulators on all aspects of implementation of this Regulation and give due consideration to its advice and opinions.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018inside information\u2019 means information of a precise nature which has not been made public, which relates, directly or indirectly, to one or more wholesale energy products and which, if it were made public, would be likely to significantly affect the prices of those wholesale energy products.\nFor the purposes of this definition, \u2018information\u2019 means:\n(a)\ninformation which is required to be made public in accordance with Regulations (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009, including guidelines and network codes adopted pursuant to those Regulations;\n(b)\ninformation relating to the capacity and use of facilities for production, storage, consumption or transmission of electricity or natural gas or related to the capacity and use of LNG facilities, including planned or unplanned unavailability of these facilities;\n(c)\ninformation which is required to be disclosed in accordance with legal or regulatory provisions at Union or national level, market rules, and contracts or customs on the relevant wholesale energy market, in so far as this information is likely to have a significant effect on the prices of wholesale energy products; and\n(d)\nother information that a reasonable market participant would be likely to use as part of the basis of its decision to enter into a transaction relating to, or to issue an order to trade in, a wholesale energy product.\nInformation shall be deemed to be of a precise nature if it indicates a set of circumstances which exists or may reasonably be expected to come into existence, or an event which has occurred or may reasonably be expected to do so, and if it is specific enough to enable a conclusion to be drawn as to the possible effect of that set of circumstances or event on the prices of wholesale energy products;\n(2)\n\u2018market manipulation\u2019 means:\n(a)\nentering into any transaction or issuing any order to trade in wholesale energy products which:\n(i)\ngives, or is likely to give, false or misleading signals as to the supply of, demand for, or price of wholesale energy products;\n(ii)\nsecures or attempts to secure, by a person, or persons acting in collaboration, the price of one or several wholesale energy products at an artificial level, unless the person who entered into the transaction or issued the order to trade establishes that his reasons for doing so are legitimate and that that transaction or order to trade conforms to accepted market practices on the wholesale energy market concerned; or\n(iii)\nemploys or attempts to employ a fictitious device or any other form of deception or contrivance which gives, or is likely to give, false or misleading signals regarding the supply of, demand for, or price of wholesale energy products;\nor\n(b)\ndisseminating information through the media, including the internet, or by any other means, which gives, or is likely to give, false or misleading signals as to the supply of, demand for, or price of wholesale energy products, including the dissemination of rumours and false or misleading news, where the disseminating person knew, or ought to have known, that the information was false or misleading.\nWhen information is disseminated for the purposes of journalism or artistic expression, such dissemination of information shall be assessed taking into account the rules governing the freedom of the press and freedom of expression in other media, unless:\n(i)\nthose persons derive, directly or indirectly, an advantage or profits from the dissemination of the information in question; or\n(ii)\nthe disclosure or dissemination is made with the intention of misleading the market as to the supply of, demand for, or price of wholesale energy products;\n(3)\n\u2018attempt to manipulate the market\u2019 means:\n(a)\nentering into any transaction, issuing any order to trade or taking any other action relating to a wholesale energy product with the intention of:\n(i)\ngiving false or misleading signals as to the supply of, demand for, or price of wholesale energy products;\n(ii)\nsecuring the price of one or several wholesale energy products at an artificial level, unless the person who entered into the transaction or issued the order to trade establishes that his reasons for doing so are legitimate and that that transaction or order to trade conforms to accepted market practices on the wholesale energy market concerned; or\n(iii)\nemploying a fictitious device or any other form of deception or contrivance which gives, or is likely to give, false or misleading signals regarding the supply of, demand for, or price of wholesale energy products;\nor\n(b)\ndisseminating information through the media, including the internet, or by any other means with the intention of giving false or misleading signals as to the supply of, demand for, or price of wholesale energy products;\n(4)\n\u2018wholesale energy products\u2019 means the following contracts and derivatives, irrespective of where and how they are traded:\n(a)\ncontracts for the supply of electricity or natural gas where delivery is in the Union;\n(b)\nderivatives relating to electricity or natural gas produced, traded or delivered in the Union;\n(c)\ncontracts relating to the transportation of electricity or natural gas in the Union;\n(d)\nderivatives relating to the transportation of electricity or natural gas in the Union.\nContracts for the supply and distribution of electricity or natural gas for the use of final customers are not wholesale energy products. However, contracts for the supply and distribution of electricity or natural gas to final customers with a consumption capacity greater than the threshold set out in the second paragraph of point (5) shall be treated as wholesale energy products;\n(5)\n\u2018consumption capacity\u2019 means the consumption of a final customer of either electricity or natural gas at full use of that customer's production capacity. It comprises all consumption by that customer as a single economic entity, in so far as consumption takes place on markets with interrelated wholesale prices.\nFor the purposes of this definition, consumption at individual plants under the control of a single economic entity that have a consumption capacity of less than 600 GWh per year shall not be taken into account in so far as those plants do not exert a joint influence on wholesale energy market prices due to their being located in different relevant geographical markets;\n(6)\n\u2018wholesale energy market\u2019 means any market within the Union on which wholesale energy products are traded;\n(7)\n\u2018market participant\u2019 means any person, including transmission system operators, who enters into transactions, including the placing of orders to trade, in one or more wholesale energy markets;\n(8)\n\u2018person\u2019 means any natural or legal person;\n(9)\n\u2018competent financial authority\u2019 means a competent authority designated in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11 of Directive 2003/6/EC;\n(10)\n\u2018national regulatory authority\u2019 means a national regulatory authority designated in accordance with Article 35(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (10) or Article 39(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas (11);\n(11)\n\u2018transmission system operator\u2019 has the meaning set out in point 4 of Article 2 of Directive 2009/72/EC and in point 4 of Article 2 of Directive 2009/73/EC;\n(12)\n\u2018parent undertaking\u2019 means a parent undertaking within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the Seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on consolidated accounts (12);\n(13)\n\u2018related undertaking\u2019 means either a subsidiary or other undertaking in which a participation is held, or an undertaking linked with another undertaking by a relationship within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 83/349/EEC;\n(14)\n\u2018distribution of natural gas\u2019 has the meaning set out in point (5) of Article 2 of Directive 2009/73/EC;\n(15)\n\u2018distribution of electricity\u2019 has the meaning set out in point (5) of Article 2 of Directive 2009/72/EC.\nArticle 3\nProhibition of insider trading\n1. Persons who possess inside information in relation to a wholesale energy product shall be prohibited from:\n(a)\nusing that information by acquiring or disposing of, or by trying to acquire or dispose of, for their own account or for the account of a third party, either directly or indirectly, wholesale energy products to which that information relates;\n(b)\ndisclosing that information to any other person unless such disclosure is made in the normal course of the exercise of their employment, profession or duties;\n(c)\nrecommending or inducing another person, on the basis of inside information, to acquire or dispose of wholesale energy products to which that information relates.\n2. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1 applies to the following persons who possess inside information in relation to a wholesale energy product:\n(a)\nmembers of the administrative, management or supervisory bodies of an undertaking;\n(b)\npersons with holdings in the capital of an undertaking;\n(c)\npersons with access to the information through the exercise of their employment, profession or duties;\n(d)\npersons who have acquired such information through criminal activity;\n(e)\npersons who know, or ought to know, that it is inside information.\n3. Points (a) and (c) of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply to transmission system operators when purchasing electricity or natural gas in order to ensure the safe and secure operation of the system in accordance with their obligations under points (d) and (e) of Article 12 of Directive 2009/72/EC or points (a) and (c) of Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC.\n4. This Article shall not apply to:\n(a)\ntransactions conducted in the discharge of an obligation that has become due to acquire or dispose of wholesale energy products where that obligation results from an agreement concluded, or an order to trade placed, before the person concerned came into possession of inside information;\n(b)\ntransactions entered into by electricity and natural gas producers, operators of natural gas storage facilities or operators of LNG import facilities the sole purpose of which is to cover the immediate physical loss resulting from unplanned outages, where not to do so would result in the market participant not being able to meet existing contractual obligations or where such action is undertaken in agreement with the transmission system operator(s) concerned in order to ensure safe and secure operation of the system. In such a situation, the relevant information relating to the transactions shall be reported to the Agency and the national regulatory authority. This reporting obligation is without prejudice to the obligation set out in Article 4(1);\n(c)\nmarket participants acting under national emergency rules, where national authorities have intervened in order to secure the supply of electricity or natural gas and market mechanisms have been suspended in a Member State or parts thereof. In this case the authority competent for emergency planning shall ensure publication in accordance with Article 4.\n5. Where the person who possesses inside information in relation to a wholesale energy product is a legal person, the prohibitions laid down in paragraph 1 shall also apply to the natural persons who take part in the decision to carry out the transaction for the account of the legal person concerned.\n6. When information is disseminated for the purposes of journalism or artistic expression such dissemination of information shall be assessed taking into account the rules governing the freedom of the press and freedom of expression in other media, unless:\n(a)\nthose persons derive, directly or indirectly, an advantage or profits from the dissemination of the information in question; or\n(b)\nthe disclosure or dissemination is made with the intention of misleading the market as to the supply of, demand for, or price of wholesale energy products.\nArticle 4\nObligation to publish inside information\n1. Market participants shall publicly disclose in an effective and timely manner inside information which they possess in respect of business or facilities which the market participant concerned, or its parent undertaking or related undertaking, owns or controls or for whose operational matters that market participant or undertaking is responsible, either in whole or in part. Such disclosure shall include information relevant to the capacity and use of facilities for production, storage, consumption or transmission of electricity or natural gas or related to the capacity and use of LNG facilities, including planned or unplanned unavailability of these facilities.\n2. A market participant may under its own responsibility exceptionally delay the public disclosure of inside information so as not to prejudice its legitimate interests provided that such omission is not likely to mislead the public and provided that the market participant is able to ensure the confidentiality of that information and does not make decisions relating to trading in wholesale energy products based upon that information. In such a situation the market participant shall without delay provide that information, together with a justification for the delay of the public disclosure, to the Agency and the relevant national regulatory authority having regard to Article 8(5).\n3. Whenever a market participant or a person employed by, or acting on behalf of, a market participant discloses inside information in relation to a wholesale energy product in the normal exercise of his employment, profession or duties as referred to in point (b) of Article 3(1), that market participant or person shall ensure simultaneous, complete and effective public disclosure of that information. In the event of a non-intentional disclosure the market participant shall ensure complete and effective public disclosure of the information as soon as possible following the non-intentional disclosure. This paragraph shall not apply if the person receiving the information has a duty of confidentiality, regardless of whether such duty derives from law, regulation, articles of association or a contract.\n4. The publication of inside information, including in aggregated form, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 or (EC) No 715/2009, or guidelines and network codes adopted pursuant to those Regulations constitutes simultaneous, complete and effective public disclosure.\n5. Where an exemption from the obligation to publish certain data has been granted to a transmission system operator, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 or (EC) No 715/2009, that operator is thereby also exempted from the obligation set out in paragraph 1 of this Article in respect of that data.\n6. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are without prejudice to the obligations of market participants under Directives 2009/72/EC and 2009/73/EC, and Regulations (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009, including guidelines and network codes adopted pursuant to those Directives and Regulations, in particular regarding the timing and method of publication of information.\n7. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are without prejudice to the right of market participants to delay the disclosure of sensitive information relating to the protection of critical infrastructure as provided for in point (d) of Article 2 of Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection (13), if it is classified in their country.\nArticle 5\nProhibition of market manipulation\nAny engagement in, or attempt to engage in, market manipulation on wholesale energy markets shall be prohibited.\nArticle 6\nTechnical updating of definitions of inside information and market manipulation\n1. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 20 in order to:\n(a)\nalign the definitions set out in points (1), (2), (3) and (5) of Article 2 for the purpose of ensuring coherence with other relevant Union legislation in the fields of financial services and energy; and\n(b)\nupdate those definitions for the sole purpose of taking into account future developments on wholesale energy markets.\n2. The delegated acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall take into account at least:\n(a)\nthe specific functioning of wholesale energy markets, including the specificities of electricity and gas markets, and the interaction between commodity markets and derivative markets;\n(b)\nthe potential for manipulation across borders, between electricity and gas markets and across commodity markets and derivative markets;\n(c)\nthe potential impact on wholesale energy market prices of actual or planned production, consumption, use of transmission, or use of storage capacity; and\n(d)\nnetwork codes and framework guidelines adopted in accordance with Regulations (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009.\nArticle 7\nMarket monitoring\n1. The Agency shall monitor trading activity in wholesale energy products to detect and prevent trading based on inside information and market manipulation. It shall collect the data for assessing and monitoring wholesale energy markets as provided for in Article 8.\n2. National regulatory authorities shall cooperate at regional level and with the Agency in carrying out the monitoring of wholesale energy markets referred to in paragraph 1. For this purpose national regulatory authorities shall have access to relevant information held by the Agency which it has collected in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, subject to Article 10(2). National regulatory authorities may also monitor trading activity in wholesale energy products at national level.\nMember States may provide for their national competition authority or a market monitoring body established within that authority to carry out market monitoring with the national regulatory authority. In carrying out such market monitoring, the national competition authority or the market monitoring body shall have the same rights and obligations as the national regulatory authority pursuant to the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the second sentence of the second subparagraph of paragraph 3 of this Article, the second sentence of Article 4(2), the first sentence of Article 8(5), and Article 16.\n3. The Agency shall at least on an annual basis submit a report to the Commission on its activities under this Regulation and make this report publicly available. In such reports the Agency shall assess the operation and transparency of different categories of market places and ways of trading and may make recommendations to the Commission as regards market rules, standards, and procedures which could improve market integrity and the functioning of the internal market. It may also evaluate whether any minimum requirements for organised markets could contribute to enhanced market transparency. Reports may be combined with the report referred to in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009.\nThe Agency may make recommendations to the Commission as to the records of transactions, including orders to trade, which it considers are necessary to effectively and efficiently monitor wholesale energy markets. Before making such recommendations, the Agency shall consult with interested parties, in particular with national regulatory authorities, competent financial authorities in the Member States, national competition authorities and ESMA.\nAll recommendations should be made available to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission and to the public.\nArticle 8\nData collection\n1. Market participants, or a person or authority listed in points (b) to (f) of paragraph 4 on their behalf, shall provide the Agency with a record of wholesale energy market transactions, including orders to trade. The information reported shall include the precise identification of the wholesale energy products bought and sold, the price and quantity agreed, the dates and times of execution, the parties to the transaction and the beneficiaries of the transaction and any other relevant information. While overall responsibility lies with market participants, once the required information is received from a person or authority listed in points (b) to (f) of paragraph 4, the reporting obligation on the market participant in question shall be considered to be fulfilled.\n2. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts:\n(a)\ndraw up a list of the contracts and derivatives, including orders to trade, which are to be reported in accordance with paragraph 1 and appropriate de minimis thresholds for the reporting of transactions where appropriate;\n(b)\nadopt uniform rules on the reporting of information which is to be provided in accordance with paragraph 1;\n(c)\nlay down the timing and form in which that information is to be reported.\nThose implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 21(2). They shall take account of existing reporting systems.\n3. Persons referred to in points (a) to (d) of paragraph 4 who have reported transactions in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC or applicable Union legislation on derivative transactions, central counterparties and trade repositories shall not be subject to double reporting obligations relating to those transactions.\nWithout prejudice to the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the implementing acts referred to in paragraph 2 may allow organised markets and trade matching or trade reporting systems to provide the Agency with records of wholesale energy transactions.\n4. For the purposes of paragraph 1, information shall be provided by:\n(a)\nthe market participant;\n(b)\na third party acting on behalf of the market participant;\n(c)\na trade reporting system;\n(d)\nan organised market, a trade-matching system or other person professionally arranging transactions;\n(e)\na trade repository registered or recognised under applicable Union legislation on derivative transactions, central counterparties and trade repositories; or\n(f)\na competent authority which has received that information in accordance with Article 25(3) of Directive 2004/39/EC or ESMA when it has received that information in accordance with applicable Union legislation on derivative transactions, central counterparties and trade repositories.\n5. Market participants shall provide the Agency and national regulatory authorities with information related to the capacity and use of facilities for production, storage, consumption or transmission of electricity or natural gas or related to the capacity and use of LNG facilities, including planned or unplanned unavailability of these facilities, for the purpose of monitoring trading in wholesale energy markets. The reporting obligations on market participants shall be minimised by collecting the required information or parts thereof from existing sources where possible.\n6. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts:\n(a)\nadopt uniform rules on the reporting of information to be provided in accordance with paragraph 5 and on appropriate thresholds for such reporting where appropriate;\n(b)\nlay down the timing and form in which that information is to be reported.\nThose implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 21(2). They shall take account of existing reporting obligations under Regulations (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009.\nArticle 9\nRegistration of market participants\n1. Market participants entering into transactions which are required to be reported to the Agency in accordance with Article 8(1) shall register with the national regulatory authority in the Member State in which they are established or resident or, if they are not established or resident in the Union, in a Member State in which they are active.\nA market participant shall register only with one national regulatory authority. Member States shall not require a market participant already registered in another Member State to register again.\nThe registration of market participants is without prejudice to obligations to comply with applicable trading and balancing rules.\n2. Not later than 3 months after the date on which the Commission adopts the implementing acts set out in Article 8(2), national regulatory authorities shall establish national registers of market participants which they shall keep up to date. The register shall give each market participant a unique identifier and shall contain sufficient information to identify the market participant, including relevant details relating to its value added tax number, its place of establishment, the persons responsible for its operational and trading decisions, and the ultimate controller or beneficiary of the market participant's trading activities.\n3. National regulatory authorities shall transmit the information in their national registers to the Agency in a format determined by the Agency. The Agency shall, in cooperation with those authorities, determine that format and shall publish it by 29 June 2012. Based on the information provided by national regulatory authorities, the Agency shall establish a European register of market participants. National regulatory authorities and other relevant authorities shall have access to the European register. Subject to Article 17, the Agency may decide to make the European register, or extracts thereof, publicly available provided that commercially sensitive information on individual market participants is not disclosed.\n4. Market participants referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall submit the registration form to the national regulatory authority prior to entering into a transaction which is required to be reported to the Agency in accordance with Article 8(1).\n5. Market participants referred to in paragraph 1 shall communicate promptly to the national regulatory authority any change which has taken place as regards the information provided in the registration form.\nArticle 10\nSharing of information between the Agency and other authorities\n1. The Agency shall establish mechanisms to share information it receives in accordance with Article 7(1) and Article 8 with national regulatory authorities, competent financial authorities of the Member States, national competition authorities, ESMA and other relevant authorities. Before establishing such mechanisms, the Agency shall consult with those authorities.\n2. The Agency shall give access to the mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 only to authorities which have set up systems enabling the Agency to meet the requirements of Article 12(1).\n3. Trade repositories registered or recognised under applicable Union legislation on derivative transactions, central counterparties and trade repositories shall make relevant information regarding wholesale energy products and derivatives of emissions allowances collected by them available to the Agency.\nESMA shall transmit to the Agency reports of transactions in wholesale energy products received pursuant to Article 25(3) of Directive 2004/39/EC and under applicable Union legislation on derivative transactions, central counterparties and trade repositories. Competent authorities receiving reports of transactions in wholesale energy products received pursuant to Article 25(3) of Directive 2004/39/EC shall transmit those reports to the Agency.\nThe Agency and authorities responsible for overseeing trading in emissions allowances or derivatives relating to emissions allowances shall cooperate with each other and establish appropriate mechanisms to provide the Agency with access to records of transactions in such allowances and derivatives where those authorities collect information on such transactions.\nArticle 11\nData protection\nThis Regulation shall be without prejudice to the obligations of Member States relating to their processing of personal data under Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (14) or the obligations of the Agency, when fulfilling its responsibilities, relating to its processing of personal data under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (15).\nArticle 12\nOperational reliability\n1. The Agency shall ensure the confidentiality, integrity and protection of the information received pursuant to Article 4(2) and Articles 8 and 10. The Agency shall take all necessary measures to prevent any misuse of, and unauthorised access to, the information maintained in its systems.\nNational regulatory authorities, competent financial authorities of the Member States, national competition authorities, ESMA and other relevant authorities shall ensure the confidentiality, integrity and protection of the information which they receive pursuant to Articles 4(2), 7(2) or 8(5) or Article 10 and shall take steps to prevent any misuse of such information.\nThe Agency shall identify sources of operational risk and minimise them through the development of appropriate systems, controls and procedures.\n2. Subject to Article 17, the Agency may decide to make publicly available parts of the information which it possesses, provided that commercially sensitive information on individual market participants or individual transactions or individual market places are not disclosed and cannot be inferred.\nThe Agency shall make its commercially non-sensitive trade database available for scientific purposes, subject to confidentiality requirements.\nInformation shall be published or made available in the interest of improving transparency of wholesale energy markets and provided it is not likely to create any distortion in competition on those energy markets.\nThe Agency shall disseminate information in a fair manner according to transparent rules which it shall draw up and make publicly available.\nArticle 13\nImplementation of prohibitions against market abuse\n1. National regulatory authorities shall ensure that the prohibitions set out in Articles 3 and 5 and the obligation set out in Article 4 are applied.\nEach Member State shall ensure that its national regulatory authorities have the investigatory and enforcement powers necessary for the exercise of that function by 29 June 2013. Those powers shall be exercised in a proportionate manner.\nThose powers may be exercised:\n(a)\ndirectly;\n(b)\nin collaboration with other authorities; or\n(c)\nby application to the competent judicial authorities.\nWhere appropriate, the national regulatory authorities may exercise their investigatory powers in collaboration with organised markets, trade-matching systems or other persons professionally arranging transactions as referred to in point (d) of Article 8(4).\n2. The investigatory and enforcement powers referred to in paragraph 1 shall be limited to the aim of the investigation. They shall be exercised in conformity with national law and include the right to:\n(a)\nhave access to any relevant document in any form, and to receive a copy of it;\n(b)\ndemand information from any relevant person, including those who are successively involved in the transmission of orders or conduct of the operations concerned, as well as their principals, and, if necessary, the right to summon and hear any such person or principal;\n(c)\ncarry out on-site inspections;\n(d)\nrequire existing telephone and existing data traffic records;\n(e)\nrequire the cessation of any practice that is contrary to this Regulation or delegated acts or implementing acts adopted on the basis thereof;\n(f)\nrequest a court to freeze or sequester assets;\n(g)\nrequest a court or any competent authority to impose a temporary prohibition of professional activity.\nArticle 14\nRight of appeal\nMember States shall ensure that suitable mechanisms exist at national level under which a party affected by a decision of the regulatory authority has a right of appeal to a body independent of the parties involved and of any government.\nArticle 15\nObligations of persons professionally arranging transactions\nAny person professionally arranging transactions in wholesale energy products who reasonably suspects that a transaction might breach Article 3 or 5 shall notify the national regulatory authority without further delay.\nPersons professionally arranging transactions in wholesale energy products shall establish and maintain effective arrangements and procedures to identify breaches of Article 3 or 5.\nArticle 16\nCooperation at Union and national level\n1. The Agency shall aim to ensure that national regulatory authorities carry out their tasks under this Regulation in a coordinated and consistent way.\nThe Agency shall publish non-binding guidance on the application of the definitions set out in Article 2, as appropriate.\nNational regulatory authorities shall cooperate with the Agency and with each other, including at regional level, for the purpose of carrying out their duties in accordance with this Regulation.\nNational regulatory authorities, competent financial authorities and the national competition authority in a Member State may establish appropriate forms of cooperation in order to ensure effective and efficient investigation and enforcement and to contribute to a coherent and consistent approach to investigation, judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of this Regulation and relevant financial and competition law.\n2. National regulatory authorities shall without delay inform the Agency in as specific a manner as possible where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that acts in breach of this Regulation are being, or have been, carried out either in that Member State or in another Member State.\nWhere a national regulatory authority suspects that acts which affect wholesale energy markets or the price of wholesale energy products in that Member State are being carried out in another Member State, it may request the Agency to take action in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Article and, if the acts affect financial instruments subject to Article 9 of Directive 2003/6/EC, in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article.\n3. In order to ensure a coordinated and consistent approach to market abuse on wholesale energy markets:\n(a)\nnational regulatory authorities shall inform the competent financial authority of their Member State and the Agency where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that acts are being, or have been, carried out on wholesale energy markets which constitute market abuse within the meaning of Directive 2003/6/EC and which affect financial instruments subject to Article 9 of that Directive; for these purposes, national regulatory authorities may establish appropriate forms of cooperation with the competent financial authority in their Member State;\n(b)\nthe Agency shall inform ESMA and the competent financial authority where it has reasonable grounds to suspect that acts are being, or have been, carried out on wholesale energy markets which constitute market abuse within the meaning of Directive 2003/6/EC and which affect financial instruments subject to Article 9 of that Directive;\n(c)\nthe competent financial authority of a Member State shall inform ESMA and the Agency where it has reasonable grounds to suspect that acts in breach of Articles 3 and 5 are being, or have been, carried out on wholesale energy markets in another Member State;\n(d)\nnational regulatory authorities shall inform the national competition authority of their Member State, the Commission and the Agency where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that acts are being, or have been, carried out on wholesale energy market which are likely to constitute a breach of competition law.\n4. In order to carry out its functions under paragraph 1, where, inter alia, on the basis of initial assessments or analysis, the Agency suspects that there has been a breach of this Regulation, it shall have the power:\n(a)\nto request one or more national regulatory authorities to supply any information related to the suspected breach;\n(b)\nto request one or more national regulatory authorities to commence an investigation of the suspected breach, and to take appropriate action to remedy any breach found. Any decision as regards the appropriate action to be taken to remedy any breach found shall be the responsibility of the national regulatory authority concerned;\n(c)\nwhere it considers that the possible breach has, or has had, a cross-border impact, to establish and coordinate an investigatory group consisting of representatives of concerned national regulatory authorities to investigate whether this Regulation has been breached and in which Member State the breach took place. Where appropriate, the Agency may also request the participation of representatives of the competent financial authority or other relevant authority of one or more Member States in the investigatory group.\n5. A national regulatory authority receiving a request for information under point (a) of paragraph 4, or receiving a request to commence an investigation of a suspected breach under point (b) of paragraph 4, shall immediately take the necessary measures in order to comply with that request. If that national regulatory authority is not able to supply the required information immediately, it shall without further delay notify the Agency of the reasons.\nBy way of derogation from the first subparagraph, a national regulatory authority may refuse to act on a request where:\n(a)\ncompliance might adversely affect the sovereignty or security of the Member State addressed;\n(b)\njudicial proceedings have already been initiated in respect of the same actions and against the same persons before the authorities of the Member State addressed; or\n(c)\na final judgment has already been delivered in relation to such persons for the same actions in the Member State addressed.\nIn any such case, the national regulatory authority shall notify the Agency accordingly, providing as detailed information as possible on those proceedings or the judgment.\nNational regulatory authorities shall participate in an investigatory group convened in accordance with point (c) of paragraph 4, rendering all necessary assistance. The investigatory group shall be subject to coordination by the Agency.\n6. The last sentence of Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 shall not apply to the Agency when carrying out its tasks under this Regulation.\nArticle 17\nProfessional secrecy\n1. Any confidential information received, exchanged or transmitted pursuant to this Regulation shall be subject to the conditions of professional secrecy laid down in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.\n2. The obligation of professional secrecy shall apply to:\n(a)\npersons who work or who have worked for the Agency;\n(b)\nauditors and experts instructed by the Agency;\n(c)\npersons who work or who have worked for the national regulatory authorities or for other relevant authorities;\n(d)\nauditors and experts instructed by national regulatory authorities or by other relevant authorities who receive confidential information in accordance with this Regulation.\n3. Confidential information received by the persons referred to in paragraph 2 in the course of their duties may not be divulged to any other person or authority, except in summary or aggregate form such that an individual market participant or market place cannot be identified, without prejudice to cases covered by criminal law, the other provisions of this Regulation or other relevant Union legislation.\n4. Without prejudice to cases covered by criminal law, the Agency, national regulatory authorities, competent financial authorities of the Member States, ESMA, bodies or persons which receive confidential information pursuant to this Regulation may use it only in the performance of their duties and for the exercise of their functions. Other authorities, bodies or persons may use that information for the purpose for which it was provided to them or in the context of administrative or judicial proceedings specifically related to the exercise of those functions. The authority receiving the information may use it for other purposes, provided that the Agency, national regulatory authorities, competent financial authorities of the Member States, ESMA, bodies or persons communicating information consent thereto.\n5. This Article shall not prevent an authority in a Member State from exchanging or transmitting, in accordance with national law, confidential information provided that it has not been received from an authority of another Member State or from the Agency under this Regulation.\nArticle 18\nPenalties\nThe Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, dissuasive and proportionate, reflecting the nature, duration and seriousness of the infringement, the damage caused to consumers and the potential gains from trading on the basis of inside information and market manipulation.\nThe Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission by 29 June 2013 at the latest and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.\nMember States shall provide that the national regulatory authority may disclose to the public measures or penalties imposed for infringement of this Regulation unless such disclosure would cause disproportionate damage to the parties involved.\nArticle 19\nInternational relations\nIn so far as is necessary to achieve the objectives set out in this Regulation and without prejudice to the respective competences of the Member States and the Union institutions, including the European External Action Service, the Agency may develop contacts and enter into administrative arrangements with supervisory authorities, international organisations and the administrations of third countries in particular with those impacting the Union energy wholesale market in order to promote the harmonisation of the regulatory framework. Those arrangements shall not create legal obligations in respect of the Union and its Member States nor shall they prevent Member States and their competent authorities from concluding bilateral or multilateral arrangements with those supervisory authorities, international organisations and the administrations of third countries.\nArticle 20\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 6 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 28 December 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 9 months before the end of the 5-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than 3 months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 6 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 6 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.\nArticle 21\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 22\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nParagraph 1, the first subparagraph of paragraph 3, and paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 8 shall apply with effect from 6 months after the date on which the Commission adopts the relevant implementing acts referred to in paragraphs 2 and 6 of that Article.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["3", "0", "1", "94", "45", "36", "4", "33", "53", "6", "35", "83", "14", "49", "77", "97", "84", "13", "88", "63", "61", "90", "73", "99", "31", "54", "8", "62", "82", "66", "No Label", "2", "9", "12", "20", "26", "42", "48", "58", "78"], "gold": ["2", "9", "12", "20", "26", "42", "48", "58", "78"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 16 June 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on certain aspects of air services\n(2011/663/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy its Decision of 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with an agreement at Union level.\n(2)\nOn behalf of the Union, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement with the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on certain aspects of air services (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives set out in the Annex to the Council Decision of 5 June 2003.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be signed and provisionally applied subject to its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on certain aspects of air services (the Agreement) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nPending its entry into force, the Agreement shall be applied provisionally from the first day of the first month following the date on which the parties have notified each other of the completion of the necessary procedures for this purpose (1).\nArticle 4\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to make the notification provided for in Article 8(2) of the Agreement.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 16 June 2011.", "references": ["46", "30", "62", "75", "44", "32", "39", "90", "70", "27", "86", "51", "5", "99", "14", "88", "59", "35", "84", "38", "94", "22", "85", "98", "25", "28", "15", "56", "97", "65", "No Label", "9", "34", "57", "80", "95", "96"], "gold": ["9", "34", "57", "80", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 520/2010\nof 16 June 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 831/2002 concerning access to confidential data for scientific purposes as regards the available surveys and statistical data sources\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European Statistics (1) and in particular Article 23 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 831/2002 (2) establishes, for the purpose of enabling statistical conclusions to be drawn for scientific purposes, the conditions under which access to confidential data transmitted to the Community authority may be granted. It lists the different surveys and data sources to which it applies.\n(2)\nThere is a growing demand from researchers and the scientific community in general to have access for scientific purposes to confidential data from the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS), the Community Statistics on Information Society (CSIS), the Household Budget Survey (HBS) and the Statistical returns in respect of the Carriage of Goods by Road (CGR).\n(3)\nThe EHIS aims at measuring on a harmonised basis and with a high degree of comparability among EU Member States the health status, life style (health determinants) and health care services use of EU citizens. The topics included in the questionnaire both answer to policy driven needs and to scientific purposes. Using individual data sets will allow researchers to carry out studies on specific populations (elderly people for instance), to better assess their health status and how health care systems meet their needs. Results of such research studies could be used to design specific plans for different population groups or to assess European or/and national prevention plans.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 808/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 concerning Community statistics on information society (3) provides a framework for the provision of harmonised statistical data on the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in households and by individuals. Access to individual data sets would largely benefit the research work on the impact of ICT use on the European societies and on digital inclusion. Results can be used to assess existing policies and to define relevant new policies at national and European level, such as the i2010 strategy.\n(5)\nThe HBS includes the classification of expenditure according to characteristics of the household and according to its reference person and the household income. The homogeneity of this source allows micro-simulation tools to be produced in order to test EU-wide hypotheses and help policy makers take informed decisions.\n(6)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1172/98 of 25 May 1998 on statistical returns in respect of the carriage of goods by road (4) requires that the reporting countries provide Eurostat with quarterly microdata on vehicles selected for the sample, journeys carried out by these vehicles and goods transported during these journeys between regions. Access by researchers to these data would be beneficial for the analyses of transport policy and for the transport modelling, inter alia for the purposes of EU regional policy, the balancing of different transport modes and the development of trans-European Transport Networks in the EU.\n(7)\nThe European Health Interview Survey (EHIS), the Community Statistics on Information Society (CSIS) - module 2 Individuals, households and information society, the Household Budget Survey (HBS) and the Statistical returns in respect of the Carriage of Goods by Road (CGR) should therefore be added to the enumeration in Regulation (EC) No 831/2002.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee (ESS Committee),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 831/2002 is amended as follows:\n1.\nIn Article 5, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Community authority may grant access on its premises to confidential data obtained from the following surveys or statistical data sources:\n-\nEuropean Community Household Panel,\n-\nLabour Force Survey,\n-\nCommunity Innovation Survey,\n-\nContinuing Vocational Training Survey,\n-\nStructure of Earnings Survey,\n-\nEuropean Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions,\n-\nAdult Education Survey,\n-\nFarm Structure Survey,\n-\nEuropean Health Interview Survey,\n-\nCommunity Statistics on Information Society - module 2 Individuals, households and information society,\n-\nHousehold Budget Survey,\n-\nStatistical returns in respect of the Carriage of Goods by Road,\nHowever, on the request of the national authority which provided the data, access to data from that national authority shall not be granted for a specific research project.\u2019\n2.\nIn Article 6, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Community authority may release sets of anonymised microdata obtained from the following surveys or statistical data sources:\n-\nEuropean Community Household Panel,\n-\nLabour Force Survey,\n-\nCommunity Innovation Survey,\n-\nContinuing Vocational Training Survey,\n-\nStructure of Earnings Survey,\n-\nEuropean Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions,\n-\nAdult Education Survey,\n-\nFarm Structure Survey,\n-\nEuropean Health Interview Survey,\n-\nCommunity Statistics on Information Society - module 2 Individuals, households and information society,\n-\nHousehold Budget Survey,\n-\nStatistical returns in respect of the Carriage of Goods by Road,\nHowever, on the request of the national authority which provided the data, access to data from that national authority shall not be granted for a specific research project.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 June 2010.", "references": ["9", "18", "93", "28", "24", "4", "1", "22", "3", "62", "0", "82", "59", "71", "96", "81", "61", "12", "30", "75", "36", "74", "29", "46", "23", "40", "14", "45", "55", "53", "No Label", "7", "19", "41"], "gold": ["7", "19", "41"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 963/2011\nof 27 September 2011\nfixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 8 to 14 September 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (3), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 8 to 14 September 2011, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, exceed the quantity available under order number 09.4320.\n(2)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 8 to 14 September 2011, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, are equal to the quantity available under order number 09.4317.\n(3)\nIn these circumstances, an allocation coefficient for licences to be issued regarding order number 09.4320 should be fixed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006.\n(4)\nSubmission of further applications for licences for order numbers 09.4317 and 09.4320 should be suspended until the end of the marketing year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 from 8 to 14 September 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. Submission of further applications for licences, which correspond to the order numbers indicated in the Annex, shall be suspended until the end of the marketing year 2011/2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2011.", "references": ["68", "48", "83", "94", "92", "99", "82", "17", "98", "61", "6", "84", "65", "88", "20", "29", "9", "57", "89", "14", "62", "41", "93", "18", "26", "66", "3", "25", "40", "43", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 856/2011\nof 23 August 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in VIIb, VIIc, VIIe-k, VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 August 2011.", "references": ["16", "36", "28", "23", "58", "79", "59", "24", "29", "45", "80", "54", "20", "5", "4", "31", "18", "42", "64", "66", "2", "38", "47", "68", "90", "48", "49", "14", "46", "7", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 379/2010\nof 4 May 2010\namending Annexes I, II and III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 of 12 October 1993 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries (1), and in particular Article 19 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries should be updated to take account of a number of recent developments.\n(2)\nThe bilateral agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Uzbekistan on trade in textile products expired on 31 December 2004. In order to include the textile and clothing sector within the scope of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, the system of monitoring in place should be abolished.\n(3)\nRegulation (EEC) No 3030/93 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Textile Committee set up by Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I, II and III to Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply with effect from 5 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2010.", "references": ["18", "14", "15", "0", "43", "10", "70", "85", "99", "31", "47", "45", "77", "41", "60", "40", "13", "63", "12", "80", "53", "1", "96", "16", "90", "6", "65", "5", "82", "93", "No Label", "4", "20", "23", "89"], "gold": ["4", "20", "23", "89"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/694/CFSP\nof 17 November 2010\nconcerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 October 2009, the Council adopted Common Position 2009/787/CFSP concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (1), which provided for an extension of the validity of their national permits for entry into, and stay in, the territory of the Member States referred to in Common Position 2002/400/CFSP of 21 May 2002 concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (2) for a further period of 12 months.\n(2)\nOn the basis of an evaluation of the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP, the Council considers it appropriate that the validity of those permits be extended for a further period of 12 months,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Member States referred to in Article 2 of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP shall extend the validity of the national permits for entry and stay granted pursuant to Article 3 of that Common Position for a further period of 12 months.\nArticle 2\nThe Council shall evaluate the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP within 6 months of the adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 17 November 2010.", "references": ["0", "72", "67", "98", "12", "33", "1", "38", "59", "28", "35", "71", "89", "88", "3", "9", "69", "18", "45", "85", "95", "40", "29", "97", "83", "10", "70", "50", "49", "78", "No Label", "4", "5", "13", "96"], "gold": ["4", "5", "13", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 490/2011\nof 19 May 2011\nnot fixing a minimum selling price in response to the twenty-first individual invitation to tender for the sale of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the twenty-first individual invitation to tender, no minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the twenty-first individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 17 May 2011, no minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be fixed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 May 2011.", "references": ["11", "61", "91", "28", "75", "1", "95", "66", "85", "27", "43", "64", "63", "38", "9", "5", "6", "73", "32", "46", "90", "83", "88", "22", "14", "45", "19", "33", "81", "67", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 8 November 2010\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Slovakia\n(2010/689/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 2(3) and Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2), in particular Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nSlovakia has informed the General Secretariat of the Council of the national DNA analysis files to which Articles 2 to 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA apply and the conditions for automated searching as referred to in Article 3(1) of that Decision in accordance with Article 36(2) of that Decision.\n(5)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1, of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(6)\nSlovakia has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on DNA data exchange.\n(7)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by Slovakia with Austria.\n(8)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in Slovakia and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the Austrian/Dutch evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(9)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning DNA data exchange has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching and comparison of DNA data, Slovakia has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of that Decision as from the date of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["22", "64", "99", "5", "27", "74", "33", "48", "86", "63", "81", "66", "12", "78", "57", "55", "80", "62", "31", "36", "9", "67", "65", "29", "11", "3", "0", "28", "89", "17", "No Label", "4", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1143/2011\nof 10 November 2011\napproving the active substance prochloraz, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Articles 13(2) and 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Prochloraz is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included prochloraz.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (6) the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from entry into force of that Regulation. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (7) was adopted on the non-inclusion of prochloraz.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to Ireland, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nIreland evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 3 August 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on prochloraz to the Commission on 13 July 2011 (8). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 27 September 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for prochloraz.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing prochloraz may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve prochloraz in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that prochloraz should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(11)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of the approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing prochloraz. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw existing authorisations. By way of derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(12)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (9) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(13)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (10) should be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of prochloraz and the withdrawal of authorisations for plants protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning prochloraz in the Annex to that Decision. It is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance prochloraz, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing prochloraz as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing prochloraz as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Following that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing prochloraz as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing prochloraz as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2008/934/EC\nThe line concerning prochloraz in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2011.", "references": ["18", "74", "66", "42", "4", "43", "1", "44", "40", "59", "26", "91", "37", "22", "38", "83", "71", "80", "31", "48", "16", "19", "46", "55", "9", "21", "34", "67", "45", "60", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1203/2010\nof 15 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for mackerel in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["31", "80", "62", "68", "92", "54", "18", "65", "86", "38", "53", "59", "74", "11", "63", "99", "12", "15", "49", "94", "93", "55", "26", "95", "50", "29", "60", "14", "87", "47", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1191/2010\nof 16 December 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (the service provision Regulation) (1) and in particular Article 15(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 (3) lays down the necessary measures for the development of a charging scheme for air navigation services that is consistent with the Eurocontrol Route Charges System. The development of a common charging scheme for air navigation services provided during all phases of flight is of the utmost importance for the implementation of the single European sky. The scheme should achieve greater transparency with respect to the determination, imposition and enforcement of charges to airspace users and cost efficiency in providing air navigation service. It should also encourage efficiency of flights while maintaining an optimum safety level and stimulate integrated service provision.\n(2)\nIn order to ensure that the overall objective of improving the cost efficiency of air navigation services is effective, the charging scheme should promote the enhancement of cost and operational efficiencies in consistency with and in support of the European Air Traffic Management Master Plan.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1794/2006 needs to be updated in order to translate the financial consequences of the performance scheme into the charging scheme, particularly with regard to the cost and traffic risk sharing mechanisms as well as the incentive schemes described in Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services (4). Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nAppropriate provisions should be provided to ensure a smooth transition to the updated charging scheme.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006\nRegulation (EC) No 1794/2006 is amended as follows:\n1)\nArticle 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nParagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. This Regulation lays down the necessary measures for the development of a common charging scheme for air navigation services that is consistent with the Eurocontrol Route Charges System.\u2019.\n(b)\nParagraphs 5 and 6 are replaced by the following:\n\u20185. Subject to Article 1(3) third sentence of Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 (5), Member States may decide not to apply this Regulation to air navigation services provided at airports with less than 50 000 commercial air transport movements per year, regardless of the maximum take-off mass and the number of passenger seats.\nMember States shall inform the Commission of that decision. The Commission shall periodically publish an updated list of those airports where Member States have decided not to apply this Regulation to air navigation services.\n6. With respect to air navigation services provided at airports with less than 150 000 commercial air transport movements per year, regardless of the maximum take-off mass and the number of passenger seats Member States may, prior to each reference period referred to in Article 11(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, decide not to do any of the following:\n(a)\ncalculate determined costs in accordance with Article 6 of this Regulation;\n(b)\ncalculate terminal charges as set out in Article 11 of this Regulation;\n(c)\nset terminal unit rates as referred to in Article 13 of this Regulation.\nThe first subparagraph shall apply without prejudice to the application of the principles referred to in Articles 14 and 15 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 and is subject to Article 1(3) third sentence of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010.\nThe Member States which decide not to apply the provisions listed in the first subparagraph shall carry out a detailed assessment of the extent to which the conditions laid down in Annex I to this Regulation are met. That assessment shall include consultation with the representative of airspace users.\nThose Member States shall submit a detailed report to the Commission on the assessment referred to in the third subparagraph. That report shall be supported by evidence, include the outcome of the consultation with users and shall provide full reasons for the Member State\u2019s conclusions.\nAfter consultation with the Member State concerned, the Commission may determine that the conditions laid down in Annex I to this Regulation have not been met and may, at the latest two months after reception of the report, request that the Member State re-conduct the assessment under revised conditions.\nWhere the Commission makes such a determination, it shall identify which part(s) of the assessment is/are to be revised and shall state the reasons therefor.\nWhere the Commission has requested a revised assessment, the Member State concerned shall submit a report on the conclusions of that revised assessment within two months after reception of the Commission\u2019s request.\nThe final report shall be made public and shall be valid for the duration of the reference period concerned.\n2)\nIn Article 2 the following points are added:\n\u2018(h)\n\u201cdetermined costs\u201d means costs pre-determined by the Member State as referred to in Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004;\n(i)\n\u201creference period\u201d means the reference period for the performance scheme provided for in Article 11(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004;\n(j)\n\u201ccommercial air transport movements\u201d means the sum total of take-offs and landings for commercial air transport, calculated as an average over the three years which precede the adoption of the performance plans referred to in Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010;\n(k)\n\u201cother revenues\u201d means revenues obtained from public authorities or revenues obtained from commercial activities and/or, in the case of terminal unit rates, revenues obtained from contracts or agreements between air navigation service providers and airport operators, that benefit air navigation service providers with regard to the level of unit rates.\u2019.\n3)\nIn Article 3, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The charging scheme shall be subject to the principles set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004.\n2. The determined costs of en route air navigation services shall be financed by en route charges imposed on users of air navigation services in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III and/or other revenues.\n3. The determined costs of terminal air navigation services shall be financed by terminal charges imposed on users of air navigation services, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III, and/or other revenues. These may include cross-subsidies granted in accordance with Union law.\u2019.\n4)\nIn Article 4, paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:\n\u20183. An en route charging zone shall extend from the ground up to, and including, upper airspace. Member States may establish a specific zone in complex terminal areas within a charging zone.\n4. Where charging zones extend across the airspace of more than one Member State, which may be a consequence of the creation of a common charging zone in a functional airspace block, the Member States concerned shall ensure consistency and uniformity in the application of this Regulation to the airspace concerned to the maximum possible extent.\nWhere uniform application of this Regulation to the airspace concerned is not possible, Member States shall inform users of such differences in application of this Regulation in a transparent manner and shall notify the Commission and Eurocontrol of such differences.\u2019.\n5)\nIn Article 5, paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Member States may establish the following costs as determined costs, in accordance with Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004, where they are incurred as a result of the provision of air navigation services:\n(a)\ncosts incurred by the relevant national authorities;\n(b)\ncosts incurred by the qualified entities referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004;\n(c)\ncosts stemming from international agreements.\n3. In accordance with Article 15a (3) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004, without prejudice to other sources of funding and in accordance with Union law, part of the revenue resulting from the charges may be used to fund common projects for network-related functions that are of particular importance for the improvement of the overall performance of air traffic management and air navigation services in Europe. In such cases, Member States shall ensure that comprehensive and transparent accounting practices are in place so as to ensure that airspace users are not charged twice. Those determined costs which fund the common project shall be clearly identified in accordance with Annex II.\u2019.\n6)\nArticle 6 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nParagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The determined costs and actual costs shall include the costs relating to eligible services, facilities and activities referred to in Article 5 of this Regulation and established in accordance with the accounting requirements laid down in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004.\nThe non-recurring effects resulting from the introduction of International Accounting Standards may be spread over a period not exceeding 15 years.\nWithout prejudice to Articles 16 and 18 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010, the determined costs shall be fixed prior to the beginning of each reference period as part of the performance plans referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 and Article 10(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 for each calendar year during the reference period and in both real and nominal terms. Unit rates shall be calculated on the basis of the costs expressed in nominal terms. For each year in the reference period, the difference between the determined costs expressed in nominal terms prior to the reference period and the determined costs adjusted on the basis of the actual inflation recorded by the Commission (Eurostat) for the year shall be carried over no later than in the year n+2.\nDetermined costs and actual costs shall be established in national currency. Where a common charging zone with a single unit rate has been established for a functional airspace block, the Member States concerned shall ensure conversion of national costs into Euro or the national currency of one of the Member States concerned so as to ensure a transparent calculation of the single unit rate in application of Article 13(1) first subparagraph of this Regulation. Those Member States shall notify the Commission and Eurocontrol thereof.\u2019.\n(b)\nParagraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nThe second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Staff costs shall include gross remuneration, payments for overtime, employers\u2019 contributions to social security schemes as well as pension costs and other benefits. Pensions costs may be calculated using prudent assumptions according to the governance of the scheme or to national law, as appropriate. Those assumptions shall be detailed in the national performance plan.\u2019.\n(ii)\nThe fourth and the fifth subparagraphs are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Depreciation costs shall relate to the total fixed assets in operation for air navigation services purposes. Fixed assets shall be depreciated in accordance with their expected operating life, using the straight-line method applied to the costs of the assets being depreciated. Historic or current cost accounting may be applied for the calculation of the depreciation. The methodology shall not be altered during the duration of the depreciation and shall be consistent with the cost of capital applied. Where current cost accounting is applied, the equivalent historic cost accounting figures shall also be provided to allow for comparison and assessment.\nCost of capital shall be equal to the product of:\n(a)\nthe sum of the average net book value of fixed assets and possible adjustments to total assets determined by the national supervisory authority and used by the air navigation service provider in operation or under construction, and of the average value of the net current assets, excluding interest bearing accounts, that are required for the provision of air navigation services; and\n(b)\nthe weighted average of the interest rate on debts and of the return on equity. For air navigation service providers without any equity capital, the weighted average shall be calculated on the basis of a return applied to the difference between the total of the assets referred to in point (a) and the debts.\nExceptional items shall consist of non-recurring costs relating to the provision of air navigation services during the same year.\nAny adjustment beyond the provisions of the International Accounting Standards shall be specified in the national performance plan for review by the Commission and in the additional information to be provided in accordance with Annex II.\u2019.\n(c)\nIn paragraph 3, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018For the purposes of the fifth subparagraph of paragraph 2, the factors to which weight shall be given shall be based on the proportion of financing through either debt or equity. The interest rate on debts shall be equal to the average interest rate on debts of the air navigation service provider. The return on equity shall be based on the actual financial risk incurred by the air navigation service provider.\u2019.\n7)\nIn Article 7 (2), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018For the purposes of point (b) of the first subparagraph, Member States shall, before the start of each reference period, define the criteria used to allocate costs between terminal and en route services for each airport, and inform the Commission thereof.\u2019.\n8)\nArticle 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8\nTransparency of costs and of the charging mechanism\n1. Member States shall, at the latest six months before the start of each reference period, offer to consult with the airspace users\u2019 representatives on determined costs, planned investments, service unit forecasts, charging policy and resulting unit rates and shall be assisted by the air navigation service providers. Member States shall, in a transparent manner, make their national or functional airspace blocks costs established in accordance with Article 5 and their unit rates available to airspace users\u2019 representatives, the Commission and, where applicable, Eurocontrol.\nDuring the reference period, Member States shall, on an annual basis, offer to consult with airspace users\u2019 representatives on any deviation from the forecast, especially with regard to:\n(a)\nactual traffic and costs compared to forecast traffic and determined costs;\n(b)\nthe implementation of the risk sharing mechanism set out in Article 11a;\n(c)\nthe incentive schemes set out in Article 12.\nThe consultation may be organised on a regional basis. Airspace user representatives shall retain the right to request more consultation. User consultation shall also be organised systematically following the activation of an alert mechanism generating a revision of the unit rate.\n2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on the reporting tables and detailed rules set out in Annexes II and VI, or, where a Member State at national or functional airspace block level has decided not to calculate determined costs or terminal charges or not to set terminal unit rates in accordance with Article 1(6), the information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on the reporting tables and detailed rules set out in Annex III. The relevant documentation shall be made available to the representatives of airspace users, the Commission, Eurocontrol and national supervisory authorities three weeks before the consultation meeting. For the annual consultation referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, the relevant documentation shall be made available to the representatives of airspace users, the Commission, Eurocontrol and national supervisory authorities each year, no later than 1 November.\u2019.\n9)\nArticle 9 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, point (c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nflights performed exclusively for the transport, on official mission, of the reigning Monarch and his immediate family, Heads of State, heads of Government, and Government Ministers; in all cases, the exemption must be substantiated by the appropriate status indicator or remark on the flight plan.\u2019.\n(b)\nParagraph 4 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nthe first subparagraph is deleted;\n(ii)\nin the second subparagraph, the introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The costs incurred for exempted flights shall be composed of:\u2019.\n10)\nArticles 10 and 11 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 10\nCalculation of en route charges\n1. Without prejudice to the possibility pursuant to Article 3(2) of financing en route air navigation services through other revenues, the en route charge for a specific flight in a specific en route charging zone shall be equal to the product of the unit rate established for that en route charging zone and the en route service units for that flight.\n2. The unit rate and the en route service units shall be calculated in accordance with Annex IV.\nArticle 11\nCalculation of terminal charges\n1. Without prejudice to the possibility pursuant to Article 3(3) of financing terminal air navigation services through other revenues, the terminal charge for a specific flight in a specific terminal charging zone shall be equal to the product of the unit rate established for this terminal charging zone and the terminal service units for that flight. For charging purposes, approach and departure shall count as a single flight. The unit to be counted shall be either the arriving or the departing flight.\n2. The unit rate and the terminal service units shall be calculated in accordance with Annex V.\u2019.\n11)\nThe following Article 11a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 11a\nRisk sharing\n1. This Article lays down the traffic and cost risk sharing mechanisms. It shall apply in accordance with the principles referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010.\n2. The following costs shall not be submitted to traffic risk sharing and shall be recovered irrespective of traffic evolution:\n(a)\nthe determined costs established in application of Article 5(2) with the exception of agreements relating to cross border air traffic service provision;\n(b)\nthe determined costs of meteorological service providers;\n(c)\nthe carry-overs authorised from a previous year or reference period and bonuses or penalties resulting from incentive schemes;\n(d)\nthe over- or under-recoveries resulting from traffic variations, which shall be recovered no later than in year n+2.\nIn addition, Member States may exempt from traffic risk sharing the determined costs of providers of air navigation services which have received permission to provide air navigation services without certification, in accordance with Article 7(5) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004.\n3. Where, over a given year, the actual number of service units does not exceed or fall below the forecast established at the beginning of the reference period by more than 2 %, the additional revenue or loss in revenue of the air navigation service provider with regard to determined costs shall not be carried over.\n4. Where, over a given year n, the actual number of service units exceeds the forecast established at the beginning of the reference period by more than 2 %, a minimum of 70 % of the additional revenue obtained by the air navigation service provider(s) concerned in excess of 2 % of the difference between the actual service units and the forecast with regard to determined costs shall be returned to airspace users no later than in year n+2.\nWhere, over a given year n, the actual number of service units falls below the forecast established at the beginning of the reference period by more than 2 %, a maximum of 70 % of the loss in revenue incurred by the air navigation service provider(s) concerned in excess of 2 % of the difference between the actual service units and the forecast with regard to determined costs shall be borne by the airspace users in principle no later than in year n+2. However, Member States may decide to spread the carry -over of such loss in revenue over several years with a view to preserving the stability of the unit rate.\n5. The allocation of traffic risk referred to in paragraph 4 shall be set by the national or functional airspace block performance plan for the entire reference period, following the consultation referred to in Article 8.\n6. Where, over a given year n, the actual service units are lower than 90 % of the forecast established at the beginning of the reference period, the full amount of the loss in revenue incurred by the air navigation service provider(s) concerned in excess of the 10 % of the difference between the actual service units and the forecast in respect of determined costs shall be borne by the airspace users in principle no later than in year n+2. However, Member States may decide to spread the carry-over of such loss in revenue over several years with the view to preserving the stability of unit rate.\nWhere, over a given year n, the actual service units exceed 110% of the forecast established at the beginning of the reference period, the full amount of the additional revenue obtained by the air navigation service provider(s) concerned in excess of the 10% of the difference between the actual service units and the forecast in respect of determined costs shall be returned to airspace users in year n+2.\n7. Air navigation service providers without any equity capital or with equity capital not exceeding 5 % of total liabilities as of 31 December 2011 may be exempt of traffic risk sharing during the first reference period, in order to allow achieving a lower proportion of debt financing. Those air navigation service providers exempt from traffic risk sharing shall be specified in the performance plan for review by the Commission and in the additional information to be provided in accordance with Annex II. Member States shall describe and justify the measures planned to achieve the lower proportion of debt financing and their timing.\n8. The following principles shall apply to cost risk sharing:\n(a)\nwhere, over the whole reference period, actual costs fall below the determined costs established at the beginning of the reference period, the resulting difference shall be retained by the air navigation service provider, Member State or qualified entity concerned;\n(b)\nwhere, over the whole reference period, actual costs exceed the determined costs established at the beginning of the reference period, the resulting difference shall be borne by the air navigation service provider, Member State or qualified entity concerned without prejudice to the activation of an alert mechanism in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010;\n(c)\npoints (a) and (b) may not apply to the difference between actual and determined costs which may be deemed to be out of the control of the air navigation service providers, Member States and qualified entities as a result of:\n(i)\nunforeseen changes in national pension regulations and pension accounting regulations;\n(ii)\nunforeseen changes in to national taxation law;\n(iii)\nunforeseen and new cost items not covered in the national performance plan but required by law;\n(iv)\nunforeseen changes in costs or revenues stemming from international agreements;\n(v)\nsignificant changes in interest rates on loans.\nWithout prejudice to Article 6(1), third subparagraph, a list of uncontrollable cost factors shall be determined by the national supervisory authority from the list set out in points (i) to (v) of the first subparagraph and shall form part of the performance plan.\nWhere, over the whole reference period, actual costs are lower than the determined costs established at the beginning of the reference period, the resulting difference shall be returned to airspace users through a carry-over to the following reference period.\nWhere, over the whole reference period, actual costs exceed the determined costs established at the beginning of the reference period, the resulting difference shall be passed on to airspace users through a carry-over to the following period. The national supervisory authority concerned shall explicitly agree to the carry-over after having ascertained that:\n(i)\nthe variation of actual costs against determined costs is actually the result of developments that are beyond the influence of the air navigation service provider, Member State or qualified entity concerned;\n(ii)\nthe variation in costs to be passed on to users is specifically identified and categorised.\nThe amount carried over shall be specified by factors and described in the additional information to be provided in accordance with Annex VI.\u2019.\n12)\nIn Article 12, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States, at national or Functional Airspace Block level, may, on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis, establish or approve incentive schemes to support improvements in the provision of air navigation services or the reduction of the environmental impact of aviation, resulting in a different calculation of charges pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3. Those incentives may apply to air navigation service providers or airspace users.\n2. In accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010, Member States, at national or functional airspace block level, may adopt financial incentives for the achievement of performance targets by their air navigation service providers. The unit rate may be adjusted to provide for a bonus or penalty according to the actual performance level of the air navigation service provider against the relevant target. Such bonuses or penalties shall only be activated where performance variations have a substantive impact on users. The applicable level of bonuses and penalties shall be commensurate with the targets to be reached and the performance achieved. The performance variation levels and the applicable level of bonuses and penalties shall be determined following the offer to consult referred to in Article 8 and set by the national or functional airspace block performance plan.\n3. Where a Member State decides to apply an incentive scheme with respect to users of air navigation services, it shall, following the offer to consult referred to in Article 8, modulate charges incurred by them to reflect efforts made by those users to, in particular:\n(a)\noptimise the use of air navigation services;\n(b)\nreduce the environmental impact of flying;\n(c)\nreduce the overall costs of air navigation services and increase their efficiency, in particular by decreasing or modulating charges according to airborne equipment that increases capacity or offsetting the inconvenience of choosing less congested routings;\n(d)\naccelerate the deployment of SESAR ATM capabilities.\u2019.\n13)\nArticle 13 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nParagraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall ensure that unit rates are set for each charging zone on an annual basis.\nUnit rates shall be set in national currency. Where Member States which form part of a functional airspace block decide to establish a common charging zone with a single unit rate, that unit rate shall be set in Euro or in the national currency of one of the Member States concerned. The Member States concerned shall notify the Commission and Eurocontrol of the applicable currency.\n2. Pursuant to Article 11(4)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010, unit rates may be amended in the course of the year where an alert mechanism is activated.\u2019.\n(b)\nThe following paragraph 4 is added:\n\u20184. For the first year of the reference period, unit rates shall be calculated on the basis of the performance plan communicated by the Member State or functional airspace block concerned on 1 November of the year preceding the beginning of the reference period. Where performance plans are adopted after 1 November of the year preceding the beginning of the reference period, unit rates shall be recalculated where necessary on the basis of the final adopted plan or the applicable corrective measures.\u2019.\n14)\nIn Article 14, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States may collect charges through a single charge per flight. Where charges are billed and collected on a regional basis, the billing currency may be the Euro and an administrative unit rate remunerating billing and collection costs may be added to the unit rate concerned.\u2019.\n15)\nArticle 15 is deleted.\n16)\nIn Article 17 the introductory part of the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Air navigation service providers shall facilitate inspections and surveys by the national supervisory authority or by a qualified entity acting on the latter\u2019s behalf, including site visits. The authorised persons shall be empowered:\u2019.\n17)\nThe following Article 17a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 17a\nReview\nThe review by the Commission of the performance scheme, referred to in Article 24 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 shall include the risk sharing mechanism set up in Article 11a of this Regulation, the incentive schemes set up pursuant to Article 12 of this Regulation, and their impact and effectiveness in achieving the set performance targets.\u2019.\n18)\nAnnexes I to VI are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nTransitional provisions\nThose Member States with national regulations which existed prior to 8 July 2010 that establish a reduction on the unit rate beyond the Union-wide targets established in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 may exempt their air navigation service providers from Article 11a (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006. That exemption shall apply for the period where the national regulations reduce the unit rate, but shall not extend beyond the end of the first reference period in 2014. Member States shall inform the Commission and Eurocontrol of such exemptions.\nMember States may decide not to apply the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 as amended by this Regulation to terminal charges until 31 December 2014. They shall notify the Commission thereof. Where Member States exempt terminal charges from the provisions of that Regulation, the full costs of the provision of terminal air navigation services may be recovered until 31 December 2014.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall start applying to the air navigation services costs, charges and unit rates of the year 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2010.", "references": ["8", "60", "99", "49", "84", "80", "87", "5", "64", "29", "82", "59", "7", "15", "66", "76", "12", "53", "9", "88", "2", "50", "45", "11", "22", "39", "40", "4", "17", "85", "No Label", "13", "25", "35", "54", "57"], "gold": ["13", "25", "35", "54", "57"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2012/335/CFSP\nof 25 June 2012\nimplementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), and in particular Article 21(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, one additional person and additional entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe person and entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["47", "96", "2", "37", "11", "73", "17", "60", "80", "35", "5", "81", "86", "78", "90", "97", "55", "9", "31", "44", "6", "52", "59", "69", "83", "34", "71", "33", "28", "1", "No Label", "3", "12", "95"], "gold": ["3", "12", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 880/2011\nof 2 September 2011\ncorrecting Regulation (EU) No 208/2011 amending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 180/2008 and (EC) No 737/2008 as regards lists and names of EU reference laboratories\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 32(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 882/2004 lays down the general tasks, duties and requirements for EU reference laboratories for food and feed and for animal health and live animals. The EU reference laboratories for animal health and live animals are listed in Part II of Annex VII to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 87/2011 of 2 February 2011 designating the EU reference laboratory for bee health, laying down additional responsibilities and tasks for that laboratory and amending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) designated the EU reference laboratory in the field of bee health and added it to the list of EU reference laboratories for animal health and live animals.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 208/2011 of 2 March 2011 amending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 180/2008 and (EC) No 737/2008 as regards lists and names of EU reference laboratories (3) replaced Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. However, the EU reference laboratory in the field of bee health was omitted from the list of EU reference laboratories for animal health and live animals set out in Part II of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 208/2011.\n(4)\nIt is important to keep the list of EU reference laboratories set out in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 updated. The omission in Regulation (EU) No 208/2011 should therefore be corrected.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 208/2011, in the list of EU reference laboratories for animal health and live animals in Part II of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, the following point 18 is added:\n\u201818. EU reference laboratory for bee health\nANSES - Sophia-Antipolis Laboratory\nSophia-Antipolis\nFrance.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2011.", "references": ["64", "90", "2", "54", "81", "69", "59", "99", "71", "48", "3", "89", "20", "95", "84", "21", "45", "17", "76", "16", "23", "9", "65", "72", "5", "44", "42", "73", "7", "68", "No Label", "38", "66", "77"], "gold": ["38", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 749/2010\nof 19 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 August 2010.", "references": ["40", "14", "78", "82", "54", "88", "94", "75", "43", "0", "30", "71", "25", "56", "32", "21", "70", "76", "34", "97", "44", "91", "77", "41", "6", "33", "37", "36", "57", "8", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 702/2011\nof 20 July 2011\napproving the active substance prohexadione, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances listed in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 of 27 June 2007 on laying down the procedure of the renewal of the inclusion of a first group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and establishing the list of those substances (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Prohexadione (formerly prohexadione-calcium) is listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 737/2007.\n(2)\nThe approval of prohexadione, as set out in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (4), expires on 31 December 2011. A notification was submitted in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 for the renewal of the inclusion of prohexadione in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within the time period provided for in that Article.\n(3)\nThat notification was found to be admissible by Commission Decision 2008/656/EC of 28 July 2008 on the admissibility of the notifications concerning the renewal of the inclusion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances azimsulfuron, azoxystrobin, fluroxypyr, imazalil, kresoxim-methyl, prohexadione and spiroxamine, and establishing the list of the notifiers concerned (5).\n(4)\nWithin the time period provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007, the notifier submitted the data required in accordance with that Article together with an explanation as regards the relevance of each new study submitted.\n(5)\nThe rapporteur Member State prepared an assessment report in consultation with the co-rapporteur Member State and submitted it to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and the Commission on 5 June 2009. In addition to the assessment of the active substance, that report includes a list of the studies the rapporteur Member State relied on for its assessment.\n(6)\nThe Authority communicated the assessment report to the notifier and to the Member States for comments and forwarded the comments received to the Commission. The Authority also made the assessment report available to the public.\n(7)\nAt the request of the Commission, the assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority. The Authority presented its conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of prohexadione (6) to the Commission on 12 March 2010. The assessment report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for prohexadione.\n(8)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing prohexadione may be expected to continue to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve prohexadione.\n(9)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(10)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing prohexadione. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(11)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(12)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nIn the interest of clarity, Commission Directive 2010/56/EU of 20 August 2010 amending Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC to renew the inclusion of prohexadione as active substance (8) should be repealed.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance prohexadione, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing prohexadione as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Article 13(1) to (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing prohexadione as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product still satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing prohexadione as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing prohexadione as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nRepeal\nDirective 2010/56/EU is repealed.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["32", "64", "74", "72", "28", "77", "73", "71", "26", "60", "5", "75", "79", "44", "89", "45", "11", "6", "54", "9", "37", "10", "53", "7", "94", "23", "95", "67", "2", "52", "No Label", "25", "43", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "43", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/235/CFSP\nof 12 April 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 21 March 2011, the Council reiterated its deep concern about the deterioration of the human rights situation in Iran.\n(2)\nThe Council underlined in particular the dramatic increase in executions in recent months and the systematic repression of Iranian citizens, who face harassment and arrests for exercising their legitimate rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The Union also reiterated its strong condemnation of the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.\n(3)\nIn this context, the Council reaffirmed its determination to continue to address human rights abuses in Iran and declared its readiness to introduce restrictive measures targeted against those responsible for grave human rights violations in Iran.\n(4)\nThe restrictive measures should target persons complicit in or responsible for directing or implementing grave human rights violations in the repression of peaceful demonstrators, journalists, human rights defenders, students or other persons who speak up in defence of their legitimate rights, including freedom of expression, as well as persons complicit in or responsible for directing or implementing; grave violations of the right to due process, torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, or the indiscriminate, excessive and increasing application of the death penalty, including public executions, stoning, hangings or the execution of juvenile offenders in contravention of Iran\u2019s international human rights obligations.\n(5)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the persons responsible for serious human rights violations in Iran, and persons associated with them, as listed in the Annex.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation of international law, namely:\n(a)\nas a host country to an international intergovernmental organisation;\n(b)\nas a host country to an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the United Nations;\n(c)\nunder a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities; or\n(d)\nunder the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran pact) concluded by the Holy See (State of the Vatican City) and Italy.\n4. Paragraph 3 shall be considered as also applying in cases where a Member State is host country to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).\n5. The Council shall be duly informed in all cases where a Member State grants an exemption pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4.\n6. Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed under paragraph 1 where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the Union, or hosted by a Member State holding the Chairmanship in office of the OSCE, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Iran.\n7. A Member State wishing to grant exemptions as referred to in paragraph 6 shall notify the Council in writing. The exemption shall be deemed to be granted unless one or more of the Council Members raises an objection in writing within 2 working days of receiving notification of the proposed exemption. Should one or more of the Council Members raise an objection, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may nevertheless decide to grant the proposed exemption.\n8. In cases where pursuant to paragraphs 3, 4, 6 or 7, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in the Annex, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\nArticle 2\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by persons responsible for serious human rights violations in Iran, and all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by persons and entities associated with them, as listed in the Annex, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the persons and entities listed in the Annex.\n3. The competent authority of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources concerned are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of the persons listed in the Annex and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for the routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the competent authority has notified the competent authorities of the other Member States and the Commission of the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted, at least 2 weeks prior to the authorisation.\nThe Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this paragraph.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the person or entity referred to in paragraph 1 was listed in the Annex, or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a person or entity listed in the Annex; and\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgement is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\nThe Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this paragraph.\n5. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent a listed person or an entity from making a payment due under a contract entered into prior to the date on which such person or entity was listed in the Annex, provided that the Member State concerned has determined that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1.\n6. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to the measures provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2;\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments remain subject to the measures provided for in paragraph 1.\nArticle 3\n1. The Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall establish and amend the list in the Annex.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the person or the entity concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person or entity with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person or entity concerned accordingly.\nArticle 4\n1. The Annex shall include the grounds for listing the persons and entities concerned.\n2. The Annex shall also contain, where available, the information necessary to identify the persons or entities concerned. With regard to persons, such information may include names, including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and identity card numbers, gender, address if known, and function or profession. With regard to entities, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\nArticle 5\nIn order to maximise the impact of the measures provided for in this Decision, the Union shall encourage third States to adopt similar restrictive measures.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nThis Decision shall apply until 13 April 2012. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\nDone at Luxembourg, 12 April 2011.", "references": ["74", "39", "61", "31", "93", "53", "66", "46", "25", "29", "56", "20", "0", "28", "24", "6", "69", "32", "67", "83", "21", "13", "38", "70", "43", "5", "77", "86", "41", "57", "No Label", "3", "11", "12", "14", "95"], "gold": ["3", "11", "12", "14", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 October 2010\namending Decision 2009/852/EC as regards the list of certain milk processing establishments in Romania subjected to certain transitional measures\n(notified under document C(2010) 7258)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/654/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (1) and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 12 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2) and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/852/EC (3) allows that the structural requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, Annex II, Chapter II and in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, Annex III, Section I, Chapters II and III, Section II, Chapters II and III, and Section V, Chapter I, not apply to milk processing establishments in Romania listed in Annex I to that Decision until 31 December 2011.\n(2)\nIn July 2010 the Romanian authorities officially informed the Commission, that, since the entry into force of Decision 2009/852/EC, five establishments in Annex I to that Decision were closed and one has been approved, one establishment in Annex II to that Decision has given up processing compliant and non-compliant raw milk on separate production lines and should be transferred to Annex III of the Decision, five establishments in Annex III to the Decision have been approved for intra-Union trade, one has been added and one establishment was closed.\n(3)\nIn light of the ongoing structural improvements, it is appropriate that the lists of establishments set out in Annexes I to III to Decision 2009/852/EC be modified accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe lists of milk processing establishments in Romania listed in Annexes I to III to Decision 2009/852/EC (\u2018the establishments\u2019) are replaced by the list of establishments in Annexes I to III of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2010.", "references": ["30", "22", "59", "31", "92", "43", "72", "67", "78", "14", "62", "23", "39", "74", "84", "89", "0", "12", "1", "52", "42", "85", "2", "86", "4", "37", "32", "75", "56", "63", "No Label", "9", "25", "38", "70", "73", "76", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "25", "38", "70", "73", "76", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 June 2010\non the conclusion of the Statute of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) by the European Union\n(2010/385/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 194(2) and Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the Decision of the Council of 19 October 2009, the Statute of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (1) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Statute\u2019) was signed on behalf of the European Community on 23 November 2009.\n(2)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(3)\nIt is appropriate for the Union to conclude the Statute.\n(4)\nBoth the Union and its Member States have competences in the areas covered by the Statute.\n(5)\nArticle VI.C of the Statute foresees that regional intergovernmental economic integration organisations that become members of the International Renewable Energy Agency (hereinafter referred to as \u2018IRENA\u2019) declare the extent of their competence with respect to the matters governed by the Statute.\n(6)\nThe Union should therefore adopt such a declaration of competences.\n(7)\nThe Union should pay an annual contribution to IRENA foreseen by the Intelligent Energy-Europe (\u2018IEE\u2019) Programme,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Declaration of competences is hereby adopted on behalf of the Union and the text thereof is annexed to this Decision.\n2. The Statute of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Statute\u2019), is hereby approved on behalf of the Union and the text thereof is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\n1. The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit the instrument of ratification, on behalf of the Union, with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany as depositary of the Statute in accordance with Article XIX and Article XX.A of the Statute in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound.\n2. The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit, on behalf of the Union, the Declaration of competences contained in the Annex, in accordance with Article VI.C of the Statute.\nArticle 3\nThe Union shall pay an annual contribution to the International Renewable Energy Agency.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 June 2010.", "references": ["40", "45", "82", "31", "79", "7", "2", "77", "11", "55", "62", "30", "24", "68", "47", "99", "36", "16", "18", "41", "87", "0", "23", "89", "52", "48", "61", "9", "84", "91", "No Label", "3", "58", "78"], "gold": ["3", "58", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1250/2011\nof 29 November 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (\u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1 \u039d\u03ac\u03be\u03bf\u03c5 (Patata Naxou) (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Greece\u2019s application to register the name \u2018\u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1 \u039d\u03ac\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u2019 (Patata Naxou) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2011.", "references": ["15", "41", "72", "80", "40", "34", "69", "61", "33", "76", "7", "22", "92", "64", "70", "53", "37", "93", "48", "26", "75", "83", "43", "74", "52", "87", "35", "77", "49", "12", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 600/2011\nof 21 June 2011\nfixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 June 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (3), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 1 to 7 June 2011 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, exceed the quantity available under order number 09.4320.\n(2)\nIn these circumstances, an allocation coefficient for licences to be issued regarding order number 09.4320 should be fixed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006. Submission of further applications for licences for that order number should be suspended until the end of the marketing year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 from 1 to 7 June 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. Submission of further applications for licences, which correspond to the order numbers indicated in the Annex, shall be suspended until the end of the marketing year 2010/11.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2011.", "references": ["13", "94", "39", "57", "88", "80", "64", "6", "10", "89", "65", "71", "44", "3", "0", "28", "2", "30", "69", "79", "60", "31", "37", "76", "5", "96", "83", "77", "9", "50", "No Label", "21", "72"], "gold": ["21", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 727/2012\nof 6 August 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 August 2012.", "references": ["6", "38", "17", "36", "35", "18", "7", "93", "81", "28", "1", "49", "87", "8", "85", "75", "0", "51", "53", "92", "9", "65", "29", "90", "50", "89", "84", "13", "59", "25", "No Label", "21", "72"], "gold": ["21", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1230/2010\nof 20 December 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1184/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["36", "80", "91", "50", "73", "12", "7", "94", "51", "4", "23", "86", "11", "45", "3", "55", "13", "75", "30", "47", "26", "92", "46", "82", "5", "76", "56", "93", "32", "69", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 31 March 2011\non a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Denmark and the Netherlands in 2010\n(notified under document C(2011) 1979)\n(Only the Danish and Dutch texts are authentic)\n(2011/204/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAvian influenza is an infectious viral disease of poultry and other captive birds with a severe impact on the profitability of poultry farming causing disturbance to trade within the Union and export to third countries.\n(2)\nIn the event of an outbreak of avian influenza, there is a risk that the disease agent spreads to other poultry holdings within that Member State, but also to other Member States and to third countries through trade in live poultry or their products.\n(3)\nCouncil Directive 2005/94/EC (2) introducing Union measures for the control of avian influenza sets out measures which in the event of an outbreak have to be immediately implemented by Member States as a matter of urgency to prevent further spread of the virus.\n(4)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. Pursuant to Article 4(2) of that Decision, Member States shall obtain a financial contribution towards the costs of certain measures to eradicate avian influenza.\n(5)\nArticle 4(3), first and second indents of Decision 2009/470/EC lays down rules on the percentage of the costs incurred by the Member State that may be covered by the financial contribution from the Union.\n(6)\nThe payment of a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to eradicate avian influenza is subject to the rules laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (3).\n(7)\nOutbreaks of avian influenza occurred in Denmark in March 2010 and the Netherlands in May 2010. Denmark and the Netherlands took measures in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC to combat those outbreaks.\n(8)\nThe authorities of Denmark and the Netherlands were able to demonstrate through reports provided in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and continuous submission of information on the development of the disease situation that they have efficiently implemented the control measures provided for in Directive 2005/94/EC leading to the rapid containment of the disease.\n(9)\nThe authorities of Denmark and the Netherlands have therefore fulfilled all their technical and administrative obligations with regard to the measures provided for in Article 4(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFinancial contribution from the Union to Denmark and the Netherlands\n1. A financial contribution from the Union may be granted to Denmark and the Netherlands towards the costs incurred by these Member States in taking measures pursuant to Article 4(2) and (3) of Decision 2009/470/EC, to combat avian influenza in Denmark in March 2010 and in the Netherlands in May 2010.\n2. The financial contribution mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be fixed in a subsequent decision to be adopted in accordance with the procedure established in Article 40(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC.\nArticle 2\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of the Netherlands.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["45", "24", "98", "5", "36", "39", "3", "19", "12", "8", "87", "48", "50", "81", "71", "52", "13", "88", "56", "49", "25", "62", "85", "72", "95", "26", "9", "78", "64", "47", "No Label", "4", "10", "15", "38", "59", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "15", "38", "59", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 June 2011\non the recognition of Ecuador pursuant to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers\n(notified under document C(2011) 4440)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/385/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 19(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the request from Spain on 14 February 2006,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Directive 2008/106/EC Member States may decide to endorse seafarers\u2019 appropriate certificates issued by third countries, provided that the third country concerned is recognised by the Commission. Those third countries have to meet all the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW Convention) (2), as revised in 1995.\n(2)\nBy letter of 14 February 2006, Spain submitted a request for recognition of Ecuador. Following that request from Spain, the Commission assessed the training and certification systems in Ecuador in order to verify whether Ecuador meets all the requirements of the STCW Convention and whether the appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. That assessment was based on the results of an inspection carried out by experts of the European Maritime Safety Agency in July 2007. During that inspection certain deficiencies in the training and certification systems were identified.\n(3)\nThe Commission provided the Member States with a report on the results of the assessment.\n(4)\nBy letter of 18 March 2009, the Commission requested Ecuador to provide evidence demonstrating that the deficiencies identified had been corrected.\n(5)\nBy letters of 8 May 2009 and 20 May 2009, Ecuador provided the requested information and evidence concerning the implementation of appropriate and sufficient corrective action to address all of the deficiencies identified during the assessment of compliance.\n(6)\nThe outcome of the assessment of compliance and the evaluation of the information provided by Ecuador demonstrate that Ecuador meets all the requirements of the STCW Convention, and has taken appropriate measures to prevent fraud involving certificates. It should therefore be recognised by the Commission.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of Article 19 of Directive 2008/106/EC, Ecuador is recognised as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2011.", "references": ["52", "27", "30", "19", "51", "92", "35", "21", "86", "55", "13", "98", "97", "62", "2", "37", "3", "81", "57", "9", "65", "69", "45", "87", "53", "78", "16", "15", "58", "66", "No Label", "49", "54", "56", "93"], "gold": ["49", "54", "56", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 513/2010\nof 15 June 2010\namending Annex VI to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the adjustment of the quotas as from the 2010/2011 marketing year in the sugar sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 59(1), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down the national and regional quotas for the production of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup. For the 2010/2011 marketing year those quotas should be adjusted taking into account the decision of the French authorities to apply Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(2)\nAnnex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2010.", "references": ["60", "15", "7", "4", "85", "65", "63", "83", "20", "53", "31", "23", "99", "29", "16", "45", "47", "67", "11", "30", "97", "57", "92", "12", "14", "28", "6", "77", "52", "39", "No Label", "25", "61", "71", "72", "75", "96"], "gold": ["25", "61", "71", "72", "75", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1185/2011\nof 14 November 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for redfish in EU and international waters of V; international waters of XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["85", "1", "72", "78", "80", "4", "76", "3", "57", "74", "79", "95", "9", "43", "50", "87", "70", "83", "47", "21", "35", "63", "30", "2", "27", "49", "20", "18", "81", "61", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "92", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "92", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 875/2010\nof 5 October 2010\nconcerning the authorisation for 10 years of an additive in feedingstuffs\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs (1), and in particular Articles 3 and 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (2), and in particular Article 25 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition.\n(2)\nArticle 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 lays down transitional measures for applications for the authorisation of feed additives submitted in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC before the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application for an authorisation of nicarbazin as a feed additive for chickens for fattening was submitted before the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nInitial comments on that application, as provided for in Article 4(4) of Directive 70/524/EEC, were forwarded to the Commission before the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003. This application is therefore to continue to be treated in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 70/524/EEC.\n(5)\nThe person responsible for putting into circulation nicarbazin, CAS number 330-95-0, submitted an application for authorisation for 10 years, as a coccidiostat for chickens for fattening, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 70/524/EEC.\n(6)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 10 March 2010 (3) that nicarbazin does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer health or the environment, and that that additive is effective in controlling coccidiosis in chickens for fattening. Since p-nitroaniline, an impurity associated with nicarbazin, leads to possible residues of this substance, the Authority recommends that the content of that impurity be limited at the lowest achievable level.\n(7)\nThe assessment shows that the conditions laid down in Article 3a of Directive 70/524/EEC for the requested authorisation are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that additive, as specified in the Annex to this Regulation, should be authorised. In view of the opinion of the Authority, it is, however, necessary to limit the content of the impurity p-nitroaniline. To give producers and users time to adapt, it is appropriate for this limitation to start to apply it three years after this Regulation becomes applicable.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and other medicinal substances\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 October 2010.", "references": ["45", "6", "59", "71", "70", "91", "23", "32", "13", "72", "60", "76", "84", "29", "68", "53", "41", "86", "88", "1", "49", "99", "8", "85", "3", "26", "64", "27", "97", "30", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "73", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "73", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 424/2012\nof 21 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2012.", "references": ["41", "28", "26", "74", "2", "48", "27", "37", "62", "36", "67", "32", "3", "24", "17", "47", "81", "6", "40", "39", "1", "33", "93", "43", "44", "71", "85", "92", "11", "30", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 21 December 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of certain provisions of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Iraq, of the other part\n(2012/418/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(3), Articles 91 and 100, Article 192(1), Articles 194, 207 and 209 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 March 2006, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the Republic of Iraq.\n(2)\nOn 27 October 2009, the Council authorised modifications to the negotiation directives, on a proposal by the Commission, in order to enhance the status of the Agreement by replacing the term \u2018Trade\u2019 with the term \u2018Partnership\u2019 in the title and by establishing a Cooperation Council at ministerial level.\n(3)\nThe Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Iraq, of the other part (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) should be signed. Certain parts of the Agreement should be applied provisionally, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.\n(4)\nThe provisions of the Agreement that fall within the scope of Part Three, Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union bind the United Kingdom and Ireland as separate Contracting Parties, and not as part of the European Union, unless the European Union together with the UK and/or Ireland have jointly notified Iraq that the United Kingdom or Ireland is bound as part of the European Union in accordance with Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. If the United Kingdom and/or Ireland ceases to be bound as part of the European Union in accordance with Article 4a of Protocol No 21, the European Union together with the UK and/or Ireland shall immediately inform Iraq of any change in their position in which case they shall remain bound by the provisions of the Agreement in their own right. The same applies to Denmark in accordance with Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to those Treaties,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Iraq, of the other part, is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nPending the completion of the necessary procedures for its entry into force, Article 2, and Titles II, III, and V of the Agreement shall be applied provisionally, in accordance with Article 117 of the Agreement only in so far as it concerns matters falling within the Union\u2019s competence, from the first day of the third month following the date on which the Union and Iraq have notified each other of the completion of the necessary procedures for provisional application.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["77", "48", "25", "80", "12", "73", "13", "33", "30", "97", "7", "93", "38", "83", "61", "98", "31", "62", "72", "23", "18", "36", "64", "91", "2", "96", "50", "32", "68", "1", "No Label", "3", "9", "95"], "gold": ["3", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 17 June 2011\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency measures taken to combat avian influenza in Germany in 2007\n(notified under document C(2011) 4161)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2011/353/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 4(2) and (3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3) first and second indents of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2008/441/EC of 4 June 2008 on a financial contribution from the Community towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Germany in 2007 (3) granted a financial contribution from the Union to Germany towards the costs incurred for the eradication of avian influenza. In accordance with that Decision, a first tranche of EUR 320 000,00 was paid.\n(5)\nOn 13 May and 25 July 2008, Germany submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005. On 9 February 2009, an audit ex ante was launched. The Commission\u2019s final conclusions were communicated to Germany by letter dated 20 September 2010 and confirmed by letter dated 21 February 2011.\n(6)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(7)\nThe German authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 4(1) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(8)\nIn view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial contribution from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of avian influenza in Germany in 2007 should now be fixed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating avian influenza in Germany in 2007 is fixed at EUR 1 141 550,98. It constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe balance of the financial contribution is fixed at EUR 821 550,98.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2011.", "references": ["95", "40", "7", "88", "85", "18", "22", "63", "12", "20", "11", "29", "34", "49", "84", "43", "76", "73", "67", "90", "4", "59", "89", "25", "53", "46", "45", "70", "72", "24", "No Label", "10", "38", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "38", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 22 June 2012\nabrogating Decision 2010/285/EU on the existence of an excessive deficit in Germany\n(2012/369/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 126(12) thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 2 December 2009, by Decision 2010/285/EU (1), following a proposal from the Commission in accordance with Article 126(6) of the Treaty, the Council decided that an excessive deficit existed in Germany. The Council noted that the general government deficit planned for 2009 was 3,7 % of GDP, thus above the 3 % of GDP Treaty reference value, while the general government gross debt was planned to reach 74,2 % of GDP in 2009, thus above the 60 % of GDP Treaty reference value (2).\n(2)\nOn 2 December 2009, in accordance with Article 126(7) of the Treaty and Article 3(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (3), the Council, based on a recommendation from the Commission, addressed a recommendation to Germany with a view to bringing the excessive deficit situation to an end by 2013 at the latest. The recommendation was made public.\n(3)\nArticle 4 of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaties requires that the Commission provide the data for the implementation of the procedure. As part of the application of this Protocol, Member States are to notify data on government deficits and debt and other associated variables twice a year, namely before 1 April and before 1 October, in accordance with Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 of 25 May 2009 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (4).\n(4)\nWhen considering whether a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit should be abrogated, the Council should take a decision on the basis of notified data. Moreover, a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit should be abrogated only if the Commission forecasts indicate that the deficit will not exceed the 3 % of GDP threshold over the forecast horizon (5).\n(5)\nBased on data provided by the Commission (Eurostat) in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 following the notification by Germany before 1 April 2012 and on the Commission services 2012 spring forecast, the following conclusions are justified:\n-\nHaving stood at 3,2 % of GDP in 2009 and 4,3% of GDP in 2010, the general government deficit in Germany has been brought down to 1 % of GDP in 2011, thus below the 3 % reference value, two years ahead of the deadline set by the Council. This improvement was driven by favourable cyclical conditions, the robust labour market, the phasing-out of stimulus measures, fiscal consolidation efforts and the fading-out of the one-off impact of financial sector stabilisation measures on the deficit in the previous year.\n-\nThe German 2012 Stability Programme plans for the deficit to remain at 1 % of GDP in 2012 and to drop to \u00bd % of GDP in 2013, which is broadly in line with the Commission services forecast of a deficit of 0,9 % of GDP in 2012 and 0,7 % of GDP in 2013. Thus, the deficit is set to remain well below the reference value of 3 % of GDP. In addition, according to the Commission services\u2019 forecast, the cyclically adjusted budget deficit, net of one-off and other temporary measures, will be 0,4 % of GDP in 2012 and 0,3 % of GDP in 2013. Meanwhile, the growth rate of government expenditure net of discretionary revenue measures is forecast to exceed the expenditure benchmark as specified in Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (6) in 2012, while respecting it in 2013.\n-\nThe debt-to-GDP ratio surged by 8,6 percentage points to 83,0 % in 2010, notably due to the transfer of impaired assets to \u2018bad banks\u2019 in the context of financial sector stabilisation. After having dropped to 81,2 % of GDP in 2011, gross debt is to increase again to 82,0 % of GDP in 2012 as a result of the euro area stabilisation measures, according to the Stability Programme, before falling to 80 % of GDP in 2013 and remaining on a downward path thereafter. This is broadly in line with the Commission services\u2019 forecast of a debt-to-GDP ratio of 82,2 % in 2012 and 80,7 % in 2013, which does not consider potential gains from the winding-up of \u2018bad banks\u2019.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 126(12) of the Treaty, a Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit is to be abrogated when the excessive deficit in the Member State concerned has, in the view of the Council, been corrected.\n(7)\nThe Council recalls that, starting in the year following the correction of its excessive deficit, Germany is in a transition period of three years (2012-2014), in which the requirement under the debt criterion is to be considered fulfilled if the country makes sufficient progress towards compliance with the debt reduction benchmark, in accordance with Article 2(1a) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97. The fiscal adjustment planned by Germany in its stability programme is consistent with sufficient progress towards compliance with the debt reduction benchmark at the end of the transition.\n(8)\nIn the view of the Council, the excessive deficit in Germany has been corrected and Decision 2010/285/EU should therefore be abrogated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFrom an overall assessment it follows that the excessive deficit situation in Germany has been corrected.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2010/285/EU is hereby abrogated.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Luxembourg, 22 June 2012.", "references": ["11", "38", "66", "15", "16", "31", "2", "83", "20", "88", "43", "55", "39", "35", "69", "26", "51", "0", "9", "67", "49", "7", "23", "81", "95", "89", "13", "57", "86", "60", "No Label", "10", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 632/2010\nof 19 July 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Accounting Standard (IAS) 24 and International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 8\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards (1), and in particular Article 3(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 (2) certain international standards and interpretations that were in existence at 15 October 2008 were adopted.\n(2)\nOn 4 November 2009, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) published a revised International Accounting Standard (IAS) 24 Related Party Disclosures, hereinafter \u2018revised IAS 24\u2019. The aim of the changes introduced by the revised IAS 24 is to simplify the definition of a related party while removing certain internal inconsistencies and provides some relief for government-related entities in relation to the amount of information such entities need to provide in respect to related party transactions.\n(3)\nThe consultation with the Technical Expert Group (TEG) of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) confirms that the revised IAS 24 meets the technical criteria for adoption set out in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002. In accordance with Commission Decision 2006/505/EC of 14 July 2006 setting up a Standards Advice Review Group to advise the Commission on the objectivity and neutrality of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group's (EFRAG\u2019s) opinions (3), the Standards Advice Review Group considered EFRAG's opinion on endorsement and advised the Commission that it is well-balanced and objective.\n(4)\nThe adoption of the revised IAS 24 implies, by way of consequence, amendments to International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 8 in order to ensure consistency between international accounting standards.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1126/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Accounting Regulatory Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 is amended as follows:\n1.\nInternational Accounting Standard (IAS) 24 is replaced by the revised IAS 24 as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;\n2.\nInternational Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 8 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEach company shall apply IAS 24 and amendment to IFRS 8, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation, at the latest, as from the commencement date of its first financial year starting after 31 December 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2010.", "references": ["54", "81", "99", "15", "39", "36", "49", "82", "27", "28", "58", "71", "77", "24", "23", "61", "40", "38", "11", "83", "26", "86", "93", "43", "13", "65", "95", "51", "50", "29", "No Label", "18", "30", "41", "47", "76"], "gold": ["18", "30", "41", "47", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1160/2010\nof 9 December 2010\namending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 of 12 October 1993 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries (1), and in particular Article 19 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries should be updated to take account of amendments to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (2) which also affect certain codes in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 3030/93 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Textile Committee set up by Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply with effect from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2010.", "references": ["45", "27", "3", "81", "61", "6", "63", "19", "70", "22", "74", "75", "64", "40", "88", "73", "83", "15", "8", "57", "98", "97", "52", "87", "66", "36", "71", "56", "65", "9", "No Label", "4", "20", "23", "89"], "gold": ["4", "20", "23", "89"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 502/2012\nof 13 June 2012\ninitiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China by imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines or not, and making such imports subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Articles 13(3) and 14(5) thereof,\nAfter having consulted the Advisory Committee in accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) has decided, pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate on its own initiative the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and to make imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines or not, subject to registration.\nA. PRODUCT\n(2)\nThe product concerned by the possible circumvention is certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70 (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n(3)\nThe product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but consigned from Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines or not, currently falling within the same CN codes as the product concerned. (\u2018the product under investigation\u2019).\nB. EXISTING MEASURES\n(4)\nThe measures currently in force and possibly being circumvented are anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 (2) following an expiry review of the measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1890/2005 (3).\nC. GROUNDS\n(5)\nThe Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China are being circumvented by means of the transhipment via Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines.\n(6)\nThe prima facie evidence at the Commission\u2019s disposal is as follows:\n(7)\nThere is a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the People\u2019s Republic of China, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines to the Union which has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned, without sufficient due cause or justification for such change other than the imposition of the duty.\n(8)\nThis change in the pattern of trade appears to stem from the transhipment of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China via Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines.\n(9)\nFurthermore, the evidence points to the fact that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned are being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. Significant volumes of imports of the product under investigation appear to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, there is sufficient evidence that imports of the product under investigation are made at prices well below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures, adjusted for the increase in the costs of the raw material.\n(10)\nFinally, the Commission has sufficient prima facie evidence that the prices of the product under investigation are dumped in relation to the normal value previously established for the product concerned, adjusted for the increase in the costs of the raw material.\n(11)\nShould circumvention practices via Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines covered by Article 13 of the basic Regulation, other than transhipment, be identified in the course of the investigation, the investigation may also cover these practices.\nD. PROCEDURE\n(12)\nIn light of the above, the Commission has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation and to make imports of the product under investigation, whether declared as originating in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines or not, subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(a) Questionnaires\n(13)\nIn order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the known exporters/producers and to the known associations of exporters/producers in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, to the known exporters/producers and to the known associations of exporters/producers in the People\u2019s Republic of China, to the known importers and to the known associations of importers in the Union and to the authorities of the People\u2019s Republic of China, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines. Information, as appropriate, may also be sought from the Union industry.\n(14)\nIn any event, all interested parties should contact the Commission forthwith, but not later than the time limit set in Article 3 of this Regulation, and request a questionnaire within the time limit set in Article 3(1) of this Regulation, given that the time limit set in Article 3(2) of this Regulation applies to all interested parties.\n(15)\nThe authorities of the People\u2019s Republic of China, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines will be notified of the initiation of the investigation.\n(b) Collection of information and holding of hearings\n(16)\nAll interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\n(c) Exemption of registration of imports or measures\n(17)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation may be exempted from registration or measures if the importation does not constitute circumvention.\n(18)\nSince the possible circumvention takes place outside the Union, exemptions may be granted, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, to producers in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof that can show that they are not related (4) to any producer subject to the measures (5) and that are found not to be engaged in circumvention practices as defined in Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the basic Regulation. Producers wishing to obtain an exemption should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the time limit indicated in Article 3(3) of this Regulation.\nE. REGISTRATION\n(19)\nPursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied retroactively from the date of registration of such imports consigned from Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines.\nF. TIME LIMITS\n(20)\nIn the interest of sound administration, time limits should be stated within which:\n-\ninterested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,\n-\nproducers in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines may request exemption from registration of imports or measures,\n-\ninterested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.\n(21)\nAttention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party\u2019s making itself known within the time limits mentioned in Article 3 of this Regulation.\nG. NON-COOPERATION\n(22)\nIn cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.\n(23)\nWhere it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of facts available.\n(24)\nIf an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.\nH. SCHEDULE OF THE INVESTIGATION\n(25)\nThe investigation will be concluded, according to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, within nine months of the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nI. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\n(26)\nIt is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (6).\nJ. HEARING OFFICER\n(27)\nIt is also noted that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of Directorate-General for Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views. For further information and contact details, interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer\u2019s web pages on the website of Directorate-General for Trade (http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/hearing-officer/index_en.htm),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAn investigation is hereby initiated pursuant to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, in order to determine if imports into the Union of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof, consigned from Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 7318 12 10, ex 7318 14 10, ex 7318 15 30, ex 7318 15 51, ex 7318 15 61 and ex 7318 15 70 (TARIC codes 7318121011, 7318121091, 7318141011, 7318141091, 7318153011, 7318153061, 7318153081, 7318155111, 7318155161, 7318155181, 7318156111, 7318156161, 7318156181, 7318157011, 7318157061 and 7318157081), are circumventing the measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012.\nArticle 2\nThe customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 13(3) and Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union identified in Article 1 of this Regulation.\nRegistration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThe Commission, by regulation, may direct customs authorities to cease registration in respect of imports into the Union of products manufactured by producers having applied for an exemption of registration and having been found to fulfil the conditions for an exemption to be granted.\nArticle 3\n1. Questionnaires should be requested from the Commission within 15 days from publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. Interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 37 days from the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.\n3. Producers in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines requesting exemption from registration of imports or measures should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the same 37-day time limit.\n4. Interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 37-day time limit.\n5. Interested parties are required to make all submissions and requests in electronic format (the non-confidential submissions via e-mail, the confidential ones on CD-R/DVD), and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers of the interested party. However, any Powers of Attorney, signed certifications, and any updates thereof, accompanying questionnaire replies shall be submitted on paper, i.e. by post or by hand, at the address below. Pursuant to Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation if an interested party cannot provide its submissions and requests in electronic format, it must immediately inform the Commission. For further information concerning correspondence with the Commission, interested parties may consult the relevant web page on the website of Directorate-General for Trade: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/trade-defence. All written submissions, including the information requested in this Regulation, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labelled as \u2018Limited\u2019 (7) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labelled \u2018For inspection by interested parties\u2019.\nCommission address for correspondence:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N105 4/92\n1049 Bruxelles/Brussel\nBELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb\nContact:\nCase mailbox: TRADE-STEEL-FAST-13-A@ec.europa.eu\nFax +32 22984139\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 13 June 2012.", "references": ["37", "76", "60", "40", "31", "6", "28", "18", "72", "51", "33", "47", "94", "65", "85", "34", "49", "86", "11", "61", "19", "39", "98", "1", "8", "87", "80", "44", "89", "5", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "82", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "82", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1042/2010\nof 16 November 2010\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of coated fine paper originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 18 February 2010, the European Commission (the \u2018Commission\u2019) announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (Notice of initiation), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of coated fine paper originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019 or the \u2018country concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 4 January 2010 by CEPIFINE, the European association of fine paper manufacturers, (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 % of the total Union production of coated fine paper. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers in the PRC and an association of producers (a paper association), the representatives of the country concerned, known importers and known users of the initiation of the proceeding. The Commission also advised producers in the United States of America (USA) and an association of producers (a paper association) and, at a later stage, a producer in Thailand of the initiation of the proceedings, as the USA and Thailand were each envisaged as a possible analogue country. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the Notice of Initiation. All interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\n(4)\nIn view of the apparent high number of exporting producers, Union producers and unrelated importers, sampling was envisaged in the Notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and if so, to select samples, all known exporting producers and their known paper association, all known Union producers and unrelated importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the Notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned (as defined in Section 2.1 below) during the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009. The authorities of the PRC were also consulted.\n(5)\nAs explained in recital 28 below, two Chinese exporting producer groups provided the requested information and agreed to be included in a sample. On the basis of the above it was decided that sampling was not necessary for exporting producers in the PRC.\n(6)\nIn order to allow the known exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the exporting producers known to be concerned and to the authorities of the PRC. As explained in recitals 33 and 53 below, one group of exporting producers in the PRC requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation or IT should the investigation establish that it did not meet the conditions for MET, while the other group of exporting producers in the PRC requested IT.\n(7)\nAs explained in recital 29 below, it was decided that sampling was not necessary for Union producers.\n(8)\nAs explained in recital 30 below, it was decided that sampling was not necessary for unrelated importers.\n(9)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to all other parties that requested so within the deadlines set out in the Notice of initiation, namely the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers in the PRC and an association of producers (a paper association), the representatives of the country concerned, known importers, known users, known producers in the USA, an association of producers (a paper association) in the USA and a producer in Thailand.\n(10)\nReplies to the questionnaires and other submissions were received from two groups of Chinese exporting producers, the complainant association (the European association of fine paper manufacturers or \u2018CEPIFINE\u2019), the four complainant Union producers and one additional Union producer, 16 unrelated importers and traders, 17 users and 3 printing and paper associations and from one producer in the USA which was envisaged as analogue country.\n(11)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of the analysis of MET/IT and for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies.\n(a)\nUnion producers and association\n-\nCEPIFINE, Brussels, Belgium,\n-\nSappi Fine Paper Europe, Brussels, Belgium,\n-\nLECTA Group (CARTIERE DEL GARDA SpA, Riva del Garda, Italy CONDAT SAS, Le Plessis Robinson, France and TORRASPAPEL, S.A., Barcelona, Spain), Barcelona, Spain,\n-\nBurgo Group SpA, Altavilla Vicentina, Italy and its related companies Burgo Distribuzione srl, Milan, Italy and Ebix sa, Barcelona, Spain,\n-\nPapierfabrik Scheufelen GmbH, Lenningen, Germany.\n(b)\nExporting producers in the PRC\n(1)\nSinar Mas Paper (China) Investment Co. Ltd, the holding company of the Asia Pulp & Paper Group (APP).\n-\nGold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province, PRC,\n-\nGold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, PRC,\n-\nNingbo Zhonghua Paper Co., Ltd, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, PRC,\n-\nNingbo Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province PRC,\n(2)\nChenming Paper Group (Chenming).\n-\nShangdong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC,\n-\nShouguang Chenming Art Paper Co., Ltd, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC.\n(c)\nCompanies related to the exporting producers in the PRC\n-\nGold East (Hongkong) Trading Co., Ltd, Hong Kong,\n-\nChenming (HK) Limited, Hong Kong,\n-\nAsia Pulp & Paper Italia SRL, Padova, Italy.\n(d)\nImporters in the Union\n-\nCartaria Subalpina, Turin, Italy,\n-\nMiddleton Paper, Walsall, UK,\n-\nPaperlinx, Northampton, UK.\n(12)\nIn view of the need to establish a normal value for the exporting producer in the PRC in the absence of MET, a verification visit to establish normal value on the basis of data from an analogue country, the USA in this case, took place at the premises of the following company:\n-\nS.D. Warren Company d/b/a Sappi Fine Paper North America, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.\n1.3. Investigation period and period considered\n(13)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (the \u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (the period considered).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(14)\nThe product concerned is coated fine paper which is paper or paperboard coated on one or both sides (excluding kraft paper or kraft paperboard), in either sheets or rolls, and with a weight of 70 g/m2 or more but not exceeding 400 g/m2 and brightness of more than 84 (measured according to ISO 2470-1), originating in the PRC (\u2018the product concerned\u2019 or \u2018CFP\u2019) currently falling within CN codes ex 4810 13 20, ex 4810 13 80, ex 4810 14 20, ex 4810 14 80, ex 4810 19 10, ex 4810 19 90, ex 4810 22 10, ex 4810 22 90, ex 4810 29 30, ex 4810 29 80, ex 4810 99 10, ex 4810 99 30 and ex 4810 99 90.\n(15)\nCFP is high quality paper and paperboard generally used for printing of reading material such as magazines, catalogues, annual reports, yearbooks. The product concerned includes both sheets and rolls suitable for use in sheet-fed (cut star) printing machines. Rolls suitable for use in sheet-fed presses (cutter rolls) are designed to be cut into pieces before printing, and are thus considered to be substitutable and directly competitive with sheets.\n(16)\nThe product concerned does not include rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses. Rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses are defined as those rolls which, if tested according to the ISO test standard ISO 3783:2006 concerning the determination of resistance to picking - accelerated speed method using the IGT tester (electric model), give a result of less than 30 N/m when measuring in the cross-direction of the paper (CD) and a result of less than 50 N/m when measuring in the machine direction (MD). Also, in contrast to rolls used in sheet-fed printing machines, rolls for use in web-fed presses are normally directly fed into the printing machines and are not cut beforehand.\n(17)\nOne party claimed that the product scope of the investigation was too narrowly defined and that rolls of CFP suitable for web-fed printing should have been included. It was claimed that web-fed rolls and the ones included in the scope of the present investigation (cutter rolls and sheets) shared the same basic technical and physical characteristics and were not distinguishable from one another. Furthermore it was claimed that both were used for high quality printing and that they were therefore to some extent interchangeable.\n(18)\nHowever, in contrast to the above claim the investigation confirmed that there are indeed distinct technical and physical characteristics such as humidity and stiffness between paper used in web-fed and the one used in sheet-fed printing. The investigation further confirmed that the technical characteristics listed in recital 16 above are unique to rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses. Due to these differences paper used in web-fed or the one used in sheet-fed printing cannot be used in the same type of printing machine and they are therefore not interchangeable. It is noted that all parties agreed that the two types of paper are distinct as regards their surface strength and tensile strength.\n(19)\nFurthermore, the party in question claimed that customers view CFP in the form of sheets, cutter rolls and web rolls as a single market and thus distribution channels are the same. The different technical characteristics are only reflected in minor price differences among these product groups.\n(20)\nHowever, the investigation revealed that the two types of rolls are also non-interchangeable from an economic point of view because rolls for web-fed printing are used for mass-volume printing jobs and are generally made to order and require just-in-time delivery therefore these products are not stocked by intermediaries but are shipped directly to the final users, i.e. they are also sold through a different distribution channel than rolls used in sheet-fed printing. The different production process and the different economies of scale in the printing process are reflected in distinct price differences.\n(21)\nOn this basis, these claims were rejected.\n(22)\nThe same party claimed that the resistance to picking was not a suitable technical characteristic for differentiating between products as this test would be of a general nature and test results may moreover be affected by the moisture content of the paper tested. The party further claimed that on the basis of some other tests undertaken for a sample of CFP for web-fed printing (including products produced by the Union industry) it can be seen that these products would not fall into the current product definition which would show that the criterion of \u2018resistance to picking\u2019 for distinguishing CFP used in web-fed and sheet-fed printing is unsuitable. Firstly, no evidence was submitted with regard to the claim that the moisture content of the paper may render test results for ISO test standard ISO 3783:2006 unreliable. Secondly, as far as the testing of samples of CFP for web-fed printing is concerned, such tests were not made by an independent expert and the reliability and objectivity of such tests were therefore considered insufficient to base any conclusions thereon. Therefore, the resistance to picking was provisionally found to be a reliable technical characteristic to distinguish between CFP used in web-fed and the one used in sheet-fed printing.\n(23)\nDuring the course of the investigation, certain parties also claimed that multi-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard (as defined in the next recital) should be excluded from the scope of the investigation. They claimed that multi-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard had different physical characteristics such as multiple plies, higher stiffness and lower density and that the final use of these products was different as these are usually used for folding carton and packaging applications. These parties finally claimed that single-ply and multi-ply paper and paperboard would be easily distinguished by their physical appearance.\n(24)\nMulti-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard, as defined in the Harmonised System Explanatory Notes to subheading 4805, are products obtained by pressing together two or more layers of moist pulps of which at least one characteristics different from the others. These differences may arise from the nature of pulps used (e.g. recycled waste), the method of production (e.g. mechanical or chemical) or, if the pulps are of the same nature and have been produced by the same method, the degree of processing (e.g. unbleached, bleached or coloured).\n(25)\nThe investigation showed that multi-ply paper and paperboard has indeed some different physical and technical characteristics; more specifically it has several layers of pulp giving it an increased rigidity. Multi-ply paper and paperboard is produced by a different production method requiring a different paper machine than the one used for the production of CFP, as in the production process several layers of pulp are layered into a single product. Finally, multi-ply paper and paperboard serves different purposes (mainly packaging) compared to CFP that is used for high quality printing of promotional material, magazines, etc. Multi-ply paper and paperboard as defined in recital 24 is therefore provisionally considered as not being the product concerned. Consequently, the CN codes mentioned covering imports of multi-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard are provisionally excluded from the scope of the investigation.\n(26)\nFinally, one Chinese producer claimed that so called \u2018paperboard\u2019 should be excluded from the scope of the investigation as it does not fall under the definition of fine paper (whether coated or not) because of alleged differences in its weight, thickness and rigidity. It was found that the term \u2018paperboard\u2019 is generally used for paper with high substances making the paper in general heavier, i.e. \u2018paperboard\u2019 is commonly defined as paper with a basis weight of above 224 g/m2. However, the investigation revealed that the difference in weight does not have a significant impact on the remaining physical and technical characteristic and end uses which would it make distinguishable from the product concerned. It is also noted that, as outlined in recital 14, all CFP with a weight of 70 g/m2 or more but not exceeding 400 g/m2 were explicitly included in the definition of the product concerned. Therefore paperboard is provisionally considered as being the product concerned.\n2.2. Like product\n(27)\nThe product concerned, the product produced and sold on the domestic market of the PRC, and on the domestic market of USA, which served provisionally as the analogue country, as well as the product manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers were found to have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses. They are therefore provisionally considered as alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n3. SAMPLING\n3.1. Sampling for exporting producers in the PRC\n(28)\nOnly two exporting producers groups in the PRC came forward and replied to the request for sampling data in the Notice of initiation. One group (Chenming) represents 2 related exporting producers while the other group (APP) represents 4 related exporting producers. The cooperating exporting producers represent the total exports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Union. In these circumstances, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary for exporting producers in the PRC.\n3.2. Sampling of Union producers\n(29)\nIn view of the potentially large number of Union producers sampling was envisaged in the Notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation. However, after examination of the information submitted and given that only four Union producers came forward within the deadlines set in the Notice of initiation, it was decided that sampling was not necessary. The four cooperating producers were considered to be representative (covering 61 % of total production) of the Union industry as defined in recital 77 below. The information provided by the cooperating companies was verified on-spot and was used for the micro indicators as explained in recital 90.\n3.3. Sampling of unrelated importers\n(30)\nIn view of the potentially large number of importers, sampling was envisaged for importers in the Notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation. However, after examination of the information submitted and given the low number of importers which indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was not necessary.\n4. DUMPING\n4.1. General methodology\n(31)\nThe general methodology set out below has been applied to the cooperating exporting producers in the PRC.\n4.2. Market economy treatment (MET)\n(32)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those exporting producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in a summarised form below:\n(1)\nbusiness decisions and costs are made in response to market conditions, without significant state interference, and costs reflect market values;\n(2)\nfirms have one clear set of accounting records which are independently audited, in line with international accounting standards (IAS) and applied for all purposes;\n(3)\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;\n(4)\nlegal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy and property laws;\n(5)\ncurrency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.\n(33)\nOnly one exporting producers group (i.e. APP) in the PRC requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation. The party submitted 33 MET claim forms referring to its four related exporting producers and a series of other related companies involved in the product concerned i.e. pulp mills, chemical companies, forestry companies (upstream producers) and domestic trading companies.\n(34)\nAccount taken of the high number of MET claims, it was considered appropriate, for the purpose of the preliminary investigation, to limit the on-spot verification visits to the four exporting producers of the group.\n(35)\nThe Commission sought all the information deemed necessary and verified all the information submitted in the MET claims at the premises of the four related exporting producers.\n(36)\nIt was considered that MET should not be granted because none of them met the first, second and third criteria as laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.\n(37)\nAs far as criterion 1 is concerned, discrepancies with respect to business decisions and costs were established. It was found that on numerous occasions there was no evidence on payments made for the transfer of companies\u2019 shares. Furthermore contributions either from state-owned shareholders or related parties in fixed assets, land and expenditures converted into shares were not independently evaluated. Finally in one case shares passed from one state-owned shareholder to one of the APP group companies at non-market price. With respect to costs, the investigation established that, account taken of the methodology used by the group to record raw material inputs, there is lack of evidence on the cost of major raw material inputs. Consequently, it was concluded that the four related exporting producers have not shown that they fulfil criterion 1.\n(38)\nWith respect to criterion 2, it was established that fundamental International Accounting Standards (IAS) principles and in particular IAS 1 were disregarded (i.e. accrual principle, off-setting, lack of prudence and fair representation of transactions) both in the accounts and in their audit, which put into question the reliability of the companies\u2019 accounts. Consequently, it was concluded that the four related exporting producers have not shown that they fulfil criterion 2.\n(39)\nAs far as criterion 3 is concerned, the investigation revealed the existence of significant distortions with respect to land use rights (LUR) relevant to the four related exporting producers. Such distortions point to the conclusion that the LUR are not granted and maintained in accordance with market economy conditions. It was also established on spot that significant distortions exist in loan attribution to the four related exporting producers from the Chinese banking/financial sector. Most of the loans were given by banks with significant shareholding by the State while clear indications exist that general state industrial policies were taken into consideration by financial institutions when establishing the group\u2019s creditworthiness which resulted in providing loans to companies that were in a bad financial situation. Account taken of all the above, it was consequently concluded that the four related exporting producers have not shown that they fulfil criterion 3.\n(40)\nAPP and the Union producers were given the opportunity to comment on the above findings.\n(41)\nThe Union producers agreed with the above findings. They also disputed arguments made by the Chinese exporting group as to being granted MET because the Commission is simultaneously conducting an anti-subsidy investigation.\n(42)\nThe Chinese exporting group did not agree with the above findings.\n(43)\nWith respect to Criterion 1, it was submitted that share transfers of the group\u2019s companies and payments made thereon are irrelevant for this criterion as the criterion requires companies to take business decisions in response to market signals. In this respect it is noted that the deficiencies identified in the MET assessment (i.e. lack of evidence on payments on share transfers, unreasonably low amounts paid to state-owned shareholders for share transfers, no independent evaluation of contributed assets) do have an impact on business decisions. Indeed, the fact that a company can avoid payments on share transfers, use under/over evaluated assets in its share capital and perform with state-owned companies share transfers that do not have an economic explanation or justification, has a direct impact on its financial position and its ability to take decisions in response to market signals.\n(44)\nWith respect to raw materials it was argued that the Commission should have investigated whether the purchases of inputs made by the Chinese group\u2019s upstream raw material suppliers were made at market values. It was also submitted that the Commission\u2019s findings are incorrect. In this respect it is noted that the investigation established it is practically impossible to trace back what the group pays for any type of raw material procurements.\n(45)\nWith respect to Criterion 2 it was argued that the Chinese accounting standards (GAAP) have been recognised by the EU as being equivalent to the IFRS/IAS. In this respect it is noted that the MET assessment is carried out in line with IAS and not the Chinese accounting standards. In any event, and in particular in view of the claimed equivalence between the two sets of standards, it would have been normal to expect that the deficiencies found in this respect should have been highlighted by the auditor. APP disputed that its companies breach the elements of the IAS rules mentioned in the MET assessment (accrual principle, faithful representation of transactions principle and offsetting). Nevertheless the comments provided did not undermine the findings of the investigation.\n(46)\nWith respect to Criterion 3 and in particular to the LUR it was argued that this criterion refers to significant distortions carried over from the non-market system and not to state intervention of a sort that is common in market economy countries. It was thus submitted that the distortions identified with respect to LUR allocation is not specific to the PRC but exists also in Europe as these are restrictions imposed by authorities in charge of attracting investors and ensuring that investments comply with the applicable regulatory requirements. In this respect it is noted that in any event it is not the purpose of the investigation to determine whether any distortions might exist in the Union. Furthermore the investigation established that land allocation was directly linked to a strict set of rules (both is respect to conditions and lease rates) flowing directly from the former non-market system. These rules describe a centrally planed system which is not in accordance with market economy principles.\n(47)\nWith respect to loans it was submitted that the Commission\u2019s findings are speculative. In this respect it is noted that the investigation established a clear link between the group\u2019s ability to achieve bank financing and the fulfilment of objectives set up by the Chinese centrally planed economic system. It was also submitted that the distortions spotted by the Commission may at most be subsidies. It was thus argued that since there is the parallel anti-subsidy investigation these alleged subsidies cannot be a ground for rejecting MET. In this respect it is noted that the MET assessment established that distortions exist in loan attribution by the Chinese banking/financial sector. This is a distortion carried over from the non-market economy system and has no link with whether or not the impact of such acts could be considered as countervailable subsidies.\n(48)\nDuring the course of the provisional investigation APP submitted representations arguing that the Chinese exporting producers group must be granted MET so as to avoid double counting with the parallel anti-subsidy investigation. It was argued that state subsidisation forms part of the MET assessment, has an impact to the MET findings and thus will be dealt in the parallel anti-subsidy investigation. To corroborate these claims the party also made reference to the principle of proportionally and to the right to good administration.\n(49)\nThis claim must be rejected for the following reasons. First, it is noted that the criteria on MET are clearly set out in the basic Regulation and listed under recital 32 above. The fact that there is currently an anti-subsidy investigation does not deprive the investigating authority from its obligation to ensure that the conditions for granting MET are fulfilled. Second, the issue of \u2018double counting\u2019 of anti-dumping and countervailing duties is regulated by the provisions of the relevant EU legislation, notably Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation and 24(1), second subparagraph of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (3), and is not dependent on whether or not the exporter in question is granted MET. In any event as the proposed provisional anti-dumping duty for all Chinese cooperating parties is based on the injury elimination level and not on the dumping margin, any claim on double counting is invalid.\n(50)\nTwo out of the four related exporting producers were found to produce only the multi-ply paperboard, mentioned in recital 23 above. In this respect it is recalled that it was provisionally concluded that multi-ply paperboard should be excluded from the product scope of the current investigation. Thus, should the provisional findings with respect to product scope be confirmed, the MET findings with respect to these two related exporting producers will not be relevant for this proceeding.\n(51)\nIn line with the EU\u2019s practice, if one related company associated with the production and sale of the product concerned does not qualify for MET, MET cannot be granted to the group of related companies. Therefore, it is concluded that APP companies cannot be granted MET.\n4.3. Individual treatment (IT)\n(52)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation to be granted IT. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below:\n-\nin the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits,\n-\nexport prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined,\n-\nthe majority of the shares belong to private persons. State officials appearing on the Boards of Directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from state interference,\n-\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate, and\n-\nstate interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.\n(53)\nBoth Chinese exporting producers groups (i.e. APP and Chenming) claimed IT.\n(54)\nOn the basis of the information available and verified during the verification visits, it was found that both APP\u2019s and Chenming\u2019s cooperating exporting producers fulfilled the requirements foreseen in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(55)\nAccount taken of the above, it is provisionally established that the relevant cooperating exporting producers could be granted IT.\n4.4. Normal value\n4.4.1. Analogue country\n(56)\nAccording to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country (analogue country).\n(57)\nIn the Notice of initiation the Commission indicated its intention to use the USA as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC and invited the interested parties to comment thereon.\n(58)\nOne group of cooperating exporting producers in the PRC sent comments expressing scepticism with regard to the use of USA as an appropriate analogue country and proposed Thailand as an alternative. With respect to the USA it was argued that one of the producers in the USA is likely to be a related company to one of the EU complainants. It was also submitted that the US producers are involved in parallel proceeding against the same Chinese product, that the US producers are heavily subsidised and that they have outdated equipment.\n(59)\nThe Commission asked all the parties concerned for comments on the party\u2019s proposal. The Union producers disagreed with the use of Thailand as an appropriate analogue country and contested the arguments of the Chinese party with respect to the US producers. The Thai company mentioned in the Chinese party\u2019s submission was contacted but submitted a written refusal to cooperate with the investigation. No other exporting producer of the product concerned in Thailand was known.\n(60)\nThe Commission sought cooperation from producers in the USA. Letters and relevant questionnaires were sent to three known companies mentioned in the complaint and a relevant association of paper producers. Of the companies contacted, only one producer submitted the necessary information for the determination of normal value and agreed to cooperate with the investigation.\n(61)\nThe investigation established that the USA has a competitive market for the like product. The fact that the USA imposed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports of paper products from PRC cannot be deemed a reason against using the USA as an analogue country, as there is a sufficient level of competition in that country. With respect to the claims made on subsidisation and outdated equipments in the USA it is noted that these had to be rejected since no concrete evidence was presented to support such claims and there is no relevant verifiable information. With respect to the relationship between the US cooperating producer and one Union producers company it is noted that what matters in this respect is that the links between the cooperating producer in the possible analogue country and the Union company do not influence the data on normal value. The investigation did not show any such influence with regard to the information obtained in the USA.\n(62)\nThe investigation further revealed that the production volume of the cooperating US producer constitutes considerably more than 5 % of the volume of Chinese exports of the product concerned to the Union, hence the production was representative in terms of volume. As for the quality, technical specifications and standards of the like product in the USA, no major overall differences were found when compared to Chinese products. Therefore, the US market was deemed sufficiently representative for the determination of normal value for the PRC.\n(63)\nIn view of all the above it was provisionally concluded that the USA constitutes an appropriate analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n4.4.2. Determination of normal value\n(64)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value was established on the basis of verified information received from the producer in the analogue country as set out below.\n(65)\nThe domestic sales of the US producer of the like product were found to be representative in terms of volume compared to the product concerned exported to the Union by the sole cooperating exporting producer in the PRC.\n(66)\nAn examination was also made as to whether the domestic sales could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, by establishing for each product type the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market during the investigation period. Since the volume of profitable sales of the like product per product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or the weighted average price of that type was below the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of the prices of profitable domestic sales during the IP.\n(67)\nIt is noted that the cooperating US producer produced and sold in the US market all the types of the like product during the IP.\n4.5. Export price\n(68)\nWith respect to APP, it is noted that, two out of the four related exporting producers were found to produce only multi-ply paperboard, mentioned in recital 23 above. In this respect it is recalled that it was provisionally concluded that multi-ply paperboard should be excluded from the product scope of the current investigation. Thus the export price data provided from these two companies was excluded from the dumping calculations.\n(69)\nThe exporting producers made export sales to the Union either (i) through related trading companies located outside the Union or (ii) through a related trading company located inside the Union.\n(70)\nWhere export sales to the Union were made through related trading companies outside the Union, the export price was established on the basis of the prices of the product when sold by the related trading companies to the Union, i.e. to an independent buyer, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation on the basis of prices actually paid or payable.\n(71)\nWhere export sales to the Union were made through the one related trading company inside the Union, export prices were constructed in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the prices at which the imported product was first resold to independent customers in the Union. Allowance was made for all costs incurred between importation and resale, including selling, general and administrative costs and the profit realised in the Union by the importing company during the IP. With respect to profit margin, the actual profit of the related trader could not be used since the relationship between the exporting producer and the related trader made these prices unreliable. The relevant profit margin was thus set at a reasonable rate, much lower than the profit rate stated under recital 155, that one would normally expect to achieve in this type of trading operations.\n4.6. Comparison\n(72)\nThe comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis.\n(73)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. For the investigated exporting producers in the PRC, adjustments for differences in transport and insurance costs, credit costs, year-end rebates, commissions, quality claims and bank handling charges have been made where applicable and justified.\n4.7. Dumping margin\n(74)\nPursuant to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin for the cooperating exporting producers in the PRC was established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value by product type with a weighted average export price by product type as established above.\n(75)\nOn the basis of the above methodology the provisional dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:\nExporting producer\nDumping margin\nGold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province, PRC\n43,9 %\nGold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, PRC\n43,9 %\nShangdong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC\n63 %\nShouguang Chenming Art Paper Co., Ltd, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC\n63 %\n(76)\nBased on information available from the complaint and the cooperating Chinese exporting producers, there are other known producers of the product concerned in the PRC. Nevertheless, given the fact that the reported export volume was found to be higher than the import data derived from Eurostat, the level of cooperation was considered high and the country-wide dumping margin for the PRC was established using the dumping margin established for the cooperating companies with the highest individual duty rate, i.e. 63 %.\n5. UNION PRODUCERS\n5.1. Union production\n(77)\nDuring the IP, the like product was manufactured by 14 known and some other very small producers in the Union. The data provided by CEPIFINE is estimated to be covering 98 % of the production of Union producers. On this basis, the total Union production was estimated to be around 5 270 000 tonnes during the IP. The Union producers accounting for the total Union production constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(78)\nThe coated fine paper industry is energy and capital intensive. For this reason economies of scale apply that explain the concentration of the production within a few large players, complemented by smaller producers that focus on the geographically close markets. Five similarly large producers cover most of the Union market with production facilities spread over Europe. The large part of CFP is a commodity-type product and is mainly traded through paper merchants and wholesalers. These distribution channels are characterised by a high degree of concentration of buying power and price transparency through price quotations.\n(79)\nAs mentioned in recital 17 above, one interested party claimed that CFP suitable for web-fed printing should have been included in the scope of the present investigation. On this basis, the party argued that the complainant Union industry would not have enough standing in the present proceeding. Based on the conclusions outlined above in recitals 20 and 22, however, i.e. that CFP suitable for web-fed printing and CPF for sheet-fed printing are two different products, this claim had to be rejected.\n6. INJURY\n6.1. Union consumption\n(80)\nConsumption was established on the basis of the following:\n-\nEurostat for imports from third countries duly adjusted on the basis of information provided by the Union producers for products not covered by the proceeding. The investigation has found, based on evidence provided, that these assumptions were reasonable and justified,\n-\nthe verified total export volume of the cooperating exporting producers in the PRC to the Union market, as the reported export volume was found to be higher than the import data derived from Eurostat,\n-\nthe total sales on the Union market of all Union producers based on the information provided by CEPIFINE.\n(81)\nOn this basis, total Union consumption was established as follows:\nTable 1\nUnion consumption\nUnion consumption\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nTonnes\n5 308 275\n5 508 183\n5 384 770\n4 572 057\nIndex\n100\n104\n101\n86\nSource: verified questionnaire replies, Eurostat adjusted and data provided by CEPIFINE.\n(82)\nOverall, Union consumption decreased by 14 % during the period considered. It was found that the consumption first increased by 4 % between 2006 and 2007, after which it dropped by 18 % between 2007 and the IP. The decline in consumption in 2008 and the IP was the result of a lower demand, especially in the first half of 2009, due to the economic downturn.\n6.2. Imports into the Union from the PRC\n(83)\nAs mentioned above in recital 80, the verified total sales volume of the product concerned of the Chinese cooperating exporters on the Union market was found to be higher than the import volumes reported by Eurostat. Since it was considered that the verified information is more accurate than the available statistics, total import volume from the PRC was established on the basis of the verified information provided by the cooperating companies. The sales volumes of the cooperating companies that were found to have been exporting only multi-ply paperboard during the period considered, were excluded from the total imports, because it was provisionally concluded, as explained in recital 24, that multi-ply paper and paperboard should not be considered as the product concerned. Since the import data relating to the product concerned only refer to two companies, it was considered appropriate for confidentiality reasons to show them in indexed form.\nTable 2\nTotal dumped imports from the PRC\nTotal imports from the PRC\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nVolumes (index)\n100\n218\n212\n283\nMarket share (index)\n100\n210\n209\n329\nPrices (EUR/tonne)\n677\n661\n657\n621\nIndex\n100\n98\n97\n92\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(84)\nThe volume of total imports from the PRC increased dramatically, almost tripling over the period considered. As a result, their market share increased significantly from approx. 1 % in 2006 to over 4 % in the IP. This has to be seen against the background of a decreasing consumption which dropped by 14 % during the same period. Average prices of the dumped imports from the PRC showed a decrease of 8 % during the period considered.\n6.2.1. Price undercutting\n(85)\nFor the purposes of analysing price undercutting, the weighted average sales prices per product type of the Union producers to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports from the PRC to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a CIF basis with appropriate adjustments for the existing duties and post-importation costs.\n(86)\nAs explained in recital 28, cooperation from the Chinese exporters was very high and considered to be covering the total export volume from the PRC to the Union during the IP. Given the fact that two Chinese exporting producers who originally came forward were found not to be exporting the product concerned to the Union market, as explained in recital 50, their imports have not been taken into account for the purpose of the price undercutting analysis.\n(87)\nThe comparison showed that during the IP, the dumped product concerned originating in the PRC sold in the Union undercut the Union producers\u2019 sales prices on average by 5,6 %. The level of the undercutting margin is to be seen against the background of the high level of price transparency supported by price quotations that characterises the CFP distribution market.\n6.3. Economic situation of the Union industry and the cooperating Union producers\n6.3.1. Preliminary remarks\n(88)\nIn accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union producers included an evaluation of all economic indicators for an assessment of the state of the Union producers from 2006 to the end of the IP.\n(89)\nThe macroeconomic elements (production, capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, growth and magnitude of dumping margins) were assessed at the level of the whole Union production, on the basis of the information provided by CEPIFINE.\n(90)\nThe analysis of microeconomic elements was carried out at the level of the Union producers (average unit prices, employment, wages, productivity, stocks, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, ability to raise capital) on the basis of their information, duly verified.\n(91)\nOne party claimed that one of the cooperating producers failed to fully cooperate as it would be related to another producer in the European Union through: 1. shareholding; and 2. a joint venture consisting of exclusive sales and raw material supply agreements. The investigation on the other hand confirmed that the number of shares hold by the EU producer in question was minor and below the threshold set in Article 143 of the IPCCC (4). Furthermore, the agreements between the two companies did not include any elements that would have led to a consideration that the relationship between the companies would be extending beyond a normal business relationship between a buyer and a seller.\n6.3.2. Data relating to the Union industry (macroeconomic indicators)\n6.3.2.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\nTable 3\nProduction, production capacity and capacity utilisation\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nProduction (tonnes)\n6 483 462\n6 635 377\n6 381 324\n5 164 475\nIndex\n100\n102\n98\n80\nCapacity (tonnes)\n7 032 734\n7 059 814\n6 857 226\n6 259 129\nIndex\n100\n100\n98\n89\nCapacity Utilisation\n92 %\n94 %\n93 %\n83 %\nIndex\n100\n102\n101\n90\nSource: Data provided by CEPIFINE.\n(92)\nAs shown in the above table, the production volume of the Union industry decreased by 20 % over the period considered. It should be noted that although Union consumption increased by around 1 % between 2006 and 2008, the production of the Union industry fall by 2 % during that period, while it decreased significantly between 2008 and the IP, following the drop in the Union consumption.\n(93)\nSince 2000, Union producers have undertaken major restructuring efforts aiming at addressing structural overcapacity. Through consolidations and mill closures the Union industry decreased its CFP production capacity by approximately 770 000 tonnes between 2006 and the IP, i.e. by 11 %.\n(94)\nDespite the drop in total capacity, utilisation rates still declined from 92 % in 2006 to 83 % in the IP. The main decrease occurred in the period between 2008 and the IP. It is noted that high capacity utilisation is an important factor in the long-term viability of the paper producing producers because of high investment in fixed assets. Therefore, the capacity utilisation rate during the IP was considered to be low.\n6.3.2.2. Sales volume and market share\n(95)\nThe sales figures in the table below relate to the volume sold to the first independent customer on the Union market.\nTable 4\nSales volume and market share\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nSales volume (tonnes)\n4 921 141\n4 999 524\n4 875 841\n4 008 354\nIndex\n100\n102\n99\n81\nMarket share\n93 %\n91 %\n91 %\n88 %\nIndex\n100\n98\n98\n95\nSource: Data provided by CEPIFINE.\n(96)\nWhile Union consumption grew by 4 % between 2006 and 2007 (see recital 81 above), the sales volume of the product concerned by the Union industry to independent customers on the Union market only increased by 2 % during that same period. This means that the Union industry could not benefit fully from the increased consumption in that period. Moreover, between 2008 and the IP, whereas Union consumption decreased by 15 %, the sales volume of all Union producers decreased even more, by 18 %. Consequently the Union industry\u2019s sales volume, after a small increase in 2007, decreased continuously and significantly which translated in a loss in market share of 5 percentage points during the period considered.\n6.3.2.3. Growth\n(97)\nWhen looking at the development over the period considered, the drop of 19 % in the sales volume of the Union industry was far more pronounced than the decrease of 14 % in Union consumption. As a consequence, the market share of the Union industry also decreased significantly by 5 percentage points during the same period.\n6.3.2.4. Magnitude of dumping margins\n(98)\nThe provisional dumping margins for the PRC, specified above in the dumping section, are significant. Given the volumes and the prices of the dumped imports, the impact of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.\n6.3.3. Data relating to the cooperating Union producers (microeconomic indicators)\n6.3.3.1. Average unit prices of the cooperating Union producers\n(99)\nAverage ex-works sales prices of the cooperating Union producers to unrelated customers on the Union market increased in 2007, afterwards they decreased and by 2009 returned to almost the same level as in the beginning of the period considered. Overall, the prices of coated fine paper remained stable over the years.\nTable 5\nPrices of the Union producers\nPrices of the Union producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nAverage price (EUR/tonne)\n692\n717\n691\n695\nIndex\n100\n104\n100\n100\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n6.3.3.2. Stocks\n(100)\nStocks represented around 10 % of the production volume in the IP. The cooperating Union producers increased its stock levels by 14 % during the period considered, in particular between 2006 and 2007 and later between 2008 and the IP. Notably, this coincided with the surge in the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC.\nTable 6\nStocks\nStocks\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nStocks (tonnes)\n278 265\n298 547\n296 387\n318 489\nIndex\n100\n107\n107\n114\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n6.3.3.3. Employment, wages and productivity\nTable 7\nEmployment\nEmployment\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nEmployment - full-time equivalent (FTE)\n7 756\n7 487\n7 207\n6 197\nIndex\n100\n97\n93\n80\nLabour cost (EUR/FTE)\n54 053\n54 948\n57 026\n58 735\nIndex\n100\n102\n105\n109\nProductivity (unit/FTE)\n453\n478\n486\n457\nIndex\n100\n106\n107\n101\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(101)\nDue to the mill closures and consolidation of the cooperating Union producers, the number of employees was reduced substantially by 11 % (almost 900 jobs) during the period considered. It is noted that above employment figures for the IP are inflated by the number of employees acquired by one of the cooperating Union producers at the beginning of the IP. The fall in employment equalled 20 % if the effect of the acquisition on this indicator is disregarded.\n(102)\nEfficiency gains have been achieved by raising and maintaining a high output per employee even at a time of significant layoffs in 2007 and 2008. The return in the productivity level to the 2006 level by the IP should be seen in light of the general nature of downsizing activities, where the decrease in the number of employees follows the drop in production only after a certain delay. Labour costs increased steadily, totalling a 10 % increase over the period considered.\n6.3.3.4. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investment\nTable 8\nProfitability\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nProfitability\n-1,13 %\n-0,21 %\n-2,60 %\n2,03 %\nChange (100 = 2006)\n+0,92 %\n-1,47 %\n+3,16 %\nCash flow (EUR thousand)\n260 047\n211 036\n172 570\n336 753\nIndex\n100\n81\n66\n129\nInvestments (EUR thousand)\n151 900\n151 027\n127 845\n98 220\nIndex\n100\n99\n84\n65\nReturn on investments\n-0,73 %\n-0,54 %\n-2,73 %\n0,39 %\nChange (100 = 2006)\n+0,19 %\n-2,00 %\n+1,12 %\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(103)\nThe cooperating Union producers incurred losses in the years 2006 to 2008 and the financial situation only turned positive in 2009 when the world price of pulp, the main raw material decreased significantly as a result of the economic downturn. The drop in the price of pulp in 2009 was 19 % on the average price in 2008 which was considered an abnormally large drop and which contributed directly to the improved financial situation in the IP.\n(104)\nThe trend shown by the cash flow, which is the ability of the producers to self-finance its activities, reflects to a large extent the evolution of profitability. Consequently, the cash flow shows an exceptional increase in the IP due to the falling pulp prices. Return on investments showed negative development in line with the negative profit results achieved by the cooperating Union producers until 2008 and a positive trend in the IP due to the exceptional cost savings on pulp prices.\n(105)\nFollowing the above, the ability of the cooperating Union producers to invest became limited as the cash flow significantly deteriorated during the period considered, except for the IP. As a consequence, the investments dropped by 35 % during the period considered and were limited to the installation of cogeneration plants that helped the Union producers to mitigate the effect of continuously raising energy costs.\n6.3.3.5. Ability to raise capital\n(106)\nThe paper industry in general is characterised by high indebtedness linked to the significant investment in fixed assets. As a consequence of the losses incurred in most of the period considered, the ability of the cooperating Union producers to raise capital and to finance its activities at reasonable finance costs was also undermined. This was the case in particular in 2008 when one of the cooperating Union producers had to be refinanced at a significant risk premium while the smallest cooperating producer went into insolvency in 2008 and was taken over by another Union producer.\n6.4. Conclusion on injury\n(107)\nThe investigation has shown that most of the injury indicators such as production volume (- 20 %), capacity utilisation (- 10 %), sales volume to unrelated customers on the Union market (- 19 %), market share (- 5 percentage points) deteriorated during the period considered. In addition, the injury indicators related to the financial performance of the cooperating Union producers such as return on investment and profitability were seriously affected until 2008. The sudden increase of the profitability in the IP was due purely to the temporary and exceptional drop of world pulp prices in the IP. It is noted that even during the IP the profitability rate was very low and was not considered to be altering the conclusion that the cooperating Union producers were in a very weak financial position.\n(108)\nThe investigation also showed that the above injury picture can be mainly explained by the fact that despite its restructuring efforts and productivity improvements the cooperating Union producers were not able to raise their CFP prices above cost-covering level. This is mainly due to the price undercutting practiced by the Chinese exporters during the IP which has a significant effect in a market where price transparency is high. During the IP, the cooperating Union producers managed to reduce their cost of production through further productivity improvement and due to the decrease of pulp prices which mainly occurred in the second half of the IP. As demand and supply became more balanced on the market following the efforts of the producers to tackle structural overcapacity by means of consolidation and capacity closures, CFP prices could be kept at a stable level. However, the cooperating Union producers were not in a position to increase their sales prices to a level that would have profitability rates necessary for long-term viability.\n(109)\nAs mentioned above in recital 17, one party claimed that CFP used in web-fed printing should have been included in the scope of the present investigation. On this basis, the party claimed that the exclusion of this product from the determination of material injury and the analysis of trends would have distorted the injury picture. However, based on the conclusions presented in recitals 20 and 22, i.e. that CFP used in web-fed and sheet-fed printing are different products, this claim was rejected.\n(110)\nThe same party claimed that the acquisition of one Union producer by one of the cooperating Union producers in 2008 was evidence that this cooperating Union producer was in rather good health. It is first noted that material injury is assessed on the basis of the situation of the Union industry and not based on the particular situation of a single producer. As concluded in recital 107 above, most injury indicators have shown a negative trend evidencing the deterioration of the Union industry\u2019s situation over the period considered. The acquisition was furthermore considered as part of the restructuring efforts of the Union industry during the period considered. In any case, it is noted that when analysing macro indicators such as production volume, capacity, sales volume and market share the acquisition had a neutral effect since macro indicators are assessed with respect to all Union producers constituting the Union industry as defined in recital 77. In other words these factors should remain overall unchanged in case of a change in the ownership.\n(111)\nConsidering the above, it is provisionally concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\n7. CAUSALITY\n7.1. Introduction\n(112)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the material injury suffered by the Union industry has been caused by the dumped imports from the country concerned. Furthermore, known factors other than the dumped imports, which might have injured the Union industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n7.2. Effect of the dumped imports\n(113)\nIt is to be noted that the Union CFP market is characterised by a high degree of concentration of buying power and price transparency through price quotations. Furthermore CFP is a commodity-type product and does not allow for significant price differences among different sources. A major part of the products is sold through merchants that force the Union industry to keep prices in line with low priced and dumped imports. Therefore the prices of imported CFP, out of which 35 % originated in the PRC in the IP, have in general a significant effect on price levels on the Union market.\n(114)\nThe investigation showed that dumped imports from the PRC increased dramatically (+ 183 %) over the period considered. The dumped imports from the PRC first doubled from 2006 to 2007, while prices were in 2007 2 % lower than the year before. In 2008 imports from China remained stable while average prices fall by 1 more %. Chinese import volumes (+ 71 %) and market share (+ 120 %) increased again dramatically in the IP with falling prices (- 5 %) undercutting the prices of the cooperating Union producers by 5,6 % thereby exerting price pressure on the Union market and preventing the Union producers to raise their prices to profitable levels.\n(115)\nIt is recalled that during the period considered the Union consumption decreased by about 14 %. The Union industry faced a significant drop in their sales volume (19 %). However this decrease of sales was much more pronounced than the drop in demand and led to a loss of market share of 5 percentage points. At the same time the market share of Chinese imports increased by 3 percentage points. This shows that the Union industry\u2019s market share has largely been taken over by the dumped imports from the PRC.\n(116)\nIt is therefore considered that the continued pressure exercised by the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC on the Union market did not allow the Union industry to adapt its sales prices to the increased raw material costs, in particular in 2008, when pulp prices peaked. This led to the loss in market share and the loss in profitability of the Union industry.\n(117)\nIn view of the above it was provisionally concluded that the surge of the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC had a considerable negative impact on the economic situation of the Union industry.\n7.3. Effect of other factors\n7.3.1. Development of the consumption on the Union market\n(118)\nAs mentioned in recital 82 above, the Union consumption of CFP first increased in 2007, after which it decreased in 2008 and the IP. During the period considered, all Union industry lost market share. One of the cooperating exporters in the PRC claimed that the decrease in sales volume and market share of the Union industry was due to the decrease in consumption which had been caused by the economic crisis and the expansion of electronic media.\n(119)\nAlthough it cannot be disregarded that this negative evolution of the Union consumption, for whatever reason, between 2007 and the IP has had a negative impact on the situation of the Union industry in terms of sales volumes and production, it is noteworthy that the Chinese exporters managed at the same time and especially from 2008 to 2009 to increase their sales volumes and market share through the price pressure exerted on the market by the dumped imports. Accordingly, it is considered that the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry is mainly caused by the surge in the dumped imports from the PRC and the undercutting practised by the Chinese exporters and not by decreasing consumption. Even though the contraction in demand contributed to the injury, it could not break the causal link between the material injury suffered and the increase in dumped imports.\n7.3.2. Prices of raw material\n(120)\nThe average cost of production of the cooperating Union producers slightly increased (2 %) between 2006 and 2008 and fell by 5 % in the IP. The investigation showed that the cost of production of the cooperating Union producers to produce CFP followed in general a similar trend as the evolution of the prices of the pulp, one of the main raw materials in paper production. The average price of pulp increased by 8 % between 2006 and 2008 after which it decreased sharply from the end of 2008 till the last month of the IP. The price of pulp was on average 19 % lower in 2009 than in the previous year.\n(121)\nIn the absence of injurious dumping, it could be expected that prices are regularly adapted to reflect the development of the various components of the cost of production. Up until 2008, this did, however, not take place. Indeed, the Union producers was forced to keep its sales prices low even when pulp prices were increasing in 2008 in order to compete against the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC, which led to a significant drop in its profitability in that period. In the IP, the situation ameliorated due to the abnormal decrease in prices of pulp - while prices of CFP could be kept stable at the same time. However even in this exceptional period the still very low profit levels did not allow the cooperating Union producers to recover from continued dumping practices. Indeed, despite the decrease in raw material costs the price levels could still not be increased to levels to achieve solid profit margins necessary for this capital intensive producers.\n(122)\nAccordingly, it is provisionally concluded that the dumped imports from the PRC which undercut the cooperating Union producers\u2019 prices depressed the prices on the Union market and prevented the cooperating Union producers from increasing its sales prices to cover its costs or to achieve a reasonable profitability. Given that the raw material prices were significantly decreasing in the IP, it was concluded that they could not have had an impact on the material injury suffered by the Union industry during that same period.\n7.3.3. Export performance of the Union industry\n(123)\nExport performance was also examined as one of the known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time have injured the Union industry, to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports. The analysis showed that the export sales to unrelated parties made by the cooperating Union producers represented an important part of their sales (around 27 %) during the period considered. Even though export sales volumes also decreased in the period considered by 9 %, the loss of volumes was less pronounced as the loss of sales volumes on the Union market (19 %). Hence, it was considered that the decrease in export volume cannot explain the level of injury suffered by the cooperating Union producers. Since exports play an important role in keeping capacity utilisation high to cover the high fixed costs of investments into machinery, it was considered that although the export performance was deteriorating it had an overall positive effect. Accordingly, it is considered that even if the decrease in export activities may have contributed to the overall deterioration of the situation of the Union industry, these were on the other hand mitigating the losses suffered on the Union market and thus are not such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(124)\nOne party claimed that the Union industry suffered a significant decline in exports because of the strength of the Euro versus the US dollar and that the injury caused by this factor should not be attributed to imports from the PRC. As concluded above, the deterioration of the export performance of the Union industry, regardless of the causes for such deterioration, is not the main reason for the injury suffered by the producers and thus does not break the causal link established in recital 117.\n7.3.4. Imports from other third countries\n(125)\nThe trends in import volumes and prices from other third countries between 2006 and the IP were as follows:\nTable 9\nImports from third countries\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nSwitzerland\nImports (tonnes)\n194 748\n191 636\n226 736\n172 233\nIndex\n100\n98\n116\n88\nMarket share\n3,7 %\n3,5 %\n4,2 %\n3,8 %\nIndex\n100\n95\n115\n103\nPrice (EUR/tonne)\n787\n782\n758\n793\nIndex\n100\n99\n97\n105\nIndonesia\nImports (tonnes)\n19 834\n30 714\n27 178\n49 877\nIndex\n100\n155\n137\n251\nMarket share\n0,4 %\n0,6 %\n0,5 %\n1,1 %\nIndex\n100\n149\n135\n292\nPrice (EUR/tonne)\n855\n818\n845\n681\nIndex\n100\n96\n99\n80\nSouth Korea\nImports (tonnes)\n45 154\n65 251\n46 498\n46 068\nIndex\n100\n145\n103\n102\nMarket share\n0,9 %\n1,2 %\n0,9 %\n1,0 %\nIndex\n100\n139\n102\n118\nPrice (EUR/tonne)\n562\n669\n664\n618\nIndex\n100\n119\n118\n110\nAll other countries\nImports (tonnes)\n58 623\n70 984\n62 844\n100 711\nIndex\n100\n121\n107\n172\nMarket share\n1,1 %\n1,3 %\n1,2 %\n2,2 %\nIndex\n100\n117\n106\n199\nPrice (EUR/tonne)\n962\n860\n914\n824\nIndex\n100\n89\n95\n86\nSource: Eurostat.\n(126)\nThe main other third countries exporting CFP to the Union market are Switzerland, Indonesia and South Korea. From the trends of import volumes it can be seen that the increase of the imports from the PRC was more pronounced than from any of the other third countries. In case of imports from Switzerland, these were sold always at significantly higher prices than imported products from the PRC. The market share of Swiss products remained relatively stable, except for the year 2008 when they increased temporarily to above 4 % before falling back to close to the 2006 level in the IP. CFP imported from Switzerland constituted mainly the production of one company owned by one of the cooperating Union producers and the higher unit prices may be linked to different product mixes and sales structures. As far as imports from Indonesia are concerned, these were also entering the Union at higher prices than the Chinese products, with the exception of the IP where prices fell, very likely in large part due to the decrease in pulp prices. The resulting increase of imports, which however remained in volume terms at a low level in the IP, led to a market share which also remained at a low level in that period. Imports from South Korea entered the Union in low quantities throughout the period considered and market share remained stable. Even though Korean import prices were comparable to import prices from the PRC, Korean prices were not showing a continuously decreasing trend as the Chinese imports did over the whole period considered. Imports from all other countries had significantly higher prices than the imports from the PRC and import volumes were low.\n(127)\nOn the basis of the above, it is provisionally concluded that the imports from these third countries did not contribute to the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n7.3.5. Structural overcapacity\n(128)\nOne cooperating exporter in the PRC argued that the injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by the Union industry\u2019s overcapacity. The reduction in capacity and consolidation of the Union industry were therefore not a consequence of the Chinese imports but should be seen as a measure against the overcapacity. However, the investigation showed that losses were incurred by the Union industry in the period considered, especially in 2008, despite the restructuring of the producers because, as outlined above in recitals 113 to 117, the Union industry was still not able to raise its prices to levels above costs. This situation was mainly caused by the price pressure exerted by the dumped imports undercutting Union industry prices. This argument had therefore to be rejected.\n7.4. Conclusion on causation\n(129)\nThe above analysis demonstrated that there was a substantial increase in the volume and market share of the low-priced imports originating in the PRC over the period considered. In addition, it was found that these imports were made at dumped prices which were below the prices charged by the Union industry on the Union market for similar product types.\n(130)\nThis increase in volume and market share of the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC coincided with an overall decrease of the demand on the Union market during the period between 2006 and the IP and also with the negative development in the market share of the Union producers during the same period. At the same time a negative development in the main indicators of the economic and financial situation of the Union industry was observed as outlined in recital 107.\n(131)\nThe examination of the other known factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry revealed that these factors are not such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(132)\nBased on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports, it is provisionally concluded that the dumped imports from the PRC have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\n8. UNION INTEREST\n8.1. Preliminary remark\n(133)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether, despite the provisional conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed for concluding that it was not in the Union interest to adopt provisional anti-dumping measures in this particular case. For this purpose, and in accordance with Article 21(1) of the basic Regulation, the likely impact of possible measures on the Union producers, importers, merchants and distributors and users of the product concerned and also the likely consequences of not taking measures were considered on the basis of all evidence submitted.\n8.2. Union industry\n(134)\nThe Union industry as a whole is composed of 14 known producers estimated to represent around 98 % of the Union CFP production according to CEPIFINE. The producers are located in different Member States of the Union, employing directly over 11 000 people in relation to the product concerned.\n(135)\nTwo of the known producers opposed the initiation of the investigation but provided no further information and did not cooperate with the investigation. On the basis of the information available, however, and in particular on the basis of the data made available by CEPIFINE which showed a deterioration of the situation of the Union industry, it can be reasonably assumed that these two companies were also negatively affected by the dumped imports. The non-cooperation was therefore not seen as an indication that their situation would be different from the one of the remaining Union producers.\n(136)\nThe Union industry has suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports from the PRC. It is recalled that most injury indicators showed a negative trend during the period considered. In particular injury indicators related to the financial performance of the cooperating Union producers, such as profitability and return on investments, despite a slight improvement in the IP, were seriously affected. In the absence of measures, a further deterioration in the Union industry\u2019s economic situation appears very likely.\n(137)\nIt is expected that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties will restore effective and fair trade conditions on the Union market, allowing the Union industry to align the prices of CFP to reflect the costs of the various components. It can be expected that the imposition of provisional measures would enable the Union industry to regain at least part of the market share lost during the period considered, with a further positive impact on its economic situation and profitability.\n(138)\nIt was therefore concluded that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of CFP originating in the PRC would be in the interest of the Union industry.\n8.3. Importers and traders\n(139)\nQuestionnaires were sent to fourteen known unrelated importers and traders in the Union that were listed in the complaint. During the investigation several other traders (called also merchants in the industry) made themselves known. Finally nineteen companies cooperated in the investigation, even though some of these respondents provided only partial information. Importers were found to be acting also as traders on the market therefore all these parties will hereinafter be referred to as \u2018traders\u2019.\n(140)\nThe investigation showed that all traders purchased CFP from several sources and mainly from Union producers. Five traders did not purchase or only occasionally purchased the imported CFP from the PRC. The seven companies that provided quantitative information about their purchases of the product concerned represented in total 47 % of the total imports from the PRC. Imports, including imports from the PRC represented only a limited share of their total business and any negative impact of the proposed measures is thus likely to be negligible. All traders stated that CFP produced in the Union and the PRC were largely of a similar quality and were interchangeable. Furthermore the investigation confirmed that there exist a large number of other import sources and traders could revert to these other sources of supply, at least in the longer term.\n(141)\nTwo importing traders were relying mainly on Chinese sources for their purchases of CFP. Both companies stated that they would have difficulties in sourcing products from Union producers because there would be traditional sales channels due to minimum order volumes required by producers and distribution agreements to be respected. This did, however, not directly affect the availability of CFP from Union producers as they had sufficient spare capacity available. This argument had therefore to be rejected.\n(142)\nConcerning the possibility to pass on possible cost increases to their customers, all cooperating traders referred to the strong price transparency on the Union market and stated that they would only be able to increase their sales prices to the final customers in case the price level in the Union, in general, would increase. On this basis, and given that the intended effect of anti-dumping duties is, inter alia, to increase the price level in the Union to cost-covering levels, it is expected that importers would therefore be able to pass any price increases caused by the anti-dumping duty at least partly on to their customers. It should also be noted that as mentioned above, it was found that Chinese imports constitute only a very small part of the overall business of traders and that therefore, the effect of the anti-dumping duty, in general would be negligible. Finally it is also considered that importers achieve a higher profitability on their resales of CFP sourced from the producers in the PRC; therefore they would also be able to make less profit by absorbing at least a partial cost increase.\n(143)\nTherefore, the imposition of provisional measures should overall not have a significant negative impact on the importers and traders.\n8.4. Users\n(144)\nQuestionnaires were sent to eight known users in the Union that were listed in the complaint. During the investigation several other users made themselves known. Altogether 17 companies provided a full or partial questionnaire reply. These companies are located throughout the Union and represent the printing and publishing sectors. Since market conditions and cost structures were found to be different for printers and publishers, the impact of measures was analysed separately for each group.\n8.4.1. Printers\n(145)\nAltogether nine printers, most of them SMEs provided basic information. According to the information thus available, it was established that in general the share of the CFP in relation to the total cost of production of a printed material was relatively high, i.e. around 40 % on average. Most cooperating printers only started to use Chinese paper recently, several of them only after the IP. It was confirmed that CFP produced in the Union and the PRC are of similar quality and that there is a strong price competition between traders.\n(146)\nAll printers stated that any price increase would have a significant negative effect on their profitability. It was claimed that the printing industry is already under pressure due to structural overcapacity and any increase in purchase prices of CFP would put further pressure on this producers. In this regard, it is noted that given the small quantities of Chinese CFP used by printers (who still source the majority of the CFP needed from Union producers) the direct impact of any duty was considered negligible. As far as a general price increase in the Union market is concerned, it was considered that since this price increase would impact on all economic players this would have a neutral effect.\n(147)\nSome printers claimed that anti-dumping duties would result in shortages of supply on the market and prolonged delivery times. The investigation showed that Union producers and intermediaries are capable of serving the market with the required supplies. Based on the above, and in particular given that this claim was not supported by evidence, the claim was rejected.\n8.4.2. Publishers\n(148)\nRegarding the publishing sector, six questionnaire replies were received from companies. Only one company had a minor purchase of Chinese-origin CFP in the IP. Four of the companies provided quantitative data concerning their use of CFP.\n(149)\nOverall, it was found that on average the products where CFP is used represented 16 % of the total turnover of these companies and that the average profit achieved in this business was around 12 %. Furthermore, it was found that the six companies purchased CFP mainly from the Union producers, while only one of them used CFP imported from the PRC. Another one started to buy Chinese products only after the IP. Therefore, and in particular on the basis of the low volumes of Chinese-origin CFP used in this sector, the imposition of provisional measures on imports from the PRC is unlikely to seriously affect the publishing sector overall. In addition, these companies were found to be profitable and could pass on price increases to the final customer more easily because the use of customer-directed and customer-nominated paper whereby the paper used in the production is purchased by the customer itself is more common. Finally, publishers have stronger purchasing power because of economies of scale.\n(150)\nThree associations of the printing industry provided written submissions. Two opposed the imposition of duties, claiming that any price increases would lead to higher costs and consequently to loss of competitiveness and jobs in downstream industries. They claimed that there is a strong cross-elasticity between printed products and electronic media products which means that any price increases would lead to the shrinkage of this segment. The investigation found that there exist several segments in paper products in terms of expected growth and that the segment of high quality printing paper, in which CFP is primarily used, is still growing. As regards the claim that losses would shift to the downstream market, this claim is vague and was not supported by any substantiating information or evidence. Furthermore, the investigation did not bring to light any significant impact on the publisher producers which purchased paper mainly from other sources than the PRC. Therefore, the claim was rejected.\n(151)\nTaking the above into consideration, even if some of the users are likely to be negatively impacted by the measures on imports from the PRC, the impact on the users in the two distinctive sectors appears to be limited overall. Therefore, it was provisionally concluded that, on the basis of the information available, the effect of the anti-dumping measures against imports of CFP originating in the PRC will most likely not have a significant negative impact on the users of the product concerned.\n8.5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(152)\nIn view of the above, it is provisionally concluded that overall, based on the information available concerning the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of provisional measures on imports of CFP originating in the PRC.\n9. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n9.1. Injury elimination level\n(153)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union producers by the dumped imports.\n(154)\nFor the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the dumping margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Union producers.\n(155)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union producers to cover its costs of production and to obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an producers of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the Union. As claimed by the complainant, it is provisionally considered that a profit margin of 8 % on turnover could be regarded as an appropriate minimum which the Union producers could have expected to obtain in the absence of injurious dumping.\n(156)\nOn this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union producers for the like product. The non-injurious price was obtained by adding the abovementioned profit margin of 8 % to the cost of production.\n(157)\nThe necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison, per product type, of the weighted average import price of the exporting producers in the PRC, with the non-injurious price of the product types sold by the Union producers on the Union market during the IP. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the average CIF import value of the compared types.\n9.2. Provisional measures\n(158)\nIn the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that the provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed on imports originating in the PRC at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins in line with the lesser duty rule. In this case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the injury margins found.\n(159)\nConsequently, the injury elimination margins and the dumping margins and the proposed rates of the provisional anti-dumping duty for the PRC, expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, are as follows:\nExporting producer\nDumping margin\nInjury margin\nProvisional AD duty rate\nGold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province, PRC\n43,9 %\n19,7 %\n19,7 %\nGold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, PRC\n43,9 %\n19,7 %\n19,7 %\nShangdong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC\n63 %\n39,1 %\n39,1 %\nShouguang Chenming Art Paper Co., Ltd, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC\n63 %\n39,1 %\n39,1 %\nAll other companies\n63 %\n39,1 %\n39,1 %\n(160)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the country concerned and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(161)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting-up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (5) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(162)\nIn order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti- dumping duty, the residual duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.\n10. FINAL PROVISION\n(163)\nIn the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the Notice of initiation may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive duty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on coated fine paper, which is paper or paperboard coated on one or both sides (excluding kraft paper or kraft paperboard), in either sheets or rolls, and with a weight of 70 g/m2 or more but not exceeding 400 g/m2 and brightness of more than 84 (measured according to ISO 2470-1), currently falling within CN codes ex 4810 13 20, ex 4810 13 80, ex 4810 14 20, ex 4810 14 80, ex 4810 19 10, ex 4810 19 90, ex 4810 22 10, ex 4810 22 90, ex 4810 29 30, ex 4810 29 80, ex 4810 99 10, ex 4810 99 30 and ex 4810 99 90 (TARIC codes 4810132020, 4810138020, 4810142020, 4810148020, 4810191020, 4810199020, 4810221020, 4810229020, 4810293020, 4810298020, 4810991020, 4810993020 and 4810999020) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\nThe provisional anti-dumping duty does not concern rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses. Rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses are defined as those rolls which, if tested according to the ISO test standard ISO 3783:2006 concerning the determination of resistance to picking - accelerated speed method using the IGT tester (electric model), give a result of less than 30 N/m when measuring in the cross-direction of the paper (CD) and a result of less than 50 N/m when measuring in the machine direction (MD). The provisional anti-dumping duty does also not concern multi-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nAD duty rate\nTARIC additional code\nGold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province, PRC; Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, PRC\n19,7 %\nB001\nAll other companies\n39,1 %\nB999\n3. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nWithout prejudice to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within 1 month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nPursuant to Article 21(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within 1 month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of 6 months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 November 2010.", "references": ["89", "45", "86", "14", "9", "8", "80", "55", "82", "87", "68", "7", "5", "57", "19", "65", "50", "0", "94", "69", "72", "33", "90", "10", "64", "70", "31", "71", "84", "93", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "88", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "88", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1060/2011\nof 20 October 2011\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["17", "48", "13", "82", "9", "27", "33", "68", "95", "56", "81", "98", "63", "41", "84", "30", "88", "4", "60", "91", "80", "75", "40", "36", "76", "0", "78", "87", "14", "53", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 February 2012\non the State aid SA.26534 (C 27/10 ex NN 6/09) implemented by Greece in favour of United Textiles S.A.\n(notified under document C(2011) 9385)\n(Only the Greek text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/541/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to Article 108, paragraph 2, first quotation of the Treaty (1), and having regard to these comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nFollowing information that Greece planned to grant a State guarantee for new loans of EUR 35 million to finance United Textiles, the Commission asked the Greek authorities to comment on the specific measure by letters dated 11 September, 14 October, 20 October, 18 November and 4 December 2008. The Greek authorities provided incomplete answers by letters of 15 October and 10 November 2008.\n(2)\nFor that reason, on 3 March 2009 the Commission issued an information injunction under Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (2) of the EC Treaty (3), requesting Greece to submit all information necessary to assess whether United Textiles had received State aid and to assess if that aid would be compatible with the internal market. Greece submitted the requested information by letter of 11 March 2009.\n(3)\nThe Commission requested further information, regarding the State measure mentioned in recital 1 and also several additional ones, in favour of United Textiles and its lending banks, by letters of 20 March 2009 and 8 February, 17 March, 19 July and 23 August 2010. The Greek authorities answered by letters of 7 April 2009 and 25 February, 26 March, 13 August and 30 August 2010.\n(4)\nAt the request of the Greek authorities, a meeting was held on 7 July 2010. At that occasion, a draft new restructuring concept of United Textiles was submitted. The company acknowledged that the latter was not linked with previous restructuring actions taken in 2007, which had failed.\n(5)\nBy letter dated 27 October 2010 the Commission informed Greece that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (\u2018TFEU\u2019) in respect of the following measures:\n(a)\nstate guarantee of May 2007;\n(b)\nrescheduling of debts of 2009 for social insurance contributions;\n(c)\nstate guarantee of June 2010.\n(6)\nGreece submitted its comments to the Commission\u2019s opening decision on 31 December 2010.\n(7)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures.\n(8)\nThe Commission received comments from United Textiles on 7 and 9 February 2011. The comments were transmitted to Greece which was given the opportunity to comment on them. Its comments were received on 4 May 2011.\n(9)\nThe Commission requested additional information from the Greek authorities on 28 July 2011, to which Greece replied by letter of 30 August 2011.\n(10)\nAt the request of the Greek authorities, a meeting was held on 4 April 2011. In that meeting, the Greek authorities presented arguments as regards the alleged aid measures.\nII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED AID\nII(a) The potential beneficiaries\n(11)\nUnited Textiles is a large Greek textile company listed on the Athens Stock Exchange. It realised 45 % of its 2008 sales in Greece (38 % in 2007), 54 % in other EU countries (60 % in 2007) and 1 % to non-EU countries (2 % in 2007).\n(12)\nIn 2009 it had total assets of EUR 201,7 million and a turnover of EUR 4,5 million (limited sales of stock). Previous years\u2019 sales were EUR 30,6 million in 2008 and EUR 74,7 million in 2007. At the end of 2009 it had 839 employees. The company has four subsidiaries in three countries: Albania, Bulgaria and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Its main shareholder is an off-shore company named European Textiles Investments Ltd (Mauritius).\n(13)\nUnited Textiles\u2019 business is production of clothing, fibre and fabric. Its sales are realised in both wholesale and retail markets. It has 12 plants in several districts of Greece. The plants in question, as well as those of the subsidiaries mentioned in recital 12, have not been operating since 2008, because of lack of working capital.\n(14)\nThe company\u2019s situation has constantly deteriorated at least since 2004, with gradually decreasing sales, negative Earnings Before Taxes and negative own equity since 2008. Because of the latter, the company could be dissolved, according to Greek Legislation (5).\n(15)\nAccording to the company\u2019s annual report\u2019s, since 2001 lending banks\u2019 support to the company has been limited, with reduced credit lines and loans. Since June 2008, a large part of its operations has been stopped. Since March 2009, production has almost completely stopped. In July 2008, the company\u2019s main shareholder decided not to participate in a scheduled capital increase. Since 2008, almost all its bank loans have been overdue. Since February 2010, trading of its shares in the Athens Stock Exchange has been suspended. According to the company\u2019s announcements, as published in its webpage (6) as well the webpage of the Athens Stock Exchange (7), its financial statements for 2010 were not published because of a work retention which was ongoing until 29 August 2011 (the last available announcement).\n(16)\nThe lending Greek banks of United Textiles, which are involved in the State aid measures under scrutiny, are the National Bank of Greece, Emporiki Bank, Agricultural Bank of Greece, Alpha Bank and Eurobank. They are all commercial banks, active in providing a full range of financial products and services. They all have presence, through subsidiaries, in other EU countries, in particular Bulgaria, Germany, France, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Romania and the United Kingdom (8).\nII(b) The measures under examination\n(17)\nIn the period 2007-10, three State measures were taken in favour of the company United Textiles that could involve State aid elements, as follows in recitals 18 to 23.\nMeasure 1: The State guarantee of May 2007\n(18)\nOn 30 May 2007, the National Bank of Greece, lending bank of United Textiles, was granted a State guarantee for a new loan to include: (a) a rescheduling of an existing loan of EUR 7,5 million; and (b) a new loan of EUR 12,5 million. The State guarantee covered 80 % the loan. This new loan had an interest rate of six-month EURIBOR, plus spread of 1,85 % (9), equal to a total interest rate of 6,10 % on 30 May 2007. There was no premium for the State guarantee. According to the submitted rescheduling contract, the original existing loan was covered with a mortgage on a fixed asset. Also, according to the annual reports of United Textiles for 2007, 2008 and 2009, the above new loan was covered with the guarantee of the main shareholder and also envisaged to be covered with pledges on assets, however there is no reference to any realisation of the latter pledge.\n(19)\nThe guarantee was based on a Ministerial decision of 26 January 2007 (Decision 2/75172/0025/26.01.2007). The decision foresaw that State guarantees could be issued to existing loans of industrial, mining, livestock farming and hotel companies, located in the district of Imathia, Northern Greece (where part of United Textiles\u2019 operations is located). The scheme did not exclude firms in difficulty and did not foresee a premium for the State guarantee. The scheme did not foresee any kind of objective criteria for the selection of beneficiary companies. The Commission notes that the scheme has not been notified, in line with Article 108 TFEU, therefore the Commission reserves the right to investigate other State measures possibly granted on the basis of the scheme.\n(20)\nOn the basis of the guarantee, the loan agreements were signed on 11 October 2007.\nMeasure 2: Rescheduling of social insurance debts\n(21)\nOn 25 May 2009 the Greek authorities rescheduled the company\u2019s overdue social insurance debts of the period 2004-09, amounting to EUR 14,57 million, to 96 monthly payments of EUR 0,19 million each. The rescheduling took place in the context of Law No 3762/2009 (10). The rescheduled amount partly included debts already arranged in previous reschedulings, which had not been respected. In addition, on the basis of the information submitted, it does not seem that United Textiles has paid any contributions so far.\nMeasure 3: The State guarantee of October 2009 and June 2010\n(22)\nOn 30 June 2010, with ministerial decision 2/35129/0025, the Greek State granted a guarantee to the lending banks of United Textiles. Those banks are the National Bank of Greece, Emporiki Bank, Agricultural Bank of Greece, Alpha Bank and Eurobank. The guarantee covered a new planned syndicated loan of EUR 63,6 million, separated in three sub-amounts for the purpose of the following:\n(a)\nEUR 36,6 million to reschedule loans granted to the company by its lending banks in the period August 2008-September 2009. According to the information available, the loans in question had interest rates between three-months and six-months EURIBOR, plus 1,25 % to 3 %. Also according to the information available, those loans were initially not covered by a State guarantee.\n(b)\nEUR 15 million to finance the payment of overdue debts of the company to the State, to suppliers and to its employees.\n(c)\nEUR 12 million to finance investments and operating expenses.\n(23)\nThe underlying planned syndicated loan had duration of nine years. The ministerial decision 2/35129/0025 granting the guarantee did not specify any interest rate for the loans to be covered. It merely specified that the loans have to be at \u2018market\u2019 rate. The State guarantee covers 80 % of the loan. A yearly premium of 2 % on the loan\u2019s yearly average outstanding amount is foreseen for the State. Lending banks receive, in addition to the State guarantee, securities for the new loan in the form of pledged shares of the company for at least 25,9 % of its total shareholding and first rank mortgages on real estate assets of the company. The State does not receive any security for its guarantee; however, in case the guarantee is called, the securities will be transferred to the State.\n(24)\nThe guarantee granted in June 2010 under ministerial decision 2/35129/0025 replaced (by revoking it) a previously granted one of 2 October 2009 (ministerial decision 2/71055/0025). The latter was granted for a new loan of EUR 40 million, also aiming at financing the rescheduling of the loans granted to the company in the period August 2008-February 2009 (see recital 22(a)). The loan of EUR 40 million, however, was never issued and therefore the October 2009 guarantee was not activated. Instead, the latter was replaced with the new guarantee of June 2010, which covered the syndicated loan of EUR 63,6 million. According to the Greek authorities, the reason for that replacement was that the extent of the loan of EUR 40 million was not sufficient anymore to cover the company\u2019s liquidity needs.\n(25)\nDespite the guarantee, the underlying loan has never been granted. In view of the company\u2019s acute difficulties, the banks refrained from signing the loan agreement and never paid out the loan.\nIII. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(26)\nIn the opening decision of 27 October 2010, the Commission questioned whether the terms of the State guarantees of 2007 (Measure 1) and 2010 (Measure 3) were market conform and in line with the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (11) (\u2018the Guarantee Notice\u2019).\n(27)\nAs regards the measure of the rescheduling of overdue social insurance obligations (Measure 2), in the opening decision of 27 October 2010, the Commission questioned whether a private creditor in the given circumstances would have accepted any type of rescheduling of debts. Indeed, the possibility of obtaining a late repayment of the debt appeared restricted, since United Textiles was already in serious financial difficulties and had stopped most of its production.\n(28)\nThe Commission thus questioned whether the measures under investigation constituted illegal State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and whether the measures were compatible with the TFEU.\nIV. COMMENTS FROM GREECE AND THE BENEFICIARY\n(29)\nThe information submitted by the Greek authorities and United Textiles (the beneficiary) on the measures in question can be summarised as follows:\nIV(a) Measure 1: The State guarantee of May 2007\n(30)\nWith regard to Measure 1, the comments of Greece and the beneficiary overlap to a large extent, therefore the Commission will expose them together, as follows:\n(31)\nGreece and the beneficiary acknowledge that at the time of the 2007 guarantee the company was in difficulty, allegedly due to international competition of lower cost countries. Greece also acknowledges having granted the above guarantees.\n(32)\nGreece and the beneficiary also support that the 2007 guarantee does not constitute aid, as it was not selective to United Textiles: it was granted on the basis of a ministerial decision not only for United Textiles but also for other companies.\n(33)\nApart from the above, Greece and the beneficiary argue that the 2007 guarantee was granted pursuant to Greek Law No 2322/1995, which allowed the Minister of Finance to grant State guarantees to banking institutions for loans that reschedule debts or grant new working capital.\n(34)\nFurthermore, Greece and the beneficiary claim that before having been granted the guarantee, the company had submitted to the Greek authorities a restructuring plan with financing from banks and without any State guarantee. Such a restructuring plan was never formally submitted to the Commission.\n(35)\nGreece also argues that the 2007 guarantee was granted in line with the State aid rules in force in the EU. According to Greece\u2019s allegations, the guarantee had a maximum coverage of 80 % and was granted for loans with market interest rates. Also, Greece supports that the loan was properly securitised with pledged commodities and personal guarantees of shareholders and that it was granted for a specific transaction and duration.\n(36)\nMoreover, Greece and the beneficiary support that the latter is one of the most significant textile companies in Greece, employing a significant number of staff and operating mainly in regions close to the border.\n(37)\nGreece and the beneficiary also claim that the National Bank of Greece (the lending bank) has accepted to decline the State guarantee and in its place to inscribe a mortgage on real estate assets of United Textiles, which will inactivate the guarantee.\n(38)\nFinally, Greece and the beneficiary argue that the guarantee was incorporated in the guarantee of 2010, therefore there is a continuum in the settlement of the company\u2019s lending.\nIV(b) Measure 2: Rescheduling of overdue public insurance debts\n(39)\nGreece and the beneficiary argue that the measure is based on Law No 3762/2009, which is a general law, applicable to all companies with overdue or unpaid public insurance obligations, therefore the measure in question is not selective.\nIV(c) Measure 3: The State guarantee of June 2010\n(40)\nGreece acknowledges having granted the 2010 guarantee and argues that the latter was granted because the extent of the previous guarantee of 2009 (which has never been implemented) was not sufficient anymore to cover the company\u2019s liquidity needs, therefore the 2009 guarantee was incorporated into the 2010 guarantee.\n(41)\nGreece argues that the 2010 guarantee is in line with the communication from the Commission - community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (12) (\u2018Rescue and restructuring guidelines\u2019) and that it does not confer an advantage to United Textiles. Moreover, it claims that there is no infringement of the \u2018one time last time\u2019 principle as enshrined in the Rescue and restructuring guidelines, since the 2010 guarantee replaces the 2009 guarantee and changes several provisions of the 2007 guarantee (see Measure 1 in recital 18). Therefore, the 2010 guarantee embodies the totality of the clauses of the company\u2019s loans in a single text with unified provisions. Greece also states that the guarantee is not valid yet, because the Ministry\u2019s competent service has not approved it yet.\n(42)\nFinally, Greece informed the Commission that the 2010 guarantee has not yet been activated, as the company has not signed any loan contract with any bank and no loan payment has taken place. Also, the Greek authorities have drawn the Commission\u2019s attention to the fact that the granting ministerial decision 2/35129/0025/28.06.2010 foresees that the loan\u2019s first two sub-loans (EUR 36,6 million + EUR 15 million) had to be paid until 28 July 2010 and this date has expired, therefore the guarantee actually cannot be activated.\n(43)\nUnited Textiles argues that the underlying loan contract has not been signed yet, therefore there is no interest rate defined yet. When this is done, the interest rate will be market conform.\n(44)\nRegarding the restructuring plan of 2010 (see recital 4), United Textiles supports that it foresees a drastic reduction of production, therefore the forecasted return to viability does not distort competition.\nV. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n(45)\nOn the basis of the above facts and also of the arguments of Greece and United Textiles, the Commission will assess the measures in question in this section. First, the Commission will assess the status of United Textiles at the time of the measures under scrutiny, in order to conclude if the company was in difficulty or not (Section V(a)). Secondly, the Commission will assess the presence of aid in the measures under scrutiny, in order to conclude if there is aid or not (Section V(b)). Thirdly, where a measure indeed involves aid, the Commission will assess its compatibility with the internal market (Section V(c)).\nV(a) Status of the company\n(46)\nAs shown in recitals 14 and 15 and set out in more detail in Table 1 below, the company\u2019s operating and financial performance deteriorated significantly in the period 2004-09.\nTable 1\nUnited Textiles\u2019 key financial data (million EUR)\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nTurnover\n154,3\n97,5\n64,6\n74,7 (13)\n30,6\n4,5\nEBT\n-89,6\n-61,3\n-49,3\n-38,5\n-62,4\n-60,6\nAccumulated losses\n264,1\n316\n378,3\n418,7\n481\n520,3 (14)\nRegistered capital\n276,3\n283,3\n280,8\n288,9\n290,4\n290,4 (14)\nOwn equity\n95,2\n35,7\n32,9\n4,6\n-49,1\n- 111,5\nDebt/equity\n281 %\n692 %\n829 %\n6 243 %\n- 561 %\n- 280 %\nData from 2004-09 financial statements.\n(47)\nOn the basis of these financial figures, the Commission concludes that the company has been in difficulty in the meaning of point 10 of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines at the time of the granting of the measures under scrutiny (the period 2007-10). The Commission equally considers that the company is in difficulties at present.\n(48)\nMore specifically, with regard to point 10(a) of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines, the company\u2019s registered capital, as appearing in its financial statements of years 2004-09, was not lost but increased in the period 2004-09. However, the Commission notices that in the same period the company\u2019s own equity was reduced to minimal (2007) or negative level (2008 and 2009). At the same time, the company did not adopt appropriate measures in order to tackle the decrease of its own equity, as foreseen by Greek legislation (15). If adopted, those measures would be either the increase of capital or the capitalisation of losses, which would wipe out the registered capital. It appears that only the latter case would be feasible for United Textiles, due to its critical financial situation (see Table 1) and its difficult access to finance (see recital 15). On the basis of the above, the Commission considers that the company lost more than half of its registered capital.\n(49)\nFurthermore, concerning point 10(c) of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines, since 2008 the company fulfilled the criteria under Greek law for being the subject of collective insolvency proceedings (16).\n(50)\nFinally, as regards point 11 of the of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines, the usual signs of a firm being in difficulty, such as increasing losses, diminishing turnover and mounting debt, have been present since at least 2004.\nV(b) Presence of aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU\n(51)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU states that \u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(52)\nThe Commission will assess whether the measures under scrutiny in favour of United Textiles constitute State aid in the sense of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nV(b)(1) Measure 1: State guarantee of May 2007\n(a) State resources\n(53)\nThe Commission notes that the State guarantee in question indeed involves State resources, as it has been granted directly by the State. The decision has been made by the responsible minister; therefore, the measure is also imputable to the State. Thus, the criterion of State resources is fulfilled.\n(b) Advantage\n(54)\nGreece and the beneficiary claim that the National Bank of Greece (the lending bank) has accepted to decline the State guarantee and in its place to inscribe a mortgage on real estate assets of United Textiles, which will deactivate the guarantee. To demonstrate their claim, Greece and the beneficiary submit a letter of the National Bank of Greece, dated 24 December 2010 (replying to a letter of United Textiles dated 23 December 2010).\n(55)\nThe Commission cannot accept the above. Indeed, in the submitted letter of the National Bank of Greece, it is only stated that the bank would be willing to examine the proposed exchange of securities, mainly under the conditions that the bank would choose the assets to be pledged and that the exchange would be accepted by all concerned parties. Thus, the Commission considers that the National Bank of Greece has not actually accepted the proposed exchange of securities.\n(56)\nGreece also argues that the 2007 guarantee was granted in line with the State aid rules that are in force in the EU. According to Greece\u2019s allegations, the guarantee had a maximum coverage of 80 % and that it was granted for loans with market interest rates.\n(57)\nThe Commission cannot accept the above argumentation and considers that the 2007 guarantee has indeed procured an undue advantage to United Textiles. According to the Guarantee Notice, points 2.2 and 3.2, when the borrower does not pay a market-oriented price for the guarantee, it obtains an advantage. In some cases, the borrower, as a firm in financial difficulty, would not find a financial institution prepared to lend on any terms, without a State guarantee.\n(58)\nIn the case at hand, the 2007 guarantee was granted for loans of a firm in difficulty and did not foresee a premium for the guarantor (State). In the light of points 3.2 and 4.2 of the Guarantee notice, the Commission notes the significant deterioration of the company\u2019s financial situation in the period 2004-07, the overdue situation of its loans and the fact that already since 2001 its lending banks\u2019 support had been limited, with reduced credit lines and loans. The Commission considers that, since at the time that the measure was taken United Textiles was in serious difficulty, it must be classified in the credit category \u2018bad\u2019.\n(59)\nIn addition to the above, the Commission notes that, according to the company\u2019s annual reports of 2007, 2008 and 2009, the guaranteed loan was still envisaged to be securitised with assets of the company, therefore that securitisation was apparently not realised yet (see recital 18). In addition, the Commission notes that the National Bank of Greece (the lending bank) was proposed in December 2010 to decline the State guarantee and in its place to inscribe a mortgage on real estate assets of United Textiles (see recital 37). The Commission considers this proposal to be a clear indication that indeed the securitisation in question was not realised. On this issue, the Greek authorities submit that the 2007 guarantee was securitised with commodities of the company and personal guarantees of its shareholders (see recital 35), however the facts of the case only verify the shareholders\u2019 personal guarantees. Thus, the Commission considers that the underlying loan was not securitised.\n(60)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission doubts that any private guarantor would have offered such a guarantee and that any private bank would have accepted to finance the company without a State guarantee at all, as in a similar situation it would appear extremely difficult for such company to be able to repay the loan and for the guarantor to avoid to honour the guarantee. Thus, the Commission considers that the aid amount stemming from the 2007 guarantee amounts up to the whole amount of the guaranteed loan, i.e. EUR 16 million (80 % of EUR 20 million).\n(c) Selectivity\n(61)\nGreece and the beneficiary also support that the 2007 guarantee does not constitute aid, as it was not selective to United Textiles: it was granted on the basis of ministerial decision 2/75172/0025/26.01.2007 which concerned not only United Textiles but also other companies.\n(62)\nThe Commission notes that the ministerial decision on which the guarantee was based targeted certain sectors of a specific geographical area, i.e. the Imathia district. In addition, in the case at hand, the Greek authorities had a wide range of manoeuvre in granting a guarantee in favour of United Textiles, as there were no objective criteria set for deciding whether to grant the guarantee or not. In the absence of such objective criteria, the measure was indeed selective, because the authorities applied it individually on a discretionary basis (17). According to established case-law (18), where the public body granting financial assistance enjoys a degree of latitude which enables it to choose the beneficiaries or the conditions under which the financial assistance is provided, that assistance cannot be considered to be general in nature. Thus, the criterion of selectivity is indeed fulfilled.\n(d) Distortion of competition and affectation of trade between Member States\n(63)\nUnited Textiles is active in a sector whose products are widely traded among Member States and who is subject to intense competition. At the time of the granting of the aid measures, United Textiles was an undertaking which realised most of its sales to other Member States (see recital 11). Also, the aid measure in question granted United Textiles an advantage over its competitors (see recitals 45, 46 and 47). According to established case-law (19), when State aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in trade between Member States, those other undertakings must be regarded as affected by that aid. Thus, the criterion of distortion of competition and affectation of trade between Member States is indeed fulfilled.\n(64)\nRegarding the bank lending the underlying loan of the 2007 guarantee (the National Bank of Greece), the investigation has shown that it did not benefit from the guarantee in question. Indeed, the guarantee was granted in the context of a new loan contract, with a new duration of 10 years. According to point 2.3.1 of the Guarantee Notice, if a State guarantee is given ex post in respect of a loan, without the terms of this loan being adjusted, then there may also be aid to the lender; in the case at hand, however, the terms of the existing loan were changed, through the change of the loan\u2019s duration. Therefore the Commission considers that the 2007 guarantee did not constitute aid to the lender.\n(65)\nAt the same time, the 2007 guarantee merely resulted in the bank not seeking immediately to collect its loan. However, the bank would be able to recover the existing loan through liquidation procedures. In this regard, the Commission notes that the 2007 loan was already covered with a mortgage on a fixed asset (20).\n(66)\nOn the basis of the above, it is concluded that the State guarantee of May 2007 (Measure 1) constitutes unlawful State aid in favour of United Textiles in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(67)\nThe Commission considers that the State guarantee of May 2007 did not constitute State aid in favour of the lending bank the National Bank of Greece in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nV(b)(2) Measure 2: Rescheduling of overdue social insurance obligations\n(a) State resources\n(68)\nThe Commission notes that the aim of social insurance contributions is to finance the budget of Social Security Organisations, which constitute public legal entities under the State\u2019s supervision. Therefore the non-collection of such contributions deprives the State of resources. Thus, this criterion is fulfilled.\n(b) Advantage\n(69)\nThe Commission notes that United Textiles was effectively granted a delay of eight years to the payment of a financial obligation, at the time of severe financial difficulty and high probability of default. According to well-established case-law (21), in order to establish whether a selective advantage is conferred by non-enforcement of debts and whether the advantage could be classified as State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, it must still be established that United Textiles could not have obtained such an advantage under normal market conditions. In this regard the essential question to be asked is whether the behaviour of the State as creditor in the given circumstances could be compared to the behaviour of a diligent private creditor.\n(70)\nAccording to the Greek authorities, previous rescheduling agreements had not been respected by United Textiles. At the same time, the company was effectively granted an extension of eight years for the payment of a financial obligation of EUR 14,57 million (see recital 16), at the time of severe financial difficulty and high probability of default. Such an extension would not have been granted by a market economy creditor, especially since previous reschedulings had already failed.\n(71)\nFor the above-stated reasons, the Commission considers that the behaviour of the Greek authorities could not be compared to that of a diligent private creditor, since the rescheduling of 2009 was applied in spite of previous failed rescheduling agreements and the company was already in serious financial difficulties and had stopped most of its production, thus the perspective of obtaining a repayment of the debt appeared unlikely.\n(72)\nThus, the Commission considers that the 2009 rescheduling of the company\u2019s public insurance debts has conferred an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU on the company.\n(c) Selectivity\n(73)\nThe Greek authorities and the beneficiary claim that the rescheduling was based on a general national law (22), applicable to all companies in Greece, therefore the measure was not selective.\n(74)\nThe Commission cannot accept the above argument. Indeed, in the case at hand, the Greek authorities had a wide range of manoeuvre in the treatment of United Textiles\u2019 social insurance debts, as there were no objective criteria set for deciding whether to grant the rescheduling or not. In the absence of such objective criteria, the measure was indeed selective, because the authorities applied it individually on a discretionary basis (23). Also, according to established case-law, where the public body granting financial assistance enjoys a degree of latitude which enables it to choose the beneficiaries or the conditions under which the financial assistance is provided, that assistance cannot be considered to be general in nature (24). Thus, the criterion of selectivity is indeed fulfilled.\n(d) Distortion of competition and affectation of trade between Member States\n(75)\nFinally, the criterion of distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States is fulfilled in the same way as in recital 63.\n(e) Conclusion on the existence of aid in Measure 2\n(76)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that the 2009 rescheduling of overdue social insurance obligations constitutes State aid in favour of United Textiles in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(77)\nThe amount of aid equals to EUR 14,57 million, granted to the company at the moment of the overdue debts\u2019 rescheduling on 25 May 2009, as the total amount of the rescheduled debts.\nV(b)(3) Measure 3: State guarantee of June 2010\n(78)\nThe Commission notes that the company stopped operations already in 2009 and did not even publish financial statements since then (see recital 15). The guarantee was not sufficient to obtain any fresh funding and the undertaking did not resume its activities while it was valid. Under these circumstances, the Commission considers that the guarantee did not distort or threaten to distort competition. Therefore, it does not constitute State aid.\nV(c) Compatibility of the aid measures with the Internal Market\nV(c)(1) General\n(79)\nInasmuch as Measures 1 and 2 constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, their compatibility must be assessed in the light of the exceptions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 of that Article.\nV(c)(2) Company in difficulty\n(80)\nAs shown in recitals 46 to 50, the company\u2019s operating and financial performance deteriorated significantly in the period 2004-09. On this basis, the Commission concludes that the company has been in difficulty in the meaning of points 10 and 11 of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines at the time of the granting of the measures under scrutiny (the period 2007-10), as also acknowledged by Greece and the beneficiary. The Commission equally considers that the company is in difficulties at present because the situation has not improved since.\nV(c)(3) Exemptions under Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU\n(81)\nThe derogations laid down in Article 107(2) and Article 107(3), points (d) and (e), are clearly not applicable and have not been invoked by the Greek authorities.\n(82)\nArticle 107(3)(a) states that \u2018aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment\u2019 may be declared compatible with the internal market. United Textiles is located in an assisted area under Article 107(3)(a), therefore it could potentially be eligible for regional aid.\n(83)\nThe Guidelines on regional aid 2007-2013 (25) (\u2018Regional aid guidelines\u2019), which were applicable at the time of application of the 2007 guarantee and the 2009 debt rescheduling (Measures 1 and 2), set out the conditions for the approval of regional investment aid.\n(84)\nThe Regional aid guidelines clearly exclude firms in difficulty from their scope. United Textiles was already in difficulty at the time when Measures 1 and 2 were granted, therefore it was not eligible for regional aid. On this basis, the Commission concludes that the aid cannot be declared compatible on the basis of the Regional aid guidelines.\n(85)\nThe Commission will also assess the compatibility of the measures in question under the Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty (General block exemption Regulation) (26). The Commission notes that aid to firms in difficulty is excluded from the scope of the general block exemption Regulation. United Textiles was already in difficulty at the time when Measures 1 and 2 were granted, therefore the aid granted to United Textiles is not compatible under the general block exemption Regulation.\n(86)\nThe Commission has also to assess whether any of the measures concerned could be compatible under the crisis rules enshrined in the Communication from the Commission - Temporary Community framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (27) (hereinafter \u2018Temporary Framework\u2019). However, the Commission notes that United Textiles was clearly a company in difficulties before 1 July 2008 and therefore not eligible for aid under the Temporary Framework.\n(87)\nSince United Textiles was a firm in difficulty at the time of the granting of the measures, the compatibility of the aid measures can only be assessed in the light of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines, i.e. under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\n(88)\nFirst, the Commission considers that the measures in question cannot be found compatible as rescue aid. Indeed, the guarantee does not have a limited duration of six months, as foreseen in point 25(c) of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines, and the debt rescheduling, which could be comparable to a loan, also goes beyond a six-month period admissible as rescue aid. Also, the measures are not restricted to the minimum necessary amount, as foreseen in point 25(d) of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines and stemming from the formula set out in the Annex to those guidelines.\n(89)\nSecond, none of the measures could be found compatible as restructuring aid either. Greece and the beneficiary claim that before having been granted the 2007 guarantee, the company had submitted to the Greek authorities a restructuring plan with financing from banks and without any State guarantee. However, such a restructuring plan was never officially submitted to the Commission, therefore, the grant of these measures was made in the absence of a restructuring plan; however, such a restructuring plan is the condition for ensuring the restoration of a firm\u2019s long-term viability. In fact, based on the evidence of the investigation, no such plan existed, and all restructuring efforts in this period have failed, to the point that the company practically ceased to operate and was taken off the stock exchange. Despite this failure to restructure, the State continued to provide working capital to United Textiles, through the 2007 State guarantee. Thus, the Commission considers that Measures 1 and 2 constituted mere operating aid without any underlying credible restructuring.\n(90)\nFinally, no compensatory measures in the sense of points 38 to 42 of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines have been officially submitted.\n(91)\nAs regards United Textiles\u2019 eligibility to receive restructuring aid, the Commission notes that the company has been granted operating aid since at least 2007, at a time when it was already in difficulty. The Commission considers that the above fact is an infringement of the \u2018one time last time\u2019 principle, as it demonstrates that the company\u2019s difficulties are of a recurrent nature and that the aid measures in the company\u2019s favour have distorted competition contrary to the common interest. In addition, the beneficiary argues that the 2007 guarantee was incorporated in the guarantee of 2010, therefore there is a continuum in the settlement of the company\u2019s lending. However, the Commission considers that there are no elements suggesting that the restructuring should be considered to form a continuum, as the aid measures of 2007, 2009 and 2010 were granted over several years and were not granted on the basis of a single restructuring project or concept capable of restoring the company\u2019s viability.\n(92)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission considers that the \u2018one time last time\u2019 principle is not respected.\n(93)\nFinally, as United Textiles was in difficulty at the time of the granting of the measures, the Commission cannot conceive of another set of State aid rules that could make the alleged aid measures compatible with TFEU.\nV(c)(4) Conclusion on compatibility\n(94)\nIn the view of the above, the Commission concludes that Measures 1 and 2 are incompatible with TFEU.\nVI. RECOVERY\n(95)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the 2007 State guarantee and the 2009 rescheduling of overdue social insurance obligations constitute State aid which is incompatible with the internal market. The Commission has also come to the conclusion that the 2010 State guarantee does not constitute State aid.\n(96)\nArticle 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 lays down that \u2018where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary\u2019.\n(97)\nThus, given that the measures at hand are to be considered as unlawful and incompatible aid, the amount of aid must be recovered in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid. Recovery shall be hence affected from the time when the advantage occurred to the beneficiary, i.e. when the aid was put at the disposal of the beneficiary and shall bear recovery interest until effective recovery.\n(98)\nThe incompatible aid element of the 2007 State guarantee (Measure 1) is calculated as amounting up to the total of the guaranteed loan. The Commission estimates that the aid thus granted to United Textiles amounts up to EUR 16 million.\n(99)\nThe incompatible aid element of Measure 2 is calculated as the total amount of the rescheduled debts, thus the amount of aid granted to United Textiles is EUR 14,57 million. Payments made other than the amounts paid under the agreement may be deducted from the sum to be recovered as unlawful and incompatible aid.\n(100)\nThe exact recovery amount and the recovery interest to be applied on these amounts have to be calculated by Greece,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The State aid granted by Greece in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of United Textiles S.A., in the form of a 2007 State guarantee and a rescheduling of overdue social insurance obligations in 2009, is incompatible with the internal market.\n2. The 2010 State guarantee does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\n1. Greece shall recover the aid stipulated in Article 1, paragraph 1, from the beneficiary.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest generated from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (28).\n4. Greece shall cancel all outstanding payments under the aid stipulated in Article 1, paragraph 1, with effect from the date of notification of this decision.\nArticle 3\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1, paragraph 1, shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Greece shall ensure that this decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. Within two months following notification of this Decision, Greece shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Greece shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid stipulated in Article 1, paragraph 1, has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 22 February 2012.", "references": ["40", "77", "74", "39", "32", "51", "1", "61", "69", "50", "59", "66", "88", "64", "68", "52", "92", "70", "78", "14", "11", "0", "31", "73", "18", "85", "30", "6", "42", "19", "No Label", "8", "15", "29", "37", "48", "89", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "29", "37", "48", "89", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 16 March 2011\non the approval of plans submitted by third countries in accordance with Article 29 of Council Directive 96/23/EC\n(notified under document C(2011) 1630)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/163/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 29(1) and Article 29(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 96/23/EC lays down measures to monitor the substances and groups of residues listed in Annex I thereto. Pursuant to Directive 96/23/EC, the inclusion and retention on the lists of third countries from which Member States are authorised to import animals and animal products covered by that Directive are subject to the submission by the third countries concerned of a plan setting out the guarantees which they offer as regards the monitoring of the groups of residues and substances listed in that Annex. Those plans are to be updated at the request of the Commission, particularly when certain checks render it necessary.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2004/432/EC of 29 April 2004 on the approval of residue monitoring plans submitted by third countries in accordance with Council Directive 96/23/EC (2) approves the plans provided for in Article 29 of Directive 96/23/EC (the plans) submitted by certain third countries listed in the Annex thereto for the animals and animal products indicated in that list.\n(3)\nIn the light of the recent plans submitted by certain third countries and additional information obtained by the Commission, it is necessary to update the list of third countries from which Member States are authorised to import certain animals and animal products, as provided for in Directive 96/23/EC and currently listed in the Annex to Decision 2004/432/EC (the list).\n(4)\nThe United Arab Emirates has submitted a plan for camel milk to the Commission. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. Therefore, camel milk should be included in the entry for the United Arab Emirates in the list.\n(5)\nBrunei has submitted a plan for aquaculture to the Commission. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. Therefore, Brunei should be included in the list as regards aquaculture.\n(6)\nThe Commission requested that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia provide information on the implementation of its plan for equidae for slaughter. In the absence of a reply from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia there are not sufficient guarantees for approval. The entry for that third country concerning equidae for slaughter should therefore be deleted from the list. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has been informed accordingly.\n(7)\nThe entry for Malaysia in the list includes poultry but the plan provided by Malaysia and the additional information obtained by the Commission do not provide sufficient guarantees in respect of poultry. However, the only establishment processing such raw material currently approved in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (3) imports all its raw material from a Member State. In order to permit the continuation of that activity, the entry for Malaysia should include poultry but it should be restricted to raw material imported from other third countries included in the list for such material or from Member States. Malaysia has been informed accordingly. A footnote setting out this limitation should be included in the list for that third country.\n(8)\nThe Commission requested that Russia provide information on the implementation of its plan for equidae for slaughter. In the absence of a reply from Russia there are not sufficient guarantees for approval. The entry for that third country concerning equidae for slaughter should be deleted from the list. Russia has been informed accordingly.\n(9)\nThe Commission requested that Ukraine provide information on the implementation of its plan for equine animals and products. In the absence of a reply from Ukraine there are not sufficient guarantees for approval. The entry for that third country concerning equine animals and products should be deleted from the list. Ukraine has been informed accordingly.\n(10)\nThe United States has been asked to provide information on the implementation of its plan for equine animals and products. However, the United States did not provide the respective guarantees as the slaughter of equidae for export to the Union has ceased in that third country. The entry for that that third country concerning equine animals and products should therefore be deleted from the list. The United States has been informed accordingly.\n(11)\nA Commission inspection to Uruguay has revealed serious shortcomings concerning the implementation of the plan for rabbit and farmed game. For rabbit, there was no residue monitoring plan in place and for farmed game, no sampling or testing was possible because of a cessation in production. The entries for Uruguay concerning rabbit and farmed game should therefore be deleted from the list. Uruguay has been informed accordingly.\n(12)\nCertain third countries export animal products derived from raw material originating from Member States or from other third countries that comply with the provisions of Directive 96/23/EC for such materials and which are therefore included in the list. In order to ensure that animal products imported into the Union are covered by an approved plan, third countries that import such raw material for subsequent export to the Union should include a statement in their plan to that effect.\n(13)\nIn order to avoid any disruption to trade, a transitional period should be laid down to cover the relevant consignments from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Russia, Ukraine and Uruguay, which were dispatched to the Union before the date of application of this Decision.\n(14)\nDecision 2004/432/EC has been amended several times. In the interests of clarity of Union legislation, it should be repealed and replaced by this Decision.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe plans provided for in Article 29 of Directive 96/23/EC submitted to the Commission by the third countries listed in the table set out in the Annex are approved for the animals and animal products that are intended for human consumption and marked with an \u2018X\u2019 in that table.\nArticle 2\n1. Third countries using raw material imported from other third countries approved for production of food of animal origin in accordance with this Decision or from Member States to be exported to the European Union and which are unable to provide a residue monitoring plan equivalent to that required by Article 7 of Directive 96/23/EC for such raw material shall complement the plan with the following statement:\n\u2018The competent authority of [third country] ensures that animal products for human consumption exported to the European Union, in particular products produced from raw material imported into [third country], shall only come from establishments approved in accordance to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and having reliable procedures in place to guarantee that raw material of animal origin used in such food originates only from Member States of the European Union or third countries listed for the respective raw material in the Annex to Commission Decision 2011/163/EU without a restrictive footnote as provided for in Article 2(2) of the Decision.\u2019.\n2. The entry in the Annex to this Decision of a third country exporting animal products for human consumption produced only with raw material of animal origin obtained from Member States of the Union or from third countries that provided a plan in accordance with Article 29 of Directive 96/23/EC shall be complemented with the following restrictive footnote:\n\u2018Third countries using only raw material either from other third countries approved for imports of such raw material to the Union or from Member States, in accordance with Article 2.\u2019.\nArticle 3\n1. For a transitional period until 30 April 2011, Member States shall accept consignments from Uruguay of rabbit and farmed game and consignments of equine animal products from Ukraine provided that the importer can demonstrate that such consignments were certified and dispatched from Uruguay or Ukraine to the Union prior to 15 March 2011 in accordance with Decision 2004/432/EC.\n2. For a transitional period until 25 March 2011, Member States shall accept consignments from former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Russia or Ukraine of equidae for slaughter provided that the importer of such animals can demonstrate that they were certified and dispatched from former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Russia and Ukraine to the Union prior to 15 March 2011 in accordance with Decision 2004/432/EC.\nArticle 4\nDecision 2004/432/EC is repealed.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nIt shall apply from 15 March 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 16 March 2011.", "references": ["45", "21", "46", "89", "55", "86", "51", "65", "93", "90", "6", "34", "16", "43", "84", "87", "42", "14", "0", "47", "81", "41", "8", "74", "1", "26", "75", "95", "68", "20", "No Label", "4", "38", "60", "61", "66", "69"], "gold": ["4", "38", "60", "61", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1196/2010\nof 14 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for deep-sea sharks in Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of X by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (2) lays down quotas for 2009 and 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["52", "70", "2", "40", "54", "93", "20", "41", "6", "32", "64", "18", "79", "48", "82", "25", "12", "58", "87", "35", "84", "5", "34", "23", "17", "38", "72", "57", "80", "21", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 156/2011\nof 13 December 2010\nconcerning the allocation of the fishing opportunities under the Protocol to the Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Federated States of Micronesia on fishing in the Federated States of Micronesia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA new Protocol (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019) to the Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Federated States of Micronesia on fishing in the Federated States of Micronesia (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was initialled on 7 May 2010. The Protocol provides EU vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which the Federated States of Micronesia has sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries.\n(2)\nOn 13 December 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2011/116/EU (2) on the signing and on the provisional application of the Protocol.\n(3)\nThe method for allocating the fishing opportunities among the Member States should be defined for the five-year period set out in Article 13 of the Protocol as well as for the period of its provisional application.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 of 29 September 2008 concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters (3), if it appears that the fishing opportunities allocated to the European Union under the Protocol are not fully utilised, the Commission should inform the Member States concerned. The absence of a reply within a deadline to be set by the Council shall be considered as confirmation that the vessels of the Member State concerned are not making full use of their fishing opportunities in the given period. That deadline should be set.\n(5)\nThis Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The fishing opportunities set out in the Protocol to the Agreement shall be allocated among the Member States as follows:\n(a)\nTuna purse seiners:\nSpain\n5 vessels\nFrance\n1 vessel\n(b)\nSurface longliners:\nSpain\n12 vessels\n2. Without prejudice to the Agreement and the Protocol, Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 shall apply.\n3. If applications for fishing authorisations from the Member States referred to in paragraph 1 do not cover all the fishing opportunities set by the Protocol, the Commission shall consider applications for fishing authorisations from any other Member State in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008.\nThe deadline referred to in Article 10(1) of that Regulation shall be set at 10 working days.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["33", "61", "86", "70", "15", "53", "55", "72", "14", "24", "94", "0", "80", "16", "87", "98", "64", "36", "29", "43", "34", "49", "13", "1", "84", "12", "52", "89", "45", "46", "No Label", "3", "9", "67", "95"], "gold": ["3", "9", "67", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 665/2010\nof 23 July 2010\non the issue of licences for importing rice under the tariff quotas opened for the July 2010 subperiod by Regulation (EC) No 327/98\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 of 10 February 1998 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (3), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 327/98 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 IX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nJuly is the third subperiod for the quota laid down in Article 1(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98 and the second subperiod for the quotas laid down in Article 1(1)(b), (c) and (d).\n(3)\nThe notifications presented under Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98 show that, for the quotas with order numbers 09.4154 - 09.4166, the applications lodged in the first ten working days of July 2010 under Article 4(1) of the Regulation cover a quantity greater than that available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested under the quotas concerned.\n(4)\nIt is also clear from the notifications that, for the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4129 - 09.4149 - 09.4150 - 09.4152 - 09.4153, the applications lodged in the first 10 working days of July 2010 under Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98 cover a quantity less than that available.\n(5)\nThe total quantities available for the following subperiod should therefore be fixed for the quotas with order numbers 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 Regulation (EC) No 327/98.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. For import licence applications for rice under the quotas with order numbers 09.4154 - 09.4166 as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98 lodged in the first ten working days of July 2010, licences shall be issued for the quantities requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The total quantities available under the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4129 - 09.4130 - 09.4148 - 09.4112 - 09.4116 - 09.4117 - 09.4118 - 09.4119 - 09.4166 as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98 for the next subperiod are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2010.", "references": ["0", "20", "2", "87", "84", "5", "35", "47", "99", "85", "97", "58", "75", "28", "41", "29", "90", "51", "39", "11", "63", "43", "73", "49", "23", "80", "7", "78", "8", "1", "No Label", "4", "21", "66", "68"], "gold": ["4", "21", "66", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 604/2010\nof 8 July 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 592/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 July 2010.", "references": ["9", "73", "45", "87", "4", "20", "1", "94", "88", "66", "65", "5", "98", "24", "33", "19", "64", "31", "39", "44", "99", "78", "14", "82", "36", "63", "62", "21", "53", "32", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 138/2012\nof 16 February 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 78/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 February 2012.", "references": ["46", "1", "75", "69", "87", "93", "40", "27", "60", "16", "20", "83", "2", "96", "65", "41", "77", "88", "58", "12", "82", "6", "95", "94", "8", "89", "98", "66", "85", "29", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 600/2010\nof 8 July 2010\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards additions and modification of the examples of related varieties or other products to which the same MRL applies\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in and on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSeveral Member States have requested minor modifications and additions in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, in the column \u2018Examples of related varieties or other products to which the same MRL applies\u2019.\n(2)\nThese modifications and additions are necessary to include in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 new fruits, vegetables and cereals which have become available on the market in the Member States.\n(3)\nIt is appropriate to add the following fruits, vegetables, cereals and animal products: mineola, sloe, arctic bramble, nectar raspberry, physalis, limequats, mangosteen, dragon fruit (red pitaya), tiger nut (chufa), kiwiberry, lovage roots, angelica roots, gentiana roots, tree tomato, gojiberry, wolfberry, choi sum, portuguese kale, portuguese cabbage, leaves of peas and radish, amaranthus spinach and seeds, agretti, seeds of cucurbitacea other than pumpkin, quinoa, elderflowers, ginkgo leaves, edible flowers, mint and game. Cowberries are moved from the category blueberries into the category cranberries. The Latin name for grapes is changed according to the international nomenclature.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 July 2010.", "references": ["5", "35", "56", "53", "0", "52", "8", "18", "86", "63", "28", "3", "47", "79", "45", "36", "22", "93", "92", "15", "75", "67", "90", "2", "25", "77", "78", "10", "12", "84", "No Label", "38", "65", "66", "69", "72", "76"], "gold": ["38", "65", "66", "69", "72", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 December 2011\nconcerning the specific programme, to be carried out by means of direct actions by the Joint Research Centre, implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013)\n(2012/95/Euratom)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission submitted after consultation of the Scientific and Technical Committee,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2012/93/Euratom of 19 December 2011 concerning the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for research and training activities (2012-2013) (3) (hereinafter \u2018the Framework Programme\u2019) the Framework Programme is to be implemented through specific programmes that define detailed rules for their implementation, fix their duration and provide for the means deemed necessary.\n(2)\nThe Framework Programme comprises two types of activities: indirect actions in fusion energy research and research on nuclear fission, safety and radiation protection, and direct actions for activities of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in the field of nuclear waste management, environmental impact, safety and security, especially related to nuclear events and taking into account lessons learned from previous experiences. The direct actions should be implemented by this specific programme.\n(3)\nThe JRC should implement the research and training activities to be carried out by means of direct actions under this specific programme.\n(4)\nIn implementing its mission, the JRC should provide customer-driven scientific and technical support to the Union policymaking process, ensuring support for the implementation and monitoring of existing policies and responding to new policy demands. In order to achieve its mission, the JRC should carry out research of the highest European quality, including by maintaining its own level of scientific excellence.\n(5)\nIn implementing this specific programme, emphasis should be given to promoting the mobility and training of researchers and promoting innovation, in the Union. In particular, the JRC should provide appropriate training in nuclear safety and security.\n(6)\nThis specific programme should be implemented in a flexible, efficient and transparent manner, taking into account the relevant needs of the JRC users and Union policies, while protecting the Union financial interests. The research activities carried out under this specific programme should be adapted where appropriate to these needs and to scientific and technological developments and aim to achieve scientific excellence.\n(7)\nFor implementing this specific programme, cooperation under the Agreement on the European Economic Area or under an Association Agreement may be complemented by international cooperation, in particular on the basis of Article 2(h), Article 101 and Article 102 of the Treaty, with third countries and international organisations.\n(8)\nIn the context of enlargement and integration activities, the JRC aims to promote the integration of the organisations and researchers of new Member States within its activities in particular for implementing of the science and technology components of the Union acquis, as well as increased cooperation with organisations and researchers from accession and candidate countries. A progressive opening should also be envisaged towards the neighbouring countries, specifically on priority topics of the European Neighbourhood Policy.\n(9)\nThe JRC should continue to generate additional resources through competitive activities. These include participation in the indirect actions of the Framework Programme, third-party work and, to a lesser extent, the exploitation of intellectual property.\n(10)\nSound financial management of this specific programme and its implementation should be ensured in an effective and user-friendly manner, while ensuring legal certainty and the accessibility of the results of the programme for all participants, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4) and Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5).\n(11)\nAppropriate measures - proportionate to the Union\u2019s financial interests - should be taken to monitor both the effectiveness of the financial support granted and the effectiveness of the utilisation of these funds in order to prevent irregularities and fraud. The necessary steps should be taken to recover funds lost, wrongly paid or incorrectly used in accordance with Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (6), Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities\u2019 financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (7) and Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (8).\n(12)\nThe Commission should in due course arrange for an independent assessment to be conducted concerning the activities carried out in the fields covered by this specific programme.\n(13)\nResearch activities carried out within this specific programme should respect fundamental ethical principles, including those reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe specific programme, to be carried out by means of direct actions by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013) (hereinafter the \u2018specific programme\u2019), is adopted for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013.\nArticle 2\nThe specific programme shall establish the activities for the nuclear actions of the JRC, supporting the whole range of research actions carried out in trans-national cooperation in the following thematic areas:\n(a)\nnuclear waste management, environmental impact and basic knowledge;\n(b)\nnuclear safety of reactor systems of relevance to Europe;\n(c)\nnuclear security (including nuclear safeguards, non-proliferation, combating illicit trafficking and nuclear forensics).\nThe objectives and broad lines of the activities referred to in the first paragraph are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 3\nIn accordance with Article 3 of Decision 2012/93/Euratom, the maximum amount for the execution of the specific programme is EUR 233 216 000.\nArticle 4\nAll research activities carried out under the specific programme shall be carried out in compliance with fundamental ethical principles.\nArticle 5\nThe specific programme shall be implemented by means of direct actions as established in Annex II to Decision 2012/93/Euratom.\nArticle 6\n1. The Commission shall draw up a multiannual work programme for the implementation of the specific programme, setting out in greater detail the objectives and scientific and technological priorities set out in the Annex, and the timetable for implementation.\n2. The multiannual work programme shall take account of relevant research activities carried out by the Member States, associated states and European and international organisations. It shall be updated where appropriate.\nArticle 7\nThe Commission shall arrange for the independent monitoring, assessment and review provided for in Article 6 of Decision 2012/93/Euratom to be conducted concerning the activities carried out in the fields covered by the specific programme.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["5", "1", "67", "66", "57", "94", "2", "16", "25", "19", "97", "73", "41", "37", "93", "34", "14", "72", "51", "23", "21", "24", "28", "71", "47", "54", "45", "70", "63", "0", "No Label", "7", "9", "58", "60", "77", "81"], "gold": ["7", "9", "58", "60", "77", "81"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 6 May 2010\namending Parts 1 and 2 of Annex E to Council Directive 92/65/EEC as regards the model health certificates for animals from holdings and for bees and bumble bees\n(notified under document C(2010) 2624)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/270/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 22 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 10 of Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in dogs, cats and ferrets.\n(2)\nPart 1 of Annex E to that Directive sets out the model health certificate for trade in animals from holdings, including dogs, cats and ferrets.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) lays down the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and the rules applying to checks on such movements. It applies to movements between Member States or from third countries of pet animals of the species listed in Annex I thereto. Dogs, cats and ferrets are listed in Parts A and B of that Annex.\n(4)\nThe requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 differ, depending on the Member State of destination and the Member State or third country of origin.\n(5)\nThird countries that apply to non-commercial movement of pet animals rules at least equivalent to the rules provided for in Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 are listed in Section 2 of Part B of Annex II to that Regulation.\n(6)\nIn order to avoid that commercial movements are fraudulently disguised as non-commercial movements of pet animals within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 12 of that Regulation provides that the requirements and checks laid down in Directive 92/65/EEC are to apply to the movement of more than five pet animals where the animals are brought into the Union from a third country other than those listed in Section 2 of Part B of Annex II to that Regulation.\n(7)\nIn addition, Commission Regulation (EU) No 388/2010 of 6 May 2010 implementing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the maximum number of pet animals of certain species that may be the subject of non-commercial movement (3) provides that the requirements and checks referred to in point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 are to apply also to the movement of pet dogs, cats and ferrets where the total number of animals moved into a Member State from another Member State or a third country listed in Section 2 of Part B of Annex II to that Regulation, exceeds five.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 also provides that for a transitional period the non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets into the territory of Ireland, Malta, Sweden or the United Kingdom is to be subject to certain additional requirements.\n(9)\nDirective 92/65/EEC refers to those additional requirements only as regards trade in dogs, cats and ferrets destined for Ireland, Sweden or the United Kingdom.\n(10)\nThe models for the certificates for intra-Union trade should be compatible with the integrated computerised veterinary system \u2018TRACES\u2019 developed in accordance with Commission Decision 2003/623/EC (4).\n(11)\nTo ensure that the requirements and checks for non-commercial movements of more than five pet dogs, cats and ferrets into all Member States, including Malta, are applied in a uniform manner, it is necessary to adapt the model health certificate set out in Part 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC.\n(12)\nIn addition, the model health certificate for intra-Union trade in live bees (Apis mellifera) and bumble bees (Bombus spp.) is laid down in Part 2 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC.\n(13)\nThat certificate establishes animal health requirements as regards American foulbrood for both bees and bumble bees. These requirements allow only movements of bees and bumble bees from areas that are free of that disease. A 30-day standstill is provided in case of an outbreak and it is applied to an area of three kilometres around the outbreak.\n(14)\nIn most cases, however, bumble bees are bred in environmentally isolated structures that are regularly controlled by the competent authority and checked for the presence of diseases. Such establishments that are recognised by and under the supervision of the competent authority of the Member State concerned are not likely to be affected by the presence of American foulbrood in the three kilometres radius set out in Part 2 of Annex E in contrast with open air colonies.\n(15)\nIt is therefore necessary to amend the model health certificate for intra-Union trade in live bees and bumble bees in order to introduce specific animal health requirements concerning the bumble bees bred in an environmentally isolated structure.\n(16)\nParts 1 and 2 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex E to Directive 92/65/EEC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2010.", "references": ["29", "5", "91", "17", "53", "48", "86", "77", "39", "43", "93", "88", "28", "69", "13", "34", "24", "2", "25", "56", "74", "92", "63", "54", "4", "26", "94", "10", "68", "33", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "38", "66"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "38", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 606/2011\nof 20 June 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for redfish in NAFO 3LN waters by vessels flying the flag of Germany\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["37", "18", "53", "63", "42", "35", "31", "17", "78", "84", "65", "59", "46", "51", "77", "93", "98", "61", "5", "69", "3", "81", "38", "49", "95", "62", "80", "54", "23", "45", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 508/2010\nof 14 June 2010\nprohibiting fishing activities for purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Spain, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic ocean, east of longitude of 45\u00b0 W, and in the Mediterranean sea\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in Community waters and for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated to them for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock carried out by purse seiners flying the flag of, or registered in, that Member State,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the purse seiners of the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, place in cages for fattening or farming, tranship, transfer or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 June 2010", "references": ["83", "62", "74", "50", "42", "6", "51", "59", "22", "0", "71", "90", "84", "28", "60", "85", "58", "72", "89", "1", "36", "40", "45", "4", "13", "92", "39", "73", "75", "15", "No Label", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/68/EU\nof 22 October 2010\namending Council Directive 96/98/EC on marine equipment\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 96/98/EC of 20 December 1996 on marine equipment (1) and in particular Article 17 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor the purposes of Directive 96/98/EC, the international conventions and testing standards should apply in their up-to-date versions.\n(2)\nAs amendments to the international conventions and applicable testing standards have entered into force since 6 April 2009, date on which Directive 96/98/EC was amended for the last time, these amendments should be incorporated into that Directive in the interests of clarity.\n(3)\nThe International Maritime Organisation and the European standardisation organisations have adopted standards, including detailed testing standards, for a number of items of equipment which are listed in Annex A.2 to Directive 96/98/EC or which, albeit not listed, are considered relevant for the purpose of the said Directive. Therefore such items of equipment should be included in Annex A.1 or transferred from Annex A.2 to Annex A.1, as appropriate.\n(4)\nDirective 96/98/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex A to Directive 96/98/EC is replaced by the text in Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nWhere equipment listed as \u2018new item\u2019 in column 1 of Annex A.1 or as having been transferred from Annex A.2 to Annex A.1 was manufactured before the date referred to in Article 3(1) in accordance with procedures for type-approval already in force before that date within the territory of a Member State, such equipment may be placed on the market and on board a Community ship during the two years following the said date.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 10 December 2011 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 10 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 October 2010.", "references": ["49", "42", "93", "89", "95", "45", "77", "73", "22", "15", "66", "59", "58", "4", "52", "32", "87", "65", "41", "97", "13", "96", "81", "74", "38", "17", "48", "16", "10", "54", "No Label", "53", "56", "76", "99"], "gold": ["53", "56", "76", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 457/2010\nof 26 May 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 452/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 May 2010.", "references": ["44", "81", "21", "78", "97", "94", "67", "46", "7", "76", "51", "66", "47", "14", "87", "1", "69", "12", "41", "9", "15", "91", "39", "83", "54", "31", "93", "84", "5", "45", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1238/2011\nof 30 November 2011\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011 fixing the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2011/2012 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 61, first paragraph, point (d), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the sugar and isoglucose produced during a marketing year in excess of the quota referred to in Article 56 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed.\n(2)\nDetailed implementing rules for out-of-quota exports, in particular concerning the issue of export licences, are laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2). However, the quantitative limit should be fixed per marketing year in view of the possible opportunities on the export markets.\n(3)\nFor the 2011/2012 marketing year, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011 (3) fixed the quantitative limit for the exports at 650 000 tonnes in the case of out-of-quota sugar and at 50 000 tonnes in the case of out-of-quota isoglcuose. Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011 is to apply only as from 1 January 2012 and thus applications for export licences cannot be submitted before that date in respect of the quantitative limits fixed by that Regulation.\n(4)\nAccording to most recent estimates the production of out-of-quota sugar could increase considerably in marketing year 2011/2012 due to excellent weather conditions and increased sowing area. Production of out-of-quota sugar is expected to increase from 2 333 000 t in 2010/2011 to 4 920 000 tonnes in 2011/2012 and therefore additional market outlets for out-of-quota sugar should be ensured.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 of 7 May 2010 fixing the quantitative limit for exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2010/2011 marketing year (4) fixed the quantitative limit for exports of out-of-quota isoglucose initially at 50 000 tonnes. In view of the strong export demand that quantity was increased to 65 000 tonnes by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 852/2011 of 24 August 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 as regards the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota isoglucose until the end of the 2010/11 marketing year (5).\n(6)\nTaking into account that the WTO ceiling for exports in the 2011/2012 marketing year has not been fully used, it is appropriate to increase the export quantitative limit of out-of-quota sugar by 700 000 tonnes, to exploit all possible outlet for the product available. This measure will provide additional business opportunities for the Union sugar sector. Similarly, on the basis of the experience of the 2010/2011 marketing year, the quantitative limit for out-of-quota isoglucose exports should be increased by 20 000 tonnes. In order that Union manufacturers of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose can exploit market opportunities on their export markets and benefit from current high international prices it is appropriate to make available the increased quantities before 1 January 2012. To ensure good management of the market, applications for licenses for the 700 000 tonnes should be allowed as of 1 December 2011 whereas applications for licenses for the 650 000 tonnes should only be allowed as of 1 January 2012. Therefore, for the quantity of 700 000 tonnes it is necessary to provide for a derogation from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1010/2011 (6).\n(7)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011 should be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. For the 2011/2012 marketing year, running from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012, the quantitative limit referred to in Article 61, first subparagraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be 1 350 000 tonnes for exports without refund of out-of-quota white sugar falling within CN code 1701 99. This quantity shall be broken down as follows:\n(a)\n700 000 tonnes shall be available as from 1 December 2011; and\n(b)\n650 000 tonnes shall be available as from 1 January 2012.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. Article 1, paragraph 3 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1010/2011 (7) shall not apply to the quantity of 700 000 tonnes which will be available as of 1 December 2011 in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article.\n(2)\nArticle 2(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. For the 2011/2012 marketing year, running from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012, the quantitative limit referred to in Article 61, first subparagraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be 70 000 tonnes, in dry matter, for exports without refund of out-of-quota isoglucose falling within CN codes 1702 40 10, 1702 60 10 and 1702 90 30.\u2019;\n(3)\nIn Article 3, the second paragraph is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["73", "12", "1", "44", "39", "25", "19", "6", "42", "3", "28", "32", "55", "77", "2", "29", "60", "47", "72", "65", "92", "83", "74", "31", "7", "64", "11", "8", "68", "10", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "48", "71", "75"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "48", "71", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 443/2012\nof 24 May 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 439/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 May 2012.", "references": ["55", "62", "87", "8", "63", "44", "17", "39", "76", "51", "77", "96", "90", "54", "86", "15", "23", "67", "21", "1", "45", "70", "5", "89", "38", "81", "40", "34", "57", "11", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 April 2011\non the recognition of Tunisia as regards education, training and certification of seafarers for the recognition of certificates of competency\n(notified under document C(2011) 2754)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/259/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1), and in particular Article 19(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the letter of 9 March 2006 from the French Authorities, requesting the recognition of Tunisia in order to recognise certificates of competency issued by that country,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMember States may decide to endorse seafarers\u2019 certificates of competency issued by third countries, provided that the relevant third country is recognised by the Commission as ensuring that this country complies with the requirements of the international Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW Convention) (2).\n(2)\nFollowing the request of the French Authorities, the Commission assessed the maritime education, training and certification systems in Tunisia in order to verify whether this country complies with the requirements of the STCW Convention and whether appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. This assessment was based on the results of a fact-finding inspection performed by experts of the European Maritime Safety Agency in April 2007.\n(3)\nThe Commission provided the Member States with a report on the results of the assessment of compliance.\n(4)\nSubsequently, the Commission requested the Tunisian Authorities, by letter of 28 January 2009 to provide evidence demonstrating whether the deficiencies detected during the assessment were adequately addressed.\n(5)\nThe Tunisian Authorities provided, by letter of 25 November 2009, the requested information and evidence concerning the implementation of appropriate and sufficient corrective action to address all of the deficiencies identified during the assessment of compliance.\n(6)\nThe outcome of the assessment of compliance and the evaluation of the information provided by the Tunisian Authorities demonstrate that Tunisia complies with the relevant requirements of the STCW Convention, while this country has taken appropriate measures to prevent fraud involving certificates and should thus be recognised by the Union.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nTunisia is recognised as regards education, training and certification of seafarers, for the purpose of recognition of certificates of competency issued by that country.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2011.", "references": ["58", "44", "83", "35", "31", "7", "3", "22", "12", "57", "42", "37", "84", "39", "82", "36", "15", "78", "9", "19", "97", "24", "10", "93", "1", "90", "69", "65", "28", "32", "No Label", "49", "50", "54", "56", "94"], "gold": ["49", "50", "54", "56", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 199/2012\nof 8 March 2012\nfixing the standard values to be used in calculating the financial compensation and the advance pertaining thereto in respect of fishery products withdrawn from the market during the 2012 fishing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1), and in particular Article 21(5) and (8) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 104/2000 provides for financial compensation to be paid to producer organisations which withdraw on certain conditions the products listed in parts A and B of Annex I to that Regulation. The amount of such financial compensation should be reduced by standard values in the case of products intended for purposes other than human consumption.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2493/2001 of 19 December 2001 on the disposal of certain fishery products which have been withdrawn from the market (2) specifies the ways of disposing of the products withdrawn from the market. The value of such products should be fixed at a standard level for each of these modes of disposal, taking into account the average revenues which may be obtained from such disposal in the various Member States.\n(3)\nUnder Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2509/2000 of 15 November 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards granting financial compensation for withdrawals of certain fishery products (3), special rules provide that, where a producer organisation or one of its members puts its products up for sale in a Member State other than the country in which it is recognised, that body responsible for granting the financial compensation must be informed. This body is the one in the Member State in which the producer organisation is recognised. The standard value deductible should therefore be the value applied in that Member State.\n(4)\nThe same method of calculation should be applied to advances on financial compensation as provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2509/2000.\n(5)\nIn order not to hinder the operation of the intervention system in the year 2012, this Regulation should apply retroactively from 1 January 2012.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 2012 fishing year, the standard values to be used in calculating financial compensation and associated advances for fishery products withdrawn from the market by producer organisations and intended for purposes other than human consumption, as referred to in Article 21(5) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe standard value to be deducted from financial compensation and associated advances shall be that applied in the Member State in which the producer organisation is recognised.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2012.", "references": ["41", "74", "63", "21", "28", "0", "42", "19", "97", "31", "18", "39", "91", "50", "46", "27", "98", "86", "61", "57", "85", "2", "68", "90", "12", "56", "43", "24", "51", "77", "No Label", "4", "15", "20", "38", "62", "67"], "gold": ["4", "15", "20", "38", "62", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 397/2011\nof 20 April 2011\nnot fixing a minimum selling price in response to the twentieth individual invitation to tender for the sale of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the twentieth individual invitation to tender, no minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the twentieth individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 19 April 2011, no minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be fixed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["5", "13", "78", "39", "15", "76", "22", "36", "57", "18", "62", "54", "95", "85", "47", "56", "77", "45", "66", "38", "14", "60", "29", "80", "19", "16", "84", "41", "91", "86", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1030/2010\nof 17 November 2010\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 and Article 11(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (Commission) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nThe Council, following an anti-dumping investigation (the original investigation), by Regulation (EC) No 1467/2004 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating, inter alia, in the People\u2019s Republic of China (the definitive anti-dumping measures). The duty levels imposed were up to 22,9 % corresponding to 184 EUR/tonne for imports originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the country concerned\u2019 or \u2018the PRC\u2019).\n(2)\nFollowing a \u2018new exporter\u2019 review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 2167/2005 (3), amended Regulation (EC) No 1467/2004.\n2. Request for a review\n(3)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry (4) of the definitive anti-dumping measures in force, on 13 May 2009, the Commission received a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged by the Polyethylene Terephthalate Committee of Plastics Europe (the applicant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of total Union production of PET.\n(4)\nThe request for the expiry review was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.\n(5)\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee, the Commission determined that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review. Accordingly, on 18 August 2009, the Commission announced by a notice of initiation (5) (the notice of initiation), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n3. Parallel proceedings\n(6)\nIt is noted that on 3 September 2009, the Commission also announced the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding (6) pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation and an anti-subsidy proceeding (7) pursuant to Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not member of the European Community (8) concerning imports of certain PET originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.\n(7)\nThe Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthlate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates by Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 published on 29 September 2010 (9). At the same time the Commission terminated the anti-dumping proceeding (10).\n4. Investigation\n4.1. Investigation period\n(8)\nThe investigation of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the RIP (period considered).\n4.2. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(9)\nThe Commission officially advised the complaining producers, other known Union producers, importers/traders, users known to be concerned and their associations, exporting producers and representatives of the exporting country concerned, of the initiation of the expiry review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(10)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(11)\nIn view of the apparent high number of Union producers, exporting producers and importers, it was considered appropriate, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to examine whether sampling should be used. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation.\n(12)\nFourteen Union producers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. On the basis of the information received from the cooperating Union producers, the Commission selected a sample of five Union producers representing 65 % of the sales by all cooperating Union producers to unrelated customers in the EU.\n(13)\nAs only two Chinese exporting producers came forward with the requested information, it was not necessary to select a sample.\n(14)\nOnly one importing agent provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. Consequently, no sampling with regard to unrelated importers was necessary.\n(15)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the sampled Union producers, to exporting producers, and to all users and suppliers known to be concerned as well as to those that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. Questionnaires were also sent to known producers in the USA (the envisaged analogue country).\n(16)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from the five sampled Union producers, seven users in the Union, three suppliers of raw materials, and two producers in the USA. In addition, seven cooperating Union producers provided the requested general data for the injury analysis. No questionnaire replies, however, were submitted by the Chinese exporting producers.\n(17)\nIn the course of the investigation, one of the five sampled Union producers was not in a position to provide all requested data and the sample consequently had to be reduced to four producers representing 47 % of the sales by all cooperating producers.\n(18)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nUnion producers\n-\nNovapet SA, Spain,\n-\nEquipolymers SRL, Italy,\n-\nUAB Orion Global PET (Indorama), Lithuania,\n-\nUAB Neo Group, Lithuania;\n(b)\nUsers in the Union\n-\nPuccetti, Italy;\n(c)\nProducers in the USA\n-\nM & G Polymers USA, LLC, USA,\n-\nStarPet Inc., USA.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(19)\nThe product concerned is the same as the one in the original investigation, i.e. polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 39076020 and originating in the PRC.\n(20)\nThe review investigation confirmed the finding of the original investigation that the product concerned, and the products manufactured and sold by the exporting producers on their domestic market and to third countries, as well as those manufactured and sold by the Union industry have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and uses. Therefore, these products are considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(21)\nAs explained above, it was not necessary to apply sampling in respect of exporting producers in the PRC.\n(22)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.\n2. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n(23)\nGiven the absence of significant import volumes from the PRC into the Union, these did not form a basis for a representative dumping finding. Therefore, no dumping calculation was made on the basis of the export prices from the PRC and the investigation therefore focused on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping.\n3. Development of imports should measures be repealed\n(24)\nGiven the fact that no exporting producer in the PRC cooperated in this investigation, the conclusions below rely on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, namely Eurostat data and the review request.\n3.1. Relationship between the normal value and export prices to third countries\n(25)\nSince no exporting producer in the PRC cooperated, domestic sales prices of a market economy third country were compared to export prices from the PRC to third countries in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.\n(26)\nSince the PRC is an economy in transition and in accordance with the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value had to be determined on the basis of the price or constructed normal value obtained in an appropriate market economy third country (the analogue country), or the price from the analogue country to other countries, including the Union, or, where those are not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit margin.\n(27)\nIn the notice of initiation, it was envisaged to use the USA as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC and interested parties were invited to comment on the appropriateness of this choice. No comments or objections were received from any parties in this respect. The USA was used as an analogue country in the original investigation. It is therefore considered that the USA is an appropriate analogue country.\n(28)\nPursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, normal value was established on the basis of the verified information received from producers in the analogue country, i.e. on the basis of prices paid or payable on the domestic market in the USA, for product types which were found to be sold in the ordinary course of trade.\n(29)\nAs a result, normal value was established as the weighted average domestic sales price to unrelated customers by the cooperating producers in the USA.\n(30)\nIt was first established for each of the two US cooperating exporting producers whether their total domestic sales of the like product to independent customers were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. whether they accounted for 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the product concerned exported to the Union. The domestic sales of both US producers were considered sufficiently representative during the investigation period.\n(31)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of the like product could be regarded as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for the like product sold on the US market the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers during the RIP.\n(32)\nSince the volume of profitable sales of the like product represented less than 80 % of the total sales volume of the like product, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales.\n(33)\nAs explained above, in the absence of significant import volumes and in view of the absence of any cooperation from PRC exporting producers, the export price was examined on the basis of data available from PRC export statistics on the quantity and value of exports from the PRC to its three most important export markets (Japan, Ukraine, United States), this being the best information available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. Exports to these markets represented approximately 50 % of PRC exports of the product under investigation.\n(34)\nData from the PRC export statistics showed that export prices to the above mentioned third countries were lower than the established normal value for the PRC. In fact, the investigation found that overall this price difference ranged in the RIP between 14 % and 38 %. This indicates a likelihood of recurrence of dumping on exports to the Union should measures be repealed.\n3.2. Spare capacities\n(35)\nIn the absence of other information concerning production and capacity, the analysis was made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation on the basis of the information contained in the review request.\n(36)\nOn the basis of the information available, and in the absence of any information pointing to the contrary, production capacity in the PRC increased by 16 % over the period considered. During the RIP, the capacity utilisation was at a level of approximately 72 %. The spare capacity was therefore substantial and was in excess of 700 000 tonnes. By activating this spare capacity, Chinese production could supply up to 23 % of the Union consumption.\n(37)\nIn addition, since production capacity in the PRC is expected to increase at a much higher rate than domestic demand, it is anticipated that a large part of any increase in production will be export oriented.\n4. Conclusion on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping\n(38)\nGiven that the prices of exports of the product under investigation to the PRC\u2019s main export markets are below the normal value established during the RIP, and on the basis of the increasing spare capacity, it is likely that the volume of Chinese exports into the EU would increase at dumped prices should measures lapse.\n(39)\nIn the light of the above, there is a likelihood of recurrence of dumping should measures be repealed.\nD. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(40)\nDuring the RIP, the like product was manufactured by 17 producers in the Union. The output of these producers (established on the basis of the information collected from the cooperating producers and, for the other Union producers, on the data from the review request) is therefore deemed to constitute the Union production within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(41)\nOf these 17 producers, 12 producers fully cooperated with the investigation. These 12 producers were found to account for a major proportion, in this case more than 80 %, of the total Union production of the like product. The 12 cooperating producers therefore constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation and are hereafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019. The remaining Union producers are hereafter referred to as the \u2018other Union producers\u2019. These other Union producers have not actively supported or opposed the complaint.\n(42)\nFor the purpose of the injury analysis, the injury indicators have been established at the following two levels:\n-\nthe macroeconomic elements (production, capacity, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity, average unit prices and magnitude of dumping margins and recovery from the effects of past dumping) were assessed at the level of the whole Union production, on the basis of the information collected from the producers that came forward in the context of the sampling exercise and on an estimation based on the data from the review request for the other Union producers,\n-\nthe analysis of microeconomic elements (stocks, wages, profitability, return on investments, cash flow, ability to raise capital and investments) was carried out for the sampled Union producers on the basis of their information.\n(43)\nIt is noted that the EU market for PET is characterised by a relatively high number of producers, belonging usually to bigger groups with headquarters outside the EU. The market is in a process of consolidation with a number of recent takeovers and closures. For instance, since 2009, PET production plants of Tergal Fibers (France), Invista (Germany) and Artenius (UK) closed while Indorama took over the former Eastman plants in the UK and the Netherlands.\nE. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Union consumption\n(44)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market, the import volumes data for the Union market obtained from Eurostat and, concerning the other Union producers, from estimations based on the review request.\n(45)\nUnion consumption of the product under investigation increased between 2006 and the RIP by 11 %. In detail, the apparent demand grew in 2007 by 8 %, decreased slightly between 2007 and 2008 (by 2 percentage points) and increased by further 5 percentage points between 2008 and the RIP.\nTable 1\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nTotal EU consumption (tonnes)\n2 709 400\n2 936 279\n2 868 775\n2 996 698\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n108\n106\n111\nSource: Questionnaire replies. Eurostat data and review request.\n2. Volume, market share and prices of imports from the People\u2019s Republic of China\n(46)\nThe volume of dumped imports of the product concerned into the EU remained relatively low and even decreased in the period considered. It reached 13 483 tonnes in the RIP, corresponding to a market share of 0,4 %. Prices of Chinese imports remained stable between 2006 and 2008 and then sharply decreased to 897 EUR/tonne at CIF level in the RIP, i.e. by 12 percentage points in relation to prices during 2008.\nTable 2\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from the PRC (tonnes)\n16 425\n20 159\n18 001\n13 483\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n123\n110\n82\nMarket share of imports from the PRC\n0,6 %\n0,7 %\n0,6 %\n0,4 %\nPrice of imports (EUR/tonne)\n1 011\n1 008\n1 020\n897\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n100\n101\n89\nSource: Eurostat.\n3. Imports from other third countries\n(a) Imports from Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates\n(47)\nAs mentioned above, in recitals 6 et seq., an anti-dumping and an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of PET from Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates were conducted in parallel to the current review.\n(48)\nThe volume of imports from Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates into the EU increased significantly in the period considered and reached 304 202 tonnes in the RIP, corresponding to a market share of 10,2 %. Prices of these imports were even lower than the prices of imports from the PRC.\nTable 3\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (tonnes)\n55 939\n67 067\n218 248\n304 202\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n120\n390\n544\nMarket share of imports from Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates\n2,1 %\n2,3 %\n7,6 %\n10,2 %\nPrice of imports (EUR/tonne)\n1 030\n1 023\n1 015\n882\nSource: Eurostat.\n(b) Imports from the Republic of Korea\n(49)\nThe Republic of Korea has been subject to anti-dumping duties since 2000. However, two Korean companies are subject to a zero anti-dumping duty and the investigation established that imports from the Republic of Korea remain at a high level and increased significantly in the period considered. The Korean imports increased by almost 150 % between 2006 and the RIP and their corresponding market share increased from 3,5 % in 2006 to 7,7 % in the RIP.\nTable 4\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from South Korea (tonnes)\n94 023\n130 994\n177 341\n231 107\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n139\n189\n246\nMarket share of imports from South Korea\n3,5 %\n4,5 %\n6,2 %\n7,7 %\nPrice of imports (EUR/tonne)\n1 084\n1 071\n1 063\n914\nSource: Eurostat.\n(50)\nThe average price of the Korean imports remained in general slightly below the average prices of the Union producers. However, the Korean prices were higher than the average prices from the PRC.\n(c) Imports from other third countries not mentioned above\n(51)\nThe volume of imports from other third countries of the product concerned into the EU increased slightly in the period considered and reached 428 396 tonnes in the RIP, corresponding to a market share of 14,3 %. Prices of these imports are relatively high and above the respective prices from the PRC and the countries in the parallel investigations, as well as above the average level of prices of the Union industry.\nTable 5\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from other third countries (tonnes)\n337 036\n407 253\n344 626\n428 396\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n121\n102\n127\nMarket share of imports from other third countries\n12,4 %\n13,9 %\n12,0 %\n14,3 %\nPrice of imports (EUR/tonne)\n1 159\n1 127\n1 135\n978\nSource: Eurostat.\n(52)\nIt can be concluded from the above that the imports from the other third countries did not have any negative bearing on the situation of the Union industry.\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(53)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation all economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered have been examined.\n4.1. Macroeconomic elements\n(a) Production\n(54)\nThe Union production decreased by 4 % between 2006 and the RIP. More specifically, it increased by 5 % in 2007 to around 2 570 000 tonnes, but sharply decreased by 10 percentage points in 2008 compared to 2007 and slightly increased by 1 percentage point between 2008 and the RIP, when it reached around 2 300 000 tonnes.\nTable 6\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProduction (tonnes)\n2 439 838\n2 570 198\n2 327 169\n2 338 577\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n105\n95\n96\nSource: Questionnaire replies and review request.\n(b) Production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(55)\nThe production capacity of the Union producers increased by 15 % throughout the period considered. Specifically, it increased by 1 % in 2007, by further 5 percentage points in 2008 and by even further 9 percentage points in the RIP.\nTable 7\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProduction capacity (tonnes)\n2 954 089\n2 971 034\n3 118 060\n3 385 738\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n101\n106\n115\nCapacity utilisation\n83 %\n87 %\n75 %\n69 %\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n105\n90\n84\nSource: Questionnaire replies and review request.\n(56)\nCapacity utilisation was 83 % in 2006, increased to 87 % in 2007 but later dropped to 75 % in 2008 and to only 69 % in the RIP. The dropping utilisation rate in 2008 and the RIP reflected the decreased production and increased production capacity in this period.\n(c) Sales volume\n(57)\nThe sales volume of the Union producers to unrelated customers on the Union market modestly decreased in the period considered. The sales increased by 5 % in 2007, but in the following year decreased slightly below the 2006 level, and in the RIP they were 3 % lower that in 2006, at around 2 100 000 tonnes. Given the limited volume of stocks, the development of sales closely reflects the development in the production.\nTable 8\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nEU sales (tonnes)\n2 202 265\n2 318 567\n2 171 203\n2 133 787\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n105\n99\n97\nSource: Questionnaire replies and review request.\n(d) Market share\n(58)\nDuring the period considered, the Union producers lost 10 percentage points of market share, which decreased from 85 % in 2006 to 75 % in the RIP. This loss of market share reflects the fact that, despite an increase in consumption, the Union industry\u2019s sales dropped by 3 % in the period considered. It is noted that this decreasing trend was also found for the sampled Union producers.\nTable 9\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nMarket share of the Union producers\n84,9 %\n83,2 %\n79,8 %\n75,1 %\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n98\n94\n88\nSource: Questionnaire replies and review request and Eurostat.\n(e) Growth\n(59)\nBetween 2006 and the RIP, whilst the Union consumption increased by 11 %, the volume of sales by the Union producers on the Union market decreased by 3 %, and the Union producers\u2019 market share decreased by 10 percentage points. It is thus concluded that the Union producers could not benefit from any growth of the market.\n(f) Employment\n(60)\nThe employment level of the Union producers shows a decrease of 15 % between 2006 and the RIP. More specifically, the number of people employed decreased significantly from 2 400 in 2006 to 2 100 in 2007 or by 13 % and remained close to this level in 2008 and in the RIP. The drop in 2007 is a reflection of the restructuring efforts by a number of EU producers.\nTable 10\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nEmployment (persons)\n2 410\n2 100\n2 060\n2 057\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n87\n85\n85\nSource: Questionnaire replies and review request.\n(g) Productivity\n(61)\nProductivity of the Union producers\u2019 workforce, measured as output (tonnes) per person employed per year, increased by 12 % in the period considered. This reflects the fact that production decreased at a lower pace than the employment level and is an indication of increased efficiency by the Union producers. This is particularly obvious in 2007 when production increased while the employment level decreased and the productivity was 21 % higher than in 2006.\nTable 11\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProductivity (tonnes per employee)\n1 013\n1 224\n1 130\n1 137\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n121\n112\n112\nSource: Questionnaire replies and review request.\n(h) Factors affecting sales prices\n(62)\nThe annual average sales prices of the Union producers on the Union market to unrelated customers remained stable between 2006 and 2008 at around 1 100 EUR/tonne. In the RIP the annual average sale price decreased by 12 % and reached 977 EUR/tonne. The annual average sales price does not reflect the monthly or even daily price fluctuations of the PET on the European (and world) market, but is considered sufficient to show the trend during the period considered. The sales prices of PET normally follow the price trends of its main raw materials (mainly purified terephthalic acid - PTA - and monoethylene glycol - MEG) as they constitute up to 80 % of the total cost of PET.\nTable 12\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nUnit price EU market (EUR/tonne)\n1 110\n1 105\n1 111\n977\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n100\n100\n88\nSource: Questionnaire replies and review request.\n(i) Magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping\n(63)\nIt is recalled that due to the currently very low import volumes of PET from the PRC, no dumping calculation was carried out. However, as stated in recital 39, a likelihood of recurrence of dumping was established based on prices to third countries and excess capacity. As regards recovery from past dumping, it is important to recall that after the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on imports from the PRC, the Union industry was faced with subsidised imports from Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, leading to the imposition of provisional countervailing measures in June 2010 (11). Thus, no actual recovery from the past dumping could be established and it is considered that the Union industry remains vulnerable to the injurious effect of any dumped imports in the Union market.\n4.2. Microeconomic elements\n(a) Stocks\n(64)\nThe level of closing stocks of the sampled producers decreased between 2006 and the RIP by 22 %. It is noted that the stocks represent less than 5 % of the annual production and therefore the relevance of this indicator in the injury analysis is limited.\nTable 13\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nClosing stock (tonnes)\n61 374\n57 920\n46 951\n47 582\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n94\n77\n78\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(b) Wages\n(65)\nThe annual labour cost increased by 11 % between 2006 and 2007, before decreasing by 2 percentage points in 2008 compared to 2007 and further 9 percentage points in the RIP compared to 2008 reaching the same level as in 2006. Overall, labour costs thus remained stable.\nTable 14\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nAnnual labour cost (EUR)\n27 671 771\n30 818 299\n30 077 380\n27 723 396\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n111\n109\n100\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(c) Profitability and return on investments\n(66)\nDuring the period considered, the profitability of the sampled producers\u2019 sales of the like product on the Union market to unrelated customers, expressed as a percentage of net sales, remained negative and even dropped from - 6,9 % to - 7,5 %. More specifically, the situation with regard to profitability of the sampled producers improved in 2007 when net losses accounted only - 1,5 % of net sales, but losses increased sharply in 2008 to - 9,3 %. The situation slightly improved in the RIP.\nTable 15\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProfitability of EU (% of net sales)\n-6,9 %\n-1,5 %\n-9,3 %\n-7,5 %\nIndex (2006 = - 100)\n- 100\n-22\n- 134\n- 108\nROI (profit in % of net book value of investments)\n-9,6 %\n-3,1 %\n-16,8 %\n-12,3 %\nIndex (2006 = - 100)\n- 100\n-32\n- 175\n- 127\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(67)\nThe return on investments (ROI), expressed as the profit in percent of the net book value of investments, broadly followed the profitability trend. It increased from a level of - 9,6 % in 2006 to - 3,1 % in 2007. It decreased to - 16,8 % in 2008 and increased again in the RIP to - 12,3 %. Overall, the return on investments remained negative and deteriorated by 2,7 percentage points over the period considered.\n(d) Cash flow and ability to raise capital\n(68)\nThe net cash flow from operating activities was negative at EUR - 18,5 million in 2006. It improved significantly in 2007 when it became positive at EUR 19,5 million, but deteriorated massively in 2008 (EUR - 42 million) before reaching the negative EUR - 11 million in the RIP. Overall, cash flow improved in the period considered although it remained negative.\n(69)\nThere were no indications that the Union industry encountered difficulties in raising capital, mainly due to the fact that some of the producers are incorporated in larger groups.\nTable 16\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nCash flow (EUR)\n-18 453 130\n19 478 426\n-42 321 103\n-11 038 129\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n- 100\n206\n- 229\n-60\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(e) Investments\n(70)\nThe sampled companies\u2019 annual investments in the production of the like product decreased by 34 % between 2006 and 2007, by a further 59 percentage points between 2007 and 2008 and then it slightly decreased in the RIP compared to 2008. Overall, investments decreased by 96 % in the period considered. This sharp drop in investments can be partially explained by the fact that in 2006 and 2007 new production lines were acquired aiming at increasing capacity.\nTable 17\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nNet investments (EUR)\n98 398 284\n64 607 801\n6 537 577\n4 298 208\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n66\n7\n4\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(71)\nThe low level of investment in 2008 and the RIP is considered to be a result of the current vulnerable financial situation of the Union industry.\n5. Conclusion on the situation of the Union industry\n(72)\nThe analysis of the macroeconomic data shows that the Union producers decreased their production and sales during the period considered. Although the observed decrease was not dramatic as such, it needs to be seen in the context of increased demand between 2006 and the RIP, which resulted in the Union producers\u2019 market share dropping by 10 percentage points to 75 %.\n(73)\nAt the same time the relevant microeconomic indicators show a clear deterioration of the economic situation of the sampled Union producers. The profitability and return on investment remained negative and declined further overall between 2006 and the RIP. The cash flow, despite an overall positive development, also remained negative in the RIP.\n(74)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the Union industry has continued to suffer material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation and that its situation is very fragile and vulnerable and far from the levels that could be expected had it recovered from the injury found in the original investigation.\nF. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF INJURY\n1. Impact of the projected volume of imports and price effects in case of repeal of measures\n(75)\nAs concluded in recital 38 above, the exporting producers in the PRC have significant spare capacities and a clear potential to increase their export volumes to the Union market.\n(76)\nThe CIF export prices to third countries of PET originating in the PRC were lower than the average prices of the Union industry in the RIP. It is noted that the difference was not significant and given that these imports are subject to a conventional customs duty and some post importation charges, they would have not undercut the Union industry\u2019s prices prevailing in the RIP. However, it must be stressed that the information from the parallel anti-subsidy proceeding mentioned in recital 6 shows that the prices of the Union industry in the RIP were significantly depressed by the subsidised imports from Iran, Pakistan and the UAE. Thus, the fact that there was no actual undercutting during the RIP does not mean that should imports from the PRC resume, their price levels would not be injurious.\n(77)\nIndeed, a comparison of the actual import prices from the PRC with the non-injurious price level showed that imports from the PRC would undersell the (non-injurious) Union industry\u2019s prices. Consequently, in the absence of anti-dumping duties on imports originating in the PRC, any increased volumes of likely dumped imports from the PRC would exercise an even stronger price pressure on the Union industry and cause injury.\n(78)\nFurthermore, given the existing spare capacities for PET in the PRC, combined with the fact that the exporters in the PRC would in all likelihood try to regain their lost market shares, a repeal of measures would in all likelihood result in lower export prices. This would reinforce the price pressure with an expected further negative impact on the already vulnerable and materially injured situation of the Union industry.\n(79)\nAlthough the effect of imports from the PRC on the current precarious state of the Union industry was limited due to the low levels of imports during the period considered, this would in all likelihood change, should measures be repealed. Indeed, if the measures were repealed and the Union industry was exposed to increased volumes of imports from the PRC at dumped prices, this would result in further deterioration of its already precarious financial situation and further losses.\n2. Conclusion on the continuation/recurrence of injury\n(80)\nOn this basis, it is concluded that the repeal of measures against the PRC would in all likelihood result in the continuation of injury to the Union industry.\nG. UNION INTEREST\n(81)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved. All interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known pursuant to Article 21(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(82)\nIt should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place, allows the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.\n(83)\nOn this basis, it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case.\n1. Interest of the Union industry and other Union producers\n(84)\nThe continuation of the anti-dumping measures on imports from the country concerned would enhance the possibility for the Union industry to reach a reasonable level of profitability, as it would help avoiding that the Union industry is pushed out of the market by substantial volumes of dumped imports from the PRC. Indeed, there is a clear likelihood of injurious dumping in substantial volumes which the Union industry could not withstand. The Union industry would therefore continue to benefit from the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.\n(85)\nAccordingly, it is concluded that the maintenance of anti-dumping measures against the PRC would clearly be in the interest of the Union industry and other Union producers.\n2. Interest of unrelated importers in the Union\n(86)\nAs indicated above, only one importing agent submitted some information in the sampling exercise. This agent strongly opposed any continuation of the measures although it declared no imports from the PRC. Consequently, it is concluded that the maintenance of measures against imports from the PRC will not have any significant impact on the performance of this agent.\n(87)\nNo other importer submitted relevant information. Given that imports from other countries where there are currently anti-dumping measures in force did not stop and that imports are available from countries without any anti-dumping measures (e.g. Oman, USA, Brazil), it is considered that importers could continue to source from the alternative sources of supply.\n(88)\nBearing in mind that there is no evidence suggesting that the measures in force considerably affected importers, it is concluded that the continuation of measures will not affect the Union importers to any significant extent.\n3. Interest of the raw material suppliers in the Union\n(89)\nThree raw material suppliers (two of PTA and one of MEG) cooperated with the investigation by submitting the questionnaire reply within the set time limit. The staff employed in their European facilities and involved in the production of PTA/MEG was around 700.\n(90)\nThe cooperating PTA producers represent around 50 % of the PTA purchases of the sampled Union producers. PTA producers are heavily dependant on the state of the PET producers that constitute their major clients. Low prices of PET translate into lower prices of PTA and lower margins for the PTA producers. Consequently, it is considered that the imposition of measures on the dumped imports of PET would benefit the PTA producers.\n(91)\nFor the cooperating MEG supplier, MEG represents less than 10 % of its total turnover. It is noted that with regard to MEG, PET is not its only or even the major possible application and MEG producers are less dependent on the situation of the PET industry. None the less, the difficulties of the PET industry may have some limited impact on the suppliers of MEG, at least in a short to medium term.\n(92)\nGiven the above, it is concluded that continuation of measures against imports from the PRC would be in the interest of raw material suppliers.\n4. Interest of the users\n(93)\nPET subject to this proceeding (i.e. with the viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, so called \u2018bottle grade\u2019) is mostly used to produce bottles for water and other drinks. Its use for the production of other packages (solid foodstuff or detergents) and to produce sheet is developing, but it remains relatively limited. Bottles of PET are produced in two stages: (i) first a pre-form is made by mould injection of PET, and (ii) later the pre-form is heated and blown into a bottle. Bottle making can be an integrated process (i.e. the same company buys PET, produces a pre-form and blows it into the bottle) or limited to the second stage (blowing the pre-form into a bottle). Pre-forms can be relatively easily transported as they are small and dense, while empty bottles are unstable and due to their size very expensive to transport.\n(94)\nPET bottles are filled with water and/or other beverages by the bottling companies (bottlers). The bottlers are often involved in the PET business either via integrated bottle making operations or via tolling agreements with subcontracted converters and/or bottle makers for whom they negotiate the PET price with the producer (soft tolling) or even buy the PET for their own bottles (hard tolling).\n(95)\nConsequently, two groups of users may be distinguished:\n-\nconverters and/or bottle makers that buy PET directly from producers, convert it into pre-forms (or bottles) and sell it further for downstream processing (or filling), and\n-\nbottlers that buy PET for their subcontracting bottle makers/converters (hard tolling) or negotiate the price for which the subcontracted converter and/or bottle maker will get the PET (soft tolling).\n(96)\nOver 70 users have been contacted in this investigation, but only seven of them (converters and bottlers) decided to cooperate by filling in a questionnaire.\n(97)\nIt has been established that the cooperating users imported only negligible quantities of PET from the country concerned and sourced it predominantly from the Union producers and/or from other countries.\n(98)\nGiven that alternative sources of supply continue to exist and that currently the users imported only very limited volumes of the product concerned from the PRC, it is concluded that the continuation of measures against imports from the PRC will not have any significant negative effect on the users in the Union.\n(99)\nFollowing disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained some interested parties, in particular users, submitted their comments.\n(100)\nThe Union producers that requested the review basically agreed with the findings of the investigation and in particular with the conclusions with regard to the Union interest.\n(101)\nOn the other hand seven users and one association of users expressed their strong opposition against the reimposition of the current anti-dumping measures, claiming that the Commission\u2019s findings with regard to the Union interest display serious deficiencies and inaccuracies; however, without substantiating their claims any further.\n(102)\nGiven the lack of any evidence that would support the claims with respect to alledged inaccuracy of the Commission\u2019s findings, these claims are rejected as unfunded.\n(103)\nFollowing the disclosure the cooperating importing agent also strongly opposed the reimposition of measures.\n(104)\nThis interested party claimed that the Commission failed to properly take into account the interest of the PET users\u2019 industry, that would allegedly suffer from any PET price increase as they would not be in a position to pass forward any cost increase.\n(105)\nIt is noted in this regard that this interested party failed to demonstrate how in practice the maintainance of already existing measures could lead to any increase of the PET price on the Union market and to what extent.\n(106)\nIt is also reiterated that given the relatively low cooperation of users in this investigation, there is no information on the file that would show that the continuation of measures would have disproportionate effects on users.\n(107)\nConsequently, based on the information available, it is considered that maintaining the measures will not have any disproportionate negative effects on the level of PET prices in the EU and thus the claim regarding the negative impact on users, as presented by the importing agent, is rejected.\n(108)\nThe same interested party claims that the Commission failed to examine the impact of the continuation of current measures on PET packaging companies and that consequently the Union interest analysis in incomplete and incorrect.\n(109)\nIt is reiterated in this regard that following the initiation of this review only seven users came forward and the information available in the framework of this proceeding did not allow for the analysis of the interest of this sub-group of users in the Union.\n(110)\nThe comments submitted after the disclosure, including the comments from packaging companies, were (as indicated above in recitals 101 and 102) not substantiated and could not be used for a more exhaustive analysis concerning the packaging industry.\n5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(111)\nTaking into account all of the factors outlined above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.\nH. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(112)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. The submissions and comments were duly taken into consideration, where warranted.\n(113)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of PET originating in the PRC should be maintained. It is recalled that these measures consist of specific duties.\n(114)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation are solely applicable to imports of the product concerned produced by these companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imports of the product concerned manufactured by any other company not specifically mentioned in Article 1(2) with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(115)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (12) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for instance, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be accordingly amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 39076020 and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union frontier price, before duty, for the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCountry\nCompany\nAnti-dumping duty\n(EUR/tonne)\nTARIC additional code\nPRC\nSinopec Yizheng Chemical Fibre Company Ltd\n184\nA505\nChangzhou Worldbest Radici Co. Ltd\n0\nA506\nJiangyin Xingye Plastic Co. Ltd\n157\nA507\nFar Eastern Industries Shanghai Ltd\n22\nA508\nYuhua Polyester Co. Ltd of Zhuhai\n184\nA509\nJiangyin Chengsheng New Packing Material Co. Ltd\n45\nA510\nGuangdong Kaiping Polyester Enterprises Group Co. and Guangdong Kaiping Chunhui Co. Ltd\n184\nA511\nYibin Wuliangye Group Push Co., Ltd (Sichuan) and Yibin Wuliangye Group Import & Export Co. Ltd (Sichuan)\n184\nA512\nHubei Changfeng Chemical Fibres Industry Co. Ltd\n151\nA513\nAll other companies\n184\nA999\n3. In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Common Customs Code (13), the amount of anti-dumping duty, calculated on the basis of paragraph 2 above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 November 2010.", "references": ["13", "92", "42", "81", "61", "82", "55", "12", "5", "58", "38", "7", "29", "65", "51", "36", "68", "21", "89", "87", "90", "34", "75", "45", "67", "71", "93", "97", "41", "54", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 April 2012\non the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2011 financial year\n(notified under document C(2012) 2891)\n(2012/240/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 32 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the Commission, on the basis of the annual accounts submitted by the Member States, accompanied by the information required for the clearance of accounts and a certificate regarding the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts and the reports established by the certification bodies, clears the accounts of the paying agencies referred to in Article 6 of the said Regulation.\n(2)\nPursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the keeping of accounts by the paying agencies, declarations of expenditure and revenue and the conditions for reimbursing expenditure under the EAGF and the EAFRD (2), account is taken for the 2011 financial year of expenditure incurred by the Member States between 16 October 2010 and 15 October 2011.\n(3)\nThe first subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (3) lays down that the amounts that are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State, in accordance with the accounts clearance decision referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the said Regulation, shall be determined by deducting the monthly payments in respect of the financial year in question, i.e. 2011, from expenditure recognised for that year in accordance with paragraph 1. The Commission shall deduct that amount from or add it to the monthly payment relating to the expenditure effected in the second month following that in which the accounts clearance decision is taken.\n(4)\nThe Commission has checked the information submitted by the Member States and it has communicated to the Member States before 31 March 2012 the results of its verifications, along with the necessary amendments.\n(5)\nThe annual accounts and the accompanying documents permit the Commission to take, for certain paying agencies, a decision on the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts submitted. Annex I lists the amounts cleared by Member State and the amounts to be recovered from or paid to the Member States.\n(6)\nThe information submitted by certain other paying agencies requires additional inquiries and their accounts cannot be cleared in this Decision. Annex II lists the paying agencies concerned.\n(7)\nUnder Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2006, any overrun of deadlines during August, September and October is to be taken into account in the clearance of accounts decision. Some of the expenditure declared by certain Member States during these months in the year 2011 was effected after the applicable deadlines. This Decision should therefore fix the relevant reductions.\n(8)\nThe Commission, in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2006, has already reduced or suspended a number of monthly payments on entry into the accounts of expenditure for the 2011 financial year. In order to avoid any premature, or temporary, reimbursement of the amounts in question, they should not be recognised in this Decision and they should be further examined under the conformity clearance procedure pursuant to Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(9)\nPursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities shall be borne by the Member State concerned if the recovery of those irregularities has not taken place within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within eight years if the recovery is taken to the national courts. Article 32(3) of the said Regulation obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, together with the annual accounts, a summary report on the recovery procedures undertaken in response to irregularities. Detailed rules on the application of the Member States\u2019 reporting obligation of the amounts to be recovered are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. Annex III to the said Regulation provides the table that had to be provided in 2012 by the Member States. On the basis of the tables completed by the Member States, the Commission should decide on the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities older than four or eight years respectively. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(10)\nPursuant to Article 32(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. Such a decision may only be taken if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered or if the recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. If that decision has been taken within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding or within eight years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, 100 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery should be borne by the EU budget. In the summary report referred to in Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the amounts for which the Member State decided not to pursue recovery and the grounds for the decision are shown. These amounts are not charged to the Member States concerned and are consequently borne by the EU budget. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of the said Regulation.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from European Union financing expenditure not effected in accordance with European Union rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nWith the exception of the paying agencies referred to in Article 2, the accounts of the paying agencies of the Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) in respect of the 2011 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 2\nFor the 2011 financial year, the accounts of the Member States\u2019 paying agencies in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGF, set out in Annex II, are disjoined from this Decision and shall be the subject of a future clearance of accounts Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2012.", "references": ["1", "83", "72", "8", "82", "54", "59", "64", "53", "76", "25", "41", "16", "31", "42", "56", "20", "49", "81", "45", "68", "65", "32", "23", "97", "87", "36", "74", "5", "71", "No Label", "10", "47", "61"], "gold": ["10", "47", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 486/2011\nof 19 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 May 2011.", "references": ["1", "11", "55", "62", "50", "26", "32", "33", "42", "95", "22", "12", "79", "60", "20", "49", "16", "66", "10", "89", "77", "75", "86", "19", "94", "36", "14", "71", "91", "80", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/518/CFSP\nof 25 August 2011\nappointing the European Union Special Representative for the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 20 February 2006, the Council adopted Joint Action 2006/121/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Peter SEMNEBY European Union Special Representative for the South Caucasus. The mandate of Mr Peter SEMNEBY expired on 28 February 2011.\n(2)\nOn 25 September 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/760/CFSP (2) appointing Mr Pierre MOREL European Union Special Representative for the crisis in Georgia. The mandate of Mr Pierre MOREL expires on 31 August 2011.\n(3)\nA European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia should be appointed for the period from 1 September 2011 to 30 June 2012.\n(4)\nThe mandate of the EUSR will be implemented in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAppointment\nMr Philippe LEFORT is hereby appointed European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia for the period from 1 September 2011 until 30 June 2012. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the Union for the South Caucasus, including the objectives set out in the Conclusions of the extraordinary European Council meeting in Brussels on 1 September 2008 and the Council Conclusions of 15 September 2008. Those objectives include:\n(a)\nin accordance with the existing mechanisms, including the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and its Minsk Group, to prevent conflicts in the region, to contribute to a peaceful settlement of conflicts in the region, including the crisis in Georgia and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, by promoting the return of refugees and internally displaced persons and through other appropriate means, and to support the implementation of such a settlement in accordance with the principles of international law;\n(b)\nto engage constructively with main interested actors concerning the region;\n(c)\nto encourage and to support further cooperation between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and, as appropriate, their neighbouring countries;\n(d)\nto enhance the Union\u2019s effectiveness and visibility in the region.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the policy objectives, the mandate of the EUSR shall be:\n(a)\nto develop contacts with governments, parliaments, other key political actors, the judiciary and civil society in the region;\n(b)\nto encourage the countries in the region to cooperate on regional themes of common interest, such as common security threats, the fight against terrorism, illicit trafficking and organised crime;\n(c)\nto contribute to the peaceful settlement of conflicts in accordance with the principles of international law and to facilitate the implementation of such settlement in close coordination with the United Nations, the OSCE and its Minsk Group;\n(d)\nwith respect to the crisis in Georgia:\n(i)\nto help prepare for the international talks held under point 6 of the settlement plan of 12 August 2008 (\u2018Geneva International Discussions\u2019) and its implementing measures of 8 September 2008, including on arrangements for security and stability in the region, the issue of refugees and internally displaced persons, on the basis of internationally recognised principles, and any other subject, by mutual agreement between the parties,\n(ii)\nto help establish the Union\u2019s position and represent it, at the level of the EUSR, in the talks referred to in point (i), and\n(iii)\nto facilitate the implementation of the settlement plan of 12 August 2008 and its implementing measures of 8 September 2008;\n(e)\nto facilitate the development and implementation of confidence-building measures;\n(f)\nto assist in the preparation, as appropriate, of Union contributions to the implementation of a possible conflict settlement;\n(g)\nto intensify the Union\u2019s dialogue with the main actors concerned regarding the region;\n(h)\nto assist the Union in further developing a comprehensive policy towards the South Caucasus;\n(i)\nin the framework of the activities set out in this Article, to contribute to the implementation of the EU human rights policy and EU Guidelines on Human Rights, in particular with regard to children and women in areas affected by conflicts, especially by monitoring and addressing developments in this regard.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR's primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (EEAS).\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 September 2011 to 30 June 2012 shall be EUR 1 758 000.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be eligible as from 1 September 2011. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of the EUSR's mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of the team.\n2. Member States, the institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff is to have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, the sending institution of the Union or the EEAS, and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and the staff of the EUSR\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the EUSR's mission and the members of the EUSR's staff shall be agreed with the host party or parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of the EUSR's team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (3).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegations in the region and the Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in accordance with the EUSR's mandate and the security situation in the geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under the direct authority of the EUSR, in particular by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan, providing for mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area and the management of security incidents, and providing for a contingency plan and a mission evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance, as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of the EUSR's team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term report and the report on the implementation of the mandate.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the PSC and the HR with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report to Council working parties as necessary. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the PSC or the HR, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote overall Union political coordination and shall help ensure that all Union instruments in the field are engaged coherently to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States\u2019 missions and the Union\u2019s delegations.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegations and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission, who shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR, in close co-ordination with the Head of the Delegation of the Union to Georgia, shall provide the Head of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia) with local political guidance. The EUSR and the Civilian Operation Commander for EUMM Georgia shall consult each other as required. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the Council, the HR and the Commission with a progress report by the end of January 2012, and, at the end of the EUSR's mandate, with a comprehensive report on the implementation of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 25 August 2011.", "references": ["60", "70", "25", "20", "53", "58", "34", "46", "55", "75", "8", "14", "1", "79", "54", "72", "0", "37", "59", "2", "85", "32", "48", "6", "51", "69", "87", "73", "31", "74", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "91"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1051/2011\nof 20 October 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EU) No 692/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning European statistics on tourism, as regards the structure of the quality reports and the transmission of the data\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 692/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2011 concerning European statistics on tourism (1), and in particular Articles 6(4) and 9(2) and (3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 692/2011 established a common framework for the systematic development, production and dissemination of European statistics on tourism.\n(2)\nReasonable level of quality should be ensured in the disseminated information and the maintenance of existing statistical series on tourism.\n(3)\nThe arrangements for and structure of the quality reports, as well as the practical arrangements for the data transmission should be laid down.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to use the European statistics on tourism as fully as possible while respecting the confidentiality of the individual data records.\n(5)\nCertain data should be made available to Member States in order to complete the statistical coverage of tourism at national level.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe arrangements for and structure of the quality reports shall be as set out in Annex I.\nArticle 2\nThe exchange standard for aggregate tables shall be as set out in Annex II.\nArticle 3\nThe exchange standard for micro-data files shall be as set out in Annex III.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["4", "9", "6", "75", "34", "73", "17", "12", "87", "88", "91", "59", "31", "80", "22", "70", "54", "77", "5", "25", "55", "76", "0", "35", "47", "39", "98", "50", "16", "67", "No Label", "19", "36", "42"], "gold": ["19", "36", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1121/2011\nof 31 October 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Native Shetland Wool (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Native Shetland Wool\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["29", "72", "98", "34", "44", "64", "26", "38", "94", "52", "47", "51", "78", "75", "70", "2", "5", "56", "68", "1", "37", "67", "83", "33", "89", "16", "8", "39", "60", "65", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/81/EU\nof 20 September 2011\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include deltamethrin as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes deltamethrin.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, deltamethrin has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nSweden was designated as rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 27 June 2008 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 6 May 2011, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods and containing deltamethrin may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include deltamethrin in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at Union level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to human populations and to environmental compartments that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nIn the light of the risks identified for the aquatic ecosystem when products were used for indoor barrier treatment, resulting in emissions of a certain scale to a sewage treatment plant, it is appropriate to require that products are not authorised for uses resulting in such emissions, unless data are submitted demonstrating that the product will meet the requirements of both Article 5 of and Annex VI to Directive 98/8/EC, if necessary by the application of appropriate risk mitigation measures.\n(8)\nThe provisions of this Directive should be applied at the same time in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment on the Union market of biocidal products containing the active substance deltamethrin and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(9)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC, in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(10)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(11)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 September 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 October 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2011.", "references": ["45", "83", "66", "78", "12", "62", "18", "23", "32", "30", "80", "47", "8", "64", "68", "76", "20", "97", "42", "16", "27", "5", "74", "81", "1", "17", "7", "33", "85", "98", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 528/2011\nof 30 May 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of endo-1,4-\u03b2-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (ATCC PTA 5588) as a feed additive for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening (holder of authorisation Danisco Animal Nutrition)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of endo-1,4-\u03b2-xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) produced by Trichoderma reesei (ATCC PTA 5588). The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of endo-1,4-\u03b2-xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) produced by Trichoderma reesei (ATCC PTA 5588) as a feed additive for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of that preparation was authorised for 10 years for chickens for fattening, laying hens, ducks and turkeys for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 9/2010 (2).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for the authorisation of endo-1,4-\u03b2-xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) produced by Trichoderma reesei (ATCC PTA 5588) for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening. The European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 1 February 2011 (3) that, under the proposed conditions of use, endo-1,4-\u03b2-xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) produced by Trichoderma reesei (ATCC PTA 5588) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use can improve the zootechnical performance. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory for Feed Additives set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of endo-1,4-\u03b2-xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) produced by Trichoderma reesei (ATCC PTA 5588) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018digestibility enhancers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 May 2011.", "references": ["94", "90", "72", "89", "61", "54", "85", "77", "9", "82", "23", "13", "35", "15", "53", "32", "43", "39", "99", "91", "38", "93", "8", "0", "30", "3", "17", "60", "36", "63", "No Label", "25", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1110/2010\nof 30 November 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 December 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 December 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 December 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["46", "13", "58", "69", "52", "80", "1", "64", "96", "62", "24", "9", "7", "25", "91", "45", "53", "55", "34", "99", "39", "77", "65", "48", "14", "8", "30", "36", "41", "40", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 18 November 2011\nadopting a fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region\n(notified under document C(2011) 8203)\n(2012/13/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Atlantic biogeographical region referred to in Article 1(c)(iii) of Directive 92/43/EEC comprises the Union territories of Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and parts of the Union territories of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France and Portugal as specified in the biogeographical map approved on 20 April 2005 by the Committee set up by Article 20 of that Directive, hereinafter the \u2018Habitats Committee\u2019.\n(2)\nIt is necessary in the context of a process which was initiated in 1995 to make further progress in the actual establishment of the Natura 2000 network, which is an essential element of the protection of biodiversity in the Union.\n(3)\nThe initial list and the first four updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region, within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC, were adopted by Commission Decisions 2004/813/EC (2), 2008/23/EC (3), 2009/96/EC (4), 2010/43/EU (5) and 2011/63/EU (6). On the basis of Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Member State concerned shall designate the sites included in the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region as special areas of conservation as soon as possible and within 6 years at most, establishing conservation priorities and the necessary conservation measures.\n(4)\nIn the context of a dynamic adaptation of the Natura 2000 network, the lists of sites of Community importance are reviewed. A fifth update of the Atlantic list is therefore necessary.\n(5)\nOn the one hand, the fifth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region is necessary in order to include additional sites that have been proposed since 2009 by the Member States as sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC. For these additional sites, the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC should apply as soon as possible and within 6 years at most from the adoption of the fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region.\n(6)\nOn the other hand, the fifth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region is necessary in order to reflect any changes in site related information submitted by the Member States following the adoption of the initial and the first four updated Union lists. In that sense, the fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region constitutes a consolidated version of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region. It should be stressed that, for any site included in the fifth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region, the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC should apply as soon as possible and within 6 years at most following the adoption of the list of sites of Community importance in which the site was included for the first time.\n(7)\nFor the Atlantic biogeographical region, lists of sites proposed as sites of Community importance within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC have been transmitted to the Commission between March 2002 and October 2010 by the Member States concerned in accordance with Article 4(1) of that Directive.\n(8)\nThe lists of proposed sites were accompanied by information on each site, supplied in the format established by Commission Decision 97/266/EC of 18 December 1996 concerning a site information format for proposed Natura 2000 sites (7).\n(9)\nThat information includes the map of the site transmitted by the Member States concerned, name, location and extent of the site, and the data yielded by application of the criteria specified in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(10)\nOn the basis of the draft list drawn up by the Commission in agreement with each of the Member States concerned, which also identifies sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, a fifth updated list of sites selected as sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region should be adopted.\n(11)\nKnowledge of the existence and distribution of the natural habitat types and species is constantly evolving as a result of the surveillance in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, the evaluation and selection of sites at EU level was done using the best available information at present.\n(12)\nCertain Member States have not proposed sufficient sites to meet the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC for certain habitat types and species. For those habitat types and species it can therefore not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is complete. Taking into account the delay in receiving the information and reaching agreement with the Member States, it is necessary to adopt a fifth updated list of sites, which will need to be reviewed in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(13)\nGiven that knowledge on the existence and distribution of some of the natural habitat types of Annex I and species of Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC remains incomplete, it should not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is either complete or incomplete. The list should be reviewed, if necessary, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(14)\nIn the interests of clarity and transparency Decision 2011/63/EU should be repealed.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Habitats Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2011/63/EU is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["50", "11", "75", "72", "3", "35", "79", "76", "65", "98", "67", "88", "73", "0", "89", "40", "85", "36", "51", "7", "91", "12", "83", "16", "46", "43", "38", "84", "44", "30", "No Label", "17", "39", "58", "59"], "gold": ["17", "39", "58", "59"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1225/2011\nof 28 November 2011\nfor the purposes of Articles 42 to 52, 57 and 58 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty\n(codification)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 2290/83 of 29 July 1983 laying down provisions for the implementation of Articles 50 to 59b, 63a and 63b of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.\n(2)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSCOPE\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation lays down provisions for the implementation of Articles 42 to 52, 57 and 58 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009.\nCHAPTER II\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nSECTION 1\nObligations on the part of the establishment or organisation to which the goods are consigned\nArticle 2\n1. The admission free of import duties of educational, scientific and cultural materials referred to in Article 43, 44(1) and 45 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, hereinafter referred to as \u2018goods\u2019, shall entail the following obligations on the part of the establishment or organisation to which the goods are consigned:\n(a)\nto dispatch the goods in question directly to the declared place of destination;\n(b)\nto account for them in its inventory;\n(c)\nto facilitate any verification which the competent authorities consider necessary in order to ensure that the conditions for granting admission free of import duties are satisfied, or remain satisfied.\nIn addition, in the case of goods referred to in Articles 44(1) and 45 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, it shall entail the obligation on the part of the establishment or organisation to which the goods are consigned to use those goods exclusively for non-commercial purposes within the meaning of point (b) of Article 46 of that Regulation.\n2. Heads of establishments or organisations to which the goods are consigned, or their authorised representatives, shall furnish the competent authorities with a statement declaring that they are aware of the various obligations listed in paragraph 1 and including an undertaking to comply with them.\nThe competent authorities may require that the statement referred to in the first subparagraph be produced for each import, or for several imports, or for all the imports to be carried out by the establishment or organisation to which the goods are consigned.\nSECTION 2\nProvisions to be applied where the goods are lent, hired out or transferred\nArticle 3\n1. Where the first subparagraph of Article 48(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 is applied, the establishment or organisation to which goods are lent, hired out or transferred shall, from the date of receipt of the goods, comply with the same obligations as those set out in Article 2 of this Regulation.\n2. Where the establishment or organisation to which the goods are lent, hired out or transferred is situated in a Member State other than that in which the establishment that lent, hired out or transferred the goods is situated, upon the dispatch of such goods the competent customs office of the Member State of dispatch shall issue a T 5 control copy in accordance with the rules laid down in Articles 912a to 912g of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (4) in order to ensure that such goods are put to a use entitling them to continue to qualify for admission free of import duties.\nFor this purpose, the T 5 control copy shall include, in box 104 under the heading \u2018other\u2019, one of the entries listed in Annex I.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the loan, hire or transfer of spare parts, components or specific accessories for scientific instruments or apparatus, and to tools for the maintenance, control, calibration or repair of scientific instruments or apparatus, which have been admitted free of import duties under Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009.\nCHAPTER III\nSPECIFIC PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE ADMISSION FREE OF IMPORT DUTIES OF EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC OR CULTURAL MATERIALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 43 OF REGULATION (EC) No 1186/2009\nArticle 4\nIn order to obtain admission free of import duties of goods in accordance with Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, the heads of the establishments or organisations to which the goods are consigned, or their authorised representatives, shall submit an application to the competent authority of the Member State in which the establishment or organisation is situated.\nSuch application shall be accompanied by all information which the competent authority considers necessary for the purpose of determining whether the conditions laid down for granting admission free of import duties are fulfilled.\nCHAPTER IV\nSPECIFIC PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE ADMISSION FREE OF IMPORT DUTIES OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS AND APPARATUS UNDER ARTICLES 44 AND 46 OF REGULATION (EC) No 1186/2009\nArticle 5\nFor the purposes of point (a) of Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, the objective technical characteristics of a scientific instrument or apparatus shall be understood to mean those characteristics resulting from the construction of that instrument or apparatus or from adjustments to a standard instrument or apparatus which make it possible to obtain high-level performances above those normally required for industrial or commercial use.\nWhere it is not possible to establish clearly on the basis of its objective technical characteristics whether an instrument or apparatus is to be regarded as a scientific instrument or apparatus, reference shall be made to the use of the instrument or apparatus for which admission free of import duties is requested. If this examination shows that the instrument or apparatus in question is used for scientific purposes, it shall be deemed to be of a scientific nature.\nArticle 6\n1. In order to obtain admission free of import duties of a scientific instrument or apparatus under Article 44(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, the heads of the establishments or organisations to which the goods are consigned, or their authorised representatives, shall submit an application to the competent authority of the Member State in which the establishment or organisation is situated.\n2. The application referred to in paragraph 1 shall contain the following information relating to the instrument or apparatus in question:\n(a)\nthe precise trade description of the instrument or apparatus used by the manufacturer, its presumed Combined Nomenclature classification and the objective technical characteristics on the basis of which the instrument or apparatus is considered to be scientific;\n(b)\nthe name or business name and address of the manufacturer and, if available, of the supplier;\n(c)\nthe country of origin of the instrument or apparatus;\n(d)\nthe place where the instrument or apparatus is to be used;\n(e)\nthe precise use for which the instrument or apparatus is intended;\n(f)\nthe price of the instrument or apparatus or its value for customs purposes;\n(g)\nthe quantity of the instrument or apparatus in question.\nDocumentary evidence providing all relevant information on the characteristics and technical specifications of the instrument or apparatus shall be furnished with the application.\nArticle 7\nThe competent authority of the Member State in which is situated the establishment or organisation to which the goods are consigned shall take a direct decision on applications under Article 6 in all cases.\nArticle 8\nAuthorisations for admission free of import duties shall be valid for a period of six months.\nThe competent authorities may, however, set a longer period in the light of the particular circumstances of each case.\nCHAPTER V\nSPECIFIC PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE ADMISSION FREE OF IMPORT DUTIES OF SPARE PARTS, COMPONENTS, SPECIFIC ACCESSORIES AND TOOLS UNDER ARTICLE 45 OF REGULATION (EC) No 1186/2009\nArticle 9\nFor the purpose of Article 45(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 specific accessories means those articles specially designed for use with a specific scientific instrument or apparatus for the purpose of improving its performance and scope.\nArticle 10\nIn order to obtain admission free of import duties under Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, either of spare parts, components or specific accessories, or of tools, the heads of the establishments or organisations to which the goods are consigned, or their authorised representatives, shall submit an application to the competent authority of the Member State in which the establishment or organisation is situated.\nThis application shall be accompanied by all data deemed necessary by the competent authority for the purpose of determining whether the conditions laid down in Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 are fulfilled.\nArticle 11\nThe competent authority of the Member State in which is situated the establishment or organisation to which the goods are consigned shall take a direct decision in respect of the application referred to in Article 10.\nArticle 12\nArticle 8 shall apply mutatis mutandis to authorisations for admission free of import duties issued under Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009.\nCHAPTER VI\nSPECIFIC PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE ADMISSION FREE OF IMPORT DUTIES OF MEDICAL INSTRUMENTS OR APPARATUS UNDER ARTICLES 57 AND 58 OF REGULATION (EC) No 1186/2009\nArticle 13\n1. In order to obtain admission free of import duties of instruments or apparatus under Articles 57 and 58 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, the heads of the establishments or organisations to which the goods are consigned, or their authorised representatives shall submit an application to the competent authority of the Member State in which the establishment or organisation is situated.\n2. The application referred to in paragraph 1 shall contain the following information relating to the instrument or apparatus in question:\n(a)\nthe precise trade description of the instrument or apparatus used by the manufacturer, and its presumed classification in the Combined Nomenclature;\n(b)\nthe name or business name and address of the manufacturer and, if available, of the supplier;\n(c)\nthe country of origin of the instrument or apparatus;\n(d)\nthe place where the instrument or apparatus is to be used;\n(e)\nthe use to which the instrument or apparatus is to be put.\n3. In the case of a gift, the application shall also include:\n(a)\nthe name or business name and address of the donor;\n(b)\na declaration by the applicant to the effect that:\n(i)\nthe donation of the instrument or apparatus in question does not conceal any commercial intent on the part of the donor;\n(ii)\nthe donor is in no way associated with the manufacturer of the instruments or apparatus whose admission free of import duties is requested.\nArticle 14\nThe competent authority of the Member State in which is situated the establishment or organisation to which the goods are consigned shall take a direct decision on applications in all cases.\nArticle 15\nArticles 13 and 14 shall apply mutatis mutandis to spare parts, components, specific accessories and tools to be used for the maintenance, checking, calibration or repair of instruments or apparatus admitted free of import duties pursuant to Article 57(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009.\nArticle 16\nArticle 8 shall apply mutatis mutandis.\nCHAPTER VII\nCOMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBER STATES\nArticle 17\n1. Each Member State shall send the Commission a list of the instruments, apparatus, spare parts, components, accessories and tools of which the price or the value for customs purposes exceeds EUR 5 000 and in respect of which it has authorised or refused admission free of import duties under Articles 7, 11 or 14.\nThe list shall give the precise trade description of the goods referred to in the first subparagraph and the eight-figure Combined Nomenclature code. It shall also include the name of the manufacturer or manufacturers, the country or countries of origin and the price or customs value of the goods concerned.\n2. The lists referred to in paragraph 1 shall be sent during the first and third quarters of each year and shall contain particulars of those goods whose admission free of import duties has been authorised or refused during the preceding six months.\n3. The Commission shall forward these lists to the other Member States.\nArticle 18\nIn order to ensure the uniform application of Union provisions, the lists referred to in Article 17 shall be examined periodically by the Customs Code Committee.\nCHAPTER VIII\nSPECIFIC PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE ADMISSION FREE OF IMPORT DUTIES OF EQUIPMENT UNDER ARTICLES 51 AND 52 OF REGULATION (EC) No 1186/2009\nArticle 19\n1. In order to obtain admission free of import duties of equipment under Articles 51 and 52 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, the heads of the scientific research establishments or organisations based outside the Union or their authorised representatives shall submit an application to the competent authority of the Member State in which the scientific research establishment or organisation based in the Union is situated.\n2. The application referred to in paragraph 1 shall contain the following information:\n(a)\na copy of the scientific cooperation agreement between research establishments situated in the Union and in third countries;\n(b)\nthe precise trade description of the equipment as well as the quantity and value thereof and, where appropriate, its presumed classification in the Combined Nomenclature;\n(c)\nthe country of origin and of consignment of the equipment;\n(d)\nthe place where the equipment is to be used;\n(e)\nthe use for which the equipment is intended and the duration of its use.\nArticle 20\n1. Where the competent authority of a Member State in which the establishment or organisation based in the Union is situated receives an application for the admission free of import duties of equipment as defined by Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, the application and related information shall be sent to the Commission so that it can be examined within the Customs Code Committee before a decision is taken by the said competent authority.\nFor the purposes of this examination, additional information shall be sent to the Commission on request.\n2. The competent authority referred to in paragraph 1 shall inform the Commission of the decision it has taken concerning admission free of import duties.\nArticle 21\nArticle 8 shall apply mutatis mutandis.\nCHAPTER IX\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 22\nRegulation (EEC) No 2290/83 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex III.\nArticle 23\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 November 2011.", "references": ["18", "92", "55", "43", "20", "12", "29", "86", "78", "82", "42", "53", "84", "65", "19", "26", "74", "50", "37", "60", "5", "73", "75", "67", "41", "3", "71", "58", "13", "40", "No Label", "21", "22", "38", "85"], "gold": ["21", "22", "38", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 864/2010\nof 29 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 September 2010.", "references": ["62", "79", "75", "24", "46", "89", "1", "64", "90", "82", "33", "77", "56", "30", "70", "74", "71", "57", "6", "36", "78", "43", "59", "28", "27", "60", "40", "21", "31", "50", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 732/2011\nof 22 July 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (G\u00f6ttinger Feldkieker (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany\u2019s application to register the name \u2018G\u00f6ttinger Feldkieker\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2011.", "references": ["28", "26", "64", "15", "84", "69", "23", "5", "2", "80", "14", "73", "99", "17", "41", "63", "11", "10", "75", "85", "4", "18", "20", "58", "60", "49", "34", "88", "90", "40", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 June 2010\non mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management\n(2010/340/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support to redundant workers who suffer from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1927/2006 provides that 0,35 % of the annual maximum amount can be made available each year for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 110 000.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 110 000 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 June 2010.", "references": ["69", "93", "28", "81", "89", "75", "1", "90", "50", "57", "85", "58", "14", "10", "5", "86", "61", "43", "18", "31", "63", "9", "96", "2", "19", "83", "92", "67", "95", "23", "No Label", "4", "15", "49"], "gold": ["4", "15", "49"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1058/2011\nof 20 October 2011\nfixing the export refunds on pigmeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVII of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in pigmeat, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 712/2011 (5). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the condition provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 712/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["93", "7", "47", "97", "17", "91", "18", "71", "41", "45", "24", "80", "72", "87", "98", "1", "68", "56", "84", "66", "42", "92", "77", "12", "55", "73", "43", "64", "81", "95", "No Label", "20", "22", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 July 2012\nappointing a Finnish member of the European Economic and Social Committee\n(2012/438/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Finnish Government,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Reijo PAANANEN,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Pekka RISTEL\u00c4, Advisor on International Affairs of SAK (Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions), is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["32", "58", "51", "66", "10", "45", "16", "47", "22", "3", "60", "72", "28", "40", "42", "53", "34", "4", "35", "48", "98", "95", "63", "87", "59", "30", "84", "50", "18", "74", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 4 May 2010\non the Security Plan for Central SIS II and the Communication Infrastructure\n(2010/261/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (1) and in particular Article 16 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (2) and in particular Article 16 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Article 16 of Decision 2007/533/JHA provide that the Management Authority, in relation to Central SIS II, and the Commission, in relation to the Communication Infrastructure, should adopt the necessary measures, including a security plan.\n(2)\nArticle 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Article 15(4) of Decision 2007/533/JHA provide that during a transitional period before the Management Authority takes up its responsibilities, the Commission should be responsible for the operational management of Central SIS II.\n(3)\nAs the Management Authority has not yet been established, the security plan to be adopted by the Commission should be applicable also to Central SIS II for a transitional period.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) applies to the processing of personal data by the Commission when carrying out its responsibilities in the operational management of SIS II.\n(5)\nArticle 15(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Article 15(7) of Decision 2007/533/JHA provide that where the Commission delegates its responsibilities during the transitional period before the Management Authority takes up its responsibilities, it shall ensure that this delegation does not adversely affect any effective control mechanism under Union law, whether of the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors or the European Data Protection Supervisor.\n(6)\nThe Management Authority should adopt its own security plan in relation to Central SIS II once it will have taken up its responsibilities. This security plan should therefore expire, to the extent it relates to the Central SIS II, when the Management Authority takes up its responsibilities.\n(7)\nArticle 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Article 4(3) of Decision 2007/533/JHA provide that CS-SIS, which performs technical supervision and administration functions, shall be located in Strasbourg (France) and a backup CS-SIS, capable of ensuring all functionalities of the principal CS-SIS in the event of failure of this system, shall be located in Sankt Johann im Pongau (Austria).\n(8)\nThe security plan should foresee one System Security Officer performing security-related tasks concerning both Central SIS II and the Communication Infrastructure and two Local Security Officers performing security-related tasks concerning the Central SIS II and the Communication Infrastructure, respectively. The roles of the security officers should be laid down in order to ensure efficient and prompt response to security incidents and reporting thereof.\n(9)\nA Security Policy should be set up describing all technical and organisational details in line with the provisions of this Decision.\n(10)\nMeasures should be defined to ensure the appropriate level of security of the operation of Central SIS II and the Communication Infrastructure,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. This Decision establishes the security organisation and measures (security plan) for the protection of the Central SIS II and the data processed therein against threats to their availability, integrity and confidentiality within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and of Article 16(1) of Decision 2007/533/JHA on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) during a transitional period, until the Management Authority takes up its responsibilities.\n2. This Decision establishes the security organisation and measures (security plan) for the protection of the Communication Infrastructure against threats to their availability, integrity and confidentiality within the meaning of Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and of Article 16 of Decision 2007/533/JHA on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II).\nCHAPTER II\nORGANISATION, RESPONSIBILITIES AND INCIDENT MANAGEMENT\nArticle 2\nTasks of the Commission\n1. The Commission shall implement and monitor the effectiveness of the security measures for Central SIS II referred to in this Decision.\n2. The Commission shall implement and monitor the effectiveness of the security measures for the Communication Infrastructure referred to in this Decision.\n3. The Commission shall designate a System Security Officer from among its officials. The System Security Officer shall be appointed by the Director General of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security of the Commission. The tasks of the System Security Officer shall include in particular:\n(a)\npreparation of the Security Policy as described in Article 7 of this Decision;\n(b)\nmonitoring the effectiveness of the implementation of the security procedures of Central SIS II;\n(c)\nmonitoring the effectiveness of the implementation of the security procedures of the Communication Infrastructure;\n(d)\ncontributing to the preparation of reporting in relation to security as referred to in Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and in Article 66 of Decision 2007/533/JHA;\n(e)\nperforming coordination and assistance tasks in the checks and audits performed by the European Data Protection Supervisor referred to in Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and in Article 61 of Decision 2007/533/JHA, as well as notification of incidents within the meaning of Article 5(2) to the Data Protection Officer of the Commission;\n(f)\nmonitoring that this Decision and the Security Policy are applied properly and fully by any contractor including subcontractors being involved in any way in the management of Central SIS II;\n(g)\nmonitoring that this Decision and the Security Policy are applied properly and fully by any contractor including subcontractors being involved in any way in the management of the Communication Infrastructure;\n(h)\nmaintaining a list of single national contact points for SIS II security and sharing it with the Local Security Officer for the Communication Infrastructure;\n(i)\nsharing the list referred to in (h) with the Local Security Officer for Central SIS II.\nArticle 3\nLocal Security Officer for Central SIS II\n1. Without prejudice to Article 8, the Commission shall designate a Local Security Officer for Central SIS II from among its officials. Conflicts of interest between the duty of Local Security Officer and any other official duty shall be prevented. The Local Security Officer for Central SIS II shall be appointed by the Director General of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security of the Commission.\n2. The Local Security Officer for Central SIS II shall ensure that the security measures referred to in this Decision are implemented and the security procedures are followed in the principal CS-SIS. As regards the backup CS-SIS, the Local Security Officer for Central SIS II shall further ensure that security measures referred to in this Decision, except those referred to in Article 9, are implemented and the security procedures relating thereto are followed.\n3. The Local Security Officer for Central SIS II may assign any of his or her tasks to subordinate personnel. Conflicts of interest between the duty to execute these tasks and any other official duty shall be prevented. A single contact phone number and address shall allow reaching the Local Security Officer or his or her on-duty subordinate at any time.\n4. The Local Security Officer for Central SIS II shall perform the tasks resulting from security measures to be taken at the premises where the principal CS-SIS and the backup CS-SIS are located, within the limits of paragraph 1, including in particular:\n(a)\nlocal operational security tasks including firewall audit, regular security testing, auditing and reporting;\n(b)\nmonitoring the effectiveness of the business continuity plan and ensuring that regular exercises are conducted;\n(c)\nsecuring evidence on, and reporting to the System Security Officer, any incident in Central SIS II that may have an impact on the security of the Central SIS II or the Communication Infrastructure;\n(d)\ninforming the System Security Officer if the Security Policy needs to be amended;\n(e)\nmonitoring that this Decision and the Security Policy are applied by any contractor including subcontractors being involved in any way in the operational management of Central SIS II;\n(f)\nensuring that the staff is made aware of their obligations and monitoring the application of the Security Policy;\n(g)\nmonitoring IT security developments and ensuring that staff is trained accordingly;\n(h)\npreparing underlying information and options for the establishment, update and review of the Security Policy in accordance with Article 7.\nArticle 4\nLocal Security Officer for the Communication Infrastructure\n1. Without prejudice to Article 8, the Commission shall designate a Local Security Officer for the Communication Infrastructure from among its officials. Conflicts of interest between the duty of Local Security Officer and any other official duty shall be prevented. The Local Security Officer for the Communication Infrastructure shall be appointed by the Director General of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security of the Commission.\n2. The Local Security Officer for the Communication Infrastructure shall monitor the functioning of the Communication Infrastructure and ensure that the security measures are implemented and the security procedures are followed.\n3. The Local Security Officer for the Communication Infrastructure may assign any of his or her tasks to subordinate personnel. Conflicts of interest between the duty to execute these tasks and any other official duty shall be prevented. A single contact phone number and address shall allow reaching the Local Security Officer or his or her on-duty subordinate at any time.\n4. The Local Security Officer for the Communication Infrastructure shall perform the tasks resulting from security measures to be taken at the Communication Infrastructure, including in particular:\n(a)\nall operational security tasks relating to the Communication Infrastructure, including firewall audit, regular security testing, auditing and reporting;\n(b)\nmonitoring the effectiveness of the business continuity plan and ensuring that regular exercises are conducted;\n(c)\nsecuring evidence on, and reporting to the System Security Officer, any incident occurred in the Communication Infrastructure that may have an impact on the security of the Central SIS II or the Communication Infrastructure;\n(d)\ninforming the System Security Officer if the Security Policy needs to be amended;\n(e)\nmonitoring that this Decision and the Security Policy is applied by any contractor including subcontractors being involved in any way in the management of the Communication Infrastructure;\n(f)\nensuring that the staff is made aware of their obligations and monitoring the application the Security Policy;\n(g)\nmonitoring IT security developments and ensuring that staff is trained accordingly;\n(h)\npreparing underlying information and options for the establishment, update and review of the Security Policy in accordance with Article 7.\nArticle 5\nSecurity incidents\n1. Any event that has or may have an impact on the security of SIS II and may cause damage or loss to SIS II shall be considered as a security incident, especially where access to data may have occurred or where the availability, integrity and confidentiality of data has or may have been compromised.\n2. Security incidents shall be managed to ensure a quick, effective and proper response in compliance with the Security Policy. Procedures shall be established to recover from an incident.\n3. Information regarding a security incident that has or may have an impact on the operation of SIS II in a Member State or on the availability, integrity and confidentiality of the data entered or sent by a Member State, shall be provided to the Member State concerned. Security incidents shall be notified to the Data Protection Officer of the Commission.\nArticle 6\nIncident management\n1. All staff and contractors involved in developing, managing or operating SIS II shall be required to note and report any observed or suspected security weaknesses in the Communication Infrastructure to the System Security Officer or the Local Security Officer for the Communication Infrastructure.\n2. In case of detection of any incident that has or may have an impact on the security of SIS II, the Local Security Officer for the Communication Infrastructure shall inform as quickly as possible the System Security Officer and, where appropriate, the single national contact point for SIS II security, if such a contact point exists in the Member State in question, in writing or, in case of extreme urgency, via other communication channels. The report shall contain the description of the security incident, the level of risk, the possible consequences and the measures that have been or should be taken to mitigate the risk.\n3. Any evidence in relation to the security incident shall be secured immediately by the Local Security Officer for the Communication Infrastructure. To the extent possible under applicable data protection provisions, such evidence shall be made available to the System Security Officer upon request of the latter.\n4. Feedback processes shall be defined in the Security Policy to ensure that information about the type, handling and outcome of a security incident is communicated to the System Security Officer and to the Local Security Officer for the Communication Infrastructure, once the incident has been dealt with and is no longer in progress.\n5. Paragraphs (1) to (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis to incidents in Central SIS II. To that extent, any reference to the Local Security Officer for the Communication Infrastructure in paragraphs (1) to (4) shall be read as a reference to the Local Security Officer for Central SIS II.\nCHAPTER III\nSECURITY MEASURES\nArticle 7\nSecurity Policy\n1. The Director-General of the Directorate General for Justice, Freedom and Security shall establish, update and regularly review a binding Security Policy in accordance with this Decision. The Security Policy shall provide for the detailed procedures and measures to protect against threats to the availability, integrity and confidentiality of the Communication Infrastructure, including emergency planning, in order to ensure the appropriate level of security as prescribed by this Decision. The Security Policy shall comply with this Decision.\n2. The Security Policy shall be based on a risk assessment. The measures described by the Security Policy shall be proportionate to the risks identified.\n3. The risk assessment and the Security Policy shall be updated, if technological changes, identification of new threats or any other circumstances make it necessary. The Security Policy shall be reviewed in any event on an annual basis to ensure that it is still appropriately responding to the latest risk assessment or any other newly identified technological change, threat or other relevant circumstance.\n4. The Security Policy shall be prepared by the System Security Officer, in coordination with the Local Security Officer for Central SIS II and the Local Security Officer for the Communication Infrastructure.\n5. Paragraphs (1) to (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Security Policy for Central SIS II. To that extent, any reference to the Local Security Officer for the Communication Infrastructure in paragraphs (1) to (4) shall be read as a reference to the Local Security Officer for Central SIS II.\nArticle 8\nImplementation of the security measures\n1. The implementation of tasks and requirements laid down in this Decision and in the Security Policy, including the task of designating a Local Security Officer, may be contracted out or entrusted to private or public bodies.\n2. In this case the Commission shall ensure through legally binding agreement that the requirements laid down in this Decision and in the Security Policy, are fully complied with. In case of delegation or contracting out of the task of designating a Local Security Officer, the Commission shall ensure through legally binding agreement that it will be consulted on the person to be designated as Local Security Officer.\nArticle 9\nFacilities access control\n1. Security perimeters with appropriate barriers and entry controls shall be used to protect areas that contain data processing facilities.\n2. Within the security perimeters, secure areas shall be defined to protect the physical components (assets), including hardware, data media and consoles, plans and other documents on the SIS II as well as offices and other work places of staff involved in operating the SIS II. These secure areas shall be protected by appropriate entry controls to ensure that only authorised personnel are allowed access. Work in secure areas shall be subject to the detailed security rules set out in the Security Policy.\n3. Physical security for offices, rooms and facilities shall be foreseen and installed. Access points such as delivery and loading areas and other points where unauthorised persons may enter the premises shall be controlled and, if possible, isolated from data processing facilities to avoid unauthorised access.\n4. A physical protection of the security perimeters against damage from natural or man-made disaster shall be designed and applied proportionally to the risk.\n5. Equipment shall be protected from physical and environmental threats and from opportunities for unauthorised access.\n6. If such information is available to the Commission, it shall add to the list referred to in Article 2(3)(h) a single point of contact for monitoring the implementation of the provisions of this Article at the premises where the backup CS-SIS is located.\nArticle 10\nData media and asset control\n1. Removable media containing data shall be protected against unauthorised access, misuse or corruption and its readability shall be ensured during the whole lifetime of the data.\n2. Media shall be disposed securely and safely when no longer required, in accordance with the detailed procedures to be set out in the Security Policy.\n3. Inventories shall ensure that information on the storage location, the applicable retention period and access authorisations are available.\n4. All important assets of the Communication Infrastructure shall be identified, so that they can be protected in accordance with their importance. An up-to-date register of relevant IT equipment shall be kept.\n5. An up-to-date documentation of the Communication Infrastructure shall be available. Such documentation must be protected against unauthorised access.\n6. Paragraphs (1) to (5) shall apply mutatis mutandis to Central SIS II. To that extent, any reference to the Communication Infrastructure shall be read as a reference to Central SIS II.\nArticle 11\nStorage control\n1. Appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure proper storage of data and the prevention of unauthorised access thereto.\n2. All items of equipment containing storage media shall be checked to ensure that sensitive data have been removed or fully overwritten prior to disposal, or shall be securely destroyed.\nArticle 12\nPassword control\n1. All passwords shall be kept safely and treated confidentially. In case of suspicion that a password has been disclosed, the password has to be changed immediately or the relevant account has to be disabled. Unique and individual user identities shall be used.\n2. Procedures shall be defined in the Security Policy for logging in and out to prevent any unauthorised access.\nArticle 13\nAccess control\n1. The Security Policy shall establish a formal staff registration and de-registration procedure in place for granting and revoking access to SIS II hardware and software for the purposes of the operational management. The allocation and use of adequate access credentials (passwords or other appropriate means) shall be controlled through a formal management process as laid down in the Security Policy.\n2. Access to SIS II hardware and software at the CS-SIS shall:\n(i)\nbe restricted to authorised persons;\n(ii)\nbe limited to cases where a legitimate purpose in accordance with Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Article 61 of Decision 2007/533/JHA, or with Article 50(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Article 66(2) of Decision 2007/533/JHA, can be identified;\n(iii)\nnot exceed the duration and scope necessary for the purpose of the access; and\n(iv)\ntake place only in accordance with an access control policy to be defined in the Security Policy.\n3. Only the consoles and software authorised by the Local Security Officer for Central SIS II shall be used at the CS-SIS. The use of system utilities that might be capable of overriding system and application controls shall be restricted and controlled. There shall be procedures in place to control the installation of software.\nArticle 14\nCommunication control\nThe Communication Infrastructure shall be monitored in order to provide availability, integrity and confidentiality for the information exchanges. Cryptographic means shall be used to protect the data transmitted in the communication infrastructure.\nArticle 15\nInput control\nAccounts for persons authorised to access SIS II software from CS-SIS shall be monitored by the Local Security Officer for the Central SIS II. Use of those accounts, including time and user identity shall be registered.\nArticle 16\nTransport control\n1. Appropriate measures shall be defined in the Security Policy to prevent unauthorised reading, copying, modification or deletion of personal data during the transmission to or from the SIS II or during the transport of data media. Provisions shall be laid down in the Security Policy with regard to the admissible types of dispatch or transport as well as in respect of accountability procedures for the transport of items and their arrival at the place of destination. The data medium shall not contain any data other than the data which is to be sent.\n2. Services delivered by third parties involving accessing, processing, communicating or managing data processing facilities or adding products or services to data processing facilities shall have appropriate integrated security controls.\nArticle 17\nSecurity of the Communication Infrastructure\n1. The Communication Infrastructure shall be adequately managed and controlled in order to protect it from threats and to ensure the security of the Communication Infrastructure itself and of Central SIS II, including data exchanged through it.\n2. Security features, service levels and management requirements of all network services shall be identified in the network service agreement with the service provider.\n3. Besides protecting the SIS II access points, any additional service being used by the Communication Infrastructure shall also be protected. Appropriate measures shall be defined in the Security Policy.\nArticle 18\nMonitoring\n1. Logs recording the information referred to in Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Article 18(1) of Decision 2007/533/JHA relating to every access to and all exchanges of personal data within the CS-SIS shall be kept securely stored on, and accessible from, the premises where the principal CS-SIS and the backup CS-SIS are located for the maximum period referred to in Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Article 18(3) of Decision 2007/533/JHA.\n2. Procedures for monitoring use or faults in data processing facilities shall be set out in the Security Policy and the results of the monitoring activities reviewed regularly. If necessary, appropriate action shall be taken.\n3. Logging facilities and logs shall be protected against tampering and unauthorised access in order to meet the requirements of collecting and retain evidence for the retention period.\nArticle 19\nCryptographic measures\nCryptographic measures shall be used where appropriate for the protection of information. Their use, along with the purposes and conditions, must be approved by the System Security Officer in advance.\nCHAPTER IV\nHUMAN RESOURCES SECURITY\nArticle 20\nPersonnel profiles\n1. The Security Policy shall define the functions and responsibilities of persons who are authorised to access Central SIS II.\n2. The Security Policy shall define the functions and responsibilities of persons who are authorised to access the Communication Infrastructure.\n3. The security roles and responsibilities of Commission staff, contractors and staff involved in operational management shall be defined, documented and communicated to the persons concerned. The job description and the objectives shall state these roles and responsibilities for Commission staff; contracts or service level agreements shall state them for contractors.\n4. Confidentiality and secrecy agreements shall be concluded with all persons to whom no European Union or Member State public service rules apply. Staff required to work with SIS II data shall have the necessary clearance or certification in accordance with the detailed procedures to be set out in the Security Policy.\nArticle 21\nInformation of personnel\n1. All staff and contractors shall receive appropriate training in security awareness, legal requirements, policies and procedures, to the extent required by their duties.\n2. At the termination of the employment or contract, responsibilities related to job change or employment termination shall be defined for staff and contractors in the Security Policy, and procedures shall be set out in the Security Policy to manage the return of assets and the removal of access rights.\nCHAPTER V\nFINAL PROVISION\nArticle 22\nApplicability\n1. This Decision shall become applicable as of the date fixed by the Council in accordance with Article 55(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Article 71(2) of Decision 2007/533/JHA.\n2. Articles 1(1) and 2(1), Article 2(3)(b), (d), (f) and (i), Article 3, Articles 6(5), 7(5), 9(6), 10(6), 13(2) and (3), Articles 15 and 18 and Article 20(1) shall expire when the Management Authority takes up its responsibilities.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2010.", "references": ["75", "44", "74", "24", "71", "43", "99", "62", "33", "36", "38", "57", "6", "95", "50", "9", "26", "82", "5", "55", "80", "59", "46", "61", "90", "64", "63", "21", "91", "52", "No Label", "13", "40", "41", "42"], "gold": ["13", "40", "41", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 1 June 2011\nconcerning the non-inclusion of dicloran in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC\n(notified under document C(2011) 3731)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/329/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included dicloran.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11f of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 and Article 12(1)(a) and Article 12(2)(b) of that Regulation, Commission Decision 2008/744/EC of 18 September 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of dicloran in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (4) was adopted.\n(3)\nThe original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Spain, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/744/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nSpain evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 6 October 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on dicloran to the Commission on 21 July 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and the Animal Health and finalised on 5 May 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for dicloran.\n(6)\nThe additional report by the rapporteur Member State and the conclusion by the Authority concentrate on the concerns that lead to the non-inclusion; in particular, there was a concern with regard to worker exposure. More concerns were identified in the review report for dicloran.\n(7)\nAdditional information was submitted by the applicant, in particular as regards the specification of the technical material, the equivalence of the test materials used in the toxicity studies and the technical material; as commercially manufactured, the mammalian toxicity, the operator and worker exposure and the degradation pathways.\n(8)\nHowever, the additional information provided by the applicant did not permit to eliminate all of the specific concerns arising in respect of dicloran.\n(9)\nIn particular, there were the following concerns. It was not demonstrated that the specification of the technical material, as commercially manufactured, is equivalent with those of the test materials used in the toxicological and ecotoxicological studies. The data available were insufficient to conclude on the toxicological relevance of two impurities present in the technical material, for confidentiality reasons referred to as impurities 3 and 4. Harmful effects on human health were identified. In particular, worker exposure was found to exceed 100 % of the acceptable operator exposure level (AOEL). The consumer risk assessment could not be finalised due to unknown amounts of residues in succeeding crops. Information on risks to aquatic organisms from unidentified degradation products of the aqueous photolysis and to non target soil macro-organisms was not sufficient.\n(10)\nThe Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion by the Authority. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) to Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the applicant to submit comments on the draft review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(11)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns identified could not be eliminated, and assessments made on the basis of the information submitted and evaluated during the expert meetings of the Authority have not demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing dicloran satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(12)\nDicloran should therefore not be included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(13)\nIn the interest of clarity, Decision 2008/744/EC should be repealed.\n(14)\nThis Decision does not prejudice the submission of a further application for dicloran pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDicloran shall not be included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2008/744/EC is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2011.", "references": ["77", "18", "12", "58", "14", "73", "43", "9", "53", "19", "96", "85", "34", "38", "15", "40", "78", "61", "52", "63", "81", "36", "10", "13", "17", "45", "89", "31", "87", "76", "No Label", "25", "51", "60", "65"], "gold": ["25", "51", "60", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 754/2011\nof 1 August 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/487/CFSP of 1 August 2011 amending Council Common Position 2002/402/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Usama bin Laden, members of the Al-Qaida organisation and the Taliban and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them (1), adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 May 2002, the Council adopted Common Position 2002/402/CFSP (2) and Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (3).\n(2)\nOn 17 June 2011, the United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, adopted Resolution 1989 (2011) concerning threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts.\n(3)\nOn 1 August 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/487/CFSP.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n(2)\nin Article 1(5), the words \u2018and the Taliban\u2019 are deleted;\n(3)\nin Article 2(3), the words \u2018Usama bin Laden\u2019 and \u2018and the Taliban\u2019 are deleted.\nArticle 2\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 August 2011.", "references": ["88", "2", "26", "38", "99", "25", "33", "68", "52", "31", "4", "15", "73", "82", "85", "35", "47", "74", "44", "81", "45", "46", "41", "32", "77", "96", "76", "42", "63", "65", "No Label", "1", "3", "23", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 September 2010\nauthorising the Kingdom of the Netherlands to apply a measure derogating from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(Only the Dutch version is authentic)\n(2010/580/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 291(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter registered with the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 29 January 2010, the Kingdom of the Netherlands requested authorisation to apply special tax measures in the ready-to-wear clothing industry as previously authorised for a limited period by Decision 2007/740/EC (2).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 395(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission informed the other Member States, by letter dated 25 February 2010, of the request made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands. By letter dated 2 March 2010, the Commission notified the Kingdom of the Netherlands that it had all the information necessary to consider the request.\n(3)\nThe arrangement would authorise the Kingdom of the Netherlands to apply, in the ready-to-wear clothing industry, a scheme for shifting the subcontractor\u2019s obligation to pay over VAT to the tax authorities from the subcontractor to the clothing firm (the contractor). The scheme would constitute a reverse charge procedure confined to upstream operations in the commercial chain, and hence it would not apply to operators who sell to the final consumer. The procedure aims at combating frauds of a specific nature in the domestic manufacturing market.\n(4)\nSuch arrangements have proven in the past to be an effective prevention measure in a sector in which collecting VAT is made difficult by the problems of identifying and supervising the activities of subcontractors. The requested measure is therefore to be considered as a measure to prevent certain types of tax evasion and avoidance in the ready-to-wear clothing industry.\n(5)\nThe location for the manufacture of ready-to-wear clothes is influenced by low labour costs and subcontractors relocate easily from one country to another. Therefore, Decision 2007/740/EC required the Kingdom of the Netherlands to monitor and evaluate the impact of those factors on the effectiveness of the derogation and to submit a report to the Commission by 31 July 2009.\n(6)\nThat report indicated that the incidence of fraud has considerably diminished and that the number of ready-to-wear clothing firms qualifying for the reverse charge procedure under Decision 2007/740/EC has steadily declined as a result of the derogating measure and international market developments. Consequently, stability is gradually returning to the ready-to-wear clothing sector in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.\n(7)\nIn order to complete that process, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has requested the measure to be extended for a limited period and has announced, at the same time, that a final decision on the possible abolishment of the measure would be taken in 2011. It is therefore appropriate that the derogation continue to apply until 31 December 2012.\n(8)\nIn the event that the Kingdom of the Netherlands were to consider another extension of the derogating measure beyond 2012, a new evaluation report should be submitted to the Commission together with that extension request no later than 1 April 2012.\n(9)\nThe derogation will not have an adverse effect on the European Union\u2019s own resources accruing from value added tax nor does it affect the amount of VAT charged at the final stage of consumption,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is hereby authorised to apply until 31 December 2012, in the ready-to-wear clothing industry, a scheme for shifting the subcontractors\u2019 obligations to pay over VAT to the tax authorities from the subcontractor to the clothing firm (the contractor).\nArticle 2\nAny request for extending the measure beyond 2012 shall be accompanied by the submission of a report to the Commission by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, concerning in particular the effectiveness of the measure and any evidence of the relocation of subcontractors in the ready-to-wear clothing industry to other countries, and shall be sent no later than 1 April 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nIt shall apply as from 1 January 2010.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["59", "41", "49", "86", "21", "40", "54", "18", "77", "33", "2", "47", "35", "25", "79", "55", "80", "98", "76", "67", "44", "6", "23", "13", "88", "90", "85", "83", "11", "78", "No Label", "8", "12", "34", "75", "89", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "12", "34", "75", "89", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1188/2010\nof 15 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["41", "97", "96", "57", "56", "46", "98", "84", "58", "99", "75", "90", "24", "10", "42", "39", "43", "80", "38", "40", "23", "26", "82", "64", "92", "0", "30", "86", "29", "72", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 863/2010\nof 29 September 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 as regards deadlines applicable to export and levying of sugar produced in excess of quota\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Articles 134 and 161(3), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards sugar production in excess of the quota (2) establishes deadlines that are applicable to export and levying of out of quota sugar.\n(2)\nArticle 19(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 lays down that in case of exporting the production in excess of the quota, manufacturers shall submit the requested proofs of export to the competent authority of the Member State before 1 April following the marketing year in which the surplus was produced.\n(3)\nWhere certain destinations are not eligible for exporting sugar and/or isoglucose produced in excess of quota, manufacturers are requested to submit proof of arrival at destination in accordance with Article 4c of Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 (3). Experience has shown that in the case of certain destinations it may take longer to obtain all necessary documents. It is therefore appropriate to provide for the possibility to extend the deadline in such cases.\n(4)\nWhere the deadline to submit proofs of export to the competent authority of the Member State is extended, the deadline for the Member State to notify the total levy to be paid by manufacturers and the deadline for manufacturers to pay the levy should also be adjusted. Similarly, the deadline fixed for Member States to establish and communicate to the Commission the surplus quantities should be modified.\n(5)\nArticles 3, 4 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 967/2006 is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 3(2) the following second subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Should Member States make use of the possibility foreseen in Article 19(3), the deadlines laid down in the first subparagraph shall be 1 November and 1 December respectively.\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 4(3) the following second subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Should Member States make use of the possibility foreseen in Article 19(3), the deadline laid down in the first subparagraph shall be 31 December.\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 19 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2(c)(ii) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(ii)\nthe documents referred to in Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 and, if certain destinations are not eligible for exports of out-of-quota sugar and/or isoglucose, the documents referred to in Article 4c of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, required to release the security.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph 3 is added:\n\u20183. Where certain destinations are not eligible for exporting sugar and/or isoglucose produced in excess of quota, Member States may, upon the written request of the manufacturer, extend the deadline of 1 April laid down in paragraph 2(c) by up to 6 months for submitting the documents referred to in paragraph 2(c)(ii).\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 September 2010.", "references": ["79", "74", "34", "48", "69", "90", "95", "96", "13", "8", "88", "26", "38", "40", "6", "85", "33", "94", "92", "87", "46", "52", "91", "47", "10", "45", "9", "98", "15", "21", "No Label", "61", "62", "71", "72", "75"], "gold": ["61", "62", "71", "72", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 474/2012\nof 4 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 June 2012.", "references": ["31", "69", "91", "38", "66", "56", "84", "44", "21", "50", "20", "39", "1", "65", "76", "96", "41", "74", "57", "80", "34", "42", "15", "8", "99", "13", "55", "0", "97", "70", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1223/2010\nof 17 December 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1384/2007 for poultrymeat originating in Israel\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1384/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/96 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain quotas for imports into the Community of poultrymeat products originating in Israel (3), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2011 relate to quantities exceeding those available for licences under the quota with order number 09.4092. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 1384/2007 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 December 2010.", "references": ["33", "62", "47", "92", "43", "40", "39", "12", "34", "97", "11", "4", "46", "25", "41", "94", "55", "10", "80", "78", "87", "14", "54", "27", "38", "0", "3", "72", "61", "71", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "69", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "69", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 16 September 2010\namending Decisions 2008/603/EC, 2008/691/EC and 2008/751/EC as regards extension of the temporary derogations from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Mauritius, Seychelles and Madagascar with regard to tuna and tuna loins\n(notified under document C(2010) 6259)\n(2010/560/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements (1), and in particular Article 36(4) of Annex II thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 17 July 2008 Commission Decision 2008/603/EC (2) was adopted granting a temporary derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Mauritius with regard to preserved tuna and tuna loins. On 15 June 2009 Commission Decision 2009/471/EC (3) was adopted granting an extension of that temporary derogation. On 21 December 2009 Mauritius requested in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 a new derogation from the rules of origin set out in that Annex. According to the information received from Mauritius the catches of raw tuna remain unusually low even compared to the normal seasonal variations. Given that the abnormal situation in 2009 remains unchanged for 2010 a new derogation should be granted with effect from 1 January 2010.\n(2)\nOn 14 August 2008 Commission Decision 2008/691/EC (4) was adopted granting a temporary derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Seychelles with regard to preserved tuna. By Decision 2009/471/EC an extension of that temporary derogation was granted. On 25 January 2010 Seychelles requested in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 a new derogation from the rules of origin set out in that Annex. According to the information provided by Seychelles the catches of raw tuna remain very low even compared to the normal seasonal variations. Given that the abnormal situation in 2009 remains unchanged for 2010 a new derogation should be granted with effect from 1 January 2010.\n(3)\nOn 18 September 2008 Commission Decision 2008/751/EC (5) was adopted granting a temporary derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Madagascar with regard to preserved tuna and tuna loins. By Decision 2009/471/EC an extension of that temporary derogation was granted. On 22 May 2010 Madagascar requested in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 a new derogation from the rules of origin set out in that Annex. On 8 June 2010 Madagascar provided additional information. According to the information provided by Madagascar sourcing of raw originating tuna remains difficult due to their unavailability. Given that the abnormal situation in 2009 remains unchanged for 2010 a new derogation should be granted with effect from 1 January 2010.\n(4)\nDecisions 2008/603/EC, 2008/691/EC and 2008/751/EC applied until 31 December 2009 because the Interim Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States on the one part and the European Community and its Member States on the other part (ESA-EU Interim Partnership Agreement) did not enter into force or was not provisionally applied before that date.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 the rules of origin set out in Annex II to that Regulation and the derogations to them are to be superseded by the rules of the ESA-EU Interim Partnership Agreement of which the entry into force or the provisional application is foreseen to take place in 2010.\n(6)\nIt is necessary to ensure continuity of importations from the ACP countries to the Union as well as a smooth transition to the Interim Economic Partnership Agreement. Decisions 2008/603/EC, 2008/691/EC and 2008/751/EC should therefore be prolonged with effect from 1 January 2010.\n(7)\nMauritius, Seychelles and Madagascar will benefit from an automatic derogation from the rules of origin for tuna of HS heading 1604 pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Origin Protocol attached to the ESA-EU Interim Partnership Agreement signed by them, when this Agreement enters into force or is provisionally applied. It would be inappropriate to grant by this Decision derogations in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 which exceed the annual quota granted to the ESA region under the ESA-EU Interim Partnership Agreement. The ESA signatories to the Agreement have therefore signed a unilateral political declaration concerning the derogations for tuna granted in 2010 whereby these countries renounce to the global annual quantity of the automatic derogation for 2010 in case that the Agreement will either be provisionally applied or enter into force during this year. Consequently the quota amounts for 2010 should be set at the same level as for 2009.\n(8)\nDecisions 2008/603/EC, 2008/691/EC and 2008/751/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2008/603/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to the products and the quantities set out in the Annex which are declared for free circulation into the Community from Mauritius during the periods of 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2008, 1 January 2009 until 31 December 2009, and 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2010.\u2019\n2.\nIn Article 6, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall apply until 31 December 2010.\u2019\n3.\nThe Annex is replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2008/691/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to the products and the quantities set out in the Annex which are declared for free circulation into the Community from Seychelles during the periods of 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2008, 1 January 2009 until 31 December 2009 and 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2010.\u2019\n2.\nIn Article 6, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall apply until 31 December 2010.\u2019\n3.\nThe Annex is replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nDecision 2008/751/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to the products and the quantities set out in the Annex which are declared for free circulation into the Community from Madagascar during the periods of 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2008, 1 January 2009 until 31 December 2009 and 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2010.\u2019\n2.\nIn Article 6, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall apply until 31 December 2010.\u2019\n3.\nThe Annex is replaced by the text set out in Annex III to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2010.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 September 2010.", "references": ["62", "25", "27", "96", "33", "19", "28", "57", "91", "56", "18", "95", "73", "65", "80", "69", "86", "14", "38", "97", "42", "64", "44", "35", "78", "79", "92", "7", "75", "70", "No Label", "8", "21", "23", "67", "72", "94"], "gold": ["8", "21", "23", "67", "72", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1370/2011\nof 21 December 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [\u0413\u043e\u0440\u043d\u043e\u043e\u0440\u044f\u0445\u043e\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0436\u0443\u043a (Gornooryahovski sudzhuk) (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Bulgaria\u2019s application to register the name \u2018\u0413\u043e\u0440\u043d\u043e\u043e\u0440\u044f\u0445\u043e\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0436\u0443\u043a\u2019 (Gornooryahovski sudzhuk) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nA statement of objection was lodged by Cyprus under Article 7(3)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 31 January 2011, the Commission asked the Parties concerned to seek agreement among them. An agreement was reached within six months and Cyprus withdrew its objection on 22 July 2011.\n(4)\nThe name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["64", "50", "19", "38", "14", "39", "23", "35", "37", "61", "89", "84", "27", "71", "54", "44", "40", "1", "88", "55", "6", "80", "31", "62", "85", "3", "47", "16", "76", "29", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1177/2011\nof 8 November 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 126(14) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (2),\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe coordination of the economic policies of the Member States within the Union, as provided for by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), should entail compliance with the guiding principles of stable prices, sound public finances and monetary conditions, and a sustainable balance of payments.\n(2)\nThe Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) initially consisted of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (3), Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (4) and the Resolution of the European Council of 17 June 1997 on the Stability and Growth Pact (5). Regulations (EC) No 1466/97 and (EC) No 1467/97 were amended by Regulations (EC) No 1055/2005 (6) and (EC) No 1056/2005 (7) respectively. In addition, the Council Report of 20 March 2005 on \u2018Improving the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact\u2019 (8) was adopted.\n(3)\nThe SGP is based on the objective of sound and sustainable government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth underpinned by financial stability, thereby supporting the achievement of the Union\u2019s objectives for sustainable growth and employment.\n(4)\nExperience gained and mistakes made during the first decade of the economic and monetary union show a need for improved economic governance in the Union, which should be built on stronger national ownership of commonly agreed rules and policies and on a more robust framework at the level of the Union for the surveillance of national economic policies.\n(5)\nThe common framework for economic governance needs to be enhanced, including improved budgetary surveillance, in line with the high degree of integration between Member States\u2019 economies within the Union, and particularly within the euro area.\n(6)\nThe improved economic governance framework should rely on several interlinked and coherent policies for sustainable growth and jobs, in particular a Union strategy for growth and jobs, with particular focus on developing and strengthening the internal market, fostering international trade and competitiveness, a European Semester for strengthened coordination of economic and budgetary policies, an effective framework for preventing and correcting excessive government deficits (the SGP), a robust framework for preventing and correcting macroeconomic imbalances, minimum requirements for national budgetary frameworks, and enhanced financial market regulation and supervision, including macroprudential supervision by the European Systemic Risk Board.\n(7)\nAchieving and maintaining a dynamic internal market should be considered an element of the proper and smooth functioning of the economic and monetary union.\n(8)\nThe SGP and the complete economic governance framework should complement and support the Union strategy for growth and jobs. The interlinks between different strands should not provide for exemptions from the provisions of the SGP.\n(9)\nThe strengthening of economic governance should include a closer and more timely involvement of the European Parliament and the national parliaments. While recognising that the counterparts of the European Parliament in the framework of this dialogue are the relevant institutions of the Union and their representatives, the competent committee of the European Parliament may offer an opportunity to participate in an exchange of views to a Member State to which the Council has addressed a decision under Article 126(6) TFEU, a recommendation under Article 126(7) TFEU, a notice under Article 126(9) TFEU or a decision under Article 126(11) TFEU. The Member State\u2019s participation in such an exchange of views is voluntary.\n(10)\nThe Commission should have a stronger role in the enhanced surveillance procedure as regards assessments that are specific to each Member State, monitoring, on-site missions, recommendations and warnings.\n(11)\nThe Council and the Commission should, when applying this Regulation, take into account, as appropriate, all relevant factors and the economic and budgetary situation of the Member States concerned.\n(12)\nThe rules on budgetary discipline should be strengthened, in particular by giving a more prominent role to the level and evolution of debt and to overall sustainability. The mechanisms to ensure compliance with, and enforcement of, those rules should also be strengthened.\n(13)\nImplementing the existing excessive deficit procedure on the basis of both the deficit criterion and the debt criterion requires a numerical benchmark, which takes into account the business cycle, against which to assess whether the ratio of the government debt to gross domestic product (GDP) is sufficiently diminishing and is approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace.\nA transitional period should be introduced in order to allow Member States subject to an excessive deficit procedure at the date of adoption of this Regulation to adapt their policies to the numerical benchmark for debt reduction. This should also apply to Member States which are subject to a Union or International Monetary Fund adjustment programme.\n(14)\nNon-compliance with the numerical benchmark for debt reduction should not be sufficient to establish the existence of an excessive deficit, which should take into account the whole range of relevant factors covered by the Commission\u2019s report under Article 126(3) TFEU. In particular, the assessment of the effect of the cycle and the composition of the stock-flow adjustment on debt developments may be sufficient to avoid that the existence of an excessive deficit be established on the basis of the debt criterion.\n(15)\nIn establishing the existence of an excessive deficit based on the deficit criterion and the steps leading to it, there is a need to take into account the whole range of relevant factors covered by the Commission\u2019s report under Article 126(3) TFEU if the ratio of government debt to GDP does not exceed the reference value.\n(16)\nIn taking into account systemic pension reforms among the relevant factors, the central consideration should be whether those reforms enhance the long-term sustainability of the overall pension system, while not increasing the risks to the medium-term budgetary position.\n(17)\nThe Commission\u2019s report under Article 126(3) TFEU should consider appropriately the quality of the national budgetary framework, as that plays a crucial role in supporting fiscal consolidation and sustainable public finances. That consideration should include the minimum requirements as laid down in Council Directive 2011/85/EU of 8 November 2011 on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States (9) and other agreed desirable requirements for fiscal discipline.\n(18)\nIn order to support the monitoring of compliance with Council recommendations and notices for the correction of situations of excessive deficit, there is a need that these specify annual budgetary targets consistent with the required fiscal improvement in cyclically adjusted terms, net of one-off and temporary measures. In that context, the 0,5 % of GDP annual benchmark should be understood as an annual average.\n(19)\nThe assessment of effective action will benefit from taking compliance with general government expenditure targets as a reference, in conjunction with the implementation of planned specific revenue measures.\n(20)\nIn assessing the case for an extension of the deadline for correcting the excessive deficit, particular consideration should be given to severe economic downturns in the euro area or in the Union as a whole, provided that this does not endanger fiscal sustainability in the medium term.\n(21)\nIt is appropriate to step up the application of the financial sanctions provided for in Article 126(11) TFEU so that they constitute a real incentive for compliance with the notices under Article 126(9) TFEU.\n(22)\nIn order to ensure compliance with the fiscal surveillance framework of the Union for Member States whose currency is the euro, rules-based sanctions should be designed on the basis of Article 136 TFEU, ensuring fair, timely and effective mechanisms for compliance with the SGP.\n(23)\nFines referred to in this Regulation shall constitute other revenue, as referred to in Article 311 TFEU, and should be assigned to stability mechanisms to provide financial assistance, created by Member States whose currency is the euro in order to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole.\n(24)\nReferences contained in Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 should take account of the new Article numbering of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the replacement of Council Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 (10) by Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 of 25 May 2009 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (11).\n(25)\nRegulation (EC) No 1467/97 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1467/97 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\n1. This Regulation lays down the provisions for speeding up and clarifying the excessive deficit procedure. The objective of the excessive deficit procedure is to deter excessive government deficits and, if they occur, to further prompt their correction, where compliance with the budgetary discipline is examined on the basis of the government deficit and government debt criteria.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation, \u201cparticipating Member States\u201d shall mean those Member States whose currency is the euro.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The excess of a government deficit over the reference value shall be considered exceptional, in accordance with the second indent of point (a) of Article 126(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), when resulting from an unusual event outside the control of the Member State concerned and with a major impact on the financial position of general government, or when resulting from a severe economic downturn.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20181a. When it exceeds the reference value, the ratio of the government debt to gross domestic product (GDP) shall be considered sufficiently diminishing and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace in accordance with point (b) of Article 126(2) TFEU if the differential with respect to the reference value has decreased over the previous three years at an average rate of one twentieth per year as a benchmark, based on changes over the last three years for which the data is available.\nThe requirement under the debt criterion shall also be considered to be fulfilled if the budgetary forecasts of the Commission indicate that the required reduction in the differential will occur over the three-year period encompassing the two years following the final year for which the data is available. For a Member State that is subject to an excessive deficit procedure on 8 November 2011 and for a period of three years from the correction of the excessive deficit, the requirement under the debt criterion shall be considered fulfilled if the Member State concerned makes sufficient progress towards compliance as assessed in the opinion adopted by the Council on its stability or convergence programme.\nIn implementing the debt ratio adjustment benchmark, account shall be taken of the influence of the cycle on the pace of debt reduction.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraphs 3 to 7 are replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Commission, when preparing a report under Article 126(3) TFEU, shall take into account all relevant factors as indicated in that Article, in so far as they significantly affect the assessment of compliance with the deficit and debt criteria by the Member State concerned. The report shall reflect, as appropriate:\n(a)\nthe developments in the medium-term economic position, in particular potential growth, including the various contributions provided by labour, capital accumulation and total factor productivity, cyclical developments, and the private sector net savings position;\n(b)\nthe developments in the medium-term budgetary positions, including, in particular, the record of adjustment towards the medium-term budgetary objective, the level of the primary balance and developments in primary expenditure, both current and capital, the implementation of policies in the context of the prevention and correction of excessive macroeconomic imbalances, the implementation of policies in the context of the common growth strategy of the Union, and the overall quality of public finances, in particular the effectiveness of national budgetary frameworks;\n(c)\nthe developments in the medium-term government debt position, its dynamics and sustainability, including, in particular, risk factors including the maturity structure and currency denomination of the debt, stock-flow adjustment and its composition, accumulated reserves and other financial assets, guarantees, in particular those linked to the financial sector, and any implicit liabilities related to ageing and private debt, to the extent that it may represent a contingent implicit liability for the government.\nThe Commission shall give due and express consideration to any other factors which, in the opinion of the Member State concerned, are relevant in order to comprehensively assess compliance with deficit and debt criteria and which the Member State has put forward to the Council and the Commission. In that context, particular consideration shall be given to financial contributions to fostering international solidarity and achieving the policy goals of the Union, the debt incurred in the form of bilateral and multilateral support between Member States in the context of safeguarding financial stability, and the debt related to financial stabilisation operations during major financial disturbances.\n4. The Council and the Commission shall make a balanced overall assessment of all the relevant factors, specifically, the extent to which they affect the assessment of compliance with the deficit and/or the debt criteria as aggravating or mitigating factors. When assessing compliance on the basis of the deficit criterion, if the ratio of the government debt to GDP exceeds the reference value, those factors shall be taken into account in the steps leading to the decision on the existence of an excessive deficit provided for in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 126 TFEU only if the double condition of the overarching principle - that, before these relevant factors are taken into account, the general government deficit remains close to the reference value and its excess over the reference value is temporary - is fully met.\nHowever, those factors shall be taken into account in the steps leading to the decision on the existence of an excessive deficit when assessing compliance on the basis of the debt criterion.\n5. When assessing compliance with the deficit and debt criterion and in the subsequent steps of the excessive deficit procedure, the Council and the Commission shall give due consideration to the implementation of pension reforms introducing a multi-pillar system that includes a mandatory, fully funded pillar and the net cost of the publicly managed pillar. In particular, consideration shall be given to the features of the overall pension system created by the reform, namely whether it promotes long-term sustainability while not increasing risks for the medium-term budgetary position.\n6. If the Council, acting under Article 126(6) TFEU, decides that an excessive deficit exists in a Member State, the Council and the Commission shall, in the subsequent procedural steps of that Article of the TFEU, take into account the relevant factors referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article, as they affect the situation of the Member State concerned, including as specified in Article 3(5) and Article 5(2) of this Regulation, in particular in establishing a deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit and eventually extending that deadline. However, those relevant factors shall not be taken into account for the decision of the Council under Article 126(12) TFEU on the abrogation of some or all of its decisions under paragraphs 6 to 9 and 11 of Article 126 TFEU.\n7. In the case of Member States where the excess of the deficit over the reference value reflects the implementation of a pension reform introducing a multi-pillar system that includes a mandatory, fully funded pillar, the Council and the Commission shall also consider the cost of the reform when assessing developments of deficit figures in excessive deficit procedures as long as the deficit does not significantly exceed a level that can be considered close to the reference value, and the debt ratio does not exceed the reference value, provided that overall fiscal sustainability is maintained. The net cost shall be taken into account also for the decision of the Council under Article 126(12) TFEU on the abrogation of some or all of its decisions under paragraphs 6 to 9 and 11 of Article 126 TFEU, if the deficit has declined substantially and continuously and has reached a level that comes close to the reference value.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe following section is inserted:\n\u2018SECTION 1A\nECONOMIC DIALOGUE\nArticle 2a\n1. In order to enhance the dialogue between the institutions of the Union, in particular the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and to ensure greater transparency and accountability, the competent committee of the European Parliament may invite the President of the Council, the Commission and, where appropriate, the President of the European Council or the President of the Eurogroup, to appear before the committee to discuss Council decisions under Article 126(6) TFEU, Council recommendations under Article 126(7) TFEU, notices under Article 126(9) TFEU, or Council decisions under Article 126(11) TFEU.\nThe Council is, as a rule, expected to follow the recommendations and proposals of the Commission or explain its position publicly.\nThe competent committee of the European Parliament may offer the opportunity to the Member State concerned by such decisions, recommendations or notices to participate in an exchange of views.\n2. The Council and the Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament of the application of this Regulation.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Taking fully into account the opinion referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission, if it considers that an excessive deficit exists, shall address an opinion and a proposal to the Council in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 126 TFEU and shall inform the European Parliament thereof.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, the reference to \u2018Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 3605/93\u2019 is replaced by a reference to \u2018Article 3(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 479/2009\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraphs 4 and 5 are replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Council recommendation made in accordance with Article 126(7) TFEU shall establish a maximum deadline of six months for effective action to be taken by the Member State concerned. When warranted by the seriousness of the situation, the deadline for effective action may be three months. The Council recommendation shall also establish a deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit, which shall be completed in the year following its identification unless there are special circumstances. In its recommendation, the Council shall request that the Member State achieve annual budgetary targets which, on the basis of the forecast underpinning the recommendation, are consistent with a minimum annual improvement of at least 0,5 % of GDP as a benchmark, in its cyclically adjusted balance net of one-off and temporary measures, in order to ensure the correction of the excessive deficit within the deadline set in the recommendation.\n4a. Within the deadline provided for in paragraph 4, the Member State concerned shall report to the Council and the Commission on action taken in response to the Council\u2019s recommendation under Article 126(7) TFEU. The report shall include the targets for government expenditure and revenue and for the discretionary measures on both the expenditure and the revenue side consistent with the Council\u2019s recommendation, as well as information on the measures taken and the nature of those envisaged to achieve the targets. The Member State shall make the report public.\n5. If effective action has been taken in compliance with a recommendation under Article 126(7) TFEU and unexpected adverse economic events with major unfavourable consequences for government finances occur after the adoption of that recommendation, the Council may decide, on a recommendation from the Commission, to adopt a revised recommendation under Article 126(7) TFEU. The revised recommendation, taking into account the relevant factors referred to in Article 2(3) of this Regulation may, in particular, extend the deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit by one year as a rule. The Council shall assess the existence of unexpected adverse economic events with major unfavourable consequences for government finances against the economic forecasts in its recommendation. In the case of a severe economic downturn in the euro area or in the Union as a whole, the Council may also decide, on a recommendation from the Commission, to adopt a revised recommendation under Article 126(7) TFEU provided that this does not endanger fiscal sustainability in the medium term.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 4, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Any decision by the Council under Article 126(8) TFEU to make public its recommendations where it is established that no effective action has been taken, shall be taken immediately after the expiry of the deadline set in accordance with Article 3(4) of this Regulation.\n2. The Council, when considering whether effective action has been taken in response to its recommendations made in accordance with Article 126(7) TFEU, shall base its decision on the report submitted by the Member State concerned in accordance with Article 3(4a) of this Regulation and its implementation, as well as on any other publicly announced decisions by the government of the Member State concerned.\nWhere the Council establishes, in accordance with Article 126(8) TFEU, that the Member State concerned has failed to take effective action, it shall report to the European Council accordingly.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Any Council decision to give notice to the participating Member State concerned to take measures for the deficit reduction in accordance with Article 126(9) TFEU shall be taken within two months of the Council decision under Article 126(8) TFEU establishing that no effective action has been taken. In the notice, the Council shall request that the Member State achieve annual budgetary targets which, on the basis of the forecast underpinning the notice, are consistent with a minimum annual improvement of at least 0,5 % of GDP as a benchmark, in its cyclically adjusted balance net of one-off and temporary measures, in order to ensure the correction of the excessive deficit within the deadline set in the notice. The Council shall also indicate measures conducive to the achievement of those targets.\n1a. Following a Council notice under Article 126(9) TFEU, the Member State concerned shall report to the Council and the Commission on action taken in response thereto. The report shall include the targets for the government expenditure and revenue and for the discretionary measures on both the expenditure and the revenue side, as well as information on the actions being taken in response to the specific Council recommendations so as to allow the Council to take, if necessary, a decision in accordance with Article 6(2) of this Regulation. The Member State shall make the report public.\n2. If effective action has been taken in compliance with a notice under Article 126(9) TFEU and unexpected adverse economic events with major unfavourable consequences for government finances occur after the adoption of that notice, the Council may decide, on a recommendation from the Commission, to adopt a revised notice under Article 126(9) TFEU. The revised notice, taking into account the relevant factors referred to in Article 2(3) of this Regulation may, in particular, extend the deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit by one year as a rule. The Council shall assess the existence of unexpected adverse economic events with major unfavourable consequences for government finances against the economic forecasts in its notice. In the case of a severe economic downturn in the euro area or in the Union as a whole, the Council may also decide, on a recommendation from the Commission, to adopt a revised notice under Article 126(9) TFEU, on condition that this does not endanger fiscal sustainability in the medium term.\u2019;\n(7)\nArticles 6 to 8 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\n1. The Council, when considering whether effective action has been taken in response to its notice made in accordance with Article 126(9) TFEU, shall base its decision on the report submitted by the Member State concerned in accordance with Article 5(1a) of this Regulation and its implementation, as well as on any other publicly announced decisions by the government of the Member State concerned. The outcome of the surveillance mission carried out by the Commission in accordance with Article 10a of this Regulation shall be taken into account.\n2. Where the conditions to apply Article 126(11) TFEU are met, the Council shall impose sanctions in accordance with that Article. Any such decision shall be taken no later than four months after the Council decision under Article 126(9) TFEU giving notice to the participating Member State concerned to take measures.\nArticle 7\nIf a participating Member State fails to act in compliance with the successive acts of the Council in accordance with Article 126(7) and (9) TFEU, the decision of the Council under Article 126(11) TFEU to impose sanctions shall be taken as a rule within 16 months of the reporting dates established in Article 3(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 479/2009. Where Article 3(5) or Article 5(2) of this Regulation is applied, the 16-month deadline shall be adjusted accordingly. An expedited procedure shall be used in the case of a deliberately planned deficit which the Council decides is excessive.\nArticle 8\nAny Council decision under Article 126(11) TFEU to intensify sanctions shall be taken no later than two months after the reporting dates pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 479/2009. Any Council decision under Article 126(12) TFEU to abrogate some or all of its decisions shall be taken as soon as possible and in any event no later than two months after the reporting dates pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 479/2009.\u2019;\n(8)\nin Article 9(3), the reference to \u2018Article 6\u2019 is replaced by a reference to \u2018Article 6(2)\u2019;\n(9)\nArticle 10 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe introductory words of paragraph 1 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Council and the Commission shall regularly monitor the implementation of action taken:\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, the reference to \u2018Regulation (EC) No 3605/93\u2019 is replaced by a reference to \u2018Regulation (EC) No 479/2009\u2019.;\n(10)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 10a\n1. The Commission shall ensure a permanent dialogue with authorities of the Member States in accordance with the objectives of this Regulation. To that end, the Commission shall, in particular, carry out missions for the purpose of the assessment of the actual economic situation in the Member State and the identification of any risks or difficulties in complying with the objectives of this Regulation.\n2. Enhanced surveillance may be undertaken for Member States which are the subject of recommendations and notices issued following a decision pursuant to Article 126(8) TFEU and decisions under Article 126(11) TFEU for the purposes of on-site monitoring. The Member States concerned shall provide all necessary information for the preparation and the conduct of the mission.\n3. The Commission may invite representatives of the European Central Bank, if appropriate, to participate in surveillance missions in a Member State whose currency is the euro or which is participating in the Agreement of 16 March 2006 between the European Central Bank and the national central banks of the Member States outside the euro area laying down the operating procedures for an exchange rate mechanism in stage three of Economic and Monetary Union (12) (ERM II).\n4. The Commission shall report to the Council on the outcome of the mission referred to in paragraph 2 and may decide to make its findings public.\n5. When organising surveillance missions referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall transmit its provisional findings to the Member States concerned for comments.;\n(11)\nArticles 11 and 12 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\nWhenever the Council decides under Article 126(11) TFEU to impose sanctions on a participating Member State, a fine shall, as a rule, be required. The Council may decide to supplement such a fine by the other measures provided for in Article 126(11) TFEU.\nArticle 12\n1. The amount of the fine shall comprise a fixed component equal to 0,2 % of GDP, and a variable component. The variable component shall amount to one tenth of the absolute value of the difference between the balance as a percentage of GDP in the preceding year and either the reference value for government balance or, if non-compliance with budgetary discipline includes the debt criterion, the government balance as a percentage of GDP that should have been achieved in the same year according to the notice issued under Article 126(9) TFEU.\n2. In each year following that in which a fine is imposed, until the decision on the existence of an excessive deficit is abrogated, the Council shall assess whether the participating Member State concerned has taken effective action in response to the Council notice in accordance with Article 126(9) TFEU. In this annual assessment the Council shall decide, in accordance with Article 126(11) TFEU, to intensify the sanctions, unless the participating Member State concerned has complied with the Council\u2019s notice. If the Council decides to impose an additional fine, it shall be calculated in the same way as for the variable component of the fine referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. No single fine referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall exceed 0,5 % of GDP.\u2019;\n(12)\nArticle 13 is hereby deleted and the reference to it in Article 15 is replaced by a reference to \u2018Article 12\u2019;\n(13)\nArticle 16 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 16\nThe fines referred to in Article 12 shall constitute other revenue, as referred to in Article 311 TFEU, and shall be assigned to the European Financial Stability Facility. When the participating Member States create another stability mechanism to provide financial assistance in order to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole, the amount of those fines shall be assigned to that mechanism.\u2019;\n(14)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 17a\n1. By 14 December 2014 and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall publish a report on the application of this Regulation.\nThat report shall evaluate, inter alia:\n(a)\nthe effectiveness of this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe progress in ensuring closer coordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of economic performances of the Member States in accordance with the TFEU.\n2. Where appropriate, the report referred to in paragraph 1 shall be accompanied by a proposal for amendments to this Regulation.\n3. The report shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and to the Council.\u2019;\n(15)\nthroughout Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, all references to \u2018Article 104 of the Treaty\u2019 are replaced by references to \u2018Article 126 TFEU\u2019;\n(16)\nin point 2 of the Annex, the references in Column I to \u2018Article 4(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3605/93\u2019 are replaced by references to \u2018Article 3(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2011.", "references": ["8", "54", "81", "7", "47", "75", "55", "48", "2", "78", "14", "64", "69", "59", "51", "63", "22", "76", "86", "37", "46", "26", "77", "40", "35", "34", "73", "3", "53", "74", "No Label", "10", "18", "27", "28", "32", "33"], "gold": ["10", "18", "27", "28", "32", "33"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 679/2010\nof 26 July 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 as regards the quality of statistical data in the context of the excessive deficit procedure\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 126(14) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe credibility of budgetary surveillance crucially hinges upon reliable budgetary statistics. It is of the utmost importance that data reported by Member States under Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 of 25 May 2009 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (2) are of high quality and reliability.\n(2)\nThe European Union governance framework for fiscal statistics has been further developed and institutional setting updated over the past years, notably with a view to improving the monitoring of the government accounts by the Commission (Eurostat).\n(3)\nThe revised governance framework for fiscal statistics has functioned well overall and, in general, has produced a satisfactory outcome in terms of the reporting of relevant fiscal data on government deficit and debt. In particular, the Member States have predominantly demonstrated a solid record of cooperation in good faith and an operational ability to report fiscal data of high quality.\n(4)\nHowever, recent developments have also clearly demonstrated that the current governance framework for fiscal statistics still does not mitigate, to the extent necessary, the risk of incorrect or inaccurate data being notified to the Commission.\n(5)\nIn this connection, and in some exceptional cases (methodological visits), the Commission (Eurostat) should have additional rights of access to a widened scope of information for the needs of data quality assessment, in full compliance with Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (3) as regards professional independence.\n(6)\nTherefore, in carrying out methodological visits to a Member State whose statistical information is under scrutiny, the Commission (Eurostat) should be entitled to have access to the accounts of government entities at central, state, local and social security levels, including the provision of underlying detailed accounting information, relevant statistical surveys and questionnaires and further related information, respecting the legislation on data protection as well as statistical confidentiality.\n(7)\nPublic accounts of individual general government units, as well as of public units classified outside the general government sector, should be the main object of the controls, and the public accounts should be assessed in terms of their statistical use.\n(8)\nMember States should ensure that institutions and officials responsible for the reporting of the actual data to the Commission (Eurostat) and of the underlying government accounts fully respect the obligations related to the statistical principles.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 479/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 479/2009\nRegulation (EC) No 479/2009 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 2a\n\u201cAccess\u201d means that relevant documents and other information must be provided when requested, either immediately or as promptly afterwards as is consistent with the time needed to collect the requested information.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 8(2), is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat), as promptly as possible, with the relevant statistical information requested for the needs of the data quality assessment, without prejudice to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (4) relating to statistical confidentiality.\nThe statistical information referred to in the first subparagraph shall be limited to the information strictly necessary to check the compliance with ESA rules. In particular, \u201cstatistical information\u201d means:\n(a)\ndata from national accounts;\n(b)\ninventories;\n(c)\nEDP notification tables;\n(d)\nadditional questionnaires and clarification related to the notifications.\nThe format of the questionnaires shall be defined by the Commission (Eurostat) after consultation of the Committee on Monetary, Financial and Balance of Payments Statistics (hereinafter referred to as CMFB).\n3.\nArticle 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\n1. The Commission (Eurostat) shall ensure a permanent dialogue with Member States\u2019 statistical authorities. To this end, the Commission (Eurostat) shall carry out in all Member States regular dialogue visits, as well as possible methodological visits.\n2. When organising dialogue and methodological visits, the Commission (Eurostat) shall transmit its provisional findings to the Member States concerned for comments.\u2019;\n4.\nthe following articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 11a\nThe dialogue visits are designed to review actual data reported according to Article 8, to examine methodological issues, to discuss statistical processes and sources described in the inventories, and to assess compliance with the accounting rules. The dialogue visits shall be used to identify risks or potential problems with respect to the quality of the reported data.\nArticle 11b\n1. The methodological visits are designed to monitor the processes and verify the accounts which justify the reported data, and to draw detailed conclusions as to the quality of reported data, as described in Article 8(1).\n2. The methodological visits shall only be undertaken in exceptional cases where significant risks or problems with respect to the quality of the data have been clearly identified.\n3. For the purposes of this Regulation, it could be considered that there are significant risks or problems with the quality of the data notified by a Member State in such cases as:\n(a)\nthere are frequent and sizeable revisions of the deficit or debt that are not clearly and adequately explained;\n(b)\nthe Member State concerned is not sending to the Commission (Eurostat) all the statistical information requested in the context of the rounds for clarification of the EDP notification or as a consequence of a dialogue visit, in the period agreed between them and has not clearly and adequately explained the reason for the delay or non-response;\n(c)\nthe Member State concerned changes, unilaterally and without a clear explanation, the sources and methods for estimating the deficit and debts of the general government set out in the inventory, with a material effect on estimates;\n(d)\nthere are outstanding methodological issues likely to have a material effect on the debt or deficit statistics which have not been resolved between the Member State and the Commission (Eurostat) arising from the rounds for clarification or the previous dialogue visits, resulting in reservations from the Commission (Eurostat) in two subsequent EDP notifications;\n(e)\nthere are persistent, unusually high stock-flow adjustments not clearly explained.\n4. Mainly taking into account the criteria mentioned in paragraph 3, the Commission (Eurostat), after informing the CMFB, shall decide to carry out a methodological visit.\n5. The Commission should provide the Economic and Financial Committee with full information about the reasons behind the methodological visits.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 12(1) and (2) are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States are expected to provide, at the request of the Commission (Eurostat), and on a voluntary basis, the assistance of experts in national accounting, including for the preparation and carrying-out of the methodological visits. In the exercise of their duties, these experts shall provide independent expertise. A list of those experts in national accounting shall be constituted on the basis of proposals sent to the Commission (Eurostat) by the national authorities responsible for the excessive deficit reporting.\nThe Commission shall lay down the rules and procedures related to the selection of the experts, taking into account an appropriate distribution of experts across Member States and an appropriate rotation of experts between Member States, their working arrangements and the financial details. The Commission shall share with the Member States the full cost incurred by the Member States for the assistance of their national experts.\n2. In the framework of the methodological visits, the Commission (Eurostat) shall have the right to access the accounts of all government entities at central, state, local and social security levels, including the provision of existing underlying detailed accounting and budgetary information.\nIn this context, accounting and budgetary information includes:\n-\ntransactions and balance sheets,\n-\nrelevant statistical surveys and questionnaires of general government and further related information, such as analytical documents,\n-\ninformation from relevant national, regional and local authorities on the execution of the budget of all sub-sectors of the general government,\n-\nthe accounts of extra-budgetary bodies, corporations, and non-profit institutions and other similar bodies that are part of the general government sector in national accounts,\n-\nthe accounts of social security funds.\nMember States shall take all necessary measures to facilitate the methodological visits. Those visits may be carried out at national authorities involved in the excessive deficit procedure reporting, as well as at all services directly or indirectly involved in the production of government accounts and debt. In both cases, the national statistical institutes as national coordinators according to Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009, shall support the Commission (Eurostat) in the organisation and coordination of the visits. Member States shall ensure that those national authorities and services, and where necessary, their national authorities who have a functional responsibility for the control of the public accounts, provide the Commission officials or other experts referred to in paragraph 1 with the assistance necessary to carry out their duties, including making documents available to justify the reported actual deficit and debt data and the underlying government accounts. Confidential records of the national statistical system as well as other confidential data should be provided to the Commission (Eurostat) only for the purpose of assessing the quality thereof. Experts in national accounting assisting the Commission (Eurostat) in the framework of the methodological visits shall sign a commitment to respect the confidentiality before accessing those confidential records or data.\u2019;\n6.\nArticle 16 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 16\n1. Member States shall ensure that the actual data reported to the Commission (Eurostat) are provided in accordance with the principles established by Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009. In this regard, the responsibility of the national statistical authorities is to ensure the compliance of reported data with Article 1 of this Regulation and the underlying ESA 95 accounting rules. Member States shall ensure that the national statistical authorities are provided with access to all relevant information necessary to perform these tasks.\n2. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that institutions and officials responsible for the reporting of the actual data to the Commission (Eurostat) and of the underlying government accounts are accountable and act in accordance with principles established by Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["60", "0", "18", "44", "56", "90", "36", "52", "77", "6", "43", "73", "70", "79", "92", "10", "3", "16", "99", "53", "20", "65", "9", "46", "93", "15", "11", "39", "42", "95", "No Label", "2", "7", "19", "32", "33", "41", "47"], "gold": ["2", "7", "19", "32", "33", "41", "47"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 703/2012\nof 31 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 July 2012.", "references": ["10", "44", "12", "89", "80", "3", "14", "5", "72", "27", "4", "92", "2", "43", "40", "29", "28", "51", "37", "62", "11", "84", "23", "99", "94", "58", "50", "83", "60", "69", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 11 April 2011\ngranting derogations to certain Member States with respect to the transmission of statistics pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work, as regards statistics on accidents at work\n(notified under document C(2011) 2403)\n(Only the German, Greek, English, French, Latvian and Dutch texts are authentic)\n(2011/231/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the requests made by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008, it applies to the production of statistics on accidents at work as defined in Annex IV.\n(2)\nArticle 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 provides, if necessary, for derogations and transition periods for Member States, both to be based upon objective grounds.\n(3)\nIt emerges from the information provided to the Commission that the requests for derogations made by Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Greece, France, Latvia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom result from the need for major adaptations to national administrative and statistical systems in order to comply in full with Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008.\n(4)\nSuch derogations should therefore be granted as requested to those Member States.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDerogations as set out in the Annex are granted to the Member States listed therein.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["74", "90", "66", "95", "81", "31", "85", "27", "44", "71", "7", "92", "78", "84", "50", "2", "23", "5", "61", "20", "14", "89", "62", "16", "67", "98", "22", "79", "18", "28", "No Label", "8", "9", "19", "38", "46", "51"], "gold": ["8", "9", "19", "38", "46", "51"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 17 February 2012\namending Decision 2005/51/EC as regards the period during which soil contaminated by pesticides or persistent organic pollutants may be introduced into the Union for decontamination purposes\n(notified under document C(2012) 869)\n(2012/102/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy way of derogation from Directive 2000/29/EC, Commission Decision 2005/51/EC of 21 January 2005 authorising Member States temporarily to provide for derogations from certain provisions of Council Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of the importation of soil contaminated by pesticides or persistent organic pollutants for decontamination purposes (2) authorises, for a limited period, Member States participating in the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) programme on prevention and disposal of obsolete and unwanted pesticides to permit the introduction of soil contaminated by such pesticides into the Union for treatment in dedicated hazardous waste incinerators. That programme is still ongoing.\n(2)\nIn view of the circumstances justifying the derogation granted by Decision 2005/51/EC and in the interest of good legislative practice, it is now appropriate to extend that derogation by 5 years.\n(3)\nDecision 2005/51/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn the second paragraph of Article 1 of Decision 2005/51/EC the words \u201829 February 2012\u2019 are replaced by the words \u201828 February 2017\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2012.", "references": ["89", "14", "73", "50", "66", "40", "51", "24", "1", "31", "67", "94", "19", "39", "32", "5", "91", "52", "30", "98", "84", "74", "38", "69", "76", "42", "34", "11", "80", "78", "No Label", "8", "21", "22", "58", "60", "65"], "gold": ["8", "21", "22", "58", "60", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 491/2010\nof 4 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 June 2010.", "references": ["58", "11", "90", "77", "81", "87", "39", "15", "52", "37", "14", "42", "49", "31", "65", "95", "82", "12", "75", "85", "4", "6", "53", "83", "46", "36", "76", "62", "24", "45", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 June 2010\nexempting the Banque de France from the application of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit rating agencies\n(notified under document C(2010) 3853)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/342/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies (1), and in particular Article 2(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to the request submitted by France,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 November 2009, France submitted to the Commission a request pursuant to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 concerning the exemption of the credit ratings issued by the Banque de France from the application of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\n(2)\nThe Banque de France is regulated in France by the \u2018Code mon\u00e9taire et financier\u2019 as modified by Loi No 2008-776 of 4 August 2008 (2). Article L.141-6 of the \u2018Code mon\u00e9taire et financier\u2019 allows the Banque de France to receive all necessary information from market participants to develop its essential functions. The \u2018Contrat de service public entre l\u2019Etat et la Banque de France\u2019 (3) (hereafter \u2018the Contract\u2019), renewed every 3 years, explicitly mentions the issuing of credit ratings by the Banque de France as one of the activities that the Banque de France is to ensure.\n(3)\nThe Banque de France has established its own code of conduct (4) (hereafter \u2018the Code\u2019) essentially based on the Code of Conduct Fundamentals for credit rating agencies issued by the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO).\n(4)\nPursuant to point (d) of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 four elements need to be assessed in order to exempt the credit ratings produced by the Banque de France from the application of that Regulation:\n(5)\nFirst, credit ratings may not be paid for by the rated entity. Point 1.3 of the Code provides that the Banque de France does not receive any remuneration from the rated entities with regard to the credit rating related to them and of which they are informed. Point 2.2 of the Code specifies that the users (credit institutions clients of the FIBEN - \u2018Fichier Bancaire des Entreprises\u2019) of the credit ratings are the ones paying for the service in accordance to a published rate.\n(6)\nSecond, credit ratings may not be disclosed to the public. Point 1.5 of the Code provides that the credit ratings are not to be made public. The access is legally restricted to certain categories of actors listed in the Code and which have to be identified by the Banque of France before having access to the credit rating.\n(7)\nThird, credit ratings must be issued in accordance with the principles, standards and procedures which ensure the adequate integrity and independence of credit rating activities as provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. The provisions of the \u2018Code mon\u00e9taire et financier\u2019, in particular Articles L.142-9, and L.164-2 ensure that analysts and agents working in the Banque de France are bound by the professional secrecy principle and by rules on conflicts of interest included in the professional ethics rules and in the financial ethical code of the Banque de France approved by the Minister of \u2018l\u2019Economie, des Finances et de l\u2019Industrie\u2019. Moreover, the staff regulations of the Banque de France contain provisions aiming explicitly to prevent the agents from being or from remaining in situations of conflict of interests. The Banque de France is subject to internal control mechanisms, being exercised by an Independent Ethics Officer and his staff in charge of checking the application of the ethical code or through the collegial structure which is fully incorporated into the organisation of the management of the Banque de France, which constitute an effective means to enforce the compliance with these rules on integrity and independence. As these requirements are embedded in law, sanctions can be imposed in case of non-compliance. In addition, the Code establishes the necessary rules on procedures and sets the appropriate standards to ensure: (i) the integrity and quality of the credit rating process (including the formalisation of the decisional circuit, traceability of the decisions and quality control process), (ii) the relevant transparency and communication procedures (including rules of access to credit ratings, publication of the methods and evolution of the credit rating activities) and (iii) the measures to prevent any conflict of interest (including the due diligence to be observed by the analysts, the functioning of the national and regional rating committees).\n(8)\nFourth, credit ratings must not relate to financial instruments issued by the respective central banks\u2019 Member States. Point 1.1 of the Code provides that the credit ratings produced by the Banque de France relate to non-financial firms. They relate to firms established in the French metropolitan territory and in the French \u2018d\u00e9partements d\u2019Outre-Mer\u2019 covered by the \u2018Institut d\u2019\u00e9mission des d\u00e9partements d\u2019outre-mer\u2019 (IEDOM). The Contract provides that the credit ratings produced by the Banque de France relate to firms. Therefore, the Banque de France does not issue credit ratings related to the public offering of financial instruments issued by the State of France, nor by other Member State.\n(9)\nIn view of the factors examined in recitals 2 to 8, the conditions laid down in point (d) of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 can be considered to be met by the Banque de France in respect of the issuing of credit ratings.\n(10)\nTherefore, Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 should not apply to the issuing of credit ratings by the Banque de France.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the European Securities Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Banque de France falls within the scope of point (d) of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nRegulation (EC) No 1060/2009 shall not apply to credit ratings issued by the Banque de France.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2010.", "references": ["79", "86", "47", "18", "82", "38", "51", "13", "90", "27", "23", "12", "81", "39", "61", "21", "42", "83", "70", "85", "88", "71", "74", "54", "80", "24", "3", "98", "28", "14", "No Label", "2", "8", "29", "30", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "8", "29", "30", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 739/2010\nof 16 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2010.", "references": ["7", "23", "9", "33", "40", "20", "64", "44", "48", "56", "86", "57", "98", "83", "59", "90", "72", "76", "99", "29", "92", "87", "81", "25", "6", "4", "12", "54", "30", "85", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 58/2011\nof 24 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 January 2011.", "references": ["79", "77", "2", "4", "49", "0", "37", "95", "28", "33", "14", "71", "86", "83", "42", "9", "70", "21", "43", "7", "36", "11", "45", "47", "41", "96", "87", "51", "18", "30", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 521/2010\nof 16 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 June 2010.", "references": ["74", "77", "39", "0", "63", "27", "21", "13", "48", "25", "59", "89", "56", "4", "91", "1", "87", "75", "17", "30", "28", "29", "81", "51", "47", "64", "55", "79", "5", "66", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 308/2012\nof 11 April 2012\namending the rate of additional duty for products listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 673/2005 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 673/2005 of 25 April 2005 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAs a result of the United States\u2019 failure to bring the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) in compliance with its obligations under the WTO agreements, Regulation (EC) No 673/2005 imposed a 15 % ad valorem additional customs duty on imports of certain products originating in the United States as from 1 May 2005. In conformity with the WTO authorisation to suspend the application of concessions to the United States, the Commission is to adjust the level of suspension annually to the level of nullification or impairment caused by the CDSOA to the European Union at that time.\n(2)\nThe CDSOA disbursements for the most recent year for which data are available relate to the distribution of anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected during the Fiscal Year 2011 (1 October 2010 - 30 September 2011). On the basis of the data published by the United States\u2019 Customs and Border Protection, the level of nullification or impairment caused to the Union is calculated at USD 3 241 000.\n(3)\nThe level of nullification or impairment and consequently of suspension has decreased. However, the level of suspension cannot be adjusted to the level of nullification or impairment by adding or removing products from the list in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 673/2005. As a consequence, in accordance with Article 3(1)(e) of that Regulation, the Commission should keep the list of products in Annex I unchanged and amend the rate of the additional duty in order to adjust the level of suspension to the level of nullification or impairment. The three products listed in Annex I should therefore be maintained on the list and the rate of additional import duty should be amended and set at 6 %.\n(4)\nThe effect of a 6 % ad valorem additional import duty on imports from the United States of the products in Annex I represents, over one year, a value of trade that does not exceed USD 3 241 000.\n(5)\nTo make sure that there are no delays in the application of the amended rate of additional import duty, this Implementing Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Implementing Regulation are in accordance with the opinion delivered by the Committee on Trade Retaliation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAn ad valorem duty of 6 % additional to the customs duty applicable under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) shall be imposed on the products originating in the United States of America listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 673/2005.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 May 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2012.", "references": ["95", "68", "71", "4", "24", "74", "79", "66", "38", "60", "56", "31", "19", "58", "44", "83", "84", "99", "92", "25", "3", "17", "9", "27", "78", "86", "41", "30", "64", "26", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "23", "48", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "23", "48", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 July 2011\ncorrecting Directive 2010/19/EU amending, for the purposes of adaptation to technical progress in the field of spray-suppression systems of certain categories of motor vehicles and their trailers, Council Directive 91/226/EEC, and Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the amendment of the Annexes to Directive 2007/46/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/415/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (1), and in particular Article 39(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAn error has occurred in the adoption of Commission Directive 2010/19/EU of 9 March 2010 amending, for the purposes of adaptation to technical progress in the field of spray-suppression systems of certain categories of motor vehicles and their trailers, Council Directive 91/226/EEC and Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2). Directive 2010/19/EU introduced harmonised requirements with regard to spray-suppression for all vehicle categories covered by Council Directive 91/226/EEC (3). Accordingly, Annexes IV and XI to Directive 2007/46/EC were also amended in that Directive for the purposes of adaptation to technical progress. As those Annexes have already been replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1060/2008 of 7 October 2008 replacing Annexes I, III, IV, VI, VII, XI and XV to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (4) and amended by several regulations, their subsequent amendments should also have been done by means of a regulation. It is therefore appropriate, in the interest of legal clarity, to correct Directive 2010/19/EU.\n(2)\nArticle 2 of Directive 2010/19/EU should therefore be deleted.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 2 of Directive 2010/19/EU is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 14 July 2011.", "references": ["28", "32", "15", "44", "73", "48", "17", "42", "45", "61", "25", "72", "62", "64", "13", "16", "14", "8", "90", "36", "99", "88", "10", "29", "60", "33", "81", "67", "40", "97", "No Label", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/701/CFSP\nof 21 October 2011\namending Decision 2011/430/CFSP in order to update the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 December 2001, the Council adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (1).\n(2)\nOn 18 July 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/430/CFSP updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (2).\n(3)\nThe Council has determined that an additional five persons 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 these persons 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.\n(4)\nThe Council has determined that there are no longer grounds for keeping one person on the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply.\n(5)\nThe list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply should be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The persons listed in Annex I to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/430/CFSP.\n2. The person listed in Annex II to this Decision shall be removed from the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/430/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2011.", "references": ["76", "0", "93", "50", "81", "18", "7", "51", "44", "24", "83", "77", "89", "29", "87", "91", "63", "25", "16", "71", "57", "14", "34", "75", "86", "20", "92", "96", "12", "27", "No Label", "1", "3"], "gold": ["1", "3"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 824/2011\nof 12 August 2011\nterminating the partial reopening of the anti-dumping interim review investigation concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation) and in particular Article 9 and Article 11(3) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Existing measures\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (2) (the original Regulation) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India. On 8 March 2006, by Council Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 (3) (the amending Regulation) and following a partial interim review investigation, the anti-dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in India was amended.\n(2)\nOn 6 November 2007, by Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 (4) (the review Regulation) and following an expiry review the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in India was confirmed.\n(3)\nMTZ Polyfilms Ltd (MTZ Polyfilms), an Indian exporting producer which cooperated with the above investigations, obtained an individual duty rate by the original Regulation. This duty rate was revised by the amending Regulation.\n(4)\nOn 19 May 2006, MTZ Polyfilms lodged an application (5) at the General Court (\u2018the Court of First Instance\u2019 before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty) seeking the annulment of the amending Regulation in so far as it applies to MTZ Polyfilms.\n(5)\nBy its judgment of 17 November 2009 in Case T-143/06 (6), the General Court annulled the amending Regulation to the extent that it imposed an anti-dumping duty on MTZ Polyfilms (the judgment). The General Court found that the amending Regulation was adopted on an incorrect legal basis. It considered, in particular, that Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation could not serve as a legal basis allowing the institutions, when determining the export price, not to apply the methodology prescribed by Article 2(8) and (9) of the basic Regulation.\n(6)\nOn 13 May 2011, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 469/2011 (7) the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in India was amended in view of the expiry of the up till then parallel countervailing duty on 9 March 2011.\n1.2. Partial reopening\n(7)\nOn 20 May 2010 a notice (8) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. In the notice parties were informed that, in view of the judgment of the General Court mentioned in recital 5, imports into the European Union of PET film manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms were no longer subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by the amending Regulation and the review Regulation, and that definitive anti-dumping duties paid pursuant to these regulations for the product concerned manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms should be repaid or remitted.\n(8)\nThe notice also partially reopened the relevant anti-dumping interim review investigation concerning imports of PET film originating, inter alia, in India in order to implement the above judgment of the General Court as far as MTZ Polyfilms is concerned.\n(9)\nMoreover, by the same notice, MTZ Polyfilms was invited, should it consider that aspects of the findings which led to the adoption of the amending Regulation other than the one mentioned in recital 5 were no longer valid, to present a duly substantiated request for review in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(10)\nThe Commission officially advised MTZ Polyfilms, the representatives of the exporting country, the other Indian exporting producers which cooperated in the investigation that led to the adoption of the amending Regulation, and the Union industry of the partial reopening of the investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard within the time limit set out in the notice.\n(11)\nRepresentations were received from two exporting producers in India (one being the party directly concerned, i.e. MTZ Polyfilms) and the Union industry.\n2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENT\n2.1. Preliminary remark\n(12)\nAs a preliminary remark it is important to note that MTZ Polyfilms did not reply to the invitation referred to in recital 9.\n2.2. Comments of interested parties\n(13)\nMTZ Polyfilms argued that a partial reopening of a review investigation is illegal because there is no specific provision in the basic Regulation allowing for a possibility to reopen an investigation. The same company also submitted that the Commission\u2019s reference in the notice referred to in recital 7 to the judgment in the IPS case (IPS judgment) (9) was erroneous as that judgment concerned an anti-dumping proceeding which had been initiated in a different legal framework as under the basic Regulation in force at that time, an anti-dumping proceeding consisted of several stages which included the initial investigation and all subsequent review investigations. The IPS judgment therefore dealt with the possibility of opening a new investigation within the framework of an ongoing proceeding. The distinction between a proceeding and an investigation had been written out of the basic Regulation in 1995 and, in the present case, the Commission had not initiated a new investigation in the framework of a proceeding but reopened an investigation which, according to MTZ Polyfilms, had already been concluded by the imposition of definitive measures.\nMTZ Polyfilms submitted that the IPS case could not serve as a precedent because it was based on Council Regulation (E\u0415C) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (10) (the old basic Regulation), under which mandatory deadlines, in particular the maximum time for concluding a review investigation of 15 months from the date of initiation, did not yet apply. It argued that in this case, the 15 months deadline had lapsed soon after the reopening on 20 May 2010, since the amended measures were imposed more than 14 months after the initiation of the partial interim review investigation. Finally, according to MTZ Polyfilms, the judgment required no implementing measures, since the judgment is clear in all material aspects, simple and without any specific reservation and/or qualification annulling the amending Regulation as far as it concerned imports into the Union of PET film manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms.\n(14)\nAnother Indian exporting producer of PET film, which had cooperated with the interim review, argued that, as in calculating its dumping margin the institutions had applied the same approach as the one which had been condemned by the General Court in its judgment, the institutions should now also revise the methodology for calculating dumping of this company, resulting in the absence of a dumping margin.\n(15)\nThe Union industry claimed that, since the General Court had annulled the amending Regulation in so far as it imposed an anti-dumping duty on MTZ Polyfilms, the individual duty rate calculated and imposed in 2001 should be reimposed as, in the interim review, MTZ Polyfilms was still found to be dumping by a considerable margin. In this respect, it also pointed to a long-standing pattern of circumvention and origin fraud allegedly practised by the Indian exporters. Moreover, it alleged that there was a huge existing overcapacity in India and that in several other major world markets trade defence measures were in place against Indian PET film, which would inevitably lead to greater import volumes on the Union market of PET film manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms.\n(16)\nThe Union industry also called on the Commission to ensure the registration of imports as it considered that the two conditions for such registration laid down in Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation had been met.\n2.3. Analysis of comments\n(17)\nIn respect of the alleged illegality of the reopening, it is recalled that in its IPS judgment the General Court recognised that in cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding. The anti-dumping proceeding is an example of such a multi-step proceeding. Consequently, the annulment of the amending Regulation in relation to one party does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation. Moreover, according to Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Union institutions are required to comply with the judgment. This also implies the possibility of remedying the aspects of the amending Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the Court of Justice judgment - as was held in case C-458/98 P (11) (the IPS appeal case). In the light of the above, the claim that there is no legal basis for the partial reopening of a review investigation was found to be unwarranted.\n(18)\nThe claim that the introduction of deadlines to conclude anti-dumping investigations prevents the Commission from following the approach underlying the IPS case was also found to be unwarranted. It is considered that this deadline is not relevant for the implementation of a Court of Justice judgment. Indeed, such deadline only governs the completion of the initial review investigation from the date of initiation to the date of definitive action, and does not concern any subsequent action that might have to be taken for instance as a result of judicial review. It should be noted that the General Court has not handed down any judgments which apply this reasoning, as that would make it impossible to finalise any anti-dumping investigation which was annulled by the General Court in order to take account of the General Court\u2019s findings (as Article 266 TFEU requires). Indeed, the General Court\u2019s judgment will always be handed down at a point in time when the deadline for the investigation has expired.\n(19)\nConcerning the claim of the other Indian exporting producer of PET film, it is recalled that the General Court annulled the amending Regulation only to the extent that it imposes an anti-dumping duty on MTZ Polyfilms. As a consequence, the judgment is no basis for revisiting the approach and/or calculations with regard to other exporting producers. Therefore, this claim has to be rejected.\n(20)\nConcerning the Union industry\u2019s claim mentioned in recital 15, the reasoning in recital 17 is equally valid, i.e. case-law has established that, if the Court of Justice judges that an illegality has taken place, the Commission can resume an investigation procedure at the point just before the illegality occurred. Therefore, there is no immediate need to resort to previously established data, as argued by the Union industry.\n(21)\nConcerning the Union industry\u2019s request for registration of imports, based on the information in the request and according to the statistical data available to the Commission it was concluded that the condition mentioned in Article 10(4)(b) of the basic Regulation, i.e. a substantial rise in the imports concerned, was not met (see also recital 24). The request for registration was therefore rejected.\n2.4. Investigation\n(22)\nAs mentioned in recital 5, the General Court annulled the amending Regulation as far as MTZ Polyfilms is concerned as it considered that Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation cannot serve as a legal basis allowing the institutions, when determining the export price, to depart from the methodology prescribed by Article 2(8) and (9) of the basic Regulation. It is also noted that all findings in the review Regulation, other than the ones which the General Court found to be erroneous, remain formally valid. This applies, in particular, to the finding that there were significant changes in circumstances justifying an amendment to the anti-dumping duty applicable to MTZ Polyfilms. Therefore, this aspect of the review was not reinvestigated in the context of the current procedure. During the review investigation period (RIP), MTZ Polyfilms exported the product concerned to the Union under a price undertaking and these sales respected the terms of the undertaking, i.e. were at prices which were above the agreed minimum prices. For the reasons explained in the review Regulation, it is confirmed that the export prices to the Union during the RIP cannot be used to calculate the dumping margin of MTZ Polyfilms.\n(23)\nIn view of the above considerations, the current investigation was limited to an analysis of the facts available to the institutions regarding the export activities of MTZ Polyfilms. In this respect, as the Court of Justice has held in the IPS judgment, the institutions, when resuming an anti-dumping investigation following a judgment annulling a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties, are entitled to take account of recent information, including information dating from after the original investigation period. It also follows from the IPS judgment that this possibility to take recent information into account applies also to reviews, which is the case at hand here.\n(24)\nIt is noted that after the coming into effect of the amending Regulation, and according to the available statistical information, import volumes of PET film manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms decreased strongly and even ceased as from 2008. Furthermore, the Council notes that the judgment annulling the review Regulation as far as MTZ Polyfilms is concerned was delivered on 17 November 2009. The notice referred to in recital 7, which indicated that following the General Court judgment the imports of PET film manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms were no longer subject to the anti-dumping measures, was published on 20 May 2010. This means that for more than one year those imports have only been subject to countervailing and customs duties, and not to an anti-dumping duty. In that context, the data gathered on the basis of Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation indicate that during recent years no such imports have taken place.\n2.5. Conclusion\n(25)\nIn the light of all the abovementioned circumstances, in particular the limited scope of the investigation at hand, which, in the light of the General Court judgment, did not re-examine the findings on the existence of changed circumstances and the unavailability of a reliable export price, the Council concludes that the recalculation of a dumping margin for MTZ Polyfilms and the reimposition of an anti-dumping duty on exports of PET film manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms would be inappropriate. As a consequence, it is concluded that the review investigation which was opened with a view to implement the General Court\u2019s findings should be terminated without reimposing a duty.\n(26)\nAll parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to terminate the partial reopening of the anti-dumping interim review investigation concerning imports of PET film originating in India. Comments were received from the Union industry which reiterated, as already presented in recital 15, that the individual duty rate calculated and imposed in 2001 should be reimposed on MTZ Polyfilms, and expressed the view that the decrease in exports to the Union by MTZ Polyfilms does not mean that in the future the company is not likely to engage in injurious dumping. The Union industry also pointed out that the overall volume of imports of PET film from India had recently increased. The comments in recital 15 have already been addressed in recital 20. As regards the likely future behaviour of MTZ Polyfilms, it is considered that the absence of any imports from the company for a significant period of time, during which they were subject to low duty rates, as explained in recital 24, sufficiently demonstrates that the company is not likely to engage in injurious dumping. Despite the fact that recently imports from India have increased, the imports from MTZ Polyfilms have remained at zero,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The partial reopening of the anti-dumping interim review investigation concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India and manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms is hereby terminated.\n2. Imports of PET film originating in India and manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms shall not be subject to an anti-dumping duty pursuant to this proceeding.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 August 2011.", "references": ["40", "58", "6", "88", "19", "8", "64", "21", "13", "51", "26", "18", "36", "10", "82", "5", "69", "1", "72", "17", "53", "94", "90", "59", "4", "86", "74", "12", "55", "50", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 4 April 2012\namending Decision 2001/861/EC as regards novaluron\n(notified under document C(2012) 2164)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/187/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (2), and in particular Article 80(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Directive 91/414/EEC shall continue to apply to active substances for which a decision has been adopted in accordance with Article 6(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC before 14 June 2011.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the United Kingdom received on 29 March 2001 an application from Makhteshim Agan Ltd, for the inclusion of the active substance novaluron in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nBy Commission Decision 2001/861/EC (3) it was confirmed that, on preliminary examination, the dossier was considered \u2018complete\u2019, in that it could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(4)\nMember States where thereby given the possibility to grant provisional authorisations, for plant protection products containing novaluron for an initial period of three years, in accordance with Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC. That initial period of three years can start at any time, as soon as an application is assessed.\n(5)\nIn accordance with the second sentence of the third subparagraph of Article 11(6) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011 of 25 February 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the procedure for the assessment of active substances which were not on the market 2 years after the date of notification of that Directive (4) the European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) asked the rapporteur Member State on 16 June 2011 to request additional information from the applicant.\n(6)\nBy letter of 29 February 2012 the applicant informed the United Kingdom, the Authority and the Commission of its intention not to support the evaluation any further and not to submit further data. By the same letter the applicant withdrew its application. Since the additional information requested by the Authority was not submitted, the dossier can no longer be considered to be complete.\n(7)\nDecision 2001/861/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nExisting provisional authorisations should, consequently, be withdrawn and no new authorisations granted.\n(9)\nFor plant protection products containing novaluron, where Member States grant any period of grace in accordance with Article 4(6) of Directive 91/414/EEC, this period should expire at the latest one year after the withdrawal of the respective authorisation.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2001/861/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nauthorisations for plant protection products containing novaluron are withdrawn by 3 October 2012;\n(b)\nno authorisations for plant protection products containing novaluron are granted or renewed from the date of publication of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nAny period of grace granted by Member States in accordance with Article 4(6) of Directive 91/414/EEC shall be as short as possible and shall expire 12 months after withdrawal of the respective authorisation at the latest.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 April 2012.", "references": ["46", "88", "67", "98", "13", "21", "30", "80", "99", "96", "32", "0", "75", "69", "83", "60", "19", "66", "38", "39", "34", "77", "16", "55", "86", "52", "94", "56", "43", "78", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 429/2010\nof 20 May 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pemento de O\u00edmbra (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Pemento de O\u00edmbra\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2010.", "references": ["52", "83", "2", "26", "72", "74", "40", "41", "45", "75", "23", "31", "81", "10", "30", "35", "19", "39", "73", "94", "98", "48", "47", "89", "71", "15", "38", "95", "20", "88", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 990/2011\nof 3 October 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9(4) and Article 11(2), (5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the \u2018Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 (2) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 30,6 % on imports of bicycles originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (the \u2018original measures\u2019). Following an anti-circumvention investigation in accordance with Article 13 of the basic Regulation, this duty was extended by Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 (3) to imports of certain bicycles parts originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019). In addition, it was decided to create an \u2018exemption scheme\u2019 on the basis of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation. The details of the scheme were provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 (4). In order to receive an exemption from the extended duty, bicycle producers in the Union have to respect the conditions of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation, namely to respect a ratio of less than 60 % of Chinese bicycle parts in their operation or the addition of more than 25 % value to all parts brought into the operation. To date, more than 250 exemptions have been granted.\n(2)\nFollowing an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1524/2000 (5), decided that the abovementioned measures should be maintained.\n(3)\nFollowing an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation (the \u2018previous investigation\u2019), the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1095/2005 (6), decided to increase the anti-dumping duty in force to 48,5 %.\n2. Present investigation\n(4)\nOn 13 July 2010, the Commission announced by a notice (\u2018Notice of initiation\u2019) (7), published in the Official Journal of the European Union, the initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of bicycles originating in the PRC.\n(5)\nThe review was initiated following a substantiated request lodged by the European Bicycles Manufacturers Association (EBMA, the \u2018applicant\u2019) on behalf of Union producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the Union production of bicycles.\n(6)\nThe request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Union industry.\n3. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(7)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicant, the Union producers mentioned in the request, any other known Union producers, the exporting producers, importers as well as the associations known to be concerned and the authorities of the PRC, of the initiation of the investigation.\n(8)\nInterested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limits set in the Notice of initiation.\n(9)\nA number of Union producers represented by the applicant, other cooperating Union producers, exporting producers, importers, and user associations made their views known.\n(10)\nAll interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\n4. Sampling\n(11)\nIn view of the large number of exporting producers, Union producers and importers involved in the investigation, sampling was envisaged in the Notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(12)\nIn order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, exporting producers and representatives acting on their behalf, Union producers and importers were requested to make themselves known and to provide information as specified in the Notice of initiation. The Commission also contacted known associations of exporting producers and the relevant authorities of the PRC. These parties raised no objections to the use of sampling.\n(13)\nIn total, 7 exporters/producers, around 100 Union producers and 4 importers provided the requested information within the time limits set.\n(14)\nGiven that only seven Chinese producers replied to the sampling information requested in the Notice of initiation, it was decided not to apply sampling. Questionnaires were sent to these seven companies, only three of which submitted replies. Of these three companies, only two reported exports of the product concerned to the Union during the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (the \u2018review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019).\n(15)\nAs for the Union producers, in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the sample was selected after consultation with the relevant association and with their consent on the basis of the largest representative volume of sales and production within the Union. As a result, eight Union producers were selected in the sample. The Commission sent questionnaires to the eight companies selected, which submitted complete replies.\n(16)\nGiven the limited number of importers who replied and indicated their willingness to cooperate (four importers), it was decided that sampling was not necessary as regard importers. The Commission sent questionnaires to the four importers. Subsequently, only one importer sent a reply to the questionnaire, but this reply was incomplete as the importer was involved in the process of closing down its operations.\n(17)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of determining the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union interest. Information submitted by the following companies was verified on spot:\n(a)\nProducers in the Union\n-\nAccell Group NV, Heerenveen, the Netherlands,\n-\nDecathlon SA, Villeneuve d\u2019Ascq, France,\n-\nCycleurope Industries S.A.S., Romilly sur Seine, France,\n-\nDenver S.R.L., Dronero, Italy,\n-\nDerby Cycle Werke GmbH, Cloppenburg, Germany,\n-\nMIFA Mitteldeutsche Fahrradwerke AG, Sangerhausen, Germany,\n-\nSprick Rowery Sp.zo.o., \u015awiebodzin, Poland, and Sprick Cycle GmbH, G\u00fctersloh, Germany,\n-\nUAB Baltik Vairas and UAB Baltic Bicycle Trade, \u0160iauliai, Lithuania, and Pantherwerke AG and Onyx Cycle GmbH, L\u00f6hne, Germany.\n(b)\nExporting producers in the PRC\n-\nOyama Bicycles (Taicang) Co., China,\n-\nTianjin Golden Wheel Bicycle (Group) Co. Ltd, China.\n(18)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the RIP. The examination of trends in the context of the analysis of injury covered the period from January 2007 to the end of the RIP (the \u2018period considered\u2019).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(19)\nThe product concerned is the same as that covered by Regulation (EC) No 1524/2000, namely bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, currently falling within CN codes ex 8712 00 10, 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 80.\n(20)\nAs in the previous investigation, the bicycles were classified in the following categories:\n-\n(A) ATB (all-terrain bicycles including mountain bicycles 24\u2033 or 26\u2033),\n-\n(B) trekking/city/hybrid/VTC/touring bicycles 26\u2033 or 28\u2033,\n-\n(C) junior action (BMX) and children\u2019s bicycles 16\u2033 or 20\u2033,\n-\n(D) other bicycles/cycles (excluding unicycles).\n(21)\nAll types of bicycles as defined above have the same basic physical and technical characteristics. Furthermore, they are sold through similar distribution channels such as specialised retailers, sport chains and mass merchandisers on the Union market. The basic application and use of bicycles being identical, they are largely interchangeable and models from different categories therefore compete with each other. On this basis, it was concluded that all the categories form one single product.\n(22)\nThe investigation also showed that bicycles produced and sold by the Union industry on the Union market, those produced and sold on the analogue country market and those imported into the Union market originating in the PRC have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and the same basic uses.\n(23)\nAfter disclosure, one party alleged that there was little or no competition between the Chinese bicycles and the bicycles produced in the Union market. However, there was no information in the file that could have supported such a claim and no documentary evidence was submitted in support to this claim. In this context, it is also noted that, as mentioned below in recital 26, the cooperation of the Chinese exporting producers was very low and they provided very limited information concerning the products produced and sold by the Chinese producers to the Union market. Therefore, and in the absence of any more reliable information, the claim was rejected.\n(24)\nBicycles produced and sold by the Union industry on the Union market, those produced and sold on the analogue country market and those imported into the Union market originating in the PRC are, therefore, considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION OR A RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(25)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether dumping was likely to continue or recur upon a possible expiry of the measures in force.\n(26)\nThe level of cooperation in this proceeding was very low since its initiation. As indicated in recital 14, only three Chinese producers submitted questionnaire replies and were willing to cooperate initially. Of these three companies, only two reported exports of the product concerned to the Union during the RIP, representing together less than 10 % of the total exports of the product concerned to the Union.\n(27)\nVerification visits were carried out at the premises of the two companies with exports sales to the Union. However, for one of them it was not possible to verify information given in the questionnaire reply as the company failed to provide documents that would substantiate the data which it had submitted. The other company cooperated satisfactorily, but its exports to the Union during the RIP represent less than 5 % of the total exports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Union.\n(28)\nOn the basis of the above, the Chinese authorities and the three companies were notified of the possibility that Article 18 of the basic Regulation might be applied due to a low level of cooperation by the exporting producers and were given an opportunity to present their comments. The Commission did not receive any comments in response to this communication. Consequently, conclusions regarding the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping below are based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, namely trade statistics and submissions by interested parties, including the request.\n2. Dumping of Chinese imports during the RIP\n2.1. Analogue country\n(29)\nIn the Notice of initiation, it was envisaged to use Mexico as an analogue country for the purpose of establishing a normal value for the PRC. Interested parties were invited to comment on the appropriateness of this choice.\n(30)\nOne party commented on the appropriateness of the selection of Mexico as the analogue country, claiming that domestic prices of bicycles in Mexico are not reliable and are unsuitable for the purpose of this investigation. India was proposed as an alternative. This claim was, however, not substantiated and, therefore, rejected.\n(31)\nMexico was used as an analogue country in the previous investigations and no new or changed circumstances which would justify a change were proven to exist. The Mexican market profile for the product concerned, number of operators, domestic competition and the features of production process confirmed that Mexico was still an appropriate analogue country.\n(32)\nQuestionnaires were sent to three Mexican companies. Of the three companies, only one wished to cooperate and submitted a questionnaire reply.\n2.2. Normal value\n(33)\nDomestic sale prices from the analogue country were used to establish an average normal value, using the average currency rate for the RIP between euro and Peso in order to obtain a weighted average ex-works price in euro.\n2.3. Export price\n(34)\nDue to the application of Article 18 and to the absence of other reliable information available, export prices were mainly established on the basis of Eurostat data and on information provided by the only Chinese cooperating exporter.\n(35)\nDuring the previous investigation, it was concluded that the prices found in Eurostat were inconclusive for the purpose of the analysis (8). However, due to the low cooperation from the Chinese exporters, the Commission considered the import prices of Eurostat for the PRC as a reasonable source for the purpose of the current investigation. Nonetheless, the Commission is aware of the limitations of this analysis and that it can only serve as an indicator of price trends.\n(36)\nThe export price derived from Eurostat is a CIF price, which had to be adjusted for the average cost of sea freight per transaction in order to calculate an ex-works level. Information contained in the reply of the sole cooperating Chinese producer was used to establish the average sea freight cost per unit, calculated at EUR 8,30. The ex-works export price to the Union of the only Chinese cooperating company was established on a similar basis. The resulting unit price was then used to calculate a weighted average Chinese ex-works price.\n2.4. Comparison\n(37)\nPursuant to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value from Mexico was compared to the weighted average Chinese export price on an ex-works basis. A weighted average dumping margin was thus established.\n2.5. Dumping margin\n(38)\nThe dumping calculations showed a countrywide dumping margin of more than 20 %. This level should, however, be considered as conservative due to the fact that the Eurostat data does not take into account the substantial price differences among the various types of the product concerned. It should be noted in this context that according to information submitted in the request, dumping margins reached levels of more than 100 %.\n3. Development of imports should measures be repealed\n3.1. Preliminary remark\n(39)\nThe likely development of the imports from the PRC was analysed in terms of both expected price trends and volume.\n3.2. Spare capacity of the Chinese exporting producers\n(40)\nBased on information submitted in the request, the Chinese bicycles manufacturing industry is, in volume terms, the largest in the world. The PRC has a production capacity of 100 to 110 million bicycles and a production of about 80 million bicycles per year. The Chinese bicycles industry is export oriented: out of an annual production of 80 million bicycles, 25 million bicycles are for the domestic market and the remaining 55 million bicycles, or 69 % of total production, is for export.\n(41)\nThe estimated annual spare capacity in the PRC is about 20 to 30 million bicycles, which is more than double the present production in the Union as stated in recital 66. Moreover, information obtained during the investigation shows that the production capacity in the PRC for bicycles can be easily increased, inter alia, through the employment of additional workforce, in case of an increased demand.\n(42)\nTherefore, in view of the above, it cannot be excluded that spare capacity available in the PRC could be used to increase exports to the Union in the absence of anti-dumping measures.\n(43)\nAfter disclosure, one party argued that the Chinese production capacity mentioned in the Regulation was unfounded and based on pure speculation. In this respect, it is reminded that the cooperation from the Chinese exporting producers was very low and that to a large extent findings had to be based on the facts available. In this case, and as mentioned above in recital 40, in the absence of any other more reliable information, the Commission used the prima facie evidence submitted in the request. The investigation did not bring into light any information that would have suggested that such prima facie evidence was inaccurate. The party in question did also not submit any information or evidence that would have shown substantially different levels of spare capacity in PRC. This claim was therefore rejected.\n3.3. Attractiveness of the Union market and export prices to third countries\n(44)\nData from Eurostat and from the request show that the Union constitutes an attractive market for the Chinese exporting producers.\n(45)\nPrice information provided by the only cooperating Chinese exporting company show that the weighted average ex-works export prices of the product regarding third countries is lower than the average ex-works sales prices in the Union for the RIP. Taking the production capacity in the PRC and the demand in the Union market into consideration, it would be quite likely that Chinese manufacturers would immediately increase their exports of bicycles to the Union, should the measures be repealed. Moreover, the existing overcapacity gives the Chinese manufacturers the possibility to be present on the European market at very low prices.\n3.4. Conclusion of the likelihood of continuation of dumping\n(46)\nIn view of the fact that even considering the measures currently in force, a conservative comparison using Eurostat figures and information submitted by the only Chinese cooperating exporter showed a dumping margin of over 20 % for Chinese exports during the RIP, it is very likely that dumping will continue in the absence of measures.\n(47)\nThe foregoing analysis demonstrated that Chinese imports continued to enter the Union market at dumped prices. Given most notably the spare capacity available in the PRC, which can easily be increased even more if needed, as well as the analysis of the price levels in the Union and other third countries, it can be concluded that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping, should measures be removed.\nD. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Union production and Union industry\n(48)\nIn the course of the present investigation it was found that bicycles have been manufactured by around 100 Union producers which made themselves known in the investigation plus other producers, most of which are represented by their national associations. These companies constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, the investigation showed that the industry is benefiting from the exemption scheme which was described in recital 1 above.\n(49)\nAll available information, including information provided in the request, data collected from Union producers and national associations before and after the initiation of the investigation, as well as general production statistics was used in order to establish total Union production.\n2. Consumption in the Union market\n(50)\nThe Union producers\u2019 sales were assessed on the basis of data collected from producers in the reply to the sampling forms and data reported in the request lodged by the applicant. The data in the request was collected from various bicycle-manufacturing associations in the Union.\n(51)\nThe apparent Union consumption was established on the basis of the sales of all Union producers on the Union market, as estimated in recital 68, plus imports from all countries, as reported by Eurostat.\n(52)\nBetween 2007 and the RIP, Union consumption decreased by 11 % from 22 912 066 units in the year 2007 to 20 336 813 units during the RIP. Consumption fell in particular between 2008 and 2009. Detailed data, expressed in units, are as follows:\nTable 1 - Consumption\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nVolume (units)\n+ Total imports\n10 073 428\n10 017 551\n8 973 969\n9 202 752\n+ Union production sold on the Union market\n12 838 638\n12 441 446\n11 604 072\n11 134 061\n= Consumption\n22 912 066\n22 458 997\n20 578 041\n20 336 813\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n98\n90\n89\n3. Volume and market share of dumped imports from the PRC\n(53)\nThe volume of imports of the product concerned was established on the basis of statistical information provided by Eurostat. The volume of dumped imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC decreased by 38 % over the period considered to 615 920 units during the RIP (see Table 2). The imports of the product concerned from the PRC at the beginning of the period considered was 26 % higher than that imported during the RIP of the previous investigation (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004: 733 901 units (9)). The largest drop in the imports of the product concerned occurred between 2008 and 2009, which is in line with what occurred in total Union consumption (see Tables 1 and 2).\n(54)\nSince the imports from the PRC fell more than the consumption during the period considered, the market share of the PRC dropped slightly from 4,4 % in 2007 to 3,1 % in the RIP.\n(55)\nThe developments of imports and market share of bicycles originating in the PRC during the period considered is shown in the following table:\nTable 2 - Imports from PRC\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nVolume of imports from the country concerned (units)\n986 514\n941 522\n598 565\n615 920\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n95\n61\n62\nMarket share of imports from the country concerned\n4,4 %\n4,3 %\n3,0 %\n3,1 %\n4. Prices of the imports concerned\n4.1. Evolution of prices\n(56)\nAs explained in recital 35 the Commission considered the imports prices of Eurostat for the PRC as a reasonable source for the purpose of the current investigation.\n(57)\nAccording to Eurostat data, the weighted average import prices, hereafter indicated by index, from the PRC increased by 125 % between the year 2007 and the RIP. The import prices rose significantly in 2009 and then remained almost constant. Detailed data is shown in the following table:\nTable 3 - Prices of the imports concerned\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nPRC\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n128\n224\n225\n4.2. Price undercutting\n(58)\nFor the determination of the price undercutting of bicycles originating in the PRC, the Commission based its analysis on the information submitted in the course of the investigation by the sampled Union producers and the average prices from Eurostat. The relevant sales prices of the Union industry were those to independent customers, which were adjusted when necessary to ex-works level. The comparison showed that after deduction of the anti-dumping duty, imports from the PRC were undercutting the prices of the Union industry by 53 %.\n5. Imports from other countries\n(59)\nBased on Eurostat data, imports from other third countries decreased from 9 087 000 units in 2007 to 8 587 000 units in the RIP; an overall decrease of 6 %. They followed the decreasing trend of Union consumption (- 11 %), but at a slower pace. The market share of third countries increased from 40 % to 42 % during the period considered. However, as stated in recital 35 and 56, the prices in Eurostat do not take into consideration the various product mixes from each country and therefore only indexes are used to indicate the price trends. Since the product mix of the imports from other third countries is unknown, it is not meaningful to compare prices of the imports below with those of the Union industry. Nevertheless, some additional information was sought and obtained regarding imports from those countries that account for most other imports of bicycles. Detailed data is shown below:\nTable 4 - Imports from other countries\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nAll Types\nUnits \u2032000\nMarket share\nPrice EUR/unit\nUnits \u2032000\nMarket share\nPrice EUR/unit\nUnits \u2032000\nMarket share\nPrice EUR/unit\nUnits \u2032000\nMarket share\nPrice EUR/unit\nTaiwan\n3 186\n14 %\n3 428\n15 %\n2 949\n14 %\n2 958\n15 %\nIndexed\n100\n100\n100\n108\n110\n104\n93\n103\n125\n93\n105\n125\nThailand\n1 534\n7 %\n1 522\n7 %\n1 384\n7 %\n1 397\n7 %\nIndexed\n100\n100\n100\n99\n101\n107\n90\n100\n127\n91\n103\n127\nPhilippines\n690\n3 %\n437\n2 %\n449\n2 %\n476\n2 %\nIndexed\n100\n100\n100\n63\n65\n105\n65\n73\n106\n69\n78\n103\nMalaysia\n475\n2 %\n361\n2 %\n193\n1 %\n265\n1 %\nIndexed\n100\n100\n100\n76\n77\n106\n41\n45\n116\n56\n63\n99\nSri Lanka\n574\n3 %\n749\n3 %\n1 017\n5 %\n1 101\n5 %\nIndexed\n100\n100\n100\n131\n133\n107\n177\n197\n108\n192\n216\n107\nTunisia\n550\n2 %\n527\n2 %\n530\n3 %\n495\n2 %\nIndexed\n100\n100\n100\n96\n98\n105\n96\n107\n113\n90\n101\n113\nOthers\n2 078\n9 %\n2 052\n9 %\n1 854\n9 %\n1 895\n9 %\nIndexed\n100\n100\n100\n99\n101\n110\n89\n99\n131\n91\n103\n127\nTOTAL\n9 087\n40 %\n9 076\n40 %\n8 375\n41 %\n8 587\n42 %\nIndexed\n100\n100\n100\n100\n102\n109\n92\n103\n125\n94\n106\n122\n(1) Taiwan\n(60)\nThe imports from Taiwan have decreased during the period considered from 3 158 600 units in 2007 to 2 958 000 units in the RIP and their market share slightly increased from 14 % to 15 % during the same period. Imports of bicycles from Taiwan are aimed at the high-end market. During the investigation it has been demonstrated, applying model comparison, that imports from Taiwan are sold at a higher price than the similar models produced by the Union industry, as in the previous investigation period (10). In addition, during the period considered, the price of the imports had an increasing trend, registering an increase of 25 % in the RIP as compared to 2007.\n(2) Thailand\n(61)\nImports originating in Thailand have decreased during the period considered from 1 534 000 units in 2007 to 1 397 000 units during the RIP. The decline of the imports was in line with the consumption trend as their market share remained constant at 7 %. However, the imports of bicycles from Thailand are mid-range bicycles and the investigation showed that applying model comparison, the imports from Thailand are sold at a higher price than the similar models produced by the Union industry. In addition, during the period considered, the price of the imports had an increasing trend, registering an increase of 27 % in the RIP as compared to 2007.\n(3) Sri Lanka\n(62)\nThe imports from Sri Lanka almost doubled during the period considered from 574 000 units in 2007 to 1 101 000 units during the RIP and their market share reached 5 % at the end of the period considered. It has, however, been alleged by one party that the Chinese exporters are circumventing the anti-dumping duties by means of transhipment via Sri Lanka. At this moment in time, the Commission does not have sufficient information to draw any conclusion in respect of the situation of these imports. In these circumstances, it cannot be excluded that imports reported as originating from Sri Lanka are contributing to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(63)\nAfter disclosure, one interested party claimed that the conclusions on a possible circumvention via Sri Lanka were only a conjecture and any allegation concerning circumvention practices via Sri Lanka should not be taken into consideration in the final conclusions. In reply to this claim, it should be underlined that, as clearly expressed in recital 62 above, the Commission did not draw any conclusion on this issue.\n6. Economic situation of the Union industry\n6.1. Preliminary remarks\n(64)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry.\n(65)\nAs explained above, considering the large number of complainant Union producers, the provisions on sampling had to be used. For the purpose of the injury analysis, the injury indicators have been established as follows:\n-\nThe macroeconomic elements (production capacity, sales volume, market share, employment, productivity, growth, magnitude of dumping margins and recovery from the effects of past dumping) were assessed at the level of the whole Union production, on the basis of the information collected from the national Union producers associations and individual companies. These factors were cross-checked, where possible, with the overall information provided by the relevant official statistics.\n-\nThe analysis of microeconomic elements (stocks, sales prices, cash flow, profitability, return on investments, ability to raise capital, investments and wages) was carried out for the individual companies, i.e. at the level of those Union producers which were included in the sample.\n6.2. Macroeconomic indicators\n(a) Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(66)\nThe Union industry\u2019s production slightly decreased each year during the period considered. By the end of RIP, the production decreased by 11 % compared to 2007 in line with the consumption trend. The detailed data is shown in Table 5:\nTable 5 - Total Union production\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nVolume (units)\nProduction\n13 813 966\n13 541 244\n12 778 305\n12 267 037\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n98\n93\n89\n(67)\nProduction capacity increased slightly by 2 % between 2007 and the RIP. As production decreased, the resulting capacity utilisation showed an overall decrease of 13 % between 2007 and the RIP, reaching an 81 % capacity utilisation during the RIP. Detailed data is shown below:\nTable 6 - Production capacity and capacity utilisation\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nVolume (units)\nProduction capacity\n14 785 000\n15 804 000\n15 660 000\n15 118 000\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n107\n106\n102\nCapacity utilisation\n93 %\n86 %\n82 %\n81 %\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n92\n87\n87\n(b) Sales volume\n(68)\nThe sales volume of the Union industry on the Union market to unrelated customers decreased by 13 % between 2007 and the RIP. This development is in line with the general trend of decreasing consumption on the Union market. Detailed data is shown below:\nTable 7 - Sales to unrelated customers\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nVolume (units)\n12 838 638\n12 441 446\n11 604 072\n11 134 061\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n97\n90\n87\n(c) Market share\n(69)\nThe market share held by the Union industry slightly fluctuated between 2007 and the RIP. Overall, there has been a decrease of 1,3 percentage points during the period considered. Detailed data is shown below:\nTable 8 - Union market share\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nUnion market share\n56,0 %\n55,4 %\n56,4 %\n54,7 %\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n99\n101\n98\n(d) Employment and productivity\n(70)\nEmployment decreased by 9 % during the period considered from 14 925 employees in 2007 to 13 646 during the RIP.\n(71)\nThe productivity slightly increased in 2008 as compared to 2007, but then it declined. Overall, the productivity slightly decreased by 3 % during the period considered. Detailed data is shown below:\nTable 9 - Total Union employment and productivity\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nNumber of employees\n14 925\n14 197\n14 147\n13 646\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n95\n95\n91\nProductivity (units/year)\n926\n954\n903\n899\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n103\n98\n97\n(e) Growth\n(72)\nOverall, it should be noted that the market share of all Union producers slightly decreased by 1,3 percentage points, while the level of consumption decreased by 11 %, which indicates clearly that they have not been able to grow.\n(f) Magnitude of dumping margin\n(73)\nDumping from the PRC continued during the RIP. As explained in recital 34, the dumping calculation is based on average prices from Eurostat due to the low cooperation from the Chinese exporters. As stated in recital 35, the average prices from Eurostat contains limited information concerning the product mix which is of significant importance for the calculation of the dumping margin; nevertheless, given the spare capacity from the PRC, the impact on the Union industry of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.\n(g) Recovery from past dumping\n(74)\nIt was analysed whether the Union industry recovered from the effects of past dumping. It was concluded that the expected recovery of the Union industry from the effects of past dumping has not happened to the extent anticipated as shown, in particular, by the persistently low profitability and a decrease in the capacity utilisation.\n6.3. Microeconomic Indicators\n(h) Stocks\n(75)\nOne producer could not provide consistent information regarding stocks for the period considered due to its current internal structure. Accordingly, data from this company had to be excluded when carrying out the analysis of stocks for the period considered.\n(76)\nStocks of bicycles increased over the analysis period from 880 935 units in 2007 to 1 091 516 units in the RIP, an increase of 24 %. Detailed data is shown below:\nTable 10 - Stocks\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nVolume (units)\nClosing stocks\n880 935\n1 132 612\n818 276\n1 091 516\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n129\n93\n124\n(i) Sales prices and costs\n(77)\nAverage ex-works sales prices of the Union industry to unrelated customers in the Union followed a slightly increasing trend over the period considered. Overall, the Union industry increased its prices by 9 % between 2007 and the RIP in line with the increase of the cost of production, as explained in recital 79.\nTable 11 - Unit price Union market\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nUnit price of Union sales (EUR per unit)\n163\n170\n176\n178\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n104\n108\n109\n(78)\nThe cost of production was calculated on the basis of the weighted average of all types of the like product produced by the sampled producers.\n(79)\nThe cost of production throughout the period increased by 9 %. This increase is mainly due to a change in the mix of the products. Detailed data is shown below:\nTable 12 - Unit cost of production\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nUnit cost of production (EUR per unit)\n165\n169\n180\n180\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n102\n109\n109\n(80)\nAfter disclosure, one party alleged that the increasing cost of production took place against a background of significant reductions in some raw material costs, namely steel and aluminium, which would suggest that the injury suffered was self-inflicted. However, this allegation was not substantiated by sufficient evidence. Indeed, the party provided only data showing, in very general terms, the price evolution of aluminium and steel during the period under consideration, but did not show to what extent these developments should have impacted the overall cost of production of bicycles. In addition, this argument was only raised after disclosure, i.e. at an advanced stage of the proceeding, and it was, therefore, not verifiable anymore. Therefore, the allegation was rejected.\n(j) Profitability\n(81)\nThe overall profitability of the sampled producers in respect of the product concerned during the first year of the period considered was negative (- 1,7 %). In 2008, the Union producers became profitable. However, in 2009 and in the RIP, the industry was again loss-making.\n(82)\nThe above trend indicates that the industry is in a fragile situation as compared to the previous investigation when the Union industry profitability was 3,6 % during the RIP.\nTable 13 - Profitability\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProfitability Union sales\n-1,7 %\n0,6 %\n-2,2 %\n-1,1 %\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n- 100\n33\n- 129\n-68\n(83)\nAfter disclosure, it was alleged without providing, however, any supporting documentary evidence, that the Union industry had failed to improve its efficiency and performance. To the contrary, the investigation has shown that the Union industry has done evident efforts to adjust to the price pressure coming from dumped imports by relocating the production facilities within the Union and, thus, to increase cost effectiveness, as stated in recital 85 below. Therefore, these allegations have been rejected.\n(k) Return on investment\n(84)\nInvestment in the business of the product concerned significantly decreased during the period considered, from EUR 21 491 000 in 2007 to EUR 11 738 000 during the RIP. This can be explained in large part by the economic crisis which began in 2008 and reached its deepest point during the RIP when access to new capital was ever more difficult and sales\u2019 forecasts were pessimistic.\n(85)\nIt should be noted that a sizeable part of investments has been done in order to increase the efficiency of the manufacturing process and keep up-to-date with the latest technologies. In this process, some of the production capacity has been shifted from western European countries to eastern European countries, expanding the production base over almost all Member States and showing the Union industry\u2019s vitality and efforts to remain competitive.\nTable 14 - Investments and Return on Investment\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nInvestments (EUR \u2032000)\n21 491\n21 743\n10 701\n11 738\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n101\n50\n55\nReturn on investment\n-16 %\n5 %\n-20 %\n-10 %\n(86)\nOne producer was not able to provide consistent information on net production of fixed assets for the period considered for the calculation of the return on investment due to its internal structure. Accordingly, data from this company had to be excluded when carrying out the analysis of return on investment for the period considered.\n(87)\nReturn on investment followed the profitability trend. In 2007 the sampled Union producers registered a negative return on investment of 16 % which slightly increased to a negative 10 % during the RIP.\n(l) Cash flow and ability to raise capital\n(88)\nOne producer was not able to provide consistent information on cash flow for the period considered due to its structure which made it impossible to estimate the cash flow for only a bicycle part out of its total activity. Accordingly, data from this company had to be excluded when carrying out the analysis of the cash flow for the period considered.\n(89)\nThe cash flow, which is the ability of the industry to self-finance its activities, remained positive during the period under investigation. However, between 2007 and the RIP, it decreased by around 33 %. Detailed data is shown below:\nTable 15 - Cash flow\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nCash flow (EUR \u2032000)\n19 981\n20 767\n19 261\n13 350\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n104\n96\n67\n(90)\nThe sampled producers raise capital either internally when they belong to a group of companies or by bank loans. In other cases, cash flow generated by the company is used as a source of financing. None of the sampled producers have shown any significant difficulties to raise capital.\n(m) Wages\n(91)\nDuring the period considered, the wage cost per employee increased by 11 %. This reflects a shift of production to slightly more sophisticated products.\nTable 16 - Wages\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nWage cost per employee (EUR)\n20 239\n20 880\n22 499\n22 541\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n103\n111\n111\n(92)\nAfter disclosure, it was alleged that the wage cost per employee was increasing while, at the same time, the demand slumped, which would indicate that the injury was self-inflicted. Indeed, as shown in the table above, the wage cost per employee increased by 11 % during the period considered. However, as explained in recital 70, the number of employees decreased by 9 %. Consequently, the total wage cost increased by only 2 %. Therefore, the overall impact on the profitability of the Union industry was found to be very small.\n7. Conclusion on injury\n(93)\nThe existing anti-dumping measures have clearly had an effect on the situation of the Union industry. Indeed, the latter has managed, to some extent, to benefit from the existence of the measures maintaining a stable market share. However, the Union production decreased and profit margin remained insufficient. Any possibility for further growth and profits has been undermined by the price and volume pressure of dumped imports.\n(94)\nAs shown in recital 53, volumes of imports from the PRC decreased between 2007 and the RIP. However, the biggest drop of the volume of imports was between 2008 and 2009 when the import prices from the PRC increased significantly. Nevertheless, as the investigation showed and as explained in recital 58, this increase in price was still not enough to allow the industry to improve its situation. Indeed, the imports from the PRC were undercutting the prices of the Union industry by 53 %.\n(95)\nThe industry is clearly in a fragile situation, as it is loss-making. Almost all injury indicators relating to the financial performance of the Union producers - such as profitability, return on investments and cash flow - deteriorated during the period considered. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the situation of the Union industry is secure. Moreover, this situation could have been further exacerbated by the pressure of the possibly circumventing imports.\n(96)\nOn this basis, it is concluded that the Union industry, as a whole, remains in a vulnerable economic situation and has continued to suffer material injury within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation.\n8. Impact of dumped imports and other factors\n8.1. Impact of the dumped imports\n(97)\nIn parallel to the shrinking consumption in the Union, the market share of Chinese imports slightly decreased from 4,4 % to 3,1 % (see recital 53). As mentioned in recital 58 above, based on a calculation excluding the anti-dumping duty, the Chinese imports undercut the Union industry prices by 53 % during the RIP. It is recalled that the duty rate amounts to 48,5 %. Consequently, the level of undercutting demonstrates on the one hand the effectiveness of the duties in place, and on the other hand the necessity to continue the measures. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the undercutting found was at the same level as in the last review investigation. Hence, the injurious price impact of dumped imports from the PRC on the Union industry remained significant and, as explained above in recital 58, it is likely to continue.\n8.2. Impact of the economic crisis\n(98)\nDue to the negative economic conditions prevailing during the RIP, the consumption of bicycles decreased. Production and employment also decreased to follow the consumption trend. As the bicycle industry does not have high fixed costs, the decline in production did not have an impact on the profitability of the Union bicycles industry.\n(99)\nAfter disclosure, it was alleged that the Union industry created additional production capacity when the Union consumption was declining which had a negative impact on the Union industry\u2019s situation. This statement is in contradiction with the development of consumption and capacity as described in recitals 52 and 67 above. Indeed, consumption mainly decreased between 2008 and 2009, while the production capacity had already increased 1 year before, namely in 2007 and 2008. Consequently, this allegation was rejected.\n8.3. Imports from other countries\n(100)\nAs explained in recital 59, the volume of imports from other third countries decreased by 6 % in line with the consumption trend. The market share of imports from other countries increased from 40 % in 2007 to 42 % in the RIP. Their average imports price had an increasing trend by 6 % between 2007 and the RIP. The main countries from which the product concerned was imported were Taiwan, Thailand and Sri Lanka.\n(101)\nThe market share of imports from Taiwan slightly increased over the period considered (from 14 % to 15 %). However, the available information indicates that, as explained in recital 60, the imports from Taiwan are competing under fair conditions with the Union produced bicycles.\n(102)\nThe market share of imports from Thailand remained constant over the period considered. As explained in recital 61, the available information indicates that during the RIP these imports were sold at a competitive price with similar bicycles produced in the Union.\n(103)\nImports originating in Sri Lanka have increased by 92 % during the period considered. Their market share during the RIP was 5 %. However, as explained in recital 62, the imports from Sri Lanka are alleged to include Chinese origin bicycles.\n(104)\nIn conclusion, among the biggest exporters of bicycles to the Union, the imports from Taiwan and Thailand could not have a negative impact on the situation of the Union industry mainly because of their price levels (similar to or even higher than that of the Union industry prices). In contrast, it cannot be excluded that imports reported as originating from Sri Lanka are contributing to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n8.4. Circumvention\n(105)\nIt has been alleged with evidence that the Chinese exporters are continuously circumventing the measures through imports via several countries and these imports cause injury to the Union industry. Taking into account the evidence of circumvention discovered by the European Anti-Fraud Office (\u2018OLAF\u2019) in the past, most specifically for imports via Philippines, it cannot be excluded that such illegal behaviour still occurs on the market and that it causes injury to the Union industry.\nE. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF INJURY\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(106)\nAs described in recitals 66 to 91, the imposition of anti-dumping measures allowed the Union industry to recover from the injury suffered, but only to some extent. During the period considered, the Union industry appeared in a fragile and vulnerable situation, still exposed to the injurious effect of the dumped imports from the PRC.\n(107)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, imports from the country concerned were assessed in order to establish if there was a likelihood of continuation of injury.\n2. Chinese export volumes\n(108)\nAs mentioned in recital 40, the Chinese bicycles industry is export oriented. The Chinese bicycles are present on the main markets worldwide, particularly in the USA and Japan, where they have a dominant position. As mentioned in a previous investigation (11), at the end of the nineties, after a 2-year absence from the US market following the imposition of anti-dumping duties, the Chinese exporting producers managed to significantly increase their presence on that market in a very short period of time. In 2009, the exports of Chinese bicycles to the USA were in the range of 14 055 000 units, out of a total consumption of 14 888 000 units.\n(109)\nThis situation shows that the Chinese producers are able to quickly export and penetrate new markets and to maintain a dominant position for a long period of time.\n(110)\nAfter disclosure, one party claimed that should measures be allowed to lapse there would not be a substantial increase of imports of Chinese bicycles because Chinese exporters faced difficulties in complying with the European bicycle safety standards (EN 14764, EN 14765, EN 14766 and EN 14781). However, this allegation was not substantiated by any documentary evidence. To the contrary, the investigation has shown that a significant proportion of bicycles and bicycle parts are already imported from the PRC complying with the necessary safety standards. There was, therefore, no reason to believe that Chinese producers are not able to comply with the safety standards in force for bicycles. This claim was, therefore, rejected.\n3. Spare capacity in the PRC market\n(111)\nAs described in recital 41, data collected during the investigation showed that there is a significant spare capacity available in the PRC. Clear indications were found pointing to the conclusion that a large part of this spare capacity could be used to increase exports to the Union in the absence of anti-dumping measures. This is confirmed in particular because there are no indications that third country markets or the Chinese domestic market could absorb any additional production from the PRC.\n(112)\nIn addition, after disclosure, it was alleged that the increase of Chinese labour costs would severely restrict the increase of Chinese production capacity. In this regard it is noted that, as mentioned in recital 26, the cooperation of the Chinese exporting producers was very low and figures relating to labour cost and capacity in the PRC have not been provided. In addition, the party concerned did not submit any evidence to support its claim. Therefore, this claim had to be rejected.\n4. Circumvention allegations\n(113)\nAs explained in recital 105, it has been alleged with evidence that the Chinese exporters are continuously circumventing the measures through imports via several countries. This is further confirmed by OLAF in the Philippines case. This type of behaviour shows the high interest of the Chinese exporters for the attractive Union market.\n5. Conclusion\n(114)\nThe Union industry had been suffering from the effects of the Chinese dumped imports for several years and is still currently in a fragile economic situation.\n(115)\nAs shown above, the Union industry managed to recover from the Chinese dumping practice thanks to the anti-dumping measures in force. During the RIP, however, it found itself in a difficult economic situation. In this context, should the Union industry be exposed to increased volumes of dumped low-priced imports from the country concerned, this would be likely to result in a further deterioration of its sales, market share and sales prices, as well as a further deterioration of its financial situation.\n(116)\nIn addition, as stated in recital 58 above, it was also found that the fact that the sales prices of Chinese producers undercut those of the Union industry on average by 53 % appears to indicate that in the absence of measures, Chinese exporting producers are likely to export the product concerned to the Union market at prices considerably lower than those of the Union industry.\n(117)\nIn view of the findings made during the investigation, namely the spare capacity in the PRC, the export oriented characteristic of the Chinese industry and the past behaviour of the Chinese exporters on foreign markets, any repeal of the measures would point to a likelihood of continuation of injury.\n(118)\nFinally, as referred to in recitals 105 and 113, the circumvention is strongly underpinning the conclusion of the likelihood of the continuation of injury. It constitutes clear evidence that the Union market continues to be an attractive market for the Chinese producers who would likely direct higher volumes of exports into the Union in the absence of the anti-dumping measures.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n1. Introduction\n(119)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it has been examined whether, despite the conclusion on injurious dumping, it could be clearly concluded that it would not be in the Union interest to maintain the anti-dumping measures against imports from the PRC.\n(120)\nIt should be recalled that in the previous investigations, the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the Union interest. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place, allows the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.\n(121)\nThe determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of the various interests involved, i.e. those of the Union industry, importers and users.\n2. Interest of the Union industry\n(122)\nThe Union bicycle industry has shown that it is viable and competitive if fair market conditions prevail. However, the investigation showed that the industry is still in a weak situation with a financial result close to break-even. Therefore, effective competitive conditions need to be maintained on the Union market.\n(123)\nFurthermore, considering that new bicycle models are developed by the industry in the Union to a large extent, they would also fully benefit from such developments, in terms of sales volumes and prices, if the pressure of dumped imports is kept under control by measures.\n(124)\nIt is considered that the continuation of measures would benefit the Union industry which should then be able to maintain and possibly increase sales volumes and, probably, sales prices thereby generating the necessary return level which would enable it to continue to invest in new technology.\n(125)\nBy contrast, if measures on imports from the PRC were to lapse, further trade distortions are likely to occur, which would inevitably lead to a halt in the recovery process of the Union industry. Considering the spare production capacity of the PRC, the past behaviour of the Chinese exporters on foreign markets, it is clear that if measures were to lapse, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for the Union industry to recover and even to maintain its position. Otherwise, the injurious situation of the Union industry is likely to further deteriorate, which may lead to a further reduction of production capacity in the Union and closure of several producing companies. It is therefore concluded that anti-dumping measures are in the interest of the Union industry.\n(126)\nIn view of the conclusions on the situation of the Union industry as set out in recitals 93 to 96 above, and pursuant to the arguments relating to the analysis on the likelihood of continuation of injury as explained in recitals 106 to 117, it can also be considered that the Union industry would be likely to experience a serious deterioration of its financial situation in case the anti-dumping duties were allowed to expire.\n3. Interest of users\n(127)\nThe present investigation is supported by the European Cyclists\u2019 Federation (ECF), an umbrella federation of the national cyclists\u2019 associations in Europe.\n(128)\nECF argues that Europe is the most important market for modern cycling products with high standards in quality and safety and that an inflow of products from the PRC would lessen those standards. In addition, ECF states that there is an enormous potential for growth of the bicycles industry within the Union\u2019s economy, which would be jeopardised if anti-dumping duties are terminated.\n(129)\nIt is recalled that in the previous investigations, it was found that the impact of the imposition of measures would not be significant for the users. Despite the existence of measures, importers/users in the Union were able to continue to source their supply, inter alia, from the PRC. No indications were brought forward whether there have been difficulties in finding other sources. It is therefore concluded that the maintenance of the anti-dumping measures is not likely to have a serious effect on users in the Union.\n4. Interest of suppliers\n(130)\nThe Association of the Bicycles Parts Producers (COLIPED) made itself known during the investigation. COLIPED argued that in the Union there are about 300 factories which are supplying components to the bicycle producers which employ about 7 300 people and that the further existence of the supplier industry was therefore inevitably depending on the continuation of the bicycles production in Europe. In this respect, it was found that without the existence of the measures, it is to be expected that further closures of bicycles production in Europe will occur, which would have negative consequences for the Union parts industry and would jeopardise employment in the supplier industry. It is therefore concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would be in the interest of the suppliers.\n5. Interest of importers\n(131)\nOnly one questionnaire reply was received from the unrelated importers concerning the imports from the PRC but this questionnaire was incomplete as the company was preparing to cease its operations for undisclosed reasons.\n(132)\nIt should be noted first of all that in view of the low level of cooperation of importers, it was impossible to make a proper full assessment of the possible effects of imposition or non-imposition of measures. It should also be recalled that the purpose of the anti-dumping measures is not to prevent imports, but to restore fair trade and ensure that imports are not made at injuriously dumped prices. As fairly priced imports will still be allowed to enter into the Union market, and as imports from third countries will also continue, it is likely that the traditional business of importers will not be substantially affected. It is also clear that the Union producers have sufficient capacity to supply a possible increase in demand of bicycles. Moreover, as seen from the table in recital 59, imports from other third countries indicate that there is a substantial capacity to produce bicycles in these countries. It is therefore highly unlikely that a shortage of bicycles would occur.\n(133)\nAs fairly priced imports will still be allowed to enter into the Union market, it is likely that the traditional business of the importers will continue even if anti-dumping measures against dumped imports are maintained on the PRC. The low cooperation by unrelated importers, and the fact that after the imposition of measures on the PRC the investigation could not gather any evidence of importers experiencing particular difficulties, further underscores this conclusion.\n6. Conclusion\n(134)\nThe continuation of measures on imports of bicycles originating in the PRC would clearly be in the interest of the Union industry, the consumers and in the interest of the Union suppliers of bicycle parts. It will allow the Union industry to grow and improve its situation in a restored fair competition. Furthermore, the importers will not be substantially affected since fairly priced bicycles will still be available in the market. In contrast, if measures are not imposed, Union producers of bicycles will likely go out of business, thus also threatening the existence of Union suppliers of bicycle parts.\n(135)\nIn view of the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons not to impose anti-dumping duties against imports of bicycles originating in the PRC.\nG. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(136)\nIn the light of the foregoing, the anti-dumping measures on bicycles should be maintained. In accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation the extension of the measures following an expiry review would normally apply for 5 years, unless there are specific grounds or circumstances which call for a shorter period of time.\n(137)\nIn this context, it should be noted that the present proceeding is characterised by particular circumstances as referred to in recitals 1 and 48, which should also be adequately reflected in the duration of the anti-dumping measures. In substance, the Union industry is benefiting from an atypical set of measures which combine both ad valorem duties on finished bicycles as well as an exemption scheme which allows this industry to use Chinese bicycle parts free of anti-circumvention duties provided that specific conditions are met.\n(138)\nThe current expiry review has confirmed the complexity of the bicycle sector and its close interconnection with the sector of bicycle parts. It showed that the Union industry of bicycles is using to a large extent, as shown in recital 1, the exemption scheme for imports of bicycle parts. It is therefore important that the functioning of the measures is regularly re-examined. On these grounds, consideration was given to whether the measures should be limited to 3 years.\n(139)\nAfter disclosure, several Union producers and their associations argued that measures should be extended for 5 years. The parties mainly argued that the bicycle producers were ready to make investments in the production of bicycle parts in order to reduce their dependence on imports of Chinese bicycle parts, but a period of 3 years was not sufficient to obtain a positive return on such investments.\n(140)\nIn this respect, the argument that several parties have made or intend to make investments in the bicycles or the bicycle parts sector is not relevant when assessing the need and the duration of anti-dumping measures in the context of an expiry review. Indeed, the latter can only be based on the determination that the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.\n(141)\nAs already explained in recital 137 above, it is recalled that since the initial imposition of measures in 1993 and their extension to bicycle parts in 1997, the situation of bicycles production in the Union changed significantly as more than 250 exemptions have been granted. Furthermore, measures on bicycles are directly linked to the measures extended to bicycle parts and to the exemption scheme system created. In view of this, the conclusion that the measures would warrant re-examination as established above on recital 138 still applies. In this respect, the Council notes that the Commission has the possibility to initiate ex officio an interim review covering dumping, injury as well as the exemption scheme aspects pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(142)\nOn these grounds, and in view of the fact that the period of measures would be, in any event, an issue in any review, it is premature to assess in the framework of the current expiry review whether there are specific grounds or circumstances which call for a period of time different from the normal period of 5 years as specified in Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It is considered, therefore, that the measures should be prolonged for a period of 5 years. This is without prejudice to the fact that the duration of the current anti-dumping measures may be revisited in a subsequent full interim review, if any, depending on the findings.\nH. FINAL PROVISIONS\n(143)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to submit comments subsequent to that disclosure. The submissions and comments were duly taken into consideration where warranted.\n(144)\nIt follows from the above that the anti-dumping duties should be maintained for 5 years,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, currently falling within CN codes ex 8712 00 10 (TARIC code 8712001090), 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 80 (TARIC code 8712008090) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, for the products described in paragraph 1 shall be 48,5 %.\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 3 October 2011.", "references": ["63", "84", "51", "33", "19", "2", "53", "56", "37", "89", "93", "70", "42", "36", "27", "7", "66", "50", "47", "65", "28", "40", "39", "34", "1", "90", "29", "57", "3", "58", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "55", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "55", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1076/2011\nof 24 October 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1070/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 October 2011.", "references": ["20", "32", "18", "91", "40", "68", "49", "2", "96", "56", "92", "80", "71", "44", "70", "15", "41", "0", "86", "39", "21", "55", "34", "33", "90", "78", "27", "51", "50", "61", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 756/2011\nof 27 July 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2011.", "references": ["37", "0", "74", "26", "30", "9", "80", "63", "41", "58", "55", "13", "93", "43", "96", "29", "25", "94", "24", "6", "85", "7", "32", "14", "2", "1", "83", "50", "82", "95", "No Label", "21", "67", "72"], "gold": ["21", "67", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 July 2012\namending Decisions 2006/679/EC and 2006/860/EC concerning technical specifications for interoperability\n(notified under document C(2012) 4984)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/463/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 12 of Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 establishing a European railway agency (Agency Regulation) (2) requires the European Railway Agency (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agency\u2019) to ensure that the technical specifications for interoperability (hereinafter referred to as \u2018TSIs\u2019) are adapted to technical progress and market trends and to the social requirements and to propose to the Commission the amendments to the TSIs which it considers necessary.\n(2)\nBy Decision C(2007) 3371 of 13 July 2007, the Commission gave a framework mandate to the Agency to perform certain activities under Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (3) and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (4). Under the terms of that framework mandate, the Agency was requested to revise the TSIs on high-speed rolling stock, freight wagons, locomotives and passenger rolling stock, noise, infrastructure, energy, control-command and signalling, operation and traffic management, telematic applications for freight and passenger services, safety on railway tunnels and accessibility to persons with reduced mobility.\n(3)\nOn 31 March 2011, the Agency issued a recommendation on the specification of the register of infrastructure, the procedure of demonstrating the level of compliance with the basic parameters of the TSIs for existing lines, and subsequent amendments to TSIs (ERA/REC/04-2011/INT).\n(4)\nOn 9 June 2011, the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC gave a positive opinion on the draft Commission Implementing Decision on the European register of authorised types of railway vehicles and on the draft Commission Implementing Decision on the common specifications of the register of railway infrastructure. Following the adoption of these two Commission acts based on these drafts, namely Commission Implementing Decision 2011/633/EU of 15 September 2011 on the common specifications of the register of railway infrastructure (5) and Commission Implementing Decision 2011/665/EU of 4 October 2011 on the European register of authorised types of railway vehicles (6), the relevant TSIs need to be updated to ensure global consistency.\n(5)\nFor practical reasons, it is preferable to amend a series of TSIs by a single Commission Decision to implement particular corrections and updates in the legal texts. These corrections and updates are not arising from a global revision of the TSIs or from the extension of their geographical scope.\n(6)\nIt is therefore necessary to amend the following Decisions:\n-\nCommission Decision 2006/679/EC of 28 March 2006 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system (7), and\n-\nCommission Decision 2006/860/EC of 7 November 2006 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European high speed rail system and modifying Annex A to Decision 2006/679/EC concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system (8).\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in conformity with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2006/679/EC is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Annex to Decision 2006/860/EC is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall apply from 24 January 2013.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["96", "51", "42", "27", "61", "20", "19", "15", "69", "59", "99", "78", "35", "90", "39", "87", "1", "25", "89", "68", "0", "65", "13", "88", "71", "93", "45", "56", "44", "34", "No Label", "9", "53", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["9", "53", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 616/2010\nof 13 July 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 604/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2010.", "references": ["41", "36", "61", "68", "34", "40", "2", "43", "44", "79", "87", "13", "55", "19", "53", "30", "23", "76", "91", "7", "42", "77", "33", "29", "31", "1", "62", "94", "67", "64", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 828/2010\nof 20 September 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of September 2010 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 September 2010 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 September 2010 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 75,767209 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2010.", "references": ["10", "93", "47", "1", "61", "81", "40", "13", "20", "83", "66", "94", "63", "88", "43", "54", "35", "82", "70", "9", "30", "49", "60", "27", "28", "53", "59", "37", "95", "96", "No Label", "21", "23", "24", "69", "76"], "gold": ["21", "23", "24", "69", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 638/2010\nof 19 July 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of July 2010 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 July 2010 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 July 2010 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 63,674825 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2010.", "references": ["13", "48", "10", "88", "97", "94", "53", "96", "44", "74", "33", "2", "66", "60", "11", "32", "61", "93", "89", "52", "82", "27", "79", "47", "15", "81", "40", "43", "1", "71", "No Label", "21", "23", "24", "69", "76"], "gold": ["21", "23", "24", "69", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 682/2011\nof 14 July 2011\non the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the first partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2010/2011 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011, the Commission is to decide, in the light of the tenders received in response to a partial invitation to tender, either to fix a minimum customs duty or not to fix a minimum customs duty per eight digit CN code.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the first partial invitation to tender, a minimum customs duty should be fixed for certain eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701 and no minimum customs duty should be fixed for the other eight digit codes for sugar falling within that CN code.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the first partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 13 July 2011, a minimum customs duty has been fixed, or has not been fixed, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation for the eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 July 2011.", "references": ["82", "1", "23", "17", "7", "79", "42", "44", "77", "89", "87", "50", "81", "41", "13", "29", "8", "35", "78", "14", "85", "64", "54", "32", "37", "61", "2", "53", "0", "67", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "71", "73"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "71", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/80/EU\nof 20 September 2011\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include lambda-cyhalothrin as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes lambda-cyhalothrin.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, lambda-cyhalothrin has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nSweden was designated as Rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 8 September 2008 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 6 May 2011, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods and containing lambda-cyhalothrin may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include lambda-cyhalothrin in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at Union level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to human populations and to environmental compartments that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nIn the light of the risks identified for the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems when products were emitted to a sewage treatment plant, it is appropriate to require that products are not authorised for such uses, unless data are submitted demonstrating that the product will meet the requirements of both Article 5 of and Annex VI to Directive 98/8/EC, if necessary by the application of appropriate risk mitigation measures.\n(8)\nIn the light of the risks identified for professional use without personal protective equipment, it is appropriate to require that product authorisations for professional use are granted only for use with appropriate personal protective equipment, unless it can be demonstrated in the application for product authorisation that risks to professional users can be reduced to an acceptable level by others means.\n(9)\nIn the light of the possible indirect human exposure via consumption of food as a result of those uses represented in the assessment, it is appropriate to require, where relevant, verification of the need to set new or to amend existing maximum residue levels according to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) or Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4). Measures should be adopted ensuring that the applicable maximum residue levels are not exceeded.\n(10)\nThe provisions of this Directive should be applied at the same time in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment on the Union market of biocidal products containing the active substance lambda-cyhalothrin and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(11)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC, in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(12)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(13)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 September 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 October 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2011.", "references": ["36", "56", "34", "18", "10", "87", "17", "26", "42", "28", "75", "96", "70", "13", "8", "5", "55", "85", "20", "84", "52", "50", "12", "66", "32", "4", "71", "57", "67", "46", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/640/CFSP\nof 12 July 2011\non the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 37 thereof, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 218(5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (\u2018HR\u2019),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 2 June 2008, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 1816 (2008) calling upon all States to cooperate in determining jurisdiction, and in the investigation and prosecution of persons responsible for acts of piracy and armed robbery off the coast of Somalia. Those provisions were reaffirmed by successor UNSC Resolutions.\n(2)\nOn 10 November 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (operation \u2018Atalanta\u2019).\n(3)\nArticle 12 of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP provides that persons suspected of intending to commit, committing or having committed acts of piracy or armed robbery in Somali territorial waters, who are arrested and detained, with a view to their prosecution, and property used to carry out such acts, may be transferred to a third State which wishes to exercise its jurisdiction over the aforementioned persons and property, provided that the conditions for the transfer have been agreed with that third State in a manner consistent with relevant international law, notably international law on human rights, in order to guarantee in particular that no-one is subjected to the death penalty, to torture or to any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.\n(4)\nFollowing the adoption of a Decision by the Council on 22 March 2010 authorising the opening of negotiations, the HR in accordance with Article 37 TEU negotiated an Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 11(1) of the Agreement (2).\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["61", "2", "62", "97", "85", "80", "93", "69", "88", "70", "76", "87", "47", "72", "10", "53", "32", "98", "18", "23", "11", "52", "99", "31", "96", "73", "82", "30", "51", "64", "No Label", "4", "5", "6", "9", "12", "14", "94"], "gold": ["4", "5", "6", "9", "12", "14", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 October 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports\n(2010/622/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to harmonise their visa policy with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (1), some Member States granted visa waiver to the nationals of the Federative Republic of Brazil (\u2018Brazil\u2019) prior to their accession to the Union, as Brazil figures on the list of third countries whose nationals are exempt from the visa requirement.\n(2)\nFor constitutional reasons, Brazil cannot grant visa waiver to the Member States unilaterally; it is necessary to conclude a visa waiver agreement to be ratified by the Brazilian Parliament.\n(3)\nBrazil has bilateral visa waiver agreements with most of the Member States, concluded either prior to their accession to the Union or prior to the establishment of the common visa policy. However, there are still four Member States with whom no bilateral visa waiver agreement was concluded in the past; therefore Brazil still requires a visa from the nationals of these Member States for short stays.\n(4)\nIt stems from the nature of the common visa policy and the exclusive external competence of the Union in this area that only the Union can negotiate and conclude a visa waiver agreement, and not the individual Member States.\n(5)\nIn view of the non-reciprocal treatment of Brazil towards certain Member States, the Council, by its Decision of 18 April 2008, authorised the Commission to negotiate an agreement between the Union and Brazil on short-stay visa waiver in order to ensure a full reciprocal visa waiver.\n(6)\nNegotiations on the agreement were opened on 2 July 2008 and concluded on 1 October 2009.\n(7)\nSubject to its conclusion at a later date, the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports, initialled in Brussels on 28 April 2010, should be signed.\n(8)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (2); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(9)\nThis 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 of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (3); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion (4).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 October 2010.", "references": ["26", "77", "2", "32", "79", "90", "49", "16", "10", "85", "8", "73", "89", "67", "5", "64", "33", "54", "24", "97", "23", "22", "4", "3", "58", "74", "83", "51", "46", "34", "No Label", "9", "13", "93"], "gold": ["9", "13", "93"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1124/2010\nof 29 November 2010\nfixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 43(3) of the Treaty, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, should adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy (1) requires that measures governing access to waters and resources and the sustainable pursuit of fishing activities be established taking into account available scientific advice and, in particular, the report drawn up by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).\n(3)\nIt is incumbent upon the Council to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities by fishery or group of fisheries, including certain conditions functionally linked thereto, as appropriate. Fishing opportunities should be distributed among Member States in such a way as to assure each Member State relative stability of fishing activities for each stock or fishery and having due regard to the objectives of the common fisheries policy established in Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\n(4)\nThe total allowable catches (TACs) should be established on the basis of the available scientific advice, by taking into account the biological and socioeconomic aspects whilst ensuring fair treatment between fishing sectors, as well as in light of the opinions expressed during the consultation of stakeholders, in particular at the meetings with the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture and the concerned Regional Advisory Councils.\n(5)\nFor stocks subject to specific multiannual plans, the fishing opportunities should be established in accordance with the rules laid down in these plans. Consequently, catch limits and fishing effort limits for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea should be established in accordance with the rules laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks (2).\n(6)\nThe use of fishing opportunities set out in this Regulation is subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (3) and in particular to Articles 33 and 34 thereof concerning the recording of catches and fishing effort and the notification of data on the exhaustion of fishing opportunities respectively. It is therefore necessary to specify the codes to be used by the Member States when sending data to the Commission relating to landings of stocks subject to this Regulation.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (4), the stocks that are subject to the various measures referred to therein must be identified.\n(8)\nTo ensure the livelihood of Union fishermen, it is important to open these fisheries on 1 January 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation fixes for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks in the Baltic Sea.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to EU vessels operating in the Baltic Sea.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\nthe International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) zones are the geographical areas specified in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound (5);\n(b)\n\u2018Baltic Sea\u2019 means ICES Subdivisions 22-32;\n(c)\n\u2018EU vessel\u2019 means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State and registered in the Union;\n(d)\n\u2018total allowable catch\u2019 (TAC) means the quantity that can be taken from each stock each year;\n(e)\n\u2018quota\u2019 means a proportion of the TAC allocated to the Union, a Member State or a third country;\n(f)\n\u2018day absent from port\u2019 means any continuous period of 24 hours or part thereof during which the vessel is absent from port.\nCHAPTER II\nFISHING OPPORTUNITIES\nArticle 4\nTACs and allocations\nThe TACs, the allocation of such TACs among Member States, and the conditions functionally linked thereto, where appropriate, are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 5\nSpecial provisions on allocations\n1. The allocation of fishing opportunities among Member States as set out in this Regulation shall be without prejudice to:\n(a)\nexchanges made pursuant to Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;\n(b)\nreallocations made pursuant to Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009;\n(c)\nadditional landings allowed under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(d)\nquantities withheld in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(e)\ndeductions made pursuant to Articles 37, 105, 106 and 107 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\n2. Except where otherwise specified in Annex I to this Regulation, Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 shall apply to stocks subject to precautionary TAC and Article 3(2) and (3) and Article 4 of that Regulation to stocks subject to analytical TAC.\nArticle 6\nConditions for landing catches and by-catches\nFish from stocks for which catch limits are established shall be retained on board or landed only if:\n(a)\nthe catches have been taken by vessels of a Member State having a quota and that quota is not exhausted; or\n(b)\nthe catches consist of a share in a Union quota which has not been allocated by quota among Member States, and that Union quota has not been exhausted.\nArticle 7\nFishing effort limits\n1. Fishing effort limits are set out in Annex II.\n2. The limits referred to in paragraph 1 shall also apply to ICES Subdivisions 27 and 28.2 in so far as the Commission has not taken a decision in accordance with Article 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 to exclude those Subdivisions from the restrictions provided for in Article 8(1)(b), (3), (4) and (5) and Article 13 of that Regulation.\n3. The limits referred to in paragraph 1 shall not apply to ICES Subdivision 28.1 in so far as the Commission has not taken a decision in accordance with Article 29(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 that the restrictions provided for in Article 8(1)(b), (3), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 shall apply to that Subdivision.\nCHAPTER III\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 8\nData transmission\nWhen, pursuant to Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Member States send the Commission data relating to landings of quantities of stocks caught, they shall use the stock codes set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2010.", "references": ["57", "16", "17", "45", "99", "93", "32", "11", "15", "65", "21", "44", "56", "12", "28", "29", "97", "53", "8", "78", "30", "50", "51", "61", "55", "18", "36", "27", "46", "34", "No Label", "59", "67"], "gold": ["59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/52/EU\nof 11 August 2010\namending, for the purposes of adaptation of their technical provisions, Council Directive 76/763/EEC relating to passenger seats for wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors and Directive 2009/144/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain components and characteristics of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on type-approval of agricultural or forestry tractors, their trailers and interchangeable towed machinery, together with their systems, components and separate technical units and repealing Directive 74/150/EEC (1), and in particular Article 19(1)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 76/763/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to passenger seats for wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (2) and Directive 2009/144/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on certain components and characteristics of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (3) are two of the separate Directives in the context of the EC type-approval procedure for agricultural or forestry tractors under Directive 2003/37/EC.\n(2)\nSafety is one of the main pillars on which Directive 2003/37/EC is based. In order to enhance the protection of operators it is appropriate to complete the requirements applicable under that Directive in order to cover all hazards listed in Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) relating to machinery, not yet covered by the separate Directives under Directive 2003/37/EC.\n(3)\nWith this amendment, Directive 2006/42/EC will no longer apply to tractors type-approved on the basis of the type-approval legislation for wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors, since with the implementation of this amending Directive the risks covered by Directive 2003/37/EC will comprise all risks covered by Directive 2006/42/EC.\n(4)\nThe European Committee for Standardisation CEN has formulated harmonised standards on roll-over protection for passengers and against hazardous substances. Those standards have been adopted and published and should therefore be incorporated in this Directive.\n(5)\nDirective 76/763/EEC imposes requirements with regard to the design and installation of passenger seats on agricultural tractors; it is appropriate to amend that Directive in order to increase this protection by including additional technical specifications providing protection covering the risks of passenger injury as described in Directive 2006/42/EC, in particular regarding roll-over and seatbelt anchorage for passenger seats.\n(6)\nDirective 2009/144/EC imposes technical requirements relating to certain components and characteristics of wheeled agricultural tractors; it is appropriate to amend that Directive in order to increase this protection by including additional technical specifications providing protection against falling objects, against penetration of objects into the cabin and against hazardous substances; furthermore the minimum requirements for the operator\u2019s manual should be set.\n(7)\nIn order to achieve the smooth running of the type-approval process and in particular to enhance occupational safety, a minimum content for the operator\u2019s manual should be defined. This will ensure that operators have the necessary information to assess the adequacy of tractors to their intended uses, as well as for carrying out an appropriate maintenance.\n(8)\nProvisions for Falling Objects Protective Structures, if provided, Operators Protection Structures, if provided, and for the prevention of contact with hazardous substances should be required according to the state of the art.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Adaptation to Technical Progress - Agricultural Tractors,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nDirective 76/763/EEC is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nDirective 2009/144/EC is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Directive.\nArticle 3\n1. With effect from the date of entry into force, with respect to vehicles which comply with the requirements laid down in Directive 76/763/EEC and Directive 2009/144/EC as amended by this Directive, Member States shall not, on grounds relating to the subject matter of these Directives:\n(a)\nrefuse to grant EC type-approval or to grant national type-approval; or\n(b)\nprohibit the registration, sale or entry into service of such a vehicle.\n2. With effect from 1 year after the date of entry into force, with respect to new types of vehicles which do not comply with the requirements laid down in Directive 76/763/EEC and Directive 2009/144/EC as amended by this Directive, and on grounds relating to the subject matter of these Directives, Member States:\n(a)\nshall refuse to grant EC type-approval; and\n(b)\nmay refuse to grant national type-approval.\n3. With effect from 2 years after the date of entry into force, with respect to new vehicles which do not comply with the requirements laid down in Directive 76/763/EEC and Directive 2009/144/EC as amended by this Directive, and on grounds relating to the subject matter of these Directives, Member States:\n(a)\nshall consider certificates of conformity which accompany new vehicles in accordance with Directive 2003/37/EC to be no longer valid for the purposes of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/37/EC; and\n(b)\nmay refuse the registration, sale or entry into service of those vehicles.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 1 March 2011 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the texts of those provisions.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 2 March 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["40", "87", "81", "58", "16", "25", "0", "52", "45", "29", "75", "80", "95", "39", "44", "49", "33", "38", "97", "36", "9", "47", "31", "6", "85", "22", "99", "83", "67", "61", "No Label", "8", "51", "54", "65", "76"], "gold": ["8", "51", "54", "65", "76"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 2 November 2010\namending Decision ECB/2007/7 concerning the terms and conditions of TARGET2-ECB\n(ECB/2010/19)\n(2010/673/EU)\nTHE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 127(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 11.6 and Articles 17, 22 and 23 thereof,\nHaving regard to Guideline ECB/2007/2 of 26 April 2007 on a Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross settlement Express Transfer system (TARGET2) (1),\nHaving regard to Decision ECB/2007/7 of 24 July 2007 concerning the terms and conditions of TARGET2-ECB (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 15 September 2010, the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) adopted Guideline ECB/2010/12 amending Guideline ECB/2007/2 on a Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross settlement Express Transfer system (TARGET2) (3), inter alia: (a) to take into account the updates for TARGET2 release 4.0, in particular to allow participants to access one or more PM accounts using Internet-based access; and (b) to reflect a number of technical changes following the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and clarify a few issues.\n(2)\nIt is necessary to make conforming amendments to Decision ECB/2007/7, in order to implement certain of the elements of Guideline ECB/2010/12 in the terms and conditions of TARGET2-ECB,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment of the terms and conditions of TARGET2-ECB\nThe Annex to Decision ECB/2007/7 which contains the terms and conditions of TARGET2-ECB shall be amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 2 November 2010.", "references": ["63", "95", "16", "10", "47", "12", "61", "86", "56", "68", "80", "5", "21", "74", "98", "48", "60", "22", "84", "46", "49", "93", "65", "36", "24", "18", "90", "8", "70", "6", "No Label", "7", "9", "28", "30"], "gold": ["7", "9", "28", "30"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1127/2011\nof 7 November 2011\nconcerning the non-approval of the active substance 2-naphthyloxyacetic acid, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply, with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval, to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (3). 2-naphthyloxyacetic acid is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 1112/2002 (4) and (EC) No 2229/2004 (5) lay down detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included 2-naphthyloxyacetic acid.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 24f of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 and Article 25(1)(a) and (2)(b) of that Regulation, Commission Decision 2009/65/EC of 26 January 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of 2-Naphthyloxyacetic acid in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (6) was adopted.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to Italy, replacing France which had originally been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2009/65/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nItaly evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 21 May 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on the risk assessment of 2-naphthyloxyacetic acid to the Commission on 28 April 2011 (7). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 27 September 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for 2-naphthyloxyacetic acid.\n(7)\nBased on the new data submitted by the applicant and included in the additional report an acceptable daily intake could be set. However, during the evaluation of this active substance, a number of other concerns have been identified. In particular, it was not possible to perform a consumer exposure assessment, as necessary information was missing as regards livestock exposure, plant metabolism, residue trials, processing studies and plant residue definition. Furthermore, data were also missing to conclude on the risk to bees, earthworms and soil macro-organisms.\n(8)\nThe Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion of the Authority. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the applicant to submit comments on the draft review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(9)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns referred to in recital 7 could not be eliminated. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing 2-naphthyloxyacetic acid satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\n2-naphthyloxyacetic acid should therefore not be approved pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(11)\nIn the interest of clarity, Decision 2009/65/EC should be repealed.\n(12)\nThis Regulation does not prejudice the submission of a further application for 2-naphthyloxyacetic acid pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nNon-approval of active substance\nThe active substance 2-naphthyloxyacetic acid is not approved.\nArticle 2\nRepeal\nDecision 2009/65/EC is repealed.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 November 2011.", "references": ["55", "73", "7", "77", "28", "26", "87", "34", "39", "50", "45", "31", "80", "10", "72", "58", "91", "27", "54", "5", "22", "84", "99", "66", "51", "44", "53", "16", "70", "96", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 586/2010\nof 2 July 2010\namending for the 130th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (1), and in particular Articles 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 25 June 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one entity from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 July 2010.", "references": ["10", "28", "80", "63", "4", "81", "56", "8", "65", "12", "59", "87", "6", "93", "73", "7", "40", "91", "53", "46", "64", "88", "32", "49", "11", "13", "19", "86", "78", "33", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "23", "30", "57", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "23", "30", "57", "95"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 14 December 2011\non additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral\n(ECB/2011/25)\n(2011/870/EU)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first indent of Article 127(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular the first indent of Article 3.1 and Article 18.2 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 18.1 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of Member States whose currency is the euro (hereinafter the \u2018NCBs\u2019) may conduct credit operations with credit institutions and other market participants, with lending being based on adequate collateral. The general conditions under which the ECB and the NCBs stand ready to enter into credit operations, including the criteria determining the eligibility of collateral for the purposes of Eurosystem credit operations, are laid down in Annex I to Guideline ECB/2000/7 of 31 August 2000 on monetary policy instruments and procedures of the Eurosystem (1) (hereinafter the \u2018General Documentation\u2019).\n(2)\nOn 8 December 2011 the Governing Council decided on additional enhanced credit support measures to support bank lending and liquidity in the euro area money market. In accordance with that decision and in order to enhance the provision of liquidity to counterparties to Eurosystem monetary policy operations, an option to terminate or modify certain longer-term refinancing operations before maturity should be provided for, and the criteria for determining the eligibility of assets to be used as collateral in Eurosystem monetary policy operations should be widened.\n(3)\nSuch measures need to apply temporarily, until the Governing Council considers that the stability of the financial system allows the application of the general Eurosystem framework for monetary policy operations,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAdditional measures relating to refinancing operations and eligible collateral\n1. The rules for the conduct of Eurosystem monetary policy operations and the eligibility criteria for collateral laid down in this Decision shall apply in conjunction with the General Documentation.\n2. In the event of any discrepancy between this Decision and the General Documentation, as implemented at national level by the NCBs, the former shall prevail. The NCBs shall continue to apply all provisions of the General Documentation unaltered unless otherwise provided for in this Decision.\nArticle 2\nOption to terminate or modify longer-term refinancing operations\nThe Eurosystem may decide that, under certain conditions, counterparties may reduce the amount of, or terminate, certain longer-term refinancing operations before maturity.\nArticle 3\nAdmission of certain additional asset-backed securities\n1. In addition to asset-backed securities (ABS) eligible under Chapter 6 of the General Documentation, ABS whose underlying assets include either only residential mortgages or only loans to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) shall be eligible as collateral for Eurosystem monetary policy operations even if those ABS do not fulfil the credit assessment requirements under Section 6.3.2 of the General Documentation but otherwise comply with all eligibility criteria applicable to ABS pursuant to the General Documentation, provided that they have a second-best rating of at least the Eurosystem\u2019s minimum threshold of credit quality step 2 of the Eurosystem\u2019s harmonised rating scale, as referred to in Section 6.3.1 of the General Documentation, at issuance and at any time subsequently. They shall also satisfy all the following requirements:\n(a)\nthe cash-flow generating assets backing the ABS shall belong to the same asset class, i.e. the asset pool shall consist of either only residential mortgages or only loans to SMEs, and there shall be no mix of assets of different asset classes;\n(b)\nthe cash-flow generating assets backing the ABS shall not contain loans which are:\n(i)\nat the time of the issuance of the ABS, non-performing; or\n(ii)\nat any time, structured, syndicated or leveraged;\n(c)\nthe counterparty submitting an ABS as collateral, or any third party with which it has close links, shall not act as an interest rate hedge provider in relation to the ABS;\n(d)\nthe ABS transaction documents shall contain servicing continuity provisions.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1 the terms \u2018small enterprise\u2019 and \u2018medium-sized enterprise\u2019 shall have the meaning given to them in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (2).\nArticle 4\nAdmission of certain additional credit claims\n1. An NCB may accept as collateral for Eurosystem monetary policy operations credit claims that do not satisfy the Eurosystem eligibility criteria.\n2. The NCBs shall establish eligibility criteria and risk control measures for accepting credit claims pursuant to paragraph 1. Such eligibility criteria and risk control measures shall be subject to prior approval by the Governing Council.\nArticle 5\nFinal provisions\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 19 December 2011.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 14 December 2011.", "references": ["59", "86", "57", "24", "21", "5", "38", "66", "17", "82", "50", "53", "54", "96", "45", "89", "25", "42", "72", "19", "63", "92", "52", "78", "32", "35", "41", "34", "9", "71", "No Label", "27", "28", "29", "30"], "gold": ["27", "28", "29", "30"]}
-{"input": "EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION\nof 16 September 2010\namending the list of Council configurations\n(2010/594/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 16(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular point (a) of Article 236 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to reflect the changes made by the Treaty of Lisbon to the previous Treaties, as regards space and sport, in the names of the Council\u2019s configurations, the title of the \u2018Competitiveness (internal market, industry and research)\u2019 configuration should be amended by the addition of the word \u2018space\u2019, and the title of the \u2018Education, youth and culture\u2019 configuration should be amended by the addition of the word \u2018sport\u2019.\n(2)\nConsequently, the list of Council configurations set out in the Annex to Decision 2009/878/EU of the Council (General Affairs) of 1 December 2009 establishing the list of Council configurations in addition to those referred to in the second and third subparagraphs of Article 16(6) of the Treaty on European Union (1), which is reproduced in Annex I to the Council's Rules of Procedure (2), should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe list of Council configurations set out in the Annex to Decision 2009/878/EU and, consequently, the list of Council configurations set out in Annex I to the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure shall be amended as follows:\n1.\npoint 6 \u2018Competitiveness (internal market, industry and research)\u2019 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20186.\nCompetitiveness (internal market, industry, research and space)\u2019;\n2.\npoint 10 \u2018Education, youth and culture\u2019 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u201810.\nEducation, youth, culture and sport\u2019.\nThe footnotes shall remain unchanged.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 September 2010.", "references": ["56", "12", "85", "69", "74", "55", "65", "94", "27", "19", "52", "75", "9", "33", "44", "41", "46", "16", "59", "22", "45", "3", "72", "60", "49", "81", "2", "21", "67", "79", "No Label", "1", "7"], "gold": ["1", "7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 February 2011\non State aid granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA (State aid measures C 38/B/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 13/06 (ex N 587/05)\n(notified under document C(2011) 956)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/746/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1), and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Case C 38/B/04\n(1)\nBy letter dated 4 December 2003, a law firm representing a complainant brought to the Commission\u2019s attention a series of articles published in the Italian press concerning the Italian Government\u2019s intention to introduce preferential electricity tariffs for certain undertakings located in Sardinia.\n(2)\nThe tariffs were introduced by Article 1 of the Prime Ministerial Decree of 6 February 2004 (\u2018the 2004 Decree\u2019). The Decree had two distinct effects: a) it introduced new preferential electricity tariffs for the companies Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA and Eurallumina SpA, and b) it prolonged an existing preferential tariff in favour of Alcoa Trasformazioni, a producer of primary aluminium (\u2018Alcoa\u2019).\n(3)\nBy letters dated 22 January 2004 and 19 March 2004, the Commission requested further information on these measures. The Italian authorities replied by letters dated 9 February 2004 and 9 June 2004. By letter of 20 September 2004, Italy submitted further information.\n(4)\nBy letter dated 16 November 2004, the Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in respect of the measure.\n(5)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures.\n(6)\nItaly submitted observations by letters dated 4 February 2005 and 11 February 2005.\n(7)\nThe Commission also received observations from other interested parties, including three of the undertakings benefiting under the measures and a competitor of Portovesme. By letter dated 22 March 2005 the Commission forwarded those observations to Italy, which was given the opportunity to comment. Italy\u2019s comments were received by letter dated 20 September 2005.\n(8)\nOn 29 October 2008 the case C 38/04 was split into part A, concerning Alcoa, and part B, concerning Portovesme, ILA and Eurallumina.\n(9)\nOn 19 November 2009 the Commission adopted a final negative decision with respect to Alcoa, ordering recovery of the aid (3).\n1.2. Case C 13/06\n(10)\nBy Article 11(12) of Decree-Law No 35 of 14 March 2005, converted into statute by Law No 80/2005 of 14 May 2005 laying down urgent provisions under the Action Plan for Economic, Social and Territorial Development (\u2018Law No 80/9005\u2019), the Italian authorities prolonged until 2010 the preferential electricity tariff for Portovesme, ILA and Eurallumina, and extended the benefit of the tariff to Syndial SpA, a chlorine producer also based in Sardinia.\n(11)\nThe Commission received a complaint from a company competing with Syndial by letter dated 22 July 2005, followed by further submissions from the same company dated 7 October 2005 and 7 December 2005.\n(12)\nItaly notified the measure to the Commission by letter dated 23 November 2005. By letter dated 28 November 2005, Italy provided additional information.\n(13)\nBy letter dated 22 December 2005 the Commission asked for further information, which Italy provided by letter dated 3 March 2006.\n(14)\nIn the meantime, by letter dated 20 January 2006, the same competitor of Portovesme which had submitted observations in case C 38/B/04 complained about the new measure.\n(15)\nBy letter dated 26 April 2006, the Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the changes and the extension of the special tariff scheme introduced by Law No 80/2005.\n(16)\nThe Commission asked Italy for further clarification by letter dated 22 August 2006; Italy replied by letter dated 28 September 2006.\n(17)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures.\n(18)\nThe Commission received observations from interested parties, including the beneficiaries, the two competitors of Portovesme and Syndial, and a producer of renewable energy. By letter dated 5 October 2006 the Commission forwarded those observations to Italy, which was given the opportunity to comment. Italy\u2019s comments were received by letter dated 1 December 2006.\n(19)\nItaly provided additional information by letters of 16 April 2007, 10 May 2007, 14 May 2007 and 22 June 2010.\n1.3. Scope of the present Decision\n(20)\nThe present decision covers both the tariffs introduced by Article 1 of the 2004 Decree for beneficiaries other than Alcoa (\u2018the 2004 tariffs\u2019) and those introduced by Article 11(12) of Law No 80/2005 and subsequently spelt out in decisions taken by the Electricity and Gas Authority (Autorit\u00e0 per l\u2019Energia Elettrica e il Gas - \u2018AEEG\u2019) (\u2018the 2005 tariffs\u2019).\n2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n2.1. The disputed 2004 tariffs\n(21)\nArticle 1 of the 2004 Decree extended \u2018the [tariff] treatment laid down in Article 2 of the Decree of the Ministry for Industry, Trade and Crafts of 19 December 1995 (\u201cthe Alcoa Decree\u201d] to energy supplies for the production and processing of aluminium, lead, silver and zinc, but only in respect of plants already in existence at the date of entry into force of the present Decree and located on islands with insufficient or no interconnection to the national electricity and gas grids\u2019.\n(22)\nThis tariff treatment was to be transitory: it was to end \u2018upon the completion or upgrade of the connections with the national electricity and gas grids\u2019 and no later than 30 June 2007.\n(23)\nIn practice, the 2004 Decree extended the preferential tariff already enjoyed by aluminium producer Alcoa to three energy-intensive companies located in Sardinia: Portovesme, a producer of zinc, silver and lead (5); ILA, a producer of processed aluminium products; and Eurallumina, a producer of alumina (6).\n(24)\nAt the regulatory level, the tariff was implemented through decisions (delibere) of the AEEG.\n(25)\nAEEG decision No 110/04 stipulated that the preferential tariffs would be applied only if the notification procedure had a positive outcome. However, following instructions from the Prime Minister\u2019s Office specifying that the 2004 Decree had not been formally notified under the State aid rules but only \u2018presented\u2019 to the Commission in the framework of a \u2018preliminary inquiry\u2019 (indagine conoscitiva preliminare), the AEEG implemented the 2004 Decree through decision No 148/04 (7).\n(26)\nThe system allowed the beneficiaries to be given compensatory payments on the terms laid down in the Alcoa Decree. For a given plant covered by the scheme, the compensatory payment was equal to the difference between the price paid to the company supplying the plant with electricity and a preferential price set by the State, multiplied by the electricity consumption of the plant. The method used to calculate the preferential price (or \u2018preferential tariff\u2019) was laid down in decision CIP No 15/1993. The price was subject to an indexation mechanism based on the variation of Italian power generation costs (the \u2018Ct component\u2019). In 2004 the preferential price applied to the Sardinian beneficiaries ranged between EUR 26 and EUR 35 per MWh.\n(27)\nThe administrative management of the scheme was entrusted to the Electricity Industry Equalisation Fund (Cassa Conguaglio per il Settore Elettrico) (8). In practice, the tariff system worked as follows. The beneficiaries sent the Equalisation Fund detailed monthly data on the quantities of electricity they had consumed and the prices they had paid to their power suppliers. They then received from the Equalisation Fund cash payments calculated as indicated above (9).\n(28)\nThe resources required to finance the compensatory payments were raised through a parafiscal charge imposed on all Italian electricity consumers via component A4 of the standard electricity tariff (10).\n(29)\nThe scheme was to have ended on 30 June 2007. However, its implementation was discontinued on instructions from the AEEG soon after the Commission opened the formal investigation in November 2004 (11).\n(30)\nThe data provided by Italy shows that Portovesme and Eurallumina received subsidies for electricity consumed between April and October 2004, and ILA received subsidies for electricity consumed between April and September 2004. The total payments made by the Equalisation Fund to these three undertakings under the scheme are set out below (in euro).\nPortovesme Srl\n12 845 892,82\nEurallumina SpA\n5 208 152,05\nILA SpA\n291 120,27\n2.2. The disputed 2005 tariffs\n(31)\nBy Article 11(12) of Law No 80/2005, the Italian authorities extended \u2018the tariff treatment laid down in the Decree of the Ministry for Industry, Trade and Crafts of 19 December 1995 to energy supplies for the production and processing of aluminium, lead, silver and zinc and for the chlorine-soda cycle, by reference to prices applied to similar supplies on the European markets, but only in respect of plants already in existence at the date of entry into force of the present Decree, located in Sardinia and connected to the high-voltage network. This tariff treatment shall be subject to long-term commitments to be agreed between the beneficiaries, the Sardinian local authorities and the responsible Ministries.\u2019\n(32)\nThus Law No 80/2005 in substance reintroduced the tariff scheme implemented in 2004, which extended the Alcoa treatment to other energy-intensive beneficiaries based in Sardinia. In practice, the Law applied only to Portovesme, ILA and Eurallumina, and to Syndial, a chlorine-soda producer which had not benefited from preferential prices before.\n(33)\nIt should be noted that from 2005 onwards the preferential price was no longer pegged to the historical tariff originally laid down in the 1995 Alcoa Decree, but was now to be set independently by the AEEG so as to match the average electricity prices paid by the beneficiaries\u2019 competitors on the European market (12). The price was subject to annual updates: according to Article 11(13) of the Law, \u2018the tariff terms referred to in Articles 11 (13) and 12 shall apply from 1 January 2005 and shall be updated by the AEEG, which shall each year increase the nominal values of the tariffs by 4 %, or, if this latter value be higher, by the percentage increase in the average wholesale price of electrical energy recorded on the main European electrical energy exchanges, principally Frankfurt and Amsterdam.\u2019 In decision No 217/05, the AEEG gave an interpretation of this update mechanism which was more favourable to the beneficiaries, as it laid down that the annual increase in the tariff could not exceed 4 %.\n(34)\nIn the same decision, the AEEG set the preferential prices applicable to the various industries for the year 2005 as follows:\nIndustries qualifying for preferential tariffs\nPreferential price\nEUR/MWh\nAluminium processing\n50\nLead and zinc\n23\nAluminium production\n27\nChlorine cycle\n27\n(35)\nLike the 2004 tariffs, the 2005 tariffs were to be financed by means of a parafiscal levy charged to all electricity end-users via component A4 of the standard electricity tariff. The management of the financial flows of the system was again entrusted to the Equalisation Fund.\n(36)\nEntitlement to the tariff was conditional upon a commitment by which the beneficiaries undertook to carry out productive investment in Sardinia on the basis of industrial plans to be submitted to the regional authorities. For example, Portovesme undertook to invest in the self-generation of electricity or to participate in the construction of new power plants.\n(37)\nItaly notified Article 11(12) of Law No 80/2005 in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU. Payment of the 2005 tariffs was subject to the authorisation of the scheme by the Commission. The 2005 tariffs have consequently not been implemented.\n2.3. Proceedings before national courts\n(38)\nSolvay Chimica Italia and Solvay Chimica Bussi SpA, which operate in the chlorine-soda cycle and are located outside Sardinia, brought legal proceedings before the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy (14) challenging the decisions taken by the AEEG in implementation of Article 11(12) of Law No 80/2005, on the grounds that they involved the granting of unlawful State aid and that they breached other provisions of Italian law (15). On 27 November 2006 the Court stayed the proceedings before it, pending the conclusion of the State aid investigation initiated by the Commission in Case C 13/06.\n2.4. Combination with previous incompatible aid - Deggendorf\n(39)\nAfter the opening of proceedings, Italy indicated that Eurallumina had not reimbursed the incompatible aid which had been the subject of Case C 80/01 (aid for alumina production) (16), but that, according to the company, the Sardinian regional authorities had issued a recovery order in respect of this measure on 8 May 2006.\n3. DECISION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 108(2) TFEU\n(40)\nThe Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation on the following grounds.\n3.1. Case C 38/B/04\n(41)\nIn its decision to open the formal investigation (17), the Commission considered whether it might be that the 2004 tariffs for Portovesme, ILA and Eurallumina did not constitute State aid, on the ground that they were similar to the preferential tariff granted to Alcoa in 1996, which the Commission had held not to constitute State aid in its decision of 4 December 1996 (\u2018the Alumix decision\u2019) (18).\n(42)\nThe Commission observed that the new tariff seemed different from the Alumix tariff, as the Alumix tariff was granted directly by ENEL, the Italian monopolist electricity operator, while the new tariff involved the selective intervention of the State to compensate the difference between the market price agreed by the beneficiaries with their power suppliers and the preferential price fixed in 1996. The Commission concluded that the 2004 Decree did not merely extend to new beneficiaries the scope of an existing measure that did not constitute State aid, but rather introduced a new scheme for the benefit of the three undertakings concerned, with a financial mechanism that was very different from the Alumix tariff.\n(43)\nThe opening decision classified the tariffs introduced by the 2004 Decree as operating aid, and assessed whether that aid could be authorised on the basis of the Guidelines on National Regional Aid (\u2018the Regional Aid Guidelines\u2019) (19), since Sardinia was an assisted region within the scope of Article 107(3)(a) until the end of 2006. The Commission doubted whether the aid could be authorised on that basis, since ad hoc aid of that kind, granted to a limited number of undertakings, did not seem to promote regional development.\n(44)\nThe Commission also expressed concern that the measure might have the effect of reducing the level of taxation applicable to electricity. Any such reduction would have to have a legal basis in Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (20).\n3.2. Case C 13/06\n(45)\nIn its decision of 27 April 2006 opening the formal investigation, the Commission classified the 2005 tariff scheme as new operating aid.\n(46)\nThe Commission considered whether the preferential tariff could be authorised as regional operating aid on the basis of the Regional Aid Guidelines, since Sardinia was to be an assisted region within the scope of Article 107(3)(a) TFEU until the end of 2006.\n(47)\nDespite Italy\u2019s insistence that high electricity prices in Sardinia handicapped the development of the island, the Commission took the view that Italy had not shown that prices were significantly higher in Sardinia, either on average or specifically for energy-intensive users (21). The Commission pointed out that the overcapacity that existed in electricity generation in Sardinia could only have the effect of encouraging power generators to sell electricity at the lowest possible price, until such time as the completion of the interconnection projects, which was scheduled for 2010, enabled them to export power from Sardinia.\n(48)\nBesides, Italy had not explained why higher prices should be regarded as a regional handicap, or how the tariff would contribute to regional development. The Commission accordingly doubted whether the aid was necessary.\n(49)\nThe Commission also doubted whether ad hoc aid of this kind was proportional to the regional disadvantages, in particular in view of the method used to calculate the preferential price, which bore no relation to the prices charged in the rest of Italy but was based on the average prices charged in Europe to energy-intensive users.\n(50)\nThe Commission noted that the duration of the measure exceeded five years, which was usually the maximum period for which regional operating aid would be authorised, and that the aid was not degressive in real terms, in view of the 4 % cap imposed on increases in the tariff.\n(51)\nAs regards the period covered by the Guidelines on National Regional Aid 2007-2013 (22), the Commission noted that Sardinia would cease to qualify for aid under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU, and in particular for operating aid. The Guidelines would allow a two-year transitional period for the linear phasing-out of existing operating aid schemes, but it did not seem appropriate to allow new operating aid to be introduced for a few months and then phased out, especially given the doubts expressed and the distortive nature of the aid.\n(52)\nIn conclusion, the Commission doubted whether the preferential tariff for Portovesme, ILA, Eurallumina and Syndial could be authorised either as regional aid or on any other grounds, which Italy had in any event failed to identify.\n(53)\nAs regards Eurallumina, the Commission observed that the company had not yet reimbursed unlawful and incompatible State aid it had received (23), and that under the rule in Deggendorf (24) it consequently could not receive aid under any new measure.\n4. OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED BY INTERESTED PARTIES\n4.1. Case C 38/B/04\n(54)\nIn response to the Commission\u2019s invitation to submit comments on the 2004 decision to open the in-depth investigation, observations were received from the original complainant, several of the beneficiaries (Portovesme, Eurallumina and Alcoa), and other interested parties. Only the observations relevant to the preferential tariff for Portovesme, ILA and Eurallumina are summarised here. The observations made by Alcoa are not included, as they are comprehensively addressed in the final decision specifically concerning that company (25).\n4.1.1. Observations submitted by Portovesme\n(55)\nPortovesme argued that the preferential tariff addressed a market failure, namely the failure of the recently liberalised Sardinian electricity market to deliver competitive prices owing to the market power of the incumbent operators. Portovesme claimed that ENEL and Endesa (whose power generation assets in Sardinia were subsequently sold to E.ON) formed a duopoly, and artificially kept electricity prices in Sardinia in line with average Italian prices, whereas in fact Sardinian prices should be much lower, especially for large electricity consumers, given the overcapacity in electricity generation, which ought to encourage generators to sell at competitive prices.\n(56)\nPortovesme contended that the preferential price enjoyed corresponded to the price the company would have obtained under normal market conditions, i.e. if the electricity market functioned correctly.\n(57)\nAccording to Portovesme, the compensatory payments received from the Equalisation Fund (amounting to EUR 37 per MWh) brought the price paid by Portovesme into line with power prices paid by its competitors, and did not distort competition, since all EU zinc producers paid equivalent prices, and the measure merely offset the competitive disadvantage suffered by the company as a result of Sardinia\u2019s structural problems (which included the absence of natural gas).\n(58)\nMetals like zinc, aluminium and lead were commodities for which there was one world price, arrived at on the London Metal Exchange. Variations in local production costs did not translate into differences in world prices. In particular, Portovesme\u2019s zinc production was so small (at less than 1 % of world production) that it could not affect the world price.\n(59)\nWithout the tariff Portovesme would have to close its plant, but the closure would not benefit other EU zinc producers, who would not be in a position to increase output, and the gap would be filled by imports from third countries. Portovesme concluded that the preferential tariff did not affect competition or trade in the EU.\n(60)\nMoreover, according to Portovesme, the compensatory payments from the Equalisation Fund did not involve State resources, since the Equalisation Fund merely redistributed private funds which came from electricity end-users.\n(61)\nPortovesme noted that power off-take by energy-intensive industries was important to ensure security and continuity of supply in Sardinia, and to avoid inefficiencies in power generation which would lead to higher electricity costs for end-users.\n(62)\nFinally, the company points out that, if it was obliged to close down its plant, the consequences for Sardinia\u2019s production base would be very serious, as 790 direct jobs and 500 indirect jobs would be lost.\n4.1.2. Observations submitted by Eurallumina\n(63)\nEurallumina argued that alumina production costs in Europe were higher than in other regions of the world, owing mainly to higher electricity and fuel prices and to the cost of transporting bauxite (26). The higher costs could not be passed on in the form of higher prices, since the price of alumina was set on the London Metal Exchange and individual producers had no influence over it. European alumina production therefore suffered from a competitive disadvantage compared with the rest of the world.\n(64)\nIn addition to the general problems affecting European alumina refineries, Eurallumina also pointed to specific Sardinian problems that prevented local industries from reaping the benefits of electricity market liberalisation, notably the market power of incumbent electricity operators (see Portovesme\u2019s observations in recital 55 above). Eurallumina also contended that the absence of natural gas was a specific handicap for the production of alumina in Sardinia, as the large quantities of steam required for the process had to be obtained using more expensive heavy oil.\n(65)\nAccording to Eurallumina, after liberalisation the market power of electricity generators in Sardinia led to an increase in electricity prices: without the tariff, Eurallumina would have had to pay EUR 65,95 per MWh for its electricity supplies, as against the EUR 44 per MWh it used to pay before liberalisation. The 2004 tariff brought the price down to EUR 35 per MWh.\n(66)\nLike Portovesme, Eurallumina contended that, if it was forced to go out of business, other EU alumina producers would not be able to step in, as they already worked at maximum capacity, and the gap would be filled by imports from third countries. Closure would lead to the loss of 400 direct jobs and 250 indirect jobs (27). Given that it was the sole supplier of alumina for Alcoa\u2019s smelter, Eurallumina considered that the closure of its alumina plant might also jeopardise Alcoa\u2019s viability in Sardinia.\n(67)\nEurallumina concluded that the tariff introduced by the 2004 Decree was necessary pending the development of the new infrastructure that would remove the main factors of competitive disadvantage affecting Sardinian industry.\n4.1.3. Observations submitted by other interested parties\n(68)\nA competitor of Portovesme - the same company that had originally brought the case to the Commission\u2019s attention - wrote to the Commission again after the opening of the formal investigation. It submitted an analysis of the 2004 preferential tariff in which it concluded that the tariff constituted unlawful State aid. The disputed tariff scheme was fundamentally different from the Alumix tariff granted to Alcoa: it was impossible to take the view that it did not constitute State aid. The aid must be held incompatible with the common market, as it could not be approved either as regional operating aid or as restructuring aid.\n(69)\nSolvay Chimica Italia and Solvay Chimica Bussi, who operate in the chlorine-soda industry, sent observations on the 2004 tariffs in July 2005, after the expiry of the one-month deadline for submitting comments in response to the decision to open the formal investigation. Despite the delay, these companies asked to be considered interested parties. In their observations they submitted that both the 2004 and the 2005 tariffs constituted unlawful and incompatible State aid.\n4.1.4. Observations submitted by Italy\n(70)\nItaly argued that that the electricity market in the EU was not yet fully competitive, as the Commission had itself acknowledged in its fourth Annual Report on the Implementation of the Gas and Electricity Internal Market (28). Undertakings, in particular energy-intensive ones, were unable to choose their suppliers freely and to procure electricity on comparable terms in the various Member States. These difficulties were not related to the undertakings\u2019 own entrepreneurship, but were the result of the structural deficiencies of energy markets. The current situation in the EU energy market had negative effects on free competition in the product markets of energy-intensive users.\n(71)\nIn Italy, despite the liberalisation of the sector, there were particular structural deficiencies, such as insufficient interconnection between the different parts of the national grids and a concentrated market structure. In these circumstances, liberalisation had not translated into better prices for energy-intensive users. The problems were particularly acute in Sardinia, where interconnection was limited.\n(72)\nItaly submitted, therefore, that a special tariff system reflecting demand profiles should be considered justified, as a regulatory measure that simulated the mechanisms that would be at play in a fully competitive market. The measure restored the level playing field between energy-intensive undertakings operating in different Member States, eliminating the geographical disadvantages which affect undertakings located in Sardinia. The scheme anticipated the expected effects of the liberalisation process. According to Italy, similar measures were implemented in other Member States, where energy-intensive users benefited as a result of regulated electricity tariffs.\n(73)\nAccording to Italy, the 2004 decree pursued two further objectives: to support employment in Sardinia, which was concentrated in the metals sector, and to maintain a sufficient level of demand for power generation in Sardinia, which suffered from overcapacity.\n(74)\nItaly contended that the new tariff scheme was equivalent, de facto, to the Alumix tariff, which the Commission had found did not constitute State aid. The differences between the old and the new scheme were due solely to the new \u2018tariff structure\u2019 required by the launch of the liberalised energy market.\n(75)\nItaly submitted that the tariff scheme did not constitute State aid. As regards the use of State resources, the tariff system was comparable to the arrangement in the PreussenElektra case, which the Court of Justice had held did not involve State resources (29). The Equalisation Fund was a technical body that kept the accounts of the system, and could not dispose freely of the financial resources it handled. The fact that the AEEG and the Ministry of Finance exercised a measure of control over the Equalisation Fund\u2019s activities did not mean that the State could freely dispose of those resources. According to Italy, therefore, the resources used to finance the tariff mechanism were entirely private.\n(76)\nItaly further submitted that the tariff did not have an impact on trade within the Union, and could not distort competition, for reasons linked to the existence of a world price for the products, which were commodities (see observations submitted by Portovesme, recital 55 above). Moreover, both EU and Italian production had failed to keep pace with rising demand for the metals concerned. In 2005 domestic production covered only 12 % of Italian demand for aluminium, 55 % of Italian demand for zinc, and 80 % of Italian demand for lead. There was a worsening production deficit for these metals in the EU and in Italy, and demand was increasingly being met by imports from third countries. If the metals industry in Italy disappeared, no new EU entrant would replace the capacity shut down in Italy, as EU plants were already working at full capacity, and no existing producer or new entrant would have an incentive to increase capacity, since the long-term prospects for the availability of affordable power were uncertain. The maintenance in Italy of these production capabilities consequently could not damage competitors. Since the preferential tariff was not lower than the electricity prices paid on average by the companies\u2019 competitors, it did not encourage exports from Sardinia towards other Member States.\n(77)\nItaly argued that, even if the Commission were to conclude that the measure was indeed State aid, the tariff could be considered compatible with the internal market on the ground that it was regional operating aid, which was admissible in Sardinia on the basis of the exemption in Article 107(3)(a) TFEU.\n(78)\nAccording to Italy, the imperfections of the Sardinian electricity market (market concentration, poor interconnection, and overcapacity in electricity generation) and the lack of access to gas infrastructure constituted a regional handicap, and the tariff sought to alleviate that handicap.\n(79)\nElectricity prices in Italy were 38 % higher than the EU average for energy-intensive users. This created a competitiveness problem which was exacerbated, in Sardinia, by the shortcomings of the local electricity market and the absence of access to the natural gas grid.\n(80)\nItaly contended that the measure contributed to regional development because the metals industry made a major contribution to the economy and to employment in Sardinia: the metals industry accounted for 12 % of the employed workforce and for 12,2 % of regional GNP in manufacturing. The tariff had positive repercussions on employment and the maintenance of the social and economic fabric of the island.\n(81)\nAccording to Italy, the tariff was proportional to the disadvantages faced by the beneficiaries, because it merely aligned the electricity prices paid by Sardinian producers on the average prices paid by their EU competitors.\n(82)\nThe tariff was also short-term and transitional, since it was expected to end upon the completion of infrastructure projects aimed at improving interconnection with the electricity and gas grids (the new SAPEI interconnection cable and the GALSI gas pipeline) (30).\n(83)\nAccording to Italy, the measure was also degressive, because the preferential price was indexed on the basis of variations in fuel prices, and could only increase or remain unchanged.\n4.2. Case C 13/06\n4.2.1. Observations submitted by Portovesme\n(84)\nPortovesme considered that the 2005 tariffs did not distort competition, that they were necessary to ensure the survival of the industries concerned, and that they could be considered compatible as regional aid. The company\u2019s arguments are similar to those put forward by Italy, to which reference may be made (see recitals 87 to 104).\n4.2.2. Observations submitted by Eurallumina\n(85)\nEurallumina likewise considered that the 2005 tariffs did not distort competition, were necessary to ensure the survival of the industries concerned, and could be considered compatible as regional aid. The company\u2019s arguments are similar to those put forward by Italy, to which reference may be made.\n4.2.3. Observations submitted by other interested parties\n(86)\nThe two competitors of Portovesme and Syndial that had submitted observations in Case C 38/B/04 submitted observations in this case too. Both of them contended that the disputed measure constituted operating aid which should be considered incompatible with the internal market.\n4.2.4. Observations submitted by Italy\n(87)\nItaly contended that the 2005 tariffs were very different from the tariffs implemented in 2004, since they were now in line with the requirements of the Regional Aid Guidelines.\n(88)\nAccording to Italy, the tariffs might, on the basis of a superficial assessment, be classified as operating aid, but in reality they were part of an array of measures designed to favour regional development in Sardinia. Italy drew attention, in particular, to the close link between the tariffs and the commitment to carry out long-term investments that beneficiaries were requested to give. The suspensive clause making the implementation of the measure subject to authorisation by the Commission testified, according to Italy, to its regional aid character.\n(89)\nThe memorandum of understanding (protocollo d\u2019intesa) signed by the Region and the beneficiaries was the lynchpin of this strategy. It comprised the following:\n(a)\nthe productive investments described in the industrial plans submitted by the beneficiaries;\n(b)\nthe speedy authorisation of energy interconnection infrastructure enabling the beneficiaries to source energy at competitive prices (the GALSI gas pipeline and the SAPEI interconnection cable);\n(c)\nthe award of an integrated concession for the exploitation of the Sulcis coalmine and the construction/operation of a new coal-fuelled power plant intended to supply power to the beneficiaries; and\n(d)\nthe preferential tariffs.\n(90)\nItaly took the view that the tariffs should be seen as a policy instrument aimed at safeguarding sectors threatened by high energy prices, which would otherwise relocate outside Italy and Europe, owing to aggressive competition from non-EU companies with lower production costs. The tariffs were to be applied until the completion of the planned infrastructure and the achievement of a competitive internal market for energy. The measure was in line with the spirit of regional aid, because it promoted economic growth and employment on an island where energy-intensive production suffered from a competitive disadvantage owing not only to the imperfect state of liberalisation of the electricity market but also to exceptional infrastructural deficiencies in Sardinia as regards interconnection to the national electricity and gas grids.\n(91)\nIn support of this integrated approach, Italy cited the First Report of the High Level Group on Competitiveness, Energy and Environment (31), which found that the liberalisation process in the energy sector had not produced satisfactory results, that better interconnection was necessary, and that long-term supply contracts with predictable prices or partnerships between customers and energy suppliers were desirable. Italy argued that the measures planned for Sardinia moved in this direction, but that short-term measures such as the tariffs were also needed in order to safeguard the competitiveness of Sardinian industry and ensure its survival until the planned investments were carried out and the structural problems were resolved.\n(92)\nItaly contended that it was not possible to compare power prices paid by the Sardinian beneficiaries and average power prices paid by comparable undertakings on the Italian mainland, since energy-intensive undertakings purchased electricity via bilateral contracts which were not in the public domain. According to Italy, the Commission erred in carrying out a comparison based on prices recorded on power exchanges, since only a marginal part of these undertakings\u2019 energy supplies was procured on exchanges.\n(93)\nAccording to Italy, prices negotiated via bilateral contracts would be favourable to consumers only if the consumers could freely choose their suppliers and source electricity which was produced using competitive technologies. This was not possible in Sardinia, where power generation plants could not produce cheap electricity since they had no access to natural gas. Besides, new investments in modern power generation were discouraged by the limited electrical interconnection which made it impossible to export electricity. Another factor was market concentration and the role played by incumbent operators.\n(94)\nIn these circumstances, according to Italy, there was justification for applying tariffs which stabilised electricity prices until more effective competition was achieved on the electricity market. Italy once again argued that the preferential tariffs simulated the mechanism of a fully competitive market.\n(95)\nAs regards the overcapacity in electricity generation which led the Commission to doubt that power prices in Sardinia were higher than on mainland Italy (since overcapacity should rather encourage generators to sell at competitive prices to large consumers - see recital 47), Italy put forward the following arguments. Sardinian overcapacity in electricity generation could not lead to lower prices for consumers, because in this specific case overcapacity was the result of limited interconnection, which made it necessary to establish a very high power reserve in order to safeguard the continuity of electricity supplies on the island (32). Since this reserve was in any event remunerated via charges imposed on all electricity end-users, power suppliers had no interest in selling the electricity produced using this idle capacity at more competitive prices.\n(96)\nAccording to Italy the measure was proportional, because the price fixed by the AEEG for 2005 (see recital 34 above) corresponded to the average price paid in the EU by the beneficiaries\u2019 competitors, which was calculated objectively by the regulator. Italy also pointed out that in Member States with regulated tariffs large industrial consumers paid prices as low as EUR 25 per MWh for their electricity supplies in 2005.\n(97)\nItaly therefore contested the data submitted by the complainants, which in its view were methodologically flawed, in that they overestimated the average electricity prices paid by the beneficiaries\u2019 competitors in the EU.\n(98)\nAccording to Italy, the duration of the scheme, at six years rather than five, was justified by the need to wait for the completion of the energy infrastructure.\n(99)\nItaly also contended that the degressivity requirement was met: the tariffs were degressive because they were adjusted on the basis of the weighted average of variations on the Amsterdam and Frankfurt power exchanges and could only increase but not decrease.\n(100)\nThe tariffs were pegged to price variations on the power exchanges because, according to Italy, this was an objective benchmark which was broadly representative of trends in energy prices. However, Italy maintained that actual price increases for EU energy-intensive users were generally considerably lower than the increases recorded on exchanges, as such users paid prices agreed through bilateral contracts, or set by the State where there were regulated tariffs, and these prices were less prone to variation.\n(101)\nItaly concluded that that the annual 4 % increase applied to the Sardinian tariffs was in line with the increases in energy prices applied to their direct EU competitors.\n(102)\nItaly drew attention to the existence in the EU of measures which had effects equivalent to the disputed preferential tariffs, and argued that all of them should be assessed in the same way, regardless of their form, since their common objective was to ensure the survival of energy-intensive industries in the EU and prevent their relocation outside the national territory.\n(103)\nAlthough from 2007 onwards Sardinia could no longer benefit from regional operating aid, Italy argued that the Regional Aid Guidelines mad provision for a phasing-out of schemes which were ongoing at the time a region ceased to be eligible for the exemption in Article 107(3)(a) TFEU. Thus the Commission was still in a position to authorise the measure under the 2007 Regional Aid. Guidelines. In any event, Italy contended that the disputed measure should not be viewed as ordinary operating aid.\n(104)\nItaly contended once again that the tariffs did not affect trade between Member States, on the basis of the arguments already set out with respect to aluminium, zinc and lead in recital 76. The same reasoning, Italy maintained, applied to the chemical industry. Italy pointed out that in 2003 imports of chemical products into Italy had exceeded exports, and that EU and Italian production had slumped since 2001. With specific reference to the production of PVC, which was the main application of chlorine, Italy pointed to a production deficit in the country: in 2002, only 470 000 tonnes of PVC had been produced in Italy, while consumption had been 970 000 tonnes.\n5. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE\n5.1. Existence of State aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU\n(105)\nA measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if the following conditions are all fulfilled: the measure (a) confers an economic advantage on the beneficiary; (b) is granted by the State or through State resources; (c) is selective; and (d) affects trade between Member States and is liable to distort competition within the EU.\n5.1.1. Existence of an advantage\n(106)\nUnder the 2004 and 2005 tariff arrangements, the State intervened to subsidise the electricity price negotiated by the beneficiaries with their suppliers. In 2004, for example, on the basis of the bilateral supply contracts in force at the time and in the absence of the compensatory payments, Portovesme would have paid EUR 63 per MWh (33) and Eurallumina EUR 65,95. These figures were provided by Italy and the beneficiaries themselves, and are therefore not in dispute.\n(107)\nIn 2005, according to the data provided by Italy, the electricity price negotiated by Syndial with its supplier exceeded EUR 60 per MWh, whereas the tariff would bring it down to EUR 27 per MWh. The rationale of the two measures was that the State would reimburse to the beneficiaries the extra costs they had sustained in order to purchase electricity in Sardinia compared to average prices paid by their EU competitors.\n(108)\nPortovesme contends that the preferential price corresponds to the price which would prevail in a fully competitive market, and therefore does not provide an advantage. The Commission has already rejected this line of reasoning in the Alcoa case, which concerned virtually identical tariffs. When assessing the presence of an advantage, neither the Union lawcourts nor the Commission have ever taken into account the conditions that would prevail in a hypothetical market that functioned better. The framework of reference has always been the conditions prevailing on the actual markets concerned (34).\n(109)\nThis argument also supposes that where a market was not functioning properly a Member State would be justified in setting prices that simulated conditions of effective competition (see Italy\u2019s comment in recital 72 above).\n(110)\nThis reasoning cannot be accepted, as it runs counter to the settled principle of EU case-law according to which \u2018the fact that a Member State seeks to approximate, by unilateral measures, conditions of competition in a particular sector of the economy to those prevailing in other Member States cannot deprive the measures in question of their character as aid\u2019 (35). The Commission considers that the same principle applies to situations where a Member State seeks to approximate conditions of competition to those that would prevail in a fully competitive market.\n(111)\nFurther, if this submission were to be accepted, there would be no State aid where a Member State granted a subsidy to bridge the gap between a price freely negotiated between two market operators and the theoretical price at which agreement might have been arrived at in conditions of full competition. This would defeat the fundamental purpose of State aid control.\n(112)\nItaly contends that these tariffs are identical to the Alumix tariff, which the Commission considered not to constitute aid (see recital 74 above), and should likewise be considered free of aid.\n(113)\nThe Commission points out that the situation on which the Commission took a position in the Alumix case was very different. In Alumix, the tariff was granted by ENEL, which at the time was a public body supplying electricity on a monopoly basis in an electricity market which had yet to be liberalised (36). In that situation, the Commission had to ascertain whether ENEL was selling at an artificially low price or behaving like a rational market economy operator. Given the monopoly over electricity generation and supply held by ENEL, there was no competitive market price to which the Commission could refer to assess the existence of an advantage. Therefore, the Commission devised a method to identify the lowest theoretical market price at which a rational supplier would be prepared to sell to its \u2018best customer\u2019.\n(114)\nHowever, this method cannot be applied in a situation where prices are negotiated by end-users with power suppliers on a liberalised market and are subsidised by compensatory payments ex post. Thus the analysis in the Alumix decision, and the Commission\u2019s findings in that case, are manifestly devoid of relevance here. This was borne out by the judgment of the Court of First Instance which upheld the decision to open the formal investigation in Alcoa (37) (paragraph 132 of the judgment).\n(115)\nIn the present case, the market operator principle does not apply. The position would have to be assessed in the light of the market operator test if the State sold electricity to the companies concerned, either directly or through a State-owned company, as it did in Alumix. But here the electricity is supplied by private companies. There is therefore no need, as there was in Alumix, to examine whether the State\u2019s behaviour has been comparable to that of a rational market operator.\n(116)\nIt must be concluded that the 2004 and 2005 compensatory payment systems mitigate the charges payable under the supply contracts concluded by the beneficiaries, which would normally have to be included in the companies\u2019 budgets. In line with well-established case-law, therefore, the disputed measures confer an economic advantage on the recipients (38).\n5.1.2. Selectivity\n(117)\nSince the preferential electricity tariffs in Italy are granted exclusively to undertakings operating existing facilities located in Sardinia and belonging to a closed list of industries identified in the legislative and regulatory instruments that form the legal basis of the measures, the advantage they confer is a selective one.\n5.1.3. State resources and imputability to the State\n(118)\nIt is settled case-law that an advantage constitutes State aid within the scope of Article 87(1) TFEU only if it is granted directly or indirectly through State resources (39) and is imputable to the State (40).\n(119)\nAs explained in recital 28, the compensatory payments at issue here are financed by means of a parafiscal charge collected by the Equalisation Fund via the A4 component of the electricity tariff. This charge is obligatory, being imposed by means of decisions of the AEEG that implement national legislation. The Equalisation Fund is a public body established by law which carries out its functions on the basis of precise instructions laid down in the decisions of the AEEG.\n(120)\nIt is also settled case-law that the yield of a levy which is obligatory under national law and is paid to a body established by law constitutes a State resource within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty when it is earmarked for the funding of a measure which fulfils the other criteria of that Article (41).\n(121)\nItaly relies on the judgment of the Court of Justice in PreussenElektra (42) to substantiate the thesis that the measure at hand is not financed through State resources. Italy argues that the funds required to finance the tariff are transferred by private parties (electricity consumers) to private parties (the beneficiaries); the role of the State is confined to the enactment of a law requiring payment of the required sums, with no discretion to dispose of the funds other than in the implementation of the statutory scheme. In particular, according to Italy and several of the beneficiaries, the Equalisation Fund cannot exercise any control over the funds, and is merely an accounting intermediary.\n(122)\nIn the PreussenElektra case, the Court held that an obligation imposed on private electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity produced from renewable energy sources at minimum prices higher than the real economic value of that type of electricity did not constitute State aid, because the measure did not involve any direct or indirect transfer of State resources.\n(123)\nThe Commission points out that in PreussenElektra the resources required to finance the measure were provided by the electricity suppliers directly to the producers of renewable energies, without transiting through any public body. In that system, the sums to be transferred could never be at the disposal of the Member State\u2019s authorities. In the case at hand, however, the monies transit through a public body, the Equalisation Fund, before being channelled to the final beneficiary. Thus PreussenElektra addresses different factual circumstances, and is not relevant to the present case.\n(124)\nThe judgment in Pearle (43) cannot assist Italy or the beneficiaries either. In Pearle, the Court found that, under certain specific conditions, the yield of a levy which transited through a public body did not constitute State resources. In Pearle, the measures were financed entirely by a particular trade at the sole initiative of the trade itself. The monies were collected via a parafiscal levy transiting through a public body which could not at any time dispose of the funds freely. In addition, there was a correspondence between the entities which paid the levy and those which received the benefits of the measure.\n(125)\nItaly contends that the Equalisation Fund does not have any discretion in the disbursement of the funds, which are earmarked for the financing of the tariffs and never come within \u2018the perimeter of public finance\u2019. Thus the State cannot freely dispose of the funds, and consequently the funds do not constitute State resources.\n(126)\nAs a preliminary remark, it should be pointed out that, while some of the Pearle criteria may subjectively be viewed as more central than others, there is no such thing as a \u2018key criterion\u2019 in Pearle. The tests enumerated in the judgment are cumulative. This is also the interpretation given by the Court of First Instance in Earl Salvat, where it examined a parafiscal levy challenged in that case in the light of each and every one of the Pearle criteria (44).\n(127)\nBefore considering the role played by the Equalisation Fund, the Commission has ascertained whether any of the other tests enumerated in Pearle are satisfied. It is clear that here, by contrast with the Pearle case, the disputed tariffs were established at the initiative of the State, not at the initiative of an economic sector. In Pearle, moreover, the beneficiaries of the measure were also the sole contributors of the resources used, so that the intervention of the public body did not tend to create an advantage which would constitute an additional burden on the State. In the case at hand, the beneficiaries do not bear the financial burden of the levy, which rests solely on electricity consumers. Thus the Pearle judgment cannot validly be relied upon irrespective of whether merit can be found in the argument that the Equalisation Fund is a mere accounting intermediary.\n(128)\nTurning now to the Equalisation Fund itself, the Commission points out that, according to settled case-law, no distinction should be made between cases where the aid is granted directly by the State and cases where it is granted by a public or private body designated or established by the State (45). Thus the public or private status of the Equalisation Fund is not a determining factor for the purpose of applying the State aid rules. The fact that the Equalisation Fund is a public body does not automatically mean that Article 107 TFEU is applicable (46); similarly, the intervention of a private body would not in itself preclude application of that Article.\n(129)\nHowever, the analysis cannot be limited to the powers of the Equalisation Fund in its capacity as a public body. What has to be ascertained, rather, is the more general question whether the State, either directly or through any other body designated by it, can exercise control over the funds used to finance the tariff. The same test would have to be applied if the Equalisation Fund were a private body.\n(130)\nThe recent judgment of the Court of Justice in the Essent (47) case provides definitive guidance on this point. In Essent, the Netherlands had introduced by law a surcharge on electricity prices. The surcharge was paid by electricity consumers to network operators, which in turn transferred the monies to a designated company, SEP. SEP had no discretion in the management of the funds and operated under close control by the authorities. The Court came to the conclusion that the proceeds of the surcharge constituted State resources, because the surcharge on the price of electricity was imposed by national law, and therefore constituted a charge, and SEP was not entitled to use the proceeds from the charge for purposes other than those provided by the law, so that the monies remained under public control and were thus available to the national authorities. The Court considered that this was sufficient for such monies to be characterised as State resources.\n(131)\nThe similarities with the case at hand are evident. The surcharge on the electricity price used to finance the tariffs at issue here is imposed, as in Essent, by law. The Equalisation Fund plays the same role as SEP, as it centralises and manages the proceeds of the parafiscal charge, and is subject to the same constraints, as it cannot use the proceeds from the charge for purposes other than those provided by law (the financing of preferential tariffs). The State is in a position to control and orient the use of the resources: the Equalisation Fund discharges its accounting functions on precise instructions from the AEEG, which acts within its statutory regulatory powers and/or in implementation of national legislation. Thus the resources handled by the Equalisation Fund remain under public control at all times.\n(132)\nThis analysis is consistent with the Commission\u2019s decision in the Italian stranded costs case, in which it classified as State resources the monies administered by the Equalisation Fund in the A6 account (48).\n(133)\nThe classification as State resources of the monies administered by the Equalisation Fund was borne out in the judgment of the Court of First Instance in the Iride case (49).\n(134)\nItaly\u2019s Supreme Court of Cassation had already ruled that the legal personality of the Equalisation Fund was not separate from that of the Italian State, and that the monies transferred to the Equalisation Fund should be considered State property, even if they derived from private entities and were intended for private undertakings (judgment No 11632/03 of 3 April 2003). In the Iride case, the applicants, Iride SpA and Iride Energia SpA, brought an action in the Court of First Instance challenging a decision whereby the Commission had categorised as State resources the sums administered by the Equalisation Fund in the A6 account. The arguments put forward by the applicants were very similar. They disputed the substance of the Court of Cassation\u2019s ruling, contending that the role of the Equalisation Fund was merely that of an accounting intermediary between private citizens subject to a financial obligation and the beneficiaries of the sums concerned, a role which did not allow the Equalisation Fund to make use of the monies deposited even for a short period of time. The applicants also claimed that the case-law developed in PreussenElektra was applicable.\n(135)\nThe Court of First Instance, after pointing out that it had no jurisdiction to review the interpretation of Italian legislation by the Court of Cassation, confirmed that the monies held in the Equalisation Fund\u2019s A6 account were to be classified as State resources, because, in addition to being State property, they were under constant State control (50).\n(136)\nThat conclusion concerned the Equalisation Fund\u2019s A6 account, used to finance the stranded costs of Italy\u2019s electricity sector. It can, however, logically be extended to the A4 component, which finances the disputed tariffs. The judgment of the Court of Cassation was based on an analysis of the legal personality of the Equalisation Fund, and its finding with respect to State property therefore applies to all of the monies deposited with the Equalisation Fund. The same is true of the finding by the Court of First Instance that the State can control the resources administered by the Equalisation Fund. There is no difference between the A6 account and the A4 component other than the purpose to which the resources are put (covering stranded costs in the case of the A6 account, and financing preferential tariffs in the case of the A4 component). The sums transferred to the Sardinian beneficiaries from the A4 component must therefore also be categorised as State resources.\n(137)\nIn addition to being financed by State resources, the disputed tariffs are imputable to the State, since the legal basis for the measures is laid down in national legislation and decrees and in the decisions taken by the AEEG, which is a public body, in the exercise of its public authority functions (51).\n5.1.4. Effect on trade and distortion of competition\n(138)\nAs regards the effect of the measures on trade between Member States and the ensuing distortion of competition, it is undisputed that the markets concerned (lead, zinc, silver, aluminium and chlorine/soda) are fully open to competition. This by itself is enough to establish that the tariffs have an effect on intra-Union trade.\n(139)\nNevertheless, the Commission has considered the argument advanced by the beneficiaries and by Italy that in the metals industry (the argument has not been put forward expressly in respect of chlorine) the tariffs have no effect on trade and do not distort competition because there are no actual trade flows between Member States; no such trade flows are likely to develop, and in view of the particular features of the industry the tariffs do not damage the beneficiaries\u2019 competitors in the Union.\n(140)\nIn the Commission\u2019s decisions and the judgments of the Court of Justice it has never been accepted that an absence of actual trade flows shows that an aid measure has no effect on intra-Union trade. The Court has in fact consistently ruled that aid to an undertaking may be such as to affect trade between the Member States and distort competition even if the beneficiary undertaking does not participate in intra-Union trade itself. Where a Member State grants aid to an undertaking, domestic production may for that reason be maintained or increased, with the result that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of exporting their products to the market in that Member State (52).\n(141)\nMoreover, the pattern of decreasing EU production, increasing imports from non-Union countries, and limited or no trade flows between Member States is not unusual: indeed it is typical of industries which are experiencing structural difficulties or which are subject to high competitive pressure. Such industries are particularly sensitive to measures taken by Member States to improve the competitive position of their domestic industries.\n(142)\nThe fact that production of zinc, lead and silver in Italy is too modest to affect the reference price is irrelevant. The fact that there is a reference price for these metals which is not easily influenced by conditions of production in a single Member State does not mean that there cannot be competition between undertakings based in the EEA and selling on the worldwide metal markets. It is conceivable that aid to the Sardinian beneficiaries will not enable them to reduce the world price for their products and squeeze competitors out of the market, and that other European producers may remain in business as long as they can sell profitably at the world price. But the profits obtained in Italy thanks to the subsidised electricity tariffs strengthen the companies\u2019 competitive position in a general sense. For example, accumulated capital reserves can be used to take over competitors and to increase market share. This reasoning is all the more relevant considering that some of the beneficiaries belong to multinational companies (53).\n(143)\nContrary to what the beneficiaries claim, the fact that the price paid in Italy in the sectors concerned is comparable to the average electricity price paid in Europe by competing producers cannot be taken as evidence that the interests of other European producers are not threatened by the Italian tariff. It was clearly established in Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission that unilateral measures aimed at approximating conditions of competition in a Member State to those prevailing in other Member States do affect trade (and therefore cannot escape classification as aid). Moreover, some of the power supply agreements in place in other Member States may involve State aid, and the Commission has opened in-depth investigations into several measures of this kind (54). Even though this defence has not been put forward expressly by Italy or Alcoa, the Commission considers it useful to draw attention to the well-established principle that the existence of unlawful aid in some Member States cannot justify the adoption of similar measures by another Member State.\n(144)\nIn any event, the complaints received from the beneficiaries\u2019 competitors provide an indication that the disputed tariffs do raise competition problems and affect trade within the Union.\n(145)\nMoreover, Italy did not notify the 2004 tariffs. According to settled case-law, where aid has not been notified, the Commission is not obliged to demonstrate the actual consequences of the measure on competition and trade between Member States: \u2018If the Commission were required in its decision to demonstrate the real effect of aid which had already been granted, that would immediately favour those Member States which grant aid in breach of the duty to notify laid down in Article 93(3) of the [EC] Treaty, to the detriment of those which do notify aid at the planning stage\u2019 (55).\n(146)\nThe conclusion must be drawn that the disputed preferential electricity tariffs are liable to improve their beneficiaries\u2019 competitive position vis-\u00e0-vis competing undertakings in the EU. It is settled case-law that in such circumstances it must be held that trade between Member States is affected and competition distorted (56).\n5.1.5. Conclusions on the presence of aid\n(147)\nThe Commission concludes that the disputed 2004 and 2005 tariffs constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) TFEU and can be authorised only if they qualify for one of the exemptions provided for in the Treaty. This conclusion is consistent with that arrived at in the Alcoa case, which concerned virtually identical tariffs.\n5.2. New aid or existing aid\n(148)\nThe situations in which a measure constitutes existing aid are exhaustively enumerated in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (57).\n(149)\nIt is undisputed that the measures at issue were not put into effect before Italy\u2019s accession to the Union (Article 1(b)(i) of the Regulation), are not deemed to have been authorised owing to the Commission\u2019s failure to take a decision within the prescribed procedural deadlines (Article 1(b)(iii)), and cannot be deemed to be existing aid owing to the expiry of the limitation period (Article 1(b)(iv)). They did not become aid as a result of the evolution of the common market and without having been altered by the Member State (first sentence of Article 1(b)(v)).\n(150)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission considers that the disputed tariffs constitute new aid.\n5.3. Lawfulness of the aid\n(151)\nPursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU, Member States must notify any plans to grant or alter aid, and may not put the proposed measures into effect until the notification procedure has resulted in a final decision.\n(152)\nSince Italy failed to notify Article 1 of the 2004 Decree, the 2004 tariffs constitute unlawful aid.\n(153)\nBut Italy did notify Article 11(12) of Law No 80/2005, and refrained from implementing that measure. It has therefore complied with its obligations under Article 108(3) TFEU.\n6. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID\n(154)\nIn derogation from the general prohibition on State aid laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU, aid may be declared compatible if it qualifies for one of the exceptions enumerated in the Treaty.\n(155)\nThe 2004 and 2005 tariffs constitute operating aid. Italy\u2019s claim that the 2005 tariffs should not be considered operating aid because they are part of a regional support strategy and are conditional upon productive investment should be dismissed. Even though the memorandum of understanding provides that the beneficiaries must carry out certain investments, the aid component in the 2005 preferential tariffs is not a proportion of the eligible expenditure, and is not subject to a maximum aid intensity. There are no indications that the measure complies with the criteria for investment aid, or that the aid is proportional. Instead, the measure is clearly pegged to electricity consumption and aimed at mitigating electricity procurement costs, which are operating costs incurred by the companies concerned. Thus it cannot be construed as investment aid.\n(156)\nOperating aid is, in principle, incompatible with the internal market. In Case C-86/89 Italy v Commission, the Court of Justice found \u2018that the aid in question, which was granted without any specific conditions and solely according to the quantities used, should be regarded as an operating aid to the undertakings concerned and that, as such, it affected trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest\u2019 (58).\n(157)\nIn Case T-459/93 Siemens v Commission the Court of First Instance recalled the principle that \u2018operating aid, that is to say, aid intended to relieve an undertaking of the expenses which it would itself normally have had to bear in its day-to-day management or its usual activities, does not in principle fall within the scope of Article 92(3) aforesaid [now Article 107(3) TFEU] \u2026 According to the relevant case-law, the effect of such aid is in principle to distort competition in the sectors in which it is granted, whilst nevertheless being incapable, by its very nature, of achieving any of the objectives of the aforesaid exceptions\u2019.\n(158)\nNevertheless, there are clearly defined situations in which operating aid may be granted. In particular, operating aid may be granted for environmental purposes on the basis of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (59). In assisted areas operating aid can also be authorised on an exceptional basis as regional aid. The Commission has assessed whether the disputed tariffs might fall into one of these categories.\n(159)\nThe Commission observes that the tariffs do not pursue any environmental purpose, and consequently cannot be authorised as environmental aid.\n6.1. Compatibility with the 1998 Regional Aid Guidelines\n(160)\nExceptionally, operating aid may be granted in assisted areas eligible for aid under the exemption in Article 107(3)(a) TFEU. The Region of Sardinia was eligible for such aid until the end of 2006. The Commission has therefore examined whether, during that period, the 2004 and the 2005 tariffs could be authorised under the 1998 Regional Aid Guidelines.\n(161)\nAccording to point 4.15 of the Guidelines, operating aid can be granted exceptionally, provided that (i) it is justified in terms of its contribution to regional development and its nature and (ii) its level is proportional to the handicaps it seeks to alleviate. It is for the Member State to demonstrate the existence of any handicaps and gauge their importance. Under point 4.17 of the Guidelines, operating aid must be both limited in time and progressively reduced.\n(162)\nAccording to point 2 of the Guidelines, \u2018An individual ad hoc payment made to a single firm, or aid confined to one area of activity, may have a major impact on competition in the relevant market, and its effects on regional development are likely to be too limited \u2026 Consequently, the derogations in question [from the general prohibition of aid] will normally be granted only for multisectoral aid schemes open, in a given region, to all firms in the sectors concerned\u2019. An electricity tariff which is granted selectively to a few individual undertakings in certain sectors is clearly not in line with the spirit of regional aid, which expected to be multisectoral. However, since there is no absolute prohibition of ad hoc regional aid, the Commission has considered whether there are any exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the tariff.\n(163)\nThe Commission has considered, in particular, the deficiencies of the Sardinian electricity market, as documented by Italy and the beneficiaries, to assess whether they might constitute a regional handicap.\n6.1.1. The Sardinian electricity market in the Italian context\n(164)\nThe Italian electricity market is generally highly concentrated, although less so in the north of the country. The dominant operator in all zones is the former monopolist ENEL, except in Sardinia, where it holds a duopoly with E.ON. ENEL has considerable market power and has been found by the Italian competition authority to have abused this power in several instances. Electricity prices in Italy are generally high, owing to a generation mix based largely on fossil fuels (essentially gas), the absence of nuclear capacity, and congestion on the interconnectors with the rest of Europe.\n(165)\nIn Sardinia, which accounts for 4,1 % of net installed power in Italy (60), electricity is produced mainly in thermoelectric power plants using fossil fuels (coal, fuel oil, and refinery tar). The island has no natural gas distribution infrastructure.\n(166)\nSardinia suffers from excess generation capacity, especially in the high-cost segment (oil-fired plants), owing to the Government\u2019s plans to concentrate Italy\u2019s heavy industry on the island, which have never come to fruition, and which led ENEL to overinvest in generation plants. Apart from being structurally more expensive, the plants are quickly becoming technically obsolete. During the period under consideration, the export of Sardinian electricity to the Italian mainland was limited by the modest capacity of the interconnector, which was prone to congestion (61).\n(167)\nTwo power companies, ENEL and E.ON, together hold a 95 % market share of electricity supply in Sardinia (roughly 58 % E.ON and 42 % ENEL). According to the Energy Sector Inquiry (62), Sardinia can be classified in competition terms as a duopoly with collective dominance. Market concentration is high, though not the highest in Italy (63). Owing to their control of virtually all mid-merit to peak plants, E.ON and ENEL set the price at most times of the day. However, the situation in Sardinia appears less critical than in the south of Italy, where ENEL alone sets the price at all times of day (64).\n(168)\nWholesale electricity prices in Italy are among the highest in Europe (65), and prices in Sardinia are among the highest in Italy. In 2007, the national average price (PUN) was EUR 70,99 per MWh, whereas the average Sardinian zonal price was EUR 75,00 per MWh, down from EUR 80,00 per MWh in 2006 (66). In 2008 and 2009, average regional prices in Sardinia continued on an upward trend. In the first half of 2009, prices in Sardinia remained constantly above the national average (with an average price of EUR 106,60 per MWh compared with a PUN of EUR 60,50 per MWh).\n(169)\nPrices paid in Sardinia by the beneficiaries of the tariffs in 2004/2005, on the basis of bilateral contracts, ranged from EUR 60 to EUR 65 per MWh. It has not been possible to compare these prices to those recorded on the Italian mainland, as the Commission does not possess the relevant data (which Italy has claimed it is unable to provide - see recital 92 above). However, based on the above analysis of general price trends, which may be broadly representative of price trends in bilateral contracts, it seems possible to presume that, in the period under consideration, energy-intensive undertakings in Sardinia paid a higher price than on the Italian mainland.\n(170)\nIn conclusion, the electricity market in Sardinia exhibits a combination of problems, including high prices, a high degree of market concentration, dominant operators\u2019 market power, excess generation capacity in the high-cost segment, relative inefficiency of obsolete generating plants, lack of access to natural gas infrastructure, and insufficient interconnection. These problems are likely to translate into higher electricity prices for end-users, including the most energy-intensive ones.\n6.1.2. Existence of a regional handicap\n(171)\nThe first issue to be addressed is whether such problems constitute a regional handicap, i.e. whether they have a severe impact on the economic development of Sardinia. In case C 34/02, the Commission did not accept that the lack of energy interconnection constituted a handicap (67). While it is true that SMEs suffer less from high electricity prices than do large, energy-intensive industries, nevertheless the welfare of an individual industry cannot be automatically equated to the welfare of a region. The Commission considers that Italy has not sufficiently substantiated the alleged regional handicap arising from the state of the Sardinian electricity market.\n(172)\nBut even if one were to suppose that there was indeed a regional handicap, the criteria laid down by the Regional Aid Guidelines would still have to be fulfilled. The Commission has accordingly assessed whether these tests are satisfied.\n6.1.3. Contribution to regional development\n(173)\nAid must sustainably contribute to regional development and be proportional to the handicaps it seeks to alleviate. Operating aid in an assisted region cannot be authorised by reason of difficulties experienced by one industry, but must be shown to make a lasting contribution to regional development. In the case at hand, this is unlikely. Even if one were to accept that the maintenance on the island of some industrial production facilities would contribute to employment and to the maintenance of a manufacturing base on the island, the effects would not be lasting. If high electricity prices are a structural problem in Sardinia, as Italy claims, the difficulties experienced by energy-intensive industries will resurface as soon as the tariffs are removed.\n(174)\nThe Italian authorities present the tariffs as a temporary measure, designed to last only until the completion, in 2010, of the infrastructure projects currently under way in connection with energy generation and interconnection (the GALSI pipeline and the SAPEI marine cable) (68). Italy\u2019s argument is that better interconnection will bring the prices charged to these companies down. The Commission considers that, while the new infrastructure may reduce or level out price disparities between Sardinia and the mainland, it seems highly unlikely that such projects could halve electricity prices, so as to bring them to the levels allegedly required to make these industrial activities profitable in the long term.\n(175)\nThe Commission also points out that the existence of a State subsidy aimed at reducing electricity costs for large users does not encourage electricity suppliers to bring prices down in order to avoid losing their largest customers, nor does it prevent a worsening of their cost structures. Instead, the subsidy tends to heighten the incentive for suppliers to exploit their market power. Therefore, even if were true, given the situation of overcapacity, that energy-intensive companies would normally be able to obtain a competitive price were it not for the market power of the electricity suppliers (who, according to Italy and the beneficiaries, have an interest in keeping prices high), the Commission considers that the preferential tariff is not the appropriate instrument to curtail such market power.\n6.1.4. Proportionality\n(176)\nThe subsidy granted to the beneficiaries of the tariffs is not calculated in such a way as to offset the regional disparity (i.e. the differential between electricity prices in mainland Italy and prices in Sardinia for the same category of customer), but rather aims to align Sardinian prices on those paid by the beneficiaries\u2019 competitors in the EU. The prices set for the Sardinian beneficiaries are particularly low, and certainly below prices on mainland Italy, which are among the highest in the EU. Therefore, the tariffs are not proportional to the regional handicap they allegedly seek to alleviate.\n(177)\nThe very method chosen to calculate the amount of the subsidy suggests that the measure pursues an industrial policy objective rather than a regional objective. Indeed, the industrial policy dimension of the tariffs has been underlined repeatedly by Italy in its submissions.\n6.1.5. Degressivity\n(178)\nRegional operating aid must be progressively reduced (point 4.17 of the Regional Aid Guidelines). Since the updating mechanisms for the 2004 and the 2005 tariffs are different, they have been assessed separately.\n(179)\nThe 2004 tariffs are indexed on the basis of variations in fuel prices and can only increase or remain unchanged. According to Italy, this ensures that the aid is progressively reduced. The Commission considers that the requirement of degressivity can be considered fulfilled only if the compensatory payments - which are equal to the effective amount of the aid - are guaranteed to decrease over time. It is not sufficient that the tariff should increase over time, since a higher tariff may nevertheless represent a higher volume of aid if, in the meantime, the prices charged to end users in the market concerned have increased faster than the tariff. The Italian method does not provide any guarantee in this respect (69).\n(180)\nAs regards the 2005 tariffs, The Commission has assessed the indexation mechanism introduced by Article 11(13) of Law No 80/2005, as interpreted by the AEEG in decision 217/05 (see recital 33). According to the implementing rules laid down by the AEEG, the tariff is to be increased yearly by a percentage reflecting trends in electricity prices in the EU, but the increase cannot exceed 4 %. According to Italy, this mechanism ensures progressive reduction.\n(181)\nThe Commission takes the view, however, that the fact that the nominal tariff is subject to a rather limited annual increase does not mean that the net amount of aid - as measured by the compensatory payments - will decrease over time.\n(182)\nIf it is accepted that price trends on power exchanges can be considered broadly representative of changes in bilateral contract prices, as Italy has suggested, the 2005 tariffs would be degressive only in the event of a drop in average EU prices (since the tariffs cannot decrease, but only increase). In all other cases the tariffs would confer a growing advantage (70). Since, from 2004 until at least 2007, EU average electricity prices were on a sharp upward trend (rising faster than 4 % a year) the element of aid contained in the 2005 tariffs would have increased over time.\n(183)\nItaly further contends that, in reality, bilateral contracts are less prone to price increases than prices on power exchanges, and that therefore the 2005 tariffs are de facto degressive. The Commission points out that the indexation method submitted for assessment is based on variations in prices on power exchanges, and that Italy has not submitted data on the evolution of bilateral contract prices. Thus Italy\u2019s statement is not sufficiently substantiated.\n(184)\nIn fact, the limited information at the Commission\u2019s disposal suggests the opposite, i.e. that bilateral contract prices increased sharply in Sardinia (see, for example, Eurallumina\u2019s statement that in 2005/2006 it paid a price of EUR 80 per MWh on the free market, up from EUR 65 per MWh in 2004). In these circumstances, had the tariffs been implemented, the compensatory payments would have increased over time.\n(185)\nThus neither the 2004 tariffs nor the 2005 tariffs fulfil the degressivity requirement.\n6.1.6. Conclusions on the compatibility of the measure as regional aid\n(186)\nThe Commission concludes that the tariffs at issue cannot be considered compatible as regional aid under the 1998 Regional Aid Guidelines. Since Sardinia ceased to be assisted pursuant to Article 107(3)(a) after December 2006, it is not necessary to examine the compatibility of the aid in the light of the Regional Aid Guidelines for 2007-2013.\n(187)\nThe Commission took a similar negative position in 2005 in respect of a measure designed to reduce Eurallumina\u2019s energy costs in Sardinia. The Commission considered that the disputed measure, which took the form of an exemption from excise duties on heavy oils, could not be authorised on the basis of the Regional Aid Guidelines (71).\n6.2. Other considerations relevant to compatibility\n(188)\nIt has been submitted by Italy and the undertakings concerned that the schemes serve the purpose of remedying the shortcomings of the electricity markets, which have not yet delivered competitive prices. They argue that energy prices are threatening the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries. The aid has an incentive effect, they contend, since without it the companies would close down.\n(189)\nThe Commission does not consider it possible to accept that operating aid for a few industrial companies is an appropriate response to the lack of competition on the local electricity market, which affects all electricity users.\n(190)\nIt is also questionable whether the aid is an appropriate and proportional means of preventing relocation outside the EU. There is no precedent in the Commission\u2019s decisions or in the judgments of the Union\u2019s lawcourts for accepting this argument as a justification for the granting of State aid. Decisions to relocate production, in whole or in part, are part of a company\u2019s business strategy, and the Commission has never held that they constitute a market failure. In the Terni (72) and Alcoa (73) cases the Commission expressed doubts about similar arguments linking aid measures to the goal of preventing the relocation of industry outside the EU.\n(191)\nIt should also be pointed out that the conclusions of specialised bodies such as the High Level Group on Competitiveness, Energy and the Environment (74), which have been cited in the course of the proceedings, do not suggest that special State aid should be granted to address the competitiveness issues raised by high energy prices, but instead defend the need for full compliance with the applicable State aid rules (75).\n(192)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission considers that the disputed 2004 and 2005 tariffs do not qualify for any of the exemptions in Article 107 TFEU. The exemptions in Article 107(2) TFEU are not applicable, since the aid is not of a social character, is not designed to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences, and was not granted to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany. The exemptions in Article 107(3)(b) and (d) TFEU are also inapplicable, since the measure is not aimed at promoting the execution of an important project of common European interest, or remedying a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State, or promoting culture and heritage conservation. Turning to the exemption in Article 107(3)(a) TFEU, the analysis carried out above in recitals 160 to 187 demonstrates that the tariff cannot be approved as aid aimed at promoting the economic development of an area where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious unemployment. With respect to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, operating aid does not qualify for this exemption in principle, as indicated in recitals 155 to 158, and the Commission has not been able to identify any specific circumstances which might justify the granting of such aid in this case.\n(193)\nThe Commission therefore considers that both the 2004 and the 2005 tariffs are incompatible with the internal market.\n(194)\nHaving drawn this conclusion, the Commission does not need to examine the possible cumulative effect of the new aid and the old incompatible aid referred to in recital 31 in the light of the Deggendorf judgment.\n7. RECOVERY\n(195)\nArticle 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 states that in cases of unlawful aid which is not compatible with the internal market effective competition must be restored, unless recovery would be contrary to a general principle of Community law.\n(196)\nIn the present case, only the 2004 tariffs (Case C 38/A/04) are subject to recovery, since the 2005 tariffs (Case C 13/06) have not been implemented.\n7.1. Legitimate expectations and other general principles of Community law which might prevent recovery\n(197)\nAccording to settled case-law, when aid has been granted without prior notification under Article 108(3) TFEU the recipient of the aid cannot have a legitimate expectation that its grant is lawful (76). A diligent undertaking should be able to establish whether the notification procedure has been followed and whether the aid is lawful.\n(198)\nHowever, a recipient of illegally granted aid is not precluded from relying on exceptional circumstances on the basis of which it had legitimately assumed the aid to be lawful, and thus declining to refund that aid (77).\n(199)\nThe beneficiaries of the 2004 tariffs have not made any submissions in this respect, nor has the Commission identified any exceptional circumstances which might have led the beneficiaries to entertain any legitimate expectation. In particular, no expectation that the tariffs would not constitute State aid could have arisen as a result of the 1996 Alumix decision. As indicated in the 2004 opening decision (see recital 37) the tariff that served as a blueprint for the disputed 2004 tariffs was not the original Alumix arrangement, which the Commission found did not constitute aid in 1996, but an entirely new measure, which had been substantially modified (in particular as regards its financing mechanism) (78) and extended in time by the Italian authorities. In this situation, a prudent recipient should have verified that the new measure was lawful.\n(200)\nThe Commission further considers that recovery would not breach any other general principle of Community law.\n7.2. Quantification of the amounts to be recovered\n(201)\nAll incompatible aid received by Portovesme, ILA and Eurallumina under Article 1 of the 2004 Decree must be recovered, with interest, in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (79).\n(202)\nThe purpose of recovery is to restore the recipients to the competitive position they occupied before the grant of the incompatible aid by eliminating the undue advantage conferred by it. In the case at hand, the advantage conferred is equal to the difference between the preferential tariff and the electricity price the beneficiaries would have paid on the market in the absence of the disputed tariffs.\n(203)\nAll the companies concerned were purchasing electricity on the basis of bilateral contracts at the time the tariffs were introduced. The State intervened to subsidise the contractually agreed price by making compensatory payments. The amounts to be recovered are therefore equal to the compensatory payments received by the recipients over the period concerned (see recital 30).\n8. CONCLUSION\nThe Commission finds that both the 2004 and the 2005 tariffs constitute operating aid which is not eligible for any exemption from the general prohibition of State aid under the EC Treaty, and is therefore incompatible with the internal market.\nIn the case of the 2004 tariffs, which were unlawfully implemented in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU, all payments of outstanding aid must be cancelled, while the aid already paid must be recovered. The amount to be recovered corresponds to the sum of all compensatory payments made by the Equalisation Fund to Portovesme, ILA and Eurallumina.\nThe 2005 tariffs, which were duly notified by Italy as required by Article 108(3) TFEU, must not be applied,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The State aid which Italy plans to grant to Portovesme Srl, Eurallumina SpA, ILA SpA and Syndial SpA under Article 11(12) of Decree-Law No 35 of 14 March 2005, converted into statute by Law No 80/2005 of 14 May 2005, is incompatible with the internal market.\n2. The aid may accordingly not be granted.\nArticle 2\nThe State aid unlawfully granted by Italy in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU, on the basis of Article 1 of the Prime Ministerial Decree of 6 February 2004, amounting to EUR 12 845 892,82 for Portovesme Srl, EUR 5 208 152,05 for Eurallumina SpA, and EUR 291 120,27 for ILA SpA, is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 3\n1. Italy shall recover the aid referred to in Article 2 from the beneficiaries.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\n4. Italy shall cancel all future payments of the aid referred to in Article 2 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Italy shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within 4 months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 5\n1. Within two months following notification of this Decision, Italy shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Italy shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2 has been completed. At the Commission\u2019s request, it shall immediately submit information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2011.", "references": ["77", "49", "82", "18", "7", "27", "90", "10", "23", "54", "6", "86", "61", "14", "30", "89", "70", "46", "38", "35", "53", "50", "65", "55", "83", "69", "42", "3", "28", "57", "No Label", "15", "21", "48", "81", "84", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "21", "48", "81", "84", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms (MEDIA Mundus)\n(2011/457/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 166 and 173 and Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nProtocol 31 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement to include Decision No 1041/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing an audiovisual cooperation programme with professionals from third countries (MEDIA Mundus) (2).\n(3)\nProtocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe position of the Union within the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["61", "39", "42", "0", "82", "98", "86", "57", "47", "84", "3", "52", "66", "75", "99", "77", "25", "32", "43", "59", "2", "14", "19", "91", "30", "24", "76", "65", "22", "64", "No Label", "4", "9", "40", "41", "49", "96"], "gold": ["4", "9", "40", "41", "49", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 827/2011\nof 12 August 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 August 2011.", "references": ["42", "36", "98", "77", "50", "20", "69", "75", "40", "5", "45", "30", "8", "81", "39", "2", "46", "84", "32", "68", "95", "34", "73", "78", "17", "79", "72", "7", "9", "12", "No Label", "21", "38", "83"], "gold": ["21", "38", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2012/21/EU\nof 2 August 2012\namending, for the purpose of adaptation to technical progress, Annexes II and III to Council Directive 76/768/EEC relating to cosmetic products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFollowing the publication of a scientific study in 2001, entitled \u2018Use of permanent hair dyes and bladder cancer risk\u2019, the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products intended for Consumers, subsequently replaced by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (\u2018SCCP\u2019), pursuant to Commission Decision 2004/210/EC (2), concluded that the potential risks were of concern. The SCCP recommended that the Commission take further steps to control the use of hair dye substances.\n(2)\nThe SCCP further recommended an overall safety assessment strategy for hair dye substances including the requirements for testing substances used in hair dye products for their potential genotoxicity or mutagenicity.\n(3)\nFollowing the opinions of the SCCP, the Commission agreed with Member States and stakeholders on an overall strategy to regulate substances used in hair dye products according to which the industry was required to submit files, containing updated scientific data on the safety of hair dye substances, for a risk assessment by the SCCP.\n(4)\nThe SCCP, subsequently replaced by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (\u2018SCCS\u2019) pursuant to Commission Decision 2008/721/EC of 5 August 2008 setting up an advisory structure of Scientific Committees and experts in the field of consumer safety, public health and the environment and repealing Decision 2004/210/EC (3), assessed the safety of individual substances for which updated files had been submitted by industry.\n(5)\nThe last step of the safety assessment strategy was to evaluate possible consumer health risk by reaction products formed by oxidative hair dye substances during the hair dyeing process. Based on the data yet available, the SCCS raised in its opinion of 21 September 2010 no major concern regarding genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of hair dyes and their reaction products currently used in the EU.\n(6)\nIn the light of the risk assessment of the submitted safety data and the final opinions given by the SCCS on the safety of individual substances and of the reaction products, it is appropriate to include in Part 1 of Annex III to Directive 76/768/EEC 24 assessed hair dyes which are not regulated within Directive 76/768/EEC.\n(7)\nThe substances Hydroxyethyl-2-Nitro-p-Toluidine and HC Red No 10 + HC Red No 11 were provisionally authorised for use in hair dye products until 31 December 2011 under the restrictions and conditions laid down in entries 10 and 50 in Part 2 of Annex III to Directive 76/768/EEC. Based on the final opinions given by the SCCS on their safety, Hydroxyethyl-2-Nitro-p-Toluidine and HC Red No 10 + HC Red No 11 can be considered safe in hair dye products and listed in Part 1 of Annex III to Directive 76/768/EEC.\n(8)\nFollowing the assessment by the SCCS concerning the substances 1-Naphthol and Resorcinol, listed in Part 1 of Annex III to Directive 76/768/EEC, their maximum authorised concentrations in the finished cosmetic product should be changed.\n(9)\nConcerning the substance HC Red No 16, the SCCS stated in its opinion of 14 December 2010 that based on the low margin of safety for the use in both oxidative and non-oxidative hair dye formulations, HC Red No 16 poses a risk to the health of the consumer. Therefore, HC Red No 16 should be listed in Annex II to Directive 76/768/EEC.\n(10)\nDirective 76/768/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Cosmetic Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Directive 76/768/EEC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 1 March 2013 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 September 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2012.", "references": ["47", "98", "16", "31", "20", "26", "8", "64", "94", "35", "71", "82", "27", "65", "10", "72", "54", "86", "51", "68", "61", "70", "58", "75", "22", "28", "87", "52", "56", "77", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "76", "83"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "76", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 247/2012\nof 20 March 2012\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of March 2012 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 March 2012 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 March 2012 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 0,385109 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 March 2012.", "references": ["16", "58", "0", "15", "48", "70", "29", "91", "34", "99", "19", "11", "28", "88", "33", "41", "37", "13", "83", "71", "14", "56", "95", "44", "97", "80", "51", "23", "61", "45", "No Label", "21", "22", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/174/CFSP\nof 21 March 2011\nimplementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof, in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Treaty on European Union,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus, additional persons should be included in the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annexes IIIA and IV to Decision 2010/639/CFSP. Furthermore, the information relating to certain persons on the lists in Annexes I, II, III, IIIA and IV to that Decision should be updated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I, II, III, IIIA and IV to Decision 2010/639/CFSP shall be replaced by the text set out in Annexes I, II, III, IV and V to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["33", "38", "9", "32", "44", "58", "73", "55", "46", "75", "18", "67", "13", "16", "8", "19", "4", "52", "36", "69", "61", "88", "59", "25", "15", "10", "86", "83", "12", "14", "No Label", "0", "2", "3", "11", "91", "97"], "gold": ["0", "2", "3", "11", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 703/2010\nof 4 August 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 828/2009 laying down detailed rules of application for the marketing years 2009/10 to 2014/15 for the import and refining of sugar products of tariff heading 1701 under preferential agreements\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements (1), and in particular Article 9(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007 (2), and in particular Article 11(7) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 1(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 828/2009 of 10 September 2009 laying down detailed rules of application for the marketing years 2009/10 to 2014/15 for the import and refining of sugar products of tariff heading 1701 under preferential agreements (3), a country listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 or in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 is eligible to be added to Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 828/2009. However, according to Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008, only least-developed countries listed in Annex I to that Regulation are eligible.\n(2)\nBurkina Faso is a least-developed country listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 and has requested to the Commission to be listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 828/2009. Burkina Faso produces sugar and is therefore a potential exporter to the European Union.\n(3)\nArticle 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 828/2009 provides penalties if imported sugar, which is not intended for refining, is refined. However, these penalties should not apply if justified and exceptional technical reasons are approved by Member States.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 828/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 828/2009 is amended as follows:\n1.\nIn Article 1, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. A country listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 or listed as least-developed country in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 shall be added on its own request to Annex I to this Regulation.\u2019;\n2.\nIn Article 9(4), a second subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Member States shall notify the Commission before 1 March and for the previous marketing year of the quantities of sugar which has actually been imported, broken down by reference number and country of origin and expressed in kilograms white sugar equivalent.\u2019;\n3.\nIn Article 11(2), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Producers shall pay, before 1 June following the marketing year concerned, an amount equal to EUR 500 per tonne for the quantities of sugar referred to in point (c) of the first subparagraph, for which they cannot provide a proof, acceptable to a Member State, that refining took place for justified and exceptional technical reasons.\u2019;\n4.\nPart I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 828/2009 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 August 2010.", "references": ["88", "38", "87", "97", "82", "69", "52", "33", "66", "29", "94", "86", "3", "43", "12", "60", "92", "46", "75", "90", "81", "61", "16", "64", "78", "6", "54", "32", "4", "15", "No Label", "20", "21", "25", "71", "74", "96"], "gold": ["20", "21", "25", "71", "74", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 8 October 2010\namending Decision 2006/241/EC as regards imports of guano from Madagascar\n(notified under document C(2010) 6798)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/611/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), and in particular Article 22(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2006/241/EC of 24 March 2006 concerning certain protective measures with regard to certain products of animal origin, excluding fishery products, originating in Madagascar (2) prohibits imports into the Union of products of animal origin, excluding fishery products and snails, originating in Madagascar.\n(2)\nMadagascar has indicated its interest in exporting guano to the Union.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (3) provides that the importation and transit of animal by-products and processed products are to be prohibited, except in accordance with that Regulation.\n(4)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, manure is Category 2 material. The definition of manure, as set out in Annex I to that Regulation, covers guano, which may be either unprocessed or processed in accordance with Chapter III of Annex VIII to that Regulation. Part III of that Chapter provides that the placing on the market of guano is not subject to any animal health conditions.\n(5)\nIn addition, Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 provides that the provisions applicable to the importation from third countries of products referred to in Annexes VII and VIII thereto are to be no more favourable or less favourable than those applicable to the production and marketing of those products in the Union.\n(6)\nImports of Guano from Madagascar should therefore no longer be prohibited.\n(7)\nDecision 2006/241/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1 of Decision 2006/241/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThis Decision shall apply to products of animal origin, excluding fishery products, snails and guano, originating in Madagascar.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["46", "4", "10", "0", "47", "67", "57", "66", "87", "95", "84", "55", "58", "43", "54", "36", "32", "61", "30", "83", "97", "24", "26", "44", "16", "12", "52", "39", "50", "5", "No Label", "23", "38", "69", "94"], "gold": ["23", "38", "69", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 June 2012\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the application of certain provisions of the Convention of 29 May 2000 on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union and the 2001 Protocol thereto\n(2012/305/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular point (d) of Article 82(1), read in conjunction with point (a) of Article 218(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 19 December 2002 the Council authorised the Presidency, assisted by the Commission, to open negotiations with Iceland and Norway a view to the application of certain provisions of the Convention of 29 May 2000 on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union and the 2001 Protocol thereto (hereinafter \u2018the Convention\u2019).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Decision 2004/79/EC (1) the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the application of certain provisions of the Convention (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was signed on 19 December 2003, subject to its conclusion.\n(3)\nThe Agreement has not yet been concluded. With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009, the procedures to be followed by the Union in order to conclude the Agreement are governed by Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be approved.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of Protocol on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, these Member States have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the application of certain provisions of the Convention of 29 May 2000 on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union and the 2001 Protocol thereto (2) (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to give, on behalf of the Union, the notification provided for in Article 6(1) of the Agreement in order to bind the Union (3).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["1", "31", "48", "37", "29", "51", "79", "83", "22", "15", "87", "27", "7", "20", "33", "78", "36", "88", "74", "11", "58", "92", "73", "16", "25", "59", "52", "19", "56", "93", "No Label", "3", "4", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "4", "9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1254/2011\nof 1 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2011.", "references": ["23", "58", "20", "96", "18", "0", "80", "71", "15", "77", "62", "34", "19", "74", "60", "94", "30", "95", "31", "53", "27", "85", "79", "21", "90", "65", "29", "3", "63", "46", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1168/2010\nof 9 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2010.", "references": ["36", "74", "99", "33", "67", "13", "52", "21", "44", "14", "86", "88", "20", "92", "37", "93", "23", "56", "94", "51", "10", "69", "65", "48", "16", "79", "59", "34", "41", "78", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 934/2010\nof 18 October 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 927/2010 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 October 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 October 2010 were fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 927/2010 (3).\n(2)\nAs the average of the import duties calculated differs by more than EUR 5/tonne from that fixed, a corresponding adjustment must be made to the import duties fixed by Regulation (EU) No 927/2010.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 927/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 927/2010 are hereby replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 19 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 October 2010.", "references": ["70", "64", "80", "3", "39", "52", "46", "27", "82", "56", "91", "21", "99", "63", "84", "67", "45", "74", "47", "73", "28", "77", "2", "1", "37", "59", "40", "66", "13", "97", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 544/2010\nof 21 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2010.", "references": ["48", "75", "43", "36", "4", "19", "73", "5", "1", "74", "64", "27", "40", "11", "45", "50", "41", "57", "30", "83", "28", "93", "17", "6", "67", "77", "9", "7", "33", "72", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 447/2010\nof 21 May 2010\nopening the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f) and (j), in conjunction of Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nGiven the current situation on the skimmed milk powder market in terms of demand and prices and the level of intervention stocks it is appropriate to open the sale of skimmed milk powder from intervention by a tendering procedure in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (2).\n(2)\nIn order to better manage the sales from intervention, a date shall be fixed before which the intervention skimmed milk powder should have entered into storage to be available for sale.\n(3)\nArticle 40(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 provides that it is necessary to lay down the time limits for the submission of tenders.\n(4)\nAccording to Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 the time limit to notify all admissible tenders by the intervention agencies to the Commission should be set.\n(5)\nIn view of increased volatility of market prices, it is appropriate to increase the amount of the tendering security, by derogation from Article 44(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(6)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nSales by a tendering procedure of skimmed milk powder entered into storage before 1 May 2009 are open, under the conditions provided for in Title III of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\nThe proposed price shall be the price per 100 kg of products.\nArticle 2\nDates of submission\n1. The time limit for submission of tenders in response to the individual invitations to tender shall be 11.00 (Brussels time) on the first and third Tuesday of the month. However, in August it shall be 11.00 (Brussels time) of the fourth Tuesday and in December it shall be 11.00 (Brussels time) on the second Tuesday. If Tuesday is a public holiday the time limit shall be 11.00 (Brussels time) on the previous working day.\n2. The time limit for the submission of tenders for the first individual tender is 1 June 2010 at 11.00 (Brussels time).\n3. Tenders shall be submitted to the intervention agencies (3).\nArticle 3\nNotification to the Commission\nNotification provided for in Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 shall be made by 16.00 (Brussels time), on the closing date of submission of tenders referred to in Article 2 of this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nDerogation\nBy way of derogation from Article 44(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, the tendering security for skimmed milk powder shall be EUR 200/tonne.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2010.", "references": ["38", "4", "0", "87", "64", "83", "58", "35", "6", "91", "67", "8", "24", "44", "50", "96", "23", "60", "85", "53", "62", "19", "84", "57", "40", "22", "15", "28", "1", "73", "No Label", "20", "61", "70"], "gold": ["20", "61", "70"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUMM GEORGIA/1/2012\nof 14 September 2012\nextending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia)\n(2012/513/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/452/CFSP of 12 August 2010 on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1), as last amended by Council Decision 2011/536/CFSP (2), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 10(1) of Council Decision 2010/452/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of EUMM Georgia, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nOn 1 July 2011, upon a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), the PSC adopted Decision EUMM/1/2011 (3) appointing Mr Andrzej TYSZKIEWICZ as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia until 14 September 2011. His mandate was extended until 14 September 2012 by PSC Decision 2011/539/CFSP (4).\n(3)\nOn 13 September 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/503/CFSP (5) extending the duration of EUMM Georgia until 14 September 2013.\n(4)\nOn 12 September 2012, the HR proposed the extension of the mandate of Mr Andrzej TYSZKIEWICZ as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia until 14 September 2013,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Mr Andrzej TYSZKIEWICZ as Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia) is hereby extended until 14 September 2013.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 September 2012.", "references": ["32", "88", "85", "74", "0", "94", "59", "53", "83", "33", "73", "25", "55", "98", "80", "16", "15", "70", "54", "28", "95", "21", "30", "4", "45", "39", "1", "56", "78", "11", "No Label", "3", "7", "91"], "gold": ["3", "7", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 962/2010\nof 26 October 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 100(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1108/2009 (2), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to maintain a high uniform level of aviation safety in Europe, it is necessary to maintain the current requirements and procedures on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks, in particular in relation to the training, examination, knowledge and experience requirements for the issuance of aircraft maintenance licenses for aircraft not involved in commercial air transport.\n(2)\nThe European Aviation Safety Agency (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019) has submitted to the Commission three Opinions (3) issued in accordance with Articles 17(2)(b) and 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. It is necessary to provide sufficient time for the evaluation of the impact of any changes to the currently applicable rules with a view to ensuring that these rules remain simple, proportionate, cost-effective and efficient in all cases, taking into account risk assessment.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to allow the competent authorities of the Member States and the interested parties to defer the application of certain provisions affecting aircraft not involved in commercial transport other than large aircraft for an additional period of 1 year.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 (4) should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 7(3)(g) of Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(g)\nfor aircraft not involved in commercial air transport other than large aircraft, the need to comply with Annex III (Part 66) in the following provisions, until 28 September 2011:\n-\nM.A.606(g) and M.A.801(b)2 of Annex I (Part-M),\n-\n145.A.30(g) and (h) of Annex II (Part-145).\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 October 2010.", "references": ["10", "30", "14", "89", "35", "72", "87", "93", "84", "23", "20", "73", "51", "85", "37", "92", "86", "71", "2", "44", "26", "55", "8", "34", "33", "21", "98", "0", "50", "83", "No Label", "49", "53", "57", "75", "76"], "gold": ["49", "53", "57", "75", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 March 2011\nexcluding from EU financing certain expenditure incurred by Hungary under the programme for the support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development (Sapard) in 2004\n(notified under document C(2011) 1738)\n(Only the Hungarian text is authentic)\n(2011/192/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000 of 7 June 2000 laying down financial rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (2), and in particular Article 14 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Multi-Annual Financing Agreement between the Commission of the European Communities, acting on behalf of the European Community, and Hungary which was concluded on 15 June 2001, and in particular Article 12, Section A of the Annex thereto,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1419/2004 (3) provides for the continuation of the application of the Multiannual Financing Agreements and the Annual Financing Agreement concluded between the European Commission, representing the European Union on the one hand, and the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia on the other, and for certain derogations from the Multiannual Financing Agreements (hereinafter referred to as \u2018MAFAs\u2019) and from Council Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999 (4) and Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 447/2004 (5) lays down rules to facilitate the transition from support under Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 to that provided for by Council Regulations (EC) No 1257/1999 (6) and (EC) No 1260/1999 (7) for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, in conjunction with the MAFAs as referred to in Annex I, point 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1419/2004, and, in Article 12 of Section A of the Annex to the MAFAs.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 248/2007 (8) provides for measures concerning the MAFAs and the Annual Financing Agreements concluded under the Sapard programme and the transition from Sapard to rural development, in conjunction with the MAFAs as referred to in Annex III to that Regulation.\n(4)\nArticle 12(1) of Section A of the Annex to the MAFAs, which remains in force after the accession of Hungary to the European Union by virtue of Regulation (EC) No 248/2007, requires the Commission to take a Decision (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the conformity clearance Decision\u2019) on the expenditure to be excluded from EU co-financing where it finds that expenditure has not been effected in compliance with this Agreement.\n(5)\nThe findings of the annual certification report for the Sapard accounts for the financial year 2004 indicated that the Sapard Agency might have breached certain provisions of the MAFAs. In this respect, the Commission launched an enquiry in accordance with the Article 12 of Section A of the Annex to the MAFAs.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 12(3) of Section A of the Annex to the MAFAs, the Hungarian authorities were invited to a bilateral discussion on 8 November 2005, at which both parties endeavoured to reach an agreement as to the action to be taken and on an evaluation of the gravity of the infringement.\n(7)\nFollowing the bilateral discussion, the Commission still considered that certain items of expenditure had not been carried out in conformity with the rules governing the Sapard programme. For some of the payments made in the financial years 2003 and 2004, Hungary breached the 3-month deadline for payments to beneficiaries provided in Article 8(6), Section A of the MAFAs. According to this provision, the interval between receipt of the supporting documents needed to make the payment and issuing of the payment order should not have exceeded 3 months.\n(8)\nBy letter of 16 October 2009, the Hungarian authorities initiated a conciliation procedure in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 12(3) of Section A and Item 9 of Section F of the Annex to the MAFAs. The Conciliation Body supported the arguments presented by the Hungarian authorities and considered them as exceptional circumstances to derogate from the deadline for the payments to beneficiaries given by provision of Article 8(6), Section A of the MAFAs.\n(9)\nThe Commission could not consider the arguments given by the Hungarian authorities as exceptional circumstances, justifying some derogation from Article 8(6), Section A of the MAFAs, and proposed the amount of EUR 2 535 286 for financial reduction.\n(10)\nIn accordance with Article 12(7) of Section A of the Annex to the MAFAs, the amount to be recovered shall be communicated to the National Authorising Officer who should, on behalf of Hungary, ensure that the amount is credited to the Sapard euro account within 2 months of the date that the Decision is taken. However, due to the fact that the implementation of the Sapard programme is finalised, the recovery of the sum excluded shall be executed in a form of a recovery order,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe amount of EUR 2 535 286 paid by the Hungarian Sapard Agency is hereby excluded from EU financing as the underlying transactions do not comply with the rules governing the Sapard programme.\nThe calculation of the correction is indicated in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Hungary.\nDone at Brussels, 28 March 2011.", "references": ["72", "78", "53", "41", "46", "69", "37", "67", "85", "27", "64", "81", "56", "19", "75", "21", "92", "55", "12", "20", "71", "51", "50", "86", "28", "79", "44", "70", "6", "47", "No Label", "9", "10", "15", "17", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "10", "15", "17", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 585/2011\nof 17 June 2011\nlaying down temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 191 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union fruit and vegetables market is undergoing an unprecedented crisis following a deadly enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (E. coli) outbreak in Germany, which has been associated with the consumption of certain fresh fruit and vegetables. The crisis started on 26 May 2011, when press reports appeared concerning allegations of cucumbers being the cause of the outbreak.\n(2)\nPrecautionary measures have been adopted by several Member States and third countries and a sudden loss of consumer confidence due to perceived public health risks is causing a very significant disturbance of the Union fruit and vegetables market, especially in respect of cucumbers, tomatoes, sweet peppers, courgettes and certain products of the lettuce and endive families produced in the Union.\n(3)\nIn view of the current and expected market situation, and having regard to the fact that Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), to be replaced as from 22 June 2011 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (3) do not specifically provide for sector-specific instruments adequate to address the practical problems occurring in the fruit and vegetables sector, it is necessary to adopt exceptional measures, as a matter of urgency and for a limited period of time.\n(4)\nAs cucumbers, tomatoes, sweet peppers, courgettes and certain products of the lettuce and endive families are the main products affected by the fruit and vegetables crisis, it is appropriate to limit the scope of the exceptional measures to those products.\n(5)\nIn view of the specific nature of the fruit and vegetables sector, crisis management and market support measures referred to in Article 103c(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 are most appropriate to support producer organisation recognised for the production of fruit and vegetables.\n(6)\nAdditional support should be granted by the Union in respect of market withdrawals, green harvesting and non-harvesting of cucumbers, tomatoes, sweet peppers, courgettes and certain products of the lettuce and endive families intended for fresh consumption. Having regard to the significant disturbance of the fruit and vegetables market and the relatively limited membership of producer organisations in some Member States, it is also necessary to grant Union support for such measures to producers of fruit and vegetables who are not members of a recognised producer organisation and who signed a contract with a recognised producer organisation to withdraw, cucumbers, tomatoes, sweet peppers, courgettes and certain products of the lettuce and endive families.\n(7)\nFor the sake of uniformity and in order to avoid overcompensation, maximum levels of additional Union support for withdrawals, green harvesting and non-harvesting should be set at Union level. In order to take the particular characteristics of non-harvesting and green harvesting operations into account, Member States should convert the kg based approach for withdrawals into a hectare based approach, on the basis of yields.\n(8)\nProducer organisations are the basic actors of the fruit and vegetables sector and are the most suited entities to ensure that Union support is paid to producers who are not members of a recognised producer organisation. They should ensure that Union support is paid to the producers who are not members of a recognised producer organisation through the conclusion of a contract. As not all Member States have the same degree of organisation at the supply side of the fruit and vegetables market, it is appropriate to allow the competent authority of the Member States to pay the Union support directly to the producers where this is duly justified.\n(9)\nFor the sake of budgetary discipline, it is necessary to provide for a ceiling for the expenditure to be financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and to set up a notification and monitoring system, under which the Member States inform the Commission in respect of their withdrawal, non-harvesting and green harvesting operations.\n(10)\nIn order to limit the impact of the harm caused to the fruit and vegetables sector, this Regulation should cover a period starting on 26 May 2011. For reasons of urgency, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(11)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\n1. Exceptional support shall be granted to producer organisations referred to in Article 122 (a)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and to producers who are not members of those organisations, for the period from 26 May 2011 to 30 June 2011 and in relation to the following products of the fruit and vegetables sector intended for fresh consumption:\n(a)\ntomatoes falling within CN code 0702 00 00;\n(b)\nlettuce falling within CN code 0705 11 00 and CN 0705 19 00 and curled-leaved and broad-leaved (Batavian) endives falling within CN 0705 29 00;\n(c)\ncucumbers falling within CN code 0707 00 05;\n(d)\nsweet peppers falling within CN code 0709 60 10;\n(e)\ncourgettes falling within CN code 0709 90 70.\n2. The measures taken under this Regulation shall be considered to be intervention measures to regulate agricultural markets within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005. (4)\nArticle 2\nMaximum amount of support\nTotal Union expenditure incurred for the purposes of this Regulation shall not exceed EUR 210 000 000. It shall be financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and be used solely for the purpose of financing the measures provided for under this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nApplicability of rules\nSave as explicitly provided for otherwise in this Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 shall apply in respect of producer organisations and its members and shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the producers referred to in Article 5.\nArticle 4\nProducer organisations\n1. The 5 % ceiling referred to in Article 80(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and in Article 79(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 shall not apply in respect of the products referred to in Article 1(1) of this Regulation when those products are withdrawn during the period referred to in that Article.\n2. Non-harvesting measures referred to in Article 85(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and in Article 84(1)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 may, in respect of products and during the period referred to in Article 1(1) of this Regulation, be undertaken even where commercial production has been taken from the producing area concerned during the normal production cycle. In such cases, the compensation amounts referred to in Article 86(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and in Article 85(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 shall be proportionally reduced to the production already harvested, as established on the basis of the accounting and/or tax data of the producer organisations concerned.\n3. The Union contribution to the maximum amounts set by Member States in accordance with Article 80 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 or with Article 79 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 shall not exceed the amounts set out in Part A of Annex I to this Regulation, in case of withdrawals for destinations, other than free distribution. Those amounts shall be doubled in case of free distribution.\n4. The ceiling of one-third of expenditure referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 103c(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and the 25 % maximum ceiling for the increase of operational fund referred to in Article 67(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and in Article 66(3)(c) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 shall not apply in respect of expenditure incurred for measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article during the period referred to in Article 1(1).\n5. Additional Union support shall be granted in respect of withdrawal, non-harvesting and green harvesting operations carried out in relation to the products and during the period referred to in Article 1(1). Support for green harvesting shall cover only the products which are physically on the fields and which are effectively green harvested.\nThe additional Union support shall not be included in the operational programmes of the producer organisations and not be taken into account for the purpose of the calculation of the ceilings of 4,1 % and 4,6 % referred to in Article 103d(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nThe amounts of additional Union support for withdrawals are set out in Part B of Annex I to this Regulation.\nIn case of non-harvesting and green harvesting, Member States shall set the amounts of additional Union support per hectare at a level to cover not more than 90 % of the amounts fixed for withdrawals in Part B of Annex I to this Regulation.\nThe additional Union support shall be granted even if producer organisations do not provide for those operations in the framework of their operational programmes.\n6. Expenditure incurred in accordance with this Article shall form part of the operational fund of the producer organisations. Articles 103b(2) and 103d(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall not apply for the additional Union support referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article.\nArticle 5\nProducer non-members of producer organisations\n1. Union support shall be granted to producers of fruit and vegetables who are not members of a recognised producer organisation (hereinafter referred to as \u2018producer non-members\u2019) to carry out withdrawal, non-harvesting and green harvesting operations in respect of the products and during the period referred to Article 1(1). Where a producer organisation has been suspended in accordance with Article 116(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 or Article 114(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, its members shall be deemed to be a producer non-members for the purpose of this Regulation.\nSupport for green harvesting shall cover only the products which are physically on the fields and which are effectively green harvested.\n2. In case of withdrawals, producer non-members shall sign a contract with a recognised producer organisation.\nThe Union support shall be paid to such producers by the producer organisation with which they signed such a contract. The second and the fifth subparagraphs of Article 4(5) and Article 4(6) shall apply mutatis mutandis.\n3. The amounts of support to be granted pursuant to paragraph 1 in the situation referred to in paragraph 2 shall be the amounts set out in Part B of Annex I, less the amounts that correspond to the real costs incurred by the producer organisation for withdrawing the respective products, which the producer organisation shall retain. Evidence of those costs shall be provided by means of invoices. Producer organisations shall accept all reasonable requests from producers that are not a member of a producer organisation for the purposes of this Regulation.\n4. For duly justified reasons, such as the limited degree of organisation of the producers in the Member State concerned, and in a non-discriminatory way, Member States may authorise that a producer non-member makes a notification to the competent authority of the Member State, instead of signing the contract referred to in paragraph 2. For such notification, Article 79 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 or Article 78 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 shall apply mutatis mutandis.\nIn those cases, the competent authority of the Member State shall pay the Union support directly to the producer, in accordance with its own legislation. The amounts of the support shall be the amounts set out in Part B of Annex I.\n5. In case of non-harvesting and green harvesting operations, producer non-members shall make the appropriate notification to the competent authority of the Member State in accordance with the detailed provisions adopted by the Member State pursuant to Article 86(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 or to Article 85(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011.\nThe amounts of Union support for non-harvesting and green harvesting operations shall be the amounts set pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of Article 4(5).\nArticle 6\nChecks on withdrawal, non-harvesting and green harvesting operations\n1. The withdrawal operations referred to in Articles 4 and 5 shall be subject to first-level checks in accordance with Article 110 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and Article 108 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011. However, those checks shall be limited to 10 % of the quantity of products withdrawn from the market.\nFor withdrawal operations referred to in Article 5(4), the first-level checks shall cover 100 % of the quantity of products withdrawn.\n2. Non-harvesting and green harvesting operations as referred to in Articles 4 and 5 shall be subject to the checks and conditions provided for in Article 112 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and Article 110 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, except as regards the requirement that no partial harvest has taken place. Checks shall be limited to 10 % of the producing areas referred to in Article 4(2).\nFor non-harvesting and green harvesting operations referred to in Article 5(5), the checks shall cover 100 % of the producing areas.\nArticle 7\nNotifications\n1. Member States shall notify the Commission every Wednesday (before noon, Brussels time) from the day of entry into force of this Regulation of the notifications received during the previous week from the producer organisations and from producer non-members. Those notifications shall relate to the operations to be undertaken for the purposes of this Regulation, in terms of quantities, surface and maximum Union expenditure for each of the products referred to in Article 1(1).\nMember States shall use the templates set out in Annex II.\nMember States shall notify the Commission on 22 June 2011 of the information referred to in the first subparagraph, using the templates set out in Annex II, in relation to withdrawal, non-harvesting or green harvesting operations undertaken between 26 May 2011 and the date of the entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission by 18 of July 2011 of the information on the total quantities withdrawn, the total surface on which non-harvesting or green harvesting operations have been undertaken and the requests for total Union support for the corresponding withdrawal and non-harvesting operations.\nMember States shall use the template set out for in Annex III.\nUnion support shall not be granted for withdrawal, non-harvesting or green harvesting operations not notified to the Commission in accordance with this paragraph.\n3. Where requests for Union support notified in accordance with paragraph 2 exceed the maximum amount of support referred to in Article 2, the Commission shall set, without the assistance of the Committee referred to in Article 195(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, an allocation coefficient for the grant of total available Union support on the basis of received requests. In case request for support do not exceed the maximum amount of support, the allocation coefficient shall be set at 100 %.\nMember States shall apply the allocation coefficient for all applications referred to in Article 8.\nArticle 8\nApplication for and payment of Union support\n1. Producer organisations shall apply for the payment of the Union support referred to in Article 4(5) and 5(2) by 11 July 2011.\n2. By way of derogation from the deadlines fixed pursuant to Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and Article 72 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, producer organisations shall apply for the payment of the total Union support referred to in Article 4(1) to (4) of this Regulation in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and in Article 72 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 by 11 July 2011.\nThe ceiling of 80 % of the initially approved amount of aid of operational programme established in the third subparagraph of Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and Article 72 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 shall not apply\n3. Producer non-members shall, by 11 July 2011, apply themselves to the competent authorities of the Member States for the payment of Union support in the situations referred to in Article 5(4) and (5). The Member States shall designate the competent authorities by 30 June 2011.\n4. The applications for Union support referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be accompanied by supporting documents justifying the amount of Union support requested and contain a written undertaking that the applicant has not received any double Union or national funding or compensation under an insurance policy in respect of the operations qualifying for Union support under this Regulation.\n5. The competent authorities of the Member States shall not make payments before the allocation coefficient referred to in Article 7(3) has been set. They shall ensure that all payments to be made for the purposes of this Regulation are made by 15 October 2011 at the latest.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2011.", "references": ["40", "80", "65", "0", "95", "53", "37", "26", "5", "12", "8", "69", "84", "55", "78", "63", "44", "2", "57", "9", "98", "46", "32", "21", "60", "68", "83", "92", "1", "71", "No Label", "15", "20", "38", "61", "62", "66"], "gold": ["15", "20", "38", "61", "62", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 248/2012\nof 20 March 2012\nwithdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSubmission of applications for import licences concerning order number 09.4318 were suspended as from 19 January 2012 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 41/2012 of 18 January 2012 suspending submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas (3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009.\n(2)\nFollowing notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for that order number. The suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe suspension laid down by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 41/2012 of submission of applications for import licences for order number 09.4318 as from 19 January 2012 is withdrawn.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 March 2012.", "references": ["33", "20", "63", "90", "30", "66", "77", "34", "32", "38", "75", "41", "15", "36", "1", "81", "57", "98", "12", "13", "82", "99", "4", "14", "86", "39", "8", "76", "49", "50", "No Label", "21", "22", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 430/2011\nof 2 May 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 424/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 3 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 May 2011.", "references": ["83", "70", "69", "55", "40", "76", "67", "81", "42", "28", "56", "77", "73", "5", "17", "8", "21", "84", "24", "32", "85", "20", "64", "90", "39", "86", "58", "29", "62", "14", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1158/2011\nof 11 November 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in IIIa; EU waters of Subdivisions 22-32 by vessels flying the flag of Sweden\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 November 2011.", "references": ["77", "0", "95", "32", "1", "2", "43", "31", "71", "27", "39", "46", "62", "47", "16", "63", "37", "90", "20", "81", "94", "22", "80", "70", "99", "75", "78", "38", "82", "28", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 372/2011\nof 15 April 2011\nfixing the quantitative limit for exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2011/2012 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 61, first paragraph, point (d), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the sugar or isoglucose produced in excess of the quota referred to in Article 56 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed.\n(2)\nDetailed implementing rules for out-of-quota exports, in particular concerning the issue of export licences are laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 (2). However, the quantitative limit should be fixed per marketing year in view of the possible opportunities on the export markets.\n(3)\nFor certain Union producers of sugar and isoglucose, exports from the Union represent an important part of their economic activities and they have established traditional markets outside the Union. Exports of sugar and isoglucose to those markets could be economically viable also without granting export refunds. To that end it is necessary to fix a quantitative limit for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose exports so that the EU producers concerned may continue to supply their traditional markets.\n(4)\nFor the 2011/2012 marketing year it is estimated that fixing the quantitative limit initially at 650 000 tonnes, in white sugar equivalent, for out-of-quota sugar exports and 50 000 tonnes, in dry matter, for out-of-quota isoglucose would correspond to the market demand.\n(5)\nWorld market prices for sugar have been at a constant high level since October 2010 and forecasts of world market prices based on the London and New York sugar futures exchange markets indicate that world market price will remain high throughout 2011 and beyond. Therefore it is difficult to have robust estimates of the quantities that would be eventually imported into the Union. The experience gained in marketing year 2010/2011 shows that certain quantities of out-of-quota sugar had to be released on the internal market in order to ensure the appropriate supply of the Union market. Consequently, it is appropriate that out-of-quota exports are made possible as from 1 January 2012 by when more clear information would be available on the actual Union supply situation.\n(6)\nExports of sugar from the Union to certain close destinations and to third countries granting Union products a preferential import treatment are currently in a particular favourable competitive position. In view of the absence of appropriate instruments of mutual assistance to fight against irregularities and in order to minimise the risk of fraud and to prevent any abuse associated with the re-import or reintroduction into the Union of out-of-quota sugar certain close destinations should be excluded from the eligible destinations.\n(7)\nIn view of the estimated lower risks for eventual frauds regarding isoglucose due to the nature of the product it is not necessary to restrict the eligible destinations for the export of out-of-quota isoglucose.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFixing the quantitative limit for out-of-quota sugar exports\n1. For the 2011/2012 marketing year, running from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012, the quantitative limit referred to in Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) 1234/2007 shall be 650 000 tonnes for exports without refund of out-of-quota white sugar falling within CN code 1701 99.\n2. Exports within the quantitative limit fixed in paragraph 1 shall be allowed for all destinations excluding:\n(a)\nthird countries: Andorra, Liechtenstein, the Holy See (Vatican City State), San Marino, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia (3), Montenegro, Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;\n(b)\nterritories of Member States not forming part of the customs territory of the Union: the Faeroe Islands, Greenland, Heligoland, Ceuta, Melilla, the communes of Livigno and Campione d'Italia, and the areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control;\n(c)\nEuropean territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible, not forming part of the customs territory of the Union: Gibraltar.\nArticle 2\nFixing the quantitative limit for out-of-quota isoglucose exports\n1. For the 2011/2012 marketing year, running from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012, the quantitative limit referred to in Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) 1234/2007 shall be 50 000 tonnes, in dry matter, for exports without refund of out-of-quota isoglucose falling within CN codes 1702 40 10, 1702 60 10. and 1702 90 30.\n2. Exports of the products referred to in paragraph 1 shall only be allowed where they comply with the conditions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 April 2011.", "references": ["5", "93", "68", "11", "98", "20", "78", "29", "89", "96", "75", "7", "47", "30", "94", "19", "76", "74", "1", "33", "44", "86", "61", "62", "81", "52", "72", "97", "82", "45", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1028/2010\nof 12 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 November 2010.", "references": ["63", "26", "1", "18", "31", "34", "45", "5", "81", "46", "38", "44", "83", "12", "69", "76", "15", "90", "6", "67", "57", "36", "16", "23", "50", "85", "92", "77", "24", "60", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 206/2011\nof 28 February 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Articles 15(1), 19(1) and 22(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Previous investigation and existing countervailing measures\n(1)\nIn December 1999, by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 (2), the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film (the product concerned) currently falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90, originating in India. The measures took the form of an ad valorem countervailing duty, ranging between 3,8 % and 19,1 % imposed on imports from individually named exporters, with a residual duty rate of 19,1 % imposed on imports of the product concerned from all other companies. The investigation period of the original investigation was 1 October 1997 to 30 September 1998.\n(2)\nIn March 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 (3) (Regulation (EC) No 367/2006), the Council, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, maintained the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 on imports of PET film originating in India. The review investigation period was 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004.\n(3)\nIn August 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1288/2006 (4), the Council, following an interim review concerning the subsidisation of an Indian PET film producer, amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on this company by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.\n(4)\nIn September 2007, by Regulation (EC) No 1124/2007 (5), the Council, following a partial interim review concerning the subsidisation of another Indian PET film producer, amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on this company by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.\n(5)\nIn January 2009, by Regulation (EC) No 15/2009 (6), the Council, following a partial interim review initiated by the Commission on its own initiative concerning the subsidisation of five Indian PET film producers, amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 and the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 (7).\n(6)\nIn June 2010, by implementing Regulation (EU) No 579/2010 (8), the Council, following a partial interim review concerning the subsidisation of an Indian PET film producer, amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on this company by Regulation (EC) 367/2006.\n(7)\nIt should be noted that Vacmet India Limited is currently subject to a countervailing duty of 19,1 % on the basis of Regulation (EC) 367/2006.\n2. Existing anti-dumping measures\n(8)\nIt should be noted that Vacmet India Limited is subject to a residual anti-dumping duty of 17,3 % on the basis of Regulation (EC) 1292/2007.\n3. Initiation of a partial interim review\n(9)\nOn 7 August 2009, the Commission received a request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation. The request, limited in scope to the examination of subsidisation, was lodged by Vacmet India Limited, an exporting producer from India (the applicant). In its request, the applicant claimed that the circumstances on the basis of which measures were imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. The applicant provided prima facie evidence that the continued imposition of the measure at its current level is no longer necessary to offset subsidisation.\n(10)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced on 14 January 2010, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (9) (notice of initiation), the initiation of a partial interim review, in accordance with Article 19 of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of subsidisation in respect of the applicant.\n(11)\nThe partial interim review investigation was also to assess the need, depending on the review findings, to amend the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the product concerned from exporting producers in the country concerned not individually mentioned in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006, i.e. the duty rate as applying to \u2018all other companies\u2019 in India.\n(12)\nThe Commission also announced on 14 January 2010, by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union (10), the initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far as the applicant is concerned.\n4. Investigation\n(13)\nThe investigation of the level of subsidisation covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (\u2018review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019).\n(14)\nThe Commission officially informed the applicant, the Government of India (GOI) and the Union industry of the initiation of the partial interim investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard.\n(15)\nIn order to obtain the information necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to the GOI.\n(16)\nWhile the applicant fully cooperated in the investigation, the relevant authorities of the GOI did not submit a questionnaire reply within the deadline. The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the determination of subsidisation. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of the applicant.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(17)\nThe product confirmed by this review is the same as that defined in the Regulation imposing the measures in force (Regulation (EC) No 367/2006), namely polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, originating in India, currently falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90.\n2. Like product\n(18)\nAs in previous investigations, this investigation has shown that PET film produced in India and exported to the Union and the PET film produced and sold domestically on the Indian market, as well as the PET film produced and sold in the EU by the Union producers have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same basic uses.\n(19)\nThese products are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the basic Regulation.\nC. SUBSIDISATION\n1. Introduction\n(20)\nOn the basis of the information submitted by the applicant and the Union industry, the following schemes, which allegedly involve the granting of subsidies, were investigated:\n(a)\nDuty Entitlement Passbook Scheme;\n(b)\nExport Promotion Capital Goods Scheme;\n(c)\nAdvance Authorisation Scheme (formerly known as Advance Licence Scheme);\n(d)\nCapital Subsidies.\n(21)\nThe schemes (a) to (c) specified above are based on the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 (No 22 of 1992) which entered into force on 7 August 1992 (Foreign Trade Act). The Foreign Trade Act authorises the GOI to issue notifications regarding the export and import policy. These are summarised in \u2018Foreign Trade Policy\u2019 documents, which are issued by the Ministry of Commerce every 5 years and updated regularly. Two Foreign Trade Policy documents are relevant to the RIP of this case, namely FT-policy 04-09 and FT-policy 09-14. In addition, the GOI also sets out the procedures governing the FT-policy 04-09 and FT-policy 09-14 in a \u2018Handbook of Procedures, Volume I\u2019 (\u2018HOP I 04-09\u2019 and \u2018HOP I 09-14\u2019 respectively). The Handbook of Procedures is also updated on a regular basis.\n(22)\nThe scheme specified above under point (d) is managed by the authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh.\n2. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS)\n(a) Legal Basis\n(23)\nThe detailed description of the DEPBS is contained in paragraphs 4.3 of the FT-policy 04-09 and FT-policy 09-14 as well as in chapter 4 of the HOP I 04-09 and of the HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(24)\nAny manufacturer-exporter or merchant-exporter is eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation of the DEPBS\n(25)\nAn exporter can apply for DEPBS credits which are calculated as a percentage of the value of products exported under this scheme. Such DEPBS rates have been established by the Indian authorities for most products, including the product concerned. They are determined on the basis of Standard Input Output Norms (SIONs) taking into account a presumed import content of inputs in the export product and the customs duty incidence on such presumed imports, regardless of whether import duties have actually been paid or not.\n(26)\nTo be eligible for benefits under this scheme, a company must export. At the time of the export transaction, a declaration must be made by the exporter to the Indian authorities indicating that the export is taking place under the DEPBS. In order for the goods to be exported, the Indian customs authorities issue an export shipping bill during the dispatch procedure. This document shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction. At this point in time, the exporter knows the benefit it will receive. Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill, the GOI has no discretion over the granting of a DEPBS credit.\n(27)\nIt was found that in accordance with Indian accounting standards, DEPBS credits can be booked on an accrual basis as income in the commercial accounts, upon fulfilment of the export obligation. Such credits can be used for payment of customs duties on subsequent imports of any goods - except capital goods and goods where there are import restrictions. Goods imported against such credits can be sold on the domestic market (subject to sales tax) or used otherwise. DEPBS credits are freely transferable and valid for a period of 12 months from the date of issue.\n(28)\nApplication for DEPBS credits are electronically filed and can cover an unlimited amount of export transactions. De facto no strict deadlines apply to DEPBS credits. The electronic system used to manage DEPBS does not automatically exclude export transactions exceeding the submission deadline mentioned in chapter 4.47 of the HOP I 04-09 and 09-14. Furthermore, as clearly provided in chapter 9.3 of the HOP I 04-09 and 09-14, applications received after the expiry of submission deadlines can always be considered subject to the imposition of a minor penalty fee (i.e. 10 % of the entitlement).\n(29)\nIt was found that the applicant used this scheme during the RIP.\n(d) Conclusions on the DEPBS\n(30)\nThe DEPBS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. A DEPBS credit is a financial contribution by the GOI since the credit will eventually be used to offset import duties, thus decreasing the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would otherwise be due. In addition, the DEPBS credit confers a benefit upon the exporter because it improves its liquidity.\n(31)\nFurthermore, the DEPBS is contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation.\n(32)\nThis scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the rules laid down in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) to the basic Regulation. In particular, an exporter is under no obligation to actually consume the goods imported free of duty in the production process and the amount of credit is not calculated in relation to actual inputs used. Moreover, there is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production process of the exported product or whether an excess payment of import duties occurred within the meaning of item (i) of Annex I, and Annexes II and III to the basic Regulation. Lastly, an exporter is eligible for the DEPBS benefits regardless of whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported. Thus, even exporters which procure all of their inputs locally and do not import any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled to benefit from the DEPBS.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(33)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) and Article 5 of the basic Regulation and the calculation methodology used for this scheme in Regulation (EC) No 367/2006, the amount of countervailable subsidies was calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient found to exist during the RIP. In this regard, it was considered that the benefit is conferred on the recipient at the point in time when an export transaction is made under this scheme. At that moment, the GOI is liable to forego the customs duties, which constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill which shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction, the GOI has no discretion as to whether or not to grant the subsidy. In the light of the above, it is considered appropriate to assess the benefit under the DEPBS as being the sums of the credits earned on export transactions made under this scheme during the RIP.\n(34)\nWhere justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the credits so established to arrive at the subsidy amount as numerator, pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the total export turnover during the review investigation period as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(35)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the applicant during the RIP amounts to 7,9 %.\n3. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)\n(a) Legal basis\n(36)\nThe detailed description of the EPCGS is contained in chapter 5 of the FT-policy 04-09 and of the FT-policy 09-14 as well as in chapter 5 of the HOP I 04-09 and of the HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(37)\nManufacturer-exporters, merchant-exporters \u2018tied to\u2019 supporting manufacturers and service providers are eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(38)\nUnder the condition of an export obligation, a company is allowed to import capital goods (new and - since April 2003 - second-hand capital goods up to 10 years old) at a reduced rate of customs duty. To this end, the GOI issues an EPCGS licence upon application and payment of a fee. Since April 2000, the scheme provides for a reduced import duty rate of 5 % applicable to all capital goods imported under the scheme.\n(39)\nThe EPCGS licence holder can also source the capital goods indigenously. In such case, the indigenous manufacturer of capital goods may avail himself of the benefit for duty free import of components required to manufacture such capital goods. Alternatively, the indigenous manufacturer can claim the benefit of deemed export in respect of supply of capital goods to an EPCGS licence holder.\n(40)\nIt was found that the applicant used this scheme during the RIP.\n(d) Conclusion on EPCG Scheme\n(41)\nThe EPCGS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. The duty reduction constitutes a financial contribution by the GOI since this concession decreases the GOI\u2019s duty revenue, which would otherwise be due. In addition, the duty reduction confers a benefit upon the exporter because the duties saved upon import improve its liquidity.\n(42)\nFurthermore, the EPCGS is contingent in law upon export performance, since such licences cannot be obtained without a commitment to export. Therefore, it is deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation.\n(43)\nThis scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Capital goods are not covered by the scope of such permissible systems, as set out in Annex I, item (i), to the basic Regulation because they are not consumed in the production of the exported products.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(44)\nThe subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods spread across a period which reflects the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in the industry concerned. In accordance with the established practice, the amount so calculated, which is attributable to the RIP, has been adjusted by adding interest during this period in order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. The commercial interest rate during the review investigation period in India was considered appropriate for this purpose. Where justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(45)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount has been allocated over the export turnover during the RIP as the appropriate denominator because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(46)\nAs regards imports made under this scheme, the investigation revealed that there were a number of items which could be used for both production of the product concerned as well as for the production of other products. However, it was noted that some items were used in a factory unit which is solely used for the production of PET film. Therefore, in terms of calculation of the benefit to the applicant, the denominator to be used for these items would be the export turnover of the product concerned and not the total export turnover.\n(47)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the applicant for the RIP amounts to 2,4 %.\n4. Advance Authorisation Scheme (AAS)\n(a) Legal basis\n(48)\nThe detailed description of the scheme is contained in paragraphs 4.1.1 to 4.1.14 of the FT-policy 04-09 and FT-policy 09-14 and chapters 4.1 to 4.30 of the HOP I 04-09 and of the HOP I 09-14. This scheme was called Advance Licence Scheme during the previous investigation that led to the imposition, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 367/2006, of the definitive countervailing duty currently in force.\n(b) Eligibility\n(49)\nThe AAS consists of six sub-schemes, as described in more detail in recital 50. Those sub-schemes differ, inter alia, in the scope of eligibility. Manufacturer-exporters and merchant-exporters \u2018tied to\u2019 supporting manufacturers are eligible for the AAS physical exports and for the AAS for annual requirement sub-schemes. Manufacturer-exporters supplying the ultimate exporter are eligible for AAS for intermediate supplies. Main contractors which supply to the \u2018deemed export\u2019 categories mentioned in paragraph 8.2 of the FT-policy 04-09, such as suppliers of an export oriented unit (EOU), are eligible for the AAS deemed export sub-scheme. Eventually, intermediate suppliers to manufacturer-exporters are eligible for \u2018deemed export\u2019 benefits under the sub-schemes Advance Release Order (ARO) and back to back inland letter of credit.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(50)\nAdvance authorisations can be issued for:\n(i) Physical exports: This is the main sub-scheme. It allows for duty-free import of input materials for the production of a specific resulting export product. \u2018Physical\u2019 in this context means that the export product has to leave Indian territory. An import allowance and export obligation including the type of export product are specified in the licence;\n(ii) Annual requirement: Such an authorisation is not linked to a specific export product, but to a wider product group (e.g. chemical and allied products). The licence holder can - up to a certain value threshold set by its past export performance - import duty-free any input to be used in manufacturing any of the items falling under such a product group. It can choose to export any resulting product falling under the product group using such duty-exempt material;\n(iii) Intermediate supplies: This sub-scheme covers cases where two manufacturers intend to produce a single export product and divide the production process. The manufacturer-exporter who produces the intermediate product can import duty-free input materials and can obtain for this purpose an AAS for intermediate supplies. The ultimate exporter finalises the production and is obliged to export the finished product;\n(iv) Deemed exports: This sub-scheme allows a main contractor to import inputs free of duty which are required in manufacturing goods to be sold as \u2018deemed exports\u2019 to the categories of customers mentioned in paragraph 8.2(b) to (f), (g), (i) and (j) of the FT-policy 04-09. Deemed exports refer to those transactions in which the goods supplied do not leave the country. A number of categories of supply is regarded as deemed exports provided the goods are manufactured in India, e.g. supply of goods to an export-oriented unit (EOU) or to a company situated in a special economic zone (SEZ);\n(v) Advance Release Order (ARO): The AAS holder intending to source the inputs from indigenous sources, in lieu of direct import, has the option to source them against AROs. In such cases the Advance Authorisations are validated as AROs and are endorsed to the indigenous supplier upon delivery of the items specified therein. The endorsement of the ARO entitles the indigenous supplier to the benefits of deemed exports as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the FT-policy 04-09 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty). The ARO mechanism refunds taxes and duties to the supplier instead of refunding the same to the ultimate exporter in the form of drawback/refund of duties. The refund of taxes/duties is available both for indigenous inputs as well as imported inputs;\n(vi) Back to back inland letter of credit: This sub-scheme again covers indigenous supplies to an Advance Authorisation holder. The holder of an Advance Authorisation can approach a bank for opening an inland letter of credit in favour of an indigenous supplier. The authorisation will be validated by the bank for direct import only in respect of the value and volume of items being sourced indigenously instead of importation. The indigenous supplier will be entitled to deemed export benefits as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the FT-policy 04-09 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty).\n(51)\nThe applicant received concessions under the AAS linked to the product concerned during the RIP. The applicant made use of one of the sub-schemes, i.e. AAS physical exports. It is therefore not necessary to establish the countervailability of the remaining unused sub-schemes.\n(52)\nFor verification purposes by the Indian authorities, an Advance Authorisation holder is legally obliged to maintain \u2018a true and proper account of consumption and utilisation of duty-free imported/domestically procured goods\u2019 in a specified format (chapters 4.26, 4.30 and Appendix 23 HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14), i.e. an actual consumption register. This register has to be verified by an external chartered accountant/cost and works accountant who issues a certificate stating that the prescribed registers and relevant records have been examined and the information furnished under Appendix 23 is true and correct in all respects.\n(53)\nWith regard to the sub-scheme used during the RIP by the applicant, i.e. physical exports, the import allowance and the export obligation are fixed in volume and value by the GOI and are documented on the Authorisation. In addition, at the time of import and of export, the corresponding transactions are to be documented by Government officials on the Authorisation. The volume of imports allowed under the AAS is determined by the GOI on the basis of Standard Input Output Norms (SIONs) which exist for most products including the product concerned. Imported input materials are not transferable and have to be used to produce the resultant export product. The export obligation must be fulfilled within a prescribed time frame after issuance of the licence (24 months with two possible extensions of 6 months each).\n(54)\nThe current interim review investigation established that the verification requirements stipulated by the Indian authorities were not honoured and not yet tested in practice. The applicant did not maintain a system whereby it could be verified which inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product and in what amounts, as stipulated by the FT-policy (Appendix 23) and in accordance with Annex II(II)(4) to the basic Regulation. In fact, there were no records of actual consumption.\n(55)\nChanges in the administration of the FT-policy 04 - 09, which became effective in autumn of 2005 (mandatory sending of the consumption register to the Indian authorities in the context of the redemption procedure) has not yet been applied in the case of the applicant. Thus, the de facto implementation of this provision could not be verified at this stage.\n(d) Conclusion on the AAS\n(56)\nThe exemption from import duties is a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. a financial contribution of the GOI which conferred a benefit upon the investigated exporter.\n(57)\nIn addition, AAS physical exports is clearly contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation. Without an export commitment a company cannot obtain benefits under this scheme.\n(58)\nThe sub-scheme used in the present case cannot be considered permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the rules laid down in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) to the basic Regulation. The GOI did not effectively apply either its new or its old verification system or procedure to confirm whether and in what amounts inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) to the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) to the basic Regulation). The SIONs for the product concerned were not sufficiently precise. The SIONs themselves cannot be considered a verification system of actual consumption because the design of those standard norms does not enable the GOI to verify with sufficient precision what amounts of inputs were consumed in the export production. In addition, the GOI did not carry out a further examination based on actual inputs involved, although this would normally need to be carried out in the absence of an effectively applied verification system (Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) to the basic Regulation).\n(59)\nThe sub-scheme is therefore countervailable.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(60)\nIn the absence of permitted duty drawback systems or substitution drawback systems, the countervailable benefit is the remission of total import duties normally due upon import of inputs. In this respect, it is noted that the basic Regulation does not only provide for the countervailing of an \u2018excess\u2019 remission of duties. According to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Annex I(i) to the basic Regulation, only when the conditions of Annexes II and III to the basic Regulation are met can the excess remission of duties be countervailed. However, these conditions were not fulfilled in the present case. Thus, if an adequate monitoring process is not demonstrated, the above exception for drawback schemes is not applicable and the normal rule of the countervailing of the amount of unpaid duties (revenue forgone) applies, rather than of any purported excess remission. As set out in Annexes II(II) and III(II) to the basic Regulation, the burden is not upon the investigating authority to calculate such excess remission. To the contrary, according to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation, the investigating authority only has to establish sufficient evidence to refute the appropriateness of an alleged verification system.\n(61)\nThe subsidy amount for the applicant which used the AAS was calculated on the basis of import duties forgone (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) on the material imported under the sub-scheme during the RIP (numerator). In accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the subsidy amount where justified claims were made. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount was allocated over the export turnover of the product concerned during the RIP as appropriate denominator because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(62)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the applicant for the RIP amounts to 0,2 %.\n5. Capital Subsidies (CS)\n(a) Legal basis\n(63)\nIn previous investigations regarding PET film, including the investigation that led to the imposition by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 of the definitive countervailing duty currently in force, several Indian State schemes involving incentives granted to local companies were investigated. The State schemes fall under the heading \u2018Package Scheme of Incentives\u2019 as there can be different kinds of incentives involved. The previous investigation established that a company\u2019s entitlement to benefits could be stipulated in the \u2018Eligibility Certificate\u2019 or \u2018Entitlement Certificate\u2019. However, as in the present investigation, there could also be ad hoc subsidies such as capital subsidies.\n(b) Eligibility\n(64)\nIn order to be eligible, companies must, as a general rule, invest in less developed areas of a state either by setting up a new industrial establishment or by making a large scale capital investment or diversification of an existing industrial establishment.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(65)\nAccording to the response to the questionnaire, the applicant received in 2009 a significant amount as capital subsidy for setting up new production facilities by the Government of Uttar Pradesh (GUP). It was explained that this capital subsidy received is linked to the setting up of new production facilities, i.e. to cover expenses for investments made by the applicant. According to the applicant, it was a pure subsidy in the form of a grant to improve equity.\n(66)\nThe investigation also revealed that the applicant is eligible for refunds of VAT and Central Sales Tax (CST) from the Commercial Tax Department of Uttar Pradesh because of investments earlier made. In the \u2018Eligibility Certificate\u2019 there is a cap which the company is able to claim. The scheme was used by the company over 4 years. On a monthly basis, refunds of paid VAT and CST charged on intra-State and inter-State sales respectively were requested, including during the RIP.\n(d) Conclusion\n(67)\nThe capital subsidy is a direct transfer of funds, i.e. a grant to the applicant. It is a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. It is a financial contribution by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh which confers a direct benefit upon the applicant.\n(68)\nThe refund of VAT and CST provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. The refund constitutes a financial contribution by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh since this concession decreases the State Government\u2019s tax revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, the tax refund confers a benefit upon the applicant because the tax saved improves its liquidity.\n(69)\nThe subsidies are not contingent in law upon export performance. However, due to the lack of cooperation of the authorities of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Commission was unable to make a firm conclusion on this scheme as regards the specificity and practical application of this law and the level of discretion the granting authority enjoys when deciding on the applications. Indeed, it cannot be determined with certainty whether Article 4(2), first subparagraph, point (b) is fulfilled, given that it could not be established that the State Government of Uttar Pradesh applied objective criteria or conditions for granting the subsidy. Therefore, even if the scheme was shown not to be specific in law, it is still not clear that it is not specific de facto. As a result it is deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(2), first subparagraph, point (c) and Article 4(2), fourth subparagraph of the basic Regulation.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(70)\nAs regards the capital subsidy received for setting up new production facilities, the subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the capital subsidy spread across a period which reflects the normal depreciation period/useful life of capital goods in this industry because the subsidy can be linked to the acquisition of fixed assets. Interests were added to this amount in order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. The commercial interest rate during the review investigation period in India was considered appropriate for this purpose. Pursuant to Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the amount of subsidy has then been allocated over the total turnover of export and domestic sales during the RIP as the appropriate denominator because the subsidy is not export-contingent and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(71)\nRegarding the refunds of VAT and Central Sales Tax, the subsidy amount was calculated on the basis of the amount of refunds during the RIP. Pursuant to Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the amount of subsidy (numerator) has then been allocated over the total turnover of export and domestic sales during the RIP as the appropriate denominator because the subsidy is not export-contingent and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(72)\nBased on the above, the subsidy rate established for the applicant in respect of these capital subsidies during the RIP amounts to 0,5 %.\n6. Amount of countervailable subsidies\n(73)\nThe applicant is currently subject to a countervailing duty of 19,1 %.\n(74)\nDuring the present partial interim review, the amount of countervailable subsidies for the applicant, expressed ad valorem, was found to be 11,0 %, as listed hereunder:\nSCHEME\u2192\nDEPBS (11)\nEPCGS (11)\nAAS (11)\nCS\nTotal\nCOMPANY\u2193\n%\n%\n%\n%\n%\nVacmet India Limited\n7,9\n2,4\n0,2\n0,5\n11,0\n(75)\nAccount taken of the above, it is concluded that the level of subsidisation with regard to the exporting producer concerned has decreased.\n7. Countervailing measures\n(76)\nIt was also examined whether the changed circumstances with regard to the examined schemes could be considered to be of a lasting nature.\n(77)\nThe investigation confirmed that the subsidy amount for the applicant has decreased well below the duty rate currently applicable to it. This reduction in the overall subsidy level is mainly due to a significant drop of benefits which are available under the DEPBS. On the basis of the above, there seem to be indications that the applicant will continue to receive subsidies in the future of an amount which is less than the one to which it is currently subject.\n(78)\nSince it has been demonstrated that the applicant is in receipt of a much lower subsidisation than before and that it is likely to continue to receive subsidies of an amount which is lower than that determined in the original investigation, the level of the measure should therefore be amended to reflect the new findings.\n(79)\nIn view of the above, the amended countervailing duty rate should be established at the new rate of subsidisation found during the present partial interim review, as the injury margin calculated in the original anti-subsidy investigation remains higher.\n(80)\nPursuant to Article 24(1), second subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with one and the same situation arising from dumping or from export subsidisation. However, since the anti-dumping duty established for the applicant as a result of the parallel anti-dumping interim review is 0 % with regard to the product concerned, this situation does not arise in the present case.\n(81)\nWith regard to the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the product concerned from exporting producers not individually mentioned in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006, i.e. the duty specified as applying to \u2018all other companies\u2019 in India, it is noted that the actual modalities of the investigated schemes and their countervailability have not changed with respect to the previous investigation. Thus there is no reason to re-calculate the subsidy and duty rates of these companies. Consequently, the rates of the duty applicable to all companies other than the applicant remain unchanged.\n(82)\nInterested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose to amend the duty rate applicable to the applicant and were given an opportunity to comment.\n(83)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered and, where appropriate, the definitive findings have been modified accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe table in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 is hereby amended by inserting the following:\n\u2018Vacmet India Limited, Anant Plaza, IInd Floor, 4/117-2A, Civil Lines, Church Road, Agra-282002, Uttar Pradesh, India\n11,0\nA992\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["82", "31", "72", "67", "41", "29", "93", "55", "59", "5", "88", "40", "19", "24", "56", "16", "91", "78", "57", "58", "17", "80", "79", "66", "70", "7", "15", "18", "27", "47", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 778/2011\nof 3 August 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 771/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 August 2011.", "references": ["42", "37", "12", "73", "87", "77", "28", "99", "46", "38", "9", "3", "98", "2", "52", "5", "13", "50", "4", "92", "56", "82", "78", "97", "7", "30", "69", "51", "65", "45", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 818/2011\nof 11 August 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in EU and international waters of Vb and VIa by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2011.", "references": ["41", "69", "92", "32", "57", "68", "47", "34", "60", "94", "6", "33", "46", "55", "30", "11", "62", "1", "10", "84", "99", "64", "38", "18", "15", "14", "63", "90", "4", "5", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 28 February 2011\namending Decision 2010/248/EU adjusting the allowances provided for in Decision 2003/479/EC and Decision 2007/829/EC concerning the rules applicable to national experts and military staff on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council\n(2011/138/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 41(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 240(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 15(7) of Council Decision 2003/479/EC (1) and Article 15(6) of Council Decision 2007/829/EC (2) provide that the daily and monthly allowances of national experts and military staff on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council are to be adjusted each year without retroactive effect on the basis of the adaptation of the basic salaries of Union officials in Brussels and Luxembourg.\n(2)\nCouncil Decision 2010/248/EU (3) applied the rates set in Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (4), with effect from 1 May 2010.\n(3)\nBy judgment dated 24 November 2010 in Case C-40/10, the Court of Justice annulled Article 2 and Articles 4 to 18 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 which set the rate of the 2009 annual adaptation at + 1,85 %. The Council, by means of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1190/2010 (5), amended Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009, setting the rate of the 2009 annual adaptation at + 3,7 %.\n(4)\nDecision 2010/248/EU should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/248/EU is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. In Article 15(1) of Decision 2003/479/EC and in Article 15(1) of Decision 2007/829/EC, the amounts EUR 30,75 and EUR 122,97 shall be replaced by EUR 31,89 and EUR 127,52 respectively.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 1(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. In Article 15(2) of Decision 2003/479/EC and in Article 15(2) of Decision 2007/829/EC, the table shall be replaced by the following:\n\u201cDistance between place of origin and place of secondment\n(in km)\nAmount in EUR\n0 - 150\n0,00\n> 150\n81,96\n> 300\n145,72\n> 500\n236,81\n> 800\n382,54\n> 1 300\n601,13\n> 2 000\n719,55\u201d \u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 1(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. In Article 15(4) of Decision 2003/479/EC the amount EUR 30,75 shall be replaced by EUR 31,89.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 May 2010.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["80", "47", "15", "68", "24", "73", "31", "99", "4", "90", "19", "18", "53", "83", "20", "14", "63", "61", "9", "74", "71", "39", "96", "58", "36", "50", "75", "49", "95", "11", "No Label", "2", "3", "6", "7", "52"], "gold": ["2", "3", "6", "7", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 18 June 2012\napproving restrictions of authorisations of biocidal products containing difethialone notified by Denmark in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2012) 4025)\n(Only the Danish text is authentic)\n(2012/316/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular Article 4(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC contains the list of active substances approved at Union level for inclusion in biocidal products. The active substance difethialone was approved for inclusion in products belonging to product-type 14, rodenticides, as defined in Annex V to Directive 98/8/EC, by Commission Directive 2007/69/EC of 29 November 2007 amending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include difethialone as an active substance in Annex I thereto. (2)\n(2)\nDifethialone is an anticoagulant rodenticide known to pose risks of accidental incidents with children, as well as risks for animals and the environment. It has been identified as potentially persistent, liable to bioaccumulate and toxic (\u2018PBT\u2019), or very persistent and very liable to bioaccumulate (\u2018vPvB\u2019).\n(3)\nFor reasons of public health and hygiene, it was nevertheless found to be justified to include difethialone and other anticoagulant rodenticides in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC, thus allowing Member States to authorise difethialone-based products. However, Directive 2007/69/EC obliges Member States to ensure, when granting authorisation of products containing difethialone, that primary as well as secondary exposure of humans, non-target animals and the environment is minimised, by considering and applying all appropriate and available risk mitigation measures.\n(4)\nThe scientific evaluation leading to the adoption of Directive 2007/69/EC concluded that the most significant reductions in exposure to and risks posed by difethialone are achieved by restricting its use to treatment campaigns of limited duration, limiting access of non-target animals to the bait and removing unused bait and dead and moribund rodents during a baiting campaign in order to minimise the opportunity of primary or secondary exposure of non-target animals. The evaluation also concluded that only professional users are expected to follow such instructions. The risk mitigation measures mentioned in Directive 2007/69/EC therefore include restriction to professional use only.\n(5)\nThe company LiphaTech S.A.S. (\u2018the applicant\u2019) has, in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 98/8/EC, submitted an application to the United Kingdom for authorisation of nine rodenticides containing difethialone (\u2018the products\u2019). The products\u2019 names and reference numbers in the Register for Biocidal Products (\u2018R4BP\u2019) are indicated in the Annex to this decision.\n(6)\nThe United Kingdom granted the authorisations on 20 April 2011 (Generation Pat\u2019), on 26 April 2011 (Generation Block) and on 27 April 2011 (Generation Grain\u2019Tech and Rodilon Trio) (\u2018the first authorisations\u2019). The products were authorised with restrictions to ensure that the conditions of Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC were met in the United Kingdom. Those restrictions did not include a restriction to trained professional users with a license.\n(7)\nThe applicant submitted a complete application to Denmark for mutual recognition of the first authorisations in respect of seven of the products (Rodilon Paste, Kvit Muse-Pasta, Rodilon Block, Generation Korn\u2019Tech, Rodilon Trio and Kvit R\u00f8de Musekorn, and the product now referred to as Generation Blok) on 9 June 2011, and in respect of two of the products (Generation Museblok and Generation Musekorn) on 14 October 2011.\n(8)\nOn 2 November 2011, Denmark notified the Commission, the other Member States and the applicant of its proposal to restrict the first authorisations in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive 98/8/EC. Denmark proposed to impose a restriction on the products to use by trained professionals with a license.\n(9)\nThe Commission invited the other Member States and the applicant to submit comments to the notification in writing within 90 days in accordance with Article 27(1) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(10)\nOnly the applicant submitted comments within that deadline. The notification was also discussed between Commission representatives, representatives of Member States\u2019 Competent Authorities for biocidal products and the applicant in the meeting of the Product Authorisation and Mutual Recognition Facilitation Group of 6-7 December 2011 and in the meeting of the Competent Authorities for Biocidal Products of 29 February to 2 March 2012.\n(11)\nThe applicant has argued that the restriction to use by trained professionals with a license is unjustified and should not be accepted, since its products are also suitable for rodent control by non-trained professionals and non-professionals. Furthermore, the applicant has put forward the arguments that the products are ready-to-use products; that the active ingredient content in the products is low; that an antidote exists; that the products can easily be kept out of the reach of children and non-target animals; that non-professional users are likely to remove dead rodents and that non-professional users can be trained.\n(12)\nThe Commission notes that, in accordance with Directive 2007/69/EC, authorisations of biocidal products containing difethialone are to be subject to all appropriate and available risk mitigation measures, including the restriction to professional use only. The scientific evaluation leading to the adoption of Directive 2007/69/EC concluded that only professional users could be expected to follow the instructions leading to the most significant reductions in exposure and risk. A restriction to professional users should therefore in principle be considered to be an appropriate risk mitigation measure. The arguments put forward by the applicant do not undermine that conclusion.\n(13)\nIn the absence of any indication to the contrary, the Commission therefore considers that a restriction to professional users is an appropriate and available risk mitigation measure for the authorisation of products containing difethialone in Denmark. The fact that the United Kingdom did not consider such a restriction to be appropriate and available for an authorisation in its territory is immaterial for that conclusion. The decision of the United Kingdom to authorise non-professional use was based in particular on the risk of a delay in treatment of household infestations due to the costs involved in hiring trained professionals, and the associated risks to public hygiene. Denmark, however, has explained that that risk is less prevalent in Denmark, thanks to a system of mandatory rat infestation reporting and tax financed controlling by trained professionals, together with the general public\u2019s access to alternative methods for control of minor mice infestations.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDenmark may restrict the authorisations granted in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 98/8/EC for the products mentioned in the Annex to this Decision to use by trained professionals with a license.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2012.", "references": ["73", "43", "51", "55", "0", "82", "54", "52", "79", "98", "40", "93", "16", "75", "67", "46", "77", "60", "47", "20", "92", "13", "10", "80", "48", "69", "99", "5", "14", "21", "No Label", "25", "61", "83", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "61", "83", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/426/CFSP\nof 18 July 2011\nappointing the European Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 11 March 2009 the Council adopted Joint Action 2009/181/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Valentin INZKO European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n(2)\nOn 11 August 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/442/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR in Bosnia and Herzegovina until 31 August 2011.\n(3)\nMr Peter S\u00d8RENSEN should be appointed EUSR in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1 September 2011 to 30 June 2015.\n(4)\nOn 21 March 2011 the Council adopted conclusions setting out the Union\u2019s overall approach to Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n(5)\nThe Union is further strengthening its policy and its presence on the ground through a single, reinforced Union representative who will take a lead in supporting Bosnia and Herzegovina on Union-related matters to support the country\u2019s progress towards integration with the Union including through a broad and balanced set of instruments.\n(6)\nThe EUSR\u2019s mandate should be implemented in coordination with the European Commission in order to ensure consistency with other relevant activities falling within the competence of the Union.\n(7)\nThe Council foresees that the powers and authorities of the EUSR and the powers and authorities of the Head of the European Union Delegation Office in Bosnia and Herzegovina will be vested in the same person.\n(8)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nMr Peter S\u00d8RENSEN is hereby appointed as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) from 1 September 2011 until 30 June 2015. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the following policy objectives of the Union in BiH: continued progress in the Stabilisation and Association Process, with the aim of a stable, viable, peaceful and multiethnic and united BiH, cooperating peacefully with its neighbours and irreversibly on track towards membership of the Union. The Union will also continue to support the implementation of the General Framework Agreement for Peace (GFAP) in BiH.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the policy objectives, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\noffer the Union\u2019s advice and facilitate the political process;\n(b)\nensure consistency and coherence of Union action;\n(c)\nfacilitate progress on political, economic and European priorities;\n(d)\nmonitor and advise the executive and legislative authorities at all levels of government in BiH, and liaise with the authorities and political parties in BiH;\n(e)\nensure the implementation of the Union\u2019s efforts in the whole range of activities in the field of the rule of law and the security sector reform, promote overall Union coordination of, and give local political direction to Union efforts in tackling organised crime and corruption and, in this context, provide the HR and the Commission with assessments and advice as necessary;\n(f)\nprovide the Head of Mission of the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) with local political guidance; the EUSR and the Civilian Operation Commander shall consult each other as required; consult with the Head of the EUPM before taking political action that may have an impact on the police and security situation; provide support for a reinforced and more effective interface between criminal justice and the police in BiH, in close liaison with the EUPM;\n(g)\nwithout prejudice to the military chain of command, offer the EU Force Commander political guidance on military issues with a local political dimension, in particular concerning sensitive operations, relations with local authorities and with the local media. Consult with the EU Force Commander before taking political action that may have an impact on the security situation;\n(h)\ncoordinate and implement the Union\u2019s communication efforts on Union issues towards the public in BiH;\n(i)\npromote the process of integration with the Union through targeted public diplomacy and Union outreach activities designed to ensure a broader understanding and support from the BiH public on matters relating to the Union, including by means of engagement of local civil-society actors;\n(j)\ncontribute to the development and consolidation of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in BiH, in accordance with the Union\u2019s human rights policy and the Union Guidelines on Human Rights;\n(k)\nengage with relevant BiH authorities on their full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY);\n(l)\nin line with the Union integration process, advise, assist, facilitate and monitor political dialogue on the necessary constitutional changes;\n(m)\nmaintain close contacts and consultations with the High Representative in BiH and other relevant international organisations working in the country;\n(n)\nprovide advice to the HR as necessary concerning natural or legal persons on whom restrictive measures could be imposed in view of the situation in BiH;\n(o)\nwithout prejudice to the applicable chains of command, help to ensure that all Union instruments in the field are applied coherently to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (the PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (EEAS).\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 September 2011 to 30 June 2012 shall be EUR 3 740 000.\n2. The financial reference amount for the subsequent periods for the EUSR in BiH shall be decided by the Council.\n3. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the European Union. Nationals of the countries of the Western Balkans region shall be allowed to tender for contracts.\n4. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. A dedicated staff shall be assigned to assist the EUSR to implement his mandate and to contribute to the coherence, visibility and effectiveness of Union action in BiH overall. Within the limits of his mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include members having expertise on the specific policy issues required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of the team.\n2. Member States, institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, institution of the Union or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and his staff\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of his staff shall be agreed with the host party or parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of his team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (3).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegations and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with his mandate and the security situation in his geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under his direct authority, in particular by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as the management of security incidents and including a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of his team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term report and the report on the implementation of the mandate.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the PSC and the HR with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report to Council working parties as necessary. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the PSC or the HR, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSRs active in the region as appropriate. The EUSR shall provide Member States\u2019 missions with regular briefings.\nIn the field, close liaison shall be maintained with Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make their best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with international and regional actors in the field, and in particular maintain close coordination with the High Representative in BiH.\n2. In support of Union crisis management operations, the EUSR, with other Union actors present in the field, shall improve the dissemination and sharing of information by those Union actors with a view to achieving a high degree of common situation awareness and assessment.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. Every year the EUSR shall present the Council, the HR, and the Commission with a progress report at the end of December and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of June.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["54", "46", "49", "61", "23", "75", "88", "59", "37", "93", "52", "74", "15", "38", "43", "42", "30", "68", "84", "79", "67", "87", "58", "71", "98", "26", "50", "82", "53", "20", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1063/2010\nof 18 November 2010\namending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1), and in particular Article 247 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007 (2) the European Union grants trade preferences to developing countries, in the framework of its scheme of generalised tariff preferences (the \u2018GSP\u2019 or \u2018scheme\u2019). In accordance with Article 5(2) of that Regulation, the rules of origin concerning the definition of the concept of originating products, the procedures and the methods of administrative cooperation related thereto, are to be those laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (3).\n(2)\nFollowing a wide-ranging debate initiated by its Green Paper of 18 December 2003 on the future of rules of origin in preferential trade arrangements (4), on 16 March 2005 the Commission adopted a Communication entitled \u2018The rules of origin in preferential trade arrangements: Orientations for the future\u2019 (5) (the \u2018Communication\u2019). That Communication sets out a new approach to rules of origin in all preferential trade arrangements involving the European Union and in particular in development-orientated arrangements such as the GSP.\n(3)\nIn the context of the Doha Development Agenda, the need to ensure a better integration of developing countries into the world economy has been recognised, in particular through improved access to the markets of developed countries.\nFor that purpose, the rules of preferential origin should be simplified and, where appropriate, made less stringent, so that products originating in beneficiary countries can actually benefit from the preferences granted.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the preferences actually benefit those who need them and to protect the own resources of the European Union, the changes to the rules of preferential origin should be accompanied by an adaptation of the procedures for their management.\n(5)\nThe Commission\u2019s impact assessment of this Regulation demonstrates that GSP rules of origin are perceived as too complex and too restrictive. It further shows that the actual use of the preferences granted is low for certain products and, in particular, those products which are of most interest to the least developed countries, and that rules of origin are one reason for this.\n(6)\nThe impact assessment indicated that simplification and development-friendliness could be achieved by a single criterion applicable to all products for determining the origin of goods which are not wholly obtained in a beneficiary country, based on the value-added in the beneficiary country concerned and requiring compliance with a sufficient processing threshold. However, it did not demonstrate that a single method is indispensable to simplification or development-friendliness. Moreover, according to feedback from stakeholders there are a number of sectors for which the value-added criterion is either not well suited or should not be used as the sole criterion, such as agricultural and processed agricultural products, fishery products, chemicals, metals, textiles and clothing and shoes. Consequently other, simple criteria which may be easily understood by operators and easily controlled by administrations should be used in such sectors, either instead of the value-added criterion or as an alternative to it. These other criteria include a maximum permitted content of non-originating materials; change of tariff heading or sub-heading; a specific working and processing operation; and the use of wholly obtained materials. Nevertheless, simplicity requires that the number of different rules should be as few as possible. Therefore, the rules of origin should as far as possible be on a sector-by-sector rather than a product-by-product basis.\n(7)\nThe rules of origin should reflect the features of specific sectors but also allow beneficiary countries a real possibility to access the preferential tariff treatment granted. Where appropriate, the rules should in addition reflect the differing industrial capacities of beneficiary countries. In order to encourage the industrial development of the least developed countries, where the rule is based on compliance with a maximum content of non-originating materials, the threshold applicable to such materials should always be as high as possible while still ensuring that the operations which take place in those countries are genuine and economically justified. A maximum content of non-originating materials of up to 70 % or any rule providing for an equivalent level of relaxation for products originating in the least developed countries should result in increased exports from them.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure that the working or processing which takes place in a beneficiary country is a genuine, economically justified operation which will be of real economic benefit to that country, it is appropriate to lay down a list of insufficient working or processing operations which can never confer origin. This list may largely be the same as that which has existed hitherto. However, certain adaptations should be made. For example, in order to avoid diversion of trade and distortion of the sugar market, and in line with provisions already adopted as part of the rules of origin of other preferential trade arrangements, a new rule should be laid down precluding the mixing of sugar with any material.\n(9)\nA degree of flexibility should be ensured in those sectors where the value-added criterion does not apply, as currently, by allowing the use of a limited proportion of materials which do not satisfy the rules. However, the scope of such use should be clarified as regards products made using wholly obtained materials. Moreover, in order to allow further flexibility in sourcing materials the permitted proportion of those materials should be increased, except for certain sensitive products, from 10 % to 15 % of the ex-works price of the final product. Among those sensitive products are products falling within Chapters 2 and 4 to 24 of the Harmonized System, other than processed fishery products of Chapter 16, for which tolerances expressed in weight appear to be more suitable and products falling within Chapters 50 to 63 of the Harmonized System which should remain subject to specific tolerance rules based on either weight or value according to the case and varying according to the product.\n(10)\nCumulation of origin is an important facilitation which allows countries having identical rules of origin to work together for the purpose of manufacturing products which are eligible for preferential tariff treatment. The existing conditions for regional cumulation of origin, a form of cumulation currently operating within three regional groups of countries, have proven complex and too stringent. They should therefore be simplified and made less stringent by removing the existing value condition. Furthermore, the existing cumulation possibilities between countries in the same regional group should be maintained despite the differentiation introduced by this Regulation in rules of origin in some cases between the least developed countries and other beneficiary countries. Such cumulation should only be permitted provided that when sending materials to another country of the group for the purpose of regional cumulation, each country applies the rule of origin applicable to it in its trade relations with the European Union. However, in order to guard against distortion of trade between countries having different levels of tariff preference, provision should be made to exclude certain sensitive products from regional cumulation.\n(11)\nIn its Communication the Commission indicated that it was ready to examine any request for establishing new, merged or wider groups, insofar as economic complementarities exist, differences in preferential arrangements applicable to the various countries and the related risk of tariff circumvention are taken into consideration and the necessary structures and procedures for administrative co-operation for management and control of origin are put in place. In keeping with this, provision should be made for cumulation of origin between countries in regional cumulation groups I and III which meet the required conditions. Following a request submitted by Mercosur, a new regional cumulation group, to be called group IV, comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay should be created. The application of regional cumulation among the said countries should be conditional upon the fulfilment of the necessary requirements.\n(12)\nBeneficiary countries should be permitted to further benefit from cumulation with countries which are partner countries to free-trade agreements (\u2018FTA\u2019) concluded by the EU. This new type of cumulation, so-called extended cumulation, should be unidirectional, i.e. should only allow use of materials in beneficiary countries and should be granted after thorough examination of an application lodged by the beneficiary country concerned. Due to their sensitiveness, goods falling within Chapters 1 to 24 of the Harmonized System should be excluded from this type of cumulation.\n(13)\nBeneficiary countries have, since 2001, been permitted to cumulate origin with goods falling within Chapters 25 to 97 of the Harmonized System originating in Norway and Switzerland. This cumulation should be allowed to continue and extended to Turkey, provided Norway, Switzerland and Turkey apply the same definition of the concept of origin as the European Union and grant reciprocal treatment to products imported into them which were made using materials originating in the European Union. An agreement to this effect, including an undertaking that they shall provide Member States and each other with the necessary support in matters of administrative cooperation, should be concluded through an exchange of letters or any other suitable form of agreement between the parties.\n(14)\nRegional cumulation should however not cover certain materials where the tariff preference available in the European Union is not the same for all countries involved in the cumulation and the materials concerned would benefit, through cumulation, from a tariff treatment more favourable than the one they would benefit from if directly exported to the European Union. Not tackling such situations by means of exclusion of materials could lead to tariff circumvention or trade distortion by exporting goods to the European Union only from countries to which the most favourable tariff preference applies.\n(15)\nA list of materials excluded from regional cumulation is to be laid down in a separate annex. This annex may be amended not only when new such situations arise, but also in order to cover cases where such situations would arise as a result of the implementation of cumulation between countries of regional cumulation groups I and III.\nCumulation of origin between countries in regional cumulation groups I and III and extended cumulation should be subject to specific conditions, whose fulfilment the Commission should verify before considering to grant cumulation, in accordance with the Committee procedure and on the basis of relevant considerations. On the same grounds, where use of such cumulation has been granted but it is subsequently established that the application of cumulation no longer fulfils the conditions or leads to unwarranted results, as for instance where it results in trade distortion or tariff circumvention, the Commission should remain at any time able to withdraw the grant to using such kinds of cumulation.\n(16)\nIn the current rules of origin some provisions concerning fishery vessels catching fish outside territorial waters are complex to an extent which is disproportionate to their aim and are consequently difficult both to implement and to control. They should therefore be simplified.\nThe current rules require evidence of direct transport to the European Union which is frequently difficult to obtain. Due to that requirement, some goods which are accompanied by a valid proof of origin cannot actually benefit from preference. It is therefore appropriate to introduce a new, simpler and more flexible rule which focuses on the aim that goods presented to customs upon declaration for release for free circulation in the European Union are the same ones that left the beneficiary country of export and have not been altered or transformed in any way en route.\n(17)\nAt present, the authorities of beneficiary countries certify the origin of products and, where the declared origin proves to be incorrect, importers frequently do not have to pay duty because they acted in good faith and an error was made by the competent authorities. As a result, there is a loss to the European Union\u2019s own resources and it is ultimately the European Union taxpayer who bears the burden. Since exporters are in the best position to know the origin of their products, it is appropriate to require that exporters directly provide their customers with statements on origin.\n(18)\nExporters should be registered with the competent authorities of the beneficiary countries in order to facilitate targeted post-export controls. For this purpose, each beneficiary country should establish an electronic record of registered exporters, the contents of which should be communicated to the Commission by that beneficiary country\u2019s competent governmental authority. On this basis the Commission should establish a central data-base of registered exporters for the benefit of administrations and operators in the European Union, through which operators should be able to check before declaring goods for release for free circulation that their supplier is a registered exporter in the beneficiary country concerned. Similarly, European Union operators making exports for the purpose of bilateral cumulation of origin should be registered with the competent authorities in the Member States.\n(19)\nPublication of numbers and non-confidential registration data of exporters should enable other parties to consult those data in order to facilitate transparency and increase information of interested parties. However, taking into account the consequences of publication, it should take place only where the exporter has freely given prior specific and informed written consent thereto.\n(20)\nDirective 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (6) governs the processing of personal data carried out by Member States. The principles set out in Directive 95/46/EC should be clarified or supplemented in this Regulation where necessary.\n(21)\nRegulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (7) governs the processing of personal data activities carried out by the Commission. The principles set out in Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 should be clarified or supplemented in this Regulation where necessary.\n(22)\nPursuant to Article 28 of Directive 95/46/EC, the national supervisory authorities should monitor the lawfulness of the processing of personal data by Member States, while, pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, the European Data Protection Supervisor should monitor the activities of the European Union institutions and bodies in relation to the processing of personal data. The European Data Protection Supervisor and the national supervisory authorities, acting within the scope of their respective competences, should cooperate actively and ensure coordinated supervision of processing carried out in pursuance of this Regulation.\n(23)\nThe introduction of the system of registered exporters needs to take account of the capacity of beneficiary countries to set up and manage the registration system as well as the capacity of the Commission to set up the necessary central data-base. For that purpose, the Commission still needs to establish the system\u2019s user requirements and technical specifications. Once the detailed architecture of the central data-base is established, the precise implications of the system of registered exporters, notably in terms of access to data and data protection, will be assessed and necessary adjustments to the relevant provisions will be implemented. The implementation of the system should therefore be deferred until 1 January 2017 which should allow for the development phase, once user requirements and technical specifications are established and possible legal adjustments implemented as found necessary in the light of the system\u2019s users requirements and technical specifications and their implications in terms of data protection. An additional three year period should moreover be provided for countries which cannot meet this deadline.\nUntil 2017 and beyond this date for beneficiary countries not then in a position to apply the new system, transitional rules concerning the procedures and methods of administrative cooperation should be laid down, based on the provisions which have applied hitherto. In particular, those transitional provisions should provide for the issue of proof of origin by the competent authorities of the country concerned. Further, the existing rules should be streamlined by aligning their structure with the rules to be applied once the system of registered exporter is operational in order to make them clearer, in particular by clearly distinguishing general principles, procedures at export in the beneficiary country, procedures at release for free circulation in the European Union and methods of administrative cooperation. At the same time, the certificate of origin Form A, should be updated, in particular by replacing the notes related to the form by the 2007 version of those notes, since that version takes account of the EU\u2019s last enlargement and therefore contains an updated list of countries which accept Form A for the purposes of GSP.\n(24)\nAccess to the scheme should be conditional upon beneficiary countries putting into place and maintaining administrative structures permitting the efficient management of the scheme, and undertaking to provide all necessary support in the event of a request from the Commission for the monitoring of the proper management of the scheme. There needs in particular to be a system of administrative cooperation between the authorities in the European Union and in beneficiary countries which provides the framework for the verification of origin. At the same time, the responsibility of exporters in declaring origin as well as the role of administrative authorities in managing the system should be set out clearly. The contents of statements on origin should be specified, as well as the cases in which the customs authorities in the European Union may refuse to accept a statement or send it for verification.\n(25)\nThe definitions and list of sufficient working or processing operations in the current provisions are common to GSP and preferential tariff measures adopted unilaterally by the European Union for certain countries or territories. Since the rules of origin of these latter arrangements will only be reformed at a later stage, the existing provisions should continue to apply to them. However, in the interests of coherence with GSP and other unilateral preferential trade arrangements, it is appropriate to align the definition of wholly obtained products and the list of insufficient working or processing operations laid down in those other unilateral arrangements with those of GSP rules of origin.\n(26)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2454/93 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(27)\nBy virtue of Commission Regulations (EC) No 1613/2000 (8), (EC) No 1614/2000 (9) and (EC) No 1615/2000 (10), the Community has granted derogations from GSP rules of origin for certain textile products originating in Laos, Cambodia and Nepal, which expire on 31 December 2010. The simpler and more development-friendly rules of origin introduced by this Regulation will render continuation of those derogations superfluous.\n(28)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EEC) No 2454/93 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Part I, Title IV, Chapter 2, Articles 66 to 97 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Section 1\nGeneralised system of preferences\nSub-section 1\nGeneral provisions\nArticle 66\nThis section lays down the rules concerning the definition of the concept of \u201coriginating products\u201d, the procedures and the methods of administrative cooperation related thereto, for the purposes of the application of the scheme of generalised tariff preferences (GSP) granted by the European Union by Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (11) to developing countries (\u201cthe scheme\u201d).\nArticle 67\n1. For the purposes of this Section and Section 1A of this Chapter the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u201cbeneficiary country\u201d means a country or territory listed in Regulation (EC) No 732/2008; the term \u201cbeneficiary country\u201d shall also cover and cannot exceed the limits of the territorial sea of that country or territory within the meaning of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay Convention, 10 December 1982);\n(b)\n\u201cmanufacture\u201d means any kind of working or processing including assembly;\n(c)\n\u201cmaterial\u201d means any ingredient, raw material, component or part, etc., used in the manufacture of the product;\n(d)\n\u201cproduct\u201d means the product being manufactured, even if it is intended for later use in another manufacturing operation;\n(e)\n\u201cgoods\u201d means both materials and products;\n(f)\n\u201cbilateral cumulation\u201d means a system that allows products which according to this Regulation originate in the European Union, to be considered as originating materials in a beneficiary country when they are further processed or incorporated into a product in that beneficiary country;\n(g)\n\u201ccumulation with Norway, Switzerland or Turkey\u201d means a system that allows products which originate in Norway, Switzerland or Turkey to be considered as originating materials in a beneficiary country when they are further processed or incorporated into a product in that beneficiary country and imported into the European Union;\n(h)\n\u201cregional cumulation\u201d means a system whereby products which according to this Regulation originate in a country which is a member of a regional group are considered as materials originating in another country of the same regional group (or a country of another regional group where cumulation between groups is possible) when further processed or incorporated in a product manufactured there;\n(i)\n\u201cextended cumulation\u201d means a system, conditional upon the granting by the Commission, on a request lodged by a beneficiary country and whereby certain materials, originating in a country with which the European Union has a free-trade agreement in accordance with Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in force, are considered to be materials originating in the beneficiary country concerned when further processed or incorporated in a product manufactured in that country;\n(j)\n\u201cfungible materials\u201d means materials that are of the same kind and commercial quality, with the same technical and physical characteristics, and which cannot be distinguished from one another once they are incorporated into the finished product;\n(k)\n\u201cregional group\u201d means a group of countries between which regional cumulation applies;\n(l)\n\u201ccustoms value\u201d means the value as determined in accordance with the 1994 Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (WTO Agreement on Customs Valuation);\n(m)\n\u201cvalue of materials\u201d in the list in Annex 13a means the customs value at the time of importation of the non-originating materials used, or, if this is not known and cannot be ascertained, the first ascertainable price paid for the materials in the beneficiary country. Where the value of the originating materials used needs to be established, this point shall be applied mutatis mutandis;\n(n)\n\u201cex-works price\u201d means the price paid for the product ex-works to the manufacturer in whose undertaking the last working or processing is carried out, provided that the price includes the value of all the materials used and all other costs related to its production, minus any internal taxes which are, or may be, repaid when the product obtained is exported.\nWhere the actual price paid does not reflect all costs related to the manufacturing of the product which are actually incurred in the beneficiary country, the ex-works price means the sum of all those costs, minus any internal taxes which are, or may be, repaid when the product obtained is exported;\n(o)\n\u201cmaximum content of non-originating materials\u201d means the maximum content of non-originating materials which is permitted in order to consider a manufacture as working or processing sufficient to confer originating status on the product. It may be expressed as a percentage of the ex-works price of the product or as a percentage of the net weight of these materials used falling under a specified group of chapters, chapter, heading or sub-heading;\n(p)\n\u201cnet weight\u201d means the weight of the goods themselves without packing materials and packing containers of any kind;\n(q)\n\u201cchapters\u201d, \u201cheadings\u201d and \u201csub-headings\u201d mean the chapters, the headings and sub-headings (four- or six-digit codes) used in the nomenclature which makes up the Harmonized System with the changes pursuant to the Recommendation of 26 June 2004 of the Customs Cooperation Council;\n(r)\n\u201cclassified\u201d refers to the classification of a product or material under a particular heading or sub-heading of the Harmonized System;\n(s)\n\u201cconsignment\u201d means products which are either:\n-\nsent simultaneously from one exporter to one consignee; or\n-\ncovered by a single transport document covering their shipment from the exporter to the consignee or, in the absence of such document, by a single invoice;\n(t)\n\u201cexporter\u201d means a person exporting the goods to the European Union or to a beneficiary country who is able to prove the origin of the goods, whether or not he is the manufacturer and whether or not he himself carries out the export formalities;\n(u)\n\u201cregistered exporter\u201d means an exporter who is registered with the competent authorities of the beneficiary country concerned for the purpose of making out statements on origin for the purpose of exporting under the scheme;\n(v)\n\u201cstatement on origin\u201d means a statement made out by the exporter indicating that the products covered by it comply with the rules of origin of the scheme, for the purpose of allowing either the person declaring the goods for release for free circulation in the European Union to claim the benefit of preferential tariff treatment or the economic operator in a beneficiary country importing materials for further processing in the context of cumulation rules to prove the originating status of such goods.\n2. For the purpose of point (n) of paragraph 1, where the last working or processing has been subcontracted to a manufacturer, the term \u201cmanufacturer\u201d referred to in the first sub-paragraph of point (n) of paragraph 1may refer to the enterprise that has employed the subcontractor.\nArticle 68\n1. In order to ensure the proper application of the scheme beneficiary countries shall undertake:\n(a)\nto put in place and to maintain the necessary administrative structures and systems required for the implementation and management in that country of the rules and procedures laid down in this section, including where appropriate the arrangements necessary for the application of cumulation;\n(b)\nthat their competent authorities will cooperate with the Commission and the customs authorities of the Member States.\n2. The cooperation referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall consist of:\n(a)\nproviding all necessary support in the event of a request by the Commission for the monitoring by it of the proper management of the scheme in the country concerned, including verification visits on the spot by the Commission or the customs authorities of the Member States;\n(b)\nwithout prejudice to Articles 97g and 97h, verifying the originating status of products and the compliance with the other conditions laid down in this section, including visits on the spot, where requested by the Commission or the customs authorities of the Member States in the context of origin investigations.\n3. The beneficiary countries shall submit to the Commission the undertaking referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 69\n1. Beneficiary countries shall notify the Commission of the names and addresses of the authorities situated in their territory which are:\n(a)\npart of the governmental authorities of the country concerned, or act under the authority of the government, and empowered to register exporters and to withdraw them from the record of registered exporters;\n(b)\npart of the governmental authorities of the country concerned and empowered to support the Commission and the customs authorities of the Member States through the administrative co-operation as provided for in this section.\n2. Beneficiary countries shall inform the Commission immediately of any changes to the information notified under paragraph 1.\n3. The Commission shall establish an electronic data-base of registered exporters on the basis of the information supplied by the governmental authorities of beneficiary countries and the customs authorities of Member States.\nOnly the Commission shall have an access to the data-base and the data contained therein. The authorities referred to in the first sub-paragraph shall ensure that data communicated to the Commission are kept up to date, and are complete and accurate.\nThe data processed in the data-base referred to in the first sub-paragraph shall be disclosed to the public via the internet, with the exception of the confidential information contained in boxes 2 and 3 of the application to become a registered exporter referred to in Article 92.\nPersonal data processed in the data-base referred to in the first sub-paragraph and by Member States pursuant to this Section shall be transferred or made available to third countries or international organisations only in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\n4. This Regulation shall in no way affect the level of protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data under the provisions of European Union and national law and, in particular, does not alter either the obligations of Member States relating to their processing of personal data under Directive 95/46/EC or the obligations of the European Union institutions and bodies relating to their processing of personal data under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 when fulfilling their responsibilities.\nIdentification and registration data of exporters, constituted by the set of data listed in points 1, 3 (relating to description of activities), 4 and 5 of Annex 13c shall be published by the Commission on the internet only if exporters have freely given prior specific and informed written consent.\nExporters shall be provided with the information laid down in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\nThe rights of persons with regard to their registration data listed in Annex 13c and processed in national systems shall be exercised in accordance with the law of the Member State which stored their personal data implementing Directive 95/46/EC.\nThe rights of persons with regard to the processing of personal data in the central data-base referred to in paragraph 3 shall be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\nThe national supervisory data protection authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor, each acting within the scope of their respective competences, shall cooperate actively and ensure coordinated supervision of the database referred to in paragraph 3.\nArticle 70\n1. The Commission will publish in the Official Journal of the European Union (C series) the list of beneficiary countries and the date on which they are considered to meet the conditions referred to in Articles 68 and 69. The Commission will update this list when a new beneficiary country fulfils the same conditions.\n2. Products originating within the meaning of this section in a beneficiary country shall benefit, on release for free circulation in the European Union, from the scheme only on condition that they were exported on or after the date specified in the list referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. The beneficiary country shall be considered to comply with Articles 68 and 69 on the date on which it has submitted the undertaking referred to in Article 68(1) and made the notification referred to in Article 69(1).\nArticle 71\nFailure by the competent authorities of a beneficiary country to comply with Articles 68(1), 69(2), 91, 92, 93 or 97g or systematic failure to comply with Article 97h(2) may, in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008, entail temporary withdrawal of preferences under the scheme for that country.\nSub-section 2\nDefinition of the concept of originating products\nArticle 72\nThe following products shall be considered as originating in a beneficiary country:\n(a)\nproducts wholly obtained in that country within the meaning of Article 75;\n(b)\nproducts obtained in that country incorporating materials which have not been wholly obtained there, provided that such materials have undergone sufficient working or processing within the meaning of Article 76.\nArticle 73\n1. The conditions set out in this sub-section for acquiring originating status shall be fulfilled in the beneficiary country concerned.\n2. If originating products exported from the beneficiary country to another country are returned, they shall be considered as non-originating unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the competent authorities that:\n(a)\nthe products returned are the same as those which were exported, and\n(b)\nthey have not undergone any operations beyond that necessary to preserve them in good condition while in that country or while being exported.\nArticle 74\n1. The products declared for release for free circulation in the European Union shall be the same products as exported from the beneficiary country in which they are considered to originate. They shall not have been altered, transformed in any way or subjected to operations other than operations to preserve them in good condition, prior to being declared for release for free circulation. Storage of products or consignments and splitting of consignments may take place where carried out under the responsibility of the exporter or of a subsequent holder of the goods and the products remain under customs supervision in the country(ies) of transit.\n2. Compliance with paragraph 1 shall be considered as satisfied unless the customs authorities have reason to believe the contrary; in such cases, the customs authorities may request the declarant to provide evidence of compliance, which may be given by any means, including contractual transport documents such as bills of lading or factual or concrete evidence based on marking or numbering of packages or any evidence related to the goods themselves.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis when cumulation under Articles 84, 85 or 86 applies.\nArticle 75\n1. The following shall be considered as wholly obtained in a beneficiary country:\n(a)\nmineral products extracted from its soil or from its seabed;\n(b)\nplants and vegetable products grown or harvested there;\n(c)\nlive animals born and raised there;\n(d)\nproducts from live animals raised there;\n(e)\nproducts from slaughtered animals born and raised there;\n(f)\nproducts obtained by hunting or fishing conducted there;\n(g)\nproducts of aquaculture where the fish, crustaceans and molluscs are born and raised there;\n(h)\nproducts of sea fishing and other products taken from the sea outside any territorial sea by its vessels;\n(i)\nproducts made on board its factory ships exclusively from the products referred to in point (h);\n(j)\nused articles collected there fit only for the recovery of raw materials;\n(k)\nwaste and scrap resulting from manufacturing operations conducted there;\n(l)\nproducts extracted from the seabed or below the seabed which is situated outside any territorial sea but where it has exclusive exploitation rights;\n(m)\ngoods produced there exclusively from products specified in points (a) to (l).\n2. The terms \u201cits vessels\u201d and \u201cits factory ships\u201d in paragraph 1(h) and (i) shall apply only to vessels and factory ships which meet each of the following requirements:\n(a)\nthey are registered in the beneficiary country or in a Member State,\n(b)\nthey sail under the flag of the beneficiary country or of a Member State,\n(c)\nthey meet one of the following conditions:\n(i)\nthey are at least 50 % owned by nationals of the beneficiary country or of Member States, or\n(ii)\nthey are owned by companies:\n-\nwhich have their head office and their main place of business in the beneficiary country or in Member States, and\n-\nwhich are at least 50 % owned by the beneficiary country or Member States or public entities or nationals of the beneficiary country or Member States.\n3. The conditions of paragraph 2 may each be fulfilled in Member States or in different beneficiary countries insofar as all the beneficiary countries benefit from regional cumulation in accordance with Article 86(1) and (5). In this case, the products shall be deemed to have the origin of the beneficiary country under which flag the vessel or factory ship sails in accordance with point (b) of paragraph 2.\nThe first sub-paragraph shall apply only provided that the provisions of Article 86(2)(b) and (c) have been fulfilled.\nArticle 76\n1. Without prejudice to Articles 78 and 79, products which are not wholly obtained in the beneficiary country concerned within the meaning of Article 75 shall be considered to originate there, provided that the conditions laid down in the list in Annex 13a for the goods concerned are fulfilled.\n2. If a product which has acquired originating status in a country in accordance with paragraph 1 is further processed in that country and used as a material in the manufacture of another product, no account shall be taken of the non-originating materials which may have been used in its manufacture.\nArticle 77\n1. The determination of whether the requirements of Article 76(1) are met, shall be carried out for each product.\nHowever, where the relevant rule is based on compliance with a maximum content of non-originating materials, in order to take into account fluctuations in costs and currency rates, the value of the non-originating materials may be calculated on an average basis as set out in paragraph 2.\n2. In the case referred to in the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 1, an average ex-works price of the product and average value of non-originating materials used shall be calculated respectively on the basis of the sum of the ex-works prices charged for all sales of the products carried out during the preceding fiscal year and the sum of the value of all the non-originating materials used in the manufacture of the products over the preceding fiscal year as defined in the country of export, or, where figures for a complete fiscal year are not available, a shorter period which should not be less than three months.\n3. Exporters having opted for calculations on an average basis shall consistently apply such a method during the year following the fiscal year of reference, or, where appropriate, during the year following the shorter period used as a reference. They may cease to apply such a method where during a given fiscal year, or a shorter representative period of no less than three months, they record that the fluctuations in costs or currency rates which justified the use of such a method have ceased.\n4. The averages referred to in paragraph 2 shall be used as the ex-works price and the value of non-originating materials respectively, for the purpose of establishing compliance with the maximum content of non-originating materials.\nArticle 78\n1. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, the following operations shall be considered as insufficient working or processing to confer the status of originating products, whether or not the requirements of Article 76 are satisfied:\n(a)\npreserving operations to ensure that the products remain in good condition during transport and storage;\n(b)\nbreaking-up and assembly of packages;\n(c)\nwashing, cleaning; removal of dust, oxide, oil, paint or other coverings;\n(d)\nironing or pressing of textiles and textile articles;\n(e)\nsimple painting and polishing operations;\n(f)\nhusking and partial or total milling of rice; polishing and glazing of cereals and rice;\n(g)\noperations to colour or flavour sugar or form sugar lumps; partial or total milling of crystal sugar;\n(h)\npeeling, stoning and shelling, of fruits, nuts and vegetables;\n(i)\nsharpening, simple grinding or simple cutting;\n(j)\nsifting, screening, sorting, classifying, grading, matching (including the making-up of sets of articles);\n(k)\nsimple placing in bottles, cans, flasks, bags, cases, boxes, fixing on cards or boards and all other simple packaging operations;\n(l)\naffixing or printing marks, labels, logos and other like distinguishing signs on products or their packaging;\n(m)\nsimple mixing of products, whether or not of different kinds; mixing of sugar with any material;\n(n)\nsimple addition of water or dilution or dehydratation or denaturation of products;\n(o)\nsimple assembly of parts of articles to constitute a complete article or disassembly of products into parts;\n(p)\na combination of two or more of the operations specified in points (a) to (o);\n(q)\nslaughter of animals.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, operations shall be considered simple when neither special skills nor machines, apparatus or tools especially produced or installed for those operations are required for their performance.\n3. All the operations carried out in a beneficiary country on a given product shall be taken into account when determining whether the working or processing undergone by that product is to be regarded as insufficient within the meaning of paragraph 1.\nArticle 79\n1. By way of derogation from Article 76 and subject to paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article, non-originating materials which, according to the conditions set out in the list, in Annex 13a are not to be used in the manufacture of a given product may nevertheless be used, provided that their total value or net weight assessed for the product does not exceed:\n(a)\n15 % of the weight of the product for products falling within Chapters 2 and 4 to 24 of the Harmonized System, other than processed fishery products of Chapter 16;\n(b)\n15 % of the ex-works price of the product for other products, except for products falling within Chapters 50 to 63 of the Harmonized System, for which the tolerances mentioned in Notes 6 and 7 of Part I of Annex 13a, shall apply.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not allow to exceed any of the percentages for the maximum content of non-originating materials as specified in the rules laid down in the list in Annex 13a.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to products wholly obtained in a beneficiary country within the meaning of Article 75. However, without prejudice to Article 78 and 80(2), the tolerance provided for in those paragraphs shall nevertheless apply to the sum of all the materials which are used in the manufacture of a product and for which the rule laid down in the list in Annex 13a for that product requires that such materials be wholly obtained.\nArticle 80\n1. The unit of qualification for the application of the provisions of this section shall be the particular product which is considered as the basic unit when determining classification using the Harmonized System.\n2. When a consignment consists of a number of identical products classified under the same heading of the Harmonized System, each individual item shall be taken into account when applying the provisions of this section.\n3. Where, under General Interpretative rule 5 of the Harmonized System, packaging is included with the product for classification purposes, it shall be included for the purposes of determining origin.\nArticle 81\nAccessories, spare parts and tools dispatched with a piece of equipment, machine, apparatus or vehicle which are part of the normal equipment and included in the ex-works price thereof, shall be regarded as one with the piece of equipment, machine, apparatus or vehicle in question.\nArticle 82\nSets, as defined in General Interpretative rule 3 of the Harmonized System, shall be regarded as originating when all the component products are originating products.\nWhen a set is composed of originating and non- originating products, the set as a whole shall however be regarded as originating, provided that the value of the non-originating products does not exceed 15 % of the ex-works price of the set.\nArticle 83\nIn order to determine whether a product is an originating product, no account shall be taken of the origin of the following which might be used in its manufacture:\n(a)\nenergy and fuel;\n(b)\nplant and equipment;\n(c)\nmachines and tools;\n(d)\nany other goods which do not enter, and which are not intended to enter, into the final composition of the product.\nSub-section 3\nCumulation\nArticle 84\nBilateral cumulation shall allow products originating in the European Union to be considered as materials originating in a beneficiary country when incorporated into a product manufactured in that country, provided that the working or processing carried out there goes beyond the operations described in Article 78(1).\nArticle 85\n1. In so far as Norway, Switzerland and Turkey grant generalised tariff preferences to products originating in the beneficiary countries and apply a definition of the concept of origin corresponding to that set out in this section, cumulation with Norway, Switzerland or Turkey shall allow products originating in Norway, Switzerland or Turkey to be considered as materials originating in a beneficiary country provided that the working or processing carried out there goes beyond the operations described in Article 78(1).\n2. Paragraph 1 shall apply on condition that Turkey, Norway and Switzerland grant, by reciprocity, the same treatment to products originating in beneficiary countries which incorporate materials originating in the European Union.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to products falling within Chapters 1 to 24 of the Harmonized System.\n4. The Commission will publish in the Official Journal of the European Union (C series) the date on which the conditions laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 are fulfilled.\nArticle 86\n1. Regional cumulation shall apply to the following four separate regional groups:\n(a)\nGroup I: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam;\n(b)\nGroup II: Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Venezuela;\n(c)\nGroup III: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka;\n(d)\nGroup IV: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.\n2. Regional cumulation between countries within the same group shall apply only where the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nfor the purpose of regional cumulation between the countries of a regional group the rules of origin laid down in this Section apply.\nWhere the qualifying operation laid down in Part II of Annex 13a is not the same for all countries involved in cumulation, the origin of products exported from one country to another country of the regional group for the purpose of regional cumulation shall be determined on the basis of the rule which would apply if the products were being exported to the European Union;\n(b)\nthe countries of the regional group have undertaken:\n(i)\nto comply or ensure compliance with this Section, and\n(ii)\nto provide the administrative cooperation necessary to ensure the correct implementation of this Section both with regard to the European Union and between themselves;\n(c)\nthe undertakings referred to in point (b) have been notified to the Commission by the Secretariat of the regional group concerned or another competent joint body representing all the members of the group in question.\nWhere countries in a regional group have already before 1 January 2011 complied with points (b) and (c) of the first sub-paragraph, a new undertaking shall not be required.\n3. The materials listed in Annex 13b shall be excluded from the regional cumulation provided for in paragraph 2 in the case where:\n(a)\nthe tariff preference applicable in the European Union is not the same for all the countries involved in the cumulation; and\n(b)\nthe materials concerned would benefit, through cumulation, from a tariff treatment more favourable than the one they would benefit from if directly exported to the European Union.\n4. Regional cumulation between countries in the same regional group shall apply only under the condition that the working or processing carried out in the beneficiary country where the materials are further processed or incorporated goes beyond the operations described in Article 78(1) and, in the case of textile products, also beyond the operations set out in Annex 16.\nWhere the condition laid down in the first sub-paragraph is not fulfilled, the products shall have as country of origin the country of the regional group which accounts for the highest share of the customs value of the materials used originating in other countries of the regional group.\nWhere the country of origin is determined pursuant to the second sub-paragraph, that country shall be stated as country of origin on the proof of origin made out by the exporter of the product to the European Union, or, until the application of the registered exporter system, issued by the authorities of the beneficiary country of exportation.\n5. At the request of the authorities of a Group I or Group III beneficiary country, regional cumulation between countries of those groups may be granted by the Commission, provided that the Commission is satisfied that each of the following conditions is met:\n(a)\nthe conditions laid down in paragraph 2(a) are met, and\n(b)\nthe countries to be involved in such regional cumulation have undertaken and jointly notified to the Commission their undertaking:\n(i)\nto comply or ensure compliance with this Section, and\n(ii)\nto provide the administrative cooperation necessary to ensure the correct implementation of this Section both with regard to the European Union and between themselves.\nThe request referred to in the first sub-paragraph shall be supported with evidence that the conditions laid down in that sub-paragraph are met. It shall be addressed to the Commission. The Commission will decide on the request taking into account all the elements related to the cumulation deemed relevant, including the materials to be cumulated.\n6. Where products manufactured in a beneficiary country of Group I or Group III using materials originating in a country belonging to the other group are to be exported to the European Union, the origin of those products shall be determined as follows:\n(a)\nmaterials originating in a country of one regional group shall be considered as materials originating in a country of the other regional group when incorporated in a product obtained there, provided that the working or processing carried out in the latter beneficiary country goes beyond the operations described in Article 78(1) and, in the case of textile products, also beyond the operations set out in Annex 16.\n(b)\nwhere the condition laid down in point (a) is not fulfilled, the products shall have as country of origin the country participating in the cumulation which accounts for the highest share of the customs value of the materials used originating in other countries participating in the cumulation.\nWhere the country of origin is determined pursuant to point (b) of the first sub-paragraph, that country shall be stated as country of origin on the proof of origin made out by the exporter of the product to the European Union or, until the application of the registered exporter system, issued by the authorities of the beneficiary country of exportation.\n7. At the request of any beneficiary country\u2019s authorities, extended cumulation between a beneficiary country and a country with which the European Union has a free-trade agreement in accordance with Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in force, may be granted by the Commission, provided that each of the following conditions is met:\n(a)\nthe countries involved in the cumulation have undertaken to comply or ensure compliance with this Section and to provide the administrative co-operation necessary to ensure the correct implementation of this Section both with regard to the European Union and also between themselves.\n(b)\nthe undertaking referred to in point (a) has been notified to the Commission by the beneficiary country concerned.\nThe request referred to in the first sub-paragraph shall contain a list of the materials concerned by the cumulation and shall be supported with evidence that the conditions laid down in points (a) and (b) of the first sub-paragraph are met. It shall be addressed to the Commission. Where the materials concerned change, another request shall be submitted.\nMaterials falling within Chapters 1 to 24 of the Harmonized System shall be excluded from extended cumulation.\n8. In cases of extended cumulation referred to in paragraph 7, the origin of the materials used and the documentary proof of origin applicable shall be determined in accordance with the rules laid down in the relevant free-trade agreement. The origin of the products to be exported to the European Union shall be determined in accordance with the rules of origin laid down in this Section.\nIn order for the obtained product to acquire originating status, it shall not be necessary that the materials originating in a country with which the European Union has a free-trade agreement and used in a beneficiary country in the manufacture of the product to be exported to the European Union have undergone sufficient working or processing, provided that the working or processing carried out in the beneficiary country concerned goes beyond the operations described in Article 78(1).\n9. The Commission will publish in the Official Journal of the European Union (C series) the following:\n(a)\nthe date on which the cumulation between countries of Group I and Group III provided for in paragraph 5 takes effect, the countries involved in that cumulation and, where appropriate, the list of materials in relation to which the cumulation applies.\n(b)\nthe date on which the extended cumulation takes effect, the countries involved in that cumulation and the list of materials in relation to which the cumulation applies.\nArticle 87\nWhere bilateral cumulation or cumulation with Norway, Switzerland or Turkey is used in combination with regional cumulation, the product obtained shall acquire the origin of one of the countries of the regional group concerned, determined in accordance with the first and the second sub-paragraphs of Article 86 (4).\nArticle 88\n1. Sub-sections 1 and 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to:\n(a)\nexports from the European Union to a beneficiary country for the purposes of bilateral cumulation;\n(b)\nexports from one beneficiary country to another for the purposes of regional cumulation as provided for in Article 86(1) and (5), without prejudice to the second sub-paragraph of Article 86(2) (a).\n2. If originating and non-originating fungible materials are used in the working or processing of a product, the customs authorities of the Member States may, at the written request of economic operators, authorise the management of materials in the European Union using the accounting segregation method for the purpose of subsequent export to a beneficiary country within the framework of bilateral cumulation, without keeping the materials on separate stocks.\n3. The customs authorities of the Member States may make the granting of authorisation referred to in paragraph 2 subject to any conditions they deem appropriate.\nThe authorisation shall be granted only if by use of the method referred to in paragraph 2 it can be ensured that, at any time, the number of products obtained which could be considered as \u201coriginating in the European Union\u201d is the same as the number that would have been obtained by using a method of physical segregation of the stocks.\nIf authorised, the method shall be applied and the application thereof shall be recorded on the basis of the general accounting principles applicable in the European Union.\n4. The beneficiary of the method referred to in paragraph 2 shall make out or, until the application of the registered exporter system, apply for proofs of origin for the quantity of products which may be considered as originating in the European Union. At the request of the customs authorities of the Member States, the beneficiary shall provide a statement of how the quantities have been managed.\n5. The customs authorities of the Member States shall monitor the use made of the authorisation referred to in paragraph 2.\nThey may withdraw the authorisation in the following cases:\n(a)\nthe beneficiary makes improper use of the authorisation in any manner whatsoever, or\n(b)\nthe beneficiary fails to fulfil any of the other conditions laid down in this section or section 1A.\nSub-section 4\nDerogations\nArticle 89\n1. Upon Commission\u2019s initiative or in response to a request from a beneficiary country, a beneficiary country may be granted a temporary derogation from the provisions of this section where:\n(a)\ninternal or external factors temporarily deprive it of the ability to comply with the rules for the acquisition of origin provided for in Article 72 where it could do so previously; or\n(b)\nit requires time to prepare itself to comply with the rules for the acquisition of origin provided for in Article 72.\n2. The temporary derogation shall be limited to the duration of the effects of the internal or external factors giving rise to it or the length of time needed for the beneficiary country to achieve compliance with the rules.\n3. A request for a derogation shall be made in writing to the Commission. It shall state the reasons, as indicated in paragraph 1, why a derogation is required and shall contain appropriate supporting documents.\n4. When a derogation is granted, the beneficiary country concerned shall comply with any requirements laid down as to information to be provided to the Commission concerning the use of the derogation and the management of the quantities for which the derogation is granted.\nSub-section 5\nProcedures at export in the beneficiary country\nArticle 90\nThe scheme shall apply in the following cases:\n(a)\nin cases of goods satisfying the requirements of this section exported by a registered exporter within the meaning of Article 92;\n(b)\nin cases of any consignment of one or more packages containing originating products exported by any exporter, where the total value of the originating products consigned does not exceed EUR 6 000.\nArticle 91\n1. The competent authorities of the beneficiary country shall establish and keep up to date at all times an electronic record of registered exporters located in that country. The record shall be immediately updated where an exporter is withdrawn from the register in accordance with Article 93(2).\n2. The record shall contain the following information:\n(a)\nname and full address of the place where Registered Exporter is established/resides, including the identifier of the country or territory (ISO alpha 2 country code);\n(b)\nnumber of Registered Exporter;\n(c)\nproducts intended to be exported under the scheme (indicative list of Harmonized System chapters or headings as considered appropriate by the applicant);\n(d)\ndates as from and until when the exporter is/was registered;\n(e)\nthe reason for withdrawal (registered exporter\u2019s request /withdrawal by competent authorities). This data shall only be available to competent authorities.\n3. The competent authorities of the beneficiary countries shall notify the Commission of the national numbering system used for designating registered exporters. The number shall begin with ISO alpha 2 country code.\nArticle 92\nTo be registered, exporters shall lodge an application with the competent authorities of the beneficiary country referred to in Article 69(1)(a), using the form a model of which is set out in Annex 13c. By the completion of the form exporters give consent to the storage of the information provided in the database of the Commission and to the publication of non-confidential data on the internet.\nThe application shall be accepted by the competent authorities only if it is complete.\nArticle 93\n1. Registered exporters who no longer meet the conditions for exporting any goods under the scheme, or no longer intend to export such goods, shall inform the competent authorities in the beneficiary country who shall immediately remove them from the record of registered exporters kept in that beneficiary country.\n2. Without prejudice to the system of penalties and sanctions applicable in the beneficiary country, where registered exporters intentionally or negligently draw up, or cause to be drawn up, a statement on origin or any supporting document which contains incorrect information which leads to irregularly or fraudulently obtaining the benefit of preferential tariff treatment, the beneficiary country\u2019s competent authorities shall withdraw the exporter from the record of registered exporters kept by the beneficiary country concerned.\n3. Without prejudice to the possible impact of irregularities found on pending verifications, withdrawal from the record of registered exporters shall take effect for the future, i.e. in respect of statements made out after the date of withdrawal.\n4. Exporters who have been removed from the record of registered exporters by the competent authorities in accordance with paragraph 2 may only be re-introduced into the record of registered exporters once they have proved to the competent authorities in the beneficiary country that they remedied the situation which led to their withdrawal.\nArticle 94\n1. Exporters, registered or not, shall comply with the following obligations:\n(a)\nthey shall maintain appropriate commercial accounting records for production and supply of goods qualifying for preferential treatment;\n(b)\nthey shall keep available all evidence relating to the material used in the manufacture;\n(c)\nthey shall keep all customs documentation relating to the material used in the manufacture;\n(d)\nthey shall keep for at least three years from the end of the year in which the statement on origin was made out, or more if required by national law, records of:\n(i)\nthe statements on origin they made out; and\n(ii)\ntheir originating and non-originating materials, production and stock accounts.\nThe records referred to in point (d) of the first sub-paragraph may be electronic but shall allow the materials used in the manufacture of the exported products to be traced and their originating status to be confirmed.\n2. The obligations provided for in paragraph 1 shall also apply to suppliers who provide exporters with suppliers\u2019 declarations certifying the originating status of the goods they supply.\nArticle 95\n1. A statement on origin shall be made out by the exporter when the products to which it relates are exported, if the goods concerned can be considered as originating in the beneficiary country concerned or another beneficiary country in accordance with the second sub-paragraph of Article 86(4) or with point (b) of the first sub-paragraph of Article 86(6).\n2. By derogation from paragraph 1, a statement on origin may exceptionally be made out after exportation (retrospective statement) on condition that it is presented in the Member State of declaration for release for free circulation no longer than two years after the export.\n3. The statement on origin shall be provided by the exporter to its customer in the European Union and shall contain the particulars specified in Annex 13d. A statement on origin shall be made out in either English or French.\nIt may be made out on any commercial document allowing to identify the exporter concerned and the goods involved.\n4. When cumulation under Articles 84, 86(1), or 86(5) and (6) applies, the exporter of a product in the manufacture of which materials originating in a party with which cumulation is permitted are used shall rely on the statement on origin provided by its supplier. In these cases, the statement on origin made out by the exporter shall, as the case may be, contain the indication \u201cEU cumulation\u201d, \u201cregional cumulation\u201d or \u201cCumul UE\u201d, \u201ccumul regional\u201d.\n5. When cumulation under Article 85 applies, the exporter of a product in the manufacture of which materials originating in a party with which cumulation is permitted are used shall rely on the proof of origin provided by its supplier and issued in accordance with the provisions of the GSP rules of origin of Norway, Switzerland or Turkey, as the case may be. In this case, the statement on origin made out by the exporter shall contain the indication \u201cNorway cumulation\u201d, \u201cSwitzerland cumulation\u201d, \u201cTurkey cumulation\u201d or \u201cCumul Norv\u00e8ge\u201d, \u201cCumul Suisse\u201d, \u201cCumul Turquie\u201d.\n6. When extended cumulation under Article 86(7) and (8) applies, the exporter of a product in the manufacture of which materials originating in a party with which extended cumulation is permitted are used shall rely on the proof of origin provided by its supplier and issued in accordance with the provisions of the relevant free-trade agreement between the European Union and the party concerned.\nIn this case, the statement on origin made out by the exporter shall contain the indication \u201cextended cumulation with country x\u201d or \u201ccumul \u00e9tendu avec le pays x\u201d.\nArticle 96\n1. A statement on origin shall be made out for each consignment.\n2. A statement on origin shall be valid for twelve months from the date of its making out by the exporter.\n3. A single statement on origin may cover several consignments if the goods meet the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey are dismantled or non assembled products within the meaning of General Interpretative rule 2(a) of the Harmonized System,\n(b)\nthey are falling within Section XVI or XVII or heading 7308 or 9406 of the Harmonized System, and\n(c)\nthey are intended to be imported by instalments.\nSub-section 6\nProcedures at release for free circulation in the European Union\nArticle 97\n1. The customs declaration for release for free circulation shall make reference to the statement on origin. The statement on origin shall be kept at the disposal of the customs authorities, which may request its submission for the verification of the declaration. Those authorities may also require a translation of the statement into the official language, or one of the official languages, of the Member State concerned.\n2. Where the application of the scheme is requested by the declarant, without a statement on origin being in its possession at the time of the acceptance of the customs declaration for release for free circulation, that declaration shall be considered as being incomplete within the meaning of Article 253(1) and treated accordingly.\n3. Before declaring goods for release for free circulation, the declarant shall take due care that the goods comply with the rules in this section by, in particular, checking:\n(i)\nin the data-base referred to in Article 69(3) that the exporter is registered to make statements on origin, except where the total value of the originating products consigned does not exceed EUR 6 000, and\n(ii)\nthat the statement on origin is made out in accordance with Annex 13d.\nArticle 97a\n1. The following products shall be exempted from the obligation to make out and produce a statement on origin:\n(a)\nproducts sent as small packages from private persons to private persons, the total value of which does not exceed EUR 500;\n(b)\nproducts forming part of travellers\u2019 personal luggage, the total value of which does not exceed EUR 1 200.\n2. The products referred to in paragraph 1 shall meet the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey are not imported by way of trade;\n(b)\nthey have been declared as meeting the conditions for benefiting from the scheme;\n(c)\nthere is no doubt as to the veracity of the declaration referred to in point (b).\n3. For the purposes of point (a) of paragraph 2, imports shall not be considered as imports by way of trade if all the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe imports are occasional;\n(b)\nthe imports consist solely of products for the personal use of the recipients or travellers or their families;\n(c)\nit is evident from the nature and quantity of the products that no commercial purpose is in view.\nArticle 97b\n1. The discovery of slight discrepancies between the particulars included in a statement on origin and those mentioned in the documents submitted to the customs authorities for the purpose of carrying out the formalities for importing the products shall not ipso facto render the statement on origin null and void if it is duly established that that document does correspond to the products concerned.\n2. Obvious formal errors such as typing errors on a statement on origin shall not cause this document to be rejected if these errors are not such as to create doubts concerning the correctness of the statements made in that document.\n3. Statements on origin which are submitted to the customs authorities of the importing country after the period of validity mentioned in Article 96 may be accepted for the purpose of applying the tariff preferences, where failure to submit these documents by the final date set is due to exceptional circumstances. In other cases of belated presentation, the customs authorities of the importing country may accept the statements on origin where the products have been presented to customs before the said final date.\nArticle 97c\n1. The procedure referred to in Article 96(3) shall apply for a period determined by the customs authorities of the Member States.\n2. The customs authorities of the Member States of importation supervising the successive releases for free circulation shall verify that the successive consignments are part of the dismantled or non-assembled products for which the statement on origin has been made out.\nArticle 97d\n1. Where products have not yet been released for free circulation, a statement on origin may be replaced by one or more replacement statements on origin, made out by the holder of the goods, for the purpose of sending all or some of the products elsewhere within the customs territory of the Community or, where applicable, to Norway, Switzerland or Turkey. For being entitled to make out replacement statements on origin, holders of the goods need not be registered exporters themselves.\n2. Where a statement on origin is replaced, the original statement on origin shall indicate the following:\n(a)\nthe particulars of the replacement statement(s) on origin;\n(b)\nthe names and addresses of the consignor;\n(c)\nthe consignee(s) in the European Union.\nThe original statement on origin shall be marked as \u201cReplaced\u201d or \u201cRemplac\u00e9e\u201d, as the case may be.\n3. On the replacement statement on origin the following shall be indicated:\n(a)\nall particulars of the re-consigned products;\n(b)\nthe date on which the original statement on origin was made out;\n(c)\nall the necessary mentions as specified under Annex 13d;\n(d)\nthe name and address of the consignor of the products in the European Union;\n(e)\nthe name and address of the consignee in the European Union, Norway, Switzerland or Turkey;\n(f)\nthe date and place of the replacement.\nThe person making out the replacement statement on origin may attach a copy of the initial statement on origin to the replacement statement on origin.\n4. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall apply mutatis mutandis to statements replacing statements on origin that are themselves replacement statements on origin. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall apply mutatis mutandis to replacement statements made out by consignors of the products in Norway, Switzerland or Turkey.\n5. In the case of products which benefit from the tariff preferences under a derogation granted in accordance with the provisions of Article 89 the replacement provided for in this Article shall apply only when such products are intended for the European Union. Where the product concerned has acquired originating status through regional cumulation, a replacement statement on origin may only be made out for sending products to Norway, Switzerland or Turkey where these countries apply the same regional cumulation rules as the European Union.\n6. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall apply mutatis mutandis to statements replacing statements on origin further to the splitting of a consignment carried out in accordance with Article 74.\nArticle 97e\n1. The customs authorities may, where they have doubts with regard to the originating status of the products request the declarant to produce, within a reasonable time period which they shall specify, any available evidence for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the indication on origin of the declaration or the compliance with the conditions under Article 74.\n2. The customs authorities may suspend the application of the preferential tariff measure for the duration of the verification procedure laid down in Article 97h where:\n(a)\nthe information provided by the declarant is not sufficient to confirm the originating status of the products or the compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 73 or Article 74,\n(b)\nthe declarant does not reply within the time period allowed for provision of the information referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. While awaiting either the information requested from the declarant, referred to in paragraph 1, or the results of the verification procedure, referred to in paragraph 2, release of the products shall be offered to the importer subject to any precautionary measures judged necessary.\nArticle 97f\n1. The customs authorities of the Member State of importation shall refuse entitlement to the scheme, without being obliged to request any additional evidence or send a request for verification to the beneficiary country where:\n(a)\nthe goods are not the same as those mentioned in the statement on origin;\n(b)\nthe declarant fails to submit a statement on origin for the products concerned, where such a statement is required;\n(c)\nwithout prejudice to point (b) of Article 90 and to Article 97d(1), the statement on origin in possession of the declarant has not been made out by an exporter registered in the beneficiary country;\n(d)\nthe statement on origin is not made out in accordance with Annex 13d;\n(e)\nthe conditions of Article 74 are not met.\n2. The customs authorities of the Member State of importation shall refuse entitlement to the scheme, following a request for verification within the meaning of Article 97h addressed to the competent authorities of the beneficiary country, where the customs authorities of the Member State of importation:\n(a)\nhave received a reply according to which the exporter was not entitled to make out the statement on origin;\n(b)\nhave received a reply according to which the products concerned are not originating in a beneficiary country or the conditions of Article 73 were not met;\n(c)\nhad reasonable doubt as to the validity of the statement on origin or the accuracy of the information provided by the declarant regarding the true origin of the products in question when they made the request for verification, and\n(i)\nhave received no reply within the time period permitted in accordance with Article 97h; or\n(ii)\nhave received a reply not providing adequate answers to the questions raised in the request.\nSub-section 7\nControl of origin\nArticle 97g\n1. For the purpose of ensuring compliance with the rules concerning the originating status of products, the competent authorities of the beneficiary country shall carry out:\n(a)\nverifications of the originating status of products at the request of the customs authorities of the Member States,\n(b)\nregular controls on exporters on their own initiative.\nTo the extent that Norway, Switzerland and Turkey have concluded an agreement with the European Union stating that they shall provide each other with the necessary support in matters of administrative cooperation, the first sub-paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis to requests sent to the authorities of Norway, Switzerland and Turkey for the verification of replacement statements on origin made out on their territory, with a view to requesting these authorities to further liaise with the competent authorities in the beneficiary country.\nExtended cumulation shall only be permitted under Article 86(7) and (8), if a country with which the European Union has a free-trade agreement in force has agreed to provide the beneficiary country with its support in matters of administrative cooperation in the same way as it would provide such support to the customs authorities of the Member States in accordance with the relevant provisions of the free-trade agreement concerned.\n2. The controls referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall ensure the continued compliance of exporters with their obligations. They shall be carried out at intervals determined on the basis of appropriate risk analysis criteria. For that purpose, the competent authorities of the beneficiary countries shall require exporters to provide copies or a list of the statements on origin they have made out.\n3. The competent authorities of the beneficiary countries shall have the right to call for any evidence and to carry out any inspection of the exporter\u2019s accounts and, where appropriate, those of producers supplying him, including at the premises, or any other check considered appropriate.\nArticle 97h\n1. Subsequent verifications of statements on origin shall be carried out at random or whenever the customs authorities of the Member States have reasonable doubts as to their authenticity, the originating status of the products concerned or the fulfilment of other requirements of this section.\nWhere the customs authorities of a Member State request the cooperation of the competent authorities of a beneficiary country to carry out a verification of the validity of statements on origin, the originating status of products, or of both, it shall, where appropriate, indicate on its request the reasons why it has reasonable doubts on the validity of the statement on origin or the originating status of the products.\nA copy of the statement on origin and any additional information or documents suggesting that the information given on that statement is incorrect may be forwarded in support of the request for verification.\nThe requesting Member State shall set a 6-month initial deadline to communicate the results of the verification, starting from the date of the verification request, with the exception of requests sent to Norway, Switzerland or Turkey for the purpose of verifying replacement statements on origin made out in their territories on the basis of a statement on origin made out in a beneficiary country, for which this deadline shall be extended to eight months.\n2. If in cases of reasonable doubt there is no reply within the period specified in paragraph 1 or if the reply does not contain sufficient information to determine the real origin of the products, a second communication shall be sent to the competent authorities. This communication shall set a further deadline of not more than 6 months.\nSub-section 8\nOther provisions\nArticle 97i\n1. Sub-sections 5, 6 and 7 shall apply mutatis mutandis to:\n(a)\nexports from the European Union to a beneficiary country for the purpose of bilateral cumulation;\n(b)\nexports from one beneficiary country to another for the purpose of regional cumulation as provided for in Article 86(1) and (5).\n2. European Union exporters shall be considered by the customs authority of a Member State at the exporter\u2019s request as a registered exporter for the purposes of the scheme where the exporter fulfils the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe exporter has an EORI number in accordance with Articles 4k to 4t;\n(b)\nthe exporter has the status of \u201capproved exporter\u201d under a preferential arrangement;\n(c)\nthe exporter provides in its request addressed to the customs authority of the Member State the following data set out in the form a model of which appears at Annex 13c:\n(i)\nthe details set out in boxes 1 and 4;\n(ii)\nthe undertaking set out in box 5.\nArticle 97j\n1. Sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 shall apply mutatis mutandis in determining whether products may be regarded as originating in a beneficiary country when exported to Ceuta or Melilla or as originating in Ceuta and Melilla when exported to a beneficiary country for the purposes of bilateral cumulation.\n2. Sub-sections 5, 6 and 7 shall apply mutatis mutandis to products exported from a beneficiary country to Ceuta or Melilla and to products exported from Ceuta and Melilla to a beneficiary country for the purposes of bilateral cumulation.\n3. The Spanish customs authorities shall be responsible for the application of sub-sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 in Ceuta and Melilla.\n4. For the purposes mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2, Ceuta and Melilla shall be regarded as a single territory.\u2019\n(2)\nIn Part I, Title IV, Chapter 2, the following Section 1A is inserted:\n\u2018Section 1A\nProcedures and methods of administrative cooperation applicable until the application of the registered exporter system\nSub-section 1\nGeneral principles\nArticle 97k\n1. Every beneficiary country shall comply or ensure compliance with:\n(a)\nthe rules on the origin of the products being exported, laid down in Section 1;\n(b)\nthe rules for completion and issue of certificates of origin Form A, a specimen of which is set out in Annex 17;\n(c)\nthe provisions for the use of invoice declarations, a specimen of which is set out in Annex 18;\n(d)\nthe provisions concerning methods of administrative cooperation referred to in Article 97s;\n(e)\nthe provisions concerning granting of derogations referred to in Article 89.\n2. The competent authorities of the beneficiary countries shall cooperate with the Commission or the Member States by, in particular:\n(a)\nproviding all necessary support in the event of a request by the Commission for the monitoring by it of the proper management of the scheme in the country concerned, including verification visits on the spot by the Commission or the customs authorities of the Member States;\n(b)\nwithout prejudice to Articles 97s and 97t, verifying the originating status of products and the compliance with the other conditions laid down in this section, including visits on the spot, where requested by the Commission or the customs authorities of the Member States in the context of origin investigations.\n3. Where, in a beneficiary country, a competent authority for issuing certificates of origin Form A is designated, documentary proofs of origin are verified, and certificates of origin Form A for exports to the European Union are issued, that beneficiary country shall be considered to have accepted the conditions laid down in paragraph 1.\n4. When a country or territory is admitted or readmitted as a beneficiary country in respect of products referred to in Regulation (EC) No 732/2008, goods originating in that country or territory shall benefit from the generalised system of preferences on condition that they were exported from the beneficiary country or territory on or after the date referred to in Article 97s.\n5. A proof of origin shall be valid for 10 months from the date of issue in the exporting country and shall be submitted within the said period to the customs authorities of the importing country.\nSub-section 2\nProcedures at export in the beneficiary country\nArticle 97l\n1. Certificates of origin Form A, a model of which is set out in Annex 17, shall be issued on written application from the exporter or its authorised representative, together with any other appropriate supporting documents proving that the products to be exported qualify for the issue of a certificate of origin Form A.\n2. The certificate shall be made available to the exporter as soon as the export has taken place or is ensured. However, a certificate of origin Form A may exceptionally be issued after exportation of the products to which it relates, if:\n(a)\nit was not issued at the time of exportation because of errors or involuntary omissions or special circumstances; or\n(b)\nit is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the competent governmental authorities that a certificate of origin Form A was issued but was not accepted at importation for technical reasons.\n3. The competent governmental authorities may issue a certificate retrospectively only after verifying that the information supplied in the exporter\u2019s application agrees with that in the corresponding export file and that a certificate of origin Form A satisfying the provisions of this section was not issued when the products in question were exported. Box 4 of certificates of origin Form A issued retrospectively must contain the endorsement \u201cIssued retrospectively\u201d or \u201cD\u00e9livr\u00e9 \u00e0 posteriori\u201d.\n4. In the event of the theft, loss or destruction of a certificate of origin Form A, the exporter may apply, to the competent governmental authorities which issued it, for a duplicate to be made out on the basis of the export documents in their possession. Box 4 of a duplicate Form A issued in this way must be endorsed with the word \u201cDuplicate\u201d or \u201cDuplicata\u201d, together with the date of issue and the serial number of the original certificate. The duplicate takes effect from the date of the original.\n5. For the purposes of verifying whether the product for which a certificate of origin Form A is requested complies with the relevant rules of origin, the competent governmental authorities shall be entitled to call for any documentary evidence or to carry out any check which they consider appropriate.\n6. Completion of box 2 of the certificate of origin Form A shall be optional. Box 12 shall bear the mention \u201cEuropean Union\u201d or the name of one of the Member States. The date of issue of the certificate of origin Form A shall be indicated in box 11. The signature to be entered in that box, which is reserved for the competent governmental authorities issuing the certificate, as well as the signature of the exporter\u2019s authorised signatory to be entered in box 12, shall be handwritten.\nArticle 97m\n1. The invoice declaration may be made out by any exporter for any consignment consisting of one or more packages containing originating products whose total value does not exceed EUR 6 000, and provided that the administrative cooperation referred to in Article 97k (2) applies to this procedure.\n2. The exporter making out an invoice declaration shall be prepared to submit at any time, at the request of the customs or other competent governmental authorities of the exporting country, all appropriate documents proving the originating status of the products concerned.\n3. An invoice declaration shall be made out by the exporter in either French or English by typing, stamping or printing on the invoice, the delivery note or any other commercial document, the declaration, the text of which appears in Annex 18. If the declaration is handwritten, it shall be written in ink in printed characters. Invoice declarations shall bear the original signature of the exporter in manuscript.\n4. The use of an invoice declaration shall be subject to the following conditions:\n(a)\none invoice declaration shall be made out for each consignment;\n(b)\nif the goods contained in the consignment have already been subject to verification in the exporting country by reference to the definition of \u201coriginating products\u201d, the exporter may refer to that verification in the invoice declaration.\n5. When cumulation under Articles 84, 85 or 86 applies, the competent governmental authorities of the beneficiary country called on to issue a certificate of origin Form A for products in the manufacture of which materials originating in a party with which cumulation is permitted are used shall rely on the following:\n-\nin the case of bilateral cumulation, on the proof of origin provided by the exporter\u2019s supplier and issued in accordance with the provisions of sub-section 5,\n-\nin the case of cumulation with Norway, Switzerland or Turkey, on the proof of origin provided by the exporter\u2019s supplier and issued in accordance with the GSP rules of origin of Norway, Switzerland or Turkey, as the case may be,\n-\nin the case of regional cumulation, on the proof of origin provided by the exporter\u2019s supplier, namely a certificate of origin Form A, a model of which appears at Annex 17 or, as the case may be, an invoice declaration, the text of which appears in Annex 18,\n-\nin the case of extended cumulation, on the proof of origin provided by the exporter\u2019s supplier and issued in accordance with the provisions of the relevant free-trade agreement between the European Union and the country concerned.\nIn the cases referred to in the first, second, third and forth indent of the first sub-paragraph, Box 4 of certificate of origin Form A shall, as the case may be, contain the indication \u201cEU cumulation\u201d, \u201cNorway cumulation\u201d, \u201cSwitzerland cumulation\u201d, \u201cTurkey cumulation\u201d, \u201cregional cumulation\u201d, \u201cextended cumulation with country x\u201d or \u201cCumul UE\u201d, \u201cCumul Norv\u00e8ge\u201d, \u201cCumul Suisse\u201d, \u201cCumul Turquie\u201d, \u201ccumul r\u00e9gional\u201d, \u201ccumul \u00e9tendu avec le pays x\u201d.\nSub-section 3\nProcedures at release for free circulation in the European Union\nArticle 97n\n1. Certificates of origin Form A or invoice declarations shall be submitted to the customs authorities of the Member States of importation in accordance with the procedures concerning the customs declaration.\n2. Proofs of origin which are submitted to the customs authorities of the importing country after the period of validity mentioned in Article 97k (5) may be accepted for the purpose of applying the tariff preferences, where failure to submit these documents by the final date set is due to exceptional circumstances. In other cases of belated presentation, the customs authorities of the importing country may accept the proofs of origin where the products have been presented to customs before the said final date.\nArticle 97o\n1. Where, at the request of the importer and on the conditions laid down by the customs authorities of the importing Member State, dismantled or non-assembled products within the meaning of General rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the Harmonized System and falling within Section XVI or XVII or heading 7308 or 9406 of the Harmonized System are imported by instalments, a single proof of origin for such products may be submitted to the customs authorities on importation of the first instalment.\n2. At the request of the importer and having regard to the conditions laid down by the customs authorities of the importing Member State, a single proof of origin may be submitted to the customs authorities at the importation of the first consignment when the goods:\n(a)\nare imported within the framework of frequent and continuous trade flows of a significant commercial value;\n(b)\nare the subject of the same contract of sale, the parties of this contract established in the exporting country or in the Member State(s);\n(c)\nare classified in the same code (eight digits) of the Combined Nomenclature;\n(d)\ncome exclusively from the same exporter, are destined for the same importer, and are made the subject of entry formalities at the same customs office of the same Member State.\nThis procedure shall be applicable for a period determined by the competent customs authorities.\nArticle 97p\n1. When originating products are placed under the control of a customs office of a single Member State, it shall be possible to replace the original proof of origin by one or more certificates of origin Form A for the purpose of sending all or some of these products elsewhere within the European Union or, where applicable, to Norway, Switzerland or Turkey.\n2. Replacement certificates of origin Form A shall be issued by the customs office under whose control the products are placed. The replacement certificate shall be made out on the basis of a written request by the re-exporter.\n3. The top right-hand box of the replacement certificate shall indicate the name of the intermediary country where it is issued. Box 4 shall contain the words \u201cReplacement certificate\u201d or \u201cCertificat de remplacement\u201d, as well as the date of issue of the original certificate of origin and its serial number. The name of the re-exporter shall be given in box 1. The name of the final consignee may be given in box 2. All particulars of the re-exported products appearing on the original certificate shall be transferred to boxes 3 to 9 and references to the re-exporter\u2019s invoice shall be given in box 10.\n4. The customs authorities which issued the replacement certificate shall endorse box 11. The responsibility of the authorities shall be confined to the issue of the replacement certificate. The particulars in box 12 concerning the country of origin and the country of destination shall be taken from the original certificate. This box shall be signed by the re-exporter. A re-exporter who signs this box in good faith shall not be responsible for the accuracy of the particulars entered on the original certificate.\n5. The customs office which is requested to perform the operation referred to in paragraph 1 shall note on the original certificate the weights, numbers and nature of the products forwarded and indicate thereon the serial numbers of the corresponding replacement certificate or certificates. It shall keep the original certificate for at least three years. A photocopy of the original certificate may be annexed to the replacement certificate.\n6. In the case of products which benefit from the tariff preferences under a derogation granted in accordance with Article 89, the procedure laid down in this Article shall apply only when such products are intended for the European Union. Where the product concerned has acquired originating status through regional cumulation, a replacement certificate may only be made out for sending products to Norway, Switzerland or Turkey where these countries apply the same regional cumulation rules as the European Union.\nArticle 97q\n1. Products sent as small packages from private persons to private persons or forming part of travellers\u2019 personal luggage shall be admitted as originating products benefiting from the tariff preferences referred to in Article 66 without requiring the presentation of a certificate of origin Form A or an invoice declaration, provided that:\n(a)\nsuch products:\ni)\nare not imported by way of trade;\nii)\nhave been declared as meeting the conditions required for benefiting from the scheme;\n(b)\nthere is no doubt as to the veracity of the declaration referred to in point (a)(ii).\n2. Imports shall not be considered as imports by way of trade if all the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe imports are occasional;\n(b)\nthe imports consist solely of products for the personal use of the recipients or travellers or their families;\n(c)\nit is evident from the nature and quantity of the products that no commercial purpose is in view.\n3. The total value of the products referred to in paragraph 2 shall not exceed EUR 500 in the case of small packages or EUR 1 200 in the case of products forming part of travellers\u2019 personal luggage.\nArticle 97r\n1. The discovery of slight discrepancies between the statements made in the certificate of origin Form A or in an invoice declaration, and those made in the documents submitted to the customs office for the purpose of carrying out the formalities for importing the products shall not ipso facto render the certificate or declaration null and void if it is duly established that that document does correspond to the products submitted.\n2. Obvious formal errors on a certificate of origin Form A, a movement certificate EUR.1 or an invoice declaration shall not cause this document to be rejected if these errors are not such as to create doubts concerning the correctness of the statements made in that document.\nSub-section 4\nMethods of administrative cooperation\nArticle 97s\n1. The beneficiary countries shall inform the Commission of the names and addresses of the governmental authorities situated in their territory which are empowered to issue certificates of origin Form A, together with specimen impressions of the stamps used by those authorities, and the names and addresses of the relevant governmental authorities responsible for the control of the certificates of origin Form A and the invoice declarations.\nThe Commission will forward this information to the customs authorities of the Member States. When this information is communicated within the framework of an amendment of previous communications, the Commission will indicate the date of entry into use of those new stamps according to the instructions given by the competent governmental authorities of the beneficiary countries. This information is for official use; however, when goods are to be released for free circulation, the customs authorities in question may allow the importer or his duly authorised representative to consult the specimen impressions of the stamps.\nBeneficiary countries which have already provided the information required under the first sub-paragraph shall not be obliged to provide it again, unless there has been a change.\n2. For the purpose of Article 97k (4) the Commission will publish, in the Official Journal of the European Union (\u201cC\u201d series), the date on which a country or territory admitted or readmitted as a beneficiary country in respect of products referred to in Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 met the obligations set out in paragraph 1.\n3. The Commission will send to the beneficiary countries specimen impressions of the stamps used by the customs authorities of the Member States for the issue of movement certificates EUR.1 upon request of the competent authorities of the beneficiary countries.\nArticle 97t\n1. Subsequent verifications of certificates of origin Form A and invoice declarations shall be carried out at random or whenever the customs authorities of the Member States have reasonable doubts as to the authenticity of such documents, the originating status of the products concerned or the fulfilment of the other requirements of this section.\n2. When they make a request for subsequent verification, the customs authorities of the Member States shall return the certificate of origin Form A and the invoice, if it has been submitted, the invoice declaration, or a copy of these documents, to the competent governmental authorities in the exporting beneficiary country giving, where appropriate, the reasons for the enquiry. Any documents and information obtained suggesting that the information given on the proof of origin is incorrect shall be forwarded in support of the request for verification.\nIf the customs authorities of the Member States decide to suspend the granting of the tariff preferences while awaiting the results of the verification, release of the products shall be offered to the importer subject to any precautionary measures judged necessary.\n3. When a request for subsequent verification has been made, such verification shall be carried out and its results communicated to the customs authorities of the Member States within a maximum of six months or, in the case of requests sent to Norway, Switzerland or Turkey for the purpose of verifying replacement proofs of origin made out in their territories on the basis of a certificate of origin Form A or an invoice declaration made out in a beneficiary country, within a maximum of eight months from the date on which the request was sent. The results shall be such as to establish whether the proof of origin in question applies to the products actually exported and whether these products can be considered as products originating in the beneficiary country.\n4. In the case of certificates of origin Form A issued following bilateral cumulation, the reply shall include a copy (copies) of the movement certificate(s) EUR.1 or, where necessary, of the corresponding invoice declaration(s).\n5. If, in cases of reasonable doubt, there is no reply within the six months specified in paragraph 3 or if the reply does not contain sufficient information to determine the authenticity of the document in question or the real origin of the products, a second communication shall be sent to the competent authorities. If after the second communication the results of the verification are not communicated to the requesting authorities within four months from the date on which the second communication was sent, or if these results do not allow the authenticity of the document in question or the real origin of the products to be determined, the requesting authorities shall, except in exceptional circumstances, refuse entitlement to the tariff preferences.\n6. Where the verification procedure or any other available information appears to indicate that the rules of origin are being contravened, the exporting beneficiary country shall, on its own initiative or at the request of the customs authorities of the Member States, carry out appropriate inquiries or arrange for such inquiries to be carried out with due urgency to identify and prevent such contraventions. For this purpose, the Commission or the customs authorities of the Member States may participate in the inquiries.\n7. For the purposes of the subsequent verification of certificates of origin Form A, the exporters shall keep all appropriate documents proving the originating status of the products concerned and the competent governmental authorities of the exporting beneficiary country shall keep copies of the certificates, as well as any export documents referring to them. These documents shall be kept for at least three years from the end of the year in which the certificate of origin Form A was issued.\nArticle 97u\n1. Articles 97s and 97t shall also apply between the countries of the same regional group for the purposes of provision of information to the Commission or to the customs authorities of the Member States and of the subsequent verification of certificates of origin Form A or invoice declarations issued in accordance with the rules on regional cumulation of origin.\n2. For the purpose of Articles 85, 97m and 97p, the agreement concluded between the European Union, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey shall include inter alia an undertaking to provide each other with the necessary support in matters of administrative cooperation.\nFor the purpose of Articles 86(7) and (8) and 97k, the country with which the European Union has concluded a free-trade agreement in force and which has agreed to be involved in extended cumulation with a beneficiary country shall also agree to provide the latter with its support in matters of administrative cooperation in the same way as it would provide such support to the customs authorities of the Member States in accordance with the relevant provisions of the free-trade agreement concerned.\nSub-section 5\nProcedures for the purpose of bilateral cumulation\nArticle 97v\n1. Evidence of the originating status of European Union products shall be furnished by either:\n(a)\nthe production of a movement certificate EUR.1, a specimen of which is set out in Annex 21; or\n(b)\nthe production of an invoice declaration, the text of which is set out in Annex 18. An invoice declaration may be made out by any exporter for consignments containing originating products whose total value does not exceed EUR 6 000 or by an approved European Union exporter.\n2. The exporter or its authorised representative shall enter \u201cGSP beneficiary countries\u201d and \u201cEU\u201d, or \u201cPays b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaires du SPG\u201d and \u201cUE\u201d, in box 2 of the movement certificate EUR.1.\n3. The provisions of this Section concerning the issue, use and subsequent verification of certificates of origin Form A shall apply mutatis mutandis to EUR.1 movement certificates and, with the exception of the provisions concerning their issue, to invoice declarations.\n4. The customs authorities of the Member States may authorise any exporter, hereinafter referred to as an \u201capproved exporter\u201d, who makes frequent shipments of products originating in the European Union within the framework of bilateral cumulation to make out invoice declarations, irrespective of the value of the products concerned, where that exporter offers, to the satisfaction of the customs authorities, all guarantees necessary to verify:\n(a)\nthe originating status of the products, and\n(b)\nthe fulfilment of other requirements applicable in that Member State.\n5. The customs authorities may grant the status of approved exporter subject to any conditions which they consider appropriate. The customs authorities shall grant to the approved exporter a customs authorisation number which shall appear on the invoice declaration.\n6. The customs authorities shall monitor the use of the authorisation by the approved exporter. The customs authorities may withdraw the authorisation at any time.\nThey shall withdraw the authorisation in each of the following cases:\n(a)\nthe approved exporter no longer offers the guarantees referred to in paragraph 4;\n(b)\nthe approved exporter does not fulfil the conditions referred to in paragraph 5;\n(c)\nthe approved exporter otherwise makes improper use of the authorisation.\n7. An approved exporter shall not be required to sign invoice declarations provided that the approved exporter gives the customs authorities a written undertaking accepting full responsibility for any invoice declaration which identifies the approved exporter as if the approved exporter had signed it in manuscript.\nSub-section 6\nCeuta and Melilla\nArticle 97w\nThe provisions of this Section concerning the issue, use and subsequent verification of proofs of origin shall apply mutatis mutandis to products exported from a beneficiary country to Ceuta and Melilla and to products exported from Ceuta and Melilla to a beneficiary country for the purposes of bilateral cumulation.\nCeuta and Melilla shall be regarded as a single territory.\nThe Spanish customs authorities shall be responsible for the application of this section in Ceuta and Melilla.\u2019\n(3)\nIn Part I, Title IV, Chapter 2, Section 2, the following Article 97x is inserted before sub-section 1:\n\u2018Article 97x\n1. For the purposes of this Section the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u201cmanufacture\u201d means any kind of working or processing including assembly;\n(b)\n\u201cmaterial\u201d means any ingredient, raw material, component or part, etc., used in the manufacture of the product;\n(c)\n\u201cproduct\u201d means the product being manufactured, even if it is intended for later use in another manufacturing operation;\n(d)\n\u201cgoods\u201d means both materials and products;\n(e)\n\u201ccustoms value\u201d means the value as determined in accordance with the 1994 Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (WTO Agreement on Customs Valuation);\n(f)\n\u201cex-works price\u201d in the list in Annex 15 means the price paid for the product ex-works to the manufacturer in whose undertaking the last working or processing is carried out, provided that the price includes the value of all the materials used, minus any internal taxes which are, or may be, repaid when the product obtained is exported;\nWhere the actual price paid does not reflect all costs related to the manufacturing of the product which are actually incurred in the beneficiary country, the ex-works price means the sum of all those costs, minus any internal taxes which are, or may be, repaid when the product obtained is exported.\n(g)\n\u201cvalue of materials\u201d in the list in Annex 15 means the customs value at the time of importation of the non-originating materials used, or, if this is not known and cannot be ascertained, the first ascertainable price paid for the materials in the European Union or in the beneficiary country within the meaning of Article 98(1). Where the value of the originating materials used needs to be established, this sub-paragraph shall be applied mutatis mutandis;\n(h)\n\u201cchapters\u201d, \u201cheadings\u201d and \u201csub-headings\u201d mean the chapters, the headings and \u201csub-headings\u201d (four- or six-digit codes) used in the nomenclature which makes up the Harmonized System;\n(i)\n\u201cclassified\u201d refers to the classification of a product or material under a particular heading or sub-heading of the Harmonized System;\n(j)\n\u201cconsignment\u201d means products which are either:\n-\nsent simultaneously from one exporter to one consignee, or\n-\ncovered by a single transport document covering their shipment from the exporter to the consignee or, in the absence of such document, by a single invoice.\n2. For the purpose of paragraph 1(f), where the last working or processing has been subcontracted to a manufacturer, the term \u201cmanufacturer\u201d referred to in the first paragraph of paragraph 1(f) may refer to the enterprise that has employed the subcontractor.\u2019.\n(4)\nIn Article 99 the following point (d)a is inserted:\n\u2018(d)a\nproducts from slaughtered animals born and raised there;\u2019.\n(5)\nArticle 101(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (g) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(g)\noperations to colour or flavour sugar or form sugar lumps; partial or total milling of crystal sugar;\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (m) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(m)\nsimple mixing of products, whether or not of different kinds; mixing of sugar with any material;\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following point (m)a is inserted:\n\u2018(m)a\nsimple addition of water or dilution or dehydratation or denaturation of products;\u2019.\n(6)\nAnnex 13a set out in Annex I to this Regulation is inserted.\n(7)\nAnnex 13b set out in Annex II to this Regulation is inserted.\n(8)\nAnnex 13c set out in Annex III to this Regulation is inserted.\n(9)\nAnnex 13d set out in Annex IV to this Regulation is inserted.\n(10)\nIn Annex 14, in Notes 1 and 3.1 the phrase \u2018Articles 69 and 100\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Article 100\u2019.\n(11)\nAnnex 17 is amended in accordance with Annex V to this Regulation.\n(12)\nAnnex 18 is replaced by the text set out in Annex VI to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nBeneficiary countries shall submit to the Commission the undertaking in accordance with Article 68(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2454/93, as amended by this Regulation, and information required by Article 69 of that Regulation, at least three months before the actual application in their territories of the registered exporter system.\nOn 1 July 2016 and 1 July 2019 at the latest the Commission will examine the state of preparation of beneficiary countries for the application of the registered exporter system. The Commission will propose any necessary adjustments.\nArticle 3\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. It shall apply from 1 January 2011.\n3. Subject to paragraph 4 of this Article, point (1), insofar as it relates to Articles 68 to 71, 90 to 97i and 97j (2), point (8) and point (9) of Article 1 shall apply from 1 January 2017.\n4. Beneficiary countries which are not in a position to implement the registered exporter system on the date specified in paragraph 3 and which make a written request to the Commission before 1 July 2016 or in relation to which in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 2 the Commission has proposed adjustments, may continue to apply the provisions set out in Title IV Chapter 2 Section 1A and Annexes 17 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 2454/93, as amended by this Regulation, until 1 January 2020.\n5. Point (2) of Article 1 shall apply until the date specified in paragraph 3 or, for the beneficiary countries referred to in paragraph 4, until the date specified in paragraph 4.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2010.", "references": ["32", "48", "83", "15", "74", "82", "87", "26", "36", "64", "1", "81", "6", "59", "80", "65", "41", "12", "55", "18", "78", "23", "17", "25", "53", "29", "2", "33", "61", "95", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "54"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "54"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1047/2010\nof 15 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for blue ling in Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of II, IV and V by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (2) lays down quotas for 2009 and 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["94", "81", "27", "15", "88", "46", "7", "41", "2", "23", "29", "8", "24", "28", "25", "22", "50", "11", "74", "60", "43", "49", "61", "51", "21", "54", "33", "99", "14", "64", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION BiH/18/2011\nof 2 December 2011\non the appointment of an EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina\n(2011/836/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2004/570/CFSP of 12 July 2004 on the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6(1) of Joint Action 2004/570/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take further decisions on the appointment of the EU Force Commander.\n(2)\nBy Decision 2009/836/CFSP (2), the PSC appointed Major General Bernhard BAIR as EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n(3)\nThe EU Operation Commander has recommended to appoint Brigadier General Robert BRIEGER as the new EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n(4)\nThe EU Military Committee has supported the recommendation.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications.\n(6)\nThe Copenhagen European Council on 12 and 13 December 2002 adopted a Declaration stating that the \u2018Berlin plus\u2019 arrangements and the implementation thereof will apply only to those Member States which are also either NATO members or parties to the \u2018Partnership for Peace\u2019, and which have consequently concluded bilateral security agreements with NATO,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBrigadier General Robert BRIEGER is hereby appointed EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on 6 December 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2011.", "references": ["66", "32", "35", "47", "43", "84", "8", "83", "98", "29", "19", "25", "27", "99", "67", "78", "34", "64", "95", "13", "61", "89", "14", "11", "74", "3", "21", "39", "62", "76", "No Label", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 25 July 2011\nrelating to the clearance of the accounts presented by Bulgaria and Romania for the expenditure financed under the special accession programme for agriculture and rural development (Sapard) in 2008\n(notified under document C(2011) 5183)\n(Only the Bulgarian and the Romanian texts are authentic)\n(2011/463/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000 of 7 June 2000 laying down financial rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (2), and in particular Article 13 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Multiannual Financing Agreement concluded with Bulgaria on 18 December 2000 and in particular Article 11 of Section A to the Annex thereof,\nHaving regard to the Multiannual Financing Agreement concluded with Romania on 2 February 2001 and in particular Article 11 of Section A to the Annex thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 248/2007 of 8 March 2007 on measures concerning the Multi-annual Financing Agreements and the Annual Financing Agreements concluded under the Sapard programme and the transition from Sapard to rural development (3), in conjunction with the Multiannual Financing Agreements as referred to in Annex II, point 1 of that Regulation, and in particular Article 11 of Section A to the Annex thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission, acting on behalf of the European Union, concluded multiannual financing agreements (MAFAs) laying down the technical, legal and administrative framework for the execution of the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (Sapard) with Bulgaria and Romania.\n(2)\nArticle 11 of Section A of the Annex to the MAFAs provides for the adoption of a clearance of accounts Decision by the Commission. That provision continues to apply to Bulgaria and Romania, by virtue of Regulation (EC) No 248/2007.\n(3)\nThe time limits granted to the recipient countries for the submission to the Commission of the requisite documents have expired.\n(4)\nDue, in the case of Bulgaria, to the late submission of the annual accounts in accordance with Article 5(2) of MAFA, and further to their invalidation by the National Authorising Officer (NAO) due to significant deficiencies identified in the control mechanisms for public measures, and pending additional work still expected from the certifying body, and, in the case of Romania, due to the over-passing of the submission deadline for presenting the annual accounts, and pending the review of supplementary information which had been requested from this country, the Commission decided, by its Decision C(2009) 7496 of 30 September 2009, not to clear the accounts of the Sapard Agencies situated on the territory of Bulgaria and of Romania concerning expenditure effected for the financial year 2008.\n(5)\nThe expected information from Bulgaria and Romania has in the meantime been submitted enabling the Commission to gain additional assurance. Based on the additional checks carried out, the Commission is in the position to take a decision on the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the relevant Sapard authorities in Bulgaria and Romania.\n(6)\nThis Decision is adopted on the basis of accounting information. It does not prejudice the possibility for the Commission to decide subsequently to exclude from EU financing expenditure not incurred in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accounts of the Sapard Agencies, situated on the territory of Bulgaria and Romania, which concern expenditure financed by the general budget of the European Union in 2008 are hereby cleared.\nArticle 2\nThe expenditure and funding received from the EU for the financial year 2008, as stated on 31 December 2008, and the assets held by these beneficiary countries on behalf of the EU on 31 December 2008, to be cleared under this Decision, are laid down in the Annex.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2011.", "references": ["99", "14", "93", "76", "45", "65", "88", "7", "58", "16", "29", "74", "32", "79", "67", "78", "44", "5", "75", "82", "19", "77", "63", "89", "2", "18", "64", "54", "35", "83", "No Label", "9", "10", "17", "24", "33", "47", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "10", "17", "24", "33", "47", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 726/2011\nof 25 July 2011\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on apples\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2) provides for surveillance of imports of the products listed in Annex XVII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of applying Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded as part of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2008, 2009 and 2010, the trigger levels for additional duties on apples should be adjusted.\n(3)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVIII to Implementing Regulation (EC) No 543/2011 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2011.", "references": ["47", "71", "16", "42", "95", "7", "17", "39", "6", "91", "58", "5", "86", "96", "97", "24", "66", "25", "32", "11", "52", "92", "27", "19", "54", "67", "51", "30", "65", "64", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 925/2010\nof 15 October 2010\namending Decision 2007/777/EC and Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards transit through the Union of poultry meat and poultry meat products from Russia\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), and in particular Article 10(2)(c) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (2), and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first paragraph of point 1 of Article 8 and Article 9(4)(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2007/777/EC of 29 November 2007 laying down the animal and public health conditions and model certificates for imports of certain meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption from third countries and repealing Decision 2005/432/EC (3) lays down rules on imports into the Union and the transit and storage in the Union of consignments of meat products, as defined in point 7.1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (4). That Decision also lays down lists of third countries and parts thereof from which such imports and transit and storage are to be authorised and the model public and animal health certificates and the treatments required for those products.\n(2)\nPart 2 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC lays down a list of third countries or parts thereof from which imports into the Union of meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines which are subject to different treatments, referred to in Part 4 of that Annex, are authorised.\n(3)\nDecision 2007/777/EC provides that Member States are to ensure that consignments of the commodities covered by it, introduced into the Union and which are destined for a third country either by transit immediately or following storage and not intended for importation into the Union come from the territory of a third country or a part thereof listed in Annex II thereto and have undergone the minimum treatment for the import of such commodities provided for therein.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (5) provides that certain commodities are only to be imported into and transit through the Union from the third countries, territories, zones or compartments listed in the table in Part 1 of Annex I thereto. It also lays down the veterinary certification requirements for such commodities.\n(5)\nRussia has asked the Commission to authorise transit through the Union of poultry meat and poultry meat products which have been subjected to a non-specific treatment, pursuant to Part 4 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC.\n(6)\nAn inspection carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office in Russia demonstrated that the competent veterinary authority of that third country provides appropriate guarantees as regards compliance with Union rules required for transit through the Union of those commodities.\n(7)\nIt is therefore appropriate to include Russia in the column for meat products from poultry and farmed feathered game (except ratites) in the table set out in Part 2 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC for transit through the Union of such products which have undergone a non-specific treatment as set out in Part 4 of that Annex.\n(8)\nIn addition, it is also necessary to include Russia in the list of third countries set out in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 for transit through the Union of poultry meat.\n(9)\nDecision 2007/777/EC and Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart 2 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC is replaced by the text in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nPart 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 is replaced by the text in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 October 2010.", "references": ["91", "82", "14", "87", "88", "57", "0", "34", "27", "83", "63", "59", "30", "69", "5", "64", "49", "75", "32", "12", "15", "3", "67", "80", "52", "20", "77", "47", "2", "79", "No Label", "4", "21", "22", "23", "38", "61", "72"], "gold": ["4", "21", "22", "23", "38", "61", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 658/2012\nof 18 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2012.", "references": ["52", "40", "63", "95", "28", "39", "29", "6", "17", "43", "66", "89", "51", "59", "86", "24", "11", "42", "26", "77", "97", "67", "49", "71", "47", "48", "85", "46", "80", "13", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 318/2012\nof 12 April 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 306/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 April 2012.", "references": ["73", "42", "77", "98", "85", "94", "44", "87", "31", "90", "65", "89", "86", "26", "28", "93", "52", "2", "4", "34", "92", "41", "12", "39", "49", "58", "15", "48", "46", "88", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2012/20/EU\nof 6 July 2012\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include flufenoxuron as an active substance for product-type 8 in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes flufenoxuron.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, flufenoxuron has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 8, wood preservatives, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nFrance was designated as rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 17 March 2009 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 22 September 2011, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as wood preservatives and containing flufenoxuron may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. Therefore, and notwithstanding the fact that flufenoxuron has not been approved in certain other areas for which the use specific risk assessments gave a different result (3), it is appropriate to include flufenoxuron for use in product-type 8 in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nIn view of its characteristics, which render it persistent, liable to bioaccumulate and toxic (PBT), as well as very persistent and very liable to bioaccumulate (vPvB), in accordance with the criteria laid down in Annex XIII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (4), flufenoxuron should be included in Annex I for three years only and should be made subject to a comparative risk assessment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 10(5)(i) of Directive 98/8/EC before its inclusion in Annex I is renewed.\n(7)\nThe Union level risk assessment of flufenoxuron used in wood preservatives only addressed treatment of wood intended to be used indoors (use classes 1 and 2 as defined by OECD (5)) or outdoors not covered and not in contact with the ground and continually exposed to the weather, protected from the weather but subject to frequent wetting or in contact with fresh water (use class 3 as defined by OECD (6)), which will not be used in animal housing or come into contact with food or feed. Unacceptable risks for the environment were identified for the in situ treatment of wood outdoors, as well as in various scenarios for outdoor use of treated wood. In view of the characteristics of flufenoxuron, it is appropriate to authorise only those uses and exposure scenarios that have been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment, and for which no unacceptable risk was found.\n(8)\nIn view of the risks identified for human health for industrial and professional use it is appropriate to require that safe operational procedures be established for products authorised for such use, and that those products be used with appropriate personal protective equipment unless it can be demonstrated in the application for product authorisation that risks to industrial or professional users can be reduced to an acceptable level by other means.\n(9)\nIn view of the risks identified for the aquatic and terrestrial compartments, it is appropriate to require that appropriate risk mitigation measures be taken to protect those compartments, in particular that freshly treated timber be stored after treatment under shelter or on impermeable hard standing, or both, and that any losses from the application of products used as wood preservatives and containing flufenoxuron be collected for reuse or disposal.\n(10)\nThe provisions of this Directive should be applied at the same time in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment on the Union market of biocidal products of product-type 8 containing the active substance flufenoxuron and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(11)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(12)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(13)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe Committee established by Article 28(1) of Directive 98/8/EC has not delivered an opinion on the measures provided for in this Directive, and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to the measures and forwarded it to the European Parliament. The Council did not act within the two-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 (7), and the Commission therefore submitted the proposal to the European Parliament without delay. The European Parliament did not oppose the measure within four months from the abovementioned forwarding,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 January 2013 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 February 2014.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2012.", "references": ["63", "0", "73", "6", "35", "57", "36", "98", "56", "1", "69", "59", "60", "86", "34", "37", "47", "7", "3", "87", "23", "79", "51", "46", "67", "31", "40", "9", "20", "16", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "61", "65", "88"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "61", "65", "88"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/21/EU\nof 2 March 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include clethodim as active substance and amending Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included clethodim.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of clethodim.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the Netherlands, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe Netherlands evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 1 December 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on clethodim to the Commission on 10 September 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for clethodim.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing clethodim may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include clethodim in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information to confirm the results of the risk assessment, on the basis of most recent scientific knowledge, as regards the soil and groundwater exposure assessments and the residue definition for risk assessment.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing clethodim to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of clethodim and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning clethodim in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning clethodim in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing clethodim as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to clethodim are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing clethodim as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning clethodim. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing clethodim as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing clethodim as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2011.", "references": ["71", "53", "44", "68", "93", "69", "21", "96", "92", "58", "18", "60", "87", "8", "64", "70", "38", "24", "94", "9", "27", "47", "75", "45", "57", "50", "40", "23", "15", "52", "No Label", "2", "25", "41", "65"], "gold": ["2", "25", "41", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 21 March 2011\nappointing a member of the Court of Auditors\n(2011/183/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMr Hubert WEBER, member of the Court of Auditors, has resigned with effect from 1 January 2011.\n(2)\nMr Hubert WEBER should therefore be replaced for the remainder of his term of office,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Harald W\u00d6GERBAUER is hereby appointed member of the Court of Auditors for the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 December 2013.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["20", "34", "24", "47", "46", "30", "5", "88", "61", "13", "54", "25", "37", "27", "0", "69", "23", "15", "38", "60", "80", "68", "92", "10", "58", "17", "79", "63", "86", "41", "No Label", "7", "52"], "gold": ["7", "52"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/002 IT/Trentino-Alto Adige/S\u00fcdtirol Construction of buildings from Italy)\n(2012/7/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nItaly submitted an application on 7 February 2011 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in 323 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (Construction of buildings) in the NUTS II region of Trentino-Alto Adige/S\u00fcdtirol (ITD1 and ITD2) and supplemented it by additional information up to 6 July 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 3 918 850.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Italy,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 3 918 850 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["56", "1", "42", "78", "95", "23", "6", "37", "9", "63", "46", "2", "0", "60", "69", "64", "41", "50", "51", "5", "57", "76", "22", "18", "28", "25", "24", "53", "48", "3", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "87", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "87", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 December 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde on certain aspects of air services\n(2011/228/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn its Decision of 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with an agreement at Union level.\n(2)\nOn behalf of the Union, the Commission negotiated an Agreement with the Republic of Cape Verde on certain aspects of air services (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision of 5 June 2003.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be signed and provisionally applied subject to its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde on certain aspects of air services (the Agreement) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nPending its entry into force, the Agreement shall be applied provisionally from the first day of the first month following the date on which the parties have notified each other of the completion of the necessary procedures for this purpose (1).\nArticle 4\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to make the notification provided for in Article 8(2) of the Agreement.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["5", "67", "2", "75", "25", "99", "55", "54", "0", "8", "63", "13", "79", "89", "33", "69", "74", "7", "22", "39", "30", "35", "90", "41", "20", "88", "49", "93", "45", "62", "No Label", "3", "9", "34", "57", "80", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "34", "57", "80", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 421/2012\nof 16 May 2012\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of May 2012 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 May 2012 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 May 2012 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 16,215775 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2012.", "references": ["13", "60", "65", "51", "86", "70", "55", "43", "97", "81", "73", "93", "84", "88", "72", "94", "27", "29", "87", "7", "25", "77", "78", "44", "49", "38", "67", "41", "61", "5", "No Label", "21", "22", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1319/2011\nof 15 December 2011\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2011.", "references": ["77", "16", "88", "57", "21", "33", "5", "44", "28", "94", "32", "60", "31", "13", "19", "89", "36", "80", "39", "79", "41", "4", "50", "48", "98", "7", "38", "1", "84", "45", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 769/2010\nof 30 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 31 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 August 2010.", "references": ["51", "1", "44", "80", "48", "31", "30", "10", "72", "98", "96", "6", "21", "53", "69", "23", "87", "38", "78", "74", "3", "36", "56", "8", "12", "94", "49", "89", "88", "19", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 22 June 2012\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Moldova on the facilitation of the issuance of visas\n(2012/353/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular point (a) of Article 77(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Moldova on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (1) entered into force on 1 January 2008.\n(2)\nOn 11 April 2011, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the Republic of Moldova on amendments to that Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Moldova on the facilitation of the issuance of visas. The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of an Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Moldova on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) on 22 March 2012.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be signed subject to its conclusion.\n(4)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (2); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(5)\nThis 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 of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland's request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (3); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Moldova on the facilitation of the issuance of visas is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (4).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 22 June 2012.", "references": ["60", "46", "6", "19", "58", "8", "59", "63", "42", "16", "29", "74", "53", "43", "75", "62", "20", "57", "23", "12", "15", "39", "18", "22", "24", "11", "94", "35", "2", "68", "No Label", "3", "9", "13", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "13", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 74/2012\nof 27 January 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 January 2012.", "references": ["57", "63", "1", "13", "25", "85", "89", "65", "66", "7", "54", "40", "86", "35", "39", "29", "47", "97", "3", "24", "22", "95", "30", "93", "2", "28", "67", "50", "31", "32", "No Label", "21", "87"], "gold": ["21", "87"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/308/CFSP\nof 26 April 2012\non the accession of the European Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 37 in conjunction with Article 31(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 209 and 212 in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) and Article 218(8), second subparagraph, thereof,\nHaving regard to the joint proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and of the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (\u2018the Treaty\u2019) was signed on 24 February 1976 by the Republic of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic of Singapore and the Kingdom of Thailand. Since the date of signature, the following countries have also become signatories of the Treaty: Brunei Darussalam, the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Lao People\u2019s Democratic Republic, Burma/Myanmar, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Independent State of Papua New Guinea, the People\u2019s Republic of China, the Republic of India, Japan, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, New Zealand, Mongolia, the Commonwealth of Australia, the French Republic, the Democratic Republic of East Timor, the People\u2019s Republic of Bangladesh, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, the Democratic People\u2019s Republic of Korea, the United States of America, the Republic of Turkey and Canada.\n(2)\nThe Treaty aims to promote peace, stability and cooperation in the region. To this end, it calls for the settlement of disputes by peaceful means, the preservation of peace, the prevention of conflicts and the strengthening of security in Southeast Asia. Hence, the rules and principles set out in the Treaty correspond to the objectives of the Union\u2019s common foreign and security polity.\n(3)\nFurthermore, the Treaty provides for enhancing cooperation in economic, trade, social, technical and scientific fields as well as for the acceleration of economic growth in the region by promoting a greater utilisation of the agriculture and industries of the nations in Southeast Asia, the expansion of their trade and the improvement of their economic infrastructure. Therefore, the Treaty promotes cooperation with the developing countries of that region as well as economic, financial and technical cooperation with countries other than developing countries.\n(4)\nThe Council, at its meeting of 4-5 December 2006, authorised the Presidency and the Commission to negotiate the Union\u2019s and the European Community\u2019s accession to the Treaty.\n(5)\nBy letter dated 7 December 2006, the Union and the European Community informed Cambodia, in its capacity of ASEAN Coordinator for relations with the Union, of its decision to apply for accession to the Treaty subject to the understandings expressed in the letter.\n(6)\nOn 28 May 2009, Thailand, then Chair of ASEAN, declared the consent of all the States in Southeast Asia to the accession to the Treaty by the Union and the European Community, subject to the entry into force of the Third Protocol to the Treaty.\n(7)\nThe Third Protocol to the Treaty, signed on 23 July 2010, provides for the accession of regional organisations to the Treaty.\n(8)\nThe Union should therefore accede to the Treaty following the entry into force of the Third Protocol to the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accession of the Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe texts of the Treaty and its three amending Protocols, as well as the Instrument of Accession to the Treaty by the Union, are attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Council hereby authorises the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to sign and deposit the Instrument of Accession to the Treaty on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2012.", "references": ["15", "71", "67", "96", "58", "32", "85", "90", "98", "86", "81", "23", "10", "76", "49", "48", "64", "65", "28", "29", "7", "93", "56", "53", "14", "60", "8", "40", "21", "97", "No Label", "3", "4", "5", "95"], "gold": ["3", "4", "5", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 March 2011\namending Decision 2011/44/EU concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria\n(notified under document C(2011) 2023)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/198/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA case of foot-and-mouth disease in wild boar and a number of outbreaks of that disease in livestock were confirmed in Bulgaria in January 2011. As a consequence, Bulgaria has taken measures in the framework of Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (3).\n(2)\nIn addition, Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (4) was adopted, as it was necessary to reinforce the control measures taken by Bulgaria. That Decision is to apply until 31 March 2011.\n(3)\nOn 19 March 2011, Bulgaria reported an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in beef cattle grazing in the municipality of Sredets, situated in the region of Burgas, west of the municipality of Malko Tarnovo where the last outbreak was reported on 31 January 2011.\n(4)\nIt is therefore necessary to prolong the measures laid down in Decision 2011/44/EU, until 30 June 2011.\n(5)\nDecision 2011/44/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 16 of Decision 2011/44/EU, the date \u201831 March 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201830 June 2011\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 March 2011.", "references": ["8", "14", "32", "50", "1", "9", "7", "65", "12", "63", "19", "93", "37", "42", "85", "56", "62", "26", "52", "76", "31", "4", "17", "71", "48", "55", "58", "3", "6", "64", "No Label", "21", "23", "38", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "23", "38", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 446/2010\nof 21 May 2010\nopening the sale of butter by a tendering procedure\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f) and (j), in conjunction of Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nGiven the current situation on the butter market in terms of demand and prices and the level of intervention stocks it is appropriate to open the sale of butter from intervention by a tendering procedure in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (2).\n(2)\nIn order to better manage the sales from intervention, a date shall be fixed before which the intervention butter should have entered into storage to be available for sale.\n(3)\nArticle 40(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 provides that it is necessary to lay down the time limits for the submission of tenders.\n(4)\nAccording to Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 the time limit to notify all admissible tenders by the intervention agencies to the Commission should be set.\n(5)\nIn view of increased volatility of market prices, it is appropriate to increase the amount of the tendering security, by derogation from Article 44(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(6)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nSales by a tendering procedure of butter entered into storage before 1 October 2009 are open, under the conditions provided for in Title III of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\nThe proposed price shall be the price per 100 kg of products.\nArticle 2\nDates of submission\n1. The time limit for submission of tenders in response to the individual invitations to tender shall be 11.00 (Brussels time) on the first and third Tuesday of the month. However, in August it shall be 11.00 (Brussels time) of the fourth Tuesday and in December it shall be 11.00 (Brussels time) on the second Tuesday. If Tuesday is a public holiday the time limit shall be 11.00 (Brussels time) on the previous working day.\n2. The time limit for the submission of tenders for the first individual tender is 1 June 2010 at 11.00 (Brussels time).\n3. Tenders shall be submitted to the intervention agencies (3).\nArticle 3\nNotification to the Commission\nNotification provided for in Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 shall be made by 16.00 (Brussels time), on the closing date of submission of tenders referred to in Article 2 of this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nDerogation\nBy way of derogation from Article 44(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, the tendering security for butter shall be EUR 200/tonne.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2010.", "references": ["65", "10", "54", "4", "3", "51", "99", "14", "67", "75", "94", "40", "27", "90", "72", "74", "21", "48", "12", "2", "96", "55", "0", "15", "38", "85", "8", "97", "18", "19", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 July 2010\non State Aid C 27/09 (ex N 34/B/09) Budgetary grant for France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions which the French Republic plans to implement in favour of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions\n(notified under document C(2010) 4918)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/140/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter dated 23 January 2009, the French Republic notified the Commission of its intention to provide a budgetary grant of EUR 450 million, already committed in a finance law, in favour of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions for 2009. On 13 March 2009, the Commission requested additional information, which France provided on 25 May 2009. In this letter, the French Republic extended the object of the notification, expressing its intention to introduce a permanent, multiannual public financing mechanism in favour of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, part of which will be an annual grant.\n(2)\nIn its letter of 1 September 2009, the Commission considered that the budgetary grant voted for 2009 was compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (below: \u2018TFEU\u2019) and informed France of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU concerning the new public financing mechanism in favour of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions for the following years.\n(3)\nThe French Republic presented its comments on 7 October 2009.\n(4)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid measure in question.\n(5)\nThe Commission received comments on this subject from interested parties. It communicated them to the French Republic, giving it the opportunity to comment on them, and received its comments by letter of 15 January 2010.\n(6)\nOn 23 April, 19 May and 22 June 2010, the French Republic provided the Commission with particulars and additional information.\nII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE FINANCING MECHANISM\n(7)\nThe multiannual financing mechanism which is the subject of this Decision comes within the context of the financing of the public service missions of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions which the Commission examined in its Decisions dated 10 December 2003 (3), 20 April 2005 (4), 16 July 2008 (5) and 1 September 2009 (6). It nevertheless constitutes a separate measure from those covered by the 2003, 2005 and 2008 decisions. More specifically, the budgetary grants described in more detail below will replenish the public resources allocated to France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions under the television licence fee (contribution \u00e0 l\u2019audiovisuel public), previously known as the redevance, which was the subject of the Commission Decision of 20 April 2005 and which, as existing aid, is not modified by the new provisions. These two public resources are intended to cover the cost of the public service mission of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, reduced by the net commercial revenues remaining.\nII.1. Principal legal bases\n(8)\nThe principal terms of the new public financing mechanism are contained in Law No 2009-258 of 5 March 2009 on audiovisual communication and the new public television service (loi no 2009-258 du 5 mars 2009 relative \u00e0 la communication audiovisuelle et au nouveau service public de la t\u00e9l\u00e9vision). The notified aid is part of a wider reform of the structures and tasks of general economic interest of public broadcasting provided for under the Law. The Law in this way amends the legislative provisions governing the public service missions of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions and, more specifically, Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 on Freedom of Communication (loi no 86-1067 du 30 septembre 1986 relative \u00e0 la libert\u00e9 de communication). These missions are specified in further detail in the terms of reference and the agreement relating to objectives and means of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, which were approved by legislative texts adopted in implementation of the Law on Freedom of Communication. Law No 2009-258 of 5 March 2009 also contains financial provisions amending the Tax Code, on the one hand, and recognising the principle of a budgetary grant committed in a finance law in favour of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, on the other.\nII.2. The activities and financing of the beneficiary: France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions\n(9)\nFrance T\u00e9l\u00e9visions is a public limited-liability company, established under Article 44-I of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 on Freedom of Communication. This Law, as amended, establishes a single undertaking, France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, grouping together the formerly separate legal entities of different broadcasting channels. It is subject to the economic and financial supervision of the French State. Its registered capital is divided into registered shares which can be held only by the State. Its board of directors consists of the chairman and 14 members, whose term of office is 5 years, i.e. two Members of Parliament designated by the Cultural Affairs Committees of the National Assembly and the Senate respectively, five representatives of the State, five prominent persons appointed by the Conseil Sup\u00e9rieur de l\u2019Audiovisuel and two staff representatives.\n(10)\nFrance T\u00e9l\u00e9visions is the leading French broadcasting group. It employs about 11 000 people and comprises the channels France 2, France 3, France 4, France 5 and France \u00d4 broadcasting in mainland France, and RFO, a company grouping together public television and radio channels broadcasting in the overseas departments and territories. The Group also includes a state-owned advertising company, although a divestment is being considered, and companies focusing on diversification activities. Some channels of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions are widely broadcasted in several Member States, and especially in Belgium and Luxembourg.\n(11)\nThe turnover of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions in 2007, the last year before the reform of public broadcasting was announced, stood at EUR 2 927 million, 64,2 % of which came from television licence fees, 28,1 % from advertising revenue (advertising and sponsoring) and 7,7 % from other revenue. Between 2003 and 2007, the share of the various components of turnover remained relatively stable, with the revenue from advertising and sponsoring fluctuating within a range of 30 % to 28 %. The Group as a whole achieved a slightly positive net result each year between 2003 and 2007, totalling EUR 99 million for the period.\n(12)\nThis trend was reversed following the announcement of the public broadcasting reform in January 2008, which included in particular the future loss of revenues from advertising messages. The France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions Group made a loss in 2008, posting a negative net result of EUR [50-100] (7) million (of which EUR [50-100] million for the public service component), attributable in particular to a significant slump in advertising revenues, which an extraordinary capital injection of EUR 150 million, authorised by the Commission in its Decision of 16 July 2008, was unable to offset in full. For 2009, once the reform of public broadcasting has come into effect, the budgetary grant finally paid of EUR 415 million, authorised by the Commission in its Decision of 1 September 2009, was almost sufficient to compensate for the fall in advertising revenues and the France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions Group posted a slightly positive net result (EUR [10-20] million). However, the public service component remained slightly in deficit to the amount of EUR [0-5] million, the positive result being attributable to the commercial companies of the group.\n(13)\nThe activities and management of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions in recent years from 2004-2008 and its position as regards the reform of public broadcasting were the subject of a relatively critical report by the French Court of Auditors France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions et la nouvelle t\u00e9l\u00e9vision publique. The report, to which certain interested third parties refer in their comments, was adopted under consultation and made public on 14 October 2009, i.e. after the decision initiating the procedure. The report notes the existence of untapped margins for growth in the management and results of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions up to that point and contains recommendations for future improvement in the new context of the reform.\nII.3. The public service missions of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions\nII.3.1. Definition of the public service missions in the Law\n(14)\nArticle 43-11 of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986, amended, describes the public service mission of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, establishing that the public channels \u2018carry out public service missions in the public interest. They shall offer the public, taken as a whole, a group of programmes and services which are characterised by their diversity and their pluralism, their requirement of quality and innovation, respect for the rights of the person and of constitutionally defined democratic principles. They shall present a diversified offer of programmes in analogue and digital modes in the areas of information, culture, knowledge, entertainment and sport. They shall favour democratic debate, exchanges between different parts of the population, as well as integration into society and citizenship. They shall implement actions in favour of social cohesion, cultural diversity and combating discrimination and shall offer programming reflecting the diversity of French society. They shall promote the French language and, where appropriate, regional languages, and highlight the diversity of the cultural and linguistic heritage of France. They shall contribute to the development and broadcasting of intellectual and artistic creation and of civic, economic, social, scientific and technical knowledge, as well as to audiovisual education and media. They shall promote the learning of foreign languages. They shall participate in education in the environment and sustainable development. Using adapted devices, they shall promote access to their broadcasted programmes by persons who are deaf and hard of hearing. They shall guarantee the integrity, independence and pluralism of information, as well as the pluralist expression of currents of thought and opinion, respecting the principle of equal treatment and the recommendations of the Conseil sup\u00e9rieur de l\u2019audiovisuel (French Broadcasting Authority). The institutions of the public audiovisual communication sector, with respect to the performance of their missions, shall contribute to the external audiovisual action, the influence of the French-speaking world and the broadcasting of the French language and culture throughout the world. They shall endeavour to develop new services that may enrich or complete their programme offer, as well as the new technologies of production and broadcasting of audiovisual communication programmes and services. A report on the application of the provisions of this Article shall be filed each year in Parliament.\u2019.\nII.3.2. Incorporation of the public service obligations in the activities of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions\n(15)\nAs regards the practical incorporation of these missions, Section I of Article 44 of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 provides that France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions is responsible for designing and programming television programmes and audiovisual communication services corresponding to the public service missions defined in Article 43-11 and in terms of reference provided for in Article 48 of the same Law.\n(16)\nDecree No 2009-796 of 23 June 2009 establishes the henceforth single terms of reference of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions. The terms of reference provide a framework for the activity of the channels of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, with binding programming commitments to broadcast, often during prime time, daily cultural programmes, music programmes and especially classical music with a variety of European or regional orchestras, theatrical performances or popular science programmes (Articles 4 to 7 of the terms of reference). France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions is also required to integrate the European dimension into all its programmes, in particular by broadcasting reports on the lifestyles or cultural practices of other Member States, and to broadcast programmes of a religious nature devoted to the main religions practised in France (Articles 14 and 15 of the terms of reference). The obligation to attract a wide, balanced audience, including all sectors of the public, is also laid down (Article 18).\n(17)\nFurthermore, under Article 53 of Law No 86-1067 on Freedom of Communication, multiannual agreements in respect of objectives and means are concluded between the State and France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions for a period of between three and 5 years. The agreements in respect of objectives and means determine, with due respect for the public service missions of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions:\n-\nthe priorities of its development,\n-\nthe undertakings made concerning diversity and innovation in creation,\n-\nthe minimum investments by France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions in the production of European and original French language cinematographic and audiovisual works, as a percentage of its revenues and in absolute value,\n-\nthe commitments ensuring participation and citizenship of disabled people, adaptation for people who are deaf or hard of hearing of all television programmes,\n-\nthe commitments ensuring the broadcasting of television programmes which, by using adapted devices, are accessible to people who are blind or partially sighted,\n-\nthe estimated cost of its activities for each of the years in question and the quantitative and qualitative indicators of performance and results applied,\n-\nthe amount of public resources to be allocated to it, identifying as a priority those devoted to the development of the programme budgets,\n-\nthe amount of the income expected from own revenues, distinguishing those from advertising and sponsoring,\n-\nthe economic prospects for pay services,\n-\nwhere appropriate, the prospects for return to financial equilibrium.\n(18)\nAt present, the public service obligations of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions are subject to the agreement in respect of objectives and means for 2007-2010 \u2018France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, the first package of free channels of the digital age\u2019 of 24 April 2007, signed by the competent Ministers and the Chairman of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions. Under the heading of objective I.2 \u2018To promote the identifying values of the public service\u2019, the agreement sets out detailed objectives in concrete measures, together with qualitative or quantitative indicators to be achieved in fields such as:\n-\nto promote access by a wider public to cultural programmes, with a view to democratisation of culture, by broadcasting at least one cultural programme during prime time,\n-\nto reflect pluralism in information and citizens\u2019 debate,\n-\nto offer a wide range of sports disciplines, with emphasis on the sports with the least coverage by the private channels,\n-\nto reflect the diversity and enhance the perception of the components of French society,\n-\nto promote the defence of the French and European cultural identity, the understanding of the functioning of the Union and its contributions, and the learning of foreign languages.\n(19)\nThe agreement also provides for a multiannual financial component, which includes an adjustment clause providing that the State and the Group agree to consult to adjust the demand for public funding in accordance with the trend in advertising revenues, on the understanding that surpluses not allocated to reducing this demand for public funding will be allocated as a priority to expenditure on audiovisual creation.\n(20)\nFollowing the reform, the current agreement in respect of objectives and means was the subject of a rider for the period 2009-2012. This rider, the financial component of which is described in more detail below, strengthens still further the identifying values of the public service performed by France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions and sets new quantitative indicators to be attained per year in some of the areas indicated in recital 18.\nII.3.3. Introduction of new innovative audiovisual services\n(21)\nThe new terms of reference of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions provide for the introduction of a series of innovative services designed to enhance the editorial supply, such as on-line communication services, audiovisual media services on demand or additional content which enriches its programmes. Likewise, the rider to the agreement in respect of objectives and means also considers the introduction of innovative services, and especially free or pay video on demand, personal mobile television, Internet broadcasting, mobile applications, and regional or thematic WebTV.\nII.3.4. External control of the public service obligations, including the launch of new services\n(22)\nUnder Article 53 of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986, the board of directors of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions approves the draft agreement in respect of objectives and means of this company and discusses its annual performance, with the result of the deliberations being made public. Before signature, the agreements in respect of objectives and means and any riders to these agreements are forwarded to the Cultural Affairs and Finance Committees of the National Assembly and the Senate and to the Conseil Sup\u00e9rieur de l\u2019Audiovisuel. The committees may submit opinions within a period of 6 weeks.\n(23)\nFurthermore, an annual report on the performance of the agreement in respect of objectives and means of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions is presented by its Chairman before the Cultural Affairs and Finance Committees of the National Assembly and the Senate. When the report on the performance of the agreement in respect of objectives and means of the company is presented before the competent Committees of the National Assembly and the Senate, the Chairman of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions also reports on the activity and the work of the Programme Advisory Committee set up within it and composed of television viewers, which is responsible for issuing opinions and recommendations on the programmes.\n(24)\nLikewise, the preliminary draft terms of reference of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, established by Decree, was the subject of public consultation from 10 to 24 November 2008 to which some 15 entities made contributions, which gave rise to modifications to the initial text, followed by the opinion of the Conseil Sup\u00e9rieur de l\u2019Audiovisuel. As regards the external control of its performance, Article 48 of the Law of 30 September 1986 provides for the presentation of an annual report by the Conseil Sup\u00e9rieur de l\u2019Audiovisuel to the Cultural Affairs Committees of the National Assembly and the Senate. The report is also forwarded to the Minister for Culture and Communication.\n(25)\nThese parliamentary committees, like the Conseil Sup\u00e9rieur de l\u2019Audiovisuel, may hear third parties. In fact, interested parties are regularly heard by these bodies and make their views known on questions relating to public broadcasting.\nII.4. Financial compensation for the gradual reduction then discontinuance of advertising messages\n(26)\nIn order to increase the freedom of programming of public broadcasting and to reduce its dependence on commercial constraints, Article 53, Section VI of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986, amended, on Freedom of Communication provides for the reduction then the discontinuance of advertising messages: \u2018The programmes broadcasted between 20:00 and 06:00 of the national television services referred to in Section I of Article 44, with the exception of their regional and local programmes, shall not include any advertising messages other than those for goods or services presented under their generic name. This provision shall also apply to programmes broadcasted by these services between 6:00 and 20:00 from the discontinuance of broadcasting by terrestrial radio link in analogue mode of the television services referred to in the same Section I throughout mainland France. It shall not apply to public interest campaigns.\u2019.\n(27)\nThe discontinuance of broadcasting of television services by terrestrial radio link in analogue mode is scheduled for 30 November 2011 at the latest. Apart from the exception for the generic advertising of goods or services, provision is made for derogations for the broadcasting of advertising messages for the overseas departments and territories and New Caledonia, in the absence of the availability of private television broadcasted by terrestrial radio link without the need for a decoder.\n(28)\nAs provided for in Article 53 of Law No 86-1067, amended, on Freedom of Communication, the reduction, followed by the discontinuance of advertising messages resulting from the entry into force of the Law gives rise to financial compensation by the State allocated to France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions under conditions defined by each finance law. To this end, the French State has created a new programme, entitled \u2018Contribution au financement de l\u2019audiovisuel public\u2019 (television licence fee), under the heading \u2018Media\u2019 of the general budget of the State. Purely for information, the French authorities consider that the share of public grant supplementing the proceeds from the television licence fee would amount to approximately EUR 460 million in 2010, EUR 500 million in 2011 and EUR 650 million in 2012.\n(29)\nThe French Republic declares that, for each year, the public financing from the budgetary grant will be determined according to the costs of performing the public service mission of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions and cumulated with the proceeds from the television licence fee, reduced by the commercial revenues remaining. In this respect, the French authorities forwarded the estimated public service costs and revenues of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, drawn up on the basis of the 2009-2012 business plan and summarised below:\nTable 1\nEstimated revenues and costs of the public service of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions 2010-2012\n(EUR million)\n2010\n2011\n2012\nBudget\nEstimates\nEstimates\nA/Public resources\n[2 500-3 000]\n[2 500-3 000]\n[2 500-3 000]\nB/Other revenue (advertising, sponsoring, etc.)\n[300-600]\n[300-600]\n[300-600]\nC/Gross public service cost\n[3 500-3 000]\n[3 500-3 000]\n[3 500-3 000]\nD/Net public service cost (C + B)\n[3 000-2 500]\n[3 000-2 500]\n[3 000-2 500]\nShortfall between net PS cost - public resources (D + A)\n[- 50 - 50]\n[- 50 - 50]\n[- 50 - 50]\nSource: Comments by France of 15 January 2010.\n(30)\nThe table above shows an estimated deficit corresponding to the uncovered net cost for the public service accounts of France T\u00e9l\u00e9vision in 2010 and 2011. This deficit should be absorbed in part in 2012, with a slight surplus forecasted of EUR [30-50] million, i.e. [0-5] % of the net public service costs. This estimated surplus for 2012, if it were to materialise in fact, which presupposes that the trend in revenues and costs follows the forecasted trend precisely, remains below the cumulated deficit forecasted for 2010 and 2011. Under the current agreement in respect of objectives and means, surpluses not allocated to reducing the public funding requirement will have to be allocated as a priority to the expenditure on audiovisual creation. Since this creation is generally destined for programming, any surplus should not therefore finance commercial activities.\n(31)\nIt should be noted that the 2009-2012 business plan shown in Chapter V of the rider to the current agreement in respect of objectives and means is substituted for the financial section of the agreement concluded in April 2007, in view of the new framework introduced by the reform and its financial consequences. The business plan provides for a reduction in the overall gross cost of providing the public service for the period 2010-2012, with a reduction in operating costs compared with the initial agreement, a reduction in broadcasting costs and the exploitation of synergies resulting from the joint venture, despite the introduction of new cost components accompanying the reform.\n(32)\nAs regards revenues, the public resources earmarked, although rising, do not totally balance the accounts for the period 2010-2012 and, as indicated in Table 1, remain below the gross public service costs, which means that the financial equilibrium in the projections depends on the commercial revenues remaining each year. The business plan therefore points out that it is in the interests of the undertaking and the State to achieve equilibrium more rapidly than forecasted and states the need for precise, regular monitoring in the light of positive or negative fluctuations.\nII.5. Capping of the public resources\n(33)\nArticle 44 of Law No 86-1067, amended, on Freedom of Communication also specifies that \u2018The public resources allocated to public broadcasters in compensation for the public service obligations entrusted to them shall not exceed the cost of discharging these obligations\u2019. This provision results from France\u2019s commitments to enshrine in law the principle of non-overcompensation for the public service obligations in the context of the procedure which led to the Commission\u2019s compatibility decision of 20 April 2005 on the use of the resources from the television licence fee (8).\n(34)\nIn implementation of the above-mentioned commitment, Article 2 of Decree No 2007-958 of 15 May 2007 on the financial relations between the State and public sector bodies in the audiovisual communication sector (d\u00e9cret no 2007-958 du 15 mai 2007 relatif aux relations financi\u00e8res entre l\u2019\u00c9tat et les organismes du secteur public de la communication audiovisuelle) takes up the wording of Article 53 of the Law of 30 September 1986, taking account \u2018of the direct or indirect revenue derived from the public service mission\u2019 and specifies that the cost of performance of the public service obligations is to be established by means of separate accounts. Article 3 of the Decree provides for the obligation for France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions and its subsidiaries to respect market conditions in all their commercial activities and for an external body to draw up an annual report on the performance of this obligation, forwarded to the competent Minister, the National Assembly and the Senate.\n(35)\nThe Commission has received and examined reports on the implementation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Decree relating to the financial years 2007 and 2008 (the reports drawn up under Article 3 of the Decree were certified, for 2007, by the auditors PriceWaterhouseCoopers and KPMG and, for 2008, by Cabinet Rise) and the draft report provided for under Article 2 for 2009.\nII.6. New taxes planned under the reform of public broadcasting\n(36)\nLaw No 2009-258 of 5 March 2009 also amended the Tax Code to introduce new taxes on advertising and electronic communications.\nII.6.1. Tax on advertising messages\n(37)\nTitle II of Part 1 of Book I of the General Tax Code henceforth contains a Chapter VIIf which introduces a tax payable by all television service editors established in France. The tax is based on the total amounts, exclusive of value added tax, paid by the advertisers for the broadcasting of their advertising messages to the taxable persons concerned or to the advertising managers, minus the amounts paid under the tax provided for in Article 302a KC of the General Tax Code, which is payable by television editors and distributors broadcasting audiovisual works eligible for support from the National Centre for Cinematography. These amounts are subject to a standard deduction of 4 %. The tax is calculated by applying a rate of 3 % to the fraction of the total annual payments, exclusive of value added tax, relating to each television service, in excess of EUR 11 million.\n(38)\nHowever, for the television services other than those broadcasted by terrestrial radio link in analogue mode, this rate is set at 1,5 % in 2009, 2 % in 2010 and 2,5 % in 2011. As a transitional measure, for all taxable persons, until the year of the discontinuance in mainland France of analogue terrestrial broadcasting, the tax is capped at 50 % of the increase in its assessment basis calculated for the calendar year for which the tax is payable in relation to 2008. In any event, the amount of the tax may be no less than 1,5 % of the assessment basis. Nevertheless, for television service editors with a daily audience outside mainland France exceeding 90 % of their total audience, the total sums paid for the broadcasting of advertising messages destined for the European or world market, multiplied by the percentage of the audience obtained outside mainland France of the annual total audience, is deducted from the amount to be taken for the calculation of the tax.\nII.6.2. Tax on electronic communications\n(39)\nTitle II of Part 1 of Book I of the General Tax Code henceforth contains a Chapter VIIg, which introduces a tax payable by all operators of electronic communications which provide a service in France and which have been the subject of a prior declaration to the electronic communications regulatory authority. The tax is based on the amount, exclusive of value added tax, of the subscriptions and other amounts paid by users for electronic communications services provided by electronic communications operators, with the deduction of the amount of the depreciation charges entered in the accounts during the financial year for which the accounts have been closed, in respect of the year during which the tax has become due, where these charges relate to materials and equipment acquired by the operators, from the entry into force of the Law, to meet the requirements of the infrastructures and electronic communications networks established within national territory, with a depreciation period of at least 10 years. The tax is calculated by applying a rate of 0,9 % to the fraction of the assessment basis exceeding EUR 5 million.\nIII. REASONS HAVING TRIGGERED THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEDURE\n(40)\nIn its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission considered that the compensation planned from 2010 could constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, the compatibility of which with the internal market under Article 106(2) of the TFEU should be examined in accordance with the principles and rules of application provided for in respect of public broadcasting services.\n(41)\nAs regards the existence of a public service activity with missions clearly defined by an official act and subject to appropriate control mechanisms, the Commission did not raise any doubts and concluded, as in its Decisions of December 2003, April 2005, July 2008 and September 2009, that the public service missions of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions are clearly defined in official acts emanating from or subscribed to by the French State, in accordance with the terms and conditions which provide for independent control of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions.\n(42)\nOn the other hand, as regards the examination of the proportionality of the planned financial compensation in relation to the net cost of the public service activity, taking account moreover of the effects of the aid, the Commission expressed doubts on two issues, i.e.:\n-\non the one hand, concerning a risk of overcompensation for the net public service costs for 2012 and, probably, for 2010 and 2011, although, for these years, the Commission did not possess such detailed information as that provided by the French authorities for 2009, and\n-\non the other hand, concerning the possible existence of hypothecation of the revenues from the taxes on advertising and electronic communications to the aid to be paid to France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions and, if such a link could be established, concerning the negative effects of such revenues and their compatibility with the Treaty, in particular in the context of taking stock of the competition aspects of the reform of the financing of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, which was lacking.\n(43)\nFurthermore, the Commission drew the attention of the French authorities to the adoption on 2 July 2009 of its Communication on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (9) (below: the \u2018Broadcasting Communication\u2019), which is applicable to aid notified from the time of its publication, and invited the French authorities to take account of this revised communication in their comments.\nIV. COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES\n(44)\nIn its comments of 2 November 2009, the Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des auteurs et compositeurs dramatiques (SACD) drew the Commission\u2019s attention to the importance of the binding obligations of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions to support heritage audiovisual creation. This importance was increased at the end of 2008 by an interprofessional agreement, which would be integrated into a future agreement in respect of objectives. In 2010, France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will therefore have to devote to heritage audiovisual creation a 19 % share of the turnover included in the assessment basis for 2009, a share which is to be raised to 20 %, i.e. EUR 420 million in 2012. The equivalent share of TF1, on the other hand, is capped at 12,5 % and those of M6 and the digital terrestrial television channels respectively will not exceed 11 %. The commitment in favour of cinema will also be increased by over 1,2 % as an annual average rate until 2012. The discontinuance of advertising would go hand in hand with an increase in the cost of the programme schedule as regards non-imported own production works, which show commitment to an innovative, quality public service.\n(45)\nThe F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Fran\u00e7aise des T\u00e9l\u00e9communications et des Communications \u00c9lectroniques (FFTCE), in its comments of 30 October 2009, in which it is joined by Iliad, a non-member of the FFTCE, considers that the discontinuance of commercial advertising does not contribute, as such, to the public service mission of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions. Since advertising is not an integral part of this mission, any grant aiming solely to compensate for lost earnings without regard for the reality of the mission would inherently be state aid, contrary to Articles 106(2) and 107 of the TFEU. This compensation must cover costs specific to the public service, which must be reflected in separate accounts. However, the amount of the grant seems to have been fixed for the coming years on the basis of the estimate of the loss of commercial revenues which, on a market which has deteriorated, seriously distorts competition with the private broadcasters. Whereas the total turnover from advertising of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions in an eroded market would undoubtedly not have reached EUR 500 million, the French authorities have committed to pay EUR 450 million in 2009 as a consideration solely for the ban on advertising after 20:00. In the future, the grant revenue would also be well above the advertising revenues which would have been obtained without the reform.\n(46)\nAs regards the mission of service in the general economic interest, the FFTCE notes that the obligations incumbent upon France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, as a member of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), already exist via the latter\u2019s statutes and would be applicable without the obligations laid down in French law. The constraints, which for that matter are vague, imposed by law, would not be substantially different from those deriving from the EBU statutes, to which TF1 and Canal + are also subject as members, so a compensatory grant under the law must be termed as state aid.\n(47)\nThe FTTCE considers, finally, that the new turnover tax imposed on the operators of electronic communications, introduced by the reform of public broadcasting, is allocated to the financing of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions. Apart from the earmarking affirmed in the declarations by the authorities, variations in its assessment basis and in its rate cause variations in the amount of the grant. The introduction of such a tax is in violation of Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (10) since Member States may not impose any turnover tax on operators other than those provided for there.\n(48)\nIn its comments of 2 November 2009, the Association des cha\u00eenes priv\u00e9es considers that the poor management of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, many examples of which have been pointed out by the Court of Auditors, aggravates the inflationary effect found on the market for programme production and the purchase of rights. In the absence of cost accounting, the failure to control costs creates uncertainties as regards the determination of the cost of the public service missions to be financed, with a serious risk of overcompensation. Since various signs point to the new broadcasting tax being allocated to France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, its destination for the state budget is intended only to enable it to escape Commission control. The competitors of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions are hereby forced to finance the aid, creating a distortion aggravated by the inadequate differentiation between the programmes of the various old channels.\n(49)\nIn its comments of 2 November 2009, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) stresses the necessarily forward-looking nature of any multiannual estimate of the costs and revenues of the public broadcaster submitted by France. These estimates must ensure the long-term financial visibility which the operator must have to guarantee continuity of service in complete independence. It is ex post mechanisms which must ensure the correction of any forecasting errors. The Commission decision must be based on the ex ante calculation parameters and on these mechanisms, without imposing constraints on the actual amount of compensation in the future by validating only the cost and revenue estimates. Failing this, the Commission would be establishing and monitoring the annual amounts of an aid scheme, rather than the scheme itself. The EBU also expresses its concern that the Commission seeks to know the estimated amount obtained from synergies and efficiency gains for the years to come, since the efficiency with which a service of general economic interest is performed lies outside the control of the Commission pursuant to Article 106(2) of the TFEU.\n(50)\nIn its comments of 2 November 2009, the Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT) declares itself in favour of France\u2019s decision to undertake a substantial reduction in the commercial advertising of its public broadcaster. The ACT notes that two conditions laid down by the Altmark (11) case-law are not satisfied in this case, which means that the planned budgetary contribution constitutes aid. However, the ACT considers that if the system of financing the aid by means of a tax levied on the advertising revenues of competitors is considered as being in conformity with Union law, the benefits from the withdrawal from the market would be greatly reduced, while such a system could, in certain respects, introduce more distortions than the traditional dual public and commercial financing systems.\n(51)\nThe ACT considers that the public service obligations of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions have not undergone any fundamental change since 1994 and remained similar to the obligations of other private broadcasters. Likewise the estimates of compensation for the loss of advertising revenues up to 2012 are vague and do not take account of the reduction in investment costs relating to this or the possible reduction in the costs of programming, which is less subject to the constraints of the advertisers, or the anticipated gains from synergies. The mechanism for the adjustment of the public and commercial revenues to the costs provided for in the agreement relating to objectives and means should be verified, in particular in view of the variability of the commercial revenues, failing which the Commission would not have reliable information to determine the actual costs of the service provided and the existence of any overcompensation. This verification would be undertaken in the absence of any cost accounting by the enterprise, as pointed out by the Court of Auditors.\n(52)\nFinally, the ACT considers that the aid is in fact financed by the new taxes introduced by the reform and that the tax on advertising revenues of broadcasters introduces a model of public service financing by competitors in France which has been abandoned elsewhere. The aid mechanism protects the resources of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions whereas it would be increasingly obvious that the advertisers will not transfer their demand in full to the competing channels. Furthermore, such a mechanism would reinforce the entry barriers to the French market.\n(53)\nIn its comments of 2 November 2009, France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions considers that the mechanism notified confers no economic advantage on it in relation to its competitors since, although it is protected from the loss of commercial revenue, on the other hand a constraint has been imposed on it by the State which is not imposed on any private operator in the market: the discontinuance of advertising. When the discontinuance of advertising messages becomes effective, any distortion of competition in this market will disappear, whereas its pressure on competitors for sponsoring, in view of its limited presence, would also be zero. As regards the purchase of \u2018premium\u2019 broadcasting rights, whereas TF1 apparently achieved 96 of the 100 best audiences and 18 of the 20 best audiences in 2008, France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions had no exclusivity contract with the major American companies. Furthermore, it is obliged to invest in audiovisual creation with quality requirements which are incompatible with the audience targets of the commercial channels. It considers it only has a marginal presence regarding the sale of programmes.\n(54)\nFrance T\u00e9l\u00e9visions also considers that, as the amount to be allocated to it depends on the cost of its missions established in advance, precisely and objectively each year, with an ex post correction in the event of any divergence from real costs, the notified mechanism satisfies the second condition laid down by the Altmark case-law. The fourth condition laid down by this case-law would also be satisfied, since synergies which it was impossible to exploit in the past will be exploited with the recasting of the legal organisation and the statutes, since this fourth condition does not require the service to be performed at the least cost possible, but that the costs correspond to those which a typical, well-run undertaking would have incurred.\n(55)\nAccording to France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, as regards the conditions for the compatibility of the notified mechanism with the internal market, since this mechanism is required to last for many years, it will not be possible for the net public service costs to be known with sufficient certainty for the Commission to be able to carry out ex ante checks for the absence of overcompensation. Whereas the indicative estimates provided for 2010 to 2012 are not incompatible with the possibility to make a reasonable profit or to constitute a reserve limited to 10 % of the annual public service expenditure, the laws and regulations establishing ex post control will in any case enable the proportionality of the financing to be ensured. On the other hand, since the variation in its scheduling costs depends on its editorial choices, France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions considers that it is bound only to respect the public service obligations imposed by the law, with the French Republic free to define their content. Furthermore, these obligations are also expressed by an audience requirement, which the discontinuance of advertising messages would not reduce. On the contrary, a larger number of programmes will have to be acquired.\n(56)\nIn its comments of 2 November 2009, M\u00e9tropole T\u00e9l\u00e9visions (M6) considers that the envisaged financing mechanism constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the TFEU, especially since the second and fourth conditions laid down by the Altmark case-law are not met: compensation based on an estimate of loss of commercial revenues which by nature - and in fact - fluctuate could not be considered as based on objective and transparent parameters for the calculation of the public service costs. In addition, the basis of the calculation is not the costs of a typical, well-run undertaking of the sector, but that of the costs of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, which a large number of indications point to being managed inefficiently, which increases the public service costs to be borne by the community.\n(57)\nAs regards the compatibility of the measure with the internal market, M6 considers that the planned financing mechanism is illegal as it generates structural overcompensation for the public service costs. Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (12) requires France to assign the costs and revenues of the service of general interest on the basis of consistently applied cost accounting principles. However, as the Court of Auditors emphasises, France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions does not possess such accounting tools. No objective element could therefore serve to calculate the amount of compensation. Overcompensation would be inevitable since the grant is calculated on the basis of commercial revenues which do not come under the public service mission and are not to be taken into account in its costs. The randomness of the lost revenue forecasts and the absence of cost accounting would also make overcompensation inevitable.\n(58)\nThe integration of the new taxes in the financing mechanism aggravates the negative effects of the aid on the markets for the acquisition of broadcasting rights - where the poor management of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, protected by public aid, increases the costs of its competitors - and on advertising activities, which France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will divert to sponsoring, whereas M6 will be unable to fill the gap left by France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions in view of its different audience profile. Under these conditions, only ex post financing could be justified. The mechanism would therefore be structurally illegal in the absence of the introduction of independent ex post control mechanisms effectively guaranteeing the absence of overcompensation on the basis of real figures, the implementation of which would be ineffective in France, according to M6.\n(59)\nIn its comments of 2 November 2009, T\u00e9l\u00e9vision Fran\u00e7aise 1 (TF1) relocates the reform of the financing of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions in a context of structural changes affecting the advertising market, in which the Internet is experiencing strong growth. Television apparently accounted for only about 11 % of the EUR 33 billion of communication expenditure by advertisers in 2008. Between January and September 2009, the advertising turnover of digital terrestrial television channels experienced 60 % growth, compared to an 8 % fall for the three old private channels broadcasting by terrestrial radio link. For 2008, the taxes paid by TF1 accounted for 60 % of its result. On the other hand, multiannual contracts for the acquisition of rights, price inflation and the inelasticity of costs, including those of scheduling attributable to the regulatory obligations whereby the production and broadcasting of French and European works must represent 30 % of the total, reduce its room for manoeuvre, according to TF1. In parallel, its liability to a new broadcasting tax would reinforce the distortions of competition in the market.\n(60)\nThe potential transfer of advertisers\u2019 demand to TF1 is the declared object of the tax on advertising revenue of broadcasters. Not only did the expected transfer of EUR 350 million of turnover to the three channels broadcasting by radio link fail to occur in 2009, but the latter recorded an amount EUR 450 million below the forecasts. Furthermore, the scale of this transfer would be limited in any case by laws and regulations which, transposing Union law, limit the time devoted to advertising to a maximum of 12 minutes per hour of broadcasting, provided that a daily average of 6 minutes per hour is not exceeded.\n(61)\nTF1 considers that the tax constitutes state aid in two capacities: firstly, France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will in fact no longer be required to pay after 30 November 2011 (date on which it will be obliged to discontinue the advertising messages for which the payments constitute the assessment basis) and, secondly, France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will be the beneficiary of the resources raised by this tax, since it emerges from many governmental and parliamentary statements during the debates on the draft law that this is allocated to financing the aid. Irrespective of its intrinsic legality, the tax regime which finances it should therefore be taken into consideration to assess the aid.\n(62)\nTF1 considers that it is subject to obligations comparable to those imposed on France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, the programmes of which do not apparently differ greatly from its own. Even though TF1 welcomes the recasting of the agreement relating to objectives and means and the terms of reference following the reform of public broadcasting, it considers, on the basis of the opinion of the Court of Auditors, that the public broadcasting service supply is insufficiently individualised. It is therefore underlined that, in the former terms of reference, the quantitative broadcasting obligations represented 10 % of the programme schedules.\n(63)\nThe cost control and quality of the management of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions are just as inadequate, which means that the public service is not provided at the least cost to the community and generates a risk of overcompensation. The Commission should therefore check, in this respect, the growth in profits from commercial activities, the synergies which should result after 2009 from the creation of a single enterprise France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions and the reduced pressure on the costs of the programme schedule resulting from lesser dependence on advertisers.\nV. COMMENTS OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC\n(64)\nIn its comments forwarded on 7 October 2009 and subsequently clarified, as regards the application of Article 106(2) of the TFEU, the French Republic refers in particular to the doubts expressed by the Commission concerning, on the one hand, the proportionality of the public financing and the risk of overcompensation and, on the other hand, the taking into consideration of the new taxes introduced by the reform of public broadcasting for the purposes of assessing the compatibility of the notified measure with the internal market.\nV.1. Proportionality of the financing and ex post control of the risk of overcompensation\n(65)\nThe French Republic specifies that the notified measure is not compensation for the loss of advertising revenues of the France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions group, although the estimates provided for information take account of this, but financing intended to cover the costs of performance of the public service mission. The financing requirements will in fact have to evolve in accordance with the changes in the costs of the programme schedule, fluctuations in commercial revenues or broadcasting media.\n(66)\nThe French Republic emphasises that the ex ante confirmation of the absence of risk of overcompensation must be undertaken by verifying the existence of legislative and regulatory control mechanisms, in accordance with the case-law and practical application by the Commission, and not in relation to the indicative estimates of grant and costs given for the future. The indicative amounts are provided for illustration, in the light of the business plan approved by the supervisory authorities and France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions. The method used to calculate the grant is not based on the estimate of the fall in advertising revenues of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions. The calculation will be based on a general formula, such as: the combined total for each year of the television licence fee and the budget allocation will be proportional to the cost of the public service mission of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, minus its commercial revenues, with due regard for the commitments of the French Republic and the ex post control mechanisms established by laws and regulations.\n(67)\nIn addition, as regards the new innovative audiovisual services mentioned in the Broadcasting Communication, the French Republic stresses that a certain number are already provided for in the new terms of reference of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions and the amended agreement relating to objectives and means, which have been and will be the subject of the prior, regular controls and consultations described above. For the future, France considers that the launch of any significant new service must be dealt with under the agreement relating to objectives and means, with the same controls applying.\n(68)\nFurthermore, since the Broadcasting Communication took effect after the initiation of the present procedure, the French Republic undertakes to complete its ex post financial control mechanism to comply with the rules newly specified in this Communication with regard to financial control mechanisms. In this way, it is planned to amend Article 2 of Decree No 2007-958 of 15 May 2007. The purpose of this amendment is:\n-\nto ensure that the report on the separate accounts - a requirement allowing the absence of overcompensation to be verified - like the report provided for in Article 3, is audited by an external body, the choice of which is subject to the approval of the Minister for Communication, forwarded to this Minister and to the National Assembly and the Senate, and drawn up at the expense of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions,\n-\nto complete the appropriate functional mechanism to ensure the actual recovery of any overcompensation or cross-subsidisation found in these separate accounts and not compatible with Article 53 of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 on Freedom of Communication or with the Commission Broadcasting Communication.\n(69)\nLikewise, in order to complete the information supplied to the Commission during the first few years of the reform initiated by Law No 2009-258 of 5 March 2009, the French authorities undertake to communicate to the Commission, for the years 2010 to 2013:\n-\nthe reports drawn up under Articles 2 and 3 of the above-mentioned Decree, after amendment, within a maximum period of 6 months of the General Meetings approving the accounts, including the data concerning the trend in advertising market shares since 2007,\n-\nthe public elements for monitoring the performance of the public service missions by France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions which consist of the report on the channels drawn up annually by the Conseil Sup\u00e9rieur de l\u2019Audiovisuel (provided for in Article 18 of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986) and the report on the hearings by the parliamentary committees (Cultural Affairs and Finance Committees of the National Assembly and the Senate) by the Chairman of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions on the annual performance of the agreement relating to objectives and means (as provided for in Article 53 of the above-mentioned Law).\nV.2. Taking into consideration of the new taxes introduced by the reform of public broadcasting\n(70)\nThe French Republic considers that it has it has not taken account of the new taxes on advertising and electronic communications in its notification. Although introduced by the same legislative instrument as establishes the reform, these taxes would not come within the scope of the notified measure.\n(71)\nThe French Republic specifies that the public statements prior to the Law being passed referred to in the decision initiating the procedure, subsequently contradicted by the provisions of this Law, are not sufficient to establish as a binding link the earmarking of the taxes to finance the aid under Union law. Under French law, these taxes are levied in favour of the general budget of the State, contributing to financing all public expenditure and complying with the principles of universality and unity, which come under the constitutionality of public finances. Under Article 36 of the Organic Law of 1 August 2001 on Finance Laws (loi organique du 1er ao\u00fbt 2001 relative aux lois de finances), the allocation in whole or in part of a resource established in favour of the State to a legal person may result only from an express provision of a finance law, which, in the present case, does not exist.\n(72)\nThe French Republic also emphasises that there are no plans to introduce earmarking between these taxes and the financing of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions. It specifies that, if a change to the architecture of the regime were to be considered, the French authorities would send a new notification to the Commission, in accordance with Article 108(3) of the TFEU.\nVI. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\nVI.1. Presence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU\n(73)\nArticle 107(1) of the TFEU provides that \u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\u2019 These criteria are examined below.\nVI.1.1. State resources\n(74)\nThe budget allocations which are the subject of the present notification will be committed each year in the finance law establishing the French State budget. These are consequently measures granted by means of state resources.\nVI.1.2. Selective economic advantage\n(75)\nThe budgetary grant mechanism replenishing the public resources made available to France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions is selective, as France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will be the sole beneficiary. The annual operational budgetary grant, which is intended in particular to allow the undertaking to continue its activities, will protect it from loss of commercial advertising revenue which partly financed its expenditure and investments hitherto. France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will in this way be able to achieve an audience share which it could not envisage in the absence of a budget allocation. Consequently, it receives an economic advantage which it could not otherwise have obtained or, if appropriate, since it is a grant, under other market conditions, i.e. those under which its private competitors operate.\n(76)\nFurthermore, the Commission notes that the French Republic did not make any comments calling into question its assessments in the decision initiating the procedure that the planned allocations would not satisfy the cumulative criteria set out in the Altmark case-law and would therefore procure an economic advantage constituting state aid (13). It also notes that, without prejudice to subsequent developments in the management and results of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions in the coming years, at present the report of the French Court of Auditors on France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions - which was published in October 2009 after the decision initiating the procedure - confirms its arguments that the fourth condition is not satisfied.\n(77)\nTo sum up, it follows from the above that the budgetary grants for the France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions group alone, by means of the financial resources of the French State, will confer a selective advantage on this undertaking.\nVI.1.3. Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States\n(78)\nFrance T\u00e9l\u00e9visions operates in the field of the production and broadcasting of programmes which it exploits commercially, in particular by broadcasting paid advertising for advertisers or sponsored programmes in its programme schedule, by selling its broadcasting rights or by purchasing such rights. These commercial activities are carried out in competition with other channels, such as TF1, M6, Canal +, especially in France, where, as the French authorities emphasise, France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions is the leading audiovisual group. In 2010, the share of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions is thought to stand at approximately 10 %, which would still make it the third largest supplier in the French market.\n(79)\nUntil the deadline for the discontinuance of commercial advertising at the end of 2011, France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will continue to play an active role in the French televised commercial advertising market, albeit with slot restrictions, in competition with the other broadcasters. Even after 2011, France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will be able to offer its services to advertisers to advertise goods under their generic name or for programme sponsorship, in competition with the other broadcasters operating in France. Even if the competitors of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will have benefited to the full from the almost total withdrawal of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions from the advertising market brought about by the reform, France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will nevertheless retain a presence. In fact, assuming constant volumes and market share for the competitors compared with 2007, on the basis of the estimates of advertising revenue and sponsorships of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions provided by the French authorities, France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions would still hold 3,3 % of the market in 2012, compared with over 50 % and about 20 % for TF1 and M6 respectively.\n(80)\nFrance T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will be able to achieve an audience share which it could not envisage in the absence of the budget allocation in question, which is liable to have an impact on the audience of the other broadcasters and, therefore, on their commercial activities, thereby distorting the conditions of competition. In any case, France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will remain just as active on the markets for buying and selling broadcasting rights, with sustained bargaining power thanks to the above-mentioned support. Maintaining investments in programming which is made possible by the budget allocations therefore influences the extent to which France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions can act as buyer or seller in these markets.\n(81)\nIt follows from the above that the budget allocations by means of resources financed by the French State for the France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions group only distort, or at the very least, threaten to distort competition in the commercial exploitation of broadcasting in France and, to a certain extent, in other Member States where the programmes of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions are broadcasted.\n(82)\nThe markets for the purchase and sale of audiovisual programmes and broadcasting rights in which France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions operates have an international dimension, even though acquisitions are made with a territorial restriction generally confined to one Member State. Furthermore, the programmes of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, the broadcasting of which can be maintained thanks to the state support, are picked up in other Member States, such as Belgium and Luxembourg. Finally, France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions also broadcasts programmes via the Internet, which are accessible both within and outside France.\n(83)\nUnder these conditions, the planned budgetary grants are likely to distort the conditions of competition and to affect trade between Member States.\nVI.1.4. Conclusion on the presence of state aid\n(84)\nIn view of the above, the budgetary grants which France is planning to pay to France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, which must be examined for compatibility with the internal market.\nVI.2. Compatibility in the light of Article 106(2) of the TFEU\n(85)\nArticle 106(2) of the TFEU provides that \u2018Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.\u2019.\n(86)\nIn its Broadcasting Communication, the Commission sets out the principles it follows in the application of Articles 107 and 106(2) of the TFEU to the funding of public broadcasting bodies by the State. In this respect, the Commission\u2019s assessment is based on the following two aspects:\n-\nthe existence of a clear, precise definition of the public service mission in an official act, including the supply of significant new services, and subject to effective control mechanisms by an entity which is independent from the broadcaster,\n-\nthe proportionate and transparent nature of the public financing of the compensation necessary for this mission, without the compensation exceeding the net costs incurred by the public service mission which is also subject to effective control.\nVI.2.1. Clear, precise definition of the public service mission in an official act, subject to effective control\n(87)\nAs stated above, the Commission has not expressed any doubts in its decision initiating the procedure, for the reasons set out in it, concerning the appropriateness of either the definition and entrustment of the public service mission to France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions by official acts or the external controls carried out in respect of the way in which France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions carries out the obligations assigned to it, as described above. The Commission therefore considered that the relevant provisions of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986, amended, (Articles 43-11, 44, 48 and 53) and the Decrees or official acts implementing it, in particular regarding the terms of reference (Decree No 2009-796 of 23 June 2009) and the agreement relating to objectives and means, were in conformity with the rules for the application of Article 106(2) of the TFEU on the assessment of aid to public broadcasting services set out in the Broadcasting Communication.\n(88)\nThis conclusion was the same as those already drawn by the Commission on this subject in application of the communication applicable at that time, in its Decisions of 2003 and 2005 for France 2 and France 3 and of 2008 and 2009 for France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions.\n(89)\nIt is therefore for the sake of completeness that it is appropriate to examine the comments, which are of a general nature all told, made by certain interested parties claiming similarity between the public television programming and that of the competitors and contradicted in fact by the comments of other parties, and which are not of a nature to change this assessment.\n(90)\nLaw No 86-1067, amended, on Freedom of Communication provides a broad, qualitative but precise definition of the public service obligations of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions. It is to target a wide public and offer a diversified supply, in accordance with the objective, with respect for pluralism, of catering for the democratic, social, civic and cultural needs of society. The fact that certain competitors are required, on account of their EBU membership, to respect the latter\u2019s statutes, as the FFTCE emphasises, does not act as a barrier to the existence of specific public service obligations specified in official acts of the French Republic which, contrary to the obligations arising from EBU membership, are imposed solely on France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions.\n(91)\nAs far as is necessary, moreover, the obligations of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions are specified again in the terms of reference and the agreement relating to objectives and means and are accompanied by precise, quantified indicators to be achieved in its programme schedule, to which the competing broadcasters are not subject. The public resources are allocated to France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions to achieve the objectives and to perform the public service obligations defined by laws and regulations in the general interest, whereas the private resources are allocated to the competing broadcasters purely for lucrative purposes. Likewise, the existence of restrictions under the regulations or voluntarily assumed by the operators in their broadcasting activities does not in fact imply the existence of an undifferentiated supply for the public and private broadcasters. These public service obligations which derive from the law, contrary to those deriving from membership of the EBU, are moreover subject to regular external controls, notably by Parliament, concerning their fulfilment.\n(92)\nIn addition, the SACD highlights the greater commitment of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions to original French audiovisual and cinematographic creation compared to the competitors, which are subject to far lesser obligations. It is true that the comments made by the SACD neither support nor illustrate the reasons for which imported non-French works, possibly from other Member States, would be of lower quality than those which France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will finance. The fact still remains that a binding commitment in favour of original creation, increased in absolute terms and in relation to the competitors, contributes and is directly related to the social and cultural needs of French society which the programming of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions is required to meet on account of its service of general interest obligations.\n(93)\nFrom the point of view of the information supplied by the French Republic, this positive assessment on the definition and control of the public service mission of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions must be extended to the mechanisms applicable to the launch of significant new audiovisual services, within the meaning of the Broadcasting Communication which entered into effect after the decision initiating the present procedure. These services, which extend the offer of broadcasted programmes to other media or formats, are included in the terms of reference and the agreements relating to objectives and means of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, which specify and translate the service of general economic interest missions provided for by the law. These documents have been adopted by decree, as indicated above, so that the new services already provided for and those possibly to come are the subject of the same specific ex ante consultation procedures and ex post annual performance checks as these missions.\n(94)\nTo sum up, it therefore appears that the definition of the public service mission assigned to France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions and the control mechanisms relating to it are in conformity with the rules and principles established in the Broadcasting Communication, which in turn were inspired by the case-law of the Union courts.\nVI.2.2. The proportionate and transparent nature of the public financing\n(95)\nThe financing mechanism notified by the French Republic, which includes the annual grant to compensate for the reduction followed by the discontinuance of advertising messages, is intended to be permanent and therefore to extend beyond the date provided for by the law for the discontinuance of the advertising messages, which is in fact in November 2011.\n(96)\nThe annual public financing will comprise the allocation of part of the resources from the television licence fee (contribution \u00e0 l\u2019audiovisuel public), formerly known as the redevance, and the annual grant provided for by Law No 2009-258 of 5 March 2009. The existing aid confirmed by the Commission in its Decision of 20 April 2005, which is not modified by the planned mechanism, will therefore be complemented by a budgetary grant, the exact amount of which will be fixed each year in the finance law for the current year. In its comments, the French Republic specifies that it is the forecasted net public service costs which will serve to determine the amount of the annual grant ex ante, before each financial year.\n(97)\nMoreover, this is shown by the illustrative estimates provided by the French authorities in response to the doubts expressed by the Commission in the decision initiating the procedure. The Commission notes the indicative nature which the French authorities attach to the business plan forecasts and agrees that it is useful for the undertaking responsible for a public service mission and having to commit multiannual expenditure for this purpose to have a financial framework provided for by the business plan included in the rider to the agreement relating to objectives and means. This being so, the total indicative public resources shown there remain related to, although lower than, the amounts of the gross costs of supplying this service forecasted for the period from 2010 to 2012.\n(98)\nIn view of the relative predictability of the gross costs, which are less volatile than the commercial revenues used to establish the net costs, the indicative figures of the business plan confirm a priori the assertion of the French Republic concerning the decisive nature of the criterion of the net public service costs to set the annual amount of the forthcoming grant. In this way, the obligation of financial compensation by the State, introduced by Law No 2009-258 of 5 March 2009, will constitute the chargeable event for the budgetary grant notified, without conditioning the amount, as against a possible estimate of what the advertising revenues lost through the discontinuance of the advertising messages should be.\n(99)\nSuch an approach appears to be objectively justified. In fact, on account of the permanent nature of the grant, establishing its amount in relation to what the advertising revenues would have been if the advertising messages had not been discontinued on account of the Law, for example, by setting the amount at the level of the revenues before the announcement and introduction of the reform, adjusted where appropriate in accordance with the television advertising market trends, would become increasingly arbitrary. If the amount of the grant were calculated in this way in relation to presumed revenues, a greater reduction in the gross public service costs than predicted resulting, for example, from future synergies from the establishment of the single undertaking France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, could give rise to a risk of overcompensation by means of public resources.\n(100)\nThe calculation method for the annual grant in relation to the cost of the public service mission, reduced by net remaining commercial revenues, is moreover consistent with the commitment of the French Republic, henceforth expressed in Article 44 of Law No 86-1067, amended, on Freedom of Communication and in Article 2 of the Decree relating to the financial relations between the French State and public sector bodies in the broadcasting sector, that the public resources allocated to France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will not exceed the net cost of performing the public service obligations entrusted to the latter. As the French authorities recall, this commitment and the above-mentioned provisions are applicable in full to the budgetary grant notified and to the annual public financing mechanism, of which it will henceforth form an integral part.\n(101)\nConsequently, the method of calculating the annual subsidy in relation to the net cost of the public service mission - i.e. reduced by the net commercial revenues remaining - appears to be proportionate within the meaning of the Commission Broadcasting Communication.\n(102)\nIn this respect, the comments to the contrary by certain interested third parties are not of a nature to invalidate this conclusion:\n-\nthe FFTCE comments asserting that the compensation for lost advertising revenues, which are not part of the public service mission, does not come under the financing of this mission could not be retained and neither could those of M6 concerning the fluctuating and therefore imprecise nature of estimates of loss of commercial revenues; the annual amount of the grant will have to be fixed ex ante on the basis of the net public service costs of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, the estimates of the amount provided by the French Republic for 2010, 2011 and 2012 being purely indicative,\n-\nthe M6 comments suggesting that an alleged absence of cost accounting tools at France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions established by the French Court of Auditors would result structurally in overcompensation in that the grant would be based on non-objective cost elements, as well as the TF1 comments on overcompensation of uncontrolled or poorly managed costs, are unfounded; firstly, the Court of Auditors established in October 2009 the absence of control management tools integrating the cost accounting tools of the subsidiaries at France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions group level and not the absence of any cost accounting management tool; cost accounting exists for each company of the France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions group,\n-\nsecondly, the examination of the compatibility of the compensation with the internal market, contrary to that relating to the existence of an economic advantage for France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, is not based on the costs that a typical, well-run undertaking in the sector could incur to perform the service of general interest, but on those which France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will in fact incur, including therefore the reduction forecasted for the future; as shown above, the total amount of public resources to be paid to France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will be lower a priori than the costs incurred to provide the public service and will be fixed so as to avoid overcompensation, once the net commercial revenues have been deducted.\n(103)\nThese comments, which are unfounded as far as the annual fixing of the amount of the grant ex ante is concerned, also do not take account of the existence of ex post control mechanisms. In fact, as is shown below, annual fixing of the amount of the grant for the year ex ante in a finance law will be followed by ex post control mechanisms and, where appropriate, recovery.\n(104)\nThe Broadcasting Communication provides that Member States must introduce appropriate mechanisms to ensure that there is no overcompensation, by undertaking regular control of the use of public funding. The effectiveness of the control, as specified in the Communication, should result from its being carried out by an external body at regular intervals, together with mechanisms to ensure the recovery of any overcompensation or correct allocation, during the following financial year, of any reserves not exceeding 10 % of the annual public service costs, on the one hand, or any cross-subsidisation, on the other.\n(105)\nArticle 44 of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 specifies that \u2018The public resources allocated to public broadcasters in compensation for the public service obligations entrusted to them shall not exceed the cost of discharging these obligations\u2019. This provision results from France\u2019s commitments expressly to enshrine in law the principle of non-overcompensation for the public service obligations established under the procedure which led to the Commission\u2019s compatibility decision of 20 April 2005 on the use of the resources from the licence fee (14).\n(106)\nArticle 2 of Decree No 2007-958 of 15 May 2007 on the financial relations between the State and public sector bodies in the audiovisual communication sector takes up the wording of Article 53 of the Law of 30 September 1986, taking account \u2018of the direct or indirect revenue derived from the public service mission\u2019 and specifies that the cost of the public service mission is to be established using separate accounts. Article 3 of the Decree provides for the obligation for France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions and its subsidiaries to respect normal market conditions in all their commercial activities and for an external body to draw up an annual report on the discharging of this obligation, forwarded to the competent Minister, the National Assembly and the Senate. This latter provision was also referred to in France\u2019s commitments taken up in the Commission Decision of 20 April 2005, cited in recital 7.\n(107)\nThe General Court of the Union considered that both the provisions enshrining the principle of non-overcompensation and the control and verification of the conditions applied by France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions to its commercial activities responded perfectly to the concerns expressed by the Commission during the procedure which led to the Decision of 20 April 2005 (15). The appropriateness of the ex post controls carried out on the respect of these commitments was also confirmed by the General Court (16).\n(108)\nThe Commission has received and examined reports on the implementation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Decree relating to the financial years 2007 and 2008 (the reports drawn up under Article 3 of the Decree were certified, for 2007, by the auditors PriceWaterhouseCoopers and KPMG and, for 2008, by Cabinet Rise) and the draft report provided for under Article 2 for 2009. The reports available conclude that the public resources allocated to the France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions group did not exceed the net cost of discharging the public service obligations entrusted to it and that France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions respected normal market conditions in all its commercial activities. This therefore precludes any cross-subsidisation between commercial activities and public service activities. The preparation of the reports in question shows moreover that it is possible to draw up accounts of the public service costs and resources of the various channels of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions on the basis of the existing accounting tools, contrary to the assertions made in particular by M6.\n(109)\nThe arrangements for the ex post control of the public resources provided for in Decree No 2007-958 will apply to the budgetary grant notified. Since the introduction of the control, the total public resources allocated to France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions have been insufficient to cover the net cost of discharging the public service obligations, so the question of the allocation of any overcompensation has not arisen. As regards the medium-term forecasts of the costs and revenues contained in the business plan and illustrated in Table 1 above, a slight surplus seems to be forecasted in 2012 which, if it materialises and is not needed to absorb the deficits forecasted for the years 2010 and 2011, should normally be earmarked as a priority for the expenditure on audiovisual creation.\n(110)\nIn any case, to bring the existing mechanism into line with the specifications newly introduced in 2009 by the Broadcasting Communication, the French Republic undertakes to amend Article 2 of Decree No 2007- 958 of 15 May 2007:\n-\nto ensure that the annual report on the separate accounts, like the report provided for in Article 3, is audited by an external body, the choice of which is subject to the approval of the Minister for Communication, forwarded to this Minister and to the National Assembly and the Senate, and drawn up at the expense of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions,\n-\nto complete the specific functional mechanism to ensure the actual recovery of any overcompensation or cross-subsidisation arising from these separate accounts and not compatible with Article 53 of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 on Freedom of Communication or with the Broadcasting Communication.\n(111)\nUnder these conditions, it appears that the French Republic will have appropriate mechanisms in place to undertake regular, effective controls of the use of public funding to ensure that there is no overcompensation or cross-subsidisation, as provided for in the Broadcasting Communication.\n(112)\nIn view of the above, it appears that the potential restrictions of competition attributable to the presence of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions in commercial markets where it will still operate after the reform has been implemented in full will be limited all told. This presence will probably be very small-scale and the reform will have the foreseeable effect of transferring the demand for television advertising, even if only partially, to the competitors of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions.\n(113)\nIn fact, as pointed out in a letter made public by seven private television or radio broadcasters, continuing the reform to the end with the discontinuance of the advertising messages of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions would be liable to: \u2018give the private media the ability to bounce back which they need\u2019, whereas maintaining advertising messages: \u2018would generate harmful consequences for all French media and would substantially change the economic prospects of the operators\u2026\u2019 (17).\n(114)\nIn other words, the partial withdrawal of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions and the refocusing of the structure of its revenues - commercial or public from compensation - on the broadcasting of programmes corresponding to its general interest mission without direct financial quid pro quo for the viewing public, reduce the potential restrictions of competition on the competitive markets in which France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions operates. This withdrawal opens up a gap which could be filled by new entrants or operators with small-scale presence on the advertising market at present, increasing the dynamism of competition in the future.\n(115)\nIt results from this that, in the light of the information supplied and the commitments entered into by the French Republic, the public funding will be intended to enable France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions to cover the net costs incurred to perform the obligations incumbent upon it and this funding will have to be confined to these costs and will remain subject to ex post controls which meet the criteria of the Broadcasting Communication applicable. In addition, since France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions will reduce its presence in the competitive markets, the envisaged aid is not liable to affect the development of trade to an extent contrary to the interest of the Union, thereby fulfilling the conditions for the application of Article 106(2) of the TFEU.\n(116)\nFurthermore, the French Republic undertakes to provide the Commission with an annual report until 2013, on which date the reform of public broadcasting will have been completed, which will allow monitoring of the aspects of the implementation of the reform which are the most relevant in terms of the state aid rules, i.e. the annual compensation and the ex post control mechanisms, the conditions applied by France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions to its commercial activities and the change in its position on this market, as well as the annual implementation of the agreement relating to objectives and means.\n(117)\nIn view of the scale of the reform, the innovations it introduces concerning the financing of the service mission of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, its consequences on the trend in costs and revenues of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions and the uncertain economic environment of the markets affecting the commercial revenues of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions and its competitors, this commitment is of a nature to enable the Commission to verify the implementation of the reform and to monitor it very closely, as well as the implementation of the commitments assumed by the French Republic under this procedure.\n(118)\nIn its decision initiating the procedure, the Commission had expressed doubts concerning the existence of possible earmarking between the revenues from the new taxes on advertising and electronic communications and the annual grant to be paid from 2010 to France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions. Such a link, if it could be established, would mean that these taxes would have to be considered as constituting an integral part of the aid and subject to the test of compatibility of the latter with the internal market. Although the existence of such a link could be precluded for 2009, in view in particular of the date of entry into force and implementation of Law No 2009-258 of 5 March 2009 on public broadcasting, a doubt remained for the future, given the declarations made by the highest French authorities.\n(119)\nIt follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice, confirmed by the judgment of 22 December 2008 in the case referred for a preliminary ruling R\u00e9gie Networks (C-333/07) (paragraph 99) that \u2018For a tax to be regarded as forming an integral part of an aid measure, it must be hypothecated to the aid under the relevant national rules, in the sense that the revenue from the charge is necessarily allocated for the financing of the aid and has a direct impact on the amount of the aid and, consequently, on the assessment of the compatibility of that aid with the common market.\u2019 (18) The two conditions for application established by the Court, i.e. the relevant national rules and the direct impact on the amount of the aid, are examined below.\n(120)\nIn French law, under Article 36 of the Organic Law of 1 August 2001 on Finance Laws, the allocation in whole or in part of a resource established in favour of the French State to another legal person may result only from a provision of a finance law. The finance law should therefore provide explicitly that the proceeds from the taxes on advertising and electronic communications introduced by Law No 2009-258 of 5 March 2009 will be earmarked in whole or in part for the financing of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions. No such provision has been adopted to date. For the future, the French Republic commits to renotifying the Commission of any plans to change the architecture of the regime, in accordance with Article 108(3) of the TFEU. Under these conditions, hypothecation of the new taxes to the notified aid under national law cannot be established, within the meaning of the case-law of the Court.\n(121)\nIn addition, it appears that the decisive criterion to determine the annual amount of budgetary grant, cumulated with the amount provided for from the television licence fee, will be the amount of the net costs of the public service obligations entrusted to France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions and not that of the revenue obtained from the new taxes. The estimated public service costs are and will be the subject of ex ante estimates in the agreement relating to objectives and means under Article 53 of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986, amended, on Freedom of Communication, the annual grant provided for a draft finance law will be calibrated according to the estimated net costs and the balance between estimates and results will have to be established and, if necessary, corrected ex post in the report provided for on the implementation of Article 2 of Decree No 2007-958 of 15 May 2007 on the financial relations between the State and public sector bodies in the audiovisual communication sector. Since the costs are incurred independently of the resources levied as taxes, the proceeds from the taxes cannot have a direct impact on the amount of aid. It appears moreover that the rates of the taxes initially provided for by the French Government have been reduced in the final law passed by Parliament, without this being translated into a concomitant, proportional reduction in the grant to be paid for France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions.\n(122)\nIn the light of the above, the taxes on advertising and electronic communications introduced by Law No 2009-258 of 5 March 2009 do not constitute an integral part of the aid and consequently do not have to be integrated into the examination of the compatibility of the aid with the internal market, contrary to the assertions of certain interested third parties, i.e. the ACT, the FFTCE, the Association des cha\u00eenes priv\u00e9es, M6 and TF1.\n(123)\nThis conclusion is without prejudice to the compatibility of these taxes and their specific provisions as separate measures with Union law, in particular concerning the tax on electronic communications, in respect of the questions examined in the context of infringement procedure No 2009/5061, in the light of Directive 2002/20/EC or Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (19).\n(124)\nFurthermore, the Commission notes the declaration by France excluding these taxes from the scope of its notification, which is the subject of the present Decision.\nVII. CONCLUSIONS\n(125)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission concludes that the annual budgetary grant in favour of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions, implemented as indicated above, can be declared compatible with the internal market under Article 106(2) of the TFEU, according to the principles and rules for application laid down for public broadcasting services,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid which the French Republic is considering implementing in favour of France T\u00e9l\u00e9visions in the form of an annual budgetary grant in implementation of Article 53, Section VI of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986, amended, on Freedom of Communication is compatible with the internal market in accordance with Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nThe implementation of this aid is consequently authorised.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2010.", "references": ["80", "63", "54", "65", "89", "76", "1", "52", "5", "61", "21", "13", "49", "35", "79", "29", "10", "73", "19", "70", "23", "12", "58", "66", "77", "56", "62", "17", "6", "67", "No Label", "15", "24", "25", "34", "40", "47", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "24", "25", "34", "40", "47", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1125/2010\nof 3 December 2010\ndetermining the intervention centres for cereals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1173/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 41 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 428/2008 of 8 May 2008 on determining the intervention centres for cereals (2) sets out the intervention centres for each Member State by cereal type, with the exception of durum wheat.\n(2)\nThe Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1173/2009 (3) lists the intervention centres for durum wheat and rice referred to in Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 670/2009 (4).\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (5) sets out the conditions to be complied with, from the 2010/2011 marketing year onwards, for the designation and approval of cereal intervention centres and their storage premises. Among these conditions, Article 3(1)(a)(i) of that Regulation provides that each cereal intervention centre must have a minimum storage capacity of 20 000 tonnes.\n(4)\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 repeals Regulation (EC) No 670/2009 with regard to cereals.\n(5)\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the cereal intervention centres designated pursuant to Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 must comply with the conditions laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009. It is therefore appropriate to repeal Regulation (EC) No 428/2008 and to amend Regulation (EC) No 1173/2009.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 55(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, the Member States have sent the Commission a list of intervention centres for actual designation and a list of the storage premises attached to those centres which they have approved as fulfilling the minimum standards required by Community legislation. In cases where cereal production levels are low, or where estimates do not indicate any cereal sectors generating surpluses and intervention has not been used for a significant period, some Member States have not reported any cereal intervention centres.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure that the public intervention scheme works efficiently, the Commission should designate intervention centres on the basis of their geographical location and publish a list of the storage premises attached thereto, together with all the information required by the operators involved in public intervention.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe intervention centres for cereals referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 are designated in the Annex hereto.\nThe addresses of the storage premises linked to each intervention centre and the detailed information relating to these premises and intervention centres are published on the Internet (6).\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 428/2008 is hereby repealed.\nSection A of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1173/2009 is deleted.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 December 2010.", "references": ["58", "34", "65", "75", "21", "43", "18", "72", "48", "16", "15", "77", "74", "61", "2", "83", "11", "35", "45", "93", "46", "95", "31", "36", "64", "44", "92", "57", "6", "23", "No Label", "20", "26", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "26", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 24 January 2012\nauthorising Sweden to apply a reduced rate of taxation to electricity consumed by households and service sector companies situated in certain areas in the north of Sweden in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC\n(2012/47/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1), and in particular Article 19(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Decision 2005/231/EC (2) authorises Sweden to apply, until 31 December 2011, a reduced rate of excise duty to electricity consumed by households and service sector companies in certain areas in the north of Sweden pursuant to Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC.\n(2)\nBy letter of 8 June 2011, Sweden requested authorisation to continue to apply a reduced rate of excise duty to electricity consumed by the same beneficiaries for a further period of 6 years, that is until 31 December 2017. The reduction is to be limited to SEK 96 per MWh.\n(3)\nIn the areas concerned, the costs of heating are on average 25 % higher than in the rest of the country, due to the longer heating period. Reducing the costs of electricity for households and service sector companies in these areas therefore narrows the gap between overall costs of heating for consumers in the north of Sweden and those borne by consumers in the rest of the country. The measure therefore contributes to achieving regional and cohesion policy objectives. The measure moreover allows Sweden to apply an overall tax rate on electricity that is higher than what would otherwise be possible and therefore indirectly contributes to the achievement of environmental policy objectives.\n(4)\nThe tax reduction should not exceed what is necessary to compensate for the additional costs of heating for households and service sector companies in the north of Sweden.\n(5)\nThe reduced rates of taxation will be above the minimum rates laid down in Article 10 of Directive 2003/96/EC.\n(6)\nIn view of the remote nature of the areas to which it applies, the fact that the reduction should not exceed the additional costs of heating in the north of Sweden and the limitation of the measure to households and service sector companies, the measure is not expected to lead to significant distortions of competition or changes in trade between Member States.\n(7)\nConsequently, the measure is acceptable from the point of view of the proper functioning of the internal market and of the need to ensure fair competition and it is compatible with the European Union\u2019s health, environment, energy and transport policies.\n(8)\nIn order to provide the businesses and consumers concerned with a sufficient degree of certainty, it is appropriate to authorise Sweden to apply a reduced rate of taxation to electricity for consumption in the north of Sweden until 31 December 2017.\n(9)\nIt should be ensured that the authorisation under Decision 2005/231/EC, which was granted for reasons similar to those referred to in this Decision, continues to apply, without creating a gap between the expiry of that Decision and the taking effect of this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Sweden is hereby authorised to apply a reduced rate of taxation to electricity consumed by households and service sector companies situated in the municipalities listed in the Annex.\nThe reduction of the standard national rate of taxation for electricity shall not exceed what is necessary to compensate for the extra heating costs due to the northern location, in comparison with the rest of Sweden, and shall not exceed SEK 96 per MWh.\n2. The reduced rates must comply with the requirements of Directive 2003/96/EC, and in particular with the minimum rates laid down in Article 10 thereof.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2017.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Sweden.\nDone at Brussels, 24 January 2012.", "references": ["38", "80", "68", "50", "55", "46", "58", "82", "70", "39", "72", "17", "48", "63", "21", "1", "23", "10", "44", "16", "37", "51", "88", "54", "31", "53", "11", "93", "2", "4", "No Label", "8", "34", "45", "78", "81", "87", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "34", "45", "78", "81", "87", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 603/2010\nof 8 July 2010\nnot fixing a minimum selling price in response to the third individual invitation to tender for the sale of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the third individual invitation to tender, no minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the third individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 6 July 2010, no minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be fixed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 July 2010.", "references": ["53", "76", "65", "81", "64", "6", "88", "42", "31", "19", "96", "74", "25", "71", "86", "10", "63", "15", "68", "14", "5", "84", "75", "83", "85", "95", "43", "58", "34", "38", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 21 October 2010\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the Association Council set up by the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, with regard to the adoption of provisions on the coordination of social security systems\n(2010/698/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(2)(b) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 67 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part (1) (the Agreement), provides that the Association Council shall adopt provisions to implement the principles on the coordination of social security systems as set out in Article 65 of the Agreement before the end of the first year following its entry into force.\n(2)\nObjective 29, second indent, of the EU-Tunisia Action Plan adopted by the Association Council in the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy on 4 July 2005 calls for the adoption by the Association Council of a decision implementing Article 65 of the Agreement.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 21) on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound by it nor subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the Association Council set up by the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, concerning the implementation of Article 67 of the Agreement, shall be based on the draft decision of the Association Council attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["11", "39", "46", "89", "17", "93", "86", "38", "16", "54", "30", "81", "82", "66", "25", "97", "60", "55", "41", "57", "59", "12", "5", "3", "68", "32", "78", "13", "44", "47", "No Label", "2", "9", "37", "94", "96"], "gold": ["2", "9", "37", "94", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 July 2010\nauthorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 88017 x MON 810 (MON-88\u00d817-3 x MON-\u00d8\u00d881\u00d8-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 5139)\n(Only the Dutch and French texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/429/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Article 7(3) and Article 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 November 2005, Monsanto Europe SA submitted to the competent authority of the Czech Republic an application, in accordance with Article 5 and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON 88017 x MON 810 maize (the application).\n(2)\nThe application also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of MON 88017 x MON 810 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with Article 5(5) and Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.\n(3)\nOn 21 July 2009, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Article 6 and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It considered that MON 88017 x MON 810 maize is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment. Therefore it concluded that it is unlikely that the placing on the market of the products containing, consisting of, or produced from MON 88017 x MON 810 maize as described in the application (the products) will have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment in the context of their intended uses (3). In its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Article 6(4) and Article 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(4)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.\n(5)\nTaking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products.\n(6)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).\n(7)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON 88017 x MON 810 maize. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(8)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).\n(9)\nThe EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in Article 6(5)(e) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(10)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(11)\nArticle 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (6), lays down labelling requirements for products consisting of, or containing GMOs.\n(12)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).\n(13)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(14)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman.\n(15)\nAt its meeting on 29 June 2010, the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal. The Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded. It is accordingly for the Commission to adopt the measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified maize (Zea mays L.), MON 88017 x MON 810 as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier MON-88\u00d817-3 x MON-\u00d8\u00d881\u00d8-6, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Article 4(2) and Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-88\u00d817-3 x MON-\u00d8\u00d881\u00d8-6 maize;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-88\u00d817-3 x MON-\u00d8\u00d881\u00d8-6 maize;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of MON-88\u00d817-3 x MON-\u00d8\u00d881\u00d8-6 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018maize\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of MON-88\u00d817-3 x MON-\u00d8\u00d881\u00d8-6 maize referred to in Article 2(b) and (c).\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nCommunity register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Monsanto Europe SA, Belgium, representing Monsanto Company, United States.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Monsanto Europe SA, Avenue de Tervuren 270-272, 1150 Brussels, Belgium.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2010.", "references": ["99", "80", "4", "6", "26", "8", "61", "63", "15", "43", "12", "22", "44", "45", "52", "50", "86", "2", "59", "90", "31", "1", "96", "3", "92", "37", "35", "60", "70", "39", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1105/2010\nof 29 November 2010\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of high tenacity yarn of polyesters originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and terminating the proceeding concerning imports of high tenacity yarn of polyesters originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Provisional measures\n(1)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 478/2010 (2) (the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of high tenacity yarn of polyesters (HTY) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC). No provisional measures were imposed on imports of HTY originating in the Republic of Korea (Korea) and Taiwan.\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 27 July 2009 by CIRFS-European Man-made Fibres Association (the complainant) on behalf of producers of HTY representing a major proportion, in this case more than 60 % of the total Union production of HTY.\n(3)\nAs set out in recital 15 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of the trends for the assessment of injury covered the period from January 2005 to the end of the investigation period (period considered).\n1.2. Subsequent procedure\n(4)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and, where appropriate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly.\n(5)\nAs regards the Union interest aspects, additional verification visits were carried out at the following companies:\nUsers in the Union:\n-\nContinental AG,\n-\nOppermann Automotive Webbing GmbH,\n-\nKatradis Marine Ropes Industry SA,\n-\nMehler Texnologies GmbH,\n-\nE. Oppermann GmbH,\n-\nOppermann Industrial Webbing SRO,\n-\nContitech Transportbandsysteme GmbH.\n(6)\nOne interested party requested a hearing and the intervention of the Hearing Officer. This request was made after the provisional disclosure. The hearing in the presence of the Hearing Officer was granted.\n(7)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of HTY originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (final disclosure). The parties were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(8)\nThe product concerned is HTY (other than sewing thread), not put up for retail sale, including monofilament of less than 67 decitex originating in the PRC, Korea and Taiwan (the product concerned) currently falling within CN code 5402 20 00.\n(9)\nFollowing the provisional disclosure, one party claimed that the Commission had not addressed the differences between the yarn used in the production of tyres, the so-called \u2018high modulus low shrinkage\u2019 (HMLS) yarn, and other types of yarns, as this type requires lengthy and costly technical tests before getting approvals for the HMLS specifications imposed by the purchasers. Moreover, this party claimed that it was not clear which factors were going into the provisional determination of the existence of a single product. Another party argued that HMLS and other types of yarns have different cost structures.\n(10)\nIn reply to these claims it should first be noted that the product concerned is used in a number of diverse applications such as tyre reinforcement, broad fabrics, seatbelts, airbags, ropes, nets and a number of industrial applications. There are therefore a great number of different applications and consequently many different types and specifications exist.\n(11)\nIn the determination that HMLS and other types of yarns constitute one single product, the main criteria were the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics. Indeed, as explained in recital 19 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation showed that although HMLS yarn has some distinctive characteristics compared to other types of HTY (e.g. modulus, shrinkage, tensile strength and fatigue resistance), it is considered that all the different types of the product concerned share the same basic physical and chemical characteristics. They are therefore considered to constitute one single product.\n(12)\nRegarding the claimed differences in cost structure, it should be noted that this does not constitute in itself a decisive criterion when determining whether HMLS constitutes a distinct product from other types of HTY. Differences in costs, prices and production process do not per se justify that a certain product type such as HMLS should be considered as a different product as long as this type shares the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics as the other product types.\n(13)\nIt was therefore not considered warranted to exclude HMLS from the scope of the investigation and consequently the claims in this respect had to be rejected.\n(14)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the product concerned and the like product, recitals 16 to 20 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. DUMPING\n3.1. Taiwan\n3.1.1. Normal value\n(15)\nOne exporting producer in Taiwan provided evidence which demonstrated that the price of the main raw materials, purified terephthalic acid (PTA) and mono ethylene glycol (MEG), it purchased to produce HTY varied during the IP. In particular it emerged that the purchase prices sharply declined in particular in the fourth quarter of 2008. Hence it claimed that this should be taken into account when establishing its normal values in order to ensure a fair comparison with the export prices.\n(16)\nThe findings in recital 18 are the result of a very detailed analysis of the data submitted by the exporter and which was verified during the verification visit. Hence, it was considered that establishing normal values for certain periods of the IP to take account of the variation in raw material prices was justified in this case.\n(17)\nThere were no other comments concerning the method described in the provisional Regulation in recitals 86 and 87. The method used to establish normal value for the Taiwanese exporting producers can be confirmed.\n3.1.2. Export price\n(18)\nThe investigation showed that the Taiwanese producer mentioned in recital 15 sold higher volumes of the product concerned to the Union market in the first half of the IP when raw material prices were lower. This finding should also be seen in the light of the contents of recital 16.\n(19)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the export price, recital 88 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n3.1.3. Comparison\n(20)\nThe normal value and export price were established as explained above. The normal value thus established for the said producer and its export price were compared at periods which were as close as possible to take account of differences affecting price comparability. This is in line with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.\n(21)\nNo other comments concerning the comparison of the normal value and the export price of the Taiwanese exporting producers were received. Hence, the contents of recital 89 of the provisional Regulation can be confirmed.\n3.1.4. Dumping margins\n(22)\nIt is recalled that it was concluded in recital 92 of the provisional Regulation that the countrywide dumping margin for Taiwan was de minimis. The definitive dumping margin established for the Taiwanese producer mentioned in recital 15 is now below the de minimis threshold. It is therefore confirmed that the countrywide definitive dumping margin for Taiwan is de minimis.\n3.2. The PRC\n3.2.1. Market economy treatment (MET)\n(23)\nIt is recalled that 11 exporting producers in the PRC made themselves known. These companies represented 100 % of total exports of the product concerned to the Union market during the IP. A sample of three exporting producers or groups of related companies was selected based on the highest export volume for the purpose of establishing dumping for the PRC. The three sampled exporting producers requested MET, but only one was found to merit it.\n(24)\nFollowing disclosure of the findings concerning MET, the two exporting producers to which MET was not granted submitted comments which are summarised below.\n(25)\nThe first exporting producer made comments concerning a restrictive clause in its business activities, problems encountered with its accounting and the payment of certain assets such as land use rights.\n(26)\nThis exporter admitted the existence of a restrictive clause in its Articles of Association (AoA). It claimed, but did not demonstrate, that such a clause had ceased to produce legal effects on its activity. Similarly, regarding the accounting problems, the company admitted the existence of discrepancies between the accounting records and the audited financial statements, but it claimed that these discrepancies were minor and explained during the investigation. It should be clarified that the problems encountered in the accounting of that company which led to the rejection of MET were not minor but substantial, in particular concerning the booking of certain assets and discrepancies found between certain ledgers and documents provided during the on-the-spot visit.\n(27)\nThe second exporting producer made comments in particular on the findings regarding the capital contribution, a restrictive clause in its business activities, and the acquisition of land use rights.\n(28)\nRegarding the capital contribution, the exporter reiterated the same arguments as those made at the provisional stage, namely that the capital had been duly contributed. It argued that technical know-how is a special category of knowledge which does not require being patented or registered, and therefore, the capital contribution, although in kind, was correctly made. With regard to the latter issues, it reiterated that the restrictive clause is not mandatory for the company and that the investment requirements linked to the acquisition of the land are not distortions but are related to the authorities\u2019 land development policy.\n(29)\nHowever, these arguments were already raised and rejected at the provisional stage. Even if the investment requirements are related to the authorities\u2019 land development policy, they are not considered to be compatible with the MET. No new evidence that could change the provisional conclusions reflected in the MET assessment in recitals 50 and 51 of the provisional Regulation was provided.\n(30)\nOn the basis of the above, the provisional findings made in recitals 46 to 52 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.\n3.2.2. Individual examination\n(31)\nAs mentioned in recital 28 of the provisional Regulation, two exporting producers which were not included in the sample requested that an individual margin of dumping be established pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. However, the requests for individual examination could be examined only after the imposition of the provisional measures.\n(32)\nThese companies replied to the MET claim form within the given deadlines. After the imposition of the provisional measures, the Commission sought and verified the information provided in the claim forms and all other information deemed necessary at the premises of the companies in question:\n-\nOriental Industries Co. Ltd,\n-\nHangzhou Huachun Chemical Fibers Co. Ltd.\n(33)\nBriefly, and for ease of reference only, the MET criteria are set out in a summarised form below:\n1.\nbusiness decisions and costs are made in response to market conditions, and without significant State interference; costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values;\n2.\nfirms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with International Accounting Standards (IAS) and are applied for all purposes;\n3.\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;\n4.\nbankruptcy and property laws guarantee legal certainty and stability;\n5.\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate.\n(34)\nBoth companies had a restrictive clause concerning the repartition of sales between export and domestic markets in their registration documents. For one exporter, a number of inconsistencies and shortcomings in the accounting system of the applicant have been found, leading to the conclusion that the accounts were not clear, not prepared nor audited in accordance with international accounting standards. Finally, certain distortions carried over from the non-market economy system were found in particular with regard to the purchase of the company\u2019s land use rights.\n(35)\nOn this basis, it was concluded that none of the two companies demonstrated that they fulfilled all the criteria of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and could not be granted MET.\n3.2.3. Individual treatment (IT)\n(36)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a countrywide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all the criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation to be granted IT.\n(37)\nThe two exporting producers which requested individual examination did not meet the MET criteria but claimed IT in the event that they would not be granted MET.\n(38)\nBriefly, and for ease of reference only, the IT criteria are set out below:\n1.\nin the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;\n2.\nexport prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined;\n3.\nthe majority of the shares belong to private persons. State officials appearing on the board of directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from State interference;\n4.\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and\n5.\nState interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.\n(39)\nOn the basis of information available, it was established that these two exporting producers in the PRC, not included in the sample, which required individual examination, met all the above requirements to be granted IT as set forth in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.\n3.2.4. Analogue country\n(40)\nAs mentioned in recitals 57 to 62 of the provisional Regulation, it was considered that the USA was not an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC. Instead Taiwan was chosen as the appropriate analogue country to establish normal value for the PRC in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.\n(41)\nFollowing the imposition of provisional measures, some parties suggested instead the use of Korea as an analogue country. They claimed that Korea was more appropriate than Taiwan because Korean exporting producers also use the recent one-step production technology, they have a high volume of comparability in end-products with the PRC, the Korean domestic market is large and comparable to that of the PRC and no company in Korea was found to be dumping.\n(42)\nRegarding the selection of an analogue country, the following criteria were examined: the comparability of the production volume of end-products in the non-market economy country and in the potential analogue country, the representativeness of domestic sales (transactions) to unrelated customers as compared to exports of the product concerned originating in the non-market economy country, the level of competition in the domestic market of the analogue country, the comparability of access to raw material and energy, the readiness of exporters in the potential analogue country to cooperate in the investigation.\n(43)\nA further analysis carried out after the imposition of the provisional measures was made on the basis of all the information available to analyse the relevant criteria. This analysis showed that there are indeed similarities between Korea and Taiwan in terms of some criteria. However, it appeared that on balance, Taiwan was the most suitable analogue country.\n(44)\nThe analysis showed that Korea and Taiwan have a high level of comparability in the volume of end-products manufactured with the producers in the PRC and a large volume of products sold domestically in both countries could be compared to exports made from the PRC. This criterion showed a slightly higher level of volume comparability for Korea as its production volume is larger than Taiwan.\n(45)\nHowever, the importance of this criterion should not be overestimated over other criteria such as the representativeness of domestic sales transactions as compared to exports, the access to raw material and the level of competition in the analogue country.\n(46)\nIt was found that both Korea and Taiwan had a high number of representative domestic sales for which normal value would not be constructed, as compared to exports from the PRC. However, the transactions made by the Taiwanese exporters were found to be overall more representative than those of the Korean exporters. The normal value for a higher volume and for more types of the product concerned would have had to be constructed had Korea been chosen as analogue country.\n(47)\nRegarding the level of competition, one party alleged that one Taiwanese exporting producer held a dominant position in its domestic market and that this should also preclude using Taiwan as an analogue country.\n(48)\nA high number of producers may be an indication of competition in the country. But what also needs to be examined is whether or not producers in the analogue country are subject to competition which allows sufficient but not excessive profit.\n(49)\nIt was found that there are four domestic producers in Korea and that imports of HTY complement the domestic market. As regards Taiwan, there are two producers and the domestic market is also served by outside sources. Nevertheless, the investigation showed that, despite lower costs in Korea, the level of domestic prices was not lower than in Taiwan. The profits realised on the Korean market was 18 % on average with Korean HTY producers achieving profits above 20 % on turnover for the product concerned. This is much higher than Taiwan, where profits ranged between 5 % and 9 %.\n(50)\nIt is therefore considered that there is a high level of competition in Taiwan and that profits are not excessive.\n(51)\nConcerning access to raw materials, Korea is by far one of the largest producers and exporters of PTA worldwide after Thailand. This competitive advantage of the Korean producers may explain, to a certain extent, why the raw material price in Korea was on average lower than in Taiwan and in the PRC. The investigation showed that most of the verified Korean companies sourced their raw material from related companies or could produce it themselves. By contrast, in Taiwan none of the companies investigated produced its raw material and mainly sourced it from related and unrelated parties, as is the case in the PRC.\n(52)\nThe information available and the fact that the Taiwanese exporting producers have related producers of HTY in the PRC suggest that the same sources of supply of raw material are used within the groups in order to realize economies of scale and obtain better prices. Hence it was considered that the conditions of access to raw material in the PRC are very similar to those in Taiwan.\n(53)\nOn that basis, it is considered that the choice of Taiwan was not unreasonable and more appropriate in this case. Taiwan is therefore confirmed as the analogue country.\n3.2.5. Normal value\n3.2.5.1. Sampled exporting producer granted MET\n(54)\nIn the absence of comments concerning the normal values established for the company granted MET, recitals 64 and 65 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.\n3.2.5.2. Exporting producers not granted MET\n(55)\nAs mentioned in recital 15, one exporter in Taiwan demonstrated that its purchase price of the main raw material used for the production of HTY varied during the IP and claimed to take this into account when establishing the normal value. This claim was considered to be founded and the normal values established for Taiwan, the analogue country in this case, were revised accordingly.\n3.2.6. Export price\n(56)\nAs explained in recital 68 of the provisional Regulation, all sales of the product concerned made by the sampled exporting producers on the Union market were made directly to independent customers in the Union. Consequently, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of prices actually paid or payable. The export sales of the individually examined companies were also made directly to unrelated customers and therefore the method described in recital 68 of the provisional Regulation was used also for theses companies in order to establish their export price.\n(57)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the export price, recital 68 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n3.2.7. Comparison\n(58)\nThe revised normal values established for the analogue country were compared with the export price of the cooperating exporting producers in the PRC. As shown in recital 63 below this led to reduced definitive dumping margins for the three sampled exporting producers in the PRC.\n(59)\nIt is noted that the indirect taxation adjustment mentioned in recital 69 of the provisional Regulation represents the difference between the value added tax (VAT) payable on domestic sales and that payable on the export sales transactions, due account being taken of the VAT refund rate on export sales. The cooperating exporting producers contested the manner in which the adjustment was calculated and claimed that the VAT regime applicable to specific processing and sales operations should be taken into consideration when assessing the amount of VAT not refunded.\n(60)\nRegarding this claim it is noted that the adjustment was based on the provisions of Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation which provides for an adjustment to normal value for import charges and indirect taxes - a category which includes VAT. On this basis the claim was rejected.\n(61)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the comparison, which would alter the provisional findings, recital 69 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n3.2.8. Dumping margins\n(62)\nThe revised average normal values established for Taiwan, the analogue country, and the comparison with the export price of the Chinese exporting producers led to lower definitive dumping margins.\n(63)\nThese definitive dumping margins for the Chinese exporting producers are as follows:\n-\n5,1 % for Zhejiang Guxiandao Industrial Fibre Co. Ltd,\n-\n0 % for Zhejiang Hailide New Material Co. Ltd,\n-\n5,5 % for Zhejiang Unifull Industrial Fibre Co. Ltd,\n-\n5,3 % for cooperating companies not included in the sample.\n(64)\nFor the companies which requested individual examination the definitive dumping margins are the following:\n-\n9,8 % for Oriental Industries (Suzhou) Ltd,\n-\n0 % for Hangzhou Huachun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd.\n3.3. The Republic of Korea\n3.3.1. Normal value\n(65)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the normal value, explained in recitals 75 to 76 of the provisional Regulation, these findings are hereby confirmed.\n3.3.2. Export price\n(66)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the export price, recitals 77 to 78 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.3.3. Comparison\n(67)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the comparison, which would alter the provisional findings, recitals 79 to 81 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.3.4. Dumping margins\n(68)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the dumping margins, which would alter the provisional findings concerning Korea, recitals 82 to 85 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4. INJURY\n4.1. Union production\n(69)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the Union production, recitals 94 to 96 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4.2. Definition of the Union industry\n(70)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the definition of the Union industry, recital 97 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n4.3. Union consumption\n(71)\nIt is recalled that the Union consumption was established on the basis of the total imports, derived from Eurostat, the total sales on the Union market of the Union industry, including an estimate based on data in the complaint of the sales of the silent producers.\nTable 1\nUnion Consumption\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nTonnes\n221 277\n233 969\n265 826\n241 258\n205 912\nIndex 2005 = 100\n100\n106\n120\n109\n93\nSource: Eurostat, complaint data and questionnaire replies.\n(72)\nOverall Union consumption decreased by 7 % during the period considered. It increased by 20 % between 2005 and 2007, after which it decreased by 27 % between 2007 and the IP. The downturn in consumption in 2008 and the IP was the result of lower demand, especially in the second half of 2008 due to the economic crisis.\n(73)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the Union consumption, recitals 98 to 100 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4.4. Imports into the European Union from the PRC, Republic of Korea and Taiwan\n4.4.1. Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports\n(74)\nIt is recalled that imports from Korea and Taiwan were not cumulated with the dumped imports from the PRC because both the Korean and Taiwanese imports were not made at dumped prices during the IP, as mentioned in recitals 102 and 103 of the provisional Regulation.\n(75)\nIt is noted that in order to make an assessment as to whether imports from the countries concerned should be cumulatively assessed in the current investigation, imports from each country were individually examined in the light of the conditions set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation. Since the margin of dumping in relation to the imports from Korea and Taiwan was below de minimis, it was concluded that imports from Korea and Taiwan should not be cumulated with the dumped imports from the PRC. Following this conclusion, these imports were analysed separately in recitals 147 to 152 of the provisional Regulation in accordance with Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation.\n4.4.2. Dumped imports from the PRC\n(76)\nIt is recalled that it was provisionally found that one exporting producer in the PRC was not dumping its products on the Union market. Accordingly, these exports were excluded from the analysis of the development of the dumped imports from the PRC on the Union market. Following individual examinations carried out after the imposition of provisional measures, exports by an additional exporting producer in the PRC were found not to be dumped, as mentioned in recital 64. Therefore these exports were also excluded from the analysis concerning the development of dumped imports from the PRC on the Union market and the impact on the Union industry. Accordingly, data regarding the dumped imports from the PRC was revised.\nTable 2\nDumped imports from the PRC\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nImports (tonnes)\n4 350\n11 926\n31 223\n39 072\n38 404\nIndex\n100\n274\n718\n898\n883\nMarket share\n2,4 %\n5,6 %\n11,9 %\n16,3 %\n18,8 %\nAverage price in EUR/tonne\n2 783\n1 705\n1 524\n1 574\n1 532\nIndex\n100\n61\n55\n57\n55\nSource: Eurostat, complaint data and questionnaire replies.\n(77)\nFollowing the revision of data concerning the dumped imports from the PRC, it was found that their volume increased dramatically by over eight times in the period considered, while at the same time the average import prices decreased sharply by 45 %.\n4.4.3. Price undercutting\n(78)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning price undercutting, the methodology described in recitals 110 and 111 of the provisional Regulation to establish price undercutting is confirmed. However, following the individual examinations granted after the imposition of provisional measures, as mentioned in recital 31, the price comparison of similar product types was reassessed. This reassessment confirmed that the dumped imports from the PRC were undercutting the Union industry\u2019s prices by 24,1 % during the IP.\n4.5. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(79)\nIt is recalled that because imports from Korea, Taiwan and two Chinese companies were found not to be dumped, they should not be cumulated with the dumped imports from the PRC. They were therefore excluded from the analysis of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry and assessed separately.\n(80)\nAs mentioned in recital 113 of the provisional Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators for an assessment of the state of the Union industry from 2005 to the end of the IP.\n(81)\nIt is recalled that the injury picture was clear at the provisional stage with most of the injury indicators showing a declining trend during the period considered: production volume (- 36 %), sales volume (- 29 %), sales prices (- 9 %) and market share (- 23 %). In addition, the injury indicators related to the financial performance of the Union industry, such as profitability (- 16,3 percentage points) and cash flow (- 141 %) also deteriorated dramatically, while investments decreased significantly (- 89 %).\n(82)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to production, production capacity and capacity utilisation, sales volume and market share, prices, stocks, employment, wages and productivity, and the financial performance indicators of the Union industry, the provisional findings made in recitals 114 to 126 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(83)\nIn the absence of any other comments regarding the economic situation of the Union industry, the conclusion that the Union industry suffered material injury, as set out in recitals 127 to 130 of the provisional Regulation, is confirmed.\n5. CAUSALITY\n5.1. Preliminary remark\n(84)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the dumped imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC caused injury to the Union industry to a degree that can be considered as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time be injuring the Union industry, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n5.2. Effect of the dumped imports\n(85)\nThe dumped imports from the PRC increased dramatically over the period considered. Following the revision of the data concerning the dumped imports originating in the PRC, as described in recital 76, the volume of the dumped imports from the PRC increased more than eight times between 2005 and IP, increasing their market share by about 16 percentage points. During the same period, Union consumption decreased by 7 %.\n(86)\nDuring the period considered, the Union industry faced a significant drop of 29 % in its sales volume and consequently lost market share from 51,1 % to 39,2 % - almost 12 percentage points. In the period between 2008 and the IP, the market share of the Union industry dropped by two percentage points whereas that of dumped imports increased, despite the declining demand on the Union market.\n(87)\nAs regards prices of the dumped imports, following the revision of the data as described in recital 76, they decreased by 45 % during the period considered and were significantly undercutting the prices charged by the Union industry on the Union market. Consequently, the Union industry was prevented from increasing its prices to cover the increase in raw material prices. As a result, the profitability of the Union industry\u2019s sales on the Union market decreased, as explained in recital 81 of the provisional Regulation, from a profit of 3 % in 2005 to a loss of 13,3 % in the IP.\n(88)\nThe investigation also showed that the increasing volumes of low-priced dumped imports from the PRC had a negative impact on the market overall by depressing the prices. The continued pressure exercised on the Union market did not allow the Union industry to adapt its sales prices to the increased raw material costs, in particular in 2008, when raw material prices peaked. This explained the loss of market share and the loss in profitability of the Union industry.\n(89)\nIn view of the above, and in the absence of any comments regarding the impact of the dumped imports, it can be confirmed that the surge of the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC had a considerable negative impact on the economic situation of the Union industry.\n5.3. Effect of other factors\n5.3.1. Non-dumped imports\n(90)\nAs regards the effect of the non-dumped imports from the PRC, it is recalled that two Chinese exporting producers were found not to be dumping HTY on the Union market. While it cannot be excluded that these imports may have contributed to some extent to the injury of the Union industry, it is considered that in view of the volume and in particular the prices which were on average higher than the prices of the dumped imports, the impact of these non-dumped imports is not such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n5.3.2. Other factors\n(91)\nIt is recalled that other factors were also examined in the causality analysis, namely the development of demand on the Union market, the evolution of the raw material prices, the captive production of the Union industry, the export performance of the Union industry, imports from other countries, including imports from Korea and Taiwan, and the performance of other producers in the Union.\n(92)\nOne party claimed that the causality analysis failed to prove that injury caused by factors other than the dumped imports was not attributed to Chinese imports. In particular, it argued that factors such as the development in demand and increased raw material prices contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry and were not taken into account in the causation analysis.\n(93)\nAs regards the development in demand, it is recalled that in the context of declining consumption, imports from the PRC still managed to increase their market share. Regarding the increase in raw material prices, it is acknowledged that prices of raw materials increased in the first half of the IP as mentioned in recital 139 of the provisional Regulation. However, prices decreased in the second half of the IP. These fluctuations in raw material prices affected all economic operators. Moreover, in the absence of the price pressure exerted by the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC, it could have been expected that the Union industry would have been in a position to adapt its sales prices, in line with the development of the raw material prices. Therefore, recitals 138 to 140 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed and this claim is consequently rejected.\n(94)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning captive production or the export performance of the Union industry, recitals 141 to 143 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(95)\nSome parties also claimed that the Union producers would not have been able to increase their prices to reflect the changes in raw material costs in view of the low priced imports from Korea and Taiwan.\n(96)\nIn this respect it is firstly noted that prices of imports from Korea and Taiwan remained higher than the average import prices from the PRC throughout the period considered. Secondly, import volumes decreased substantially between 2007 and the end of the IP. It is therefore considered that the volume and prices of these imports could not have been the main cause of material injury to the Union industry and thus cannot break the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from the PRC. Therefore, this claim was rejected.\n(97)\nIn the absence of any other comments regarding imports from third countries, including Korea and Taiwan, recitals 144 to 152 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(98)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning other producers in the Union, recitals 153 to 154 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(99)\nFollowing the provisional disclosure, one party claimed that the lower profitability of the Union industry should be attributed to the high ratio that the so-called two-step production process represented in the Union industry\u2019s production capacity and to the alleged delays of the Union industry in implementing the modern, so-called one-step production process.\n(100)\nIt should be noted that the range of product types produced and sold by the exporting producers in the PRC largely overlaps with that of the Union industry. The Union industry uses the so-called two-step production process as it allows producing specific product types which are normally sold at a higher price on the market. As explained in recitals 85 to 89, the presence of low-priced dumped imports of HTY from the PRC affected the overall Union market by notably exercising a downward pressure on prices.\n(101)\nIt is therefore considered that the existence of two different production processes cannot per se have had a material impact on profit margins, in particular in view of the price pressure exerted by the dumped imports from the PRC. In addition, no substantiated evidence was submitted in support of the claim that the Union industry suffered material injury because of the lack of more recent technology. Therefore this claim was rejected.\n(102)\nIn the light of the foregoing and in the absence of any other comments, it is concluded that the dumped imports from the PRC caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation and recitals 155 to 158 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.\n6. UNION INTEREST\n6.1. Preliminary remark\n(103)\nThe Union interest analysis has been adapted to take into account the revisions to the dumping margins following comments to the provisional disclosure and the individual examinations carried out after the imposition of provisional measures. Accordingly, in view of the high level of cooperation, the majority of imports from the PRC would be subject to a duty level of around 5 % as mentioned in recital 63.\n6.2. Union industry\n(104)\nIt is recalled that the Union industry is composed of four producers located in different Member States, employing directly over 1 300 people in activities related to HTY. All injury indicators, in particular those related to the financial performance of the Union industry, showed a negative trend during the period considered. Employment also decreased significantly by 23 %, corresponding to a decrease of around 400 full-time equivalents during the period considered.\n(105)\nFollowing the imposition of provisional measures, the Union industry has submitted that factories that had been idle due to the dumped imports have recently been reopened. This shows that the provisional measures have already had a positive impact on the Union industry.\n(106)\nIt is expected that the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties against imports originating in the PRC would have a further positive impact on the economic situation of the Union industry and would enable it to regain at least part of its lost market share.\n(107)\nIn the absence of any other comments with regard to the interest of the Union industry, recitals 160 to 163 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6.3. Importers\n(108)\nSome parties claimed that the analysis of the impact of measures on importers did not address the difficulty of rapidly switching suppliers of HTY. In this respect, it is acknowledged that switching sources of supply may take some time depending on the end application. However, there will be other sources available, including imports from Korea and Taiwan as well as imports from the two Chinese exporting producers mentioned in recitals 63 and 64, which will not be subject to anti-dumping duties. Therefore, this claim was rejected and the provisional conclusion that measures would not have a significant negative impact on importers is confirmed.\n(109)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals 164 and 165 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6.4. Users\n(110)\nUsers of HTY showed a strong interest in this case. Out of 68 users contacted, 33 cooperated in the investigation. The investigation showed that 24 of the 33 cooperating users purchased HTY in the PRC. 12 % of these imports were from companies that were found not to be dumping.\n(111)\nAt the provisional stage, the analysis regarding the impact of measures on users was made by grouping the users into four separate industrial sectors (tyres, automotive, ropes and industrial applications). Before the imposition of provisional measures, four users were verified (two in the tyre sector, one in the automotive and one in the industrial applications sectors). Following the imposition of provisional measures, it was further investigated to what extent each sector would be affected by measures. To this end, additional verification visits were carried out at the premises of seven users as mentioned in recital 5. Of the 11 users verified in total, five were small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Based on the verified data, the estimated impact of measures on the users\u2019 profit margins was revised, taking also into account the revised level of duties and the fact that one additional Chinese exporting producer was found not to be dumping.\n(112)\nAs regards users in the tyres sector, in total four questionnaire replies were received from tyre manufacturers. Out of these, two were verified before the imposition of provisional measures and one after the imposition of provisional measures. According to the available data for this sector, the share of HTY in relation to their cost of production is relatively limited: below 1 % on average. Only one of the cooperating users was found to import the product concerned from the PRC. However, all these imports were from a company in the PRC which was not found to be dumping. It is therefore concluded that on the basis of the data available, the tyre sector will not be affected by the proposed measures.\n(113)\nIn respect of users in the automotive sector (mainly producing seatbelts and airbags), representing 5 % of the total imports of HTY from the PRC in the IP, in total six questionnaire replies were received. Two companies were verified, one before and one after the imposition of provisional measures. After the verification visits, the share of Chinese HTY used by the automotive sector was revised to 15 %. Verification visits also showed that overall, the business using HTY represented more than 30 % of the total turnover of the cooperating companies, instead of 4 % as established at the provisional stage. The average profit achieved in this sector on products using HTY is confirmed to be around 3 %. Based on the above, it is concluded that, should measures be imposed, the automotive sector is not likely to be seriously affected overall since it would still be profitable and in addition, the PRC is not the main source of supply.\n(114)\nRegarding users in the rope sector, in total three questionnaire replies were received and one company was verified after the imposition of provisional measures. All cooperating companies in this sector are SMEs and represented less than 1 % of the total imports from the PRC in the IP. It is confirmed that the share of the HTY business is around 18 % of their total business. The average profit margin achieved in the sector using HTY was provisionally established at around 8 %. However, following the verification visit and the subsequent correction of the data submitted in the questionnaire replies, the profit margin achieved in this sector was revised to - 0,4 %. The investigation showed that the majority of the imports (71 %) were from the PRC during the IP while 22 % were from Korea. In view of the revised level of duty, however, the impact on companies in this sector, if they continued to source HTY from the PRC, should be limited. In addition, a number of alternative sources of supply exist.\n(115)\nFinally, regarding the users within the sector of industrial applications, in total 20 questionnaire replies were received from users representing 21 % of the total imports from the PRC. Five companies were verified, one before the imposition of provisional measures and four after the imposition of provisional measures. Based on the information available for this sector after the verification visits, the share of the business related to HTY was revised to 54 % of the total business. The investigation showed that these users mainly purchased HTY from the PRC (42 %) and from Korea (24 %), whereas 29 % was sourced from suppliers in the Union and in third countries. The data collected during the verification visits which took place after the imposition of provisional measures lead to an adjustment of the average profit margin achieved in this sector, which is established at 17 %. However, the data collected shows that the average profit margin identified for the whole sector is not representative of the situation of the SMEs, which had on average a negative profit margin of - 1,9 % during the IP. In the worst case scenario, i.e. should these SMEs buy from Chinese exporting producers subject to measures and not change their source of supply, their profitability would decrease from - 1,9 % to - 3,3 % with the imposition of definitive measures. This would be due to the fact that they source the HTY from the PRC in greater proportion compared to the large companies, which would remain highly profitable. It is expected however, that these SMEs could shift at least part of their purchases to suppliers not subject to measures.\n(116)\nSome users argued that the negative impact of the anti-dumping measures on their profitability had been underestimated in the provisional analysis regarding the Union interest. They also claimed that they would have difficulties in passing on the cost increase to their customers and questioned the possibility to find alternative sources of supply. Some parties also questioned the Union producers\u2019 capacity to supply the required products. Finally, the negative effect of measures on the downstream industry and consequently on employment in the Union were raised.\n(117)\nAs regards the claim on profitability, the analysis based on the revised data following verification visits after the imposition of provisional measures indeed showed that part of the sectors of ropes and industrial applications would be negatively impacted by the measures should those users that buy from Chinese exporting producers subject to measures continue to do so and not change their source of supply. However, this impact is likely to be limited in view of the reduced level of duty and the existence of alternative supply sources.\n(118)\nAs regards the claim that it would not be possible for users to pass on the cost increase to their customers, the investigation showed that in some sectors it may indeed be difficult to increase prices. However, it is recalled that in view of the high level of cooperation by the Chinese exporting producers, the majority of imports from the PRC would be subject to a duty of around 5 % as stated in recital 103. Therefore, it is expected that users could pass on at least some of the cost increase to their customers, and in any event, even without price increases, the impact on their profitability is estimated to be rather limited.\n(119)\nConcerning the claim that the Union industry would not be able to supply the required products if anti-dumping measures were imposed, the investigation showed that some irregularities occasionally occurred in supplies previously provided by Union producers to certain users. However, the investigation did not point to any evidence that these irregularities were on a continued basis. As regards the reported difficulty in switching sources of supplies, indeed verification visits showed that before a new HTY can be used in production on a large scale, it should pass a number of tests aimed at verifying both the compatibility of the new raw material with the machinery and the required quality standards of the end-products. The duration of the testing process varies accordingly to the application of the end-product. It is therefore acknowledged that switching suppliers could be a lengthy and costly process for certain users, even though to a different extent depending on the manufactured products. Verification visits showed, however, that some companies were seeking to put into place a strategy of expansion of their suppliers in order to avoid relying solely on one source.\n(120)\nSome parties also highlighted the situation of SMEs, claiming that SMEs have difficulties in sourcing their raw materials because they do not reach the minimum order quantities required by producers. In this respect, it is noted that difficulties regarding minimum order quantities appear to be an existing pattern of business regardless of the imposition of measures. Therefore it is considered that the imposition of duties would not per se affect the already established business patterns among economic operators. Therefore, these claims were not considered warranted.\n(121)\nFinally, some interested parties claimed that the Union industry would not represent a reliable source due to the incompleteness of its product range, the lower quality and the higher prices of products. In this respect it is noted that even if Union producers were not able to supply the full range of products required, alternative supply sources exist which should allow completing product ranges. Moreover, the relatively low duty level should not prohibit users to complete their product range by continuing to recur to imports from the PRC as well. In addition, the recent reopening of factories, as mentioned above, should contribute to address this concern insofar as it would allow for a bigger capacity being allocated to the manufacturing of a wider range of products. Therefore this claim was rejected.\n(122)\nAs regards the claim on the effect of measures on the downstream industry, and consequently on employment in the Union, it is considered that in view of the above, the impact should be negligible.\n6.5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(123)\nBased on the above, it was concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties against imports of HTY originating in the PRC.\n7. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n7.1. Injury elimination level\n(124)\nIn the absence of any substantiated comments that would alter the conclusion regarding the injury elimination level, recitals 179 to 183 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n7.2. Definitive measures\n(125)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed in respect of imports of HTY originating in the PRC at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule. Accordingly, all duty rates should be set at the level of the dumping margins found.\n(126)\nGiven that the dumping margins established for Korea and Taiwan were below the de minimis level, no definitive anti-dumping duties are to be imposed on imports originating in Korea and Taiwan.\n(127)\nThe proposed anti-dumping duties are the following:\nCompany\nInjury elimination margin\nDumping margin\nAnti-dumping duty rate\nZhejiang Guxiandao Industrial Fibre Co. Ltd\n57,1 %\n5,1 %\n5,1 %\nZhejiang Hailide New Material Co. Ltd\nN/A\n0\n0 %\nZhejiang Unifull Industrial Fibre Co. Ltd\n57,6 %\n5,5 %\n5,5 %\nCooperating companies not included in the sample\n57,3 %\n5,3 %\n5,3 %\nHangzhou Huachun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd\nN/A\n0\n0 %\nOriental Industries (Suzhou) Ltd\n53,2 %\n9,8 %\n9,8 %\nAll other companies in the PRC\n57,6 %\n9,8 %\n9,8 %\n(128)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(129)\nAny claim requesting the application of an individual company anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (3) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be amended accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(130)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. The comments submitted by the parties were duly considered and, where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly.\n(131)\nIn order to ensure equal treatment between any new exporters and the cooperating companies not included in the sample, mentioned in the Annex to this Regulation, provision should be made for the weighted average duty imposed on the latter companies to be applied to any new exporters which would otherwise be entitled to a review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation as Article 11(4) does not apply where sampling has been used.\n7.3. Definitive collection of provisional duties\n(132)\nIn view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation, be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the definitive duties imposed. Where the definitive duties are lower than the provisional duties, amounts provisionally secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released. Where the definitive duties are higher than the provisional duties, only the amounts secured at the level of the provisional duties shall be definitively collected.\n8. TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(133)\nIn view of the findings regarding imports originating in Korea and Taiwan, the proceeding with respect to these two countries shall be terminated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of high tenacity yarn of polyesters (other than sewing thread), not put up for retail sale, including monofilament of less than 67 decitex, currently falling within CN code 5402 20 00 and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nDuty (%)\nTARIC additional code\nZhejiang Guxiandao Industrial Fibre Co. Ltd\n5,1\nA974\nZhejiang Hailide New Material Co. Ltd\n0\nA976\nZhejiang Unifull Industrial Fibre Co. Ltd\n5,5\nA975\nCompanies listed in the Annex\n5,3\nA977\nHangzhou Huachun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd\n0\nA989\nOriental Industries (Suzhou) Ltd\n9,8\nA990\nAll other companies\n9,8\nA999\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThe anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of high tenacity yarn of polyesters originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan is hereby terminated.\nArticle 3\nThe amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 478/2010 on imports of high tenacity yarn of polyesters (other than sewing thread), not put up for retail sale, including monofilament of less than 67 decitex currently falling within CN code 5402 20 00 and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China shall be definitively collected at the rate of the definitive duty imposed pursuant to Article 1. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rates of the anti-dumping duty shall be released.\nArticle 4\nWhere any new exporting producer in the People\u2019s Republic of China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:\n-\nit did not export to the Union the product described in Article 1(1) during the investigation period (1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009),\n-\nit is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the People\u2019s Republic of China which are subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation,\n-\nit has actually exported to the Union the product concerned after the investigation period on which the measures are based, or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union,\nthe Council, acting by simple majority on a proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, may amend Article 1(2) by adding the new exporting producer to the cooperating companies not included in the sample and thus subject to the weighted average duty rate of 5,3 %.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2010.", "references": ["50", "57", "79", "93", "80", "9", "73", "14", "25", "16", "3", "32", "38", "18", "29", "78", "88", "17", "35", "74", "97", "1", "62", "90", "53", "58", "83", "42", "56", "28", "No Label", "48", "89", "95", "96"], "gold": ["48", "89", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU, EURATOM) No 564/2010\nof 29 June 2010\nadjusting the correction coefficients applicable to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and in particular Article 12 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and to the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the Union, as laid down by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 259/68 (1), and in particular Articles 64, 65(2) of the Staff Regulations and Annexes VII, XI and XIII thereto, and the first paragraph of Article 20, Articles 64 and 92 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThere was a substantial decrease in the cost of living in Latvia and Lithuania in the period from June to December 2009, the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration of officials and other servants should therefore be adjusted,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nWith effect from 1 January 2010, the correction coefficients applicable, under Article 64 of the Staff Regulations, to the remuneration of officials and other servants employed in the countries and places listed below shall be as follows:\n-\nLatvia 79,6,\n-\nLithuania 73,4,\nArticle 2\nWith effect from the first day of the month following that of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, the correction coefficients applicable under Article 17(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations to transfers by officials and other servants shall be as follows:\n-\nLatvia 73,3,\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 29 June 2010.", "references": ["80", "96", "99", "45", "30", "5", "95", "78", "65", "44", "22", "70", "89", "62", "48", "25", "53", "67", "81", "29", "46", "40", "58", "86", "83", "9", "71", "92", "43", "97", "No Label", "2", "7", "37", "52", "91"], "gold": ["2", "7", "37", "52", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 July 2010\non the parafiscal charge for the promotion of wine applied by Portugal C 43/04 (ex NN 38/03)\n(notified under document C(2010) 4891)\n(Only the Portuguese text is authentic)\n(2011/6/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision cited above (2),\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nFollowing a complaint, the European Commission, by letter of 20 January 2003, put a number of questions to the Portuguese authorities concerning a parafiscal charge for the promotion of wine, levied by the Instituto da Vinha e do Vinho (Vine and Wine Institute), and measures funded by the revenue from that charge.\n(2)\nThe Permanent Representation of Portugal to the European Union replied to the Commission by letter of 14 March 2003. Additional information was sent by letters of 4 August, 2 September 2003, 24 February and 15 July 2004 in response to the questions asked by the Commission by faxes of 14 May and 22 December 2003.\n(3)\nSince the provision in question was applied from 1995 without any prior authorisation from the Commission, it was entered in the register of unnotified aid. In fact, the measures applied by Portugal is new aid, not notified to the Commission and, accordingly, illegal within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (3) (now Article 108 of the TFEU).\n(4)\nBy letter of 6 December 2004 (C(2004) 4522), the Commission notified Portugal of its decision to initiate the formal examination procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the TFEU in relation to this aid. The Commission\u2019s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4). The Commission invited interested parties to submit observations concerning the measure in question.\n(5)\nThe Portuguese authorities submitted their observations by letters dated 11 and 13 January 2005. They supplemented their reply by letter of 24 May 2006. The Commission did not receive any observations from interested third parties.\nII. DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\n(6)\nThis section briefly summarises the context and the salient facts with regard to the measures examined in this decision. The details are set out in the decision on initiation of the procedure referred to in recital 4.\n1. The Vine and Wine Institute\n(7)\nThe IVV is a public body established in 1986 to guarantee the control and general coordination of the vine and wine sector in Portugal. In accordance with the provisions of Decree-Law No 99/97 of 26 April 1997 establishing the \u2018Organic law of the IVV\u2019 (5), its general tasks are the support, study, control, supervision and promotion of the production and marketing of wines and wine products and for these purposes it possesses administrative and financial autonomy.\n(8)\nThis body carries out activities assigned by domestic and Community legislation relating to the wine sector and, in particular, it is the national authority designated by the Portuguese State (6) as responsible for checking compliance with Community provisions concerning the wine sector in terms of Article 72(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (7).\n(9)\nAs part of its functions for the general coordination of the wine sector, the IVV performs two kinds of activity:\n-\nthose relating mainly to wines and wine products produced in Portugal, namely assignments relating to the land registry and viticultural assets and also the audit of systems for the control and certification of quality wines produced in specific areas (QWPSR) and regional wines (on average, 2,8 % of the IVV\u2019s budget), and\n-\nthose intended indifferently for wines and wine products originating from Portugal and from other Member States and/or third countries and marketed in Portugal, namely activities for the management and coordination of the wine market and monitoring and supervision of the wine sector in accordance with domestic and Community legislation (activities absorbing almost the entire budget of the IVV).\n(10)\nThe IVV also acts as a provider of certain services to third parties, namely: (i) the organisation and promotion of training activities for economic agents, trade and joint trades organisations in the wine sector and officials of the IVV; (ii) making the storage capacity of the IVV\u2019s infrastructures available to economic agents in the sector, and (iii) the provision of services of the IVV\u2019s laboratory and the training of its own staff and other operators in the wine sector (largely funded by domestic and Community support programmes).\n2. Wine promotion measures\n(11)\nThe IVV also organises wine promotion. It does so by granting support to organisations of a joint trades nature which are representative of the wine sector and which undertake promotion and advertising activities for wine and wine products. This support is funded by some of the revenue from the promotion charge levied on domestic and imported products, a percentage set annually by the Portuguese authorities, who at the same time lay down the criteria for the selection of the entities which are the beneficiaries of the support (8).\n(12)\nSince 1997, the support for the generic promotion of wine and wine products has been allocated by a public and competitive procedure to a Portuguese joint trades association representative of the Portuguese wine sector called Viniportugal. As the only candidate since 1997, Viniportugal has thus been the beneficiary of all of the revenue from the parafiscal charge intended for those purposes.\n(13)\nThis percentage of the charge has been earmarked to fund two different types of promotion campaign:\n-\nfirstly, generic promotion campaigns for wine and wine products, without reference to their origin, in Portugal,\n-\nsecondly, campaigns for the promotion of Portuguese wine and wine products in other Member States and third countries.\n2.1. Generic promotion of wine in Portugal\n(14)\nAs regards generic promotion campaigns for wine in Portugal, the Portuguese authorities state that Viniportugal carries out functions in support of, and implementing, activities for the promotion of wine and wine products, such as the promotion of cultural and scientific activities linked to the wine sector. In this connection, Viniportugal promotes wine culture by organising fairs and exhibitions devoted to this speciality, publications on the subject, presentation and public awareness measures and also via advertising campaigns from the angle that wine promotion in general directly influences wine consumption in Portugal.\n(15)\nThe Portuguese authorities point out that, in any event, the promotion and advertising activities conducted by Viniportugal are not aimed at dissuading consumers from buying wine products from other Member States or denigrating those products. Nor do they benefit a trademark of a particular undertaking or individual producer.\n(16)\nThe main aim of the advertising campaigns at national level is to win young adult consumers of both sexes over to the healthy consumption of wine as an alternative to beer or other alcoholic drinks.\n(17)\nViniportugal also promotes the publication of books, prospectuses and practical guides to wine in order to popularise wine culture; it concludes agreements with higher education establishments to promote the training of professionals in the wine and restaurant business; it supports the Portuguese Association of Sommeliers in order to raise the quality of wines served on public premises and to guarantee familiarity with the properties of wine in general; finally, Viniportugal promotes the moderate and responsible consumption of wine through collaboration with health bodies by organising seminars on combating high blood alcohol levels and on road safety and proposing a code of good practices for wine advertising in order to promote wine in a dignified way and prevent the promotion of pre-adolescent alcohol consumption. The Portuguese authorities have also provided samples of their advertising which demonstrate compliance with these principles.\n2.2. Promotion of Portuguese wine on the markets of other Member States and third countries\n(18)\nAs regards campaigns for the promotion of Portuguese wine and wine products on the territory of other Member States and third countries, the Portuguese authorities have indicated that the activities conducted on the markets of other Member States and third countries seek to promote Portuguese wines and take the practical form of the publication of advertisements in specialist magazines, the distribution of newsletters, participation in specialist exhibitions and the promotion of visits by specialist journalists to Portugal. The authorities assure the Commission that these campaigns are not intended to discourage consumers from buying products from other Member States or disparage the abovementioned products and they do not benefit a trademark of a particular undertaking or an individual producer. In this connection, the Portuguese authorities have provided examples and samples of advertising in the specialist foreign press.\n3. Training measures\n(19)\nThe IVV is the organisation responsible for promoting and carrying out activities for the technical training of, and imparting awareness to, economic agents in the wine sector in order to guarantee the quality of wines and wine products. During the period from 1997 to 2002, this service arranged various training schemes for officials of the IVV (1 449 officials), other public officials and, to a lesser extent (135 agents), for operators in the sector.\n(20)\nThe Portuguese authorities point out that the cost of the training schemes arranged by the IVV in this period was, with the exception of the general training session \u2018Sistema de Informa\u00e7ao e Gest\u00e3o Vitivin\u00edcola 2000\u2019, the total cost of which was EUR 367,12, entirely borne by the Support Programmes for the Modernisation of Agriculture and Forestry (PAMAF) 6 and by the Agro/Measure 7 Programme, both co-financed by the European Social Fund. They state that, accordingly, neither the IVV nor the economic agents had to contribute towards the funding of these training schemes.\n4. The wine promotion charge\n(21)\nThe measure at issue relates to the use of revenue from a parafiscal charge levied by the Vine and Wine Institute (hereinafter \u2018the IVV\u2019) on operators in the sector since 1995 (9). This charge is intended to confer on that public body sufficient resources for the performance of coordination tasks in the wine sector in Portugal and represents over 62 % of the budget allocated to running the IVV.\n(22)\nAccording to Article 1(1) of Decree-Law No 119/97, wines and wine products produced on national territory, together with products from outside the country and marketed in Portugal, are subject to the application of a promotion charge by way of compensating IVV for the services it provides in relation to the generic promotion and general coordination of the sector or, in the Autonomous Regions of the Azores and Madeira, by the respective regional services.\n(23)\nThis promotion charge is levied not only on wine products which are produced and marketed in Portugal but also on those produced in Portugal and marketed in other Member States or in third countries (exports), and also on wine products originating from other Member States or third countries which are marketed in Portugal (imports).\n(24)\nThe amount to be paid is laid down yearly by the competent authorities of the Ministry of Agriculture. This amount varies according to whether the product is packaged and the capacity of the container (10).\n(25)\nThe revenue from the promotion charge is intended, despite its name, firstly to fund services for the general coordination of the wine sector performed by the IVV and secondly for activities for the promotion of wine and wine products.\n(26)\nOn the initiation of the procedure, the Commission considered that, in the exercise of the activities for the general coordination of the wine sector conferred by Community and domestic legislation and also when it organises the allocation of aid for the promotion of wine, the IVV is acting not as a private operator but as a public authority and that there is therefore no State aid in regard to it (see point 66 of the procedure initiation decision).\n(27)\nAs regards the activities of the IVV as a provider of certain services to third parties according to the conditions of the market (see recital 15 above), no economic advantage existed for the IVV on account of its position on the market and therefore no State aid existed in regard to it (see point 70 of the procedure initiation decision).\n(28)\nOn the basis of the information at its disposal, the Commission also considered that there was no economic advantage and therefore no aid in favour of Viniportugal. The joint trades association is merely a provider of services which was selected according to objective criteria and by means of a public, transparent and non-discriminatory procedure to supply such services (see point 87 of the procedure initiation decision).\n(29)\nHowever, when the Commission initiated the examination procedure, it considered there was State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU in favour of economic operators in the wine sector as regards the funding of campaigns for the promotion and advertising of wine and wine products (see point 80 of the procedure initiation decision).\n(30)\nAs regards training activities, the Commission also considered there was State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU (see points 79 and 80 of the procedure initiation decision).\n(31)\nThe Commission initiated the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the TFEU because it entertained doubts as regards the compatibility of these two types of aid with the internal market.\n(32)\nThus as regards the support for Portuguese wine advertising on the market of other Member States and third countries, the Commission did not, at the initiation stage, have sufficient information enabling it to conclude that these campaigns, although mentioning the origin of the wines, only conveyed information on the objective characteristics of the products concerned and did not contain subjective claims regarding the quality of the products based simply on their origin (see point 119 of the procedure initiation decision).\n(33)\nAs regards the funding of aid for promotion and training, the Commission considered, in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice, that aid for domestic producers could only be funded by parafiscal charges applicable also to imports from producers of the same product in other Member States when there are assurances that these can benefit from these advantages in the same way as domestic producers. The Commission did not, at the procedure initiation stage, have sufficient information enabling it to conclude that in the present case there had not been any discrimination between domestic and imported products. Accordingly, it is unable to conclude that the products from other Member States, on which the charge also had to be paid, benefited in the same way and to the same extent as domestic products from all the advantages arising from the charge (see point 135 of the procedure initiation decision).\n(34)\nThe Commission thus asked the Portuguese authorities to provide any information it could which might be useful for the evaluation of the measures in question, particularly as regards the non-discriminatory nature of the method of funding the aid in question (i.e. the aid for the promotion and advertising of wine and wine products, both in Portugal and on the territory of other Member States and third countries and also training aid), and with regard to the objective nature of the advertising campaigns conducted on the markets of Member States and third countries.\n(35)\nThis decision is limited to examining the application of the parafiscal charge from its entry into force until 31 December 2006, the date of the entry into force of the Community\u2019s new Guidelines on State aid in the agricultural and forestry sector 2007-2013, without prejudice to the position which the Commission will take in relation to application of the promotion charge beyond that date.\nIII. OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED BY PORTUGAL\n(36)\nFollowing the decision to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) of the TFEU, the Portuguese authorities sent their observations by letters dated 11 and 13 January 2005. They supplemented their reply by a letter of 24 May 2006.\n1. Training aid\n(37)\nAs regards aid for training, the Portuguese authorities stated the following.\n(38)\nBetween 1997 and 2000, the IVV undertook training activities relating to essential questions in the wine sector in Portugal which were directed mainly at employees of the IVV and other public bodies and, to a lesser extent, operators in the wine sector.\n(39)\nThe cost of all these activities promoted and organised by the IVV in the period in question was entirely supported by the \u2018Support Programmes for the Modernisation of Agriculture and Forestry\u2019 (PAMAF 6) and the programme \u2018Agro/Medida 7\u2019, which is co-financed by the Community by means of the European Social Fund (ESF) - and the \u2018Programme of Investment and Development Expenditure of Central Government\u2019 (PIDDAC).\n(40)\nThe only activity in the period in question whose cost was actually covered by the IVV\u2019s budget was the general training \u2018Sistema de Informa\u00e7\u00e3o e Gest\u00e3o Vitivin\u00edcola 2000\u2019, which took place in 2000 at a total cost of EUR 367,12; it was aimed at staff of the Regional Agriculture Departments (the regional services of the Ministry of Agriculture itself) and of the Regional Viticulture and Wine Committees, which are the competent bodies for guaranteeing the authenticity and quality of wines from specific regions.\n(41)\nFinally, they point out that the negligible cost of this activity - only EUR 367,12 - makes its impact on competition in the common market non-existent, or at most minimal.\n2. Aid for the promotion and advertising of Portuguese wine on markets of other Member States and third countries\n(42)\nAs regards the doubts entertained by the Commission concerning the support granted to the advertising of Portuguese wine on the market of other Member States and third countries, the Portuguese authorities have provided the following information.\n(43)\nViniportugal\u2019s promotion and advertising activities in Portugal and in the territory of other Member States and third countries are of a general nature, do not relate to specific trademarks and are not aimed at the promotion of particular undertakings or individual producers.\n(44)\nThese campaigns are not intended to disparage the wine products of other Member States or discourage consumers from buying wine products from other Member States, moreover they conform to applicable Community legislation (namely the legislation on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs). Accordingly, Viniportugal\u2019s advertising activities in other Member States of the European Union and in third countries respect the negative criteria laid down in paragraphs 18 to 30 of the Community guidelines for State aid for advertising of products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty and of certain non-Annex I products (11) (hereinafter \u2018Guidelines for State aid for advertising\u2019), which were in force during the application of the aid in question.\n(45)\nSimilarly, these activities fulfil the positive criteria set out in paragraphs 31 et seq. of the Guidelines for State aid for advertising. These activities are intended to familiarise the consumers of other Member States with Portuguese wines, thereby facilitating the development of activities of the Portuguese wine sector within the meaning of 107(3)(c) of the TFEU.\n(46)\nViniportugal\u2019s campaigns outside Portugal are intended to publicise the basic characteristics of Portuguese wine, inviting consumers in other Member States and third countries to taste these unfamiliar products. The campaigns contain no subjective statement as to the quality of the products based solely on their origin; this is in accordance with the Guidelines for State aid for advertising.\n(47)\nConsequently, the Portuguese authorities state that Viniportugal\u2019s advertising activities in other Member States of the European Union and also those conducted in third countries ought to be regarded as compatible with the common market in the light of Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU and of the Guidelines for State aid for advertising.\n(48)\nIn support of their observations, the Portuguese authorities have provided examples and samples of advertising campaigns in the specialist foreign press.\n3. Funding of promotion and advertising campaigns for Portuguese wine in other Member States and third countries\n(49)\nAs regards the doubts raised by the Commission in relation to the funding of campaigns for the promotion and advertising of wine in other Member States and third countries, the Portuguese authorities point out that, in the period between 1997 and 2005, the revenue from the levying of the charge on products originating from other Member States represented only 15 % of the total revenue from that charge.\nAnnual revenue from levying the wine promotion charge (Annual average for the years 1998-2005) (12)\nOrigin\nAmount\n(EUR)\n%\nDomestic wines and wine products\n7 327 957\n85 %\nWines and wine products from other Member States and third countries\n1 293 169\n15 %\nTotal of average annual revenue (1998 to 2005)\n8 621 126\n100 %\n(50)\nIn this connection, the Portuguese authorities consider that imported products contribute only to the payment of a portion of the generic promotion of wine and wine products conducted in Portugal, which equally benefits domestic products and those from other Member States. Again, according to the Portuguese authorities, the remaining funding of generic promotions is provided by the portion of the levy payable on domestic products, which benefit to the same degree from the resulting advantages. Moreover, the Portuguese authorities stated that the average costs of the generic promotion of wine and wine products are far higher than the portion of the amount granted to Viniportugal from the charge on promotion levied on products from other Member States. According to the Portuguese authorities, the support granted annually to Viniportugal in the period in question represented between 25 % and 45 % of the revenue from the charge on the promotion of wine (see recital 15 above). Of this amount, only 15 % derived from the collection of the charge on products imported from other Member States. The remaining 85 % came from revenue from the charge on domestic products (13). Accordingly, Viniportugal\u2019s activity is funded primarily by revenue from the charge levied on domestic products.\n(51)\nThe Portuguese authorities add that, during that same period, Viniportugal\u2019s expenditure on measures for the generic promotion of wine in Portugal represented on average 32 % of that association\u2019s total expenditure.\nViniportugal\u2019s expenditure (annual average of the years 1998-2005) (14)\nMeasures\nAmount\n(EUR)\n%\nMeasures for promotion and advertising in other Member States and third countries\n1 119 293\n68 %\nMeasures for generic promotion in Portugal\n525 698\n32 %\nTotal average expenditure per year (1998 to 2005)\n1 644 991\n100 %\n(52)\nBearing in mind that the contribution of products from other Member States to Viniportugal\u2019s activities represented only 15 % of the total revenue of that association from the charge on promotion, the Portuguese authorities conclude that the contribution of those products was therefore limited to funding only part of the generic promotion measures which Viniportugal conducted in Portugal.\n(53)\nThese measures which, according to the Portuguese authorities, are likely to benefit domestic products and those imported from other Member States in equal measure, were funded on the one hand by the contribution of products of other Member States and on the other by the contribution of domestic products.\n(54)\nThe remainder of the contribution levied on domestic products for Viniportugal\u2019s activity was intended to fund all the measures for the promotion and advertising of Portuguese wines in other Member States and in third countries, thus being the only source of funding of these activities.\n(55)\nThe Portuguese authorities therefore conclude that there is no discriminatory treatment between domestic wines and wine products and those originating from other Member States, insofar as (i) both contribute towards the funding of activities for the generic promotion of wine and wine products and these activities equally benefit domestic products and those imported from other Member States; (ii) the promotion and advertising campaigns conducted by Viniportugal in other Member States and third countries and which exclusively benefit Portuguese wine are solely funded with the proportion of revenue from the charge levied on domestic wines and wine products.\n(56)\nAccording to the Portuguese authorities, the mechanism for funding the aid measures in question must, therefore, be deemed compatible with Articles 107 and 110 of the TFEU.\nIV. ASSESSMENT\n1. Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU\n(57)\nArticles 107 to 109 of the TFEU are applicable to the production of, and trade in, products in the wine sector by virtue of Article 71 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/99 (15) on the common organisation of the wine market.\n(58)\nAccording to Article 107(1) of the TFEU, subject to any derogations provided for by that Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.\n(59)\nFor a measure to fall within the scope of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, the following four conditions must therefore all be met: 1. the measure must be funded by the State or through State resources, 2. it must relate selectively to certain undertakings or production sectors, 3. it must entail an economic benefit for beneficiary undertakings, and 4. it must affect intra-Community trade and distort, or threaten to distort, competition.\n(60)\nIn the decision to initiate the formal examination procedure, the Commission raised doubts as regards the following questions: first, as regards the compatibility with Article 107 of the TFEU of the promotion measures on markets of other Member States and third countries; secondly, as regards compatibility with Article 107 of the TFEU of the training measures organised by the IVV, and thirdly, as regards the compatibility with Article 110 of the TFEU of the funding, by means of the parafiscal charge, of promotion measures on markets of other Member States and third countries. The Commission is accordingly restricting its examination to these questions.\n1.1. State resources\n(61)\nThe aid which is the subject of this examination procedure have been funded by means of the parafiscal charge for the promotion of wine.\n(62)\nAs regards the question whether the revenue from the parafiscal charges can be regarded as State resources, it should be pointed out that no distinction must be made, in the case of State resources, between cases where aid is granted directly by the State and those where aid is granted via public or private bodies designated or created by the State (16).\n(63)\nOn 15 July 2004, the Court of Justice of the European Communities, in its judgment in Pearle (17) (Case C-345/02), held that obligatory contributions collected by an intermediary body from all the undertakings of a certain business sector can only be regarded as not being State resources if the following four conditions have all been met:\n(a)\nThe measure in question is established by the professional body that represents the undertakings and the employees of a business sector and does not serve as an instrument for the implementation of policies established by the State;\n(b)\nThe goals of the measure in question are fully financed by the contributions of the undertakings of the sector;\n(c)\nThe method of financing and the percentage/amount of the contributions are established in the professional body of the business sector by representatives of employers and employees, without any State interference;\n(d)\nThe contributions are obligatorily used for the financing of the measure, without the possibility for the State to intervene.\n(64)\nThe measure notified does not seem to meet all these conditions. The wine promotion charge was established by the Portuguese authority by means of a Decree-Law (see recital (11) as an instrument for the implementation of a policy established by the Portuguese Government, namely the promotion of wine. Moreover, the Portuguese authorities, in its legislative capacity, has the possibility of intervening in the determination of the financial arrangements of the measure and the use of the contributions. In the present case, the Portuguese State\u2019s intervention in this sense emerges clearly from the provisions of Decree-Laws No 137/95 of 14 June 1995 and No 119/97 of 15 May 1997.\n(65)\nSince conditions (a), (c) and (d) of the Pearle judgment are not met, the revenue from the wine promotion charge must therefore regarded as \u2018State resources\u2019.\n1.2. Existence of a selective advantage\n(66)\nIt ought thus to be checked whether the mechanism being analysed \u2018distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or certain products\u2019. The existence of aid must be established at the level of potential beneficiaries of the promotion of wine and its funding.\n(67)\nThus to constitute an aid within the meaning of Article 107, the compensation granted using State resources must secure an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions and this advantage must be selective. The criterion of selectivity is met where the abovementioned advantage is reserved for some undertakings or a business sector. This condition is therefore met in the present case, where the wine and wine products sector is clearly identified.\n(68)\nOn the initiation of the formal examination procedure, the Commission identified as beneficiaries economic operators which are recipients of the services provided by the IVV and Viniportugal. Irrespective of whether the funding of the IVV\u2019s activities represents a State aid in favour of that body, the question also arises of the possible qualification of the services provided by that body to the wine sector as \u2018State aid\u2019 within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. There is no doubt that the operators in the sector in question (producers, processors, wholesalers, retailers, etc.) are undertakings conducting an economic activity.\n(69)\nAccording to the case law of the Court of Justice, interventions which, in various ways, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which, without therefore being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are of the same character and have the same effect (18).\n(70)\nAccordingly, the question whether and, if appropriate, to what extent the activities funded by these \u2018State resources\u2019, namely the services offered to the sector by the IVV and the promotion campaigns organised by Viniportugal, constitute an economic advantage for the operators in the sector ought secondly to be answered.\n(71)\nAs regards the services of the IVV, it should be ascertained, on the one hand, whether and, if appropriate, to what extent, the economic operators in the wine sector in Portugal should have had to bear the costs of the abovementioned services in the absence of services provided by the IVV, and whether they constitute normal charges on the budget of an undertaking. To that end, a distinction should be made between three different groups of services:\n1.2.1. Services of the IVV as a general coordinator of the sector\n(72)\nThe Commission is of the view that the services and activities of the IVV as a general coordinator of the wine sector, and particularly those of supervision, monitoring, certification, audit and management of the mechanisms of the market, are a consequence of the application of the requirements laid down by Community and domestic legislation and, as such, do not constitute activities normally a charge included in the budget of an undertaking but rather activities arising from the essential functions of the State.\n1.2.2. Training services\n(73)\nHowever, as regards the funding of the organisation of training schemes from which economic operators in the sector have been able to benefit, it seems clear that an advantage in their favour is involved here, since training is an activity whose cost is normally included in the budget of undertakings.\n(74)\nAccording to the information provided by the Portuguese authorities when the procedure was initiated, all the training organised by the IVV, with the exception of the general training \u2018Sistema de Informa\u00e7\u00e3o e Gest\u00e3o Vitivin\u00edcola - 2000\u2019, whose cost was EUR 367,12, was co-financed by the European Social Fund and not, therefore, financed by revenue from the parafiscal charge. For that reason, this training does not come within the scope of the present investigation procedure.\n(75)\nAs regards the only training financed by revenue from the charge on the promotion of wine, namely the general training \u2018Sistema de Informa\u00e7\u00e3o e Gest\u00e3o Vitivin\u00edcola - 2000\u2019, the Commission notes that new information changed its designation and described it as State aid. According to the new information provided, this training was solely intended for staff of the Regional Agriculture Directorates and the Regional Viticulture and Wine Committees, which are the competent authorities for the control and verification of the authenticity and quality of wines in the regions concerned. It is clear from this information that this is not an aid measure intended for beneficiaries of the services provided by the IVV but an internal Government training measure.\n(76)\nAccordingly, this training measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n1.2.3. Services for conducting promotion campaigns\n(77)\nAs regards the conduct of promotion campaigns for wine and wine products via Viniportugal, there is an actual economic advantage in favour of economic operators in the sector and in particular in the wine sector in Portugal. The organisation of the promotion of these products is normally a charge included in an undertaking\u2019s budget.\n(78)\nAccordingly, the Commission concludes that the provision of services consisting of conducting promotion campaigns does constitute a selective advantage through State resources for economic operators in Portugal\u2019s wine sector.\n1.3. Affecting of trade and distortions of competition\n(79)\nLastly, in order to establish whether the aid in question falls within the scope of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, it must be established whether it is liable to affect trade among Member States and distort, or threaten to distort, competition by favouring certain undertakings or certain products.\n(80)\nThe Court of Justice has held that, where an advantage granted by a Member State strengthens the position of one category of undertakings in relation to other competing undertakings in intra-Community trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that advantage (19).\n(81)\nThe measures in question are liable to affect trade among Member States insofar as they promote domestic production to the detriment of the production of other Member States. In fact, the wine sector is extremely open to competition at Community level and, therefore, highly sensitive to any measure in favour of production in any Member State.\n(82)\nThe fact that there is trade among Member States in the wine and wine products sector seems to be demonstrated by the existence of a common organisation of the market in the sector.\n(83)\nThe following table shows, by way of example, the level of intra-Community trade in these products between the years 1999 and 2004 (20).\n1 000 Hl\nYear\nEU imports\nEU exports\n1999 (EU-15)\n35 595\n40 921\n2000 (EU-15)\n-\n-\n2001 (EU-15)\n32 699\n35 558,4\n2002 (EU-15)\n31 810,3\n35 002,9\n2003 (EU-15)\n33 024,7\n35 343\n2004 (EU-25)\n35 513,3\n38 696,4\n(84)\nAccordingly, so far as concerns the funding of the campaigns for the promotion and advertising of wine and wine products with part of the revenue from the wine promotion charge, the Commission confirms its position concerning the existence of State aid in favour of economic operators in the wine and wine products sector within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n1.4. Conclusions on the nature of \u2018aid\u2019 for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the TFEU\n(85)\nIn light of the foregoing, the Commission takes the view that the measures in favour of economic operators in the wine and wine products sector confer an advantage on them which is funded through State resources and from which other operators cannot benefit. This advantage distorts, or threatens to distort, competition by favouring certain undertakings and certain products, since it is liable to affect trade among Member States. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that these measures are covered by Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n2. Legality of aid for promotion and advertising\n(86)\nThe Portuguese authorities did not notify the Commission, as required by Article 108(3) of the TFEU, of the mechanisms establishing the abovementioned parafiscal charge or of the funding of measures in favour of the wine sector.\n3. Examination of the compatibility of the aid for promotion and advertising\n(87)\nThere are, however, exceptions to the principle of incompatibility set out in Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n(88)\nIn particular, Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU provides that aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, be considered to be compatible with the common market.\n(89)\nAccording to the Commission\u2019s communication on the determination of the rules applicable to the assessment of illegal State aid, any illegal aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 must be evaluated in accordance with the rules in force at the time the aid was granted.\n(90)\nHence the compatibility of aid granted before 1 January 2002 must be checked in light of the framework for domestic aid for advertising agricultural products and certain products not covered by Annex II to the EEC Treaty (21) and, in the case of aid granted after that date, in light of the Guidelines applicable to State aid to advertising, cited above, without prejudice to particular temporal implementation rules laid down in those Guidelines.\n(91)\nThe 1987 framework and the Guidelines do, however, essentially share the same principles. They provide for negative and positive criteria which must be complied with by all national aid systems. Thus the measures in question must not be advertising measures contrary to Article 28 of the Treaty (now Article 34 of the TFEU) or to secondary Community law and must not be geared to certain undertakings.\n3.1. Generic promotion campaigns in Portugal\n(92)\nAccording to the information sent by the Portuguese authorities, it may be concluded that these measures have objectives which fall within the scope of a number of the positive criteria adopted in the above instruments, since they are part of the development objective of small and medium-sized undertakings, of certain areas or even of the objective of development of high-quality products and healthy food.\n(93)\nThe Portuguese authorities have, furthermore, explained that the messages conveyed by the promotion and advertising measures are of a general nature and consist mainly of putting on exhibitions, participating in fairs and publishing catalogues and other media and are not intended to discourage consumers from buying products from other Member States or disparage those products, and they do not benefit a trademark of a particular undertaking or individual producer.\n(94)\nIn the decision initiating the formal examination procedure (point 108), the Commission took the view that the public aid paid to finance promotion measures in the present case up to 1 January 2002 complied with the criteria laid down in the relevant Community provisions.\n(95)\nFrom 1 January 2002, point 8 of the Community guidelines for State aid for advertising of products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty and of certain non-Annex I products provides that promotion measures, such as the dissemination to the general public of scientific knowledge, the organisation of trade fairs or exhibitions, participation in these and similar public relations exercises, including surveys and market research, are not regarded as advertising. State aid for such promotion in the broad sense is subject to points 13 and 14 of the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector.\n(96)\nPoint 13.2 of the Community guidelines concerning State aid in the agricultural sector provides that aid can be granted for recourse to consultancy and similar services, including technical studies, feasibility and design studies and market research, to be given for activities related to the development of quality agricultural products. Moreover, point 14 allows the granting of aid relating to technical assistance in the agricultural sector. In particular, aid intended to disseminate new techniques is authorised.\n(97)\nThe aid described above can fall within one or other of these categories, given that they ultimately relate to providing technical support to the production in question by means of support for the marketing of quality agricultural products and the generic creation of public awareness of their characteristics.\n(98)\nAid covering up to 100 % of the costs is therefore permitted in those cases. In order to prevent the possibility of large amounts of aid being granted to large companies, the total amount of aid which may be granted under this section should not exceed EUR 100 000 per beneficiary over any three-year period, or, in the case of aid granted to undertakings falling within the scope of the Commission definition of SMEs, 50 % of the eligible costs, whichever is greater. For the purpose of calculating the amount of aid, the beneficiary is considered to be the recipient of the services.\n(99)\nThe Portuguese authorities have explained that, since the measures in question are generic and general in scope and their actual benefit is totally dispersed among all the players in the wine sector, the level of aid per beneficiary therefore remains below the threshold of EUR 100 000 in 3 years.\n(100)\nIn the initiation decision for the formal investigation procedure (point 114), the Commission considered that State aid paid to fund the promotion measures in question after 1 January 2002 seem to have complied with the criteria laid down in the relevant Community provisions.\n(101)\nIn view of the information provided by the Portuguese authorities throughout the preliminary examination of this dossier and in the absence of any comments to the contrary by third parties following the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, the Commission confirms the position expressed on the initiation of the procedure (22), concerning the compatibility with the applicable Community provisions of the generic promotion campaigns for wine conducted by Viniportugal in Portugal.\n-\nIn this regard, the Commission takes particular note of the assurances provided by the Portuguese authorities regarding the objectives of the measure: the development of small and medium-sized undertakings, development of certain regions and the development of products of high-quality products and healthy food (point 32 of the Guidelines for State aid for advertising);\n-\nthe nature of the campaigns: the messages conveyed by the promotion and advertising measures are of a general nature, consisting mainly of the holding of exhibitions, participation in fairs, the publication of catalogues and other media and are not intended to discourage consumers from buying the products of other Member States or to disparage those products, nor do they benefit a trademark of a particular undertaking or individual producer (point 20 of the Guidelines applicable to State aid for advertising);\n-\nthe limits of the support: the measures are entirely funded by parafiscal charges and the financial efforts of traders in these campaigns reach, by definition, 50 % of their cost. Moreover, since generic measures are involved which are general in scope and whose real benefit is totally dispersed among all the players in the wine sector, the level of aid per beneficiary will remain below the threshold of EUR 100 000 in 3 years.\n3.2. Campaigns for the promotion and advertising of Portuguese wine in markets of other Member States and third countries\n(102)\nAs regards the campaigns for the promotion and advertising of Portuguese wine in markets of other Member States and third countries conducted by Viniportugal, in particular after 1 January 2002, the Commission raised doubts as to the compatibility of these campaigns with the provisions of the Guidelines for State aid for advertising.\n(103)\nAccording to point 4.1 of those Guidelines, advertising campaigns undertaken directly or indirectly by a Member State in the market of other Member States with a view to familiarising consumers with agricultural products of a particular Member State or area, or even with an entire category of the products of a Member State, are acceptable. Nevertheless, these campaigns need to convey information on the objective characteristics of the products concerned and must not contain subjective claims about the quality of the products based solely on their origin.\n(104)\nHowever, when it initiated the procedure, the Commission did not have sufficient information to conclude that these campaigns, although mentioning the origin of the wines, only conveyed information on the objective characteristics of the products concerned and did not contain subjective claims as to the quality of the products based solely on their origin. The Portuguese authorities had thus been invited to show that any reference to the origin of the products did indeed comply with those conditions.\n(105)\nThe Commission takes note of the assurances provided by the Portuguese authorities as regards (i) the general nature of Viniportugal\u2019s promotion campaigns (see recital 37 above); (ii) the fact that Viniportugal\u2019s promotion and advertising activities in Portugal and in the territory of the other Member States and third countries did not relate to specific trademarks, nor were they aimed at promoting certain undertakings or individual producers (see recital 37); (iii) the fact that the campaigns did not seek to disparage the wine products of other Member States or to discourage consumers from buying them, and they conformed to the applicable Community legislation (namely labelling, presentation and food advertising legislation) (see recital 38 above); (iv) the fact that the activities in question were aimed at familiarising the consumers of other Member States with Portuguese wines, thereby facilitating the conduct of activities in the Portuguese wine sector, within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU (see recital 39); and finally (v) the fact that Viniportugal\u2019s campaigns outside Portugal were intended to publicise the basic characteristics of Portuguese wine, inviting consumers in other Member States and third countries to taste these products, with which they are unfamiliar, and also the fact that they did not include any subjective declaration regarding the quality of the products based solely on their origin (see recital 40).\n(106)\nOn the basis of the additional information supplied by the Portuguese authorities and in the absence of any comments to the contrary by third parties following the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, the Commission is thus able to conclude that the doubts it expressed, on the initiation of the procedure, regarding the objective nature of the promotion and advertising campaigns conducted in the markets of Member States and third countries, are dispelled.\n(107)\nIn light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the aid for the generic promotion of wine in Portugal, and also the aid for the promotion and advertising of Portuguese wine in the markets of other Member States and third countries, is compatible with the positive and negative criteria laid down in the Guidelines applicable to State aid to advertising.\n4. Funding of the aid\n(108)\nSince at issue is State aid funded by means of a parafiscal charge, the measures funded by the aid, and also the funding of the aid itself, must be examined by the Commission. In fact, any incompatibility of the funding of a State aid with the common market would make the aid incompatible, even where the granting of the aid has complied with the applicable rules on competition.\n(109)\nThe Court has consistently held that taxes do not fall within the scope of the Treaty\u2019s provisions concerning State aid unless they constitute the method of financing an aid measure, so that they form an integral part of that measure (23). For a tax or part of a tax to be regarded as forming an integral part of an aid measure, it must be hypothecated to the aid measure under the relevant national rules (24), in the sense that the revenue from the tax is necessarily allocated for the financing of the aid. In the event of such hypothecation, the revenue from the tax has a direct impact on the amount of the aid (25) and, consequently, on the assessment of the compatibility of the aid with the common market (26).\n(110)\nIt should therefore be examined whether the charge for the promotion of wine meets the conditions set out above.\n4.1. The wine promotion charge as an integral part of promotion aid\n(111)\nFirst, it must be examined whether the revenue from the charge is necessarily assigned to the funding of the aid. In this connection, it should be pointed out that both Decree-Law No 137/95 and Decree-Law No 119/97, which derogates from it, provide that \u2018a percentage of the revenue from the promotion charge, which must be set annually by the Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries but which is nevertheless never below 25 %, shall be earmarked for measures for the generic promotion of wine and wine products\u2019 (Article 11(2) of Decree-Law No 119/97). In this sense, the relevant national rules necessarily assign part of the revenue from the charge to funding the promotion measures which constitute the object of the aid.\n(112)\nMoreover, Article 1(1) of Decree-Law No 119/97, which defines the scope of the charge, provides that \u2018wine and wine products [\u2026] are subject to the application of a promotion charge, which constitutes the compensation for the services provided by the Instituto da Vinha e do Vinho (IVV) in relation to the generic promotion and general coordination of the sector\u2019. Secondly, it should be examined whether the revenue from the charge directly influences the amount of the aid. In this connection, it should be pointed out that the promotion charge constitutes the only source of funding of the promotion and advertising aid presently being examined, so that a decrease in the revenue from the charge would entail a decrease in the resources for funding the promotion measures.\n(113)\nAccordingly, the Commission considers that, in the present case, the revenue from the charge is necessarily assigned to the funding of the aid and the revenue from the charge does directly influence the amount of the aid. Finally, the conclusion must be, in line with the Court of Justice\u2019s case law, that the charge is hypothecated to the aid measure under the relevant national legislation and that the charge for the promotion of wine forms an integral part of the aid measure being examined. Consequently, the funding of the measures with the charge must also be examined by the Commission.\n4.2. Imposition of the charge on exported products\n(114)\nAs mentioned at recital 9 above, the charge is imposed both on Portuguese products intended for consumption in Portugal and on products intended for export.\n(115)\nNevertheless, in the decision to initiate the formal examination procedure (point 143), the Commission states that there does not seem to be any discrimination between domestic products intended for the domestic market and those intended to be exported in the context of promotion and advertising campaigns conducted outwith Portuguese territory.\n(116)\nAs regards the question to what extent products intended for export benefit to the same extent from the generic promotion measures in Portugal, the Commission concludes, in view of the information provided by the Portuguese authorities throughout the preliminary examination of this dossier and in the absence of comments to the contrary by third parties following the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, that products in the latter category do benefit to a great extent from all the advantages arising from the charge and, moreover, greatly benefit from promotion activities in the territory of other Member States and third countries.\n4.3. Imposition of the charge on imported products\n(117)\nThe Commission normally considers, in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice (27), that the funding of an aid by means of compulsory charges can affect the aid by having a protective effect extending beyond aid properly so-called. The charge in question does in fact constitute a compulsory charge. On the basis of the same case law, the Commission considers that an aid to domestic producers may be funded by a parafiscal charges which is also charged on imports from producers of the same product from other Member States only where there are assurances that these can benefit from all these advantages in the same way as domestic producers.\n(118)\nThus, on the initiation of the formal examination procedure, the Commission noted that, insofar as the charge also had to be paid on products from other Member States, the Portuguese authorities still had to prove there was no discrimination between domestic products and imported ones and that therefore products from other Member States, on which the charge also had to be paid, benefited in the same way and to the same extent as domestic products from all the advantages arising from it (28).\n(119)\nIt has already been established that the campaigns for the promotion and advertising of wine and wine products conducted by Viniportugal are funded by part of the revenue from the charge for the promotion of wine.\n(120)\nIn their observations and additional information, the Portuguese authorities give an assurance that the contribution of revenue from the charge levied on imported products was limited exclusively to funding part of the costs of the generic promotion measures which Viniportugal conducted in Portugal. They state that the promotion and advertising campaigns conducted on the markets of other Member States and third countries in favour of Portuguese wine and wine products are funded solely by the revenue from the charge levied on domestic products.\n(121)\nThe information provided by the Portuguese authorities shows that the generic promotion campaigns in Portugal proportionally benefit imported products. As described in recitals 16 and 17, the main aim of the advertising campaigns at national level is indeed to win young adult consumers of both sexes over to a healthy consumption of wine as an alternative to beer or other alcoholic drinks. The Portuguese authorities have also provided samples of the advertising campaigns and public awareness projects funded by the charge. Insofar as the promotion campaigns are intended to promote the consumption of wine in general, imported products benefit to the same extent from the abovementioned measures.\n(122)\nHowever, the information provided is not sufficient to prove that the revenue from the charge on imported products have not contributed to the funding of the promotion and advertising campaigns conducted on the markets of other Member States and third countries which, by contrast, solely benefit Portuguese wine. In particular, according to the figures provided by the Portuguese authorities, average revenue from the collection of the charge on imported products during the period between 1998 and 2005 were EUR 1 293 169, whereas, in the same period, Viniportugal dedicated an average of EUR 525 698 yearly to generic promotion measures in Portugal (see recitals 36 and 38).\n(123)\nFurthermore, even if domestic legislation lays down the obligation to earmark a percentage - never less than 25 % - of the revenue from the charge to measures for the generic promotion of wine and wine products, there is no separate accounting of these two parts of the revenue from the charge. The Portuguese authorities were only able to submit estimates as to the part of the revenue from the charge which was collected on imported products and earmarked for generic promotion.\n(124)\nIn light of the case law cited in recital 116 above, the Commission takes the view, given that the measures funded by the charge constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the TFEU and that the charge is of a discriminatory nature contrary to Article 110 of the TFEU, inasmuch as the charge also had to be paid on products from other Member States without, however, those products benefiting from all the advantages arising from it, that the yield of the charge obtained by charging products imported from other Member States in order to fund the promotion measures conducted by Viniportugal on the markets of other Member States and third countries does constitute funding of the aid which is incompatible with the rules on the free movement of goods and, accordingly, that the State aid thus funded is incompatible with the Treaty to an identical degree.\n(125)\nThe Commission may validly conclude, on the basis of the information and assurances provided by the Portuguese authorities (see recital 104 of this decision) that producers and businessmen from other Member States have benefited to the same extent as Portuguese producers from the measures supporting generic promotion which were applied in Portugal.\n(126)\nOn the other hand, it is not disputed by the Portuguese authorities that producers and businessmen from other Member States cannot benefit from the measures to aid promotion and advertising abroad which are conducted exclusively in favour of Portuguese wines.\n(127)\nAccording to the established case law of the Court of Justice, if the revenue from a charge levied on both domestic and imported products according to the same criteria are intended to fund activities for the special advantage of the taxed domestic product, it may follow that a charge imposed on the same criteria nevertheless constitutes discriminatory taxation, insofar as the fiscal burden on domestic products is neutralised by the advantages which it serves to finance, whereas that on imported products constitutes a net burden (29).\n(128)\nIn the present case, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that there has been discrimination against imported products. On the other hand, it emerges from the information provided by the Portuguese authorities that imported products have been subjected to the charge to the same extent as domestic products but they have not benefited from the advantages financed by it to the same extent as domestic products. As mentioned in recital 122 above, according to the figures provided by the Portuguese authorities, average revenue from the collection of the charge on imported products during the period between 1998 and 2005 were EUR 1 293 169 whereas, in the same period, Viniportugal annually dedicated an average of EUR 525 698 to generic promotion measures in Portugal. There is no separate accounting enabling it to be ascertained that the revenue from the charge from imported products is dedicated solely to generic promotion in Portugal. Accordingly, the parafiscal charges and the revenue therefrom are contrary to Article 110 of the TFEU.\n(129)\nOn the basis of information supplied to it following the initiation of the formal examination procedure, the Commission cannot conclude that the aid for the promotion of Portuguese wine and wine products on the markets of other Member States and third countries have not been even partially funded by revenue from imported products from the wine promotion charge. In fact, it is not for the Commission automatically to examine what information could have been submitted to it but it must, on the one hand, seek all the necessary points of view and, on the other, base itself on the information available to it at the time the decision is adopted (30). The Commission considers, and accordingly concludes, that the funding of these aid measures must be regarded as incompatible with the common market.\n(130)\nIn conclusion, if the funding of a State aid is regarded as incompatible with the applicable Treaty rules, the aid thus funded must also be regarded as incompatible by the Commission for as long as the irregular funding continued, since the regularity of the funding of a State aid is an essential condition for it to be declared compatible (31).\nV. CONCLUSIONS\n(131)\nThe Commission regrets that Portugal should have implemented the abovementioned aid contrary to Article 108(3) of the TFEU.\n(132)\nThe Commission concludes that:\n-\nPortugal has illegally funded campaigns for the generic promotion of wine financed by means of a charge on domestic products and on products imported from other Member States, contrary to Article 108(3) of the TFEU,\n-\nThe only training measure funded by revenue from the parafiscal charge does not constitute an aid,\n-\nAid in favour of the promotion and generic advertising of wine and wine products conducted by Viniportugal on Portugal\u2019s territory can be declared compatible with the common market,\n-\nAid for the promotion and advertising of wine and wine products of Portuguese origin on the territory of other Member States and third countries which are funded by means of a charge on the production of wine and wine products affecting also products from other Member States have complied with the applicable Community provisions so far as those beneficiaries are concerned. The Commission also notes the existence of a breach of Article 110 of the TFEU as regards funding of the aid. For this reason, the Commission cannot declare the arrangements in question as compatible since they created discrimination between imported and domestic products.\n(133)\nThis decision is limited to examining the application of the parafiscal charge from its entry into force until 31 December 2006, the date of the entry into force of the Community\u2019s new Guidelines on State aid in the agricultural and forestry sector 2007-2013, without prejudice to the position which the Commission will take in relation to application of the promotion charge beyond that date.\n(134)\nThe Commission considers it appropriate in the present case to adopt a conditional decision using the possibility offered by Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, according to which the Commission may attach to a positive decision conditions subject to which an aid may be considered compatible with the common market and may lay down obligations to enable compliance with the decision to be monitored.\n(135)\nIn order to make good the breach of Article 110 and thus retrospectively remove the discrimination, Portugal must repay part of the charge imposed on products from other Member States within a time limit and under conditions set by the Commission. Making good this breach will make the aid concerned compatible with Article 107 of the TFEU.\n(136)\nThe conditions to be met for the abovementioned repayment shall be laid down by the Commission. Portugal must thus reimburse to the persons who paid the charge that part of the charge imposed on products from other Member States between the date when the charge first entered into force and 31 December 2006 in full compliance with the following conditions:\n-\nif they can provide evidence that the promotion charge was imposed on imported products, the persons who paid the charge can claim the repayment of a proportion of the revenue from the charge intended to fund promotion services exclusively benefiting domestic products within a time limit set in accordance with domestic law and in no case less than 6 months from the notification of this decision,\n-\nPortugal will establish the extent of any discrimination affecting imported products. To that end, Portugal must check, during a reference period, the financial equivalence between the amounts levied overall on domestic products by way of the charge concerned and the advantages from which these products exclusively benefit,\n-\nrepayment must be made within a maximum time limit of 6 months from the submission of the request,\n-\nthe amounts repaid must include interest calculated as from the date on which they were levied up until the date of actual repayment. This interest shall be calculated on the basis of the Commission\u2019s reference rate laid down by the method for setting the reference and discount rates (32),\n-\nthe Portuguese authorities shall accept any reasonable evidence from the payers of the charge paid in respect of products from other Member States,\n-\nthe right to repayment cannot be subjected to other conditions, particularly that of the charge not having been passed on,\n-\nwhere the charge has not yet been paid, the Portuguese authorities shall formally waive payment thereof, including any interest on late payment,\n-\nwhere the Commission so requests, Portugal shall undertake to submit a full report proving the proper implementation of the repayment measure,\n-\nif a charge has been imposed in another Member State on the same products which have been subjected to the wine promotion charge in Portugal, the Portuguese authorities shall undertake to reimburse those persons who have paid the charge for that part of it which affected products from that other Member State,\n-\nPortugal undertakes to make this decision known to all potential payers of the charge.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nOnly the training measure financed by revenue from the parafiscal charge, in the sum of EUR 367,12 does not constitute an aid.\nArticle 2\nThe State aid for the generic promotion of wine and wine products on Portuguese territory illegally implemented by Portugal contrary to Article 108(3) of the TFEU by means of a parafiscal charge established by Decree-Law No 137/95 of 14 June 1995 is State aid compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU as regards the period between its entry into force and 31 December 2006.\nArticle 3\n1. State aid for the promotion and advertising of wine and wine products of Portuguese origin on the territory of other Member States and third countries illegally implemented by Portugal contrary to Article 108(3) of the TFEU by means of a parafiscal charge established by Decree-Law No 137/95 of 14 June 1995 is, without prejudice to the application of Article 2, State aid compatible with the common market under Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU as regards the period between its entry into force and 31 December 2006, provided Portugal complies with the conditions in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. Portugal must repay to the persons who paid the charge that part of the charge imposed on products from other Member States between the date the charge was first applied and 31 December 2006 in full compliance with the following conditions:\n-\nif they can provide evidence that the promotion charge was imposed on imported products, the persons who paid the charge can claim repayment of a proportion of the revenue from the charge intended to fund promotion services exclusively benefiting domestic products within a time limit to be set in accordance with domestic law and in no case less than 6 months from the notification of this decision,\n-\nPortugal will establish the extent of any discrimination affecting imported products. To this end, Portugal must check, during a reference period, the financial equivalence between the amounts levied overall on domestic products by way of the charge concerned and the advantages from which these products exclusively benefit,\n-\nrepayment must be made within a maximum time limit of 6 months from the submission of the request,\n-\nthe amounts repaid must include interest calculated as from the date on which they were levied up until the date of actual repayment. Such interest is to be calculated on the basis of the Commission\u2019s reference rate laid down by the method for setting the reference and discount rates (33),\n-\nthe Portuguese authorities shall accept any reasonable evidence from the payers of the charge paid in respect of products from other Member States,\n-\nthe right to repayment cannot be subjected to other conditions, particularly that of the charge not having been passed on,\n-\nwhere the charge has not yet been paid, the Portuguese authorities shall formally waive payment thereof, including any interest on late payment,\n-\nwhere the Commission so requests, Portugal shall undertake to submit a full report proving the proper implementation of the repayment measure,\n-\nif a charge has been imposed in another Member State on the same products which have been subjected to the wine promotion charge in Portugal, the Portuguese authorities shall undertake to reimburse those persons who have paid the charge for that part of it which affected products from that other Member State,\n-\nPortugal undertakes to make this decision known to all potential payers of the charge.\nArticle 4\nPortugal shall inform the Commission, within a time limit of 2 months from notification of this decision, of the measures it has taken to comply with it.\nArticle 5\nThis decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2010.", "references": ["70", "3", "82", "25", "44", "4", "98", "95", "11", "23", "79", "38", "22", "35", "16", "56", "45", "2", "86", "28", "27", "76", "43", "88", "48", "54", "61", "26", "19", "7", "No Label", "15", "34", "41", "71", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "34", "41", "71", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/172/CFSP\nof 21 March 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 21 February 2011, the European Union declared its readiness to support the peaceful and orderly transition to a civilian and democratic government in Egypt based on the rule of law, with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and to support efforts to create an economy which enhances social cohesion and promotes growth.\n(2)\nIn this context, restrictive measures should be imposed against persons having been identified as responsible for misappropriation of Egyptian State funds and who are thus depriving the Egyptian people of the benefits of the sustainable development of their economy and society and undermining the development of democracy in the country.\n(3)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by persons having been identified as responsible for misappropriation of Egyptian State funds, and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in the Annex, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of, natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in the Annex.\n3. The competent authority of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources concerned are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of the natural persons listed in the Annex and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for the routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the competent authority has notified the competent authorities of the other Member States and the Commission of the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted, at least 2 weeks prior to the authorisation.\nA Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this paragraph.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authority of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources in question are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 1 was listed in the Annex, or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources in question will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a person, entity or body listed in the Annex; and\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgement is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\nThe Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this paragraph.\n5. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent a listed natural or legal person, entity or body from making a payment due under a contract entered into prior to the date on which such person, entity or body was listed in the Annex, provided that the Member State concerned has determined that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 1.\n6. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to the measures provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments remain subject to the measures provided for in paragraph 1.\nArticle 2\n1. The Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall decide to establish and amend the list in the Annex.\n2. The Council shall communicate the decision referred to in paragraph 1, including the grounds for the listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review the decision referred to in paragraph 1 and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\nArticle 3\n1. The Annex shall include the grounds for listing the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies referred to in Article 1(1).\n2. The Annex shall also contain, where available, the information necessary to identify the natural and legal persons entities or bodies concerned. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names, including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, entities and bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\nArticle 4\nIn order to maximise the impact of the measures referred to in Article 1(1) and (2), the Union shall encourage third States to adopt restrictive measures similar to those provided for in this Decision.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nThis Decision shall apply until 22 March 2012.\nThis Decision shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["42", "58", "5", "12", "81", "79", "57", "7", "59", "31", "64", "62", "50", "43", "41", "40", "60", "9", "19", "39", "22", "30", "14", "95", "10", "71", "76", "45", "91", "75", "No Label", "2", "3", "11", "36", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "3", "11", "36", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/4/EU\nof 20 January 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include cycloxydim as active substance and amending Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included cycloxydim.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the applicant withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of cycloxydim.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Austria, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nAustria evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 2 November 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on cycloxydim to the Commission on 30 June 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 23 November 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for cycloxydim.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing cycloxydim may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include cycloxydim in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit to the Commission, further information on methods for the analysis of residues of cycloxydim in plant and animal products.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing cycloxydim to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of cycloxydim and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning cycloxydim in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning cycloxydim in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing cycloxydim as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to cycloxydim are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing cycloxydim as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning cycloxydim. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing cycloxydim as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing cycloxydim as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2011.", "references": ["57", "34", "72", "59", "13", "22", "28", "18", "36", "99", "53", "33", "79", "24", "64", "17", "66", "23", "52", "16", "93", "92", "88", "42", "37", "3", "49", "69", "10", "75", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "41", "65"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "41", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1008/2010\nof 9 November 2010\nconcerning type-approval requirements for windscreen wiper and washer systems of certain motor vehicles and implementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 is a separate Regulation for the purposes of the type-approval procedure provided for by Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 repeals Council Directive 78/318/EEC of 21 December 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the wiper and washer systems of motor vehicles (3). The requirements set out in that Directive should be carried over to this Regulation and, where necessary, amended in order to adapt them to the development of scientific and technical knowledge.\n(3)\nThe scope of this Regulation should be in line with that of Directive 78/318/EEC and thus limited to vehicles of category M1.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 lays down fundamental provisions on requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their windscreen wiper and washer systems and the type-approval of windscreen washer systems as separate technical units. Therefore, it is necessary to set out the specific procedures, tests and requirements for such type-approval.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation applies to motor vehicles of category M1, as defined in Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC, which are fitted with a windscreen, as well as to windscreen washer systems intended for fitment to motor vehicles of category M1.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018vehicle type with regard to the windscreen wiper and washer system\u2019 means vehicles which do not differ in such essential respects as: the characteristics of the wiper and washer system or the shape, size and characteristics of the windscreen and its mounting;\n(2)\n\u2018type of windscreen washer system\u2019 means a group of windscreen washer systems which do not differ in such essential respects as the pump performance, materials used, storage capacity, number of nozzles, sizes, wall thicknesses or shape of the washer system;\n(3)\n\u2018engine\u2019 means a combustion engine running on either liquid or gaseous fuel;\n(4)\n\u2018windscreen wiper system\u2019 means the system consisting of a device for wiping the outer face of the windscreen, together with the accessories and controls necessary for starting and stopping the device;\n(5)\n\u2018wiper field\u2019 means the area(s) on the windscreen which is wiped by the wiper blade(s) when the wiper system is operating under normal conditions.\n(6)\n\u2018intermittent operation of the wiper system\u2019 means an automatic non-continuous mode of operation of the wiper system, where after each full cycle there is a period during which the wipers are stationary in one specific designated halting position;\n(7)\n\u2018windscreen washer system\u2019 means the system consisting of devices for storing, transferring and aiming fluid towards the outer face of the windscreen, together with the controls necessary for starting and stopping the device;\n(8)\n\u2018washer control\u2019 means the device by which the washer system is manually activated and deactivated;\n(9)\n\u2018washer pump\u2019 means a device for transferring fluid from the washer system storage reservoir to the outer face of the windscreen;\n(10)\n\u2018nozzle\u2019 means a device which serves to direct fluid onto the windscreen;\n(11)\n\u2018fully primed system\u2019 means a system which has been activated normally for a period of time and where fluid has been transferred through the pump, tubing and has exited the nozzle(s);\n(12)\n\u2018cleaned area\u2019 means the previously soiled area which does not have any traces of drops and remaining dirt after it has dried completely;\n(13)\n\u2018vision area A\u2019 means test area A as defined in paragraph 2.2. of Annex 18 to UNECE Regulation No 43 (4);\n(14)\n\u2018vision area B\u2019 means reduced test area B as defined in paragraph 2.4. of Annex 18 to UNECE Regulation No 43, without the exclusion of the area defined in paragraph 2.4.1. thereof;\n(15)\n\u2018design torso angle\u2019 means the angle measured between a vertical line through the R-point or seating reference point and the torso line in a position which corresponds to the design position of the seat-back as declared by the vehicle manufacturer;\n(16)\n\u2018R-point\u2019 or seating reference point means the design point defined by the vehicle manufacturer for each seating position with respect to the three-dimensional reference system;\n(17)\n\u2018three-dimensional reference system\u2019 means a reference grid which consists of a vertical longitudinal plane X-Z, a horizontal plane X-Y and a vertical transverse plane Y-Z in accordance with the provisions of Appendix 2 of Annex III to this Regulation;\n(18)\n\u2018primary reference marks\u2019 means holes, surfaces, marks or other identification signs on the vehicle body or chassis of which the X, Y and Z coordinates within the three-dimensional reference grid are specified by the vehicle manufacturer;\n(19)\n\u2018vehicle master control switch\u2019 means the device by which the vehicle's on-board electronics system is brought from being switched off, as is the case when a vehicle is parked without the driver being present, to normal operation mode;\nArticle 3\nEC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to its windscreen wiper and washer systems\n1. The manufacturer or his representative shall submit to the type-approval authority the application for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to its windscreen wiper and washer systems.\n2. The application shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Part 1 of Annex I.\n3. If the relevant requirements set out in Annex III to this Regulation are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC type-approval and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nA Member State may not assign the same number to another vehicle type.\n4. For the purposes of paragraph 3, the type-approval authority shall deliver an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 4\nEC separate technical unit type-approval of windscreen washer systems\n1. The manufacturer or his representative shall submit to the type-approval authority the application for EC separate technical unit type-approval for a type of windscreen washer system.\nThe application shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Part 1 of Annex II.\n2. If the relevant requirements set out in Annex III to this Regulation are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC separate technical unit type-approval and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nA Member State may not assign the same number to another type of separate technical unit.\n3. For the purposes of paragraph 2, the type-approval authority shall deliver an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex II.\nArticle 5\nEC separate technical unit type-approval mark\nEvery separate technical unit conforming to a type in respect of which EC separate technical unit type-approval has been granted pursuant to this Regulation shall bear an EC separate technical unit type-approval mark as set out in Part 3 of Annex II.\nArticle 6\nValidity and extension of approvals granted under Directive 78/318/EEC\nNational authorities shall permit the sale and entry into service of vehicles and separate technical units type-approved before the date referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009, and continue to grant extension of approvals to those vehicles and separate technical units under the terms of Directive 78/318/EEC.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2010.", "references": ["98", "60", "51", "53", "12", "67", "7", "62", "2", "37", "14", "68", "80", "89", "71", "28", "79", "94", "17", "40", "42", "44", "6", "69", "38", "11", "96", "63", "20", "0", "No Label", "8", "54", "76"], "gold": ["8", "54", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/799/CFSP\nof 13 December 2010\nin support of a process of confidence-building leading to the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery in the Middle East in support of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 26(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe EU is actively implementing the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and giving effect to the measures listed in Chapter III thereof, such as rendering multilateralism more effective and promoting a stable international and regional environment.\n(2)\nThe EU is committed to the multilateral treaty system, which provides the legal and normative basis for all non-proliferation efforts. The EU policy is to pursue the implementation and universalisation of the existing disarmament and non-proliferation norms. The EU will assist third countries in the fulfilment of their obligations under multilateral conventions and regimes.\n(3)\nPromotion of a stable international and regional environment is a condition for the fight against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). To this end, the EU will foster regional security arrangements, regional arms control and disarmament processes.\n(4)\nPositive and negative security assurances can play an important role: they can serve both as an incentive to forego the acquisition of WMD and as a deterrent. The EU will promote further consideration of security assurances.\n(5)\nProliferation of WMD is a global threat, which requires a global approach. However, as security in Europe is closely linked to security and stability in the Mediterranean and the Middle East, the EU believes that it has the duty to contribute to the security and stability in this region.\n(6)\nThe Joint Declaration of the Paris Summit for the Mediterranean of 13 July 2008, establishing the Union for the Mediterranean, reaffirmed the common aspiration to achieve peace as well as regional security as set out in the Barcelona Declaration adopted at the Euro-Mediterranean Conference of 27-28 November 1995, which, inter alia, promotes regional security by acting in favour of nuclear, chemical and biological non-proliferation through adherence to and compliance with a combination of international and regional non-proliferation regimes and arms control and disarmament agreements such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, and/or regional arrangements such as weapons-free zones, including their verification regimes, as well as by fulfilling in good faith their commitments under arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation conventions.\n(7)\nThe parties to the Union for the Mediterranean will pursue a mutually and effectively verifiable Middle East zone free of WMD - nuclear, chemical and biological - and their delivery systems. Furthermore the parties will consider practical steps, inter alia, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as well as excessive accumulation of conventional arms.\n(8)\nThe Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements between the EU and Mediterranean partners foresee the establishment of a regular political dialogue, which will enhance regional security and stability and cover all subjects of common interest, in particular peace, security, democracy and regional development.\n(9)\nOn 19-20 June 2008, the EU organised a seminar in Paris on \u2018Middle East Security, WMD Non-Proliferation and Disarmament\u2019, which brought together representatives of States of the region and EU Member States as well as academics and national nuclear energy agencies. Participants encouraged the EU to promote the continuation of the debate in various fora, and to gradually move to a more formal format that would include discussions among government officials, building on the Barcelona Framework, but doing so in a geographically more inclusive format.\n(10)\nThe 2010 NPT Review Conference emphasised the importance of a process leading to full implementation of its 1995 Resolution on the Middle East (the 1995 Resolution). To that end, the Conference endorsed practical steps, inter alia, consideration of all offers aimed at supporting the implementation of the 1995 Resolution, including the offer of the EU to host a follow-up seminar related to the one organised in June 2008.\n(11)\nThe 2010 NPT Review Conference further recognised the important role played by civil society in contributing to the implementation of the 1995 Resolution and encouraged all efforts in this regard.\n(12)\nThe 20th EU-GCC Joint Council and Ministerial Meeting held in Luxembourg on 14 June 2010 welcomed the successful outcome of the 2010 NPT Review Conference. The participants reiterated support for the establishment of a zone free of all WMD and their means of delivery in the Middle East, including the Gulf region,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. For the purpose of providing follow-up to the 2008 EU seminar on \u2018Middle East Security, WMD Non-Proliferation and Disarmament\u2019, the EU shall support activities in order to further the following objectives:\n-\nto encourage regional political and security-related dialogue within civil societies and governments, and more particularly among experts, officials and academics,\n-\nto identify confidence-building measures that could serve as practical steps towards the prospect of a Middle East zone free of WMD and their means of delivery,\n-\nto encourage discussion on the universalisation and implementation of relevant international treaties and other instruments to prevent the proliferation of WMD and their delivery systems,\n-\nto discuss issues related to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and international and regional cooperation in this regard.\n2. In this context, the projects to be supported by the EU shall cover the following specific activities:\n(a)\nproviding means for the organisation of a follow-up event related to the 2008 EU seminar on \u2018Middle East Security, WMD Non-Proliferation and Disarmament\u2019;\n(b)\nproviding means for the preparation of background papers on subjects dealt with by the follow-up seminar.\nA detailed description of the projects is set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.\n2. Technical implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be carried out by the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium, which shall perform this task under the responsibility of the HR. For this purpose, the HR shall enter into the necessary arrangements with the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium.\nArticle 3\n1. The financial reference amount for the implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be EUR 347 700.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the Union budget.\n3. The Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 1. For this purpose, it shall conclude a financing agreement with the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium. The agreement shall stipulate that the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium is to ensure visibility of the EU contribution, appropriate to its size.\n4. The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the agreement.\nArticle 4\n1. The HR shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular reports prepared by the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium. Those reports shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council.\n2. The Commission shall provide information on the financial aspects of the projects referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 5\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall expire 18 months after the date of the conclusion of the financing agreements referred to in Article 3(3). However, it shall expire 6 months after its entry into force if no financing agreement has been concluded by that time.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["48", "46", "41", "63", "12", "23", "28", "68", "11", "22", "44", "56", "99", "67", "49", "84", "47", "83", "85", "37", "64", "96", "8", "20", "62", "29", "60", "19", "0", "21", "No Label", "4", "5", "6", "9", "10", "95"], "gold": ["4", "5", "6", "9", "10", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 383/2012\nof 4 May 2012\nlaying down technical requirements with regard to driving licences which include a storage medium (microchip)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (1), and in particular Article 1(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2006/126/EC provides for a common model for driving licences to be issued by Member States, including an optional storage medium (microchip).\n(2)\nThe introduction of such a microchip in the driving licence should enable the Member States to further improve the level of anti-fraud protection. Such processing of personal data needs to be carried out in accordance with the rules of the Union, as set out, inter alia, in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (2).\n(3)\nTo ensure interoperability and adequate resistance against fraud the technical implementation of the microchip should fulfil certain requirements and standards, if Member States choose to introduce it in the driving licence.\n(4)\nDriving licences which include a microchip should be subject to an appropriate EU type-approval procedure to verify that they comply with those requirements. The EU type-approval procedure should not apply to driving licences which do not include a microchip.\n(5)\nThe technical requirements applicable to driving licences which include a microchip should be based on internationally agreed technical standards, in particular the International Standardisation Organisation/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) 18013 standard, which establishes a framework for the design format and data content of an ISO-compliant driving licence.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on driving licences,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation applies to driving licences which include a microchip issued in conformity with Directive 2006/126/EC.\nArticle 2\nGeneral requirements\n1. The microchip and the data contained in the microchip, including any optional or additional information, shall comply with the provisions of Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. The microchip shall store the harmonised driving licence data referred to in Annex I, Paragraph I.2.1.\n3. Member States shall consult the Commission before storing on the microchip of a driving licence any of the additional data referred to in Annex I, Paragraph I.2.2.\nArticle 3\nApplicable standards\nThe list of applicable standards for driving licences which include a microchip is set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nProcedure for EU type-approval\nDriving licences which include a microchip shall be subject to an EU type-approval procedure in accordance with the provisions laid down in Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 5\nEU type-approval certificate\n1. When all relevant provisions of the EU type-approval have been met with respect to a driving licence which includes a microchip in accordance with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of this Regulation, Member States shall issue an EU type-approval certificate to the manufacturer or its representative.\n2. Where necessary, in particular to ensure that the provisions of this Regulation are complied with, a Member State may withdraw an EU type-approval that it has issued.\n3. EU type-approval certificates and their notification of their withdrawal shall comply with the model set out in Annex IV to this Regulation.\n4. The Commission shall be informed of all issued or withdrawn EU type-approval certificates. In case of a withdrawal a detailed reason shall be provided.\nThe Commission shall inform the Member States of any withdrawal of an EU-type approval.\n5. EU type-approval certificates issued by Member States shall be mutually recognised.\nArticle 6\nSingle contact points\n1. Each Member State shall designate an authority or body acting as a single contact point for information relating to driving licences which include a microchip. The single contact point shall take adequate measures regarding data protection.\n2. Member States shall indicate to the Commission within three months of the entry into force of this Regulation, the name and the contact details of the single contact point designated pursuant to paragraph 1. Member States shall inform the Commission without delay of any changes thereto.\n3. The Commission shall make available to Member States a list of designated single points of contacts and maintain the list.\nArticle 7\nSafeguard clause\n1. Where a Member State ascertains that a significant number of driving licences which include a microchip are repeatedly found not to be in conformity with this Regulation, it shall communicate this to all single contact points, to the Supervisory Authority as referred to in Directive 95/46/EC and to the Commission. The relevant EU type-approval certificate number connected to those driving licences as well as a description of the non-compliance shall be indicated.\n2. The Member State which issued these driving licences shall investigate the problem without delay and take appropriate corrective action, including withdrawal of the EU type-approval certificate where necessary.\nArticle 8\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2012.", "references": ["28", "9", "47", "18", "13", "44", "95", "79", "0", "25", "41", "40", "35", "92", "99", "23", "1", "65", "61", "45", "21", "64", "6", "10", "20", "83", "88", "3", "67", "51", "No Label", "12", "42", "53", "76", "86"], "gold": ["12", "42", "53", "76", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 August 2010\namending Decision 2006/593/EC fixing an indicative allocation by Member State of the commitment appropriations for the Regional competitiveness and employment objective for the period 2007-2013 as regards the Czech Republic and Slovakia\n(notified under document C(2010) 5818)\n(2010/476/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions for the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1), and in particular Article 18(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision 2006/593/EC (2), the Commission fixed an indicative allocation by Member State of the commitment appropriations for the Regional competitiveness and employment objective for the period 2007 to 2013.\n(2)\nIn accordance with paragraph 10 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, in 2010 it has been established that the cumulated GDP for the years 2007 to 2009 in the Czech Republic, in Poland and in Slovakia has each diverged by more than \u00b1 5 % from the cumulated GDP estimated in accordance with paragraph 9 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, including as a consequence of exchange rate changes. The amounts allocated for the period 2011 to 2013 to the Czech Republic and Slovakia should therefore be adjusted accordingly.\n(3)\nIn accordance with points 16 and 17 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (3) on 16 April 2010 the Commission adopted the Communication on the technical adjustment of the financial framework for 2011 in line with movements in GNI, including the adjustment of amounts allocated from funds supporting cohesion to the Member States concerned by divergence between estimated and actual GDP for the period 2007-2009 (4), by which it informed that a positive adjustment is necessary for the Czech Republic of EUR 237 045 801 and for Slovakia of EUR 137 711 534, to be shared in equal amounts in 2011, 2012 and 2013.\n(4)\nIn order to establish the amounts allocated to the Member States concerned, it is necessary to take into account the pro-rata allocation between the Convergence and Regional competitiveness and employment objectives in the current programming period 2007-2013 for each of the Member States concerned and the need to make the most efficient use of the allocation of the funds to projects currently being implemented. Therefore, this Decision should allocate only the part of the overall positive adjustments concerning the Regional competitiveness and employment objective.\n(5)\nDecision 2006/593/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Decision 2006/593/EC is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 August 2010.", "references": ["77", "89", "83", "76", "98", "49", "59", "22", "34", "67", "84", "3", "45", "86", "90", "26", "85", "88", "82", "27", "74", "60", "11", "9", "2", "32", "87", "69", "95", "62", "No Label", "10", "15", "33", "96"], "gold": ["10", "15", "33", "96"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2010/64/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 20 October 2010\non the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 82(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (1),\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice. According to the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council in Tampere of 15 and 16 October 1999, and in particular point 33 thereof, the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and other decisions of judicial authorities should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters within the Union because enhanced mutual recognition and the necessary approximation of legislation would facilitate cooperation between competent authorities and the judicial protection of individual rights.\n(2)\nOn 29 November 2000, the Council, in accordance with the Tampere Conclusions, adopted a programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters (3). The introduction to the programme states that mutual recognition is \u2018designed to strengthen cooperation between Member States but also to enhance the protection of individual rights\u2019.\n(3)\nThe implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters presupposes that Member States have trust in each other\u2019s criminal justice systems. The extent of mutual recognition is very much dependent on a number of parameters, which include mechanisms for safeguarding the rights of suspected or accused persons and common minimum standards necessary to facilitate the application of the principle of mutual recognition.\n(4)\nMutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters can operate effectively only in a spirit of trust in which not only judicial authorities but all actors in the criminal process consider decisions of the judicial authorities of other Member States as equivalent to their own, implying not only trust in the adequacy of other Member States\u2019 rules, but also trust that those rules are correctly applied.\n(5)\nArticle 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter the ECHR) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter the Charter) enshrine the right to a fair trial. Article 48(2) of the Charter guarantees respect for the right of defence. This Directive respects those rights and should be implemented accordingly.\n(6)\nAlthough all the Member States are party to the ECHR, experience has shown that that alone does not always provide a sufficient degree of trust in the criminal justice systems of other Member States.\n(7)\nStrengthening mutual trust requires a more consistent implementation of the rights and guarantees set out in Article 6 of the ECHR. It also requires, by means of this Directive and other measures, further development within the Union of the minimum standards set out in the ECHR and the Charter.\n(8)\nArticle 82(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for the establishment of minimum rules applicable in the Member States so as to facilitate mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters having a cross-border dimension. Point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 82(2) refers to \u2018the rights of individuals in criminal procedure\u2019 as one of the areas in which minimum rules may be established.\n(9)\nCommon minimum rules should lead to increased confidence in the criminal justice systems of all Member States, which, in turn, should lead to more efficient judicial cooperation in a climate of mutual trust. Such common minimum rules should be established in the fields of interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings.\n(10)\nOn 30 November 2009, the Council adopted a resolution on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings (4). Taking a step-by-step approach, the Roadmap called for the adoption of measures regarding the right to translation and interpretation (measure A), the right to information on rights and information about the charges (measure B), the right to legal advice and legal aid (measure C), the right to communication with relatives, employers and consular authorities (measure D), and special safeguards for suspected or accused persons who are vulnerable (measure E).\n(11)\nIn the Stockholm programme, adopted on 10 December 2009, the European Council welcomed the Roadmap and made it part of the Stockholm programme (point 2.4). The European Council underlined the non-exhaustive character of the Roadmap, by inviting the Commission to examine further elements of minimum procedural rights for suspected and accused persons, and to assess whether other issues, for instance the presumption of innocence, need to be addressed, in order to promote better cooperation in that area.\n(12)\nThis Directive relates to measure A of the Roadmap. It lays down common minimum rules to be applied in the fields of interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings with a view to enhancing mutual trust among Member States.\n(13)\nThis Directive draws on the Commission proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the right to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings of 8 July 2009, and on the Commission proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings of 9 March 2010.\n(14)\nThe right to interpretation and translation for those who do not speak or understand the language of the proceedings is enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR, as interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. This Directive facilitates the application of that right in practice. To that end, the aim of this Directive is to ensure the right of suspected or accused persons to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings with a view to ensuring their right to a fair trial.\n(15)\nThe rights provided for in this Directive should also apply, as necessary accompanying measures, to the execution of a European arrest warrant (5) within the limits provided for by this Directive. Executing Members States should provide, and bear the costs of, interpretation and translation for the benefit of the requested persons who do not speak or understand the language of the proceedings.\n(16)\nIn some Member States an authority other than a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters has competence for imposing sanctions in relation to relatively minor offences. That may be the case, for example, in relation to traffic offences which are committed on a large scale and which might be established following a traffic control. In such situations, it would be unreasonable to require that the competent authority ensure all the rights under this Directive. Where the law of a Member State provides for the imposition of a sanction regarding minor offences by such an authority and there is a right of appeal to a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters, this Directive should therefore apply only to the proceedings before that court following such an appeal.\n(17)\nThis Directive should ensure that there is free and adequate linguistic assistance, allowing suspected or accused persons who do not speak or understand the language of the criminal proceedings fully to exercise their right of defence and safeguarding the fairness of the proceedings.\n(18)\nInterpretation for the benefit of the suspected or accused persons should be provided without delay. However, where a certain period of time elapses before interpretation is provided, that should not constitute an infringement of the requirement that interpretation be provided without delay, as long as that period of time is reasonable in the circumstances.\n(19)\nCommunication between suspected or accused persons and their legal counsel should be interpreted in accordance with this Directive. Suspected or accused persons should be able, inter alia, to explain their version of the events to their legal counsel, point out any statements with which they disagree and make their legal counsel aware of any facts that should be put forward in their defence.\n(20)\nFor the purposes of the preparation of the defence, communication between suspected or accused persons and their legal counsel in direct connection with any questioning or hearing during the proceedings, or with the lodging of an appeal or other procedural applications, such as an application for bail, should be interpreted where necessary in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.\n(21)\nMember States should ensure that there is a procedure or mechanism in place to ascertain whether suspected or accused persons speak and understand the language of the criminal proceedings and whether they need the assistance of an interpreter. Such procedure or mechanism implies that competent authorities verify in any appropriate manner, including by consulting the suspected or accused persons concerned, whether they speak and understand the language of the criminal proceedings and whether they need the assistance of an interpreter.\n(22)\nInterpretation and translation under this Directive should be provided in the native language of the suspected or accused persons or in any other language that they speak or understand in order to allow them fully to exercise their right of defence, and in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.\n(23)\nThe respect for the right to interpretation and translation contained in this Directive should not compromise any other procedural right provided under national law.\n(24)\nMember States should ensure that control can be exercised over the adequacy of the interpretation and translation provided when the competent authorities have been put on notice in a given case.\n(25)\nThe suspected or accused persons or the persons subject to proceedings for the execution of a European arrest warrant should have the right to challenge the finding that there is no need for interpretation, in accordance with procedures in national law. That right does not entail the obligation for Member States to provide for a separate mechanism or complaint procedure in which such finding may be challenged and should not prejudice the time limits applicable to the execution of a European arrest warrant.\n(26)\nWhen the quality of the interpretation is considered insufficient to ensure the right to a fair trial, the competent authorities should be able to replace the appointed interpreter.\n(27)\nThe duty of care towards suspected or accused persons who are in a potentially weak position, in particular because of any physical impairments which affect their ability to communicate effectively, underpins a fair administration of justice. The prosecution, law enforcement and judicial authorities should therefore ensure that such persons are able to exercise effectively the rights provided for in this Directive, for example by taking into account any potential vulnerability that affects their ability to follow the proceedings and to make themselves understood, and by taking appropriate steps to ensure those rights are guaranteed.\n(28)\nWhen using videoconferencing for the purpose of remote interpretation, the competent authorities should be able to rely on the tools that are being developed in the context of European e-Justice (e.g. information on courts with videoconferencing equipment or manuals).\n(29)\nThis Directive should be evaluated in the light of the practical experience gained. If appropriate, it should be amended so as to improve the safeguards which it lays down.\n(30)\nSafeguarding the fairness of the proceedings requires that essential documents, or at least the relevant passages of such documents, be translated for the benefit of suspected or accused persons in accordance with this Directive. Certain documents should always be considered essential for that purpose and should therefore be translated, such as any decision depriving a person of his liberty, any charge or indictment, and any judgment. It is for the competent authorities of the Member States to decide, on their own motion or upon a request of suspected or accused persons or of their legal counsel, which other documents are essential to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings and should therefore be translated as well.\n(31)\nMember States should facilitate access to national databases of legal translators and interpreters where such databases exist. In that context, particular attention should be paid to the aim of providing access to existing databases through the e-Justice portal, as planned in the multiannual European e-Justice action plan 2009-2013 of 27 November 2008 (6).\n(32)\nThis Directive should set minimum rules. Member States should be able to extend the rights set out in this Directive in order to provide a higher level of protection also in situations not explicitly dealt with in this Directive. The level of protection should never fall below the standards provided by the ECHR or the Charter as interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights or the Court of Justice of the European Union.\n(33)\nThe provisions of this Directive that correspond to rights guaranteed by the ECHR or the Charter should be interpreted and implemented consistently with those rights, as interpreted in the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union.\n(34)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely establishing common minimum rules, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, 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.\n(35)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, those Member States have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Directive.\n(36)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Directive lays down rules concerning the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and proceedings for the execution of a European arrest warrant.\n2. The right referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply to persons from the time that they are made aware by the competent authorities of a Member State, by official notification or otherwise, that they are suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence until the conclusion of the proceedings, which is understood to mean the final determination of the question whether they have committed the offence, including, where applicable, sentencing and the resolution of any appeal.\n3. Where the law of a Member State provides for the imposition of a sanction regarding minor offences by an authority other than a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters, and the imposition of such a sanction may be appealed to such a court, this Directive shall apply only to the proceedings before that court following such an appeal.\n4. This Directive does not affect national law concerning the presence of legal counsel during any stage of the criminal proceedings, nor does it affect national law concerning the right of access of a suspected or accused person to documents in criminal proceedings.\nArticle 2\nRight to interpretation\n1. Member States shall ensure that suspected or accused persons who do not speak or understand the language of the criminal proceedings concerned are provided, without delay, with interpretation during criminal proceedings before investigative and judicial authorities, including during police questioning, all court hearings and any necessary interim hearings.\n2. Member States shall ensure that, where necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the fairness of the proceedings, interpretation is available for communication between suspected or accused persons and their legal counsel in direct connection with any questioning or hearing during the proceedings or with the lodging of an appeal or other procedural applications.\n3. The right to interpretation under paragraphs 1 and 2 includes appropriate assistance for persons with hearing or speech impediments.\n4. Member States shall ensure that a procedure or mechanism is in place to ascertain whether suspected or accused persons speak and understand the language of the criminal proceedings and whether they need the assistance of an interpreter.\n5. Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with procedures in national law, suspected or accused persons have the right to challenge a decision finding that there is no need for interpretation and, when interpretation has been provided, the possibility to complain that the quality of the interpretation is not sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.\n6. Where appropriate, communication technology such as videoconferencing, telephone or the Internet may be used, unless the physical presence of the interpreter is required in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.\n7. In proceedings for the execution of a European arrest warrant, the executing Member State shall ensure that its competent authorities provide persons subject to such proceedings who do not speak or understand the language of the proceedings with interpretation in accordance with this Article.\n8. Interpretation provided under this Article shall be of a quality sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings, in particular by ensuring that suspected or accused persons have knowledge of the case against them and are able to exercise their right of defence.\nArticle 3\nRight to translation of essential documents\n1. Member States shall ensure that suspected or accused persons who do not understand the language of the criminal proceedings concerned are, within a reasonable period of time, provided with a written translation of all documents which are essential to ensure that they are able to exercise their right of defence and to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.\n2. Essential documents shall include any decision depriving a person of his liberty, any charge or indictment, and any judgment.\n3. The competent authorities shall, in any given case, decide whether any other document is essential. Suspected or accused persons or their legal counsel may submit a reasoned request to that effect.\n4. There shall be no requirement to translate passages of essential documents which are not relevant for the purposes of enabling suspected or accused persons to have knowledge of the case against them.\n5. Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with procedures in national law, suspected or accused persons have the right to challenge a decision finding that there is no need for the translation of documents or passages thereof and, when a translation has been provided, the possibility to complain that the quality of the translation is not sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.\n6. In proceedings for the execution of a European arrest warrant, the executing Member State shall ensure that its competent authorities provide any person subject to such proceedings who does not understand the language in which the European arrest warrant is drawn up, or into which it has been translated by the issuing Member State, with a written translation of that document.\n7. As an exception to the general rules established in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 6, an oral translation or oral summary of essential documents may be provided instead of a written translation on condition that such oral translation or oral summary does not prejudice the fairness of the proceedings.\n8. Any waiver of the right to translation of documents referred to in this Article shall be subject to the requirements that suspected or accused persons have received prior legal advice or have otherwise obtained full knowledge of the consequences of such a waiver, and that the waiver was unequivocal and given voluntarily.\n9. Translation provided under this Article shall be of a quality sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings, in particular by ensuring that suspected or accused persons have knowledge of the case against them and are able to exercise their right of defence.\nArticle 4\nCosts of interpretation and translation\nMember States shall meet the costs of interpretation and translation resulting from the application of Articles 2 and 3, irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings.\nArticle 5\nQuality of the interpretation and translation\n1. Member States shall take concrete measures to ensure that the interpretation and translation provided meets the quality required under Article 2(8) and Article 3(9).\n2. In order to promote the adequacy of interpretation and translation and efficient access thereto, Member States shall endeavour to establish a register or registers of independent translators and interpreters who are appropriately qualified. Once established, such register or registers shall, where appropriate, be made available to legal counsel and relevant authorities.\n3. Member States shall ensure that interpreters and translators be required to observe confidentiality regarding interpretation and translation provided under this Directive.\nArticle 6\nTraining\nWithout prejudice to judicial independence and differences in the organisation of the judiciary across the Union, Member States shall request those responsible for the training of judges, prosecutors and judicial staff involved in criminal proceedings to pay special attention to the particularities of communicating with the assistance of an interpreter so as to ensure efficient and effective communication.\nArticle 7\nRecord-keeping\nMember States shall ensure that when a suspected or accused person has been subject to questioning or hearings by an investigative or judicial authority with the assistance of an interpreter pursuant to Article 2, when an oral translation or oral summary of essential documents has been provided in the presence of such an authority pursuant to Article 3(7), or when a person has waived the right to translation pursuant to Article 3(8), it will be noted that these events have occurred, using the recording procedure in accordance with the law of the Member State concerned.\nArticle 8\nNon-regression\nNothing in this Directive shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the rights and procedural safeguards that are ensured under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, other relevant provisions of international law or the law of any Member State which provides a higher level of protection.\nArticle 9\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 27 October 2013.\n2. Member States shall transmit the text of those measures to the Commission.\n3. When Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States.\nArticle 10\nReport\nThe Commission shall, by 27 October 2014, submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with this Directive, accompanied, if necessary, by legislative proposals.\nArticle 11\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 12\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["88", "35", "71", "96", "76", "77", "64", "67", "87", "74", "60", "37", "91", "79", "80", "13", "69", "20", "5", "83", "48", "29", "18", "93", "1", "17", "23", "58", "54", "27", "No Label", "8", "9", "14", "41"], "gold": ["8", "9", "14", "41"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 166/2011\nof 22 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 February 2011.", "references": ["75", "94", "11", "33", "34", "62", "52", "20", "59", "43", "80", "44", "37", "9", "88", "98", "5", "40", "54", "2", "51", "82", "10", "42", "97", "15", "8", "6", "89", "83", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/635/CFSP\nof 26 September 2011\namending Decision 2010/231/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Somalia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 10 December 2002, the Council adopted Common Position 2002/960/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Somalia (1) following United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) 733 (1992), 1356 (2001) and 1425 (2002).\n(2)\nOn 16 February 2009, the Council adopted Common Position 2009/138/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Somalia and repealing Common Position 2002/960/CFSP (2), implementing UNSCR 1844 (2008). On 1 March 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/126/CFSP amending Common Position 2009/138/CFSP (3) and implementing UNSCR 1907 (2009).\n(3)\nOn 26 April 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/231/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Somalia and repealing Common Position 2009/138/CFSP (4) following the adoption of UNSCR 1916 (2010) and the adoption of the list of persons and entities which are subject to restrictive measures by the Sanctions Committee established pursuant to UNSCR 751 (1992) concerning Somalia (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Sanctions Committee\u2019).\n(4)\nOn 28 July 2011, the Sanctions Committee updated the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(5)\nOn 29 July 2011, the United Nations Security Council adopted UNSCR 2002 (2011) extending the designation criteria to include political or military leaders recruiting or using children in armed conflicts in Somalia in violation of applicable international law, and individuals and entities being responsible for violations of applicable international law in Somalia involving the targeting of civilians including children and women in situations of armed conflict, including killing and maiming, sexual and gender-based violence, attacks on schools and hospitals and abduction and forced displacement.\n(6)\nIn addition, UNSCR 2002 (2011) clarified the exemption permitting the making available of funds, other financial assets or economic resources necessary to ensure the timely delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance in Somalia, by the United Nations, its specialised agencies or programmes, humanitarian organisations having observer status with the United Nations General Assembly that provide humanitarian assistance, and their implementing partners.\n(7)\nDecision 2010/231/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/231/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nRestrictive measures as provided for in Articles 3, 5(1) and 6(1) and (2) shall be imposed against persons and entities designated by the Sanctions Committee as:\n-\nengaging in or providing support for acts that threaten the peace, security or stability of Somalia, including acts that threaten the Djibouti Agreement of 18 August 2008 or the political process, or threaten the TFIs or AMISOM by force,\n-\nhaving acted in violation of the arms embargo and related measures as referred to in Article 1,\n-\nobstructing the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Somalia, or access to, or distribution of, humanitarian assistance in Somalia,\n-\nbeing political or military leaders recruiting or using children in armed conflicts in Somalia in violation of applicable international law,\n-\nbeing responsible for violations of applicable international law in Somalia involving the targeting of civilians including children and women in situations of armed conflict, including killing and maiming, sexual and gender-based violence, attacks on schools and hospitals and abduction and forced displacement.\nThe relevant persons and entities are listed in the Annex.\u2019.\n2.\nArticle 6(6) is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the making available of funds, other financial assets or economic resources necessary to ensure the timely delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance in Somalia, by the United Nations, its specialised agencies or programmes, humanitarian organisations having observer status with the United Nations General Assembly that provide humanitarian assistance, and their implementing partners, including bilaterally or multilaterally funded NGOs participating in the UN Consolidated Appeal for Somalia.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe Annex to Decision 2010/231/CFSP shall be replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 26 September 2011.", "references": ["42", "25", "35", "17", "1", "84", "86", "72", "97", "62", "56", "89", "24", "65", "54", "40", "70", "13", "18", "57", "21", "79", "59", "36", "46", "76", "27", "26", "23", "96", "No Label", "3", "5", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1049/2010\nof 16 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 November 2010.", "references": ["22", "78", "91", "5", "14", "67", "20", "11", "27", "1", "56", "85", "57", "10", "74", "95", "75", "47", "81", "83", "26", "86", "96", "84", "0", "37", "62", "76", "79", "69", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "IMPLEMENTING REGULATION OF THE COUNCIL (EU) No 363/2010\nof 26 April 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1001/2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating, inter alia, in Malaysia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Existing measures\n(1)\nIn October 2008, definitive anti-dumping measures were reimposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1001/2008 (2) on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings (\u2018TPFs\u2019 or the \u2018product concerned\u2019) originating, inter alia, in Malaysia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The anti-dumping duties in force for Malaysia are 59,2 % for Anggerik Laksana Sdn Bhd and 75 % for all other companies.\n1.2. Request for a review\n(2)\nThe Commission has received an application to initiate a \u2018new exporter\u2019 review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. The application was lodged by Pantech Steel Industries Sdn Bhd (the applicant), an exporting producer in Malaysia (the country concerned).\n(3)\nThe applicant alleged that it did not export the product concerned to the Union during the period of investigation on which the anti-dumping measures were based, i.e. the period from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 (the original investigation period) and that it is not related to any of the exporting producers of the product concerned which are subject to the anti-dumping measures described in recital 1.\n(4)\nThe applicant further alleged that it had entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export the product concerned to the Union in the near future.\n1.3. Initiation of a new exporter review\n(5)\nThe Commission examined the prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant and considered it sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. After consultation of the Advisory Committee, and after the Union industry concerned had been given the opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated, by Regulation (EC) No 692/2009 (3), a review of Regulation (EC) No 1001/2008 with regard to the applicant.\n(6)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 692/2009, the anti-dumping duty of 75 % imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1001/2008 was repealed with regard to imports of the product concerned produced and sold for exports to the Union by the applicant. Simultaneously, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, customs authorities were directed to take appropriate steps to register such imports.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 692/2009 determined that if the investigation showed that the applicant fulfilled the requirements to have an individual duty established, it may be necessary to amend the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the product concerned from companies not individually mentioned in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1001/2008.\n1.4. Product concerned\n(8)\nThe product under review is tube and pipe fittings (other than cast fittings, flanges and threaded fittings), of iron or steel (not including stainless steel), with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 609,6 mm, of a kind used for butt-welding or other purposes, originating in Malaysia (the product concerned), currently falling within CN codes ex 7307 93 11, ex 7307 93 19, ex 7307 99 30 and ex 7307 99 90.\n1.5. Parties concerned\n(9)\nThe Commission officially advised the Union industry, the applicant and the representatives of the exporting country of the initiation of the review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard.\n(10)\nThe Defence Committee of the steel butt-welding fittings industry of the European Union representing the Union industry (the Union industry) made its views know in writing to the Commission services. The Defence Committee challenged the reliability of the basis for the export price. Documents were also provided allegedly showing attempts to circumvent the measures and information was given about the level of price of the product concerned available for EU importers.\n(11)\nThe Commission sent an anti-dumping questionnaire to the applicant and its related companies and received a reply within the deadline set for that purpose.\n(12)\nThe Commission also sent anti-dumping questionnaires to unrelated importers located in the European Union but no cooperation was obtained.\n(13)\nThe Commission sought to verify all the information it deemed necessary for the determination of the new exporter status and dumping, and verification visits were carried out at the premises of the applicant and a related company in Malaysia:\n-\nPantech Steel Industries Sdn Bhd (the applicant),\n-\nPantech Corporation Sdn Bhd (related trading company).\n1.6. Investigation period\n(14)\nThe review investigation period of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (\u2018review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019).\n2. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n2.1. New exporter qualification\n(15)\nThe investigation confirmed that the company had not exported the product concerned during the original period of investigation and that it had started to export to the European Union after this period. The company entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export during the RIP. This took the form of three orders from the same importing group in the EU.\n(16)\nThese orders were, after the RIP, completed by export transactions under approximately the same conditions with negligible differences in price and quantities. While the quantities involved were limited, they were nevertheless found sufficient to establish a reliable dumping margin. This is because the levels of prices charged were further supported by other information at the Commission services\u2019 disposal, including export prices of the exporter concerned to third countries, which confirmed the pattern of behaviour found in the transactions under scrutiny.\n(17)\nAs concerns the other conditions for the recognition of a new exporter status, the company was able to demonstrate that it did not have any links, direct or indirect, with any of the Malaysian exporting producers subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to the product concerned.\n(18)\nAccordingly, it is confirmed that the company should be considered a \u2018new exporter\u2019 in accordance with Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, and thus an individual margin should be determined for it.\n2.2. Dumping\n(19)\nThe applicant produces the fittings and sells the product concerned domestically and on export markets. The investigation revealed a complex sales organisation on the domestic market involving unrelated distributors and related trading companies, whereby unrelated distributors purchase the product concerned from the producer and then resell it to the related traders that then sell the goods onwards to unrelated customers on the domestic market. De facto, the unrelated distributors act as agents for the applicant.\n(20)\nBased on the above, and taking into account the fact that the sales of the related trading companies can be linked back to the applicant, the prices charged to the final consumer by these related trading companies are considered as the first price in the ordinary course of trade and therefore form the basis for the normal value determination.\n(21)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales were considered representative when the total domestic sales volume was at least 5 % of the total export sales volume to the Union. The Commission established that tube and pipe fittings were sold domestically by the applicant in overall representative volumes.\n(22)\nThe Commission then identified those product types of tube and pipe fittings sold domestically by the trading companies which were identical or directly comparable to the types sold for export to the European Union.\n(23)\nAn examination was also made by the Commission as to whether the sales of tube and pipe fittings sold domestically in representative quantities could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers. As it was found that there were sufficient sales in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was based on the actual domestic price.\n(24)\nIn the few cases where the type of product concerned was not sold on the domestic market during the RIP, the normal value was constructed by adding to the exporter\u2019s manufacturing costs of the exported types, a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) and a reasonable profit margin.\n(25)\nThe product concerned was exported directly to independent customers in the Union. Therefore, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable as referred to in recital 16.\n(26)\nThe normal value and the export prices were compared on an ex-works basis.\n(27)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments for insurance, handling, loading and ancillary expenses, and credit costs were granted in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.\n(28)\nThe applicant claimed that if the Commission would use the normal value based on the domestic sales of the related trading companies, an adjustment for differences in level of trade should be granted between the domestic market and the EU market. It further argued that sales to the EU market were done at distributor level whereas, in the domestic market, the applicant used to sell an important part of the tube and pipe fittings as part of larger consignments in oil and gas project markets where fittings often play an ancillary role only to that of the main pipes, valves and other major components, and that this market was at a different level of trade.\n(29)\nAfter having analysed the sales conditions on the domestic market and in particular the sales price patterns, the investigation showed that the applicant did not demonstrate, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, a consistent and distinct difference in functions and prices for the different levels of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country. Therefore no adjustment was taken into account.\n(30)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, and taking into account that there were only three orders at virtually the same point in time during the RIP and that the price of the raw material, which accounts for most of the cost of manufacturing, varied significantly during the RIP, the dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison on a transaction to transaction basis between the normal value and the export price.\n(31)\nThe comparison showed the existence of dumping at a level of 49,9 %, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union-frontier price.\n(32)\nIn addition, the investigation confirmed that the export prices of the applicant to other third countries with important quantities are significantly lower than those to the European Union, suggesting the existence of dumping on third markets.\n3. AMENDMENT OF THE MEASURES BEING REVIEWED\n(33)\nIn the light of the results of the investigation, it is considered that a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level of the dumping margin found.\n(34)\nThe dumping margin, established for the RIP, of 49,9 % is below the country-wide injury elimination level of 75 % which was established for Malaysia in the original investigation. It is therefore proposed that a duty which is based on the dumping margin of 49,9 % be imposed and that Regulation (EC) No 1001/2008 be accordingly amended.\n4. RETROACTIVE LEVYING OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY\n(35)\nIn the light of the above findings, the anti-dumping duty applicable to the applicant shall be levied retroactively on imports of the product concerned which have been made subject to registration pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 692/2009.\n5. MONITORING CLAUSE AND POSSIBLE FURTHER REVIEW\n(36)\nIt should be noted that the companies concerned have a complex system of distribution which also involves importing the product concerned from other countries under measures. In addition, there is a certain risk of duty avoidance due to the high difference in the duty rates between the different exporting companies inside Malaysia. Therefore, special measures are needed to ensure the proper application of the anti-dumping duties.\n(37)\nThese special measures consist of the presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all other exporters.\n(38)\nFurthermore, the Council notes that the Commission has informed it that it will invite the company concerned to submit regular reports to the Commission in order to ensure proper follow up of their sales of the product concerned to the Union and the price and other conditions related thereto, as well as information regarding developments in the company\u2019s domestic sales prices. The Council notes that, in particular, if such reports are not submitted, or where such reports disclose that measures may not be adequate to eliminate the effects of injurious dumping, it may be necessary to initiate an interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. The Council also notes that the Commission has the possibility to ex officio initiate an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, in particular once one year has passed after the entry into force of this Regulation (although a previous review may also be warranted). It is noted that at this point in time, the Commission expects that it will be appropriate to conduct such a review after one year given the circumstances of this case. In this context, it is important to note that the duty established for the company concerned by this Regulation is based on only a limited number of orders.\n6. DISCLOSURE AND DURATION OF THE MEASURES\n(39)\nThe parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to impose on imports of tube and pipe fittings from the applicant an amended definitive anti-dumping duty and to levy this duty retroactively on imports made subject to registration. Their comments were considered and taken into account, where appropriate.\n(40)\nThis review does not affect the date on which the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1001/2008 will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. In Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1001/2008, the following shall be inserted into the table under producers in Malaysia:\n\u2018Country\nCompany\nRate of duty (%)\nTARIC additional code\nMalaysia\nPantech Steel Industries Sdn Bhd\n49,9\nA961\u2019\n2. The duty hereby imposed shall also be levied retroactively on imports of the product concerned which have been registered pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 692/2009.\nThe customs authorities are hereby directed to cease the registration of imports of the product concerned originating in Malaysia produced by Pantech Steel Industries Sdn Bhd.\n3. In Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1001/2008 the following paragraph shall be added:\n\u20183. The application of the individual duty rates specified for Pantech Steel Industries Sdn Bhd shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the duty rate applicable to all other companies shall apply.\u2019\n4. The addition of the above paragraph in Regulation (EC) No 1001/2008 implies that Article 1(3) of that Regulation is to be renumbered as Article 1(4).\n5. In Regulation (EC) No 1001/2008, the following Annex shall be added:\n\u2018ANNEX\nA declaration signed by an official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice, in the following format, must appear on the valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(3):\n1.\nThe name and function of the official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice.\n2.\nThe following declaration: \u201cI, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of [product concerned] sold for export to the European Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC additional code) in (country concerned). I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct and that the invoiced price is final and will not be compensated, in part or in whole, via any practice.\nDate and signature\u201d.\u2019.\n6. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["98", "45", "88", "30", "60", "67", "37", "73", "1", "27", "28", "76", "32", "36", "53", "82", "75", "79", "8", "70", "62", "52", "6", "91", "93", "33", "66", "97", "47", "12", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "85", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "85", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1336/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union\u2019s Stabilisation and Association process\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000 of 18 September 2000 introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union\u2019s Stabilisation and Association process (2) introduced exceptional trade measures which provide for unlimited duty free access to the Union market for almost all products originating in the countries and customs territories benefiting from the Stabilisation and Association process. As Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000 was substantially amended several times, in the interests of clarity and rationality it was codified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 (3).\n(2)\nA Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part, was signed in Luxembourg on 16 June 2008. Pending the completion of the procedures necessary for its entry into force, an Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part (4), was signed and concluded (5) and entered into force on 1 July 2008.\n(3)\nA Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part was signed in Luxembourg on 29 April 2008. Pending the completion of the procedures necessary for its entry into force, an Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part (6), was signed and concluded (7) and entered into force on 1 February 2010.\n(4)\nThe Stabilisation and Association Agreements and the Interim Agreements establish a contractual trade regime between the European Union and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and between the European Union and Serbia. It is therefore necessary to amend Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 by removing Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia from the list of beneficiaries of the tariff concessions for the same products under the contractual trade regime and to adjust the global tariff quota volumes for specific products for which tariff quotas have been granted under the contractual trade regime. Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia should, however, remain beneficiaries under Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 in so far as that Regulation provides for concessions which are more favourable than those under the bilateral agreements.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1215/2009 remains the main instrument governing trade relations with Kosovo (8). Kosovo\u2019s continued access to the Union market is crucial for Kosovo\u2019s economic recovery and for the whole region. At the same time, such access will not have negative consequences for the Union.\n(6)\nFor those reasons and given the fact that Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 ceased to apply on 31 December 2010, it is appropriate to extend the validity of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 until 31 December 2015.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure the Union\u2019s compliance with its international obligations, the preferential arrangements set out in this Regulation should be made conditional on the continuation or renewal of the existing waiver from World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations obtained by the Union.\n(8)\nIn order to protect the economic interests of operators, it is necessary to provide for transitional measures in respect of goods that are, at the date of application of this Regulation, in transit or in temporary storage in customs warehouses or in free zones.\n(9)\nIn order to adopt the provisions necessary for the application of this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the necessary amendments and technical adjustments to Annexes I and II following amendments to the Combined Nomenclature codes and to the TARIC subdivisions, as well as the necessary adjustments following the granting of trade preferences under other arrangements between the Union and the countries and territories referred to in this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation with regard to the suspension of the entitlement to benefit from the preferential arrangements in the event of non-compliance, the issuing of authenticity certificates attesting that the goods originate in the country or territory concerned and correspond to the definition in this Regulation, and for the temporary suspension, in whole or in part, of the arrangements provided for in this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (9).\n(11)\nIn order not to disrupt trade, it is necessary for this Regulation to apply retroactively, as of 1 January 2011,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1215/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nPreferential arrangements\n1. Subject to the special provisions laid down in Article 3, products originating in the customs territory of Kosovo, other than those of headings 0102, 0201, 0202, 0301, 0302, 0303, 0304, 0305, 1604, 1701, 1702 and 2204 of the Combined Nomenclature, shall be admitted for import into the Union without quantitative restrictions or measures having equivalent effect and with exemption from customs duties and charges having equivalent effect.\n2. Products originating in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro or Serbia shall continue to benefit from the provisions of this Regulation where so indicated. Such products shall also benefit from any concession provided for in this Regulation which is more favourable than that provided for under bilateral agreements between the Union and those countries.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (a) of paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\ncompliance with the definition of \u201coriginating products\u201d provided for in Part I, Title IV, Chapter 2, Section 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. In the event of non-compliance by a country or territory with paragraphs 1 or 2, the Commission may, by means of implementing acts, suspend, in whole or in part, the entitlement of the country or territory concerned to benefits under this Regulation. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 8(4).\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The customs duties applicable to imports into the Union of \u201cbaby-beef\u201d products defined in Annex II and originating in the customs territory of Kosovo, shall be 20 % of the ad valorem duty and 20 % of the specific duty as laid down in the Common Customs Tariff, within the limit of an annual tariff quota of 475 tonnes expressed in carcase weight.\nAny request for import within this quota shall be accompanied by an authenticity certificate issued by the competent authorities of the exporting territory and attesting that the goods originate in the territory concerned and correspond to the definition in Annex II to this Regulation. That certificate shall be drawn up by the Commission by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 8(4).\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is deleted;\n(c)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Notwithstanding other provisions of this Regulation, and in particular Article 10, given the particular sensitivity of the agricultural and fishery markets, where imports of agricultural and fishery products cause serious disturbance to Union markets and their regulatory mechanisms, the Commission may adopt appropriate measures by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 8(4).\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nImplementation of tariff quota for \u201cbaby beef\u201d\nThe detailed rules for implementing the tariff quota for \u201cbaby-beef\u201d products shall be determined by the Commission by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 8(4).\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 7\nConferral of powers\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 7a concerning:\n(a)\nnecessary amendments and technical adjustments to Annexes I and II following amendments to the Combined Nomenclature codes and to the TARIC subdivisions;\n(b)\nnecessary adjustments following the granting of trade preferences under other arrangements between the Union and the countries and territories referred to in Article 1.\u2019;\n(6)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 7a\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 7 shall be conferred on the Commission until the date of expiry of this Regulation. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 9 months before that date.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 7 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect on the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 7 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\u2019;\n(7)\nArticle 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8\nCommittee procedure\n1. For the purposes of Articles 2 and 10, the Commission shall be assisted by the Western Balkans Implementation Committee. That Committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (10).\n2. For the purposes of Article 3(4), the Commission shall be assisted by the committee established by Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 260/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the common rules for imports (11). That Committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n3. For the purposes of Article 3(2) and Article 4, the Commission shall be assisted by the committee established by Article 195(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (12). That Committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n4. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\n(8)\nArticle 10 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(i)\npoint (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\ninformed the Western Balkans Implementation Committee;\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018The measures referred to in the first subparagraph shall be adopted by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 8(4).\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is deleted;\n(c)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. On conclusion of the period of suspension, the Commission shall decide either to terminate the provisional suspension measure or to extend the suspension measure in accordance with paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(9)\nin Article 12, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall apply until 31 December 2015.\nThe preferences provided for in this Regulation shall cease to apply, in whole or in part, in the event that they would not be permitted by a waiver granted by the WTO. Such cessation shall apply from the day on which the waiver is no longer in effect. The Commission shall, sufficiently prior to that date, publish a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union to inform operators and the competent authorities thereof. The notice shall specify which preferences provided for in this Regulation are no longer in effect and the date on which they cease to apply.\u2019;\n(10)\nAnnex I is replaced by the text appearing in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nGoods which, on 1 January 2011, are either in transit or in the Union in temporary storage in customs warehouses or in free zones and for which before that date a proof of origin of Bosnia and Herzegovina or Serbia has been properly issued in accordance with Part I, Title IV, Chapter 2, Section 2 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (13), shall continue to benefit from Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 for a period of 4 months from the date of application of this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["86", "49", "28", "73", "38", "98", "33", "27", "45", "4", "1", "16", "82", "3", "42", "55", "11", "2", "79", "25", "6", "19", "84", "90", "66", "76", "89", "39", "74", "30", "No Label", "9", "20", "21", "22", "23", "67", "69", "71", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "20", "21", "22", "23", "67", "69", "71", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 76/2012\nof 30 January 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Holsteiner Katenschinken / Holsteiner Schinken / Holsteiner Katenrauchschinken / Holsteiner Knochenschinken (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany's application to register the name \u2027Holsteiner Katenschinken / Holsteiner Schinken / Holsteiner Katenrauchschinken/ Holsteiner Knochenschinken\u2027 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 January 2012.", "references": ["79", "55", "15", "81", "70", "23", "12", "10", "30", "35", "65", "34", "59", "58", "27", "50", "51", "40", "3", "77", "94", "46", "37", "28", "62", "47", "48", "29", "95", "2", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 102/2011\nof 4 February 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards interoperability of spatial data sets and services\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (1), and in particular Article 7(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 of 23 November 2010 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards interoperability of spatial data sets and services (2) sets out the technical arrangements for interoperability of spatial data sets, including the definition of code lists to be used for attributes and association roles of spatial object types and data types.\n(2)\nRegulation (EU) No 1089/2010 requires attributes or association roles of spatial object types or data types that have a code list type to take values that are valid for the respective code list.\n(3)\nThese allowed values for the code lists defined in Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 are required for the implementation of the requirements set out in that Regulation and should therefore be laid down in that Regulation as well.\n(4)\nThe development of the code list values included in this Regulation followed the same principles with regard to user requirements, reference material, relevant Union policies or activities, feasibility and proportionality in terms of the likely costs and benefits, stakeholder involvement and consultation and international standards, as were applied to the development of the other technical arrangements laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010.\n(5)\nRegulation (EU) No 1089/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 22 of Directive 2007/2/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 1089/2010 is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The enumerations and code lists used in attributes or association roles of spatial object types or data types shall comply with the definitions and include the values set out in Annex II. The enumeration and code list values are language-neutral mnemonic codes for computers.\u2019\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is deleted.\n2.\nArticle 6 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1(a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\ncode lists that shall not be extended by Member States;\u2019\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Attributes or association roles of spatial object types or data types whose type is a code list as defined in Article 6 (1)(a) may only take values from the lists specified for the code list.\nAttributes or association roles of spatial object types or data types whose type is a code list as defined in Article 6 (1)(b) may only take values that are valid according to the register in which the code list is managed.\u2019\n3.\nAnnex I is amended as set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\n4.\nAnnex II is amended as set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 February 2011.", "references": ["85", "11", "1", "26", "55", "83", "89", "96", "13", "0", "45", "3", "77", "29", "49", "81", "52", "12", "67", "97", "64", "51", "40", "80", "4", "35", "30", "69", "9", "63", "No Label", "24", "41", "42", "43", "76"], "gold": ["24", "41", "42", "43", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 660/2010\nof 22 July 2010\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to milk and milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(p) and listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nIn the case of certain milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, there is a danger that, if high refund rates are fixed in advance, the commitments entered into in relation to those refunds may be jeopardised. In order to avert that danger, it is therefore necessary to take appropriate precautionary measures, but without precluding the conclusion of long-term contracts. The fixing of specific refund rates for the advance fixing of refunds in respect of those products should enable those two objectives to be met.\n(6)\nArticle 15(2) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 provides that, when the rate of the refund is being fixed, account is to be taken, where appropriate, of aids or other measures having equivalent effect applicable in all Member States in accordance with the Regulation on the common organisation of the agricultural markets to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 or to assimilated products.\n(7)\nArticle 100(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides for the payment of aid for Union-produced skimmed milk processed into casein if such milk and the casein manufactured from it fulfil certain conditions.\n(8)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Part XVI of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2010.", "references": ["2", "64", "35", "58", "94", "21", "55", "95", "28", "16", "86", "20", "3", "24", "29", "59", "14", "82", "66", "32", "38", "97", "37", "84", "4", "9", "93", "71", "48", "0", "No Label", "23", "70"], "gold": ["23", "70"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1090/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\namending Directive 2009/42/EC on statistical returns in respect of carriage of goods and passengers by sea\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 338(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe second paragraph of Annex VIII to Directive 2009/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) provides that the conditions for collecting data set B1 (data concerning \u2018Seaborne transport in the main European ports, by port, type of cargo, goods and relation\u2019) are to be decided by the Council on a proposal from the Commission in the light of the results of the pilot study carried out during a three-year transitional period, as provided for in Article 10 of Council Directive 95/64/EC of 8 December 1995 on statistical returns in respect of carriage of goods and passengers by sea (3).\n(2)\nAccording to the Report from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament on experience acquired in the work carried out pursuant to Directive 95/64/EC (\u2018Commission Report\u2019), the collection of detailed information appeared feasible and to be at a reasonable cost for bulk and semi-bulk cargo. However, the main difficulty occurred in compiling such data for containers and ro-ro traffic. It was appropriate to explore the possibility to extend the scope of Directive 95/64/EC to other items of information listed in Article 10(2)(a) of that Directive only when more experience had been gained with collecting the current variables and when the current system was well established. As regards the collection of commodity information, the potential revisions of the NST/R classification (Standard Goods Classification for Transport Statistics/Revised, 1967) should be taken into account.\n(3)\nThe functioning of the current collection system is well established, including the implementation of the modifications introduced by Commission Decision 2005/366/EC of 4 March 2005 implementing Council Directive 95/64/EC on statistical returns in respect of carriage of goods and passengers by sea and amending Annexes thereto (4) and the geographical extension of the system due to the 2004 and 2007 enlargements of the Union.\n(4)\nA large number of Member States transmitting data to the Commission (Eurostat) within the scope of Directive 95/64/EC have been regularly providing the Commission (Eurostat) with data set B1 on a voluntary basis in accordance with the NST/R classification.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1304/2007 of 7 November 2007 with respect to the establishment of NST 2007 as the unique classification for transported goods in certain transport modes (5) introduced NST 2007 (Standard Goods Classification for Transport Statistics, 2007) as the unique classification for transported goods in maritime, road, rail and inland waterways transport. That classification is applicable as from the reference year 2008, covering 2008 data. The main problems in compiling data by type of goods in accordance with NST/R classification, as mentioned in the Commission Report, have been solved by the introduction of NST 2007. Therefore, for the most part, the collection of data set B1 will not impose any additional burden on respondents.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1172/98 of 25 May 1998 on statistical returns in respect of the carriage of goods by road (6), Regulation (EC) No 91/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on rail transport statistics (7) and Regulation (EC) No 1365/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on statistics of goods transport by inland waterways (8), the collection of data by type of goods is mandatory for European statistics on road, rail, and inland waterways transport respectively, while it is voluntary for maritime transport. European statistics on all modes of transport should be collected in accordance with common concepts and standards, with the aim of achieving the fullest practicable comparability between transport modes.\n(7)\nThe introduction in 2011 of the obligation to provide the Commission (Eurostat) with data set B1, provides Member States with an adequate period of time during which a voluntary compilation could be used for the necessary tests and adaptations.\n(8)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of certain detailed rules for implementing Directive 2009/42/EC. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(9)\nDirective 2009/42/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2009/42/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 3(4), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Commission may adopt those measures by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 10a and subject to the conditions of Articles 10b and 10c.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 4(1), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Commission may adopt those measures by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 10a and subject to the conditions of Articles 10b and 10c.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 5, the third paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Commission may adopt those measures by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 10a and subject to the conditions of Articles 10b and 10c.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 10, paragraph 3 is deleted;\n(5)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 10a\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 3(4), Article 4(1) and the third paragraph of Article 5 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 29 December 2010. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated power at the latest 6 months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 10b.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 10b and 10c.\nArticle 10b\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 3(4), Article 4(1) and the third paragraph of Article 5 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke a delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 10c\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 2 months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 2 months.\n2. If, on expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to the delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\u2019;\n(6)\nthe second paragraph of Annex VIII is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThe first reference year for the application of this Regulation shall be 2011, covering the 2011 data.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["93", "44", "17", "53", "10", "32", "27", "35", "68", "49", "60", "81", "61", "78", "91", "95", "2", "30", "38", "65", "13", "23", "74", "28", "14", "52", "58", "42", "92", "24", "No Label", "19", "54", "56"], "gold": ["19", "54", "56"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 355/2011\nof 8 April 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Montasio (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and in accordance with Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Montasio\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1263/96 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 April 2011.", "references": ["74", "88", "46", "50", "93", "49", "58", "9", "51", "77", "16", "12", "11", "53", "30", "34", "48", "90", "40", "54", "89", "65", "33", "99", "38", "92", "2", "13", "7", "79", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 183/2011\nof 22 February 2011\namending Annexes IV and VI to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (1), and in particular Article 39(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2007/46/EC establishes a harmonised framework containing the administrative provisions and general technical requirements for all new vehicles, systems, components and separate technical units. In particular it includes a list of all regulatory acts which lay down the technical requirements with which vehicles have to comply in order to be granted EC vehicle type-approval. It also includes the various models of the type-approval certificates.\n(2)\nAs a result of the effects of the globalisation on the automotive sector, the demand for vehicles built outside the Union is growing significantly. The Member States have put in place administrative procedures and technical requirements under national law for the approval of vehicles imported from third countries. As the procedures and requirements differ from one Member State to the other, this situation creates distortion in the functioning of the internal market. It is therefore necessary to lay down appropriate harmonised measures.\n(3)\nHarmonised administrative and technical provisions regarding individual approvals should be laid down in a first step with respect to vehicles produced in large series in or for third countries.\n(4)\nArticle 24 of Directive 2007/46/EC allows Member States to waive certain provisions of that Directive as well as of the regulatory acts listed in Annex IV to that Directive for the purposes of approval of individual vehicles. The proper functioning of the internal market requires however that similar technical and administrative requirements apply throughout the Union. It is therefore necessary to lay down which provisions of Union law may be waived.\n(5)\nArticle 24 allows Member States to impose alternative requirements to European law which aim to ensure a level of road safety and environmental protection which is equivalent to the greatest extent practicable to the level set out in Annexes IV and VI to Directive 2007/46/EC. Assuming that vehicles produced in series for third countries with a view to being put into service into domestic markets are built in accordance with the technical legislation in force in the respective countries of origin or destination, it is appropriate to take into account such requirements as well as the work in progress in the \u2018World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29)\u2019 under the auspices of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations in Geneva. The appropriate information and the necessary expertise is available in order to demonstrate that those requirements could ensure a level of road safety and environmental protection which is at least equivalent to the level of road safety and environmental protection required in the Union. It is therefore appropriate to consider as equivalent a number of requirements in force in third countries for the purpose of individual approval.\n(6)\nThe templates of the certificates issued by the approval authorities are described in Annex VI to Directive 2007/46/EC. However they concern approvals granted for a type of vehicle and not approvals granted for individual vehicles. In order to facilitate the mutual recognition of those individual approvals granted under Article 24 of that Directive, it is appropriate to provide the model to be used for the individual approval certificate.\n(7)\nMember States have national individual approval schemes in place at the time of the adoption of this Regulation for vehicles produced in large series and originally intended for registration in third countries. Those approval schemes may continue to apply. According to Article 24(6) of Directive 2007/46/EC, their validity is restricted to the territory of the Member State that granted the approval and other Member States may refuse such approvals.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate with a view to ensuring the proper operation of the approval system to update the annexes to Directive 2007/46/EC in order to lay down technical requirements for vehicles to be approved under the individual approval procedure.\n(9)\nAnnexes IV and VI to Directive 2007/46/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes IV and VI to Directive 2007/46/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe requirements of this Regulation are without prejudice to the requirements laid down in Article 24 of Directive 2007/46/EC on individual approvals, in particular the possibility for Member States to grant individual approvals provided that they impose alternative requirements.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 February 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 February 2011.", "references": ["70", "41", "35", "80", "92", "66", "83", "11", "38", "22", "17", "91", "37", "28", "64", "34", "97", "53", "89", "46", "90", "74", "86", "30", "50", "1", "72", "77", "44", "42", "No Label", "8", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["8", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 45/2012\nof 19 January 2012\namending the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards the content of the movement documents\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 21/2004 provides that each Member State is to establish a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals in accordance with the provisions of that Regulation.\n(2)\nThat system is to comprise four elements, namely: means of identification to identify each animal (\u2018means of identification\u2019), up-to-date registers kept on each holding, movement documents and a central register or a computer database. The Annex to that Regulation sets out the requirements for those elements.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 21/2004 provides that, as from 31 December 2009, electronic identification is to be obligatory for all animals born after that date. However, the majority of animals born until that date are still only identified with non-electronic identifiers.\n(4)\nThe individual animal code contained in the non-electronic identifiers can only be recorded manually. Manual recording of non-electronic identifiers requires considerable effort on the part of keepers and represents a potential source of errors.\n(5)\nThe particular situation for animals born until 31 December 2009 was taken into account as regards the requirement to record individual animal codes in the movement document. The risks associated with movements of such animals to a slaughterhouse are limited and do not justify the supplementary administrative burden posed by that requirement. Animals moved directly to a slaughterhouse in the same Member State were therefore exempted from that requirement regardless of the date of movement of the animals.\n(6)\nIn order to further reduce the administrative burden for operators, the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 21/2004, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 933/2008 (2), provides that the requirement of recording the individual animal code in the movement document is not obligatory for animals born until 31 December 2009, until 31 December 2011, for all movements other than to a slaughterhouse directly or via a channelling procedure.\n(7)\nDuring the time this transitional period has been in force, no major failures in the system have been reported to the Commission services as a result of the implementation of this derogation.\n(8)\nHowever, in some Member States, due to the particular way ovine and caprine animals are kept, data shows that animals born until 31 December 2009 will still form a substantial part of the ovine and caprine population until 31 December 2014. The risks associated with their movements would be constantly decreasing, proportionally to the decrease in the number of such animals. However, manual recording of non-electronic identifiers in those cases would still represent a substantial administrative burden on keepers of such animals.\n(9)\nMovements of such animals should therefore continue to be exempted from the requirement to record individual animal codes in the movement document until 31 December 2014. The burden imposed on keepers by such recording after that date, as well as the potential sources of error, would then be within acceptable levels.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 21/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nIn the interest of legal certainty, it is appropriate that this Regulation apply retroactively from 1 January 2012, in order to ensure continuity in the application of the exemption from the requirement to record individual animal codes in the movement document.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Section C.3 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 21/2004, point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nuntil 31 December 2014 for all other movements.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 January 2012.", "references": ["92", "4", "59", "96", "89", "8", "79", "70", "52", "97", "71", "20", "63", "68", "19", "45", "25", "49", "88", "21", "2", "83", "22", "53", "82", "98", "62", "72", "30", "50", "No Label", "41", "42", "54", "65", "77"], "gold": ["41", "42", "54", "65", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 December 2011\non State aid C 25/08 (ex NN 23/08) reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com implemented by the French Republic in favour of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\n(notified under document C(2012) 9403)\n(Only the French version is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/540/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof (2),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments (3) pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy a complaint dated 4 October 2002, supplemented on 16 January 2003, the Commission received allegations that the French Republic had implemented aid in favour of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com which reduced its financial charges in part, and notably those relating to the financing of retirement pensions. By letter dated 17 March 2004, the French Republic sent the Commission the information it had requested concerning the complaint.\n(2)\nBy letters dated 2 April 2004 and 24 February 2006, the complainants supplied additional information relating to the complaint.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 20 May 2008, the Commission informed the French Republic of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in respect of this aid.\n(4)\nThe French Republic presented its comments on 18 July 2008.\n(5)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) and the Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments.\n(6)\nOn 22 September 2008, the Commission received comments from France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and, after extending the deadline, it received comments from the complainants and a telecommunications operator on 1 and 16 October 2008, respectively. The Commission forwarded these to the French Republic, giving it the opportunity to comment on them, and received comments from the French Republic by letter dated 13 February 2009.\n(7)\nOn 16 February 2009, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com presented comments drawing the Commission\u2019s attention to a General Court judgment of 28 November 2008 (5) which, in its opinion, confirms its arguments. On 14 May 2009, the telecommunications operator referred to in recital 6 presented supplementary information in relation to its comments during the procedure, referring to a Commission decision dated 11 February 2009 (6) which, in its opinion, supports its comments.\n(8)\nMeetings were held between representatives of the Commission and France T\u00e9l\u00e9com at the request of the latter on 17 December 2009, 23 September 2010 and 12 October 2010. France T\u00e9l\u00e9com submitted additional comments on 18 October 2010.\n(9)\nOn 18 March 2010, at the Commission\u2019s request, the French Republic provided clarifications and an update of certain information contained in its initial observations, to which it attached an outline of the initial observations.\n(10)\nOn 22 September 2010, the French authorities forwarded further comments to the Commission and requested a meeting, which was held on 22 October 2010. By letter of 28 October 2010, the Commission sent them the factual clarification referred to during the meeting together with the supplementary comments made by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and invited the French Republic to return any comments it may have. On 17 November 2010, the Commission sent the additional clarifications requested by the French authorities on 10 November 2010 to enable them to prepare their comments.\n(11)\nBy letter of 9 December 2010, supplemented on 24 June 2011, the French Republic submitted its supplementary comments, together with an update of certain information contained in its initial comments. Meetings were held with the French authorities on 28 June and 4 July 2011. Further comments were presented on 7 October 2011.\n2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\n(12)\nThe measures covered by the present procedure consist of the changes made in 1996 to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019s financing arrangements relating to the payment of the retirement pensions of its staff members with civil servant status. The previous arrangements were introduced in 1990 when France T\u00e9l\u00e9com was founded as a separate entity from the State administration. In practice, the 1990 Law maintained the existing system for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019s social security contributions. A new scheme was introduced in 1996 when France T\u00e9l\u00e9com was set up as a public limited company, listed on the stock exchange and opened up an increasing share of its capital on the one hand and exposed itself entirely to competition from the markets in which it operated in France and in the other Member States of the European Union on the other. For the most part, the scheme introduced in 1996 is still in force today.\n2.1. The legal framework of the status of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and its staff between 1990 and 1996\n2.1.1. Status of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and situation of its staff between 1990 and 1996\n(13)\nPursuant to Law No 90-568 of 2 July 1990 (hereinafter \u2018the 1990 Law\u2019) (7), France T\u00e9l\u00e9com was set up as a public operator with legal personality. Previously it was a Directorate-General of the Ministry of Postal and Telecommunications Services. Through this same Law, full ownership of the State\u2019s movable and immovable assets assigned to the departments within this Directorate-General was transferred automatically and free of charge to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com.\n(14)\nArticle 3 of the 1990 Law assigned France T\u00e9l\u00e9com a mandate: (i) to provide all national and international public telecommunications services; (ii) to establish, develop and operate the public networks necessary for supplying these services and to ensure their connection to foreign networks; (iii) to provide all other telecommunications services, installations and networks, and to establish networks distributing radio and television broadcasting services by cable.\n(15)\nPursuant to Article 29 of the 1990 Law, the staff of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com has a special status, adopted in accordance with to the Law on the rights and obligations of civil servants (loi portant droits et obligations des fonctionnaires) and the Law laying down the Staff Regulations for the civil service (loi portant dispositions statutaires relatives \u00e0 la fonction publique de l\u2019Etat). The 1990 Law permitted the employment of contract staff under collective agreements in the framework defined by a planning contract concluded between the State and the undertaking. This provided for a 3 % cap on staff numbers for this type of recruitment.\n(16)\nContinuing the previous budgetary practice, Article 30 of the 1990 Law established the allocation of responsibilities relating to financing the employees\u2019 social benefits between the French State and France T\u00e9l\u00e9com as follows:\n\u2018The active and retired staff of the Ministry of Postal and Telecommunication Services and those of the public operators covered by the Staff Regulations for civil servants, and their beneficiaries, shall be entitled to benefits in kind under sickness, maternity and invalidity insurance, through the Mutuelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale des P.T.T. [a French mutual benefit society], under the conditions stipulated in Book III and in Chapter II of Title I of Book VII of the Social Security Code. However, the part of the contribution for which the State is responsible under Article L. 712-9 shall be assumed by the public operators for their civil servants.\nThe payment and servicing of pensions granted under the Civilian and Military Retirement Pensions Code to civil servants at La Poste and France T\u00e9l\u00e9com shall be effected by the State. In return, the public operators shall be required to pay to the Public Treasury:\na)\nThe amount of the deduction made from the salary of the civil servant, the level being fixed by Article L. 61 of the Civilian and Military Retirement Pensions Code;\nb)\nAn additional contribution allowing full funding of the pensions that have been and are to be awarded to their retired officials.\nThe charges resulting from applying the provisions of Article L. 134-1 of the Social Security Code to civil servants at La Poste and France T\u00e9l\u00e9com of are payable in full by the public operators.\nA Council of State Decree shall determine, if necessary, the conditions for the application of these provisions.\u2019\n(17)\nBetween 1991 and 1996, pursuant to Article 30 of the 1990 Law, the employer\u2019s contribution (i.e. the additional contribution referred to in Article 30, point (b), of the 1990 Law in its original wording), which was payable by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com for the civil servants it employs was established by calculating the difference between the total amount of retirement pensions financed by the French State and the share deducted from the salaries of civil servants still in active service. France T\u00e9l\u00e9com also participated in the \u2018compensation\u2019 and \u2018over-compensation\u2019 schemes, providing for transfers designed to ensure an equilibrium with the pension schemes for civil servants of other public bodies. The employee contribution to the funding of civil servants\u2019 retirement pensions was determined, pursuant to Article L 61 of the Civilian and Military Retirement Pensions Code, by withholding a contribution from the civil servant\u2019s salary, set at 7,85 % of the gross index-related salary.\n(18)\nThe payments by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com rose from EUR 920 million to EUR 1 151 million between 1991 and 1996 and were as follows:\nTable 1\nFrance T\u00e9l\u00e9com employees\u2019 and employer\u2019s contributions 1991-96 (8)\n(million EUR)\n1991\n1992\n1993\n1994\n1995\n1996\nA/Total pensions paid\n939\n983\n1 070\n1 079\n1 173\n1 214\na 1/employees\u2019 contributions\n195\n201\n217\n213\n229\n238\na 2/employer\u2019s contribution\n743\n782\n853\n866\n944\n976\nB/Compensation and over-compensation\n176\n188\n277\n136\n201\n175\nTotal charges (A + B)\n1 115\n1 171\n1 348\n1 215\n1 375\n1 389\nTotal share from France T\u00e9l\u00e9com (a2 + B)\n920\n970\n1 131\n1 002\n1 146\n1 151\n(19)\nFrance T\u00e9l\u00e9com recorded the pension-related expenditure in the books on the basis of the contributions paid. On account of the certainty that this expenditure would increase, given the foreseeable trend in retirement pensions to be paid to its former civil servants, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com also entered in its accounts an annual provision designed to spread the estimated effect of future increases in payments over a 30-year period. The total amount of the provision thus set aside up to 1996 was FRF 23,4 billion (EUR 3,6 billion). According to the French authorities, the French State, acting as its own insurer, for its part, did not set aside reserves for these pensions (9).\n2.1.2. The changes made to the status of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and the position of its civil service staff from 1996\n(20)\nLaw No 96-660 of 26 July 1996 (10) (hereinafter \u2018the 1996 Law\u2019) amended certain provisions of the 1990 Law. With effect from 31 December 1996, on the one hand it conferred on France T\u00e9l\u00e9com the title of public company subject to the laws and regulations applicable to public limited companies, in so far as they are not contrary to the law, and on the other hand, it transferred, free of charge, the bulk of the assets, rights and obligations of the legal entity governed by public law France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to the public company France T\u00e9l\u00e9com.\n(21)\nThe capital of the company France T\u00e9l\u00e9com SA (\u2018France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019) was established by decree at FRF 25 billion (EUR 3,8 billion) based on net assets recorded in the balance sheet at 31 December 1995. The France T\u00e9l\u00e9com shares were admitted in October 1997 to the premier march\u00e9 of the Paris Bourse and to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). According to the annual report for 1998, 63,6 % of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019s capital was held by the State, 31,2 % by private investors, 3,2 % by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com staff and 2 % by Deutsche Telekom. From 7 September 2004, with the transfer of 10,85 % of the capital, the French State no longer held a majority stake. Subsequently, this share continued to fall to reach 26,65 % of the capital at 31 December 2008. However, with 26,65 % of the voting rights and in the absence of other significant shareholder groups, the French State appoints the Chief Executive Officer, remains the principal shareholder of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and in practice can determine the outcome of shareholder votes on questions requiring a simple majority (11).\n(22)\nThe change of status of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com provided for by the 1996 Law also included various provisions relating to its staff. According to this Law, the category of civil servants of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com is attached to the national company France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and comes under its management. The staff with civil servant status retained this status and the guarantees attaching to it. The conditions of employment of the civil servants working for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com are identical to those of the civil service: they benefit from the guarantee of employment and may be dismissed only on serious grounds, in the cases defined by law. As regards the recruitment of new staff, the 1996 Law allowed France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to recruit civil servants until 1 January 2002, whilst at the same time allowing it to recruit employees on a contract basis under collective agreements.\n(23)\nAt 31 December 1996, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com employed 165 200 persons, of whom 94,1 % were civil servants. In fact, without awaiting the deadline of 1 January 2002 established by the 1996 Law, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com stopped recruiting civil servants from 1997. Consequently, the number of civil servants decreased by 47 % in 10 years, from 133 434 civil servants in 1997 to 69 892 in 2007. This decline is distinctly steeper than that of the total workforce of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com (- 25 %), which stood at 124 166 employees at 31 December 2007.\n(24)\nArticle 6 of the 1996 Law also amended Article 30 of the 1990 Law by adding two paragraphs c) and d) to the original text. The Law requires France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to pay to the Public Treasury, in return for the payment and servicing by the State of pensions granted to civil servants working for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com:\n\u2018c)\n(\u2026), an employer\u2019s contribution in full discharge of liabilities, due from 1 January 1997, in proportion to the sums paid as salary subject to pension deduction. The rate of the contribution in full discharge of liabilities shall be calculated in such a way as to equalise the levels of wage-related social security contributions and tax payments between France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and the other companies in the telecommunications sector under the ordinary social security arrangements, for the risks that are common to employees under ordinary law and to civil servants. This rate may be revised in the case of an adjustment to these charges. The arrangements for the determination and payment to the State of the employer\u2019s contribution shall be established by Decree of the Council of State;\nd)\n(\u2026), an exceptional flat-rate contribution, of which the amount and the arrangements for payment shall be established by Finance Law before 31 December 1996.\u2019\n(25)\nThe 1996 Law also excluded France T\u00e9l\u00e9com from the scope of the general and specific compensation for old-age provided for by the 1990 Law and resulting, for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, in the payment of compensation and over-compensation in addition to the employer\u2019s contribution, as shown in Table 1. Between 1991 and 1996, the amounts paid in this respect accounted for 18 % of the pensions paid to the civil service staff.\n(26)\nThe employer\u2019s contribution in full discharge of liabilities, introduced by the 1996 Law, replaces the additional contribution provided for in point (b) of Article 30 of the 1990 Law. This contribution is based on a competitively fair rate based on equalisation of the levels of wage-related social security contributions and tax payments from equal net salary. The method of equalisation is based on a reconstruction of what the costs would be for a competitor with employees coming under the ordinary social security arrangements, including retirement pensions, providing them with a net wage equal to that of the civil servants of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com with an identical employment structure.\n(27)\nThe method excludes the contributions paid by competitors to insure against the risks not common to employees and civil servants, notably that of unemployment and the claims of employees in the event of the company going into receivership or compulsory liquidation (hereinafter \u2018wage guarantee insurance\u2019 or \u2018WGI\u2019). When the 1996 Law was passed, this difference between France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and its competitors did not go unnoticed by the legislator, which pointed out that: \u2018the combination of the provisions of Article 6 allows France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to be relieved of the UNEDIC[French unemployment insurance scheme] contributions that its potential competitors, for their part, pay\u2019 (12).\n(28)\nThe employer\u2019s contribution paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, recalculated each year, is expressed as a percentage of the gross index-related salaries of the civil servants still working. The rate of this employer\u2019s contribution averaged [\u2026] (13) % between 1997 and 2010 and was as indicated in Table 2, according to the observations of the French Republic:\nTable 2\nEmployer\u2019s contribution in full discharge of liabilities paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com between 1997 and 2010\nYear\nRate of contribution\nMillion EUR\n1997\n36,20 %\n1 088,9\n1998\n35,40 %\n1 069,6\n1999\n36,70 %\n1 108,5\n2000\n36,40 %\n1 085,0\n2001\n37,00 %\n1 088,6\n2002\n37,70 %\n1 100,1\n2003\n37,60 %\n1 085,0\n2004\n[\u2026] %\n1 048,6\n2005\n[\u2026] %\n984,6\n2006\n[\u2026] %\n957,6\n2007\n[\u2026] %\n917,6\n2008\n[\u2026] %\n859,2\n2009\n[\u2026] %\n805,4\n2010\n[\u2026] %\n744,5\n(29)\nThe end to the recruitment of civil servants from 1997 capped the staff of civil servants working for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com. Despite the retirement of a growing proportion of the staff of civil servants between 1991 and 2010, the table shows that the employer\u2019s contribution of EUR 744 million paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in 2010 was EUR 407 million less than the retirement pension costs that the company paid to the French State before the entry into force of the reform in 1996 and was equivalent to the only employer\u2019s contribution that France T\u00e9l\u00e9com paid 20 years previously in 1991 (EUR 1 151 million and EUR 743 million respectively, see Table 1).\n(30)\nThe effect therefore of the reform introduced by the 1996 Law is that the amount of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019s contribution is falling in absolute value and is no longer linked to the number of retired civil servants. The transfer of costs to the State introduced by the 1996 Law occurred when the forecasts used by the Senate showed a significant increase in retirement costs from 2005, rising from FRF 13 billion (EUR 1,98 billion) in 2007, to FRF 21,5 billion (EUR 3,3 billion) in 2017 and FRF 34 billion (EUR 6,1 billion) in 2027 (14).\n(31)\nThe debates on the draft law at the National Assembly and the Senate report a transfer of FRF 250 billion of retirement costs to the State budget, that would not be covered by FRF 100 billion in annual contributions and an exceptional contribution of FRF 40 billion, even with the addition of the proceeds from the sale of a percentage of the company\u2019s shares. The same debates indicate a maximum estimated exceptional contribution of FRF 40 billion to reduce the new, heavy burden for the State. This amount was determined with the advice of bankers so as to be compatible with a debt-to-equity ratio of 150 % and to correspond to the retirement pension provisions made by the company and to the additional cost for the State, over 10 years, and no more than 10 years, resulting from the difference between the pensions paid and the contribution in full discharge of liabilities levied henceforth (15).\n(32)\nThe aim of compensating the State is recalled, not only in the wording of Article 30 of the Law adopted by the legislator and during the debates on the draft 1996 Law, but also in the Annual Report of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com for 1997, which reports on the \u2018payment to the French State of an exceptional contribution of 37,5 billion francs relating to the future retirement of former civil servants\u2019 (16). The provisions made by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com enabled France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to reduce the net financial effort to be made, since it confined itself to paying, in a single year, the additional cost of the reform to the State for 10 years.\n(33)\nIn this way, it appears that the provision intended to spread the effect of future increases in contributions resulting from the 1990 Law, set aside each year by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com for a total amount of FRF 23,4 billion (EUR 3,6 billion) in 1996, was taken into consideration when calculating the amount of the exceptional contribution (or compensating balance). The part of this contribution which did not correspond to the provisions set aside would cover this additional cost for a period of 10 years. Its amount was established taking into account the amount already set aside by the company as clearly emerges from the discussions at the time.\n(34)\nIn fact, since the employer\u2019s annual contribution introduced by the 1996 Law is in full discharge of liabilities, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019s obligation has since been confined to the payment of this contribution, without any other commitment to cover any future deficits either from the retirement pension scheme of its civil servant staff or from other civil service schemes. The accounting provision therefore was rendered redundant by the 1996 Law. The provision was credited to the profit and loss account of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com at 31 December 1996, at a value of FRF 17,5 billion (EUR 2,7 billion) in the net result (17).\n(35)\nIn addition, the amount of the exceptional flat-rate contribution provided for by the 1996 Law in return for the payment and servicing by the State of the pensions awarded to the civil servant staff of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com was fixed at FRF 37,5 billion (EUR 5,71 billion) by the Finance Act 1997. It was financed by an increase in the company\u2019s short-term and long-term debts (18) and paid in several instalments between January and October 1997. The revenue from this exceptional contribution allowed the deficit of the French public administrations to be reduced to EUR 41,8 billion in 1997. Without it, the deficit would have represented 3,7 % of GDP that year.\n(36)\nThe revenue from this contribution was allocated to the public body managing the exceptional contribution from France T\u00e9l\u00e9com (Etablissement Public de Gestion de la Contribution Exceptionnelle de France T\u00e9l\u00e9com) established by the Finance Act 1997. The exceptional contribution, together with any financial income it generates, constitutes the sole income of this body. Its expenditure takes the form of an annual transfer to the State budget, which has been allocated as revenue since 2006 to the account earmarked for State civilian and military pensions. This payment was set at FRF 1 billion (EUR 152,4 million) for 1997, and subsequently increased by 10 % per year, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary in the Finance Act. The public body will be wound up after the payment of its revenue in full to the State (19).\n(37)\nThe application of the provisions of the Finance Act 1997 establishing the annual payments resulted in the life-span of the public body being estimated at 17 years in 1999, without further contributions to its funds (20). However, on account of the annual payments larger than provided for by the Finance Act 1997, this period was shortened. As shown in Table 3, the cumulative amount of the annual payments by the public body already amounted to EUR 5,47 billion in 2010. The winding-up of the public body as a result of the transfer in full of the available resources was scheduled for 31 December 2011 (21). The Finance Act 2011 therefore provides for a payment of EUR 243 million to the earmarked account for pensions for that year, which should clear the revenue of the public body (22).\n(38)\nIn any event, the amount of the exceptional contribution of FRF 37,5 billion allocated to the public body managing the exceptional contribution from France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in 1997 corresponds to the amount of the contribution, below FRF 40 billion, mentioned during the discussion of the draft of the 1996 Law. Although it was paid to the State budget in 1997 and fed it each year for the payment of civilian and military pensions, the amount of this contribution was set in order to offset the additional cost to the State resulting from the application of the 1996 Law.\n(39)\nThe wage share of the financing of the pension liabilities for the civil servants, established pursuant to Article L 61 of the Civilian and Military Retirement Pensions Code since the foundation of the public operator France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in 1991, was not changed by the 1996 Law. Moreover, the 1990 and 1996 Laws did not change the pension arrangements for the ordinary employees of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, which are those of the ordinary social security rules for pension insurance, supplemented by the complementary pension schemes AGIRC for executives and ARRCO for non-executives. Under this arrangement, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and its ordinary employees assume equivalent obligations to those of competing undertakings with regard in particular to the payment of contributions in full discharge of liabilities by the employer.\n(40)\nIn connection with the reform introduced by the 1996 Law, the firm of actuaries appointed as adviser to the French State estimated that the payment and servicing by the State of the pensions granted to the civil service staff working for and retired from France T\u00e9l\u00e9com would amount to FRF 242 billion (EUR 36,9 billion (23)) in expected value at 1 January 1997 (24). This figure is close to the rounded amount of FRF 250 billion mentioned at the Senate. The employer\u2019s contribution in full discharge of liabilities that France T\u00e9l\u00e9com would pay in exchange was estimated, on the basis of the same actuarial assumptions, at EUR 15,2 billion, to which must be added the compensating balance or exceptional contribution of EUR 5,7 billion paid in full in October 1997. The French authorities estimate the value of the future employees\u2019 contributions at EUR [\u2026] billion, at the time of the entry into force of the reform. The value of the net cost transferred by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to the French State, as estimated in 1996, therefore amounted to EUR [\u2026] billion.\n(41)\nFor the 10-year period (1997 to 2006) mentioned during the debates on the draft 1996 Law, the cumulated amount of benefits to be paid estimated by the firm of actuaries appointed as adviser to the French State was EUR [\u2026] billion. During this period, the total amount of benefits actually paid was almost identical, EUR [\u2026] billion, i.e. a forecast difference of less than 0,83 % (25). This confirms ex post the accuracy of the forecasts informing the discussions on the Law.\n(42)\nOn the basis of these figures, it can be concluded that the amounts and their justification debated at the National Assembly and the Senate to set the amount of the compensating balance or exceptional contribution from France T\u00e9l\u00e9com correspond to the proportions verified ex post during the 10-year period mentioned in the debates on the draft law. Indeed, the maximum amount of the exceptional contribution announced, EUR 6 billion (FRF 40 billion) corresponds to the forecasts drawn up by the public body until 1996 to meet the future retirement costs forecasted at that time, i.e. EUR 3,6 billion (FRF 23,4 billion) plus the difference of EUR 2,4 billion payable by the State between the employer\u2019s and employees\u2019 contributions levied between 1997 and 2006, on the one hand, and the benefits to be paid, estimated in 1996 for the same 10-year period, on the other.\n(43)\nFurthermore, the information communicated by the French Republic and shown in Table 3 shows that, for the period 1997 to 2010, the cumulated cost of pensions for the civil servant staff of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to be financed by the French State as a result of the 1996 reform reached EUR [\u2026] billion. The costs to be financed by the State are defined as the balance between the annual contributions of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and the civil servants working there and the pensions paid to the retired civil servant staff, year-on-year, with the deduction of the annual payments from the public body managing the exceptional contribution from France T\u00e9l\u00e9com. Between 1997 and 2010, the trend in the costs was as follows:\nTable 3\nCosts to the French State resulting from the 1996 reform (1997-2010)\n(million EUR)\nContributions\n(employer\u2019s and employees\u2019)\nAnnual payments by the public body managing the exceptional contribution from France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\nBenefits paid\nCosts to the State\n1997\n[\u2026]\n152,4\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n1998\n[\u2026]\n167,7\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n1999\n[\u2026]\n184,5\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2000\n[\u2026]\n202,9\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2001\n[\u2026]\n223,2\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2002\n[\u2026]\n245,5\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2003\n[\u2026]\n270,0\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2004\n[\u2026]\n297,1\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2005\n[\u2026]\n326,9\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2006\n[\u2026]\n1 359,5\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2007\n[\u2026]\n395,4\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2008\n[\u2026]\n435,0\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2009\n[\u2026]\n578,0\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2010\n[\u2026]\n635,8\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTotal\n[\u2026]\n5 473,9\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(44)\nOn account of the provisions of the Finance Act 1997 which governs them, the amounts of the annual payments of the public body managing the exceptional contribution from France T\u00e9l\u00e9com paid in 1997 did not correspond to the amounts of the benefits estimated or actually paid to the retired staff of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com or to the amounts of the remaining costs to be financed by the State and were not determined on the basis of these amounts. Examination of the amounts actually transferred confirms this dissociation. Despite the exceptional contribution paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in 1997, Table 3 shows that the amounts of the benefits paid to retired civil servant staff of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com exceeded annual resources from 2004, with the exception of the year 2006.\n(45)\nTherefore the payments of annual contributions by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and the annual payments of the public body managing the exceptional contribution are not allocated separately and ex ante to the benefits paid to the retired staff of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in the earmarked account for pensions. In fact, the allocation of the exceptional contribution solely to the financing of the benefits in question since 1997, if it had been applied instead of the system of payment of the amount plus 10 % per year provided for in the Finance Act 1997, would have led to the public body being wound up at the end of 2008, rather than at the end of 2011 as planned, in view of the amount not covered by the annual contributions, shown in Table 3. In any event, in either case, the amount of the exceptional contribution would have been used up at 31 December 2011.\n2.2. The gradual, then total opening-up of the telecommunications markets\n(46)\nThe reform of the financing of pensions of the civil servant staff of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com took place against the backdrop of the total opening-up to competition of the services markets on which France T\u00e9l\u00e9com was operating. From 1988, the telecommunications sector has been gradually liberalised by Commission Directive 88/301/EEC of 16 May 1988 on competition in the markets in telecommunications terminal equipment (26) and by Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services (27). Directive 90/388/EEC provided for liberalisation measures to be implemented by 31 December 1990 regarding data communication and voice telephony and data services for corporate networks and closed user groups. Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full competition in telecommunications markets (28) aimed for full liberalisation of the telecommunications sector from 1 January 1998.\n(47)\nLaw No 96-659 of 26 July 1996 on the regulation of telecommunications (loi no 96-659 du 26 juillet 1996 relative \u00e0 la r\u00e9glementation des t\u00e9l\u00e9communications) laid down the conditions allowing full effect to be given to the liberalisation of the sector by ending France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019s monopoly in fixed line telephony and data transmission and organising charges and connections with competitors. Even in other sectors, which are not subject to exclusive rights and have therefore been competitive since 1987, such as the mobile telephony market, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com had clear leadership, with a market share falling from 53,3 % to 49,8 % between 1997 and 2002 (29). Law No 96-659 also assigned general economic interest tasks to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and provided for the introduction of a fund to finance the associated obligations, with contributions from its competitors.\n(48)\nPursuant to the provisions cited in recitals 46 and 47, since 1988, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com has had to cope with the arrival of competitors - some partially owned by international groups - on the goods and services markets on which it was operating in France, some of which, such as mobile telephony or international communications, have a trans-border element. This movement gathered pace when the markets were liberalised from 1998. Moreover, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com entered into alliances with foreign operators, such as Deutsche Telekom and Sprint in 1996 (Global One), whilst multiplying its partnerships and participating interests from 1997 in Italy (Wind), the Netherlands (Casema) or by obtaining mobile licences in Denmark and Portugal (30).\n(49)\nThe reform of the financing of the France T\u00e9l\u00e9com retirement pensions therefore took place at the same time as the liberalisation of the market at European Union level. It therefore took effect on a market fully open to competition where, moreover, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com entered into alliances and took significant stakes in other Member States. In fact, the desire to promote the expansion of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com on the European markets outside France is the a backdrop to the 1996 Law and the opening of the undertaking to private capital, as shown in declarations during the discussion of the draft, which report \u2018the ambitions nurtured by the French Government for its national champion, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019 (31).\n(50)\nAt present, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com claims to be the leading provider of broadband internet access and the third largest mobile operator in Europe and among the world leaders for telecommunications services to multinationals. Outside France, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com is significantly active via its subsidiaries, with prominent market positions in Spain, the United Kingdom, Poland, Slovakia, Belgium and Austria (32).\n3. REASONS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE\n(51)\nIn its decision initiating the investigation procedure, the Commission set out its preliminary assessment of the measures introduced by the 1996 Law, comparing them with the reference framework for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019s social security contributions and tax payments established by the 1990 Law. It considered that these measures would seem to confer, through State resources, a selective advantage on France T\u00e9l\u00e9com liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States and potentially constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n(52)\nThe Commission also noted that, insofar as these measures constitute State aid, this aid was not notified to the Commission prior to its implementation although it was to be regarded as new aid according to case-law. The French Republic had thus not complied with its notification obligation under the Treaty and the measure was therefore to be considered unlawful.\n(53)\nThe Commission concluded that on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU that it was able to examine whether the aid was compatible with the internal market. The Commission also noted that the same provision had permitted it to conclude that the aid granted to La Poste on the reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of its civil servants was compatible with the internal market (33) and that in view of the similarities between these two cases, it seemed appropriate in this case to carry out a similar analysis.\n(54)\nIn its preliminary analysis of the compatibility of the aid with the internal market, and notwithstanding the similarity with the reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of La Poste, the Commission informed the French Republic of the following doubts:\n(a)\nFirstly, whilst emphasising that it was not in possession of detailed information demonstrating that the contribution rates paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com are equal to those paid by private enterprises governed by ordinary law operating in the telecommunications sector in France, the Commission noted that the rate of the contribution in full discharge of liabilities applied to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com since 1997 is insufficient to put it on a level playing field with its competitors. This results from the fact that the rate applied to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com includes only the contributions corresponding to the risks common to ordinary employees and civil servants and, in this regard, it excludes the contributions corresponding to the risks that are not common, such as unemployment and non-payment of wages in the event of a firm going into receivership or compulsory liquidation;\n(b)\nsecondly, the Commission did not have sufficient information concerning the effects on competition of reducing the cost of retirement pensions, in order to assess whether any positive effects exceeded the negative effects. To this end, the Commission also had to take into account the fact that France T\u00e9l\u00e9com had not yet repaid in full the unlawful and incompatible aid pursuant to the Commission Decision of 2 August 2004 concerning State aid implemented in France for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com (hereinafter: \u2018Decision on the application of business tax to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019) (34), a decision with which France failed to conform within the time limit given, as established by the Court of Justice (35).\n4. COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES\n(55)\nThe comments presented by interested parties are summarised in Sections 4.1 to 4.3.\n4.1. France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\n(56)\nIn its comments, which it considers to be supplementary to those submitted by the French Republic, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com considers that it suffering from chronic overstaffing linked to its former status as a public administration and that, for the population concerned, it does not have the same potential for fluidity of employment as its competitors. France T\u00e9l\u00e9com has to bear very heavy training costs amounting to EUR 180 million, equivalent to 4,5 % of the total wage bill, compared to 2,9 % on average for French companies. France T\u00e9l\u00e9com also alleges that its wage bill is about [\u2026] % higher, excluding surcharges and bonuses. In addition, since it cannot implement social plans, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com financed the cost of measures associated with the departures of civil servants, such as end-of-career leave, to an amount exceeding EUR 8 billion between 1996 and 2006.\n(57)\nSecondly, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com considers that the retirement pension costs borne between 1990 and 1996 were abnormal and placed it at a structural disadvantage in relation to its private-sector competitors, as referred to in the Combus judgment (36), the reference framework for assessing whether these charges were normal or abnormal being the ordinary law arrangements applicable to competitors. The principles laid down in the Combus judgment would appear to have been confirmed since by the Court in its Hotel Cipriani judgment (37). France T\u00e9l\u00e9com disputes that the situation of a single operator, in this case itself, before and after the reform introduced by the 1996 Law, constitutes an appropriate comparison for assessing whether there is an economic advantage within the meaning of the case-law. In any event, if the reference framework were to be reduced to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com before and after the 1996 reform, the measure could not be classified as selective since it would be applied homogeneously within that framework.\n(58)\nAs a result, the measures in question would either not constitute State aid within the meaning of the Treaty in that they release France T\u00e9l\u00e9com from an abnormal structural disadvantage or cannot be classified as a selective advantage constituting State aid.\n(59)\nAlternatively, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com considers that State aid, if it were confirmed, would be compatible with the internal market in accordance with the criteria established by the Commission in its decision on the retirement pension arrangements of La Poste (hereinafter: \u2018La Poste decision\u2019) (38). In this regard, the specific nature of its arrangements, in that it pays a contribution calculated on the basis solely of the common risks, does not mean that France T\u00e9l\u00e9com has been placed in a favourable situation in relation to its competitors since 1996: apart from the structural disadvantages associated with the status of the civil servants it employs, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com has had to pay a considerable amount associated with the 1996 reform, the compatibility of which with the internal market needs to be analysed and, of EUR 5,7 billion, which far exceeds that which France T\u00e9l\u00e9com would have had to pay if its contribution had been subject to the risks that are not common.\n(60)\nFrance T\u00e9l\u00e9com considers that, in its La Poste decision (39), the Commission accepted that the amount of an exceptional one-off contribution (EUR 2 billion), in the context of a reform which came into effect after the notification but before the Commission decision, offsets the contributions corresponding to the non-common risks, until the amount of the one-off contribution has been exhausted. According to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, there is nothing to justify the Commission departing from this principle, since it cannot be assumed from the policy declarations at the time of the debate on the draft 1996 Law that the amount of the flat-rate contribution of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com was set by the French legislature so as to maintain the status quo for 10 years.\n(61)\nFurthermore, the figures available in 1996 would seem to contradict the argument that the amount of EUR 5,7 billion was estimated at the time to correspond precisely with the additional cost to the State of the applying the 1996 Law by compensating, year after year, the lower annual costs paid by the public body, even taking into account the charges to compensate between retirement pension schemes from which France T\u00e9l\u00e9com was discharged in 1996 (40). The amount of the exceptional contribution was intended as overall compensation for the French State on account of the reform. It therefore needs to be taken into account when analysing the level playing field since its entry into force in 1997.\n(62)\nFinally, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com considers that, since without the 1996 reform, it would have suffered a significant competitive handicap on the markets which the Union aimed to liberalise and that the French authorities have now complied in full with the decision on the application of business tax to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com (41), the measure does not have a negative impact on competition.\n4.2. The complainants\n(63)\nThe complainants share the Commission\u2019s view in the decision to initiate the procedure concerning the existence of State aid as defined in the Treaty in the reduction of the retirement pension costs to be paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, introduced by the 1996 Law. According to the reasoning followed in that decision, concerning which the complainants regret the lack of quantification, the amount of aid is EUR 12,3 billion and under no circumstances less than EUR 9,9 billion (42). The complainants consider that it is the effects of the measure, i.e. the reduction in the social security contributions normally assumed in the undertaking\u2019s budget, and not its object, i.e. the compensation of an alleged disadvantage, that mean it is State aid. For that matter, there is no disadvantage in the employment of civil servants by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, since the undertaking pays unemployment contributions and wage costs which are 13 % lower than those paid by its competitors and has at its disposal a stable and flexible staff, with regard to reducing the total wage bill through early retirement and reorientation to the civil service.\n(64)\nAccording to the complainants, State aid thus defined would be incompatible with the internal market. In fact, the considerable competitive advantage procured by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com was all the more detrimental as the reduction in costs was unnecessary to avoid jeopardising its financial structure: relieved of a pension debt with a net value of EUR 9,9 billion at least in 1996 and no longer having to enter this cost in its balance sheet or the notes to the accounts, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com then increased its debt considerably, with a net financial debt of EUR 44 billion on average between 1997 and 2007. Then, the aid releasing France T\u00e9l\u00e9com from retirement pension costs inherited from the monopoly enabled the international expansion of the undertaking to be financed, whilst strengthening its position in France, where it benefited from substantial advantages as a monopoly, of which the costs were merely fair compensation..\n(65)\nMoreover, the unlawful and incompatible aid not repaid in the past would preclude the operating aid at issue from being declared compatible, in view of their cumulative effect. Finally, the absence of a level playing field from the 1996 reform on account of the non-payment of contributions corresponding to the risks of unemployment and non-payment of wages in the event of the firm going into receivership makes it impossible for the reform to be compatible with the rules of the Treaty. The pension liability of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com should be calculated by an independent expert and France should undertake to ensure the financial neutrality of the arrangements, in particular by providing mechanisms for adjusting the employer\u2019s contribution and the compensation balance of EUR 5,7 billion in the event of variation in the costs.\n4.3. The telecommunications operator\n(66)\nThe telecommunications operator endorses and supports the preliminary analysis set out in the Commission\u2019s decision initiating the procedure, regarding as new, unlawful State aid the amendments introduced by the 1996 Law with a view to substituting the annual contributions in full discharge of liabilities by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com for the payments of pensions actually made by the State, with the deduction of the contributions paid by the employees still working with the status of civil servant. The same would also apply, according to this operator, to the social security contributions corresponding to the risks not common with the ordinary employees paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019s competitors but which France T\u00e9l\u00e9com has not paid at least since 1996 for its civil service staff and for its staff governed by ordinary law. Moreover, contrary to the case which was the subject of the La Poste decision (43), the calculation of the employer\u2019s contribution from France T\u00e9l\u00e9com did not, and still does not, include these contributions, which would make it impossible to declare the aid compatible.\n(67)\nAs regards the aid resulting from the disappearance of the repayment to the State of the pensions granted, the operator considers that the analysis of the competitive balance carried out by the Commission in its La Poste decision should lead it to conclude, on the contrary, that it is incompatible. This analysis should be based on the facts that have occurred since 1996 and not, as in the La Poste decision, hypothetically for the future.\n(68)\nAccording to this operator, on several of the markets on which it operates, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com holds market power which can be assimilated to a dominant position. As a result, it is subject to ex-ante regulatory obligations on the wholesale markets for high and very high speed broadband and for the origin and termination of calls on fixed lines. In its decision of 16 July 2003 relating to proceedings under Article 82 of the EC Treaty in the case COMP-38.233, the Commission established and imposed a penalty for an infringement of Article 102 of the TFEU on the part of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com via its subsidiary Wanadoo (44). Since the undertaking is financially sound in particular through the acquisition of Orange, Retevisi\u00f3n and AMENA.\n(69)\nFinally, the operator asks the Commission to quantify precisely the amount of aid at issue and, pursuant to the Deggendorf case-law (45), to refuse to accept the compatibility of the measures in question with the internal market until the unlawful aid from the past has been repaid.\n5. COMMENTS OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC\n(70)\nThe French Republic considers that the changes made in 1996 to the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants of the French State working for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com do not contain any elements of State aid. In any event, the 1996 reform is compatible with the internal market, in particular, through the transposition to this case of the reasoning followed by the Commission in its La Poste decision (46).\n5.1. Concerning the existence of State aid\n(71)\nAccording to the French Republic, the 1990 Law placed France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in an abnormal situation departing from the ordinary arrangements according to which undertakings pay an employer\u2019s contribution in full discharge of liabilities, proportional to the total wage bill and not linked to the level of pensions granted. The cost assumed by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com is in this way abnormal, since the financial deficit from the arrangements for the population concerned was certain and set to become intolerable, given the inevitable reduction in the number of civil servants still working and the associated increase in the number of pensioners.\n(72)\nThe 1996 reform is claimed to have aligned the financing of the pensions with ordinary law, without having the effect of placing the undertaking in a more favourable competitive situation, since the contribution of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com is calculated annually so as to align the level of social security contributions and tax payments with those of its competitors in the telecommunications sector. However, not taking into account contributions corresponding to the risks not common to ordinary employees and civil servants in the calculation of the contribution in accordance with the competitively fair rate is justified on account of the status of the latter, which rules out, for example the risk of unemployment apart from in exceptional cases of dismissal or removal from post.\n(73)\nThe French Republic considers that the situation of the competitors of the undertaking in France must constitute the reference framework for determining whether the costs payable by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com are normal or abnormal. In the present case, taking account of the exorbitant, derogating from ordinary law, inequitable and unsustainable burden imposed on France T\u00e9l\u00e9com by the 1990 Law, its abolition and the alignment with the situation of competitors provided for in the 1996 reform simply re-established the normal conditions of competition. For that matter, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com has not been compensated for the disadvantages suffered under these arrangements, whereas, as emphasised in its comments, it still has to cope with structural disadvantages, additional costs and inflexibilities on account of the status applicable to the civil servants it employs as regards financial measures associated with departure or return to the public administration, vocational training measures or higher wage cost. Consequently, the current arrangements resulting from the reform confer no advantage on France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and therefore contain no element of State aid within the meaning of the Treaty.\n(74)\nThis interpretation is based on the general principles derived by the Union courts according to which, since only measures which lighten the burdens normally assumed in an undertaking\u2019s budget constitute State aid, a law which makes it possible to prevent an undertaking\u2019s budget being burdened by a cost which, under normal circumstances, would not have existed, does not constitute State aid (47). This would also be the case of measures relieving a public competitor from a structural disadvantage in relation to its private competitors (48). This interpretation is also regarded as being in conformity with the Commission\u2019s practice (49).\n(75)\nFinally, more generally, the French Republic does not consider it relevant to include in the present procedure the compensation and over-compensation mechanisms under which France T\u00e9l\u00e9com paid the costs between 1991 and 1996 (see Table 1) to determine the existence of aid or the date on which an advantage resulting from the reform introduced by the 1996 Law, which contains no provision to this effect, arose. The payment of such costs also resulted from a scheme departing from the ordinary arrangements in which the pensions scheme applicable to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com was considered as an autonomous scheme, which was no longer the case from 1997.\n(76)\nWith this reservation, the French Republic has refined the estimate, supplied by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and referred to under recital 61, of the costs which the undertaking has no longer paid from 1997. On the basis of a real reconstruction for 2008 to 2010, retropolated by applying a conversion factor, the French Republic considers that the costs that would have been paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in this capacity are EUR 165 million less than those calculated by the undertaking.\n5.2. Concerning the compatibility of possible State aid with the internal market\n(77)\nIn any event, the French Republic considers that if the 1996 reform relating to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com were to constitute State aid, this should be declared compatible with the internal market, in accordance with the analysis followed by the Commission in its La Poste decision (50). The 1996 reform releases France T\u00e9l\u00e9com from a structural burden which was affecting its competitiveness in a market in the process of liberalisation and its contributions are henceforth calculated on the basis of a competitively fair rate for the common risks.\n(78)\nThe fact that the contribution paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com since 1997 does not include the risks not common to private sector employees would not preclude compatibility with the internal market. In this regard, Table 4, derived from information provided by the French Republic, illustrates the difference between the contribution paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and what it would have paid if the non-common risks had been included in the calculation, minus the benefits self-insured by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and other levies that put more of a strain on it than its competitors.\nTable 4\nEmployer\u2019s contribution from France T\u00e9l\u00e9com between 1997 and 2010 calculated on the basis of the competitively fair rate applied (TEC) and a competitively fair rate adjusted to integrate the non-common risks (TEC*)\nYear\nTEC\nEUR million\nTEC*\nEUR million\nTEC-TEC*\n1997\n36,2 %\n1 088,9\n48,1 %\n1 446,9\n- 358,0\n1998\n35,4 %\n1 069,6\n47,1 %\n1 423,1\n- 353,5\n1999\n36,7 %\n1 108,5\n48,4 %\n1 460,3\n- 351,8\n2000\n36,4 %\n1 085,0\n48,0 %\n1 429,3\n- 344,3\n2001\n37,0 %\n1 088,6\n47,9 %\n1 407,9\n- 319,3\n2002\n37,7 %\n1 100,1\n43,5 %\n1 267,9\n- 167,8\n2003\n37,6 %\n1 085,0\n45,0 %\n1 298,5\n- 213,5\n2004\n[\u2026] %\n1 048,6\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2005\n[\u2026] %\n984,6\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2006\n[\u2026] %\n957,6\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2007\n[\u2026] %\n917,6\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2008\n[\u2026] %\n859,2\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2009\n[\u2026] %\n805,4\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2010\n[\u2026] %\n744,5\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(79)\nThe French Republic considers that, since 1997 and until 2043, the discounted value of the contributions actually paid and to be paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com is EUR 13,5 billion. A competitively fair rate adjusted to take into account the non-common risks in the calculation, minus the contributions imposed on France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and not on its competitors, would lead to a higher annual contribution for the same period, i.e. EUR 16,7 billion. Whilst considering the inclusion of these risks as irrelevant, the French authorities calculated that the difference (EUR 3,2 billion) would be largely offset by the exceptional flat-rate contribution of EUR 5,7 billion paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in 1997.\n(80)\nIn the French Republic\u2019s opinion, it can be considered, as in the La Poste decision (51), that this flat-rate contribution can be assimilated to a balance compensation that could offset the payment of the contributions associated with an adjusted rate including the contributions for non-common risks. In this case, it appears that the amount of this balance compensation currently exceeds the amount resulting from the difference between the rate set by the 1996 reform and the adjusted rate indicated in Table 4 and that the amount of the balance compensation will never be used up in full by the divergence in rates. Under these circumstances, the doubts expressed by the Commission in its decision initiating the procedure regarding the absence of a true level playing field between France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and its competitors would be resolved.\n(81)\nFor the French Republic, the reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for La Poste, introduced in 2006 and inspired by that of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in 1996, is perfectly comparable with the latter, with regard to the key aspects. In view of this parallelism, there is no justification for the Commission to diverge from the precedent set with La Poste. In particular, the Commission should accept that the exceptional flat-rate contribution imposed on France T\u00e9l\u00e9com is taken into consideration in the analysis of the level playing field arising from the reform, considering it de facto as an advance on the payment of the contributions associated with the non-common risks.\n(82)\nOn the other hand, the debates at the National Assembly and the Senate referring at the time to a 10-year period of financial cover for the reform apparently arose from ad hoc statements. Such reasoning is not to be found in either the explanatory memorandums to the draft laws or the acts in question or the texts adopted to implement them. The legislature\u2019s intention in 1996 was apparently to set the costs for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com retirement pensions at a level equivalent to that of the competitors and not to render the reform void for a 10-year period, as would appear from the reasoning that the Commission could adopt if it relies on out-of-context declarations.\n(83)\nThe parliamentary work seems to indicate unequivocally that the amount of the contribution was fixed as a flat rate, without any link to the burden that the State will in fact have to assume. Likewise, in its Decision No 96-385 DC of 30 December 1996, the Constitutional Council pointed out that the flat-rate contribution of FRF 37,5 billion was justified by the State financing of the retirement pensions of the civil servants, without constituting compensation, whereas, on the other hand, the payments to the State budget would not be earmarked for a specific expenditure and would contribute to the general conditions for the balance of this budget, in accordance with Article 18 of the Ordinance of 2 January 1959 on the Organic Law relating to Finance Bills (ordonnance organique du 2 janvier 1959 relative aux lois de finances).\n(84)\nFor the French Republic, the precise amount of the exceptional contribution was established by the Finance Act 1997, taking account not of a 10-year period during which this contribution would be used to \u2018repay\u2019 the State, but on the contrary, depending on the effect on the balance-sheet structure of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, which was to remain tolerable. Its amount would not be gauged using the logic of compensation of costs to the State, but taking account of the contributive capacity of the undertaking.\n(85)\nThe way in which this contribution was managed dissociated from the retirement benefits actually paid since 1997 confirms its flat-rate nature. In this way, the figures supplied by the French Republic show that, between 1997 and 2006, the pensions paid to the civil servants of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com via the account earmarked for pensions amounted to EUR [\u2026] billion, while the public body managing the exceptional contribution of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com transferred an amount of EUR 3,4 billion to that account. For the same period, the balance not financed by contributions paid amounted to EUR 1,2 billion. Moreover, in 1997, it was estimated that this fund would exist for 17 to 25 years, without any relation to the 10-year period on which the Commission bases the reasoning that it appears to wish to adopt.\n(86)\nThe French Republic considers that France T\u00e9l\u00e9com would have been evicted from the market without the reform, with contribution rates reaching 77 % of the gross index-related salary in 2010 and provisioning in its accounts for retirement liabilities for the civil servants working for it. The reform was therefore a decisive stage in adapting to the liberalisation of the market, in accordance with a Union objective, adapted to this and limited to the minimum necessary. Without this reform, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com would have left the market and could not have made the necessary investments, in particular to allow unbundled access to the local loop, without ruling out a potential risk of bankruptcy, so the reform would not have had a negative impact on competitors.\n(87)\nIn addition, according to the French Republic, the reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and, in particular, the imposition of the payment of an exceptional contribution, did not cost the State between 1997 and 2006 but in fact generated net revenue exceeding EUR 9,1 billion for the French State, according to the estimates of the French authorities (52). If a calculation of the return on the exceptional contribution were to be made, the French Republic considers that a discount rate of 7 % should be applied. Hence, the principle of an exceptional contribution was established as early as 1996. The investment horizon should be long since the expected differences between benefits to be paid and anticipated contributions did not exceed EUR 500 million until 2005, i.e. 9 years later and EUR 1 billion 12 years later. On average for 1996, the rate on 15-year fungible French Treasury bonds (hereinafter \u2018OATs\u2019) stood at 6,9 %. For its part, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com floated bond issues between November 1991 and November 1997 at the comparable average rate of 7 %.\n(88)\nFinally, the sequestration of the amounts demanded by the Commission in application of its decision on the application of business tax to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com (53), then the payment of these amounts, should lead to the Commission to consider its decision to have been executed, in accordance with its 2007 Notice on the subject (54). Consequently, there is no cause to examine the cumulated effect of these aids.\n6. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n6.1. Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU\n(89)\nArticle 107(1) of the TFEU provides that: \u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\u2019\n(90)\nThe application of the cumulative conditions of this Article to the facts of the case is examined in Sections 6.1.1 to 6.1.5.\n6.1.1. Aid granted by the State through State resources\n(91)\nThe 1990 Law and the 1996 Law originate from the French State. They provide for the measure by which France T\u00e9l\u00e9com pays the Public Treasury compensation for the payment and servicing of the pensions granted to the civil servants of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com made by the State. Since, pursuant to the 1996 Law, the compensation paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to the Public Treasury is less than in the original wording of the 1990 Law, the aid is granted to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com with the resources of the French State.\n6.1.2. Favouring certain undertakings\n(92)\nThe provisions of the 1990 Law defined the arrangements applicable to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, a public operator with legal personality. The 1996 Law on the national company France T\u00e9l\u00e9com amends these arrangements with provisions applicable to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in accordance with the conditions it defines only for this company.\n(93)\nThe object of the arrangements introduced by the 1990 Law is to determine a specific compensation for the principles and amounts of the employer\u2019s contribution for the pensions paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to the French State. Therefore the compensation payable by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in accordance with the 1990 Law in its original wording, which was applied between 1991 and 1996, in the same way as the different compensation introduced by the 1996 Law, which has been applied since 1997, is a specific measure which concerns only France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, thereby fulfilling the condition of selectivity, contrary France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019s argument.\n6.1.3. Economic advantage distorting or threatening to distort competition\n(94)\nIt should be determined whether the measures establishing the amount of compensation in question favour France T\u00e9l\u00e9com. The question of whether the amendments introduced in Article 30 of the 1990 Law by the 1996 Law constitute aid because they confer an economic advantage on France T\u00e9l\u00e9com must be seen in the light of the nature and the overall structure of the pensions arrangements in question and the effects this has had on France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, and not the causes or objectives of the amendments. The objective pursued by amending the 1990 Law is not therefore relevant, in principle, for assessing its effects, contrary to the French Republic\u2019s argument.\n(95)\nThe funding by the State of the payment and servicing of the pensions granted to the civil servants of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com results from the application of the Civilian and Military Retirement Pensions Code, which alone applies to the former civil servants in question. Neither the 1990 Law nor the 1996 Law changed the status of these civil servants or the principle of the State funding the payment of their pension. This funding seems to arise from the principle whereby employees with civil servant status serve the common good independently and in the public interest. This is not the case where these civil servants work for an undertaking providing a paid-for service, with the aim of serving the interests and benefit of this undertaking, in competition with other undertakings which provide the same services.\n(96)\nIn this perspective, the payment of compensation to the State, provided for by the 1990 Law, both in its original wording and after the amendments introduced by the 1996 Law, constitutes an exception to the principle of funding by the French State. This exception is justified by the nature and overall structure of the arrangements applicable to the pensions of the civil servants employed by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com. In fact, the French State is obliged to effect the payment and servicing of the pensions granted, under the Civilian and Military Retirement Pensions Code, to the civil servants of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, who are covered by the general status of civil servants of the French State and not by the ordinary law on social security benefits.\n(97)\nEven in the absence of the payment of compensation by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, the French State would still be bound to honour its pension commitments to the civil servant staff concerned, unless it amended these commitments unilaterally. On the contrary, making available State-trained civil servants to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com with no compensation for pensions paid or to be paid would confer a clear advantage on the latter.\n(98)\nSince France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019s competitors do not employ staff with civil servant status for whom the French State would be under a similar financial obligation, the logic of the arrangements for funding pensions and the payment of compensation for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com introduced by the law is not transferable to them. This is shown by the fact that, since the status of the staff employed by the competitors differs with regard to the risks of non-payment of wages covered by the ordinary law on social security benefits, the French authorities appear to consider that the payment of social security contributions to cover the risk is justified in their case. However, it is precisely this status that the French Republic is using to consider that the inclusion of the risks not common to the civil servants and the ordinary employees in the calculation of the compensation paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to the State pursuant to the 1996 Law is not justified.\n(99)\nTherefore, as regards the costs paid on account of the employment of their ordinary staff, these undertakings are not in a comparable situation in fact or in law to that of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com as regards its civil servant staff, contrary to the arguments of the French Republic and France T\u00e9l\u00e9com presented in their comments.\n(100)\nLikewise, the compensation arrangements applied to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com cannot be compared with the arrangements defined for other public bodies with employees with civil servant status, such as the Paris Mint or the National Forestry Office, which can be categorised as undertakings for some of their activities within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, or other public industrial and commercial undertakings, such as EDF or GDF in the past. EDF or GDF had specific retirement pension schemes, which were not aligned with the civil service scheme. Moreover, EDF and GDF have since been affiliated to the general scheme, even though it should be emphasised that the Commission concluded that no State aid existed solely on condition that affiliation is financially neutral for the State (55), which is not so regarding the 1996 reform in the present case.\n(101)\nOn the other hand, the compensation scheme in favour of the State for the payment of the pensions of civil servants working at La Poste, before the amendments described and approved under certain conditions by the Commission in its La Poste decision, was also that of a national company comparable to a public industrial and commercial undertaking and remained, pursuant to the 1990 Law in its original wording, similar to that of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, in that it provided for the annual repayment to the State of the pensions granted to the retired civil servants and the payment of the costs provided for in Article L-134 of the Social Security Code.\n(102)\nEven if it seems that La Poste is not in competition with France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, which the advantages granted to the latter could distort or threaten to distort, the fact remains that the logic and provisions of the retirement scheme for the civil servants of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com before the 1996 reform were the same as those of the comparable scheme applied to La Poste at the same time. Moreover, the Commission considered in its La Poste decision that the reform of the scheme applicable to La Poste constituted State aid, contrary to the arguments put forward by the French Republic in respect of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com. More generally, to assess the situation of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, the reference situation is that of a public or private undertaking employing civil servant staff who have retained their status. Such undertakings would be in the same reference situation as France T\u00e9l\u00e9com. It is therefore in terms of this reference scheme that the existence of State aid in favour of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com can be assessed.\n(103)\nLikewise, it cannot be argued that a measure does not confer an advantage on an undertaking, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in the present case, through the mere fact that it is in compensation for a certain disadvantage that this undertaking allegedly suffered in the past, contrary to the assertions of the French Republic and France T\u00e9l\u00e9com. The Commission also recently dismissed the argument of a historic telecommunications operator, a competitor of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, according to which specific social benefits in the form of pensions comparable to those of the civil service inherited from the past and different from those under ordinary law for part of the staff justify measures for the reduction of the social security costs associated with the pensions for this category of staff incurred by the operator (56). In this respect, as the French authorities emphasised during the discussions on the draft, the 1996 Law imposed a new, substantial burden on the French State for the payment and servicing of the pensions granted to the civil servants of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com. At the same time, the 1996 Law therefore had the effect of reducing the compensation that France T\u00e9l\u00e9com had always paid.\n(104)\nOn account of the detailed rules for calculating the rate of the employer\u2019s contribution provided for by the Law, since 31 December 1996, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com pays the State less compensation than it would have paid if the Law had not been passed. In addition, on account of the fact that the employer\u2019s contribution introduced by this Law is in full discharge of liabilities, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com immediately wrote back at 31 December 1996 the provision earmarked in these accounts for the payment of its future liabilities. Hence the burden from which France T\u00e9l\u00e9com was released was neither new, since the 1990 Law adopted the previous budgetary practice, nor unforeseeable, since the undertaking set aside provisions for this purpose, nor did it derogate from ordinary social security arrangements since these do not apply to the compensation paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com.\n(105)\nFrom its entry into force, the 1996 Law transferred to the French State liability for the annual contribution ultimately covering in full the cost of funding the pensions of the staff concerned. The amount of aid granted in this way by the 1996 Law can be calculated, since its entry into force, by the annual difference between the compensation consisting of the contribution in full discharge of liabilities paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to the French State and the costs that it would have paid pursuant to the 1990 Law, indicated in Table 1, if this Law had not been amended, minus the amount of the flat-rate contribution paid in 1997.\n(106)\nIt can be seen from the estimates supplied by the French Republic and set out in recital 40 that, at the time of the 1996 reform and until the foreseen expiry of the financial liabilities resulting from the burden assumed by the French State, the French authorities were able to estimate this total amount of net new costs until 2043, the date on which the financial liabilities of the State in relation to the retired civil servants or their beneficiaries would end, at EUR [\u2026] billion. The present value of the net cost amounted to EUR [\u2026] billion in 1996, after deduction of the annual contributions by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com (EUR 15,2 billion), those of the employees (EUR [\u2026] billion) and the exceptional flat-rate contribution of EUR 5,7 billion.\n(107)\nMoreover, it should be noted that the amounts estimated at the time of the 1996 reform represent an approximation of the actual amount (57). The amounts of compensation provided for which are payable by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in the form of annual contributions, like the balance compensation of EUR 5,7 billion paid in 1997, had neither the object or the effect of seeking budgetary neutrality for the French State. If that had been the case, subject to the appropriate nature of the actuarial calculation assumptions, the costs and receipts would have been equal for the period as a whole and, consequently, there would have been no economic advantage for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com.\n(108)\nThe French authorities were aware that the \u2018transfer of the pension costs for the civil servants of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to the general State budget\u2019 was \u2018a new and heavy burden for the State\u2019 that the exceptional flat-rate contribution or the proceeds of the sale of part of the shares in the undertaking held by the State would only cover in part. The debates mentioned in recital 31 show that the French State did not seek in 1996 to offset in full the new burden it was assuming for the future but, on the contrary, sought to assume a new burden and for \u2018the interests of the undertaking to be taken into account first in this matter\u2019.\n(109)\nIt is obvious that, even with different actuarial assumptions from those used by the French State to estimate the new burden it was assuming and notwithstanding the exceptional flat-rate contribution paid in 1997, the reform granted a substantial economic advantage in the form of lower employer pension contributions. Since the flat-rate contribution or balance compensation did not allow the charges transferred to the French State to be covered in full but, at the very most, to be reduced, and in view of the proportions in question, the actuarial calculation used at the time and the accuracy of the estimates resulting from it for the period up to 2043 as a whole cannot be confirmed as appropriate.\n(110)\nMoreover, the financial advantages resulting from the lower contributions by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com cannot be compared with the alleged disadvantages arising from the employment of civil service staff, as France T\u00e9l\u00e9com argues, supported by the French Republic. In fact, the 1996 Law did not, in any case, increase these alleged disadvantages, since it did not lead to the recruitment of additional civil servants. In addition, by discharging France T\u00e9l\u00e9com from a part of its financial liabilities, the objective of the 1996 Law was not to compensate for an alleged disadvantage associated with wages or, according to the words of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, the lesser fluidity of employment of civil service staff.\n(111)\nIt is therefore for the sake of completeness that it is necessary to respond to the arguments concerning the alleged disadvantages caused by the employment of civil servants, invoked by the French Republic and France T\u00e9l\u00e9com.\n-\nFirstly, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, on the eve of the full opening-up of the French market to competition, had a trained, competent body of staff, without which, if it had had to be replaced entirely, its market position could not have been maintained, which France T\u00e9l\u00e9com omits to point out in its written submissions.\n-\nIn addition, the amount of the wages and the investment in staff training that France T\u00e9l\u00e9com analyses as disadvantages, are normal costs in the budget of an undertaking, and it has not been established that they do not improve staff recruitment and productivity compared to competitors.\n-\nMoreover, although it is true that France T\u00e9l\u00e9com does not have the option of adjusting its total wage bill by implementing a social plan to cut the workforce regarding the staff concerned, it is doubtful that such a plan targeting employees with civil servant status only on the grounds of this status, could validly be implemented, whereas the stop on the recruitment of civil servants in 1997 and the recourse to ordinary employees offered it certain possibilities for flexibility of adjustment of its total wage bill.\n-\nFinally, although it is true that the undertaking devotes a substantial budget to encouraging early retirement by the staff in question, the fact remains that the incentive and the interest for the undertaking to introduce such a measure would have been less without the passing on to the French State of financial liabilities assumed by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, provided for by the 1996 Law. The mechanism in this way allows the encouragement of early retirement and therefore funding at an earlier stage by the State for the staff concerned. Without the 1996 Law, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com would have continued to provide this funding.\n(112)\nIn the absence of a link to the question of whether or not an economic advantage exists resulting from the measures in question, taking into consideration competitive advantages drawn by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com from its former monopoly, invoked by the complainants, would appear to be equally baseless. The alleged advantages and disadvantages are in fact unrelated to the question of levelling the conditions of competition on the telecommunications markets with regard to social security costs.\n(113)\nOnly the exceptional flat-rate contribution provided for by the 1996 Law immediately placed a cost burden on France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in relation to the reference situation already identified. The payment of the flat-rate contribution reduced the amount of aid from which France T\u00e9l\u00e9com has benefited and will benefit until the expiry of the financial burden assumed by the French State in the place of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com pursuant to the 1996 Law. Without prejudice to the accuracy of the actuarial methods used by the French Government at the time, without this flat-rate contribution, the amount of the burden from which France T\u00e9l\u00e9com would have been relieved would have amounted to EUR 18,9 billion and not EUR [\u2026] billion, in 1996 net value.\n(114)\nThe 1996 Law therefore permitted and still permits France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to have increased financial resources at its disposal to operate on the markets in which it is active. On account of the 1996 Law, these resources were therefore greater than those at France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019s disposal under the 1990 Law in its original wording. The telecommunications services markets on which France T\u00e9l\u00e9com operated and operates throughout French territory and in other Member States have been gradually opened up to competition through the progressive disappearance of exclusive or special rights from 1988, then, with the exception of specific derogations, totally from 1998. There was total opening-up to competition in France in 2002. The removal of the legal barriers was accompanied by the entry of other operators with which France T\u00e9l\u00e9com was and is in competition, even before the legislative measures of 1990 and 1996 which are the subject of the present decision.\n(115)\nReleased from the obligation to set aside provisions for the future retirement costs of its civil service staff and subject to a lower annual contribution level, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019s balance sheet was relieved of liabilities and costs, thereby increasing its attractiveness to raise capital, which placed it in a more favourable situation than before the 1996 reform. Released from a burden incurred from its historical French market, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com was in this way able to develop more easily on the markets of other Member States newly opened to competition, which it in fact did, as shown in recitals 48 to 50.\n(116)\nAs a result, relieving the burden of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com arising from the method of calculating the compensation to pay to the French State for funding the pensions of the civil service staff distorts or threatens to distort competition between France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and these new operators in France and in the other Member States where France T\u00e9l\u00e9com is present.\n6.1.4. Effect on trade between Member States\n(117)\nThe markets on which France T\u00e9l\u00e9com operates in France have been opened up gradually to competition since 1988 and, as a result, are largely open to trade between Member States. Directive 96/19/EC aimed for total liberalisation of the telecommunications sector from 1 January 1998. Operators whose capital is held in part by undertakings of Member States other than France have in this way become established there. Some of these markets concern international communications between Member States. Likewise, via subsidiaries, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com provides electronic communications services in other Member States, and notably Spain, Belgium and the United Kingdom.\n(118)\nUnder these conditions, a measure which reduces the general operating costs of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, and thereby releases resources which become available to that undertaking to invest or to improve its commercial offers in France or to establish in other Member States, could affect trade between Member States.\n6.1.5. Conclusion on the existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU\n(119)\nIt ensues from the above that, by reducing the compensation consisting of the employer\u2019s contribution to be paid to the State for the retirement pension expenses provided for by the 1990 Law in its original wording and by substituting for this the compensation provided for by the 1996 Law, in so far as the latter compensation is lower than that previously applied, the French Republic, through its resources, has granted aid to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com which distorts or threatens to distort competition and affects trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU at the time of the transfer of the costs instituted by the 1996 Law.\n(120)\nConsequently, it is necessary to examine whether this aid can be declared compatible with the internal market.\n6.2. Alternative legal bases for compatibility of the aid\n(121)\nThe Commission notes that France did not refer to Article 106(2) of the TFEU as a basis for the compatibility of the measures en question.\n(122)\nThe derogations provided for in Article 107(2) of the TFEU concerning aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers, aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and aid granted to certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany, are obviously irrelevant in the present case.\n(123)\nAs for the derogations provided for in Article 107(3) of the TFEU, the Commission finds that the aid in question is not intended to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, that it is not a project of common European interest and does not aim to remedy a serious disturbance in the French economy. It is not intended either to promote culture and heritage conservation.\n(124)\nIt therefore appears that only Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU could be applied to assess the compatibility of this measure.\n6.3. Compatibility of the aid in terms of Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU\n(125)\nUnder Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU: \u2018The following may be considered to be compatible with the internal market: [\u2026] aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest [\u2026]\u2019.\n(126)\nFor aid to be considered compatible with the internal market on the grounds that it facilitates the development of economic activities or certain economic areas, it must improve the way in which the economic activity is carried out. Aid is compatible within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) only if it does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. In its assessment, the Commission puts particular emphasis on the criteria of necessity and proportionality (58).\n(127)\nBy way of a preliminary remark and in view of the doubts raised by the Commission in its decision to initiate the procedure, it should be noted that the French Republic collected from France T\u00e9l\u00e9com a satisfactory amount corresponding to the recovery of the aid required by the Commission in its decision on application of the business tax to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com (59). The Commission considers, after confirmation of the judgment of the General Court dismissing the action for annulment of this decision by the Court of Justice (60), that the French Republic has taken the necessary measures to fulfil the obligations arising from this decision. Since the due recovery of the aid paid through the application of the business tax eliminates the economic advantage enjoyed by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in this respect, there is no need to examine the effects of any cumulation with the aid which is the subject of the present procedure.\n(128)\nFor the rest, it should be noted straight away that, contrary to investment costs, the social costs of an undertaking are recurrent operating costs and that aid reducing them is aid for the operation of the undertaking, the compatibility of which with the internal market must, according to the Court of Justice case-law, be assessed very restrictively by the Commission.\n6.3.1. Conformity of the aid measure with an objective of common interest\n(129)\nIn the present case, the aid implemented since 1997 can be considered as being intended to facilitate the development of the economic activity of supplying electronic communications services, in the context of the full liberalisation of these markets. In fact, the 1996 Law was adopted hand in hand with Law No 96-659 of 26 July 1996 on the regulation of telecommunications (loi no 96-659 du 26 juillet 1996 de r\u00e9glementation des t\u00e9l\u00e9communications), which transposed the obligations arising for France from Union law and, in particular from Directive 96/19/EC.\n(130)\nIn this respect, the general objective aimed for by the 1996 Law regarding the payment of financial compensation to the French State is to align the levels of wage-related social security contributions and tax payments, between France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and the other undertakings in the telecommunications sector coming under the ordinary social security arrangements. The means used, i.e. an aid measure targeting directly and exclusively the way in which the employer\u2019s contributions of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com are established seems an appropriate way of achieving the objective.\n(131)\nAn aid measure which aims to reduce the current social security costs of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, assumed at a time when the bulk of its activities were covered by a monopoly and the provision of a service did not require efficient economic behaviour, may contribute, in a different competitive environment, to improving the way in which the services formerly covered by the monopoly are supplied, provided that the allocation of the financial resources by the competing undertakings to their respective social security costs does not introduce any bias in a merit-based competition process. Admittedly, reservations are expressed below on the appropriateness of certain provisions of the Law to achieve the objective it sets. However, neither its legitimacy nor its conformity with the common interest objective of developing competitive electronic communications services markets, thereby contributing to technological progress and rapid economic growth in this activity, could be doubted.\n6.3.2. Necessity for the aid measure\n(132)\nThe capping of the civil service staff working for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, brought about by the ban on recruitment after 1 January 2002 provided for by the 1996 Law, would have had the inevitable consequence of a considerable increase in the burden of retirement pensions imposed on France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in proportion to the civil servant staff still working. Deprived in this way of the possibility of recruiting civil servants, which is understandable for that matter given the henceforth competitive nature of the provision of the services in question, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com would have had to shoulder an excessive burden to pay the retirement pensions for the staff concerned in relation to that which its competitors had and still have to pay. It should therefore be noted that the commitments in exchange to be paid to the French State provided for by the original provisions of the 1990 Law concerned not only the civil servant staff working on competitive markets in 1990 and afterwards, but also the civil servants of the Directorate-General of the Ministry of Postal and Telecommunications Services who had retired in 1990.\n(133)\nFor illustration, the contribution rate which would have resulted for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com from retaining the provisions of the 1990 Law would have been 77 % of the gross index-related salaries of the civil service staff working in 2010, according to the French Republic. This rate is to be compared to a rate of [\u2026] % which would allow a totally level playing field for the common and non-common risks between France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and its competitors. In absolute value, the difference would represent an additional cost of about EUR [\u2026] million per year in relation to the contribution rate ensuring the level playing field. In addition, in the absence of including in the Law the fact that the employer\u2019s contributions are henceforth in full discharge of liabilities, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com would have had to continue to meet significantly higher provisioning needs in relation to the provisions of EUR 3,6 billion already set aside in 1996.\n(134)\nIn this respect, the considerations of the complainants concerning the fact that France T\u00e9l\u00e9com was able to assume a far larger financial debt from 1996 than the burden from which the French State had relieved it are not relevant as they are unrelated to the question examined. Even if the increase in the financial debt assumed by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com since 1996 and the amounts in question now seem to rule out the risk of bankruptcy of the undertaking referred to by the French Republic if the arrangements provided for by the 1990 Law had continued, the aid measure seems to be necessary in the future to allow France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to be able to compete on the markets concerned on the basis of merit, without being handicapped by the burden of social security costs inherited from the past which its competitors do not have to bear.\n(135)\nThe considerations of the complainants and the telecommunications operator on the relevance of an overall balance with a view to assessing the need for aid in the light of the other advantages derived by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com from its past monopoly are unfounded in this case. It is true that, since 1996, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019s position on a number of the services markets in which it operates in France remains dominant, especially on account of network effects inherent in the communications markets. Likewise, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com has increased its presence on the markets of other Member States by acquiring significant positions there, especially in Poland and Spain. The fact remains that, as emphasised indirectly by the telecommunications operator in its comments, as a result of its dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 of the TFEU or its significant market power within the meaning of the regulations applicable to electronic communications in the Union (61), France T\u00e9l\u00e9com is subject to specific asymmetric obligations which are not imposed on the competing undertakings with lesser market power.\n(136)\nThese obligations, for example regarding access to its network, cost-orientation of prices or refraining from commercial behaviour which would be permitted to a non-dominant undertaking, have as their object precisely to ensure that the position of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com inherited from its former monopoly is not more damaging to competition. These ad hoc regulatory instruments, designed and applied consistently by the national regulatory and competition authorities and by the Commission (62), are a more targeted and effective remedy to the persisting effects of the advantages derived by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com from its former monopoly, invoked by the complainants.\n(137)\nConsequently the State aid which is the subject of the present procedure appears, in principle, necessary to attain an objective of common interest by improving the conditions of competition relating to the retirement costs and, therefore, the provision of electronic communications services.\n6.3.3. Proportionality of the aid measure\n(138)\nIt must be concluded that the financial compensation in favour of the State introduced by the 1990 Law for the payment and servicing of the pensions is specific to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and sui generis. The principle of total repayment provided for by the original 1990 Law has been replaced by different arrangements for determining the amount of the compensation to be paid to the State from 1996. Several options for determining the amount of the employer\u2019s contribution to be paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, ranging to full funding by the State without repayment, were theoretically possible. This compensation has been calculated since 1997 by referring to certain costs borne by the competing undertakings in the sector. For the purposes of determining whether the aid is proportionate for achieving the objective, it is therefore appropriate to examine the objective and justified nature of the reference to establish the amount of the compensation adopted in the 1996 Law.\n(139)\nIt should be noted straight away that, in the procedures relating to reductions in retirement costs for civil servant staff of former monopoly operators in the telecommunications sector, OTE in Greece and BT Plc in the United Kingdom, the Commission checked in particular whether these undertakings were subject to equivalent social security costs to those of their competitors to decide the respective compatibility and incompatibility with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU of the State aid granted to the operators in question (63). The Commission finds that in the present case, the contributions in full discharge of liabilities paid each year by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and provided for by the 1996 Law do not enable it to be ensured that the social charges levied are equivalent to those of its competitors. The competitively fair rate (hereinafter: \u2018TEC\u2019) is not achieved.\n(140)\nHowever, the French Republic and France T\u00e9l\u00e9com rely on the exceptional flat-rate contribution of EUR 5,7 billion paid in 1997 by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com under the 1996 Law. The amount of this flat-rate contribution was established in 1996 so as to compensate, for a period of 10 years of application of the 1996 Law, the additional cost foreseen at the time for the State, also taking into account the accounting provisions that France T\u00e9l\u00e9com had set aside and that the undertaking could write back in the financial year 1996-97. The exceptional flat-rate contribution is subdivided into two components:\n-\nfirstly, an amount of EUR 3,6 billion corresponding to the provisions set aside by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com up to 1996 in order to defray the future retirement costs of the civil servants foreseen at the time;\n-\nsecondly, an amount of EUR 2,1 billion (hereinafter: the \u2018additional amount\u2019), corresponding to both the forecasts of the public authorities and in fact to the net social security costs for paying the pensions which the State would have to defray over a period of 10 years, between 1997 and 2006, on account of the transfer of the cost of the pensions of the civil servants in telecommunications.\n(141)\nThe flat-rate sum of EUR 5,7 billion was never intended to compensate for the absence of the competitively fair rate between France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and its competitors, so it would not be justified to weigh this sum against the annual contributions in full discharge of liabilities which were not paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com when they would have been necessary to attain a competitively fair rate.\n(142)\nOn the other hand, an examination of the parliamentary debates shows that the additional amount of EUR 2,1 billion was intended to cover this transfer of costs from 1997 to 2006 and, in fact, to eliminate the effects of aid for a 10-year period. In this way, the net financial effort by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com corresponding to this additional amount consisted in financing, for a 10-year period, the additional cost of the reform for the French State.\n(143)\nMoreover, the exceptional contribution includes the write-back of the accounting provisions set aside until 1996 and which had become redundant. The provisions written back by the State had been set aside by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to defray the cost of future retirements and this write-back eliminates the effects of aid for the period of payment of the retirements which they are intended to cover.\n(144)\nHowever, the 1996 Law refers to a one-off exceptional contribution, without the applicable provisions, either of the Finance Law or of the subsequent Decrees, determining an amount arising from the provisions, which should have been deducted from the burden transferred to the State for the duration of this period. Article 6 of the 1996 Law clearly specifies that the exceptional flat-rate contribution is paid in return for the funding by the State of the pensions granted to the civil service staff. The amount of this exceptional contribution must therefore be included in its entirety in the analysis of the reform.\n(145)\nAs France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, through the payment of this exceptional flat-rate contribution, covered the cost of the retirement pensions of the civil servants in telecommunications and the cost of the compensation between arrangements for a period of about 15 years, the effects of the aid were neutralised. France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, by paying this exceptional contribution, therefore neutralised the effects of the aid during this period. Consequently, it is justified that, during this period, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com is not obliged to fulfil the conditions of compatibility of this aid, and therefore that it does not pay the annual contribution necessary to ensure a competitively fair rate including the non-common risks in respect of the private-law employees.\n(146)\nIt is appropriate to return in detail to the stages of this reasoning.\n(147)\nThe fact remains that the annual levies in full discharge of liabilities paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com since the 1996 reform do not permit a competitively fair rate to be achieved, as emphasised in the decision to initiate the procedure. This results from the fact that the rate applied to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com includes only the contributions corresponding to the common risks of private-sector employees and civil servants and, as a result, excludes the contributions corresponding to the non-common risks, such as unemployment or non-payment of wages in the event of the firm going into receivership or compulsory liquidation.\n(148)\nIt therefore results from Table 4 that not taking the non-common risks into account in the calculation of the contribution to be paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com is reflected in a considerable difference between the compensation paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to the State and what it would pay if the contribution rate were calculated to ensure an entirely level playing field with the bases for the calculation of the costs paid by competitors. Consequently, the aid measure resulting from the Law does not comply with the principle of proportionality. For it to comply with this principle and in order to attain the legitimate objective stated of improving the conditions of competition by equalising the calculation methods relating to the costs borne by the undertakings operating on the telecommunications markets concerned in France, the aid granted to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com pursuant to the 1996 Law should have equalised, and should effectively in future equalise, these costs by including those relating to the risks not common to the two categories of staff.\n(149)\nIn this respect, France\u2019s argument that the civil servants are not exposed to certain risks and, that as a result, it is not justified to pay a contribution for these risks, cannot be accepted. Firstly, it is pursuant to State measures that these risks would not arise, so there is no justification for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to draw a pecuniary advantage. For example, it is by virtue of the commitment by the French State to the civil servants still working at France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and on account of the fact that the French State is its own insurer that the risk of non-payment of wages in the event of the firm going into receivership would not arise. However, the possibility of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com filing for bankruptcy, just like a competitor, cannot be ruled out. In both cases, it is not a matter of an advantage supplied to the undertaking, but directly to its employees. The guarantee of the payment of wages takes effect after the undertaking has ceased to exist. However, a competing undertaking will have to pay contributions to guarantee the risk of non-payment of wages after its disappearance, in contrast to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com. It is therefore not justified to give the latter an advantage, in the form of a lower contribution or, in fact, an exclusion of this risk from the method of calculating the contributions of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com.\n(150)\nThen, more fundamentally, the objective itself of the reform introduced in 1996, which does not seem to have been brought to its logical conclusion, is to equalise the conditions of competition with regard to tax and social security payments between all the competitors of the sector, irrespective of the status of their staff and the existence of an actual obligation for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to affiliate with and subscribe to the competent management bodies. It is precisely this logic of equalisation of the conditions of competition which would be liable to make the measure examined compatible with the internal market. Whether or not the staff of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com are exposed to such risks is not therefore relevant under this logic.\n(151)\nIn conclusion, a reduction in the funding of the pensions with a transfer of the net burden to the State would respect the principle of proportionality only if it allowed a level playing field. However, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com has not been placed in a situation which is fully equivalent to that of the undertakings in the sector as regards wage-based social security contributions, since certain social security contributions and tax payments have not been integrated into the basis of assessment for calculating the annual contribution.\n(152)\nLikewise, contrary to the claims of the French Republic and France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, it is not justified to take into consideration the amount of the exceptional flat-rate contribution of EUR 5,7 billion already paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in 1997 to compare it with the insufficiency of the rate of the contribution in full discharge of liabilities applied to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com.\n(153)\nAs a preliminary point, the Commission wishes to recall that, in each situation, it has to establish whether the conditions of application of the derogation provided for in Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU have been fulfilled, without being bound by its earlier decision-making practice, assuming that is established (64).\n(154)\nIn any event, the reform examined here displays clear differences, in several respects, from the reform referred to in the La Poste decision (65), which the French authorities attempt to rely on.\n(155)\nIn fact, contrary to the reform as foreseen by the La Poste decision invoked by the French Republic and France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, the reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of the civil servant staff of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com occurred on the eve of the opening-up, at Union level, of the markets where France T\u00e9l\u00e9com could operate.\n(156)\nMoreover, it appears that France T\u00e9l\u00e9com took advantage of this liberalisation by establishing itself in the markets of other Member States, thanks not only to its change of status into a public limited company, but also, in part, from the elimination of retirement pension commitments from its balance sheet and the lower future potential charges resulting from the reform. This reduction in its balance-sheet commitments enabled France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to boost its solvency and borrowing capacity. The debt figures, supplied by the complainants in their comments and not contested by the French Republic regarding the amounts, show that the net financial debt of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com rose from EUR 19,2 billion in 1997 to EUR 83 billion in 2002.\n(157)\nIt is true that a dedicated investment policy for expansion on the markets of other Member States, made possible by the liberalisation, may be at the origin of this very substantial increase in financial debt. Nonetheless, raising the necessary funds was rendered possible in part by reduction in retirement costs for a net amount of EUR [\u2026] billion transferred to the French State in 1996. As a result, the comments of the telecommunications operator claiming that the aid enabled France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to finance its international expansion (comments set out in recital 68), albeit indirectly, are not without foundation.\n(158)\nOn the other hand, the group of postal markets on which the French La Poste can operate in the Union is not yet entirely open to competition and would only have to be in 2012, i.e. six years after the reform of financing the pensions of La Poste (66). The effect of restricting competition of the aid granted to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com on markets which have been fully opened up is therefore greater than that of the aid to La Poste. Complete parallelism in the conditions necessary for compatibility of the aid is not therefore required, since the competitive situations are separate on markets for which the priority in opening-up at Union level and the contribution to the competitiveness of its economy were also different. As a result, the common interest criterion referred to in Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU need not necessarily be assessed in an identical fashion in the two cases in point.\n(159)\nIn addition, the financial situation of La Poste and, consequently, its capacity for expansion on external markets or for reinforcement on the French market were not comparable to those of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com. As emphasised in the La Poste decision, without the reform of 2006, on account of the changeover to new accounting standards, La Poste had to enter into its accounts a provision for the State liability which it hitherto entered as an off-balance-sheet item for an amount of EUR 76 billion (67). However, unlike La Poste, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com set aside accounting provisions in its accounts to meet its future liabilities in the absence of the reform, which means that the financial situations of each undertaking were objectively different.\n(160)\nLikewise, the absence of reform for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and the continuation of the arrangements introduced by the 1990 Law would have been reflected in an increase in the retirement pension costs which would become significant from 2005-07 according to the forecasts of the time set out in recital 30, which is corroborated ex post by the results shown in Table 3. At the time of the reform, the continuation of the arrangements established by the Law applicable to La Poste was reflected immediately in an additional annual cost of approximately EUR [\u2026] million for La Poste (68).\n(161)\nIt has not therefore been established that the situation of the two undertakings under the effect of the law applicable before the respective reforms and, consequently, the competitive impact of these reforms, was similar. The facts point to the contrary. As a result, an examination coming to similar conclusions in both cases is not justified.\n(162)\nFurthermore, in the case of the La Poste decision, there were sufficient reasons to consider that the exceptional flat-rate contribution could be reallocated in the future as an advance on the payment of the contributions linked to the adjusted competitively fair rate. Such reasons are lacking in the present case. In fact, the condition imposing the reallocation of the exceptional contribution by La Poste was established after the Commission had initiated the formal investigation procedure, calling into question the underestimation of the contribution in full discharge of liabilities necessary to attain a competitively fair rate.\n(163)\nTo a large extent, and even though the French authorities did not recognise it explicitly, the allocation of the exceptional flat-rate contribution in question in the La Poste decision was therefore the result of negotiations between the Commission and the Member State with a view to ensuring the payment of a contribution in full discharge of liabilities ensuring a competitively fair rate. In these negotiations, the starting point of the French authorities expressed in their notification of 23 June 2006, after the first contacts on the file in December 2005, was that the exceptional contribution for La Poste provided for was not necessary from the point of view of the level playing field, contrary to the envisaged draft reform of the annual contribution.\n(164)\nIn this way, the Commission decision did not confirm a reform which had entered into force, as France T\u00e9l\u00e9com seems to maintain. In fact, the notification and the decision to initiate the procedure of 12 October 2006 preceded the establishment of the amount of the exceptional contribution by Law No 2006-1771 of 30 December 2006 (Amending Finance Act 2006). These negotiations concerned several aspects of the reform and in particular, the taking into account of the advantage which the notified reform could have represented in the past, the scope of the contribution rate envisaged and the terms for taking into account the specific nature of the La Banque Postale in relation to the postal activities and the staff allocated. These negotiations continued and it is only in their comments of 8 June 2007 that the French authorities accepted the terms of allocation of the exceptional contribution under an overall agreement relating to the reform, in this way going back on their position notified on the subject of the exceptional contribution and the method of calculating the future annual contributions.\n(165)\nOn the other hand, contrary to the provisions of the Finance Act 1997 setting up the public body managing the contribution of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, which provided for inflexible rules concerning the annual repayments to the State, the public body managing the contribution of La Poste did not have specific rules imposed on it (69). Since it was an exceptional contribution to be paid and was not earmarked, the Commission was able to consider that the French Republic could have reduced the amount and at the same time increased the annual contribution rate of La Poste.\n(166)\nMoreover, it must be noted that the terms of the 1996 Law define the parameters for the calculation of the annual contribution paid regularly to the State in return for the pensions of the civil service staff, without there being any question of taking into account the risks not common to civil servants and ordinary employees. In this respect, the Court and the Court of Justice specified, with regard to the business tax payable by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, that a reduction in charges could not be offset by a different specific charge, in particular where the Member State, the French Republic in this case, has failed to demonstrate that earlier charges were introduced in anticipation of a reduced tax burden in the future under different arrangements (70).\n(167)\nThe Commission cannot disregard the fact that the purpose of the specific flat-rate contribution already paid in 1997 was, as expressly established by Article 6 of the 1996 Law, to compensate the French State in part for the financial burden it was assuming on account of the 1996 Law.\n(168)\nIn addition, it is inferred from the content of the Senate report cited in recital 27 that, in adopting the principle of the exceptional contribution, the legislator did not seek to take into consideration, and still less to compensate for, the difference between the annual contributions of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and the relatively higher contributions of the competitors. On the contrary, the legislator deliberately imposed on France T\u00e9l\u00e9com the payment of annual costs not covering the risks which are not common to the two categories of staff (civil servant and non-civil servant) and did not establish a link between this choice and the levying of the exceptional contribution paid in 1997.\n(169)\nThe burden for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com represented by the flat-rate contribution was paid as general revenue to the State budget, assigned to the public body responsible for its management and used. Under these circumstances, the Commission cannot therefore, in whole or in part, reallocate fictitiously and retrospectively the exceptional flat-rate contribution already used for a purpose totally divorced from that assigned to it by the French authorities and not provided for by the Law, i.e. compensation of not taking into account risks not common to ordinary employees and civil servants. This flat-rate contribution was not therefore introduced in anticipation of full equalisation, under different legislative and regulatory arrangements, of the annual charges of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com with those of its competitors.\n(170)\nFor the same reasons, on account of the rules for the management and repayment to the budget provided for in the Finance Law since 1997 and implemented up to now, the allegations and calculations of the French Republic intended to show that the 1996 reform has ended now with considerable surplus revenue for the State cannot be accepted.\n(171)\nIn fact, taking into account the terms for the management and use of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com\u2019s exceptional flat-rate contribution by the competent public body, as laid down in a Finance Act and the figures for the actual repayments since 1997 forwarded by the French Republic, described in recitals 36 and 37 and in Table 3, it has to be concluded that the revenue which the French Republic tries to claim, with an investment producing interest at the rate of 7 %, has never existed.\n[\u2026]. In addition, the allegation does not reflect the actual behaviour of the French authorities. In view of the management rules established in the Finance Acts passed since it was set up, this public body has not generated such revenue, which for that matter was not foreseen and did not generate interest. On the contrary, the resources of the body were to have been drawn down in full as at 31 December 2011. They would have been drawn down earlier if they had been allocated to financing the 1996 reform - which the French Republic challenges incidentally - even by including in them the higher revenues from corporation tax, as argued by the French authorities. Also, taking into account higher revenue from corporation tax is unlawful, as it leads to confusion of the different roles of the State. The combination of these different roles proposed by the French authorities cannot be accepted and a distinction should be maintained between on the one hand the State granting aid to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com by financing the payment of the retirement pensions of the civil servants, in order to develop a merit-based competition process, and on the other hand, the State as shareholder of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and, ultimately, the State as a public authority exercising its power to raise taxes.\n(172)\nIn addition, it should be noted that the application made by the French Republic and France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to take into consideration the exceptional contribution when examining the compatibility of the reform is in contradiction with the comments the French Republic made in its letter of 17 March 2004, according to which \u2018the exceptional flat-rate contribution provided for by Article 6 of the Law of 26 July 1996 could not therefore be seen as compensation for an alleged \u2018advantage\u2019. The analysis of its amount is all the less relevant in the light of the State aid rules\u2019 since this amount was \u2018an extraordinary contribution in favour of its sole shareholder [the French State], which can be assimilated to an extraordinary dividend distributed before any opening-up of the capital to private investors\u2019.\n(173)\nThe reasoning underlying the argument put forward at the time by the French Republic shows a certain economic and financial logic. It is reasonable, for a sole shareholder, on the eve of the opening-up of the capital to other investors, to absorb, for its benefit alone and as far as possible, the funds available in the undertaking before the opening-up of the capital, provided that this does not compromise the attractiveness of the investment. This last aspect was taken into consideration in the financial parameters imposed on the opening balance of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, from which the exceptional flat-rate contribution results indirectly, as mentioned before Parliament in 1996. Consequently, it was perfectly consistent on the part of a prudent single shareholder State to draw out the largest possible amount in extraordinary dividend, according to the terms of the French Republic, rather than to leave the funds in the undertaking, from which after opening-up the capital in 1997, it would draw at most its pro rata in the capital maintained.\n(174)\nThe validity of this reasoning put forward at the time by the French Republic, which called for the analysis of the amount of the balance compensation of EUR 5,7 billion not to be taken into account in any way for the assessment of the reform in the light of the State aid rules, is also corroborated by its comments during the procedure. In fact, by declaring that the gauging of the amount of the balance compensation was undertaken in terms not of the estimated cost of the reform for the State or the advantages which France T\u00e9l\u00e9com would draw, but of the contributive capacity of the undertaking, the French Republic points out that the imposition of a balance compensation would result more from the behaviour of a prudent single shareholder than that of a regulatory State concerned about the balance of the retirement pension costs it was assuming under the reform.\n(175)\nIf such reasoning were to be accepted, the Commission should not, as requested at the time by the French Republic, take into account the exceptional flat-rate contribution in the analysis of the compatibility of the reform with the State aid rules. As a result, only the reduction in the annual contributions of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to below the level of those of the competitors, called for by the reform since 1997, should be taken into account.\n(176)\nFor the same reasons, the Commission cannot accept the complainants\u2019 comments calling for the introduction of mechanisms to adjust the exceptional flat-rate contribution paid in 1997 and the annual employer\u2019s contribution from France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to ensure the financial neutrality of the reform. This would also amount to a new calculation and a retrospective fictitious reallocation in whole or in part of the exceptional flat-rate contribution paid to the State budget in 1997. Likewise, the mechanism proposed would amount to introducing an ex-post control, year after year, the purpose of which would not be to ensure the proportionality of the aid granted, although reduced by the exceptional flat-rate contribution, in 1997, but to eliminate any aid under the reform.\n(177)\nOn the other hand, it is worth examining whether the payment of the exceptional contribution can be taken into account in the assessment of the compatibility of the aid measure with the internal market by retaining the justification of this payment as established by the 1996 Law.\n(178)\nUnder the 1996 Law, the exceptional flat-rate contribution in 1997 was paid in return for the financing of the pensions by the French State. Under these conditions, the effects of its imposition on the overall financial equilibrium of the reform introduced by the 1996 Law as applied so far must be taken into consideration. It is appropriate to take into account the time during which the cost of the retirement pensions was covered by the exceptional flat-rate contribution.\n(179)\nSince it is a matter of comparing financial flows for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com spread over a period of time, i.e. the payment of the exceptional contribution in 1997 and the reduced annual charges resulting from the 1996 Law since then, discounting to present value is necessary. During 1997, several exceptional contribution payments were staggered up to October 1997, even though the financing of this by the loan in fact postponed the financial burden for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com. On the other hand, payments of the contribution in full discharge of liabilities were made from the start of 1997. The discount rate must in principle be that resulting from the Commission notice applicable on the subject (71), a rate which, for illustration, amounted to 5,53 % in October 1997. It should be examined whether it is appropriate in this case to use a different rate from that in the applicable notice and in this way to depart from the rules, communicated to the Member States, that the Commission has set itself and that it must apply save in properly justified circumstances.\n(180)\nIn this respect, the choice of the rate of 7 % used by the actuary of the French Government to discount the financial flows from the 1996 reform until 2043 would not be justified, [\u2026], on account of the fact that the present analysis covers a shorter period owing to the schedule of financial payments established. The rate of 7 % is also far above the average of 4,4 % of annual discount rates for the period 1997-2010 applied by the French Republic in its comments on the decision to initiate the procedure or at the discount rate of [\u2026] % adopted for 1998 in the reform of the arrangements for financing retirement pensions of La Poste (72).\n(181)\nThe rates of around 7 % for 15-year OATs for 1996 put forward by the French Republic cannot be accepted either. The rate needs to be established in 1997 and not for the average of 1996. In addition, a term of 15 years is too long in the light of the scale of the annual payment flows which the exceptional flat-rate contribution should theoretically have had to cover during the period, for which the interest alone would not have sufficed. Alternatively, the choice of a composite rate constructed on the basis of different rates for optimisation of the investment of the exceptional flat-rate contribution to comply with the schedule of flows brought about by the 1996 reform from the point of view of the French State could be considered. Apart from the fact that such a rate, at around 5,50 %, would not differ significantly from the Commission\u2019s reference rate for October 1997, the choice would not take account of the fact that the analysis is being carried out from the point of view of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com (73).\n(182)\nFinally, in this regard, the reference rate of 7 % for the bond loans of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com between 1991 and 1997 put forward by the French Republic covers a six-year period well before the facts. In this case, the fact is that France T\u00e9l\u00e9com financed the exceptional flat-rate contribution in 1996 through mainly short-term issues and, to a far lesser extent, through bond issues. A discount rate resulting from the interest rates paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com on the new debts contracted in 1996 would amount to 4,8 % on the basis of its balance sheet at 31 December 1996 (74). Such a rate is adjusted to the materiality of the real financial costs incurred by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com at the time to finance the exceptional contribution. However, it seems appropriate not to make the discount rate depend on the choice made by the undertaking at the time, but to use the objective reference rate adopted by the Commission in its Notice on discount rates (75).\n(183)\nAll in all, it is not appropriate in this case to use a different reference rate to that resulting from the Commission notice applicable on the subject and in this way to depart from the rules, communicated to the Member States, that the Commission has set itself.\nTable 5\nFinancial flows resulting from the 1996 reform for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com (1997-2011)\n(million EUR)\nYear\nPensions paid\n(A)\nCompensation and over-compensation\n(B)\nAnnual contributions\n(C)\nAdvantage FT\n(D)\n(A + B - C) (76)\nBalance compensation 1 January\n(E)\nInterest\n(F)\nBalance compensation 31 Dec.\n(E + F - D)\n1997 (77)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n122,3\n5 716,8\n184,4\n5 777,9\n1998\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n188,2\n5 777,9\n319,5\n5 909,2\n1999\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n189,8\n5 909,2\n326,8\n6 046,2\n2000\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n298,3\n6 046,2\n334,4\n6 082,2\n2001\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n302,9\n6 082,2\n336,3\n6 115,6\n2002\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n305,9\n6 115,6\n338,2\n6 148,0\n2003\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n364,7\n6 148,0\n340,0\n6 123,3\n2004\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n477,4\n6 123,3\n338,6\n5 984,5\n2005\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n619,1\n5 984,5\n330,9\n5 696,3\n2006\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n744,4\n5 696,3\n315,0\n5 266,9\n2007\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n909,9\n5 266,9\n291,3\n4 648,2\n2008\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n1 101,0\n4 648,2\n257,0\n3 804,3\n2009\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n1 255,8\n3 804,3\n210,4\n2 758,9\n2010\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n1 386,6\n2 758,9\n152,6\n1 524,8\n2011\n(est.)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n1 497,5\n1 524,8\n84,3\n111,6\n(184)\nCapitalised at the discount rate of 5,53 %, taking into consideration the balance compensation should compensate up to the 1st quarter of 2012 (78) the reduction in annual costs from which France T\u00e9l\u00e9com benefited as a result of the implementation of the 1996 reform.\n(185)\nFurthermore, the schedule for this compensation, which neutralises the effects of the reform, coincided furthermore, to within a few months, with the resources of the public body responsible for managing the exceptional contribution of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com actually being exhausted, which was scheduled for 31 December 2011. The flow analysis is supported by the fact that, in any case, the exceptional contribution will have been in fact drawn down in full. As a result, no amounts would remain that were not repaid to the State budget that it would be possible to reallocate otherwise than as provided for by the Finance Law applicable.\n(186)\nIt is therefore justified that, on account of the payment of this exceptional contribution in 1997, France T\u00e9l\u00e9com is not required to pay an annual contribution supplement for the period between 1 January 1997 and a date after 31 December 2010 which still has to be determined precisely. In fact, in so far as, in Table 5, the figures for 2011 and those for the cost of compensation and over-compensation result from estimates, in particular, it is appropriate for the precise date to be decided by the French Republic on the basis of the final dates for the payments made, the final amounts of the benefits paid and the lower contributions and other advantages for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com resulting from the 1996 Law, following the calculation principles indicated in Table 5.\n(187)\nOn the other hand, after neutralisation of the effects of the exceptional contribution and the drawdown in full of the resources paid to the State, the aid granted in 1996 to France Telecom will have full effect by conferring an advantage on France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in relation to its competitors. The aid will then be justifiable only by subjecting France T\u00e9l\u00e9com to the payment of a contribution in full discharge of liabilities, calculated at a rate ensuring a true level playing field. Hence, if the provisions of the 1990 Law, as amended by the 1996 Law and the secondary regulatory provisions applicable, in that they provide that the rate of the contribution in full discharge of liabilities is calculated so as to equalise the levels of wage-based social security contributions and tax payments between France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and the other undertakings in the telecommunications sector subject to the ordinary social security arrangements, by limiting the calculation to the risks which are common to the ordinary employees and the State civil servants, were to remain unchanged, the aid granted to France T\u00e9l\u00e9com until the expiry of the financial obligations assumed by the French State instead of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com pursuant to the 1996 Law would not comply with the principle of proportionality.\n(188)\nTo fulfil the criterion of conformity with the common interest provided for in Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU, the compatibility of the aid therefore requires compliance with the conditions accompanying the present decision.\n7. CONDITIONS OF COMPATIBILITY FOR THE FUTURE\n(189)\nConsequently, it is necessary for the French Republic to amend the legislative and regulatory provisions applicable for establishing, calculating and levying the contribution in full discharge of liabilities to be paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com so as to equalise the levels of wage-based social security contributions and tax payments between France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and the other undertakings of the telecommunications sector subject to the ordinary social security arrangements. In addition, it is appropriate that the calculation methods and parameters are established transparently and objectively and can be subject to control and appeals.\n(190)\nThe French Republic should also, when calculating the rate of the contribution in full discharge of liabilities, equalise in fact the levels of wage-based social security contributions and tax payments between France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and the other undertakings of the telecommunications sector subject to the ordinary social security arrangements, also taking account of the risks not common to the ordinary employees and the civil servants employed by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com.\n(191)\nIn the comments of the French Republic, set out in further detail in its updated Annexes III and V, the French authorities have produced estimates of what the rate of the contribution in full discharge of liabilities to be paid by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com from 1997 (see Table 4) would be if the non-common risks had been integrated into the calculation method (hereinafter: the \u2018adjusted rate\u2019). The adjusted rate includes both the contributions for unemployment and insurance guaranteeing wage claims, which are added to it, and the specific contributions which the competitors of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com do not pay, such as the 1 % solidarity and the cash benefits for absence from work self-insured by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, which are subtracted from it. The result is a rate about 7 % higher than the rate in fact applied at present.\n(192)\nSuch a rate ensures a genuine level playing field compared to the only partial equality introduced by the 1996 Law, whilst taking account of the specific social costs of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com. The Commission does not therefore dispute the principles, assessment basis and methods of calculation applied by the French Republic to establish a rate of contribution in full discharge of liabilities adjusted to equalise the levels of wage-based social security contributions and tax payments between France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and the other undertakings of the telecommunications sector subject to the ordinary social security arrangements, as indicated in the updated comments of the French Republic and described and detailed in Annexes III and V to these comments.\n(193)\nConsequently, the annual determination of the rate creating a level playing field by the French Republic will have to follow the principles, assessment basis and methods of calculation of the contribution in full discharge of liabilities which appear in the comments referred to in recital 191. In particular, the adjusted rate will integrate both the unemployment contributions and the insurance guaranteeing wage claims and the contributions or specific charges not paid by the competitors of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, such as the 1 % solidarity and the cash benefits for absence from work self-insured by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com.\n(194)\nThis de facto equalisation will ensure a level playing field between France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and its competitors and will guarantee proportionality and compatibility with the internal market of aid implemented in 1996.\n8. CONCLUSIONS\n(195)\nThe Commission concludes that the French Republic unlawfully implemented State aid introduced by the 1996 reform of the arrangements for financing retirement pensions of the civil servants working for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com in breach, since its entry into force, of Article 108(3) of the TFEU.\n(196)\nThe implementation of this aid since 1997 has allowed a reduction in the annual social security costs incurred by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com. However, this effect was neutralised, at least until 2010, by the payment of the exceptional flat-rate contribution provided for by that reform. This neutralisation justifies the fact that the conditions which would create a genuine level playing field for France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and its competitors regarding these charges and which would render this aid compatible with the internal market should be applied from a date after 31 December 2010 still to be set.\n(197)\nConsequently, in so far as and provided that the French Republic takes into consideration, in the calculation of the contribution in full discharge of liabilities payable by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, the levels of wage-based social security contributions and tax payments between France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and the other undertakings of the telecommunications sector covered by the ordinary social security arrangements, taking into account the risks which are common and not common to ordinary employees and civil servants, the reform introduced by the 1996 Law can be declared compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU. The French Republic is therefore required to take the measures, notably of a legislative and regulatory nature, necessary to fulfil the condition mentioned in the present recital,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid resulting from the reduction of the compensation to be paid to the State for the payment and servicing of the pensions granted, pursuant to the Civilian and Military Retirement Pensions Code, to the civil servants of France T\u00e9l\u00e9com pursuant to Law No 96-660 of 26 July 1996 on the national company France T\u00e9l\u00e9com amending Law No 90-568 of 2 July 1990 on the organisation of the public postal and telecommunications service shall be compatible with the internal market on the conditions provided for in Article 2.\nArticle 2\nThe employer\u2019s contribution in full discharge of liabilities, payable by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com under Article 30, point (c) of Law No 90-568 of 2 July 1990 on the organisation of the public postal and telecommunications service, shall be calculated and levied so as to equalise the levels of all the wage-based social security contributions and tax payments between France T\u00e9l\u00e9com and the other undertakings of the telecommunications sector covered by the ordinary social security arrangements.\nTo fulfil this condition, no later than within seven months of the notification of the present decision, the French Republic:\n(a)\nshall amend Article 30 of Law No 90-568 of 2 July 1990 on the organisation of the public postal and telecommunications service and the regulatory or other texts adopted to implement it so that the bases for calculating and levying the employer\u2019s contribution in full discharge of liabilities, payable by France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, are not confined solely to the risks common to ordinary employees and civil servants, but also include the non-common risks;\n(b)\nshall levy on France T\u00e9l\u00e9com, from the day on which the amounts of the exceptional contribution introduced by Law No 96-660 of 26 July 1996 capitalised at the discount rate resulting from the application of the Commission notice on the method for setting the reference and discount rates applicable in this case equal the amount of the contributions and costs that France T\u00e9l\u00e9com would have continued to pay under Article 30 of Law No 90-568 of 2 July 1990 in its initial wording, an employer\u2019s contribution with full discharge of liabilities calculated according to the terms specified in point (a), taking into account the risks that are common and not common to ordinary employees and civil servants.\nArticle 3\n1. The French Republic shall communicate to the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, a detailed description of the measures that it proposes to take and that it has already taken to comply with it. It shall inform the Commission in particular:\n(a)\nof the state of progress in the amendments to the legislative and regulatory provisions referred to in Article 2;\n(b)\nof the final amounts of compensation and contributions for the year 2011 and of those provided for, where appropriate, for 2012, in the light, in particular, of any balance from the capitalised amounts of the exceptional contribution;\n(c)\nof the amounts of the employer\u2019s contribution in full discharge of liabilities, calculated in accordance with the terms specified in Article 2 for the future instalments, pending the amendment of the legislation;\n(d)\nof the payments of the employer\u2019s contribution made after the amounts of the exceptional contribution introduced by Law No 96-660 of 26 July 1996 capitalised at the discount rate resulting from the application of the Commission notice on the method for setting the reference and discount rates applicable in this case have ceased to neutralise the effects of the 1996 reform.\n2. The French Republic shall keep the Commission informed of the progress in the national measures taken to implement this decision. It shall forward immediately, on request by the Commission, any information on the measures already taken or planned to comply with this decision.\nArticle 4\nThis decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["76", "5", "60", "59", "80", "56", "24", "74", "20", "30", "32", "86", "68", "43", "1", "26", "13", "4", "58", "63", "49", "50", "92", "7", "81", "84", "34", "3", "90", "47", "No Label", "2", "15", "37", "40", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "15", "37", "40", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 29 June 2010\non the application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System in the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania\n(2010/365/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the 2005 Act of Accession, and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession provides that the provisions of the Schengen acquis, other than those mentioned in Annex II to that Act, shall apply in Bulgaria and Romania (hereinafter the \u2018Member States concerned\u2019) only pursuant to a Council Decision to that effect, after verification that the necessary conditions for the application of that acquis have been met.\n(2)\nThe Council has verified that the Member States concerned ensure satisfactory levels of data protection by taking the following steps:\nA full questionnaire was forwarded to the Member States concerned, whose replies were recorded, and verification and evaluation visits were made to those Member States, in accordance with the applicable Schengen evaluation procedures as set out in the Decision of the Executive Committee setting up a Standing Committee on the evaluation and implementation of Schengen (SCH/Com-ex (98) 26 def.) (2), in the area of Data Protection.\n(3)\nOn 26 April 2010, the Council concluded that the conditions in this area had been fulfilled by the Member States concerned. It is therefore possible to set a date from which the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System (SIS) may apply in those Member States.\n(4)\nThe entry into force of this Decision should allow for real SIS data to be transferred to the Member States concerned. The concrete use of this data should allow the Council, through the applicable Schengen evaluation procedures as set out in SCH/Com-ex (98) 26 def., to verify the correct application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the SIS in the Member States concerned. Once these evaluations have been carried out, the Council should decide on the lifting of checks at the internal borders with those Member States.\n(5)\nA separate Council Decision should be adopted setting a date for the lifting of checks at internal borders. Until the date set out in that Decision, certain restrictions on the use of the SIS should be imposed.\n(6)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (3) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point G, of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (4) on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement.\n(7)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (5), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point G of Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/149/JHA (6) and with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (7),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. From 15 October 2010, the provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the SIS, as referred to in Annex I, shall apply to the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania amongst themselves and in their relations with the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of France, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden as well as the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation.\n2. The provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the SIS, as referred to in Annex II, shall apply from the date specified therein to the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania amongst themselves and in their relations with the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of France, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden as well as the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation.\n3. From 29 June 2010 real SIS data may be transferred to the Member States concerned.\nFrom 15 October 2010, the Member States concerned, like the Member States in respect of which the Schengen acquis has already been implemented, shall be able to enter data into the SIS and use SIS data, subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.\n4. Until the date of the lifting of checks at internal borders with the Member States concerned, those Member States:\n(a)\nshall not be obliged to refuse entry to their territory or to expel nationals of third States for whom a SIS alert has been issued by another Member State for the purposes of refusing entry;\n(b)\nshall refrain from entering the data covered by the provisions of Article 96 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the governments of the States of Benelux economic union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (hereinafter the \u2018Schengen Convention\u2019) (8).\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 29 June 2010.", "references": ["95", "92", "22", "77", "5", "56", "71", "18", "59", "9", "58", "15", "66", "43", "14", "90", "98", "81", "17", "57", "75", "64", "3", "45", "24", "67", "12", "25", "7", "63", "No Label", "13", "41", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "41", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 May 2011\non guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States\n(2011/308/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 148(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nHaving consulted the Committee of the Regions,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 145 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that Member States and the Union are to work towards developing a coordinated strategy for employment and particularly for promoting a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce and labour markets responsive to economic change with a view to achieving the objectives defined in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union.\n(2)\nThe Europe 2020 Strategy proposed by the Commission enables the Union to turn its economy towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, accompanied by high level employment, productivity and social cohesion. On 13 July 2010, the Council adopted its Recommendation on broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union (3). Furthermore, on 21 October 2010, the Council adopted its Decision 2010/707/EU on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (4) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018employment guidelines\u2019). This set of guidelines together form the integrated guidelines for implementing the Europe 2020 Strategy. Five headline targets, listed under the relevant integrated guidelines, constitute shared objectives which guide the action of the Member States, taking into account their relative starting positions and national circumstances, and also guide the action of the Union. The European Employment Strategy plays a leading role in the implementation of the employment and labour market objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy.\n(3)\nThe integrated guidelines are in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 17 June 2010. The integrated guidelines give precise guidance to the Member States on defining their National Reform Programmes and on implementing reforms, reflecting interdependence and in line with the Stability and Growth Pact. The employment guidelines should form the basis for any country-specific recommendations that the Council may address to the Member States under Article 148(4) of the TFEU, in parallel with the country-specific recommendations addressed to the Member States under Article 121(4) of that Treaty. The employment guidelines should also form the basis for the establishment of the Joint Employment Report sent annually by the Council and the Commission to the European Council.\n(4)\nThe examination of the Member States\u2019 draft National Reform Programmes, contained in the Joint Employment Report adopted by the Council on 7 March 2011, shows that Member States should continue to make every effort to address the following priorities: increasing labour market participation and reducing structural unemployment; developing a skilled workforce responding to labour market needs and promoting job quality and lifelong learning; improving the performance of education and training systems at all levels, and increasing participation in tertiary education, promoting social inclusion and combating poverty.\n(5)\nThe employment guidelines adopted in 2010 should remain stable until 2014 to ensure a focus on their implementation. In the intermediate years, until the end of 2014, their updating should continue to be strictly limited.\n(6)\nMember States should explore the use of the European Social Fund when implementing the employment guidelines,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, as set out in the Annex to Decision 2010/707/EU, are hereby maintained for 2011 and shall be taken into account by the Member States in their employment policies.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 May 2011.", "references": ["46", "84", "28", "16", "61", "68", "48", "0", "91", "44", "66", "45", "67", "39", "97", "30", "96", "19", "20", "3", "70", "2", "82", "79", "1", "31", "41", "81", "53", "6", "No Label", "9", "37", "47", "49", "50", "51"], "gold": ["9", "37", "47", "49", "50", "51"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1064/2010\nof 17 November 2010\nterminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures applicable to imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic anti-dumping Regulation), and in particular Article 11(3) and (5) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (2) (the basic anti-subsidy Regulation), and in particular Articles 19 and 22(1), first sentence thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (Commission) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. MEASURES IN FORCE\n1.1. Previous investigations and existing countervailing measures\n(1)\nIn December 1999, by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 (3), the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film (the product concerned), originating in India. The investigation which led to the adoption of that Regulation is hereinafter referred to as the \u2018original anti-subsidy investigation\u2019. The measures took the form of an ad valorem countervailing duty, ranging between 3,8 % and 19,1 %, imposed on imports from individually named exporters, with a residual duty rate of 19,1 % imposed on imports from all other companies. The investigation period of the original anti-subsidy investigation was 1 October 1997 to 30 September 1998.\n(2)\nIn March 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 (4), the Council, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, maintained the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 on imports of PET film originating in India. The review investigation period was 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004.\n(3)\nIn August 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1288/2006 (5), the Council, following a partial interim review concerning the subsidisation of an Indian PET film producer, Garware Polyester Limited (Garware), amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on Garware by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.\n(4)\nIn September 2007, by Regulation (EC) No 1124/2007 (6), the Council, following a partial interim review concerning the subsidisation of another Indian PET film producer, Jindal Poly Films Limited, formerly known as Jindal Polyester Ltd (Jindal), amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on Jindal by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.\n(5)\nIn January 2009, by Regulation (EC) No 15/2009 (7), the Council, following a partial interim review initiated by the Commission on its own initiative concerning the subsidisation of five Indian PET film producers, amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.\n(6)\nIn June 2010, by Regulation (EU) No 579/2010 (8), the Council, following a partial interim review concerning the subsidisation of Jindal, amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on Jindal by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.\n1.2. Previous investigations and existing anti-dumping measures\n(7)\nIn August 2001, by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (9), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India. The investigation which led to the adoption of that Regulation is hereinafter referred to as the \u2018original anti-dumping investigation\u2019. The measures consisted of an ad valorem anti-dumping duty ranging between 0 % and 62,6 % imposed on imports from individually named exporting producers, with a residual duty rate of 53,3 % on imports from all other companies.\n(8)\nIn March 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 (10), the Council amended the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001. The anti-dumping duty imposed ranged between 0 % and 18 %, taking into account the findings of the expiry review of the definitive countervailing duties carried out pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.\n(9)\nIn August 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1288/2006, the Council, following an interim review concerning the subsidisation of an Indian PET film producer, Garware, amended the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on Garware by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001.\n(10)\nIn September 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1424/2006 (11), the Council, following a new exporting producer request, amended Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 in respect of SRF Limited. The amended Regulation established a dumping margin of 15,5 % and a anti-dumping duty rate of 3,5 % for the company concerned taking into account the company\u2019s export subsidy margin as ascertained in the anti-subsidy investigation which led to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006. Since the company did not have an individual countervailing duty, the rate established for all other companies was applied.\n(11)\nIn November 2007, by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 (12), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. By the same Regulation, a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, limited to one Indian exporting producer, was terminated.\n(12)\nIn January 2009, by Regulation (EC) No 15/2009, the Council, following a partial interim review initiated by the Commission on its own initiative concerning the subsidisation of five Indian PET film producers, amended the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007.\n2. PROCEDURE\n2.1. Grounds for the review\n(13)\nThe request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 19 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation was lodged by Polyplex Corporation Limited, an exporting producer from India (the applicant). The request was limited to the examination of the product scope as regards the clarification of whether certain product types fall within the scope of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures applicable to imports of PET film.\n(14)\nThe applicant requested the exclusion of \u2018siliconised polyester release liner\u2019 (SPRL) in so far as it falls within the definition of the product concerned, from the scope of the current anti-dumping and countervailing measures on imports of PET film originating in India. The applicant provided prima facie evidence that the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of SPRL significantly differ from those of the product concerned.\n2.2. Initiation\n(15)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced by a notice published on 9 September 2009 in the Official Journal of the European Union (13) (the Notice of Initiation) the initiation of a partial interim review in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 19 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation limited to the examination of the product scope. In particular, the review had to determine whether or not SPRL is part of the product concerned as defined in the original investigation.\n2.3. Review investigation\n(16)\nThe Commission officially informed the authorities of the Republic of India (the country concerned) and all other parties known to be concerned, i.e. known exporting producers in the country concerned, users and importers in the Union and producers in the Union, of the initiation of the partial interim review investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the Notice of Initiation.\n(17)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(18)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned, and all other parties which made themselves known within the the time limit set out in the Notice of Initiation.\n(19)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from the applicant, two other Indian exporting producers, four Union producers and two Union importers.\n(20)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary for the purpose of the assessment as to whether there was a need for amendment of the scope of the existing anti-dumping and countervailing measures and carried out verification visits at the premises of the following companies:\n-\nGarware Polyester Limited, Mumbai, India,\n-\nMitsubishi Polyester Film, Wiesbaden, Germany,\n-\nPolyplex Corporation Limited, Noida, India.\n(21)\nThe investigation covered the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009 (\u2018review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019).\n3. PRODUCT CONCERNED\n(22)\nThe product concerned is the same product as the one defined by Regulations (EC) No 367/2006 and (EC) No 1292/2007, namely polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India, currently falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90.\n4. FINDINGS OF THE REVIEW INVESTIGATION\n4.1. Background\n(23)\nPET film is a non-self-adhesive film of polyethylene terephthalate. PET film is always produced from PET polymer and consists of a base film which may be subject to further treatment either during or after the production process. Such treatment of the base film may typically include corona treatment, metallisation or chemical coating.\n(24)\nPET film has specific physical, chemical and technical characteristics which distinguishes it from other films. Some of the characteristics of PET film are, for example, its high tensile strength, the very good electrical properties, low moisture absorption and humidity resistance, low shrinkage and good barrier properties. Therefore, while these specific characteristics determine various types of PET film, these types retain the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of base PET film. PET film has five broad end-uses which fall within five market segments, i.e. magnetic media, packaging, electrical, imaging and industrial applications.\n4.2. Methodology\n(25)\nIn order to assess whether SPRL and other types of PET film should be considered as one single product or two different products, it was examined whether SPRL and other types of PET film shared the same basic physical and chemical characteristics. Moreover, the production process, differences in end-uses and interchangeability as well as differences in costs and prices were examined.\n4.3. Main arguments of the parties\n(26)\nThe applicant claimed that the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of SPRL differ from those of the product concerned. In particular, the relatively low release force of SPRL and its low surface tension make the film slippery and consequently its surface becomes inactive to inks, coatings, adhesives and metallisation. According to the applicant, due to the migration of uncured silicone within the SPRL, even the reverse side of a single side coated SPRL exhibits marked differences in physical and technical properties compared to other types of PET film. These features allegedly impede the usage of SPRL in base PET film industry segments identified in the original investigation, i.e. packaging, magnetic media, electrical, imaging and industrial applications. On the other hand, the functionally active surface of other types of PET film makes it impossible to use them as release liners, since they would irretrievably stick to adhesive surfaces. Consequently, the applicant argued that SPRL is not interchangeable in its applications with any other kind of PET film.\n(27)\nThe Union industry claimed that the applicant\u2019s arguments relied on two successive sets of artificially limited comparisons. First, the applicant compared SPRL against a narrow set of PET films, i.e. base PET film, and not against other types of coated PET film that are more comparable with SPRL. Second, this allegedly limited comparison was carried out only with regard to a highly selective and limited set of physical and chemical properties. The Union industry claimed that when comparing SPRL with a wide range of other types of PET film, and over a representative number of chemical and physical properties, it is clear that SPRL is the same product as other types of PET film and should remain within the scope of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures. According to the Union industry, SPRL is effectively PET film subsequently coated with a silicone layer. It is not conceptually different from other types of coated film, such as metallised film or film with an anti-static coating or film with barrier coating, and as such is clearly product concerned. In support for its claims, the Union industry provided a comparison of a number of different physical and chemical properties over a number of different types of PET film.\n4.4. Findings\n4.4.1. Physical and chemical characteristics\n(28)\nThe investigation showed that the two characteristics mentioned in recital 27, i.e. the relatively low release force of SPRL and its low surface tension, are additional features compared to the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of PET film as defined in the original anti-dumping investigation (14) and mentioned in recital 24. In this respect, it should be noted that the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics are the same for SPRL as for any other types of PET film.\n(29)\nAs regards the two characteristics specific to SPRL, i.e. low release force and low surface tension, it was found that these are not the characteristics of PET film as such, but rather the characteristics of its siliconised surface or effectively the characteristics of silicone. Coating with silicone, as well as coating with any other substances, changes some features of the surface of the film but does not change the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristic of the base PET film itself, which under the coating layer remains the same.\n(30)\nWhile it is true that covering PET film with silicone results in a low release force of the surface and also in a low surface tension, a similar argument could be made for other types of coating, i.e. when covered with other types of coating the surface of PET film obtains other special characteristics. In some cases coating may result in characteristics which make PET film suitable only for very specific applications. Coating with silicone is by no means unique in this respect. Other special products with other types of coating include for example sealable films, anti-fog coated films, peeling/sealing films and co-polyester coated films. All these types, however, share the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics and are part of the product concerned as defined in the original investigation.\n(31)\nOn this basis, it is considered that there are no significant differences in terms of basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics between SPRL and other types of PET film which would justify the exclusion of SPRL from the product scope.\n4.4.2. Comparison of other criteria\n(32)\nFor the sake of completeness, other claims raised by the applicant in its review request, allegedly showing that SPRL and PET film are different products, were also examined.\n4.4.2.1. Production process\n(33)\nThe applicant claimed that SPRL requires separate manufacturing facilities compared to other types of PET film produced.\n(34)\nAs mentioned in recital 23, PET film is always produced from PET polymer and consists of a base film which may be subject to further treatment either during or after the production process. Such treatment of the base film may typically include corona treatment, metallisation or chemical coating.\n(35)\nSPRL is PET film coated with a silicone layer. The investigation showed that there are two different technologies of manufacturing SPRL. The Union producer investigated uses the in-line coating technology of manufacturing. In this process the base PET film is coated during the production process before stretching. The coating module is just an additional, removable part of the production line. In contrast, the Indian producers investigated use the off-line coating technology. In this process the PET film is first produced, after which it is coated on a separate production line.\n(36)\nIt was found that the choice between in-line or off-line coating technology is purely economic, the cost of investment in movable modules for the in-line coating being approximately 10 times higher than the investment in an off-line coating line. The advantage of in-line coating is a much higher speed of the line enabling significant volumes of production. In-line coating also leads to per-unit savings on the silicone costs as the layer of silicone surface is thinner than in the case of off-line coating.\n(37)\nIt should be noted that the existence of two different coating methodologies does not alter the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of SPRL, which remain the same as compared to those of other types of PET film. Indeed different production processes are not per se relevant to determine whether a product type is a distinct product provided that the product types obtained from these processes are alike in terms of the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics.\n4.4.2.2. Differences in end-uses and interchangeability\n(38)\nThe applicant also claimed that there is no interchangeability in the applications between SPRL and other types of PET film. This claim was confirmed by the investigation. However, as concluded in the original investigation, this is also true for other types of PET film with a special treatment.\n(39)\nThe investigation confirmed that the purpose of coating, or of any other special treatment of PET film, is to make it suitable for certain specific applications. The substance chosen as the coating layer in each case has certain characteristics serving the relevant purpose. Silicone, for example, gives a low release force. The coating substance may have other special features (in the case of silicone, it is low surface tension) which makes it impossible to use the coated product for other applications. There are a number of other types of PET film, coated with other substances or otherwise treated, which for the above reasons have specific and limited applications.\n(40)\nTherefore, whilst SPRL is specifically used for certain applications, its basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics are the same as those of the other types of PET film. As a consequence, interchangeability and end-use are not relevant to determine whether SPRL would constitute a different product.\n4.4.2.3. Differences in costs and prices\n(41)\nFinally, the applicant claimed that the process of siliconising of base PET film involves additional costs.\n(42)\nIt was indeed found that the additional cost of silicone coating can amount to up to 10 % of the costs of manufacturing, depending on the choice of coating methodology. As described in recitals 35 and 36, the applicant opted for a more costly methodology in terms of per-unit silicone costs. It should be stressed, however, that this is an additional cost in comparison to the cost of producing the base PET film. Coating the base PET film with other substances, as well as the metallisation process, also increase the costs of manufacturing and thereby prices.\n(43)\nIn this respect, however, it is considered that the additional cost of silicone coating does not constitute in itself a decisive criterion when determining whether SPRL form a distinct product. Indeed differences in costs and prices do not per se justify the conclusion that a certain product type should be considered as a different product as long as this type shares the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics as the product concerned.\n5. CONCLUSIONS ON THE PRODUCT SCOPE\n(44)\nThe findings of the investigation confirmed that the process of siliconising the PET film results in a different surface of the end-product compared to the base PET film. However, this process does not change the basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics of the product. Indeed, the investigation confirmed that there are a number of specially treated types of PET film on the market which fall under the definition of the product concerned as established in the original investigation. In addition, the other criteria analysed, i.e. the production process, interchangeability/end-use and differences in costs and prices, did not alter this conclusion.\n(45)\nAll interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the above conclusions were reached. Parties were granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.\n(46)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the parties were duly considered, but did not change the conclusion not to amend the product scope of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures on imports of PET film in force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe partial interim review of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain PET film originating in India is hereby terminated without amending the anti-dumping and countervailing measures in force.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 November 2010.", "references": ["46", "24", "67", "85", "68", "71", "19", "90", "52", "17", "64", "6", "38", "55", "61", "66", "49", "69", "89", "8", "26", "42", "93", "11", "92", "7", "54", "43", "63", "27", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 470/2011\nof 16 May 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 828/2009 laying down detailed rules of application for the marketing years 2009/2010 to 2014/2015 for the import and refining of sugar products of tariff heading 1701 under preferential agreements\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements (1), and in particular Article 9(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007 (2), and in particular Article 11(7) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 1(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 828/2009 (3), a country listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 or listed as least-developed country in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 is eligible to be added to Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 828/2009.\n(2)\nUganda is a least-developed country listed as least-developed country in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 and has requested the Commission to be listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 828/2009. Uganda produces sugar and is therefore a potential exporter to the European Union.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 828/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 828/2009 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2011.", "references": ["76", "7", "70", "58", "82", "69", "28", "79", "36", "6", "60", "9", "87", "95", "72", "14", "66", "68", "94", "39", "12", "51", "24", "56", "80", "92", "52", "16", "27", "40", "No Label", "20", "21", "25", "71", "74", "96"], "gold": ["20", "21", "25", "71", "74", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 337/2011\nof 7 April 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of an enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase as feed additive for poultry, weaned piglets and pigs for fattening (holder of the authorisation Danisco Animal Nutrition)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation specified in the Annex to this Regulation. The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of the preparation specified in the Annex as a feed additive for poultry, weaned piglets and pigs for fattening, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 10 November 2010 (2) that the preparation specified in the Annex, under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human consumer health or the environment, and that this additive has the potential to improve the zootechnical parameters of the target species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the European Union Reference Laboratory for Feed Additives set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of the preparation specified in the Annex shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018digestibility enhancers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 April 2011.", "references": ["19", "43", "54", "37", "93", "21", "86", "22", "47", "68", "82", "6", "36", "57", "88", "97", "67", "83", "53", "62", "75", "81", "60", "39", "2", "78", "29", "64", "77", "72", "No Label", "25", "38", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 495/2010\nof 7 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2010.", "references": ["18", "15", "83", "49", "13", "50", "80", "78", "12", "14", "79", "19", "42", "1", "57", "52", "59", "56", "6", "39", "81", "60", "87", "67", "66", "30", "2", "38", "69", "89", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1224/2011\nof 28 November 2011\nfor the purposes of Articles 66 to 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty\n(codification)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 2289/83 of 29 July 1983 laying down provisions for the implementation of Articles 70 to 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 establishing a Community system of duty-free arrangements (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.\n(2)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nTITLE I\nSCOPE\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation lays down provisions for the implementation of Articles 66 to 73 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009.\nTITLE II\nPROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO IMPORTATIONS CARRIED OUT BY INSTITUTIONS OR ORGANISATIONS\nCHAPTER I\nGeneral provisions\nSection 1\nObligations on the part of the institution or organisation to which the articles are consigned\nArticle 2\n1. The admission free of import duties of articles referred to in Articles 67 and 68 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 shall entail the following obligations on the part of the institution or organisation to which they are consigned:\n(a)\nto dispatch the articles in question directly to the declared place of destination;\n(b)\nto account for them in its inventory;\n(c)\nto use them exclusively for the purposes specified in the said Articles;\n(d)\nto facilitate any verification which the competent authorities consider necessary in order to ensure that the conditions for granting admission free of import duties are satisfied, or remain satisfied.\n2. Heads of institutions or organisations to which the articles are consigned, or their authorised representatives, shall furnish the competent authorities with a statement declaring that they are aware of the various obligations listed in paragraph 1 and including an undertaking to comply with them.\nThe competent authorities may require that the statement referred to in the first subparagraph be produced for each import, or for several imports or for all the imports to be carried out by the institution or organisation to which the articles are consigned.\nSection 2\nProvisions to be applied where the articles are lent, hired out or transferred\nArticle 3\n1. Where the second subparagraph of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 is applied, the institution or organisation to which an article for the use of handicapped persons is lent, hired out or transferred shall, from the date of receipt of the article, comply with the same obligations as those set out in Article 2 of this Regulation.\n2. Where the institution or organisation to which an article is lent, hired out or transferred is situated in a Member State other than that in which the institution or organisation that lent, hired out or transferred the article is situated, upon the dispatch of such article the competent customs office of the Member State of dispatch shall issue a T 5 control copy in accordance with the rules laid down in Articles 912a to 912g of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (4) in order to ensure that such article is put to a use entitling it to continue to qualify for admission free of import duties.\nFor this purpose, the T 5 control copy shall include, in box 104 under the heading \u2018other\u2019, one of the entries listed in Annex I.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the loan, hire or transfer of spare parts, components or accessories specifically for articles for the use of handicapped persons and to tools for the maintenance, control, calibration or repair of the said articles which have been admitted free of import duties under Article 67(2) or Article 68(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009.\nCHAPTER II\nSpecific provisions relating to the admission free of import duties of articles referred to in Article 67(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009\nArticle 4\n1. In order to obtain admission free of import duties of an article for the use of the blind in accordance with Article 67(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, the heads of the institutions or organisations to which the articles are consigned, or their authorised representatives, shall submit an application to the competent authority of the Member State in which the institution or organisation is situated.\nSuch application shall be accompanied by all information which the competent authority considers necessary for the purpose of determining whether the conditions laid down for granting admission free of import duties are fulfilled.\n2. The competent authority of the Member State where the institution or organisation to which the article is consigned is situated shall give a direct ruling on the application referred to in paragraph 1.\nCHAPTER III\nSpecific provisions relating to the admission free of import duties of articles referred to in Article 68(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009\nArticle 5\n1. In order to obtain admission free of import duties of an article for the use of handicapped persons under Article 68(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, the heads of the institutions or organisations to which the articles are consigned, or their authorised representatives, shall submit an application to the competent authority of the Member State in which the institution or organisation is situated.\n2. The application referred to in paragraph 1 shall contain the following information relating to the article in question:\n(a)\nthe precise trade description of the article used by the manufacturer, its presumed combined nomenclature classification and the objective technical characteristics indicating that it was specially designed for the education, employment or social advancement of handicapped persons;\n(b)\nthe name or business name and address of the manufacturer and, if applicable, of the supplier;\n(c)\nthe country of origin of the article;\n(d)\nthe place of destination of the article;\n(e)\nthe precise use for which the article is intended;\n(f)\nthe price of the article or its value for customs purposes;\n(g)\nthe quantity of the article in question.\nDocumentary evidence providing all relevant information on the characteristics and technical specifications of the article shall be furnished with the application.\nArticle 6\nThe competent authority of the Member State in which the institution or organisation to which the articles are consigned is situated shall take a direct decision on applications under Article 5.\nArticle 7\nAuthorisations for admission free of import duties shall be valid for a period of 6 months.\nThe competent authorities may, however, set a longer period in the light of the particular circumstances of each case.\nCHAPTER IV\nSpecific provisions relating to the admission free of import duties of spare parts, components, specific accessories or tools under Article 67(2) and Article 68(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009\nArticle 8\nFor the purposes of Article 67(2) and Article 68(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, \u2018specific accessories\u2019 means items specially designed for use with a specific article for the purpose of improving its performance and scope.\nArticle 9\nIn order to obtain admission free of import duties of spare parts, components specific accessories or tools under Article 67(2) or under Article 68(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, the heads of the institutions or organisations to which the articles are consigned, or their authorised representatives, shall submit an application to the competent authority of the Member State in which the institution or organisation is situated.\nThis application shall be accompanied by all data deemed necessary by the competent authority for the purpose of determining whether the conditions laid down in Article 67(2) or in Article 68(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 are fulfilled.\nArticle 10\nThe competent authority of the Member State in which the institution or organisation to which such articles are consigned is situated shall give a direct decision on applications under Article 9.\nTITLE III\nPROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO IMPORTATIONS CARRIED OUT BY BLIND PERSONS AND OTHER HANDICAPPED PERSONS\nArticle 11\nArticles 4, 8, 9 and 10 shall apply mutatis mutandis to exemption from import duties of the articles referred to in Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 imported by blind persons themselves for their own use.\nArticle 12\nThe following shall apply mutatis mutandis to exemption from import duties of articles imported by handicapped persons themselves for their own use:\n(a)\nArticles 5, 6 and 7 in the case of articles referred to in Article 68(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009;\n(b)\nArticles 8, 9 and 10 in the case of articles referred to in Article 68(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009.\nArticle 13\nThe competent authorities may allow the application provided for in Articles 4 and 5 to be in a simplified form, where it relates to items imported under the conditions referred to in Articles 11 and 12.\nTITLE IV\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 14\nRegulation (EEC) No 2289/83 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex III.\nArticle 15\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 November 2011.", "references": ["16", "89", "31", "44", "66", "69", "2", "13", "82", "99", "70", "84", "32", "74", "19", "64", "8", "34", "40", "28", "68", "76", "77", "30", "38", "86", "56", "55", "83", "71", "No Label", "21", "22", "36"], "gold": ["21", "22", "36"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/318/CFSP\nof 31 March 2011\non the signing and conclusion of the Framework Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the participation of the United States of America in European Union crisis management operations\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 37 thereof, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 218(5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nConditions regarding the participation of third States in Union crisis management operations should be laid down in an agreement establishing a framework for such possible future participation, rather than defining those conditions on a case-by-case basis for each operation concerned.\n(2)\nFollowing the adoption of a Decision by the Council on 26 April 2010 authorising the opening of negotiations, the HR negotiated a framework agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the participation of the United States of America in European Union crisis management operations (the Agreement).\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Framework Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the participation of the United States of America in European Union crisis management operations (the Agreement) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe Agreement shall be applied on a provisional basis as from the date of signature thereof, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion (1).\nArticle 4\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 10(1) of the Agreement.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["38", "2", "32", "28", "26", "6", "43", "45", "86", "27", "60", "23", "19", "74", "16", "47", "18", "42", "98", "76", "84", "65", "78", "8", "57", "88", "1", "44", "63", "15", "No Label", "3", "5", "9", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "5", "9", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 238/2012\nof 19 March 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Sel de Gu\u00e9rande / Fleur de sel de Gu\u00e9rande (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France's application to register the name \u2018Sel de Gu\u00e9rande / Fleur de sel de Gu\u00e9rande\u2019 (PGI) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register.\n(3)\nHowever, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, a transitional period may be set for undertakings established in the Member State in which the geographical area is located, provided that the undertakings concerned have legally marketed the products in question, using the names concerned continuously for at least five years preceding the date of the publication referred to in Article 6(2) of that Regulation, and have noted that point in the national objection procedure referred to in Article 5(5) thereof.\n(4)\nIn a letter received on 22 February 2011, the authorities of the French Republic confirmed to the Commission that the undertakings established on their territory and listed in Annex II to this Regulation meet the conditions set out in the second subparagraph of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(5)\nThose undertakings are therefore allowed to continue to use the registered name \u2018Sel de Gu\u00e9rande/Fleur de sel de Gu\u00e9rande\u2019 (PGI) during a transitional period of five years from the entry into force of this Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in Annex I to this Regulation shall be entered in the register.\nThe undertakings listed in Annex II to this Regulation may, however, continue to use that name for a period of five years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 March 2012.", "references": ["12", "34", "74", "56", "22", "58", "80", "32", "71", "81", "62", "30", "69", "46", "68", "20", "0", "60", "75", "85", "41", "18", "31", "59", "63", "40", "37", "50", "10", "78", "No Label", "24", "25", "79", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "79", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 625/2011\nof 27 June 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 601/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2011.", "references": ["16", "31", "44", "20", "78", "49", "46", "36", "11", "79", "66", "70", "50", "2", "39", "30", "26", "17", "71", "41", "67", "65", "56", "63", "95", "0", "81", "43", "59", "7", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 425/2010\nof 18 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 May 2010.", "references": ["0", "60", "18", "91", "63", "37", "53", "34", "71", "69", "59", "21", "87", "19", "51", "56", "44", "26", "30", "85", "49", "38", "11", "67", "98", "32", "47", "22", "23", "57", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 161/2011\nof 21 February 2011\nentering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (\u2018Liptovsk\u00e1 sal\u00e1ma\u2019 or \u2018Liptovsk\u00fd sal\u00e1m\u2019 (TSG))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 9(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, the Czech Republic and Slovakia\u2019s joint application to register the name \u2018Liptovsk\u00e1 sal\u00e1ma\u2019/\u2018Liptovsk\u00fd sal\u00e1m\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register.\n(3)\nThe application also requested protection under Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006. That protection should be granted to the name \u2018Liptovsk\u00e1 sal\u00e1ma\u2019/\u2018Liptovsk\u00fd sal\u00e1m\u2019 in so far as, in the absence of objections, it could not be demonstrated that the name is used in a lawful, renowned and economically significant manner for similar agricultural products or foodstuffs,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nProtection as referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2011.", "references": ["10", "35", "84", "56", "4", "13", "26", "86", "5", "79", "61", "21", "51", "53", "60", "69", "30", "85", "87", "55", "54", "31", "14", "64", "40", "92", "37", "41", "44", "6", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 87/2011\nof 2 February 2011\ndesignating the EU reference laboratory for bee health, laying down additional responsibilities and tasks for that laboratory and amending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 32(5) and (6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 882/2004 lays down the general tasks, duties and requirements for EU reference laboratories for food and feed and for animal health. The EU reference laboratories for animal health and live animals are listed in Part II of Annex VII to that Regulation.\n(2)\nFollowing the completion of a selection procedure, the successful laboratory, Agence Nationale de S\u00e9curit\u00e9 Sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (ANSES), with its research laboratory for bee diseases, Sophia-Antipolis Laboratory, France, should be designated as the EU reference laboratory in the field of bee health, for a period of five years from 1 April 2011.\n(3)\nIn addition to the general functions and duties laid down in Article 32(2) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, certain specific responsibilities and tasks linked to the characteristics of agents liable to affect bee health should be carried out at Union level to ensure enhanced coordination. Therefore, these additional specific responsibilities and tasks of the EU reference laboratory in the field of bee health should be laid down in this Regulation.\n(4)\nPart II of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAgence Nationale de S\u00e9curit\u00e9 Sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (ANSES) with its research laboratory for bee diseases, Sophia-Antipolis Laboratory, France, is hereby designated as the EU reference laboratory in the field of bee health from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2016.\nCertain responsibilities and tasks for that laboratory are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nIn Part II of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, the following point 18 is added:\n\u201818.\nEU reference laboratory for bee health\nAgence Nationale de S\u00e9curit\u00e9 Sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail\nSophia-Antipolis Laboratory\nLes Templiers\n105 route des Chappes\nBP 111\n06902 Sophia-Antipolis\nFrance.\u2019\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 February 2011.", "references": ["74", "79", "68", "19", "69", "59", "39", "24", "82", "86", "35", "12", "81", "87", "49", "23", "40", "70", "73", "62", "15", "93", "17", "14", "26", "61", "64", "2", "48", "94", "No Label", "8", "38", "66", "77"], "gold": ["8", "38", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 397/2012\nof 8 May 2012\nfixing allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available additional quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2011/2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 367/2012 of 27 April 2012 laying down necessary measures as regards the release of additional quantities of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing 2011/2012 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe quantities covered by certificate applications for out-of-quota sugar submitted from 1 May 2012 to 2 May 2012 and notified to the Commission on 4 May 2012 exceed the limit set in Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 367/2012.\n(2)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 5 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 367/2012 it is necessary to fix an allocation coefficient, which the Member States shall apply to the quantities covered by each notified certificate application, reject the applications which have not yet been notified and close the period for submitting the applications.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure the efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which certificates applications for out-of-quota sugar have been submitted in accordance with Implementing Regulation (EU) No 367/2012 from 1 May 2012 to 2 May 2012 and notified to the Commission on 4 May 2012 shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 22,007274 %.\nApplications for certificates for out-of-quota sugar submitted from 3 May 2012 to 9 May 2012 in accordance with Implementing Regulation (EU) No 367/2012 are hereby rejected.\nThe period for submitting applications for certificates for out-of-quota sugar in accordance with Implementing Regulation (EU) No 367/2012 is closed as from 9 May 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 May 2012.", "references": ["93", "17", "99", "56", "30", "80", "46", "38", "98", "88", "73", "20", "59", "9", "0", "33", "89", "50", "83", "70", "68", "63", "79", "11", "34", "35", "10", "47", "45", "90", "No Label", "25", "61", "62", "71", "75"], "gold": ["25", "61", "62", "71", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 21 March 2012\non State aid SA.29864 (C 6/10) (ex NN 1/10) implemented by the Czech Republic for \u010cesk\u00e9 aerolinie, a. s. (\u010cSA - Czech Airlines a.s. - possible State aid implications of a loan provided by Osinek a.s.)\n(notified under document C(2012) 1664)\n(Only the Czech version is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/637/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the decision by which the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1), in respect of the aid SA.29864 (C 6/10, ex NN 1/10, CP 371/2009) (2),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nIn May 2009, on the basis of publicly available information, the Commission learned that a state-owned company in liquidation called Osinek a.s. (\u2018Osinek\u2019) had agreed to grant a loan of CZK 2,5 billion (approximately EUR 100 million) to \u010cSA - Czech airlines, a. s. (\u2018\u010cSA\u2019). The Commission requested information from the Czech Republic by letters dated 14 May 2009 and 24 September 2009. The Czech Republic provided the Commission with further information by letters dated 10 September 2009 and 25 November 2009.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 24 February 2010 the Commission informed the Czech Republic of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the measure (\u2018the opening decision\u2019). The Czech Republic provided comments on that decision by letter dated 26 April 2010. The Commission asked further questions by letter dated 6 July 2010, to which the Czech Republic replied on 15 September 2010.\n(3)\nThe opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union.. The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure.\n(4)\nThe Commission received comments from four interested parties: Travel Service and Icelandair Group on 10 March 2011, Czech Connect Airlines a.s. on 11 March 2011, JOB AIR Technic a.s. on 10 March 2011, and \u010cSA on 14 March 2011. The Commission forwarded these comments to the Czech Republic, which was given the opportunity to reply; the Commission received the reply by letter dated 12 May 2011.\n2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n2.1. The Osinek loan\n(5)\nThe measure under investigation is a loan granted on 30 April 2009 by Osinek to the Czech national flag carrier, \u010cSA. The loan was disbursed in three tranches as follows:\n(a)\nthe first tranche, for CZK 800 million, was drawn on 11 May 2009;\n(b)\nthe second tranche, for CZK 900 million, was drawn on 30 July 2009; and\n(c)\nthe third tranche, for CZK 800 million, was drawn on 24 September 2009.\n(6)\nThe expected date of repayment was 30 November 2010, with the possibility of prolongation. The interest rate on the loan was the three-month Prague Inter Bank Offered Rate (\u2018PRIBOR\u2019) plus 300 basis points as a risk premium, i.e. 5,51 % at the date on which the loan agreement was signed. Interest was due on a quarterly basis on the last business day of a calendar quarter (interest period). Interest was calculated daily from the day preceding the repayment of the Osinek loan.\n(7)\nAccording to the Czech authorities, the risk margin of 300 basis points correctly reflects an appropriate risk margin for the financial situation of the company, which had a Standard & Poor's B rating (vulnerable financial situation), and the level of collateralisation of the loan, which amounted to 110 % of the loan amount.\n(8)\nThe collateral used to secure the loan-comprised buildings located at Prague Ruzyn\u011b airport, land, inventories and spare parts. The market value of most of the collateral was established by an independent expert. Four addendums to the Osinek loan agreement were concluded, extending and modifying the collateral assets (3). The Czech authorities claim that all these changes respected the condition stipulated in the Osinek loan agreement that the actual loan amount must not exceed 90 % of the value of the collateral at any point in time or the agreed maximum loan amount.\n(9)\nThe Osinek loan was not repaid as initially envisaged, but was instead decollateralised and the debt capitalised on 30 June 2010 (debt-for-equity swap).\nTable 1\nOverview of the assets securing the Osinek loan\nCollateral\nValue in CZK (million)\nValue determined by\nPeriod of use\nOperational building - Hangar F (including land under the building)\n[925 - 990] (4)\nYBN Consult - Znaleck\u00fd \u00fastav s.r.o., Expert opinion of 1 June 2009\nfrom 11 May 2009 (1st tranche)\nAdministrative building \u2018APC\u2019 (including land under the building)\n[735 - 770]\nYBN Consult - Znaleck\u00fd \u00fastav s.r.o., Expert opinion of 5 July 2009\nfrom 30 July 2009 (2nd tranche) until 9 December 2009 (cancelled by 3rd Addendum)\nSpare parts (rotating spare parts and/or replacement engines)\n[150 - 165]\nValuation based on net book value at 30 September 2009\nfrom 24 September 2009 (3rd tranche)\nSpare parts (rotating, type A310 (all) and Boeing\n[520 - 575]\nValuation based on net book value at 30 September 2009\nfrom 24 September 2009 (3rd tranche) until 25 January 2010 (4th Addendum)\nLand around the \u2018APC\u2019 administrative building\n[60 - 65]\nYBN Consult - Znaleck\u00fd \u00fastav s.r.o., Expert opinion of 5 July 2009\nfrom 23 July 2009 (1st Addendum) until 25 January 2010\nLand around and adjacent to Hangar F\n[105 - 115]\nYBN Consult - Znaleck\u00fd \u00fastav s.r.o., Expert opinion of 5 July 2009\nfrom 23 July 2009 (1st Addendum)\nSpare parts, type: A319/320\n[265 - 290]\nBased on net book value\nfrom 23 July 2009 (1st Addendum)\nSpare parts, type: A310, ATR and Boeing\n[440 - 485]\nBased on net book value\nfrom 22 September 2009 (2nd Addendum)\nFlight simulator\n[155 - 170]\nYBN Consult - Znaleck\u00fd \u00fastav s.r.o., Expert opinion of 10 September 2009\nfrom 22 September 2009 (2nd Addendum)\n1 Boeing 737-55s, registration mark: OK CGK\n[140 - 155]\nYBN Consult - Znaleck\u00fd \u00fastav s.r.o., Expert opinion of 7 December 2009\nfrom 9 December 2009 (3rd Addendum)\n2 Boeing 737-55s, registration marks: OK CGH, OK CGJ\n[300 - 330]\nYBN Consult - Znaleck\u00fd \u00fastav s.r.o., Expert opinion of 7 December 2010\nfrom 9 December 2009 (3rd Addendum) until 25 January 2010 (4th Addendum)\nIT\n[80 - 85]\nPROSCON - s.r.o., Expert opinion of 30 November 2009\nfrom 9 December 2009 (3rd Addendum)\n\u2018\u010cSA CZECH AIRLINES\u2019 trademark\n[140 - 155]\nVladimir Cmejla, Expert opinion of 30 November 2009\nfrom 9 December 2009 (3rd Addendum)\n\u010cSA's share in \u010cSA Support, s.r.o.\n[790 - 865]\nPROSCON - s.r.o., Expert opinion of 20 January 2010\nfrom 25 January 2010 (4th Addendum)\n2.2. Scope of this Decision\n(10)\nThe opening decision dated 24 February 2010 refers to the Osinek loan of CZK 2,5 billion on the basis of the loan agreement concluded on 30 April 2009 and assumes that the decollateralisation of the loan on the basis of Czech Government Resolution No 1343 of 26 October 2009 had already been carried out. However, the decollateralisation of the loan and its capitalisation (the debt-for-equity swap) was notified to the Commission on 12 May 2010 (SA.30908 \u010cSA - Czech Airlines - Restructuring plan) and implemented in June 2010. Therefore, this decision deals only with the Osinek loan of CZK 2,5 billion itself on the basis of the loan agreement concluded on 30 April 2009. The assessment of the decollateralisation and subsequent debt-for-equity swap of the Osinek loan will be the subject of the final decision in Case SA.30908.\n2.3. Osinek\n(11)\nOsinek was a financial vehicle corporation founded in order to supervise the closure of coal mines in the Czech Republic and their revitalisation. At the time when the loan was granted, it was 100 %-owned by the Czech authorities under the supervision of the Ministry of Finance. On 5 November 2008 Osinek went into liquidation. Before its liquidation, Osinek still had funds at its disposal, and was reportedly looking for different investment possibilities. The Osinek loan agreement was concluded and signed on 30 April 2009 on behalf of Osinek by its liquidator. In order to identify potential risks associated with the loan, Osinek commissioned an economic analysis of \u010cSA from an independent expert, European Business Consulting spol. s.r.o. (\u2018EBC\u2019), as well as a legal analysis from the law firm, JUDr. Ji\u0159\u00ed Ryb\u00e1\u0159 & JUDr. Pavel \u0160trb\u00edk.\n(12)\nOn 29 September 2009 Osinek and the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic signed an agreement under which Osinek's accounts receivable from \u010cSA arising from the Osinek loan agreement were assigned to the Ministry as a result of the Osinek liquidation procedure. \u010cSA received notice of this assignment on the same day. On 8 March 2010 the Osinek liquidation procedure was completed.\n(13)\nOn 3 May 2010 the Czech Government adopted Resolution No 333 on a restructuring plan for \u010cSA under which the Czech Government instructed the Ministry of Industry and Trade to implement the release of pledges over some of the collateral before the increase of \u010cSA's registered capital. The loan capitalisation (debt-for-equity swap) was legally based on that Resolution and implemented on 30 June 2010.\n2.4. The beneficiary, \u010cSA\n(14)\n\u010cSA has been the national air carrier of the Czech Republic since 1923. It is headquartered in Prague and operates from Prague Ruzyn\u011b airport. \u010cSA is the largest airline based at Prague Ruzyn\u011b airport, accounting for 37 % of the passengers whose trip originates or finishes in Prague. \u010cSA is a member of the Sky Team alliance. Before restructuring, the fleet of \u010cSA comprised 51 aircraft. \u010cSA offers scheduled air transport services (to 104 destinations in 44 countries). \u010cSA also provides charter flights, cargo services, ground handling services (it handles approximately 60 % of all passengers at Prague Ruzyn\u011b airport), aircraft maintenance services, crew training services, catering services, and it operates duty-free shops at Prague Ruzyn\u011b airport and duty-free sales on board.\n2.4.1. Ownership structure\n(15)\n\u010cSA is a state-owned company with 95,69 % of its shares owned by the Czech Republic through the Ministry of Finance. The minority shareholders are \u010cesk\u00e1 poji\u0161\u0165ovna, a.s. (2,26 %), the City of Prague (1,53 %) and the City of Bratislava (0,51 %).\n(16)\nUpon completion of the restructuring process, the State aims to find a strategic partner for \u010cSA. As preparation for the planned privatization, the Czech Government decided to create a new corporate structure under the umbrella of \u010cesk\u00fd Aeroholding, a.s. (\u2018\u010cAH\u2019).\n(17)\nOn 25 October 2011, the Czech competition authority approved the creation of \u010cAH that will include \u010cSA, Prague Ruzyn\u011b airport and \u010cSA's current subsidiaries, i.e. Czech Airlines Handling, Holidays Czech Airlines, Technics and \u010cSA Services s.r.o. \u010cAH's management and structure would comprise elements of a financial holding structure, its purpose being to restructure the companies grouped within the holding to facilitate their access to commercial financing and to prepare them for the upcoming privatisation.\n2.4.2. Financial situation of the company\n(18)\n\u010cSA has experienced difficulties which worsened significantly in 2009 at the peak of the current economic crisis. Although the company did not qualify at any point in time for insolvency proceedings under Czech national law, it experienced a clearly negative trend in the development of its key financial indicators.\nTable 2\n\u010cSA's equity and registered capital, 2006-2008 (CZK thousand)\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nEquity\n938 646\n1 238 093\n101 686\n-2 352 045\nRegistered capital\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\nSource: Annual Reports of \u010cSA\nTable 3\nChanges in \u010cSA's finances (CZK thousand)\n(thousands) CZK\n31.12.2006\n31.12.2007\n31.3.2008\n30.6.2008\n31.12.2008\n31.3.2009\n30.6.2009\n30.9.2009\n31.12.2009\nProfit/Loss\n- 396 951\n206 600\n[- 880 000 - - 800 000]\n[- 180 000 - - 165 000]\n470 057\n[- 1 320 000 - - 1 190 000]\n[- 1 840 000 - - 1 660 000]\n[- 2 625 000 - - 2 365 000]\n-3 756 125\nTurnover (5)\n23 375 950\n23 399 853\n[4 625 000 - 5 080 000]\n[10 175 000 - 11 250 000]\n22 581 692\n[4 385 000 - 4 820 000]\n[9 265 000 - 10 235 000]\n[14 300 000 - 15 830 000]\n19 789 620\nNet cash flow from operations\n- 533 192\n- 275 234\n[- 1 110 000 - - 1 000 000]\n[- 640 000 - - 580 000]\n-1 762 376\n[- 1 230 000 - - 1 115 000]\n[- 1 320 000 - - 1 195 000]\n-\n-3 066 694\nDebt\n6 476 911\n4 391 070\n[4 410 000 - 4 890 000]\n[3 665 000 - 4 065 000]\n6 494 752\n[5 685 000 - 6 285 000]\n[5 550 000 - 6 065 000]\n[6 290 000 - 6 960 000]\n6 581 325\nNet asset value\n11 679 439\n10 161 647\n[8 945 000 - 9 855 000]\n[9 535 000 - 10 065 000]\n10 418 871\n[8 340 000 - 9 255 000]\n[8 990 000 - 9 920 000]\n[8 470 000 - 9 390 000]\n7 948 571\nSource: Financial statements provided by \u010cSA\n(19)\nThe company made profits in 2007 and 2008. However, its business result deteriorated significantly in 2009. Its turnover had diminished slightly over the previous four years, but cash flow was declining considerably. The level of debt was more or less stable. The company was offsetting its losses by the sale of assets, especially in the 2009 financial year.\n(20)\nThe situation of the company worsened in the course of 2009, in particular after the summer, which is traditionally a profitable period for \u010cSA.\n2.5. The opening decision\n(21)\nOn 24 February 2010 the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure. In its decision the Commission expressed doubts as to whether \u010cSA was already in difficulty within the meaning of the Community guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (\u2018the R&R Guidelines\u2019) (6) at the time of receiving the loan.\n(22)\nIn addition, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the conditions of the loan provided by Osinek to \u010cSA, taking into account its financial situation, conferred an economic advantage upon it which the recipient undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions. Furthermore, the Commission questioned whether, if the loan did involve state aid, this aid could be found compatible under the applicable state aid rules, especially the Commission communication Temporary Community Framework for state aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (\u2018the Temporary Framework\u2019) (7). If the Osinek loan was found to involve state aid, the measure would have detrimental effects on competition, i.e. to companies operating routes from Prague Ruzyn\u011b airport or competing with \u010cSA and its subsidiaries in other markets.\n3. COMMENTS FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC\n(23)\nIn reply to the opening decision, the Czech Republic submitted comments in which it argued that the Osinek loan met the \u2018market economy investor principle\u2019 test because it did not provide \u010cSA with undue economic benefits.\n(24)\nIn particular, the Czech Republic is of the opinion that on the date of signing the Osinek loan agreement, \u010cSA was not a firm in difficulty and only became a firm in difficulty as late as August 2009. The Czech Republic argues that despite its growing problems \u010cSA has always been able to secure its viability. However, the situation changed in late 2008 and early 2009 and continued to deteriorate throughout the year due to the global economic recession, which had a severe impact on the world transport markets (8). This, combined with destabilised oil markets and currency fluctuations, contributed to the deterioration of \u010cSA's financial condition.\n(25)\nIn the course of 2009 \u010cSA relied on forecasts based on previous years' results and expected significantly better results in the summer season. None the less, the first half of 2009 results reported to management in mid-August showed a substantial decline in \u010cSA's average revenue for June. In August 2009 it became clear to management that the company was no longer able to operate without immediate cost-cutting measures and financial assistance from external sources.\n(26)\nIn relation to the possible state aid element in the Osinek loan, the Czech Republic maintains that the interest rate meets the requirements of the communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (\u2018the Reference Rate Communication\u2019) (9). In particular, the Czech Republic submits that it was appropriate to use the three-month PRIBOR rate as the base rate to determine the interest of the loan in question given the volatility of the financial markets at the time of signing the Osinek loan agreement.\n(27)\n\u010cSA is not assessed according to rating systems, so the Czech Republic is unable to provide evidence for its assumption that \u010cSA qualified for a B rating at the time when the Osinek loan agreement was signed. However, the Czech Republic refers to a report of 27 April 2009 written by EBC according to which \u010cSA was solvent and creditworthy.\n(28)\nThe Czech Republic reiterates that for the purposes of securing the loan \u010cSA was required to provide collateral amounting to at least 110 % of the loan for its entire duration. Thus, the amount of the loan actually granted to \u010cSA was not at any time to exceed 90 % of the value of all the collateral. The Czech Republic confirmed that this requirement was met in all cases and submitted appraisal reports of assets that were used as collateral for the loan.\n(29)\nIn addition, the Czech Republic argues that the liquidator of Osinek, in view of the fact that Osinek had a considerable amount of available financial resources, sought investment opportunities to generate a return. Before entering into the Osinek loan agreement, the liquidator commissioned the independent consulting company, EBC and the law firm JUDr. Ji\u0159\u00ed Ryb\u00e1\u0159 & JUDr. Pavel \u0160trb\u00edk to draw up an economic and legal analysis of the loan offer. The analysis by EBC confirmed that \u010cSA could be considered solvent and that the risk that lending to \u010cSA might cause loss or harm to Osinek was minimal. Based on this analysis, the liquidator decided that lending to \u010cSA would be an advantageous means of depositing Osinek's available financial resources.\n(30)\nAdditionally, the Czech Republic argues that, even if the Commission found that the terms of the Osinek loan were more favourable than those offered in the market, then the loan would be compatible with the conditions laid down in the Temporary Framework.\n4. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(31)\nDuring the formal investigation procedure the Commission received comments from three interested third parties and from the beneficiary of the measure under investigation, \u010cSA (paragraph 4).\n(32)\n\u010cSA's comments reflect in essence the Czech Republic's comments on the opening decision set out above. \u010cSA reiterates that the Osinek loan was granted on market terms, since Osinek acted as a rational operator in a market economy motivated by commercial rather than economic or social policy objectives. Moreover, \u010cSA comments on the quantification of the possible aid element, should the Commission conclude that the Osinek loan was granted at an advantageous interest rate, i.e., assuming that \u010cSA's rating were worse than \u2018B\u2019 and/or the collateral were not be classified as \u2018high\u2019.\n(33)\nAll of the interested third parties are competitors of \u010cSA and are represented by the same law firm; therefore, their reasoning is identical to some extent. The interested third parties argue that the Osinek loan provided \u010cSA with state aid which enabled the company to compete unfairly by charging prices which the other competitors who have not received any state subsidies cannot offer without losing the capacity to cover their costs and generate a reasonable profit (10).\n(34)\nThe interested third parties argue that \u010cSA was in severe difficulties already before 1 July 2008. Furthermore, they argue that the Osinek loan was provided at a substantially lower interest rate than what a bank would require under similar circumstances, considering the financial situation of \u010cSA, the length of repayment, the quality of the collateral and the low probability of actual repayment. In such circumstances, the Osinek loan would constitute illegal state aid incompatible with EU rules. One competitor who provided comments claims that \u010cSA fulfilled the condition that more than half of its registered capital had disappeared in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Moreover, in the years 2008 and 2009, more than one quarter of the registered capital of \u010cSA had disappeared over the preceding 12 months. The same competitor explains that it may be assumed from the decrease of registered capital of \u010cSA in 2008 that already on 1 July 2008 the company met both conditions for a firm in difficulty within the meaning of point 10(a) of the R&R Guidelines.\n(35)\nThe interested third parties further claim that due to the negative operating cash flow, the plurality of creditors and the existence of financial obligations due and payable within 30 days, it may be assumed that the company suffered from impending insolvency from the end of the year 2007 and should, therefore, qualify as a firm in difficulty since 2007 (pursuant to point 10(c) of the R&R Guidelines).\n5. COMMENTS FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF INTERESTED PARTIES\n(36)\nThe Czech Republic disagreed with the comments of the interested third parties and agreed with the comments of \u010cSA. The Czech Republic maintained its argument that the Osinek loan was granted on market terms and in accordance with the Reference Rate Communication. Furthermore, the Czech authorities argue that \u010cSA was able to operate without state aid until the second half of 2009. The condition of \u010cSA's assets was not seriously impaired even in the first half of 2009, and its value actually increased from CZK [8 340-9 255] million in the first quarter of 2009 to CZK [8 990-9 920] million in the second quarter of 2009.\n(37)\nThe Czech Republic notes that, although \u010cSA publishes the results of its operations compiled in accordance with both Czech Accounting Standards (\u2018CAS\u2019) and International Financial Reporting Standards (\u2018IFRS\u2019), the interested third parties based their comments solely on results compiled in accordance with CAS, the methodology of which does not provide a true picture of the company's operations. Accounts compiled in accordance with IFRS provide better information about the company's financial condition and are therefore more appropriate. \u010cSA is using CAS because of its obligation under Czech tax laws. However, \u010cSA's activities are not limited to the Czech Republic but are global, which is why \u010cSA has been using IFRS as well. The Czech Republic points out that IFRS are applied by banks in their lending decisions because they are considered to be more precise than CAS.\n(38)\nFinally, the Czech Republic provided evidence showing that at the time when the Osinek loan was granted \u010cSA did not fulfil the conditions for insolvency under the Czech Insolvency Act (11).\n6. PRESENCE OF STATE AID\n(39)\nBy virtue of Article 107(1) TFEU, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever, which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\n(40)\nThe criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are cumulative. Therefore, in order to determine whether the notified measures constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU all of the following conditions must be fulfilled. The financial support would have to:\n-\nbe granted by the State or through state resources;\n-\nconfer an economic advantage on the recipient;\n-\nfavour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods;\n-\ndistort or threaten to distort competition; and\n-\naffect trade between Member States.\n6.1. State resources and imputability\n(41)\nThe concept of state aid applies to any advantage granted directly or indirectly, financed out of state resources, granted by the State itself or by any intermediary body acting by virtue of powers conferred on it.\n(42)\nTherefore, it has to be established, first, whether the Osinek loan must be regarded as state resources. As mentioned above, Osinek was, at the time when the loan was granted, 100 %-owned by the Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic and, for this reason, irrespective of its corporate or any other legal status, it is a public undertaking within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as financial transparency within certain undertakings (12). Thus, the Commission considers that the Osinek loan is financed from state resources.\n(43)\nHowever, the Court of Justice has also ruled that, even if the State is in a position to control a public undertaking and to exercise a dominant influence over its operations, actual exercise of that control in a particular case cannot be automatically presumed. A public undertaking may act with more or less independence, according to the degree of autonomy left to it by the State. Therefore, the mere fact that a public undertaking is under state control is not sufficient for measures taken by that undertaking, such as the loan agreement in question, to be considered imputable to the State. It is also necessary to examine whether the public authorities must be regarded as having been involved, in some way or other, in the adoption of this measure. On that point, the Court indicated that the imputability to the State of a measure taken by a public undertaking may be inferred from a set of indicators arising from the circumstances of the case and the context in which that measure was taken (13).\n(44)\nSuch indicators can be the integration of the undertaking into the structures of the public administration, the nature of its activities and the exercise of the latter on the market in normal conditions of competition with private operators, the legal status of the undertaking (in the sense of its being subject to public law or ordinary company law), the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking, or any other indicator showing, in the particular case, an involvement by the public authorities in the adoption of a measure or the unlikelihood of their not being involved, having regard also to the scope of the measure, its content or the conditions which it contains.\n(45)\nThe Commission notes that the majority of Osinek Supervisory Board members are representatives of public authorities (such as the Ministry of Finance).\n(46)\nOsinek went into liquidation on 5 November 2008 by virtue of the decision of its sole shareholder of the same date. Although, under Czech law, the liquidator has to act on his/her own and without instructions from the company's bodies during the liquidation process, the Commission further notes that the liquidator was appointed by the Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic acting as the sole shareholder of Osinek.\n(47)\nIn addition, the Czech authorities have provided the Commission with expert opinions from JUDr. Ji\u0159\u00ed Ryb\u00e1\u0159 and JUDr. Pavel \u0160trb\u00edk which recommended that before taking the decision to grant a loan to \u010cSA the liquidator of Osinek should consult Osinek's shareholder, i.e. the Czech Republic.\n(48)\nAs regards the supervision of the activities of Osinek by the State, the Commission further observes that the Czech Government subsequently also took the decision to decollateralise the Osinek loan and swap the debt for \u010cSA's equity by Resolution No 333.\n(49)\nTherefore, the Commission concludes that the decision to grant the Osinek loan is imputable to the Czech State. The Osinek loan must, therefore, be regarded as being financed from state resources.\n6.2. Economic advantage\n(50)\nThe Commission notes that, according to well-established principles of EU law, if additional capital is made available by the State to an undertaking on conditions better than normal market conditions, this could fall within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU, as it would result in favouring the particular undertaking within the meaning of that Article. In order to determine whether an undertaking has been granted an economic advantage by the State which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions, the Commission applies the \u2018market economy investor principle\u2019 (\u2018the MEIP\u2019) (14).\n(51)\nAccording to that principle, no state aid would be involved where, in similar circumstances, a private investor of a comparable size to that of the bodies operating in the public sector could, while operating in normal market conditions of a market economy, have been prompted to make the capital contribution in question. The Commission must therefore assess whether a private investor would have entered into the transaction in question on the same terms. The projected behaviour of the hypothetical private investor is that of a prudent investor whose goal of profit maximisation is tempered by caution about the level of risk acceptable for a given rate of return. According to this principle, capital put at the disposal of a company by the State, directly or indirectly, in circumstances which correspond to the normal conditions of the market, should not be regarded as state aid (15).\n(52)\nAccording to established case law, the MEIP is applicable to loans. When applied to the grant of a loan, this principle raises the question of whether a private investor would have granted the loan to the beneficiary on the terms on which it was actually granted (16). In this respect, the Commission assesses whether the loan is made on normal commercial terms and whether such loans would have been available from a commercial bank. With regard to the terms of such loans, the Commission takes into account in particular both the interest rate charged and the security sought to cover the loan. The Commission assesses whether the security given is sufficient to repay the loan in full in the event of default and the financial position of the company at the time when the loan is made (17).\n(53)\nThe Commission notes that \u010cSA is a legal person engaged in economic activities and is therefore regarded as an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU. In order to determine whether the Osinek loan was granted on favourable conditions or on market conditions, the Commission verified the compliance of the interest rate for the loan in question with the Commission reference rate as laid down in the Reference Rate Communication, which is applied as a proxy for the market rate.\n(54)\nAs regards the relevant date to be taken into account when comparing the interest rate of the loan in question with the reference rate, the Commission already expressed its opinion in the opening decision that this should be the date of the legally binding act according to which the loan was granted, i.e. 30 April 2009 (date of conclusion of the loan agreement between Osinek and \u010cSA).\n(55)\nThe Czech Republic claims that, at that time, \u010cSA still had access to external financing by private banks and became a firm in difficulties only in August 2009. In early 2009 \u010cSA's creditworthiness corresponded to rating category B.\n(56)\nIn order to verify the claims of the Czech Republic, the Commission consulted several private banks having business relations with \u010cSA on their internal rating for \u010cSA in the first six months of 2009, the changes of the internal rating for \u010cSA between July 2008 and July 2009, the conditions of loans which were granted to \u010cSA in the first six months of 2009, and other comments concerning \u010cSA's creditworthiness in the first six months of 2009. Three private banks provided information on the condition that the information would be held in confidence, would be used only for the Commission's internal assessment and would not be disclosed to any third party, including \u010cSA and the Czech authorities.\n(57)\nAlthough all of these banks acknowledged the worsening of \u010cSA's financial situation in early 2009, working capital loans and credit facilities were provided to \u010cSA during the first half of 2009. The internal rating for \u010cSA of the three private banks corresponds roughly to a B rating.\n(58)\nThe Commission notes that the banks' answers are consistent and sound. Although the internal ranking of the company deteriorated, the downgrading does not seem significant enough to justify a higher risk margin.\n(59)\nIn addition, the Commission observes that, as already indicated in the opening decision and based on the information provided by the Czech Republic, UniCreditBank provided a working capital, medium-term loan (4 years) of CZK 200 million to \u010cSA in September 2008, secured by a flight simulator. On 25 June 2009, due to the deviation from the financial indicators agreed in the loan agreement, UniCreditBank increased the risk margin for the \u010cSA loan from 160 basis points (agreed in September 2008) to 325 basis points above the one-month PRIBOR (i.e. an interest rate of 5,10 % p.a. on 25 June 2009). The Commission notes that this interest rate, which reflected the recent worsening of \u010cSA's financial situation, is below the interest rate of the Osinek loan (5,51 % p.a.) and corresponds approximately to a reference rate for a company with a B rating (with high collateralisation).\n(60)\nIn view of the above, it can be concluded that, in principle, \u010cSA had access to external financing at the time the Osinek loan was granted and that \u010cSA's creditworthiness in the first half of 2009 corresponded to a B rating.\n(61)\nThe collateral used to secure the loan comprised buildings located at Prague Ruzyn\u011b Airport, land, inventories and spare parts. The market value of the collateral was established by independent experts from the Czech Republic, who are registered either in the Register of Expert Institutes or the Central Register of Authorised Experts maintained by the Czech Ministry of Justice and have experience in the field of the evaluation of assets (18).\n(62)\nThe Commission notes that the date of the appraisal report for the collateral Hangar F (see Table 1) is 1 June 2009, whereas the first tranche of the Osinek loan was paid on 11 May 2009. The Czech authorities have submitted a declaration by YBN Consult, dated 6 May 2009, which confirms the value of the collateral used. Such a declaration is in line with paragraph 5.9.11 of the Osinek loan agreement provided that the complete appraisal report is submitted within one month from the date of payment of the first tranche. The Commission notes that this condition was fulfilled.\n(63)\nFurthermore, the Commission has critically evaluated the submitted appraisal reports. The evaluations give no cause for concern since no manifest errors have been detected, accepted methodologies are applied and the evaluations are based on credible assumptions. Therefore, the Commission considers that the results of the present appraisal reports are an appropriate approximation for the realistic market prices of the assets used as collateral for the Osinek loan. For one type of collateral (the spare parts), the value was based on their net book value. The Commission considers that this valuation method is appropriate for this type of asset given that spare parts can easily be traded and their value should therefore correspond to their original acquisition cost less accumulated depreciation.\n(64)\nThe loan agreement stipulated that the actual loan amount must not exceed 90 % of the value of the collateral, i.e. the value of the collateral must be at least equal to 110 % of the loan amount. Based on the submitted information, at the time when the first tranche was granted in May 2009, the value of the original collateral as agreed in the loan agreement of 30 April 2009 was at least [110-117] %; at the time when the second tranche was granted in July 2009 at least [120-132] %; and at the time when the third tranche was granted in September 2009 at least [128-141] %. In addition, by several addendums to the Osinek loan agreement (see recital 8) additional collateral assets were added and some assets were released.\nTable 4\nOverview of collateralisation at different time periods of the Osinek loan\nDate of change\nAmount drawn\n(CZK million)\nValue of collateral (CZK million)\n% level of collateral\n11 May 2009\n800\n[880-935]\n[110-117] %\n23 July 2009\n800\n[1 350 - 1 485]\n[169-186] %\n30 July 2009\n1 700\n[2 040 - 2 240]\n[120-132] %\n22 September 2009\n1 700\n[2 485 - 2 760]\n[146-162] %\n24 September 2009\n2 500\n[3 190 - 3 535]\n[128-141] %\n9 December 2009\n2 500\n[3 275 - 3 615]\n[131-145] %\n25 January 2010\n2 500\n[3 310 - 3 640]\n[132-146] %\n(65)\nThe Reference Rate Communication assumes that \u2018high\u2019 collateralisation implies a loss given default below or equal to 30 %, which corresponds to a value of the collateral of at least 70 % of the loan amount. The Commission notes that the collateralisation provided for the loan is significantly higher, which creates an important safety margin as regards any possible deviation in the estimates of the value of the collateral.\n(66)\nThe appropriate interest rate following the Reference Rate Communication at that time would be 5,16 % p.a. (base rate 2,96 % + 220 basis points = 5,16 % p.a.). The margin of 220 basis points reflects a B rating as confirmed by the private banks and the high collateralisation described above.\n(67)\nThat rate is lower than the applied interest rate for the Osinek loan (three-month PRIBOR (19) + 300 basis points), which on 30 April 2009 came to 5,51 % p.a.\n(68)\nAn analysis of the applied rate (three-month PRIBOR plus 300 basis points) and the reference rate plus a margin of 220 basis points shows that these rates are comparable in terms of the methodology of the base as well as of the overall level of the applied rates, including the relevant risk margin.\n(69)\nPRIBOR is the reference value of the interest rates on the market of interbank deposits which is calculated (fixed) from the quotations of the reference banks for the sale of deposits (i.e. offers) by the calculation agent for the Czech National Bank and for the Czech Forex Club (Financial Markets Association of the Czech Republic - A.C.I.) (20).\n(70)\nThe rate for the Osinek loan is based on PRIBOR calculated for the maturity of 3 months. The reference rate is based on one-year money market rates. However, the Commission reserves the right to use shorter or longer maturities adapted to certain cases.\n(71)\nAn analysis of the development of the two rates during the lifetime of the Osinek loan (April 2009 to June 2010) shows that the two rates are indeed comparable. The average rates (21) for the period from April 2009 to June 2010 are nearly the same (4,77 % for the PRIBOR + 300 basis points; 4,79 % for the reference rate including a risk margin of 220 basis points). The small difference between two basis points is due to the different method of adjustment. PRIBOR is adjusted on a daily basis; the reference rate is adjusted only every few months.\n(72)\nAgainst this background, the applied interest rate can be accepted as an appropriate proxy for a market rate. On the basis of the Reference Rate Communication, the measure is in line with the market and does not, therefore, involve an economic advantage to \u010cSA.\n(73)\nFinally, the Commission notes that the payments of interest by \u010cSA to the creditor were executed in full compliance with the terms of the Osinek loan agreement (22).\n6.3. Selectivity\n(74)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU requires that a measure, in order to be defined as state aid, must favour \u2018certain undertakings or the production of certain goods\u2019. In the case at issue, the Commission notes that the Osinek loan was granted to \u010cSA only. Thus, it is selective within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n6.4. Distortion of competition and effect on trade\n(75)\nWith regard to the cumulative criteria of state aid, in the current case the effect on intra-EU trade and distortion of competition of the contested measure are indisputable and were not even contested by the Czech authorities. \u010cSA is in competition with other European Union airlines, in particular since the entry into force of the third stage of liberalisation of air transport (\u2018third package\u2019) on 1 January 1993. The measures in question enabled \u010cSA to continue operating so that it did not have to face, as other competitors did, the consequences normally deriving from its poor financial results.\n6.5. Conclusion\n(76)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission considers that the measure does not involve any state aid to \u010cSA as the Osinek loan was provided under conditions that a market economy investor would require. In particular, the interest rate at which the Osinek loan was granted in conformity with the reference rate determined on the basis of the Reference Rate Communication in view of the fact that \u010cSA had a B rating at the time when the loan was granted, which was confirmed by private banks and the loan was secured the whole time by collateralisation significantly higher than the 70 % of the loan amount stipulated in the Reference Rate Communication.\n7. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET\n(77)\nThe Commission nevertheless also analysed whether, if the loan were considered to involve state aid, the measure would be compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, on the basis of the Temporary Framework.\n(78)\nThe Osinek loan was granted in 2009. The measure aims therefore at facilitating the access of a firm to external finance at a period of time when the normal functioning of credit markets is severely disturbed because of the financial crisis and when the financial crisis (\u2018credit crunch\u2019) is affecting the wider economy and leading to severe disturbances of the economy of Member States.\n(79)\nOn 17 December 2008 the Commission addressed this crisis by adopting the Temporary Framework. In it the Commission acknowledged the \u2018seriousness of the current financial crisis and its impact on the overall economy of the Member States\u2019. The Commission further concluded \u2018that certain categories of state aid are justified, for a limited period, to remedy these difficulties and that they may be declared compatible with the common market on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.\u2019\n7.1. Compliance with Section 4.4.2 of the Temporary Framework\n(80)\nThe measure must be assessed against the requirements of Section 4.4.2 of the Temporary Framework (\u2018Aid in the form of subsidised interest rate\u2019).\n(81)\nAccording to the Temporary Framework, the interest rate applied must be at least equal to the central bank overnight rate plus a premium equal to the difference between the average one-year interbank rate and the average of the central bank overnight rate over the period 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2008, plus the credit risk premium corresponding to the risk profile of the recipient, as stipulated by the Reference Rate Communication.\n(82)\nThe overnight rate for the Czech Republic on 30 April 2009 was 1,45 % (23). The difference between the average one-year interbank rate and the average of the central bank overnight rate over the period from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2008 was 68 basis points.\n(83)\nThe credit risk premium corresponding to the risk profile of the recipient was 220 basis points. This premium is based on a B rating (see recital 57) and a high level of collateralisation given the collateral offered (see recitals 64 and 65).\n(84)\nUnder the Temporary Framework the minimum rate would therefore be 4,33 % (1,45 % + 0,68 % + 2,20 %). The actual rate for the Osinek loan was 5,51 %. As a result, the Osinek loan was granted at a rate higher than the minimum allowed under the Temporary Framework.\n(85)\nFurthermore, Section 4.4 of the Temporary Framework requires two additional conditions to be fulfilled for a loan to be considered to be compatible aid:\n(86)\nFirst, the contract must have been concluded by 31 December 2010 at the latest. The reduced interest rates may be applied to interest payments before 31 December 2012.\n(87)\nThe Osinek loan agreement was concluded on 30 April 2009. The loan was supposed to be paid back in one single payment on 30 November 2010. The loan contract therefore fulfils the first condition.\n(88)\nSecond, the beneficiary must not have been in difficulty on 1 July 2008.\n(89)\nPoint 9 of the R&R Guidelines states that there is no EU definition of what constitutes a firm in difficulty and adds that the Commission regards a firm as being in difficulty where it is unable, whether through its own resources or with the funds it is able to obtain from its owners/shareholders or creditors, to stem losses which, without outside intervention by the public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to going out of business in the short or medium term.\n(90)\nSubsequently, point 10(b) of the R&R Guidelines clarifies that a firm is regarded as being in difficulty, in the case of a company where at least some members have unlimited liability for the debt of the company, where more than half of its registered capital has disappeared and more than one quarter of that capital has been lost over the preceding 12 months.\n(91)\nIn 2008 \u010cSA's registered capital totalled CZK 2 735 million. Based on the CAS standard, the company's equity fell to CZK 101 million in the same year.\nTable 5\nEquity and registered capital in 2007 and 2008 (CZK thousand)\nSource: Financial statements provided by \u010cSA\n2007\n6/07\n7/07\n8/07\n9/07\n10/07\n11/07\n12/07\nEquity\n[1 035 000 - 1 140 000]\n[1 415 000 - 1 555 000]\n[1 450 000 - 1 595 000]\n[1 410 000 - 1 565 000]\n[1 950 000 - 2 145 000]\n[1 260 000 - 1 390 000]\n1 238 093\nRegistered capital\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2008\n1/08\n2/08\n3/08\n4/08\n5/08\n6/08\nEquity\n[585 000 - 645 000]\n[385 000 - 420 000]\n[110 000 - 120 000]\n[690 000 - 755 000]\n[860 000 - 950 000]\n[965 000 - 1 065 000]\nRegistered capital\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n7/08\n8/08\n9/08\n10/08\n11/08\n12/08\nEquity\n[945 000 - 1 030 000]\n[1 220 000 - 1 340 000]\n[1 270 000 - 1 410 000]\n[1 295 000 - 1 430 000]\n[610 000 - 670 000]\n101 686\nRegistered capital\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n2 735 510\n(92)\nAlthough more than half of the registered capital of the company had already disappeared on 1 July 2008, the second condition of point 10(a) of the R&R Guidelines - that more than one quarter of the registered capital must have been lost over the preceding 12 months - is not fulfilled. The equity lost between June 2007 and July 2008 (CZK [31 570 000-34 875 000]) corresponds to only [0,8-1,5] % of the registered capital.\n(93)\nFurthermore, point 10(c) of the R&R Guidelines considers a company to be in difficulty where it fulfils the criteria under its domestic law for being the subject of collective insolvency proceedings. The Czech authorities confirmed that \u010cSA was not eligible for insolvency proceedings under paragraph 3 of the Czech Insolvency Act.\n(94)\nAccording to point 11 of the R&R Guidelines, even when none of the circumstances set out in point 10 of those Guidelines are present, a firm may still be considered to be in difficulties, in particular where the usual signs of a firm being in difficulty are present, such as increasing losses, diminishing turnover, growing stock inventories, excess capacity, declining cash flow, mounting debt, rising interest charges and falling or nil net asset value.\n(95)\nThe changes in \u010cSA's financial results during the relevant period did not show a clear negative trend (see Table 3). The company made a loss at the end of 2006, but recuperated and showed a positive result for 2007. A loss of CZK [800-880] million was subsequently recorded at the end of the first quarter of 2008. However, the situation improved by the end of the second quarter, i.e. by 30 June 2008. A similar trend can be observed in the cash-flow situation. \u010cSA's turnover diminished slowly on a yearly basis over the observed period. However, it cannot be concluded that the turnover diminished significantly before 30 June 2008.\n(96)\nThe debt of the company was reduced between March 2008 and June 2008, and then increased in the following six months. Finally, the value of the assets fluctuated over the observed period without any clear trend.\n(97)\nIn conclusion, the trend in the financial criteria as set out in point 11 of the R&R Guidelines does not clearly point to all the usual signs of a firm being in difficulty before 30 June 2008. Furthermore, \u010cSA still had access to finance at that time, as demonstrated by the fact that it was able to obtain a loan from a private bank in September 2008 (see recital 59).\n(98)\nThe Commission observes that aid compatible under Section 4.4 of the Temporary Framework may be granted to firms that were not in difficulty on 1 July 2008 but entered into difficulty thereafter as a result of the global financial and economic crisis. Therefore, the fact that \u010cSA became a firm in difficulty at a later date is without prejudice to the compatibility under the Temporary Framework.\n(99)\nConsequently, the Commission considers that \u010cSA was not a firm in difficulty on 1 July 2008 and that it was therefore eligible for the application of the Temporary Framework.\n7.2. Conclusion\n(100)\nIn view of the above, the Osinek loan fulfils all the conditions outlined in Section 4.4 of the Temporary Framework. Therefore, even if the Osinek loan were deemed to involve state aid, the measure would still be compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.\n8. CONCLUSION\n(101)\nThe Commission concludes that the Osinek loan does not involve any state aid. Moreover, even if the Osinek loan were deemed to involve state aid, the measure would still be compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.\n(102)\nThis Decision does not cover the decollateralisation and the capitalisation of the Osinek loan of 30 June 2010. The assessment of this measure will be the subject of the final decision in Case SA.30908,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe measure which the Czech Republic has implemented for \u010cesk\u00e9 aerolinie, a. s. in the form of a loan totalling CZK 2,5 billion provided by Osinek a.s. on the basis of the loan agreement of 30 April 2009 does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, even if it did, it is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) of that Treaty.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Czech Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2012.", "references": ["27", "99", "37", "63", "32", "42", "67", "3", "66", "44", "86", "80", "10", "26", "0", "50", "55", "4", "95", "98", "20", "65", "41", "77", "35", "93", "79", "21", "19", "49", "No Label", "15", "29", "48", "57", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "29", "48", "57", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU, EURATOM) No 617/2010\nof 24 June 2010\nconcerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 736/96\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 337 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 187 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nObtaining an overall picture of the development of investment in energy infrastructure in the Union is essential for the Commission to perform its tasks in the field of energy. The availability of regular and up-to-date data and information should enable the Commission to make the necessary comparisons, evaluations or to propose relevant measures based on appropriate figures and analysis, in particular concerning the future energy supply-demand balance.\n(2)\nThe energy landscape within and outside the Union has changed significantly in recent years and makes investment in energy infrastructure a crucial issue for securing the Union\u2019s energy supply, for the functioning of the internal market and for the transition towards a low-carbon energy system the Union has begun.\n(3)\nThe new energy context requires significant investment in all kinds of infrastructure in all energy sectors as well as the development of new types of infrastructure and new technologies to be taken up by the market. The liberalisation of the energy sector and the further integration of the internal market give a more prominent role to economic operators for investment. At the same time, new policy requirements such as targets affecting the fuel mix will alter Member States\u2019 policies towards new and/or modernised energy infrastructure.\n(4)\nIn this context, greater attention should be paid to investment in energy infrastructure in the Union, in particular with a view to anticipating problems, promoting best practices and establishing greater transparency on the future development of the Union\u2019s energy system.\n(5)\nThe Commission and in particular its Market Observatory for Energy should therefore have at its disposal accurate data and information on investment projects, including decommissioning, in the most significant components of the energy system of the Union.\n(6)\nData and information regarding foreseeable developments in production, transmission and storage capacities and projects in the various energy sectors are of interest to the Union and important to future investment. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the Commission is notified of investment projects on which construction or decommissioning work has started or on which a final investment decision has been taken.\n(7)\nPursuant to Articles 41 and 42 of the Euratom Treaty, undertakings are under an obligation to notify their investment projects. It is necessary to supplement such information with, in particular, a regular reporting on the implementation of investment projects. Such additional reporting is without prejudice to Articles 41 to 44 of the Euratom Treaty.\n(8)\nIn order for the Commission to have a consistent view of the future developments of the Union\u2019s energy system as a whole, a harmonised reporting framework for investment projects based on updated categories for official data and information to be transmitted by the Member States is necessary.\n(9)\nMember States should, to this end, notify to the Commission, data and information on investment projects in energy infrastructure concerning production, storage and transport of oil, natural gas, electricity, including electricity from renewable sources, bio-fuels and the capture and storage of carbon dioxide planned or under construction in their territory, including interconnections with third countries. Undertakings concerned should be under an obligation to notify to the Member State the data and information in question.\n(10)\nGiven the time horizon of investment projects in the energy sector, reporting every two years should be sufficient.\n(11)\nWith a view to avoiding disproportionate administrative burdens and to minimise costs to Member States and undertakings in particular for small and medium enterprises, this Regulation should give the possibility to exempt Member States and undertakings from reporting obligations provided that equivalent information is supplied to the Commission pursuant to energy sector-specific legal acts, adopted by the institutions of the Union, aiming at achieving the objectives of competitive energy markets in the Union, of sustainability of the energy system of the Union and of the security of energy supply to the Union. Any duplication of reporting requirements specified in the third internal market package for electricity and natural gas should therefore be avoided.\n(12)\nTo process data as well as to simplify and secure data notification, the Commission and in particular its Market Observatory for Energy should be able to take all appropriate measures to that effect, in particular the operation of integrated IT tools and procedures.\n(13)\nThe protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Member States is governed by Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), while the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Commission is governed by Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2). This Regulation leaves those provisions intact.\n(14)\nMember States, or their delegated entities, and the Commission should preserve the confidentiality of commercially sensitive data and information. Therefore, Member States or their delegated entities should, with the exception of data and information related to crossborder transmission projects, aggregate such data and information at national level before submitting it to the Commission. If required the Commission should further aggregate this data in such a way that no details concerning individual undertakings and installations are disclosed or can be inferred.\n(15)\nThe Commission and in particular its Market Observatory for Energy should provide a regular and cross-sector analysis of the structural evolution and perspectives of the Union energy system and, where appropriate, more focused analysis on certain aspects of this energy system. This analysis should in particular contribute to identifying possible infrastructure and investment gaps in view of an energy supply and demand balance. The analysis should also form a contribution to a discussion at Union level about energy infrastructures and should therefore be forwarded to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee and made available to interested parties.\n(16)\nThe Commission may be assisted by experts from Member States or any other competent experts, with a view to developing a common understanding of potential infrastructure gaps and associated risks and to fostering transparency regarding future developments.\n(17)\nBuilding as far as possible on the notification format used under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2386/96 (3) which is applying Council Regulation (EC) No 736/96 of 22 April 1996 on notifying the Commission of investment projects of interest to the Community in the petroleum, natural gas and electricity sectors (4), and after consultation of national experts, the technical measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted by the Commission.\n(18)\nGiven the extent of amendments necessary to adapt it to today\u2019s energy challenges and for the sake of clarity, Regulation (EC) No 736/96 should be repealed and replaced by a new Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation establishes a common framework for the notification to the Commission of data and information on investment projects in energy infrastructure in the oil, natural gas, electricity, including electricity from renewable sources, and bio-fuel sectors, and on investment projects related to the capture and storage of carbon dioxide produced by these sectors.\n2. This Regulation shall apply to investment projects of the types listed in the Annex on which construction or decommissioning work has started or on which a final investment decision has been taken.\nMember States may furthermore submit any estimated data or preliminary information on investment projects of the types listed in the Annex on which construction work is scheduled to start within five years and to those which are scheduled to be decommissioned within three years, but for which a final investment decision has not been taken.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018infrastructure\u2019 means any type of installations or part of installations related to production, transmission and storage;\n2.\n\u2018investment projects\u2019 means projects aiming at:\n(i)\nbuilding new infrastructure;\n(ii)\ntransforming, modernising, increasing or reducing capacities of existing infrastructure;\n(iii)\npartial or total decommissioning of existing infrastructure;\n3.\n\u2018final investment decision\u2019 means the decision taken at the level of an undertaking to definitively earmark funds towards the investment phase of a project, the investment phase meaning the phase during which construction or decommissioning takes place and capital costs are incurred. The investment phase excludes the planning phase, during which project implementation is prepared and which includes, where appropriate, a feasibility assessment, preparatory and technical studies, obtaining licences and authorisations and incurring capital costs;\n4.\n\u2018investment projects under construction\u2019 means investment projects for which construction has started and capital costs are incurred;\n5.\n\u2018decommissioning\u2019 means the phase where an infrastructure is permanently taken out of operation;\n6.\n\u2018production\u2019 means the generation of electricity and the processing of fuels, including bio-fuels;\n7.\n\u2018transmission\u2019 means the transport of energy sources or products or carbon dioxide, through a network, in particular:\n(i)\nthrough pipelines, other than upstream pipeline network and other than the part of pipelines primarily used in the context of local distribution; or\n(ii)\nthrough extra high voltage and high-voltage interconnected systems and other than the systems primarily used in the context of local distribution;\n8.\n\u2018storage\u2019 means the stocking on a permanent or temporary basis of energy or energy sources in above-ground or underground infrastructure or geological sites or containment of carbon dioxide in underground geological formations;\n9.\n\u2018undertaking\u2019 means any natural or legal private or public person, deciding or implementing investment projects;\n10.\n\u2018energy sources\u2019 means:\n(i)\nprimary energy sources, such as oil, natural gas or coal;\n(ii)\ntransformed energy sources, such as electricity;\n(iii)\nrenewable energy sources including hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, wind, solar, tidal, wave and geothermal energy; and\n(iv)\nenergy products, such as refined oil products and bio-fuels;\n11.\n\u2018specific body\u2019 means a body entrusted by any energy sector-specific legal act of the Union with the preparation and adoption of Union-wide multi-annual network development and investment plans in energy infrastructure, such as the European network of transmission system operators for electricity (\u2018ENTSO-E\u2019) referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity (5) and the European network for transmission system operators for gas (\u2018ENTSO-G\u2019) referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks (6).\nArticle 3\nNotification of data\n1. While keeping the collection and reporting burden proportionate, Member States or the entities to which they delegate this task to shall compile all data and information specified in this Regulation from 1 January 2011 and from then onwards every two years.\nThey shall notify the data and relevant project information specified in this Regulation to the Commission in 2011, that year being the first reporting year, and from then onwards every two years. This notification shall be made in aggregated form, except for data and relevant information relating to crossborder transmission projects.\nMember States or their delegated entities shall notify aggregated data and relevant project information by 31 July of the reporting year concerned.\n2. Member States or their delegated entities are exempted from the obligations set out in paragraph 1, provided that, and to the extent that, pursuant to energy sector-specific Union law or the Euratom Treaty:\n(a)\nthe concerned Member State or its delegated entity has already notified to the Commission data or information equivalent to the requirements of this Regulation and has indicated the date of the notification and the specific legal act concerned; or\n(b)\na specific body is entrusted with the preparation of a multi-annual investment plan in energy infrastructure at Union level and compiles to this end data and information equivalent to the requirements of this Regulation. In this case and for the purposes of this Regulation, the specific body shall notify all the relevant data and information to the Commission.\nArticle 4\nData sources\nThe undertakings concerned shall notify the data or information referred to in Article 3 to the Member States, or their delegated entities, in whose territory they are planning to carry out investment projects before 1 June of each reporting year. The data or information notified shall reflect the situation of investment projects as of 31 March of the relevant reporting year.\nThe first paragraph shall not apply to undertakings where the Member State concerned decides to use other means of supplying the Commission with the data or information referred to in Article 3.\nArticle 5\nContent of the notification\n1. With regard to investment projects of the types listed in the Annex, the notification provided for in Article 3 shall indicate, where appropriate:\n(a)\nthe volume of the capacities planned or under construction;\n(b)\nthe type and main characteristics of infrastructure or capacities planned or under construction, including the location of crossborder transmission projects, if applicable;\n(c)\nthe probable year of commissioning;\n(d)\nthe type of energy sources used;\n(e)\nthe installations capable of responding to security of supply crises, such as equipment enabling reverse flows or fuel switching; and\n(f)\nthe equipment of carbon capture systems or retrofitting mechanisms for carbon capture and storage.\n2. With regard to any proposed decommissioning of capacities, the notification provided for in Article 3 shall indicate:\n(a)\nthe character and the capacity of the infrastructure concerned; and\n(b)\nthe probable year of decommissioning.\n3. Any notification under Article 3 shall include where appropriate the total volume of installed production, transmission and storage capacities which are in place at the beginning of the reporting year concerned or whose operation is interrupted for a period exceeding three years.\nMember States, their delegated entities or the specific body referred to in Article 3(2)(b) may add to their notifications relevant comments, such as comments on delays or obstacles to the implementation of investment projects.\nArticle 6\nQuality and publicity of data\n1. Member States, their delegated entities or, where appropriate, the specific bodies shall aim to ensure the quality, relevance, accuracy, clarity, timeliness and coherence of data and information they notify to the Commission.\nIn case of specific bodies, the data and information notified may be accompanied by appropriate comments from Member States.\n2. The Commission may publish data and information forwarded pursuant to this Regulation, in particular in analyses referred to in Article 10(3), provided that the data and information are published in an aggregated form and that no details concerning individual undertakings and installations are disclosed or can be inferred.\n3. Member States, the Commission, or their delegated entities shall each preserve the confidentiality of commercially sensitive data or information in their possession.\nArticle 7\nImplementing provisions\nWithin the limits laid down by this Regulation, the Commission shall adopt, by 31 October 2010, the provisions necessary for the implementation of this Regulation, concerning the form and other technical details of the notification of data and information referred to in Articles 3 and 5.\nArticle 8\nData processing\nThe Commission shall be responsible for developing, hosting, managing and maintaining the IT resources needed to receive, store and carry out any processing of the data or information on energy infrastructure notified to the Commission pursuant to this Regulation.\nArticle 9\nProtection of individuals with regards to the processing of data\nThis Regulation is without prejudice to Union law and, in particular, does not alter Member States\u2019 obligations with regard to the processing of personal data, as laid down by Directive 95/46/EC, or the obligations incumbent upon the Union\u2019s institutions and bodies under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 with regard to the processing of personal data by them in the course of their duties.\nArticle 10\nMonitoring and reporting\n1. On the basis of data and information forwarded and, if appropriate, of any other data sources including data purchased by the Commission, and taking into account relevant analyses such as the multi-annual network development plans for gas and for electricity, the Commission shall forward to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the European Economic and Social Committee and shall publish every two years a cross-sector analysis of the structural evolution and perspectives of the energy system of the Union. This analysis shall aim in particular at:\n(a)\nidentifying potential future gaps between energy demand and supply that are of significance from an energy policy perspective of the Union;\n(b)\nidentifying investment obstacles and promoting best practices to address them; and\n(c)\nincreasing transparency for market participants and potential market entrants.\nOn the basis of this data and information, the Commission may also provide any specific analysis deemed necessary or appropriate.\n2. In preparing the analyses referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission may be assisted by experts from Member States and/or any other experts, professional associations with specific competence in the area concerned.\nThe Commission shall provide all Member States with an opportunity to comment on the draft analyses.\n3. The Commission shall discuss the analyses with interested parties, such as ENTSO-E, ENTSO-G, the Gas Coordination Group and the Oil Supply Group.\nArticle 11\nReview\n\u2018By 23 July 2015, the Commission shall review the implementation of this Regulation, and present a report on the results of this review to the European Parliament and to the Council.\u2019. In the review, the Commission shall, inter alia, examine the possible extension of the scope to include the extraction of gas, oil and coal.\nArticle 12\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 736/96 shall be repealed.\nArticle 13\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 June 2010.", "references": ["97", "43", "76", "89", "94", "28", "16", "48", "2", "33", "13", "82", "10", "0", "56", "25", "57", "99", "22", "40", "52", "29", "35", "3", "36", "44", "63", "98", "69", "53", "No Label", "7", "9", "31", "41", "42", "78", "80", "81"], "gold": ["7", "9", "31", "41", "42", "78", "80", "81"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 374/2012\nof 26 April 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 1255/2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of the import tariff quotas for \u2018baby beef\u2019 products originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) and Article 148, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 of 30 November 2009 introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union\u2019s Stabilisation and Association process (2) as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1336/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), has provided for an annual import tariff quota of 475 tonnes expressed in carcase weight for \u2018baby-beef\u2019 products as defined in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 and originating in the customs territory of Kosovo (4).\n(2)\nThis annual tariff quota should be administrated in line with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1255/2010 of 22 December 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application on the import tariff quotas for \u2018baby beef\u2019 products originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia (5).\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 1255/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nSince Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 1255/2010 provides that the tariff quotas are opened yearly from 1 January, this Regulation should apply as from 1 January 2012.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 1255/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n(2)\nin Article 1, paragraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following point (f) is added:\n\u2018(f)\n475 tonnes of \u201cbaby beef\u201d, expressed in carcase weight, originating in the customs territory of Kosovo (7).\n(b)\nthe second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The quotas referred to in the first subparagraph shall bear the order Nos 09.4503, 09.4504, 09.4505, 09.4198, 09.4199 and 09.4200 respectively.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe Annexes are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the 1 of January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2012.", "references": ["20", "80", "25", "71", "77", "84", "46", "57", "34", "54", "81", "75", "70", "85", "12", "93", "83", "58", "32", "76", "99", "29", "28", "40", "8", "49", "35", "79", "51", "92", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 6 July 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/022 DK/LM Glasfiber from Denmark)\n(2011/469/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nDenmark submitted an application on 7 July 2010 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise LM Glasfiber and supplemented it by additional information up to 3 February 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 6 247 415.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Denmark,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 6 247 415 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 6 July 2011.", "references": ["87", "92", "30", "98", "72", "51", "89", "70", "22", "90", "36", "9", "67", "73", "47", "62", "14", "4", "24", "52", "11", "88", "17", "34", "58", "38", "80", "2", "68", "83", "No Label", "15", "16", "49", "50", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "16", "49", "50", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 24 July 2012\nauthorising Denmark to introduce a special measure derogating from Article 75 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(2012/447/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter registered with the Commission on 5 September 2011, Denmark requested authorisation to apply a measure derogating from the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC governing the right to deduct input tax.\n(2)\nThe Commission informed the other Member States of the request made by Denmark by letter dated 14 March 2012. By letter dated 15 March 2012, the Commission notified Denmark that it had all the information that it considered necessary to consider the request.\n(3)\nCurrently, pursuant to Directive 2006/112/EC, if a light goods vehicle with a maximum authorised weight of up to three tonnes is registered with the Danish authorities as being used for business purposes only, the taxable person is authorised to deduct, in full, the input tax on the purchase and running costs of the vehicle. If such a vehicle is subsequently used for private purposes, the taxable person loses the right to deduct the VAT incurred on the purchase cost of the vehicle.\n(4)\nGiven that that system places a heavy burden on both the taxable person and the tax administration, the Danish authorities have requested authorisation to apply a special measure derogating from Article 75 of Directive 2006/112/EC. That measure would allow a taxable person, who has registered a vehicle as being for business purposes only, to use the vehicle for non-business purposes, and to calculate the taxable amount of the deemed supply pursuant to Article 75 of Directive 2006/112/EC on a daily flat rate basis, rather than lose their right to deduct the VAT incurred on the purchase cost of the vehicle.\n(5)\nThat simplified calculation method would, however, be limited to 20 days of non-business use for each calendar year, and the flat rate amount of VAT to be paid is fixed at DKK 40 for each day of non-business use. This amount has been determined by the Danish Government following an analysis of national statistics.\n(6)\nThe measure, which is to apply to light goods vehicles with a maximum authorised weight of up to three tonnes, would simplify the VAT obligations of taxable persons who make occasional non-business use of a vehicle registered for business purposes. However, it would remain possible for a taxable person to choose to register a light goods vehicle as being for both business and personal use. In so doing, the taxable person would lose the right to deduct the VAT on the purchase of the vehicle but would not be required to pay a daily charge for any private use.\n(7)\nPutting in place a measure ensuring that taxable person who makes occasional non-business use of a vehicle registered for business purposes is not deprived in full of the right to deduct the input tax on that vehicle would be consistent with the general rules on deduction as laid down by Directive 2006/112/EC.\n(8)\nThe authorisation should be valid for a limited period and should therefore expire on 31 December 2014. In light of the experience gained up to that date an assessment should be made whether or not the derogation remains justified.\n(9)\nThe measure will affect the overall amount of the tax revenue of the Member State concerned collected at the stage of final consumption only to a negligible extent, and has no negative impact on the Union\u2019s own resources accruing from value added tax,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy derogation from Article 75 of Directive 2006/112/EC, where a taxable person uses for private purposes, or those of his staff, or more generally for purposes other than those of his business, a light goods vehicle which has been registered as being solely for business use, Denmark is authorised to determine the taxable amount by reference to a flat-rate for each day of such use.\nThe flat rate per day referred to in the first paragraph shall be DKK 40.\nArticle 2\nThe measure referred to in Article 1 shall only be applied to light goods vehicles with a maximum authorised total weight of three tonnes.\nThis measure shall not apply where the non-business use exceeds 20 days per calendar year.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall expire on 31 December 2014.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["29", "9", "30", "67", "16", "73", "78", "59", "63", "14", "74", "23", "50", "66", "37", "41", "98", "58", "44", "24", "53", "19", "2", "81", "54", "26", "62", "87", "32", "27", "No Label", "8", "34", "55", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "34", "55", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 July 2011\non the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Democratic Republic of S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe\n(2011/420/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 July 2007, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 894/2007 on the conclusion of a Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Democratic Republic of S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe and the European Community (1) (the \u2018Agreement\u2019). A Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Agreement (2) (the \u2018former Protocol\u2019) was attached thereto. That former Protocol expired on 31 May 2010.\n(2)\nThe Union therefore negotiated a new Protocol (the \u2018Protocol\u2019) setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with the Democratic Republic of S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe, providing Union vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which the Democratic Republic of S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe has sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries.\n(3)\nAs a result of those negotiations, the new Protocol was initialled on 15 July 2010.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2011/296/EU of 24 February 2011 (3), the Protocol was signed and has been applied provisionally.\n(5)\nThe Protocol should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Democratic Republic of S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe (the \u2018Protocol\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (4).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to give, on behalf of the Union, the notification provided for in Article 14 of the Protocol, in order to bind the Union (5).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["8", "50", "51", "58", "88", "14", "29", "33", "59", "63", "46", "24", "30", "86", "41", "11", "71", "80", "72", "38", "6", "66", "55", "26", "34", "96", "43", "79", "70", "47", "No Label", "3", "9", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 475/2011\nof 13 May 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and Thailand, and terminating the proceeding on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019),\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 (2), and in particular Article 2 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Union of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in, inter alia, the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019). Given the large number of cooperating exporting producers in the investigation that led to the imposition of the anti-dumping duty (\u2018the original investigation\u2019) in the PRC, a sample of Chinese exporting producers was selected and individual duty rates ranging from 4,8 % to 12,8 % were imposed on the companies included in the sample, while other cooperating companies not included in the sample were attributed a duty rate of 8,4 %. By Regulation (EC) No 249/2008 a duty rate of 4,3 % has been set for a certain company. A duty rate of 28,8 % for the PRC was imposed on companies which either did not make themselves known or did not cooperate with the investigation.\n(2)\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 stipulates that where any new exporting producer in the PRC provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:\n-\nit did not export to the Union the products described in Article 1(1) of that Regulation during the investigation period (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) (\u2018the investigation period\u2019) (the first criterion),\n-\nit is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the PRC which are subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by that Regulation (the second criterion), and\n-\nit has actually exported to the Union the products concerned after the investigation period on which the measures are based, or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union (the third criterion),\nthen Article 1 of that Regulation can be amended by granting the new exporting producer the duty rate applicable to the cooperating companies not included in the sample, i.e. 8,4 %.\n(3)\nThe list of companies granted the weighted average duty rate of 8,4 % for cooperating companies and contained in Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 was amended by Council Regulations (EC) No 249/2008 (3) and (EC) No 189/2009 (4) and by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 474/2011 (5).\nB. NEW EXPORTING PRODUCER REQUESTS\n(4)\nSix Chinese companies have applied to be granted the same treatment as the companies cooperating in the original investigation not included in the sample (\u2018new exporting producer treatment\u2019).\n(5)\nAn examination has been carried out to determine whether the six applicants fulfil the criteria for being granted new exporting producer treatment as set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006.\n(6)\nAn application form was sent to all six applicants who were asked to supply evidence to demonstrate that they met the three criteria mentioned above.\n(7)\nOne company requesting new exporting producer treatment did not provide the requested information. It was therefore not possible to verify whether it fulfilled the criteria set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 and its request had to be rejected.\n(8)\nOne company withdrew its application.\n(9)\nOne company neither exported the product concerned to the Union nor entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union after the investigation period. Thus, it did not meet the third criterion and its request was therefore rejected.\n(10)\nOne company was not considered as a new exporting producer since it is related to an exporting producer in the PRC which is subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006. It thus did not meet the second criterion and its request was therefore rejected.\n(11)\nOne company submitted misleading information concerning its date of establishment. This cast doubts on the reliability of the information provided, including the period of time the product concerned could have been exported to the EU. Its request was therefore rejected.\n(12)\nThe evidence provided by the remaining Chinese exporting producer was considered sufficient to show that it fulfils the criteria set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006. This exporting producer can therefore be granted the duty rate applicable to the cooperating companies not included in the sample (i.e. 8,4 %) and consequently its name can be added to the list of exporting producers in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006.\n(13)\nThe applicants and the Union industry have been informed of the findings of the examination and were given the opportunity to submit their comments.\n(14)\nAll arguments and submissions made by interested parties were analysed and duly taken into account where warranted,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe following company shall be added to the list of producers from the People\u2019s Republic of China listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006:\nCompany\nCity\nTARIC additional code\nXiamen Good Plastic Co., Ltd\nXiamen\nB109\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 May 2011.", "references": ["66", "89", "73", "82", "61", "28", "14", "84", "26", "6", "50", "60", "27", "43", "24", "15", "40", "67", "76", "86", "38", "21", "52", "54", "45", "49", "44", "4", "1", "87", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 2 May 2011\non mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management\n(2011/286/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the \u2018Fund\u2019) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.\n(2)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.\n(4)\nPoland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania submitted their application to mobilise the Fund, concerning disaster caused by landslides and heavy flooding,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 182 388 893 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 2 May 2011.", "references": ["28", "98", "12", "64", "76", "8", "82", "3", "79", "46", "95", "20", "55", "88", "31", "9", "32", "40", "19", "49", "92", "85", "44", "4", "87", "48", "1", "11", "43", "33", "No Label", "10", "15", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 December 2011\nestablishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the relevant instances of the World Trade Organization on the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO\n(2012/17/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 91, 100(2) and 207, in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn June 1993 the Government of the Russian Federation applied for accession to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO), pursuant to Article XII of that Agreement.\n(2)\nA Working Party on the accession of the Russian Federation was established on 16 June 1993 in order to reach agreement on terms of accession acceptable to the Russian Federation and all WTO Members.\n(3)\nThe Commission, on behalf of the Union, has negotiated a comprehensive series of market opening and other regulatory commitments on the part of the Russian Federation which satisfy the Union\u2019s requests, are consistent with its objectives and in line with the development level of the Russian Federation.\n(4)\nThese commitments are now embodied in the Protocol of Accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO.\n(5)\nAccession to the WTO is expected to make a positive and lasting contribution to the process of economic reform and sustainable development in the Russian Federation.\n(6)\nThe Protocol of Accession should therefore be approved.\n(7)\nArticle XII of the Agreement establishing the WTO provides that the terms of accession are to be agreed between the acceding Member and the WTO, and that the WTO Ministerial Conference approves the terms of accession on the WTO side. Paragraph 2 of Article IV of the Agreement establishing the WTO provides that in the intervals between meetings of the Ministerial Conference, its functions shall be conducted by the General Council.\n(8)\nAccordingly, it is necessary to establish the position to be taken by the Union within the relevant instances of the WTO, be it the Ministerial Conference or the General Council, on the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the relevant instances of the World Trade Organization on the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO is to approve the accession.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Geneva, on 14 December 2011.", "references": ["5", "75", "48", "83", "77", "17", "38", "50", "26", "98", "69", "42", "66", "72", "9", "27", "52", "21", "30", "32", "51", "67", "46", "22", "41", "31", "73", "63", "25", "65", "No Label", "3", "20", "23", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "20", "23", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 7 December 2011\nconcerning compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009\n(notified under document C(2011) 7260)\n(Only the Greek text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/157/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving invited interested parties to submit their comments, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) of the Treaty (1),\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nFollowing press reports which came to the Commission\u2019s attention that the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (\u2018ELGA\u2019) intended to make compensation payments of EUR 425 million after protests by a large number of Greek farmers in January 2009 about their revenue losses in 2008 due to damage caused by adverse weather conditions, a bilateral meeting with the Greek authorities was held on 4 February 2009. Subsequently, the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union, by letter of 9 February 2009, supplied information regarding this measure.\n(2)\nThe Commission asked for additional information by letter of 23 February 2009. By letter of 20 March 2009, the Greek authorities replied to the Commission that ELGA had taken out a loan for the compensation payments of EUR 425 million in question, as well as another loan of EUR 444 million, mainly to make payments to compensate producers for damage, in 2008, to crop and animal production due to causes covered by ELGA.\n(3)\nThe Commission asked for additional information by letter of 4 May 2009. The Greek authorities replied by letter of 16 June 2009. By letter of 13 July 2009, the Commission informed the Greek authorities that the compensation of EUR 425 million for 2009 had been registered as an alleged case under CP 196/2009 and that the compensation of EUR 444 million paid in 2008 had, for the part concerning compensation for damage due to causes covered by ELGA, been considered to be unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (2) of the EC Treaty (3) and had been registered under NN 39/09.\n(4)\nFollowing the reply by the Greek authorities, dated 18 August 2009, the Commission asked for further information by letter of 14 September 2009. In that letter the Commission also informed the Greek authorities that as a result of the information they had supplied, i.e. that the compensation of EUR 425 million for 2009 had been paid to the farmers concerned, those payments had also been registered as unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, also under NN 39/09.\n(5)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 20 March 2010 (4). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures concerned. The Commission received comments from third parties which were forwarded to the Greek authorities on 6 May 2010. The Greek authorities sent their observations on the comments of the interested third parties on 21 July 2010.\n(6)\nThe Greek authorities provided additional information on the aid concerned by letters of 4 June 2010, 10 September 2010 and 14 September 2010. The Commission requested further information in a letter dated 17 November 2010. The Greek authorities replied by letter of 9 March 2011.\n(7)\nAt the request of the Greek authorities, a bilateral meeting with the Commission took place on 31 March 2011. Subsequently, the Greek authorities sent additional information on 11 May 2011 and 12 July 2011. At the request of the Greek authorities, a second bilateral meeting with the Commission took place on 11 November 2011.\nII. DESCRIPTION\n(8)\nGreek Law No 1790/1988 on the organisation and operation of the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (5) (\u2018Law No 1790/1988\u2019) created a public service body known as the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA), a private legal person wholly owned by the State. According to Article 12 of the above Law, ELGA is subject to supervision by the Minister of Agriculture. ELGA administers its budget items in line with the decisions of its Administrative Board, the members of which are appointed by decision of the Minister of Agriculture. ELGA\u2019s main task is that of insuring crop and animal production and assets of agricultural holdings against damage due to natural risks.\n(9)\nPursuant to Article 3(a) (6) of Law No 1790/1988, insurance with ELGA is compulsory and covers natural risks, in particular floods, storms, ice and excessive frost, snow, hail, high temperatures and sunlight, excessive or unseasonal rainfall, drought, plant entomological and phytopathological diseases, epizootic diseases, fire caused by lightning, earthquakes, risks caused by the sea, damage to crops by wild animals and a series of cattle, sheep and goat diseases.\n(10)\nAccording to Article 5(a) (7) of Law No 1790/1988, farmers who are members of the insurance scheme described in recital 9 must pay a special insurance contribution to ELGA. This contribution is in essence a charge levied by the legislator on the buying and selling of Greek agricultural products, the revenue from which goes to fund ELGA, a body tasked with preventing damage and providing compensation for damage to farms caused by natural risks.\n(11)\nUnder Article 5(a) of Law No 1790/1988, the special insurance contribution is set at 3 % for products of plant origin and at 0.5 % for animal products (8). These contribution rates are set by the competent ministers on the basis of a proposal by ELGA to the Minister of Agriculture. ELGA\u2019s income from the special insurance contribution, collected by the tax authorities, is included in the State budget as State revenue and is entered under a special heading. This revenue is paid to ELGA from the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, now renamed the Ministry of Rural Development and Food, by a transfer of funds in the same amount each year, following a proposal to that Ministry by ELGA. ELGA has no other influence on the level of either the contribution or the compensation.\n(12)\nNatural and legal persons who own or operate agricultural, stock-breeding, poultry, fishing, aquaculture or other related undertakings are subject to insurance by ELGA. ELGA\u2019s income mainly comes from the special insurance contribution. In addition, ELGA is, according to Law No 3147/2003, able to make aid payments as part of planning programmes in case of extreme need to compensate for damage to crop and fixed assets due to natural disasters, extraordinary events or adverse climatic conditions. This aid is financed by the State budget or by loans. These programmes concern State aid approved by Commission decisions.\n(13)\nDecree No 262037 issued by the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Minister of Rural Development on 30 January 2009 (\u2018Common Ministerial Decision\u2019) envisaged emergency compensation totalling EUR 425 million for damage in 2008. Pursuant to the Common Ministerial Decision, this compensation was to be paid out by ELGA because of the reduction in the production of certain crops during the 2008 growing season due to adverse climatic conditions such as drought, high temperatures and rainfall and to entomological and phytopathological diseases suffered by these crops. This damage concerns almond, cherry, apricot, some peach, plum, pear and apple trees, as well as asparagus, oriental tobacco, potatoes, cotton, olive groves and cereals.\n(14)\nAccording to information supplied by the Greek authorities, apart from loss of production, deterioration in the quality of some crops (cereals, cotton) had also been taken into account when determining the level of damage. This loss or deterioration in quality resulted from a combination of meteorological phenomena and crop diseases due to the bad climatic conditions affecting these crops during the year in question.\n(15)\nTo pay the compensation in question, ELGA took out a bank loan of EUR 425 million to be paid back over 10 years (2010-2019). For the first 3 years (2010-2012) this loan is subject to annual interest and a Greek State levy of EUR 28 513 250, and for the following 7 years (2013-2019) the interest, depreciation and levy will amount to EUR 89 227 536 in 2013, EUR 85 087 786 in 2014, EUR 81 025 536 in 2015, EUR 76 963 286 in 2016, EUR 72 901 036 in 2017, EUR 68 838 786 in 2018 and EUR 64 776 536 in 2019. The loan is guaranteed to ELGA by the Greek State.\n(16)\nAccording to the information provided by the Greek authorities, the payments made by ELGA in 2008 for damage covered by its insurance amounted to EUR 386 986 648. This amount came partly from insurance contributions of EUR 88 353 000 and partly from revenue obtained on the basis of a loan of EUR 444 million.\n(17)\nELGA took out a bank loan of EUR 444 million on the basis of Article 13 of Law No 3074/2002 and Article 28(17) of Law No 3147/2003. The loan is to be paid back over 10 years (2009-2018). For the first 3 years (2009-2011) this loan is subject to annual interest and a Greek State levy of EUR 23 709 600, and for the following 7 years (2012-2018) the interest, depreciation and levy will amount to EUR 87 138 171 in 2012, EUR 83 789 143 in 2013, EUR 80 395 714 in 2014, EUR 77 002 286 in 2015, EUR 73 608 857 in 2016, EUR 70 215 429 in 2017 and EUR 66 822 000 in 2018. The loan is guaranteed to ELGA by the Greek State.\n(18)\nThe other part of the loan, EUR 145 366 352, was for State aid approved by Commission decisions regarding emergency planning programmes for the 2006 and 2007 fires. This part of ELGA\u2019s income is not affected by this Decision.\nIII. DOUBTS RAISED BY THE COMMISSION IN INITIATING THE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n1. The existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU\n(19)\nMeasures granted through State resources: The Commission took the view that this condition was met in this case, given that the relevant national legislation (see recital 11) clearly states that the services provided by ELGA are financed by State resources and that the former are attributable to the State.\n(20)\nIn the information provided prior to the initiation of the procedure the Greek authorities had indicated that they intended to raise the percentage of the special insurance contribution in order to increase ELGA\u2019s income. However, the information provided on the increase in ELGA\u2019s income did not contain precise figures at this stage of the procedure to allow the conclusion that this increase would be sufficient to repay the loans in question and the granting of compensation to producers during the relevant years. Therefore it was not possible to rule out that these measures would also be financed through other State resources available to ELGA.\n(21)\nMeasures which affect trade and distort or threaten to distort competition: The payments made by ELGA in 2008 as part of the compulsory insurance scheme concerned numerous Greek animal products and products of plant origin, while those made in 2009 concerned several crops (see recital 13). At the beginning of the procedure, therefore, the Commission noted that the payments in question gave local farmers an advantage over those elsewhere in the Union who did not receive similar support. The agricultural sector is open to competition at Union level and is consequently sensitive to any measure favouring production in a particular Member State. The payments in question therefore threaten to distort competition in the internal market and to affect trade between Member States.\n(22)\nMeasures which favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods: Regarding the issue of whether the payments made by ELGA in the context of the compulsory insurance scheme against natural risks provided selective advantage, the Commission considered that, a priori, the selective nature of the measure results from the fact that the payments by ELGA were limited to certain agricultural production.\nThe Commission took the view that it was arguable that the special characteristics of the agricultural sector and its particular dependence on certain climatic conditions, as well as its vulnerability to natural risks in Greece, makes it necessary to set up a State scheme which assures a minimum level of compensation based on the principle of solidarity. In so far as the payments by ELGA as part of the compulsory insurance scheme are financed from the income from the special insurance contribution, the Commission took the view that these could be considered as not giving those benefiting from them an undue advantage.\nNonetheless, this justification based on logic and the nature of the scheme could not cover additional financial interventions by the Greek State for the scheme in question (beyond financing through compulsory contributions). However, the Commission did not have sufficient evidence that this was the case when it initiated the investigation procedure. In particular, the Commission doubted whether the measures in question had been financed without additional State intervention.\n(23)\nFor these reasons the Commission concluded, when it opened the procedure, that it could not rule out that the payments by ELGA in 2008 and 2009 as part of the compulsory insurance scheme fall under Article 107(1) of the Treaty and constitute State aid.\n2. Qualification of the measures as illegal aid\n(24)\nThe Commission considered that, since the aid was granted and paid without prior notification to the Commission, it is illegal aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.\n3. Preliminary assessment of the compatibility of the aid\n(25)\nAs the Greek authorities had maintained that the measures in question are not State aid, the Commission did not, at the time the procedure was initiated, have the necessary information to determine whether the aid was compatible with the legal texts applicable when it was granted, i.e. in 2008 and 2009. These are the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007-2013 (9) (\u2018guidelines\u2019), and in particular Chapter V.B, on aid to compensate for damage to agricultural production or the means of agricultural production.\n(26)\nOn the basis of the information provided, the compensation for most of the crops concerned appeared to involve damage of a minimum threshold of 30 %, taking into consideration loss of production or deterioration in quality for certain products suffered during the year concerned due to a combination of more than one negative meteorological phenomenon and, for some crops, also due to plant diseases. The information transmitted by the Greek authorities did not supply any details about the method used to calculate this compensation.\n(27)\nTherefore the Commission has doubts whether the aid could be said to be compatible with Chapter V.B of the guidelines.\nIV. COMMENTS BY THIRD PARTIES\n(28)\nThe interested parties which made comments are the European Liaison Committee for the Agricultural and Agri-Food Trade (CELCAA), the European Association of Cereals, Rice, Feedstuffs, Oilseeds, Olive Oil, Oils and Fats and Agrosupply Trade (COCERAL), and a third interested party which asked for its identity to be treated confidentially.\n(29)\nThe interested parties, being independent traders (the third interested party) and, in the case of CELCAA and COCERAL, being charged with protecting the interests of independent traders, feel that this aid, while initially granted to farmers, in reality went to agricultural cooperatives and their associations which, because only they handle agricultural products, compete with the independent traders.\n(30)\nAccording to the interested parties, Greece failed to provide evidence to show that the payments in question were granted to compensate for losses caused by adverse climatic conditions. The Greek authorities failed to submit an analytic description of the climatic conditions concerned based on appropriate meteorological information, as called for by the guidelines.\n(31)\nIn the opinion of the interested parties the Greek authorities had specified neither the method of calculating the payments in question nor the minimum threshold of losses. In addition, these payments were limited to certain agricultural products, while other producers who were excluded from these payments had also suffered production losses.\n(32)\nThe interested parties also thought that the granting of these payments has had an impact on the price of the final products since the price of the products fell as result of these payments. This aid therefore gave the producers concerned an economic advantage by allowing them to market those products not affected by adverse weather under conditions which distorted competition. Moreover, the private marketers (such as traders, flour and feedstuff millers, poultry and pig farmers) were forced to pursue a price policy imposed by the agricultural cooperatives and their associations, thus putting these cooperatives into a monopoly position.\n(33)\nAlso, the coverage offered by ELGA regarding the risks to which the agricultural sector is exposed had to respect the principles of proportionality and equality. According to the interested parties, it is not acceptable that the payments made by ELGA in 2008 and 2009 were three and four times, respectively, the total insurance contributions for the same years.\n(34)\nAccording to the interested parties, by taking out the new loan for 2009 ELGA excessively \u2018mortgaged\u2019 its income for the next 10 years, given that it was already obliged to pay back the loan it had taken out for 2008, for which it had \u2018mortgaged\u2019 its insurance contributions in advance for the following years. The interested parties also pointed to the two additional loans ELGA took out in 2009, i.e. a loan of EUR 350 million with the Bank of Piraeus and a loan of EUR 112 million with the Agricultural Bank of Greece and the National Bank of Greece.\n(35)\nThe interested parties also thought that the loans of EUR 444 million and EUR 415 million represent income additional to that from the insurance contributions and paid under Greek law in the form of loans guaranteed by the Greek State. Those loans should therefore be considered as State resources.\nV. OBSERVATIONS BY GREECE\n1. Specific observations concerning compensation aid granted in 2008 and 2009\n(36)\nAccording to the Greek authorities the compensation aid paid out by ELGA in 2008 and 2009 does not constitute State aid.\nThe insurance scheme in question is financed from compulsory special contributions paid by the farmers. Since this insurance scheme is governed by the principle of social solidarity, the compulsory special contributions need not be strictly proportionate to the insured risk and the benefits paid need not necessarily be proportionate to the income of the insured person (10). Therefore, according to the Greek authorities, these payments are genuine compensation given in order to make good damage to agricultural production due to adverse climatic conditions, in line with Greek law regarding agricultural insurance paid by ELGA.\nMoreover, according to the Greek authorities, ELGA is capable of paying its financial obligations at maturity using the system of compulsory insurance. This capability is reinforced by the adoption of the new Law No 3877/2010 concerning the protection and insurance system for agricultural activities, which envisages additional sources of finance for ELGA. This Law therefore, in most cases, increases the special insurance contribution (from 3 % to 4 % for damage to crops and from 0,5 % to 0,75 % for damage to animal production). In addition, it establishes a voluntary insurance for losses not covered by the compulsory insurance, as well as a general insurance to be paid to ELGA by natural persons not practising farming as their main occupation and by legal persons the majority of whose shares do not belong to full-time farmers.\n(37)\nHowever, even if the compensation aid were to be regarded as State aid, the Greek authorities consider that it is compatible with Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty and with the guidelines. The Greek authorities have provided the Commission with detailed data concerning all aid granted by ELGA in 2008 and 2009, indicating the name and tax number of each farmer concerned, the department in which the parcel is situated, the type of crop, the unit of measurement of the crop and the number of units used, the amount of aid and the date when it was granted, a description of the damage and its level compared to normal production.\n(38)\nWith regard to the compensation aid in 2008 and 2009 for damage which led to the destruction of more than 30 % of normal crop production, the Greek authorities take the view that all conditions laid down in paragraphs 124 to 130 of the guidelines as well as in Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products (11) (\u2018Exemption Regulation\u2019) are met.\n(39)\nIn the opinion of the Greek authorities the aid in question was paid to the farmers concerned or to the organisations to which they are affiliated, in line with the guidelines and the abovementioned Exemption Regulation. The Greek authorities confirmed in particular that:\n(a)\nin no case did the aid exceed the real losses suffered by the farmers;\n(b)\nregarding the intensity of the aid, the Greek authorities have confirmed that the conditions laid down in Article 11 of the Exemption Regulation were respected, since the compensation paid by ELGA did not exceed 74,8 % of the reduction in revenue from the sale of the product due to adverse climatic conditions;\n(c)\nthe maximum amount of loss eligible for aid was reduced by all amounts paid out by an insurance scheme and costs not incurred because of the adverse climatic event;\n(d)\nthe calculation of loss was made at the level of the individual holding;\n(e)\nthe decision to grant the aid in question and the payment of that aid took place within the deadlines laid down in Article 11(10) of the Exemption Regulation, i.e. three and 4 years after the loss, respectively; and\n(f)\nthe aid in question was not combined with other State aid or with the financial contributions allocated by the Member States or the Union for the same eligible costs. The producers concerned did not receive aid to compensate for the same loss based on more than one legal text; therefore this aid was granted either pursuant to the guidelines or to the Exemption Regulation, or to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 of 20 December 2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the sector of agricultural production (12) (\u2018de minimis Regulation\u2019), or to the Communication of 22 January 2009 for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (\u2018Temporary Community Framework Communication\u2019) (13).\n(40)\nWith regard to the method of calculating normal production, the Greek authorities presented information on the method used and confirmed that the conditions laid down in paragraph 128 of the guidelines, which state that in case an alternative method is used, it should be representative and not based on abnormally high yields, have been met. In particular, the losses resulting from adverse climatic conditions have been evaluated at the level of the individual holding by agronomists, based on estimates made on site, as provided for in the ELGA insurance regulation. During the on-site inspection the evaluating agronomist measures the area of the parcel using all appropriate means (tape measure, parcel identification map, GPS) and, in the case of crop sites with trees, counts the number of trees. The agronomist then estimates the expected production of the parcel, taking account of the growing techniques used (in particular the density of planting, the pruning system for tree crops, early crops using plastic sheeting, irrigation system), the varieties of crops grown, the previous crop in the case of annual crops, crop control (particularly fertilisers, pest control), solar productivity and any special features of the production year (such as drought, setting problems). Lastly, the agronomist evaluates the expected damage to production in the parcel. To do this samples are taken from different parts of the parcel, taking into consideration the expected quantitative loss of production, the deterioration of quality due to the damage, crop control following the damage (such as additional crop protection, weeding or removal of damaged fruit).\n2. Specific observations concerning compensation aid granted in 2008\n(41)\nOf the aid granted by ELGA in 2008, i.e. EUR 386 986 648, compensation of EUR 373 257 465,71 was paid to producers for loss of crop production due to adverse climatic conditions. Regarding this aid, ELGA applied Article 6 of the Regulation on insurance for crop production concerning compensation to producers of agricultural products for losses due to adverse climatic conditions, as provided for in Greek Law No 1790/1988 establishing the ELGA insurance system.\n(42)\nFor the aid in question, Greece has provided meteorological information about the adverse weather conditions in the 2007/2008 marketing year. These adverse climatic events were formally acknowledged by the public authorities. They include, in particular, the heatwave which affected the entire country in late June and late July 2007, heavy rainfall in several areas of the country in October 2007, hot, dry katabatic winds in Crete in October 2007, storms and hail in a number of prefectures in the north-west and centre of mainland Greece in early August 2008, and storms in late August 2008 in the regions of Magnesia, Viotia, and East Attica, and on the islands of Evia and Crete.\nIn particular, the compensation in question was granted in respect of damage which exceeded the following percentages of normal production (14):\nMinimum amount of damage as a percentage of normal production\nTotal amount of compensation\n(EUR)\nNumber of agricultural parcels which suffered losses\nPercentage of total amount of compensation granted\n20-29\n26 063 999,19\n101 162\n6,98\n30-100\n347 193 466,52\n565 244\n93,02\nTotal\n373 257 465,71\n666 406\n100\nELGA also made additional compensation payments totalling EUR 2 472 785,97 to farmers who had suffered further losses of the same crops due to adverse weather conditions. 6,98 % of the total amount of compensation paid was also for damage equivalent to 20-30 % of normal production; 93,02 % of the total amount was for damage which had destroyed more than 30 % of normal production.\n(43)\nFurthermore, aid granted by ELGA to farmers in 2008 included the following:\n(a)\naid totalling EUR 7 338 119,74 for livestock asset losses. Among these losses, the amount of EUR 1 860 279,67 was paid for livestock asset losses resulting from adverse weather conditions, EUR 3 188 825,78 concerned losses caused by animal illness and disease, and EUR 2 289 014,29 related to other types of damage (such as attacks by wild animals, bears, wolves or stray dogs). The Greek authorities take the view that this aid is genuine compensation in the context of the compulsory insurance scheme and does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty;\n(b)\naid totalling EUR 114 374,86 for crop losses caused by bears. That aid was granted under the Community \u2018LIFE\u2019 project for the conservation of the brown bear in Greece. The aid intensity was 100 %; and\n(c)\naid totalling EUR 3 803 901,72 for corrective measures following inadvertent errors made in the evaluation reports in respect of crop and livestock asset losses. These errors, which were not detected until the aid had been paid to farmers, related to ELGA debts vis-\u00e0-vis the beneficiaries concerned.\n3. Specific observations regarding compensation aid granted in 2009\n(44)\nWith regard to the compensation paid in 2009 on the basis of the Common Ministerial Decision of 30 January 2009, i.e. EUR 415 019 452, the table below provides details of the products concerned, the weather conditions which caused the damage and a description of the damage caused.\nAgricultural product\nTotal amount of compensation\n(EUR)\nAdverse weather conditions\nDescription of the damage\n1.\nAlmonds\nCherries\nApricots (bebekou variety)\nApples\nPlums\nPears\n56 580 555\n(for all products)\nHigh temperatures and heatwave;\nwarm, dry winter;\nprolonged drought;\nsudden variations in temperature.\nThe high temperatures and the heatwave in the summer of 2007 had a negative impact on the production of these crops and, in particular, on fruit bud formation. Prolonged drought in 2007 and sudden changes in temperature led to a fall in production. In addition, tree crops did not have sufficient chill time as a result of the warm, dry winter.\n2.\nPeaches\n10 970 348\nSame weather conditions as in 1.\nSame damage as in 1.\n3.\nAsparagus\n6 751 747\nWarm, dry winter;\nlow temperatures.\nThe warm, dry winter of 2007-08 increased the level of catabolic (acid-forming) activity in the asparagus, depleting the nutrient content. These conditions led to a sudden drop in the next asparagus yield. Production, which was already reduced, was also affected by the low temperatures in February 2008 which retarded growth. This caused a further fall in the asparagus yield in Greece in 2008.\n4.\nOriental tobacco\n13 817 834\nHigh temperatures and heatwave;\ndrought.\nThe high temperatures and heatwave in the summer of 2007 combined with the drought made it difficult to treat insect and thrips virus infestations and caused tobacco production to fall throughout Greece.\n5.\nPotatoes\n7 220 996\nHigh temperatures.\nHigh temperatures in the summers of 2006 and 2008 made it difficult to treat insect infestations and plant diseases which affected summer potato crops in several Greek prefectures.\n6.\nCotton\n109 564 462\nProlonged drought;\nhot summer;\ncold autumn;\nrain.\nThe prolonged drought reduced water stores. In 2008, a hot summer followed by a cold autumn combined with excessive rainfall towards the end of September led to a reduction in production and a decline in the quality of the cotton crop throughout Greece.\n7.\nOlives\n72 026 112\nDrought;\nfrost;\nrain.\nProlonged drought, the icy weather of February 2008, which followed a mild winter, and the high temperatures and excessive rainfall during the olive flowering period led to a significant reduction in the olive yield throughout Greece.\n8.\nCereals (maize, common wheat, barley, oats, rye, rice)\n138 087 394\nRain;\nvariations in temperature.\nThe rain and variations in temperature in the spring and autumn of 2008 led to a decline in the production of cereals and left the crops more vulnerable to disease. The decline in quality was also due to the absence of essential nutrients (protein, gluten) caused by the adverse weather conditions.\nTotal\n415 019 448\n(45)\nAccording to the Greek authorities, out of the compensation of EUR 415 019 452, aid totalling EUR 27 614 905 paid to 871 farmers is considered to be State aid compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty and the guidelines.\n(46)\nThe remaining aid, EUR 387 404 547, was paid to 784 408 farmers. According to the Greek authorities, the aid in question is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty and the Exemption Regulation.\nThe Greek authorities take the view that the aid in question satisfied all the conditions laid down in Article 11 of the Exemption Regulation. In particular:\n(a)\nthe gross aid intensity did not exceed 80 % of the reduction in income from the sale of the product resulting from the adverse weather conditions;\n(b)\nthe losses were calculated at the level of the individual holding;\n(c)\nthe amount of the loss did not include expenditure which did not result from the adverse weather conditions and the farmers did not receive compensation from any other insurance institution;\n(d)\nthe compensation in question was paid directly to the farmers;\n(e)\nthe decision to grant the aid in question and the actual payment of the aid took place within three and 4 years of the losses, respectively;\n(f)\nthe standard calculation method used is the same as that described in recital 42 for the aid granted in 2008.\n(47)\nMoreover, the Greek authorities consider that, even if the aid in question cannot be considered to be genuine compensation (see recital 36) or deemed compatible with the Exemption Regulation (see recital 46), it should still be deemed compatible with Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty and the Communication on the Temporary Framework.\nThe grant of the aid in question improved access to finance for the farmers concerned. Thus, the abovementioned compensation ensured financial liquidity for the primary production sector in Greece, the only sector on which the Greek State was able to depend during the first few months of the economic crisis in order to avert risks to other sectors of the Greek economy. However, the aid in question was granted according to strict criteria. Indeed, it was only granted where there were genuine economic problems linked exclusively to agricultural production and, more specifically, where this was affected by adverse weather conditions (see recital 44). For the majority of this aid, thresholds had not been set for the intensity or the extent of the problems faced by each farmer, as the aim was to support the Greek agricultural sector in general.\n(48)\nFurthermore, in accordance with point 7(a) of the Communication, in the case of non-notified aid (15) the Commission applies the Communication if the aid was granted after 17 December 2008. The Greek authorities therefore take the view that point 7(a) of the Communication applies in respect of the non-notified aid in question, since it was granted to farmers after 17 December 2008.\n(49)\nThe Greek authorities consider that the aid in question, which is provided for in exceptional cases by the Common Ministerial Decision of 30 January 2009, fulfils all the conditions set out in point 4.2.2 of the Temporary Community Framework. More specifically:\n(a)\nthe aid was granted within the context of an aid scheme, since it was based on the abovementioned Common Ministerial Decision;\n(b)\nit was granted to undertakings which were not in difficulty on 1 July 2008 in accordance with the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty. The Greek authorities have confirmed that the aid was granted exclusively to natural persons, the majority of whom were exempt under Greek legislation from filing a tax return since their annual income did not exceed EUR 12 000. All the farmers who were beneficiaries of the compensation in question had bank accounts which they were using and the aid was paid into their bank accounts. The Greek authorities confirm that the farmers in question were solvent and had access to adequate bank finance. Therefore, these farmers were not in difficulty when the aid in question was paid;\n(c)\nthe aid scheme was not applied to undertakings active in the fisheries sector;\n(d)\nthe aid in question was not export aid or aid favouring domestic over imported products;\n(e)\nit was granted in 2009, thus prior to 31 December 2010 as stipulated in point 4.2.2(f) of the Communication on the Temporary Community Framework; and\n(f)\nthe amount of aid per farmer ranged from EUR 7 501 to EUR 15 000.\n(50)\nIn accordance with point 4.2.2(g) of the Communication on the Temporary Community Framework, as amended in October 2009, the aid in question received by each farmer concerned should not raise the total amount of aid received by the farmer concerned during the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2010 to above the ceiling of EUR 15 000. The Greek authorities consider that the fact that ELGA did not obtain a declaration from the farmers concerned, in written or electronic form, about any other de minimis aid, or aid received pursuant to the Temporary Community Framework during the current fiscal year, should be regarded as a mere formality. Thus, the failure to observe that formality should not lead to the conclusion that the condition laid down in point 4.2.2(g) of the Communication on the Temporary Community Framework, as amended in 2009, was not satisfied, particularly since, as shown by ELGA\u2019s computer records, Greece did not grant de minimis aid to farmers in the primary agricultural products sector or aid based on the Communication on the Temporary Community Framework during the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2010.\n(51)\nNevertheless, in the opinion of the Greek authorities, of the sum of EUR 387 404 547, aid of EUR 75 382 500 falls within the scope of the de minimis Regulation.\n(52)\nThe Greek authorities consider that the abovementioned aid of EUR 75 382 500 meets all the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 on de minimis aid. More specifically:\n(a)\nin accordance with Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007, in respect of the abovementioned aid, the farmers concerned did not receive compensation exceeding the sum of EUR 7 500 per farmer during the fiscal years 2008 to 2010;\n(b)\nthe cumulative amount of de minimis aid granted by Greece to agricultural holdings over a period of three financial years did not exceed EUR 75 382 500, i.e. the maximum cumulative amount of aid laid down for Greece in accordance with Article 3(3) of and the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007.\n4. Comments on the observations made by third parties\n(53)\nGreece argues that the interested parties have not provided any evidence to prove that the compensation in question has affected the position of their members on the internal market.\n(54)\nWith regard to the observation that no description of the adverse weather conditions was provided, the Greek authorities emphasise that, under the Common Ministerial Decision on compensation, no such description is required, but that it was necessary to demonstrate the existence of adverse weather conditions and to prove that the damage caused had reached the minimum threshold of 30 % of normal production. Furthermore, Greece did provide, in the context of the observations it submitted to the Commission, analytical data concerning the weather conditions in question, accompanied by the relevant meteorological information.\n(55)\nWith regard to the observation that Greece did not specify either the method used for calculating the compensation in question or the minimum threshold of the loss suffered, the Greek authorities reiterate that, in the context of the observations submitted to the Commission, it provided detailed information in respect of both factors.\n(56)\nThe Greek authorities claim that the granting of the aid in question did not affect the end-consumer because the fall in the price of the agricultural products concerned did not lead to a fall in retail prices. To support this claim, the Greek authorities submitted articles from the Greek press showing that the retail price of several agricultural products, including those involved in this case, remained high despite the fact that the wholesale price of those agricultural products had fallen.\nVI. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n1. Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty\n(57)\nArticle 107(1) of the Treaty states that any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the internal market. The Commission considers that, in respect of the measures in question, the abovementioned conditions have been satisfied.\n(58)\nMeasures granted through State resources\nIn accordance with the Court judgment of 22 March 2003 in Case C-355/00 Freskot AE v Elliniko Dimosio (16) (\u2018Freskot case\u2019), this condition is satisfied in the present case since the national legislation concerned clearly establishes that the benefits provided by ELGA are granted through State resources and are imputable to the State within the meaning of the Court\u2019s case-law (17).\nIn the present case, as in the Freskot case, under Article 5(a) of Law No 1790/1988 (see also recital 11) and other provisions of Greek legislation in force, ELGA\u2019s income from the special contribution was collected by the tax authorities, entered in the State budget as State revenue and paid to ELGA from the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture (now the Ministry of Rural Development and Food). Consequently, the fact that the contributions in question are entered into the accounts as State revenue is sufficient to consider that the payments made by ELGA were financed by State resources.\nFurthermore, in accordance with Article 2 of Law No 1790/1998 (18), by decision of the Minister for Agriculture ELGA may pay aid or compensation to beneficiaries through a transfer of resources from the State budget or by means of loans taken out by ELGA and guaranteed by the Greek State where the Greek State is obliged to repay the loan.\nHowever, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that benefits granted directly by the State and those granted by a public or private body designated or established by the State constitute State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty (19). Therefore, in the case in question, the two loans taken out by ELGA for the compensation paid in 2008 and 2009 and guaranteed by the Greek State (see recitals 15 to 17) constitute State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty since they are part of the resources of ELGA, a private legal person wholly owned by the State and under the supervision of the Minister for Agriculture (see also recital 8).\n(59)\nMeasures which affect trade and distort or threaten to distort competition\nThe Commission notes that the compensation in question gives national farmers an advantage over those elsewhere in the Union who do not receive the same support. The agricultural sector is open to competition at Union level (20) and is consequently sensitive to any measure favouring production in a particular Member State (21). The compensation in question therefore threatens to distort competition in the internal market and affects trade between Member States.\n(60)\nMeasures which favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods\nMoreover, in accordance with the case-law of the Court (22), measures which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which, therefore, without being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect are also considered to be aid.\nIn the Freskot judgment, the Court found that the term \u2018undertaking\u2019 within the meaning of Article 102 of the Treaty does not cover a body such as ELGA in respect of its activities under the compulsory insurance scheme against natural risks (see paragraphs 79 and 88 of the judgment).\nIn fact, the compulsory insurance scheme in question essentially pursues a social policy objective with a view to ensuring adequate coverage for all agricultural holdings, including those which are at greater risk of damage caused by natural risks (see paragraphs 66 and 67 of the judgment). The insurance contribution applies to all agricultural products at uniform rates which are not related to the actual risk to which the farmer is exposed (based on the solidarity principle). ELGA is audited by the State since the amount of the contribution, on the revenue side, as well as the compensation rate is established by the relevant ministry.\nAs the Court noted in its judgment of 22 January 2002 in Case C-218/00, Cisal v INAIL (23), in the present case the two essential aspects of the ELGA insurance scheme, i.e. the amount of compensation and the level of contributions, are controlled by the State, and the compulsory participation characteristic of the scheme is essential in order to ensure its financial viability and to guarantee that solidarity principle is implemented, which indicates that the compensation paid to the insured party is disproportionate to the contributions made by the latter.\nUnlike in the Cisal/INAIL case, however, the recipients of compensation from ELGA are undertakings engaged in economic activity. The fact that ELGA itself is not engaged in any economic activity is therefore not sufficient grounds for establishing that the beneficiaries of compensation paid by this body are not undertakings within the meaning of the Treaty and are not potential beneficiaries of State aid (see the Freskot judgment, paragraph 80).\nWith regard to the issue of economic advantage, the Court simply states in paragraph 84 of the Freskot judgment: \u2018Accordingly, it is necessary to answer the question whether, and if so to what extent, in the absence of compulsory cover, Greek agricultural holdings should have and indeed could have obtained insurance cover from private insurers or taken other steps in order adequately to protect themselves against the consequences of natural risks for their farms and, second, to what extent the contribution corresponds to the actual economic cost of the benefits provided by ELGA under the compulsory insurance scheme, if indeed such a cost can be calculated.\u2019 In the next paragraph, however, the Court finds that \u2018the Court is not sufficiently apprised of the relevant points of fact and law needed in order to be able to answer the part of the question concerning the potential classification of the benefits granted by ELGA under the compulsory insurance scheme as State aid.\u2019 However, the Court stated in paragraph 87 of the Freskot case that \u2018it was not sufficiently apprised of the relevant points of fact and law needed in order to be able to answer the part of the question concerning the potential classification of the benefits granted by ELGA under the compulsory insurance scheme against natural risks as State aid\u2019.\n(61)\nAccording to the case-law of the Court, neither the social character of the aid measure (24), nor the fact that it is fully or partially financed by the contributions imposed by the public authority and charged to the companies concerned (25) is sufficient to prevent the measure being defined as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, which does not distinguish between types of State aid according to the aims or objectives of the measure but rather defines it in terms of its effects (26).\nThe payments made by ELGA in 2008 as part of the compulsory insurance scheme concerned certain Greek animal products and products of plant origin, while those made in 2009 concerned certain crops. Accordingly, it follows that the compensation paid by ELGA to local agricultural producers could give a selective financial advantage to those producers as compared with producers elsewhere in the Union not receiving the same aid.\nMoreover, where there is a higher risk of damage caused by natural risks, it is unlikely that the agricultural holdings would be able to obtain insurance cover from a private institution under the same terms. The Commission finds, therefore, that in the circumstances the compensation paid by ELGA through the scheme in question represents a selective financial advantage for the recipients.\n(62)\nThe judgment of the Court in the Freskot case (see paragraph 86) raises the question of whether the aid measure in question may be justified in the light of the nature or general scheme of the system of benefits, which is a matter for the Member State concerned to prove (27). It should be determined whether the special characteristics of the agricultural sector and its particular dependence on certain climatic conditions, as well as its vulnerability to natural risks in Greece, could make it necessary to set up a State scheme which assures a minimum level of compensation based on the principle of solidarity. However, a measure introducing an exception to the application of the general parafiscal/tax system may be justified by the general scheme and nature of the tax system if the Member State concerned can prove that this measure results directly from the founding principles or policy of this system. A distinction should be drawn between the objectives assigned to a particular scheme and which are external to it and the mechanisms inherent to the scheme itself which are necessary for the achievement of such objectives (28).\nSince it appears that ELGA is not solely financed by parafiscal levies but also by direct State contributions, it cannot be justified on the basis of solidarity between farmers, which means that the whole scheme must be regarded as being selective.\nThus, in the case in question, most of the compensation paid to farmers in 2008, i.e. EUR 386 986 648, was not financed by special compulsory contributions, as these amounted to just EUR 88 353 000. In this case, the payments made to insured farmers could not be regarded as being solely financed through contributions (29).\n(63)\nWith regard to the compensation paid in 2009, i.e. EUR 415 019 452, the Commission finds that this was not financed by special compulsory contributions, which totalled EUR 57 015 388 in 2009. These payments were provided for in the Common Ministerial Decision of 30 January 2009 as insurance cover in exceptional circumstances for losses to crop production and they did not form part of the compensation that ELGA had to pay to farmers in 2009 to make good damage in the context of the compulsory insurance scheme. Consequently, the argument put forward by the Greek authorities that these payments should also be regarded as genuine compensation cannot be accepted by the Commission.\n(64)\nIn order to pay these higher sums to producers of agricultural products, ELGA had to take out two loans to be repaid over a 10-year period (see recitals 16 and 17). On the basis of the information provided by the Greek authorities concerning the annual interest and capital repayments on the two loans taken out by ELGA to pay the compensation, ELGA will not be able to repay the loans over a 10-year period by means of the producers\u2019 special insurance contributions, particularly since those contributions will have to be used to pay the compensation for the damage incurred during the years in question.\n(65)\nIn the additional information they provided, the Greek authorities had stated that the new Law No 3877/2010 concerning the protection and insurance system for agricultural activities was adopted with a view to increasing ELGA\u2019s revenue.\nThe Commission is of the opinion that the abovementioned law could in fact improve the functioning of ELGA in the future. However, increasing ELGA\u2019s future revenue does not enable the conclusion to be drawn that it will be sufficient to repay the loans in question and to grant aid to farmers for the years concerned.\nThus, the loan taken out by ELGA for the year 2009 has placed an excessive burden on the revenue it will receive over the next 10 years, since it already had to repay the loan taken out for 2008 for which it had earmarked in advance the insurance contributions for the following years. As pointed out by the interested parties (see recitals 34 and 35), this situation can only be exacerbated by the existence of the two additional loans taken out by ELGA in 2009. It is not possible, therefore, to exclude the possibility that the measures in question will also be financed through other State resources available to ELGA.\n(66)\nHowever, it does not appear that the distinctions made under the aid scheme between undertakings in a comparable current legal position can be justified on the basis of the solidarity objective of the scheme in question, when considered in the context of the Greek legislation on compensation for damage caused by natural events. First, similar or comparable risks must be borne by the undertakings themselves in sectors other than those covered by the scheme in question and, second, it is clear that even within the agricultural sector which is covered by this scheme some farmers will always be more exposed to certain risks than others (as a result of what they produce or their geographical location) with the result that aid will always be paid disproportionately to certain categories of farmer at the expense of others.\n(67)\nFor these reasons the Commission concludes that the compensation paid by ELGA to agricultural producers in 2008 and 2009 under the compulsory insurance scheme is covered by Article 107(1) of the Treaty and constitutes State aid.\n(68)\nConsequently, it should be examined whether a derogation from the general principle of prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) of the Treaty can apply.\n2. Classification of the measures as unlawful aid\n(69)\nGiven that the aid in question was granted and paid without being notified beforehand, it is unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.\n3. Assessment of the compatibility of the aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU\n(70)\nUnder Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may be considered to be compatible with the internal market where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.\n(71)\nTo qualify for that derogation, the aid in question must comply with the provisions of the legal texts applicable at the time it was granted, i.e. in 2008 and 2009. In this case these are the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013 and in particular Chapter V.B on aids to compensate for damage to agricultural production or the means of agricultural production and point V.B.3 on aid to compensate farmers for losses caused by adverse weather conditions, and Article 11 of the Exemption Regulation.\nChapter V.B.4 of the guidelines on aid for combating animal and plant diseases should apply to certain crops covered by the aid granted to producers in 2009 (oriental tobacco and summer potatoes). However, given that the Greek authorities have shown that the diseases in these crops resulted from adverse weather conditions (see also recital 44), in accordance with footnote 31 in Chapter V.B.4 of the guidelines, the Commission has evaluated the aid measures in accordance with the provisions of sub-chapter V.B.3.\n(72)\nThe conditions in the abovementioned provisions of the guidelines of relevance in this case are as follows:\n(a)\nin accordance with point 125 of the guidelines, weather conditions such as frost, hail, rain or drought, i.e. conditions such as those in question which caused the loss of certain crops in Greece in 2008 and 2009, may be regarded as natural disasters once the level of damage reaches a certain threshold of normal production. Compensation for such events contributes to the development of the farm sector and should be authorised on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.\nThus, to qualify for aid, the losses resulting from adverse weather conditions must reach 30 % of the annual average production of the interested party over the three preceding years or of a 3-year average based on the 5 preceding years, excluding the highest and lowest entry. In accordance with point 128 of the guidelines, the Commission may accept other methods of calculation of normal production, including regional reference values, provided that they are representative methods and are not based on abnormally high yields;\n(b)\nnotifications of aid measures should include appropriate supporting meteorological information. In addition, the adverse climatic event that may be regarded as a natural disaster must be formally recognised as such by public authorities;\n(c)\nthe gross aid intensity must not exceed 80 % (90 % in less favoured areas or in areas referred to in Article 36(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (30), as designated by Member States in accordance with Articles 50 and 94 of that Regulation) of the reduction in income from the sale of the product, calculated by subtracting:\n(i)\nthe result of multiplying the quantity of product produced in the year of the adverse climatic event by the average selling price obtained during that year\nfrom\n(ii)\nthe result of multiplying the average annual quantity produced in the preceding 3-year period (or a 3-year average based on the preceding 5-year period, excluding the highest and lowest entry) by the average selling price obtained.\nThe amount thus eligible for aid may be increased by other costs specifically incurred by the farmer because of non-harvesting due to the adverse climatic event;\n(d)\nthe maximum amount of loss eligible for aid must be reduced by any amount received under insurance schemes and costs not incurred because of the adverse climatic event;\n(e)\nthe calculation of loss must be made at the level of the individual holding, but the Commission may accept the use of averages provided that they are representative and do not result in significant overcompensation of any beneficiary;\n(f)\nin any event the beneficiary must always bear part of the costs (point 125(d) of the guidelines);\n(g)\nthe aid schemes must be introduced within 3 years and the aid must be paid out within 4 years of the occurrence of the expense or loss.\n(73)\nAs regards the compensation aid of EUR 373 257 465,71 which ELGA granted to producers to make good the loss of their crops as a result of adverse weather conditions, the Commission finds that, for the most part, i.e. up to an amount of EUR 347 193 466,52 (see recital 42), it complies with the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation referred to in recital 72. As regards the aid for further losses of the same crops, amounting to EUR 2 472 785,97, for the most part, i.e. up to an amount of EUR 2 300 185,51, it also complies with the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation referred to in recital 72.\n(74)\nIn particular, as the table in recital 42 shows, the condition referred to in point (a) of recital 72 is met, i.e. the level of the damage reached 30 % of normal production in the case of the compensation aid of EUR 347 193 466,52. As regards the aid for further losses, as regards 93,02 % of the total amount of this aid, i.e. EUR 2 300 185,51, the level of damage destroyed more than 30 % of normal production and, as a result, the condition referred to in point (a) of recital 72 is also met.\n(75)\nOn the basis of the information provided by the Greek authorities (see recital 39), the gross intensity of the compensation aid in question compared with the reduction in income from the sale of the product complies with the ceilings laid down in Article 11 of the Exemption Regulation (see point (c) of recital 72). However, the calculation of the intensity does not refer to the average quantity produced over the preceding 3 years (or to a 3-year average) in accordance with Article 2 of the Exemption Regulation, given that a different method of calculating normal production was applied for the compensation aid in question (see recital 40 regarding the description of the method of calculation).\n(76)\nIn accordance with point 128 of the guidelines, the Commission may accept methods of calculation other than those provided for in point 8 of Article 2 of the Exemption Regulation, provided that they are representative and not based on abnormally high yields. After having studied the description of the method of calculation used in this case, the Commission takes the view that it complies with the provision of the guidelines referred to above and, taking account of the intensity of this aid, that there is no risk of overcompensation of the losses suffered.\n(77)\nThe Commission also finds that the meteorological data supplied by Greece on the events which occurred in the course of the 2007/2008 marketing year prove that climatic events justifying the grant of the compensation in question occurred.\n(78)\nAlso, according to the information supplied regarding the aid in question (see recital 39), the aid was reduced by any amounts received from an insurance company and costs not incurred because of the event responsible for the loss. In addition, the loss was calculated at the level of the individual holding. Lastly, the deadlines for payment of the aid following the loss, as referred to in point (g) of recital 72, were met.\n(79)\nIn the light of the foregoing, the Commission is therefore in a position to conclude that the compensation aid of EUR 349 493 652,03 granted by ELGA to producers in 2008 to make good their crop losses, of which EUR 2 300 185,51 relates to aid for further damage to the same crops, complied with the relevant provisions of the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation and may, consequently, be regarded as State aid compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.\n(80)\nHowever, as the table in recital 42 shows, the compensation aid of EUR 26 063 999,19 granted by ELGA to producers of agricultural products in 2008 to make good their crop losses does not comply with point 8 of Article 2 of the Exemption Regulation relating to the damage threshold as compared with normal production. The Commission finds that this compensation aid does not comply with all the relevant conditions in the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation and, consequently, does not qualify for the derogation provided for in Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.\n(81)\nAs regards the compensation aid of EUR 7 338 119,74 granted by ELGA to farmers in 2008 for livestock asset losses, it follows from recital 43 that, according to the Greek authorities, that aid, having been paid under the specific compulsory insurance scheme, does not constitute State aid. Although those authorities arrive at this conclusion in respect of all the compensation aid granted by ELGA in 2008 and 2009, it is only for the aid in question that it has not provided additional information enabling that aid to be regarded as compatible with the guidelines. For that reason the Commission concludes that that aid does not meet the relevant conditions of the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation and consequently does not qualify for the derogation provided for in Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.\nIn any event the Commission stresses that, in order to fulfil its duty to cooperate with the Commission, the Member State concerned must provide all the information necessary to enable the Commission to verify that the conditions for the derogation from which it seeks to benefit are satisfied (31). In this particular case the Greek authorities have never invoked the application of the guidelines, nor have they provided any document enabling the Commission to examine the data in the light of the guidelines, despite the indications made by the Commission in paragraph 21 of the decision to open the formal investigation procedure.\n(82)\nAs regards the aid of EUR 114 374,86 for crop losses caused by bears, that aid is not covered by Chapter V of the guidelines on risk and crisis management. In accordance with point 23 of the guidelines, in the case of aid measures not covered by the guidelines, the Commission assesses them on a case-by-case basis and will only approve such measures if the positive contribution to the development of the sector clearly outweighs the risks of distortions of competition that they pose.\nAccording to point 113 of the guidelines, where State aid for risk management is to be authorised, a minimum contribution from producers to the losses must be provided for to mitigate the risk of distortions of competition and provide an incentive for them to minimise the risks. However, in this case the intensity of the aid granted was 100 % and, in the Commission\u2019s opinion, the complete lack of a contribution by producers to the losses incurred could pose a risk of distortions of competition. For that reason the Commission takes the view that a minimum contribution by producers of the order of 20 % should have been required in this case. As a result, this aid is compatible with the internal market up to a level of 80 % of its intensity, i.e. EUR 91 500. However, the remaining amount of the aid, corresponding to 20 % of its intensity, is deemed incompatible with the internal market.\n(83)\nAs regards the aid for corrective action following inadvertent administrative errors in the evaluation reports on the aid for crop and livestock asset losses, Greece only submitted details of the total amount of the aid, i.e. EUR 3 803 901,72. However, no further details of the amounts relating to the corrective action in respect of the compensation aid for crop and livestock asset losses and crop losses caused by bears (see recitals 41, 42 and 43) were given in the additional information sent by the Greek authorities to the Commission. Given that the corrective action related to administrative errors constituting ELGA debts vis-\u00e0-vis the beneficiaries of the aid in question, the Commission concludes that this corrective aid could form part of the compensation aid concerned. However, since only the compensation aid for crop losses, i.e. EUR 349 666 252,49 (see recital 75), is considered by the Commission to be compatible, the Commission concludes that only the corrective action relating to that compensation aid can be regarded as aid meeting the relevant conditions of the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation and qualifying for the derogation under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.\n(84)\nOf the compensation aid of EUR 415 019 452 paid by ELGA to farmers in 2009, aid amounting to EUR 27 614 905 complies with the provisions of the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation, as set out in recital 73.\n(85)\nOn the basis of the detailed information provided by the Greek authorities for all compensation aid paid by ELGA in 2009 (see recital 37), the Commission finds that the condition referred to in point (a) of recital 73, i.e. that the damage threshold must reach 30 % of normal production, is met as regards the compensation aid amounting to EUR 27 614 905.\n(86)\nFollowing on from recitals 76 to 79 concerning part of the aid granted by ELGA in 2008, the same conclusions may also be applied as regards the aid amounting to EUR 27 614 905 granted in 2009, i.e. that aid also meets all the other conditions laid down in the relevant provisions of the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation.\n(87)\nIn particular, the intensity of the aid in question, the method of calculation used in this case, the meteorological data relating to the events which occurred in the course of the 2008/2009 marketing year (see table in recital 44), the ruling out of overcompensation for the losses incurred and the times at which the aid was paid out after the loss comply with the relevant provisions of the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation.\n(88)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the aid amounting to EUR 27 614 905 paid by ELGA to farmers in 2009 can be considered to comply with the relevant provisions of the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation. They therefore qualify for the derogation in Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.\n(89)\nAs regards the remaining amount of that aid, i.e. EUR 387 404 547, the Commission finds, contrary to the opinion of the Greek authorities (see recital 46), that it cannot be regarded as meeting the conditions laid down in Article 11 of the Exemption Regulation.\n(90)\nOn the basis of the detailed information supplied by Greece relating to all aid granted in 2009, the adverse climatic events in this case do not fall under the definition of adverse climatic event that can be regarded as a natural disaster provided for in point 8 of Article 2 of the Exemption Regulation, given that the adverse weather conditions in question destroyed less than 30 % of the normal production of the farmers concerned. In addition, in this case normal production was not defined in accordance with point 8 of Article 2 of the Exemption Regulation (32) and, as a result, the intensity of the aid in question was not established in accordance with the method of calculation laid down in Article 11(2) of the Exemption Regulation.\n(91)\nThe Greek authorities also regard the aid in question as meeting all the conditions to be considered as complying with Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty and the Communication on the Temporary Community Framework (see recitals 47 to 50).\n(92)\nThe Commission takes the view that, as regards the non-notified aid in question, all of which was granted in 2009, Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty cannot apply directly given that the Commission adopted the Communication on the Temporary Community Framework, which applies from 17 December 2008, on the basis of that provision. Point 4.2.2(h) of the Communication explicitly excludes undertakings specialised in primary agricultural production from its scope. As the Court has consistently held, in the specific field of State aid the Commission is bound by the frameworks and communications which it adopts, provided that they do not depart from the rules of the Treaty (33). However, by taking the view at the time in point 4.2.2(h) of the Temporary Framework that the aid scheme (aimed, it should be remembered, at supporting access to finance in the context of the financial and economic crisis) did not apply to undertakings active in the primary agricultural production sector, the Commission considered that, in view of the major distortions of competition likely to occur in that sector, such aid was not necessary or proportionate within the meaning of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty until the entry into force of specific rules and thresholds adopted for that sector (34). In the Commission\u2019s view, therefore, in the present case the Communication as in force at the time applies to the aid granted from 17 December 2008 to 27 October 2009.\nThe guidelines applicable at the time the aid in question was granted are the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013. However, as stated in recital 90, the adverse weather conditions that occurred in this case destroyed less than 30 % of the normal production of the farmers concerned. Consequently, the relevant provisions of the guidelines cannot be regarded as being met in respect of the compensation aid in question.\n(93)\nAs set out in recital 48, the Greek authorities take the view that point 7(a) of the Communication applies in respect of the non-notified aid in question since it was granted to producers after 17 December 2008.\nHowever, the Commission considers that the possibility of declaring aid to the agricultural sector to be compatible by virtue of the Communication on the Temporary Framework can only cover aid in the agricultural sector granted from 28 October 2009, the date on which the amendment of the Communication on the Temporary Community Framework providing for a limited amount of aid to be compatible for undertakings active in primary agricultural production became effective.\n(94)\nIn the present case, according to the detailed information supplied by the Greek authorities for all aid granted by ELGA in 2009, the result is that almost all the aid in question was granted to producers of agricultural products on dates prior to the abovementioned date of 28 October 2009. The major part of the aid was granted between March 2009 and July 2009 and other aid was granted in September 2009.\n(95)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the aid in question does not comply with the Communication and, as a result, does not qualify for the derogation under Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty.\n(96)\nHowever, the Commission recognises that, in the case of the aid granted by ELGA to producers of agricultural products on dates after the abovementioned date of 28 October 2009 (very small amounts of this aid were granted in December 2009 and November 2010), the amendments made to the Communication for the agricultural sector may apply.\n(97)\nThe aid in question meets the conditions laid down in point 4.2.2 of the Communication on the Temporary Community Framework. However, the condition laid down in point 4.2.2(g) of that Communication was not met, given that ELGA did not obtain from the farmers concerned a declaration about any other de minimis aid and aid pursuant to the measure under the Temporary Community Framework received during the current fiscal year. However, the Commission acknowledges the Greek authorities\u2019 argument that, in the present case, that requirement is merely a formality, given that Greece did not grant any de minimis aid or aid pursuant to the measure under the Temporary Community Framework to agricultural undertakings in the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2010. As a result, the Commission concludes that the aid to which the Communication applies meets the conditions laid down in point 4.2.2 of that Communication and qualifies for the derogation in Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty.\n(98)\nAlso, the Commission takes the view that it is not impossible that some of that aid, amounting to EUR 75 382 500, meets all the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 (see recitals 51 and 52).\nVII. CONCLUSIONS\n(99)\nThe compensation paid by ELGA to producers in 2008, i.e. EUR 386 986 648, was financed only partly out of special compulsory contributions by farmers, given that those contributions only amounted to EUR 88 353 000 in 2008. As for the compensation paid in 2009, i.e. EUR 415 019 452, it was not financed out of special compulsory contributions.\n(100)\nAs regards the two loans which ELGA had to take out in order to pay the compensation to the producers, ELGA will not be able, by means of the producers\u2019 special insurance contributions, to pay the annual interest and make the capital repayments over 10 years, which is the period scheduled for repayment of the loans, particularly since those contributions will have to be used to pay the compensation for the damage incurred during the years in question.\n(101)\nConsequently, in the light of the foregoing, the compensation paid by ELGA in 2008 and 2009 under the compulsory insurance scheme cannot be regarded as being financed solely out of the special insurance contributions paid by producers. For that reason the Commission concludes that the compensation paid by ELGA in 2008 and 2009 under the compulsory insurance scheme falls under Article 107(1) of the Treaty and constitutes State aid.\n(102)\nThe Commission finds that the Hellenic Republic implemented this aid in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty.\n(103)\nIn the case of the compensation aid granted in 2008 under the special compulsory insurance scheme, the Commission:\n(a)\nconcludes that the State aid amounting to EUR 349 493 652,03 which ELGA granted to producers to make good their crops losses, including an amount of EUR 2 300 185,51 relating to aid for further losses to the same crop, is compatible. The Commission considers that that aid complied with the relevant provisions of the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation and, as a result, can be regarded as State aid compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty;\n(b)\nconsiders that the State aid of EUR 33 402 118,93 which ELGA granted to producers for certain crop and livestock asset losses did not comply with the relevant provisions of the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation and, as a result, is incompatible with the internal market;\n(c)\nconsiders that the State aid of EUR 114 374,86 which ELGA granted to producers for crop losses caused by bears may represent a risk of distortion of competition and, as a result, is incompatible with the internal market;\n(d)\nconsiders that, of the State aid of EUR 3 803 901,72 granted for corrective action as a result of errors in the evaluation reports, only the corrective action relating to the compensation aid amounting to EUR 349 493 652,03 for crop losses and the corrective action relating to the compensation aid amounting to EUR 91 500 for crop losses caused by bears meet the relevant conditions of the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation and, as a result, qualify for the derogation under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty. By contrast, the other State aid granted for corrective action does not meet the relevant conditions of the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation and, as a result, does not qualify for the derogation under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.\n(104)\nIn the case of the compensation aid granted in 2009 under the Common Ministerial Decision, the Commission:\n(a)\nconcludes that the State aid of EUR 27 614 905 which ELGA granted to producers to make good their crop losses is compatible. The Commission considers that that aid complied with the relevant provisions of the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation and, as a result, can be regarded as State aid compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty;\n(b)\nconcludes that, in the case of the State aid of EUR 387 404 547 which ELGA granted to producers to make good their crop losses:\n-\nas far as the aid granted on dates prior to 28 October 2009 (35) is concerned (the date on which the amendment of the Communication to include agricultural undertakings became effective), it did not comply with the relevant provisions of the guidelines and the Exemption Regulation and, as a result, is incompatible with the internal market. This conclusion is without prejudice to the aid which, at the time it was granted, met all the conditions laid down in the applicable de minimis Regulation,\n-\nas far as the aid granted after 28 October 2009 is concerned, the Commission concludes that it meets all the conditions laid down in the Communication and, as a result, can be regarded as State aid compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The compensation paid by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (\u2018ELGA\u2019) to producers of agricultural products in 2008 and 2009 constitutes State aid.\n2. The compensation aid granted in 2008 under the special compulsory insurance scheme is compatible with the internal market as regards the aid amounting to EUR 349 493 652,03 which ELGA granted to producers to make good their crop losses and as regards the aid relating to crop losses caused by bears amounting to EUR 91 500 and the corrective action taken within the framework of the abovementioned aid. The compensation aid represented by the remaining amount paid in 2008 under the special insurance scheme is incompatible with the internal market.\n3. The compensation aid of EUR 27 614 905 granted in 2009 under Common Ministerial Decree No 262037 of the Ministers of Economic Affairs and of Rural Development of 30 January 2009 is compatible with the internal market.\nThe compensation aid of EUR 387 404 547 granted to producers on dates before 28 October 2009 is incompatible with the internal market. This conclusion shall be without prejudice to aid which, at the time it was granted, met all the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007.\nArticle 2\n1. Greece shall take all measures necessary to recover from its beneficiaries the incompatible aid referred to in Article 1, which was granted unlawfully.\n2. The aid to be recovered shall include interest calculated from the date on which it was placed at the disposal of the beneficiaries until the date of its recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (36).\n4. Recovery shall be effected without delay in accordance with the procedures provided for in national law, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nRecovery of the aid referred to in Article 1(2) and (3) shall be immediate and effective. Greece shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within 4 months of the date of its notification.\nArticle 4\n1. Within 2 months of notification of this Decision, Greece shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interest) to be recovered from the beneficiaries;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken or planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that orders to return the aid have been sent to the beneficiaries.\n2. Greece shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1(2) and (3) has been completed.\n3. After the 2-month period referred to in paragraph 1, Greece shall submit, at the Commission\u2019s request, a report on the measures already taken and those planned to comply with this Decision. That report shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiaries.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2011.", "references": ["79", "43", "82", "17", "34", "30", "39", "70", "20", "45", "83", "3", "61", "11", "12", "85", "31", "0", "9", "84", "89", "33", "65", "41", "19", "26", "60", "88", "75", "44", "No Label", "2", "15", "48", "63", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "15", "48", "63", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 583/2012\nof 2 July 2012\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use of polysorbates (E 432-436) in coconut milk\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Article 10(3) and Article 30(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 lays down a Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and their conditions of use.\n(2)\nThat list may be amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (2).\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, the Union list of food additives may be updated either on the initiative of the Commission or following an application.\n(4)\nAn application for authorisation of the use of polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate (polysorbate 80, E 433) as an emulsifier in coconut milk was submitted and has been made available to the Member States.\n(5)\nCoconut milk, which is a fruit preparation made of the internal layer below the peel of coconut together with water via homogenisation, cannot remain in the form of an emulsion without the use of an emulsifier. Polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate (polysorbate 80, E 433) and polysorbates (E 432-436) in general have been approved as the most effective emulsifiers used for this purpose in third countries.\n(6)\nTo the group of polysorbates (E 432-436) an acceptable daily intake (ADI) value was allocated at a level of 10 mg/kg bw/day by the Scientific Committee on Food in its opinion of 8 July 1983 (3). The Report from the Commission on Dietary Food Additive Intake in the European Union (4) concluded that polysorbates (E 432-436) may require a more realistic intake assessment based on actual use levels of the food additives. The European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) is expected to carry out that intake assessment during the re-evaluation of polysorbates (E 432-436) by the end of 2016 as foreseen by Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 (5). Until then, only insignificant contributors to the total intake of those substances should be examined for a potential extension of use. The expected intake of polysorbates (E 432-436) via its use in coconut milk as assessed on the basis of total market distribution data of coconut milk provided by the applicant remains far below the ADI and thus will not lead to a significant additional exposure. Coconut milk is a non-widely consumed product, which is mainly used for the preparation of Asian food and desserts. The assessed intake is negligible and much less than 1 % of ADI, which is not considered to be a significant contributor. Therefore, that particular extension of use is not considered to be of safety concern.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, the Commission is to seek the opinion of the Authority in order to update the Union list of food additives set out in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, except where the update in question is not liable to have an effect on human health. Since the authorisation of use of polysorbates (E 432-436) as emulsifiers in coconut milk constitutes an update of that list which is not liable to have an effect on human health, it is not necessary to seek the opinion of the Authority.\n(8)\nIn Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 polysorbates (E 432-436) are authorised as a group, as they belong to the same chemical group of substances defined as mixtures of the partial esters of sorbitol and its mono- and dianhydrides with fatty acids. It is therefore appropriate to allow the use of all polysorbates (E 432-436) in coconut milk and not only the use of the food additive polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate (polysorbate 80, E 433).\n(9)\nPursuant to the transitional provisions of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1129/2011 of 11 November 2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing a Union list of food additives (6), Annex II establishing the Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and conditions of use applies from 1 June 2013. In order to allow the use of polysorbates (E 432-436) in coconut milk before that date, it is necessary to specify an earlier date of application with regard to that food additive.\n(10)\nTherefore, Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 should be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 July 2012.", "references": ["80", "47", "52", "37", "50", "59", "57", "67", "63", "51", "98", "87", "64", "42", "16", "85", "84", "94", "34", "27", "18", "10", "33", "69", "93", "82", "54", "76", "70", "3", "No Label", "25", "38", "68", "72", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "68", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/13/EU\nof 8 February 2011\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include nonanoic acid as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes nonanoic acid.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, nonanoic acid has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 19, repellents and attractants, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nAustria was designated as Rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 10 October 2008 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 24 September 2010, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as repellents and containing nonanoic acid may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include nonanoic acid in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at Union level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to the environmental compartments and populations that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nIt is important that the provisions of this Directive be applied simultaneously in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment of biocidal products on the market containing the active substance nonanoic acid and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(9)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(10)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 January 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 February 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 February 2011.", "references": ["18", "7", "56", "21", "0", "51", "81", "54", "94", "19", "46", "77", "47", "62", "66", "45", "60", "6", "30", "59", "86", "36", "95", "93", "13", "64", "68", "14", "99", "4", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 December 2010\non the State aid C 8/10 (ex N 21/09 and NN 15/10) implemented by Greece in favour of Varvaressos S.A.\n(notified under document C(2010) 8923)\n(Only the Greek text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/414/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the decision by which the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU, in respect of the aid C 8/10 (ex N 21/09 and NN 15/10) (2),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above, and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 5 November 2007 the Commission received a notification from Greece for a rescue aid measure in favour of Varvaressos S.A. (\u2018Varvaressos\u2019). After exchanges of information, on 16 July 2008 the Commission adopted a \u2018no objections\u2019 decision on the notified measure.\n(2)\nOn 15 January 2009, the Commission received a notification from Greece for a restructuring aid measure in favour of Varvaressos.\n(3)\nAfter exchanges of information, on 9 March 2010 the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure on the restructuring aid that Greece had notified on 15 January 2009 and also on a State guarantee unlawfully granted by Greece to Varvaressos in 2007. In relation to the latter, the Commission stated the possibility of revoking its decision of 16 July 2008 approving the notified rescue aid to Varvaressos.\n(4)\nThe opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 10 March 2009 (3). After the opening of the procedure, Greece submitted comments and information on 28 July 2010. Also, Varvaressos submitted comments and information on 18 June 2010. Finally, other third parties submitted comments on 4 June 2010, 14 June 2010 and 17 June 2010 (4).\n(5)\nThe Commission requested further information, regarding the above State measures, by letter of 9 July 2010. The Greek authorities answered by letter of 14 September 2010.\n(6)\nAt the request of the beneficiary, a meeting was held on 14 July 2010. On that occasion, the modified restructuring plan was discussed.\n2. DESCRIPTION\n2.1. The beneficiary\n(7)\nVarvaressos was established in 1975 and is active in the textile market as a spinning mill company (production of and trade in yarns). It exports yarns to 20 countries, including Germany, France, Austria, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and Slovenia. In 2009, the company realised 52 % of its sales in EU countries other than Greece (57 % in 2008, 67 % in 2007), 42 % in Greece (40 % in 2008, 32 % in 2007) and 6 % in non-EU countries (2 % in 2008, 1 % in 2007).\n(8)\nIn 2009 the company had 205 employees on average (down from 212 in 2008) and a turnover of EUR 19 million. On the basis of 2007 data, it ranked 10th in the Greek textile market. Its share in the yarn market was [\u2026] % in 2008.\n(9)\nOver the period 2004-2009 the company\u2019s annual turnover went down from EUR 28,4 million to EUR 19,2 million (a 32 % decrease). Over the period 2006-2009 the company had accumulated losses, which increased from EUR 2 million in 2006 to EUR 17,2 million in 2009. The company\u2019s key financial data for the years 2004-2009 are shown in Table 1 below.\nTable 1\nVarvaressos\u2019s key financial data 2004-2009\n(EUR million)\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nTurnover\n28,5\n26,1\n26,4\n23,2\n20,7\n19,2\nEBT\n0,02\n-2,8\n-3,3\n-2,7\n-6,3\n-5,5\nAccumulated losses\nNA\nNA\n-2\n-5,1\n-11,5\n-17,2\nRegistered capital\n16,6\n16,6\n16,6\n16,6\n16,6\n16,6\nOwn equity\n32,9\n29,1\n25,5\n22,4\n15,9\n10,3\nDebt/equity\n79 %\n106 %\n117 %\n135 %\n216 %\n350 %\nSource: Data from 2004-2009 financial statements\n2.2. The measures\n(10)\nIn the period 2007-2008, Varvaressos was granted two State measures, a non-notified State guarantee for the rescheduling of existing loans in May 2007 (measure 1) and a notified State guarantee for a new rescue loan which was approved by the Commission in July 2008 (measure 2). In January 2009, Greece notified a restructuring aid measure in the form of a direct grant (measure 3).\n2.2.1. The recovery plan of 2006\n(11)\nIn order to receive the above aid, in December 2006 Varvaressos submitted a recovery plan to the Greek authorities entitled \u2018Strategic and business plan 2006-2011\u2019. It describes the company\u2019s strategic goal and necessary actions and also the company\u2019s forecast financial position for 2006-2011. The plan provides for: (a) an increase in the proportion of special fibres in the overall production, from [\u2026] % in 2007 to [\u2026] % in 2011, in order to increase the company\u2019s profit margin; (b) a reduction in total production capacity, from [\u2026] thousand tonnes in 2007 to [\u2026] thousand tonnes in 2008-2011; and (c) a reduction in the company\u2019s personnel, from 237 in 2007 to 217 in 2011.\n(12)\nThe company\u2019s long-term loans of EUR 15,6 million are expected to be repaid by the end of 2010. Also, costs of EUR [1-2] million are expected in the period 2006-2009, for investments in the reorganisation of the company\u2019s management and the re-direction of its production to more profitable products. The required State aid for 2007-2011 amounts to EUR 13,5 million, to make good unsuccessful investments in the period 2000-2005, which created the company\u2019s difficulties. The company is expected to achieve viability in 2010, with EBT of EUR 1 million and a profit margin of 3,5 % (in 2011, positive EBT of EUR 0,8 million with a 2,6 % profit margin). Sales are expected to increase, from EUR 26,2 million in 2006 to EUR 29,3 million in 2011 (a 12 % increase).\n2.2.2. Measure 1: The non-notified State guarantee of 2007\n(13)\nOn 30 May 2007, Greece issued a ministerial decision providing Varvaressos with a State guarantee as security for the rescheduling of the company\u2019s existing loans totalling EUR 22,7 million. The guarantee was supposed to cover 80 % of the loans, i.e. EUR 18,2 million; however, it actually exceeded the total amount of the underlying loan (see recital 16 below).\n(14)\nBefore the 2007 rescheduling, only part of the company\u2019s real estate assets were mortgaged to cover its loans. In the context of the 2007 rescheduling, the rest of the company\u2019s real estate assets were additionally mortgaged. This mortgage was set up in favour of the company\u2019s lending banks and not the State. However, under Greek law (5), before paying the call of a guarantee, the State first has to receive the securities for the guaranteed loans.\n(15)\nThis measure was never notified to the Commission; instead Greece specified in the notification of the rescue aid of 5 November 2007 that the company had not received rescue or restructuring aid before.\n(16)\nThis measure was based on a non-notified guarantee scheme, approved by the Greek Ministry of Finance on 26 January 2007. The scheme granted State guarantees for the rescheduling of loans outstanding on 31 December 2006, whether or not overdue, into a new loan. The relevant loans were granted to industrial, mining, livestock farming and hotel companies established and operating in the district of Imathia, Northern Greece, for investments in fixed assets and working capital. The scheme did not provide for a premium for the State guarantee. On the basis of one of its provisions, the guarantee eventually covered a maximum amount of EUR 30 million plus interest, therefore an amount higher than that of the underlying loans (EUR 22,7 million) (6).\n2.2.3. Measure 2: The notified State guarantee of 2008\n(17)\nOn 16 July 2008 the Commission approved a notified rescue aid for Varvaressos, in the form of a State guarantee for a EUR 2,4 million loan (7). The decision was adopted based on the information that the company had not been granted rescue or restructuring aid before (8), and was therefore eligible for rescue aid.\n(18)\nThe guarantee was granted without a premium for the guarantor (the State) and covered the entire amount of the loan, i.e. EUR 2,4 million.\n(19)\nAccording to the notification of the measure by the Greek authorities on 5 November 2007, from the total amount of the aid, EUR [1-2] million would finance the following investments: (a) the reorganisation and modernisation of the company\u2019s management (EUR [\u2026] million), carried out over the period 2006-2009; and (b) the re-direction of production to more profitable products (EUR [\u2026] million), carried out over the period 2007-2009. Those investments were also part of the restructuring plan submitted on 15 January 2009 and were to be carried out over the same period of time as the plan (see recitals 22-23 and 42-43 below).\n2.2.4. Measure 3: The notified direct grant of 2009\n(20)\nOn 15 January 2009, Greece notified a direct grant of EUR 14 million to finance the company\u2019s restructuring plan.\n(21)\nAccording to the submitted restructuring plan, the company\u2019s difficulties were caused by the high financial cost of an investment programme carried out in 2000-2005, high operating costs and managerial shortcomings.\n(22)\nThe plan stretches over the period 2006-2011. It has been properly updated and adjusted in the course of the formal investigation procedure. The core idea of the restructuring process envisages full payment of most of the company\u2019s bank loans (including the one for which rescue aid was approved in July 2008), a reduction in production and employment (9), the re-direction of production to more profitable products (the proportion of special yarn production in total production to be increased to [\u2026] % by 2012) and the reorganisation and modernisation of the company\u2019s management.\n(23)\nUnder the restructuring plan\u2019s three scenarios (intermediate, best-case and worst-case), the company will restore its long-term viability by the end of 2011.\n(24)\nUnder all three scenarios, the company\u2019s sales are expected to increase and costs and expenses (without depreciation) to decrease. Consequently, the company\u2019s EBT + D (10) are expected to be negative in 2010 and positive in 2011, at the end of the restructuring period. At the same time, in 2011 the company\u2019s ROE (11) will be higher than its borrowing cost (12) (under the intermediate and best-case scenarios) or equal to it (under the worst-case scenario).\n3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE\n(25)\nIn its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission indicated that the compatibility of the aid measures would be assessed on the basis of the Community Guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (\u2018the R&R Guidelines\u2019) (13). The Commission therefore made an initial assessment of the aid measures on the basis of the criteria laid down in the R&R guidelines.\n(26)\nFirstly, the Commission noted that Greece had not informed it about an earlier State guarantee granted to Varvaressos in May 2007. The Commission also noted that Greece had informed it, in its notification of the rescue aid in November 2007, that Varvaressos had not received rescue or restructuring aid before. Subsequently, the Commission doubted whether it would have considered the company eligible for rescue aid in its decision of July 2008, had Greece not submitted incorrect information regarding the 2007 guarantee.\n(27)\nSecondly, in the light of the 2007 guarantee the Commission also questioned the company\u2019s eligibility for the notified restructuring aid, i.e. whether the \u2018one time, last time\u2019 principle is complied with.\n(28)\nRegarding the beneficiary\u2019s status as a firm in difficulty, the Commission noted that Varvaressos, given the losses and the decline in sales it suffered in previous years, could qualify as a firm in difficulties. However, the Commission expressed doubts that Varvaressos was indeed in difficulty when the 2007 guarantee was granted, because the company could allegedly have achieved the rescheduling of its existing loans with the same banks without the public intervention.\n(29)\nRegarding the restoration of viability, the Commission expressed doubts about the time schedule of the plan, which forecast a return to long-term viability by the end of 2009. Since 2009 had come to an end and the main part of the restructuring had not yet been implemented, the Commission considered that the time frame put forward for the restoration of long-term viability could no longer be considered realistic.\n(30)\nIn addition, the Commission expressed doubts about the surveys submitted on the spinning market, which dated from 2007. Given that 2 years had already elapsed and that significant changes in the global economy had taken place since then, it was possible that these surveys had become obsolete. Therefore the Commission required a new set of data and projections and more recent market surveys.\n(31)\nRegarding the avoidance of undue distortion of competition, the Commission expressed doubts about the proposed two compensatory measures. These were: (a) the closure of one of the company\u2019s three plants, the one in Naoussa; and (b) the sale of the shareholding in the subsidiary \u2018Thiva Ginning Mills SA\u2019. Both of those measures were first of all considered necessary to achieve the long-term viability of the beneficiary and thus did not compensate the company\u2019s competitors for the distortion of competition.\n(32)\nFinally, regarding the limitation of the aid to the minimum necessary, the Commission considered Varvaressos to be a large company for the purposes of the assessment (in 2006 it had an annual turnover of EUR 28 million) and indicated that it was located in an area eligible for aid under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU. On the basis of the above, the Commission set the company\u2019s own contribution to be in principle at least 40 % of the plan\u2019s total cost.\n4. COMMENTS OF GREECE\n(33)\nThe information submitted by the Greek authorities on the alleged State aid measures may be summarised as follows:\n4.1. The 2007 guarantee as State aid\n(34)\nGreece acknowledges having granted the State guarantee of May 2007. However, Greece argues that it did not constitute State aid. In particular, Greece argues that: (a) lending banks would have agreed to the rescheduling even without the State guarantee, (b) there was no need for a State guarantee, because the loans were sufficiently covered in the rescheduling by assets of a value higher than the outstanding amount and (c) the 2007 State guarantee did not improve the company\u2019s ability to raise funds in the capital market, because Varvaressos was still able to raise funds on its own.\n4.2. The beneficiary as a \u2018firm in difficulty\u2019 in 2007\n(35)\nGreece argues that Varvaressos was indeed in difficulty in 2007 and that it was only thanks to unencumbered assets of considerable value that it could have access to the financial market without a State guarantee.\n(36)\nGreece also argues that the 2007 loan rescheduling was not sufficient for the company to finance its restructuring. It was used only to reorganise the existing heavy debt. New funding was still needed, and it did not come through the 2007 rescheduling. Therefore, the company was not able to restore viability on its own and the public intervention was in order. Thus, Varvaressos meets the criterion of point 9 of the R&R Guidelines.\n(37)\nAgainst this background, Greece argues that if the 2007 measure is deemed to be State aid, the company was eligible to receive rescue and restructuring aid.\n4.3. The \u2018one time, last time\u2019 principle\n(38)\nAccording to Greece, all three measures under scrutiny (the 2007 State guarantee, the 2008 State guarantee and the notified direct grant) were granted in order to facilitate the implementation of a single restructuring plan.\n(39)\nIn December 2006, Varvaressos applied for rescue and restructuring aid and submitted the same plan as the one notified to the Commission later in January 2009. The time difference between the application for rescue and restructuring aid to the Greek authorities (December 2006) and the notification of the 2009 direct grant to the Commission (January 2009) was caused only by administrative issues and not recurrent difficulties and repetitive need for State intervention.\n(40)\nAlso, the 2007 guarantee (measure 1) was intended to address the company\u2019s financial problems in the short run, by giving it a breathing space through the 2-year freeze on loan instalments. The other measures were intended to eliminate the company\u2019s financial problems in the long run. At the same time, all three measures were of a common nature, as they all addressed the problem of the company\u2019s bank loans.\n(41)\nGreece finally argues that all three measures are parts of the same restructuring process and thus the \u2018one time, last time\u2019 principle is not infringed.\n4.4. Restructuring costs and own contribution\n(42)\nRestructuring costs consist of restructuring of long-term bank loans (EUR 23 million), restructuring of employment (EUR 1 million), investments (EUR 3 million) and restructuring of assets (EUR 1 million). These costs add up to EUR 28 million (14).\n(43)\nGreece claims that the total costs of the restructuring will be funded by EUR 14 million as State aid and EUR 14 million as an own contribution. The own contribution comprises revenues of [\u2026] and EUR 1 million from the sale of a shareholding in a subsidiary in 2007.\n4.5. Avoidance of undue distortions of competition\n(44)\nAs regards the compensatory measures, the plan initially (before the opening of the formal investigation procedure) proposed: (a) the stopping of operations in one of the company\u2019s three plants, which began in 2007 and was concluded in 2008; and (b) the sale of a shareholding in a subsidiary, which took place in 2007. The company stated that this subsidiary was loss-making in the years 2005 and 2006.\n(45)\nAfter the opening of the formal investigation procedure, Greece proposed the following alternative compensatory measures:\n-\nThe withdrawal of the company from the Greek market by at least 10 %, compared with 2009 sales in Greece, for the period until the end of 2013, i.e. 2 years after the end of the restructuring,\n-\nThe ban on any kind of State aid to the company for the period until the end of 2013, i.e. 2 years after the end of the restructuring.\n(46)\nGreece argues that there are reasons that justify less stringent compensatory measures and lower the own contribution in the case of Varvaressos.\n(47)\nIn particular, Greece states that Varvaressos is located in the area of Imathia, an assisted area for regional aid. The unemployment rate in Imathia is twice the national average and its GDP is 70 % of the national average. At the same time, the number of textile/clothing companies in Imathia has declined from 296 to 181 in 2008 (a 39 % decrease). Finally, 56 % of the jobs in companies with more than ten employees have been lost over the last few years.\n(48)\nGreece also states that Varvaressos\u2019 size has reduced significantly since 2006, through the closure of one of its three plants and the sale of its subsidiary. The plant\u2019s closure caused a manpower reduction of [\u2026] man-hours and a production capacity reduction of 30 %, which in addition is irreversible (through scrap or sale of equipment). The sale of the subsidiary caused an annual turnover reduction of EUR 6,7 million. Overall, the company\u2019s market share was reduced by 27 % in terms of sales value and 30 % in terms of sales volume. Also, the company withdrew completely from Estonia, Hungary and Romania, and partially from Austria, Germany, France, the UK, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Italy and Poland (withdrawal range between [\u2026] % and [\u2026] %).\n5. COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES\n(49)\nThe Commission received comments from Varvaressos. Its arguments coincided to a large extent with those submitted by the Greek authorities.\n(50)\nThe Commission also received comments from other third parties, either related to the operations of Varvaressos or affected by them. All of the comments praised the beneficiary\u2019s status, both as a contributor to the local economy and as a well-established company. It was also stated that the company\u2019s cessation of operations would significantly reduce employment and production capacity in Greece and especially Imathia. In addition, it was stated that the aid to Varvaressos does not create any distortion of competition, given the company\u2019s minimal market share.\n6. ASSESSMENT: EXISTENCE OF AID\n6.1. Measures 1 and 2: The State guarantees of 2007 and 2008\n(51)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU declares incompatible with the internal market any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, and affects trade between Member States. Thus, in order to be considered State aid, a measure must fulfil the following four criteria.\n(52)\nFirstly, a measure must be granted by a Member State or through State resources. State guarantees put at risk State resources, as their call is paid through the State budget. Moreover, any guarantee that is not properly remunerated implies a loss of financial resources for the State. In addition, State guarantees are granted through decisions of the competent Ministries. In the case at hand, it was by decision of the Greek Ministry of Finance that the 2007 and 2008 guarantees were granted to Varvaressos. Thus, the criterion of State resources is fulfilled.\n(53)\nSecondly, a measure must give the beneficiary an advantage. The Commission considers that the two guarantees in question have conferred an undue advantage on Varvaressos. Indeed, for the reasons set out in the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (\u2018the Guarantee Notice\u2019) (15), sections 2.2 and 3.2, when the borrower does not pay a market-oriented price for the guarantee, it obtains an advantage. In some cases, the borrower, as a firm in financial difficulty, would not find a financial institution prepared to lend on any terms, without a State guarantee.\n(54)\nIn point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice, the Commission has set out three cumulative conditions which it deems sufficient to rule out the presence of State aid (i.e. an advantage) in the form of a guarantee. These are:\n-\nthe borrower is not in financial difficulties,\n-\nthe guarantee does not cover more than 80 % of the outstanding loan,\n-\nthe extent of the guarantee can be properly measured when it is granted,\n-\na market-oriented price is paid for the guarantee.\n(55)\nApplying these criteria to the case at hand, the Commission finds that:\n-\nVarvaressos was in financial difficulty (16) at the time of granting of both the 2007 and the 2008 guarantees.\n-\nSecondly, as demonstrated in recitals 13, 16 and 18, both the 2007 and 2008 guarantees did cover more than 100 % of the loan.\n-\nThirdly, with regard to the 2007 guarantee, the Commission notes that the extent of the guarantee could not be properly measured when it was granted. This is shown by the fact that, according to the information transmitted by the Greek authorities (see above, recitals 13 and 16), the guarantee was initially supposed to cover 80 % of the loan, or EUR 18,2 million, but eventually, on the basis of one of the provisions of the guarantee scheme, covered EUR 30 million.\n-\nFourthly, both the 2007 and 2008 guarantees were granted for loans to a firm in difficulty and did not provide for a premium for the guarantor (State). The mere fact that no fee was paid in exchange for the guarantees might indicate that the measures conferred an advantage on Varvaressos. A guarantee without premium payment is not available on the commercial banking market. This is all the more true for guarantees given to undertakings in difficulty, which have a high risk of default.\n(56)\nOn the basis of the above the Commission concludes that the company would not have obtained the 2007 and 2008 guarantees under the same terms on the market and hence these measures conferred an advantage.\n(57)\nThirdly, to be considered aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, a measure must be selective. The 2007 guarantee was based on a sectoral scheme and the 2008 guarantee was an ad hoc measure for Varvaressos. Thus, the criterion of selectivity is indeed fulfilled.\n(58)\nFinally, a measure must distort competition and affect trade between Member States. Varvaressos is active in a sector whose products are widely traded among Member States and which is subject to intense competition. At the time the aid measures were granted, Varvaressos made most of its sales to other Member States (see recital 7 above). Also, the aid measures in question granted Varvaressos an advantage over its competitors (see recitals 53-56 above). When State aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in trade between Member States, those other undertakings must be regarded as affected by that aid. Thus, the criterion of distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States is indeed fulfilled.\n(59)\nOn the basis of the above, it is concluded that the State guarantees of 2007 and 2008 (measures 1 and 2) constitute State aid in favour of Varvaressos within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n6.2. Measure 3: The notified direct grant of 2009\n(60)\nAs regards the criterion of State resources and imputability, this direct State grant comes from the State budget and is approved by the responsible ministry. Therefore, the criterion is fulfilled.\n(61)\nAs regards the criterion of advantage, the direct grant was decided in favour of a company in financial difficulty. The Greek State does not receive any consideration in return for the grant. Therefore, the grant gives an advantage to Varvaressos.\n(62)\nThus, the Commission considers that the notified direct grant of 2009 will confer an advantage on the company within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(63)\nAs regards the criterion of selectivity, the direct grant was decided on the basis of an ad hoc decision for the company. Therefore, the criterion is fulfilled.\n(64)\nFinally, the criterion of distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States is fulfilled in the same way as in recital 58 above.\n(65)\nOn the basis of the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the notified direct grant of 2009 constitutes State aid in favour of Varvaressos within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n6.3. Unlawful aid\n(66)\nAccording to Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (17), new aid that was put into effect in contravention of Article 108(3) TFEU is to be considered unlawful aid.\n(67)\nIn the case at hand, the State guarantee of 2007 in favour of Varvaressos was put into effect by Greece without notifying it to the Commission and without waiting for the latter\u2019s comments or final decision on the measure\u2019s compatibility with the internal market.\n(68)\nThus, the Commission considers at this stage that the State guarantee of 2007 is unlawful.\n7. ASSESSMENT: COMPATIBILITY WITH THE TFEU\n(69)\nAs set out in point 4.1 of the Guarantee Notice, where an individual guarantee or a guarantee scheme does not comply with the market economy investor principle, it is deemed to entail State aid. The State aid element therefore needs to be quantified in order to check whether the aid may be found compatible under a specific State aid exemption. Therefore, before assessing the compatibility of the aid, the Commission needs to quantify the aid element.\n7.1. Quantification of the aid\n(70)\nThe 2007 and 2008 guarantees: the Commission has laid down the general principles for calculating the aid element in guarantees in the Guarantee Notice.\n(71)\nThe Commission considers that, in principle, a State guarantee can be deemed aid up to the total amount of the underlying loan if the beneficiary is not capable of accessing financial markets by its own means (see points 2.2 and 4.1(a) of the Guarantee Notice).\n(72)\nThe Guarantee Notice sets out, in points 4.1 (general rules), 4.2 (aid element in individual guarantees) and 4.4 (aid element in guarantee schemes), the rules it applies for calculating the aid element in the guarantees. The Commission will in the following recitals apply these rules to measures 1 and 2.\n(73)\nIn the case at hand, Greece has demonstrated that Varvaressos was still able to access financial markets (see recital 35 above) at the time the 2007 guarantee was granted. The Commission therefore considers that the company could still have had access to the financial markets without the State guarantees of 2007.\n(74)\nWith regard to the 2008 guarantee, the Commission notes that Greece notified the 2008 guarantee within the same year (November 2007) as when it granted the 2007 guarantee (May 2007). Thus, the Commission considers that also at the time of the granting of the 2008 guarantee the company still had some creditworthiness and access to the financial market (18).\n(75)\nHowever, given its financial difficulties at the time of the granting of the measures, commercial banks would have charged a correspondingly higher interest rate than the one achieved with a State guarantee, because the latter is an additional security for the banks. Thus, the Commission considers that the benefit of Varvaressos through the 2007 and 2008 guarantees was not the total loans, which it could have received even without the State guarantees, but the lower interest rate, which it received thanks to the guarantees.\n(76)\nAccording to point 4.2 of the Guarantee Notice, in the absence of a comparable market premium, the all-in financing costs of the loan on the market with and without guarantee (i.e. the interest rate for a similar loan without guarantee should be compared to the interest rate + guarantee premium for the loan with the State guarantee) should be compared.\n(77)\nIn many cases, such a market interest rate is not available. Therefore, in its 2008 Notice on the method for setting the reference and discount rates (19) (\u2018the 2008 Reference Rate Communication\u2019), the Commission has developed a financial methodology which, for the reasons set out in point 4.2 of the Guarantee Notice, can be used as proxy for the market interest rate.\n(78)\nIn the case at hand, there is no indication of what Varvaressos would have paid for a comparable non-guaranteed loan. Furthermore, the granting of both guarantees predates the economic and financial crisis. In addition, the Commission is of the view that, due to the time that has elapsed since the granting of the measures, the calculation of a \u2018real\u2019 market rate for a Greek textile company would be a difficult exercise. Therefore, the Commission will use the relevant reference rate as proxy for the market rate.\n(79)\nAs regards the 2007 State guarantee, at the time when it was granted, the securitisation of Varvaressos\u2019s loans could be considered high for the purposes of the 2008 Reference Rate Communication (20). Therefore, the aid element of the 2007 State guarantee is to be calculated with a margin of 400 basis points, applicable to highly securitised loans to undertakings in difficulty.\n(80)\nOn this basis, the amount of market interest which should have been paid for the loan covered by the 2007 guarantee in the absence of the State guarantee was calculated at EUR 7,3 million in total. The interest actually paid for it (there was no guarantee fee) amounts to a total of EUR 4,9 million for the period from January 2007 to December 2010. Thus the difference between the specific market interest rate this company would have borne without the guarantee and the interest rate obtained by means of the State guarantee after any premiums paid is equal to an aid element of EUR 2,4 million, to be added to the aid amount of the restructuring plan (21).\n(81)\nAs regards the 2008 State guarantee, the underlying loan of EUR 2,4 million was paid to the company on 10 February 2009. It bore an interest rate of 6 months Euribor plus 3,6 %, and had a duration of 6 months (or until the end of the assessment of the restructuring plan). It has not been repaid yet (it still remains with the initial capital).\n(82)\nThe company was still in difficulty and did not have any more free assets to offer as security (22). In the absence of any collateral, the Commission thus applies a top-up of 1 000 basis points on top of the Greek base rate, resulting in the amount of EUR 550 000 of market interest which should have been paid for the 2008 financing. The interest actually applied in the 2008 loan amounts (there was no guarantee fee) to a total of EUR 0,25 million for the period February 2009 (when the underlying loan was paid) to December 2010. Thus the difference between the specific market interest rate this company would have borne without the guarantee and the interest rate obtained by means of the State guarantee after any premiums paid is equal to an aid element of EUR 0,3 million, to be added to the aid amount of the restructuring plan.\n(83)\nWith regard to measure 3, given that it is a direct grant, the entire amount of EUR 14 million represents the aid element.\n(84)\nOn the basis of the above, the total aid element in measures 1, 2 and 3 amounts to EUR 16,7 million.\n7.2. Legal basis for the assessment: the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines\n(85)\nInasmuch as the measures constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, their compatibility must be assessed in the light of the exceptions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 of that Article.\n(86)\nThe exceptions laid down in Article 107(2) and Article 107(3), points (d) and (e), are clearly not applicable and have not been invoked by the Greek authorities.\n(87)\nVarvaressos was a firm in difficulty at the time the measures were granted (see recitals 9 above and 89-90 below), therefore the compatibility of the aid measures can be assessed only in the light of the R&R guidelines, i.e. under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\n7.3. Eligibility of the firm\n(88)\nWith regard to point 10(a) of the R&R Guidelines, the Commission notes that although Varvaressos lost a substantial amount of its own equity in the period 2004-2009, it did not lose more than half of its registered capital in the period under assessment (2007 to 2009). As to point 10(c), Varvaressos did not fulfil the criteria under its domestic law for being the subject of collective insolvency proceedings.\n(89)\nOn the other hand, as shown in recital 9 above, the company\u2019s financial performance deteriorated significantly in the period 2006-2009. It is therefore concluded that Varvaressos was already a firm in difficulty, within the meaning of point 11 of the R&R Guidelines, in 2006, because it had increasing losses and diminishing turnover.\n(90)\nAs regards point 9 of the R&R Guidelines, it appears that in 2007 the company indeed needed more funds than its existing loans in order to achieve viability. This is demonstrated by the fact that in 2006 it applied for restructuring aid. Therefore, the rescheduling of 2007 was not enough for viability restoration, because it served only to settle the existing loans and not to raise more. Thus, the Commission accepts that in 2007 the company could not restore viability without public support and that it had financial difficulties also on the basis of point 9 of the R&R Guidelines.\n7.4. The \u2018one time, last time\u2019 principle\n(91)\nThe Commission considers the State guarantees of 2007 and 2008 to be rescue aid. Indeed, the former was intended to address Varvaressos\u2019s financial problem in the short run, by giving it a breathing space through the 2-year freeze on loan instalments. The latter aimed at keeping the company afloat until a restructuring plan was submitted.\n(92)\nDespite the fact that the guarantee of 2007 was in fact a rescue aid measure, it was not terminated within 6 months from the date it was granted (30 May 2007), i.e. until 30 November 2007. This would in principle constitute misuse of (illegal) aid and an infringement of the \u2018one time last time\u2019 principle.\n(93)\nHowever, the Commission has also to assess the compatibility of the aid measure on all other possible grounds. Point 20 of the R&R Guidelines limits the grounds to those stipulated under the rescue and restructuring guidelines. That would still leave the possibility of the rescue aid qualifying as restructuring aid, i.e. as part of a restructuring continuum (see also Case C 11/2007, Ottana Energia (23)).\n(94)\nIn this context and as regards the question whether the three measures under scrutiny form a restructuring continuum, the Commission considers that indeed they do. This consideration stems from the following:\n(95)\nFirstly, all three measures were directed at the same purpose, i.e. to address the problem arising from the company\u2019s past high loan obligations.\n(96)\nFurthermore, the 2007 and 2008 guarantees were not enough to provide the company with the financial resources needed for its restructuring (equal to at least its total loans, i.e. EUR 25,4 million at the end of 2006), as the latter could be achieved only through the combination of the three measures, as three tranches of one single restructuring process.\n(97)\nAlso, the largest part of the loan that was covered by the 2008 guarantee (EUR 1,8 million out of a total of EUR 2,4 million) was aimed at financing the same investments as the restructuring grant of 2009. At the same time, those investments were to be carried out over the same period of time as the restructuring plan of 2009 (see recital 19 above).\n(98)\nIn addition, the restructuring plan of 2009 is the same as the recovery plan already submitted by the company to the Greek authorities in 2006 (see recitals 11-12 above), with certain amendments in the context of its assessment.\n(99)\nFinally, the restructuring indeed started in 2006. In particular, the plan included four restructuring measures applied or starting to be applied before the granting of the 2007 guarantee (May 2007), i.e. the reduction in production (2006), the reduction in the workforce (2006), the sale of the subsidiary Thiva (January 2007) and the reorganisation and modernisation of the company\u2019s management (2006).\n(100)\nThus, the Commission concludes that the aid measures under scrutiny are tranches of the same restructuring, granted in order to facilitate the implementation of a single restructuring plan. Thus, the \u2018one time, last time\u2019 principle is not infringed.\n7.5. Restoration of long-term viability\n(101)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission will assess the compatibility of the three aid measures as a restructuring continuum.\n(102)\nThe Commission is of the view that the measures provided for in the restructuring plan are indeed tackling the exact sources of the company\u2019s difficulties. In particular, in the Commission\u2019s view the plan rightly identifies the following factors (external and internal) as the sources of Varvaressos\u2019s difficulties:\n-\npast heavy borrowing (in the period 2000-2005),\n-\nhigh operating costs (drop in margin due to Asian competition and soaring input prices),\n-\ninability to respond to market development.\n(103)\nThe proposed restructuring measures aim at remedying these problems. Firstly, the plan proposes the financial restructuring of the company; secondly, it proposes concrete measures to improve the company\u2019s profit margin by changing the earnings mix and reducing operating costs; and thirdly, it proposes management modernisation. The restructuring measures are broken down into 14 \u2018actions\u2019 with costs attributed to each. The Commission concludes that the proposed actions indeed seem to be adequately tackling the company\u2019s fundamental problems.\n(104)\nWith regard to the financial impact of the restructuring plan, the financial projections realistically follow the implementation of the restructuring package. Both increase in turnover (about 5 % yearly) and increase in operating income (about 10 % yearly) are reasonable after the implementation of the restructuring measures (i.e. re-direction of the product mix and cost rationalisation measures).\n(105)\nOn this basis, the Commission accepts that the restructuring will enable the company to return to viability in 2011 and its shareholders will have a return on their invested capital that will be higher than or (at worst) equal to their borrowing cost, therefore at a satisfactory level. The Commission notes that these results will be achieved within a reasonable timescale and that the expected results are based on reasonable assumptions.\n(106)\nThus, the Commission considers that the plan meets the criteria of points 35-37 of the R&R Guidelines.\n7.6. Avoidance of undue distortions of competition\n(107)\nWith regard to the proposed compensatory measures, the restructuring plan proposes: (a) withdrawal of the company from the Greek market by at least 10 %, compared to 2009 sales in Greece, for the period until the end of 2013, i.e. 2 years after the end of the restructuring; and (b) a ban on any kind of State aid to the company for the period until the end of 2013, i.e. 2 years after the end of the restructuring.\n(108)\nThe Commission considers that the proposed 10 % withdrawal from Greece will allow competitors to enter or increase their sales in a market where the company has a strengthened presence. Indeed, the company\u2019s presence in Greece has increased considerably in past years, from 32 % to 42 %, unlike its EU sales, which fell from 67 % to 52 % (see recital 7 above). Finally, the company is ranked tenth in the Greek textile market (according to 2007 data, see recital 8 above). At the same time, the company\u2019s presence in non-EU countries has also increased in the past years (from 1 % to 6 %), which shows that the company\u2019s viability does not depend on increasing its presence in the EU market.\n(109)\nAt the same time, the withdrawal from the Greek market will mean Varvaressos partially or entirely giving up its established commercial relations within its own country and attempting to replace them with new ones, in other EU Member States or in third countries. This will be a real test of the company\u2019s competitiveness.\n(110)\nThe Commission also notes that under all three viability scenarios, the company\u2019s sales are expected to increase (see recital 24 above). However, the reduction of sales in Greece does not contradict the increase in turnover: the former can take place to the benefit of the company\u2019s competitors by freeing up capacity for them; the latter will allow the viability of the beneficiary.\n(111)\nHowever, it could be argued that the appropriate year to be used as the point of reference for the 10 % withdrawal from the Greek market should be 2006 rather than 2009. That is because, according to point 40 of the R&R Guidelines, \u2018The reduction must be an integral part of the restructuring as laid down in the restructuring plan\u2019. Indeed, the company\u2019s restructuring started in 2006 and was to take 5 years (until 2011). Therefore, according to this line of thinking, the compensatory measure should have an impact that would take into account and correspond to the whole duration of the restructuring and not only to a part of it.\n(112)\nOn the other hand, the Commission notes that the impact of compensatory measures needs to be as significant as possible. In the case at hand, the company\u2019s 2009 sales in Greece were higher than the 2006 sales (EUR 8,1 million and EUR 7,1 million, respectively). Therefore, the Commission considers that the measure is to be reckoned in comparison with 2009 sales, since this way it will have a higher impact.\n(113)\nAs regards the ban on any kind of State aid, the Commission considers it an addition to the withdrawal from the Greek market, which is already of a satisfactory level (10 %). Indeed, Varvaressos is located in the area of Imathia, an assisted area for regional aid purposes under the derogation in Article 107(3)(a) TFEU (see recital 47 above), which means that the company could have been eligible for investment aid with an aid intensity of 40 %. Bans on future aid have already been approved before, as additional compensatory measures, in cases Alstom (24) and Constructions M\u00e9caniques de Normandie (25).\n(114)\nIn addition, the Commission considers that the company\u2019s size has decreased so much that any further reduction would be fatal to its viability (see recital 48 above).\n(115)\nAt the same time, the Commission notes again that the impact of compensatory measures needs to be as significant as possible. Thus, in the case at hand, the Commission considers that the duration of the future ban on State aid should be extended to more than 2 years. This will not damage the company\u2019s viability, but will make good the undue distortion of competition. In conclusion, the Commission considers that a 4-year ban is more appropriate.\n(116)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission considers that the compensatory measures described above fulfil the requirements of the R&R Guidelines. In particular: (a) they benefit Varvaressos\u2019s competitors, within the meaning of point 31; (b) they take a form provided for in points 39 and 46(c); and (c) they will take place in the market where Varvaressos will have a significant market position after restructuring, within the meaning of point 40.\n(117)\nAlso, in accordance with point 40 of the R&R Guidelines, the compensatory measures are in proportion to the distortive effects of the aid in question, and in particular to the size and relative importance of the firm on the market. Varvaressos in 2008 had a small market share of [\u2026] % in EU yarn production (see recital 8 above).\n(118)\nAt the same time, point 56 of the Guidelines provides that the conditions for authorising aid may be less stringent in an assisted area. Varvaressos is located in the area of Imathia, an assisted area for regional aid purposes under the derogation in Article 107(3)(a) TFEU (see recital 47 above).\n(119)\nOn the basis of the above, the compensatory measures proposed by Greece do not seem to be sufficient. On the other hand, the Commission is of the view that the measures combined with the ban on future aid extended until 2015 indeed meet the compensatory measures criteria of the R&R Guidelines.\n7.7. Aid limited to the minimum: real contribution, free of aid\n(120)\nGreece argues that since 2009 the company has been medium-sized, according to the criteria set out in the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (26). However, taking into consideration the fact that the company received State aid for the first time in 2007, it should be considered a large company for the purposes of the present assessment (in 2006 it had an annual turnover of EUR 28 million). Therefore, the company\u2019s contribution to the restructuring plan should in principle be at least 50 % of the plan\u2019s total cost, according to point 44 of the R&R Guidelines.\n(121)\nHowever, the Commission notes that the company is located in an assisted area for regional aid purposes under the derogation in Article 107(3)(a) TFEU (see recital 47 above). According to point 56 of the R&R Guidelines, in assisted areas and unless otherwise stipulated in the rules on State aid in a particular sector, the conditions for authorising aid may be less stringent as regards the size of the beneficiary\u2019s contribution.\n(122)\nIn the light of the circumstances explained above and in accordance with its practice, the Commission considers that in the case at hand the percentage of 40 % qualifies as a proper own contribution under the R&R Guidelines.\n(123)\nIn view of the above and the calculation of the aid measures in recitals 70 to 84 above, the overall restructuring of EUR 30,7 million is financed as follows:\n-\nEUR 16,7 million of aid: direct grant of EUR 14 million, plus aid element of EUR 2,4 million of the 2007 State guarantee (under the 400 basis points scenario), plus aid element of EUR 0,3 million of the 2008 State guarantee (under the 1 000 basis),\n-\nplus EUR 14 million of own contribution.\n(124)\nTherefore the company\u2019s own contribution is 46 % of the total financial cost of restructuring, i.e. above the 40 % minimum own contribution as determined in recital 122 above, thus within appropriate limits under the R&R Guidelines.\n8. REVOCATION OF COMMISSION RESCUE AID DECISION OF JULY 2008\n(125)\nThe 2007 State guarantee shows that the Commission\u2019s rescue aid decision of July 2008 (see recital 1 above) was based on wrong information provided by the Greek authorities. In particular, the Greek authorities stated in the notification of the rescue aid (November 2007) that Varvaressos had not received rescue or restructuring aid, even though it had been granted a State guarantee in May 2007.\n(126)\nAccording to Article 9 of the Procedural Regulation, the Commission may revoke a decision taken pursuant to Article 4(3), after having given the Member State concerned the opportunity to submit its comments, where the decision was based on incorrect information provided during the procedure, which was a determining factor for the decision.\n(127)\nIn the case at hand, the Commission was not aware that Varvaressos had already received aid before, while already being in difficulty. Therefore, the \u2018one time, last time\u2019 principle was not examined and the aid already granted was not taken into account in the rescue aid calculation.\n(128)\nWith its opening decision of 9 March 2010, the Commission gave Greece the opportunity to submit its comments on the fact that the Commission\u2019s rescue aid decision of July 2008 was based on the wrong information provided by the Greek authorities that Varvaressos had not received rescue or restructuring aid before. In its comments, Greece acknowledged having granted the State guarantee of May 2007. However, Greece argued that the 2007 guarantee did not constitute State aid (see recital 34 above). The Commission cannot accept Greece\u2019s arguments, because either they are based on hypothetical statements and non-State aid criteria or distort the correct sense of credit rating.\n(129)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission\u2019s rescue aid decision of July 2008 has to be revoked.\n9. CONCLUSION\n(130)\nThe Commission concludes that the aid measures under scrutiny are compatible with the internal market, if certain conditions are respected,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Commission decision of 16 July 2008 approving the notified rescue aid in favour of Varvaressos is revoked on the grounds of incorrect information provided during the procedure which was a determining factor for the decision, in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.\nArticle 2\nThe aid which Greece has in part implemented and is planning in part to implement for Varvaressos S.A. amounting to EUR 16,7 million is compatible with the internal market, subject to the conditions set out in Article 3.\nArticle 3\n1. The plan for restructuring Varvaressos must be fully implemented.\n2. Starting in the year 2011, Varvaressos\u2019s yearly turnover from sales in Greece must be reduced by 10 % compared with the turnover in sales in Greece in 2009. This limitation will apply for the calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013.\n3. The company will not be granted any kind of State aid until the end of 2015. This includes any funding from local, regional, national and EU sources.\n4. The two prior conditions shall apply to Varvaressos, to all its future subsidiaries, and to any company controlled by the shareholders of Varvaressos to the extent that it uses productive assets (e.g. plants, production lines) currently belonging to Varvaressos or its subsidiaries. They shall also remain in force if Varvaressos is sold to and/or merged into a different legal entity, or if the assets of Varvaressos are sold as a going concern to a different legal entity.\n5. For the purpose of monitoring compliance with all the prior conditions, Greece shall provide the Commission with 6-monthly reports on the state of progress of Varvaressos\u2019s restructuring. As regard the sales limitations, Greece shall provide the Commission with annual reports, sent at the latest at the end of January, giving the sales figures for the previous calendar year.\nArticle 4\nGreece shall inform the Commission, within 2 months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["80", "25", "40", "94", "93", "12", "64", "37", "90", "57", "81", "30", "3", "26", "31", "23", "34", "88", "6", "42", "18", "24", "41", "47", "65", "11", "45", "95", "87", "51", "No Label", "15", "48", "82", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "48", "82", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/55/EU\nof 26 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include paclobutrazol as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included paclobutrazol.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of paclobutrazol.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe United Kingdom evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 20 November 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on paclobutrazol to the Commission on 4 November 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for paclobutrazol.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing paclobutrazol may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include paclobutrazol in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit confirmatory information as regards the specification of the technical material, as commercially manufactured, the analytical methods in soil and surface water for the metabolite NOA457654, the risk assessment for aquatic organisms, the residues of triazole derivative metabolites (TDMs) in primary crops, rotational crops and products of animal origin, and the potential endocrine disrupting properties. Paclobutrazol and its metabolite CGA 149907 is a mixture of several optical structures of the same molecule. Depending of the environmental conditions, these structures may break down differently in the environmental compartments soil, water and air. Further information should be submitted by the applicant as regards the potential effect of this phenomenon under realistic conditions of use.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing paclobutrazol to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of paclobutrazol and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning paclobutrazol in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning paclobutrazol in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing paclobutrazol as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to paclobutrazol are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing paclobutrazol as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning paclobutrazol. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing paclobutrazol as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing paclobutrazol as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2011.", "references": ["16", "54", "28", "15", "53", "51", "5", "7", "10", "67", "8", "81", "41", "12", "78", "23", "3", "90", "82", "77", "43", "71", "50", "86", "40", "84", "36", "95", "32", "22", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 13 July 2011\nconcerning State aid C 3/09 (ex NN 41 A-B/03) implemented by Portugal for the collection, transportation, treatment and destruction of slaughterhouse waste\n(notified under document C(2011) 4888)\n(Only the Portuguese text is authentic)\n(2011/677/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nFollowing a complaint, on 15 November 2002 the Commission asked the Portuguese authorities for information on the introduction of a parafiscal charge designed to finance the collection, transportation, treatment and destruction of mammalian meat and poultrymeat by-products, pursuant to Decree-Law No 197/2002 of 25 September 2002 (1) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Decree-Law No 197/2002\u2019). The Portuguese authorities replied by letter of 20 January 2003.\n(2)\nAs the information provided indicated that this measure had been implemented without prior authorisation from the Commission, it was entered in the register of non-notified aid under number NN 41 A-B/03.\n(3)\nBy letters of 16 and 30 April 2003, the Commission services asked the Portuguese authorities for further information on the measure in question. The Portuguese authorities were given a period of 4 weeks in which to reply.\n(4)\nBy letters of 5 May and 6 June 2003, registered on 5 May and 10 June 2003 respectively, the Permanent Representation of Portugal to the European Union, on behalf of the Portuguese authorities, in view of the time needed to gather this information, asked for a further period in order to provide all the information requested.\n(5)\nBy letter of 25 July 2003, the Commission services granted an extension of 4 weeks.\n(6)\nSince no reply was received within the 4-week period allowed in the last letter mentioned above, on 19 December 2003 the Commission services sent the Portuguese authorities an official reminder, stipulating that, should the latter fail to reply, the Commission services reserved the right to propose that the Commission send an information injunction, pursuant to Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2) (now Article 108 TFEU).\n(7)\nBy letter of 5 February 2004 registered on the same date, the Permanent Representation of Portugal to the European Union sent the Commission the reply from the Portuguese authorities to the letters from the Commission services of 16 and 30 April 2003.\n(8)\nBy letter of 11 November 2004, the Commission services asked the Portuguese authorities for further information on the measure in question. The Portuguese authorities were given a period of 4 weeks in which to reply.\n(9)\nBy letter of 30 December 2004, registered on 5 January 2005, the Permanent Representation of Portugal to the European Union, on behalf of the Portuguese authorities, in view of the time needed to gather this information, asked for a further period of 1 month in order to provide all the information requested.\n(10)\nBy letter of 17 January 2005, the Commission services granted an extension for the second time, as requested.\n(11)\nSince no reply was received to their questions within the further period allowed, on 12 April 2005 the Commission services sent the Portuguese authorities another official reminder, drawing the latter\u2019s attention once again to the fact that, should they fail to reply within the 4-week period allowed for this purpose, the Commission services reserved the right to propose that the Commission send an information injunction, pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.\n(12)\nThe aforementioned period for a reply to be submitted expired in May 2005. Since no reply was received within that period, the Commission, by Decision of 21 February 2006 (3), called upon Portugal to provide all the information requested, stipulating that, should the Portuguese authorities fail to reply, it reserved the right to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU (see paragraph 80 of the information injunction).\n(13)\nAs none of the requested information was provided, on 28 January 2009 the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU. This Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4). The Commission invited the other Member States and interested parties to submit their comments on the aid in question.\n(14)\nAs no comments were received from Portugal within the prescribed period, on 18 March 2009 the Commission sent an official reminder to the Portuguese authorities. On 14 April 2009 Portugal sent its comments to the Commission and also provided a copy of Decree-Laws No 393-B/98 and No 244/2003. On 15 June 2009 comments were received from ETSA - Empresa de Transforma\u00e7\u00e3o de Subprodutos Animais, SA.\n(15)\nOn 1 July 2009 the Commission sent ETSA\u2019s comments to the Portuguese authorities. The Portuguese authorities did not send the Commission any observations on ETSA\u2019s comments.\n(16)\nFurther to ETSA\u2019s comments, on 19 February 2010 the Commission services sent a letter to the Portuguese authorities requesting additional clarification. The Portuguese authorities replied by letter of 27 April 2010.\n(17)\nBy letter of 1 February 2011, the Commission services requested clarification from the Portuguese authorities and called upon them to answer fully all the questions raised previously by those services.\n(18)\nBy letter of 24 February 2011, the Portuguese authorities requested an extension of 30 days to the deadline for replying.\n(19)\nBy letter of 28 February 2011, the Commission services granted the extension of 30 days to the deadline for replying. The Portuguese authorities replied to the questions of the Commission services by letter of 1 April 2011.\n(20)\nBy letter of 20 June 2011, the Commission services informed the Portuguese authorities that they were going to propose that the Commission take a conditional positive decision, and they set out the conditions to which that decision would be subject.\nII. DESCRIPTION\n(21)\nAccording to the information provided by the Portuguese authorities, 66 cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (hereinafter referred to as \u2018BSE\u2019) were detected in Portugal between 1 January and 14 October 1998. In view of this risk to public and animal health, the Commission adopted Decision 98/653/EC of 18 November 1998 concerning emergency measures made necessary by the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal (5), and imposed emergency measures as required by the BSE cases in Portugal, in particular prohibiting the dispatch of certain animals and animal by-products from Portugal to other Member States.\n(22)\nIn order to mitigate the effects of the measures adopted to combat BSE, from 1999 the Portuguese State assumed the total cost of the collection, processing and destruction of mammalian meat and poultrymeat by-products. Through Decree-Law No 393-B/98 of 4 December 1998 (6) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Decree-Law No 393-B/98\u2019), the Portuguese State assumed responsibility for and the cost of the collection, processing and destruction of these by-products.\n(23)\nArticle 4(3) of Decree-Law No 393-B/98 allowed charges to be imposed on slaughterhouses in order to finance the destruction of certain raw materials. According to the information received from the Portuguese authorities, this charge was not imposed on slaughterhouses.\n(24)\nThe Portuguese authorities have explained that they did not have a sufficient number of specific facilities in order to adequately treat the waste and that they were therefore forced to contract these services - which are, by their nature, the State\u2019s responsibility - to the private sector.\n(25)\nThe Portuguese authorities have explained that this public interest mission was entrusted to the private sector in accordance with Decree-Law No 197/99 of 8 June 1999 (7), which transposed into national law European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, public supply contracts and public works contracts respectively (8). The private undertakings entrusted with providing these services were selected based on their technical ability to correctly perform the public interest mission entrusted to them, having regard to the urgent need to treat these by-products safely, quickly and effectively. The Portuguese authorities have supplied a model service provision contract, which applied between 1 September 2004 and 31 December 2004.\n(26)\nAccording to the information provided by the Portuguese authorities, the parameters used to calculate the compensation for the services provided were established beforehand by Joint Order No 96/99 of 25 January 1999 (9). The contents of this Order were periodically checked, and were amended by Joint Order No 324/2001 of 6 April 2001 (10) and by Joint Order No 124/2002 of 19 February 2002 (11).\n(27)\nThrough Decision 2000/766/EC (12), the Council prohibited the use of animal by-products from almost all species in animal feed and imposed the destruction of these by-products in all Member States, including Portugal.\n(28)\nThe Portuguese authorities have explained that, due to this Decision, the quantity of waste increased, thereby also increasing the cost of these operations.\n(29)\nThrough Decision 2001/376/EC (13), the Commission decided to maintain Decision 98/653/EC, adopted in relation to Portugal.\n(30)\nRegulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (14) lays down specific rules for the collection, processing and destruction of animal by-products, applicable to various categories of by-products.\n(31)\nThe Portuguese authorities have explained that, in order to meet their obligations in this respect, they decided to pass on the cost of these operations to economic operators in the sector, in strict compliance with the polluter pays principle and without losing sight of the concerns about protecting public health, for which they are responsible and which must be ensured. Portugal therefore adopted the measure laid down in Decree-Law No 197/2002 of 25 September 2002.\n(32)\nSince October 2002, when Decree-Law No 197/2002 entered into force, the cost of the collection, transportation, processing and destruction of mammalian meat and poultrymeat by-products has been financed by revenue from a parafiscal charge imposed on slaughterhouses, importers of bone-in beef, veal and pigmeat, and intra-Community operators, i.e. bone-in beef, veal and pigmeat operators/receivers.\n(33)\nBy letter of 20 January 2003, the Portuguese authorities indicated that the following operators were exempt from paying this charge:\n-\nslaughterhouses collecting, processing and destroying all by-products generated either in the slaughterhouse itself or in cutting plants, with the exception of specified risk materials (hereinafter referred to as \u2018SRM\u2019), given that these units were in a position to independently treat the respective by-products (see Annex 2, paragraph 2, of Decree-Law No 197/2002),\n-\nboned meat importers and intra-Community operators, as this operation does not generate by-products that must be treated under Community or domestic law.\n(34)\nWith regard to the precise use of the revenue from this charge, the Portuguese authorities have stated that this was exclusively used to finance the operations inherent in the services of collecting, transporting, processing and destroying mammalian meat and poultrymeat by-products, including SRM.\n(35)\nThe amount of the charge is set in Annex 1 to Decree-Law No 197/2002, as indicated below, in proportion to the weight and depending on the species in question:\n(EUR)\nSpecies/Type\nBeef and Veal\nPig\nSheep/Goat\nPoultry\nOther\nCharge/kg of carcass\n0,05\n0,04\n0,03\n0,06\n0,06\n(36)\nIn order to finance the services of collecting, transporting, processing and destroying SRM, Article 2(2) of Decree-Law No 197/2002 provides that a fixed charge of EUR 0,30 per kilogram of SRM shall be specifically and solely imposed on slaughterhouses.\n(37)\nAll the charges were paid to a public body, the Instituto Nacional de Interven\u00e7\u00e3o e Garantia Agr\u00edcola (INGA), using a reverse charge procedure. The charges imposed on operators formed INGA\u2019s revenue and were paid directly to it.\n(38)\nAs indicated in recitals 32 and 33 of this Decision, Article 4 of Decree-Law No 197/2002 provides that slaughterhouses may also arrange for the collection, processing and destruction of by-products, with the exception of SRM, either by contracting the services of third parties or on their own initiative, under the relevant legislation. Where slaughterhouses collect, process and destroy by-products generated in the slaughterhouse itself - with the exception of SRM - the charge to be paid is set in Annex 2 to Decree-Law No 197/2002 as follows:\n(EUR)\nSpecies/Type\nBeef and Veal\nPig\nSheep/Goat\nPoultry\nOther\nCharge/kg of carcass\n0,03\n0,02\n0,00\n0,00\n0,00\n(39)\nWhere slaughterhouses collect, process and destroy all by-products generated either in the slaughterhouse itself or in cutting plants, with the exception of SRM, no charge is payable.\n(40)\nUnder Article 5 of Decree-Law No 197/2002, INGA is responsible for checking that the charges are paid by slaughterhouses, which must therefore keep up-to-date registers of carcass numbers and weights. INGA is also responsible for checking that the charges payable on the import and receipt of products from the European Union are paid. The operators/receivers in question must keep up-to-date registers of all operations carried out.\n(41)\nIf they opt for this alternative scheme, slaughterhouses must submit the respective plans in advance for assessment by INGA and must also submit to all the checks ordered by the competent authorities.\n(42)\nThe Portuguese authorities have given assurances that this service was exclusively provided to entities generating by-products that had to be disposed of and that the charge did no more than pass on the cost of these operations to these entities.\n(43)\nWith regard to the correspondence between the revenue from the charges and the cost of the services financed by these charges, the Portuguese authorities have stated that each charge set out in Annexes 1 and 2 to Decree-Law No 197/2002, as also the charge laid down in Article 2(2) on SRM, was calculated based on the actual cost of the services to be provided, bearing in mind the nature and importance of the by-products generated by each animal species.\n(44)\nAccording to the Portuguese authorities, this charge formed, in all respects, the compensation payable by users for the provision of a public service of general interest. The amounts paid by operators liable for the charge were directly proportional to the quantities of waste actually delivered to the public service and to the actual cost of disposing of this waste. In support of these assertions, the Portuguese authorities have provided documents containing figures for 1999 to 2005, proving the cost of the services, and, for 2003, a document containing figures for the revenue from the charge, with regard to the various types of by-product, regardless of whether these were imported or domestic products.\n(45)\nWith regard to the question of whether imported products could effectively benefit from the scheme in the same way as domestic products, the Portuguese authorities have given assurances that, in the spirit of the polluter pays principle, the charges applicable to slaughterhouses, imports or intra-Community trade in bone-in meat reflected the costs associated with treating all the by-products generated in the system up to the final consumer.\n(46)\nAccording to the Portuguese authorities, the import of bone-in meat generates by-products and therefore benefited from the collection, transportation, processing and destruction service, which justified applying these charges.\n(47)\nThe Portuguese authorities consider that the measures financed were in the public interest because, following the BSE crisis, it became clear that the disposal of slaughterhouse waste was a public service mission falling under the responsibility of the State because of its importance for the protection of human and animal health and the environment.\n(48)\nThe scheme set up by Decree-Law No 197/2002 was repealed by Decree-Law No 244/2003 of 7 October 2003 (15) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Decree-Law No 244/2003\u2019), which entered into force on 22 October 2003 and which laid down a general scheme and a transitional scheme for animal by-products not appropriate for human consumption.\n(49)\nUnder the general scheme, slaughterhouses, cutting plants, hatcheries and egg production facilities must, either on their own initiative or by contracting the services of third parties, collect, transport, store, handle, process and destroy Category 1, 2 and 3 material generated within their own units, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, by implementing a plan subject to prior approval by the Veterinary Directorate-General (DG V).\n(50)\nSlaughterhouses, cutting plants, hatcheries and egg production facilities must submit a plan for the destruction or use of Category 3 material, to be approved by DG V, within 90 days of the date of entry into force of Decree-Law No 244/2003 or the date of starting up. With regard to Category 3 material, until the plans are approved by DG V, INGA continues to provide services of collection, transportation, processing, temporary storage and destruction of by-products, in accordance with Decree-Law No 197/2002. Until the plan for Category 3 material is approved, owners of slaughterhouses, cutting plants, hatcheries and egg production facilities must pay the charges set in Annex 1 to Decree-Law No 197/2002, except for those entities benefiting from the alternative scheme provided for in that Decree-Law, which must pay the charges set in Annex 2 to the Decree-Law.\n(51)\nUnder the transitional scheme, INGA also continued to provide these services for Category 1 and 2 material.\n(52)\nWith regard to Category 1 and 2 material, slaughterhouses and cutting plants had to submit a destruction or use plan within 30 days of the end of the transitional scheme in November 2005. Until the plan was approved, they had to pay EUR 0,35 per kilogram of Category 1 or 2 material. Once the destruction or use plan was approved, they became exempt from paying the charge.\n(53)\nOnce slaughterhouses and cutting plants had sent a plan to DG V, covering the operations needed to dispose of Category 1 and 2 material, they assumed responsibility for the cost of these operations and were subject to checks by that competent authority. Article 3(4) of Decree-Law No 244/2003 provided that this transitional scheme would expire 2 years after the Decree-Law entered into force.\n(54)\nThe transitional scheme under Decree-Law No 244/2003 expired in November 2005. By letter of 1 April 2011, the Portuguese authorities stated that, after the expiry of the transitional scheme under Decree-Law No 244/2003, the cost of the operations to destroy the by-products of slaughterhouses and cutting plants was passed on to operators through waste recovery, conversion into biofuels, and export of meal.\n(55)\nIn its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission set out its concerns about the existence of aid in favour of the undertakings providing the services of collection, transportation, processing and destruction of the materials concerned, slaughterhouses and cutting plants, importers of bone-in beef, veal, pigmeat and poultrymeat, intra-Community operators and livestock farmers, and also about the compatibility of this aid.\n(56)\nThe Commission in particular again asked the questions raised in the first information injunction. With regard to the aid in favour of the undertakings providing the services of collection, transportation, processing and destruction of the materials concerned, it expressed doubts about the public interest service nature that the Portuguese authorities were attributing to the activities in question, particularly in view of the Altmark judgment (16). With regard to the aid in favour of slaughterhouses and cutting plants, importers of bone-in beef, veal, pigmeat and poultrymeat, and intra-Community operators in the sector, the Commission expressed doubts about whether the contribution paid by the sector through the charge corresponded to the actual financial cost of the collection service provided, and requested quantified information in this respect. Finally, with regard to the aid to livestock farmers, the Commission expressed doubts about the advantages that they could obtain from the scheme set up, given that they were not subject to the charge.\n(57)\nThe Commission then examined, on a preliminary basis, the compatibility of the measures in question in light of the guidelines applicable since 1998 and concluded, on deciding to initiate the procedure, that it did not have sufficient information to draw any conclusions as to the compatibility of the measures in question.\nIII. COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY PORTUGAL\n(58)\nIn its comments, Portugal first recalls the country\u2019s specific situation in 1998 due to BSE. The Portuguese authorities specifically refer to Decision 98/653/EC prohibiting the dispatch from Portugal to other Member States or to third countries of certain products, particularly meat-and-bone meal, as such or contained in other products. In this context, Portugal introduced a BSE monitoring, control and eradication plan, which was approved by the Commission\u2019s Standing Veterinary Committee. On 18 April 2001 the Commission decided to maintain the prohibition on Portugal, which was not repealed until 2004 by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1993/2004 (17).\n(59)\nPortugal therefore insists that, between 1998 and 2004, all the measures taken were aimed at dealing with an emergency situation that threatened public health. The Portuguese Government\u2019s objective was therefore to allow measures to be immediately introduced until operators could arrange to carry out these tasks themselves, while remaining under state control. Portugal takes the view that the protection of public health is a legal priority above all others, which justifies an exemption from State aid rules.\n(60)\nAccording to the Portuguese authorities, the adoption of Decision 98/653/EC and its successive extensions prevented the measures adopted by the Portuguese State to deal with the BSE crisis from producing any distortion in the market and therefore from hindering trade between Member States. Portugal points out that, as there was a ban on the dispatch of these products, there was no trade, which meant that there could be no distortion of competition.\n(61)\nFirst of all, Portugal indicates that no aid was granted in 1998, providing as evidence the date of entry into force of Decree-Law No 393-B/98, which was 4 December 1998. It was only at that point that the Portuguese State, on an exceptional and transitional basis, assumed responsibility for the collection, processing and destruction of these by-products.\n(62)\nFollowing the entry into force of Decree-Law No 393-B/98, the Portuguese State assumed the cost of the collection, processing and destruction of by-products until Decree-Law No 197/2002 entered into force. In this respect, according to the Portuguese authorities, it should be considered that the Portuguese State assumed responsibility for these measures in the short term, as the scheme was subsequently amended, and that the charge was introduced as a way of making the sector finance the collection, transportation, processing and destruction of mammalian meat and poultrymeat by-products, including specified risk materials (SRM).\n(63)\nWith regard to the cost of these measures, the Portuguese authorities indicate that the parameters used to calculate the compensation were established beforehand by an order published in the Di\u00e1rio da Rep\u00fablica. The Portuguese authorities refer to three orders (18), which indicate the prices of the services (collection, transportation, processing and bagging in big bags, per kilogram of product). The cost of these operations to be borne by animal by-product processing units not attached to slaughterhouses was taken into account. Overheads, such as energy, fuel, wage, insurance and other costs, were also taken into account. These parameters were the same for all service-providers. The Portuguese authorities indicate that the profits were between 30 % and 39,5 %, which, in their opinion, represents a margin that is fair or even slightly below the average for economic activities. The Portuguese authorities have provided examples showing how the parameters used to calculate the prices set in the orders were applied.\n(64)\nIn conclusion, the Portuguese State considers that the aid granted can be declared compatible because a derogation from the polluter pays principle is applicable, because the aid corresponds to the cost of the services provided, and because the guidelines applicable at the time (Community guidelines for State aid concerning TSE tests, fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste (19)) authorised aid of up to 100 % of the actual costs, as this was short term.\n(65)\nFrom October 2002, the legal basis for paying the charge became Decree-Law No 197/2002. The Portuguese authorities consider that the charges in question took into account the prices to be paid for the operations carried out by the by-product processing units. However, given that the crisis was still ongoing, the Portuguese authorities consider that the State\u2019s intervention as an intermediary was still justified.\n(66)\nIn the simulations carried out at the time, the full costs borne by the undertakings and a reasonable profit were taken into account. The Portuguese authorities have provided the worked example based on the costs and charges for 2003, which, in their opinion, proves the balance between the revenue and charges resulting from the new legal rules, and sets the charges required to finance the services.\n(67)\nThe Portuguese authorities also state that the services of collection, transportation, processing and destruction of poultrymeat by-products were not financed from the charges imposed on slaughterhouses and importers of bovine and pig carcasses, half-carcasses and other bone-in parts. The Portuguese authorities point out that the provisions of Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 197/2002 must be interpreted in light of the provisions of Annex 1, to which they refer, with the result that the services of collection, transportation, processing and destruction of meat by-products were financed by three types of operator: beef, pig, sheep/goat, poultry and other slaughterhouses; importers of bovine and pig carcasses, half-carcasses and other bone-in parts; and intra-Community operators in the same products. Accordingly, Annex 1 contains a column indicating the charges to be imposed on poultry slaughterhouses not collecting, transporting, processing and destroying by-products generated during the slaughter of poultry, bearing in mind that most imported poultry carcasses do not generate by-products.\n(68)\nThe Portuguese authorities also state that the difference between the two charges set in Annex 2 to Decree-Law No 197/2002 was justified by the costs associated with the by-products generated in cutting plants.\n(69)\nThe Portuguese authorities state that, in accordance with Decree-Laws No 197/2002 and No 244/2003, it was not intended that the charges should have an impact on livestock farmers, although the costs of the collection, transportation, processing and destruction operations did in fact impact on the whole meat sector. To that end, the Portuguese authorities have provided two service invoices dated 22 October 2002 and 28 October 2003, which, in their opinion, prove that the costs of the collection, transportation, processing and destruction operations were passed on by slaughterhouses to livestock farmers.\n(70)\nFinally, the Portuguese authorities give an assurance that no resources were diverted to any competing activities by the service-providers, given that the latter\u2019s sole activity was the collection, transportation, processing and destruction of animal by-products.\n(71)\nThe Portuguese authorities also indicate that the transitional scheme set up by Decree-Law No 244/2003 expired in November 2005 and that, since then, entities generating by-products have fully assumed the responsibility that the State initially assumed on a temporary basis, in its place. Since November 2005, all costs have been borne by operators, which offset these through waste recovery, conversion into biofuels and export of meal.\n(72)\nIn conclusion, the Portuguese authorities consider that the conditions laid down in the applicable guidelines were met, given that the operators generating by-products started to gradually pay for the operations associated with the destruction of these by-products through a charge.\nIV. COMMENTS OF OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES\n(73)\nETSA submitted its comments by letter of 15 June 2009. The ETSA group consists of the following undertakings: ITS - Ind\u00fastria Transformadora de Subprodutos Animais, SA and SEBOL - Com\u00e9rcio e Ind\u00fastria de Sebo, SA. These undertakings provide services of collection, transportation, processing and destruction of Category 1, 2 and 3 animal by-products in Portugal and are among the undertakings which the Portuguese State used to provide the services in question during the period concerned. Consequently, ETSA is regarded as a recipient of the state payments and may therefore be deemed an interested party in Case C 3/09.\n(74)\nAs a preliminary point, ETSA notes the context of the BSE crisis, which forced the Portuguese State to adopt a number of preventive measures (specifically the collection, transportation, processing and destruction of Category 1, 2 and 3 animal by-products) to combat and reduce the risk of infection by BSE, so as to protect public health and the environment. These measures were largely adopted as a result of obligations laid down in Community legislation.\n(75)\nBetween 1998 and 2005, INGA contracted ITS and SEBOL, through a direct award procedure, to provide services of collection, transportation, processing and destruction of waste. ETSA notes that all the undertakings capable of providing the required services were contracted under the same conditions. Up to 10 October 2002, INGA contracted undertakings licensed to provide this type of service and bore the resulting costs, as laid down in Article 6 of Decree-Law No 393-B/98. The parameters used to calculate the price to be paid for the service were established by Joint Order No 96/99. The price was set in proportion to the weight of raw material and could be revised in the light of changes to the service provision conditions. The price paid to SEBOL and ITS took account of the estimated costs of providing the service, particularly those associated with the weight and volume of waste to be collected and treated and with the operational establishment and management of the system for collecting fallen stock from holdings, which, for example, meant collection within a short period of time after notification of the animal\u2019s death.\n(76)\nETSA points out that, although the service was not awarded through a public procurement procedure, the price paid for the service provided covered the respective costs, taking into account the relevant receipts, and only allowed a reasonable and legitimate profit to be made. It also notes that the level of remuneration for the service was always, in its opinion, in line with the principle of efficiency, as the price paid by INGA was within the European average of prices for equivalent services, and the prices paid until 2005 were actually, according to ETSA, lower than the prices subsequently applied in the contracts for the provision of the same services, concluded following public procurement procedures intended to help define the remuneration in line with market criteria.\n(77)\nFrom 2005 the service contracts were awarded through international public procurement procedures. Three public procurement procedures were organised: beef/equine at national level; sheep/goats (South) and sheep/goats (North). ITS took part in these public procurement procedures as part of a consortium which was awarded the contract. Three service provision contracts were concluded for the three lots mentioned. ETSA indicates that the conditions included the collection, transportation, processing and destruction of waste, as well as keeping a permanent and up-to-date register and archive on the operations. The Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas - IFAP I.P. was responsible for ensuring compliance with the obligations.\n(78)\nETSA points out that the contracts concluded established the prices beforehand in an objective and transparent manner, according to the tonnage and species of animal in question. In its opinion, the prices were set according to market conditions and ensured adequate coverage of the costs incurred in order to comply with the public service obligations, as listed in the service provision contracts and relevant legislation.\n(79)\nETSA concludes that, given the above, it did not benefit from any illegal aid and that all the funds received were simply legitimate consideration for the provision of a public service.\nV. ASSESSMENT\n1. EXISTENCE OF AID UNDER ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU\n(80)\nUnder Article 107(1) TFEU, save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods are, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the internal market.\n(81)\nArticles 107 to 109 TFEU apply to the pigmeat sector pursuant to Article 21 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat (20), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (21). These articles apply to the beef and veal sectors pursuant to Article 40 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (22), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1152/2007 (23). Before the latter was adopted, these articles applied to this sector pursuant to Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 (24). They apply to the sheepmeat and goatmeat sectors pursuant to Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2467/98 of 3 November 1998 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat (25), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005. They apply to the poultrymeat sector pursuant to Article 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (26), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 679/2006 (27). Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (28) repealed these various regulations and provides, in Article 180 thereof, that the State aid rules apply to the aforementioned products.\n(82)\nThe nature of the aid must be determined in light of all the beneficiaries of the services of collection, transportation, processing and destruction of slaughterhouse waste and their financing. The Commission has identified the following categories of potential beneficiaries of the scheme introduced in Portugal:\n-\nundertakings providing the services of collection, transportation, processing and destruction of the material in question,\n-\nslaughterhouses and cutting plants, importers of bone-in beef, veal, pigmeat and poultrymeat, and intra-Community operators, i.e. bone-in beef, veal and pigmeat operators/receivers,\n-\nlivestock farmers.\n(83)\nIn order to assess the potential aid over time, the Commission identified four periods in its decision to initiate the procedure, taking into account the application of the various Community provisions relevant to the analysis of potential aid measures. The Commission identified: the period from 1998 to 31 December 1999, which was the period preceding the entry into force of the guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector; the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002, which was the period preceding the entry into force of the Community guidelines for State aid concerning TSE tests, fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste; the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2006, which was the period preceding the entry into force of the new Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013 (29); and the period from 1 January 2007 to the present.\n(84)\nGiven the new information provided by the Portuguese authorities, particularly on the application of Decree-Law No 244/2003, as described above, and on the various methods of financing the potential aid, the Commission will slightly alter the division of these periods and will therefore take account of the following periods in its assessment of each group of potential beneficiaries:\n-\nperiod between 9 December 1998 and 9 October 2002, during which Decree-Law No 393-B/98 was in force,\n-\nperiod between 10 October 2002 and 21 October 2003, during which Decree-Law No 197/2002 was in force, except for Annex 2, the application of which was extended under the transitional scheme laid down in Decree-Law No 244/2003,\n-\nperiod between 22 October 2003 and November 2005, during which the transitional scheme laid down in Decree-Law No 244/2003 was in force.\n1.1. EXISTENCE OF A SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE\n(85)\nAccording to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, measures which, whatever their form, are likely directly or indirectly to favour certain undertakings or are to be regarded as an economic advantage which the recipient undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions are regarded as aid (30). In addition, measures which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which, without therefore being subsidies in the strict meaning of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect, are considered to constitute aid (31).\n1.1.1. Selective advantage for service-providers\n(86)\nThe Commission considers that the activity of collection, transportation, processing and destruction of the material in question is an economic activity, as it constitutes a service provision in return for remuneration and may be carried out by numerous economic operators on the Community market. This conclusion is based, in particular, on the information provided by ETSA, as summarised in recital 73 et seq. of this Decision.\n(87)\nWith regard to this economic activity, the Portuguese authorities argue that the service-providers in question carried out a public service mission in the general interest, justified by reasons of public health and environmental protection. In this context, the Portuguese authorities stress the country\u2019s specific situation in relation to the BSE crisis. Portugal therefore insists that all the measures taken were aimed at dealing with an emergency situation that threatened public health. The Portuguese Government\u2019s objective was therefore to allow measures to be immediately introduced until operators could arrange to carry out these tasks themselves, while remaining under state control (see recitals 21 and 59 of this Decision).\n(88)\nIn its comments, ETSA considers that it did not benefit from any illegal aid and that all the funds received were simply the legitimate consideration for the provision of a public service (see recital 79 of this Decision).\n(89)\nIt is clear from the Court of Justice judgment in the Altmark case (32) that public subsidies intended to allow the operation of public services do not fall within Article 107 TFEU, given that they must be regarded as compensation for the services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations. However, the Court requires the following conditions to be satisfied:\n-\nfirst, the recipient undertaking is actually required to discharge public service obligations and those obligations have been clearly defined,\n-\nsecond, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner,\n-\nthird, the compensation does not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations,\n-\nfourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation needed has been determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately equipped so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.\n(90)\nApplying the judgment in Altmark to the present case leads the Commission to consider the following:\n(a) Genuine service of general economic interest, as defined in Article 106(2) TFEU\n(91)\nTo start with, it must be examined whether the present case involves a genuine service of general economic interest, as defined in Article 106(2) TFEU.\n(92)\nIt is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that, with the exception of the sectors in which there are Community rules governing the matter, Member States have a wide margin of discretion regarding the nature of services that could be qualified as being services of general economic interest. Thus, the Commission\u2019s task is to ensure that this margin of discretion is applied without manifest error as regards the definition of services of general economic interest.\n(93)\nSince the 1990s, the occurrence of various transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) has been detected separately in humans and animals. Since 1996, evidence has been gathered pointing to the similarity between BSE agents and the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Since 1990, the European Community has adopted a number of measures aimed at protecting public and animal health from the risk of BSE. These measures are based on the safeguard provisions of the directives on animal health and environmental measures. Pursuant to Decision 2000/766/EC, Member States had to ensure that animal waste, as defined by Directive 90/667/EEC (33) was collected, transported, processed, stored or disposed of in accordance with that Directive, with Commission Decision 97/735/EC (34) and with Council Decision 1999/534/EC (35). In that respect, Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 laid down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, and required Member States to ensure that adequate arrangements were in place and that a sufficient infrastructure existed to collect, transport and destroy animal by-products.\n(94)\nGiven that the Court of Justice has recognised that the management of particular waste may form the subject of a service of general economic interest (36), and bearing in mind the specific situation of the BSE crisis as indicated above, the Commission has no objection to the Portuguese authorities attributing the nature of services of general economic interest to this activity of collecting and subsequently destroying carcasses and other animal waste unfit for consumption from 1999 to 2005, during which time the Portuguese State assumed full responsibility (from 1999 to 2003) and partial responsibility (from 2003 to 2005) for these operations. That decision was justified on grounds of public health and environmental protection, and is therefore covered by the concept of general economic interest, as defined in Article 106(2) TFEU.\n(b) Discharge of the public service obligation\n(95)\nThe Altmark judgment requires a mandate in the form of one or more official acts with binding legal force under national law. With regard to the first condition imposed by the Altmark judgment, it is confirmed that Decree-Laws No 393-B/98 and No 244/2003 required the collection, transportation, processing and destruction of animal by-products unfit for human consumption. Article 6 of Decree-Law No 393-B/98 provided that INGA, which was responsible for the collection, processing and destruction of animal by-products unfit for consumption, would select the undertakings to provide this service. Joint Order No 95/99 established beforehand the parameters used to calculate the remuneration for the public service, together with other obligations associated with the service provision, such as the obligation for the undertaking to collect all by-products generated in the national territory in accordance with the health and technical rules laid down by law.\n(96)\nThe Portuguese authorities maintain that the obligations of the service-providers were clearly defined in the service contracts. By way of example, they have provided the Commission with a service provision contract from 2003, concluded on the basis of Decree-Law No 393-B/98.\n(97)\nThe Commission notes that the obligations of the service-provider are clearly defined in the service provision contract submitted by the Portuguese authorities. In view of the provisions of Decree-Law No 393-B/98 and the Joint Order, as also the model service provision contract submitted, the Commission concludes that the first condition of the Altmark judgment is satisfied.\n(c) Parameters established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner\n(98)\nWith regard to the second condition, the Commission considers - based on the available information - that the parameters used to calculate the compensation were established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner. The Joint Orders submitted by the Portuguese authorities define the calculation method and eligible expenditure (see recital 26 of this Decision). These figures were periodically checked based on previous years. From 2005, public procurement procedures were organised. Based on the available information, the Commission considers that the second condition of the Altmark judgment is satisfied.\n(d) Compensation necessary to cover the service costs\n(99)\nWith regard to the third condition, the Portuguese authorities and the interested party state that the compensation did not exceed what was necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations.\n(100)\nOn several occasions, particularly when it initiated the examination procedure, the Commission asked the Portuguese authorities to provide information on the method used to calculate the actual economic cost of the services. The Portuguese authorities have provided documents showing the annual expenditure of the service-providers with regard to 1999 to 2005, and have compared these figures with what INGA paid providers for performing these services. The documents in question show that the compensation paid by INGA to the service-providers did not exceed what was necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in performing the service. The documents received show that the compensation also takes into account a profit of between 30 % and 39,5 %, depending on the year (see recital 62 of this Decision).\n(101)\nThe Portuguese authorities have given an assurance that the resources could not have been diverted to competing activities in which the undertakings may have been engaged (cross-subsidies) because the service-providers chosen were not engaged in other activities.\n(102)\nHowever, based on the information provided by the Portuguese authorities, the Commission considers that it is unable to conclude that the profit taken into account was \u2018reasonable\u2019 as defined by the Altmark judgment.\n(103)\nIn its comments, ETSA has confirmed that the remuneration received for the service provision adequately reflected the costs incurred, allowing a profit margin which did not result in any particular advantage, and that, in the period prior to 2005, the level of remuneration for providing the public service corresponded to the European average and was below the level of remuneration established in the public service contract awarded through the public procurement procedure.\n(104)\nWith regard to this information, the Commission notes that neither the Portuguese authorities nor the interested party have provided supporting documents.\n(105)\nAs a result, the Commission cannot conclude that the third condition of the Altmark judgment is satisfied in the present case.\n(e) Analysis of the costs of a typical undertaking\n(106)\nGiven that, prior to 2005, the service-providers were not selected through a public procurement procedure, the Altmark judgment requires a comparative analysis with the costs of a typical undertaking. The Portuguese authorities have not provided any evidence that the costs have been assessed based on an analysis of the costs of a typical undertaking.\n(107)\nThe Commission is therefore obliged to conclude that not all (four) criteria in the Altmark judgment are satisfied in the present case, and that it cannot rule out the possibility that there was an advantage for the service-providers in the period between the entry into force of Decree-Law No 393-B/98 and the end of the transitional scheme introduced by Decree-Law No 244/2003, which expired in 2005.\n(108)\nThe public payments were made to specific undertakings, i.e. to undertakings entrusted with the service. As a result, it can be considered that the measure in question is specific.\n(109)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that it cannot rule out the possibility that there was a selective advantage for the service-providers in the period between 1998 and the end of the transitional scheme introduced by Decree-Law No 244/2003, which expired in 2005.\n1.1.2. Selective advantage for slaughterhouses and cutting plants, importers of bone-in beef, veal, pigmeat and poultrymeat, and intra-Community operators, i.e. bone-in beef, veal and pigmeat operators/receivers\n(110)\nAccording to the Court of Justice judgment in the GEMO case (37), the fact that the service for the collection and disposal of animal carcasses and waste available to farmers and slaughterhouses is carried out by private undertakings cannot call into question any classification as State aid as the organisation of that service originates with the public authorities.\n(111)\nIn the present case, the rules governing the service and its financing originate from the Portuguese authorities, as laid down in Decree-Laws No 393-B/98, No 197/2002 and No 244/2003. In that respect, the Commission therefore concludes that the system in question can be imputed to the State.\n(112)\nIn the GEMO judgment, the Court of Justice stated that the financial cost incurred in the disposal of animal carcasses and slaughterhouse waste must be considered to be an inherent cost of the economic activities of farmers and slaughterhouses (38). The Court therefore concluded that Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a system which provides farmers and slaughterhouses with the free collection and disposal of animal carcasses and slaughterhouse waste must be classified as State aid in favour of farmers and slaughterhouses.\n(113)\nIn the present case, the disposal of animal carcasses and slaughterhouse waste can be considered as an inherent cost of the activity, not only for slaughterhouses and cutting plants, but also for importers of bone-in beef, veal, pigmeat and poultrymeat, and bone-in beef, veal and pigmeat operators/receivers. The Commission considers that this financing of the costs of collection, processing and destruction of mammalian meat and poultrymeat by-products through state budget appropriations prior to the entry into force of Decree-Law No 197/2002 resulted in the users of this service being exempt from a charge inherent in their activity.\n(114)\nThe Commission concludes that there was an advantage in the period prior to the application of the parafiscal charge.\n(115)\nWith regard to the period after the entry into force of Decree-Law No 197/2002 and Decree-Law No 244/2003, the activities described above were financed through a parafiscal charge introduced by Decree-Law No 197/2002 and amended by Decree-Law No 244/2003. According to the rules of Decree-Law No 197/2002, the following were exempt from paying this charge: slaughterhouses collecting, transporting, processing and destroying all by-products generated either in the slaughterhouse itself or in cutting plants, with the exception of SRM, given that these units were in a position to independently treat their own by-products (see Annex 2, paragraph 2, to Decree-Law No 197/2002); and boned meat importers and intra-Community operators, given that they did not generate by-products subject to the compulsory treatment laid down in the Community and national legislation. Decree-Law No 244/2003 provided for the exemption of these operators through the approval of a destruction or use plan in accordance with the specific conditions required for the various categories of material.\n(116)\nIn order to determine whether there was any advantage for slaughterhouses and cutting plants, importers of bone-in beef, veal, pigmeat and poultrymeat, and intra-Community operators, i.e. bone-in beef, veal and pigmeat operators/receivers liable for the charge, it must be determined to what extent the contribution by way of the charge corresponds to the actual economic cost of the services provided by the collection service.\n(117)\nThe Commission notes that the Portuguese authorities state, in their letter of 20 January 2003, that the charges set in Annexes 1 and 2 to Decree-Law No 197/2002, as also the charge laid down in Article 2(2) on SRM, were calculated based on the actual cost of the services to be provided, bearing in mind the nature and importance of the by-products generated by each animal species.\n(118)\nAccording to the Portuguese authorities, this charge formed, in all respects, the compensation payable by users for the provision of a public service of general interest. The amounts paid by operators liable for the charge were not fixed, but were directly proportional to the quantities of waste actually delivered to the public service and to the actual cost of disposing of this waste.\n(119)\nIn support of these assertions, the Portuguese authorities have provided documents containing figures for 2003, in which the actual economic costs of the services provided are compared with the contributions resulting from the corresponding charge. The Portuguese authorities have not provided any documents containing figures for the revenue from the charge levied during the remainder of 2002, after the entry into force of Decree-Law No 197/2002 in October of that year.\n(120)\nWith regard to 2004 and 2005, the Portuguese authorities have provided documents containing figures for the cost of the operations carried out, but not for the revenue from the charge imposed on those operators whose respective destruction and use plan had not been approved, and who for this reason had to continue paying the charge laid down by the transitional scheme introduced by Decree-Law No 244/2003.\n(121)\nWith regard to 2002, 2004 and 2005, the Commission cannot, from the documents provided by the Portuguese authorities, conclude that the contributions from those liable for the charge were directly proportional to the quantities of waste actually delivered to the collection service and to the actual cost of destroying this waste.\n(122)\nWith regard to 2003, the Commission concludes that there was no advantage, given that the contributions from those liable for the charge were directly proportional to the cost of the services received.\n(123)\nHowever, the Commission cannot rule out the possibility that there was some advantage for slaughterhouses and cutting plants, importers of bone-in beef, veal, pigmeat and poultrymeat, and intra-Community operators, i.e. bone-in beef, veal and pigmeat operators/receivers liable for the charge, from October 2002 until 1 January 2003 and also in 2004 and 2005.\n1.1.3. Selective advantage for livestock farmers\n(124)\nIn the present case, the disposal of animal carcasses and slaughterhouse waste can be considered as an inherent cost of the activity, not only for slaughterhouses and cutting plants, but also for livestock farmers who, under market laws, should bear at least part of the cost associated with these services. In accordance with the GEMO judgment, the Commission takes the view that this financing of the costs of collection, processing and destruction of mammalian meat and poultrymeat by-products through state budget appropriations prior to the entry into force of Decree-Law No 197/2002 resulted in the users of this service being exempt from a charge inherent in their activity.\n(125)\nThe Commission concludes that there was an advantage in the period prior to the application of the parafiscal charge.\n(126)\nAs indicated, the measures adopted by the Portuguese authorities in order to collect, transport, process and destroy mammalian meat and poultrymeat by-products could have exempted livestock farmers from costs that, under normal circumstances, they should have partly borne. It is clear from Decree-Law No 197/2002 and from the transitional scheme introduced by Decree-Law No 244/2003 that livestock farmers are not liable for the charge in question. The Portuguese authorities state that, prior to the end of 2005, the collection costs were passed on to the whole sector. The Commission notes that the two invoices submitted by the Portuguese authorities do indicate that the charge based on Decree-Law No 197/2002 and Decree-Law No 244/2003 was passed on by one of the slaughterhouses in October 2002 and October 2003. The assertion by the Portuguese authorities that, in accordance with market laws, the costs were passed on to the whole sector, including livestock farmers, is corroborated by the documents submitted. The Commission therefore concludes that livestock farmers bore the costs corresponding to their activity and did not therefore benefit from any specific advantage.\n(127)\nThe Commission considers that livestock farmers only benefited from an advantage in the period prior to the application of the charge.\n(128)\nBased on the above, the Commission concludes that there was an advantage, in respect of the collection, transportation, processing and destruction of animal by-products, in favour of slaughterhouses and importers during all the periods, except for 2003. In the case of livestock farmers, this advantage existed only during the period prior to the application of the charge.\n1.2. ADVANTAGES FINANCED THROUGH STATE RESOURCES\n(129)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU concerns aid granted by Member States or through State resources. In other words, the aid measure in question must be imputable to the State and be granted through State resources.\n(130)\nIn the present case, the cost of the collection, processing and destruction of mammalian meat and poultrymeat by-products was financed through direct State revenue between 1999 and October 2002, and by revenue from a parafiscal charge imposed on slaughterhouses, importers of bone-in beef, veal and pigmeat, and intra-Community operators, i.e. bone-in beef, veal and pigmeat operators/receivers, from October 2002.\n(131)\nPayments to service-providers made from direct State revenue are advantages financed through State resources. The fact that, from 1999 until the application of the charge in 2002, this public service was financed through the State budget means that the undertakings providing the service benefited from public funds to cover the costs of this service.\n(132)\nThe charges imposed between September 2002 and November 2005 are not covered by the scope of the TFEU provisions on State aid, unless they form the method of financing an aid measure and therefore form an integral part of this aid (39).\n(133)\nThe charges were paid to INGA using a reverse charge procedure. The charges imposed on operators formed INGA\u2019s revenue and were paid directly to it.\n(134)\nFor a charge to be regarded as forming an integral part of an aid measure, it must be hypothecated to the aid measure under the relevant national rules, in the sense that the revenue from the charge is necessarily allocated for the financing of the aid (40).\n(135)\nGiven that the charges formed INGA\u2019s revenue and were paid directly to it, the Commission considers that they formed an integral part of the aid measure.\n(136)\nWith regard to the issue of whether or not the revenue from the parafiscal charge in the present case can be regarded as State resources, it is worth noting that, in terms of State resources, there is no distinction between cases in which the aid is granted directly by the State and those in which it is granted through a public or private body designated or set up by that State. On 15 July 2004 the Court of Justice, in its judgment in Pearle and Others (41), found that compulsory contributions collected by an intermediary body from all undertakings in a given business sector are not regarded as State resources only if the following four conditions are satisfied:\n(a)\nthe measure in question is implemented by the professional body representing undertakings and workers in a business sector and does not serve as an instrument for applying policies defined by the State;\n(b)\nthe objectives of the measure in question are financed entirely by the contributions from undertakings in the sector;\n(c)\nthe method of financing and the percentage/amount of the contributions are decided by the representatives of employers and employees within the professional body for the sector, without interference from the State;\n(d)\nthe contributions must be used to fund the measure, without any possibility of intervention by the State.\n(137)\nThe available information indicates that the first condition of the judgment in Pearle and Others is not satisfied, as the measure was laid down by a decree-law in order to apply a policy defined by the State, which aims to combat BSE.\n(138)\nIn addition, the third and fourth conditions are not satisfied, given that the method of financing is regulated by the abovementioned decree-laws. As a result, the Portuguese authorities have the opportunity to intervene in determining the methods of financing the measure.\n(139)\nAs not all the conditions laid down in the judgment in Pearle and Others are satisfied and as the Portuguese State has decisive control over the methods of financing the aid measure, the Commission considers that the revenue from the parafiscal charge does in fact constitute State resources imputable to the State.\n1.3. DISTORTION OF COMPETITION AND EFFECT ON TRADE\n(140)\nAccording to the case-law of the Court of Justice, strengthening the competitive position of an undertaking through the granting of State aid generally distorts competition with other competing undertakings not having benefited from this aid (42).\n(141)\nThe measure may have an effect on Portugal\u2019s position in the meat sector (43). As Portuguese undertakings operate in a highly competitive international market, the measure distorts or threatens to distort competition. The measure may also affect trade between Member States.\n(142)\nThe Portuguese authorities have argued that, due to the ban on the dispatch, in particular, of live cattle and meat-and-bone meal, as such or incorporated in other products, there was no trade, which means that there could not have been any distortion of competition.\n(143)\nIn this respect, it should be recalled that, in accordance with settled case-law (44), an aid may be of such a kind as to affect trade between Member States and distort competition even if the recipient undertaking, which is in competition with producers in other Member States, does not itself export its products. Where a Member State grants aid to an undertaking, internal supply may thereby be maintained or increased, with the consequence that the opportunities for undertakings established in other Member States to offer their services to the market of that Member State are reduced.\n(144)\nAs a result, the Commission considers that the fact that the dispatch of the aforementioned products from Portugal to other Member States was prohibited does not alter the fact that the aid may be such as to distort competition or affect trade.\n1.4. CONCLUSIONS\n(145)\nThe Commission takes the view that the measure applied by Decree-Laws No 393-B/98, No 197/2002 and No 244/2003 with regard to the collection, transportation, processing and destruction of animal by-products constitutes State aid in favour of slaughterhouses and importers in the period during which Decree-Law No 393-B/98 was in force and until the application of the transitional scheme introduced by Decree-Law No 244/2003. However, the year 2003 is excluded, as the Portuguese authorities have been able to prove that there was no advantage.\n(146)\nWith regard to livestock farmers, the Commission considers that, in the period prior to the application of the charge, the measure constitutes State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(147)\nWith regard to the service-providers, the Commission concludes that it cannot rule out the possibility that State aid existed in the period between the entry into force of Decree-Law No 393-B/98 and the end of the transitional scheme introduced by Decree-Law No 244/2003, which expired in 2005.\n2. UNLAWFULNESS OF THE AID\n(148)\nThe Commission notes that Portugal did not notify, as required by Article 108(3) TFEU, the aid measures granted from 1999 nor the schemes introduced by Decree-Laws No 197/2002 and No 244/2003. Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 defines \u2018unlawful aid\u2019 as new aid put into effect in contravention of Article 93(3) of the Treaty.\n(149)\nAs the measures implemented by Portugal contain elements of State aid, it is concluded that these are new aid, not notified to the Commission, and are therefore unlawful under the terms of the TFEU.\n(150)\nThe compatibility of any aid must be examined in two stages: first, the Commission must examine the compatibility of the aid granted to service-providers; second, it must examine the compatibility of any aid granted to slaughterhouses and cutting plants, importers and intra-Community operators, and also livestock farmers.\n(151)\nThis aid was financed from 2002 by a parafiscal charge and, where the financing is an integral part of the aid measure, the Commission must examine both the actions financed, i.e. the aid, and their financing. In fact, as found by the Court of Justice, where the method of financing aid through compulsory contributions in particular is an integral part of the aid measure, the Commission\u2019s examination of the latter must necessarily take into account the method of financing the aid (45). As indicated in recital 135 of this Decision, the method of financing the aid must be regarded as an integral part of the aid measure.\n3. EXAMINATION OF THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID\n3.1. ANALYSIS IN LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO NON-NOTIFIED AID\n3.1.1. Aid to service-providers\n(a) Compatibility of the aid pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU\n(152)\nThe prohibition laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU allows for exceptions.\n(153)\nIt is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that compensation for public services does not constitute State aid, as defined in Article 107(1) TFEU, if certain conditions are satisfied (see recital 89 of this Decision). However, if the compensation for public services does not satisfy these conditions and if the general criteria for applying Article 107(1) TFEU are met, such compensation constitutes State aid. However, this may be found compatible with the TFEU, pursuant to Article 106(2) of the same Treaty, if it is necessary for the operation of services of general economic interest and does not affect the development of trade to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union. The Commission has clarified the conditions that must be satisfied to achieve this balance. In its 2001 Communication on services of general interest in Europe (46), the Commission clarified that it has to be ensured that any restrictions to the rules of the EC Treaty and, in particular, restrictions of competition and limitations of the freedoms of the internal market do not exceed what is necessary to guarantee effective fulfilment of the public service mission. This means, in particular, that the remuneration does not exceed the net extra costs of the particular tasks entrusted to the undertaking in question. The Commission subsequently further clarified these conditions, in the Community framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (47) and in its Decision of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty (48). With regard to calculating the compensation, the Commission clarified that the amount of this may not exceed what is necessary to cover the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations. The reasonable profit may include, in particular, all or some of the productivity gains achieved by the undertakings concerned during an agreed limited period without reducing the level of quality of the services entrusted to the undertaking by the State.\n(154)\nParagraph 18 of the Community framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation further clarifies that \u2018reasonable profit\u2019 should be taken to mean a rate of return on own capital that takes account of the risk, or absence of risk, incurred by the undertaking by virtue of the intervention by the Member State, particularly if the latter grants exclusive or special rights. This rate must normally not exceed the average rate for the sector concerned in recent years. In sectors where there is no undertaking comparable to the undertaking entrusted with the operation of the service of general economic interest, a comparison may be made with undertakings situated in other Member States, or if necessary, in other sectors, provided that the particular characteristics of each sector are taken into account. In determining what amounts to a reasonable profit, the Member State may introduce incentive criteria relating, among other things, to the quality of service provided and gains in productive efficiency.\n(155)\nAs indicated in recital 99 et seq. of this Decision, the Commission cannot, from the information provided by the Portuguese authorities, conclude that the compensation was calculated taking into account a reasonable profit not exceeding the average rate for the sector. The Commission services have asked the Portuguese authorities on several occasions to provide the necessary information so that they can determine, in the present case, whether the conditions for the derogation laid down for State aid granted in the form of a service of general economic interest were satisfied. The information provided by the Portuguese authorities has never indicated whether any comparison with other undertakings has been made in order to determine the average rate for the sector in question.\n(156)\nThe Commission cannot therefore conclude that the aid in favour of service-providers is compatible pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU.\n(b) Compatibility of the aid pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU\n(157)\nPursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, aid intended to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may be regarded as compatible with the internal market, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. In order to benefit from the derogation laid down in this subparagraph, the aid must contribute to the development of the sector in question.\n(158)\nIn the present case, the Portuguese authorities state that they assumed the total cost of the collection, processing and destruction of mammalian meat and poultrymeat by-products from 1999. Since October 2002, the cost of the collection, transportation, processing and destruction of mammalian meat and poultrymeat by-products has been financed by revenue from a charge imposed on slaughterhouses, importers of bone-in beef, veal and pigmeat, and intra-Community operators, i.e. bone-in beef, veal and pigmeat operators/receivers, where they do not carry out these operations themselves.\n(159)\nAccording to point 23.3 of the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector in the 2000-2006 period (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Guidelines\u2019) (49) and the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid (50), any unlawful aid, as defined in Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, must be assessed in accordance with the rules and guidelines applicable at the time when the aid was granted. In 2002 the Commission adopted the Community guidelines for State aid concerning TSE tests, fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste. These guidelines applied between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2006 (51). Point 44 of the latter guidelines establishes a derogation from the principle that unlawful aid must be assessed in accordance with the rules applicable at the time when it was granted, in particular for cases involving slaughterhouse waste. According to point 47 of those guidelines, the Commission will apply principles based on point 11.4 of the Guidelines to unlawful aid for slaughterhouse waste granted up to the end of 2002. As a result, point 47 of the TSE guidelines is the relevant legal basis for assessing the aid granted from 1999.\n(160)\nIn accordance with point 194(c) of the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013, from the entry into force of these guidelines on 1 January 2007, the Commission ceased to apply the TSE guidelines, except for unlawful aid granted before 1 January 2007, as referred to in point 43 et seq. of those same guidelines. As a result, point 47 of the TSE guidelines continues to apply to unlawful aid for slaughterhouse waste from 1 January 2003.\n(161)\nPoint 47 of the TSE guidelines lays down a number of provisions on slaughterhouse waste.\n(162)\nAccording to point 47 of the TSE guidelines, with regard to State aid for slaughterhouse waste, from January 2001 the Commission took a number of individual Decisions authorising State aid of up to 100 % for the cost of disposal of specified risk material, meat-and-bone meal, and animal feed containing such products, which had to be disposed of as a consequence of the new Community legislation on TSEs. These Decisions were in particular based on point 11.4 of the Guidelines, taking note of the short-term character of these aids, and of the need to respect the polluter pays principle in the long run. Exceptionally, the Commission has accepted that such State aid may also be granted to operators other than those active in the production of live animals, for example slaughterhouses. For unlawful aid granted before the end of 2002, for comparable costs in relation to the new Community legislation on TSEs, and without prejudice to compliance with other provisions of Community law, the Commission will apply the same principles.\n(163)\nPoint 47 of the TSE guidelines notes that, exceptionally, the Commission has accepted that such State aid may also be granted to operators other than those active in the production of live animals, for example slaughterhouses. In the past, the Commission has decided that this exception should also cover other undertakings carrying out tasks strictly linked with the production of live animals, such as undertakings processing animal by-products.\n(164)\nBased on point 11.4 of the Guidelines, the Commission has authorised aid up to 100 % of actual costs incurred in respect of measures such as health checks, tests and other screening measures, purchase and administration of medicines and plant protection products, and cost of destruction of crops, provided that:\n-\nthere is an appropriate programme at Community, national or regional level for the prevention, control or eradication of the disease concerned,\n-\ndiseases are a matter of concern for the public authorities,\n-\nthe objective of the aid measures is preventative and/or compensatory,\n-\nthe aid is compatible with Community veterinary and phyto-sanitary legislation.\n(165)\nThese principles also apply under the terms of point 47 of the TSE guidelines.\n(166)\nBovine spongiform encephalopathy is a transmissible disease that poses a threat to public health. It is an animal disease, the outbreak of which must be notified directly to the Commission and other Member States (52). The objective of the aid measure was to ensure that the necessary prevention measures, involving collection, transportation, processing and destruction, were applied in accordance with the applicable veterinary legislation between 1999 and 2005 in the meat sector.\n(167)\nThe Commission notes, in this respect, that Portugal has indicated that it assumed the total cost of the collection, processing and destruction of mammalian meat and poultrymeat by-products from 1999 until the end of 2002, in the context of the emergency measures approved by the Commission through Decision 98/653/EC, which prohibits the export of meat meal, bone meal and meat-and-bone meal of mammalian origin. It should also be noted that the measures prohibiting the dispatch of beef applied to Portugal were not repealed until the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1993/2004.\n(168)\nThe Commission also points out that, in accordance with points 33 and 34 of the TSE guidelines, undertakings were chosen and remunerated according to market principles, in a non-discriminatory way (see recital 21 et seq. of this Decision). Bearing in mind the urgency of the measures to be taken, the Commission can, in the present case, accept that the Portuguese authorities chose service-providers in accordance with Decree-Law No 197/99 of 8 June 1999 - which, according to the information provided by those authorities, is the national instrument transposing Directive 97/52/EC - without recourse to a public procurement procedure (see recital 24 of this Decision).\n(169)\nThe Portuguese authorities indicate that Decree-Law No 197/2002 was laid down in order to meet Portugal\u2019s obligations in the context of Decision 2000/766/EC, in accordance with the polluter pays principle (see recitals 65 and 66 of this Decision). The Portuguese authorities have confirmed that the resources could not have been diverted to competing activities in which the service-providers may have been engaged as the only activities of the undertakings in question were in fact the collection, transportation, processing and destruction of animal by-products.\n(170)\nThe Commission also considers that responsibility for the service and its financing was passed on to the operators, following a transitional period, through the scheme introduced by Decree-Law No 244/2003.\n(171)\nGiven the special circumstances and the emergency situation created by the risk of the spread of BSE between 1999 and 2004, and due to the fact that the scheme introduced by Decree-Law No 244/2003 provides for the gradual transfer of responsibility for and financing of the services to operators in the sector, the Commission considers that the aid can be classified as short term and that it complies with the polluter pays principle in the long term.\n(172)\nThe Commission can therefore conclude that, based on the available information, the aid granted between 1999 and the end of 2002 can benefit from the derogation laid down in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\n(173)\nWith regard to the aid granted between 2003 and November 2005, the Commission considers that, given the emergency situation that arose at the end of 2004 and the fact that the scheme under the relevant Decree-Law provides for the gradual transfer of responsibility for and financing of the services, as indicated above, the aid can be classified as compatible and compliant with point 47 of the TSE guidelines, where this aid corresponds to the \u2018actual\u2019 costs of the services received.\n(174)\nAs indicated in recital 100 of this Decision, the Portuguese authorities have proven that the aid corresponded to the \u2018actual\u2019 cost of the services provided by the service-providers, with regard to the period between 1999 and 2005.\n(175)\nAccordingly, the Commission concludes that, based on the available information, the aid granted between 2003 and November 2005 to service-providers can benefit from the derogation laid down in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\n3.1.2. Aid granted to slaughterhouses and cutting plants, importers and intra-Community operators in the sector, and also livestock farmers\n(176)\nAs the Commission indicates in recital 166 of this Decision, between 1999 and 2004 the risk of BSE spreading in Portugal resulted in special circumstances and an emergency situation. Given this exceptional situation and bearing in mind the fact that the scheme introduced by Decree-Law No 244/2003 provides for the gradual transfer of responsibility for and financing of the services to operators in the sector, the Commission considers that the aid can be classified as short term and that it complies with the polluter pays principle in the long term. In line with its previous practice, it also considers that, in the present case, the aid under point 47 of the TSE guidelines could, exceptionally, be granted to other operators in the sector, namely slaughterhouses and cutting plants, and also to importers and intra-Community operators in the sector.\n(177)\nAs the Commission noted for service-providers, the aid was granted in accordance with the principles laid down in point 47 of the TSE guidelines.\n(178)\nWith regard to slaughterhouses and cutting plants, importers and intra-Community operators in the sector, the Commission can therefore conclude that the aid granted can benefit from the derogation laid down in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\n(179)\nWith regard to livestock farmers, the Commission also concludes that, bearing in mind the points made in recital 160 et seq. of this Decision, the aid was granted in accordance with the principles laid down in point 47 of the TSE guidelines and can benefit from the derogation laid down in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\n3.2. FINANCING OF THE AID\n(180)\nSince October 2002, when Decree-Law No 197/2002 entered into force, the cost of the collection, transportation, processing and destruction of mammalian meat and poultrymeat by-products has been financed by revenue from a parafiscal charge imposed on slaughterhouses, importers of bone-in beef, veal and pigmeat, and intra-Community operators, i.e. bone-in beef, veal and pigmeat operators/receivers.\n(181)\nIn accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice (53), the Commission normally considers that the financing of State aid through compulsory charges may affect the aid by having a protective effect which goes beyond aid properly speaking. The contributions in question are in fact compulsory charges. In view of the case-law, the Commission considers that aid cannot be financed through parafiscal charges which are also imposed on products imported from other Member States.\n(182)\nIn view of the case-law and of the fact that the aid was granted through State resources and therefore constitutes State aid, as defined in Article 107 TFEU, it should be examined whether this aid may be discriminatory, contrary to Article 110 TFEU, insofar as products from other Member States must also pay the charge.\n(183)\nAccording to the Portuguese authorities, the imposition of charges on imported bone-in meat is justified by the fact that, insofar as bone-in meat generates by-products benefiting from the collection, transportation, processing and destruction services, these imported products may benefit from the system in the same way as domestic products.\n(184)\nAccording to the information available to the Commission, the charges were imposed on slaughterhouses and importers of bovine and pig carcasses, half-carcasses and other bone-in parts (see Article 2(2) of Decree-Law No 197/2002), and were used to finance the services of collection, transportation, processing and destruction of mammalian meat and poultrymeat by-products (Article 1(1) of Decree-Law No 197/2002).\n(185)\nThis information made the Commission doubt that the charges imposed on those liable for the charge corresponded to the services from which they benefited. The Commission considered that it could not rule out the existence of a potentially discriminatory system in relation to products imported from other Member States, on which the charge was also imposed.\n(186)\nSubsequently, the Portuguese authorities gave an assurance that the services of collection, transportation, processing and destruction of poultrymeat by-products were not financed by charges imposed on slaughterhouses and importers of bovine and pig carcasses, half-carcasses and other bone-in parts, but, in accordance with Annex 1 to Decree-Law No 197/2002, by charges imposed on poultrymeat slaughterhouses which did not collect, transport, process and destroy all the by-products generated in the slaughter of poultry. Poultry carcass importers and operators were exempt from the charge, due to the fact that most imported poultry carcasses do not generate by-products.\n(187)\nHowever, with regard to importers and operators of bovine and pig carcasses, half-carcasses and other bone-in parts, the Portuguese authorities demonstrated that these imported bone-in parts did generate by-products.\n(188)\nIn the information injunction and subsequently on initiating the procedure, the Commission asked the Portuguese authorities to give an assurance that imported products could benefit from the mechanism in the same way as domestic products and to prove, in a quantified manner, that, during a given reference period, the charges imposed on bone-in beef, veal and pigmeat products from other Member States were financially equivalent to the costs of the services from which these products exclusively benefited (see paragraph 37(h) of the Decision initiating the procedure).\n(189)\nThe Portuguese authorities gave an assurance that imported bone-in parts did benefit in the same way from the meat by-product collection, transportation, processing and destruction services as domestic products, but they did not provide precise and supporting figures in this respect.\n(190)\nThe information provided to the Commission does not therefore enable it to conclude that the charge introduced by Decree-Law No 197/2002, applied to imported products, was equivalent to the cost of the services from which the by-products generated by these imported products benefited and that, consequently, imported products could benefit from the services financed through the aid measure in the same way as domestic products.\n(191)\nUnder Article 3(2) of Decree-Law No 244/2003, slaughterhouses, cutting plants, hatcheries and egg production facilities had to pay the charges set in Annex 1 to Decree-Law No 197/2002, except for those entities benefiting from the alternative scheme provided for in the Decree-Law, which, until the plan for the destruction of Category 3 material was approved, had to pay the charges set in Annex 2. With regard to Category 1 and 2 material, until a plan was approved, they had to pay EUR 0,35 per kilogram of material (Article 5(1) of Decree-Law No 244/2003).\n(192)\nWith regard to the amendments made by Decree-Law No 244/2003 to the charging system, the Commission asked the Portuguese authorities to prove that imported products could benefit from these services in the same way as domestic products.\n(193)\nThe Portuguese authorities confirmed that the charge introduced by Decree-Law No 244/2003 was based on the by-products actually generated and that imported products could benefit in the same way from the services in question. The Commission notes, however, that the Portuguese authorities have not provided any quantified data in support of these assertions.\n(194)\nIn the absence of evidence, the Commission cannot therefore conclude that the charge introduced by Decree-Law No 244/2003 was equivalent to the cost of the services from which the by-products generated by these imported products benefited and that, consequently, imported products could benefit from the services financed through the aid measure in the same way as domestic products.\n(195)\nThe Commission considers that the charging system applied based on Decree-Law No 197/2002 and on the transitional scheme introduced by Articles 3(2) and 5(2) of Decree-Law No 244/2003 does not comply with Article 110 TFEU, due to the existence of a potentially discriminatory system in relation to products imported from other Member States, on which the charge was also imposed.\nVI. CONCLUSIONS\n(196)\nThe Commission regrets that Portugal should have unlawfully granted aid for the collection, transportation, processing and destruction of slaughterhouse waste, contrary to Article 108(3) TFEU.\n(197)\nThe aid for the collection, transportation, processing and destruction of slaughterhouse waste complied with the applicable Community provisions in terms of the beneficiaries. However, the financing of this aid through the charging system applied based on Decree-Law No 197/2002 and on the transitional scheme introduced by Articles 3(2) and 5(2) of Decree-Law No 244/2003 is incompatible with the internal market, due to the potentially discriminatory effect in relation to products imported from other Member States, on which the charge was also imposed.\n(198)\nThe Commission considers it appropriate in the present case to adopt a conditional decision using the possibility offered by Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, according to which the Commission may attach to a positive decision conditions subject to which an aid may be considered compatible with the common market and may lay down obligations to enable compliance with the decision to be monitored.\n(199)\nIn order to make good the breach of Article 110 TFEU and thus retrospectively remove the potential discrimination, Portugal must repay part of the charge imposed on products from other Member States within a time limit and under conditions set by the Commission. Making good this breach will make the aid concerned compatible with the Treaty.\n(200)\nThe conditions to be met for such repayment shall be laid down by the Commission. Portugal must thus repay to the persons who paid the charge that part of the charge imposed on products from other Member States between the date when the charge laid down in Decree-Law No 197/2002 was first imposed and the date when it was last imposed prior to the end of the transitional scheme introduced by Decree-Law No 244/2003. To that end, Portugal will ensure that the following conditions are met:\n-\nIf they can provide evidence that the charge was imposed on products imported from other Member States, the persons who paid the charge can claim the repayment of the proportion of the revenue from the charge intended to finance the part of the aid exclusively benefiting domestic products. These claims for repayment shall be made within a time limit set in accordance with national law and in no case less than 6 months from the publication of this Decision.\n-\nPortugal must establish the extent of any discrimination affecting imported products. To that end, Portugal must check, during a reference period, the financial equivalence between the amounts levied overall on domestic products by way of the charge concerned and the advantages from which these products exclusively benefit.\n-\nRepayment must be made within a maximum time limit of 6 months from the submission of the request.\n-\nThe amounts repaid must include interest calculated as from the date on which they were levied up until the date of actual repayment. This interest shall be calculated on the basis of the Commission\u2019s reference rate laid down by the method for setting the reference and discount rates (54).\n-\nThe Portuguese authorities shall accept any reasonable evidence from the payers of the charge paid in respect of products from other Member States.\n-\nThe right to repayment cannot be made subject to other conditions, particularly that of the charge not having been passed on.\n-\nWhere the charge has not yet been paid, the Portuguese authorities shall formally waive payment of the proportion of the charge imposed on products imported from other Member States and intended to finance the part of the aid exclusively benefiting domestic products. The Portuguese authorities shall also waive any interest on late payment of this part.\n-\nWhere the Commission so requests, Portugal shall undertake to submit a full report proving the proper implementation of the repayment measure.\n-\nIf a charge with similar objectives has been imposed in another Member State on the same products which have been made subject to the charge in Portugal, the Portuguese authorities shall undertake to repay those persons who have paid the charge for that part of it which affected products from that other Member State.\n-\nPortugal undertakes to make this Decision known to all potential payers of the charge.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid granted by Portugal based on Decree-Law No 393-B/98 of 4 December 1998 is compatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\n1. The State aid granted by Portugal based on Decree-Law No 197/2002 of 25 September 2002 and on the transitional scheme introduced by Article 3(2) of Decree-Law No 244/2003 of 7 October 2003 is compatible with the internal market, provided that Portugal repays those persons who have paid the charge for that part of it which affected products from other Member States between the date when the charge laid down in Decree-Law No 197/2002 was first imposed and the date when it was last imposed prior to the end of the transitional scheme introduced by Decree-Law No 244/2003.\n2. To that end, Portugal will ensure that the following conditions are met:\n-\nIf they can provide evidence that the charge was imposed on products imported from other Member States, the persons who paid the charge can claim the repayment of the proportion of the revenue from the charge intended to finance the part of the aid exclusively benefiting domestic products. These claims for repayment shall be made within a time limit set in accordance with national law and in no case less than 6 months from the publication of this Decision.\n-\nPortugal must establish the extent of any discrimination affecting imported products. To that end, Portugal must check, during a reference period, the financial equivalence between the amounts levied overall on domestic products by way of the charge concerned and the advantages from which these products exclusively benefit.\n-\nRepayment must be made within a maximum time limit of 6 months from the submission of the request.\n-\nThe amounts repaid must include interest calculated as from the date on which they were levied up until the date of actual repayment. This interest shall be calculated on the basis of the Commission\u2019s reference rate laid down by the method for setting the reference and discount rates (55).\n-\nThe Portuguese authorities shall accept any reasonable evidence from the payers of the charge paid in respect of products from other Member States.\n-\nThe right to repayment cannot be subjected to other conditions, particularly that of the charge not having been passed on.\n-\nWhere the charge has not yet been paid, the Portuguese authorities shall formally waive payment of the proportion of the charge imposed on products imported from other Member States and intended to finance the part of the aid exclusively benefiting domestic products. The Portuguese authorities shall also waive any interest on late payment of this part.\n-\nWhere the Commission so requests, Portugal shall undertake to submit a full report proving the proper implementation of the repayment measure.\n-\nIf a charge with similar objectives has been imposed in another Member State on the same products which have been made subject to the charge in Portugal, the Portuguese authorities shall undertake to repay those persons who have paid the charge for that part of it which affected products from that other Member State.\n-\nPortugal undertakes to make this Decision known to all potential payers of the charge.\nArticle 3\nPortugal shall inform the Commission, within a time limit of 2 months from notification of this Decision, of the measures it has taken to comply with it.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2011.", "references": ["50", "79", "41", "89", "98", "62", "87", "29", "21", "51", "69", "17", "28", "5", "18", "42", "49", "52", "78", "73", "56", "63", "25", "23", "53", "2", "30", "34", "99", "72", "No Label", "8", "15", "24", "48", "58", "60", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "24", "48", "58", "60", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 355/2012\nof 24 April 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 recognising protected zones exposed to particular plant health risks in the Community\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 2(1)(h) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 (2) certain Member States or certain areas in Member States were recognised as protected zones in respect of certain harmful organisms. In some cases recognition was granted for a limited period of time to allow the Member State concerned to provide the full information necessary to show that the harmful organisms in question did not occur in the Member State or area concerned or to complete the efforts to eradicate the organism in question.\n(2)\nThe entire territory of Spain, with the exception of the autonomous community of Castilla y Le\u00f3n, was recognised as a protected zone with respect to Erwinia amylovora (Burr.) Winsl. et al. Spain has submitted information indicating that the autonomous community of Extremadura should no longer be recognised as a protected zone for this organism. Therefore, the autonomous community of Extremadura should be withdrawn as a protected zone in respect of that harmful organism.\n(3)\nIreland and Lithuania, and certain regions and parts of regions of Italy, Slovakia and Slovenia were recognised as protected zones with respect to Erwinia amylovora (Burr.) Winsl. et al. until 31 March 2012.\n(4)\nFrom the information received from Ireland, Lithuania, Italy and Slovenia on the results of surveys conducted in 2010 and 2011, it appears that those protected zones should be recognised for two more years to give those Member States the time necessary to submit information showing that Erwinia amylovora (Burr.) Winsl. et al. is not present or, where necessary, to complete their efforts to eradicate that organism.\n(5)\nFrom the information received from Slovakia on the results of surveys conducted in 2010 and 2011, it appears that Erwinia amylovora (Burr.) Winsl. et al. is now established in the commune of Dvory nad \u017ditavou (Nov\u00e9 Z\u00e1mky County), which is part of the protected zone. That commune should therefore no longer be recognised as a protected zone for that harmful organism. According to the results of those surveys, it is appropriate to continue, for two more years, to recognise the other parts of Slovakia previously recognised as a protected zone with respect to that harmful organism, in order to give Slovakia the time necessary to submit information showing that Erwinia amylovora (Burr.) Winsl. et al. is not present or, where necessary, to complete their efforts to eradicate that organism.\n(6)\nThe entire territory of Portugal, with the exception of Madeira, was recognised as a protected zone with respect to Citrus tristeza virus (European strains). Portugal has submitted information showing that Citrus tristeza virus (European strains) has spread significantly in the region of Algarve where its eradication is no longer achievable, and requested the withdrawal of the status of protected zone for this part of its territory. Therefore, the region of Algarve should no longer be recognised as a protected zone in respect of that harmful organism.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 690/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe current recognition of some of these protected zones expires on 31 March 2012. Therefore, this Regulation should apply from 1 April 2012 so as to allow an uninterrupted recognition of all protected zones.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\npoint 2 of heading (b) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the first indent of the second column, the words \u2018Spain (except the autonomous community of Castilla y Le\u00f3n)\u2019 are replaced by \u2018Spain (except the autonomous communities of Castilla y Le\u00f3n and Extremadura)\u2019;\n(b)\nthe second indent of the second column is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nand, until 31 March 2014, Ireland, Italy (Ap\u00falia, Emilia-Romagna (the provinces of Parma and Piacenza), Lombardy (except the province of Mantua), Veneto (except the provinces of Rovigo and Venice, the communes Castelbaldo, Barbona, Piacenza d\u2019Adige, Vescovana, S. Urbano, Boara Pisani and Masi in the province of Padova and the area situated to the South of highway A4 in the province of Verona)), Lithuania, Slovenia (except the regions Gorenjska, Koro\u0161ka, Maribor and Notranjska), Slovakia (except the communes of Blahov\u00e1, Horn\u00e9 M\u00fdto and Oko\u010d (Dunajsk\u00e1 Streda County), Hronovce and Hronsk\u00e9 K\u013ea\u010dany (Levice County), Dvory nad \u017ditavou (Nov\u00e9 Z\u00e1mky County), M\u00e1linec (Polt\u00e1r County), Hrhov (Ro\u017e\u0148ava County), Ve\u013ek\u00e9 Rip\u0148any (Topo\u013e\u010dany County), Kazim\u00edr, Luhy\u0148a, Mal\u00fd Hore\u0161, Sv\u00e4tu\u0161e and Zat\u00edn (Trebi\u0161ov County))\u2019;\n(2)\nin the second column of point 3 of heading (d), the words \u2018Portugal (except Madeira)\u2019 are replaced by \u2018Portugal (except Algarve and Madeira)\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["39", "23", "70", "69", "41", "25", "0", "38", "98", "71", "51", "19", "90", "84", "8", "76", "18", "32", "1", "6", "54", "40", "46", "5", "95", "55", "91", "77", "79", "75", "No Label", "58", "60", "61", "66", "92"], "gold": ["58", "60", "61", "66", "92"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1095/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\nestablishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/77/EC\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe financial crisis in 2007 and 2008 exposed important shortcomings in financial supervision, both in particular cases and in relation to the financial system as a whole. Nationally based supervisory models have lagged behind financial globalisation and the integrated and interconnected reality of European financial markets, in which many financial institutions operate across borders. The crisis exposed shortcomings in the areas of cooperation, coordination, consistent application of Union law and trust between national supervisors.\n(2)\nBefore and during the financial crisis, the European Parliament has called for a move towards more integrated European supervision in order to ensure a true level playing field for all actors at the level of the Union and to reflect the increasing integration of financial markets in the Union (in its resolutions of 13 April 2000 on the Commission communication on implementing the framework for financial markets: Action Plan (4), of 21 November 2002 on prudential supervision rules in the European Union (5), of 11 July 2007 on financial services policy (2005 to 2010) - White Paper (6), of 23 September 2008 with recommendations to the Commission on hedge funds and private equity (7) and of 9 October 2008 with recommendations to the Commission on Lamfalussy follow-up: future structure of supervision (8), and in its positions of 22 April 2009 on the amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (9) and of 23 April 2009 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Credit Rating Agencies (10)).\n(3)\nIn November 2008, the Commission mandated a High-Level Group chaired by Jacques de Larosi\u00e8re to make recommendations on how to strengthen European supervisory arrangements with a view to better protecting the citizen and rebuilding trust in the financial system. In its final report presented on 25 February 2009 (the \u2018de Larosi\u00e8re Report\u2019), the High-Level Group recommended that the supervisory framework be strengthened to reduce the risk and severity of future financial crises. It recommended reforms to the structure of supervision of the financial sector in the Union. The group also concluded that a European System of Financial Supervisors should be created, comprising three European Supervisory Authorities, one for the banking sector, one for the securities sector and one for the insurance and occupational pensions sector and recommended the creation of a European Systemic Risk Council. The report represented the reforms the experts considered were needed and on which work had to begin immediately.\n(4)\nIn its Communication of 4 March 2009 entitled \u2018Driving European Recovery\u2019, the Commission proposed to put forward draft legislation creating a European system of financial supervision and a European systemic risk board. In its Communication of 27 May 2009 entitled \u2018European Financial Supervision\u2019, it provided more detail about the possible architecture of such a new supervisory framework reflecting the main thrust of the de Larosi\u00e8re Report.\n(5)\nThe European Council, in its conclusions of 19 June 2009, confirmed that a European System of Financial Supervisors, comprising three new European Supervisory Authorities, should be established. The system should be aimed at upgrading the quality and consistency of national supervision, strengthening oversight of cross-border groups and establishing a European single rule book applicable to all financial market participants in the internal market. It emphasised that the European Supervisory Authorities should also have supervisory powers in relation to credit rating agencies and invited the Commission to prepare concrete proposals on how the European System of Financial Supervisors could play a strong role in crisis situations, while stressing that decisions taken by the European Supervisory Authorities should not impinge on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States. The Commission has presented a Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies (11). The European Parliament and the Council should consider that proposal in order to ensure that European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (hereinafter the Authority\u2019) will have adequate supervisory powers over credit rating agencies, bearing in mind that the Authority should execute exclusive supervisory powers over Credit Rating Agencies entrusted to it in Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. For that purpose, the Authority should have appropriate powers of investigation and enforcement as specified in the relevant legislation, as well as the possibility of charging fees.\n(6)\nOn 17 June 2010, the European Council agreed that \u2018Member States should introduce systems of levies and taxes on financial institutions to ensure fair burden-sharing and to set incentives to contain systemic risk. Such levies or taxes should be part of a credible resolution framework. Further work is urgently required on their main features and issues of level playing field and cumulative impacts of various regulatory measures should be carefully assessed\u2019.\n(7)\nThe financial and economic crisis has created real and serious risks to the stability of the financial system and the functioning of the internal market. Restoring and maintaining a stable and reliable financial system is an absolute prerequisite to preserving trust and coherence in the internal market, and thereby to preserve and improve the conditions for the establishment of a fully integrated and functioning internal market in the field of financial services. Moreover, deeper and more integrated financial markets offer better opportunities for financing and risk diversification, and thus help to improve the capacity of the economies to absorb shocks.\n(8)\nThe Union has reached the limits of what can be done with the present status of the Committees of European Supervisors. The Union cannot remain in a situation where there is no mechanism to ensure that national supervisors arrive at the best possible supervisory decisions for cross-border financial market participants; where there is insufficient cooperation and information exchange between national supervisors; where joint action by national authorities requires complicated arrangements to take account of the patchwork of regulatory and supervisory requirements; where national solutions are most often the only feasible option in responding to problems at the level of the Union; and where different interpretations of the same legal text exist. The European System of Financial Supervision (hereinafter the ESFS\u2019) should be designed to overcome those deficiencies and provide a system that is in line with the objective of a stable and single Union financial market for financial services, linking national supervisors within a strong Union network.\n(9)\nThe ESFS should be an integrated network of national and Union supervisory authorities, leaving day-to-day supervision to the national level. Greater harmonisation and the coherent application of rules for financial market participants across the Union should also be achieved. In addition to the Authority, a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) as well as a Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (hereinafter the Joint Committee\u2019) should be established. A European Systemic Risk Board (hereinafter the ESRB\u2019) should form part of the ESFS for the purposes of the tasks as specified in this Regulation and in Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (12).\n(10)\nThe European Supervisory Authorities (hereinafter collectively referred to as the \u2018ESAs\u2019) should replace the Committee of European Banking Supervisors established by Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (13), the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors established by Commission Decision 2009/79/EC (14) and the Committee of European Securities Regulators established by Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (15), and should assume all of the tasks and competences of those committees including the continuation of ongoing work and projects, where appropriate. The scope of each European Supervisory Authority\u2019s action should be clearly defined. The ESAs should be accountable to the European Parliament and the Council. When that accountability relates to cross-sectoral issues that have been coordinated through the Joint Committee, the ESAs should be accountable, through the Joint Committee, for such coordination.\n(11)\nThe Authority should act with a view to improving the functioning of the internal market, in particular by ensuring a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision taking account of the varying interests of all Member States and the different nature of financial market participants. The Authority should protect public values such as the integrity and stability of the financial system, the transparency of markets and financial products and the protection of investors. The Authority should also prevent regulatory arbitrage and guarantee a level playing field, and strengthen international supervisory coordination, for the benefit of the economy at large, including financial institutions and other stakeholders, consumers and employees. Its tasks should also include promoting supervisory convergence and providing advice to the Union institutions in the areas of its responsibility. The Authority should also be entrusted with certain responsibilities for existing and new financial activities.\n(12)\nThe Authority should also be able to temporarily prohibit or restrict certain financial activities that threaten the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union in the cases specified and under the conditions laid down in the legislative acts referred to in this Regulation. If required to make such temporary prohibition in the case of an emergency situation, the Authority should do so in accordance with and under the conditions laid down in this Regulation. In cases where a temporary prohibition or restriction of certain financial activities has a cross-sectoral impact, sectoral legislation should provide that the Authority should consult and coordinate its action with, where relevant, the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), through the Joint Committee.\n(13)\nThe Authority should take due account of the impact of its activities on competition and innovation within the internal market, on the Union\u2019s global competitiveness, on financial inclusion, and on the Union\u2019s new strategy for jobs and growth.\n(14)\nIn order to fulfil its objectives, the Authority should have legal personality as well as administrative and financial autonomy.\n(15)\nBased on the work of international bodies, systemic risk should be defined as a risk of disruption in the financial system with the potential to have serious negative consequences for the internal market and the real economy. All types of financial intermediaries, markets and infrastructures may be potentially systemically important to some degree.\n(16)\nCross-border risk includes all risks caused by economic imbalances or financial failures in all or parts of the Union that have the potential to have significant negative consequences for the transactions between economic operators of two or more Member States, for the functioning of the internal market or for the public finances of the Union or any of its Member States.\n(17)\nThe Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 2 May 2006 in Case C-217/04 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union) held that: \u2018nothing in the wording of Article 95 EC [now Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)] implies that the addressees of the measures adopted by the Community legislature on the basis of that provision can only be the individual Member States. The legislature may deem it necessary to provide for the establishment of a Community body responsible for contributing to the implementation of a process of harmonisation in situations where, in order to facilitate the uniform implementation and application of acts based on that provision, the adoption of non-binding supporting and framework measures seems appropriate\u2019 (16). The purpose and tasks of the Authority - assisting competent national supervisory authorities in the consistent interpretation and application of Union rules and contributing to financial stability necessary for financial integration - are closely linked to the objectives of the Union acquis concerning the internal market for financial services. The Authority should therefore be established on the basis of Article 114 TFEU.\n(18)\nThe following legislative acts lay down the tasks for competent authorities of Member States, including cooperating with each other and with the Commission: Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes (17), Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems (18), Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2001 on the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and on information to be published on those securities (19), Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements (20), Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (21), Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (22), Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (23), Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (24), Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (25), without prejudice to the competence of the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), as far as prudential supervision is concerned, Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (26), any future legislation in the area of Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM) and Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\n(19)\nExisting Union legislation regulating the field covered by this Regulation also includes Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate (27), Directive 98/78/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on the supplementary supervision of insurance undertakings in an insurance group (28), Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 on information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds (29), and the relevant parts of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (30) and of Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services (31).\n(20)\nIt is desirable that the Authority promote a consistent approach in the area of investor compensation schemes to ensure a level playing field and the equitable treatment of investors across the Union. As investor compensation schemes are subject to oversight in their Member States rather than regulatory supervision, the Authority should be able to exercise its powers under this Regulation in relation to the investor compensation scheme itself and its operator.\n(21)\nIn accordance with the Declaration (No 39) on Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, the elaboration of regulatory technical standards requires assistance of technical expertise in a form which is specific to the financial services area. It is necessary to allow the Authority to provide such expertise also on standards or parts of standards that are not based on a draft technical standard that it has elaborated.\n(22)\nThere is a need to introduce an effective instrument to establish harmonised regulatory technical standards in financial services to ensure, also through a single rulebook, a level playing field and adequate protection of investors and consumers across the Union. As a body with highly specialised expertise, it is efficient and appropriate to entrust the Authority, in areas defined by Union law, with the elaboration of draft regulatory technical standards, which do not involve policy choices.\n(23)\nThe Commission should endorse those draft regulatory technical standards by means of delegated acts under Article 290 TFEU in order to give them binding legal effect. They should be subject to amendment only in very restricted and extraordinary circumstances, since the Authority is the actor in close contact with and knowing best the daily functioning of financial markets. Draft regulatory technical standards would be subject to amendment if they were incompatible with Union law, did not respect the principle of proportionality or ran counter to the fundamental principles of the internal market for financial services as reflected in the acquis of Union financial services legislation. The Commission should not change the content of the draft regulatory technical standards prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority. To ensure a smooth and expeditious adoption process for those standards, the Commission\u2019s decision to endorse draft regulatory technical standards should be subject to a time limit.\n(24)\nGiven the technical expertise of the Authority in the areas where regulatory technical standards should be developed, note should be taken of the Commission\u2019s stated intention to rely, as a rule, on the draft regulatory technical standards submitted to it by the Authority in view of the adoption of the corresponding delegated acts. However, in cases where the Authority fails to submit a draft regulatory technical standard within the time limits set out by the relevant legislative act, it should be ensured that the result of the exercise of delegated power is actually achieved, and the efficiency of the decision-making process be maintained. In those cases, the Commission should therefore be empowered to adopt regulatory technical standards in the absence of a draft by the Authority.\n(25)\nThe Commission should also be empowered to adopt implementing technical standards by means of implementing acts under Article 291 TFEU.\n(26)\nIn areas not covered by regulatory or implementing technical standards, the Authority should have the power to issue guidelines and recommendations on the application of Union law. In order to ensure transparency and to strengthen compliance by national supervisory authorities with those guidelines and recommendations, it should be possible for the Authority to publish the reasons for supervisory authorities\u2019 non-compliance with those guidelines and recommendations.\n(27)\nEnsuring the correct and full application of Union law is a core prerequisite for the integrity, transparency, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, the stability of the financial system, and for neutral conditions of competition for financial market participants in the Union. A mechanism should therefore be established whereby the Authority addresses instances of non-application or incorrect application of Union law amounting to a breach thereof. That mechanism should apply in areas where Union law defines clear and unconditional obligations.\n(28)\nTo allow for a proportionate response to instances of incorrect or insufficient application of Union law, a three-step mechanism should apply. First, the Authority should be empowered to investigate alleged incorrect or insufficient application of Union law obligations by national authorities in their supervisory practice, concluded by a recommendation. Second, where the competent national authority does not follow the recommendation, the Commission should be empowered to issue a formal opinion taking into account the Authority\u2019s recommendation, requiring the competent authority to take the actions necessary to ensure compliance with Union law.\n(29)\nThird, to overcome exceptional situations of persistent inaction by the competent authority concerned, the Authority should be empowered, as a last resort, to adopt decisions addressed to individual financial market participants. That power should be limited to exceptional circumstances in which a competent authority does not comply with the formal opinion addressed to it and in which Union law is directly applicable to financial market participants by virtue of existing or future Union regulations.\n(30)\nSerious threats to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system in the Union require a swift and concerted response at Union level. The Authority should therefore be able to require national supervisory authorities to take specific actions to remedy an emergency situation. The power to determine the existence of an emergency situation should be conferred on the Council, following a request by any of the ESAs, the Commission or the ESRB.\n(31)\nThe Authority should be able to require national supervisory authorities to take specific action to remedy an emergency situation. The action undertaken by the Authority in this respect should be without prejudice to the Commission\u2019s powers under Article 258 TFEU to initiate infringement proceedings against the Member State of that supervisory authority for its failure to take such action, and without prejudice to the Commission\u2019s right in such circumstances to seek interim measures in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Furthermore, it should be without prejudice to any liability that that Member State might incur in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union if its supervisory authorities fail to take the action required by the Authority.\n(32)\nIn order to ensure efficient and effective supervision and a balanced consideration of the positions of the competent authorities in different Member States, the Authority should be able to settle disagreements in cross-border situations between those competent authorities with binding effect, including within colleges of supervisors. A conciliation phase should be provided for during which the competent authorities may reach an agreement. The Authority\u2019s competence should cover disagreements on the procedure or content of an action or inaction by a competent authority of a Member State in cases specified in the legally binding Union acts referred to in this Regulation. In such a situation, one of the supervisors involved should be entitled to refer the issue to the Authority, which should act in accordance with this Regulation. The Authority should be empowered to require the competent authorities concerned to take specific action or to refrain from action in order to settle the matter in order to ensure compliance with Union law, with binding effects for the competent authorities concerned. If a competent authority does not comply with the settlement decision addressed to it, the Authority should be empowered to adopt decisions directly addressed to financial market participants in areas of Union law directly applicable to them. The power to adopt such decisions should apply only as a last resort and then only to ensure the correct and consistent application of Union law. In cases where the relevant Union legislation confers discretion on Member States\u2019 competent authorities, decisions taken by the Authority cannot replace the exercise in compliance with Union law of that discretion.\n(33)\nThe crisis has proven that the current system of cooperation between national authorities whose powers are limited to individual Member States is insufficient as regards financial institutions that operate across borders.\n(34)\nExpert Groups set up by Member States to examine the causes of the crisis and make suggestions to improve the regulation and supervision of the financial sector have confirmed that the current arrangements are not a sound basis for the future regulation and supervision of cross-border financial institutions across the Union.\n(35)\nAs the de Larosi\u00e8re Report indicates, \u2018[i]n essence, we have two alternatives: the first \u201cchacun pour soi\u201d beggar-thy-neighbour solutions; or the second - enhanced, pragmatic, sensible European cooperation for the benefit of all to preserve an open world economy. This will bring undoubted economic gains\u2019.\n(36)\nColleges of supervisors play an important role in the efficient, effective and consistent supervision of financial market participants operating across borders. The Authority should contribute to promoting and monitoring the efficient, effective and consistent functioning of the colleges of supervisors and, in that respect, have a leading role in ensuring the consistent and coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors for cross-border financial institutions across the Union. The Authority should therefore have full participation rights in colleges of supervisors with a view to streamlining the functioning of and the information exchange process in the colleges of supervisors and to foster convergence and consistency across colleges in the application of Union law. As the de Larosi\u00e8re Report states, \u2018competition distortions and regulatory arbitrage stemming from different supervisory practices must be avoided, because they have the potential of undermining financial stability - inter alia by encouraging a shift of financial activity to countries with lax supervision. The supervisory system has to be perceived as fair and balanced\u2019.\n(37)\nIn the areas of its competence, the Authority should contribute to, and participate actively in the development and coordination of effective and consistent recovery and resolution plans, procedures in emergency situations and preventive measures to ensure the internalisation of costs by the financial system, in order to minimise the systemic impact of any failure and the reliance on taxpayer funds to bail out financial market participants. It should contribute to developing methods for the resolution of failing key financial market participants in ways which avoid contagion, which allow them to be wound down in an orderly and timely manner, and which, where applicable, include coherent and credible funding mechanisms as appropriate.\n(38)\nIn the current review of Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (32) and Directive 97/9/EC, the Commission\u2019s intention to pay special attention to the need to ensure further harmonisation throughout the Union is noted. In the insurance sector, the Commission\u2019s intention to examine the possibility of introducing Union rules protecting insurance policy holders in case of a failing insurance company is also noted. The ESAs should play an important role in those areas and appropriate powers concerning the European guarantee scheme systems should be conferred upon them.\n(39)\nThe delegation of tasks and responsibilities can be a useful instrument in the functioning of the network of supervisors in order to reduce the duplication of supervisory tasks, to foster cooperation and thereby streamline the supervisory process, as well as to reduce the burden imposed on financial market participants. This Regulation should therefore provide a clear legal basis for such delegation. Whilst respecting the general rule that delegation should be allowed, Member States should be able to introduce specific conditions for the delegation of responsibilities, for example regarding information about, and the notification of, delegation arrangements. Delegation of tasks means that tasks are carried out by the Authority or by a national supervisory authority other than the responsible authority, while the responsibility for supervisory decisions remains with the delegating authority. By the delegation of responsibilities, the Authority or a national supervisory authority (the delegate) should be able to decide upon a certain supervisory matter in its own name in lieu of the delegating authority. Delegations should be governed by the principle of allocating supervisory competence to a supervisor which is best placed to take action in the subject matter. A reallocation of responsibilities would be appropriate, for example, for reasons of economies of scale or scope, of coherence in group supervision, and of optimal use of technical expertise among national supervisory authorities. Decisions by the delegate should be recognised by the delegating authority and by other competent authorities as determinative if those decisions are within the scope of the delegation. Relevant Union legislation could further specify the principles for the reallocation of responsibilities upon agreement. The Authority should facilitate and monitor delegation agreements between national supervisory authorities by all appropriate means.\nIt should be informed in advance of intended delegation agreements, in order to be able to express an opinion where appropriate. It should centralise the publication of such agreements to ensure timely, transparent and easily accessible information about agreements for all parties concerned. It should identify and disseminate best practices regarding delegation and delegation agreements.\n(40)\nThe Authority should actively foster supervisory convergence across the Union with the aim of establishing a common supervisory culture.\n(41)\nPeer reviews are an efficient and effective tool for fostering consistency within the network of financial supervisors. The Authority should therefore develop the methodological framework for such reviews and conduct them on a regular basis. Reviews should focus not only on the convergence of supervisory practices but also on the capacity of supervisors to achieve high quality supervisory outcomes as well as on the independence of those competent authorities. The outcome of peer reviews should be made public with the agreement of the competent authority subject to the review. Best practices should also be identified and made public.\n(42)\nThe Authority should actively promote a coordinated Union supervisory response, in particular to ensure the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets and the stability of the financial system in the Union. In addition to its powers for action in emergency situations, the Authority should therefore be entrusted with a general coordination function within the ESFS. The smooth flow of all relevant information between competent authorities should be a particular focus of the Authority\u2019s actions.\n(43)\nIn order to safeguard financial stability it is necessary to identify, at an early stage, trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities stemming from the micro-prudential level, across borders and across sectors. The Authority should monitor and assess such developments in the area of its competence and, where necessary, inform the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the other European Supervisory Authorities and the ESRB on a regular and, as necessary, on an ad hoc basis. The Authority should also, in cooperation with the ESRB, initiate and coordinate Union-wide stress tests to assess the resilience of financial market participants to adverse market developments, and it should ensure that an as consistent as possible methodology is applied at the national level to such tests. In order to perform its functions properly, the Authority should conduct economic analyses of the markets and the impact of potential market developments.\n(44)\nGiven the globalisation of financial services and the increased importance of international standards, the Authority should foster dialogue and cooperation with supervisors outside the Union. It should be empowered to develop contacts and enter into administrative arrangements with the supervisory authorities and administrations of third countries and with international organisations, while fully respecting the existing roles and respective competences of the Member States and the Union institutions. Participation in the work of the Authority should be open to countries which have concluded agreements with the Union whereby they have adopted and are applying Union law, and the Authority should be able to cooperate with third countries which apply legislation that has been recognised as equivalent to that of the Union.\n(45)\nThe Authority should serve as an independent advisory body to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission in the area of its competence. Without prejudice to the competencies of the competent authorities concerned, the Authority should be able to provide its opinion on the prudential assessment of mergers and acquisitions under Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (23), as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC (33) in those cases in which that Directive requires consultation between competent authorities from two or more Member States.\n(46)\nIn order to carry out its duties effectively, the Authority should have the right to request all necessary information. To avoid the duplication of reporting obligations for financial market participants, that information should normally be provided by the national supervisory authorities which are closest to the financial markets and financial market participants and should take into account already existing statistics. However, as a last resort, the Authority should be able to address a duly justified and reasoned request for information directly to a financial market participant where a national competent authority does not or cannot provide such information in a timely fashion. Member States\u2019 authorities should be obliged to assist the Authority in enforcing such direct requests. In that context, the work on common reporting formats is essential. The measures for the collection of information should be without prejudice to the legal framework of the European Statistical System and the European System of Central Banks in the field of statistics. This Regulation should therefore be without prejudice both to Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (34) and to Council Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the collection of statistical information by the European Central Bank (35).\n(47)\nClose cooperation between the Authority and the ESRB is essential to give full effectiveness to the functioning of the ESRB and the follow-up to its warnings and recommendations. The Authority and the ESRB should share any relevant information with each other. Data related to individual undertakings should be provided only upon reasoned request. Upon receipt of warnings or recommendations addressed by the ESRB to the Authority or a national supervisory authority, the Authority should ensure follow-up as appropriate.\n(48)\nThe Authority should consult interested parties on regulatory or implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations and provide them with a reasonable opportunity to comment on proposed measures. Before adopting draft regulatory or implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations, the Authority should carry out an impact study. For reasons of efficiency, a Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group should be used for that purpose, and should represent, in balanced proportions, financial market participants, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), academics and consumers and other retail users of financial services. The Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group should work as an interface with other user groups in the financial services area established by the Commission or by Union legislation.\n(49)\nMembers of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group representing non-profit organisations or academics should receive adequate compensation in order to allow persons that are neither well-funded nor industry representatives to take part fully in the debate on financial regulation.\n(50)\nMember States have a core responsibility for ensuring coordinated crisis management and preserving financial stability in crisis situations, in particular with regard to stabilising and resolving individual failing financial market participants. Decisions by the Authority in emergency or settlement situations affecting the stability of a financial market participant should not impinge on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States. A mechanism should be established whereby Member States may invoke this safeguard and ultimately bring the matter before the Council for a decision. However, that safeguard mechanism should not be abused, in particular in relation to a decision taken by the Authority which does not have a significant or material fiscal impact, such as a reduction of income linked to the temporary prohibition of specific activities or products for consumer protection purposes. When taking decisions under the safeguard mechanism, the Council should vote, in accordance with the principle where each member has one vote. It is appropriate to confer on the Council a role in this matter given the particular responsibilities of the Member States in this respect. Given the sensitivity of the issue, strict confidentiality arrangements should be ensured.\n(51)\nIn its decision-making procedures, the Authority should be bound by Union rules and general principles on due process and transparency. The right of the addressees of the Authority\u2019s decisions to be heard should be fully respected. The Authority\u2019s acts should form an integral part of Union law.\n(52)\nA Board of Supervisors composed of the heads of the relevant competent authorities in each Member State, and chaired by the Chairperson of the Authority, should be the principal decision-making organ of the Authority. Representatives of the Commission, the ESRB, the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) should participate as observers. Members of the Board of Supervisors should act independently and only in the Union\u2019s interest.\n(53)\nAs a general rule, the Board of Supervisors should take its decisions by simple majority in accordance with the principle where each member has one vote. However, for acts of a general nature, including those relating to regulatory and implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations, for budgetary matters as well as in respect of requests by a Member State to reconsider a decision by the Authority to temporarily prohibit or restrict certain financial activities, it is appropriate to apply the rules of qualified majority voting as laid down in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Cases concerning the settlement of disagreements between national supervisory authorities should be examined by a restricted, objective panel, composed of members who neither are representatives of the competent authorities which are party to the disagreement nor have any interest in the conflict or direct links to the competent authorities concerned. The composition of the panel should be appropriately balanced. The decision taken by the panel should be approved by the Board of Supervisors by simple majority in accordance with the principle where each member has one vote. However, with regard to decisions taken by the consolidating supervisor, the decision proposed by the panel could be rejected by members representing a blocking minority of the votes as defined in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 3 of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions.\n(54)\nA Management Board, composed of the Chairperson of the Authority, of representatives of national supervisory authorities and of the Commission, should ensure that the Authority carries out its mission and performs the tasks assigned to it. The Management Board should be entrusted with the necessary powers, inter alia, to propose the annual and multi-annual work programme, to exercise certain budgetary powers, to adopt the Authority\u2019s staff policy plan, to adopt special provisions on the right to access to documents and to propose the annual report.\n(55)\nThe Authority should be represented by a full time Chairperson, appointed by the Board of Supervisors on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and of experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation, following an open selection procedure organised and managed by the Board of Supervisors assisted by the Commission. For the designation of the first Chairperson of the Authority, the Commission should, inter alia, draw up a shortlist of candidates on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation. For the subsequent designations, the opportunity of having a shortlist drawn up by the Commission should be reviewed in a report to be established pursuant to this Regulation. Before the selected person takes up his duties, and up to 1 month after his selection by the Board of Supervisors, the European Parliament should be entitled, after having heard the person selected, to object to his designation.\n(56)\nThe management of the Authority should be entrusted to an Executive Director, who should have the right to participate in meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board without the right to vote.\n(57)\nIn order to ensure cross-sectoral consistency in the activities of the ESAs, they should coordinate closely through a Joint Committee and reach common positions where appropriate. The Joint Committee should coordinate the functions of the ESAs in relation to financial conglomerates and other cross sectoral matters. Where relevant, acts also falling within the area of competence of the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) or the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) should be adopted in parallel by the European Supervisory Authorities concerned. The Joint Committee should be chaired for a 12-month term on a rotating basis by the Chairpersons of the ESAs. The Chairperson of the Joint Committee should be a Vice-Chair of the ESRB. The Joint Committee should have dedicated staff provided by the ESAs to allow for informal information sharing and the development of a common supervisory culture approach across the ESAs.\n(58)\nIt is necessary to ensure that the parties affected by decisions adopted by the Authority may have recourse to the necessary remedies. To protect effectively the rights of parties, and for reasons of procedural economy, where the Authority has decision-making powers, parties should be granted a right of appeal to a Board of Appeal. For reasons of efficiency and consistency, the Board of Appeal should be a joint body of the ESAs, independent from their administrative and regulatory structures. The decisions of the Board of Appeal should be subject to appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Union.\n(59)\nIn order to guarantee its full autonomy and independence, the Authority should be granted an autonomous budget with revenues mainly from obligatory contributions from national supervisory authorities and from the General Budget of the European Union. Union financing of the Authority is subject to an agreement by the budgetary authority in accordance with Point 47 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (36). The Union budgetary procedure should be applicable. The auditing of accounts should be undertaken by the Court of Auditors. The overall budget is subject to the discharge procedure.\n(60)\nRegulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (37) should apply to the Authority. The Authority should also accede to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities concerning internal investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (38).\n(61)\nIn order to ensure open and transparent employment conditions and equal treatment of staff, Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (39) should apply to the staff of the Authority.\n(62)\nIt is essential that business secrets and other confidential information be protected. The confidentiality of information made available to the Authority and exchanged in the network should be subject to stringent and effective confidentiality rules.\n(63)\nDirective 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (40) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (41) are fully applicable to the processing of personal data for the purposes of this Regulation.\n(64)\nIn order to ensure the transparent operation of the Authority, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (42) should apply to the Authority.\n(65)\nThird countries should be allowed to participate in the work of the Authority in accordance with appropriate agreements to be concluded by the Union.\n(66)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely improving the functioning of the internal market by means of ensuring a high, effective and consistent level of prudential regulation and supervision, protecting investors, protecting the integrity, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, maintaining the stability of the financial system, and strengthening international supervisory coordination, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can, therefore, by reason of the scale of the 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. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(67)\nThe Authority should assume all current tasks and powers of the Committee of European Securities Regulators. Commission Decision 2009/77/EC should therefore be repealed on the date of the establishment of the Authority and Decision No 716/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 establishing a Community programme to support specific activities in the field of financial services, financial reporting and auditing (43), should be amended accordingly. Given the existing structures and operations of the Committee of European Securities Regulators, it is important to ensure very close cooperation between the Committee of European Securities Regulators and the Commission when establishing appropriate transitional arrangements, to ensure that the period during which the Commission is responsible for the administrative establishment and initial administrative operation of the Authority be as limited as possible.\n(68)\nIt is appropriate to set a time limit for the application of this Regulation in order to ensure that the Authority is adequately prepared to begin operations and a smooth transition from the Committee of European Securities Regulators. The Authority should be appropriately financed. At least initially, it should be financed 40 % from Union funds and 60 % through contributions from Member States, made in accordance with the weighting of votes set out in Article 3(3) of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions.\n(69)\nIn order to enable the Authority to be established on 1 January 2011, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nESTABLISHMENT AND LEGAL STATUS\nArticle 1\nEstablishment and scope of action\n1. This Regulation establishes a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (hereinafter the Authority\u2019).\n2. The Authority shall act within the powers conferred by this Regulation and within the scope of Directive 97/9/EC, Directive 98/26/EC, Directive 2001/34/EC, Directive 2002/47/EC, Directive 2003/6/EC, Directive 2003/71/EC, Directive 2004/39/EC, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2009/65/EC and to Directive 2006/49/EC, without prejudice to the competence of the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) in terms of prudential supervision, any future legislation in the area of Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM), and Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, and, to the extent that these acts apply to firms providing investment services or to collective investment undertakings marketing their units or shares and the competent authorities that supervise them, within the relevant parts of, Directive 2002/87/EC, Directive 2005/60/EC, Directive 2002/65/EC, including all directives, regulations, and decisions based on those acts, and of any further legally binding Union act which confers tasks on the Authority.\n3. The Authority shall also act in the field of activities of market participants in relation to issues not directly covered in the acts referred to in paragraph 2, including matters of corporate governance, auditing and financial reporting, provided that such actions by the Authority are necessary to ensure the effective and consistent application of those acts. The Authority shall also take appropriate action in the context of take-over bids, clearing and settlement and derivative issues.\n4. The provisions of this Regulation are without prejudice to the powers of the Commission, in particular under Article 258 TFEU, to ensure compliance with Union law.\n5. The objective of the Authority shall be to protect the public interest by contributing to the short, medium and long-term stability and effectiveness of the financial system, for the Union economy, its citizens and businesses. The Authority shall contribute to:\n(a)\nimproving the functioning of the internal market, including in particular a sound, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision,\n(b)\nensuring the integrity, transparency, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets,\n(c)\nstrengthening international supervisory coordination,\n(d)\npreventing regulatory arbitrage and promoting equal conditions of competition,\n(e)\nensuring the taking of investment and other risks are appropriately regulated and supervised, and\n(f)\nenhancing customer protection.\nFor those purposes, the Authority shall contribute to ensuring the consistent, efficient and effective application of the acts referred to in paragraph 2, foster supervisory convergence, provide opinions to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission and undertake economic analyses of the markets to promote the achievement of the Authority\u2019s objective.\nIn the exercise of the tasks conferred upon it by this Regulation, the Authority shall pay particular attention to any systemic risk posed by financial market participants, the failure of which may impair the operation of the financial system or the real economy.\nWhen carrying out its tasks, the Authority shall act independently and objectively and in the interest of the Union alone.\nArticle 2\nEuropean System of Financial Supervision\n1. The Authority shall form part of a European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS). The main objective of the ESFS shall be to ensure that the rules applicable to the financial sector are adequately implemented to preserve financial stability and to ensure confidence in the financial system as a whole and sufficient protection for the customers of financial services.\n2. The ESFS shall comprise the following:\n(a)\nthe European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), for the purposes of the tasks as specified in Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 (44) and this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe Authority;\n(c)\nthe European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (45);\n(d)\nthe European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (46);\n(e)\nthe Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (\u2018Joint Committee\u2019) for the purposes of carrying out the tasks as specified in Articles 54 to 57 of this Regulation, of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010;\n(f)\nthe competent or supervisory authorities in the Member States as specified in the Union acts referred to in Article 1(2) of this Regulation, of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010.\n3. The Authority shall cooperate regularly and closely with the ESRB as well as with the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) through the Joint Committee, ensuring cross-sectoral consistency of work and reaching joint positions in the area of supervision of financial conglomerates and on other cross-sectoral issues.\n4. In accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, the parties to the ESFS shall cooperate with trust and full mutual respect, in particular in ensuring the flow of appropriate and reliable information between them.\n5. Those supervisory authorities that are party to the ESFS shall be obliged to supervise financial market participants operating in the Union in accordance with the acts referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 3\nAccountability of the Authorities\nThe Authorities referred to in Article 2(2)(a) to (d) shall be accountable to the European Parliament and the Council.\nArticle 4\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions apply:\n(1)\n\u2018financial market participant\u2019 means any person in relation to whom a requirement in the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) or a national law implementing such legislation applies;\n(2)\n\u2018key financial market participant\u2019 means a financial market participant whose regular activity or financial viability has or is likely to have a significant effect on the stability, integrity or efficiency of the financial markets in the Union;\n(3)\n\u2018competent authorities\u2019 means:\n(i)\ncompetent authorities and/or supervisory authorities as defined in the legislation referred to in Article 1(2);\n(ii)\nwith regard to Directives 2002/65/EC and 2005/60/EC, the authorities competent for ensuring compliance with the requirements of those Directives by firms providing investment services and by collective investment undertakings marketing their units or shares;\n(iii)\nwith regard to investor compensation schemes, bodies which administer national compensation schemes pursuant to Directive 97/9/EC, or in the case where the operation of the investor compensation scheme is administered by a private company, the public authority supervising those schemes pursuant to that Directive.\nArticle 5\nLegal status\n1. The Authority shall be a Union body with legal personality.\n2. In each Member State, the Authority shall enjoy the most extensive legal capacity accorded to legal persons under national law. It may, in particular, acquire or dispose of movable and immovable property and be a party to legal proceedings.\n3. The Authority shall be represented by its Chairperson.\nArticle 6\nComposition\nThe Authority shall comprise:\n(1)\na Board of Supervisors, which shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 43;\n(2)\na Management Board, which shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 47;\n(3)\na Chairperson, who shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 48;\n(4)\nan Executive Director, who shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 53;\n(5)\na Board of Appeal, which shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 60.\nArticle 7\nSeat\nThe Authority shall have its seat in Paris.\nCHAPTER II\nTASKS AND POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY\nArticle 8\nTasks and powers of the Authority\n1. The Authority shall have the following tasks:\n(a)\nto contribute to the establishment of high- quality common regulatory and supervisory standards and practices, in particular by providing opinions to the Union institutions and by developing guidelines, recommendations, and draft regulatory and implementing technical standards which shall be based on the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2);\n(b)\nto contribute to the consistent application of legally binding Union acts, in particular by contributing to a common supervisory culture, ensuring consistent, efficient and effective application of the acts referred to in Article 1(2), preventing regulatory arbitrage, mediating and settling disagreements between competent authorities, ensuring effective and consistent supervision of financial market participants, ensuring a coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors and taking actions, inter alia, in emergency situations;\n(c)\nto stimulate and facilitate the delegation of tasks and responsibilities among competent authorities;\n(d)\nto cooperate closely with the ESRB, in particular by providing the ESRB with the necessary information for the achievement of its tasks and by ensuring a proper follow up to the warnings and recommendations of the ESRB;\n(e)\nto organise and conduct peer review analyses of competent authorities, including issuing guidelines and recommendations and identifying best practices, in order to strengthen consistency in supervisory outcomes;\n(f)\nto monitor and assess market developments in the area of its competence;\n(g)\nto undertake economic analyses of markets to inform the discharge of the Authority's functions;\n(h)\nto foster investor protection;\n(i)\nto contribute to the consistent and coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors, the monitoring, assessment and measurement of systemic risk, the development and coordination of recovery and resolution plans, providing a high level of protection to investors throughout the Union and developing methods for the resolution of failing financial market participants and an assessment of the need for appropriate financing instruments, in accordance with Articles 21 to 26;\n(j)\nto fulfil any other specific tasks set out in this Regulation or in other legislative acts;\n(k)\nto publish on its website, and to update regularly, information relating to its field of activities, in particular, within the area of its competence, on registered financial market participants, in order to ensure information is easily accessible by the public;\n(l)\nto take over, as appropriate, all existing and ongoing tasks from the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR).\n2. To achieve the tasks set out in paragraph 1, the Authority shall have the powers set out in this Regulation, in particular to:\n(a)\ndevelop draft regulatory technical standards in the specific cases referred to in Article 10;\n(b)\ndevelop draft implementing technical standards in the specific cases referred to in Article 15;\n(c)\nissue guidelines and recommendations, as laid down in Article 16;\n(d)\nissue recommendations in specific cases, as referred to in Article 17(3);\n(e)\ntake individual decisions addressed to competent authorities in the specific cases referred to in Articles 18(3) and 19(3);\n(f)\nin cases concerning directly applicable Union law, take individual decisions addressed to financial market participants, in the specific cases referred to in Article 17(6), in Article 18(4) and in Article 19(4);\n(g)\nissue opinions to the European Parliament, the Council, or the Commission as provided for in Article 34;\n(h)\ncollect the necessary information concerning financial market participants as provided for in Article 35;\n(i)\ndevelop common methodologies for assessing the effect of product characteristics and distribution processes on the financial position of financial market participants and on consumer protection;\n(j)\nprovide a centrally accessible database of registered financial market participants in the area of its competence where specified in the acts referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 9\nTasks related to consumer protection and financial activities\n1. The Authority shall take a leading role in promoting transparency, simplicity and fairness in the market for consumer financial products or services across the internal market, including by:\n(a)\ncollecting, analysing and reporting on consumer trends;\n(b)\nreviewing and coordinating financial literacy and education initiatives by the competent authorities;\n(c)\ndeveloping training standards for the industry; and\n(d)\ncontributing to the development of common disclosure rules.\n2. The Authority shall monitor new and existing financial activities and may adopt guidelines and recommendations with a view to promoting the safety and soundness of markets and convergence of regulatory practice.\n3. The Authority may also issue warnings in the event that a financial activity poses a serious threat to the objectives laid down in Article 1(5).\n4. The Authority shall establish, as an integral part of the Authority, a Committee on financial innovation, which brings together all relevant competent national supervisory authorities with a view to achieving a coordinated approach to the regulatory and supervisory treatment of new or innovative financial activities and providing advice for the Authority to present to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.\n5. The Authority may temporarily prohibit or restrict certain financial activities that threaten the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union in the cases specified and under the conditions laid down in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) or if so required in the case of an emergency situation in accordance with and under the conditions laid down in Article 18.\nThe Authority shall review the decision referred to in the first subparagraph at appropriate intervals and at least every 3 months. If the decision is not renewed after a three-month period, it shall automatically expire.\nA Member State may request the Authority to reconsider its decision. In that case, the Authority shall decide in accordance with the procedure set out in the second subparagraph of Article 44(1), whether it maintains its decision.\nThe Authority may also assess the need to prohibit or restrict certain types of financial activity and, where there is such a need, inform the Commission in order to facilitate the adoption of any such prohibition or restriction.\nArticle 10\nRegulatory technical standards\n1. Where the European Parliament and the Council delegate power to the Commission to adopt regulatory technical standards by means of delegated acts under Article 290 TFEU in order to ensure consistent harmonisation in the areas specifically set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority may develop draft regulatory technical standards. The Authority shall submit its draft standards to the Commission for endorsement.\nRegulatory technical standards shall be technical, shall not imply strategic decisions or policy choices and their content shall be delimited by the legislative acts on which they are based.\nBefore submitting them to the Commission, the Authority shall conduct open public consultations on draft regulatory technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft regulatory technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Authority shall also request the opinion of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37.\nWhere the Authority submits a draft regulatory technical standard, the Commission shall immediately forward it to the European Parliament and the Council.\nWithin 3 months of receipt of a draft regulatory technical standard, the Commission shall decide whether to endorse it. The Commission may endorse the draft regulatory technical standards in part only, or with amendments, where the Union\u2019s interests so require.\nWhere the Commission intends not to endorse a draft regulatory technical standard or to endorse it in part or with amendments, it shall send the draft regulatory technical standard back to the Authority, explaining why it does not endorse it, or, as the case may be, explaining the reasons for its amendments. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft regulatory technical standard on the basis of the Commission\u2019s proposed amendments and resubmit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nIf, on the expiry of that six-week period, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft regulatory technical standard, or has submitted a draft regulatory technical standard that is not amended in a way consistent with the Commission\u2019s proposed amendments, the Commission may adopt the regulatory technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant, or reject it.\nThe Commission may not change the content of a draft regulatory technical standard prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article.\n2. Where the Authority has not submitted a draft regulatory technical standard within the time limit set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Commission may request such a draft within a new time limit.\n3. Only where the Authority does not submit a draft regulatory technical standard to the Commission within the time limits in accordance with paragraph 2, may the Commission adopt a regulatory technical standard by means of a delegated act without a draft from the Authority.\nThe Commission shall conduct open public consultations on draft regulatory technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft regulatory technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Commission shall also request the opinion or advice of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37.\nThe Commission shall immediately forward the draft regulatory technical standard to the European Parliament and the Council.\nThe Commission shall send its draft regulatory technical standard to the Authority. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft regulatory technical standard and submit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nIf, on the expiry of the six-week period referred to in the fourth subparagraph, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft regulatory technical standard, the Commission may adopt the regulatory technical standard.\nIf the Authority has submitted an amended draft regulatory technical standard within the six-week period, the Commission may amend the draft regulatory technical standard on the basis of the Authority\u2019s proposed amendments or adopt the regulatory technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant. The Commission shall not change the content of the draft regulatory technical standard prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article.\n4. The regulatory technical standards shall be adopted by means of regulations or decisions. They shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nArticle 11\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt regulatory technical standards referred to in Article 10 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 4 years from 16 December 2010. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated power not later than 6 months before the end of the four-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 14.\n2. As soon as it adopts a regulatory technical standard, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt regulatory technical standards is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 12 to 14.\nArticle 12\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 10 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke a delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the regulatory technical standards already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 13\nObjections to regulatory technical standards\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a regulatory technical standard within a period of 3 months from the date of notification of the regulatory technical standard adopted by the Commission. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 3 months.\nWhere the Commission adopts a regulatory technical standard which is the same as the draft regulatory technical standard submitted by the Authority, the period during which the European Parliament and the Council may object shall be 1 month from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 1 month.\n2. If, on the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the regulatory technical standard, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe regulatory technical standard may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to a regulatory technical standard within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. In accordance with Article 296 TFEU, the institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the regulatory technical standard.\nArticle 14\nNon-endorsement or amendment of draft regulatory technical standards\n1. In the event that the Commission does not endorse a draft regulatory technical standard or amends it as provided for in Article 10, the Commission shall inform the Authority, the European Parliament and the Council, stating its reasons.\n2. Where appropriate, the European Parliament or the Council may invite the responsible Commissioner, together with the Chairperson of the Authority, within 1 month of the notice referred to in paragraph 1, for an ad hoc meeting of the competent committee of the European Parliament or the Council to present and explain their differences.\nArticle 15\nImplementing technical standards\n1. The Authority may develop implementing technical standards, by means of implementing acts under Article 291 TFEU, in the areas specifically set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2). Implementing technical standards shall be technical, shall not imply strategic decisions or policy choices and their content shall be to determine the conditions of application of those acts. The Authority shall submit its draft implementing technical standards to the Commission for endorsement.\nBefore submitting draft implementing technical standards to the Commission, the Authority shall conduct open public consultations and shall analyse the potential, related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft implementing technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Authority shall also request the opinion of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37.\nWhere the Authority submits a draft implementing technical standard, the Commission shall immediately forward it to the European Parliament and the Council.\nWithin 3 months of receipt of a draft implementing technical standard, the Commission shall decide whether to endorse it. The Commission may extend that period by 1 month. The Commission may endorse the draft implementing technical standard in part only, or with amendments, where the Union\u2019s interests so require.\nWhere the Commission intends not to endorse a draft implementing technical standard or intends to endorse it in part or with amendments, it shall send it back to the Authority explaining why it does not intend to endorse it, or as the case may be, explaining the reasons for its amendments. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft implementing technical standard on the basis of the Commission\u2019s proposed amendments and resubmit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nIf, on the expiry of the six-week period referred to in the fifth subparagraph, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft implementing technical standard, or has submitted a draft implementing technical standard that is not amended in a way consistent with the Commission\u2019s proposed amendments, the Commission may adopt the implementing technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant or reject it.\nThe Commission shall not change the content of a draft implementing technical standard prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article.\n2. In cases where the Authority has not submitted a draft implementing technical standard within the time limit set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Commission may request such a draft within a new time limit.\n3. Only where the Authority does not submit a draft implementing technical standard to the Commission within the time limits in accordance with paragraph 2, may the Commission adopt an implementing technical standard by means of an implementing act without a draft from the Authority.\nThe Commission shall conduct open public consultations on draft implementing technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft implementing technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Commission shall also request the opinion or advice of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37.\nThe Commission shall immediately forward the draft implementing technical standard to the European Parliament and the Council.\nThe Commission shall send the draft implementing technical standard to the Authority. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft implementing technical standard and submit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nIf, on the expiry of the six-week period referred to in the fourth subparagraph, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft implementing technical standard, the Commission may adopt the implementing technical standard.\nIf the Authority has submitted an amended draft implementing technical standard within that six-week period, the Commission may amend the draft implementing technical standard on the basis of the Authority\u2019s proposed amendments or adopt the implementing technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant.\nThe Commission shall not change the content of the draft implementing technical standards prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article.\n4. The implementing technical standards shall be adopted by means of regulations or decisions. They shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nArticle 16\nGuidelines and recommendations\n1. The Authority shall, with a view to establishing consistent, efficient and effective supervisory practices within the ESFS, and to ensuring the common, uniform and consistent application of Union law, issue guidelines and recommendations addressed to competent authorities or financial market participants.\n2. The Authority shall, where appropriate, conduct open public consultations regarding the guidelines and recommendations and analyse the related potential costs and benefits. Such consultations and analyses shall be proportionate in relation to the scope, nature and impact of the guidelines or recommendations. The Authority shall, where appropriate, also request opinions or advice from the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37.\n3. The competent authorities and financial market participants shall make every effort to comply with those guidelines and recommendations.\nWithin 2 months of the issuance of a guideline or recommendation, each competent authority shall confirm whether it complies or intends to comply with that guideline or recommendation. In the event that a competent authority does not comply or does not intend to comply, it shall inform the Authority, stating its reasons.\nThe Authority shall publish the fact that a competent authority does not comply or does not intend to comply with that guideline or recommendation. The Authority may also decide, on a case by case basis, to publish the reasons provided by the competent authority for not complying with that guideline or recommendation. The competent authority shall receive advanced notice of such publication.\nIf required by that guideline or recommendation, financial market participants shall report, in a clear and detailed way, whether they comply with that guideline or recommendation.\n4. In the report referred to in Article 43(5) the Authority shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of the guidelines and recommendations that have been issued, stating which competent authority has not complied with them, and outlining how the Authority intends to ensure that the competent authority concerned follow its recommendations and guidelines in the future.\nArticle 17\nBreach of Union law\n1. Where a competent authority has not applied the acts referred to in Article 1(2), or has applied them in a way which appears to be a breach of Union law, including the regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards established in accordance with Articles 10 to 15, in particular by failing to ensure that a financial market participant satisfies the requirements laid down in those acts, the Authority shall act in accordance with the powers set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of this Article.\n2. Upon a request from one or more competent authorities, the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission or the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group, or on its own initiative, and after having informed the competent authority concerned, the Authority may investigate the alleged breach or non-application of Union law.\nWithout prejudice to the powers laid down in Article 35, the competent authority shall, without delay, provide the Authority with all information which the Authority considers necessary for its investigation.\n3. The Authority may, not later than 2 months from initiating its investigation, address a recommendation to the competent authority concerned setting out the action necessary to comply with Union law.\nThe competent authority shall, within ten working days of receipt of the recommendation, inform the Authority of the steps it has taken or intends to take to ensure compliance with Union law.\n4. Where the competent authority has not complied with Union law within 1 month from receipt of the Authority\u2019s recommendation, the Commission may, after having been informed by the Authority or on its own initiative, issue a formal opinion requiring the competent authority to take the action necessary to comply with Union law. The Commission\u2019s formal opinion shall take into account the Authority\u2019s recommendation.\nThe Commission shall issue such a formal opinion no later than 3 months after the adoption of the recommendation. The Commission may extend this period by 1 month.\nThe Authority and the competent authorities shall provide the Commission with all necessary information.\n5. The competent authority shall, within ten working days of receipt of the formal opinion referred to in paragraph 4, inform the Commission and the Authority of the steps it has taken or intends to take to comply with that formal opinion.\n6. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the formal opinion referred to in paragraph 4 within the period of time specified therein, and where it is necessary to remedy in a timely manner such non compliance in order to maintain or restore neutral conditions of competition in the market or ensure the orderly functioning and integrity of the financial system, the Authority may, where the relevant requirements of the acts referred to in Article 1(2) are directly applicable to financial market participants, adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial market participant requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under Union law including the cessation of any practice.\nThe decision of the Authority shall be in conformity with the formal opinion issued by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 4.\n7. Decisions adopted under paragraph 6 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter.\nWhen taking action in relation to issues which are subject to a formal opinion pursuant to paragraph 4 or a decision pursuant to paragraph 6, competent authorities shall comply with the formal opinion or the decision, as the case may be.\n8. In the report referred to in Article 43(5), the Authority shall set out which competent authorities and financial market participants have not complied with the formal opinions or decisions referred to in paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Article.\nArticle 18\nAction in emergency situations\n1. In the case of adverse developments which may seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union, the Authority shall actively facilitate and, where deemed necessary, coordinate any actions undertaken by the relevant national competent supervisory authorities.\nIn order to be able to perform that facilitating and coordinating role, the Authority shall be fully informed of any relevant developments, and shall be invited to participate as an observer in any relevant gathering by the relevant national competent supervisory authorities.\n2. The Council, in consultation with the Commission and the ESRB and, where appropriate, the ESAs, may adopt a decision addressed to the Authority, determining the existence of an emergency situation for the purposes of this Regulation, following a request by the Authority, the Commission or the ESRB. The Council shall review that decision at appropriate intervals and at least once a month. If the decision is not renewed at the end of a one-month period, it shall automatically expire. The Council may declare the discontinuation of the emergency situation at any time.\nWhere the ESRB or the Authority considers that an emergency situation may arise, it shall issue a confidential recommendation addressed to the Council and provide it with an assessment of the situation. The Council shall then assess the need for a meeting. In that process, due care of confidentiality shall be guaranteed.\nIf the Council determines the existence of an emergency situation, it shall duly inform the European Parliament and the Commission without delay.\n3. Where the Council has adopted a decision pursuant to paragraph 2, and in exceptional circumstances where coordinated action by national authorities is necessary to respond to adverse developments which may seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union, the Authority may adopt individual decisions requiring competent authorities to take the necessary action in accordance with the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) to address any such developments by ensuring that financial market participants and competent authorities satisfy the requirements laid down in that legislation.\n4. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the decision of the Authority referred to in paragraph 3 within the period laid down in that decision, the Authority may, where the relevant requirements laid down in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) including in regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards adopted in accordance with those acts are directly applicable to financial market participants, adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial market participant requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under that legislation, including the cessation of any practice. This shall apply only in situations in which a competent authority does not apply the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), including regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards adopted in accordance with those acts, or applies them in a way which appears to be a manifest breach of those acts, and where urgent remedying is necessary to restore the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union.\n5. Decisions adopted under paragraph 4 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter.\nAny action by the competent authorities in relation to issues which are subject to a decision pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4 shall be compatible with those decisions.\nArticle 19\nSettlement of disagreements between competent authorities in cross-border situations\n1. Without prejudice to the powers laid down in Article 17, where a competent authority disagrees about the procedure or content of an action or inaction of a competent authority of another Member State in cases specified in the acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority, at the request of one or more of the competent authorities concerned may assist the authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 2 to 4 of this Article.\nIn cases specified in the legislation referred to in Article 1(2), and where on the basis of objective criteria, disagreement between competent authorities from different Member States can be determined, the Authority may, on its own initiative, assist the authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 2 to 4.\n2. The Authority shall set a time limit for conciliation between the competent authorities taking into account any relevant time periods specified in the acts referred to in Article 1(2) and the complexity and urgency of the matter. At that stage the Authority shall act as a mediator.\n3. If the competent authorities concerned fail to reach an agreement within the conciliation phase referred to in paragraph 2, the Authority may, in accordance with the procedure set out in the third and fourth subparagraph of Article 44(1) take a decision requiring them to take specific action or to refrain from action in order to settle the matter, with binding effects for the competent authorities concerned, in order to ensure compliance with Union law.\n4. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the decision of the Authority, and thereby fails to ensure that a financial market participant complies with requirements directly applicable to it by virtue of the acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority may adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial market participant requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under Union law, including the cessation of any practice.\n5. Decisions adopted under paragraph 4 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter. Any action by the competent authorities in relation to facts which are subject to a decision pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4 shall be compatible with those decisions.\n6. In the report referred to in Article 50(2), the Chairperson of the Authority shall set out the nature and type of disagreements between competent authorities, the agreements reached and the decisions taken to settle such disagreements.\nArticle 20\nSettlement of disagreements between competent authorities across sectors\nThe Joint Committee shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 19 and Article 56, settle cross-sectoral disagreements that may arise between competent authorities as defined in Article 4(2) of this Regulation, of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 respectively.\nArticle 21\nColleges of supervisors\n1. The Authority shall contribute to promoting and monitoring the efficient, effective and consistent functioning of the colleges of supervisors established in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) and foster the coherence of the application of Union law among the colleges of supervisors. With the objective of converging supervisory best practices, staff from the Authority shall be able to participate in the activities of the colleges of supervisors, including on-site examinations, carried out jointly by two or more competent authorities.\n2. The Authority shall lead in ensuring a consistent and coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors for cross-border institutions across the Union, taking account of the systemic risk posed by financial market participants referred to in Article 23.\nFor the purpose of this paragraph and of paragraph 1 of this Article, the Authority shall be considered a \u2018competent authority\u2019 within the meaning of the relevant legislation.\nThe Authority may:\n(a)\ncollect and share all relevant information in cooperation with the competent authorities in order to facilitate the work of the college and establish and manage a central system to make such information accessible to the competent authorities in the college;\n(b)\ninitiate and coordinate Union-wide stress tests in accordance with Article 32 to assess the resilience of financial market participants, in particular the systemic risk posed by key financial market participants as referred to in Article 23, to adverse market developments, and evaluate the potential for systemic risk posed by key financial market participants to increase in situations of stress, ensuring that a consistent methodology is applied at the national level to such tests and, where appropriate, address a recommendation to the competent authority to correct issues identified in the stress test;\n(c)\npromote effective and efficient supervisory activities, including evaluating the risks to which financial market participants are or might be exposed in stress situations;\n(d)\noversee, in accordance with the tasks and powers specified in this Regulation, the tasks carried out by the competent authorities, and\n(e)\nrequest further deliberations of a college in any cases where it considers that the decision would result in an incorrect application of Union law or would not contribute to the objective of convergence of supervisory practices. It may also require to schedule a meeting of the college or add a point to the agenda of a meeting.\n3. The Authority may develop draft regulatory and implementing technical standards to ensure uniform conditions of application with respect to the provisions regarding the operational functioning of colleges of supervisors and issue guidelines and recommendations adopted under Article 16 to promote convergence in supervisory functioning and best practices adopted by the colleges of supervisors.\n4. The Authority shall have a legally binding mediation role to resolve disputes between competent authorities in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 19. The Authority may take supervisory decisions directly applicable to the financial market participant concerned in accordance with Article 19.\nArticle 22\nGeneral provisions\n1. The Authority shall duly consider systemic risk as defined by Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010. It shall address any risk of disruption in financial services that:\n(a)\nis caused by an impairment of all or parts of the financial system; and\n(b)\nhas the potential to have serious negative consequences for internal market and the real economy.\nThe Authority shall consider, where appropriate, the monitoring and assessment of systemic risk as developed by the ESRB and the Authority and respond to warnings and recommendations by the ESRB in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010.\n2. The Authority shall, in collaboration with the ESRB, and in accordance with Article 23 develop a common approach for the identification and measurement of systemic risk posed by key financial market participants, including quantitative and qualitative indicators as appropriate.\nThose indicators shall be a critical element in the determination of appropriate supervisory actions. The Authority shall monitor the degree of convergence in the determinations made, with a view to promoting a common approach.\n3. Without prejudice to the acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority shall draw up, as necessary, additional guidelines and recommendations for key financial market participants, to take account of the systemic risk posed by them.\nThe Authority shall ensure that the systemic risk posed by key financial market participants is taken into account when developing draft regulatory and implementing technical standards in the areas laid down in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2).\n4. Upon a request from one or more competent authorities, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission, or on its own initiative, the Authority may conduct an inquiry into a particular type of financial activity or type of product or type of conduct in order to assess potential threats to the integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system and make appropriate recommendations for action to the competent authorities concerned.\nFor those purposes, the Authority may use the powers conferred on it under this Regulation, including Article 35.\n5. The Joint Committee shall ensure overall and cross-sectoral coordination of the activities carried out in accordance with this Article.\nArticle 23\nIdentification and measurement of systemic risk\n1. The Authority shall, in consultation with the ESRB, develop criteria for the identification and measurement of systemic risk and an adequate stress testing regime which includes an evaluation of the potential for systemic risk posed by financial market participants to increase in situations of stress. The financial market participants that may pose a systemic risk shall be subject to strengthened supervision, and where necessary, the recovery and resolution procedures referred to in Article 25.\n2. The Authority shall take fully into account the relevant international approaches when developing the criteria for the identification and measurement of systemic risk posed by financial market participants, including those established by the Financial Stability Board, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements.\nArticle 24\nPermanent capacity to respond to systemic risks\n1. The Authority shall ensure it has specialised and ongoing capacity to respond effectively to the materialisation of systemic risks as referred to in Articles 22 and 23, in particular with respect to institutions that pose a systemic risk.\n2. The Authority shall fulfil the tasks conferred upon it in this Regulation and in the legislation referred to in Article 1(2), and shall contribute to ensuring a coherent and coordinated crisis management and resolution regime in the Union.\nArticle 25\nRecovery and resolution procedures\n1. The Authority shall contribute to and participate actively in the development and coordination of effective and consistent recovery and resolution plans, procedures in emergency situations and preventive measures to minimise the systemic impact of any failure.\n2. The Authority may develop regulatory and implementing technical standards as specified in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 15.\nArticle 26\nEuropean system of national Investor Compensation Schemes\n1. The Authority shall contribute to strengthening the European system of national Investor Compensation Schemes (ICS) by acting under the powers conferred to it in this Regulation to ensure the correct application of Directive 97/9/EC with the aim of ensuring that national Investor Compensation Schemes are adequately funded by contributions from the concerned financial market participants, including where appropriate financial market participants headquartered in third-countries, and provide a high level of protection to all investors in a harmonised framework throughout the Union.\n2. Article 16 concerning the Authority\u2019s powers to adopt guidelines and recommendations shall apply to Investor Compensation Schemes.\n3. The Authority may develop regulatory and implementing technical standards as specified in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 15.\n4. The review of this Regulation provided for in Article 81 shall in particular examine the convergence of the European system of national Investor Compensation Schemes.\nArticle 27\nEuropean system of resolution and funding arrangements\n1. In the areas of its competence, the Authority shall contribute to developing methods for the resolution of failing key financial market participants in ways which avoid contagion, allow them to be wound down in an orderly and timely manner, and, where applicable, including coherent and credible funding mechanisms as appropriate.\n2. The Authority shall contribute to the work on the level playing field issues and cumulative impacts of any systems of levies and contributions on financial institutions that may be introduced to ensure fair burden sharing and incentives to contain systemic risk as a part of a coherent and credible resolution framework.\nThe review of this Regulation provided for in Article 81 shall in particular examine the possible enhancement of the role of the Authority in a framework of crisis prevention, management and resolution.\nArticle 28\nDelegation of tasks and responsibilities\n1. Competent authorities may, with the consent of the delegate, delegate tasks and responsibilities to the Authority or other competent authorities subject to the conditions set out in this Article. Member States may set out specific arrangements regarding the delegation of responsibilities that have to be complied with before their competent authorities enter into such delegation agreements, and may limit the scope of delegation to what is necessary for the effective supervision of cross-border financial market participants or groups.\n2. The Authority shall stimulate and facilitate the delegation of tasks and responsibilities between competent authorities by identifying those tasks and responsibilities that can be delegated or jointly exercised and by promoting best practices.\n3. The delegation of responsibilities shall result in the reallocation of competences laid down in the acts referred to in Article 1(2). The law of the delegate authority shall govern the procedure, enforcement and administrative and judicial review relating to the delegated responsibilities.\n4. The competent authorities shall inform the Authority of delegation agreements into which they intend to enter. They shall put the agreements into effect at the earliest 1 month after informing the Authority.\nThe Authority may give an opinion on the intended agreement within 1 month of being informed.\nThe Authority shall publish, by appropriate means, any delegation agreement as concluded by the competent authorities, in order to ensure that all parties concerned are informed appropriately.\nArticle 29\nCommon supervisory culture\n1. The Authority shall play an active role in building a common Union supervisory culture and consistent supervisory practices, as well as in ensuring uniform procedures and consistent approaches throughout the Union. The Authority shall carry out, at a minimum, the following activities:\n(a)\nproviding opinions to competent authorities;\n(b)\npromoting an effective bilateral and multilateral exchange of information between competent authorities, with full respect for the applicable confidentiality and data protection provisions provided for in the relevant Union legislation;\n(c)\ncontributing to developing high-quality and uniform supervisory standards, including reporting standards, and international accounting standards in accordance with Article 1(3);\n(d)\nreviewing the application of the relevant regulatory and implementing technical standards adopted by the Commission, and of the guidelines and recommendations issued by the Authority and proposing amendments where appropriate; and\n(e)\nestablishing sectoral and cross-sectoral training programmes, facilitating personnel exchanges and encouraging competent authorities to intensify the use of secondment schemes and other tools.\n2. The Authority may, as appropriate, develop new practical instruments and convergence tools to promote common supervisory approaches and practices.\nArticle 30\nPeer reviews of competent authorities\n1. The Authority shall periodically organise and conduct peer reviews of some or all of the activities of competent authorities, to further strengthen consistency in supervisory outcomes. To that end, the Authority shall develop methods to allow for objective assessment and comparison between the authorities reviewed. When conducting peer reviews, existing information and evaluations already made with regard to the competent authority concerned shall be taken into account.\n2. The peer review shall include an assessment of, but shall not be limited to:\n(a)\nthe adequacy of resources and governance arrangements of the competent authority, with particular regard to the effective application of the regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards referred to in Articles 10 to 15 and of the acts referred to in Article 1(2) and the capacity to respond to market developments;\n(b)\nthe degree of convergence reached in the application of Union law and in supervisory practice, including regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations adopted under Articles 10 to 16, and the extent to which the supervisory practice achieves the objectives set out in Union law;\n(c)\nbest practices developed by some competent authorities which might be of benefit for other competent authorities to adopt;\n(d)\nthe effectiveness and the degree of convergence reached with regard to the enforcement of the provisions adopted in the implementation of Union law, including the administrative measures and sanctions imposed against persons responsible where those provisions have not been complied with.\n3. On the basis of a peer review, the Authority may issue guidelines and recommendations pursuant to Article 16. In accordance with Article 16(3), the competent authorities shall endeavour to follow those guidelines and recommendations. The Authority shall take into account the outcome of the peer review when developing draft regulatory technical or implementing technical standards in accordance with Articles 10 to 15.\n4. The Authority shall make the best practices that can be identified from those peer reviews publicly available. In addition, all other results of peer reviews may be disclosed publicly, subject to the agreement of the competent authority that is the subject of the peer review.\nArticle 31\nCoordination function\nThe Authority shall fulfil a general coordination role between competent authorities, in particular in situations where adverse developments could potentially jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system in the Union.\nThe Authority shall promote a coordinated Union response, inter alia, by:\n(a)\nfacilitating the exchange of information between the competent authorities;\n(b)\ndetermining the scope and, where possible and appropriate, verifying the reliability of information that should be made available to all the competent authorities concerned;\n(c)\nwithout prejudice to Article 19, carrying out non-binding mediation upon a request from the competent authorities or on its own initiative;\n(d)\nnotifying the ESRB of any potential emergency situations without delay.\n(e)\ntaking all appropriate measures in case of developments which may jeopardise the functioning of the financial markets with a view to facilitating the coordination of actions undertaken by relevant competent authorities;\n(f)\ncentralising information received from competent authorities in accordance with Articles 21 and 35 as the result of the regulatory reporting obligations for financial market participants active in more than one Member State. The Authority shall share that information with the other competent authorities concerned.\nArticle 32\nAssessment of market developments\n1. The Authority shall monitor and assess market developments in the area of its competence and, where necessary, inform the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), the ESRB and the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission about the relevant micro-prudential trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities. The Authority shall include in its assessments an economic analysis of the markets in which financial market participants operate, and an assessment of the impact of potential market developments on such financial market participants.\n2. The Authority shall, in cooperation with the ESRB, initiate and coordinate Union-wide assessments of the resilience of financial market participants to adverse market developments. To that end, it shall develop the following, for application by the competent authorities:\n(a)\ncommon methodologies for assessing the effect of economic scenarios on the financial position of a financial market participant;\n(b)\ncommon approaches to communication on the outcomes of these assessments of the resilience of financial market participants;\n(c)\ncommon methodologies for assessing the effect of particular products or distribution processes on the financial position of a financial market participant and on investors and customer information.\n3. Without prejudice to the tasks of the ESRB set out in Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010, the Authority shall, at least once a year, and more frequently as necessary, provide assessments to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the ESRB of trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities in its area of competence.\nThe Authority shall include a classification of the main risks and vulnerabilities in these assessments and, where necessary, recommend preventative or remedial actions.\n4. The Authority shall ensure an adequate coverage of cross-sectoral developments, risks and vulnerabilities by closely cooperating with the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) through the Joint Committee.\nArticle 33\nInternational relations\n1. Without prejudice to the respective competences of the Member States and the Union institutions, the Authority may develop contacts and enter into administrative arrangements with supervisory authorities, international organisations and the administrations of third countries. Those arrangements shall not create legal obligations in respect of the Union and its Member States nor shall they prevent Member States and their competent authorities from concluding bilateral or multilateral arrangements with those third countries.\n2. The Authority shall assist in preparing equivalence decisions pertaining to supervisory regimes in third countries in accordance with the acts referred to in Article 1(2).\n3. In the report referred to in Article 43(5), the Authority shall set out the administrative arrangements agreed upon with international organisations or administrations in third countries and the assistance provided in preparing equivalence decisions.\nArticle 34\nOther tasks\n1. The Authority may, upon a request from the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission, or on its own initiative, provide opinions to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on all issues related to its area of competence.\n2. With regard to prudential assessments of mergers and acquisitions falling within the scope of Directive 2004/39/EC, as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC, and which according to that Directive require consultation between competent authorities from two or more Member States, the Authority may, on application of one of the competent authorities concerned, issue and publish an opinion on a prudential assessment, except in relation to the criteria in Article 10b(e) of Directive 2004/39/EC. The opinion shall be issued promptly and in any event before the end of the assessment period in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC, as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC. Article 35 shall apply to the areas in respect of which the Authority may issue an opinion.\nArticle 35\nCollection of information\n1. At the request of the Authority, the competent authorities of the Member States shall provide the Authority with all the necessary information to carry out the duties assigned to it by this Regulation, provided that they have legal access to the relevant information, and that the request for information is necessary in relation to the nature of the duty in question.\n2. The Authority may also request information to be provided at recurring intervals and in specified formats. Such requests shall, where possible, be made using common reporting formats.\n3. Upon a duly justified request from a competent authority of a Member State, the Authority may provide any information that is necessary to enable the competent authority to carry out its duties, in accordance with the professional secrecy obligations laid down in sectoral legislation and in Article 70.\n4. Before requesting information in accordance with this Article and in order to avoid the duplication of reporting obligations, the Authority shall take account of any relevant existing statistics produced and disseminated by the European Statistical System and the European System of Central Banks.\n5. Where information is not available or is not made available by the competent authorities in a timely fashion, the Authority may address a duly justified and reasoned request to other supervisory authorities, to the ministry responsible for finance where it has at its disposal prudential information, to the national central bank or to the statistical office of the Member State concerned.\n6. Where information is not available or is not made available under paragraph 1 or 5 in a timely fashion, the Authority may address a duly justified and reasoned request directly to the relevant financial market participants. The reasoned request shall explain why the information concerning the respective individual financial market participants is necessary.\nThe Authority shall inform the relevant competent authorities of requests in accordance with this paragraph and with paragraph 5.\nAt the request of the Authority, the competent authorities shall assist the Authority in collecting the information.\n7. The Authority may use confidential information received under this Article only for the purposes of carrying out the duties assigned to it by this Regulation.\nArticle 36\nRelationship with the ESRB\n1. The Authority shall cooperate closely and on a regular basis with the ESRB.\n2. The Authority shall provide the ESRB with regular and timely information necessary for the achievement of its tasks. Any data necessary for the achievement of its tasks that are not in summary or aggregate form shall be provided, without delay, to the ESRB upon a reasoned request, as specified in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010. The Authority, in cooperation with the ESRB, shall have in place adequate internal procedures for the transmission of confidential information, in particular information regarding individual financial market participants.\n3. The Authority shall, in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5, ensure a proper follow-up to ESRB warnings and recommendations referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010.\n4. On receipt of a warning or recommendation from the ESRB addressed to the Authority, the Authority shall convene a meeting of the Board of Supervisors without delay and assess the implications of such a warning or recommendation for the fulfilment of its tasks.\nIt shall decide, by the relevant decision-making procedure, on any actions to be taken in accordance with the powers conferred upon it by this Regulation for addressing the issues identified in the warnings and recommendations.\nIf the Authority does not act on a recommendation, it shall explain to the ESRB and the Council its reasons for not doing so.\n5. On receipt of a warning or recommendation from the ESRB addressed to a competent national supervisory authority, the Authority shall, where relevant, use the powers conferred upon it by this Regulation to ensure a timely follow-up.\nWhere the addressee intends not to follow the recommendation of the ESRB, it shall inform and discuss with the Board of Supervisors its reasons for not acting.\nThe competent authority shall take due account of the views of the Board of Supervisors when informing the Council and the ESRB in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010.\n6. In discharging the tasks set out in this Regulation, the Authority shall take the utmost account of the warnings and recommendations of the ESRB.\nArticle 37\nSecurities and Markets Stakeholder Group\n1. To help facilitate consultation with stakeholders in areas relevant to the tasks of the Authority, a Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group shall be established. The Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group shall be consulted on actions taken in accordance with Articles 10 to 15 concerning regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards and, to the extent that these do not concern individual financial market participants, Article 16 concerning guidelines and recommendations. If actions must be taken urgently and consultation becomes impossible, the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group shall be informed as soon as possible.\nThe Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group shall meet at least four times a year.\n2. The Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group shall be composed of 30 members, representing in balanced proportions financial market participants operating in the Union, their employees\u2019 representatives as well as consumers, users of financial services and representatives of SMEs. At least five of its members shall be independent top-ranking academics. Ten of its members shall represent financial market participants.\n3. The members of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, following proposals from the relevant stakeholders. In making its decision, the Board of Supervisors shall, to the extent possible, ensure an appropriate geographical and gender balance and representation of stakeholders across the Union.\n4. The Authority shall provide all necessary information, subject to professional secrecy, as set out in Article 70, and ensure adequate secretarial support for the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group. Adequate compensation shall be provided to members of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group that are representing non-profit organisations, excluding industry representatives. The Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group may establish working groups on technical issues. Members of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group shall serve for a period of two-and-a-half years, following which a new selection procedure shall take place.\nThe members of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group may serve two successive terms.\n5. The Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group may submit opinions and advice to the Authority on any issue related to the tasks of the Authority with particular focus on the tasks set out in Articles 10 to 16 and Articles 29, 30 and 32.\n6. The Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group shall adopt its rules of procedure by a majority of two-thirds of its members.\n7. The Authority shall make public the opinions and advice of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group and the results of its consultations.\nArticle 38\nSafeguards\n1. The Authority shall ensure that no decision adopted under Articles 18 or 19 impinges in any way on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States.\n2. Where a Member State considers that a decision taken under Article 19(3) impinges on its fiscal responsibilities, it may notify the Authority and the Commission within 2 weeks after notification of the Authority\u2019s decision to the competent authority that the decision will not be implemented by the competent authority.\nIn its notification, the Member State shall clearly and specifically explain why and how the decision impinges on its fiscal responsibilities.\nIn the case of such notification, the decision of the Authority shall be suspended.\nWithin a period of 1 month from the notification by the Member State, the Authority shall inform the Member State as to whether it maintains its decision or whether it amends or revokes it. If the decision is maintained or amended, the Authority shall state that fiscal responsibilities are not affected.\nWhere the Authority maintains its decision, the Council shall take a decision, by a majority of the votes cast, at one of its meetings not later than 2 months after the Authority has informed the Member State as set out in the fourth subparagraph, as to whether the Authority\u2019s decision is maintained.\nWhere the Council, after having considered the matter, does not take a decision to maintain the Authority\u2019s decision in accordance with the fifth subparagraph, the Authority\u2019s decision shall be terminated.\n3. Where a Member State considers that a decision taken under Article 18(3) impinges on its fiscal responsibilities, it may notify the Authority, the Commission and the Council within three working days after notification of the Authority\u2019s decision to the competent authority that the decision will not be implemented by the competent authority.\nIn its notification, the Member State shall clearly and specifically explain why and how the decision impinges on its fiscal responsibilities.\nIn the event of such notification, the decision of the Authority shall be suspended.\nThe Council shall, within ten working days, convene a meeting and take a decision, by a simple majority of its members, as to whether the Authority\u2019s decision is revoked.\nWhere the Council, after having considered the matter, does not take a decision to revoke the Authority\u2019s decision in accordance with the fourth subparagraph, the suspension of the Authority\u2019s decision shall be terminated.\n4. Where the Council has taken a decision in accordance with paragraph 3 not to revoke a decision of the Authority relating to Article 18(3), and the Member State concerned still considers that the decision of the Authority impinges upon its fiscal responsibilities, that Member State may notify the Commission and the Authority and request the Council to re-examine the matter. The Member State concerned shall clearly set out the reasons for its disagreement with the decision of the Council.\nWithin a period of 4 weeks after the notification referred to in the first subparagraph, the Council shall confirm its original decision or take a new decision in accordance with paragraph 3.\nThe period of 4 weeks may be extended by four additional weeks by the Council, if the particular circumstances of the case so require.\n5. Any abuse of this Article, in particular in relation to a decision by the Authority which does not have a significant or material fiscal impact, shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 39\nDecision-making procedures\n1. Before taking the decisions provided for in this Regulation, the Authority shall inform any named addressee of its intention to adopt the decision, setting a time limit within which the addressee may express its views on the matter, taking full account of the urgency, complexity and potential consequences of the matter. This applies mutatis mutandis to recommendations as referred to in Article 17(3).\n2. The decisions of the Authority shall state the reasons on which they are based.\n3. The addressees of decisions of the Authority shall be informed of the legal remedies available under this Regulation.\n4. Where the Authority has taken a decision pursuant to Article 18(3) or (4), it shall review that decision at appropriate intervals.\n5. The decisions which the Authority takes pursuant to Articles 17, 18 or 19 shall be made public and shall state the identity of the competent authority or financial market participant concerned and the main content of the decision, unless such publication is in conflict with the legitimate interests of financial market participants in the protection of their business secrets or could seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system of the Union.\nCHAPTER III\nORGANISATION\nSECTION 1\nBoard of Supervisors\nArticle 40\nComposition\n1. The Board of Supervisors shall be composed of:\n(a)\nthe Chairperson, who shall be non-voting;\n(b)\nthe head of the national public authority competent for the supervision of financial market participants in each Member State, who shall meet in person at least twice a year;\n(c)\none representative of the Commission, who shall be non-voting;\n(d)\none representative of the ESRB, who shall be non-voting;\n(e)\none representative of each of the other two European Supervisory Authorities who shall be non-voting;\n2. The Board of Supervisors shall convene meetings with the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group regularly, at least twice a year.\n3. Each competent authority shall be responsible for nominating a high-level alternate from its authority, who may replace the member of the Board of Supervisors referred to in paragraph 1(b), where that person is prevented from attending.\n4. In Member States where more than one authority is responsible for the supervision according to this Regulation, those authorities shall agree on a common representative. Nevertheless, when an item to be discussed by the Board of Supervisors does not fall within the competence of the national authority being represented by the member referred to in paragraph 1(b), that member may bring a representative from the relevant national authority, who shall be non-voting.\n5. For the purpose of acting within the scope of Directive 97/9/EC, the member of the Board of Supervisors referred to in paragraph 1(b) may, where appropriate, be accompanied by a representative from the relevant bodies which administer investor compensation schemes in each Member State, who shall be non-voting.\n6. The Board of Supervisors may decide to admit observers.\nThe Executive Director may participate in meetings of the Board of Supervisors without the right to vote.\nArticle 41\nInternal committees and panels\n1. The Board of Supervisors may establish internal committees or panels for specific tasks attributed to the Board of Supervisors, and may provide for the delegation of certain clearly defined tasks and decisions to internal committees or panels, to the Management Board or to the Chairperson.\n2. For the purposes of Article 19, the Board of Supervisors shall convoke an independent panel to facilitate an impartial settlement of the disagreement, consisting of the Chairperson and two of its members, who are not representatives of the competent authorities which are party to the disagreement and who have neither any interest in the conflict nor direct links to the competent authorities concerned.\n3. Subject to Article 19(2), the panel shall propose a decision for final adoption by the Board of Supervisors, in accordance with the procedure set out in the third subparagraph of Article 44(1).\n4. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt rules of procedure for the panel referred to in paragraph 2.\nArticle 42\nIndependence\nWhen carrying out the tasks conferred upon it by this Regulation, the Chairperson and the voting members of the Board of Supervisors shall act independently and objectively in the sole interest of the Union as a whole and shall neither seek nor take instructions from Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body.\nNeither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the members of the Board of Supervisors in the performance of their tasks.\nArticle 43\nTasks\n1. The Board of Supervisors shall give guidance to the work of the Authority and shall be in charge of taking the decisions referred to in Chapter II.\n2. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the opinions, recommendations, and decisions, and issue the advice referred to in Chapter II.\n3. The Board of Supervisors shall appoint the Chairperson.\n4. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt, before 30 September of each year, on the basis of a proposal by the Management Board, the work programme of the Authority for the coming year, and shall transmit it for information to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.\nThe work programme shall be adopted without prejudice to the annual budgetary procedure and shall be made public.\n5. The Board of Supervisors shall, on the basis of a proposal by the Management Board, adopt the annual report on the activities of the Authority, including on the performance of the Chairperson\u2019s duties, on the basis of the draft report referred to in Article 53(7) and shall transmit that report to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the European Economic and Social Committee by 15 June each year. The report shall be made public.\n6. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the multi-annual work programme of the Authority, and shall transmit it for information to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.\nThe multi-annual work programme shall be adopted without prejudice to the annual budgetary procedure and shall be made public.\n7. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the budget in accordance with Article 63.\n8. The Board of Supervisors shall exercise disciplinary authority over the Chairperson and the Executive Director and may remove them from office in accordance with Article 48(5) or Article 51(5) respectively.\nArticle 44\nDecision making\n1. Decisions of the Board of Supervisors shall be taken by a simple majority of its members. Each member shall have one vote.\nWith regard to the acts specified in Articles 10 to 16 and measures and decisions adopted under the third subparagraph of Article 9(5) and Chapter VI and by way of derogation from the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the Board of Supervisors shall take decisions on the basis of a qualified majority of its members, as defined in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 3 of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions.\nWith regard to decisions in accordance with Article 19(3), for decisions taken by the consolidating supervisor, the decision proposed by the panel shall be considered as adopted, if approved by a simple majority, unless it is rejected by members representing a blocking minority of the votes as defined in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 3 of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions.\nFor all other decisions in accordance with Article 19(3), the decision proposed by the panel shall be adopted by a simple majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors. Each member shall have one vote.\n2. Meetings of the Board of Supervisors shall be convened by the Chairperson at his own initiative or at the request of one third of its members, and shall be chaired by the Chairperson.\n3. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure.\n4. The rules of procedure shall set out in detail the arrangements governing voting, including, where appropriate, the rules governing quorums. The non-voting members and the observers, with the exception of the Chairperson and the Executive Director, shall not attend any discussions within the Board of Supervisors relating to individual financial market participants, unless otherwise provided for in Article 75(3) or in the acts referred to in Article 1(2).\nSECTION 2\nManagement Board\nArticle 45\nComposition\n1. The Management Board shall be composed of the Chairperson and six other members of the Board of Supervisors, elected by and from the voting members of the Board of Supervisors.\nOther than the Chairperson, each member of the Management Board shall have an alternate, who may replace him if he is prevented from attending.\nThe term of office of the members elected by the Board of Supervisors shall be two-and-a-half years. That term may be extended once. The composition of the Management Board shall be balanced and proportionate and shall reflect the Union as a whole. Mandates shall be overlapping and an appropriate rotating arrangement shall apply.\n2. Decisions by the Management Board shall be adopted on the basis of a majority of the members present. Each member shall have one vote.\nThe Executive Director and a representative of the Commission shall participate in meetings of the Management Board without the right to vote.\nThe representative of the Commission shall have the right to vote on matters referred to in Article 63.\nThe Management Board shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure.\n3. Meetings of the Management Board shall be convened by the Chairperson at his own initiative or at the request of at least a third of its members, and shall be chaired by the Chairperson.\nThe Management Board shall meet prior to every meeting of the Board of Supervisors and as often as the Management Board deems necessary. It shall meet at least five times a year.\n4. The members of the Management Board may, subject to the rules of procedure, be assisted by advisers or experts. The non-voting members, with the exception of the Executive Director, shall not attend any discussions within the Management Board relating to individual financial market participants.\nArticle 46\nIndependence\nThe members of the Management Board shall act independently and objectively in the sole interest of the Union as a whole and shall neither seek nor take instructions from the Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body.\nNeither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the members of the Management Board in the performance of their tasks.\nArticle 47\nTasks\n1. The Management Board shall ensure that the Authority carries out its mission and performs the tasks assigned to it in accordance with this Regulation.\n2. The Management Board shall propose, for adoption by the Board of Supervisors, an annual and multi-annual work programme.\n3. The Management Board shall exercise its budgetary powers in accordance with Articles 63 and 64.\n4. The Management Board shall adopt the Authority\u2019s staff policy plan and, pursuant to Article 68(2), the necessary implementing measures of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (hereinafter the Staff Regulations\u2019).\n5. The Management Board shall adopt the special provisions on right of access to the documents of the Authority, in accordance with Article 72.\n6. The Management Board shall propose an annual report on the activities of the Authority, including on the Chairperson\u2019s duties, on the basis of the draft report referred to in Article 53(7) to the Board of Supervisors for approval.\n7. The Management Board shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure.\n8. The Management Board shall appoint and remove the members of the Board of Appeal in accordance with Article 58(3) and (5).\nSECTION 3\nChairperson\nArticle 48\nAppointment and tasks\n1. The Authority shall be represented by a Chairperson, who shall be a full-time independent professional.\nThe Chairperson shall be responsible for preparing the work of the Board of Supervisors and shall chair the meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board.\n2. The Chairperson shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial market participants and markets, and of experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation, following an open selection procedure.\nBefore taking up his duties, and up to 1 month after the selection by the Board of Supervisors, the European Parliament may, after having heard the candidate selected by the Board of Supervisors, object to the designation of the selected person.\nThe Board of Supervisors shall also elect, from among its members, an alternate who shall carry out the functions of the Chairperson in his absence. That alternate shall not be elected from among the members of the Management Board.\n3. The Chairperson\u2019s term of office shall be 5 years and may be extended once.\n4. In the course of the 9 months preceding the end of the five-year term of office of the Chairperson, the Board of Supervisors shall evaluate:\n(a)\nthe results achieved in the first term of office and the way they were achieved;\n(b)\nthe Authority\u2019s duties and requirements in the coming years.\nThe Board of Supervisors, taking into account the evaluation may extend the term of office of the Chairperson once subject to confirmation by the European Parliament.\n5. The Chairperson may be removed from office only by the European Parliament following a decision of the Board of Supervisors.\nThe Chairperson shall not prevent the Board of Supervisors from discussing matters relating to the Chairperson, in particular the need for his removal, and shall not be involved in deliberations concerning such a matter.\nArticle 49\nIndependence\nWithout prejudice to the role of the Board of Supervisors in relation to the tasks of the Chairperson, the Chairperson shall neither seek nor take instructions from the Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body.\nNeither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the Chairperson in the performance of his tasks.\nIn accordance with the Staff Regulations referred to in Article 68, the Chairperson shall, after leaving service, continue to be bound by the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance of certain appointments or benefits.\nArticle 50\nReport\n1. The European Parliament and the Council may invite the Chairperson or his alternate to make a statement, while fully respecting his independence. The Chairperson shall, make a statement before the European Parliament and answer any questions put by its members, whenever so requested.\n2. The Chairperson shall report in writing on the main activities of the Authority to the European Parliament when requested and at least 15 days before making the statement referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. In addition to the information referred to in Articles 11 to 18 and Articles 20 and 33, the report shall also include any relevant information requested by the European Parliament on an ad-hoc basis.\nSECTION 4\nExecutive Director\nArticle 51\nAppointment\n1. The Authority shall be managed by an Executive Director, who shall be a full-time independent professional.\n2. The Executive Director shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, after confirmation by the European Parliament, on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial market participants and markets, and experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation and managerial experience, following an open selection procedure.\n3. The Executive Director\u2019s term of office shall be 5 years and may be extended once.\n4. In the course of the 9 months preceding the end of the Executive Director\u2019s term of office, the Board of Supervisors shall evaluate in particular:\n(a)\nthe results achieved in the first term of office and the way they were achieved;\n(b)\nthe Authority\u2019s duties and requirements in the coming years.\nThe Board of Supervisors, taking into account the evaluation referred to in the first subparagraph, may extend the term of office of the Executive Director once.\n5. The Executive Director may be removed from office only upon a decision of the Board of Supervisors.\nArticle 52\nIndependence\nWithout prejudice to the respective roles of the Management Board and the Board of Supervisors in relation to the tasks of the Executive Director, the Executive Director shall neither seek nor take instructions from the Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body.\nNeither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the Executive Director in the performance of his tasks.\nIn accordance with the Staff Regulations referred to in Article 68, the Executive Director shall, after leaving service, continue to be bound by the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance of certain appointments or benefits.\nArticle 53\nTasks\n1. The Executive Director shall be in charge of the management of the Authority and shall prepare the work of the Management Board.\n2. The Executive Director shall be responsible for implementing the annual work programme of the Authority under the guidance of the Board of Supervisors and under the control of the Management Board.\n3. The Executive Director shall take the necessary measures, notably the adoption of internal administrative instructions and the publication of notices, to ensure the functioning of the Authority, in accordance with this Regulation.\n4. The Executive Director shall prepare a multi-annual work programme, as referred to in Article 47(2).\n5. Each year by 30 June, the Executive Director shall prepare a work programme for the following year, as referred to in Article 47(2).\n6. The Executive Director shall draw up a preliminary draft budget of the Authority pursuant to Article 63 and shall implement the budget of the Authority pursuant to Article 64.\n7. Each year the Executive Director shall prepare a draft report with a section on the regulatory and supervisory activities of the Authority and a section on financial and administrative matters.\n8. The Executive Director shall exercise in respect to the Authority\u2019s staff the powers laid down in Article 68 and manage staff matters.\nCHAPTER IV\nJOINT BODIES OF THE EUROPEAN SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES\nSECTION 1\nJoint Committee of European Supervisory Authorities\nArticle 54\nEstablishment\n1. The Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities is hereby established.\n2. The Joint Committee shall serve as a forum in which the Authority shall cooperate regularly and closely and ensure cross-sectoral consistency with the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), in particular regarding:\n-\nfinancial conglomerates,\n-\naccounting and auditing,\n-\nmicro-prudential analyses of cross-sectoral developments, risks and vulnerabilities for financial stability,\n-\nretail investment products,\n-\nmeasures combating money laundering; and,\n-\ninformation exchange with the ESRB and developing the relationship between the ESRB and the ESAs,\n3. The Joint Committee shall have a dedicated staff provided by the ESAs that shall act as a secretariat. The Authority shall contribute adequate resources to administrative, infrastructure and operational expenses.\n4. In the event that a financial market participant reaches across different sectors, the Joint Committee shall resolve disagreements in accordance with Article 56.\nArticle 55\nComposition\n1. The Joint Committee shall be composed of the Chairpersons of the ESAs, and, where applicable, the Chairperson of any Sub-Committee established under Article 57.\n2. The Executive Director, a representative of the Commission and the ESRB shall be invited to the meetings of the Joint Committee, as well as of any Sub-Committees referred to in Article 57, as observers.\n3. The Chairperson of the Joint Committee shall be appointed on an annual rotational basis from among the Chairpersons of the ESAs. The Chairperson of the Joint Committee shall be a Vice-Chair of the ESRB.\n4. The Joint Committee shall adopt and publish its own rules of procedure. The rules may specify further participants in the meetings of the Joint Committee.\nThe Joint Committee shall meet at least once every 2 months.\nArticle 56\nJoint positions and common acts\nWithin the scope of its tasks in Chapter II, and, in particular with respect to the implementation of Directive 2002/87/EC, where relevant, the Authority shall reach joint positions with the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and with the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), as appropriate.\nActs under Articles 10 to 15, 17, 18 or 19 of this Regulation in relation to the application of Directive 2002/87/EC and of any other Union acts referred to in Article 1(2) that also fall within the area of competence of the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) or the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) shall be adopted, in parallel, by the Authority, the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), as appropriate.\nArticle 57\nSub-Committees\n1. For the purposes of Article 56, a Sub-Committee on Financial Conglomerates to the Joint Committee shall be established.\n2. The Sub-Committee shall be composed of the individuals referred to in Article 55(1), and one high-level representative from the current staff of the relevant competent authority from each Member State.\n3. The Sub-Committee shall elect a Chairperson from among its members, who shall also be a member of the Joint Committee.\n4. The Joint Committee may establish further Sub Committees.\nSECTION 2\nBoard of Appeal\nArticle 58\nComposition and operation\n1. The Board of Appeal shall be a joint body of the ESAs.\n2. The Board of Appeal shall be composed of six members and six alternates, who shall be individuals of a high repute with a proven record of relevant knowledge and professional experience, including supervisory, experience to a sufficiently high level in the fields of banking, insurance, occupational pensions, securities markets or other financial services, excluding current staff of the competent authorities or other national or Union institutions involved in the activities of the Authority. The Board of Appeal shall have sufficient legal expertise to provide expert legal advice on the legality of the Authority\u2019s exercise of its powers.\nThe Board of Appeal shall designate its President.\n3. Two members of the Board of Appeal and two alternates shall be appointed by the Management Board of the Authority from a short-list proposed by the Commission, following a public call for expressions of interest published in the Official Journal of the European Union, and after consultation of the Board of Supervisors.\nThe other members shall be appointed in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010.\n4. The term of office of the members of the Board of Appeal shall be 5 years. That term may be extended once.\n5. A member of the Board of Appeal appointed by the Management Board of the Authority shall not be removed during his term of office, unless he has been found guilty of serious misconduct and the Management Board takes a decision to that effect after consulting the Board of Supervisors.\n6. The decisions of the Board of Appeal shall be adopted on the basis of a majority of at least four of its six members. Where the appealed decision falls within the scope of this Regulation, the deciding majority shall include at least one of the two members of the Board of Appeal appointed by the Authority.\n7. The Board of Appeal shall be convened by its President when necessary.\n8. The ESAs shall ensure adequate operational and secretarial support for the Board of Appeal through the Joint Committee.\nArticle 59\nIndependence and impartiality\n1. The members of the Board of Appeal shall be independent in making their decisions. They shall not be bound by any instructions. They shall not perform any other duties in relation to the Authority, its Management Board or its Board of Supervisors.\n2. Members of the Board of Appeal shall not take part in any appeal proceedings in which they have any personal interest, if they have previously been involved as representatives of one of the parties to the proceedings, or if they have participated in the decision under appeal.\n3. If, for one of the reasons referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 or for any other reason, a member of a Board of Appeal considers that another member should not take part in any appeal proceedings, he shall inform the Board of Appeal accordingly.\n4. Any party to the appeal proceedings may object to the participation of a member of the Board of Appeal on any of the grounds referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, or if suspected of bias.\nNo objection may be based on the nationality of members nor shall it be admissible if, while being aware of a reason for objecting, the party to the appeal proceedings has nonetheless taken a procedural step other than objecting to the composition of the Board of Appeal.\n5. The Board of Appeal shall decide on the action to be taken in the cases specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 without the participation of the member concerned.\nFor the purpose of taking that decision, the member concerned shall be replaced on the Board of Appeal by his alternate. Where the alternate is in a similar situation, the Chairperson shall designate a replacement from among the available alternates.\n6. The members of the Board of Appeal shall undertake to act independently and in the public interest.\nFor that purpose, they shall make a declaration of commitments and a declaration of interests indicating either the absence of any interest which may be considered prejudicial to their independence or any direct or indirect interest which might be considered prejudicial to their independence.\nThose declarations shall be made public, annually and in writing.\nCHAPTER V\nREMEDIES\nArticle 60\nAppeals\n1. Any natural or legal person, including competent authorities, may appeal against a decision of the Authority referred to in Articles 17, 18 and 19 and any other decision taken by the Authority in accordance with the Union acts referred to in Article 1(2) which is addressed to that person, or against a decision which, although in the form of a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to that person.\n2. The appeal, together with a statement of grounds, shall be filed in writing at the Authority within 2 months of the date of notification of the decision to the person concerned, or, in the absence of a notification, of the day on which the Authority published its decision.\nThe Board of Appeal shall decide upon the appeal within 2 months after the appeal has been lodged.\n3. An appeal lodged pursuant to paragraph 1 shall not have suspensive effect.\nHowever, the Board of Appeal may, if it considers that circumstances so require, suspend the application of the contested decision.\n4. If the appeal is admissible, the Board of Appeal shall examine whether it is well-founded. It shall invite the parties to the appeal proceedings to file observations on its own notifications or on communications from the other parties to the appeal proceedings, within specified time limits. Parties to the appeal proceedings shall be entitled to make oral representations.\n5. The Board of Appeal may confirm the decision taken by the competent body of the Authority, or remit the case to the competent body of the Authority. That body shall be bound by the decision of the Board of Appeal and that body shall adopt an amended decision regarding the case concerned.\n6. The Board of Appeal shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure.\n7. The decisions taken by the Board of Appeal shall be reasoned and shall be made public by the Authority.\nArticle 61\nActions before the Court of Justice of the European Union\n1. Proceedings may be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, contesting a decision taken by the Board of Appeal or, in cases where there is no right of appeal before the Board of Appeal, by the Authority.\n2. Member States and the Union institutions, as well as any natural or legal person, may institute proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union against decisions of the Authority, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU.\n3. In the event that the Authority has an obligation to act and fails to take a decision, proceedings for failure to act may be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with Article 265 TFEU.\n4. The Authority shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINANCIAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 62\nBudget of the Authority\n1. The revenues of the Authority, a European body in accordance with Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (47) (hereinafter the \u2018Financial Regulation\u2019), shall consist, in particular, of any combination of the following:\n(a)\nobligatory contributions from the national public authorities competent for the supervision of financial market participants which shall be made in accordance with a formula based on the weighting of votes set out in Article 3(3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions. For the purposes of this Article, Article 3(3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions shall continue to apply beyond the deadline of 31 October 2014 therein established;\n(b)\na subsidy from the Union, entered in the General Budget of the European Union (Commission Section);\n(c)\nany fees paid to the Authority in the cases specified in the relevant instruments of Union law.\n2. The expenditure of the Authority shall include, at least, staff, remuneration, administrative, infrastructure professional training and operational expenses.\n3. Revenue and expenditure shall be in balance.\n4. Estimates of all Authority revenue and expenditure shall be prepared for each financial year, corresponding to the calendar year, and shall be presented in the budget of the Authority.\nArticle 63\nEstablishment of the budget\n1. By 15 February each year, the Executive Director shall draw up a draft statement of estimates of revenue and expenditure for the following financial year, and shall forward it to the Management Board and the Board of Supervisors, together with the establishment plan. Each year, the Board of Supervisors shall, on the basis of the draft statement drawn up by the Executive Director and approved by the Management Board, produce a statement of estimates of revenue and expenditure of the Authority for the following financial year. That statement of estimates, including a draft establishment plan, shall be transmitted by the Board of Supervisors to the Commission by 31 March. Prior to adoption of the statement of estimates, the draft prepared by the Executive Director shall be approved by the Management Board.\n2. The statement of estimates shall be transmitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council (hereinafter referred to together as the \u2018budgetary authority\u2019), together with the draft budget of the European Union.\n3. On the basis of the statement of estimates, the Commission shall enter in the draft budget of the European Union the estimates it deems necessary in respect of the establishment plan and the amount of the subsidy to be charged to the General Budget of the European Union in accordance with Articles 313 and 314 TFEU.\n4. The budgetary authority shall adopt the establishment plan for the Authority. The budgetary authority shall authorise the appropriations for the subsidy to the Authority.\n5. The budget of the Authority shall be adopted by the Board of Supervisors. It shall become final after the final adoption of the General Budget of the European Union. Where necessary, it shall be adjusted accordingly.\n6. The Management Board shall, without delay, notify the budgetary authority of its intention to implement any project which may have significant financial implications for the funding of its budget, in particular any project relating to property, such as the rental or purchase of buildings. It shall inform the Commission thereof. If either branch of the budgetary authority intends to issue an opinion, it shall, within 2 weeks of receipt of the information on the project, notify the Authority of its intention to issue such an opinion. In the absence of a reply, the Authority may proceed with the planned operation.\n7. For the first year of operation of the Authority, ending on 31 December 2011, the financing of the Authority by the Union is subject to an agreement by the budgetary authority as provided for in Point 47 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management.\nArticle 64\nImplementation and control of the budget\n1. The Executive Director shall act as authorising officer and shall implement the Authority\u2019s budget.\n2. By 1 March following the completion of each financial year, the Authority\u2019s accounting officer shall forward to the Commission\u2019s accounting officer and to the Court of Auditors the provisional accounts, accompanied by the report on budgetary and financial management during the financial year. The Authority\u2019s accounting officer shall also send the report on budgetary and financial management to the members of the Board of Supervisors, the European Parliament and the Council by 31 March of the following year.\nThe Commission\u2019s accounting officer shall then consolidate the provisional accounts of the institutions and decentralised bodies in accordance with Article 128 of the Financial Regulation.\n3. After receiving the observations of the Court of Auditors on the provisional accounts of the Authority in accordance with Article 129 of the Financial Regulation, the Executive Director, acting on his own responsibility, shall draw up the final accounts of the Authority and transmit them, for opinion, to the Management Board.\n4. The Management Board shall deliver an opinion on the final accounts of the Authority.\n5. The Executive Director shall transmit those final accounts, accompanied by the opinion of the Management Board, by 1 July following the completion of the financial year, to the Members of the Board of Supervisors, the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors.\n6. The final accounts shall be published.\n7. The Executive Director shall send the Court of Auditors a reply to the latter\u2019s observations by 30 September. He shall also send a copy of that reply to the Management Board and the Commission.\n8. The Executive Director shall submit to the European Parliament, at the latter\u2019s request and as provided for in Article 146(3) of the Financial Regulation, any information necessary for the smooth application of the discharge procedure for the financial year in question.\n9. The European Parliament, following a recommendation from the Council acting by qualified majority, shall, before 15 May of the year N + 2, grant a discharge to the Authority for the implementation of the budget comprising revenue from the General Budget of the European Union and competent authorities for the financial year N.\nArticle 65\nFinancial rules\nThe financial rules applicable to the Authority shall be adopted by the Management Board after consulting the Commission. Those rules may not depart from Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (48) unless the specific operational needs for the functioning of the Authority so require and only with the prior agreement of the Commission.\nArticle 66\nAnti-fraud measures\n1. For the purposes of combating fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity, Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 shall apply to the Authority without any restriction.\n2. The Authority shall accede to the Interinstitutional Agreement concerning internal investigations by OLAF and shall immediately adopt appropriate provisions for all staff of the Authority.\n3. The funding decisions and the agreements and the implementing instruments resulting from them shall explicitly stipulate that the Court of Auditors and OLAF may, if need be, carry out on-the-spot checks on the beneficiaries of monies disbursed by the Authority as well as on the staff responsible for allocating these monies.\nCHAPTER VII\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 67\nPrivileges and immunities\nThe Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the TFEU shall apply to the Authority and its staff.\nArticle 68\nStaff\n1. The Staff Regulations, the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and the rules adopted jointly by the Union institutions for the purpose of applying them shall apply to the staff of the Authority, including its Executive Director and its Chairperson.\n2. The Management Board, in agreement with the Commission, shall adopt the necessary implementing measures, in accordance with the arrangements provided for in Article 110 of the Staff Regulations.\n3. In respect of its staff, the Authority shall exercise the powers conferred on the appointing authority by the Staff Regulations and on the authority entitled to conclude contracts by the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants.\n4. The Management Board shall adopt provisions to allow national experts from Member States to be seconded to the Authority.\nArticle 69\nLiability of the Authority\n1. In the case of non-contractual liability, the Authority shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by it or by its staff in the performance of their duties. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction in any dispute over the remedying of such damage.\n2. The personal financial liability and disciplinary liability of Authority staff towards the Authority shall be governed by the relevant provisions applying to the staff of the Authority.\nArticle 70\nObligation of professional secrecy\n1. Members of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board, the Executive Director, and members of the staff of the Authority including officials seconded by Member States on a temporary basis and all other persons carrying out tasks for the Authority on a contractual basis shall be subject to the requirements of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 339 TFEU and the relevant provisions in Union legislation, even after their duties have ceased.\nArticle 16 of the Staff Regulations shall apply to them.\nIn accordance with the Staff Regulations, the staff shall, after leaving service, continue to be bound by the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance of certain appointments or benefits.\nNeither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence staff members of the Authority in the performance of their tasks.\n2. Without prejudice to cases covered by criminal law, any confidential information received by persons referred to in paragraph 1 whilst performing their duties may not be divulged to any person or authority whatsoever, except in summary or aggregate form, such that individual financial market participants cannot be identified.\nMoreover, the obligation under paragraph 1 and the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall not prevent the Authority and the national supervisory authorities from using the information for the enforcement of the acts referred to in Article 1(2), and in particular for legal procedures for the adoption of decisions.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not prevent the Authority from exchanging information with national supervisory authorities in accordance with this Regulation and other Union legislation applicable to financial market participants.\nThat information shall be subject to the conditions of professional secrecy referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. The Authority shall lay down in its internal rules of procedure the practical arrangements for implementing the confidentiality rules referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.\n4. The Authority shall apply Commission Decision 2001/844/EC/ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending its internal Rules of Procedure (49).\nArticle 71\nData protection\nThis Regulation shall be without prejudice to the obligations of Member States relating to their processing of personal data under Directive 95/46/EC or the obligations of the Authority relating to its processing of personal data under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 when fulfilling its responsibilities.\nArticle 72\nAccess to documents\n1. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 shall apply to documents held by the Authority.\n2. The Management Board shall, by 31 May 2011, adopt practical measures for applying Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.\n3. Decisions taken by the Authority pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 may be the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman or of proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union, following an appeal to the Board of Appeal, as appropriate, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Articles 228 and 263 TFEU respectively.\nArticle 73\nLanguage arrangements\n1. Council Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (50) shall apply to the Authority.\n2. The Management Board shall decide on the internal language arrangements for the Authority.\n3. The translation services required for the functioning of the Authority shall be provided by the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union.\nArticle 74\nHeadquarters Agreement\nThe necessary arrangements concerning the accommodation to be provided for the Authority in the Member State where its seat is located and the facilities to be made available by that Member State, as well as the specific rules applicable in that Member State to the Executive Director, the members of the Management Board, the staff of the Authority and members of their families shall be laid down in a Headquarters Agreement between the Authority and that Member State concluded after obtaining the approval of the Management Board.\nThat Member State shall provide the best possible conditions to ensure the proper functioning of the Authority, including multilingual, European-oriented schooling and appropriate transport connections.\nArticle 75\nParticipation of third countries\n1. Participation in the work of the Authority shall be open to third countries which have concluded agreements with the Union whereby they have adopted and are applying Union law in the areas of competence of the Authority as referred to in Article 1(2).\n2. The Authority may cooperate with the countries referred to in paragraph 1, applying legislation which has been recognised as equivalent in the areas of competence of the Authority referred to in Article 1(2), as provided for in international agreements concluded by the Union in accordance with Article 216 TFEU.\n3. Under the relevant provisions of the agreements referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, arrangements shall be made specifying, in particular, the nature, scope and procedural aspects of the involvement of the countries referred to in paragraph 1 in the work of the Authority, including provisions relating to financial contributions and to staff. They may provide for representation, as an observer, on the Board of Supervisors, but shall ensure that those countries do not attend any discussions relating to individual financial market participants, except where there is a direct interest.\nCHAPTER VIII\nTRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 76\nPreparatory actions\n1. Following the entry into force of this Regulation, and before the establishment of the Authority, CESR shall act in close cooperation with the Commission to prepare for the replacement of CESR by the Authority.\n2. Once the Authority has been established, the Commission shall be responsible for the administrative establishment and initial administrative operation of the Authority until the Authority has appointed an Executive Director.\nFor that purpose, until such time as the Executive Director takes up his duties following his appointment by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with Article 51, the Commission may assign one official on an interim basis in order to fulfil the functions of the Executive Director. That period shall be limited to the time necessary for the appointment of an Executive Director of the Authority.\nThe interim Executive Director may authorise all payments covered by credits provided in the budget of the Authority, once approved by the Management Board and may conclude contracts, including staff contracts following the adoption of the Authority\u2019s establishment plan.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are without prejudice to the powers of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board.\n4. The Authority shall be considered the legal successor of CESR. By the date of establishment of the Authority, all assets and liabilities and all pending operations of CESR shall be automatically transferred to the Authority. The CESR shall establish a statement showing its closing asset and liability situation as of the date of that transfer. That statement shall be audited and approved by CESR and by the Commission.\nArticle 77\nTransitional staff provisions\n1. By way of derogation from Article 68, all employment contracts and secondment agreements concluded by CESR or its Secretariat and in force on 1 January 2011 shall be honoured until their expiry date. They may not be extended.\n2. All members of staff under contracts referred to in paragraph 1 shall be offered the possibility of concluding temporary agent contracts under Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants at the various grades as set out in the Authority\u2019s establishment plan.\nAn internal selection limited to staff who have contracts with CESR or its Secretariat shall be carried out after the entry into force of this Regulation by the authority authorised to conclude contracts in order to check the ability, efficiency and integrity of those to be engaged. The internal selection procedure shall take full account of the skills and experience demonstrated by the individuals\u2019 performance prior to the engagement.\n3. Depending on the type and level of functions to be performed, successful applicants shall be offered temporary agents\u2019 contracts of a duration corresponding at least to the time remaining under the prior contract.\n4. The relevant national law relating to labour contracts and other relevant instruments shall continue to apply to staff members with prior contracts who choose not to apply for temporary agent\u2019s contracts or who are not offered temporary agents contracts in accordance with paragraph 2.\nArticle 78\nNational provisions\nThe Member States shall make such provision as is appropriate to ensure the effective application of this Regulation.\nArticle 79\nAmendments\nDecision No 716/2009/EC is hereby amended in so far as CESR is removed from the list of beneficiaries set out in Section B of the Annex to that Decision.\nArticle 80\nRepeal\nCommission Decision 2009/77/EC, establishing CESR, is hereby repealed with effect from 1 January 2011.\nArticle 81\nReview\n1. By 2 January 2014 and every 3 years thereafter, the Commission shall publish a general report on the experience acquired as a result of the operation of the Authority and the procedures laid down in this Regulation. That report shall evaluate, inter alia:\n(a)\nthe convergence in supervisory practices reached by competent authorities,\n(i)\nthe convergence in functional independence of the competent authorities and in standards equivalent to corporate governance;\n(ii)\nthe impartiality, objectivity and autonomy of the Authority;\n(b)\nthe functioning of the colleges of supervisors;\n(c)\nthe progress achieved towards convergence in the fields of crisis prevention, management and resolution, including Union funding mechanisms;\n(d)\nthe role of the Authority as regards systemic risk;\n(e)\nthe application of the safeguard clause established in Article 38;\n(f)\nthe application of the binding mediation role established in Article 19.\n2. The report referred to in paragraph 1 shall also examine whether:\n(a)\nit is appropriate to continue separate supervision of banking, insurance, occupational pensions, securities and financial markets;\n(b)\nit is appropriate to undertake prudential supervision and supervise the conduct of business separately or by the same supervisor;\n(c)\nit is appropriate to simplify and reinforce the architecture of the ESFS in order to increase the coherence between the macro and the micro levels and between the ESAs;\n(d)\nthe evolution of the ESFS is consistent with that of the global evolution;\n(e)\nthere is sufficient diversity and excellence within the ESFS;\n(f)\naccountability and transparency in relation to publication requirements are adequate;\n(g)\nthe resources of the Authority are adequate to carry out its responsibilities;\n(h)\nit is appropriate for the seat of the Authority to be maintained or to move the ESAs to a single seat to enhance better coordination between them.\n3. Concerning the issue of direct supervision of institutions or infrastructures of pan-European reach and taking account of market developments, the Commission shall draw up an annual report on the appropriateness of entrusting the Authority with further supervisory responsibilities in this area.\n4. The report and any accompanying proposals, as appropriate, shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nArticle 82\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011, with the exception of Article 76 and Article 77(1) and (2), which shall apply as from the date of its entry into force.\nThe Authority shall be established on 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["25", "16", "60", "56", "8", "44", "6", "50", "72", "27", "73", "29", "77", "98", "53", "55", "59", "92", "14", "3", "1", "61", "21", "31", "85", "32", "49", "65", "80", "5", "No Label", "7", "9", "10", "30", "33", "41"], "gold": ["7", "9", "10", "30", "33", "41"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 791/2012\nof 23 August 2012\namending, as regards certain provisions relating to the trade in species of wild fauna and flora, Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1), and in particular Article 19(2), (3) and (4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to implement certain Resolutions adopted at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), hereinafter \u2018the Convention\u2019, certain provisions should be amended and further provisions should be added to Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 of 4 May 2006 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (2).\n(2)\nExperience gained in the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 has shown that some provisions therein should be amended in order to ensure that that Regulation is implemented in a harmonised and efficient manner within the Union.\n(3)\nTherefore, provisions relating to the conditions applying to the identification and marking of specimens, the retrospective issue of certain documents, the conditions under which personal ownership certificates can be issued, the regime applying to personal and household effects within the Union as well to their re-export, the conditions under which \u2018Annex A\u2019 specimens can be subject to commercial activities within the Union, and the conditions applying to pre-issued certificates, should be changed.\n(4)\nArticles 2 and 3 as well as Annexes I to VI to Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 should be deleted from that Regulation as they will become an integral part of a new Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012 (3), adopted under Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 further to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (4).\n(5)\nAt the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, the standard references for nomenclature, to be used to indicate scientific names of species in permits and certificates, were updated. Those changes should therefore be reflected in Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 865/2006.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 865/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 865/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin the preamble, the sentence relating to the legal basis of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (5), and in particular Article 19(2), (3) and (4) thereof,\n(2)\nin Article 1, the following points (4a) and (4b) are inserted:\n\u2018(4a)\n\u201ccultivated parental stock\u201d means the ensemble of plants grown under controlled conditions that are used for reproduction, and which must have been, to the satisfaction of the competent management authority, in consultation with a competent scientific authority of the Member State concerned:\n(i)\nestablished in accordance with the provisions of CITES and relevant national laws and in a manner not detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild; and\n(ii)\nmaintained in sufficient quantities for propagation so as to minimise or eliminate the need for augmentation from the wild, with such augmentation occurring only as an exception and limited to the amount necessary to maintain the vigour and productivity of the cultivated parental stock;\n(4b)\n\u201chunting trophy\u201d means a whole animal, or a readily recognisable part or derivative of an animal, specified on any accompanying CITES permit or certificate that fulfils the following conditions:\n(i)\nis raw, processed or manufactured;\n(ii)\nwas legally obtained by the hunter through hunting for the hunter's personal use;\n(iii)\nis being imported, exported or re-exported by or on behalf of the hunter, as part of the transfer from its country of origin, ultimately to the hunter's State of usual residence;\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the first sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Forms referred to in Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012 (6) shall be completed in typescript.\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Forms 1 to 4 of Annex I provided for in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012, forms 1 and 2 of Annex II provided for in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012, forms 1 and 2 of Annex III provided for in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012, forms 1 and 2 of Annex V provided for in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012, the continuation sheets referred to in Article 2(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012 and the labels referred to in Article 2(6) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012 may not contain any erasures or alterations, unless those erasures or alterations have been authenticated by the stamp and signature of the issuing management authority. In the case of the import notifications as referred to in Article 2(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012 and the continuation sheets referred to in Article 2(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012, erasures or alterations may also be authenticated by the stamp and signature of the customs office of introduction.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 5a, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In case of plant specimens that cease to qualify for an exemption from the provisions of the Convention or Regulation (EC) No 338/97 in accordance with the \u201cNotes on the interpretation of Annexes A, B, C and D\u201d in the Annex thereto, under which they were legally exported and imported, the country to be indicated in box 15 of the forms in Annexes I and III provided for in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012, box 4 of the forms in Annex II provided for in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012 and box 10 of the forms in Annex V provided for in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012 may be the country in which the specimens ceased to qualify for the exemption.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\nAnnexes to forms\n1. If an annex attached to any of the forms referred to in Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012 is an integral part of that form, that fact and the number of pages shall be clearly indicated on the permit or certificate concerned and each page of the annex shall include the following:\n(a)\nthe number of the permit or certificate and its date of issue;\n(b)\nthe signature and the stamp or seal of the management authority which issued the permit or certificate.\n2. Where the forms referred to in Article 2(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012 are used for more than one species in a shipment, an annex shall be attached which, in addition to the information required under paragraph 1 of this Article, shall, for each species in the shipment, reproduce boxes 8 to 22 of the form concerned as well as the spaces contained in box 27 thereof for \u201cquantity/net mass actually imported or (re-)exported\u201d and, where appropriate, \u201cnumber of animals dead on arrival\u201d.\n3. Where the forms referred to in Article 2(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012 are used for more than one species, an annex shall be attached which, in addition to the information required under paragraph 1 of this Article, shall, for each species, reproduce boxes 8 to 18 of the form concerned.\n4. Where the forms referred to in Article 2(5) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012 are used for more than one species, an annex shall be attached which, in addition to the information required under paragraph 1 of this Article, shall, for each species, reproduce boxes 4 to 18 of the form concerned.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 7, the following paragraph 5 is added:\n\u20185. Export permits and re-export certificates shall be endorsed, with quantity, signature and stamp, by an official from the export or re-export country, in the export endorsement block of the document. If the export document has not been endorsed at the time of export, the management authority of the importing country should liaise with the exporting country's management authority, considering any extenuating circumstances or documents, to determine the acceptability of the document.\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 8(1), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Documents shall be issued and used in accordance with the provisions and under the conditions laid down in this Regulation and in Regulation (EC) No 338/97, and in particular in Article 11(1) to (4) of the latter Regulation. Permits and certificates may be issued in paper format or in electronic format.\u2019;\n(8)\nin Article 11(3), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Certificates issued in accordance with Articles 48 and 63 shall be transaction-specific unless the specimens covered by such certificates are uniquely and permanently marked or, in the case of dead specimens which can not be marked, identified by other means.\u2019;\n(9)\nin Article 15, paragraph 3a is replaced by the following:\n\u20183a. For personally owned live animals, which are legally acquired and held for personal non-commercial purposes, for which an import permit is issued pursuant to the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, commercial activities, as laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, shall be prohibited for two years from the date of issuance of the permit and no exemptions for specimens of Annex A species, as provided for in Article 8(3) of that Regulation, shall be granted during that period.\nIn the case of import permits issued pursuant to the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 for those personally owned live animals and for specimens of species listed in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and referred to in Article 4(5)(b) thereof, the stipulation \u201cby way of derogation to Article 8(3) or (5) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, commercial activities, as laid down in Article 8(1) of that Regulation, shall be prohibited for at least two years from the date of issuance of this permit\u201d shall be included in box 23.\u2019;\n(10)\nin Article 30, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. In the case of specimens other than live animals, the management authority shall attach to the travelling exhibition certificate an inventory sheet displaying, in respect of each specimen, all the information required by boxes 8 to 18 of the model form set out in Annex III provided for in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012.\u2019;\n(11)\nin Article 37, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States may issue personal ownership certificates to the legal owner of legally acquired live animals, held for personal non-commercial purposes.\u2019;\n(12)\nin Article 45(1), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Management authorities receiving such documents shall without delay forward those issued by other Member States to the relevant management authorities, together with any supporting documents issued in accordance with the Convention. For reporting purposes, original import notifications shall also be forwarded to the management authorities of the country of import, when it is different from the country where the specimen was introduced into the Union.\u2019;\n(13)\nin Article 52, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The labels referred to in Article 2(6) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012 shall be used only for the movement between duly registered scientists and scientific institutions of non-commercial loans, donations and exchanges of herbarium specimens, preserved, dried or embedded museum specimens and live plant material for scientific study.\u2019;\n(14)\nArticle 56 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nthe cultivated parental stock is established and maintained in accordance with the definition set out in Article 1(4a);\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (c) is deleted;\n(c)\npoint (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nin the case of grafted plants, both the root stock and the graft have been artificially propagated in accordance with points (a) and (b).\u2019;\n(d)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Timber and other parts or derivatives of trees taken from trees grown in monospecific plantations shall be considered to be artificially propagated in accordance with paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(15)\nin Article 58, a new paragraph 3a is inserted:\n\u20183a. The re-export, by a person which is not normally residing in the Union, of personal or household effects acquired outside his/her State of usual residence, including personal hunting trophies, that are specimens of species listed in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 338/97, shall require the presentation to customs of a re-export certificate.\u2019;\n(16)\nthe following Article 58a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 58a\nCommercial use of personal and household effects within the Union\n1. Commercial activities for specimens of species listed in Annex B which are introduced into the Union in accordance with Article 57 may be authorised by a management authority of a Member State only under the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe applicant needs to demonstrate that the specimen has been introduced into the Union at least two years before it can be used for commercial purpose; and\n(b)\nthe management authority of the Member State concerned has verified that the specimen in question could have been imported for commercial purposes in accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 at the time when it was introduced into the Union.\nOnce those conditions are fulfilled, the management authority shall deliver a written statement attesting that the specimen can be used for commercial purposes.\n2. Commercial activities for specimens of species listed in Annex A which are introduced into the Union in accordance with Article 57 shall be prohibited.\u2019;\n(17)\nin Article 59, the following paragraph 1a is inserted:\n\u20181a. The exemption for specimens referred to in Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 shall be granted only if the applicant has satisfied the competent management authority that the specimens concerned have been acquired in accordance with the legislation in force for the conservation of wild fauna and flora.\u2019;\n(18)\nin Article 62, the following points (4) and (5) are added:\n\u2018(4)\ndead specimens of Crocodylia species included in Annex A with source code D, provided that they are marked or identified via other means in accordance with this Regulation;\n(5)\ncaviar of Acipenser brevirostrum and its hybrids, with source code D, provided that it is contained in a container marked in accordance with this Regulation.\u2019;\n(19)\nin Article 63, the following paragraph 3 is added:\n\u20183. Pre-issued certificates shall only be valid once they have been completed and a copy of the certificate is transmitted to the issuing management authority by the applicant.\u2019;\n(20)\nin Article 65(4), the following sentence is added:\n\u2018This does not apply to specimens of species listed in Annex X to this Regulation unless an annotation in Annex X prescribes marking.\u2019;\n(21)\nin Article 66(4), the third subparagraph is replaced with the following:\n\u2018Specimen-specific certificates, travelling exhibition certificates and personal ownership certificates shall not be issued in respect of live specimens covered by this paragraph.\u2019;\n(22)\nin Article 72, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Member States may continue to issue import and export permits, re-export certificates, travelling exhibition and personal ownership certificates in the forms laid out in Annexes I, III and IV, import notifications in the form laid out in Annex II and EU certificates in the form laid out in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 for one year after the entry into force of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012.\u2019;\n(23)\nAnnex VIII is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation;\n(24)\npoint 2 of Annex IX is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe row corresponding to code R, is replaced by the following:\n\u2018R Specimens of animals reared in a controlled environment, taken as eggs or juveniles from the wild, where they would otherwise have had a very low probability of surviving to adulthood\u2019;\n(b)\nthe row corresponding to code D, is replaced by the following:\n\u2018D Annex A animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes in operations included in the Register of the CITES Secretariat, in accordance with Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), and Annex A plants artificially propagated for commercial purposes in accordance with Chapter XIII of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, as well as parts and derivatives thereof\u2019;\n(c)\nthe row corresponding to code C, is replaced by the following:\n\u2018C Animals bred in captivity in accordance with Chapter XIII of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, as well as parts and derivatives thereof\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 27 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 August 2012.", "references": ["2", "48", "79", "37", "82", "1", "78", "14", "43", "27", "50", "28", "55", "11", "38", "0", "46", "51", "97", "99", "69", "49", "64", "57", "7", "4", "61", "62", "54", "40", "No Label", "23", "58", "59"], "gold": ["23", "58", "59"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 664/2011\nof 11 July 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste to include certain mixtures of wastes in Annex IIIA thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (1), and in particular point (c) of Article 58(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFinland submitted a request to the Commission that mixtures of wastes classified under Basel entries B3040 and B3080 be considered for inclusion in Annex IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006.\n(2)\nThe United Kingdom submitted a request to the Commission that mixtures of wastes classified under Basel entry B3020 be considered for inclusion in Annex IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006.\n(3)\nThe Commission received comments from Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden with regard to the acceptability of mixing waste corresponding to different indents or sub-indents of Basel entries B1010, B2010, B2030, B3010, B3020, B3030, B3040 and B3050 to be considered for inclusion in Annex IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. Taking into account those comments, the Commission selected a list of mixtures of wastes classified under one single Basel entry for inclusion in Annex IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006.\n(4)\nThe Commission assessed the requests by Finland and the United Kingdom and the comments of Member States and on the basis of that assessment, a list of mixtures of wastes classified under individual Basel entries for inclusion in Annex IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 was selected.\n(5)\nIt is important to clarify which procedures are applicable to shipments of mixtures of wastes classified under one single Basel entry. In order to allow the export of some of those mixtures of wastes to countries to which Decision C(2001) 107/Final of the OECD Council concerning the revision of Decision C(92) 39/Final on control of transboundary movements of wastes destined for recovery operations (the OECD Decision) does not apply using the general information requirements laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, a transitional period for those countries is necessary before they can inform the Commission, whether relevant mixtures of wastes may be exported to that country and of the applicable control procedure, if any.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 1013/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 39 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nHowever, in the case of exports to countries to which the OECD Decision does not apply, point 3 of Annex IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, as amended by this Regulation, shall apply as of 1 August 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 July 2011.", "references": ["1", "65", "24", "91", "76", "28", "53", "47", "67", "50", "6", "31", "11", "2", "93", "89", "45", "10", "82", "37", "54", "61", "5", "36", "3", "77", "96", "19", "17", "14", "No Label", "4", "20", "58", "60"], "gold": ["4", "20", "58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 20 September 2011\nappointing two Irish members and an Irish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/649/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Irish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nTwo members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Ms Michelle MULHERIN and Mr Denis LANDY. An alternate member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Terry BRENNAN,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMr John SHEAHAN, Member of Limerick County Council,\n-\nMr Des HURLEY, Member of Carlow Local Authorities (County and Town).\nand\n(b)\nas alternate member:\n-\nMs Catherine YORE, Member of Meath County Council.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2011.", "references": ["52", "27", "6", "69", "42", "4", "62", "85", "54", "90", "92", "18", "34", "12", "68", "98", "3", "50", "47", "51", "15", "55", "82", "38", "33", "48", "22", "35", "79", "84", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1162/2010\nof 9 December 2010\nrefusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children\u2019s development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 17(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on food are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as the Authority.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission of the application, and to deliver an opinion on the health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nThe two opinions referred to in this Regulation are related to applications for health claims referring to children\u2019s development and health, as referred to in Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\n(6)\nFollowing an application from Danone Baby Nutrition, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Immunofortis\u00ae on the infant\u2019s immune system (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-106) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Immunofortis\u00ae to naturally strengthen your baby\u2019s immune system\u2019.\n(7)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 4 February 2010 that the information provided is insufficient to establish a cause and effect relationship between the consumption of Immunofortis\u00ae and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(8)\nFollowing an application from Vifor Pharma (Potters), submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Eye qTM on working memory (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00485) (3). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Eye q TM (a unique combination of High-EPA/DHA/GLA omega-3, 6 PUFA) provides the essential nutrients that helps improve working memory in children\u2019. The abbreviations used by the applicant refer respectively to eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), gamma-linolenic acid (GLA) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA).\n(9)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 4 March 2010 that the information provided is insufficient to establish a cause and effect relationship between the intake of Eye q TM and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(10)\nIn accordance with Article 28(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, health claims referred to in its Article 14(1)(b) and not authorised by a decision pursuant to Article 17(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 may continue to be used for 6 months after the adoption of this Regulation, provided an application was made before 19 January 2008. However, as the health claim application relevant to Eye qTM was not made before 19 January 2008 the requirement provided for in Article 28(6)(b) is not fulfilled, and the transition period laid down in that Article is not applicable. Accordingly, a transition period of 6 months should be provided for, to enable food business operators to adapt to the requirements laid down in this Regulation.\n(11)\nThe comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(12)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe health claims set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall not be included in the Union list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nHowever, they may continue to be used for 6 months after the entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2010.", "references": ["94", "54", "43", "35", "18", "8", "19", "11", "36", "5", "44", "17", "55", "77", "15", "56", "16", "6", "57", "64", "70", "27", "96", "7", "83", "82", "86", "87", "69", "63", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "39", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "39", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 766/2011\nof 29 July 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [\u039e\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf \u03a3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (Xygalo Siteias)/\u039e\u03af\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf \u03a3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (Xigalo Siteias) (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Greece\u2019s application to register the name \u2027\u039e\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf \u03a3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (Xygalo Siteias)/\u039e\u03af\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf \u03a3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (Xigalo Siteias)\u2027 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2011.", "references": ["82", "34", "56", "23", "35", "27", "20", "66", "63", "64", "4", "19", "62", "85", "16", "77", "0", "93", "68", "11", "15", "88", "72", "83", "1", "38", "44", "48", "10", "57", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency vaccination plans against bluetongue in Sweden in 2007 and 2008\n(notified under document C(2011) 8737)\n(Only the Swedish text is authentic)\n(2011/805/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 3(3), (4) and second indent of (6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate bluetongue as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. The second indent of Article 3(6) of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2008/655/EC (3) as modified by Decision 2009/19/EC (4) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in Sweden in 2007 and 2008.\n(5)\nOn 30 March 2009, Sweden submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005. The Commission\u2019s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Sweden in a letter dated 28 March 2011.\n(6)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(7)\nThe Swedish authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(8)\nIn view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of bluetongue in Sweden in 2007 and 2008 should now be fixed according to Article 3(2) of Decision 2008/655/EC.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating bluetongue in Sweden in 2007 and 2008 is fixed at EUR 1 281 076,73. It constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Sweden.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["82", "57", "89", "19", "40", "69", "2", "60", "21", "44", "48", "25", "43", "34", "17", "88", "77", "7", "11", "99", "63", "36", "68", "14", "64", "29", "42", "37", "12", "83", "No Label", "4", "10", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 12/2012\nof 10 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 January 2012.", "references": ["94", "83", "64", "76", "23", "78", "15", "20", "77", "36", "37", "82", "33", "2", "50", "81", "25", "51", "88", "24", "17", "71", "53", "28", "59", "85", "12", "60", "6", "63", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 977/2010\nof 29 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Obwarzanek krakowski (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Obwarzanek krakowski\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 October 2010.", "references": ["99", "76", "2", "69", "36", "81", "52", "86", "61", "38", "68", "12", "21", "44", "4", "92", "55", "27", "54", "83", "78", "6", "1", "45", "64", "98", "63", "65", "31", "53", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "73", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "73", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/5/EU\nof 20 January 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include hymexazol as active substance and amending Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included hymexazol.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the applicant withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of hymexazol.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Finland, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nFinland evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 17 September 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on hymexazol to the Commission on 4 November 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 23 November 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for hymexazol.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing hymexazol may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include hymexazol in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information confirming the nature of residues in root crops and to confirm the risk for granivorous birds and mammals.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing hymexazol to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of hymexazol and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning hymexazol in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning hymexazol in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing hymexazol as an active substance by 1 December 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to hymexazol are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing hymexazol as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning hymexazol. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing hymexazol as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing hymexazol as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2011.", "references": ["17", "33", "30", "5", "35", "62", "52", "88", "13", "55", "97", "73", "34", "43", "46", "84", "81", "19", "91", "57", "10", "51", "58", "75", "60", "48", "15", "29", "92", "49", "No Label", "2", "3", "25", "38", "65"], "gold": ["2", "3", "25", "38", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 936/2010\nof 19 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 October 2010.", "references": ["38", "11", "45", "9", "7", "54", "4", "16", "52", "3", "6", "58", "88", "53", "67", "34", "97", "55", "56", "85", "21", "70", "10", "42", "87", "69", "47", "39", "50", "65", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 785/2012\nof 30 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 August 2012.", "references": ["85", "81", "27", "54", "39", "65", "98", "86", "46", "23", "40", "3", "77", "43", "63", "57", "31", "49", "17", "30", "42", "59", "94", "47", "18", "64", "8", "67", "37", "74", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 2 December 2010\nestablishing the classes of reaction-to-fire performance for certain construction products as regards steel sheets with polyester coating and with plastisol coating\n(notified under document C(2010) 389)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/737/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988, on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1), and in particular Article 20(2)(a) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee on Construction,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 89/106/EEC envisages that in order to take account of different levels of protection for the construction works at national, regional or local levels, it may be necessary to establish in the interpretative documents classes corresponding to the performance of products in respect of each essential requirement. Those documents have been published as the \u2018Communication of the Commission with regard to the interpretative documents of Directive 89/106/EEC (2)\u2019.\n(2)\nWith respect to the essential requirement of safety in the event of fire, interpretative document No 2 lists a number of interrelated measures which together define the fire safety strategy to be variously developed in the Member States.\n(3)\nInterpretative document No 2 identifies one of those measures as the limitation of the generation and spread of fire and smoke within a given area by limiting the potential of construction products to contribute to the full development of a fire.\n(4)\nThe level of that limitation may be expressed only in terms of the different levels of reaction-to-fire performance of the products in their end-use application.\n(5)\nBy way of harmonised solution, a system of classes was adopted in Commission Decision 2000/147/EC of 8 February 2000 implementing Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards the classification of the reaction-to-fire performance of construction products (3).\n(6)\nIn the case of steel sheets with polyester coating and with plastisol coating it is necessary to use the classification established in Decision 2000/147/EC.\n(7)\nThe reaction-to-fire performance of many construction products and/or materials, within the classification provided for in Decision 2000/147/EC, is well established and sufficiently well known to fire regulators in Member States that they do not require testing for this particular performance characteristic,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe construction products and/or materials which satisfy all the requirements of the performance characteristic \u2018reaction-to-fire\u2019 without need for further testing are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThe specific classes to be applied to different construction products and/or materials, within the reaction-to-fire classification adopted in Decision 2000/147/EC, are set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nProducts shall be considered in relation to their end-use application, where relevant.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["77", "78", "31", "56", "72", "33", "6", "53", "4", "13", "8", "82", "55", "94", "41", "81", "28", "71", "49", "67", "26", "74", "54", "68", "21", "48", "84", "83", "45", "18", "No Label", "24", "51", "58", "76", "87"], "gold": ["24", "51", "58", "76", "87"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 22 June 2012\nappointing a German alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/342/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the German Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Manfred RICHTER,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed as alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMs Barbara HACKENSCHMIDT, Mitglied des Landtags Brandenburg.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 22 June 2012.", "references": ["51", "1", "59", "6", "93", "86", "60", "41", "48", "40", "55", "19", "94", "75", "35", "3", "83", "79", "43", "99", "98", "28", "11", "32", "61", "2", "44", "29", "8", "31", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 434/2010\nof 20 May 2010\ngranting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 18 May 2010.\n(3)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 18 May 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in point (c) of Article 1 and in Article 2 respectively of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2010.", "references": ["93", "14", "76", "15", "35", "41", "92", "23", "60", "8", "77", "52", "12", "46", "27", "9", "90", "30", "96", "22", "17", "79", "99", "71", "62", "6", "13", "34", "69", "88", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/40/EU\nof 11 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include sintofen as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included sintofen.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of sintofen.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to France, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nFrance evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 14 January 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on sintofen to the Commission on 26 November 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for sintofen.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing sintofen may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include sintofen in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information confirming: the specification of the technical material, the relevance of the impurities present in the technical specifications, the relevance of the test material used in the toxicity and ecotoxicity dossiers and the metabolic profile of sintofen in rotational crops.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing sintofen to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of sintofen and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning sintofen in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning sintofen in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing sintofen as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to sintofen are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing sintofen as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning sintofen. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing sintofen as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing sintofen as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["50", "49", "57", "64", "77", "19", "7", "69", "17", "98", "72", "88", "27", "3", "84", "97", "5", "90", "85", "40", "55", "46", "95", "74", "39", "16", "20", "78", "30", "54", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1269/2011\nof 6 December 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1218/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 December 2011.", "references": ["13", "65", "58", "19", "49", "50", "15", "5", "26", "45", "32", "6", "3", "82", "89", "81", "11", "0", "47", "25", "57", "8", "54", "27", "51", "40", "42", "91", "73", "12", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2010/30/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 19 May 2010\non the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products\n(recast)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 194(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter having consulted the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 92/75/EEC of 22 September 1992 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances (3) has been substantially amended (4). Since further amendments have to be made, it should be recast in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nThe scope of Directive 92/75/EEC is restricted to household appliances. The Commission Communication of 16 July 2008 on the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan has shown that the extension of the scope of Directive 92/75/EEC to energy-related products which have a significant direct or indirect impact on energy consumption during use could reinforce potential synergies between existing legislative measures, and in particular Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy related products (5). This Directive should not prejudice the application of Directive 2009/125/EC. Together with that Directive and other Union instruments, this Directive forms part of a broader legal framework and, in the context of a holistic approach, brings about additional energy savings and environmental gains.\n(3)\nThe Presidency conclusions of the European Council of 8 and 9 March 2007 emphasised the need to increase energy efficiency in the Union so as to achieve the objective of saving 20 % of the Union\u2019s energy consumption by 2020, set targets for the EU-wide development of renewable energies and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and called for a thorough and rapid implementation of the key areas identified in the Commission Communication of 19 October 2006 entitled \u2018Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential\u2019. The action plan highlighted the enormous energy savings opportunities in the products sector.\n(4)\nImproving the efficiency of energy-related products through informed consumer choice benefits the EU economy overall.\n(5)\nThe provision of accurate, relevant and comparable information on the specific energy consumption of energy-related products should influence the end-user\u2019s choice in favour of those products which consume or indirectly result in consuming less energy and other essential resources during use, thus prompting manufacturers to take steps to reduce the consumption of energy and other essential resources of the products which they manufacture. It should also, indirectly, encourage the efficient use of these products in order to contribute to the EU\u2019s 20 % energy efficiency target. In the absence of this information, the operation of market forces alone will fail to promote the rational use of energy and other essential resources for these products.\n(6)\nIt should be recalled that Union and national legislation exists which gives certain rights to consumers with respect to purchased products, including compensation or exchange of the product.\n(7)\nThe Commission should provide a priority list of energy-related products that could be covered by a delegated act under this Directive. Such a list could be included in the Working Plan referred to in Directive 2009/125/EC.\n(8)\nInformation plays a key role in the operation of market forces and it is therefore necessary to introduce a uniform label for all products of the same type, to provide potential purchasers with supplementary standardised information on those products\u2019 costs in terms of energy and the consumption of other essential resources and to take measures to ensure that potential end-users who do not see the product displayed, and thus have no opportunity to see the label, are also supplied with this information. In order to be efficient and successful, the label should be easily recognisable to end-users, simple and concise. To this end the existing layout of the label should be retained as the basis to inform end-users about the energy efficiency of products. Energy consumption of and other information concerning the products should be measured in accordance with harmonised standards and methods.\n(9)\nAs pointed out in the Commission\u2019s Impact Assessment accompanying its proposal for this Directive, the energy labelling scheme has been followed as a model in different countries around the world.\n(10)\nMember States should regularly monitor compliance with this Directive, and include the relevant information in the report that they are obliged to submit every four years to the Commission under this Directive, with special regard to the responsibilities of suppliers and dealers.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products (6) contains general provisions on market surveillance relating to the marketing of products. In order to achieve its aims, this Directive provides for more detailed provisions in this respect. Those provisions are consistent with Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.\n(12)\nA completely voluntary scheme would lead to only some products being labelled, or supplied with standard product information, with the risk that this might result in confusion or even misinformation for some end-users. The present scheme should therefore ensure that for all the products concerned, the consumption of energy and other essential resources is indicated by labelling and standard product fiches.\n(13)\nEnergy-related products have a direct or indirect impact on the consumption of a wide variety of forms of energy during use, electricity and gas being the most important. This Directive should therefore cover energy-related products having a direct or indirect impact on the consumption of any form of energy during use.\n(14)\nEnergy-related products which have a significant direct or indirect impact on consumption of energy or, where relevant, of essential resources during use and which afford adequate scope for increased efficiency should be covered by a delegated act, when provision of information through labelling may stimulate end-users to purchase more efficient products.\n(15)\nIn order to meet the Union climate change and energy security objectives, and given that the total energy consumed by products is expected to continue to rise in the longer term, the delegated acts under this Directive could, where relevant, also highlight on the label the high total energy consumption of the product.\n(16)\nA number of Member States have public procurement policies in place which require contracting authorities to procure energy efficient products. A number of Member States also have put in place incentives for energy efficient products. The criteria for products to be eligible for public procurement or incentives can substantially differ from one Member State to another. To refer to performance classes as levels for particular products, as set out in delegated acts under this Directive, may reduce fragmentation of public procurement and incentives and facilitate the uptake of efficient products.\n(17)\nIncentives which Member States may provide for the promotion of efficient products might constitute State aid. This Directive does not prejudice the outcome of any future State aid procedure that may be undertaken in accordance with Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in respect of such incentives and should not cover taxation and fiscal matters. Member States are free to decide on the nature of such incentives.\n(18)\nThe promotion of energy efficient products through labelling, public procurement and incentives should not be to the detriment of the overall environmental performance and the functioning of such products.\n(19)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other essential resources by energy-related products during use. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(20)\nThe Commission should regularly submit to the European Parliament and the Council a synthesis, covering the EU and each Member State separately, of the reports on enforcement activities and the level of compliance submitted by Member States under this Directive.\n(21)\nThe Commission should be responsible for adapting the label classifications with the aim of ensuring predictability for the industry and comprehension for consumers.\n(22)\nTo a varying extent according to the product concerned, technological development and the potential for additional significant energy savings could make further product differentiation necessary and justify a review of the classification. Such review should include in particular the possibility of rescaling. This review should be carried out as expeditiously as possible in the case of products which, due to their very innovative characteristics, can make a significant contribution to energy efficiency.\n(23)\nWhen the Commission reviews progress and reports on the implementation of the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan in 2012, it will in particular analyse whether further action to improve the energy and environmental performance of products is needed, including, inter alia the possibility to provide consumers with information on the carbon footprint of products or the products\u2019 environmental impact during their life cycle.\n(24)\nThe obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive change as compared with Directive 92/75/EEC. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under the Directive 92/75/EEC.\n(25)\nWhen Member States implement the provisions of this Directive, they should endeavour to refrain from adopting measures that could impose unnecessarily bureaucratic and unwieldy obligations on the market participants concerned, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises.\n(26)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law and application of Directive 92/75/EEC.\n(27)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (7), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Union, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nScope\n1. This Directive establishes a framework for the harmonisation of national measures on end-user information, particularly by means of labelling and standard product information, on the consumption of energy and where relevant of other essential resources during use, and supplementary information concerning energy-related products, thereby allowing end-users to choose more efficient products.\n2. This Directive shall apply to energy-related products which have a significant direct or indirect impact on the consumption of energy and, where relevant, on other essential resources during use.\n3. This Directive shall not apply to:\n(a)\nsecond-hand products;\n(b)\nany means of transport for persons or goods;\n(c)\nthe rating plate or its equivalent affixed for safety purposes to products.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Directive:\n(a)\n\u2018energy-related product\u2019 or \u2018product\u2019 means any good having an impact on energy consumption during use, which is placed on the market and/or put into service in the Union, including parts intended to be incorporated into energy-related products covered by this Directive which are placed on the market and/or put into service as individual parts for end-users and of which the environmental performance can be assessed independently;\n(b)\n\u2018fiche\u2019 means a standard table of information relating to a product;\n(c)\n\u2018other essential resources\u2019 means water, chemicals or any other substance consumed by a product in normal use;\n(d)\n\u2018supplementary information\u2019 means other information concerning the performance and features of a product which relate to, or are helpful in evaluating, its use of energy or other essential resources based on measurable data;\n(e)\n\u2018direct impact\u2019 means the impact of products that actually consume energy during use;\n(f)\n\u2018indirect impact\u2019 means the impact of products that do not consume energy, but contribute to energy conservation during use;\n(g)\n\u2018dealer\u2019 means a retailer or other person who sells, hires, offers for hire-purchase or displays products to end-users;\n(h)\n\u2018supplier\u2019 means the manufacturer or its authorised representative in the Union or the importer who places or puts into service the product on the Union market. In their absence, any natural or legal person who places on the market or puts into service products covered by this Directive shall be considered a supplier;\n(i)\n\u2018placing on the market\u2019 means making a product available for the first time on the Union market with a view to its distribution or use within the Union, whether for reward or free of charge and irrespective of the selling technique;\n(j)\n\u2018putting into service\u2019 means the first use of a product for its intended purpose in the Union;\n(k)\n\u2018unauthorised use of the label\u2019 means the use of the label, other than by Member State authorities or EU institutions, in a manner not provided for in this Directive or a delegated act.\nArticle 3\nResponsibilities of Member States\n1. Member States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nall suppliers and dealers established in their territory fulfil the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6;\n(b)\nwith respect to products covered by this Directive, the display of other labels, marks, symbols or inscriptions which do not comply with the requirements of this Directive and of the relevant delegated acts is prohibited, if such display is likely to mislead or confuse end-users with respect to the consumption of energy or, where relevant, other essential resources during use;\n(c)\nthe introduction of the system of labels and fiches concerning energy consumption or conservation is accompanied by educational and promotional information campaigns aimed at promoting energy efficiency and more responsible use of energy by end-users;\n(d)\nappropriate measures are taken in order to encourage the relevant national or regional authorities responsible for implementing this Directive to cooperate and provide each other and the Commission with information in order to assist the application of this Directive. The administrative cooperation and exchange of information shall take the utmost advantage of electronic means of communication, shall be cost-effective and may be supported by relevant EU programmes. Such cooperation shall guarantee the security and confidentiality of processing and the protection of sensitive information provided during that procedure, where necessary. The Commission shall take appropriate measures in order to encourage and contribute to the cooperation between Member States referred to in this point.\n2. Where a Member State ascertains that a product does not comply with all the relevant requirements set out in this Directive and its delegated acts for the label and the fiche, the supplier shall be obliged to make the product compliant with those requirements under effective and proportionate conditions imposed by the Member State.\nWhere there is sufficient evidence that a product may be non-compliant, the Member State concerned shall take the necessary preventive measures and measures aimed at ensuring compliance within a precise time-frame, taking into account the damage caused.\nWhere non-compliance continues, the Member State concerned shall take a decision restricting or prohibiting the placing on the market and/or putting into service of the product in question or ensuring that it is withdrawn from the market. In cases of withdrawal of the product from the market or prohibition on placing the product on the market, the Commission and the other Member States shall be immediately informed.\n3. Every four years, the Member States shall submit a report to the Commission including details about their enforcement activities and the level of compliance in their territory.\nThe Commission may specify the details of the common content of these reports, through the setting of guidelines.\n4. The Commission shall regularly provide a synthesis of those reports to the European Parliament and the Council for information.\nArticle 4\nInformation requirements\nMember States shall ensure that:\n(a)\ninformation relating to the consumption of electric energy, other forms of energy and where relevant other essential resources during use, and supplementary information is, in accordance with delegated acts under this Directive, brought to the attention of end-users by means of a fiche and a label related to products offered for sale, hire, hire-purchase or displayed to end-users directly or indirectly by any means of distance selling, including the Internet;\n(b)\nthe information referred to in point (a) is provided in respect of built-in or installed products only where required by the applicable delegated act;\n(c)\nany advertisement for a specific model of energy-related products covered by a delegated act under this Directive includes, where energy-related or price information is disclosed, a reference to the energy efficiency class of the product;\n(d)\nany technical promotional material concerning energy-related products which describes the specific technical parameters of a product, namely, technical manuals and manufacturers\u2019 brochures, whether printed or online, is provided to end-users with the necessary information regarding energy consumption or shall include a reference to the energy efficiency class of the product.\nArticle 5\nResponsibilities of suppliers\nMember States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nsuppliers placing on the market or putting into service products covered by a delegated act supply a label and a fiche in accordance with this Directive and the delegated act;\n(b)\nsuppliers produce technical documentation which is sufficient to enable the accuracy of the information contained in the label and the fiche to be assessed. That technical documentation shall include:\n(i)\na general description of the product;\n(ii)\nwhere relevant, the results of design calculations carried out;\n(iii)\ntest reports, where available, including those carried out by relevant notified organisations as defined under other Union legislation;\n(iv)\nwhere values are used for similar models, the references allowing identification of those models.\nTo this end suppliers may use documentation already established in accordance with requirements laid down in relevant Union legislation;\n(c)\nsuppliers make the technical documentation available for inspection purposes for a period ending five years after the last product concerned was manufactured.\nSuppliers make available an electronic version of the technical documentation on request to the market surveillance authorities of the Member States and to the Commission within 10 working days on receipt of a request by the competent authority of a Member State or the Commission;\n(d)\nin respect of labelling and product information, suppliers provide the necessary labels free of charge to dealers.\nWithout prejudice to the suppliers\u2019 choice of system for delivery of labels, suppliers promptly deliver labels on request from dealers;\n(e)\nin addition to the labels, suppliers provide a product fiche;\n(f)\nsuppliers include a product fiche in all product brochures. Where product brochures are not provided by the supplier, the supplier provides fiches with other literature provided with the product;\n(g)\nsuppliers are responsible for the accuracy of the labels and fiches that they supply;\n(h)\nsuppliers are considered to have given consent to the publication of the information provided on the label or in the fiche.\nArticle 6\nResponsibilities of dealers\nMember States shall ensure that:\n(a)\ndealers display labels properly, in a visible and legible manner, and make the fiche available in the product brochure or other literature that accompanies products when sold to end-users;\n(b)\nwhenever a product covered by a delegated act is displayed, dealers attach an appropriate label, in the clearly visible position specified in the applicable delegated act, and in the relevant language version.\nArticle 7\nDistance selling and other forms of selling\nWhere products are offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase by mail order, by catalogue, through the Internet, telemarketing or by any other means which imply that the potential end-user cannot be expected to see the product displayed, delegated acts shall make provision to ensure that potential end-users are provided with the information specified on the label for the product and in the fiche before buying the product. Delegated acts shall, where appropriate, specify the way in which the label or the fiche or the information specified on the label or in the fiche shall be displayed or provided to the potential end-user.\nArticle 8\nFree movement\n1. Member States shall not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market or putting into service, within their territories, of products which are covered by and comply with this Directive and the applicable delegated act.\n2. Unless they have evidence to the contrary, Member States shall consider labels and fiches as complying with the provisions of this Directive and the delegated acts. Member States shall require suppliers to provide evidence within the meaning of Article 5 concerning the accuracy of the information supplied on their labels or fiches when they have reason to suspect that such information is incorrect.\nArticle 9\nPublic procurement and incentives\n1. Where a product is covered by a delegated act, contracting authorities which conclude public works, supply or service contracts as referred to in Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (8), which are not excluded by virtue of Articles 12 to 18 thereof, shall endeavour to procure only such products which comply with the criteria of having the highest performance levels and belonging to the highest energy efficiency class. Member States may also require the contracting authorities to procure only products fulfilling those criteria. Member States may make the application of those criteria subject to cost-effectiveness, economical feasibility and technical suitability and sufficient competition.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall apply to contracts having a value equal to or greater than the thresholds laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2004/18/EC.\n3. Where Member States provide any incentives for a product covered by a delegated act they shall aim at the highest performance levels including the highest class of energy efficiency laid down in the applicable delegated act. Taxation and fiscal measures do not constitute incentives for the purpose of this Directive.\n4. Where Member States provide incentives for products, both for end-users using highly efficient products and for industries which promote and produce such products, they shall express the performance levels in terms of classes as defined in the applicable delegated act, except where they impose higher performance levels than the threshold for the highest energy efficiency class in the delegated act. Member States may impose higher performance levels than the threshold for the highest energy efficiency class in the delegated act.\nArticle 10\nDelegated acts\n1. The Commission shall lay down details relating to the label and the fiche by means of delegated acts in accordance with Articles 11 to 13, relating to each type of product in accordance with this Article.\nWhere a product meets the criteria listed in paragraph 2, it shall be covered by a delegated act in accordance with paragraph 4.\nProvisions in delegated acts regarding information provided on the label and in the fiche on the consumption of energy and other essential resources during use shall enable end-users to make better informed purchasing decisions and shall enable market surveillance authorities to verify whether products comply with the information provided.\nWhere a delegated act lays down provisions with respect to both energy efficiency and consumption of essential resources of a product, the design and content of the label shall emphasise the energy efficiency of the product.\n2. The criteria referred to in paragraph 1 are the following:\n(a)\naccording to most recently available figures and considering the quantities placed on the Union market, the products shall have a significant potential for saving energy and, where relevant, other essential resources;\n(b)\nproducts with equivalent functionality available on the market shall have a wide disparity in the relevant performance levels;\n(c)\nthe Commission shall take into account relevant Union legislation and self-regulation, such as voluntary agreements, which are expected to achieve the policy objectives more quickly or at lesser expense than mandatory requirements.\n3. In preparing a draft delegated act, the Commission shall:\n(a)\ntake into account those environmental parameters set out in Annex I, Part 1, to Directive 2009/125/EC which are identified as significant in the relevant implementing measure adopted under Directive 2009/125/EC and which are relevant for the end-user during use;\n(b)\nassess the impact of the act on the environment, end-users and manufacturers, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), in terms of competitiveness including on markets outside the Union, innovation, market access and costs and benefits;\n(c)\ncarry out appropriate consultation with stakeholders;\n(d)\nset implementing date(s), any staged or transitional measures or periods, taking into account in particular possible impacts on SMEs or on specific product groups manufactured primarily by SMEs.\n4. The delegated acts shall specify in particular:\n(a)\nthe exact definition of the type of products to be included;\n(b)\nthe measurement standards and methods to be used in obtaining the information referred to in Article 1(1);\n(c)\nthe details of the technical documentation required pursuant to Article 5;\n(d)\nthe design and content of the label referred to in Article 4, which as far as possible shall have uniform design characteristics across product groups and shall in all cases be clearly visible and legible. The format of the label shall retain as a basis the classification using letters from A to G; the steps of the classification shall correspond to significant energy and cost savings from the end-user perspective.\nThree additional classes may be added to the classification if required by technological progress. Those additional classes will be A+, A++, and A+++ for the most efficient class. In principle the total number of classes will be limited to seven, unless more classes are still populated.\nThe colour scale shall consist of no more than seven different colours from dark green to red. The colour code of only the highest class shall always be dark green. If there are more than seven classes, only the red colour can be duplicated.\nThe classification shall be reviewed in particular when a significant proportion of products on the internal market achieves the two highest energy efficiency classes and when additional savings may be achieved by further differentiating products.\nDetailed criteria for a possible reclassification of products are, where appropriate, to be determined on a case-by-case basis in the relevant delegated act;\n(e)\nthe location where the label shall be fixed to the product displayed and the manner in which the label and/or information are to be provided in the case of offers for sale as covered by Article 7. Where appropriate, the delegated acts may provide for the label to be attached to the product or printed on the packaging, or for the details of the labelling requirements for printing in catalogues, for distance selling and Internet sales;\n(f)\nthe content and, where appropriate, the format and other details concerning the fiche or further information specified in Article 4 and Article 5(c). The information on the label shall also be included on the fiche;\n(g)\nthe specific content of the label for advertising, including, as appropriate, the energy class and other relevant performance level(s) of the given product in a legible and visible form;\n(h)\nthe duration of label classification(s), where appropriate, in accordance with point (d);\n(i)\nthe level of accuracy in the declarations on the label and fiches;\n(j)\nthe date for the evaluation and possible revision of the delegated act, taking into account the speed of technological progress.\nArticle 11\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The powers to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 10 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years beginning on 19 June 2010. The Commission shall make a report in respect of the delegated powers not later than six months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of powers shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 12.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The powers to adopt delegated acts are conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 12 and 13.\nArticle 12\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of powers referred to in Article 10 may be revoked by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of powers shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 13\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to the delegated act within a period of two months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by two months.\n2. If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period, if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 14\nEvaluation\nNot later than 31 December 2014, the Commission shall review the effectiveness of this Directive and of its delegated acts and submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council.\nOn that occasion, the Commission shall also assess:\n(a)\nthe contribution of Article 4(c) to the aim of this Directive;\n(b)\nthe effectiveness of Article 9(1);\n(c)\nin the light of technical evolution and the understanding by consumers of the label layout, the need for amending Article 10(4)(d).\nArticle 15\nPenalties\nMember States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and its delegated acts, including unauthorised use of the label, and shall take the necessary measures to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The Member States shall notify these provisions to the Commission by 20 June 2011 and shall notify the Commission without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting those provisions.\nArticle 16\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force, by 20 June 2011 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 20 July 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. They shall also include a statement to the effect that references in existing laws, regulations and administrative provisions to Directive 92/75/EEC shall be construed as references to this Directive. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made and how that statement is to be formulated.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 17\nRepeal\nDirective 92/75/EEC, as amended by the Regulation indicated in Annex I, Part A, is repealed with effect from 21 July 2011, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law and application of that Directive set out in Annex I, Part B.\nReferences to Directive 92/75/EEC shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II.\nArticle 18\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nPoints (d), (g) and (h) of Article 5 shall apply from 31 July 2011.\nArticle 19\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 19 May 2010.", "references": ["51", "21", "61", "40", "2", "50", "19", "14", "65", "83", "99", "80", "41", "58", "68", "10", "22", "94", "6", "9", "85", "59", "33", "89", "32", "15", "44", "71", "96", "79", "No Label", "24", "25", "76", "78", "86"], "gold": ["24", "25", "76", "78", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 675/2012\nof 23 July 2012\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use of Talc (E 553b) and Carnauba wax (E 903) on unpeeled coloured boiled eggs and the use of Shellac (E 904) on unpeeled boiled eggs\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Article 10(3) and Article 30(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 lays down a Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and their conditions of use.\n(2)\nThat list may be amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (2).\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, the Union list of food additives may be updated either on the initiative of the Commission or following an application.\n(4)\nAn application for authorisation of the use of Talc (E 553b) and Carnauba wax (E 903) on unpeeled coloured boiled eggs and the use of Shellac (E 904) on unpeeled boiled eggs was submitted and was made available to the Member States.\n(5)\nWhen used on the surface of unpeeled coloured boiled eggs the food additives Talc (E 553b), Carnauba wax (E 903) and Shellac (E 904) can serve decoration purposes by providing a more or less shining effect. In addition, Shellac (E 904) can contribute to a better preservation of all unpeeled boiled eggs when used on their surface.\n(6)\nThose food additives are not expected to migrate into the internal edible part of the eggs due to their insolubility and to their high molecular weight. The use of those food additives is not liable to have an effect on human health as their waxes remain on the egg shell. It is therefore appropriate to allow the use of Talc (E 553b) and Carnauba wax (E 903) on unpeeled coloured boiled eggs and the use of Shellac (E 904) on all unpeeled boiled eggs, coloured as well as non-coloured.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, the Commission is to seek the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority in order to update the Union list of food additives set out in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, except where the update in question is not liable to have an effect on human health. Since the authorisation of use of Talc (E 553b), Carnauba wax (E 903) and Shellac (E 904) on unpeeled boiled eggs constitutes an update of that list which is not liable to have an effect on human health, it is not necessary to seek the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority.\n(8)\nPursuant to the transitional provisions of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1129/2011 of 11 November 2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing a Union list of food additives (3), Annex II establishing the Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and conditions of use applies from 1 June 2013. In order to allow the use of Talc (E 553b) and Carnauba wax (E 903) on unpeeled coloured boiled eggs and the use of Shellac (E 904) on unpeeled boiled eggs before that date, it is necessary to specify an earlier date of application with regard to those food additives.\n(9)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["66", "28", "60", "8", "20", "94", "76", "64", "81", "51", "83", "68", "54", "57", "93", "82", "96", "14", "95", "2", "31", "0", "42", "62", "67", "16", "47", "56", "32", "58", "No Label", "25", "38", "69", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "69", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 857/2011\nof 24 August 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for anglerfish in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 August 2011.", "references": ["89", "20", "36", "35", "4", "77", "58", "29", "83", "43", "30", "73", "38", "95", "99", "80", "59", "17", "60", "61", "90", "24", "51", "53", "48", "50", "78", "21", "7", "3", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 219/2011\nof 3 March 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 199/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 March 2011.", "references": ["69", "44", "65", "24", "96", "79", "34", "78", "80", "16", "67", "47", "64", "91", "12", "19", "11", "32", "0", "23", "87", "38", "89", "66", "93", "73", "58", "68", "85", "17", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 427/2012\nof 22 May 2012\non the extension of special guarantees concerning salmonella laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council to eggs intended for Denmark\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (1), and in particular Article 8(3)(b) thereof;\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business operators. Article 8 of that Regulation provides special guarantees for food of animal origin intended for the Finnish and Swedish markets. Accordingly, food business operators intending to place eggs on the market in those Member States are to comply with certain rules in respect of salmonella. It also provides that consignments of such eggs are to be accompanied by a certificate stating that a microbiological test has been carried out with negative results in accordance with Union legislation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1688/2005 of 14 October 2005 implementing Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards special guarantees concerning salmonella for consignments to Finland and Sweden of certain meat and eggs (2) grants such special guarantees.\n(3)\nIn addition, Regulation (EC) No 1688/2005 lays down rules on the sampling of the flocks of origin of the eggs and microbiological methods for the examination of those samples. It also sets out a model health certificate to accompany consignments of eggs.\n(4)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, the special guarantees in respect of certain foodstuffs of animal origin may be extended, in whole or in part, to any Member States, or any region of a Member State, that has a control programme recognised as equivalent to that approved for Finland and Sweden in respect of the food of animal origin concerned.\n(5)\nOn 5 October 2007, the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration forwarded an application to the Commission for special guarantees to be authorised for Denmark concerning salmonella in eggs for the whole of Denmark in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 853/2004. The application includes a description of the Danish salmonella Control Programme for eggs.\n(6)\nDuring its meeting on 18 June 2008, the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health agreed on a Commission staff working document entitled \u2018Guidance document on the minimum requirements for salmonella control programmes to be recognised equivalent to those approved for Sweden and Finland in respect of meat and eggs of Gallus gallus\u2019 (the \u2018Guidance document\u2019).\n(7)\nThe Danish salmonella Control Programme for eggs is considered equivalent to that approved for Finland and Sweden and is in line with the Guidance document. In addition, the Danish authorities provided, on 20 May 2011, information demonstrating that the prevalence of salmonella in flocks of rearing and adult laying hens in Denmark in 2008, 2009 and 2010 was also in line with the Guidance document.\n(8)\nThe special guarantees should therefore be extended to consignments of eggs intended for Denmark. In addition, the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1688/2005 concerning the sampling of the flocks of origin of the eggs, the microbiological methods for the examination of those samples and the model health certificate should apply to such consignments.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDenmark is authorised to apply the special guarantees concerning salmonella laid down in Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 to consignments of eggs, as defined in point 5.1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, intended for Denmark.\nArticle 2\n1. The sampling of the flocks of origin of the eggs referred to in Article 1 shall be carried out in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1688/2005.\n2. The samples referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subjected to microbiological testing for salmonella in accordance with Article 5(1) Regulation (EC) No 1688/2005.\nArticle 3\nConsignments of eggs referred to in Article 1 shall be accompanied by a certificate complying with the model provided for in Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1688/2005.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 May 2012.", "references": ["33", "75", "74", "5", "14", "42", "52", "59", "37", "93", "0", "3", "40", "65", "94", "13", "11", "29", "17", "50", "12", "90", "72", "67", "44", "71", "54", "32", "81", "43", "No Label", "20", "38", "61", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "38", "61", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1256/2011\nof 30 November 2011\nfixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea and amending Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 43(3) of the Treaty provides that the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, is to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1) requires that measures governing access to waters and resources and the sustainable pursuit of fishing activities be established taking into account available scientific, technical and economic advice and, in particular, the report drawn up by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), as well as in the light of any advice received from Regional Advisory Councils.\n(3)\nIt is incumbent upon the Council to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities by fishery or group of fisheries, including certain conditions functionally linked thereto, as appropriate. Fishing opportunities should be distributed among Member States in such a way as to assure each Member State relative stability of fishing activities for each stock or fishery and having due regard to the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy established in Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\n(4)\nThe total allowable catches (TACs) should be established on the basis of available scientific advice, taking into account biological and socioeconomic aspects whilst ensuring fair treatment between fishing sectors, as well as in light of the opinions expressed during the consultation of stakeholders, in particular at the meetings with the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Regional Advisory Councils concerned.\n(5)\nFor stocks subject to specific multiannual plans, the fishing opportunities should be established in accordance with the rules laid down in those plans. Consequently, catch limits and fishing effort limits for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea should be established in accordance with the rules laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks (2) (\u2018the Baltic Sea Cod Plan\u2019).\n(6)\nIn the light of the most recent scientific advice, flexibility in the management of the fishing effort for cod stocks in the Baltic Sea can be introduced without jeopardising the objectives of the Baltic Sea Cod Plan and without resulting in an increase in fishing mortality. Such flexibility would allow for a more efficient management of the fishing effort where quotas are not allocated equally among the fleet of a Member State and would facilitate swift reactions to quota exchanges. A Member State should, therefore, be allowed to allocate to vessels flying its flag additional days absent from port where an equal amount of days absent from port is withdrawn from other vessels flying the flag of that Member State.\n(7)\nIn the light of the most recent scientific advice, it is appropriate to introduce such flexibility in the management of the fishing effort for cod stocks in the Baltic Sea already in 2011. Consequently, Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 of 29 November 2010 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea (3) should be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe use of fishing opportunities set out in this Regulation should be subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (4) and in particular to Articles 33 and 34 thereof concerning respectively the recording of catches and fishing effort and the information on data on the exhaustion of fishing opportunities. It is therefore necessary to specify the codes relating to landings of stocks subject to this Regulation which are to be used by the Member States when sending data to the Commission.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (5), the stocks that are subject to the various measures referred to therein must be identified.\n(10)\nIn order to avoid the interruption of fishing activities and to ensure the livelihood of Union fishermen, it is important to open those fisheries on 1 January 2012. However, since Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 applies from 1 January 2011, the provisions of the present Regulation allowing flexibility in the management of the fishing effort for cod stocks in the Baltic Sea should apply from 1 January 2011. For reasons of urgency, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation fixes the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks in the Baltic Sea for 2012 and amends Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 as regards the management of the fishing effort in respect of cod stocks in the Baltic Sea.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to EU vessels operating in the Baltic Sea.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\nInternational Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) zones are the geographical areas specified in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound (6);\n(b)\n\u2018Baltic Sea\u2019 means ICES Subdivisions 22-32;\n(c)\n\u2018EU vessel\u2019 means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State and registered in the Union;\n(d)\n\u2018total allowable catch\u2019 (TAC) means the quantity that can be taken from each stock each year;\n(e)\n\u2018quota\u2019 means a proportion of the TAC allocated to the Union, a Member State or a third country;\n(f)\n\u2018day absent from port\u2019 means any continuous period of 24 hours or part thereof during which the vessel is absent from port.\nCHAPTER II\nFISHING OPPORTUNITIES\nArticle 4\nTACs and allocations\nThe TACs, the allocation of such TACs among Member States, and the conditions functionally linked thereto, where appropriate, are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 5\nSpecial provisions on allocations\n1. The allocation of fishing opportunities among Member States as set out in this Regulation shall be without prejudice to:\n(a)\nexchanges made pursuant to Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;\n(b)\nreallocations made pursuant to Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009;\n(c)\nadditional landings allowed under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(d)\nquantities withheld in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(e)\ndeductions made pursuant to Articles 37, 105, 106 and 107 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\n2. Except where otherwise specified in Annex I to this Regulation, Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 shall apply to stocks subject to precautionary TAC and Article 3(2) and (3) and Article 4 of that Regulation shall apply to stocks subject to analytical TAC.\nArticle 6\nConditions for landing catches and by-catches\nFish from stocks for which catch limits are established shall be retained on board or landed only if:\n(a)\nthe catches have been taken by vessels of a Member State having a quota and that quota is not exhausted; or\n(b)\nthe catches consist of a share in a Union quota which has not been allocated by quota among Member States, and that Union quota has not been exhausted.\nArticle 7\nFishing effort limits\n1. Fishing effort limits are set out in Annex II.\n2. The limits referred to in paragraph 1 shall also apply to ICES Subdivisions 27 and 28.2, unless the Commission has taken a decision in accordance with Article 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 to exclude those Subdivisions from the restrictions provided for in Article 8(1)(b), (3), (4) and (5) and Article 13 of that Regulation.\n3. The limits referred to in paragraph 1 shall not apply to ICES Subdivision 28.1, unless the Commission has taken a decision in accordance with Article 29(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 that the restrictions provided for in Article 8(1)(b), (3), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 shall apply to that Subdivision.\nCHAPTER III\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 8\nData transmission\nWhen, pursuant to Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Member States send the Commission data relating to landings of quantities of stocks caught, they shall use the stock codes set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 9\nAmendment to Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010\nAnnex II to Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 is replaced by the text appearing in Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 10\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nHowever, Article 9 shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["42", "60", "87", "61", "79", "72", "32", "46", "37", "99", "44", "66", "97", "54", "30", "12", "71", "64", "52", "63", "51", "84", "80", "47", "93", "16", "73", "19", "6", "15", "No Label", "56", "59", "67", "96"], "gold": ["56", "59", "67", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1189/2011\nof 18 November 2011\nlaying down detailed rules in relation to certain provisions of Council Directive 2010/24/EU concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures (1), and in particular Article 26 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2010/24/EU has substantially changed the rules concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures and newly determined the implementing powers of the Commission, in relation to those laid down in Council Directive 2008/55/EC (2). Therefore, it is appropriate to replace the existing implementing rules adopted by the Commission by a new implementing Regulation.\n(2)\nIn order to ensure a fast communication between the competent authorities, detailed rules should be adopted with regard to the practical arrangements and the time periods for communication between the requested and the applicant authorities.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure legal certainty, it is appropriate to specify that the validity of documents is not affected by the fact that they are transmitted electronically.\n(4)\nIn order to confirm that documents transmitted by post are sent by a competent authority, it is appropriate to provide specific rules with regard to this way of communication.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that appropriate data and information are transmitted, models of the standard form accompanying the request for notification and of the instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State should be established.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure legal certainty, it is appropriate to state expressly the legal effect of the notifications made by the requested Member State at the request of the applicant Member State.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure legal certainty, it is also appropriate to specify that the notification or communication of the uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State does not have any effect on the consequences of the notification of the initial instrument permitting enforcement, and that the revised instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State does not have any effect on the initial claim or the initial instrument permitting enforcement.\n(8)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1179/2008 of 28 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Council Directive 2008/55/EC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures (3) should be repealed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Recovery Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation lays down the detailed rules for implementing Article 5(1), Articles 8, 10, 12(1), Article 13(2), (3), (4) and (5), Articles 15, 16(1) and 21(1) of Directive 2010/24/EU, including the detailed rules on conversion, transfer of sums recovered, as well as the means by which communications between authorities may be transmitted.\nArticle 2\n1. All requests for information, notification, recovery or precautionary measures pursuant to Articles 5(1), 8, 10 and 16(1) of Directive 2010/24/EU (hereinafter \u2018the requests for assistance\u2019) and all accompanying instruments, forms and other documents, as well as any other information communicated with regard to these requests shall be sent by the CCN network, unless this is impracticable for technical reasons.\n2. Documents transmitted in electronic form or print outs thereof shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as documents transmitted by post.\n3. If a request cannot be transmitted by CCN network, it shall be transmitted by post. In that case the following rules shall apply:\n(a)\nthe request shall be signed by an official of the applicant authority, duly authorised to make such a request;\n(b)\nthe standard form accompanying the notification request, referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 2010/24/EU (hereafter \u2018the uniform notification form\u2019) or the uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State referred to in Article 12 of that Directive shall be signed by a duly authorized official of the applicant authority;\n(c)\nif the request is accompanied by a copy of a document other than the uniform notification form or the uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State, the applicant authority shall certify the conformity of this copy with the original, by stating in this copy, in the official language or one of the official languages of the Member State in which it is situated, the words \u2018certified a true copy\u2019, the name of the certifying official and the date of that certification.\nFor the purposes of point (b) of the first subparagraph, the Member States shall use the uniform notification form established in accordance with the model set out in Annex I to this Regulation and the uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State established in accordance with the model set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\n4. Where the uniform notification form or the uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State are transmitted by electronic means, their structure and lay-out may be adapted to the requirements of the electronic communication system in order to facilitate the communication between the competent authorities, provided that the set of data and information therein is not substantially altered with regard to the models set out in Annexes I and II.\nArticle 3\n1. The applicant authority may make a request for assistance in respect of either a single claim or several claims where those are recoverable from one and the same person.\n2. A request for information, recovery or precautionary measures may relate to any of the following persons:\n(a)\nthe principal debtor or a co-debtor;\n(b)\na person other than a (co-)debtor, liable for settlement of the taxes, duties and other measures, or for other claims relating to these taxes, duties and other measures under the law in force in the Member State in which the applicant authority is situated;\n(c)\nany third party holding assets belonging to or having debts towards one of the persons referred to in points (a) or (b).\nArticle 4\nInformation and other particulars communicated by the requested authority to the applicant authority pursuant to Articles 5(1), 8, 10 and 16(1) of Directive 2010/24/EU shall be conveyed in the official language or one of the official languages of the Member State of the requested authority or in another language agreed between the applicant and requested authorities.\nArticle 5\nIf the requested authority refuses to handle a request for assistance, it shall notify the applicant authority of the reasons for its refusal, specifying the provisions of Directive 2010/24/EU on which it relies. Such notification shall be given by the requested authority as soon as it has taken its decision and in any event within 1 month of the date of the acknowledgement of the receipt of the request.\nArticle 6\nEach request for information or for recovery or precautionary measures shall indicate whether a similar request has been addressed to any other authority.\nCHAPTER II\nREQUESTS FOR INFORMATION\nArticle 7\nThe requested authority shall acknowledge receipt of the request for information as soon as possible and in any event within seven calendar days of such receipt.\nUpon receipt of the request the requested authority shall, where appropriate, ask the applicant authority to provide any additional information necessary. The applicant authority shall provide all additional necessary information to which it normally has access.\nArticle 8\n1. The requested authority shall transmit each item of requested information to the applicant authority as and when it is obtained.\n2. Where, with respect to the particularity of a case, all or some of the requested information cannot be obtained within a reasonable time the requested authority shall inform the applicant authority thereof and state the reasons.\nIn any event, at the end of 6 months from the date of acknowledgement of receipt of the request, the requested authority shall inform the applicant authority of the outcome of the investigations which it has conducted in order to obtain the information requested.\nOn the basis of the information received from the requested authority, the applicant authority may request the requested authority to continue its investigation. That request shall be made within 2 months of the receipt of the notification of the outcome of the investigations carried out by the requested authority, and shall be treated by the requested authority in accordance with the provisions applying to the initial request.\nArticle 9\nThe applicant authority may, at any time, withdraw the request for information which it has sent to the requested authority. The decision to withdraw shall be transmitted to the requested authority.\nCHAPTER III\nREQUESTS FOR NOTIFICATION\nArticle 10\n1. Any request for notification shall include the original or a certified copy of each document, notification of which is requested.\nThe uniform notification form accompanying the request pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 2010/24/EU shall be completed by or under the responsibility of the applicant authority. It shall provide information to the addressee with regard to the documents for which notification assistance has been requested.\n2. With regard to the information mentioned in the uniform notification form, the following shall apply:\n(a)\nthe amount of the claim shall be mentioned where already established;\n(b)\nthe indication of the period within which notification is to be effected may be done by an indication of the date before which the applicant authority intends the notification to take place.\nArticle 11\nThe request for notification may relate to any person referred to in Article 3(c) of Directive 2010/24/EU who, in accordance with the law in force in the applicant Member State, is required to be informed of any document which concerns that person.\nArticle 12\n1. The requested authority shall acknowledge receipt of the request for notification as soon as possible and in any event within seven calendar days of such receipt.\nUpon receipt of the request for notification, the requested authority shall take the necessary measures to effect notification in accordance with the law in force in the Member State in which it is situated.\nIf necessary, without prejudice to the final date for notification indicated in the request for notification, the requested authority shall ask the applicant authority to provide additional information.\nThe applicant authority shall provide all additional information to which it normally has access.\n2. The requested authority shall inform the applicant authority of the date of notification as soon as this has been effected, by certifying the notification in the request form returned to the applicant authority.\nArticle 13\n1. A notification made by the requested Member State in accordance with the national laws, regulations and administrative practices in force in that State, shall be deemed to have the same effect in the applicant Member State as if it had been made by the applicant Member State itself in accordance with the national laws, regulations and administrative practices in force in the applicant Member State.\n2. A notification of a document relating to more than one type of tax, duty or other measure, shall be deemed valid if it is made by an authority of the requested Member State which is competent for at least one of the taxes, duties or other measures mentioned in the notified document, provided that it is allowed under the national law of the requested Member State.\nArticle 14\nFor the purposes of notification, the requested Member State may use the uniform notification form, referred to in Article 10(1) in its official language or in one of its official languages in accordance with its national law.\nCHAPTER IV\nREQUESTS FOR RECOVERY OR FOR PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES\nArticle 15\nRequests for recovery or for precautionary measures shall include a declaration that the conditions laid down in Directive 2010/24/EU for initiating the mutual assistance procedure have been fulfilled.\nArticle 16\n1. The uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State accompanying the request for recovery or for precautionary measures shall be completed by or under the responsibility of the applicant authority, on the basis of the initial instrument permitting enforcement in the applicant Member State.\nThe administrative penalties, fines, fees and surcharges referred to in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2010/24/EU and the interest and costs referred to in Article 2(2)(c) of that Directive which, in accordance with the rules in force in the applicant Member State, may be due from the date of the initial instrument permitting enforcement until the date before the date on which the recovery request is sent, may be added in the uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State.\n2. A single uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State may be issued in respect of several claims and several persons, corresponding to the initial instrument permitting enforcement in the applicant Member State.\n3. In so far as initial instruments permitting enforcement for several claims in the applicant Member State have already been replaced by a global instrument permitting enforcement for all these claims in that Member State, the uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State may be based on the initial instruments permitting enforcement in the applicant Member State or on that global instrument regrouping those initial instruments in the applicant Member State.\n4. In order to enforce the claims for which recovery assistance is requested, the requested Member State may use the uniform instrument permitting enforcement in that Member State in its official language or in one of its official languages in accordance with its national law.\nArticle 17\nThe addressee of a request for recovery or precautionary measures may not rely on the notification or communication of the uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State to claim a prolongation or a re-opening of the time period to contest the claim or the initial instrument permitting enforcement if that has been validly notified.\nArticle 18\n1. If the currency of the requested Member State is different from the currency of the applicant Member State, the applicant authority shall express the amount of the claim to be recovered in both currencies.\n2. The exchange rate to be used for the purposes of the recovery assistance shall be the last exchange rate published in the Official Journal of the European Union before the date the request is sent.\nArticle 19\n1. The requested authority shall, as soon as possible or in any event within seven calendar days of receipt of the request for recovery or for precautionary measures, acknowledge the receipt of the request.\n2. The requested authority may ask the applicant authority to provide additional information or to complete the uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State, if required. The applicant authority shall provide all additional necessary information to which it normally has access.\nArticle 20\n1. Where, with respect to the particularity of a case, all or part of the claim cannot be recovered or precautionary measures cannot be taken within a reasonable time, the requested authority shall inform the applicant authority thereof and state the reasons.\nOn the basis of the information received from the requested authority, the applicant authority may request the latter to re-open the procedure for recovery or for precautionary measures. That request shall be made within 2 months of the receipt of the notification of the outcome of that procedure, and shall be treated by the requested authority in accordance with the provisions applying to the initial request.\n2. No later than at the end of each six-month period following the date of acknowledgement of the receipt of the request, the requested authority shall inform the applicant authority of the state of progress or the outcome of the procedure for recovery or for precautionary measures.\nArticle 21\n1. Any action contesting the claim or the instrument permitting its enforcement which is taken in the Member State of the applicant authority shall be notified to the requested authority by the applicant authority immediately after the applicant authority has been informed of such action.\n2. If the laws, regulations and administrative practices in force in the requested Member State do not permit precautionary measures or the recovery requested under the second and third subparagraphs of Article 14(4) of Directive 2010/24/EU, the requested authority shall notify the applicant authority thereof as soon as possible and in any event within 1 month of the receipt of the notification referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. The requested authority shall notify any action taken in the requested Member State for reimbursement of sums recovered or for compensation in relation to recovery of contested claims under the third subparagraph of Article 14(4) of Directive 2010/24/EU to the applicant authority immediately after the requested authority has been informed of such action.\nThe requested authority shall as far as possible involve the applicant authority in the procedures for settling the amount to be reimbursed and the compensation due. Upon a reasoned request from the requested authority, the applicant authority shall transfer the sums reimbursed and the compensation paid within 2 months of the receipt of that request.\nArticle 22\n1. If the request for recovery or for precautionary measures becomes devoid of purpose as a result of payment of the claim or of its cancellation or for any other reason, the applicant authority shall immediately inform the requested authority so that the latter may stop any action which it has undertaken.\n2. Where the amount of the claim which is the subject of the request for recovery or for precautionary measures is adjusted by a decision of the competent body referred to in Article 14(1) of Directive 2010/24/EU, the applicant authority shall inform the requested authority of that decision and, if recovery is requested, communicate a revised uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State. This revised uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State shall be made by or under the responsibility of the applicant authority, on the basis of the decision adjusting the amount of the claim.\n3. A revised uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State does not have any consequences with regard to the possibilities to contest the initial claim, the initial instrument permitting enforcement in the applicant Member State or the decision referred to in the preceding subparagraph.\n4. If the adjustment referred to in paragraph 2 entails a reduction in the amount of the claim, the requested authority shall continue its action to take recovery or precautionary measures, but that action shall be limited to the amount still outstanding.\nIf, at the time when the requested authority is informed of the reduction in the amount of the claim, an amount exceeding the amount still outstanding has already been recovered by it but the transfer procedure referred to in Article 23 has not yet been initiated, the requested authority shall repay the amount overpaid to the person entitled thereto.\n5. If the adjustment referred to in paragraph 2 entails an increase in the amount of the claim, the applicant authority may address to the requested authority an additional request for recovery or for precautionary measures.\nThat additional request shall, as far as possible, be dealt with by the requested authority at the same time as the initial request from the applicant authority. Where, in view of the state of progress of the existing procedure, consolidation of the additional request with the initial request is not possible, the requested authority shall comply with the additional request only if it concerns an amount not less than that referred to in Article 18(3) of Directive 2010/24/EU.\n6. In order to convert the amount of the claim resulting from the adjustment referred to in paragraph 2 into the currency of the Member State of the requested authority, the applicant authority shall use the exchange rate used in its initial request.\nArticle 23\n1. The amounts that have to be remitted to the applicant authority, in accordance with Article 13(5) of Directive 2010/24/EU, shall be transferred to the applicant authority in the currency of the requested Member State.\nThe transfer of the recovered amounts shall take place within 2 months of the date on which recovery was effected.\nHowever, if recovery measures applied by the requested authority are contested for a reason not falling within the responsibility of the applicant Member State, the requested authority may wait to transfer any sums recovered in relation to the applicant Member State\u2019s claim, until the dispute is settled, if the following conditions are simultaneously fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe requested authority finds it likely that the outcome of this contestation will be favorable to the party concerned, and\n(b)\nthe applicant authority has not declared that it will reimburse the sums already transferred if the outcome of that contestation is favorable to the party concerned.\nIf the applicant authority has made a declaration to reimburse in accordance with point (b) of the third subparagraph, it shall return the recovered amounts already transferred by the requested authority within 1 month of the receipt of the request for reimbursement. Any other compensation due shall, in that case, be borne solely by the requested authority.\n2. The competent authorities of the Member States may agree on different arrangements for the transfer of amounts below the threshold applied in accordance with Article 18(3) of Directive 2010/24/EU.\nArticle 24\nRegardless of any amounts collected by the requested authority by way of the interest referred to in Article 13(4) of Directive 2010/24/EU, a claim shall be deemed recovered in proportion to the recovery of the amount expressed in the national currency of the Member State of the requested authority, on the basis of the exchange rate referred to in Article 18(2) of this Regulation.\nCHAPTER V\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 25\nRegulation (EC) No 1179/2008 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 26\nThis Regulation shall enter into force the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["84", "96", "0", "17", "69", "80", "14", "8", "66", "19", "58", "90", "1", "74", "49", "98", "22", "35", "67", "6", "75", "5", "9", "73", "77", "55", "97", "64", "93", "85", "No Label", "11", "13", "34", "39", "41", "42"], "gold": ["11", "13", "34", "39", "41", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 438/2012\nof 23 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2012.", "references": ["53", "84", "73", "96", "99", "72", "59", "8", "32", "87", "43", "37", "7", "39", "49", "9", "6", "54", "10", "42", "29", "26", "63", "21", "83", "90", "18", "65", "82", "80", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 11 July 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union, within the EU-Switzerland Joint Committee, on the rules of procedure to be adopted by it in accordance with Article 19(4) of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the simplification of inspections and formalities in respect of the carriage of goods and on customs security measures\n(2011/409/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Agreement of 25 June 2009 between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the simplification of inspections and formalities in respect of the carriage of goods and on customs security measures (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019),\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/556/EC of 25 June 2009 concerning the provisional application and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the simplification of inspections and formalities in respect of the carriage of goods and on customs security measures (2), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\nArticle 19(4) of the Agreement states that the joint committee set up by that Agreement (hereinafter \u2018the EU-Switzerland Joint Committee\u2019) must adopt its rules of procedure,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the EU-Switzerland Joint Committee on the rules of procedure to be adopted in accordance with Article 19(4) of the Agreement shall be laid down in the attached draft decision of the EU-Switzerland Joint Committee.\nDone at Brussels, 11 July 2011.", "references": ["46", "32", "10", "20", "18", "52", "75", "73", "92", "66", "38", "51", "43", "22", "95", "74", "62", "14", "17", "93", "88", "47", "90", "58", "2", "41", "89", "33", "26", "5", "No Label", "1", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["1", "7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 6/2011\nof 5 January 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 2/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 January 2011.", "references": ["5", "85", "42", "83", "80", "13", "6", "17", "4", "1", "2", "11", "20", "81", "89", "9", "21", "67", "98", "88", "97", "53", "91", "70", "51", "57", "50", "61", "95", "45", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 501/2012\nof 13 June 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ( (Zhenjiang Xiang Cu) (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 7(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, China\u2019s application of 16 July 2007 to register the name\n(Zhenjiang Xiang Cu) as a protected geographical indication (PGI) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nGermany submitted an objection to such registration under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. The objection was deemed admissible under point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 7(3) thereof.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 2 August 2011, the Commission asked the Parties concerned to seek agreement among them.\n(4)\nGiven that no formal agreement was reached between Germany and China in accordance with the designated timeframe and forms, the Commission should adopt a decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(5)\nThe statement of the objection alleged that registration of\n(Zhenjiang Xiang Cu) would jeopardise the existence of names, trademarks or products as specified in point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, due to the vinegar\u2019s lower (4,5 grams) minimum total acid content than the one specified (5,0 grams) in German law as well as in European Standard EN 13188. Considering the acetic acid content as a decisive quality criterion for vinegar, the objector believes that marketing of such vinegar in the European Union would be misleading for the consumer as it would lead to distortion of the competition.\n(6)\nIn the absence of specific legislation of the European Union, vinegar with a lower acidity can be lawfully manufactured and marketed within the EU as well as imported into the European Union. In addition,\n(Zhenjiang Xiang Cu) is rice vinegar with its distinctive characteristics and is linked to Chinese cuisine. Therefore, neither a risk of confusion for consumers nor an attempt to fair and traditional usage could be identified in the fact that\n(Zhenjiang Xiang Cu) is marketed in the EU with a minimum total acid content of 4,5 grams/100 ml.\n(7)\nThe Commission understands that China would accept a minimum acidity rate of\n(Zhenjiang Xiang Cu) not lower than 5,0 grams per 100 ml, which would accordingly meet the request of the German authorities and the aforementioned European Standard EN 13188. Germany has confirmed that this would resolve its concerns.\n(8)\nIn order to have the largest consensus the minimum total acid content of\n(Zhenjiang Xiang Cu) should, therefore, be set out at 5,00 grams/100 ml.\n(9)\nIn the light of the above, the name\n(Zhenjiang Xiang Cu) should be entered in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Protected Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe designation contained in the Annex to this Regulation shall be entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThe updated version of the single document is set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 June 2012.", "references": ["50", "56", "14", "32", "33", "22", "98", "92", "47", "17", "70", "20", "75", "82", "80", "46", "61", "42", "48", "12", "54", "68", "73", "44", "58", "19", "59", "34", "74", "55", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "95", "96"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1155/2011\nof 10 November 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (\u0160ebreljski \u017eelodec (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovenia\u2019s application to register the name \u2018\u0160ebreljski \u017eelodec\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2011.", "references": ["83", "68", "47", "58", "70", "41", "15", "52", "6", "82", "28", "42", "19", "29", "50", "93", "55", "30", "74", "49", "92", "76", "66", "45", "85", "77", "1", "62", "44", "36", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 25 June 2012\non the organisation of a temporary experiment under Council Directives 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 2002/54/EC, 2002/55/EC and 2002/57/EC as regards field inspection under official supervision for basic seed and bred seed of generations prior to basic seed\n(notified under document C(2012) 4169)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/340/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 66/401/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of fodder plant seed (1), and in particular Article 13a thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 66/402/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of cereal seed (2), and in particular Article 13a thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/54/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of beet seed (3), and in particular Article 19 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/55/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of vegetable seed (4), and in particular Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/57/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of seed of oil and fibre plants (5), and in particular Article 16 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOfficial field inspections of the crop are a condition for the certification of basic seed and bred seed of generations prior to basic seed. As regards certified seed, however, the possibility has been introduced some time ago, to choose between official field inspections and field inspections under official supervision.\n(2)\nProviding for the possibility to choose between official field inspections and field inspections under official supervision may also constitute an improved alternative to requiring official field inspection as far as basic seed and bred seed of generations prior to basic seed are concerned. A temporary experiment should therefore be organised to assess this alternative.\n(3)\nTaking into account the experience gained, as regards certified seed, with field inspections under official supervision, it is appropriate to carry out the experiment applying the same provisions as apply to certified seed in order to assess whether those provisions are suitable for basic seed and bred seed of generations prior to basic seed.\n(4)\nIt is necessary to release Member States participating in the experiment from the obligations with respect to official field inspections provided for in Directives 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 2002/54/EC, 2002/55/EC and 2002/57/EC.\n(5)\nMember States participating in the experiment should report annually.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nA temporary experiment is organised at Union level assessing, as regards certification of basic seed and bred seed of generations prior to basic seed, whether the possibility to choose between official field inspections and field inspections under official supervision, carried out in accordance with Articles 2 and 3, may constitute an improved alternative to official field inspections and whether the same provisions as apply to the certification of certified seed are to be applied to basic seed and bred seed of generations prior to basic seed.\nThe purpose of that experiment is to decide whether, as regards basic seed and bred seed of generations prior to basic seed, the requirement of official field inspections may be replaced by a requirement of either official field inspections or field inspections under official supervision as regards the following provisions:\n(a)\nArticle 2(1)(B)(1)(d) of Directive 66/401/EEC and Article 14a(a) thereof and point (6) of Annex I thereto;\n(b)\nArticle 2(1)(C)(d) of Directive 66/402/EEC, Article 2(1)(Ca)(c) thereof, Article 2(1)(D)(1)(d) thereof, Article 2(1)(D)(2)(b) thereof, Article 2(1)(D)(3)(c) thereof and Article 14a(a) thereof and point (7) of Annex I thereto;\n(c)\nArticle 2(1)(c)(iv) of Directive 2002/54/EC and Article 21(a) thereof and point (4) of Part A of Annex I thereto;\n(d)\nArticle 2(1)(c)(iv) of Directive 2002/55/EC and Article 35(a) thereof and point (2) of Annex I thereto;\n(e)\nArticle 2(1)(c)(iv) of Directive 2002/57/EC, Article 2(1)(d)(1)(ii) thereof, Article 2(1)(d)(2)(iii) thereof and Article 18(a) thereof and point (5) of Annex I thereto.\nArticle 2\nInspectors carrying out inspections under official supervision\nParticipating Member States shall ensure that inspectors carrying out inspections under official supervision fulfil the following conditions:\n(a)\nThey have the necessary technical qualifications.\n(b)\nThey derive no private gain in connection with the inspections.\n(c)\nThey have been officially licensed by the seed certification authority of the Member State concerned to carry out inspections under official supervision; licensing shall include either the swearing-in of inspectors or the signature by inspectors of a written statement of commitment to the rules governing official inspections.\n(d)\nThey carry out inspections under the supervision of the competent seed certification authority.\nArticle 3\nInspections of crops and harvested seeds\n1. Participating Member States shall ensure that inspections of crops and harvested seed fulfil the requirements provided for in paragraphs 2 to 5.\n2. The crop to be inspected shall be grown from seed which has undergone official post-control, the results of which satisfy the requirements laid down in Annexes I to Directives 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 2002/54/EC, 2002/55/EC and 2002/57/EC.\n3. A proportion of at least 20 % of the crops shall be checked by the competent authority, as regards vegetable crops covered by Directive 2002/55/EC. For all other crops the proportion shall be at least 5 %. The following different proportions shall be used to allow to establish an appropriate level of check testing for the categories of basic seed and bred seed of generations prior to basic seed: 5, 10, 15 and 20 %.\n4. A proportion of samples from the seed lots harvested from the crops shall be drawn for official post-control and, where appropriate, for official laboratory seed testing in respect of varietal identity and purity. Member States shall identify seed lots for which field inspection has been carried out under official supervision.\n5. The Member States which participate in the experiment shall compare the official field inspections with those of the same field inspected under official supervision.\nArticle 4\nParticipation of Member States\nAny Member State may participate in the experiment.\nMember States which decide to participate in the experiment (\u2018the participating Member States\u2019) shall inform the Commission and the other Member States indicating the species, categories and regions covered by their participation and any restrictions.\nMember States may terminate their participation at any time by informing the Commission accordingly.\nArticle 5\nRelease\nFor the purposes of the experiment, participating Member States are released, in respect of official field inspections of basic seed and bred seed of generations prior to basic seed, from the obligations provided for in Article 2(1)(B)(1)(d) of Directive 66/401/EEC and Article 14a(a) thereof and point (6) of Annex I thereto, Article 2(1)(C)(d) of Directive 66/402/EEC, Article 2(1)(Ca)(c) thereof, Article 2(1)(D)(1)(d) thereof, Article 2(1)(D)(2)(b) thereof, Article 2(1)(D)(3)(c) thereof and Article 14a(a) thereof and point (7) of Annex I thereto, Article 2(1)(c)(iv) of Directive 2002/54/EC and Article 21(a) thereof and point (4) of Part A of Annex I thereto, Article 2(1)(c)(iv) of Directive 2002/55/EC and Article 35(a) thereof and point (2) of Annex I thereto and Article 2(1)(c)(iv) of Directive 2002/57/EC, Article 2(1)(d)(1)(ii) thereof, Article 2(1)(d)(2)(iii) thereof and Article 18(a) thereof and point (5) of Annex I thereto.\nArticle 6\nReporting obligations\n1. Participating Member States shall for each year, by 31 March of the following year, present to the Commission and to the other Member States a report on the results of the experiment carried out in accordance with Articles 2 and 3.\n2. At the end of the experiment and in any case at the end of their participation, participating Member States shall by 31 March of the following year, present to the Commission and the other Member States a report on the results of the experiment carried out in accordance with Articles 2 and 3.\nThis report may include other information they consider relevant in view of the purpose of the experiment.\nArticle 7\nTime period\nThe experiment shall start on 1 January 2013 and end on 31 December 2017.\nArticle 8\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["2", "24", "83", "74", "99", "22", "76", "50", "71", "20", "51", "37", "43", "67", "59", "57", "23", "84", "16", "5", "77", "85", "66", "4", "28", "70", "0", "44", "10", "78", "No Label", "8", "61", "65"], "gold": ["8", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 241/2011\nof 11 March 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Miele delle Dolomiti Bellunesi (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Miele delle Dolomiti Bellunesi\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 March 2011.", "references": ["47", "33", "45", "23", "5", "6", "94", "78", "22", "41", "31", "37", "15", "51", "4", "43", "12", "65", "72", "9", "59", "35", "98", "30", "3", "88", "42", "40", "50", "8", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 398/2010\nof 7 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2010.", "references": ["49", "21", "99", "53", "72", "47", "97", "19", "84", "14", "23", "25", "64", "85", "52", "69", "32", "76", "95", "81", "75", "93", "27", "8", "87", "13", "63", "44", "78", "55", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 567/2011\nof 14 June 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Porchetta di Ariccia (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Porchetta di Ariccia\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name appearing in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 June 2011.", "references": ["89", "2", "38", "20", "19", "90", "58", "6", "93", "5", "57", "62", "68", "81", "48", "59", "51", "18", "35", "53", "74", "86", "78", "85", "43", "65", "61", "84", "15", "50", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 25 October 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of an Agreement in the form of a Protocol between the European Union and the Arab Republic of Egypt establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part\n(2011/59/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 24 February 2006 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with partners in the Mediterranean region in order to establish a dispute settlement mechanism related to trade provisions.\n(2)\nNegotiations have been conducted by the Commission in consultation with the committee appointed under Article 207 of the Treaty and within the framework of the negotiating directives issued by the Council.\n(3)\nThese negotiations have been concluded and an Agreement in the form of a Protocol (\u2018the Protocol\u2019) between the European Union and the Arab Republic of Egypt establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part (1) was initialled on 27 April 2010.\n(4)\nThe Protocol should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement in the form of a Protocol between the European Union and the Arab Republic of Egypt establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part (\u2018the Protocol\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Protocol (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol, on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 October 2010.", "references": ["93", "51", "18", "85", "52", "61", "14", "6", "53", "92", "67", "24", "21", "73", "8", "35", "54", "65", "33", "79", "69", "38", "77", "72", "7", "44", "36", "88", "47", "1", "No Label", "3", "5", "9", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "5", "9", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 698/2011\nof 19 July 2011\nfixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 July 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (3), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 1 to 7 July 2011, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, exceed the quantity available under order number 09.4380.\n(2)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 1 to 7 July 2011, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, are equal to the quantity available under order number 09.4325.\n(3)\nIn these circumstances, an allocation coefficient for licences to be issued regarding order number 09.4380 should be fixed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006.\n(4)\nSubmission of further applications for licences for order numbers 09.4325 and 09.4380 should be suspended until the end of the marketing year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 from 1 to 7 July 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. Submission of further applications for licences, which correspond to the order numbers indicated in the Annex, shall be suspended until the end of the marketing year 2010/11.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["43", "11", "74", "12", "30", "42", "82", "79", "84", "76", "49", "5", "13", "63", "14", "3", "6", "36", "75", "21", "17", "56", "90", "32", "24", "50", "9", "8", "15", "97", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 28 July 2011\nexempting exploration for oil and gas and exploitation of oil in Denmark, excluding Greenland and the Faroe Islands, from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors\n(notified under document C(2011) 5312)\n(Only the Danish text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/481/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1), and in particular Article 30(4) and (6),\nHaving regard to the request submitted by the Kingdom of Denmark by e-mail of 26 May 2011,\nWhereas:\nI. FACTS\n(1)\nOn 26 May 2011, the Commission received a Danish request pursuant to Article 30(4) of Directive 2004/17/EC, transmitted to the Commission by e-mail.\n(2)\nThe request submitted by the Kingdom of Denmark concerns the exploration for oil and gas and exploitation of oil in Denmark, excluding Greenland and the Faroe Islands. In line with previous Commission Merger Decisions (2), two distinct activities have been described in the request, namely:\n(a)\nexploration for oil and natural gas; and\n(b)\nproduction of oil.\nIn accordance with the above-mentioned Commission Decisions, \u2018production\u2019 will for the purposes of this Decision be taken to include also \u2018development\u2019, i.e. the setting up of adequate infrastructure for future production (oil platforms, pipelines, terminals, etc.). Furthermore, established Commission practice also found that \u2018the development, production and sales of crude oil\u2019 constitutes \u2018one relevant product market\u2019 (3) Thus, for the purposes of this Decision, \u2018production\u2019 will be taken as including both \u2018development\u2019 as well as (first) sale oil.\n(3)\n29 companies are participating as licensees or operators in Danish oil and/or gas concessions, with three operators being responsible for the current production of oil and gas. These are M\u00e6rsk Olie og Gas A/S (\u2018M\u00e6rsk\u2019, operates 15 fields), DONG E&P A/S (\u2018Dong\u2019, operates 3 fields) and Hess Denmark ApS (\u2018Hess\u2019, operates 1 field) (4). Furthermore, Wintershall Nordzee B.V. and Altinex Oil Denmark A/S (NORECO), have as operators made discoveries in undeveloped fields with no present production. For reasons of risk-sharing, the normal management of exploration and exploitation activities is by means of joint venture agreements, in which one part is appointed as \u2018operator\u2019 and where the other parties to the joint venture obtain a pro-rata share to any oil and gas produced by the consortium. The non-operating participants have full control over where, when and to whom they sell and they are therefore at the same time partners and competitors of the operators.\n(4)\nThe request is introduced, and thus endorsed, by Konkurrence- og Forbrugerstyrelsen (the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority).\nII. LEGAL FRAMEWORK\n(5)\nArticle 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC provides that contracts intended to enable the performance of one of the activities to which Directive 2004/17/EC applies shall not be subject to that Directive if, in the Member State in which it is carried out, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted. Direct exposure to competition is assessed on the basis of objective criteria, taking account of the specific characteristics of the sector concerned. Access is deemed to be unrestricted if the Member State has implemented and applied the relevant EU legislation opening a given sector or a part of it.\n(6)\nSince Denmark has implemented and applied Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (5), access to the market should be deemed not to be restricted in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 30(3) of Directive 2004/17/EC. Direct exposure to competition in a particular market should be evaluated on the basis of various criteria, none of which are necessarily decisive.\n(7)\nFor the purposes of assessing whether the relevant operators are subject to direct competition in the markets concerned by this decision, the market share of the main players and the degree of concentration of those markets shall be taken into account. As the conditions vary for the different activities that are concerned by this Decision, a separate assessment shall be undertaken for each activity/market.\n(8)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to the application of the rules on competition.\nIII. ASSESSMENT\n(9)\nEach of the two activities that are the subject of this request (exploration for oil and natural gas and production of oil) have been considered to constitute separate product markets in the previous Commission Decisions referred to in recital 2 above. They should therefore be examined separately.\n(10)\nAccording to established Commission practice (6), exploration for oil and natural gas constitutes one relevant product market, since it is not possible from the outset to determine whether the exploration will result in finding oil or natural gas. It has furthermore been established through the same, long-standing Commission practice that the geographical scope of that market is worldwide. Given that there is no indication that the definition would be different in this case, it will be maintained for the purposes of the present decision.\n(11)\nThe market shares of operators active in exploration can be measured by reference to three variables: the capital expenditure, proven reserves and expected production. The use of capital expenditure to measure the market shares of operators on the exploration market has been found to be unsuitable, i.a. because of the large differences between the required levels of investments that are necessary in different geographic areas. Thus, larger investments are needed to explore for oil and gas in the North Sea than is the case for exploration in, e.g., the Middle East.\n(12)\nTwo other parameters have typically been applied to assess the market shares of economic operators within this sector, namely, their share of proven reserves and of the expected production (7).\n(13)\nAs of 31 December 2009, the global, proven oil and gas reserves amounted to a total of 385,58 billion standard cubic metres oil equivalent (in the following Sm3 o.e.) worldwide, according to the available information (8). As of 31 December 2009, the combined, proven oil and gas reserves in Denmark amounted to slightly more than 0,19 billion Sm3 o.e. (9), or slightly more than 0,05 %. The share thereof of the individual contracting entities operating in Denmark is obviously even smaller. According to the available information, there is a direct correlation between proven reserves of oil and gas and expected future production. Nothing in the available information therefore indicates that the market share of the individual contracting entities operating in Denmark would be substantially different if measured in terms of expected production rather than in terms of its share of proven reserves. Given the links between proven reserves and actual production these facts can be taken as an indication also of the state of competition on the market concerned here.\n(14)\nThe exploration market is not highly concentrated. Apart from state owned companies, the market is characterised by the presence of three international vertically integrated private players named the super majors (BP, ExxonMobil and Shell) as well as a certain number of so-called \u2018majors\u2019. These elements are an indication of direct exposure to competition.\n(15)\nAccording to established Commission practice (10), development and production of (crude) oil is a separate product market whose geographic scope is worldwide. Given that there is no indication that the definition would be different in this case, it will be maintained for the purposes of the present decision. According to the available information (11), the total, daily production of oil worldwide amounted to 79,948 million barrels in 2009. That same year, a total of 0,265 million barrels per day were produced in Denmark, giving it a market share of 0,33 %. Looking at the 2009 share of the individual contracting entities operating in Denmark, the situation is as follows: with a worldwide production of 381 thousand (12) barrels per day, M\u00e6rsk has a share of 0,5 % of oil production worldwide; Dong\u2019s worldwide, daily production of 23 thousand barrels of oil gives it a market share amounting to 0,029 % of the global oil production; finally, Hess\u2019 total production of 11 575 barrels per day gives it a share of 0,014 % of oil production worldwide.\n(16)\nFor the purposes of this analysis, it is important to have regard to the degree of concentration in the relevant market as a whole. In this view, the Commission notes that the market for crude oil production is characterised by the presence of big state owned companies and three international vertically integrated private players (the so-called super majors: BP, ExxonMobil and Shell whose respective parts of oil production in 2009 amounted to 3,2 %, 3,0 % and 2 %) as well as a certain number of so-called \u2018majors\u2019 (13). These factors suggest that the market comprises a number of players between whom effective competition can be presumed.\nIV. CONCLUSIONS\n(17)\nIn view of the factors examined in recitals 5 to 16, the condition of direct exposure to competition laid down in Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC should be considered to be met in the Denmark, excluding Greenland and the Faroe Islands, in respect of the following services:\n(a)\nexploration for oil and natural gas; and\n(b)\nproduction of oil.\n(18)\nSince the condition of unrestricted access to the market is deemed to be met, Directive 2004/17/EC should not apply when contracting entities award contracts intended to enable the services listed in points (a) to (b) of recital 17 to be carried out in Denmark, excluding Greenland and the Faroe Islands, nor when design contests are organised for the pursuit of such an activity in that geographic area.\n(19)\nGenerally exploration fields can produce both oil and gas, in different proportions. The production of gas is not subject to this exemption request, and the provisions of Directive 2004/17/EC continue to apply to this sector. In situations where a field produces both oil and gas, it is recalled that procurement contracts covering several activities shall be treated in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2004/17/EC. This means that, when a contracting entity is engaged in \u2018mixed\u2019 procurement, to support the performance of both activities (i.e. activities exempted from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC and activities not exempted), regard shall be had to the activities for which the contract is principally intended. In the event of such mixed procurement, where the purpose is principally to support the production of gas, the provision of Directive 2004/17/EC shall apply. If it is objectively impossible to determine for which activity the contract is principally intended, the contract shall be awarded in accordance with the rules referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 9 of Directive 2004/17/EC.\n(20)\nThis Decision is based on the legal and factual situation as of May 2011 to July 2011 as it appears from the information submitted by the Danish authorities. It may be revised, should significant changes in the legal or factual situation mean that the conditions for the applicability of Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC are no longer met.\n(21)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Committee for Public Contracts,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2004/17/EC shall not apply to contracts awarded by contracting entities and intended to enable the following services to be carried out in Denmark, excluding Greenland and the Faroe Islands:\n(a)\nexploration for oil and natural gas; and\n(b)\nproduction of oil.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2011.", "references": ["5", "27", "77", "40", "79", "78", "14", "52", "3", "64", "29", "75", "88", "99", "39", "33", "23", "15", "93", "17", "94", "0", "50", "65", "72", "74", "61", "89", "19", "67", "No Label", "8", "20", "48", "80", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "20", "48", "80", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 31 January 2011\non the signing, on behalf the European Union, of a Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Uzbekistan, of the other part, amending the Agreement in order to extend the provisions of the Agreement to bilateral trade in textiles, taking account of the expiry of the bilateral textiles Agreement\n(2011/250/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 June 2010 the Council authorised the Commission to enter into negotiations with the Republic of Uzbekistan to amend the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of Uzbekistan, of the other part (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019), so as to ensure that the principles which apply to trade in other goods are also extended formally to trade in textile products. These negotiations have been successfully concluded and the Protocol amending the Agreement by deleting Article 16, and all references thereto, was initialled on 1 July 2010.\n(2)\nIn the framework of the negotiations it was agreed between both parties to carry out a clean up exercise and to delete an obsolete technical provision that expired in 1998 and the corresponding Annex referring to it.\n(3)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nThe Protocol amending the Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Uzbekistan, of the other part, amending the Agreement in order to extend the provisions of the Agreement to bilateral trade in textiles, taking account of the expiry of the bilateral textiles Agreement (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019), is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Protocol (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion, and to make the following declaration:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d or to \u201cthe Community\u201d in the text of the Agreement are, where appropriate, to be read as \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2011.", "references": ["80", "73", "71", "51", "29", "26", "79", "96", "35", "72", "19", "14", "39", "74", "85", "65", "92", "58", "93", "36", "2", "59", "77", "7", "61", "87", "88", "57", "20", "41", "No Label", "9", "23", "89", "95", "97"], "gold": ["9", "23", "89", "95", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 December 2011\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Lithuania\n(2011/888/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2), in particular Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1, of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(5)\nLithuania has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on dactyloscopic data exchange.\n(6)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by Lithuania with Austria.\n(7)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in Lithuania and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the Austrian evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(8)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning dactyloscopic data exchange has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching of dactyloscopic data, Lithuania has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Article 9 of that Decision as from the day of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["18", "27", "78", "22", "33", "48", "81", "47", "89", "36", "2", "85", "59", "26", "67", "10", "39", "93", "37", "96", "24", "60", "99", "73", "38", "68", "28", "64", "70", "84", "No Label", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91"], "gold": ["40", "41", "42", "43", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 133/2011\nof 14 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 February 2011.", "references": ["74", "20", "86", "10", "5", "72", "58", "38", "64", "36", "87", "65", "39", "24", "23", "62", "71", "97", "96", "29", "16", "15", "94", "1", "66", "76", "56", "9", "67", "84", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 561/2010\nof 25 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 June 2010.", "references": ["82", "97", "74", "77", "53", "80", "83", "65", "28", "27", "10", "17", "64", "49", "42", "66", "30", "40", "84", "22", "11", "14", "70", "71", "57", "46", "43", "86", "47", "95", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 53/2012\nof 20 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2012.", "references": ["66", "41", "59", "34", "86", "24", "21", "20", "37", "16", "31", "15", "75", "78", "85", "97", "88", "49", "19", "56", "4", "83", "93", "69", "27", "39", "52", "10", "73", "50", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 507/2012\nof 14 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 June 2012.", "references": ["98", "54", "43", "82", "60", "51", "91", "9", "70", "26", "19", "23", "49", "55", "79", "3", "80", "8", "57", "10", "64", "86", "25", "95", "87", "73", "76", "36", "41", "44", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 939/2011\nof 23 September 2011\ncorrecting Regulation (EC) No 617/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards marketing standards for eggs for hatching and farmyard poultry chicks\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 121(f) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Lithuanian language version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 617/2008 (2) contains several errors. One of the errors appears in the multilingual Annex II and therefore that Annex should be corrected in all language versions.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 617/2008 should therefore be corrected accordingly.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 617/2008 has been amended by Regulation (EU) No 557/2010 (3). The new title of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 617/2008 as replaced by Regulation (EU) No 557/2010 also contains an error in the Lithuanian language version which should be corrected. The other amendments made to Regulation (EC) No 617/2008 by the amending Regulation do not contain any errors. Accordingly, those provisions of Regulation (EC) No 617/2008 do not need to be corrected.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nConcerns only the Lithuanian language version.\nArticle 2\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 617/2008 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2011.", "references": ["52", "4", "20", "99", "92", "90", "32", "15", "39", "78", "40", "93", "95", "75", "18", "33", "64", "83", "35", "31", "68", "87", "37", "89", "73", "2", "51", "7", "81", "97", "No Label", "25", "41", "61", "66", "69"], "gold": ["25", "41", "61", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 946/2011\nof 22 September 2011\nfixing the export refunds on poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2) and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in poultrymeat, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely in the Union and bear the identification mark provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products should also comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 615/2011 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements under Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the identification marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 615/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2011.", "references": ["14", "6", "43", "12", "23", "48", "91", "10", "85", "3", "90", "27", "42", "62", "58", "53", "83", "2", "36", "29", "7", "39", "55", "92", "52", "45", "13", "40", "65", "98", "No Label", "20", "22", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 March 2011\nsetting up the SHARE-ERIC\n(2011/166/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 723/2009 of 25 June 2009 on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 723/2009 empowers the Commission to set up European Research Infrastructure Consortia (hereinafter referred to as \u2018ERICs\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Austria have on 14 December 2010 requested the Commission to set up the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe as a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (SHARE-ERIC), the Kingdom of Belgium has joined this request on 21 January 2011, and Switzerland has requested to be included as observer in the SHARE-ERIC.\n(3)\nThe Kingdom of the Netherlands has provided a declaration recognising SHARE-ERIC as international body in the sense of Articles 143(g) and 151(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (2) and an international organisation in the sense of the second indent of Article 23(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (3) as of its setting up.\n(4)\nThe Commission, in response to its obligations set out in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 723/2009 has assessed the application and concluded that it meets the requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 723/2009.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 6(1) and Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 723/2009 the committee set up under Article 20 of that Regulation has been consulted for its opinion on the setting-up of the SHARE-ERIC and has delivered a favourable opinion.\n(6)\nSHARE-ERIC is expected to become an important asset to other major European research and innovation initiatives on population ageing such as the proposed Joint Programming Initiative more years - better lives, The Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme and the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nEstablishment of the SHARE-ERIC\n1. A European Research Infrastructure Consortium for the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe named SHARE-ERIC is hereby set up according to Regulation (EC) No 723/2009.\nSHARE-ERIC shall have legal personality as of the date this Decision takes effect and it shall enjoy, in each of the Member States, the most extensive legal capacity accorded to legal entities under the law of that Member State. It may, in particular, acquire, own and dispose of movable, immovable and intellectual property, conclude contracts and be a party to legal proceedings.\n2. The statutes of SHARE-ERIC, as agreed between its members, are annexed to this Decision. Their amendment is subject to the provisions in the statutes and to Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 723/2009. The Statutes shall be publicly available on the website of the ERIC and at its statutory seat.\n3. This Decision shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n4. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 March 2011.", "references": ["66", "3", "5", "86", "71", "30", "33", "10", "68", "0", "83", "21", "14", "8", "75", "47", "88", "41", "95", "34", "24", "31", "23", "79", "76", "53", "60", "62", "36", "40", "No Label", "7", "11", "19", "37", "38", "49", "77"], "gold": ["7", "11", "19", "37", "38", "49", "77"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 917/2011\nof 12 September 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Provisional measures\n(1)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 258/2011 (2) (\u2018the provisional Regulation\u2019), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018China\u2019).\n(2)\nA corrigendum (3) was published on 31 May 2011 in order to correct certain typographical errors, in particular the names of certain Chinese exporting producers that were misspelled in Annex I to the provisional Regulation.\n(3)\nFollowing the verification of certain claims received after the publication of the corrigendum which were found to be warranted, it was noticed that certain other names were misspelled. The correct names for all companies subject to the weighted average duty are listed in Annex I to this Regulation.\n(4)\nIt is recalled that the proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged by the European ceramic tiles manufacturer\u2019s Association (CET) (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 30 % of the total Union production of ceramic tiles. As set out in recital 24 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). With respect to the trends relevant for the injury assessment, the Commission analysed data covering the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the IP (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n2. Subsequent procedure\n(5)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional measures (\u2018provisional disclosure\u2019), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard and hearings with the Hearing officer were held upon request of two interested parties.\n(6)\nThe Commission continued to seek information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.\n(7)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.\n(8)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.\n3. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n3.1. Sampling of Chinese exporting producers\n(9)\nWhen selecting the sample of exporting producers, an applicant \u2018group\u2019 of companies was included due to the fact that the combined export volume of the two producers included in the alleged group made them together the third largest exporter by volume to the Union market. These companies claimed a relationship based on Article 143(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (4) which provides that parties shall be deemed to be related if \u2018they are legally recognised partners in business\u2019. The investigation subsequently revealed that these companies were not related in this sense and, as mentioned in recital 35 of the provisional Regulation, these two producers were treated as separate entities.\n(10)\nSeveral exporting producers made submissions claiming that these companies should have been excluded from the sample for submitting false or misleading information. These producers further claimed that, consequently, the weighted average dumping margin should have been calculated without taking into account the two sampled companies.\n(11)\nIn this regard, it is noted that the information provided by these parties prior to the selection of the sample was considered sufficient to consider them as related and given their combined export sales volume to the Union market they were included in the sample. Following the on-spot verification visits at the premises of these two companies, the issue of their relationship was examined in detail. The information provided by the companies in support of their claim to be related was verified but found to be insufficient for them to be regarded as related, contrary to the companies\u2019 own view on this matter. As a result, it was concluded that these companies could not be considered to be related in the sense of Article 143(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93. As the companies cooperated in the investigation, including by providing information with regard to their alleged relationship, it is considered that there are no grounds to exclude them from the sample. In these circumstances, this claim is rejected.\n(12)\nMoreover, even assuming that selecting other companies into the sample during the investigation would have led to a considerably larger volume of exports towards the Union market during the IP being covered, it would have been difficult, within the time available, to investigate any newly selected companies. Therefore, in spite of the fact that these companies have turned out not to be related, the sample continues to comply with the criteria foreseen in the basic Regulation. Finally it is pointed out that there was no evidence that the companies deliberately alleged being related in order to be included in the sample.\n(13)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals 5 and 6 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.2. Sampling of Union producers\n(14)\nFollowing the imposition of the provisional measures, one party claimed that none of the Union producers supporting the complaint had provided sample responses and should therefore be regarded as not cooperating with the proceeding. This argument was maintained following final disclosure.\n(15)\nWith respect to the claim that the lack of sample responses would indicate that the Union producers supporting the complaint did not cooperate, it is recalled that CET was the legal representative of all complaining companies. As required, CET also provided on behalf of the complainants the complementary information concerning the data for the IP. As detailed in the Notice of initiation, information in view of selecting a sample was only required for companies that had not already supplied all necessary information. It follows that the complaining producers were fully cooperating since they provided all the necessary information at the complaint stage and the necessary updates as regards the IP data were provided on their behalf by their legal representative during the investigation.\n(16)\nOne interested party claimed that the division of the Union industry into different segments and the geographical coverage of the sample meant that it was not statistically valid. In this respect it is recalled that the Union ceramic tiles industry is highly fragmented with over 500 producers. It was also found that the industry was represented in all three industry segments, i.e. large, medium and small companies. In order to ensure that the results of large companies did not dominate the injury analysis but that the situation of the small companies, collectively accounting for the biggest share of the Union production, was properly reflected, it was considered that all segments (i.e. small, medium-sized and large companies) should be represented in the sample. Within each of the segments, the largest companies were chosen, provided that geographical representativeness could be assured.\n(17)\nOne interested party also claimed that the Commission had failed to show that the sample remained representative after the withdrawal of the Polish producer and that it was in any event insufficiently representative in terms of sales volume in the Union market.\n(18)\nIt is correct that one Polish producer decided to cease cooperation and therefore had to be excluded from the sample. However, it is not necessary for a sample to reflect the exact geographical spread and weight of the producing Member States in order to be representative. Given the fact that geographical spread is only one of the factors to take into account to ensure representativeness, such an approach would not have been administratively practicable. Rather, it is sufficient that the sample largely reflects proportions of the major manufacturing countries involved. Assessed against this criterion, it was found that the withdrawal of the Polish company did not affect the overall representativeness of the sample. On this basis, it is confirmed that the sample of Union producers was sufficiently representative within the meaning of Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(19)\nAs concerns the claim of the overall representativity of the sample, it is recalled that given the fact that the Union industry is highly fragmented, it is unavoidable that the companies in the sample cover a relatively small portion of the overall Union production. In any event Article 17 of the basic Regulation sets out that investigations may be limited to samples which are either statistically valid, or which constitute the largest representative volume of production, sales, or exports which can be reasonably investigated, without, however, indicating any specific quantitative threshold as to the level of such representative volume. In view of the above it is confirmed that the sample selected was representative within the meaning of Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(20)\nOne interested party claimed that the Commission failed to include in the sample Union producers which offer low sales prices and which are located in countries like Poland and the Czech Republic; therefore, the sample so obtained would not be representative of the Union producers\u2019 average sales prices.\n(21)\nIn response to the above claim, the Commission found that the average sales prices of the Union industry\u2019s sample were in the same range as the average sales prices in the publicly available statistics. In any event, and as explained in recital 125, the investigation has shown that even taking into consideration publicly available prices for those countries, the final findings would not change in any meaningful way.\n(22)\nA number of parties made comments concerning the methodology used to select the Union industry sample as compared to the selection of the sample of Chinese exporters, which was solely based on export volume.\n(23)\nAs to the different methodologies used for selecting a sample of Union producers on the one hand and Chinese exporting producers on the other hand, it should be noted that the methodologies were used according to the objectives of the sampling exercise. Concerning the Union industry, the Commission had to assess the situation of the whole industry and therefore the criteria that would ensure the most representative picture of the entire sector were chosen. As far as the Chinese exporters are concerned, it was considered appropriate to choose a sample based on the largest volume of exports of the product concerned and thus the largest exporters were sampled. It is also noted that there is no obligation in Article 17 of the basic Regulation for both samples to be selected on the basis of the same criteria. Furthermore, in this case, before finalising the sample of Chinese exporting producers, the cooperating parties in China as well as the Chinese authorities were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed sample. Comments were received with regard to the composition of the sample but not with regard to its representativity.\n(24)\nFollowing the final disclosure, an importers\u2019 association claimed that Article 17 of the basic Regulation implied that samples of Union producers and of exporting producers should be made on the basis of the same criteria. Several Chinese parties continued to claim following final disclosure that there was discrimination between the treatment of Chinese exporting producers and Union producers in choosing the respective samples.\n(25)\nIn response to the claim following the final disclosure that the same criteria should be applied in the selection of the samples of Union producers and exporting producers, for the reasons outlined in recital 23, it is considered that these samples may be made on the basis of different criteria. In these circumstances, this claim is rejected.\n(26)\nWith regard to the fact that, as mentioned in recital 23, no comments were received in relation to the representativity of the sample, these parties claimed that, at the time of selecting the samples, the Chinese parties were not informed that different selection criteria were being used for the selection of the samples and so could not comment on this fact.\n(27)\nConcerning the fact that the Chinese parties were not informed of the different criteria used in selecting the samples, it is standard practice, in line with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, to consult parties on the composition of proposed samples for their own category, e.g. exporting producers will only be consulted on the proposed sample of exporting producers. In these circumstances, these parties\u2019 claim regarding the inability to comment on the different selection criteria for the different samples at the time of selection of the samples is disregarded.\n(28)\nFollowing final disclosure, one interested party claimed that by taking the different segments into account for the selection of the sample, the Commission breached Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation that lays down that the analysis should be made in relation to the Union industry as a whole and not to certain groups or types of companies.\n(29)\nThe claim that the division of the sample in three segments is in breach of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation cannot be upheld. As can be derived from recital 23, the sample selected represented the whole Union industry and not only a specific group of companies, as alleged by the party concerned. Furthermore, Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation specifically allows for the selection of a sample in order to determine injury. This claim was therefore unfounded and rejected.\n(30)\nFollowing final disclosure, the same interested party challenged the fact that the geographical spread had been taken into account for the selection of the sample, arguing that the Union is a single market and that Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation can only allow for a sample to be selected based on the largest representative volume.\n(31)\nAs for the claim on the use of the criterion of geographical spread, it is observed that this is a fragmented industry and in order to assess representativeness of the selected companies, the producers\u2019 geographical spread amongst Member States is used to reflect the different situations that can be encountered in the Union. The sample covers Member States where approximately 90 % of the Union production is manufactured; after the withdrawal of the Polish company, this level remained high at approximately 80 %. Thus, the methodology applied by the Commission ensured that the sample was representative of the Union production as a whole and complied with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, the claim was rejected.\n(32)\nFollowing final disclosure, one interested party claimed that only small and medium-sized companies were selected in the sample of Union producers which allegedly had higher costs and prices than the large Chinese companies.\n(33)\nThis argument was not supported by any evidence. It is noted that the sample included companies from all segments. Furthermore, other factors beyond the size of the company may have an impact on costs, such as raw material costs, depreciation or capacity utilisation.\n4. Rights of parties\n4.1. Confidentiality of the name of the complainants and companies supporting the complaint\n(34)\nOne interested party claimed that the lack of information regarding the identity of the complainant did not allow interested parties to exercise their rights of defence fully. It was also argued that since some producers had not requested to have their name withheld, the request for anonymity was not justified.\n(35)\nOne party reiterated its claim that there had not been grounds to allow for confidentiality as concerned the names of most of the complaining producers as well as supporters of the complaint. In particular it was claimed that no evidence in support of the confidentiality requests had been included in the file open for inspection by interested parties. It was further claimed that not knowing the identity of the sampled companies meant that other interested parties were unable to comment on the correctness of the assessment of the micro indicators.\n(36)\nIn response to the final disclosure, the same party questioned whether all related companies of the sampled producers had submitted a questionnaire response.\n(37)\nIt is recalled that Article 19 of the basic Regulation allows for the protection of confidential information in circumstances where disclosure would be of significant competitive advantage to a competitor or would have a significantly adverse effect upon a person supplying the information or upon a person from whom that person has acquired the information. A vast majority of the complainants wanted their identity to remain confidential and provided sufficient evidence showing that there indeed was a significant possibility of retaliation, inter alia, in the form of lost sales for these producers should their names be disclosed. The request of these companies was consequently accepted by the Commission services.\n(38)\nRegarding the claim that some producers had not requested the confidential treatment of their name, it should be noted that this fact does not prejudge the right of other companies to ask for this treatment when sufficient reasons are shown. The assessment for such requests was done on a case-by-case basis and therefore the claim is rejected.\n(39)\nAs to whether all related companies of the sampled Union producers had submitted a questionnaire reply, it should be noted that as a matter of principle the lack of response from a related Union producer as such would not necessarily prevent the Commission from reaching reliable conclusions on injury provided that the questionnaire responses that are submitted can be verified. This would be the case in particular where the related companies are separate legal entities with separate accounting.\n5. Scope of investigation. Inclusion of imports from Turkey\n(40)\nOne party representing the interests of exporting producers claimed that imports of the product concerned from Turkey should have been included in the scope of this investigation.\n(41)\nConcerning the non-inclusion in the complaint of imports originating in Turkey, it should be noted that at initiation stage, there was no evidence of dumping, injury and causal link from this country to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding on such imports. The claim that Turkey should have been included in the scope of the investigation is therefore rejected.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND THE LIKE PRODUCT\n(42)\nFollowing the imposition of the provisional measures, one interested party indicated that there had been changes in the CN codes covering the product concerned contained in the Regulation imposing provisional measures as compared to those of the notice of initiation and enquired concerning the reasons for these differences and whether they entailed a change in product scope.\n(43)\nIn this context it is underlined that the differences between the CN codes indicated in the Regulation imposing provisional measures and those mentioned in the notice of initiation are not linked to a change of the product definition or the scope of the investigation. The amendments do not change the types of tiles covered but relate simply to the need to take account of the general changes to the Combined Nomenclature, as provided for by Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010, which became applicable on 1 January 2011 (5).\n(44)\nAn interested party asked that certain ceramic mosaics be excluded from the product scope. The party alleged that, should measures be imposed, this category of product concerned would lose competitiveness against other products with which it is substitutable and that, in any event, dumping is not taking place in this particular segment.\n(45)\nConcerning this claim, the investigation revealed that since ceramic mosaics and other types of ceramic tiles have the same basic physical and technical characteristics, a revision of the product scope is not warranted. As for the absence of dumping in this segment, which was not supported by any evidence, the analysis of dumping and injury has to mirror the situation for the entire product concerned. In these circumstances, this claim is rejected.\n(46)\nIn view of the above and in the absence of any further comments regarding the product concerned and the like product, recitals 25 to 32 of the Regulation imposing provisional measures are hereby confirmed.\nC. DUMPING\n1. Market Economy Treatment (MET)\n(47)\nIn the absence of any further comments or findings regarding Market Economy Treatment, the conclusions set out in recitals 33 to 40 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Individual Treatment (\u2018IT\u2019)\n(48)\nNo comments were received with regards to the decision on granting or denying IT to individual companies.\n(49)\nHowever, two importers questioned the validity as a whole of the Commission\u2019s IT analysis, claiming that the Union annually distributes subsidies by way of the Structural Funds scheme.\n(50)\nIn this regard, it is noted that Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation sets out the conditions to be met in order to benefit from IT status. The alleged existence of subsidisation in the Union is irrelevant for the purposes of that examination. Therefore, this claim is rejected and the conclusions as set out in recitals 41 to 44 of the provisional Regulation are maintained.\n3. Individual Examination (\u2018IE\u2019)\n(51)\nClaims for IE were submitted by eight cooperating exporting producers pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. It was decided to carry out IE for one exporting producer, Kito Group, as it was not unduly burdensome to do so. This group represented by far the largest export volume of the eight producers claiming IE.\n(52)\nThis group claimed IT. After examination of this claim, it was initially proposed to grant IT to the Kito Group as no reasons were found as to why this group should not have IT.\n(53)\nFollowing final disclosure, the complainant argued that Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation did not appear to allow for a limited number of requests for IE to be made in situations where numerous requests had been received. The complainant claimed that this view was supported by numerous previous anti-dumping investigations. In this regard, it is noted that the benchmark in Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation for examining requests for IE is whether these examinations would be unduly burdensome and would prevent the completion of the investigation in good time. In the investigation at hand and as mentioned in recital 51, to examine one of the eight claims for IE was not unduly burdensome. Concerning previous investigations where claims for IE were addressed, it is noted that the extent of the burdensome nature of such requests and the need for the timely completion of an investigation must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In light of the above, the complainant\u2019s claims are rejected.\n(54)\nFollowing final disclosure, information and evidence were received that the Kito Group may not have disclosed all related companies of the group with the result that the findings for the group may be incomplete. The group was given the opportunity to comment on this information and was informed that Article 18 of the basic Regulation may have to be applied. In reply, they confirmed that indeed they did not disclose two related companies in their reply to the anti-dumping questionnaire but argued that, as it was a mere oversight without consequence since they were not involved in the production and/or commercialisation of the product concerned, it should have no bearing on the findings. However, the fact that the existence of these two companies was not disclosed did not allow a proper assessment and verification of the group\u2019s activities in relation to the product concerned. In these circumstances, it is concluded that the group did not provide the necessary information within the appropriate time limits and consequently the findings for the company are made on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.\n4. Normal value\n4.1. Choice of the analogue country\n(55)\nTwo importers submitted comments against the choice of the United States of America (\u2018USA\u2019) as analogue country, claiming that the USA is inappropriate as analogue country due to its insignificant own production, and its lack of competitiveness in the world market. They further claimed that the USA was selected in an unreasonable manner, claiming that the lack of alternative analogue countries was caused by undue pressure by the Union producers\u2019 association on producers from other possible analogue countries in order to discourage their possible cooperation. Two importers argued that information from a number of possible cooperating countries was disregarded by the Commission and that publicly available data from national or transnational associations of producers in third countries was not considered.\n(56)\nTo take the last argument first, it is recalled that company-specific information is required in order to carry out the investigation of the level of dumping. Therefore this argument was rejected.\n(57)\nRegarding the allegations of undue pressure by the Union producers\u2019 association in order to discourage cooperation, it is noted that no evidence was provided. Therefore these comments had to be disregarded.\n(58)\nThese importers further claimed that the annual production volume of ceramic tiles in the USA was approximately 60 million m2 per year, and not 600 million m2 as stated in recital 51 of the provisional Regulation. This was verified and found to be correct.\n(59)\nWith regard to the suitability of the USA as analogue country in light of the significantly lower level of production, it should be emphasised that the US market is highly competitive - there are several local production companies and import quantities are significant. Furthermore, as mentioned in recital 52 of the provisional Regulation, there is no evidence of any non-tariff barriers that would be a substantial hindrance to competition on the market. In these circumstances, despite the lower production volume, the overall conclusion that the USA is an appropriate analogue country remains unchanged.\n(60)\nTwo importers argued that unit sales prices of US produced tiles in the US domestic market were much higher than in the Union market and, when compared to export prices, give rise to the existence of dumping practices. This argument was found to be irrelevant for the purpose of this proceeding, since any such allegations, assuming that there would be prima facie evidence for them, could only be thoroughly examined in a separate anti-dumping proceeding relating to the USA. It was therefore disregarded.\n(61)\nThese importers further claimed that the US cooperating producer was owned by, or affiliated with, Union producers, and thus the investigation was flawed as data obtained were not independent.\n(62)\nIt is recalled that the data submitted by the US cooperating producer was verified on spot. Therefore this claim was found to be irrelevant and was disregarded.\n(63)\nThese importers further claimed that US export volumes were limited. This argument was considered to be irrelevant to the selection of the analogue country, since the analogue country data are used to determine normal value and not export prices. It was therefore rejected.\n(64)\nFinally these same importers claimed that maintaining confidentiality over the identity, volume, value and quality of the output of the cooperating analogue producer was not justified. It is recalled that the cooperating analogue producer had requested confidentiality for fear of commercial retaliation, and this request was found to be justified. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that furnishing any of the data which the importers request, even in ranges, could lead to the identification of the analogue country producer. Therefore the importers\u2019 claim was disregarded.\n(65)\nFollowing final disclosure, the abovementioned two importers repeated a number of their abovementioned claims without, however, providing any further substantiated evidence. In these circumstances, their claims remain rejected.\n(66)\nFurthermore, these two importers also claimed that, as the cooperating US producer is allegedly controlled by a Union producer, the choice of this US company as a suitable analogue country producer is flawed. In particular, they claimed that the US company is not economically independent and so cannot serve as a benchmark for dumping. The importers cite the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation as justification for this claim. In reply to this claim, it must first of all be stated that, as mentioned in recital 23 of the provisional Regulation and in recital 69 below, the cooperating US producer has requested anonymity and this request has been granted. In these circumstances, whether a relationship exists between the US company and a Union producer cannot be confirmed or denied. However, it is noted that the abovementioned provisions of the basic Regulation concern how to treat the sales prices of a company under investigation when it sells to a related party. These provisions do not concern the matter of a possible relationship between an analogue country producer and a Union producer. In these circumstances, the claim is rejected.\n(67)\nFollowing final disclosure, an importers\u2019 association made numerous claims. Firstly, they claimed that the allegedly low volume of sales of US producers on their domestic market compared to Chinese exports to the Union rendered the USA an unsuitable analogue country market. In this regard, in examining possible analogue countries, the level of competition in those countries is, inter alia, one of the elements examined. To have similar levels of domestic sales of the domestic industry and imports from the country under investigation is not a precondition for deeming a country to be a suitable analogue country. As regards these claims, for this investigation, and as stated in recital 59, the US market was found to be sufficiently competitive to be a suitable choice. In these circumstances, this claim is rejected.\n(68)\nThe importers\u2019 association also claimed that it did not consider that the fact that imports into the US market are significant was relevant to choosing the USA as analogue country. As regards this claim, it should be noted that the level of imports is indeed one of the important factors examined when selecting a suitable analogue country. The combination of domestic production and high volumes of imports contribute to a competitive market as mentioned in recital 59. In these circumstances, this claim is rejected.\n(69)\nThe importers\u2019 association also asked what evidence had been provided by the cooperating analogue country producer to prove the risk of commercial retaliation as mentioned in recital 64. In this regard, the US company pointed out that there are numerous Chinese exporting producers of ceramic tiles on the US market with which the US company competes for the same customers. In these circumstances, the US company stated that it feared commercial retaliation if its identity were to be revealed. Regarding the evidence provided to prove the risk of retaliation, it should be noted that the possible risk arising from the fact that the US company as well as the Chinese exporting producers active on the US market are competing for the same customers was found to be plausible. In these circumstances, the company\u2019s request for anonymity was accepted.\n(70)\nThe association also claimed that, as the average domestic sales price in the USA of the domestically produced ceramic tiles was allegedly several times higher than the price of Union imports from China, the US product is not a \u2018like product\u2019 to the imported product from China. In this regard, the fact that these two prices differ is not a reason to consider that the US product is not alike to the product concerned. As stated in recital 32 of the provisional Regulation, it was found that the product concerned and, inter alia, the product produced and sold on the domestic market of the USA have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses. In these circumstances they are considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. The association\u2019s claim is therefore rejected.\n(71)\nFinally, the association asked why the Union was not considered as an appropriate analogue country in the absence of cooperation from third countries other than the USA. In this regard, given that the USA has been found to be a suitable analogue country, as mentioned in recital 59, the need to examine possible other suitable markets did not arise. Therefore, the association\u2019s claim is rejected.\n(72)\nIn the absence of further comments, it is confirmed that the choice of the USA as analogue country was appropriate and reasonable in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, and recitals 45 to 54 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4.2. Determination of normal value\n(73)\nTwo importers argued that without information regarding the US producer\u2019s output in terms of volume, interested parties could not verify whether due to economies of scale, there could be significant difference in the production costs of the US producer compared to the sampled Chinese producers which produced annually more than 10 million m2 of ceramic tiles. These importers further claimed that the production volumes of the analogue producer and of the Chinese producers were not comparable, given the lower production volume of the analogue producer or in the analogue country. It is recalled that the production volume of the cooperating analogue producer is confidential and cannot therefore be disclosed. It is also recalled that the Chinese industry is highly fragmented and mostly composed of SMEs. Therefore, these arguments were found to be unsubstantiated.\n(74)\nThese importers pointed out that since the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation required that normal value be based on the prices of \u2018other sellers or producers\u2019, establishing normal value on the basis of one single company\u2019s data was flawed.\n(75)\nIn this regard, it is recalled that this proceeding concerns imports from a non-market economy country where the normal value needs to be established in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. Thus, this claim was rejected.\n(76)\nFollowing final disclosure, an importers\u2019 association stated that it considered that normal value in an analogue country could not be based on data provided by one company. However, for the reasons set out in recital 75, this claim is rejected.\n(77)\nFinally, these importers claimed that the analogue producer\u2019s product lacked representativeness since it exclusively served the high-priced segment. Because the request for confidentiality of the analogue producer was granted, this allegation is neither confirmed nor denied. In any case, even if the allegation was correct, as explained in recital 61 of the provisional Regulation, adjustments were made where warranted to the constructed normal value in order to take into account all types of tiles, including resale branding. Therefore this claim was found not to be warranted and was therefore rejected.\n4.3. Export price\n(78)\nFollowing final disclosure, one exporting producer claimed that sales of certain types of ceramic tiles to the Union in the IP had been misclassified by the Commission services and that the company\u2019s dumping margin should be corrected accordingly. In this regard, it was determined during the verification visit at the company\u2019s premises that the company had wrongly classified certain ceramic tiles and the company was informed thereof. These were then correctly reclassified for the purposes of making an accurate dumping calculation. In these circumstances, the company\u2019s claim is rejected.\n(79)\nFollowing final disclosure, the same exporting producer claimed that certain export sales transactions to the Union in the IP had been disregarded in calculating the company\u2019s dumping margin. In this regard, it was found that these transactions had been disregarded as the invoice dates fell after the end of the IP. In these circumstances, the company\u2019s claim is rejected.\n(80)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to export prices, recital 59 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n4.4. Comparison\n(81)\nComments were made concerning the comparison between the normal value and the export price.\n(82)\nOne exporting producer claimed that for the calculation of its CIF value, the fact that export sales were made through unrelated traders should be taken into account. This claim was found to be warranted and subsequently the CIF values for this exporter were recalculated. Following final disclosure, the complainant claimed that this recalculation of export prices should not have been made as the information provided by the unrelated traders was not reliable given that allegedly only some of the traders through which the exporting producer sold had provided information. In this regard it was found that all unrelated traders through which the exporting producer sold had provided price information. In these circumstances, the claim is rejected.\n(83)\nAnother exporting producer claimed that the cost of insurance had not been correctly taken into account when calculating its CIF value. This claim was found to be warranted and the CIF values of this exporter were corrected accordingly.\n(84)\nOne group of exporting companies claimed that the cost of insurance included in their CIF values was wrongly calculated. This claim was found to be warranted and the CIF values were thus recalculated. In addition, it was found that for one of the companies of the group the handling cost had not been taken into account when establishing the ex-works value. This was also corrected.\n(85)\nTwo importers claimed that the calculation of the export prices should have taken into account the USD exchange rate developments during the IP. It is however recalled that, in accordance with the Commission\u2019s standard practice, monthly exchange rates were used for currency conversions during the IP. Thus exchange rate developments during the IP were indeed taken into account.\n(86)\nFollowing final disclosure, one exporting producer claimed that, as normal value was based on data from one producer in the analogue country and consequently precise data could not be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality, it was imperative to ensure that adjustments were made where appropriate to ensure product comparability for the purposes of the dumping calculations. In this regard, as mentioned in recital 61 of the provisional Regulation, adjustments were made where necessary to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and export price.\n(87)\nFollowing final disclosure, two importers claimed that the cooperating US producer exclusively serves the high-priced ceramic tiles sector while the Chinese exporting producers serve the low-priced segment. In terms of ensuring a fair comparison between normal value and export price, these importers claimed that the necessary adjustments pursuant to Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation were not disclosed to them. In this regard, it is noted that recital 61 of the provisional Regulation explains the adjustments that were made to ensure a fair comparison.\n4.5. Dumping margins for cooperating sampled exporters\n(88)\nThe definitive dumping margins for the cooperating sampled producers, taking into account all the above comments, and expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:\nCompany/group name\nDefinitive dumping margin\nShandong Yadi Co. Ltd\n36,5 %\nXinruncheng Group\n29,3 %\nWonderful Group\n26,3 %\nHeyuan Becarry Co. Ltd\n67,7 %\n4.6. Dumping margins for all other cooperating exporting producers\n(89)\nAs a result of the changes in the calculation of the dumping margins as mentioned in recital 88, the weighted average dumping margin of the sample, which is based on the dumping margins of the four sampled cooperating exporting producers, is 30,6 %. In this context, it is noted that for Heyuan Becarry Co. Ltd, which was granted neither MET nor IT, a dumping margin was calculated in the manner described in recital 88 of the provisional Regulation. In accordance with the first sentence of Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation, this dumping margin was used for calculating the weighted average dumping margin of the parties in the sample, applied to cooperating exporters not chosen in the sample. Furthermore, since Heyuan Becarry Co. Ltd was not granted MET and it was found that its export sales decisions were subject to significant state interference, the duty to be applied to imports from Heyuan Becarry Co. Ltd should be the same as that applicable to imports from cooperating exporters not chosen in the sample.\n(90)\nWith regard to the method of calculation of the dumping margin for Heyuan Becarry Co. Ltd, which, as previously stated, was a cooperating exporting producer included in the sample but was not granted IT, as referred to in recital 65 of the provisional Regulation, the reference in that recital to recital 64 of the provisional Regulation should be to recital 62 instead.\n4.7. Dumping margin for company claiming individual examination\n(91)\nFor the company mentioned in recitals 51 to 54 that was individually examined, in view of the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the countrywide dumping margin will apply.\n4.8. Dumping margins for all other non-cooperating exporting producers\n(92)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the calculation of the dumping margin for all other exporting producers, recitals 66 to 67 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(93)\nTaking into account the comments expressed in recitals 81 to 85, the country-wide margin of dumping is established at 69,7 %.\n4.9. Submissions concerning the list of cooperating exporters\n(94)\nA number of allegations received suggested that 13 of the exporting producers benefiting from the weighted average provisional duty under the provisional Regulation, included in the Annex thereto, were only traders and not producers, and consequently should not have been included in the Annex.\n(95)\nAfter further examination, it was found that these allegations were correct in the case of five companies. These companies were informed of the intention to remove them from the relevant Annex and were given the opportunity to comment. Three of these companies did not submit further comments, while two companies made further claims on this matter. These further claims did not contain sufficient evidence to show that these companies were in fact exporting producers of the product concerned and so were rejected. These five companies were accordingly removed from the list of companies benefiting from the weighted average definitive duty.\n4.10. Post-IP events\n(96)\nSince disclosure of the provisional findings, the relationship between a group of two cooperating exporting producers has allegedly been severed due to changes in the shareholding structure. As a result, one of these companies requested an individual duty independent from that of the other company.\n(97)\nFrom the information provided, it appears that the links between these two companies were severed after the IP. The impact of this alleged split in the group structure as well as the request by one of the companies to have an individual duty rate established would need to be reviewed in detail. In this regard, should one or both of these companies request a review of their situation following this alleged split, this can be considered in due time in line with the basic Regulation. In these circumstances, the company\u2019s claim to have an individual duty established in this investigation is rejected.\n(98)\nFollowing final disclosure, the complainant claimed that one of the related exporting producers, referred to in recital 97, should have a separate duty calculated for it on the grounds that there was evidence that it was dumping at a higher level than the other exporting producer. In this regard, it should be noted that for exporting producers that are related during the IP of an investigation not to calculate one weighted average dumping margin and duty for them would leave scope for circumvention of duties by the exporting producer subject to the higher duty. As the two exporting producers concerned in this investigation were found to be related during the IP, there are no grounds for the establishment of separate duties for each of them. As stated in recital 97, should one or both of these companies request a review of their situation following their alleged split, this can be considered in line with the basic Regulation. In these circumstances, the complainant\u2019s claim is rejected.\nD. INJURY\n1. The Union production and the Union industry\n(99)\nIn the absence of any comments or new findings regarding the Union production and the Union industry, the conclusions in recitals 68 to 70 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n1.1. Union Consumption\n(100)\nIn the absence of any comments or findings regarding the Union consumption, the conclusions in recitals 71 and 72 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Imports from China\n(101)\nOne interested party questioned the analysis of the imports claiming that both the complaint and the provisional Regulation lacked data concerning the volume of imports, alleging that a measurement in m2 is a measurement of area and not of volume.\n(102)\nAnother interested party claimed that the developments in price and volume of imports from China simply showed normal trade fluctuations and could therefore not be an indication of the Chinese exporters\u2019 behaviour in terms of dumping.\n(103)\nAfter final disclosure, one party questioned the reliability of the Eurostat statistics claiming that actual Chinese import prices are higher and therefore comparable to import prices from other third countries. In addition, it was claimed that this would have an effect of the dumping margins found.\n(104)\nAnother interested party claimed that their own analysis of the Eurostat statistics in terms of market share and import price were slightly different to those of the provisional Regulation and that these findings should be amended accordingly.\n(105)\nAnother interested party claimed that the Commission services had failed to take into account the increase in the prices of Chinese imports that occurred post-IP, in 2010.\n(106)\nRegarding the claim on the unit of measure used to determine import volumes, the term \u2018volume\u2019 of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation refers to \u2018quantity\u2019, rather than \u2018cubic volume\u2019. For each product, the most representative unit of measure should be used. As to the product concerned, operators in the world market consistently use square metres (m2). Therefore, this unit has been considered as the most appropriate for the purpose of this investigation and the claim in this respect was rejected.\n(107)\nAs concerns the developments in price and volume of imports from China, it holds true that the variations are limited when considered in absolute terms. Chinese imports decreased by 3 % in the period considered. However, the conclusion as to the volume of Chinese imports had to be put in the context of an overall decrease in consumption in the Union market. The fact that the Chinese imports dropped by only 3 % in this period when the overall consumption fell by 29 % clearly had an impact on their presence in the Union market. Keeping imports stable thus allowed the Chinese imports to gain market share in a period where other operators lost out.\n(108)\nAs for the evolution of Chinese prices, the average import prices indicated in recital 73 of the provisional Regulation were based on Eurostat statistics. Questions have been raised as concerns the accuracy of the average import prices to certain Member States but no changes to official statistics have been confirmed. In any event, it is recalled that the Eurostat data was used only to establish the general trends and that even if the Chinese import prices were to be adjusted upwards, the injury picture as a whole would still remain the same with high margins for undercutting and underselling. In this context it should be noted that for the calculation of both injury and dumping margins Eurostat data was not used. Only verified data from visited companies have been used in order to determine the level of the margins. Therefore, even if the discrepancies to the statistics were to be found, this would not have any impact on the level of the margins disclosed.\n(109)\nAs concerns the claim that the Commission services failed to take into account Eurostat data from 2010, this argument cannot be upheld as the figure for the IP included the first quarter of 2010. As concerns the second to fourth quarters of 2010, it should be noted that these figures relate to the post-IP period which should not be taken into consideration. Furthermore, even if these were to be taken into account, the import statistics show that also import prices from third countries increased, indicating that this was a general trend and not specifically isolated to the Chinese imports.\n3. Price undercutting\n(110)\nIt is recalled that at the provisional stage, as outlined in recital 76 of the provisional Regulation, undercutting was defined as the weighted average sales prices of the Union producers to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, compared per product type to the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports from China to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a CIF basis, with appropriate adjustments for the existing customs duties, post-importation costs and level of trade.\n(111)\nOne party claimed that the calculations disclosed to the parties regarding the calculation of the export price did not correspond to the explanation given in recital 76 of the provisional Regulation. Upon verification, it is confirmed that there was a textual error in that recital. Indeed at provisional stage, the adjustment of the level of trade was made to the ex-works sales prices of the Union producers to unrelated customers on the Union market and no adjustment for post-importation costs was made in the calculation of the average export price. At the definitive stage, the CIF Union frontier prices of exporting producers of the country concerned were adjusted for the existing custom duties and for post-importation costs (costs incurred at Union port for importation, transportation and warehouse expenses which are incurred before the resale by importers), on the basis of the information provided by the cooperating unrelated importers.\n(112)\nAnother party held that when adjusted downwards to take into account the cost of distribution/marketing, the prices would be similar to those of the Chinese exports. However, the provisional calculation already included these adjustments. Consequently, this claim was unfounded and therefore rejected.\n(113)\nThe investigation revealed undercutting levels between 43,2 % and 55,7 %, which slightly differ from what was provisionally found (see recital 77 of the provisional Regulation). The reason for this change is the calculation of a new CIF value for the exporting producer mentioned in recitals 83 to 85 and the calculation of an individual CIF export price for the exporting producer Kito Group, mentioned in recital 51.\n4. Imports from third countries other than China\n(114)\nIn the absence of any comments or findings regarding the imports from third countries other than China the conclusions in recitals 78 to 80 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5. Situation of the Union industry\n5.1. Macroeconomic indicators\n5.1.1. Production, capacity and capacity utilisation\n(115)\nIn the absence of any comments or findings regarding production, capacity and capacity utilisation, the conclusions in recitals 84 to 85 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.1.2. Sales volumes and market share\n(116)\nIn the absence of any comments or findings regarding sales volumes and market share, the conclusions in recitals 86 to 87 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.1.3. Employment and productivity\n(117)\nIn the absence of any comments or findings regarding employment and productivity, the conclusions in recitals 88 to 89 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.1.4. Magnitude of dumping margin\n(118)\nThe dumping margins are specified in recitals 88 to 93. It is confirmed that all margins established are significantly above the de minimis level. Given the volumes and the prices of dumped imports, it is therefore confirmed that the impact of the actual margin of dumping cannot be considered negligible.\n5.2. Microeconomic indicators\n5.2.1. Stocks\n(119)\nOne party challenged the correctness of the data provided in recitals 93 to 95 of the provisional Regulation. The party claimed that the value of stocks as a percentage of production over the entire period under consideration was considerably lower than what was listed in Table 10 of the same Regulation. Those calculations were reviewed and it was found that only the percentage data for 2009 and IP were wrongly calculated, and that in those periods the percentage of stocks was indeed slightly higher than what previously indicated. A correct version of this calculation is contained in Table 1 of this Regulation.\n(120)\nThe same party alleged that if the Union industry was forced to increase its stock level up to 6 months of production, as stated in recital 94 of the provisional Regulation, that would represent a stock percentage of 50 % over the total production, rather than 59 % as shown in Table 10 of the provisional Regulation.\n(121)\nIn this respect it should be underlined that the analyses made in recitals 93 and 94 of the provisional Regulation were complementary but not identical. The first analysis showed the percentage of stocks of the sampled companies measured in square metres compared to the production of the sampled companies, also expressed in square metres (61 % for the IP). The second analysis, also for the sampled companies, showed the number of months of production stocked in relation to the 12 months of the year (50 % for the IP).\n(122)\nFurther analysis allowed the fine-tuning of the assessment of the evolution on the number of months of production being stocked. In this respect, in 2007 the sampled producers kept around 5 months of production (43 %) but the pressure of the dumped imports forced them to increase stocks to more than 7 months of production (corresponding to 61 % of total yearly production) during the IP. Table 1 expresses the stocks volumes also under the form of number of months over the yearly production.\n(123)\nTable 1\nStocks\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nStock (thousands m2)\n48 554\n50 871\n39 689\n41 887\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n105\n82\n86\nStocks as percentage of production\n43 %\n49 %\n56 %\n61 %\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n113\n130\n142\nNumber of months stocked compared to annual production\n5,2\n5,9\n6,7\n7,4\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n113\n130\n142\nPercentage of months stocked (base 12 months)\n43 %\n49 %\n56 %\n61 %\n(124)\nThe conclusion that the trend of stocks shows an injurious situation is therefore confirmed.\n5.2.2. Sales prices\n(125)\nOne interested party, as already mentioned in recital 20, challenged the findings in recitals 96 to 99 of the provisional Regulation regarding the Union industry\u2019s sales prices, claiming that the Commission did not include in its determination of the Union unit price producers in Poland and the Czech Republic and that the findings were not consistent with actual public data.\n(126)\nRegarding this claim, a simulation was made including the sales prices registered in Poland, which accounts for approximately 10 % of the total Union production. No simulation had been done for the Czech Republic, whose production amounts to less than 3 % of the total Union production. The simulation showed that, even taking into consideration Polish prices, the final findings do not change in any meaningful way. Finally, consistently with its methodology, the Commission calculated the Union industry sales prices after making the relevant adjustments to obtain the prices to the first independent customer, to ensure comparability with Chinese sales prices.\n(127)\nOne interested party held that the reasoning in recital 97 of the provisional Regulation explaining that the Union industry was forced to sell lower quantities and a larger variety was wrong as the Union industry in such case allegedly should have lost much more than a 2 % market share.\n(128)\nIt should be observed that the focussing on sales of lower batches does not necessarily entail the loss of a larger share of the market. Firstly, the Union industry has not been completely ousted from the market for larger, uniform batches of product, notwithstanding the fact that the pressure of low-priced Chinese imports is particularly strong in that sector. Secondly, the Union industry was able to maintain its presence on the whole market by means of a compression of its sales prices and the production of a costlier product-mix, which led to falling profitability as mentioned in recital 100 of the provisional Regulation. Therefore, the fact that the Union industry did not lose a larger portion of the market is explained by the choice to keep a presence on the market despite price pressure from China.\n5.2.3. Profitability, cash flow, return on investments and wages\n(129)\nOne party held that there are large differences in profitability between large and small companies. For this reason it was claimed that the average profit had to be considered as unrepresentative as the sample only contained data from one large company.\n(130)\nAnother party claimed that the large Union producers are in good financial condition. The same party argued that since there were no losses even when adding the small companies in the average profit margin of the Union industry as shown in recital 101 and Table 12 of the provisional Regulation, no overall injury could be demonstrated.\n(131)\nIt should be noted that in order to ensure the consistency of the findings with the representativeness of the sampling, all the injury indicators (including profit) have been weighted against the share of each segment in the total Union production. On the other hand, the representativeness of the large company of the situation of the larger segment is confirmed. Therefore, the overall indicators as obtained from the analysis of the sampled companies are representative of the situation of the whole Union industry and the abovementioned claim had to be rejected.\n(132)\nIn relation to the claim that the large companies suffered no injury, it should be noted that in accordance with Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation the analysis should be made in relation to the Union industry as a whole and not to certain groups or types of companies. As mentioned already in recital 130, the fact that no losses are made in the IP does not per se mean that no injury occurred.\n5.2.4. Cost of production\n(133)\nOne interested party challenged the conclusion that the cost of production of the Union industry had risen by 14 % as a consequence of the increase in stocks and change in product mix. According to this party, this conclusion would not hold true as stock levels as well as product mix are not part of the cost of production.\n(134)\nThis claim has to be rejected since high stock levels represent a considerable financial cost, which is included in the analysis of the cost of production. On the other hand, the repeated change in product mix entails additional production costs as the producer has to frequently revise the production process: this operation can be costly since it causes idle times and sub-optimal utilisation of the machineries.\n6. Conclusion on injury\n(135)\nOne interested party questioned the conclusion in recital 107 of the provisional Regulation that the decrease in consumption had a negative effect on the Union industry. According to this party, there could be no injury as a consequence of the decrease in consumption as the overall market share remained the same.\n(136)\nAs for the comment on the stability of the Union producers\u2019 market share despite falling consumption, it should be noted that market share is not the only relevant indicator of injury. The Union producers managed to keep their share in the Union market only to the detriment of profitability, which fell during the period under consideration. It cannot therefore be concluded that the stability of the Union producers\u2019 market share excludes the presence of injury.\n(137)\nConsidering the above, the conclusions on injury as set out in recitals 107 to 111 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\nE. CAUSATION\n(138)\nThe Commission received comments on the provisional findings concerning causation. Those comments were a repetition of comments already addressed in the provisional Regulation in recitals 128 to 132 concerning self-inflicted injury. No further evidence was submitted that would change the provisional conclusions. Therefore, the conclusions as set out in recitals 135 and 136 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n1. Impact of the imports from China\n(139)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, at provisional stage it was examined whether the dumped imports of the product concerned originating in China had caused material injury to the Union industry.\n(140)\nSome parties claimed that the decline in the Union industry\u2019s production and sales was a result of decreasing consumption. It was also held that the effects of Chinese imports must have been limited given that the Chinese market share only increased by 1,6 % out of which no more than 1 % could have related to the Union industry\u2019s market share.\n(141)\nIn this context it is recalled that the investigation revealed a coincidence in time between the increased market share of the Chinese imports and the decrease of the Union industry\u2019s profits and an increase of stock levels. Furthermore, it is not only an increased market share that has put pressure on the Union industry but even more so the pricing behaviour and the high undercutting levels of the Chinese exporting producers.\n(142)\nAs recalled in recital 113, the investigation revealed significant levels of price undercutting. It also showed that the Union industry and importers to a large extent were selling to the same customers which meant that the Union industry was in direct competition with the dumped imports for orders.\n(143)\nOverall this shows that it was the price pressure and not only the volumes of imports that caused the fall of the Union industry profitability figures and the deterioration of most injury indicators.\n2. Lack of competition between tiles produced in the Union and the dumped tiles imported from China\n(144)\nSeveral interested parties claimed that imports of ceramic tiles from China could not have caused injury to the Union industry as they are not comparable. In this context it was held that ceramic tiles from China cater the market for homogeneous products while the Union industry produces to order, in smaller batches. It was also held that the Chinese and the Union industry are not in competition due to the fact that the Chinese operate in the low to mid-end segment while the Union industry operates in the mid to high-end segment. The limited loss of market share by the Union industry was put forward as evidence in this respect.\n(145)\nWhile no substantive evidence has been supplied in support of the above claims, it was nevertheless carefully considered whether Chinese imports were indeed competing with the tiles produced in the Union.\n(146)\nIn this context it should be noted that the Commission made very detailed comparisons, distinguishing between hundreds of different types of tiles. In this case, the investigation showed a significant level of matching types between the Union industry and the exporters. This clearly shows that the Union industry and the Chinese imports are competing in terms of product types. It is also recalled that it has been established in the investigation that the Union industry and the exporting producers are in direct competition as they share the same client base.\n(147)\nIn respect of the claim that ceramic tiles from China cater the market for homogeneous products while the Union industry produces to order, in smaller batches, it is recalled - see recital 95 of the provisional Regulation - that it was exactly the pressure from the Chinese imports that forced the Union industry to move towards smaller batches of products with larger varieties in terms of colours and size. The Union industry still has a presence in all segments of the market and unlike what was claimed above, the pattern showing that the Union industry had to focus on specific product types must be seen as an indication that direct competition was at hand.\n(148)\nIn view of the above, the argument that the Chinese imports did not cause injury to the Union industry as they were not competing cannot be upheld.\n3. Effects of other factors\n3.1. Impact of imports from other third countries\n(149)\nSome parties maintained the argument that the impact of the Turkish imports had to be considered as significant. In terms of prices one party challenged the conclusion that the increase of 19 % of Turkish prices was substantial.\n(150)\nThis argument was discussed in recital 118 of the provisional Regulation and no new evidence was found which would invalidate the conclusion made at provisional stage. In this context it is confirmed that the increase of 19 % of the Turkish prices must be considered as substantial. It is furthermore recalled, as indicated in recital 41, that there was no evidence of dumped imports that caused injury to the Union industry from this country and therefore this argument cannot be upheld.\n3.2. Impact of decrease in consumption\n(151)\nOne interested party claimed that the decrease in consumption affected mainly Spain and Italy where allegedly injury was most present. Conversely, the main destination of the Chinese exports was the northern Member States that did not show a decrease in consumption and where Union producers were allegedly less injured. The same party also held that the Spanish ceramic tiles industry has recovered in 2010 which shows that there is no link between Chinese exports and the production and sales figures of the Union industry.\n(152)\nOne party claimed that the increase of stocks registered by the Union industry should be attributed to a fall in Union consumption, and not to the dumped Chinese imports.\n(153)\nThe claims that the northern European Member States were not affected by the decrease in consumption and that imports from China would have been directed only towards northern Europe, was not supported by any substantiated evidence. To the contrary, data from the sampled Chinese exporting producers shows that these sales are evenly spread across the Union. Furthermore, Spain and Italy collectively account for 28 % of these sales, only slightly below sales to Germany (32 %). On this basis, these claims were rejected.\n(154)\nWith regards to the claim that the increase of stocks registered by the Union industry should be attributed to a fall in Union consumption, the Commission recalls the reasoning contained in recital 108 of the provisional Regulation, i.e. that the pressure of Chinese imports was very strong especially in the sector of sales of big batches and that this had a clear impact on the Union producers\u2019 stocks. The growth of the stock ratio over the period considered cannot be explained only by the difficulty in selling the products, but also by the necessity to keep an extremely high variety of products available in the stocks. The conclusion on the injurious effect of Chinese imports on stocks is therefore confirmed.\n3.3. Impact of the economic crisis\n(155)\nSeveral interested parties maintained that the economic crisis was the real cause of the difficulties facing the Union industry. This was evidenced by the fact that the main deteriorations took place between 2008 and 2009, i.e. in the year that the crisis hit, while the trend was less sharp in the following period. It is also pointed out that the period considered included the high and low peaks of a cycle with the high point being characterised by the boom in the construction sector and the low point by the financial crisis and the decrease in exports due to the establishment of new production sites in third world countries.\n(156)\nAfter final disclosure, one interested party maintained that the deterioration of a number of injury indicators was due to the economic crisis rather than the dumped imports. According to this party, the effect of the recession was to increase the demand of large bulk of low priced products. As a result, the Union industry had to focus more into the production for large bulk orders, a segment where the Chinese were already operating, with an increase in stock level as a result. Furthermore, the recession allegedly caused inflation in the Union, comparatively higher than in China, causing the increase in costs of production of the Union producers which allegedly led the Union industry to sell at prices below costs of production.\n(157)\nAnother party claimed that the profit of the Union industry had gone up significantly in the last quarter of the IP and that this showed that the Union industry had recovered after the economic crisis. This party requested that profit for the IP should be given per quarter which would likely indicate a significantly higher profitability towards the end of the IP.\n(158)\nThe fact that the economic downturn did have an effect on the performance of the Union industry was already acknowledged in recital 120 of the Regulation imposing provisional measures. In this context it should be recalled that in order for causation to be established, the relevant legal standard stipulates that the dumped imports need to have caused material injury to the Union Industry. Dumped imports however need not have been the sole cause of injury.\n(159)\nFurthermore the investigation showed that the Chinese trend of increasing exports could continue despite the economic crisis. China was indeed the only actor in the market that was able to maintain its market share in the difficult economic situation.\n(160)\nAs for the structural change in the Union demand mentioned in recital 156, no evidence was brought forward in support of this claim. To the contrary, it is recalled that, as explained in recital 106 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation revealed that the Union industry had to change its product mix by supplying a larger variety of products in terms of types, colour and size and had to increase its stocks in order to react in a short time to very specific orders. This claim has therefore to be rejected.\n(161)\nConcerning the impact of inflation in the costs of production, it is observed that the inflation rate in the Union has not been on average higher than in China during the period under consideration and that it cannot therefore explain the difficulties of Union producers in selling at sustainable prices. Given the level of undercutting it can furthermore not be concluded that a downward pressure on Chinese import prices has been caused by the Union industry. On this basis, the claim brought forward by this party had to be rejected.\n(162)\nAs concerns the situation of the Union industry on the other hand, it is recalled that the provisional Regulation (recital 126) showed that the aggressive pricing behaviour by the Chinese exporters affected the Union industry profitability over the period under consideration already before the world economic downturn. This shows that even in the absence of the crisis, the pressure of low-priced imports from China was on its own sufficient to be able to cause material injury to the Union industry.\n(163)\nThis fact, if considered together with dumped prices, strengthens the conclusion that the causal link between Chinese exports and the Union industry\u2019s injury is not broken by the economic downturn.\n(164)\nConcerning the request that profit for the IP be given per quarter, this was not considered to be relevant in the current investigation because even if such a more pronounced improvement of the profit had occurred, it would have to be compared to the target profit of 3,9 %.\n3.4. Impact of the Union industry\u2019s failure to restructure\n(165)\nOne interested party claimed that injury to the Union producers should be attributed to their failure to restructure as the market contraction of 29 % had been met only with a 7 % capacity cut and a 16 % cut in employment.\n(166)\nIn this sector, the dismissal of production capacity is a difficult process, as the recuperation of the capacity in case of an eventual recovery of the market is extremely costly for the producers. The cut in employment seen in the period concerned was in the same order of magnitude as the decrease of the market. The trend for employment does not have to perfectly mirror the trend of the output, since not all jobs are directly linked to actual production. In conclusion, the fact that the dismissal of capacity and working force in the industry did not exactly match the contraction of the market does not point to a failure to restructure. Contrary to the claims and taking into account the structure of the industry, a 7 % capacity cut and a 16 % cut in employment must therefore be considered significant.\n3.5. Effect of the Union industry\u2019s performance on export markets\n(167)\nOne interested party claimed that it was the high prices and not the effect of the Chinese exports that had caused the decline in the Union industry export sales.\n(168)\nIn respect of this claim it is recalled that the Union industry export performance has recovered after the economic crisis. The claim that the export performance would have had a significantly detrimental effect on the results of the Union industry can therefore not be accepted.\n4. Conclusion on causation\n(169)\nNone of the arguments submitted by the interested parties demonstrates that the impact of factors other than dumped imports from China is such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury found. The conclusions on causation in the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n(170)\nIn view of parties\u2019 comments the Commission conducted further analysis of all arguments pertaining to the Union interest. All issues have been examined and the conclusions of the provisional Regulation confirmed.\n1. Interest of the Union industry\n(171)\nIn the absence of comments regarding the interest of the Union industry, the conclusions in recitals 137 to 141 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Interest of importers\n(172)\nOne party claimed that the imposition of measures threatened the economic existence of importers as they would be able to only partially pass over the extra costs of the duties to their customers.\n(173)\nFollowing final disclosure two parties opposed the conclusion that importers can easily switch from Chinese supplies to other sources of supply, in particular because qualities and prices were not comparable.\n(174)\nRegarding this claim, it is recalled that a large part of imports is not affected by duties as it is of non-Chinese origin. The characteristics of the product, being produced all over the world in comparable qualities, suggest that these products are interchangeable and that therefore a number of alternative sources are available, despite the allegations made. Even for importers that rely on Chinese imports, which the investigation found to be dumped and sold at prices which significantly undercut those of the products originating in the Union, the investigation found that importers can apply to their selling prices mark-ups in excess of 30 %. This, together with the fact that importers have been found to have realised profits of around 5 % and their possibility to pass on at least part of potential cost increases to their customers, suggests that they are in a position to cope with the impact of measures.\n(175)\nFurthermore, and as concluded in recital 144 of the provisional Regulation, the imposition of measures would not hamper Union importers from increasing their import shares of products from the other non-dumped sources available to them both in the Union and in other third countries.\n(176)\nOne importer alleged that for a certain product type, Chinese prices would currently be higher that those of the Union industry and that measures would therefore not allow to export this specific type in the future.\n(177)\nThis claim was not supported by any evidence. Furthermore, according to the information available, this product type only represented a minor proportion of the market and would not affect significantly the supply situation in the Union market. The claim was therefore rejected.\n3. Interest of users\n(178)\nSome interested parties claimed that the impact on users would be significant. In particular it was held that even the minimum price increase of 32,3 % will prevent customers\u2019 quality purchases. It was also held that while it may be true that the impact on large diversified Do-It-Yourself shops might be limited, small specialist shops would be significantly affected.\n(179)\nAs for the impact on final users, the Commission confirms what was provisionally concluded in the Commission Regulation imposing provisional duties, under recitals 152 and 153, i.e. that the price effect will be limited.\n(180)\nThe construction sector, one of the larger customers of ceramic tiles\u2019 producers, decided not to cooperate in the investigation. After the imposition of provisional measures, the European Construction Industry Federation - FIEC - was again invited to provide statistics showing to what extent, if any, it would be affected by the imposition of measures. FIEC confirmed that, although there is no information directly available, the cost impact of the measures on their overall business is very low. They also explained that the low interest by their members should be seen as supporting the Commission proposal.\n(181)\nFinally, regarding small specialist shops, the Commission could not obtain any conclusive data that would confirm the magnitude and the extent of impact of anti-dumping measure. Parallel to what happens to importers, it should be remembered that ceramic tiles are produced in the Union and in many non-dumping third countries; therefore a serious risk of shortage of supply for retail shops can be excluded.\n4. Interest of final consumers\n(182)\nEfforts were directed towards obtaining a more detailed impact assessment from consumers. The investigation showed that the impact is likely to be limited.\n(183)\nFirst of all, the absolute value of the measures is calculated on the import price, therefore on a basis which is much lower than the final retail price of the product concerned. This value can be diluted in the various steps (importers, wholesalers and retailers) before reaching the final customer. And even if the importers and resellers would transfer the whole burden of the duty to the customers, it is recalled that there is a large offer of products in the market not subject to measures, produced both by Union producers and third countries producers.\n(184)\nThe Commission calculated the impact of the anti-dumping duties on prices to consumers by assessing the amount of duties to be paid, according to the actual imports from China, and allocating this amount directly to the consumers, assuming that importers, wholesalers and retailers would pass all the additional cost on to final consumers. The cost impact so calculated is significantly lower than EUR 0,5 per m2. It is recalled that the provisional Regulation concluded that the average yearly average consumer consumption is around 2,2 m2 per person in the Union. Given the low impact of the duty per square metre, the cost increase will therefore probably be limited even if the consumer was to buy a considerable quantity of the product concerned for construction or renovation works.\n5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(185)\nThe effects of the imposition of measures can be expected to assist the Union industry, with consequent beneficial effects on the competitive conditions on the Union market and the reduction of the threat of closures and reductions in employment.\n(186)\nFurthermore, the imposition of the measures can be expected to have a limited impact on the users/importers, which would be able to source from a wide range of suppliers in the Union market and in other third countries.\n(187)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it cannot be concluded that the imposition of measures would go against the Union interest.\nG. DEFINITIVE MEASURES\n1. Injury elimination level\n1.1. Disclosure\n(188)\nTwo interested parties held that the Commission should have disclosed the underselling margin in the provisional Regulation and one of them claimed that failure to disclose this data meant that interested parties were not able to assess whether the lesser duty rule had been correctly applied.\n(189)\nIn response to the above, the provisional margins were as follows:\nCompany\nInjury margin\nGroup Wonderful\n52,6 %\nGroup Xinruncheng\n95,8 %\nShandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd\n72,1 %\nHeyuan Becarry Ceramic Co. Ltd\n73,9 %\nAll other cooperating producers\n66,0 %\nResidual\n95,8 %\n1.2. Injury margin\n(190)\nOne party claimed that the Commission used an inconsistent approach for the determination of injury and should have based its conclusions on weighted average data of the whole industry.\n(191)\nIn respect to this claim, it is noted that the findings on the injury elimination level are based on verified company specific data which was considered the most reliable basis in order to take into account all pertinent facts for comparison purposes. This claim had therefore to be rejected.\n(192)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, resulting injury, causation and Union interest, measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports from China.\n(193)\nFor the purpose of determining the level of these duties, account was taken of the dumping margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Union industry.\n(194)\nIt was therefore found appropriate to calculate the underselling margin on the basis of the prices identified from the data submitted by Union producers and Chinese exporters.\n(195)\nWhen calculating the amount of the anti-dumping duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that the duty should be so calculated to allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and achieve a reasonable profit. It was considered that this reasonable profit, before tax, shall be what was achieved by an industry of this type under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the Union. This profit has been assessed by reference to the profitability of 3,9 % that the Union industry achieved in 2007 as detailed in Table 12 in the provisional Regulation.\n(196)\nThe injury margins established are as follows:\nCompany\nInjury margin\nGroup Wonderful\n58,5 %\nGroup Xinruncheng\n82,3 %\nShandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd\n66,6 %\nHeyuan Becarry Ceramic Co. Ltd\n58,6 %\nAll other cooperating producers\n65,0 %\nResidual\n82,3 %\n(197)\nIt is noted that the injury margin for \u2018all other cooperating producers\u2019 was determined without using data from the Kito Group, since the Kito Group did not form part of the sample, and in order to be coherent with the way the dumping margin for \u2018all other cooperating producers\u2019 is calculated (see Article 9(6) first sentence of the basic Regulation). For the Kito Group, in view of the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation as mentioned in recital 54, the residual injury margin will apply.\n(198)\nIt is also noted that the underselling margins are higher than the margins of dumping established above in recitals 88 to 93 and therefore the dumping margin should serve as the basis to establish the level of the duty in accordance with the lesser-duty rule.\n(199)\nIn order to ensure equal treatment between any new exporting producers and the cooperating companies not included in the sample, mentioned in Annex I to this Regulation, provision should be made for the weighted average duty imposed on the latter companies to be applied to any new producers which would otherwise not be entitled to a review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, as Article 11(4) does not apply where sampling has been used.\n2. Custom declaration\n(200)\nStatistics of the product concerned are frequently expressed in square metres. However, there is no such supplementary unit for the product concerned specified in the Combined Nomenclature laid down in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (6). It is therefore necessary to provide that not only the weight in kg or tonnes but also the number of square metres of the product concerned for imports is entered in the declaration for release for free circulation.\n3. Definitive collection of provisional duty\n(201)\nIn view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation, be definitively collected.\n(202)\nWhere the definitive duties are higher than the provisional duties, only the amounts secured at the level of the provisional duties should be definitively collected, while the amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties should be released.\n4. Form of measures\n(203)\nOne interested party suggested that measures take the form of minimum import price (MIP) instead of ad valorem duties. However, an MIP is not suitable for the product concerned as it exists in a multitude of product types, for which prices vary significantly, thus posing a substantial risk of cross-compensation. In addition, it is expected that the product types will further evolve in design and finishing and the MIP would no longer provide the appropriate basis for the level of the duty. Therefore, the request to impose measures under the form of MIP is rejected.\n(204)\nAnother party requested that measures should take the form of import quotas. However, import quotas are neither in line with the basic Regulation nor with the internationally agreed rules. Therefore the request had to be rejected,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of glazed and unglazed ceramic flags and paving, hearth or wall tiles; glazed and unglazed ceramic mosaic cubes and the like, whether or not on a backing, currently falling within CN codes 6907 10 00, 6907 90 20, 6907 90 80, 6908 10 00, 6908 90 11, 6908 90 20, 6908 90 31, 6908 90 51, 6908 90 91, 6908 90 93 and 6908 90 99, and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nDuty\nTARIC Additional Code\nDongguan City Wonderful Ceramics Industrial Park Co., Ltd; Guangdong Jiamei Ceramics Co. Ltd; Qingyuan Gani Ceramics Co. Ltd; Foshan Gani Ceramics Co. Ltd\n26,3 %\nB011\nGuangdong Xinruncheng Ceramics Co. Ltd\n29,3 %\nB009\nShandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd\n36,5 %\nB010\nCompanies listed in Annex I\n30,6 %\nAll other companies\n69,7 %\nB999\n3. The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies referred to in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall comply with the requirements set out in Annex II. If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall apply.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nAmounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU) No 258/2011 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles currently falling within CN codes 6907 10 00, 6907 90 20, 6907 90 80, 6908 10 00, 6908 90 11, 6908 90 20, 6908 90 31, 6908 90 51, 6908 90 91, 6908 90 93 and 6908 90 99, and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of the amount of the definitive anti-dumping duties shall be released.\nArticle 3\nWhere any producer from the People\u2019s Republic of China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that it did not export the goods described in Article 1(1) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China during the period of investigation (1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010), that it is not related to an exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation and that it has either actually exported the goods concerned or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union after the end of the period of investigation, the Council, acting by simple majority on a proposal by the Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, may amend Article 1(2) in order to attribute to that producer the duty applicable to cooperating producers not in the sample, i.e. 30,6 %.\nArticle 4\nWhere a declaration for release for free circulation is presented in respect of the products referred to in Article 1, the number of square metres of the products imported shall be entered in the relevant field of that declaration.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2011.", "references": ["7", "91", "76", "94", "15", "11", "16", "8", "17", "72", "44", "57", "56", "61", "24", "93", "25", "54", "34", "82", "31", "98", "21", "73", "69", "38", "83", "10", "32", "35", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "87", "90", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "87", "90", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 November 2010\namending Decision 2004/4/EC authorising Member States temporarily to take emergency measures against the dissemination of Pseudomonas solanacearum (Smith) Smith as regards Egypt\n(notified under document C(2010) 8185)\n(2010/714/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 16(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Commission Decision 2004/4/EC (2), tubers of Solanum tuberosum L., originating in Egypt, must not in principle be introduced into the Union. In line with a possibility to derogate from that Decision, the entry of such tubers into the Union was permitted from \u2018pest-free areas\u2019 and subject to specific conditions in previous years, including the 2009/2010 import season.\n(2)\nDuring the 2009/2010 import season, only one interception of Pseudomonas solanacearum (Smith) Smith was recorded in the Union.\n(3)\nAs requested by Egypt, and in the light of the information provided by it, the Commission has established that the risk of spreading Pseudomonas solanacearum (Smith) Smith with the entry into the Union of tubers of Solanum tuberosum L. from \u2018pest-free areas\u2019 of Egypt has been sufficiently mitigated, provided that the specific conditions indicated in Decision 2004/4/EC are satisfied.\n(4)\nThe entry into the Union of tubers of Solanum tuberosum L., originating in \u2018pest-free areas\u2019 of Egypt, should therefore be permitted for the 2010/2011 import season.\n(5)\nDecision 2004/4/EC established that it had to be reviewed by 30 September 2010. In light of the above findings, the deadline for the review should be extended.\n(6)\nDecision 2004/4/EC should be therefore amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2004/4/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 2(1), \u20182009/2010\u2019 is replaced by \u20182010/2011\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 4, \u201831 August 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 August 2011\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 7, \u201830 September 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u201830 September 2011\u2019;\n4.\nthe Annex is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point 1(b)(iii), \u20182009/2010\u2019 is replaced by \u20182010/2011\u2019;\n(b)\nin the second indent of point 1(b)(iii), \u20181 January 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u20181 January 2011\u2019;\n(c)\nin point 1(b)(xii), \u20181 January 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u20181 January 2011\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 November 2010.", "references": ["2", "47", "88", "57", "38", "93", "29", "79", "18", "78", "70", "50", "77", "54", "32", "42", "53", "64", "99", "13", "6", "9", "12", "75", "56", "27", "49", "3", "4", "86", "No Label", "23", "61", "66", "68", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "61", "66", "68", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 16 July 2012\nextending the period of application of the appropriate measures in Decision 2011/492/EU concluding consultations with the Republic of Guinea-Bissau under Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and amending that Decision\n(2012/387/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1), as last amended in Ouagadougou on 22 June 2010 (2) (\u2018the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement\u2019), and in particular Article 96 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Council Decision 2011/492/EU (4), the consultations with the Republic of Guinea-Bissau under Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement were concluded and appropriate measures, as specified in the Annex to that Decision, were taken.\n(2)\nOn 12 April 2012, a coup d\u2019\u00e9tat by elements of the armed forces took place as campaigning for the second round of the Presidential elections were due to begin, following the death in January of President Bacai Sanh\u00e1.\n(3)\nThe essential elements cited in Article 9 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement continue to be violated and the current conditions in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau have significantly deteriorated and do not ensure respect for human rights, democratic principles or the rule of law.\n(4)\nDecision 2011/492/EU should therefore be amended to extend the period of application of the appropriate measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe period of validity of Decision 2011/492/EU is extended by 12 months. To that end, in the second paragraph of Article 3 of Decision 2011/492/EU, the date \u201819 July 2012\u2019 is replaced by \u201819 July 2013\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe letter in the Annex to this Decision shall be communicated to the authorities of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["21", "37", "55", "54", "84", "67", "61", "86", "8", "40", "43", "12", "30", "78", "49", "90", "89", "88", "80", "91", "57", "71", "10", "28", "23", "75", "99", "65", "63", "38", "No Label", "0", "4", "5", "9", "14", "36", "94"], "gold": ["0", "4", "5", "9", "14", "36", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 598/2010\nof 7 July 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 576/2010 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 July 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 July 2010 were fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 576/2010 (3).\n(2)\nAs the average of the import duties calculated differs by more than EUR 5/tonne from that fixed, a corresponding adjustment must be made to the import duties fixed by Regulation (EU) No 576/2010.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 576/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 576/2010 are hereby replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 8 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 July 2010.", "references": ["43", "44", "93", "94", "50", "29", "95", "77", "81", "12", "32", "24", "36", "35", "37", "19", "56", "98", "47", "65", "25", "42", "16", "90", "49", "27", "64", "97", "39", "26", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 742/2011\nof 27 July 2011\non the issue of licences for importing rice under the tariff quotas opened for the July 2011 subperiod by Regulation (EC) No 327/98\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 of 10 February 1998 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (3), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 327/98 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 IX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nJuly is the third subperiod for the quota laid down in Article 1(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98 and the second subperiod for the quotas laid down in Article 1(1)(b), (c) and (d).\n(3)\nThe notifications presented under Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98 show that, for the quotas with order numbers 09.4154 - 09.4166, the applications lodged in the first ten working days of July 2011 under Article 4(1) of the Regulation cover a quantity greater than that available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested under the quotas concerned.\n(4)\nIt is also clear from the notifications that, for the quotas with order numbers 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 2011 under Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98 cover a quantity less than that available.\n(5)\nThe total quantities available for the following subperiod should therefore be fixed for the quotas with order numbers 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 Regulation (EC) No 327/98.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. For import licence applications for rice under the quotas with order numbers 09.4154 - 09.4166 as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98 lodged in the first ten working days of July 2011, licences shall be issued for the quantities requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The total quantities available under the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4129 - 09.4130 - 09.4148 - 09.4112 - 09.4116 - 09.4117 - 09.4118 - 09.4119 - 09.4166 as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98 for the next subperiod are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2011.", "references": ["90", "44", "33", "72", "28", "46", "51", "47", "50", "54", "93", "82", "58", "91", "86", "71", "37", "25", "14", "19", "53", "75", "2", "83", "8", "12", "57", "15", "20", "11", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 9 February 2012\non the recognition of Uruguay pursuant to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers\n(notified under document C(2012) 619)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/76/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 19(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the request from Spain on 14 February 2006,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Directive 2008/106/EC Member States may decide to endorse seafarers\u2019 appropriate certificates issued by third countries, provided that the third country concerned is recognised by the Commission. Those third countries have to meet all the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW Convention) (2), as revised in 1995.\n(2)\nThe request for the recognition of Uruguay was submitted by Spain by letter of 14 February 2006. Following this request, the Commission assessed the training and certification system in Uruguay in order to verify whether Uruguay meets all the requirements of the STCW Convention and whether the appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. That assessment was based on the results of an inspection carried out by experts of the European Maritime Safety Agency in June 2007. During that inspection certain deficiencies in the training and certification systems were identified.\n(3)\nThe Commission provided the Member States with a report on the results of the assessment.\n(4)\nBy letters of 16 February 2009 and 8 December 2010, the Commission requested Uruguay to provide evidence demonstrating that the deficiencies identified had been corrected.\n(5)\nBy letters of 30 April 2009 and 18 March 2011, Uruguay provided the requested information and evidence concerning the implementation of appropriate and sufficient corrective action to address most of the deficiencies identified during the assessment of compliance.\n(6)\nTwo shortcomings remain. The first refers to the fact that the quality standards system does not cover some of the activities of the administration, such as the approval of training programmes. The other shortcoming relates to the format of certificates. Uruguay has therefore been invited to implement further corrective actions in this respect. However, these shortcomings do not warrant calling into question the overall level of compliance of Uruguay with STCW requirements on training and certification of seafarers.\n(7)\nThe outcome of the assessment of compliance and the evaluation of the information provided by Uruguay demonstrates that Uruguay complies with the relevant requirements of the STCW Convention, while this country has taken appropriate measures to prevent fraud involving certificates.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of Article 19 of Directive 2008/106/EC, Uruguay is recognised as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 February 2012.", "references": ["47", "77", "76", "10", "28", "96", "25", "23", "30", "51", "20", "60", "80", "37", "16", "15", "90", "43", "46", "78", "59", "53", "13", "61", "52", "55", "0", "58", "8", "3", "No Label", "49", "54", "56", "93"], "gold": ["49", "54", "56", "93"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 June 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms\n(2012/298/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 153(2), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nProtocol 31 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement to include Decision No 940/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2011 on the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations (2012) (3).\n(3)\nProtocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to take place from 1 January 2012.\n(4)\nThe position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["96", "23", "87", "64", "95", "98", "25", "60", "58", "14", "75", "31", "33", "48", "47", "29", "5", "24", "50", "30", "22", "85", "77", "89", "4", "43", "97", "7", "13", "34", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "36"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "36"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 409/2010\nof 11 May 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Casta\u00f1a de Galicia (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Casta\u00f1a de Galicia\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 May 2010.", "references": ["41", "49", "93", "26", "84", "10", "43", "6", "12", "59", "37", "54", "51", "67", "90", "36", "31", "19", "23", "89", "16", "78", "13", "92", "48", "75", "87", "28", "95", "77", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 839/2011\nof 22 August 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2010/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Article 64(2) and Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 9(3) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 (2) provides that if the remaining quantities of out of quota sugar or isoglucose of a producer are less than the quantities for which that producer applied for under that Regulation, the producer has to pay an amount of EUR 500/tonne on that difference.\n(2)\nIn case an allocation coefficient is fixed pursuant to Article 5(a) of Regulation (EU) No 222/2011, producers will inevitably obtain less then they applied for. In that case, it is appropriate to apply the rule laid down in Article 9(3) only to quantities for which certificates have been actually issued to such producers.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 222/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 9(3) of Regulation (EU) No 222/2011, the second sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018If the remaining quantities of out-of-quota sugar or isoglucose of a producer are less than the quantities for which certificates were issued to that producer under this Regulation, the producer shall pay an amount of EUR 500/tonne on that difference.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 August 2011.", "references": ["91", "99", "64", "38", "61", "86", "90", "44", "5", "9", "26", "32", "55", "8", "4", "11", "67", "33", "19", "95", "36", "52", "83", "46", "87", "3", "85", "18", "53", "15", "No Label", "62", "71", "75"], "gold": ["62", "71", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 11 February 2011\nauthorising a method for grading pig carcasses in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg\n(notified under document C(2011) 750)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(2011/95/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43, point (m), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPoint B.IV, paragraph 1, of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that, for the classification of pig carcasses, the lean-meat content has to be assessed by means grading methods authorised by the Commission, which methods may only be statistically proven assessment methods based on the physical measurement of one or more anatomical parts of the pig carcass. The authorisation of grading methods is subject to compliance with a maximum tolerance for statistical error in assessment. This tolerance is defined in Article 23(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/2008 of 10 December 2008 laying down detailed rules on the implementation of the Community scales for the classification of beef, pig and sheep carcasses and the reporting of prices thereof (2).\n(2)\nThe Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is of the opinion that the update of the national formula is absolutely necessary in order to take into account the breeding progress during the past 20 years. The last update of the lean meat equation of the grading instrument (HGP-2) dates back to 1989 and was authorised by Commission Decision 89/51/EEC (3).\n(3)\nThe Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has therefore asked the Commission to authorise one method for grading pig carcasses on its territory and has presented a detailed description of the dissection trial, indicating the principles on which this method is based, the results of its dissection trial and the equation used for assessing the percentage of lean meat in the protocol provided for in Article 23(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/2008.\n(4)\nExamination of this request has revealed that the conditions for authorising this grading method are fulfilled. This grading method should therefore be authorised in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.\n(5)\nNo modification of the apparatus or grading method may be authorised except by means of a new Commission Decision adopted in the light of experience gained. For this reason, the present authorisation may be revoked.\n(6)\nDecision 89/51/EEC should therefore be repealed. However, in view of technical circumstances while introducing new devices and new equation the method for grading pig carcasses authorised under Decision 89/51/EEC should continue to apply up to 28 February 2011.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe use of the following method is hereby authorised for grading pig carcasses pursuant to point B.IV, paragraph 1, of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg: the apparatus termed \u2018Hennessy Grading Probe (HGP 4)\u2019 and the assessment method related thereto, details of which are given in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nModifications of the apparatus or the assessment method shall not be authorised.\nArticle 3\nDecision 89/51/EEC is repealed.\nHowever, up to 28 February 2011, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg may continue to apply the method for grading pig carcasses authorised under Decision 89/51/EEC.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.\nDone at Brussels, 11 February 2011.", "references": ["90", "6", "42", "99", "89", "12", "37", "29", "93", "11", "60", "94", "82", "75", "51", "31", "87", "47", "27", "66", "76", "26", "64", "49", "80", "50", "63", "30", "86", "14", "No Label", "19", "69", "73", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["19", "69", "73", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 94/2012\nof 3 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2012.", "references": ["92", "1", "3", "6", "54", "88", "9", "81", "8", "23", "33", "59", "83", "63", "66", "44", "24", "42", "19", "67", "73", "4", "26", "18", "58", "93", "99", "43", "32", "96", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 774/2012\nof 24 August 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 764/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 August 2012.", "references": ["94", "53", "30", "23", "8", "82", "11", "67", "0", "1", "58", "95", "62", "5", "87", "83", "96", "12", "98", "29", "26", "69", "34", "60", "19", "84", "45", "14", "70", "91", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/239/CFSP\nof 12 April 2011\namending Decision 2010/232/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 April 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/232/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar (1).\n(2)\nIn view of the situation in Burma/Myanmar, in particular the electoral process in 2010 which was not judged to be compatible with internationally accepted standards and continuing concerns about the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country, the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2010/232/CFSP should be extended for a further period of 12 months.\n(3)\nThe lists of persons and enterprises subject to the restrictive measures, set out in Decision 2010/232/CFSP, should be amended in order to take account of changes in the Government, the security forces and the administration in Burma/Myanmar, as well as changes in the personal situation of the individuals concerned; the list of enterprises that are owned or controlled by the regime in Burma/Myanmar or by persons associated with the regime as well as the list of entities set out in Annex I to Decision 2010/232/CFSP should also be updated.\n(4)\nHowever, in order to encourage future progress in civilian governance and to strengthen democracy and respect for human rights, the restrictive measures should be suspended for 12 months for new members of the Government with no affiliation to the military or who are essential for dialogue with the international community to pursue the interests of the European Union.\n(5)\nIn addition, the suspension of high-level bilateral governmental visits to Burma/Myanmar should be lifted until 30 April 2012 with a view to encouraging dialogue with relevant parties in Burma/Myanmar.\n(6)\nThe Council will regularly re-examine the situation in Burma/Myanmar and evaluate any improvements which the authorities may have made towards respect for democratic values and human rights.\n(7)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/232/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\n1. The purchase, import or transport from Burma/Myanmar into the Union of the following products shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nround logs, timber and timber products;\n(b)\ngold, tin, iron, copper, tungsten, silver, coal, lead, manganese, nickel and zinc;\n(c)\nprecious and semi-precious stones, including diamonds, rubies, sapphires, jade and emeralds.\n2. The prohibition in paragraph 1 shall not apply to humanitarian aid projects and programmes or to non-humanitarian aid or development projects and programmes conducted in Burma/Myanmar in support of the objectives described in Article 8(2)(a), (b) and (c).\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8\n1. Non-humanitarian aid or development programmes shall be suspended.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to projects and programmes in support of:\n(a)\nhuman rights, democracy, good governance, conflict prevention and civil society capacity-building;\n(b)\nhealth and education, poverty alleviation and in particular the provision of basic needs and livelihoods for the poorest and most vulnerable populations;\n(c)\nenvironmental protection and, in particular, programmes addressing the problem of non-sustainable, excessive logging resulting in deforestation.\nProjects and programmes should, as far as possible, be defined and evaluated in consultation with civil society and all democratic groups, including the National League for Democracy. They should be implemented through UN agencies, non-governmental organisations, Member State agencies and international organisations as well as through decentralised cooperation with local civilian administrations.\nIn this context, the European Union will continue to engage with the Government of Burma/Myanmar over its responsibility to make greater efforts to attain the UN Millennium Development Goals.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 9(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of:\n(a)\nsenior members of the former State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), Burmese authorities in the tourism sector, senior members of the military, the Government or the security forces who formulate, implement or benefit from policies that impede Burma/Myanmar\u2019s transition to democracy, and members of their families;\n(b)\nsenior serving members of the Burmese military and members of their families;\n(c)\npersons associated with the persons referred to in points (a) and (b),\nbeing the natural persons listed in Annex II.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 10(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by:\n(a)\nsenior members of the former SPDC, Burmese authorities in the tourism sector, senior members of the military, the Government or the security forces who formulate, implement or benefit from policies that impede Burma/Myanmar\u2019s transition to democracy, and members of their families;\n(b)\nsenior serving members of the Burmese military and members of their families;\n(c)\nnatural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with persons referred to in points (a) and (b),\nas listed in Annex II, shall be frozen.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 11 is deleted;\n(6)\nin Article 13, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u2018The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for the listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\nWhere observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\u2019;\n(7)\nthe following Article is added:\n\u2018Article 13a\n1. Annex II shall include the grounds for listing the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies.\n2. Annex II shall also contain, where available, the information necessary to identify the natural and legal persons, entities or bodies concerned. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names, including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, entities or bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 15 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 15\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall apply until 30 April 2012.\n3. The measures referred to in Article 9(1) and in Article 10(1) and (2), insofar as they apply to persons listed in Annex IV, shall be suspended until 30 April 2012.\u2019.\nArticle 2\n1. Annexes I, II and III to Decision 2010/232/CFSP are hereby replaced by the text set out in Annexes I, II and III respectively to this Decision.\n2. Annex IV to this Decision shall be added as Annex IV to Decision 2010/232/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 12 April 2011.", "references": ["5", "56", "97", "71", "46", "93", "84", "30", "36", "54", "26", "52", "44", "7", "50", "21", "92", "0", "81", "80", "29", "6", "67", "69", "75", "33", "88", "63", "10", "79", "No Label", "3", "9", "12", "14", "23", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "12", "14", "23", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1049/2011\nof 20 October 2011\nimplementing Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 of 1 August 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 11 (1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 August 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 753/2011.\n(2)\nOn 4 October 2011, the United Nations Security Council Committee, established pursuant to paragraph 30 of Security Council Resolution 1988 (2011), approved the addition of three persons to the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex I of Regulation (EU) No 753/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["77", "87", "79", "37", "98", "63", "10", "65", "48", "62", "52", "33", "51", "78", "19", "23", "53", "8", "29", "93", "17", "46", "64", "14", "99", "57", "21", "12", "49", "72", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1071/2010\nof 22 November 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 December 2005 on the establishment of a Community list of air carriers subject to an operating ban within the Community and on informing air passengers of the identity of the operating carrier, and repealing Article 9 of Directive 2004/36/CE (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 of 22 March 2006 established the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Union referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 (2).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, some Member States communicated to the Commission information that is relevant in the context of updating the Community list. Relevant information was also communicated by third countries. On this basis, the Community list should be updated.\n(3)\nThe Commission informed all air carriers concerned either directly or, when this was not practicable, through the authorities responsible for their regulatory oversight, indicating the essential facts and considerations which would form the basis for a decision to impose on them an operating ban within the Union or to modify the conditions of an operating ban imposed on an air carrier which is included in the Community list.\n(4)\nOpportunity was given by the Commission to the air carriers concerned to consult documents provided by Member States, to submit written comments and to make an oral presentation to the Commission within 10 working days and to the Air Safety Committee established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/1991 of 16 December on the harmonization of the technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (3).\n(5)\nThe authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight over the air carriers concerned have been consulted by the Commission as well as, in specific cases, by some Member States.\n(6)\nThe Air Safety Committee has heard presentations by the European Aviation Safety Agency and by the Commission on the main operational conclusions agreed in the course of the last meeting of the European SAFA Steering Group (ESSG) held in Vienna on the 28 and 29 October 2010. In particular, it has been informed about the endorsement by the ESSG of the introduction on a voluntary basis of a minimum annual quota of inspections to be carried out by Member States as of 2011.\n(7)\nThe Air Safety Committee has heard presentations on the analysis of reports of comprehensive safety audits carried out by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in the framework of the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) and on the results of cooperation activities between the Commission and ICAO in the areas of safety and in particular on the possibilities to the exchange safety information regarding the level of compliance with international safety standards and recommended practices.\n(8)\nFollowing the conclusions of ICAO general assembly, the Commission mandated the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to coordinate the regular analysis of the reports of comprehensive safety audits carried out by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in the framework of the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) carried out with experts of Member States in the framework of a working group set up by the Air Safety Committee. Member States are invited to nominate experts to contribute to this important task.\n(9)\nThe Air Safety Committee has heard presentations by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Commission about the technical assistance projects carried out in the countries affected by Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005. It has been informed about the requests for further technical assistance and cooperation to improve the administrative and technical capability of civil aviation authorities with a view to resolving any non-compliance with applicable international standards.\n(10)\nThe Air Safety Committee has also been informed about enforcement actions taken by EASA and Member States to ensure the continuing airworthiness and maintenance of aircraft registered in the Union and operated by air carriers certified by civil aviation authorities of third countries.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 474/2006 should be therefore amended accordingly,\n(12)\nFollowing information resulting from SAFA ramp checks carried out on aircraft of certain Union air carriers, as well as area specific inspections and audits carried out by their national aviation authorities, some Member States have taken certain enforcement measures. They informed the Commission and the Air Safety Committee about these measures: Greece informed about the revocation of the Air Operator Certificate (AOC) and of the operating license of Hellas Jet on 2 November 2010 following the stop of operations on 30 April 2010. Germany informed about the suspension of the AOC of the air carrier ACH Hamburg on 27 October 2010 and about the limitation of the AOC of the air carrier Advance Air Luftfahrtgesellschaft on 30 September 2010 to exclude an aircraft with registration mark D-CJJJ. Spain confirmed that the AOC of Baleares Link Express continues to be suspended since 9 June 2010; Sweden informed that the AOC of Viking Airlines AB was suspended on 29 October 2010.\n(13)\nPortugal informed that following serious concerns about the safety of operation and the continuing airworthiness of aircraft operated by two Portuguese air carriers - Luzair and White and consultations with the Commission held on 25 October 2010, they decided to increase the continuing oversight of these carriers to ensure adequate corrective action plan are timely implemented by these. Portugal informed the Air Safety Committee about some improvement of the performance of the air carrier White. The Commission took note of the announced measures. A standardisation inspection will be carried out in Portugal by EASA in the framework of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. The Air Safety Committee will be informed as appropriate about the results of this visit at its next meeting.\n(14)\nThere is verified evidence of safety deficiencies on the part of Kam Air certified in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. On 11 August 2010 a Kam Air aircraft of type DC8, registration YA-VIC, struck its tail on the runway and the grass surface beyond the runway before becoming airborne during take-off from Manston Airport (United Kingdom). Investigations of this serious incident by the United Kingdom concluded that there were serious deficiencies with the operational control of the DC8 fleet of Kam Air. The United Kingdom therefore imposed a national ban on Kam Air DC 8 operations as of 2 September 2010.\n(15)\nFurthermore, the Competent Authorities of Austria detected a significant number of serious safety deficiencies during a SAFA ramp inspection of a Kam Air aircraft of type Boeing B767, registration number YA-KAM, on 16 September 2010 (4). The results of this SAFA ramp inspection lead Austria to conclude that there were serious failures on the part of Kam Air in the areas of operational procedures, equipment, system handling and cargo loading. In view of the deficiencies identified during the investigation in the United Kingdom and the convergence of these deficiencies with those detected during the SAFA ramp inspection performed at Vienna airport, Austria imposed a national ban on all Kam Air operations as from 17 September 2010.\n(16)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Regulation No 2111/2005 the Air Safety Committee was informed of the measures decided by the two Member States.\n(17)\nOn 6 October 2010 the Competent Authorities of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (MoTCA) and representatives from Kam Air met with the Commission and representatives from Member States to discuss the circumstances surrounding the Manston incident and the SAFA inspection in Austria.\n(18)\nAt the meeting the air carrier was unable to demonstrate that it is capable of complying with the relevant international safety standards. As regards the aircraft of type DC8, it had been introduced into service in March 2010 without adequate management oversight and without any adequate training given to the crews recruited to operate the aircraft. Furthermore, these crews had yet to complete the relevant training even though the aircraft continued to be used for international commercial flights. In addition, the air carrier did not provide any evidence that the flight crew were current in their flying duties at the time of the serious incident in the United Kingdom. As regards the aircraft of type Boeing B-767, Kam Air explained that the aircraft with registration mark YA-KAM which was subject to the ramp inspection in Austria, was on its first flight after having been parked for a long period, and had not been adequately prepared for operation before being employed on the flight to Vienna. Furthermore, the air carrier explained that, because of the introduction of the DC8, their management resources had been overstretched and had been unable to ensure the correct safety activities were conducted prior to the dispatch of the aircraft.\n(19)\nThe air carrier Kam Air requested to be heard by the Air Safety Committee and made a presentation on 9 November 2010. Kam Air informed the Committee that it no longer operated the aircraft of type DC 8. Also, whilst Kam Air had reviewed the events leading to the bans by the United Kingdom and Austria, it failed to identify any systemic deficiencies within the air carrier which would explain the identified non-compliances with ICAO Standards.\n(20)\nAt the meeting on 6 October 2010, the MoTCA were unable to explain the existence of two different Operations Specifications for Kam Air signed on the same day (29 September 2010) one of which showed the DC8 and the other which had the DC8 removed. It was therefore unclear whether Kam Air was approved to conduct operations with aircraft of type DC8 from that date. Furthermore, MoTCA was not able to demonstrate the results of any certification and surveillance activities carried out on Kam Air.\n(21)\nIn view of these findings, on the basis of the common criteria it is assessed that the air carrier Kam Air does not comply with the common criteria and should be therefore placed on Annex A.\n(22)\nThere is verified evidence that the competent authorities of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan are currently not capable to implement and enforce the relevant safety standards and to oversee the aircraft used by the air carriers under its regulatory authority in accordance with its obligations under the Chicago Convention. As presented by MoTCA on 6 October 2010, the authority has currently considerable difficulties to comply with its international obligations in all critical elements of a safety system. It is currently totally reliant on the expertise provided by ICAO to conduct inspections, and stated that, because of that lack of qualified staff, it had issued Certificates of Airworthiness to some aircraft without conducting the relevant inspections. In addition, primary legislation concerning aircraft operations was outdated (1972); a draft law had been submitted to the Government for approval without any indication of date of adoption. Furthermore operational regulations had only non-binding nature (advisory circulars).\n(23)\nThe MoTCA requested to be heard by the Air Safety Committee and made a presentation on 9 November 2010. They accepted that their oversight to date had not adequately ensured that ICAO Standards were met by the air carriers certified in Afghanistan. However, the MoTCA informed the Committee that they had decided to refrain from issuing any further Air Operator Certificates, that they had changed the management structure within the MoTCA and that they had banned the operation of aircraft of type AN 24. In addition, a new set of Aviation Regulations had just been introduced into law and MoTCA were preparing to re-certify all air carriers in Afghanistan to these new Regulations.\n(24)\nThe Commission noted the extremely difficult conditions that the MoTCA were operating under, and welcomed the commitment by the competent authority to improve the situation in the future. However, the Commission noted that, at present, the MoTCA is unable to discharge correctly its responsibilities as certification authority and to ensure that their international carriers comply with the international safety standards.\n(25)\nIn view of these findings, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that all air carriers certified in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan should be placed in Annex A.\n(26)\nFollowing the measures imposed by Regulation (EU) No 791/2010 of 6 September 2010 (5) on two air carriers certified in Ghana - Meridian Airways and Airlift International (GH) Ltd, the competent authorities of the Republic of Ghana (GCAA) requested to be heard at the Air Safety Committee and did so on 10 November 2010.\n(27)\nDuring their presentation, the GCAA detailed the actions taken to date to address the shortcomings identified with Meridian Airways, Air Charter Express and Airlift International, and described the improvements they were putting in place to the oversight regime in Ghana, including the requirement that all air carriers certified in Ghana should conduct their activities in Ghana. The GCAA also informed the Committee that it had conducted an inspection of aircraft of type DC 8, registration 9G-RAC operated by Airlift International and confirmed that the non-compliances identified by the United Kingdom had been addressed.\n(28)\nThe Commission noted the willingness of the GCAA to address the shortcomings in their oversight by the investment in additional resources, and welcomed the decision to require air carriers certified in Ghana to relocate to Ghana and to maintain their principal place of business in Ghana to enable the CAA to ensure proper oversight. In an effort to support the work of the GCAA in achieving improvements to their oversight system, the Commission has requested the European Aviation Safety Agency to provide technical assistance by means of a visit during the early part of 2011.\n(29)\nThe air carrier Airlift International (GH) Ltd requested to be heard by the Air Safety Committee and made a presentation on 10 November 2010. The air carrier presented the improvements made in their organisational structure, policy and procedures, resources and regulatory compliance. The air carrier confirmed that aircraft 9G-SIM and 9G-FAB remain in storage awaiting decisions on maintenance action to restore their airworthiness before resuming operations. The air carrier concurred with the GCAA view that they had adequately addressed the faults previously identified with 9G-RAC.\n(30)\nThe Commission noted the progress made by the air carrier in addressing identified safety concerns. In view of these findings, based on the common criteria, it is assessed that the aircraft of type DC8 with registration marks 9G-RAC, should be removed from Annex B and allowed to operate into the Union.\n(31)\nMember States will continue to verify the effective compliance of Airlift International with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of this air carrier pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008 and the Commission will continue to closely monitor the actions taken by Airlift International.\n(32)\nThere is verified evidence of safety deficiencies on the part of Air Charter Express certified in Ghana. These deficiencies have been identified by Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme (6).\n(33)\nThe air carrier met with the Commission and Member States on 9 June 2010 to discuss concerns resulting from SAFA inspections and the air carrier agreed to provide a corrective action plan to address the identified deficiencies.\n(34)\nThe air carrier Air Charter Express requested to be heard by the Air Safety Committee and made a presentation on 10 November 2010. The air carrier described the actions taken as part of their corrective action plan to date, in particular in the areas of procedures, operational control, maintenance and training, and confirmed that work on remedial actions was ongoing.\n(35)\nThe Commission noted the progress the air carrier was making and emphasised the need to ensure that any remedial and preventive actions taken by Air Charter Express were effectively implemented to avoid recurrence of any safety deficiencies raised before during ramp inspections of its aircraft. Member States will continue to verify the effective compliance of Air Charter Express with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of this carrier pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008 and the Commission will continue to closely monitor the actions taken by Air Charter Express.\n(36)\nAs provided in Regulation (EC) No 1144/2009 the Commission actively continued the consultations with the competent authorities of Kazakhstan with a view to following-up progress of these authorities in the implementation of the corrective action plan established by the State to remedy the deficiencies identified by ICAO during its comprehensive safety audit carried out in April 2009 in the framework of its Universal Safety oversight Audit Programme, and in particular the significant safety concerns notified by ICAO to all States Party to the Chicago Convention.\n(37)\nFollowing to consultations with the Commission held on 27 September 2010, the competent authorities of Kazakhstan (CAC) were heard by the Air Safety Committee on 10 November 2010. They informed that they further progressed in the implementation of their corrective action. In particular, a new aviation law was adopted by Kazakhstan on 15 July 2010 and work is in progress on more than 100 acts of secondary legislation which need to be enacted for the implementation of the aviation law in the coming months.\n(38)\nOn 18 October 2010 a first package of such legislation pertaining to aerial work was adopted and on the same day the competent authorities of Kazakhstan revoked the AOC of 15 companies - KazAirWest, IJT Aviation, Euro Asia Air International, Berkut ZK, Tyan Shan, Kazavia, Navigator, Salem, Orlan 2000, Fenix, Association of amateur pilots of Kazakhstan, Burundayavia, Sky Service, Aeroprakt KZ, Asia Continental Avialines.\n(39)\nThe competent authorities of Kazakhstan informed that two of these carriers, Burundayavia and Euro Asia Air International had requested on 28 October 2010 the reinstatement of their AOC. At the meeting of the Air Safety Committee the competent authorities of Kazakhstan failed to clarify the status of operations of these two companies. Consequently, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Burundayavia and Euro Asia Air International should remain in Annex A.\n(40)\nThe submissions and presentations made by the competent authorities of Kazakhstan (CAC) regarding the companies: Asia Continental Avialines, KazAirWest, Kazavia, Orlan 2000, do not include sufficient information to demonstrate that these companies have ceased commercial air transport activities. The CAC failed to provide complete documentation regarding the certificates and approvals held by these companies following the revocation of their AOCs. In particular, for these companies there is information indicating that they have been operating large transport aircraft. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that at this stage these four companies should remain in Annex A.\n(41)\nThe competent authorities of Kazakhstan stated and provided evidence showing that the Association of Amateur Pilots of Kazakhstan, Aeroprakt KZ, Berkut ZK, IJT Aviation, Navigator, Fenix, Salem, Sky Service, Tyan Shan Flight Center, are not any more engaged in commercial air transportation and do not hold any more a valid operating licence. Therefore they are not considered any more as air carriers within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005. In view of this, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these nine companies should be removed from Annex A\n(42)\nThe Commission supports the ambitious reform of the Civil aviation system undertaken by the authorities of Kazakhstan and invites these authorities to continue with determination their efforts to implement the corrective actions plan agreed with ICAO, focusing in priority on the unresolved significant safety concerns and the recertification of all operators under their responsibility. The Commission is ready to organise in due time, with the assistance of the European Aviation Safety Agency and the support of Member States, an on-site assessment to verify the progress achieved in the implementation of the action plan.\n(43)\nThere is verified evidence of lack of ability of the authorities responsible for the oversight of air carriers licensed in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania to address effectively safety deficiencies and to resolve safety concerns, as demonstrated by the results of the audit of Mauritania carried out by ICAO in the framework of its Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) in April 2008. The final report made available in March 2009 reported a large number of significant deficiencies with regard to the capability of the civil aviation authorities to discharge their air safety oversight responsibilities. At the time of the completion of the ICAO audit, more than 67 % of ICAO standards were not effectively implemented. In the critical element pertaining to the resolution of the identified safety concerns, ICAO reported that more than 93 % of ICAO standards were not implemented.\n(44)\nThere is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of the air carrier Mauritania Airways certified in Mauritania. These deficiencies have been identified by France and Spain during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme (7). Mauritania Airways did not respond adequately to the authorities which carried out the inspections and has not demonstrated that these deficiencies have been rectified in a sustainable manner.\n(45)\nThe Commission initiated consultations with the competent authorities of Mauritania in February 2010, expressing serious concerns about the safety of the operations of air carriers licensed in this country and requesting clarifications regarding the actions undertaken by the competent authorities of Mauritania to respond to ICAO findings and to the SAFA findings. These consultations were followed by correspondence in March and October 2010 on the same issues. The competent authorities of Mauritania were also heard by the Air Safety Committee on 9 November 2010.\n(46)\nThere is insufficient ability of the competent authorities of Mauritania (ANAC) to remedy effectively the non-compliance findings made by ICAO, as demonstrated by the fact that the implementation of the action plan aimed at addressing the findings made by ICAO is delayed. ANAC did not provide evidence of satisfactory closure of those findings reported as closed. For instance, the civil aviation act of 1972 has not yet been revised nor the related secondary specific aviation legislation. Consequently, the legal basis for the certification and continuing oversight of all air carriers licensed in Mauritania is not in compliance with the applicable international safety standards.\n(47)\nANAC informed that Mauritania Airways is currently the only air carrier certified in Mauritania and that the AOC of this carrier was renewed on 8 July 2010 for a limited period of 6 months, expiring on 31 December 2010. ANAC, however, failed to provide evidence of the verifications made before the renewal together with details of any action plans mandated to ensure the safety deficiencies identified are being effectively remedied in a sustainable manner. In particular, no evidence of approval of the operator\u2019s operations manual, the operator\u2019s minimum equipment list, the operator\u2019s maintenance management exposition and maintenance organisation exposition was provided.\n(48)\nMauritania Airways was heard by the Air Safety Committee on 9 November 2010 and informed that the air carrier initiated a series of corrective actions to address the deficiencies identified in the course of the SAFA ramp inspections as well as the internal investigation following the accident of their aircraft in July 2010. However, Mauritania Airways failed to demonstrate that these actions have produced results so far. In addition, the failed to demonstrate that the company holds the necessary approvals previously referred to.\n(49)\nMauritania Airways confirmed that an aircraft of type Boeing B737-700 with registration mark TS-IEA operated by Mauritania Airways was involved in an accident on 27 July 2010 which caused several injuries and substantial damage to the aircraft that has been since that time under repair. Preliminary information from the air carrier revealed several deficiencies, in particular an anomaly in the extension of slats as well as a non-stabilised approach.\n(50)\nThe competent authorities of Mauritania (ANAC) have not demonstrated that they are in a position to effectively discharge their responsibilities regarding safety oversight of air carriers certified in Mauritania. In view of these findings, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that all air carriers certified in Mauritania should be included in Annex A.\n(51)\nThe Commission encourages the competent authorities of Mauritania (ANAC) to pursue actively the implementation of the corrective action plan submitted to ICAO and is ready to provide support if necessary. The Commission is in particular ready to organise, with the assistance of the European Aviation Safety Agency and the support of Member States, an on-site assessment to verify the progress achieved in the implementation of the action plan.\n(52)\nUkrainian Mediterranean Airlines certified in Ukraine requested to be heard by the Air Safety Committee and did so on 9 November 2010. The carrier informed that it is currently renewing its fleet and that the DC-9 aircraft are not operated anymore. However Ukrainian Mediterranean Airlines did not provide the complete and current operational specifications attached to the current Air Operator Certificate and failed to clarify at the hearing the fleet currently operated. Furthermore, it was confirmed that the competent authorities of Ukraine are conducting an audit of Ukrainian Mediterranean Airlines as part of the renewal process of its Air Operator Certificate, expiring on 28 November 2010, and that this process is not completed yet. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Ukrainian Mediterranean Airlines should remain in Annex B.\n(53)\nSubmissions made after the hearing of the air carrier will be examined by the Commission and the Air Safety Committee at the next meeting of the Air Safety Committee.\n(54)\nFollowing the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 590/2010 (8), the air carrier Air Alg\u00e9rie has performed numerous inspections on its aircraft before departure for destinations in the Union. The competent authorities of Algeria also put in place in September 2010 teams of technicians to perform inspections (called SANAA inspections), on the basis of the SAFA methodology, on aircraft operated by the company Air Alg\u00e9rie, notably those which are operated on routes to the Union. These concerted efforts should enable them to discover and solve a number of deficiencies before aircraft departure. However, the results of these inspections raise some questions about the quality of the maintenance activities of the air carrier.\n(55)\nAs requested by Regulation (EU) No 590/2010 and until the meeting of the Air Safety Committee on 10 November 2010, the civil aviation authorities of Algeria submitted four monthly reports covering June, July, August and September 2010. These reports focused on the results of safety oversight conducted on the activities of Air Alg\u00e9rie and were supplemented with the findings discovered during the inspections carried out by inspectors of Air Alg\u00e9rie on aircraft of the air carrier. These reports however, do not provide the information of risk assessment being carried out by the competent authorities of Algeria and how the results of such risk assessment are considered in the oversight process and planning.\n(56)\nIn view of the persistence of findings in the areas of continuing airworthiness, maintenance, operations, as well as the safety of cargo on board, discovered during SAFA, SANAA and the internal Air Alg\u00e9rie inspections and in order to obtain clarifications on the monthly reports, consultations with the competent authority and the air carrier were held on 11 October 2010 with the participation of the European Aviation Safety Agency and a Member State. At this meeting the Commission took note of the commitment made by the competent authorities of Algeria to carry out a comprehensive root cause analysis and to present a solid corrective action plan as well as all relevant information showing the actions taken by both the competent authorities of Algeria and of Air Alg\u00e9rie to bring a sustainable solution. A corrective action plan approved by the competent authorities of Algeria was submitted to the Commission on 20 October 2010.\n(57)\nAir Alg\u00e9rie presented a further enhanced corrective action plan to the Air Safety Committee on 10 November 2010. The Committee acknowledged the efforts made by the air carrier towards resolving the detected safety deficiencies and urged the competent authorities of Algeria to enhance its oversight activities with a view to ensuring that the relevant safety standards are respected. During the meeting of the Air Safety Committee the competent authorities of Algeria indicated their wish to further strengthen their capabilities through a twinning project. With a view to supporting the competent authorities of Algeria in further enhancing their efforts to reinforce their capacity to discharge their responsibilities, a technical assistance mission lead by the European Aviation Safety Agency will be carried out in February 2011.\n(58)\nIn the meantime, the Member States shall continue to closely monitor the performance of Air Alg\u00e9rie in the framework of Regulation (EC) No 351/2006 in order to provide the basis for a new assessment of this case at the next meeting of the Air Safety Committee.\n(59)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1144/2009 (9) all air carriers certified in the Republic of Congo are subject to an operational ban within the Union and listed in Annex A.\n(60)\nThe Commission informed the Air Safety Committee on the results of a technical assistance mission carried out in February 2010 by the European Aviation Safety Agency to the Republic of Congo following the ICAO USOAP audit, conducted in November 2008. The ICAO USOAP Audit resulted in a Significant Safety Concern regarding aircraft operations, certification and supervision exercised by the Civil Aviation Authority of the Republic of Congo (ANAC) along with a very high rate of lack of implementation of safety standards (76,89 %); the Significant Safety Concern is currently unresolved. During the technical assistance mission it was noted that ANAC had made clear efforts at every level to implement a corrective action plan and had demonstrated a strong commitment to overcome the safety issues highlighted by the ICAO audit. The Commission welcomes these encouraging moves and will continue to closely monitor the progress of the ANAC towards effective implementation of their corrective action plan to ensure that the current safety deficiencies are addressed without undue delay.\n(61)\nThe air carrier Equaflight Service certified by ANAC requested to be heard by the Air Safety Committee and did so on 10 November 2010. The air carrier presented its activity and informed about the progress in the implementation of its action plan.\n(62)\nThe air carrier Trans Air Congo certified by ANAC requested to be heard by the Air Safety Committee and did so on 10 November 2010. The air carrier presented its activity and informed about the progress in the implementation of its action plan.\n(63)\nThe Air Safety Committee took note of the progress report. However, the presentations by the air carriers did not allow ascertaining that they meet at this stage the applicable ICAO safety standards. In addition, on the basis of the common criteria, pending the effective implementation of adequate corrective actions to resolve the ICAO significant safety concern and in the absence of significant progress in the closure of the findings raised during the ICAO audit, it is assessed that the competent authorities of the Republic of Congo are, at this stage, not able to implement and enforce the relevant safety standards on all carriers under their regulatory control. Therefore, all air carriers certified by these authorities should remain in Annex A.\n(64)\nThe Commission will actively continue the consultations with the competent authorities of the Republic of Congo on the actions undertaken by them to improve aviation safety and is willing to engage a second mission of technical assistance in 2011 aiming at building up their administrative and technical capacity in civil aviation.\n(65)\nThe competent authorities of Kyrgyzstan requested to be heard by the Air Safety Committee and did so on 10 November 2010. They informed that they are progressing in an ambitious reform of the aviation sector undertaken since 2006 with a view to enhancing air safety. The competent authorities are in particular progressing in their capacity building with the recruitment of additional qualified inspectors, to be continued in the coming months. The State aviation legislation is being revised with a view to ensuring compliance with international safety standards by November 2011.\n(66)\nThe competent authorities of Kyrgyzstan informed that they have issued a new AOC to the air carrier CAAS. On the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that CAAS should be included in Annex A.\n(67)\nThe competent authorities of Kyrgyzstan also informed that they had suspended the AOCs of three air carriers - Itek Air, TransAero and Asian Air. Additionally, they informed that they have undertaken enforcement actions regarding the following carriers: Golden Rules Airlines, Kyrgyzstan Airline, Max Avia, Tenir Airlines. However, they failed to demonstrate that the license or the AOC of these carriers was revoked. Consequently, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these carriers should remain in Annex A.\n(68)\nGiven that no evidence of full implementation of appropriate remedial actions by the air carriers certified in Kyrgyzstan and by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of these air carriers has been communicated to the Commission so far, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these air carriers should remain in Annex A.\n(69)\nThe Commission encourages the competent authorities of Kyrgyzstan to continue their efforts towards resolution of all non-compliance findings identified during the audit carried out by ICAO in April 2009 as part of its Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP). The European Commission, assisted by the European Aviation Safety Agency and with the support of the Member States, is ready to carry out an assessment on site once the implementation of the action plan submitted to ICAO has sufficiently advanced; The objective of this visit would be to verify the implementation of the applicable safety requirements by the competent authorities and by the undertakings under its oversight..\n(70)\nThe competent authorities of Gabon (ANAC) held consultations on 26 October 2010 with the Commission, the European Aviation Safety Agency and the competent authorities of France to present the progress made to date. ANAC informed that the legislative framework is currently being revised, with a reform of the civil aviation code, entailing the following actions: (a) a reorganisation of ANAC, the adoption of which is expected by 31 December 2010; (b) the progressive establishment of a comprehensive set of Gabonese aeronautical regulations (RAG), which will enter into force in a phased approach by 2011. ANAC reported further progress in its capacity-building, with the recruitment of additional inspectors. ANAC also reported progress in the oversight of the air carriers and the enforcement of the current safety regulations (RACAM), as demonstrated by the suspension of the AOC of the air carrier Air Services on 30 July 2010, and the temporary suspension of the AOC of the air carrier Allegiance between 22 August and 2 September 2010.\n(71)\nHowever, ANAC did not demonstrate that appropriate remedial actions had been implemented before the air carrier Allegiance had its AOC reinstated. Furthermore, the number and the nature of some of the deficiencies identified reveal that further enforcement actions may be necessary, should air carriers certified in Gabon fail to implement the applicable safety standards.\n(72)\nGiven that no evidence of the full implementation of appropriate corrective and preventive actions by the air carriers included in the Community list and by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of these air carriers has been communicated to the Commission so far, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these air carriers should continue to be subject to an operating ban (Annex A) or operating restrictions (Annex B), as the case may be.\n(73)\nANAC informed of the issuance of a new AOC to the air carrier Afric Aviation on 25 September 2010 without demonstrating that the certification and oversight of this air carrier complies fully with applicable international safety standards. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Afric Aviation should be included in Annex A.\n(74)\nMember States will continue to monitor the performance of air carriers certified in Gabon through focused ramp inspections carried out in the framework of the SAFA programme with a view to monitoring sustainable compliance of their operations and maintenance with the applicable safety standards. Should ramp inspections identify safety concerns, the Commission will be compelled to reconsider the measures applicable to these carriers at the next meeting of the Air Safety Committee.\n(75)\nThe Commission, assisted by the European Aviation Safety Agency and the competent authorities of Germany and Spain carried out a safety assessment visit to the Philippines in October 2010 in order to assess the progress achieved by the competent authorities of the Philippines (CAAP) and certain air carriers under its supervision, in the implementation of the measures undertaken to address the safety concerns described in Regulation (EU) No 273/2010.\n(76)\nThe report resulting from this assessment confirms that, under the leadership of its new Director General, the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines has undertaken since April 2010 a series of ambitious reforms of the civil aviation oversight system in place in the Republic of the Philippines. The actions undertaken go clearly into the right direction and are deemed to allow, once effectively and sustainably implemented, for significant improvements towards compliance with the safety standards set forth by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). These actions entail in particular (a) a recast of the existing implementing rules and regulation to the basic Civil Aviation Act; (b) a complete revision of the existing Civil Aviation Regulations; (c) the appointment of a significant amount of personnel in accordance with enhanced qualification criteria; (d) the continuation of extensive training programmes for the staff recruited; (e) the modernisation of the facilities and the provision of adequate information systems to allow the control of approvals and licenses; (f) the certification of those air carriers which, although they continue commercial activities, are not certified yet in accordance with the civil aviation regulation in force; (g) the development of comprehensive surveillance plans including all aspects of the operations; and (h) the resolution of those safety concerns which may have been encountered.\n(77)\nThe report also underlines that, in spite of the commitments of the CAAP and the energy invested since April 2010, these ambitious reforms could not be completed within a few months, in particular due the length of the recruitment and appointment process in the Philippines beyond the control of the CAAP and the corresponding lack of appropriate resources. More time appears necessary to allow the progress to be sustainable and for achievements to be recognised. Although the CAAP has undertaken actions to address the significant safety concern notified by ICAO to all Contracting States in 2009, progress to date has not been sufficient to close the significant safety concern. Equally, despite actions undertaken by the CAAP to address the non-compliance findings reported by the FAA in 2007, progress to date has not been sufficient to be recognised by the US FAA as compliant with international safety standards (category 1). In view of these findings, it is assessed that at this stage, all air carriers certified in the Republic of the Philippines should remain on Annex A.\n(78)\nThe Commission invites the Philippines to respect the timetable of implementation of its commitments towards the international community, in particular with regard to the resolution of the significant safety concern notified by ICAO. To achieve this, it is essential that the CAAP continues to act with the necessary independence and ensures the appointment of sufficient staff meeting the qualification criteria to be in a position to effectively discharge its responsibilities towards the international community and ensure a robust oversight in compliance with the applicable safety standards. Support from the government of the Philippines to the CAAP is essential towards such goals.\n(79)\nFollowing the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 590/2010 the Commission received information from the competent authorities of the Russian Federation that all operating restrictions previously applicable on the air carrier YAK Service had been removed on 11 August 2010 following satisfactory results of oversight activities performed by these authorities. However, the Commission did not receive the requested results of all surveillance activities regarding the verification of correct implementation of remedial actions as well as of the certification of the equipment in accordance with ICAO standards installed on the aircraft of the air carrier used to operate international flights.\n(80)\nFurthermore, as part of the continuous monitoring of the performance of air carriers flying into the Union on the basis of the results of ramp inspections carried out on aircraft of such air carriers, on 11 October 2010 the Commission informed the competent authorities of the Russian Federation of the results of such inspections carried out on Russian air carriers during the previous twelve months.\n(81)\nThese results indicated that for certain Russian air carriers, albeit from a limited number of inspections, there is a persistent rate of findings equivalent to over two significant and/or major findings per inspection during the last 2 years. These results show that there is need for improvement if these air carriers are to be fully compliant with international safety standards. Consultations between the Commission and the competent authorities of the Russian Federation on the safety performance of Russian air carriers were held on 18 October 2010 in Moscow. At this meeting the competent authorities of the Russian Federation agreed to provide the Commission with the following information: (a) documentation that was requested on 2 September 2010 for Yak Service (transmission in English of the results of all surveillance activities regarding the verification of correct implementation of remedial actions as well as of the certification of the equipment in accordance with ICAO standards that is now installed on the aircraft of the company used to operate international flights; the new AOC of the company issued following the removal of the restrictions along with the operating specifications); (b) the results of surveillance activities of Russian authorities on Russian air carriers for which SAFA ramp inspections reports and analysis have been transmitted by the Commission. Furthermore, at this meeting the competent authorities of the Russian Federation announced that they would also transmit to the Commission the reports and analysis of the performance (incidents, methodology of calculation of ratios etc.) for the ramp checks performed on aircraft of EU carriers flying into the Russian Federation.\n(82)\nFollowing this meeting the competent authorities of the Russian Federation transmitted on 25 October correspondence regarding Yak Service showing that certain equipment fitted on aircraft operated by YAK Service had been recertified by the Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK). However, at the meeting of the Air Safety Committee on 10 November 2010 the competent authorities of the Russian Federation did not provide evidence that all aircraft operated by YAK Service are fitted with serviceable ICAO mandatory equipment necessary for international commercial air transport. Therefore, two aircraft on the AOC of this air carrier with registration RA-87648 and RA-88308 should not be operated into the European Union. Member States will continue to verify the effective compliance of Yak Service with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of this carrier pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008.\n(83)\nAt the meeting of the Air Safety Committee the competent authorities of the Russian Federation did not provide any evidence of the results of their oversight activities on various air carriers certified in the Russian Federation as requested by the Commission.\n(84)\nAt the meeting of the Air Safety Committee the competent authorities of the Russian Federation also confirmed that the following aircraft continue to be excluded for international commercial air transport as they are not fitted with ICAO mandatory equipment.\n(a)\nAircompany Yakutia: Antonov AN-140: RA-41250; AN-24RV: RA-46496, RA-46665, RA-47304, RA-47352, RA-47353, RA-47360; AN-26: RA-26660;\n(b)\nAtlant Soyuz: Tupolev TU-154M: RA-85672 and RA-85682 previously operated by Atlant Soyuz are both aircraft currently operated by other air carriers certified in the Russian Federation.\n(c)\nGazpromavia: Tupolev TU-154M: RA-85625 and RA-85774; Yakovlev Yak-40: RA-87511, RA- 88300 and RA-88186; Yak-40K: RA-21505, RA-98109 and RA-8830; Yak-42D: RA-42437; all (22) helicopters Kamov Ka-26 (unknown registration); all (49) helicopters Mi-8 (unknown registration); all (11) helicopters Mi-171 (unknown registration); all (8) helicopters Mi-2 (unknown registration); all (1) helicopter EC-120B: RA-04116.\n(d)\nKavminvodyavia: Tupolev TU-154B: RA-85307, RA-85494 and RA-85457.\n(e)\nKrasnoyarsky Airlines: the aircraft of type TU-154M RA-85672 previously on the AOC of Krasnoyarsky Airlines, which was revoked in 2009 is currently operated by Atlant Soyuz; the aircraft of the same type with registration RA-85682 is operated by another air carrier certified in the Russian Federation.\n(f)\nKuban Airlines: Yakovlev Yak-42: RA-42331, RA-42336, RA-42350, RA-42538, and RA-42541; the aircraft of the same type RA-42526 is currently not operated for financial reasons;.\n(g)\nOrenburg Airlines: Tupolev TU-154B: RA-85602; all TU-134 (unknown registration); all Antonov An-24 (unknown registration); all An-2 (unknown registration); all helicopters Mi-2 (unknown registration); all helicopters Mi-8 (unknown registration).\n(h)\nSiberia Airlines: Tupolev TU-154M: RA-85613, RA-85619, RA-85622 and RA-85690;\n(i)\nTatarstan Airlines: Yakovlev Yak-42D: RA-42374, RA-42433 and RA-42347 operated by another Russian air carrier; Tupolev TU-134A: RA-65970, RA-65691, RA-65973, RA-65065 and RA-65102; Antonov AN-24RV: RA-46625 and RA-47818 which are currently operated by another Russian carrier.\n(j)\nUral Airlines: Tupolev TU-154B: RA-85508 (the aircraft RA-85319, RA-85337, RA-85357, RA-85375, RA-85374 and RA-85432 are currently not operated for financial reasons).\n(k)\nUTAir: Tupolev TU-154M: RA-85733, RA-85755, RA-85806, RA-85820; all (24) TU-134: RA-65024, RA-65033, RA-65127, RA-65148, RA-65560, RA-65572, RA-65575, RA-65607, RA-65608, RA-65609, RA-65611, RA-65613, RA-65616, RA-65620, RA-65622, RA-65728, RA-65755, RA-65777, RA-65780, RA-65793, RA-65901, RA-65902, and RA-65977; the aircraft RA-65143 and RA-65916 are operated by another Russian carrier; all (1) TU-134B: RA-65726; all (10) Yakovlev Yak-40: RA-87348 (currently not operated for financial reasons), RA-87907, RA-87941, RA-87997, RA-88209, RA-88227 and RA-88280; the aircraft of the same type RA-87292 and RA-88244 have been retired; all helicopters Mil-26: (unknown registration); all helicopters Mil-10: (unknown registration); all helicopters Mil-8 (unknown registration); all helicopters AS-355 (unknown registration); all helicopters BO-105 (unknown registration); the aircraft of type AN-24B RA-46388 and RA-87348 are not operated for financial reasons; RA-46267 and RA-47289 and the aircraft of type AN-24RV RA-46509, RA-46519 and RA-47800 are operated by another Russian carrier.\n(l)\nRossija (STC Russia): Tupolev TU-134: RA-65979, the aircraft RA-65904, RA-65905, RA-65911, RA-65921 and RA-65555 are operated by another Russian carrier; Ilyushin IL-18: RA-75454 is operated by another Russian carrier; Yakovlev Yak-40: RA-87203, RA-87968, RA-87971, RA-87972 and RA-88200 are operated by another Russian carrier.\n(m)\nRussair: aircraft Tupolev TU-134A3 registration RA 65124; TU-154 registration RA-65124.\n(85)\nThe Commission and the Air Safety Committee took note of the presentation and the submissions by the competent authority of the Russian Federation and will pursue the sustainable resolution of safety non-compliance detected during SAFA ramp inspections through further technical consultations with the competent authority of the Russian Federation. In the meantime, Member States will continue to verify the effective compliance of Russian air carriers with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of these carriers pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008 and the Commission will continue to closely monitor the actions taken by them.\n(86)\nNo evidence of the full implementation of appropriate remedial actions by the other air carriers included in the Community list updated on 6 September 2010 and by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of these air carriers has been communicated to the Commission so far in spite of specific requests submitted by the latter. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these air carriers should continue to be subject to an operating ban (Annex A) or operating restrictions (Annex B), as the case may be.\n(87)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Air Safety Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 474/2006 is amended as follows:\n1.\nAnnex A is replaced by the text set out in Annex A to this Regulation.\n2.\nAnnex B is replaced by the text set out in Annex B to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["17", "11", "69", "39", "62", "15", "65", "3", "52", "70", "83", "38", "23", "40", "36", "80", "32", "46", "8", "67", "61", "10", "18", "59", "26", "42", "27", "58", "22", "76", "No Label", "13", "53", "54", "57"], "gold": ["13", "53", "54", "57"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 December 2011\non the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in the Principality of Liechtenstein\n(2011/842/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (1) and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 10(1) of the said Protocol provides for the provisions of the Schengen acquis to be put into effect for the Principality of Liechtenstein pursuant to a decision of the Council to that effect after the Council has satisfied itself that the necessary conditions for the implementation of that acquis have been fulfilled by Liechtenstein.\n(2)\nThe Council, having verified that the preconditions for the application of the data protection part of the Schengen acquis concerned had been fulfilled by the Principality of Liechtenstein, rendered, by Decision 2011/352/EU (2), provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System applicable to the Principality of Liechtenstein from 9 June 2011.\n(3)\nThe Council has verified, in accordance with the applicable Schengen evaluation procedures as set out in the Decision of the Executive Committee of 16 September 1998 setting up a Standing Committee on the evaluation and implementation of Schengen (SCH/Com-ex (98) 26 def.) (3), whether the necessary conditions for the application of the Schengen acquis have been met in all other areas of the Schengen acquis in the Principality of Liechtenstein.\n(4)\nOn 13 December 2011, the Council concluded that the conditions in each of the areas mentioned had been fulfilled by the Principality of Liechtenstein.\n(5)\nIt is possible to set the date for the application of the Schengen acquis in full by the Principality of Liechtenstein, that is to say the date from which checks on persons at the internal borders with the Principality of Liechtenstein should be lifted.\n(6)\nFrom that date, the restrictions on the use of the Schengen Information System, provided for in Decision 2011/352/EU, should be lifted.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 15 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland (4) and with Article 8 of the Protocol between the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland (5), the latter Agreement has been implemented from 7 March 2011.\n(8)\nThe Agreement between the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Denmark concerning the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis that are based on provisions under Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, signed at Brussels on 18 March 2011, stipulates that it shall be put into effect on the same date as the provisions referred to in Article 2 of the Protocol are put into effect for the Principality of Liechtenstein.\n(9)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (6) and as a result of the partial application of the Schengen acquis by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland provided for in Council Decision 2004/926/EC of 22 December 2004 on the putting into effect of parts of the Schengen acquis by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (7),and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 1 thereof, only part of the provisions of the Schengen acquis applicable to the Principality of Liechtenstein in its relations with Member States applying the Schengen acquis in full is to apply in the relations of the Principality of Liechtenstein with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\n(10)\nIn accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 15(1) of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis and as a result of the partial application of the Schengen acquis by the Republic of Cyprus, on the basis of Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession, and the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, on the basis of Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession, only the part of the Schengen acquis applicable in these Member States should also be applicable to the Principality of Liechtenstein in its relations with these Member States,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. All the provisions referred to in Annexes A and B to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis and all the provisions listed in the Annex to the Protocol to that Agreement and any act constituting a further development of one or more of these provisions, shall apply to the Principality of Liechtenstein, in its relations with the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, and the Kingdom of Sweden as from 19 December 2011.\nAll restrictions on the use of the Schengen Information System by the Member States referred to in the first subparagraph shall be lifted as from the same date.\n2. The provisions of the Schengen acquis put into effect by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the basis of Article 1 of Decision 2004/926/EC and any act constituting a further development of one or more of those provisions, shall apply to the Principality of Liechtenstein, in its relations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as from 19 December 2011.\n3. The provisions of the Schengen acquis applicable to the Republic of Cyprus on the basis of Article 3(1) of the 2003 Act of Accession, and to the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, on the basis of Article 4(1) of the 2005 Act of Accession, and any act constituting a further development of any of those provisions, shall apply to the Principality of Liechtenstein in its relations with the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania as from19 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["22", "64", "6", "15", "16", "20", "0", "48", "4", "54", "33", "32", "62", "87", "83", "40", "14", "29", "7", "53", "49", "99", "70", "84", "10", "44", "88", "46", "56", "30", "No Label", "8", "13", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "13", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 February 2012\nconcerning the non-inclusion of certain substances in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market\n(notified under document C(2012) 645)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/78/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.\n(2)\nFor a number of substance/product type combinations included in that list, either all participants have discontinued their participation in the review programme, or no complete dossier was received within the time period specified in Articles 9 and 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 by the Member State designated as rapporteur for the evaluation.\n(3)\nConsequently, and pursuant to Articles 11(2), 12(1) and 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the Commission informed the Member States accordingly. That information was also made public by electronic means.\n(4)\nWithin the period of three months from those publications, a number of companies indicated an interest in taking over the role of participant for certain of the substances and product types concerned. However, those companies subsequently failed to submit a complete dossier.\n(5)\nPursuant to Articles 12(4) and 12(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the substances and product types concerned should therefore not be included in Annexes I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.\n(6)\nIn the interest of legal certainty, it is appropriate to specify the date after which biocidal products of the product types listed in the Annex to this Decision containing the active substances listed in that Annex should no longer be placed on the market.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe substances indicated in the Annex to this Decision shall not be included for the product types concerned in Annexes I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.\nArticle 2\nFor the purposes of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, biocidal products of the product types listed in the Annex to this Decision which contain the active substances listed in that Annex shall no longer be placed on the market with effect from 1 February 2013.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 February 2012.", "references": ["91", "24", "6", "30", "18", "54", "40", "71", "66", "80", "28", "48", "11", "47", "35", "4", "85", "45", "94", "19", "67", "20", "37", "10", "81", "38", "23", "50", "7", "55", "No Label", "25", "61", "83"], "gold": ["25", "61", "83"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1210/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\nconcerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 133 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (3) requires credit institutions and, within the limits of their payment activity, other payment service providers and any other institutions engaged in the processing and distribution to the public of notes and coins to ensure that euro notes and coins which they have received and which they intend to put back into circulation are checked for authenticity and that counterfeits are detected.\n(2)\nCommission Recommendation 2005/504/EC of 27 May 2005 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (4) provides for recommended practices regarding the authentication of euro coins and the handling of euro coins unfit for circulation. However, the lack of a mandatory common framework for coin authentication results in different practices among Member States and cannot, therefore, ensure uniform protection of the currency throughout the euro area.\n(3)\nTo achieve effective and uniform authentication of euro coins throughout the euro area it is therefore necessary to introduce binding rules for the implementation of common procedures for the authentication of euro coins in circulation and for the implementation of control mechanisms of those procedures by the national authorities.\n(4)\nDuring the authentication process, genuine euro coins that are unfit for circulation should also be identified. The circulation of unfit coins makes them more difficult to use, particularly in coin-operated machines, and may create confusion for the users as to the authenticity of those coins. Unfit coins should be removed from circulation. Common binding rules for Member States are therefore necessary for handling and reimbursing euro coins unfit for circulation.\n(5)\nTo coordinate the implementation of the authentication procedures, the details of testing and training requirements for coin authentication, the specifications for checking euro coins unfit for circulation and other practical implementation provisions should be further determined by the European Technical and Scientific Centre (ETSC) established by Commission Decision 2005/37/EC (5), after having consulted the counterfeit coin experts group referred to in that Decision.\n(6)\nTo allow for a gradual adjustment of their current system of rules and practices to the provisions of this Regulation, the Member States should, during a transitional period until 31 December 2014, be able to provide for derogations regarding the types of coin-processing machines to be used for the authentication of euro coins and for the number of those machines to be checked annually.\n(7)\nEach national authority handling euro coins unfit for circulation should be able to apply a handling fee in accordance with this Regulation in order to meet the expenses related to the process. Handling fees should not be applied to the submissions of small quantities of euro coins unfit for circulation. Member States should be able to provide for exemptions from handling fees for persons which cooperate closely with the authorities in removing counterfeit or unfit coins from circulation. Member States should be able to accept bags or boxes of mixed counterfeit and unfit coins without applying a surcharge if this serves public interest.\n(8)\nIt should be for each Member State to introduce applicable penalties for infringements, with a view to achieving equivalent authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation throughout the euro area.\n(9)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely effective and uniform authentication of euro coins throughout the euro area, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States due to the differences in national practices 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT MATTER AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down procedures necessary for authentication of euro coins and for handling of euro coins unfit for circulation.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018authentication of euro coins\u2019 means the process of verifying that euro coins are authentic and fit for circulation;\n(b)\n\u2018euro coins unfit for circulation\u2019 means euro coins that are genuine but that have been rejected during the authentication process or euro coins the appearance of which has been significantly altered;\n(c)\n\u2018designated national authority\u2019 means the Coin National Analysis Centre or another authority designated by the Member State concerned;\n(d)\n\u2018institutions\u2019 means the institutions referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001, excluding those referred to in the third indent thereof;\n(e)\n\u2018CCEG\u2019 (Counterfeit Coin Experts Group) means the counterfeit coin experts referred to in Decision 2005/37/EC.\nCHAPTER II\nAUTHENTICATION OF EURO COINS\nArticle 3\nAuthentication of euro coins\n1. Institutions shall ensure that euro coins which they have received and which they intend to put back into circulation are subject to an authentication procedure. They shall implement that obligation by means of:\n(a)\ncoin-processing machines included in the list of coin-processing machines, referred to in Article 5(2); or\n(b)\npersonnel trained in accordance with modalities defined by Member States.\n2. Following authentication all suspected counterfeit coins and euro coins unfit for circulation shall be submitted to the designated national authority.\n3. Counterfeit euro coins handed over to the competent national authorities in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 shall not be subject to handling or other fees. As regards euro coins unfit for circulation, Chapter III of this Regulation shall apply.\nArticle 4\nTesting requirement and coin-processing machines\n1. When implementing Article 3(1)(a), institutions shall use only the types of coin-processing machines that have successfully passed a detection test carried out by the designated national authority or by the ETSC and that were listed on the website referred to in Article 5(2) at the time of their purchase. Institutions shall ensure that those machines are regularly adjusted to maintain their detection capability, taking into consideration the modifications introduced in the list referred to in Article 5(2). The detection test shall be designed to ensure that a coin-processing machine is capable of rejecting the known types of counterfeit euro coins and, in the process, euro coins unfit for circulation and all other coin-like objects that do not comply with the specifications of genuine euro coins.\n2. For a transitional period until 31 December 2014, Member States may provide for specific derogations from the first sentence of paragraph 1 for coin-processing machines that were in use on 11 January 2011 and that have proved capable of detecting counterfeit euro coins, euro coins unfit for circulation and other coin-like objects that do not comply with the specifications of genuine euro coins, even if those machines are not included in the list referred to in Article 5(2). Such derogations shall be adopted after consulting the CCEG.\nArticle 5\nAdjustment of coin-processing machines\n1. With a view to enabling manufacturers of coin-processing machines to obtain the specifications necessary for the adjustment of their machines to detect counterfeit euro coins, testing in accordance with Article 4 may be carried out at the designated national authority, the ETSC or, following bilateral agreement, on the manufacturer\u2019s premises. Following the successful testing of a coin-processing machine, a detection test report summary shall be issued for the attention of the manufacturer of the machine and copied to the ETSC.\n2. The Commission shall publish on its website a consolidated list of all coin-processing machines, for which a positive and valid detection test report summary is received or prepared by the ETSC.\nArticle 6\nControls by Member States\n1. Member States shall put in place the controls provided for in this Article.\n2. Member States shall perform annual on-the-spot controls in institutions with a view to verifying, through detection tests, the proper functioning of a representative number of coin-processing machines used. Where personnel of the institutions is expected to check manually the authenticity of euro coins to be put back into circulation, Member States shall obtain an assurance from the institutions that their personnel are duly trained for that purpose.\n3. The number of coin-processing machines to be checked annually in each Member State shall be such that the volume of euro coins processed by those machines during that year represents at least 25 % of the total cumulated net volume of coins issued by that Member State from the introduction of euro coins until the end of the previous year. The number of coin-processing machines to be checked shall be calculated on the basis of the volume of the three highest denominations of euro coins intended for circulation. Member States shall endeavour to ensure that coin-processing machines are checked on a rotating basis.\n4. In the event that the number of coin-processing machines to be checked annually in accordance with paragraph 3 is higher than the number of machines operating in a particular Member State, all the coin-processing machines operating in that Member State shall be checked annually.\n5. For a transitional period until 31 December 2014, Member States may decide, after notifying the Commission, that the number of coin-processing machines to be checked annually shall be such that the volume of euro coins processed by those machines during that year represents at least 10 % of the total cumulated net volume of coins issued by that Member State from the introduction of the euro coins until the end of the previous year.\n6. As part of the annual controls, Member States shall monitor the capacity of institutions to authenticate euro coins on the basis of:\n(a)\nthe existence of a written policy providing instructions relating either to the use of automatic coin-processing equipment or to manual sorting, as appropriate;\n(b)\nthe allocation of appropriate human resources;\n(c)\nthe existence of a written maintenance plan intended to keep coin-processing machines at their appropriate performance level;\n(d)\nthe existence of written procedures for submitting counterfeit euro coins, euro coins unfit for circulation and other coin-like objects that do not comply with the specifications of genuine euro coins to the designated national authority; and\n(e)\nthe existence of internal control procedures describing the modalities and the frequency of the controls to be carried out by institutions to ensure that their sorting centres and their personnel follow the instructions set out in this paragraph.\n7. Where a Member State detects non-compliance with this Regulation, the institution concerned shall take the measures to ensure that the non-compliance is rectified promptly.\nArticle 7\nTechnical provisions\nThe Commission shall ensure that the ETSC define, within a reasonable time frame and after consulting the CCEG, the technical specifications for the detection test, and other practical implementation provisions, such as training practices, the period of validity of the detection test report summary, the information to be included in the list referred to in Article 5(2), the guidelines related to controls, checks and auditing by Member States, the rules for the rectification of non-compliance, and the relevant thresholds for accepting genuine coins.\nCHAPTER III\nHANDLING OF EURO COINS UNFIT FOR CIRCULATION\nArticle 8\nWithdrawal and reimbursement of euro coins unfit for circulation\n1. Member States shall withdraw from circulation euro coins unfit for circulation.\n2. Member States shall reimburse or replace euro coins that have become unfit due to long circulation or accident or that have been rejected during the authentication procedure for any other reason. Member States may refuse reimbursement of euro coins unfit for circulation which have been altered either deliberately or by a process that could be reasonably expected to have the effect of altering them, notwithstanding reimbursement of coins collected for charitable purposes, such as \u2018fountain coins\u2019.\n3. Member States shall ensure that after withdrawal, euro coins unfit for circulation are destroyed by physical and permanent deformation, so that those coins cannot be put back into circulation or be submitted for reimbursement.\nArticle 9\nHandling fees\n1. A handling fee of 5 % of the nominal value of the submitted euro coins unfit for circulation may be withheld from the reimbursement or the replacement of those euro coins. In the event that an entire bag or box of euro coins is checked in accordance with Article 11(2), the handling fee may be supplemented by an additional 15 % fee of the nominal value of the submitted euro coins.\n2. Member States may provide for general or partial exemptions from handling fees in cases where the natural or legal persons submitting the euro coins cooperate closely and regularly with the designated national authority in withdrawing from circulation counterfeit euro coins or euro coins unfit for circulation or where such exemptions serve the public interest.\n3. Transport and related costs shall be borne by the natural or legal person submitting the euro coins.\n4. Without prejudice to the exemption provided for in paragraph 2, a maximum quantity of one kilogramme of euro coins unfit for circulation per denomination per natural or legal person submitting euro coins shall be exempted from the handling fee each year. If that limit is exceeded, all the coins submitted may be subject to a fee.\n5. Where an individual submission of coins includes coins treated with chemical or other hazardous substances to such a degree that they may be deemed to harbour a health risk for handlers, the charges levied in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be supplemented by a further fee equivalent to 20 % of the nominal value of the euro coins submitted.\nArticle 10\nPackaging of euro coins unfit for circulation\n1. The natural or legal person submitting euro coins for reimbursement or replacement shall sort them per denomination in standardised bags or boxes, as follows:\n(a)\nthe bags or boxes shall comprise:\n(i)\n500 coins for each of the denominations of EUR 2 and EUR 1,\n(ii)\n1 000 coins for each of the denominations of EUR 0,50, EUR 0,20 and EUR 0,10,\n(iii)\n2 000 coins for each of the denominations of EUR 0,05, EUR 0,02 and EUR 0,01,\n(iv)\nfor smaller quantities, 100 coins of each denomination;\n(b)\neach bag or box shall bear the identifying details of the submitting natural or legal person, the value and the denomination contained, the weight, the date of packaging and the bag or box number; the submitting natural or legal person shall provide a packaging list with an overview of the bags or boxes submitted; where coins have been treated with chemical or other hazardous substances, the standard packaging units shall be accompanied by a written declaration specifying the exact substances which have been used;\n(c)\nwhere the total quantity of euro coins unfit for circulation is smaller than the requirements referred to in point (a), those euro coins shall be sorted by denomination and may be submitted in non-standard packaging.\n2. By derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may maintain different packaging requirements as provided for under their national rules on 11 January 2011.\nArticle 11\nChecks of euro coins unfit for circulation\n1. Member States may check submitted euro coins unfit for circulation as follows:\n(a)\nthe quantity declared shall be checked by weighing each bag or box;\n(b)\nauthenticity and visual appearance shall be checked on the basis of a sample of at least 10 % of the submission.\n2. In the event that anomalies following the checks referred to in paragraph 1, or deviations from Article 10, are identified, the entire bag or box shall be checked.\n3. Where the acceptance or processing of euro coins constitutes a health risk for handlers or a submission fails to meet packaging and labelling standards, Member States may refuse to accept such coins.\nMember States may provide for measures to be adopted with respect to the natural or legal persons that submitted coins referred to in the first subparagraph.\nCHAPTER IV\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 12\nReporting, communication and evaluation\n1. Member States shall submit annually reports to the Commission on their activities as regards authentication of euro coins. The information provided shall include the number of controls carried out pursuant to Article 6(2) and coin-processing machines checked, the test results, the volume of coins processed by those machines, the number of suspected counterfeit coins analysed and the number of euro coins unfit for circulation reimbursed, as well as details of any derogations provided for under Article 4(2) or Article 6(5).\n2. To enable Member States to monitor the compliance of institutions with this Regulation, they shall, if so requested, provide the Member States at least annually with at least the following information:\n(a)\nthe types and number of coin-processing machines used;\n(b)\nthe location of each coin-processing machine; and\n(c)\nthe volume of coins processed per coin-processing machine, per year and per denomination, for at least the three highest denominations.\n3. Member States shall ensure that information concerning the authorities designated for reimbursement or replacement of euro coins and specific modalities, such as packaging requirements and fees, is made available on the appropriate websites and through the appropriate publications.\n4. After having analysed the reports received from the Member States, the Commission shall present an annual report to the Economic and Financial Committee on developments and results concerning authentication of euro coins and euro coins unfit for circulation.\n5. The Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and to the Council by 30 June 2014 on the operation and effects of this Regulation. That report may be accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals implementing in further detail, or amending, this Regulation, in particular with respect to Articles 6 and 8.\nArticle 13\nPenalties\nMember States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012, with the exception of Chapter III, which shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["15", "41", "35", "7", "54", "52", "92", "49", "75", "63", "43", "87", "20", "97", "81", "82", "74", "93", "80", "69", "57", "19", "59", "4", "85", "17", "31", "37", "79", "40", "No Label", "12", "27", "28", "76"], "gold": ["12", "27", "28", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 22/2012\nof 11 January 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Fasola Wrzawska (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Fasola Wrzawska\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 January 2012.", "references": ["45", "31", "17", "59", "13", "42", "4", "73", "43", "75", "69", "53", "55", "94", "35", "79", "44", "82", "23", "58", "29", "28", "67", "37", "21", "98", "20", "65", "19", "6", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1332/2011\nof 16 December 2011\nlaying down common airspace usage requirements and operating procedures for airborne collision avoidance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (1), and in particular Articles 8(1), 8(5), and 9(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSafety requirements should be imposed on operators of aircraft registered in a Member State or registered in a third country and operated by a Union operator, and on operators of aircraft used by a third country operator within the Union.\n(2)\nFollowing a series of mid-air encounters in which safety margins have been lost, including accidents in Yaizu (Japan) in 2001 and in \u00dcberlingen (Germany) in 2002, the current airborne collision avoidance system software should be upgraded. The studies concluded that with the current airborne collision avoidance system software there is a probability of a mid-air collision risk of 2,7 \u00d7 10-8 per flight hour. Therefore the current ACAS II version 7.0 is considered to be of an unacceptable safety risk.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to introduce a new software version of the airborne collision avoidance system (ACAS II) to avoid mid-air collision of all aircraft flying in the airspace covered by Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n(4)\nTo ensure the highest possible safety standards, aircraft which do not fall within the scope of the mandatory carriage requirement but were equipped with ACAS II prior to entry into force of this Regulation should install ACAS II containing the latest version of collision avoidance software.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the safety benefits associated with the new software version are achieved, all aircraft need to be equipped as soon as practically possible. However, it is necessary to provide a realistic time for the aeronautical industry to adapt to this new Regulation taking into account the availability of new equipment.\n(6)\nThe Agency prepared draft implementing rules and submitted them as an opinion to the Commission in accordance with Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Aviation Safety Agency Committee established by Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\nThis Regulation lays down common airspace usage requirements and operating procedures for airborne collision avoidance to be fulfilled by:\n(a)\noperators of aircraft referred to under Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 undertaking flights into, within or out of the Union; and\n(b)\noperators of aircraft referred to under Article 4(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 undertaking flights within the airspace above the territory to which the Treaty applies as well as in any other airspace where Member States apply Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018airborne collision avoidance system (ACAS)\u2019 means an aircraft system based on secondary surveillance radar (SSR) transponder signals which operates independently of ground-based equipment to provide advice to the pilot on potential conflicting aircraft that are equipped with SSR transponders;\n(2)\n\u2018airborne collision avoidance system II (ACAS II)\u2019 means an airborne collision avoidance system which provides vertical resolution advisories in addition to traffic advisories;\n(3)\n\u2018resolution advisory (RA) indication\u2019 means an indication given to the flight crew recommending a manoeuvre intended to provide separation from all threats or a manoeuvre restriction intended to maintain existing separation;\n(4)\n\u2018traffic advisory (TA) indication\u2019 means an indication given to the flight crew that the proximity of another aircraft is a potential threat.\nArticle 3\nAirborne collision avoidance system (ACAS)\n1. The aeroplanes referred to in Section I of the Annex to this Regulation shall be equipped with and operated in accordance with the rules and procedures as specified in the Annex.\n2. Member States shall ensure that operation of aeroplanes referred to in Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 comply with the rules and procedures specified in the Annex in accordance with the conditions set out in that Article.\nArticle 4\nSpecial provisions applying to operators subject to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (3)\n1. By derogation from provisions OPS 1.668 and OPS 1.398 of Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91, Article 3 and the Annex to this Regulation shall apply for operators of aeroplanes referred to in Article 1(a).\n2. Any other obligation imposed on air operators by Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 as regards the approval, installation or operation of equipment shall continue to apply to ACAS II.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and application\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. Articles 3 and 4 shall apply as of 1 March 2012.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, in the case of aircraft with an individual certificate of airworthiness issued before 1 March 2012, the provisions of Article 3 and 4 shall apply as of 1 December 2015.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["51", "20", "73", "62", "8", "12", "47", "6", "96", "33", "5", "85", "90", "84", "1", "91", "87", "21", "15", "83", "22", "93", "61", "10", "71", "29", "76", "82", "19", "63", "No Label", "13", "40", "53", "54"], "gold": ["13", "40", "53", "54"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1279/2011\nof 8 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2011.", "references": ["8", "45", "63", "29", "32", "27", "1", "48", "33", "92", "77", "85", "83", "93", "19", "18", "89", "5", "91", "99", "96", "76", "42", "10", "98", "4", "78", "38", "54", "6", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 May 2011\non the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros\n(2011/294/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43, in conjunction with point (a) of Article 218(6), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 5 October 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1563/2006 on the conclusion of the Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros (1). A Protocol is annexed to that Agreement.\n(2)\nThe European Union negotiated with the Union of the Comoros (hereinafter \u2018the Comoros\u2019) a new Protocol, providing EU vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which the Comoros has sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries.\n(3)\nOn conclusion of those negotiations, the new Protocol was initialled on 21 May 2010 and amended by an Exchange of Letters on 16 September 2010.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2010/783/EU (2), the new Protocol was signed on 31 December 2010, on behalf of the European Union, and is being applied provisionally.\n(5)\nThe new Protocol should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros is approved on behalf of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the European Union, give the notification provided for in Article 14 of the Protocol (3).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 13 May 2011.", "references": ["28", "53", "81", "98", "79", "14", "27", "22", "32", "11", "10", "19", "77", "47", "76", "54", "75", "34", "73", "30", "78", "83", "57", "25", "7", "5", "39", "23", "68", "29", "No Label", "3", "16", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "16", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 479/2010\nof 1 June 2010\nlaying down rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards Member States\u2019 notifications to the Commission in the milk and milk products sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 192(2) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 192(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides for the exchange between the Member States and the Commission of any information necessary for the application of that Regulation. Commission Regulation (EC) No 562/2005 (2) lays down rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 (3) as regards communications between the Member States and the Commission in the milk and milk products sector.\n(2)\nSince Regulation (EC) No 562/2005 has already been amended and some further amendments are needed, notably to update references to other Regulations, it is appropriate, for reasons of clarity, to repeal Regulation (EC) No 562/2005 and to replace it by a new Regulation.\n(3)\nExport refunds and the aid for skimmed milk processed into casein can be fixed only on the basis of information on changes in prices both in the internal market and in international trade.\n(4)\nIt is necessary to be able to compare price quotations for products, particularly for the purposes of calculating refunds and aid amounts. It is also necessary to enhance the reliability of those price quotations by weighting the data.\n(5)\nIn order to simplify and alleviate the administrative burden of the national authorities, notifications of prices every week should be limited to products for which the information is necessary for the close monitoring of the dairy market. Notifications every month should be provided for other products while notifications for products for which the information is not essential should be abolished.\n(6)\nThe notification of the prices for products produced by less than three producers per Member State should be marked as confidential and should be used only by the Commission and should not be disclosed elsewhere.\n(7)\nFor the better surveillance of the dairy market, the information on imports of products for which import licence is required, is essential. In accordance with Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 of 14 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas (4), import licences are from 1 July 2008 required only for preferential imports.\n(8)\nArticle 11(1)(b) and (c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (5) provides for notifications to the Commission of the quantities covered by import licences issued and the quantities covered by unused or partly used import licences under import tariff quotas. Those horizontal provisions relate to the same information as that covered so far by Article 7(1) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2005. The obligation to notify that information should therefore not be included in the new Regulation.\n(9)\nArticle 1(2)(a)(i) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (6) provides for the cases and the products for which the presentation of an import licence is required. Part K of Annex II to that Regulation sets out a list of the dairy products imported under preferential conditions, other than tariff quotas, and submitted to an import licence. For those products, notifications should be made to the Commission.\n(10)\nChapter III of Title 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 provides for certain import quotas to be administered by means of inward-monitoring arrangement IMA 1 certificates issued by the authorities of third countries. The Member States inform the Commission of the quantity of products for which import licences are issued on the basis of IMA 1 certificates. Experience has shown that such notification is not always sufficient to allow such imports to be monitored closely at every stage. Provision should be laid down for the notification of additional information.\n(11)\nThe accurate and regular monitoring of trade flows to assess the effect of refunds requires information on exports of products for which refunds are fixed, particularly the quantities awarded under tendering procedures.\n(12)\nThe implementation of the Agreement on Agriculture concluded under the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement on Agriculture\u2019), approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC (7) requires a wide range of detailed information to be provided on imports and exports, in particular with regard to licence applications and the way licences are used, in order to ensure compliance with undertakings under the Agreement on Agriculture. Rapid information on export trends is needed in order to make maximum use of those undertakings.\n(13)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (8) lays down special rules for the export of certain milk products to Canada, the United States and the Dominican Republic. Provision should be made for the relevant information to be notified.\n(14)\nRegulation (EC) No 1187/2009 introduces specific arrangements for the grant of refunds on ingredients of EU origin in processed cheese manufactured under the inward processing arrangements. Provision should be made for the notification of the relevant information.\n(15)\nExperience gained over the years in processing the information received by the Commission has shown that the frequency of some notifications might be reduced without loosing essential information.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nMEASURES RELATING TO AID FOR SKIMMED MILK AND SKIMMED-MILK POWDER\nArticle 1\n1. In the case of aid granted under Article 99(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder used in feeding stuffs, Member States shall notify to the Commission not later than the 20th of each month for the previous month the following information:\n(a)\nthe quantities of skimmed milk used in the manufacture of compound feeding stuffs covered by aid applications submitted during the month concerned;\n(b)\nthe quantities of denatured skimmed-milk powder covered by aid applications submitted during the month concerned;\n(c)\nthe quantities of skimmed-milk powder used in the manufacture of compound feeding stuffs covered by aid applications submitted during the month concerned.\n2. In the case of aid granted under Article 100 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for skimmed milk processed into casein and caseinates, Member States shall notify to the Commission, not later than the 20th of each month the quantities of skimmed milk covered by aid applications submitted during the previous month. Such quantities shall be broken down according to the quality of the casein or caseinates produced.\nCHAPTER II\nPRICES\nArticle 2\n1. Not later than each Wednesday 12 a.m. (Brussels time), and in respect of ex-factory prices recorded in the previous week for the products listed in Annex I.A, Member States shall notify to the Commission:\n(a)\nprices for each of the products referred to in points 1 to 6, where the national production represents 1 % or more of the EU production;\n(b)\nprices for cheeses representing 4 % or more of the total national cheese production.\nThe national and EU production of butter referred to in points 4 and 5 of Annex I.A to be taken into account for the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (a), shall be the total production for both products referred to in those points.\n2. Not later than the 10th of each month and in respect of ex-factory prices recorded in the previous month for the products listed in Annex I.B, Member States shall notify to the Commission:\n(a)\nprices for each product, other than cheeses, where the national production represents 2 % or more of the EU production;\n(b)\nprices for cheeses, by type, other than those referred to in paragraph 1(b), representing 8 % or more of the total national cheese production.\n3. Member States shall notify to the Commission as soon as possible but no later than the end of the month:\n(a)\nthe price of raw milk, at real fat and protein content, paid to milk producers in their territory, for deliveries in the preceding month;\n(b)\nthe estimated price for deliveries in the running month, if available.\n4. For the purpose of this Article, \u2018ex-factory price\u2019 means the price at which the product is purchased from the enterprise, excluding taxes (VAT) and any other cost (transport, loading, handling, storage, pallets, insurance, etc.). The price shall refer to the sales that have been invoiced in the reference period.\nArticle 3\n1. The prices notified in accordance with Article 2 shall be expressed as weighted averages, in national currency per 100 kg.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that the notified information on the prices is representative, accurate and complete. To this end, the Member States shall submit to the Commission, by 15 August 2010, a report on the basis of the model set out in Annex II. A new report shall be submitted each time where an element of the previous report needs to be updated.\n3. The Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the economic operators concerned provide them with the information required within the relevant time limits.\n4. Before 15 August 2010, the Member States shall transmit to the Commission the following information using the models set out in the Annexes I.A and I.B:\n(a)\nwhere a price to be notified relates to a product produced by less than three producers in a Member State, the word \u2018confidential\u2019 shall appear in the column \u2018remarks\u2019 of the Annexes I.A and I.B. Such information shall be considered confidential and shall be used only for aggregate purposes;\n(b)\nfor the cheeses, the representative packing unit for which the price is reported;\n(c)\nfor the products other than cheeses, where a price corresponds to a different packing unit of the product than the one shown in the column \u2018representative packing unit\u2019, the actual packing unit of the product for which the price is reported shall appear in the column \u2018remarks\u2019 of the Annexes I.A and I.B.\nMember States shall inform the Commission each time where one of the elements referred to in the first subparagraph points (a), (b) and (c) needs to be updated.\nCHAPTER III\nTRADE\nSECTION 1\nImports\nArticle 4\nMember States shall notify to the Commission, not later than the 10th of each month for the previous month, the quantities of milk and milk products imported under preferential conditions other than tariff quotas, as referred to in Part K of Part I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 for which import licences have been issued, broken down by CN code and by country of origin code.\nThe notifications shall include nil returns.\nArticle 5\nBy 31 March at the latest in respect of the previous year, Member States shall notify to the Commission the following data, broken down by CN code, concerning the import licences issued on presentation of an IMA 1 certificate, in accordance with Title 2, Chapter III, Section 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, specifying the IMA 1 certificate numbers:\n(a)\nthe quantity of products covered by the certificate and the date of issue of the import licences;\n(b)\nthe quantity of products in respect of which the security has been released.\nThe notifications shall include nil returns.\nSECTION 2\nExports\nArticle 6\n1. Member States shall notify to the Commission, by 6 p.m. on each working day, the following information:\n(a)\nthe quantities, broken down by code of the export refund nomenclature for milk products and by destination code, covered by applications submitted that day for licences:\n(i)\nas referred to in Article 1(2)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, with the exception of those referred to in Articles 15 and 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009;\n(ii)\nas referred to in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009;\n(b)\nwhere appropriate, that no applications have been submitted on that day, except of the case where no refund or 0 rate refund is fixed for any of the products referred to in Part 9 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (9);\n(c)\nthe quantities, broken down by application and by code of the export refund nomenclature for milk products and by destination code, covered by applications submitted on that day for provisional licences referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009, indicating:\n(i)\nthe closing date for submitting tenders, accompanied by a copy of the document confirming the invitation to tender for the quantities applied for;\n(ii)\nthe quantity of products covered by the invitation to tender;\n(d)\nthe quantities, broken down by code of the export refund nomenclature for milk products and by destination code, for which the provisional licences referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 were definitively issued or cancelled that day, the date of the provisional licence and the quantity it covers;\n(e)\nwhere appropriate, the revised quantity of products covered by the invitation to tender referred to in point (c) of this paragraph;\n(f)\nthe quantities, broken down by code of the export refund nomenclature for milk products, covered by licences with a refund issued under Article 32(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\n2. As regards the notification referred to in paragraph 1(c)(i), where several applications have been submitted for the same invitation to tender, one notification per Member State shall suffice.\nArticle 7\n1. Member States shall notify to the Commission, before the 16th of each month for the previous month, the following information:\n(a)\nthe quantities, broken down by code of the export refund nomenclature for milk products, covered by licence applications cancelled under the second subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009;\n(b)\nthe unused quantities on licences expired and returned in the previous month and which have been issued since 1 July of the current GATT-year, broken down by code of the export refund nomenclature for milk products;\n(c)\nthe quantities of milk products, broken down by CN code and by country of origin code, which are not in one of the situations referred to in Article 28(2) of the Treaty and are imported for use in the manufacture of products falling within CN code 0406 30, in accordance with Article 12(5)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 (10) and for which the authorisation referred to in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 has been granted;\n(d)\nthe quantities broken down by CN code, for which licences have been issued and where no refund is applied for, as referred to in Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\n2. Member States shall notify to the Commission before 31 December the quantities broken down by CN code for which licences have been issued for the following quota year, in accordance with Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\nCHAPTER IV\nGENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 8\n1. The notifications to the Commission under this Regulation shall be made by the Member States by electronic means using the methods made available to them by the Commission.\n2. The form and content of the notifications shall be defined on the basis of models or methods made available to the competent authorities by the Commission. Those models and methods shall be adapted and updated after the Committee referred to in Article 195(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and the competent authorities concerned, as appropriate, have been informed.\nArticle 9\nThe Commission shall keep available for the Member States the data, information and documents transmitted by them.\nArticle 10\nRegulation (EC) No 562/2005 is repealed.\nHowever, Regulation (EC) No 562/2005 shall continue to apply to transmission of data, information and documents relating to the period before the application of this Regulation.\nReferences made to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 11\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2010.", "references": ["25", "57", "95", "89", "43", "6", "68", "72", "30", "18", "59", "3", "79", "34", "83", "7", "14", "16", "93", "98", "29", "44", "22", "82", "99", "55", "10", "49", "65", "63", "No Label", "35", "41", "61", "70", "96"], "gold": ["35", "41", "61", "70", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1144/2011\nof 10 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2011.", "references": ["95", "87", "60", "97", "59", "31", "3", "99", "18", "64", "41", "67", "28", "49", "39", "52", "40", "56", "88", "12", "30", "16", "89", "79", "47", "73", "46", "74", "86", "69", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 99/2011\nof 3 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2011.", "references": ["3", "50", "80", "71", "21", "62", "25", "0", "26", "6", "84", "38", "81", "34", "57", "63", "8", "4", "46", "82", "45", "9", "76", "18", "89", "39", "22", "95", "11", "65", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 1 December 2011\nappointing a Spanish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/813/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Miguel LUCENA BARRANQUERO,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed as alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMs Elvira SAINT-GERONS HERRERA, Secretaria General de Acci\u00f3n Exterior de la Junta de Andaluc\u00eda.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2011.", "references": ["9", "29", "43", "44", "85", "3", "57", "81", "50", "66", "48", "8", "20", "33", "78", "0", "35", "71", "62", "68", "45", "61", "58", "86", "82", "22", "40", "87", "93", "6", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/274/CFSP\nof 12 May 2010\namending and extending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28 and 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 November 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (1).\n(2)\nOn 10 November 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/862/CFSP (2) amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP and extending it until 24 November 2009.\n(3)\nOn 20 November 2009, the Council adopted Joint Action 2009/854/CFSP (3) amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP and extending it until 24 May 2010.\n(4)\nEU BAM Rafah should be further extended until 24 May 2011 on the basis of its current mandate.\n(5)\nIt is necessary to lay down the financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EU BAM Rafah for the period from 25 May 2010 to 24 May 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nJoint Action 2005/889/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nThe first paragraph of Article 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The aim of EU BAM Rafah is to provide a Third Party presence at the Rafah Crossing Point in order to contribute, in cooperation with the Union\u2019s institution-building efforts, to the opening of the Rafah Crossing Point and to build up confidence between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 4a(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and the overall authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), shall exercise command and control of EU BAM Rafah at the strategic level.\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 5(1) is deleted and the remaining paragraphs are renumbered accordingly;\n4.\nArticle 8(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Where required, the status of EU BAM Rafah personnel, including, where appropriate, the privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of EU BAM Rafah shall be subject of an agreement to be concluded in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 9(3) and (4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the PSC and the overall authority of the HR, is the commander of EU BAM Rafah at strategic level and, as such, shall issue instructions to the Head of Mission and provide him with advice and technical support.\n4. The Civilian Operation Commander shall report to the Council through the HR.\u2019;\n6.\nArticle 10(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council, political control and strategic direction of the mission. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions for this purpose in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty. This authorisation shall include the powers to appoint a Head of Mission, upon a proposal from the HR, and to amend the OPLAN. It shall also include powers to take subsequent decisions regarding the appointment of the Head of Mission. The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of the mission shall remain vested in the Council.\u2019;\n7.\nArticle 11(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States shall be subject of an agreement to be concluded in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Where the EU and a third State have concluded an agreement establishing a framework for the participation of this third State in the EU crisis management operations, the provisions of such an agreement shall apply in the context of EU BAM Rafah.\u2019;\n8.\nArticle 13(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mission for the period from 25 May 2010 to 24 May 2011 shall be EUR 1 950 000.\u2019;\n9.\nArticle 14(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Council and the Commission shall, each in accordance with their respective powers, ensure consistency between the implementation of this Joint Action and Union\u2019s external action in accordance with Article 21(3) of the Treaty. The Council and the Commission shall cooperate to this end.\u2019;\n10.\nArticle 15 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 15\nRelease of classified information\n1. The HR is authorised to release to third States associated with this Joint Action, as appropriate and in accordance with the operational needs of the mission, EU classified information and documents up to the level \u201cRESTREINT UE\u201d generated for the purposes of the mission, in accordance with the Council\u2019s security regulations.\n2. In the event of a specific and immediate operational need, the HR is also authorised to release to the local authorities EU classified information and documents up to the level \u201cRESTREINT UE\u201d generated for the purposes of the mission, in accordance with the Council\u2019s security regulations. In all other cases, such information and documents shall be released to the local authorities in accordance with the procedures appropriate to their level of cooperation with the EU.\n3. The HR is authorised to release to third States associated with this Joint Action and to the local authorities EU non-classified documents related to the deliberations of the Council with regard to the mission covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (4).\n11.\nThe second paragraph of Article 16 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 24 May 2011.\u2019;\n12.\nArticle 17 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 17\nReview\nThis Joint Action shall be reviewed by 15 April 2011.\u2019;\n13.\nThe third paragraph of Article 18 shall be deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2010.", "references": ["27", "55", "97", "42", "15", "35", "89", "13", "86", "52", "98", "11", "93", "92", "83", "73", "48", "22", "26", "76", "88", "57", "30", "45", "58", "36", "10", "54", "69", "64", "No Label", "1", "5", "9"], "gold": ["1", "5", "9"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/486/CFSP\nof 23 July 2012\nconcerning the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation and the European Union on the protection of classified information\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 37 thereof, in conjunction with Article 218(5) and (6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAt its meeting on 15 June 2009, the Council decided to authorise the Presidency to open negotiations pursuant to former Article 24 of the Treaty on European Union for a security of information agreement between the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation and the European Union.\n(2)\nFollowing that authorisation to open negotiations, the Presidency negotiated the Agreement between the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation and the European Union on the protection of classified information.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation and the European Union on the protection of classified information is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["11", "32", "51", "20", "56", "24", "73", "1", "88", "90", "12", "92", "13", "59", "2", "35", "96", "75", "70", "48", "53", "30", "10", "50", "66", "54", "82", "55", "64", "23", "No Label", "3", "5", "7", "41", "42"], "gold": ["3", "5", "7", "41", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 574/2011\nof 16 June 2011\namending Annex I to Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum levels for nitrite, melamine, Ambrosia spp. and carry-over of certain coccidiostats and histomonostats and consolidating Annexes I and II thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed (1), and in particular Article 8(1) and the first indent of Article 8(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2002/32/EC provides that the use of products intended for animal feed that contain levels of undesirable substances exceeding the maximum levels laid down in Annex I to that Directive is prohibited. For certain undesirable substances, Member States are to carry out investigations identifying the sources of those substances if the thresholds set out in Annex II of that Directive are exceeded.\n(2)\nAs regards nitrite, it was found that the products and by-products from sugar beet and sugarcane and from the starch production contain under certain conditions levels of nitrite exceeding the maximum levels recently established in Annex I to Directive 2002/32/EC. Furthermore, it appears that the method of analysis for the determination of nitrite in feed does not always provide reliable analytical results with regard to the products and by-products from sugar beet and sugarcane and from the starch production. Given that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded in its opinion of 25 March 2009 (2) that the presence of nitrite in animal products does not raise any concern for human health, the products concerned should be exempted for the time being from the maximum level for nitrite in feed materials, while nitrite levels in those products and appropriate methods of analysis are further examined.\n(3)\nAs regards melamine, the EFSA adopted on 18 March 2010 a scientific opinion on melamine in food and feed (3). EFSA findings show that exposure to melamine can result in the formation of crystals in the urinary tract. These crystals cause proximal tubular damage and have been observed in animals and children as a result of incidents involving adulteration of feed and infant formula with melamine, leading to fatalities in some instances. The Codex Alimentarius Commission has established maximum levels for melamine in feed and food (4). It is appropriate to include these maximum levels in Annex I to Directive 2002/32/EC to protect animal and public health as these levels are in accordance with the conclusions of the EFSA opinion. It is appropriate to exempt some feed additives from the maximum levels as they contain unavoidably a level of melamine above the maximum level as a result of the normal production process.\n(4)\nAs regards Ambrosia spp., EFSA concluded in its opinion of 4 June 2010 (5) that bird feed may be an important means of Ambrosia spp. dispersal, especially in previously uninfested areas, as it often contains significant quantities of unprocessed seeds of Ambrosia spp. Therefore, the prevention of the use of bird feed contaminated with unprocessed seeds of Ambrosia spp. is likely to attenuate the further dispersal of Ambrosia spp. in the Union. Ambrosia spp. are of public health concern due to the allergenic properties of their pollen. Inhalation of the plant pollen may, amongst other conditions, cause rhino-conjunctivitis and asthma. There is also some evidence for allergenicity of Ambrosia spp. pollen in animals. It is therefore appropriate to limit the presence of Ambrosia spp. seeds in feed materials and compound feed containing unground grains and seeds and to establish a maximum level of Ambrosia spp. seeds in unground grains and seeds as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) by good agricultural practices and cleaning techniques.\n(5)\nAs regards coccidiostats and histomonostats, transfer from one production lot to another may occur when such substances are used as authorised feed additives. Such transfer may result in the contamination of feed produced subsequently by the presence of technically unavoidable traces of such substances, referred to as unavoidable carry-over or cross-contamination, in feed for which coccidiostats and histomonostats are not authorised, referred to as non-target feed. Taking into account the application of good manufacturing practices, maximum levels of unavoidable carry-over of coccidiostats or histomonostats in non-target feed should be established following the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle. For the purpose of enabling the feed manufacturer to manage unavoidable carry-over, a carry-over rate of approximately 3 % of the authorised maximum content should be considered acceptable as regards feed for less sensitive non-target animal species while a carry-over rate of approximately 1 % of the authorised maximum content should be considered acceptable for feed intended to sensitive non-target animal species and feed used for the period before slaughter. The carry-over rate of 1 % should also be considered acceptable for cross-contamination of other feed for target species to which no coccidiostats or histomonostats are added, and as regards non-target feed for \u2018continuous food-producing animals\u2019, such as dairy cows or laying hens, where there is evidence of transfer from feed to food of animal origin. Where feed materials are fed directly to the animals or where complementary feedingstuffs are used, this should not lead to an exposure of the animals to a higher level of coccidiostats or histomonostats than the corresponding maximum levels of exposure where only complete feedingstuffs are used in a daily ration.\n(6)\nAs regards the coccidiostats narasin, nicarbazin and lasalocid-sodium, Annex I to Directive 2002/32/EC should be amended to take into account recent modifications of the authorisations of those substances and Commission Regulation (EC) No 124/2009 of 10 February 2009 setting maximum levels for the presence of coccidiostats or histomonostats in food resulting from the unavoidable carry-over of these substances in non-target feed (6) should consequently be amended.\n(7)\nAnnexes I and II to Directive 2002/32/EC had already been adapted substantially and many times in the past. It is therefore appropriate to consolidate those Annexes. To improve the clarity and readability of those Annexes, it is appropriate to restructure them and to harmonise terminology. Given that the provisions contained in the Annexes have a direct application and are binding in their entirety, it is appropriate to establish these Annexes by a Regulation.\n(8)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Directive 2002/32/EC are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nThe provisions as regards Ambrosia spp. shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 June 2011.", "references": ["12", "59", "24", "65", "40", "80", "50", "54", "9", "49", "51", "76", "17", "79", "58", "4", "5", "10", "27", "34", "56", "95", "98", "78", "69", "43", "31", "14", "52", "23", "No Label", "25", "60", "66"], "gold": ["25", "60", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1094/2011\nof 28 October 2011\nfixing the coefficients applicable to cereals exported in the form of Scotch whisky for the period 2011/2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 of 10 November 2006 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 as regards the fixing and granting of adjusted refunds in respect of cereals exported in the form of certain spirit drinks (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 lays down that the quantities of cereals eligible for the refund are to be the quantities placed under control and distilled, weighted by a coefficient to be fixed annually for each Member State concerned. The coefficient is to express the average ratio between the total quantities exported and the total quantities marketed of the spirit drink concerned, on the basis of the trend noted in those quantities during the number of years corresponding to the average ageing period of the spirit drink in question.\n(2)\nAccording to the information provided by the United Kingdom in respect of the period 1 January to 31 December 2010, the average ageing period for Scotch whisky in 2010 was eight years.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1113/2010 of 1 December 2010 fixing the coefficients applicable to cereals exported in the form of Scotch whisky for the period 2010/2011 (3) has exhausted its effects, as it concerns the coefficients applicable for the year 2010/2011. The coefficients for the period 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012 should therefore be fixed accordingly.\n(4)\nArticle 10 of Protocol 3 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area excludes the grant of refunds in respect of exports to Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway. Moreover, the Union has concluded agreements abolishing export refunds with certain third countries. Under the terms of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006, this should be taken into account in calculating the coefficients for 2011/2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the period 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012, the coefficients provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 applying to cereals used in the United Kingdom for manufacturing Scotch whisky shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 October 2011.", "references": ["94", "87", "43", "48", "46", "24", "79", "25", "29", "32", "30", "4", "86", "66", "92", "95", "13", "54", "64", "39", "98", "16", "90", "50", "23", "88", "67", "74", "58", "80", "No Label", "19", "20", "68", "71", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["19", "20", "68", "71", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 29 June 2011\non State aid SA.14554 (C 7/04) implemented by Germany for the Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Weinabsatz (Wine Marketing Company)\n(notified under document C(2011) 4426)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2012/268/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) (1) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision cited above (2),\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nFollowing a complaint received on 10 May 2001 the Commission sent a written inquiry to the Federal Republic of Germany on 9 November 2001. The measure was notified by letter of 5 March 2002, received on 8 March 2002, in response to this inquiry of the Commission. Since the measure had at that time already been implemented, it was listed among aid schemes not notified (aid NN 159/02).\n(2)\nGermany sent additional information by letter dated 20 November 2002, received on 25 November 2002, by letter dated 28 April 2003, received on 2 May 2003, by letter dated 27 May 2003, received on 28 May 2003, and by fax dated 2 October 2003.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 19 February 2004, SG-Greffe (2004) D/200645, the Commission informed Germany that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of the aid.\n(4)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.\n(5)\nThe Commission received no comments from interested parties (4).\n(6)\nGermany submitted comments to the Commission by letter of 18 March 2004, registered as received on 23 March 2004. Further comments were submitted by letter of 10 January 2006, registered on 10 January 2006, and by letter of 13 July 2007, registered on 16 July 2007.\n(7)\nBy letter dated 21 October 2008, SG-Greffe (2008) D/206430, the Commission informed Germany that it had decided to extend the procedure which had been initiated under Article 108(2) of the TFEU in respect of the aid.\n(8)\nThe Commission decision to extend the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.\n(9)\nThe Commission received no comments from interested parties.\n(10)\nGermany submitted (after a request for delay extension of 17 November 2008, accepted by the Commission on 21 November 2008) comments to the Commission by letter of 23 December 2008, registered on 5 January 2009.\nII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\nII.1. Title of the measure\n(11)\nKredit an die Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Weinabsatz mit nachfolgendem Forderungsverzicht [loan to the Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Weinabsatz (wine marketing company) and subsequent waiver of claims]\nII.2. Legal basis\n(12)\nThe measure was implemented on the basis of a contractual agreement between the Wiederaufbaukasse der rheinland-pf\u00e4lzischen Weinbaugebiete (reconstruction fund for the Rhineland-Palatinate winegrowing areas, WAK) and the Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Weinabsatz Pfalz GmbH (Palatinate wine marketing company, GfW).\nII.3. Objective\n(13)\nThe objective was to grant a loan to GfW to purchase must from winegrowing enterprises and merchants. Secured assets were agreed as collateral. These assets were also subject to varying degrees of retention of title (Eigentumsvorbehalt) by the winegrowing enterprises and merchants (Weinbaugetriebe und Kommission\u00e4re) in the form of simple, extended or prolonged retention of title. The waiver of claims took place when GfW got into financial difficulty due to a slump in market prices.\nII.4. Public body\n(14)\nWAK is a public-law corporation of the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate registered in Mainz. It operates in the winegrowing sector in a similar manner as a bank. WAK\u2019s customary trade is the granting of loans for land reparcelling (Flurbereinigung). WAK is financed from contributions, fees, loans and grants (Article 8(1) of the Weinbergsaufbaugesetz [winegrowing enterprise development act]).\nII.5. Beneficiaries\n(15)\nBeneficiary of the measure was GfW, which was granted a loan by WAK on terms which were not in conformity with market conditions.\n(16)\nGfW was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bauern- und Winzerverband Rheinland-Pfalz S\u00fcd (southern Rhineland-Palatinate farmers\u2019 and winegrowing enterprises\u2019 association). It was founded in 1984 for the purpose of marketing wine and its trade was the production and marketing of sparkling wine, grape juice, grape jelly, grape spirit and brandy. GfW also provided services for winegrowing enterprises in connection with distillation measures (Destillationsma\u00dfnahmen). These distillation measures involved the measures covered by the common market organisation (6) and state-funded distillation normally carried out on the basis of Council decisions (7). In connection to this GfW advised small wine producers and organised the transport of wine to the distilleries.\n(17)\nOther possible beneficiaries are the winegrowing enterprises and merchants from whom, as a result of the loan, GfW was placed in a position to buy must and who did not waive any of their claims on GfW when WAK decided to do so at the time GfW got into financial difficulty.\nII.6. Background of the aid\n(18)\nIn 1999, using a loan of EUR 15 302 696,25 from WAK and its own resources, GfW purchased 44 million litres of must. 60 % of this must had a minimum of 60 degree Oechsle and an average of 81 degree Oechsle. 40 % of the must was ordinary table wine must with a minimum of 44 degree Oechsle which was bought to take advantage of the beneficial conditions of preventive distillation. An average price of EUR 0,38 per litre was paid for all the must purchased. No finished wine was purchased. The purchase was carried out on the basis of simple, extended or prolonged retention of title (einfache, erweiterte, verl\u00e4ngerte Eigentumsvorbehalte) by the winegrowing enterprises and merchants. At the same time these secured assets were agreed as collateral for WAK.\n(19)\nAccording to the information submitted by Germany, GfW\u2019s business plan was to take advantage of the distillation opportunities in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 for 40 % of the must and process 60 % of the must into raw wine for the production of sparkling wine and to sell it to sparkling wine producers. In addition, GfW were planning to stock 20 % of the raw wine for nine months to one year in order to take advantage of EU subsidies for stocking of wine in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 822/87, before it would be sold on the market for raw wine for the production of sparkling wine.\n(20)\nOn 11 November 1999 the winegrowing enterprises and merchants received a down payment of 80 % of the purchase price. A down payment of EUR 0,31 per litre was paid on average.\n(21)\nIn 1999, GfW sent 40 % of its stocks to preventive distillation. In view of the fall in prices on the market for raw wine at the end of 1999 GfW decided not to sell any of the raw wine that year but to wait for the market to recover in 2000.\n(22)\nIn 2000, due to the comparatively large harvests and falling sales of sparkling wine the market in white wine slumped even further (average prices falling in some instances by as much as EUR 0,20). Much of the cask wine still in storage had to be sent for another round of distillation.\n(23)\nAs a result of an amendment of the common organisation of the market in wine adopted in 1999 and entered into force on 1 August 2000, preventive distillation in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 was replaced by distillation to supply the potable alcohol market in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999. The terms were considerably poorer, and only around half the previous price of EUR 0,50-0,55 per litre for preventive distillation could be achieved.\n(24)\nFollowing on the slump in prices in 2000 it proved impossible for GfW to achieve the expected profits neither on the wine market nor in distillation to supply the potable alcohol market. As a result, the book value of GfW\u2019s stocks had to be reduced significantly and as a result, GfW\u2019s liabilities exceeded its assets.\n(25)\nIn view of the commercial problems described above, an interim statement of account was drawn up for the year until 31 October 2000 and examined by an auditor. On 31 October 2000 GfW\u2019s liabilities (EUR 15 670 155) exceeded its current assets (EUR 9 886 856) with EUR 5 783 299 and GfW had the liabilities as expressed in the table below. According to a report prepared by Wirtschaftspr\u00fcfungsgesellschaft Falk & Co. GmbH, GfW would very soon be facing insolvency proceedings due to its liabilities exceeding its assets (\u00dcberschuldung) if nothing was done to avoid this.\n(26)\nTable 1\n(EUR)\nLiabilities to\nAmount\nWAK\n10 150 959\nFinancial institutions\n726 892\nSuppliers\n218 460\nWinegrowing enterprises and merchants\n4 355 581\nOther\n218 263\nTotal\n15 670 155\n(27)\nAccording to \u00a719 of the German insolvency law (Insolvenzordnung) liabilities exceeding the assets of a company is cause for opening the insolvency proceedings. Because of this, the Executive board of GfW was under the obligation in accordance with \u00a7 64 GmbHG a.F. i. V. m. \u00a7 19 InsO, to within three weeks of entering into the state of its liabilities exceeding its assets (\u00dcberschuldung) to apply for the opening of the insolvency proceedings.\n(28)\nAs a result of the impending insolvency, GfW asked some creditors (WAK, the winegrowing enterprises and around 130 merchants involved in the purchase described in recital 18) to waive part of their outstanding claims to enable the company to continue trading. In the case of the winegrowing enterprises and merchants, the waiver was to cover 90 % of their outstanding claims, meaning they would only receive an additional 2 % of the agreed purchase price. The remaining deficit was to be eliminated by the necessary subordination of claims and waiver of claims by WAK.\n(29)\nAs principle creditor (see table 1) with a weaker security position, WAK had a considerable interest in avoiding the impending insolvency. It therefore tried to convince the winegrowing enterprises and merchants to agree to waive a part of their claims. WAK also signed a written agreement with GfW, dated 4 December 2000, where it agrees to subordinate a part of its outstanding claims - corresponding to GfW\u2019s deficit - in favour of the other creditors. The final amount of the subordination of claims was only to be specified once the waiver of claims declarations of the winegrowing enterprises and merchants had been received, so as to minimise the amount subordinated. It was also agreed that WAK would, if it would prove necessary at a later stage to avoid insolvency proceedings, waive the same amount of claims as it had subordinated.\n(30)\n1 700 out of the 2 700 winegrowing enterprises and merchants declared their willingness to waive 90 % of their remaining claims, corresponding to around 60 % of the outstanding claims of the group as a whole. However, the remaining winegrowing enterprises and merchants either specifically refused the offer or did not answer the request. It was clear that some of them decided not to waive their claims because of their stronger security position - some had prolonged retention of title and had already received down payment of 80 % of the agreed price. This meant that their returns in case of insolvency proceedings would be higher than the 2 % of the agreed purchase price which was on offer.\n(31)\nIn addition, a number of the winegrowing enterprises and merchants had handed in complaints against GfW and these complaints had been treated by the court who proposed settlements agreements. According to the settlement agreements GfW should pay 70 % of the remaining claims and 30 % should be waived. The court also decided that GfW would have to carry 80 % of the court fees. Similar settlement agreements were proposed by other courts and, with this in mind, it was no longer possible for GfW to expect that the other winegrowing enterprises and merchants would agree to waiving 90 % of their remaining claims. In addition, several winegrowing enterprises and merchants now declared that they would demand 100 % repayment of the remaining 20 %.\n(32)\n\u00a7 305a of the German insolvency law states that an out of court settlement (au\u00dfergerichtliche Einigung) to avoid settlement of debts fails when one single creditor decides to proceed to enforcement after the out of court settlement negotiations have started.\n(33)\nTherefore, contrary to its original intention, GfW could no longer ask the winegrowing enterprises and merchants to waive any of their claims. Instead, GfW signed an agreement with WAK dated 21 February 2001 stating that WAK agrees to fully cover GfW\u2019s deficit of year 2000 by waiving EUR 5 005 441,60 of its claims. On the remaining debt for the time period of 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001, no interest would be charged. The agreement also stated that the winegrowing enterprises and merchants remaining claims would be settled in full. This way, the security of WAK\u2019s non-subordinated claims was guaranteed, the deficit situation was remedied, insolvency proceedings were avoided for the time being and GfW could continue trading.\n(34)\nDuring the period of 1 November 2000 to 31 December 2000 GfW made repayments to WAK on the loan at a value of EUR 1 440 446,92. During the period of 2001-2005 GfW continued trading and made regular repayments on its loan to WAK, totalling EUR 3 728 969,40. In addition, during 2001, GfW made interest payments totalling EUR 149 757,16 to WAK.\n(35)\nDue to a decline in turnover in GfW\u2019s regular fields of business as well as insufficient capitalisation, GfW had by 31 December 2004 decided to cease all activity and to liquidate GfW. All remaining stock of the remaining business areas was sold. All the proceeds were used to repay WAK. It was agreed with the buyer (a private person) that the value of all the stock remaining according to the inventory list on 31 December 2004 would be transferred to WAK at the end of 2005. The value would be the original purchase value of EUR 79 579,79.\n(36)\nGfW was eventually dissolved as of 1 June 2005 and deleted from the trade registry during the course of 2006. There is neither a legal successor nor any legal entity from which the aid could be recovered.\n(37)\nBy 31 December 2005 EUR 9 897 154,65 of the loan had been repaid and EUR 793 994,99 in interest payments had been made. After winding-up GfW\u2019s remaining assets (EUR 87 079,79), WAK\u2019s remaining outstanding claims of around EUR 313 000 were declared irrecoverable and were written off. The part of the loan that was never repaid therefore totalled EUR 5 318 441,60 (the original waiver of claims of EUR 5 005 441,60 plus the outstanding claims after liquidation of EUR 313 000).\nII.7. Nature and intensity of the aid\n(38)\nWAK\u2019s EUR 15 302 696,25 loan to GfW was granted in several instalments in 1999 for a term of 12 to 18 months:\n(EUR)\n11.11.1999\n5 936 061,62\n25.11.1999\n6 868 777,04\n1.12.1999\n585 429,72\n13.12.1999\n112 110,66\n17.12.1999\n1 800 317,21\nTotal\n15 302 696,25\n(39)\nThe interest rates charged was as follows:\n4th quarter 1999\n3,28 %\n1st quarter 2000\n3,51 %\n2nd quarter 2000\n4,15 %\n3rd quarter 2000\n4,80 %\n4th quarter 2000\n5,15 %\n2001\n4,55 %-5,25 %\n(40)\nOn 11 November 1999 the suppliers received a down payment of 80 % of the agreed price. In addition, as a result of the prolonged retention of title awarded some of the suppliers, which would not come to an end on processing, blending or mixing, part of the stock was used to secure these suppliers\u2019 remaining claim of 20 %. The stocks were also agreed as collateral for WAK. However, due to the retention of title WAK had only a secondary claim on part of the stock as long as the claims with prolonged retention of title were not settled. The larger share of the risk of fluctuations in prices consequently lay with GfW and its creditors of which WAK was the main one.\n(41)\nOn the loan granted by WAK to GfW only limited interest was paid: from 11 November 1999 to 31 December 1999 (at a rate of 3,28 %), from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000 (3,51-5,15 %) and from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 (4,55-5,25 %). No further interest was claimed after 31 December 2001.\n(42)\nConsidering the risk that WAK took when lending the money to GfW, a substantial risk premium should have been charged on top of the regular interest rate. As there was no such risk premium added to the interest rate an aid element was present at the time of granting of the loan. This aid element can be calculated as the difference between the interest rate charged and the market interest rate plus the risk premium which should have been charged.\n(43)\nAccording to the Commission notice on the method for setting the reference and discount rates (8) as amended by Commission notice on technical adaptation to the method for setting the reference and discount rates (9), applicable for the period in question, the base reference rate for Germany lay between 5,23 % and 6,33 %. According to the notice, the reference rate determined is a floor rate which may be increased in situations involving particular risk (for example, an undertaking in difficulty, or where the security normally required by banks is not provided). In such cases, the premium may amount to 400 basis points or more if no private bank would have agreed to grant the relevant loan.\n(44)\nAccording to Germany, interest rates charged by German banks during the same period for similar credits lay between 5,25 % and 6,50 % (VR-Bank S\u00fcdliche Winstrasse e.G.) and 5,40 % and 6 % (Die Kreissparkasse Bad D\u00fcrkheim).\nII.8. Duration of measure\n(45)\nOne-off measure.\nII.9. Reasons for initiating the formal investigation procedure\n(46)\nThe Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure provided for under Article 108(2) of the TFEU because it suspected that the subordination and waiver of claims could constitute State aid in the meaning of Article 107 of the TFEU.\n(47)\nIn particular, the Commission had, based on the information available at the time of the initial opening of the formal investigation procedure, examined whether the subordination and waiver of claims were carried out pursuant to the private creditor test.\n(48)\nThe private creditor test assesses whether, under the same market conditions, a private creditor would have acted or has acted in the same way as the public creditor. As regards the case at hand, private creditors had claims on GfW totalling EUR 5,5 million on 31 October 2000, but none of them waived their claims. The report by an independent auditor did appear to show that it made economic sense for WAK to subordinate and waive a share of their claims, but did not explain why none of the other creditors were prepared to waive their own claims.\n(49)\nIn the opening of the formal investigation procedure the Commission concluded that at the time of the opening of procedure, it could not be excluded that WAK\u2019s subordination and waiver of claims (the loan to GfW and future interest payments on this loan) were not in accordance with the private creditor test as they seemed to be higher than absolutely necessary and excessively favoured not only GfW but also the other creditors (primarily the winegrowing enterprises and merchants) who had their claims refunded in full.\n(50)\nThe opening of the formal investigation procedure was then extended to include the granting of the loan. Specifically, doubt was expressed concerning whether the granting of the loan was done on market terms (no risk premium was charged) and with sufficient securities.\n(51)\nIn the extension of the formal investigation procedure, doubt regarding possible aid to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants was again raised. The information available at the time seemed to indicate that the price paid for the must was above the relevant market price, that the aim of the transaction was not to maximise profits but to support the wine and must market, and that the security position awarded the winegrowing enterprises and merchants under the sales contract were more advantageous than under normal circumstances.\n(52)\nThe doubt regarding the price was emphasised by documents provided by Germany after the first opening of procedure, which showed a fluctuation in the price per litre of table wine (not including VAT) in 1999 in the Pfalz-Rheinhessen region from a minimum EUR 0,26 (October/November) to EUR 0,30 (June to September), EUR 0,35 (April), and a maximum EUR 1,10 (February, June, November/December). The minimum market price that could be achieved for table wine at the time of granting the loan was therefore EUR 0,26 per litre.\n(53)\nThe average purchase price of EUR 0,38 per litre therefore seemed to be above the lowest market price of around EUR 0,26 per litre.\nIII. COMPLAINTS AND INFORMATION FROM THIRD PARTIES\n(54)\nThe Commission received information indicating that the above waiver of claims was financed through WAK funds. As the public authority funding WAK, the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate was said to have examined a possible capital injection due to WAK\u2019s reduced capital base, but ultimately decided against it.\n(55)\nThe Commission received a complaint concerning the alleged State aid involved in the waiver of claims by WAK. The complainant stated that GfW was competing in selling wine distillates and, as a result of the waiver in favour of this company, competitors would have considerable problems selling their own products. The complainant submitted several news paper articles with information concerning the waiver of claim by WAK to the benefit of GfW.\n(56)\nThe same complainant also forwarded a letter he had received from the public prosecutor\u2019s office in Kaiserslautern (central economic crime office) as a response to a letter he had sent there. The letter from the public prosecutor\u2019s office in Kaiserslautern summarises the information received from the complainant in the form of news paper articles and statements and in the letter informs the complainant that, based on this information they had received, there are no grounds for opening criminal investigation proceedings (strafrechtliches Ermittlungsverfahren einzuleiten).\nIV. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(57)\nThe Commission did not receive any comments as part of the formal investigation procedures.\n(58)\nThe repeated letters from the complainant after the initial opening of procedure did not add any new facts or arguments.\nV. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY\nV.1. Aid element at time of granting of the loan\n(59)\nGermany has provided comprehensive information on the conditions of the loan granted by WAK to GfW which has been included in the description of the measure in section II.\n(60)\nIn its comments, Germany agrees that the interest charged by WAK for the loan to GfW was lower than the market rate. Germany recognises that the difference between the market rate and the interest rate charged constitutes aid to GfW in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n(61)\nGermany also supplies proof of that GfW was liquidated and dissolved as of 1 June 2005. All remaining stock of the remaining business areas was sold. All the proceeds were used to repay WAK. It was agreed with the buyer (a private person) that the value of all the stock remaining according to the inventory list on 31 December 2004 would be transferred to WAK at the end of 2005. The value would be the original purchase value of EUR 79 579,79. GfW was deleted from the trade registry during the course of 2006 and there is neither a legal successor nor any legal entity from which the aid could be recovered. In accordance with settled case-law (10) recovery is according to Germany therefore not possible.\n(62)\nGermany gives their assurances that GfW\u2019s granting of simple, extended or prolonged retention of title to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants in connection with the sale of must, was in accordance with common business practise. Germany also assures that to accept the secured assets as collateral despite the retention of title as WAK did for the loan to GfW is also according to common business practice.\n(63)\nFurther, Germany states that the purchase of must in autumn 1999 by GfW was carried out at the market price because 60 % of the must bought was quality must (minimum 60 degree Oechsle) and not ordinary table wine must as assumed in the opening of procedure. According to Germany the quality requirements for the production of sparkling wine are higher than the requirements for table wine (minimum 60 and 44 degree Oechsle respectively). The remaining 40 % of the must was ordinary table wine must and was bought to take advantage of the beneficial conditions of preventive distillation.\n(64)\nIn its comments, Germany emphasises that the marketing concept of GfW for 60 % of the stock involved the purchase of high quality must in large quantities and the subsequent processing into homogenous batches of raw wine for sparkling wine (Sektgrundwein), in compliance with the homogeneity and quality requirements of wineries. Raw wine for the production of sparkling wine requires a low level of SO2 and high levels of fruit acids. This could only be achieved if the must was purchased during the autumn sales period and through GfW\u2019s own preparation of the must into raw wine.\n(65)\nPursuant to the information provided by Germany, on the market for raw wine for sparkling wine, the basic price paid for one litre of must of 60 degrees Oechsle was EUR 0,312 per litre. For each additional degree Oechsle (up to a maximum of 80 degrees Oechsle) EUR 0,005 per litre was paid. The winegrowing enterprises and merchants were paid for their high quality must, 60 % of the must purchased, in accordance with this principle.\n(66)\nIn this context Germany points to the relevant market. In its opinion the market price for ordinary table wine cannot be taken as a benchmark for this 60 % of the stock because the relevant market for GfW is not the ordinary table wine market but the market for higher quality raw wine to be used in the production of sparkling wine. Germany also makes reference to the theory of demand substitution which points out that two products are not traded on the same market if one cannot be replaced by the other even if the price of one changes. In the case at hand, the specific requirements for must and raw wine for the production of sparkling wine makes it impossible to replace it with ordinary table wine must or table wine even if the price for table wine would decrease significantly. Therefore, a decrease in the price of table wine will not influence the price of must for the production of sparkling wine because they cannot be substituted for one another.\n(67)\nAccording to the import statistics of the German winegrowers association (Deutsche Weinbauverband) for the years 1998-2001, imported white wine, which due to its high quality is suitable for the production of sparkling wine, had a market price of EUR 0,38 per litre, significantly higher than the EUR 0,26 per litre quoted to table wine. In its comments, Germany concludes that two separate markets exist, one for ordinary table wine and table wine must, and another for high quality raw wine and high quality must to be used for the production of sparkling wine.\n(68)\nAccording to Germany it should therefore be concluded that the relevant market for the wine not being sent for distillation is the market for high quality raw wine for the production of sparkling wine, with much higher achievable prices (EUR 0,38 per litre) and not the ordinary table wine market price (EUR 0,26 per litre). Germany therefore reasons that the price paid for the must by GfW was in conformity with the market price of the relevant market and included a normal profit margin.\n(69)\nIn addition, GfW planned to participate in EU stocking and distillation programmes (GfW had already offered such services to winegrowers before). Under the stocking programme EUR 0,06 per litre was paid for 20 % of the stocks which should later be sold as raw wine for sparkling wine production. Under the distillation programme EUR 0,50-0,55 per litre was paid for the 40 % of the stock sent for distillation.\n(70)\nIn the opinion of Germany it was possible to make a profit from these activities when WAK granted the loan to GfW. On the one hand, GfW intended to use 40 % of the must purchases for preventive distillation in December 1999 at a distillation price considerably higher than the purchase price (EUR 0,50-0,55 per litre). On the other, it was predicted that sparkling wine producers would pay relatively good prices (between EUR 0,36 and EUR 0,41 per litre) for large lots of uniform, guaranteed quality raw wine. Germany reasons that GfW could have achieved an average sales revenue of EUR 0,44 to EUR 0,46 per litre, much above the average of EUR 0,38 per litre paid to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants.\n(71)\nThe planning was based on the following assumptions of target prices:\nVolume\nPrice/litre (EUR)\nDistillation\n40 %\n0,50-0,55\nEU subsidy for stocking of wine/must (1 year): EUR 0,06/l and subsequent sale as raw wine for sparkling wine\n20 %\n0,435\nSale as raw wine for sparkling wine\n40 %\n0,375\n(72)\nBased on these assumptions an average sales price of 0,44 to 0,46 EUR /l was expected.\n(73)\nThe above sales forecast results in the following profit calculation:\nPrice/litre (EUR)\nPurchase price and processing\n0.37-0,38\nIncome from sale as raw wine for sparkling wine, distillation, stocking subsidies\n0,44-0,46\nExpected profit\n0,06-0,09\n(74)\nBased on a total volume of some 44 million litres, a total profit between some EUR 2,64 million and some EUR 3,96 million was expected.\n(75)\nGermany also makes reference to that the market price for table wine quoted by the European Commission in the opening decisions (EUR 0,26 per litre) is the lowest quote for November 1999 for table wine. The full quote for November 1999 is a market price for table wine between EUR 0,26 and EUR 0,56 per litre. In addition, this was the full spread for entire 1999. For 2000 the spread lay between EUR 0,20 and EUR 0,41 per litre. Germany also emphasises that 60 % of the must bought by GfW had an average degree of Oechsle of 81, much higher than the requirement for table wine of 44 and this was of course reflected in the price GfW paid for the must.\nV.2. Aid element at time of subordination of claims and waiver of claims\n(76)\nAccording to Germany, it was established that GfW was facing insolvency after an interim statement of accounts was drawn up in November 2000. GfW then had an account deficit of some EUR 6 million which was confirmed when the annual accounts were drawing up for 2000. The reasons for the deficit was that the value of the stock still in GfW possession had fallen following a significant slump in market prices which meant that GfW would only be able to sell their stock at a lower price than first predicted.\n(77)\nAccording to the information submitted by Germany, on 31 October 2000, WAK still had claims of some EUR 10 million towards GfW. As collateral WAK had GfW\u2019s secured assets, valued at EUR 5,7 million at the same moment in time. These were subject to retention of title (simple, extended or prolonged) by the winegrowing enterprises and merchants which according to Germany would give them priority in case of insolvency. So according to Germany, in case of insolvency procedure, GfW would need to settle the payment to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants, at a value of around EUR 3,5 million, before payments to any other creditor could be made.\n(78)\nIn order to remedy the deficit situation in time and avoid the opening of the insolvency proceedings in accordance with \u00a7 64 GmbHG a.F. i. V. m. \u00a7 19 InsO, immediate action was needed.\n(79)\nGermany points out that, as principle creditor with a weaker security position, WAK had a considerable interest in avoiding the impending insolvency. It therefore tried to convince the winegrowing enterprises and merchants to waive part of their claims and also agreed to the following with GfW on 4 December 2000:\n-\na subordination of claims of the same amount as the deficit after the winegrowing enterprises and merchants had agreed to waive 90 % of their remaining claims,\n-\nto, but only if necessary, waive the amount of claim they had agreed to subordinate.\n(80)\nDespite a successful start to the negotiations with a majority of the winegrowing enterprises and merchants agreeing to waive their claims, GfW eventually failed due to concerted actions by some of the winegrowing enterprises and merchants and their lawyers. They were not willing to waive their claims because of their preferential security position as a result of their extended or prolonged retention of title and filled complaints. These complaints were treated by the court who proposed settlement agreements. According to the settlement agreements GfW should pay 70 % of the remaining claims and 30 % should be waived. The court also decided that GfW would have to carry 80 % of the court fees. Similar settlement agreements were proposed by other courts. With this in mind, it was no longer possible for GfW to expect that the winegrowing enterprises and merchants would agree to waiving 90 % of their remaining claims. In addition, several winegrowing enterprises and merchants now declared that they would demand 100 % repayment of the remaining 20 %. The fact that 1 700 out of 2 700 winegrowing enterprises and merchants had already indicated that they would be willing to waive a share of their claims was no longer of relevance as \u00a7 305a of the German insolvency law states that an out of court settlement (au\u00dfergerichtliche Einigung) to avoid insolvency proceedings fails when one single creditor decides to proceed to enforcement after the out of court settlement negotiations have started.\n(81)\nOn 21 February 2001 WAK therefore agreed with GfW to cover the deficit of year 2000 by waiving EUR 5 005 441,60 of its claims, that no interest would be charged on the remaining debt for the time period of 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 and that the claims of the winegrowing enterprises and merchants would be settled in full. The security of the non-subordinated claims was guaranteed. GfW\u2019s deficit situation was remedied, insolvency proceedings were avoided and GfW could continue trading.\n(82)\nGermany claims that the subordination and the waiver of claims are both in accordance with the private creditor test. To support this claim, Germany refers to relevant case-law.\n(83)\nWaiving part of the claim can be required in order to increase the amount which is effectively recovered (11). A private creditor would act so as to minimise his losses. In case a claim was not sufficiently secured, agreement to postpone the repayment would increase the chances of repayment without losses as the debtor would have the chance to overcome the crisis and improve its situation (12). In the HAMSA judgment of the CFI, the court rejects the Commissions previous practice of requiring equal share of waivers of claims for private and public creditors in relation to their share of the debt. Instead the court established that the private creditor test can be applied also when the waivers relationship between the different creditors is asymmetric. The CFI emphasises that the creditor\u2019s status as the holder of a secured, preferential or ordinary claim, i.e. the rank of the securities of the different creditors, is decisive. The CFI established that a public creditor acts like a private creditor when he decides to waive a share of his claims, after extensive and reasonable evaluation of how much he might be able to recover, of the risk of liquidation and of the chance of the firm being restored to viability (13). Lastly, Germany refers to the Commission\u2019s decision in the Huta Cynku case, where the Commission decided that no advantage and thus no State aid exists where restructuring would yield better proceeds than liquidation (14).\n(84)\nOn these grounds Germany argues that taking into consideration WAK\u2019s position as the main creditor and its weaker security position compared to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants, both the subordination as well as the waiver of claim was in accordance with the private creditor test and do not constitute State aid. In an insolvency procedure WAK would have lost at least the same and most probably a significantly larger amount of their remaining claim.\n(85)\nOnly through avoiding the insolvency of GfW and settling the winegrowing enterprises and merchants remaining claims did WAK have full security rights to the remaining stock and could secure a higher repayment on its remaining claims than what would be realised in case of insolvency.\n(86)\nFrom an ex-ante perspective, the behaviour of WAK was, according to Germany, correct, especially as they managed to secure a higher repayment by having converted their weak security position into a primary security right and avoided the impending insolvency of GfW. According to Germany, any private bank would have acted in the same way in the same situation.\n(87)\nAccording to the German authorities, an ex-ante evaluation of GfW accounts would have estimated that by a continuation of GfW, WAK would have been able to realise repayments of EUR 5 112 918,81 million. On the other hand, if GfW had entered into insolvency proceedings, WAK would only have been able to realise a repayment of maximum EUR 2,4 million. This leaves a difference of minimum EUR 2,7 million.\n(88)\nThis is confirmed by a report from 3 February 2003, prepared by an independent auditor (15), commissioned by WAK and submitted by the German authorities. The report comes to the conclusion that it made economic sense for WAK to subordinate their claims, waive part of their claims to the abovementioned amount and to waive the future interest payments. The reasons for this conclusion were submitted by Germany and are as follows:\n-\nIf WAK had not subordinated and waived its claims and interest payments GfW would have had to apply for insolvency and GfW would have been wound up. WAK\u2019s claims would have had to be met from the sale of GfW\u2019s stocks.\n-\nIf the company had been wound up the value of GfW\u2019s stocks would have fallen. The actual proceeds from the sale of the stocks would have been only about 50 % to 70 % of the book value. Therefore, allowing for security rights, the proceeds would have amounted to between EUR 1,84 million and EUR 2,4 million.\n-\nInsolvency proceedings are costly.\n-\nThe German Insolvency Law (\u2018InsO\u2019) provides for a right to separation for products with retention of title; however, this is determined on the basis of the insolvency administrator\u2019s option to choose between performance of the contract and separation of assets (paragraph 103 InsO). Separation of assets is possible only if the insolvency administrator refuses to perform the contract, in which case the creditor can withdraw from the contract and demand the separation of the assets, and is entitled to compensation for non-performance of the contract. Down payments may be offset. In return, GfW can claim recovery of the payments already made, which may be offset against the compensation for non-performance of the contract.\n-\nBy contrast, after WAK subordinated part of its claims, it was legally possible for GfW to avoid insolvency proceedings and after waiving part of its claims and interest payments, WAK had outstanding claims of EUR 5,15 million which it could expect to recover as a result of the fact that GfW could continue trading.\n-\nIt is also pointed out that if insolvency proceedings had been opened the repayments on the loan of EUR 1 440 476,92 made by GfW to WAK in the period 1 November to 31 December 2000 could have been contested by GfW under the insolvency rules. This would have led to WAK being obliged to repay these funds.\n(89)\nGermany emphasises that an ex-post evaluation shows that the subordination and waiver of claims option made more economic sense as the repayments received by avoiding the insolvency of GfW was EUR 4 670 517,65, making it superior to the maximum EUR 2,4 million which could have been secured under the insolvency proceedings.\n(90)\nGermany concludes that as the subordination and waiver of claims was in accordance with the private creditor test, there was no aid to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants at the time of subordination and waiver of claims by WAK.\nVI. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\nVI.1. Common market organisation\n(91)\nUntil the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine (16), winegrowing and wine processing were covered by Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999. Article 71 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 states that Articles 87, 88 and 89 of the Treaty (now Articles 107, 108 and 109 of the TFEU) shall apply to the production of and trade in the products covered by it. Before 31 July 2000, winegrowing and wine processing were covered by Regulation (EEC) No 822/87. Article 76 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 states that Articles 92, 93 and 94 of the Treaty (now Articles 107, 108 and 109 of the TFEU) shall apply to the production of and trade in the products listed in Article 1 of the Regulation. Therefore, the measures at hand have to be examined in the light of State aid rules.\nVI.2. Existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU\n(92)\nPursuant to Article 107(1) of the TFEU, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is prohibited, insofar as it affects trade between Member States.\n(93)\nWAK is a public-law corporation and is financed partly from funds of the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate and partly from parafiscal charges. The measure is therefore financed from state resources.\n(94)\nAid to an undertaking appears to affect trade between Member States where that undertaking operates in a market open to intra-Union trade (17). There is a substantial intra-Union trade in agricultural products. Therefore, the present aid is liable to affect trade between Member States (18).\n(95)\nThe Court has ruled that in order to determine whether a state measure constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, it is also necessary to establish whether the recipient undertaking receives an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions (19) and/or whether the measure enabled the undertaking to avoid having to bear costs which it would normally have had to meet out of its own financial resources (20). This would indeed be sufficient to indicate potential distortions of competition (21).\nVI.2.1. Existence of aid to the Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Weinabsatz (GfW)\nVI.2.1.a. The granting of loan by WAK\n(96)\nThe WAK loan of EUR 15 302 696,25 was granted in autumn 1999. GfW was charged an interest rate between 3,28 % and 5,25 % over the period of the loan. No risk premium was charged. The reference rate for Germany for this period lay between 5,23 % and 6,33 %.\n(97)\nGermany agrees with the Commission\u2019s view that the granting of the loan was not done on market terms. Had the loan been granted on market terms, a higher base rate would have been charged and a risk premium would have been added considering the limited security that the collateral for the loan offered.\n(98)\nIt can be concluded that the loan granted to GfW contained a State aid element within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU as GfW received an economic advantage it would not have obtained under normal market conditions. The aid element is calculated as the difference between the interest charged and the reference rate plus an appropriate risk premium.\n(99)\nPossible passing on of aid to legal successors\n(100)\nAccording to Germany, GfW was liquidated and dissolved as of 1 June 2005. All remaining stock of the remaining business areas was sold. All the proceeds were used to repay WAK. It was agreed with the buyer (a private person) that the value of all the stock remaining according to the inventory list on 31 December 2004 would be transferred to WAK at the end of 2005. The value would be the original purchase value of EUR 79 579,79. GfW was deleted from the trade registry during the course of 2006 and there is neither a legal successor nor any legal entity from which the aid could be recovered. In accordance with settled case-law (22) recovery is according to Germany therefore not possible.\n(101)\nAs the remaining assets of GfW were sold off, the person who purchased them could possibly have benefited from the aid granted to GfW. However, as the person paid the original purchase price and the market had slumped over the passed years, it is clear that the price paid by the purchaser was at least the market prices. Therefore, the Commission concludes that no aid was passed on to the purchaser of GfW\u2019s remaining stock. At the same time, GfW ceased to exist and therefore there is no aid to be recovered.\nVI.2.1.b. The subordination and waiver of claims by WAK\n(102)\nThe subordination of claims and the waiver of claims and interest payments were financed by WAK\u2019s own resources and a corresponding loan taken out by WAK and are therefore to be considered to be financed through State resources.\n(103)\nTo establish whether the subordination of claims and the waiver of claims and interest payments constitute State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU to GfW it is necessary to establish whether GfW receives an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions and/or whether the measure enabled GfW to avoid having to bear costs which it would normally have had to meet out of its own financial resources. This assessment has to be done using the private creditor test. The private creditor test assesses whether, under the same market conditions, a private creditor would have acted or has acted in the same way as the public creditor.\n(104)\nAccording to settled case-law, waiving part of the claim can be required in order to increase the amount which is effectively recovered. A private creditor would act so as to minimise his losses (23). In case a claim was not sufficiently secured, agreement to postpone the repayment would increase the chances of repayment without losses as the debtor would have the chance to overcome the crisis and improve its situation (24).\n(105)\nIn the HAMSA (25) ruling of the CFI, the court rejects the Commissions previous practice of requiring equal share of waivers of claims for private and public creditors in relation to their share of the debt. Instead the court established that the private creditor test can be applied also when the waivers relationship between the different creditors is asymmetric. Paragraph 168 and 169 of the judgment reads:\n\u2018(168)\nWhen a firm faced with a substantial deterioration of its financial situation proposes an agreement or series of agreements for debt arrangement to its creditors with a view to remedying the situation and avoiding liquidation, each creditor must make a decision having regard to the amount offered to it under the proposed agreement, on the one hand, and the amount it expects to be able to recover following possible liquidation of the firm, on the other. Its choice is influenced by number of factors, including the creditor\u2019s status as the holder of a secured, preferential or ordinary claim, the nature and extent of any security it may hold, its assessment of the chances of the firm being restored to viability, as well as the amount it would receive in the event of liquidation. If it turned out, for example, that in the event the firm was liquidated, the realisation value of its assets was only sufficient to cover mortgage and preferential claims, ordinary claims would have no value. In such a scenario, acceptance by an ordinary creditor of the cancellation of a major part of its claim would not really be a sacrifice.\n(169)\nIt follows that, in the absence of knowledge about the factors which determine the respective values of the choices offered to creditors, the mere fact that there is an apparent lack of proportion between the amounts which the various creditors have written off is not in itself conclusive as to the reasons which led them to accept the debt remissions proposed.\u2019\n(106)\nIn addition, in the HAMSA (26) case the CFI established that, a public creditor acts like a private creditor when he decides to waive a share of his claims, after extensive and reasonable evaluation of how much he might be able to recover, of the risk of liquidation and of the chance of the firm being restored to viability. Lastly, in the Commission\u2019s decision in the Huta Cynku (27) case, the Commission decided that no advantage and thus no State aid exists where restructuring would yield better proceeds than liquidation.\n(107)\nWith reference to the case-law quoted above, when assessing whether a private creditor would have acted or has acted in the same way as WAK, it is necessary to examine the choices that WAK had when it was concluded that GfW was facing insolvency and what the economic implications connected to these choices would be. As a second step, it is also necessary to carry out the same examination for the winegrowing enterprises and merchants and then to evaluate whether the situation faced by WAK can be compared to and evaluated based on the actions of the winegrowing enterprises and merchants.\n(108)\nWhen informed that GfW was facing insolvency, WAK had two choices. It could either allow for insolvency proceedings to be opened, or it could try to avoid this by reaching an agreement with GfW which would enable GfW to continue trading. Based on the information submitted by Germany and supported by a report from 3 February 2003 prepared by an independent auditor (see recital 88), the economic implications connected with these two decisions are according to Germany as follows. Ex-ante, in case of insolvency proceedings, WAK could expect to recover a maximum of about EUR 2,4 million of its claims. In the case WAK signed an agreement with GfW, waiving part of its claims and thereby enabling GfW to continue trading, WAK could ex-ante expect to recover some EUR 5,1 million of its claims. This leaves a difference of EUR 2,7 million in favour of enabling GfW to avoid insolvency proceedings. Whether the winegrowing enterprises and merchants were willing to do the same, only had a slight impact on the recovery calculations, but did not change the outcome on the comparison of the two alternatives.\n(109)\nThe estimate of a recovery rate in case of insolvency of EUR 2,4 million in the report is based on the German assumption that the claims of the winegrowing enterprises and merchants of EUR 4,4 million would have to be settled before those of WAK. However, according to the European Commission, the German insolvency law states that only the debt to those winegrowing enterprises and merchants with prolonged retention of title would have had to be settled before the debts of WAK. The other debts would be on an equal standing with the debt of WAK. The European Commission\u2019s own calculations show however that even in the case where the claims of WAK and the winegrowing enterprises and merchants would all have equal standing, WAK could expect to recover the maximum of EUR 4,7 million in case of insolvency (based on a maximum total repayment of EUR 6,8 million in case of insolvency and that WAK and the winegrowing enterprises received repayment in proportion to what they were owed - EUR 10 million and EUR 4,4 million respectively for WAK and the winegrowing enterprises and merchants). It can therefore be concluded that ex ante the more favourable option for WAK would be to enable GfW to avoid insolvency.\n(110)\nThe winegrowing enterprises and merchants on the other hand faced a very different calculation. Firstly, they had already received 80 % of the payment for their delivered goods. Secondly, according to the offer by GfW they would only receive 10 % of the 20 % still owed to them. In effect this meant that they would only receive an additional 2 % of the agreed purchase price if they signed the agreement. This is certainly less than what they could expect in insolvency proceeding, irrespectively of their security standing (simple, extended or prolonged retention of title). In average they could expect to receive 48 % of their remaining claims (EUR 2,1 million of the total EUR 4,4 million owed them). It is therefore no surprise that some of the winegrowing enterprises and merchants refused the offer by GfW. Thirdly, it must have been evident that it would be in WAK\u2019s interest to waive part of its claims and avoid insolvency even if the winegrowing enterprises and merchants did not do the same, which again would enable the winegrowing enterprises and merchants to get a larger share of their remaining claims back than the offered 10 %. Fourthly, several of them had already taken GfW to court and the court had rules in their favour, obliging GfW to settle 80 % of the remaining claims.\n(111)\nIt can be concluded that despite the fact that the winegrowing enterprises and merchants and WAK were all creditors to GfW, the choices and outcome of those choices for WAK and the winegrowing enterprises and merchants were so dissimilar that they are not comparable. The fact that the winegrowing enterprises and merchants chose not to waive their claims should not have a negative bearing when analysing whether WAK acted in accordance with the private creditor test.\n(112)\nWeighing the different options for WAK against each other the Commission concludes that the partial subordination and waiver of claims of 4 December 2000 and of 21 February 2001 totalling of EUR 5 005 441,60 and waiver of interest payments as from 31 December 2000 was the most favourable option for WAK and is therefore in accordance with the private creditor test. The subordination and waiver of claims make out a debt deferral, which is more advantageous to the creditor compared to liquidation. In accordance with settled case-law (28), a public creditor will balance the advantage inherent in obtaining the offered sum under the restructuring plan and the sum they would be able to recover via the firm\u2019s liquidation. Hence, GfW did not receive any advantage it would not have received under normal market conditions and thus no State aid was awarded to GfW as a result of WAK\u2019s decision to subordinate and waive part of its claims.\n(113)\nIn the opening of procedures doubt was expressed as to whether WAK kept the subordination and waiver of claim to a strict minimum. However, according to the comments of Germany, WAK waived the share of its claims needed to cover GfW\u2019s deficit for 2000, which was necessary according to German insolvency law (see recital 25) in order to avoid insolvency proceedings and enable GfW to continue trading. In the first contract (signed on 4 December 2000) between GfW and WAK, in order to avoid GfW\u2019s insolvency, WAK agrees with GfW on a subordination of claims of the same amount as GfW\u2019s deficit after the winegrowing enterprises and merchants had agreed to waive 90 % of their remaining claims and to, if necessary, waive the amount of claim they had agreed to subordinate (see recitals 79 and 80). The reason for the waiver being larger than first expected was that despite WAK\u2019s and GfW\u2019s efforts to convince the winegrowing enterprises and merchants to contribute their part in helping GfW to avoid insolvency (see recitals 79 and 80 of the German comments), the winegrowing enterprises and merchants\u2019 decision to not waive any of their claims for the reasons mentioned in recital 110 above. As mentioned in recital 108, the decision by the winegrowing enterprises and merchants to not waive a share of their remaining claims only had a limited impact on WAKs economic assessment and did not change the outcome of this assessment: that it was economically preferential for WAK to enable GfW to avoid insolvency proceedings.\n(114)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that WAK\u2019s partial subordination and waiver of claims was the most favourable option for WAK and is therefore in according with the private creditor principle and are therefore not to be considered State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU to GfW.\nVI.2.2. Existence of aid to winegrowing enterprises and merchants\n(115)\nIn the opening and subsequent extension of the formal investigation procedure questions were raised regarding possible aid to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants. Firstly, the security position awarded the winegrowing enterprises and merchants by GfW at the time of purchase seemed relatively strong and doubts were raised whether the awarded security position was really in accordance with normal business practice. Secondly, the price paid for the purchased must was estimated to be above the market price. Thirdly, the winegrowing enterprises and merchants decision to not waive any of their claims when GfW was faced with insolvency was put into question together with WAK\u2019s decision to subordinate and then waive a share of its claims even though the winegrowing enterprises and merchants decided not to waive the 90 % of their remaining claims (20 % of value of stock).\nVI.2.2.a. At the time of purchase of must - security position awarded\n(116)\nIn their comments, Germany has given their assurances that that simple, extended or prolonged retentions of title awarded to the different winegrowing enterprises and merchants in connection with the purchase of must, was indeed in accordance with normal business practise. This means that though it gave the winegrowing enterprises and merchants a relatively strong security position, especially those awarded prolonged retention of title, it was in accordance with normal business practise and was not stronger than had they made arrangements with a private purchaser.\n(117)\nThe Commission makes reference to the recommendations (29) registered by the Federation of German wineries and wine retailers, Trier, the Federation of German wine merchants, Mainz and the German Winegrowers\u2019 Association, Bonn (Der Bundesverband der Deutschen Weinkellereien und des Weinfachhandels e.V., Trier, der Bundesverband der Deutschen Weinkommission\u00e4re e.V., Mainz und der Deutsche Weinbauverband e.V., Bonn) with the German competition authorities (Bundeskartellamt) in accordance with \u00a7 22 Abs. 3 Nr. 2 of the Act against Restraints of Competition (des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschr\u00e4nkungen) (30). The first version of the recommendations was registered in 1990 and the current version in 2005. These recommendations make it clear that in cases where the full purchase price is not paid at the time of transfer of the merchandise the seller should retain the title of ownership until the full price has been paid. The security positions awarded the winegrowing enterprises and merchants in the case at hand gave varying degree of security. Only the ones with prolonged retention of title had the full security for payment. This means that the security position for the winegrowing enterprises and merchants were in average not as strong as recommended in the recommendations mentioned above. The Commission therefore accepts, with reference to the recommendations and the actual security position awarded, Germany\u2019s assurances that it is normal business practice to award security positions as was done to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants in this case and that the security position awarded was not stronger than under a normal contract between two private actors and therefore do not constitute State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\nVI.2.2.b. At the time of purchase of must - the price paid for the purchased must\n(118)\nIn the opening of procedures, the price paid by GfW for the must bought was said to be above the market price. As market price the price for table wine was used and the price quoted as reference price was EUR 0,26 per litre. In their comments, Germany has supplied substantial information on the business strategy of GfW, which shows that the ordinary table wine market is not the relevant market and that the strategy of GfW was threefold. First, to buy table wine must with which to participate to the EU\u2019s distillation programme (40 % of the stock). Second, to buy high quality must with the intention to sell it on the market for high quality raw wine to be used for the production of sparkling wine (60 % of the stock). Third, to participate to the EU\u2019s stocking programme with 20 % of the stock before it was sold for production of sparkling wine. When analysing whether two products belong to the same market, the Commission makes use of the Commission Notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law (31). According to point 7 of the note, \u2018a relevant product market comprises all those products and/or services which are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer, by reason of the products\u2019 characteristics, their prices and their intended use\u2019.\n(119)\nThe market for the must bought for taking advantage of the EU\u2019s distillation programme is of course that for ordinary table wine. However, the relevant price must be the price paid for wine sent for distillation.\n(120)\nAs all traditional intervention measures on agricultural markets, preventive distillation of wine according to Article 38 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 has as its main aim to remove over-supply from the wine market and thus the price of this voluntary distillation had to be high enough to give producers the incentive to send wine for distillation. The actual yearly price of the distillation measure was defined by the Council as 65 % of the so called guide price.\n(121)\nThe guide price itself was decided upon by the Council once a year and the price was expressly set to support the market. To do this it obviously had to be set at a high enough level. Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/1999 of 19 July 1999 fixing the guide price for wine for the 1999/2000 wine year (32) fixed the guide prices for the different categories of wine. The price for category AII (white table wine from vine varieties of the Sylvaner or M\u00fcller-Thurgau type) was set at EUR 82,81 per hectolitre and the one for AIII (white table wine from vine varieties of the Riesling type) at EUR 94,57 per hectolitre. According to Annex III of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/1999 of 26 July 1999 fixing the buying-in prices, aids and certain other amounts applicable for the 1999/2000 wine year to intervention measures in the wine sector (33), the exact amount paid for distillation depended on the degree of alcohol of the wine delivered because the price for preventive distillation (65 % of the guide price) was calculated by the Commission not per hectolitre but by degree of alcohol per hectolitre that year.\n(122)\nThe Commission\u2019s main role in relation to distillation of wine was to assess the actual market situation and accordingly fix the quantities admitted for preventive distillation each year in each Member State. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2367/1999 of 5 November 1999 introducing preventive distillation as provided for in Article 38 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 for the 1999/2000 wine year (34) allocated 148 000 hectolitres to the German market for the wine year 1999/2000. Commission Regulation (EC) No 546/2000 of 14 March 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 2367/1999 introducing preventive distillation as provided for in Article 38 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 for the 1999/2000 wine year (35) increased this to 468 000 hectolitres. Regulation (EC) No 2367/1999 limited the quantity of wine sent for distillation to 40 % of the production. According to the Commission\u2019s records German producers distilled around 400 000 hectolitres under this scheme.\n(123)\nAccording to Germany the price paid for the wine sent for distillation was EUR 0,50-0,55 per litre. Taking the calculation method above into consideration, the Commission finds the price quoted by Germany to be realistic.\n(124)\nThe Commission concludes that because of the EU\u2019s market intervention for a substantial share of the wine two separate markets were created. One where the reference price was that paid for wine sent to distillation, in this case EUR 0,50-0,55 per litre, and another where the reference price was that of the market. The EUR 0,26 per litre as quoted in the opening of procedure decision can therefore not be seen as the relevant reference price for the must bought to be sent for distillation.\n(125)\nIn order to establish what was the relevant market for the must bought in order to turn it into raw wine for the production of sparkling wine it is first necessary to evaluate if separate markets exist for wine and if whether the must bought by GfW belongs to the same market as table wine or not. It will also be necessary to decide whether higher quality wine could achieve higher prices. The Commission in its statistics always refer to different prices depending on the quality of the wine. According to the Commission\u2019s in-house wine experts the price of wine is not the same for each batch and the wine statistics available only give average prices for different quality of wine. The actual price is influenced by several elements. The main elements are the quality, the aging, the reputation, the demand and the alcoholic degree/degrees of Oechsle. The degree of Oechsle indicates the ripeness and the level of sugar which is present in the grapes. It is important as it determines the final natural alcoholic degree of a wine. According to the Deutsches Weininstitute (German wine institute) the production of sect/sparkling wine requires a high degree of alcohol content in the raw wine (36).\n(126)\nThis supports Germany\u2019s claims that the degree of Oechsle in the must needs to be higher if the final product is to be sparkling wine than if it is to be table wine and that a premium had to be paid for the must with a higher degree of Oechsle. The Commission therefore accepts Germany\u2019s arguments that separate markets exist and that the price must indeed have been higher for must to be used for the production of sparkling wine rather than for must used for the production of table wine. As a result, the Commission also accepts that the price paid by GfW at the time of purchase cannot be compared to the price for table wine, EUR 0,26 per litre, as done in the opening of the procedure.\n(127)\nGermany goes on to provide information regarding the achievable price on the relevant market, the market for high quality must to be used for the production of sparkling wine. Pursuant to this information, on the market of raw wine for sparkling wine, the basic price paid for one litre of must of 60 degrees Oechsle was EUR 0,312 per litre. For each additional degree Oechsle (up to a maximum of 80 degrees Oechsle) EUR 0,005 per litre was paid. The winegrowing enterprises and merchants were paid for their high quality must, 60 % of the must purchased, in accordance with this principle. Also, according to the import statistics of the German winegrowers association (Deutsche Weinbauverband) for the years 1998-2001, submitted by Germany, imported bulk white wine, which due to its high quality is suitable for the production of sparkling wine, had a market price of EUR 0,38 per litre.\n(128)\nThe Commission is willing to accept the arguments of Germany for a relevant market price of around EUR 0,38 per litre, based on the information from its in-house wine experts regarding how the price of wine is determined, the information from the Deutsches Weininstitute as stated above and the profit calculation in GfW\u2019s business plan.\n(129)\nThe business plan of GfW, submitted by Germany, shows that at the time of purchasing the must, GfW was expecting to be able to send 40 % of the stock for preventive distillation at a price of EUR 0,50-0,55 per litre, to sell 60 % of the stock at a price of EUR 0,375 per litre and for 20 % of the stock, they expected to get an additional EU subsidy for stocking of wine of EUR 0,06 per litre before selling it at EUR 0,375 per litre a year later. In total, they expected to sell the stock at an average price of EUR 0,44 to EUR 0,46 and to make a profit of between EUR 0,06 and EUR 0,09 per litre. This would leave a total profit of between some EUR 2,64 million and EUR 3,96 million.\n(130)\nIn 1999, GfW sent 40 % of its stocks to preventive distillation for which it received a price of EUR 0,50-0,55 per litre. In view of a fall in prices on the market in wine at the end of 1999 - which had not been expected by GfW considering the higher prices the year before - GfW decided not to sell its remaining stock that year but to store it and sell it in 2000, or if the prices on the market would remain low, to take advantage of a second round of preventive distillation. This decision was based on the assumption that preventive distillation would be continued. However, the new Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine abolished preventive distillation. Instead it introduced the option of voluntary distillation to supply the potable alcohol market. The newly introduced crisis distillation measure can only be used in exceptional cases of market disturbance. Recital 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 explicitly refers to the elimination of the distillation system as an artificial outlet for surplus production. The new Regulation entered into force on 31 July 2000.\n(131)\nFor GfW this meant that the distillation measures in the 2000/01 wine year were considerably less favourable than those in previous years. In distillation to supply the potable alcohol market only around half of the previously achieved average price of EUR 0,50-0,55 per litre could be achieved.\n(132)\nIn the view of Germany this development could not have been predicted when GfW decided to keep the wine in storage. The Commission, on the other hand, believes that this development was in fact foreseeable. The new common organisation of the market in wine explicitly set out to eliminate the distillation system. Thus it ought to have been clear to GfW, at the time it was decided to go for a second round of distillation, that distillation measures in the second part of 2000 and onwards would not provide any relief from the falling prices on the wine market.\n(133)\nHowever, the arguments around whether GfW should have known about the change in the Regulation are irrelevant. The business plan at the time of purchase, against which GfW\u2019s behaviour as a private investor should be judged, only included a first round of preventive distillation, which did take place and for which GfW received EUR 0,50-0,55 per litre. It did not include a second round of preventive distillation and therefore the expected profit from such distillation was not a part of the overall profit calculation at the time of purchase. It was not part of the business plan and though there is no doubt that GfW\u2019s decision to go for a second round of distillation when the market price fell was a bad one, it cannot be seen as State aid to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants at the time of purchase.\n(134)\nBased on the above, the Commission concludes that GfW paid the market price for the must purchased in the autumn of 1999 and that therefore, no State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU was awarded the winegrowing enterprises and merchants.\nVI.2.2.c. At the time of subordination and waiver of claims by WAK\n(135)\nIn recital 114 it was concluded that the subordination and waiver of claims by WAK was done purely out of self interest and in accordance with the private creditor test and that there therefore was no State aid to GfW. The fact that the decision by WAK favoured the winegrowing enterprises and merchants has no relevance as this was not the intention, but just a consequence of WAK trying to maximise the recovery of its own funds.\n(136)\nThe Commission concludes that when subordinating and waiving its claims, WAK did not award any State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants.\nVI.3. Classification of the aid as illegal aid\n(137)\nSince the aid element contained in the loan by WAK in favour of GfW was granted and paid without prior notification to the Commission, it is illegal within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (37).\nVI.4. Exemptions provided for in Article 107 of the Treaty regarding the loan to GfW\n(138)\nIt must therefore be examined whether one of the exemptions to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) of the TFEU applies.\n(139)\nFrom the current viewpoint, the exemptions provided for in Article 107(2) and (3)(a), (b) and (d) are not applicable, since the aid in question is neither:\n-\naid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, nor\n-\naid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State, nor\n-\naid to promote culture and heritage conservation where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent that is contrary to the common interest.\n(140)\nArticle 107(3)(c) of the TFEU is therefore the only exemption which might possibly apply.\n(141)\nAt the time of the granting of the aid, aid to primary producers was evaluated directly under Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU. In accordance with the praxis at the time, aid for investments, credit, the livestock sector, producer organisations, publicity and promotion, compensation for damages caused by diseases, insurance premiums and technical assistance could when fulfilling certain criteria be deemed compatible with the internal market. None of the mentioned forms of compatible aid can however be used to exempt the aid in question.\n(142)\nIn addition, concerned not to leave any avenue unexplored, the Commission has examined whether the guidelines for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty might not be applicable to the case in question. The first condition to be fulfilled by an undertaking if it is to benefit from rescuing or restructuring aid is that it should be considered as being in difficulty within the meaning of the guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (38). There is no indication from the information held by the Commission that the undertaking was in difficulty within the meaning of the abovementioned guidelines when the aid was granted. It is only a year later due to a slump in the market that GfW finds itself in difficulty.\n(143)\nIn any case, the Commission wishes to point out that it is up to the Member State concerned to fulfil the duty of cooperation it has towards the Commission by providing all the elements required for the Commission to be able to check that all the conditions of the derogation from which it is asking to benefit have been met (39). In the case in question, Germany has not supplied sufficient information enabling the Commission to assess the data in the light of these guidelines, nor has the German authorities supplied sufficient documentation to enable the Commission to evaluate the aid in the light of the other forms of compatible aid mentioned in paragraph 126, and this in spite of the information provided by the Commission in point 44 of the decision to initiate the investigative procedure.\n(144)\nAid measures which compatibility is to be assessed directly under Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU has to be done so restrictively. It must be clearly demonstrated that the positive effects of the aid measure outweigh the damaging effects the aid could have on competition and the proper functioning of the internal market. Unilateral State aid measures which are simply intended to improve the financial situation of producers but which in no way contribute to the development of the sector are not considered to fulfil these criteria and hence constitute operating aid which is incompatible with the internal market.\n(145)\nFor the above reasons, the aid granted to GfW as an element of the loan does not comply with any of the possible exemptions to Article 107(3). It therefore constitutes aid incompatible with the internal market.\n(146)\nNo other exceptions under Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU are applicable.\nVII. CONCLUSIONS\n(147)\nFor the above reasons, the Commission finds that the loan granted to GfW may not be considered to be compatible with the internal market. The Commission also finds that Germany implemented the measure unlawfully.\n(148)\nFor the above reasons, the Commission finds that the subsequent subordination of claims and waiver of claims and future interest payments does not constitute State aid in favour of GfW nor in favour of the winegrowing enterprises and merchants.\n(149)\nFor the above reasons, the Commission finds that the purchase of must was done at market prices and in accordance with common business practice and therefore does not constitute State aid to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants.\n(150)\nWhere illegally granted State aid is found to be incompatible with the internal market, the natural consequence is that the aid should be recovered in order - as far as possible - to restore the competitive position that existed before the aid was granted.\n(151)\nAs no legal successor to GfW exists, recovery is not possible in accordance with settled case-law (40),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid, amounting to the difference between the interest rate charged on the loan to GfW and the market interest rate plus the risk premium which should have been charged on the loan, unlawfully granted by Germany, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Weinabsatz Pfalz GmbH is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\nThe subordination and waiver of claims by WAK does not constitute aid to GfW or the winegrowing enterprises and merchants within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThe purchase of must in 1999 by GfW does not constitute aid to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nGermany shall not need to recover the aid referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiary as the beneficiary is insolvent and has been dissolved and deleted from the trade registry and there is no legal successor.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2011.", "references": ["94", "43", "54", "99", "20", "13", "63", "2", "41", "5", "75", "51", "39", "16", "55", "32", "19", "89", "86", "84", "23", "77", "74", "40", "80", "90", "50", "47", "4", "98", "No Label", "8", "15", "29", "45", "48", "71", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "29", "45", "48", "71", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1159/2010\nof 9 December 2010\nlaying down rules for the management and distribution of textile quotas established for the year 2011 under Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94 of 7 March 1994 on common rules for imports of textile products from certain third countries not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other specific Community import rules (1), and in particular Article 17(3) and (6) and Article 21(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 517/94 established quantitative restrictions on imports of certain textile products originating in certain third countries to be allocated on a first come, first served basis.\n(2)\nUnder that Regulation it is possible, in certain circumstances, to use other allocation methods, to divide quotas into tranches, or to reserve a proportion of a specific quantitative limit exclusively for applications which are supported by evidence of the results of past import performance.\n(3)\nRules for management of the quotas established for 2011 should be adopted before the quota year begins so that the continuity of trade flows is not affected unduly.\n(4)\nThe measures adopted in previous years, such as those in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1258/2009 of 18 December 2009 laying down rules for the management and distribution of textile quotas established for the year 2010 under Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94 (2), proved to be satisfactory and it is therefore appropriate to adopt similar rules for 2011.\n(5)\nIn order to satisfy the greatest possible number of operators it is appropriate to make the \u2018first come, first served\u2019 allocation method more flexible by placing a ceiling on the quantities which can be allocated to each operator by that method.\n(6)\nTo guarantee a degree of continuity in trade and efficient quota administration, operators should be allowed to make their initial import authorisation application for 2011 equivalent to the quantity which they imported in 2010.\n(7)\nTo achieve optimum use of the quantities, an operator who has used up at least one half of the amount already authorised should be permitted to apply for a further amount, provided that quantities are available in the quotas.\n(8)\nFor the sake of sound administration, import authorisations should be valid for nine months from the date of issue but only until the end of the year at the latest. Member States should issue licences only after being notified by the Commission that quantities are available and only if an operator can prove the existence of a contract and can certify, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, that he has not already been allocated a Community import authorisation under this Regulation for the categories and countries concerned. The competent national authorities should, however, be authorised, in response to importers\u2019 applications, to extend by three months and up to 31 March 2012 licences of which at least one half has been used by the application date.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Textile Committee established by Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 517/94,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe purpose of this Regulation is to lay down rules on the management of quantitative quotas for imports of certain textile products set out in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 517/94 for the year 2011.\nArticle 2\nThe quotas referred to in Article 1 shall be allocated according to the chronological order of receipt by the Commission of Member States\u2019 notifications of applications from individual operators, for amounts not exceeding the maximum quantities per operator set out in Annex I.\nThe maximum quantities shall not, however, apply to operators able to prove to the competent national authorities, when making their first application for 2011, that, in respect of given categories and given third countries, they imported more than the maximum quantities specified for each category pursuant to import licences granted to them for 2010.\nIn the case of such operators, the competent authorities may authorise imports not exceeding the quantities imported in 2010 from given third countries and in given categories, provided that enough quota capacity is available.\nArticle 3\nAny importer who has already used up 50 percent or more of the amount allocated to him under this Regulation may make a further application, in respect of the same category and country of origin, for amounts not exceeding the maximum quantities laid down in Annex I.\nArticle 4\n1. The competent national authorities listed in Annex II may, from 10.00 o\u2019clock a.m. on 7 January 2011, notify the Commission of the amounts covered by requests for import authorisations.\nThe time fixed in the first subparagraph shall be understood as Brussels time.\n2. The competent national authorities shall issue authorisations only after being notified by the Commission pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 517/94 that quantities are available for importation.\nThey shall issue authorisations only if an operator:\n(a)\nproves the existence of a contract relating to the provision of the goods; and\n(b)\ncertifies in writing that, in respect of the categories and countries concerned:\n(i)\nhe has not already been allocated an authorisation under this Regulation; or\n(ii)\nhe has been allocated an authorisation under this Regulation but has used up at least 50 percent of it.\n3. Import authorisations shall be valid for nine months from the date of issue, but until 31 December 2011 at the latest.\nThe competent national authorities may, however, at the importer\u2019s request, grant a three-month extension for authorisations which are at least 50 percent used up at the time of the request. Such extension shall in no circumstances expire later than 31 March 2012.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2010.", "references": ["42", "64", "13", "40", "45", "55", "93", "59", "35", "19", "10", "81", "48", "6", "75", "72", "24", "8", "60", "3", "52", "66", "74", "77", "47", "85", "92", "70", "36", "94", "No Label", "4", "20", "22", "23", "89"], "gold": ["4", "20", "22", "23", "89"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 461/2012\nof 31 May 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1165/98 concerning short-term statistics and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1503/2006, (EC) No 657/2007 and (EC) No 1178/2008 as regards adaptations related to the removal of the industrial new orders variables\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1165/98 of 19 May 1998 concerning short-term statistics (1), and in particular Article 17, points (b) to (g) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1165/98 established a common framework for the production of short-term Community statistics on the business cycle and laid down the required variables for the analysis of the short-term evolution of supply and demand, production factors and prices.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1503/2006 of 28 September 2006 implementing and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1165/98 concerning short-term statistics as regards definitions of variables, list of variables and frequency of data compilation (2) provided definitions of the objectives and characteristics of the variables.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 657/2007 of 14 June 2007 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1165/98 concerning short-term statistics as regards the establishment of European sample schemes (3), specified the rules and conditions with regard to transmission of data by Member States participating in European sample schemes for short-term statistics.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1178/2008 of 28 November 2008, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1165/98 concerning short-term statistics and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1503/2006 and (EC) No 657/2007 as regards adaptations following the revision of statistical classifications NACE and CPA (4), updated the rules and conditions for the European sample schemes following the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the statistical classification of economic activities NACE Revision 2 and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90, as well as certain EC Regulations on specific statistical domains (5), and Regulation (EC) No 451/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 establishing a new statistical classification of products by activity (CPA) and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3696/93 (6).\n(5)\nThe industrial new orders variables introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1165/98 were intended to serve as a leading indicator of future production. However, the predictive capacity of these variables has proven to be limited, and since these variables have failed to demonstrate stable leading properties across all Member States, the European Statistical System Committee has agreed that the data collection of the industrial new orders variables should be stopped in the context of prioritisation in the development and production of statistics in the light of reduced resources and with the objective of reducing the burden on the European Statistical System.\n(6)\nIn order to implement the removal of the industrial new orders variables, it is necessary to remove all references made to these variables in connexion with the list of variables, the reference period, the level of detail, the deadline for data transmission, the transition period and the definitions to be applied to these variables, and also in relation to the terms of the European sample scheme concerning non-domestic new orders.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex A to Regulation (EC) No 1165/98 is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1503/2006 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nIn Regulation (EC) No 657/2007 Articles 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nEuropean sample schemes may be applied when compiling statistics that distinguish between the euro area and non-euro-area for the following two variables specified in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1165/98:\nVariable\nName\n312\nOutput prices of the non-domestic market\n340\nImport prices\nArticle 2\nMember States participating in the European sample scheme referred to in Article 1 shall transmit data to the Commission (Eurostat) at least for the NACE activities, for variable No 312, and CPA products, for variable No 340, specified in the Annex.\u2019.\nArticle 4\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 1178/2008 is amended in accordance with Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2012.", "references": ["91", "68", "34", "46", "56", "4", "51", "3", "88", "20", "33", "24", "93", "39", "53", "79", "83", "1", "7", "31", "21", "75", "74", "99", "97", "89", "86", "95", "14", "11", "No Label", "19", "42"], "gold": ["19", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 26 April 2011\nrecognising in principle the completeness of the dossier submitted for detailed examination in view of the possible inclusion of metobromuron, S-Abscisic acid, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum D747, Bacillus pumilus QST 2808 and Streptomyces lydicus WYEC 108 in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC\n(notified under document C(2011) 2675)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/253/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 91/414/EEC provides for the development of a European Union list of active substances authorised for incorporation in plant protection products.\n(2)\nThe dossier for the active substance metobromuron was submitted by Belchim crop protection NV/SA to the authorities of France on 15 December 2010 with the application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nThe dossier for the active substance S-Abscisic acid was submitted by Valent BioScience Corporation to the authorities of the Netherlands on 9 December 2010 with the application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(4)\nThe dossier for the active substance Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strain D747 was submitted by Mitsui AgriScience International SA/NV to the authorities of Germany on 21 October 2010 with the application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(5)\nThe dossier for the active substance Bacillus pumilus strain QST 2808 was submitted by AgraQuest Inc to the authorities of the Netherlands on 3 December 2010 with the application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(6)\nThe dossier for the active substance Streptomyces lydicus strain WYEC 108 was submitted by FuturEco BioScience SL to the authorities of the Netherlands on 6 August 2010 with the application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(7)\nThe authorities of France, the Netherlands and Germany have indicated to the Commission that, on preliminary examination, the dossiers for the active substances concerned appear to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC. The dossiers submitted appear also to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substances concerned. In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, the dossiers were subsequently forwarded by the applicants to the Commission and the other Member States, and were referred to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.\n(8)\nBy this Decision it should be formally confirmed at Union level that the dossiers are considered as satisfying in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II and, for at least one plant protection product containing one of the active substances concerned, the requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe dossiers concerning the active substances identified in the Annex to this Decision, which were submitted to the Commission and the Member States with a view to obtaining the inclusion of those substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, satisfy in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to that Directive.\nThe dossiers also satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substance, taking into account the uses proposed.\nArticle 2\nThe rapporteur Member States shall pursue the detailed examination for the dossiers referred to in Article 1 and shall communicate to the Commission the conclusions of their examination accompanied by any recommendations on the inclusion or non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances referred to in Article 1 and any conditions for those inclusions as soon as possible and by 30 April 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2011.", "references": ["28", "60", "1", "49", "42", "33", "70", "53", "43", "35", "22", "76", "80", "27", "55", "57", "74", "20", "54", "99", "87", "36", "96", "11", "10", "92", "14", "73", "64", "3", "No Label", "2", "25", "41", "65"], "gold": ["2", "25", "41", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 297/2012\nof 2 April 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that, subject to the measures in force in the Union relating to double-checking systems and to prior and retrospective surveillance of textile products on importation into the Union, binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature and which is not in accordance with this Regulation, may continue to be invoked for a period of 60 days by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nSubject to the measures in force in the Union relating to double-checking systems and to prior and retrospective surveillance of textile products on importation into the Union, binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States which is not in accordance with this Regulation, may continue to be invoked for a period of 60 days, under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 April 2012.", "references": ["22", "63", "25", "37", "96", "15", "75", "33", "73", "69", "93", "84", "17", "47", "86", "0", "50", "57", "52", "59", "10", "26", "83", "4", "40", "87", "39", "53", "80", "3", "No Label", "21", "89"], "gold": ["21", "89"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 396/2010\nof 7 May 2010\nopening a tariff quota for certain quantities of industrial sugar for the 2010/2011 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 142, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure that the supply necessary for the production of the products referred to in Article 62(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 is available at a price that corresponds to the world price, it is in the interest of the Union to suspend the import duties on sugar intended for the production of those products for the 2010/2011 marketing year, for a quantity that would correspond to half of its industrial sugar needs.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2) provides for the administration of the tariff quotas for imports of sugar products pursuant to Article 142 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 with order number 09.4390 (industrial import sugar). However, in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 the quantities of those products for which import duties are to be suspended has to be determined by a separate legal act.\n(3)\nThe import quantities of industrial sugar for which no import duties should apply for the 2010/2011 marketing year, need to be set accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe import duties for industrial sugar falling within CN 1701 and with order number 09.4390 shall be suspended for a quantity of 400 000 tonnes from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2010.\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2010.", "references": ["82", "24", "33", "58", "27", "25", "80", "10", "61", "74", "15", "70", "1", "17", "7", "26", "18", "91", "34", "77", "13", "97", "52", "40", "67", "98", "68", "41", "86", "85", "No Label", "21", "22", "71", "73"], "gold": ["21", "22", "71", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 380/2010\nof 30 April 2010\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN codes indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3 of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN codes indicated in column 2 of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 April 2010.", "references": ["20", "37", "10", "44", "64", "22", "18", "76", "39", "61", "94", "87", "45", "91", "42", "23", "36", "72", "3", "71", "16", "81", "95", "78", "92", "15", "56", "6", "82", "88", "No Label", "21", "38"], "gold": ["21", "38"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1154/2011\nof 10 November 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Zgornjesavinjski \u017eelodec (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovenia\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Zgornjesavinjski \u017eelodec\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2011.", "references": ["71", "6", "22", "13", "32", "68", "19", "92", "84", "26", "40", "73", "42", "12", "3", "35", "98", "74", "63", "48", "67", "18", "5", "29", "46", "33", "47", "65", "8", "86", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 16 May 2012\nas regards emergency measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Epitrix cucumeris (Harris), Epitrix similaris (Gentner), Epitrix subcrinita (Lec.) and Epitrix tuberis (Gentner)\n(notified under document C(2012) 3137)\n(2012/270/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular the third sentence of Article 16(3), thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt appears from an assessment carried out by the Commission on the basis of a pest risk analysis produced by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation that Epitrix cucumeris (Harris), Epitrix similaris (Gentner), Epitrix subcrinita (Lec.) and Epitrix tuberis (Gentner) cause harmful effects to susceptible plants. They affect, in particular, tubers of Solanum tuberosum L., including those intended for planting, hereinafter \u2018potato tubers\u2019, which are produced in the whole Union. Those organisms are listed neither in Annex I nor in Annex II to Directive 2000/29/EC.\n(2)\nPortugal has informed the Commission that Epitrix cucumeris (Harris) and Epitrix similaris (Gentner) are present in that Member State. A notification submitted by Spain on 8 September 2010 shows the first findings of Epitrix similaris (Gentner) in one region of that Member State. The available information also shows that Epitrix cucumeris (Harris) and Epitrix tuberis (Gentner) are present in a third country that currently exports potato tubers to the Union.\n(3)\nMeasures should be provided for concerning the introduction into the Union of potato tubers from third countries where Epitrix cucumeris (Harris), Epitrix similaris (Gentner), Epitrix subcrinita (Lec.) or Epitrix tuberis (Gentner) is known to be present. Measures should also be provided for concerning the movement of potato tubers originating in areas of the Union where the presence of one or more of those organisms is confirmed.\n(4)\nSurveys concerning the presence of Epitrix cucumeris (Harris), Epitrix similaris (Gentner), Epitrix subcrinita (Lec.) and Epitrix tuberis (Gentner) should be carried out on potato tubers and potato fields in all Member States and the results notified. Member States may also choose to carry out surveys on other plants.\n(5)\nMeasures should provide for Member States to establish demarcated areas in cases where the presence of Epitrix cucumeris (Harris), Epitrix similaris (Gentner), Epitrix subcrinita (Lec.) or Epitrix tuberis (Gentner) is confirmed in order to eradicate or at least contain the organisms concerned and to ensure intensive monitoring for their presence.\n(6)\nMember States should, if necessary, adapt their legislation in order to comply with this Decision.\n(7)\nThis Decision should be in force until 30 September 2014 to allow time for the evaluation of its efficacy.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nProhibitions concerning Epitrix cucumeris (Harris), Epitrix similaris (Gentner), Epitrix subcrinita (Lec.) and Epitrix tuberis (Gentner)\nEpitrix cucumeris (Harris), Epitrix similaris (Gentner), Epitrix subcrinita (Lec.) and Epitrix tuberis (Gentner), hereinafter \u2018the specified organisms\u2019, shall not be introduced into or spread within the Union.\nArticle 2\nIntroduction of potato tubers into the Union\n1. Tubers of Solanum tuberosum L., including those intended for planting, hereinafter \u2018potato tubers\u2019, originating (2) in third countries where one or more of the specified organisms are known to be present may only be introduced into the Union if they comply with the specific import requirements, as set out in point (1) of Section 1 of Annex I.\n2. On entry into the Union potato tubers shall be inspected by the responsible official body in accordance with point (5) of Section 1 of Annex I.\nArticle 3\nMovement of potato tubers within the Union\nPotato tubers originating in demarcated areas within the Union established in accordance with Article 5 may be moved within the Union only if they meet the conditions, as set out in point (1) of Section 2 of Annex I.\nPotato tubers introduced into the Union in accordance with Article 2 from third countries where one or more of the specified organisms are known to be present, may be moved within the Union only if they meet the conditions, as set out in point (3) of Section 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 4\nSurveys and notifications of the specified organisms\n1. Member States shall conduct annual official surveys for the presence of the specified organisms on potato tubers and, where appropriate, other host plants, including fields where potato tubers are growing, in their territory.\nMember States shall notify the results of those surveys to the Commission and the other Member States by 30 April of each year.\n2. Any presence or suspected occurrence of a specified organism shall immediately be notified to the responsible official bodies.\nArticle 5\nDemarcated areas and measures to be taken in such areas\n1. Where based on the results of the surveys referred to in Article 4(1) or other evidence, a Member State confirms the presence of a specified organism in a part of its territory, that Member State shall without delay establish a demarcated area consisting of an infested zone and a buffer zone, as set out in Section 1 of Annex II.\nIt shall take measures, as laid down in Section 2 of Annex II.\n2. Where a Member State takes measures in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall immediately notify the list of demarcated areas, information on their delimitation, including maps showing their location, and a description of the measures applied in those demarcated areas.\nArticle 6\nCompliance\nMember States shall take all measures to comply with this Decision and, if necessary, amend the measures which they have adopted to protect themselves against the introduction and spread of the specified organisms in such a manner that those measures comply with this Decision. They shall immediately inform the Commission of those measures.\nArticle 7\nApplication\nThis Decision shall apply until 30 September 2014.\nArticle 8\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2012.", "references": ["62", "74", "42", "54", "97", "55", "47", "35", "29", "67", "51", "73", "30", "69", "15", "12", "9", "83", "87", "46", "65", "1", "18", "31", "80", "28", "38", "10", "32", "48", "No Label", "20", "22", "23", "58", "59", "60", "61", "68"], "gold": ["20", "22", "23", "58", "59", "60", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1178/2010\nof 13 December 2010\nlaying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the egg sector\n(codification)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 161(3), 170 and 192(2), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 596/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the egg sector (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.\n(2)\nSpecific implementing rules should be laid down for export licences in the egg sector which should, in particular, include provisions for the submission of applications and the information which must appear on the applications and licences, in addition to those contained in Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (4).\n(3)\nIn order to assure proper administration of the system of export licences, the rate of the security for export licences under that system should be fixed. In view of the risk of speculation inherent in the system in the egg sector, export licences should not be transferable and precise conditions governing access by traders to the said system should be laid down.\n(4)\nArticle 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that compliance with the obligations arising from agreements concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations regarding the export volume shall be ensured on the basis of the export licences. Therefore, a detailed schedule for the lodging of applications and for the issuing of licences should be laid down.\n(5)\nIn addition, the decision regarding applications for export licences should be notified only after a period of consideration. This period would allow the Commission to appreciate the quantities applied for as well as the expenditure involved and, if appropriate, to take specific measures applicable in particular to the applications which are pending. It is in the interest of traders to allow the licence application to be withdrawn after the acceptance coefficient has been fixed.\n(6)\nThe Commission should have precise information concerning applications for licences and the use of licences issued, in order to be able to manage the licence system. In the interests of efficient administration, Member States should use the information systems in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 of 31 August 2009 laying down detailed rules for the Member States\u2019 notification to the Commission of information and documents in implementation of the common organisation of the markets, the direct payments\u2019 regime, the promotion of agricultural products and the regimes applicable to the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean islands (5).\n(7)\nIn the case of applications concerning quantities equal to or less than 25 tonnes, the export licence should be issued immediately if the trader requests it. However, such licences should be restricted to short-term commercial transactions in order to prevent the mechanism provided for in this Regulation from being circumvented.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure an exact follow up of the quantities to be exported, a derogation from the rules regarding the tolerances laid down in Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 should be laid down.\n(9)\nArticle 167(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that for eggs for hatching export refunds may be granted on the basis of an ex post export licence. Therefore implementing rules for such a system should be laid down with the aim of ensuring efficient verification that the obligations arising from the agreements concluded in the framework of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations are complied with. However, it would appear unnecessary to require the lodging of a security in the case of licences applied for after exportation.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAll exports of products in the egg sector for which an export refund is requested, with the exception of eggs for hatching falling within CN codes 0407 00 11 and 0407 00 19, shall be subject to the presentation of an export licence with advance fixing of the refund, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 2 to 8.\nArticle 2\n1. Export licences shall be valid for 90 days from their actual day of issue within the meaning of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008.\n2. Applications for licences and licences shall bear, in section 15, the description of the product and, in section 16, the 12-digit product code of the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds.\n3. The categories of products referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, as well as the rate of the security for export licences are given in Annex I.\n4. Applications for licences and licences shall bear, in section 20, at least one of the entries listed in Annex II.\nArticle 3\n1. Applications for export licences may be lodged with the competent authorities from Monday to Friday of each week.\n2. Applicants for export licences shall be natural or legal persons who, at the time applications are submitted, are able to prove to the satisfaction of the competent authorities in the Member States that they have been engaged in trade in the egg sector for at least 12 months. However, retail establishments or restaurants selling their products to end consumers may not lodge applications.\n3. Export licences are issued on the Wednesday following the period referred to in paragraph 1, provided that none of the particular measures referred to in paragraph 4 have since been taken by the Commission.\n4. Where the issue of export licences would or might result in the available budgetary amounts being exceeded or in the maximum quantities which may be exported with a refund being exhausted during the period concerned, in view of the limits referred to in Article 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, or where the issue of export licences would not allow exports to continue during the remainder of the period, the Commission may:\n(a)\nset a single acceptance percentage for the quantities applied for;\n(b)\nreject applications for which licences have not yet been granted;\n(c)\nsuspend the lodging of licence applications for a maximum period of five working days, extendable by the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nLicence applications made during the suspension period shall be invalid.\nThe measures provided for in the first subparagraph may be implemented or modulated by category of product and by destination.\n5. The measures provided for in paragraph 4 may be adopted where export licence applications relate to quantities which exceed or might exceed the normal disposable quantities for one destination and issuing the licences requested would entail a risk of speculation, distortion of competition between operators, or disturbance of the trade concerned or the internal market.\n6. Where quantities applied for are rejected or reduced, the security shall be released immediately for all quantities for which an application was not satisfied.\n7. Notwithstanding paragraph 3, where a single percentage of acceptance less than 80 % is set, the licence shall be issued at the latest by the 11th working day following publication of that percentage in the Official Journal of the European Union. During the 10 working days following its publication, the operator may:\n-\neither withdraw his application, in which case the security is released immediately,\n-\nor request immediate issuing of the licence, in which case the competent authority shall issue it without delay but no sooner than the normal issue date for the relevant week.\n8. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, the Commission can set a day other than Wednesday for the issuing of export licences when it is not possible to respect this day.\nArticle 4\n1. On application by the operator, licence applications for up to 25 tonnes of products shall not be subject to any special measures as referred to in Article 3(4) and the licences applied for shall be issued immediately.\nIn such cases, notwithstanding Article 2(1), the term of validity of the licences shall be limited to five working days from their actual day of issue within the meaning of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 and section 20 of licence applications and of licences shall show one of the entries listed in Annex III.\n2. The Commission may, where necessary, suspend the application of this Article.\nArticle 5\nExport licences shall not be transferable.\nArticle 6\n1. The quantity exported within the tolerance referred to in Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 shall not give entitlement to payment of the refund.\n2. In section 22 of the licence, at least one of the entries listed in Annex IV shall be indicated.\nArticle 7\n1. By Friday each week, Member States shall notify the Commission of the following information:\n(a)\nthe applications for export licences as referred to in Article 1 lodged from Monday to Friday of the same week, stating whether they fall within the scope of Article 4 or not;\n(b)\nthe quantities covered by export licences issued on the preceding Wednesday, not including those issued immediately under Article 4;\n(c)\nthe quantities covered by export licence applications withdrawn pursuant to Article 3(7) during the preceding week.\n2. The notification of the applications referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall specify:\n(a)\nthe quantity in product weight for each category referred to in Article 2(3);\n(b)\nthe breakdown by destination of the quantity for each category in the case where the rate of refund varies according to the destination;\n(c)\nthe rate of refund applicable;\n(d)\nthe total amount of refund prefixed in euro per product category.\n3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission on a monthly basis following the expiry of validity of export licences the quantity of unused export licences.\nArticle 8\n1. For the eggs for hatching falling within CN codes 0407 00 11 and 0407 00 19, operators shall declare at the time when customs formalities for exports are fulfilled, that they intend to claim an export refund.\n2. Not later than two working days after exporting, operators shall lodge with the competent authority the application for an ex post export licence for the eggs for hatching which have been exported. In section 20 of the licence application and of the licence, the term ex post shall be indicated together with the customs office where customs formalities have been fulfilled as well as the day of export within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 (6).\nBy way of derogation from Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 no security shall be required.\n3. Member States shall notify the Commission, by Friday each week of the number of ex post export licences applied for, during the current week, including \u2018nil\u2019 notifications. The notifications shall specify, where applicable, the details referred to in Article 7(2).\n4. Ex post export licences shall be issued each following Wednesday, provided that none of the particular measures referred to in Article 3(4) are taken by the Commission after the export concerned. Where such measures are taken they shall apply to the exports already carried out.\nThis licence accords entitlement to payment of the refund applicable on the day of export within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009.\n5. Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 shall not apply to the ex post licences referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article.\nThe licences shall be presented directly by the interested party to the agency in charge of the payment of export refunds. This agency shall attribute and stamp the licence.\nArticle 9\nThe notifications referred to in this Regulation, including \u2018nil\u2019 notifications, shall be made in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009.\nArticle 10\nRegulation (EC) No 596/2004 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex VII.\nArticle 11\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["63", "70", "4", "2", "81", "75", "8", "53", "97", "62", "0", "87", "34", "82", "67", "6", "30", "96", "36", "95", "91", "60", "27", "78", "12", "94", "68", "35", "24", "76", "No Label", "20", "21", "39", "41", "61", "69"], "gold": ["20", "21", "39", "41", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 157/2011\nof 21 February 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, as regards the financing of intervention expenditure incurred in the context of public storage operations\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 42 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 (2) provides that expenditure on physical operations relating to buying-in, sale or other forms of transfer of products is financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) based on uniform standard amounts. Moreover, Article 4(1)(c) of that Regulation provides that expenditure on physical operations not necessarily connected with buying-in, sale or other forms of transfer of products is financed by the EAGF based on standard amounts or non-standard amounts.\n(2)\nFor reasons of clarity, it is appropriate to specify in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 that the expenditure financed by the EAGF may include costs resulting from transport inside or outside the territory of the Member State or from export under certain conditions. The financing of such expenditure should be subject to an approval in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 195(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (3).\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 884/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 884/2006, the following point (ca) is inserted after point (c):\n\u2018(ca)\nExpenditure resulting from transport inside or outside the territory of the Member State or from export, on the basis of standard amounts or non-standard amounts, to be approved in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2011.", "references": ["92", "89", "2", "90", "35", "18", "76", "36", "53", "38", "94", "23", "22", "75", "14", "7", "72", "83", "52", "25", "9", "73", "99", "29", "70", "4", "28", "96", "41", "16", "No Label", "10", "42", "46", "61"], "gold": ["10", "42", "46", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 429/2011\nof 2 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 3 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 May 2011.", "references": ["78", "87", "33", "73", "4", "51", "89", "79", "10", "92", "96", "3", "95", "14", "56", "77", "72", "26", "6", "64", "59", "18", "80", "27", "32", "53", "63", "21", "20", "17", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 July 2012\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Hungary\n(2012/445/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 2(3) and Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2), in particular Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nHungary has informed the General Secretariat of the Council of the national DNA analysis files to which Articles 2 to 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA apply and the conditions for automated searching as referred to in Article 3(1) of that Decision in accordance with Article 36(2) of that Decision.\n(5)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1, of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(6)\nHungary has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on DNA data exchange.\n(7)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by Hungary with Austria.\n(8)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in Hungary and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the Austrian evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(9)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning DNA data exchange has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching and comparison of DNA data, Hungary has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of that Decision as from the date of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["7", "23", "6", "88", "79", "50", "37", "69", "9", "95", "35", "94", "19", "73", "31", "81", "14", "56", "10", "87", "92", "47", "5", "17", "83", "45", "55", "33", "29", "27", "No Label", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/687/CFSP\nof 14 October 2011\namending Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (1), EULEX KOSOVO\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28 and 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 4 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP (2).\n(2)\nOn 9 June 2009, the Council adopted Joint Action 2009/445/CFSP (3), which amended Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP by increasing the financial reference amount to cover the expenditure of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (\u2018EULEX KOSOVO\u2019) until the expiry of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP.\n(3)\nOn 8 June 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/322/CFSP (4), which amended and extended Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP for a period of 2 years until 14 June 2012, and laid down the financial reference amount until 14 October 2010.\n(4)\nThe financial reference amount provided in Council Decision 2010/619/CFSP, of 15 October 2010, amending Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (5), and intended to cover the expenditure related to EULEX KOSOVO until 14 October 2011 should cover the period until 14 December 2011.\n(5)\nEULEX KOSOVO will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the common foreign and security policy as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty.\n(6)\nJoint Action 2008/124/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 16(1) of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure of EULEX KOSOVO until 14 October 2010 shall be EUR 265 000 000.\nThe financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure of EULEX KOSOVO from 15 October 2010 until 14 December 2011 shall be EUR 165 000 000.\nThe financial reference amount for the subsequent period for EULEX KOSOVO shall be decided by the Council.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2011.", "references": ["99", "29", "66", "8", "14", "30", "86", "90", "53", "26", "80", "49", "94", "62", "25", "21", "55", "60", "81", "51", "63", "58", "35", "28", "84", "23", "65", "43", "44", "97", "No Label", "0", "3", "9", "91", "96"], "gold": ["0", "3", "9", "91", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 319/2011\nof 31 March 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 299/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["36", "97", "63", "88", "38", "12", "54", "57", "85", "80", "74", "13", "18", "61", "70", "24", "96", "77", "3", "19", "56", "27", "62", "50", "82", "84", "34", "59", "39", "31", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 448/2012\nof 21 March 2012\nsupplementing Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards for the presentation of the information that credit rating agencies shall make available in a central repository established by the European Securities and Markets Authority\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies (1) and in particular Article 21(4)(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 requires credit rating agencies to make certain information on historical performance data available in the central repository established by the European Securities and Markets Authority (hereinafter \u2018ESMA\u2019). This information is required to be provided in a standard form as provided for by ESMA and made available by ESMA to the public which shall also publish summary information on the main developments observed. These requirements need to be supplemented as regards the presentation of the information provided, including structure, format, method and period of reporting.\n(2)\nCredit rating agencies belonging to a group of credit rating agencies located in the Union may report separately to the central repository. However, due to the credit rating agencies\u2019 highly integrated functional organisation at Union level and in order to facilitate the understanding of statistics, credit rating agencies should be encouraged to report to the central repository on a global basis for the whole group.\n(3)\nThe central repository system collects data on credit ratings and stores them centrally. In order to help market participants to better assess the reliability of credit ratings and thereby assist them in taking investment decisions, the central repository should also accept on a voluntary basis credit ratings issued by third country credit rating agencies belonging to the same group of credit rating agencies but not endorsed in the Union.\n(4)\nTo further facilitate the understanding of the statistics produced, the reporting of data on credit ratings should include any data relating to at least the last 10 years before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. A credit rating agency should not be required to report these data if it can demonstrate that this would not be proportionate in view of their scale and complexity.\n(5)\nThis Regulation is based on the draft regulatory technical standards submitted by ESMA to the Commission for endorsement by the Commission pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).\n(6)\nESMA has conducted an open public consultation on the draft regulatory technical standards on which this Regulation is based and requested the opinion of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group established in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. However, ESMA did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis since it considered this disproportionate to the impact of the draft regulatory technical standards given that the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) had been establishing the central repository since 2010 and the draft technical standards reflected the operation of the existing system rather than applying material new requirements and was therefore not expected to impose significant additional costs on ESMA or credit rating agencies,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation specifies the rules for the presentation of the information, including structure, format, method and period of reporting, that credit rating agencies are required to make available in a central repository in accordance with:\n(a)\nArticle 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009;\n(b)\npoint 1 of Part II of Section E of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nCHAPTER II\nREPORTING STRUCTURE\nArticle 2\nReporting principles\n1. A credit rating agency shall submit the following types of report to the central repository established by ESMA:\n(a)\nqualitative data reports as set out in Article 7 and Article 9; and\n(b)\nrating data reports as set out in Article 8 and Article 10.\n2. A credit rating agency shall be responsible for the accuracy, completeness and availability of its reported data. It shall ensure that the reports are provided in due time using the reporting channels in Article 11 and according to the reporting procedure in Article 13.\n3. Where a credit rating agency belongs to a group of credit rating agencies the members of the group may mandate one of their members to report the required information on behalf of the group. When the mandated group member reports information on behalf of the group it shall identify both itself and the group members on whose behalf it is reporting the information.\nArticle 3\nRatings to be reported\n1. A credit rating agency shall report data on a credit rating for each reporting period until this credit rating is withdrawn.\n2. A credit rating agency shall report both solicited and unsolicited ratings. It shall indicate whether a rating is solicited or unsolicited.\n3. A credit rating agency reporting on behalf of a group of credit rating agencies may include data of third country credit rating agencies belonging to the same affiliated group which are not used in the Union by means of endorsement. Where a credit rating agency does not report such data it shall give an explanation in its qualitative data report.\n4. A credit rating agency shall report data on credit ratings covering at least the last 10 years before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. A credit rating agency that did not issue credit ratings prior to 7 December 1999 shall report data for the reporting periods following the first date on which it issued a credit rating. A credit rating agency is not required to report in respect of rating periods that predate its registration or certification under Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 if it can demonstrate that reporting such data is not proportionate in view of its scale and complexity.\n5. A credit rating agency shall report the following types of ratings:\n(a)\ncorporate ratings;\n(b)\nstructured finance ratings;\n(c)\nsovereign and public finance ratings.\nArticle 4\nCorporate ratings\n1. A credit rating agency shall report data concerning corporate ratings on an issuer basis.\n2. A credit rating agency may treat ratings of a subsidiary of an undertaking either as an individual rating or not. That credit rating agency shall explain the policy chosen.\n3. When reporting corporate ratings a credit rating agency shall classify the ratings within one of the industry segments specified in field 18 of Table 1 of Annex II.\n4. Corporate ratings data for short-term ratings and long-term ratings shall both be reported where available. For the long-term ratings the issuer rating shall be reported. Where an issuer rating is not available, the long-term unsecured debt rating shall be reported. Where foreign and local currency ratings are available, only the foreign currency rating shall be reported.\nArticle 5\nStructured finance ratings\n1. Subject to the specific characteristics set out in paragraph 2 and 3, a credit rating agency shall report long-term ratings on an issue basis for structured finance instruments.\n2. A credit rating agency shall report long-term ratings on an issuer basis for structured investment vehicles and similar structures.\n3. A credit rating agency shall report short-term ratings on an issue basis for asset-backed commercial papers.\n4. When reporting structured finance ratings, a credit rating agency shall classify the ratings within one of the following asset classes:\n(a)\nAsset-backed securities. This asset class includes the sub-asset classes auto/boat/airplane loans, student loans, consumer loans, health care loans, manufactured housing loans, film loans, utility loans, equipment leases, credit card receivables, tax liens, non-performing loans, credit-linked notes, recreational vehicle loans, and trade receivables;\n(b)\nResidential mortgage-backed securities. This asset class includes the sub-asset classes prime residential mortgage-backed securities and non-prime residential mortgage-backed securities and home equity loans;\n(c)\nCommercial mortgage-backed securities. This asset class includes the sub-asset classes retail or office property loans, hospital loans, care residences, storage facilities, hotel loans, nursing facilities, industrial loans, and multifamily properties;\n(d)\nCollateralised debt obligations. This asset class includes the sub-asset classes collateralised loan obligations, collateralised bond obligations, collateralised synthetic obligations, single-tranche collateralised debt obligations, collateralised fund obligations, collateralised debt obligations of asset-backed securities, and collateralised debt obligations of collateralised debt obligations;\n(e)\nAsset-backed commercial papers;\n(f)\nOther structured finance instruments that are not included in the preceding asset classes, including structured covered bonds, structured investment vehicles, insurance-linked securities and derivative product companies.\n5. A credit rating agency shall specify which asset class and sub-asset class (where applicable) each rated instrument belongs to.\n6. For the purpose of field 17 of Table 1 of Annex II, the country code used for an instrument shall be that of the country of domicile of the majority of the underlying assets. Where it is not possible to identify the domicile of the majority of the underlying assets, the rated instrument shall be classified as \u2018International.\u2019\nArticle 6\nSovereign and public finance ratings\n1. A credit rating agency shall report data concerning sovereign and public finance ratings on an issuer basis. The credit rating agency shall classify the ratings within one of the following sectors:\n(a)\nlocal currency sovereign ratings;\n(b)\nforeign currency sovereign ratings;\n(c)\nsub-sovereign and municipalities ratings such as states and local governments;\n(d)\nsupranational organisations\u2019 ratings such as those of institutions established, owned and controlled by more than one sovereign government shareholder including organisations covered by code U (Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies) according to the statistical classification of economic activities in the European Communities (hereinafter \u2018NACE\u2019) (3);\n(e)\npublic entities ratings including those covered by NACE codes O (Public administration and defence; compulsory social security), P (Education) and Q (Human health and social work activities).\n2. Within each sector the short-term and the long-term issuer ratings shall be reported. Where an issuer rating is not available, the long-term debt rating shall be reported.\n3. For the purpose of field 17 of Table 1 of Annex II, where no specific country can be identified as the country of issuance in the case of supranational organisations as specified in point (d) of paragraph (1), the rated issuer shall be classified as \u2018International.\u2019\nCHAPTER III\nFORMAT OF REPORTING\nArticle 7\nQualitative data\n1. A credit rating agency shall provide qualitative data reports in the format specified in Table 1 of Annex I. In particular, a credit rating agency shall provide qualitative data on its rating scale explaining the individual characteristics and the meaning of each rating. A credit rating agency may report up to six rating scales. No more than one rating scale may be reported in respect of any particular combination of time horizon and rating type.\n2. Where a credit rating agency issues ratings for a particular time horizon and rating type using more than one rating scale, it shall report in its qualitative data reports only the rating scale used for the numerical majority of such ratings. Ratings shall not be reported in rating data reports where they use a rating scale that has not been reported pursuant to this paragraph.\n3. A rating scale contains an undetermined number of broad rating categories that may include as subcategories an undetermined number of notches. A credit rating agency shall report both rating categories and notches where applicable.\nArticle 8\nRating data\n1. A credit rating agency shall provide rating data reports for ratings referred to in Article 3 in the format specified in Table 1 of Annex II.\n2. For the purpose of field 12 of Table 1 of Annex II, a credit rating agency shall report a default in respect of a rating where one of the following events has occurred:\n(a)\nthe rating indicates that a default has occurred according to the credit rating agency\u2019s definition of default;\n(b)\nthe rating has been withdrawn due to insolvency of the rated entity or due to debt restructuring;\n(c)\nany other instance in which the credit rating agency considers a rated entity or rated instrument as defaulted, materially impaired or equivalent.\n3. All reported ratings that are withdrawn during a specific reporting period shall be accorded a reason for withdrawal under field 11 of Table 1 of Annex II. Ratings that were withdrawn before 7 September 2010 may be entered in the category \u2018end of rating due to other reasons\u2019.\nArticle 9\nChanges to and cancellations of qualitative data\n1. A credit rating agency shall report changes to and cancellations of qualitative data reported where this is necessary to:\n(a)\nreflect changes in qualitative data;\n(b)\ncorrect factual errors in the reporting of a rating scale.\n2. For changes in qualitative data, except data on the rating scale, a credit rating agency shall send a new report containing the updated data. A credit rating agency shall only send a new qualitative data report if there is a change in any of the data, and only the data that have changed shall be reported. In the event of a methodology change, a credit rating agency shall report the updated qualitative data and may refer to additional information on historical methodology changes provided on its website.\n3. Where a change of a rating scale occurs limited to the labels of categories or notches a credit rating agency shall send the qualitative data report containing an updated record of the previous rating scale (identified by its unique rating identifier) modifying the labels or descriptions as appropriate. The other fields relating to the rating scale shall be included in the report with no changes. A credit rating agency shall use the fields specified in Table 1 of Annex I.\n4. Where a material change to a rating scale occurs, a credit rating agency shall declare a new rating scale and perform the following steps:\n(a)\na qualitative file with an updated record of the previous rating scale modifying the end validity date to the date of the end of the previous reporting period shall be sent. The credit rating agency shall use the fields specified in Table 1 of Annex I;\n(b)\nthe credit rating agency shall report the new rating scale with a new unique identifier and a start validity date of the first reporting period for which it is valid;\n(c)\nonce the credit rating agency has received the feedback file from the central repository confirming that the new rating scale has been accepted, it shall send the rating data files corresponding to the first reporting period to which the new rating scale applies using the new rating scale.\n5. Where a rating scale is cancelled, a credit rating agency shall perform the following steps:\n(a)\nthe cancellation shall take place before the credit rating agency reports any rating data to the central repository relating to that rating scale. In case rating data have already been reported, the credit rating agency has to cancel all rating data using the previous rating scale;\n(b)\nthe credit rating agency shall send the qualitative data file containing the cancellation of the rating scale. The credit rating agency shall use the field specified in Table 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 10\nCancellation of rating data and historical reporting of rating data\n1. Where factual errors are identified in the rating data that has been reported, a credit rating agency shall report the cancellation of that rating data and shall replace the cancelled rating data.\n2. When cancelling rating data a credit rating agency shall take one of the following measures:\n(a)\nin case of a rating record of the current reporting period, a credit rating agency shall use the fields specified of Table 2 of Annex II. Once the original record has been cancelled, it shall send a new version of the record;\n(b)\nin case of a rating record of previous reporting periods, a credit rating agency may cancel the original rating data for all reported periods using the field specified of Table 2 of Annex II including the reason for the cancellation and then replace the original version of the record in all periods using the procedure described in Article 3(4).\n3. When reporting rating data retroactively, a credit rating agency shall add to the rating fields the historical reporting period of the rating and the reason for the reporting of historical rating data, as specified in fields 24 and 25 of Table 1 of Annex II.\nCHAPTER IV\nMETHOD OF REPORTING\nArticle 11\nReporting channels and data transfer\n1. In order to report data to the central repository, a credit rating agency shall use the reporting facilities of the central repository system.\n2. All the files sent to and received from the central repository shall be in XML format compliant with the XSD schemes issued by ESMA.\n3. A credit rating agency shall name the files according to the naming convention issued by ESMA.\n4. A credit rating agency shall store the files sent to and received from the central repository in electronic form for at least five years. They shall be made available to ESMA on request.\nArticle 12\nFile exchange principles and reporting periods\n1. A credit rating agency shall send all files covering a specific reporting period within the subsequent pre-publication period to the central repository. This requirement covers both qualitative data files and rating data files.\n2. The reporting period shall cover a six-month period lasting from 1 January to 30 June or from 1 July to 31 December. The pre-publication period is a period of three months following the end of the respective reporting period, lasting from 1 January to 31 March or from 1 July to 30 September. The beginning and the end of a pre-publication period and a reporting period shall be determined by central European time.\n3. A credit rating agency shall first transmit qualitative data. It shall send rating data files only when it has received a feedback file from the central repository verifying the qualitative data.\n4. During each pre-publication period, a credit rating agency shall submit to the central repository rating data files including all the information as specified of Tables 1, 2 and 3 of Annex II. Cancellations of rating data shall be reported according to Article 10.\n5. The first time a credit rating agency reports to the central repository, it shall forward a qualitative data file including all qualitative data as specified of Tables 1, 2 and 3 of Annex I. Subsequently, that credit rating agency shall report only new rating scales, updates to and cancellations of qualitative data according to Article 9.\n6. In addition to its first report to the central repository a credit rating agency shall also report the historical data according to Article 3(4). That reporting shall be performed in a chronological order of the reporting periods, starting with the earliest one.\nArticle 13\nReporting procedure\n1. A credit rating agency shall ensure that the information sent to the central repository corresponds to its internal records. Within each pre-publication period all relevant files shall be sent in chronological order and errors shall be corrected within the pre-publication period.\n2. The central repository shall send a feedback file to the credit rating agency for each data file reported either confirming that the file has been received and loaded correctly or informing the credit rating agency about detected errors. Where the central repository has detected an error, the credit rating agency shall send corrections in due time as follows:\n(a)\nfor file errors, the credit rating agency shall correct the error as indicated in the feedback file and resend the whole file again;\n(b)\nfor content errors, the credit rating agency shall correct the error as indicated in the feedback file and shall resend only the corrected records.\nCHAPTER V\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2012.", "references": ["66", "49", "59", "91", "97", "67", "6", "1", "22", "35", "85", "89", "79", "64", "5", "90", "13", "48", "17", "54", "45", "19", "63", "98", "96", "51", "25", "99", "15", "39", "No Label", "41", "42", "46", "47"], "gold": ["41", "42", "46", "47"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 328/2012\nof 17 April 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 62/2006 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the telematic applications for freight subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has received the recommendation of the European Railway Agency ERA/REC/06-2011/INT of 12 May 2011.\n(2)\nEach technical specification for interoperability (TSI) should indicate the strategy for implementing the TSI and the stages to be completed in order to make a gradual transition from the existing situation to the final situation in which compliance with the TSIs shall be the norm. The strategy to implement the telematic applications for freight services (TAF) TSI should not only rely on compliance of subsystems with the TSI but it should also be based on a coordinated implementation.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 62/2006 of 23 December 2005 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the telematic applications for freight subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system (2) should be aligned with Chapter 7 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 454/2011 of 5 May 2011 on the technical specifications for interoperability relating to the subsystem \u2018telematics applications for passenger services\u2019 of the trans-European rail system (3) where relevant.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 62/2006, the representative bodies of the European railway sector have sent a Strategic European Deployment Plan (SEDP) for the implementation of the Telematics Applications for Freight to the European Commission. This work should be taken into account by modifying Annex A to the Annex. Annex A refers to the detailed specifications that are the basis for the development of the TAF system. These documents need to be put under a change management process. Through this process, the Agency should update these documents in order to clarify what the baseline is for the implementation.\n(5)\nThe individual schedules of the SEDP submitted in 2007 are outdated. Railway undertakings, infrastructures managers and wagon keepers should therefore submit to the Commission through the Steering Committee their detailed schedules indicating the intermediate steps, deliverables and dates for the implementation of the individual TAF TSI functions. Any divergence from schedules of the SEDP should be duly justified with the mitigating measures undertaken to limit further delays. This work should be based on the assumption that change requests processed in accordance with Section 7.2.2 of the Annex would be validated.\n(6)\nThere is a need to inform all addressees of their obligations in this Regulation, in particular small freight operators which are not members of the representative bodies of the European railway sector.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 62/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe following Articles 4a, 4b and 4c shall be inserted to Regulation (EC) No 62/2006:\n\u2018Article 4a\n1. Railway undertakings, infrastructures managers and wagon keepers shall develop and deploy the computerised system in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 7 of the Annex to this Regulation, and in particular in accordance with the functional requirement specifications and with the master plan referred to in Section 7.1.2.\n2. Railway undertakings, infrastructures managers and wagon keepers shall submit to the Commission through the Steering Committee referred to in Section 7.1.4 of the Annex not later than 13 May 2012 the master plan referred to in Section 7.1.2 based on their detailed schedules indicating the intermediate steps, deliverables and dates for the implementation of the individual TAF TSI functions.\n3. They shall report on their progress to the Commission through the Steering Committee referred to in Section 7.1.4 of the Annex following the provisions of Chapter 7 of the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 4b\n1. The Agency shall publish the master plan referred to in Section 7.1.2, and keep it up to date.\n2. The Agency shall update the documents referred to in Annex A on the basis of change requests that are validated before 13 May 2012 in accordance with the change management process described in Section 7.2.2. The Agency shall submit a recommendation to the Commission by 13 October 2012 on the update of Annex A which sets the baseline for implementation.\n3. The Agency shall assess the implementation of TAF with a view to determining whether the objectives pursued and deadlines have been achieved.\nArticle 4c\nMember States shall ensure that all railway undertakings, infrastructure managers, wagon keepers established on their territory are informed of this Regulation and shall designate a national contact point for the follow-up of its implementation.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 62/2006 shall be amended as follows:\n(1)\nSections 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 are replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\n(2)\nAnnex A is replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\n(3)\nIn Section 2.3.1, in the paragraph starting with \u2018some specific service providers\u2026\u2019, the text \u2018(see also Annex A index 6)\u2019 is deleted.\n(4)\nIn Sections 4.2, 4.2.3.1, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.8.1, the reference to \u2018index 1\u2019 is replaced by a reference to \u2018Appendix F\u2019.\n(5)\nIn Section 4.2.1.1, the sentence\n\u2018These data, including the additional ones, are (for the description of the data see Annex A index 3) listed in the table in Annex A index 3 with the indication in row \u201cData in Consignment Note\u201d, whether they are mandatory or optional and whether they must be delivered by the Consignor or supplemented by the LRU.\u2019\nis replaced by\n\u2018These data, including the additional ones, are (for the description of the data see Annex A - Appendices A, B, F and Annex 1 to Appendix B) listed in the table in Annex A - Annex 1 to Appendix B with the indication in row \u201cData in Consignment Note\u201d, whether they are mandatory or optional and whether they must be delivered by the Consignor or supplemented by the LRU.\u2019\n(6)\nIn Section 4.2.1.2, the sentences\n\u2018The data of the wagon orders according to the various roles of an RU are listed in detail in Annex A index 3, marked as to whether they are mandatory or optional. The detailed formats of these messages are defined in Annex A index 1.\u2019\nis replaced by\n\u2018The data of the wagon orders according to the various roles of an RU are listed in detail in Annex A - Appendices A and B and Annex 1 to Appendix B, marked as to whether they are mandatory or optional. The detailed formats of these messages are defined in Annex A Appendix F.\u2019\n(7)\nIn Section 4.2.2.1, \u2018index 4\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Appendix F\u2019, and \u2018index 1\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Appendix F\u2019.\n(8)\nIn Section 4.2.11.2, \u2018index 2\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Appendices D and F\u2019.\n(9)\nIn Section 4.2.11.3, \u2018index 2\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Appendices A, B, F and Annex 1 to Appendix B\u2019.\n(10)\nIn Section 6.2, \u2018index 1\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Appendices E and F\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 April 2012.", "references": ["3", "51", "16", "12", "1", "78", "65", "53", "15", "36", "40", "93", "74", "71", "30", "27", "24", "86", "98", "80", "32", "20", "57", "29", "5", "47", "50", "8", "31", "44", "No Label", "9", "42", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["9", "42", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 606/2010\nof 9 July 2010\non the approval of a simplified tool developed by the European organisation for air safety navigation (Eurocontrol) to estimate the fuel consumption of certain small emitting aircraft operators\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe complete, consistent, transparent and accurate monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Commission Decision 2007/589/EC of 18 July 2007 establishing guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) are fundamental for the effective functioning of the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme established in Directive 2003/87/EC.\n(2)\nArticle 14(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC requires that from 1 January 2010 an aircraft operator should monitor and report for each calendar year the quantity of carbon dioxide emitted from the flights it operates in accordance with the guidelines established by Decision 2007/589/EC.\n(3)\nEach aircraft operator should prepare and submit a monitoring plan to its administering Member State setting out the measures it intends to implement to monitor and report its emissions and that the competent authorities of the administering Member State should approve such monitoring plans in accordance with the guidelines established by Decision 2007/589/EC.\n(4)\nPart 4 of Annex XIV to Decision 2007/589/EC reduces the administrative burden for certain aircraft operators responsible for a limited number of flights per annum or with small emissions of carbon dioxide by establishing a simplified procedure to estimate the fuel consumption of the aircraft they operate using tools implemented by the European organisation for air safety navigation (Eurocontrol) or other relevant organisations which can process all relevant air traffic information such as that available to Eurocontrol if these tools have been approved by the Commission.\n(5)\nEurocontrol has established and documented a simplified tool for the estimation of fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions for specific flights between aerodromes. That tool uses the actual route length of each flight based upon the most comprehensive air traffic and operational flight information currently available and addresses the fuel consumed during all aspects of a particular flight including that at the departure gate, during taxiing operations, during landing, take-off and cruise as well as during air traffic management actions. The tool uses statistically robust fuel consumption coefficients for the most important aircraft types as well as a more generic approach for other aircraft which determines fuel consumption coefficients as a function of the aircraft\u2019s maximum take-off mass which result in acceptable levels of uncertainty.\n(6)\nThis tool meets the requirements of the guidelines established by Decision 2007/589/EC in respect of the approach based on individual flights, actual route length and statistically sound fuel consumption relationships. It is therefore appropriate that this tool be available and approved for use by the relevant aircraft operators in order to allow them to fulfil their monitoring and reporting obligations in an administratively less burdensome manner.\n(7)\nDue to reasons beyond its control, an aircraft operator may be unable to monitor the actual fuel consumed for a particular flight. In such circumstances, and in the absence of other means to determine the actual fuel consumption, it is appropriate that the fuel consumption estimation tool utilised by small emitters should also be available to other aircraft operators to determine estimates of fuel consumption for specific flights where actual fuel consumption data is missing.\n(8)\nPart 6 of Annex XIV to Decision 2007/589/EC requires an aircraft operator which employs a fuel consumption estimation tool to include in its monitoring plan evidence that the conditions for small emitters are satisfied, as well as providing a confirmation and description of the tool used.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe fuel consumption estimation tool developed and offered for use by the European organisation for air safety navigation (Eurocontrol) (3) is approved for use by:\n1.\nSmall emitters in fulfilment of their monitoring and reporting obligations pursuant to Article 14(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC and Part 4 of Annex XIV to Decision 2007/589/EC;\n2.\nAll aircraft operators pursuant to Part 5 of Annex XIV to Decision 2007/589/EC for the purposes of estimating the fuel consumption of particular flights covered by Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC where the data necessary to monitor the emissions of carbon dioxide are missing as a result of the circumstances beyond the control of the aircraft operator and which cannot be determined by an alternative method defined in the operator\u2019s monitoring plan.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 July 2010.", "references": ["31", "39", "56", "54", "26", "37", "82", "2", "70", "11", "4", "79", "20", "6", "23", "57", "91", "8", "33", "98", "21", "96", "76", "30", "35", "69", "3", "61", "93", "7", "No Label", "60", "78", "80"], "gold": ["60", "78", "80"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 769/2012\nof 17 August 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for alfonsinos in EU and international waters of III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 August 2012.", "references": ["33", "17", "51", "12", "41", "27", "31", "21", "0", "83", "71", "40", "6", "57", "73", "14", "62", "72", "98", "79", "10", "94", "55", "29", "16", "95", "46", "19", "4", "2", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "92", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "92", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 883/2010\nof 7 October 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of a new use of Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC Sc 47 as a feed additive for calves for rearing (holder of the authorisation Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 industrielle Lesaffre)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC Sc 47 as a feed additive for calves for rearing, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of that preparation was authorised for dairy cows by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1811/2005 (2), for cattle for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2003 (3), for weaned piglets by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2148/2004 (4), for sows by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1288/2004 (5), for rabbits for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 600/2005 (6), for horses by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2007 (7), for dairy goats and dairy sheep by Commission Regulation (EC) No 188/2007 (8), for lambs for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1447/2006 (9), for pigs for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 209/2008 (10) and for dairy buffaloes by Commission Regulation (EC) No 232/2009 (11).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for the authorisation of the preparation for calves for rearing. The European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 7 April 2010 (12) that Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC Sc 47, under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use improves the average daily weight gain of the target species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC Sc 47 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018gut flora stabilisers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 October 2010.", "references": ["47", "6", "28", "90", "93", "7", "27", "61", "32", "75", "11", "16", "52", "83", "77", "41", "97", "48", "8", "3", "42", "37", "2", "59", "45", "43", "65", "22", "0", "64", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 320/2012\nof 13 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 April 2012.", "references": ["50", "16", "40", "31", "84", "29", "81", "3", "10", "41", "5", "18", "98", "39", "93", "49", "13", "67", "21", "2", "24", "11", "94", "60", "12", "28", "99", "32", "52", "38", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 405/2010\nof 10 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2010.", "references": ["57", "2", "83", "19", "18", "53", "11", "69", "65", "73", "5", "38", "72", "86", "75", "60", "32", "77", "81", "93", "92", "50", "64", "98", "22", "15", "40", "41", "47", "10", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 April 2011\non the members of the advisory group on the food chain and animal and plant health established by Decision 2004/613/EC\n(2011/242/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Commission Decision 2004/613/EC of 6 August 2004 concerning the creation of an advisory group on the food chain and animal and plant health (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAn advisory group on the food chain and animal and plant health has been established by Decision 2004/613/EC with effect from 25 August 2004. This group is consulted by the Commission on its programme of work on food and feed safety, food and feed labelling and presentation, human nutrition in relation to food legislation, animal health and welfare, and plant health and also on any measures which the Commission has to take or propose in these fields.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 3(3) of Decision 2004/613/EC, the Commission shall select representative European bodies which most effectively meet the criteria referred to in Article 3(1) of that Decision and who have responded to the call for an expression of interest.\n(3)\nThe Commission originally selected 36 members of the advisory group. The list of original members was published in the Official Journal of the European Union in 2005 (2).\n(4)\nThe Commission has now decided to extend the membership of the advisory group, in particular in order to include certain unrepresented sectors. Following a call for expressions of interest, nine additional bodies have been selected.\n(5)\nAll members of the advisory group have equal status.\n(6)\nIt is appropriate to confirm the 36 current members of the advisory group, and, in addition, to appoint the 9 newly selected members,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Commission confirms as members of the advisory group on the food chain and animal and plant health the European bodies listed in Part A of the Annex, and, in addition, appoints as members of this advisory group the European bodies listed in Part B of the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 14 April 2011.", "references": ["62", "47", "92", "70", "35", "79", "73", "29", "18", "19", "80", "23", "64", "61", "15", "93", "22", "3", "43", "56", "28", "4", "14", "84", "98", "34", "52", "32", "13", "75", "No Label", "7", "24", "25", "38", "66"], "gold": ["7", "24", "25", "38", "66"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 464/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 22 May 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 617/2009 opening an autonomous tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the European Commission Regarding the Importation of Beef from Animals Not Treated with Certain Growth-Promoting Hormones and Increased Duties Applied by the United States to Certain Products of the European Communities was endorsed by the Council by letter of 12 May 2009 and signed in Geneva on 13 May 2009 (MoU with the United States). The aim of the MoU with the United States is to settle the long-standing World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute between the European Union and the United States of America on Beef Hormones, \u2018European Communities - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)\u2019 (DS 26).\n(2)\nThe Government of Canada and the European Commission have reached an understanding, as documented in a Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Canada and the European Commission Regarding the Importation of Beef from Animals Not Treated with Certain Growth-Promoting Hormones and Increased Duties Applied by Canada to Certain Products of the European Union signed in Geneva on 17 March 2011 (MoU with Canada). The MoU with Canada sets out a roadmap of intended steps concerning the importation of high-quality beef into the European Union and the level of increased duties imposed by Canada on certain Union products in connection with the WTO dispute \u2018European Communities - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)\u2019 (DS 48).\n(3)\nThe MoU with the United States and the MoU with Canada provide for three-phased arrangements which gradually abolish the sanctions imposed by the United States and Canada on certain Union products pursuant to the authorisation of the WTO of 1999. In this regard the Union should progressively increase the autonomous tariff-rate quota for beef that is not treated with growth hormones and that fully complies with other import requirements of the Union.\n(4)\nFollowing the signature of the MoU with the United States, an annual Community import tariff quota of 20 000 tonnes (Phase 1), expressed in product weight, was opened for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef falling within CN codes 0201, 0202, 0206 10 95 and 0206 29 91 by Council Regulation (EC) No 617/2009 (2).\n(5)\nThe timetable set by the MoU with the United States plans to increase the annual quantity of the import tariff quota by 25 000 tonnes, once both Sides enter into Phase 2 of the MoU with the United States, which entails the United States lifting the remaining sanctions imposed by it.\n(6)\nThe MoU with Canada envisages an increase of the initial annual quantity of 20 000 tonnes of high-quality beef by 1 500 tonnes. It also envisages that Canada lifts all remaining sanctions as soon as possible following the signature of the MoU with Canada.\n(7)\nThe timetable set by the MoU with Canada envisages a further increase of the annual quantity of the import tariff quota by 1 700 tonnes, once both Sides enter into Phase 2 of the MoU with Canada.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 617/2009, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. In particular, the Commission should be empowered to suspend the import tariff quota, in whole or in part, if the steps planned in the MoU with the United States or in the MoU with Canada are not taken or maintained by the United States or Canada respectively. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (3).\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 617/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 617/2009 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. An annual Union import tariff quota of 21 500 tonnes, expressed in product weight, with order No 09.4449, is hereby opened for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef covered by CN codes 0201, 0202, 0206 10 95. and 0206 29 91.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20181a. As of 1 August 2012, the annual Union import tariff quota referred to in paragraph 1 shall be increased to 48 200 tonnes, expressed in product weight.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\n1. The import tariff quota referred to in Article 1 shall be managed by the Commission by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 2a(2).\n2. The Commission may suspend the application of the import tariff quota referred to in Article 1 by means of implementing acts, in whole or in part, in the event that either the United States or Canada do not take the steps planned in the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and the European Commission (4) or in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Canada and the European Commission (5), respectively. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 2a(2).\n(3)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 2a\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets established by Article 195(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (6).\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 22 May 2012.", "references": ["80", "9", "61", "5", "72", "92", "18", "47", "7", "14", "53", "91", "24", "11", "49", "74", "55", "77", "51", "30", "48", "34", "81", "95", "99", "8", "44", "19", "66", "84", "No Label", "21", "22", "69", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 December 2011\non the State aid C 40/2009 and C 43/2008 for the restructuring of WestLB AG\n(notified under document C(2011) 9395)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2013/245/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) (1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments (2),\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy Decision of 12 May 2009 in case C 43/2008 (3) (hereinafter called \"the May 2009 Decision\"), the Commission conditionally approved a EUR 5 billion risk shield for WestLB AG (4) (hereinafter called \"WestLB\"), the Landesbank of North Rhine-Westphalia, on a portfolio of structured securities (hereinafter called \"the Phoenix portfolio\"), referring to a restructuring plan submitted on 30 April 2009 (hereinafter called \"the April 2009 restructuring plan\").\n(2)\nOn 23 September 2009, Germany notified to the Commission additional aid to WestLB in the form of a temporary risk shield for tranches of the Phoenix portfolio in the amount of EUR 6,4 billion and committed to notify a revised restructuring plan.\n(3)\nBy Decision of 7 October 2009 in case N 531/2009 (5) the Commission decided that the temporary risk shield was compatible with the internal market as rescue aid.\n(4)\nOn 10 December 2009, Germany notified a support measure for WestLB in the form of an asset transfer to the newly created Erste Abwicklungsanstalt (hereinafter called \"the EAA\"). That measure is hereinafter called\"the first asset transfer\". At that stage, Germany also submitted a modified restructuring plan for WestLB (hereinafter called \"the December 2009 restructuring plan\"). The first asset transfer replaced the measure notified on 23 September 2009 and rendered the Decision of 7 October 2009 otiose.\n(5)\nBy Decision of 22 December 2009 in case C 40/2009 (6) (hereinafter called \"the December 2009 Decision\"), the Commission temporarily approved the first asset transfer for a period of six months for reasons of financial stability. By the same Decision, the Commission opened a formal investigation under Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) because of doubts regarding the compatibility of that measure with the internal market.\n(6)\nIn December 2009, the Commission engaged Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale, Bangert Research and Professor Wim Schoutens as experts to evaluate the impaired assets that WestLB had transferred to the EAA.\n(7)\nOn 1 February 2010, Germany submitted remarks on the reasoning underlying the December 2009 Decision.\n(8)\nBy Decision of 22 June 2010, in case N 249/2010 (7) (hereinafter called \"the June 2010 Decision\"), the Commission extended the temporary approval of the first asset transfer for reasons of financial stability until the final decision on the first asset transfer and the December 2009 restructuring plan had been taken.\n(9)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Commission provided Germany with a detailed valuation report on the assets that were the subject matter of the first asset transfer.\n(10)\nOn 5 November 2010, the Commission adopted a decision to extend the formal investigation procedure regarding the first asset transfer in case C 40/2009 (8) (hereinafter called \"the November 2010 Decision\"). In the November 2010 Decision the Commission expressed further doubts regarding the compatibility of the first asset transfer with the internal market.\n(11)\nIn November 2010, the German authorities submitted comments which were supplemented on 21 December 2010. The Commission received no comments from other interested parties.\n(12)\nOn 21 December 2010, the Commission decided to postpone the date by which Westdeutsche ImmobilienBank AG (9) (hereinafter called \"WestImmo\") had to stop writing new business (10).\n(13)\nOn 15 February 2011, Germany submitted a modified restructuring plan for WestLB (hereinafter called \"the February 2011 restructuring plan\").\n(14)\nOn 15 April 2011, Germany submitted to the Commission a progress report of the divestiture trustee who had been appointed pursuant to the May 2009 Decision and a new restructuring plan for WestLB (hereinafter called \u201cthe new restructuring plan\u201d).\n(15)\nOn 23 June 2011, all important details of the winding-down of WestLB and of the burden-sharing between its shareholders were agreed between Germany's Federal Agency for Financial Market Stabilisation (hereinafter called \"the FMSA\"), all shareholders of WestLB and the EAA (the agreement is hereinafter called \"the Eckpunktevereinbarung\") (11).\n(16)\nOn 30 June 2011, Germany transmitted a final version of the new restructuring plan based on the Eckpunktevereinbarung to the Commission (that final version is hereinafter called \"the June 2011 restructuring plan\").\n(17)\nOn 28 October 2011, Germany requested the Commission to defer until 29 February 2012 WestLB's obligation to stop new business, because the May 2009 Decision requires WestLB to cease new business as of 1 January 2012. That request was submitted on a protective basis, in the event that the May 2009 Decision has not been replaced by a new decision by 1 January 2012.\n(18)\nOn 28 October 2011, Germany submitted detailed information about a further state aid measure for WestLB, in the form of a second asset transfer to the EAA (that measure is hereinafter called \"replenishment\").\n(19)\nOn 21 November 2011, Germany submitted updated information on the June 2011 restructuring plan.\n(20)\nOn 1 December 2011, Germany submitted information on the amount of temporary short-term liquidity assistance that may be provided to WestLB up to 30 June 2012.\n(21)\nOn 8 December 2011, Germany submitted a final catalogue of commitments to the Commission.\n(22)\nOn 13 December 2011, Germany confirmed the intended take-over of an entity named Verbundbank, which will be carved out from WestLB in the context of the latter's restructuring, by Helaba Landesbank Hessen-Th\u00fcringen (hereinafter called \"Helaba\").\nII. FACTS\n1. THE BENEFICIARY\n(23)\nThe beneficiary is WestLB. WestLB is the Landesbank of North Rhine-Westphalia with registered offices in D\u00fcsseldorf. Its shareholders are the Savings Banks Association of Westphalia-Lippe (hereinafter called \"SVWL\"), the Savings Banks and Giro Association of the Rhineland (hereinafter called \"RSGV\"; SVWL and RSGV are collectively called \"the savings banks associations\"), the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia (hereinafter called \"NRW\") and the two regional associations of the Rhineland (hereinafter called \"LVR\") and Westphalia-Lippe (hereinafter called \"LWL\"). The Sonderfonds Finanzmarkstabilisierung (hereinafter called \"SoFFin\"), which is managed by the FMSA, has invested a silent participation in WestLB AG.\n(24)\nThe main financial data of WestLB are summarised in the following table:\nTable 1\nMain financial data of WestLB\n31.12.2008\n31.12.2009\n31.12.2010\n30.6.2011\nBalance Sheet Figures (billion EUR)\nTotal assets\n288,1\n242,3\n191,5\n160,4\nEquity\n3,8\n3,7\n4,1\n4,2\nBank Regulatory Capital Ratios (SolvV)\nCore capital in billion EUR\n5,7\n5,3\n5,5\n4,9\nOwn funds in billion EUR\n8,9\n7,6\n7,7\n7,3\nRisk-weighted assets in billion EUR\n88,5\n83,0\n48,6\n45,4\nCore capital ratio in %\n6,4\n6,4\n11,4\n10,7\nOverall ratio in %\n10,1\n9,1\n15,9\n16,0\nEmployees\nNumber of employees\n5 957\n5 214\n4 712\n4 622\nFull-time employees\n5 663\n4 971\n4 473\n4 376\n(25)\nWestLB serves as the central institution for the savings banks and as a link to the financial markets for the regionally operating savings banks in NRW and Brandenburg. It offers a broad range of products and services, including lending, customised structured finance, capital markets business, asset management, and transaction services to its German and international clients which include corporates, as well as institutional and public-sector clients.\n(26)\nThe focus of WestLB's business activities has changed over the years. While it was initially limited to its function of a central giro institution for the savings banks, WestLB has turned more and more into an investment bank. Since 2001, when its public mission activities were separated from its economic businesses, WestLB has been undergoing restructuring (12).\n(27)\nMore recently, large investments in structured securities, partly booked in special purpose vehicles that had not been consolidated before 2007, caused significant losses and resulted in surging capital requirements, despite the relaxation of accounting standards that was adopted as a response to the financial crisis. Therefore, Germany and WestLB's shareholders granted the Phoenix risk shield in 2008 (13) and agreed in November 2009 on the establishment of a bad bank, the EAA, to which a nominal amount of around EUR 77.5 billion of assets and capital of approximately EUR 3 billion were transferred.\n2. THE AID MEASURES\na. THE FIRST SET OF MEASURES - THE RISK SHIELD FOR THE PHOENIX PORTFOLIO\n(28)\nIn 2008, WestLB transferred a portfolio of structured securities to a special purpose vehicle (\"SPV\") called Phoenix Light, a private limited company established under Irish law, ring-fencing securities (14) with a total nominal volume of approximately EUR 23 billion off WestLB's balance sheet. The SPV was secured by guarantees of WestLB's shareholders which were given on 8 February 2008 to cover actual payment defaults of up to EUR 5 billion (hereinafter called \"the risk shield for the Phoenix portfolio\") and which were approved by the May 2009 Decision (15). The risk shield consisted of two separate guarantees:\n-\na guarantee covering claims against Phoenix Light of up to EUR 2 billion, for which all shareholders of WestLB are liable in proportion to their respective shareholdings,\n-\nand a subordinated guarantee issued only by NRW, covering further claims against Phoenix Light of up to EUR 3 billion.\nb. THE SECOND SET OF MEASURES - THE FIRST ASSET TRANSFER TO THE EAA\n(29)\nOn 24 November 2009, Germany and WestLB's shareholders agreed on the details of the establishment of a bad bank called Erste Abwicklungsanstalt under the German Law on the Fund for Stabilisation of the Financial Markets (Finanzmarktstabilisierungsfondsgesetz - \"FMStFG\") in order to ring-fence a portfolio of risk positions and non-strategic business units. WestLB\u2019s shareholders met and formally approved the necessary contractual agreements on 11 December 2009.\n(30)\nThe first asset transfer measure (16) comprised a EUR 3 billion capital injection, further guarantees from WestLB's shareholders and an asset transfer which was to take place predominantly by way of a spin-off. In addition, the EUR 5 billion Phoenix risk shield was not terminated but transferred to the EAA. If the risk shield had not been transferred, the EAA would have needed an additional EUR 5 billion of capital in order to take over the Phoenix portfolio.\ni) The capital injection of SoFFin into WestLB\n(31)\nThe establishment of the EAA had to be preceded by a capital injection of EUR 3 billion by SoFFin into WestLB (hereinafter called \"the capital injection\"). That capital injection was made in three instalments, on 23 December 2009 (EUR 672 million), 4 January 2010 (EUR 1.5 billion) and 30 April 2010 (EUR 828 million). The capital was provided in the form of a non-callable silent participation, optionally convertible into ordinary shares after 1 July 2010. According to the terms agreed upon, SoFFin may not become majority shareholder of the company.\n(32)\nThe contractual terms of the silent participation provide for a remuneration of 10 % per annum if WestLB shows a sufficient year-end profit according to HGB (17). In the case of a year-end loss, however, no remuneration will be paid and the silent participation will participate pari passu in the losses. Since the silent participation was injected, WestLB has either been loss-making (in 2009) or posted no year-end profits (in 2010) according to HGB. As a result, no remuneration has been paid to date and the silent participation has participated in the losses with approximately EUR 1 million.\nii) The guarantees by the shareholders\n(33)\nThe establishment of the EAA involves a guarantee from the WestLB's shareholders to cover further losses incurred by the transferred assets. In fact, all losses by the EAA that go beyond the transferred capital must, pursuant to the FMStFG, be covered by the shareholders of WestLB and the FMSA.\n(34)\nTo that end the shareholders of WestLB provided an explicit guarantee in the total amount of EUR 1 billion, divided between NRW (EUR 482 million), the savings banks associations (EUR 501 million), and LVR and LWL (EUR 17 million). Moreover, regarding any additional loss coverage WestLB's shareholders agreed to cap the obligation of RSGV and WLSGV for further loss compensation to an amount of EUR 4 billion. Taking into account the EUR 501 million guarantee given by the savings banks associations, the maximum loss participation of RSGV and WLSGV is therefore capped at EUR 4,5 billion. In order to raise the EUR 4 billion, RSGV and WLSGV are permitted to build up adequate reserves for that obligation over a period of 25 years. Any losses exceeding both the equity of the EAA and the guarantees given will be borne by the FMSA and NRW (18).\niii) The first asset transfers\n(35)\nThe transfer of the toxic and non-strategic assets (and liabilities) took place in two steps. In a first step, securities (in particular mezzanine notes and other structured securities) with a total book value of approximately EUR 6,2 billion and liabilities with a book value of approximately EUR 5,5 billion were transferred (19) to the EAA by way of a spin-off that was recorded in the commercial register on 23 December 2009. In a second step, the remainder of the ring-fenced portfolio was spun off or synthetically transferred to the EAA on 30 April 2010 (20).\n(36)\nThe transaction was structured in such a way that WestLB benefited from retroactive effects of the transfer. The book values of the securities transferred on 23 December 2009 were determined based on the effective spin-off date of 31 December 2008/1 January 2009, while the book values of the remainder of the portfolio transferred on 30 April 2010 were determined based on the effective spin-off date of 31 December 2009/1 January 2010.\n(37)\nThe portfolio covers assets with a notional amount of EUR 77 billion (book value as of 31 December 2009 of EUR 68,117 billion (21)), containing a diverse range of lending products, plain vanilla bonds (22), structured securities and derivatives. The portfolio also includes grandfathered liabilities in the amount of EUR 22,1 billion (book value according to the \u201cSpaltungsvertrag\u201d). Three main types of assets were transferred into the EAA:\n-\nthe \"structured securities portfolio\", containing the EUR 22,9 billion \"Phoenix\" portfolio, the EUR 2,8 billion \"European Super Senior\" tranches portfolio and EUR 3,4 billion of other asset-backed securities (hereinafter called \u201cABS\u201d);\n-\nthe \"securities portfolio\", containing EUR 17,7 billion of bonds, some of which are hedged by credit default swaps (CDS) in so-called \"negative basis trades\" (23);\n-\nthe \"lending portfolio\" of loans and (off-balance-sheet) loan commitments with a total notional amount of around EUR 30,6 billion inherited from various activities and branches of WestLB.\nIn addition, the assets were partly swapped (an interest rate and/or currency swap being attached to the security or loan) and some outright CDS positions were transferred, constituting the derivative part of the portfolio.\n(38)\nWhile some of the assets, their issuers, counterparts or submarkets could be categorised as impaired, for a significant portion that was not the case. Germany classified EUR 4,2 billion (around 6 % of all assets) as \"liquid\", implying they belonged to markets that are not impaired (24).\n(39)\nAt its inception, the capital of the EAA consisted of net assets totalling EUR 3,267 billion. Those assets were composed of EUR 3 billion in capital and EUR 267 million arising from an internal liability coming from credit-linked notes (CLNs) within the European Super Senior tranches portfolio.\n(40)\nAs regards the management of assets, the EAA signed a service agreement with WestLB for a period of three years. Under that agreement WestLB provides portfolio management services to the EAA whose main objective is to wind down over time the entire portfolio and to minimise risks. Initially WestLB has acted as an exclusive counterparty to the EAA for funding purposes and derivatives.\niv) Asset valuation\n(41)\nGermany valued both parts of the ring-fenced portfolio, the first part with 30 September 2009 as a reference date and the second part with 31 March 2010 as a reference date (for an overview see Table 2). Germany stated that the real economic value (hereinafter called \"REV\") of the combined portfolios was EUR 62,727 billion, which is EUR 5,389 billion lower than their combined book values (25). That calculation was confirmed both by Blackrock (26) and by Deutsche Bundesbank (27) to be sufficiently conservative. For the quantification of the amount of state aid involved, Germany deducted from the REV shortfall (EUR 5,389 billion) the EAA's initial capitalisation (28) (EUR 3,267 billion, that amount being the difference between book values of assets and liabilities) and thereby arrived at the amount of EUR 2,123 billion as the net difference between the transfer value and the REV.\n(42)\nLike Germany, the Commission focused on the net difference between transfer values and REVs of assets and liabilities transferred (hereinafter called the \"transfer delta\") for its calculation of the amount of state aid involved.\n(43)\nThe Commission reviewed the valuation submitted by Germany, making use of external experts, namely Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale, Bangert Research and Professor Wim Schoutens. The outcome of that review, which is described in detail in the November 2010 Decision (29), led to the conclusion that, when adopting a prudent view, the transfer delta is EUR 1,606 billion higher than that stated by Germany (EUR 5,389 billion). In other words the REV is EUR 6,949 billion below the transfer value (30). The experts found, mainly at the sub-portfolio level, differences in the REV assessment of certain bonds (for the entire securities portfolio about EUR 600 million) due to a diverging assessment as to the impairment of those markets. For instance, contrary to WestLB, the experts considered several vanilla bond markets to be functioning markets so that the market value was considered to be the REV. Secondly, differences were found regarding the loans WestLB had transferred (in the entire lending portfolio of EUR 1 billion), on the basis of serious discrepancies in its loss-given-default (LGD) assessment. Large differences were also found in certain sub-categories of the structured securities portfolio but their net effect seemed to even out.\n(44)\nGermany further submitted potential mitigating factors and arguments to show that the transfer delta was less than zero.\nThe following Table taken from the November 2010 Decision summarises the findings per sub-portfolio.\nTable 2\nFindings regarding the first asset transfer as indicated in the November 2010 Decision\nGermany's Position\nCommission's Position\nPortfolio of Assets being transferred\nDec Book Value (TV)\nWestLB Dec REV \"inferred\"\nWestLB Dec REV - TV \"inferred\"\nEU expert Dec REV estimate\nEU expert Dec REV-TV estimate\nStructured Securities' Portfolio\nPhoenix\n22 764\n20 323\n(2 441)\n19 786\n(2 978)\nEuropean Super Seniors\n2 918\n1 751\n(1 167)\n2 276\n(642)\nOther ABS\n3 188\n3 182\n(6)\n3 178\n(10)\nSecurities' Portfolio\nBonds\n16 501\n16 323\n(178)\n15 762\n(739)\nBanque D'Orsay Portfolio\n2 749\n2 733\n(16)\n2 770\n21\nCDS & Derivatives\n(65)\n(45)\n20\n(102)\n(37)\nLending Products\nDrawn Positions\n20 061\n18 666\n(1 395)\n17 807\n(2 254)\nUndrawn Commitments\n-\n(205)\n(205)\n(310)\n(310)\nTotal\n68 116\n62 727\n(5 389)\n61 167\n(6 949)\nSource\n22-Feb-10\n8-Jul-10\n8-Jul-10\n23-Sep-10\n23-Sep-10\nMitigation factors\nCapital of the EAA (difference between transfer values of assets and liabilities)\n3 267\n3 267\nTransfer of Grandfathered Liabilities\n882\nnot applicable\nFuture cash flows of transferred portfolio\n880\nnot applicable\nTransfer of Credit Linked Notes\n268\n268\nAdjustment for undrawn committed lines\n205\nnot applicable\nAdjustment for discounting expected losses\n75\nnot applicable\nTotal \"Transfer Delta\" = Transfer Price - REV - Mitigation\n- 188\n3 414\nc. THE THIRD SET OF MEASURES - THE LIQUIDATION MEASURES\n(45)\nThe June 2011 restructuring plan sets out an orderly winding down of WestLB for which a number of additional support measures will be required. Germany envisages the transfer of the remaining assets and liabilities of WestLB to the EAA; the replacement of capital, assumption of operating costs and liquidation costs for WestLB or its renamed successor (hereinafter called \"SPM bank\") as the case may be; and appropriate measures to ensure liquidity during the transformation phase.\ni) The second asset transfer to the EAA\n(46)\nThe June 2011 restructuring plan provides for an additional transfer of all remaining assets and liabilities, including risk-bearing off-balance sheet items and derivatives, from WestLB to the EAA (hereinafter called the \"second asset transfer\"). All those assets and liabilities of WestLB that have neither been sold to third parties nor became part of the Verbundbank will be taken over by the EAA by 30 June 2012 (31). After the transfer WestLB will no longer hold banking assets at its own risk (except for investments related to SPM bank\u2019s equity.\n(47)\nThe overall portfolio has been discussed with the Commission and thereafter been submitted by the Germany on the basis of detailed figures, which can be summarised as follows:\nTable 3\nFindings regarding the second asset transfer (billion EUR)\nPortfolio (32)\nHGB book value\nPortfolio market values\nDifference\nAssets\n[120-150] (33)\n[120-150]\n[0,8-1,3]\nLiabilities\n[120-150]\n[120-150]\n[0,2-0,5]\nTotal\n[1,0-1,8]\n(48)\nAs regards the market values of the assets and liabilities which will be the subject matter of the second asset transfer to the EAA, Germany has stated that their respective market values, if assessed on an individual basis, are higher than those indicated in Table 3. Germany has in particular set out that the individual market values of the assets added up to EUR [120-150] billion, and those of the liabilities to EUR [120-150] billion. Germany argues that WestLB's remaining portfolio has already been cleaned by the first asset transfer and only contains assets that are priced at recoverable values. In particular, Germany confirmed that the portfolio only contains securities and derivatives that were priced at their respective market values or loans and other financial instruments for which no established markets exist and that were hence priced on a Discounted Cash Flow method. The portfolio contains only a very limited amount of assets (less than EUR 1 billion) that would classify as international public finance or international sovereigns.\n(49)\nHowever, after discussion with the Commission Germany submitted that for some parts of the portfolio, i.e. the loan portfolio and similar illiquid assets of approximately EUR [40-70] billion, a portfolio effect has to be taken into consideration, in view of the sheer size of the overall portfolio. If WestLB actually had to sell the whole portfolio on the market before 30 June 2012, excessive supply would push down the individual market values. In that case, based on the information received, Germany submitted that the portfolio market values should be calculated by discounting the individual market values by [2-5]%.\n(50)\nAccording to the June 2011 restructuring plan, the second asset transfer to the EAA may include assets from WestImmo, which will transfer assets to the EAA in order to improve its own marketability. WestImmo will continue only business that is eligible for German covered bonds (Pfandbriefe) under the name \"Pfandbriefbank\" (that being a preliminary working title). In order to implement that concept, a large part of WestImmo's asset and liabilities may be carved out and transferred to the EAA in the first half of 2012. The carve-out portfolio will amount to approximately EUR [5-10] billion, including - on a sub-portfolio level - an unsecured commercial real estate portfolio, a portfolio with assets in Japan, and a bond and retail mortgage loan portfolio of EUR [2-4] billion that has already been transferred to the EAA synthetically in the context of the first transfer and is currently used as collateral in the covered bonds pool. After the transfer WestImmo will be a much smaller bank holding assets of approximately EUR [16-23] billion at inception. If WestImmo cannot be sold by 30 June 2012 those remaining assets will also be transferred to the EAA. They have therefore to be considered in addition to the amount identified in recital 51.\n(51)\nIn detail, the carve-out portfolio which has been discussed with the Commission and thereafter been submitted by Germany on the basis of detailed figures, can be summarised as follows.\nTable 4\nValuation of WestImmo assets of the carve-out portfolio (billion EUR)\nPortfolio\nHGB book values\nMarket values\nDifference\nInternational Real Est.\n[3,5-4,0]\n[3,0-4,0]\n[0,1-0,4]\nGerman Real Estate\n[1,1-1,6]\n[1,1-1,6]\n[0,01-0,05]\nFI Portfolio\n[0,7-1,3]\n[0,5-1,25]\n[0,1-0,3]\nTotal\n[5,3-6,9]\n[4,6-6,85]\n[[0,3-0,8]\n(52)\nGermany submitted a detailed explanation of why the valuation of the assets in the WestImmo carve-out portfolio should be considered to be sufficiently prudent. It claimed that 1) about one third of the portfolio consists of short-term positions; 2) the underlying collaterals structure is solid; and 3) the collateral valuation has been recent.\n(53)\nMoreover, WestLB intends to sell the WestImmo Pfandbriefbank before 30 June 2012. However, if that proposed sale does not occur, the complete assets and liabilities of WestImmo would need to be transferred to the EAA. The estimated risk-adjusted book value (including the carve-out portfolio) is EUR [20-26] billion as of June 2011. That portfolio consists mainly of commercial real estate and retail mortgages. Germany submits that large parts of the initial portfolio has already been covered by the selection procedure for the first asset transfer so that the remaining part is clean and thus has a market value equal to the book value. Moreover, the commercial real estate portfolio is mainly used for issuing covered bonds and thus has a market value that is sufficient to match the transfer value.\n(54)\nFinally, Germany submits that for the transfer of the WestImmo assets and the second transfer of assets from WestLB, their REV should be equal to their transfer values.\nii) The additional capital instrument for SPM bank\n(55)\nPursuant to the Eckpunktevereinbarung NRW will take full ownership of and responsibility for WestLB as of 30 June 2012. Because WestLB will pay back to SoFFin EUR 1 billion of SoFFin's silent participation in WestLB in the course of the restructuring, that part of the capital will need to be replaced. NRW has committed to provide an additional capital instrument in line with the Eckpunktevereinbarung (34) in the amount of EUR 1 billion for that purpose (hereinafter called \"the additional capital instrument for SPM bank\").\niii) Assumption of further operating costs and liquidation costs of SPM bank\n(56)\nThe June 2011 restructuring plan sets out two different business cases for WestLB/SPM bank, one for a scenario that is described as base case, the other for a scenario that is described as bad case. The base case estimates that overall losses for operating and liquidating SPM bank over a five-year period (Transformationskosten), including the assumption of pension liabilities, will amount to EUR [3-6] billion. The bad case, which is based on different assumptions regarding staff reductions, the amount of depreciation required on buildings and IT investments, pension liabilities, and other exit costs, estimates that total losses over the five-year period will amount to EUR [4-7] billion. NRW takes full ownership of and responsibility for WestLB. Both the base case and the bad case scenario imply that the EUR 1 billion capital instrument provided by NRW will be consumed. In the bad case scenario NRW would have to provide additional funds, in line with the Eckpunktevereinbarung.\niv) Commitment to provide liquidity support during the restructuring period\n(57)\nThe June 2011 restructuring plans also sets out that current liquidity is to be maintained during the restructuring period by the savings banks, NRW and the EAA. If additional liquidity support is necessary during the restructuring period until 30 June 2012, WestLB, its shareholders, and the EAA will in line with the Eckpunktevereinbarung agree upon suitable measures for the provision of liquidity during the transformation phase. According to information submitted by Germany on 1 December 2011, the use of the additional liquidity assistance [\u2026] in the case of a stress scenario.\n3. RESTRUCTURING PLANS\na. INTRODUCTION\n(58)\nGermany has submitted several restructuring plans to the Commission that have dealt with different state aid measures and different restructuring concepts. A first set of documents, which covered only the EUR 5 billion risk shield, resulted in the April 2009 restructuring plan (35).\n(59)\nThe two key elements of the April 2009 restructuring plan (36) were a reduction of the balance sheet of WestLB from EUR 250 billion to EUR 125 billion (including the divesture of several assets such as WestImmo) and the refocusing and de-risking of all activities, followed by a sale of WestLB in an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tendering procedure. If such a sale was not achieved, WestLB would have to stop new business after 2011. Although WestLB's shareholders mandated a divestiture trustee as well as an investment bank with the sales process and publically launched a tender for WestLB on 30 September 2010, the tender procedure did not result in offers that WestLB's shareholders considered acceptable from an economic point of view.\n(60)\nNew restructuring plans were submitted in December 2009 (37) and February 2011. The February 2011 restructuring plan indicated a further downsizing of the bank to a balance sheet of about EUR 80 billion but no claw back payments. A final restructuring plan was notified in June 2011. Germany has explicitly confirmed that the February 2011 restructuring plan has been withdrawn. In the present Decision only the June 2011 restructuring plan will therefore be examined.\nb. THE JUNE 2011 RESTRUCTURING PLAN\n(61)\nThe June 2011 restructuring plan is based on four key elements:\n(a)\nin the course of 2011 and before 30 June 2012 at the latest, the so-called Verbundbank activities - i.e. those business activities that are focused on cooperation with the regional savings banks - will be carved out in order to accommodate the resulting Verbundbank in the network of the savings banks. Helaba has indicated its willingness to take over the Verbundbank;\n(b)\nsales efforts for all other parts of WestLB will be continued as long as a sales agreement is possible before 30 June 2012;\n(c)\non 30 June 2012 the EEA will take over those portfolios which have not been assigned to the Verbundbank, have not been taken over by the members of the savings banks finance group and have not been sold by 30 June 2012 by WestLB to third parties, and after 30 June 2012 WestLB will not engage in new banking business (except for business in connection with asset management) and will be transformed into a servicing platform including a run-down vehicle that holds legacy positions commercially transferred to or hedged by the EAA, that deals with redundancies, and provides asset management services (called SPM bank);\n(d)\na part of SPM bank (hereinafter called \"the servicing company\") that provides asset management services to the EAA, the Verbundbank and third parties will be hived off.\n(62)\nThe plan can roughly be summarised as follows:\nTable 5\nBasic structure targeted by the June 2011 restructuring plan\nCurrent structure\n< 30 June 2011\nTarget structure\n> 30 June 2012\nWestLB\nBalance sheet size: EUR 160 billion\nRWA: 88,5 billion (in 2008, see table 1)\nEquity: EUR 4 billion\nEmployees: 4 400\nshareholder: NRW 48 %, regions 2 %, Savings\nbanks: 50 %\nSPM bank holding\nBalance sheet size: tbc (assets synthetically transferred to EAA)\nRWA: < 1 billion\nEmployees: 4 400, < 400 in 2016 either in holding or operating company\nEquity: [\u2026]\nShareholder: NRW 100 %\nWestImmo and other subsidiaries of WestLB\nSubsidiary = SPM operating company Balance sheet size: tbc (assets synthetically transferred to EAA)\nEmployees: see holding\nSubsidiary = SPM servicing company Balance sheet size: EUR < 1 billion\nEmployees: max 1 000 in 2016\nTo be sold by 2016\nTransfer of the Verbundbank to Helaba\nBalance sheet size: EUR 40-45 billion\nEquity: EUR 1 billion by savings banks\nEmployees: ~ 400\nshareholder: transfer to Helaba\nSale of assets by 30 June 2012\nIn particular WestImmo (Pfandbriefbank)\nBalance sheet size WestImmo: EUR [16-23] billion\nEAA - bad bank as of April 2010\nNominal volume: EUR 77,5 billion (October 2011: 53)\nEquity: EUR 3 billion\nStakeholders: NRW 48 %, regions 2 %,\nsavings banks associations 50 %\nEAA (replenished) - the bad bank\nBalance sheet size: ~ EUR [100-250] billion\nEquity: Equity as of 06/2012 plus additional capital for the loss-free round-down of the assets transferred on 30.6.2012\nStakeholders: NRW 48 %, regions 2 %,\nsavings banks associations 50 %\ni) Verbundbank\n(63)\nThe Verbundbank business activities will be carved out to form an entity that is merged with another bank. During the procedure leading to the adoption of the present Decision, the savings banks have given up their earlier intention to establish a new bank on a stand-alone basis. The Verbundbank will act as a service provider and central bank to saving banks in NRW and Brandenburg, and employ approximately 400 former employees of WestLB. It may for a transitional period contract some services provided by WestLB/SPM bank.\n(64)\nThe Verbundbank will have a low risk business model. It will offer services and products to the savings banks and their clients, to medium-sized corporates, and to public entities and institutional clients. Its products will mainly comprise corporate finance and plain vanilla capital market activities. Amongst the key financial figures of the Verbundbank are risk-weighted assets in the amount of EUR 8,3 billion and a balance sheet total in the range of EUR 40 to EUR 45 billion. At inception the Verbundbank will be equipped with capital of EUR 1 billion in order to have a regulatory equity ratio of 12 %. The capital will be provided by the savings banks associations in NRW (50 %) and the savings banks association at national level (DSGV - 50 %) (38). Its liabilities will consist of deposits by savings banks, bonds and covered bonds as well as deposits from institutional investors. The major part of the funding will be provided through members of the savings banks finance group.\n(65)\nAfter submission of the June 2011 restructuring plan Landesbank Helaba indicated its readiness to take over the Verbundbank activities. On 12 December 2011 Helaba in principle concluded positively on a due diligence of a selected portfolio of assets and liabilities from WestLB and reiterated its willingness to take over the Verbundbank by mandating its executive board to enter into concrete negotiations on the integration of Verbundbank business (39). An integration of the Verbundbank into either Helaba or the savings banks sector was organised by the savings banks associations after it had become evident that the profitability of the Verbundbank - if run on a stand-alone basis - could be expected to be rather low, with a return on equity ranging from [2.0-3.0]% to [4.0-5.0]%. Reduced overhead costs and synergies stemming from the integration of the Verbundbank activities into Helaba or the savings banks sector would improve the expected profitability and bring it to an acceptable level.\nii) Sale or transfer of assets\n(66)\nAs regards those parts of WestLB that do not qualify for the Verbundbank carve-out, the June 2011 restructuring plan sets out that as many parts as possible will be sold by 30 June 2012 (signing of the contracts). That process has been synchronised with the ongoing sales activities which had already been initiated to comply with the conditions of the May 2009 Decision. [\u2026].\n(67)\nWestLB put up for sale larger entities such as the Corporates & Structured Finance and Capital Markets divisions which are WestLB's key revenue drivers, including smaller entities such as the Corporates, Structured Finance, Equity Markets, Debt Markets and Custodian Services business units, which can all be bought along with their respective electronic data processing systems and infrastructure, if required.\n(68)\nWestLB will evaluate offers based on a range of criteria, including the sales price and respective adjustment clauses, the effects of a sale on WestLB's balance sheet and profit & loss statement, the soundness of the offers as regards, for example, financing concepts and transaction experience of the buyer, legal aspects of a transaction, and the replenishment of the EAA.\n(69)\nOn 30 June 2012 all of WestLB's assets and liabilities that have not yet been sold or have not been transferred to the Verbundbank will be transferred to the EAA. The applicable legal framework (40) allows for a subsequent replenishment of the EAA, provided that - among other things - sufficient equity is available, all inherent risks of the assets are disclosed and a detailed wind-down plan has been submitted.\n(70)\nThe transfer methods for the second asset transfer will follow those which were already applied in December 2009 and April 2010 when the first two tranches of WestLB's first asset transfer were transferred to the EAA. Again, the split-off will be the preferred transfer method, and only if other appropriate transfer methods such as sale or sub-participation are not legally or technically possible or entail commercially unreasonable risks will a physical transfer be replaced by a synthetic transfer of underlying risks.\n(71)\nThe aim of the transfer is to ensure that WestLB or SPM bank, as the case may be, will not engage in new banking business (except for business written in connection with its servicing activities) and will no longer be exposed to any credit or market risk on own account to be covered by a regulatory minimum of equity on the basis of the currently applicable regulatory framework (41).\n(72)\nAs regards the valuation of assets and liabilities, the transfer will take place at risk-adequate book values, meaning [\u2026].\niii) SPM bank\n(73)\nAfter 30 June 2012 WestLB will not engage in new banking business (except for business written in connection with its servicing activities) and will give up its brand name WestLB and be rebranded SPM bank (preliminary working title). WestLB will be transformed into a unit which for winding down purposes holds legacy positions commercially transferred to the EAA and takes care of the remaining staff, and a servicing platform which will only provide asset management services.\n(74)\n[\u2026].\n(75)\nEssentially SPM bank will become a holding company (hereinafter called \"SPM bank holding\") that is planned to have two subsidiaries, SPM Betriebsgesellschaft and SPM Servicegesellschaft, a servicing company (hereinafter called \"the servicing company\").\n(76)\nAssets that can not be physically transferred to the EAA for tax, legal or regulatory reasons will only be synthetically transferred. Such assets will be held on the balance sheets of SPM bank holding or of SPM Betriebsgesellschaft, but not of SPM Servicegesellschaft.\n(77)\nAfter completion of the replenishment, WestLB or SPM bank, as the case may be, will not hold any risk-weighted assets for credit and market risks (42) and only a comparatively small amount of risk-weighted assets in order to cover regulatory capital requirements for purely operational risks (less than EUR 1 billion, if calculated on a Basic Indicator Approach) (43).\n(78)\nSPM Betriebsgesellschaft will hold the remaining pension obligations towards WestLB's current and former employees. The main task of SPM holding/SPM Betriebsgesellschaft will be to reduce staff from the current level of approximately 4 400 employees to 1 400 in 2016, of which 1 000 will be in the servicing company, and to shut down dispensable locations and systems. SPM Betriebsgesellschaft will provide only basic non-core services, e.g. maintenance of buildings and offices.\n(79)\nThe servicing company will be spun off between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2014 to provide asset management services for WestLB's remaining assets and liabilities. The fact that portfolios of assets have been transferred to the EAA (and the Verbundbank) creates a need for asset management services, as neither the EAA nor the Verbundbank can carry out the servicing of the portfolios on their own. The servicing company will offer those services to the EAA (and the Verbundbank) at usual commercial rates. All limitations on the business model of the servicing company (see also recitals 80 to 85) will end after the sale of the servicing company.\n(80)\nSPM holding or its subsidiaries will hold all banking licences that are still required for their activities. Germany commits that the scope and the number of banking licences is, however, restricted to the minimum necessary for the provision of asset management services.\n(81)\nSignificant parts of the EAA portfolios are and will have to remain booked in overseas branches. As of 31 October 2011, WestLB had exposures in New York of approximately EUR [5-15] billion, in London of approximately EUR [15-25] billion, and in Asia of approximately EUR [5-10] billion. A physical transfer to the EAA of those portfolios was in the context of the first asset transfer for tax, legal or regulatory reasons either not possible or economically unreasonable and therefore could only happen synthetically. Those assets will be held by SPM holding or SPM Betriebsgesellschaft, partly in overseas branches or subsidiaries. Germany explains that overseas branches or subsidiaries cannot immediately be closed, but commits that SPM holding or SPM Betriebsgesellschaft will close all oversees branches or subsidiaries before the end of 2016, unless the closure is prevented by reasons of bank regulatory requirements.\n(82)\nMoreover, the servicing company will need to adequately service those portfolios. In order to preserve know-how for asset management, the servicing company will run a branch in New York, in London, and in one location in Asia. Approximately one-third of the employees expected to work for the servicing company will work in one of the overseas branches. The Commission thus understands that after a sale of the servicing company, SPM bank will after 2016 no longer have any overseas branches or subsidiaries, unless individual closures are prevented by reasons of bank regulatory requirements.\n(83)\nThe servicing company will not only to be spun off but will also be sold subsequently, by 2016 at the latest. In order to facilitate the sale of the servicing company, SPM bank may during the period from 2012 and 2014 enter into contracts for the provision of asset management services for portfolios of third parties, i.e. portfolios that are not related to former portfolios of WestLB. The proceeds from those activities, however, must not exceed [40-60]% of the total gross revenues of the servicing company. That limitation will end after the sale of the servicing company.\n(84)\nThe servicing company is expected to generate a moderate return on sales of approximately [8-12]% which should be just sufficient to enable its marketability (44). The profit-and-loss calculation on which the profitability of the servicing company was assessed points out that until 2016 significant cost cuttings have to be achieved (45).\n(85)\nIf, however, SPM bank does not sell the servicing company by 31 December 2016, Germany commits that the servicing company will be wound down. In that case all existing contractual obligations will be terminated by 31 December 2017, which is the final date for the phase-out period of the servicing company (if not sold).\n4. COMMITMENTS BY GERMANY\n(86)\nIn addition to the June 2011 restructuring plan Germany has submitted a catalogue of commitments (see the Annex to the present Decision), which can be summarised as follows:\na)\nBRAND NAME\n-\nAs regards the brand name WestLB, Germany commits that the brand name WestLB will no longer be used after 30 June 2012 (a three-month grace period may apply if it proves necessary for technical reasons).\nb)\nVERBUNDBANK\n-\nGermany commits that the Verbundbank's business activities are restricted to what has been listed in the June 2011 restructuring plan until 31 December 2016, unless the Verbundbank is merged with another Landesbank before 31 December 2016.\n-\nGermany commits that NRW will in future not buy any shares of the Verbundbank or provide any other form of financial support to it.\n-\nGermany commits that a stand-alone spin-off of the Verbundbank will no longer be pursued and that the Verbundbank's assets and liabilities will be taken over by the savings banks sector before 30 June 2012.\n-\nGermany commits that all parties will implement the obligations resulting from the Eckpunktevereinbarung without modification or delay, so that, based particularly on the subject of the transaction and the assessment that the entity has a company value of zero, sufficient transaction security is ensured and the disposal of the Verbundbank takes place by 30 June 2012t.\n-\nGermany commits that Landesbank Hessen-Th\u00fcringen (Helaba) intends, in the event of a favourable outcome to the due diligence, to be available to take over the Verbundbank\nc)\nSPM BANK\n-\nGermany commits that SPM bank will limit its activities to the following services:\ni)\nServicing of portfolios of the EAA, the Verbundbank and third parties, if needed, including workout management, clearing of securities, processing and utilization, credit evaluation, credit management and credit surveillance, credit risk controlling, regulatory reporting, management of collaterals of corporates including the respective data management, management of market risks, IT and back-office services, funding, hedging, cash-management, financial reporting, controlling, compliance, and management of participations.\nii)\nIn the case of assets that have been transferred synthetically to the EAA, the EEA can as part of its winding down strategy also carry out, in particular, extensions, sales or securitisations of such assets; in these cases SPM bank will operate only on behalf and by order of the EAA (46).\n-\nGermany has provided a description of required banking licences and a commitment that all other banking licences will be returned by 31 December 2012.\n-\nGermany commits that in SPM bank the workforce will be reduced from the current level of 4 400 to 1 000 in the servicing company in 2016. Indicative numbers have been given for the targeted staff counts in the course of that reduction.\n-\nGermany commits that SPM bank will respect certain conditions when it offers services to third parties. The volume of third party business must not exceed [40-60]% of its total gross revenues. Third party contracts will only be provided by a separate entity (the servicing company that will have to be carved out) which will hold a banking licence limited to the minimum required.\n-\nGermany commits that the servicing company will be sold by 31 December 2016. Third party contracts with maturities that extend beyond 2017 are permitted if the contract provides the client with a termination right for capacity reasons (with effect as of 31 December 2017).\n-\nIf the sale of the servicing company does not take place by the due date, Germany will ensure that with effect from 31 December 2017 all activities of the servicing company will be stopped or transferred. If the sale of the servicing company is successful all limitations on the business activities of the servicing company will be lifted.\n-\nGermany commits that the following services will, in particular, not be provided by SPM bank: proprietary trading, emission of certificates of all kinds, project finance and trade financing, asset-based finance, securitisations and syndicated loans, and international corporate banking. For synthetically transferred assets guaranteed by the EAA, SPM bank is the lender of record, which may require SPM bank to extend loans, to sell loans or perform securitisations, but it may only do so if those actions are requested by the EAA.\n-\nGermany commits that SPM bank will offer its asset management services only at fair market prices, and that the rates offered will be sufficient to cover the full costs of the servicing company.\n-\nGermany commits that SPM bank will after 2016 no longer have any overseas branches or subsidiaries, unless individual closures are prevented by reasons of bank regulatory requirements. However, the servicing company may have one overseas branch in London, one in New York and a third in Asia in order to have local expertise at its disposal, to cover time zones, to reduce operational risks and to be capable of competing.\n-\nGermany commits that SPM bank will be part of the monitoring by a trustee.\nd)\nEAA\n-\nGermany commits that, after an extension and prolongation of the EAA service contract until 31 December 2016, the EEA will procure its required asset management services in line with the commitment on commercial pricing and by way of a public tender.\ne)\nMONITORING\n-\nGermany commits to supply detailed quarterly reports to the Commission on the measures taken on the basis of an understanding reached between the Commission and Germany on 16 December 2011.\nIII. OPENING OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 108(2) TFEU\n1. THE DECEMBER 2009 DECISION\n(87)\nWith the December 2009 Decision, the Commission had raised doubts under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding the compatibility of the asset relief measures examined in that decision with the communication from the Commission on the treatment of impaired assets in the Community banking sector (47) (hereinafter called \u201cthe Impaired Assets Communication\u201d). Moreover, in the Commission\u2019s opinion, the restoration of viability, adequate burden-sharing and the mitigation of distortion of competition caused by the (additional) aid had not been convincingly demonstrated in line with the Commission communication on the return to viability and the assessment of the restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules (48) (hereinafter called \u201cthe Restructuring Communication\u201d).\n(88)\nThe Commission indicated that it was not only investigating the new aid stemming from the transfer of assets into the EAA but also had to reconsider the aid authorised under the May 2009 Decision (49).\n(89)\nThe Commission also indicated doubts regarding an adequate own contribution of the savings banks, considering that the savings banks' obligations stemming from the asset relief measure were capped and that the capital necessary to establish the EAA was raised only from Germany but not from the savings banks (50).\n(90)\nGermany was required to provide a revised restructuring plan taking into account the full amount of state aid granted, comprising adequate remuneration and additional in-depth restructuring.\n2. THE NOVEMBER 2010 DECISION\n(91)\nBy the November 2010 Decision the Commission extended the procedure because of increased doubts regarding the compatibility of the first asset transfer with the Impaired Assets Communication and the compatibility of the December 2009 restructuring plan, which failed to demonstrate that it is apt to restore the viability of the beneficiary as well as to ensure adequate burden-sharing and mitigate the distortions of competition caused by the aid.\n(92)\nIn particular regarding the first asset transfer the Commission raised doubts regarding the eligibility of the impaired assets. It concluded on the existence of state aid and the amount of aid and assessed the amounts as being such that the aid would be incompatible with the Impaired Assets Communication if not clawed back or made up through additional restructuring pursuant to point 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication.\n(93)\nIn the November 2010 Decision, the Commission considered the aid amount attributable to the first asset transfer to be around EUR 6,9 billion, as established by its experts. That amount is calculated as the difference between the transfer value and the market value of the assets (around EUR 11 billion) (51), corrected by the initial equity provided to the EAA (around EUR 3,3 billion) (52), by the book values of certain credit-linked notes (around EUR 0,3 billion) (53), and by a deduction for the transfer of grandfathered liabilities (around EUR 0,9 billion) (54).\n(94)\nThe Commission further endorsed the transfer delta as found by its experts, i.e., the net difference between transfer values and REVs of assets and liabilities. It considered that the transfer delta amounts to EUR 3.4 billion, once equity and credit factors are corrected for (55). Regarding the securities portfolio the Commission noted that in order to find the claimed asset classes to be impaired (56), further evidence would have been needed to conclude that markets for those assets would indeed have been dysfunctional, in absence of any buyers and sellers. Moreover, on the basis of its decision-making practice it agreed with the experts that the discount factors that WestLB had applied to establish the REV were too low, resulting in an excessively high end result for the REV. The Commission further concurred with the experts' finding that, due to insufficiently conservative LGD assumptions, the REV of the lending portfolio was around EUR 1,0 billion below WestLB's estimate. The Commission noted that the figures were compared at sector level in line with the Commission's decision-making practice (57). Furthermore the Commission reconsidered other mitigating factors submitted but decided that there was no basis to take them into account for the REV assessment.\n(95)\nMoreover, the Commission expressed doubts as to the management of the impaired assets as they were still administered by WestLB. Furthermore, the Commission deduced from the fact that the EAA had recorded a loss of EUR 1 billion shortly after its establishment that losses could have already been incurred at the date of the transfer. That caused doubts as to whether the relevant assets fell within the scope of point 32 of the Impaired Assets Communication.\n(96)\nGermany was again required to provide a revised restructuring plan taking into account the additional aid granted to WestLB and dealing with the shortcomings indicated in that decision.\nIV. POSITION OF GERMANY\n(97)\nGermany does not dispute that the measures constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n1. REGARDING THE FIRST ASSET TRANSFER TO THE EAA\n(98)\nGermany disputes some findings regarding the first asset transfer to the EAA.\na. APPLICABILITY OF THE IMPAIRED ASSETS COMMUNICATION\n(99)\nFirst, Germany reiterates its position of 2 February 2010, claiming that the Impaired Assets Communication is not applicable to the first asset transfer to the EAA. Germany argues that WestLB is in fact carrying the burden of the impaired asset measure, as WestLB transfers equity to the EAA. Referring to the May 2009 Decision, Germany claims that, in line with footnote 8 in recital 16 of that Decision, the Impaired Assets Communication is not applicable when a measure is being carried out by public shareholders in their capacity as owners.\nb. ESTABLISHING THE REAL ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE FIRST ASSET TRANSFER\n(100)\nSecond, Germany claims that the Commission made errors in assessing the transferred assets and the application of scaling factors.\n(101)\nWhile it claims that the Commission's assessment was in general too conservative, it elaborates on individual points for the individual asset classes \"Structured Securities\", \"Other Securities\" and \"Credit Portfolio\".\n(102)\nAs regards the \"Structured Credit\" portfolio, Germany claims that the WestLB valuation methodology, criticised by the Commission, was considered to be acceptable by Deutsche Bundesbank. Furthermore, it pointed out that BlackRock Solutions, the company that was mandated as Germany's expert, established a higher REV for the portfolio than WestLB itself, which indicates that a sufficiently conservative approach was taken by WestLB.\n(103)\nFor the \"Other Securities\" portfolio, Germany claims that the main differences between the valuation assessments stem from the discussion as to whether a market value is applicable. While WestLB proffered its own (mainly liquidity-based) criteria to determine whether a market is impaired, Germany criticises the Commission's experts for having insufficiently explained their finding that almost all assets belonged to unimpaired markets. As an example, Germany refers to sovereign bonds that make up a large portion of the securities portfolio and claims that falling market prices at the end of 2009 were an indication of market impairments.\n(104)\nFor the valuation for the \"Credit Portfolio\", Germany states that the Commission's experts' opinion - which was drawn up without access to the detailed credit documentation - cannot be used to contradict the WestLB values. It criticises in particular a lack of transparency regarding the assessment parameters used, inherent contradictions, and an excessively conservative approach by the Commission's experts. Germany claims that the parameters used in the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS) stress tests should be applied, not those used by the Commission's experts. Germany particularly criticised one of the stress scenarios, in which the Commission's experts used a 70 % probability-of-default assumption and 30 % LGD assumption.\n(105)\nFinally, Germany addressed the doubts on eligibility by arguing that the first EAA annual report (30 June 2010) is not an indication of existing portfolio losses. It rebuts the Commission's doubts that the expected losses in the EAA structure were underestimated, arguing that the EAA's actual risk provisioning amount is mainly driven by the Phoenix portfolio. That amount was in fact EUR [0,5-1,5] billion lower than what was budgeted in the run down plan. Therefore, the EAA's treatment of provisioning did not contradict WestLB's assessment of expected losses.\nc. MITIGATING FACTORS\n(106)\nFinally, Germany claims that the valuation of the transferred portfolios must take mitigating factors into account, in particular regarding (i) the transfer of grandfathered liabilities, (ii) future cash flows, (iii) undrawn committed lines, and (iv) discounting of expected losses.\n(107)\nAs regards grandfathered liabilities, Germany claims that by transferring such liabilities (58) to the EAA WestLB foregoes an economic advantage of EUR 882 million that needs to be taken into account.\n(108)\nAs regards future cash flows, Germany claims that, by transferring the portfolios to the EAA, WestLB foregoes future cash flows (interest payments etc.) amounting to EUR 880 million that also should be taken into account.\n(109)\nAs regards undrawn committed lines, Germany claims that a correction is necessary for the transfer of undrawn committed lines to the EAA, as their potential risks have been included in the calculation of the REV, while their potential earning power has not been included in the overall assessment.\n(110)\nAs regards discounting of expected losses, Germany claims that the valuation of the portfolios should be based on discounted expected losses, as the conflicting concept of prudence has already been sufficiently applied when the REV was calculated.\n2. REGARDING THE ADVANTAGE FOR THE SAVINGS BANKS\n(111)\nGermany commented on the doubts that additional illegal aid might have been provided to the savings banks as follows:\n(112)\nFirst, Germany sets out that WestLB's shareholders, among whom are the savings banks, were not obliged to establish a bad bank but rather did so based on an autonomous decision.\n(113)\nSecond, Germany points out that the FMStFG does not lay down an unlimited obligation to compensate for losses. The obligation to compensate for losses is rather restricted to the equivalent amount of equity invested into the beneficiary bank. Germany claims that the FMStFG allows for a contractual allocation of the loss compensation obligation that deviates from an equity-based pro-rata allocation, in order to take different financial capacities into account.\n(114)\nFinally Germany argues that the savings banks, having assumed the obligation to compensate for potential losses stemming from the EAA of up to EUR 4,5 billion, have taken an adequate share of the burden.\nV. ASSESSMENT OF AID TO WESTLB\n(115)\nThe assessment of the restructuring aid to WestLB has to consider all aid granted to WestLB since 2008, as the aid granted after the May 2009 Decision has been granted for the same restructuring process that was approved under the May 2009 Decision. However, given the significant increase of aid and the changes made to the restructuring plan, a new assessment of the entire aid under the June 2011 restructuring plan is required.\n1. STATE AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU\n(116)\nAccording to Article 107(1) TFEU, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\n(117)\nThe qualification of a measure as state aid requires that the following conditions are met: a) it must be financed by a Member State or through state resources; b) it must grant an advantage liable to favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods; c) the measure must distort or threaten to distort competition; and d) the measure must have the potential to affect trade between Member States.\n(118)\nThe Commission maintains its view that those conditions are met for all measures, as it will explain below, even allowing for the fact that WestLB will discontinue its banking activities, because WestLB is still conducting economic activities such as asset management services. Given that those activities are still pursued in a context of international competition, the Commission considers that those measures have the potential to distort competition and also may affect trade between Member States (59).\na. THE RISK SHIELD FOR THE PHOENIX PORTFOLIO\n(119)\nThe Commission already established in the May 2009 Decision that the risk shield constitutes state aid. Germany has clarified that the risk shield still takes effect on the equity part of the Phoenix portfolio which has been transferred to the EAA.\nb. THE CAPITAL INJECTION\n(120)\nThe Commission already concluded in its December 2009 Decision that the capital injection of EUR 3 billion constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nc. THE ADDITIONAL CAPITAL INSTRUMENT FOR SPM BANK\n(121)\nAccording to the June 2011 restructuring plan NRW will issue an additional instrument in favour of SPM bank in the amount of EUR 1 billion in order to replace the part of WestLB's equity (60) that is going to be paid back to SoFFin. As the additional instrument for SPM bank is a replacement of capital it must also be fully loss absorbing, otherwise the regulator would not accept such a transaction. The new instrument must thus constitute capital as well. That capital is given by NRW and thus stems from State resources. It has the effect of covering up a capital shortage of an individual bank and amounts hence to a selective advantage to SPM bank. Given that SPM bank will be active in a sector in which undertakings from other Member State are present, that measure is likely to distort competition and to affect trade between Member States. It is thus state aid, as is confirmed by the analysis of similar capital measures (61).\nd. THE ADDITIONAL LOSS COVERAGE BY NRW FOR SPM BANK\n(122)\nAccording to the June 2011 restructuring plan, NRW will take over the losses for operating and liquidating SPM bank over a five-year period, as well as assume all pension liabilities. The overall losses that SPM bank will accumulate over its operating lifespan are assumed to range between EUR [3-6] billion in the base case scenario and EUR [4-7] billion in the bad case scenario. Those losses must be covered by the [\u2026]. The commitment to take over losses generated by SPM bank is therefore similar to a capital injection ranging between EUR [100-700] million and EUR [0,5-2,0] billion. As with the additional capital instrument for SPM bank, the additional loss coverage also covers SPM bank's capital shortage and provides it with a selective advantage since there is nothing to indicate that the bank could obtain such capital on the market. As the measure stems from NRW, it is provided from State resources. Given the characteristics of the banking sector set out in recital 118, the measure is apt to distort competition and to affect trade between Member States. Hence it constitutes state aid.\ne. THE FIRST ASSET TRANSFER\n(123)\nThe Commission already concluded in its December 2009 Decision that the impaired asset relief measure in the form of the establishment of a bad bank constitutes state aid (62).\n(124)\nIt does not agree with Germany in so far as the latter argues that the Impaired Assets Communication should not be applied. Instead, it recalls its decision-making practice to the effect that in the Impaired Assets Communication the Commission provided guidance on the treatment under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU of asset relief measures adopted by Member States on the basis that \"Impaired assets correspond to categories of assets on which banks are likely to incur losses. The Commission considers that the IAC must cover any kind of support measures targeting impaired assets and subsequently providing effective asset relief to the recipient institution because the IAC defines asset relief as any measure whereby a bank is dispensed from the need for severe downward value adjustments of certain asset classes\" (63). The first asset transfer also falls into that category of measures, as it frees WestLB from facing the consequences of a downward adjustment of the value of its assets. Germany has in fact previously confirmed that WestLB would not have complied with regulatory minimum capital requirements any longer had it not been shielded by the state support measure (64).\n(125)\nAs regards its temporal scope, the Impaired Assets Communication must be applied to the asset transfer. The Commission recalls that it has to apply the law and guidelines in force at the time of the adoption of a decision, irrespective of the time at which the aid measures were designed or notified (65). In fact, in the context of the current financial crisis the Commission has previously applied the Impaired Assets Communication to measures notified before the publication of the communication (66).\n(126)\nThe Commission has not changed that assessment, notwithstanding the objection made by Germany that it had not applied the Impaired Assets Communication in the May 2009 Decision. Although it might have been erroneous not to have applied the Impaired Assets Communication at that point in time, there is no legitimate expectation by Germany that such an approach would continue. In any event, the reasoning in the May 2009 Decision was to accept the nominal amount of the guarantee as the aid amount, which is not uncommon for impaired asset guarantees (67); however, if that approach were to be applied in the present case, it would result in an amount that exceeded by far the aid amount established by the Impaired Assets Communication.\n(127)\nThe main issue thus remains the establishment of the amount of aid. According to point 39 of the Impaired Assets Communication, aid is granted by an impaired asset measure in so far as the transfer value exceeds the market value of the total portfolio.\n(128)\nIn the November 2010 Decision the Commission calculated a preliminary aid amount of EUR 11 billion which did not consider mitigating factors. To that end, the Commission made an assessment of a likely market value for assets that were not trading in the market and relied on expert advice. However, the Commission has been able, through in-depth analysis of the portfolio relying on the details of the final expert report, to refine its assessment.\n(129)\nTable 6 provides an overview of the market value, listed by sub-portfolio:\nTable 6\nMarket value of the first asset transfer (billion EUR)\nPortfolio of Assets being transferred\nDec Book Value (TV)\nCommission's Market Value Estimate\nStructured Securities' Portfolio\nPhoenix\n22 764\n13 200\nEuropean Super Seniors\n2 918\n1 750\nOther ABS\n3 188\n2 900\nSecurities' Portfolio\nBonds\n16 501\n(722)\nBanque D'Orsay Portfolio\n2 749\n23 749\nCDS & Derivatives\n(65)\n(102)\nLending Products\nDrawn Positions\n20 061\n17 355\nUndrawn Commitments\n-\n(748)\nTotal\n68 116\n52 887\n(130)\nFor the Securities portfolio as well as the ABS sub-portfolio of the Structured Securities portfolio, market values were either readily available or could be derived from valuations of proximity assets that had readily available market values (EUR 18,430 billion (that figure has been disaggregated:\n)) and EUR 2,9 billion respectively).\n(131)\nFor the lending portfolio, a severe stress scenario (68) was used as a market value proxy resulting in a EUR 748 million discount on undrawn commitments (total EUR 16,607 billion, that figure has been disaggregated:\n).\n(132)\nFor the European Super Seniors sub-portfolio, the original WestLB estimate of expected principal losses is deemed to be very conservative and close to a market value calculation. As a result, the WestLB-inferred REV for the ESS portfolio could be used as a market value estimate (EUR 1,750 billion) (69). As regards the Phoenix Portfolio, which is a structured security with a complicated waterfall pay-off structure, an approximation of the market value can be made as follows: first, the mark-to-market (hereinafter called \u201cMtM\u201d) of the underlying collateral was deemed to be around 54 % (EUR 12,375 billion). Taking into consideration the available cash (EUR 1,325 billion to be added) and the likely cash outflows (about EUR 0,5 billion in an adverse, MtM-like scenario, to be subtracted), the market value can be estimated at approximately EUR 13,2 billion (70).\n(133)\nIf one compares the total amount (EUR 52,887 billion) to the transfer value (EUR 68,116 billion), the aid amount is established, from which some mitigating factors have to be deducted. The mitigating factors are the above-mentioned (recital 93) EUR 3,267 billion for the EAA's capital; EUR 882 million through foregoing grandfathered liabilities; and EUR 268 million through the transfer of Credit-Linked Notes inside the Phoenix structure. Therefore the state aid amount totals EUR 10,812 billion, i.e. EUR 15,229 billion - EUR 4,417 billion.\n(134)\nThat aid amount includes the guarantees provided by the WestLB shareholders to cover the losses of the EAA (see recitals 33 to 40) because those guarantees will replace the engagement that the Bund has given by acquiring the assets from WestLB via the EAA. It should be recalled that pursuant to the FMStFG the Bund must be compensated by the shareholders for any losses crystallising in the future. Hence that liability of the Bund is in fact being replaced by a liability of the WestLB shareholders internally. However, that replacement does not have any effect vis-\u00e0-vis the beneficiary and to treat those guarantees as a separate source of aid would amount to double counting of the support. Those guarantees therefore do not increase the aid amount in the first asset transfer to the EAA.\nf. THE SECOND ASSET TRANSFER - REPLENISHMENT OF THE EAA\n(135)\nThe second transfer concerns the potential replenishment of the EAA with all of WestLB's current assets and liabilities. It has to be borne in mind that only the transfer of the WestImmo carve-out portfolio to the EAA is certain to take place, while the transfer of assets and liabilities linked to the Verbundbank and Pfandbriefbank is merely a possibility. Furthermore, WestLB has put all its divisions and business units up for sale, and as a result related assets and liabilities may still be divested at market prices before 30 June 2012 and hence not be transferred to the EAA. The following assessment is, however, based on the precautious assumption that as of 30 June 2012, all of WestLB's current assets and liabilities will be transferred to the EAA.\n(136)\nIn the case of WestImmo, a carve-out portfolio with assets and liabilities of around EUR [5,3-6,9] billion (HGB book value) will be spun off and transferred to the EAA. The market value has been established as indicated in Table 4 above. The Commission has assessed the figures for the market value and finds the explanation why that amount should be considered sufficiently prudent plausible. Therefore it establishes the difference between transfer values and market values, i.e. the aid amount, for the WestImmo part of the second asset transfer to be EUR [300-800] million.\n(137)\nIn addition, Germany submits that, if WestImmo, freed of the carve-out portfolio, cannot be sold as Pfandbriefbank but has to be transferred to the EAA, its transfer value would be equal to its market value. That submission seems plausible, given that Pfandbriefbank has deliberately been released from impaired assets.\n(138)\nIn the case of WestLB, assets and liabilities of around EUR [120-150] billion (HGB book value) will be spun off. The portfolio market values have been established to be EUR [1,0-1,8] billion lower than their HGB book values, as indicated in Table 3 at recital 52. The Commission has assessed the figures for the market value of the remaining WestLB assets and liabilities. It did not identify any inconsistencies in the market valuation. In fact, the Commission recalls that WestLB has been freed from impaired assets in the context of the first asset transfer, and that the resulting capital relief was quite large. Hence it does not seem surprising that the quality of the portfolio and so its market value is much better than that of the first transfer. Therefore the Commission accepts that the portfolio market values of the assets and liabilities are in total EUR [1,0-1,8] billion lower than the transfer values (HGB book values), and that the aid amount for the WestLB-part of the second asset transfer is hence equal to EUR [1,0-1,8] billion.\n(139)\nIn total, the market values of the second asset transfer are EUR [1,3-2,6] billion lower than their transfer values. The total aid amount for the second asset transfer is hence EUR [1,3-2,6] billion.\ng. PROVISION OF LIQUIDITY SUPPORT BY THE WESTLB SHAREHOLDERS IN THE FIRST HALF OF 2012\n(140)\nOnce all assets of WestLB have been transferred into the EAA, the EAA will take care of their funding. Up to 30 June 2012 (that is, until the transfer takes place) the shareholders of WestLB will provide any liquidity support that is needed in order to ensure that the transfer of assets to the EAA occurs. That measure can be considered as an integral part of the overall liquidation scenario, because it merely shields the transformation period in case market turbulence occurs before 30 June 2012. It nevertheless constitutes an additional temporary advantage to WestLB (71), which [\u2026]. Given the status of the WestLB shareholders as public authorities or entities under the ultimate control of public authorities to whom any decision to grant liquidity in the context of the transformation would be imputable, the measure stems from state resources. As explained in recital 118, the characteristics of the banking sector in Germany are such that the provision of such an advantage would be apt to distort competition and also to affect trade between Member States. As a result, the provision of liquidity support by the WestLB shareholders in the first half of 2012 constitutes state aid.\nh. CONCLUSION\nIn sum, WestLB has obtained the following state aid measures:\nTable 7\nSummary of aid measures\nCapital or capital-like measures\nAid element\n(billion EUR)\nThe risk shield for the Phoenix portfolio\n5\nThe capital injection in the context of the first asset transfer\n3\nThe additional capital instrument for SPM bank\n1\nThe additional loss coverage by NRW for SPM bank\n[0,5-2,0]\nThe first asset transfer\n10,812\nThe second transfer - replenishment of the EAA with WestImmo assets and liabilities (carve-out portfolio)\n[0,3-0,8]\nThe second transfer - replenishment of the EAA with WestLB assets and liabilities\n[1,0-1,8]\nTotal\n[21,6-24,4]\nPercentage of aid, compared with EUR 88,5 billion of RWAs (as of 30.12.2008)\n[24,4-27,6]%\nLiquidity measures\n[\u2026]\n2. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET\na. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 107(3)(b) TFEU\n(141)\nArticle 107(3)(b) TFEU empowers the Commission to find that aid is compatible with the internal market if it is intended \"to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State\". The Commission has acknowledged that the global financial crisis can create a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State and that measures supporting banks are apt to remedy that disturbance. That assessment has been confirmed in the Commission communication The recapitalisation of financial institutions in the current financial crisis: limitation of aid to the minimum necessary and safeguards against undue distortions of competition (72) (hereinafter called \u201cthe Recapitalisation Communication\u201d), the Impaired Assets Communication and the Restructuring Communication. The Commission still considers that requirements for state aid to be approved pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU are fulfilled in view of the reappearance of stress in financial markets. The Commission confirmed that view by adopting in December 2010 a Communication that prolongs until 31 December 2011 the application of state aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis (73). The Commission has since extended the application of those rules beyond 31 December 2011 (74).\n(142)\nIn respect of the German economy that analysis has been confirmed in the Commission's approval of various measures undertaken by the German authorities to combat the financial crisis, in particular in the approval and prolongations of the German rescue package (75).\n(143)\nAn uncontrolled breakdown of a bank such as WestLB could directly affect the financial markets and thus the entire economy of a Member State. In the light of the current fragile situation of the financial markets, the Commission continues to base its assessment of state aid measures in the banking sector on Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.\nb. COMPATIBILITY OF THE IMPAIRED ASSET MEASURES\n(144)\nFor the reasons explained in recitals 125 and 126, the compatibility of the first asset transfer to the EAA has to be assessed on the basis of the Impaired Assets Communication. The compatibility assessment focuses on whether the asset transfer takes place above the market value but without exceeding the real economic value as defined in point 40 of the Impaired Assets Communication. In order for the aid measure to be compatible the transfer value should, according to point 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication, not exceed the REV and the transfer delta would be zero. The following assessment focuses first on the amount of the transfer delta (see recitals 144 to 159). If the transfer delta is not zero, i.e. it is above the REV, it should be reimbursed or clawed back (see recitals 161 and 162).\ni) Compatibility of the first asset transfer to the EAA\n(145)\nRegarding the first asset transfer to the EAA, Germany disputed the establishment of the REV. Its comments aim at contradicting the finding in the November 2010 Decision that there is a transfer delta amounting to EUR 3.414 billion. The Commission has assessed the comments of Germany. The results of that analysis can be summarised as follows:\n- As regards the valuation in general\n(146)\nAs regards the overall valuation exercise, determining the REV of the assets to be transferred, the Commission maintains that its evaluation was not too conservative but was in accordance with point 37 of the Impaired Assets Communication. Point 37 of the Impaired Assets Communication obliges the Commission to apply a correct and consistent approach to asset valuation, including assets that are more complex and less liquid, so as to prevent undue distortions of competition. The Commission has explained in the November 2010 Decision that its approach is in line with existing decision-making practice. The approaches taken by other bodies such as CEBS are certainly credible, but they are not relevant for that exercise.\n(147)\nThe Commission remains unconvinced that the approach proposed by WestLB is in line with state aid decision-making practice. The Commission indeed notes that the Bundesbank has not confirmed the REV proposed by WestLB but instead criticised both the methodology and parameter use of WestLB (76). That critical stance contradicts Germany's claim that WestLB's methodology is in general a \"recognised technical expertise\". The Commission therefore maintains that WestLB's methodology deviates from usual case practice (77).\n- As regards the valuation at the level of sub-portfolios\n(148)\nA regards the valuation in detail, first, regarding the \"Structured Securities\" portfolio, the Commission notes that no great divergences exist. In fact, the Commission's REV for the entire asset class lies very close to that as assessed by WestLB. The Commission has refrained from using conservative assumptions where to do so would validate or reject individual portfolio valuations. Instead, it followed its experts' advice to re-assess WestLB's overly conservative approach for the \"European Super Senior\" sub-portfolio. The Commission has examined the detailed expert report, which included a review of the main asset sub-categories (ABS CDOs (78), other CDOs (79), US RMBS (80), US CMBS (81), US ABS (82), EUR ABS (83) and Financials), and found the methodologies and results used to be consistent with other cases, such as those mentioned in the opening decision.\n(149)\nSecond, regarding the Lending Portfolio, the Commission does not accept Germany's claim regarding lack of transparency and inconsistencies in the valuation of its experts. It recalls that it has tried to give guidance as to the appropriateness of certain methodologies for assessing the REV. For instance, the Commission recommended a large sample asset re-underwriting of the loan portfolio in order to assess the appropriateness of the existing rating systems, the resulting probabilities-of-default (PDs) and the LGDs. Germany has not followed that recommendation. The Commission also emphasised that, as explained in point 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication, it had to use sufficiently prudent LGD and PD stresses. In line with the Commission's decision-making practice, a transfer of assets must be assessed based on the REV of the assets. In conclusion, the Commission confirms its previous assessment that the valuation must be corrected by around EUR 1 billion\n(150)\nThird, for the \"Securities Portfolio\" the Commission agrees with Germany that the differences stem from the assumption of whether the markets concerned are impaired. In fact, the question could also be whether that part of the portfolio should be considered eligible under the Impaired Assets Communication at all. It could be argued that, although some flexibility could be envisaged by allowing banks to be relieved of assets not primarily involved at the first stages of the financial crisis, assets that cannot be considered impaired at the time of transfer should not be covered by a relief programme. On that view, asset relief should not act as a form of open-ended insurance against the consequences of the recession. On the other hand, the off-loading of large, multi-billion-euro-sized portfolios might trigger precisely the distortion of those markets. To strike a balance between the objective of maintaining financial stability and the need to prevent distortions of competition, the Impaired Assets Communication allows for the transfer of those assets. However, because the market for those assets is fully functional (i.e. unimpaired), the REV will be equal or approximately equal to the market value.\n(151)\nWhile WestLB assesses the existence of a functioning market on the basis of a pure liquidity criterion, the Commission remarks (84) that the starting point for an assessment of market impairment is a comparison with a well-functioning market for the particular asset. In a normally functioning market a transaction is executed between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The notion of a willing buyer and seller implies that the transaction is voluntary and therefore free of compulsion.\n(152)\nThe Commission's experts have provided transparent criteria for a normal functioning market, which are endorsed by the Commission (85). While adequate liquidity or tight bid offer spreads indicate a functioning market, the reverse is not necessarily true. For instance, a privately placed security, issued by a solvent and stable issuer, might not be liquid. Nevertheless, if needed, a competitive market bid, close to a mark-to-model value computed from liquid proximity securities, could easily be obtained. Therefore, the criteria proposed by WestLB are too narrow to assess the normal functioning of a market.\n(153)\nIt should be remarked that the misattribution of unimpaired assets as impaired assets is per se not a problem for the determination of the REV. One would expect that the REV calculated for such asset positions would be close to the market value of the asset, provided that a suitable method and calibration is used. Any REV calculation method should broadly converge to the market price, when a particular market is not impaired. Indeed, the instances of misattribution represent a test of the suitability of the REV calculation method and parameters used.\n(154)\nAs regards Germany's claim that certain sovereign bond markets were impaired at the end of 2009, the Commission observes that criteria indicating a functioning market were fulfilled at that time. Instead, specific sovereign submarkets showed evidence of impairment near the end of the second quarter of 2010 (86) and beyond, notably with interventions at ECB and other European levels. Nevertheless, it was not the case on 31 December 2009 or on 31 March 2010, which were the two reference dates used in the valuation exercise.\n(155)\nThe Commission therefore maintains its view that WestLB used either a wrong valuation methodology or applied the wrong parameters in its valuation methodology, so that the valuation must be corrected by around EUR 600 million.\n(156)\nIn conclusion, the Commission finds the REV assessment for each of the three sub-portfolios as indicated in the experts' report to be valid and consistent with its decision-making practice. As a result, the Commission deems the difference between the transfer value and the REV of the assets in the portfolio to be EUR 6,949 billion (87).\n(157)\nIn the November 2010 Decision the Commission expressed doubts whether all of the assets were eligible for the transfer. The Commission took statements in EAA's first annual report as evidence that in some assets losses had already been incurred at the date of the transfer, although such assets would not fall within the scope of point 32 of the Impaired Assets Communication. However, Germany subsequently provided additional information and explained the amount of risk provisioning made by the EAA and the amount of losses that had been incurred in the assets transferred to the EAA. Those explanations were plausible and allay the Commission's concerns. There is therefore no need to make further corrections relating to a non-eligibility of assets.\n- Mitigating factors\n(158)\nThe Commission also does not accept mitigating factors beyond those already accepted in the November 2010 Decision. It also already accepted the compensatory effects of the equity injection (EUR 3,267 billion) and the CLN notes (EUR 268 million) (88), as indicated in Table 2 at recital 44. Moreover, the Commission invited Germany to engage the Bundesbank to comment on the compensatory effects and have any proposed alteration in the portfolio valuation verified and confirmed by a regulatory authority such as the Bundesbank, in line with guidance from the Impaired Assets Communication. No such verification and confirmation by the regulatory authority has taken place.\n(159)\nRegarding the grandfathered liabilities, the Commission notes that the valuation of liabilities is per se not discussed in the Impaired Assets Communication. It needed therefore to assess how to deal with a transfer that mixed assets and liabilities as was done in this case. While the Commission recognises the potential economic disadvantage of transferring low-yielding liabilities, it had to strike a balance between compatible amounts on the asset side and the amounts on the liability side. As a result, while the Commission has taken the effect of grandfathered liabilities into account when assessing the total aid amount (see recital 133) the Commission does not consider it applicable in the assessment of REV.\n(160)\nRegarding the positive future results for the transferred assets, the Commission does not follow Germany's argument and insists that, once assets have been transferred, future profits should no longer be taken into account. That methodology of establishing the REV of the lending portfolio is in line with the Commission's decision-making practice (89).\n(161)\nRegarding undrawn committed lines, the Commission confirms that an undrawn committed line can indeed carry a zero book value. That possibility does however not exclude that an undrawn committed line can have a negative REV contribution. The drawing of the line is not excluded, because contractually it cannot be avoided. Therefore, the fact that a line is not yet drawn will thus not change the REV even if such positions have zero book value.\n(162)\nRegarding discounting expected losses, the Commission observes that by discounting the expected losses WestLB simply alters its own valuation approach, and moreover does so without support from the Bundesbank. Germany thereby contradicts its own REV estimate but does not provide any additional arguments against the Commission's opinion.\n(163)\nIn sum, as the REV has been endorsed above and is in line with points 40 and 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication, the Commission therefore does not consider the expected losses or any of the other three mitigating factors advanced by Germany in its comments as relevant for the REV assessment.\n- Asset management\n(164)\nThe Commission's doubts as to the proper management of the impaired assets in the wake of the asset transfer have been allayed. The Commission had reservations that WestLB was to continue to manage the impaired assets, as a bank should concentrate on new activities and avoid any conflict between running down and new activities. However, as WestLB/SPM bank will after 30 June 2012 no longer conduct any new banking activities, but only asset management services, the Commission's doubts have been assuaged.\n(165)\nTo conclude, having considered all additional potentially mitigating factors and arguments submitted by Germany, the Commission's doubts have not been allayed. Therefore, it continues to consider the transfer delta to be equal to EUR 3,414 billion.\nii) Claw back\n(166)\nAccording to point 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication, in order to mitigate the distortions of competition stemming from a transfer of the assets above the value that is considered acceptable to make up for the market failure at the relevant time, the transfer delta should be returned by the bank. If such a repayment is not immediately possible then it should be achieved over time in the form of a claw back. Where even such a repayment through a claw back is not possible without leading to technical insolvency, the distortion of competition needs to be compensated by in-depth restructuring, which can go as far as liquidation (90).\n(167)\nWestLB indicated in its restructuring plan presented in February 2011 that it wasn't even able to pay back the EUR 3,4 billion from the first asset transfer to the EAA without jeopardising its viability. In addition, there is unlikely to be a sale of WestLB if a potential buyer had to repay the EUR 3,4 billion to Germany. In consequence, Germany has submitted the June 2011 restructuring plan which provides for a liquidation of WestLB within 12 months. The Commission considers that the liquidation of WestLB is sufficient to make up for the distortions of competition. Therefore, subject to the requirement that the liquidation plan is credible, which will be assessed in section c, the Commission finds the aid to be in line with the Impaired Assets Communication and compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.\niii) Compatibility of the replenishment\n(168)\nThe transfer of the second tranche must also in principle be assessed under the Impaired Assets Communication. However, the Commission considers, on the basis of the June 2011 restructuring plan, that the result of such an assessment would no longer have an impact. Any additional distortions of competition resulting from a transfer delta in respect of the second tranche would in any event be mitigated by the liquidation envisaged in the June 2011 restructuring plan. Therefore, in the current exceptional situation, the Commission considers that, where the entire aid amount can already be considered compatible under point 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication, it can abstain from an in-depth assessment of the valuation, i.e. a calculation of the REV.\n(169)\nThe transfer of assets is thus compatible because the potential distortions of competition are mitigated by the liquidation of WestLB and hence in line with point 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication.\nc. COMPATIBILITY OF THE RESTRUCTURING/LIQUIDATION AID\n(170)\nThe Commission must assess the compatibility of all aid measures on the basis of its guidelines for dealing with banks in the financial crisis, in particular the Restructuring Communication and the Commission communication The application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis (91) (hereinafter called \u201cthe Banking Communication\u201d).\n(171)\nThe Commission notes that the June 2011 restructuring plan needs to ensure the compatibility of the aid measures indicated in Table 7.\n(172)\nThose measures amount to a total aid amount of EUR [21,6-24,4] billion, which is equivalent to an aid amount in relation to RWA as of 31 December 2009 of [24,4-27,6]%. That amount of aid must be considered a very large proportion of the beneficiary's size and thus requires in-depth restructuring or liquidation. Moreover, the restructuring plan also needs to consider the additional distortions of competition stemming from the a priori incompatible amount of aid identified by the transfer delta. The proposed restructuring or liquidation must be adequate to address that distortion.\n(173)\nThe June 2011 restructuring plan meets the criteria set out in the Restructuring Communication. Point 21 of the Restructuring Communication states that an orderly winding down or the auctioning off of a failed bank should be considered where a bank cannot credibly return to long-term viability. The Banking Communication provides for a procedure within the framework of which such an orderly winding down should take place (92). A controlled liquidation of that kind may be applied in individual cases after rescue aid has been given to an individual financial institution when it becomes clear that the latter cannot be restructured successfully.\n(174)\nIn order for liquidation aid to be compatible with Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, the liquidation aid has, according to the Commission's decision-making practice (93), to satisfy the following three general conditions:\n(i)\nit should be demonstrated that the aid enables the bank to be effectively wound down in an orderly fashion, while limiting the aid amount to the minimum necessary in view of the objective pursued (94);\n(ii)\nappropriate burden sharing should be ensured, in particular by excluding shareholders from receiving benefit of any aid in the context of the controlled winding-down procedure (95);\n(iii)\nin order to avoid undue distortions of competition, the liquidation phase should be limited to the period strictly necessary for the orderly winding down. As long as the beneficiary financial institution continues to operate, it should not pursue any new activities, but merely continue the ongoing ones. The banking licence should be withdrawn as soon as possible (96).\ni) Demonstration of an orderly winding down\n(175)\nThe Commission considers the June 2011 restructuring plan to represent an orderly winding-down scenario for WestLB which is based upon a burden-sharing agreement among the bank's shareholders. The June 2011 restructuring plan takes into account in particular the fact that other market-oriented possible solutions for WestLB which might have been less costly or less distortive have already been explored for more than two years without success. An uncontrolled liquidation procedure, on the other hand, would pose a threat to financial stability; that risk is better addressed by the orderly winding-down scenario. The June 2011 restructuring plan allows the Commission to assess the winding-down process and the potential competitive impact of the state measures involved therein.\n(176)\nThe most important criterion for the classification as winding-down scenario is that the bank will stop all banking activities and remains in business only to run down the existing portfolios but not contract any new business.\n(177)\nThe stopping of banking activities should be ensured inter alia by a sale or transfer of all of a bank's remaining assets and liabilities, so that only a rump would remain where that is necessary to assist in the run-down of existing assets in particular to ensure a value-preserving wind-down of its portfolios.\n(178)\nOn the basis of the June 2011 restructuring plan, WestLB will transfer all its banking assets either to the savings banks or to the EAA. Therefore by 30 June 2012 the bank will remain with almost no risk-weighted assets. The remaining bank will, according to the commitments provided by Germany, no longer use its brand name \"WestLB\" but will be rebranded \u201cSPM bank\u201d within a period of not more than three months. Moreover, the bank will no longer continue banking activities on its own account but merely be a service provider for the EAA and to a limited amount eventually for third parties. Therefore significant and irreversible steps have been laid out in the restructuring plan, which mark an irrevocable exit from the market for the majority of WestLB's former activities within 12 months.\n(179)\nSecond, in line with the requirement set out in point 47 of the Banking Communication, the liquidation phase is limited to the period strictly necessary for the orderly winding down in order to avoid undue distortions of competition. Although the winding down of WestLB will take several years, it can still be considered to be limited to the shortest period possible. Only the servicing company will engage in competition, offering a limited amount of asset management services to third parties. Germany has committed that the servicing company will be sold before 31 December 2016. The transformation period until 31 December 2016 is required to allow management to reorganise the organisational structures within SPM bank, to carve out the servicing company and to establish at least a short track-record in order to attract potential investors. SPM bank itself will remain responsible for assets that cannot be physically transferred to the EAA, and so its lifespan is therefore driven by the maturity of those assets. The value-preserving wind-down of the portfolios should take until 2028, and that time period cannot be shortened. However, serving as a holder of assets is as such not an economic activity so that it is without effect on competition. While the reduction of the workforce in SPM bank will take some years to reach the target size of 1 000 employees, that reduction in workforce is still in line with the reduction of the activity level of SPM bank, given that the reorganization of SPM bank will be a labour-intensive process even if banking activities are no longer pursued. In sum, all those processes can be deemed to be limited to the shortest period possible.\n(180)\nThe third criterion is that the bank should not continue its activities in the market except for selling its assets, making sure that only an insignificant part of the former bank activities will as such stay in the market.\n(181)\nSome activities associated together as the Verbundbank will be taken over by Helaba. The Verbundbank activities represent in terms of balance sheet size less than 20 % of WestLB's former balance sheet (the Verbundbank portfolio will represent a balance sheet size of EUR 45 billion at maximum, compared with WestLB's total balance sheet of EUR 288 billion in 2008). In terms of staff size the Commission notes that less than 10 % of WestLB's former staff will continue working in the carved-out Verbundbank sector (approximately 400 employees in the Verbundbank sector, compared with WestLB's initial staff of 5 661 employees in 2008). Moreover, it should be noted that the Verbundbank will be carved out through a hive-off of assets and liabilities and not be transferred as a fully-fledged bank. As the transaction does thus not concern WestLB but only a small part of its assets and liabilities, the transaction cannot be considered a significant sale of the bank.\n(182)\nMoreover, the Commission has no indication that the requirements of point 49 of the Banking Communication are not fulfilled, according to which a transaction should take place on market terms and maximise the sales price for the assets and liabilities involved. In that regard the Commission notes that WestLB had set up an unsuccessful sales process that aimed to maximise the sales price for all its assets and liabilities. However, WestLB did not receive any acceptable offers. Furthermore the company value of the Verbundbank activities, which include assets, liabilities, and an organisational structure with approximately 400 employees, is being reviewed by several external auditors on the basis of well-established valuation methods. Germany commits that the Verbundbank activities, which will either be taken over by Helaba or the savings banks sector, will have a company value of zero, in line with the Eckpunktevereinbarung. In fact, unlike other sales processes in liquidation cases (97), the divestment of the Verbundbank activities by WestLB will not require any additional payments by public authorities. The Commission can therefore not see any undue benefit to the entity that will take over the Verbundbank activities and therefore concludes that neither Helaba nor the savings banks obtain any aid arising from the divestment of the Verbundbank activities.\n(183)\nIn any event, the rules for a sale of the entire bank envisaged in points 17 onwards of the Restructuring Communication are, even if they do not apply in this case (98), also met in the present case. The rules for such a sale require meeting the following criteria: restoring viability, burden sharing and mitigating distortions of competition. The divestment to Helaba meets those criteria. First, Helaba should be able to ensure viability of the transferred bank, given that the Verbundbank - compared with Helaba - is rather small in terms of balance sheet size and headcount, and has only a small impact on the profitability of the merged entity. On the other hand the merger should lead to savings in relation to those costs that would prevent a positive assessment of the Verbundbank on a stand-alone basis (99). Second, burden sharing is ensured because the WestLB shareholders will not receive any proceeds from the sale but instead lose their capital in WestLB. Third, as the activities of WestLB will be reduced to less then 20 % of those of the bank as it originally existed, the Commission's decision-making practice is not to require any additional compensatory measures for such a sale (100).\n(184)\nIn addition, the Commission has no reason to assume that the Verbundbank as a bundle of assets can be seen as the economic successor of WestLB. Helaba is neither the legal successor of WestLB nor has the Verbundbank any significant functional identity with WestLB. Helaba does thus not meet the criteria for establishing the existence of a continuing economic entity which the Commission has used in order to establish whether state aid has been extended to a firm which continues the activity of the original firm (101).\n(185)\nFinally, it is also ensured that the aid is limited to the minimum necessary. In particular, a transfer of assets to the EAA will only take place if they cannot be sold to private parties. Moreover, the additional injection of capital into SPM bank is necessary to cover for the expected run-down costs. Finally, the liquidity support can be considered an integral part of the overall liquidation scenario, because it merely shields the transformation period in case market turbulence occurs before 30 June 2012. The liquidity support thereby ensures that the orderly liquidation procedure will not turn into a disorderly wind-down before 30 June 2012.\nii) Own contribution and burden sharing\n(186)\nThe second part of the assessment concerns burden sharing. Point 46 of the Banking Communication states that in the context of liquidation particular care has to be taken to minimise moral hazard, notably by excluding shareholders and possibly certain types of creditors from receiving the benefit of any aid in the context of a controlled winding-down procedure. In the cases of Northern Rock (102) and HRE (103), burden sharing was achieved by nationalisation. As in those cases, the shareholders here will lose all their equity. Moreover, WestLB's shareholders, as well as SoFFin as the principal provider of hybrid capital, will take individual responsibility for the different parts into which WestLB is to be split and provide additional capital.\n(187)\nIn fact, the savings banks have accepted to take responsibility for the Verbundbank activities and will raise capital for that purpose, and NRW has accepted to take the major part of the burden, assuming all operating costs and liquidation costs of SPM bank. Furthermore, SoFFin has also accepted to take a significant part of the burden by leaving two thirds of its silent participation in WestLB, thereby very likely foregoing the repayment of its investment. Therefore the overall agreement takes sufficiently into account both the respective burden-sharing capacities of the parties as well as the degree to which they were formerly involved in setting the bank's strategy and their degree of influence on the bank's corporate governance.\niii) Limiting distortions of competition\n(188)\nThe liquidation plan ensures a limitation of distortions of competition of WestLB, as it will disappear from the market by 30 June 2012. Thereafter, WestLB will be turned into an entity without banking activities that will together with the EAA run down the assets.\n(189)\nMoreover, undue distortions of competition in liquidation are avoided by ensuring that WestLB after 30 June 2012 continues to operate only as long as necessary for the winding down and will not pursue any new activities, but will merely phase out existing activities. In the present case, that principle is implemented by withdrawing those parts of the banking licence of WestLB that are not required for the holding of assets or provision of asset management services as soon as possible, and by 31 December 2012 at the latest.\n(190)\nAs regards SPM bank's intention to spin off a servicing company, offering asset management services to third parties and thereby entering into competition with other providers of that kind of service, the Commission notes that such a step is proposed in order to reduce the state aid in WestLB after 30 June 2012. In fact, NRW, which is responsible for SPM bank, has taken the largest burden of the WestLB shareholders. A reduction of SPM bank's operating cost by offering services to third parties can thus be justified.\n(191)\nMoreover, the servicing company's potential to distort competition is ring-fenced by several commitments by Germany. First, third party contracts may only be provided by a separate entity of SPM bank that holds a banking licence limited to the minimum required and that is going to be sold by 31 December 2016. Second, the nature of the services that SPM bank may provide has been substantiated by an exhaustive list of eligible activities. In that context Germany commits that all banking licences of WestLB that are not required for the provision of asset management services will be returned by 31 December 2012. Third, the workforce in SPM bank will be considerably downsized in the course of its restructuring and it will not exceed 1 000 employees in 2016, which is less than 20 % of WestLB's initial staff of 5 661 employees in 2008. Fourth, the volume of third party business that the servicing company of SPM bank may acquire on the market must not exceed [40-60]% of its overall revenues, which is an effective cap on its business perspective. Fifth, Germany commits that SPM bank will offer its asset management services only at fair market prices, and that the rates offered are sufficient to cover the full costs of the separate entity. Finally, Germany commits that, if the servicing company providing asset management services to third parties cannot be sold by 31 December 2016, SPM bank will be wound up as well. The combination of those restrictions ensures that only a small part of the former activities stays in the market and has very limited potential to distort competition.\n(192)\nMoreover, the servicing company should be sufficiently profitable. Documentation submitted by Germany indicates that there is a realistic chance to make the servicing company sufficiently profitable, in particular after adjustment of the [\u2026]. If the intended cost-saving measures are implemented and business opportunities are developed, there is a chance that the servicing company will attract market investors.\n(193)\nThe commitments given by Germany sufficiently ensure that SPM bank will not continue to offer services on the market if its activities turn out to be less profitable than anticipated so that it cannot be sold in 2016.\nd. CONCLUSION\n(194)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the June 2011 restructuring plan represents an orderly winding-down scenario for WestLB which, in view of the commitments set out in the Annex to the present Decision, fulfils all the relevant criteria of the Restructuring Communication and the Banking Communication and thus ensures compatibility of the aid measures indicated in Table 7. The Commission's doubt indicated in the opening decisions as regards the compatibility of the additional aid have therefore been allayed.\n(195)\nIn the course of the present Decision, the Commission has had to also consider the measures granted under the May 2009 Decision. That decision and its corresponding April 2009 restructuring plan did not cover the aid provided subsequently nor was the April 2009 restructuring plan apt to ensure the requisite viability, burden sharing and limitation of distortions of competition that would make the subsequent aid compatible. Therefore the Commission had requested in the December 2009 and November 2010 Decisions a new comprehensive restructuring plan. Such a plan was submitted in June 2011 and replaced all previous plans. Moreover, that plan transformed what had previously been envisaged as the restructuring of WestLB into a liquidation process. As indicated in recital 194, the June 2011 restructuring plan is able to ensure compatibility of all the aid provided between 2008 and 2012 to WestLB. Consequently, the May 2009 Decision has become otiose and should be repealed. That repeal should also extend to all of the commitments and obligations submitted in the context of the May 2009 Decision.\nVI. ADVANTAGE TO THE SAVINGS BANKS\n(196)\nThe Commission's doubts have been allayed that the savings banks have not adequately participated in the burden sharing and benefited extraordinarily from the asset relief measure.\n(197)\nFirst, the Commission's concern that the savings banks were under an obligation to contribute to the recapitalisation of WestLB could not be substantiated; the savings banks had in fact not undertaken such a special obligation.\n(198)\nSecond, the Commission observes a good deal of burden sharing that makes up for the limitation of the exposure of the savings banks to EUR 4,5 billion. Admittedly, the obligation to compensate for losses that may occur at the resolution of the EAA has to some extent been alleviated for the savings banks, as their obligation has been capped at EUR 4.5 billion. However, the savings banks were under no obligation to transfer the assets to the EEA in the first place and had indeed some contractual freedom to arrange for the liability for the losses internally. Even so, since the December 2009 Decision the savings banks have undergone significant burden sharing and lost all their capital in WestLB. Therefore, there is no more reason to pursue the case against the savings banks in that respect.\n(199)\nFinally, it should also be noted that no advantage can be observed in favour of any members of the savings banks associations beyond the liquidation of WestLB. In particular the transfer of assets to Helaba as well as the provision of capital to Helaba in exchange for the receipt of Helaba shares can be seen as part of the liquidation of WestLB and has been arranged only for that purpose. Even if it constituted state aid, it would be compatible with the internal market in the context of the provision of liquidation aid to WestLB,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The measures which Germany implemented and is planning to implement for WestLB consisting of:\na)\nthe 2009 EUR 5 billion risk shield for the Phoenix portfolio;\nb)\nthe 2010 EUR 3 billion capital injection in the context of the first asset transfer;\nc)\nthe 2010 first asset transfer to Erste Abwicklungsanstalt with an aid amount of EUR 10,812 billion;\nd)\nthe 2012 second transfer to Erste Abwicklungsanstalt with an aid amount of EUR [1,3-2,6] billion;\ne)\nthe 2012 additional capital instrument for SPM bank of EUR 1 billion;\nf)\nthe 2012 additional loss coverage of EUR [0,5-2,0] billion by Land NRW for SPM bank; and\ng)\nthe provision of liquidity support by the WestLB AG shareholders in the first half of 2012 [\u2026] constitute state aid.\n2. The aid referred to in paragraph 1 is compatible with the internal market in the light of the commitments set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nGermany shall ensure that, from the notification of this Decision, detailed quarterly reports are submitted to the Commission on the measures taken to comply with it.\nArticle 3\nThe Commission Decision of 12 May 2009 in case C43/2008 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["49", "55", "18", "45", "23", "99", "92", "52", "64", "44", "72", "57", "80", "6", "95", "7", "51", "94", "84", "39", "86", "90", "46", "82", "41", "35", "61", "19", "11", "28", "No Label", "15", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1004/2011\nof 11 October 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 998/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 October 2011.", "references": ["42", "38", "5", "55", "94", "44", "49", "1", "0", "46", "57", "59", "81", "95", "20", "50", "13", "34", "77", "92", "29", "21", "78", "6", "26", "17", "99", "43", "73", "79", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 770/2012\nof 21 August 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in EU and international waters of Vb and VIa by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 August 2012.", "references": ["84", "82", "34", "42", "98", "27", "14", "33", "55", "85", "31", "41", "5", "70", "17", "81", "9", "26", "48", "94", "39", "65", "29", "76", "50", "71", "12", "15", "24", "59", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 17 July 2012\namending Annexes I to IV to Decision 2006/168/EC as regards certain veterinary certification requirements for imports into the Union of bovine embryos\n(notified under document C(2012) 4816)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/414/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/556/EEC of 25 September 1989 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and importation from third countries of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species (1), and in particular Article 7(1) and point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2006/168/EC of 4 January 2006 establishing the animal health and veterinary certification requirements for imports into the Community of bovine embryos and repealing Decision 2005/217/EC (2) establishes in Annex I thereto the list of third countries from which Member States are to authorise imports of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species (\u2018the embryos\u2019). It also lays down additional guarantees as regards specific animal diseases to be provided by certain third countries listed in that Annex.\n(2)\nDecision 2006/168/EC also provides that Member States are to authorise imports of embryos that comply with the animal health requirements set out in the model veterinary certificates in Annexes II, III and IV to that Decision.\n(3)\nThe animal health requirements relating to bluetongue in the model veterinary certificates in Annexes II, III and IV to Decision 2006/168/EC are based on the recommendations of Chapter 8.3 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) which deals with bluetongue. That Chapter recommends a whole range of risk mitigating measures aiming at either protecting the mammalian host from exposure to the infectious vector or at inactivating the virus by antibodies.\n(4)\nIn addition, the OIE has laid down a chapter on Surveillance for arthropod vectors of animal diseases in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Those recommendations do not include the monitoring of ruminants for antibodies to Simbu viruses, such as the Akabane and Aino viruses of the Bunyaviridae family, which in the past was considered an economical method for determining the distribution of bluetongue competent vectors until more information on the spread of those diseases became available.\n(5)\nAlso, the OIE does not list Akabane and Aino diseases in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Consequently, the requirement for annual testing for those diseases to prove the absence of the vector should be deleted from Annex I to Decision 2006/168/EC and from the model veterinary certificates in Annexes II, III and IV thereto.\n(6)\nIn addition, bilateral agreements have been concluded between the Union and certain third countries containing specific conditions for the imports of embryos into the Union. Therefore, in the interests of consistency where those bilateral agreements contain specific conditions and model veterinary certificates for imports, those conditions and models should apply instead of the conditions and models set out in Decision 2006/168/EC.\n(7)\nThe animal health status of Switzerland is equivalent to that of the Member States. It is therefore appropriate that in vivo derived and in vitro produced embryos imported into the Union from that third country are accompanied by a veterinary certificate drawn up in accordance with the model intra-trade certificate used for trade within the Union in embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species set out in Annex C to Directive 89/556/EEC. That certificate should take account of the adaptations set out in point 2 of Chapter VI(B) of Appendix 2 of Annex 11 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Trade in Agricultural Products, as approved by Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council, and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation (3).\n(8)\nOn the basis of Directive 89/556/EEC, New Zealand was also recognised as a third country with an animal health status equivalent to that of Member States for imports of in vivo derived embryos.\n(9)\nIt is therefore appropriate that in vivo derived embryos collected in New Zealand and imported into the Union from that third country are accompanied by a simplified certificate drawn up in accordance with the appropriate model health certificate set out in Annex IV to Commission Decision 2003/56/EC of 24 January 2003 on health certificates for the importation of live animals and animal products from New Zealand (4) laid down in accordance with the Agreement between the European Community and New Zealand on sanitary measures applicable to trade in live animals and animal products (5), as approved by Council Decision 97/132/EC (6).\n(10)\nCommission Decision 2007/240/EC (7) provides that the various veterinary, public and animal health certificates required for the imports into the Union of live animals, semen, embryo, ova and products of animal origin are to be based on the standard models for veterinary certificates set out in Annex I thereto. In the interests of consistency and simplification of Union legislation, the model veterinary certificates set out in Annexes II, III and IV to Decision 2006/168/EC should take account of Decision 2007/240/EC.\n(11)\nAnnexes I to IV to Decision 2006/168/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nTo avoid any disruption of trade, the use of veterinary certificates issued in accordance with Decision 2006/168/EC in its version prior to the amendments introduced by this Decision should be authorised during a transitional period subject to certain conditions.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I to IV to Decision 2006/168/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nFor a transitional period until 30 June 2013, Member States shall continue to authorise imports of consignments of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species from third countries which are accompanied by a veterinary certificate issued not later than 31 May 2013 in accordance with the models set out in Annexes II, III and IV to Decision 2006/168/EC in its version prior to the amendments introduced by this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2013.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 July 2012.", "references": ["35", "69", "47", "17", "15", "46", "86", "62", "28", "87", "0", "55", "56", "24", "90", "8", "39", "83", "89", "78", "33", "70", "59", "6", "58", "4", "1", "67", "74", "29", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "66", "91", "93", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "66", "91", "93", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/119/CFSP\nof 21 February 2011\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Kosovo (1)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 4 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (2) and Joint Action 2008/123/CFSP (3) appointing Mr Pieter FEITH European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Kosovo.\n(2)\nOn 11 August 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/446/CFSP (4) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 28 February 2011.\n(3)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 30 April 2011.\n(4)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/446/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Pieter FEITH as the EUSR in Kosovo is hereby extended until 30 April 2011.\u2019.\n(2)\nArticle 5(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 September 2010 to 30 April 2011 shall be EUR 1 230 000.\u2019.\n(3)\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. A dedicated staff shall be assigned to assist the EUSR to implement his mandate and to contribute to the coherence, visibility and effectiveness of Union action in Kosovo overall. Within the limits of his mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting his team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of his team.\n2. Member States, institutions of the Union and the European External Action Service (EEAS) may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the Union institutions or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, the Union institution or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2011.", "references": ["71", "18", "29", "65", "30", "42", "85", "8", "95", "75", "57", "67", "24", "97", "50", "12", "17", "33", "32", "15", "22", "89", "64", "72", "51", "28", "93", "68", "52", "0", "No Label", "3", "5", "7", "9", "11", "91", "96"], "gold": ["3", "5", "7", "9", "11", "91", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 443/2011\nof 5 May 2011\nextending the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 598/2009 on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America to imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada, whether declared as originating in Canada or not, and extending the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 598/2009 to imports of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel originating in the United States of America, and terminating the investigation in respect of imports consigned from Singapore\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 23(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Existing measures\n(1)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 194/2009 (2) imposed a provisional countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America(\u2018USA\u2019).\n(2)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 598/2009 (3) (the \u2018definitive Regulation\u2019), the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty ranging from EUR 211,2 to EUR 237 per tonne on imports of biodiesel, as defined in Article 1(1) of the said Regulation (\u2018the product concerned\u2019) originating in the USA (\u2018the existing measures\u2019). The investigation leading to the adoption of the definitive Regulation is hereafter referred to as \u2018the original investigation\u2019.\n(3)\nIt should also be noted that by Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 (4), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty ranging from EUR 0 to EUR 198 per tonne on imports of the product concerned.\n1.2. Request\n(4)\nOn 30 June 2010, the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 23(4) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the countervailing measures imposed on imports of the product concerned. The request was submitted by the European Biodiesel Board (\u2018EBB\u2019) on behalf of the Union producers of biodiesel.\n(5)\nThe request alleged that the countervailing measures on imports of the product concerned were being circumvented by means of transhipment via Canada and Singapore and by exports of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel.\n(6)\nThe request alleged that a significant change in pattern of trade involving exports from the USA, Canada and Singapore has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned, and that there is insufficient due cause or justification other than the imposition of the duty for this change. This change in pattern of trade stemmed allegedly from the transhipment of the product concerned via Canada and Singapore.\n(7)\nThe request further alleged that following the imposition of the measures, exports of biodiesel in blends containing 20 % or less of biodiesel from the USA had begun to arrive in the Union, allegedly taking advantage of the biodiesel content threshold set in the description of the product concerned.\n(8)\nFurthermore, the request alleged that the remedial effects of the existing countervailing measures on the product concerned were being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. It was alleged that significant volumes of imports of biodiesel in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of biodiesel from Canada and Singapore and of biodiesel in blends containing 20 % or less of biodiesel, appeared to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, there was sufficient evidence that this increased volume of imports were made at prices well below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures.\n(9)\nFinally, the request alleged that the prices of the product concerned continue to be subsidised as previously established.\n1.3. Initiation\n(10)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 23 of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated an investigation by Regulation (EU) No 721/2010 (5) (the \u2018initiation Regulation\u2019). Pursuant to Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission, by the initiation Regulation, also directed the customs authorities to register imports consigned from Canada and Singapore as well as imports originating in the USA of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin.\n(11)\nThe Commission also initiated a parallel investigation by Regulation (EU) No 720/2010 (6) concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures on imports of biodiesel originating in the USA by imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada and Singapore and by imports of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel originating in the USA.\n1.4. Investigation\n(12)\nThe Commission officially advised the authorities of the USA, Canada and Singapore. Questionnaires were sent to known producers/exporters in the USA, Canada and Singapore. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the initiation Regulation.\n(13)\nThe following companies submitted replies to the questionnaires and verification visits were subsequently carried out at their premises:\nProducers/exporters in Canada:\n-\nBIOX Corporation\n-\nRothsay Biodiesel\nTraders in Singapore:\n-\nTrafigura Pte Ltd\n-\nWilmar Trading Pte Ltd\nProducers/exporters in the USA:\n-\nArcher Daniels Midland Company\n-\nBP Products North America Inc\n-\nLouis Dreyfus Corporation\nRelated importers:\n-\nBP Oil International Ltd\n-\nCargill BV\n(14)\nMoreover, visits were made to the relevant competent authorities of the Government of Canada and the Government of Singapore.\n1.5. Investigation period\n(15)\nThe investigation period covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 30 June 2010 (the \u2018IP\u2019). Data was collected for the period from 2008 up to the end of the IP to investigate the alleged change in the pattern of trade.\n2. PRODUCT FORMING THE OBJECT OF THE CIRCUMVENTION INVESTIGATION\n(16)\nThe product concerned by the possible circumvention, i.e. the product at issue in the original investigation, is fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, commonly known as \u2018biodiesel\u2019, in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, currently falling within CN codes ex 1516 20 98, ex 1518 00 91, ex 1518 00 99, ex 2710 19 41, 3824 90 91, ex 3824 90 97, and originating in the USA.\n(17)\nThe product forming the object of the circumvention investigation is twofold. Firstly, regarding the allegations of transhipment through Canada and Singapore, it is identical to the product at issue in the original investigation, as described in the previous paragraph. Regarding shipments directly from the USA, the product under investigation is biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, originating in the USA.\n3. IMPORTS OF BIODIESEL INTO THE UNION VS. EXPORTS FROM THE USA\n(18)\nFollowing the imposition of provisional countervailing measures in March 2009, imports of the product concerned have practically ceased. The below table summarises the situation:\nImports of biodiesel and certain biodiesel blends into the European Union\nunder CN code 3824 90 91 (in tonnes)\n2008\nshare\n2009\nshare\nIP\nshare\nUSA\n1 487 790\n83,62 %\n381 227\n22,29 %\n24\n0,00 %\nCanada\n1 725\n0,10 %\n140 043\n8,19 %\n197 772\n9,28 %\nSingapore\n179\n0,01 %\n20 486\n1,20 %\n32 078\n1,50 %\nSource: Eurostat.\n(19)\nThe above Eurostat data cover all biodiesel containing 96,5 % or more of esters.\n(20)\nIn comparison, the USA report exports of biodiesel and biodiesel blends under code HTS 3824 90 40 00 (mixtures of fatty substances, animal or vegetable origin) as follows:\nUS exports of biodiesel and biodiesel blends\nunder code HTS 3824 90 40 00 (in tonnes)\n2008\n2009\nIP\nEuropean Union\n2 241 473\n335 577\n358 291\nCanada\n967\n128 233\n161 841\nSingapore\n311\n42 056\n27 415\n2 242 751\n505 866\n547 547\nSource: US Department of Commerce.\n(21)\nComparing the two above tables leads to the conclusion that the 358 291 tonnes exported to the Union during the IP are blends with a biodiesel content of 96,5 % and below.\n4. CANADA\n4.1. General considerations\n(22)\nThere was a high level of cooperation by producers/exporters in Canada. Two producers representing approximately 90 % of Canadian production of biodiesel submitted a questionnaire reply and fully cooperated with the investigation. Moreover, the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association and relevant authorities of the Government of Canada cooperated with the investigation.\n(23)\nIn accordance with Article 23(3) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the existence of circumvention should be made by analysing successively whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between USA, Canada and the Union, if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty, if there was evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the like product, and that the imported like product still benefits from the subsidy.\n4.2. Change in patterns of trade\n4.2.1. Imports into the Union\n(24)\nImports of biodiesel from the USA dropped from 1 487 790 tonnes in 2008, to 381 227 tonnes in 2009 and to close to zero during the IP.\n(25)\nOn the other hand, according to Eurostat data total imports of biodiesel from Canada to the Union increased significantly between 2008 and the IP from 1 725 tonnes in 2008 to 140 043 tonnes in 2009 and 197 772 tonnes during the IP.\n4.2.2. US exports of biodiesel to Canada\n(26)\nThere are no customs duties applicable for sales of biodiesel between the USA and Canada or other kinds of imports restrictions.\n(27)\nAccording the USA statistics, exports of biodiesel from the USA to Canada increased from 967 tonnes in 2008 to 128 233 tonnes in 2009 and 161 841 tonnes during the IP.\n(28)\nA comparison of the export statistics provided by the US authorities with the import statistics provided on-spot by the Canadian authorities showed significant discrepancies on a monthly basis. According to the Canadian statistics, imports of US biodiesel increased from 11 757 tonnes in 2008 to 18 673 tonnes in 2009 and 174 574 tonnes during the IP.\n(29)\nAccording to the Canadian authorities, there is no specific code to declare biodiesel. They noted that Canada and the USA exchange import data for use as their respective export data. As such, at the six-digit level Canadian import data and US export data should match, which they do quite closely under HTS 38.24.90. However, beyond six digits they each have their own classification systems. Also it should be noted that the Canadian statistics only cover imports which have been customs cleared in Canada and not transhipped goods.\n(30)\nIn conclusion, despite the discrepancies between the two data sources, it is clear that US export of biodiesel to Canada increased from 2008 to the IP, and in particular following the imposition of countervailing measures. The Canadian biodiesel market is currently not able to absorb such quantities of biodiesel. Genuine Canadian biodiesel producers are in fact export oriented.\n4.2.3. Production in Canada and sales of genuine Canadian biodiesel to the Union\n(31)\nThe two cooperating producers in Canada did not purchase any biodiesel from the USA or from any other sources during the IP.\n(32)\nProduction of biodiesel in Canada is an infant industry. Some six production facilities were in place during the IP, but the two facilities in Eastern Canada, which are in fact owned and run by the two cooperating producers, alone account for approximately 90 % of total production.\n(33)\nFrom the production volumes sold by the cooperating producers, sales where end-customers were certainly in North America, i.e. in the USA or Canada were determined. The remainder of the sales were sold to customers who either traded the goods and/or blended the goods with other biodiesel. The two companies did not know whether the customers sold the products to the Union as Canadian biodiesel, whether they blended it, or whether the biodiesel was sold to end customers in the USA or in Canada.\n(34)\nEven if in an extreme case it was assumed that all genuine Canadian biodiesel ended up in the Union, this would account for only 20 % of total imports into the Union from Canada during the IP.\n4.3. Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade\n(35)\nThe reconciliation of statistics with the data obtained from the cooperating producers showed that Canadian biodiesel producers could not have produced the volume exported from Canada into the Union. This therefore strongly suggests that the surge of imports from Canada into the Union relates to exports of US biodiesel consigned from Canada.\n(36)\nThe overall decrease of US exports to the Union as from 2008 and the parallel increase of exports from Canada to the Union and of exports from the USA to Canada after the imposition of the original measures can thus be considered as a change in the pattern of trade.\n4.4. Insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the countervailing duty\n(37)\nThe investigation did not bring to light any other due cause or economic justification for the transhipment than the avoidance of the payment of the countervailing duty in force on biodiesel originating in the USA.\n4.5. Undermining the remedial effect of the countervailing duty\n(38)\nEurostat data was used to assess whether the imported products had, in terms of quantities, undermined the remedial effects of the countervailing measures in force on imports of biodiesel from the USA. The quantities and prices of exports from Canada were compared with the injury elimination level established in the original investigation.\n(39)\nAs mentioned above, imports from Canada into the Union increased from 1 725 tonnes in 2008 to 197 772 tonnes during the IP, the latter representing a share of imports of 9,2 %. The increase of imports from Canada could not be considered to be insignificant bearing in mind the size of the Union market as determined in the original investigation. Considering the non-injurious price level established in the original investigation, Canadian imports into the Union during the IP showed underselling in the region of 50 %, while undercutting the Union producers\u2019 sales prices by approximately 40 %.\n(40)\nIt was therefore concluded that the measures are being undermined in terms of quantities and prices.\n4.6. Evidence of subsidisation\n(41)\nRegarding subsidisation, it should be noted that the US biodiesel tax credit, the main subsidy scheme found in the original investigation, was retroactively reinstated in December 2010. On this basis, it is concluded that the imported like product still benefited from subsidies during the IP.\n4.7. Conclusion\n(42)\nThe investigation concluded that the definitive countervailing duties imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in the USA were circumvented by transhipment via Canada pursuant to Article 23 of the basic Regulation.\n5. SINGAPORE\n(43)\nTwo traders located in Singapore cooperated with the investigation. In addition, cooperation was received from the relevant authorities of the Government of Singapore.\n(44)\nThe criteria for the assessment of the existence of circumvention have been described in recital 23 above.\n(45)\nAccording to Eurostat figures total exports of biodiesel from Singapore to the Union increased from 179 tonnes in 2008 to 20 486 tonnes in 2009 and to 32 078 tonnes during the IP. Exports from the USA to Singapore have also increased over the same period.\n(46)\nAccording to the relevant authorities of the Government of Singapore the biodiesel produced locally is sold mostly within Singapore to cater to domestic demand. However, they do note a growing industry in Singapore with the recent construction of new production facilities.\n(47)\nExports from Singapore have traditionally been low. Imports of biodiesel into the Union were closely examined in the Article 14(6) database and checked with the relevant national customs authorities. It appears that imports have arrived in a few spikes. The analysis showed that the majority of these imports were genuine Singaporean origin. However, not all imports could be accounted for.\n(48)\nCompared to the Union consumption established in the original investigation the import volumes from Singapore to the Union which could not be accounted for were found to be extremely low. Furthermore, their share of Union consumption, taking account of EBB\u2019s estimation of the considerable increase in Union consumption since the original investigation, would be negligible.\n(49)\nIn view of the above, it can be concluded that the remedial effects of the countervailing measures have not been undermined in terms of quantities from Singapore.\n(50)\nRegarding transhipment, it is well-known that Singapore is a huge shipping hub in Asia where regional ships arrive and unload goods which are later reloaded to ships sailing, among others, to Europe. In this investigation, one of the cooperating traders transhipped biodiesel with Malaysian or Indonesian origin through Singapore with a final destination in the Union. During the IP, this trader alone exported a significant quantity of biodiesel to the Union via transhipment in Singapore and customs cleared the biodiesel in the Union as Malaysian or Indonesian origin. The verification did not reveal indications to put in question the declared Indonesian or Malaysian origin.\n(51)\nIn the light of the above, the investigation concerning the possible circumvention of countervailing measures by imports of biodiesel consigned from Singapore should be terminated.\n6. USA\n6.1. Preliminary remarks\n(52)\nFive US producers of biodiesel or biodiesel blends cooperated in the investigation, three of which were included in the sample of the original investigation. The US Government cooperated by providing exports statistics and their interpretation of the statistics.\n(53)\nAll three producers which were included in the sample in the original investigation had stopped exporting biodiesel after the imposition of definitive measures.\n(54)\nOnly one of the five cooperating companies, BP North America which did not cooperate in the original investigation, exported biodiesel blends containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel (\u2018B20 and below\u2019) to the Union during the IP.\n(55)\nThe National Biodiesel Board (\u2018NBB\u2019) which represents the US biodiesel industry argued that a product which was according to them explicitly found to be outside of the product scope of the existing measures cannot become subject to countervailing measures without a de novo anti-subsidy investigation. NBB argued that the definitive Regulation in explicit terms established the \u2018product concerned\u2019 and \u2018like product\u2019 at the level of biodiesel or biodiesel in blends with biodiesel representing more than 20 %. According to NBB, this was not an artificial threshold but corresponded to the market reality found during the original investigation. It was, e.g. found that the threshold of 20 % was appropriate to allow a clear distinction between the various types of blends which were available on the US market.\n(56)\nIn the view of NBB and other interested parties, an anti-circumvention investigation can only extend countervailing measures on a product concerned to a like product that is only a slightly modified product compared to the product concerned. Again, NBB argued that the Council itself in the definitive Regulation had established that biodiesel in blends with a volume of biodiesel of 20 % or less is not a like product. Therefore, according to NBB, in the structure of the provisions of the basic Regulation there is no other option but to initiate a new investigation in order to determine whether these blends should become subject to measures.\n(57)\nIn reply to these arguments, it should first of all be noted that the purpose of the anti-circumvention provisions in Article 23 of the basic Regulation is to counteract any alleged attempts to evade the measures in force. If sufficient prima facie evidence exists showing that circumvention is taking place within the meaning of Article 23(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission will initiate an investigation in order to determine whether circumvention takes place. In accordance with Article 23(3) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the existence of circumvention should be made, e.g. by analysing successively whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between USA and the Union, if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty and if there was evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities.\n(58)\nIt should also be recalled that an anti-circumvention investigation is not a review of the product scope based on Article 19 of the basic Regulation and does not change the definition of the product concerned and the like product. The provisions under Article 23 of the basic Regulation provide for the relevant legal basis for an investigation of whether there is circumvention with regard to a product subject to measures.\n(59)\nIn this respect, the request the Commission received pursuant to Article 23(4) of the basic Regulation alleged that following the imposition of the measures, exports of biodiesel in blends containing 20 % or less biodiesel from the USA had begun to arrive in the Union, allegedly taking advantage of the biodiesel content threshold set in the description of the product concerned and the like product. The investigation examined whether such practice could be considered as circumvention pursuant to the provisions of Article 23 of the basic Regulation. Finally, it should be noted that alleged circumvention practices can only be examined under Article 23 of the basic Regulation.\n6.2. Exports of B20 and below from the USA to the Union\n(60)\nAs mentioned above in recital 20, the US HTS code 3824 90 40 00 contains also blends with a biodiesel content of 96,5 % and below. According to the US export statistics a total quantity of 358 291 tonnes of this type of blend was exported to the Union during the IP.\n(61)\nBP Products North America (\u2018BPNA\u2019) during the IP exported a significant proportion of the above-mentioned quantity.\n(62)\nBPNA did not participate in the original investigation because it started up its biodiesel activities only in the beginning of 2009 in anticipation of a growing biodiesel market in the future, in response to government mandates both in the USA and abroad. BPNA started to export to the Union in December 2009. In this respect it is recalled that definitive measures were imposed in July 2009.\n(63)\nIn the Union, BP sold US origin biodiesel blend containing by weight 15 % or less of biodiesel (\u2018B15\u2019) in the UK, France and the Netherlands. In all cases, the product is further blended in order to respect the relevant legislation in force in certain Member States to promote the consumption of biofuels at the pump because they are currently considered environmentally sustainable.\n(64)\nBPNA argued that blends less than 15 % are not a like product for the product concerned. The characteristics and market realities are very different. The logistics involved (including shipping restrictions) in the production and importing of lower blends are very different to those of higher grades. According to BPNA, when transporting blends less than 15 %, such products are classified as a petroleum product for shipping as opposed to a chemical product which makes the shipment less costly. BPNA also argued that there are differences in performance between higher and lower grade biodiesel blends when used in diesel engines.\n(65)\nThe objective of a circumvention investigation is to establish whether biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel has circumvented the measures in force. It may well be the case that lower blends attract lower shipping costs. However, it should be noted that a blend of B20 and below is effectively only a different composition of the blend, in comparison to the process of producing biodiesel in a blend above B20. It is a simple process to change the composition of a blend. Putting into existence B20 and below is considered to be merely a slight modification of the product concerned, the only difference being the biodiesel proportion in the blend. It should also be noted that the product concerned as well as B20 and below ultimately are destined for the same uses in the Union. Furthermore, biodiesel in blends of B20 and below as well as biodiesel in blends above B20 have the same essential characteristics.\n6.3. Change in patterns of trade\n(66)\nImports of the product concerned from the USA dropped from 1 487 790 tonnes in 2008 to 381 227 tonnes in 2009 and to close to zero during the IP.\n(67)\nIn this regard, it should be noted that though there was mandatory blending of, e.g. B5 in the Union during the original investigation, exports of B20 and below from the USA to the Union only came into existence following the imposition of definitive measures. During the original investigation, mainly exports of B99,9 were exported to the Union according to the data obtained from the sampled cooperating exporting producers. The reason for this was that it maximised the subsidy on the exported goods (USD 1 biodiesel tax credit per gallon).\n(68)\nIt is therefore difficult to see what the economic justification would be for starting to export B20 and below other than the avoidance of the countervailing measures in place.\n(69)\nThe proportion of biodiesel in the blend is still subsidised and the importer avoids the payment of the countervailing duty due. In this respect, it should be noted that the countervailing duty on blends is applicable in proportion to the biodiesel in the blend, i.e. in the case of imports of B15 the countervailing duty not paid would be up to around EUR 35 per tonne.\n6.4. Insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the countervailing duty\n(70)\nAccording to BNPA, the creation of less than B15 biodiesel was not created specifically to avoid duties. The company argued that it did not participate in the original investigation because it started up its biodiesel activities beginning of 2009 in anticipation of a future active biodiesel market in response to government mandates, both in the USA and abroad. The specific structure of the company, its activity as a petroleum company and its logistic presence in the USA, made blending in the USA and exporting to the Union a logical commercial decision. The blend exported was always B15 and below, because of the less stringent security measures: up to B15 the blend is not considered a chemical product according to maritime regulations.\n(71)\nIt is noted that this company\u2019s activity in regard to exports to the Union only started after the imposition of measures. It is considered that there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the avoidance of the payment of the countervailing duty in force on biodiesel originating in the USA.\n6.5. Undermining the remedial effect of the countervailing duty\n(72)\nConsidering the non-injurious price level of the original investigation, US imports of B20 and below into the Union during the IP showed both undercutting and underselling. The imports of B20 and below only came into existence following the imposition of definitive measures and the quantities involved are not insignificant.\n(73)\nIt was therefore concluded that the measures are being undermined in terms of quantities and prices.\n6.6. Evidence of subsidisation\n(74)\nRegarding subsidisation, it should be noted that the US biodiesel tax credit, the main subsidy scheme found in the original investigation, was retroactively reinstated in December 2010. On this basis, it is concluded that the imported like product still benefited from subsidies during the IP.\n6.7. Conclusion\n(75)\nThe investigation concluded that the definitive countervailing duties imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in the USA were circumvented by imports into the Union of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel.\n(76)\nIt was concluded that the only economic justification for exporting blends of B20 and below was prompted by the subsidisation in the USA on the one hand, and the avoidance of paying any countervailing duties when importing into the Union on the other hand.\n(77)\nBPNA requested an exemption from the possible extended measures. However, as the investigation clearly showed that imports of B20 and below were only done in order to circumvent the measures in force, such exemption cannot be granted. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 23(6) of the basic Regulation, exemptions may be granted to producers of the product concerned who can show that they are not related to any producer subject to measures and that they are found not to be engaged in circumvention practices. In these investigations, it was found that BPNA is involved in the circumvention practices by starting to export B20 and below after the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing measures without sufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the measures. Moreover, there is evidence that the effects of the measures are being undermined in terms of prices and quantities, and the imported product is still being subsidised.\n(78)\nSome biodiesel producers cooperating in the original investigations requested exemptions from any extended measures due to circumvention. It was found that these US producers did not produce or sell B20 and below. Pursuant to Article 23(6) of the basic Regulation, only producers\u2019 request for exemption can be considered in the course of an anti-circumvention investigation. However, it should be noted that Article 23 of the basic Regulation contains new-comer provisions.\n7. MEASURES\n7.1. Canada\n(79)\nGiven the above, it was concluded that the definitive countervailing duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in the USA was circumvented by transhipment via Canada pursuant to Article 23 of the basic Regulation.\n(80)\nIn accordance with the first sentence of Article 23(1) of the basic Regulation, the measures in force on imports of the product concerned originating in the USA, should be therefore extended to imports of the same product consigned from Canada, whether declared as originating in Canada or not.\n(81)\nIn order to avoid evasion of the duty by unverifiable allegations that the product transhipped through Canada has been produced by a company subject to an individual duty in the definitive Regulation, the measure to be extended should be the one established for \u2018All other companies\u2019 in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 598/2009, which is a definitive countervailing duty of EUR 237 per tonne.\n(82)\nThe countervailing duty on blends shall be applicable in proportion,in the blend, by weight, of the total content of fatty-acid mono alkyl esters and of paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin (biodiesel content).\n(83)\nIn accordance with Articles 23(4) and 24(5) of the basic Regulation, which provide that any extended measure shall apply to imports which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiation Regulation, duties should be collected on those registered imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada.\n7.2. USA\n(84)\nGiven the above, it was concluded that the definitive countervailing duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in the USA was circumvented by imports into the Union of B20 and below pursuant to Article 23 of the basic Regulation.\n(85)\nIn accordance with the first sentence of Article 23(1) of the basic Regulation, the measures in force on imports of the product concerned originating in the USA should therefore be extended to imports of B20 and below.\n(86)\nThe measures to be extended should be those established in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 598/2009.\n(87)\nThe extended countervailing duty on blends shall be applicable in proportion, in the blend, by weight, of the total content of fatty-acid mono alkyl esters and of paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin (biodiesel content).\n(88)\nIn accordance with Articles 23(4) and 24(5) of the basic Regulation, which provides that any extended measure should apply to imports which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiation Regulation, duties should be collected on those registered imports of B20 and below originating in the USA.\n8. TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION AGAINST SINGAPORE\n(89)\nIn view of the findings regarding Singapore, the investigation concerning the possible circumvention of countervailing measures by imports of biodiesel consigned from Singapore should be terminated and the registration of imports of biodiesel consigned from Singapore, introduced by the initiation Regulation, should be discontinued.\n9. REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION\n(90)\nThe two cooperating companies in Canada submitting a questionnaire reply requested an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 23(6) of the basic Regulation.\n(91)\nIt was found that the two cooperating Canadian producers were not engaged in the circumvention practices which are subject of this investigation. Furthermore, these producers could demonstrate that they are not related to any of US producers/exporters of biodiesel. Therefore, their requests for exemption can be granted.\n(92)\nIt is considered that special measures are needed in this case in order to ensure the proper application of such exemptions. These special measures consist in the presentation to the Customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the extended countervailing duty.\n(93)\nOne cooperating party in the USA that submitted a questionnaire reply also requested an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 23(6) of the basic Regulation.\n(94)\nAs explained in recital 77 above, the investigation clearly showed that this party was engaged in the circumvention practices by importing B20 and below. Consequently, such exemption cannot be granted.\n(95)\nHowever, it should be underlined that, should any exporting producer(s) concerned not be availing from subsidisation anymore, such parties can request a review pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation.\n10. DISCLOSURE\n(96)\nAll interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were invited to comment. The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 598/2009 on imports of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, commonly known as \u2018biodiesel\u2019, in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, originating in the United States of America, is hereby extended to imports into the Union of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, commonly known as \u2018biodiesel\u2019, in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, consigned from Canada, whether declared as originating in Canada or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 1516 20 98 (TARIC code 1516209821), ex 1518 00 91 (TARIC code 1518009121), ex 1518 00 99 (TARIC code 1518009921), ex 2710 19 41 (TARIC code 2710194121), ex 3824 90 91 (TARIC code 3824909110) and ex 3824 90 97 (TARIC code 3824909701), with the exception of those produced by the companies listed below:\nCountry\nCompany\nTARIC additional code\nCanada\nBIOX Corporation, Oakville, Ontario, Canada\nB107\nCanada\nRothsay Biodiesel, Guelph, Ontario, Canada\nB108\nThe duty to be extended shall be the one established for \u2018All other companies\u2019 in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 598/2009, which is a definitive countervailing duty of EUR 237 per tonne net.\nThe countervailing duty on blends shall be applicable in proportion, in the blend, by weight, of the total content of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and of paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin (biodiesel content).\n2. The application of exemptions granted to the companies mentioned in paragraph 1 or authorised by the Commission in accordance with Article 4(2) shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the countervailing duty as imposed by paragraph 1 shall apply.\n3. The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports consigned from Canada, whether declared as originating in Canada or not, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 721/2010 and Articles 23(4) and 24(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, with the exception of those produced by the companies listed in paragraph 1.\n4. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. The definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 598/2009 on imports of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, commonly known as \u2018biodiesel\u2019, in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, originating in the United States of America, is hereby extended to imports into the Union of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, originating in the United States of America, and currently falling within CN codes ex 1516 20 98 (TARIC code 1516209830), ex 1518 00 91 (TARIC code 1518009130), ex 1518 00 99 (TARIC code 1518009930), ex 2710 19 41 (TARIC code 2710194130) and ex 3824 90 97 (TARIC code 3824909704).\nThe duties to be extended shall be those established in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 598/2009.\nThe countervailing duty on blends shall be applicable in proportion, in the blend, by weight, of the total content of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and of paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin (biodiesel content).\n2. The duties extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports originating in the United States of America, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 721/2010 and Articles 23(4) and 24(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.\n3. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 3\nThe investigation initiated by Regulation (EU) No 721/2010 concerning the possible circumvention of countervailing measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 598/2009 on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America by imports of biodiesel consigned from Singapore, whether declared as originating in Singapore or not, and making such imports subject to registration, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 4\n1. Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) shall be made in writing in one of the official languages of the European Union and must be signed by a person authorised to represent the entity requesting the exemption. The request must be sent to the following address:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N-105 04/92\n1049 Brussels\nBELGIUM\nFax + 32 22956505\n2. In accordance with Article 23(6) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, the Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, may authorise, by decision, the exemption of imports from companies which do not circumvent the countervailing measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 598/2009, from the duty extended by Article 1(1) and Article 2(1).\nArticle 5\nCustoms authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 721/2010.\nArticle 6\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 May 2011.", "references": ["92", "61", "83", "41", "7", "70", "49", "65", "57", "35", "9", "55", "63", "32", "33", "4", "46", "27", "72", "66", "16", "11", "98", "81", "8", "24", "6", "67", "39", "2", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "78", "80", "93", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "78", "80", "93", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 1 July 2010\namending Decision 2004/452/EC laying down a list of bodies whose researchers may access confidential data for scientific purposes\n(notified under document C(2010) 4385)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/373/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (1) and in particular Article 23 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 831/2002 of 17 May 2002 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 322/97 on Community Statistics, concerning access to confidential data for scientific purposes (2) establishes, for the purpose of enabling statistical conclusions to be drawn for scientific purposes, the conditions under which access to confidential data transmitted to the Community authority may be granted and the rules of cooperation between the Community and national authorities in order to facilitate such access.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2004/452/EC (3) has laid down a list of bodies whose researchers may access confidential data for scientific purposes.\n(3)\nSabanci University, Tuzla/Istanbul, Turkey, McGill University, Montreal, Canada and Directorate Economic Service and Structural Reforms, Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission have to be regarded as bodies fulfilling the required conditions and should therefore be added to the list of agencies, organisations and institutions referred to in Article 3(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 831/2002.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee (ESS Committee),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2004/452/EC is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2010.", "references": ["83", "2", "97", "8", "44", "38", "20", "26", "78", "0", "49", "40", "42", "69", "99", "98", "28", "63", "37", "92", "14", "45", "94", "43", "34", "18", "90", "76", "9", "91", "No Label", "7", "19", "41", "77"], "gold": ["7", "19", "41", "77"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 410/2012\nof 14 May 2012\nimplementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (1), and in particular Article 32(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 January 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, and in accordance with Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (2), additional persons and entities should be included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\n(3)\nIn addition, the information relating to three persons listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should be updated, and the listing for one person should be removed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in Annex I to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\nArticle 2\nAnnex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 shall be amended as set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 May 2012.", "references": ["44", "57", "82", "83", "66", "41", "72", "77", "74", "29", "98", "70", "67", "2", "69", "50", "36", "37", "97", "87", "99", "64", "61", "7", "11", "14", "93", "90", "32", "31", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\nappointing a Cypriot member and a Cypriot alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/461/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Cypriot Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Christos MESSIS. An alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Charalambos PITTAS as a member of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas member:\n-\nMr Charalambos PITTAS, \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u039c\u03cc\u03c1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\nand\n(b)\nas alternate member:\n-\nMr Andreas HADZILOIZOU, \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u0391\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u0394\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["26", "77", "72", "30", "15", "54", "0", "29", "52", "62", "67", "10", "18", "5", "69", "55", "58", "90", "20", "3", "6", "70", "73", "65", "93", "51", "43", "85", "36", "42", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 187/2012\nof 7 March 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Tolminc (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovenia's application to register the name \u2018Tolminc\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2012.", "references": ["50", "57", "56", "23", "59", "72", "90", "92", "32", "8", "82", "44", "95", "48", "5", "52", "69", "98", "87", "55", "18", "66", "61", "36", "31", "11", "73", "35", "6", "71", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 15 October 2010\nauthorising the Italian Republic to continue to apply a special measure derogating from Article 285 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(2010/688/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn a letter registered by the Commission\u2019s Secretariat-General on 10 December 2009, Italy requested authorisation for a measure derogating from Article 285 of Directive 2006/112/EC in order to continue to exempt from value added tax (VAT) certain taxable persons. Through that measure, those taxable persons would continue to be exempted from certain or all of the obligations in relation to VAT referred to in Chapters 2 to 6 of Title XI of Directive 2006/112/EC.\n(2)\nThe Commission informed the other Member States by letter dated 11 January 2010 of the request made by Italy. By letter dated 12 January 2010, the Commission notified Italy that it had all the information necessary to consider the request.\n(3)\nA special scheme for small enterprises is available to Member States under Title XII of Directive 2006/112/EC. The measure to be extended derogates from Article 285 of that Directive in its application to Italy only in so far as the annual turnover threshold for the scheme is higher than the EUR 5 000 threshold.\n(4)\nBy Council Decision 2008/737/EC of 15 September 2008 authorising the Italian Republic to apply a measure derogating from Article 285 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (2), Italy was authorised, as a derogating measure, to exempt from VAT taxable persons whose annual turnover is no higher than EUR 30 000 until 31 December 2010. Given that this higher threshold has resulted in reduced VAT obligations for the smallest businesses, whilst the latter may still opt for the normal VAT arrangements in accordance with Article 290 of Directive 2006/112/EC, Italy should be authorised to apply the measure for a further limited period.\n(5)\nIn its proposal of 29 October 2004 for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to simplifying value added tax obligations, the Commission included provisions aimed at allowing Member States to set the annual turnover ceiling for the VAT exemption scheme at up to EUR 100 000 or the equivalent in national currency, with the possibility of updating that amount each year. The extension request submitted by Italy is compatible with that proposal.\n(6)\nFrom information provided by Italy, the measure has led to an estimated reduction of the overall amount of tax revenue collected at the final stage of consumption of less than 0,2 %.\n(7)\nThe derogation has no impact on the Union\u2019s own resources accruing from VAT,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 285 of Directive 2006/112/EC, Italy is authorised to exempt from VAT taxable persons whose annual turnover is no higher than EUR 30 000.\nItaly may raise that ceiling in order to maintain the value of the exemption in real terms.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2011 until the date of entry into force of a Directive amending the amounts of the annual turnover ceilings below which taxable persons may be exempted from VAT, or until 31 December 2013, whichever date is the earlier.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Luxembourg, 15 October 2010.", "references": ["80", "28", "93", "2", "7", "79", "66", "54", "47", "71", "42", "69", "92", "15", "43", "36", "20", "94", "1", "11", "88", "33", "44", "76", "67", "5", "83", "56", "87", "27", "No Label", "25", "26", "34", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "26", "34", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/442/CFSP\nof 11 August 2010\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 11 March 2009, the Council adopted Joint Action 2009/181/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Valentin INZKO European Union Special Representative (hereinafter the EUSR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina until 28 February 2010.\n(2)\nOn 22 February 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/111/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 31 August 2010.\n(3)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 31 August 2011. However, the mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter the HR) following the entry into force of the Decision establishing the European External Action Service.\n(4)\nThe EUSR\u2019s mandate should be implemented in coordination with the Commission in order to ensure consistency with other relevant activities falling within Union competence.\n(5)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the Common Foreign and Security Policy objectives set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Valentin INZKO as the EUSR in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) is hereby extended until 31 August 2011. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the HR following the entry into force of the Decision establishing the European External Action Service.\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the European Union (hereinafter \u2018the EU\u2019 or \u2018the Union\u2019) in BiH. These centre around continued progress in the implementation of the General Framework Agreement for Peace (GFAP) in BiH, in accordance with the Office of the High Representative\u2019s Mission Implementation Plan, as well as continued progress in the Stabilisation and Association Process, with the aim of a stable, viable, peaceful and multiethnic BiH, cooperating peacefully with its neighbours and irreversibly on track towards EU membership.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the policy objectives, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\noffer the Union\u2019s advice and facilitate the political process;\n(b)\npromote overall Union political coordination and contribute to the reinforcement of internal Union coordination and coherence in BiH, including through briefings to Union Heads of Mission and participation in, or representation at, their regular meetings; by chairing a coordination group composed of all Union actors present in the field with a view to coordinating the implementation aspects of the Union\u2019s action, and by providing them with guidance on relations with the BiH authorities;\n(c)\npromote overall Union coordination of, and give local political direction to, Union efforts in tackling organised crime, without prejudice to the leading role of the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in coordinating the policing aspects of such efforts and to the ALTHEA (EUFOR) military chain of command;\n(d)\nwithout prejudice to the military chain of command, offer the EU Force Commander political guidance on military issues with a local political dimension, in particular concerning sensitive operations, relations with local authorities and with the local media;\n(e)\nconsult with the EU Force Commander before taking political action that may have an impact on the security situation;\n(f)\nensure consistency and coherence of Union action towards the public; the EUSR spokesperson shall be the main EU point of contact for BiH media on Common Foreign and Security Policy/Common Security and Defence Policy (CFSP/CSDP) issues;\n(g)\nmaintain an overview of the whole range of activities in the field of the rule of law and, in this context, provide the HR and the Commission with advice as necessary;\n(h)\nprovide the Head of Mission of the EUPM with local political guidance; the EUSR and the Civilian Operation Commander shall consult each other as required;\n(i)\nas part of the broader approach to the rule of law taken by the international community and the BiH authorities and, drawing upon the EUPM\u2019s provision of technical policing expertise and assistance in this respect, support the preparation and implementation of police restructuring;\n(j)\nprovide support for a reinforced and more effective BiH criminal justice/police interface, in close liaison with the EUPM;\n(k)\nconsult with the Head of the EUPM before taking political action that may have an impact on the police and security situation;\n(l)\nas far as activities regarding police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, including Europol, and related Union activities are concerned, provide the HR and the Commission with advice as necessary, and take part in the required local coordination;\n(m)\nwith a view to coherence and possible synergies, continue to be consulted on priorities for the Instrument of Pre-accession Assistance;\n(n)\nsupport the planning for a reinforced Union presence in the context of the closure of the Office of the High Representative (OHR), including providing advice on public information aspects of the transition, in close coordination with the Commission;\n(o)\ncontribute to the development and consolidation of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in BiH, in accordance with the EU human rights policy and EU Guidelines on Human Rights;\n(p)\nengage with relevant BiH authorities on their full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY);\n(q)\nprovide political advice and facilitation in the process of constitutional reform;\n(r)\nwithout prejudice to the applicable chains of command, provide help to ensure that all Union instruments in the field are applied coherently to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (hereinafter the PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\nArticle 5\nHigh Representative\nThe role of the EUSR shall not in any way prejudice the mandate of the High Representative in BiH, including his coordinating role with regard to all activities of all civilian organisations and agencies as set out in the General Framework Agreement for Peace (GFAP) and subsequent Peace Implementation Council (PIC) conclusions and declarations.\nArticle 6\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011 shall be EUR 3 700 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 7\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of his mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting his team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of his team.\n2. Member States and institutions of the Union may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of personnel who are seconded by a Member State or an institution of the Union to the EUSR shall be covered by the Member State or the institution of the Union concerned respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the General Secretariat of the Council may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State or Union institution and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 8\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and his staff\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of his staff shall be agreed with the host party/parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 9\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of his team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council\u2019s security regulations (3), in particular when managing EU classified information.\nArticle 10\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegation and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 11\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with his mandate and the security situation in his geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under his direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the General Secretariat of the Council, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as management of security incidents and a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of his team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the General Secretariat of the Council;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the HR, the Council and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 12\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report as necessary to Council working parties. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 13\nCoordination\n1. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSRs active in the region as appropriate. The EUSR shall provide Member States\u2019 missions and the Union\u2019s delegations with regular briefings.\nIn the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Head of the Union delegation and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\n2. In support of Union crisis management operations, the EUSR, with other Union actors present in the field, shall improve the dissemination and sharing of information by those Union actors with a view to achieving a high degree of common situation awareness and assessment.\nArticle 14\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the HR, the Council and the Commission with a progress report at the end of February 2011 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 15\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["70", "56", "31", "65", "0", "59", "72", "84", "83", "51", "67", "64", "88", "55", "4", "16", "93", "49", "15", "87", "2", "40", "75", "92", "74", "61", "94", "53", "60", "36", "No Label", "3", "9", "11", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "11", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 February 2012\nappointing a Finnish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/86/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Finnish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Riitta MYLLER,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as an alternate member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMs Sanna PARKKINEN, Liperin kunnanvaltuuston j\u00e4sen,\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["56", "99", "18", "5", "65", "16", "25", "94", "19", "40", "57", "44", "10", "2", "54", "51", "92", "52", "62", "4", "88", "74", "32", "93", "50", "33", "12", "76", "41", "84", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 18 November 2011\nadopting a fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region\n(notified under document C(2011) 8202)\n(2012/12/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Alpine biogeographical region referred to in Article 1(c)(iii) of Directive 92/43/EEC comprises the Union territories of the Alps (Germany, France Italy, Austria and Slovenia), the Pyrenees (Spain and France), the Apennine mountains (Italy), the northern Fennoscandian mountains (Finland and Sweden), the Carpathian mountains (Poland, Romania and Slovakia) and the Balkan, Rila, Pirin, Rhodope and the Sashtinska Sredna Gora Mountains (Bulgaria) as specified in the biogeographical map approved on 20 April 2005 by the Committee set up by Article 20 of that Directive, hereinafter the \u2018Habitats Committee\u2019.\n(2)\nIt is necessary in the context of a process which was initiated in 1995 to make further progress in the actual establishment of the Natura 2000 network, which is an essential element of the protection of biodiversity in the Union.\n(3)\nThe initial list and the first four updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region, within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC, were adopted by Commission Decisions 2004/69/EC (2), 2008/218/EC (3), 2009/91/EC (4), 2010/42/EU (5) and 2011/62/EU (6). On the basis of Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Member State concerned shall designate the sites included in the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region as special areas of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most, establishing conservation priorities and the necessary conservation measures.\n(4)\nIn the context of a dynamic adaptation of the Natura 2000 network, the lists of sites of Community importance are reviewed. A fifth update of the Alpine list is therefore necessary.\n(5)\nOn the one hand, the fifth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region is necessary in order to include additional sites that have been proposed since 2009 by the Member States as sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC. For these additional sites, the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC should apply as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region.\n(6)\nOn the other hand, the fifth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region is necessary in order to reflect any changes in site related information submitted by the Member States following the adoption of the initial and the first four updated Union lists. In that sense, the fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region constitutes a consolidated version of the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region. It should be stressed that, for any site included in the fifth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region, the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC should apply as soon as possible and within six years at most following the adoption of the list of sites of Community importance in which the site was included for the first time.\n(7)\nFor the Alpine biogeographical region, lists of sites proposed as sites of Community importance within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC have been transmitted to the Commission between March 2002 and October 2010 by the Member States concerned in accordance with Article 4(1) of that Directive.\n(8)\nThe lists of proposed sites were accompanied by information on each site, supplied in the format established by Commission Decision 97/266/EC of 18 December 1996 concerning a site information format for proposed Natura 2000 sites (7).\n(9)\nThat information includes the map of the site transmitted by the Member States concerned, name, location and extent of the site, and the data yielded by application of the criteria specified in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(10)\nOn the basis of the draft list drawn up by the Commission in agreement with each of the Member States concerned, which also identifies sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, a fifth updated list of sites selected as sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region should be adopted.\n(11)\nKnowledge of the existence and distribution of the natural habitat types and species is constantly evolving as a result of the surveillance in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, the evaluation and selection of sites at EU level was done using the best available information at present.\n(12)\nCertain Member States have not proposed sufficient sites to meet the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC for certain habitat types and species. For those habitat types and species it can therefore not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is complete. Taking into account the delay in receiving the information and reaching agreement with the Member States, it is necessary to adopt a fifth updated list of sites, which will need to be reviewed in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(13)\nGiven that knowledge on the existence and distribution of some of the natural habitat types of Annex I and species of Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC remains incomplete, it should not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is either complete or incomplete. The list should be reviewed, if necessary, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(14)\nIn the interests of clarity and transparency Decision 2011/62/EU should be repealed.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Habitats Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2011/62/EU is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["84", "42", "50", "79", "10", "24", "8", "88", "61", "72", "66", "70", "85", "12", "94", "56", "35", "22", "78", "96", "16", "11", "31", "28", "40", "47", "45", "62", "93", "75", "No Label", "17", "58", "59"], "gold": ["17", "58", "59"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 765/2011\nof 29 July 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Porc d'Auvergne (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France's application to register the name \u2018Porc d'Auvergne\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2011.", "references": ["49", "73", "84", "77", "17", "36", "16", "22", "19", "14", "10", "4", "6", "31", "45", "52", "23", "50", "80", "59", "83", "65", "61", "3", "0", "70", "34", "79", "2", "71", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 16 August 2011\nconcerning certain protection measures relating to classical swine fever in Lithuania\n(notified under document C(2011) 5798)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/508/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2001/89/EC of 23 October 2001 on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever (3) and in particular Article 11(1)(f) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (4), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOutbreaks of classical swine fever have occurred in Lithuania.\n(2)\nIn view of the trade in live pigs and certain pig products, those outbreaks are liable to endanger the herds of other Members States.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to reinforce the measures taken by Lithuania in the framework of Directive 2001/89/EC.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2002/106/EC of 1 February 2002 approving a Diagnostic Manual establishing diagnostic procedures, sampling methods and criteria for evaluation of the laboratory tests for the confirmation of classical swine fever (5) provides for risk adapted surveillance protocols.\n(5)\nThe animal health conditions and the certification requirements for trade in live pigs are laid down in Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (6).\n(6)\nThe animal health conditions and certification requirements for trade in porcine semen are laid down in Council Directive 90/429/EEC of 26 June 1990 laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species (7).\n(7)\nCouncil Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (8) concerns, amongst others, trade in embryos of porcine animals.\n(8)\nThe model health certificates for trade within the Union in semen, ova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species and in ova and embryos of animals of the porcine species are laid down in Commission Decision 2010/470/EU of 26 August 2010 laying down model health certificates for trade within the Union in semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine, ovine and caprine species and in ova and embryos of animals of the porcine species (9).\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (10) concerns, amongst others, the health conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat, minced meat, mechanically separated meat, meat preparations, farmed game meat, meat products, including treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, and dairy products.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (11) concerns, amongst others, the health marking of food of animal origin.\n(11)\nIt is necessary to complete the certificate provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 599/2004 of 30 March 2004 concerning the adoption of a harmonised model certificate and inspection report linked to intra-Community trade in animals and products of animal origin (12) with an official animal health attestation which should be set up in an Annex to this Decision.\n(12)\nArticle 6 of Commission Decision 2007/275/EC of 17 April 2007 concerning lists of animals and products to be subject to controls at border inspection posts under Council Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC (13) provides for a derogation from the veterinary checks for certain products containing animal products. It is appropriate to allow dispatch from areas under restrictions of such products under a simplified certification regime.\n(13)\nCouncil Directive 92/118/EEC (14) lays down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC.\n(14)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (15), provides animal health conditions for the processing of animal byproducts derived from animals in restricted areas.\n(15)\nIn so far as medicinal products defined in Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (16), Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (17), and Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use (18) no longer fall under the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 they should be excluded from animal health-related restrictions set up by this Decision.\n(16)\nBased on the information provided by Lithuania it is appropriate to establish protective measures relating to classical swine fever in Lithuania for a period sufficient to complete the necessary investigations.\n(17)\nIt is also necessary to establish the measures so as to minimise contacts to and between pig holdings in certain parts of Lithuania and to require a regional limitation of certain services related to pigs so as to prevent spread of the virus.\n(18)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nLithuania shall ensure that no pigs are dispatched to other Member States and to third countries from:\n(a)\nthe areas listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nholdings on its territory located outside the areas listed in Annex I that have received pigs since 1 March 2011 from a holding located in the areas listed in Annex I.\nArticle 2\nLithuania shall ensure that:\n(a)\nno pigs are transported from holdings within the areas listed in Part A of Annex I;\n(b)\nthe transport of slaughter pigs coming from holdings situated outside the areas listed in Part A of Annex I to slaughterhouses located within those areas and the transit of pigs through those areas is only allowed:\n(i)\nvia major roads or railways; and\n(ii)\nin accordance with the detailed instructions provided for by the competent authority to prevent such pigs coming into direct or indirect contact with other pigs during transport and in the slaughterhouse;\n(c)\nno pigs are dispatched from the areas listed in Part B of Annex I to other areas in Lithuania, except for the direct transport of:\n(i)\nslaughter pigs to a slaughterhouse for immediate slaughter, provided that the pigs originate from one single holding;\n(ii)\nbreeding and production pigs to a holding, provided that the pigs have been resident for at least 30 days, or since birth if less than 30 days of age, on a single holding:\n-\nwhich has not received live pigs during the 30-day period immediately prior to the date of dispatch of the pigs, and\n-\non which the clinical examinations carried out in accordance with Chapter IV(D)(2) of the Annex to Decision 2002/106/EC have been completed with negative results.\nArticle 3\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2(a), the competent authority may authorise the transport of pigs from a holding situated within the areas listed in Part A of Annex I but outside a protection or surveillance zone:\n(a)\ndirectly to a slaughterhouse situated within those areas, or in exceptional cases, to designated slaughterhouses in Lithuania located outside those areas, for immediate slaughter, provided that the pigs are dispatched from a holding on which the clinical examinations carried out in accordance with Chapter IV(D)(3) of the Annex to Decision 2002/106/EC have been completed with negative results;\n(b)\nto a holding situated within those areas, provided that the pigs have been resident for at least 45 days, or since birth if less than 45 days of age, on a single holding of origin:\n(i)\nwhich has not received live pigs during the 45-day period immediately prior to the date of dispatch of the pigs;\n(ii)\non which the clinical examinations carried out in accordance with Chapter IV(D)(2) and the second to fourth paragraph of Chapter IV(D)(4) of the Annex to Decision 2002/106/EC have been completed with negative results;\n(c)\nto a holding situated within those areas, provided that the pigs have been resident for at least 45 days, or since birth if less than 45 days of age, on a single holding of origin:\n(i)\nwhich has not received live pigs during the 20-day period immediately prior to the date of dispatch of the pigs, provided that during the six-month period immediately prior to the date of dispatch of the pigs the holding of origin has not received any other pigs than gilts from one and the same single holding;\n(ii)\non which the clinical examinations carried out in accordance with Chapter IV(D)(2) and the second to fourth paragraph of Chapter IV(D)(4) of the Annex to Decision 2002/106/EC have been completed with negative results;\n(d)\nto a holding situated within those areas, provided that the pigs have been resident for at least 45 days, or since birth if less than 45 days of age, on a single holding of origin and that:\n(i)\nthe holding of origin has not received any other pigs than gilts, which have been subjected to laboratory tests, carried out on samples taken within 10 days of the date of dispatch, with negative results for the following:\n-\na test for the detection of antibodies,\n-\ntwo consecutive tests at seven days interval for the detection of the classical swine fever virus genome (RT-PCR) carried out in the national reference laboratory;\n(ii)\nthe clinical examinations carried out in that holding of origin in accordance with Chapter IV(D)(2) and the second to fourth paragraph of Chapter IV(D)(4) of the Annex to Decision 2002/106/EC have been completed with negative results.\n2. By way derogation from Article 2(a), the competent authority may authorise the direct transport of pigs from a holding situated within a surveillance zone to a designated holding in which no pigs are present and which is situated within the same surveillance zone, provided that:\n(a)\nthe conditions in Article 11(1)(f) and Article 11(2) of Directive 2001/89/EC are applied at the designated holding of destination;\n(b)\nthe examinations provided for in Chapter IV(D)(2) of the Annex to Decision 2002/106/EC have been completed with negative results on the holding from which the pigs are dispatched.\n3. By way derogation from Article 2(a), the competent authority may authorise the direct transport of pigs from a holding situated within a surveillance zone to a designated holding in the protection zone, provided that:\n(a)\nthe designated holding of destination is situated at least 10 km from the national border with another Member State or third country and no pigs have been present on that holding for at least 21 days following the date of completion of the cleaning and disinfection in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 2001/89/EC;\n(b)\nthe designated holding of destination has undergone a third cleansing and disinfection under veterinary supervision prior to the introduction of the pigs;\n(c)\nall the pigs arrive at the designated holding of destination within a period of 20 days;\n(d)\npigs in the designated holding of destination are subjected to a serological examination in accordance with Chapter IV(E) of the Annex to Decision 2002/106/EC, carried out on samples taken not earlier than 40 days following the date of the arrival of the last pigs at that holding;\n(e)\nno pigs leave the designated holding of destination except if moved for direct slaughter in a slaughterhouse situated in the areas listed in Part A of Annex I, provided that the examinations referred to in point (d) have been completed with negative results.\n4. The competent authority shall record the transports of pigs referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 and notify the Commission thereof in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.\nArticle 4\nLithuania shall ensure that no consignments of the following commodities are dispatched to other Member States or to third countries:\n(a)\nporcine semen, unless the semen originates from boars kept at a collection centre referred to in Article 3(a) of Directive 90/429/EEC and situated outside the areas listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nova and embryos of animals of the porcine species, unless the ova and embryos originate from porcine animals kept at a holding situated outside the areas listed in Annex I.\nArticle 5\nLithuania shall ensure that:\n1.\nthe health certificate provided for in Annex F (Model 2) to Directive 64/432/EEC accompanying animals of the porcine species dispatched from Lithuania to other Member States includes the words:\n\u2018Animals in accordance with Commission Implementing Decision 2011/508/EU of 16 August 2011 concerning certain protection measures relating to classical swine fever in Lithuania\u2019;\n2.\nthe animal health certificate provided for in Annex D to Directive 90/429/EEC accompanying semen from boars dispatched from Lithuania to other Member States includes the words:\n\u2018Semen in accordance with Commission Implementing Decision 2011/508/EU of 16 August 2011 concerning certain protection measures relating to classical swine fever in Lithuania\u2019;\n3.\nthe health certificates provided for in Annex V to Decision 2010/470/EU accompanying ova and embryos of animals of the porcine species dispatched from Lithuania to other Member States include the words:\n\u2018Ova/Embryos (delete as appropriate) in accordance with Commission Implementing Decision 2011/508/EU of 16 August 2011 concerning certain protection measures relating to classical swine fever in Lithuania\u2019.\nArticle 6\n1. By way of derogation from the fourth indent of Article 10(3)(f) of Directive 2001/89/EC, Lithuania may apply the health marking laid down in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and may permit that fresh meat not be submitted to a subsequent treatment in accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/99/EC, in the case of pigmeat which is obtained from pigs that comply with the following requirements:\n(a)\nthey have been slaughtered within 12 hours of arrival at the slaughterhouse;\n(b)\nthey originate from a holding:\n(i)\nsituated in a surveillance zone established in accordance with Article 9(1) of Directive 2001/89/EC in the areas listed in Part A of Annex I to this Decision, and around a protection zone where:\n-\nno outbreak of classical swine fever has been detected during a period of 21 days prior to the movement of the pigs to the slaughterhouse and where at least 21 days have elapsed following the disinfection of the infected holdings,\n-\nclinical examinations for classical swine fever have been carried out in all holdings in those protection and surveillance zones following the detection of classical swine fever, with negative results;\n(ii)\nwhich has been authorised by the competent authority to remove pigs to a designated slaughterhouse, and:\n-\nwhich had no contact with an infected holding, following the epidemiological inquiry,\n-\nwhich has been subject to regular inspections by a veterinarian following the establishment of the surveillance zone and that inspection has included all pigs kept on the holding,\n-\nwhere all pigs have been submitted to clinical and laboratory examinations in accordance with paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5 of Chapter IV(D) of the Annex to Decision 2002/106/EC.\n2. Lithuania shall ensure that the slaughterhouse referred to in paragraph 1(a):\n(a)\nis located within the areas listed in Part A of Annex I;\n(b)\ndoes not on the same day, accept pigs for slaughter, other than the pigs referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. Lithuania shall ensure that the vehicles used for the transport of the pigs referred to in paragraph 1 are cleaned and disinfected twice following each transport.\nArticle 7\n1. Lithuania shall ensure that pigmeat referred to in Article 6 is accompanied by a certificate issued in accordance with the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 599/2004 and completed by the official veterinarian with the animal health attestation as set out in Annex II to this Decision.\n2. Lithuania shall ensure that the Commission and the Member States are provided with the following information concerning the pigs referred to in Article 6:\n(a)\nbefore the slaughtering of the pigs, the name and location of the slaughterhouses designated to receive the pigs for slaughter;\n(b)\nafter the slaughtering of the pigs, on a weekly basis, a report which contains information on:\n(i)\nthe number of the pigs slaughtered at the designated slaughterhouses;\n(ii)\nthe identification system and movement controls applied in order to ensure compliance with Article 11(1)(f) of Directive 2001/89/EC.\nArticle 8\n1. Lithuania shall not dispatch to other Member States or to third countries consignments of:\n(a)\nproducts of animals of the porcine species not referred to in Articles 6 and 7 coming from the areas listed in Part A of Annex I;\n(b)\nproducts obtained from animals of the porcine species originating in the areas listed in Part A of Annex I;\n(c)\ndung and manure of animals of the porcine species from the areas listed in Part A of Annex I.\n2. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall not apply to:\n(a)\nproducts derived from animals of the porcine species which:\n(i)\nhave been subjected to a heat treatment:\n-\nin a hermetically sealed container with a Fo value of 3,00 or more, or\n-\nin which the centre temperature is raised to at least 70 \u00b0C; or\n(ii)\nwere produced outside the areas listed in Annex I in accordance with the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, and which since introduction into Lithuania have been stored and transported separately from animal products not eligible for dispatch in accordance with paragraph 1;\n(b)\nblood and blood products as defined in points 2 and 4 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 (19) which have been subjected to at least one of the treatments provided for in point 3.1 of Section 2 of Chapter II of Annex XIV to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, followed by an effectiveness check, or have been imported in accordance with Section 2 of Chapter II of Annex XIV to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011;\n(c)\nlard and rendered fats which have been processed by processing method 1 (pressure sterilisation) or in accordance with one of the other processing methods referred to in Chapter III of Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011;\n(d)\npetfood conforming to the requirements of points 3(a) and 3(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) of Chapter II of Annex XIII to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011;\n(e)\ngame trophies in accordance with point C.2 of Chapter VI of Annex XIII to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011;\n(f)\npigs bristles which have undergone factory washing or have been obtained from tanning and unprocessed pigs bristles which are securely enclosed in packaging and dry;\n(g)\npacked animal products intended for use as in-vitro diagnostic, laboratory reagents;\n(h)\nmedicinal products as defined in Directive 2001/83/EC, medical devices manufactured utilising animal tissue which is rendered non-viable as referred to in Article 1(5)(g) of Council Directive 93/42/EEC (20), veterinary medicinal products as defined in Directive 2001/82/EC, and investigational medicinal products as defined in Directive 2001/20/EC;\n(i)\nanimal casings complying with the conditions in Part A of Chapter 2 of Annex I to Directive 92/118/EEC and which have been cleaned, scraped and then either salted, bleached or dried, followed by steps to prevent the recontamination of the casings;\n(j)\ncomposite products which are not subject to further treatment containing products of animal origin, on the understanding that the treatment was not necessary for finished products, the ingredients of which comply with the respective animal health conditions laid down in this Decision.\n3. Lithuania shall ensure that the animal products referred to in paragraph 2 which are dispatched to other Member States are accompanied by an official certificate which includes the following words:\n\u2018Animal products conforming to Commission Implementing Decision 2011/508/EU of 16 August 2011 concerning certain protection measures against classical swine fever in Lithuania\u2019.\nArticle 9\nBy way of derogation from Article 8(3), it shall be sufficient, in the case of:\n(a)\nproducts referred to in paragraph 2(a) to (d) and (i) of Article 8 that compliance with the conditions for the treatment stated in the commercial document required in accordance with the respective Union legislation is endorsed in accordance with Article 10;\n(b)\nproducts referred to in paragraph 2(f) of Article 8 to be accompanied by a commercial document stating that they:\n(i)\nhave undergone factory washing; or\n(ii)\nhave been obtained from tanning; or\n(iii)\ncomply with the conditions set out in point A.1 of Chapter VII of Annex XIII to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011;\n(c)\nproducts referred to in paragraph 2(g) and (h) of Article 8, to be accompanied by a commercial document stating that the products are for use as in-vitro diagnostic, laboratory reagents, medical products or medical devices, provided that the products are clearly labelled \u2018for in-vitro diagnostic use only\u2019 or \u2018for laboratory use only\u2019, as \u2018medicinal products\u2019 or as \u2018medical devices\u2019;\n(d)\nproducts referred to in paragraph 2(j) of Article 8 which have been produced in an establishment operating HACCP and an auditable standard operating procedure which ensures that pre-processed ingredients comply with the respective animal health conditions laid down in this Decision, that this is stated on the commercial document accompanying the consignment, endorsed in accordance with Article 10;\n(e)\ncomposite products that fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 6(1) of Decision 2007/275/EC that they are accompanied by a commercial document, which includes the following words:\n\u2018These composite products are shelf stable at ambient temperature or have clearly undergone in their manufacture a complete cooking or heat-treatment process throughout their substance, so that any raw material is de-natured\u2019.\nArticle 10\n1. Where reference is made to this Article, the competent authority shall ensure that the commercial document required by Union legislation for trade between Member States is endorsed by the attachment of a copy of an official certificate stating that:\n(a)\nthe products concerned have been produced:\n(i)\nin a production process that has been audited and found in compliance with the appropriate requirements in Union animal health legislation and suitable to destroy the classical swine fever virus; or\n(ii)\nfrom pre-processed materials which had been certified accordingly to comply with the requirements laid down in Articles 8 and 9; and\n(b)\nprovisions are in place to avoid possible re-contamination with the classical swine fever virus after treatment.\n2. The certificate referred to in paragraph 1 shall:\n(a)\ninclude a reference to this Decision;\n(b)\nbe valid for 30 days;\n(c)\ninclude a mention of its date of expiry;\n(d)\nbe renewable after an inspection of the establishment.\nArticle 11\n1. The competent authority shall define risk based zones in the areas listed in Annex I.\n2. The services provided by persons in direct contact to pigs or requiring entry into the housing areas for pigs shall be limited to those risk based zones and shall not be shared with other parts of the Union. The same shall apply to services requiring the use of vehicles for the transport of feed, manure or dead animals to and from pig holdings situated in the areas listed in Annex I.\n3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to services provided that the following conditions are complied with:\n(a)\nthe vehicles, equipment and any other fomites have been cleansed and disinfected;\n(b)\nthe persons, vehicles and equipment were not in direct contact with pigs or pig holdings for at least three days.\n4. Lithuania shall ensure that:\n(a)\nthe following surveillance measures are carried out in the areas listed in Annex I:\n(i)\nany case of a contagious disease in pig holdings for which a treatment with antibiotic or other antibacterial drugs is indicated, shall be reported to the competent authority without delay and before treatment is commenced;\n(ii)\nin the pig holdings referred to in (a), the clinical examinations and sampling procedures laid down in Chapter IV(A) of the Annex to Decision 2002/106/EC are carried out by a veterinarian without delay;\n(b)\npreventive disease control measures are applied as necessary, in accordance with Article 4(3)(a) of Directive 2001/89/EC;\n(c)\nan appropriate information campaign is addressed to pig farmers.\nArticle 12\nLithuania shall ensure that in the areas listed in Part A of Annex I:\n(a)\nthe measures in the protection and surveillance zones continue to apply until at least 40 days have elapsed following the completion of preliminary cleaning and disinfection measures on the infected holdings;\n(b)\npigs on all holdings in the surveillance zones have, in addition to the examinations referred to in Article 11(3)(b) of Directive 2001/89/EC and before the measures provided for in Directive 2001/89/EC are withdrawn in the surveillance zone, undergone clinical and laboratory examinations carried out in accordance with Chapter IV(F) of the Annex to Decision 2002/106/EC; those examinations must not take place before 30 days have elapsed following the completion of preliminary cleaning and disinfection measures on the infected holdings.\nArticle 13\n1. Member States other than Lithuania shall not send pigs to slaughterhouses in the areas listed in Part A of Annex I.\n2. Member States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nvehicles which have been used for the transport of pigs in Lithuania are cleaned and disinfected twice after each transport in that Member State and do not transport pigs for at least three days following disinfection;\n(b)\nvehicles which have entered a holding where pigs are kept in Lithuania are cleaned and disinfected twice after leaving that holding and do not transport pigs for at least three days following disinfection;\n(c)\nthe transporters furnish proof to the competent authority of such cleaning and disinfection.\nArticle 14\nMember States shall amend the measures they apply to trade so as to bring them into compliance with this Decision and they shall give immediate appropriate publicity to the measures adopted. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.\nArticle 15\nThis Decision shall apply until 31 October 2011.\nArticle 16\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2011.", "references": ["98", "9", "74", "26", "90", "42", "6", "62", "92", "41", "48", "56", "87", "80", "99", "16", "8", "23", "82", "46", "51", "11", "85", "17", "28", "68", "97", "35", "37", "64", "No Label", "38", "61", "66", "91"], "gold": ["38", "61", "66", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 788/2010\nof 6 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 September 2010.", "references": ["11", "7", "83", "0", "36", "58", "62", "17", "6", "37", "22", "2", "71", "95", "21", "89", "15", "77", "38", "94", "47", "5", "45", "65", "39", "24", "93", "20", "26", "16", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 July 2010\non the signing and provisional application of an Agreement between the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway on an EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014, an Agreement between the European Union and Norway on a Norwegian Financial Mechanism for the period 2009-2014, an Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Iceland, concerning special provisions applicable to imports into the European Union of certain fish and fisheries products for the period 2009-2014, and an Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Norway, concerning special provisions applicable to imports into the European Union of certain fish and fisheries products for the period 2009-2014\n(2010/674/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe following financial mechanisms and cooperation programmes expired on 30 April 2009:\n-\nthe EEA Financial Mechanism 2004-2009 provided for in Protocol 38a to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (\u2018EEA Agreement\u2019) (1), as subsequently supplemented with an addendum in 2007 upon Bulgaria and Romania becoming contracting parties to the EEA Agreement (2),\n-\nthe Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2004-2009 provided for in the Agreement between the Kingdom of Norway and the European Community on a Norwegian financial mechanism for the period 2004-2009 (3),\n-\nthe Cooperation Programme mentioned in the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway concerning a Cooperation Programme for Economic Growth and Sustainable Development in Bulgaria (4), and\n-\nthe Cooperation Programme mentioned in the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway concerning a Cooperation Programme for Economic Growth and Sustainable Development in Romania (5).\n(2)\nThe need to alleviate economic and social disparities within the European Economic Area persists. Therefore a new mechanism for the financial contributions of the EEA EFTA States and a new Norwegian financial mechanism should be established.\n(3)\nTo this end, the Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an agreement with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway on a new EEA financial mechanism for the period 2009-2014 as well as an annex to that agreement. The annex will take the form of a protocol, to be named Protocol 38b to the EEA Agreement. To the same end, the Commission has also negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an agreement with Norway on a new Norwegian financial mechanism for the period 2009-2014.\n(4)\nSubject to their conclusion at a later date, these agreements should be signed.\n(5)\nThe special provisions applicable to imports into the Union of certain fish and fisheries products originating in Iceland and Norway, provided for in the following protocols, expired on 30 April 2009 and should be reviewed in accordance with Article 2 of each of those protocols:\n-\nAdditional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland consequent on the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union (6),\n-\nAdditional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway consequent on the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union (7),\n-\nAdditional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Iceland consequent on the Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (8),\n-\nAdditional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway consequent on the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (9).\n(6)\nTo this end, the Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, new additional protocols to the free trade agreements respectively with Iceland and Norway, to lay down special provisions applicable to imports into the Union of certain fish and fisheries products originating in Iceland and Norway for the period 2009-2014.\n(7)\nSubject to their conclusion at a later date, these additional protocols should be signed.\n(8)\nThe replacement of the existing financial mechanisms by new mechanisms, which relate to different time periods, different amounts of funds, and different implementing provisions, as well as the renewal and extension of the concessions relating to certain fish and fisheries products, taken as a whole, constitute an important development of the association with the EEA EFTA States, which justifies the recourse to Article 217 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(9)\nPending the completion of the procedures required for their conclusion, the Agreements referred to in recital 4 and the Protocols referred to in recital 7 should be applied on a provisional basis,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the following agreements and protocols is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to their conclusion:\n-\nAgreement between the European Union, Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway on an EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014 and the Annex thereto,\n-\nAgreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on a Norwegian Financial Mechanism for the period 2009-2014,\n-\nAdditional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Annex thereto,\n-\nAdditional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway and the Annex thereto.\nThe texts of the Agreements and Additional Protocols and the Annexes thereto are attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign these Agreements and Protocols on behalf of the Union, subject to their conclusion.\nArticle 3\nPending the completion of the procedures for their conclusion, the Agreements and Protocols referred to in Article 1, shall be applied on a provisional basis as from the following dates:\n-\nthe Agreement between the European Union, Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway on an EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014 and the Annex thereto, as from the first day of the first month following the deposit of the last notification to this effect,\n-\nthe Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on a Norwegian Financial Mechanism for the period 2009-2014, as from the first day of the first month following the deposit of the last notification to this effect,\n-\nthe Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Annex thereto, as from the first day of the third month following the deposit of the last notification to this effect,\n-\nthe Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway and the Annex thereto, as from the first day of the third month following the deposit of the last notification to this effect.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["66", "54", "57", "60", "2", "10", "69", "71", "11", "36", "93", "24", "30", "43", "8", "47", "32", "46", "16", "39", "25", "97", "20", "74", "94", "52", "45", "48", "72", "77", "No Label", "3", "4", "9", "23", "67", "96"], "gold": ["3", "4", "9", "23", "67", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 806/2012\nof 10 September 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 September 2012.", "references": ["37", "38", "26", "5", "58", "55", "32", "76", "90", "2", "96", "9", "62", "11", "56", "39", "10", "75", "65", "27", "57", "74", "29", "52", "99", "18", "16", "80", "77", "3", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 745/2012\nof 16 August 2012\nfixing the coefficients applicable to cereals exported in the form of Scotch whisky for the period 2012/2013\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 of 10 November 2006 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 as regards the fixing and granting of adjusted refunds in respect of cereals exported in the form of certain spirit drinks (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 lays down that the quantities of cereals eligible for the refund are to be the quantities placed under control and distilled, weighted by a coefficient to be fixed annually for each Member State concerned. The coefficient is to express the average ratio between the total quantities exported and the total quantities marketed of the spirit drink concerned, on the basis of the trend noted in those quantities during the number of years corresponding to the average ageing period of the spirit drink in question.\n(2)\nAccording to the information provided by the United Kingdom in respect of the period 1 January to 31 December 2011, the average ageing period for Scotch whisky in 2011 was eight years.\n(3)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1094/2011 of 28 October 2011 fixing the coefficients applicable to cereals exported in the form of Scotch whisky for the period 2011/2012 (3) has exhausted its effects, as it concerns the coefficients applicable for the year 2011/2012. The coefficients for the period 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013 should therefore be fixed accordingly.\n(4)\nArticle 10 of Protocol 3 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area excludes the grant of refunds in respect of exports to Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway. Moreover, the Union has concluded agreements abolishing export refunds with certain third countries. Under the terms of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006, this should be taken into account in calculating the coefficients for 2012/2013,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the period 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013, the coefficients provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 applying to cereals used in the United Kingdom for manufacturing Scotch whisky shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2012.", "references": ["84", "83", "99", "18", "10", "46", "82", "24", "79", "38", "51", "54", "44", "35", "34", "14", "2", "76", "27", "49", "32", "50", "95", "64", "92", "81", "17", "88", "90", "58", "No Label", "19", "20", "68", "71", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["19", "20", "68", "71", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1251/2010\nof 22 December 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People\u2019s Republic of Korea\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 (1), and in particular Article 13(1)(e) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex V to Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 lists persons, entities and bodies who, having been designated by the Council, are covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 22 December 2010, the Council decided to amend the list of persons, entities and bodies to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex V should therefore be updated.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex V to Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 is hereby replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2010.", "references": ["96", "97", "55", "73", "34", "42", "14", "44", "99", "35", "36", "17", "5", "53", "54", "46", "18", "91", "82", "22", "50", "28", "93", "43", "78", "32", "60", "12", "8", "33", "No Label", "3", "6", "11", "23", "30", "41", "76", "90", "95"], "gold": ["3", "6", "11", "23", "30", "41", "76", "90", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1224/2010\nof 17 December 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2011 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 December 2010.", "references": ["48", "74", "33", "92", "80", "66", "62", "84", "96", "30", "29", "46", "52", "44", "73", "18", "93", "78", "32", "83", "5", "37", "85", "67", "12", "27", "64", "88", "94", "90", "No Label", "21", "69"], "gold": ["21", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1150/2010\nof 7 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2010.", "references": ["65", "8", "39", "4", "83", "96", "17", "26", "38", "45", "58", "12", "27", "52", "13", "90", "87", "23", "89", "99", "86", "60", "44", "7", "67", "40", "98", "21", "22", "74", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1132/2010\nof 30 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for spurdog/dogfish in EU waters of IIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of Denmark\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["87", "53", "83", "32", "59", "89", "62", "78", "6", "10", "84", "7", "5", "23", "31", "3", "71", "85", "76", "65", "18", "74", "49", "2", "30", "17", "99", "86", "48", "51", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1212/2010\nof 29 November 2010\nconcerning the allocation of the fishing opportunities under the Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA new Protocol (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019) to the Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was signed on 21 May 2010 and was amended by an Exchange of Letters on 16 September 2010. That new Protocol provides EU vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which the Union of the Comoros has sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries.\n(2)\nOn 29 November 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/783/EU (2) on the signing and on the provisional application of the Protocol.\n(3)\nThe method for allocating the fishing opportunities among the Member States should be defined for the duration of the Protocol.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 of 29 September 2008 concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters (3), if it appears that the fishing opportunities allocated to the European Union under the Protocol are not fully utilised, the Commission should inform the Member States concerned. The absence of a reply within the deadline, to be set by the Council, should be considered as confirmation that the vessels of the Member State concerned are not making full use of their fishing opportunities in the given period. That deadline should be set.\n(5)\nThis Regulation should enter into force on the first day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and should apply from 1 January 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The fishing opportunities set out in the Protocol to the Agreement shall be allocated among the Member States as follows:\n(a)\ntuna seiners\nSpain\n22 vessels\nFrance\n22 vessels\nItaly\n1 vessel\n(b)\nsurface longliners\nSpain\n12 vessels\nFrance\n8 vessels\nPortugal\n5 vessels\n2. Without prejudice to the Agreement and the Protocol, Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 shall apply.\n3. If applications for fishing authorisations from the Member States referred to in paragraph 1 do not cover all the fishing opportunities set out in the Protocol, the Commission shall consider applications for fishing authorisations from any other Member State in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008.\nThe deadline referred to in Article 10(1) of that Regulation shall be set at 10 working days.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the first day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2010.", "references": ["48", "73", "81", "66", "64", "82", "33", "90", "22", "40", "17", "2", "30", "7", "19", "93", "86", "92", "25", "29", "8", "84", "20", "78", "42", "43", "38", "41", "9", "45", "No Label", "3", "16", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "16", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 731/2010\nof 11 August 2010\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN codes indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3 of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, pursuant to Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN codes indicated in column 2 of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months pursuant to Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["64", "0", "46", "92", "85", "4", "60", "96", "19", "80", "26", "66", "61", "11", "81", "15", "20", "53", "54", "73", "5", "1", "28", "67", "24", "70", "39", "89", "97", "58", "No Label", "21", "40"], "gold": ["21", "40"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 433/2010\nof 20 May 2010\ngranting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 18 May 2010.\n(3)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 18 May 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the products and destinations referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 1 and in Article 2 of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2010.", "references": ["0", "5", "14", "66", "53", "87", "59", "12", "33", "47", "62", "8", "35", "76", "16", "65", "49", "28", "34", "9", "6", "21", "56", "78", "94", "81", "86", "23", "52", "37", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 892/2011\nof 6 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 September 2011.", "references": ["51", "41", "72", "14", "99", "49", "48", "79", "64", "75", "4", "13", "17", "40", "26", "82", "62", "97", "9", "85", "52", "37", "7", "15", "19", "39", "3", "56", "34", "30", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 128/2011\nof 11 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 February 2011.", "references": ["93", "82", "80", "72", "98", "53", "79", "63", "92", "77", "56", "95", "31", "46", "87", "96", "38", "24", "43", "90", "41", "88", "62", "9", "66", "54", "14", "69", "89", "83", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 462/2012\nof 31 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2012.", "references": ["55", "78", "77", "10", "29", "60", "58", "99", "9", "69", "81", "30", "14", "24", "92", "71", "96", "95", "56", "16", "8", "43", "70", "91", "34", "67", "4", "11", "3", "83", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 360/2010\nof 27 April 2010\namending Annex IV and Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for the farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006 and (EC) No 378/2007, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular its Articles 8(2)(a), 8(2)(b), 40 and 67 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishes for each Member State the maximum value of all payment entitlements that can be allocated during a calendar year. In accordance with Articles 40(2) and 67 of that Regulation Annex VIII should be adapted to take into account the decisions of the Member States in accordance with Articles 103o and 188a(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (2) with regard to wine and to the advanced integration of coupled support into the single payment scheme.\n(2)\nGermany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal and Slovenia notified the Commission of their intention to allocate new payment entitlements to wine growers in accordance with Articles 103o and 188a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nBelgium, Denmark, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and United Kingdom notified the Commission of their intention to at least advance the integration of the seed aid referred to in Section 5 of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 or one of the schemes referred to in point 1 of Annex XI to that Regulation, with the exception of the specific quality premium for durum wheat, into the single payment scheme in 2010 or 2011.\n(4)\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishes for each Member State the ceilings which may not be exceeded by the total amounts of the direct payments, net of modulation, which may be granted in respect of a calendar year in the Member State concerned.\n(5)\nFollowing the decisions taken by the Member States in accordance with Article 103o and 188a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the total maximum amounts of direct payments that may be granted shall be increased. Therefore, in accordance with Article 8(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, Annex IV to that Regulation shall be reviewed.\n(6)\nSince the difficulties to its agricultural sector provoked by the economic crisis persist with a continuing negative impact on the economic situation of farmers, Portugal has communicated to the Commission that it has decided not to apply the voluntary modulation foreseen from 2010 until 2012. Therefore, in accordance with Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the net amount resulting from the application of the voluntary modulation in Portugal fixed by Commission Decision 2009/780/EC (3) should for those years be added to the national ceiling for Portugal as set out in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.\n(7)\nAnnexes IV and VIII to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 is replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAnnex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 is replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2010.", "references": ["63", "2", "12", "16", "22", "36", "65", "66", "1", "74", "23", "14", "80", "45", "17", "56", "94", "54", "52", "81", "10", "84", "29", "11", "79", "95", "13", "47", "60", "26", "No Label", "58", "61"], "gold": ["58", "61"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 July 2011\nappointing Judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal\n(2011/459/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the fourth paragraph of Article 257 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe terms of office of Mr St\u00e9phane GERVASONI, Mr Paul J. MAHONEY and Mr Harissios TAGARAS, Judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Civil Service Tribunal\u2019) expire on 30 September 2011.\n(2)\nA public call for applications (1) was issued with a view to the appointment of three Judges to the Civil Service Tribunal for a period of 6 years.\n(3)\nThe Committee set up by Article 3(3) of Annex I to the Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union met on 13 and 14 January, 3 and 4 March and 22 March 2011. Following its discussions, it delivered an opinion on the candidates\u2019 suitability to perform the duties of a Judge of the Civil Service Tribunal to which it appended a list of candidates having the most appropriate high-level experience.\n(4)\nAccordingly it is appropriate to appoint three of the persons included on that list as Judges of the Civil Service Tribunal, for the period from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2017, ensuring a balanced composition of the Civil Service Tribunal on as broad a geographical basis as possible from among nationals of the Member States and with respect to the national legal systems represented,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed Judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal for the period from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2017:\n-\nMr Ren\u00e9 BARENTS,\n-\nMr Kieran BRADLEY,\n-\nMr Ezio PERILLO.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["74", "99", "27", "79", "57", "13", "83", "73", "35", "51", "39", "20", "26", "67", "21", "5", "42", "32", "2", "29", "15", "0", "12", "65", "41", "40", "72", "47", "30", "59", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/686/CFSP\nof 13 September 2010\nconcerning the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on the Status of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 37 thereof, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 218(5) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter the High Representative),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nNegotiations have been concluded under the authority of the High Representative for an Agreement between the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on the Status of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) (hereinafter the Agreement).\n(2)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on the Status of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 13 September 2010.", "references": ["58", "71", "33", "64", "92", "48", "78", "40", "10", "42", "46", "74", "62", "24", "38", "98", "86", "59", "65", "17", "79", "22", "28", "31", "68", "6", "39", "32", "93", "66", "No Label", "3", "4", "5", "9", "95"], "gold": ["3", "4", "5", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/639/CFSP\nof 25 October 2010\nconcerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 10 April 2006, the Council adopted Common Position 2006/276/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (1).\n(2)\nBy Common Position 2009/314/CFSP of 6 April 2009 amending Common Position 2006/276/CFSP (2) the restrictive measures were extended until 15 March 2010. However, the travel restrictions imposed on certain leading figures in Belarus, with the exception of those involved in the disappearances which occurred in 1999 and 2000 and of the President of the Central Electoral Commission, were suspended until 15 December 2009.\n(3)\nOn 15 December 2009, the Council adopted Council Decision 2009/969/CFSP (3) extending both the restrictive measures and the suspension until 31 October 2010.\n(4)\nOn the basis of a re-examination of Common Position 2006/276/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 31 October 2011, whilst the suspension of the travel restrictions, should also be renewed until the same date.\n(5)\nThe Union implementing measures are set out in Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (4),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of persons, who are responsible:\n(a)\nfor, but failed to start, the initiation of independent investigation and prosecution of the alleged crimes and those who are considered by the Pourgourides Report to be key actors in the disappearances of four well-known persons in Belarus in 1999/2000 and the following cover-up, in view of their apparent obstruction of justice, as listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nfor the fraudulent elections and referendum in Belarus on 17 October 2004 and those who are responsible for severe human rights violations in the repression of peaceful demonstrators in the aftermath of the elections and referendum in Belarus, as listed in Annex II;\n(c)\nfor the violations of international electoral standards in the presidential elections in Belarus on 19 March 2006, and the crackdown on civil society and democratic opposition, as listed in Annex III.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation of international law, namely:\n(i)\nas a host country of an international intergovernmental organisation;\n(ii)\nas a host country to an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the United Nations;\n(iii)\nunder a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities;\nor\n(iv)\nunder the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran pact) concluded by the Holy See (State of the Vatican City) and Italy.\n4. Paragraph 3 shall be considered as applying also in cases where a Member State is host country of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).\n5. The Council shall be duly informed in all cases where a Member State grants an exemption pursuant to paragraphs 3 or 4.\n6. Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed in paragraph 1 where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the Union, or hosted by a Member State holding the Chairmanship in office of the OSCE, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Belarus.\n7. A Member State wishing to grant exemptions referred to in paragraph 6 shall notify the Council in writing. The exemption shall be deemed to be granted unless one or more of the Council members raises an objection in writing within two working days of receiving notification of the proposed exemption. Should one or more of the Council members raise an objection, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to grant the proposed exemption.\n8. In cases where pursuant to paragraphs 3, 4, 6 and 7, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in Annexes I, II and III, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\nArticle 2\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by persons who are responsible for the violations of international electoral standards in the Presidential elections in Belarus on 19 March 2006 and the crackdown on civil society and democratic opposition, and those natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in Annex IV shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of such persons listed in Annex IV.\nArticle 3\n1. The competent authority of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources concerned are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of the persons listed in Annex IV and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for the routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the competent authority has notified the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted to the other competent authorities and the Commission at least two weeks prior to the authorisation.\nMember States shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this Article.\n2. Article 2(2) shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to the provisions of Common Position 2006/276/CFSP\nand provided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to Article 2(1) of this Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. The Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall adopt amendments to the lists contained in Annexes I, II, III and IV as required by political developments in Belarus.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the person concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person concerned accordingly.\nArticle 5\nIn order to maximise the impact of the abovementioned measures, the Union shall encourage third States to adopt restrictive measures similar to those contained in this Decision.\nArticle 6\nCommon Position 2006/276/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 7\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall apply until 31 October 2011. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\n3. The measures referred to in Article 1(1)(b), insofar as they apply to Mr Yuri Nikolaevich PODOBED, as well as the measures referred to in Article 1(1)(c) shall be suspended until 31 October 2011.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 October 2010.", "references": ["22", "15", "85", "21", "43", "26", "24", "70", "60", "95", "53", "31", "89", "50", "75", "63", "47", "80", "32", "29", "55", "96", "62", "93", "81", "45", "79", "90", "20", "54", "No Label", "1", "2", "3", "12", "16", "91", "97"], "gold": ["1", "2", "3", "12", "16", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 18 November 2011\nadopting a third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region\n(notified under document C(2011) 8187)\n(2012/10/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Pannonian biogeographical region referred to in Article 1(c)(iii) of Directive 92/43/EEC comprises parts of the Union territories of the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia and the Union territory of Hungary as specified in the biogeographical map approved on 20 April 2005 by the Committee set up by Article 20 of that Directive, hereinafter \u2018the Habitats Committee\u2019.\n(2)\nIt is necessary in the context of a process which was initiated in 1995 to make further progress in the actual establishment of the Natura 2000 network, which is an essential element of the protection of biodiversity in the Union.\n(3)\nThe initial list and the first two updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region, within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC, were adopted by Commission Decisions 2008/26/EC (2), 2009/90/EC (3) and 2011/86/EU (4). On the basis of Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Member State concerned shall designate the sites included in the list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region as special areas of conservation as soon as possible and within 6 years at most, establishing conservation priorities and the necessary conservation measures.\n(4)\nIn the context of a dynamic adaptation of the Natura 2000 network, the lists of sites of Community importance are reviewed. A third update of the Pannonian list is therefore necessary.\n(5)\nOn the one hand, the third update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region is necessary in order to include additional sites that have been proposed since 2009 by the Member States as sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC. For these additional sites, the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC should apply as soon as possible and within 6 years at most from the adoption of the third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region.\n(6)\nOn the other hand, the third update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region is necessary in order to reflect any changes in site-related information submitted by the Member States following the adoption of the initial and the first two updated Union lists. In that sense, the third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region constitutes a consolidated version of the list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region. It should be stressed that, for any site included in the third update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region, the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC should apply as soon as possible and within 6 years at most following the adoption of the list of sites of Community importance in which the site was included for the first time.\n(7)\nFor the Pannonian biogeographical region, lists of sites proposed as sites of Community importance within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC have been transmitted to the Commission between May 2004 and October 2010 by the Member States concerned in accordance with Article 4(1) of that Directive.\n(8)\nThe lists of proposed sites were accompanied by information on each site, supplied in the format established by Commission Decision 97/266/EC of 18 December 1996 concerning a site information format for proposed Natura 2000 sites (5).\n(9)\nThat information includes the map of the site transmitted by the Member States concerned, name, location and extent of the site, and the data yielded by application of the criteria specified in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(10)\nOn the basis of the draft list drawn up by the Commission in agreement with each of the Member States concerned, which also identifies sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, a third updated list of sites selected as sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region should be adopted.\n(11)\nKnowledge of the existence and distribution of the natural habitat types and species is constantly evolving as a result of the surveillance in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, the evaluation and selection of sites at EU level was done using the best available information at present.\n(12)\nCertain Member States have not proposed sufficient sites to meet the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC for certain habitat types and species. For those habitat types and species it can therefore not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is complete. Taking into account the delay in receiving the information and reaching agreement with the Member States, it is necessary to adopt a third updated list of sites, which will need to be reviewed in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(13)\nGiven that knowledge on the existence and distribution of some of the natural habitat types of Annex I and species of Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC remains incomplete, it should not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is either complete or incomplete. The list should be reviewed, if necessary, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(14)\nIn the interests of clarity and transparency Decision 2011/86/EU should be repealed.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Habitats Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2011/86/EU is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["81", "12", "86", "61", "90", "29", "0", "28", "16", "83", "22", "66", "41", "54", "50", "26", "34", "85", "24", "93", "27", "40", "78", "15", "32", "56", "99", "55", "84", "6", "No Label", "17", "58", "59", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["17", "58", "59", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1288/2011\nof 9 December 2011\non the notification of wholesale prices for bananas within the common organisation of agricultural markets\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 192 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) 2014/2005 of 9 December 2005 on licences under the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community in respect of bananas released into free circulation at the common customs tariff rate of duty (2), is repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1287/2011 (3) as from 1 January 2012. Regulation (EC) 2014/2005 contained in its Article 2(1) point (a) provisions on notifications of wholesale prices for yellow bananas.\n(2)\nIn order to continue to monitor the banana market, it is appropriate to provide for Member States\u2019 notifications to the Commission as regards wholesale prices for yellow bananas falling within the CN code 0803 90 10, in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 of 31 August 2009 laying down detailed rules for the Member States\u2019 notification to the Commission of information and documents in implementation of the common organisation of the markets, the direct payments\u2019 regime, the promotion of agricultural products and the regimes applicable to the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean islands (4).\n(3)\nSo as to ensure consistency with the fruit and vegetables sector, is appropriate to record wholesale prices for yellow bananas on the representative markets listed in Annex XVII to Commission Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (5).\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nMember States shall notify the Commission by Wednesday each week of the wholesale prices for yellow bananas falling within the CN code 0803 90 10, broken down by country of origin or group of countries of origin, as recorded the previous week on the representative markets listed in Annex XVII to Regulation (EU) No 543/2011.\nThe notifications referred to in the first paragraph shall be made in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["1", "45", "85", "8", "58", "25", "37", "27", "97", "34", "19", "6", "66", "39", "96", "47", "88", "12", "24", "69", "30", "95", "62", "31", "50", "9", "93", "57", "73", "63", "No Label", "20", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["20", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 640/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 7 July 2010\nestablishing a catch documentation programme for bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1984/2003\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union is a Contracting Party to the United Nations Convention of 10 December 1982 on the Law of the Sea approved by Council Decision 98/392/EC (3), to the Agreement on the implementation of the provisions of that Convention relating to the conservation and management of straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks ratified by Council Decision 98/414/EC (4) and to the Agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas accepted by Council Decision 96/428/EC (5). In the framework of those international obligations, the Union participates in efforts made to ensure sustainable management of highly migratory fish stocks.\n(2)\nThe Union is a Contracting Party to the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas pursuant to Council Decision 86/238/EEC (6) (ICCAT Convention). The ICCAT Convention provides for a framework for regional cooperation on the conservation and management of tuna and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas through an International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), and for the adoption of recommendations applicable in the ICCAT Convention area which become binding on the Contracting Parties, cooperating non-contracting Parties, entities and fishing entities (CPCs).\n(3)\nICCAT Recommendations 1992-01, 1993-03, 1996-10, 1997-04, 1998-12, 03-19 and 06-15 and Resolutions 1993-02, 1994-04 and 1994-05 on a statistical document programme for bluefin tuna have been implemented by Council Regulation (EC) No 1984/2003 of 8 April 2003 introducing a system for the statistical monitoring of trade in bluefin tuna, swordfish and bigeye tuna within the Community (7).\n(4)\nAs part of the measures to regulate stocks of bluefin tuna, to improve the quality and reliability of statistical data and in order to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal fishing, ICCAT adopted at its annual meeting in Recife (Brazil), on 15 November 2009, Recommendation 09-11 amending Recommendation 08-12 on an ICCAT bluefin tuna catch documentation programme. That Recommendation entered into force on 1 June 2010 and needs to be implemented by the Union.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the provisions on an ICCAT bluefin tuna catch documentation programme are easily readable and applied uniformly, the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1984/2003 related to the ICCAT bluefin tuna statistical document and re-export certificate should be deleted. Therefore, Regulation (EC) No 1984/2003 should be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of the transposition of new conservation measures adopted by ICCAT, thus updating and supplementing the Annexes to this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\nThis Regulation establishes a Union bluefin tuna catch documentation programme in order to support the implementation of conservation and management measures adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), incorporating the provisions of the ICCAT bluefin tuna catch documentation programme with a view to identifying the origin of all bluefin tuna.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018Bluefin tuna\u2019 means fish of the species Thunnus thynnus falling within the codes of the Combined Nomenclature listed in Annex I;\n(b)\n\u2018Domestic trade\u2019 means:\n(i)\ntrade, in one Member State or between two or more Member States, in bluefin tuna caught in the ICCAT Convention area by a Union catching vessel or trap, which is landed in the territory of the Union; and\n(ii)\ntrade, in one Member State or between two or more Member States, in farmed bluefin tuna caught in the ICCAT Convention area by a Union catching vessel, which is caged in a farm established in the territory of the Union;\n(c)\n\u2018Export\u2019 means any movement to a third country of bluefin tuna caught in the ICCAT Convention area by a Union catching vessel or trap, including from the territory of the Union, from third countries or from fishing grounds;\n(d)\n\u2018Import\u2019 means the introduction into the territory of the Union, including for caging, fattening, farming or transhipment purposes, of bluefin tuna caught in the ICCAT Convention area by a third country catching vessel or trap;\n(e)\n\u2018Re-export\u2019 means any movement from the territory of the Union of bluefin tuna which had been previously imported into the territory of the Union;\n(f)\n\u2018ICCAT Convention area\u2019 means the area determined by the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas;\n(g)\n\u2018Flag Member State\u2019 means the Member State where the catching vessel is flagged;\n(h)\n\u2018Trap Member State\u2019 means the Member State where the trap is established;\n(i)\n\u2018Farm Member State\u2019 means the Member State where the farm is established;\n(j)\n\u2018CPCs\u2019 means Contracting Parties, cooperating non-contracting Parties, entities and fishing entities of ICCAT;\n(k)\n\u2018Lot\u2019 means a quantity of bluefin tuna products of the same presentation and originating in the same relevant geographical area and the same fishing vessel, or group of fishing vessels, or the same trap.\nCHAPTER II\nBLUEFIN TUNA CATCH DOCUMENT\nArticle 3\nGeneral provisions\n1. Member States shall require a completed bluefin tuna catch document (\u2018catch document\u2019) for each bluefin tuna landed or transhipped at their ports, caged as specified in Annex IV, and harvested from their farms.\n2. Each lot of bluefin tuna domestically traded, imported into, exported or re-exported from the territory of the Union shall be accompanied by a validated catch document - except in cases where Article 4(3) applies - and, where applicable, an ICCAT transfer declaration or a validated bluefin tuna re-export certificate (\u2018re-export certificate\u2019).\nAny such landing, transhipment, caging, harvest, domestic trade, import, export or re-export of bluefin tuna without a completed and validated catch document and, where applicable, a re-export certificate shall be prohibited.\n3. Member States shall not place bluefin tuna into a farm not authorised by a Member State or the CPCs or not listed in the ICCAT record of farming facilities authorised to operate for farming of bluefin tuna caught in the ICCAT Convention area.\n4. Farm Member States shall ensure that bluefin tuna catches are placed in separate cages or series of cages and partitioned on the basis of the Member State or CPC of origin.\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 4, farm Member States shall ensure that bluefin tuna caught in the context of a joint fishing operation, as defined by Article 2(g) of Council Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 of 6 April 2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean (8), are placed in separate cages or series of cages and partitioned on the basis of joint fishing operations.\n6. Farm Member States shall ensure that bluefin tuna are harvested from farms in the same year in which they were caught, or before the beginning of the purse seiners fishing period, if harvested in the following year. Where harvesting operations are not completed within that period, farm Member States shall complete and transmit an annual carry-over declaration to the Commission within ten days of the end of that period. That declaration shall include:\n-\nquantities (expressed in kg) and number of fish intended to be carried over,\n-\nyear of catch,\n-\nsize composition,\n-\nflag Member State or CPC, ICCAT number and name of the catching vessel,\n-\nreference numbers of the catch document corresponding to the catches carried over,\n-\nname and ICCAT number of the fattening facility,\n-\ncage number, and,\n-\ninformation on harvested quantities (expressed in kg), when completed,\nThe Commission shall forward such declarations to the ICCAT Secretariat within five days.\n7. Quantities carried over in accordance with paragraph 6 shall be placed in separate cages or series of cages in the farm and partitioned on the basis of the catch year.\n8. Flag or trap Member States shall provide catch document forms only to their catching vessels and traps authorised to fish bluefin tuna in the ICCAT Convention area, including as by-catch.\n9. Each catch document form shall have a unique document identification number. Document numbers shall be specific to the flag or trap Member State and shall be assigned to each catching vessel or trap. Such forms shall not be transferable to another catching vessel or trap.\n10. Copies of catch documents shall follow each part of split lots or processed product, using the unique document identification number of the original catch document in order to track them.\n11. Domestic trade, import, export and re-export of fish parts other than the meat (i.e. heads, eyes, roes, guts and tails) shall be exempted from the requirements of this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nValidation\n1. Catching vessel masters, trap operators, farm operators, sellers, exporters, or their authorised representatives, shall complete a catch document, if possible electronically, by providing the required information in appropriate sections and shall request its validation in accordance with paragraph 2 on each occasion when they land, transfer, cage, harvest, tranship, domestically trade or export bluefin tuna.\n2. The catch document shall be validated by a competent authority of the flag, trap or farm Member State or the Member State where the seller or exporter is established. Member States shall validate the catch document for all bluefin tuna only where:\n(a)\na catching vessel flies the flag of the Member State or a trap or farm is established in the Member State that harvested the bluefin tuna,\n(b)\nall the information contained in the catch document has been established to be accurate as a result of the verification of the lot,\n(c)\nthe accumulated amounts to be validated are within their quotas or catch limits of each management year, including, where appropriate, individual quotas allocated to catching vessels or traps, and\n(d)\nthe bluefin tuna complies with the relevant provisions of the ICCAT conservation and management measures.\n3. Validation under paragraph 2 of this Article shall not be required where all the bluefin tuna available for sale are tagged, as referred to in Article 5, by the flag or trap Member State that fished them.\n4. Where the bluefin tuna quantities caught and landed are less than 1 tonne or three fish, the fishing logbook or the sales note may be used as a temporary catch document, pending the validation of the catch document within seven days and prior to domestic trade or export.\n5. A validated catch document shall include, as appropriate, the information set out in Annex II.\n6. A catch document model is set out in Annex III. In cases where a section of the catch document model does not provide sufficient room to completely track movement of bluefin tuna from catch to trade, the relevant information section may be expanded as necessary and attached as an annex. The competent authority of the Member State concerned shall validate the annex as soon as possible, but not later than the next movement of bluefin tuna.\n7. Instructions for the issuing, numbering, completion and validation of the catch document are set out in Annex IV.\nArticle 5\nTagging\n1. Member States may require their catching vessels or traps to affix a tag to each bluefin tuna, preferably at the time of kill, but not later than at the time of landing. Tags shall have unique Member State specific numbers and be tamper-proof. The tag numbers shall be linked to the catch document.\n2. A summary of the implementation of the tagging programme shall be submitted to the Commission by the Member States concerned. The Commission shall forward the summaries to the ICCAT Secretariat within a reasonable period of time.\n3. The use of tags shall be authorised only when the accumulated catch amounts are within Member States\u2019 quotas or catch limits for each management year, including, where appropriate, individual quotas allocated to catching vessels or traps.\nCHAPTER III\nBLUEFIN TUNA RE-EXPORT CERTIFICATE\nArticle 6\nGeneral provisions\n1. Member States shall ensure that each lot of bluefin tuna which is re-exported from their territory is accompanied by a validated re-export certificate.\nThe re-export certificate shall not apply in cases where farmed bluefin tuna is imported live.\n2. The operator responsible for the re-export shall complete the re-export certificate by providing the required information in its appropriate sections and request its validation for the lot of bluefin tuna to be re-exported. The completed re-export certificate shall be accompanied by a copy of the validated catch document(s) relating to the bluefin tuna previously imported.\nArticle 7\nRe-export validation\n1. The re-export certificate shall be validated by the competent authority of the re-exporting Member State.\n2. The competent authority shall validate the re-export certificate for all bluefin tuna products only when:\n(a)\nall the information contained in the re-export certificate has been established to be accurate,\n(b)\nthe validated catch document(s) submitted in support of the re-export certificate had been accepted for the importation of the products declared on the re-export certificate,\n(c)\nthe products to be re-exported are wholly or partly the same products appearing on the validated catch document(s), and\n(d)\na copy of the catch document(s) is attached to the validated re-export certificate.\n3. The validated re-export certificate shall include the information set out in Annex V.\nCHAPTER IV\nCOMMUNICATION AND VERIFICATION\nArticle 8\nCommunication and conservation of validated documents\n1. Member States shall communicate, by electronic means, a copy of all validated catch documents or re-export certificates, except in cases where Article 4(3) applies, as soon as possible and in any event within five working days of the date of validation, or without delay where the expected duration of the transportation should not take more than five working days, to the following:\n(a)\nthe Commission,\n(b)\nthe competent authorities of the Member State or CPC where the bluefin tuna will be domestically traded, or farmed or imported, and\n(c)\nthe ICCAT Secretariat.\n2. Member States shall keep copies of the validated catch documents and re-export certificates issued or received for at least two years.\nArticle 9\nVerification\n1. Member States shall ensure that their competent authorities identify each lot of bluefin tuna landed in, transhipped in, domestically traded in, imported into or exported or re-exported from their territory. The competent authorities shall request and examine the validated catch document(s) and related documentation of each lot of bluefin tuna. The examination shall include the consultation of the database on validation held by the ICCAT Secretariat.\n2. The competent authorities may also examine the content of the lot to verify the information contained in the catch document and in related documents and, where necessary, shall carry out verifications with the operators concerned.\n3. If, as a result of examinations or verifications carried out pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2, a doubt arises regarding the information contained in a catch document, Member States shall cooperate with the competent authorities which validated the catch document(s) or re-export certificate(s) to resolve such doubts.\n4. If a Member State identifies a lot with no catch document, it shall notify its findings to the delivering Member State or the exporting CPC and, where known, the flag Member State or the flag CPC.\n5. Pending the examinations or verifications under paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States shall not release the lot for domestic trade, import or export or, in the case of live bluefin tuna destined for farms, accept the transfer declaration.\n6. Where a Member State, as a result of examinations or verifications pursuant to paragraph 1 and in cooperation with the validating authorities concerned, determines that a catch document or re-export certificate is invalid, the domestic trade, import, export or re-export of the lot of bluefin tuna concerned shall be prohibited.\nCHAPTER V\nTRANSMISSION OF DATA\nArticle 10\nInformation concerning validation and points of contact\n1. Member States shall notify to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe name and full address of their authorities competent for validating and verifying catch documents or re-export certificates,\n(b)\nthe name, title and sample impression of the stamp or seal of the validating officials who are individually empowered, and\n(c)\nas appropriate, tag samples.\n2. The notification shall indicate the date on which the information referred to in paragraph 1 takes effect. Updated details of validating authorities and officials shall be communicated to the Commission in a timely fashion.\n3. Member States shall notify to the Commission the points of contact that should be informed when there are questions relating to catch documents or re-export certificates, and in particular, their name.\n4. The Commission shall promptly forward this information to the ICCAT Secretariat.\nArticle 11\nAnnual programme report\n1. By 15 September of each year, Member States shall provide to the Commission, by electronic means, a programme report including the information set out in Annex VI, covering the period from 1 July of the preceding year to 30 June of that year.\n2. The Commission shall establish the Union\u2019s annual programme report and communicate it to the ICCAT Secretariat by 1 October of each year.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 12\nAmendment of Annexes\nIn order to apply the conservation measures adopted by ICCAT, the Commission may amend, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 13 and subject to the conditions set out in Articles 14 and 15, the Annexes to this Regulation.\nWhen adopting such delegated acts, the Commission shall act in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation.\nArticle 13\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The powers to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 12 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years following 14 August 2010. The Commission shall make a report in respect of the delegated powers at the latest six months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of powers shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 14.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The powers to adopt delegated acts are conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 14 and 15.\nArticle 14\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of powers referred to in Article 12 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of powers shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 15\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of two months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by two months.\n2. If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force at the date stated therein.\n3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 16\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 1984/2003\n1. Regulation (EC) No 1984/2003 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the title, the words \u2018bluefin tuna\u2019 are deleted;\n(b)\nin Article 1(a), the words \u2018bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)\u2019 are deleted;\n(c)\nin Article 2, the words \u2018bluefin tuna\u2019 are deleted;\n(d)\nin Article 3, point (a) is deleted;\n(e)\nin Article 4(1), the first indent is deleted;\n(f)\nin Article 4(2)(b)(iii), the words \u2018bluefin tuna\u2019 are deleted;\n(g)\nin Article 5(1), the first indent is deleted;\n(h)\nin Article 6(1) second paragraph, point (a) is deleted;\n(i)\nin Article 8(a), the words \u2018bluefin tuna\u2019 are deleted;\n(j)\nin Article 9(2), point (a) is deleted;\n(k)\nAnnexes I, IVa, IX and XV are hereby repealed.\n2. References to the repealed provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1984/2003 shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 17\nReview\nThe Commission shall review this Regulation following the recommendations adopted by ICCAT, taking into account the updated scientific opinions on stocks size which will be submitted at its meetings, and shall submit proposals for any amendments that may be necessary.\nArticle 18\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 7 July 2010.", "references": ["56", "45", "99", "32", "88", "53", "77", "23", "17", "30", "71", "33", "39", "97", "76", "85", "15", "10", "35", "60", "31", "25", "54", "68", "4", "64", "1", "2", "69", "34", "No Label", "9", "41", "42", "67"], "gold": ["9", "41", "42", "67"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 213/2012\nof 13 March 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1375/2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2011, the Council adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1375/2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (2), establishing an updated list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies.\n(2)\nThe Council has determined that there are no longer grounds for keeping certain persons on the list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies.\n(3)\nThe list of the persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies should be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be removed from the list of persons, groups and entities set out in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1375/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 March 2012.", "references": ["2", "94", "43", "21", "13", "81", "71", "44", "83", "73", "14", "60", "4", "39", "46", "97", "78", "37", "26", "62", "53", "80", "70", "27", "48", "68", "95", "36", "38", "25", "No Label", "1", "3", "11"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 1 July 2011\nrepealing Decision 2006/241/EC concerning certain protective measures with regard to certain products of animal origin, excluding fishery products, originating in Madagascar\n(notified under document C(2011) 4642)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/395/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), and in particular Article 22(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2006/241/EC of 24 March 2006 concerning certain protective measures with regard to certain products of animal origin, excluding fishery products, originating in Madagascar (2) provides that Member States are to prohibit imports of products of animal origin, excluding fishery products, snails and guano originating in Madagascar.\n(2)\nSeveral Union legal acts govern imports of products of animal origin, such as Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (3) and Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (4).\n(3)\nThe current Union legislation on imports of animal origin ensures that only products of animal origin compliant with that legislation may be imported into the Union from Madagascar.\n(4)\nAccordingly, Decision 2006/241/EC is no longer necessary and should be repealed.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2006/241/EC is repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2011.", "references": ["20", "3", "41", "31", "46", "97", "2", "86", "71", "37", "56", "81", "64", "79", "60", "0", "87", "33", "17", "90", "16", "11", "82", "26", "96", "5", "62", "34", "98", "12", "No Label", "22", "23", "38", "69", "94"], "gold": ["22", "23", "38", "69", "94"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 1/2012 OF THE EU-ANDORRA JOINT COMMITTEE\nof 25 January 2012\nestablishing the list of customs security provisions provided for by Article 12b(1) of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the Principality of Andorra\n(2012/57/EU)\nTHE JOINT COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the Principality of Andorra, signed in Luxembourg on 28 June 1990 (the Agreement), and in particular Article 12b(1) thereof,\nWhereas Article 12b(1) states that the Principality of Andorra shall adopt the customs security measures applied by the Union and that a detailed list of the provisions of the Community acquis in question shall be drawn up by the Joint Committee set up under Article 17 of the Agreement,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe list of the provisions of the Community acquis to be adopted by the Principality of Andorra under Article 12b(1) of the Agreement shall be established as follows:\nCategory of customs security measures\nProvisions of Community Customs Code - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1)\nCommunity Customs Code implementing provisions - Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2)\nDeclarations prior to the entry and exit of goods\nEntry: Articles 36a to 36c\nEntry: Articles 181b to 184c\nExit: Articles 182a to 182d\nExit:\n-\nArticles 592a to 592d and 592f (customs export declaration)\n-\nArticles 842a to 842f (exit summary declaration)\nAuthorised economic operator\nArticle 5a\nArticles 14a to 14d, 14f to 14k and 14q to 14x\nCustoms security checks and security-related risk management\nArticle 13\nGeneral: Articles 4f to 4j\nEntry: Articles 184d to 184e\nExit:\n-\nArticles 592e and 592g (customs export declaration)\n-\nArticle 842d(2) (exit summary declaration)\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 25 January 2012.", "references": ["1", "37", "20", "65", "57", "2", "62", "60", "6", "82", "15", "3", "31", "79", "14", "34", "75", "12", "70", "72", "16", "95", "78", "39", "22", "54", "50", "24", "94", "5", "No Label", "8", "9", "21", "91", "97"], "gold": ["8", "9", "21", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 373/2012\nof 30 April 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 May 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 May 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 May 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 April 2012.", "references": ["9", "91", "99", "59", "87", "40", "71", "49", "44", "39", "26", "25", "48", "56", "66", "46", "73", "72", "2", "4", "24", "42", "86", "83", "67", "69", "77", "23", "89", "19", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 477/2012\nof 5 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 June 2012.", "references": ["65", "23", "86", "50", "70", "78", "27", "14", "16", "37", "92", "76", "43", "79", "93", "73", "64", "31", "62", "67", "85", "46", "1", "6", "36", "10", "80", "42", "25", "48", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 114/2012\nof 10 February 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2012/36/CFSP of 23 January 2012 (1) amending Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP (2) concerning restrictive measures against Belarus,\nHaving regard to the joint proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (3) provides for a freezing of the assets of President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus.\n(2)\nBy Decision 2012/36/CFSP, the Council decided that the freezing of funds and economic resources should be extended both to persons responsible for serious violations of human rights or the repression of civil society and democratic opposition, including in particular persons in a leading position and persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the Lukashenko regime, including in particular persons and entities providing financial or material support to the regime.\n(3)\nThis measure falls within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to give effect to it, in particular with a view to ensuring its uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 765/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 765/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following Article:\n\u2018Article 2\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annexes I, IA and IB shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annexes I, IA or IB.\n3. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited.\n4. Annex I shall consist of a list of the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies who, in accordance with point (a) of Article 2(1) of Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (4), have been identified by the Council as being responsible for the violations of international electoral standards in the Presidential elections in Belarus on 19 March 2006 and the repression of civil society and democratic opposition, or as being associated with those responsible.\n5. Annex IA shall consist of a list of the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies who, in accordance with Article 2(1)(b) of Decision 2010/639/CFSP, have been identified by the Council as being responsible for the violations of international electoral standards in the Presidential elections in Belarus on 19 December 2010 and the repression of civil society and democratic opposition, or as being associated with those responsible.\n6. Annex IB shall consist of a list of the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies who, in accordance with points (c) and (d) of Article 2(1) of Decision 2010/639/CFSP, have been identified by the Council as being either (i) responsible for serious violations of human rights or the repression of civil society and democratic opposition in Belarus, or (ii) persons or entities benefiting from or supporting the Lukashenko regime.\n(2)\nin paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 2b, in Article 3(1)(a), in Article 4a and in paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 8a, references to \u2018Annexes I and IA\u2019 are replaced by references to \u2018Annexes I, IA and IB\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe Annex to this Regulation shall be inserted as Annex IB to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["15", "30", "69", "38", "16", "46", "9", "34", "85", "77", "61", "95", "58", "66", "48", "43", "99", "70", "18", "62", "80", "2", "21", "47", "81", "59", "44", "75", "87", "65", "No Label", "0", "1", "3", "14", "91", "97"], "gold": ["0", "1", "3", "14", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 650/2010\nof 22 July 2010\nfixing the export refunds on milk and milk products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in milk and milk products, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167, 169 and 170 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that export refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nExport refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation, subject to the conditions provided for in Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 (2).\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2010.", "references": ["95", "55", "14", "10", "79", "41", "0", "63", "69", "64", "33", "27", "85", "49", "78", "28", "87", "39", "47", "74", "77", "59", "66", "58", "82", "51", "80", "84", "81", "99", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 337/2012\nof 19 April 2012\non the issue of import licences and the allocation of import rights for applications lodged during the first seven days of April 2012 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 (3) opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products originating in Brazil, Thailand and other third countries.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged in respect of Groups Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 during the first seven days of April 2012 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2012 and in respect of Group No 3 for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested.\n(3)\nThe applications for import rights lodged during the first seven days of April 2012 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2012 in respect of Group No 5 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import rights may be allocated should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2012 in respect of Groups Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 and for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 in respect of Group No 3 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\n2. The quantities for which import rights applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2012 in respect of Group No 5 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficient set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["54", "74", "37", "32", "87", "64", "72", "81", "26", "41", "13", "88", "56", "68", "50", "67", "93", "70", "15", "3", "63", "19", "1", "14", "55", "9", "25", "78", "23", "40", "No Label", "21", "22", "66", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 275/2012\nof 27 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 March 2012.", "references": ["95", "70", "28", "72", "58", "39", "89", "13", "98", "23", "92", "44", "84", "88", "85", "18", "8", "59", "67", "26", "1", "63", "91", "25", "6", "43", "78", "29", "11", "41", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1146/2011\nof 9 November 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in NAFO 3M by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2011.", "references": ["51", "8", "48", "32", "23", "14", "65", "6", "25", "85", "16", "98", "53", "55", "80", "72", "27", "63", "60", "37", "76", "2", "40", "88", "7", "5", "41", "50", "74", "86", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 37/2012\nof 18 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2012.", "references": ["9", "63", "89", "29", "60", "66", "54", "14", "55", "72", "94", "59", "23", "69", "67", "6", "65", "47", "62", "95", "8", "97", "40", "1", "27", "53", "7", "57", "58", "46", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 965/2010\nof 25 October 2010\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of sodium gluconate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019), after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Provisional measures\n(1)\nThe Commission by Regulation (EU) No 377/2010 (2) (the \u2018provisional Regulation\u2019) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of dry sodium gluconate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018China\u2019 or \u2018country concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nIt is recalled that the proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing 100 % of the total Union production.\n(3)\nAs set out in recital 13 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). With respect to the trends relevant for the injury assessment, the Commission analysed data covering the period from 1 January 2005 to the end of the IP (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n1.2. Subsequent procedure\n(4)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (\u2018provisional disclosure\u2019), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. To this end verification visits were carried out at the following companies:\nProducers in the Union:\n-\nRoquette GmbH, Germany,\n-\nRoquette UK, United Kingdom.\n(5)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of dry sodium gluconate originating in China and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (\u2018final disclosure\u2019). They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.\n(6)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and, where appropriate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly.\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(7)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the product concerned or the like product, recitals 14 to 17 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. DUMPING\n3.1. Market economy treatment (MET)\n(8)\nThe Union industry (UI) reiterated its reservations on the MET granted to the Chinese exporting producer, Shandong Kaison Biochemical, without providing any new elements to support them.\n(9)\nThe UI further claimed, without providing any evidence, that the raw materials used to produce dry sodium gluconate in China were exempt from VAT and that the buyer could be reimbursed a \u2018virtual VAT\u2019 of 13 % to 17 % on their purchases. In this regard, it was found that to produce dry sodium gluconate, the raw material (cornstarch) was purchased from several industrial suppliers that process the corn (agricultural product) into cornstarch. Furthermore, the prices of cornstarch in major regions of the world were examined and there were no indications that Chinese users of cornstarch obtained the product at favourable prices. In addition, several purchase invoices for cornstarch were checked and all of them carried VAT. In addition, there was no evidence that \u2018virtual VAT\u2019 was reimbursed on purchases. These claims were therefore rejected.\n(10)\nIn the absence of any other comments with regard to MET, recitals 18 to 21 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.2. Individual treatment (IT)\n(11)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to individual treatment (IT), recitals 22 to 25 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.3. Normal value\n3.3.1. Analogue country\n(12)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the analogue country, recitals 26 to 32 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.3.2. Methodology applied for the determination of the normal value\n3.3.2.1. For the company granted MET\n(13)\nIt should be clarified that, as a result of applying the methodology described in recitals 33 to 38 of the provisional Regulation, the normal value was not based on the actual domestic price of all transactions, as stated in recital 39 of that Regulation, but only on the profitable sales since the volume of profitable sales represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume.\n(14)\nIn the absence of any other comments with regard to the methodology for the determination of the normal value for the company granted MET, recitals 33 to 38 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.3.2.2. For the company granted IT\n(15)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the method for calculating the normal value for the company granted IT, recitals 40 and 41 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.4. Export price\n(16)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the determination of the export price, recital 42 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n3.5. Comparison\n(17)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the comparison of the normal value and the export price, recitals 43 and 44 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.6. Dumping Margins\n(18)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the dumping margins, recitals 45 to 50 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(19)\nThe definitive weighted average dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:\nTable 1\nCompany\nDefinitive dumping margin\nShandong Kaison Biochemical Co., Ltd\n5,6 %\nQingdao Kehai Biochemistry Co. Ltd\n51,1 %\nAll other companies\n79,2 %\n4. INJURY\n4.1. Definition of the Union industry and Union production\n(20)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the definition of the Union industry and Union production, recitals 51 to 53 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4.2. Union consumption\n(21)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning Union consumption, recitals 54 to 55 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4.3. Imports into the Union from China\n(22)\nIt is noted that, as mentioned below in recital 34 of this Regulation, subsequent to the imposition of provisional measures, there were some minor corrections in the Union industry\u2019s sales value. However, these had no impact on the undercutting margins as set out in recital 59 of the provisional Regulation. Therefore recitals 56 to 59 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4.4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(23)\nFurther to provisional disclosure one Chinese exporting producer contested the provisional findings claiming that some of the main injury indicators showed a positive development between 2008 and the IP.\n(24)\nIt should first of all be noted that while certain injury indicators showed a somewhat positive development between 2008 and the IP (e.g. production volume, market share and investments), other indicators showed negative developments (e.g. sales volumes and prices, as well as profitability). In this regard, it is noted that Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation provides that no one or more of the injury indicators is decisive in assessing whether the Union industry suffered material injury.\n(25)\nIn addition, the period under consideration covers the period between 2005 and the end of the IP. During this period most injury indicators clearly showed a negative development resulting in material injury during the IP. The somewhat positive development of certain injury indicators in the last year of this period did not undermine the finding of material injury.\n(26)\nSubsequent to the imposition of provisional measures, the replies to the questionnaire of two other sales branches of the Union industry were verified at their premises, as mentioned above in recital 4.\n(27)\nAs result of these verifications, some minor adjustments were made to the total value of sales in the domestic market and to the cost of production. The profitability figure was also accordingly slightly amended. However, these changes did not have an impact on the trends and indexes in prices and profitability as provisionally established in recitals 66 and 68 as well as Tables 5 and 7 of the provisional Regulation.\n(28)\nTherefore the conclusions reached at provisional stage, i.e. that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, are confirmed and recitals 60 to 79 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5. CAUSALITY\n(29)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning causality, recitals 80 to 96 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6. UNION INTEREST\n(30)\nOne cooperating user claimed that any increase in costs could not be easily passed on to final customers; therefore duties would have a significant impact on its profitability.\n(31)\nHowever, the investigation revealed that this user made high profit margins both overall and on a wide range of its products. For most of the products produced by this user, the expected cost increase was found not to be significant due to the small part of dry sodium gluconate in the total production cost and it was considered that, overall, the expected cost increase could be absorbed without significantly affecting the overall profitability. The user in question did not submit any further evidence or information supporting its claim. Therefore this claim had to be rejected.\n(32)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the Union interest, recitals 97 to 107 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n7. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n7.1. Injury elimination level\n(33)\nFor the determination of the non-injurious price at definitive stage, the same methodology was used as the one described in recitals 111 to 113 of the provisional Regulation.\n(34)\nHowever, as mentioned above in recital 27, the verification of additional data of the Union industry led to minor corrections in the value of total domestic sales, total cost of production and profitability.\n(35)\nIn the absence of any other comments that would alter the conclusion regarding the injury elimination level, recitals 108 to 113 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n7.2. Definitive measures\n(36)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of dry sodium gluconate originating in China at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(37)\nThe proposed definitive anti-dumping duty rates are the following:\nTable 2\nName\nInjury Margin\nDumping Margin\nDefinitive duty\nShandong Kaison Biochemical Co. Ltd, Wulian County, Rizhao City\n29,7 %\n5,6 %\n5,6 %\nQingdao Kehai Biochemistry Co. Ltd, Jiaonan City\n27,1 %\n51,1 %\n27,1 %\nAll other companies\n53,2 %\n79,2 %\n53,2 %\n(38)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the country concerned and produced by the companies mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(39)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (3) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be accordingly amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(40)\nIn order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the countrywide duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.\n7.3. Definitive collection of provisional duties\n(41)\nIn view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation should be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the definitive duties imposed. Where the definitive duties are lower than the provisional duties, amounts provisionally secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released.\n7.4. Special monitoring\n(42)\nIn order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in the duty rates, it is considered that special measures are needed in this case to ensure the proper application of the anti-dumping duties. These special measures include the following.\n(43)\nThe presentation to the Customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all other producers.\n(44)\nShould the exports by the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances and provided the conditions are met, an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rates and the consequent imposition of a countrywide duty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of dry sodium gluconate, with a Customs Union and Statistics (CUS) number 0023277-9 and a Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number 527-07-1, currently falling within CN code ex 2918 16 00 (TARIC code 2918160010) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nAnti-Dumping duty rate (%)\nTARIC additional codes\nShandong Kaison Biochemical Co., Ltd, Wulian County, Rizhao City\n5,6\nA972\nQingdao Kehai Biochemistry Co. Ltd, Jiaonan City\n27,1\nA973\nAll other companies\n53,2\nA999\n3. The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the duty rate applicable to all other companies shall apply.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThe amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 377/2010 on imports of dry sodium gluconate with a Customs Union and Statistics (CUS) number 0023277-9 and a Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number 527-07-1, currently falling within CN code ex 2918 16 00 (TARIC code 2918160010), and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China shall be definitely collected at the rate of the definitive duty imposed pursuant to Article 1. The amounts secured in excess of the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty shall be released.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 October 2010.", "references": ["94", "99", "33", "3", "10", "27", "72", "92", "40", "49", "32", "98", "57", "59", "79", "84", "76", "19", "61", "71", "77", "58", "70", "89", "30", "31", "4", "52", "7", "15", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 624/2012\nof 11 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 July 2012.", "references": ["89", "78", "44", "60", "48", "50", "19", "87", "90", "25", "31", "14", "72", "4", "65", "51", "84", "1", "63", "17", "26", "53", "69", "24", "92", "79", "71", "9", "83", "16", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 2/2011\nof 3 January 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1253/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 January 2011.", "references": ["16", "81", "29", "8", "52", "57", "69", "2", "5", "18", "24", "77", "66", "98", "43", "61", "70", "15", "73", "40", "60", "51", "80", "88", "58", "25", "4", "74", "92", "27", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 311/2012\nof 21 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 implementing Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards elements related to prospectuses and advertisements\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (1), and in particular Article 7(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 (2) requires third country issuers to prepare the historical financial information in prospectuses for offer of securities to the public or the admission of securities to trading on a regulated market in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) or with the national accounting standards of a third country provided they are equivalent to these standards.\n(2)\nIn order to assess the equivalence of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) of a third country with adopted IFRS, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1569/2007 (3) provides for the definition of equivalence and establishes a mechanism for the determination of equivalence of the GAAP of a third country. According to the conditions of the equivalence mechanism, third country issuers could be permitted to use the GAAP of third countries which were converging or committed to adopt IFRS for a transitional period ending on 31 December 2011. It is important to assess the efforts of those countries which have taken steps to converge their accounting standards to or adopt IFRS. Therefore, Regulation (EC) No 1569/2007 has been amended to extend this transitional period until 31 December 2014. The Commission took account of the report provided by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in November 2010 on China, Canada, India, and South Korea, which had received a transitional period by Commission Decision 2008/961/EC of 12 December 2008 on the use by third countries\u2019 issuers of securities of certain third country\u2019s national accounting standards and International Financial Reporting Standards to prepare their consolidated financial statements (4) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1289/2008 of 12 December 2008 amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 implementing Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards elements related to prospectuses and advertisements (5), as well as the updates on China and India from April 2011.\n(3)\nIn April 2010 the Ministry of Finance of China issued a \u2018Roadmap for Continuing Convergence of the Accounting Standards for Business Enterprises with IFRS\u2019 (ASBE) which reiterated China\u2019s commitment to continue the process of convergence to IFRS. As of October 2010 all current standards and interpretations issued by International Accounting Standards Board have been implemented in the ASBE. The level of convergence has been reported by ESMA as being satisfactory and the differences do not amount to non-compliance with IFRS. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the Chinese ASBE equivalent to adopted IFRS as of 1 January 2012.\n(4)\nThe Accounting Standards Board of Canada made a public commitment in January 2006 to adopt IFRS by 31 December 2011. It has approved the incorporation of IFRS into the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants Handbook as Canadian GAAP for all publicly accountable profit-oriented enterprises starting in 2011. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the Canadian GAAP equivalent to adopted IFRS as of 1 January 2012.\n(5)\nThe Korean Financial Supervisory Commission and the Korean Accounting Institute made a public commitment in March 2007 to adopt IFRS by 31 December 2011. The Korean Accounting Standards Board has adopted IFRS as Korean IFRS (K-IFRS). K-IFRS are identical to IFRS and are required for all listed companies in South Korea since 2011. Unlisted financial institutions and state-owned companies are also required to apply K-IFRS. Other unlisted companies may choose to do so. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the GAAP of South Korea equivalent to adopted IFRS as of 1 January 2012.\n(6)\nThe Indian Government and the Indian Institute of Chartered Accountants made a public commitment in July 2007 to adopt IFRS by 31 December 2011 with the aim that Indian GAAP would be fully IFRS compliant by the end of the programme. However, following an on-the-spot investigation in January 2011, ESMA observed that the Indian GAAP appear to have a number of differences from IFRS which could be significant in practice. Uncertainties remain about the timetable for the implementation of an IFRS-compliant reporting system. As there are no issuers in India who have taken advantage of the voluntary early application of IFRS, there is no experience regarding IFRS enforcement.\n(7)\nAccordingly, it is appropriate to extend the transitional period for no more than 3 years, until 31 December 2014, in order to allow third country issuers to prepare their annual and half-yearly financial statements in accordance with the GAAP of India in the Union.\n(8)\nSince the transitional period for which equivalence was granted to the GAAP of China, Canada, South-Korea and India under Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 expired on 31 December 2011, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2012. This is necessary in order to provide legal certainty to issuers from these third countries listed in the Union and avoid the risk that they might have to reconcile their financial statements with IFRS. The provision of retroactivity thus alleviates any potential additional burden on the issuers concerned.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 809/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 35 of Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin paragraph 5, the second subparagraph is added:\n\u2018In addition to standards referred to in the first subparagraph, from 1 January 2012, third country issuers may present their historical financial information in accordance with the following standards:\n(a)\nGenerally Accepted Accounting Principles of the People\u2019s Republic of China;\n(b)\nGenerally Accepted Accounting Principles of Canada;\n(c)\nGenerally Accepted Accounting Principles of the Republic of Korea.\u2019\n(2)\nparagraph 5a is replaced by the following:\n\u20185a. Third country issuers are not subject to a requirement, under Annex I, item 20.1; Annex IV, item 13.1; Annex VII, item 8.2; Annex X, item 20.1 or Annex XI, item 11.1, to restate historical financial information, included in a prospectus and relevant for the financial years prior to financial years starting on or after 1 January 2015, or to a requirement under Annex VII, item 8.2.bis; Annex IX, item 11.1; or Annex X, item 20.1.bis, to provide a narrative description of the differences between International Financial Reporting Standards adopted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 and the accounting principles in accordance with which such information is drawn up relating to the financial years prior to financial years starting on or after 1 January 2015, provided that the historical financial information is prepared in accordance with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of the Republic of India.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["87", "18", "37", "22", "0", "79", "33", "69", "83", "9", "27", "75", "58", "48", "3", "73", "24", "72", "98", "19", "81", "42", "88", "17", "62", "53", "5", "59", "89", "2", "No Label", "4", "30", "41", "47", "93", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "30", "41", "47", "93", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 172/2011\nof 23 February 2011\nfixing for 2011 the amount of aid in advance for private storage of butter\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(a) and (d), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides for the granting of private storage aid for butter.\n(2)\nDevelopments in prices and stocks of butter indicate an imbalance in the market which may be eliminated or reduced by the seasonal storage. In view of the current market situation, it is appropriate to grant aid for private storage of butter as from 1 March 2011.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 of 20 August 2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products (2) has established common rules for the implementation of a private storage aid scheme.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008, aid fixed in advance is to be granted in accordance with the detailed rules and conditions provided for in Chapter III of that Regulation.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 the aid should be fixed in the light of storage costs and the likely trends in prices for fresh butter and butter from stocks.\n(6)\nIt is appropriate to fix aid for the costs for entry and exit of the products concerned and for daily costs for cold storage and financing.\n(7)\nTo facilitate the implementation of the present measure and taking into consideration the existing practice in the Member States, the aid should relate only to products that have been fully placed into storage. Consequently, a derogation from Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 should be provided for.\n(8)\nFor reasons of administrative efficiency and simplification, where the required information concerning storage details are already included in the application for aid, it is appropriate to waive the request to notify the same information after the conclusion of the contract as provided for in point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008.\n(9)\nFor reasons of simplification and logistic efficiency, Member States should be allowed to waive the requirement to mark the contract number on each unit stored where the contracts number is entered in the stores register.\n(10)\nFor reasons of administrative efficiency and simplification, taking into account the particular situation for butter storage, the checks provided for in Article 36(6) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 should be carried out in respect of at least one half of the contracts. Consequently, a derogation from that Article should be provided for.\n(11)\nThe amount of aid applicable to private storage of butter for 2010 has been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 158/2010 (3). Since a new amount is to be fixed for 2011, that Regulation should be repealed for reasons of clarity. For the same reasons, this Regulation should expire on the final date laid down for the end of contractual storage.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. This Regulation provides for private storage aid for salted and unsalted butter as referred to in Article 28(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for contracts concluded from 1 March 2011.\n2. Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 shall apply save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe unit of measurement referred to in Article 16(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 is the \u2018storage lot\u2019 which corresponds to the quantity of the product covered by this Regulation, weighing at least 1 tonne and of homogeneous composition and quality, produced in a single factory, taken into storage in a single warehouse on a single day.\nArticle 3\n1. By way of derogation from Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008, applications shall only relate to products that have been fully placed into storage.\n2. Point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 shall not apply.\n3. Member States may waive the requirements referred to in Article 22(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 to mark the contract number provided that the store manager undertakes to enter the contract number in the register referred to in point III of Annex I to that Regulation.\n4. By way of derogation from Article 36(6) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008, at the end of the contractual storage period, the authority responsible for checking shall, throughout the whole removal period from August 2011 to February 2012, in respect of at least one half of the number of contracts, by sampling, verify weight and identification of the butter in storage.\nArticle 4\n1. The aid for the products referred in Article 1 shall be:\n-\n18,06 EUR per tonne of storage for fixed storage costs,\n-\n0,35 EUR per tonne per day of contractual storage.\n2. Entry into contractual storage shall take place between 1 March and 15 August 2011. Removal from store may take place only as from 16 August 2011. Contractual storage shall end on the day preceding that of the removal from storage or at the latest the last day of February following the year of entry into store.\n3. Aid may be granted only where the contractual storage period is between 90 and 210 days.\nArticle 5\nMember States shall notify the Commission each Tuesday by 12 noon (Brussels time) of the quantities for which contracts have been concluded as required under Article 35(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008, as well as of the quantities of products for which applications to conclude contracts have been submitted.\nArticle 6\nRegulation (EU) No 158/2010 is repealed.\nArticle 7\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 29 February 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2011.", "references": ["37", "29", "88", "55", "10", "51", "74", "36", "11", "49", "77", "68", "87", "84", "50", "17", "66", "44", "6", "52", "0", "98", "95", "78", "18", "39", "93", "9", "32", "13", "No Label", "15", "26", "62", "70"], "gold": ["15", "26", "62", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 9 March 2012\nappointing a Lithuanian member and two Lithuanian alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/146/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Lithuanian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Vytas APUTIS. Two alternate members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Gintautas BABRAVI\u010cIUS and Mr Viktor TROFIMOV,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas member:\n-\nMr Audrius BIELSKUS, Kazl\u0173 R\u016bdos savivaldyb\u0117s tarybos narys;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMr Vincas KAPO\u010cIUS, Trak\u0173 rajono savivaldyb\u0117s tarybos narys (meras),\n-\nMr Viktoras TROFIMOVAS, Panev\u0117\u017eio miesto savivaldyb\u0117s tarybos narys (change of mandate).\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2012.", "references": ["42", "56", "40", "54", "53", "93", "58", "47", "87", "20", "8", "17", "19", "3", "34", "1", "23", "81", "78", "5", "62", "89", "27", "49", "96", "30", "51", "84", "22", "35", "No Label", "7", "91"], "gold": ["7", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 517/2011\nof 25 May 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a Union target for the reduction of the prevalence of certain Salmonella serotypes in laying hens of Gallus gallus and amending Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 200/2010\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the control of Salmonella and other specified food-borne zoonotic agents (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 4(1), and Article 13(1), thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe purpose of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 is to ensure that measures are taken to detect and control Salmonella and other zoonotic agents at all relevant stages of production, processing and distribution, particularly at the level of primary production, in order to reduce their prevalence and the risk they pose to public health.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 2160/2003 provides for Union targets to be established for the reduction of the prevalence of the zoonoses and zoonotic agents listed in Annex I thereto in the animal populations listed therein. It also lays down certain requirements for those targets. Such reduction is important in view of the strict measures which have to be applied to infected flocks in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003. In particular, eggs originating from flocks with unknown Salmonella status, that are suspected of being infected or from infected flocks, may be used for human consumption only if treated in a manner that guarantees the elimination of Salmonella serotypes with public health significance in accordance with Union legislation on food hygiene.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 refers to all Salmonella serotypes with public health significance in laying flocks of Gallus gallus. Those laying flocks may spread Salmonella infection via their eggs to the consumer. Therefore, a reduction in the prevalence of Salmonella in laying flocks contributes to the control of that zoonotic agent in eggs, which is an important public health risk.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1168/2006 of 31 July 2006 implementing Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 as regards a Community target for the reduction of the prevalence of certain Salmonella serotypes in laying hens of Gallus gallus and amending Regulation (EC) No 1003/2005 (2) provides for a Union target for the reduction of the prevalence of Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium in adult laying hens of Gallus gallus. The Union target for each Member State is an annual minimum percentage of reduction of positive flocks of adult laying hens by 10 to 40 % depending on the prevalence in the preceding year. Alternatively, a reduction of the maximum percentage to 2 % or less.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 2160/2003 provides that experience gained under existing national measures and information forwarded to the Commission or to the European Food Safety Authority (\u2018EFSA\u2019) under existing Union requirements, in particular in the framework of information provided for in Directive 2003/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic agents, amending Council Decision 90/424/EEC and repealing Council Directive 92/117/EEC (3), and in particular Article 5 thereof, is to be taken into account when setting the Union target.\n(6)\nThe Community Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food-borne Outbreaks in the European Union in 2008 (4) showed that Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium are the serovars most frequently associated with human illness. Human cases caused by S. Enteritidis decreased markedly in 2008, while an increase in S. Typhimurium cases was observed. In accordance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003, the EFSA has been consulted on the setting of a permanent Union target for laying flocks of Gallus gallus.\n(7)\nOn 10 March 2010, the Panel on Biological Hazards of EFSA adopted on a request from the Commission a Scientific Opinion on a quantitative estimation of the public health impact of setting a new target for the reduction of Salmonella in laying hens (5). It concludes that Salmonella Enteritidis is the most successful vertically transmitted zoonotic Salmonella serotype in poultry. It also concludes that Union control measures in laying hens have successfully contributed to the control of Salmonella infections in production stock and to the reduction of human health risks from poultry.\n(8)\nMonophasic strains of Salmonella Typhimurium have rapidly become one of the most commonly found Salmonella serotypes in several species of animals and in clinical isolates of humans. According to the Scientific Opinion on monitoring and assessment of the public health risk of \u2018Salmonella Typhimurium-like strains\u2019 (6), adopted by the Panel on Biological Hazards of EFSA on 22 September 2010, monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium strains with the antigenic formula 1,4,[5],12:i:- are considered as variants of Salmonella Typhimurium and pose a public health risk comparable to that of other Salmonella Typhimurium strains.\n(9)\nAccordingly, for the purposes of clarity of Union legislation, it is appropriate to amend Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 200/2010 of 10 March 2010 implementing Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a Union target for the reduction of the prevalence of Salmonella serotypes in adult breeding flocks of Gallus gallus (7) in order to provide that Salmonella Typhimurium include monophasic strains with the antigenic formula 1,4,[5],12:i:-.\n(10)\nTaking into account the Scientific Opinion of 22 September 2010 and considering that more time is needed to assess the trend of Salmonella in flocks after the introduction of national control programmes, it is appropriate to provide for a Union target for the reduction of Salmonella in adult laying flocks of Gallus gallus similar to the Union target provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1168/2006.\n(11)\nIn order to ascertain progress in the achievement of the Union target, it is necessary to provide for repeated sampling of flocks of adult laying hens of Gallus gallus.\n(12)\nThe technical amendments introduced in the Annex to this Regulation are directly applicable and harmonised in Member States, therefore possible adaptations of national control programmes in accordance with this Regulation do not require reapproval by the Commission.\n(13)\nNational control programmes for the achievement of the Union target for 2011 for flocks of adult laying hens of Gallus gallus have been submitted for Union co-financing in accordance with Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (8). Those programmes were based on Regulation (EC) No 1168/2006 and approved in accordance with Commission Decision 2010/712/EU of 23 November 2010 approving annual and multiannual programmes and the financial contribution from the Union for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses presented by the Member States for 2011 and following years (9).\n(14)\nRegulation (EC) No 1168/2006 should be repealed and replaced by this Regulation. The technical provisions in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1168/2006 achieve the same results as the Annex to this Regulation. Therefore, Member States would be able to apply the latter immediately without the need of a transitional period.\n(15)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nTarget\n1. The Union target referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 for the reduction of the prevalence of Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium in adult laying hens of Gallus gallus (\u2018Union target\u2019) shall be as follows:\n(a)\nan annual minimum percentage of reduction of positive flocks of adult laying hens equal to at least:\n(i)\n10 % where the prevalence in the preceding year was less than 10 %;\n(ii)\n20 % where the prevalence in the preceding year was more than or equal to 10 % and less than 20 %;\n(iii)\n30 % where the prevalence in the preceding year was more than or equal to 20 % and less than 40 %;\n(iv)\n40 % where the prevalence in the preceding year was more than or equal to 40 %;\nor\n(b)\na reduction of the maximum percentage equal to 2 % or less of positive flocks of adult laying hens; however, for Member States with less than 50 flocks of adult laying hens, not more than one adult flock may remain positive.\nThe Union target shall be achieved every year based on the monitoring of the previous year. As regards the target to be achieved in 2011, the results of the year 2010 based on the monitoring carried out in accordance with Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1168/2006 shall be used as reference.\nAs regards monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium, serotypes with the antigenic formula 1,4,[5],12:i:- shall be included in the Union target.\n2. The testing scheme necessary to verify progress on the achievement of the Union target is set out in the Annex (\u2018testing scheme\u2019).\nArticle 2\nReview of the Union target\nThe Union target shall be reviewed by the Commission taking into account the information collected in accordance with the testing scheme and the criteria laid down in Article 4(6)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003.\nArticle 3\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003\nIn Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003, in Part C, the following subparagraph is inserted:\n\u20186.\nAll references in this section to \u2018Salmonella Typhimurium\u2019 shall also include monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium with the antigenic formula 1,4,[5],12:i:-,\u2019.\nArticle 4\nAmendment to Regulation (EU) No 200/2010\nIn Article 1(1), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. From 1 January 2010, the Union target, as referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003, for the reduction of Salmonella spp. in breeding flocks of Gallus gallus (\u201cthe Union target\u201d) shall be a reduction to 1 % or less of the maximum percentage of adult breeding flocks of Gallus gallus remaining positive for Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonella Infantis, Salmonella Hadar, Salmonella Typhimurium, including monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium with the antigenic formula 1,4,[5],12:i:-, and Salmonella Virchow (the relevant Salmonella serotypes).\u2019.\nArticle 5\nRepeal of Regulation (EC) No 1168/2006\nRegulation (EC) No 1168/2006 is repealed.\nReferences to Regulation (EC) No 1168/2006 shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 6\nEntry into force and applicability\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2011.", "references": ["70", "95", "67", "97", "28", "89", "37", "72", "46", "64", "0", "77", "94", "55", "75", "93", "76", "25", "21", "82", "18", "23", "99", "49", "41", "5", "96", "53", "86", "79", "No Label", "38", "58", "61", "66"], "gold": ["38", "58", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 726/2012\nof 6 August 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 August 2012.", "references": ["18", "64", "85", "43", "26", "50", "90", "23", "73", "4", "53", "71", "58", "61", "46", "8", "44", "5", "54", "45", "28", "25", "13", "62", "14", "88", "6", "59", "30", "83", "No Label", "21", "86", "87"], "gold": ["21", "86", "87"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 May 2011\nestablishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organization on the accession of the Republic of Vanuatu to the World Trade Organization\n(2011/287/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91, Article 100(2) and Article 207, in conjunction with Article 218(9), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 7 July 1995 the Government of the Republic of Vanuatu applied for accession to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO), pursuant to Article XII of that Agreement.\n(2)\nA Working Party on Vanuatu\u2019s accession was established on 11 July 1995 in order to reach agreement on terms of accession acceptable to the Republic of Vanuatu and all WTO Members.\n(3)\nThe Commission, on behalf of the Union, negotiated a comprehensive series of market opening commitments on the part of the Republic of Vanuatu which are of particular importance to the Union.\n(4)\nThese commitments are now embodied in the Protocol of Accession of the Republic of Vanuatu to the WTO.\n(5)\nAccession to the WTO is expected to make a positive and lasting contribution to the process of economic reform and sustainable development in the Republic of Vanuatu.\n(6)\nThe Protocol of Accession should therefore be approved.\n(7)\nArticle XII of the Agreement establishing the WTO provides that the terms of accession are to be agreed between the acceding Member and the WTO, and that the Ministerial Conference of the WTO approves the terms of accession on the WTO side. Article IV.2 of the Agreement establishing the WTO provides that in the intervals between meetings of the Ministerial Conference, its functions shall be conducted by the General Council.\n(8)\nAccordingly, it is necessary to establish the position to be taken by the Union within the General Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the General Council of the WTO on the accession of the Republic of Vanuatu to the WTO, is to approve the accession.\nArticle 2\nThis decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 May 2011.", "references": ["2", "26", "69", "51", "0", "53", "57", "1", "99", "34", "77", "30", "75", "82", "39", "68", "71", "79", "59", "46", "63", "35", "32", "47", "98", "29", "44", "40", "92", "66", "No Label", "3", "9", "95"], "gold": ["3", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 758/2010\nof 24 August 2010\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance valnemulin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the European Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nValnemulin is currently included in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as an allowed substance for porcine, applicable to muscle, liver and kidney.\n(4)\nAn application for the extension of the existing entry for valnemulin to include rabbits has been submitted to the European Medicines Agency.\n(5)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use has recommended the extension of that entry to cover rabbits, applicable to muscle, liver and kidney.\n(6)\nThe entry for valnemulin in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to include rabbits.\n(7)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period of time for the stakeholders concerned to take measures that may be required to comply with the newly set MRL.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 24 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 August 2010.", "references": ["50", "48", "62", "68", "28", "90", "16", "56", "40", "85", "70", "97", "63", "49", "6", "67", "3", "52", "93", "78", "53", "92", "11", "81", "39", "45", "22", "51", "23", "34", "No Label", "7", "24", "38", "69", "72"], "gold": ["7", "24", "38", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 185/2011\nof 25 February 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 499/96 as regards tariff quotas of the Union for certain fish and fishery products and live horses originating in Iceland\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 499/96 of 19 March 1996 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for certain fishery products and live horses originating in Iceland (1), and in particular Article 5(1)(a) and (b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn 2009, negotiations were concluded for an Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland concerning special provisions applicable for the period 2009-2014 to imports into the European Union of certain fish and fishery products, hereinafter \u2018the Additional Protocol\u2019.\n(2)\nThe signing, on behalf of the European Union, and the provisional application of the Additional Protocol has been authorised by Council Decision 2010/674/EU of 26 July 2010 on the signing and provisional application of an Agreement between the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway on an EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014, an Agreement between the European Union and Norway on a Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009-2014, an Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Iceland concerning special provisions applicable to imports into the European Union of certain fish and fishery products 2009-2014 and an Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Norway concerning special provisions applicable to imports into the European Union of certain fish and fishery products 2009-2014 (2).\n(3)\nThe Additional Protocol provides for new annual duty-free tariff quotas at import into the European Union of certain fish and fishery products originating in Iceland.\n(4)\nIn accordance with the Additional Protocol, the volumes of the duty-free tariff quotas for the first 12-month period from 1 May 2009 to 30 April 2010 will be allocated to the second tariff quota period. Furthermore, unused volumes of the tariff quotas for some products for the tariff quota period 1 March 2011 to 30 April 2011 should be carried over to the corresponding tariff quotas for the period 1 May 2011 to 30 April 2012.\n(5)\nIn order to implement the tariff quotas provided for in the Additional Protocol, it is necessary to amend Regulation (EC) No 499/96.\n(6)\nIt is necessary to replace the current reference in Regulation (EC) No 499/96 to free-at-frontier prices by a reference to the declared customs value in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (3), and to provide that in order to qualify for the preferences laid down in the Additional Protocol, that value must at least be equal to any reference price fixed or to be fixed in accordance with the same Regulation.\n(7)\nProtocol 3 of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland defining the concept of originating products and setting out the arrangements for administrative cooperation has been amended by Decision No 2/2005 of the EC-Iceland Joint Committee of 22 December 2005 (4). It is therefore necessary to provide explicitly that Protocol 3 as amended in 2005 is to apply.\n(8)\nWithin the agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products undertaken on the basis of Article 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, attached to Council Decision 2007/138/EC (5), the bilateral trade in live horses was liberalised between the European Union and Iceland for unlimited quantities. Therefore the tariff quota laid down in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 499/96 for live horses is redundant.\n(9)\nFor reasons of clarity and to take account of the amendments of the Combined Nomenclature Codes, laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (6), and of the TARIC subdivisions, it is appropriate to replace the complete Annex to Regulation (EC) No 499/96.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 499/96 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Decision 2010/674/EU the new tariff quotas for certain fish and fishery products have to apply from 1 March 2011. This Regulation should therefore apply from the same date.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 499/96 is amended as follows:\n1.\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n\u2018opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas of the Union for certain fish and fishery products originating in Iceland\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\n1. When products originating in Iceland listed in the Annex are put into free circulation in the European Union, they shall be eligible for exemption of customs duties within the limits of the tariff quotas, during the periods and in accordance with the provisions set out in this Regulation.\n2. Imports of the fish and fishery products listed in the Annex shall qualify for the tariff quotas referred to in paragraph 1 only if the declared customs value is at least equal to the reference price fixed, or to be fixed, in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (7).\n3. Protocol 3 of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland defining the concept of originating products and setting out the arrangements for administrative cooperation, as last amended by Decision No 2/2005 of the EC-Iceland Joint Committee of 22 December 2005 (8) shall apply.\n4. The benefit of the tariff quotas with order numbers 09.0792 and 09.0812 shall not be granted for goods declared for release for free circulation during the period 15 February to 15 June.\n3.\nin Article 2, the second paragraph, is replaced by the following:\n\u2018However, Article 308c(2) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 shall not apply to the tariff quotas with order numbers 09.0810, 09.0811 and 09.0812.\u2019;\n4.\nArticle 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\nWhere the tariff quotas with order numbers 09.0810, 09.0811 and 09.0812 will not be fully exhausted for the tariff quota period from 1 March 2011 to 30 April 2011, the remaining volume shall be carried over to the corresponding tariff quotas for the period 1 May 2011 to 30 April 2012.\nFor this purpose drawings on the tariff quotas applicable from 1 March 2011 to 30 April 2011 shall be stopped on the second working day in the Commission following 1 September 2011. On the following working day, the unused balances of these tariff quotas shall be made available under the corresponding tariff quota applicable from 1 May 2011 to 30 April 2012.\nFrom the second working day in the Commission following 1 September 2011 no retroactive drawings and no returns shall be possible on the particular tariff quotas applicable from 1 March 2011 to 30 April 2011.\u2019;\n5.\nthe Annex is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 February 2011.", "references": ["47", "3", "52", "14", "75", "35", "38", "41", "33", "57", "86", "25", "4", "31", "45", "5", "71", "73", "68", "88", "50", "13", "46", "93", "55", "15", "92", "80", "26", "18", "No Label", "21", "23", "65", "66", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "23", "65", "66", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 277/2012\nof 28 March 2012\namending Annexes I and II to Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum levels and action thresholds for dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed (1), and in particular Article 8(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2002/32/EC provides that the use of products intended for animal feed which contain levels of undesirable substances exceeding the maximum levels laid down in Annex I to that Directive is prohibited. Its Annex II sets action thresholds triggering investigations in cases of increased levels of such substances.\n(2)\nDioxins as referred to in this Regulation cover a group of 75 polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxin (PCDD) congeners and 135 polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDF) congeners, of which 17 are of toxicological concern. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a group of 209 different congeners which can be divided into two groups according to their toxicological properties: 12 congeners exhibit toxicological properties similar to dioxins and are therefore often termed dioxin-like PCBs (DL-PCBs). The other PCBs do not exhibit dioxin-like toxicity but have a different toxicological profile.\n(3)\nOf the congeners of dioxins or dioxin-like PCBs which are of toxicological concern, each exhibits a different level of toxicity. In order to be able to sum up the toxicity of these different congeners, the concept of toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) has been introduced to facilitate risk assessment and regulatory control. This means that the analytical results relating to all the individual dioxin and dioxin-like PCB congeners of toxicological concern are expressed in terms of a quantifiable unit, namely the TCDD toxic equivalent (TEQ).\n(4)\nAs regards dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has suggested in 2005 new toxic equivalency factors values in comparison with the values set by WHO in 1998. At a request from the Commission the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) delivered a scientific report \u2018Results of the monitoring of dioxin levels in food and feed\u2019 (2) where those new values, as suggested by WHO, and recent information collected by the Commission are taken into account. In view of that report, it is appropriate to modify the maximum levels and the threshold values for dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs.\n(5)\nAs regards non-dioxin-like PCBs, upon a request from the Commission EFSA adopted an opinion related to the presence of non-dioxin-like PCBs in feed and food (3).\n(6)\nPolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) cover a group of 209 different PCB congeners. The sum of the six indicator PCB congeners (PCB 28, 52, 101, 138, 153 and 180) comprises about half of the amount of total non-dioxin-like PCBs (NDL-PCBs) present in feed and food. EFSA considered the sum of the six indicator PCBs an appropriate indicator for occurrence and human exposure to NDL-PCBs. Furthermore, it is unpractical and very expensive without any benefit for enforcement purposes to analyse for official control each time all 209 PCB congeners. Therefore it is appropriate to set maximum levels as sum of these 6 PCBs.\n(7)\nThe maximum levels for non-dioxin-like PCBs have been established taking into account recent occurrence data. These recent occurrence data are compiled in the EFSA scientific report \u2018Results of the monitoring of non-dioxin-like PCBs in food and feed\u2019 (4). Although it is possible to achieve a lower limit of quantification (LOQ), it can be observed that a considerable number of official control laboratories apply a LOQ of 0,5 ng/kg product or even 1 ng/kg product. Expressing the analytical result as an upper-bound level would already result in some cases in a level close to the maximum level even if no PCBs have been quantified. It was also acknowledged that for certain feed categories the data were not very extensive. Therefore it would be appropriate to review the maximum levels in three years\u2019 time based upon a more extensive database obtained with a method of analysis with sufficient sensitivity to quantify low levels.\n(8)\nCarry-over studies indicate that the presence of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs in feed at the maximum levels set in Annex I to Directive 2002/32/EC may in some cases result in food of animal origin exceeding the applicable maximum levels set by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in food (5). However, it is not possible to set lower maximum levels taking into account the sensitivity of currently available methods of analysis and the fact that the maximum levels are established as upper-bound levels. Moreover in most cases it is unlikely that an animal is exposed for a long time to a feed that is compliant but contains a level of dioxins and/or PCBs close to or at the maximum level.\n(9)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Directive 2002/32/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the date of entry into force.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 March 2012.", "references": ["27", "32", "9", "90", "97", "0", "8", "55", "61", "92", "29", "71", "65", "96", "39", "35", "6", "77", "64", "11", "22", "1", "36", "80", "62", "21", "24", "13", "2", "26", "No Label", "25", "38", "60", "66"], "gold": ["25", "38", "60", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/537/CFSP\nof 12 September 2011\namending and extending Decision 2010/576/CFSP on the European Union Police mission undertaken in the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/576/CFSP on the European Union Police mission undertaken in the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo) (1).\n(2)\nOn 28 June 2011 the Political and Security Committee (PSC) endorsed the recommendation that EUPOL RD Congo should be extended for 1 further year.\n(3)\nEUPOL RD Congo should consequently be extended until 30 September 2012.\n(4)\nIt is also necessary to lay down the financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL RD Congo for the period from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012.\n(5)\nThe Mission will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/576/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThe Mission\nThe European Union police mission undertaken in the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (hereinafter referred to as \u201cEUPOL RD Congo\u201d or \u201cthe Mission\u201d), established by Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP, shall be extended for the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2012.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nMission Statement\n1. In order to improve the maturity and sustainability of the reform process of the Congolese National Police (PNC), EUPOL RD Congo shall assist the Congolese authorities in the implementation of the Police Action Plan, covering the priorities of the Police Reform process for the period 2010-12, and building on the guidelines of the Strategic Framework. The mission will contribute to local and international efforts for the reinforcement of PNC capabilities, which are also needed in view of the security of the forthcoming elections. EUPOL RD Congo shall focus on concrete activities and projects to underpin its action at the strategic level of the reform process, on capacity building and on enhancement of the interaction between the PNC and the wider criminal justice system with a view to better supporting the fight against sexual violence and impunity. EUPOL RD Congo shall work in close coordination and cooperation with other Union, international and bilateral donors, with a view to avoiding duplication of efforts.\n2. The particular objectives of the Mission shall be:\n(a)\nto support the PNC and Ministry of Interior and Security (MIS) in the finalisation of the concepts of the Police Reform and its implementation, through operational advice, as a basic pillar of the mandate of the Mission;\n(b)\nto enhance the operational capacity of the Congolese National Police through mentoring, monitoring and advising as well as training activities, as a basic pillar of the mandate of the Mission;\n(c)\nto support the fight against impunity in the fields of human rights and sexual violence, and to reinforce the interaction of the Police and the Judiciary, as a cross-cutting horizontal component of the mandate, influencing all activities of the Mission.\n3. The Mission shall have a Project Cell for identifying and implementing projects. The Mission shall advise the Member States and third States and shall coordinate and facilitate, under their responsibility, the implementation of their projects in fields which are of interest to the Mission and in furtherance of its objectives.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 3 is deleted;\n(4)\nArticle 5(6) is deleted;\n(5)\nArticle 6(7) is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. The Head of Mission shall coordinate, as appropriate, the actions of EUPOL RD Congo with other Union actors on the ground.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 12(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Civilian Operations Commander, in coordination with the European External Action Service Security Office, shall direct the Head of Mission planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation for EUPOL RD Congo in accordance with Articles 5 and 9.\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 14(1) a second subparagraph is added as follows:\n\u2018The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the Mission for the period from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012 shall be EUR 7 150 000.\u2019;\n(8)\nin Article 18, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall apply from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2012.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2011.", "references": ["86", "14", "73", "62", "83", "96", "75", "0", "88", "25", "38", "47", "60", "45", "19", "92", "6", "35", "20", "2", "40", "87", "15", "57", "18", "34", "10", "13", "27", "28", "No Label", "4", "5", "9", "12", "94"], "gold": ["4", "5", "9", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 April 2010\nappointing one Polish member and one Polish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/247/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Polish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Tadeusz WRONA, member of the Committee of the Regions. An alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Jan BRON\u015a as a member of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas member:\n-\nMr Jan BRON\u015a, Mayor of Ole\u015bnica (change of mandate);\nand\n(b)\nas alternate member:\n-\nMr Zbigniew PODRAZA, Mayor of D\u0105browa G\u00f3rnicza.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["84", "95", "61", "69", "77", "52", "54", "39", "85", "93", "89", "40", "14", "86", "29", "80", "73", "74", "31", "36", "94", "24", "5", "23", "51", "33", "43", "67", "13", "72", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 407/2012\nof 4 May 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for mackerel in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2012.", "references": ["78", "34", "98", "54", "22", "90", "46", "74", "5", "55", "50", "2", "87", "79", "33", "38", "3", "60", "17", "69", "73", "88", "14", "18", "92", "35", "76", "39", "15", "86", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/457/CFSP\nof 2 August 2012\namending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 23(1) and (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP.\n(2)\nThe Council considers that certain persons should be removed from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and that the entries concerning certain entities should be amended.\n(3)\nFollowing the decision by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Committee established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1737 (2006), two persons and one entity should be removed from the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP and included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex I to that Decision.\n(4)\nThe lists set out in Annexes I and II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in Annex I to this Decision shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP, the entries concerning the entities referred to in Annex II to this Decision shall be replaced by the entries set out in Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThe persons and entity listed in Annex III to this Decision shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP and added to the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by the entries set out in Annex III to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2012.", "references": ["61", "29", "49", "4", "71", "39", "11", "16", "45", "51", "20", "90", "15", "79", "42", "80", "74", "22", "47", "76", "68", "96", "55", "7", "1", "91", "32", "59", "73", "57", "No Label", "3", "12", "95"], "gold": ["3", "12", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/439/CFSP\nof 11 August 2010\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 March 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/168/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Vygaudas USACKAS as European Union Special Representative (hereinafter \u2018the EUSR\u2019) in Afghanistan from 1 April 2010 until 31 August 2010.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 31 August 2011. However, the mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter \u2018the HR\u2019) following the entry into force of the Decision establishing the European External Action Service.\n(3)\nThe EUSR in Afghanistan will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Vygaudas USACKAS as the EUSR in Afghanistan is hereby extended until 31 August 2011. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the HR following the entry into force of the Decision establishing the European External Action Service.\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe EUSR shall represent the European Union (hereinafter \u2018the EU\u2019 or \u2018the Union\u2019) and promote EU policy objectives in Afghanistan, in close coordination with EU Member States\u2019 representatives in Afghanistan. More specifically, the EUSR shall:\n(a)\ncontribute to the implementation of the EU-Afghanistan Joint Declaration and lead the implementation of the EU Action Plan on Afghanistan and Pakistan, in so far as it concerns Afghanistan, thereby working with EU Member States\u2019 representatives in Afghanistan;\n(b)\nsupport the pivotal role played by the United Nations (UN) in Afghanistan with particular emphasis on contributing to better coordinated international assistance, thereby promoting the implementation of the London Conference Communiqu\u00e9, the Afghanistan Compact as well as relevant UN Resolutions.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to fulfil the mandate, the EUSR shall, in close cooperation with EU Member States\u2019 representatives in Afghanistan:\n(a)\npromote the views of the Union on the political process and developments in Afghanistan;\n(b)\nmaintain close contact with, and support the development of, relevant Afghan institutions, in particular the government and the parliament as well as the local authorities. Contact should also be maintained with other Afghan political groups and other relevant actors in Afghanistan;\n(c)\nmaintain close contact with relevant international and regional stakeholders in Afghanistan, notably the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the UN and the Senior Civilian Representative of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and other key partners and organisations;\n(d)\nadvise on the progress achieved in meeting the objectives of the EU-Afghanistan Joint Declaration, the EU Action Plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan, in so far as it relates to Afghanistan, the Afghanistan Compact and the London Conference Communiqu\u00e9, in particular in the following areas:\n-\ncivilian capacity building, notably at sub-national level,\n-\ngood governance and the establishment of institutions of the rule of law, in particular an independent judiciary,\n-\nelectoral reforms,\n-\nsecurity sector reforms, including the strengthening of judicial institutions, the national army and the police force,\n-\npromotion of growth, namely through agriculture and rural development,\n-\nrespect for Afghanistan\u2019s international human rights obligations, including respect for the rights of persons belonging to minorities and the rights of women and children,\n-\nrespect of democratic principles and the rule of law,\n-\nfostering participation by women in public administration and civil society,\n-\nrespect for Afghanistan\u2019s international obligations, including cooperation in international efforts to combat terrorism, illicit drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings and proliferation of arms and weapons of mass destruction and related materials,\n-\nfacilitation of humanitarian assistance and the orderly return of refugees and internally displaced persons, and\n-\nenhancing the effectiveness of Union presence and activities in Afghanistan and contributing to the formulation of the regular 6 monthly implementation reports on the EU Action Plan requested by the Council;\n(e)\nactively participate in local coordination forums such as the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board (JCMB), while keeping non-participating Member States fully informed of decisions taken at these levels;\n(f)\nadvise on the participation and the positions of the Union in international conferences with regard to Afghanistan and contribute to promoting regional cooperation.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (hereinafter \u2018the PSC\u2019) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011 shall be EUR 4 515 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of his mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting his team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of his team.\n2. Member States and institutions of the Union may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of personnel who are seconded by a Member State or an institution of the Union to the EUSR shall be covered by the Member State or the institution of the Union concerned respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the General Secretariat of the Council may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State or Union institution and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and his staff\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of his staff shall be agreed with the host party/parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of his team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council\u2019s security regulations (2), in particular when managing EU classified information.\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegations and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with his mandate and the security situation in his geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under his direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the General Secretariat of the Council, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as management of security incidents and a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of his team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the General Secretariat of the Council;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the HR, the Council and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report as necessary to Council working parties. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote overall Union political coordination. He shall help ensure that all Union instruments in the field are engaged coherently to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as with those of the EUSR for Central Asia and with the Union\u2019s representation in Pakistan. The EUSR shall provide Member States\u2019 missions and the Union\u2019s delegations with regular briefings.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegations and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall provide the Head of the EU Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) with local political guidance. The EUSR and the Civilian Operation Commander shall consult each other as required. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the HR, the Council and the Commission with a progress report at the end of February 2011 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["85", "32", "39", "94", "41", "47", "90", "19", "76", "65", "89", "88", "61", "72", "77", "42", "78", "70", "64", "12", "4", "96", "67", "73", "68", "86", "83", "81", "51", "40", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "95"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 994/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 20 October 2010\nconcerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Council Directive 2004/67/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 194(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving consulted the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nNatural gas (gas) is an essential component in the energy supply of the European Union, constituting one quarter of primary energy supply and contributing mainly to electricity generation, heating, feedstock for industry and fuel for transportation.\n(2)\nGas consumption in Europe has increased rapidly during the last 10 years. With decreasing domestic production, gas imports have increased even more rapidly, thus creating a higher import dependence and the need to address security of gas supply aspects. In addition, some Member States find themselves on a gas island as a result of an absence of infrastructure connections with the rest of the Union.\n(3)\nGiven the importance of gas in the energy mix of the Union, this Regulation aims at demonstrating to gas customers that all the necessary measures are being taken to ensure their continuous supply, particularly in case of difficult climatic conditions and in the event of disruption. It is recognised that these objectives should be achieved through the most cost-efficient measures in order not to affect the relative competitiveness of this fuel compared to other fuels.\n(4)\nCouncil Directive 2004/67/EC (3) established for the first time a legal framework at Community level to safeguard security of gas supply and to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal gas market in the case of supply disruptions. It established the Gas Coordination Group which has been useful to exchange information and define common actions between Member States, the Commission, the gas industry and consumers. The Network of Energy Security Correspondents endorsed by the European Council in December 2006 has improved the capacity to collect information and has provided early warning of potential threats to the security of energy supply. The new internal energy market legislation adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in July 2009 constitutes an important step to complete the internal energy market and has an explicit objective to enhance the Union\u2019s security of energy supply.\n(5)\nHowever, under the current measures regarding the security of gas supply that have been taken at Union level, Member States still enjoy a large margin of discretion as to the choice of measures. Where the security of supply of a Member State is threatened, there is a clear risk that measures developed unilaterally by that Member State may jeopardise the proper functioning of the internal gas market and the supply of gas to customers. Recent experience has demonstrated the reality of that risk. In order to allow the internal gas market to function even in the face of a shortage of supply, it is necessary to provide for solidarity and coordination in the response to supply crises, both concerning preventive action and the reaction to concrete disruptions of supply.\n(6)\nLow calorific gas is supplied in certain regions in the Union. Given its characteristics, low calorific gas cannot be used in appliances designed for high calorific gas. It is, however, possible to use high calorific gas in appliances designed for low calorific gas, provided that it has been converted into low calorific gas, for instance by adding nitrogen. The specificities of low calorific gas should be considered at national and regional levels and should be taken into account in the risk assessment and the Preventive Action and Emergency Plans at national and regional levels.\n(7)\nThe diversification of gas routes and of sources of supply for the Union is essential for improving the security of supply of the Union as a whole and its Member States individually. Security of supply will depend in the future on the evolution of the fuel mix, the development of production in the Union and in third countries supplying the Union, investments in storage facilities and in the diversification of gas routes and of sources of supply within and outside the Union including Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities. In this context particular attention should be given to priority infrastructure actions as identified in the Commission communication of 13 November 2008 entitled \u2018Second Strategic Energy Review - An EU energy security and solidarity action plan\u2019, e.g. the southern gas corridor (Nabucco and Interconnector Turkey Greece Italy), a diversified and adequate LNG supply for Europe, effective interconnection of the Baltic region, the Mediterranean Energy Ring and adequate north-south gas interconnections within central and south-east Europe.\n(8)\nIn order to reduce the impact of potential crises triggered by the disruption of gas supplies, Member States should facilitate the diversification of energy sources and gas delivery routes and supply sources.\n(9)\nA major disruption of gas supply to the Union can affect all Member States, the Union as a whole and Contracting Parties to the Treaty establishing the Energy Community (4), signed in Athens on 25 October 2005. It can also lead to severe economic damage across the Union\u2019s economy. Likewise, the disruption of gas supply can have a severe social impact, in particular on vulnerable groups of customers.\n(10)\nCertain customers, including, inter alia, households and customers providing essential social services such as healthcare and childcare activities, educational activities and other social and welfare services as well as services indispensable for the functioning of a Member State, are particularly vulnerable and might need protection. A wide definition of such protected customers should not conflict with European solidarity mechanisms.\n(11)\nThe Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy approved by the European Council in December 2008 highlights the growing reliance on imported energy as a significant additional risk for the Union\u2019s security of energy supply and stresses energy security as one of the new challenges for security policy. The internal gas market is a central element to increase the security of energy supply in the Union and to reduce the exposure of individual Member States to the harmful effects of supply disruptions.\n(12)\nFor a well functioning internal gas market it is essential that measures taken to safeguard the security of gas supply do not unduly distort competition or the effective functioning of the internal gas market.\n(13)\nThe failure of the single largest gas infrastructure, the so-called N - 1 principle, is a realistic scenario. Using the failure of such an infrastructure as a benchmark of what Member States should be able to compensate is a valid starting point for an analysis of the security of gas supply of each Member State.\n(14)\nSufficient and diversified gas infrastructure within a Member State and across the Union, including in particular new gas infrastructure connecting current isolated systems forming gas islands to their neighbouring Member States, is essential for tackling supply interruptions. Common minimum criteria on security of gas supply should ensure a level playing field for security of gas supply while taking into account national or regional specificities and should create significant incentives to build the necessary infrastructure and to improve the level of preparedness in case of crisis. Demand-side measures such as fuel switching may have a valuable role to play in ensuring energy security where they can be applied quickly and reduce demand appreciably to react to a supply disruption. The efficient use of energy should be further promoted, in particular where demand-side measures are needed. The environmental impact of the proposed demand and supply-side measures should be taken into due account and preference should be given as far as possible to measures with the least impact on the environment while taking into account security of supply aspects.\n(15)\nInvestments in new gas infrastructure should be strongly promoted and should be effected only after an appropriate environmental impact assessment, in accordance with the relevant legal acts of the Union. Such new infrastructure should enhance the security of gas supply while ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market in gas. Investments should as a matter of principle be made by undertakings and be based on economic incentives. Due account should be taken of the need to facilitate the integration of gas from renewable energy sources into the gas network infrastructure. Where an infrastructure investment is of cross-border nature the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (the Agency) established by Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) and the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas (the ENTSO for Gas) established by Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks (6) should be closely involved, within the areas of their respective competences, in order to take better account of the cross-border implications. It is recalled that, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 713/2009, the Agency may issue opinions or recommendations on cross-border issues within its area of competence and activity. The Agency and the ENTSO for Gas, together with other market participants, play an important role in the establishment and implementation of the Union-wide 10-year network development plan which will include, inter alia, a European supply adequacy outlook and, regarding cross-border interconnections, should, inter alia, build on the reasonable needs of different network users.\n(16)\nThe Competent Authorities or the Member States should ensure that the gas market is tested as one of the necessary steps in the course of the process leading to compliance with the infrastructure standard.\n(17)\nIn carrying out the tasks specified in this Regulation, the Competent Authorities should closely cooperate with other relevant national authorities, in particular national regulatory authorities, as appropriate and without prejudice to their competences under Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas (7).\n(18)\nWhere new cross-border interconnections are needed or existing ones need to be extended, close cooperation between the Member States concerned, Competent Authorities and the national regulatory authorities, where they are not the Competent Authorities, should take place at an early stage.\n(19)\nDifferent sources of Union funding are available to support Member States to finance the necessary investment in production, infrastructure and energy-efficiency measures at regional and local level, notably loans and guarantees from the European Investment Bank or funding from regional, structural or cohesion funds. The European Investment Bank as well as the Union\u2019s external instruments such as the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance and the Financing Instrument for Development Cooperation can also finance actions in third countries in order to improve security of energy supply.\n(20)\nThis Regulation should enable natural gas undertakings and customers to rely on market mechanisms for as long as possible when coping with disruptions. It should also provide for emergency mechanisms to be used when markets alone are no longer able to deal adequately with a gas supply disruption. Even in an emergency, market-based instruments should be given priority to mitigate the effects of the supply disruption.\n(21)\nFollowing the entry into force of the new internal energy market legislation adopted in July 2009, new provisions will apply to the gas sector, creating clear roles and responsibilities for Member States, national regulatory authorities, transmission system operators and the Agency, and improving the transparency of the market to enhance its functioning, the security of supply and the protection of customers.\n(22)\nThe completion of the internal gas market and effective competition within that market offer the Union the highest level of security of supply for all Member States, provided that the market is allowed to function fully in the event of disruption of supply affecting a part of the Union, whatever the cause of the disruption. To this end, a comprehensive and effective common approach to security of supply is required, particularly transparency, solidarity and non-discriminatory policies compatible with the functioning of the internal market, avoiding market distortions and the undermining of market responses to disruptions.\n(23)\nSecurity of gas supply is a shared responsibility of natural gas undertakings, Member States, notably through their Competent Authorities, and the Commission within their respective areas of activities and competence. Where appropriate, the national regulatory authorities, where they are not the Competent Authorities, should also contribute to security of gas supply within their areas of activities and competence in accordance with Directive 2009/73/EC. Moreover, customers using gas for electricity generation or industrial purposes may also have an important role to play in security of gas supply through their ability to respond to a crisis with demand-side measures, for instance interruptible contracts and fuel switching, as this directly impacts on the supply/demand balance.\n(24)\nThe precise definition of the roles and responsibilities of all natural gas undertakings and Competent Authorities is therefore crucial in maintaining a well-functioning internal gas market, particularly in supply disruptions and crisis situations. Such roles and responsibilities should be established in such a way as to ensure that a three-level approach is respected which would involve first the relevant natural gas undertakings and industry, then Member States at national or regional level, and then the Union. In the event of a supply crisis, market players should be given sufficient opportunity to respond to the situation with market-based measures. Where the reactions of market players are not sufficient, Member States and their Competent Authorities should take measures to remove or mitigate the effects of the supply crisis. Only where these measures are insufficient should measures be taken at regional or Union level to remove or mitigate the effects of the supply crisis. Regional solutions should be sought as far as possible.\n(25)\nIn a spirit of solidarity, regional cooperation, involving public authorities and natural gas undertakings, will be widely established to implement this Regulation in order to optimise the benefits in terms of coordination of measures to mitigate the risks identified and to implement the most cost-effective measures for the parties concerned.\n(26)\nSufficiently harmonised security of supply standards covering at least the situation that occurred in January 2009, taking into account the difference between Member States, should be established, taking into account public service obligations and customer protection measures as referred to in Article 3 of Directive 2009/73/EC. Such security of supply standards should be stable, so as to provide the necessary legal certainty, should be clearly defined, and should not impose unreasonable and disproportionate burdens on natural gas undertakings, including new entrants and small undertakings, or on end users. Those standards should also guarantee equality of access for natural gas undertakings of the Union to national customers. Measures necessary to ensure the fulfilment of the supply standard may include additional storage capacities and volumes, linepack, supply contracts, interruptible contracts or any other measures that have a similar effect, as well as the necessary technical measures to ensure the safety of gas supply.\n(27)\nIt is essential in the interests of a well-functioning gas market that the necessary investments in indigenous production and infrastructures, such as interconnections, in particular those providing access to the gas network of the Union, equipment allowing physical bi-directional gas flows on pipelines as well as storage and LNG re-gasification facilities, be made by natural gas undertakings in good time, bearing in mind possible supply disruptions such as the one that occurred in January 2009. When forecasting the financial needs for gas infrastructure in relation to Union instruments, the Commission should give, as appropriate, priority to the infrastructure projects which support the integration of the internal gas market and security of gas supply.\n(28)\nTransmission system operators should not be prevented from considering the situation where investments enabling physical capacity to transport gas in both directions (bi-directional capacity) in cross-border interconnections with third countries could contribute to improving security of supply, especially in the case of third countries which ensure transit flows between two Member States.\n(29)\nIt is important that gas supply be maintained particularly as regards household customers, as well as a limited number of additional customers, especially customers delivering essential social services, which can be defined by the Member States concerned, in cases in which the market cannot continue to supply them. It is essential that the measures to be taken during a crisis be defined in advance and respect safety requirements, including where protected customers are connected to the same distribution network as other customers. Such measures may involve the use of pro-rata reductions in proportion to the originally booked capacity in cases where capacity for access to infrastructure is reduced for technical reasons.\n(30)\nAs a rule, the Competent Authorities should abide by their Emergency Plan. In duly justified exceptional circumstances they may take action which deviates from those Plans.\n(31)\nA large choice of instruments is available to comply with security of supply obligations. Those instruments should be used in national, regional and Union contexts, as appropriate, to ensure that they deliver a consistent and cost-effective result.\n(32)\nThe security of supply aspects of long-term planning of investments in sufficient cross-border capacities and other infrastructures, ensuring the long-term ability of the system to guarantee security of supply and meet reasonable demands, are addressed by Directive 2009/73/EC. Meeting the security of supply standards may require a transitional period to allow the necessary investments to be made. The Union-wide 10-year network development plan drawn up by the ENTSO for Gas and supervised by the Agency is a fundamental tool to identify the required investments needed at Union level, inter alia, in order to implement the infrastructure requirements laid down in this Regulation.\n(33)\nThe ENTSO for Gas and the Agency, as members of the Gas Coordination Group, should be fully involved, within their areas of responsibility, in the process of cooperation and consultations at Union level.\n(34)\nThe Gas Coordination Group is the main body to be consulted by the Commission in the context of the establishment of the Preventive Action Plans and the Emergency Plans. It is recalled that the ENTSO for Gas and the Agency are members of the Gas Coordination Group and will be consulted in that context.\n(35)\nIn order to ensure the highest level of preparedness in the event of supply disruption, Emergency Plans should be established by the Competent Authorities, after consulting the natural gas undertakings. Such plans should not be inconsistent with each other at national, regional or Union level. Their content should follow best practices among existing Plans and should define clear roles and responsibilities for all natural gas undertakings and Competent Authorities concerned. Joint Emergency Plans at regional level should be established where possible and necessary.\n(36)\nTo strengthen solidarity between Member States in the event of a Union emergency and in particular to support Member States which are exposed to less favourable geographical or geological conditions, Member States should devise measures to exercise solidarity. Natural gas undertakings should devise measures such as commercial agreements, which may comprise increased gas exports or increased releases from storages. It is important to encourage the conclusion of arrangements between natural gas undertakings. The actions of the Emergency Plan should include mechanisms, where appropriate, ensuring fair and equitable compensation of the natural gas undertakings. Solidarity measures may be particularly appropriate between Member States for which the Commission recommends the establishment of joint Preventive Action Plans or Emergency Plans at regional level.\n(37)\nIn the context of this Regulation, the Commission has an important role to play in the event of an emergency, be it at Union or regional level.\n(38)\nEuropean solidarity should also, where needed, take the form of civil protection assistance provided by the Union and its Member States. Such assistance should be facilitated and coordinated by the Community Civil Protection Mechanism established by Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom (8).\n(39)\nThe sovereign rights of Member States over their own energy resources are not affected by this Regulation.\n(40)\nCouncil Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection (9) lays down a process with a view to enhancing the security of designated European critical infrastructures, including certain gas infrastructures, in the Union. Directive 2008/114/EC together with this Regulation contribute to creating a comprehensive approach to the energy security of the Union.\n(41)\nEmergency Plans should be updated regularly and published. They should be subject to peer review and tested.\n(42)\nThe Gas Coordination Group should act as adviser to the Commission to facilitate the coordination of security of supply measures in the event of a Union emergency. It should also monitor the adequacy and appropriateness of measures to be taken under this Regulation.\n(43)\nThis Regulation aims at empowering natural gas undertakings and Competent Authorities of the Member States to ensure that the internal gas market works effectively for as long as possible in the event of a supply disruption, prior to measures being taken by Competent Authorities to address the situation in which the market can no longer deliver the required gas supplies. Such exceptional measures should be fully compliant with Union law and should be notified to the Commission.\n(44)\nSince gas supplies from third countries are central to the security of gas supply of the Union, the Commission should coordinate the actions with regard to third countries, working with the supplying and transiting third countries on arrangements to handle crisis situations and to ensure a stable gas flow to the Union. The Commission should be entitled to deploy a task force to monitor gas flows into the Union in crisis situations, in consultation with the third countries involved, and, where a crisis arises due to difficulties in a third country, to assume a mediation and facilitation role.\n(45)\nIt is important that the conditions for the supply from third countries do not distort competition and are in accordance with internal market rules.\n(46)\nWhere there is reliable information of a situation outside the Union that threatens the security of supply of one or several Member States and that may trigger an early warning mechanism between the Union and a third country, the Commission should inform the Gas Coordination Group without delay and the Union should take appropriate actions to try to defuse the situation.\n(47)\nIn February 2009, the Council concluded that transparency and reliability should be increased through the meaningful exchange of information between the Commission and Member States on energy relations with third countries, including long-term supply arrangements, while preserving commercially sensitive information.\n(48)\nWhile rules contained in the Treaty on European Union and in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular the rules on competition, apply to services of general economic interest in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance of such services, Member States enjoy a wide discretion in providing for, commissioning and organising public service obligations.\n(49)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely to ensure the security of gas supply in the Union, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States alone and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the 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. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.\n(50)\nDirective 2004/67/EC should be repealed,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation establishes provisions aimed at safeguarding the security of gas supply by ensuring the proper and continuous functioning of the internal market in natural gas (gas), by allowing for exceptional measures to be implemented when the market can no longer deliver the required gas supplies and by providing for a clear definition and attribution of responsibilities among natural gas undertakings, the Member States and the Union regarding both preventive action and the reaction to concrete disruptions of supply. This Regulation also provides transparent mechanisms, in a spirit of solidarity, for the coordination of planning for, and response to, an emergency at Member State, regional and Union levels.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation the definitions of Directive 2009/73/EC, Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 shall apply.\nIn addition the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018protected customers\u2019 means all household customers connected to a gas distribution network and, in addition, where the Member State concerned so decides, may also include:\n(a)\nsmall and medium-sized enterprises, provided that they are connected to a gas distribution network, and essential social services, provided that they are connected to a gas distribution or transmission network, and provided that all these additional customers do not represent more than 20 % of the final use of gas; and/or\n(b)\ndistrict heating installations to the extent that they deliver heating to household customers and to the customers referred to in point (a) provided that these installations are not able to switch to other fuels and are connected to a gas distribution or transmission network.\nAs soon as possible and no later than 3 December 2011 Member States shall notify the Commission whether they intend to include points (a) and/or (b) in their definition of protected customers;\n2.\n\u2018Competent Authority\u2019 means the national governmental authority or the national regulatory authority designated by each Member State to be responsible for ensuring the implementation of the measures set out in this Regulation. This is without prejudice to the ability of Member States to allow the Competent Authority to delegate specific tasks set out in this Regulation to other bodies. Such delegated tasks shall be performed under the supervision of the Competent Authority and shall be specified in the plans referred to in Article 4.\nArticle 3\nResponsibility for security of gas supply\n1. Security of gas supply is a shared responsibility of natural gas undertakings, Member States, notably through their Competent Authorities, and the Commission, within their respective areas of activities and competence. Such shared responsibility requires a high degree of cooperation between them.\n2. As soon as possible and no later than 3 December 2011, each Member State shall designate a Competent Authority that ensures the implementation of the measures provided for in this Regulation. Where appropriate, until the Competent Authority is formally designated, the national entities currently responsible for security of gas supply shall carry out the measures to be implemented by the Competent Authority in accordance with this Regulation. Those measures shall include the carrying out of the risk assessment referred to in Article 9, and, on the basis of that risk assessment, the establishment of a Preventive Action Plan and an Emergency Plan, and the regular monitoring of security of gas supply at national level. Competent Authorities shall cooperate with each other to seek to prevent a supply disruption and to limit damages in such an event. Nothing shall prevent Member States from adopting implementing legislation, if needed, to comply with the requirements of this Regulation.\n3. Each Member State shall notify to the Commission without delay the name of the Competent Authority, once designated, and, where appropriate, the names of the national entities responsible for security of gas supply acting as provisional Competent Authority in accordance with paragraph 2. Each Member State shall make such designations public.\n4. When implementing the measures provided for in this Regulation, the Competent Authority shall establish the roles and responsibilities of the different actors involved in such a way as to ensure that a three-level approach is respected which involves first the relevant natural gas undertakings and industry, then Member States at national or regional level, and then the Union.\n5. The Commission shall, where appropriate, coordinate the action of the Competent Authorities at regional and Union levels, as set out in this Regulation, inter alia, through the Gas Coordination Group referred to in Article 12 or the crisis management group referred to in Article 11(4), in particular in the event of a Union or regional emergency as defined in Article 11(1).\n6. The measures to ensure the security of supply contained in the Preventive Action Plans and in the Emergency Plans shall be clearly defined, transparent, proportionate, non-discriminatory and verifiable, shall not unduly distort competition and the effective functioning of the internal market in gas and shall not endanger the security of gas supply of other Member States or of the Union as a whole.\nArticle 4\nEstablishment of a Preventive Action Plan and an Emergency Plan\n1. The Competent Authority of each Member State, after consulting the natural gas undertakings, the relevant organisations representing the interests of household and industrial gas customers and the national regulatory authority, where it is not the Competent Authority, shall, without prejudice to paragraph 3, establish at national level:\n(a)\na Preventive Action Plan containing the measures needed to remove or mitigate the risks identified, in accordance with the risk assessment undertaken pursuant to Article 9; and\n(b)\nan Emergency Plan containing the measures to be taken to remove or mitigate the impact of a gas supply disruption in accordance with Article 10.\n2. Before adopting a Preventive Action Plan and an Emergency Plan at national level, the Competent Authorities shall, by 3 June 2012, exchange their draft Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans and consult each other at the appropriate regional level, and the Commission, with a view to ensuring that their draft Plans and measures are not inconsistent with the Preventive Action Plan and the Emergency Plan of another Member State and that they comply with this Regulation and with other provisions of Union law. Such consultation shall be carried out in particular between neighbouring Member States, notably between isolated systems forming gas islands and their neighbouring Member States, and may cover for instance those Member States identified in the indicative list of Annex IV.\n3. Based on the consultations referred to in paragraph 2 and possible recommendations from the Commission, the Competent Authorities concerned may decide to establish joint Preventive Action Plans at regional level (joint Preventive Action Plans) and joint Emergency Plans at regional level (joint Emergency Plans), in addition to the Plans established at national level. In the case of joint Plans, the Competent Authorities concerned shall endeavour, where appropriate, to conclude agreements in order to implement regional cooperation. If necessary, these agreements shall be formally endorsed by Member States.\n4. When establishing and implementing the Preventive Action Plan and the Emergency Plan at national and/or regional level, the Competent Authority shall take due account of the safe operation of the gas system at all times and address and set out in those Plans the technical constraints affecting the operation of the network, including the technical and safety reasons which may lead to the reduction of flows in the event of an emergency.\n5. No later than 3 December 2012, the Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans, including, where applicable, joint Plans, shall be adopted and made public. Such Plans shall be notified to the Commission without delay. The Commission shall inform the Gas Coordination Group. Competent Authorities shall ensure the regular monitoring of the implementation of such Plans.\n6. Within 3 months of the notification by the Competent Authorities of the Plans referred to in paragraph 5:\n(a)\nthe Commission shall assess those Plans, in accordance with point (b). In order to do so, the Commission shall consult the Gas Coordination Group on those Plans and duly take its opinion into account. The Commission shall report its assessment of the Plans to the Gas Coordination Group; and\n(b)\nwhere the Commission, based on these consultations:\n(i)\nassesses that a Preventive Action Plan or an Emergency Plan is not effective to mitigate the risks as identified in the risk assessment, it may recommend to the Competent Authority or Competent Authorities concerned to amend the relevant Plan;\n(ii)\nconsiders that a Preventive Action Plan or an Emergency Plan is inconsistent with the risk scenarios or with the Plans of another Competent Authority, or that it does not comply with the provisions of this Regulation or other provisions of Union law, it shall request that the relevant Plan be amended;\n(iii)\nconsiders that the Preventive Action Plan endangers the security of gas supply of other Member States or of the Union as a whole, it shall decide to require the Competent Authority to review that Preventive Action Plan and may present specific recommendations for amending it. The Commission shall give detailed reasons for its decision.\n7. Within 4 months of notification of the Commission\u2019s request referred to in paragraph 6(b)(ii), the Competent Authority concerned shall amend its Preventive Action Plan or Emergency Plan and notify the amended Plan to the Commission, or shall inform the Commission of the reasons for which it does not agree with the request. In the event of disagreement, the Commission may, within 2 months of the reply of the Competent Authority, withdraw its request or convene the Competent Authorities concerned and, where the Commission deems it necessary, the Gas Coordination Group, in order to consider the issue. The Commission shall set out its detailed reasoning for requesting any amendments to the Plan. The Competent Authority shall take full account of the position of the Commission. Where the final decision of the Competent Authority diverges from the Commission\u2019s position, the Competent Authority shall provide and make public, together with that decision and the Commission position, the reasoning underlying such decision within 2 months of receipt of the position of the Commission. Where applicable, the Competent Authority shall without delay make the amended Plan public.\n8. Within 3 months of notification of the Commission\u2019s decision referred to in paragraph 6(b)(iii), the Competent Authority concerned shall amend its Preventive Action Plan and notify the amended Plan to the Commission, or shall inform the Commission of the reasons for which it does not agree with the decision. In the event of disagreement, the Commission may, within 2 months of the reply of the Competent Authority, decide to amend or withdraw its request. If the Commission maintains its request, the Competent Authority concerned shall amend the Plan within 2 months of the notification of the Commission\u2019s decision, taking utmost account of the Commission\u2019s recommendations referred to in paragraph 6(b)(iii), and shall notify it to the Commission.\nThe Commission shall inform the Gas Coordination Group and duly take into account their recommendations when drafting its opinion on the amended Plan, which shall be delivered within 2 months of the notification of the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority concerned shall take utmost account of the Commission\u2019s opinion and within 2 months of receipt of the Commission\u2019s opinion shall adopt and make public the resulting amended Plan.\n9. The confidentiality of commercially sensitive information shall be preserved.\nArticle 5\nContent of the national and joint Preventive Action Plans\n1. The national and joint Preventive Action Plans shall contain:\n(a)\nthe results of the risk assessment as laid down in Article 9;\n(b)\nthe measures, volumes, capacities and the timing needed to fulfil the infrastructure and supply standards, as laid down in Articles 6 and 8, including where applicable, the extent to which demand-side measures can sufficiently compensate, in a timely manner, for a supply disruption as referred to in Article 6(2), the identification of the single largest gas infrastructure of common interest in the case of application of Article 6(3) and any increased supply standard under Article 8(2);\n(c)\nobligations imposed on natural gas undertakings and other relevant bodies, including for the safe operation of the gas system;\n(d)\nthe other preventive measures, such as those relating to the need to enhance interconnections between neighbouring Member States and the possibility to diversify gas routes and sources of supply, if appropriate, to address the risks identified in order to maintain gas supply to all customers as far as possible;\n(e)\nthe mechanisms to be used for cooperation with other Member States for preparing and implementing joint Preventive Action Plans and joint Emergency Plans, as referred to in Article 4(3), where applicable;\n(f)\ninformation on existing and future interconnections, including those providing access to the gas network of the Union, cross-border flows, cross-border access to storage facilities and the physical capacity to transport gas in both directions (bi-directional capacity), in particular in the event of an emergency;\n(g)\ninformation on all public service obligations that relate to security of gas supply.\n2. The national and joint Preventive Action Plans, in particular the actions to meet the infrastructure standard as laid down in Article 6, shall take into account the Union-wide 10-year network development plan to be elaborated by the ENTSO for Gas pursuant to Article 8(10) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009.\n3. The national and joint Preventive Action Plans shall be based primarily on market measures, and shall take into account the economic impact, effectiveness and efficiency of the measures, the effects on the functioning of the internal energy market and the impact on the environment and on consumers, and shall not put an undue burden on natural gas undertakings, nor negatively impact on the functioning of the internal market in gas.\n4. The national and joint Preventive Action Plans shall be updated every 2 years, unless circumstances warrant more frequent updates, and shall reflect the updated risk assessment. The consultation provided for between Competent Authorities under Article 4(2) shall be carried out before the adoption of the updated Plan.\nArticle 6\nInfrastructure standard\n1. Member States or, where a Member State so provides, the Competent Authority shall ensure that the necessary measures are taken so that by 3 December 2014 at the latest, in the event of a disruption of the single largest gas infrastructure, the capacity of the remaining infrastructure, determined according to the N - 1 formula as provided in point 2 of Annex I, is able, without prejudice to paragraph 2 of this Article, to satisfy total gas demand of the calculated area during a day of exceptionally high gas demand occurring with a statistical probability of once in 20 years. This is without prejudice, where appropriate and necessary, to the responsibility of system operators to make the corresponding investments and to the obligations of transmission system operators as laid down in Directive 2009/73/EC and Regulation (EC) No 715/2009.\n2. The obligation to ensure that the remaining infrastructure has the capacity to satisfy total gas demand, as referred to in paragraph 1, shall also be considered to be fulfilled where the Competent Authority demonstrates in the Preventive Action Plan that a supply disruption may be sufficiently compensated for, in a timely manner, by appropriate market-based demand-side measures. For that purpose, the formula provided in point 4 of Annex I shall be used.\n3. Where appropriate, according to the risk assessment referred to in Article 9, the Competent Authorities concerned may decide that the obligation set out in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be fulfilled at a regional level, instead of at national level. In that event, joint Preventive Action Plans pursuant to Article 4(3) shall be established. Point 5 of Annex I shall apply.\n4. Each Competent Authority shall, after consulting the relevant natural gas undertakings, report to the Commission without delay any non-compliance with the obligation set out in paragraph 1 and inform the Commission of the reasons for such non-compliance.\n5. The transmission system operators shall enable permanent bi-directional capacity on all cross-border interconnections between Member States as early as possible and at the latest by 3 December 2013, except:\n(a)\nin the case of connections to production facilities, to LNG facilities and to distribution networks; or\n(b)\nwhere an exemption has been granted in accordance with Article 7.\nBy 3 December 2013, the transmission system operators shall adapt the functioning of the transmission systems in part or as a whole so as to enable physical gas flows in both directions on cross-border interconnections.\n6. Where bi-directional capacity already exists or is under construction for a particular cross-border interconnection, the obligation referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 5 shall be deemed to be met for that interconnection except where an enhancement of capacity is requested by one or more Member States for security of supply reasons. Where such a request for enhancement is made, the procedure set out in Article 7 shall apply.\n7. Member States or, where a Member State so provides, the Competent Authority, shall ensure that, as a first step, the market is always tested in a transparent, detailed and non-discriminatory manner to assess whether the investment in infrastructure needed to fulfil the obligations set out in paragraphs 1 and 5 is required by the market.\n8. National Regulatory Authorities shall take into account the efficiently incurred costs of fulfilling the obligation set out in paragraph 1 and the costs of enabling permanent bi-directional capacity so as to grant appropriate incentives when fixing or approving, in a transparent and detailed manner, the tariffs or methodologies in accordance with Article 41(8) of Directive 2009/73/EC and Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009. In so far as an investment for enabling bi-directional capacity is not required by the market and where this investment incurs costs in more than one Member State or in one Member State for the benefit of one or more other Member States, the national regulatory authorities of all Member States concerned shall jointly decide on cost allocation before any investment decision is taken. The cost allocation shall in particular take into account the proportion of the benefits of the infrastructure investments for the increase of security of supply of the Member States concerned. Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 shall apply.\n9. The Competent Authority shall ensure that any new transmission infrastructure contributes to the security of supply through the development of a well-connected network, including, where appropriate, by means of a sufficient number of cross-border entry and exit points according to market demand and the risks identified. The Competent Authority shall, where appropriate, assess in the risk assessment where internal bottlenecks exist and whether national entry capacity and infrastructures, in particular transmission networks, are capable of adapting the national gas flows to the scenario of the disruption of the single largest gas infrastructure identified in the risk assessment.\n10. Luxembourg, Slovenia and Sweden shall, by way of exception, not be bound by, but shall endeavour to meet, the obligation set out in paragraph 1 of this Article, while ensuring the gas supplies to protected customers in accordance with Article 8. That exception shall apply for as long as:\n(a)\nin the case of Luxembourg: it has at least two interconnectors with other Member States, at least two different sources of supply and no gas storage facilities or an LNG facility on its territory;\n(b)\nin the case of Slovenia: it has at least two interconnectors with other Member States, at least two different sources of supply and no gas storage facilities or an LNG facility on its territory;\n(c)\nin the case of Sweden: it has no gas transit to other Member States on its territory, an annual gross inland gas consumption of less than 2 Mtoe and less than 5 % of total primary energy consumption from gas.\nThose three Member States shall ensure, in a transparent, detailed and non-discriminatory manner, regular market testing for investments in infrastructure and make public the results of those tests.\nThe Member States referred to in the first subparagraph shall inform the Commission of any change in respect of the conditions set out in that subparagraph. The exception laid down in the first subparagraph shall cease to apply where at least one of those conditions is no longer fulfilled.\nBy 3 December 2018, each of the Member States referred to in the first subparagraph shall transmit a report to the Commission describing the situation with respect to the respective conditions set out in that subparagraph and the prospects for the compliance with the obligation in paragraph 1, taking into account the economic impact of meeting the infrastructure standard, the results of the market testing and the gas market development and gas infrastructure projects in the region. On the basis of the report and if the respective conditions set out in the first subparagraph of this paragraph are still met, the Commission may decide that the exception set out in the first subparagraph can continue to apply for 4 more years. In the event of a positive decision, the procedure set out in this subparagraph shall be repeated after 4 years.\nArticle 7\nProcedure for enabling bi-directional capacity or seeking exemption\n1. For each cross-border interconnection between Member States, except for those exempted under Article 6(5)(a) and except where bi-directional capacity already exists or is under construction and no enhancement has been requested by one or more Member States for security of supply reasons, transmission system operators shall, not later than 3 March 2012, submit to their Member States or, where Member States so provide, their Competent Authorities or their regulatory authorities (together referred to in this Article as the \u2018authorities concerned\u2019), after consulting with all other transmission system operators concerned:\n(a)\na proposal for bi-directional capacity concerning the reverse direction (reverse flow capacity); or\n(b)\na request for an exemption from the obligation to enable bi-directional capacity.\n2. The proposal for reverse flow capacity or the request for exemptions referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on an assessment of market demand, projections for demand and supply, technical feasibility, the costs of reverse flow capacity, including the consequent reinforcement of the transmission system, and the benefits for security of supply, taking also into account, where appropriate, the possible contribution of reverse flow capacity to meeting, together with other possible measures, the infrastructure standard set out in Article 6 in the case of the Member States benefiting from the reverse flow capacity.\n3. The authority concerned receiving the proposal or exemption request shall notify the authorities concerned of the other Member States that could, according to the risk assessment, benefit from reverse flow capacity and the Commission of the proposal or the exemption request without delay. That authority concerned shall give those authorities concerned and the Commission the possibility to issue an opinion within a period of 4 months following receipt of that notification.\n4. Within 2 months of the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 3, the authority concerned, on the basis of the criteria referred to in paragraph 2 and of the risk assessment carried out in accordance with Article 9, and taking utmost account of the opinions received in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article, and taking into account aspects that are not strictly economic, such as security of gas supply and the contribution to the internal gas market, shall:\n(a)\ngrant an exemption if reverse flow capacity would not significantly enhance the security of supply of any Member State or region or if the investment costs would significantly outweigh the prospective benefits for security of supply; or\n(b)\naccept the proposal for reverse flow capacity; or\n(c)\nrequire the transmission system operator to amend its proposal.\nThe authority concerned shall notify its decision without delay to the Commission, together with all relevant information showing the reasons for the decision, including the opinions received in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article. The authorities concerned shall endeavour to ensure that mutually dependent decisions which concern the same interconnection or interconnected pipelines do not contradict each other.\n5. Within 2 months of receipt of that notification, and where there are discrepancies between the decision of the authority concerned and the opinions of other authorities concerned, the Commission may require that the authority concerned amend its decision. That period may be extended by 1 month where additional information is sought by the Commission. Any proposal by the Commission requiring amendment to the decision of the authority concerned shall be made on the basis of the elements and criteria set out in paragraph 2 and point (a) of paragraph 4, taking into account the reasons for the decision of the authority concerned. The authority concerned shall comply with the request by amending its decision within a period of 4 weeks. In the event that the Commission does not act within that 2-month period, it shall be deemed not to have raised objections to the decision of the authority concerned.\n6. Where additional reverse flow capacity is needed according to the results of the risk assessment carried out in accordance with Article 9, the procedure set out in paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Article shall be repeated upon the request of a transmission system operator, an authority concerned or the Commission.\n7. The Commission and the authority concerned shall preserve the confidentiality of commercially sensitive information at all times.\nArticle 8\nSupply standard\n1. The Competent Authority shall require the natural gas undertakings, that it identifies, to take measures to ensure gas supply to the protected customers of the Member State in the following cases:\n(a)\nextreme temperatures during a 7-day peak period occurring with a statistical probability of once in 20 years;\n(b)\nany period of at least 30 days of exceptionally high gas demand, occurring with a statistical probability of once in 20 years; and\n(c)\nfor a period of at least 30 days in case of the disruption of the single largest gas infrastructure under average winter conditions.\nThe Competent Authority shall identify the natural gas undertakings referred to in the first subparagraph by 3 June 2012 at the latest.\n2. Any increased supply standard going beyond the 30-day period referred to in points (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 or any additional obligation imposed for reasons of security of gas supply shall be based on the risk assessment referred to in Article 9, shall be reflected in the Preventive Action Plan and shall:\n(a)\ncomply with Article 3(6);\n(b)\nnot unduly distort competition or hamper the functioning of the internal market in gas;\n(c)\nnot impact negatively on the ability of any other Member State to supply its protected customers in accordance with this Article in the event of a national, Union or regional emergency; and\n(d)\ncomply with the criteria specified in Article 11(5) in the event of a Union or regional emergency.\nIn a spirit of solidarity, the Competent Authority shall identify in the Preventive Action Plan and the Emergency Plan how any increased supply standard or additional obligation imposed on natural gas undertakings may be temporarily reduced in the event of a Union or regional emergency.\n3. After the periods defined by the Competent Authority in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2, or under more severe conditions than those defined in paragraph 1, the Competent Authority and natural gas undertakings shall endeavour to maintain, as far as possible, the gas supply, in particular for protected customers.\n4. The obligations imposed on natural gas undertakings for the fulfilment of the supply standards laid down in this Article shall be non-discriminatory and shall not impose an undue burden on those undertakings.\n5. Natural gas undertakings shall be allowed to meet these obligations at a regional or Union level, where appropriate. The Competent Authority shall not require the standards laid down in this Article to be met based on infrastructure located only within its territory.\n6. The Competent Authority shall ensure that conditions for supplies to protected customers are established without prejudice to the proper functioning of the internal market in gas and at a price respecting the market value of the supplies.\nArticle 9\nRisk assessment\n1. By 3 December 2011, each Competent Authority shall make a full assessment, on the basis of the following common elements, of the risks affecting the security of gas supply in its Member State by:\n(a)\nusing the standards specified in Articles 6 and 8, showing the calculation of the N - 1 formula, the assumptions used, including those for the calculation of the N - 1 formula at regional level, and the data necessary for such calculation;\n(b)\ntaking into account all relevant national and regional circumstances, in particular market size, network configuration, actual flows, including outflows from the Member State concerned, the possibility of physical gas flows in both directions including the potential need for consequent reinforcement of the transmission system, the presence of production and storage and the role of gas in the energy mix, in particular with respect to district heating and electricity generation and for the operation of industries, and safety and gas quality considerations;\n(c)\nrunning various scenarios of exceptionally high gas demand and supply disruption, such as failure of the main transmission infrastructures, storages or LNG terminals, and disruption of supplies from third country suppliers, taking into account the history, probability, season, frequency and duration of their occurrence as well as, where appropriate, geopolitical risks, and assessing the likely consequences of these scenarios;\n(d)\nidentifying the interaction and correlation of risks with other Member States, including, inter alia, as regards interconnections, cross-border supplies, cross-border access to storage facilities and bi-directional capacity;\n(e)\ntaking into account the maximal interconnection capacity of each border entry and exit point.\n2. Where Article 4(3) applies, the Competent Authorities concerned shall also perform a joint risk assessment at regional level.\n3. Natural gas undertakings, industrial gas customers, the relevant organisations representing the interests of household and industrial gas customers as well as Member States and the national regulatory authority, where it is not the Competent Authority, shall cooperate with the Competent Authority and provide it upon request with all necessary information for the risk assessment.\n4. The risk assessment shall be updated for the first time at the latest 18 months after adoption of the Preventive Action and Emergency Plans referred to in Article 4, and thereafter every 2 years before 30 September of the relevant year unless circumstances warrant more frequent updates. The risk assessment shall take account of progress made in investments needed to cope with the infrastructure standard defined in Article 6 and of country-specific difficulties encountered in the implementation of new alternative solutions.\n5. The risk assessment, including updated versions, shall be made available to the Commission without delay.\nArticle 10\nEmergency Plans and Crisis Levels\n1. The national and joint Emergency Plans shall:\n(a)\nbuild upon the crisis levels set out in paragraph 3;\n(b)\ndefine the role and responsibilities of natural gas undertakings and of industrial gas customers including relevant electricity producers, taking account of the different extents to which they are affected in the event of gas supply disruptions, and their interaction with the Competent Authorities and where appropriate with the national regulatory authorities at each of the crisis levels defined in paragraph 3;\n(c)\ndefine the role and responsibilities of the Competent Authorities and of the other bodies to which tasks have been delegated as referred to in Article 2(2) at each of the crisis levels defined in paragraph 3 of this Article;\n(d)\nensure that natural gas undertakings and industrial gas customers are given sufficient opportunity to respond at each crisis level;\n(e)\nidentify, if appropriate, the measures and actions to be taken to mitigate the potential impact of a gas supply disruption on district heating and the supply of electricity generated from gas;\n(f)\nestablish detailed procedures and measures to be followed for each crisis level, including the corresponding schemes on information flows;\n(g)\ndesignate a crisis manager or team and define its role;\n(h)\nidentify the contribution of market-based measures, notably those listed in Annex II, for coping with the situation at alert level and mitigating the situation at emergency level;\n(i)\nidentify the contribution of non-market based measures planned or to be implemented for the emergency level, notably those listed in Annex III, and assess the degree to which the use of such non-market based measures is necessary to cope with a crisis, assess their effects and define the procedures to implement them, taking into account the fact that non-market based measures are to be used only when market-based mechanisms alone can no longer ensure supplies, in particular to protected customers;\n(j)\ndescribe the mechanisms used to cooperate with other Member States for each crisis level;\n(k)\ndetail the reporting obligations imposed on natural gas undertakings at alert and emergency levels;\n(l)\nestablish a list of predefined actions to make gas available in the event of an emergency, including commercial agreements between the parties involved in such actions and the compensation mechanisms for natural gas undertakings where appropriate, taking due account of the confidentiality of sensitive data. Such actions may involve cross-border agreements between Member States and/or natural gas undertakings.\n2. The national and joint Emergency Plans shall be updated every 2 years, unless circumstances warrant more frequent updates, and shall reflect the updated risk assessment. The consultation provided for between Competent Authorities under Article 4(2) shall be carried out before the adoption of the updated Plans.\n3. The three main crisis levels shall be as follows:\n(a)\nearly warning level (early warning): when there is concrete, serious and reliable information that an event may occur which is likely to result in significant deterioration of the supply situation and is likely to lead to the alert or the emergency level being triggered; the early warning level may be activated by an early warning mechanism;\n(b)\nalert level (alert): when a supply disruption or exceptionally high gas demand occurs which results in significant deterioration of the supply situation, but the market is still able to manage that disruption or demand without the need to resort to non-market measures;\n(c)\nemergency level (emergency): in the event of exceptionally high gas demand, significant supply disruption or other significant deterioration of the supply situation and in the event that all relevant market measures have been implemented but the supply of gas is insufficient to meet the remaining gas demand so that non-market measures have to be additionally introduced with a view, in particular, to safeguarding supplies of gas to protected customers according to Article 8.\n4. The national and joint Emergency Plans shall ensure that cross-border access to infrastructure in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 is maintained as far as technically and safely possible in the event of an emergency. The Plans shall be in accordance with Article 3(6) of this Regulation and shall not introduce any measure unduly restricting the flow of gas across borders.\n5. When the Competent Authority declares any of the crisis levels referred to in paragraph 3, it shall immediately inform the Commission and provide it with all the necessary information, in particular with information on the action it intends to take. In the event of an emergency which may result in a call for assistance from the Union and its Member States, the Competent Authority of the Member State concerned shall without delay notify the Commission\u2019s Civil Protection Monitoring and Information Centre.\n6. When the Competent Authority declares an emergency, it shall follow the pre-defined action as defined in its Emergency Plan and shall immediately inform the Commission in particular of the action it intends to take in accordance with paragraph 1. In duly justified exceptional circumstances, the Competent Authority may take action deviating from the Emergency Plan. The Competent Authority shall immediately inform the Commission of any such action and shall provide a justification therefore.\n7. The Member States and, in particular, the Competent Authorities shall ensure that:\n(a)\nno measures are introduced which unduly restrict the flow of gas within the internal market at any time;\n(b)\nno measures are introduced that are likely to endanger seriously the gas supply situation in another Member State; and\n(c)\ncross-border access to infrastructure in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 is maintained as far as technically and safely possible, in accordance with the Emergency Plan.\n8. The Commission shall verify, as soon as possible, but in any case within 5 days of receiving the information of the Competent Authority referred to in paragraph 5, whether the declaration of an emergency is justified in accordance with point (c) of paragraph 3 and whether the measures taken follow as closely as possible the actions listed in the Emergency Plan and are not imposing an undue burden on natural gas undertakings and are in accordance with paragraph 7. The Commission may, at the request of a Competent Authority, natural gas undertakings or on its own initiative, request the Competent Authority to modify the measures where they are contrary to the conditions established in paragraph 7 and in the first sentence of this paragraph. The Commission may also request the Competent Authority to lift the declaration of emergency where it considers that such declaration is not or no longer justified according to point (c) of paragraph 3.\nWithin 3 days of the notification of the Commission\u2019s request, the Competent Authority shall modify the measures and notify the Commission thereof, or shall inform the Commission of the reasons for which it does not agree with the request. In that case, the Commission may within 3 days amend or withdraw its request or, in order to consider the issue, convene the Competent Authority or, where appropriate, the Competent Authorities concerned, and, where the Commission deems it necessary, the Gas Coordination Group. The Commission shall set out its detailed reasoning for requesting any changes to the action. The Competent Authority shall take full account of the position of the Commission. Where the final decision of the Competent Authority diverges from the Commission\u2019s position, the Competent Authority shall provide the reasoning underlying such decision.\nArticle 11\nUnion and regional emergency responses\n1. At the request of a Competent Authority that has declared an emergency and following the verification in accordance with Article 10(8), the Commission may declare a Union emergency or a regional emergency for a specifically affected geographical region. At the request of at least two Competent Authorities that have declared an emergency and following the verification in accordance with Article 10(8), and where the reasons for these emergencies are linked, the Commission shall declare, as appropriate, a Union or regional emergency. In all cases, the Commission, using the means of communication most appropriate to the situation, shall gather the views of, and take due account of all the relevant information provided by, the other Competent Authorities. When it assesses that the underlying basis for the Union or regional emergency no longer justifies a declaration of emergency, the Commission shall declare an end to the Union or regional emergency. In all cases, the Commission shall give its reasons and inform the Council of its decision.\n2. The Commission shall convene the Gas Coordination Group as soon as it declares a Union or regional emergency. During the Union or regional emergency, at the request of at least three Member States, the Commission may restrict participation in the Gas Coordination Group, for an entire meeting or part thereof, to the representatives of the Member States and the Competent Authorities.\n3. In a Union or regional emergency as referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall coordinate the action of the Competent Authorities, taking full account of relevant information from, and the results of, the consultation of the Gas Coordination Group. In particular, the Commission shall:\n(a)\nensure the exchange of information;\n(b)\nensure the consistency and effectiveness of action at Member State and regional levels in relation to the Union level;\n(c)\ncoordinate the actions with regard to third countries.\n4. The Commission may convene a crisis management group composed of the crisis managers referred to in Article 10(1)(g), of the Member States concerned by the emergency. The Commission, in agreement with the crisis managers, may invite other relevant stakeholders to participate. The Commission shall ensure that the Gas Coordination Group is regularly informed about the work undertaken by the crisis management group.\n5. The Member States and in particular the Competent Authorities shall ensure that:\n(a)\nno measures are introduced which unduly restrict the flow of gas within the internal market at any time, notably the flow of gas to the affected markets;\n(b)\nno measures are introduced that are likely to endanger seriously the gas supply situation in another Member State; and\n(c)\ncross-border access to infrastructure in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 is maintained as far as technically and safely possible, in accordance with the Emergency Plan.\n6. Where, at the request of a Competent Authority or a natural gas undertaking or on its own initiative, the Commission considers that, in a Union or regional emergency, an action taken by a Member State or a Competent Authority or the behaviour of a natural gas undertaking is contrary to paragraph 5, the Commission shall request that Member State or Competent Authority to change its action or to take action in order to ensure compliance with paragraph 5, informing it of the reasons therefore. Due account shall be taken of the need to operate the gas system safely at all times.\nWithin 3 days of notification of the Commission\u2019s request, the Member State or the Competent Authority shall change its action and notify the Commission or shall set out to the Commission the reasons for which it does not agree with the request. In that case, the Commission may within 3 days amend or withdraw its request or convene the Member State or the Competent Authority and, where the Commission deems it necessary, the Gas Coordination Group in order to consider the issue. The Commission shall set out its detailed reasoning for requesting any changes to the action. The Member State or the Competent Authority shall take full account of the position of the Commission. Where the final decision of the Competent Authority or the Member State diverges from the Commission\u2019s position, the Competent Authority or the Member State shall provide the reasoning underlying such decision.\n7. The Commission, after consulting the Gas Coordination Group, shall establish a permanent reserve list for a monitoring task force consisting of industry experts and representatives of the Commission. This monitoring task force may be deployed outside the Union when necessary and shall monitor and report on the gas flows into the Union, in cooperation with the supplying and transiting third countries.\n8. The Competent Authority shall provide to the Commission\u2019s Civil Protection Monitoring and Information Centre the information on any need for assistance. The Civil Protection Monitoring and Information Centre shall assess the overall situation and provide advice on the assistance that should be provided to the most affected Member States, and where appropriate to third countries.\nArticle 12\nGas Coordination Group\n1. A Gas Coordination Group is established to facilitate the coordination of measures concerning security of gas supply. The Group shall be composed of representatives of the Member States, in particular of their Competent Authorities, as well as the Agency, the ENTSO for Gas and representative bodies of the industry concerned and those of relevant customers. The Commission shall, in consultation with the Member States, decide on the composition of the Group, ensuring it is fully representative. The Commission shall chair the Group. The Group shall establish its rules of procedure.\n2. In accordance with this Regulation, the Gas Coordination Group shall be consulted and shall assist the Commission in particular on the following issues:\n(a)\nsecurity of gas supply, at any time and more specifically in the event of an emergency;\n(b)\nall information relevant for security of gas supply at national, regional and Union levels;\n(c)\nbest practices and possible guidelines to all the parties concerned;\n(d)\nthe level of security of supply, benchmarks and assessment methodologies;\n(e)\nnational, regional and Union scenarios and testing the levels of preparedness;\n(f)\nthe assessment of the Preventive Action Plans and the Emergency Plans and the implementation of the measures foreseen therein;\n(g)\nthe coordination of measures to deal with an emergency within the Union, with third countries that are Contracting Parties to the Treaty establishing the Energy Community and with other third countries;\n(h)\nassistance needed by the most affected Member States.\n3. The Commission shall convene the Gas Coordination Group on a regular basis and shall share the information received from the Competent Authorities whilst preserving the confidentiality of commercially sensitive information.\nArticle 13\nInformation exchange\n1. Where Member States have existing public service obligations that relate to security of gas supply, they shall make these public by 3 January 2011. Any subsequent updates or additional public service obligations that relate to security of gas supply shall also be made public as soon as adopted by Member States.\n2. During an emergency, the natural gas undertakings concerned shall make available in particular the following information to the Competent Authority on a daily basis:\n(a)\ndaily gas demand and supply forecasts for the following 3 days;\n(b)\ndaily flow of gas at all cross-border entry and exit points as well as all points connecting a production facility, a storage facility or an LNG terminal to the network, in mcm/d;\n(c)\nthe period, expressed in days, for which it is expected that gas supply to the protected customers can be ensured.\n3. In the event of a Union or regional emergency, the Commission is entitled to request that the Competent Authority provide it without delay with at least:\n(a)\nthe information set out in paragraph 2;\n(b)\ninformation on the measures planned to be undertaken and already implemented by the Competent Authority to mitigate the emergency, and information on their effectiveness;\n(c)\nthe requests made for additional measures to be taken by other Competent Authorities;\n(d)\nthe measures implemented at the request of other Competent Authorities.\n4. The Competent Authorities and the Commission shall preserve the confidentiality of commercially sensitive information.\n5. After an emergency, the Competent Authority shall, as soon as possible and at the latest 6 weeks after the lifting of the emergency, provide to the Commission a detailed assessment of the emergency and the effectiveness of the implemented measures, including an assessment of the economic impact of the emergency, the impact on the electricity sector and the assistance provided to, and/or received from, the Union and its Member States. Such assessment shall be made available to the Gas Coordination Group and shall be reflected in the updates of the Preventive Action Plans and the Emergency Plans.\nThe Commission shall analyse the assessments of the Competent Authorities and shall inform the Member States, the European Parliament and the Gas Coordination Group of the results of its analysis in aggregate form.\n6. In order to allow the Commission to assess the situation of the security of supply at Union level:\n(a)\nby 3 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall communicate to the Commission the existing inter-governmental agreements concluded with third countries which have an impact on the development of gas infrastructures and gas supplies. When concluding new inter-governmental agreements with third countries which have such an impact, the Member States shall inform the Commission;\n(b)\nfor existing contracts by 3 December 2011 at the latest, as well as for new contracts or in the event of changes to existing contracts, natural gas undertakings shall notify the Competent Authorities concerned of the following details of contracts with a duration of more than 1 year concluded with suppliers from third countries:\n(i)\ncontract duration;\n(ii)\ncontracted volumes in total, on an annual basis and the average volume per month;\n(iii)\nin the event of an alert or emergency, contracted maximal daily volumes;\n(iv)\ncontracted delivery points.\nThe Competent Authority shall notify these data in aggregate form to the Commission. In the event of new contracts being concluded or changes being made to existing contracts, the whole set of data shall be notified again in aggregate form on a regular basis. The Competent Authority and the Commission shall ensure the confidentiality of the information.\nArticle 14\nMonitoring by the Commission\nThe Commission shall carry out continuous monitoring of, and reporting on, security of gas supply measures, notably through an annual assessment of the reports referred to in Article 5 of Directive 2009/73/EC, and the information relating to the implementation of Article 11 and Article 52(1) of that Directive and, once available, the information provided in the risk assessment and the Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans to be established in accordance with this Regulation.\nBy 3 December 2014 at the latest, the Commission, on the basis of the report referred to in Article 4(6) and after consulting the Gas Coordination Group shall:\n(a)\ndraw conclusions as to possible means to enhance security of supply at Union level, assess the feasibility of carrying out risk assessments and establishing Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans at Union level and report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of this Regulation, including, inter alia, the progress made on market interconnectivity; and\n(b)\nreport to the European Parliament and the Council on the overall consistency of Member States\u2019 Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans as well as their contribution to solidarity and preparedness from a Union perspective.\nThe report shall include, where appropriate, recommendations for improvement of this Regulation.\nArticle 15\nRepeal\nWithout prejudice to the obligations of Member States concerning the deadlines for transposition and application of Directive 2004/67/EC, that Directive is repealed from 2 December 2010 with the exception of Article 4(1) and (2) of that Directive which shall apply until the Member State concerned has defined protected customers in accordance with Article 2(1) of this Regulation and has identified the natural gas undertakings in accordance with Article 8(1) of this Regulation.\nNotwithstanding the first paragraph of this Article, Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/67/EC shall no longer apply after 3 June 2012.\nArticle 16\nDerogation\nThis Regulation shall not apply to Malta and Cyprus for as long as no gas is supplied on their respective territories. For Malta and Cyprus the deadlines implied by point (1) of the second paragraph of Article 2 and Article 3(2), Article 4(2) and (5), Article 6(1) and (5), Article 8(1) and Article 9(1), and Article 13(6)(a) and (b) shall apply as follows:\n(a)\nfor point (1) of the second paragraph of Article 2, Article 3(2), Article 9(1) and Article 13(6)(a) and (b): 12 months;\n(b)\nfor Article 4(2) and Article 8(1): 18 months;\n(c)\nfor Article 4(5): 24 months;\n(d)\nfor Article 6(5): 36 months;\n(e)\nfor Article 6(1): 48 months;\nfrom the day gas is first supplied on their respective territories.\nArticle 17\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 6(8), the first sentence of Article 10(4), Article 10(7)(c) and Article 11(5)(c) shall apply from 3 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["30", "84", "21", "36", "56", "45", "97", "98", "99", "60", "59", "20", "73", "26", "16", "92", "28", "95", "49", "96", "72", "9", "74", "13", "11", "52", "27", "61", "47", "24", "No Label", "3", "22", "38", "78", "80"], "gold": ["3", "22", "38", "78", "80"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 16 July 2012\nappointing a Spanish member and a Spanish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/406/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Francisco \u00c1LVAREZ-CASCOS FERN\u00c1NDEZ. An alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Jos\u00e9 PORTILLA GONZALEZ,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas member:\n-\nMr Javier FERN\u00c1NDEZ FERN\u00c1NDEZ, Presidente del Principado de Asturias;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate member:\n-\nMr Guillermo MART\u00cdNEZ SU\u00c1REZ, Consejero de la Presidencia del Principado de Asturias.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["62", "35", "87", "52", "3", "81", "15", "82", "2", "99", "80", "65", "68", "4", "84", "27", "42", "37", "40", "25", "41", "10", "11", "21", "33", "72", "18", "78", "79", "51", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 May 2012\nconcerning the non-inclusion of dichlorvos for product type 18 in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market\n(notified under document C(2012) 3016)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/254/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes dichlorvos.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, dichlorvos (CAS Nr 62-73-7; EC Nr 200-547-7) has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nItaly was designated as rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 20 November 2007 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 9 December 2011, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nThe assessment has demonstrated that biocidal products used as insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods and containing dichlorvos cannot be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. The scenarios evaluated in the human health risk assessment as well as in the environmental risk assessment showed a potential and unacceptable risk. It is therefore not appropriate to include dichlorvos for use in product-type 18 in Annexes I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.\n(6)\nIn the interest of legal certainty, the date as of which biocidal products of product-type 18 containing dichlorvos should no longer be placed on the market should be specified, taking into account both the unacceptable effects of those products and the legitimate expectations of manufacturers of those products.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDichlorvos (CAS Nr 62-73-7; EC Nr 200-547-7) shall not be included in Annexes I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC for product type 18.\nArticle 2\nFor the purposes of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, biocidal products of product type 18 containing dichlorvos shall no longer be placed on the market with effect from 1 November 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2012.", "references": ["12", "84", "41", "36", "32", "10", "50", "9", "21", "51", "23", "79", "72", "62", "92", "85", "11", "66", "13", "1", "19", "75", "93", "73", "80", "7", "35", "63", "95", "49", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement\n(2011/458/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 100(2) and 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning transport.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (2) should be incorporated in the EEA Agreement.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1008/2008 has repealed Council Regulations (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers (3), (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (4) and (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services (5), which are currently incorporated in the EEA Agreement.\n(4)\nAnnex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe position of the Union within the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["46", "41", "65", "59", "12", "58", "81", "89", "35", "19", "40", "74", "45", "11", "44", "1", "84", "48", "69", "15", "5", "24", "32", "13", "33", "86", "80", "55", "39", "36", "No Label", "2", "20", "53", "54", "57", "96"], "gold": ["2", "20", "53", "54", "57", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 1 December 2010\nas regards a Union financial contribution for the year 2011, to certain European Union reference laboratories in the feed and food control area\n(notified under document C(2010) 8350)\n(Only the Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2010/736/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 32(7) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nEuropean Union reference laboratories in the food and feed control area may be granted a Union financial contribution in accordance with Article 31 of Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (2).\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 of 28 November 2006 laying down detailed rules for the granting of Community financial assistance to Community reference laboratories for feed and food and the animal health sector (3) provides that the financial contribution from the Union is to be granted if the approved work programmes are efficiently carried out and that the beneficiaries supply all the necessary information within certain time limits.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 the relationship between the Commission and each European Union reference laboratory is laid down in a partnership agreement which is supported by a multiannual work programme.\n(4)\nThe Commission has assessed the work programmes and corresponding budget estimates submitted by the European Union reference laboratories for the year 2011.\n(5)\nAccordingly, a Union financial contribution should be granted to the European Union reference laboratories designated in order to co-finance their activities to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. The Union\u2019s financial contribution should be at the rate of 100 % of eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 1754/2006 lays down eligibility rules for the workshops organised by the European Union reference laboratories. It also limits the financial assistance to a maximum of 32 participants in workshops. Derogations to that limitation should be provided in accordance with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to some European Union reference laboratory that needs support for attendance by more than 32 participants in order to achieve the best outcome of its workshops. Derogations can be obtained in case a European Union reference laboratory takes the leadership and responsibility when organising a workshop with another European Union reference laboratory.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (4), animal disease eradication and control programmes (veterinary measures) shall be financed from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF). Furthermore, Article 13, second paragraph of that Regulation foresees that in duly justified exceptional cases, for measures and programmes covered by Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (5), expenditure relating to administrative and personnel costs incurred by Member States and beneficiaries of aid from the EAGF shall be borne by the Fund. For financial control purposes, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 are to apply.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches sur la qualit\u00e9 des aliments et sur les proc\u00e9d\u00e9s agroalimentaires (Lerqap), of the Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (Anses, ex-AFSSA), Maisons-Alfort, France, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for the analysis and testing of milk and milk products.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 355 820.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 23 000.\nArticle 2\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for the analysis and testing of zoonoses (salmonella).\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 373 450.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 30 300.\nArticle 3\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Laboratorio de Biotoxinas Marinas, Agencia Espa\u00f1ola de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrici\u00f3n (Ministerio de Sanidad y Pol\u00edtica Social), Vigo, Spain, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for the monitoring of marine biotoxins.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 283 302.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 44 500.\nArticle 4\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the laboratory of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Weymouth, United Kingdom, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for the monitoring of viral and bacteriological contamination of bivalve molluscs.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 289 832.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 46 800.\nArticle 5\n1. The European Union grants a financial contribution to the Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches sur la qualit\u00e9 des aliments et sur les proc\u00e9d\u00e9s agroalimentaires (Lerqap), of the Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (Anses, ex-AFSSA), Maisons-Alfort, France, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for the analysis and testing of Listeria monocytogenes.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial contribution shall not exceed EUR 426 065.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants a financial contribution to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That contribution shall not exceed EUR 23 000.\nArticle 6\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches sur la qualit\u00e9 des aliments et sur les proc\u00e9d\u00e9s agroalimentaires (Lerqap), of the Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (Anses, ex-AFSSA), Maisons-Alfort, France, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for the analysis and testing of coagulase positive Staphylococci, including Staphylococcus aureus.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial contribution shall not exceed EUR 361 615.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants a financial contribution to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That contribution shall not exceed EUR 23 000.\nArticle 7\n1. The European Union grants a financial contribution to the Istituto Superiore di Sanit\u00e0 (ISS), Rome, Italy, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for the analysis and testing of Escherichia coli, including Verotoxigenic E. Coli (VTEC).\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial contribution shall not exceed EUR 269 296.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants a financial contribution to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That contribution shall not exceed EUR 22 000.\nArticle 8\n1. The European Union grants a financial contribution to the Statens Veterin\u00e4rmedicinska Anstalt (SVA), Uppsala, Sweden, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for the monitoring of Campylobacter.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial contribution shall not exceed EUR 305 386.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants a financial contribution to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That contribution shall not exceed EUR 30 000.\nArticle 9\n1. The European Union grants a financial contribution to the Istituto Superiore di Sanit\u00e0 (ISS), Rome, Italy, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, in respect of analysis and testing of parasites (in particular Trichinella, Echinococcus and Anisakis).\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial contribution shall not exceed EUR 325 010.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants a financial contribution to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That contribution shall not exceed EUR 30 000.\nArticle 10\n1. The European Union grants a financial contribution to the F\u00f8devareinstituttet, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (DTU), Copenhagen, Denmark, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for the monitoring of antimicrobial resistance.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial contribution shall not exceed EUR 387 534.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants a financial contribution to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That contribution shall not exceed EUR 67 000.\nArticle 11\n1. The European Union grants a financial contribution to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Addlestone, United Kingdom, to carry out the functions and duties provided in Chapter B of Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), in particular for the monitoring of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial contribution shall not exceed EUR 737 901.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants a financial contribution to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That contribution shall not exceed EUR 70 200.\n3. By way of derogation from Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006, the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 shall be entitled to claim financial assistance for attendance by a maximum of 50 participants at one of its workshops referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article.\nArticle 12\n1. The European Union grants a financial contribution to the Centre wallon de Recherches agronomiques (CRA-W), Gembloux, Belgium, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for the analysis and testing of animal proteins in feedingstuffs.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial contribution shall not exceed EUR 581 716.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants a financial contribution to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That contribution shall not exceed EUR 30 000.\nArticle 13\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for residues of certain substances listed in Annex I to Council Directive 96/23/EC (7) and referred to by Annex VII, Section I, point 12(a) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 464 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 25 000.\nArticle 14\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches sur les m\u00e9dicaments v\u00e9t\u00e9rinaires et les d\u00e9sinfectants de L\u2019Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (Anses, ex-AFSSA), Foug\u00e8res, France, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for residues of certain substances listed in Annex I to Directive 96/23/EC and referred to by Annex VII, Section I, point 12 (a) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 464 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to by the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 25 000.\nArticle 15\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Bundesamt f\u00fcr Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (BVL), Berlin, Germany, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for residues of certain substances listed in Annex I to Directive 96/23/EC and referred to by Annex VII, Section I, point 12(a) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 464 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 25 000.\nArticle 16\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Istituto Superiore di Sanit\u00e0 (ISS), Rome, Italy, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for residues of certain substances listed in Annex I to Directive 96/23/EC and referred to by Annex VII, Section I, point 12(a) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 283 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 25 000.\nArticle 17\n1. The European Union grants a financial contribution to the Chemisches und Veterin\u00e4runtersuchungsamt (CVUA) Freiburg, Germany, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for the analysis and testing of residues of pesticides in food of animal origin and commodities with high fat content.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial contribution shall not exceed EUR 198 900.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 110 000.\n3. By way of derogation from Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006, the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 shall be entitled to claim financial assistance for attendance by a maximum of 110 participants at one of its workshops referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article.\nArticle 18\nThe European Union grants a financial contribution to the F\u00f8devareinstituttet, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (DTU), Copenhagen, Denmark, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for the analysis and testing of residues of pesticides in cereals and feedingstuffs.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial contribution shall not exceed EUR 198 900.\nArticle 19\n1. The European Union grants a financial contribution to the Laboratorio Agrario de la Generalitat Valenciana (LAGV)/Grupo de Residuos de Plaguicidas de la Universidad de Almer\u00eda (PRRG), Spain to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for the analysis and testing of residues of pesticides in fruits and vegetables, including commodities with high water and high acid content.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial contribution shall not exceed EUR 447 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants a financial contribution to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That contribution shall not exceed EUR 10 000.\nArticle 20\nThe European Union grants a financial contribution to the Chemisches und Veterin\u00e4runtersuchungsamt (CVUA), Stuttgart, Germany, to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for the analysis and testing of residues of pesticides by single residue methods.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial contribution shall not exceed EUR 365 000.\nArticle 21\n1. The European Union grants a financial contribution to the Chemisches und Veterin\u00e4runtersuchungsamt (CVUA), Freiburg, Germany, to carry out by the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, for the analysis and testing of dioxins and PCBs in feed and food.\nFor the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, that financial contribution shall not exceed EUR 470 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants a financial contribution to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That contribution shall not exceed EUR 55 000.\nArticle 22\nThe Union\u2019s financial contribution referred to in Articles 1 to 21 shall be at the rate of 100 % of eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006.\nArticle 23\nThis Decision is addressed to the:\n-\nfor milk and milk products: Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches sur la qualit\u00e9 des aliments et sur les proc\u00e9d\u00e9s agroalimentaires (Lerqap), of the Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (Anses), 23 avenue du G\u00e9n\u00e9ral de Gaulle, 94700 Maisons-Alfort, France,\n-\nfor the analysis and testing of zoonoses (salmonella): Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM), Postbus 1, Anthony van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands,\n-\nfor the monitoring of marine biotoxins: Laboratorio de Biotoxinas Marinas, Agencia Espa\u00f1ola de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrici\u00f3n (Ministerio de Sanidad y Pol\u00edtica Social), Estaci\u00f3n Maritima, s/n, 36200 Vigo, Spain,\n-\nfor monitoring the viral and bacteriological contamination of bivalve molluscs: Laboratory of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Weymouth laboratory, Barrack Road, The Nothe, Weymouth, Dorset, DT4 8UB, United Kingdom,\n-\nfor Listeria monocytogenes: Laboratoire d\u2019Etudes et de Recherches sur la Qualit\u00e9 des Aliments et sur les Proc\u00e9d\u00e9s Agro-alimentaires (Lerqap), of the Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (Anses), 23 avenue du G\u00e9n\u00e9ral de Gaulle, 94700 Maisons-Alfort, France,\n-\nfor coagulase positive Staphylococci, including Staphylococcus aureus: Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches sur la qualit\u00e9 des aliments et sur les proc\u00e9d\u00e9s agro-alimentaires (Lerqap), of the Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (Anses), 23 avenue du G\u00e9n\u00e9ral de Gaulle, 94700 Maisons-Alfort, France,\n-\nfor Escherichia coli, including Verotoxigenic E. Coli (VTEC): Istituto Superiore di Sanit\u00e0 (ISS), Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Roma, Italy,\n-\nfor Campylobacter: Statens Veterin\u00e4rmedicinska Anstalt (SVA), Ulls v\u00e4g 2 B, 75189 Uppsala, Sweden,\n-\nfor parasites (in particular Trichinella, Echinococcus and Anisakis): Istituto Superiore di Sanit\u00e0 (ISS), Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Roma, Italy,\n-\nfor antimicrobial resistance: F\u00f8devareinstituttet, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (DTU), B\u00fclowsvej 27, 1790 Copenhagen V, Denmark,\n-\nfor transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs): Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Woodham Lane, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 3NB, United Kingdom (Ms Marion Simmons, tel. +441932357564),\n-\nfor animal proteins in feedingstuffs: Centre wallon de Recherches agronomiques (CRA-W), Chauss\u00e9e de Namur 24, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,\n-\nfor residues: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM), Postbus 1, Anthony van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands,\n-\nfor residues: Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches sur les m\u00e9dicaments v\u00e9t\u00e9rinaires et les d\u00e9sinfectants de L\u2019Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (Anses), Site de Foug\u00e8res, BP 90203, 35302 Foug\u00e8res, France,\n-\nfor residues: Bundesamt f\u00fcr Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit, Postfach 100214, Mauerstrasse 39-42, 10562 Berlin, Germany,\n-\nfor residues: Istituto Superiore di Sanit\u00e0 (ISS), Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Roma, Italy,\n-\nfor the analysis and testing of residues of pesticides in food of animal origin: Chemisches und Veterin\u00e4runtersuchungsamt (CVUA), Postfach 100462, Bissierstrasse 5, 79114 Freiburg, Germany,\n-\nfor the analysis and testing of residues of pesticides in cereals: F\u00f8devareinstituttet, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (DTU), Department of Food Chemistry, Moerkhoej Bygade 19, 2860 Soeborg, Denmark,\n-\nfor the analysis and testing of residues of pesticides in fruits and vegetables: Laboratorio Agrario de la Generalitat Valenciana (LAGV)/Grupo de Residuos de Plaguicidas de la Universidad de Almer\u00eda (PRRG), Ctra. Sacramento s/n, La Canada de San Urbano, 04120 Almeria, Spain,\n-\nfor the analysis and testing of residues of pesticides by single residue methods: Chemisches und Veterin\u00e4runtersuchungsamt (CVUA), Postfach 1206, Schaflandstrasse 3/2, 70736 Stuttgart, Germany,\n-\nfor the analysis and testing of dioxins and PCBs in feed and food: Chemisches und Veterin\u00e4runtersuchungsamt (CVUA), Postfach 100462, Bissierstrasse 5, 79114 Freiburg, Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2010.", "references": ["34", "97", "89", "39", "1", "79", "37", "49", "73", "90", "0", "55", "45", "64", "35", "69", "65", "25", "75", "7", "87", "53", "24", "86", "61", "67", "92", "8", "51", "29", "No Label", "4", "15", "38", "66", "72", "77"], "gold": ["4", "15", "38", "66", "72", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 January 2011\nconcerning the placing on the market for essential use of biocidal products containing temephos in the French overseas departments\n(notified under document C(2011) 167)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(2011/48/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1) and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe first subparagraph of Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) provides that the Commission shall commence a 14-year work programme for the systematic examination of all active substances already on the market on 14 May 2000 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the review programme\u2019).\n(2)\nTemephos was identified as available on the market before 14 May 2000 as an active substance of biocidal products for purposes other than those referred to in Article 2(2)(c) and (d) of Directive 98/8/EC. No dossier was submitted in support of the inclusion of temephos in Annex I, IA or IB to that Directive within the prescribed deadline.\n(3)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 (3), Member States had to cancel existing authorisations or registrations for biocidal products containing temephos with effect from 1 September 2006. Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, biocidal products containing temephos shall no longer be placed on the market.\n(4)\nArticle 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 lays down the conditions under which Member States may apply to the Commission for derogation from the provision laid down in Article 4(1) of that Regulation and the conditions for granting such derogation.\n(5)\nBy Commission Decision 2007/226/EC (4), the Commission granted such derogation for biocidal products containing temephos used for vector mosquito control in the French overseas departments until 14 May 2009. By Commission Decision 2009/395/EC (5), the derogation was prolonged until 14 May 2010. On 4 March 2010, France submitted a report to the Commission relating to the use of temephos.\n(6)\nFrance has submitted an application to the Commission for extension of the derogation until 14 May 2014. The application contains information relating to recent important outbreaks of mosquito-spread epidemics in the French overseas departments. It explains the need for a range of insecticides to combat the epidemics and details the actions taken to substitute temephos, as well as the ongoing research on alternative methods subsidised by the French authorities. The Commission made the French application publicly available by electronic means on 1 August 2010 for a 60-day public consultation. No objection against the derogation sought was expressed during this period.\n(7)\nGiven the magnitude of the outbreaks of mosquito-spread diseases in the French overseas departments, it is appropriate to allow the continued use of temephos. A further extension of the phase-out period for this substance is, therefore, necessary. The extension should take effect when the previous derogation ended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, France may allow the placing on the market of biocidal products containing Temephos (EC No 222-191-1; CAS No 3383-96-8), for vector mosquito control in the French overseas departments until 14 May 2014.\nArticle 2\n1. When allowing the placing on the market of biocidal products containing temephos in accordance with Article 1, France shall ensure that the following conditions are complied with:\n(a)\ncontinued use is only possible under the conditions that biocidal products containing temephos are approved for the intended essential use;\n(b)\nthe continued use is only accepted so far as it has no unacceptable effect on human or animal health or on the environment;\n(c)\nall appropriate risk reduction measures are imposed when granting approval;\n(d)\nsuch biocidal products remaining on the market after 1 September 2006 are relabelled in order to match the restricted use conditions;\n(e)\nwhere appropriate, alternatives for such uses are being sought by the holders of the approvals or by France.\n2. France shall inform the Commission annually on the application of paragraph 1 and in particular on the actions taken pursuant to point (e) of that paragraph.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall take effect from 15 May 2010.\nDone at Brussels, 24 January 2011.", "references": ["59", "81", "78", "95", "29", "39", "88", "69", "71", "5", "27", "23", "48", "85", "18", "42", "13", "11", "36", "54", "82", "50", "15", "45", "32", "63", "24", "46", "60", "33", "No Label", "2", "3", "25", "38", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "3", "25", "38", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 573/2012\nof 28 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2012.", "references": ["53", "55", "27", "69", "76", "24", "18", "88", "7", "2", "75", "34", "14", "6", "11", "12", "4", "25", "74", "33", "38", "49", "86", "9", "23", "81", "72", "50", "92", "82", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 June 2011\non financial aid from the Union for the period from 1 April to 31 December 2011 for the European Union reference laboratory for bee health\n(notified under document C(2011) 3767)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(2011/338/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1), and in particular Article 75(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (2), and in particular Article 32(7) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (3), and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 the commitment of the expenditure shall be preceded by a financing decision adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 31(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC European Union reference laboratories in the field of animal health and live animals may be granted Union aid.\n(3)\nAccordingly, Union financial assistance should be granted to the European Union reference laboratory designated to carry out the functions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 87/2011 of 2 February 2011 designating the EU reference laboratory for bee health, laying down additional responsibilities and tasks for that laboratory and amending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4).\n(4)\nThe Commission has assessed the work programme and corresponding budget estimates submitted by the EU reference laboratory for bee health for the period from 1 April to 31 December 2011.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 of 28 November 2006 laying down detailed rules for the granting of Community financial assistance to Community reference laboratories for feed and food and the animal health sector (5) provides that the financial assistance from the Union is to be granted if the approved work programmes are efficiently carried out and the beneficiaries supply all the necessary information within certain time limits.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 the relationship between the Commission and European Union reference laboratories is laid down in a partnership agreement which is supported by a multiannual work programme.\n(7)\nFinancial assistance for the operation and organisation of workshops of European Union reference laboratories should also be in conformity with the eligibility rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 1754/2006 lays down eligibility rules for the workshops organised by the European Union reference laboratories. It also limits the financial assistance to a maximum of 32 participants in workshops. Derogation to that limitation should be provided in accordance with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to some European Union reference laboratories that needs support for attendance by more than 32 participants in order to achieve the best outcome of its workshops. Derogations can be obtained in case a European reference laboratory takes the leadership and responsibility of organising a workshop with another European Union reference laboratory.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2)(a) and Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (6), animal disease eradication and control programmes (veterinary measures) shall be financed from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF). Furthermore, Article 13, second subparagraph, of that Regulation foresees that in duly justified exceptional cases, for measures and programmes covered by Decision 2009/470/EC, expenditure relating to administrative and personnel costs incurred by Member States and beneficiaries of aid from the EAGF shall be borne by that Fund. For financial control purposes, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 are to apply.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor bee health, the Union grants financial assistance to Agence Nationale de S\u00e9curit\u00e9 Sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (ANSES), Sophia-Antipolis Laboratory to carry out the functions and duties set out in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 87/2011.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that institute for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 249 616 for the period from 1 April to 31 December 2011 of which a maximum of EUR 48 470 shall be dedicated to the organisation of a technical workshop on bee health.\nThis Decision constitutes a financing decision within the meaning of Article 75(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to:\nAgence Nationale de S\u00e9curit\u00e9 Sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail, Sophia-Antipolis Laboratory, Les Templiers, 105 route des Chappes, BP 111, 06902 Sophia-Antipolis, FRANCE.\nDone at Brussels, 10 June 2011.", "references": ["14", "57", "56", "31", "39", "97", "52", "18", "84", "16", "79", "21", "90", "76", "71", "86", "28", "20", "54", "96", "49", "55", "40", "11", "99", "82", "75", "2", "63", "81", "No Label", "10", "15", "59", "66", "77"], "gold": ["10", "15", "59", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/17/CFSP\nof 11 January 2011\namending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1).\n(2)\nOn 22 December 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/801/CFSP (2) amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP with a view to imposing a visa ban on those who are obstructing the process of peace and national reconciliation, and in particular who are jeopardising the proper outcome of the electoral process.\n(3)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, additional persons should be included in the list of persons subject to restrictive measures that is given in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons mentioned in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list given in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 11 January 2011.", "references": ["73", "37", "29", "74", "82", "47", "2", "84", "42", "26", "48", "24", "11", "51", "63", "90", "7", "46", "67", "41", "34", "44", "78", "58", "69", "50", "20", "53", "64", "60", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "79", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "79", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 July 2010\non the conclusion of a Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Moldova in Union programmes\n(2011/28/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 114, 168, 169, 172, 173(3), 188 and 192, in conjunction with point (a) of Article 218(6), Article 218(7) and the second subparagraph of Article 218(8), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Moldova in Union programmes (1) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019) was signed on behalf of the Union on 30 September 2010.\n(2)\nThe Protocol should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Moldova in Union programmes is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall give on behalf of the Union the notification provided for in Article 10 of the Protocol.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2010.", "references": ["29", "75", "5", "32", "56", "68", "6", "88", "17", "12", "30", "52", "87", "25", "95", "59", "33", "72", "61", "40", "86", "84", "24", "18", "57", "65", "11", "89", "31", "45", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 115/2011\nof 2 February 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 on the list of aircraft operators which performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on or after 1 January 2006 specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Article 18a(3)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) amended Directive 2003/87/EC to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 (3) establishes a list of aircraft operators which had performed an aviation activity within the meaning of Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC on or after 1 January 2006.\n(3)\nThe list aims to reduce the administrative burden on aircraft operators by providing information on which Member State will be regulating a particular aircraft operator, so that each aircraft operator knows which Member State it will be regulated by and each Member State is clear on which operators it should regulate.\n(4)\nThe inclusion in the Union\u2019s emissions trading scheme is dependent upon the performance of an aviation activity in Annex I to the Directive 2003/87/EC and is not dependent on the inclusion in the list of aircraft operators established by the Commission on the basis of Article 18a(3) of the Directive.\n(5)\nA number of aircraft operators employ management or service companies to file flight plans and pay route charges on their behalf. Consequently the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) designator of the management or service company often appears in the flight plan, notwithstanding that such companies may not be aircraft operators. The best means to identify an aircraft operator or aircraft owner is the presence of the ICAO designator or registration marking in the flight plan, and it is therefore often not possible to identify with certainty the relevant operator unless the operator provides Eurocontrol with a fleet declaration containing data on the aircraft it operates. In establishing the updated list of the aircraft operators, the Commission has taken account of the fleet list declarations provided to it by operators and management and service companies. However, a number of management or service companies and aircraft registration markings appear in the updated list due to a lack of information being provided.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 748/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 February 2011.", "references": ["32", "3", "24", "4", "16", "31", "54", "22", "84", "66", "93", "56", "62", "38", "91", "80", "39", "17", "1", "53", "65", "30", "29", "7", "23", "60", "12", "99", "34", "89", "No Label", "20", "57", "96"], "gold": ["20", "57", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 8 October 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic, service or official passports\n(2010/621/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to harmonise their visa policy with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (1), some Member States granted visa waiver to the nationals of the Federative Republic of Brazil (\u2018Brazil\u2019) prior to their accession to the Union, as Brazil figures on the list of third countries whose nationals are exempt from the visa requirement.\n(2)\nFor constitutional reasons, Brazil cannot grant visa waiver to the Member States unilaterally; it is necessary to conclude a visa waiver agreement to be ratified by the Brazilian Parliament.\n(3)\nBrazil has bilateral visa waiver agreements with most of the Member States, concluded either prior to their accession to the Union or prior to the establishment of the common visa policy. However, there are still four Member States, with whom no bilateral visa waiver agreement was concluded in the past, therefore Brazil still requires a visa from the nationals of these Member States for short stays.\n(4)\nIt stems from the nature of the common visa policy and the exclusive external competence of the Union in this area that only the Union can negotiate and conclude a visa waiver agreement, and not the individual Member States.\n(5)\nIn view of the non-reciprocal treatment of Brazil towards certain Member States, the Council, by its Decision of 18 April 2008, authorised the Commission to negotiate an agreement between the Union and Brazil on short-stay visa waiver in order to ensure full reciprocal visa waiver.\n(6)\nNegotiations on the agreement were opened on 2 July 2008 and concluded on 19 November 2009.\n(7)\nSubject to its conclusion at a later date, the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic, service or official passports initialled in Brussels on 28 April 2010, should be signed.\n(8)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (2); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(9)\nThis 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 of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (3); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic, service or official passports (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion (4).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["2", "18", "70", "45", "85", "68", "58", "12", "6", "62", "1", "71", "87", "56", "54", "32", "69", "63", "10", "39", "77", "26", "17", "92", "94", "99", "82", "96", "48", "81", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "13", "40", "93"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "13", "40", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 945/2010\nof 21 October 2010\nadopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 2011 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the EU and derogating from certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f) and (g), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro (2), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 of 14 September 2010 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Union (3), the Commission has to adopt a distribution plan to be financed from resources available in the 2011 budget year. That plan has to lay down, in particular, for each of the Member States applying the measure, the maximum financial resources available to carry out its part of the plan, and the quantity of each type of product to be withdrawn from the stocks held by the intervention agencies.\n(2)\nThe Member States involved in the distribution plan for the 2011 budget year have supplied the Commission with the information required in accordance with Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010.\n(3)\nFor the purposes of resource allocation, account must be taken of experience and of the degree to which the Member States used the resources allocated to them in previous years.\n(4)\nPoint (a), (iii) of Article 2(3) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 provides for the allocation of resources for the purchase on the market of products temporarily unavailable in intervention stocks. Given that the stocks of butter currently held by the intervention agencies are not sufficient to cover the allocations, resource allocations should be fixed to enable the purchase on the market as required to implement the distribution plan for the 2011 budget year.\n(5)\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 provides that, where no rice is available in intervention stocks, the Commission may authorise the removal of cereals from the intervention stocks as payment for the supply of rice or rice products mobilised on the market. Accordingly, given that there are currently no intervention stocks of rice, the removal of cereals from intervention stocks as payment for mobilising rice products in the market should be authorised.\n(6)\nArticle 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 provides for the transfer between Member States of products unavailable in the intervention stocks of the Member State in which such products are required to implement the annual distribution plan. Accordingly, the intra-EU transfers necessary to implement that plan for 2011 should be authorised, subject to the conditions laid down in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010.\n(7)\nFurthermore, in view of the market situation as regards cereals and in order to enable the Commission to manage cereal intervention stocks in an efficient and timely manner, it is appropriate, in case of intra-EU transfers, that supplier Member States swiftly inform the Commission about the quantities of each type of cereal kept in intervention in their territory that they will reserve for the purpose of implementing the 2011 distribution plan.\n(8)\nTaking into account the complexity of the implementation of the 2011 distribution plan requiring a high volume of intra-EU transfers, it is appropriate to increase the 5 % margin provided in Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010.\n(9)\nIn order to ensure that products from the intervention stocks do not enter the market at an inappropriate moment during the year, the time periods provided for in the first, second and third subparagraphs of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 during which products may be withdrawn from the intervention stocks should be shortened.\n(10)\nTaking into account the high volume of products to be withdrawn from intervention stocks and the high volume of intra-EU transfers, it is appropriate to derogate from the sixty-day period allowed for the removal of the products from intervention stocks in accordance with the fifth subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010.\n(11)\nDue to the current market situation in the cereals sector, which is marked by high market price levels, it is appropriate, in order to secure the Union\u2019s financial interests, to increase the security, which is to be lodged by the contractor undertaking the supply operation of cereals as provided for in Articles 4(3) and 8(4) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010.\n(12)\nTo implement the annual distribution plan, the operative event within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 should be the date on which the financial year for administration of stocks in public storage starts.\n(13)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, the Commission has consulted the major organisations familiar with the problems of the most deprived persons in the EU when drawing up the annual distribution plan.\n(14)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn 2011, the distribution of food to the most deprived persons in the EU under Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be implemented in accordance with the annual distribution plan set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nThe use of cereals as payment for mobilising rice products on the market is authorised, as referred to in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010.\nArticle 2\nAllocations to Member States for the purchase of butter on the EU market, as required under the plan referred to in Article 1, shall be as set out in Annex II.\nArticle 3\n1. The intra-EU transfer of products listed in Annex III to this Regulation shall be authorised, subject to the conditions laid down in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010.\n2. In case of intra-EU transfer of cereals, the supplier Member States shall notify the Commission, within 15 days following the entry into force of this Regulation, of the quantities of each type of cereal held by their intervention agencies that are reserved for the implementation of 2011 distribution plan.\nArticle 4\nBy way of derogation from the first and third subparagraphs of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, for the 2011 distribution plan, withdrawal of butter and skimmed milk powder from intervention stocks shall take place from 1 June to 30 September 2011.\nHowever, the first paragraph of this Article shall not apply to allocations of 500 tonnes or less.\nFor the 2011 distribution plan, the sixty-day period for the removal of withdrawn products provided for in the fifth subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 shall not apply in the case of butter and skimmed milk powder.\nArticle 5\nBy way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, for the 2011 distribution plan, 70 % of the cereals stocks held by the intervention agencies must be withdrawn before 1 June 2011.\nFor the 2011 distribution plan, the sixty-day period for the removal of withdrawn products provided for in the fifth subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 shall not apply in the case of cereals.\nArticle 6\nBy way of derogation from the fifth subparagraph of Article 4(3) and from the first subparagraph of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, for the 2011 distribution plan, before cereals are removed from intervention, the contractor undertaking the supply operation shall lodge a security equal to EUR 150 per tonne.\nArticle 7\nBy way of derogation from Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, for the 2011 distribution plan where substantiated changes concern 10 % or more of the quantities or values entered per product in the EU plan, the plan shall be revised.\nArticle 8\nFor the purpose of implementing the annual distribution plan referred to in Article 1 of this Regulation, the date of the operative event within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 shall be 1 October 2010.\nArticle 9\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["41", "58", "40", "99", "66", "60", "7", "19", "85", "0", "36", "3", "51", "30", "70", "83", "63", "77", "65", "55", "8", "53", "62", "69", "28", "86", "90", "84", "11", "88", "No Label", "4", "15", "20", "37", "72", "96"], "gold": ["4", "15", "20", "37", "72", "96"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/014 SI/Mura from Slovenia)\n(2010/809/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nSlovenia submitted an application on 28 April 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Mura and supplemented it with additional information on 24 June 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 247 940.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Slovenia,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 247 940 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["86", "8", "77", "34", "94", "75", "73", "92", "65", "56", "27", "68", "6", "82", "74", "13", "5", "43", "44", "98", "64", "47", "3", "67", "40", "35", "66", "60", "37", "18", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\non the recognition of the \u2018Biomass Biofuels Sustainability voluntary scheme\u2019 for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria under Directives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(2011/437/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1), and in particular Article 18(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels (2) as amended by the Directive 2009/30/EC (3), and in particular Article 7c(6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee established by Article 25, paragraph 2 of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC both lay down sustainability criteria for biofuels. When reference is made to the provisions of Articles 17 and 18 and Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC this should be construed as the reference also to the similar provisions of Articles 7a, 7b and 7c and Annex IV to Directive 2009/30/EC.\n(2)\nWhere biofuels and bioliquids are to be taken into account for the purposes referred to in Article 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) Member States shall require economic operators to show the compliance of biofuels and bioliquids with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(2) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(3)\nRecital 76 of Directive 2009/28/EC states that the imposition of an unreasonable burden on industry should be avoided and voluntary schemes can help creating efficient solutions for proving compliance with these sustainability criteria.\n(4)\nThe Commission may decide that a voluntary national or international scheme demonstrates that consignments of biofuels comply with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(3) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC or that a voluntary national or international scheme to measure greenhouse gas emission savings contains accurate data for the purposes of Article 17(2) of this Directive.\n(5)\nThe Commission may recognise such a voluntary scheme for a period of 5 years.\n(6)\nWhen an economic operator provides proof or data obtained in accordance with a scheme that has been recognised by the Commission, to the extent covered by that recognition decision, a Member State shall not require the supplier to provide further evidence of compliance with the sustainability criteria.\n(7)\nThe \u2018Biomass Biofuels Sustainability voluntary scheme\u2019 (hereinafter \u20182BSvs\u2019) scheme was submitted on 11 May 2011 to the Commission with the request for recognition. The scheme covers a wide range of products and applies to all geographic locations. The recognised scheme will be made available at the transparency platform established under Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission will take into account considerations of commercial sensitivity and may decide to only partially publish the scheme.\n(8)\nAssessment of the 2BSvs scheme found it to adequately cover, with exception of the criterion set out in Article 17(3)(c), the sustainability criteria of Directive 2009/28/EC, as well as applying a mass balance methodology in line with the requirements of Article 18(1) of the Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(9)\nThe evaluation of the 2BSvs scheme found that it meets adequate standards of reliability, transparency and independent auditing and also complies with the methodological requirements in Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(10)\nAny additional sustainability elements covered by the 2BSvs scheme are not part of the consideration of this Decision. These additional sustainability criteria are not mandatory to show compliance with sustainability requirements set up in Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission may at a later stage take a view on whether the scheme also contains accurate data for the purpose of information on measures taken for issues referred to in the second paragraph, second sentence of Article 18(4) of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018Biomass Biofuels Sustainability voluntary scheme\u2019 for which the request for recognition was submitted to the Commission on 11 May 2011 demonstrates that consignments of biofuels comply with the sustainability criteria as laid down in Article 17(3)(a) and (b) and Article 17(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(3)(a) and (b) and Article 7b(4) and (5) of Directive 98/70/EC. The scheme also contains accurate data for purposes of Article 17(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(2) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nFurthermore, it may be used for demonstrating compliance with Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC and of Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nArticle 2\n1. The Decision is valid for a period of 5 years after it enters into force. If the scheme, after adoption of Commission decision, undergoes changes to its contents in a way that might affect the basis of this Decision, such changes shall be notified to the Commission without delay. The Commission will assess the notified changes with a view to establish whether the scheme is still adequately covering the sustainability criteria for which it is recognised.\n2. If it has been clearly demonstrated that the scheme has not implemented elements considered to be decisive for this Decision and if severe and structural breach of those elements has taken place, the Commission reserves the right to revoke its Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision enters into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["99", "72", "93", "68", "69", "91", "38", "40", "64", "3", "83", "56", "21", "13", "82", "11", "14", "12", "73", "8", "42", "39", "62", "7", "15", "31", "51", "45", "36", "10", "No Label", "58", "76", "77", "78"], "gold": ["58", "76", "77", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 October 2010\namending Decision 93/152/EEC laying down the criteria for vaccines to be used against Newcastle disease in the context of routine vaccination programmes\n(notified under document C(2010) 7109)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/633/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (1), and in particular point 2 of Annex III thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 93/152/EEC (2) lays down certain rules concerning the vaccines to be used in routine vaccination programmes against Newcastle disease.\n(2)\nIn particular, that Decision sets out the criteria that have to be met for the intracerebral pathogenicity index (ICPI) in respect of the Newcastle disease virus strain used in live attenuated and inactivated vaccines against that disease.\n(3)\nDirective 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (3) provides for certain requirements for immunological veterinary medicinal products, including requirements for safety tests.\n(4)\nIn view of the technical progress which has been made in relation to the manufacture of vaccines, in particular as regards inactivation techniques and the requirements of Directive 2001/82/EC and the European Pharmacopoeia, it is therefore appropriate to delete the specific requirement for inactivated vaccines regarding the intracerebral pathogenicity index (ICPI) in respect of the Newcastle disease virus strain used in such vaccines currently laid down in point (b) of Article 1 of Decision 93/152/EEC.\n(5)\nDecision 93/152/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nIt is appropriate to lay down a date of application of this Decision, in order to align it with the date of application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 (4), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 955/2010 (5), which introduces corresponding amendments for the criteria for inactivated vaccines against Newcastle disease used in third countries,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nPoint (b) of Article 1 of Decision 93/152/EEC is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 December 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 October 2010.", "references": ["35", "52", "91", "9", "58", "53", "64", "29", "62", "4", "79", "81", "41", "98", "96", "97", "11", "85", "20", "71", "15", "78", "76", "90", "1", "87", "12", "0", "59", "48", "No Label", "38", "66"], "gold": ["38", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 August 2010\nlaying down model health certificates for trade within the Union in semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine, ovine and caprine species and in ova and embryos of animals of the porcine species\n(notified under document C(2010) 5779)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/470/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1) and in particular the fourth indent of Article 11(2) and the third indent of Article 11(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade within the Union of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to the animal health requirements laid down in specific Union acts. It includes requirements for trade in semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine, ovine and caprine species and in ova and embryos of animals of the porcine species (\u2018the commodities\u2019). In addition, it provides for health certificates to be established for trade in the commodities within the Union.\n(2)\nAnnex D to Directive 92/65/EEC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 176/2010 (2), sets out certain new requirements for the commodities which are to apply from 1 September 2010.\n(3)\nAnnex D to Directive 92/65/EEC, as thus amended by Regulation (EU) No 176/2010, introduces rules concerning semen storage centres and detailed conditions for their approval and supervision. It also sets out detailed conditions for the approval and supervision of embryo collection and production teams, for the collection and processing of in vivo derived embryos and the production and processing of in vitro fertilised embryos and micromanipulated embryos. Annex D, as thus amended, also amended the conditions to be applied to the donor animals of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine, ovine and caprine species and of ova and embryos of porcine species.\n(4)\nIt is necessary to establish new model health certificates for trade within the Union of the commodities taking into account the animal health requirements set out in Annex D to Directive 92/65/EEC, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 176/2010.\n(5)\nIn addition, provision should be made for existing stocks of commodities in the Union that comply with the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC established prior to the entry into force of the amendments introduced by Regulation (EU) No 176/2010. Accordingly, it is necessary to set out separate model health certificates for trade within the Union in semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine, ovine and caprine species and trade in ova and embryos of animals of the porcine species collected or produced, processed and stored in accordance with Annex D to Directive 92/65/EEC prior to 1 September 2010.\n(6)\nThe long lasting stocking capabilities for such commodities make it impossible at present to fix a date for the exhaustion of the existing stocks. Therefore, it is not possible to fix a date for the termination of the use of those model health certificates for the existing stocks.\n(7)\nIn the interests of consistency and simplification of Union legislation, the model health certificates should be set out in a single decision and take account of Commission Regulation (EC) No 599/2004 of 30 March 2004 concerning the adoption of a harmonised model certificate and inspection report linked to intra-Community trade in animals and products of animal origin (3).\n(8)\nIn order to ensure full traceability of the commodities, model health certificates should be set out in this Decision for trade within the Union in semen of animals of the equine, ovine and caprine species collected in approved semen collection centres and dispatched from an approved semen storage centre, whether or not the latter constitutes part of a semen collection centre approved under a different approval number.\n(9)\nIn the interests of clarity of Union legislation, the Union acts setting out model health certificates for trade within the Union in the commodities concerned should be expressly repealed. Accordingly, Commission Decision 95/294/EC of 24 July 1995 determining the specimen animal health certificate for trade in ova and embryos of the equine species (4), Commission Decision 95/307/EC of 24 July 1995 determining the specimen animal health certificate for trade in semen of the equine species (5), Commission Decision 95/388/EC of 19 September 1995 determining the specimen certificate for intra-Community trade in semen, ova and embryos of the ovine and caprine species (6) and Commission Decision 95/483/EC of 9 November 1995 determining the specimen certificate for intra-Community trade in ova and embryos of swine (7) should be repealed.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision lays down model health certificates for trade within the Union in the following commodities:\n(a)\nsemen of animals of the equine species;\n(b)\nova and embryos of animals of the equine species;\n(c)\nsemen of animals of the ovine and caprine species;\n(d)\nova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species;\n(e)\nova and embryos of animals of the porcine species.\nArticle 2\nTrade in semen of animals of the equine species\nA health certificate in accordance with one of the following models set out in Annex I shall accompany consignments of semen of animals of the equine species during transport from one Member State to another:\n(a)\nmodel health certificate IA as set out in Part A, for consignments of semen collected after 31 August 2010 and dispatched from an approved semen collection centre of origin of the semen;\n(b)\nmodel health certificate IB as set out in Part B, for consignments of stocks of semen collected, processed and stored before 1 September 2010 and dispatched after 31 August 2010 from an approved semen collection centre of origin of the semen;\n(c)\nmodel health certificate IC as set out in Part C, for consignments of semen and stocks of semen referred to in (a) and (b) dispatched from an approved semen storage centre.\nArticle 3\nTrade in ova and embryos of animals of the equine species\nA health certificate in accordance with one of the following models set out in Annex II shall accompany consignments of ova and embryos of animals of the equine species during transport from one Member State to another:\n(a)\nmodel health certificate IIA as set out in Part A, for consignments of ova and embryos collected or produced after 31 August 2010 and dispatched by an approved embryo collection or production team of origin of the ova or embryos;\n(b)\nmodel health certificate IIB as set out in Part B, for consignments of stocks of ova and embryos collected, processed and stored before 1 September 2010 and dispatched after 31 August 2010 by an approved embryo collection team of origin of the ova or embryos.\nArticle 4\nTrade in semen of animals of the ovine and caprine species\nA health certificate in accordance with one of the following models set out in Annex III shall accompany consignments of semen of animals of the ovine and caprine species during transport from one Member State to another:\n(a)\nmodel health certificate IIIA as set out in Part A, for consignments of semen collected after 31 August 2010 and dispatched from an approved semen collection centre of origin of the semen;\n(b)\nmodel health certificate IIIB as set out in Part B, for consignments of stocks of semen collected, processed and stored before 1 September 2010 and dispatched after 31 August 2010 from an approved semen collection centre of origin of the semen;\n(c)\nmodel health certificate IIIC as set out in Part C, for consignments of semen and stocks of semen referred to in (a) and (b) dispatched from an approved semen storage centre.\nArticle 5\nTrade in ova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species\nA health certificate in accordance with one of the following models set out in Annex IV shall accompany consignments of ova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species during transport from one Member State to another:\n(a)\nmodel health certificate IVA as set out in Part A, for consignments of ova and embryos collected or produced after 31 August 2010 and dispatched by an approved embryo collection or production team of origin of the ova or embryos;\n(b)\nmodel health certificate IVB as set out in Part B, for consignments of stocks of ova and embryos collected, processed and stored before 1 September 2010 and dispatched after 31 August 2010 by an approved embryo collection team of origin of the ova or embryos.\nArticle 6\nTrade in ova and embryos of the porcine species\nA health certificate in accordance with one of the following models set out in Annex V shall accompany consignments of ova and embryos of animals of the porcine species during transport from one Member State to another:\n(a)\nmodel health certificate VA as set out in Part A, for consignments of ova and embryos collected or produced after 31 August 2010 and dispatched by an approved embryo collection or production team of origin of the ova or embryos;\n(b)\nmodel health certificate VB as set out in Part B, for consignments of stocks of ova and embryos collected, processed and stored before 1 September 2010 and dispatched after 31 August 2010 by an approved embryo collection team of origin of the ova or embryos.\nArticle 7\nRepeals\nDecisions 95/294/EC, 95/307/EC, 95/388/EC and 95/483/EC are repealed.\nArticle 8\nApplicability\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 September 2010.\nArticle 9\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 August 2010.", "references": ["90", "70", "33", "25", "6", "62", "17", "77", "10", "51", "76", "4", "36", "86", "5", "95", "58", "43", "85", "19", "14", "61", "99", "89", "71", "84", "26", "37", "45", "30", "No Label", "20", "21", "65", "66"], "gold": ["20", "21", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 3 June 2010\non the signing and provisional application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on certain aspects of air services\n(2010/666/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy its Decision of 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with an agreement at Union level.\n(2)\nOn behalf of the Union, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement with the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on certain aspects of air services (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision of 5 June 2003.\n(3)\nThe Agreement negotiated by the Commission should be signed and provisionally applied, subject to its conclusion at a later date,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on certain aspects of air services is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the Agreement.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nPending its entry into force, the Agreement shall be applied provisionally from the first day of the first month following the date on which the parties have notified each other of the completion of the necessary procedures for this purpose (1).\nArticle 4\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to make the notification provided for in Article 7(2) of the Agreement.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["19", "26", "93", "32", "79", "75", "38", "61", "20", "4", "40", "28", "69", "80", "99", "44", "67", "59", "43", "52", "51", "74", "92", "68", "7", "11", "5", "45", "1", "66", "No Label", "3", "9", "53", "57", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "53", "57", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 429/2012\nof 22 May 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 1014/2010 for the purpose of providing a common format for the notification of errors by manufacturers of passenger cars\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community\u2019s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 8(9) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nGiven that the notification of errors in the CO2 emissions data by a manufacturer pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 is an important step in the verification of the data that forms the basis for the calculation of the specific emissions targets as well as the specific average emissions for all manufacturers, it is appropriate to provide a clear and transparent procedure for that notification.\n(2)\nIt is also appropriate to provide for the use of a common format for the notification of errors in order to ensure that the information notified by manufacturers to the Commission can be verified and processed in a timely manner.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1014/2010 (2), the following paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 are added:\n\u20183. Manufacturers that notify errors in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 shall use the provisional datasets notified by the Commission pursuant to Article 8(4) as a basis for their notification.\nThe error notification shall include all datasets relating to vehicle registrations for which the notifying manufacturer is responsible.\nThe error shall be indicated by a separate entry in the dataset for each version, entitled \u201cManufacturer comments\u201d, in which one of the following codes shall be specified:\n(a)\nCode A, if the records have been changed by the manufacturer;\n(b)\nCode B, if the vehicle is unidentifiable;\n(c)\nCode C, if the vehicle falls out of the scope of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 or is out of production.\nFor the purposes of point (b) of the third subparagraph, a vehicle is unidentifiable where the manufacturer cannot identify or correct the code for the type, variant and version, or, if applicable, the type approval number indicated in the provisional dataset.\n4. Where a manufacturer has not notified errors to the Commission in accordance with paragraph 3, or where the notification is submitted after the expiry of the three-month period provided for in Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, the provisional values notified in accordance with Article 8(4) of that Regulation shall be considered as final.\n5. The error notification referred to in paragraph 3 shall be submitted by electronic non-erasable data carrier marked \u201cNotification of error - CO2 from cars\u201d, and shall be sent by mail to the following address:\nEuropean Commission\nSecretariat-General\n1049 Bruxelles/Brussel\nBELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb\nAn electronic copy of the notification shall be sent for information to the following functional mailboxes:\nEC-CO2-LDV-IMPLEMENTATION@ec.europa.eu\nand\nCO2-monitoring@eea.europa\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 May 2012.", "references": ["6", "61", "24", "62", "33", "4", "76", "22", "35", "63", "8", "45", "79", "98", "71", "23", "65", "90", "53", "49", "34", "99", "20", "67", "16", "70", "58", "73", "46", "12", "No Label", "42", "54", "60", "85"], "gold": ["42", "54", "60", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 439/2012\nof 23 May 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 425/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2012.", "references": ["80", "67", "49", "56", "2", "46", "81", "5", "59", "52", "86", "84", "41", "8", "24", "0", "12", "63", "62", "45", "55", "97", "94", "65", "44", "11", "4", "85", "95", "20", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 November 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and the provisional application of the Protocol agreed between the European Union and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau setting out fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the two parties currently in force\n(2011/885/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 17 March 2008 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 241/2008 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Partnership Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Protocol determining the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided by that Partnership Agreement expired on 15 June 2011.\n(3)\nThe Union has negotiated with the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (hereinafter \u2018Guinea-Bissau\u2019) a new Protocol granting EU vessels fishing opportunities in the waters over which Guinea-Bissau exercises sovereignty or jurisdiction in fishing matters (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019).\n(4)\nAt the end of those negotiations, the Protocol was initialled on 15 June 2011.\n(5)\nTo ensure EU vessels can continue their fishing activities, Article 14 of the Protocol provides for it to apply on a provisional basis as from 16 June 2011.\n(6)\nThe Protocol should be signed and applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Protocol agreed between the European Union and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau setting out fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement in force between the two parties (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019) is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person or persons empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe Protocol shall apply on a provisional basis from 16 June 2011, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["56", "6", "1", "86", "59", "18", "45", "76", "68", "64", "17", "28", "88", "65", "57", "24", "2", "44", "29", "21", "26", "49", "60", "7", "99", "84", "10", "22", "93", "20", "No Label", "3", "9", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 784/2010\nof 3 September 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Hessischer Handk\u00e4se or Hessischer Handk\u00e4s (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Hessischer Handk\u00e4se\u2019 or \u2018Hessischer Handk\u00e4s\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 September 2010.", "references": ["26", "40", "9", "93", "94", "57", "33", "56", "19", "10", "77", "32", "89", "64", "69", "86", "27", "8", "78", "16", "29", "99", "6", "85", "28", "18", "38", "66", "48", "31", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 July 2010\nterminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India and Malaysia\n(2010/393/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation) and in particular Article 14 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 30 June 2009, the European Commission (Commission) received a complaint concerning the alleged injurious subsidisation of imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India and Malaysia (the countries concerned).\n(2)\nThe complaint was lodged by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute (EIFI) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of certain stainless steel fasteners pursuant to Articles 9(1) and 10(6) of the basic Regulation.\n(3)\nThe complaint contained prima facie evidence of the existence of subsidisation and of material injury resulting therefrom which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding.\n(4)\nPrior to the initiation of the proceeding and in accordance with Article 10(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission notified the governments of the countries concerned that it had received a properly documented complaint alleging that subsidised imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the countries were causing material injury to the Union industry. The governments of the countries concerned were separately invited for consultations with the aim of clarifying the situation as regards the content of the complaint and arriving at a mutually agreed solution. During the consultations no mutually agreed solution was found.\n(5)\nThe Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), accordingly initiated an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the countries concerned, currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70.\n(6)\nOn the same day, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the countries concerned (3).\n(7)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the Union industry and to any known association of producers in the Union, to the exporters/producers in the countries concerned, to any association of exporters/producers, to the importers, to any known association of importers, and to the authorities of the countries concerned. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\nB. WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(8)\nBy its letter of 1 April 2010 to the Commission, EIFI formally withdrew its complaint.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(10)\nThe Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated since the investigation had not brought to light any considerations showing that such termination would not be in the Union interest. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received indicating that such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(11)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the countries concerned should be terminated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India and Malaysia, currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 14 July 2010.", "references": ["79", "28", "24", "18", "29", "70", "66", "5", "69", "68", "39", "40", "37", "43", "26", "44", "87", "56", "71", "4", "86", "58", "36", "33", "27", "88", "73", "76", "15", "14", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 816/2011\nof 12 August 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 August 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 August 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 August 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 August 2011.", "references": ["98", "50", "87", "4", "35", "65", "6", "34", "19", "23", "89", "71", "78", "70", "69", "56", "67", "25", "92", "58", "37", "62", "86", "94", "1", "45", "77", "20", "55", "79", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 891/2010\nof 8 October 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of a new use of 6-phytase as a feed additive for turkeys (holder of authorisation Roal Oy)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of a new use of the enzyme preparation 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Trichoderma reesei (CBS 122001) as a feed additive for turkeys, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) has been authorised for poultry for fattening and breeding other than turkeys for fattening, for poultry for laying and for pigs other than sows by Commission Regulation (EU) No 277/2010 (2).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted to support the application. The European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 10 March 2010 (3) that 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26), under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use can improve the performance of the animals. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018digestibility enhancers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["51", "12", "6", "20", "95", "54", "89", "34", "48", "44", "22", "23", "93", "16", "59", "56", "80", "64", "32", "96", "37", "0", "84", "19", "90", "99", "60", "29", "67", "10", "No Label", "25", "38", "43", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "43", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 730/2012\nof 9 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 August 2012.", "references": ["84", "36", "5", "89", "64", "33", "10", "4", "54", "45", "37", "71", "42", "58", "49", "88", "98", "63", "97", "7", "75", "69", "57", "46", "51", "76", "93", "59", "30", "66", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 7 March 2011\non historical aviation emissions pursuant to Article 3c(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community\n(notified under document C(2011) 1328)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/149/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Article 3c(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3c of Directive 2003/87/EC sets the total quantity of allowances to be allocated to aircraft operators. This quantity is defined as a percentage of historical aviation emissions. Point (s) of Article 3 of Directive 2003/87/EC defines historical aviation emissions as the mean average of the annual emissions in the calendar years 2004, 2005 and 2006 from aircraft performing an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC. According to paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 3c of that Directive, the total quantity of allowances to be allocated to aircraft operators should be calculated on the basis of that historical average.\n(2)\nThe Commission has been assisted by Eurocontrol as foreseen in Article 18b of Directive 2003/87/EC. The best available data for calculation of the historic emissions was considered to be the comprehensive air traffic data contained in Eurocontrol\u2019s databases from the Central Route Charges Office (CRCO) and the Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU). These provide among other things a calculation of the actual route length for each individual flight. Emissions were then calculated on a flight-by-flight basis using the ANCAT 3 (Abatement of Nuisances Caused by Air Transport) methodology and the CASE (Calculation of Emissions by Selective Equivalence) methodology. This approach to calculating historic emissions was further enhanced through use of actual fuel consumption information provided voluntarily by a representative number of aircraft operators which helped to improve the accuracy of the modelling approach. Additional calculations were carried out to account for fuel consumption associated with the use of the auxiliary power units (APUs). The approach taken was first to determine the average APU fuel consumption for different aircraft types. The individual emission factors of APU fuel consumption were then extrapolated to calculate total APU emissions applying a process which took into account the actual share of fuel burn for the flights under the EU ETS of each aircraft type and the use of ground power in airports. The emissions corresponding to the resulting total APU fuel consumption were included in the historical aviation emissions for each of the years 2004, 2005 and 2006.\n(3)\nThe annual emissions in the calendar year 2004 from aircraft performing an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC have been considered to be 209 123 585 tonnes of CO2. The annual emissions in the calendar year 2005 from such aircraft have been considered to be 220 703 342 tonnes of CO2, and the annual emissions in the calendar year 2006 from such aircraft have been considered to be 228 602 103 tonnes of CO2. The historical aviation emissions being defined as the arithmetic mean average of those emissions amounts therefore to 219 476 343 tonnes of CO2.\n(4)\nThe Commission consulted the Climate Change Committee established pursuant to Article 9 of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nHistorical aviation emissions for the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 3c of Directive 2003/87/EC are set at 219 476 343 tonnes of CO2.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["39", "94", "72", "82", "4", "70", "74", "26", "18", "86", "28", "21", "85", "65", "36", "5", "89", "92", "96", "25", "24", "8", "83", "50", "27", "93", "63", "45", "90", "11", "No Label", "57", "58", "60"], "gold": ["57", "58", "60"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1232/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\nconcerning European Union financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (2007 to 2010)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 175 and Article 352(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and the requirement for unanimity in the Council provided for in the first sentence of Article 352(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe International Fund for Ireland (\u2018the Fund\u2019) was established in 1986 by the Agreement of 18 September 1986 between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning the International Fund for Ireland (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) in order to promote economic and social advancement, and to encourage contact, dialogue and reconciliation between nationalists and unionists throughout Ireland, in the implementation of one of the objectives specified by the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 15 November 1985.\n(2)\nThe Union, recognising that the objectives of the Fund are a reflection of those pursued by itself, has provided financial contributions to the Fund from 1989. For the period 2005 to 2006 EUR 15 million was committed from the Community budget for each of the years 2005 and 2006 in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 177/2005 of 24 January 2005 concerning Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (3). That Regulation expired on 31 December 2006.\n(3)\nThe assessments carried out in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 177/2005 have confirmed the need for further support for activities of the Fund, while continuing to reinforce synergies of its objectives and coordination with Structural Funds interventions, in particular with the Special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the Border Counties of Ireland (\u2018the PEACE programme\u2019) set up in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (4).\n(4)\nThe peace process in Northern Ireland requires a continuation of Union support to the Fund beyond 31 December 2006. In recognition of the special effort for the peace process, the PEACE programme has been allocated additional support from the Structural Funds for the period 2007 to 2013 pursuant to paragraph 22 of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (5).\n(5)\nAt its meeting in Brussels on 15 and 16 December 2005, the European Council called on the Commission to take the necessary steps with a view to continued Community support for the Fund as it enters the crucial final phase of its work until 2010.\n(6)\nThe main purpose of this Regulation is to support peace and reconciliation through a wider range of activities than those covered by the Structural Funds, and which extend beyond the scope of the Union policy on economic and social cohesion.\n(7)\nThe Union contributions to the Fund should take the form of financial contributions for the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, thus terminating at the same time as the life of the Fund.\n(8)\nIn allocating the Union contributions, the Fund should give priority to projects of a cross-border or cross-community nature, in such a way as to complement the activities funded by the PEACE programme for the period 2007 to 2010.\n(9)\nIn accordance with the Agreement, all financial contributors to the Fund should participate as observers at the meetings of the Board of the Fund.\n(10)\nIt is vital to ensure proper coordination between the activities of the Fund and those financed under the Structural Funds provided for by Article 175 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular the PEACE programme.\n(11)\nThis Regulation lays down a financial envelope for the entire duration of the Fund constituting the prime reference, within the meaning of point 37 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (6), for the budgetary authority during the annual budgetary procedure.\n(12)\nThe amount of the Union contributions to the Fund should be EUR 15 million for each of the years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, expressed in current values.\n(13)\nThe Fund\u2019s strategy launched for the final phase of its activities (from 2006 to 2010) and entitled \u2018Sharing this Space\u2019 focuses on four key areas: building foundations for reconciliation in the most marginalised communities, building bridges for contact between divided communities, moving towards a more integrated society, and leaving a legacy. Consequently, the ultimate aim of the Fund and of this Regulation is to encourage inter-community reconciliation.\n(14)\nUnion support will contribute to reinforcing solidarity between the Member States and between their peoples.\n(15)\nAssistance from the Fund should be regarded as effective only in so far as it brings about sustainable economic and social improvement and is not used as a substitute for other public or private expenditure.\n(16)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (2007 to 2010) (7) established the financial reference amount for the implementation of the Fund for the period 2007 to 2010.\n(17)\nIn its judgment of 3 September 2009 in Case C-166/07 (European Parliament v Council of the European Union) (8), the Court of Justice annulled Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 as it was based only on Article 308 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty), ruling that the third paragraph of Article 159 EC Treaty and Article 308 EC Treaty were the appropriate legal bases. However, the Court also ruled that the effects of Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 were to be maintained until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, of a new regulation adopted on the appropriate legal bases and that the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 was not to affect the validity of payments made or of undertakings given under that Regulation. In this respect it is necessary, for the sake of legal certainty, to provide for the application with retroactive effect of Article 6 of this Regulation because it relates to the whole programme period of 2007 to 2010,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial envelope for the implementation of the International Fund for Ireland (\u2018the Fund\u2019) for the period 2007 to 2010 shall be EUR 60 million.\nAnnual appropriations shall be authorised by the budgetary authority within the limit of the financial framework.\nArticle 2\nContributions shall be used by the Fund in accordance with the Agreement of 18 September 1986 between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning the International Fund for Ireland (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\nIn allocating contributions, the Fund shall give priority to projects of a cross-border or cross-community nature, in such a way as to complement the activities financed by the Structural Funds, and especially those of the Special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the Border Counties of Ireland (\u2018the PEACE Programme\u2019).\nContributions shall be used in such a way as to bring about sustainable economic and social improvement in the areas concerned. They shall not be used as a substitute for other public and private expenditure.\nArticle 3\nThe Commission shall represent the Union as an observer at the meetings of the Board of the Fund.\nThe Fund shall be represented as an observer at the Monitoring Committee meetings of the PEACE programme, and of other Structural Funds interventions as appropriate.\nArticle 4\nThe Commission shall, in cooperation with the Board of the Fund, determine appropriate procedures to foster coordination at all levels between the Fund and the managing authorities and implementing bodies set up under the Structural Funds interventions concerned, in particular under the PEACE programme.\nArticle 5\nThe Commission shall, in cooperation with the Board of the Fund, determine appropriate publicity and information procedures in order to publicise the Union contributions to the projects financed by the Fund.\nArticle 6\nBy 30 June 2008, the Fund shall submit to the Commission its strategy for the closure (closure strategy) of its activities, including:\n(a)\nan action plan with projected payments and a foreseen winding-up date;\n(b)\na de-commitment procedure;\n(c)\nthe treatment of any residual amounts and interest received at the closure of the Fund.\nSubsequent payments to the Fund shall be conditional on the Commission\u2019s approval of the closure strategy. If the closure strategy is not submitted to the Commission by 30 June 2008, payments to the Fund shall be interrupted until the strategy is received.\nArticle 7\n1. The Commission shall administer the contributions.\nSubject to paragraph 2, the annual contribution shall be paid, in instalments, as follows:\n(a)\na first advance payment of 40 % shall be made after the Commission has received an undertaking, signed by the Chairman of the Board of the Fund, to the effect that the Fund will comply with the conditions for the grant of the contribution set out in this Regulation;\n(b)\na second advance payment of 40 % shall be made 6 months later;\n(c)\na final payment of 20 % shall be made after the Commission has received and accepted the Fund\u2019s annual activity report and audited accounts for the year in question.\n2. Before paying out an instalment the Commission shall carry out an assessment of the Fund\u2019s financial needs on the basis of the Fund\u2019s cash balance at the time scheduled for each payment. If, following that assessment, the Fund\u2019s financial needs do not justify payment of one of those instalments, the payment concerned shall be suspended. The Commission shall review that suspension on the basis of new information provided by the Fund and shall continue payments as soon as they are considered justified.\nArticle 8\nA contribution from the Fund may be allocated to an operation which receives or is due to receive financial assistance under a Structural Funds intervention only if the sum of that financial assistance plus 40 % of the contribution from the Fund does not exceed 75 % of the operation\u2019s total eligible costs.\nArticle 9\nA final report shall be submitted to the Commission 6 months before the winding-up date provided for in the closure strategy or 6 months after the final payment referred to in point (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 7(1), whichever is the sooner, and shall include all the necessary information to enable the Commission to evaluate the implementation of the assistance and the attainment of the objectives of the Fund.\nArticle 10\nThe final-year contribution shall be paid following the financial needs analysis referred to in Article 7(2) and provided the Fund\u2019s performance respects the closure strategy.\nArticle 11\nThe final date of eligibility of expenditure is 31 December 2013.\nArticle 12\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 6 shall apply from 1 January 2007.\nThis Regulation shall expire on 31 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["77", "40", "48", "17", "94", "56", "78", "79", "25", "15", "75", "74", "81", "42", "76", "35", "29", "64", "13", "41", "57", "83", "92", "70", "44", "26", "68", "71", "53", "51", "No Label", "4", "5", "10", "16", "36", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "5", "10", "16", "36", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 551/2011\nof 31 May 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for blue ling in EU waters and international waters of Vb, VI and VII by vessels flying the flag of Germany\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2011.", "references": ["26", "40", "34", "12", "94", "47", "66", "27", "79", "38", "29", "16", "21", "46", "80", "24", "23", "5", "51", "58", "82", "43", "37", "42", "0", "72", "55", "98", "73", "4", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 560/2012\nof 26 June 2012\nterminating the partial interim review concerning the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Measures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating, inter alia, in India. A review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation concerning South Asian Petrochem Ltd was subsequently conducted and its definitive findings and conclusions are set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1646/2005 (3). Following an expiry review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 (4), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty for a further period of five years. The anti-dumping measures were amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1286/2008 (5) following a partial interim review (\u2018the last review investigation\u2019). The measures consist of specific anti-dumping duties. The rate of the duty is between EUR 87,5 and EUR 200,9 per tonne for individually named Indian producers with a residual duty rate of EUR 153,6 per tonne imposed on imports from other producers (\u2018the current duties\u2019).\n(2)\nFollowing a name change of one Indian company, South Asian Petrochem Ltd, by Notice 2010/C 335/06 (6) the Commission concluded that the anti-dumping findings in respect of South Asian Petrochem Ltd should apply to Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Limited.\n(3)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 2603/2000 (7), the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of PET originating, inter alia, in India. Following an accelerated review pursuant to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (8) (\u2018the basic AS Regulation\u2019), the definitive measures were amended as set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1645/2005 (9). Following an expiry review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 193/2007 (10) imposed a definitive countervailing duty for a further period of five years. The countervailing measures were amended by Regulation (EC) No 1286/2008 following the last review investigation. The countervailing measures consist of a specific duty. The rate of the duty is between EUR 0 and EUR 106,5 per tonne for individually named Indian producers with a residual duty rate of EUR 69,4 per tonne imposed on imports from other producers (\u2018the current countervailing measures\u2019).\n(4)\nFollowing a name change of one Indian company, South Asian Petrochem Ltd, by Notice 2010/C 335/07 (11), the Commission concluded that the anti-subsidy findings in respect of South Asian Petrochem Ltd should apply to Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Limited.\n(5)\nBy Decision 2005/697/EC (12), the Commission accepted undertakings offered by South Asian Petrochem Ltd setting a minimum import price (\u2018the undertaking\u2019). Following a name change, the Commission concluded by Notice 2010/C 335/05 (13) that the undertaking offered by South Asian Petrochem Ltd should apply to Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Limited.\n1.2. Request for a review\n(6)\nA request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation was lodged by Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Ltd, an Indian exporting producer of PET (\u2018the applicant\u2019). The request was limited in scope to dumping and to the applicant. The applicant at the same time also requested the review of the current countervailing measures. The anti-dumping and countervailing duties are applicable to imports of products produced by the applicant and sales of the applicant to the Union are covered by the undertaking.\n(7)\nThe applicant provided prima facie evidence that the continued application of the current duty at its current level was no longer necessary to offset dumping. In particular, the applicant claimed that there had been significant changes in the production costs of the company and that these changes have led to a substantially lower dumping margin since the imposition of the current duties. A comparison made by the applicant of its domestic prices and its export prices to the Union suggested that the dumping margin was substantially lower than the level of current duties.\n1.3. Initiation of a partial interim review\n(8)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that the request contained sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the initiation of the partial interim review, the Commission announced on 2 April 2011, by Notice 2011/C 102/09 (14), the initiation of a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation limited to the examination of dumping as far as the applicant is concerned (\u2018the Notice of initiation\u2019).\n1.4. Parallel partial interim review of the countervailing measures\n(9)\nOn 2 April 2011, by Notice 2011/C 102/08 (15), the Commission announced the initiation of a partial interim review pursuant to Article 19 of the basic AS Regulation, limited in scope to subsidisation and to the applicant.\n(10)\nIn the partial interim review of the countervailing measures it was found that the changes are not of a lasting nature. As a consequence, the review investigation was terminated without amending the measures in force.\n1.5. Parties concerned\n(11)\nThe Commission officially informed the applicant, the representatives of the exporting country and the association of Union producers about the initiation of the review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the Notice of initiation.\n(12)\nAll interested parties were informed of the possibility to request a hearing. One hearing was requested and granted.\n(13)\nIn order to obtain the information deemed necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant and received a reply within the deadline set for that purpose.\n(14)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary for the determination of dumping. The Commission carried out verification visits at the premises of the applicant in Kolkata, India and in Haldia, India.\n2. WITHDRAWAL OF THE REQUEST AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(15)\nBy letter to the Commission dated 18 April 2012, the applicant formally withdrew its request for the partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of PET originating in India. The withdrawal is supported mainly with the further expansion of the applicant\u2019s production capacity which demonstrates that the changes in respect of dumping are not of a lasting nature due to an imminent further decrease in production costs. The applicant claimed that it is the continuous process of change which calls into question the lasting nature of the changes established during the investigation. It was established that, although some of the changes established during the investigation were of a lasting nature, the company is indeed in a continuous process of change.\n(16)\nIn view of the withdrawal, it was considered whether it would be warranted to continue the review investigation ex officio. The Commission services found no compelling reasons that termination would not be in the Union interest. On this basis, the review investigation should be terminated.\n(17)\nInterested parties were informed of the intention to terminate the review investigation and were given the opportunity to comment.\n(18)\nIt is therefore concluded that the review concerning imports of PET originating in India should be terminated without amending the anti-dumping measures in force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India initiated pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 is hereby terminated without amending the anti-dumping measures in force.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 June 2012.", "references": ["68", "63", "29", "56", "52", "1", "55", "10", "76", "89", "33", "59", "73", "84", "87", "42", "65", "88", "98", "4", "99", "8", "97", "44", "28", "90", "79", "13", "69", "49", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 865/2011\nof 29 August 2011\namending Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 as regards catch limits for capelin in Greenland waters\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (1), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe fishing opportunities for capelin in Greenland waters of ICES zones V and XIV in 2011 were provisionally laid down in Annex IB to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011. According to Article 5(3) of that Regulation, the Commission has to fix this TAC for capelin on the basis of the allocation to the Union established by Greenland in accordance with the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand (2), and the Protocol thereto (3) (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019).\n(2)\nThe fishing opportunities for this stock arise from the Protocol, which establishes that the Union is to receive 7,7 % of the TAC for capelin in Greenland waters of ICES zones V and XIV.\n(3)\nThe Commission received information from the Greenland authorities that the TAC for this stock has been fixed at 732 000 tonnes and that Greenland will allocate 56 364 tonnes to the Union in accordance with the share fixed under the Protocol, to be fished from 20 June 2011 until 30 April 2012.\n(4)\nTaking into account the annual consultations on fisheries between the Union and Norway for 2011 and in particular to the commitment made by the Union to provide Norway with an additional quantity of 7 965 tonnes of capelin above the normal balance as soon as the capelin in the waters of Greenland becomes available again, it is appropriate to transfer this amount of Union fishing opportunities for capelin for the 2011/2012 fishing season to Norway.\n(5)\nAnnex IB to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe stock concerned is mainly present in Greenland waters in July and August. In order for the Union fleet to access this quota as soon as possible, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication. It should apply from 20 June 2011 until 30 April 2012;\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex IB to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011, the entry concerning capelin in Greenland waters of V of XIV is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nCapelin\nMallotus villosus\nZone\n:\nGreenland waters of V and XIV\n(CAP/514GRN)\nEU\n56 364 (4) (5)\nTAC\nNot relevant\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 20 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 August 2011.", "references": ["37", "36", "77", "31", "35", "66", "95", "17", "64", "18", "16", "62", "91", "90", "71", "86", "12", "54", "99", "44", "19", "56", "3", "24", "14", "55", "74", "94", "40", "47", "No Label", "13", "67", "93", "97"], "gold": ["13", "67", "93", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1013/2010\nof 10 November 2010\nlaying down implementing rules on the Union Fleet Policy as defined in Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002\n(codification)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 11(7), the first subparagraph of Article 12(1), Article 12(2), Article 13(2) and Article 14(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1438/2003 of 12 August 2003 laying down implementing rules on the Community Fleet Policy as defined in Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.\n(2)\nThe adjustment in fishing capacity of the Union fishing fleet should be monitored closely to bring it into line with the available resources. To that end, Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 sets out a number of specific measures.\n(3)\nRules should be laid down to ensure the correct implementation of Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 by the Member States, taking into account all relevant parameters for the management of fleet capacity, in terms of tonnage (GT) and power (kW), provided for in that Regulation and also in Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (4). This Regulation should take account of the Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia on 1 May 2004 and of Bulgaria and Romania on 1 January 2007.\n(4)\nReference levels for fishing capacity should be fixed at 1 January 2003 for the fleet of each Member State listed in Annex I, Part A, with the exception of their fleets registered in the outermost regions.\n(5)\nArticle 11 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 allows Member States to rebuild 4 % of the annual average tonnage scrapped with public aid between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2006 and 4 % of the tonnage scrapped with public aid as from 1 January 2007.\n(6)\nArticle 13 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 takes account of the requirement, as currently laid down in Article 25(3)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on a European Fisheries Fund (5), to reduce by at least 20 % the power of an engine that has been replaced with public aid, excluding engine replacements in the small-scale coastal fisheries as defined in that Regulation.\n(7)\nIt is necessary to establish rules for the adjustment of the reference levels to take account of Article 11(4), (5) and (6), and, for reasons of transparency, Article 13(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 and of the remeasurement of the Union fishing fleet. After completion of the measurement of all fishing vessels, the adjustment rule should be maintained for a strict application of the entry-exit regime in terms of tonnage.\n(8)\nRequests by the Member States listed in Annex I, Part A submitted to the Commission before 31 December 2002 to increase their objectives in the Fourth Multiannual Guidance Programme (MAGP IV), as was provided for in Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999, and Article 3 and Article 4(2) of Council Decision 97/413/EC (6), are to be taken into account where appropriate for the determination of reference levels.\n(9)\nIt is necessary to establish a calculation method in order to assess whether Member States manage entries into and exits from their fleet of fishing vessels in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\n(10)\nThe exemption from the entry-exit regime for the vessels that joined the fleet as from 1 January 2003 or, for the Member States listed in Annex I, Part B, as from the accession date, should take into account an administrative decision adopted respectively before 1 January 2003 or before the accession date. For the calculation of the overall fishing capacity of the fleet at 1 January 2003 special treatment should be given to entries into the fleet of vessels for which such administrative decisions were taken, provided that those vessels entered the fleet not later than 5 years after the date of the administrative decision by the concerned Member State.\n(11)\nImplementing rules are needed for decisions by Member States on the eligibility of modernisation works to improve safety, working conditions, product quality and hygiene on board vessels as referred to in Article 11(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, in order to ensure a transparent assessment and an equal treatment of the requests, while preventing any increase in fishing effort as a result of such works.\n(12)\nIncreases in enclosed volume over the main deck do not affect the tonnage of vessels under 15 m in length overall, in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86 of 22 September 1986 defining characteristics for fishing vessels (7). Therefore, the modernisation of these vessels above the main deck is not taken into account when adapting the reference levels according to Article 11(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\n(13)\nMember States should be allowed to grant a limited increase in tonnage to new or existing vessels in order to improve safety, hygiene, working conditions and product quality on board, provided it does not increase the ability of the vessels to catch fish and gives priority to small-scale coastal fisheries within the meaning of Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006. That increase should be linked to their efforts to adjust fishing capacity with public aid between 1 January 2003 or 1 May 2004 and 31 December 2006 and from 1 January 2007 onwards.\n(14)\nIt is necessary to lay down implementing rules to ensure that clear rules and procedures are set for the way Member States transmit data to the Union fishing fleet register and new validation rules are needed to guarantee the quality and the reliability of such data.\n(15)\nThe annual reports and the summary thereof made by the Commission in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 should give a clear picture of the equilibrium between fleet fishing capacity and fishing opportunities.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation lays down the implementing rules for Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. It shall apply to the fishing capacity of Union fishing vessels with the exception of vessels which are:\n(a)\nexclusively used in aquaculture as defined in Article 3(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006; or\n(b)\nregistered in the outermost regions of France, Portugal and Spain as indicated in point 1 of Article 355 of the Treaty.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018GTa1\u2019 or \u2018the total tonnage of vessels that left the fleet with public aid between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2006\u2019 means the total tonnage of vessels that left the fleet with public aid between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2006. In the formula concerning the reference level in tonnage in Article 4 this value is only taken into account for the amount of capacity that went beyond the tonnage reduction necessary to comply with the reference levels under Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\nFor the Member States listed in Annex I, Part B, \u2018GTa1\u2019 or \u2018the total tonnage of vessels that left the fleet with public aid between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2006\u2019 means the total tonnage of vessels that left the fleet with public aid between the accession date and 31 December 2006;\n(2)\n\u2018GTS\u2019 or \u2018the total tonnage increases granted under the provisions of Article 11(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002\u2019 means the total tonnage increases granted under Article 11(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 and registered before the date for which GTt is calculated;\n(3)\n\u2018GTa2\u2019 or \u2018the total tonnage of vessels leaving the fleet with public aid after 31 December 2006\u2019 means the total tonnage of vessels that left the fleet with public aid between 1 January 2007 and the date for which GTt is calculated. In the formula concerning the reference level in tonnage in Article 4 this value is only taken into account for the amount of capacity that went beyond the tonnage reduction necessary to comply with the reference levels under Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;\n(4)\n\u2018GT100\u2019 or \u2018the total tonnage of vessels of more than 100 GT entering the fleet with public aid granted after 31 December 2002\u2019 means the total tonnage of vessels of more than 100 GT that entered into the fleet between 1 January 2003 and the date for which GTt is calculated, and for which an administrative decision by the Member State concerned to grant aid was taken after 31 December 2002.\nFor the Member States listed in Annex I, Part B \u2018GT100\u2019 or \u2018the total tonnage of vessels of more than 100 GT entering the fleet with public aid granted after 31 December 2002\u2019 means the total tonnage of vessels of more than 100 GT that entered into the fleet between 1 May 2004 and the date for which GTt is calculated, and for which an administrative decision by the Member State concerned to grant aid was taken after 30 April 2004;\n(5)\n\u2018kWa\u2019 or \u2018the total power of vessels leaving the fleet with public aid after 31 December 2002\u2019 means the total power of vessels that left the fleet with public aid between 1 January 2003 and the date for which kWt is calculated. In the formula concerning the reference level in power in Article 4 this value is only taken into account for the amount of capacity that went beyond the power reduction necessary to comply with the reference levels under Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\nFor the Member States listed in Annex I, Part B \u2018kWa\u2019 or \u2018the total power of vessels leaving the fleet with public aid after 31 December 2002\u2019 means the total power of vessels that left the fleet with public aid between 1 May 2004 and the date for which kWt is calculated;\n(6)\n\u2018kW100\u2019 or \u2018the total power of vessels of more than 100 GT entering the fleet with public aid granted after 31 December 2002\u2019 means the total power of vessels of more than 100 GT that entered into the fleet between 1 January 2003 and the date for which kWt is calculated, and for which an administrative decision by the Member State concerned to grant aid was taken after 31 December 2002.\nFor the Member States listed in Annex I, Part B \u2018kW100\u2019 or \u2018the total power of vessels of more than 100 GT entering the fleet with public aid granted after 31 December 2002\u2019 means the total power of vessels of more than 100 GT that entered into the fleet between 1 May 2004 and the date for which kWt is calculated, and for which an administrative decision by the Member State concerned to grant aid was taken after 30 April 2004;\n(7)\n\u2018GTt\u2019 means the total tonnage of the fleet, calculated at any given date after 1 January 2003;\n(8)\n\u2018\u0394(GT-GRT)\u2019 or \u2018the result of the remeasurement of the fleet\u2019 means the difference between the total capacity in terms of tonnage of the fleet on 1 January 2003 and the same value recalculated once the remeasurement of the fleet in GT is completed in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86;\n(9)\n\u2018kWt\u2019 means the total power of the fleet calculated at any date after 1 January 2003;\n(10)\n\u2018main deck\u2019 means the \u2018upper deck\u2019 as defined by the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969;\n(11)\n\u2018kWr\u2019 or \u2018the total power of the engines replaced with public aid conditional to a power reduction\u2019 means the total power of the engines replaced with public aid after 31 December 2006 under the provisions of Article 25(3)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006.\nCHAPTER II\nREFERENCE LEVELS FOR FISHING FLEETS\nArticle 3\nFixing of reference levels\nFor each Member State listed in Annex I, Part A the reference levels in tonnage (GT) and power (kW) at 1 January 2003 as referred to in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, except those for the outermost regions, are set out in Annex I, Part A.\nArticle 4\nMonitoring of reference levels\n1. For each Member State listed in Annex I, Part A, the reference level in tonnage at any given date after 1 January 2003 (R(GT)t) shall be equal to the reference level for that Member State set out in Annex I, Part A at 1 January 2003 (R(GT)03) adjusted by:\n(a)\ndeducting:\n(i)\n99 % of the total tonnage of vessels that left the fleet with public aid between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2006 (GTa1);\n(ii)\n96 % of the total tonnage of vessels leaving the fleet with public aid after 31 December 2006 (GTa2);\n(b)\nand adding the total tonnage increases granted under the provisions of Article 11(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (GTS).\nThose reference levels shall be determined according to the following formula:\nR(GT)t = R(GT)03 - 0,99 GTa1 - 0,96 GTa2 + GTS\nWhen new fishing capacity enters the fleet in accordance with Article 13(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 the reference levels mentioned in the second subparagraph of this paragraph shall be reduced by 35 % of the total tonnage of vessels of more than 100 GT entering the fleet with public aid granted after 31 December 2002 (GT100) according to the following formula:\nR(GT)t = R(GT)03 - 0,99 GTa1 - 0,96 GTa2 - 0,35 GT100 + GTS\n2. For each Member State listed in Annex I, Part A, the reference level in power at any given date after 1 January 2003 (R(kW)t) shall be equal to the reference level for that Member State set out in Annex I, Part A at 1 January 2003 (R(kW)03) as adjusted by deducting the total power of vessels leaving the fleet with public aid after 31 December 2002 (kWa) and 20 % of the total power of the engines replaced with public aid conditional to a power reduction (kWr).\nThose reference levels shall be determined according to the following formula:\nR(kW)t = R(kW)03 - kWa - 0,2 kWr\nWhen new fishing capacity enters the fleet in accordance with Article 13(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 the reference levels referred to in the second subparagraph of this paragraph shall be reduced by 35 % of the total power of vessels of more than 100 GT entering the fleet with public aid granted after 31 December 2002 (kW100) according to the following formula:\nR(kW)t = R(kW)03 - kWa - 0,2 kWr - 0,35 kW100\nCHAPTER III\nMANAGEMENT OF ENTRIES AND EXITS\nArticle 5\nFishing capacity of the fleet on 1 January 2003\nExcept for the Member States listed in Annex I, Part B, for the purposes of Article 7 the fishing capacity in terms of tonnage (GT03) and power (kW03) at 1 January 2003 shall be determined taking into account, in accordance with Annex II, the entries of vessels which are based on an administrative decision by the Member State concerned taken between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2002 in conformity with the legislation applicable at that time, and in particular in accordance with the national entry/exit regime notified to the Commission under Article 6(2) of Decision 97/413/EC, and which take place not later than 5 years after the date of that administrative decision.\nArticle 6\nFishing capacity of the fleet of the Member States listed in Annex I, Part B at the accession date\nFor the Member States listed in Annex I, Part B, for the purposes of Article 8, the fishing capacity in terms of tonnage (GTacc) and power (kWacc) at the accession date shall be determined taking into account, in accordance with Annex III, the entries of vessels which are based on an administrative decision by the Member State concerned taken up to 5 years before the accession date, and which take place not later than 5 years after the date of that administrative decision.\nArticle 7\nMonitoring of entries and exits\n1. In order to comply with Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 each Member State listed in Annex I, Part A to this Regulation, shall ensure that at all times the fishing capacity in tonnage (GTt) is equal to or less than the fishing capacity at 1 January 2003 (GT03) as adjusted by:\n(a)\ndeducting:\n(i)\n99 % of the total tonnage of vessels that left the fleet with public aid between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2006 (GTa1);\n(ii)\n96 % of the total tonnage of vessels leaving the fleet with public aid after 31 December 2006 (GTa2);\n(iii)\n35 % of the total tonnage of vessels of more than 100 GT entering the fleet with public aid granted after 31 December 2002 (GT100);\n(b)\nand adding:\n(i)\nthe total tonnage increases granted under the provisions of Article 11(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (GTS);\n(ii)\nthe result of the remeasurement of the fleet (\u0394(GT-GRT)).\nThose Member States shall ensure that the following formula is complied with:\nGTt \u2264 GT03 - 0,99 GTa1 - 0,96 GTa2 - 0,35 GT100 + GTS + \u0394(GT-GRT)\n2. In order to comply with Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, each Member State listed in Annex I, Part A to this Regulation, shall ensure that at all times the fishing capacity in power (kWt) is equal to or less than the fishing capacity at 1 January 2003 (kW03) as adjusted by deducting:\n(a)\nthe total power of vessels leaving the fleet with public aid after 31 December 2002 (kWa);\n(b)\n20 % of the total power of the engines replaced with public aid conditional to a power reduction (kWr);\n(c)\n35 % of the total power of vessels of more than 100 GT entering the fleet with public aid granted after 31 December 2002 (kW100).\nThose Member States shall ensure that the following formula is complied with:\nkWt \u2264 kW03 - kWa - 0,2 kWr - 0,35 kW100\nArticle 8\nMonitoring of entries and exits in the Member States listed in Annex I, Part B\n1. In order to comply with Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, each Member State listed in Annex I, Part B to this Regulation shall ensure that at all times the fishing capacity in tonnage (GTt) is equal to or less than the fishing capacity at the accession date (GTacc), as adjusted by:\n(a)\ndeducting:\n(i)\nfor the Member States listed in Annex I, Part B that acceded to the Union on 1 May 2004, 98,5 % of the total tonnage of vessels that left the fleet with public aid between that date and 31 December 2006 (GTa1);\n(ii)\nfor each Member State listed in Annex I, Part B, 96 % of the total tonnage of vessels leaving the fleet with public aid after 31 December 2006 (GTa2);\n(iii)\nfor each Member State listed in Annex I, Part B, 35 % of the total tonnage of vessels of more than 100 GT entering the fleet with public aid granted on or after the accession date (GT100);\n(b)\nand adding:\n(i)\nthe total tonnage increases granted under the provisions of Article 11(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (GTS);\n(ii)\nthe result of the remeasurement of the fleet (\u0394(GT-GRT)).\nThose Member States shall ensure that the following formula is complied with:\nGTt \u2264 GTacc - 0,985 GTa1 - 0,96 GTa2 - 0,35 GT100 + GTS + \u0394(GT-GRT)\n2. In order to comply with Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, each Member State listed in Annex I, Part B to this Regulation shall ensure that at all times the fishing capacity in power (kWt) is equal to or less than the fishing capacity at the accession date (kWacc), as adjusted by deducting:\n(a)\nthe total power of vessels leaving the fleet with public aid on or after the accession date (kWa);\n(b)\n20 % of the total power of the engines replaced with public aid conditional to a power reduction (kWr);\n(c)\n35 % of the total power of vessels of more than 100 GT entering the fleet with public aid granted on or after the accession date (kW100).\nThose Member States shall ensure that the following formula is complied with:\nkWt \u2264 kWacc - kWa - 0,2 kWr - 0,35 kW100\nCHAPTER IV\nINCREASE IN TONNAGE TO IMPROVE SAFETY ON BOARD, WORKING CONDITIONS, HYGIENE AND PRODUCT QUALITY\nArticle 9\nEligibility of requests to increase tonnage\nA request to increase the tonnage of a vessel under Article 11(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 shall be considered eligible subject to compliance with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe vessel has not already been granted an increase in tonnage under those provisions;\n(b)\nthe vessel has an overall length of 15 m or more;\n(c)\nthe age of the vessel, calculated as the difference between the date of receipt of the application and the date of entry into service as defined in Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86, is at least 5 years;\n(d)\nthe increase in tonnage is the result of modernisation works to be performed with the purpose of improving safety on board, working conditions, hygiene or product quality;\n(e)\nthe works referred to in point (d) do not increase the volume under the main deck;\n(f)\nthe works referred to in point (d) do not result in additional volume devoted to fish holds or fishing gear.\nArticle 10\nResponsibilities of Member States\n1. Member States shall assess the requests to increase the tonnage and decide if they are eligible in accordance with the conditions provided for in Article 9.\n2. Member States shall keep a file for each vessel for which a decision on an increase in tonnage under the provisions of Article 11(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 has been taken. That file shall include all technical information used in the assessment of the request by the Member State. Member States shall make such files available to the Commission upon request and without delay.\nCHAPTER V\nDATA COLLECTION\nArticle 11\nCollection of information by the Member State and communication of information to the Commission\n1. Each Member State shall collect information on:\n(a)\neach entry into or exit from the fleet;\n(b)\neach modernisation of a vessel that affects its fishing capacity.\n2. Member States shall communicate at least the following data to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe internal number and the name of the vessel;\n(b)\nthe fishing capacity of the vessel in GT and kW;\n(c)\nthe port of registration of the vessel;\n(d)\nthe nature and dates of the following events:\n(i)\nexit (e.g. scrapping, export, transfer to another Member State, joint venture, transfer to another activity);\n(ii)\nentry (e.g. construction, import, transfer from another Member State, transfer from another activity); or\n(iii)\nmodernisation, specifying if it is for reasons of safety in accordance with Article 11(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;\n(e)\nwhether the event is supported with public aid;\n(f)\nif appropriate, the date of the administrative decision by the Member State to grant that aid;\n(g)\nin the case of a modernisation, the modification of power (in kW), the modification of tonnage (in GT) above and below the main deck.\nCHAPTER VI\nEXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AND ANNUAL REPORT\nArticle 12\nExchange of information\nMember States shall make available to other Member States and to the Commission the information related to the implementation of Union legislation on fleet policy including the following:\n(a)\nnational implementing rules and instruments to ensure compliance with Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;\n(b)\nadministrative procedures for fleet monitoring and surveillance and information on which authorities are involved;\n(c)\ninformation on the development of fleet capacity, in particular on withdrawals and renewals with public aid;\n(d)\nplans to reduce the fleet in order to comply with the reference levels where appropriate;\n(e)\ninformation on the development of fleet capacity in their outermost regions in relation to transfers of vessels between the mainland and the outermost regions;\n(f)\ninformation on the impact on fleet capacity of effort limitation schemes, in particular when they are part of a recovery plan or a multiannual management plan;\n(g)\nany other information deemed relevant and useful for the purpose of the exchange of information and best practices between Member States.\nArticle 13\nAnnual report\n1. Each Member State shall send to the Commission by 30 April each year, in electronic format, a report on its efforts during the previous year to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities.\n2. On the basis of the data in the Union fishing fleet register and information contained in the reports received in accordance with paragraph 1, the Commission shall prepare a summary and present it to the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries and to the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture established under Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, before 31 July each year.\nThose two committees shall transmit their opinion to the Commission no later than 31 October each year.\n3. By 31 December each year, the Commission shall send the summary with the Member States\u2019 reports attached to the European Parliament and the Council, accompanied by the opinions of the committees mentioned in paragraph 2.\nArticle 14\nInformation to be contained in the annual reports\n1. The reports by the Member States as provided for in Article 13 shall contain at least the following information:\n(a)\na description of the fishing fleets in relation to fisheries: development(s) during the previous year, including fisheries covered by multiannual management or recovery plans;\n(b)\nthe impact on fishing capacity of fishing effort reduction schemes adopted under multiannual management or recovery plans or, if appropriate, under national schemes;\n(c)\ninformation on the compliance with the entry/exit scheme and with the level of reference;\n(d)\na summary report on the weaknesses and strengths of the fleet management system together with a plan for improvements and information on the general level of compliance with fleet policy instruments;\n(e)\nany information on changes of the administrative procedures relevant to the management of the fleet.\n2. The reports by Member State shall not exceed 10 pages.\nArticle 15\nRegulation (EC) No 1438/2003 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex V.\nArticle 16\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2010.", "references": ["14", "22", "39", "51", "38", "6", "52", "98", "58", "24", "7", "69", "23", "71", "86", "90", "72", "10", "2", "78", "83", "62", "87", "25", "48", "41", "1", "19", "46", "66", "No Label", "8", "67", "76"], "gold": ["8", "67", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 363/2011\nof 13 April 2011\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance isoeugenol\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 14, in conjunction with Article 17, thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nAn application for the establishment of maximum residue limits (hereinafter \u2018MRL\u2019) for isoeugenol in Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout has been submitted to the European Medicines Agency.\n(4)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use recommended establishing MRL for isoeugenol for fin fish species, applicable to muscle and skin in natural proportions.\n(5)\nTable 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to include MRL for the substance isoeugenol for fin fish species.\n(6)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period of time for the stakeholders concerned to take measures that may be required to comply with the newly set MRL.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 14 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 April 2011.", "references": ["77", "35", "27", "25", "2", "6", "76", "28", "4", "20", "63", "15", "99", "16", "52", "9", "81", "96", "10", "58", "91", "94", "33", "83", "62", "23", "61", "46", "7", "17", "No Label", "24", "38", "69", "72"], "gold": ["24", "38", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 9 June 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and the provisional application of the Protocol agreed between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the two parties currently in force\n(2011/405/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43, in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 19 December 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2027/2006 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cape Verde (1).\n(2)\nThe Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the said Partnership Agreement is to expire on 31 August 2011.\n(3)\nThe Union negotiated with the Republic of Cape Verde (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Cape Verde\u2019) a new Protocol providing EU vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which Cape Verde has sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fishing matters.\n(4)\nOn conclusion of those negotiations, the new Protocol was initialled on 22 December 2010.\n(5)\nIn order to allow EU vessels to carry out fishing activities, Article 15 of the new Protocol provides for it to be applied on a provisional basis as from 1 September 2011.\n(6)\nThe new Protocol should be signed and applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its formal conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Protocol agreed between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the two parties currently in force is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThe Protocol shall apply on a provisional basis from 1 September 2011, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 9 June 2011.", "references": ["46", "28", "68", "34", "11", "40", "71", "58", "52", "0", "14", "16", "21", "80", "87", "90", "98", "93", "42", "20", "53", "35", "27", "26", "95", "2", "13", "45", "48", "66", "No Label", "3", "9", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 2 August 2011\nallowing Member States to extend provisional authorisations granted for the new active substances acequinocyl, Adoxophyes orana granulovirus, aminopyralid, flubendiamide, mandipropamid, metaflumizone, phosphane, pyroxsulam and thiencarbazone\n(notified under document C(2011) 5321)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/490/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (2), and in particular Article 80(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Directive 91/414/EEC shall continue to apply to active substances for which a decision has been adopted in accordance with Article 6(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC before 14 June 2011.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in March 2003 the Netherlands received an application from Agro-Kanesho for the inclusion of the active substance acequinocyl in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2003/636/EC (3) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in November 2004 Germany received an application from Andermatt Biocontrol GmbH for the inclusion of the active substance Adoxophyes orana granulovirus in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2007/669/EC (4) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in April 2004 the United Kingdom received an application from Dow AgroSciences Ltd for the inclusion of the active substance aminopyralid in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2005/778/EC (5) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in March 2006 Greece received an application from Bayer CropScience AG for the inclusion of the active substance flubendiamide in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2006/927/EC (6) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in December 2005 Austria received an application from Syngenta Ltd for the inclusion of the active substance mandipropamid in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2006/589/EC (7) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in November 2005 the United Kingdom received an application from BASF SE for the inclusion of the active substance metaflumizone in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2006/517/EC (8) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in October 2007 Germany received an application from S&A GmbH for the inclusion of the active substance phosphane in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2008/566/EC (9) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in February 2006 the United Kingdom received an application from Dow AgroSciences GmbH for the inclusion of the active substance pyroxsulam in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2007/277/EC (10) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(10)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in April 2007 the United Kingdom received an application from Bayer CropScience AG for the inclusion of the active substance thiencarbazone in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Decision 2008/566/EC confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(11)\nConfirmation of the completeness of the dossiers was necessary in order to allow them to be examined in detail and to allow Member States the possibility of granting provisional authorisations, for periods of up to 3 years, for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned, while complying with the conditions laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and, in particular, the conditions relating to the detailed assessment of the active substances and the plant protection products in the light of the requirements laid down by that Directive.\n(12)\nFor these active substances, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicants. The rapporteur Member States submitted the respective draft assessment reports to the Commission on 15 March 2005 (acequinocyl), on 13 August 2008 (Adoxophyes orana granulovirus), on 22 August 2006 (aminopyralid), on 1 September 2008 (flubendiamide), on 30 November 2006 (mandipropamid), on 15 April 2008 (metaflumizone), on 24 February 2010 (phosphane), on 20 March 2008 (pyroxsulam) and on 17 December 2008 (thiencarbazone).\n(13)\nFollowing submission of the draft assessment reports by the rapporteur Member States, it has been found to be necessary to request further information from the applicants and to have the rapporteur Member States examine that information and submit their assessment. Therefore, the examination of the dossiers is still ongoing and it will not be possible to complete the evaluation within the time-frame provided for in Directive 91/414/EEC, read in conjunction with Commission Decisions 2009/579/EC (11) (acequinocyl, aminopyralid and mandipropamid) and 2009/865/EC (12) (metaflumizone).\n(14)\nAs the evaluation so far has not identified any reason for immediate concern, Member States should be given the possibility of prolonging provisional authorisations granted for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned for a period of 24 months in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of Directive 91/414/EEC so as to enable the examination of the dossiers to continue. It is expected that the evaluation and decision-making process with respect to a decision on a possible approval in accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 for acequinocyl, Adoxophyes orana granulovirus, aminopyralid, flubendiamide, mandipropamid, metaflumizone, phosphane, pyroxsulam and thiencarbazone will have been completed within 24 months.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States may extend provisional authorisations for plant protection products containing acequinocyl, Adoxophyes orana granulovirus, aminopyralid, flubendiamide, mandipropamid, metaflumizone, phosphane, pyroxsulam and thiencarbazone for a period ending on 31 July 2013 at the latest.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall expire on 31 July 2013.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2011.", "references": ["82", "68", "29", "74", "10", "56", "13", "55", "97", "69", "81", "48", "40", "33", "70", "3", "72", "32", "86", "59", "1", "19", "89", "77", "35", "95", "53", "50", "60", "20", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 729/2012\nof 8 August 2012\nentering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Bratislavsk\u00fd ro\u017eok/Pressburger Kipfel/Pozsonyi kifli (TSG))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 9(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, Slovakia\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Bratislavsk\u00fd ro\u017eok\u2019/\u2018Pressburger Kipfel\u2019/\u2018Pozsonyi kifli\u2019, received on 4 February 2008, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAustria, Germany and Hungary submitted objections to the registration under Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006. The objections were deemed admissible under point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 9(3) of that Regulation.\n(3)\nBy letters dated 11 November 2010, the Commission invited the Member States concerned to engage in appropriate consultations.\n(4)\nAn agreement, notified to the Commission on 16 May 2011, was concluded between the Member States concerned within six months, containing amendments to the initial specification, specifically the removal of the request in the registration application to register the name with the reservation referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006.\n(5)\nThe removal concerns the use of the product name and can therefore not be regarded as minor within the meaning of point (c) of Article 11(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1216/2007 (3).\n(6)\nPursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 9(5) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, the Commission should once again perform the examination referred to in Article 8(1) of that Regulation.\n(7)\nThe application to register the name \u2018Bratislavsk\u00fd ro\u017eok\u2019/\u2018Pressburger Kipfel\u2019/\u2018Pozsonyi kifli\u2019, amended following the agreement mentioned above, was therefore republished in the Official Journal of the European Union (4).\n(8)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 August 2012.", "references": ["16", "28", "0", "69", "22", "53", "65", "50", "75", "70", "25", "13", "4", "63", "30", "9", "87", "90", "99", "32", "27", "94", "15", "64", "74", "77", "39", "68", "51", "5", "No Label", "24", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 945/2011\nof 22 September 2011\nfixing the export refunds on beef and veal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XV of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in beef and veal, export refunds should therefore be set in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167, 168 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007 of 21 November 2007 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals (5) provides for a reduction of the special refund if the quantity of cuts of boned meat to be exported amounts to less than 95 %, but not less than 85 %, of the total weight of cuts produced by boning.\n(6)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 614/2011 (6). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004, and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nIn the case referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007, the rate of the refund on products falling within product code 0201 30 00 9100 shall be reduced by EUR 3,5/100 kg.\nArticle 3\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 614/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2011.", "references": ["13", "66", "98", "82", "44", "6", "43", "92", "79", "33", "73", "14", "35", "58", "27", "25", "16", "56", "95", "83", "59", "77", "38", "96", "90", "7", "65", "42", "63", "9", "No Label", "20", "22", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 339/2012\nof 19 April 2012\nfixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 April 2012 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (3), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 1 to 7 April 2012 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, exceed the quantity available under order number 09.4318.\n(2)\nIn these circumstances, an allocation coefficient for licences to be issued regarding order number 09.4318 should be fixed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006. Submission of further applications for licences for that order number should be suspended until the end of the marketing year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 from 1 to 7 April 2012 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. Submission of further applications for licences, which correspond to the order numbers indicated in the Annex, shall be suspended until the end of the marketing year 2011/2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["96", "88", "45", "39", "48", "97", "41", "2", "84", "32", "85", "44", "43", "47", "80", "63", "64", "11", "8", "59", "38", "4", "81", "75", "82", "55", "86", "53", "10", "93", "No Label", "21", "22", "72"], "gold": ["21", "22", "72"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 996/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 20 October 2010\non the investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation and repealing Directive 94/56/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 100(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA high general level of safety should be ensured in civil aviation in Europe and all efforts should be made to reduce the number of accidents and incidents to ensure public confidence in air transport.\n(2)\nThe expeditious holding of safety investigations of civil aviation accidents and incidents improves aviation safety and helps to prevent the occurrence of accidents and incidents.\n(3)\nReporting, analysis, and dissemination of findings of safety related incidents are fundamentally important to improving air safety. Therefore the Commission should bring forward a proposal to revise Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2003 on occurrence reporting in civil aviation (4) before 31 December 2011.\n(4)\nThe sole objective of safety investigations should be the prevention of future accidents and incidents without apportioning blame or liability.\n(5)\nAccount should be taken of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944 (the Chicago Convention), which provides for the implementation of the measures necessary to ensure the safe operation of aircraft. Particular account should be taken of Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention and of its subsequent amendments, which lay down international standards and recommended practices for aircraft accident and incident investigation, as well as the understanding of the terms of State of Registry, State of the Operator, State of Design, State of Manufacture and State of Occurrence used therein.\n(6)\nAccording to the international standards and recommended practices set out in Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention, the investigation of accidents and serious incidents is to be conducted under the responsibility of the State where the accident or serious incident occurs, or the State of Registry when the location of the accident or serious incident cannot definitely be established as being in the territory of any State. A State may delegate the task of conducting the investigation to another State or request its assistance. Safety investigations in the Union should be conducted in a similar way.\n(7)\nThe lessons learned from the implementation of Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents (5) should be used to improve the efficiency of the investigation and prevention of civil aviation accidents and incidents in the Union.\n(8)\nAccount should be taken of the changes in the institutional and regulatory framework governing civil aviation safety in the Union which have taken place since the adoption of Directive 94/56/EC and in particular the establishment of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The Union dimension of safety recommendations should be also taken into account, given that aviation safety is increasingly regulated at Union level.\n(9)\nEASA carries out on behalf of the Member States the functions and tasks of the State of Design, Manufacture and Registry when related to design approval, as specified in the Chicago Convention and its Annexes. Therefore EASA, in accordance with Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention, should be invited to participate in a safety investigation in order to contribute, within the scope of its competence, to its efficiency and to ensure the safety of aircraft design, without affecting the independent status of the investigation. National civil aviation authorities should be similarly invited to participate in safety investigations.\n(10)\nGiven their safety responsibilities, persons designated by EASA, as well as by the national civil aviation authorities, should have access to information of relevance for assessing the effectiveness of safety requirements.\n(11)\nIn order to ensure better prevention of aviation accidents and incidents, EASA, in cooperation with the competent authorities of the Member States, should also participate in the exchange and analysis of information in the framework of the occurrence reporting systems in accordance with Directive 2003/42/EC, whilst avoiding any conflict of interest. This information should be adequately protected from unauthorised use or disclosure.\n(12)\nIt is recognised that the participation of EASA and of the competent authorities of the Member States in the exchange and analysis of information covered by Directive 2003/42/EC could benefit safety investigations through on-line access to relevant safety related information contained in the central repository of information on civil aviation occurrences.\n(13)\nThe scope of safety investigations should depend on the lessons which can be drawn from them for the improvement of aviation safety, especially taking into account the need for the cost-efficient utilisation of investigation resources in the Union.\n(14)\nThe safety investigation of accidents and incidents should be conducted by or under the control of an independent safety investigation authority in order to avoid any conflict of interest and any possible external interference in the determination of the causes of the occurrences being investigated.\n(15)\nThe safety investigation authorities play a core role in the safety investigation process. Their work is of the utmost importance in determining the causes of an accident or incident. It is therefore essential that they should be able to conduct their investigations entirely independently and also that they should possess the financial and human resources required to conduct effective and efficient investigations.\n(16)\nThe capacity of safety investigation authorities of the Member States should be strengthened and cooperation between them is necessary to improve the efficiency of the investigation and prevention of civil aviation accidents and incidents in the Union.\n(17)\nThe coordination role of safety investigation authorities should be recognised and reinforced in a European context, in order to generate real added value in aviation safety, by building upon the already existing cooperation between such authorities and the investigation resources available in the Member States which should be used in the most efficient manner. That recognition and reinforcement could be best achieved by the European Network of Civil Aviation Safety Investigation Authorities (the Network), with clearly defined role and tasks.\n(18)\nThe Network should pursue its coordination activities in a transparent and independent manner and be actively supported by the Union.\n(19)\nThe objectives of this Regulation may be better achieved through cooperation with third countries, which could be allowed to participate as observers, in the work of the Network.\n(20)\nAs it is essential to ensure clear rights for safety investigations, Member States should, in compliance with the legislation in force on the powers of the authorities responsible for judicial investigations and, where appropriate, in close collaboration with those authorities, ensure that safety investigation authorities are allowed to carry out their tasks in the best possible conditions in the interest of aviation safety. The safety investigation authorities should therefore be granted immediate and unrestricted access to the site of the accident and all the elements necessary to satisfy the requirements of a safety investigation should be made available to them, without compromising the objectives of a judicial investigation.\n(21)\nEfficient safety investigation is possible only if important pieces of evidence are duly preserved.\n(22)\nThe civil aviation safety system is based on feedback and lessons learned from accidents and incidents which require the strict application of rules on confidentiality in order to ensure the future availability of valuable sources of information. In this context sensitive safety information should be protected in an appropriate way.\n(23)\nAn accident raises a number of different public interests such as the prevention of future accidents and the proper administration of justice. Those interests go beyond the individual interests of the parties involved and beyond the specific event. The right balance among all interests is necessary to guarantee the overall public interest.\n(24)\nThe civil aviation system should equally promote a non-punitive environment facilitating the spontaneous reporting of occurrences and thereby advancing the principle of \u2018just culture\u2019.\n(25)\nThe information provided by a person in the framework of a safety investigation should not be used against that person, in full respect of constitutional principles and national law.\n(26)\nMember States should have the option to limit the cases in which a decision of disclosure regarding information obtained during a safety investigation could be taken, without affecting the smooth functioning of the judicial system.\n(27)\nIt is important for the prevention of accidents and incidents to communicate in the shortest time possible relevant information, including in particular reports and safety recommendations resulting from safety investigations.\n(28)\nThe safety recommendations resulting from an accident or serious incident investigation or other sources, such as safety studies, should always be considered by the competent authority and, as appropriate, acted upon to ensure adequate prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation.\n(29)\nProgress on research into both the real-time tracking of aircraft and the possibility of accessing flight-recorder information without the flight recorder being physically present should be encouraged to improve the tools available to investigators for determining the causes of accidents and to enhance capabilities for preventing recurrent incidents. Such developments would be an important step forward in aviation safety.\n(30)\nExperience has shown that reliable lists of persons on board an aircraft are sometimes difficult to obtain in a rapid manner but also that it is important to establish a deadline within which an airline can be required to produce such a list. In addition, the data contained in such lists should be protected from unauthorised use or disclosure. Similarly, the availability of information about the dangerous goods on board an aircraft involved in an accident is necessary to minimise the risks to safety investigators at the site of the occurrence.\n(31)\nFollowing an air accident it is not easy to identify rapidly the appropriate contact person to inform of a passenger\u2019s presence on board. The possibility of designating a contact person should therefore be offered to passengers.\n(32)\nAssistance to the victims of air accidents and their relatives should be adequately specified.\n(33)\nThe manner in which an accident and its consequences are dealt with by Member States and airlines is crucially important. In this respect, Member States should have an emergency plan providing for, in particular, airport emergency services and assistance to the victims of civil aviation accidents and their relatives. Airlines should also have a plan for assistance to the victims of civil aviation accidents and their relatives. Particular attention should be given to the support to and the communication with victims and their relatives, and their associations.\n(34)\nThe rules on access to data, data processing and the protection of individuals laid down in relevant legal acts of the Union should be fully respected in the application of this Regulation.\n(35)\nPenalties should, in particular, allow for the sanctioning of any person who contrary to this Regulation releases information protected by this Regulation; obstructs the actions of a safety investigation authority by preventing the investigators from performing their duties or by refusing to provide useful recordings, material information and documents, hiding, altering or destroying them; or, having knowledge of any occurrence of an accident or serious incident, does not inform the relevant authorities thereof.\n(36)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely the establishment of common rules in the field of civil aviation safety investigation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of its Europe-wide scale and effects, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.\n(37)\nDirective 94/56/EC should therefore be repealed.\n(38)\nThe Ministerial Statement on Gibraltar Airport, agreed in Cordoba on 18 September 2006 during the first Ministerial meeting of the Forum of Dialogue on Gibraltar, will replace the Joint Declaration on Gibraltar Airport made in London on 2 December 1987, and full compliance with it will be deemed to constitute compliance with the 1987 Declaration,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. This Regulation aims to improve aviation safety by ensuring a high level of efficiency, expediency, and quality of European civil aviation safety investigations, the sole objective of which is the prevention of future accidents and incidents without apportioning blame or liability, including through the establishment of a European Network of Civil Aviation Safety Investigation Authorities. It also provides for rules concerning the timely availability of information relating to all persons and dangerous goods on board an aircraft involved in an accident. It also aims to improve the assistance to the victims of air accidents and their relatives.\n2. The application of this Regulation to the airport of Gibraltar is understood to be without prejudice to the respective legal positions of the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with regard to the dispute over sovereignty over the territory in which the airport is situated.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018accident\u2019 means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which, in the case of a manned aircraft, takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, or in the case of an unmanned aircraft, takes place between the time the aircraft is ready to move with the purpose of flight until such time it comes to rest at the end of the flight and the primary propulsion system is shut down, in which:\n(a)\na person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of:\n-\nbeing in the aircraft, or,\n-\ndirect contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft, or,\n-\ndirect exposure to jet blast,\nexcept when the injuries are from natural causes, self-inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew; or\n(b)\nthe aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component, except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to a single engine, (including its cowlings or accessories), to propellers, wing tips, antennas, probes, vanes, tires, brakes, wheels, fairings, panels, landing gear doors, windscreens, the aircraft skin (such as small dents or puncture holes) or minor damages to main rotor blades, tail rotor blades, landing gear, and those resulting from hail or bird strike, (including holes in the radome); or\n(c)\nthe aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible;\n(2)\n\u2018accredited representative\u2019 means a person designated by a State, on the basis of his or her qualifications, for the purpose of participating in a safety investigation conducted by another State. An accredited representative designated by a Member State shall be from a safety investigation authority;\n(3)\n\u2018adviser\u2019 means a person appointed by a State, on the basis of his or her qualifications, for the purpose of assisting its accredited representative in a safety investigation;\n(4)\n\u2018causes\u2019 means actions, omissions, events, conditions, or a combination thereof, which led to the accident or incident; the identification of causes does not imply the assignment of fault or the determination of administrative, civil or criminal liability;\n(5)\n\u2018fatal injury\u2019 means an injury which is sustained by a person in an accident and which results in his or her death within 30 days of the date of the accident;\n(6)\n\u2018flight recorder\u2019 means any type of recorder installed in the aircraft for the purpose of facilitating accident/incident safety investigations;\n(7)\n\u2018incident\u2019 means an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation;\n(8)\n\u2018international standards and recommended practices\u2019 means international standards and recommended practices for aircraft accident and incident investigation adopted in accordance with Article 37 of the Chicago Convention;\n(9)\n\u2018investigator-in-charge\u2019 means a person charged, on the basis of his or her qualifications, with responsibility for the organisation, conduct and control of a safety investigation;\n(10)\n\u2018operator\u2019 means any natural or legal person, operating or proposing to operate one or more aircraft;\n(11)\n\u2018person involved\u2019 means the owner, a member of the crew, the operator of the aircraft involved in an accident or serious incident; any person involved in the maintenance, design, manufacture of that aircraft or in the training of its crew; any person involved in the provision of air traffic control, flight information or aerodrome services, who have provided services for the aircraft; staff of the national civil aviation authority; or staff of EASA;\n(12)\n\u2018preliminary report\u2019 means the communication used for the prompt dissemination of data obtained during the early stages of the investigation;\n(13)\n\u2018relatives\u2019 means the immediate family and/or next of kin and/or other person closely connected with the victim of an accident, as defined under the national law of the victim;\n(14)\n\u2018safety investigation\u2019 means a process conducted by a safety investigation authority for the purpose of accident and incident prevention which includes the gathering and analysis of information, the drawing of conclusions, including the determination of cause(s) and/or contributing factors and, when appropriate, the making of safety recommendations;\n(15)\n\u2018safety recommendation\u2019 means a proposal of a safety investigation authority, based on information derived from a safety investigation or other sources such as safety studies, made with the intention of preventing accidents and incidents;\n(16)\n\u2018serious incident\u2019 means an incident involving circumstances indicating that there was a high probability of an accident and is associated with the operation of an aircraft, which in the case of a manned aircraft, takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, or in the case of an unmanned aircraft, takes place between the time the aircraft is ready to move with the purpose of flight until such time it comes to rest at the end of the flight and the primary propulsion system is shut down. A list of examples of serious incidents is set out in the Annex;\n(17)\n\u2018serious injury\u2019 means an injury which is sustained by a person in an accident and which involves one of the following:\n(a)\nhospitalisation for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date the injury was received;\n(b)\na fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose);\n(c)\nlacerations which cause severe haemorrhage, nerve, muscle or tendon damage;\n(d)\ninjury to any internal organ;\n(e)\nsecond or third degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 % of the body surface;\n(f)\nverified exposure to infectious substances or harmful radiation.\nArticle 3\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to safety investigations into accidents and serious incidents:\n(a)\nwhich have occurred in the territories of the Member States to which the Treaties apply, in accordance with the international obligations of the Member States;\n(b)\ninvolving aircraft registered in a Member State or operated by an undertaking established in a Member State, which have occurred outside the territories of the Member States to which the Treaties apply, when such investigations are not conducted by another State;\n(c)\nin which a Member State is entitled, according to international standards and recommended practices, to appoint an accredited representative to participate as a State of Registry, State of the Operator, State of Design, State of Manufacture or State providing information, facilities or experts at the request of the State conducting the investigation;\n(d)\nin which a Member State having a special interest by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens is permitted by the State conducting the investigation to appoint an expert.\n2. This Regulation shall also apply to issues pertaining to the timely availability of information relating to all persons and dangerous goods on board an aircraft involved in an accident and assistance to the victims of air accidents and their relatives.\n3. This Regulation shall not apply to safety investigations into accidents and serious incidents which involve aircraft engaged in military, customs, police or similar services, except when the Member State concerned so determines, in accordance with Article 5(4) and national legislation.\nArticle 4\nCivil Aviation Safety Investigation Authority\n1. Each Member State shall ensure that safety investigations are conducted or supervised, without external interference, by a permanent national civil aviation safety investigation authority (safety investigation authority) capable of independently conducting a full safety investigation, either on its own or through agreements with other safety investigation authorities.\n2. The safety investigation authority shall be functionally independent in particular of aviation authorities responsible for airworthiness, certification, flight operation, maintenance, licensing, air traffic control or aerodrome operation and, in general, of any other party or entity the interests or missions of which could conflict with the task entrusted to the safety investigation authority or influence its objectivity.\n3. The safety investigation authority shall, in the conduct of the safety investigation, neither seek nor take instructions from anybody and shall have unrestricted authority over the conduct of the safety investigations.\n4. The activities entrusted to the safety investigation authority may be extended to the gathering and analysis of aviation safety related information, in particular for accident prevention purposes, in so far as these activities do not affect its independence and entail no responsibility in regulatory, administrative or standards matters.\n5. In order to inform the public of the general aviation safety level, a safety review shall be published annually at national level. In this analysis, the sources of confidential information shall not be revealed.\n6. The safety investigation authority shall be given by the respective Member State the means required to carry out its responsibilities independently and shall be able to obtain sufficient resources to do so. In particular:\n(a)\nthe head of the safety investigation authority and/or, in the case of a multimodal authority, the head of its aviation branch shall have the experience and competence in civil aviation safety to fulfil his or her tasks in accordance with this Regulation and national law;\n(b)\nthe investigators shall be afforded status giving them the necessary guarantees of independence;\n(c)\nthe safety investigation authority shall comprise at least one available investigator able to perform the function of the investigator-in-charge in the event of a major air accident;\n(d)\nthe safety investigation authority shall be allocated a budget that enables it to carry out its functions;\n(e)\nthe safety investigation authority shall have at its disposal, either directly or by means of the cooperation referred to in Article 6, or through arrangements with other national authorities or entities, qualified personnel and adequate facilities, including offices and hangars to enable the storage and examination of the aircraft, its contents and its wreckage.\nArticle 5\nObligation to investigate\n1. Every accident or serious incident involving aircraft other than specified in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency (6) shall be the subject of a safety investigation in the Member State in the territory of which the accident or serious incident occurred.\n2. When an aircraft, other than specified in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, registered in a Member State is involved in an accident or serious incident the location of which cannot be definitely established as being in the territory of any State, a safety investigation shall be conducted by the safety investigation authority of the Member State of registration.\n3. The extent of safety investigations referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 and the procedure to be followed in conducting such safety investigations shall be determined by the safety investigation authority, taking into account the lessons it expects to draw from such investigations for the improvement of aviation safety, including for those aircraft with a maximum take-off mass less than or equal to 2 250 kg.\n4. Safety investigation authorities may decide to investigate incidents other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as accidents or serious incidents to other types of aircraft, in accordance with the national legislation of the Member States, when they expect to draw safety lessons from them.\n5. Safety investigations referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 shall in no case be concerned with apportioning blame or liability. They shall be independent of, separate from and without prejudice to any judicial or administrative proceedings to apportion blame or liability.\nArticle 6\nCooperation between safety investigation authorities\n1. A safety investigation authority from one Member State may request the assistance of safety investigation authorities from other Member States. When, following a request, a safety investigation authority agrees to provide assistance, such assistance shall, as far as possible, be provided free of charge.\n2. A safety investigation authority may delegate the task of conducting an investigation into an accident or serious incident to another safety investigation authority subject to mutual agreement and shall facilitate the investigation process by that other authority.\nArticle 7\nEuropean Network of Civil Aviation Safety Investigation Authorities\n1. Member States shall ensure that their safety investigation authorities establish between them a European Network of Civil Aviation Safety Investigation Authorities (the Network), composed of the heads of the safety investigation authorities in each of the Member States and/or, in the case of a multimodal authority, the head of its aviation branch, or their representatives, including a chairman chosen among these for a period of 3 years.\nIn close consultation with the members of the Network, the chairman shall draw up the annual work programme of the Network, which shall comply with the objectives and meet the responsibilities set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 respectively. The Commission shall transmit the work programme to the European Parliament and the Council. The chairman shall also draw up the agenda for the meetings of the Network.\n2. The Network shall seek to further improve the quality of investigations conducted by safety investigation authorities and to strengthen their independence. In particular, it shall encourage high standards in investigation methods and investigator training.\n3. In order to achieve the objectives set out in paragraph 2, the Network shall be responsible, in particular, for:\n(a)\npreparing suggestions to and advising Union institutions on all aspects of development and implementation of Union policies and rules relating to safety investigations and the prevention of accidents and incidents;\n(b)\npromoting the sharing of information useful for the improvement of aviation safety and actively promoting structured cooperation between safety investigation authorities, the Commission, EASA and national civil aviation authorities;\n(c)\ncoordinating and organising, where appropriate, \u2018peer reviews\u2019, relevant training activities and skills development programmes for investigators;\n(d)\npromoting best safety investigation practices with a view to developing a common Union safety investigation methodology and drawing up an inventory of such practices;\n(e)\nstrengthening the investigating capacities of the safety investigation authorities, in particular by developing and managing a framework for sharing resources;\n(f)\nproviding, at the request of the safety investigation authorities for the purpose of the application of Article 6, appropriate assistance, including, but not limited to, a list of investigators, equipment and capabilities available in other Member States for potential use by the authority conducting an investigation;\n(g)\nhaving access to information contained in the database referred to in Article 18, and analyse the safety recommendations therein with a view to identifying important safety recommendations of Union-wide relevance.\n4. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council of the activities of the Network on a regular basis. The European Parliament shall also be informed whenever the Council or the Commission submits requests to the Network.\n5. The members of the Network shall neither seek nor accept instructions from any body which could affect the independent status of safety investigations.\n6. EASA shall, as appropriate, be invited as an observer to the meetings of the Network. The Network may also invite observers from safety investigation authorities of third countries and other relevant experts to attend its meetings.\n7. The Commission shall be closely associated with the work of the Network and shall receive the necessary support from the Network on relevant aspects related to the development of the Union civil aviation accident investigation and prevention policy and regulation. The Commission shall provide the Network with the necessary support, including but not limited to assistance for the preparation and organisation of its meetings, as well as for the publication of an annual report covering the activities of the Network. The Commission shall transmit the annual report to the European Parliament and the Council.\nArticle 8\nParticipation of EASA and national civil aviation authorities in safety investigations\n1. Safety investigation authorities shall, provided that the requirement of no conflict of interest is satisfied, invite EASA and national civil aviation authorities of the Member States concerned, within the scope of their respective competence, to appoint a representative to participate:\n(a)\nas an adviser to the investigator-in-charge in any safety investigation under Article 5(1) and (2), conducted in the territory of a Member State or in the location referred to in Article 5(2) under the control and at the discretion of the investigator-in-charge;\n(b)\nas an adviser appointed under this Regulation to assist accredited representative(s) of the Member States in any safety investigation conducted in a third country to which a safety investigation authority is invited to designate an accredited representative in accordance with international standards and recommended practices for aircraft accident and incident investigation, under the supervision of the accredited representative.\n2. The participants referred to in paragraph 1 shall be entitled, in particular to:\n(a)\nvisit the scene of the accident and examine the wreckage;\n(b)\nsuggest areas of questioning and obtain witness information;\n(c)\nreceive copies of all pertinent documents and obtain relevant factual information;\n(d)\nparticipate in the read-outs of recorded media, except cockpit voice or image recorders;\n(e)\nparticipate in off-scene investigative activities such as component examinations, tests and simulations, technical briefings and investigation progress meetings, except when related to the determination of the causes or the formulation of safety recommendations.\n3. EASA and the national civil aviation authorities shall support the investigation in which they participate by supplying the requested information, advisers and equipment to the safety investigation authority in charge.\nArticle 9\nObligation to notify accidents and serious incidents\n1. Any person involved who has knowledge of the occurrence of an accident or serious incident shall notify without delay the competent safety investigation authority of the State of Occurrence thereof.\n2. The safety investigation authority shall notify without delay the Commission, EASA, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the Member States and third countries concerned in accordance with the international standards and recommended practices of the occurrence of all accidents and serious incidents of which it has been notified.\nArticle 10\nParticipation of the Member States in safety investigations\n1. Upon receipt of the notification of the occurrence of an accident or serious incident from another Member State or third country, the Member States which are the State of Registry, the State of the Operator, the State of Design and the State of Manufacture shall, as soon as possible, inform the Member State or third country in the territory of which the accident or serious incident occurred whether they intend to appoint an accredited representative in accordance with the international standards and recommended practices. Where such an accredited representative is appointed, his or her name and contact details shall also be provided, as well as the expected date of arrival if the accredited representative intends to travel to the country which sent the notification.\n2. Accredited representatives for the State of Design shall be appointed by the safety investigation authority of the Member State in the territory of which the principal place of business of the certificate holder for the type design of the aircraft or power plant is located.\nArticle 11\nStatus of the safety investigators\n1. Upon his or her appointment by a safety investigation authority and notwithstanding any judicial investigation, the investigator-in-charge shall have the authority to take the necessary measures to satisfy the requirements of the safety investigation.\n2. Notwithstanding any confidentiality obligations under the legal acts of the Union or national law, the investigator-in-charge shall in particular be entitled to:\n(a)\nhave immediate unrestricted and unhampered access to the site of the accident or incident as well as to the aircraft, its contents or its wreckage;\n(b)\nensure an immediate listing of evidence and controlled removal of debris, or components for examination or analysis purposes;\n(c)\nhave immediate access to and control over the flight recorders, their contents and any other relevant recordings;\n(d)\nrequest, and contribute to, a complete autopsy examination of the bodies of the fatally injured persons and to have immediate access to the results of such examinations or of tests made on samples taken;\n(e)\nrequest the medical examination of the people involved in the operation of the aircraft or request tests to be carried out on samples taken from such people and to have immediate access to the results of such examinations or tests;\n(f)\nto call and examine witnesses and to require them to furnish or produce information or evidence relevant to the safety investigation;\n(g)\nhave free access to any relevant information or records held by the owner, the certificate holder of the type design, the responsible maintenance organisation, the training organisation, the operator or the manufacturer of the aircraft, the authorities responsible for civil aviation, EASA and air navigation service providers or aerodrome operators.\n3. The investigator-in-charge shall extend to his or her experts and advisers, as well as to the accredited representatives, their experts and advisers, the entitlements listed in paragraph 2, to the extent necessary to enable them to participate effectively in the safety investigation. Those entitlements are without prejudice to the rights of the investigators and experts designated by the authority in charge of the judicial investigation.\n4. Any person participating in safety investigations shall perform his or her duties independently and shall neither seek, nor accept instructions from anybody, other than the investigator-in-charge or the accredited representative.\nArticle 12\nCoordination of investigations\n1. When a judicial investigation is also instituted, the investigator-in-charge shall be notified thereof. In such a case, the investigator-in-charge shall ensure traceability and retain custody of flight recorders and any physical evidence. The judicial authority may appoint an official from that authority to accompany the flight recorders or physical evidence to the place of the read-out or treatment. Where examination or analysis of such physical evidence may modify, alter or destroy it, prior agreement from the judicial authorities will be required, without prejudice to national law. Where such agreement is not obtained according to the advance arrangements referred to in paragraph 3 within a reasonable time and not later than 2 weeks following the request, it shall not prevent the investigator-in-charge from conducting the examination or analysis. Where the judicial authority is entitled to seize any evidence, the investigator-in-charge shall have immediate and unlimited access to and use of such evidence.\n2. Where, in the course of the safety investigation, it becomes known or it is suspected that an act of unlawful interference as provided for under national law, such as national law on accident investigations, was involved in the accident or serious incident, the investigator-in-charge shall immediately inform the competent authorities thereof. Subject to Article 14, the relevant information collected in the safety investigation shall be shared with those authorities immediately and upon request, relevant material may also be transferred to those authorities. The sharing of that information and that material shall be without prejudice to the right of the safety investigation authority to continue the safety investigation, in coordination with the authorities to which the control of the site may have been transferred.\n3. Member States shall ensure that safety investigation authorities, on the one hand, and other authorities likely to be involved in the activities related to the safety investigation, such as the judicial, civil aviation, search and rescue authorities, on the other hand, cooperate with each other through advance arrangements.\nThose arrangements shall respect the independence of the safety investigation authority and allow the technical investigation to be conducted diligently and efficiently. Among others, the advance arrangements shall cover the following subjects:\n(a)\naccess to the site of the accident;\n(b)\npreservation of and access to evidence;\n(c)\ninitial and ongoing debriefings of the status of each process;\n(d)\nexchange of information;\n(e)\nappropriate use of safety information;\n(f)\nresolution of conflicts.\nMember States shall communicate to the Commission those arrangements, which shall transmit them to the chairman of the Network, the European Parliament and the Council for information.\nArticle 13\nPreservation of evidence\n1. The Member State in the territory of which the accident or serious incident occurred shall be responsible for ensuring safe treatment of all evidence and for taking all reasonable measures to protect such evidence and for maintaining safe custody of the aircraft, its contents and its wreckage for such period as may be necessary for the purpose of a safety investigation. Protection of evidence shall include the preservation, by photographic or other means, of any evidence which might be removed, effaced, lost or destroyed. Safe custody shall include protection against further damage, access by unauthorised persons, pilfering and deterioration.\n2. Pending the arrival of safety investigators, no person shall modify the state of the site of the accident, take any samples therefrom, undertake any movement of or sampling from the aircraft, its contents or its wreckage, move or remove it, except where such action may be required for safety reasons or to bring assistance to injured persons, or under the express permission of the authorities in control of the site and, when possible, in consultation with the safety investigation authority.\n3. Any person involved shall take all necessary steps to preserve documents, material and recordings in relation to the event, in particular so as to prevent erasure of recordings of conversations and alarms after the flight.\nArticle 14\nProtection of sensitive safety information\n1. The following records shall not be made available or used for purposes other than safety investigation:\n(a)\nall statements taken from persons by the safety investigation authority in the course of the safety investigation;\n(b)\nrecords revealing the identity of persons who have given evidence in the context of the safety investigation;\n(c)\ninformation collected by the safety investigation authority which is of a particularly sensitive and personal nature, including information concerning the health of individuals;\n(d)\nmaterial subsequently produced during the course of the investigation such as notes, drafts, opinions written by the investigators, opinions expressed in the analysis of information, including flight recorder information;\n(e)\ninformation and evidence provided by investigators from other Member States or third countries in accordance with the international standards and recommended practices, where so requested by their safety investigation authority;\n(f)\ndrafts of preliminary or final reports or interim statements;\n(g)\ncockpit voice and image recordings and their transcripts, as well as voice recordings inside air traffic control units, ensuring also that information not relevant to the safety investigation, particularly information with a bearing on personal privacy, shall be appropriately protected, without prejudice to paragraph 3.\n2. The following records shall not be made available or used for purposes other than safety investigation, or other purposes aiming at the improvement of aviation safety:\n(a)\nall communications between persons having been involved in the operation of the aircraft;\n(b)\nwritten or electronic recordings and transcriptions of recordings from air traffic control units, including reports and results made for internal purposes;\n(c)\ncovering letters for the transmission of safety recommendations from the safety investigation authority to the addressee, where so requested by the safety investigation authority issuing the recommendation;\n(d)\noccurrence reports filed under Directive 2003/42/EC.\nFlight data recorder recordings shall not be made available or used for purposes other than those of the safety investigation, airworthiness or maintenance purposes, except when such records are de-identified or disclosed under secure procedures.\n3. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, the administration of justice or the authority competent to decide on the disclosure of records according to national law may decide that the benefits of the disclosure of the records referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 for any other purposes permitted by law outweigh the adverse domestic and international impact that such action may have on that or any future safety investigation. Member States may decide to limit the cases in which such a decision of disclosure may be taken, while respecting the legal acts of the Union.\nThe communication of records referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 to another Member State for purposes other than safety investigation and, in addition as regards paragraph 2, for purposes other than those aiming at the improvement of aviation safety may be granted insofar as the national law of the communicating Member State permits. Processing or disclosure of records received through such communication by the authorities of the receiving Member State shall be permitted solely after prior consultation of the communicating Member State and subject to the national law of the receiving Member State.\n4. Only the data strictly necessary for the purposes referred to in paragraph 3 may be disclosed.\nArticle 15\nCommunication of information\n1. The staff of the safety investigation authority in charge, or any other person called upon to participate in or contribute to the safety investigation shall be bound by applicable rules of professional secrecy, including as regards the anonymity of those involved in an accident or incident, under the applicable legislation.\n2. Without prejudice to the obligations set out in Articles 16 and 17, the safety investigation authority in charge shall communicate the information which it deems relevant to the prevention of an accident or serious incident, to persons responsible for aircraft or aircraft equipment manufacture or maintenance, and to individuals or legal entities responsible for operating aircraft or for the training of personnel.\n3. Without prejudice to the obligations set out in Articles 16 and 17, the safety investigation authority in charge and the accredited representative(s) referred to in Article 8 shall release to EASA and national civil aviation authorities relevant factual information obtained during the safety investigation, except information referred to in Article 14(1) or causing a conflict of interest. The information received by EASA and the national civil aviation authorities shall be protected in accordance with Article 14 and applicable legal acts of the Union and national legislation.\n4. The safety investigation authority in charge shall be a\u0173thorised to inform victims and their relatives or their associations or make public any information on the factual observations, the proceedings of the safety investigation, possibly preliminary reports or conclusions and/or safety recommendations, provided that it does not compromise the objectives of the safety investigation and fully complies with applicable legislation on the protection of personal data.\n5. Before making public the information referred to in paragraph 4, the safety investigation authority in charge shall forward that information to the victims and their relatives or their associations in a way which does not compromise the objectives of the safety investigation.\nArticle 16\nInvestigation report\n1. Each safety investigation shall be concluded with a report in a form appropriate to the type and seriousness of the accident or serious incident. The report shall state that the sole objective of the safety investigation is the prevention of future accidents and incidents without apportioning blame or liability. The report shall contain, where appropriate, safety recommendations.\n2. The report shall protect the anonymity of any individual involved in the accident or serious incident.\n3. Where safety investigations give rise to reports before the completion of the investigation, prior to their publication the safety investigation authority may solicit comments from the authorities concerned, including EASA, and through them the certificate holder for the design, the manufacturer and the operator concerned. They shall be bound by applicable rules of professional secrecy with regard to the contents of the consultation.\n4. Before publication of the final report, the safety investigation authority shall solicit comments from the authorities concerned, including EASA, and, through them the certificate holder for the design, the manufacturer and the operator concerned, who shall be bound by applicable rules of professional secrecy with regard to the contents of the consultation. In soliciting such comments, the safety investigation authority shall follow the international standards and recommended practices.\n5. The information covered by Article 14 shall be included in a report only when relevant to the analysis of the accident or serious incident. Information or parts of the information not relevant to the analysis shall not be disclosed.\n6. The safety investigation authority shall make public the final report in the shortest possible time and if possible within 12 months of the date of the accident or serious incident.\n7. If the final report cannot be made public within 12 months, the safety investigation authority shall release an interim statement at least at each anniversary of the accident or serious incident, detailing the progress of the investigation and any safety issues raised.\n8. The safety investigation authority shall forward a copy of the final report and the safety recommendations as soon as possible to the:\n(a)\nsafety investigation authorities and civil aviation authorities of the States concerned, and the ICAO, according to the international standards and recommended practices;\n(b)\naddressees of safety recommendations contained in the report;\n(c)\nCommission and EASA, except where the report is publicly available through electronic means, in which case the safety investigation authority shall only notify them accordingly.\nArticle 17\nSafety recommendations\n1. At any stage of the safety investigation, the safety investigation authority shall recommend in a dated transmittal letter, after appropriate consultation with relevant parties, to the authorities concerned, including those in other Member States or third countries, any preventive action that it considers necessary to be taken promptly to enhance aviation safety.\n2. A safety investigation authority may also issue safety recommendations on the basis of studies or analysis of a series of investigations or any other activities conducted in accordance with Article 4(4).\n3. A safety recommendation shall in no case create a presumption of blame or liability for an accident, serious incident or incident.\nArticle 18\nFollow-up to safety recommendations and safety recommendations database\n1. The addressee of a safety recommendation shall acknowledge receipt of the transmittal letter and inform the safety investigation authority which issued the recommendation within 90 days of the receipt of that letter, of the actions taken or under consideration, and where appropriate, of the time necessary for their completion and where no action is taken, the reasons therefor.\n2. Within 60 days of the receipt of the reply, the safety investigation authority shall inform the addressee whether or not it considers the reply adequate and give justification when it disagrees with the decision to take no action.\n3. Each safety investigation authority shall implement procedures to record the responses to the safety recommendations it issued.\n4. Each entity receiving a safety recommendation, including the authorities responsible for civil aviation safety at the Member State and Union level, shall implement procedures to monitor the progress of the action taken in response to the safety recommendations received.\n5. Safety investigation authorities shall record in the central repository established under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1321/2007 of 12 November 2007 laying down implementing rules for the integration into a central repository of information on civil aviation occurrences exchanged in accordance with Directive 2003/42/EC (7) all safety recommendations issued in accordance with Article 17(1) and (2) as well as the responses thereto. Safety investigation authorities shall similarly record in the central repository all safety recommendations received from third countries.\nArticle 19\nOccurrence reporting\n1. EASA and the competent authorities of the Member States shall in collaboration participate regularly in the exchange and analysis of information covered by Directive 2003/42/EC. This shall cover online access by designated persons to information contained in the central repository established under Regulation (EC) No 1321/2007, including to information which directly identifies the aircraft subject to an occurrence report such as, where available, its serial and registration numbers. Such access shall not cover information that identifies the operator subject to that occurrence report.\n2. EASA and the authorities of the Member States referred to in paragraph 1 shall ensure the confidentiality of such information in accordance with applicable legislation, and shall limit its use to what is strictly necessary to discharge their safety related obligations. In this respect, that information shall be used only for analysis of safety trends which can form the basis for anonymous safety recommendations or airworthiness directives without apportioning blame or liability.\nArticle 20\nInformation on persons and dangerous goods on board\n1. Union airlines operating flights arriving to or departing from, and third country airlines operating flights departing from an airport located in the territories of the Member States to which the Treaties apply, shall implement procedures which allow for the production:\n(a)\nas soon as possible, and at the latest within two hours of the notification of the occurrence of an accident to the aircraft, of a validated list, based on the best available information, of all the persons on board; and\n(b)\nimmediately after the notification of the occurrence of an accident to the aircraft, of the list of the dangerous goods on board.\n2. The lists referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made available to the safety investigation authority in charge, the authority designated by each Member State to liaise with the relatives of the persons on board and, where necessary, to medical units which may need the information for the treatment of victims.\n3. In order to allow passengers\u2019 relatives to obtain information quickly concerning the presence of their relatives on board an aircraft involved in an accident, airlines shall offer travellers the opportunity to give the name and contact details of a person to be contacted in the event of an accident. This information may be used by the airlines only in the event of an accident and shall not be communicated to third parties or used for commercial purposes.\n4. The name of a person on board shall not be made publicly available before the relatives of that person have been informed by the relevant authorities. The list referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be kept confidential in accordance with the legal acts of the Union and national law and the name of each person appearing in that list shall, subject thereto, only be made publicly available in so far as the relatives of the respective persons on board have not objected.\nArticle 21\nAssistance to the victims of air accidents and their relatives\n1. In order to ensure a more comprehensive and harmonised response to accidents at EU level, each Member State shall establish a civil aviation accident emergency plan at national level. Such an emergency plan shall also cover assistance to the victims of civil aviation accidents and their relatives.\n2. Member States shall ensure that all airlines established in their territory have a plan for the assistance to the victims of civil aviation accidents and their relatives. Those plans must take particular account of psychological support for victims of civil aviation accidents and their relatives and allow the airline to react to a major accident. The Member States shall audit the assistance plans of the airlines established in their territory. Member States shall also encourage third-country airlines which operate in the Union to similarly adopt a plan for the assistance of victims of civil aviation accidents and their relatives.\n3. When an accident occurs, the Member State in charge of the investigation, the Member State in which the airline, the aircraft of which was involved in the accident is established, or the Member State which had a large number of its nationals on board the aircraft involved in the accident, shall provide for the appointment of a reference person as a point of contact and information for the victims and their relatives.\n4. A Member State or a third country, which, by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens, has a special interest in an accident which has occurred in the territories of the Member States to which the Treaties apply, shall be entitled to appoint an expert who shall have the right to:\n(a)\nvisit the scene of the accident;\n(b)\nhave access to the relevant factual information, which is approved for public release by the safety investigation authority in charge, and information on the progress of the investigation;\n(c)\nreceive a copy of the final report.\n5. An expert appointed in accordance with paragraph 4 may assist, subject to applicable legislation in force, in the identification of the victims and attend meetings with the survivors of its State.\n6. In accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators (8), also third country air carriers shall fulfil the insurance obligations set out in that Regulation.\nArticle 22\nAccess to documents and protection of personal data\n1. This Regulation shall apply without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (9).\n2. This Regulation shall apply in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (10) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (11).\nArticle 23\nPenalties\nMember States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\nArticle 24\nAmendment of the Regulation\nThis Regulation shall be subject to a review no later than 3 December 2014. Where the Commission considers that this Regulation should be amended, it shall request the Network to issue a preliminary opinion, which shall also be forwarded to the European Parliament, the Council, the Member States and EASA.\nArticle 25\nRepeals\nDirective 94/56/EC is hereby repealed.\nArticle 26\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["32", "37", "50", "93", "68", "54", "1", "49", "15", "84", "69", "9", "2", "77", "62", "26", "83", "80", "97", "33", "55", "36", "98", "78", "28", "96", "12", "48", "74", "90", "No Label", "0", "4", "38", "41", "42", "53", "57"], "gold": ["0", "4", "38", "41", "42", "53", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 May 2012\namending Annex II to Council Directive 2004/68/EC as regards the basic general criteria for a territory to be considered free from bluetongue\n(notified under document C(2012) 2978)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/253/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2004/68/EC of 26 April 2004 laying down animal health rules for the importation into and transit through the Community of certain live ungulate animals, amending Directives 90/426/EEC and 92/65/EEC and repealing Directive 72/462/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2004/68/EC lays down the animal health requirements for the importation into and transit through the Union of live ungulates of the species listed in Annex I thereto.\n(2)\nPursuant to that Directive, the importation of live ungulates into and transit through the Union is to be authorised only from third countries that appear on a list or lists to be drawn up or amended in accordance with the procedure referred to therein.\n(3)\nImports of live ungulates into the Union are to be allowed only if the authorised third country provides the guarantee that the animals come from a disease-free territory, in accordance with the basic general criteria listed in Annex II to Directive 2004/68/EC and into which the entry of animals vaccinated against the diseases listed in that Annex must be prohibited.\n(4)\nBluetongue is listed in Annex II to Directive 2004/68/EC. Pursuant to that Annex, for all species of animals other than those of family Suidae, the conditions for a territory to be considered free from bluetongue are that no case of disease was registered and no vaccination was carried out during the last 12 months with appropriate control of the Culicoides population.\n(5)\nIn recent years, as a result of new technical developments, \u2018inactivated vaccines\u2019 against bluetongue have become available which do not pose the risk of undesired local circulation of the vaccine virus to unvaccinated cattle, sheep and goats. It is now widely accepted that vaccination with inactivated vaccines is the preferred tool for the control of bluetongue and for the prevention of clinical disease in such animals in the Union.\n(6)\nAccordingly, Council Directive 2000/75/EC of 20 November 2000 laying down specific provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue (2) was recently amended by Directive 2012/5/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), to provide for the use of inactivated vaccines in all parts of the EU.\n(7)\nAs a result of the evolving epidemiological situation as regards bluetongue, and to align with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) standards, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 of 26 October 2007 on implementing rules for Council Directive 2000/75/EC as regards the control, monitoring, surveillance and restrictions on movements of certain animals of susceptible species in relation to bluetongue (4) was amended recently. Consequently, EU standards require the absence of virus circulation for a minimum period of two years in order to consider a territory free from bluetongue. The period of 12 months referred to in Annex II to Directive 2004/68/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nDirective 2000/75/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 apply to intra-Union movements of live ungulates of species susceptible to bluetongue. It is appropriate that the basic general criteria for a territory of a third country to be considered free from bluetongue, as set out in Annex II to Directive 2004/68/EC, be aligned with the requirements applicable within the Union.\n(9)\nAnnex II to Directive 2004/68/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex II to Directive 2004/68/EC, the entry for bluetongue is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Bluetongue\nno case of disease and no vaccination carried out during the last 24 months with appropriate control of the Culicoides population\nAll species other than those of the genera Bos, Bison, Bubalus, Ovis and Capra and of the family Suidae\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2012.", "references": ["1", "26", "47", "45", "24", "23", "15", "70", "63", "90", "85", "8", "39", "33", "68", "52", "64", "83", "13", "19", "35", "28", "4", "31", "57", "91", "98", "65", "95", "46", "No Label", "21", "22", "38", "54", "61", "66"], "gold": ["21", "22", "38", "54", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 517/2012\nof 18 June 2012\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of June 2012 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for certain products in the egg sector and for egg albumin\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 of 15 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the egg sector and for egg albumin (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 539/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of egg products and egg albumin.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of June 2012 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2012 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2012 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 June 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2012.", "references": ["87", "28", "20", "58", "2", "96", "64", "5", "78", "71", "85", "16", "61", "67", "84", "77", "92", "17", "76", "9", "97", "31", "8", "19", "63", "3", "98", "62", "34", "24", "No Label", "21", "22", "69", "72"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2012/334/CFSP\nof 25 June 2012\nimplementing Decision 2011/486/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/486/CFSP of 1 August 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 August 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/486/CFSP.\n(2)\nOn 18 March 2012, the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 30 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1988 (2011) amended the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(3)\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/486/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/486/CFSP is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["60", "72", "0", "59", "26", "67", "53", "61", "77", "70", "68", "52", "74", "88", "13", "69", "21", "91", "62", "23", "25", "41", "79", "55", "78", "43", "31", "45", "46", "39", "No Label", "3", "5", "12", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "12", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1103/2011\nof 31 October 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1092/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["11", "65", "73", "89", "49", "3", "75", "34", "18", "42", "79", "96", "88", "98", "81", "82", "63", "39", "44", "55", "95", "7", "83", "25", "31", "21", "52", "45", "47", "69", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 June 2010\non the allocation of quantities of controlled substances other than hydrochlorofluorocarbons allowed for essential or critical laboratory and analytical uses in the Union in 2010 under Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer\n(notified under document C(2010) 3850)\n(Only the Dutch, English, Estonian, French, German, Italian and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(2010/375/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union has already phased out the production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbons, other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, hydrobromofluorocarbons and bromochloromethane for most uses. The Commission is required to determine essential laboratory and analytical uses for these controlled substances, the quantities that may be used and the companies that may use them.\n(2)\nDecision XIX/18 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol authorises the production and consumption necessary to satisfy essential laboratory and analytical uses of controlled substances listed in Annexes A, B and C (Group II and III substances) of the Montreal Protocol as listed in Annex IV to the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties, subject to the conditions set out in Annex II to the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties, as well as Decisions VI/9, VII/11, XI/15 XV/5, XVI/16 and XXI/16 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.\n(3)\nDecision XVII/10 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol authorises the production and consumption of methyl bromide, listed in Annex E of the Montreal Protocol, necessary to satisfy laboratory and analytical critical uses of methyl bromide.\n(4)\nUnder the Montreal Protocol global laboratory and analytical-use exemption is subject to periodic review and has last been extended by Decision XXI/6 until 31 December 2014.\n(5)\nDecision VI/25 specifies that a use can only be considered as essential if there are no available technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health. An Annex listing those uses for which the Parties of the Montreal Protocol consider alternatives to be available should be established. This Annex should also contain the positive list of permitted essential uses of methyl bromide, as agreed by the Parties in Decision XVIII/15.\n(6)\nThe Commission has published a notice to undertakings intending to import or export controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer to or from the European Union in 2010 and undertakings intending to request for 2010 a quota for these substances intended for laboratory and analytical uses (2) and has received declarations on intended essential laboratory and analytical uses of controlled substances for 2009.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee established by Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe production and import of controlled substances other than hydrochlorofluorocarbons may be permitted for any essential laboratory and analytical use specified in Annex I.\nArticle 2\nThe quantity of controlled substances other than hydrochlorofluorocarbons subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 which may be produced or imported for essential laboratory and analytical uses in the Union in 2010 shall be 63 843,371 ODP kilograms.\nArticle 3\nThe allocation of essential laboratory and analytical use quotas for controlled substances other than hydrochlorofluorocarbons for the year 2010 shall be to the undertakings indicated in Annex II. The maximum quantities that may be produced or imported in 2010 for laboratory and analytical uses allocated to these undertakings shall be set out in Annex III.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2010 and shall expire on 31 December 2010.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the following undertakings:\nAcros Organics BVBA\nJanssen Pharmaceuticalaan 3a\n2440 Geel\nBELGIUM\nEstonian Environmental Research Centre\nMarja 4D\n10617 Tallinn\nESTONIA\nHoneywell Specialty Chemicals GmbH\nWunstorfer Strasse 40\nPostfach 100262\n30918 Seelze\nGERMANY\nLGC Standards GmbH\nMercatorstr. 51\n46485 Wesel\nGERMANY\nMinistry of Defence\nDefence Fuel Lubricants and Chemicals\nPO Box 10.000\n1780 CA Den Helder\nNETHERLANDS\nSicor SPA\nVia Terazzano 77\n20017 Rho (MI)\nITALY\nSigma Aldrich Company Ltd\nThe Old Brickyard, New Road\nGillingham SP8 4XT\nUNITED KINGDOM\nSigma Aldrich Logistik GmbH\nRiedstrasse 2\n89555 Steinheim\nGERMANY\nVWR International SAS\n201 rue Carnot\n94126 Fontenay-sous-Bois\nFRANCE\nAirbus SAS\nRoute de Bayonne 316\n31300 Toulouse\nFRANCE\nHarp International Ltd\nGellihirion Industrial Estate, Rhondda, Cynon Taff,\nPontypridd CF37 5SX\nUNITED KINGDOM\nIneos Fluor Ltd\nPO Box 13, The Heath\nRuncorn Cheshire WA7 4QF\nUNITED KINGDOM\nMerck KGaA\nFrankfurter Strasse 250\n64271 Darmstadt\nGERMANY\nPanreac Quimica SA\nPol. Ind. Pla de la Bruguera, C/Garraf 2\n08211 Castellar del Vall\u00e8s-Barcelona\nSPAIN\nSigma Aldrich Chimie SARL\n80, rue de Luzais\nL\u2019Isle d\u2019Abeau Chesnes\n38297 St Quentin Fallavier\nFRANCE\nSigma Aldrich Laborchemikalien GmbH\nWunstorfer Strasse 40\nPostfach 100262\n30918 Seelze\nGERMANY\nTazzetti Fluids SRL\nCorso Europa n. 600/a\nVolpiano (TO)\nITALY\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2010.", "references": ["24", "97", "22", "98", "94", "62", "66", "72", "87", "27", "73", "99", "19", "93", "53", "16", "96", "75", "26", "7", "4", "29", "55", "3", "79", "65", "63", "51", "49", "92", "No Label", "58", "60", "77", "83"], "gold": ["58", "60", "77", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 145/2012\nof 16 February 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 February 2012.", "references": ["96", "14", "16", "10", "65", "72", "93", "79", "7", "28", "67", "3", "44", "27", "32", "18", "55", "26", "38", "62", "19", "30", "12", "76", "49", "91", "53", "46", "86", "81", "No Label", "21", "40"], "gold": ["21", "40"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 January 2011\nappointing one Latvian member and one Latvian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/54/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Latvian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Ain\u0101rs \u0160LESERS.\n(3)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Sergejs DOLGOPOLOVS,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas member:\n-\nMr Dainis TURLAIS, R\u012bgas domes Dro\u0161\u012bbas, k\u0101rt\u012bbas un korupcijas nov\u0113r\u0161anas jaut\u0101jumu komitejas priek\u0161s\u0113d\u0113t\u0101js,\nand\n(b)\nas alternate member:\n-\nMr Viktors GLUHOVS, R\u012bgas domes deput\u0101ts, Pils\u0113tas att\u012bst\u012bbas komitejas loceklis.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 January 2011.", "references": ["88", "95", "70", "92", "55", "32", "73", "60", "50", "68", "97", "30", "99", "72", "41", "1", "87", "51", "57", "16", "81", "65", "28", "29", "25", "31", "2", "33", "47", "56", "No Label", "7", "91"], "gold": ["7", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 468/2011\nof 13 May 2011\non selling prices for cereals in response to the 12th individual invitations to tender within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 (2) has opened the sales of cereals by tendering procedures, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission has to fix for each cereal and per Member State a minimum selling price or to decide not to fix a minimum selling price.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the 12th individual invitations to tender, it has been decided that no minimum selling price should be fixed for any cereal and for any Member State.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 12th individual invitations to tender for selling of cereals within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 11 May 2011, the decisions on the selling price per cereal and Member State are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 May 2011.", "references": ["11", "97", "10", "18", "91", "42", "22", "76", "72", "30", "55", "48", "77", "58", "71", "53", "64", "6", "88", "79", "21", "5", "8", "70", "52", "66", "3", "13", "31", "32", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU, EURATOM) No 577/2012\nof 26 June 2012\nadjusting the correction coefficients applicable to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, as laid down by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), and in particular Article 64 and Article 65(2) and 65(3) of the Staff Regulations and Annexes VII, XI and XIII thereto, and the first paragraph of Article 20 and Articles 64 and 92 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\nThere was a substantial increase in the cost of living in Estonia in the period from June to December 2011; the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration of officials and other servants of the Union should therefore be adjusted,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nWith effect from 1 January 2012, the correction coefficients applicable, under Article 64 of the Staff Regulations, to the remuneration of officials and other servants employed in the country listed below shall be as follows:\nEstonia 77,8.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 June 2012.", "references": ["95", "87", "72", "75", "85", "78", "21", "82", "45", "24", "60", "1", "93", "70", "9", "98", "54", "14", "30", "62", "36", "15", "48", "26", "90", "29", "63", "44", "22", "80", "No Label", "7", "52", "91"], "gold": ["7", "52", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 636/2011\nof 29 June 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Moules de bouchot de la Baie du Mont-Saint-Michel (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France's application to register the name \u2018Moules de bouchot de la Baie du Mont-Saint-Michel\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2011.", "references": ["64", "33", "95", "0", "66", "30", "6", "82", "27", "12", "8", "37", "85", "98", "62", "31", "41", "71", "5", "73", "28", "87", "92", "15", "2", "74", "16", "11", "14", "61", "No Label", "24", "25", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 715/2011\nof 19 July 2011\namending, for the 15th time, Council Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 of 11 October 2004 imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (1), and in particular Article 10(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 lists the persons covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nThe Commission is empowered to amend that Annex, taking into account Council Decisions implementing Council Common Position 2004/694/CFSP of 11 October 2004 on further measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the ICTY (2). Common Position 2004/694/CFSP has been replaced with Council Decision 2010/603/CFSP of 7 October 2010 on further measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the ICTY (3). Council Implementing Decision 2011/422/CFSP (4) implements Decision 2010/603/CFSP.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1763/2004 gives effect to Decision 2010/603/CFSP to the extent that action at Union level is required. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 should, therefore, be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["81", "59", "12", "57", "68", "48", "92", "79", "42", "76", "36", "86", "63", "72", "23", "35", "32", "90", "73", "20", "64", "37", "30", "19", "89", "54", "61", "67", "15", "38", "No Label", "3", "11", "97", "99"], "gold": ["3", "11", "97", "99"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 July 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms\n(2012/401/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 189, in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019) entered into force on 1 January 1994.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 98 of the EEA Agreement, the EEA Joint Committee may decide to amend, among others, Protocol 31 thereto.\n(3)\nProtocol 31 to the EEA Agreement contains provisions and arrangements concerning cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement to include Regulation (EU) No 911/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the European Earth monitoring programme (GMES) and its initial operations (2011 to 2013) (3).\n(5)\nProtocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["68", "45", "43", "83", "49", "81", "66", "84", "48", "73", "22", "27", "25", "75", "85", "98", "91", "88", "63", "42", "54", "95", "39", "64", "74", "62", "35", "55", "96", "15", "No Label", "3", "9", "40", "57", "77", "90"], "gold": ["3", "9", "40", "57", "77", "90"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1265/2011\nof 30 November 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in EU waters of Subdivisions 25-27, 28.2, 29 and 32 by vessels flying the flag of Poland\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 of 29 November 2010 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in the Baltic Sea (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["8", "26", "25", "0", "64", "19", "32", "66", "39", "1", "36", "81", "44", "4", "78", "74", "51", "27", "52", "86", "12", "30", "9", "43", "83", "50", "54", "99", "24", "10", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1253/2010\nof 22 December 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1247/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2010.", "references": ["95", "14", "12", "26", "77", "27", "63", "61", "7", "82", "67", "76", "53", "97", "83", "79", "46", "74", "15", "39", "52", "73", "9", "33", "93", "94", "23", "1", "51", "3", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 26 March 2012\nauthorising Romania to introduce a special measure derogating from Article 287 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(2012/181/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter registered with the Commission on 30 August 2011, Romania requested authorisation to introduce a special measure derogating from point 18 of Article 287 of Directive 2006/112/EC in order to exempt taxable persons whose annual turnover is no higher than the equivalent in national currency of EUR 65 000 at the conversion rate on the day of Romania\u2019s accession to the European Union. The measure would release those taxable persons from certain or all of the value added tax (VAT) obligations referred to in Chapters 2 to 6 of Title XI of Directive 2006/112/EC.\n(2)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 395(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission informed the other Member States by letter dated 8 November 2011 of the request made by Romania. By letter dated 9 November 2011, the Commission notified Romania that it had all the information necessary to consider the request.\n(3)\nA special scheme for small enterprises is an option which is already available to Member States under Title XII of Directive 2006/112/EC. The measure derogates from Title XII of Directive 2006/112/EC only in so far as the taxable person\u2019s annual turnover threshold for the scheme is higher than that allowed for Romania under point 18 of Article 287 of Directive 2006/112/EC, which is EUR 35 000.\n(4)\nA higher threshold for the special scheme for small enterprises is a simplification measure as it may significantly reduce the VAT obligations of the smallest businesses, whilst that special scheme is optional for taxable persons. Overall, it is expected that the measure will improve the general level of VAT compliance.\n(5)\nIn its proposal of 29 October 2004 for a Directive amending Council Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to simplifying value added tax obligations, the Commission included provisions aimed at allowing Member States to set the annual turnover ceiling for the VAT exemption scheme at up to EUR 100 000 or the equivalent in national currency, with the possibility of updating this amount each year. The request made by Romania is in line with that proposal.\n(6)\nThe measure has no impact on the Union\u2019s own resources accruing from VAT and only a negligible effect on the overall amount of the tax revenue of Romania collected at the stage of final consumption,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from point 18 of Article 287 of Directive 2006/112/EC, Romania is authorised to exempt from VAT taxable persons whose annual turnover is no higher than the equivalent in national currency of EUR 65 000 at the conversion rate on the day of its accession to the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nIt shall apply until the date of entry into force of a Directive amending the amounts of the annual turnover ceilings below which taxable persons may qualify for VAT exemption or until 31 December 2014, whichever date is earlier.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Romania.\nDone at Brussels, 26 March 2012.", "references": ["35", "60", "69", "66", "93", "68", "64", "40", "90", "81", "38", "14", "62", "70", "41", "85", "49", "58", "71", "63", "23", "83", "59", "16", "29", "13", "30", "22", "39", "9", "No Label", "8", "34", "45", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "34", "45", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 281/2012/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 29 March 2012\namending Decision No 573/2007/EC establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme \u2018Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows\u2019\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 78(2)(g) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn light of the establishment of a Joint EU resettlement programme aimed at increasing the impact of the Union\u2019s resettlement efforts in providing protection to refugees, and at maximising the strategic impact of resettlement through a better targeting of those persons who are in greatest need of resettlement, common priorities with respect to resettlement should be formulated at the level of the Union.\n(2)\nArticle 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that the policies of the Union set out in the Chapter on border checks, asylum and immigration and their implementation are to be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States, and that, whenever necessary, Union acts under the said Chapter are to contain appropriate measures to give effect to that principle.\n(3)\nFor this purpose, specific common Union resettlement priorities for 2013, as listed in the Annex added to Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) by this Decision, are to be established on the basis of two categories, the first of which should include persons belonging to a specific category falling within the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) resettlement criteria, and the second one should include persons from a country or region which has been identified in the UNHCR annual resettlement forecast and where common action by the Union would have a significant impact in addressing protection needs.\n(4)\nTaking into account the resettlement needs set out in the Annex added to Decision No 573/2007/EC by this Decision listing the specific common Union resettlement priorities, it is also necessary to provide additional financial support for the resettlement of persons with respect to specific geographic regions and nationalities, as well as to the specific categories of refugees to be resettled, where resettlement is determined to be the most appropriate response to their special needs.\n(5)\nGiven the importance of the strategic use of resettlement from countries or regions designated for the implementation of regional protection programmes, it is necessary to provide additional financial support for the resettlement of persons from Tanzania, eastern Europe (Belarus, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine), the Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Kenya and Yemen) and North Africa (Egypt, Libya and Tunisia), and from any other countries or regions that are so designated in the future.\n(6)\nIn order to encourage more Member States to engage in resettlement actions, it is equally necessary to provide additional financial support to those Member States that decide to resettle persons for the first time.\n(7)\nIt is also necessary to lay down rules concerning the eligibility of expenditure for the additional financial support for resettlement.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 3 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(10)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision No 573/2007/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 13 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Member States shall receive a fixed amount in accordance with paragraph 3a for each person resettled on the basis of one or more of the following priorities:\n(a)\npersons from a country or region designated for the implementation of a regional protection programme;\n(b)\npersons from one or more of the following vulnerable groups:\n-\nchildren and women at risk,\n-\nunaccompanied minors,\n-\nsurvivors of violence and/or torture,\n-\npersons having serious medical needs that can be addressed only if they are resettled,\n-\npersons in need of emergency resettlement or urgent resettlement for legal and/or physical protection needs;\n(c)\nthe specific common Union resettlement priorities for 2013 listed in the Annex to this Decision.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20183a. Member States shall receive a fixed amount of EUR 4 000 for each person resettled on the basis of the priorities listed in paragraph 3.\nIn the cases indicated below, the fixed amount shall be increased as follows:\n-\nEUR 6 000 per resettled person for those Member States which receive the fixed amount for resettlement from the Fund for the first time,\n-\nEUR 5 000 per resettled person for those Member States which have already received the fixed amount for resettlement from the Fund once in the course of the previous years of the Fund\u2019s operation.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Where a Member State resettles a person on the basis of more than one of the Union resettlement priorities listed in paragraph 3, it shall receive the fixed amount for this person only once.\u2019;\n(d)\nparagraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. By 1 May 2012, Member States shall provide the Commission with an estimate of the number of persons they will resettle, on the basis of the priorities listed in paragraph 3, in the course of the following calendar year, including a breakdown by the different categories referred to in that paragraph. The Commission shall communicate this information to the Committee referred to in Article 52.\u2019;\n(e)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20187. The results and impact of the financial incentive for resettlement actions on the basis of the priorities listed in paragraph 3 shall be reported by the Member States in the report referred to in Article 50(2) and by the Commission in the report referred to in Article 50(3).\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 35, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. The fixed amount for each resettled person allocated to the Member States shall be granted as a lump sum for each person effectively resettled.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe text set out in the Annex to this Decision is added as an Annex to Decision No 573/2007/EC.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 29 March 2012.", "references": ["49", "66", "78", "65", "64", "22", "92", "70", "15", "62", "99", "20", "88", "69", "11", "60", "50", "1", "19", "52", "40", "96", "46", "74", "37", "59", "76", "0", "93", "38", "No Label", "4", "5", "9", "10"], "gold": ["4", "5", "9", "10"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 28 July 2011\nconcerning the list of statistical data on the structure and rates of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco to be provided by the Member States pursuant to Council Directives 92/79/EEC and 92/80/EEC\n(notified under document C(2011) 5291)\n(2011/480/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/80/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of taxes on manufactured tobacco other than cigarettes (2), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 92/79/EEC and 92/80/EEC require every 4 years the Commission to submit to the Council a report concerning the rates and the structure of excise duty of manufactured tobacco, taking into account the proper functioning of the internal market, the real value of the rates of excise duty and the wider objectives of the Treaty.\n(2)\nThat report is to be based in particular on the information provided by the Member States relating to all releases for consumption of manufactured tobacco made in each preceding calendar year.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure early and sufficient information needed for the report referred to in Article 4(1) of Directives 92/79/EEC and 92/80/EEC and to enable a more dynamic follow-up of developments, Member States should provide to the Commission the statistical data on a yearly basis. This data can rely on the data Member States collect for the calculation of the weighted average retail selling price.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Excise Duty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Member States shall, for the purposes of Article 4(3) of Directives 92/79/EEC and 92/80/EEC respectively, provide to the Commission the annual statistical data set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nThe statistical data shall include all releases for consumption of manufactured tobacco made in the preceding calendar year.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2011.", "references": ["36", "14", "15", "73", "95", "77", "0", "55", "2", "65", "4", "1", "35", "38", "30", "82", "81", "20", "76", "13", "74", "59", "64", "70", "43", "32", "37", "69", "92", "60", "No Label", "19", "34", "39", "41", "68"], "gold": ["19", "34", "39", "41", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1079/2010\nof 23 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 November 2010.", "references": ["39", "36", "96", "54", "17", "62", "19", "66", "14", "53", "34", "22", "44", "28", "69", "74", "88", "4", "83", "98", "58", "18", "41", "63", "13", "33", "89", "40", "46", "76", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 11 October 2010\namending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of the Banca d\u2019Italia\n(2010/623/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular to Article 27.1 thereof,\nHaving regard to Recommendation ECB/2010/11 of the European Central Bank of 23 August 2010 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banca d\u2019Italia (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are to be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB\u2019s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the current external auditors of the Banca d\u2019Italia ended after the audit for the financial year 2009. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2010.\n(3)\nThe Banca d\u2019Italia has selected PricewaterhouseCoopers SpA as its external auditors for the financial years 2010 to 2015.\n(4)\nThe Governing Council of the ECB recommended that PricewaterhouseCoopers SpA should be appointed as the external auditors of the Banca d\u2019Italia for the financial years 2010 to 2015.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to follow the recommendation of the Governing Council of the ECB and to amend Decision 1999/70/EC (2) accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1(6) of Decision 1999/70/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. PricewaterhouseCoopers SpA is hereby approved as the external auditors of the Banca d\u2019Italia for the financial years 2010 to 2015.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the European Central Bank.\nDone at Luxembourg, 11 October 2010.", "references": ["63", "61", "86", "36", "65", "7", "14", "20", "70", "73", "18", "95", "2", "30", "25", "48", "19", "57", "23", "84", "29", "4", "21", "17", "16", "40", "88", "58", "22", "89", "No Label", "11", "28", "47", "50", "52", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["11", "28", "47", "50", "52", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\namending the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management as regards the multiannual financial framework, to address additional financing needs of the ITER project\n(2012/5/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1),\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAt the trilogue meeting of 1 December 2011 the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission have agreed on the modalities for providing additional financing to the ITER project. The financing requires a revision of the multiannual financial framework 2007-2013 in accordance with the Interinstitutional Agreement, so as to raise the ceilings for commitment appropriations under subheading 1a by EUR 650 million for the year 2012 and by EUR 190 million for the year 2013 in current prices.\n(2)\nThe increase of the ceilings for commitment appropriations under subheading 1a for the years 2012 and 2013 will be fully offset by a decrease of the ceilings for commitment appropriations for the year 2011 under heading 2 and of commitment appropriations for the years 2011 and 2012 under heading 5.\n(3)\nIn order to keep an appropriate relationship between commitments and payments, the annual ceilings for payment appropriations will be adjusted. The adjustment will be neutral in terms of payment requirements over the period 2007-2013.\n(4)\nAnnex I to the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management should therefore be amended accordingly (2),\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nAnnex I to the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["18", "0", "35", "64", "27", "73", "2", "37", "3", "48", "96", "93", "82", "41", "21", "38", "89", "20", "14", "9", "5", "8", "36", "49", "97", "68", "86", "31", "44", "70", "No Label", "10", "33", "77", "81"], "gold": ["10", "33", "77", "81"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 912/2011\nof 12 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2011.", "references": ["54", "93", "96", "71", "6", "97", "20", "13", "23", "76", "45", "75", "11", "49", "15", "3", "87", "79", "16", "59", "83", "60", "90", "27", "31", "95", "98", "34", "74", "2", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 449/2010\nof 25 May 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 as regards tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and processed agricultural products originating in Egypt and repealing Regulations (EC) No 2276/2003, (EC) No 955/2005, (EC) No 1002/2007 and (EC) No 1455/2007\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 of 9 April 2001 providing for the management of Community tariff quotas and of reference quantities for products eligible for preferences by virtue of agreements with certain Mediterranean countries and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1981/94 and (EC) No 934/95 (1) and in particular Article 5(1)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn 2008 an Agreement has been concluded in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Arab Republic of Egypt concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols 1 and 2 and their annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part, hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019, which has been approved by Council Decision 2010/240/EC (2).\n(2)\nThe Agreement provides for new tariff quotas for agricultural and processed agricultural products originating in Egypt. It provides also for changes to existing tariff quotas for those products which are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 747/2001, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2276/2003 of 22 December 2003 opening tariff quotas and laying down the duties applicable within these tariff quotas for imports into the European Community of certain processed agricultural products originating in Egypt (3), Commission Regulation (EC) No 955/2005 of 23 June 2005 opening a Community import quota for rice originating in Egypt (4), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1002/2007 of 29 August 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2184/96 concerning imports into the Community of rice originating in and coming from Egypt (5) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1455/2007 of 10 December 2007 opening certain Community import quotas for rice originating in Egypt (6).\n(3)\nIt is necessary to implement the new tariff quotas and the changes to the existing tariff quotas provided for in the Agreement. For reasons of clarity, it is appropriate to bring together all tariff quotas for agricultural and processed agricultural products originating in Egypt in one single legislative act.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 747/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly and Regulations (EC) No 2276/2003, (EC) No 955/2005, (EC) No 1002/2007 and (EC) No 1455/2007 should therefore be repealed.\n(5)\nImport licences issued under Regulation (EC) No 955/2005 and Regulation (EC) No 1002/2007 are valid from their date of issue until the end of the following month. Where the validity period of import licences issued under those Regulations before the entry into force of this Regulation expires after the date of repeal of those Regulations, importers could not comply with their obligations related to import licences. Member States should therefore be permitted in such cases to derogate from Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (7), and to release the security lodged by importers. In the interest of clarity it should also be provided that import licences issued after the entry into force of this Regulation under Regulation (EC) No 955/2005 and Regulation (EC) No 1002/2007 are to be valid only until the date of repeal of those Regulations.\n(6)\nFor the purpose of calculating the tariff quotas for the first year of application, it should be provided, in accordance with the Agreement, that the volumes of the tariff quotas for which the quota period starts before the date of entry into force of the Agreement, should be reduced by a proportion relating to that part of the period which has elapsed before that date.\n(7)\nSince the Agreement enters into force on 1 June 2010, this Regulation should apply from that date. However, in the interest of legal certainty, provisions concerning the validity of licences issued before that date should apply immediately.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulations (EC) No 2276/2003, (EC) No 955/2005, (EC) No 1002/2007 and (EC) No 1455/2007 are repealed.\nArticle 3\n1. The validity of import licences issued with an expiry date after 31 May 2010 under Regulation (EC) No 955/2005 and Regulation (EC) No 1002/2007 before the entry into force of this Regulation shall expire on 31 May 2010.\nBy derogation from Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, until 30 June 2010 the titular holder of the import licences referred to in the first subparagraph may return the unused import licences to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned which shall release the security for the quantities not used.\n2. By derogation from Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 955/2005 and Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1002/2007, the validity period of import licences issued under those Regulations after the entry into force of this Regulation shall not extend after 31 May 2010.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 June 2010 with the exception of Article 3 which shall apply from the date of the entry into force of this Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2010.", "references": ["50", "72", "11", "84", "57", "69", "58", "10", "17", "33", "76", "86", "62", "31", "7", "14", "39", "23", "16", "54", "51", "3", "87", "70", "18", "24", "81", "78", "0", "61", "No Label", "21", "22", "66", "68", "71", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "66", "68", "71", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1363/2011\nof 19 December 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Ciliegia dell'Etna (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy's application to register the name \u2027Ciliegia dell'Etna\u2027 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["1", "58", "44", "65", "82", "66", "17", "34", "95", "85", "53", "4", "31", "86", "33", "43", "80", "20", "8", "94", "89", "32", "11", "90", "36", "23", "79", "5", "47", "30", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 763/2012\nof 22 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 August 2012.", "references": ["65", "88", "57", "41", "40", "71", "26", "45", "49", "69", "75", "87", "19", "63", "99", "43", "90", "0", "76", "48", "10", "52", "94", "29", "62", "34", "37", "79", "82", "17", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 124/2012\nof 13 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 February 2012.", "references": ["75", "54", "8", "41", "56", "3", "38", "71", "69", "70", "76", "90", "97", "4", "32", "52", "14", "26", "62", "34", "30", "81", "50", "5", "46", "25", "33", "20", "57", "87", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 769/2011\nof 2 August 2011\nproviding for an allocation coefficient for the temporary exceptional Union support, for the fruit and vegetable sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 of 17 June 2011 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 7(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 introduced temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector following an outbreak of Escherichia coli (E. coli) in Germany, which caused a significant disturbance of the Union fruit and vegetable market.\n(2)\nOn the basis of the information notified by Member States in accordance with Article 7(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011, it appears that the requests for Union support have not exceeded the maximum amount of support fixed in Article 2 of that Regulation. Therefore, an allocation coefficient of 100 % has to be fixed for those requests.\n(3)\nFor the sake of transparency, producer organisations and producers non members having applied for Union support should be informed swiftly on the allocation coefficient fixed by the Commission. For this reason and in order to ensure the efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe requests for Union support which were received by the Member States for the period from 26 May 2011 to 30 June 2011 and notified to the Commission by the competent authorities of the Member States in accordance with Article 7(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 shall be accepted by applying an allocation coefficient of 100 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2011.", "references": ["57", "4", "16", "31", "15", "99", "71", "23", "29", "62", "65", "47", "34", "50", "43", "54", "76", "5", "74", "88", "75", "9", "77", "96", "91", "11", "49", "67", "14", "32", "No Label", "10", "19", "61", "66", "68"], "gold": ["10", "19", "61", "66", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 21 May 2012\namending Decision 2008/620/EC establishing a specific control and inspection programme related to the cod stocks in the Kattegat, the North Sea, the Skagerrak, the eastern Channel, the waters west of Scotland and the Irish Sea\n(2012/264/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Article 95 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2008/620/EC (2) established a specific control and inspection programme applicable for a period of four years to ensure the harmonised implementation of the measures laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 (3) for the recovery of cod stocks in the Kattegat, the North Sea, the Skagerrak, the eastern Channel, the waters west of Scotland and the Irish Sea.\n(2)\nThe specific control and inspection programme is necessary for the organisation of operational cooperation between Member States concerned and to allow the Community Fisheries Control Agency to organise joint deployment plans in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 (4).\n(3)\nIn order to ensure the continued harmonised implementation of the measures established for the recovery of the cod stocks, the specific control and inspection programme should be extended for a period of one year.\n(4)\nDecision 2008/620/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision have been established in concert with the Member States concerned.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 2 of Decision 2008/620/EC, the introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The specific control and inspection programme referred to in Article 1 shall apply for five years and shall cover:\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2012.", "references": ["82", "66", "89", "11", "69", "58", "4", "30", "33", "20", "78", "10", "92", "70", "56", "81", "91", "16", "0", "17", "1", "98", "93", "14", "39", "41", "29", "51", "32", "99", "No Label", "59", "67"], "gold": ["59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/42/EU\nof 28 June 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include FEN 560 (fenugreek seed powder) as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC France received on 24 June 2003 an application from Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 occitane de fabrications et de technologie for the inclusion of the active substance FEN 560 (also called fenugreek or fenugreek seed powder) in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2004/131/EC (2) confirmed that the dossier was \u2018complete\u2019 in the sense that it could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annexes II and III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(2)\nFor that active substance, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicant. The designated rapporteur Member State submitted a draft assessment report on 18 February 2005.\n(3)\nThe draft assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the format of the EFSA conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance fenugreek seed powder (FEN 560) on 18 December 2009 (3). This report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and was finalised on 11 May 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for FEN 560 (fenugreek seed powder).\n(4)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing FEN 560 (fenugreek seed powder) may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) and Article 5(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include FEN 560 (fenugreek seed powder) in Annex I to that Directive, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance may be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(5)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing provisional authorisations of plant protection products containing FEN 560 (fenugreek seed powder) to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should transform existing provisional authorisations into full authorisations, amend them or withdraw them in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(6)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 April 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 May 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing FEN 560 (fenugreek seed powder) as active substance by 30 April 2011. By that date, they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to FEN 560 (fenugreek seed powder) are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning the active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(2) of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing FEN 560 (fenugreek seed powder) as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 October 2010 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning FEN 560 (fenugreek seed powder). On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing FEN 560 (fenugreek seed powder) as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 April 2012 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing FEN 560 (fenugreek seed powder) as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 April 2012 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 November 2010.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2010.", "references": ["20", "49", "23", "82", "66", "24", "59", "71", "79", "47", "70", "93", "40", "73", "87", "67", "44", "26", "80", "89", "39", "56", "58", "96", "48", "21", "22", "33", "81", "34", "No Label", "2", "25", "41", "65", "76"], "gold": ["2", "25", "41", "65", "76"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 513/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 11 May 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on credit rating agencies\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe final report, published on 25 February 2009, of a High-Level group of experts chaired by Jacques de Larosi\u00e8re under a mandate of the Commission concluded that the supervisory framework of the financial sector within the European Union needed to be strengthened to reduce the risk and severity of future financial crises. It recommended far-reaching reforms to the supervisory structure. The group of experts also concluded that a European System of Financial Supervisors (ESFS) should be created, comprising three European Supervisory Authorities - one for the banking sector, one for the insurance and occupational pensions sector and one for the securities and markets sector - and recommended the creation of a European Systemic Risk Council.\n(2)\nIn its Communication of 4 March 2009 entitled \u2018Driving European Recovery\u2019, the Commission proposed to put forward draft legislation creating the ESFS, and in its Communication of 27 May 2009 entitled \u2018European Financial Supervision\u2019, it provided more detail about the possible architecture of such a new supervisory framework, highlighting the specificity of the supervision of credit rating agencies.\n(3)\nThe European Council, in its conclusions of 19 June 2009, recommended that the ESFS, consisting of a network of national financial supervisors working in tandem with three new European Supervisory Authorities, be established. The ESFS should be aimed at upgrading the quality and consistency of national supervision, strengthening oversight of cross-border groups through the setting up of supervisory colleges and establishing a European single rule book applicable to all financial market participants in the internal market. The European Council stressed that a European securities and markets authority should have supervisory powers over credit rating agencies. Further, the Commission should retain its competence to enforce the Treaties, in particular Chapter I of Title VII of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) regarding the common rules on competition in accordance with the provisions adopted for the implementation of those rules.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) established the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (ESMA).\n(5)\nThe scope of competence of ESMA should be clearly defined so that financial market participants can identify the authority competent in the field of activity of credit rating agencies. ESMA should be given general competence under Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) regarding matters relating to the registration and ongoing supervision of registered credit rating agencies.\n(6)\nESMA should be exclusively responsible for the registration and supervision of credit rating agencies in the Union. Where ESMA delegates specific tasks to competent authorities, ESMA should continue to be legally responsible. The heads and other staff of competent authorities should be involved in the decision-making process within ESMA in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, acting as members of ESMA bodies, such as its board of supervisors or its internal panels. ESMA should have the exclusive power to conclude cooperation agreements on information exchange with the supervisory authorities of third countries. To the extent that competent authorities participate in the decision-making process within ESMA or when executing tasks on behalf of ESMA, they should be covered by those cooperation agreements.\n(7)\nTransparency of information given by the issuer of a rated financial instrument to the appointed credit rating agency could have much potential added value for the functioning of the market and investor protection. Consideration should therefore be given on how best to extend the transparency of information underlying the ratings of all financial instruments. First, disclosing that information to other registered or certified credit rating agencies is likely to reinforce the competition between credit rating agencies, because it could lead, in particular, to an increase in the number of unsolicited ratings. The issuing of such unsolicited ratings should promote the use of more than one rating per financial instrument. This is also likely to help avoid possible conflicts of interest, especially under the issuer-pays model, and should enhance the quality of the ratings. Second, disclosing that information to the whole market could also increase the ability of investors to develop their own risk analyses by basing their due diligence on that additional information. Such disclosure could also lead to decreasing reliance on credit ratings issued by credit rating agencies. In order to achieve those fundamental objectives, the Commission should assess those issues in greater depth by giving further consideration to the appropriate scope of the disclosure obligation, having regard to the impact on local securitisation markets, further dialogue with interested parties, the monitoring of market and regulatory developments, and experience gained by other jurisdictions. In the light of that assessment, the Commission should put forward appropriate legislative proposals. The Commission's assessment and proposals should allow the definition of new transparency obligations in the manner most appropriate to meet the public interest, and most consistent with the protection of investors.\n(8)\nAs credit ratings are used throughout the Union, the traditional distinction between the home competent authority and the other competent authorities and the use of supervisory coordination by colleges are not the most appropriate structure for supervising credit rating agencies. Following the establishment of ESMA, it is no longer necessary to maintain such a structure. The registration process should therefore be streamlined and the time limits should be reduced accordingly.\n(9)\nESMA should be responsible for the registration and ongoing supervision of credit rating agencies, but not for the oversight of the users of credit ratings. Competent authorities designated under the relevant sectoral legislation for the supervision of credit institutions, investment firms, insurance undertakings, assurance undertakings, reinsurance undertakings, undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), institutions for occupational retirement provision and alternative investment funds should therefore remain responsible for the supervision of the use of credit ratings by those financial institutions and entities which are supervised at national level in the context and for the purpose of the application of other financial services directives, and of the use of credit ratings in prospectuses.\n(10)\nThere is a need for an effective instrument to establish harmonised regulatory technical standards to facilitate the application of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 in day-to-day practice and to ensure a level playing field and the adequate protection of investors and consumers across the Union. As a body with highly specialised expertise, it is efficient and appropriate to entrust ESMA with the development of draft regulatory technical standards.\n(11)\nIn the field of credit rating agencies, ESMA should submit to the Commission draft regulatory technical standards concerning the information to be provided by a credit rating agency in its application for registration, the information that a credit rating agency must provide for the application for certification and for an assessment of its systemic importance to the financial stability or integrity of financial markets, the presentation of the information, including structure, format, method and period of reporting, that a credit rating agency must disclose, concerning the assessment of compliance of credit rating methodologies with the requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, and the content and format of ratings data periodic reporting to be requested from a credit rating agency for the purpose of ongoing supervision by ESMA. In accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, those draft regulatory technical standards should be endorsed by the Commission to give them binding legal effect. In developing its draft regulatory technical standards, ESMA should consider and, if appropriate and necessary, update the guidelines already issued by the Committee of European Securities Regulators regarding the content of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\n(12)\nIn areas not covered by regulatory technical standards, ESMA should have the power to issue and update non-binding guidelines on issues related to the application of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\n(13)\nIn order to carry out its duties effectively, ESMA should be able to require, by simple request or by decision, all necessary information from credit rating agencies, persons involved in credit rating activities, rated entities and related third parties, third parties to whom the credit rating agencies have outsourced operational functions and persons otherwise closely and substantially related or connected to credit rating agencies or credit rating activities. The latter group of persons should cover, for instance, the staff of a credit rating agency who are not directly involved in rating activities but who, due to their function within the credit rating agency, may hold important information on a specific case. Firms which have provided services to the credit rating agency may also fall into that category. Undertakings using the credit ratings should not fall into that category. If ESMA requires such information by simple request, the addressee is not obliged to provide the information but, in the event that it does so voluntarily, the information provided should not be incorrect or misleading. Such information should be made available without delay.\n(14)\nIn order to exercise its supervisory powers effectively, ESMA should be able to conduct investigations and on-site inspections.\n(15)\nThe competent authorities should communicate any information required pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 and assist and cooperate with ESMA. ESMA and the competent authorities should also cooperate closely with the sectoral competent authorities responsible for supervision of the undertakings referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. ESMA should be able to delegate specific supervisory tasks to the competent authority of a Member State, for instance where a supervisory task requires knowledge and experience with respect to local conditions, which are more easily available at national level. The kind of tasks that it should be possible to delegate include the carrying out of specific investigatory tasks and on-site inspections. Prior to the delegation of tasks, ESMA should consult the relevant competent authority about the detailed conditions relating to such delegation of tasks, including the scope of the task to be delegated, the timetable for the performance of the task, and the transmission of necessary information by and to ESMA. ESMA should compensate the competent authorities for carrying out a delegated task in accordance with a regulation on fees to be adopted by the Commission by means of a delegated act. ESMA should not be able to delegate the power to adopt decisions on registration.\n(16)\nIt is necessary to ensure that competent authorities are able to request that ESMA examine whether the conditions for withdrawal of a credit rating agency's registration are met and to request that ESMA suspend the use of ratings where a credit rating agency is considered to be in a serious and persistent breach of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. ESMA should assess such requests and take any appropriate measures.\n(17)\nESMA should be able to impose periodic penalty payments to compel credit rating agencies to put an end to an infringement, to supply complete information required by ESMA or to submit to an investigation or on-site inspection.\n(18)\nESMA should also be able to impose fines on credit rating agencies, where it finds that they have committed, intentionally or negligently, an infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. Fines should be imposed according to the level of seriousness of the infringements. The infringements should be divided into different groups for which specific fines should be allocated. In order to calculate the fine related to a specific infringement, ESMA should use a two-step methodology consisting of setting a basic amount and adjusting that basic amount, if necessary, by certain coefficients. The basic amount should be established by taking into account the annual turnover of the credit rating agency concerned and the adjustments should be made by increasing or decreasing the basic amount through the application of the relevant coefficients in accordance with this Regulation.\n(19)\nThis Regulation establishes coefficients linked to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in order to give the necessary tools to ESMA to decide on a fine which is proportionate to the seriousness of an infringement committed by a credit rating agency, taking into account the circumstances under which that infringement was committed.\n(20)\nBefore taking a decision to impose fines or periodic penalty payments, ESMA should give the persons subject to the proceedings the opportunity to be heard in order to respect their rights of defence.\n(21)\nMember States should remain competent to lay down and implement the rules on penalties applicable to the infringement of the obligation on financial institutions and other entities to use, for regulatory purposes, only credit ratings issued by credit rating agencies registered in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\n(22)\nThis Regulation should not create a precedent for the imposition of financial or non-financial penalties by European Supervisory Authorities on financial market participants or other undertakings in relation to other types of activity.\n(23)\nESMA should refrain from imposing fines or periodic penalty payments where a prior acquittal or conviction arising from identical facts, or from facts which are substantially the same, has acquired the force of res judicata as the result of criminal proceedings under national law.\n(24)\nESMA decisions imposing fines and periodic penalty payments should be enforceable and their enforcement should be governed by the rules of civil procedure which are in force in the State in the territory of which it is carried out. Rules of civil procedure should not include criminal procedural rules but it should be possible that they include administrative procedural rules.\n(25)\nIn the case of an infringement committed by a credit rating agency, ESMA should be empowered to take a range of supervisory measures, including, but not limited to, requiring the credit rating agency to bring the infringement to an end, suspending the use of credit ratings for regulatory purposes, temporarily prohibiting the credit rating agency from issuing credit ratings and, as a last resort, withdrawing the registration when the credit rating agency has seriously or repeatedly infringed Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. The supervisory measures should be applied by ESMA taking into account the nature and seriousness of the infringement and should respect the principle of proportionality. Before taking a decision on supervisory measures, ESMA should give the persons subject to the proceedings the opportunity to be heard in order to respect their rights of defence.\n(26)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and by the constitutional traditions in the Member States. Accordingly, this Regulation should be interpreted and applied in accordance with those rights and principles, including those relating to freedom of the press and freedom of expression in the media, and the right to interpretation and translation for those who do not speak or understand the language of the proceedings as part of the general right to a fair trial.\n(27)\nFor reasons of legal certainty, it is appropriate to establish clear transitional measures for the transmission of files and working documents from the competent authorities to ESMA.\n(28)\nThe registration of a credit rating agency granted by a competent authority should remain valid throughout the Union after the transition of supervisory powers from the competent authorities to ESMA.\n(29)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in order to specify further or amend the criteria for assessing the equivalence of the regulatory and supervisory framework of a third country in order to take into account developments on financial markets, to adopt a regulation on fees and detailed rules concerning fines and periodic penalty payments, and to amend the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(30)\nWhen preparing and drawing up delegated acts, the Commission should ensure the early and ongoing transmission of information on relevant documents to the European Parliament and the Council.\n(31)\nThe European Parliament and the Council should have three months from the date of notification to object to a delegated act. On the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council, it should be possible to prolong that period by three months in regard to significant areas of concern. It should also be possible for the European Parliament and the Council to inform the other institutions of their intention not to raise objections. Such early approval of delegated acts is particularly appropriate when deadlines need to be met, for example where there are timetables in the basic act for the Commission to adopt delegated acts.\n(32)\nIn the Declaration on Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, the Conference took note of the Commission's intention to continue to consult experts appointed by the Member States in the preparation of draft delegated acts in the financial services area, in accordance with its established practice.\n(33)\nDirective 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (6) applies to the processing of personal data for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\n(34)\nRegulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (7) is fully applicable to the processing of personal data for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\n(35)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely setting up an efficient and effective supervisory framework for credit rating agencies by entrusting a single supervisory authority with the supervision of credit rating activities in the Union, providing a single point of contact for credit rating agencies and ensuring the consistent application of the rules for credit rating agencies, cannot be sufficiently achieved at the Member State level and can therefore, by reason of the pan-Union structure and impact of the credit rating activities to be supervised, be better achieved at the 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(36)\nRegulation (EC) No 1060/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments\nRegulation (EC) No 1060/2009 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 3(1), the following points are added:\n\u2018(p)\n\u201ccompetent authorities\u201d means the authorities designated by each Member State in accordance with Article 22;\n(q)\n\u201csectoral legislation\u201d means the legal acts of the Union referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1);\n(r)\n\u201csectoral competent authorities\u201d means the national competent authorities designated under the relevant sectoral legislation for the supervision of credit institutions, investment firms, insurance undertakings, assurance undertakings, reinsurance undertakings, undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), institutions for occupational retirement provision and alternative investment funds.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Credit institutions as defined in Directive 2006/48/EC, investment firms as defined in Directive 2004/39/EC, insurance undertakings subject to the First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance (8), assurance undertakings as defined in Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (9), reinsurance undertakings as defined in Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance (10), UCITS as defined in Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (11), institutions for occupational retirement provision as defined in Directive 2003/41/EC and alternative investment funds may use credit ratings for regulatory purposes only if they are issued by credit rating agencies established in the Union and registered in accordance with this Regulation.\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is amended as follows:\n(i)\npoints (b), (c) and (d) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nthe credit rating agency has verified and is able to demonstrate on an ongoing basis to the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (12) (ESMA), that the conduct of credit rating activities by the third-country credit rating agency resulting in the issuing of the credit rating to be endorsed fulfils requirements which are at least as stringent as the requirements set out in Articles 6 to 12;\n(c)\nthe ability of ESMA to assess and monitor the compliance of the credit rating agency established in the third country with the requirements referred to in point (b) is not limited;\n(d)\nthe credit rating agency makes available on request to ESMA all the information necessary to enable ESMA to supervise on an ongoing basis the compliance with the requirements of this Regulation;\n(ii)\npoint (h) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(h)\nthere is an appropriate cooperation arrangement between ESMA and the relevant supervisory authority of the credit rating agency established in a third country. ESMA shall ensure that such a cooperation arrangement shall specify at least:\n(i)\nthe mechanism for the exchange of information between ESMA and the relevant supervisory authority of the credit rating agency established in a third country; and\n(ii)\nthe procedures concerning the coordination of supervisory activities in order to enable ESMA to monitor credit rating activities resulting in the issuing of the endorsed credit rating on an ongoing basis.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 5 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The credit rating agency referred to in paragraph 1 may apply for certification. The application shall be submitted to ESMA in accordance with the relevant provisions of Article 15.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. ESMA shall examine and decide on the application for certification in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 16. The certification decision shall be based on the criteria set out in points (a) to (d) of paragraph 1 of this Article.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The credit rating agency referred to in paragraph 1 may also apply to be exempted:\n(a)\non a case-by-case basis from complying with some or all of the requirements set out in Section A of Annex I and Article 7(4) if the credit rating agency is able to demonstrate that the requirements are not proportionate in view of the nature, scale and complexity of its business and the nature and range of its issuing of credit ratings;\n(b)\nfrom the requirement of physical presence in the Union where such a requirement would be too burdensome and disproportionate in view of the nature, scale and complexity of its business and the nature and range of its issuing of credit ratings.\nAn application for an exemption under point (a) or (b) of the first subparagraph shall be submitted by the credit rating agency together with the application for certification. When assessing such an application, ESMA shall take into consideration the size of the credit rating agency referred to in paragraph 1, having regard to the nature, scale and complexity of its business and the nature and range of its issuing of credit ratings, as well as the impact of the credit ratings issued by the credit rating agency on the financial stability and integrity of the financial markets of one or more Member States. On the basis of those considerations, ESMA may grant such exemption to the credit rating agency referred to in paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(d)\nparagraph 5 is deleted;\n(e)\nin paragraph 6, the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In order to take account of developments on financial markets, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 38a, and subject to the conditions of Articles 38b and 38c, measures to specify further or amend the criteria set out in points (a), (b) and (c) of the second subparagraph of this paragraph.\u2019;\n(f)\nparagraphs 7 and 8 are replaced by the following:\n\u20187. ESMA shall establish cooperation agreements with the relevant supervisory authorities of third countries whose legal and supervisory frameworks have been considered equivalent to this Regulation in accordance with paragraph 6. Such arrangements shall specify at least:\n(a)\nthe mechanism for the exchange of information between ESMA and the relevant supervisory authorities of the third countries concerned; and\n(b)\nthe procedures concerning the coordination of supervisory activities.\n8. Articles 20 and 24 shall apply mutatis mutandis to certified credit rating agencies and to credit ratings issued by them.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 6, paragraph 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the first subparagraph, the introductory part is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. At the request of a credit rating agency, ESMA may exempt a credit rating agency from complying with the requirements of points 2, 5 and 6 of Section A of Annex I and Article 7(4) if the credit rating agency is able to demonstrate that those requirements are not proportionate in view of the nature, scale and complexity of its business and the nature and range of issue of credit ratings and that:\u2019;\n(b)\nthe second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In the case of a group of credit rating agencies, ESMA shall ensure that at least one of the credit rating agencies in the group is not exempted from complying with the requirements of points 2, 5 and 6 of Section A of Annex I and Article 7(4).\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 9 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 9\nOutsourcing\nOutsourcing of important operational functions shall not be undertaken in such a way as to impair materially the quality of the credit rating agency's internal control and the ability of ESMA to supervise the credit rating agency's compliance with obligations under this Regulation.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 10, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. A credit rating agency shall not use the name of ESMA or any competent authority in such a way that would indicate or suggest endorsement or approval by ESMA or any competent authority of the credit ratings or any credit rating activities of the credit rating agency.\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 11, paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20182. A credit rating agency shall make available in a central repository established by ESMA information on its historical performance data including the ratings transition frequency and information about credit ratings issued in the past and on their changes. A credit rating agency shall provide information to that repository on a standard form as provided for by ESMA. ESMA shall make that information accessible to the public and shall publish summary information on the main developments observed on an annual basis.\n3. A credit rating agency shall provide annually, by 31 March, to ESMA information relating to matters set out in point 2 of Part II of Section E of Annex I.\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 14 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The registration shall be effective for the entire territory of the Union once the decision to register a credit rating agency adopted by ESMA as referred to in Article 16(3) or Article 17(3) has taken effect.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018A credit rating agency shall, without undue delay, notify ESMA of any material changes to the conditions for initial registration, including any opening or closing of a branch within the Union.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraphs 4 and 5 are replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Without prejudice to Article 16 or 17, ESMA shall register the credit rating agency if it concludes from the examination of the application that the credit rating agency complies with the conditions for the issuing of credit ratings set out in this Regulation, taking into consideration Articles 4 and 6.\n5. ESMA shall not impose requirements regarding registration which are not provided for in this Regulation.\u2019;\n(9)\nArticles 15 to 21 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 15\nApplication for registration\n1. The credit rating agency shall submit an application for registration to ESMA. The application shall contain information on the matters set out in Annex II.\n2. Where a group of credit rating agencies applies for registration, the members of the group shall mandate one of their number to submit all the applications to ESMA on behalf of the group. The mandated credit rating agency shall provide the information on the matters set out in Annex II for each member of the group.\n3. A credit rating agency shall submit its application in any of the official languages of the institutions of the Union. The provisions of Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (13) shall apply mutatis mutandis to any other communication between ESMA and the credit rating agencies and their staff.\n4. Within 20 working days of receipt of the application, ESMA shall assess whether the application is complete. If the application is not complete, ESMA shall set a deadline by which the credit rating agency is to provide additional information.\nAfter assessing an application as complete, ESMA shall notify the credit rating agency accordingly.\nArticle 16\nExamination of the application for registration of a credit rating agency by ESMA\n1. ESMA shall, within 45 working days of the notification referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 15(4), examine the application for registration of a credit rating agency based on the compliance of the credit rating agency with the conditions set out in this Regulation.\n2. ESMA may extend the period of examination by 15 working days, in particular if the credit rating agency:\n(a)\nenvisages endorsing credit ratings as referred to in Article 4(3);\n(b)\nenvisages using outsourcing; or\n(c)\nrequests exemption from compliance in accordance with Article 6(3).\n3. Within 45 working days of the notification referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 15(4), or within 60 working days thereof where paragraph 2 of this Article applies, ESMA shall adopt a fully reasoned decision to register or refuse registration.\n4. The decision adopted by ESMA pursuant to paragraph 3 shall take effect on the fifth working day following its adoption.\nArticle 17\nExamination of the applications for registration of a group of credit rating agencies by ESMA\n1. ESMA shall, within 55 working days of the notification referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 15(4), examine the applications for registration of a group of credit rating agencies based on the compliance of those credit rating agencies with the conditions set out in this Regulation.\n2. ESMA may extend the period of examination by 15 working days, in particular if any of the credit rating agencies in the group:\n(a)\nenvisages endorsing credit ratings as referred to in Article 4(3);\n(b)\nenvisages using outsourcing; or\n(c)\nrequests exemption from compliance in accordance with Article 6(3).\n3. Within 55 working days of the notification as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 15(4), or within 70 working days thereof where paragraph 2 of this Article applies, ESMA shall adopt a fully reasoned individual decision to register or refuse registration for each credit rating agency of the group.\n4. The decision adopted by ESMA pursuant to paragraph 3 shall take effect on the fifth working day following its adoption.\nArticle 18\nNotification of a decision to register, refuse or withdraw registration, and publication of the list of registered credit rating agencies\n1. Within five working days of the adoption of a decision under Article 16, 17 or 20 ESMA shall notify its decision to the credit rating agency concerned. Where ESMA refuses to register the credit rating agency or withdraws the registration of the credit rating agency, it shall provide full reasons in its decision.\n2. ESMA shall communicate to the Commission, the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (14) (EBA), the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (15) (EIOPA), the competent authorities and the sectoral competent authorities, any decision under Article 16, 17 or 20.\n3. ESMA shall publish on its website a list of credit rating agencies registered in accordance with this Regulation. That list shall be updated within five working days following the adoption of a decision under Article 16, 17 or 20. The Commission shall publish that updated list in the Official Journal of the European Union within 30 days following such update.\nArticle 19\nRegistration and supervisory fees\n1. ESMA shall charge fees to the credit rating agencies in accordance with this Regulation and the regulation on fees referred to in paragraph 2. Those fees shall fully cover ESMA's necessary expenditure relating to the registration and supervision of credit rating agencies and the reimbursement of any costs that the competent authorities may incur carrying out work pursuant to this Regulation, in particular as a result of any delegation of tasks in accordance with Article 30.\n2. The Commission shall adopt a regulation on fees. That regulation shall determine in particular the type of fees and the matters for which fees are due, the amount of the fees, the way in which they are to be paid and the way in which ESMA is to reimburse competent authorities in respect of any costs that they may incur carrying out work pursuant to this Regulation, in particular as a result of any delegation of tasks in accordance with Article 30.\nThe amount of a fee charged to a credit rating agency shall cover all administrative costs and be proportionate to the turnover of the credit rating agency concerned.\nThe Commission shall adopt the regulation on fees referred to in the first subparagraph by means of a delegated act in accordance with Article 38a and subject to the conditions of Articles 38b and 38c.\nArticle 20\nWithdrawal of registration\n1. Without prejudice to Article 24, ESMA shall withdraw the registration of a credit rating agency where the credit rating agency:\n(a)\nexpressly renounces the registration or has provided no credit ratings for the preceding six months;\n(b)\nobtained the registration by making false statements or by any other irregular means; or\n(c)\nno longer meets the conditions under which it was registered.\n2. The competent authority of a Member State in which credit ratings issued by the credit rating agency concerned are used and which considers that one of the conditions referred to in paragraph 1 has been met may request that ESMA examine whether the conditions for the withdrawal of the registration of the credit rating agency concerned are met. If ESMA decides not to withdraw the registration of the credit rating agency concerned, it shall provide full reasons.\n3. The decision on the withdrawal of registration shall take immediate effect throughout the Union, subject to the transitional period for the use of credit ratings referred to in Article 24(4).\nCHAPTER II\nSUPERVISION BY ESMA\nArticle 21\nESMA\n1. Without prejudice to Article 25a, ESMA shall ensure that this Regulation is applied.\n2. In accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, ESMA shall issue and update guidelines on the cooperation between ESMA, the competent authorities and the sectoral competent authorities for the purposes of this Regulation and for those of the relevant sectoral legislation, including the procedures and detailed conditions relating to the delegation of tasks.\n3. In accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, ESMA shall, in cooperation with EBA and EIOPA, issue and update guidelines on the application of the endorsement regime under Article 4(3) of this Regulation by 7 June 2011.\n4. By 2 January 2012 ESMA shall submit draft regulatory technical standards for endorsement by the Commission in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 on:\n(a)\nthe information to be provided by a credit rating agency in its application for registration as set out in Annex II;\n(b)\ninformation that the credit rating agency must provide for the application for certification and for the assessment of its systemic importance to the financial stability or integrity of financial markets referred to in Article 5;\n(c)\nthe presentation of the information, including structure, format, method and period of reporting, that credit rating agencies shall disclose in accordance with Article 11(2) and point 1 of Part II of Section E of Annex I;\n(d)\nthe assessment of compliance of credit rating methodologies with the requirements set out in Article 8(3);\n(e)\nthe content and format of ratings data periodic reporting to be requested from the credit rating agencies for the purpose of ongoing supervision by ESMA.\n5. ESMA shall publish, annually and for the first time by 1 January 2012, a report on the application of this Regulation. That report shall contain, in particular, an assessment of the implementation of Annex I by the credit rating agencies registered under this Regulation.\n6. ESMA shall present annually to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a report on supervisory measures taken and penalties imposed by ESMA under this Regulation, including fines and periodic penalty payments.\n7. ESMA shall cooperate with EBA and EIOPA in performing its tasks and shall consult EBA and EIOPA before issuing and updating guidelines and submitting draft regulatory technical standards referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.\n(10)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 22a\nExamination of compliance with the back-testing obligation\n1. In the exercise of its ongoing supervision of credit rating agencies registered under this Regulation, ESMA shall examine regularly compliance with Article 8(3).\n2. Without prejudice to Article 23, ESMA shall also in the framework of the examination referred to in paragraph 1:\n(a)\nverify the execution of back-testing by credit rating agencies;\n(b)\nanalyse the results of that back-testing; and\n(c)\nverify that the credit rating agencies have processes in place to take into account the results of the back-testing in their rating methodologies.\u2019;\n(11)\nArticles 23 to 27 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 23\nNon-interference with content of ratings or methodologies\nIn carrying out their duties under this Regulation, ESMA, the Commission or any public authorities of a Member State shall not interfere with the content of credit ratings or methodologies.\nArticle 23a\nExercise of the powers referred to in Articles 23b to 23d\nThe powers conferred on ESMA or any official of or other person authorised by ESMA by Articles 23b to 23d shall not be used to require the disclosure of information or documents which are subject to legal privilege.\nArticle 23b\nRequests for information\n1. ESMA may by simple request or by decision require credit rating agencies, persons involved in credit rating activities, rated entities and related third parties, third parties to whom the credit rating agencies have outsourced operational functions or activities and persons otherwise closely and substantially related or connected to credit rating agencies or credit rating activities to provide all information that is necessary in order to carry out its duties under this Regulation.\n2. When sending a simple request for information under paragraph 1, ESMA shall:\n(a)\nrefer to this Article as the legal basis for the request;\n(b)\nstate the purpose of the request;\n(c)\nspecify what information is required;\n(d)\nset a time-limit within which the information is to be provided;\n(e)\ninform the person from whom the information is requested that there is no obligation to provide the information but that any reply to the request for information must not be incorrect or misleading;\n(f)\nindicate the fine provided for in Article 36a, in conjunction with point 7 of Section II of Annex III, where the answers to questions asked are incorrect or misleading.\n3. When requiring the supply of information under paragraph 1 by decision, ESMA shall:\n(a)\nrefer to this Article as the legal basis for the request;\n(b)\nstate the purpose of the request;\n(c)\nspecify what information is required;\n(d)\nset a time-limit within which the information is to be provided;\n(e)\nindicate the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 36b where the production of the required information is incomplete;\n(f)\nindicate the fine provided for in Article 36a, in conjunction with point 7 of Section II of Annex III, where the answers to questions asked are incorrect or misleading; and\n(g)\nindicate the right to appeal the decision before the Board of Appeal and to have the decision reviewed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with Articles 60 and 61 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n4. The persons referred to in paragraph 1 or their representatives and, in the case of legal persons or associations having no legal personality, the persons authorised to represent them by law or by their constitution, shall supply the information requested. Lawyers duly authorised to act may supply the information on behalf of their clients. The latter shall remain fully responsible if the information supplied is incomplete, incorrect or misleading.\n5. ESMA shall, without delay, send a copy of the simple request or of its decision to the competent authority of the Member State where the persons referred to in paragraph 1 who are concerned by the request for information are domiciled or established.\nArticle 23c\nGeneral investigations\n1. In order to carry out its duties under this Regulation, ESMA may conduct all necessary investigations of persons referred to in Article 23b(1). To that end, the officials of and other persons authorised by ESMA shall be empowered to:\n(a)\nexamine any records, data, procedures and any other material relevant to the execution of its tasks irrespective of the medium on which they are stored;\n(b)\ntake or obtain certified copies of or extracts from such records, data, procedures and other material;\n(c)\nsummon and ask any person referred to in Article 23b(1) or their representatives or staff for oral or written explanations on facts or documents related to the subject matter and purpose of the inspection and to record the answers;\n(d)\ninterview any other natural or legal person who consents to be interviewed for the purpose of collecting information relating to the subject matter of an investigation;\n(e)\nrequest records of telephone and data traffic.\n2. The officials of and other persons authorised by ESMA for the purposes of the investigations referred to in paragraph 1 shall exercise their powers upon production of a written authorisation specifying the subject matter and purpose of the investigation. That authorisation shall also indicate the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 36b where the production of the required records, data, procedures or any other material, or the answers to questions asked of the persons referred to in Article 23b(1) are not provided or are incomplete, and the fines provided for in Article 36a, in conjunction with point 8 of Section II of Annex III, where the answers to questions asked of the persons referred to in Article 23b(1) are incorrect or misleading.\n3. The persons referred to in Article 23b(1) shall submit to investigations launched on the basis of a decision of ESMA. The decision shall specify the subject matter and purpose of the investigation, the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 36b, the legal remedies available under Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 and the right to have the decision reviewed by the Court of Justice of the European Union.\n4. In good time before the investigation, ESMA shall inform the competent authority of the Member State where the investigation is to be carried out of the investigation and of the identity of the authorised persons. Officials of the competent authority concerned shall, upon the request of ESMA, assist those authorised persons in carrying out their duties. Officials of the competent authority concerned may also attend the investigations upon request.\n5. If a request for records of telephone or data traffic referred to in point (e) of paragraph 1 requires authorisation from a judicial authority according to national rules, such authorisation shall be applied for. Such authorisation may also be applied for as a precautionary measure.\n6. Where authorisation as referred to in paragraph 5 is applied for, the national judicial authority shall control that the decision of ESMA is authentic and that the coercive measures envisaged are neither arbitrary nor excessive having regard to the subject matter of the investigations. In its control of the proportionality of the coercive measures, the national judicial authority may ask ESMA for detailed explanations, in particular relating to the grounds ESMA has for suspecting that an infringement of this Regulation has taken place and the seriousness of the suspected infringement and the nature of the involvement of the person subject to the coercive measures. However, the national judicial authority shall not review the necessity for the investigation or demand that it be provided with the information on ESMA's file. The lawfulness of ESMA's decision shall be subject to review only by the Court of Justice of the European Union following the procedure set out in Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 23d\nOn-site inspections\n1. In order to carry out its duties under this Regulation, ESMA may conduct all necessary on-site inspections at the business premises of the legal persons referred to in Article 23b(1). Where the proper conduct and efficiency of the inspection so require, ESMA may carry out the on-site inspection without prior announcement.\n2. The officials of and other persons authorised by ESMA to conduct an on-site inspection may enter any business premises and land of the legal persons subject to an investigation decision adopted by ESMA and shall have all the powers stipulated in Article 23c(1). They shall also have the power to seal any business premises and books or records for the period of, and to the extent necessary for, the inspection.\n3. The officials of and other persons authorised by ESMA to conduct an on-site inspection shall exercise their powers upon production of a written authorisation specifying the subject matter and purpose of the inspection, and the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 36b where the persons concerned do not submit to the inspection. In good time before the inspection, ESMA shall give notice of the inspection to the competent authority of the Member State where it is to be conducted.\n4. The persons referred to in Article 23b(1) shall submit to on-site inspections ordered by decision of ESMA. The decision shall specify the subject matter and purpose of the inspection, specify the date on which it is to begin and indicate the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 36b, the legal remedies available under Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 as well as the right to have the decision reviewed by the Court of Justice of the European Union. ESMA shall take such decisions after consulting the competent authority of the Member State where the inspection is to be conducted.\n5. Officials of, as well as those authorised or appointed by, the competent authority of the Member State where the inspection is to be conducted shall, upon the request of ESMA, actively assist the officials of and other persons authorised by ESMA. To that end, they shall enjoy the powers set out in paragraph 2. Officials of the competent authority of the Member State concerned may also attend the on-site inspections upon request.\n6. ESMA may also require competent authorities to carry out specific investigatory tasks and on-site inspections as provided for in this Article and in Article 23c(1) on its behalf. To that end, competent authorities shall enjoy the same powers as ESMA as set out in this Article and in Article 23c(1).\n7. Where the officials of and other accompanying persons authorised by ESMA find that a person opposes an inspection ordered pursuant to this Article, the competent authority of the Member State concerned shall afford them the necessary assistance, requesting, where appropriate, the assistance of the police or of an equivalent enforcement authority, so as to enable them to conduct their on-site inspection.\n8. If the on-site inspection provided for in paragraph 1 or the assistance provided for in paragraph 7 requires authorisation by a judicial authority according to national rules, such authorisation shall be applied for. Such authorisation may also be applied for as a precautionary measure.\n9. Where authorisation as referred to in paragraph 8 is applied for, the national judicial authority shall control that the decision of ESMA is authentic and that the coercive measures envisaged are neither arbitrary nor excessive having regard to the subject matter of the inspection. In its control of the proportionality of the coercive measures, the national judicial authority may ask ESMA for detailed explanations, in particular relating to the grounds ESMA has for suspecting that an infringement of this Regulation has taken place and the seriousness of the suspected infringement and the nature of the involvement of the person subject to the coercive measures. However, the national judicial authority shall not review the necessity for the inspection or demand to be provided with the information on ESMA's file. The lawfulness of ESMA's decision shall be subject to review only by the Court of Justice of the European Union following the procedure set out in Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 23e\nProcedural rules for taking supervisory measures and imposing fines\n1. Where, in carrying out its duties under this Regulation, ESMA finds that there are serious indications of the possible existence of facts liable to constitute one or more of the infringements listed in Annex III, ESMA shall appoint an independent investigating officer within ESMA to investigate the matter. The investigating officer shall not be involved or have been involved in the direct or indirect supervision or registration process of the credit rating agency concerned and shall perform his functions independently from ESMA's Board of Supervisors.\n2. The investigating officer shall investigate the alleged infringements, taking into account any comments submitted by the persons subject to investigation, and shall submit a complete file with his findings to ESMA's Board of Supervisors.\nIn order to carry out his tasks, the investigating officer may exercise the power to require information in accordance with Article 23b and to conduct investigations and on-site inspections in accordance with Articles 23c and 23d. When using those powers, the investigating officer shall comply with Article 23a.\nWhere carrying out his tasks, the investigating officer shall have access to all documents and information gathered by ESMA in its supervisory activities.\n3. Upon completion of his investigation and before submitting the file with his findings to ESMA's Board of Supervisors, the investigating officer shall give the persons subject to investigation the opportunity to be heard on the matters being investigated. The investigating officer shall base his findings only on facts on which the persons subject to investigation have had the opportunity to comment.\nThe rights of defence of the persons concerned shall be fully respected during investigations under this Article.\n4. When submitting the file with his findings to ESMA's Board of Supervisors, the investigating officer shall notify that fact to the persons subject to investigation. The persons subject to investigation shall be entitled to have access to the file, subject to the legitimate interest of other persons in the protection of their business secrets. The right of access to the file shall not extend to confidential information affecting third parties.\n5. On the basis of the file containing the investigating officer's findings and, when requested by the persons concerned, after having heard the persons subject to investigation in accordance with Articles 25 and 36c, ESMA's Board of Supervisors shall decide if one or more of the infringements listed in Annex III has been committed by the persons who have been subject to investigation, and in such case, shall take a supervisory measure in accordance with Article 24 and impose a fine in accordance with Article 36a.\n6. The investigating officer shall not participate in the deliberations of ESMA's Board of Supervisors or in any other way intervene in the decision-making process of ESMA's Board of Supervisors.\n7. The Commission shall adopt further rules of procedure for the exercise of the power to impose fines or periodic penalty payments, including provisions on rights of defence, temporal provisions, and the collection of fines or periodic penalty payments, and shall adopt detailed rules on the limitation periods for the imposition and enforcement of penalties.\nThe rules referred to in the first subparagraph shall be adopted by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 38a and subject to the conditions of Articles 38b and 38c.\n8. ESMA shall refer matters for criminal prosecution to the relevant national authorities where, in carrying out its duties under this Regulation, it finds that there are serious indications of the possible existence of facts liable to constitute criminal offences. In addition, ESMA shall refrain from imposing fines or periodic penalty payments where a prior acquittal or conviction arising from identical facts, or from facts which are substantially the same, has acquired the force of res judicata as the result of criminal proceedings under national law.\nArticle 24\nSupervisory measures by ESMA\n1. Where, in accordance with Article 23e(5), ESMA's Board of Supervisors finds that a credit rating agency has committed one of the infringements listed in Annex III, it shall take one or more of the following decisions:\n(a)\nwithdraw the registration of the credit rating agency;\n(b)\ntemporarily prohibit the credit rating agency from issuing credit ratings with effect throughout the Union, until the infringement has been brought to an end;\n(c)\nsuspend the use, for regulatory purposes, of the credit ratings issued by the credit rating agency with effect throughout the Union, until the infringement has been brought to an end;\n(d)\nrequire the credit rating agency to bring the infringement to an end;\n(e)\nissue public notices.\n2. When taking the decisions referred to in paragraph 1, ESMA's Board of Supervisors shall take into account the nature and seriousness of the infringement, having regard to the following criteria:\n(a)\nthe duration and frequency of the infringement;\n(b)\nwhether the infringement has revealed serious or systemic weaknesses in the undertaking's procedures or in its management systems or internal controls;\n(c)\nwhether financial crime was facilitated, occasioned or otherwise attributable to the infringement;\n(d)\nwhether the infringement has been committed intentionally or negligently.\n3. Before taking the decisions referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1, ESMA's Board of Supervisors shall inform EBA and EIOPA thereof.\n4. Credit ratings may continue to be used for regulatory purposes following the adoption of the decisions referred to in points (a) and (c) of paragraph 1 during a period not exceeding:\n(a)\n10 working days from the date ESMA's decision is made public under paragraph 5 if there are credit ratings of the same financial instrument or entity issued by other credit rating agencies registered under this Regulation; or\n(b)\nthree months from the date ESMA's decision is made public under paragraph 5 if there are no credit ratings of the same financial instrument or entity issued by other credit rating agencies registered under this Regulation.\nESMA's Board of Supervisors may extend, including following a request by EBA or EIOPA, the period referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph by three months in exceptional circumstances relating to the potential for market disruption or financial instability.\n5. Without undue delay, ESMA's Board of Supervisors shall notify any decision adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 to the credit rating agency concerned and shall communicate any such decision to the competent authorities and the sectoral competent authorities, the Commission, EBA and EIOPA. It shall make public any such decision on its website within 10 working days from the date when it was adopted.\nWhen making public its decision as referred to in the first subparagraph, ESMA's Board of Supervisors shall also make public the right for the credit rating agency concerned to appeal the decision, the fact, where relevant, that such an appeal has been lodged, specifying that such an appeal does not have suspensive effect, and the fact that it is possible for the Board of Appeal to suspend the application of the contested decision in accordance with Article 60(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 25\nHearing of the persons concerned\n1. Before taking any decision under Article 24(1), ESMA's Board of Supervisors shall give the persons subject to the proceedings the opportunity to be heard on ESMA's findings. ESMA's Board of Supervisors shall base its decisions only on findings on which the persons subject to the proceedings have had the opportunity to comment.\nThe first subparagraph shall not apply if urgent action is needed in order to prevent significant and imminent damage to the financial system. In such a case ESMA's Board of Supervisors may adopt an interim decision and shall give the persons concerned the opportunity to be heard as soon as possible after taking its decision.\n2. The rights of defence of the persons subject to the proceedings shall be fully respected during the proceedings. They shall be entitled to have access to ESMA's file, subject to the legitimate interest of other persons in the protection of their business secrets. The right of access to the file shall not extend to confidential information.\nArticle 25a\nSectoral competent authorities responsible for the supervision and enforcement of Article 4(1) (the use of credit ratings)\nThe sectoral competent authorities shall be responsible for the supervision and enforcement of Article 4(1) in accordance with the relevant sectoral legislation.\nCHAPTER III\nCOOPERATION BETWEEN ESMA, COMPETENT AUTHORITIES AND SECTORAL COMPETENT AUTHORITIES\nArticle 26\nObligation to cooperate\nESMA, EBA, EIOPA, the competent authorities and the sectoral competent authorities shall cooperate where it is necessary for the purposes of this Regulation and for those of the relevant sectoral legislation.\nArticle 27\nExchange of information\n1. ESMA, the competent authorities, and the sectoral competent authorities shall, without undue delay, supply each other with the information required for the purposes of carrying out their duties under this Regulation and under the relevant sectoral legislation.\n2. ESMA may transmit to the central banks, the European System of Central Banks and the European Central Bank, in their capacity as monetary authorities, to the European Systemic Risk Board and, where appropriate, to other public authorities responsible for overseeing payment and settlement systems, confidential information intended for the performance of their tasks. Similarly, such authorities or bodies shall not be prevented from communicating to ESMA information that ESMA may need in order to carry out its duties under this Regulation.\u2019;\n(12)\nArticles 28 and 29 are deleted;\n(13)\nArticles 30, 31 and 32 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 30\nDelegation of tasks by ESMA to competent authorities\n1. Where it is necessary for the proper performance of a supervisory task, ESMA may delegate specific supervisory tasks to the competent authority of a Member State in accordance with the guidelines issued by ESMA pursuant to Article 21(2). Such specific supervisory tasks may, in particular, include the power to request information in accordance with Article 23b and to conduct investigations and on-site inspections in accordance with Article 23d(6).\n2. Prior to the delegation of a task, ESMA shall consult the relevant competent authority. Such consultation shall concern:\n(a)\nthe scope of the task to be delegated;\n(b)\nthe timetable for the performance of the task to be delegated; and\n(c)\nthe transmission of necessary information by and to ESMA.\n3. In accordance with the regulation on fees to be adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 19(2), ESMA shall reimburse a competent authority for the costs incurred as a result of carrying out delegated tasks.\n4. ESMA shall review the delegation referred to in paragraph 1 at appropriate intervals. A delegation of tasks may be revoked at any time.\nA delegation of tasks shall not affect the responsibility of ESMA and shall not limit ESMA's ability to conduct and oversee the delegated activity. Supervisory responsibilities under this Regulation, including registration decisions, final assessments and follow-up decisions concerning infringements, shall not be delegated.\nArticle 31\nNotifications and suspension requests by competent authorities\n1. Where a competent authority of a Member State finds that acts contrary to this Regulation are being, or have been, carried out on the territory of its own or of another Member State, it shall give notice of that fact in as specific a manner as possible to ESMA. Where the competent authority considers it appropriate for investigatory purposes, the competent authority may also suggest to ESMA that it assess the need to use the powers under Articles 23b and 23c in relation to the credit rating agency involved in those acts.\nESMA shall take appropriate action. It shall inform the notifying competent authority of the outcome and, as far as possible, of any significant interim developments.\n2. Without prejudice to the duty to notify set out in paragraph 1, where the notifying competent authority of a Member State considers that a registered credit rating agency, whose credit ratings are used within the territory of that Member State, breaches the obligations arising from this Regulation and the infringements are sufficiently serious and persistent to have a significant impact on the protection of investors or on the stability of the financial system in that Member State, the notifying competent authority may request that ESMA suspend the use, for regulatory purposes, of credit ratings of the credit rating agency concerned by the financial institutions and other entities referred to in Article 4(1). The notifying competent authority shall provide ESMA with full reasons for its request.\nWhere ESMA considers that the request is not justified, it shall inform the notifying competent authority in writing, setting out the reasons. Where ESMA considers that the request is justified, it shall take the appropriate measures to resolve the issue.\nArticle 32\nProfessional secrecy\n1. The obligation of professional secrecy shall apply to ESMA, the competent authorities, and all persons who work or who have worked for ESMA, for the competent authorities or for any other person to whom ESMA has delegated tasks, including auditors and experts contracted by ESMA. Information covered by professional secrecy shall not be disclosed to another person or authority except where such disclosure is necessary for legal proceedings.\n2. All the information that, under this Regulation, is acquired by, or exchanged between, ESMA, the competent authorities, the sectoral competent authorities or other authorities and bodies referred to in Article 27(2), shall be considered confidential, except where ESMA or the competent authority or other authority or body concerned states at the time of communication that such information may be disclosed or where such disclosure is necessary for legal proceedings.\u2019;\n(14)\nArticle 33 is deleted;\n(15)\nArticles 34 and 35 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 34\nAgreement on exchange of information\nESMA may conclude cooperation agreements on exchange of information with the supervisory authorities of third countries only if the information disclosed is subject to guarantees of professional secrecy which are at least equivalent to those set out in Article 32.\nSuch exchange of information shall be intended for the performance of the tasks of ESMA or those supervisory authorities.\nWith regard to transfer of personal data to a third country, ESMA shall apply Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (16).\nArticle 35\nDisclosure of information from third countries\nESMA may disclose the information received from supervisory authorities of third countries only if ESMA or a competent authority has obtained the express agreement of the supervisory authority that has transmitted the information and, where applicable, the information is disclosed only for the purposes for which that supervisory authority gave its agreement or where such disclosure is necessary for legal proceedings.\n(16)\nthe heading of Chapter I of Title IV \u2018Penalties, committee procedure and reporting\u2019 is replaced by the heading \u2018Penalties, fines, periodic penalty payments, committee procedure, delegated powers and reporting\u2019;\n(17)\nin Article 36, the first and second paragraphs are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of Article 4(1) and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\nMember States shall ensure that the sectoral competent authority disclose to the public every penalty that has been imposed for infringements of Article 4(1), unless such disclosure would seriously jeopardise the financial markets or cause disproportionate damage to the parties involved.\u2019;\n(18)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 36a\nFines\n1. Where, in accordance with Article 23e(5), ESMA's Board of Supervisors finds that a credit rating agency has, intentionally or negligently, committed one of the infringements listed in Annex III, it shall adopt a decision imposing a fine in accordance with paragraph 2.\nAn infringement by a credit rating agency shall be considered to have been committed intentionally if ESMA finds objective factors which demonstrate that the credit rating agency or its senior management acted deliberately to commit the infringement.\n2. The basic amount of the fines referred to in paragraph 1 shall be included within the following limits:\n(a)\nfor infringements referred to in points 1 to 5, 11 to 15, 19, 20, 23, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 41, 43, 50 and 51 of Section I of Annex III, the fines shall amount to at least EUR 500 000 and shall not exceed EUR 750 000;\n(b)\nfor the infringements referred to in points 6 to 8, 16 to 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 34, 37 to 40, 42, 45 to 47, 48, 49, 52 and 54 of Section I of Annex III, the fines shall amount to at least EUR 300 000 and shall not exceed EUR 450 000;\n(c)\nfor the infringements referred to in points 9, 10, 26, 36, 44 and 53 of Section I of Annex III, the fines shall amount to at least EUR 100 000 and shall not exceed EUR 200 000;\n(d)\nfor the infringements referred to in points 1, 6, 7 and 8 of Section II of Annex III, the fines shall amount to at least EUR 50 000 and shall not exceed EUR 150 000;\n(e)\nfor the infringements referred to in points 2, 4 and 5 of Section II of Annex III, the fines shall amount to at least EUR 25 000 and shall not exceed EUR 75 000;\n(f)\nfor the infringements referred to in point 3 of Section II of Annex III, the fines shall amount to at least EUR 10 000 and shall not exceed EUR 50 000;\n(g)\nfor the infringements referred to in points 1 to 3 and 11 of Section III of Annex III, the fines shall amount to at least EUR 150 000 and shall not exceed EUR 300 000;\n(h)\nfor the infringements referred to in points 4, 6, 8 and 10 of Section III of Annex III, the fines shall amount to at least EUR 90 000 and shall not exceed EUR 200 000;\n(i)\nfor the infringements referred to in points 5, 7 and 9 of Section III of Annex III, the fines shall amount to at least EUR 40 000 and shall not exceed EUR 100 000.\nIn order to decide whether the basic amount of the fines should be set at the lower, the middle or the higher end of the limits set out in the first subparagraph, ESMA shall have regard to the annual turnover in the preceding business year of the credit rating agency concerned. The basic amount shall be at the lower end of the limit for credit rating agencies whose annual turnover is below EUR 10 million, the middle of the limit for the credit rating agencies whose annual turnover is between EUR 10 and 50 million and the higher end of the limit for the credit rating agencies whose annual turnover is higher than EUR 50 million.\n3. The basic amounts defined within the limits set out in paragraph 2 shall be adjusted, if need be, by taking into account aggravating or mitigating factors in accordance with the relevant coefficients set out in Annex IV.\nThe relevant aggravating coefficient shall be applied one by one to the basic amount. If more than one aggravating coefficient is applicable, the difference between the basic amount and the amount resulting from the application of each individual aggravating coefficient shall be added to the basic amount.\nThe relevant mitigating coefficient shall be applied one by one to the basic amount. If more than one mitigating coefficient is applicable, the difference between the basic amount and the amount resulting from the application of each individual mitigating coefficient shall be subtracted from the basic amount.\n4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 2 and 3, the fine shall not exceed 20 % of the annual turnover of the credit rating agency concerned in the preceding business year and, where the credit rating agency has directly or indirectly benefitted financially from the infringement, the fine shall be at least equal to that financial benefit.\nWhere an act or omission of a credit rating agency constitutes more than one infringement listed in Annex III, only the higher fine calculated in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 and related to one of those infringements shall apply.\nArticle 36b\nPeriodic penalty payments\n1. ESMA's Board of Supervisors shall by decision impose a periodic penalty payment in order to compel:\n(a)\na credit rating agency to put an end to an infringement, in accordance with a decision taken pursuant to point (d) of Article 24(1);\n(b)\na person referred to in Article 23b(1) to supply complete information which has been required by a decision pursuant to Article 23b;\n(c)\na person referred to in Article 23b(1) to submit to an investigation and in particular to produce complete records, data, procedures or any other material required and to complete and correct other information provided in an investigation launched by a decision taken pursuant to Article 23c;\n(d)\na person referred to in Article 23b(1) to submit to an on-site inspection ordered by a decision taken pursuant to Article 23d.\n2. A periodic penalty payment shall be effective and proportionate. The periodic penalty payment shall be imposed on a daily basis until the credit rating agency or person concerned complies with the relevant decision referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, the amount of a periodic penalty payment shall be 3 % of the average daily turnover in the preceding business year or, in the case of natural persons, 2 % of the average daily income in the preceding calendar year. It shall be calculated from the date stipulated in the decision imposing the periodic penalty payment.\n4. A periodic penalty payment may be imposed for a period of no more than six months following the notification of ESMA's decision.\nArticle 36c\nHearing of the persons subject to the proceedings\n1. Before taking any decision imposing a fine and/or periodic penalty payment under Article 36a or points (a) to (d) of Article 36b(1), ESMA's Board of Supervisors shall give the persons subject to the proceedings the opportunity to be heard on ESMA's findings. ESMA's Board of Supervisors shall base its decisions only on findings on which the persons subject to the proceedings have had the opportunity to comment.\n2. The rights of defence of the persons subject to the proceedings shall be fully respected during the proceedings. They shall be entitled to have access to ESMA's file, subject to the legitimate interest of other persons in the protection of their business secrets. The right of access to the file shall not extend to confidential information or internal preparatory documents of ESMA.\nArticle 36d\nDisclosure, nature, enforcement and allocation of fines and periodic penalty payments\n1. ESMA shall disclose to the public every fine and periodic penalty payment that has been imposed pursuant to Articles 36a and 36b, unless such disclosure to the public would seriously jeopardise the financial markets or cause disproportionate damage to the parties involved.\n2. Fines and periodic penalty payments imposed pursuant to Articles 36a and 36b shall be of an administrative nature.\n3. Fines and periodic penalty payments imposed pursuant to Articles 36a and 36b shall be enforceable.\nEnforcement shall be governed by the rules of civil procedure in force in the State in the territory of which it is carried out. The order for its enforcement shall be appended to the decision without other formality than verification of the authenticity of the decision by the authority which the government of each Member State shall designate for that purpose and shall make known to ESMA and to the Court of Justice of the European Union.\nWhen those formalities have been completed on application by the party concerned, the latter may proceed to enforcement in accordance with the national law, by bringing the matter directly before the competent body.\nEnforcement may be suspended only by a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union. However, the courts of the Member State concerned shall have jurisdiction over complaints that enforcement is being carried out in an irregular manner.\n4. The amounts of the fines and periodic penalty payments shall be allocated to the general budget of the European Union.\nArticle 36e\nReview by the Court of Justice of the European Union\nThe Court of Justice of the European Union shall have unlimited jurisdiction to review decisions whereby ESMA has imposed a fine or a periodic penalty payment. It may annul, reduce or increase the fine or periodic penalty payment imposed.\u2019;\n(19)\nArticle 37 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 37\nAmendments to Annexes\nIn order to take account of developments, including international developments, on financial markets, in particular in relation to new financial instruments, the Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 38a and subject to the conditions of Articles 38b and 38c, measures to amend the Annexes, excluding Annex III.\u2019;\n(20)\nin Article 38, paragraph 2 is deleted;\n(21)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 38a\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 5(6), Article 19(2), Article 23e(7) and Article 37 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of four years from 1 June 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated power at the latest six months before the end of the four-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 38b.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 38b and 38c.\nArticle 38b\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 5(6), Article 19(2), Article 23e(7) and Article 37 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 38c\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of three months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by three months.\n2. If, on expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to the delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. In accordance with Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\u2019;\n(22)\nArticle 39 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is deleted;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. By 1 July 2011, the Commission shall, in the light of developments in the regulatory and supervisory framework for credit rating agencies in third countries, present a report to the European Parliament and to the Council concerning the effects of those developments and of the transitional provisions referred to in Article 40 on the stability of financial markets in the Union.\u2019;\n(23)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 39a\nReport by ESMA\nBy 31 December 2011, ESMA shall assess the staffing and resources needs arising from the assumption of its powers and duties in accordance with this Regulation and submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.\u2019;\n(24)\nin Article 40, the third paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Existing credit rating agencies may continue issuing credit ratings which may be used for regulatory purposes by the financial institutions and other entities referred to in Article 4(1) unless registration is refused. Where registration is refused, Article 24(4) and (5) shall apply.\u2019;\n(25)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 40a\nTransitional measures related to ESMA\n1. All competences and duties related to the supervisory and enforcement activity in the field of credit rating agencies, which were conferred on the competent authorities, whether acting as competent authorities of the home Member State or not, and on colleges where those have been established, shall be terminated on 1 July 2011.\nHowever, an application for registration that has been received by the competent authorities of the home Member State or the relevant college by 7 September 2010 shall not be transferred to ESMA, and the decision to register or refuse registration shall be taken by those authorities and the relevant college.\n2. Without prejudice to the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, any files and working documents related to the supervisory and enforcement activity in the field of credit rating agencies, including any ongoing examinations and enforcement actions, or certified copies thereof, shall be taken over by ESMA on the date as referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. The competent authorities and colleges referred to in paragraph 1 shall ensure that any existing records and working papers, or certified copies thereof, shall be transferred to ESMA as soon as possible and in any event by 1 July 2011. Those competent authorities and colleges shall also render all necessary assistance and advice to ESMA to facilitate effective and efficient transfer and taking-up of supervisory and enforcement activity in the field of credit rating agencies.\n4. ESMA shall act as the legal successor of the competent authorities and colleges referred to in paragraph 1 in any administrative or judicial proceedings that result from supervisory and enforcement activity pursued by those competent authorities and colleges in relation to matters that fall under this Regulation.\n5. Any registration of a credit rating agency, in accordance with Chapter I of Title III, by a competent authority referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall remain valid after the transfer of competences to ESMA.\n6. By 1 July 2014 and within the scope of its ongoing supervision, ESMA shall conduct at least one verification of all credit rating agencies falling under its supervisory competences.\u2019;\n(26)\nAnnex I is hereby amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation;\n(27)\nthe Annexes set out in Annex II hereto are added.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 11 May 2011.", "references": ["34", "70", "50", "43", "59", "3", "83", "74", "36", "67", "63", "28", "92", "97", "64", "82", "52", "58", "23", "51", "65", "9", "66", "78", "21", "46", "32", "75", "20", "57", "No Label", "2", "7", "11", "16", "24", "29", "30", "31", "33", "41"], "gold": ["2", "7", "11", "16", "24", "29", "30", "31", "33", "41"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 July 2012\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention\n(2012/511/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 214(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union is a party to the Food Aid Convention 1999 (1) (\u2018FAC 1999\u2019), which should no longer be in force as from 1 July 2012.\n(2)\nOn 17 November 2010, the Council authorised the Commission to conduct negotiations with a view to agreeing upon a Food Assistance Convention (\u2018the Convention\u2019) which was to incorporates and reflects a modernised approach to food assistance, and which was to replace the FAC 1999.\n(3)\nThe negotiations were successfully concluded on 25 April 2012.\n(4)\nIt is in the interest of the Union to sign the Convention as the latter would help to achieve the humanitarian aid objectives referred to in Article 214(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Convention is open for signature until 31 December 2012.\n(6)\nThe Convention should be signed on behalf of the European Union, subject to its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Food Assistance Convention (\u2018the Convention\u2019) is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Convention (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["85", "42", "77", "79", "7", "21", "22", "10", "34", "95", "17", "99", "80", "32", "73", "44", "45", "2", "84", "74", "26", "72", "59", "55", "90", "58", "83", "92", "19", "15", "No Label", "3", "4"], "gold": ["3", "4"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 24 May 2011\nestablishing a specific control and inspection programme for pelagic fisheries in Western Waters of the North East Atlantic\n(notified under document C(2011) 3415)\n(Only the Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, French, German, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(2011/310/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Article 95 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFisheries exploiting herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, anchovy and blue whiting stocks (hereinafter referred to as \u2018pelagic fisheries\u2019) in EU waters of ICES zones V to IX (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Western Waters\u2019) are subject to conservation and control measures provided for, inter alia:\n-\nby Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 laying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries (2),\n-\nby Council Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a multi-annual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock (3),\n-\nby Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (4).\n(2)\nLandings of quantities exceeding 10 tonnes of herring, mackerel and horse mackerel caught in ICES zones I to X, XII and XIV and EU waters of CECAF are subject to procedures laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1542/2007 (5).\n(3)\nAs a general rule, pelagic fishing activities in Western Waters, including landings and transhipments of pelagic species are subject to the control measures laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure, at Union level, the uniform and effective application of those conservation and control measures, it is necessary to establish a specific control and inspection programme involving Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, France, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom.\n(5)\nThat specific control and inspection programme should be set up for the period from the entry into force of this Decision to 31 December 2012.\n(6)\nThe specific control and inspection programme should include common rules for the control and inspection activities to be carried out by the competent authorities of the Member States concerned. Those rules should establish benchmarks for the intensity of control and inspection activities as well as control and inspection priorities and procedures. The Member States concerned shall adopt the necessary measures in accordance with those common rules.\n(7)\nWhere a large part of the catches by pelagic fisheries is exported to third countries, it is appropriate to extend control and inspection activities throughout the whole chain, including trade.\n(8)\nJoint inspection and surveillance activities between Member States should be carried out, where applicable, in accordance with a Joint Deployment Plan established by the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) pursuant to Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 (6).\n(9)\nThe results obtained by the application of the specific control and inspection programme should be periodically evaluated by the Member States concerned, where possible by the CFCA.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision have been established in concert with the Member States concerned.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision establishes a specific control and inspection programme in order to ensure the uniform and effective implementation of conservation and control measures applicable to pelagic fisheries in Western Waters.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. The specific control and inspection programme covers:\n(a)\nall fishing activities, including landings and transhipments, by fishing vessels of pelagic species in Western Waters;\n(b)\nall post-landing activities, including weighing, marketing, freezing, processing, storage, takeover, transport, import and export of pelagic species caught in Western Waters.\n2. The specific control and inspection programme shall apply as from its entry into force until 31 December 2012.\n3. The specific control and inspection programme shall be implemented by Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, France, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and the United Kingdom.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018pelagic species\u2019 means herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, anchovy and blue whiting;\n(b)\n\u2018pelagic fisheries\u2019 means the fisheries exploiting herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, anchovy and blue whiting stocks;\n(c)\n\u2018Western Waters\u2019 means EU waters of ICES zones V to IX;\n(d)\n\u2018import\u2019 means importation as defined in Article 2(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999 (7);\n(e)\n\u2018export\u2019 means exportation as defined in Article 2(13) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008.\nArticle 4\nCommon rules and national measures\n1. The common rules for the specific control and inspection programme, in particular the objectives, priorities and procedures as well as the benchmarks for inspection, are set out in Annex I.\n2. The measures for the implementation of the specific control and inspection programme, adopted by Member States pursuant to Article 95(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, shall regulate the matters listed in Annex II.\nArticle 5\nCooperation between Member States and with third countries\n1. The Member States referred to in Article 2(3) shall cooperate for the implementation of the specific control and inspection programme.\n2. All other Member States shall cooperate with the Member States referred to in Article 2(3) and with the competent authorities of third countries for the implementation of the specific control and inspection programme.\n3. When Member States cooperate in the framework of Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 768/2005, part or the whole of the specific control and inspection programme may be implemented by way of a joint deployment plan adopted by the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA).\nArticle 6\nJoint inspection and surveillance activities\n1. The Member States referred to in Article 2(3) shall undertake joint inspection and surveillance activities and, where applicable, in the framework of Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 768/2005.\n2. For the purpose of joint inspection and surveillance activities, the Member States concerned shall:\n(a)\nensure that inspectors from other Member States concerned are invited to participate in joint inspection and surveillance activities;\n(b)\nestablish joint operational procedures applicable to their surveillance crafts.\n3. Commission officials and Community inspectors may participate in joint inspection and surveillance activities.\nArticle 7\nInformation\n1. The Member States referred to in Article 2(3) shall communicate by electronic means to the Commission and to the CFCA, by the 10th day of each quarter, the following information concerning the preceding quarter:\n(a)\nthe inspection and control activities carried out;\n(b)\nall infringements detected, including for each infringement the identification of:\n(i)\nthe fishing vessel (name, flag and external identification code) or the enterprise engaged in the processing and/or trade of pelagic species concerned;\n(ii)\nthe date, time and location of the inspection; and\n(iii)\nthe nature of the infringement;\n(c)\nthe current state of play concerning the follow-up of infringements detected.\n2. An infringement shall continue to be listed on each subsequent report until the action is concluded under the laws of the Member State concerned. Each subsequent report shall:\n(a)\nindicate the current status of the case (e.g. case pending, under appeal, still under investigation); and\n(b)\ndescribe in specific terms any penalties imposed (e.g. level of fines, value of forfeited fish and/or gear, written warning given).\n3. Reports shall include an explanation if no action has been taken following the detection of an infringement.\nArticle 8\nEvaluation\nThe Member States referred to in Article 2(3), shall, by 31 March of 2013, send to the Commission and to the CFCA an evaluation report concerning the control and inspection activities carried out under this specific control and inspection programme.\nArticle 9\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 24 May 2011.", "references": ["12", "54", "0", "92", "62", "60", "84", "83", "33", "93", "32", "96", "97", "80", "36", "70", "79", "66", "25", "39", "91", "5", "11", "42", "43", "63", "24", "41", "34", "31", "No Label", "13", "59", "67"], "gold": ["13", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 896/2010\nof 8 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Schrobenhausener Spargel/Spargel aus dem Schrobenhausener Land/Spargel aus dem Anbaugebiet Schrobenhausen (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Schrobenhausener Spargel/Spargel aus dem Schrobenhausener Land/Spargel aus dem Anbaugebiet Schrobenhausen\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["52", "28", "16", "86", "95", "76", "31", "93", "73", "70", "51", "7", "57", "60", "42", "33", "14", "90", "78", "1", "47", "20", "29", "61", "64", "0", "11", "17", "80", "98", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 28 March 2012\non a Union financial contribution to a programme for the control of organisms harmful to plants and plant products in the French overseas departments for 2012\n(notified under document C(2012) 1954)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(2012/182/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 of 30 January 2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (1), and in particular the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 17(3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 8 November 2011, the French authorities have submitted to the Commission a programme for 2012 providing for plant health measures in the French overseas departments. That programme specifies the objectives to be achieved, the expected deliverables, the measures to be carried out, their duration and their cost with a view to a possible Union financial contribution.\n(2)\nThe measures provided for in that programme fulfil the requirements of Commission Decision 2007/609/EC of 10 September 2007 on the definition of the measures eligible for Community financing in the programmes for the control of organisms harmful to plants and plant products in the French overseas departments, in the Azores and in Madeira (2).\n(3)\nThe measures laid down in the programme have been assessed by the Commission and discussed in the Standing Committee on Plant Health of 24-25 November 2011. As a result thereof, the Commission considers that that programme and its objectives meet the requirements of Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 17(3) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006, an appropriate maximum to the Union financial contribution should be set, and payment should be made on the basis of documentation provided by France.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (3), Union financial contributions to plant-health measures are to be financed from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. For the purposes of financial control of those measures Articles 9, 36 and 37 of that Regulation apply.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4) and Article 90(1) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated, setting out the essential elements of the action involving the expenditure.\n(7)\nThe programme submitted by the French authorities on 8 November 2011 and the measures provided for concern the calendar year 2012. Article 112 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 provides that a grant may be awarded for an action which has already begun only where the applicant can demonstrate the need to start the action before the grant is awarded. France has demonstrated the necessity to start this programme as from the beginning of 2012 allowing proper financing and start of execution of these measures before the Union financial contribution laid down in the current Decision is awarded.\n(8)\nThis Decision constitutes a financing decision within the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation for the maximum amounts authorised of expenditure provided in the co-financing request, as laid down in the programme submitted by France.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nA Union financial contribution is awarded to France for the implementation of the official programme for the control of organisms harmful to plants and plant products in the French overseas departments for 2012, as specified in Part A of the Annex.\nThat financial contribution shall be limited to a maximum of 60 % of the total eligible expenditure, as specified in Part B of the Annex, with a maximum of EUR 180 000 (VAT excluded).\nArticle 2\n1. An advance of EUR 100 000 shall be paid within 60 days after receipt of a request for payment by France.\n2. The balance of the Union financial contribution shall be paid provided that a final implementation report on the programme is submitted to the Commission in electronic form by 15 March 2013 at the latest, and after that report has been approved by the Commission.\nThat report shall contain at least:\n(a)\na concise technical evaluation of the entire programme, including the degree of achievement of physical and qualitative objectives. That evaluation shall link the objectives laid down in the initial programme presented by France with the achieved results, expressed in terms of expected deliverables and steps of completion of the work. It shall explain the progress accomplished, and assess the immediate phytosanitary and economic impact of the achieved measures; and\n(b)\na financial cost statement setting out the planned and actual expenditure broken down by sub-programme and by measure. This statement shall be accompanied by proof or evidence of payment of the expenditure through appropriate documentation such as invoices or receipts.\n3. With respect to the indicative budget breakdown specified in Part B of the Annex, France may adjust the financing between different measures in the same sub-programme within a limit of 15 % of the Union financial contribution to this sub-programme, provided that the total amount of eligible costs scheduled in the programme is not exceeded and that the main objectives of the programme are not thereby compromised.\nIt shall inform the Commission of any adjustments made.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 28 March 2012.", "references": ["30", "95", "48", "58", "47", "51", "14", "36", "9", "16", "53", "52", "79", "8", "21", "68", "89", "37", "87", "59", "54", "6", "33", "34", "82", "31", "93", "23", "71", "81", "No Label", "10", "61", "66", "98"], "gold": ["10", "61", "66", "98"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1222/2010\nof 17 December 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for certain products in the egg sector and for egg albumin\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 of 15 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the egg sector and for egg albumin (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 539/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of egg products and egg albumin.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 December 2010.", "references": ["81", "14", "80", "89", "70", "15", "91", "92", "43", "19", "82", "6", "96", "23", "66", "50", "68", "59", "53", "36", "57", "45", "63", "86", "98", "47", "71", "25", "2", "41", "No Label", "21", "69", "72"], "gold": ["21", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 25 January 2012\non the rules applicable to veterinary checks to be carried out on live animals and products of animal origin entering certain French overseas departments from third countries\n(notified under document C(2012) 222)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/44/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (2), and in particular Article 18 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC detail specific requirements for veterinary checks on each consignment of live animals and products of animal origin coming from a third country and destined to the Union in a Union approved border inspection post (BIP).\n(2)\nArticle 13 of Directive 91/496/EEC permits special rules for checks to be carried out on live animals imported for slaughter and intended for local consumption and of breeding or production animals, for use in remote parts of Member States. These rules require that plans describing the nature of the checks to be carried out have to be submitted to the Commission. These plans must specify the checks carried out to prevent animals introduced into the remote regions concerned or products derived from those animals being dispatched under any circumstances to other parts of Union territory.\n(3)\nArticle 18 of Directive 97/78/EC permits special rules for checks to be carried out on products of animal origin imported for local use in remote parts of, amongst others, the French Republic. These rules require that plans describing the nature of the checks to be carried out have to be submitted to the Commission. These plans must specify the checks carried out to prevent products of animal origin being introduced into the remote regions concerned being dispatched under any circumstances to other parts of Union territory.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 of 22 January 2004 laying down procedures for veterinary checks at Community border inspection posts on products imported from third countries (3) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2004 of 18 February 2004 introducing a document for the declaration of, and veterinary checks on, animals from third countries entering the Community (4) are detailing the procedures for notification of and the veterinary checks on products of animal origin and live animals and the Common Veterinary Entry Documents (CVEDs), which have to be used to document the results of the veterinary checks on such consignments.\n(5)\nThe French authorities have submitted respective plans to the Commission for certain entry points located in the French overseas departments Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guiana.\n(6)\nThe French plans demonstrate that all consignments of live animals or products of animal origin are required be presented for import at designated entry points in the departments, where they are subject to veterinary checks. The plans demonstrate that when implemented the dispatch of consignments into other parts of Union territory, which do not comply with the requirements of relevant Union legislation, is effectively prevented. This is achieved by the stamping on the CVEDs of live animals or products of animal origin approved for import into the departments that they are restricted for use only in the territory of the relevant department. Importers are informed that it is not possible to dispatch these live animals, products derived from them, or products of animal origin to other parts of Union territory and the competent authorities of the French overseas departments monitor this requirement when approving intra-trade certificates.\n(7)\nThe French plans detail as well the infrastructure of the facilities with sufficient large premises allowing for hygienic sampling and the equipment necessary to carry out the veterinary checks required to verify that Union public and animal health requirements for live animals and products of animal origin are being met. In addition, there are premises and cold stores for storage of consignments sampled, detained or inspected in place and additionally, for live animals, appropriate facilities to house them pending the results of any checks carried out.\n(8)\nThe French plans detail that sufficient numbers of veterinary and technical staff are available to carry out the veterinary checks as provided for by Articles 4 of Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC and in accordance with provisions set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 and in Regulation (EC) No 282/2004.\n(9)\nWhile in general veterinary checks have to be carried out on all consignments of products of animal origin, Article 10 of Directive 97/78/EC allows for the reduction of the frequency of physical checks on certain products of animal origin, which are listed together with the relevant frequency for physical checks in Annexes I and II to Commission Decision 94/360/EC of 20 May 1994 on the reduced frequency of physical checks of consignments of certain products to be implemented from third countries, under Council Directive 90/675/EEC (5). To be consistent with the veterinary checks at Union borders, these reduced frequencies may be applied for the veterinary consignments destined to the three French overseas departments.\n(10)\nThe Union\u2019s Trade Control and Expert System (Traces) set up by Commission Decision 2004/292/EC of 30 March 2004 on the introduction of the Traces system (6) provides that Member States are to introduce and start using Traces in particular for consignments of live animals and products of animal origin coming from non-Union countries.\n(11)\nThe use of the Traces system for imports of live animals and products of animal origin requires the issue of a CVED for each consignment presented for introduction. These documents should be used to ensure that such imported consignments of live animals, or products of animal origin are not dispatched to other parts of the Union territory and are for local use only.\n(12)\nThe entry points in the French overseas departments Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guiana should thus be identified and the requirements for their operation should be specified in this Decision.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of Article 13 of Directive 91/496/EEC and Article 18 of Directive 97/78/EC, the authorised entry points in the French overseas departments Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guiana shall be as listed in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\n1. Each entry point listed in the Annex shall be under the responsibility of a competent authority with official veterinarians and designated technicians at its disposal, if necessary.\n2. Each entry point shall have all the facilities, equipment and staff necessary to carry out veterinary checks on consignments of live animals or products of animal origin they are designated to receive.\nArticle 3\nThe importer or his representative must:\n(1)\nnotify the competent authority responsible for the entry point before the physical arrival of the consignment of products using the first part of the CVED in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 and using the Traces system in accordance with Article 3 of Decision 2004/292/EC;\n(2)\ngive one working day\u2019s notice to the competent authority where live animals are to be presented specifying the number, nature and estimated time of arrival and using the first part of the CVED in accordance with Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 282/2004 and using the Traces system in accordance with Article 3 of Decision 2004/292/EC;\n(3)\nkeep a register approved by the competent authority showing the quantities of products or animals imported and the name and address of the purchaser(s);\n(4)\ninform the purchaser(s) that the products derived from the animals or products of animal origin imported are for local consumption only and for breeding and production animals they must not be dispatched under any circumstances to other territories of the Union;\n(5)\ninform the purchaser(s) that, in the case of resale, the purchaser(s) must inform the new purchaser(s) where the latter is a commercial operator that the products are for local consumption only and for breeding and production animals they must not under any circumstances be dispatched to other parts of the Union territory.\nArticle 4\n1. The official veterinarian, assisted by designated technicians shall carry out the checks at the entry points listed in the Annex to this Decision in accordance with Articles 4 of Directive 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC and in accordance with provisions set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 and in Regulation (EC) No 282/2004.\n2. Physical checks may be carried out on certain products of animal origin in the frequency set out in Annexes I and II to Decision 94/360/EC.\n3. The official veterinarians shall ensure that all data contained in the CVED for live animals and products of animal origin presented for import is entered into the Traces system in accordance with Article 3(2) of Decision 2004/292/EC.\n4. The official veterinarians shall ensure that after the veterinary checks are carried out, the relevant CVED issued is stamped to indicate that the animals or products of animal origin may only be for local use and must not under any circumstances be dispatched to other parts of the Union territory.\n5. The official veterinarian shall make regular inspections of the places of housing/storage of the imported animals or products of animal origin to verify that public and animal health requirements are maintained and the consignments are not dispatched to other parts of the Union territory.\nArticle 5\nThe provisions laid down in Directive 91/496/EEC, except those in Article 6, and in Directive 97/78/EC, except those in Article 6, shall continue to apply.\nArticle 6\nThe French authorities shall take the appropriate administrative or penal measures against any infringements of this Decision committed by a natural or legal person.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 1 March 2012.\nArticle 8\nThe Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 25 January 2012.", "references": ["75", "65", "47", "26", "72", "9", "43", "48", "40", "57", "96", "33", "63", "23", "31", "87", "1", "53", "4", "20", "39", "77", "70", "80", "44", "67", "35", "32", "60", "19", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "66", "69", "93"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "66", "69", "93"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 July 2012\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine amending the Agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on the facilitation of the issuance of visas\n(2012/428/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular point (a) of Article 77(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (1) entered into force on 1 January 2008.\n(2)\nOn 11 April 2011, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with Ukraine on amendments to that Agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on the facilitation of the issuance of visas. The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine amending the Agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) in February 2012.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be signed subject to its conclusion.\n(4)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (2); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(5)\nThis 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 of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (3); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine amending the Agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on the facilitation of the issuance of visas is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (4).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["39", "30", "38", "68", "62", "47", "4", "51", "0", "72", "67", "54", "80", "31", "24", "10", "14", "92", "44", "99", "2", "41", "76", "33", "56", "88", "89", "37", "53", "96", "No Label", "3", "9", "13", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "13", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 September 2010\non the recognition of the legal and supervisory framework of Japan as equivalent to the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit rating agencies\n(notified under document C(2010) 6418)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/578/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies (1), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 June 2009 the Commission granted a mandate to the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) requesting their technical advice with regard to the technical assessment of the legal and supervisory framework of Japan in respect of credit rating agencies.\n(2)\nIn its advice delivered on 21 May 2010, CESR suggested that the Japanese legal and supervisory framework in respect of credit rating agencies be considered equivalent to the Regulation.\n(3)\nPursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 5(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, the fulfilment of three conditions needs to be assessed in order to consider a third country legal and supervisory framework equivalent to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\n(4)\nAccording to the first condition, credit rating agencies in the third country must be subject to authorisation or registration and are subject to effective supervision and enforcement on an ongoing basis. The Japanese legal and supervisory framework for credit rating agencies consists of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (Act No 25 of 1948) related to the Regulation of Credit Ratings Agencies; the Cabinet Office Ordinance on Financial Instruments Business (Ordinance No 52 of 2007) related to the Regulation of Credit Rating Agencies; the Cabinet Office Ordinance on Definitions under Article 2 of the and Exchange Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance No 14 of 1993) related to the Regulation of Credit Rating Agencies, as well as the Comprehensive Guidelines for Supervision of Financial Instruments Business Operators (Supplement) and the Guidelines for Supervision of Credit Rating Agencies. In June 2009, the Japanese Parliament (the Diet) passed legislation introducing a new regulatory framework for credit rating agencies, which was followed by the release in December 2009 of Cabinet Orders and Cabinet Office Ordinances laying out the details of the terms and conditions of this framework. The framework, which became effective in April 2010, requires a credit rating agency to be registered with the Financial Services Agency of Japan (JFSA) in order for its credit ratings to be used for regulatory purposes in Japan and imposes legally binding obligations on credit rating agencies and their supervision on an ongoing basis. The JFSA is endowed with a wide and comprehensive range of powers and is able to take a number of measures, including sanctions, against credit rating agencies for breach of the provisions of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act related to the Regulation of Credit Ratings Agencies.\n(5)\nAccording to the second condition, credit rating agencies in the third country must be subject to legally binding rules which are equivalent to those set out in Articles 6 to 12 and Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. The Japanese regime is based on: the duty of good faith, the obligation of a credit rating agency to establish operational control systems for the fair and appropriate performance of the credit rating business through a large number of detailed and prescriptive requirements, extensive provisions in relation to avoidance, management and disclosure of conflicts of interests, and the duty to record and disclose information both to the JFSA and the public. The Japanese framework meets the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 in respect of the management of conflicts of interest, the organisational processes and procedures that a credit rating agency needs to have in place, the quality of ratings and of rating methodologies, the disclosure of credit ratings and the general and periodic disclosure of credit rating activities. Therefore, the Japanese framework provides for equivalent protections in terms of integrity, transparency, good governance of credit rating agencies and reliability of the credit rating activities.\n(6)\nAccording to the third condition, the regulatory regime in the third country must prevent interference by the supervisory authorities and other public authorities of that third country with the content of credit ratings and methodologies. In this respect, the JFSA is prohibited by law from interfering with the substance of credit ratings and credit rating methodologies.\n(7)\nIn view of the factors examined, the conditions laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 5(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 can be considered to be met by the Japanese legal and supervisory framework for credit rating agencies. Therefore, the Japanese legal and supervisory framework for credit rating agencies should be considered equivalent to the legal and supervisory framework established by Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the European Securities Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, the Japanese legal and supervisory framework for credit rating agencies shall be considered as equivalent to the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 September 2010.", "references": ["74", "34", "92", "66", "36", "20", "59", "0", "18", "48", "3", "68", "82", "1", "40", "16", "65", "62", "88", "76", "60", "21", "87", "63", "85", "67", "93", "64", "45", "51", "No Label", "11", "24", "29", "31", "33", "41", "95", "96"], "gold": ["11", "24", "29", "31", "33", "41", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 March 2011\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel bars originating in India\n(2011/154/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 15 February 2010, the European Commission (\u2018Commission\u2019) received a complaint concerning the alleged injurious dumping of certain stainless steel bars originating in India.\n(2)\nThe complaint was lodged by the European Federation of Iron and Steel Industries (\u2018Eurofer\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 % of total Union production of certain stainless steel bars pursuant to Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(3)\nThe complaint contained prima facie evidence of the existence of dumping, and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding.\n(4)\nThe Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), accordingly initiated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain stainless steel bars originating in India, currently falling within CN codes 7222 20 21, 7222 20 29, 7222 20 31, 7222 20 39, 7222 20 81 and 7222 20 89.\n(5)\nOn the same day, the Commission initiated an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain stainless steel bars originating in India (3).\n(6)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the Union industry and to any known association of producers in the Union, to the exporters/producers in the country concerned, to any association of exporters/producers, to the importers, to any known association of importers, and to the authorities of the country concerned. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\nB. WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(7)\nBy its letter of 23 November 2010 to the Commission, Eurofer formally withdrew its complaint regarding the anti-dumping proceeding.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(9)\nThe Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated since the investigation had not brought to light any considerations showing that such termination would not be in the Union interest. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received indicating that such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(10)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain stainless steel bars originating in India should be terminated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel bars originating in India, currently falling within CN codes 7222 20 21, 7222 20 29, 7222 20 31, 7222 20 39, 7222 20 81 and 7222 20 89, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2011.", "references": ["53", "40", "10", "55", "85", "35", "14", "11", "25", "19", "62", "63", "21", "31", "74", "41", "93", "42", "44", "78", "71", "45", "43", "80", "13", "87", "28", "57", "61", "75", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 395/2011\nof 20 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["78", "17", "31", "73", "63", "56", "11", "45", "12", "83", "2", "99", "71", "21", "6", "72", "86", "75", "67", "28", "46", "36", "65", "47", "92", "1", "18", "76", "20", "54", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 September 2011\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Romania\n(2011/547/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2), in particular Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1, of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(5)\nRomania has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on Vehicle Registration Data (VRD).\n(6)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by the Netherlands with Romania.\n(7)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in Romania and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the Belgian/Dutch evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(8)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning VRD has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching of Vehicle Registration Data (VRD), Romania has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Article 12 of that Decision as from the date of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2011.", "references": ["19", "63", "58", "14", "44", "18", "93", "62", "59", "47", "0", "7", "70", "68", "50", "69", "23", "90", "55", "56", "27", "54", "16", "10", "51", "66", "28", "43", "49", "4", "No Label", "8", "40", "41", "42", "53", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "40", "41", "42", "53", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 July 2010\non the State aid C 33/09 (ex NN 57/09, CP 191/09) implemented by Portugal in the form of a State guarantee to BPP\n(notified under document C(2010) 4932)\n(Only the Portuguese text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/346/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions (1) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThis decision concerns State aid granted by Portugal in the form of a State guarantee in favour of Banco Privado Portugu\u00eas (hereinafter \u2018BPP\u2019).\n1. PROCEDURAL ASPECTS\n(2)\nOn 13 March 2009 the Commission approved by decision (\u2018the Rescue Aid Decision\u2019) (2) a State guarantee underwriting a EUR 450 million loan granted to BPP by six Portuguese banks on 5 December 2008. The measure was authorised for a period of 6 months on the basis of Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU), on the assumption that the Portuguese authorities would implement their commitment to submit a restructuring plan within 6 months (i.e. by 5 June 2009).\n(3)\nOn 15 July 2009 the Commission called on the Portuguese authorities to urgently submit the restructuring plan for BPP. Since the requested plan was not submitted, by letter dated 6 October 2009 the Commission sent an official reminder pursuant to Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (3).\n(4)\nOn 10 November 2009 the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure with respect to the alleged State aid measure. In the same decision the Commission issued an information injunction requesting Portugal to submit the restructuring plan by 22 December 2009.\n(5)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 6 March 2010 (4). The Commission invited interested parties to submit comments on the aid measure. Comments were submitted by letter dated 6 April 2010 by a third party who wished to remain anonymous.\n(6)\nThe Commission requested information from Portugal by letter of 12 March 2010, to which Portugal replied by letter dated 13 April 2010, registered as received on 14 April 2010.\n(7)\nThe comments from interested parties were transmitted to Portugal by letter of 15 April 2010. Portugal replied to these comments by letter dated 13 May 2010, registered on 14 May 2010.\n(8)\nThe Commission requested further information on 29 April 2010, which Portugal submitted by letter dated 13 May 2010. Portugal provided further information on 15 and 21 June 2010.\n2. THE BENEFICIARY AND THE MEASURE\n2.1. The beneficiary\n(9)\nBPP is a financial institution based in Portugal providing private banking, corporate advisor and private equity services. BPP\u2019s clients are private and institutional depositors, including five mutual agricultural credit banks (caixas de cr\u00e9dito agr\u00edcola m\u00fatuo), one savings bank (caixa econ\u00f3mica), several pension funds, insurance companies and others. BPP is present in Portugal, Spain and to a lesser extent in Brazil and in South Africa.\n(10)\nBPP\u2019s shares are not listed in a stock exchange and, hence, the market price of its shares is not observable. As of 30 June 2008, total assets on BPP\u2019s balance sheet amounted to EUR 2,9 billion, representing less than 1 % of the total assets of the Portuguese banking sector. BPP is 100 %-owned by the group Privado Holding SGPS (sociedade gestora de participa\u00e7\u00f5es sociais) S.A. As of 30 June 2008, the majority of the shares of this holding company (51,5 %) were held by 12 shareholders. In 2009 the Privado Holding group had 187 employees, 148 of whom worked for BPP.\n2.2. Financial difficulties of the bank\n(11)\nAccording to the Portuguese authorities, BPP developed liquidity difficulties owing to the deterioration of the global economic situation, which significantly reduced the bank\u2019s ability to manage its liquidity.\n(12)\nOn 24 November 2008 BPP informed the Portuguese Central Bank (\u2018Bank of Portugal\u2019) that it risked being unable to meet its payment obligations. BPP was then allowed to suspend all its payments as from 1 December 2008.\n(13)\nOn 5 December 2008 BPP received a EUR 450 million loan backed by a State guarantee, under the conditions specified below. The loan and the guarantee covered only BPP\u2019s liabilities as registered in the balance sheet on 24 November 2008 and the loan was to be used only to reimburse depositors and other creditors and not to cover liabilities of other entities of the group.\n2.3. The emergency aid measure\n(14)\nOn 5 December 2008 BPP signed a loan agreement (\u2018the loan agreement\u2019), backed by a State guarantee, for EUR 450 million, with six major Portuguese banks (Banco Comercial Portugu\u00eas, S.A., Caixa Geral de Dep\u00f3sitos, S.A., Banco Esp\u00edrito Santo, S.A., Banco BPI, S.A., Banco Santander Totta, S.A., Caixa Central - Caixa Central de Cr\u00e9dito Agricola M\u00fatuo CRL) (\u2018the bank syndicate\u2019). The loan had a maturity of 6 months, renewable up to 2 years, and bore an interest rate of EURIBOR + 100 basis points. The remuneration for the loan was determined on the basis of the cost of funding for the creditor banks at the time of the transaction.\n(15)\nAccording to the Portuguese authorities, without a State guarantee no lender was willing to finance BPP at a reasonable rate, given its difficult financial situation. The State guarantee that accompanied the loan was granted in accordance with Law No 112/97, i.e. outside the Portuguese guarantee scheme (Law 60-A/2008) which had been approved by the Commission on 29 October 2008 (5). In particular, the Portuguese authorities stated that the general guarantee scheme, which is limited to solvent banks, would be an inappropriate framework for the State intervention in favour of BPP, given the increasing financial deterioration of the bank and the specific risks linked to this transaction.\n(16)\nThe remuneration for the State guarantee was fixed at 20 basis points, taking into consideration the collateral presented by BPP.\n(17)\nThe collateral consists of: (i) first right of pledge on several assets as specified in a contract concluded by Portugal, BPP and Bank of Portugal; and (ii) first mortgage on immovable assets owned by BPP. This collateral was estimated by the Portuguese authorities to be worth around EUR 672 million when the loan agreement and the guarantee agreement were signed (6). The provision of collateral is regulated by an agreement subscribed by the Treasury, BPP and the Bank of Portugal, in which the latter was appointed as custodian and collateral manager on behalf of the Treasury. According to the Portuguese authorities, the Portuguese State holds, under national law, privileged and priority rights over the collateral.\n(18)\nDuring the period of validity of the loan covered by the State guarantee, BPP committed not to sell, provide as collateral or otherwise dispose of its present and future assets.\n(19)\nIn the context of the Commission\u2019s examination of the emergency aid measure, Portugal committed to provide a restructuring plan for BPP within 6 months of the State intervention (i.e. by 5 June 2009).\n(20)\nIn its decision of 13 March 2009 the Commission approved the measure for a period of 6 months from the granting of the State guarantee, i.e. until 5 June 2009. The Commission also considered the submission of the restructuring plan by 5 June 2009 as necessary given the exceptionally low level of remuneration.\n(21)\nIn order to prolong the validity of the guarantee beyond the initial period of 6 months, the Portuguese authorities committed to submit a specific notification to the Commission.\n(22)\nPortugal has not fulfilled the above-mentioned commitments.\n2.4. Extension of the emergency aid measure\n(23)\nBy e-mail dated 23 June 2009 Portugal informed the Commission that it had taken the decision to extend the State guarantee for a further period of 6 months (Despacho No 13364-A/2009 of the Ministry of Finance of 5 June 2009). However, Portugal neither notified that extension nor sought the Commission\u2019s approval.\n(24)\nSince the Commission decision approved the aid only until 5 June 2009, the rescue aid became unlawful on 6 June 2009.\n(25)\nA recovery plan was submitted to the Bank of Portugal by BPP\u2019s administrators on 24 April 2009.\n(26)\nBy letter dated 5 June 2009 the Portuguese authorities explained to the Commission that the delay in submitting a restructuring plan for BPP was due to the fact that the recovery and restructuring plan proposed by BPP had not been accepted by the Bank of Portugal.\n(27)\nOn 9 June 2009 the Ministry of Finance and Public Administration published a document entitled \u2018Esclarecimento do Minist\u00e9rio das Finan\u00e7as e da Administra\u00e7\u00e3o P\u00fablica - Decis\u00e3o relativa ao Banco Privado Portugu\u00eas\u2019 (\u2018Clarifications by the Ministry of Finance and Public Administration - Decision regarding Banco Privado Portugu\u00eas\u2019) (hereinafter \u2018the document of 9 June 2009\u2019), which stated that the recovery and restructuring plan submitted on 24 April 2009 by BPP to the Bank of Portugal proposed, among other things, a recapitalisation operation with a State contribution of between EUR 150 and 200 million in the form of ordinary shares, preferential shares and supplementary obligations with no return. This plan was not accepted as it was considered \u2018not to comply with the recapitalisation regulations defined in Law No 63-A/2008, or with the guidance on this topic from the European Union aimed at ensuring compliance with Community competition rules, given that State aid is present in this case\u2019.\n(28)\nThe document of 9 June 2009 also reported that a large number of BPP\u2019s clients had placed their savings under the management of the bank, which had invested them in financial instruments spread over dozens of vehicle companies based in offshore jurisdictions (\u2018Absolute Return\u2019 instruments). Despite the risk inherent in these products, BPP had fixed a remuneration rate and had guaranteed all the capital invested by these clients upon maturity. This guarantee of return was never communicated to the supervisory authorities; nor was it included and recorded on the bank\u2019s balance sheet. By concealing this liability, the bank\u2019s shareholders were spared from having to inject more capital to meet the legal and regulatory requirements in force. Additionally, according to the document of 9 June 2009, the investigation by the Portuguese Securities Market Commission (Comiss\u00e3o do Mercado de Valores Mobili\u00e1rios - CMVM) and the Bank of Portugal found serious irregularities that amount to criminal practice on the part of BPP.\n2.5. The situation of the Absolute Return investment products\n(29)\nIn the document of 9 June 2009, the Portuguese authorities also stated that they were studying with the supervisory authorities a solution to minimise losses for BPP\u2019s clients holding Absolute Return instruments whose investments were jeopardised. The solution envisaged by the Government would include, among other things, the following features: (1) the creation of a new financial instrument, representative of the current indirect Absolute Return portfolio, to replace the investors\u2019 current positions; (2) the financial instrument would be issued and managed by an entity independent of BPP and owned and managed by national banking institutions.\n2.6. The formal investigation procedure and the second extension of the emergency aid measure\n(30)\nOn 15 July 2009 the Commission invited the Portuguese authorities to urgently submit the restructuring plan for BPP, even in a provisional form, recalling that the rescue aid had become unlawful since 6 June 2009.\n(31)\nSince the requested plan was not submitted, by letter dated 6 October 2009 the Commission sent an official reminder pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.\n(32)\nOn 10 November 2009 the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure with respect to the alleged State aid measure. In the same decision the Commission issued an information injunction requiring Portugal to submit the restructuring plan by 22 December 2009.\n(33)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (7). The Commission invited interested parties to submit comments on the aid measure.\n(34)\nOn 3 December 2009 the Portuguese authorities informed the Commission that the State guarantee would be extended for a further 6 months. According to the Portuguese authorities the State was forced to renew the guarantee as an immediate disruption of BPP would clearly have compromised the solution currently under consideration. Since BPP was obviously in no condition to repay the loan, the banks that had granted the loan to BPP agreed to extend its maturity by another 6 months, without changing the current terms and without additional financing, on the condition that the corresponding State guarantee was also extended.\n(35)\nOn 5 December 2009 the State guarantee was consequently extended for a further 6 months. The extension was not notified to the Commission: the Portuguese authorities merely informed the Commission that the guarantee on the loan would be renewed.\n(36)\nOn 25 February 2010 the Portuguese authorities sent a letter explaining the elements that the Government considered should provide a basis for a solution to the problems created by BPP for a significant proportion of its clients, namely investors in the Absolute Return investment product.\n(37)\nIn the same letter the Portuguese authorities informed the Commission that on 11 December 2009 the Government had decided to:\n(i)\nestablish a closed and non-harmonised Special Investment Fund (Fundo Especial de Investimento - FEI), made up of the resources (gross assets and liabilities) held in the Absolute Return investment product, characterised by the following: (a) passive management of the Special Investment Fund; (b) in-kind share subscription; (c) 4-year term with possibility of extension up to a maximum of 10 years by decision of the assembly of shareholders (1 share = 1 vote); (d) voluntary membership of clients;\n(ii)\nrenew the State loan guarantee of EUR 450 million until the Special Investment Fund was established;\n(iii)\nactivate the Deposit Guarantee Fund (Fundo de Garantia de Dep\u00f3sitos - FGD), which guarantees repayment in full of the value of the cash credit balances of each depositor, where that value does not exceed EUR 100 000, and the Investor Compensation System (Sistema de Indemniza\u00e7\u00e3o aos Investidores - SII), which guarantees compensation of up to a maximum of EUR 25 000 per investor, under the terms laid down by law, and does not involve any State resources;\n(iv)\ngrant insurance cover of up to EUR 250 000 to clients who joined the FEI, provided they were covered by the FGD and SII criteria; thus, the negative difference, if any, between the client\u2019s revenue - in the form of reimbursements from the FGD and the SII and payments from the FEI - and the nominal value of the investment, up to a ceiling of EUR 250 000, at 24 November 2008, is insured by the State.\n(38)\nThe commitment taken on by the Portuguese State in relation to FEI\u2019s investors, as resulting from its legal system, will be applicable only on the date of the Fund\u2019s extinction, which is 4 years from the date of its establishment - 30 March 2014 (8).\n(39)\nOn 1 February 2010 the Portuguese Securities Market Commission (CMVM) granted authorisation for the establishment of the FEI as described above, with Privado Fundos - Sociedade Gestora de Fundos de Investimento, S.A. responsible for managing the Fund and Banif - Banco de Investimento, S.A serving as depository for the Fund.\n(40)\nThe FEI was established on 30 March 2010.\n(41)\nOn 16 April 2010 the Bank of Portugal issued a communication stating that BPP\u2019s banking licence had been revoked by decision of 15 April, given the impossibility of restructuring or recapitalising the bank. On 22 April the Bank of Portugal then requested the liquidation of BPP at the competent court (Tribunal de Com\u00e9rcio de Lisboa), presenting at the same time a proposal for the appointment of a liquidation committee. The liquidation of BPP follows the Portuguese liquidation rules specifically applicable to banking institutions. The Portuguese authorities estimate that the various legal steps set out under the relevant legislation mean that the liquidation may take approximately 1 year.\n(42)\nOn 13 May 2010 the Portuguese authorities communicated to the Commission that, on the basis of the loan agreement (9), the guarantee had been called in by the bank syndicate and had been executed on 7 May, when Portugal had reimbursed EUR 450 million to the six banks. The Portuguese State stated that it had already taken the necessary steps to enforce its privileged and priority rights as creditor over the collateral relating to the guarantee, having presented its claims to the relevant court (10).\n3. COMMISSION DECISION ON THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(43)\nIn its decision of 10 November 2009 initiating the formal investigation procedure, the Commission set out its preliminary assessment and doubts as to the compatibility of the measures at hand with the internal market. The measures in question were:\n-\nThe pricing of the guarantee, which was below the level normally required pursuant to the Banking Communication (11). The Commission doubted that the remuneration was appropriate taking into account the risk. The Commission only authorised such pricing based on Portugal\u2019s commitment to submit a restructuring plan which would, in the longer term, adequately address this advantage.\n-\nThe fact that Portugal had not submitted the restructuring plan despite being formally reminded to do so by the letter dated 6 October 2009.\n-\nThe extension of the guarantee (on 5 June 2009) beyond the 6 months initially approved by the Commission.\n4. OBSERVATIONS FROM PORTUGAL\n(44)\nIn their comments on the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, the Portuguese authorities argued that they were not unaware of the commitment they undertook vis-\u00e0-vis the Commission to deliver a plan for the restructuring of BPP. However, according to their submission of 13 April 2010, the ultimate responsibility for presenting the restructuring plan rested with BPP (with approval by the Bank of Portugal) and the responsibility of the Portuguese State was only to transmit the plan to the Commission. The Portuguese authorities did not present the restructuring plan to the Commission simply because the plan presented by BPP was not approved by the Bank of Portugal. The injunction laid down in the Commission Decision of 10 November 2009 could not therefore be fulfilled, notwithstanding the political efforts by the Portuguese State to ensure that BPP actually met its obligations vis-\u00e0-vis the Bank of Portugal, the State and, ultimately, the Commission.\n(45)\nAs regards the State aid to BPP, Portugal argues that it was, and is, compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU insofar as it was granted to guarantee the stability of the national financial system, by analogy with what was happening in the European context.\n(46)\nAs regards the extensions of the State guarantee on the EUR 450 million loan, Portugal argues that they did not constitute new State aid as there was no change to the situation underlying the Commission\u2019s approval of the State aid measure. The State guarantee, extended twice, remained unaltered in its conditions: (i) there was no increase in the value of the loan; (ii) there was no modification to the obligations met by the loan (12); (iii) under the guarantee contract, the guarantee would only expire thirty days after the date of the last payment of capital and interest and the Commission was aware that the loan agreement was for 2 years (13).\n(47)\nAs for the non-notification of the extensions of the State guarantee, the Portuguese authorities argue that the renewal of the loan agreement was not dependent on the Portuguese State but on the bank syndicate and BPP, and that failure to extend the guarantee would have led to the same negative repercussions for the Portuguese financial system that had fully justified the Commission\u2019s approval of the State aid measure. Furthermore, Portugal considers that the extensions of the guarantee were automatic under the contract regulating the loan agreement, although they were formalised nonetheless for reasons of legal certainty vis-\u00e0-vis the bank syndicate.\n(48)\nFurther, according to the Portuguese authorities, the extensions (even if they are considered to constitute new aid) did not give rise to an economic advantage, because BPP was not, in practice, operating, at least from 1 December 2008 onward. Thus the measure, with or without the extensions, did not \u2018grant an economic advantage to BPP or strengthen its position in relation to its competitors for the simple reason that BPP was not operating on the market and, consequently, was not in competition with other banks\u2019 (14). Portugal therefore considers that the measure affected neither competition nor trade among Member States.\n(49)\nIn its observations on the comments of the interested parties (see below), the Portuguese authorities stated that the EUR 450 million loan was used in a transparent way in order to avoid systemic contagion and to meet BPP\u2019s liabilities as registered in the balance sheet on 24 November 2008.\n(50)\nThe Portuguese authorities also observe that Portugal will assert its rights over the collateral attached to the guarantee as part of BPP\u2019s liquidation proceedings. In view of its status as a privileged creditor of BPP, Portugal is confident that it will be able to recoup the full amount of EUR 450 million it disbursed to the creditor banks. In this respect, the Portuguese authorities note that the value of the collateral was, as of 7 May 2010, more than 20 % higher than the total amount of the guaranteed loan.\n(51)\nAs regards the State\u2019s commitment to compensate losses up to EUR 250 000 of Absolute Return clients who joined the FEI, Portugal argues that this commitment does not constitute State aid since: (i) it does not entail the transfer of any State resources to the FEI\u2019s management company or to any other body active on the market; (ii) it is a regular and accepted mechanism that is a logical extension of the system for compensating investors; (iii) it does not entail any economic advantage for investors, to whom it is directed generically and in exclusive terms, in accordance with national and European legal requirements, or any distortion of competition on the market or in relations between Member States.\n(52)\nFurthermore, Portugal argues that actual payments to FEI clients following this commitment will be minimal, if indeed any are made at all. The Portuguese authorities consider the EUR 250 000 insurance cover to be a measure to instil confidence in FEI clients, which however will not lead to actual disbursement in most scenarios. Under a conservative scenario, based on the assumption that the assets in the FEI deteriorate further from their value in October 2009 over the next 4 years, Portugal calculates that the maximum disbursement per client would be approximately EUR 68 000. In more favourable scenarios, there would be no disbursement at all.\n5. OBSERVATIONS FROM OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES\n(53)\nPursuant to Article 6 of the Commission Decision of 10 November 2009 to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission received comments, on 6 April 2010, from duly identified third parties who wished to remain anonymous. In their comments on the initiation of the formal investigation procedure the interested parties pointed out that none of the conditions under which the State guarantee on the loan was granted (maximum duration of 6 months and the submission of a restructuring plan) had been respected. Therefore, according to the observations submitted, the aid was illegal and the Commission should order Portugal to discontinue the guarantee. Moreover, the EUR 450 million, instead of being used for the restructuring of the bank, was used to reimburse certain clients of BPP, penalising all the others.\n6. ASSESSMENT\n6.1. Qualification of the measures as State aid\n(54)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU states:\n\u2018Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\u2019\n(55)\nIn order for Article 107(1) TFEU to be applicable, there needs to be an aid measure imputable to the State which is granted through State resources, affects trade between Member States and distorts competition in the internal market by conferring a selective advantage on certain undertakings.\n6.1.1. The State guarantee on the EUR 450 million loan\n(56)\nThe Commission recalls that it has already established in the Rescue Aid Decision of 13 March 2009 that the State guarantee constitutes State aid (15). The measure is financed through State resources as it consists of a State guarantee granted by Portugal. Indeed, the reimbursement made by the Portuguese State to the bank syndicate on 13 May 2010 (see recital 42 above) clearly demonstrates that State resources were involved.\n(57)\nAs also already established in the Rescue Aid Decision of 13 March 2009 (16), the State guarantee allowed BPP to obtain better financial conditions for the loan obtained than those normally available in the market for companies in similar circumstances, in the unlikely event, as admitted by the Portuguese authorities, that such loans would have been available at all. In this regard, the Rescue Aid Decision already stated that the fee of 20 basis points was well below the level resulting from the application of the European Central Bank\u2019s recommendation of 20 October 2008. Despite the high level of collateralisation, the Commission concluded that the remuneration for the State guarantee was considerable lower than would generally be considered as adequate for distressed banks. This remuneration was considered appropriate only for the rescue phase, subject to the submission of a restructuring plan before 5 June 2009.\n(58)\nUnlike other banks, which did not benefit from the State guarantee on loans, BPP obtained an economic advantage in that the fee charged for the State guarantee was clearly below the market level.\n(59)\nThe argument put forward by the Portuguese authorities that BPP was not operating in the market after 1 December 2008 cannot be accepted. Given that BPP\u2019s banking licence was only revoked by the Bank of Portugal on 15 April 2010, BPP could have entered or re-entered the market at short notice. Indeed, recovery plans for BPP submitted between December 2008 and April 2009 show the bank\u2019s potential to continue exercising an economic activity as a consequence of the rescue measure. Given BPP\u2019s activities and position in national and international financial markets, this advantage potentially affects competition and trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. Only from 15 April 2010, with the revocation of the banking licence, did BPP lose any ability to re-enter the market and to potentially distort competition and affect trade between Member States.\n(60)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State guarantee conferred an economic advantage on BPP through the use of State resources imputable to Portugal. This advantage is liable to affect competition and trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The measure therefore constitutes State aid.\n6.1.2. The EUR 250 000 guarantee for FEI clients\n(61)\nAs described above, the beneficiaries of this measure are the clients of BPP who invested in the Absolute Return products and opted to join the FEI. Without the solution implemented by Portugal, FEI clients would risk not being reimbursed or, more likely, being reimbursed a lesser amount than under the guarantee. According to Portugal\u2019s own estimates, it is likely that their return as FEI clients is increased by the guarantee. Therefore FEI clients have received an advantage from the measure.\n(62)\nHowever, the simple fact of depositing funds does not necessarily constitute a commercial activity within the meaning of State aid rules, and indeed, according to the submission made by Portugal, the majority of the FEI participants are individuals who are not undertakings. However, insofar as the FEI amounts covered by the State guarantee serve to benefit undertakings, they may constitute State aid.\n(63)\nNevertheless, the figures provided by Portugal clearly show that disbursement by the State will be well below the de minimis threshold of EUR 200 000 over 3 years (17), once account is taken of the cover provided by the Investor Compensation System and by the Deposit Guarantee Fund as well as of the likely value that, under prudent assumptions, the investors will recover from the underlying assets.\n6.2. Compatibility pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU\n6.2.1. The State guarantee on the EUR 450 million loan\n(64)\nPortugal argues that the aid element should be assessed on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, which enables the Commission to declare aid compatible with the internal market if it is aimed at remedying \u2018a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State\u2019. The Commission recalls that the General Court has stressed that Article 107(3)(b) TFEU needs to be applied restrictively and must tackle a disturbance in the entire economy of a Member State (18).\n(65)\nThe Commission has already acknowledged that the current global financial crisis can create a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State and that measures supporting banks may be considered apt to remedy this disturbance. This assessment has been confirmed in the Banking Communication (19), the Recapitalisation Communication (20), the Impaired Asset Communication (21) and the Restructuring Communication (22) adopted by the Commission. Article 107(3)(b) TFEU may therefore serve as a legal basis for aid measures taken to address this systemic crisis. As regards more specifically the Portuguese economy, this was also the appropriate legal basis for the various Commission decisions approving the measures undertaken by the Portuguese authorities to combat the financial crisis, in particular its approval of the Portuguese recapitalisation scheme and the extension thereof, the last such decision dating from March 2010 (23).\n(66)\nAs regards the case at hand, the Commission also notes that, in its Rescue Aid Decision, the applicability of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU was assessed and considered to be applicable, as BPP\u2019s failure to comply with its financial obligations could negatively affect the whole Portuguese financial system (see recitals 33 to 45 of the Rescue Aid Decision).\n(67)\nWhilst not submitting the restructuring plan, notwithstanding repeated requests and an information injunction, as described in recitals 30 to 32 above, Portugal extended the guarantee twice without prior notification to and approval of the Commission.\n(68)\nThe Portuguese authorities\u2019 arguments that the Commission was aware that, under the contract, the guarantee might be provided for 2 years and that there was no material change to the State guarantee cannot be accepted. The Rescue Aid Decision linked the approval of the State guarantee to implementation of the commitment by the Portuguese authorities to present the restructuring plan within 6 months. This commitment was not complied with by the Portuguese authorities.\n(69)\nFurther, the existence of a contractually stipulated renewal of the State guarantee based on a decision by the bank syndicate and BPP cannot discharge Portugal from the precise and explicit obligations arising from the commitments it offered to the Commission, and on which the Rescue Aid Decision was based, or from its obligations pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU.\n(70)\nPortugal\u2019s position regarding the obligation to present the restructuring plan, arguing that its only duty was to transmit that plan to the Commission, cannot be accepted either in light of the commitments on which the Rescue Aid Decision was based. In any event, the fact remains that the restructuring plan was not presented within the required timeframe set out in the Rescue Aid Decision and therefore the basis on which approval was given was not upheld.\n(71)\nIt follows that the pricing of the guarantee was below the level normally required under the Banking Communication for it to be considered as compatible aid, and that the Commission only authorised that level of pricing in the Rescue Aid Decision on the basis of a commitment by Portugal to submit a restructuring or liquidation plan which would adequately minimise the distortion of competition. No such plan having been presented by 5 June 2009, the Commission therefore concludes that neither the guarantee provided by Portugal on 5 December 2008 nor its continuation after 5 June 2009 is compatible with the internal market.\n(72)\nAlthough Portugal presented no restructuring plan for BPP, the Portuguese authorities have provided information proving that the liquidation procedure which began on 15 April 2010 with the revocation of BPP\u2019s banking licence will lead to its liquidation. Moreover, no compensation will be awarded to the shareholders of BPP other than any amounts stemming from the liquidation procedure itself. Based on this information, the Commission considers that there will be no risk of distortion of competition in the future regarding BPP. However, this conclusion does not remedy the incompatibility of the measure granted by Portugal for the period between 5 December 2008 and 15 April 2010.\n(73)\nIn order to determine a market price for the loan interest, the Commission has based its assessment on the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (24). The Commission establishes reference rates which are supposed to reflect the average level of interest rates charged in the market on medium and long-term loans backed by normal securities. This reference rate is a floor rate which may be increased in situations involving a particular risk, for example an undertaking in difficulties or where the security normally required by banks is not provided. In exceptional circumstances the aid element of the guarantee may turn out to be as high as the amount effectively covered by that guarantee.\n(74)\nThe guarantee enabled BPP to obtain better financial terms for the loan than those normally available on the financial markets. The Commission considers that the aid element of the guarantee can be calculated as the difference between the interest rate that BPP should have paid for a loan under market conditions, i.e. without a guarantee, and the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was actually provided. This difference can be deemed to correspond to the premium a market economy guarantor would have asked for these guarantees.\n(75)\nIn the present case the Commission considers that, without the guarantee, BPP would have paid an interest rate at least equal to the reference interest rate plus 400 basis points because it was a company in difficulty providing a high level of collateralisation. The Commission considers the spread of 400 basis points to be appropriate given the high collateralisation of the loan (see recital 17), which increased the likelihood that the lender would be able to recover at least part of the loan notwithstanding the very distressed situation of BPP. The aid element of the guarantee thus consists in the difference between the reference interest rate plus 400 basis points and the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was provided (i.e. EURIBOR + 100 basis points), after deduction of the price actually paid for the guarantee, i.e. 20 basis points.\n(76)\nIn this context the Commission also notes that Portugal has stated that it has already filed the necessary claims in order to enforce its privileged and priority rights over the collateral it holds over BPP and that it will continue to do so until it has recovered the full amount of the loan (25). The Commission considers that Portugal has an obligation to do so in order to enforce the provisions in the guarantee agreement; any failure to enforce its rights over the collateral in order to recover the full amount of the loan would constitute State aid in favour of BPP.\n6.3. Use of the EUR 450 million loan by BPP\n(77)\nThe interested third party who submitted comments on the Commission Decision to open a formal investigation alleged that the EUR 450 million loan, instead of being used for the restructuring of BPP, was used to reimburse certain clients of the bank, penalising all the others. The Commission received information from the Portuguese authorities showing that the loan was used to reimburse creditors of BPP whose credits were due or whose credit lines were expiring and who decided not to extend the credits or renew the credit lines. The Commission did not find any substantiated evidence to sustain the allegations of the interested third party.\n7. CONCLUSION\n(78)\nIn the light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State guarantee conferred on BPP constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, which cannot be declared compatible with the internal market.\n8. RECOVERY\n(79)\nAccording to Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary. Only aid which is incompatible with the internal market must be recovered.\n(80)\nThe purpose of recovery is to restore the situation that existed prior to the granting of the aid. This is achieved once the incompatible aid is repaid by BPP, which therefore forfeits the advantage which it enjoyed over its competitors. The amount to be recovered should be such as to eliminate the economic advantage given to BPP.\n(81)\nAccording to point 3.1 of the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (hereinafter \u2018Commission Notice on guarantees\u2019) (26), in the case of an individual State guarantee, the aid element must be assessed by reference to the terms of the guarantee and loan. In the light of the severe financial difficulties of BPP at the time the guarantee was given, it was highly unlikely that the company would have been able to obtain a bank loan on the market without State intervention.\n(82)\nFor the exact quantification of the amount of aid, given that no appropriate market price can be determined for remuneration of the State guarantee, a reasonable benchmark has to be defined. As set out in the first indent of point 3.2 of the Commission Notice on guarantees, the \u2018cash grant equivalent\u2019 of a loan guarantee in a given year can be calculated in the same way as the grant equivalent of a soft loan. Hence the aid amount can be calculated as the difference between a theoretical market interest rate and the interest rate obtained by means of the State guarantee, after any premiums paid have been deducted.\n(83)\nIn the case at hand, given BPP\u2019s financial difficulties and taking into account the collateral provided, BPP should have paid for a loan under market conditions, i.e. without a guarantee, the reference interest rate plus a risk premium of 400 basis points. The aid amount should therefore be calculated as the difference between this theoretical market rate and the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was actually provided (i.e. EURIBOR + 100 basis points), after deduction of the price actually paid for the guarantee, i.e. 20 basis points.\n(84)\nAs regards the full amount of the loan itself, according to the Portuguese authorities, the Portuguese State has thus far taken all the necessary measures and steps in order to enforce its priority rights over the collateral it holds from BPP (the value of which has been estimated at significantly above the loan value) (27). The Commission assumes that the Portuguese State will continue to enforce those rights, thereby obtaining the full loan amount within the liquidation process as it has itself stated in its reply of 15 June 2010 (28).\n(85)\nThe amount referred to in recital 83 constitutes the amount to be recovered, plus the interest effectively accrued on that amount from the date on which the aid was put at the disposal of the beneficiary (5 December 2008) until its actual recovery. That interest cannot be lower than the amount calculated pursuant to Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (29),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid involved in the guarantee relating to a EUR 450 million loan unlawfully granted by Portugal, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of Banco Privado Portugu\u00eas is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\n1. Portugal shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiary.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\nArticle 3\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Portugal shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within 4 months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. Within 2 months following notification of this Decision, Portugal shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that the Portuguese State has enforced its priority rights over the collateral offered by Banco Privado Portugu\u00eas in the context of the guarantee.\n2. Portugal shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2010.", "references": ["38", "52", "7", "88", "56", "95", "58", "24", "46", "75", "2", "1", "42", "59", "39", "92", "57", "17", "94", "65", "6", "45", "27", "37", "82", "16", "80", "36", "51", "76", "No Label", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["29", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 663/2010\nof 23 July 2010\namending for the 131st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Articles 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 9 and 15 July 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove two natural persons and three legal persons, groups or entities from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. On 12 July 2010 it decided to amend the identifying data concerning two natural persons on that list.\n(3)\nAnnex I should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2010.", "references": ["85", "83", "89", "78", "64", "46", "97", "90", "93", "54", "74", "32", "81", "48", "27", "72", "61", "91", "20", "80", "88", "36", "30", "38", "19", "25", "5", "6", "51", "49", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1187/2010\nof 13 December 2010\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding on imports of glyphosate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Article 9(1) and Article 11(2), (5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Measures in force\n(1)\nFollowing a review investigation carried out pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1683/2004 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of glyphosate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China currently falling within CN codes ex 2931 00 99 and ex 3808 93 27 (the \u2018product concerned\u2019). This duty had been extended to imports of glyphosate consigned from Malaysia (whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not) with the exception of those produced by Crop Protection (M) Sdn. Bhd. and to imports of glyphosate consigned from Taiwan (whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not) with the exception of those produced by Sinon Corporation. The rate of the anti-dumping duty is 29,9 %.\n(2)\nBy Decision 2009/383/EC (3), the Commission suspended the definitive anti-dumping duties for a period of 9 months, with effect from 16 May 2009. Subsequently, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 126/2010 (4), the Council extended the suspension for a period of 1 year, with effect from 14 February 2010.\n1.2. Request for review\n(3)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry (5) of the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of glyphosate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, the Commission has received on 29 June 2009 a request for review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(4)\nThe request was lodged by the European Glyphosate Association (\u2018the applicant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing the entire Union production of glyphosate.\n(5)\nThe request contained prima facie evidence showing that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.\n1.3. Initiation\n(6)\nAccordingly, the Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, initiated, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (6), an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the European Union of glyphosate currently falling within CN codes ex 2931 00 99 and ex 3808 93 27 and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n(7)\nThe Commission officially advised the exporting producers, importers concerned, the representatives of the People\u2019s Republic of China, the representative users and the Union producers of the initiation of the review investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n2. WITHDRAWAL OF THE REQUEST\n(8)\nBy a letter dated 21 September 2010 to the Commission, the applicant formally withdrew its request.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1) and Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, a proceeding may be terminated where the request for review is withdrawn unless such a termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(10)\nIt was considered that the present proceeding should be terminated since the investigation had not brought to light any considerations showing that such termination would not be in the Union interest. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. However, no comments were received which could alter this consideration.\n(11)\nIt was therefore concluded that the anti-dumping expiry review proceeding concerning imports into the Union of glyphosate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China should be terminated and the existing measures should be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping measures concerning imports of glyphosate currently falling within CN codes ex 2931 00 99 and ex 3808 93 27 and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, are hereby repealed and the proceeding concerning these imports is terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["74", "52", "62", "87", "19", "20", "21", "32", "82", "85", "15", "42", "34", "51", "2", "60", "28", "91", "18", "75", "44", "0", "90", "81", "83", "38", "61", "13", "36", "64", "No Label", "23", "48", "65", "95", "96"], "gold": ["23", "48", "65", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 15 November 2010\nrecognising the fully operational character of the Latvian database for bovine animals\n(notified under document C(2010) 7782)\n(Only the Latvian text is authentic)\n(2010/692/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (1), and in particular Article 10(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 (\u2018the Regulation\u2019) provides that Member States, which have a computerised database which the Commission deems to be fully operational, may determine that a passport is to be issued only for animals intended for intra-Union trade and that those animals shall be accompanied by their passports only when they are moved from the territory of the Member State concerned to the territory of another Member State.\n(2)\nLatvia has presented to the Commission a request for the recognition of the fully operational character of the database that forms part of the Latvian system for the identification and registration of bovine animals pursuant to the Regulation. The Latvian authorities have also submitted to the Commission the appropriate information concerning the compatibility of the database with the provisions of Article 5 of the Regulation.\n(3)\nThe Commission examined the information submitted by the Latvian authorities and following inspection considered that the request was sufficiently substantiated, pending certain adaptations which the Latvian authorities undertook to complete by 30 September 2010.\n(4)\nBefore 1 October 2010 the Latvian authorities confirmed that additional measures had been implemented to ensure that deadlines laid down in the Regulation for the notification of events are respected, floating animals are detected and followed up and passports accompanying animals from other Member States are surrendered to the competent authority on arrival.\n(5)\nIn view of the above, it is appropriate to recognise the fully operational character of the Latvian database for bovine animals as of 1 October 2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Latvian database for bovine animals is recognised as fully operational from 1 October 2010.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Latvia.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["6", "3", "16", "27", "37", "64", "26", "81", "68", "59", "47", "61", "87", "76", "20", "15", "77", "72", "98", "24", "13", "95", "10", "80", "54", "9", "57", "62", "5", "88", "No Label", "25", "42", "63", "65", "73", "91"], "gold": ["25", "42", "63", "65", "73", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 230/2012\nof 15 March 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 192/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 March 2012.", "references": ["91", "97", "67", "52", "11", "82", "21", "7", "65", "85", "84", "24", "41", "12", "68", "49", "29", "51", "30", "16", "79", "8", "58", "60", "74", "13", "73", "92", "55", "18", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 346/2012\nof 19 April 2012\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(s) and listed in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 51/2012 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nIn order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Part XIX of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 51/2012 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["36", "56", "59", "51", "79", "62", "66", "43", "52", "32", "88", "68", "31", "21", "58", "78", "49", "82", "13", "41", "15", "55", "81", "16", "65", "34", "28", "35", "48", "9", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "69", "72"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 477/2011\nof 17 May 2011\ninitiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China by imports of certain molybdenum wires consigned from Malaysia and Switzerland, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and Switzerland or not, and making such imports subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation) and in particular Articles 13(3), 14(3) and 14(5) thereof,\nAfter having consulted the Advisory Committee in accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(3) of the basic Regulation,\nWhereas:\nA. REQUEST\n(1)\nThe European Commission (the Commission) has received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and to make imports of certain molybdenum wires consigned from Malaysia and Switzerland, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and Switzerland or not, subject to registration.\n(2)\nThe request was lodged on 4 April 2011 by the European Association of Metals (Eurometaux) on behalf of a Union producer of certain molybdenum wires.\nB. PRODUCT\n(3)\nThe product concerned by the possible circumvention is molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN code ex 8102 96 00 (the product concerned).\n(4)\nThe product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but consigned from Malaysia and Switzerland, whether originating in Malaysia and Switzerland or not, currently falling within the same CN code as the product concerned.\nC. EXISTING MEASURES\n(5)\nThe measures currently in force and possibly being circumvented are anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 (2).\nD. GROUNDS\n(6)\nThe request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China are being circumvented by means of the transhipment via Malaysia and Switzerland.\nThe evidence submitted is as follows:\nThe request shows that a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the People\u2019s Republic of China, Malaysia and Switzerland to the Union has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned, and that there is insufficient due cause or justification other than the imposition of the duty for such a change.\nThis change in the pattern of trade appears to stem from the transhipment of certain molybdenum wires originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China via Malaysia and Switzerland.\nFurthermore, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned are being undermined in terms of quantity. Significant volumes of imports of the product under investigation appear to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, the Commission is in possession of sufficient evidence that imports of the product under investigation are made at prices well below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures, adjusted for the decrease in the prices of the raw material costs.\nFinally, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the prices of the product under investigation are dumped in relation to the normal value previously established for the product concerned, adjusted for the decrease in the prices of the raw material costs.\nShould circumvention practices via Malaysia and Switzerland covered by Article 13 of the basic Regulation, other than transhipment, be identified in the course of the investigation, the investigation may also cover these practices.\nE. PROCEDURE\nIn the light of the above, the Commission has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation and to make imports of the product under investigation, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and Switzerland or not, subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(a) Questionnaires\nIn order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the known exporters/producers and to the known associations of exporters/producers in Malaysia and Switzerland, to the known exporters/producers and to the known associations of exporters/producers in the People\u2019s Republic of China, to the known importers and to the known associations of importers in the Union and to the authorities of the People\u2019s Republic of China, Malaysia and Switzerland. Information, as appropriate, may also be sought from the Union industry.\nIn any event, all interested parties should contact the Commission forthwith, but not later than the time limit set in Article 3 of this Regulation, and request a questionnaire within the time limit set in Article 3(1) of this Regulation, given that the time limit set in Article 3(2) of this Regulation applies to all interested parties.\nThe authorities of the People\u2019s Republic of China, Malaysia and Switzerland will be notified of the initiation of the investigation.\n(b) Collection of information and holding of hearings\nAll interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\n(c) Exemption of registration of imports or measures\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation may be exempted from registration or measures if the importation does not constitute circumvention.\nSince the possible circumvention takes place outside the Union, exemptions may be granted, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, to producers in Malaysia and Switzerland of certain molybdenum wires that can show that they are not related (3) to any producer subject to the measures (4) and that are found not to be engaged in circumvention practices as defined in Article 13(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation. Producers wishing to obtain an exemption should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the time limit indicated in Article 3(3) of this Regulation.\nF. REGISTRATION\nPursuant to Article 14 (5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied retroactively from the date of registration of such imports consigned from Malaysia and Switzerland.\nG. TIME LIMITS\nIn the interest of sound administration, time limits should be stated within which:\n-\ninterested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,\n-\nproducers in Malaysia and Switzerland may request exemption from registration of imports or measures,\n-\ninterested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.\nAttention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party\u2019s making itself known within the time limits mentioned in Article 3 of this Regulation.\nH. NON-COOPERATION\nIn cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.\nWhere it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.\nI. SCHEDULE OF THE INVESTIGATION\nThe investigation will be concluded, according to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, within nine months of the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nJ. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\nIt is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5).\nK. HEARING OFFICER\nIt is also noted that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of Directorate-General for Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views. For further information and contact details, interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer\u2019s web pages on the website of Directorate-General for Trade (http://ec.europa.eu/trade),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAn investigation is hereby initiated pursuant to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, in order to determine if imports into the Union of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, consigned from Malaysia and Switzerland, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and Switzerland or not, currently falling within CN code ex 8102 96 00 (TARIC code 8102960011), are circumventing the measures imposed by Regulation (EU) No 511/2010.\nArticle 2\nThe Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 13(3) and Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union identified in Article 1 of this Regulation.\nRegistration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThe Commission, by regulation, may direct Customs authorities to cease registration in respect of imports into the Union of products manufactured by producers having applied for an exemption of registration and having been found to fulfil the conditions for an exemption to be granted.\nArticle 3\n1. Questionnaires should be requested from the Commission within 15 days from publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. Interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 37 days from the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.\n3. Producers in Malaysia and Switzerland requesting exemption from registration of imports or measures should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the same 37-day time limit.\n4. Interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 37-day time limit.\n5. Any information, any request for a hearing or for a questionnaire as well as any request for exemption from registration of imports or measures must be made in writing (not in electronic format, unless otherwise specified) and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers of the interested party. All written submissions, including the information requested in this Regulation, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labelled as \u2018Limited\u2019 (6) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labelled \u2018For inspection by interested parties\u2019.\nCommission address for correspondence:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N105 4/92\n1049 Bruxelles/Brussel\nBELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb\nFax +32 2295 65 05\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 May 2011.", "references": ["11", "52", "37", "50", "94", "60", "17", "16", "3", "56", "7", "30", "53", "35", "64", "38", "79", "62", "27", "73", "92", "45", "54", "97", "8", "18", "87", "77", "61", "86", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1287/2011\nof 9 December 2011\nrepealing Regulation (EC) No 2014/2005 on licences under the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community in respect of bananas released into free circulation at the common customs tariff rate of duty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005 on the tariff rates for bananas (1), and in particular Article 2 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2014/2005 (2) has established a mechanism for monitoring imports of bananas, based on import licences.\n(2)\nBy its Decision 2011/194/EU (3) the Council approved the conclusion of the Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela (the \"Geneva Agreement\") and of the Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and the United States of America (the \"EU/US Agreement\"). The agreements are now being ratified by all signatory parties. Following the conclusions of those Agreements the structure and operation of the Union\u2019s trading regime for bananas of CN code 0803 00 19 have been changed.\n(3)\nIn view of the new banana tariffs to be applied pursuant the \"Geneva Agreement\", Regulation (EU) No 306/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) has repealed Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 with effect on the date of entry into force of that Agreement.\n(4)\nIn the light of the adoption of the aforementioned agreements, which settled a longstanding banana dispute, the use of import licences subject to the provision of a security, as a statistical tool, is no longer an adequate instrument to monitor the banana markets.\n(5)\nNew and more accurate means of monitoring imports of bananas have been developed, which are less cumbersome than licences, which incur an administrative burden and a cost for companies and national administrations.\n(6)\nTherefore, it is appropriate to abolish the obligation for traders to obtain import licences for the importation of bananas of all origin. Regulation (EC) No 2014/2005 should therefore be repealed. As Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2014/2005 limits the validity of licences to the year of issue, it is appropriate to repeal the obligation to obtain import licences as from 1 January 2012.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 2014/2005 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["69", "76", "75", "77", "91", "96", "7", "78", "95", "26", "32", "54", "61", "38", "27", "24", "65", "74", "62", "66", "18", "93", "67", "46", "48", "5", "90", "35", "45", "34", "No Label", "2", "20", "21", "22", "23", "68"], "gold": ["2", "20", "21", "22", "23", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management\n(2010/745/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (\u2018the Fund\u2019) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.\n(2)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.\n(4)\nIreland submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by severe flooding,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 13 022 500 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["77", "38", "31", "3", "57", "17", "33", "88", "6", "76", "18", "92", "83", "39", "9", "35", "99", "41", "52", "43", "56", "98", "72", "80", "11", "42", "74", "47", "70", "64", "No Label", "4", "10", "15", "60", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "15", "60", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 2 May 2012\nappointing an Austrian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/241/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Austrian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Josef MARTINZ,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as alternate member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr Achill RUMPOLD, Mitglied der Landesregierung des Bundeslandes K\u00e4rnten.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 2 May 2012.", "references": ["32", "38", "82", "81", "42", "39", "51", "85", "16", "94", "25", "43", "3", "15", "49", "84", "79", "4", "80", "78", "86", "61", "11", "52", "73", "50", "70", "26", "27", "54", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 9/2012\nof 6 January 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 4/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 January 2012.", "references": ["63", "43", "12", "60", "36", "65", "80", "9", "62", "25", "29", "76", "73", "46", "93", "2", "24", "20", "58", "26", "84", "33", "48", "15", "47", "23", "52", "82", "64", "38", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 March 2012\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India\n(2012/163/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 13 May 2011, the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (\u2018notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nOn the same day, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India and commenced a separate investigation.\n(3)\nThe anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 31 March 2011 by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute EiFi (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting thereof, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.\n1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(4)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers, known importers, users known to be concerned, and the Indian authorities of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(5)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n1.2.1. Sampling for exporting producers in India\n(6)\nIn view of the apparent large number of exporting producers in India, sampling was provided for in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping, in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(7)\nIn order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, exporting producers in India were requested to make themselves known within 15 days from the date of the initiation of the investigation and to provide basic information on their export and domestic sales, their precise activities with regard to the production and sales of the product concerned and the names and activities of all their related companies involved in the production and sales of the product concerned during the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019).\n(8)\nIn total, five exporting producers, including a group of related companies in India, provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample within the deadline set in the notice of initiation. These cooperating companies reported exports of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period. The comparison between Eurostat import data and the volume of exports to the Union of the product concerned reported for the investigation period by the five cooperating companies revealed that the cooperation of Indian exporting producers was close to 100 %. Thus, the sample was chosen on the basis of the information submitted by these five exporting producers.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, a sample was selected based on the largest representative volume of exports of the product concerned to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. On the basis of the information received from the exporting producers, the Commission selected a sample of three exporting producers having the largest volume of exports to the Union. Based on the sampling information, the selected companies or groups accounted for 99 % of the total volume of exports to the Union of the product concerned in the IP reported by the cooperating exporting producers. It was therefore considered that such a sample would allow to limiting the investigation to a reasonable number of exporting producers which could be investigated within the time available while ensuring a high level of representativeness.\n1.2.2. Selection of the sample of cooperating exporting producers in India\n(10)\nIn accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned and the Indian authorities were consulted on the selection of the sample. The two non-sampled exporting producers insisted to be also included in the sample. However, in view of the representativity of the proposed sample, as mentioned in recital (8) above, it was concluded that it was not necessary to amend or enlarge the sample.\n1.2.3. Individual examination of companies not selected in the sample\n(11)\nTwo co-operating exporting producers, which were not included in the sample requested individual examination and replied to the anti-dumping questionnaire within the time limit.\n(12)\nGiven the conclusion that the present anti-dumping proceeding should be terminated for the reasons mentioned further below, the requests for individual examination were not further considered.\n1.2.4. Sampling of Union producers\n(13)\nIn view of the apparent large number of Union producers, sampling was provided for in the Notice of initiation for the determination of injury, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(14)\nIn the Notice of initiation the Commission announced that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. This sample consisted of five companies, out of the 15 Union producers that were known prior to the initiation of the investigation, selected on the basis of their sales volume, size and geographic location in the Union. They represented 37 % of the total estimated Union production during the IP. Interested parties were invited to consult the file and to comment on the appropriateness of this choice within 15 days of the date of publication of the Notice of initiation. No interested party opposed to the proposed sample composed of five companies.\n(15)\nSubsequently one of the five sampled Union producers withdrew its cooperation. The remaining four sampled companies represented 31 % of the total estimated Union production during the IP. Hence the sample was considered to be representative of the Union industry.\n1.2.5. Sampling of unrelated importers\n(16)\nIn view of the potentially large number of importers involved in the proceeding, sampling was envisaged for importers in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. Two importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample within the deadline set in the notice of initiation. Given the low number of importers who made themselves known, it was decided not to apply sampling.\n1.3. Questionnaire replies and verifications\n(17)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to all other parties that made themselves known within the deadline set out in the notice of initiation. Questionnaires were thus sent to the sampled exporting producers in India, the sampled Union producers, the cooperating importers in the Union and to all users known to be concerned by the investigation.\n(18)\nReplies were received from the sampled exporting producers and four sampled Union producers. None of the importers or users replied to the questionnaire.\n(19)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information provided by interested parties and deemed necessary for the determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest.\n(20)\nOne party claimed that one of the exporting producers made too many claims for confidentiality and did not provide a sufficiently meaningful public version of its questionnaire response. Hence, the information submitted by this company should not be taken into consideration and it should be treated as a non-cooperative party in the investigation.\n(21)\nThe non-confidential version of the reply of this exporting producer however, consisting of an initial reply and a completed version based on a deficiency letter, has once more been assessed and found to be sufficiently complete to qualify as a meaningful public reply. This claim was therefore rejected.\n(22)\nVerification visits were carried out at the premises of the following parties:\nProducers in the Union:\n-\nInox Viti di Cattinori Bruno & C.s.n.c., Grumello del Monte, Italy;\n-\nBontempi Vibo S.p.A., Rodengo Saiano, Italy;\n-\nUgivis S.A., Belley, France\nExporting producers in India:\n-\nViraj Profiles Limited, Boisar, Dist. Thane, Maharashtra\n-\nAgarwal Fastners Pvt. Ltd., Vasai (East), Dist. Thane, Maharashtra\n-\nRaajratna Ventures Ltd., Ahmedabad, Gujarat\n1.4. Investigation period\n(23)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011. The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from January 2008 to the end of the IP (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(24)\nThe product concerned is stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof (\u2018SSF\u2019) originating in India, currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70.\n2.2. Like product\n(25)\nThe product concerned and the product produced and sold on the domestic market of India as well as the product produced and sold on the Union market by the Union industry were found to have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses. They were therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n3. DUMPING\n3.1. Normal value\n(26)\nFor the determination of normal value in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first established whether the domestic sales of the like product of the sampled Indian exporting producers to independent customers were made in representative volumes, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of their total export sales volume to the Union during the IP.\n(27)\nIn the case of one sampled exporting producer it was found that it had no representative sales of the like product on the domestic market. For this exporting producer, normal value had to be constructed on the basis of Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.\n3.1.1. Sampled cooperating exporting producers with overall representative domestic sales volume\n(28)\nFor the sampled exporting producers with overall representative domestic sales, the Commission subsequently identified those product types sold on the domestic market by the exporting producers, which were identical or directly comparable to the types sold for export to the Union.\n(29)\nDomestic sales of a particular product type were considered as sufficiently representative when the volume of that product type sold on the domestic market to independent customers during the IP represented 5 % or more of the total volume of the comparable product type sold for export to the Union.\n(30)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of the companies concerned could be considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for each product type the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market during the investigation period.\n(31)\nWhere the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price. This price was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that type made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not.\n(32)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of that type only.\n(33)\nFor product types not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, normal value had to be constructed on the basis of Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. To this end, the selling, general and administrative (\u2018SG&A\u2019) expenses and a reasonable profit margin were added to the exporter's own average cost of manufacturing per product type during the IP. In accordance with Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, the percentage for SG&A and profit margin were based on the weighted average SG&A and profit margin of sales of each product type in the ordinary course of trade of the respective exporting producer.\n3.1.2. Sampled cooperating exporting producer without overall representative domestic sales volume\n(34)\nFor the cooperating exporting producer without representative domestic sales, normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation by adding to the company's own manufacturing costs for the like product the SG&A expenses and a reasonable profit margin per product type during the IP. In accordance with Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, the percentage for SG&A and profit margin were based on the weighted average SG&A and profit margin of sales of each product type in the ordinary course of trade of the exporting producer.\n3.2. Export price\n(35)\nExport sales prices were established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n3.3. Comparison\n(36)\nThe comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis.\n(37)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.\n(38)\nOn this basis, allowances for transport, ocean freight and insurance costs, handling loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs, discounts not mentioned on the invoice and commissions have been made where applicable and justified.\n3.4. Dumping margins\n3.4.1. For the sampled cooperating exporting producers\n(39)\nFor the sampled companies, the weighted average normal value of each type of the product concerned exported to the Union was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, as provided for in Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.\n(40)\nOn this basis of the above methodology the dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are the following:\nCompany\nDumping margin\nViraj Profiles Ltd.\n0 %\nAgarwal Fasteners Pvt. Ltd.\n37,6 %\nRaajratna Ventures Ltd.\n12,0 %\n(41)\nHowever, it should be noted that the Indian exporting producer, for which no dumping was found, represented 87 % of Indian exports to the Union.\n(42)\nBased on its analysis of the Commission's disclosure document, the complainant calculated a difference of 25 % between the normal value established for the exporting producers in the sample found to be dumping and the company not found to be dumping. The complainant argued that such a difference cannot exist on a competitive market and is not realistic for the stainless steel fasteners industry. Moreover, the complainant alleged that the exporting producer not found to be dumping procured stainless steel scrap from related companies in the Union and that as a consequence the purchase prices of this raw material were not reliable for the determination of the cost of production.\n(43)\nThe normal value for the cooperating exporter not found to be dumping has been based on its cost of production per product type which is lower than for the other sampled exporting producers. This results mainly from the fact that the former company produces stainless steel itself from stainless steel scrap, and is therefore fully integrated and benefits from economies of scale, while the latter companies purchase stainless steel wire rod, the main raw material for production of stainless steel fasteners, in the open market, including from the cooperating exporter not found to be dumping.\n(44)\nThe normal value for the cooperating exporting producers found to be dumping has been mostly determined based on the domestic sales prices per product type. There is only limited competition on India's domestic market and the cooperating exporter not found to be dumping only sold unrepresentative quantities during the IP domestically.\n(45)\nWith regard to the procurement of stainless steel scrap by the exporting producer not found to be dumping, the investigation showed that this company obtained scrap from both related and unrelated suppliers, the latter representing more than 70 % of the quantities obtained. The purchase price levels for both types of procurement were comparable, also when taking the type of scrap grade into account.\n(46)\nAs a consequence, the normal value determination of the sampled exporting producers is confirmed and the claims made by the complainant have been rejected.\n3.4.2. For the other cooperating exporting producers\n(47)\nThe weighted average dumping margin of the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample was calculated in accordance with the provisions of Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the margins established for the sampled exporting producers who were found to be dumping. On this basis, the dumping margin calculated for the cooperating companies not included in the sample was set at 24,6 % of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.\n(48)\nOne cooperating Indian exporting producer, after disclosure of the Commission's intention to terminate the proceeding, insisted that its request for individual examination should be accepted, arguing that the dumping margin disclosed for cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample did not reflect its situation.\n(49)\nThe request for individual examination has not been assessed by the Commission since in case of termination the margin determination ceases to be an issue.\n3.4.3. For the non-cooperating exporting producers\n(50)\nWith regard to all other exporters in India, the Commission first established the level of cooperation. A comparison was made between the total export quantities indicated in the sampling replies received from all cooperating exporting producers and the total imports from India as derived from Eurostat statistics. The percentage of cooperation found was 97 %. On this basis, the level of cooperation was deemed to be high. It was considered appropriate to set the dumping margin for the non-cooperating exporting producers at the level corresponding to the average dumping margin established for the sampled cooperating exporting producers. Indeed information available suggests that the average export prices of the non-cooperating Indian exporters in the IP were in line with those found for the cooperating exporting producers. In addition there are no indications available that would point to different normal values for the non-cooperating exporting producers.\n(51)\nOn this basis, the country-wide level of dumping was established at 24,6 % of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.\n4. UNION INDUSTRY\n4.1. Union production\n(52)\nAll available information concerning Union producers, including information provided in the complaint, data collected from Union producers before and after the initiation of the investigation, and the verified questionnaire responses of the sampled Union producers, was used in order to establish the total Union production.\n(53)\nOn that basis, the total Union production was estimated to be around 52 000 tonnes during the IP. This figure includes the production of all Union producers that made themselves known and the estimated production volume of producers that did not come forward in the proceeding.\n(54)\nAs indicated in recital (13) above, sampling was applied for investigating Union producers. Of the 15 Union producers who provided data prior to the initiation of the proceeding, a sample of five companies was selected. Subsequently, as explained in recital (15) above, one company decided not to cooperate in the investigation. The remaining cooperating sampled companies represented around 32 % of the total estimated Union production during the IP and were deemed to be representative of the Union industry.\n4.2. Union industry\n(55)\nAll known Union producers referred to in recital (52) above are deemed to constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will hereinafter be referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019\n5. INJURY\n5.1. Preliminary remarks\n(56)\nThe relevant Eurostat import statistics, together with data provided in the complaint and data collected from Union producers before and after the initiation of the investigation, including the verified questionnaire responses of the sampled Union producers were used also in the evaluation of the relevant injury factors.\n(57)\nThe injury analysis with regard to macroeconomic data, such as production capacity, capacity utilization, sales volume, market share, growth, employment and productivity is based on the data of the Union industry as a whole.\n(58)\nThe injury analysis with regard to microeconomic data such as transaction prices, profitability, cash flow, investment and return on investment, ability to raise capital, stocks, and wages, is based on the data of the sampled Union producers.\n(59)\nThe four sampled Union producers were also sampled in the expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of SSF originating in China and Taiwan, concluded on 7 January 2012 (4). In that review one other company, which was not sampled in the present investigation, was included in the sample. Given that the period considered for the injury analysis overlaps with that of the expiry review, data for the years 2008 and 2009 are identical except for that of one company. By disclosing figures for 2008 and 2009 it would be possible to deduce the figures of the company which was not included in the sample in the present case. Therefore, micro indicators such as stocks, wages, investments, cash flow, return on investments and profitability have been indexed.\n5.2. Union consumption\n(60)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volume of the Union industry in the Union as provided in the complaint and cross checked by the replies to the sampling questionnaires and the verified data obtained from the sampled producers. In addition, the volume of imports based on data from Eurostat for the period considered was also taken into account.\n(61)\nOn this basis the Union consumption developed as follows:\nTable 1\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnion consumption (tonnes)\n120 598\n101 143\n122 345\n131 457\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n84\n101\n109\nSource: Eurostat, complaint data and questionnaire replies.\n(62)\nTotal consumption on the EU market increased by 9 % during the period considered. Between 2008 and 2009 there was a drastic decrease by 16 %, allegedly due to the global negative effects of the economic crisis on the market, after which consumption recovered again by 21 % between 2009 and 2010 and further by 7 % between 2010 and the IP.\n5.3. Imports from the India\n(63)\nImports into the Union from India developed as follows during the period considered:\nTable 2\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nVolume of imports from India (tonnes)\n14 546\n18 883\n21 914\n24 072\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n130\n151\n165\nMarket share\n12,1 %\n18,7 %\n17,9 %\n18,3 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n155\n149\n152\nSource: Eurostat and questionnaire replies from exporting producers.\n(64)\nImports from India increased significantly by 65 % over the period considered. This increase was strongest between 2008 and 2009 when imports surged by 30 % and when consumption decreased by 16 %. On a year to year basis, Indian imports continued to increase during 2010 (+16 %) and during the IP (+10 %).\n5.4. Prices of imports and price undercutting\nTable 3\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nAverage import price in EUR/tonne\n3 531\n2 774\n2 994\n3 216\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n79\n85\n91\nSource: Eurostat and questionnaire replies from sampled EU producers.\n(65)\nAverage prices of imports from India decreased overall by 9 % during the period considered. This explains the increase in the market share of India from 12,1 % to 18,3 % over the same period. The highest increase occurred between 2008 and 2009, when Indian exporters gained more than 6 percentage points of market share.\n(66)\nIn order to determine price undercutting during the IP, the weighted average sales prices per product type of the sampled Union producers charged to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports from India to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a CIF basis, with appropriate adjustments for the existing customs duties and post-importation costs.\n(67)\nThe price comparison was made on a type-by-type basis for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and discounts. The result of the comparison, when expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union producers' turnover during the IP, showed price undercutting ranging between 3 % and 13 %. It should be noted in this respect that the Indian exporting producer not found to be dumping had the highest undercutting margin.\n5.5. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(68)\nIn accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators established for the Union industry over the period analysed.\n5.5.1. Production capacity, production and capacity utilisation\nTable 4\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nProduction volume (tonnes)\n69 514\n56 396\n62 213\n51 800\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n81\n89\n75\nProduction capacity (tonnes)\n140 743\n127 200\n128 796\n111 455\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n90\n92\n79\nCapacity utilisation\n49 %\n44 %\n48 %\n46 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n90\n98\n94\nSource: Total Union industry.\n(69)\nThe table above shows that production decreased significantly by 25 % over the period considered. In line with a decrease in demand, production decreased sharply by 19 % in 2009, after which it recovered by around 10 % in 2010. In the IP, although the Union consumption increased by 7 %, Union production decreased again by around 17 % compared to the previous year.\n(70)\nThe production capacity of the Union industry decreased by around 21 % over the period considered. Capacity utilisation also decreased over the period considered, constantly remaining below 50 %.\n5.5.2. Sales volume and, market share\nTable 5\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nSales volume (tonnes)\n56 042\n44 627\n45 976\n48 129\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n80\n82\n86\nMarket share\n46,5 %\n44,1 %\n37,6 %\n36,6 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n95\n81\n79\nSource: Total Union industry\n(71)\nIn the context of an increasing consumption (+ 9 %), sales volume of the like product when sold to the first independent customer in the Union decreased by 14 % over the period considered. Consequently market share dropped from 46,5 % in 2008 to 36,6 % in the IP. After a sharp decrease i in 2009 (- 20 %), sales volume recovered slightly in 2010 and in the IP.\n5.5.3. Growth\n(72)\nUnion consumption increased by 9 % between 2008 and the IP. However, sales volume and market share of the Union industry decreased in the same period, by 14 % and 21 % respectively. At the same time imports from India increased significantly by 65 %.\n5.5.4. Employment\nTable 6\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nNumber of employees\n1 007\n863\n821\n761\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n86\n82\n76\nProductivity (unit/employee)\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n95\n110\n99\nSource: Total Union industry\n(73)\nDue to the downsizing activities of the Union industry, the number of employees was reduced accordingly during the period considered by 24 %. Between 2008 and the IP labour costs per employee increased by 6 %.\n(74)\nProductivity of the Union industry workforce, measured as output per person employed per year, decreased slightly by 1 % over the period considered. It reached its lowest level in 2009, after which it started to recover towards the IP.\n5.5.5. Average unit prices in the Union\nTable 7\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnit price in EU to unrelated customers (Euro per tonne)\n4 336\n2 792\n3 914\n4 244\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n64\n90\n98\nSource: questionnaire replies sampled producers\n(75)\nAverage sales prices decreased by 2 % over the period considered. In 2009 the Union industry was forced to reduce its sales prices by 36 %, in the context of the economic downturn and of a sharp decrease of import prices from India (- 21 %). During 2010 and the IP the Union industry sales prices recovered again.\n(76)\nThe investigation showed that the decrease in sales prices in 2009 reflected the decrease in costs which dropped by 18 % compared to 2008 levels. This decrease in costs was mainly due to the decrease in raw material prices, especially those of nickel, which has an unstable price dynamic. However, the Union industry was forced to decrease its sales prices more than the decrease in costs, in view of the expansion of the low-priced Indian imports in 2009.\n5.5.6. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital\nTable 8\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nProfitability of EU sales (% of net sales)\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n- 100\n- 442\n-74\n-24\nCash Flow\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n- 100\n-1 827\n-40\n- 171\nInvestments (EUR)\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n29\n59\n6\nReturn on Investments\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n- 100\n- 284\n-59\n-28\nSource: Questionnaire replies sampled EU producers\n(77)\nThe investigation showed that, even if the decrease in sales prices partly reflected the decrease in costs, the price of the Union industry was under pressure by the imports of SSF from India. The profitability of the Union industry was negative since the beginning of the period concerned. Especially in 2009 the Union industry was forced to decrease its sales prices more than the decrease in costs, in view of the expansion of the low-priced Indian imports. This lead to a significant deterioration of profitability in that year. However, in 2010 and the IP profitability improved, but it still remained negative.\n(78)\nCash flow, which is the ability of the industry to self-finance its activities, followed a similar trend as profitability. It reached its lowest level in 2009, after which it showed an increasing trend and turned positive in the IP.\n(79)\nAfter making investments in 2008 in the production of SSF, investments decreased by about 94 % during the period considered. The return on investment showed a similar negative development in line with the negative results achieved by the Union industry over the period considered and remained always negative.\n(80)\nThe evolution of profitability, the cash flow and the low level of investments points to the fact that the sampled EU producers may have experienced difficulties to raise capital.\n5.5.7. Stocks\nTable 9\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nClosing stock of Union industry\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n92\n100\n103\nSource: Questionnaire replies sampled EU producers\n(81)\nThe stock level of the sampled Union industry increased by 3 % during the period considered. In 2009 the level of closing stock decreased by 8 %; afterwards, in 2010 and in the IP it increased by 8 % and 3 % respectively.\n5.5.8. Magnitude of the actual margin of dumping and recovery from past dumping\n(82)\nIt is recalled that the largest Indian exporting producer representing 87 % of the Indian exports to the Union in the IP was found not to be dumping. Consequently dumped imports accounted for 13 % of the total volume of SSF exported from India to the Union. Given the volume, market share and prices of the dumped imports from India, the impact on the Union industry of the actual dumping margins may be considered to be negligible.\n5.6. Conclusion on injury\n(83)\nThe investigation showed that most injury indicators such as production (- 25 %), capacity utilisation (- 6 %), sales volume (- 14 %), market share (- 21 %), and employment (- 24 %) deteriorated during the period considered. In the context of an increasing consumption, both sales volume and market share dropped. Sales volume recovered slightly in 2010 and the IP when compared to 2009; however, the Union industry was unable to regain its lost market share in view of the expansion of the Indian imports which increased steadily over the period considered, at prices constantly undercutting those of the Union industry.\n(84)\nFurthermore, the injury indicators related to the financial performance of the Union industry, such as cash flow and profitability were seriously affected. This means that the ability of the Union industry to raise capital was undermined.\n(85)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it was concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\n6. CAUSATION\n6.1. Introduction\n(86)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the dumped imports originating in India have caused injury to the Union industry to a degree that enables it to be classified as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time be injuring the Union industry, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n(87)\nIt is recalled, that the largest Indian exporting producer, referred to in recitals (40) and (41), accounting for 87 % of Indian exports to the Union in the IP was found not to be dumping. Therefore, a mere 13 % of the Indian exports of the product concerned to the Union during the IP were made at dumped prices. These dumped imports had a market share of 2 % in the IP.\n6.2. Effect of the dumped imports\n(88)\nThe investigation showed that the Union consumption increased by 9 % over the period considered, while sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 14 % and market share dropped by 21 %.\n(89)\nWith regard to prices, the average import prices of the dumped imports were found to undercut the average sales prices of the Union industry on the Union market. However, they were around 12 % higher than the prices of the Indian company not found to the dumping.\n(90)\nBased on the above it is considered that the limited import volume of the dumped imports from India, which had higher prices than the non-dumped imports, may only have played a very limited role, if any, in the deterioration of the situation of the Union industry.\n6.3. Effect of other factors\n6.3.1. Non- dumped imports from India\n(91)\nThe total volume of imports from India increased dramatically by 65 % over the period considered, increasing their market share from 12,1 % to 18,3 %. However, as explained above, non-dumped imports represented 87 % of the total Indian export volume in the IP, corresponding to a market share of 15 % in the IP, as opposed to the market share of 2 % of the dumped imports from India in the same period.\n(92)\nPrices of imports from India decreased overall by 9 % in the period considered, remaining always lower than import prices from the rest of the world and sales prices of the Union industry. It is noteworthy, however, that as explained in recital (89), the average prices of the non-dumped imports were found to undercut the prices of the Union industry more than those of the dumped imports.\n6.3.2. Imports from other third countries\nTable 10\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nVolume of imports from other third countries in tonnes\n50 010\n37 633\n54 454\n59 255\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n75\n109\n118\nMarket share of imports from other third countries\n41,5 %\n37,2 %\n44,5 %\n45,1 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n90\n107\n109\nAverage price of imports from other third countries in EUR/tonne\n5 380\n5 236\n5 094\n5 234\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n97\n95\n97\nVolume of imports from Malaysia (tonnes)\n13 712\n9 810\n9 611\n9 966\nMarket share of imports from Malaysia\n11,4 %\n9,7 %\n7,9 %\n7,6 %\nAverage price of imports from Malaysia in EUR/ tonne\n4 203\n2 963\n3 324\n3 633\nVolume of imports from Philippines (tonnes)\n7 046\n5 406\n15 576\n18 149\nMarket share of imports from Philippines\n5,8 %\n5,3 %\n12,7 %\n13,8 %\nAverage price of imports from Philippines in EUR/tonne\n4 645\n3 474\n3 714\n3 912\nVolume of imports from the People's Republic of China (tonnes)\n2 332\n2 452\n3 217\n3 288\nMarket share of imports from the People's Republic of China\n1,9 %\n2,4 %\n2,6 %\n2,5 %\nAverage price of imports from the People's Republic of China in EUR/tonne\n4 004\n4 561\n5 272\n5 648\nVolume of imports from Taiwan (tonnes)\n4 304\n3 703\n6 451\n6 640\nMarket share of imports from Taiwan\n3,6 %\n3,7 %\n5,3 %\n5,1 %\nAverage price of imports from Taiwan in EUR/tonne\n5 092\n4 719\n4 755\n4 943\nSource: Eurostat\n(93)\nBased on Eurostat data, the volume of imports into the Union of SSF originating in other third countries increased by 18 % during the period considered. At the same time, average import prices decreased by about 3 % during the period considered and their market share increased by about 9 %.\n(94)\nThere have been anti-dumping measures in force on imports of SSF from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan as of 19 November 2005. Despite the measures, imports from these two countries have increased significantly over the period considered, although market shares remained rather modest, at 2,5 % and 5,1 % respectively in the IP. Other main sources of imports are the Philippines and Malaysia. Imports especially from the Philippines increased significantly over the period considered, increasing their market share from 5,8 % in 2008 to 13,8 % in the IP.\n(95)\nAs regards Malaysia, there was a decreasing trend over the period considered, however, imports still had a market share of 7,6 % in the IP. Import volume from the Philippines increased significantly during the period considered. However, as it emerged from the investigation the average import price from the Philippines was much higher, namely, about 20 %, than the average price of the Indian SSF.\n(96)\nWith regard to import prices, the overall average prices of imports from other third countries remained relatively stable over the period considered and were always above the average sales prices of the Union industry and the average import prices from India.\n(97)\nOn the basis of the above, it was concluded that imports from other third countries did not cause the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n6.3.3. Economic crisis\n(98)\nThe economic crisis partially explains the contraction of the Union consumption in 2009. However, it is noteworthy that despite the decrease of 16 % in consumption in 2009, the volume of Indian imports increased by 30 %.\n(99)\nIn 2010 and the IP Union consumption increased in line with the general economic recovery. However, sales volume of the Union industry increased only slightly, by 3 % in 2010 and by 4,7 % in the IP This compares to an annual increase in Indian imports by 16 % and 10 % respectively.\n(100)\nUnder normal economic conditions and in the absence of strong price pressure and increased import levels from India, the Union industry might have had some difficulty in coping with the decrease in consumption and the increase in fixed costs per unit due to the decreased capacity utilisation it experienced. However, the low-priced Indian imports, majority of which were found not to be dumped, have intensified the effect of the economic downturn and even during the general economic recovery, the Union industry was unable to recover and to regain the market share lost to the Indian imports.\n(101)\nTherefore, although the economic crisis 2008-2009 may have contributed to the Union industry's poor performance, it cannot be considered to have a material impact on the injurious situation of the Union industry.\n6.3.4. Export performance of the sampled Union industry\nTable 12\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nExport sales in tonnes\n967\n689\n933\n884\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n71\n97\n91\nUnit selling price in euro\n4 770\n3 060\n4 020\n4 313\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n64\n84\n90\nSource: Questionnaire replies sampled EU producers\n(102)\nDuring the period considered the volume of export sales of the sampled Union industry decreased by 9 % while average export prices dropped by 10 %. While it cannot be excluded that the negative trend in the export performance may have had a further negative impact on the Union industry, it is considered that, given the low volume of exports in relation to sales on the Union market, this impact was not material in respect of the injury found.\n6.4. Conclusion on causation\n(103)\nThe above analysis demonstrated that there was a substantial increase over the period considered in the volume and market share of the low-priced imports originating in India. It was also found that these imports were constantly undercutting the prices charged by the Union industry on the Union market.\n(104)\nHowever, in view of the finding that the largest Indian exporting producer, which represented 87 % of the Indian exports to the Union in the IP did not export SSF to the Union at dumped prices, it is considered that a causal link between the dumped imports, accounting for a mere 13 % of the total quantity exported from India, and the injury suffered by the Union industry cannot be sufficiently established. Indeed, it cannot be argued that the dumped Indian exports, in view of their limited volume and very limited market share (2 %) and the fact that their prices were on average 12 % higher than those of the non-dumped imports, would be causing the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(105)\nThe analysis of the other known factors, which could have caused injury to the Union industry, including the non-dumped imports, imports from other third countries, the economic crisis and the export performance of the sampled Union industry showed that the injury suffered by the Union industry appears to be due to the impact of the non-dumped imports from India which represented 87 % of all Indian exports to the Union in the IP and which were made at significantly lower prices than the dumped imports.\n7. TERMINATION OF THE ANTI-DUMPING PROCEEDING\n(106)\nIn the absence of a material causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry, it is considered that anti-dumping measures are unnecessary and therefore the present anti-dumping proceeding should be terminated in accordance with Article 9(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(107)\nThe complainant and all other interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. The comments received did not alter the conclusion that the present anti-dumping proceeding should be terminated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof, currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70, originating in India, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 22 March 2012.", "references": ["39", "66", "52", "34", "45", "17", "64", "91", "76", "10", "31", "19", "85", "41", "2", "6", "5", "90", "1", "28", "7", "54", "46", "51", "32", "59", "56", "58", "71", "79", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "82", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "82", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/85/EU\nof 2 December 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include zinc phosphide as active substance and amending Decision 2008/941/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 1112/2002 (2) and (EC) No 2229/2004 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included zinc phosphide.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 24e of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 the applicant withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/941/EC of 8 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of zinc phosphide.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the application of the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Germany, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/941/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nGermany evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 20 July 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on zinc phosphide to the Commission on 2 July 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 October 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for zinc phosphide.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing zinc phosphide may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include zinc phosphide in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(8)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing zinc phosphide to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(9)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(10)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(11)\nDecision 2008/941/EC concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances provides for the non-inclusion of zinc phosphide and the withdrawal of authorisation of plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning zinc phosphide in the Annex to that Decision.\n(12)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/941/EC accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning zinc phosphide in the Annex to Decision 2008/941/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31 October 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 November 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing zinc phosphide as an active substance by 1 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to zinc phosphide are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing zinc phosphide as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 30 April 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning zinc phosphide. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing zinc phosphide as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 April 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing zinc phosphide as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 April 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 May 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["99", "24", "16", "66", "51", "34", "5", "89", "50", "0", "18", "30", "73", "55", "21", "80", "40", "75", "41", "27", "49", "37", "9", "95", "88", "3", "74", "85", "44", "11", "No Label", "2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 590/2011\nof 20 June 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008, laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (1), and in particular Article 33(2) and Article 38(d) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 (2) has set out a relatively short period for the control bodies and control authorities to send their application for recognition for the purpose of compliance in accordance with Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. As there is no experience with the direct application of Union rules on organic production and labeling of organic products outside the territory of the Union, more time should be given to control bodies and control authorities wishing to request their inclusion in the list for the purpose of compliance.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 has established a list of third countries whose system of production and control measures for organic production of agricultural products are recognised as equivalent to those laid down in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. In the light of a new application and information received by the Commission from third countries since the last publication of the list, certain modifications should be taken into consideration and the list should be adapted accordingly.\n(3)\nCertain agricultural products imported from Canada are currently marketed in the Union pursuant to the transitional rules provided for in Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008. Canada submitted a request to the Commission to be included in the list provided for in Annex III to that Regulation. It submitted the information required pursuant to Articles 7 and 8 of that Regulation. The examination of this information and consequent discussion with the Canadian authorities have led to the conclusion that in that country the rules governing production and controls of agricultural products are equivalent to those laid down in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. The Commission has carried out an on-the-spot check of the rules of production and the control measures actually applied in Canada, as provided for in Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007.\n(4)\nThe Costa Rican, Indian, Israeli, Japanese and Tunisian authorities have asked the Commission to include new control and certification bodies and have provided the Commission with the necessary guarantees that they meet the preconditions laid down in Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008.\n(5)\nThe duration of inclusion of Costa Rica and New Zealand in the list provided for in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 expires on 30 June 2011. In order to avoid trade disruption, there is a need to prolong the inclusion of Costa Rica and New Zealand. In the light of the experience, the inclusion should be prolonged for an unlimited period.\n(6)\nNew Zealand transmitted editorial amendments to the relevant specifications provided in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 following the recent amalgamation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1235/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the regulatory Committee on organic production,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1235/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 4, \u201831 October 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 October 2014\u2019;\n(2)\nAnnex III is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["9", "41", "15", "45", "76", "54", "3", "96", "98", "62", "58", "7", "67", "90", "88", "5", "17", "4", "85", "63", "60", "78", "13", "24", "52", "11", "82", "8", "14", "53", "No Label", "22", "25", "61", "64", "72"], "gold": ["22", "25", "61", "64", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 583/2010\nof 1 July 2010\nimplementing Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards key investor information and conditions to be met when providing key investor information or the prospectus in a durable medium other than paper or by means of a website\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (1), and in particular Article 75(4), Article 78(7), and Article 81(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2009/65/EC specifies the main principles that should be followed in preparing and providing key investor information, including requirements concerning its format and presentation, its objectives, the main elements of the information that is to be disclosed, who should deliver the information to whom, and the methods that should be used for such delivery. Details on the content and format have been left to be developed further by means of implementing measures, which should be specific enough to ensure that investors receive the information they need in respect to particular fund structures.\n(2)\nThe form of a Regulation is justified as this form alone can ensure that the exhaustive content of key investor information is harmonised. Furthermore, a key investor information document will be more efficient where requirements applicable to it are identical in all Member States. All stakeholders should benefit from a harmonised regime on the form and content of the disclosure, which will ensure that information about investment opportunities in the UCITS\u2019 market is consistent and comparable.\n(3)\nIn some cases, key investor information can be delivered more effectively when the key investor information document is provided to investors through a website, or where the key investor information document is attached to another document when it is given to the potential investor. In these cases, however, the context in which the key investor information document appears should not undermine the key investor information document, or imply that it is an item of promotional literature or that accompanying items of promotional literature are of equal or greater relevance to the retail investor.\n(4)\nIt is necessary to ensure that the content of the information is relevant, the organisation of the information is logical and the language appropriate for retail investors. To address these concerns, this Regulation should ensure that the key investor information document is able to engage investors and aid comparisons through its format, presentation and the quality and nature of the language used. This Regulation aims to ensure consistency in the format of the document, including a common running order with identical headings.\n(5)\nThis Regulation specifies the content of the information on investment objectives and the investment policy of UCITS so that investors can easily see whether or not a fund is likely to be suitable for their needs. For this reason, the information should indicate whether returns can be expected in the form of capital growth, payment of income, or a combination of both. The description of the investment policy should indicate to the investor what the overall aims of the UCITS are and how these objectives are to be achieved. With regard to the financial instruments in which investments are to be made, only those which may have a material impact on UCITS\u2019 performance need to be mentioned, rather than all possible eligible instruments.\n(6)\nThis Regulation lays down detailed rules on the presentation of the risk and reward profile of the investment, by requiring use of a synthetic indicator and specifying the content of narrative explanations of the indicator itself and risks which are not captured by the indicator, but which may have a material impact on the risk and reward profile of the UCITS. In applying the rules on the synthetic indicator account should be taken of the methodology for the calculation of the synthetic indicator as developed by competent authorities working within the Committee of European Securities Regulators. The management company should decide on a case-by-case basis which specific risks should be disclosed by analysing the particular characteristics of each fund, bearing in mind the need to avoid over-burdening the document with information that retail investors will find difficult to understand. In addition the narrative explanation of the risk and reward profile should be limited in size in terms of the amount of space it occupies within the key investor information document. It should be possible to have cross-references to the prospectus of the UCITS where full details of its risks are disclosed.\n(7)\nConsistency should be ensured between the explanation of risks in the key investor information document and the management company\u2019s internal processes related to risk management, established in accordance with Commission Directive 2010/43/EU of 1 July 2010 implementing Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and the Council as regards organisational requirements, conflicts of interests, conduct of business, risk management and content of the agreement between a depositary and a management company (2). For instance, so as to ensure consistency, the permanent risk management function should where appropriate be given the opportunity to review and comment on the risk and reward profile section of the key investor information document.\n(8)\nThis Regulation specifies the common format for the presentation and explanation of charges, including relevant warnings, so that investors are appropriately informed about the charges they will have to incur and their proportion to the amount of capital actually invested into the fund. In applying these rules, account should be taken of the work on the methodology for the calculation of charges figures as developed by competent authorities working within the Committee of European Securities Regulators.\n(9)\nThe detailed rules on the presentation of information about past performance are based on the requirements for such information in the Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (3). This Regulation supplements the rules of Directive 2004/39/EC by including specific requirements necessary for harmonising the information for the purpose of facilitating comparisons between different key investor information documents. In particular, this Regulation prescribes that only net annual returns shall be shown, through a bar chart format. Certain aspects of the presentation of the bar chart should be regulated, including the limited circumstances in which simulated data might be used.\n(10)\nIt should be recognised that cross-referring to information might be useful to the investor but it is essential that the key investor information document should contain all information necessary for the investor to understand the essential elements of the UCITS. If cross-references to sources of information other than the prospectus and periodic reports are used, it should be made clear that the prospectus and periodic reports are the primary sources of additional information for investors, and the cross-references should not downplay their significance.\n(11)\nThe key investor information document should be reviewed and revised as appropriate and as frequently as is necessary to ensure that it continues to meet the requirements for key investor information specified in Articles 78(2) and 79(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC. As a matter of good practice, management companies should review the key investor information document before entering into any initiative that is likely to result in a significant number of new investors acquiring units in the fund.\n(12)\nThe form or content of key investor information may need to be adjusted to specific cases. Consequently, this Regulation tailors the general rules applicable to all UCITS so as to take into account the specific situation of certain types of UCITS, namely those having different investment compartments or share classes, those with fund of funds structures, those with master-feeder structures, and those that are structured, such as capital protected or comparable UCITS.\n(13)\nWith regard to UCITS having different share classes, there should be no obligation to produce a separate key investor information document for every such share class, so long as investors\u2019 interests are not compromised. The details of two or more classes may be combined into a single key investor information document only where this can be done without making the document too complicated or crowded. Alternatively, a representative class may be selected, but only in cases where there is sufficient similarity between the classes such that information about the representative class is fair, clear and not misleading as regards the represented class. In determining whether the use of a representative class is fair, clear and not misleading, regard should be had to the characteristics of the UCITS, the nature of the differences represented by each class, and the range of choices on offer to each investor or group of investors.\n(14)\nIn the case of a fund of funds, the right balance is kept between the information on the UCITS that the investor invests in and its underlying collectives. The key investor information document of a fund of funds should therefore be prepared on the basis that the investor does not wish or need to be informed in detail about the individual features of each of the underlying collectives, which in any case are likely to vary from time to time if the UCITS is being actively managed. However, in order for the key investor information document to deliver effective disclosure of the fund of funds\u2019 objective and investment policy, risk factors, and charging structure, the characteristics of its underlying funds should be transparent.\n(15)\nIn the case of master-feeder structures, the description of the feeder UCITS\u2019 risk and reward profile should not be materially different to that of the corresponding section in the master UCITS\u2019 key investor information document so that the feeder can copy information from the key investor information document of the master wherever it is relevant. However, this information should be supplemented by relevant statements or duly adjusted in those cases where ancillary assets held by the feeder might modify the risk profile compared to the master, addressing the risks inherent in these ancillary assets, for instance where derivatives are used. The combined costs of investing in the feeder and the master should be disclosed to investors in the feeder.\n(16)\nWith regard to structured UCITS, such as capital protected and other comparable UCITS, the provision of prospective performance scenarios in place of past performance information is required. Prospective performance scenarios involve calculating the expected return of the fund under favourable, adverse, or neutral hypotheses regarding market conditions. These scenarios should be chosen so as to effectively illustrate the full range of possible outcomes according to the formula.\n(17)\nWhere the key investor information and the prospectus are to be provided in a durable medium other than paper or by means of a website, additional safety measures are necessary for investor protection reasons, so as to ensure that investors receive information in a form relevant to their needs, and so as to maintain the integrity of the information provided, prevent alterations that undermine its comprehensibility and effectiveness, and avoid manipulation or modification by unauthorised persons. This Regulation contains a reference to rules on durable medium laid down in the Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive (4) in order to ensure the equal treatment of investors and a level playing field in financial sectors.\n(18)\nIn order to allow management companies and investment companies to adapt to the new requirements contained in this Regulation in an efficient and effective manner, the starting date of application of this Regulation should be aligned with the transposition of Directive 2009/65/EC.\n(19)\nThe Committee of European Securities Regulators, established by Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (5), has been consulted for technical advice.\n(20)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Securities Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT MATTER AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down the detailed rules for the implementation of Articles 75(2), 78(2) to (5) and 81(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC.\nArticle 2\nGeneral principles\n1. Requirements laid down in this Regulation shall apply to any management company with regard to each UCITS it manages.\n2. This Regulation shall apply to any investment company which has not designated a management company authorised pursuant to Directive 2009/65/EC.\nArticle 3\nPrinciples regarding the key investor information document\n1. This Regulation specifies in an exhaustive manner the form and content of the document containing key investor information (hereinafter referred to as key investor information document). No other information or statements shall be included except where this Regulation states otherwise.\n2. The key investor information shall be fair, clear and not misleading.\n3. The key investor information document shall be provided in such a way as to ensure that investors are able to distinguish it from other material. In particular, it shall not be presented or delivered in a way that is likely to lead investors to consider it less important than other information about the UCITS and its risks and benefits.\nCHAPTER II\nFORM AND PRESENTATION OF KEY INVESTOR INFORMATION\nSECTION 1\nTitle of document, order of contents and headings of sections\nArticle 4\nTitle and content of document\n1. The content of the key investor information document shall be presented in the order as set out in paragraphs 2 to 13.\n2. The title \u2018Key investor information\u2019 shall appear prominently at the top of the first page of the key investor information document.\n3. An explanatory statement shall appear directly underneath the title. It shall read:\n\u2018This document provides you with key investor information about this fund. It is not marketing material. The information is required by law to help you understand the nature and the risks of investing in this fund. You are advised to read it so you can make an informed decision about whether to invest\u2019.\n4. The identification of the UCITS, including the share class or investment compartment thereof, shall be stated prominently. In the case of an investment compartment or share class, the name of the UCITS shall follow the compartment or share class name. Where a code number identifying the UCITS, investment compartment or share class exists, it shall form part of the identification of the UCITS.\n5. The name of the management company shall be stated.\n6. In addition, in cases where the management company forms part of a group of companies for legal, administrative or marketing purposes, the name of that group may be stated. Corporate branding may be included provided it does not hinder an investor in understanding the key elements of the investment or diminish his ability to compare investment products.\n7. The section of the key investor information document entitled \u2018Objectives and investment policy\u2019 shall contain the information set out in Section 1 of Chapter III of this Regulation.\n8. The section of the key investor information document entitled \u2018Risk and reward profile\u2019 shall contain the information set out in Section 2 of Chapter III of this Regulation.\n9. The section of the key investor information document entitled \u2018Charges\u2019 shall contain the information set out in Section 3 of Chapter III of this Regulation.\n10. The section of the key investor information document entitled \u2018Past performance\u2019 shall contain the information set out in Section 4 of Chapter III of this Regulation.\n11. The section of the key investor information document entitled \u2018Practical information\u2019 shall contain the information set out in Section 5 of Chapter III of this Regulation.\n12. Authorisation details shall consist of the following statement:\n\u2018This fund is authorised in [name of Member State] and regulated by [identity of competent authority]\u2019.\nIn cases where the UCITS is managed by a management company exercising rights under Article 16 of Directive 2009/65/EC, an additional statement shall be included:\n\u2018[Name of management company] is authorised in [name of Member State] and regulated by [identity of competent authority]\u2019.\n13. Information on publication shall consist of the following statement:\n\u2018This key investor information is accurate as at [the date of publication]\u2019.\nSECTION 2\nLanguage, length and presentation\nArticle 5\nPresentation and language\n1. A key investor information document shall be:\n(a)\npresented and laid out in a way that is easy to read, using characters of readable size;\n(b)\nclearly expressed and written in language that communicates in a way that facilitates the investor's understanding of the information being communicated, in particular where:\n(i)\nthe language used is clear, succinct and comprehensible;\n(ii)\nthe use of jargon is avoided;\n(iii)\ntechnical terms are avoided when everyday words can be used instead;\n(c)\nfocused on the key information that investors need.\n2. Where colours are used, they shall not diminish the comprehensibility of the information in the event that the key investor information document is printed or photocopied in black and white.\n3. Where the design of the corporate branding of the management company or the group to which it belongs is used, it shall not distract the investor or obscure the text.\nArticle 6\nLength\nThe key investor information document shall not exceed two pages of A4-sized paper when printed.\nCHAPTER III\nCONTENT OF SECTIONS OF THE KEY INVESTOR INFORMATION DOCUMENT\nSECTION 1\nObjectives and investment policy\nArticle 7\nSpecific contents of the description\n1. The description contained in the \u2018Objectives and investment policy\u2019 section of the key investor information document shall cover those essential features of the UCITS about which an investor should be informed, even if these features do not form part of the description of objectives and investment policy in the prospectus, including:\n(a)\nthe main categories of eligible financial instruments that are the object of investment;\n(b)\nthe possibility that the investor may redeem units of UCITS on demand, qualifying that statement with an indication as to the frequency of dealing in units;\n(c)\nwhether the UCITS has a particular target in relation to any industrial, geographic or other market sectors or specific classes of assets;\n(d)\nwhether the UCITS allows for discretionary choices in regards to the particular investments that are to be made, and whether this approach includes or implies a reference to a benchmark and if so, which one;\n(e)\nwhether dividend income is distributed or reinvested.\nFor the purposes of point (d), where a reference to a benchmark is implied, the degree of freedom available in relation to this benchmark shall be indicated, and where the UCITS has an index-tracking objective, this shall be stated.\n2. The description referred to in paragraph 1 shall include the following information, so long as it is relevant:\n(a)\nwhere the UCITS invests in debt securities, an indication of whether they are issued by corporate bodies, governments or other entities, and, if applicable, any minimum rating requirements;\n(b)\nwhere the UCITS is a structured fund, an explanation in simple terms of all elements necessary for a correct understanding of the pay-off and the factors that are expected to determine performance, including references, if necessary, to the details on the algorithm and its workings which appear in the prospectus;\n(c)\nwhere the choice of assets is guided by specific criteria, an explanation of those criteria, such as \u2018growth\u2019, \u2018value\u2019 or \u2018high dividends\u2019;\n(d)\nwhere specific asset management techniques are used, which may include hedging, arbitrage or leverage, an explanation in simple terms of the factors that are expected to determine the performance of the UCITS;\n(e)\nwhere the impact of portfolio transaction costs on returns is likely to be material due to the strategy adopted by the UCITS, a statement that this is the case, making it also clear that portfolio transaction costs are paid from the assets of the fund in addition to the charges set out in Section 3 of this Chapter;\n(f)\nwhere a minimum recommended term for holding units in the UCITS is stated either in the prospectus or in any marketing documents, or where it is stated that a minimum holding period is an essential element of the investment strategy, a statement with the following wording:\n\u2018Recommendation: this fund may not be appropriate for investors who plan to withdraw their money within [period of time]\u2019.\n3. Information included under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall distinguish between the broad categories of investments as specified under paragraphs 1(a), (c) and 2(a) and the approach to these investments to be adopted by a management company as specified under paragraphs 1(d) and 2 (b), (c) and (d).\n4. The \u2018Objectives and investment policy\u2019 section of the key investor information document may contain elements other than those listed in paragraph 2, including the description of the UCITS\u2019 investment strategy, where these elements are necessary to adequately describe the objectives and investment policy of the UCITS.\nSECTION 2\nRisk and reward profile\nArticle 8\nExplanation of potential risks and rewards, including the use of an indicator\n1. The \u2018Risk and reward profile\u2019 section of the key investor information document shall contain a synthetic indicator, supplemented by:\n(a)\na narrative explanation of the indicator and its main limitations;\n(b)\na narrative explanation of risks which are materially relevant to the UCITS and which are not adequately captured by the synthetic indicator.\n2. The synthetic indicator referred to in paragraph 1 shall take the form of a series of categories on a numerical scale with the UCITS assigned to one of the categories. The presentation of the synthetic indicator shall comply with the requirements laid down in Annex I.\n3. The computation of the synthetic indicator referred to in paragraph 1, as well as any of its subsequent revisions, shall be adequately documented.\nManagement companies shall keep records of these computations for a period of not less than five years. This period shall be extended to five years after maturity for the case of structured funds.\n4. The narrative explanation referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall include the following information:\n(a)\na statement that historical data, such as is used in calculating the synthetic indicator, may not be a reliable indication of the future risk profile of the UCITS;\n(b)\na statement that the risk and reward category shown is not guaranteed to remain unchanged and that the categorisation of the UCITS may shift over time;\n(c)\na statement that the lowest category does not mean a risk-free investment;\n(d)\na brief explanation as to why the UCITS is in a specific category;\n(e)\ndetails of the nature, timing and extent of any capital guarantee or protection offered by the UCITS, including the potential effects of redeeming units outside of the guaranteed or protected period.\n5. The narrative explanation referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall include the following categories of risks, where these are material:\n(a)\ncredit risk, where a significant level of investment is made in debt securities;\n(b)\nliquidity risk, where a significant level of investment is made in financial instruments, which are by their nature sufficiently liquid, yet which may under certain circumstances have a relatively low level of liquidity, so as to have an impact on the level of liquidity risk of the UCITS as a whole;\n(c)\ncounterparty risk, where a fund is backed by a guarantee from a third party, or where its investment exposure is obtained to a material degree through one or more contracts with a counterparty;\n(d)\noperational risks and risks related to safekeeping of assets;\n(e)\nimpact of financial techniques as referred to in Article 50(1)(g) of Directive 2009/65/EC such as derivative contracts on the UCITS\u2019 risk profile where such techniques are used to obtain, increase or reduce exposure to underlying assets.\nArticle 9\nPrinciples governing the identification, explanation and presentation of risks\nThe identification and explanation of risks referred to in Article 8(1)(b) shall be consistent with the internal process for identifying, measuring and monitoring risk adopted by the UCITS\u2019 management company as laid down in Directive 2010/43/EU. Where a management company manages more than one UCITS, the risks shall be identified and explained in a consistent fashion.\nSECTION 3\nCharges\nArticle 10\nPresentation of charges\n1. The \u2018Charges\u2019 section of the key investor information document shall contain a presentation of charges in the form of a table as laid down in Annex II.\n2. The table referred to in paragraph 1 shall be completed in accordance with the following requirements:\n(a)\nentry and exit charges shall each be the maximum percentage which might be deducted from the investor\u2019s capital commitment to the UCITS;\n(b)\na single figure shall be shown for charges taken from the UCITS over a year, to be known as the \u2018ongoing charges,\u2019 representing all annual charges and other payments taken from the assets of the UCITS over the defined period, and based on the figures for the preceding year;\n(c)\nthe table shall list and explain any charges taken from the UCITS under certain specific conditions, the basis on which the charge is calculated, and when the charge applies.\nArticle 11\nExplanation of charges and a statement about the importance of charges\n1. The \u2018Charges\u2019 section shall contain a narrative explanation of each of the charges specified in the table including the following information:\n(a)\nwith regard to entry and exit charges:\n(i)\nit shall be made clear that the charges are always maximum figures, as in some cases the investor might pay less;\n(ii)\na statement shall be included stating that the investor can find out the actual entry and exit charges from their financial adviser or distributor;\n(b)\nwith regard to \u2018ongoing charges\u2019, there shall be a statement that the ongoing charges figure is based on the last year\u2019s expenses, for the year ending [month/year], and that this figure may vary from year to year where this is the case.\n2. The \u2018Charges\u2019 section shall contain a statement about the importance of charges which shall make clear that the charges an investor pays are used to pay the costs of running the UCITS, including the costs of marketing and distributing the UCITS, and that these charges reduce the potential growth of the investment.\nArticle 12\nAdditional requirements\n1. All of the elements of the charging structure shall be presented as clearly as possible to allow investors to consider the combined impact of the charges.\n2. Where the impact of portfolio transaction costs on returns is likely to be material due to the strategy adopted by the UCITS, this shall be stated within the \u2018Objectives and investment policy\u2019 section, as indicated in Article 7(2)(e).\n3. Performance fees shall be disclosed in accordance with Article 10(2)(c). The amount of the performance fee charged during the UCITS\u2019 last financial year shall be included as a percentage figure.\nArticle 13\nSpecific cases\n1. Where a new UCITS cannot comply with the requirements contained in Article 10(2)(b) and Article 11(1)(b), the ongoing charges shall be estimated, based on the expected total of charges.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply in the following cases:\n(a)\nfor funds which charge a fixed all-inclusive fee, where instead that figure shall be displayed;\n(b)\nfor funds which set a cap or maximum on the amount that can be charged, where instead that figure shall be disclosed so long as the management company gives a commitment to respect the published figure and to absorb any costs that would otherwise cause it to be exceeded.\nArticle 14\nCross-referencing\nThe \u2018Charges\u2019 section shall include, where relevant, a cross-reference to those parts of the UCITS prospectus where more detailed information on charges can be found, including information on performance fees and how they are calculated.\nSECTION 4\nPast performance\nArticle 15\nPresentation of past performance\n1. The information about the past performance of the UCITS shall be presented in a bar chart covering the performance of the UCITS for the last 10 years.\nThe size of the bar chart referred to in the first subparagraph shall allow for legibility, but shall under no circumstances exceed half a page in the key investor information document.\n2. UCITS with performance of less than 5 complete calendar years shall use a presentation covering the last 5 years only.\n3. For any years for which data is not available, the year shall be shown as blank with no annotation other than the date.\n4. For a UCITS which does not yet have performance data for one complete calendar year, a statement shall be included explaining that there is insufficient data to provide a useful indication of past performance to investors.\n5. The bar chart layout shall be supplemented by statements which appear prominently and which:\n(a)\nwarn about its limited value as a guide to future performance;\n(b)\nindicate briefly which charges and fees have been included or excluded from the calculation of past performance;\n(c)\nindicate the year in which the fund came into existence;\n(d)\nindicate the currency in which past performance has been calculated.\nThe requirement laid down in point (b) shall not apply to UCITS which do not have entry or exit charges.\n6. A key investor information document shall not contain any record of past performance for any part of the current calendar year.\nArticle 16\nPast performance calculation methodology\nThe calculation of past performance figures shall be based on the net asset value of the UCITS, and they shall be calculated on the basis that any distributable income of the fund has been reinvested.\nArticle 17\nImpact and treatment of material changes\n1. Where a material change occurs to a UCITS\u2019 objectives and investment policy during the period displayed in the bar chart referred to in Article 15, the UCITS\u2019 past performance prior to that material change shall continue to be shown.\n2. The period prior to the material change referred to in paragraph 1 shall be indicated on the bar chart and labelled with a clear warning that the performance was achieved under circumstances that no longer apply.\nArticle 18\nUse of a benchmark alongside the past performance\n1. Where the \u2018Objectives and investment policy\u2019 section of the key investor information document makes reference to a benchmark, a bar showing the performance of that benchmark shall be included in the chart alongside each bar showing the UCITS\u2019 past performance.\n2. For UCITS which do not have past performance data over the required five or 10 years, the benchmark shall not be shown for years in which the UCITS did not exist.\nArticle 19\nUse of \u2018simulated\u2019 data for past performance\n1. A simulated performance record for the period before data was available shall only be permitted in the following cases, provided that its use is fair, clear and not misleading:\n(a)\na new share class of an existing UCITS or investment compartment may simulate its performance by taking the performance of another class, provided the two classes do not differ materially in the extent of their participation in the assets of the UCITS;\n(b)\na feeder UCITS may simulate its performance by taking the performance of its master UCITS, provided that one of the following conditions are met:\n(i)\nthe feeder\u2019s strategy and objectives do not allow it to hold assets other than units of the master and ancillary liquid assets;\n(ii)\nthe feeder\u2019s characteristics do not differ materially from those of the master.\n2. In all cases where performance has been simulated in accordance with paragraph 1, there shall be prominent disclosure on the bar chart that the performance has been simulated.\n3. A UCITS changing its legal status but remaining established in the same Member State shall retain its performance record only where the competent authority of the Member State reasonably assesses that the change of status would not impact the UCITS\u2019 performance.\n4. In the case of mergers referred to in Article 2(1)(p)(i) and (iii) of Directive 2009/65/EC, only the past performance of the receiving UCITS shall be maintained in the key investor information document.\nSECTION 5\nPractical information and cross-references\nArticle 20\nContent of \u2018practical information\u2019 section\n1. The \u2018Practical information\u2019 section of the key investor information document shall contain the following information relevant to investors in every Member State in which the UCITS is marketed:\n(a)\nthe name of the depositary;\n(b)\nwhere and how to obtain further information about the UCITS, copies of its prospectus and its latest annual report and any subsequent half-yearly report, stating in which language(s) those documents are available, and that they may be obtained free of charge;\n(c)\nwhere and how to obtain other practical information, including where to find the latest prices of units;\n(d)\na statement that the tax legislation of the UCITS\u2019 home Member State may have an impact on the personal tax position of the investor;\n(e)\nthe following statement:\n\u2018[Insert name of investment company or management company] may be held liable solely on the basis of any statement contained in this document that is misleading, inaccurate or inconsistent with the relevant parts of the prospectus for the UCITS.\u2019\n2. Where the key investor information document is prepared for a UCITS investment compartment, the \u2018Practical information\u2019 section shall include the information specified in Article 25(2) including on investors\u2019 rights to switch between compartments.\n3. Where applicable, the \u2018Practical information\u2019 section of the key investor information document shall state the information required about available share classes in accordance with Article 26.\nArticle 21\nUse of cross-references to other sources of information\n1. Cross-references to other sources of information, including the prospectus and annual or half-yearly reports, may be included in the key investor information document, provided that all information fundamental to the investors\u2019 understanding of the essential elements of the investment is included in the key investor information document itself.\nCross-references shall be permitted to the website of the UCITS or the management company, including a part of any such website containing the prospectus and the periodic reports.\n2. Cross-references referred to in paragraph 1 shall direct the investor to the specific section of the relevant source of information. Several different cross-references may be used within the key investor information document but they shall be kept to a minimum.\nSECTION 6\nReview and revision of the key investor information document\nArticle 22\nReview of key investor information\n1. A management company or investment company shall ensure that a review of key investor information is carried out at least every twelve months.\n2. A review shall be carried out prior to any proposed change to the prospectus, the fund rules or the instrument of incorporation of the investment company where these changes were not subject to review as referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. A review shall be carried out prior to or following any changes regarded as material to the information contained in the key investor information document.\nArticle 23\nPublication of the revised version\n1. Where a review referred to in Article 22 indicates that changes need to be made to the key investor information document, its revised version shall be made available promptly.\n2. Where a change to the key investor information document was the expected result of a decision by the management company, including changes to the prospectus, fund rules or the instrument of incorporation of the investment company, the revised version of the key investor information document shall be made available before the change comes into effect.\n3. A key investor information document with duly revised presentation of past performance of the UCITS shall be made available no later than 35 business days after 31 December each year.\nArticle 24\nMaterial changes to the charging structure\n1. The information on charges shall properly reflect any change to the charging structure that results in an increase in the maximum permitted amount of any one-off charge payable directly by the investor.\n2. Where the \u2018ongoing charges\u2019 calculated in accordance with Article 10(2)(b) are no longer reliable, the management company shall instead estimate a figure for \u2018ongoing charges\u2019 that it believes on reasonable grounds to be indicative of the amount likely to be charged to the UCITS in future.\nThis change of basis shall be disclosed through the following statement:\n\u2018The ongoing charges figure shown here is an estimate of the charges. [Insert short description of why an estimate is being used rather than an ex-post figure.] The UCITS' annual report for each financial year will include detail on the exact charges made.\u2019\nCHAPTER IV\nPARTICULAR UCITS STRUCTURES\nSECTION 1\nInvestment compartments\nArticle 25\nInvestment compartments\n1. Where a UCITS consists of two or more investment compartments a separate key investor information document shall be produced for each individual compartment.\n2. Each key investor information document referred to in paragraph 1 shall indicate within the \u2018practical information\u2019 section the following information:\n(a)\nthat the key investor information document describes a compartment of a UCITS, and, if it is the case, that the prospectus and periodic reports are prepared for the entire UCITS named at the beginning of the key investor information document;\n(b)\nwhether or not the assets and liabilities of each compartment are segregated by law and how this might affect the investor;\n(c)\nwhether or not the investor has the right to exchange his investment in units in one compartment for units in another compartment, and if so, where to obtain information about how to exercise that right.\n3. Where the management company sets a charge for the investor to exchange his investment in accordance with paragraph 2(c), and that charge differs from the standard charge for buying or selling units, that charge shall be stated separately in the \u2018Charges\u2019 section of the key investor information document.\nSECTION 2\nShare classes\nArticle 26\nKey investor information document for share classes\n1. Where a UCITS consists of more than one class of units or shares, the key investor information document shall be prepared for each class of units or shares.\n2. The key investor information pertinent to two or more classes of the same UCITS may be combined into a single key investor information document, provided that the resulting document fully complies with all requirements as laid down in Section 2 of Chapter II, including as to length.\n3. The management company may select a class to represent one or more other classes of the UCITS, provided the choice is fair, clear and not misleading to potential investors in those other classes. In such cases the \u2018Risk and reward profile\u2019 section of the key investor information document shall contain the explanation of material risk applicable to any of the other classes being represented. A key investor information document based on the representative class may be provided to investors in the other classes.\n4. Different classes shall not be combined into a composite representative class as referred to in paragraph 3.\n5. The management company shall keep a record of which other classes are represented by the representative class referred to in paragraph 3 and the grounds justifying that choice.\nArticle 27\nPractical information section\nIf applicable, the \u2018Practical information\u2019 section of the key investor information document shall be supplemented by an indication of which class has been selected as representative, using the term by which it is designated in the UCITS\u2019 prospectus.\nThat section shall also indicate where investors can obtain information about the other classes of the UCITS that are marketed in their own Member State.\nSECTION 3\nFund of funds\nArticle 28\nObjectives and investment policy section\nWhere the UCITS invests a substantial proportion of its assets in other UCITS or other collective investment undertakings as referred to in Article 50(1)(e) of Directive 2009/65/EC, the description of the objectives and investment policy of that UCITS in the key investor information document shall include a brief explanation of how the other collective undertakings are to be selected on an ongoing basis.\nArticle 29\nRisk and reward profile\nThe narrative explanation of risk factors referred to in Article 8(1)(b) shall take account of the risks posed by each underlying collective undertaking, to the extent that these are likely to be material to the UCITS as a whole.\nArticle 30\nCharges section\nThe description of the charges shall take account of any charges that that UCITS will itself incur as an investor in the underlying collective undertakings. Specifically, any entry and exit charges and ongoing charges levied by the underlying collective undertakings shall be reflected in the UCITS\u2019 calculation of its own ongoing charges figure.\nSECTION 4\nFeeder UCITS\nArticle 31\nObjectives and investment policy section\n1. The key investor information document for a feeder UCITS, as defined in Article 58 of Directive 2009/65/EC, shall contain, in the description of objectives and investment policy, information about the proportion of the feeder UCITS\u2019 assets which is invested in the master UCITS.\n2. There shall also be a description of the master UCITS\u2019 objectives and investment policy, supplemented as appropriate by either of the following:\n(i)\nan indication that the feeder UCITS\u2019 investment returns will be very similar to those of the master UCITS; or\n(ii)\nan explanation of how and why the investment returns of the feeder and master UCITS may differ.\nArticle 32\nRisk and reward profile section\n1. Where the risk and reward profile of the feeder UCITS differs in any material respect from that of the master, this fact and the reason for it shall be explained in the \u2018Risk and reward profile\u2019 section of the key investor information document.\n2. Any liquidity risk and the relationship between purchase and redemption arrangements for the master and feeder UCITS shall be explained in the \u2018Risk and reward profile\u2019 section of the key investor information document.\nArticle 33\nCharges section\nThe \u2018Charges\u2019 section of the key investor information document shall cover both the costs of investing in the feeder UCITS and any costs and expenses that the master UCITS may charge to the feeder UCITS.\nIn addition, it shall combine the costs of both the feeder and the master UCITS in the ongoing charges figure for the feeder UCITS.\nArticle 34\nPractical information section\n1. The key investor information document for a feeder UCITS shall contain in the \u2018Practical information\u2019 section information specific to the feeder UCITS.\n2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall include:\n(a)\na statement that the master UCITS\u2019 prospectus, key investor information document, and periodic reports and accounts are available to investors of the feeder UCITS upon request, how they may be obtained, and in which language(s);\n(b)\nwhether the items listed in point (a) are available in paper copies only or in other durable media, and whether any fee is payable for items not subject to free delivery in accordance with Article 63(5) of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(c)\nwhere the master UCITS is established in a different Member State to the feeder UCITS, and this may affect the feeder\u2019s tax treatment, a statement to this effect.\nArticle 35\nPast performance\n1. The past performance presentation in the key investor information document of the feeder UCITS shall be specific to the feeder UCITS, and shall not reproduce the performance record of the master UCITS.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply:\n(a)\nwhere a feeder UCITS shows the past performance of its master UCITS as a benchmark; or\n(b)\nwhere the feeder was launched as a feeder UCITS at a later date than the master UCITS, and where the conditions of Article 19 are satisfied, and where a simulated performance is shown for the years before the feeder existed, based on the past performance of the master UCITS; or\n(c)\nwhere the feeder UCITS has a past performance record from before the date on which it began to operate as a feeder, its own record being retained in the bar chart for the relevant years, with the material change labelled as required by Article 17(2).\nSECTION 5\nStructured UCITS\nArticle 36\nPerformance scenarios\n1. The key investor information document for structured UCITS shall not contain the \u2018Past performance\u2019 section.\nFor the purposes of this Section, structured UCITS shall be understood as UCITS which provide investors, at certain predetermined dates, with algorithm-based payoffs that are linked to the performance, or to the realisation of price changes or other conditions, of financial assets, indices or reference portfolios or UCITS with similar features.\n2. For structured UCITS, the \u2018Objectives and investment policy\u2019 section of the key investor information document shall include an explanation of how the formula works or how the pay-off is calculated.\n3. The explanation referred to in paragraph 2 shall be accompanied by an illustration, showing at least three scenarios of the UCITS\u2019 potential performance. Appropriate scenarios shall be chosen to show the circumstances in which the formula may generate a low, a medium or a high return, including, where applicable, a negative return for the investor.\n4. The scenarios referred to in paragraph 3 shall enable the investor to understand fully all the effects of the calculation mechanism embedded in the formula.\nThey shall be presented in a way that is fair, clear and not misleading, and that is likely to be understood by the average retail investor. In particular, they shall not artificially magnify the importance of the final performance of the UCITS.\n5. The scenarios referred to in paragraph 3 shall be based on reasonable and conservative assumptions about future market conditions and price movements.\nHowever, whenever the formula exposes investors to the possibility of substantial losses, such as a capital guarantee that functions only under certain circumstances, these losses shall be appropriately illustrated, even if the probability of the corresponding market conditions is low.\n6. The scenarios referred to in paragraph 3 shall be accompanied by a statement that they are examples that are included to illustrate the formula, and do not represent a forecast of what might happen. It shall be made clear that the scenarios shown may not have an equal probability of occurrence.\nArticle 37\nLength\nThe key investor information document for structured UCITS shall not exceed three pages of A4-sized paper when printed.\nCHAPTER V\nDURABLE MEDIUM\nArticle 38\nConditions applying to the provision of a key investor information document or a prospectus in a durable medium other than paper or by means of a website\n1. Where, for the purposes of Directive 2009/65/EC, the key investor information document or prospectus is to be provided to investors using a durable medium other than paper the following conditions shall be met:\n(a)\nthe provision of the key investor information document or the prospectus using such a durable medium is appropriate to the context in which the business between the management company and the investor is, or is to be, carried on; and\n(b)\nthe person to whom the key investor information document or the prospectus is to be provided, when offered the choice between information on paper or in that other durable medium, specifically chooses that other medium.\n2. Where the key investor information document or the prospectus is to be provided by means of a website and that information is not addressed personally to the investor, the following conditions shall also be satisfied:\n(a)\nthe provision of that information in that medium is appropriate to the context in which the business between the management company and the investor is, or is to be, carried on;\n(b)\nthe investor must specifically consent to the provision of that information in that form;\n(c)\nthe investor must be notified electronically of the address of the website, and the place on the website where the information may be accessed;\n(d)\nthe information must be up to date;\n(e)\nthe information must be accessible continuously by means of that website for such period of time as the client may reasonably need to inspect it.\n3. For the purposes of this Article, the provision of information by means of electronic communications shall be treated as appropriate to the context in which the business between the management company and the investor is, or is to be, carried on if there is evidence that the investor has regular access to the Internet. The provision by the investor of an e-mail address for the purposes of the carrying on of that business shall be treated as such evidence.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 39\nEntry into force\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. This Regulation shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2010.", "references": ["55", "83", "91", "89", "77", "23", "88", "25", "94", "17", "60", "66", "84", "1", "70", "34", "81", "18", "69", "78", "48", "85", "3", "41", "40", "14", "4", "26", "59", "74", "No Label", "20", "29", "30", "44", "46", "49", "76"], "gold": ["20", "29", "30", "44", "46", "49", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 905/2011\nof 1 September 2011\nterminating the partial interim review concerning the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation) and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Measures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating, inter alia, in India (\u2018the original investigation\u2019). Following an expiry review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 (3) imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty for a further period of five years. The anti-dumping measures were amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1286/2008 (4) following a partial interim review (\u2018the last review investigation\u2019). The measures were set at the injury elimination level and consist of specific anti-dumping duties. The rate of the duty ranges between EUR 87,5 and EUR 200,9 per tonne for individually named Indian producers with a residual duty rate of EUR 153,6 per tonne imposed on imports from other producers (\u2018the current duties\u2019).\n(2)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 2603/2000 (5), the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of PET originating, inter alia, in India. Following an expiry review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 193/2007 (6) imposed a definitive countervailing duty for a further period of five years. The countervailing measures were amended by Regulation (EC) No 1286/2008 following the last review investigation. The countervailing measures consist of a specific duty. The rate of the duty ranges between EUR 0 and EUR 106,5 per tonne for individually named Indian producers with a residual duty rate of EUR 69,4 per tonne imposed on imports from other producers (\u2018the current countervailing measures\u2019).\n(3)\nBy Decision 2000/745/EC (7) the Commission accepted undertakings offered by several exporting producers setting a minimum import price (MIP) (\u2018the undertaking\u2019).\n1.2. Request for a review\n(4)\nA request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation was lodged by Reliance Industries Limited, an Indian exporting producer of PET (\u2018the applicant\u2019). The request was limited in scope to dumping and to the applicant. The applicant at the same time also requested the review of the current countervailing measures. The residual anti-dumping and countervailing duties are applicable to imports of products produced by the applicant and sales of the applicant to the Union are governed by the undertaking.\n(5)\nThe applicant provided prima facie evidence that the continued application of the current duty at its current level was no longer necessary to offset dumping. In particular, the applicant claimed that there had been significant changes in the production costs of the company and that these changes led to a substantially lower dumping margin since the imposition of the current duties. A comparison made by the applicant of its domestic prices and its export prices to the Union suggested that the dumping margin was substantially lower than the level of current duties.\n1.3. Initiation of a partial interim review\n(6)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that the request contained sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the initiation of the partial interim review (\u2018this review\u2019), the Commission announced, by a notice of initiation (8) published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 10 June 2010, the initiation of a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation limited to the examination of dumping as far as the applicant is concerned.\n1.4. Product concerned and like product\n(7)\nThe product under review is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) having a viscosity of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in India (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n(8)\nThe investigation revealed that the product concerned produced in India and sold to the Union is identical in terms of physical and chemical characteristics and uses to the product produced and sold on the domestic market in India. It is therefore concluded that products sold on the domestic and export markets are like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. Since this review was limited to the determination of dumping as far as the applicant is concerned, no conclusions were reached with regard to the product produced and sold by the Union industry on the Union market.\n1.5. Parties concerned\n(9)\nThe Commission officially informed the applicant, the representatives of the exporting country and the association of Union producers about the initiation of the review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(10)\nAll interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons for being heard were granted a hearing.\n(11)\nIn order to obtain the information deemed necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant and received a reply within the deadline set for that purpose.\n(12)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary for the determination of dumping. The Commission carried out a verification visit at the premises of the applicant in Mumbai, India.\n1.6. Review investigation period\n(13)\nThe investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019).\n2. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n2.1. Lasting nature of the alleged change of circumstances during the RIP\n(14)\nIn accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the circumstances with regard to dumping have changed significantly and whether such change was of a lasting nature.\n(15)\nThe applicant claimed that the changes in its normal value and export prices since the original investigation establishing its dumping margin were the result of a significant change in production costs. The change in its cost of production was claimed to be linked to the reduction of customs duties applicable to imports in India of the basic raw material used in its production process. Furthermore, the applicant also claimed that the reduction of customs duties led to a reduction in export incentives which resulted in changed domestic sales prices used to determine the normal value.\n(16)\nHowever, it was found that, in spite of the reductions of custom duties and export incentives, the domestic sales prices of the company used to determine the normal value in the RIP were higher than the prices used in the original investigation establishing the applicant\u2019s dumping margin. The higher domestic sales prices resulted, inter alia, from the increased cost of certain raw materials and other inputs.\n(17)\nAs far as export prices to the Union in the RIP were concerned, they were determined pursuant to Article 2(8) and (9) of the basic Regulation. However, it had to be analysed in particular whether the existence of a price undertaking under which the applicant was obliged to sell its product to the Union market at a price above a MIP set for each month during the RIP has influenced the export prices of the applicant. It was concluded, for the reasons set out below, that the exports to the Union were indeed influenced by the price undertaking. In this regard, given that the applicant had to comply with the undertaking MIP obligations, it chose not to export to the Union during specific months of the RIP when its export prices to other export markets were below the MIP.\n(18)\nIt was observed that the applicant sold its product to the Union only during six months of the RIP. On the other hand, it sold products throughout the period to other export markets where it did not have to comply with the obligation set in the price undertaking. It was noted that export prices to third countries in the months during which the applicant did not export to the Union were significantly lower than the established MIP. Therefore, in the light of the above, it can be reasonably assumed that the applicant\u2019s sole reason for not selling products to the Union in the remaining months was that it had to comply with its undertaking and could not sell below the MIP set.\n(19)\nThe applicant contested the finding that the reason for not selling products to the Union market was linked to the existing undertaking. The applicant argued that in regard to its sales in the RIP to other large export markets there were months during which there were no sales and thus irregular sales were not a specific feature of the Union market. It also claimed that a monthly comparison of the import prices of the product concerned to the Union from all other exporting countries and/or the import prices of the product concerned originating in India with the monthly MIP of the company would show that the applicant would have been able to sell products to the Union in all months of the RIP without breaching its undertaking.\n(20)\nThe applicant\u2019s arguments cannot be accepted because, on the one hand, the company focussed its activity on selected individual markets which are driven by their own market specificities and do not give indications as to why the company did not sell to the Union. On the other hand, the comparisons made by the applicant were based on overall statistical data whereas the findings of this review are based on company-specific data which is a more relevant and reliable source from which to draw conclusions. The arguments presented by the applicant were also not fully valid, e.g. in some months, overall import prices to the Union were indeed higher than the MIP, while in other periods overall import prices were lower -, no general conclusions could thus be drawn from them. However, it is undisputed that the applicant had sales to the Union only in the months when the overall import prices to the Union were at the level or higher than the MIP.\n(21)\nThe applicant\u2019s argument that it would have been able, should it have wanted, to sell products on the Union market during the six months period it was selling products on other export markets at a price lower than its MIP is rejected as speculative and non-substantiated. The applicant did not put forward any other argument as to the reasons why it did not sell products to the Union during those six months while at the same time it was selling the same products on other export markets at a price lower than its MIP. Therefore, it was concluded that the applicant did not sell products to the Union during a certain period because of the need to comply with its undertaking. In consequence, the export prices charged on the Union market in the RIP are not reliable.\n(22)\nA comparison was also made between the sales prices of the applicant to the Union market and the prices achieved on other export markets for which no price undertaking existed. It was observed that export prices to those markets without price obligations were consistently lower throughout the RIP.\n(23)\nThe applicant questioned the conclusions drawn from the comparison of prices to the Union and other exports markets, claiming that when analysed on a country-by-country basis, there are several other export markets where prices charged are above the prices charged on the Union market. However, in this respect, the comparison of average prices is more relevant than the individual differences on a country-by-country comparison which will be linked to the size as well as to distinctive competitive factors at play on those individual markets.\n(24)\nConsequently, the export prices on third markets better reflect the company\u2019s normal pricing behaviour. The price differential between export prices to the Union and export prices to the rest of the world indicates that there are strong economic arguments to induce the applicant to sell at lower prices to the Union if there were no MIP. Under these circumstances it is considered that any newly calculated dumping margin based on the export prices to the Union in the RIP would thus be set on the basis of prices that have not changed significantly and in a lasting manner. The same conclusion applies to the applicant\u2019s claim, as mentioned in recital 5, that a comparison of its domestic prices and its export prices to the Union would show a dumping margin lower than the level of current duties.\n(25)\nIn light of the above, the condition set in Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation that circumstances with regard to dumping changed significantly is not met. Therefore, the continued imposition of the measures at their current level is necessary to offset dumping.\n(26)\nAfter disclosure, the applicant insisted that its prices charged on the Union market are fully reliable. Since these export prices increased significantly between the original investigation period and the RIP, the company\u2019s export behaviour should be considered also to have changed significantly and lastingly during this period. Therefore the company\u2019s dumping margin would allegedly also have decreased significantly and in a lasting manner.\n(27)\nIt furthermore argued that the lasting change in circumstances is not necessarily the determining element for the assessment to be made after initiating a review but it is more relevant whether the continued imposition of the duty is necessary to offset dumping. It referred to the fundamental principle set out in Article 11(1) and of the basic Regulation and Article 11.1 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement that anti-dumping measures shall remain in force only as long as, and to the extent that, they are necessary to counteract dumping which is causing injury. In this respect, the applicant claimed that the analysis of the necessity should be a prospective assessment that would require at the very least the likely or probable recurrence of dumping at the level previously established.\n(28)\nArticle 11(1) of the basic Regulation provides that \u2018An anti-dumping measure shall remain in force only as long as, and to the extent that, it is necessary to counteract the dumping which is causing injury\u2019. This principle is carried through to treatment of interim reviews, such as in the case at hand, where Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation provides, inter alia, that \u2018[\u2026] An interim review shall be initiated where the request contains sufficient evidence that the continued imposition of the measure is no longer necessary to offset dumping and/or that the injury would be unlikely to continue or recur if the measure were removed or varied [\u2026].\u2019 The aforementioned provision sets the benchmark to be met where an interested party considers that the level of measures is too low or too high and consequently requests a review of those measures. Once such a review is initiated, Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation goes on to explicitly provide that \u2018in carrying out investigations pursuant to this paragraph, the Commission may, inter alia, consider whether the circumstances with regard to dumping [\u2026] have changed significantly [\u2026]. In these respects, account shall be taken in the final determination of all relevant and duly documented evidence\u2019. Therefore Article 11(3) provides for an additional assessment criterion (i.e. a significant change in circumstances) in case of interim reviews that should be looked at during the investigation in addition to the initiation requirement (i.e. assessing whether the measures at the current level still necessary) as claimed by the applicant.\n(29)\nIt should also be noted that it is standard practice in interim review investigations to examine the lasting nature of the changed circumstances found during an investigation. Indeed, in this respect, the case law of the General Court of the European Union (9) confirms that \u2018when assessing the need to continue existing measures the institutions have a wide discretion, which includes the option of carrying out a prospective assessment of the pricing policy of the exporters concerned\u2019. The evidence at hand shows that the export prices charged by the applicant on the Union market do not reflect the applicant\u2019s actual pricing policy and therefore, as concluded in recital 21, the export prices charged on the Union market in the RIP are not reliable and consequently any newly calculated dumping margin based on these prices would thus be set on the basis of prices that have not changed significantly and in a lasting manner, as stated in recital 24.\n(30)\nDespite the conclusion that export prices to the Union have not changed significantly and in a lasting manner, consideration was given to the applicant\u2019s arguments and to whether the measures at their current level are still necessary to counteract dumping. In this regard, the applicant claimed that sinceits dumping margin would be significantly below that found in the original investigation and its export behaviour in other markets would confirm that the change in the dumping margin reflects the trend that can reasonably be expected in the future, the current level of measures is manifestly excessive. However, these arguments were found not to be supported by the facts. First, concerning the applicant\u2019s export behaviour on other markets, it was found that, contrary to the claim in the applicant\u2019s request, the prices to these markets were, on average, almost 10 % lower than those to the Union. These third country export markets comprise a number of countries of different market size, with some of them unlikely to have domestic production of PET. These markets are hence defined by their own individual characteristics of competition leading to prices and trends different from those on the Union market. Second, in light of these findings, even if it were found that the current level of measures should be changed on the grounds that it was no longer necessary to counteract dumping, it is not possible to determine with a reasonable degree of accuracy what would be the appropriate level in the absence of reliable export prices which result from and reflect the normal conditions on the Union market.\n(31)\nFinally the applicant considered that an adjustment could be made in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation and in particular with its point (k) for \u2018differences in other factors [\u2026] if it is demonstrated that they affect price comparability as required under this paragraph\u2019.\n(32)\nGiven the conclusion reached above that export prices did not change in a significant and lasting manner, it is not possible to establish a dumping margin. For this reason, the claim for an adjustment is irrelevant and thereby rejected.\n3. TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION\n(33)\nIn view of the findings that circumstances with regard to dumping did not change significantly and lastingly, it is considered that this review should be terminated without amending the level of the duty for the applicant. Therefore the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1286/2008 on imports of PET produced by the applicant should remain unchanged.\n4. DISCLOSURE\n(34)\nThe applicant as well as the other parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose to terminate this review. Comments received were not such as to change the above conclusion.\n5. FINAL PROVISION\n(35)\nThis review should therefore be terminated without any amendment to Regulation (EC) No 192/2007,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of polyethylene terephthalate currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating, inter alia, in India, is hereby terminated without amending the measures in force.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 September 2011.", "references": ["55", "3", "91", "24", "0", "76", "73", "2", "53", "71", "54", "90", "99", "42", "72", "26", "68", "19", "12", "35", "78", "23", "92", "6", "75", "1", "64", "49", "28", "31", "No Label", "22", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 872/2011\nof 1 September 2011\nimplementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas in view of the developments in Libya, the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entries for the entities set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 September 2011.", "references": ["99", "63", "26", "40", "76", "81", "6", "56", "69", "29", "55", "62", "35", "52", "78", "22", "43", "31", "14", "88", "57", "25", "47", "82", "92", "17", "68", "44", "83", "54", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2010/66/EU\nof 14 October 2010\namending Directive 2008/9/EC laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 113 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2008/9/EC (3), laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax (VAT), provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State, applies to refund applications submitted after 31 December 2009.\n(2)\nIn order to apply Directive 2008/9/EC, Member States are obliged to develop electronic portals via which taxable persons established in a Member State submit applications for the refund of VAT incurred in a State where they are not established. Those electronic portals should have been operational from 1 January 2010.\n(3)\nA number of serious delays and certain technical problems have affected the development and operation of the electronic portals in a limited number of Member States, thereby preventing the timely submission of certain refund applications. Pursuant to Directive 2008/9/EC, refund applications are to be submitted to the Member State of establishment at the latest on 30 September of the calendar year following the refund period. Given that deadline, and the inoperability of some of the electronic portals, some taxable persons risk being unable to exercise their right to deduct VAT on expenses incurred in 2009. The deadline should therefore exceptionally be extended to 31 March 2011 for applications relating to refund periods in 2009.\n(4)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (4), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that taxable persons will not be required to meet the deadline of 30 September 2010 in respect of applications relating to refund periods in 2009, this Directive should apply from 1 October 2010.\n(6)\nDirective 2008/9/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/9/EC the following subparagraph shall be added:\n\u2018Refund applications which relate to refund periods in 2009 shall be submitted to the Member State of establishment on 31 March 2011 at the latest.\u2019.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive with effect from 1 October 2010. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nWhen Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2010.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 14 October 2010.", "references": ["53", "19", "60", "93", "5", "46", "33", "98", "43", "79", "48", "20", "95", "0", "86", "76", "30", "59", "40", "99", "72", "88", "69", "91", "55", "49", "74", "31", "61", "96", "No Label", "25", "26", "34"], "gold": ["25", "26", "34"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 240/2012\nof 19 March 2012\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of March 2012 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 of 14 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the poultrymeat sector (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 533/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of March 2012 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2012 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2012 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 March 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 March 2012.", "references": ["8", "2", "47", "42", "12", "9", "20", "33", "43", "16", "63", "80", "78", "91", "94", "0", "54", "18", "26", "24", "93", "29", "95", "83", "52", "53", "39", "50", "88", "27", "No Label", "21", "22", "66", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 17 June 2011\namending Decision 2009/719/EC authorising certain Member States to revise their annual BSE monitoring programmes\n(notified under document C(2011) 4194)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/358/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 6(1b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in animals. It requires each Member State to carry out an annual monitoring programme for TSEs in accordance with Annex III to that Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 999/2001 provides that the annual monitoring programmes are to cover as a minimum certain subpopulations of bovine animals referred to in Article 6 thereof. Those subpopulations are to include all bovine animals above 24 or 30 months of age, the age limit depending on the categories listed in points 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1 of Part I of Chapter A of Annex III to that Regulation.\n(3)\nThe Annex to Commission Decision 2009/719/EC of 28 September 2009 authorising certain Member States to revise their annual BSE monitoring programmes (2) lists 17 Member States authorised to revise their annual monitoring programme in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. That list includes all the Member States that were Members of the Union before 1 May 2004, as well as Slovenia and Cyprus.\n(4)\nOn 9 December 2010, the Panel on Biological Hazards (Biohaz) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) adopted a scientific opinion on a second update on the risk for human and animal health related to the revision of the BSE monitoring regime in some Member States (3) (the EFSA opinion of 9 December 2010). For the EFSA opinion of 9 December 2010, the Biohaz was asked to analyse the data available for the 17 Member States listed in Decision 2009/719/EC and eight other Member States. The Biohaz assumed that all 25 Member States had implemented for at least six years a BSE surveillance system and control measures, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. The EFSA opinion of 9 December 2010 confirms that the BSE epidemic has been declining in the 17 Member States listed in Decision 2009/719/EC.\n(5)\nThe EFSA opinion of 9 December 2010 also concludes that if the age limit for BSE testing would be raised to 72 months in healthy slaughtered cattle, less than one classical BSE case could be expected to be missed in 2011. In addition, it concludes that if BSE testing for healthy slaughtered cattle would stop as from 1 January 2013, less than one classical BSE case would be missed each calendar year from 2013 onwards. It can be inferred from that findings that the risk for human and animal health would be negligible if the current BSE testing is adapted accordingly.\n(6)\nTaking into account the conclusions of the EFSA opinion of 9 December 2010, the ages of the categories of bovine animals should be increased for animals covered by the revised annual monitoring programmes of the Member States listed in the Annex to Decision 2009/719/EC. Therefore, Member States that have been authorised to revise their annual monitoring programmes should be given the option to apply alternative but equally effective sampling plans while adapting to the epidemiological situation from 1 January 2013 onwards.\n(7)\nRegarding the eight Member States not listed in Decision 2009/719/EC, the EFSA opinion of 9 December 2010 concludes that the classical BSE epidemiological situation is different for a group of five Member States comprised of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary and Malta and another group comprised of three Member States, namely the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia.\n(8)\nIn the group of five Member States, no BSE cases have been detected since full implementation of the Union surveillance system on 1 May 2004, and the classical BSE epidemiological situation should be considered to be \u2018at least equivalent\u2019 to that of the 17 Member States listed in Decision 2009/719/EC. Therefore, a similar testing regime should be applied to that group of 22 Member States as the epidemiological situation is comparable in all of them.\n(9)\nIn addition, the EFSA opinion of 9 December 2010 concludes that the trend of the classical BSE epidemic in the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia shows two waves in the classical BSE incidence per birth cohort and in the average age of the classical BSE cases detected. This second wave pattern compromises the establishment of clear similarities between the trend of the classical BSE epidemic in the 17 Member States already listed in Decision 2009/719/EC and this group of three Member States. For these three Member States, it concludes that at present, it would not be informative to estimate the number of undetected classical BSE cases, should the testing age be changed in this group.\n(10)\nOn 26 March 2010, Latvia submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(11)\nOn 16 June 2010, Estonia submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(12)\nOn 7 October 2010, Lithuania submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(13)\nOn 21 October 2010, Luxembourg submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(14)\nOn 27 October 2010, Germany submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(15)\nOn 24 November 2010, Greece submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(16)\nOn 26 November 2010, Slovenia submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(17)\nOn 30 November 2010, Sweden submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(18)\nOn 13 December 2010, Spain submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(19)\nOn 13 December 2010, Belgium submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(20)\nOn 13 December 2010, Finland submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(21)\nOn 14 December 2010, Denmark submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(22)\nOn 15 December 2010, United Kingdom submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(23)\nOn 15 December 2010, Austria submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(24)\nOn 20 December 2010, Ireland submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(25)\nOn 23 December 2010, Portugal submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(26)\nOn 5 January 2011, Cyprus submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(27)\nOn 13 January 2011, Italy submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(28)\nOn 18 January 2011, the Netherlands submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(29)\nOn 19 January 2011, France submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(30)\nOn 11 February 2011, Hungary submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(31)\nOn 14 February 2011, Malta submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(32)\nThe applications submitted by those 22 Member States were found to meet all the requirements for the revision of the annual monitoring programmes laid down in Article 6(1b) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 and set out in point 7 of Part I of Chapter A of Annex III thereto. Therefore, they should be authorised to revise their BSE annual monitoring programmes.\n(33)\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 706/73 of the Council of 12 March 1973 concerning the Community arrangements applicable to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man for trade in agricultural products (4) provides that Union veterinary and food legislation are to apply, under the same conditions in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as in the United Kingdom, to the agricultural products imported into those islands or exported from them to the Union. However, Decision 2009/719/EC does not currently apply to the islands as the United Kingdom did not provide the relevant data at the time of its adoption.\n(34)\nThe United Kingdom has now provided the relevant data concerning the epidemiological situation and the implementation of the Union legislation regarding BSE in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. That data shows that the BSE epidemiological situation in those islands is comparable to that of the United Kingdom and that all the relevant requirements laid down in the Article 6(1b) and set out in point 7 of Part I of Chapter A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 are met. Decision 2009/719/EC should therefore apply to those islands.\n(35)\nSubsequently, on 15 February 2011, the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health delivered a positive opinion on a draft Decision amending Decision 2009/719/EC authorising certain Member States to revise their annual BSE monitoring programmes. That draft Decision which, however, has not yet been adopted by the Commission, authorises the 22 Member States to apply a revised and harmonised BSE testing regime as from 1 July 2011.\n(36)\nOn 13 April 2011, EFSA adopted a scientific opinion on the review on the risk for human and animal health related to the revision of the BSE monitoring regime in three EU Member States (5). That opinion concludes that with the additional data of a further year of monitoring results, namely the data for 2010, the model employed shows that the confidence in the predictions of the number of cases in the cohorts since 2000 for the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia has increased substantially. Due to this and based on the results of the analysis performed, EFSA concludes that the decline of the BSE epidemic is now significant in these three Member States.\n(37)\nThe EFSA opinion of 13 April 2011 also concludes that if the age limit for BSE testing would be raised to 72 months in healthy slaughtered cattle, less than one classical BSE case could be expected to be missed in 2012. It can be inferred from that findings that the risk for human an animal health would be negligible if the current BSE testing is adapted accordingly.\n(38)\nOn 10 February 2011, the Czech Republic submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(39)\nOn 15 February 2011, Slovakia submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme.\n(40)\nOn 26 April 2011, Poland submitted to the Commission an application to revise its annual BSE monitoring programme\n(41)\nThe applications submitted by those three Member States were found to meet all the requirements for the revision of the annual monitoring programmes laid down in Article 6(1b) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 and set out in point 7 of Part I of Chapter A of Annex III thereto. Therefore, they should be authorised to revise their BSE annual monitoring programmes and the BSE testing regime in these three Member States should be aligned to that which received a positive opinion from the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 15 February 2011.\n(42)\nTaking into consideration the new circumstances that have arisen after the vote, the draft Decision which received on 15 February 2011 a positive opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health should not be adopted and a new draft Decision extending the provisions already voted to the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia should be presented for a opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.\n(43)\nDecision 2009/719/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(44)\nThis Decision should apply from 1 July 2011 in order to give sufficient time to Member States to align their BSE monitoring procedures with the amendments made to Decision 2009/719/EC by this Decision.\n(45)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2009/719/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\n1. The revised annual monitoring programmes shall apply only to bovine animals born in the Member States listed in the Annex and shall cover at least the following categories:\n(a)\nall bovine animals above 72 months of age subject to normal slaughter for human consumption, or slaughtered in the context of a disease eradication campaign but showing no clinical signs of disease, as referred to in point 2.2 of Part I of Chapter A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001;\n(b)\nall bovine animals above 48 months of age subject to emergency slaughter or with observations at ante mortem inspection as referred to in point 2.1 of Part I of Chapter A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001;\n(c)\nall bovine animals above 48 months of age, as referred to in point 3.1 of Part I of Chapter A of Annex III to that Regulation, which have died or been killed but which were not:\n(i)\nkilled for destruction pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 716/96 (6);\n(ii)\nkilled in the framework of an epidemic, such as foot-and-mouth disease;\n(iii)\nslaughtered for human consumption.\n2. When bovine animals belonging to the animal categories referred to in paragraph 1 and born in one of the Member States listed in the Annex are tested for BSE in another Member State, the age limits for testing in force in the Member State where the tests are performed shall apply.\n3. By way of derogation from point (a) of paragraph 1, from 1 January 2013 Member States listed in the Annex may decide to test only a minimum annual sample of the subpopulations referred to in that point.\n(2)\nthe Annex is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2011.", "references": ["37", "63", "13", "94", "62", "71", "70", "1", "26", "68", "43", "46", "21", "29", "84", "23", "30", "76", "14", "77", "24", "42", "74", "10", "32", "60", "27", "47", "7", "51", "No Label", "38", "61", "65", "66", "96"], "gold": ["38", "61", "65", "66", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1270/2011\nof 6 December 2011\nfixing an acceptance percentage for the issuing of export licences, rejecting export-licence applications and suspending the lodging of export-licence applications for out-of-quota sugar\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 7e in conjunction with Article 9(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 61, first subparagraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 the sugar produced during the marketing year in excess of the quota referred to in Article 56 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit fixed by the Commission.\n(2)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011 of 15 April 2011 fixing the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2011/2012 marketing year (3) sets the abovementioned limits.\n(3)\nThe quantities of sugar covered by applications for export licences exceed the quantitative limit fixed by Article 1(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011. An acceptance percentage should therefore be set for quantities applied for on 1 December 2011. All export-licence applications for sugar lodged after 2 December 2011 should accordingly be rejected and the lodging of export-licence applications should be suspended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export licences for out-of-quota sugar for which applications were lodged on 1 December 2011 shall be issued for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an acceptance percentage of 51,679586 %.\n2. Applications for out-of-quota sugar export licences submitted on 5, 6 and 7 December 2011 are hereby rejected.\n3. The lodging of applications for out-of-quota sugar export licences shall be suspended for the period 8 December 2011 to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 December 2011.", "references": ["96", "7", "69", "73", "20", "46", "2", "37", "79", "41", "18", "3", "4", "70", "94", "59", "29", "68", "56", "39", "88", "51", "57", "19", "26", "12", "43", "38", "83", "54", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "71"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 July 2012\nappointing a German member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/377/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the German Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Nicola BEER,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed as member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nDr Zsuzsa BREIER, Staatssekret\u00e4rin f\u00fcr Europaangelegenheiten.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["17", "1", "77", "25", "6", "13", "68", "14", "51", "60", "94", "19", "33", "67", "84", "39", "5", "36", "20", "81", "73", "24", "40", "31", "74", "54", "2", "69", "8", "4", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 27 September 2010\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the Joint CARIFORUM-EU Council established by the Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, with regard to the amendment of Annex IV to the Agreement by incorporating the commitments of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas\n(2010/669/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part (1) (the Agreement), was signed on 15 October 2008, and has been provisionally applied since 29 December 2008.\n(2)\nArticle 63 of the Agreement provides that the negotiation of the schedule of commitments in services and investment for the Commonwealth of The Bahamas be finalised no later than six months after the signature of the Agreement.\n(3)\nSuch negotiations were succesfully concluded on 25 January 2010.\n(4)\nThe results of such negotiations should be set out in a Decision of the Joint CARIFORUM-EU Council established by the Agreement.\n(5)\nThe Union should therefore take the position in the Joint CARIFORUM-EU Council as set out in the draft decision attached to this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the Joint CARIFORUM-EU Council established by the Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, with regard to the amendment of Annex IV to the Agreement shall be based on the draft decision of the Joint CARIFORUM-EU Council attached to this Decision. However, formal changes to that draft decision not affecting its substance may be agreed without requiring this Decision to be amended.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["10", "69", "62", "63", "61", "16", "6", "89", "31", "68", "84", "60", "17", "33", "57", "21", "14", "8", "19", "79", "76", "85", "38", "66", "9", "30", "7", "25", "54", "15", "No Label", "3", "4", "93", "96"], "gold": ["3", "4", "93", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 677/2010\nof 28 July 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 748/2008 for frozen thin skirt of bovine animals\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 748/2008 of 30 July 2008 on the opening and administration of an import tariff quota for frozen thin skirt of bovine animals falling within CN code 0206 29 91 (3) opens an import tariff quota for beef and veal products.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined and an allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications covered by the quota with the order number 09.4020 have been lodged for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 under Regulation (EC) No 748/2008 shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 53,747872 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2010.", "references": ["61", "52", "56", "9", "65", "18", "83", "35", "81", "49", "37", "39", "34", "10", "47", "4", "3", "0", "97", "73", "91", "43", "11", "93", "76", "15", "38", "45", "42", "8", "No Label", "21", "69", "72"], "gold": ["21", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 893/2011\nof 22 August 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Bresaola della Valtellina (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1), and in application of Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification of the protected geographical indication \u2018Bresaola della Valtellina\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1263/96 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 August 2011.", "references": ["89", "2", "71", "64", "91", "21", "31", "9", "97", "12", "99", "70", "22", "35", "13", "93", "90", "52", "57", "56", "15", "3", "39", "62", "7", "27", "77", "11", "96", "32", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "92"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "92"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 559/2012\nof 26 June 2012\nterminating the partial interim review concerning the countervailing measures on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in, inter alia, India\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 19 and 24 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Previous investigation and existing countervailing measures\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 2603/2000 (2), the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating, inter alia, in India. The definitive findings and conclusions of an accelerated review pursuant to Article 20 of the basic Regulation are set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1645/2005 (3). Following an expiry review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 193/2007 (4), imposed a definitive countervailing duty for a further period of five years. The countervailing measures were amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1286/2008 (5) following a partial interim review (\u2018the last review investigation\u2019). The countervailing measures consist of a specific duty. The rate of the duty is between EUR 0 and EUR 106,5 per tonne for individually named Indian producers with a residual duty rate of EUR 69,4 per tonne imposed on imports from all other producers.\n(2)\nFollowing a name change of one Indian company, South Asian Petrochem Ltd, by Notice 2010/C 335/07 (6), the Commission concluded that the anti-subsidy findings in respect of South Asian Petrochem Ltd should apply to Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Limited.\n1.2. Existing anti-dumping measures\n(3)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 (7), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET originating, inter alia, in India. A review pursuant to Article 11(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (8) (\u2018the basic anti-dumping Regulation\u2019) concerning South Asian Petrochem Ltd was subsequently conducted and its definitive findings and conclusions are set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1646/2005 (9). Following an expiry review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 (10), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty for a further period of five years. The anti-dumping measures were amended by Regulation (EC) No 1286/2008 following a partial interim review investigation. The measures were set at the level of the injury elimination and consisted of specific anti-dumping duties. The rate of the duty is between EUR 87,5 and EUR 200,9 per tonne for individually named Indian producers with a residual duty rate of EUR 153,6 per tonne imposed on imports from all other producers (\u2018the current anti-dumping measures\u2019).\n(4)\nFollowing a name change of one Indian company, South Asian Petrochem Ltd, by Notice 2010/C 335/06 (11), the Commission concluded that the anti-dumping findings in respect of South Asian Petrochem Ltd should apply to Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Limited.\n(5)\nBy Decision 2005/697/EC (12), the Commission accepted undertakings offered by South Asian Petrochem Ltd setting a minimum import price (\u2018the undertaking\u2019). Following a name change, the Commission concluded by Notice 2010/C 335/05 (13) that the undertaking offered by South Asian Petrochem Ltd should apply to Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Limited.\n1.3. Initiation of a partial interim review\n(6)\nA request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation was lodged by Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Limited, an Indian exporting producer of PET (\u2018the applicant\u2019). The request was limited in scope to subsidisation and to the applicant. The applicant at the same time also requested the review of the current anti-dumping measures. The residual anti-dumping and countervailing duties are applicable to imports of products produced by the applicant and sales of the applicant to the Union are covered by the undertaking.\n(7)\nThe applicant provided prima facie evidence that the continued application of the measure at its current level was no longer necessary to offset the countervailable subsidisation. In particular, the applicant provided prima facie evidence showing that its subsidy amount has decreased well below the duty rate currently applicable to it. This reduction in the overall subsidy level would mainly be due to the termination of its export oriented unit (EOU) status. With a magnitude of 13,5 %, the EOU scheme accounted for the vast majority of the 13,9 % subsidies established during the accelerated review.\n(8)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that the request contained sufficient prima facie evidence, the Commission announced on 2 April 2011 the initiation of a partial interim review (\u2018the present review\u2019) pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation by Notice 2011/C 102/08 (14). The review was limited in scope to the examination of subsidisation in respect of the applicant.\n1.4. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(9)\nThe Commission officially informed the applicant, the representatives of the exporting country and the association of Union producers about the initiation of the review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(10)\nOne interested party requested and was granted a hearing.\n(11)\nIn order to obtain the information deemed necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant and the Government of India (GOI) and received replies within the deadline set for that purpose.\n(12)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary for the determination of subsidisation. The Commission carried out verification visits at the premises of the applicant in Kolkata, India and at the premises of the GOI in New Delhi (Directorate-General of Foreign Trade and Ministry of Commerce) and Kolkata (Commerce & Industries Department, Government of West Bengal).\n1.5. Review investigation period\n(13)\nThe investigation of subsidisation covered the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019).\n1.6. Parallel anti-dumping investigation\n(14)\nOn 2 April 2011 by Notice 2011/C 102/09 (15) the Commission announced the initiation of a partial interim review of the current anti-dumping measures pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of the applicant.\n(15)\nIn the parallel anti-dumping investigation it was found that the changes are not of a lasting nature. As a consequence, the review investigation was terminated without amending the measures in force.\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(16)\nThe product under review is PET having a viscosity of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in India (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n2.2. Like product\n(17)\nThe investigation revealed that the product concerned produced in India and sold to the Union is identical in terms of physical and chemical characteristics and uses to the product produced and sold on the domestic market in India. It is therefore concluded that products sold on the domestic and export markets are like products within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the basic Regulation.\n3. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n3.1. Subsidisation\n(18)\nOn the basis of the information submitted by the GOI and the applicant and the replies to the Commission\u2019s questionnaire, the following schemes, which allegedly involve the granting of subsidies, were investigated:\nNationwide schemes:\n(a)\nDuty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS);\n(b)\nExport oriented units (EOU)/export processing zones (EPZ)/special economic zones (SEZ);\n(c)\nExport Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS);\n(d)\nFocus Market Scheme (FMS);\n(e)\nExport Credit Scheme (ECS);\n(f)\nIncome Tax Exemption Scheme (ITES).\nRegional schemes:\n(g)\nWest Bengal Incentive Scheme (WBIS).\n(19)\nThe schemes (a) to (d) specified in recital 18 are based on the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 (No 22 of 1992) which entered into force on 7 August 1992 (\u2018Foreign Trade Act\u2019). The Foreign Trade Act authorises the GOI to issue notifications regarding the export and import policy. These are summarised in Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) documents, which are issued by the Ministry of Commerce every five years and updated regularly. Two FTP documents are relevant to the RIP of this case, i.e. FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14. The latter entered into force in August 2009. In addition, the GOI also sets out the procedures governing FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14 in a \u2018Handbook of Procedures, Volume I\u2019 (\u2018HOP I 04-09\u2019 and \u2018HOP I 09-14\u2019 respectively). The Handbook of Procedures is also updated on a regular basis.\n(20)\nScheme (e) is based on sections 21 and 35A of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, which allows the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to direct commercial banks in the field of export credits.\n(21)\nScheme (f) is based on the Income Tax Act of 1961, which is amended by the yearly Finance Act.\n(22)\nScheme (g) is administered by the Government of West Bengal and set out in Government of West Bengal Commerce & Industries Department notification No 580-CI/H of 22 June 1999, replaced by notification No 134-CI/O/Incentive/17/03/I of 24 March 2004.\n3.2. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS)\n(a) Legal Basis\n(23)\nThe detailed description of the DEPBS is contained in paragraphs 4.3 of FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14 as well as in chapter 4 of HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(24)\nAny manufacturer-exporter or merchant-exporter is eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation of the DEPBS\n(25)\nAn eligible exporter can apply for DEPBS credits which are calculated as a percentage of the value of products exported under this scheme. Such DEPBS rates have been established by the Indian authorities for most products, including the product concerned. They are determined regardless of whether import duties have actually been paid or not. The DEPBS rate for the product concerned during the RIP of the current investigation was 8 % of fob value, subject to a value cap of INR 58/kg. As a result, the maximum benefit is INR 4,64/kg.\n(26)\nTo be eligible for benefits under this scheme, a company must export. At the time of the export transaction, a declaration must be made by the exporter to the authorities in India indicating that the export is taking place under the DEPBS. In order for the goods to be exported, the Indian customs authorities issue, during the dispatch procedure, an export shipping bill. This document shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction. At the time of issuing the export shipping bill, the exporter knows the benefit it will receive. Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill, the GOI has no discretion over the granting of a DEPBS credit. The relevant DEPBS rate to calculate the benefit is that which applied at the time the export declaration was made. Therefore, there is no possibility for a retroactive amendment to the level of the benefit.\n(27)\nIt was found that, in accordance with Indian accounting standards, DEPBS credits can be booked on an accrual basis as income in the commercial accounts, upon fulfilment of the export obligation. Such credits can be used for payment of customs duties on subsequent imports of any goods unrestrictedly importable, except capital goods. Goods imported against such credits can be sold on the domestic market (subject to sales tax) or used otherwise. DEPBS credits are freely transferable and valid for a period of 24 months from the date of issue.\n(28)\nApplications for DEPBS credits are electronically filed and can cover an unlimited amount of export transactions. De facto, no strict deadlines to apply for DEPBS credits exist. The electronic system used to manage DEPBS does not automatically exclude export transactions exceeding the deadline submission periods mentioned in paragraph 4.47 of HOP I 04-09 and of HOP I 09-14. Furthermore, as clearly provided in paragraph 9.3 of the HOP I 04-09 and of HOP I 09-14, applications received after the expiry of submission deadlines can always be considered with the imposition of a minor penalty fee (i.e. 10 % of the entitlement).\n(29)\nIt was found that the applicant used this scheme during the RIP.\n(d) Conclusions on DEPBS\n(30)\nThe DEPBS provides subsidies within the meaning of point (1)(a)(ii) of Article 3 and point (2) of Article 3 of the basic Regulation. A DEPBS credit is a financial contribution by the GOI, since the credit will eventually be used to offset import duties, thus decreasing the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would otherwise be due. In addition, the DEPBS credit confers a benefit upon the exporter, because it improves its liquidity.\n(31)\nFurthermore, the DEPBS is contingent in law upon export performance, and is therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(32)\nThis scheme cannot be considered as permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of point (1)(a)(ii) of Article 3 of the basic Regulation as claimed by the applicant. It does not conform to the strict rules laid down in point (i) of Annex I, in Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and in Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) to the basic Regulation. An exporter is under no obligation to actually consume the goods imported free of duty in the production process and the amount of credit is not calculated in relation to actual inputs used. Moreover, there is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production process of the exported product or whether an excess payment of import duties occurred within the meaning of point (i) of Annex I and Annexes II and III to the basic Regulation. Lastly, an exporter is eligible for the DEPBS benefits regardless of whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported. Thus, even exporters which procure all of their inputs locally and do not import any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled to benefit from the DEPBS.\n(e) Abolishment of the DEPBS\n(33)\nBy means of Public Notice No 54 (RE-2010)/2009-2014 of 17 June 2011, the DEPBS received a final extension of three months until 30 September 2011. As no further extension was published subsequently, the DEPBS has effectively been withdrawn from 30 September 2011 onwards. Consequently, this scheme will not confer any benefits on the applicant after 30 September 2011. It has therefore to be verified whether, in accordance with Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, measures should be imposed on this scheme.\n(34)\nIn this respect, it was established that the applicant received similar benefits pursuant to the parallel \u2018duty drawback\u2019 scheme. The duty drawback rate for PET was 5,5 % of fob value, subject to a maximum amount of INR 5,50/kg. However, since the \u2018duty drawback\u2019 scheme was not used during the RIP, it is not possible to calculate a subsidy amount for this scheme.\n(35)\nThe applicant claimed that the Duty Drawback Scheme conforms with the \u2018guidelines on consumption of inputs in the production process\u2019 in Annex II to the basic Regulation, specifically paragraph I of the said Annex. However, similar to the DEPBS, it was established that the duty drawback rate is determined regardless of whether import duties have actually been paid or not.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(36)\nIn accordance with point (2) of Article 3 and Article 5 of the basic Regulation, the amount of countervailable subsidies was calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to exist during the review investigation period. In this regard, it was considered that the benefit is conferred on the recipient at the point in time when an export transaction is made under this scheme. At this moment, the GOI is liable to forego the customs duties, which constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of point (1)(a)(ii) of Article 3 of the basic Regulation.\n(37)\nIn light of the above, it is considered appropriate to assess the benefit under the DEPBS as being the sum of the credits earned on all export transactions made under this scheme during the RIP.\n(38)\nWhere justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the credits so established to arrive at the subsidy amounts as numerator, pursuant to point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(39)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation these subsidy amounts have been allocated over the total export turnover during the review investigation period as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(40)\nBased on the above, the subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the applicant during the RIP amounts to 6,7 %.\n3.3. Export oriented units (EOU)/export processing zones (EPZ)/special economic zones (SEZ)\n(41)\nIn the course of the investigation it was found that the applicant did not obtain any benefits under EOU/EPZ/SEZ during the RIP. It was therefore not necessary to further analyse these schemes in this investigation.\n3.4. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)\n(a) Legal basis\n(42)\nThe detailed description of EPCGS is contained in chapter 5 of FTP 04-09 and of FTP 09-14 as well as in chapter 5 of HOP I 04-09 and of HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(43)\nManufacturer-exporters, merchant-exporters \u2018tied to\u2019 supporting manufacturers and service providers are eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(44)\nUnder the condition of an export obligation, a company is allowed to import capital goods (new and second-hand capital goods up to 10 years old) at a reduced rate of duty. To this end, the GOI issues, upon application and payment of a fee, an EPCGS licence. The scheme provides for a reduced import duty rate of 5 % applicable to all capital goods imported under the scheme. In order to meet the export obligation, the imported capital goods must be used to produce a certain amount of export goods during a certain period. Under FTP 09-14 the capital goods can be imported with a 0 % duty rate under the EPCGS, but in such case the time period for fulfilment of the export obligation is shorter.\n(45)\nThe EPCGS licence holder can also source the capital goods indigenously. In such case, the indigenous manufacturer of capital goods may avail himself of the benefit for duty-free import of components required to manufacture such capital goods. Alternatively, the indigenous manufacturer can claim the benefit of deemed export in respect of supply of capital goods to an EPCGS licence holder.\n(46)\nIt was found that the applicant used this scheme during the RIP.\n(d) Conclusion on EPCGS\n(47)\nThe EPCGS provides subsidies within the meaning of point (1)(a)(ii) of Article 3 and point (2) of Article 3 of the basic Regulation. The duty reduction constitutes a financial contribution by the GOI, since this concession decreases the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, the duty reduction confers a benefit upon the exporter, because the duties saved upon importation improve the company\u2019s liquidity.\n(48)\nFurthermore, EPCGS is contingent in law upon export performance, since such licences cannot be obtained without a commitment to export. Therefore it is deemed to be specific and countervailable under point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the basic Regulation. It has been claimed by the applicant that EPCGS subsidies with regard to the purchase of capital goods where the export obligation was already fulfilled before the RIP should not anymore be treated as contingent upon export performance. Therefore they should not be treated as specific subsidies and should not be countervailed. However, this claim has to be rejected. It has to be underlined that the subsidy itself was contingent upon export performance i.e. it would not have been granted had the company not accepted a certain export obligation.\n(49)\nEPCGS cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of point (1)(a)(ii) of Article 3 of the basic Regulation. Capital goods are not covered by the scope of such permissible systems, as set out in point (i) of Annex I to the basic Regulation, because they are not consumed in the production of the exported products.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(50)\nThe subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods spread across a period which reflects the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in the industry concerned, i.e. 18,93 years. Interests were added to this amount in order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. The commercial interest rate for local currency loans during the review investigation period in India was considered appropriate for this purpose.\n(51)\nIn accordance with Articles 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the export turnover during the RIP as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance.\n(52)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the applicant during the RIP amounts to 0,6 %.\n3.5. Focus Market Scheme (FMS)\n(a) Legal basis\n(53)\nThe detailed description of FMS is contained in paragraphs 3.9.1 to 3.9.2.2 of FTP 04-09 and paragraphs 3.14.1 to 3.14.3 of FTP 09-14 and in paragraphs 3.20 to 3.20.3 of HOP I 04-09 and paragraphs 3.8 to 3.8.2 of HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(54)\nAny manufacturer-exporter or merchant-exporter is eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(55)\nUnder this scheme exports of all products to countries notified under Appendix 37(C) of HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14 are entitled to duty credit equivalent to 2,5 % of the fob value of products exported under this scheme. Certain type of export activities are excluded from the scheme, e.g. exports of imported goods or transhipped goods, deemed exports, service exports and export turnover of units operating under special economic zones/export operating units. Also excluded from the scheme are certain types of products, e.g. diamonds, precious metals, ores, cereals, sugar and petroleum products.\n(56)\nThe duty credits under FMS are freely transferable and valid for a period of 24 months from the date of issue of the relevant credit entitlement certificate. They can be used for payment of custom duties on subsequent imports of any inputs or goods including capital goods.\n(57)\nThe credit entitlement certificate is issued from the port from which the exports have been made and after realisation of exports or shipment of goods. As long as the applicant provides to the authorities copies of all relevant export documentation (e.g. export order, invoices, shipping bills, bank realisation certificates), the GOI has no discretion over the granting of the duty credits.\n(58)\nIt was found that the applicant used this scheme during the RIP.\n(d) Conclusion on FMS\n(59)\nThe FMS provides subsidies within the meaning of point (1)(a)(ii) of Article 3 and point (2) of Article 3 of the basic Regulation. A FMS duty credit is a financial contribution by the GOI, since the credit will eventually be used to offset import duties, thus decreasing the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, the FMS duty credit confers a benefit upon the exporter, because it improves its liquidity.\n(60)\nFurthermore, FMS is contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(61)\nThis scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of point (1)(a)(ii) of Article 3 of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the strict rules laid down in point (i) of Annex I, Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) to the basic Regulation. An exporter is under no obligation to actually consume the goods imported free of duty in the production process and the amount of credit is not calculated in relation to actual inputs used. There is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production process of the exported product or whether an excess payment of import duties occurred within the meaning of point (i) of Annex I and Annexes II and III to the basic Regulation. An exporter is eligible for FMS benefits regardless of whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported. Thus, even exporters which procure all of their inputs locally and do not import any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled to benefit from FMS. Moreover, an exporter can use FMS duty credits in order to import capital goods although capital goods are not covered by the scope of permissible duty drawback systems, as set out in point (i) of Annex I to the basic Regulation, because they are not consumed in the production of the exported products.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(62)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidies was calculated on the basis of the benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to exist during the RIP as booked by the applicant on an accrual basis as income at the stage of export transaction. In accordance with Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount (nominator) has been allocated over the export turnover during the RIP as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(63)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the RIP for the applicant amounts to less than 0,1 %.\n3.6. Export Credit Scheme (ECS)\n(64)\nIt was established that the applicant received the benefit of preferential interest rates for its export financing during the RIP until 30 June 2011. The legal basis for this preferential interest rate is set out in Master Circular on Rupee/Foreign Currency Export Credit & Customer Services to Exporters DBOD No DIR. (Exp). BC 07/04.02.02/2009-10 of the RBI, which is addressed to all commercial banks in India.\n(65)\nOn 1 July 2011, the terms and conditions of the ECS were revised by Master Circular on Rupee/Foreign Currency Export Credit & Customer Services to Exporters DBOD No DIR. (Exp). BC 04/04.02.002/2011-12 of the RBI. The revised conditions did not confer any benefits on the applicant. In accordance with Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, this scheme should therefore not be countervailed.\n3.7. Income Tax Exemption Scheme (ITES)\n(66)\nIn the course of the investigation it was found that the applicant did not obtain any benefits under ITES during the RIP. It was therefore not necessary to further analyse this scheme in this investigation.\n3.8. West Bengal Incentive Scheme 1999 (WBIS 1999)\n(67)\nThe State of West Bengal grants to eligible industrial enterprises incentives in the form of a number of benefits, including a remission of sales tax and central sales tax on sales of finished goods, in order to encourage the industrial development of economically backward areas within this State.\n(a) Legal basis\n(68)\nThe detailed description of this scheme as applied by the Government of West Bengal (GOWB) is set out in Notification No 580-CI/H of 22 June 1999 of the GOWB Commerce & Industries Department.\n(b) Eligibility\n(69)\nCompanies setting up a new industrial establishment or making a large-scale expansion of an existing industrial establishment in backward areas are eligible to avail benefits under this scheme. Nevertheless, an exhaustive list of ineligible industries (negative list of industries) exists preventing companies in certain fields of operations from benefiting from the incentives.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(70)\nUnder this scheme, companies must invest in backward areas. These areas, which represent certain territorial units in West Bengal are classified according to their economic development into different categories while at the same time there are developed areas excluded from the application of the incentive schemes. The main criteria to establish the amount of the incentives are the size of the investment and the area in which the enterprise is or will be located.\n(d) Conclusion\n(71)\nThis scheme provides subsidies within the meaning of point (1)(a)(ii) of Article 3 and point (2) of Article 3 of the basic Regulation. It constitutes a financial contribution by the GOWB, since the incentives granted, in the present case sales tax and central sales tax remissions on sales of finished goods, decrease tax revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, these incentives confer a benefit upon a company, because they improve its financial situation since taxes otherwise due are not paid.\n(72)\nFurthermore, this scheme is regionally specific in the meaning of point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) and Article 4(3) of the basic Regulation since it is only available to certain companies having invested within certain designated geographical areas within the jurisdiction of the State concerned. It is not available to companies located outside these areas and, in addition, the level of benefit is differentiated according to the area concerned.\n(73)\nThe WBIS 1999 is therefore countervailable.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(74)\nThe subsidy amount was calculated on the basis of the amount of the sales tax and central sales tax on sales of finished goods normally due during the review investigation period but which remained unpaid under this scheme. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the amount of subsidy (numerator) has then been allocated over total sales during the review investigation period as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is not export contingent and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. The subsidy rate obtained amounted to 1,4 %.\n3.9. Amount of countervailable subsidies\n(75)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidies determined in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the applicant amounts to 8,7 %. This amount of subsidisation exceeds the de minimis threshold mentioned under Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(76)\nThe levels of subsidisation established in the current procedure for the applicant is as follows:\nSchemes\nDEPBS\nEPCGS\nFMS\nWBIS\nTotal\nDhunseri Petrochem & Tea Ltd\n6,7 %\n0,6 %\n< 0,1 %\n1,4 %\n8,7 %\n(77)\nIt is therefore considered that, pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation, subsidisation continued during the RIP.\n3.10. Lasting nature of changed circumstances with regard to subsidisation\n(78)\nIn accordance with Article 19(4) of the basic Regulation, it was also examined whether the changed circumstances could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.\n(79)\nIt was established that, during the RIP, the applicant continued to benefit from countervailable subsidisation by the GOI. Further, the subsidy rate found during the present review is lower than that established during the last review investigation. It was equally established that the changes claimed by the applicant in recital 7 did indeed take place. Indeed, the applicant did no longer benefit from the EOU scheme during the RIP as indicated in recital 41.\n(80)\nHowever, it was also established that the most important scheme used by the applicant during the RIP (i.e. DEBPS) was discontinued on 30 September 2011, and another scheme not used during the RIP (i.e. duty drawback) is currently used by the applicant. It is therefore evident that the situation prevailing during the RIP is not of a lasting nature, as it has already significantly changed in the meantime.\n(81)\nIt is therefore concluded that the partial interim review investigation should be terminated without amending the countervailing measures in force. The applicant, as well as the other parties concerned, were informed of the facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose the termination of the investigation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe partial interim review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of polyethylene terephthalate currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating, inter alia, in India is hereby terminated without amending the measures in force.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 June 2012.", "references": ["63", "20", "74", "34", "84", "13", "42", "2", "72", "17", "57", "91", "30", "49", "80", "65", "93", "75", "46", "62", "39", "35", "16", "81", "88", "56", "59", "45", "66", "41", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 755/2010\nof 23 August 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 734/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 August 2010.", "references": ["49", "58", "3", "99", "65", "78", "54", "86", "92", "73", "46", "43", "14", "36", "42", "15", "59", "95", "50", "64", "4", "28", "13", "88", "34", "90", "75", "1", "69", "96", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE COUNCIL AND OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, MEETING WITHIN THE COUNCIL\nof 16 June 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part, the European Union and its Member States, of the second part, Iceland, of the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part; and on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Ancillary Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the first part, Iceland, of the second part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the third part, on the application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part, the European Union and its Member States, of the second part, Iceland, of the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part\n(2011/708/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, MEETING WITHIN THE COUNCIL,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Air Transport Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the United States of America, on the other hand (1) (\u2018the Air Transport Agreement\u2019), signed by the United States of America and the Member States of the European Community and the European Community on 25 and 30 April 2007, as amended by the Protocol to amend the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community and its Member States, signed on 25 and 30 April 2007 (2) (\u2018the Protocol\u2019), signed by the United States of America, the Member States of the European Union and the European Union on 24 June 2010, explicitly provides for the accession of third countries to the Air Transport Agreement.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 18(5) of the Air Transport Agreement, as amended by the Protocol, the Joint Committee established thereunder has developed a proposal for the accession of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway to the Air Transport Agreement, as amended by the Protocol.\n(3)\nOn 16 November 2010 the Joint Committee proposed an Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part, the European Union and its Member States, of the second part, Iceland, of the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part (\u2018the Accession Agreement\u2019).\n(4)\nThe Commission has negotiated an Ancillary Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the first part, Iceland, of the second part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the third part, on the application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part, the European Union and its Member States, of the second part, Iceland, of the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part (\u2018the Ancillary Agreement\u2019).\n(5)\nThe Accession Agreement and the Ancillary Agreement should be signed and applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for their conclusion,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part, the European Union and its Member States, of the second part, Iceland, of the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part and of the Ancillary Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the first part, Iceland, of the second part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the third part, on the application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part, the European Union and its Member States, of the second part, Iceland, of the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part, is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreements.\nThe texts of the Accession Agreement and of the Ancillary Agreement are attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Accession Agreement and the Ancillary Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe Accession Agreement and the Ancillary Agreement shall be applied on a provisional basis as from the date of signature (3) by the Union and, to the extent permitted under applicable national law, by its Member States and by the relevant Parties, pending the completion of the procedures for their conclusion.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 16 June 2011.", "references": ["58", "32", "5", "8", "19", "47", "4", "2", "48", "49", "87", "89", "68", "78", "45", "31", "73", "13", "80", "66", "55", "40", "88", "30", "46", "63", "82", "44", "6", "71", "No Label", "3", "9", "57", "91", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "57", "91", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1180/2011\nof 17 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 November 2011.", "references": ["85", "30", "18", "57", "50", "94", "98", "21", "89", "29", "78", "3", "45", "40", "25", "15", "95", "91", "47", "80", "33", "39", "77", "4", "99", "84", "44", "66", "96", "76", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 1219/2011/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\nconcerning the subscription by the European Union to additional shares in the capital of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) as a result of the decision to increase this capital\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 212 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 4(3) of the Agreement establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (2) (EBRD), the Governors of the EBRD, at their annual meeting in Zagreb on 14 and 15 May 2010, decided in Resolutions 126 (3) and 128 (4) to increase by EUR 10 billion the authorised capital stock of the EBRD in order to maintain enough capital to sustain, over the medium term, a reasonable level of activity in the EBRD countries of operation within statutory limits.\n(2)\nPrior to those resolutions, the capital of the EBRD was fixed at EUR 20 billion, of which the Union subscribed to 60 000 shares, each share having a par value of EUR 10 000.\n(3)\nPursuant to Resolution 126, the authorised capital stock of the EBRD is increased by 100 000 paid-in shares, and each member is issued a number of whole shares, rounded downwards, pro rata to their existing shareholding. The paid-in part of the capital increase is paid through integration in the capital of part of the EBRD\u2019s unrestricted general reserves. This Decision thus has no direct impact on the budget of the Union. All EBRD shareholders automatically received paid-in shares in proportion of their existing shareholding, without any further procedural steps taken by the shareholders themselves. Accordingly, the Union has been issued with 3 031 new shares, each having a par value of EUR 10 000 increasing the number of paid-in shares of the Union to 63 031.\n(4)\nPursuant to Resolution 128, the authorised capital stock of the EBRD should be increased by 900 000 callable shares, each share having a par value of EUR 10 000 which is subject to redemption. Each member should be entitled to subscribe, at par, to a number of whole callable shares up to, but not in excess of, 42,857 % of the number of shares owned by such member immediately prior to the effective date of the capital increase. The Union is thus entitled to subscribe to up to 27 013 callable shares by 31 December 2011.\n(5)\nPursuant to Resolution 128, the use of EBRD\u2019s capital should be monitored pursuant to the fourth Capital Resources Review (CRR4) for the period 2011-2015 (CRR4 period). The EBRD Board of Governors could decide in 2015, within the framework of CRR4, that part of the unutilised callable capital could be redeemed under specific conditions to be agreed in 2015. Pursuant to Resolution 128, the EBRD Board of Governors resolved that such redemption of callable shares would be automatic and applicable to all EBRD members who have subscribed to the callable shares authorised by that Resolution. In such a situation, the Commission would take note of, and implement, the EBRD Governors\u2019 Resolution.\n(6)\nThis Decision should enhance the capacity of the EBRD to increase its activities in its countries of operation, thus providing valuable assistance to the economies of those countries in difficult economic times. It is appropriate for the Union to subscribe to those additional shares in order to achieve the Union\u2019s objectives in the field of economic external relations and preserve its relative voting power within the EBRD.\n(7)\nThe increase in callable capital provided for in this Decision contributes to maintaining the EBRD\u2019s access to financial markets.\n(8)\nThe Commission should present to the European Parliament and the Council, by the end of the CRR4 period, a report assessing the effectiveness of the existing system of European public financing institutions promoting investment in Europe and its neighbourhood. That report should include recommendations on the cooperation between the respective banks and the optimisation and coordination of their activities as called for by the European Parliament in its resolution of 25 March 2009 on the 2007 Annual Reports of the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (5).\n(9)\nIn the countries of common intervention outside the Union, the EBRD should be encouraged to develop its cooperation with the other European public financing institutions through agreements such as the tripartite \u2018Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission, the European Investment Bank together with the European Investment Fund, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in respect of cooperation outside the European Union\u2019, which allows the banks to act in a complementary way by relying on their respective comparative advantages.\n(10)\nThe contingent liability related to the callable part of the subscribed capital is reflected in the budget of the Union in p.m. line 01 03 01 02: \u2018European Bank for Reconstruction and Development - Callable portion of subscribed capital\u2019.\n(11)\nThe representatives of the Union in the governing bodies of the EBRD should encourage the EBRD: to continue implementing the best prudential banking practices in order to further preserve its very strong capital position; to intervene in areas consistent with the key objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy in order to enhance the overall coherence of the Union\u2019s external action policy; to further develop financial instruments, based on co-financing between the budgets of the Union and of the EBRD, contributing to the achievement of the Union\u2019s objectives, while taking into account that such cooperation should be accompanied by effective control over, and visibility of, the Union\u2019s public funds; and to provide, on its website, appropriate information about the beneficiaries, the impact of its financial intermediary operations and the evaluations of projects.\n(12)\nThe Governor of the EBRD for the Union should report annually to the European Parliament on the promotion of the Union\u2019s objectives with particular regard to the Union\u2019s external action as laid down in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union, the Europe 2020 Strategy, and the significant increase of the transfer of renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies.\n(13)\nThe representatives of the Union in the governing bodies of the EBRD should use their best endeavours to avoid any activity by the EBRD implemented in its countries of operation through a foreign non-cooperative jurisdiction characterised notably by no or nominal taxes, a lack of effective exchange of information with foreign tax authorities and a lack of transparency in legislative, legal or administrative provisions, or as identified by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development or the Financial Action Task Force,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Union shall subscribe to 27 013 additional callable shares of EUR 10 000 each in the EBRD pursuant to Resolution 128 of the Board of Governors, the text of which is set out in the Annex for informative purposes.\nArticle 2\nThe Governor of the EBRD for the Union shall deposit the requisite instrument of subscription on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe Governor of the EBRD for the Union shall report annually to the European Parliament on the use of capital, on measures to ensure transparency of operations of the EBRD through financial intermediaries, on how the EBRD has contributed to the Union\u2019s objectives, on risk-taking and effectiveness in leveraging additional financing from the private sector, and on cooperation between the European Investment Bank and the EBRD outside the Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["47", "32", "13", "70", "3", "95", "72", "65", "42", "78", "36", "21", "4", "11", "77", "41", "49", "88", "71", "55", "58", "64", "76", "89", "34", "57", "37", "81", "85", "80", "No Label", "9", "44"], "gold": ["9", "44"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 955/2010\nof 22 October 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the use of vaccines against Newcastle disease\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (1), and in particular Article 25(1)(b) and Article 26(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (2) lays down veterinary certification requirements for those commodities. Those requirements take into account whether or not additional guarantees or specific conditions are required due to the Newcastle disease status of those third countries, territories, zones or compartments.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 798/2008 also lays down conditions for determining whether or not a third country, territory, zone or compartment is to be considered as free from Newcastle disease. One such criterion is that no vaccination against that disease is carried out using vaccines that do not comply with the criteria for recognised Newcastle disease vaccines set out in Part I of Annex VI to that Regulation. Point 2 of Part II of that Annex sets out specific criteria for Newcastle disease vaccines including for inactivated vaccines.\n(3)\nThe Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals of the World Organisation for Animal Health (the OIE Manual) sets out requirements for vaccines against Newcastle disease including safety controls at different stages of the manufacturing process.\n(4)\nIn the interests of safeguarding the health status of poultry in the Union and in order to facilitate trade in poultry and poultry meat, it is appropriate that the requirements for Newcastle disease vaccines and their use in third countries from where poultry and poultry meat may be imported, take into account the requirements for such vaccines set out in the OIE Manual.\n(5)\nFor that purpose, the general criteria for recognised Newcastle disease vaccines set out in Part I of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should refer to the requirements of the OIE Manual, which should be kept as a dynamic reference to take into account the regular updates to that Manual in the light of new scientific developments.\n(6)\nIn addition, in view of technical progress that has been made in relation to the production of Newcastle disease vaccines, in particular as regards inactivation techniques, as well as the requirements laid down in the OIE Manual, the specific criteria for inactivated Newcastle disease vaccines set out in point 2 of Part II of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should be deleted.\n(7)\nIt is necessary to amend certain provisions for meat of poultry set out in Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 and the corresponding model veterinary certificate for meat of poultry (POU) set out in Annex I, in order to take account of the amendments to Annex VI to that Regulation.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nIt is appropriate to lay down a date of application of this Regulation, in order to align it with the date of application of Commission Decision 93/152/EEC (3), as amended by Decision 2010/633/EU (4), which introduces corresponding amendments for the criteria for inactivated vaccines against Newcastle disease.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I, VI and VII to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 October 2010.", "references": ["58", "47", "67", "33", "71", "83", "99", "28", "36", "95", "52", "76", "4", "80", "13", "75", "78", "12", "73", "53", "50", "43", "62", "29", "23", "18", "16", "5", "97", "59", "No Label", "2", "21", "38", "61", "66"], "gold": ["2", "21", "38", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 991/2010\nof 4 November 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Olive de N\u00eemes (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France's application to register the name \u2018Olive de N\u00eemes\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 November 2010.", "references": ["37", "53", "99", "13", "54", "46", "73", "55", "18", "42", "2", "4", "26", "81", "69", "72", "47", "39", "33", "30", "9", "3", "35", "56", "93", "84", "67", "45", "12", "51", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/122/CFSP\nof 27 February 2012\namending Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/782/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nOn 23 January 2012, the Council reiterated its deep concern about the deteriorating situation in Syria and in particular the widespread and systematic violations of human rights. In line with the European Council declaration of 23 October 2011, the Council also confirmed that the Union will continue its policy of imposing additional measures against the regime as long as the repression continues.\n(3)\nIn this context, restrictive measures should be imposed against the Central Bank of Syria.\n(4)\nMoreover, the sale, purchase, transportation or brokering of gold, precious metals and diamonds to, from or for the Government of Syria should be prohibited.\n(5)\nIn addition, access to the airports of Member States of cargo flights operated by Syrian carriers should be prohibited.\n(6)\nFurthermore, additional persons should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\n(7)\nHowever, there are no longer grounds for keeping one person on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\n(8)\nDecision 2011/782/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2011/782/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 8a\nThe direct or indirect sale, purchase, transportation or brokering of gold and precious metals, as well as of diamonds to, from or for the Government of Syria, its public bodies, corporations and agencies, the Central Bank of Syria, as well as to, from or for persons and entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them, shall be prohibited.\nThe Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this provision.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following chapter is inserted:\n\u2018CHAPTER 2a\nTRANSPORT SECTOR\nArticle 17a\nMember States, in accordance with their national legislation and consistent with international law, in particular relevant international civil aviation agreements, shall take the necessary measures to prevent access to the airports under their jurisdiction of all cargo flights operated by Syrian carriers with the exception of mixed passenger and cargo flights.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 19, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u20188. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to a transfer by or through the Central Bank of Syria of funds or economic resources received and frozen after the date of its designation or to a transfer of funds or economic resources to or through the Central Bank of Syria after the date of its designation where such transfer is related to a payment by a non-designated financial institution due in connection with a specific trade contract, provided that the relevant Member State has determined, on a case-by-case basis, that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1.\n9. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to a transfer by or through the Central Bank of Syria of frozen funds or economic resources where such transfer is for the purpose of providing financial institutions under the jurisdiction of Member States with liquidity for the financing of trade, provided that the transfer has been authorised by the relevant Member State.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe persons and entity listed in Annex I to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nThe person listed in Annex II to this Decision shall be removed from the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 27 February 2012.", "references": ["49", "83", "7", "70", "6", "99", "97", "82", "73", "68", "38", "61", "42", "28", "22", "46", "48", "81", "41", "14", "78", "27", "35", "17", "60", "80", "63", "4", "8", "77", "No Label", "3", "23", "53", "57", "79", "84", "95"], "gold": ["3", "23", "53", "57", "79", "84", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 632/2012\nof 12 July 2012\namending for the 174th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 2 July 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove eight natural persons from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2012.", "references": ["58", "33", "23", "15", "98", "35", "13", "87", "73", "67", "64", "94", "38", "16", "90", "71", "39", "20", "2", "22", "74", "9", "41", "19", "49", "18", "42", "61", "62", "95", "No Label", "1", "3"], "gold": ["1", "3"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 519/2010\nof 16 June 2010\nadopting the programme of the statistical data and of the metadata for population and housing censuses provided for by Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on population and housing censuses (1), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 763/2008, the Commission should adopt a programme of the statistical data and of the metadata for the population and housing censuses to be transmitted to the Commission.\n(2)\nIn order to ensure data from the population and housing censuses conducted in the Member States are comparable, and to allow reliable Union-wide overviews to be drawn up, this programme should be the same in all Member States.\n(3)\nIn particular, it is necessary to define hypercubes which are the same in all Member States, the special cell values and flags that the Member States can use in these hypercubes as well as the metadata on the topics.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1201/2009 of 30 November 2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on population and housing censuses as regards the technical specifications of the topics and of their breakdowns (2) lays down the technical specifications for the census topics and their breakdowns to be applied to the data to be sent to the Commission for the reference year 2011.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation establishes the programme of the statistical data and the metadata for the population and housing censuses to be transmitted to the Commission (Eurostat) for the reference year 2011.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the definitions and specifications in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1201/2009 shall apply. The following definitions shall also apply:\n1.\n\u2018total population\u2019 of a well defined geographical area means all persons whose usual residence, as defined in Article 2(d) of Regulation (EC) No 763/2008, is located in that geographical area;\n2.\n\u2018hypercube\u2019 means a multidimensional cross tabulation of breakdowns which contains a cell value for the measurement of each category of each breakdown cross-tabulated by each category of any other breakdown used in that hypercube;\n3.\n\u2018principal marginal distribution\u2019 means a subset of a given hypercube which results from the cross tabulation of some but not all of the breakdowns of the hypercube;\n4.\n\u2018primary cell\u2019 means any cell which is part of at least one principal marginal distribution in a given hypercube. In hypercubes for which no principal marginal distribution is defined all cells are primary cells;\n5.\n\u2018secondary cell\u2019 means a hypercube cell that is not a primary cell in a given hypercube;\n6.\n\u2018cell value\u2019 means the information transmitted in a hypercube cell. A cell value can be either a \u2018numerical cell value\u2019 or a \u2018special cell value\u2019;\n7.\n\u2018numerical cell value\u2019 means a numerical value that is transmitted in a cell in order to provide the statistical information on the observation for that cell;\n8.\n\u2018confidential cell value\u2019 means a numerical cell value which must not be disclosed to protect the statistical confidentiality of the data according to the Member States\u2019 statistical disclosure control;\n9.\n\u2018non-confidential cell value\u2019 means a numerical cell value which is not a confidential cell value;\n10.\n\u2018unreliable cell value\u2019 means a numerical cell value which is unreliable according to the Member States\u2019 quality control;\n11.\n\u2018special cell value\u2019 means a symbol that is transmitted in a hypercube cell instead of a numerical cell value;\n12.\n\u2018flag\u2019 means a code that can accompany a particular cell value to describe a specific characteristic of that cell value.\nArticle 3\nProgramme of the statistical data\n1. The programme of the statistical data to be transmitted to the Commission (Eurostat) for the reference year 2011 shall consist of the hypercubes listed in Annex I.\n2. Member States shall transmit the special cell value \u2018not applicable\u2019 only in the following cases:\n(a)\nwhen a cell refers to the category \u2018not applicable\u2019 of at least one breakdown; or\n(b)\nwhen a cell describes an observation that does not exist in the Member State.\n3. Member States shall replace any confidential cell value by the special cell value \u2018not available\u2019.\n4. Member States can replace a non-confidential cell value by the special cell value \u2018not available\u2019 only when the cell value is in a secondary cell.\n5. On request of a Member State the Commission (Eurostat) shall not disseminate to the public any unreliable cell value transmitted by that Member State.\nArticle 4\nMetadata on the cell values\n1. Where applicable, Member States shall add the following flags to a hypercube cell:\n(a)\n\u2018confidential\u2019;\n(b)\n\u2018unreliable\u2019;\n(c)\n\u2018revised after first data transmission\u2019;\n(d)\n\u2018see information attached\u2019.\n2. Each cell whose confidential cell value has been replaced by the special value \u2018not available\u2019 shall be marked with the flag \u2018confidential\u2019.\n3. Each cell whose numerical cell value is unreliable shall be marked with the flag \u2018unreliable\u2019, regardless of whether the numerical cell value or the special cell value \u2018not available\u2019 has been transmitted for that cell.\n4. For each cell accompanied by at least one of the flags \u2018unreliable\u2019, \u2018revised after first data transmission\u2019 or \u2018see information attached\u2019 an explanatory text shall be provided.\nArticle 5\nMetadata on the topics\nMember States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with the metadata on the topics as laid out in Annex II.\nArticle 6\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 June 2010.", "references": ["43", "34", "68", "26", "54", "6", "89", "67", "22", "45", "91", "17", "56", "11", "20", "31", "4", "52", "63", "66", "36", "7", "29", "16", "90", "30", "37", "65", "84", "12", "No Label", "9", "19", "42"], "gold": ["9", "19", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 497/2011\nof 18 May 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 May 2011.", "references": ["67", "54", "65", "70", "92", "60", "53", "23", "29", "10", "4", "84", "44", "93", "17", "79", "36", "13", "57", "86", "62", "88", "19", "98", "61", "74", "34", "35", "75", "16", "No Label", "21", "71", "72"], "gold": ["21", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 11 November 2010\non the annual accounts of the European Central Bank\n(recast)\n(ECB/2010/21)\n(2011/65/EU)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the \u2018Statute of the ESCB\u2019), and in particular Article 26.2 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision ECB/2006/17 of 10 November 2006 on the annual accounts of the European Central Bank (1) has been substantially amended several times. Since further amendments are to be made, in particular with regard to the hedging of interest rate risk, it should be recast in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nGuideline ECB/2006/16 of 10 November 2006 on the legal framework for accounting and financial reporting in the European System of Central Banks (2) to which Decision ECB/2006/17 refers has been recast and repealed by Guideline ECB/2010/20 of 11 November 2010 on the legal framework for accounting and financial reporting in the European System of Central Banks (3),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\n1. The terms defined in Article 1 of Guideline ECB/2010/20 shall have the same meaning when used in this Decision.\n2. Other technical terms used in this Decision shall have the same meaning as in Annex II to Guideline ECB/2010/20.\nArticle 2\nScope of application\nThe rules set out in this Decision shall apply to the annual accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) comprising the balance sheet, items recorded in the books of the ECB off-balance-sheet, the profit and loss account and the notes to the annual accounts of the ECB.\nArticle 3\nBasic accounting assumptions\nThe basic accounting assumptions defined in Article 3 of Guideline ECB/2010/20 shall also apply for the purposes of this Decision.\nArticle 4\nRecognition of assets and liabilities\nA financial or other asset/liability shall only be recognised in the balance sheet of the ECB in accordance with Article 4 of Guideline ECB/2010/20.\nArticle 5\nEconomic and cash/settlement approaches\nThe rules set out in Article 5 of Guideline ECB/2010/20 shall apply to this Decision.\nCHAPTER II\nCOMPOSITION AND VALUATION RULES FOR THE BALANCE SHEET\nArticle 6\nComposition of the balance sheet\nThe composition of the balance sheet shall be based on the structure set out in Annex I.\nArticle 7\nProvision for foreign exchange rate, interest rate, credit and gold price risks\nTaking into due consideration the nature of the ECB\u2019s activities, the Governing Council may establish a provision for foreign exchange rate, interest rate, credit and gold price risks in the balance sheet of the ECB. The Governing Council shall decide on the size and use of the provision on the basis of a reasoned estimate of the ECB\u2019s risk exposures.\nArticle 8\nBalance sheet valuation rules\n1. Current market rates and prices shall be used for balance sheet valuation purposes unless specified otherwise in Annex I.\n2. The revaluation of gold, foreign currency instruments, securities other than those classified as held-to-maturity and non-marketable securities, as well as financial instruments, both on-balance-sheet and off-balance-sheet, shall be performed at the year-end at mid-market rates and prices.\n3. No distinction shall be made between price and currency revaluation differences for gold, but a single gold revaluation difference shall be accounted for, based on the euro price per defined unit of weight of gold derived from the euro/US dollar exchange rate on the quarterly revaluation date. For foreign exchange, including on-balance-sheet and off-balance-sheet transactions, revaluation shall take place on a currency-by-currency basis. For the purpose of this Article, holdings of SDRs, including designated individual foreign exchange holdings underlying the SDR basket, shall be treated as one holding. For securities, revaluation shall take place on a code-by-code basis, i.e. same ISIN number/type. Securities held for monetary policy purposes or included in the items \u2018Other financial assets\u2019 or \u2018Sundry\u2019 shall be treated as separate holdings.\n4. Securities classified as held-to-maturity shall be treated as separate holdings, valued at amortised costs and subject to impairment. The same treatment shall apply to non-marketable securities. Securities classified as held-to-maturity may be sold before their maturity in any of the following circumstances:\n(a)\nif the quantity sold is considered not significant in comparison with the total amount of the held-to-maturity securities portfolio;\n(b)\nif the securities are sold during the month of the maturity date;\n(c)\nunder exceptional circumstances, such as a significant deterioration of the issuer\u2019s creditworthiness, or following an explicit monetary policy decision of the Governing Council.\nArticle 9\nReverse transactions\nReverse transactions shall be accounted for in accordance with Article 8 of Guideline ECB/2010/20.\nArticle 10\nMarketable equity instruments\nMarketable equity instruments shall be accounted for in accordance with Article 9 of Guideline ECB/2010/20.\nArticle 11\nHedging of interest rate risk on securities with derivatives\nThe hedging of interest rate risk shall be accounted for in accordance with Article 10 of Guideline ECB/2010/20.\nArticle 12\nSynthetic instruments\nSynthetic instruments shall be accounted for in accordance with Article 11 of Guideline ECB/2010/20.\nCHAPTER III\nINCOME RECOGNITION\nArticle 13\nIncome recognition\n1. Article 13(1), (2), (3), (5) and (7) of Guideline ECB/2010/20 shall apply to income recognition.\n2. Holdings on special revaluation accounts stemming from contributions in accordance with Article 48.2 of the Statute of the ESCB with respect to central banks of Member States for which the derogation has been abrogated shall be used to offset unrealised losses when exceeding previous revaluation gains registered in the corresponding standard revaluation account as laid down by Article 13(1)(c) of Guideline ECB/2010/20, prior to the offsetting of such losses in accordance with Article 33.2 of the Statute of the ESCB. The holdings on special revaluation accounts for gold, currencies and securities shall be reduced pro rata in the event of a reduction in the holdings of the relevant assets.\nArticle 14\nCost of transactions\nArticle 14 of Guideline ECB/2010/20 shall apply to this Decision.\nCHAPTER IV\nACCOUNTING RULES FOR OFF-BALANCE-SHEET INSTRUMENTS\nArticle 15\nGeneral rules\nArticle 15 of Guideline ECB/2010/20 shall apply to this Decision.\nArticle 16\nForeign exchange forward transactions\nForeign exchange forward transactions shall be accounted for in accordance with Article 16 of Guideline ECB/2010/20.\nArticle 17\nForeign exchange swaps\nForeign exchange swaps shall be accounted for in accordance with Article 17 of Guideline ECB/2010/20.\nArticle 18\nFuture contracts\nFuture contracts shall be accounted for in accordance with Article 18 of Guideline ECB/2010/20.\nArticle 19\nInterest rate swaps\nInterest rate swaps shall be accounted for in accordance with Article 19 of Guideline ECB/2010/20. Unrealised losses taken to the profit and loss account at the year-end shall be amortised in subsequent years in accordance with the straight-line method. For forward interest rate swaps the amortisation shall begin from the value date of the transaction.\nArticle 20\nForward rate agreements\nForward rate agreements shall be accounted for in accordance with Article 20 of Guideline ECB/2010/20.\nArticle 21\nForward transactions in securities\nForward transactions in securities shall be accounted for in accordance with Method A in Article 21(1) of Guideline ECB/2010/20.\nArticle 22\nOptions\nOptions shall be accounted for in accordance with Article 22 of Guideline ECB/2010/20.\nCHAPTER V\nANNUAL PUBLISHED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT\nArticle 23\nFormats\n1. The format of the ECB\u2019s published annual balance sheet shall follow the format in Annex II.\n2. The format of the ECB\u2019s published profit and loss account shall comply with Annex III.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 24\nDevelopment, application and interpretation of rules\n1. In interpreting this Decision, account shall be taken of the preparatory work, the accounting principles harmonised by Union law and generally accepted international accounting standards.\n2. If a specific accounting treatment is not laid down in this Decision and in the absence of a decision to the contrary by the Governing Council, the ECB shall follow valuation principles in accordance with International Accounting Standards as adopted by the European Union, which are relevant to the ECB\u2019s activities and accounts.\nArticle 25\nRepeal\nDecision ECB/2006/17 is hereby repealed. References to the repealed Decision shall be construed as references to this Decision and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex V.\nArticle 26\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 31 December 2010.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 11 November 2010.", "references": ["1", "27", "73", "67", "31", "69", "79", "53", "30", "77", "42", "16", "48", "11", "33", "23", "74", "29", "76", "15", "64", "28", "43", "55", "38", "83", "68", "87", "86", "66", "No Label", "7", "18", "32", "47"], "gold": ["7", "18", "32", "47"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 June 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the ACP-EU Council of Ministers concerning the status of the Republic of South Sudan in relation to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part\n(2012/352/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217 in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Internal agreement between the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (2), was first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (3) and was amended for the second time in Ouagadougou on 22 June 2010 (4) (\u2018the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement\u2019). The second amendment has been provisionally applied since 31 October 2010.\n(2)\nArticle 94 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement stipulates that any request for accession by a State is to be presented to, and approved by, the ACP-EU Council of Ministers.\n(3)\nOn 20 March 2012, the Republic of South Sudan presented a request for accession in accordance with Article 94 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and a request for observer status, enabling it to participate in the joint institutions set up by that Agreement, until the accession procedure is completed.\n(4)\nThe approval by the ACP-EU Council of Ministers of the accession of South Sudan, and the granting in the meantime of observer status to South Sudan, until 20 November 2012, by the ACP-EU Council of Ministers should be approved by the Union. South Sudan should deposit the Act of Accession with the Depositaries of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, namely, the Secretariat-General of the Council of the European Union and the Secretariat of the ACP States, no later than that date.\n(5)\nIt is therefore appropriate to establish the position to be taken by the Union within the ACP-EU Council of Ministers concerning the status of South Sudan in relation to the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement.\n(6)\nThe position of the Union within the ACP-EU Council of Ministers should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the ACP-EU Council of Ministers, on the matter of the Republic of South Sudan\u2019s requests for accession and observer status, is to accept these requests under the terms of the draft Decision of the ACP-EU Council of Ministers attached to this Decision.\nThe observer status shall be valid until 20 November 2012. South Sudan shall deposit the Act of Accession with the Secretariat-General of the Council of the European Union and the Secretariat of the ACP States no later than that date.\nFormal and minor changes to the draft Decision of the ACP-EU Council of Ministers may be agreed without requiring that Decision to be amended.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["31", "54", "53", "21", "64", "23", "29", "59", "86", "66", "11", "6", "17", "14", "69", "5", "19", "95", "7", "24", "85", "32", "87", "97", "55", "83", "12", "33", "4", "67", "No Label", "3", "9", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 770/2010\nof 31 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 August 2010.", "references": ["70", "2", "57", "41", "13", "51", "62", "55", "63", "8", "89", "50", "42", "85", "22", "54", "5", "73", "99", "53", "32", "77", "91", "90", "40", "39", "93", "17", "11", "25", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 626/2010\nof 15 July 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 July 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 4 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 July 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 July 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 July 2010.", "references": ["81", "32", "14", "98", "0", "5", "78", "46", "16", "72", "92", "51", "64", "12", "57", "65", "45", "43", "56", "59", "17", "66", "95", "35", "62", "39", "44", "52", "15", "54", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 312/2012\nof 9 January 2012\namending Council Regulation (EU) No 973/2010 temporarily suspending autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 973/2010 of 25 October 2010 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 973/2010 temporarily suspended customs duties on the imports of certain industrial products into the Azores and Madeira. The goods for agricultural, commercial or industrial use to which the suspension applies are set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 973/2010. The raw materials, parts and components used for agricultural purposes, industrial transformation or maintenance for which the suspension applies are set out in Annex II to that Regulation. Those goods are listed in the Annexes using the codes of the Combined Nomenclature applicable for 2009 as set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 (2).\n(2)\nThe Combined Nomenclature has been replaced by Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (3) and by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (4). As a consequence of those amendments, certain technical adaptations to the CN codes listed in Annexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 973/2010 should be made.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 973/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nAs certain amendments to the CN codes apply from 1 January 2011, the corresponding amendments to Regulation (EU) No 973/2010 should apply from that date,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 973/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nAnnex I is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe CN codes listed in column 1 are replaced by the CN codes listed in column 2;\n1\n2\nCN codes\nCN codes\n7612 90 98\n7612 90 90\n8442 50 23\n8442 50 20\n8442 50 29\n8442 50 20\n8451 21 90\n8451 21 00\n8465 99 90\n8465 99 00\n8504 32 80\n8504 32 00\n8515 80 91\n8515 80 90\n9017 30 10\n9017 30 00\n(b)\nthe CN codes listed in column 1 are replaced by the CN codes listed in column 2;\n1\n2\nCN codes\nCN codes\n7321 81 90\n7321 81 00\n7323 93 90\n7323 93 00\n7326 20 80\n7326 20 00\n9008 10 00\n9008 50 00\n(2)\nin Annex II CN code 7323 99 99 is replaced by CN code 7323 99 00.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nHowever, Article 1(1)(a) shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 January 2012.", "references": ["95", "55", "15", "73", "81", "36", "60", "43", "61", "39", "97", "35", "27", "87", "42", "79", "72", "5", "6", "23", "58", "48", "59", "99", "3", "1", "30", "90", "47", "45", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "82", "92"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "82", "92"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 5 December 2011\namending and extending the application period of Decision 2010/371/EU concerning the conclusion of consultations with the Republic of Madagascar under Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement\n(2011/808/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1) and amended in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, on 22 June 2010 (2), hereinafter referred to as \"the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement\", and in particular Article 96 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nIn agreement with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2010/371/EU of 7 June 2010 concerning the conclusion of consultations with the Republic of Madagascar under Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement (4) was adopted in order to implement appropriate measures in response to the violation of the essential elements referred to in Article 9 of the said ACP-EU Partnership Agreement.\n(2)\nThese appropriate measures were extended until 6 December 2011 by Decision 2011/324/EU (5) since, after twelve months, no road map for a consensus-based transition had been signed by the Malagasy parties or endorsed by the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the African Union or the international community.\n(3)\nThanks to major efforts by all Malagasy political parties and the mediation of the SADC, a \"roadmap\" to end the crisis in Madagascar was signed by a clear majority of Madagascar's political stakeholders on 16 September 2011. This roadmap outlines the commitments entered into by the signatories with a view to a neutral, inclusive and consensus-based transition process leading to the holding of transparent, free and credible elections and the return to constitutional order. Implementation has already begun with the appointment of a consensus Prime Minister on 28 October 2011.\n(4)\nAccordingly, the appropriate measures should be amended so that the European Union can support the transition process, on condition that the Malagasy side fulfils its commitments in terms of the key transition milestones of the roadmap or of those that may emerge by agreement in the course of any political dialogue between the Malagasy government and the Union.\n(5)\nThe period of application of Decision 2010/371/EU expires on 6 December 2011. The appropriate measures as amended by this Decision should be applicable for twelve months, subject to their regular review over this period,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/371/EU is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 3 the second sentence is replaced by the following:\n\"It shall remain in force during the period until 6 December 2012, subject to regular review during this period\";\n(2)\nthe appropriate measures set out in the letter in the Annex to Decision 2010/371/EU of 7 June 2010 are replaced by the appropriate measures set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 5 December 2011.", "references": ["82", "67", "5", "36", "62", "21", "19", "39", "90", "40", "24", "45", "64", "54", "29", "20", "18", "31", "71", "32", "72", "85", "73", "83", "41", "28", "93", "61", "88", "87", "No Label", "0", "1", "3", "4", "9", "94"], "gold": ["0", "1", "3", "4", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1172/2011\nof 16 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["67", "25", "75", "91", "9", "85", "23", "16", "89", "76", "31", "20", "82", "48", "47", "81", "59", "88", "8", "14", "12", "73", "3", "2", "29", "65", "87", "55", "63", "44", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1248/2011\nof 29 November 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of 3 months, continue to be invoked by the holder, pursuant to Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of 3 months pursuant to Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2011.", "references": ["18", "81", "32", "94", "17", "59", "67", "97", "74", "28", "47", "16", "54", "52", "22", "48", "66", "34", "95", "75", "98", "43", "90", "11", "76", "79", "57", "41", "72", "91", "No Label", "21", "85", "87"], "gold": ["21", "85", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 801/2010\nof 13 September 2010\nimplementing Article 10(3) of Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the flag State criteria\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on port State control (1), and in particular Article 10(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFlag State performance is one of the generic parameters determining the risk profile of ships.\n(2)\nIn order to assess the risk profile of a ship, the detention rate within the Union and within the region covered by the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on port State control (Paris MoU) should be taken into account.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to build upon the expertise acquired through the application of the Paris MoU with regard to the methodology to be used for assessing flag State performance.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nCategorization of flag States based on the detention rates\n1. With a view to establishing flag State performance within the meaning of Directive 2009/16/EC, flag States shall be classified into black, grey or white lists, adopted in accordance with the Paris MoU on the basis of the total inspections and detentions over a three year period. Additionally, flag States listed in the black list shall be divided into very high, high, medium to high or medium risk depending on their detention rate. The classification shall be updated yearly.\n2. Classification of a flag State into the black, grey or white list requires a minimum of thirty port state control inspections.\n3. The methodology and formulas to be used to categorize the flag States shall comply with the flag State criteria as set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nFlag State performance based on the IMO audit\nThe compliance referred to in point (c) (iii) of Part I.1 of Annex I to Directive 2009/16/EC required for ships to be considered as posing a lower risk, shall be regarded as demonstrated when the Commission receives a written confirmation from the flag State that a final audit report has been completed and where relevant, a corrective action plan submitted. Audits carried out before 17 June 2009 shall be taken into account equally.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2010.", "references": ["57", "68", "5", "37", "94", "32", "43", "71", "12", "30", "88", "70", "38", "95", "2", "79", "60", "23", "44", "48", "31", "4", "46", "33", "69", "52", "98", "93", "22", "28", "No Label", "13", "39", "53", "56", "76"], "gold": ["13", "39", "53", "56", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 December 2011\non the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest\n(notified under document C(2011) 9380)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/21/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 106(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 14 of the Treaty requires the Union, without prejudice to Articles 93, 106 and 107 of the Treaty, to use its powers in such a way as to make sure that services of general economic interest operate on the basis of principles and conditions which enable them to fulfil their missions.\n(2)\nFor certain services of general economic interest to operate on the basis of principles and under conditions which enable them to fulfil their missions, financial support from the State may prove necessary to cover some or all of the specific costs resulting from the public service obligations. In accordance with Article 345 of the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is irrelevant whether such services of general economic interest are operated by public or private undertakings.\n(3)\nArticle 106(2) of the Treaty states in this respect that undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly are subject to the rules contained in the Treaty, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of these rules does not obstruct, in law or in fact, the performance of the tasks entrusted. This should however not affect the development of trade to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.\n(4)\nIn its judgment in Altmark (1), the Court of Justice held that public service compensation does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty provided that four cumulative criteria are met. First, the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge, and the obligations must be clearly defined. Second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner. Third, the compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit. Finally, where the undertaking that is to discharge public service obligations, in a specific case, is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs that a typical undertaking, well-run and adequately provided with the relevant means, would have incurred.\n(5)\nWhere those criteria are not fulfilled and the general conditions for the applicability of Article 107(1) of the Treaty are met, public service compensation constitutes State aid and is subject to Articles 93, 106, 107 and 108 of the Treaty.\n(6)\nIn addition to this Decision, three instruments are relevant for the application of the State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest:\n(a)\na new Communication on the application of the European Union State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest (2) clarifies the application of Article 107 of the Treaty and the criteria set by the Altmark ruling to such compensation;\n(b)\na new Regulation, which the Commission intends to adopt, on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty to de minimis aid for the provision of SGEI lays down certain conditions - including the amount of the compensation - under which public service compensations shall be deemed not to meet all the criteria of Article 107(1);\n(c)\na revised framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (3) specifies how the Commission will analyse cases that are not covered by this Decision and therefore have to be notified to the Commission.\n(7)\nCommission Decision 2005/842/EC of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (4) specifies the meaning and extent of the exception pursuant to Article 106(2) of the Treaty and sets out rules intended to enable effective monitoring of the fulfilment of the criteria set out in that provision. This Decision replaces Decision 2005/842/EC and lays down the conditions under which State aid in the form of compensation for a service of general economic interest is not subject to the prior notification requirement of Article 108(3) of the Treaty as it can be deemed compatible with Article 106(2) of the Treaty.\n(8)\nSuch aid may be deemed compatible only if it is granted in order to ensure the provision of services of general economic interest as referred to in Article 106(2) of the Treaty. It is clear from the case-law that, in the absence of sectoral Union rules governing the matter, Member States have a wide margin of discretion in the definition of services that could be classified as being services of general economic interest. Thus the Commission\u2019s task is to ensure that there is no manifest error as regards the definition of services of general economic interest.\n(9)\nProvided a number of conditions are met, limited amounts of compensation granted to undertakings entrusted with the provision of services of general economic interest do not affect the development of trade and competition to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union. An individual State aid notification should therefore not be required for compensation below a specified annual amount of compensation provided the requirements of this Decision are met.\n(10)\nGiven the development of intra-Union trade in the provision of services of general economic interest, demonstrated for instance by the strong development of multi-national providers in a number of sectors which are of great importance for the development of the internal market, it is appropriate to set a lower limit for the amount of compensation which can be exempted from the notification requirement in accordance with this Decision than what was set by Decision 2005/842/EC, while allowing for that amount to be computed as an annual average over the entrustment period.\n(11)\nHospitals and undertakings in charge of social services, which are entrusted with tasks of general economic interest, have specific characteristics that need to be taken into consideration. In particular, account should be taken of the fact that, in the present economic conditions and at the current stage of development of the internal market, social services may require an amount of aid beyond the threshold in this Decision to compensate for the public service costs. A larger amount of compensation for social services does thus not necessarily produce a greater risk of distortions of competition. Accordingly, undertakings in charge of social services, including the provision of social housing for disadvantaged citizens or socially less advantaged groups, who due to solvency constraints are unable to obtain housing at market conditions, should also benefit from the exemption from notification provided for in this Decision, even if the amount of compensation they receive exceeds the general compensation threshold laid down in this Decision. The same should apply to hospitals providing medical care, including, where applicable, emergency services and ancillary services directly related to their main activities, in particular in the field of research. In order to benefit from the exemption from notification, social services should be clearly identified services, meeting social needs as regards health and long-term care, childcare, access to and reintegration into the labour market, social housing and the care and social inclusion of vulnerable groups.\n(12)\nThe extent to which a particular compensation measure affects trade and competition depends not only on the average amount of compensation received per year and the sector concerned, but also on the overall duration of the period of entrustment. Unless a longer period is justified due to the need for a significant investment, for example in the area of social housing, the application of this Decision should therefore be limited to periods of entrustment not exceeding 10 years.\n(13)\nIn order for Article 106(2) of the Treaty to apply, the undertaking in question must have been specifically entrusted by the Member State with the operation of a particular service of general economic interest.\n(14)\nIn order to ensure that the criteria set out in Article 106(2) of the Treaty are met, it is necessary to lay down more precise conditions that must be fulfilled in respect of the entrustment of the operation of services of general economic interest. The amount of compensation can be properly calculated and checked only if the public service obligations incumbent on the undertakings and any obligations incumbent on the State are clearly set out in one or more acts of the competent public authorities in the Member State concerned. The form of the instrument may vary from one Member State to another but it should specify, at least, the undertakings concerned, the precise content and duration of and, where appropriate, the territory concerned by the public service obligations imposed, the granting of any exclusive or special rights, and describe the compensation mechanism and the parameters for determining the compensation and avoiding and recovering any possible overcompensation. In order to ensure transparency in relation to the application of this Decision, the act of entrustment should also include a reference to it.\n(15)\nIn order to avoid unjustified distortions of competition, the compensation should not exceed what is necessary to cover the net costs incurred by the undertaking in operating the service, including a reasonable profit.\n(16)\nCompensation in excess of what is necessary to cover the net costs incurred by the undertaking concerned in operating the service is not necessary for the operation of the service of general economic interest, and consequently constitutes incompatible State aid that should be repaid to the State. Compensation granted for the operation of a service of general economic interest but actually used by the undertaking concerned to operate on another market for purposes other than those specified in the act of entrustment is not necessary for the operation of the service of general economic interest, and may consequently also constitute incompatible State aid that should be repaid.\n(17)\nThe net cost to be taken into account should be calculated as the difference between the cost incurred in operating the service of general economic interest and the revenue earned from the service of general economic interest or, alternatively, as the difference between the net cost of operating with the public service obligation and the net cost or profit operating without the public service obligation. In particular, if the public service obligation leads to a reduction of the revenue, for instance due to regulated tariffs, but does not affect the costs, it should be possible to determine the net cost incurred in discharging the public service obligation on the basis of the foregone revenue. In order to avoid unjustified distortions of competition, all revenues earned from the service of general economic interest, that is to say, any revenues that the provider would not have obtained had it not been entrusted with the obligation should be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the amount of compensation. If the undertaking in question holds special or exclusive rights linked to activities, other than the service of general economic interest for which the aid is granted, that generate profits in excess of the reasonable profit, or benefits from other advantages granted by the State, these should be included in its revenue, irrespective of their classification for the purposes of Article 107 of the Treaty.\n(18)\nReasonable profit should be determined as a rate of return on capital that takes into account the degree of risk, or absence of risk, incurred. The rate of return on capital should be defined as the internal rate of return that the undertaking obtains on its invested capital over the duration of the period of entrustment.\n(19)\nProfit not exceeding the relevant swap rate plus 100 basis points should not be regarded as unreasonable. In this context, the relevant swap rate is viewed as an appropriate rate of return for a risk-free investment. The premium of 100 basis points serves, inter alia, to compensate for liquidity risk related to the provision of capital which is committed for the operation of the service during the period of entrustment.\n(20)\nIn cases where the undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest does not bear a substantial degree of commercial risk, for instance because the costs it incurs in the operation of the service are compensated in full, profits exceeding the benchmark of the relevant swap rate plus 100 basis points should not be viewed as reasonable.\n(21)\nWhere, by reason of specific circumstances, it is not appropriate to use the rate of return on capital, Member States should be able to rely on other profit level indicators to determine what the reasonable profit should be, such as the average return on equity, return on capital employed, return on assets or return on sales.\n(22)\nIn determining what constitutes a reasonable profit, the Member States should be able to introduce incentive criteria relating, in particular, to the quality of service provided and gains in productive efficiency. Efficiency gains should not reduce the quality of the service provided. For instance, Member States should be able to define productive efficiency targets in the entrustment act whereby the level of compensation is made dependent upon the extent to which the targets have been met. The entrustment act may provide that if the undertaking does not meet the objectives, the compensation is to be reduced by applying a calculation method specified in the entrustment act, whereas if the undertaking exceeds the objectives, the compensation may be increased by applying a method specified in the entrustment act. Any rewards linked to productive efficiency gains should be set at a level such as to allow balanced sharing of those gains between the undertaking and the Member State and/or the users.\n(23)\nArticle 93 of the Treaty constitutes a lex specialis with regard to Article 106(2) of the Treaty. It lays down the rules applicable to public service compensation in the land transport sector. Article 93 has been interpreted by Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (5), which lays down the rules applicable to the compensation of public service obligations in public passenger traffic. Its application to inland waterway passenger traffic is at the discretion of the Member States. Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 exempts from notification pursuant to Article 108(3) of the Treaty all compensation in the land transport sector that fulfils the conditions of that Regulation. In accordance with the judgment in Altmark, compensation in the land transport sector that does not comply with the provisions of Article 93 of the Treaty cannot be declared compatible with the Treaty on the basis of Article 106(2) of the Treaty, or on the basis of any other Treaty provision. Consequently, this Decision does not apply to the land transport sector.\n(24)\nUnlike land transport, the maritime and air transport sectors are subject to Article 106(2) of the Treaty. Certain rules applicable to public service compensation in the air and maritime transport sectors are to be found in Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (6) and in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (7). However, unlike Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, those Regulations do not refer to the compatibility of the possible State aid elements, nor do they provide for an exemption from the obligation to notify pursuant to Article 108(3) of the Treaty. This Decision should therefore apply to public service compensation in the air and maritime transport sectors provided that, in addition to fulfilling the conditions set out in this Decision, such compensation also complies with the sectoral rules contained in Regulations (EC) No 1008/2008 and (EEC) No 3577/92 where applicable.\n(25)\nIn the specific cases of public service compensation for air or maritime links to islands and for airports and ports which constitute services of general economic interest as referred to in Article 106(2) of the Treaty, it is appropriate to provide thresholds based on the average annual number of passengers as this more accurately reflects the economic reality of these activities and their character of services of general economic interest.\n(26)\nExemption from the requirement of prior notification for certain services of general economic interest does not rule out the possibility for Member States to notify a specific aid project. In the event of such a notification, or if the Commission assesses the compatibility of a specific aid measure following a complaint or ex officio, the Commission will assess whether the conditions of this Decision are met. If that is not the case, the measure will be assessed in accordance with the principles contained in the Commission Communication on a framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation.\n(27)\nThis Decision should apply without prejudice to the provisions of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (8).\n(28)\nThis Decision should apply without prejudice to the Union provisions in the field of competition, in particular Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty.\n(29)\nThis Decision should apply without prejudice to the Union provisions in the field of public procurement.\n(30)\nThis Decision should apply without prejudice to stricter provisions relating to public service obligations that are contained in sectoral Union legislation.\n(31)\nTransitional provisions should be laid down for individual aid that was granted before the entry into force of this Decision. Aid schemes put into effect in accordance with Decision 2005/842/EC before the entry into force of this Decision should continue to be compatible with the internal market and exempt from the notification requirement for a further period of 2 years. Aid put into effect before the entry into force of this Decision that was not awarded in accordance with Decision 2005/842/EC but fulfils the conditions laid down in this Decision should be compatible with the internal market and exempt from the notification requirement.\n(32)\nThe Commission intends to carry out a review of this Decision 5 years after its entry into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision sets out the conditions under which State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest is compatible with the internal market and exempt from the requirement of notification laid down in Article 108(3) of the Treaty.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Decision applies to State aid in the form of public service compensation, granted to undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest as referred to in Article 106(2) of the Treaty, which falls within one of the following categories:\n(a)\ncompensation not exceeding an annual amount of EUR 15 million for the provision of services of general economic interest in areas other than transport and transport infrastructure;\nwhere the amount of compensation varies over the duration of the entrustment, the annual amount shall be calculated as average of the annual amounts of compensation expected to be made over the entrustment period;\n(b)\ncompensation for the provision of services of general economic interest by hospitals providing medical care, including, where applicable, emergency services; the pursuit of ancillary activities directly related to the main activities, notably in the field of research, does not, however, prevent the application of this paragraph;\n(c)\ncompensation for the provision of services of general economic interest meeting social needs as regards health and long term care, childcare, access to and reintegration into the labour market, social housing and the care and social inclusion of vulnerable groups;\n(d)\ncompensation for the provision of services of general economic interest as regards air or maritime links to islands on which the average annual traffic during the 2 financial years preceding that in which the service of general economic interest was assigned does not exceed 300 000 passengers;\n(e)\ncompensation for the provision of services of general economic interest as regards airports and ports for which the average annual traffic during the 2 financial years preceding that in which the service of general economic interest was assigned does not exceed 200 000 passengers, in the case of airports, and 300 000 passengers, in the case of ports.\n2. This Decision only applies where the period for which the undertaking is entrusted with the operation of the service of general economic interest does not exceed 10 years. Where the period of entrustment exceeds 10 years, this Decision only applies to the extent that a significant investment is required from the service provider that needs to be amortised over a longer period in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.\n3. If during the duration of the entrustment the conditions for the application of this Decision cease to be met, the aid shall be notified in accordance with Article 108(3) of the Treaty.\n4. In the field of air and maritime transport, this Decision only applies to State aid in the form of public service compensation, granted to undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest as referred to in Article 106(2) of the Treaty, which complies with Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 and, respectively, Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 where applicable.\n5. This Decision does not apply to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to undertakings in the field of land transport.\nArticle 3\nCompatibility and exemption from notification\nState aid in the form of public service compensation that meets the conditions laid down in this Decision shall be compatible with the internal market and shall be exempt from the prior notification obligation provided for in Article 108(3) of the Treaty provided that it also complies with the requirements flowing from the Treaty or from sectoral Union legislation.\nArticle 4\nEntrustment\nOperation of the service of general economic interest shall be entrusted to the undertaking concerned by way of one or more acts, the form of which may be determined by each Member State. The act or acts shall include, in particular:\n(a)\nthe content and duration of the public service obligations;\n(b)\nthe undertaking and, where applicable, the territory concerned;\n(c)\nthe nature of any exclusive or special rights assigned to the undertaking by the granting authority;\n(d)\na description of the compensation mechanism and the parameters for calculating, controlling and reviewing the compensation;\n(e)\nthe arrangements for avoiding and recovering any overcompensation; and\n(f)\na reference to this Decision.\nArticle 5\nCompensation\n1. The amount of compensation shall not exceed what is necessary to cover the net cost incurred in discharging the public service obligations, including a reasonable profit.\n2. The net cost may be calculated as the difference between costs as defined in paragraph 3 and revenues as defined in paragraph 4. Alternatively, it may be calculated as the difference between the net cost for the undertaking of operating with the public service obligation and the net cost or profit of the same undertaking operating without the public service obligation.\n3. The costs to be taken into consideration shall comprise all the costs incurred in operating the service of general economic interest. They shall be calculated on the basis of generally accepted cost accounting principles, as follows:\n(a)\nwhere the activities of the undertaking in question are confined to the service of general economic interest, all its costs may be taken into consideration;\n(b)\nwhere the undertaking also carries out activities falling outside the scope of the service of general economic interest, only the costs related to the service of general economic interest shall be taken into consideration;\n(c)\nthe costs allocated to the service of general economic interest may cover all the direct costs incurred in operating the service of general economic interest and an appropriate contribution to costs common to both the service of general economic interest and other activities;\n(d)\nthe costs linked with investments, notably concerning infrastructure, may be taken into account when necessary for the operation of the service of general economic interest.\n4. The revenue to be taken into consideration shall include at least the entire revenue earned from the service of general economic interest, regardless of whether the revenue is classified as State aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty. If the undertaking in question holds special or exclusive rights linked to activities, other than the service of general economic interest for which the aid is granted, that generate profits in excess of the reasonable profit, or benefits from other advantages granted by the State, these shall be included in its revenue, irrespective of their classification for the purposes of Article 107 of the Treaty. The Member State concerned may decide that the profits accruing from other activities outside the scope of the service of general economic interest in question are to be assigned in whole or in part to the financing of the service of general economic interest.\n5. For the purposes of this Decision, \u2018reasonable profit\u2019 means the rate of return on capital that would be required by a typical undertaking considering whether or not to provide the service of general economic interest for the whole period of entrustment, taking into account the level of risk. The \u2018rate of return on capital\u2019 means the internal rate of return that the undertaking makes on its invested capital over the duration of the period of entrustment. The level of risk depends on the sector concerned, the type of service and the characteristics of the compensation.\n6. In determining what constitutes a reasonable profit, Member States may introduce incentive criteria relating, in particular, to the quality of service provided and gains in productive efficiency. Efficiency gains shall not reduce the quality of the service provided. Any rewards linked to productive efficiency gains shall be set at a level such as to allow balanced sharing of those gains between the undertaking and the Member State and/or the users.\n7. For the purposes of this Decision, a rate of return on capital that does not exceed the relevant swap rate plus a premium of 100 basis points shall be regarded as reasonable in any event. The relevant swap rate shall be the swap rate the maturity and currency of which correspond to the duration and currency of the entrustment act. Where the provision of the service of general economic interest is not connected with a substantial commercial or contractual risk, in particular when the net cost incurred in providing the service of general economic interest is essentially compensated ex post in full, the reasonable profit may not exceed the relevant swap rate plus a premium of 100 basis points.\n8. Where, by reasons of specific circumstances, it is not appropriate to use the rate of return on capital, Member States may rely on profit level indicators other than the rate of return on capital to determine what the reasonable profit should be, such as the average return on equity, return on capital employed, return on assets or return on sales. The \u2018return\u2019 means the earnings before interests and taxes in that year. The average return is computed using the discount factor over the life of the contract as specified by the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (9). Whatever indicator is chosen, the Member State shall be able to provide the Commission upon request with evidence that the profit does not exceed what would be required by a typical undertaking considering whether or not to provide the service, for instance by providing references to returns achieved on similar types of contracts awarded under competitive conditions.\n9. Where an undertaking carries out activities falling both inside and outside the scope of the service of general economic interest, the internal accounts shall show separately the costs and receipts associated with the service of general economic interest and those of other services, as well as the parameters for allocating costs and revenues. The costs linked to any activities outside the scope of the service of general economic interest shall cover all the direct costs, an appropriate contribution to the common costs and an adequate return on capital. No compensation shall be granted in respect of those costs.\n10. Member States shall require the undertaking concerned to repay any overcompensation received.\nArticle 6\nControl of overcompensation\n1. Member States shall ensure that the compensation granted for the operation of the service of general economic interest meets the requirements set out in this Decision and in particular that the undertaking does not receive compensation in excess of the amount determined in accordance with Article 5. They shall provide evidence upon request from the Commission. They shall carry out regular checks, or ensure that such checks are carried out, at least every 3 years during the period of entrustment and at the end of that period.\n2. Where an undertaking has received compensation in excess of the amount determined in accordance with Article 5, the Member State shall require the undertaking concerned to repay any overcompensation received. The parameters for the calculation of the compensation shall be updated for the future. Where the amount of overcompensation does not exceed 10 % of the amount of the average annual compensation, such overcompensation may be carried forward to the next period and deducted from the amount of compensation payable in respect of that period.\nArticle 7\nTransparency\nFor compensation above EUR 15 million granted to an undertaking which also has activities outside the scope of the service of general economic interest, the Member State concerned shall publish the following information on the Internet or by other appropriate means:\n(a)\nthe entrustment act or a summary which includes the elements listed in Article 4;\n(b)\nthe amounts of aid granted to the undertaking on a yearly basis.\nArticle 8\nAvailability of information\nThe Member States shall keep available, during the period of entrustment and for at least 10 years from the end of the period of entrustment, all the information necessary to determine whether the compensation granted is compatible with this Decision.\nOn written request by the Commission, Member States shall provide the Commission with all the information that the latter considers necessary to determine whether the compensation measures in force are compatible with this Decision.\nArticle 9\nReports\nEach Member State shall submit a report on the implementation of this Decision to the Commission every 2 years. The reports shall provide a detailed overview of the application of this Decision for the different categories of services referred to in Article 2(1), including:\n(a)\na description of the application of this Decision to the services falling within its scope, including in-house activities;\n(b)\nthe total amount of aid granted in accordance with this Decision, with a breakdown by the economic sector of the beneficiaries;\n(c)\nan indication of whether, for a particular type of service, the application of this Decision has given rise to difficulties or complaints by third parties;\nand\n(d)\nany other information concerning the application of this Decision required by the Commission and to be specified in due time before the report is to be submitted.\nThe first report shall be submitted by 30 June 2014.\nArticle 10\nTransitional provisions\nThis Decision shall apply to individual aid and aid schemes as follows:\n(a)\nany aid scheme put into effect before the entry into force of this Decision that was compatible with the internal market and exempted from the notification requirement in accordance with Decision 2005/842/EC shall continue to be compatible with the internal market and exempt from the notification requirement for a further period of 2 years;\n(b)\nany aid put into effect before the entry into force of this Decision that was not compatible with the internal market nor exempted from the notification requirement in accordance with Decision 2005/842/EC but fulfils the conditions laid down in this Decision shall be compatible with the internal market and exempt from the requirement of prior notification.\nArticle 11\nRepeal\nDecision 2005/842/EC is hereby repealed.\nArticle 12\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 31 January 2012.\nArticle 13\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["39", "62", "68", "63", "54", "43", "53", "98", "93", "79", "8", "80", "86", "42", "58", "71", "76", "97", "10", "92", "69", "41", "99", "49", "81", "84", "61", "78", "70", "33", "No Label", "15", "24", "25", "45", "48"], "gold": ["15", "24", "25", "45", "48"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 407/2011\nof 27 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the inclusion of certain Regulations of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on the type-approval of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Council Decision 97/836/EC (2) the Union has acceded to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 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 (Revised 1958 Agreement).\n(2)\nBy Decision 97/836/EC, the Union has also acceded to UNECE Regulations Nos 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 34, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 46, 48, 58, 66, 73, 77, 79, 80, 87, 89, 90, 91, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, and 102.\n(3)\nBy Council Decision of 28 February 2000, the Union has acceded to UNECE Regulation No 110 on specific components of motor vehicles using compressed natural gas (CNG) in their propulsion system and on vehicles with regard to the installation of specific components of an approved type for the use of compressed natural gas (CNG) in their propulsion system.\n(4)\nBy Council Decision 2000/710/EC (3), the Union has acceded to UNECE Regulation No 67 on the approval of special equipment for motor vehicles fuelled by liquefied petroleum gas.\n(5)\nBy Council Decision of 7 November 2000, the Union has acceded to UNECE No Regulation 112 on uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicle headlamps emitting an asymmetrical passing beam or a driving beam or both and equipped with filament lamps and/or light-emitting diode (LED) modules.\n(6)\nBy Council Decision 2001/395/EC (4), the Union has acceded to UNECE Regulation No 13 H on the component approval of passenger cars in respect of their braking.\n(7)\nBy Council Decision 2001/505/EC (5), the Union has acceded to UNECE Regulation No 105 on the approval of vehicles intended for the carriage of dangerous goods with regard to their specific constructional features.\n(8)\nBy Council Decision of 29 April 2004, the Union has acceded to UNECE Regulation No 116 on uniform prescriptions concerning the protection of motor vehicles against unauthorised use and to UNECE Regulation No 118 on uniform technical prescriptions concerning the burning behaviour of materials used in the interior construction of certain categories of motor vehicles.\n(9)\nBy Council Decision of 14 March 2005, the Union has acceded to UNECE Regulation No 121 on uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the location and identification of hand controls, tell-tales and indicators and to UNECE Regulation No 122 on uniform technical prescriptions concerning the approval of vehicles of categories M, N and O with regards to their heating systems.\n(10)\nBy Council Decision 2005/614/EC (6), the Union has acceded to UNECE Regulation No 94 on provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants in the event of a frontal collision and to UNECE Regulation No 95 on provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants in the event of a lateral collision.\n(11)\nBy Council Decision 2006/364/EC (7), the Union has approved UNECE Regulation No 123 concerning the approval of adaptive front-lighting systems (AFS) for motor vehicles.\n(12)\nBy Council Decision 2006/444/EC (8), the Union has acceded to UNECE Regulation No 55 on provisions concerning the approval of mechanical coupling components of combinations of vehicles.\n(13)\nBy Council Decision 2006/874/EC (9), the Union has acceded to UNECE Regulation No 107 on uniform provisions concerning the approval of categories M2 or M3 vehicles with regard to their general construction.\n(14)\nBy Council Decision 2007/159/EC (10), the Union has approved UNECE Regulation No 125 concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the forward field of vision of the motor vehicle driver.\n(15)\nBy Council Decision 2009/433/EC (11), the Union has acceded to UNECE Regulation No 61 on uniform provisions for the approval of commercial vehicles with regard to their external projections forward of the cab\u2019s rear panel.\n(16)\nIn accordance with Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (12), vehicles manufacturers seeking approval for their systems, components, or separate technical units have the choice of meeting the requirements of either the relevant Directives or the corresponding UNECE Regulations. Most of the requirements under Directives on vehicle parts are taken over from the corresponding UNECE Regulations. As technology progresses, UNECE Regulations are constantly amended and the relevant Directives have to be regularly updated to keep them in line with the content of the respective UNECE Regulations. In order to avoid this duplication, the CARS 21 High Level Group recommended the replacement of several Directives by the corresponding UNECE Regulations.\n(17)\nThe possibility to apply UNECE Regulations for the purpose of EC vehicle type-approval on a compulsory basis and to replace Union legislation by those UNECE Regulations is provided for in Directive 2007/46/EC. According to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 type-approval in accordance with UNECE Regulations which apply on a compulsory basis is to be considered as EC type-approval in accordance with that Regulation and its implementing measures.\n(18)\nReplacing Union legislation by UNECE Regulations helps to avoid duplication not only of technical requirements but also of certification and administrative procedures. In addition, type-approval that is directly based on internationally agreed standards should improve market access in third countries, in particular in those which are contracting parties to the Revised 1958 Agreement, thus enhancing Union industry\u2019s competitiveness.\n(19)\nTherefore, Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 provides for the repeal of several Directives concerning the type-approval of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefore, which, for the purposes of EC type-approval in accordance with that Regulation should be replaced by corresponding UNECE Regulations.\n(20)\nFor that reason, it is appropriate to include UNECE Regulations Nos 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13 H, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 34, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 46, 48, 55, 58, 61, 66, 67, 73, 77, 79, 80, 87, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 105, 107, 110, 112, 116, 118, 121, 122, 123 and 125 into Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009, which lists the UNECE Regulations that apply on a compulsory basis.\n(21)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(22)\nThe UNECE Regulations listed in the Annex to this Regulation should apply following the implementation dates set out in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009.\n(23)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\n1. Subject to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 and Article 4, the UNECE Regulations with the series of amendments and supplements as indicated in the Annex shall apply for the purpose of EC type-approval of new types of vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor from 1 November 2012.\n2. With effect from 1 November 2011, UNECE Regulation No 13 H, supplement 9 (13) shall apply for the purpose of EC type-approval of new types of vehicles of category M1.\n3. With effect from 1 November 2011, UNECE Regulation No 13, supplement 3 to the 11 series of amendments (14) or UNECE Regulation No 13 H, supplement 9, shall apply for the purpose of EC type-approval of new types of vehicles of category N1.\n4. With effect from the implementation dates set out in Table 1 of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009, UNECE Regulation No 13, supplement 3 to the 11 series of amendments, shall apply for the purpose of EC type-approval of new types of vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2, N3, O3 and O4 regarding electronic stability control systems.\nArticle 3\n1. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3 and Article 4, the UNECE Regulations with the series of amendments and supplements as indicated in the Annex shall apply for the purpose of registration, sale and entry into service of new vehicles and their trailers and sale and entry into service of new systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor from 1 November 2014.\n2. With effect from 1 November 2014, UNECE Regulation No 13, supplement 3 to the 11 series of amendments, or UNECE Regulation No 13 H, supplement 9, shall apply for the purpose of registration, sale and entry into service of new vehicles of category N1.\n3. With effect from the implementation dates set out in Table 2 of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009, UNECE Regulation No 13, supplement 3 to the 11 series of amendments, shall apply for the purpose of registration, sale and entry into service of new vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2, N3, O3 and O4 regarding electronic stability control systems.\nArticle 4\n1. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 2, UNECE Regulation No 100, series of amendments 00 (15), shall apply for the purpose of EC whole vehicle type-approval in accordance with Directive 2007/46/EC and EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to electric safety as of 1 May 2011 referred to in Article 5 of the present Regulation.\n2. With effect from 1 January 2012, UNECE Regulation No 100, series of amendments 00, shall apply for the purpose of registration, sale and entry into service of new vehicles.\n3. With effect from 4 December 2012, UNECE Regulation No 100, series of amendments 01 (16), shall apply for the purpose of EC whole vehicle type-approval in accordance with Directive 2007/46/EC and EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to electric safety.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2011.", "references": ["18", "14", "33", "24", "86", "77", "62", "51", "68", "84", "64", "87", "88", "93", "72", "65", "41", "11", "59", "38", "1", "89", "82", "40", "73", "28", "0", "74", "99", "67", "No Label", "8", "54", "76"], "gold": ["8", "54", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 1 October 2010\nappointing one Italian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/601/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Italian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the end of mandate of Mr Salvatore MANGIAFICO,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as alternate member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr Samuele BALDINI,\nConsigliere, Provincia di Firenze\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 1 October 2010.", "references": ["65", "28", "31", "90", "9", "18", "39", "11", "95", "10", "26", "50", "20", "49", "8", "83", "15", "48", "93", "13", "0", "75", "14", "38", "66", "30", "54", "85", "69", "57", "No Label", "7", "52", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "52", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 October 2011\non the Union financial contribution to national programmes of six Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom) in 2011 for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector\n(notified under document C(2011) 7142)\n(Only the Danish, Dutch, English, French, Greek and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2011/703/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea (1), and in particular Article 24(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 861/2006 lays down the conditions whereby Member States may receive a contribution from the European Union for expenditure incurred in their national programmes of collection and management of data.\n(2)\nThose programmes are to be drawn up in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 of 14 July 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 (3).\n(3)\nBelgium, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom have submitted national programmes for 2011-2013 as provided for in Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. These programmes were approved in 2011 in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008.\n(4)\nThose Member States have submitted annual budget forecasts covering the period 2011-2013 according to Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States for the collection and management of the basic fisheries data (4). The Commission has evaluated Member States\u2019 annual budget forecasts, as laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008, by taking into account the approved national programmes.\n(5)\nArticle 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 establishes that the Commission is to approve the annual budget forecast and is to decide on the annual Union financial contribution to each national programme in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and on the basis of the outcome of the evaluation of the annual budget forecasts as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008.\n(6)\nArticle 24(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 establishes that a Commission Decision is to fix the rate of the financial contribution. Article 16 of that Regulation provides that Union financial measures in the area of basic data collection are not to exceed 50 % of the costs incurred by Member States in carrying out the programme of collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector.\n(7)\nThis Decision constitutes the financing decision within the meaning of Article 75(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5).\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe maximum global amounts of the Union financial contribution to be granted to each Member State for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for 2011 and the rate of the Union financial contribution, are established in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 10 October 2011.", "references": ["17", "41", "1", "12", "84", "79", "55", "4", "95", "45", "73", "58", "9", "18", "15", "89", "83", "7", "77", "8", "40", "29", "24", "62", "31", "13", "5", "61", "49", "66", "No Label", "10", "42", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "42", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 675/2010\nof 28 July 2010\nentering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Traditionally Farmed Gloucestershire Old Spots Pork (TSG))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 9(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 and Article 19(3) thereof, the United Kingdom\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Traditionally Farmed Gloucestershire Old Spots Pork\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register.\n(3)\nThe application also requested protection under Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006. That protection should be granted to the name \u2018Traditionally Farmed Gloucestershire Old Spots Pork\u2019 in so far as, in the absence of objections, it could not be demonstrated that the name is used in a lawful, renowned and economically significant manner for similar agricultural products or foodstuffs,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nProtection as referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2010.", "references": ["52", "4", "43", "61", "16", "20", "27", "71", "95", "1", "10", "57", "82", "90", "49", "88", "41", "99", "32", "50", "53", "83", "22", "62", "23", "74", "73", "33", "2", "18", "No Label", "24", "63", "65", "69", "72", "77", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "63", "65", "69", "72", "77", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 902/2011\nof 7 September 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 890/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 September 2011.", "references": ["89", "11", "21", "73", "53", "38", "19", "56", "30", "31", "14", "55", "71", "62", "63", "41", "25", "84", "97", "39", "88", "7", "80", "61", "33", "67", "8", "66", "96", "68", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION ATALANTA/4/2011\nof 2 December 2011\non the appointment of an EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)\n(2011/792/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (Atalanta), and in particular Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6(1) of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Force Commander.\n(2)\nOn 5 July 2011, the PSC adopted Decision Atalanta/3/2011 (2) appointing Rear Admiral Thomas JUGEL as EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\n(3)\nThe EU Operation Commander has recommended the appointment of Captain Jorge MANSO as the new EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\n(4)\nThe EU Military Committee supports that recommendation.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nCaptain Jorge MANSO is hereby appointed EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 6 December 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2011.", "references": ["58", "24", "39", "64", "34", "98", "46", "31", "52", "91", "26", "89", "85", "23", "72", "37", "97", "22", "84", "3", "49", "81", "74", "5", "13", "21", "47", "40", "79", "62", "No Label", "6", "7", "9", "12", "94"], "gold": ["6", "7", "9", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1169/2010\nof 10 December 2010\non a common safety method for assessing conformity with the requirements for obtaining a railway safety authorisation\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community\u2019s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive) (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Recommendation ERA/REC/SAF/09-2009 from the European Railway Agency, delivered to the Commission on 18 September 2009, on a common safety method (CSM) for conformity assessment,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe purpose of the common safety method (CSM) to be established is to provide a framework for national safety authorities to harmonise their decision-making criteria across the Union, in accordance with Article 17(4) of Directive 2004/49/EC. It should enable national safety authorities to assess conformity with requirements in a uniform manner.\n(2)\nThe CSM should include all the harmonised requirements and assessment methods to enable national safety authorities to issue an infrastructure manager with a safety authorisation covering the adequacy of the safety management system in general and any network-specific authorisation. Furthermore, it is likely that the infrastructure manager will apply for the network-specific part of the authorisation at the same time as it applies for a general authorisation based on its safety management system.\n(3)\nNational safety authorities assess the ability of an infrastructure manager to comply with all the requirements required to operate in general and on the specific network for which it is seeking an authorisation by assessing its safety management system at global level.\n(4)\nEach national safety authority needs to put in place arrangements to examine whether the results outlined in the application for a safety authorisation are being delivered in operation after the award of the authorisation and whether all the necessary requirements are complied with on a continuous basis, as required by Article 16(2)(f) and Article 17(2) of Directive 2004/49/EC. This therefore requires the development of a post-award supervision regime based on key fundamental principles in order to ensure a harmonised approach by national safety authorities in each Member State.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 27(1) of Directive 2004/49/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject-matter\nThis Regulation establishes a common safety method (CSM) for assessing conformity with requirements for obtaining safety authorisation as referred to in Article 6(3)(b) of Directive 2004/49/EC.\nThe CSM includes:\n(a)\na procedure and criteria for assessing applications by infrastructure managers for safety authorisations as referred to in Article 11(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2004/49/EC, as set out in Annex I and II to this Regulation;\n(b)\nprinciples for supervising compliance with the requirements of Directive 2004/49/EC after the national safety authority has granted the authorisation, as set out in Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nDefinition\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definition shall apply:\n\u2018supervision\u2019 means the arrangements put in place by the national safety authority to oversee safety performance after it has granted a safety authorisation.\nArticle 3\nProcedures for assessing applications\n1. When examining applications for safety authorisations submitted after the entry into force of this Regulation, national safety authorities shall apply the procedure set out in Annex I to this Regulation for assessing their conformity with requirements in Directive 2004/49/EC. The national safety authorities shall also use the assessment criteria set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\n2. During assessment, national safety authorities may accept commitments by applicants that they will manage risks through the use of contracts with third parties. The contracts shall also specify the exchange of information needed to ensure the safe operation of vehicles, especially in areas relating to managing maintenance.\n3. Products or services provided by contractors or suppliers to infrastructure managers shall be presumed to conform to safety requirements if the contractors, suppliers, or products are certified in accordance with relevant certification schemes established under Union legislation, for the provision of such products and services.\nArticle 4\nSupervision\nAfter granting a safety authorisation, national safety authorities shall supervise infrastructure managers\u2019 continued application of their safety management system and shall apply the principles for supervision set out in Annex III.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 December 2010.", "references": ["52", "46", "4", "37", "39", "10", "97", "5", "65", "26", "92", "82", "32", "18", "87", "99", "81", "21", "29", "64", "56", "27", "40", "33", "13", "19", "41", "11", "78", "17", "No Label", "53", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["53", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 196/2012\nof 8 March 2012\nfixing the amount of the carry-over aid and the flat-rate aid for certain fishery products for the 2012 fishing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2814/2000 of 21 December 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards the grant of carry-over aid for certain fishery products (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 939/2001 of 14 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards the grant of flat-rate aid for certain fishery products (3), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 104/2000 provides that aid may be granted for quantities of certain fresh products withdrawn from the market and either processed to stabilise them and stored or preserved.\n(2)\nThe purpose of that aid is to give suitable encouragement to producers\u2019 organisations to process or preserve products withdrawn from the market so that their destruction can be avoided.\n(3)\nThe aid level should not be such as to disturb the balance of the market for the products in question or distort competition.\n(4)\nThe aid level should not exceed the technical and financial costs associated with the operations essential to stabilising and storage recorded in the Union during the fishing year preceding the year in question.\n(5)\nIn order not to hinder the operation of the intervention system in the year 2012, this Regulation should apply retroactively from 1 January 2012.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 2012 fishing year, the amounts of the carry-over aid referred to in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, and the amounts of the flat-rate aid referred to in Article 24(4) of that Regulation, are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2012.", "references": ["12", "43", "1", "96", "2", "31", "69", "53", "4", "7", "46", "30", "90", "58", "86", "97", "27", "29", "3", "48", "32", "57", "5", "21", "56", "9", "50", "79", "25", "16", "No Label", "15", "20", "62", "67", "72", "74"], "gold": ["15", "20", "62", "67", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 692/2012\nof 24 July 2012\namending Regulations (EU) No 43/2012 and (EU) No 44/2012 as regards the protection of the giant manta ray and certain fishing opportunities\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Regulations (EU) No 43/2012 (1) and (EU) No 44/2012 (2), the Council fixed for 2012 fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters.\n(2)\nAt the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP10) of the Convention of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, held in Bergen from 20 to 25 November 2011, the giant manta ray (Manta birostris) was added to the lists of protected species in Appendices I and II of the Convention. Therefore, it is appropriate to provide for the protection of giant manta rays with respect to EU vessels fishing in all waters and non-Union vessels fishing in EU waters.\n(3)\nThe possibility of carrying out trials of fully documented catch quotas for various stocks in the International Council on the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) Area VII has been submitted to the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) in order to determine the impact of catch quotas on mortality, discards and selective fishing practices in mixed fisheries. The trials would be conducted on the stocks of plaice, anglerfish, megrim and hake, for which an additional 1 % quota would be available, and on the stock of haddock, for which an additional 5 % quota would be available. In its response to the Commission\u2019s request, STECF expresses support for these trials and sees them as an important step in developing the catch quota management approach. STECF also notes that such trials result in a very low risk of increasing overall fishing mortality on the stocks concerned. Accordingly, it is appropriate to modify the relevant TAC entries so as to make these additional quotas available to Member States engaging in the assessed trials.\n(4)\nAt its 8th Annual Meeting that took place from 26 to 30 March in Guam (USA), the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) repealed, with immediate effect, its provisions on closed areas for purse-seine fisheries of bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna in certain high seas areas. These closed areas were implemented in Union law by Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 44/2012, which should therefore be repealed.\n(5)\nThe United Kingdom provided information on cod catches by a group of vessels fishing with bottom trawls in the Irish Sea and targeting Queen Scallops. On the basis of that information, as assessed by STECF, it can be established that the cod catches, including discards, of vessels involved in that activity do not exceed 1,5 % of the total catches of that group of vessels. Having moreover regard to the measures in place ensuring the monitoring and control of the fishing activities of the group of vessels involved in that activity and considering that the inclusion of that group would constitute an administrative burden disproportionate to its overall impact on cod stocks, it is appropriate to exclude the group of vessels fishing with bottom trawls in the Irish Sea and targeting Queen Scallops from the application of the effort regime laid down in Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks (3).\n(6)\nThe TAC for cod in the Kattegat should be equal to the Union quota. The relevant figure in Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 should be corrected accordingly.\n(7)\nAdditional fishing opportunities have become available for the Union in 2012 as a result of quota transfers between the Union and other Contracting Parties to the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO). Consequently, for the year 2012, Annex IC to Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 should be amended so as to reflect those new fishing opportunities. These modifications concern the year 2012 and are without prejudice to the principle of relative stability.\n(8)\nAnnex IIC to Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 fixes fishing effort limits in the context of the management of Western Channel sole stocks in ICES division VIIe. At the United Kingdom\u2019s request, the Commission sought advice from STECF on whether Annex IIC could be amended so as to establish a rolling reference period for the exemption of static gears in point 1.2 of that Annex, rather than the current fixed reference year. In its response, STECF considers that a more recent year or a rolling reference period based on several recent years, would be preferable and deems that the effects of this change on the amount of effort deployed in the fishery should be negligible.\n(9)\nThe sum of quotas allocated to Member States in the TAC of white hake in NAFO 3NO result in a Union quota which is one tonne higher than that established by fishing opportunities set in the context of the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO). The relevant quota allocation in Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 should be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nConsultations on fishing opportunities between the Union, Iceland and the Faroe Islands have failed to result in an agreement for 2012. Consequently, the fishing opportunities reserved for those consultations can now be allocated to Member States. Furthermore, the Coastal States consultations on the management of North East Atlantic mackerel ended inconclusively in Reykjavik on 17 February 2012. Subsequently, in accordance with bilateral arrangements between them the Union and Norway have agreed to fix their respective mackerel fishing opportunities for 2012. Therefore, Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 and the relevant TACs in Annexes IA and IB thereto should be amended in order to distribute the non-allocated quotas and to reflect the traditional allocation of mackerel in the North-East Atlantic.\n(11)\nAdvice from the ICES and the STECF demands a significant reduction of the sandeel TAC in EU waters of ICES divisions IIa and IIIa and ICES subarea IV. Further to that advice, a reduction of the sandeel transfer to Norway was agreed between Norway and the Union during consultations concluded on 9 March 2012. Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 should be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nDuring the Third International Meeting, held in May 2007, for the creation of a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) in the high seas of the South Pacific (SPRFMO), the participants adopted interim measures, including fishing opportunities, in order to regulate pelagic fishing activities as well as bottom fisheries in that area until the establishment of such RFMO. Those interim measures were revised at the 2nd Preparatory Conference for the SPRFMO Commission held in January 2011 and have been revised again at the 3rd Preparatory Conference for the SPRFMO Commission held from 30 January to 3 February 2012. Those interim measures are voluntary and not legally binding under international law. It is however appropriate, in accordance with the cooperation and conservation obligations enshrined in the International Law of the Sea, to implement those measures in the law of the Union by establishing an overall quota for the Union and an allocation among the Member States concerned.\n(13)\nRegulations (EU) No 43/2012 and (EU) No 44/2012 apply, in general, from 1 January 2012. This Regulation should therefore also apply from 1 January 2012. Such retroactive application will be without prejudice to the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations as the fishing opportunities concerned have not yet been exhausted. However, the new provisions on giant manta ray should only be effective from the date of entry into force of the modification to the relevant Appendices of the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals, in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article XI thereof. Similarly, the repeal of Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 should apply as of 31 March 2012, in compliance with the date specified by WCPFC for its entry into force. Since the modification of some catch limits have an influence on the economic activities and the planning of the fishing season of EU vessels, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication.\n(14)\nWhen Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 was adopted, the maximum number of EU vessels authorised to fish for swordfish and albacore in the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) Convention Area did not include 15 fishing vessels flying the flag of France and registered in La R\u00e9union. The Union TAC in that Annex should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EU) No 43/2012\nRegulation (EU) No 43/2012 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 12(1) the following point is added:\n\u2018(g)\ngiant manta ray (Manta birostris) in all waters.\u2019;\n(2)\nafter Article 13 a new article is inserted as follows:\n\u2018Article 13a\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 754/2009\nIn Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 754/2009, the following point is added:\n\u201c(i)\nthe group of vessels flying the flag of the United Kingdom identified in the request from the United Kingdom dated 16 March 2012, which participate in a fishery targeting Queen Scallops (Aequipecten opercularis) in the Irish Sea (ICES area VIIa) around the Isle of Man, using a specialised otter trawl gear with an 80-100 mm mesh trawl configured to select against fish catches (2ft low headline, short or no bridles and small trawl mouth);\u201d.\u2019;\n(3)\nAnnex I is amended in accordance with the text in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAmendments to Regulation (EU) No 44/2012\nRegulation (EU) No 44/2012 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, paragraphs 3 and 4 are deleted;\n(2)\nin Article 13(1), the following point is added:\n\u2018(g)\ngiant manta ray (Manta birostris) in all waters.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 32 is deleted;\n(4)\nin Article 37(1), the following point is added:\n\u2018(g)\ngiant manta ray (Manta birostris) in EU waters.\u2019;\n(5)\nAnnexes I, IA, IB, IC, IJ and VI are amended in accordance with the text in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation applies from 1 January 2012.\nHowever, Article 1(1), Article 2(2) and (4), Annex I point (1) and Annex II point (1) shall apply from 23 February 2012, and Article 2(3) shall apply from 31 March 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["62", "24", "53", "95", "4", "91", "66", "57", "23", "98", "93", "50", "22", "82", "6", "28", "44", "84", "41", "19", "73", "86", "94", "45", "51", "64", "56", "60", "17", "54", "No Label", "13", "59", "67"], "gold": ["13", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/330/CFSP\nof 14 June 2010\non the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28 and 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 7 March 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/190/CFSP on the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission in Iraq, EUJUST LEX (1). That Joint Action, as subsequently amended and extended, expired on 30 June 2009.\n(2)\nOn 24 March 2009, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) agreed that EUJUST LEX should be extended for another 12 months until 30 June 2010. During this period, EUJUST LEX was to conduct, in addition to continuing its core business, a pilot phase including activities in Iraq.\n(3)\nOn 21 May 2010, the PSC agreed that EUJUST LEX-IRAQ should be extended for another 24 months until 30 June 2012. During this period, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ should progressively shift its activities and relevant structures to Iraq, focusing on specialised training, while maintaining out-of-country activities.\n(4)\nThe mandate of the Mission is being carried out in a security context that is liable to deteriorate and to undermine the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as defined in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union.\n(5)\nThe command and control structure of the Mission should be without prejudice to the contractual responsibility of the Head of Mission towards the Commission for implementing the budget of the Mission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMission\n1. The European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, established by Joint Action 2005/190/CFSP (\u2018EUJUST LEX-IRAQ\u2019 or the \u2018Mission\u2019), shall be continued from 1 July 2010.\n2. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall operate in accordance with the objectives and other provisions as contained in the Mission statement set out in Article 2.\nArticle 2\nMission statement\n1. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall continue to address the needs in the Iraqi criminal justice system through the provision of training for high- and mid-level officials in senior management and criminal investigation. This training shall aim to improve the capacity, coordination and collaboration of the different components of the Iraqi criminal justice system.\n2. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall promote closer collaboration between the different actors across the Iraqi criminal justice system and strengthen the management capacity of senior and high-potential officials primarily from the police, judiciary and penitentiary and improve skills and procedures in criminal investigation in full respect for the rule of law and human rights.\n3. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall, where security conditions and resources allow, continue to provide strategic mentoring and advising activities based on verified Iraqi needs and taking into account other international presence and the Union's added value in this area.\n4. The training activities shall take place in Iraq and in the region as well as in the Union. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall have offices in Brussels and Baghdad, including an antenna in Basra, in preparation for a possible office opening, subject to an appropriate decision to that effect. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall also have an office in Erbil (Kurdistan Region). Taking into account the evolution of the situation in Iraq during the implementation of this new mandate, the Head of Mission and the bulk of its staff shall move from Brussels to Iraq and be posted to Baghdad as soon as the situation so permits.\n5. Taking into account further developments in the security conditions in Iraq and the outcome of the Mission activities in Iraq, the Council shall examine the results of this new mandate and shall decide on the future of the Mission after 30 June 2012.\n6. An effective strategic and technical partnership with the Iraqi counterparts shall be developed throughout the Mission, particularly in relation to the design of the curricula during the planning phase. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ activities should maintain a balanced representation of the Iraqi population, based on a human rights and gender equality approach. Participants shall continue to be able to attend relevant in-country activities, regardless of where they are held. Coordination shall also be needed for the selection, vetting, evaluation, follow-up and coordination of personnel attending the training with the aim of continued appropriation by the Iraqis. There shall also be a need for close coordination during the planning and implementation phases between EUJUST LEX-IRAQ and the Member States providing training. This shall include the involvement of the relevant Member States\u2019 diplomatic missions in Iraq and liaison with those Member States with current experience in providing training relevant for the Mission.\n7. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall be independent and distinct but shall be complementary and bring added value to the efforts of the Government of Iraq and the international community, in particular those of the United Nations (UN) and the United States of America. It shall also develop synergies with relevant activities of the Union and Member States. In this context, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall liaise with the relevant Iraqi authorities, and shall deepen collaboration and avoid duplication with international actors already operating in the country as well as with Member States presently conducting training projects in Iraq.\nArticle 3\nStructure\nEUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall have its offices in Brussels and Iraq and shall, in principle, be structured as follows:\n(a)\nthe Head of Mission;\n(b)\na coordinating office in Brussels;\n(c)\nan office in Baghdad with an antenna in Basra;\n(d)\nan office in Erbil (Kurdistan Region);\n(e)\ntraining facilities, trainers and experts provided by the Member States and coordinated by EUJUST LEX-IRAQ.\nThese elements shall be developed in the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and the Operation Plan (OPLAN).\nArticle 4\nCivilian Operation Commander\n1. The Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability Director shall be the Civilian Operation Commander for EUJUST LEX-IRAQ.\n2. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and the overall authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), shall exercise command and control of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ at the strategic level.\n3. The Civilian Operation Commander shall ensure proper and effective implementation of the Council's decisions as well as the PSC's decisions, including by issuing instructions at strategic level as required to the Head of Mission.\n4. All seconded staff shall remain under the full command of the national authorities of the sending State or Union institution. National authorities shall transfer Operational Control of their personnel, teams and units to the Civilian Operation Commander.\n5. The Civilian Operation Commander shall have overall responsibility for ensuring that the Union's duty of care is properly discharged.\nArticle 5\nHead of Mission\n1. The Head of Mission shall assume responsibility and exercise command and control of the Mission at theatre level.\n2. The Head of Mission shall exercise command and control over personnel, teams and units from sending States as assigned by the Civilian Operation Commander together with administrative and logistic responsibility including over assets, resources and information put at the disposal of the Mission.\n3. The Head of Mission shall issue instructions to all Mission staff, including the Brussels coordinating office, the Erbil and Baghdad offices, and the Basra antenna, for the effective conduct of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ, assuming its coordination and day-to-day management, following the instructions at strategic level of the Civilian Operation Commander.\n4. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the implementation of the Mission's budget. For this purpose, the Head of Mission shall sign a contract with the Commission.\n5. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for disciplinary control over the staff. For seconded staff, disciplinary action shall be exercised by the national authority or Union institution concerned.\n6. The Head of Mission shall represent EUJUST LEX-IRAQ and shall ensure appropriate visibility of the Mission.\nArticle 6\nStaff\n1. The numbers and competence of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ staff shall be consistent with the Mission statement set out in Article 2 and the structure set out in Article 3.\n2. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall consist primarily of staff seconded by Member States or Union institutions.\n3. Each Member State or Union institution shall bear the costs related to any of the staff seconded by it, including travel expenses to and from the place of deployment, salaries, medical coverage, and allowances other than applicable per diem allowances as well as hardship and risk allowances.\n4. International and local staff may also be recruited by EUJUST LEX-IRAQ, as required, on a contractual basis, if the functions required are not provided by personnel seconded by the Member States.\n5. All staff shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the Mission. All staff shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council's security regulations (2).\nArticle 7\nStatus of staff\n1. Where required, the status of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ staff, including where appropriate the privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall be agreed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 37 of the Treaty on European Union.\n2. The State or Union institution having seconded a staff member shall be responsible for answering any claims linked to the secondment, from or concerning the staff member. The State or Union institution in question shall be responsible for bringing any action against the person seconded.\nArticle 8\nChain of Command\n1. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall have a unified chain of command, as a crisis management operation.\n2. Under the responsibility of the Council and of the HR, the PSC shall exercise political control and strategic direction of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ.\n3. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the PSC and the overall authority of the HR, is the commander of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ at strategic level and, as such, shall issue instructions to the Head of Mission and provide him with advice and technical support.\n4. The Civilian Operation Commander shall report to the Council through the HR.\n5. The Head of Mission shall exercise command and control of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ at theatre level and shall be directly responsible to the Civilian Operation Commander.\nArticle 9\nPolitical control and strategic direction\n1. The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and of the HR, political control and strategic direction of the Mission. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions for this purpose in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty on European Union.\n2. This authorisation shall include the powers to amend the CONOPS and the OPLAN. It shall also include powers to take decisions regarding the appointment of the Head of Mission. The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of the Mission shall remain vested in the Council.\n3. The PSC shall report to the Council at regular intervals.\n4. The PSC shall receive on a regular basis and, as required, reports by the Civilian Operation Commander and the Head of Mission on issues within their areas of responsibility.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\n1. The Civilian Operation Commander shall direct the Head of Mission's planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation for EUJUST LEX-IRAQ in accordance with Articles 4 and 8 and in coordination with the Council Security Office.\n2. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the security of the Mission and for ensuring compliance with minimum security requirements applicable to the Mission, in line with the policy of the European Union on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty on European Union and its supporting documents.\n3. For the elements of the Mission which are carried out in Member States, the host Member State shall take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the security of the participants and the trainers on its territory.\n4. For the coordinating office in Brussels the necessary and appropriate measures shall be organised by the Security Office of the General Secretariat of the Council (GSC) in collaboration with the host Member State's authorities.\n5. Should the training take place in a third State, the Union, with the involvement of the Member States concerned, shall ask the third State's authorities to make the appropriate arrangements regarding the security of the participants and the trainers or experts on its territory.\n6. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall have a dedicated Security Officer for the Mission reporting to the Head of Mission.\n7. The Head of Mission shall consult with the PSC on security issues affecting the deployment of the Mission as directed by the HR.\n8. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ staff members, trainers and experts shall undergo mandatory security training organised by the GSC Security Office and, when appropriate, medical checks prior to any deployment or travel to Iraq.\n9. Member States shall endeavour to provide EUJUST LEX-IRAQ, in particular the offices in Iraq, staff, trainers and experts travelling to and in Iraq, with secure accommodation, body armour and close protection and other security requirements, as appropriate, within Iraq. For such purpose, the Head of Mission may conclude appropriate arrangements with Member States or local authorities as necessary.\nArticle 11\nFinancial arrangements\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the Mission between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2011 shall be EUR 17 500 000.\n2. The financial reference amount for the subsequent periods shall be decided by the Council.\n3. All expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\n4. Given the particular security situation in Iraq, services in Baghdad and Basra shall be provided through the contracts entered into by the United Kingdom, other Member States where appropriate or through arrangements concluded between the Iraqi authorities and the companies providing and invoicing for these services. The budget of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall cover these expenses. The United Kingdom or other Member States concerned shall, in consultation with the Head of Mission, report with adequate information to the Council on these expenses.\n5. The Head of Mission shall report fully to, and be supervised by, the Commission on the activities undertaken in the framework of his contract.\n6. The financial arrangements shall respect the operational requirements of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ, including compatibility of equipment.\n7. Expenditure shall be eligible as of the date of entry into force of this Decision.\n8. The equipment and supplies for the coordination office in Brussels shall be purchased or rented on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 12\nParticipation of third States\n1. Without prejudice to the Union's decision-making autonomy and its single institutional framework, candidate and other third States may be invited to contribute to EUJUST LEX-IRAQ on the basis that they bear the cost of sending the police experts and/or the civilian staff seconded by them, including salaries, allowances, medical coverage, high risk insurance and travel expenses to and from Iraq, and contribute to the running costs of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ as appropriate.\n2. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions.\n3. Third States making contributions to EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall have the same rights and obligations in terms of day-to-day management of the Mission as Member States taking part in the Mission.\n4. The PSC shall take appropriate action with regard to participation arrangements and shall, if required, submit a proposal to the Council, including on possible financial participation or contributions in kind from third States.\n5. Detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States shall be the subject of agreements pursuant to Article 37 of the Treaty on European Union and additional technical arrangements as necessary. Where the Union and a third State have concluded an agreement establishing a framework for the participation of that third State in EU crisis management operations, the provisions of such agreement shall apply in the context of the Mission.\nArticle 13\nCoordination\n1. Without prejudice to the chain of command, the Head of Mission shall act in close coordination with the EU delegation to Iraq to ensure the consistency of Union action in support of Iraq.\n2. The Head of Mission shall coordinate closely with the Heads of the diplomatic missions of the relevant Member States.\n3. The Head of Mission shall cooperate with other international actors present in the country, in particular the UN.\nArticle 14\nRelease of classified information\nThe HR is authorised to release to the host State and the UN, as appropriate and in accordance with the operational needs of the Mission, EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018RESTREINT UE\u2019 generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with the Council's security regulations. Local arrangements shall be drawn up for this purpose.\nThe HR shall be authorised to release to third states associated with this Decision, Union non-classified documents related to the deliberations of the Council with regard to the Mission covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council Rules of Procedure (3).\nArticle 15\nWatch-keeping\nThe Watch-keeping Capability shall be activated for EUJUST LEX-IRAQ.\nArticle 16\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2012.\nDone at Luxembourg, 14 June 2010.", "references": ["49", "74", "97", "33", "1", "24", "84", "63", "70", "11", "12", "15", "6", "73", "68", "56", "79", "46", "51", "80", "99", "36", "10", "86", "18", "82", "25", "23", "48", "9", "No Label", "0", "3", "4", "7", "95"], "gold": ["0", "3", "4", "7", "95"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/17/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 9 March 2011\nrepealing Council Directives 71/317/EEC, 71/347/EEC, 71/349/EEC, 74/148/EEC, 75/33/EEC, 76/765/EEC, 76/766/EEC and 86/217/EEC regarding metrology\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnion policies on better regulation stress the importance of simplification of national and Union legislation as a crucial element in improving the competitiveness of enterprises and achieving the objectives of the Lisbon Agenda.\n(2)\nA number of measuring instruments are covered by specific Directives adopted on the basis of Council Directive 71/316/EEC of 26 July 1971 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to common provisions for both measuring instruments and methods of metrological control (3), which was recast by Directive 2009/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 relating to common provisions for both measuring instruments and methods of metrological control (4).\n(3)\nCouncil Directives 71/317/EEC of 26 July 1971 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to 5 to 50 kilogramme medium accuracy rectangular bar weights and 1 to 10 kilogramme medium accuracy cylindrical weights (5), 71/347/EEC of 12 October 1971 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the measuring of the standard mass per storage volume of grain (6), 71/349/EEC of 12 October 1971 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the calibration of the tanks of vessels (7), 74/148/EEC of 4 March 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to weights of from 1 mg to 50 kg of above-medium accuracy (8), 75/33/EEC of 17 December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cold-water meters (9), 76/765/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to alcoholometers and alcohol hydrometers (10), 86/217/EEC of 26 May 1986 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to tyre pressure gauges for motor vehicles (11), adopted on the basis of Directive 71/316/EEC, are technically outdated, do not reflect the state of the art in measurement technology or concern instruments which are not subject to technological development and which are increasingly less in use. Furthermore, national provisions are allowed to exist alongside Union provisions.\n(4)\nWhile Council Directive 76/766/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to alcohol tables (12) provides for a total harmonisation, most of its content is included in the Union regulations on alcohol measurement of wines and spirit drinks, namely Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2676/90 of 17 September 1990 determining Community methods for the analysis of wines (13) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2870/2000 of 19 December 2000 laying down Community reference methods for the analysis of spirit drinks (14). The international standards for alcohol tables are identical to those provided for in Directive 76/766/EEC and they can continue to be the basis for national regulation.\n(5)\nTechnical progress and innovation with regard to measuring instruments covered by the Directives being repealed will be ensured in practice either by the voluntary application of the international and European standards which have been developed or by the application of national provisions laying down technical specifications based on such standards or, in line with the principles of better law-making, by including additional provisions in Directive 2004/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on measuring instruments (15). Furthermore, the free movement within the internal market of all products concerned by the Directives being repealed is ensured by the satisfactory application of Articles 34, 35 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and of the mutual recognition principle.\n(6)\nNevertheless, with a view to the forthcoming review of Directive 2004/22/EC, it is appropriate to set the date of repeal for seven of the Directives sufficiently far in advance to enable the European Parliament and the Council to take a different view in the context of any revision of Directive 2004/22/EC.\n(7)\nDirective 71/349/EEC should be repealed.\n(8)\nWhile Directives 71/317/EEC, 71/347/EEC, 74/148/EEC, 75/33/EEC, 76/765/EEC, 76/766/EEC and 86/217/EEC should also be repealed as soon as possible, they should be repealed only after an assessment as to whether the measuring instruments falling within the scope of those Directives should be included within the scope of Directive 2004/22/EC. The Commission should carry out such an assessment in parallel with its report on the implementation of Directive 2004/22/EC. In the context of that assessment, the date set for the repeal of those Directives could be brought forward, with a view to ensuring consistency in the legislative action of the Union in the field of measuring instruments. In any event, repeal of those Directives should take effect not later than 1 December 2015.\n(9)\nThe repeal of the Directives should not lead to any new barriers to the free movement of goods or to additional administrative burdens.\n(10)\nThe repeal of the Directives should not affect existing EC pattern approvals and EC pattern approval certificates until the end of their validity.\n(11)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (16), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nWithout prejudice to Article 6(1), Directive 71/349/EEC is repealed with effect from 1 July 2011.\nArticle 2\nSubject to Article 4 and without prejudice to Article 6(2), Directives 71/347/EEC, 75/33/EEC, 76/765/EEC, 76/766/EEC and 86/217/EEC are repealed with effect from 1 December 2015.\nArticle 3\nSubject to Article 4 and without prejudice to Article 6(3), Directives 71/317/EEC and 74/148/EEC are repealed with effect from 1 December 2015.\nArticle 4\nBy 30 April 2011, the Commission shall, on the basis of reports provided by the Member States, evaluate whether the measuring instruments falling within the scope of the Directives referred to in Articles 2 and 3 need to be included in the scope of Directive 2004/22/EC and whether the transitional measures and date set for repeal of those Directives need to be adjusted accordingly. The Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, accompanied, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal to that effect.\nArticle 5\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 June 2011, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those measures.\nThey shall apply those measures from 1 July 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 November 2015, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2 and 3. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those measures.\nThey shall apply those measures from 1 December 2015.\nWhen Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 6\n1. EC initial verifications carried out and calibration certificates issued until 30 June 2011 under Directive 71/349/EEC shall remain valid.\n2. EC pattern approvals and EC pattern approval certificates issued until 30 November 2015 under the Directives 71/347/EEC, 75/33/EEC, 76/765/EEC and 86/217/EEC shall remain valid.\n3. Weights in conformity with Directive 71/317/EEC and weights in conformity with Directive 74/148/EEC may be subject to EC initial verification in accordance with Articles 8, 9 and 10 of Directive 2009/34/EC until 30 November 2025.\nArticle 7\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 8\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 9 March 2011.", "references": ["24", "61", "53", "65", "29", "52", "7", "71", "28", "69", "20", "33", "55", "37", "36", "14", "5", "89", "2", "78", "60", "3", "67", "75", "40", "63", "84", "22", "64", "98", "No Label", "8", "25", "54", "56", "68", "76", "85"], "gold": ["8", "25", "54", "56", "68", "76", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 421/2010\nof 17 May 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 as regards catch limits for capelin in Greenland waters\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required and amending Regulations (EC) No 1359/2008, (EC) No 754/2009, (EC) No 1226/2009 and (EC) No 1287/2009 (1), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union\u2019s fishing opportunities for capelin in Greenland waters of ICES zones V and XIV are provisionally laid down in Annex IB to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 and amount to 0 tonnes. According to Article 5(4) of that Regulation, the Commission is to fix those fishing opportunities as soon as the amount of total allowable catches (TAC) for that fishery has been established.\n(2)\nUnder the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other (2), the Union is to receive 7,7 % of the TAC for capelin in Greenland waters of ICES zones V and XIV.\n(3)\nThe Commission received information from the Greenland authorities that the TAC has been fixed at 150 000 tonnes and that Greenland will allocate 11 550 tonnes to the Union in accordance with the share fixed under the Protocol, to be fished until 30 April 2010.\n(4)\nHaving regard to the Agreed Record of Conclusions of fisheries consultations between the Union and Iceland for 2009 signed on 16 October 2009 and in particular the outstanding quantity of 21 624 tonnes of capelin due to Iceland from the previous fishing season, it is appropriate to transfer the fishing opportunities for capelin available to the Union for 2010 to Iceland.\n(5)\nAnnex IB to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nIn order to avoid interruption of fishing activities, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication and apply from 1 January 2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex IB to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010, the entry concerning the species capelin in Greenland waters of V and XIV is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nCapelin\nMallotus villosus\nZone\n:\nGreenland waters of V and XIV\n(CAP/514GRN)\nEU\n11 550 (3)\nTAC\nNot relevant\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 May 2010.", "references": ["18", "6", "69", "45", "0", "43", "52", "62", "33", "50", "42", "27", "73", "75", "8", "3", "70", "60", "51", "31", "88", "47", "1", "93", "96", "32", "28", "97", "2", "7", "No Label", "13", "15", "58", "67"], "gold": ["13", "15", "58", "67"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 266/2012\nof 23 March 2012\nimplementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (1), and in particular Article 32(1) thereof.\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 January 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria and in accordance with Council Implementing Decision 2012/172/CFSP (2) implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (3) concerning restrictive measures against Syria, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\n(3)\nIn addition, the entries concerning certain persons and an entity included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in Annex I to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, the entries for the persons and an entity listed in Annex II to this Regulation shall be replaced by the entries as set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThe Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["42", "15", "11", "12", "16", "33", "30", "2", "19", "29", "48", "36", "44", "17", "23", "94", "13", "34", "81", "98", "5", "83", "26", "50", "99", "60", "41", "90", "87", "9", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 20 May 2011\nestablishing that Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors is not applicable to the bituminous coal mining in the Czech Republic\n(notified under document C(2011) 3406)\n(Only the Czech text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/306/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1), and in particular Article 30(4) and (6) thereof,\nWhereas:\nI. FACTS\n(1)\nOn 22 November 2010, the Commission received by e-mail a Czech request pursuant to Article 30(4) of Directive 2004/17/EC, asking for exemption of the bituminous coal mining in the Czech Republic from the application of the provisions of Directive 2004/17/EC. The Commission requested additional information by e-mail of 21 January 2011. The reply to the request for information was transmitted by the Czech authorities by e-mail of 9 February 2011.\n(2)\nThe request was accompanied by a letter from an independent national authority, (\u00da\u0159ad pro ochranu hospod\u00e1\u0159sk\u00e9 sout\u011b\u017ee, the Czech Office for the Protection of Competition) in the form of a preliminary opinion, dated 7 November 2008. The Czech Office for the Protection of Competition analysed the conditions of access to the relevant market and found it to be unrestricted. However, the opinion does not state that the other conditions relating to the direct exposure to competition were met in respect of bituminous coal mining in the Czech Republic.\n(3)\nThe only entity engaged in bituminous coal mining in the Czech Republic is the company OKD a.s., which is a private company owned 100 % by a private Dutch Holding - New World Resources (NWR).\nII. LEGAL FRAMEWORK\n(4)\nArticle 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC provides that contracts intended to enable the performance of one of the activities to which the Directive applies shall not be subject to the Directive if, in the Member State in which it is carried out, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted. Direct exposure to competition is assessed on the basis of objective criteria, taking account of the specific characteristics of the sector concerned. Access is deemed to be unrestricted if the Member State has implemented and applied the relevant EU legislation opening a given sector or a part of it. This legislation is listed in Annex XI to Directive 2004/17/EC. However for the exploration for and extraction of coal and other solid fuels, Annex XI does not list any relevant legislation liberalising this sector. Consequently free access to the market cannot be presumed, and it has to be demonstrated de facto and de jure.\n(5)\nAn examination of the legal provisions applicable to issuing licenses for mining, in the Czech Republic, shows that it is currently granted on non-discriminatory basis, based on the assessment of the professional qualification of the applicant, and the technical and financial capacity to carry out the works. For the purposes of this decision, the possibility to obtain mining licence could be considered, de jure, free.\n(6)\nDirect exposure to competition should be evaluated on the basis of various indicators, none of which are necessarily, per se, decisive. In respect of the markets concerned by this decision, the aggregated market shares of the three main players on a given market constitutes one criterion which should be taken into account (2). Another criterion is the degree of concentration on those markets. Given the characteristics of the markets concerned, further criteria should also be taken into account such as the degree of customer switching.\n(7)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to the application of the rules on competition.\nIII. ASSESSMENT\n(8)\nThe request submitted by the Czech Republic concerns bituminous coal mining in the Czech Republic.\n(9)\nThe Czech request covers what is called \u2018the primary market for bituminous coal\u2019, which includes the production of bituminous coal and the wholesale distribution of coal (3). When considering competition in the market for production of bituminous coal, regard must be had to the links between production and first sale/wholesale distribution of the bituminous coal extracted. This definition is also in line with previous Commission decisions (4) referring to the exploitation of other types of fuels.\n(10)\nThe bituminous coal extracted has different chemical compositions and quality depending on geological conditions of individual mined seams. The bituminous coal can be divided into the coal suitable for coking (CSFC) and steam coal (SC). Although the two types of bituminous coal are mined in the same way, using the same technologies, they have however completely different end-use and different customer base. The prices are different and the products are not interchangeable.\n(11)\nCSFC is defined as bituminous coal with the quality enabling production of coke in blast furnaces and it is not used for direct heating or energy production. CSFC is purchased solely by companies producing coke. CSFC is the only raw material for coke production and has no other application actually. The CSFC cannot be substituted by steam coal.\n(12)\nSC is the coal which cannot be qualified as coking coal. The SC is used in power plants as fuel for production of electricity, heat and technological steam, as part of the production process of industrial plants such as sugar refineries, brick plants, cement factories and limekilns, paper mills, etc. SC may be substituted by CSFC, but doing so would not be economically viable.\n(13)\nCSFC may be divided further into a few categories according to its quality. CSFC referred to as hard coking coal is of the best quality, followed by CSFC referred to as semihard coking coal and semisoft coking coal. However, the market for the individual types of CSFC is not separated and no such distinction will be made for the purposes of the assessment for the present decision.\n(14)\nIn view of the above, and in line with the application, for the purposes of evaluating the conditions laid down in Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC, CSFC and SC are considered to constitute separate product markets and they should therefore be examined separately.\n(15)\nThe Czech request considers that the relevant geographical market would be a market larger than the national territory, incorporating the territories of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Poland and Hungary for CSFC. In the case of SC, the applicant considers that the geographical market should be defined as comprising the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Poland, Hungary and Germany. It is argued that the main reason for this market definition is the important mutual cross-border supply, the customer switching and the non-existence of administrative obstacles (customs barriers, quotas, etc.).\n(16)\nAccording to the application (5) the Czech Republic is a net exporter of both CSFC and SC. In 2009, the Czech Republic exported 3 581 thousands tonnes CSFC and 2 389 thousands tonnes SC (6) which accounts for around 61 % and 47 % of the respective internal production. In the same year, the imports into the Czech Republic accounted for 771 thousands tonnes CSFC and 954 thousands tonnes SC representing 13 % and 19 % respectively of the internal production (7) and the source of this imports was mainly Poland. In fact imports from Poland amounted to around 90 % for CSFC and 80 % for SC of total imports.\n(17)\nAlthough the applicant states that the coal produced by OKD in the Czech Republic - whether CSFC or SC - is competitive for a radius of 500 km, it is noted that the customers of OKD are located on a radius of approximately 350 km from the place of production of the coal, in Ostrava.\n(18)\nIn respect of CSFC sales, OKD has one important customer in Slovakia, which purchased around 26 % in 2007 and 30 % in 2009 of OKD production and another important customer in Austria, which purchased 13 % in 2007 and 19 % in 2009 of the OKD production. The applicant lists also among its main customers outside the Czech Republic one company in Poland but its purchases account for only around 8 % of OKD production.\n(19)\nIn respect of SC sales, apart from Czech customers, OKD lists one important customer in Austria, which accounted for around 12 % in 2007 and 21 % in 2009 of OKD sales and one customer in Germany with around 5 % in 2007 and 3 % in 2009 of SC sales.\n(20)\nAccording to the application, \u2018the three biggest competitors are heavily concentrated\u2019 (8), and indeed this can be observed in all the national markets taken separately, both in respect of SC and CSFC. The applicant also acknowledges that \u2018the overwhelming majority of extracted coal is consumed on the local market\u2019 (9), and this is confirmed in all countries in the geographic area considered by the application which are producing bituminous coal (the Czech Republic, Poland, Germany).\n(21)\nAccording to the Commission Notice on the definition of the relevant market (10) the relevant geographic market comprises the area in which the conditions of competition are sufficiently homogeneous and which can be distinguished from neighbouring areas because the conditions of competition are appreciably different there. It is therefore worth noting that the coastal regions of Central Europe (in particular northern Germany and northern Poland) are exposed to imports of sea borne coal and given, inter alia, that sea freight rates are considerably lower than the cost for land transport, conditions of competition may therefore be different in those areas (11).\n(22)\nThe application mentions that an important factor in determining the price of the coal is the stability and the security of supply, and the duration of the contract (12), and that generally the contracts for supply of coal, whether SC or CSFC, are long-term contracts.\n(23)\nThe customers of bituminous coal in the Czech Republic are buying coal from OKD or, in limited quantities, from Polish companies. The imports from other countries, although increasing, are not very significant to date (13).\n(24)\nIn view of the above factors, for the purposes of evaluating the conditions laid down in Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC, the geographical market is considered to be confined to the Czech Republic and Poland, both in respect of SC and CSFC. Due to the abovementioned differences between those regions which can be easily supplied by sea borne coal and those which might be too far away from any coast, the market could even be smaller comprising only the Czech Republic and the south of Poland. The question can, however, be left open, since the larger market definition is the one more favourable to the applicant. Under both market definitions, the analysis does not lead to a different outcome.\n(25)\nIt is considered that, in respect of bituminous coal mining, one indicator for the degree of competition on national markets is the total market share of the biggest three producers.\n(26)\nOKD and two Polish suppliers of CSFC are by far the most important suppliers in the relevant geographic market. OKD is the largest supplier of CSFC in the Czech Republic (75,5 % market share in the Czech Republic in 2008). The two Polish suppliers of CSFC are the largest suppliers in Poland (60,2 % and 19,3 % market share in Poland in 2008). In the geographical market encompassing the Czech Republic and Poland, the aggregated market share of the three biggest producers in 2008 was around 93 %. It is also worth noting that the biggest competitor of OKD has on its own a market share of around 49 % of the market.\n(27)\nEven considering a larger market, comprising the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Poland and Hungary, as claimed by the applicant, the aggregated market shares of the three biggest competitors would still be very high (91,3 % in 2005, 87,7 % in 2006, 85 % in 2007 and 86,6 % in 2008 (14)) and cannot constitute indication of sufficient exposure to competition of the CSFC market.\n(28)\nAs recalled in recital 22 the security and the stability of supply play an important role in the contractual relationships. The information provided by the applicant on the customer switching for CSFC shows that there is virtually no switching for this product. The contracts for CSFC supply are long-term contracts and no evidence has been provided to show that any of OKD customers changed from OKD to other suppliers. It can consequently not be assumed that a CSFC customer would be willing or indeed able to easily switch in the event of a small but significant increase of price by OKD.\n(29)\nOKD and two Polish suppliers of SC are the by far most important producers of SC in the relevant geographic market. OKD is the largest supplier of SC in the Czech Republic (61,6 % market share in the Czech Republic in 2008). Two Polish suppliers of SC are the largest suppliers in Poland (52,5 % and 17,7 % market share in Poland in 2008). In the geographical market encompassing the Czech Republic and Poland, the aggregated market share of the three biggest producers was around 72 % in 2008. It is also worth noting that the biggest competitor of OKD had on its own a market share of around 50 % of the geographical market, encompassing the Czech Republic and Poland.\n(30)\nMoreover, on all three geographical markets for SC mentioned in recital 29 (the Czech Republic alone, Poland alone and a geographical market encompassing both) there is an economic operator which on his own has a market share of around 50 % or more. A constant jurisprudence should consequently be recalled in this context (15), according to which \u2018very large market shares are in themselves, save in exceptional circumstances, evidence of the existence of a dominant position. That is the situation when there is a market share of 50 %\u2019.\n(31)\nEven considering a larger market than national, comprising the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Poland, Hungary and Germany, as claimed by the applicant, the aggregated market shares of the three biggest competitors would still be rather high (62,7 % in 2005, 60,2 % in 2006, 56,9 % in 2007 and 57,3 % in 2008 (16)).\n(32)\nAs is the case for CSFC, the security and stability of supply of SC play an important role in the contractual relationships. The information provided by the applicant on the customer switching shows that a number of OKD customers of SC are interrupting their supplies from OKD, in certain years, or that some 1-year contracts or on-the-spot contracts were never renewed. However, given the fact that the applicant did not, as requested, provide information on the volumes of supplies concerned or of their proportion of the OKD production, it would be difficult to conclude that a customer of OKD would easily switch, following a small but significant increase of price by OKD.\nIV. CONCLUSIONS\n(33)\nIn respect of bituminous coal mining in the Czech Republic, the situation can thus be summarised as follows: in respect of both SC and CSFC, the aggregate market shares of the three biggest competitors on the geographical market as defined for the purposes of this decision are high, and more importantly, the biggest producer on its own represents a market share of almost 50 %, the markets should therefore be considered as being heavily concentrated and as recalled in recital 20, the overwhelming majority of extracted coal is consumed on the local market. The information on the degree of switching does not support the conclusion that a bituminous coal customer would have the will or possibility to easily switch supplier in the event of a small but significant price increase.\n(34)\nThe applicant also acknowledged that, since the bituminous coal mining is not profitable in other places than those already exploited (notably those exploited by OKD), \u2018access of another entity to the Czech market is not realistic and has not taken place during the last five years\u2019 (17). The same holds in respect of coal supplies, where the applicant states that he is not aware of any significant access to the Czech market, and most of the significant wholesale customers concluded long-term contracts (18).\n(35)\nIn view of the factors examined in recitals 8 to 34, it should be concluded that the market for mining bituminous coal, both CSFC and SC, is currently not directly exposed to competition in the Czech Republic. Therefore Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC is not applicable to contracts intended to enable the pursuit of those activities in the Czech Republic. Consequently, Directive 2004/17/EC continues to apply when contracting entities award contracts intended to enable bituminous coal mining to be carried out in the Czech Republic or when they organise design contests for the pursuit of such activities in the Czech Republic.\n(36)\nThis Decision is based on the legal and factual situation as of November 2010 to March 2011 as it appears from the information submitted by the Czech Republic. It may be revised, should significant changes in the legal or factual situation mean that the conditions for the applicability of Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC are met.\n(37)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Committee for Public Contracts,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC is not applicable to bituminous coal mining in the Czech Republic. Consequently, Directive 2004/17/EC shall continue to apply to contracts awarded by contracting entities and intended to enable them to carry out such activities in the Czech Republic.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Czech Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2011.", "references": ["82", "99", "13", "55", "3", "37", "15", "39", "90", "44", "94", "28", "32", "10", "54", "76", "72", "75", "40", "78", "35", "27", "19", "67", "98", "47", "29", "83", "46", "5", "No Label", "8", "20", "79", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "20", "79", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 793/2010\nof 8 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 September 2010.", "references": ["46", "59", "52", "78", "50", "93", "26", "33", "32", "73", "53", "83", "4", "3", "5", "14", "69", "82", "43", "1", "85", "10", "47", "65", "24", "56", "77", "38", "54", "67", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 189/2011\nof 25 February 2011\namending Annexes VII and IX to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 23 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in animals. It applies to the production and placing on the market of live animals and products of animal origin and, in certain specific cases, to exports thereof.\n(2)\nChapter A of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down the eradication measures to be carried out following the confirmation of TSE in ovine and caprine animals. In the case of confirmation of TSE other than bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in an ovine or caprine animal, the eradication measures consist in either the killing and complete destruction of all animals on the holding or the killing and complete destruction of ovine animals genetically susceptible to scrapie on the holding and in the killing and the complete destruction of all caprine animals on the holding insofar as no genetic resistance to scrapie has been demonstrated in caprine animals.\n(3)\nChapter A of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 also provides that the Member States may decide to delay the destruction of the animals by up to 5 breeding years subject to certain conditions. However, in the case of ovine or caprine animals kept for the production of milk with a view to placing it on the market, the killing and destruction of the animals may only be delayed for a maximum of 18 months. Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 does not define the starting date for that deferred period of 18 months. In the interests of certainty of Union legislation, it is appropriate to amend Annex VII to that Regulation so that the deferral period begins from the date of confirmation of the index case.\n(4)\nIn addition, in July 2010, the preliminary results of a scientific study (2) conducted by the Cypriot authorities under the supervision of the European Union Reference Laboratory (EURL) for TSEs showed that a genetic resistance to scrapie in caprine animals could exist. However, the definitive results of that study are not expected to be available before the second semester of 2012.\n(5)\nIf that study confirms the existence of a resistance to scrapie, it may be considered appropriate, from January 2013, to amend Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, in order to exempt scrapie resistant caprine animals from the requirements for killing and complete destruction laid down in Chapter A of Annex VII to that Regulation. In order to avoid the unnecessary killing and complete destruction of caprine animals that may be considered as scrapie resistant in the near future, on holdings where animals are kept for the production of milk with a view to placing it on the market, it is appropriate to prolong the deferral period for the killing and complete destruction of those animals for a period ending on 31 December 2012, where the index case was confirmed before 1 July 2011.\n(6)\nAnnex IX to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 sets out rules for the importation into the Union of live animals, embryos, ova and products of animal origin. Chapter C of that Annex sets out the rules for imports of products of animal origin from bovine, ovine and caprine animals, and in particular gelatine.\n(7)\nArticle 16 of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 provides that gelatine derived from hides and skins from healthy ruminants is not to be subject to restrictions on placing on the market pursuant to certain provisions of that Regulation. Therefore, imports into the Union of gelatine derived from hides and skins from healthy ruminants should also not be subject to those restrictions.\n(8)\nChapter D of Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down the rules for imports of animal by-products and processed products derived therefrom from bovine, ovine and caprine animals.\n(9)\nCertain animal by-products and derived products, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (3), do not present any risk of TSE transmission to humans or animals. Therefore, the health certification requirements laid down in Chapter D of Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should not apply to imports of such products.\n(10)\nAnnexes VII and IX to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 applies from 4 March 2011. In the interests of clarity and coherency of Union legislation, the amendments made to Chapter D of Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 by this Regulation should also apply from that date.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes VII and IX to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nPoint 2(b) of the Annex to this Regulation shall apply from 4 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 February 2011.", "references": ["40", "63", "7", "6", "94", "65", "71", "59", "2", "10", "37", "28", "72", "47", "97", "5", "11", "58", "75", "74", "43", "21", "88", "3", "82", "26", "31", "53", "79", "32", "No Label", "8", "38", "66"], "gold": ["8", "38", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 946/2010\nof 21 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["30", "79", "80", "56", "96", "65", "94", "8", "64", "28", "5", "2", "90", "24", "7", "11", "40", "21", "17", "47", "52", "51", "31", "12", "49", "82", "20", "15", "9", "45", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 751/2011\nof 29 July 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 728/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2011.", "references": ["75", "86", "25", "89", "29", "41", "84", "39", "95", "64", "71", "87", "70", "62", "66", "54", "15", "31", "94", "98", "77", "28", "20", "65", "30", "24", "5", "74", "34", "23", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/697/CFSP\nof 20 October 2011\namending Decision 2011/621/CFSP extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative to the African Union\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 6 December 2007, the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/805/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Koen VERVAEKE as European Union Special Representative (EUSR) to the African Union (AU).\n(2)\nOn 21 September 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/621/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 30 June 2012.\n(3)\nA new EUSR to the AU should be appointed for the period from 1 November 2011 until 30 June 2012.\n(4)\nDecision 2011/621/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1 of Decision 2011/621/CFSP is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\n1. The mandate of Mr Koen VERVAEKE as EUSR to the AU is hereby extended until 31 October 2011.\n2. Mr Gary QUINCE is hereby appointed as EUSR to the AU for the period from 1 November 2011 until 30 June 2012.\n3. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["75", "31", "17", "30", "20", "9", "32", "83", "99", "86", "96", "38", "37", "90", "36", "45", "25", "8", "63", "27", "55", "58", "88", "5", "6", "42", "66", "85", "94", "50", "No Label", "3", "7"], "gold": ["3", "7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 October 2010\namending Decision 2009/821/EC as regards the lists of border inspection posts and veterinary units in Traces\n(notified under document C(2010) 7009)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/617/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 20(1) and (3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (2), and in particular the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (3), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/821/EC of 28 September 2009 drawing up a list of approved border inspection posts, laying down certain rules on the inspections carried out by Commission veterinary experts and laying down the veterinary units in Traces (4) lays down a list of border inspection posts approved in accordance with Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC. That list is set out in Annex I to that Decision.\n(2)\nFollowing communication from Denmark, new categories of products of animal origin that can be checked at the approved border inspection posts at the ports at \u00c5rhus and Esbjerg should be added in the entries for these border inspection posts set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(3)\nSpain has communicated that one of its border inspection posts has been suspended, the suspension for certain categories of products of animal origin that can be checked at one of its border inspection posts has been lifted and one new inspection centre was added to one of its border inspection posts. Following that communication from Spain, the list of border inspection posts for that Member State should be amended.\n(4)\nItaly has communicated that for one of its border inspection posts the category for unpacked products of animal origin has been added and three inspection centres at one of its border inspection posts have changed their names. In addition, the inspection centre \u2018Docks Cereali\u2019 at the border inspection post at the port at Ravenna was suspended. Following that communication from Italy, the list of border inspection posts for that Member State should be amended.\n(5)\nFollowing communication from Latvia, the approval of one inspection centre at the port at Riga (Riga port) should be suspended in the list of border inspection posts for that Member State.\n(6)\nThe Netherlands has communicated that the name of one inspection centre at a certain border inspection post has changed and that two inspection centres have been installed at a certain border inspection post. In addition, certain categories of animals and products of animal origin that can be checked at one inspection centre at the border inspection post at the port at Rotterdam should be added. Following that communication from the Netherlands, the list of border inspection posts for that Member State should be amended.\n(7)\nFollowing communication from the United Kingdom, the approval of the border inspection post at the port at Grove Wharf Wharton should be removed from the list of border inspection posts for that Member State.\n(8)\nAnnex II to Decision 2009/821/EC lays down the list of central units, regional units and local units in the integrated computerised veterinary system (Traces).\n(9)\nFollowing communication from Germany, Ireland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and the United Kingdom, certain changes should be brought to the list of central, regional and local units in Traces for those Member States laid down in Annex II to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(10)\nDecision 2009/821/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2009/821/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2010.", "references": ["9", "92", "64", "97", "50", "12", "81", "23", "35", "34", "47", "66", "19", "28", "33", "25", "90", "98", "37", "45", "26", "73", "53", "58", "43", "71", "76", "74", "32", "62", "No Label", "1", "4", "13", "22", "38", "41", "54", "61", "69"], "gold": ["1", "4", "13", "22", "38", "41", "54", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 928/2011\nof 16 September 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of September 2011 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 of 14 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the poultrymeat sector (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 533/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of September 2011 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 September 2011.", "references": ["77", "71", "31", "40", "66", "97", "15", "43", "78", "5", "23", "26", "61", "29", "45", "84", "86", "33", "44", "41", "47", "60", "6", "87", "81", "46", "39", "99", "93", "1", "No Label", "21", "22", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1004/2010\nof 8 November 2010\nof operating deductions from certain fishing quotas for 2010 on account of overfishing in the previous year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Articles 105(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFishing quotas for the year 2009 have been established by:\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1322/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2009 (2),\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1139/2008 of 10 November 2008 fixing the fishing opportunities and the conditions relating thereto for certain fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea in 2009 (3)\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (4), and\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 of 16 January 2009 fixing for 2009 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required.\n(2)\nFishing quotas for the year 2010 have been established by:\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008,\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1226/2009 of 20 November 2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2010 (5),\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1287/2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and the conditions relating thereto for certain fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea in 2010 (6) and\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required and amending Regulations (EC) No 1359/2008, (EC) No 754/2009, (EC) No 1226/2009 and (EC) No 1287/2009 (7).\n(3)\nAccording to Article 105(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, when the Commission has established that a Member State has exceeded the fishing quotas which have been allocated to it, the Commission shall operate deductions from future fishing quotas of that Member State.\n(4)\nCertain Member States have exceeded their fishing quotas for the year 2009. It is therefore appropriate to operate deductions from the fishing quotas allocated to them in the year 2010.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 649/2009 (8) has operated deductions from fishing quotas for 2009 on account of overfishing of quotas in 2008. However, for certain Member States the deductions to be applied were higher than their respective 2009 quota and could therefore not be operated entirely in that year. To ensure that also in such cases the full amount be deducted, the remaining quantities should be taken into account when establishing deductions from 2010 quotas.\n(6)\nDeductions provided for by this Regulation should apply without prejudice to deductions applicable to 2010 quotas pursuant to:\n-\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 147/2007 of 15 February 2007 adapting certain fish quotas from 2007 to 2012 pursuant to Article 23(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (9) and\n-\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 635/2008 of 3 July 2008 adapting the cod fishing quotas to be allocated to Poland in the Baltic Sea (Subdivisions 25-32, EC Waters) from 2008 to 2011 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/2008 (10).\n(7)\nParagraph 2 of Article 105 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 provides that deductions from fishing quotas are to be operated by applying certain multiplying factors set out in that paragraph.\n(8)\nHowever, since deductions to be operated apply to overfishing that occurred in 2009 and thus at a time when Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 was not yet applicable, legal predictability concerns make it opportune to operate deductions that are not more stringent than those which would have resulted from the application of the rules in force at that time, namely the rules set out in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (11),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The fishing quotas fixed in Regulations (EC) No 1226/2009, (EC) No 1287/2009, (EC) No 1359/2008 and (EU) No 53/2010 are reduced as shown in the Annex.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall apply without prejudice to reductions provided for in Regulations (EC) No 147/2007 and (EC) No 635/2008.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["68", "47", "99", "18", "43", "98", "94", "19", "70", "23", "25", "96", "62", "58", "55", "21", "61", "31", "26", "3", "1", "90", "4", "83", "69", "32", "0", "82", "9", "51", "No Label", "13", "34", "67"], "gold": ["13", "34", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1209/2011\nof 22 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2011.", "references": ["77", "52", "94", "83", "72", "33", "2", "4", "47", "98", "30", "45", "69", "95", "53", "48", "93", "3", "10", "14", "32", "62", "28", "88", "41", "78", "79", "87", "99", "8", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 452/2010\nof 25 May 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 427/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2010.", "references": ["54", "60", "27", "34", "93", "92", "43", "32", "68", "30", "44", "87", "66", "98", "4", "61", "55", "80", "73", "20", "65", "37", "0", "41", "36", "53", "18", "75", "23", "16", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 478/2011\nof 17 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 May 2011.", "references": ["12", "39", "73", "23", "85", "75", "78", "51", "94", "43", "47", "31", "48", "52", "54", "57", "21", "8", "99", "13", "96", "87", "83", "66", "20", "42", "40", "7", "0", "72", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 31 August 2011\non the recognition of Morocco pursuant to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers\n(notified under document C(2011) 6020)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/520/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 19(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the request from Cyprus on 13 May 2005,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Directive 2008/106/EC Member States may decide to endorse seafarers\u2019 appropriate certificates issued by third countries, provided that the third country concerned is recognised by the Commission. Those third countries have to meet all the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW Convention) (2), as revised in 1995.\n(2)\nBy letter of 13 May 2005, Cyprus submitted a request for recognition of Morocco. Following that request of Cyprus, the Commission assessed the training and certification systems in Morocco in order to verify whether Morocco meets all the requirements of the STCW Convention and whether the appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. That assessment was based on the results of an inspection carried out by experts of the European Maritime Safety Agency in December 2006. During that inspection certain deficiencies in the training and certification systems were identified.\n(3)\nThe Commission provided the Member States with a report on the results of the assessment.\n(4)\nBy letters of 4 February 2009 and 9 March 2010, the Commission requested Morocco to provide evidence demonstrating that the deficiencies identified had been corrected.\n(5)\nBy letters of 13 May 2009, 29 May 2009, 2 April 2010 and 4 January 2011, Morocco provided the requested information and evidence concerning the implementation of appropriate and sufficient corrective action to address most of the deficiencies identified during the assessment of compliance.\n(6)\nThe remaining shortcomings concern on the one hand missing legal provisions regarding training equipment as well as qualifications and training of instructors and assessors, and on the other hand lack of training equipment at the main maritime education and training institution of Morocco. Morocco has therefore been invited to implement further corrective action in this respect. However, these shortcomings do not warrant calling into question the overall level of compliance of Morocco with STCW requirements on training and certification of seafarers.\n(7)\nThe outcome of the assessment of compliance and the evaluation of the information provided by Morocco demonstrate that Morocco meets all the requirements of the STCW Convention, and has taken appropriate measures to prevent fraud involving certificates. It should therefore be recognised by the Commission.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of Article 19 of Directive 2008/106/EC, Morocco is recognised as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 August 2011.", "references": ["15", "99", "90", "10", "42", "22", "51", "64", "41", "62", "39", "11", "24", "20", "87", "2", "30", "70", "16", "76", "59", "13", "55", "14", "53", "33", "28", "63", "73", "81", "No Label", "49", "54", "56", "94"], "gold": ["49", "54", "56", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 542/2012\nof 25 June 2012\nimplementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1375/2011\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2011, the Council adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1375/2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2), establishing an updated list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies.\n(2)\nThe 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 1375/2011.\n(3)\nBy 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 1375/2011 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\u2019s reasons for putting them on the list, where one had not already been communicated to them. In the case of certain persons and groups, an amended statement of reasons was made available.\n(4)\nThe 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.\n(5)\nThe 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.\n(6)\nThe list of the persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies should be updated accordingly and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1375/2011 should be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe list provided for in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 is replaced by the list set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 1375/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["22", "60", "90", "72", "57", "52", "7", "78", "56", "42", "64", "85", "92", "17", "26", "40", "30", "76", "61", "38", "55", "39", "49", "84", "96", "31", "12", "11", "2", "87", "No Label", "1", "3", "36"], "gold": ["1", "3", "36"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/329/CFSP\nof 14 June 2010\namending and extending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP on the European Union police mission undertaken in the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28 and 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 June 2007, the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP (1) establishing a European Union police mission within the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo).\n(2)\nOn 23 June 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/485/CFSP (2) amending and extending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP until 30 June 2009.\n(3)\nOn 15 June 2009, the Council adopted Joint Action 2009/466/CFSP (3) amending and extending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP until 30 June 2010. Joint Action 2009/466/CFSP provided that the Council would establish a new financial reference amount in order to cover expenditure related to the mission for the period from 1 November 2009 to 30 June 2010, which was done with Joint Action 2009/769/CFSP (4) amending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP.\n(4)\nOn 13 April 2010, following consultation with the Congolese authorities and other parties concerned, the Political and Security Committee endorsed an extension of the mission for 3 months, namely from 1 July 2010 until 30 September 2010.\n(5)\nThe mandate of the mission is being carried out in a security context that is liable to deteriorate and to undermine the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as defined in Article 24 TEU.\n(6)\nJoint Action 2007/405/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nJoint Action 2007/405/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 9(1), the following subparagraph shall be added:\n\u2018The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mission for the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 September 2010 shall be EUR 2 020 000\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 16, the second paragraph shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 30 September 2010\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 14 June 2010.", "references": ["45", "71", "19", "93", "30", "52", "21", "11", "31", "44", "60", "98", "78", "70", "5", "46", "15", "23", "12", "76", "28", "3", "25", "34", "58", "17", "77", "79", "49", "42", "No Label", "1", "4", "9", "10", "36", "94"], "gold": ["1", "4", "9", "10", "36", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 68/2011\nof 28 January 2011\non fixing the amount of aid in advance for private storage of pigmeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(a) and (d), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that when the average Community market price for pig carcasses as established by reference to the prices recorded in each Member State on the representative markets of the Community and weighted by means of coefficients reflecting the relative size of the pig herd in each Member State is, and is likely to remain, at less than 103 % of the reference price, the Commission may decide to grant aid for private storage.\n(2)\nMarket prices have fallen below that level and, given seasonal and cyclical trends, this situation could persist. In view of this, it is therefore appropriate to grant aid for private storage.\n(3)\nArticle 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that a private storage aid maybe granted for pigmeat and that aid shall be fixed by the Commission in advance or by means of tendering procedure.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 of 20 August 2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products (2) has established common rules for the implementation of the private storage aid scheme.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 an aid fixed in advance is to be granted in accordance with the detailed rules and conditions provides for in Chapter III of that Regulation.\n(6)\nIn order to facilitate the management of the measure, the pigmeat products are classified in categories according to similarities with regard to the level of storage cost.\n(7)\nThe closing date for the submission of applications should depend on market situation and should be decided in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(8)\nIn order to facilitate the administrative and control work relating to the conclusion of contracts, the minimum quantities of products each application must provide for should be fixed.\n(9)\nA security should be fixed in order to ensure the operators fulfil their contractual obligations and that the measure will have its desired effect on the market.\n(10)\nExports of pigmeat products contribute to the restoring of the balance on the market. Therefore, provisions of Article 28(3) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 should apply when the storage period is shortened where products removed from storage are intended for export. Daily amounts to be applied for the reduction of the amount of the aid as referred to in that Article should be fixed.\n(11)\nFor the purpose of application of the first subparagraph of Article 28(3) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 and for reason of consistency and clarity for operators, it is necessary to express in days the period of 2 months referred therein.\n(12)\nArticle 35 of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 provides for the information that the Member States have to notify to the Commission. It is appropriate to specify the rules on the notifications within the framework of the present Regulation.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\n1. This Regulation provides for private storage aid for pigmeat as referred to in Article 31(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n2. The list of categories of products eligible for aid and the relevant amounts are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nApplicable rules\nRegulation (EC) No 826/2008 shall apply save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nSubmission of applications\n1. From 01.02.2011 applications for private storage aid for the categories of pigmeat products eligible for aid under Article 1 of this Regulation may be lodged.\n2. Applications shall relate to a storage period of 90, 120 or 150 days.\n3. Each application shall refer to only one of the categories of products listed in the Annex to this Regulation, indicating the relevant CN code within that category.\n4. The closing date for the submission of applications will be decided in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n5. Each application shall cover a minimum quantity of at least 10 tonnes for boned products and 15 tonnes for other products.\nArticle 4\nSecurities\nThe amount of the security to be lodged in accordance with Article 16(2)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 shall equal to 20% of the amounts of the aid fixed in columns 3 to 5 of the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 5\nRemoval from storage of product intended for export\n1. For the purpose of application of the first sub-paragraph of Article 28(3) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 the expiry of a minimum storage period of 60 days shall be required.\n2. For the purpose of application of the third subparagraph of Article 28(3) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008, the daily amounts are set in column 6 of the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 6\nCommunications\nMember States shall notify the Commission each Monday and Thursday by 12:00 (Brussels time) the quantities of products for which applications to conclude contracts have been submitted.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 January 2011.", "references": ["89", "16", "98", "53", "86", "88", "74", "48", "32", "21", "99", "63", "72", "22", "85", "20", "75", "18", "81", "41", "15", "10", "82", "47", "90", "57", "91", "35", "56", "5", "No Label", "26", "61", "62", "69"], "gold": ["26", "61", "62", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1171/2010\nof 10 December 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Mel\u00f3n de La Mancha (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Mel\u00f3n de La Mancha\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 December 2010.", "references": ["36", "81", "69", "40", "11", "85", "58", "4", "79", "37", "74", "56", "78", "2", "32", "10", "39", "26", "84", "16", "48", "73", "54", "1", "95", "42", "99", "7", "38", "30", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 April 2011\non the clearance of the accounts of certain paying agencies in Germany, Italy and Romania concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2009 financial year\n(notified under document C(2011) 2748)\n(Only the German, Italian and Romanian texts are authentic)\n(2011/254/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 33 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Fund Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decisions 2010/263/EU (2) and 2010/722/EU (3), cleared for the 2009 financial year, the accounts of all the paying agencies except for the German paying agencies \u2018Bayern\u2019 and \u2018Rheinland-Pfalz\u2019, the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019 and the Romanian paying agency \u2018PARDF\u2019.\n(2)\nFollowing the transmission of new information and after additional checks, the Commission can now take a decision concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the German paying agencies \u2018Bayern\u2019 and \u2018Rheinland-Pfalz\u2019, the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019 and the Romanian paying agency \u2018PARDF\u2019.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from EU financing expenditure not effected in accordance with EU rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accounts of the German paying agencies \u2018Bayern\u2019 and \u2018Rheinland-Pfalz\u2019, the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019 and the Romanian paying agency \u2018PARDF\u2019 concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in respect of the 2009 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State under each rural development programme pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 33(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic and Romania.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["85", "2", "71", "22", "72", "38", "9", "78", "14", "25", "74", "49", "37", "39", "91", "65", "66", "86", "81", "69", "76", "82", "73", "77", "30", "63", "4", "20", "34", "23", "No Label", "10", "17", "47", "61", "96"], "gold": ["10", "17", "47", "61", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 657/2010\nof 22 July 2010\nnot fixing a minimum selling price in response to the fourth individual invitation to tender for the sale of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the fourth individual invitation to tender, no minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the fourth individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 20 July 2010, no minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be fixed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2010.", "references": ["62", "25", "95", "73", "76", "88", "24", "65", "63", "0", "57", "22", "7", "68", "80", "77", "4", "23", "54", "97", "52", "12", "99", "50", "69", "30", "89", "58", "60", "71", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1152/2010\nof 8 December 2010\namending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 laying down test methods pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of 18 December 2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 (2) contains the test methods for the purposes of the determination of the physico-chemical properties, toxicity and eco-toxicity of substances to be applied for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(2)\nIt is necessary to update Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 to include with priority two new in vitro test methods for ocular irritation recently adopted by the OECD, in order to obtain a reduction of the number of animals to be used for experimental purposes, in accordance with Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (3). Stakeholders have been consulted on this draft.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 440/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Part B of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 440/2008, Chapters B.47 and B.48 are added as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2010.", "references": ["1", "46", "80", "8", "75", "13", "87", "98", "49", "4", "40", "57", "73", "0", "43", "11", "26", "92", "9", "37", "82", "61", "52", "7", "25", "74", "42", "34", "53", "64", "No Label", "38", "66", "76", "77", "83"], "gold": ["38", "66", "76", "77", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1089/2011\nof 27 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["62", "7", "88", "71", "0", "57", "37", "56", "6", "90", "55", "69", "64", "72", "83", "85", "5", "28", "99", "95", "93", "31", "74", "49", "82", "70", "75", "23", "38", "92", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 347/2011\nof 8 April 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 340/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 April 2011.", "references": ["49", "94", "67", "8", "87", "68", "38", "16", "21", "6", "40", "47", "69", "23", "45", "37", "98", "18", "17", "84", "15", "32", "81", "39", "2", "78", "97", "31", "91", "93", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 254/2011\nof 15 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 March 2011.", "references": ["27", "75", "37", "12", "44", "57", "78", "92", "86", "99", "21", "62", "10", "4", "20", "39", "83", "65", "51", "36", "67", "7", "90", "55", "40", "54", "95", "73", "34", "23", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/173/CFSP\nof 21 March 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 14 December 2010, the Council confirmed its determination to support the Dayton/Paris General Framework Agreement for Peace and its readiness to consider proposals to strengthen the Union's ability to engage effectively with Bosnia and Herzegovina in this regard.\n(2)\nIn this context, restrictive measures should be imposed against certain natural and legal persons whose activities undermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity, constitutional order and international personality of Bosnia and Herzegovina, seriously threaten the security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina or undermine the Dayton/Paris General Framework Agreement for Peace and the Annexes thereto.\n(3)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of those persons whose activities:\n(a)\nundermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity, constitutional order and international personality of Bosnia and Herzegovina;\n(b)\nseriously threaten the security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina; or\n(c)\nundermine the Dayton/Paris General Framework Agreement for Peace and the Annexes thereto, including measures established in the implementation of the said Agreement;\nand persons associated with them, as listed in the Annex.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation of international law, namely:\n(a)\nas a host country to an international intergovernmental organisation;\n(b)\nas a host country to an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the UN;\n(c)\nunder a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities; or\n(d)\nunder the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran Pact) concluded by the Holy See (State of the Vatican City) and Italy.\n4. Paragraph 3 shall be considered as applying also in cases where a Member State is host country to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).\n5. The Council shall be duly informed in all cases where a Member State grants an exemption pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4.\n6. Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed under paragraph 1 where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the Union, or hosted by a Member State holding the chairmanship in office of the OSCE, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n7. A Member State wishing to grant exemptions referred to in paragraph 6 shall notify the Council in writing. The exemption shall be deemed to be granted unless one or more Council members raise an objection in writing within two working days of receiving notification of the proposed exemption. Should one or more Council members raise such an objection, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to grant the proposed exemption.\n8. In cases where pursuant to paragraphs 3, 4, 6 and 7, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in the Annex, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\nArticle 2\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by persons whose activities:\n(a)\nundermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity, constitutional order and international personality of Bosnia and Herzegovina;\n(b)\nseriously threaten the security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina; or\n(c)\nundermine the Dayton/Paris General Framework Agreement for Peace and the Annexes thereto, including measures established in the implementation of the said Agreement;\nand natural or legal persons associated with them, as listed in the Annex, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of, natural or legal persons listed in the Annex.\n3. The competent authority of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources concerned are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of the natural persons listed in the Annex and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for the routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the competent authority has notified the competent authorities of the other Member States and the Commission of the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted, at least two weeks prior to the authorisation.\nA Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation it grants under this paragraph.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the natural or legal person referred to in paragraph 1 was included in the Annex, or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a natural or legal person listed in the Annex; and\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgement is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\nA Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this paragraph.\n5. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent a designated person from making a payment due under a contract entered into before the listing of such a person, provided that the relevant Member State has determined that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person referred to in paragraph 1.\n6. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to this Decision;\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments remain subject to paragraph 1.\nArticle 3\n1. The Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall establish and amend the list in the Annex.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the person concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person concerned accordingly.\nArticle 4\n1. The Annex shall include the grounds for listing the persons concerned.\n2. The Annex shall also contain, where available, the information necessary to identify the persons concerned. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names, including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\nArticle 5\nIn order to maximise the impact of the restrictive measures laid down in this Decision, the Union shall encourage third States to adopt similar measures.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nThis Decision shall apply until 22 March 2012.\nThis Decision shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["80", "56", "60", "28", "61", "71", "5", "38", "42", "29", "59", "23", "84", "41", "10", "20", "62", "53", "48", "46", "1", "19", "17", "6", "79", "35", "27", "90", "34", "8", "No Label", "3", "4", "11", "12", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "4", "11", "12", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2011/96/EU\nof 30 November 2011\non the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States\n(recast)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 115 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (3) has been substantially amended several times (4). Since further amendments are to be made, it should be recast in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nIn the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 May 2008 in Case C-133/06 (5), it is considered necessary to redraft the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Directive 90/435/EEC, for the purpose of clarifying that the rules referred to therein are adopted by the Council acting in accordance with the procedure provided for in the Treaty. It is furthermore appropriate to update the Annexes to that Directive.\n(3)\nThe objective of this Directive is to exempt dividends and other profit distributions paid by subsidiary companies to their parent companies from withholding taxes and to eliminate double taxation of such income at the level of the parent company.\n(4)\nThe grouping together of companies of different Member States may be necessary in order to create within the Union conditions analogous to those of an internal market and in order thus to ensure the effective functioning of such an internal market. Such operations should not to be hampered by restrictions, disadvantages or distortions arising in particular from the tax provisions of the Member States. It is therefore necessary, with respect to such grouping together of companies of different Member States, to provide for tax rules which are neutral from the point of view of competition, in order to allow enterprises to adapt to the requirements of the internal market, to increase their productivity and to improve their competitive strength at the international level.\n(5)\nSuch grouping together may result in the formation of groups of parent companies and subsidiaries.\n(6)\nBefore the entry into force of Directive 90/435/EEC, the tax provisions governing the relations between parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States varied appreciably from one Member State to another and were generally less advantageous than those applicable to parent companies and subsidiaries of the same Member State. Cooperation between companies of different Member States was thereby disadvantaged in comparison with cooperation between companies of the same Member State. It was necessary to eliminate that disadvantage by the introduction of a common system in order to facilitate the grouping together of companies at Union level.\n(7)\nWhere a parent company by virtue of its association with its subsidiary receives distributed profits, the Member State of the parent company must either refrain from taxing such profits, or tax such profits while authorising the parent company to deduct from the amount of tax due that fraction of the corporation tax paid by the subsidiary which relates to those profits.\n(8)\nIt is furthermore necessary, in order to ensure fiscal neutrality, that the profits which a subsidiary distributes to its parent company be exempt from withholding tax.\n(9)\nThe payment of profit distributions to, and their receipt by, a permanent establishment of a parent company should give rise to the same treatment as that applying between a subsidiary and its parent. This should include the situation where a parent company and its subsidiary are in the same Member State and the permanent establishment is in another Member State. On the other hand, it appears that situations where the permanent establishment and the subsidiary are situated in the same Member State can, without prejudice to the application of the Treaty principles, be dealt with on the basis of national legislation by the Member State concerned.\n(10)\nIn relation to the treatment of permanent establishments Member States may need to determine the conditions and legal instruments in order to protect the national tax revenue and fend off circumvention of national laws, in accordance with the Treaty principles and taking into account internationally accepted tax rules.\n(11)\nWhen corporate groups are organised in chains of companies and profits are distributed through the chain of subsidiaries to the parent company, double taxation should be eliminated either by exemption or tax credit. In the case of tax credit the parent company should be able to deduct any tax paid by any of the subsidiaries in the chain provided that the requirements set out in this Directive are met.\n(12)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Part B of Annex II,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\n1. Each Member State shall apply this Directive:\n(a)\nto distributions of profits received by companies of that Member State which come from their subsidiaries of other Member States;\n(b)\nto distributions of profits by companies of that Member State to companies of other Member States of which they are subsidiaries;\n(c)\nto distributions of profits received by permanent establishments situated in that Member State of companies of other Member States which come from their subsidiaries of a Member State other than that where the permanent establishment is situated;\n(d)\nto distributions of profits by companies of that Member State to permanent establishments situated in another Member State of companies of the same Member State of which they are subsidiaries.\n2. This Directive shall not preclude the application of domestic or agreement-based provisions required for the prevention of fraud or abuse.\nArticle 2\nFor the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018company of a Member State\u2019 means any company which:\n(i)\ntakes one of the forms listed in Annex I, Part A;\n(ii)\naccording to the tax laws of a Member State is considered to be resident in that Member State for tax purposes and, under the terms of a double taxation agreement concluded with a third State, is not considered to be resident for tax purposes outside the Union;\n(iii)\nmoreover, is subject to one of the taxes listed in Annex I, Part B, without the possibility of an option or of being exempt, or to any other tax which may be substituted for any of those taxes;\n(b)\n\u2018permanent establishment\u2019 means a fixed place of business situated in a Member State through which the business of a company of another Member State is wholly or partly carried on in so far as the profits of that place of business are subject to tax in the Member State in which it is situated by virtue of the relevant bilateral tax treaty or, in the absence of such a treaty, by virtue of national law.\nArticle 3\n1. For the purposes of applying this Directive:\n(a)\nthe status of parent company shall be attributed:\n(i)\nat least to a company of a Member State which fulfils the conditions set out in Article 2 and has a minimum holding of 10 % in the capital of a company of another Member State fulfilling the same conditions;\n(ii)\nunder the same conditions, to a company of a Member State which has a minimum holding of 10 % in the capital of a company of the same Member State, held in whole or in part by a permanent establishment of the former company situated in another Member State;\n(b)\n\u2018subsidiary\u2019 means that company the capital of which includes the holding referred to in point (a).\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States shall have the option of:\n(a)\nreplacing, by means of bilateral agreement, the criterion of a holding in the capital by that of a holding of voting rights;\n(b)\nnot applying this Directive to companies of that Member State, which do not maintain for an uninterrupted period of at least 2 years holdings qualifying them as parent companies, or to those of their companies in which a company of another Member State does not maintain such a holding for an uninterrupted period of at least 2 years.\nArticle 4\n1. Where a parent company or its permanent establishment, by virtue of the association of the parent company with its subsidiary, receives distributed profits, the Member State of the parent company and the Member State of its permanent establishment shall, except when the subsidiary is liquidated, either:\n(a)\nrefrain from taxing such profits; or\n(b)\ntax such profits while authorising the parent company and the permanent establishment to deduct from the amount of tax due that fraction of the corporation tax related to those profits and paid by the subsidiary and any lower-tier subsidiary, subject to the condition that at each tier a company and its lower-tier subsidiary fall within the definitions laid down in Article 2 and meet the requirements provided for in Article 3, up to the limit of the amount of the corresponding tax due.\n2. Nothing in this Directive shall prevent the Member State of the parent company from considering a subsidiary to be fiscally transparent on the basis of that Member State\u2019s assessment of the legal characteristics of that subsidiary arising from the law under which it is constituted and therefore from taxing the parent company on its share of the profits of its subsidiary as and when those profits arise. In this case the Member State of the parent company shall refrain from taxing the distributed profits of the subsidiary.\nWhen assessing the parent company\u2019s share of the profits of its subsidiary as they arise the Member State of the parent company shall either exempt those profits or authorise the parent company to deduct from the amount of tax due that fraction of the corporation tax related to the parent company\u2019s share of profits and paid by its subsidiary and any lower-tier subsidiary, subject to the condition that at each tier a company and its lower-tier subsidiary fall within the definitions laid down in Article 2 and meet the requirements provided for in Article 3, up to the limit of the amount of the corresponding tax due.\n3. Each Member State shall retain the option of providing that any charges relating to the holding and any losses resulting from the distribution of the profits of the subsidiary may not be deducted from the taxable profits of the parent company.\nWhere the management costs relating to the holding in such a case are fixed as a flat rate, the fixed amount may not exceed 5 % of the profits distributed by the subsidiary.\n4. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply until the date of effective entry into force of a common system of company taxation.\n5. The Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, shall, at the appropriate time, adopt the rules to apply as from the date of effective entry into force of a common system of company taxation.\nArticle 5\nProfits which a subsidiary distributes to its parent company shall be exempt from withholding tax.\nArticle 6\nThe Member State of a parent company may not charge withholding tax on the profits which such a company receives from a subsidiary.\nArticle 7\n1. The term \u2018withholding tax\u2019 as used in this Directive shall not cover an advance payment or prepayment (pr\u00e9compte) of corporation tax to the Member State of the subsidiary which is made in connection with a distribution of profits to its parent company.\n2. This Directive shall not affect the application of domestic or agreement-based provisions designed to eliminate or lessen economic double taxation of dividends, in particular provisions relating to the payment of tax credits to the recipients of dividends.\nArticle 8\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive as from 18 January 2012. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nWhen Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive together with a correlation table between them and this Directive.\nArticle 9\nDirective 90/435/EEC, as amended by the acts listed in Annex II, Part A, is repealed, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex II, Part B.\nReferences to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex III.\nArticle 10\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 11\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["90", "46", "20", "19", "99", "32", "27", "10", "65", "33", "5", "76", "41", "79", "48", "91", "30", "94", "31", "83", "18", "45", "60", "57", "28", "7", "24", "59", "23", "73", "No Label", "13", "34", "44"], "gold": ["13", "34", "44"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/427/CFSP\nof 18 July 2011\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 March 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/168/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Vygaudas U\u0160ACKAS as European Union Special Representative (\u2018EUSR\u2019) in Afghanistan.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 30 June 2012.\n(3)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Vygaudas U\u0160ACKAS as the European Union Special Representative (\u2018EUSR\u2019) in Afghanistan is hereby extended until 30 June 2012. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, upon a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (\u2018HR\u2019).\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe EUSR shall represent the European Union and promote Union policy objectives in Afghanistan, in close coordination with Member States\u2019 representatives in Afghanistan. More specifically, the EUSR shall:\n(a)\ncontribute to the implementation of the EU-Afghanistan Joint Declaration and lead the implementation of the EU Action Plan on Afghanistan and Pakistan, in so far as it concerns Afghanistan, thereby working with Member States\u2019 representatives in Afghanistan;\n(b)\nsupport Union-Afghanistan political dialogue;\n(c)\nsupport the pivotal role played by the United Nations (\u2018UN\u2019) in Afghanistan with particular emphasis on contributing to better coordinated international assistance, thereby promoting the implementation of the London and Kabul Conference Communiqu\u00e9s, as well as relevant UN Resolutions.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to fulfil the mandate, the EUSR shall, in close cooperation with Member States\u2019 representatives in Afghanistan:\n(a)\npromote the views of the Union on the political process and developments in Afghanistan;\n(b)\nmaintain close contact with, and support the development of, relevant Afghan institutions, in particular the government and the parliament as well as the local authorities. Contact should also be maintained with other Afghan political groups and other relevant actors in Afghanistan;\n(c)\nmaintain close contact with relevant international and regional stakeholders in Afghanistan, notably the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the UN and the Senior Civilian Representative of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and other key partners and organisations;\n(d)\nadvise on the progress achieved in meeting the objectives of the EU-Afghanistan Joint Declaration, of the EU Action Plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan, in so far as it concerns Afghanistan, and of the London, Kabul and forthcoming Bonn Conferences, in particular in the following areas:\n-\ncivilian capacity building, notably at sub-national level,\n-\ngood governance and the establishment of institutions necessary for the existence of the rule of law, in particular an independent judiciary,\n-\nelectoral reforms,\n-\nsecurity sector reforms, including the strengthening of judicial institutions, the national army and the police force,\n-\npromotion of growth, namely through agriculture and rural development,\n-\nrespect for Afghanistan\u2019s international human rights obligations, including respect for the rights of persons belonging to minorities and the rights of women and children,\n-\nrespect of democratic principles and the rule of law,\n-\nfostering participation by women in public administration and civil society,\n-\nrespect for Afghanistan\u2019s international obligations, including cooperation in international efforts to combat terrorism, illicit drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings and proliferation of arms and weapons of mass destruction and related materials,\n-\nfacilitation of humanitarian assistance and the orderly return of refugees and internally displaced persons, and\n-\nenhancing the effectiveness of Union presence and activities in Afghanistan and contributing to the formulation of the regular 6-monthly implementation reports on the EU Action Plan, as requested by the Council;\n(e)\nactively participate in local coordination forums such as the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board, while keeping non-participating Member States fully informed of decisions taken at these levels;\n(f)\nadvise on the participation and the positions of the Union in international conferences with regard to Afghanistan and contribute to promoting regional cooperation;\n(g)\ncontribute to the implementation of the Union\u2019s human rights policy and the Union Guidelines on Human Rights, in particular with regard to women and children in conflict-affected areas, especially by monitoring and addressing developments in this regard.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (\u2018PSC\u2019) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (\u2018EEAS\u2019).\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 September 2011 to 30 June 2012 shall be EUR 3 560 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of his mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting his team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall promptly and regularly inform the Council and the Commission of the composition of his team.\n2. Member States, institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of personnel to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to work with the EUSR. Internationally contracted personnel shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, institution of the Union or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and his personnel\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of his staff shall be agreed with the host party or parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of his team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. Union delegations and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with his mandate and the security situation in his geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under his direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as management of security incidents and a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high-risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of his team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the HR, the Council and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report, as necessary, to Council working parties. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR shall provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote overall Union political coordination. He shall help ensure that all Union instruments in the field are engaged coherently to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as with those of the EUSR for Central Asia and with the Union\u2019s Delegation in Pakistan. The EUSR shall provide Member States\u2019 missions and Union delegations with regular briefings.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegations and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make every effort to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall provide the Head of the EU Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) with local political guidance. The EUSR and the Civilian Operation Commander shall consult each other as required. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the HR, the Council and the Commission with a progress report at the end of January 2012 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["38", "96", "6", "51", "5", "87", "37", "76", "28", "25", "73", "2", "77", "67", "62", "52", "4", "41", "97", "12", "57", "81", "90", "83", "18", "92", "72", "64", "88", "10", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "95"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1123/2010\nof 2 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 3 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["59", "80", "1", "21", "57", "28", "9", "14", "23", "33", "69", "79", "47", "16", "72", "90", "66", "95", "46", "24", "86", "92", "51", "54", "89", "43", "98", "8", "53", "44", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 151/2012\nof 21 February 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 of 19 February 2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (1), and in particular Article 11(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 lists the persons covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation. Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 lists the competent authorities to which specific functions relating to the implementation of that Regulation are attributed.\n(2)\nCouncil Decision 2011/101/CFSP of 15 February 2011 (2) identifies the natural and legal persons to whom restrictions are to apply as provided for in Article 5 of that Decision, and Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 gives effect to that Decision to the extent that action at Union level is required. Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 should, therefore, be amended to ensure consistency with this Council Decision.\n(3)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 should also be updated, on the basis of the information most recently provided by Member States regarding the identification of competent authorities. Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 shall be replaced by Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 shall be replaced by Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2012.", "references": ["44", "57", "76", "45", "16", "30", "92", "96", "64", "23", "81", "71", "79", "84", "62", "49", "75", "21", "12", "88", "80", "48", "50", "7", "59", "13", "85", "70", "39", "93", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 779/2010\nof 2 September 2010\napproving minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Th\u00fcringer Rotwurst (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the second sentence of Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has examined Germany\u2019s application for approval, pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, of an amendment to details of the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Th\u00fcringer Rotwurst\u2019, registered by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2206/2003 (3).\n(2)\nThe purpose of the application is to amend the specification by extending the forms of packaging, in particular to allow the use of plastic jars, but not artificial casing. This is more in line with market realities and consumer preferences and makes it possible to unlock existing market potential.\n(3)\nThe Commission has examined the amendments in question and concluded that they are justified. Since these are minor amendments, the Commission may approve them without using the procedure set out in Articles 6 and 7 of that Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Th\u00fcringer Rotwurst\u2019, as set out in Annex I, are approved.\nArticle 2\nThe updated Single Document is set out in Annex II.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2010.", "references": ["41", "40", "27", "77", "13", "92", "17", "18", "38", "79", "29", "33", "53", "84", "74", "16", "64", "21", "59", "8", "94", "54", "23", "49", "44", "83", "85", "47", "71", "73", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 673/2011\nof 13 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2011.", "references": ["20", "82", "13", "36", "65", "80", "15", "86", "8", "14", "63", "60", "90", "17", "69", "26", "99", "66", "44", "76", "16", "74", "56", "58", "33", "53", "84", "91", "1", "25", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 April 2010\nrepealing Decision 2009/780/EC fixing the net amounts resulting from the application of voluntary modulation in Portugal for calendar years 2010, 2011 and 2012\n(notified under document C(2010) 2516)\n(Only the Portuguese text is authentic)\n(2010/235/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 of 27 March 2007 laying down rules for voluntary modulation of direct payments provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/780/EC (2) has fixed the net amounts resulting from the application of voluntary modulation in Portugal for calendar years 2010, 2011 and 2012.\n(2)\nSince the difficulties to its agricultural sector provoked by the economic crisis persist with a continuing negative impact on the economic situation of farmers, Portugal has communicated to the Commission that it has decided not to apply the voluntary modulation at all.\n(3)\nDecision 2009/780/EC should therefore be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2009/780/EC is hereby repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2010.", "references": ["56", "34", "7", "42", "45", "51", "86", "85", "71", "75", "79", "57", "69", "89", "52", "39", "38", "87", "88", "48", "30", "27", "67", "37", "63", "36", "68", "35", "76", "94", "No Label", "4", "17", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "17", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 560/2010\nof 25 June 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Farine de bl\u00e9 noir de Bretagne/Farine de bl\u00e9 noir de Bretagne - Gwinizh du Breizh (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Farine de bl\u00e9 noir de Bretagne\u2019 or \u2018Farine de bl\u00e9 noir de Bretagne - Gwinizh du Breizh\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 June 2010.", "references": ["69", "34", "48", "79", "68", "85", "70", "99", "63", "26", "83", "21", "41", "73", "84", "1", "30", "0", "10", "2", "3", "18", "32", "75", "50", "59", "88", "8", "31", "7", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 689/2010\nof 30 July 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 666/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 31 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 July 2010.", "references": ["8", "73", "65", "85", "2", "29", "16", "66", "49", "82", "34", "68", "6", "7", "19", "93", "33", "9", "97", "53", "98", "59", "26", "89", "67", "45", "76", "63", "14", "11", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 October 2011\nappointing an Irish member of the European Economic and Social Committee\n(2011/681/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Irish Government,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Jillian VAN TURNHOUT,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Seamus BOLAND, Chief Executive Officer, Irish Rural Link is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 10 October 2011.", "references": ["68", "18", "95", "61", "44", "29", "87", "43", "66", "11", "83", "59", "69", "57", "92", "81", "85", "36", "53", "16", "74", "39", "3", "84", "52", "76", "28", "75", "86", "31", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1267/2011\nof 6 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (1), and in particular Article 33(3) and Article 38(d) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 (2) the Commission is to draw up a list of control bodies and control authorities competent to carry out controls and issue certificates in third countries for the purpose of equivalence and is to publish that list in Annex IV to that Regulation.\n(2)\nThe Commission has examined the requests for inclusion in that list received by 31 October 2009 and has considered only complete requests. The control bodies and control authorities concerned were asked to provide additional information within 2 months in order to allow the Commission to verify whether or not they complied with the requirements of Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008. Only those control bodies and control authorities in respect of which the subsequent examination of all information received led to the conclusion that they complied with those requirements should be included in the list in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008.\n(3)\nDue to the large number of requests from control bodies and control authorities for which additional information has been asked, the assessment of the requests and the establishment of the first list took more time than foreseen. In the light of experience, Member States should be allowed to continue to grant import authorisations, but those authorisations should have a maximum duration of validity, and the Member States should be allowed a longer period during which they may continue to grant those authorisations.\n(4)\nDuring the assessment of the requests, difficulties can arise in understanding the circumstances where a control body or a control authority may be withdrawn from the list pursuant to Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008. In order to avoid further difficulties, it is necessary to clarify those circumstances. However, those clarifications should not impose any new obligation on the control bodies or control authorities.\n(5)\nThe experience has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the consequences of irregularities or infringements affecting the organic status of a product. In order to avoid further difficulties and to clarify the link between Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 as amended by this Regulation and the other provisions in force as regards imports of organic products from third countries, it therefore appears necessary to recall the duties of the control body or control authority of Member States as regards non-compliant products imported in accordance with Article 33(3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. However, that clarification should not impose any new obligations on the control body or control authority and Member States.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure the smooth transition from the system of national authorisations to the list of control bodies and control authorities competent to carry out controls and issue certificates in third countries for the purpose of equivalence, this Regulation should apply from 1 July 2012.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1235/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the regulatory Committee on organic production,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1235/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 12, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 37(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 a control body or a control authority, or a reference to a specific product category or to a specific third country in relation to that control body or control authority, may be withdrawn from the list referred to in Article 10 of this Regulation in the following cases:\n(a)\nif its annual report referred to paragraph 1(b) has not been received by the Commission by 31 March;\n(b)\nif it does not notify the Commission in due time of changes to its technical dossier;\n(c)\nif it does not provide information to the Commission during the investigations of an irregularity case;\n(d)\nif it fails to take adequate corrective measures in response to the irregularities and infringements observed;\n(e)\nif it does not agree to an on-the-spot examination required by the Commission, or if an on-the-spot examination comes up with a negative result due to systematic malfunctioning of control measures;\n(f)\nin any other situation presenting the risk for the consumer to be misled about the true nature of the products certified by the control body or the control authority.\nIf a control body or a control authority fails to take appropriate and timely remedial action after request by the Commission within a period which the Commission shall determine according to the severity of the problem and which generally may not be less than 30 days, the Commission shall withdraw it from the list without delay in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 37(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. That withdrawal decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission shall make the amended list available as soon as possible to the public by any appropriate technical means, including publication on the Internet.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 15 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 15\nNon-compliant products\n1. Without prejudice to any measures or actions taken in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and/or Regulation (EC) No 889/2008, the release for free circulation in the Union of products not in conformity with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 shall be conditional on the removal of references to organic production from the labelling, advertising and accompanying documents.\n2. Without prejudice to any measures or actions to be taken in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, in case of suspicion of infringements and irregularities as regards compliance of the products imported in accordance with Article 33(3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 with the requirements laid down in that Regulation, the importer shall take all necessary measures in accordance with Article 91(1) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008.\nThe importer and the control authority or control body which issued the certificate of inspection as referred to in Article 13 of this Regulation shall immediately inform the control bodies, control authorities and competent authorities of the Member States concerned and of the third countries involved in the organic production of the products in question and, where appropriate, the Commission. The control authority or control body may require that the product cannot be placed on the market with indications referring to the organic production method until it is satisfied, by the information received from the operator or from other sources, that the doubt has been eliminated.\n3. Without prejudice to any measures or actions to be taken in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, where a control authority or control body of a Member State or a third country has a substantiated suspicion of an infringement or irregularities as regards compliance of the products imported in accordance with Article 33(3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 with the requirements laid down in that Regulation, it shall take all necessary measures in accordance with Article 91(2) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 and shall immediately inform the control bodies, control authorities and competent authorities of the Member States concerned and of the third countries involved in the organic production of the products in question and the Commission.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 19 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Authorisations shall expire at the latest 12 months after being granted except those which have already been granted for a longer period before 1 July 2012.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Member States shall no longer grant the authorisations referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article from 1 July 2013 unless:\n-\nthe imported products in question are goods for which the organic production in the third country was controlled by a control body or a control authority not on the list set up in accordance with Article 10, or\n-\nthe imported products in question are goods for which the organic production in the third country was controlled by a control body or a control authority on the list set up in accordance with Article 10 but the goods do not belong to any of the product categories listed in Annex IV in respect of the control body or control authority for that third country.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 5, \u20181 January 2013\u2019 is replaced by \u20181 July 2014\u2019;\n(4)\nAnnex IV is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 December 2011.", "references": ["80", "34", "4", "91", "19", "27", "65", "29", "55", "79", "78", "6", "56", "26", "76", "44", "46", "40", "66", "23", "95", "7", "61", "84", "38", "30", "89", "12", "86", "28", "No Label", "8", "20", "21", "22", "25", "72"], "gold": ["8", "20", "21", "22", "25", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 16 December 2010\namending Decision 2003/322/EC as regards certain species of necrophagous birds in Italy and Greece to which certain animal by-products may be fed\n(notified under document C(2010) 8988)\n(Only the Bulgarian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/780/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 23(2)(d) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2003/322/EC of 12 May 2003 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the feeding of certain necrophagous birds with certain Category 1 materials (2) lays down conditions for the authorisation of the feeding of certain endangered or protected species of necrophagous birds by certain Member States.\n(2)\nThat Decision lists the Member States authorised to make use of that possibility, the species of necrophagous birds which may be fed with the Category 1 material, and the implementing rules under which the feeding may take place.\n(3)\nGreece and Italy have submitted requests for the extension of the list of species on their respective territories to which the Category 1 material may be fed. Both countries have submitted satisfactory information concerning the occurrence of those species on their respective territories.\n(4)\nFeeding of animal carcasses to the listed species should continue to be carried out in accordance with the implementing rules laid down in Decision 2003/322/EC. Those rules have been adopted in recognition of the special feeding patterns of certain endangered or protected species in their natural habitat, in the interest of biodiversity. However, feeding of carcasses under those rules does not constitute an alternative means of disposal under Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.\n(5)\nDecision 2003/322/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nPart A of the Annex to Decision 2003/322/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\npoint (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nin the case of Greece: griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus), bearded vulture (Gypaetus barbatus), black vulture (Aegypius monachus), Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca), white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) and black kite (Milvus migrans);\u2019;\n2.\npoint (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nin the case of Italy: bearded vulture (Gypaetus barbatus), black vulture (Aegypius monachus), Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus), griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), black kite (Milvus migrans) and red kite (Milvus milvus);\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus and the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2010.", "references": ["62", "95", "87", "79", "96", "80", "73", "10", "17", "26", "99", "51", "84", "76", "90", "68", "63", "40", "88", "45", "20", "2", "3", "67", "91", "7", "21", "52", "5", "47", "No Label", "38", "58", "59", "66", "69", "82"], "gold": ["38", "58", "59", "66", "69", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 16 September 2011\nconcerning the application of the control and movement provisions of Council Directive 2008/118/EC to products falling within CN code 3811, in accordance with Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC\n(notified under document C(2011) 6423)\n(2011/545/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1), and in particular Article 20(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Authorities of the Netherlands have notified the Commission in accordance with Article 20(2) of Directive 2003/96/EC that not applying the control and movement provisions of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (2) to additives falling within CN code 3811 of the Combined Nomenclature as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001, amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (3), which are subject to taxation in accordance with Directive 2003/96/EC, is liable to give rise to tax evasion, avoidance or abuse. The authorities of the Netherlands have therefore requested to add CN code 3811 to the control and movement provisions of Directive 2008/118/EC.\n(2)\nThe Commission has transmitted the request of the authorities of the Netherlands to the other Member States.\n(3)\nTaking into account the risk of tax evasion, avoidance or abuse they represent, products under CN code 3811 should be made subject to the control and movement provisions of Directive 2008/118/EC.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Excise Duty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn accordance with Article 20(2) of Directive 2003/96/EC, products falling within CN code 3811 shall be subject to the control and movement provisions of Directive 2008/118/EC.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 September 2011.", "references": ["50", "26", "3", "58", "13", "73", "68", "0", "74", "18", "37", "41", "82", "63", "42", "2", "53", "95", "35", "48", "17", "62", "22", "52", "93", "72", "96", "77", "57", "61", "No Label", "23", "34", "80", "83"], "gold": ["23", "34", "80", "83"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/006 PL/H. Cegielski-Pozna\u0144 from Poland)\n(2010/807/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nPoland submitted an application on 8 March 2010 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise H. Cegielski-Pozna\u0144 Poland SA and supplemented it with additional information up to 10 August 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 114 250.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Poland,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 114 250 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["87", "9", "94", "11", "69", "45", "18", "75", "5", "72", "62", "12", "26", "31", "90", "70", "37", "66", "34", "65", "85", "29", "14", "61", "19", "20", "25", "36", "2", "35", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 June 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the Food Aid Committee as regards the extension of the Food Aid Convention, 1999\n(2012/311/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 214(4), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Food Aid Convention 1999 (FAC) was concluded by the European Community by Council Decision 2000/421/EC (1), and extended by various decisions of the Food Aid Committee.\n(2)\nThe current FAC expires on 30 June 2012 and the question of its possible extension will be addressed in the session of the Food Aid Committee in June 2012.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article XXV(b) of the FAC, its extension is conditional upon the Grains Trade Convention 1995 remaining in force. On 6 June 2011, the International Grains Council decided to extend the Grains Trade Convention 1995 until 30 June 2013.\n(4)\nAt the 103rd session of the Food Aid Committee on 14 December 2010, its members agreed to begin the formal process of renegotiating the FAC with a series of negotiation sessions.\n(5)\nAs the new Food Assistance Convention, which will succeed the FAC, enters into force only on 1 January 2013, there is a gap of six months between the expiry of the FAC and the entry into force of the new Food Assistance Convention.\n(6)\nAt the 105th session of the Food Aid Committee on 30 November 2011, Parties to the FAC agreed that an overlap with the new Food Assistance Convention should be avoided and that a six-month gap was preferable to an extension of the FAC.\n(7)\nThe European Commission, which represents the European Union in the Food Aid Committee, should therefore be authorised to oppose a consensus in the Food Aid Committee favouring an extension,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position of the European Union within the Food Aid Committee shall be to oppose a consensus in the Food Aid Committee, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure of the Food Aid Committee, favouring an extension of the Food Aid Convention.\nArticle 2\nThe Commission is hereby authorised to express this position within the Food Aid Committee.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["82", "9", "48", "87", "21", "41", "24", "54", "11", "61", "47", "97", "25", "14", "28", "42", "50", "45", "37", "83", "29", "74", "16", "91", "69", "84", "13", "5", "15", "80", "No Label", "3", "4"], "gold": ["3", "4"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/503/CFSP\nof 13 September 2012\namending Decision 2010/452/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 August 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/452/CFSP (1) which continued the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (\u2018EUMM Georgia\u2019 or \u2018the Mission\u2019) established on 15 September 2008. That Decision expires on 14 September 2012.\n(2)\nOn 15 May 2012, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) endorsed recommendations on the review at strategic level of the future of EUMM Georgia.\n(3)\nEUMM Georgia should be extended for a further period of 12 months on the basis of its current mandate.\n(4)\nThe Mission will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty.\n(5)\nDecision 2010/452/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/452/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 7(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. All staff shall abide by the Mission-specific minimum security operating standards and the Mission security plan supporting the Union\u2019s field security policy. As regards the protection of EU classified information with which staff are entrusted in the course of their duties, all staff shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2).\n(2)\nArticle 12 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 12\nSecurity\n1. The Civilian Operation Commander shall direct the Head of Mission\u2019s planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation for EUMM Georgia in accordance with Articles 5 and 9.\n2. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the security of the Mission and for ensuring compliance with minimum security requirements applicable to the Mission, in line with the policy of the Union on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, and its supporting instruments.\n3. The Head of Mission shall be assisted by a Senior Mission Security Officer (SMSO), who shall report to the Head of Mission and also maintain a close functional relationship with the European External Action Service (EEAS).\n4. EUMM Georgia staff shall undergo mandatory security training before taking up their duties, in accordance with the OPLAN. They shall also receive regular in-theatre refresher training organised by the SMSO.\n5. The Head of Mission shall ensure the protection of EU classified information in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 14(1), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the Mission between 15 September 2012 and 14 September 2013 shall be EUR 20 900 000.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 16 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 16\nRelease of classified information\n1. The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States associated with this Decision, as appropriate and in accordance with the needs of the Mission, EU classified information and documents up to \u2018CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL\u2019 level generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU.\n2. The HR shall also be authorised to release to the UN and the OSCE, in accordance with the operational needs of the Mission, EU classified information and documents up to \u2018RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED\u2019 level which are generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU. Arrangements between the HR and the competent authorities of the UN and the OSCE shall be drawn up for this purpose.\n3. In the event of a specific and immediate operational need, the HR shall also be authorised to release to the host State any EU classified information and documents up to \u2018RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED\u2019 level which are generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU. Arrangements between the HR and the competent authorities of the host State shall be drawn up for this purpose.\n4. The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States associated with this Decision any EU non-classified documents connected with the deliberations of the Council relating to the Mission and covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (3).\n5. The HR may delegate the powers referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4, as well as the ability to conclude the arrangements referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, to persons placed under his/her authority, to the Civilian Operations Commander and/or to the Head of Mission.\n(5)\nArticle 17 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 17\nReview of the Mission\nA Mission review shall be presented to the PSC every six months, on the basis of a report by the Head of Mission and the EEAS.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 18, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 14 September 2013.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2012.", "references": ["63", "92", "71", "14", "2", "50", "75", "24", "72", "37", "4", "58", "44", "99", "47", "43", "18", "38", "15", "33", "89", "60", "96", "7", "48", "0", "30", "65", "40", "29", "No Label", "3", "5", "41", "91"], "gold": ["3", "5", "41", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1069/2011\nof 21 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2011.", "references": ["27", "72", "91", "47", "6", "83", "39", "31", "42", "67", "51", "10", "0", "13", "98", "99", "21", "44", "80", "97", "70", "28", "75", "32", "86", "3", "77", "16", "5", "46", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 465/2010\nof 27 May 2010\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2010.", "references": ["12", "57", "54", "98", "92", "32", "25", "31", "47", "86", "33", "40", "67", "42", "19", "95", "49", "85", "58", "38", "37", "28", "13", "55", "27", "94", "14", "74", "30", "45", "No Label", "21", "88"], "gold": ["21", "88"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1145/2010\nof 3 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for tusk in EU and international waters of V, VI and VII by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 December 2010.", "references": ["25", "17", "81", "94", "15", "1", "45", "68", "0", "59", "9", "43", "16", "18", "2", "75", "84", "49", "53", "34", "3", "8", "98", "42", "41", "39", "19", "88", "31", "77", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 806/2011\nof 10 August 2011\napproving the active substance fluquinconazole, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Fluquinconazole is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included fluquinconazole.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (6) the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from entry into force of that Regulation. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (7) was adopted on the non-inclusion of fluquinconazole.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to Ireland, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nIreland evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 13 April 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on fluquinconazole to the Commission on 25 February 2011 (8). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for fluquinconazole.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing fluquinconazole may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve fluquinconazole in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that fluquinconazole should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(11)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of the approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing fluquinconazole. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw existing authorisations. By way of derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(12)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (9) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(13)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (10) should be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of fluquinconazole and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning fluquinconazole in the Annex to that Decision. It is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance fluquinconazole, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing fluquinconazole as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing fluquinconazole as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Following that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing fluquinconazole as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing fluquinconazole as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2008/934/EC\nThe line concerning fluquinconazole in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2011.", "references": ["19", "24", "35", "2", "91", "84", "80", "68", "50", "90", "62", "46", "27", "34", "60", "58", "75", "0", "8", "49", "18", "42", "17", "28", "13", "96", "1", "52", "11", "4", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 810/2010\nof 15 September 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), and in particular Article 17(3)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (2), and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first subparagraph of point (1) of Article 8, point (4) of Article 8, Article 9(2) and Article 9(4)(b) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2004/68/EC of 26 April 2004 laying down animal health rules for the importation into and transit through the Community of certain live ungulate animals, amending Directives 90/426/EEC and 92/65/EEC and repealing Directive 72/462/EEC (3), and in particular the first and second subparagraphs of Article 3(1), the first subparagraph of Article 6(1), point (e) of Article 7, Article 8, the first subparagraph of Article 10 and Article 13(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 (4) lays down the veterinary certification requirements for the introduction into the Union of certain consignments of live animals or fresh meat. It also lays down the lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof from which those consignments may be introduced into the Union.\n(2)\nRegulation (EU) No 206/2010 provides that consignments of fresh meat intended for human consumption are to be imported into the Union only if they come from the third countries, territories or parts thereof listed in Part 1 of Annex II to that Regulation for which there is a model veterinary certificate corresponding to the consignment concerned listed in that Part. In addition, those consignments must comply with the requirements set out in the appropriate veterinary certificate which must be drawn up in accordance with the models set out in Part 2 of that Annex.\n(3)\nIn addition, Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 provides that consignments of certain species of bees are only to be introduced into the Union from third countries or territories listed in Part 1 of Annex II to that Regulation where the presence of the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida) is subject to compulsory notification throughout the whole territory of the third country or territory concerned. However, consignments of bees may be introduced into the Union from a part of a third country or territory listed in that Part 1 which is a geographically and epidemiologically isolated part of the third country or territory and listed in the third column of the table in Section 1 of Part 1 of Annex IV. The State of Hawaii is currently listed in that column.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 206/2010 provided for a transitional period until 30 June 2010 during which time consignments of live animals and fresh meat intended for human consumption and accompanied by veterinary certificates issued in accordance with the rules in force before the entry into force of that Regulation may continue to be introduced into the Union.\n(5)\nDue to some transposition errors in the published version of Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 in particular in the model certificates set out in the Annexes to that Regulation it has been republished in the Official Journal (5). The transitional period provided for in Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 should therefore be extended to take account of the period between the initial publication of that Regulation and the republication of the corrected version.\n(6)\nArgentina has requested the authorisation to export to the Union de-boned and matured wild deer meat of animals from an EU approved area free of foot and mouth disease with vaccination (AR-1). That third country has also provided sufficient animal health guarantees in support of its request. The model veterinary certificate RUW should therefore be indicated in column 4 of the table in Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 for the part of the territory of Argentina indicated as AR-1 in the second column of that Part.\n(7)\nConsidering that provided the EU animal health rules are respected and in particular that the bovine, caprine and ovine animals collected at assembly centres including markets can be guaranteed to be of the same health status by an adequate animal identification and traceability system, then those animals destined for slaughter for production of fresh meat to be exported to the Union could be sourced from one assembly centre and then sent directly to an approved slaughterhouse. The animal identification and traceability system in Namibia has been shown to ensure that animals at such collection centres have the same health status concerning export requirements to the EU and can fulfil the supplementary guarantees (J) as referred to in the appropriate column in Part 1 of Annex II to this Regulation.\n(8)\nOn 5 May 2010, the United States notified the Commission of outbreaks of the small hive beetle in parts of the State of Hawaii. The introduction of consignments of bees from that state could pose a serious threat to bee populations in the Union. Accordingly, the listing of the State of Hawaii in the third column of the table in Section 1 of Part 1 of Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 should be suspended from that date.\n(9)\nRegulation (EU) No 206/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nIt is necessary to provide for a transitional period in order to give Member States and the industry sufficient time to take the necessary measures to comply with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 206/2010, as amended by this Regulation, without disrupting trade.\n(11)\nIt is necessary for this Regulation to have retroactive effect in order to avoid any unnecessary disruption to trade in view of the very recent publication of the corrigendum affecting in particular the veterinary certificates.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 206/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 19 is replaced by the following wording:\n\u2018For a transitional period those consignments of live animals, except bees coming from the State of Hawaii, and fresh meat intended for human consumption certified before 30 November 2010 in accordance with Decisions 79/542/EEC and 2003/881/EC may continue to be introduced into the Union until 31 May 2011.\u2019\n(2)\nAnnex II is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\n(3)\nIn Annex IV, Part 1, the table in Section 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Country/territory\nCode of part of the country/territory\nDescription of part of the country/territory\nUS - United States\nUS-A\nThe State of Hawaii (6)\nArticle 2\nFor a transitional period, consignments of fresh meat intended for human consumption in respect of which the relevant veterinary certificates have been certified before 30 November 2010, in accordance with the models BOV and OVI, as set out in Part 2 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 before the amendments introduced by Article 1(2) of this Regulation, may continue to be introduced into the Union until 31 May 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States\nDone at Brussels, 15 September 2010.", "references": ["82", "0", "29", "87", "85", "46", "20", "53", "26", "97", "33", "51", "35", "57", "3", "2", "62", "6", "17", "7", "49", "31", "91", "88", "68", "93", "98", "84", "76", "44", "No Label", "4", "21", "22", "23", "38", "54", "61", "66", "69"], "gold": ["4", "21", "22", "23", "38", "54", "61", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 550/2012\nof 25 June 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 526/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["70", "24", "7", "84", "78", "14", "18", "66", "90", "65", "49", "39", "79", "12", "3", "30", "76", "9", "40", "60", "32", "93", "95", "36", "16", "83", "62", "85", "82", "11", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/536/CFSP\nof 12 September 2011\namending and extending Decision 2010/452/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 15 September 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1). That Joint Action, as subsequently amended and extended, expired on 14 September 2010.\n(2)\nOn 12 August 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/452/CFSP (2) which continued EUMM Georgia for a further 12 months until 14 September 2011.\n(3)\nOn 28 June 2011 the Political and Security Committee (PSC) endorsed recommendations on the review at strategic level on the future of EUMM Georgia.\n(4)\nEUMM Georgia should be further extended from 15 September 2011 until 14 September 2012 on the basis of its current mandate.\n(5)\nIt is also necessary to lay down the financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the EUMM Georgia for the period from 15 September 2011 to 14 September 2012.\n(6)\nThe Mission will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nCouncil Decision 2010/452/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 14(1), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the Mission between 15 September 2011 and 14 September 2012 shall be EUR 23 900 000.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 18, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 14 September 2012.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2011.", "references": ["81", "93", "16", "84", "62", "1", "86", "24", "29", "32", "26", "13", "27", "68", "31", "34", "25", "99", "49", "71", "6", "55", "7", "0", "28", "85", "51", "41", "48", "11", "No Label", "3", "9", "91"], "gold": ["3", "9", "91"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 February 2012\nappointing a Spanish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/87/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Cristina Elena TENIENTE S\u00c1NCHEZ,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed as alternate member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMs Mar\u00eda Isabel NIETO FERN\u00c1NDEZ, Secretaria T\u00e9cnica de Acci\u00f3n Exterior de la Junta de Extremadura.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["55", "57", "9", "45", "81", "56", "50", "23", "26", "36", "37", "70", "76", "32", "10", "24", "92", "3", "48", "72", "93", "69", "33", "14", "11", "21", "62", "63", "60", "34", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/18/EU\nof 1 March 2011\namending Annexes II, V and VI to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 30.3 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMeasures designed to amend non-essential elements of Directive 2008/57/EC and relating to the adaptation of Annexes II to IX to that Directive are to be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 29(4) of Directive 2008/57/EC.\n(2)\nThe control-command and signalling subsystem consist of trackside and on-board equipment, which should be considered as two separate subsystems. Annex II to Directive 2008/57/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe electricity consumption measuring equipment is physically integrated in the rolling stock. Annex II to Directive 2008/57/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 17(3) of Directive 2008/57/EC, Member States should designate the bodies responsible for carrying out the verification procedures in the case of national rules. Annexes V and VI to Directive 2008/57/EC should therefore be amended to specify these procedures applied by these bodies.\n(5)\nWith regard to Section 2 of Annex VI to Directive 2008/57/EC and recourse to intermediate statements of verification (hereinafter \u2018ISV\u2019), the notified body should first draw up an \u2018EC\u2019 certificate of intermediate statement of verification and then the applicant should draw up the related \u2018EC\u2019 declaration. Annexes V and VI to Directive 2008/57/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established pursuant to Article 29(1) of the Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II, V and VI to Directive 2008/57/EC are replaced by the text set out in Annexes I, II and III to this Directive respectively.\nArticle 2\n1. The Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulation and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 December 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate the text of those provisions to the Commission.\n2. When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n3. The obligations for transposition and implementation of this Directive shall not apply to the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Malta for as long as no railway system is established within their territories.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2011.", "references": ["65", "93", "3", "95", "31", "79", "98", "5", "48", "82", "15", "0", "29", "12", "49", "18", "60", "4", "66", "43", "99", "84", "73", "46", "89", "10", "7", "33", "45", "40", "No Label", "9", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["9", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 315/2012\nof 12 April 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 606/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards the categories of grapevine products, oenological practices and the applicable restrictions\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO Regulation\u2019) (1), and in particular the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 121 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 606/2009 (2), the authorised oenological practices are laid down in Annex I to that Regulation. The International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) has amended the conditions of use of certain oenological practices already authorised in the European Union. In order to meet the international standards in this field and to provide EU producers with the same possibilities available to third-country producers, the conditions of use of these oenological practices should be amended in the EU in accordance with the conditions of use defined by the OIV.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 606/2009 authorises the use of polyvinylimidazole/polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVI/PVP) copolymers in order to reduce the copper, iron and heavy metal content, provided that they comply with the requirements of the International Oenological Codex published by the OIV, especially as regards the maximum monomer content. As the OIV has not yet adopted such requirements, and for the sake of legal clarity, this practice should be deleted from Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 606/2009.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 606/2009 authorises the use of chitosan and chitin-glucan of fungoid origin. At present in the EU, these products are only prepared from the Aspergillus niger mushroom. As the OIV authorises these products and the International Oenological Codex published by the OIV specifies that they derive from the Aspergillus niger mushroom, this information should be included in Regulation (EC) No 606/2009.\n(4)\nWines entitled to the protected designation of origin \u2018Douro\u2019 and the protected geographical indication \u2018Duriense\u2019 followed by the statement \u2018colheita tardia\u2019 derogate from the maximum sulphur dioxide content. Portugal has requested that all Portuguese wines that have the same characteristics as these wines and are entitled to a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication followed by the statement \u2018colheita tardia\u2019 be granted this derogation. A maximum sulphur dioxide content of 400 milligrams per litre should be authorised for these wines.\n(5)\nAs the traditional specific term \u2018vino generoso\u2019 no longer applies solely to liqueur wines, the provision on the use of this term referred to in point 8 of Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 606/2009 should be adapted.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 606/2009 should be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Regulatory Committee established by Article 195(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 606/2009 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nAnnex I A is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation;\n(b)\nAnnex I B is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation;\n(c)\nAnnex III is amended in accordance with Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 April 2012.", "references": ["62", "14", "79", "30", "39", "3", "2", "90", "61", "11", "13", "21", "32", "20", "54", "50", "48", "10", "15", "55", "86", "23", "44", "43", "77", "73", "17", "94", "18", "41", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "71", "74", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "71", "74", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 May 2012\non the signature, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People\u2019s Republic of China on certain aspects of air services\n(2014/35/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy its Decision of 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with an agreement at Union level.\n(2)\nOn behalf of the Union, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement with the Government of the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China on certain aspects of air services (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision of 5 June 2003.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be signed and applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing on behalf of the Union of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People\u2019s Republic of China on certain aspects of air services is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement. The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\n1. Pending its entry into force, the Agreement shall be applied on a provisional basis, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Agreement, as from the first day of the month following the date on which the Parties have notified each other of the completion of the necessary procedures for this purpose (1).\n2. The President of the Council is hereby authorised to make the notification provided for in Article 8(2) of the Agreement.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2012.", "references": ["28", "43", "17", "2", "90", "97", "32", "63", "54", "56", "13", "76", "25", "35", "53", "36", "21", "77", "83", "40", "73", "91", "59", "80", "74", "7", "20", "87", "93", "45", "No Label", "3", "9", "57", "95"], "gold": ["3", "9", "57", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 697/2010\nof 4 August 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (L\u00fcneburger Heidekartoffeln (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany\u2019s application to register the name \u2018L\u00fcneburger Heidekartoffeln\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 August 2010.", "references": ["78", "22", "54", "32", "59", "70", "90", "37", "26", "20", "56", "48", "10", "67", "45", "5", "34", "47", "92", "6", "17", "15", "99", "23", "69", "65", "27", "8", "63", "30", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/92/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\non the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment\n(codification)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (3) has been substantially amended several times (4). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Directive should be codified.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Union policy on the environment is based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should, as a priority, be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay. Effects on the environment should be taken into account at the earliest possible stage in all the technical planning and decision-making processes.\n(3)\nThe principles of the assessment of environmental effects should be harmonised, in particular with reference to the projects which should be subject to assessment, the main obligations of the developers and the content of the assessment. The Member States may lay down stricter rules to protect the environment.\n(4)\nIn addition, it is necessary to achieve one of the objectives of the Union in the sphere of the protection of the environment and the quality of life.\n(5)\nThe environmental legislation of the Union includes provisions enabling public authorities and other bodies to take decisions which may have a significant effect on the environment as well as on personal health and well-being.\n(6)\nGeneral principles for the assessment of environmental effects should be laid down with a view to supplementing and coordinating development consent procedures governing public and private projects likely to have a major effect on the environment.\n(7)\nDevelopment consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out. That assessment should be conducted on the basis of the appropriate information supplied by the developer, which may be supplemented by the authorities and by the public likely to be concerned by the project in question.\n(8)\nProjects belonging to certain types have significant effects on the environment and those projects should, as a rule, be subject to a systematic assessment.\n(9)\nProjects of other types may not have significant effects on the environment in every case and those projects should be assessed where the Member States consider that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.\n(10)\nMember States may set thresholds or criteria for the purpose of determining which of such projects should be subject to assessment on the basis of the significance of their environmental effects. Member States should not be required to examine projects below those thresholds or outside those criteria on a case-by-case basis.\n(11)\nWhen setting such thresholds or criteria or examining projects on a case-by-case basis, for the purpose of determining which projects should be subject to assessment on the basis of their significant environmental effects, Member States should take account of the relevant selection criteria set out in this Directive. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, the Member States are in the best position to apply those criteria in specific instances.\n(12)\nFor projects which are subject to assessment, a certain minimal amount of information should be supplied, concerning the project and its effects.\n(13)\nIt is appropriate to lay down a procedure in order to enable the developer to obtain an opinion from the competent authorities on the content and extent of the information to be elaborated and supplied for the assessment. Member States, in the framework of this procedure, may require the developer to provide, inter alia, alternatives for the projects for which it intends to submit an application.\n(14)\nThe effects of a project on the environment should be assessed in order to take account of concerns to protect human health, to contribute by means of a better environment to the quality of life, to ensure maintenance of the diversity of species and to maintain the reproductive capacity of the ecosystem as a basic resource for life.\n(15)\nIt is desirable to lay down strengthened provisions concerning environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context to take account of developments at international level. The European Community signed the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context on 25 February 1991, and ratified it on 24 June 1997.\n(16)\nEffective public participation in the taking of decisions enables the public to express, and the decision-maker to take account of, opinions and concerns which may be relevant to those decisions, thereby increasing the accountability and transparency of the decision-making process and contributing to public awareness of environmental issues and support for the decisions taken.\n(17)\nParticipation, including participation by associations, organisations and groups, in particular non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection, should accordingly be fostered, including, inter alia, by promoting environmental education of the public.\n(18)\nThe European Community signed the UN/ECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention) on 25 June 1998 and ratified it on 17 February 2005.\n(19)\nAmong the objectives of the Aarhus Convention is the desire to guarantee rights of public participation in decision-making in environmental matters in order to contribute to the protection of the right to live in an environment which is adequate for personal health and well-being.\n(20)\nArticle 6 of the Aarhus Convention provides for public participation in decisions on the specific activities listed in Annex I thereto and on activities not so listed which may have a significant effect on the environment.\n(21)\nArticle 9(2) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention provides for access to judicial or other procedures for challenging the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of Article 6 of that Convention.\n(22)\nHowever, this Directive should not be applied to projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation, since the objectives of this Directive, including that of supplying information, are achieved through the legislative process.\n(23)\nFurthermore, it may be appropriate in exceptional cases to exempt a specific project from the assessment procedures laid down by this Directive, subject to appropriate information being supplied to the Commission and to the public concerned.\n(24)\nSince the objectives of this Directive cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the 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. 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 those objectives.\n(25)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex V, Part B,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\n1. This Directive shall apply to the assessment of the environmental effects of those public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment.\n2. For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018project\u2019 means:\n-\nthe execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes,\n-\nother interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources;\n(b)\n\u2018developer\u2019 means the applicant for authorisation for a private project or the public authority which initiates a project;\n(c)\n\u2018development consent\u2019 means the decision of the competent authority or authorities which entitles the developer to proceed with the project;\n(d)\n\u2018public\u2019 means one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups;\n(e)\n\u2018public concerned\u2019 means the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2). For the purposes of this definition, non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law shall be deemed to have an interest;\n(f)\n\u2018competent authority or authorities\u2019 means that authority or those authorities which the Member States designate as responsible for performing the duties arising from this Directive.\n3. Member States may decide, on a case-by-case basis if so provided under national law, not to apply this Directive to projects serving national defence purposes, if they deem that such application would have an adverse effect on those purposes.\n4. This Directive shall not apply to projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation, since the objectives of this Directive, including that of supplying information, are achieved through the legislative process.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Those projects are defined in Article 4.\n2. The environmental impact assessment may be integrated into the existing procedures for consent to projects in the Member States, or, failing this, into other procedures or into procedures to be established to comply with the aims of this Directive.\n3. Member States may provide for a single procedure in order to fulfil the requirements of this Directive and the requirements of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (5).\n4. Without prejudice to Article 7, Member States may, in exceptional cases, exempt a specific project in whole or in part from the provisions laid down in this Directive.\nIn that event, the Member States shall:\n(a)\nconsider whether another form of assessment would be appropriate;\n(b)\nmake available to the public concerned the information obtained under other forms of assessment referred to in point (a), the information relating to the decision granting exemption and the reasons for granting it;\n(c)\ninform the Commission, prior to granting consent, of the reasons justifying the exemption granted, and provide it with the information made available, where applicable, to their own nationals.\nThe Commission shall immediately forward the documents received to the other Member States.\nThe Commission shall report annually to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this paragraph.\nArticle 3\nThe environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case and in accordance with Articles 4 to 12, the direct and indirect effects of a project on the following factors:\n(a)\nhuman beings, fauna and flora;\n(b)\nsoil, water, air, climate and the landscape;\n(c)\nmaterial assets and the cultural heritage;\n(d)\nthe interaction between the factors referred to in points (a), (b) and (c).\nArticle 4\n1. Subject to Article 2(4), projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.\n2. Subject to Article 2(4), for projects listed in Annex II, Member States shall determine whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Member States shall make that determination through:\n(a)\na case-by-case examination;\nor\n(b)\nthresholds or criteria set by the Member State.\nMember States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in points (a) and (b).\n3. When a case-by-case examination is carried out or thresholds or criteria are set for the purpose of paragraph 2, the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III shall be taken into account.\n4. Member States shall ensure that the determination made by the competent authorities under paragraph 2 is made available to the public.\nArticle 5\n1. In the case of projects which, pursuant to Article 4, are to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment in accordance with this Article and Articles 6 to 10, Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the developer supplies in an appropriate form the information specified in Annex IV inasmuch as:\n(a)\nthe Member States consider that the information is relevant to a given stage of the consent procedure and to the specific characteristics of a particular project or type of project and of the environmental features likely to be affected;\n(b)\nthe Member States consider that a developer may reasonably be required to compile this information having regard, inter alia, to current knowledge and methods of assessment.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, if the developer so requests before submitting an application for development consent, the competent authority shall give an opinion on the information to be supplied by the developer in accordance with paragraph 1. The competent authority shall consult the developer and authorities referred to in Article 6(1) before it gives its opinion. The fact that the authority has given an opinion under this paragraph shall not preclude it from subsequently requiring the developer to submit further information.\nMember States may require the competent authorities to give such an opinion, irrespective of whether the developer so requests.\n3. The information to be provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 1 shall include at least:\n(a)\na description of the project comprising information on the site, design and size of the project;\n(b)\na description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects;\n(c)\nthe data required to identify and assess the main effects which the project is likely to have on the environment;\n(d)\nan outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects;\n(e)\na non-technical summary of the information referred to in points (a) to (d).\n4. Member States shall, if necessary, ensure that any authorities holding relevant information, with particular reference to Article 3, make this information available to the developer.\nArticle 6\n1. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the authorities likely to be concerned by the project by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities are given an opportunity to express their opinion on the information supplied by the developer and on the request for development consent. To that end, Member States shall designate the authorities to be consulted, either in general terms or on a case-by-case basis. The information gathered pursuant to Article 5 shall be forwarded to those authorities. Detailed arrangements for consultation shall be laid down by the Member States.\n2. The public shall be informed, whether by public notices or by other appropriate means such as electronic media where available, of the following matters early in the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2) and, at the latest, as soon as information can reasonably be provided:\n(a)\nthe request for development consent;\n(b)\nthe fact that the project is subject to an environmental impact assessment procedure and, where relevant, the fact that Article 7 applies;\n(c)\ndetails of the competent authorities responsible for taking the decision, those from which relevant information can be obtained, those to which comments or questions can be submitted, and details of the time schedule for transmitting comments or questions;\n(d)\nthe nature of possible decisions or, where there is one, the draft decision;\n(e)\nan indication of the availability of the information gathered pursuant to Article 5;\n(f)\nan indication of the times and places at which, and the means by which, the relevant information will be made available;\n(g)\ndetails of the arrangements for public participation made pursuant to paragraph 5 of this Article.\n3. Member States shall ensure that, within reasonable time-frames, the following is made available to the public concerned:\n(a)\nany information gathered pursuant to Article 5;\n(b)\nin accordance with national legislation, the main reports and advice issued to the competent authority or authorities at the time when the public concerned is informed in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article;\n(c)\nin accordance with the provisions of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information (6), information other than that referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article which is relevant for the decision in accordance with Article 8 of this Directive and which only becomes available after the time the public concerned was informed in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.\n4. The public concerned shall be given early and effective opportunities to participate in the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2) and shall, for that purpose, be entitled to express comments and opinions when all options are open to the competent authority or authorities before the decision on the request for development consent is taken.\n5. The detailed arrangements for informing the public (for example by bill posting within a certain radius or publication in local newspapers) and for consulting the public concerned (for example by written submissions or by way of a public inquiry) shall be determined by the Member States.\n6. Reasonable time-frames for the different phases shall be provided, allowing sufficient time for informing the public and for the public concerned to prepare and participate effectively in environmental decision-making subject to the provisions of this Article.\nArticle 7\n1. Where a Member State is aware that a project is likely to have significant effects on the environment in another Member State or where a Member State likely to be significantly affected so requests, the Member State in whose territory the project is intended to be carried out shall send to the affected Member State as soon as possible and no later than when informing its own public, inter alia:\n(a)\na description of the project, together with any available information on its possible transboundary impact;\n(b)\ninformation on the nature of the decision which may be taken.\nThe Member State in whose territory the project is intended to be carried out shall give the other Member State a reasonable time in which to indicate whether it wishes to participate in the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2), and may include the information referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. If a Member State which receives information pursuant to paragraph 1 indicates that it intends to participate in the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2), the Member State in whose territory the project is intended to be carried out shall, if it has not already done so, send to the affected Member State the information required to be given pursuant to Article 6(2) and made available pursuant to points (a) and (b) of Article 6(3).\n3. The Member States concerned, each insofar as it is concerned, shall also:\n(a)\narrange for the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 to be made available, within a reasonable time, to the authorities referred to in Article 6(1) and the public concerned in the territory of the Member State likely to be significantly affected; and\n(b)\nensure that the authorities referred to in Article 6(1) and the public concerned are given an opportunity, before development consent for the project is granted, to forward their opinion within a reasonable time on the information supplied to the competent authority in the Member State in whose territory the project is intended to be carried out.\n4. The Member States concerned shall enter into consultations regarding, inter alia, the potential transboundary effects of the project and the measures envisaged to reduce or eliminate such effects and shall agree on a reasonable time-frame for the duration of the consultation period.\n5. The detailed arrangements for implementing this Article may be determined by the Member States concerned and shall be such as to enable the public concerned in the territory of the affected Member State to participate effectively in the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2) for the project.\nArticle 8\nThe results of consultations and the information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 shall be taken into consideration in the development consent procedure.\nArticle 9\n1. When a decision to grant or refuse development consent has been taken, the competent authority or authorities shall inform the public thereof in accordance with the appropriate procedures and shall make available to the public the following information:\n(a)\nthe content of the decision and any conditions attached thereto;\n(b)\nhaving examined the concerns and opinions expressed by the public concerned, the main reasons and considerations on which the decision is based, including information about the public participation process;\n(c)\na description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects.\n2. The competent authority or authorities shall inform any Member State which has been consulted pursuant to Article 7, forwarding to it the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.\nThe consulted Member States shall ensure that that information is made available in an appropriate manner to the public concerned in their own territory.\nArticle 10\nThe provisions of this Directive shall not affect the obligation on the competent authorities to respect the limitations imposed by national laws, regulations and administrative provisions and accepted legal practices with regard to commercial and industrial confidentiality, including intellectual property, and the safeguarding of the public interest.\nWhere Article 7 applies, the transmission of information to another Member State and the receipt of information by another Member State shall be subject to the limitations in force in the Member State in which the project is proposed.\nArticle 11\n1. Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with the relevant national legal system, members of the public concerned:\n(a)\nhaving a sufficient interest, or alternatively;\n(b)\nmaintaining the impairment of a right, where administrative procedural law of a Member State requires this as a precondition;\nhave access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of this Directive.\n2. Member States shall determine at what stage the decisions, acts or omissions may be challenged.\n3. What constitutes a sufficient interest and impairment of a right shall be determined by the Member States, consistently with the objective of giving the public concerned wide access to justice. To that end, the interest of any non-governmental organisation meeting the requirements referred to in Article 1(2) shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose of point (a) of paragraph 1 of this Article. Such organisations shall also be deemed to have rights capable of being impaired for the purpose of point (b) of paragraph 1 of this Article.\n4. The provisions of this Article shall not exclude the possibility of a preliminary review procedure before an administrative authority and shall not affect the requirement of exhaustion of administrative review procedures prior to recourse to judicial review procedures, where such a requirement exists under national law.\nAny such procedure shall be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.\n5. In order to further the effectiveness of the provisions of this Article, Member States shall ensure that practical information is made available to the public on access to administrative and judicial review procedures.\nArticle 12\n1. The Member States and the Commission shall exchange information on the experience gained in applying this Directive.\n2. In particular, Member States shall inform the Commission of any criteria and/or thresholds adopted for the selection of the projects in question, in accordance with Article 4(2).\n3. On the basis of that exchange of information, the Commission shall if necessary submit additional proposals to the European Parliament and to the Council, with a view to ensuring that this Directive is applied in a sufficiently coordinated manner.\nArticle 13\nMember States shall communicate to the Commission the texts of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 14\nDirective 85/337/EEC, as amended by the Directives listed in Annex V, Part A, is repealed, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex V, Part B.\nReferences to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex VI.\nArticle 15\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 16\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["86", "59", "81", "22", "41", "32", "10", "61", "2", "54", "71", "56", "76", "51", "42", "28", "47", "1", "8", "72", "13", "6", "5", "24", "39", "37", "69", "49", "50", "4", "No Label", "19", "45", "58", "82", "87"], "gold": ["19", "45", "58", "82", "87"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 36/2012\nof 18 January 2012\nconcerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2).\n(2)\nThe Council expanded the scope of its measures against Syria by way of Council Regulations on 2 September, 23 September, 13 October and 14 November 2011 (3), as well as making amendments and additions to the list of targeted persons and entities through successive Council Implementing Regulations (4). Further measures, which do not fall within the scope of Union law, are set out in the corresponding CFSP Decisions of the Council (5).\n(3)\nIn view of the continued brutal repression and violation of human rights by the Government of Syria, Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP provides for additional measures, namely a prohibition on the export of telecommunications monitoring equipment for use by the Syrian regime, a prohibition on the participation in certain infrastructure projects and investment in such projects, and additional restrictions on the transfers of funds and the provision of financial services.\n(4)\nIt should be clarified that submitting and forwarding the necessary documents to a bank for the purpose of their final transfer to a person, entity or body that is not listed, to trigger payments allowed under Article 20, does not constitute making funds available within the meaning of Article 14.\n(5)\nThe power to amend the list in Annex II and IIa to this Regulation should be exercised by the Council, in view of the serious political situation in Syria, and to ensure consistency with the process for amending and reviewing the Annex to Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\n(6)\nThe procedure for amending the lists in Annex II and IIa to this Regulation should include providing designated natural or legal persons, entities or bodies with the grounds for listing, so as to give them an opportunity to submit observations. Where observations are submitted, or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in light of those observations and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n(7)\nFor the implementation of this Regulation, and in order to create maximum legal certainty within the Union, the names and other relevant data concerning natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources must be frozen in accordance with this Regulation, must be made public.Any processing of personal data should comply with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (6) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (7).\n(8)\nThese measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, notably with a view to ensuring its uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement them.\n(9)\nIn view of the extent of the amendments introduced, taken together with the various measures already adopted in relation to Syria, it is appropriate to consolidate all the measures into a new regulation which repeals and replaces Regulation (EU) No 442/2011.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nDEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2027branch\u2027 of a financial or credit institution means a place of business which forms a legally dependent part of a financial or credit institution and which carries out directly all or some of the transactions inherent in the business of financial or credit institutions;\n(b)\n\u2027brokering services\u2027 means:\n(i)\nthe negotiation or arrangement of transactions for the purchase, sale or supply of goods and technology from a third country to any other third country, or\n(ii)\nthe selling or buying of goods and technology that are located in third countries for their transfer to another third country;\n(c)\n\u2027contract or transaction\u2027 means any transaction of whatever form and whatever the applicable law, whether comprising one or more contracts or similar obligations made between the same or different parties; for this purpose \u2027contract\u2027 includes a bond, guarantee or indemnity, particularly a financial guarantee or financial indemnity, and credit, whether legally independent or not, as well as any related provision arising under, or in connection with, the transaction;\n(d)\n\u2027credit institution\u2027 means a credit institution as defined in Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (8), including its branches inside or outside the Union;\n(e)\n\u2027crude oil and petroleum products\u2027 means the products listed in Annex IV;\n(f)\n\u2027economic resources\u2027 means assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which are not funds, but which may be used to obtain funds, goods or services;\n(g)\n\u2027financial institution\u2027 means:\n(i)\nan undertaking, other than a credit institution, which carries out one or more of the operations included in points 2 to 12 and points 14 and 15 of Annex I to Directive 2006/48/EC, including the activities of currency exchange offices (bureaux de change);\n(ii)\nan insurance company duly authorised in accordance with Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (9), insofar as it carries out activities covered by that Directive;\n(iii)\nan investment firm as defined in point 1 of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (10);\n(iv)\na collective investment undertaking marketing its units or shares; or\n(v)\nan insurance intermediary as defined in Article 2(5) of Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation (11), with the exception of intermediaries referred to in Article 2(7) of that Directive, when they act in respect of life insurance and other investment related services;\nincluding its branches, whether inside or outside the Union;\n(h)\n\u2027freezing of economic resources\u2027 means preventing their use to obtain funds, goods or services in any way, including, but not limited to, by selling, hiring or mortgaging them;\n(i)\n\u2027freezing of funds\u2027 means preventing any move, transfer, alteration, use of, access to, or dealing with funds in any way that would result in any change in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination or other change that would enable the funds to be used, including portfolio management;\n(j)\n\u2027funds\u2027 means financial assets and benefits of every kind, including but not limited to:\n(i)\ncash, cheques, claims on money, drafts, money orders and other payment instruments;\n(ii)\ndeposits with financial institutions or other entities, balances on accounts, debts and debt obligations;\n(iii)\npublicly- and privately-traded securities and debt instruments, including stocks and shares, certificates representing securities, bonds, notes, warrants, debentures and derivatives contracts;\n(iv)\ninterest, dividends or other income on or value accruing from or generated by assets;\n(v)\ncredit, right of set-off, guarantees, performance bonds or other financial commitments;\n(vi)\nletters of credit, bills of lading, bills of sale;\n(vii)\ndocuments evidencing an interest in funds or financial resources;\n(k)\n\u2027goods\u2027 includes items, materials and equipment;\n(l)\n\u2027insurance\u2027 means an undertaking or commitment whereby one or more natural or legal persons are obliged, in return for payment, to provide one or more other persons, in the event of materialisation of a risk, with an indemnity or a benefit as determined by the undertaking or commitment;\n(m)\n\u2027reinsurance\u2027 means the activity consisting in accepting risks ceded by an insurance undertaking or by another reinsurance undertaking or, in the case of the association of underwriters known as Lloyd's, the activity consisting in accepting risks, ceded by any member of Lloyd's, by an insurance or reinsurance undertaking other than the association of underwriters known as Lloyd's;\n(n)\n\u2027Syrian credit or financial institution\u2027 means:\n(i)\nany credit or financial institution domiciled in Syria, including the Central Bank of Syria;\n(ii)\nany branch or subsidiary, where it falls within the scope of Article 35, of a credit or financial institution domiciled in Syria;\n(iii)\nany branch or subsidiary, where it does not fall within the scope of Article 35, of a credit or financial institution domiciled in Syria;\n(iv)\nany credit or financial institution that is not domiciled in Syria but is controlled by one or more persons or entities domiciled in Syria;\n(o)\n\u2027Syrian person, entity or body\u2027 means:\n(i)\nthe State of Syria or any public authority thereof;\n(ii)\nany natural person in, or resident in, Syria;\n(iii)\nany legal person, entity or body having its registered office in Syria;\n(iv)\nany legal person, entity or body, inside or outside Syria, owned or controlled directly or indirectly by one or more of the above-mentioned persons or bodies;\n(p)\n\u2027technical assistance\u2027 means any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance, or any other technical service, and may take forms such as instruction, advice, training, the transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services; including verbal forms of assistance;\n(q)\n\u2027territory of the Union\u2027 means the territories of the Member States to which the Treaty is applicable, under the conditions laid down in the Treaty, including their airspace.\nCHAPTER II\nEXPORT AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS\nArticle 2\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex I, whether or not originating in the Union, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(b)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in point (a).\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and helmets, temporarily exported to Syria by United Nations (UN) personnel, personnel of the Union or its Member States, representatives of the media or humanitarian and development workers and associated persons exclusively for their personal use.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities in the Member States as listed in Annex III may authorise the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment which might be used for internal repression, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, if they determine that such equipment is intended solely for humanitarian or protective use.\nArticle 3\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List of the European Union (12) (\u2027Common Military List\u2027) or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of goods included in that list, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex I, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(c)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List or in Annex I, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for any provision of related technical assistance to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(d)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) to (c).\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the prohibitions referred to therein shall not apply to the provision of technical assistance, financing and financial assistance related to:\n-\ntechnical assistance intended solely for the support of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF);\n-\nnon-lethal military equipment, or equipment which might be used for internal repression, intended solely for humanitarian purposes or protective use or for institution building programmes of the UN and the Union, or for Union or UN crisis management operations; or\n-\nnon-combat vehicles fitted with materials to provide ballistic protection, intended solely for the protective use of personnel of the Union and its Member States in Syria;\nprovided that such provision shall first have been approved by the competent authority of a Member State, as identified on the websites listed in Annex III.\nArticle 4\n1. It shall be prohibited to sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, equipment, technology or software identified in Annex V, whether or not originating in the Union, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria, unless the competent authority of the relevant Member State, as identified in the websites referred to in Annex III, has given prior authorisation.\n2. The competent authorities of the Member States, as identified in the websites referred to in Annex III, shall not grant any authorisation under paragraph 1 if they have reasonable grounds to determine that the equipment, technology or software in question would be used for monitoring or interception, by the Syrian regime or on its behalf, of internet or telephone communications in Syria.\n3. Annex V shall include equipment, technology or software which may be used for the monitoring or interception of internet or telephone communications.\n4. The Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this Article, within four weeks following the authorisation.\nArticle 5\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to the equipment, technology and software identified in Annex V, or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of the equipment and technology identified in Annex V or to the provision, installation, operation or updating of any software identified in Annex V, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the equipment, technology and software identified in Annex V, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(c)\nto provide any telecommunication or internet monitoring or interception services of any kind to, or for the direct or indirect benefit of, the State of Syria, its Government, its public bodies, corporations and agencies or any person or entity acting on their behalf or at their direction; and\n(d)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in any activity the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in point (a), (b) or (c) above;\nunless the competent authority of the relevant Member State, as identified in the websites referred to in Annex III, has given prior authorisation, on the basis set out in Article 4(2).\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1(c), \u2027telecommunication or internet monitoring or interception services\u2027 means those services that provide, in particular using equipment, technology or software as identified in Annex V, access to and delivery of a subject's incoming and outgoing telecommunications and call-associated data for the purpose of its extraction, decoding, recording, processing, analysis and storing or any other related activity.\nArticle 6\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto import crude oil or petroleum products into the Union if they:\n(i)\noriginate in Syria; or\n(ii)\nhave been exported from Syria;\n(b)\nto purchase crude oil or petroleum products which are located in or which originated in Syria;\n(c)\nto transport crude oil or petroleum products if they originate in Syria, or are being exported from Syria to any other country;\n(d)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, including financial derivatives, as well as insurance and re-insurance, related to the prohibitions set out in points (a), (b) and (c); and\n(e)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities whose object or effect is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the prohibitions in point (a), (b), (c) or (d).\nArticle 7\nThe prohibitions in Article 6 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nthe execution, on or prior to 15 November 2011, of an obligation arising from a contract concluded before 2 September 2011, provided that the natural or legal person, entity or body seeking to perform the obligation concerned has notified, at least seven working days in advance, the activity or transaction to the competent authority of the Member State in which it is established, as identified on the websites listed in Annex III; or\n(b)\nthe purchase of crude oil or petroleum products which had been exported from Syria prior to 2 September 2011, or, where the export was made pursuant to point (a), on or prior to 15 November 2011.\nArticle 8\n1. It shall be prohibited to sell, supply, transfer or export the equipment or technology listed in Annex VI, directly or indirectly, to any Syrian person, entity or body, or for use in Syria.\n2. Annex VI shall include key equipment and technology for the following sectors of the oil and gas industry in Syria:\n(a)\nexploration of crude oil and natural gas;\n(b)\nproduction of crude oil and natural gas;\n(c)\nrefining;\n(d)\nliquefaction of natural gas.\n3. Annex VI shall not include items included in the Common Military List.\nArticle 9\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to the equipment and technology listed in Annex VI, or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of goods listed in Annex VI, to any Syrian person, entity or body, or for use in Syria;\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the equipment and technology listed in Annex VI, to any Syrian person, entity or body; or for use in Syria, and\n(c)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in any activity the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in point (a) or (b).\nArticle 10\n1. The prohibitions in Articles 8 and 9 shall not apply to the performance of an obligation required by a contract which was awarded or concluded prior to 19 January 2012, provided that the person or entity seeking to rely on this Article has notified, at least 21 calendar days in advance, the competent authority of the Member State in which they are established, as identified on the websites listed in Annex III.\n2. For the purposes of this Article, a contract shall have been \u2027awarded\u2027 to a person or entity if express written confirmation of the award of the contract to that person or entity has been sent by the other contracting party, following the conclusion of a formal tender process.\nArticle 11\nIt shall be prohibited to sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, new Syrian denominated banknotes and coinage, printed or minted in the Union, to the Central Bank of Syria.\nCHAPTER III\nRESTRICTIONS ON PARTICIPATION IN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS\nArticle 12\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto sell, supply, transfer or export equipment or technology to be used in the construction or installation in Syria of new power plants for electricity production, as listed in Annex VII;\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financial or technical assistance in relation to any project referred to in point (a).\n2. This prohibition shall not apply to the performance of an obligation required by a contract or agreement which was concluded prior to 19 January 2012, provided that the person or entity seeking to rely on this Article has notified, at least 21 calendar days in advance, the competent authority of the Member State in which they are established, as identified on the websites listed in Annex III.\nCHAPTER IV\nRESTRICTIONS ON FINANCING CERTAIN ENTERPRISES\nArticle 13\n1. The following shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nthe granting of any financial loan or credit to any Syrian person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 2;\n(b)\nthe acquisition or extension of a participation in any Syrian person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 2;\n(c)\nthe creation of any joint venture with any Syrian person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 2;\n(d)\nthe participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in point (a), (b) or (c).\n2. The prohibitions in paragraph 1 shall apply to any Syrian person, entity or body engaged in:\n(a)\nthe exploration, production or refining of crude oil; or\n(b)\nthe construction or installation of new power plants for electricity production.\n3. For the purposes of paragraph 2 only, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2027exploration of crude oil\u2027 includes the exploration for, prospecting for and management of crude oil reserves, as well as the provision of geological services in relation to such reserves;\n(b)\n\u2027refining of crude oil\u2027 means the processing, conditioning or preparation of oil for the ultimately final sale of fuels.\n4. The prohibitions in paragraph 1:\n(a)\nshall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts or agreements relating to:\n(i)\nthe exploration, production or refining of crude oil, concluded before 23 September 2011;\n(ii)\nthe construction or installation of new power plants for electricity production concluded prior to 19 January 2012;\n(b)\nshall not prevent the extension of a participation relating to:\n(i)\nthe exploration, production or refining of crude oil, if such extension is an obligation under an agreement concluded before 23 September 2011;\n(ii)\nthe construction or installation of new power plants for electricity production if such extension is an obligation under an agreement concluded prior to 19 January 2012.\nCHAPTER V\nFREEZING OF FUNDS AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES\nArticle 14\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex II and IIa shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex II and IIa.\n3. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited.\nArticle 15\n1. Annexes II and IIa shall consist of the following:\n(a)\nAnnex II shall consist of a list of natural or legal persons, entities and bodies who, in accordance with Article 19(1) of Decision 2011/782/CFSP, have been identified by the Council as being persons or entities responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime, and natural or legal persons and entities associated with them, and to whom Article 21 of this Regulation shall not apply;\n(b)\nAnnex IIa shall consist of a list of entities which, in accordance with Article 19(1) of Decision 2011/782/CFSP, have been identified by the Council as being entities associated with the persons or entities responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, or with persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime, and to which Article 21 of this Regulation shall apply.\n2. Annexes II and IIa shall include the grounds for the listing of listed persons, entities and bodies concerned.\n3. Annexes II and IIa shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies concerned. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, entities and bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\nArticle 16\nBy way of derogation from Article 14, the competent authorities in the Member States as identified on the websites listed in Annex III may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of persons listed in Annexes II and IIa and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources;\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the relevant competent authority has notified the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted to the competent authorities of the other Member States and to the Commission at least two weeks before the authorisation;\n(e)\nto be paid into or from an account of a diplomatic or consular mission or an international organisation enjoying immunities in accordance with international law, insofar as such payments are intended to be used for official purposes of the diplomatic or consular mission or international organisation;\n(f)\nnecessary for humanitarian purposes, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuations from Syria.\nThe Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this Article within four weeks following the authorisation.\nArticle 17\nBy way of derogation from Article 14, the competent authorities in the Member States as identified on the websites listed in Annex III may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the provision of such funds or economic resources are necessary for the essential energy needs of the civilian population in Syria, provided that the relevant competent authority has notified for each delivery contract the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted to the competent authorities of the other Member States and to the Commission at least four weeks before the authorisation.\nArticle 18\nBy way of derogation from Article 14, the competent authorities in the Member States as listed in Annex III may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources in question are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the person, entity or body referred to in Article 14 was included in Annex II or IIa, or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources in question will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a person, entity or body listed in Annex II or IIa; and\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgment is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\nThe relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this Article.\nArticle 19\n1. Article 14(2) shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which the account became subject to this Regulation,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments are frozen in accordance with Article 14(1).\n2. Article 14(2) shall not prevent financial or credit institutions in the Union from crediting frozen accounts where they receive funds transferred to the account of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, provided that any additions to such accounts will also be frozen. The financial or credit institution shall inform the relevant competent authority about any such transaction without delay.\nArticle 20\nBy way of derogation from Article 14 and provided that a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex II or IIa is due under a contract or agreement that was concluded by, or an obligation that arose for the person, entity or body concerned before, the date on which that person, entity or body had been designated, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex III, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in Article 14.\nArticle 21\nBy way of derogation from Article 14(1), an entity listed in Annex IIa may, for a period of two months from the date on which it was designated, make a payment from frozen funds or economic resources which were received by that entity after the date on which it was designated, provided that:\n(a)\nsuch payment is due under a trade contract; and\n(b)\nthe competent authority of the relevant Member State has determined that the payment will not directly or indirectly be received by a person or entity listed in Annex II or Annex IIa.\nArticle 22\nThe freezing of funds and economic resources or the refusal to make funds or economic resources available, carried out in good faith on the basis that such action is in accordance with this Regulation, shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal person or entity or body implementing it, or its directors or employees, unless it is proved that the funds and economic resources were frozen or withheld as a result of negligence.\nCHAPTER VI\nRESTRICTIONS ON FINANCIAL SERVICES\nArticle 23\nThe European Investment Bank (EIB) shall:\n(a)\nbe prohibited from making any disbursement or payment under or in connection with any existing loan agreements entered into between the State of Syria or any public authority thereof and the EIB; and\n(b)\nsuspend all existing Technical Assistance Service Contracts relating to projects financed under the loan agreements referred to in point (a), and which are intended for the direct or indirect benefit of the State of Syria or any public authority thereof to be performed in Syria.\nArticle 24\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto sell or purchase Syrian public or public-guaranteed bonds issued after 19 January 2012, directly or indirectly, to or from any of the following:\n(i)\nthe State of Syria or its Government, and its public bodies, corporations and agencies;\n(ii)\nany Syrian credit or financial institution;\n(iii)\na natural person or a legal person, entity or body acting on behalf or at the direction of a legal person, entity or body referred to in (i) or (ii);\n(iv)\na legal person, entity or body owned or controlled by a person, entity or body referred to in (i), (ii) or (iii);\n(b)\nto provide brokering services with regard to Syrian public or public-guaranteed bonds issued after 19 January 2012, to a person, entity or body referred to in point (a);\n(c)\nto assist a person, entity or body referred to in point (a) in order to issue Syrian public or public-guaranteed bonds, by providing brokering services, advertising or any other service with regard to such bonds.\nArticle 25\n1. It shall be prohibited for credit and financial institutions falling within the scope of Article 35 to:\n(a)\nopen a new bank account with any Syrian credit or financial institution;\n(b)\nto establish a new correspondent banking relationship with any Syrian credit or financial institution;\n(c)\nto open a new representative office in Syria or to establish a new branch or subsidiary in Syria;\n(d)\nto establish a new joint venture with any Syrian credit or financial institution.\n2. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto authorise the opening of a representative office or the establishment of a branch or subsidiary in the Union of any Syrian credit or financial institution;\n(b)\nto conclude agreements for, or on behalf of, any Syrian credit or financial institution, pertaining to the opening of a representative office or the establishment of a branch or subsidiary in the Union;\n(c)\nto grant an authorisation for taking up and pursuing the business of a credit or financial institution or for any other business requiring prior authorisation, by a representative office, branch or subsidiary of any Syrian credit or financial institution, if the representative office, branch or subsidiary was not operational before 19 January 2012;\n(d)\nto acquire or to extend a participation, or to acquire any other ownership interest in a credit or financial institution falling within the scope of Article 35 by any Syrian credit or financial institution.\nArticle 26\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide insurance or re-insurance to:\n(i)\nthe State of Syria, its Government, its public bodies, corporations or agencies; or\n(ii)\nany natural or legal person, entity or body when acting on behalf or at the direction of a legal person, entity or body referred to in (i);\n(b)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities, the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions in point (a).\n2. Paragraph 1(a) shall not apply to the provision of compulsory or third party insurance to Syrian persons, entities or bodies based in the Union or to the provision of insurance for Syrian diplomatic or consular missions in the Union.\n3. Point (ii) of paragraph 1(a) shall not apply to the provision of insurance, including health and travel insurance, to individuals acting in their private capacity, and re-insurance relating thereto.\nPoint (ii) of paragraph 1(a) shall not prevent the provision of insurance or re-insurance to the owner of a vessel, aircraft or vehicle chartered by a person, entity or body referred to in point (i) of paragraph 1(a) and which is not listed in Annex II or IIa.\nFor the purpose of point (ii) of paragraph 1(a), a person, entity or body shall not be considered to act at the direction of a person, entity or body referred to in point (i) of paragraph 1(a) where that direction is for the purposes of docking, loading, unloading or safe transit of a vessel or aircraft temporarily in Syrian waters or airspace.\n4. This Article prohibits the extension or renewal of insurance and re-insurance agreements concluded before 19 January 2012 (save where there is a prior contractual obligation on the part of the insurer or re-insurer to accept an extension or renewal of a policy), but, without prejudice to Article 14(2), it does not prohibit compliance with agreements concluded before that date.\nCHAPTER VII\nGENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 27\nNo claims, including for compensation or indemnification or any other claim of this kind, such as a claim of set-off, fines or claims under a guarantee, claims for extension or payment of a bond, financial guarantee, including claims arising from letters of credit and similar instruments in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which was affected, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the measures imposed by this Regulation, should be granted to the Government of Syria, its public bodies, corporations and agencies, or to any person or entity claiming through it or for its benefit.\nArticle 28\nThe prohibitions set out in this Regulation shall not give rise to any liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal person, entity or body concerned if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe the prohibition in question.\nArticle 29\n1. Without prejudice to the applicable rules concerning reporting, confidentiality and professional secrecy, natural and legal persons, entities and bodies shall:\n(a)\nsupply immediately any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 14, to the competent authority in the Member State where they are resident or located, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex III, and shall transmit such information, either directly or through the Member States, to the Commission; and\n(b)\ncooperate with that competent authority in any verification of this information.\n2. Any information provided or received in accordance with this Article shall be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.\nArticle 30\nMember States and the Commission shall immediately inform each other of the measures taken under this Regulation and shall supply each other with any other relevant information at their disposal in connection with this Regulation, in particular information in respect of violation and enforcement problems and judgments handed down by national courts.\nArticle 31\nThe Commission shall be empowered to amend Annex III on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\nArticle 32\n1. Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to the measures referred to in Article 14, it shall amend Annex II or Annex IIa accordingly.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 1, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the natural or legal person, entity or body accordingly.\n4. The lists in Annexes II and IIa shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months.\nArticle 33\n1. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules without delay after 19 January 2012 and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment.\nArticle 34\nWhere there is, in this Regulation, a requirement to notify, inform or otherwise communicate with the Commission, the address and other contact details to be used for such communication shall be those indicated in Annex III.\nArticle 35\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\nArticle 36\nRegulation (EU) No 442/2011 is repealed.\nArticle 37\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2012.", "references": ["40", "65", "4", "20", "93", "50", "37", "64", "21", "1", "90", "14", "35", "60", "91", "12", "0", "59", "52", "62", "9", "16", "46", "27", "10", "18", "6", "11", "61", "39", "No Label", "3", "5", "7", "23", "76", "80", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "7", "23", "76", "80", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1116/2010\nof 2 December 2010\nfixing the coefficients applicable to cereals exported in the form of Irish whiskey for the period 2010/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 of 10 November 2006 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 as regards the fixing and granting of adjusted refunds in respect of cereals exported in the form of certain spirit drinks (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 lays down that the quantities of cereals eligible for the refund are to be the quantities placed under control and distilled, weighted by a coefficient to be fixed annually for each Member State concerned. The coefficient is to express the average ratio between the total quantities exported and the total quantities marketed of the spirit drink concerned, on the basis of the trend noted in those quantities during the number of years corresponding to the average ageing period of the spirit drink in question.\n(2)\nAccording to the information provided by Ireland in respect of the period 1 January to 31 December 2009, the average ageing period for Irish whiskey in 2009 was 5 years.\n(3)\nThe coefficients for the period 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 should therefore be fixed accordingly.\n(4)\nArticle 10 of Protocol 3 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area excludes the grant of refunds in respect of exports to Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway. Moreover, the Union has concluded agreements abolishing export refunds with certain third countries. Under the terms of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006, that should be taken into account in calculating the coefficients for 2010/2011.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 81/2010 of 28 January 2010 fixing the coefficients applicable to cereals exported in the form of Irish whiskey for the period 2009/2010 (3) has exhausted its effects, as it concerns the coefficients applicable for the year 2009/2010. For reasons of legal security and clarity, the abovementioned Regulation should be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the period 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011, the coefficients provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 applying to cereals used in Ireland for producing Irish whiskey shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 81/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["39", "6", "51", "32", "7", "10", "48", "86", "69", "60", "18", "55", "53", "88", "56", "64", "77", "11", "62", "74", "98", "67", "76", "70", "37", "73", "83", "4", "82", "36", "No Label", "19", "20", "68", "71", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["19", "20", "68", "71", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 3 October 2011\non the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean\n(2012/130/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union is competent to adopt measures for the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy and to enter into agreements with third countries and international organisations.\n(2)\nPursuant to Council Decision 98/392/EC (2), the Union is a Contracting Party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, which requires all members of the international community to cooperate in conserving and managing the biological resources of the sea.\n(3)\nPursuant to Council Decision 98/414/EC (3), the Union is a Contracting Party to the Agreement on the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.\n(4)\nOn 17 April 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate, on behalf of the Community, a Convention on a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) in the South Pacific for fishery resources not yet covered by an existing RFMO.\n(5)\nThe negotiations were successfully concluded in Auckland, New Zealand, on 14 November 2009 by the adoption of a draft text of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Convention\u2019), which, under its Article 36(1), is open for signature for a period of 12 months from 1 February 2010. The Convention was signed on behalf of the Union on 26 July 2010, subject to its conclusion, in accordance with Council Decision 2011/189/EU (4).\n(6)\nThe objective of the Convention is to ensure, through its effective implementation, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the fishery resources in the Convention area.\n(7)\nSince vessels flying the flags of Member States of the Union fish resources in the Convention area, it is in the Union\u2019s interest to play an effective role in the implementation of the Convention.\n(8)\nThe Convention should therefore be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Convention\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.\nThe text of the Convention is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit, on behalf of the Union, the instrument of approval with the Government of New Zealand acting in its capacity as Depositary of the Convention in accordance with Article 36(3) of the Convention (5).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 3 October 2011.", "references": ["79", "61", "46", "19", "25", "4", "80", "41", "77", "33", "43", "26", "29", "64", "50", "53", "52", "31", "2", "72", "27", "22", "55", "92", "60", "45", "68", "24", "47", "20", "No Label", "3", "13", "15", "59", "67"], "gold": ["3", "13", "15", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/766/CFSP\nof 7 December 2010\namending Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 10 November 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1).\n(2)\nOn 8 December 2009 and on 30 July 2010 respectively, the Council adopted Decision 2009/907/CFSP (2) and Decision 2010/437/CFSP (3) amending Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP.\n(3)\nActs of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast continue to threaten shipping in the area and especially the delivery of food aid to the Somali population by the World Food Programme.\n(4)\nOn 23 November 2010, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1950 (2010).\n(5)\nThe European Union military operation referred to in Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP (\u2018EU military operation\u2019) should be extended until 12 December 2012.\n(6)\nThe definition of persons likely to be transferred pursuant to Article 12 of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP should be clarified in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.\n(7)\nIn the light of experience from the first 2 years of the EU military operation, amendments to Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP are required in order to allow for the collection of physical characteristics and transmission of certain personal data, such as fingerprints, of suspected persons, with a view to facilitating their identification and traceability and their possible prosecution. Such processing should be carried out in accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.\n(8)\nIt is also necessary for practical reasons to provide for the possibility of exchanging classified information in the theatre of operations.\n(9)\nJoint Action 2008/851/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nJoint Action 2008/851/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2, point (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nin view of prosecutions potentially being brought by the relevant States under the conditions in Article 12, arrest, detain and transfer persons suspected of intending, as referred to in Articles 101 and 103 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to commit, committing or having committed acts of piracy or armed robbery in the areas where it is present and seize the vessels of the pirates or armed robbers or the vessels caught following an act of piracy or an armed robbery and which are in the hands of the pirates or armed robbers, as well as the property on board;\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 2, the following points are added:\n\u2018(h)\ncollect, in accordance with applicable law, data concerning persons referred to in point (e) related to characteristics likely to assist in their identification, including fingerprints;\n(i)\nfor the purpose of circulating the data via INTERPOL\u2019s channels and checking it against INTERPOL\u2019s databases, transmit to the National Central Bureau (\u2018NCB\u2019) of the International Criminal Police Organisation - INTERPOL located in the Member State where the Operational Headquarters is stationed, in accordance with arrangements to be concluded between the EU Operation Commander and the Head of the NCB, the following data:\n-\npersonal data concerning persons referred to in point (e) related to characteristics likely to assist in their identification, including fingerprints, as well as the following particulars, with the exclusion of other personal data: surname, maiden name, given names and any alias or assumed name; date and place of birth, nationality, sex; place of residence, profession and whereabouts; driving licenses, identification documents and passport data. This personal data shall not be stored by Atalanta after its transmission to INTERPOL,\n-\ndata related to the equipment used by such persons.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 12, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. On the basis of Somalia\u2019s acceptance of the exercise of jurisdiction by Member States or by third States, on the one hand, and Article 105 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, on the other hand, persons suspected of intending, as referred to in Articles 101 and 103 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to commit, committing or having committed acts of piracy or armed robbery in Somali territorial waters or on the high seas, who are arrested and detained, with a view to their prosecution, and property used to carry out such acts, shall be transferred:\n-\nto the competent authorities of the Member State or of the third State participating in the operation, of which the vessel which took them captive flies the flag, or\n-\nif that State cannot, or does not wish to, exercise its jurisdiction, to a Member State or any third State which wishes to exercise its jurisdiction over the aforementioned persons and property.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 15, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. The HR is hereby authorised to release to the United States-led Coalition Maritime Force (\u2018CMF\u2019), through its Headquarters, as well as to third States not participating in CMF and to international organisations, which are present in the area of the EU military operation, classified EU information and documents generated for the purposes of the EU military operation at the level RESTREINT UE, on the basis of reciprocity, where such release at theatre level is necessary for operational reasons, in accordance with the Council\u2019s security regulations and subject to arrangements between the HR and the competent authorities of the third parties referred to above.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 16, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The EU military operation shall terminate on 12 December 2012.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2010.", "references": ["18", "20", "40", "37", "75", "44", "39", "29", "76", "54", "68", "9", "25", "48", "83", "63", "22", "67", "87", "15", "38", "4", "16", "82", "49", "80", "52", "43", "35", "78", "No Label", "1", "5", "6", "12", "41", "56", "59", "94"], "gold": ["1", "5", "6", "12", "41", "56", "59", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 495/2011\nof 20 May 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 109/2007 as regards the composition of the feed additive monensin sodium\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the possibility to modify the authorisation of a feed additive further to a request from the holder of the authorisation and an opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (the Authority).\n(2)\nThe use of monensin sodium, belonging to the group of coccidiostats and histomonostats, was authorised for 10 years as a feed additive for use on chickens for fattening and turkeys by Commission Regulation (EC) No 109/2007 (2).\n(3)\nThe holder of the authorisation submitted an application for a modification of the authorisation of monensin sodium as regards an additional composition of that feed additive. Relevant data were submitted to support this request.\n(4)\nThe Authority concluded in its opinion of 1 February 2011 (3) that the use of this new formulation of the additive on chickens for fattening and turkeys does not raise any additional concerns for animal health, human health or the environment and that it is effective in controlling coccidiosis. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory for Feed Additives set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe conditions provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 are satisfied.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 109/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 109/2007 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2011.", "references": ["11", "73", "24", "96", "67", "71", "36", "63", "60", "69", "31", "16", "26", "83", "3", "34", "47", "7", "53", "12", "18", "51", "94", "72", "42", "43", "8", "92", "5", "44", "No Label", "25", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 27 September 2011\non mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/008 AT/AT & S from Austria)\n(2011/653/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nAustria submitted an application on 11 March 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in the enterprise AT & S and supplemented it by additional information up to 22 February 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 221 128.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Austria,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 221 128 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 27 September 2011.", "references": ["98", "4", "90", "94", "18", "71", "59", "75", "82", "99", "17", "55", "13", "79", "88", "89", "53", "69", "80", "39", "65", "9", "83", "20", "78", "0", "50", "12", "1", "44", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "86", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "86", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 613/2011\nof 23 June 2011\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 June 2011.", "references": ["92", "89", "12", "71", "85", "76", "66", "51", "55", "15", "6", "40", "4", "47", "28", "29", "36", "20", "53", "86", "3", "60", "63", "64", "30", "82", "45", "38", "91", "62", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 791/2011\nof 3 August 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Provisional measures\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EU) No 138/2011 (2) (\u2018the provisional Regulation\u2019) the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 6 April 2010 by Saint-Gobain Vertex s.r.o., Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgoz\u00f3 \u00e9s M\u00fcszakisz\u00f6vetgy\u00e1rt\u00f3, Valmieras stikla \u0161\u0137iedra AS, and Vitrulan Technical Textiles GmbH (\u2018the complainants\u2019), representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres.\n(3)\nAs set out in recital 13 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the investigation period (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n2. Subsequent procedure\n(4)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (\u2018provisional disclosure\u2019), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard.\n(5)\nThe Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. In addition to the verifications mentioned in recital 11 of the provisional Regulation, further verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\nExporting producer which had requested individual examination:\n-\nYuyao Feitian Fiberglass Co. Ltd,\nand its related trader:\n-\nYuyao Winter International Trade Co. Ltd.\nUnrelated importer in the Union:\n-\nVimapl\u00e1s - Tecidos T\u00e9cnicos Lda., Portugal.\n(6)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (\u2018final disclosure\u2019). All parties were granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to this final disclosure.\n(7)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(8)\nThe product concerned is, as set out in recital 14 of the provisional Regulation, open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2 originating in the PRC (\u2018the product concerned\u2019) and currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 40 00, ex 7019 51 00, ex 7019 59 00, ex 7019 90 91 and ex 7019 90 99.\n(9)\nAfter the imposition of provisional measures, a further analysis showed that the product concerned cannot be classified under three of the five CN codes referred to in recital 8. Therefore CN codes ex 7019 90 91, ex 7019 90 99 and ex 7019 40 00 should be removed from the description of the product concerned.\n(10)\nIt is also recalled that, as explained in recital 16 of the provisional Regulation, one Chinese exporting producer requested clarification whether fibreglass discs are included in the product definition. The Union industry was of the opinion that fibreglass discs are a downstream product with different characteristics than those of the product concerned. However, it was decided to collect further information from interested parties before making a definitive conclusion on this issue.\n(11)\nFurther to the provisional disclosure, evidence was submitted by the Union industry and the Federation of European Producers of Abrasives (\u2018FEPA\u2019) representing the users of the fibreglass discs showing that there are a number of steps in the production process that have to be undertaken to convert glass fibre open mesh fabric into fibreglass discs. The physical shape of the disc is also different from the product concerned which is normally supplied in rolls (narrow or wide) and it is also normally intended for a different end use (reinforcement of grinding wheels). These arguments were shared by the Chinese exporting producer.\n(12)\nIt is additionally noted that fibreglass discs were not produced or sold by any of the sampled exporting producers in the PRC or Union producers.\n(13)\nOne Union producer of fibreglass discs which came forward after the imposition of provisional measures argued that fibreglass discs should not be excluded from the product scope. It claimed that fibreglass discs are not a downstream product but that a clear line between the product concerned and a downstream product should be drawn at the stage when open mesh rolls are coated. According to the company, the coating of open mesh rolls used in the construction sector is different from that of open mesh rolls that are later used for making fibreglass discs. In the latter case the rolls are coated with phenol resin. In other words, the chemical characteristics of open mesh rolls intended for making fibreglass discs are allegedly identical to those of the fibreglass discs. According to the company these types of open mesh rolls cannot be used in construction reinforcement, which is the main application of the product concerned. Therefore the company argued that if fibreglass discs were to be excluded from the product scope, open mesh rolls coated with phenol resin should also be excluded.\n(14)\nAs explained in recital 13 the company came forward only after the imposition of provisional measures and thus did not provide verifiable data in support of its claims. As no data was available from the investigation with regard to the different types of coating used, the company\u2019s claim could not be assessed in light of data obtained from the investigation. Moreover, regardless the coating, different types of open mesh rolls share the same basic physical characteristics and therefore open mesh rolls coated with phenol resin should not be excluded. This claim was therefore rejected.\n(15)\nBased on the data gathered during the investigation and the evidence submitted by the exporting producer mentioned in recital 10, the Union industry and FEPA in their comments to the provisional disclosure, the claim to exclude fibreglass discs from the product scope is hereby accepted. It is thus concluded that fibreglass discs as a downstream product do not share the same physical characteristics and have different uses as compared to open mesh fabrics and therefore should be excluded from the definition of the product concerned as defined in the provisional Regulation. Fibreglass discs are therefore definitively excluded from the proceeding.\n2. Like product\n(16)\nIn the absence of any other comments regarding the like product, recital 17 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\nC. DUMPING\n1. Market Economy Treatment (MET)\n(17)\nAs set out in recitals 18 to 32 of the provisional Regulation, it was initially proposed to grant MET to two companies but at a later stage of the proceeding it was decided to reverse this proposal after investigating allegations received concerning the MET status of the companies concerned which were found to be correct.\n(18)\nOne exporting producer, to which Article 18 of the basic Regulation was applied, reiterated the arguments already brought forward when it was informed that the Commission intended to refuse MET. It argued again that the Articles of Association and the Joint Venture Contract received by the Commission were an old version which never entered into force and had therefore no impact on the findings of the company\u2019s MET assessment.\n(19)\nAs set out in recital 28 of the provisional Regulation, these arguments could not remove the doubts on the authenticity of the initial documents and information provided by the exporting producer in its MET Claim form submission.\n(20)\nWith regard to the argument that the application of the Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation is disproportionate in this case, the Commission applies the provisions of this Article on a case-by-case basis according to the merits of each case. In the present proceeding the use of this Article has been considered appropriate as already indicated in recitals 26, 27 and 31 of the provisional Regulation, since the provision of the falsified documents casts doubts on all documents provided by the company.\n(21)\nThe second exporting producer to which MET was refused but Individual Treatment (IT) granted instead, disputed the grounds on which the Commission had reversed its decision. They considered that there was no new compelling evidence that would significantly undermine the original findings to justify the repeal of the initial decision for granting MET. They argued that the inaccuracies and incompleteness found in their financial statements and not reported by the auditor had no material impact on the reliability of these accounts.\n(22)\nAs set out in recital 30 of the provisional Regulation, these arguments could not remove the doubts as to the accuracy and completeness of the figures presented in the financial statements.\n(23)\nThey also consider that the outcome of the investigation and their individual duty rate is unfair and disproportionate since the company has cooperated within the course of the proceeding and is subject to the highest duty rate like the non-cooperating companies and the company subject to Article 18 of the basic Regulation. In this regard it is noted that the company is subject to a duty which is the result of the usual methodology applied for companies granted IT.\n(24)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning MET, recitals 18 to 32 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Individual Examination (IE)\n(25)\nAs set out in recital 37 of the provisional Regulation, a non-sampled group of related companies requested individual examination in accordance with Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form within the given deadline.\n(26)\nAs mentioned in recital 5 a verification visit was carried out at the premises of the group of related companies and it was found that the companies did not meet criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.\n(27)\nWith regard to criterion 1, the two related companies failed to provide sufficient evidence concerning the shareholders\u2019 contribution to the companies\u2019 capital. The shareholders took over the companies initially established with State funds without paying any contribution themselves. In addition, contrary to the requirements of the Articles of Association, no shareholders\u2019 meetings were held, no minutes of these meetings were provided raising doubts whether business decisions were taken by the shareholders without any State interference. In light of the above, it is considered that the companies could not demonstrate that their business decisions are not made without significant State interference.\n(28)\nWith regard to criterion 2, the investigation showed that the accounting records of two related companies were not audited in line with international accounting standards since they contained a number of accounting shortcomings and errors such as taxes booked/paid; continuous errors in dividends payable account; and missing depreciation were found which were not mentioned in the audit reports.\n(29)\nConcerning criterion 3, one related company failed to provide their Land Use Right Agreement, no booking in their accounts was found and no proof of payment was provided. The second company obtained a land use right from its related company at no cost which is not booked in its records and thus not depreciated.\n(30)\nIn view of the above it was proposed to refuse MET to the group of companies that requested individual examination.\n(31)\nThe Commission officially disclosed the results of the MET findings to the group of related companies concerned in the PRC and to the complainants. They were also given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing if there were particular reasons to be heard. No comments were received following disclosure of the MET findings.\n3. Individual Treatment (IT)\n(32)\nIt was provisionally established that one of the sampled exporting producer group of companies in the PRC to which MET was denied, met all the requirements for IT.\n(33)\nIn addition, as set out in recital 35 of the provisional Regulation, the exporting producer to which MET was reversed, met the conditions of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation to be granted IT instead.\n(34)\nThe Union industry questioned the decision to grant IT to the company for which the decision to grant MET was reversed, claiming that the incomplete accounts and the discrepancies discredit the entire dataset of the company. However, it was found that the irregularities found in the accounts had no impact on the reliability of the export prices of the company. The claim of the Union industry was therefore rejected.\n(35)\nIn view of the above, the initial conclusion that two of the three sampled exporting producers met all requirements for IT is therefore confirmed. Recitals 33 to 36 of the provisional Regulation with regard to IT are hereby confirmed.\n(36)\nIn addition, the group of the two related companies that requested individual examination, also requested IT, should the investigation establish that they did not meet the conditions for MET. It was found that they fulfilled the conditions of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation to be granted IT.\n(37)\nThe Union industry questioned also the decision to grant IT to the group of two related companies claiming that as the companies\u2019 data was proven to be unreliable for the assessment of MET then this data could not be considered sufficient for granting IT. The claim of the Union industry was rejected as it was found that the irregularities identified in regard to the MET assessment had no impact on the eligibility for an individual duty rate and therefore IT could be granted.\n4. Normal value\n(a) Choice of the analogue country\n(38)\nNo comments were received on the choice of the analogue country. Therefore, it is confirmed that Canada was an appropriate and reasonable analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation. Recitals 39 to 45 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(b) Determination of normal value\n(39)\nIt is recalled that it was considered more appropriate to construct normal value in order to take into account differences in quality between the like product produced and sold in Canada and the product concerned from the PRC. Normal value was therefore constructed using the cost of manufacturing of the Canadian producer plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative expenses (\u2018SG&A\u2019) and for profit on the domestic market.\n(40)\nThe companies that were granted IT disputed the calculation of the constructed normal value (\u2018NV\u2019), and one of them particularly questioned whether it was constructed per product type. It was confirmed that the NV was constructed per product type on the basis of data obtained from the sole producer of the product concerned in the analogue country. Given the need for confidentiality, NV was disclosed in the form of price ranges.\n(41)\nThree parties claimed that the disclosed NV did not provide a reasonable understanding of the facts and considerations on the basis of which the dumping margin was determined. All companies requested more details on the construction of the NV including the amount of the various adjustments made to the NV in order to take into account the quality differences. However, having regard to the obligation to respect confidentiality of the data, it was considered that the companies were provided with all the information that could be disclosed.\n(42)\nTherefore this claim was rejected. Recitals 46 to 49 of the provisional Regulation with regard to the determination of the normal value are hereby confirmed.\n(c) Export prices for the exporting producers granted IT\n(43)\nOne of the companies granted IT at the provisional stage, requested explanation of the calculation of the packaging costs as they considered that the disclosed data on packaging did not show a consistent correlation to either the volume or the value of transactions. Since this company had not claimed any packaging costs in its reply to the anti-dumping questionnaire, packaging cost was therefore calculated on the basis of information obtained from the other two sampled exporting producers.\n(44)\nIn the absence of any other comments with regard to the determination of the export price, recital 50 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n(45)\nFollowing disclosure of the definitive findings, the group of related companies that is to be granted IT claimed that commission costs should not have been taken into account while calculating the various allowances deducted from the export price. The claim was accepted and export price was adjusted accordingly while the group\u2019s dumping margin was revised as a result.\n(d) Comparison\n(46)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the comparison of the normal value and the export prices on an ex-works basis, recitals 51 and 52 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5. Dumping margins\n(a) For the cooperating exporting producers granted IT\n(47)\nOne importer of the product concerned in the Union welcomed the imposition of the provisional measures as they would restore the import price to non-injurious levels. Nevertheless, he considered that a difference of more than 10 % between the various duties imposed could distort the market. Hence, he requested that the measures be revised so that the company granted IT subject to the lower individual duty rate should not benefit from it. The importer claimed that the risk of circumvention from the exporting producer with the lower individual duty rate was increased. However, no additional information or proof was provided to substantiate this claim, it was therefore disregarded.\n(48)\nOn this basis the definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:\nCompany\nDefinitive dumping margin\nYuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co., Ltd\n62,9 %\nGrand Composite Co., Ltd and its related company Ningbo Grand Fiberglass Co., Ltd\n48,4 %\nYuyao Feitian Fiberglass Co., Ltd\n60,7 %\n(b) For all other exporting producers\n(49)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the dumping margins, recitals 53 to 57 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(50)\nOn this basis the countrywide level of dumping is definitely established at 62,9 % of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid and recital 58 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\nD. INJURY\n1. Union production\n(51)\nIt is made clear that in recital 59 of the provisional Regulation the term \u2018Union industry\u2019 refers to all Union producers. In the absence of any comments concerning the Union production, recital 60 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n2. Union consumption\n(52)\nAs explained in recital 9, CN codes ex 7019 90 91, ex 7019 90 99 and ex 7019 40 00 should be removed from the description of the product concerned. The exclusion of these codes did not alter the findings as regards Union consumption, including imports, which were based on figures contained in the complaint, supplemented by verified figures obtained from cooperating companies and Eurostat figures.\n(53)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the Union consumption, recitals 61 to 63 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. Imports from the country concerned\n(54)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the volume, price and market share of the dumped imports from the country concerned, the findings set out in recitals 64 to 66 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(55)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning price undercutting, the methodology described in recitals 67 and 68 of the provisional Regulation to establish price undercutting, including the quality adjustment is confirmed. However, following the individual examination granted after the imposition of provisional measures to one group of exporting producers in the PRC, the price comparison of similar product types was reassessed. This reassessment confirmed that the dumped imports from the PRC were undercutting the Union industry\u2019s prices by 30-35 % during the IP.\n4. Situation of the Union industry\n(56)\nIn the absence of any comments regarding the situation of the Union industry, recitals 69 to 84 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5. Conclusion on injury\n(57)\nIn the absence of any comments regarding the conclusion on injury, recitals 85 to 87 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\nE. CAUSATION\n1. Effects of the dumped imports\n(58)\nIn the absence of any comments regarding effects of the dumped imports, recitals 89 to 91 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Effects of other factors\n(59)\nIn the absence of any comments regarding effects of other factors, recitals 92 to 96 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. Conclusion on causation\n(60)\nIn the absence of any comments regarding conclusion on causation, recitals 97 to 99 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n1. Interest of the Union industry\n(61)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the interest of the Union industry, recitals 101 to 103 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Interest of importers\n(62)\nIn the absence of comments on the interest of importers, it was concluded that the imposition of definitive measures on imports of the product concerned would not be against the interests of importers.\n3. Interest of users and consumers\n(63)\nIt is recalled that at the provisional stage of the investigation no cooperation of users or consumers\u2019 organizations was received. Following the publication of the provisional Regulation, one users\u2019 association submitted comments. However, the comments addressed only the potential negative impact of imposition of measures on the fibreglass discs, should they not be excluded from the product scope. As described in recital 15 it is considered that the fibreglass discs should be excluded from the product scope. Therefore the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures will not have a negative impact on users of fibreglass discs.\n(64)\nIn the absence of any other comments on the interest of users and consumers, it was concluded that the imposition of definitive measures on imports of the product concerned would not be against their interests.\n4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(65)\nBased on the above it was concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC.\nG. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n1. Injury elimination level\n(66)\nFurther to the provisional disclosure one Chinese exporting producer claimed that it was not provided with sufficiently detailed data on its injury margin calculation as data regarding the volumes, values and prices of the Union industry per product type were not disclosed. The company argued that since the sample consisted of four Union producers this information could not be considered as confidential. However, it should be noted that some product types were sold in the IP by a very limited number of Union producers. It was therefore considered prudent not to disclose prices, volumes and values of such transactions. Furthermore, revealing the detailed figures for each and every product type is not considered necessary in order to provide parties with a sufficient understanding of the calculation methodology and the result of the calculation.\n(67)\nThe same Chinese exporting producer questioned the target profit used in the injury margin calculation, in particular the fact that the target profit was identical to the Union industry\u2019s weighted average profit during the IP. It also questioned the use of the data from the sampled Union producers when establishing the target profit as opposed to data referring to the Union industry as a whole. Finally, it questioned the level of the target profit used compared to the one used in another recent investigation concerning a closely related product sector.\n(68)\nAs explained in recital 112 of the provisional Regulation the target profit reflects the average profit achieved by the Union industry in the years 2006-07 whereas the weighted average profit in the IP was calculated based on the data of the four sampled companies. In addition, as explained in recital 79 of the provisional Regulation this profit did not take into account the extraordinary restructuring costs reported by some of the sampled producers. It is therefore a mere coincidence that these two profit figures are identical.\n(69)\nAs regards the question of which data to use for the determination of the target profit, it should be noted that when sampling is applied, the profit level is one of the micro indicators of the injury analysis. Consequently the figure established for the sample is deemed representative for the Union industry as a whole. In an investigation where sampling is applied, the target profit used in the injury margin calculation is always based on data collected from the sampled companies.\n(70)\nFinally, regarding the reference made to the target profit used in another anti-dumping investigation, it should be underlined that the findings and conclusions of each investigation are based on the data collected from the cooperating companies of each investigation, for a specific product description and period of time. Therefore it is impossible to draw a direct link between the findings of these two separate investigations and two different IP.\n(71)\nWith regard to the injury elimination level, as a result of the correction of a clerical error in the calculation of the provisional injury margin concerning one exporting producer its margin was adjusted upward. This fact however does not affect the level of the anti-dumping duty of this company since the duty is based on the dumping margin.\n(72)\nIt should also be noted that as a result of granting IT to another group of Chinese exporting producers as explained in recital 32, an individual injury margin was calculated for them.\n(73)\nAs a consequence of revisions referred to in recital 71 the weighted average injury margin for the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample and the residual injury margin for non-cooperating producers were also revised.\n(74)\nOn this basis, the definitive injury margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:\nCompany\nDefinitive injury margin\nYuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co., Ltd\n69,1 %\nGrand Composite Co., Ltd and its related company Ningbo Grand Fiberglass Co., Ltd\n77,4 %\nYuayo Feitian Fiberglass Co., Ltd\n87,6 %\nSample weighted average for the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample\n72,1 %\nResidual margin for non-cooperating exporting producers and Ningbo Weishan Duo Bao Building Materials Co., Ltd\n87,6 %\n2. Definitive measures\n(75)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed in respect of imports of the product concerned at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule. Accordingly, all duty rates should be set at the level of the dumping margins found.\n(76)\nThe proposed anti-dumping duties are the following:\nCompany\nInjury elimination margin\nDumping margin\nAnti-dumping duty rate\nYuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co., Ltd\n69,1 %\n62,9 %\n62,9 %\nGrand Composite Co., Ltd and its related company Ningbo Grand Fiberglass Co., Ltd\n77,4 %\n48,4 %\n48,4 %\nYuayo Feitian Fiberglass Co., Ltd\n87,6 %\n60,7 %\n60,7 %\nSample weighted average for the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample\n72,1 %\n57,7 %\n57,7 %\nResidual for non-cooperating exporting producers and Ningbo Weishan Duo Bao Building Materials Co., Ltd\n87,6 %\n62,9 %\n62,9 %\n(77)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(78)\nAny claim requesting the application of an individual company anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (3) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be amended accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(79)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to final disclosure. The comments submitted by the parties were duly considered, and, where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly.\n(80)\nThe group of two related companies that requested individual examination and was granted IT expressed its intention to offer an undertaking. However, the group did not send any offer for undertaking within the deadline set out in Article 8(2) of the basic Regulation and thus it could not be taken into consideration.\n(81)\nIn order to ensure equal treatment between any new exporters and the cooperating companies not included in the sample, mentioned in the Annex to this Regulation, provision should be made for the weighted average duty imposed on the latter companies to be applied to any new exporters which would otherwise be entitled to a review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation as that Article does not apply where sampling has been used.\n3. Definitive collection of provisional duties\n(82)\nIn view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation, be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the definitive duties imposed. As fibreglass discs are now excluded from the product scope (see recital 15), the amounts provisionally secured on imports of fibreglass discs should be released. Where the definitive duties are lower than the provisional duties, amounts provisionally secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2, excluding fibreglass discs, currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00 (TARIC codes 7019510010 and 7019590010) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nDuty (%)\nTARIC additional code\nYuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co., Ltd\n62,9\nB006\nGrand Composite Co., Ltd and its related company Ningbo Grand Fiberglass Co., Ltd\n48,4\nB007\nYuyao Feitian Fiberglass Co., Ltd\n60,7\nB122\nCompanies listed in Annex I\n57,7\nB008\nAll other companies\n62,9\nB999\n3. The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in Annex II. If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall apply.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU) No 138/2011 on imports of fibreglass discs originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China shall be released upon request.\n2. The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU) No 138/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China shall be definitively collected in so far as it concerns products currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rates of the anti-dumping duty shall be released, including amounts which would have been secured for products currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 40 00, ex 7019 90 91 and ex 7019 90 99.\nArticle 3\nWhere any new exporting producer in the People\u2019s Republic of China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:\n-\nit did not export to the Union the product described in Article 1(1) during the investigation period (1 April 2009 to 30 March 2010),\n-\nit is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the People\u2019s Republic of China which are subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation,\n-\nit has actually exported to the Union the product concerned after the investigation period on which the measures are based, or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union,\nthe Council, acting by simple majority on a proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, may amend Article 1(2) by adding the new exporting producer to the cooperating companies not included in the sample and thus subject to the weighted average duty rate of 57,7 %.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 August 2011.", "references": ["3", "17", "87", "79", "73", "21", "25", "68", "26", "18", "45", "80", "0", "51", "77", "61", "27", "2", "32", "90", "63", "37", "75", "50", "60", "71", "9", "40", "92", "64", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 29 November 2011\non the safety requirements to be met by European standards for bicycles, bicycles for young children, and luggage carriers for bicycles pursuant to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/786/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (1), and in particular Article 4(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2001/95/EC provides for European standards to be set by European standardisation bodies. These standards should ensure that products satisfy the general safety requirement of the Directive.\n(2)\nUnder Directive 2001/95/EC, a product is to be presumed safe when it meets the voluntary national standards transposing European standards, the references of which were published by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(3)\nArticle 4 of Directive 2001/95/EC lays down the procedure for drawing up European standards. Under that procedure, the Commission is to set the specific safety requirements which European standards should satisfy and subsequently give a mandate to the European standardisation bodies to draw up those standards.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to publish the references of the European standards adopted in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nUnder the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC, the references of European standards adopted by the European standardisation bodies before the entry into force of that Directive may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union, even without a Commission mandate, provided that the standards ensure compliance with the general safety requirement laid down in that Directive.\n(6)\nBy Decision 2006/514/EC (2), the Commission published in the Official Journal of the European Union the references of European standards EN 14764:2005 for city and trekking bicycles, EN 14766:2005 for mountain bicycles, EN 14781:2005 for racing bicycles, and EN 14872:2006 for luggage carriers for bicycles.\n(7)\nThe four European standards covered by Decision 2006/514/EC are not supported by a Commission mandate adopted in accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/95/EC.\n(8)\nThe European Standardisation Committee (CEN) has announced that European standards EN 14764:2005, EN 14766:2005 EN 14781:2005, and EN 14872:2006 will be revised. The references of the new versions of those standards following the revision cannot be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the absence of a Commission mandate laying down specific safety requirements.\n(9)\nThe Commission should therefore set specific safety requirements for bicycles and luggage carriers for bicycles with a view to mandating the European standardisation bodies to develop European standards on the basis of those requirements.\n(10)\nBicycles for young children, which are not considered as toys within the meaning of the Toys Safety Directive (Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3)), if unsafe, can expose children to serious injuries in the head, chest, abdomen or limbs, particularly as a result of falls.\n(11)\nYoung cyclists tend to be injured while playing or riding too fast (4) and are particularly vulnerable to falls, both because they are developing their motor skills, as they grow, and because they are in the process of learning bicycle handling skills, including the ability to avoid obstacles, pedestrians or other cyclists. These factors, compounded with children\u2019s higher centre of gravity, makes balancing difficult.\n(12)\nAccording to the Injury Data Base, 37 % of injuries involving a bicycle user in the EU concerned children aged between 5 and 9 years (5) Although road accidents account for a significant share of these accidents, many accidents take place while playing, as young cyclists collide with objects or other people, or simply fall off their bikes. In the United Kingdom, it has been estimated that over 2 000 children are taken to hospital each year after a cycling accident at home, and a further 21 000 after accidents in places like parks and playgrounds (6).\n(13)\nEuropean standard EN 14765:2005+A1:2008 specifies safety requirements and test methods for bicycles for young children, which are excluded from the scope of the Toys Safety Directive (Directive 2009/48/EC). However this standard is not supported by a Commission mandate.\n(14)\nIt is therefore necessary to set safety requirements, and call for the development of European standards according to these requirements for bicycles for young children, which are not considered as toys within the meaning of the Toys Safety Directive (Directive 2009/48/EC).\n(15)\nOnce the relevant standards are available, and provided that the Commission decides to publish their reference in the Official Journal, according to the procedure laid down in Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC, bicycles, bicycles for young children, and luggage carriers for bicycles that comply with those standards are presumed to meet the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC, as far as the safety requirements covered by the standards are concerned.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up under Article 15 of Directive 2001/95/EC. Neither the European Parliament nor the Council has opposed them,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018Bicycle\u2019 means a two-wheeled vehicle that is propelled solely or mainly by the muscular energy of the rider, excluding vehicles with two or more saddles.\n(b)\n\u2018Bicycle for young children\u2019 means a bicycle with a maximum saddle height of more than 435 mm and less than 635 mm, intended for riders of an average weight of 30 kg.\n(c)\n\u2018City and trekking bicycle\u2019 means a bicycle with a maximum saddle height of 635 mm or more intended for use on public roads, including non-paved roads.\n(d)\n\u2018Mountain bicycle\u2019 means a bicycle with a maximum saddle height of 635 mm or more designed for off-road use on rough terrain, public roads and public pathways which is equipped with a suitably strengthened frame and other components, and, typically, with wide-section tyres with coarse tread patterns and a wide range of transmission gears.\n(e)\n\u2018Racing bicycle\u2019 means a bicycle with a maximum saddle height of 635 mm or more intended for high-speed use on public roads. These bicycles are generally intended for use on a paved track.\n(f)\n\u2018Luggage carrier for bicycles\u2019 means a device or container, excluding trailers, which is mounted and permanently attached above and/or adjacent to the rear wheel (rear luggage carrier), or to the front wheel (front luggage carrier) of a bicycle and which is exclusively designed for carrying luggage or children seated in a child seat.\nArticle 2\nThe Annex to this Decision sets out the specific safety requirements for bicycles, bicycles for young children, and luggage carriers for bicycles to be met by European standards pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2001/95/EC.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2011.", "references": ["79", "30", "29", "20", "21", "4", "98", "65", "88", "56", "82", "40", "11", "72", "58", "18", "49", "66", "31", "37", "94", "42", "87", "43", "28", "45", "96", "9", "62", "26", "No Label", "24", "55", "76"], "gold": ["24", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 24 July 2012\non recognition of the \u2018Scottish Quality Farm Assured Combinable Crops Limited\u2019 scheme for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria under Directives 98/70/EC and 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(2012/427/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1), and in particular Article 18(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels (2) as amended by the Directive 2009/30/EC (3), and in particular Article 7c(6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee established by Article 25, paragraph 2 of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 98/70/EC and 2009/28/EC both lay down sustainability criteria for biofuels. Provisions of Articles 7b and 7c and Annex IV to Directive 98/70/EC are similar to provisions of Articles 17 and 18 and Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(2)\nWhere biofuels and bioliquids are to be taken into account for the purposes referred to in Article 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2009/28/EC, Member States should require economic operators to show the compliance of biofuels and bioliquids with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(2) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(3)\nRecital 76 of Directive 2009/28/EC states that the imposition of an unreasonable burden on industry should be avoided and voluntary schemes can help create efficient solutions for proving compliance with these sustainability criteria.\n(4)\nThe Commission may decide that a voluntary national or international scheme demonstrates that consignments of biofuel comply with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(3) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC or that a voluntary national or international scheme to measure greenhouse gas emission savings contains accurate data for the purposes of Article 17(2) of this Directive.\n(5)\nThe Commission may recognise such a voluntary scheme for a period of five years.\n(6)\nWhen an economic operator provides proof or data obtained in accordance with a voluntary scheme that has been recognised by the Commission, to the extent covered by the recognition decision, a Member State should not require the supplier to provide further evidence of compliance with the sustainability criteria.\n(7)\nThe \u2018Scottish Quality Farm Assured Combinable Crops Limited\u2019 scheme was submitted on 27 March 2012 to the Commission with the request for recognition. This scheme covers winter wheat, maize and oil seed rape produced in the North of Great Britain up to the first point of delivery of these crops. The recognised scheme should be made available at the transparency platform established under Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission should take into account considerations of commercial sensitivity and may decide to only partially publish the scheme.\n(8)\nAssessment of the \u2018Scottish Quality Farm Assured Combinable Crops Limited\u2019 scheme found it to adequately cover the sustainability criteria in Article 7b(3), (4) and (5) of Directive 98/70/EC and Article 17(3), (4) and (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC, as well as applying up to the first point of delivery of these crops a mass balance methodology in line with the requirements of Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC and Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC. The scheme gives accurate data on two elements necessary for the purposes of Article 7b(2) of Directive 98/70/EC and Article 17(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC, in particular, the geographic area the crops come from and the annualised emissions from carbon stock changes caused by land-use change. A small percentage of members of the scheme do not cover the sustainability criteria for part of their land. The scheme indicates the status of full or partial compliance of the land of its members in its online member checker database and shows compliance of consignments with the sustainability criteria on the Scottish Quality Crops passport.\n(9)\nThe evaluation of the \u2018Scottish Quality Farm Assured Combinable Crops Limited\u2019 scheme found that it meets adequate standards of reliability, transparency and independent auditing.\n(10)\nAny additional sustainability elements covered by the \u2018Scottish Quality Farm Assured Combinable Crops Limited\u2019 scheme are not part of the consideration of this Decision. These additional sustainability elements are not mandatory to show compliance with sustainability requirements provided for by Directives 98/70/EC and 2009/28/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018Scottish Quality Farm Assured Combinable Crops Limited\u2019 for which the request for recognition was submitted to the Commission on 27 March 2012 demonstrates by means of its Scottish Quality Crops passport that consignments of winter wheat, maize and oil seed rape comply with the sustainability criteria as laid down in Article 17(3), (4) and (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(3), (4) and (5) of Directive 98/70/EC. The scheme also contains accurate data for purposes of Article 17(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(2) of Directive 98/70/EC in as far as it concerns annualised emissions from carbon stock changes caused by land-use change (e l ) referred to in point 1 of Part C of Annex IV to Directive 98/70/EC and point 1 of Part C of Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC, which it demonstrates to be equal to zero, and the geographic area referred to in point 6 of Part C of Annex IV to Directive 98/70/EC and point 6 of Part C of Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC.\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018Scottish Quality Farm Assured Combinable Crops Limited\u2019 may be used up to the first point of delivery for the consignments concerned for demonstrating compliance with Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC and Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\nArticle 2\nThe Decision is valid for a period of five years after it enters into force. If the scheme, after adoption of this Decision, undergoes changes to its contents in a way that might affect the basis of this Decision, such changes shall be notified to the Commission without delay. The Commission shall assess the notified changes with a view to establish whether the scheme is still adequately covering the sustainability criteria for which it is recognised.\nIf it has been clearly demonstrated that the scheme has not implemented elements considered to be decisive for this Decision and if severe and structural breach of those elements has taken place, the Commission may repeal this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["27", "59", "69", "93", "23", "53", "47", "52", "88", "26", "35", "28", "74", "67", "75", "29", "8", "18", "90", "65", "19", "37", "31", "57", "85", "66", "50", "64", "95", "61", "No Label", "45", "58", "63", "68", "76", "77", "78"], "gold": ["45", "58", "63", "68", "76", "77", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 146/2012\nof 16 February 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 February 2012.", "references": ["99", "71", "86", "88", "67", "80", "11", "72", "19", "63", "33", "77", "52", "69", "92", "10", "79", "43", "62", "2", "53", "8", "57", "37", "64", "93", "23", "96", "89", "65", "No Label", "21", "40"], "gold": ["21", "40"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 4 April 2011\nconcerning the technical specifications of interoperability relating to the subsystem \u2018rolling stock - noise\u2019 of the trans-European conventional rail system\n(notified under document C(2011) 658)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/229/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation of the European Railway Agency (No ERA/REC/02-2010/INT) of 30 March 2010,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 12 of Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) requires that the European Rail Agency (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019) shall ensure that the technical specifications for interoperability (hereinafter referred to as \u2018TSIs\u2019) are adapted to technical progress and market trends and to the social requirements and propose to the Commission the amendments to the TSIs which it considers necessary.\n(2)\nBy Decision C(2007)3371 of 13 July 2007, the Commission gave a framework mandate to the Agency to perform certain activities under Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (3) and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (4). Under the terms of this framework mandate, the Agency was requested to perform the limited revision of the conventional rail TSI on Rolling stock - Noise (hereinafter \u2018TSI Noise\u2019), adopted by Commission Decision 2006/66/EC (5).\n(3)\nA reference track whose use is mandatory under TSI Noise is not available in every Member State, and the Member States cannot be obliged to create one. This has prevented the development of a level playing field for all actors in the European Union and has created the financial burden which is higher than foreseen in the original Decision. Numerous problems regarding the availability of reference track, the test methods and the test costs have been signalled to the Commission and to the Agency.\n(4)\nWith the present Decision the Commission intends to clarify responsibilities with regard to the reference track, allow testing on non-reference track while assuring a proper collection and recording of comparable data for a future TSI revision, reduce the burden of proof compliance for small batches of vehicles and include the latest developments with regard to ISO EN 3095 standard.\n(5)\nThe noise limits and the scope will remain unchanged. This Decision therefore constitutes only a limited revision of TSI Noise and does not compromise a full revision of TSI Noise as provided in Section 7 of the TSI.\n(6)\nFor the sake of clarity and simplicity, it is better to replace Decision 2006/66/EC as a whole.\n(7)\nDecision 2006/66/EC should therefore be repealed.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in conformity with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The revised version of the Technical Specification for Interoperability (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the TSI\u2019) relating to subsystem \u2018rolling stock - noise\u2019 of the trans-European conventional rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC, as set out in the Annex, is adopted.\n2. The TSI shall apply to the rolling stock of the trans-European conventional rail system as defined in Annex I to Directive 2008/57/EC.\nIt shall apply to new and existing rolling stock as set out in Section 7 of the Annex.\nArticle 2\nWhere agreements contain requirement relating to noise emission limits, Member States shall notify them to the Commission within 6 months of the entry into force of this Decision, provided they were not already notified under Decision 2006/66/EC.\nThe agreements to be notified shall be:\n(a)\nnational agreements between the Member States and railway undertakings or infrastructure managers, agreed on either a permanent or a temporary basis and necessitated by the very specific or local nature of the intended transport service;\n(b)\nbilateral or multilateral agreements between railway undertakings, infrastructure managers or safety authorities which deliver significant levels of local or regional interoperability;\n(c)\ninternational agreements between one or more Member States and at least one third country, or between railway undertakings or infrastructure managers of Member States and at least one railway undertaking or infrastructure manager of a third country which deliver significant levels of local or regional interoperability.\nArticle 3\nThe procedures for assessment of conformity, suitability for use and EC verification set out in Section 6 of the Annex to this Decision shall be based on the modules defined in Commission Decision 2010/713/EU (6).\nArticle 4\nThe Commission shall prepare the review and update of this TSI and make appropriate recommendations to the Committee referred to in Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC (\u2018RIS Committee\u2019) in order to take account of developments in technology or social requirements, in accordance with the procedure set out in point 7.2 of the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 5\nDecision 2006/66/EC is repealed. Its provisions shall however continue to apply in relation to the maintenance of projects authorised in accordance with the TSI annexed to that Decision and, unless the applicant requests to apply this Decision, to projects for a new vehicle and for the renewal or upgrading of an existing vehicle which are at an advanced stage of development or the subject of a contract in course of performance at the date of notification of the present Decision.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 April 2011.", "references": ["72", "77", "88", "43", "11", "71", "18", "99", "63", "50", "42", "57", "14", "86", "69", "25", "39", "30", "4", "22", "68", "70", "37", "47", "80", "89", "48", "36", "61", "24", "No Label", "9", "53", "54", "55", "60", "76"], "gold": ["9", "53", "54", "55", "60", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 31 January 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation establishing the terms and conditions for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the \u2018Youth in Action\u2019 programme and in the action programme in the field of lifelong learning (2007 to 2013)\n(2011/82/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 165(4) and 166(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the European Union, the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation establishing the terms and conditions for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the \u2018Youth in Action\u2019 programme and in the action programme in the field of lifelong learning (2007 to 2013) (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019), established respectively by Decisions No 1719/2006/EC (1) and No 1720/2006/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006.\n(2)\nThe Agreement was signed, on behalf of the Union, on 15 February 2010, subject to its conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2010/195/EU (3).\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation establishing the terms and conditions for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the \u2018Youth in Action\u2019 programme and in the action programme in the field of lifelong learning (2007 to 2013) (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (4).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notifications provided for in Articles 3 and 5 of the Agreement.\nArticle 3\nThe Agreement is linked to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons (5) (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons\u2019), concluded by Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom (6) of the Council and of the Commission as provided for in Article 3 of the Agreement.\nArticle 4\nIn the event of denunciation of the Agreement, the Commission shall be authorised to settle the consequences of such denunciation with Switzerland in accordance with Article 3 of the Agreement.\nArticle 5\nThe Union\u2019s position as regards the decisions of the Joint Committee of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons referred to in Article 4 of the Agreement (hereinafter \u2018the Joint Committee\u2019) shall be decided by the Commission when amendments are to be made to the Annexes to the Agreement in order to adapt them to the amendments of the acts of the Union referred to in the Agreement. For all other decisions of the Joint Committee regarding amendments to the Annexes to the Agreement, the Union\u2019s position shall be decided by the Commission after having consulted the committee of the \u2018Youth in Action\u2019 programme and/or the committee of the action programme in the field of lifelong learning as applicable in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9(2) of Decision No 1719/2006/EC and Article 10(2) of Decision No 1720/2006/EC.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2011.", "references": ["18", "75", "82", "99", "44", "43", "29", "7", "26", "28", "19", "27", "94", "64", "23", "16", "55", "15", "71", "98", "60", "1", "11", "81", "85", "66", "47", "90", "14", "45", "No Label", "9", "10", "36", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "10", "36", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 653/2010\nof 22 July 2010\nfixing the export refunds on eggs\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), last subparagraph, and Article 170 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in eggs, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162 to 164, 167, 169 and 170 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely within the Union and comply with requirements under Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2) and of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3), as well as marking requirements under point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The products on which the export refunds provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 may be paid, subject to the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 of this Article, and the amounts of those refunds are specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The products on which a refund may be paid under paragraph 1 shall meet the requirements under Regulations (EC) Nos 852/2004 and 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 and those defined in point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2010.", "references": ["96", "64", "49", "70", "41", "92", "27", "22", "18", "76", "90", "78", "19", "23", "29", "65", "46", "75", "38", "14", "82", "16", "59", "87", "42", "25", "32", "53", "39", "54", "No Label", "20", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["20", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 496/2012\nof 11 June 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 453/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 June 2012.", "references": ["31", "38", "14", "34", "19", "41", "97", "27", "67", "91", "81", "37", "50", "42", "93", "74", "32", "87", "45", "51", "98", "63", "9", "1", "44", "23", "90", "83", "94", "76", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 378/2012\nof 3 May 2012\nrefusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children's development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 17(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on foods are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as \u2027the Authority\u2027.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission thereof, and to deliver an opinion on the health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nFollowing an application from SVUS Pharma a.s, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of ProteQuine\u00ae, a mixture of free amino acids, oligopeptides and nucleotides on increase of suppressed concentrations of secretory immunoglobulin A (ScIgA) and reduction of the risk of influenza and common cold (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-397) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \"ProteQuine\u00ae elevates/maintains the level of ScIgA on mucous membranes. Decreased or insufficient level of ScIgA is a risk factor in the development of common cold or influenza\".\n(6)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 13 April 2011 that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of ProteQuine\u00ae and increasing suppressed concentrations of ScIgA and reducing the risk of common cold and influenza. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(7)\nFollowing an application from SVUS Pharma a.s, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of ProteQuine\u00ae, a mixture of free amino acids, oligopeptides and nucleotides, and bovine lactoferrin on increase of suppressed concentrations of secretory immunoglobulin A (ScIgA) and reduction of the risk of common cold with sore throat (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-398) (3). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \"ProteQuine\u00ae in combination with bovine lactoferrin elevates/maintains the level of ScIgA on mucous membranes. Decreased or insufficient level of ScIgA is a risk factor in the development of common cold with sore throat and combination of ProteQuine\u00ae with bovine lactoferrin reduces the risk of the development of sore throat\".\n(8)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 13 April 2011 that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of ProteQuine\u00ae and bovine lactoferrin and increasing suppressed concentrations of ScIgA and reduction of the risk of common cold with sore throat. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(9)\nFollowing an application from CSL - Centro Sperimentale del Latte S.p.A., submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of a combination of Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus strain AY/CSL (LMG P-17224) and Streptococcus thermophilus strain 9Y/CSL (LMG P-17225) on beneficial modulation of intestinal microflora (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-273) (4). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \"Maintaining the gut health by normalizing the intestinal flora\".\n(10)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 20 July 2011 that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of the combination of L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus strain AY/CSL (LMG P-17224) and S. thermophilus strain 9Y/CSL (LMG P-17225) and a beneficial physiological effect related to the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(11)\nFollowing an application from the European Dietetic Food Industry Association (IDACE), submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of beta-palmitate on increased calcium absorption (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-172) (5). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded, inter alia, as follows: \"Beta palmitate enrichment contributes to increase calcium absorption\".\n(12)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 28 July 2011 that the evidence provided was insufficient to establish a cause and effect relationship between the consumption of beta-palmitate and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(13)\nIn accordance with Article 28(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, health claims referred to in its Article 14(1)(b) and not authorised by a decision pursuant to Article 17(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 may continue to be used for six months after the adoption of this Regulation, provided an application was made before 19 January 2008. Accordingly, the transition period laid down in that Article is applicable to the health claim relevant to beta-palmitate listed in the Annex of this Regulation.\n(14)\nAs the health claim application relevant to Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus strain AY/CSL (LMG P-17224) and Streptococcus thermophilus strain 9Y/CSL (LMG P-17225) was not made before 19 January 2008, the requirement provided for in Article 28(6)(b) is not fulfilled, and the transition period laid down in that Article is not applicable.\n(15)\nHowever, in order to ensure that this Regulation is fully complied with, both food business operators and the national competent authorities should take the necessary actions to ensure that, at the latest six months following the entry into force of this Regulation, the health claims listed in its Annex that have been submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 are no longer used.\n(16)\nThe comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(17)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The health claims listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall not be included in the Union list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\n2. However, health claims as referred to in Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and referred to in paragraph 1 used prior to the entry into force of this Regulation, may continue to be used for a maximum period of six months after the entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 May 2012.", "references": ["17", "96", "3", "52", "87", "15", "18", "44", "51", "78", "61", "41", "81", "67", "37", "19", "22", "92", "57", "98", "94", "80", "76", "56", "55", "74", "13", "49", "10", "46", "No Label", "20", "24", "25", "38", "39", "72"], "gold": ["20", "24", "25", "38", "39", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 233/2012\nof 16 March 2012\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the approval of the amended national scrapie control programme for Denmark\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1), and in particular point (b)(iii) of Section 1 of Chapter A of Annex VIII thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in animals. It provides for the approval of the national scrapie control programmes of the Member States if they comply with certain criteria laid down in that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 546/2006 of 31 March 2006 implementing Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards national scrapie control programmes and additional guarantees and derogating from certain requirements of Decision 2003/100/EC and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1874/2003 (2) approved, inter alia, Denmark\u2019s national scrapie control programme and laid down additional guarantees relating to holdings and official movement restrictions under certain conditions for ovine and caprine animals.\n(3)\nOn 25 November 2011, Denmark submitted an amended national scrapie control programme to the Commission for approval, which complies with the criteria laid down in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. Since 2003, all fallen stock of ovine and caprine animals over the age of 18 months have been tested for scrapie in Denmark and no case of classical scrapie has been detected. The objective of the amendment to Denmark\u2019s national scrapie control programme is therefore to reduce the number of tests performed annually, from the present extensive testing of all fallen stock of ovine and caprine animals over the age of 18 months to the minimum required in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.\n(4)\nGiven the current favourable epidemiological situation in Denmark, the amended national scrapie control programme for that Member State should be approved.\n(5)\nThe amended national scrapie control programme will have no impact on trade since the additional guarantees and official movement restrictions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 546/2006 remain unchanged. This Regulation should therefore apply without delay.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amended national scrapie control programme submitted by Denmark to the Commission on 25 November 2011 is hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 March 2012.", "references": ["8", "47", "3", "0", "86", "2", "41", "60", "17", "53", "85", "40", "84", "67", "34", "45", "51", "28", "39", "32", "19", "36", "33", "18", "88", "46", "24", "58", "42", "71", "No Label", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 426/2011\nof 2 May 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (1) and in particular Article 28(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 24 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 lays down that the organic production logo of the European Union (\u2018organic logo of the EU\u2019) is one of the compulsory indications to be used as regards pre-packaged food bearing terms referring to the organic production method as referred to in Article 23(1), while the use of the logo is optional for these products imported from third countries. Consumers should be assured that organic products have been produced in compliance with the requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 (2). To that end, the traceability of each product carrying the organic logo of the EU at all stages of production, preparation and distribution is an important factor.\n(2)\nIn order to give the consumers the opportunity to inform themselves of the operators and of their products which are subject to the organic farming control system, the Member States should make available, in an appropriate manner, the relevant information on the operators subject to this system, while observing the requirements of the protection of personal data as laid down in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (3).\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 889/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the regulatory Committee on organic production,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Chapter 8 of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 the following Article 92a is added:\n\u2018Article 92a\nPublication of information\nThe Member States shall make available to the public, in an appropriate manner including publication on the Internet, the updated lists referred to in Article 28(5) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 containing updated documentary evidence related to each operator, as provided for in Article 29(1) of that Regulation and using the model set out in Annex XII to this Regulation. The Member States shall duly observe the requirements of the protection of personal data as laid down in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4).\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nHowever, Article 1 shall apply as from 1 January 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 May 2011.", "references": ["1", "41", "36", "35", "14", "20", "78", "99", "65", "27", "94", "56", "19", "84", "10", "22", "4", "93", "59", "9", "7", "76", "30", "97", "23", "44", "81", "67", "39", "88", "No Label", "24", "25", "64", "72", "74"], "gold": ["24", "25", "64", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 4 April 2012\nauthorising Member States to adopt certain derogations pursuant to Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the inland transport of dangerous goods\n(notified under document C(2012) 2166)\n(2012/188/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on the inland transport of dangerous goods (1), and in particular Article 6(2) and (4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I, Section I.3, Annex II, Section II.3, and Annex III, Section III.3, to Directive 2008/68/EC contain lists of national derogations, allowing specific national circumstances to be taken into account. Those lists should be updated to include new national derogations.\n(2)\nFor reasons of clarity, it is appropriate to replace those sections in their entirety.\n(3)\nDirective 2008/68/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the transport of dangerous goods Committee set up by Directive 2008/68/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Member States listed in the Annex to this Decision are authorised to implement the derogations set out therein regarding the transport of dangerous goods within their territory.\nThese derogations shall be applied without discrimination.\nArticle 2\nAnnex I, Section I.3, Annex II, Section II.3, and Annex III, Section III.3, to Directive 2008/68/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 April 2012.", "references": ["38", "35", "17", "42", "60", "76", "93", "98", "43", "14", "32", "71", "87", "1", "61", "46", "95", "27", "51", "94", "33", "52", "63", "47", "96", "75", "12", "0", "62", "81", "No Label", "8", "54", "55", "56"], "gold": ["8", "54", "55", "56"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1122/2011\nof 31 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for anglerfish in Norwegian waters of IV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["83", "7", "87", "50", "38", "21", "0", "37", "71", "3", "63", "20", "9", "19", "30", "39", "51", "61", "43", "22", "72", "35", "32", "8", "17", "92", "93", "69", "60", "84", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 April 2012\non the conclusion by the European Union of the amended Constitution and Rules of Procedure of the International Rubber Study Group\n(2012/283/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(3) and (4) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFurther to several rounds of negotiation, on 14 July 2011 the Heads of Delegation of the International Rubber Study Group (\u2018the Group\u2019) agreed on the text of the amendments to the Group\u2019s Constitution and Rules of Procedure.\n(2)\nThe Union is a member of the Group.\n(3)\nThose Member States of the Union that were members of the Group have served formal notices of withdrawal and have withdrawn from the Group as from 1 July 2011.\n(4)\nThe adoption of the Group\u2019s amended Constitution and Rules of Procedure is indispensable for confirming the Group\u2019s new Headquarters and for making explicit provisions regarding the status of the Union within the Group, as well as for realigning the organisational structure, budget contributions and decision-making procedures.\n(5)\nThe signature, on behalf of the Union, of the Group\u2019s amended Constitution and Rules of Procedure has been authorised by Council Decision 2011/664/EU (1) which also has provided for their application on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for their conclusion.\n(6)\nThe Group\u2019s amended Constitution and Rules of Procedure should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe amended Constitution and Rules of Procedure of the International Rubber Study Group (\u2018the Group\u2019) are hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe texts of the amended Constitution and Rules of Procedure have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to confirm in writing to the Secretary-General of the Group the agreement of the Union to be bound by the amended Constitution and Rules of Procedure.\nArticle 3\nThe Union shall be represented by representatives of the Commission in the Group\u2019s meetings of Heads of Delegation as established by Article IX of the amended Constitution.\nThe Member States may participate as part of the delegation of the Union at the meetings of the Heads of Delegation.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["47", "53", "76", "24", "60", "70", "92", "54", "38", "5", "27", "39", "50", "34", "65", "79", "87", "16", "89", "95", "40", "21", "6", "73", "15", "30", "81", "74", "28", "45", "No Label", "1", "3", "83"], "gold": ["1", "3", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 567/2010\nof 29 June 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People\u2019s Republic of Korea\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 215(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Common Position 2006/795/CFSP of 20 November 2006 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People\u2019s Republic of Korea (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn line with Common Position 2006/795/CFSP, Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 (2) in particular restricts the supply, sale, transfer or export to the Democratic People\u2019s Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as \u2018North Korea\u2019) of certain items, materials, equipment, goods and technology, that could contribute to North Korea\u2019s nuclear-related, other weapons of mass destruction-related or ballistic missiles-related programmes, in addition to those determined by the UN Security Council or the Sanctions Committee.\n(2)\nThese items are listed in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 and need to be revised in order to maintain their effectiveness.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 329/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 329/2007 is hereby amended as follows:\nAnnex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 is replaced with the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 29 June 2010.", "references": ["97", "27", "61", "87", "47", "51", "83", "67", "66", "74", "43", "85", "24", "94", "46", "33", "16", "50", "52", "54", "68", "72", "81", "82", "42", "37", "21", "89", "91", "71", "No Label", "3", "6", "23", "30", "41", "76", "90", "95"], "gold": ["3", "6", "23", "30", "41", "76", "90", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 444/2012\nof 24 May 2012\non the minimum customs duty for sugar to be fixed in response to the sixth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/2012 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, the Commission is to decide, in the light of the tenders received in response to a partial invitation to tender, either to fix a minimum customs duty or not to fix a minimum customs duty per eight-digit CN code.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the sixth partial invitation to tender, a minimum customs duty should be fixed for certain eight-digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701 and no minimum customs duty should be fixed for the other eight-digit codes for sugar falling within that CN code.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the sixth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 23 May 2012, a minimum customs duty has been fixed, or has not been fixed, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation for the eight-digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 May 2012.", "references": ["45", "76", "56", "85", "24", "74", "67", "42", "10", "60", "83", "11", "62", "50", "98", "81", "16", "68", "23", "41", "53", "5", "26", "55", "93", "34", "17", "9", "37", "75", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "71", "73"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "71", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1084/2010\nof 25 November 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as regards equivalence under Inward Processing\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 167 and 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the second subparagraph of Article 12(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 (2), export refunds are to be granted where the ingredient, or ingredients, in respect of which the refund is claimed, were originally of Community (currently Union) origin and/or in free circulation as provided for in paragraph 1 thereof and are no longer in free circulation on account solely of their incorporation in other products. That provision applies when products of Community origin and/or in free circulation are processed under Inward Processing as set out in Articles 114 to 129 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nAccording to Article 84(1)(b) and Article 89 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, Inward Processing is a customs procedure with economic impact and a suspensive procedure which shall be discharged when a new customs-approved treatment or use is assigned to the goods placed under that arrangement or to compensating products placed under it.\n(3)\nArticle 115(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 provides that the customs authorities have to allow compensating products to be obtained from equivalent goods and compensating products obtained from equivalent goods to be exported from the Community before importation of the import goods. Article 114(2)(e) of that Regulation defines equivalent goods as Community goods which are used instead of the import goods for the manufacture of compensating products. According to Article 545(2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Customs Code (4), equivalent goods and compensating products made therefrom become non-Community goods and the import goods Community goods at the time of acceptance of the declaration discharging the arrangements, or where import goods are put on the market before the arrangements are discharged, they change their status at the time they are put on the market. In case of prior exportation, compensating products become non-Community goods on acceptance of the export declaration on condition that the goods to be imported are entered for the arrangements; import goods become Community goods at the time of their entry for the arrangements.\n(4)\nAs under the rules on the use of equivalent goods the customs status of import goods changes into Community status, and the Inward Processing arrangement is or will be discharged by that, the import goods are not subject to import duties. Consequently, the price level in the Union of the equivalent exported goods of Community origin is in that situation compensated by the world market price level of the import goods, and therefore there is no justification for the equivalent exported goods to be covered for the difference between the world market price and the price in the Union by an export refund as set out in Article 162 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(5)\nFor the sake of clarity and legal certainty it is appropriate to exclude the granting of export refunds explicitly in Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 when products are exported under rules on the use of equivalent goods.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 612/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009, the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Refunds shall not be granted for products which are used as equivalent goods within the meaning of Article 114(2)(e) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 November 2010.", "references": ["69", "25", "49", "65", "42", "33", "7", "1", "0", "86", "40", "73", "13", "89", "54", "80", "29", "18", "16", "24", "84", "62", "53", "98", "97", "76", "52", "60", "83", "38", "No Label", "20", "22", "63", "66"], "gold": ["20", "22", "63", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 28 February 2011\nadjusting the allowances provided for in Decision 2007/829/EC concerning the rules applicable to national experts and military staff on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council\n(2011/139/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 41(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 240(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2007/829/EC (1), and in particular Article 15(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 15(6) of Decision 2007/829/EC provides that the daily and monthly allowances of national experts and military staff on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council are to be adjusted each year without retroactive effect on the basis of the adaptation of the basic salaries of Union officials in Brussels and Luxembourg.\n(2)\nThe Council, by means of Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2010 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (2), adopted an adjustment of 0,1 % to the remuneration and pensions of Union officials,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2007/829/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 15(1), the amounts EUR 31,89 and EUR 127,52 respectively shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018EUR 31,92 and EUR 127,65\u2019;\n2.\nthe table in Article 15(2) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Distance between place of origin and place of secondment\n(in km)\nAmount in EUR\n0 - 150\n0,00\n> 150\n82,05\n> 300\n145,86\n> 500\n237,05\n> 800\n382,92\n> 1 300\n601,73\n> 2 000\n720,27\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the first day of the month following its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["34", "96", "52", "60", "92", "67", "20", "74", "82", "87", "37", "70", "88", "94", "46", "58", "45", "78", "79", "31", "72", "80", "64", "75", "59", "89", "15", "95", "85", "61", "No Label", "2", "6", "7", "50"], "gold": ["2", "6", "7", "50"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1113/2010\nof 1 December 2010\nfixing the coefficients applicable to cereals exported in the form of Scotch whisky for the period 2010/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 of 10 November 2006 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 as regards the fixing and granting of adjusted refunds in respect of cereals exported in the form of certain spirit drinks (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 lays down that the quantities of cereals eligible for the refund are to be the quantities placed under control and distilled, weighted by a coefficient to be fixed annually for each Member State concerned. The coefficient is to express the average ratio between the total quantities exported and the total quantities marketed of the spirit drink concerned, on the basis of the trend noted in those quantities during the number of years corresponding to the average ageing period of the spirit drink in question.\n(2)\nAccording to the information provided by the United Kingdom in respect of the period 1 January to 31 December 2009, the average ageing period for Scotch whisky in 2009 was 7 years.\n(3)\nThe coefficients for the period 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 should therefore be fixed accordingly.\n(4)\nArticle 10 of Protocol 3 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area excludes the grant of refunds in respect of exports to Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway. Moreover, the Union has concluded agreements abolishing export refunds with certain third countries. Under the terms of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006, this should be taken into account in calculating the coefficients for 2010/2011.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1035/2009 of 30 October 2009 fixing the coefficients applicable to cereals exported in the form of Scotch whisky for the period 2009/2010 (3) has exhausted its effects, as it concerns the coefficients applicable for the year 2009/2010. For reasons of legal security and clarity, this Regulation should be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the period 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011, the coefficients provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 applying to cereals used in the United Kingdom for manufacturing Scotch whisky shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 1035/2009 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2010.", "references": ["13", "89", "22", "46", "17", "21", "23", "87", "93", "1", "33", "51", "27", "56", "49", "52", "25", "26", "90", "64", "76", "48", "66", "31", "94", "65", "75", "44", "95", "15", "No Label", "19", "20", "68", "71", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["19", "20", "68", "71", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 May 2010\nconcerning national provisions notified by Denmark on the addition of nitrite to certain meat products\n(notified under document C(2010) 3301)\n(Only the Danish text is authentic)\n(2010/561/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\nI. FACTS AND PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter of 21 November 2007 and pursuant to Article 95(4) of the EC Treaty (now Article 114(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - TFEU), the Kingdom of Denmark (Denmark) notified to the Commission its national provisions on the addition of nitrites to certain meat products, contained in Order No 22 of 11 January 2005 on food additives (Bekendtg\u00f8relse nr 22 af 11.1.2005 om tils\u00e6tningsstoffer til f\u00f8devarer) and the Danish positive list of permitted food additives (Liste over tilladte tils\u00e6tningsstoffer til f\u00f8devarer, \u2018Positivlisten\u2019) (1). Denmark considered necessary to maintain these provisions and therefore not to transpose Directive 2006/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 amending Directive 95/2/EC on food additives other than colours and sweeteners and Directive 94/35/EC on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs (2) into national law in so far as it relates to the use of nitrites in meat products.\n(2)\nBy Commission Decision 2008/448/EC (3), these national provisions were approved until 23 May 2010, pending the demonstration by the Danish authorities - by means of a renewed notification - that the application of the levels laid down in Directive 2006/52/EC do not achieve the required level of protection and would lead to an unacceptable risk to human health.\n(3)\nAccordingly, by letter of 20 November 2009, which reached the Commission on 26 November 2009, Denmark notified the Commission of its intention to continue not to transpose Directive 2006/52/EC into national law in so far as it relates to the use of nitrites in certain meat products and instead maintain its existing national legislation in this respect, i.e. Order No 22 of 11 January 2005 on food additives (Bekendtg\u00f8relse nr 22 af 11.1.2005 om tils\u00e6tningsstoffer til f\u00f8devarer) and the Danish positive list of permitted food additives (Liste over tilladte tils\u00e6tningsstoffer til f\u00f8devarer, \u2018Positivlisten\u2019). In support of its notification, Denmark submitted additional information that includes data on consumption of meat products, imports of meat products, and analysis of nitrite in meat products on the Danish market.\n1. UNION LEGISLATION\n1.1. ARTICLE 114(4) AND (6) TFEU\n(4)\nArticle 114(4) TFEU provides that, \u2018[i]f, after the adoption of a harmonisation measure by the European Parliament and the Council, by the Council or by the Commission, a Member State deems it necessary to maintain national provisions on grounds of major needs referred to in Article 36, or relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment, it shall notify the Commission of these provisions as well as the grounds for maintaining them.\u2019\n(5)\nAccording to Article 114(6) TFEU, the Commission shall, within 6 months of the notification, approve or reject the national provisions involved after having verified whether or not they are a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States and whether or not they shall constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market.\n1.2. DIRECTIVE 2006/52/EC\n(6)\nUnder the general principles of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (4), the approval of a food additive is subject to a reasonable technological need, its acceptability from a health point of view and its use not being misleading for the consumer. The latter Regulation repealed, as of 20 January 2010, Council Directive 89/107/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning food additives authorised for use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption (5), which set out the same general principles.\n(7)\nNitrites have been used in meat products for many decades, inter alia, to secure, in conjunction with other factors, the preservation and microbiological safety of meat products, in particular cured meat products, inhibiting, amongst other things, the multiplication of Clostridium botulinum, the bacteria responsible for life-threatening botulism. At the same time, it is recognised that the presence of nitrites in meat products can give rise to the formation of nitrosamines, which have been found to be carcinogenic. Legislation in this field must, therefore, strike a balance between the risk of the formation of nitrosamines through the presence of nitrites in meat products, on the one hand, and the protective effects of nitrites against the multiplication of bacteria, in particular those responsible for botulism.\n(8)\nPursuant to Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, European Parliament and Council Directive No 95/2/EC on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (6) is repealed as of 20 January 2010, with the exception of certain provisions, including Annexes I to VI thereto, which continue to apply. Directive 95/2/EC, as it was adopted originally, laid down maximum residual levels of nitrites and nitrates for various meat products as well as \u2018indicative ingoing amounts\u2019. Annex I(3)(c) to Directive 2006/52/EC amends Annex III Part C to Directive 95/2/EC in relation to E249 potassium nitrite and E250 sodium nitrite.\n(9)\nBy contrast, as a general rule, Directive 2006/52/EC contains maximum amounts for E249 potassium nitrite and E250 sodium nitrite that may be added during manufacture. The maximum added amount is 150 mg/kg for most meat products in general and 100 mg/kg for sterilised meat products. For a few specified cured meat products made traditionally in specific Member States the maximum amount is 180 mg/kg.\n(10)\nThis approach follows opinions from the Scientific Committee for Food (hereinafter \u2018SCF\u2019) of 1990 (7) and 1995 (8) as well as from the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018EFSA\u2019) of 26 November 2003 (9), which established that the ingoing amount of nitrite, rather than the residual amount, contributes to the inhibitory effect against C. botulinum and recommended to replace \u2018indicative ingoing amounts\u2019 with \u2018maximum ingoing amounts\u2019. It also takes account of the Court\u2019s ruling in Case C-3/00 Denmark/Commission relating to a previous Danish request under Article 95(4) of the EC Treaty (now Article 114(4) TFEU) and in which the Court held that, when rejecting the Danish request in relation to the use of nitrites in meat products, the Commission did not take sufficient account of the SCF\u2019s opinions of 1990 and 1995, which cast doubt on the appropriateness of the amounts of nitrite authorised by Directive 95/2/EC (10).\n(11)\nBy way of exception to the general rule, Directive 2006/52/EC contains maximum residual levels for certain specified traditional cured meat products, which are produced through traditional manufacturing methods. There are maximum residual levels of 50 mg/kg, 100 mg/kg and 175 mg/kg applying to different groups of such products, e.g. 175 mg/kg for Wiltshire bacon, dry cured bacon and similar products, and 100 mg/kg for Wiltshire ham and similar products. In relation to these products maximum residual values have been established since it is not possible to control the ingoing amount of curing salts absorbed by the meat due to the nature of the manufacturing process associated with these products. The production process of these specific products is described in the Directive to enable identification of \u2018similar products\u2019 and to make clear what products are covered by the different maximum levels. The table below contains the maximum levels established by Directive 2006/52/EC.\nE No\nName\nFoodstuff\nMaximum amount that may be added during manufacture\n(expressed as NaNO3)\nMaximum residual level\n(expressed as NaNO3)\nE 249\nPotassium nitrite (11)\nMeat product\n150 mg/kg\nE 250\nSodium nitrite (11)\nSterilised meat products (Fo > 3,00) (12)\n100 mg/kg\nTraditional immersion cured meat products (1):\nWiltshire bacon (1.1);\nEntremeada, entrecosto, chispe, orelheira e cabe\u00e7a (salgados)\nToucinho fumado (1.2);\nand similar products\n175 mg/kg\nWiltshire ham (1.1);\nand similar products\n100 mg/kg\nRohschinken, nassgep\u00f6kelt (1.6);\nand similar products\n50 mg/kg\nCured tongue (1.3)\n50 mg/kg\nTraditional dry cured meat products (2):\nDry cured bacon (2.1);\nand similar products\n175 mg/kg\nDry cured ham (2.1);\nJam\u00f3n curado, paleta curada, lomo embuchado y cecina (2.2);\nPresunto, presunto da p\u00e1 and paio do lombo (2.3);\nand similar products\n100 mg/kg\nRohschinken, trockengep\u00f6kelt (2.5);\nand similar products\n50 mg/kg\nOther traditionally cured meat products (3):\nVyso\u010dina\nSelsk\u00fd sal\u00e1m\nTuristick\u00fd trvanliv\u00fd sal\u00e1m\nPoli\u010dan\nHerkules\nLoveck\u00fd sal\u00e1m\nDunajsk\u00e1 klob\u00e1sa\nPaprik\u00e1\u0161 (3.5);\nand similar products\n180 mg/kg\nRohschinken, trocken-/nassgep\u00f6kelt (3.1);\nand similar products\nJellied veal and brisket (3.2)\n50 mg/kg\n(12)\nAs recommended in the relevant opinions of the SCF and EFSA, Directive 2006/52/EC is based on the establishment of maximum added amounts and reflects the ranges referred to in these scientific opinions by specifying that up to 100 mg/kg of nitrite are permitted in sterilised meat products and 150 mg/kg in other meat products. Given the vast variety of (cured) meat products and manufacturing methods within the European Union, the Union legislator held that it was, for the moment, not possible to specify the appropriate level of nitrite for each product.\n(13)\nThe exceptions to the rule of applying maximum added amounts have a limited character. They apply to specific products which are traditionally manufactured in certain Member States and for which it is not possible to control the ingoing amount of curing salts absorbed by the meat due to the nature of the manufacturing process associated with these products. The traditional products to which they apply are defined, in particular, through a description of the production method.\n(14)\nDirective 2006/52/EC was due to be transposed by the Member States by 15 February 2008 in order to permit trade in and the use of products complying with this Directive by 15 February 2008 and prohibit trade in and use of products which are not in compliance by 15 August 2008.\n(15)\nOn 23 November 2007, pursuant to Article 95(4) EC Treaty (now Article 114(4) TFEU), Denmark requested to maintain its national provisions on the addition of nitrites to meat products contained in Order No 22 of 11 January 2005 on food additives (Bekendtg\u00f8relse nr 22 af 11.1.2005 om tils\u00e6tningsstoffer til f\u00f8devarer) and the Danish positive list of permitted food additives (Liste over tilladte tils\u00e6tningsstoffer til f\u00f8devarer, \u2018Positivlisten\u2019), which are more stringent than those of Directive 2006/52/EC.\n(16)\nBy means of Commission Decision 2008/448/EC and in accordance with Article 95(6) EC Treaty (now Article 114(6) TFEU) the Commission approved these national measures until 23 May 2010, pending the demonstration by the Danish authorities that the application of the levels laid down in Directive 2006/52/EC do not achieve the required level of protection and would lead to an unacceptable risk to human health. In order to be able to submit such data in a renewed application, Denmark was required to monitor the situation in particular with regard to the control of botulism, the share of meat products covered by the 60 mg/kg limit in the overall consumption of meat products in Denmark, including any other risk factor of typical dietary habits as relevant, as well as imports of meat products from other Member States.\n2. NATIONAL PROVISIONS NOTIFIED\n(17)\nThe national provisions notified by Denmark on 20 November 2009 are Order No 22 of 11.1.2005 on food additives (Bekendtg\u00f8relse nr 22 af 11.1.2005 om tils\u00e6tningsstoffer til f\u00f8devarer) and the Danish positive list of permitted food additives (Liste over tilladte tils\u00e6tningsstoffer til f\u00f8devarer, \u2018Positivlisten\u2019). In the context of Decision 2008/448/EC, the Commission has already assessed the more stringent rules applied by Denmark with respect to E249 and E250.\n(18)\nOrder No 22 contains the principle that only additives contained in a positive list may be used for the foodstuffs under specified conditions, and with the specified objectives and restrictions (13). It further provides that, unless otherwise specified, the maximum values set out in the positive list refer to the maximum amounts of the additive which may be present in a foodstuff in the form in which it is sold (14). As a consequence, only foodstuffs which are in compliance with the requirements of Order No 22 and the positive list may be sold on the Danish market. The positive list established by the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration on the basis of Order No 22 states which additives may be used for the individual foodstuffs, and in what amounts. The version notified applies with effect from 29 January 2005.\n(19)\nWith regard to the use of nitrites E249 (potassium nitrite) and E250 (sodium nitrite) in meat products, the Danish positive list sets out exclusively added amounts and contains the following maximum level.\nFoodstuff\nAmount of nitrites added (mg/kg)\n8.2.1.\nNon-heat-treated meat products derived from whole pieces of meat, including slices of products (in general)\n60\nBacon of the Wiltshire type and related cuts, including salt-cured ham\n150\n8.2.2.\nHeat-treated meat products derived from whole pieces of meat, including slices of products (in general)\n60\nRullep\u00f8lse (rolled meat sausage)\n100\nEntirely preserved or semi-preserved products, bacon of the Wiltshire type and cuts thereof, including salt-cured ham\n150\n8.3.1.\nNon-heat-treated meat products derived from minced meat, including slices of products (in general)\n60\nFermented salamis\n100\nEntirely preserved or semi-preserved non-heat-treated meat products derived from minced meat\n150\n8.3.2.\nHeat-treated meat products derived from minced meat\n60\nMeatballs and liver pat\u00e9 (k\u00f8dboller and leverpostej) (15)\n0\nEntirely preserved or semi-preserved heat-treated meat products derived from minced meat\n150\n(20)\nTherefore, the limit 60 mg/kg applies for many types of meat products, whereas the corresponding maximum limits of Directive 2006/52/EC are 100 or 150 mg/kg.\n(21)\nHowever, as regards \u2018entirely preserved or semi-preserved heat-treated meat products derived from minced meat\u2019, the notified provisions provide for a maximum limit of 150 mg/kg, whereas the corresponding maximum limits of Directive 2006/52/EC for \u2018sterilised meat products\u2019 is set at 100 mg/kg.\n3. PROCEDURE\n(22)\nBy letter of 20 November 2009, which reached the Commission on 26 November 2009, Denmark notified to the Commission its intention to continue not to transpose Directive 2006/52/EC into Danish law in so far as it relates to the use of E249 potassium nitrite and E 250 sodium nitrite in meat products. In support of its notification, Denmark submitted a Report of the Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries on consumption and import of meat products in Denmark, as well as a Report of the National Food Institute (NFI) on \u2018Nitrites as food additives - Health aspects and EU Regulation\u2019.\n(23)\nBy letter of 21 December 2009, the Commission confirmed that it had received the notification and that the 6-month period for its examination under Article 114(6) TFEU started on 27 November 2009, the day following the day on which the notification was received. By means of the same letter, the Commission requested the Danish authorities to provide the latest version of the positive list of permitted food additives (\u2018Positivlisten\u2019).\n(24)\nBy letter of 7 January 2010, Denmark provided the additional requested information.\n(25)\nThe Commission published a notice regarding the notification in the Official Journal of the European Union (16) in order to inform other interested parties of Denmark\u2019s national provisions, as well as the grounds invoked to support the request. By letter of 25 January 2010, the Commission also informed the other Member States and the EEA States on the notification and gave them the opportunity to submit comments thereon within 30 days. The Commission received comments within this deadline from the Czech Republic, Poland, the United Kingdom and Norway (17).\n-\nThe Czech Republic agrees to the maintaining of more stringent national measures but only until the adoption of the annexes to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Following the adoption of the annexes on the use of additives in foodstuffs, the same conditions of use must apply to all Member States.\n-\nPoland has no comments on the notification, but stressed the need to reconsider the levels of nitrites laid down in Directive 2006/52/EC, following a re-evaluation by EFSA.\n-\nThe United Kingdom refers to Denmark\u2019s stated motivation for maintaining national levels for use of nitrites in meat products to prevent its population from being exposed to an increased level of nitrosamines. It stresses that the same preservation of meat products, ensuring there are no outbreaks of botulism, relies upon a complex interaction between a number of factors including not only nitrites but also salt, pH and temperature control. In its view, the possibility of consumers being exposed to nitrosamines is not the only issue to be considered in deciding the appropriate levels of nitrites. In that respect, it emphasises that the framework agreed by 26 of the Member States, as part of the European Commission\u2019s High Level Group on Nutrition and Physical Activity, recommends a 16 % salt reduction in meat products to be achieved over 4 years (2008 to 2012). Therefore, it questions how it would be possible to simultaneously reduce salt and nitrite levels whilst still ensuring the production of safe meat products.\n-\nNorway considers that the Danish measure is well documented and therefore has no objection to Denmark\u2019s request to maintain national provisions on the use of nitrites as additives in meat products. Against this background, it also encourages the Commission to re-examine Directive 2006/52/EC in relation to the use of nitrites in meat products.\n(26)\nA further meeting took place between the Commission services and Denmark on 19 March 2010. By means of a letter dated 12 April 2010, Denmark provided additional clarifications with respect to the different categories of meat products covered by the notified provisions as well as the carrying out of controls of imported meat products.\n4. REQUEST TO EFSA\n(27)\nBy letter of 29 January 2010, the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers requested EFSA to assess the data provided by the Danish authorities and in particular whether this information or any other new scientific developments indicate that there is scientific evidence for a revision of the maximum limits on nitrites adopted in Directive 2006/52/EC.\n(28)\nIn its Opinion adopted on 11 March 2010 (18), the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Foods (ANS Panel) concluded that the data provided by the Danish authorities do not provide a basis to revise the \u2018acceptable daily intake\u2019 (ADI) of 0,07 mg/kg bw/day for nitrite, established by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 2002. It also noted that this ADI might be exceeded by children. Finally, the ANS Panel concluded, in line with what had been concluded by the SCF in 1995, that exposure to preformed nitrosamines in food should be minimised by appropriate technological practices, such as lowering the levels of nitrate and nitrite added to foods to the minimum required to achieve the necessary preservative effect and to ensure microbiological safety.\n(29)\nWith regard to the effects of nitrites/nitrates on the microbiological safety of meat products, the ANS Panel noted that this had been addressed in the Opinion of EFSA Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards of 26 November 2003. In that Opinion, it was stated that several factors contribute to the safety of meat products (cooking process, salt/concentration, water activity etc. and that the ingoing amount of nitrites is important for microbiological safety, which is why ingoing amounts should be controlled (rather than the residual amount). Moreover, the Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards agreed with the view of the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) that 50-100 mg added nitrite per kg of meat products may suffice for many products and in other products, especially those with a low salt content and having a prolonged shelf-life, addition of between 50-150 mg/kg nitrite is necessary to inhibit growth of C. botulinum. However, no detailed analysis per category of meat products was provided.\nII. ASSESSMENT\n1. ADMISSIBILITY\n(30)\nUnder Article 114(4) and (6) TFEU a Member State may, after the adoption of a harmonisation measure, maintain its more stringent national provisions on grounds of major needs referred to in Article 36 TFEU, or relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment, provided that it notifies these national provisions to the Commission and the Commission approves these measures.\n(31)\nThe Danish notification relates to national provisions derogating from those of Annex I (3) (c) to Directive 2006/52/EC amending Annex III Part C to Directive 95/2/EC in relation to E249 potassium nitrite and E250 sodium nitrite. The current Danish provisions already existed at the time of the adoption of Directive 2006/52/EC.\n(32)\nThe Danish Order No 22 and the Danish positive list allows the addition of E249 potassium nitrite and E250 sodium nitrite to meat products only in so far as specific added amounts are not exceeded. Depending on the products in question these maximum amounts are 0, 60, 100 or 150 mg/kg, which are lower for certain products than, or differ from the ones laid down in Directive 2006/52/EC. Moreover, unlike Directive 2006/52/EC, the Danish provisions do not contain any exceptions to the principle of fixing maximum added amounts for nitrites, thereby not permitting the placing on the market of certain traditionally manufactured meat products from other Member States.\n(33)\nThe Danish provisions are therefore more stringent than, or differ from the provisions of Directive 2006/52/EC in that they lay down lower maximum added amounts than Directive 2006/52/EC for several types of products (in many cases 60 mg/kg) and in so far as they do not, unlike Directive 2006/52/EC, allow the placing on the market of certain traditional meat products on the basis of maximum residual values.\n(34)\nIn accordance with Article 114(4) TFEU, the notification was supplemented by a description of the grounds relating to one or more of the major needs referred to in Article 36 TFEU, in this case the protection of health and life of humans. An accompanying Report of the Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries provides additional data on the consumption and import of meat products as well as an analysis of nitrite in meat products on the Danish market. Finally, the Danish authorities have submitted a Report of the National Food Institute (NFI) on \u2018Nitrites as food additives - Health aspects and EU Regulation\u2019, dated 30 October 2007. According to submitted information, the latter report was re-evaluated in September 2009 and no new comments or knowledge has been added.\n(35)\nIn light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the application submitted by Denmark with a view to obtaining authorisation to maintain its national provisions on the use of nitrites in meat products is admissible under Article 114(4) TFEU.\n2. ASSESSMENT OF MERITS\n(36)\nIn accordance with Article 114(4) and (6), first subparagraph, TFEU, the Commission must ascertain that all the conditions enabling a Member State to maintain its national provisions derogating from a Union harmonisation measure provided for in that Article are fulfilled.\n(37)\nIn particular, the Commission has to assess whether or not the national provisions are justified by the major needs referred to in Article 36 TFEU or relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment and do not exceed what is necessary to attain the legitimate objective pursued. In addition, when the Commission considers that the national provisions fulfil the above conditions, it must verify, pursuant to Article 114(6) TFEU, whether or not the national provisions are a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States and whether or not they constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market.\n(38)\nIt has to be noted that, in the light of the time frame established by Article 114(6) TFEU, the Commission, when examining whether the national measures notified under Article 114(4) TFEU are justified, has to take as a basis \u2018the grounds\u2019 put forward by the notifying Member State. This means that, according to the provisions of the Treaty, the responsibility of proving that the national measures are justified lies with the requesting Member State that seeks to maintain them. Given the procedural framework established by Article 114(4) and (6) TFEU, including in particular a strict deadline for a decision to be adopted, the Commission normally has to limit itself to examining the relevance of the elements, which are submitted by the requesting Member State, without having to seek itself possible reasons of justifications.\n(39)\nHowever, where the Commission is in possession of information in the light of which the Union harmonisation measure from which the notified national provisions derogate may need to be reviewed, it can take such information into consideration in the assessment of the notified national provisions.\n2.1. THE POSITION OF DENMARK\n(40)\nDenmark claims that its legislation ensures a higher level of protection of health and life of human in that it lays down lower maximum added amounts of E249 potassium nitrite and E250 sodium nitrite than the ones provided for in Directive 2006/52/EC, and does not allow the placing on the market of traditional meat products for which no ingoing amounts can be established. Denmark considers that the Danish provisions are fully consistent with the recommendations which the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) made in 1990 and 1995, as well as with the opinion of EFSA of 26 November 2003.\n(41)\nDenmark also considers that regulating the nitrite amounts used on the basis of whether they were considered to involve an intake in excess of the established relevant ADI does not provide the necessary protection of human health. The ADI established for nitrites does not take into account the formation of nitrosamines, which are associated with the use of nitrites in meat products. According to scientific evaluations, nitrosamines are genotoxic; as such, it is not possible to establish a limit under which they are not carcinogenic. Denmark further emphasises that the formation of nitrosamines depends on the nitrite amounts that are added, and not on the much lower residual amounts, which, due to the substance\u2019s transformation in the foodstuff, are typically present in the product at the time of consumption.\n(42)\nThus, in its opinion, the overall scientific assessment demonstrates that (a) the use of nitrites and nitrates should be regulated in terms of the amounts that are added rather than the residual amounts, (b) their use should be reduced as far as possible by using differentiated amounts in line with the technical needs related to different foodstuffs, and (c) the necessary preservation is achieved by using the amounts recommended by EFSA. In that respect, Denmark considers that its national provisions systematically follow these recommendations, whereas Directive 2006/52/EC does not as far as nitrites are concerned.\n(43)\nDenmark also stresses that its national provisions have been in place for many years and have never given rise to problems with the preservation of the products concerned. Moreover, it has a relatively low rate of botulism compared with other EU Member States, and not a single case caused by the consumption of meat products has been recorded since 1980. Following Decision 2008/448/EC, which required Denmark to monitor the situation with respect to, inter alia, botulism, Denmark notes that no cases of botulism have been recorded in Denmark since 2006. Thus, the Danish provisions on the use of nitrite in meat products are still considered as providing comprehensive protection against food poisoning.\n(44)\nAs regards consumption patterns, the Report of the Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries provides additional data on the consumption and import of meat products as well as an analysis of nitrite in meat products on the Danish market. According to the Danish authorities, this Report demonstrates that the consumption of meat products to which nitrites may be added has increased over the years, especially among children. Moreover, the meat products covered by the 60 mg/kg limit are by far the most frequently consumed products in Denmark. This demonstrates that any amendment to the national provisions to raise the maximum added amounts in accordance with Directive 2006/52/EC to 150 mg/kg could result in a significant rise in the intake of nitrite and thereby nitrosamines.\n(45)\nFurthermore, Denmark maintains that its provisions on nitrite do not act as an obstacle to trade, referring to figures showing that imports of meat products from other Member States have been taking place and have even increased since 2006.\n(46)\nDenmark also stresses that maintaining nitrite use to a minimum is justified in order to adhere to the ADI for nitrite in foodstuffs. Furthermore, Denmark refers to the 2007 Report of the Danish National Food Institute (NFI) on \u2018Nitrites as food additives - Health aspects and EU Regulation\u2019. The latter report, which was re-evaluated in 2009, states that the implementation of Directive 2006/52/EC in Denmark could lead to an increase in nitrite intake by a factor of 2,3-2,4, which may imply a corresponding rise in the intake of preformed nitrosamines.\n(47)\nIn sum, Denmark considers it legitimate to reduce the risk to human health stemming from the exposure to nitrosamines beyond the requirements of Directive 2006/52/EC through the continued application of its legislation. According to Denmark, the monitoring, which it undertook pursuant to Decision 2008/448/EC, demonstrates that the health considerations previously taken into account are still valid. Finally, it contends that the latest data available show that the Danish provisions do not constitute an obstacle to trade in the products concerned.\n2.2. EVALUATION OF THE DANISH POSITION\n2.2.1. Justification on grounds of major needs referred to in Article 36 TFEU\n(48)\nThe Danish legislation aims to achieve a higher level of protection of health and life of humans with regard to exposure to nitrites and the possible formation of nitrosamines in meat products, by specifying lower maximum added amounts of nitrite in relation to certain meat products, when compared with the maximum levels provided under Directive 2006/52/EC and not allowing the placing on the market of products for which only maximum residual levels can be established. Moreover, the notified provisions set a maximum amount of 150 mg/kg as regards \u2018entirely preserved or semi-preserved heat-treated meat products derived from minced meat\u2019, which is higher than that specified for \u2018sterilised meat products\u2019 in Directive 2006/52/EC, i.e. 100 mg/kg.\n(49)\nWhen assessing whether the Danish legislation is actually adequate and necessary for achieving this objective a number of factors need to be taken into account. In particular, two health risks need to be balanced, the one related to the presence of nitrosamines in meat products, on the one hand, and the microbiological safety of meat products, on the other hand. The latter aspect is more than a mere technological need, but a highly relevant health concern in its own right. While it is recognised that the levels of nitrites in meat products need to be limited, lower levels of nitrite in meat will not automatically lead to a higher protection of human health. The most appropriate level of nitrite depends on a number of factors acknowledged in the relevant opinions of the SCF and EFSA, e.g. the addition of salt, moisture, pH, shelf-life of the product, hygiene, temperature control etc.\n(50)\nIn the light of the preceding considerations and those under recitals 11 and 12 above, the Commission considers that, in principle, Directive 2006/52/EC constitutes an adequate response to the challenge of reconciling two conflicting health risks in light of the diversity of meat products across the Union.\n(51)\nOn the other hand, the Commission has to evaluate the specific choices made by the Danish regulator and the experience made with these rules, which have been in force for a considerable period of time. Through the figures it provided on the occurrence of food poisoning and, in particular, botulism, Denmark has demonstrated that it has so far achieved satisfactory results with its legislation. These data show that the maximum levels specified in the Danish legislation appear to have been sufficient to ensure the microbiological safety of the meat products currently made in Denmark and the production methods currently used in Denmark.\n(52)\nThe Commission notes that the Danish legislation is compatible with the relevant scientific opinions of the Union\u2019s scientific bodies. It is based on a regulation of maximum added values and respects the ranges of added amounts of nitrite referred to in these opinions, i.e. 50-150 mg/kg. At the same time, Denmark has established more specific maximum added amounts for particular groups of meat products, compared with the Directive, in light of the types of meat products and manufacturing methods prevailing in Denmark.\n(53)\nIn addition, it must be considered that, according to information provided by Denmark, the bulk of the meat products consumed by the Danish population, relates to meat products for which there is currently a limit of 60 mg/kg and which would have to be replaced with a limit of 100 or 150 mg/kg. Since Danish manufacturers, like manufacturers in other Member States, would not be obliged to raise the amounts of nitrites currently added to their products to the maximum levels referred to in Directive 2006/52/EC, it is unlikely that the actual exposure of the Danish population to nitrites in meat products would increase to the extent suggested in the Danish submission, i.e. by a factor of 2,3-2,4. However, an increase of the actual exposure of the Danish population, to nitrites cannot be excluded.\n(54)\nOn the basis of the information available at the moment, the Commission considers that the request to maintain the notified measures can be temporarily accepted on grounds of protection of public health in Denmark.\n2.2.2. Absence of any arbitrary discrimination, any disguised restriction of trade between Member States or any obstacle to the functioning of the internal market\n2.2.2.1. Absence of arbitrary discrimination\n(55)\nArticle 114(6) TFEU obliges the Commission to verify that the envisaged measures are not a means of arbitrary discrimination. According to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, in order for there to be no discrimination, similar situations must not be treated in different ways and different situations must not be treated in the same way.\n(56)\nThe Danish national rules apply to both domestic products and products made in other Member States. In the absence of any evidence of the contrary, it can be concluded that the national provisions are not a means of arbitrary discrimination.\n2.2.2.2. Absence of a disguised restriction on trade\n(57)\nNational measures which restrict the use of products to a greater extent than a Union Directive would normally constitute a barrier to trade, in so far as products that are legally placed on the market and used in the rest of the Union are not expected, as a result of the prohibition on use, to be placed on the market in the Member State concerned. The pre-conditions laid down in Article 114(6) TFEU are intended to prevent restrictions based on the criteria set out in paragraphs (4) and (5) thereof from being applied for inappropriate reasons, and constituting in effect economic measures to impede the importation of products from other Member States, that is to say, a means of indirectly protecting national production.\n(58)\nGiven that the Danish rules impose stricter standards on the addition of nitrites to certain meat products and for specific categories of meat products (\u2018entirely preserved or semi-preserved heat-treated meat products derived from minced meat\u2019) a higher maximum added amount of nitrites than that of Directive 2006/52/EC also on operators based in other Member States in an otherwise harmonised area, they are liable to constitute a disguised restriction of trade or an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market. It is recognised, however, that Article 114(6) TFEU must be read in the sense that only national measures constituting a disproportionate obstacle to the internal market may not be approved. In this connection, Denmark has submitted figures which indicate that imports of meat products from other Member States not only have been taking place in spite of its legislation, but they have even increased in the recent years.\n(59)\nIn the absence of any evidence suggesting that the national provisions constitute in effect a measure intended to protect national production, it can be concluded that they are not a disguised restriction to trade between Member States.\n2.2.2.3. Absence of obstacles to the functioning of the internal market\n(60)\nThis condition cannot be interpreted in such a way that it precludes the approval of any national measure likely to affect the establishment of the internal market. Indeed, any national measure derogating from a harmonisation measure aiming at the establishment and operation of the internal market constitutes in substance a measure likely to affect the internal market. Consequently, in order to preserve the useful character of the procedure laid down in Article 114 TFEU, the concept of obstacle to the functioning of the internal market must, in the context of Article 114(6) TFEU, be understood as a disproportionate effect in relation to the pursued objective.\n(61)\nGiven the health benefits invoked by the Danish government in relation to the reduction of exposure to nitrites in meat products and the fact that, on the basis of currently available figures, trade does appear not to be affected at all or only to a very limited extent, the Commission considers that the notified Danish rules may be temporarily maintained on grounds relating to the protection of health and life of humans having regard to the fact that they are not disproportionate and do, therefore, not constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market in the sense of Article 114(6) TFEU.\n(62)\nIn the light of this analysis, the Commission considers that the condition relating to the absence of obstacles to the functioning of the internal market is fulfilled.\n2.2.3. Limitation in time\n(63)\nThe above conclusions are based on the currently available information and, in particular, on figures indicating that Denmark has been able to control botulism despite lower maximum levels of nitrite added to particular types of meat products and a higher maximum level as regards \u2018entirely preserved or semi-preserved heat-treated meat products derived from minced meat\u2019, while not disrupting trade in a disproportionate fashion.\n(64)\nAnother important factor is the rate of consumption in Denmark of meat products in relation to which the application of Directive 2006/52/EC could lead to an increase of the exposure of the Danish population to nitrites and thereby nitrosamines.\n(65)\nDenmark would need to systematically monitor the situation and collect data on whether the application of the levels laid down in Directive 2006/52/EC achieve the required level of protection and if not, whether it would lead to an unacceptable risk to human health. The data collected should focus in particular on the control of botulism, the share of meat products covered by the 60 mg/kg limit in the overall consumption of meat products in Denmark, including any other risk factor of typical dietary habits as relevant, as well as imports of meat products from other Member States. Denmark would be required to report the collected data to the Commission every 2 years from the date of adoption of the present Decision.\n(66)\nMoreover, the Commission would have to monitor the implementation of Directive 2006/52/EC in the Member States as regards in particular the use of nitrites by the industry in the different categories of meat products and the organisation of national controls. Appropriate consultations must also be carried out with the Member States, stakeholders as well as with EFSA. On the basis of the collected information, the Commission would examine Directive 2006/52/EC, under the terms of Article 114(7) TFEU, to consider whether it is appropriate to propose an adaptation to the latter Directive, with respect to the maximum levels of nitrites that may be added to certain meat products.\n(67)\nAgainst this background, the Commission considers that the national provisions, to the extent specified above, can be approved for a limited period of 5 years. The approval should extend to the time needed to gather and to carefully evaluate the necessary information.\n(68)\nDenmark remains obliged to transpose the other provisions of Directive 2006/52/EC into its national law.\nIII. CONCLUSION\n(69)\nIn the light of the above considerations, and taking account of comments provided by Member States on the notification submitted by the Danish authorities, the Commission is of the opinion that the request by Denmark, received by the Commission on 26 November 2009, for maintaining its national provisions on the addition of nitrites, which differ for \u2018entirely preserved or semi-preserved heat-treated meat products derived from minced meat\u2019 and are more stringent for all other meat products than those of Directive 2006/52/EC, can be approved for a period of 5 years from the date of adoption of the present Decision. Denmark would be required to systematically collect and report data to the Commission on whether the application of the levels laid down in Directive 2006/52/EC achieve the required level of protection and if not, whether it would lead to an unacceptable risk to human health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe national provisions on the addition of nitrites to meat products contained in Order No 22 of 11.1.2005 on food additives (Bekendtg\u00f8relse nr 22 af 11.1.2005 om tils\u00e6tningsstoffer til f\u00f8devarer) and the Danish positive list of permitted food additives (Liste over tilladte tils\u00e6tningsstoffer til f\u00f8devarer, \u2018Positivlisten\u2019), which the Kingdom of Denmark notified to the Commission by letter of 20 November 2009, pursuant to Article 114(4) TFEU, are approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall expire on 25 May 2015.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2010.", "references": ["64", "59", "30", "2", "5", "44", "65", "88", "18", "46", "89", "41", "13", "86", "92", "19", "95", "17", "34", "68", "77", "76", "71", "70", "67", "39", "15", "24", "0", "75", "No Label", "8", "38", "69", "74", "83", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "38", "69", "74", "83", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/166/CFSP\nof 23 March 2012\nin support of activities of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 26(2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 December 2003, the European Council adopted the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (hereinafter the \u2018EU Strategy\u2019), Chapter III of which contains a list of measures to combat such proliferation.\n(2)\nThe EU Strategy underlines the crucial role of the Chemical Weapons Convention (hereinafter the \u2018CWC\u2019) and of the OPCW in creating a world free of chemical weapons. As part of the EU Strategy, the Union has committed itself to working towards universal adherence to key disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and agreements, including the CWC. The objectives of the EU Strategy are complementary to the objectives pursued by the OPCW, in the context of the latter\u2019s responsibility for the implementation of the CWC.\n(3)\nOn 22 November 2004, the Council adopted Joint Action 2004/797/CFSP on support for OPCW activities in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (1), followed on its expiry by Joint Action 2005/913/CFSP (2), which in turn was followed by Joint Action 2007/185/CFSP (3). Joint Action 2007/185/CFSP was followed by Decision 2009/569/CFSP (4), which expired on 3 December 2011.\n(4)\nThe continuation of such intensive and targeted assistance from the Union to the OPCW is necessary in the context of the active implementation of Chapter III of the EU Strategy. There is a need for further activities promoting the full implementation of the CWC as well as activities enhancing the preparedness of States Parties to the CWC (hereinafter \u2018States Parties\u2019) to prevent and respond to attacks involving toxic chemicals, international cooperation in the field of chemical activities, and the ability of the OPCW to adapt to developments in the field of science and technology. Measures related to the universalisation of the CWC should continue and be adapted to and targeted at the declining number of States not Parties to the CWC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. For the purpose of giving immediate and practical application to some elements of the EU Strategy, the Union shall support activities of the OPCW, with the following objectives:\n-\nto enhance the capacities of States Parties in fulfilling their obligations under the CWC,\n-\nto enhance the preparedness of States Parties to prevent and respond to attacks involving toxic chemicals,\n-\nto enhance international cooperation in the field of chemical activities,\n-\nto support the ability of the OPCW to adapt to developments in the field of science and technology,\n-\nto promote universality by encouraging States not Parties to join the CWC.\n2. In this context, the Union-supported activities of the projects of the OPCW, which are in compliance with the measures of the EU Strategy, shall be the following:\nProject I: National Implementation, Verification and Universality\nActivities:\n-\nBilateral technical assistance visits\n-\nTraining courses for customs officials on the technical aspects of the CWC\u2019s transfers\u2019 regime\n-\nGrants to national authorities\n-\nE-learning tool for national authorities/associated stakeholders\n-\nOutreach to States not Party to the CWC\n-\nInvestigation of alleged use exercises\nProject II: International Cooperation\nActivities:\n-\nAnalytical skills development course\n-\nIndustry Outreach - CWC and Chemical Process Safety Workshop\nProject III: Visits by representatives of the Executive Council of the OPCW and observers to chemical weapons destruction facilities (CWDFs)\nActivity:\n-\nVisits to CWDFs\nProject IV: Science and Technology\nActivities:\n-\nScientific Advisory Board (SAB) working group meetings\n-\nCo-funding of an OPCW-International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) International Science and Technology Workshop\nProject V: Preparedness of States Parties to prevent and respond to attacks involving chemicals\nActivities:\n-\nRegional Workshops - Article X of the CWC and issues of regional cooperation in the area of assistance and emergency response\n-\nTable Top Exercises (TTEs) and exercise module\n-\nOPCW as a platform for enhancing security at chemical plants\nProject VI: Africa Programme\nActivities:\n-\nBilateral technical assistance visits\n-\nTraining courses for customs officials on the technical aspects of the CWC\u2019s transfers\u2019 regime\n-\nIndustry Outreach - CWC and Chemical Process Safety Workshop\n-\nAnalytical skills development course\n-\nRegional workshop - Article X of the CWC and issues of regional cooperation in the area of assistance and emergency response\n-\nRegional long-term capacity building project in the assistance and protection field\nA detailed description of the Union supported activities of the OPCW referred to above is set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.\n2. Technical implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be carried out by the Technical Secretariat of the OPCW (hereinafter the \u2018Technical Secretariat\u2019). It shall perform this task under the responsibility and the control of the HR. For this purpose, the HR shall enter into the necessary arrangements with the Technical Secretariat.\nArticle 3\n1. The financial reference amount for the implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be EUR 2 140 000.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 1. For this purpose, it shall conclude a financing agreement with the Technical Secretariat. The agreement shall stipulate that the Technical Secretariat is to ensure visibility of the Union contribution, commensurate with its size.\n4. The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after 23 March 2012. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the agreement.\nArticle 4\nThe HR shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular reports prepared by the Technical Secretariat. The HR reports shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council. The Commission shall provide information on the financial aspects of the projects referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 5\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall expire 24 months after the date of the conclusion of the financing agreement referred to in Article 3(3). However, it shall expire six months after its entry into force if that financing agreement has not been concluded by that time.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["57", "52", "88", "97", "36", "8", "3", "47", "29", "2", "80", "7", "90", "75", "84", "24", "13", "32", "33", "61", "25", "22", "21", "73", "58", "64", "60", "44", "37", "76", "No Label", "4", "5", "6", "9", "94"], "gold": ["4", "5", "6", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 500/2010\nof 9 June 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 496/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 June 2010.", "references": ["90", "63", "70", "92", "87", "33", "37", "93", "76", "38", "85", "19", "39", "18", "66", "91", "23", "5", "60", "15", "56", "77", "75", "34", "95", "50", "64", "13", "29", "49", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 386/2010\nof 5 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 May 2010.", "references": ["62", "22", "70", "20", "40", "31", "16", "75", "59", "29", "80", "0", "6", "73", "78", "33", "3", "8", "14", "1", "65", "27", "90", "15", "32", "19", "46", "5", "47", "44", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 719/2012\nof 7 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 August 2012.", "references": ["76", "47", "88", "49", "81", "95", "98", "50", "77", "15", "85", "69", "14", "73", "82", "63", "58", "59", "43", "75", "51", "72", "37", "62", "3", "5", "1", "67", "18", "54", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/329/CFSP\nof 25 June 2012\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative or the Horn of Africa\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 8 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/819/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Alexander RONDOS as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Horn of Africa. The EUSR\u2019s mandate is to expire on 30 June 2012.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended for a further period of 12 months.\n(3)\nThe EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Alexander RONDOS as the EUSR for the Horn of Africa is hereby extended until 30 June 2013. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\nFor the purposes of the mandate of the EUSR, the Horn of Africa is defined as comprising the Republic of Djibouti, the State of Eritrea, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Republic of Kenya, Somalia, the Republic of the Sudan, the Republic of South Sudan and the Republic of Uganda. For issues with broader regional implications, including piracy, the EUSR shall engage with countries and regional entities beyond the Horn of Africa, as appropriate.\nIn view of the need for a regional approach to the inter-related challenges facing the region, the EUSR for the Horn of Africa shall work in close consultation with the EUSR for Sudan and South Sudan who shall retain primary responsibility for those two countries.\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\n1. The mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the Union in relation to the Horn of Africa as set out in its strategic framework adopted on 14 November 2011 to contribute actively to regional and international efforts to achieve lasting peace, security and development in the region. The EUSR shall furthermore aim to enhance the quality, intensity, impact and visibility of the Union\u2019s multi-faceted engagement in the Horn of Africa.\n2. Priority shall continue to be given to Somalia, to the regional dimensions of the conflict and to piracy which has its root causes in the instability of Somalia.\n3. With regard to Somalia, the Union\u2019s policy objectives aim, through the coordinated and effective use of all its instruments, to promote a return for Somalia and its people to a path of peace and prosperity. To that end, the Union supports the role of the United Nations (UN) in facilitating a credible and inclusive Somali-led political process and will continue to contribute actively, together with regional and international partners, to the implementation of the Djibouti Peace Agreement and its post-transition arrangements.\n4. Regarding piracy, the EUSR\u2019s role shall be to contribute to developing and implementing a coherent, effective and balanced Union approach to piracy originating in Somalia, encompassing all aspects of Union action, particularly in the political, security and development areas and to be the Union\u2019s key interlocutor on piracy for the international community, including the Eastern and Southern Africa and Indian Ocean (ESA/IO) region.\nArticle 3\nMandate\n1. In order to achieve the Union\u2019s policy objectives in relation to the Horn of Africa, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\nengage with all relevant stakeholders of the region, governments, existing regional authorities, international and regional organisations, civil society and diasporas, with a view to furthering the Union\u2019s objectives and contribute to a better understanding of the role of the Union in the region;\n(b)\nrepresent the Union in relevant international fora, as appropriate, and ensure visibility for Union support to crisis management and prevention;\n(c)\nencourage and support effective political cooperation and economic integration in the region through the Union\u2019s partnership with the African Union (AU) and sub-regional organisations;\n(d)\ncontribute to the implementation of the Union\u2019s policy towards the Horn of Africa, in close cooperation with the European External Action Service (EEAS), Union delegations in the region and the Commission;\n(e)\nwith regard to Somalia, and working in close coordination with relevant regional and international partners, contribute actively to actions and initiatives leading to the implementation of the Djibouti Peace Agreement and its post-transition arrangements, supporting institution-building, the rule of law, and the establishment of capable governance structures at all levels; improving security; promoting justice, national reconciliation and respect for human rights; improving humanitarian access, especially in South-Central Somalia through appropriate advocacy activities regarding respect for international humanitarian law; and safeguarding compliance with the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence;\n(f)\nmaintain close and active cooperation with the United Nations Secretary-General Special Representative for Somalia, participate in the work of the International Contact Group for Somalia and other relevant fora, and promote a coordinated and coherent international approach towards Somalia, including, through the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia), EUNAVFOR Atalanta, EUCAP Nestor and the Union\u2019s continued support to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), working closely with Member States;\n(g)\nclosely follow the regional dimension of the Somali crisis, including terrorism, arms smuggling, refugee and migration flows, and maritime security, piracy and related financial flows;\n(h)\nregarding piracy, maintain an overview of all Union actions within the EEAS, the Commission and Member States, and maintain regular high level political contacts with the countries in the region affected by piracy originating in Somalia, the regional organisations, the UN Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, the UN and other key actors in order to ensure a coherent and comprehensive approach to piracy and to ensure the Union\u2019s key role in the international efforts to fight piracy. This includes the Union\u2019s active support to regional maritime capacity-building and for the judicial treatment of pirates, and ensuring that the root causes of piracy within Somalia are adequately addressed. It also includes continued support to the ESA/IO region in the implementation of its counter piracy strategy and action plan as well as the Djibouti Code of Conduct;\n(i)\nfollow political developments in the region and contribute to the development of the Union policy towards the region, including in relation to the Ethiopia-Eritrea border issue and implementation of the Algiers Agreement, the Nile Basin initiative and other concerns in the region that impact on its security, stability and prosperity;\n(j)\nfollow closely the trans-boundary challenges affecting the Horn of Africa, including any political and security consequences of humanitarian crises;\n(k)\ncontribute to the implementation of the Union\u2019s human rights policy in the Horn of Africa, including the EU Guidelines on human rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and the Union\u2019s policy on Women, Peace and Security, including by monitoring and reporting on developments as well as formulating recommendations in this regard.\n2. For the purpose of the fulfilment of the mandate, the EUSR shall, inter alia:\n(a)\nadvise and report on the definition of Union positions in international fora, as appropriate, in order to promote proactively the Union\u2019s comprehensive policy approach towards the Horn of Africa;\n(b)\nmaintain an overview of all activities of the Union and cooperate closely with all relevant Union delegations;\n(c)\nestablish a presence in Mogadishu.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the EEAS and its relevant departments.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 shall be EUR 4 900 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of the EUSR\u2019s mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy and security issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of the team.\n2. Member States, institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, the sending institution of the Union or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and the staff of the EUSR\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s staff shall be agreed with the host country/countries, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission, the EEAS and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegations and/or the Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with the mandate and the security situation in the geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under the EUSR\u2019s direct authority, in particular by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as the management of security incidents and including a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of the EUSR\u2019s team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the EEAS;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the progress report and the report on the implementation of the mandate.\nArticle 11\nReporting\n1. The EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report to Council working parties as necessary. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\n2. The EUSR shall report on the best way of pursuing Union initiatives, such as the contribution of the Union to reforms, and including the political aspects of relevant Union development projects, in coordination with Union delegations in the region.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall contribute to the unity, consistency and effectiveness of the Union\u2019s action and shall help ensure that all Union instruments and Member States\u2019 actions are engaged consistently, to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of Union delegations and of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSRs active in the region, in particular with the EUSR for Sudan and South Sudan and the EUSR to the AU. The EUSR shall provide Member States\u2019 missions and Union delegations in the region with regular briefings.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of Union delegations and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make every effort to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR, in close coordination with the relevant Union delegations, shall provide local political guidance to the Force Commander of EUNAVFOR Atalanta, the Mission Commander of EUTM Somalia and the Head of EUCAP Nestor. The EUSR, the EU Operation Commanders and the Civilian Operation Commander shall consult each other as required.\n3. The EUSR shall closely cooperate with the authorities of the countries involved, the UN, the AU, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), other national, regional and international stakeholders, and also with civil society in the region.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the Council, the HR and the Commission with a progress report by the end of December 2012 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["30", "56", "62", "63", "19", "17", "55", "75", "28", "59", "33", "44", "34", "84", "6", "13", "23", "83", "88", "89", "86", "24", "43", "1", "29", "20", "45", "5", "78", "35", "No Label", "3", "7", "94"], "gold": ["3", "7", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/819/CFSP\nof 8 December 2011\nappointing the European Union Special Representative for the Horn of Africa\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThere is a need for a regional response by the Union to the complex and inter-related challenges in the Horn of Africa region.\n(2)\nMr Alexander RONDOS should be appointed European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Horn of Africa for the period from 1 January to 30 June 2012.\n(3)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nMr Alexander RONDOS is hereby appointed European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Horn of Africa for the period from 1 January to 30 June 2012. The mandate of the EUSR may be extended or terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\nFor the purposes of the mandate of the EUSR, the Horn of Africa is defined as comprising the Republic of Djibouti, the State of Eritrea, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Republic of Kenya, the Somali Republic, the Republic of South Sudan, the Republic of the Sudan and the Republic of Uganda. For issues with broader regional implications, including piracy, the EUSR shall engage with countries and regional entities beyond the Horn of Africa, as appropriate.\nIn view of the need for a regional approach to the inter-related challenges facing the region, the EUSR for the Horn of Africa shall work in close consultation with the EUSR for South Sudan and the Sudan who shall retain primary responsibility for those two countries.\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\n1. The mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the European Union (\u2018EU\u2019 or \u2018Union\u2019) in relation to the Horn of Africa to contribute actively to regional and international efforts to achieve lasting peace, security and development in the region. The EUSR shall furthermore aim to enhance the quality, intensity and impact of the EU\u2019s multi-faceted engagement in the Horn of Africa.\n2. Initial priority shall be given to Somalia and to the regional dimensions of the conflict, as well as to piracy which has its root causes in the instability of Somalia.\n3. With regard to Somalia, the EU\u2019s policy objectives aim, through the coordinated and effective use of all its instruments, to promote a return for Somalia and its people to a path of peace and prosperity. To that end, the EU supports the role of the United Nations (UN) in facilitating a credible and inclusive Somali-led political process and will continue to contribute actively, together with regional and international partners, to the implementation of the Djibouti Peace Agreement and its post-transition arrangements.\n4. Regarding piracy, the EUSR\u2019s role shall be to contribute to developing and implementing a coherent, effective and balanced EU approach to piracy originating in Somalia, encompassing all aspects of EU action, particularly in the political, security and development areas and to be the EU\u2019s key interlocutor on piracy for the international community including the Eastern and Southern Africa and Indian Ocean (ESA/IO) region.\nArticle 3\nMandate\n1. In order to achieve the EU\u2019s policy objectives in relation to the Horn of Africa, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\nengage with all relevant stakeholders of the region, governments, existing regional authorities, international and regional organisations, civil society and diasporas, with a view to furthering the EU\u2019s objectives and contribute to a better understanding of the role of the Union in the region;\n(b)\nrepresent the Union in relevant international fora and ensure visibility for EU support to crisis management and prevention;\n(c)\nencourage and support effective political cooperation and economic integration in the region through the EU\u2019s partnership with the African Union (AU) and sub-regional organisations;\n(d)\ncontribute to the implementation of the EU\u2019s policy towards the Horn of Africa, in close cooperation with the European External Action Service (EEAS), Union delegations in the region and the Commission;\n(e)\nwith regard to Somalia, and working in close coordination with relevant regional and international partners, contribute actively to actions and initiatives leading to the implementation of the Djibouti Peace Agreement and its post-transition arrangements, supporting institution-building, the rule of law, and the establishment of capable governance structures at all levels; improving security; promoting justice, national reconciliation and respect for human rights; improving humanitarian access, especially in South-Central Somalia through appropriate advocacy activities regarding respect for international humanitarian law; and safeguarding compliance with the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence;\n(f)\nmaintain close and active cooperation with the United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) Special Representative for Somalia, participate in the work of the International Contact Group for Somalia and other relevant fora, and promote a coordinated and coherent international approach towards Somalia, including, through the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia), EUNAVFOR Atalanta and EU\u2019s continued support to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), working closely with Member States;\n(g)\nclosely follow the regional dimension of the Somali crisis, including terrorism, arms smuggling, refugee and migration flows, and maritime security, piracy and related financial flows;\n(h)\nregarding piracy, maintain an overview of all EU actions within the EEAS, the Commission and Member States, and maintain regular high level political contacts with the countries in the region affected by piracy originating in Somalia, the regional organisations, the UN Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, the UN and other key actors in order to ensure a coherent and comprehensive approach to piracy and to ensure the EU\u2019s key role in the international efforts to fight piracy. This includes the EU\u2019s active support to regional maritime capacity-building and for the judicial treatment of pirates, and ensuring that the root causes of piracy within Somalia are adequately addressed. It also includes continued support to the ESA/IO region in the implementation of its counter piracy strategy and action plan as well as the Djibouti Code of Conduct;\n(i)\nfollow political developments in the region and contribute to the development of the EU policy towards the region, including in relation to the Ethiopia-Eritrea border issue and implementation of the Algiers Agreement, the Nile Basin initiative and other concerns in the region that impact on its security, stability, prosperity, including the challenge of ensuring accountable governments or in cases of outbreak of violence or political breakdown;\n(j)\nfollow closely the trans-boundary challenges affecting the Horn of Africa, including any political and security consequences of humanitarian crises;\n(k)\ncontribute to the implementation of EU human rights policy in the Horn of Africa, including the EU Guidelines on human rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and the EU policy on Women, Peace and Security, including by monitoring and reporting on developments as well as formulating recommendations in this regard.\n2. For the purpose of the fulfilment of his mandate, the EUSR shall, inter alia:\n(a)\nadvise and report on the definition of EU positions in international fora in order to promote proactively the EU\u2019s comprehensive policy approach towards the Horn of Africa;\n(b)\nmaintain an overview of all activities of the Union and cooperate closely with all relevant Union delegations.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the EEAS.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 January to 30 June 2012 shall be EUR 670 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of the EUSR\u2019s mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy and security issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of the team.\n2. Member States, institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of personnel who are seconded by a Member State, an institution of the Union or the EEAS to the EUSR shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, institution of the Union or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and the staff of the EUSR\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s staff shall be agreed with the host country/countries, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (1).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission, the EEAS and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegations and/or the Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the EU policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with his mandate and the security situation in his geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under his direct authority, in particular by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as the management of security incidents and including a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high-risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of the EUSR\u2019s team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term report and the report on the implementation of the mandate.\nArticle 11\nReporting\n1. The EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report as necessary to Council working parties. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\n2. The EUSR shall report on the best way of pursuing Union initiatives, such as the contribution of the Union to reforms, and including the political aspects of relevant Union development projects, in coordination with Union delegations in the region.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote overall Union political coordination and shall help Union delegations to ensure that all Union instruments in the field are engaged coherently to attain the EU\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of Union delegations and of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSRs active in the region, in particular with the EUSR for South Sudan and the Sudan and the EUSR to the AU. The EUSR shall provide Member States\u2019 missions and Union delegations in the region with regular briefings.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with Union delegations and Member State Heads of Mission. They shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR, in close coordination with the relevant Union delegations, shall provide local political guidance to the Force Commander of EUNAVFOR Atalanta and the Mission Commander of EUTM Somalia. The EUSR and the EU Operation Commander shall consult each other as required.\n3. The EUSR shall closely cooperate with the authorities of the countries involved, the UN, the AU, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), other national, regional and international stakeholders, and also with civil society in the region.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present to the Council, the HR and the Commission a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2011.", "references": ["58", "81", "38", "33", "23", "65", "32", "24", "80", "77", "12", "72", "78", "49", "57", "26", "45", "59", "88", "97", "13", "48", "43", "56", "15", "4", "71", "8", "53", "19", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "94"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 656/2010\nof 22 July 2010\nnot fixing a minimum selling price in response to the fourth individual invitation to tender for the sale of butter within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 (2) has opened the sales of butter by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the fourth individual invitation to tender, no minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the fourth individual invitation to tender for selling of butter within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 20 July 2010, no minimum selling price for butter shall be fixed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2010.", "references": ["93", "74", "60", "98", "50", "56", "30", "28", "69", "38", "23", "51", "27", "80", "76", "3", "61", "89", "63", "12", "10", "42", "57", "26", "15", "54", "64", "52", "88", "53", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 794/2010\nof 8 September 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 789/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 September 2010.", "references": ["47", "12", "24", "15", "37", "63", "4", "68", "79", "44", "59", "86", "46", "52", "50", "20", "85", "56", "67", "30", "49", "2", "31", "36", "18", "94", "81", "51", "82", "34", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 931/2011\nof 19 September 2011\non the traceability requirements set by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council for food of animal origin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 18(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 18 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 establishes the general principles of traceability of food. It provides that the traceability of food must be established at all stages of production, processing and distribution. It also states that food business operators must be able to identify persons from whom they have been supplied with food. Such operators must also be able to identify businesses to which their products have been supplied. This information is to be made available to the competent authorities upon demand.\n(2)\nTraceability is necessary to ensure food safety and the reliability of information provided to consumers. In particular, it is necessary to apply traceability to food of animal origin to assist in the removal of unsafe food from the market, thereby protecting consumers.\n(3)\nTo achieve the traceability of food as set out in Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, the names and addresses of both the food business operator supplying the food and the food business operator to whom the food was supplied are needed. The requirement relies on the \u2018one-step back\u2019-\u2018one-step forward\u2019 approach which implies that food business operators have in place a system enabling them to identify their immediate supplier(s) and their immediate customer(s), except when they are final consumers.\n(4)\nFood crises in the past have revealed that documentary records were not always sufficient to allow full traceability of suspect foods. During the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2), Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4), experience has shown that food business operators do not generally possess the information needed to ensure that their systems identifying the handling or storage of foods is adequate, in particular in the sector of food of animal origin. This has resulted in this sector to unnecessarily high economic losses due to the lack of quick and full traceability of the food.\n(5)\nTherefore, it is appropriate to lay down certain rules for the specific sector of food of animal origin to ensure the correct application of the requirements set out in Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. These rules should allow (some) flexibility concerning the format in which relevant information is made available.\n(6)\nIn particular, it is appropriate to provide additional information on the volume or quantity of the food of animal origin, a reference identifying the lot, batch or consignment, as appropriate, a detailed description of the food and the date of dispatch.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down provisions implementing the traceability requirements set by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 to food business operators in respect of food of animal origin.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to food defined as unprocessed and processed products in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004.\n2. This Regulation shall not apply to food containing both products of plant origin and processed products of animal origin.\nArticle 3\nTraceability requirements\n1. Food business operators shall ensure that the following information concerning consignments of food of animal origin is made available to the food business operator to whom the food is supplied and, upon request, to the competent authority:\n(a)\nan accurate description of the food;\n(b)\nthe volume or quantity of the food;\n(c)\nthe name and address of the food business operator from which the food has been dispatched;\n(d)\nthe name and address of the consignor (owner) if different from the food business operator from which the food has been dispatched;\n(e)\nthe name and address of the food business operator to whom the food is dispatched;\n(f)\nthe name and address of the consignee (owner), if different from the food business operator to whom the food is dispatched;\n(g)\na reference identifying the lot, batch or consignment, as appropriate; and\n(h)\nthe date of dispatch.\n2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made available in addition to any information required under relevant provisions of Union legislation concerning the traceability of food of animal origin.\n3. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be updated on a daily basis and kept at least available until it can be reasonably assumed that the food has been consumed.\nWhen requested by the competent authority, the food business operator shall provide the information without undue delay. The appropriate form in which the information must be made available is up to the choice of the supplier of the food, as long as the information requested in paragraph 1 is clearly and unequivocally available to and retrievable by the business operator to whom the food is supplied.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 September 2011.", "references": ["94", "16", "7", "75", "15", "22", "37", "6", "13", "49", "57", "1", "27", "2", "87", "83", "95", "98", "62", "85", "21", "89", "28", "97", "54", "8", "76", "43", "26", "17", "No Label", "24", "38", "41", "69", "72", "77"], "gold": ["24", "38", "41", "69", "72", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1261/2011\nof 2 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 3 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2011.", "references": ["78", "48", "62", "90", "91", "12", "54", "4", "67", "53", "81", "58", "34", "19", "8", "31", "85", "0", "95", "76", "80", "17", "93", "64", "41", "49", "50", "33", "83", "70", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 451/2011\nof 6 May 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of coated fine paper originating in the People's Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9 and 14(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROVISIONAL MEASURES\n(1)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 1042/2010 (2) (\u2018the provisional Regulation\u2019) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty (\u2018the provisional measures\u2019) on imports of coated fine paper (\u2018CFP\u2019) originating in the People's Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 4 January 2010 by CEPIFINE, the European association of fine paper manufacturers (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 % of the total Union production of coated fine paper. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n2. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE\n(3)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (\u2018the provisional disclosure\u2019), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard.\n(4)\nThe Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.\n(5)\nOne group of cooperating Chinese exporting producers (\u2018the exporting producer\u2019) claimed that it should have been heard prior to the imposition of provisional measures given that, according to that group, a provisional Regulation is an individual measure in the sense of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3).\n(6)\nWith respect to the above stated claim, the following points should be highlighted: The basic Regulation delineates the rights of parties in the framework of anti-dumping proceedings and in this particular matter Article 7 sets out the procedural steps for imposition of provisional measures. Article 7 of the basic Regulation states, inter alia, that provisional measures, if any, can be imposed within 9 months from the initiation of a case. In the present proceeding the Commission conducted its investigation in line with the provisions of Article 6 of the basic Regulation and imposed provisional measures in line with the provisions of Article 7 of the basic Regulation while all interested parties that had requested so were heard and had the adequate opportunities to submit information and make comments. The Court of Justice has consistently held that \u2018even if \u2026 the principle of the right to a hearing requires exporters to be informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to impose provisional duties, a failure to respect that right cannot in itself have the effect of vitiating the regulation imposing definitive duties where, in the course of the procedure for the adoption of the latter regulation, the defect vitiating the procedure for the adoption of the corresponding regulation imposing provisional duties was remedied (4)\u2019. In the present case, the Commission fulfilled its obligations to disclosure under the basic Regulation and the right to a fair hearing of the exporting producer was respected during the procedure leading to the adoption of this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe provisional nature of measures adopted pursuant to Article 7 of the basic Regulation is inter alia reflected in the maximum period of six months for which they may be imposed as well as the fact that any provisional duty is secured only by guarantee. Furthermore, the Commission never prevented any party from coming forward with requests to hold more hearings prior to the 9 month deadline stipulated by law for the imposition of provisional measures should they have considered that there was a need to be heard further at that stage.\n(8)\nThe exporting producer requested access to data used from the sole company in the United States of America (USA) that provided information in line with the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) for the establishment of normal value. It was claimed that otherwise the party was prevented from having access to the evidence on the basis of which provisional measures were imposed and that this both violated the party's rights of defence and was contrary to the principle of good administration. The same party claimed that disclosure of confidential data pertaining to specific parties could be made available to the legal representatives of the group of the exporting producer. The legal representatives would undertake the obligation to guarantee the confidentiality of companies\u2019 business secrets. The claim was backed by reference to the USA and the Canadian systems and to the Court of Justice of the European Union in G.J. Dokter and Others v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit.\n(9)\nThese requests had to be rejected. The exporting producer's request referred to access of confidential data on prices provided by the aforesaid US company. The Commission could not grant the access to such detailed confidential business information. Giving access to such data would have been against Union law, notably Article 19 of the Basic Regulation since it would have led to an unauthorised disclosure of limited and sensitive business data of the US company. As to the proposed methodology on disclosing company's business secrets to legal representatives of other interested parties, unlike in the USA and Canadian systems, no such process is provided for by the basic Regulation. It is thus clearly outside the established EU legal framework for anti-dumping proceedings. In any event, the Court case cited above does not support any claim of access to confidential information. The judgment also refers to some inherent limits of the principle of the right of defence.\n(10)\nThe exporting produceralso requested access to evidence concerning: rolls used in web-fed printing produced by the Union producers, detailed information about one representative Union producer's legal status, the activities and financial data of selected mills, detailed data related to the Union industry's cost of production and product control numbers of the products of representative Union producers. Some of the requested information was outside the scope of the investigation as it related to products not covered by the investigation or the activity of Union producers that does not involve the production of CFP. Concerning other information requested, the Commission was not in a position to grant access to it, since pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation this would have constituted an unauthorised disclosure of confidential business secrets.\n(11)\nThe exporting producer also requested the disclosure of the names of the companies which opposed the investigation and did not request confidential treatment. Such a disclosure would have revealed the identity and position of producers that requested confidentiality; therefore it was not possible to reveal this information.\n(12)\nThe provisional disclosure was as detailed as possible without disclosing confidential information and was thus not in breach of the exporting producer's fundamental rights, its rights of defence or of the principle of good administration.\n(13)\nThe injury analyses performed in the present anti-dumping and the parallel anti-subsidy investigation are identical, since the definition of the Union industry, the representative Union producers and the investigation period are the same in both investigations. For this reason, comments on injury aspects put forward in any of these proceedings were taken into account in both proceedings.\n2.1. Investigation period\n(14)\nIt is recalled that, as set out in recital (13) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (the \u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (\u2018the period considered\u2019).\n3. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n3.1. Product concerned\n(15)\nFollowing provisional measures, the exporting producer and the complainant submitted further comments concerning the product definition. Some of these comments were a repetition of comments already addressed in the provisional Regulation.\n(16)\nThe exporting producer reiterated that there is no substantial difference concerning basic characteristics between CFP in sheets and rolls suitable for use in sheet-fed printing machines (\u2018the product concerned\u2019) and rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses and that, therefore, CFP for web-fed printing should not have been excluded from the product scope. The party also argued that the Commission's finding that these products are not interchangeable was not supported.\n(17)\nIt is recalled that the investigation found that CFP used in web-fed and sheet-fed printing processes are distinct product groups and are not interchangeable as described in recitals (18) and (20) of the provisional Regulation. The exporting producer itself also acknowledged that these products are not fully interchangeable.\n(18)\nIt should be noted as well that no rolls for use in web-fed presses were imported from the PRC during the period considered. It may also be considered unlikely that these products would be imported in the future as sourcing these products from long distance is economically not viable for the reasons mentioned in recital (20) of the provisional Regulation.\n(19)\nIt was further claimed by the exporting producer that the criteria defined in the provisional Regulation in recital (16), namely the technical characteristic of resistance to picking, was not appropriate to distinguish between CFP suitable for use in web-fed printing on the one hand and CFP used in sheet-fed printing on the other hand. It further claimed that the exclusion of web rolls was made on an arbitrary basis alleging that web-fed rolls produced by Union producers do not meet the criteria set in recital 16 of the provisional Regulation as regards the characteristics of resistance to picking.\n(20)\nThe exporting producer also argued that the Commission fell short of its obligation to examine objectively the evidence presented by that exporting producer to the Commission's services before the provisional Regulation, namely the results of the testing conducted in its own laboratory measuring the resistance to picking of web rolls produced by the Union producers.\n(21)\nThe test results presented by the exporting producer consisted of a summary of the test results performed in its own laboratory. Crucially, the results were not made available for inspection and comments by other interested parties, in particular, the Union industry, nor did the exporting producer submit a meaningful non-confidential summary thereof despite repeated reminders.\n(22)\nIt is recalled that at the provisional stage the Commission concluded that the objectivity and reliability of the test was insufficient to base conclusions thereon. No further detailed information was provided by the exporting producer which could help further assess the reliability of the test. Since no non-confidential version of this test was provided, the companies whose web rolls were allegedly tested could not respond to the conclusions of the test. The Commission thus could not objectively check whether the submitted test results were reliable and correct and could be relied upon for the purposes of the investigation. On the basis of the facts available to the Commission, conclusions reached at provisional stage about the objectivity and reliability of the test could not be reconsidered since the information submitted under confidentiality could not be counterchecked by any reliable sources.\n(23)\nAfter the imposition of the provisional measures, the exporting producer presented the results of a further test conducted on its behalf by an external test laboratory and reiterated that CFP used in web-fed printing has been arbitrarily excluded from the scope of the investigation. The test reports stated that the resistance to picking has been measured on 25 samples of web-fed rolls provided and identified by the exporting producer to the laboratory as paper samples produced by Union producers. According to this report, none of the paper met both criteria set in recital 16 of the provisional Regulation.\n(24)\nThe assessment of the test report brought to light that, first of all, the test report by the external laboratory related mostly to products for which these results were irrelevant as most of the samples tested were not in fact web rolls; secondly, the test report related to products which were not sufficiently identified as it could not be ascertained from the test report whether the paper tested was for sheet-fed printing or web-fed printing as the paper brand described in the report existed in both formats. Furthermore the test report provided no assurance that the sampled rolls indicated were indeed the ones that were tested.\n(25)\nIn response to the external laboratory's test report, the complainant provided the results of the testing performed by one of the Union producers on the same samples of web rolls that were allegedly tested by the external laboratory. This test showed different results. The complainant attributed the differences to possibly different test conditions and thus a potential non-compliance with the ISO 3783:2006 standard, i.e. the standard according to which resistance to picking set in recital (16) of the provisional Regulation should be measured.\n(26)\nAfter disclosing the definitive findings, the exporting producer questioned the Commission's objectivity in rejecting the test result of the external laboratory. It claimed that the testing was carried out blindly by the independent expert and in accordance with the relevant ISO standard. It provided an affidavit of its manager explaining the sourcing process of the samples used in the testing in order to prove the independence, correctness and representativeness of the testing.\n(27)\nFirstly, the objectivity of the external laboratory test report was never questioned by the Commission and in this regard it is irrelevant that the testing was carried out blindly. On the other hand, doubts were raised as to the assurances on the selection and origin of the samples tested and not on the test itself. The arguments of the exporting producer did not remove these doubts as these were not comprehensive and were unclear in several aspects, for example the inclusion of products other than web rolls were claimed to have been caused by administrative errors or were blamed on mistakes by the suppliers in providing possibly wrong samples.\n(28)\nSince both the source as well as the samples of the allegedly tested products were not clear and the results of the testing by the different parties were contradictory, it was considered that the submitted test report of the external laboratory acting on behalf of the exporting producer did not conclusively demonstrate that the resistance to picking test was not appropriate to distinguish between CFP suitable for use in web-fed printing on the one hand and CFP used in sheet-fed printing on the other hand. Consequently, the test report did not demonstrate that CFP used in web-fed printing had been arbitrarily excluded from the scope of the investigation.\n(29)\nAs regards the relevance of the resistance to picking as a distinguishing criterion for rolls suitable for web-fed printing, it is recalled that in the product definition the two product groups are distinguished from each other based on, among other things, the use of the products, i.e. whether the product is suitable for use in web-fed or sheet-fed printing as determined by the requirements of the presses on which they are used which is reflected in, inter alia, the characteristic of resistance to picking. Furthermore it is noted that resistance to picking is only one of the characteristics that distinguish CFP suitable for use in web-fed printing from CFP used in sheet fed printing; Recitals (16) and (18) of the provisional Regulation set out additional criteria which have not been contested by the exporting producer. The exporting producer claimed that humidity as defined in recital (18) of the provisional Regulation was not a distinct basic characteristic to distinguish products. During the investigation however differing claims in this regard were made by other parties. In any event, it was found that stiffness and resistance to picking are the most relevant factors.\n(30)\nIn its responding submission the complainant acknowledged that there might be rolls that do not fully meet all the criteria for resistance to picking set in the provisional Regulation which could still be used in web-fed printing. However, it sustained its view that pick resistance is the only test that is able to identify with certainty that a roll is indeed suitable for web-fed printing, i.e. if a roll meets the picking resistance criteria in recital (16) of the provisional Regulation, it is certainly a web roll.\n(31)\nIn support of the above claims concerning resistance to picking the exporting producer referred to arguments put forward by one of the complainant Union producers in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations in the USA in which the Union producer allegedly acknowledged that web rolls cannot be differentiated based on pick resistance test or by any other measurement.\n(32)\nThe complainant contested these statements of the exporting producer and claimed that contrary to what has been claimed, it follows from the proceedings in the USA that there is a clear dividing line distinguishing web rolls from CFP.\n(33)\nFirstly, it should be noted that the statements referred to by the exporting producer were presented in investigations under other jurisdictions and by different parties than the ones in the current proceeding and thus are not relevant. Secondly, the US authorities in the mentioned investigations concluded that there was a clear distinction between, on the one hand, CFP used in sheet-fed printing and, on the other hand, rolls suitable for use in web-fed printing. Cutter rolls were regarded as semi-finished products while rolls suitable for web fed printing were not considered as \u2018product concerned\u2019. The US authorities did not explicitly define web rolls in their definition of the product scope. For this reason, the criterion of resistance to picking was not relevant in the definition of the product scope in the mentioned investigations.\n(34)\nBased on the above comments, the technical characteristic \u2018resistance to picking\u2019 was confirmed as being a reliable characteristic to describe CFP suitable for use in web-fed printing.\n(35)\nThe comments put forward have however also revealed that there exist web rolls that can be used in web-fed printing even if they do not fully meet all the criteria of resistance to picking. For this reason it was considered necessary to further refine the definition of rolls suitable for for use in web-fed printing.\n(36)\nIn order to provide a further criterion to distinguish web rolls which do not fully meet all the criteria for resistance to picking, the complainant suggested that a roll which does not fully meet the picking resistance test but has an internal core size of less than 80 mm, should be considered as a web roll.\n(37)\nThe government of PRC and the exporting producer claimed that the addition of core size as a new element into the product definition constituted a revision of the definition of web rolls and thus the product concerned. It also claimed that the internal core size is not a suitable criteria as there exist web rolls with higher than 80 mm core size and cutter rolls with lower than 80 mm core size.\n(38)\nThe Commission endeavoured to further refine the definition of rolls suitable for use in web-fed printing and to give further clarification in order to distinguish even more clearly between the product concerned and other products, also with a view to minimizing the possibility of circumvention of the measures. The evidence submitted on the suitability of the core size as an alternative criterion in the definition however proved that this criterion would lead to the possible exclusion of the product concerned, i.e. cutter rolls with a core size of less than 80 mm from the measures. Therefore this criterion to define rolls suitable for use in web-fed printing was abandoned.\n(39)\nThe above is without prejudice to the reliability of the method according to which rolls suitable for use in web-fed printing have been excluded from the scope of the investigation as it was claimed by the Chinese group of exporting producers.\n(40)\nNo further comments were received concerning the exclusion of multi-ply paper from the product scope of the investigation.\n(41)\nBased on the above, recitals (14) to (26) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.2. Like product\n(42)\nSince no comments were received with regard to the conclusions outlined in recital (27) of the provisional Regulation, the provisional findings with regard to the like product are hereby confirmed.\n4. SAMPLING\n(43)\nIn the absence of any comments on sampling, recitals (28) to (30) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(44)\nThe four producers referred to in recital (29) of the provisional Regulation that were considered to be representative of the Union industry as defined in recital (77) of the provisional Regulation are further referred to as \u2018representative Union producers\u2019.\n5. DUMPING\n(45)\nOnly one Chinese cooperating group (APP, the exporting producer) submitted comments on dumping as a follow-up to the imposition of provisional measures.\n5.1. Market economy treatment (MET)\n(46)\nWith respect to criterion 1, APP alleged that the Commission's arguments relied solely on the alleged impossibility of verifying payment. It was consequently argued that the methods used by the party are in line with International Accounting Standards (\u2018IAS\u2019).\n(47)\nThis had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that the investigation revealed that it was not possible to establish the existence of payments with respect to transfer of companies\u2019 shares and cost of major raw material inputs. As to the accounting methods used it is noted that the methods followed were not in line with IAS (offsetting and related party disclosures).\n(48)\nWith respect to criteria 1 and 2, APP submitted that the Commission had dismissed the opinion of a well-known firm of accountancy advisors in a summary fashion on the grounds that it was irrelevant. Such dismissal would amount to an inadmissible rejection of an independent witness statement, thereby violating APP's right to a fair process. APP argued that its accounting advisors found the Commission's analysis on accounting procedures and principles flawed while some of the points that the Commission identified were, according to those advisors, not material.\n(49)\nAPP allegations were not backed by any evidence and had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that the accountancy advisors referred to in the recital above do not appear to dispute the actual facts established in this investigation but rather attempted to present an analysis of some of the basic accounting principles, notably the prudence principle, the accrual principle, the principle of faithful representation and the materiality principle. It should be noted that those accountancy advisors were not present during the on-spot verification carried out by the Commission in the PRC in the course of which the Commission got first-hand knowledge about APP's actual practices relevant for the MET assessment. The Commission has explained in detail in writing to the party the deficiencies spotted and their links with the IAS accounting principles. The interpretation of these principles given by the accounting firm was not sufficiently substantiated or supported by evidence and could also not be reconciled with the actual facts established. Indeed, the evidence on file confirmed that the aforesaid accounting principles were not respected.\n(50)\nAPP submitted that its fundamental rights were breached. It was argued that the Commission imposed an excessive burden of proof on the party when investigating MET.\n(51)\nThis claim had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that the Commission has informed APP fully on the type of information requested with respect to MET and endeavoured to verify at every stage of the proceeding any information provided by the party. The fact that the information provided by the party does not confirm the compliance with IAS of its accounting methods does not imply the existence of an excessive burden of proof. MET is an exception to the normal regime for companies located in non-market economy countries and parties in such cases are simply requested to show that they complied with the rules set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, failure to one criterion being enough to justify the refusal for granting MET. In this particular proceeding the investigation established that APP was not able to show that it complied with the requirements of Criterion 2.\n(52)\nAPP also argued that there was a lack of objectivity in the MET assessment. It submitted that the MET decision was possibly influenced by the Commission's knowledge about the impact of the MET rejection on the group's dumping margin.\n(53)\nMoreover, these claims are unsubstantiated and thus had to be rejected. There is no indication that the MET decision was influenced by the Commission's knowledge about the impact of the MET rejection on the group's dumping margin. The MET analysis is a technical analysis of the fulfilment of the five clear criteria set out under Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and the MET analysis presented by the Commission was carried out on the basis of the MET criteria and without considering the impact of the outcome of that analysis on the exporting producer's potential dumping margin. In this respect it is recalled that the scheduling of the various segments of the on-spot verifications and the difference in the calendars followed (MET claim forms, anti-dumping questionnaires, analogue country data, export sales via related Union parties) together with the periods within which parties filed replies and subsequent amendments to their submissions demonstrates that the Commission was not able to establish any effect of a MET decision on the party's potential dumping at the time of MET disclosure. Finally, APP kept up to a late stage submitting new information and replacing information already on file thus it cannot be upheld that the Commission could be able to compute dumping margins on the basis of information that it did not have.\n(54)\nAPP also argued that the Commission did not need to verify in full the party's replies in order to have a detailed picture of the data included in the party's reply to the anti-dumping questionnaire and that suspicions exists that the Commission had all the necessary data in order to calculate a dumping margin.\n(55)\nThis claim had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that in line with the provisions of Article 16 of the basic Regulation, the Commission verified all the information submitted by interested parties in order to arrive at a representative finding. The findings of the investigation were based on verified facts during a period of time that spread across four months and not on mere suspicions or any type of unverified statements or allegations.\n(56)\nAPP submitted that the MET criteria should be read in light of their objective to ensure that prices are the result of normal market forces. In this respect it is noted that the purpose of the MET criteria is clearly set out under Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation and the Commission applied with respect to APP these clearly set out rules when analyzing its MET claim.\n(57)\nAPP also claimed that the MET assessment had shortcomings, given that the verification of the reply to the anti-dumping questionnaire had established a \u2018reliable\u2019 cost of production, while the MET assessment points to a lack of ability to establish payments for inputs.\n(58)\nThis interpretation of the findings has to be rejected as erroneous. It is recalled that the basic Regulation explicitly conditions the granting of MET and thus the reliability and use of an exporting producer's own price and cost data for the purpose of establishing normal value on the company successfully showing that it meets the requirements set out in Article 2(7)(c). If the aforementioned claim by APP were to be accepted it would simply \u2018by-pass\u2019 the findings of the MET assessment and the provisions of Article 2(7)(c) by using other type of information collected for other purposes. This is not in conformity with the provisions of the basic Regulation.\n(59)\nIt is recalled that for APP two out of the four related exporting producers were found to produce only the multi-ply paperboard. Account taken of the fact that multi-ply paper board is excluded from the product scope as confirmed in recitals (40) and (41) above, it is concluded that the MET findings with respect to the two related exporting producers that produce only multi-ply paperboard within the APP group are not relevant for this proceeding.\n(60)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning MET, recitals (31) to (51) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.2. Individual treatment (IT)\n(61)\nIn the absence of any comments on IT, recitals (52) to (55) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.3. Normal value\n5.3.1. Analogue country\n(62)\nNo party disputed the selection of theUSA as an analogue country for the definitive determination.\n(63)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the selection of the analogue country, recitals (56) to (63) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.3.2. Determination of normal value\n(64)\nIt is recalled that the normal value was calculated on the basis of the data provided by the sole cooperating producer in the analogue country (i.e. USA). Thus, normal value was established on the basis of prices of domestic sales of one US producer of the like product produced in the USA. During the IP this producer produced and sold in the US market the great majority of the types of the like product.\n(65)\nAPP submitted that the Commission did not provide necessary information in relation to the normal value in the analogue country, such as comparability of the products, representativeness, cost structure, fair comparison mechanics and adjustments.\n(66)\nThese claims had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that, as explained under recital (9) above, the Commission provided to the party all relevant information concerning the data used in order to calculate normal value that could be released without infringing the provisions of Article 19 of the basic Regulation, i.e. assuring at the same time that any confidential data provided by the sole US producer is treated as such and is not disclosed to other parties. The information provided to the exporting producer was meaningful and offered it the possibility to understand the methodology used in line with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regulation.\n(67)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals (64) to (67) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.4. Export price\n(68)\nAPP argued that the export sales of one of its companies cooperating with the investigation should not have been disregarded from the dumping margin calculation even if there are no matching products. It was also argued that the export quantities of this company were not small but substantial.\n(69)\nWith respect to these claims it is noted that the sales values of the transactions in question were considered for the establishment of the export prices but no normal value for these transactions could be established since there were no comparable product types in the analogue country and thus no comparison could be made. With respect to the export quantities of this particular company it is noted that they represented only a minor part of the total APP export sales and their price levels appeared to be in line with the overall APP export sales price levels. Finally, it should be pointed out that the great majority of export transactions were used for the purposes of determining whether or not the exports were dumped, i.e. those offering an absolute match to normal value established in the analogue country. Thus, APP claims with respect to export price had to be rejected as they cannot put into question the finding of injurious dumping given that the basis for the calculation is clearly representative. The fact, that a matching normal value in the analogue country does not necessarily exist for each and every export transaction is inherent to such a finding.\n(70)\nAPP also submitted that the aforesaid export sales should have been used in the dumping margin calculations since the investigating authority has the possibility to identify similar product types used for the normal value calculation, adjust the export price to the normal value or construct a normal value to compare with the aforesaid export sales.\n(71)\nThese claims had to be rejected as there were no product types in the analogue country that had been close enough to those exported to cover the differences by an adjustment for differences in physical characteristics. Equally, it was not possible to construct normal value for such product types. Neither similar product types in other normal value transactions were identifiable, nor any basis was available to make adjustments or otherwise construct normal value using selling, general administrative expenses and profit assumptions.\n(72)\nAPP requested clarifications with respect to the reasonable profit margin used for constructing export price in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.\n(73)\nIn this respect it is noted that the Commission revisited this point following new developments. It is recalled that as explained in recital (71) of the provisional Regulation a reasonable profit rate, much lower than the target profit for the Union industry was used. The Commission reviewed the available data and decreased the profit margin rate used for constructing export price to a rate equal to the weighted average rate reported by a series of unrelated Union importers of the product concerned, i.e. 4,5 %.\n(74)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals (68) to (71) of the provisional Regulation, as modified above, are hereby confirmed.\n5.5. Comparison\n(75)\nAPP claimed to be unable to understand the basis of calculations of certain allowances with respect to normal value (namely the type of adjustments and their impact on the normal value) and export price (namely the methodology used and calculations made in order to arrive at several ratios).\n(76)\nWith respect to normal value adjustments, as explained under recitals (9) and (66) above, the Commission provided to APP all the relevant data that could be provided, account taken of the provisions on confidentiality in the basic Regulation. Furthermore, the Commission checked with the cooperating party in the analogue country whether further information relating to adjustments could be disclosed in order to improve transparency. Having obtained the analogue country producer's agreement, more detailed information was indeed provided to APP following provisional disclosure, further elaborating on the normal value adjustments.\n(77)\nWith respect to export price adjustments it is noted that APP received full disclosure. Then, following APP's request, clarifications were provided to APP following provisional disclosure further elaborating on the export price adjustments.\n(78)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals (72) and (73) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.6. Dumping margin\n(79)\nNo pertinent comments with respect to the dumping margin were submitted. In the absence of any other comments, recital (74) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n(80)\nTaking into account the revised profit margin rate used for constructing export price for APP and on the basis of the methodology set out in recitals (31) to (73) of the provisional Regulation, the definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:\nExporting producer\nDumping margin\nGold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province, PRC\n43,5 %\nGold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, PRC\n43,5 %\nShangdong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC\n63 %\nShouguang Chenming Art Paper Co., Ltd, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC\n63 %\n(81)\nOn the basis of the facts stated in recital (76) of the provisional Regulation, the country-wide definitive dumping margin for the PRC was established using the definitive dumping margin established for the cooperating companies with the highest individual duty rate, i.e. 63 %. In the absence of any other comments, recital (76) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n6. UNION PRODUCERS\n(82)\nThe government of PRC commented that one of the representative producers was allegedly related to a Chinese company and thus should be excluded from the definition of the Union industry. The investigation however revealed that the products produced by the Chinese company referred to are not product concerned. Therefore the relationship does not have any impact on the injury analysis nor on the inclusion of this Union producer in the definition of Union industry.\n(83)\nIn the absence of further comments on Union production, recitals (77) to (79) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n7. INJURY\n7.1. Union consumption\n(84)\nIn the absence of comments on Union consumption, recitals (80) to (82) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n7.2. Imports into the Union from the PRC\n(85)\nIn the absence of comments on the level of imports into the Union from the PRC, recitals (83) to (84) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n7.2.1. Price undercutting\n(86)\nTo ensure that the dumping and undercutting and underselling calculations follow a coherent approach, and for the reasons set out in recitals (68) to (71), the undercutting calculation has been revised to exclude the export sales of a company within the group of one cooperating exporting producer.\n(87)\nBased on the modified dataset used for the calculation, and also due to a minor calculation correction, the rate of price undercutting in recital (87) was slightly revised. The dumped imports undercut the Union producers\u2019 sales prices on average by 7,6 % in the IP.\n7.3. Economic situation of the Union industry and the representative Union producers\n7.3.1. Preliminary remarks\n(88)\nOne of the coooperating Chinese exporting producers (APP) claimed that the injury analysis should be done at the level of a properly defined Union industry that should be limited to Union producers that support the complaint and cooperate with the investigation. That producer suggests that the conclusions concerning material injury would be different, were some indicators such as market share established at the level of such \u2018properly defined\u2019 Union industry. The government of PRC commented that the injury analysis failed to analyze all injury indicators for the complainant and for the Union industry as a whole in a coherent and comprehensive fashion.\n(89)\nFirstly it is noted that the statements of that producer seem to have been drawn on the basis of indicators calculated from different datasets and information than those established during the investigation and presented below and in the provisional Regulation. Consequently, these conclusions are factually wrong and are thus irrelevant.\n(90)\nSecondly, it is the Commission's practice to evaluate macroeconomic factors for the indication of the injury suffered at the level of the Union industry as a whole, as it was explained in recital (89) of the provisional Regulation. In the present investigation, the Union industry was defined at the level of Union producers accounting for the total Union production (recital (77) of the provisional Regulation), regardless of whether producers supported the complaint or have been cooperating in the investigation. Given this broad definition, the exporting producer claims that Union industry has not been defined \u2018properly\u2019 is rejected.\n(91)\nMicroeconomic factors are analyzed at the level of the representative Union producers, regardless of whether these support the complaint or not. The representative producers covered 58 % of the Union production. None of the other Union producers came forward claiming that the Commission's conclusions on microeconomic factors would be unreliable or not substantiated. Therefore there are no reasons to put into question the findings established based on the information provided by the representative Union producers only.\n(92)\nFurther comments on the level of cooperation by one of the representative Union producers were received.\n(93)\nIt was claimed that one of the representative Union producers cooperated only partially as it was allegedly related to another producer that did not cooperate in the investigation. The companies were alleged to be related as a consequence of transitional agreements concluded at the time of the acquisition by the cooperating Union producer of the CFP business segment of the other producer It was alleged that through these transitional agreements the cooperating Union producer controls some of the mills which remained in the ownership of the partially acquired producer. To support its claim the exporting producer made reference to the Commission Decision (5) examining at the time of the acquisition whether the transaction should be considered as an acquisition within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (6).\n(94)\nThis claim was already addressed in recital (91) of the provisional Regulation. It is recalled that the transitional agreements referred to did not show any relationship between the companies that would be extending beyond a normal business relationship between a buyer and a seller. In particular, the terms of the transitional agreements aim to administer the coated paper sales for a transitional period and according to these terms the Union producer only has functions comparable to a sales agent during the transitional period. Furthermore, in its consolidated audited accounts and in its reply to the questionnaire it reported commission income while acting as an agent for the mills concerned; no ownership and therefore no costs were recognized for these mills by the Union producer.\n(95)\nAccording to the Commission Decision referred to above, the transaction between the companies was considered as an acquisition by the Union producer of part of the other companies\u2019 business, not the take-over of the company as such. The Decision does not suggest that the companies should be considered as one entity after the acquisition; in particular, there is no joint venture between the companies. It is also noted that the geographical scope examined in the above decision is EEA - wide and not EU wide. To note is also that in the Decision the Commission did not analyze the relationship between the companies in question within the meaning of Article 143 of the IPCCC (7).\n(96)\nIn this regard, there are consequently no grounds to re-consider the provisional conclusions, i.e. that the two companies are not related in the sense of Article 143 of the IPCCC and that the Union producer in question cooperated fully with the investigation.\n(97)\nThe exporting producer also claimed that each affiliated company of the Union producers should have filled in a separate questionnaire reply as they were separate legal entities. The exporting producer claimed discrimination as it was requested to provide a separate MET claim for each entity within the group.\n(98)\nIt is noted that in case of MET claims, a group of companies has the burden of proof of showing that all companies in the group fulfill the MET-criteria as the determination of whether or not MET should be granted is specific to the group. In the case of the questionnaires for Union producers, the purpose is to determine whether material injury to the Union industry (as a whole) exists during the IP. The claim of discrimination disregards the clear difference between the objectives of an injury investigation and a MET determination.\n(99)\nIn any event, in the case of the Union producer in question it was considered that one questionnaire reply would be sufficient for a meaningful reply and analysis of the injury aspects. In particular, the reply provided a detailed breakdown of information at individual paper mill level and all the necessary data relating to all of the related producers/sellers of the like product could be verified during the verification visits.\n(100)\nIn a subsequent submission the exporting producer also claimed that the same company failed to fully cooperate as it filed its questionnaire reply on behalf of a non-existing entity and that the audited accounts of the company do not reflect the data provided in its questionnaire reply. The conclusions in the preceding recital are relevant also in this regard.\n(101)\nTherefore the conclusions in recital (88) to (91) remain unaffected.\n7.3.2. Data relating to the Union industry (macroeconomic indicators)\n(102)\nThe government of PRC argued that the macro-economic data used for the analysis is incomplete and inaccurate thus cannot be used as a positive evidence of material injury.\n(103)\nThe on-spot verification at the complainant confirmed that the data used to establish macroeconomic indicators are directly collected from Union producers covering around 98 % of the total Union production and are sufficiently detailed to identify information about the product concerned. Assumption and / or estimations used were made on a reasonable and justifiable basis, e.g. cutter rolls were not taken into account because of their clearly insignificant volumes as witnessed in their proportion in the total sales volume of the representative Union producers. Therefore this claim had to be rejected.\n(104)\nThe exporting producer claimed that the market share of the Union producers should also include imports from Switzerland as these come from a mill owned by one of the representative Union producer.\n(105)\nThe geographical scope of anti-dumping investigations is the European Union. Therefore this claim had to be rejected.\n(106)\nIt was also claimed that the complainant's market share increased remarkably during the period considered.\n(107)\nMarket share is a macro indicator analyzed at the level of the whole Union industry and not at the level of the complainant. Secondly, the statement concerning the complainant's market share is factually erroneous.\n(108)\nIn the absence of any further comments in this regard, the provisional findings set out in recitals (92) to (98) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n7.3.3. Data relating to the representative Union producers (microeconomic indicators)\n(109)\nThe exporting producer commented that the injury analysis is flawed due to the fact that information about the paper mills that were acquired by the Union producer referred to in recital (93) was not included in the analysis of the microeconomic indicators for the years 2006-2008.\n(110)\nFollowing the arguments presented by this party the microeconomic indicators were adjusted to present a fully comparable trend over the years by excluding information about the acquired mills for all years under examination.\n(111)\nFollowing the modified scope of the data used for the analysis of the economic situation of the representative Union producers, as explained in the previous recital, the microeconomic indicators are definitively established as follows:\n7.3.3.1. Average unit prices of the representative Union producers\n(112)\nDespite the slightly modified figures, the basic trends and the findings in recital (99) in the provisional Regulation concluding that prices of coated fine paper remained stable over the years are confirmed.\nTable 5\nPrices of the Union producers\nPrices of the Union producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nAverage price (EUR/tonne)\n692\n717\n691\n699\nIndex\n100\n104\n100\n101\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies.\n7.3.3.2. Stocks\n(113)\nStocks represented around 10 % of the production volume in the IP. The representative Union producers increased their stock levels by 10 % during the period considered, in particular between 2006 and 2007 and later between 2008 and the IP. Notably, this coincided with the surge in the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC.\nTable 6\nStocks\nStocks\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nStocks (tonnes)\n278 265\n298 547\n296 387\n306 588\nIndex\n100\n107\n107\n110\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies.\n7.3.3.3. Employment, wages and productivity\nTable 7\nEmployment\nEmployment\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nEmployment - full-time equivalent (FTE)\n7 756\n7 487\n7 207\n6 197\nIndex\n100\n97\n93\n80\nLabour cost (EUR/FTE)\n54 053\n54 948\n57 026\n58 485\nIndex\n100\n102\n105\n108\nProductivity (unit/FTE)\n453\n478\n486\n484\nIndex\n100\n106\n107\n107\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies.\n(114)\nDue to the paper mill closures and consolidation of the representative Union producers, the number of employees was reduced substantially by 20 % (almost 1 600 jobs) during the period considered. Efficiency gains have been achieved by raising and maintaining a high output per employee even at a time of significant layoffs. Labour costs increased steadily, totalling an 8 % increase over the period considered.\n(115)\nThe conclusions presented in recital (102) of the provisional Regulation are thus further supported by the slightly modified figures.\n7.3.3.4. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investment\nTable 8\nProfitability\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nProfitability\n-1,08 %\n-0,20 %\n-2,49 %\n2,88 %\nChange (100=2006)\n+0,88 %\n-1,41 %\n+3,95 %\nCash flow (EUR thousand)\n260 047\n211 036\n172 570\n336 753\nIndex\n100\n81\n66\n129\nInvestments (EUR thousand)\n151 900\n151 027\n127 845\n87 875\nIndex\n100\n99\n84\n58\nReturn on investments\n-0,73 %\n-0,54 %\n-2,73 %\n0,39 %\nChange (100=2006)\n+0,19 %\n-2,00 %\n+1,12 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies.\n(116)\nThe profitability rate throughout the period considered was corrected to reflect more accurately the profitability level. However, the basic trend concerning profitability remains unaffected by the change. The representative Union producers incurred losses in the years 2006 to 2008 and the financial situation only turned positive in 2009 when the world price of pulp, the main raw material exceptionally decreased significantly as a result of the economic downturn. The drop in the price of pulp (- 19 %) was considered an abnormally large drop that directly contributed to the improved financial situation in the IP. It is to be noted that since the IP, pulp prices have returned to their pre-IP levels.\n(117)\nSubject to the slight modification of the figures, the findings concerning cash flow, investment and return on investment presented in recital (104) and (105) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(118)\nThe exporting producer claimed that the improvement of profitability should not be considered as a limited instance based on an exceptional drop of raw material costs as explained in recital (107) of the provisional Regulation. The drop in costs benefited both: all local as well as Chinese producers, not only the complainant. Therefore the breakthrough in profitability was not exclusively based on the drop in costs but was rather the result of a change in the pricing behaviour of the complainant.\n(119)\nFurthermore the exporting producer claimed that the profitability is driven by CFP prices, rather than the price of pulp. It was found, however, that when pulp prices sharply fell in 2009, CFP prices remained stable and profits rose as a consequence. Therefore given that prices remained stable, no correlation can be made between prices and profitability in this specific time period.\n(120)\nThe profitability rate is an indicator that is analysed at the level of the representative Union producers and not at the level of the complainant, as suggested by the party. The analysis of information gathered showed a direct link between the exceptional fall in pulp prices, the main raw material and the increased profitability; whereby stable prices of the finished products indeed played a role in the improvement of profitability. While this was probably the case for other producers on the market as well, this does not affect the conclusion that this temporary improvement of profitability is due to the exceptional drop in raw material prices in the IP.\n7.3.3.5. Ability to raise capital\n(121)\nThe findings concerning the representative producers\u2019 ability to raise capital presented in recital (106) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n7.4. Conclusion on injury\n(122)\nOne exporting producer and the government of PRC claimed that there was no positive evidence that the complaining Union producers suffered material injury. On the contrary, the complainants presented overall stable economic results and increased profitability in the IP.\n(123)\nFirst of all, the state of the Union industry is analysed at the level of the representative Union producers and not at the level of complainants as suggested by the parties.\n(124)\nSecondly, as already pointed out in recitals (89) and (107) above, the conclusions of these parties seem to have been drawn from indicators calculated on the basis of different datasets and information than that which was established during the investigation and presented above and in the provisional Regulation. Consequently, these conclusions are factually wrong. Furthermore, the parties\u2019 analysis was not consistent in the use of two different datasets for macro and micro indicators.\n(125)\nIt was further claimed that the improvement of profitability should be regarded also as a consequence of the restructuring efforts of the industry including reduction of production, employment and increased productivity. In this case, the latter factors cannot be deemed to be the sole indicators of injury, but all injury indicators should be looked at together.\n(126)\nArticle 3(5) of the basic Regulation lists the economic factors and indices to be evaluated in the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry. Article 3(5) explicitly states that the list of factors is not exhaustive, nor can any one or more of these factors necessarily give decisive guidance. Thus, while indicators have to be assessed individually, conclusions should be reached through the analysis of all factors.\n(127)\nOverall, the claims of the exporting producer and the government of China as presented above do not affect the conclusion reached at the provisional stage which is therefore hereby confirmed, i.e. that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(128)\nParties also commented repeatedly on the possible threat of further material injury in view of the huge capacity build-up by Chinese producers supported by State policies and subsidies. The scope of the investigation was the existence of material injury and not the threat of further material injury. Therefore these comments could not affect the findings and had to be disregarded.\n(129)\nBased on the above, the provisional findings set out in recitals (107) to (111) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n8. CAUSALITY\n(130)\nThe Commission received several comments on the provisional findings concerning the causal link between dumping and injury.\n8.1. Effect of the dumped imports\n(131)\nProvisional findings concerning the effect of dumped imports were contested by several parties. The main argument brought forward was that Chinese imports did not have significant impact in terms of volume and prices. It was argued that there was no surge of Chinese imports but rather these grew gradually over the years and therefore their impact was quite limited which should not be exaggerated for the purpose of the injury determination. It was further argued that Chinese prices, even if they were below Union prices, did not have any impact on the relatively stable prices of the Union industry. One of the cooperating Chinese exporting producers questioned the Commission's finding that there would be price suppression caused by Chinese prices. It pointed out that in 2009 when the Chinese prices declined further, the Union industry's prices not only recorded an increase but in fact allowed the Union industry to make profits.\n(132)\nThe evolution of Chinese imports was analyzed in detail in recitals (84) and (114) of the provisional Regulation. It was established that imports almost tripled over the period considered, especially in the years from 2006 to 2007 (+ 118 %) and from 2008 to the IP (+ 81 %). The increase in the volume therefore cannot be regarded as insignificant.\n(133)\nIn terms of prices Chinese imports undercut the prices of the representative Union producers by 7,6 % which is considered significant in a market where price transparency is high. As depicted in recital (112) above, indeed prices of the representative Union producers were stable over the period considered, with an exceptional increase in 2007, the year where Chinese exports did not grow. In 2009 the Union producers could keep their prices stable at the expense of losing further market share and their profitability derived from the combination of these stable prices and the decreased cost of raw material.\n(134)\nThe exporting producer claimed that CFP imports from PRC do not have an impact on the prices of the Union industry as these are not comparable to the CFP manufactured and sold by the representative Union producers as only 10 % of the sales of the representative Union producers were compared in the determination of the undercutting and non-injurious price level. It is noted that these determinations are made on the basis of fully comparable products that are directly matching in all characteristics so as to ensure a fair comparison. However, CFP produced by the Chinese and Union producers in general are comparable products as concluded in recital (42) and thus are competing with each other directly on the Union market.\n(135)\nIt was furthermore alleged that the finding that the CFP market is a commodity-market characterized by a high degree of transparency is incorrect as the Union producers sell around half of their products directly to end users. In contrast to this claim the representative Union producers sold the majority of their products through merchants either directly or indirectly (so called \u2018indent sales\u2019 when products are directly shipped to the customer but ordering and invoicing process goes through merchants). Indeed merchants play a crucial role in both stocking products and providing price transparency to the market.\n(136)\nBased on the above, the provisional findings set out in recitals (113) to (117) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n8.2. Effect of other factors\n8.2.1. Development of consumption on the Union market and the economic crisis\n(137)\nOne of the cooperating Chinese exporting producers and the government of PRC claimed that the decrease in Union production was the consequence of the global financial crisis and the sharp decline in consumption on the Union market, as witnessed by the negative trends shown by the Union producers\u2019 domestic sales, capacity utilization, employment and stock level, and should not be attributed to Chinese imports.\n(138)\nTo support its claim, the government of PRC quoted a Manifesto for Competitiveness and Employment launched by the paper and pulp industry in June 2009 (\u2018Manifesto\u2019). This document covers the whole paper and pulp industries sectors and serves a general policy purpose. On the basis of the information included in this document, no separate conclusions could be drawn for the production and sales of the product concerned. It is therefore not possible to conclude whether the statements or findings of the Manifesto in fact apply one-to-one to the product concerned. Since, in addition, the investigation did not bring to light a strong link between the financial crisis and the material injury suffered by the Union industry, this argument had to be rejected.\n8.2.2. Prices of raw materials\n(139)\nNo new arguments were brought forward to reconsider the conclusions reached in recital (120) to (122) of the provisional Regulation and in recital (118) of this Regulation.\n8.2.3. Export performance of the representative Union producers\n(140)\nThe revision of the microeconomic indicator as explained in recital (110) impacted the analysis of export performance of the representative Union producers to the extent that the decrease of their export sales in the period considered was 16 %. Export sales to unrelated parties made by these companies represented 26 % of their total sales.\n(141)\nContrary to the claim of one exporting producer, the evolution of export of the product concerned by the representative Union producers was addressed in the provisional Regulation in recitals (123) to (124). The above revision does not affect these conclusions reached at the provisional stage.\n(142)\nThe arguments and evidence brought forward concerning the effect of export performance of the Union industry thus did not cause a change in the conclusions reached at the provisional stage.\n8.2.4. Imports from other third countries\n(143)\nArguments brought forward about the effect of imports from other third countries were already addressed in recitals (125) to (127) of the provisional Regulation.\n8.2.5. Structural overcapacity\n(144)\nIt was claimed that injury suffered by the Union producers is caused by structural overcapacity. This factor was already analysed in recital (128) of the provisional Regulation.\n(145)\nThe main argument brought forward in this respect is that restructuring efforts of the Union industry were completed in 2009 by the consolidation of two large producers that resulted in the immediate improvement of the situation of the Union industry. As described in recital (93) of the provisional Regulation, restructuring efforts took place since 2000 up until the IP. The positive effect of the mentioned consolidation should have been reflected in the improvement of capacity utilisation and at least in stable sales volume but both these indicators deteriorated in the IP. On the other hand, it had been established that the improved profitability of the Union industry in the IP was caused primarily and directly by the exceptional one-off drop in pulp prices. Therefore the conclusions reached in recital (128) of the provisional Regulation that the restructuring efforts of the industry were undermined by the dumped imports are maintained.\n8.3. Conclusion on causation\n(146)\nBased on the above, the provisional findings as set out in recitals (129) to (132) of the provisional Regulation that the dumped imports from the PRC caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation are maintained. The provisional findings about the effect of the other known factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry were also confirmed: these factors are not such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n9. UNION INTEREST\n9.1. Union industry\n(147)\nNo further comments or information was received regarding the interest of the Union producers and importers and traders. Therefore the provisional findings in recitals (134) to (138) of the provisional Regulation on the interest of these groups are hereby confirmed.\n9.2. Importers and traders\n(148)\nNo further comments or information was received regarding the interest of importers and traders. Therefore the provisional findings in recitals (139) to (143) of the provisional Regulation on the interest of these groups are hereby confirmed.\n9.3. Users\n(149)\nThree additional printers and an association of European printers and publishers came forward after the publication of provisional measures. They claimed that the measures would have negative effects on the downstream industries as price increases could lead to the relocation of the printing industry leading to increased imports of downstream printed matter. The claim was supported by the fact that imports of printed matter from PRC increased rapidly in recent years and apparently took a considerable market share within European consumption for all printed matter.\n(150)\nIt was also claimed that measures would cause a shortage of supply on the market and longer delivery times for users.\n(151)\nMost of these claims were not company specific and similar to claims already made at the provisional stage of the investigation and addressed in recitals (146) and (150) of the provisional Regulation. It is recalled that the cooperation of printers was limited and on the basis of the limited quantitative information received it was concluded that because of their profitability level and the share of CFP in their costs, printers are indeed sensitive to price increases. However, most printers had no or very limited direct purchases of Chinese paper in the IP and the amount of Chinese paper used by printers is in general low therefore the direct impact of the duty would be negligible. Most printers also stated that because of their need for short delivery times, the share of supplies directly from third countries would remain limited.\n(152)\nAs regards the claims concerning downstream printed matter from PRC it should be noted that the import statistics of printed matter cover a wide range of products that include final printed matter that is not printed on coated fine paper. Based on the information available it could not be assessed what part of the products imported from PRC is printed on the product concerned and what is printed on other types of paper. However, from information submitted it is known that printed matter originating in PRC is mostly comprised of some specific categories of books, children's books, calendars, packaging and greeting cards. Products that are more \u2018time sensitive\u2019 such as weekly/monthly magazines and other newsprint are less susceptible to being imported from PRC because of the time needed for transportation. While the printing of some printed products may be more susceptible to relocation, on the other hand there exist product types for which proximity and service are crucial and therefore would not be affected by foreign competition. Furthermore, even though paper is an important cost element for the printing industry, it is also a labour-intensive industry and thus labour costs may be a more significant driver in relocation trends. In summary, it cannot be excluded that imports of printed products that are printed on CFP will increase but it is not possible to estimate with any accuracy what the level of increase might be and how far this would play a role in the competitiveness of printing producers and therefore what direct impact price increases might have on the downstream Union printing industry.\n(153)\nFrom information submitted, it is also known that the printing industry suffers from structural overcapacity that leads to the continuing restructuring of the sector. One of the driving forces towards the restructuring was also the consolidation of the paper manufacturers within the value chain. Any difficulty of the printing industry to increase prices is considered to be rather largely due to this structural overcapacity within the printing industry itself.\n(154)\nThe interested parties claiming possible shortages of supply did not quantify or give an estimate of the possible shortages. The claims in any case do not seem to be supported by the capacity utilization rate of the Union producers that was at 83 % in the IP leaving around one million tonnes of free capacity. On this basis, it is unlikely that shortages would occur.\n9.4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(155)\nIn view of the above, the provisional findings concerning Union interest are confirmed, i.e. there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of definitive measures on imports of CFP originating in the PRC.\n10. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n10.1. Injury elimination level\n(156)\nOne group of Chinese exporting producers requested further details for the method used to calculate the target profit of 8 % used for the calculation of the non-injurious price. It referred to the complaint in which the target profit suggested was lower.\n(157)\nThe complainant on the other hand requested that the target profit should be set at minimum 10 %, basing its arguments on the expected profit margin used by independent rating agencies in their classification methodology and the profitability achieved by a producer active in another paper production segment that is not affected by Chinese imports.\n(158)\nIt should be clarified that the target profit as suggested in the complaint was examined based on the questionnaire replies and verification visits to the representative Union producers. More specifically, the cost of investment in machinery was considered. The target profit set on this latter basis was found to reflect the high up-front investment needs and risk involved in this capital-intensive industry in the absence of dumped and/or subsidised imports. Therefore a target profit of 8 % is considered as the level that the industry could obtain in the absence of dumped imports. As stated in recital (86), to ensure that the dumping and undercutting and underselling calculations follow a coherent approach and for the reasons set out in recitals (68) to (71), the calculation of the injury elimination level has been revised to exclude the export sales of a company within the group of the cooperating Chinese exporting producers.\n(159)\nIn all other aspects recitals (153) to (161) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n10.2. Definitive measures\n(160)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of coated fine paper originating in the PRC at the level of the lower of the dumping and injury margins found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule. In this case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the injury found.\n(161)\nIt is noted that an anti-subsidy investigation was carried out in parallel with the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of coated fine paper originating in the PRC. Since, pursuant to Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation and Article 24(1), second subparagraph of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (8) (\u2018the basic anti-subsidy Regulation\u2019), no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with one and the same situation arising from dumping or from export subsidisation, it was considered necessary to determine whether, and to what extent, the subsidy amounts and the dumping margins arise from the same situation.\n(162)\nAs concerns the subsidy schemes that constituted export subsidies within the meaning of Article 4(4)(a) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, the definitive dumping margin established for two Chinese exporting producers are partly due (i.e. 0,05 %) to the existence of countervailable export subsidies. With respect to other subsidy schemes, in view of the use of the lesser duty rule in this case and the amount of subsidisation found in the anti-subsidy investigation carried out in parallel, it was not considered necessary to further examine whether and to what degree the same subsidies are being offset twice when anti-dumping and countervailing duties are simultaneously imposed on the same imported product.\n(163)\nAs concerns the country-wide definitive dumping and subsidy levels it is recalled that they were established using the definitive dumping margin and the definitive subsidy margin established for the cooperating Chinese exporting producers with the highest individual duty rates i.e. 63 % for the definitive dumping margin and 16 % for the definitive subsidy margin.\n(164)\nIt is recalled that the same injury elimination level applies for both the anti-dumping and the anti-subsidy investigations. In this respect it is noted that the injury elimination level is lower than the definitive dumping margins but higher than the definitive subsidy margins. It is thus considered appropriate to impose a definitive countervailing duty at the level of the established definitive subsidy margins and then impose a definitive anti-dumping duty up to the relevant injury elimination level.\n(165)\nOn the basis of the above, and taking into account the findings set out in Council Regulation (EU) No 452/2011 of 6 May 2011 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of coated fine paper originating in the People's Republic of China (9) and in light of Article 14 paragraph 1 last sentence of the basic Regulation that duty will not be imposed to the extent necessary to comply with the rule laid down in that sentence the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty for the PRC and the rate at which such duties will be imposed are set as follows:\nCompany\nTotal subsidy margin\nOut of which export subsidy\nDumping margin\nInjury margin\nDefinitive CVD duty rate\nDefinitive AD duty rate\nDefinitive AD duty rate to be imposed\nGold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province, PRC; Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, PRC\n12 %\n0,05 %\n43,5 %\n20 %\n12 %\n20 %\n8 %\nShangdong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC; Shouguang Chenming Art Paper Co., Ltd, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC\n4 %\n0 %\n63 %\n39,1 %\n4 %\n39,1 %\n35,1 %\nAll other companies\n12 %\n0,05 %\n63 %\n39,1 %\n12 %\n39,1 %\n27,1 %\n11. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY\n(166)\nIn view of the magnitude of the dumping margin found and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, and taking into account that no provisional measures were imposed in the parallel anti-subsidy investigation, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by the provisional Regulation should be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the provisional duty imposed.\n(167)\nOne of the cooperating Chinese exporting producers claimed that the definitive collection of the provisional duty at the rates set out in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1042/2010 would be contrary to Article 10 paragraph 3 second sentence of the basic Regulation. However, as clarified in this Regulation, and in particular in Article 1 paragraph 2 thereof, the definitive duty imposed by this Regulation is actually higher than the provisional duty which has been imposed. In these circumstances the provisional duty at the rates set out in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1042/2010 should be definitively collected,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on coated fine paper, which is paper or paperboard coated on one or both sides (excluding kraft paper or kraft paperboard), in either sheets or rolls, and with a weight of 70 g/m2 or more but not exceeding 400 g/m2 and brightness of more than 84 (measured according to ISO 2470-1), currently falling within CN codes ex 4810 13 20, ex 4810 13 80, ex 4810 14 20, ex 4810 14 80, ex 4810 19 10, ex 4810 19 90, ex 4810 22 10, ex 4810 22 90, ex 4810 29 30, ex 4810 29 80, ex 4810 99 10, ex 4810 99 30 and ex 4810 99 90 (TARIC codes 4810132020, 4810138020, 4810142020, 4810148020, 4810191020, 4810199020, 4810221020, 4810229020, 4810293020, 4810298020, 4810991020, 4810993020 and 4810999020) and originating in the People's Republic of China.\nThe definitive anti-dumping duty does not concern rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses. Rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses are defined as those rolls which, if tested according to the ISO test standard ISO 3783:2006 concerning the determination of resistance to picking - accelerated speed method using the IGT tester (electric model), give a result of less than 30 N/m when measuring in the cross-direction of the paper (CD) and a result of less than 50 N/m when measuring in the machine direction (MD). The definitive anti-dumping duty does also not concern multi-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty shall be as follows:\nCompany\nAD duty rate\nGold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province, PRC; Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, PRC\n20 %\nShangdong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC; Shouguang Chenming Art Paper Co., Ltd, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC\n39,1 %\nAll other companies\n39,1 %\n3. With regard to the anti-dumping duty provided for in Article 1(2), 12 % will not be collected for Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., 4 % for Shangdong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited and Shouguang Chenming Art Paper Co., Ltd and 12 % for all other companies in so far as the corresponding amount is collected in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 452/2011.\n4. In the light of Article 1(2) and 1(3) above, the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nAD duty rate\nTARIC additional code\nGold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province, PRC; Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, PRC\n8 %\nB001\nShangdong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC; Shouguang Chenming Art Paper Co., Ltd, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC\n35,1 %\nB013\nAll other companies\n27,1 %\nB999\n5. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nAmounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1042/2010 shall be definitively collected at the rate set in Article 1 of that Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2011.", "references": ["50", "92", "68", "59", "86", "47", "42", "51", "21", "12", "82", "67", "98", "74", "70", "77", "20", "41", "10", "39", "97", "75", "35", "11", "69", "53", "58", "46", "79", "30", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "88", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "88", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 77/2012\nof 30 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 January 2012.", "references": ["1", "55", "34", "33", "9", "8", "45", "53", "82", "51", "23", "2", "24", "30", "13", "75", "93", "5", "0", "6", "25", "48", "79", "74", "62", "86", "77", "85", "84", "97", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 130/2012\nof 15 February 2012\nconcerning type-approval requirements for motor vehicles with regard to vehicle access and manoeuvrability and implementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 is a separate Regulation for the purposes of the type-approval procedure provided for by Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 repeals Council Directive 70/387/EEC of 27 July 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the doors of motor vehicles and their trailers (3) as well as Council Directive 75/443/EEC of 26 June 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the reverse and speedometer equipment of motor vehicles (4). The requirements set out in those Directives for access steps, handholds and running boards as well as reversing devices should be carried over to this Regulation and, where necessary, adapted to the development of scientific and technical knowledge. Certain other requirements laid down in those Directives and which are not covered by this Regulation are already addressed through the compulsory application of UNECE Regulation No 11 (5) and Regulation No 39 (6) listed in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009.\n(3)\nThe scope of this Regulation should be in line with that of Directive 70/387/EEC and Directive 75/443/EEC insofar appropriate. The Regulation should therefore cover vehicles of categories M and N.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 lays down basic requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to vehicle access, namely access steps, handholds and running boards as well as manoeuvrability, namely reversing devices. It is necessary to set out the specific procedures, tests and requirements for such type-approval.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation applies to vehicles of categories M and N as defined in Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018vehicle type with regard to vehicle access and manoeuvrability\u2019 means vehicles which do not differ in such essential respects as:\n(a)\nthe characteristics of running boards, access steps and handholds;\n(b)\nthe characteristics of the reversing device.\n(2)\n\u2018off-road vehicle (ORV)\u2019 means a vehicle in conformity with the criteria set out in Part A of Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC;\n(3)\n\u2018floor entrance\u2019 means the lowest point of the door aperture or other structure whichever of the two is higher, which a person has to clear in terms of height in order to enter the passenger compartment.\nArticle 3\nEC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to vehicle access and manoeuvrability\n1. The manufacturer or the representative of the manufacturer shall submit to the approval authority the application for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to vehicle access and manoeuvrability.\n2. The application shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Part 1 of Annex I.\n3. If the relevant requirements set out in Annexes II and III to this Regulation are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC type-approval and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nA Member State may not assign the same number to another vehicle type.\n4. For the purposes of paragraph 3, the approval authority shall deliver an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 4\nValidity and extension of approvals granted under Directive 70/387/EEC and Directive 75/443/EEC\nNational authorities shall permit the sale and entry into service of vehicles type-approved before the date referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 and continue to grant extension of approvals to those vehicles under the terms of Directive 70/387/EEC and Directive 75/443/EEC.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2012.", "references": ["7", "82", "41", "73", "90", "79", "46", "69", "85", "50", "12", "3", "70", "64", "39", "0", "75", "72", "88", "27", "43", "1", "5", "96", "14", "32", "92", "81", "53", "36", "No Label", "54", "76"], "gold": ["54", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1227/2010\nof 20 December 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1055/2008 implementing Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards quality criteria and quality reporting for balance of payments statistics\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 January 2005 on Community statistics concerning balance of payments, international trade in services and foreign direct investment (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 184/2005 establishes a common framework for the systematic production of Community statistics concerning balance of payments, international trade in services and foreign direct investment.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1055/2008 (2) laid down the common quality criteria and the periodicity of quality reports for balance-of-payments statistics.\n(3)\nThe common quality criteria and the periodicity of the quality reports for balance-of-payments statistics need to be adapted, in order to reflect the quality criteria laid down in Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) on European statistics.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1055/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Balance of Payments Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1055/2008 is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Member States shall supply their quality report not later than 31 May every year.\u2019;\n2.\nthe Annex is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["49", "9", "56", "67", "69", "48", "98", "47", "45", "11", "24", "25", "83", "30", "77", "72", "18", "10", "94", "41", "50", "58", "38", "60", "88", "8", "65", "5", "66", "55", "No Label", "19", "23", "27", "31", "39", "90", "96"], "gold": ["19", "23", "27", "31", "39", "90", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 May 2012\ndesignating the European Capital of Culture for the year 2016 in Spain and Poland\n(2012/309/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019 (1), and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the Selection Panel report of June 2011 regarding the selection process of the European Capitals of Culture in Spain and Poland respectively,\nWhereas:\nConsidering that the criteria referred to in Article 4 of Decision No 1622/2006/EC are entirely fulfilled,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDonostia-San Sebasti\u00e1n and Wroclaw are designated as \u2018European Capitals of Culture 2016\u2019 in Spain and Poland.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2012.", "references": ["15", "11", "2", "33", "28", "58", "73", "19", "78", "24", "51", "42", "66", "72", "6", "21", "85", "40", "59", "55", "30", "74", "45", "49", "18", "38", "65", "99", "57", "46", "No Label", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1032/2011\nof 13 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for whiting in VIII by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 October 2011.", "references": ["25", "18", "9", "45", "8", "74", "83", "11", "51", "88", "75", "77", "7", "19", "94", "70", "22", "0", "24", "17", "61", "27", "4", "63", "95", "47", "20", "66", "28", "64", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 13 December 2010\namending Decision 2009/980/EU as regards the conditions of use of an authorised health claim on the effect of water-soluble tomato concentrate on platelet aggregation\n(notified under document C(2010) 8828)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/770/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Articles 18(4) and 19 thereof,\nHaving consulted the European Food Safety Authority,\nHaving consulted the Member States,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFollowing the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as the Authority, on the effects of Water-Soluble Tomato Concentrate (WSTC) I and II on the blood platelet activity in healthy people (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00229) (2), the health claim stating that Water-Soluble Tomato Concentrate (WSTC) I and II \u2018helps maintain normal platelet aggregation, which contributes to healthy blood flow\u2019 was authorised by Commission Decision 2009/980/EU (3). Pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, Decision 2009/980/EU included the following condition of use of that health claim: \u2018Information to the consumer that the beneficial effect is obtained with a daily consumption of 3 g WSTC I or 150 mg WSTC II in up to 250 ml of either fruit juices, flavoured drinks or yogurt drinks (unless heavily pasteurised)\u2019.\n(2)\nIn that context, the applicant, Provexis Natural Products Ltd., submitted on 31 March 2010 an application for the modification of the authorisation of the relevant health claim pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. The modification concerns an extension of the conditions of use accompanying the authorised health claim, allowing in particular its use in food supplements.\n(3)\nThe Authority was required to deliver an opinion on the modification of the conditions of use of the health claim as proposed by the applicant. On 23 July 2010, the Commission and the Member States received a scientific opinion from the Authority (Question No EFSA-Q-2010-00809) (4) which concluded that on the basis of the data submitted, a cause and effect relationship had been established between the consumption of WSTC I and II in food supplements, such as powder sachets, tablets and capsules, and the claimed effect.\n(4)\nTaking into account the scientific opinion of the Authority, and in order to extend the use of the health claim to foods other than those already authorised, it is therefore necessary to amend its conditions of use.\n(5)\nDecision 2009/980/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn the Annex to Decision 2009/980/EU, the text in the forth column (Conditions of use of the health claim), is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Information to the consumer that the beneficial effect is obtained with a daily consumption of 3 g WSTC I or 150 mg WSTC II in up to 250 ml of either fruit juices, flavoured drinks or yogurt drinks (unless heavily pasteurised) or with a daily consumption of 3 g WSTC I or 150 mg WSTC II in food supplements when taken with a glass of water or other liquid\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to Provexis Natural Products Ltd., Thames Court, 1 Victoria Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1YB, United Kingdom.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["96", "9", "75", "22", "90", "29", "11", "78", "23", "43", "21", "12", "56", "16", "10", "94", "63", "69", "59", "13", "45", "85", "28", "5", "35", "32", "83", "64", "70", "49", "No Label", "24", "38", "68", "72"], "gold": ["24", "38", "68", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 339/2010\nof 22 April 2010\ngranting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 20 April 2010.\n(3)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 20 April 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the products and destinations referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 1 and in Article 2 of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 April 2010.", "references": ["18", "63", "30", "35", "53", "58", "57", "87", "38", "67", "46", "82", "59", "55", "74", "83", "95", "42", "90", "16", "4", "64", "2", "33", "39", "73", "13", "7", "78", "19", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 728/2010\nof 12 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 August 2010.", "references": ["86", "41", "33", "3", "45", "97", "38", "31", "88", "59", "57", "46", "9", "78", "2", "42", "25", "96", "8", "29", "95", "90", "30", "18", "53", "67", "50", "21", "34", "73", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 628/2011\nof 28 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2011.", "references": ["74", "47", "55", "63", "91", "26", "45", "96", "54", "40", "73", "86", "9", "92", "39", "27", "59", "58", "67", "29", "5", "81", "76", "87", "16", "33", "72", "36", "8", "3", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 676/2012\nof 23 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["38", "71", "52", "65", "80", "37", "82", "42", "12", "79", "13", "62", "51", "76", "18", "33", "44", "94", "20", "92", "26", "63", "99", "14", "72", "7", "21", "43", "75", "5", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE COUNCIL AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, MEETING WITHIN THE COUNCIL\nof 24 June 2010\non the signing and provisional application of the Protocol to Amend the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part\n(2010/465/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES, MEETING WITHIN THE COUNCIL,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed on 25 and 30 April 2007 (hereinafter, the \u2018Agreement\u2019), included an obligation on both Parties to enter into second stage negotiations.\n(2)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(3)\nThe Commission has negotiated on behalf of the Union and of the Member States a protocol to amend the Agreement (hereinafter, the \u2018Protocol\u2019) in accordance with Article 21 of that Agreement.\n(4)\nThe Protocol was initialled on 25 March 2010.\n(5)\nThe Protocol is fully consistent with the Union legislation, particularly with the EU Emissions Trading System.\n(6)\nThe Protocol negotiated by the Commission should be signed and applied provisionally by the Union and the Member States, to the extent permitted under domestic law, subject to its possible conclusion at a later date.\n(7)\nIt is necessary to lay down procedural arrangements for deciding, if appropriate, how to discontinue the provisional application of the Protocol and how to take measures pursuant to Article 21(5) of the Agreement as amended by the Protocol. It is also necessary to lay down procedural arrangements for the suspension of the reciprocal recognition of regulatory determinations with regard to airline fitness and citizenship pursuant to Article 6 bis(2) of the Agreement as amended by the Protocol and for implementing certain provisions of the Agreement, including those concerning the environment pursuant to Article 15(5) of the Agreement as amended by the Protocol,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSigning and provisional application\n1. The signing of the Protocol to Amend the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part (hereinafter the \u2018Protocol\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Protocol.\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\n2. The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\n3. Pending its entry into force, the Protocol shall be applied on a provisional basis by the Union and its Member States, to the extent permitted under domestic law, from the date of signing.\n4. A decision to discontinue the provisional application of the Protocol and to give notice thereof to the United States of America in accordance with Article 9(2) of the Protocol, and a decision to withdraw such notice, shall be taken by the Council, on behalf of the Union and of the Member States, acting unanimously in accordance with the relevant Treaty provisions.\nArticle 2\nSuspension of reciprocal recognition\nA decision to suspend the reciprocal recognition of regulatory determinations with regard to airline fitness and citizenship and to inform the United States of America thereof in accordance with Article 6 bis(2) of the Agreement as amended by the Protocol shall be taken by the Council, on behalf of the Union and of the Member States, acting unanimously in accordance with the relevant Treaty provisions.\nArticle 3\nJoint Committee\n1. The Union and the Member States shall be represented in the Joint Committee established pursuant to Article 18 of the Agreement as amended by the Protocol by representatives of the Commission and of the Member States.\n2. For matters that fall within the exclusive competence of the Union and do not require the adoption of a decision having legal effect, the position to be taken by the Union and its Member States within the Joint Committee shall be adopted by the Commission and shall be notified in advance to the Council and the Member States.\n3. For decisions concerning matters that fall within the competence of the Union, the position to be taken by the Union and its Member States within the Joint Committee shall be adopted by the Council, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, unless the applicable voting procedures set down in the Treaty provide otherwise.\n4. For decisions concerning matters that fall within the competence of the Member States, the position to be taken by the Union and its Member States within the Joint Committee shall be adopted by the Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal from the Commission or from any Member State, unless a Member State has informed the General Secretariat of the Council within one month of the adoption of that position that it can only consent to the decision to be taken by the Joint Committee with the agreement of its legislative bodies, notably due to a parliamentary scrutiny reserve.\n5. The position of the Union and of the Member States within the Joint Committee shall be presented by the Commission, except in matters that fall within the exclusive competence of the Member States, in which case it shall be presented by the Presidency of the Council or, if the Council so decides, by the Commission.\nArticle 4\nDecisions in accordance with Article 21(5) of the Agreement\nA decision not to allow airlines of the other Party to operate additional frequencies or enter new markets under the Agreement and give notice thereof to the United States of America, or to agree to lift any such decision, taken in accordance with Article 21(5) of the Agreement as amended by the Protocol, shall be adopted by the Council, on behalf of the Union and of the Member States, acting unanimously in accordance with the relevant Treaty provisions.\nArticle 5\nInformation to the Commission\nMember States shall inform the Commission immediately of any requests or notifications made or received by them pursuant to Article 15 of the Agreement as amended by the Protocol.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 June 2010.", "references": ["60", "92", "3", "33", "72", "8", "66", "83", "35", "32", "79", "64", "91", "31", "20", "74", "24", "7", "89", "71", "99", "10", "46", "11", "80", "29", "23", "30", "81", "73", "No Label", "9", "13", "53", "57", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "13", "53", "57", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 21 December 2011\non mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2009/019 FR/Renault from France)\n(2012/16/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nFrance submitted an application on 9 October 2009 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Renault s.a.s. and seven of its suppliers and supplemented it by additional information up to 25 January 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 24 493 525.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by France,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 24 493 525 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["42", "50", "90", "37", "5", "53", "7", "66", "68", "81", "56", "89", "38", "79", "80", "20", "35", "40", "74", "13", "87", "57", "28", "92", "99", "73", "83", "88", "69", "12", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 1061/2010\nof 28 September 2010\nsupplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of household washing machines\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2010/30/EU requires the Commission to adopt delegated acts as regards the labelling of energy-related products representing significant potential for energy savings and having a wide disparity in performance levels with equivalent functionality.\n(2)\nProvisions on the energy labelling of household washing machines were established by Commission Directive 95/12/EC of 23 May 1995 implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric washing machines (2).\n(3)\nThe electricity used by household washing machines accounts for a significant share of total household electricity demand in the Union. In addition to the energy efficiency improvements already achieved, the scope for further reducing the energy consumption of household washing machines is substantial.\n(4)\nDirective 95/12/EC should be repealed and new provisions should be laid down by this Regulation in order to ensure that the energy label provides dynamic incentives for suppliers to further improve the energy efficiency of household washing machines and to accelerate the market transformation towards energy-efficient technologies.\n(5)\nHousehold combined washer-driers fall within the scope of Commission Directive 96/60/EC of 19 September 1996 implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household combined washer-driers (3) and should therefore be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. However, considering that they offer similar functionalities to household washing machines, a revision of Directive 96/60/EC should take place as soon as possible.\n(6)\nThe information provided on the label should be obtained through reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement procedures, which take into account the recognised state-of-the-art measurement methods including, where available, harmonised standards adopted by the European standardisation bodies, as listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (4).\n(7)\nThis Regulation should specify a uniform design and content for the label for household washing machines.\n(8)\nIn addition, this Regulation should specify requirements as to the technical documentation and the fiche for household washing machines.\n(9)\nMoreover, this Regulation should specify requirements as to the information to be provided for any form of distance selling, advertisements and technical promotional materials for household washing machines.\n(10)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a review of the provisions of this Regulation taking into account technological progress.\n(11)\nIn order to facilitate the transition from Directive 95/12/EC to this Regulation, provisions should be made that household washing machines labelled in accordance with this Regulation should be considered as compliant with Directive 95/12/EC.\n(12)\nDirective 95/12/EC should therefore be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation establishes requirements for the labelling of and the provision of supplementary product information on electric mains-operated household washing machines and electric mains-operated household washing machines that can also be powered by batteries, including those sold for non-household use and built-in household washing machines.\n2. This Regulation shall not apply to household combined washer-driers.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2010/30/EU, the following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this Regulation:\n(1)\n\u2018household washing machine\u2019 means an automatic washing machine which cleans and rinses textiles using water, which also has a spin extraction function and which is designed to be used principally for non-professional purposes;\n(2)\n\u2018built-in household washing machine\u2019 means a household washing machine intended to be installed in a cabinet, a prepared recess in a wall or a similar location, requiring furniture finishing;\n(3)\n\u2018automatic washing machine\u2019 means a washing machine where the load is fully treated by the machine without the need for user intervention at any point during the programme;\n(4)\n\u2018household combined washer-drier\u2019 means a household washing machine which includes both a spin extraction function and also a means for drying the textiles, usually by heating and tumbling;\n(5)\n\u2018programme\u2019 means a series of operations that are pre-defined and which are declared by the supplier as suitable for washing certain types of textile;\n(6)\n\u2018cycle\u2019 means a complete washing, rinsing and spinning process, as defined for the selected programme;\n(7)\n\u2018programme time\u2019 means the time that elapses from the initiation of the programme until the completion of the programme excluding any end-user programmed delay;\n(8)\n\u2018rated capacity\u2019 means the maximum mass in kilograms stated by the supplier at 0,5 kg intervals of dry textiles of a particular type, which can be treated in a household washing machine on the selected programme, when loaded in accordance with the supplier\u2019s instructions;\n(9)\n\u2018partial load\u2019 means half of the rated capacity of a household washing machine for a given programme;\n(10)\n\u2018remaining moisture content\u2019 means the amount of moisture contained in the load at the end of the spinning phase;\n(11)\n\u2018off-mode\u2019 means a condition where the household washing machine is switched off using appliance controls or switches accessible to and intended for operation by the end-user during normal use to attain the lowest power consumption that may persist for an indefinite time while the household washing machine is connected to a power source and used in accordance with the supplier\u2019s instructions; where there is no control or switch accessible to the end-user, \u2018off-mode\u2019 means the condition reached after the household washing machine reverts to a steady-state power consumption on its own;\n(12)\n\u2018left-on mode\u2019 means the lowest power consumption mode that may persist for an indefinite time after completion of the programme without any further intervention by the end-user besides unloading of the household washing machine;\n(13)\n\u2018equivalent household washing machine\u2019 means a model of household washing machine placed on the market with the same rated capacity, technical and performance characteristics, energy and water consumption and airborne acoustical noise emissions during washing and spinning as another model of household washing machine placed on the market under a different commercial code number by the same supplier;\n(14)\n\u2018end-user\u2019 means a consumer buying or expected to buy a household washing machine;\n(15)\n\u2018point of sale\u2019 means a location where household washing machines are displayed or offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase.\nArticle 3\nResponsibilities of suppliers\nSuppliers shall ensure that:\n(a)\neach household washing machine, is supplied with a printed label in the format and containing information as set out in Annex I;\n(b)\na product fiche, as set out in Annex II, is made available;\n(c)\nthe technical documentation as set out in Annex III is made available on request to the authorities of the Member States and to the Commission;\n(d)\nany advertisement for a specific model of household washing machine contains the energy efficiency class, if the advertisement discloses energy-related or price information;\n(e)\nany technical promotional material concerning a specific model of household washing machine which describes its specific technical parameters includes the energy efficiency class of that model.\nArticle 4\nResponsibilities of dealers\nDealers shall ensure that:\n(a)\neach household washing machine, at the point of sale, bears the label provided by suppliers in accordance with Article 3(a) on the outside of the front or top of the household washing machine, in such a way as to be clearly visible;\n(b)\nhousehold washing machines offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase where the end-user cannot be expected to see the product displayed are marketed with the information to be provided by suppliers in accordance with Annex IV;\n(c)\nany advertisement for a specific model of household washing machine contains a reference to its energy efficiency class, if the advertisement discloses energy-related or price information;\n(d)\nany technical promotional material concerning a specific model of household washing machine, which describes its specific technical parameters includes a reference to the energy efficiency class of that model.\nArticle 5\nMeasurement methods\nThe information to be provided pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 shall be obtained by reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement procedures, which take into account the recognised state-of-the-art measurement methods.\nArticle 6\nVerification procedure for market surveillance purposes\nMember States shall apply the procedure laid down in Annex V when assessing the conformity of the declared energy efficiency class, the annual energy consumption, annual water consumption, spin-drying efficiency class, power consumption in off-mode and left-on mode, duration of the left-on mode, remaining moisture content, spin speed and airborne acoustical noise emissions.\nArticle 7\nRevision\nThe Commission shall review this Regulation in the light of technological progress no later than four years after its entry into force. The review shall in particular assess the verification tolerances set out in Annex V.\nArticle 8\nRepeal\nDirective 95/12/EC shall be repealed from 20 December 2011.\nArticle 9\nTransitional provisions\n1. Articles 3(d), (e), 4(b), (c) and (d) shall not apply to printed advertisements and printed technical promotional material published before 20 April 2012.\n2. Household washing machines placed on the market before 20 December 2011 shall comply with the provisions set out in Directive 95/12/EC.\n3. If an implementing measure for Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) with regards to ecodesign requirements for household washing machines was adopted, household washing machines, which comply with the provisions of this implementing measure with respect to the washing efficiency requirements and with the provisions of this Regulation, and which are placed on the market or offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase before 20 December 2011 shall be regarded as complying with the requirements of Directive 95/12/EC.\nArticle 10\nEntry into force and application\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. It shall apply from 20 December 2011. However, Articles 3(d), (e), 4(b), (c) and (d) shall apply from 20 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 September 2010.", "references": ["83", "45", "60", "40", "4", "58", "7", "84", "44", "29", "18", "19", "81", "93", "6", "33", "73", "48", "96", "95", "70", "74", "90", "20", "50", "9", "13", "43", "66", "16", "No Label", "24", "25", "76", "78", "86"], "gold": ["24", "25", "76", "78", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 14/2011\nof 10 January 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Limone di Sorrento (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Limone di Sorrento\u2019 registered in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2446/2000 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 January 2011.", "references": ["4", "57", "54", "37", "84", "63", "51", "88", "73", "23", "33", "17", "13", "83", "12", "47", "81", "78", "95", "11", "19", "9", "60", "77", "48", "68", "94", "70", "1", "80", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 22 June 2012\nlifting the suspension of commitments from the Cohesion Fund for Hungary\n(2012/323/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 establishing a Cohesion Fund (1), and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 sets out the conditions applying to access to Cohesion Fund assistance. According to paragraph 1 of that Article, the Council may decide to suspend either the totality or part of the commitments from the Cohesion Fund for the Member State concerned with effect from 1 January of the year following the decision to suspend if it has been established in accordance with Article 126(8) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (\"TFEU\") that the Member State concerned has not taken effective action in response to a Council recommendation made under Article 126(7) TFEU.\n(2)\nOn 5 July 2004, by Decision 2004/918/EC on the existence of an excessive deficit in Hungary (2) the Council decided in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (\"TEC\") that an excessive deficit existed in Hungary. The Council adopted a first recommendation on 5 July 2004, a second recommendation on 8 March 2005, and a third recommendation on 10 October 2006, all of which were addressed to Hungary in accordance with Article 104(7) TEC. On 7 July 2009, the Council adopted its fourth such recommendation (\"Council Recommendation of 7 July 2009\"), with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive government deficit by 2011 at the latest.\n(3)\nOn 24 January 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/139/EU establishing whether effective action has been taken by Hungary in response to the Council recommendation of 7 July 2009 (3) in accordance with Article 126(8) TFEU, establishing that Hungary had not taken effective action to correct the excessive government deficit in response to the Council Recommendation of 7 July 2009 within the period laid down therein.\n(4)\nOn 13 March 2012, by Implementing Decision 2012/156/EU suspending commitments from the Cohesion Fund for Hungary with effect from 1 January 2013 (4), the Council decided to suspend part of the commitments from the Cohesion Fund with effect from 1 January 2013 in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006. The decision on the amount of Cohesion Fund commitments to be suspended aimed to ensure that the suspension was both effective and proportionate, whilst taking into account the current overall economic situation in the Union and the relative importance of the Cohesion Fund for the economy of the Member State concerned. The Council considered appropriate, in the case of a first application of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 to a given Member State, namely Hungary, to set the amount at 50 % of the allocation of the Cohesion Fund for 2013, without exceeding the maximum level of 0,5 % of the nominal GDP of that Member State as forecast by the Commission services. Accordingly, the Council decided to suspend EUR 495 184 000 commitments from the Cohesion Fund for Hungary with effect from 1 January 2013.\n(5)\nAlso on 13 March, the Council issued a revised recommendation to Hungary in accordance with Article 126(7) TFEU (\"Council Recommendation of 13 March 2012\"), setting 2012 as the deadline for bringing the situation of an excessive government deficit to an end. Specifically, Hungary was recommended to undertake an additional fiscal effort of at least \u00bd % of GDP, based on the further specification and implementation of consolidation measures of a structural nature, to ensure the attainment of the 2012 deficit target of 2,5 % of GDP; allocate possible windfall gains for improving the headline balance; take necessary additional measures of a structural nature as needed to ensure that the deficit in 2013 remains well below the 3 % of GDP threshold; and incorporate sufficient reserve provisions in the forthcoming budget laws. At the same time, the Council underlined that the budgetary adjustment should contribute to bringing the government debt ratio onto a declining path and that it also needed to be supported by the proposed improvements in the fiscal governance framework.\n(6)\nOn 23 April 2012, Hungary submitted the annual update of its convergence programme outlining its budgetary strategy to ensure the sustainable correction of the excessive deficit by the 2012 deadline. The official deficit targets and the planned fiscal efforts comply with the Council Recommendation of 13 March 2012. The programme confirms the previous medium-term objective of 1,5 % of GDP, which it plans to achieve by 2013. According to the update, the public debt is being continuously reduced throughout the programme period to 77 % of GDP in 2013 and below 73 % of GDP in 2015. As regards fiscal governance reform, the authorities have announced that they will submit to the Parliament the necessary amendments during the Spring session.\n(7)\nBased on publicly available information, the Commission concluded in its Communication of 30 May 2012 that Hungary has taken the necessary corrective action, representing adequate progress towards the correction of the excessive deficit. In particular, the budget deficit is expected to reach 2,5 % of GDP in 2012 and remain well below the 3 % of GDP reference value in 2013, as recommended by the Council in March. Specifically, taking also into account all publicly available information provided by the Government since mid-March, the 2013 deficit is foreseen by the Commission services to reach 2,7 % of GDP. Considering also the effect of revisions to potential GDP growth and the projected deviation from standard tax elasticities, the fiscal effort in 2012 can be considered to be broadly in line with what was required. The use of windfall revenues and the incorporation of sufficient reserve provisions in the forthcoming budgets have yet to be demonstrated. Based on the Spring 2012 forecast, the general government debt is expected to decrease to 78,5 % of GDP in 2012 and slightly further in 2013. Finally, some progress has been made on enhancing the fiscal governance framework, but important reforms are still to be designed and adopted before the end of the Spring session of Parliament. Against this background and also in light of the recent worse-than-expected first quarter growth data, the Commission will continue to closely monitor budgetary developments in Hungary.\n(8)\nOverall, Hungary has taken the necessary corrective action in response to the Council Recommendation of 13 March 2012 to correct the excessive deficit by the deadline set by the Council. Therefore, Implementing Decision 2012/156/EU suspending part of the commitments from the Cohesion Fund should be abrogated.\n(9)\nIf, at any moment in time before the abrogation of the decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(12) TFEU, action taken is proving to be inadequate, the Council should, based on a recommendation by the Commission, adopt a new Decision under Article 126(8) TFEU. In such a case, it may, on a proposal by the Commission, adopt a decision to suspend Cohesion Fund commitments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe partial suspension of commitments from the Cohesion Fund for Hungary laid down in Implementing Decision 2012/156/EU is hereby lifted.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to Hungary.\nDone at Luxembourg, 22 June 2012.", "references": ["54", "87", "17", "15", "71", "23", "7", "81", "24", "57", "50", "94", "55", "95", "63", "18", "21", "27", "78", "62", "3", "20", "79", "41", "85", "80", "30", "70", "68", "66", "No Label", "4", "8", "10", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "8", "10", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 987/2010\nof 3 November 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Marrone della Valle di Susa (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Marrone della Valle di Susa\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2010.", "references": ["31", "6", "73", "89", "38", "48", "72", "54", "74", "79", "85", "30", "59", "61", "88", "33", "76", "10", "83", "77", "60", "40", "32", "15", "5", "29", "0", "70", "22", "56", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 2 February 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of a mycelial extract from Lentinula edodes (Shiitake mushroom) as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 442)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(2011/73/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 19 December 2007 the company GlycaNova Norge AS made a request to the competent authorities of the United Kingdom to place a mycelial extract from the Shiitake mushroom (Lentinula edodes formerly Lentinus edodes) on the market as a novel food ingredient.\n(2)\nOn 3 November 2008 the competent food assessment body of the United Kingdom issued its initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that the use of the mycelial extract from Lentinula edodes as a food ingredient was acceptable.\n(3)\nThe Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to all Member States on 7 January 2009.\n(4)\nWithin the 60-day period laid down in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 reasoned objections to the marketing of the product were raised in accordance with that provision.\n(5)\nTherefore the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was consulted on 24 September 2009.\n(6)\nOn 9 July 2010, EFSA (Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies) in the \u2018Scientific opinion on the safety of \u201cLentinula edodes extract\u201d as a novel food ingredient\u2019 (2) came to the conclusion that the mycelial extract from Lentinula edodes was safe under the proposed conditions of use and the proposed levels of intake.\n(7)\nOn the basis of the scientific assessment, it is established that mycelial extract from Lentinula edodes complies with the criteria laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mycelial extract from Lentinula edodes as specified in Annex I may be placed on the market in the Union as a novel food ingredient for the uses listed in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThe designation of the mycelial extract from Lentinula edodes authorised by this Decision on the labelling of the foodstuff containing it shall be \u2018extract from the mushroom Lentinula edodes\u2019 or \u2018extract from the Shiitake mushroom\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to GlycaNova Norge AS, Oraveien 2, 1630 Gamle Fredrikstad, Norway.\nDone at Brussels, 2 February 2011.", "references": ["90", "88", "72", "47", "99", "29", "55", "22", "10", "52", "37", "13", "16", "58", "93", "95", "4", "26", "3", "94", "71", "7", "14", "67", "34", "81", "39", "77", "21", "96", "No Label", "25", "38", "66"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUBAM RAFAH/2/2011\nof 20 December 2011\nextending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Border Assistance Mission at the Rafah Crossing Point (EUBAM Rafah)\n(2012/27/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP of 25 November 2005 on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission at the Rafah Crossing Point (EUBAM Rafah) (1) and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC), in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EUBAM Rafah mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nOn 11 November 2008, by Decision EUBAM Rafah/1/2008 (2), the PSC, upon a proposal by the Secretary-General/High Representative, appointed Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of EUBAM Rafah. On 21 May 2010, by Decision EUBAM Rafah/1/2010 (3), the PSC, upon a proposal by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), extended the mandate of Mr Alain FAUGERAS until 24 May 2011 and, by Decision EUBAM Rafah/1/2011 (4), that mandate was extended until 31 December 2011.\n(3)\nThe HR has proposed to the PSC that it extend the mandate of Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of EUBAM Rafah from 1 January 2012 until 30 June 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of the European Union Border Assistance Mission at the Rafah Crossing Point (EUBAM Rafah) is hereby extended from 1 January 2012 until 30 June 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["96", "84", "36", "58", "77", "82", "46", "60", "24", "28", "15", "7", "34", "94", "59", "76", "10", "66", "49", "20", "40", "41", "56", "51", "97", "99", "8", "90", "27", "69", "No Label", "1", "5", "52"], "gold": ["1", "5", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1218/2010\nof 14 December 2010\non the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of specialisation agreements\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EEC) No 2821/71 of the Council of 20 December 1971 on application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices (1),\nHaving published a draft of this Regulation,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2821/71 empowers the Commission to apply Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (*1) by regulation to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices falling within the scope of Article 101(1) of the Treaty which have as their object specialisation, including agreements necessary for achieving it.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2658/2000 of 29 November 2000 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of specialisation agreements (2) defines categories of specialisation agreements which the Commission regarded as normally satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 101(3) of the Treaty. In view of the overall positive experience with the application of that Regulation, which expires on 31 December 2010, and taking into account further experience acquired since its adoption, it is appropriate to adopt a new block exemption regulation.\n(3)\nThis Regulation should meet the two requirements of ensuring effective protection of competition and providing adequate legal security for undertakings. The pursuit of those objectives should take account of the need to simplify administrative supervision and the legislative framework to as great an extent as possible. Below a certain level of market power it can in general be presumed, for the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty, that the positive effects of specialisation agreements will outweigh any negative effects on competition.\n(4)\nFor the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty by regulation, it is not necessary to define those agreements which are capable of falling within Article 101(1) of the Treaty. In the individual assessment of agreements under Article 101(1) of the Treaty, account has to be taken of several factors, and in particular the market structure on the relevant market.\n(5)\nThe benefit of the exemption established by this Regulation should be limited to those agreements for which it can be assumed with sufficient certainty that they satisfy the conditions of Article 101(3) of the Treaty.\n(6)\nAgreements on specialisation in production are most likely to contribute to improving the production or distribution of goods if the parties have complementary skills, assets or activities, because they can concentrate on the manufacture of certain products and thus operate more efficiently and supply the products more cheaply. The same can generally be said about agreements on specialisation in the preparation of services. Given effective competition, it is likely that consumers will receive a fair share of the resulting benefits.\n(7)\nSuch advantages can arise from agreements whereby one party fully or partly gives up the manufacture of certain products or preparation of certain services in favour of another party (unilateral specialisation), from agreements whereby each party fully or partly gives up the manufacture of certain products or preparation of certain services in favour of another party (reciprocal specialisation) and from agreements whereby the parties undertake to jointly manufacture certain products or prepare certain services (joint production). In the context of this Regulation, the concepts of unilateral and reciprocal specialisation do not require a party to reduce capacity, as it is sufficient if they reduce their production volumes. The concept of joint production, however, does not require the parties to reduce their individual production activities outside the scope of their envisaged joint production arrangement.\n(8)\nThe nature of unilateral and reciprocal specialisation agreements presupposes that the parties are active on the same product market. It is not necessary for the parties to be active on the same geographic market. Consequently, the application of this Regulation to unilateral and reciprocal specialisation agreements should be limited to scenarios where the parties are active on the same product market. Joint production agreements can be entered into by parties who are already active on the same product market but also by parties who wish to enter a product market by way of the agreement. Therefore, joint production agreements should fall within the scope of this Regulation irrespective of whether the parties are already active in the same product market.\n(9)\nTo ensure that the benefits of specialisation will materialise without one party leaving the market downstream of production entirely, unilateral and reciprocal specialisation agreements should only be covered by this Regulation where they provide for supply and purchase obligations or joint distribution. Supply and purchase obligations may, but do not have to, be of an exclusive nature.\n(10)\nIt can be presumed that, where the parties\u2019 share of the relevant market for the products which are the subject matter of a specialisation agreement does not exceed a certain level, the agreements will, as a general rule, give rise to economic benefits in the form of economies of scale or scope or better production technologies, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefits. However, where the products manufactured under a specialisation agreement are intermediary products which one or more of the parties fully or partly use as an input for their own production of certain downstream products which they subsequently sell on the market, the exemption conferred by this Regulation should also be conditional on the parties\u2019 share on the relevant market for these downstream products not exceeding a certain level. In such a case, merely looking at the parties\u2019 market share at the level of the intermediary product would ignore the potential risk of foreclosing or increasing the price of inputs for competitors at the level of the downstream products. However, there is no presumption that specialisation agreements are either caught by Article 101(1) of the Treaty or that they fail to satisfy the conditions of Article 101(3) of the Treaty once the market share threshold set out in this Regulation is exceeded or other conditions of this Regulation are not met. In such cases, an individual assessment of the specialisation agreement needs to be conducted under Article 101 of the Treaty.\n(11)\nThis Regulation should not exempt agreements containing restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of the positive effects generated by a specialisation agreement. In principle, agreements containing certain types of severe restrictions of competition relating to the fixing of prices charged to third parties, limitation of output or sales, and allocation of markets or customers should be excluded from the benefit of the exemption established by this Regulation irrespective of the market share of the parties.\n(12)\nThe market share limitation, the non-exemption of certain agreements and the conditions provided for in this Regulation normally ensure that the agreements to which the block exemption applies do not enable the parties to eliminate competition in respect of a substantial part of the products or services in question.\n(13)\nThe Commission may withdraw the benefit of this Regulation, pursuant to Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (3), where it finds in a particular case that an agreement to which the exemption provided for in this Regulation applies nevertheless has effects which are incompatible with Article 101(3) of the Treaty.\n(14)\nThe competition authority of a Member State may withdraw the benefit of this Regulation pursuant to Article 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in respect of the territory of that Member State, or a part thereof where, in a particular case, an agreement to which the exemption established by this Regulation applies nevertheless has effects which are incompatible with Article 101(3) of the Treaty in the territory of that Member State, or in a part thereof, and where such territory has all the characteristics of a distinct geographic market.\n(15)\nThe benefit of this Regulation could be withdrawn pursuant to Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 where, for example, the relevant market is very concentrated and competition is already weak, in particular because of the individual market positions of other market participants or links between other market participants created by parallel specialisation agreements.\n(16)\nIn order to facilitate the conclusion of specialisation agreements, which can have a bearing on the structure of the parties, the period of validity of this Regulation should be fixed at 12 years,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018specialisation agreement\u2019 means a unilateral specialisation agreement, a reciprocal specialisation agreement or a joint production agreement;\n(b)\n\u2018unilateral specialisation agreement\u2019 means an agreement between two parties which are active on the same product market by virtue of which one party agrees to fully or partly cease production of certain products or to refrain from producing those products and to purchase them from the other party, who agrees to produce and supply those products;\n(c)\n\u2018reciprocal specialisation agreement\u2019 means an agreement between two or more parties which are active on the same product market, by virtue of which two or more parties on a reciprocal basis agree to fully or partly cease or refrain from producing certain but different products and to purchase these products from the other parties, who agree to produce and supply them;\n(d)\n\u2018joint production agreement\u2019 means an agreement by virtue of which two or more parties agree to produce certain products jointly;\n(e)\n\u2018agreement\u2019 means an agreement, a decision by an association of undertakings or a concerted practice;\n(f)\n\u2018product\u2019 means a good or a service, including both intermediary goods or services and final goods or services, with the exception of distribution and rental services;\n(g)\n\u2018production\u2019 means the manufacture of goods or the preparation of services and includes production by way of subcontracting;\n(h)\n\u2018preparation of services\u2019 means activities upstream of the provision of services to customers;\n(i)\n\u2018relevant market\u2019 means the relevant product and geographic market to which the specialisation products belong, and, in addition, where the specialisation products are intermediary products which one or more of the parties fully or partly use captively for the production of downstream products, the relevant product and geographic market to which the downstream products belong;\n(j)\n\u2018specialisation product\u2019 means a product which is produced under a specialisation agreement;\n(k)\n\u2018downstream product\u2019 means a product for which a specialisation product is used by one or more of the parties as an input and which is sold by those parties on the market;\n(l)\n\u2018competing undertaking\u2019 means an actual or potential competitor;\n(m)\n\u2018actual competitor\u2019 means an undertaking that is active on the same relevant market;\n(n)\n\u2018potential competitor\u2019 means an undertaking that, in the absence of the specialisation agreement, would, on realistic grounds and not just as a mere theoretical possibility, in case of a small but permanent increase in relative prices be likely to undertake, within not more than 3 years, the necessary additional investments or other necessary switching costs to enter the relevant market;\n(o)\n\u2018exclusive supply obligation\u2019 means an obligation not to supply a competing undertaking other than a party to the agreement with the specialisation product;\n(p)\n\u2018exclusive purchase obligation\u2019 means an obligation to purchase the specialisation product only from a party to the agreement;\n(q)\n\u2018joint\u2019, in the context of distribution, means that the parties:\n(i)\ncarry out the distribution of the products by way of a joint team, organisation or undertaking; or\n(ii)\nappoint a third party distributor on an exclusive or non-exclusive basis, provided that the third party is not a competing undertaking;\n(r)\n\u2018distribution\u2019 means distribution, including the sale of goods and the provision of services.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation, the terms \u2018undertaking\u2019 and \u2018party\u2019 shall include their respective connected undertakings.\n\u2018Connected undertakings\u2019 means:\n(a)\nundertakings in which a party to the specialisation agreement, directly or indirectly:\n(i)\nhas the power to exercise more than half the voting rights;\n(ii)\nhas the power to appoint more than half the members of the supervisory board, board of management or bodies legally representing the undertaking; or\n(iii)\nhas the right to manage the undertaking\u2019s affairs;\n(b)\nundertakings which directly or indirectly have, over a party to the specialisation agreement, the rights or powers listed in point (a);\n(c)\nundertakings in which an undertaking referred to in point (b) has, directly or indirectly, the rights or powers listed in point (a);\n(d)\nundertakings in which a party to the specialisation agreement together with one or more of the undertakings referred to in points (a), (b) or (c), or in which two or more of the latter undertakings, jointly have the rights or powers listed in point (a);\n(e)\nundertakings in which the rights or the powers listed in point (a) are jointly held by:\n(i)\nparties to the specialisation agreement or their respective connected undertakings referred to in points (a) to (d); or\n(ii)\none or more of the parties to the specialisation agreement or one or more of their connected undertakings referred to in points (a) to (d) and one or more third parties.\nArticle 2\nExemption\n1. Pursuant to Article 101(3) of the Treaty and subject to the provisions of this Regulation, it is hereby declared that Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply to specialisation agreements.\nThis exemption shall apply to the extent that such agreements contain restrictions of competition falling within the scope of Article 101(1) of the Treaty.\n2. The exemption provided for in paragraph 1 shall apply to specialisation agreements containing provisions which relate to the assignment or licensing of intellectual property rights to one or more of the parties, provided that those provisions do not constitute the primary object of such agreements, but are directly related to and necessary for their implementation.\n3. The exemption provided for in paragraph 1 shall apply to specialisation agreements whereby:\n(a)\nthe parties accept an exclusive purchase or exclusive supply obligation; or\n(b)\nthe parties do not independently sell the specialisation products but jointly distribute those products.\nArticle 3\nMarket share threshold\nThe exemption provided for in Article 2 shall apply on condition that the combined market share of the parties does not exceed 20 % on any relevant market.\nArticle 4\nHardcore restrictions\nThe exemption provided for in Article 2 shall not apply to specialisation agreements which, directly or indirectly, in isolation or in combination with other factors under the control of the parties, have as their object any of the following:\n(a)\nthe fixing of prices when selling the products to third parties with the exception of the fixing of prices charged to immediate customers in the context of joint distribution;\n(b)\nthe limitation of output or sales with the exception of:\n(i)\nprovisions on the agreed amount of products in the context of unilateral or reciprocal specialisation agreements or the setting of the capacity and production volume in the context of a joint production agreement; and\n(ii)\nthe setting of sales targets in the context of joint distribution;\n(c)\nthe allocation of markets or customers.\nArticle 5\nApplication of the market share threshold\nFor the purposes of applying the market share threshold provided for in Article 3 the following rules shall apply:\n(a)\nthe market share shall be calculated on the basis of the market sales value; if market sales value data are not available, estimates based on other reliable market information, including market sales volumes, may be used to establish the market share of the parties;\n(b)\nthe market share shall be calculated on the basis of data relating to the preceding calendar year;\n(c)\nthe market share held by the undertakings referred to in point (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(2) shall be apportioned equally to each undertaking having the rights or the powers listed in point (a) of that subparagraph;\n(d)\nif the market share referred to in Article 3 is initially not more than 20 % but subsequently rises above that level without exceeding 25 %, the exemption provided for in Article 2 shall continue to apply for a period of 2 consecutive calendar years following the year in which the 20 % threshold was first exceeded;\n(e)\nif the market share referred to in Article 3 is initially not more than 20 % but subsequently rises above 25 %, the exemption provided for in Article 2 shall continue to apply for a period of 1 calendar year following the year in which the level of 25 % was first exceeded;\n(f)\nthe benefit of points (d) and (e) may not be combined so as to exceed a period of 2 calendar years.\nArticle 6\nTransitional period\nThe prohibition laid down in Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply during the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2012 in respect of agreements already in force on 31 December 2010 which do not satisfy the conditions for exemption provided for in this Regulation but which satisfy the conditions for exemption provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2658/2000.\nArticle 7\nPeriod of validity\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2022.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["41", "28", "73", "62", "69", "92", "25", "90", "21", "82", "80", "17", "97", "72", "65", "76", "59", "6", "79", "12", "23", "2", "67", "14", "3", "84", "94", "33", "52", "34", "No Label", "4", "9", "44", "48", "77"], "gold": ["4", "9", "44", "48", "77"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 June 2010\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and Bosnia and Herzegovina on certain aspects of air services\n(2010/360/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.\n(2)\nOn behalf of the Community, the Commission negotiated an agreement with Bosnia and Herzegovina on certain aspects of air services (hereafter referred to as the \u2018Agreement\u2019) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.\n(3)\nThe Agreement was signed on behalf of the Community on 5 May 2006 subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Council Decision 2006/426/EC (1).\n(4)\nFollowing the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union should make a notification to Bosnia and Herzegovina as regards the European Union having replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Community and Bosnia and Herzegovina on certain aspects of air services is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to make the notification provided for in Article 8(1) of the Agreement and to make the following notification:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d in the text of the Agreement are, where appropriate, to be read as \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 June 2010.", "references": ["82", "20", "44", "23", "93", "39", "77", "50", "14", "71", "6", "37", "24", "13", "79", "47", "54", "18", "36", "78", "70", "12", "46", "69", "29", "15", "68", "31", "58", "98", "No Label", "3", "9", "57", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "57", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 662/2011\nof 8 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 July 2011.", "references": ["47", "87", "43", "21", "89", "67", "33", "59", "60", "74", "96", "50", "41", "53", "56", "36", "71", "30", "48", "65", "51", "29", "17", "38", "93", "95", "58", "49", "3", "26", "No Label", "22", "35", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 451/2010\nof 25 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2010.", "references": ["51", "16", "18", "2", "92", "99", "25", "66", "36", "41", "48", "29", "63", "13", "0", "30", "46", "88", "22", "89", "79", "45", "42", "40", "54", "59", "87", "4", "7", "10", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/101/CFSP\nof 15 February 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 19 February 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/161/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (1).\n(2)\nCouncil Decision 2010/92/CFSP (2), adopted on 15 February 2010, extended the restrictive measures provided for in Common Position 2004/161/CFSP until 20 February 2011.\n(3)\nOn the basis of a review of Common Position 2004/161/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 20 February 2012.\n(4)\nHowever, there are no longer grounds for keeping certain persons on the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures provided for in Common Position 2004/161/CFSP apply.\n(5)\nThe Union implementing measures are set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 of 19 February 2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (3),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Decision, the term \u2018technical assistance\u2019 shall mean any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance or any other technical service, and may take forms such as instruction, advice, training, transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services; technical assistance includes verbal forms of assistance.\nArticle 2\n1. The sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, as well as equipment which might be used for internal repression, to Zimbabwe:\n(a)\nby nationals of Member States,\n(b)\nfrom the territories of Member States, or\n(c)\nusing flag vessels or aircraft of Member States,\nshall be prohibited whether originating or not in the territories of Member States.\n2. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto grant, sell, supply or transfer technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to military activities and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, as well as equipment which might be used for internal repression, directly or indirectly to any person, entity or body in, or for use in, Zimbabwe;\n(b)\nto provide financing or financial assistance related to military activities, including, in particular, grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related materiel, as well as equipment which might be used for internal repression, directly or indirectly to any person, entity or body in, or for use in, Zimbabwe.\nArticle 3\n1. Article 2 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal military equipment or of equipment which might be used for internal repression, intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, or for institution-building programmes of the UN and the EU, or of materiel intended for EU and UN crisis management operations;\n(b)\nthe provision of financing and financial assistance related to such equipment;\n(c)\nthe provision of technical assistance related to such equipment, on condition that any export thereof has been approved in advance by the relevant competent authority.\n2. Article 2 shall not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to Zimbabwe by UN personnel, personnel of the EU or its Member States, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall take the measures necessary to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of members of the Government of Zimbabwe and of natural persons associated with them, as well as of other natural persons whose activities seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. The individuals referred to in this paragraph are listed in the Annex.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation under international law, namely:\n(a)\nas a host country of an international intergovernmental organisation;\n(b)\nas a host country of an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the United Nations;\n(c)\nunder a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities; or\n(d)\npursuant to the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran Pact) concluded by the Holy See (Vatican City State) and Italy.\nThe Council shall be duly informed in each of these cases.\n4. Paragraph 3 shall apply also in cases where a Member State is a host country of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).\n5. Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed in paragraph 1 where travel is justified on urgent and imperative humanitarian grounds, or in exceptional cases on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the European Union, where a political dialogue is conducted which directly, immediately and significantly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe.\n6. Any Member State wishing to grant exemptions referred to in paragraph 5 shall notify the Council in writing. The exemption shall be deemed to be granted unless one or more of the members of the Council raise an objection in writing within 48 hours of receiving notification of the proposed exemption. Should one or more of the members of the Council raise an objection, the exemption shall not be granted, except where a Member State wishes to grant it on urgent and imperative humanitarian grounds. In the latter event, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to grant the proposed exemption.\n7. In cases where, pursuant to paragraphs 3 to 6, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in the Annex, the authorisation shall be strictly limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons directly concerned thereby.\nArticle 5\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to individual members of the Government of Zimbabwe or to any natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, or belonging to any other natural or legal person whose activities seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe, shall be frozen. The persons and entities referred to in this paragraph are listed in the Annex.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available directly or indirectly to, or for the benefit, of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in the Annex.\n3. Exemptions may be made for funds or economic resources which are:\n(a)\nnecessary for basic expenses, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses.\n4. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to restrictive measures,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to paragraph 1.\nArticle 6\n1. The Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall adopt modifications to the list contained in the Annex as required by political developments in Zimbabwe.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the person or entity concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person or entity with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person or entity concerned accordingly.\nArticle 7\n1. The Annex shall include the grounds for listing the natural or legal persons and entities.\n2. The Annex shall also contain, where available, the information necessary to identify the natural or legal persons or entities concerned. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names, including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons or entities, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\nArticle 8\nIn order to maximise the impact of the above-mentioned measures, the Union shall encourage third States to adopt restrictive measures similar to those contained in this Decision.\nArticle 9\nCommon Position 2004/161/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 10\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall apply until 20 February 2012.\nIt shall be kept under constant review and shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2011.", "references": ["79", "66", "62", "23", "71", "91", "95", "80", "20", "41", "28", "55", "82", "38", "77", "36", "47", "58", "19", "21", "73", "70", "49", "9", "74", "97", "76", "98", "87", "16", "No Label", "3", "4", "6", "11", "14", "25", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "6", "11", "14", "25", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 937/2010\nof 19 October 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 933/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 October 2010.", "references": ["38", "92", "94", "51", "7", "45", "95", "29", "32", "62", "73", "50", "18", "30", "24", "53", "59", "23", "8", "79", "70", "67", "47", "4", "28", "90", "5", "55", "49", "19", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 57/2012\nof 23 January 2012\nsuspending the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/2012 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.\n(2)\nThe availability of supply on the Union sugar market has improved, therefore further reduction of the import duty will not be necessary and the submission of tenders should be suspended.\n(3)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(4)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn accordance with Article 2(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 the submission of tenders is suspended for the partial invitation to tender ending on 25 January 2012, 1 February 2012 and 15 February 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["68", "58", "57", "14", "48", "86", "51", "65", "66", "47", "35", "87", "72", "55", "74", "44", "89", "36", "42", "8", "26", "82", "40", "73", "13", "33", "54", "90", "28", "17", "No Label", "10", "20", "21", "22", "61", "71"], "gold": ["10", "20", "21", "22", "61", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 702/2012\nof 30 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 July 2012.", "references": ["37", "82", "51", "44", "36", "29", "41", "14", "90", "62", "94", "21", "56", "74", "85", "75", "7", "60", "79", "67", "3", "19", "86", "32", "11", "55", "27", "59", "16", "5", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1220/2011\nof 25 November 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 867/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards operators\u2019 organisations in the olive sector, their work programmes and the financing thereof\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 103(2) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn the light of experience gained from implementing the work programmes of operators\u2019 organisations in the olive sector, certain amendments should be made to Commission Regulation (EC) No 867/2008 (2).\n(2)\nIn order to ensure better implementation of Article 103 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and to ensure that the financial interests of the Union are protected where producer organisations are beneficiaries of rural development measures under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (3), provision should be made for the approval of operators\u2019 organisations in the olive sector to be immediately refused, suspended or withdrawn if the latter have been penalised under those Regulations.\n(3)\nWith regard to market monitoring and administrative management, it is useful to focus on subjects linked to measures planned under the work programmes of the operators\u2019 organisations, whereas in the field of improving the production quality of olive oil and table olives, for reasons of effectiveness, provision should be made for new types of technical assistance.\n(4)\nTo improve consistency in the activities which are eligible for Union funding, it is desirable, with regard to controlling olive fly, to restrict financing to those measures provided for in point (b)(iii) of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 867/2008.\n(5)\nIn consideration of the experience gained, it is necessary to increase the minimum percentage of Union funding allocated to reducing the environmental impact of olive cultivation in order to reflect the important developments in this area. Similarly, in order to make the best possible use of the resources allocated to work programmes, there should be a reduction in the general expenses element of expenditure on implementation.\n(6)\nAdministrative procedures should be simplified where amendments to a programme involve substituting one measure with another and where the planned budget for each measure is less than EUR 10 000 but where the initial objective of the programme remains unchanged.\n(7)\nTo facilitate the implementation of programmes, the conditions for the release of securities linked to advances should be made more flexible provided that the eligible expenditure has been implemented and verified.\n(8)\nA new deadline should be set for the Member States concerned to notify the Commission of national measures taken to implement this Regulation.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 867/2008 should be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 867/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 3(5) the following subparagraph (c) is added:\n\u2018(c)\nhas been penalised for infringing the scheme to fund the activities of operators\u2019 organisations provided for in Article 103 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 or for an infringement of the application of a rural development measure provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (4).\n(2)\nArticle 5(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (a)(ii) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(ii)\ndrawing up studies on subjects linked to the other measures provided for in the work programme of the operators\u2019 organisation concerned;\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (c) shall be amended as follows:\n(i)\npoint (i) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(i)\nimproving conditions for growing, harvesting, delivering and storing olives prior to processing, in accordance with the technical specifications laid down by the competent national authority;\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (iii) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018(iii)\nimproving conditions for storage and use of the residues of olive oil and table olive production and improving olive oil bottling conditions;\u2019;\n(iii)\npoint (iv) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018(iv)\ntechnical assistance for production, for the olive processing industry, for producers of table olives, for mills and for packaging, relating to aspects linked to product quality;\u2019;\n(iv)\npoint (vi) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018(vi)\ntraining tasters to carry out organoleptic checks on virgin olive oils and on table olives.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 6, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In each Member State a minimum of 30 % of the Union funding available under Article 103 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be allocated to the area of activity referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of this Regulation, and a minimum of 12 % of that Union funding shall be allocated to the area referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 5(1).\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 7(1), the following point (g) is added:\n\u2018(g)\nmeasures and activities relating to controlling olive fly with the exception of measures provided for in point (b)(iii) of Article 5(1).\u2019;\n(5)\npoint (d) of the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nthe planned expenditure, broken down by measure and by area of measure as referred to in Article 5(1), with details for each 12-month period from the date of approval of the work programme, distinguishing the overheads, which must not exceed 5 % of the total, and the other main types of costs;\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 10, the following paragraph 6 is added:\n\u20186. By way of derogation from paragraphs 2 and 4, where amendments to a work programme involve substituting one measure with another measure in the same area, and where the planned budget for each measure is less than EUR 10 000, the operators\u2019 organisation must notify the competent authority two months before the new measure is implemented. If the competent authority does not object within one month of notification, the amendment shall be deemed to have been accepted. The notification shall be accompanied by supporting documentation specifying the aim, nature and implications of the proposed amendment and shall demonstrate that the amendment concerned does not alter the initial objective of the programme in question.\u2019;\n(7)\nArticle 11(5) is replaced by the following text:\n\u20185. By a date to be determined by the Member State but no later than the end of each year of implementation of the work programme, the operators\u2019 organisations concerned may lodge an application for release of the security referred to in paragraph 4 up to an amount equal to all the expenditure under the initial instalment actually carried out and verified by the Member State. The Member State shall lay down which supporting documents shall accompany this application and check them and shall release the securities corresponding to the expenditure concerned no later than in the course of the second month following that in which the application is lodged.\u2019;\n(8)\nin Article 18(1), the introductory sentence shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20181. No later than 31 January following each period of three years beginning on 1 April in accordance with Article 8, the Member States producing olive oil shall notify the Commission of the national measures implementing this Regulation, and in particular those relating to:\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 November 2011.", "references": ["85", "26", "27", "82", "74", "44", "98", "80", "77", "19", "58", "45", "5", "39", "87", "88", "54", "38", "69", "18", "92", "97", "49", "23", "60", "0", "84", "24", "81", "83", "No Label", "4", "10", "15", "66", "68", "70"], "gold": ["4", "10", "15", "66", "68", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 493/2010\nof 7 June 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 234/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Liberia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/129/CFSP of 1 March 2010 amending Common Position 2008/109/CFSP concerning restrictive measures imposed against Liberia (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Common Position 2004/137/CFSP of 10 February 2004 concerning restrictive measures against Liberia (2) provided for the implementation of the measures set out in UN Security Council Resolution 1521 (2003), including a ban on technical assistance related to military activities. It also provided for a ban on financial assistance related to military activities. Pursuant to that Common Position, Council Regulation (EC) No 234/2004 (3) imposes a general ban on the provision of technical assistance, financing or financial assistance related to military activities, to any person, entity or body in, or for use in, Liberia.\n(2)\nOn 12 February 2008, the Council adopted Common Position 2008/109/CFSP (4) which confirmed those measures, and consolidated them with other relevant measures into a single legal act.\n(3)\nOn 17 December 2009, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1903 (2009) which amended the UN restrictive measures on arms and related materiel and the provision of assistance, advice and training related to military activities by confining the effect of those restrictive measures to non-governmental entities and individuals operating in the territory of Liberia. Pursuant to that Resolution, Common Position 2008/109/CFSP was amended by Decision 2010/129/CFSP.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 234/2004 should be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nAny processing of personal data of natural persons under this Regulation should respect Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (6),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 234/2004 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u201ctechnical assistance\u201d means any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance, or any other technical service, and may take forms such as instruction, advice, training, transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services. Technical assistance includes verbal forms of assistance;\n(b)\n\u201cSanctions Committee\u201d means the Committee established by paragraph 21 of UN Security Council Resolution 1521 (2003).\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide technical assistance related to military activities, including to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of arms and of related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, directly or indirectly to any non-governmental person, entity or body in or for use in Liberia;\n(b)\nto provide financing or financial assistance related to military activities, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance for any sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related materiel, or for the provision of related technical assistance, directly or indirectly to any non-governmental person, entity or body in or for use in Liberia; or\n(c)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) or (b).\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex I, in the Member State where the service provider is established, may authorise the provision of:\n(a)\ntechnical assistance intended solely for support of or use by the United Nations Mission in Liberia; or\n(b)\ntechnical assistance related to non-lethal equipment which is intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, provided that the Member State concerned has notified in advance the provision of such technical assistance to the Sanctions Committee. Such notifications shall contain all relevant information, including, where appropriate, the end-user, the proposed date of delivery and the itinerary of shipments.\n2. Decisions on requests for authorisation shall be taken by competent authorities on a case-by-case basis, taking account of all relevant considerations including the criteria set out in the Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment (7). Competent authorities shall require safeguards against misuse of such authorisations and shall, where appropriate, make provisions for the repatriation of the delivered arms and related materiel.\n3. No authorisations shall be granted for activities that have already taken place.\n4.\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nNatural and legal persons, entities and bodies that intend to provide any assistance related to military activities to the Government of Liberia, as specified in Article 1, shall inform in advance the competent authority, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex I, in the Member State where they are resident or located. Such information shall contain all relevant information, including, where appropriate, the end-user, the proposed date of delivery and the itinerary of shipments. The Member State concerned shall immediately upon receipt of the relevant information notify the Sanctions Committee thereof.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 June 2010.", "references": ["28", "87", "7", "75", "50", "32", "2", "15", "99", "47", "92", "89", "70", "95", "96", "71", "38", "14", "42", "4", "72", "67", "52", "57", "59", "34", "36", "53", "35", "77", "No Label", "3", "6", "23", "79", "88", "94"], "gold": ["3", "6", "23", "79", "88", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 October 2010\non the signing of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, on a framework agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the general principles for the participation of the Kingdom of Morocco in Union programmes\n(2010/620/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, in particular, Article 217, in conjunction with Article 218(5) and the second subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 June 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (1), on a framework agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the general principles for the participation of the Kingdom of Morocco in Union programmes (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019) (2).\n(2)\nThose negotiations have been concluded to the satisfaction of the Commission.\n(3)\nAs a result of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nSubject to its conclusion at a later date, the Protocol should be signed on behalf of the Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, on a framework agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the general principles for the participation of the Kingdom of Morocco in Union programmes (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the Protocol.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol, on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 October 2010.", "references": ["75", "74", "83", "72", "99", "2", "92", "1", "11", "65", "37", "71", "45", "34", "80", "52", "54", "39", "4", "25", "62", "35", "86", "27", "51", "47", "58", "43", "56", "68", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "94"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 619/2011\nof 24 June 2011\nlaying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of feed as regards presence of genetically modified material for which an authorisation procedure is pending or the authorisation of which has expired\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 of 27 January 2009 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of feed (2) does not provide for special rules for the control of material which contains, consists of or is produced from GMOs (GM material) for which an EU authorisation procedure is pending or GM material the authorisation of which has expired. Experience has shown that in the absence of such rules, the official laboratories and the competent authorities apply different methods of sampling and different rules for the interpretation of the results of the analytical tests. This may lead to different conclusions as regards the compliance of a product with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (3). As a result of the lack of harmonised rules, economic operators are faced with legal uncertainty and there is a risk that the functioning of the internal market will be affected.\n(2)\nDifferent international information exchange mechanisms providing information on the safety assessments performed by countries authorising the commercialisation of GMOs are in place. In accordance with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity of which all Member States are Parties, Parties to the Protocol have to inform the other Parties through the Biosafety Clearing House (BCH) on any final decision regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of a GMO that may be subject to transboundary movement for direct use as food or feed or for processing. This information shall contain, inter alia, a risk assessment report. Countries which are not Parties to the Protocol may also provide such information on a voluntary basis. International information exchange mechanisms regarding the authorisation of GMOs and their safety assessments are also provided by FAO and OECD.\n(3)\nThe EU imports significant quantities of commodities produced in third countries where GMO cultivation is widespread. While these imported commodities are used both in the production of food and feed, the majority of the commodities likely to contain GMOs are destined for the feed sector thereby entailing a higher risk of trade disruption for that sector in cases where Member States apply different rules for official controls. It appears therefore appropriate to limit the scope of this Regulation to the feed sector which, in comparison with other sectors related to the production of foodstuffs, has a higher likelihood for GM presence.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1829/2003 provides that the placing on the market of genetically modified feed is subject to an authorisation procedure. The authorisation procedure includes the publication of an EFSA opinion of which the main component is a safety assessment. In giving its opinion, EFSA consults Member States upon receipt of a valid application and Member States have 3 months to make their opinions known. The opinion of EFSA has also to include a method for detection validated by the European Union Reference Laboratory (EU-RL).\n(5)\nIn practice, the validation by the European Union Reference Laboratory (EU-RL) is carried out independently of the other elements provided for in the authorisation procedure. Generally the method is validated and published before all of the other elements are fulfilled for completing the EFSA opinion. These methods are published on the website of the EU-RL and are available to the competent authorities as well as to any interested parties.\n(6)\nA method may only be validated if it complies with the detailed rules for the fitness of the method set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 641/2004 of 6 April 2004 on detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the application for the authorisation of new genetically modified food and feed, the notification of existing products and adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material which has benefited from a favourable risk evaluation (4). In addition, as required by that Regulation, common criteria for minimum performance requirements for analytical methods for GMO testing have been set (5).\n(7)\nThe methods of analysis validated by the EU-RL in the context of the authorisation procedure and for the placing on the market, use and processing of existing products within the meaning of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 are event-specific quantitative methods. They are validated through a collaborative trial in accordance with the principles of ISO 5725 International standard and/or the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) protocol. As a matter of fact, the EU-RL is currently the sole laboratory in the world validating quantitative event-specific methods in accordance with the above mentioned standards in the context of pre-marketing authorisation procedures. These quantitative methods are considered to be more appropriate than qualitative methods for the purpose of ensuring the harmonisation of the official controls. Indeed testing procedures using qualitative methods require other sampling schemes as they are otherwise associated with higher risks to provide diverging results regarding the presence or absence of genetically modified material. It is therefore appropriate to use the methods of analysis validated by the EU-RL in the context of the authorisation procedure to prevent diverging analytical results amongst Member States.\n(8)\nCertified reference material should also be available to enable control laboratories to perform their analysis.\n(9)\nAccordingly, the scope of this Regulation should cover the detection in feed of GM material authorised for commercialisation in a third country and for which an authorisation procedure is pending for more than 3 months under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 where the event-specific quantitative methods of analysis submitted by the applicant have been validated by the EU-RL and provided that the certified reference material is available.\n(10)\nThe scope of this Regulation should also cover GM material the authorisation of which has expired. It should therefore apply to feed containing, consisting of or produced from SYN-EV176-9 and MON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9xMON-\u00d8\u00d881\u00d8-6 maize and ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7xACS-BN\u00d8\u00d81-4, ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7xACS-BN\u00d8\u00d82-5 and ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d87-1 oilseed rape for which a quantitative method has been validated by the European Union Reference Laboratory provided that the certified reference material is available. These GM materials were placed on the market before the application of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and were notified as existing products under Article 20 of that Regulation. As the seeds were no more commercialised at global scale, the respective notifiers informed the Commission that they had no intention to submit an application for the renewal of the authorisation of the products concerned. As a consequence, the Commission adopted Decisions 2007/304/EC (6), 2007/305/EC (7), 2007/306/EC (8), 2007/307/EC (9) and 2007/308/EC (10) on the withdrawal from the market of the products concerned (obsolete products). These Decisions provide a tolerance for the presence in products of material which contain, consist of or are produced from SYN-EV176-9 and MON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9xMON-\u00d8\u00d881\u00d8-6 maize and ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7xACS-BN\u00d8\u00d81-4, ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7xACS-BN\u00d8\u00d82-5 and ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d87-1 oilseed rape provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable and in a proportion no higher than 0,9 % for a limited period which expires on 25 April 2012. It is appropriate to ensure that at the time of the expiry of the tolerance period set out in Decisions 2007/304/EC, 2007/305/EC, 2007/306/EC, 2007/307/EC and 2007/308/EC this Regulation applies also to the detection of these obsolete products in feed. It should also apply to any other GM material the authorisation of which is not renewed at the expiry of the authorisation due to the phasing out of the product.\n(11)\nHarmonisation of the official controls of feed for the detection of GM material falling under the scope of this Regulation should also be ensured through the adoption of common methods of sampling.\n(12)\nThese methods should be based on recognised scientific and statistical protocols and, when available, on international standards and should cover the different steps of sampling, including the rules applicable to the sampling of the material, the precautions to be taken in the course of sampling and preparation of samples, the conditions to be applied for taking incremental samples and replicate laboratory samples, the handling of laboratory samples and the sealing and labelling of samples. To ensure adequate representativeness of the samples taken for official control purposes, specific conditions adapted to the fact that the lot of feed is presented in bulk agricultural commodities, pre-packaging or retail should also be adopted.\n(13)\nIt is also appropriate to harmonise the rules for the interpretation of the results of the analysis, to ensure that throughout the European Union the same conclusion is drawn from the same analytical results. In this context, it is also necessary to take into account the technical constraints associated with any method of analysis, in particular at trace levels since analytical uncertainty increases with decreasing levels of GM material.\n(14)\nTo take these constraints into account, as well as the need to ensure that controls are both feasible, robust and proportionate, as set out in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (11), it is appropriate to set as a Minimum Required Performance Limit (MRPL) the lowest level of GM material which is considered by the EU-RL for the validation of quantitative methods. This level corresponds to 0,1 % related to mass fraction of GM material in feed and is the lowest level where results are satisfactorily reproducible between official laboratories when appropriate sampling protocols and methods of analysis for measuring feed samples are applied.\n(15)\nThe methods validated by the EU-RL are specific to each transformation event irrespective of the fact that the transformation event is present in one or several GMOs containing one or several transformation events. The MRPL should thus apply to the whole GM material containing the measured transformation event.\n(16)\nMeasurement uncertainty should be determined by each official laboratory and confirmed as described in the guidance document on Measurement Uncertainty for GMO testing laboratories (12) developed by the Joint Research Centre of the Commission (JRC).\n(17)\nA decision of non-compliance of the feed should therefore only be taken when GM material falling under the scope of this Regulation is present at levels equal or above the MRPL, measurement uncertainty being taken into account.\n(18)\nThe rules established by this Regulation should not affect the possibility for the Commission, or where applicable for a Member State, to adopt emergency measures in accordance with Articles 53 and 54 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.\n(19)\nThese implementing rules should be adapted if this becomes necessary to take account of new developments in particular as regards their impact on the internal market and on food and feed operators.\n(20)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee for the Food Chain and Animal Health and neither the European Parliament nor the Council has opposed them,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:\n(1) \u2018Precision - Relative Repeatability Standard Deviation (RSDr)\u2019: The relative standard deviation of test results obtained under repeatability conditions. Repeatability conditions are conditions where test results are obtained with the same method, on identical test items, in the same laboratory, by the same operator, using the same equipment within short intervals of time;\n(2) \u2018Minimum Required Performance Limit (MRPL)\u2019: the lowest amount or concentration of analyte in a sample that has to be reliably detected and confirmed by official laboratories;\n(3) \u2018GM material\u2019: material which contains, consists of or is produced from GMOs.\n2. The definitions set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 apply.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to the official control of feed with respect to the presence of the following material:\n(a)\nGM material authorised for commercialisation in a third country and for which a valid application has been submitted under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and for which the authorisation procedure has been pending for more than 3 months provided that:\n(i)\nit has not been identified by EFSA as susceptible to have adverse effects on health or the environment when present under the MRPL;\n(ii)\nthe quantitative method requested under that Article has been validated and published by the European Union Reference Laboratory; and\n(iii)\nthat the certified reference material fulfils the conditions set out in Article 3;\n(b)\nafter 25 April 2012, GM material notified under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of which the authorisation has expired and for which a quantitative method has been validated and published by the European Union Reference Laboratory provided that certified reference material fulfils the conditions set out in Article 3; and\n(c)\nGM material for which the authorisation has expired due to the fact that no application for renewal in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 has been submitted provided that certified reference material fulfils the conditions set out in Article 3.\nArticle 3\nCertified reference material\n1. Certified reference material must be available to Member States and any third party.\n2. Certified reference material shall be produced and certified in accordance with ISO guides 30 to 35.\n3. The information accompanying the certified reference material shall include information on the breeding of the plant which has been used for the production of the certified reference material and on the zygosity of the insert(s). The certified value of the GMO content shall be given in mass fraction and, where available, in copy number per haploid genome equivalent.\nArticle 4\nMethods of sampling\nSamples for the official control of feed as regards the presence of the GM material referred to in Article 2, shall comply with the methods of sampling, as set out in Annex I.\nArticle 5\nSample preparation, methods of analysis and interpretation of results\nThe preparation of laboratory samples, the methods of analysis and the interpretation of results shall comply with the requirements set out in Annex II.\nArticle 6\nMeasures in case of detection of GM material referred to in Article 2\n1. Where results of analytical tests indicate the presence of GM material referred to in Article 2 are at or above the MRPL as defined in accordance with the rules of interpretation set out in Annex II Part B, the feed shall be considered as non-compliant with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. Member States shall immediately notify this information through the RASFF in accordance with Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.\n2. Where results of analytical tests indicate the presence of GM material referred to in Article 2 is below the MRPL as defined in accordance with the rules of interpretation set out in Annex II Part B, Member States shall record this information and notify the Commission and the other Member States by 30 June of each year. Recurrent findings over a period of time of 3 months shall be notified without delay.\n3. The Commission shall or a Member State may, where appropriate, adopt emergency measures in accordance with Articles 53 and 54 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.\nArticle 7\nList of GM material referred to in Article 2\nThe Commission shall publish the list of GM material complying with the conditions set out in Article 2 on its website. The list shall include information as to the place where the certified reference material can be accessed as required by Article 17(3)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and, if applicable, information on the measures adopted in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 6 of this Regulation.\nArticle 8\nReview\nThe Commission shall monitor the application of this Regulation and its impact on the internal market as well as on feed, livestock and other operators, and, if necessary, bring forward proposals to review this Regulation.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 June 2011.", "references": ["70", "44", "61", "78", "49", "58", "71", "13", "80", "17", "97", "46", "45", "65", "47", "52", "28", "5", "73", "6", "93", "29", "90", "20", "91", "88", "96", "23", "54", "7", "No Label", "19", "38", "43", "66", "76", "77"], "gold": ["19", "38", "43", "66", "76", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1/2012\nof 3 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 January 2012.", "references": ["45", "82", "20", "76", "0", "74", "96", "9", "19", "26", "81", "39", "77", "4", "86", "65", "7", "2", "72", "38", "67", "11", "48", "83", "62", "55", "88", "90", "31", "93", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 356/2010\nof 26 April 2010\nimposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain natural or legal persons, entities or bodies, in view of the situation in Somalia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 (1) and (2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/231/CFSP of 26 April 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Somalia and repealing Common Position 2009/138/CFSP (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 20 November 2008, the United Nations Security Council (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Security Council\u2019), acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, adopted Resolution 1844 (2008) confirming the general and complete arms embargo against Somalia imposed by the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 733 (1992) and introducing additional restrictive measures.\n(2)\nThe additional restrictive measures concern restrictions on admission and financial restrictive measures against individuals and entities designated by the Security Council or by the United Nations Sanctions Committee established pursuant to UNSCR 751 (1992) concerning Somalia (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Sanctions Committee\u2019). In addition to the general arms embargo, the Resolution introduces a specific prohibition on the direct and indirect supply, sale or transfer, of weapons and military equipment and a specific prohibition on the provision of related assistance and services, to individuals and entities listed by the Sanctions Committee.\n(3)\nThe restrictive measures are aimed at individuals and entities designated by the United Nations (UN) as engaging in or providing support for acts that threaten the peace, security or stability of Somalia, including acts that threaten the Djibouti Agreement of 18 August 2008 or the political process, or threaten the Transitional Federal Institutions (TFIs) or the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) by force, as having acted in violation of the arms embargo and related measures, or as obstructing the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Somalia, or access to, or distribution of, humanitarian assistance in Somalia.\n(4)\nOn 16 February 2009, the Council of the European Union adopted Common Position 2009/138/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Somalia (2) which provides, inter alia, for financial restrictive measures concerning natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed by the UN, as well as for a prohibition on the direct and indirect provision of assistance and services related to weapons and military equipment to such persons, entities or bodies.\n(5)\nOn 19 March 2010, the Security Council adopted UNSCR 1916 (2010) which, inter alia, decided to ease some restrictions and obligations under the sanctions regime to enable the delivery of supplies and technical assistance by international, regional and sub-regional organisations and to ensure the timely delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance by the UN.\n(6)\nOn 12 April 2010, the Sanctions Committee adopted the list of persons and entities which are subject to restrictive measures.\n(7)\nOn that basis, on 26 April 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/231/CFSP.\n(8)\nThese measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, notably with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, an act of the Union is necessary in order to implement them as far as the Union is concerned.\n(9)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 147/2003 of 27 January 2003 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Somalia (3) imposed a general prohibition on the provision of technical advice, assistance, training, financing or financial assistance related to military activities, to any person, entity or body in Somalia. A new Council Regulation should be adopted to implement the measures concerning natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed by the UN.\n(10)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (4) and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the right to property and the right to the protection of personal data. This Regulation should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(11)\nThis Regulation also fully respects the obligations of Member States under the Charter of the United Nations and the legally binding nature of Security Council Resolutions.\n(12)\nThe power to amend the list in Annex I to this Regulation should be exercised by the Council, in view of the specific threat to international peace and security in the region posed by the situation in Somalia and in order to ensure consistency with the process for amending and reviewing the Annex to Council Decision 2010/231/CFSP.\n(13)\nThe procedure for amending the list in Annex I to this Regulation should include providing to designated natural or legal persons, entities or bodies the reasons for their listing as transmitted by the Sanctions Committee, so as to give them an opportunity to present observations. Where observations are submitted or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in the light of those observations and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n(14)\nIn order to create maximum legal certainty within the Union, the names and other relevant data for identifying natural or legal persons, entities or bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this Regulation should be published.\n(15)\nAny processing of personal data of natural persons under this Regulation should respect Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (6).\n(16)\nMember States should determine the penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation. The penalties provided for should be proportionate, effective and dissuasive,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018funds\u2019 means financial assets and benefits of every kind, including but not limited to:\n(i)\ncash, cheques, claims on money, drafts, money orders and other payment instruments;\n(ii)\ndeposits with financial institutions or other entities, balances on accounts, debts and debt obligations;\n(iii)\npublicly and privately traded securities and debt instruments, including stocks and shares, certificates representing securities, bonds, notes, warrants, debentures and derivatives contracts;\n(iv)\ninterest, dividends or other income on or value accruing from or generated by assets;\n(v)\ncredit, right of set-off, guarantees, performance bonds or other financial commitments;\n(vi)\nletters of credit, bills of lading, bills of sale;\n(vii)\ndocuments evidencing an interest in funds or financial resources;\n(b)\n\u2018freezing of funds\u2019 means preventing any move, transfer, alteration, use of, access to, or dealing with funds in any way that would result in any change in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination or other change that would enable the funds to be used, including portfolio management;\n(c)\n\u2018economic resources\u2019 means assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which are not funds but may be used to obtain funds, goods or services;\n(d)\n\u2018freezing of economic resources\u2019 means preventing their use to obtain funds, goods or services in any way, including, but not limited to, by selling, hiring or mortgaging them;\n(e)\n\u2018Sanctions Committee\u2019 means the Committee of the Security Council established pursuant to UNSCR 751 (1992) concerning Somalia;\n(f)\n\u2018technical assistance\u2019 means any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance, or any other technical service, and may take forms such as instruction, advice, training, transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services; including verbal forms of assistance;\n(g)\n\u2018investment services\u2019 means:\n(i)\nreception and transmission of orders in relation to one or more financial instruments;\n(ii)\nexecution of orders on behalf of clients;\n(iii)\ndealing on own account;\n(iv)\nportfolio management;\n(v)\ninvestment advice;\n(vi)\nunderwriting of financial instruments and/or placing of financial instruments on a firm commitment basis;\n(vii)\nplacing of financial instruments without a firm commitment basis; or\n(viii)\noperating of multilateral trading facilities,\nprovided that the activity relates to any of the financial instruments listed in Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (7);\n(h)\n\u2018territory of the Union\u2019 means the territories to which the Treaties are applicable, under the conditions laid down in the Treaties.\n(i)\n\u2018statement of reasons\u2019 means the publicly releasable portion of the statement of case and/or, where applicable, the narrative summary of reasons for listing as provided by the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 2\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by natural or legal persons, entities, or bodies listed in Annex I, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I.\n3. Annex I shall consist of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies designated by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee in accordance with UNSCR 1844 (2008).\n4. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited.\n5. The prohibition set out in paragraph 2 shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies which made funds or economic resources available, where they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe this prohibition.\nArticle 3\n1. Article 2(2) shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 2 was designated by the Sanctions Committee or the Security Council,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to Article 2(1).\n2. Article 2(2) shall not prevent financial or credit institutions in the Union from crediting frozen accounts where they receive funds transferred to the account of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, provided that any additions to such accounts will also be frozen. The financial or credit institution shall inform the competent authorities in the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II, about such transactions without delay.\nArticle 4\n1. Article 2(1) and (2) shall not apply to the making available of funds, or economic resources necessary to ensure the timely delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance in Somalia, by the United Nations, its specialised agencies or programmes, humanitarian organisations having observer status with the United Nations General Assembly that provide humanitarian assistance, or their implementing partners.\n2. The exemption set out in paragraph 1 shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies which made funds or economic resources available, where they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would not be covered by this exemption.\nArticle 5\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities in the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe competent authority concerned has determined that the funds or economic resources are:\n(i)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of the persons listed in Annex I, and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(ii)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services; or\n(iii)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; and\n(b)\nthe Member State concerned has notified the Sanctions Committee of that determination and its intention to grant an authorisation, and the Sanctions Committee has not objected to that course of action within three working days of the notification.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities in the Member States, as listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, after having determined that these are necessary to cover extraordinary expenses, provided that the Sanctions Committee has been notified of this determination by the Member State concerned and that the determination has been approved by that Committee.\n3. The relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraphs 1 and 2.\nArticle 6\nBy way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities in the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established before the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 2 has been designated by the Sanctions Committee or the Security Council or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a natural or legal person, entity or body listed in Annex I;\n(d)\nthe lien or judgment is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned; and\n(e)\nthe Sanctions Committee has been notified by the Member State of the lien or judgment.\nArticle 7\nThe freezing of funds and economic resources or the refusal to make funds or economic resources available, carried out in good faith on the basis that such action is in accordance with this Regulation, shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal person or entity implementing it, or its directors or employees, unless it is proved that the funds and economic resources were frozen as a result of negligence.\nArticle 8\n1. It shall be prohibited to provide, directly or indirectly, any of the following to any natural or legal person, entity or body listed in Annex I:\n(a)\ntechnical assistance related to military activities or to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, maintenance or use of goods and technology included in the Common Military List of the European Union (8);\n(b)\nfinancing or financial assistance related to military activities or to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, maintenance or use of goods and technology included in the Common Military List of the European Union;\n(c)\ninvestment services related to military activities or to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, maintenance or use of goods and technology included in the Common Military List of the European Union.\n2. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the prohibition referred to in paragraph 1 shall be prohibited.\n3. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1(b) shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies which provided financing or financial assistance, where they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe this prohibition.\nArticle 9\n1. Without prejudice to the applicable rules concerning reporting, confidentiality and professional secrecy, natural or legal persons, entities or bodies shall:\n(a)\nsupply immediately the competent authorities, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II for the country where they are resident or located, with any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 2, and shall forward such information, directly or through these competent authorities, to the Commission; and\n(b)\ncooperate with the competent authorities as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II in any verification of this information.\n2. Any information provided or received in accordance with this Article shall be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.\nArticle 10\nThe Commission and Member States shall immediately inform each other of the measures taken under this Regulation and shall supply each other with any other relevant information at their disposal in connection with this Regulation, in particular information in respect of violation and enforcement problems and judgments handed down by national courts.\nArticle 11\nThe Commission shall be empowered to amend Annex II on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\nArticle 12\n1. Where the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee lists a natural or legal person, entity or body and has provided a statement of reasons for the designation, the Council shall include such natural or legal person, entity or body in Annex I. The Council shall communicate its decision and the statement of reasons to the natural or legal person, entity or body concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body an opportunity to present observations.\n2. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person, entity or body accordingly.\nArticle 13\nWhere the UN decides to de-list a person, entity or body, or to amend the identifying data of a listed person, entity or body, the Council shall amend Annex I accordingly.\nArticle 14\nAnnex I shall include, where available, information provided by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee necessary to identify the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies concerned. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, entities or bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. Annex I shall also include the date of designation by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 15\n1. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules without delay after the entry into force of this Regulation and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment.\nArticle 16\n1. Member States shall designate the competent authorities referred to in this Regulation and identify them in, or through, the websites listed in Annex II.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of their competent authorities without delay after the entry into force of this Regulation, and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment thereto.\n3. Where this Regulation sets out a requirement to notify, inform or otherwise communicate with the Commission, the address and other contact details to be used for such communication shall be those indicated in Annex II.\nArticle 17\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\nArticle 18\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["39", "9", "70", "66", "83", "92", "48", "7", "42", "67", "51", "0", "84", "85", "71", "50", "69", "26", "54", "55", "45", "20", "86", "56", "28", "15", "35", "96", "37", "58", "No Label", "3", "11", "30", "94"], "gold": ["3", "11", "30", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1369/2011\nof 21 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards the management of the Community market in sugar and the quota system\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Article 192(2), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAfter the introduction of the computerised system for transmitting sugar price information for the price recording system pursuant to Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 (2), it is appropriate to increase the frequency at which the Commission submits such information to the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 952/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe first paragraph of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Each month, the Commission shall inform the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets of the average price for white sugar communicated during the month preceding the date of the information.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["47", "31", "59", "27", "90", "14", "16", "51", "80", "99", "46", "36", "53", "70", "91", "57", "69", "87", "78", "8", "33", "19", "62", "76", "65", "28", "25", "77", "68", "10", "No Label", "35", "41", "42", "61", "71"], "gold": ["35", "41", "42", "61", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 853/2011\nof 24 August 2011\namending for the 156th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 12 August 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add one natural person to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 August 2011.", "references": ["54", "57", "97", "30", "7", "29", "79", "48", "99", "82", "91", "50", "83", "2", "14", "9", "43", "60", "77", "8", "18", "24", "69", "98", "12", "87", "45", "10", "36", "39", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 November 2010\nauthorising Portugal to use data relating to years earlier than the last year but one in order to calculate the VAT own resources base\n(notified under document C(2010) 8209)\n(Only the Portuguese text is authentic)\n(2010/720/EU, Euratom)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 of 29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the collection of own resources accruing from value added tax (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee on Own Resources,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPortugal has requested authorisation from the Commission to use national accounts for years earlier than the last year but one in order to calculate the VAT own resources base for the financial year 2009.\n(2)\nFor the purposes of the breakdown of transactions by statistical category provided for in Article 4(4) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89, Portugal is unable to use national accounts relating to the last year but one before the financial year for which VAT resources base is to be calculated, since only the national accounts relating to 2006 are sufficiently detailed to enable the weighted average rate to be calculated for the financial year 2009. Portugal should therefore be authorised to use national accounts relating to 2006 in order to calculate the weighted average rate for the financial year 2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of the breakdown of transactions by statistical category, Portugal is authorised to use data taken from the national accounts relating to 2006 in order to calculate the VAT own resources base for the financial year 2009.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 26 November 2010.", "references": ["75", "5", "32", "84", "29", "18", "88", "80", "11", "82", "54", "90", "35", "93", "16", "60", "94", "71", "57", "49", "12", "87", "21", "3", "20", "86", "36", "78", "65", "45", "No Label", "10", "34", "42", "46"], "gold": ["10", "34", "42", "46"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1367/2011\nof 19 December 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Figue de Solli\u00e8s (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France's application to register the name \u2027Figue de Solli\u00e8s\u2027 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["16", "54", "46", "70", "20", "44", "62", "90", "49", "45", "42", "80", "95", "19", "35", "59", "18", "82", "1", "60", "52", "67", "7", "50", "9", "4", "48", "83", "0", "76", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 494/2011\nof 20 May 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Cadmium)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Article 131 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy its Resolution of 25 January 1988 on a Community action programme (2) the Council invited the Commission to combat environmental pollution by cadmium.\n(2)\nIn the table set out in Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, entry 23 contains restrictions on the use and marketing of cadmium in mixtures and articles.\n(3)\nCadmium and cadmium oxide are classified as carcinogen category 1B and aquatic acute and chronic toxicity category 1.\n(4)\nSince 31 December 1992, cadmium has been prohibited under Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (3) as a colouring agent in a number of polymers and paints, as a stabiliser in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in a number of applications, and cadmium plating is prohibited in a number of applications. Directive 76/769/EEC was repealed and replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 with effect from 1 June 2009.\n(5)\nIn 2007 the European risk assessment on cadmium (4) under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (5) was completed. On 14 June 2008 the Commission published a Communication on the results of the risk evaluation and the risk reduction strategies for cadmium and cadmium oxide (6) which recommended a marketing and use restriction for cadmium in brazing sticks and jewellery.\n(6)\nThe Communication outlined the need for specific measures to limit the risks from the use of cadmium-containing brazing sticks and from wearing cadmium-containing jewellery. Professionals and hobbyists are exposed to fumes in the process of brazing. Consumers including children are exposed to cadmium in jewellery through skin contact or licking.\n(7)\nThe Commission has commissioned a study on Socio-Economic Impact of a Potential Update of the Restrictions on the Marketing and Use of Cadmium in jewelleries, brazing alloys and PVC. The results of the study were published in January 2010 (7).\n(8)\nThe existing provisions concerning paint containing zinc should be clarified to define high zinc content. Provisions concerning paint on painted articles should be also clarified.\n(9)\nSince 2001 the European PVC industry has taken the initiative on a voluntary basis to refrain from using cadmium as a stabiliser in newly produced PVC for those applications which were not yet regulated under Directive 76/769/EEC. This voluntary initiative eventually led to a phase out of the use of cadmium in PVC.\n(10)\nThe prohibition of the use of cadmium should be extended to all articles made from PVC in order to comply with the objective of combating cadmium pollution.\n(11)\nA derogation for mixtures produced from PVC waste and referred to as \u2018recovered PVC\u2019 should be granted to allow their placing on the market for use in certain construction products.\n(12)\nThe use of recovered PVC should be encouraged in the manufacture of certain construction products because it allows the reuse of old PVC, which may contain cadmium. Consequently a higher limit value for cadmium should be granted for these construction products. This avoids PVC being discarded in landfills or incinerated causing release of carbon dioxide and cadmium in the environment.\n(13)\nThis Regulation should apply 6 months after the entry into force to allow operators to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Regulation.\n(14)\nIt is foreseen that due to the prohibition of cadmium in new PVC, the content of cadmium in construction products manufactured from recovered PVC should diminish gradually. Therefore, the limit value for cadmium should be reviewed accordingly and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) should be involved in reviewing the restriction as provided for in Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(15)\nIn accordance with the provisions on transitional measures in Article 137(1)a of REACH it is necessary to amend Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 10 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2011.", "references": ["74", "92", "97", "69", "83", "86", "65", "29", "47", "70", "85", "68", "49", "63", "73", "56", "61", "13", "35", "39", "93", "62", "78", "1", "6", "98", "27", "82", "2", "64", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "60", "84"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "60", "84"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1010/2010\nof 8 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for redfish in NAFO 3M by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["35", "83", "50", "13", "46", "64", "21", "23", "82", "3", "87", "41", "30", "20", "90", "71", "80", "16", "55", "26", "29", "1", "47", "2", "52", "31", "86", "6", "85", "78", "No Label", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2010/78/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\namending Directives 98/26/EC, 2002/87/EC, 2003/6/EC, 2003/41/EC, 2003/71/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2004/109/EC, 2005/60/EC, 2006/48/EC, 2006/49/EC and 2009/65/EC in respect of the powers of the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 50, Article 53(1) and Articles 62 and 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe financial crisis in 2007 and 2008 exposed important shortcomings in financial supervision, both in particular cases and in relation to the financial system as a whole. Nationally based supervisory models have lagged behind financial globalisation and the integrated and interconnected reality of European financial markets, in which many financial institutions operate across borders. The crisis exposed shortcomings in the areas of cooperation, coordination, consistent application of Union law and trust between national competent authorities.\n(2)\nIn several resolutions before and during the financial crisis, the European Parliament has called for a move towards more integrated European supervision, in order to ensure a true level playing field for all actors at Union level and reflect the increasing integration of financial markets in the Union (in its resolutions of 13 April 2000 on the Commission communication on implementing the framework for financial markets: Action Plan, of 21 November 2002 on prudential supervision rules in the European Union, of 11 July 2007 on financial services policy (2005 to 2010) - White Paper, of 23 September 2008 with recommendations to the Commission on hedge funds and private equity, and of 9 October 2008 with recommendations to the Commission on Lamfalussy follow-up: future structure of supervision, and in its positions of 22 April 2009 on the amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) and of 23 April 2009 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Credit Rating Agencies).\n(3)\nIn November 2008, the Commission mandated a High-Level Group chaired by Jacques de Larosi\u00e8re to make recommendations on how to strengthen European supervisory arrangements with a view to better protecting the citizen and rebuilding trust in the financial system. In its final report presented on 25 February 2009 (the \u2018de Larosi\u00e8re Report\u2019), the High-Level Group recommended that the supervisory framework be strengthened to reduce the risk and severity of future financial crises. It recommended far-reaching reforms to the supervisory structure of the financial sector within the Union. The de Larosi\u00e8re Report also recommended that a European System of Financial Supervisors (ESFS) be created, comprising three European Supervisory Authorities (ESA) - one for each of the banking, the securities and the insurance and occupational pensions sectors - and a European Systemic Risk Council.\n(4)\nIn its Communication of 4 March 2009 entitled \u2018Driving European Recovery\u2019, the Commission proposed to put forward draft legislation creating the ESFS and in its Communication of 27 May 2009 entitled \u2018European Financial Supervision\u2019, it provided more details of the possible architecture of that new supervisory framework.\n(5)\nIn its conclusions following its meeting on 18 and 19 June 2009, the European Council recommended that a European System of Financial Supervisors, comprising three new ESA, be established. The system should be aimed at upgrading the quality and consistency of national supervision, strengthening oversight of cross-border groups, establishing a European single rule book applicable to all financial institutions in the internal market. It emphasised that the ESA should also have supervisory powers for credit rating agencies and invited the Commission to prepare concrete proposals on how the ESFS could play a strong role in crisis situations.\n(6)\nOn 23 September 2009, the Commission adopted proposals for three regulations establishing the ESFS including the creation of the three ESA.\n(7)\nIn order for the ESFS to work effectively, changes to legal acts of the Union in the field of operation of the three ESA are necessary. Such changes concern the definition of the scope of certain powers of the ESA, the integration of certain powers established in legal acts of the Union, and amendments to ensure a smooth and effective functioning of the ESA in the context of the ESFS.\n(8)\nThe establishment of the three ESA should be accompanied by the development of a single rule book to ensure consistent harmonisation and uniform application and thus contribute to a more effective functioning of the internal market.\n(9)\nThe regulations establishing the ESFS provide that, in the areas specifically set out in the relevant legislation, the ESA may develop draft technical standards, to be submitted to the Commission for adoption in accordance with Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) by means of delegated or implementing acts. This Directive should identify a first set of such areas and should be without prejudice to adding further areas in the future.\n(10)\nThe relevant legislation should define those areas where the ESA are empowered to develop draft technical standards and how they should be adopted. The relevant legislation should lay down the elements, conditions and specifications as detailed in Article 290 TFEU in the case of delegated acts.\n(11)\nThe identification of areas for technical standards should strike an appropriate balance between building a single set of harmonised rules and avoiding unduly complicated regulation and enforcement. The only areas selected should be those in which consistent technical rules will contribute significantly and effectively to the achievement of the objectives of the relevant legislation, while ensuring that policy decisions are taken by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission in accordance with their usual procedures.\n(12)\nMatters subject to technical standards should be genuinely technical, where their development requires the expertise of supervisory experts. The technical standards adopted as delegated acts should further develop, specify and determine the conditions for consistent harmonisation of the rules included in basic instruments adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, supplementing or amending certain non-essential elements of the legislative act. The technical standards adopted as implementing acts should set conditions for the uniform application of legally binding Union acts. Technical standards should not involve policy choices.\n(13)\nIn the case of regulatory technical standards it is appropriate to introduce the procedure provided for in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (4), of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) (5) and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (6), respectively. Implementing technical standards should be adopted in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, respectively. The European Council endorsed the four-level \u2018Lamfalussy\u2019 approach to make the regulatory process for Union financial legislation more efficient and transparent. The Commission is empowered to adopt level-2 measures in many areas, and a large number of level-2 Commission regulations and directives are in force. In cases where the regulatory technical standards are designed to further develop, specify or determine the conditions of application of such level-2 measures, they should be adopted only once the relevant level-2 measures have been adopted and should be compatible with that level-2 measure.\n(14)\nBinding technical standards contribute to a single rulebook for financial services legislation as endorsed by the European Council in its conclusions of June 2009. To the extent that certain requirements in Union legislative acts are not fully harmonised, and in accordance with the precautionary principle on supervision, binding technical standards developing, specifying or determining the conditions of application for those requirements should not prevent Member States from requiring additional information or imposing more stringent requirements. Technical standards should therefore allow Member States to do so in specific areas, when those legislative acts provide for such discretion.\n(15)\nAs set out in the regulations establishing the ESFS, before submitting the technical standards to the Commission, the ESA should, where appropriate, conduct open public consultations relating thereto and analyse the potential related costs and benefits.\n(16)\nIt should be possible for technical standards to provide for transitional measures subject to adequate deadlines, if the costs of immediate implementation would be excessive compared to the benefits involved.\n(17)\nThe regulations establishing the ESFS provide for a mechanism to settle disagreements between national competent authorities. Where a competent authority disagrees with the procedure or content of an action or inaction by another competent authority in areas specified in legal acts of the Union in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, where the relevant legislation requires cooperation, coordination or joint decision-making by national competent authorities from more than one Member State, the ESA, at the request of one of the competent authorities concerned, should be able to assist the authorities in reaching an agreement within the time limit set by the ESA which should take into account any relevant time limits in the relevant legislation, and the urgency and complexity of the disagreement. In the event that such disagreement persists, the ESA should be able to settle the matter.\n(18)\nThe regulations establishing the ESA require that the cases where the mechanism to settle disagreements between national competent authorities may be applied are to be specified in the sectoral legislation. This Directive should identify a first set of such cases and should be without prejudice to adding further cases in the future. This Directive should not prevent the ESA from acting in accordance with other powers or fulfilling tasks specified in their establishing regulations, including non-binding mediation and contributing to the consistent, efficient and effective application of legal acts of the Union. Moreover, in those areas where some form of non-binding mediation is already established in the relevant legal act, or where there are time limits for joint decisions to be taken by one or more national competent authorities, amendments are needed to ensure clarity and minimum disruption of the process for reaching a joint decision, but also that where necessary, the ESA should be able to resolve disagreements. The binding procedure for the settlement of disagreements is designed to solve situations where national competent authorities cannot resolve, among themselves, procedural or substantive issues relating to compliance with legal acts of the Union.\n(19)\nThis Directive should therefore identify situations in which a procedural or a substantive issue of compliance with Union law needs to be resolved and the national competent authorities are not able to resolve the matter on their own. In such a situation, one of the national competent authorities concerned should be able to raise the issue with the European Supervisory Authority concerned. That European Supervisory Authority should act in accordance with its establishing regulation and with this Directive. The European Supervisory Authority concerned should be able to require the competent authorities concerned to take specific action or to refrain from action in order to settle the matter and to ensure compliance with Union law, with binding effects on the competent authorities concerned. In cases where the relevant legal act of the Union confers discretion on Member States, decisions taken by a European Supervisory Authority should not replace the exercise of discretion by the competent authorities in compliance with Union law.\n(20)\nDirective 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (7) provides for mediation or joint decisions as regards the determination of significant branches for the purposes of supervisory college membership, model validation and group risk assessment. In all of those areas, amendments should clearly state that in the event of disagreement during a specified time period, the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) may resolve the disagreement using the process outlined in Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. That approach makes it clear that, while the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) should not replace the exercise of discretion by the competent authorities in compliance with Union law, it should be possible for disagreements to be resolved and cooperation to be strengthened before a final decision is taken or issued to an institution.\n(21)\nIn order to ensure a smooth transition of the current tasks of the Committee of European Banking Supervisors, the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors and the Committee of European Securities Regulators to the new ESA, references to those Committees should be replaced in the relevant legislation with references to the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), respectively.\n(22)\nIn order to give full effect to the new framework provided for in the TFEU, it is necessary to adapt and replace the implementing powers designed under Article 202 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) with the appropriate provisions in accordance with Articles 290 and 291 TFEU. That review should be finalised within 3 years from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the remaining powers conferred under Article 202 EC Treaty should cease to apply on that date.\n(23)\nThe alignment of committee procedures to the TFEU and, in particular, to Articles 290 and 291 thereof, should be effected on a case-by-case basis. In order to take account of the technical developments in the financial markets and to specify the requirements laid down in the directives amended by this Directive, the Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU.\n(24)\nThe European Parliament and the Council should have 3 months from the date of notification to object to a delegated act. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council, it should be possible to prolong that period by 3 months in regard to significant areas of concern. It should also be possible for the European Parliament and the Council to inform the other institutions of their intention not to raise objections. Such early approval of delegated acts is particularly appropriate when deadlines need to be met, for example where there are timetables in the basic act for the Commission to adopt delegated acts.\n(25)\nIn the Declaration (No 39) on Article 290 TFEU, annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, the Conference took note of the Commission's intention to continue to consult experts appointed by the Member States in the preparation of draft delegated acts in the financial services area, in accordance with its established practice.\n(26)\nThe new supervisory architecture established by the ESFS will require national competent authorities to cooperate closely with the ESA. Amendments to the relevant legislation should ensure there are no legal obstacles to the information sharing obligations included in the regulations establishing the ESA.\n(27)\nInformation transmitted to or exchanged between competent authorities and the ESA or the ESRB should be covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, to which the persons employed or formerly employed by the competent authorities receiving the information are subject.\n(28)\nThe regulations establishing the ESA provide that they may develop contacts with supervisory authorities from third countries and assist in preparing equivalence decisions pertaining to supervisory regimes in third countries. Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (8) and Directive 2006/48/EC should be amended to allow the ESA to establish cooperation agreements with third countries and exchange information where those third countries can provide guarantees that professional secrecy will be protected.\n(29)\nHaving a single consolidated list or register for each category of financial institution in the Union, which is currently the duty of each national competent authority, will improve transparency and is more appropriate in the context of the single financial market. The ESA should be given the task of establishing, publishing and regularly updating registers and lists of financial actors within the Union. This concerns the list of authorisations of credit institutions granted by national competent authorities, the register of all investment firms and the list of regulated markets under Directive 2004/39/EC. Similarly, the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) should be given the task of establishing, publishing and regularly updating the list of approved prospectuses and the certificates of approval under Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading (9).\n(30)\nIn those areas where the ESA are under an obligation to develop draft technical standards, those draft technical standards should be submitted to the Commission within 3 years of the creation of the ESA unless another deadline is established by the relevant legislative act.\n(31)\nThe tasks of the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) in relation to Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems (10) should be without prejudice to the competence of the European System of Central Banks to promote the smooth operation of payment systems, in line with the fourth indent of Article 127(2) TFEU.\n(32)\nThe technical standards to be drafted by the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) in accordance with this Directive and in relation to Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (11) should be without prejudice to the competences of Member States with regard to prudential requirements on such institutions as provided for in Directive 2003/41/EC.\n(33)\nUnder Article 13(5) of Directive 2003/71/EC, the competent authority of the home Member State may transfer the approval of a prospectus to the competent authority of another Member State, subject to the agreement of that competent authority. Article 28(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 requires that such delegation agreements be notified to the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) at least 1 month before they are put into effect. However, given the experience in transfer of approval under Directive 2003/71/EC, which provides for shorter deadlines, it is appropriate not to apply Article 28(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 to that situation.\n(34)\nThere is currently no need for the ESA to develop draft technical standards on the existing requirements that the persons who effectively direct the business of investment firms, credit institutions, UCITS and their management companies be of sufficiently good repute and sufficiently experienced so as to ensure their sound and prudent management. However, given the importance of those requirements, the ESA should give priority to identifying best practices in guidelines and to ensuring the convergence of supervisory and prudential processes towards those best practices. They should similarly identify best practices and ensure convergence with respect to prudential requirements relative to the head office of those bodies.\n(35)\nThe European single rule book, applicable to all financial institutions in the internal market, should ensure adequate harmonisation of criteria and methodology to be applicable by the competent authorities to assess the risk of credit institutions. More particularly, the purpose of developing draft technical standards in relation to the Internal Ratings Based approach, the Advanced Measurement Approach and the internal model for market risk approach, as provided for by this Directive, should be to ensure the quality and robustness of such approaches, as well as the consistency of their review by the competent authorities. Those technical standards should allow the competent authorities to permit financial institutions to develop different approaches based on their experience and specificities, in accordance with the requirements laid down in Directive 2006/48/EC and Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (12) and subject to the requirements of the relevant technical standards.\n(36)\nSince the objectives of this Directive, namely improving the functioning of the internal market by means of ensuring a high, effective and consistent level of prudential regulation and supervision, protecting depositors, investors and beneficiaries and thereby businesses and consumers, protecting the integrity, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, maintaining the stability and sustainability of the financial system, preserving the real economy, safeguarding public finances and strengthening international supervisory coordination, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can, therefore, by reason of their scale, 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 those objectives.\n(37)\nThe Commission should, by 1 January 2014, report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the submission by the ESA of the draft technical standards provided for in this Directive and present any appropriate proposals.\n(38)\nDirective 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems (13), Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate (14), Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (15), Directive 2003/41/EC, Directive 2003/71/EC, Directive 2004/39/EC, Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (16), Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (17), Directive 2006/48/EC, Directive 2006/49/EC and Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (18) should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Directive 98/26/EC\nDirective 98/26/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 6(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Member State referred to in paragraph 2 shall immediately notify the European Systemic Risk Board, other Member States and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (hereinafter \u201cESMA\u201d), established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (19).\n(2)\nIn Article 10(1) the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall specify the systems, and the respective system operators, which are to be included in the scope of this Directive and shall notify them to ESMA and inform it of the authorities chosen in accordance with Article 6(2). ESMA shall publish that information on its website.\u2019.\n(3)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 10a\n1. The competent authorities shall cooperate with ESMA for the purposes of this Directive, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n2. The competent authorities shall provide, without delay, ESMA with all the information necessary to carry out its duties, in accordance with Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAmendments to Directive 2002/87/EC\nDirective 2002/87/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The coordinator appointed in accordance with Article 10 shall inform the parent undertaking at the head of a group or, in the absence of a parent undertaking, the regulated entity with the largest balance sheet total in the most important financial sector in a group, that the group has been identified as a financial conglomerate and of the appointment of the coordinator.\nThe coordinator shall also inform the competent authorities which have authorised regulated entities in the group and the competent authorities of the Member State in which the mixed financial holding company has its head office, and the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESA) established by Articles 54 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (20), of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) (21) and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (22) (hereinafter \u201cthe Joint Committee\u201d), respectively.\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. The Joint Committee shall publish on its website and keep up-to-date the list of identified financial conglomerates. That information shall be available by hyperlink on each of the European Supervisory Authority's websites.\u2019.\n(2)\nIn Article 9(2), the following point is added:\n\u2018(d)\narrangements in place to contribute to and develop, if required, adequate recovery and resolution arrangements and plans. Such arrangements shall be updated regularly.\u2019.\n(3)\nThe title of Section 3 is replaced by the following:\n(4)\nThe following Article is inserted in Section 3:\n\u2018Article 9a\nRole of the Joint Committee\nThe Joint Committee shall, in accordance with Article 56 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively, ensure coherent cross-sectoral and cross-border supervision and compliance with Union legislation.\u2019.\n(5)\nArticle 10(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. In order to ensure adequate supplementary supervision of the regulated entities in a financial conglomerate, a single coordinator, responsible for coordination and exercise of supplementary supervision, shall be appointed from among the competent authorities of the Member States concerned, including those of the Member State in which the mixed financial holding company has its head office. The identity of the coordinator shall be published on the Joint Committee's website.\u2019.\n(6)\nIn Article 11(1), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In order to facilitate and establish supplementary supervision on a broad legal basis, the coordinator, and the other relevant competent authorities, and, where necessary, the other competent authorities concerned, shall have coordination arrangements in place. The coordination arrangements may entrust additional tasks to the coordinator and may specify the procedures for the decision-making process among the relevant competent authorities as referred to in Articles 3 and 4, Article 5(4), Article 6, Article 12(2) and Articles 16 and 18, and for cooperation with other competent authorities.\nIn accordance with Article 8 and the procedure set out in Article 56 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively, the ESA, through the Joint Committee, shall develop guidelines aimed at the convergence of supervisory practices with regard to the consistency of supervisory coordination arrangements in accordance with Article 131a of Directive 2006/48/EC and Article 248(4) of Directive 2009/138/EC.\u2019.\n(7)\nIn Article 12(1), the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The competent authorities may also exchange with the following authorities such information as may be needed for the performance of their respective tasks, regarding regulated entities in a financial conglomerate, in line with the provisions laid down in the sectoral rules: central banks, the European System of Central Banks, the European Central Bank and the European Systemic Risk Board in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (23).\n(8)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 12a\nCooperation and exchange of information with the Joint Committee\n1. The competent authorities shall cooperate with the Joint Committee for the purposes of this Directive, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010, and Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n2. The competent authorities shall without delay provide the Joint Committee with all information necessary to carry out its duties in accordance with Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010, and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively.\u2019.\n(9)\nArticle 14(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall ensure that there are no legal impediments within their jurisdiction preventing the natural and legal persons included within the scope of supplementary supervision, whether or not a regulated entity, from exchanging with each other any information which would be relevant for the purposes of supplementary supervision and from exchanging information in accordance with this Directive and with the ESA in accordance with Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively, where necessary through the Joint Committee.\u2019.\n(10)\nThe second paragraph of Article 16 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Without prejudice to Article 17(2), Member States may determine what measures may be taken by the competent authorities with respect to mixed financial holding companies. In accordance with Articles 16 and 56 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively, the ESA, through the Joint Committee, may develop guidelines for measures in relation to mixed financial holding companies.\u2019.\n(11)\nArticle 18 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Without prejudice to the sectoral rules, where Article 5(3) applies, the competent authorities shall verify whether the regulated entities, the parent undertaking of which has its head office in a third country are subject to supervision by that third country's competent authority, which is equivalent to that provided for by this Directive on the supplementary supervision of regulated entities referred to in Article 5(2). The verification shall be carried out by the competent authority which would be the coordinator if the criteria set out in Article 10(2) were to apply, on the request of the parent undertaking or of any of the regulated entities authorised in the Union or on its own initiative.\nThat competent authority shall consult the other relevant competent authorities, and shall make every effort to comply with any applicable guidelines prepared through the Joint Committee in accordance with Articles 16 and 56 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20181a. Where a competent authority disagrees with the decision taken by another relevant competent authority under paragraph 1, Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively shall apply.\u2019.\n(12)\nArticle 19(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Without prejudice to Article 218(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Commission shall, with the assistance of the Joint Committee, the European Banking Committee, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Committee and the Financial Conglomerates Committee, examine the outcome of the negotiations referred to in paragraph 1 and the resulting situation.\u2019.\n(13)\nIn Article 20(1), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Those measures shall not include the subject matter of the power delegated and conferred on the Commission with regard to the items listed in Article 21a.\u2019.\n(14)\nArticle 21 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The ESA, through the Joint Committee, may provide general guidelines as to whether the supplementary supervision arrangements of competent authorities in third countries are likely to achieve the objectives of the supplementary supervision as defined in this Directive, in relation to the regulated entities in a financial conglomerate, the head of which has its head office in a third country. The Joint Committee shall keep any such guidelines under review and take into account any changes to the supplementary supervision carried out by such competent authorities.\u2019.\n(b)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. By 1 December 2011 the Commission shall review Article 20 and present any appropriate legislative proposals in order to allow the full application of delegated acts under Article 290 TFEU and implementing acts under Article 291 TFEU in respect of this Directive. Without prejudice to implementing measures already adopted, the powers conferred on the Commission in Article 21 to adopt implementing measures that remain after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, shall cease to apply on 1 December 2012.\u2019.\n(15)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 21a\nTechnical standards\n1. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Directive, the ESA, in accordance with Article 56 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010, and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively may develop draft regulatory technical standards with regard to:\n(a)\nArticle 2(11) in order to specify the application of Article 17 of Council Directive 78/660/EEC in the context of this Directive;\n(b)\nArticle 2(17) in order to establish procedures or specify criteria for the determination of \u201crelevant competent authorities\u201d;\n(c)\nArticle 3(5) in order to specify the alternative parameters for the identification of a financial conglomerate.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010, and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively.\n2. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Directive, the ESA, in accordance with Articles 56 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010, and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively may develop draft implementing technical standards with regard to:\n(a)\nArticle 6(2) in order to ensure uniform conditions of application of the calculation methods listed in Annex I part II, but without prejudice to Article 6(4);\n(b)\nArticle 7(2) in order to ensure uniform conditions of application of the procedures for including the items within the scope of the definition of \u201crisk concentrations\u201d in the supervisory overview referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 7(2);\n(c)\nArticle 8(2) in order to ensure uniform conditions of application of the procedures for including the items within the scope of the definition of \u201cintra group transactions\u201d in the supervisory overview referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 8(2).\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010, and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Directive 2003/6/EC\nDirective 2003/6/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 1(5) the following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018The European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (hereinafter \u201cESMA\u201d), established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (24) may develop draft implementing technical standards to ensure uniform conditions of application of the acts adopted by the Commission in accordance with this Article in relation to accepted market practices.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the second subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n(2)\nIn Article 6, the following paragraph is added:\n\u201811. ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to ensure uniform conditions of application of the acts adopted by the Commission in accordance with the sixth indent of the first subparagraph of paragraph 10.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(3)\nArticle 8 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe existing text is numbered as paragraph 1.\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20182. ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to ensure uniform conditions of application of acts adopted by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 1.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(4)\nIn Article 14 the following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. Member States shall provide ESMA annually with aggregated information regarding all administrative measures and sanctions imposed in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2.\nWhere the competent authority has disclosed an administrative measure or a sanction to the public, it shall contemporaneously report that fact to ESMA.\nWhere a published sanction relates to an investment firm authorised in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC, ESMA shall add a reference to the published sanction in the register of investment firms established under Article 5(3) of Directive 2004/39/EC.\u2019.\n(5)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 15a\n1. The competent authorities shall cooperate with ESMA for the purposes of this Directive, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n2. The competent authorities shall, without delay, provide ESMA with all information necessary to carry out its duties, in accordance with Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(6)\nArticle 16 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, the fourth subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Without prejudice to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), a competent authority whose request for information is not acted upon within a reasonable time or whose request for information is rejected may refer that rejection or absence of action within a reasonable timeframe to ESMA. In the situations referred to in the first sentence, ESMA may act in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, without prejudice to the possibilities for refusing to act on a request for information provided for in the second subparagraph of this paragraph and to the possibility of ESMA acting in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 4, the fifth subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Without prejudice to Article 258 TFEU, a competent authority whose application to open an inquiry or whose request for authorisation for its officials to accompany those of the other Member State's competent authority is not acted upon within a reasonable time or is rejected may refer that rejection or absence of action within a reasonable timeframe to ESMA. In the situations referred to in the first sentence, ESMA may act in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, without prejudice to the possibilities for refusing to act on a request for information provided in the fourth subparagraph of this paragraph and to the possibility of ESMA acting in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraphs 2 and 4, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards on the procedures and forms for exchange of information and for cross-border inspections as referred to in this Article.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(7)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 17a\nBy 1 December 2011 the Commission shall review Articles 1, 6, 8, 14, and 16 and present any appropriate legislative proposals in order to allow the full application of the delegated acts under Article 290 TFEU and implementing acts under Article 291 TFEU in respect of this Directive. Without prejudice to implementing measures already adopted, the powers conferred on the Commission in Article 17 to adopt implementing measures that remain after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty shall cease to apply on 1 December 2012.\u2019.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Directive 2003/41/EC\nDirective 2003/41/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 9 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe institution is registered in a national register by the competent authority or authorised; in the case of cross-border activities referred to in Article 20, the register shall also indicate the Member States in which the institution is operating; that information shall be communicated to the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (hereinafter \u201cEIOPA\u201d), established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (25) which shall publish it on its website;\n(b)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. In the case of cross-border activity as referred to in Article 20, the conditions of operation of the institution shall be subject to a prior authorisation by the competent authorities of the home Member State. When giving such authorisation, Member States shall immediately inform EIOPA.\u2019.\n(2)\nArticle 13 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe existing text is numbered as paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20182. EIOPA may develop draft implementing technical standards on the forms and formats for the documents listed in paragraph 1(c)(i) to (vi).\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010.\u2019.\n(3)\nIn Article 14(4), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Any decision to prohibit the activities of an institution shall contain detailed reasons and be notified to the institution in question. It shall also be notified to EIOPA.\u2019.\n(4)\nIn Article 15(6), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. With a view to further harmonisation of the rules regarding the calculation of technical provisions which may be justified - in particular the interest rates and other assumptions influencing the level of technical provisions - the Commission, drawing on advice from EIOPA, shall, every 2 years or at the request of a Member State, issue a report on the situation concerning the development in cross-border activities.\u2019.\n(5)\nIn Article 20, the following paragraph is added:\n\u201811. Member States shall report to EIOPA their national provisions of prudential nature relevant to the field of occupational pension schemes, which are not covered by the reference to national social and labour law in paragraph 1.\nMember States shall update that information on a regular basis and at least every 2 years and EIOPA shall make that information available on its website.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this paragraph, EIOPA shall develop draft implementing technical standards on the procedures to be followed and formats and templates to be used by the competent authorities when transmitting and updating the relevant information to EIOPA. EIOPA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2014.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010.\u2019.\n(6)\nArticle 21 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20182a. The competent authorities shall cooperate with EIOPA for the purposes of this Directive, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010.\nThe competent authorities shall without delay provide EIOPA with all information necessary to carry out its duties under this Directive and under Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010, in accordance with Article 35 of that Regulation.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Each Member State shall inform the Commission and EIOPA of any major difficulties to which the application of this Directive gives rise.\nThe Commission, EIOPA and the competent authorities of the Member States concerned shall examine such difficulties as quickly as possible in order to find an appropriate solution.\u2019.\nArticle 5\nAmendments to Directive 2003/71/EC\nDirective 2003/71/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 4, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Directive, the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (hereinafter \u201cESMA\u201d) established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (26) may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the exemptions concerning the points (a) to (e) of paragraph 1 and points (a) to (h) of paragraph 2.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n(2)\nIn Article 5(2), the following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Directive and of the delegated acts adopted by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 5, ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards in order to ensure uniform conditions of application of the delegated acts adopted by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 5 in relation to a uniform template for the presentation of the summary and to allow investors to compare the security concerned with other relevant products.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(3)\nIn Article 7, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards in order to ensure uniform conditions of application of the delegated acts adopted by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 1.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(4)\nIn Article 8, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to ensure uniform conditions of application of the delegated acts adopted by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 4.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(5)\nArticle 13 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018The competent authority shall notify ESMA of the approval of the prospectus and any supplement thereto at the same time as that approval is notified to the issuer, the offeror or the person asking for admission to trading on a regulated market, as the case may be. The competent authorities shall at the same time provide ESMA with a copy of the prospectus and any supplement thereto.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. The competent authority of the home Member State may transfer the approval of a prospectus to the competent authority of another Member State, subject to prior notification to ESMA and the agreement of the competent authority. Such a transfer shall be notified to the issuer, the offeror or the person asking for admission to trading on a regulated market within three working days from the date of the decision taken by the competent authority of the home Member State. The time limit referred to in paragraph 2 shall apply from that date. Article 28(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 shall not apply to the transfer of the approval of the prospectus in accordance with this paragraph.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Directive and to facilitate communication between the competent authorities and between the competent authorities and ESMA, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the notifications provided for in this paragraph.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the second subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(6)\nArticle 14 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Once approved, the prospectus shall be filed with the competent authority of the home Member State, shall be accessible to ESMA through the competent authority and shall be made available to the public by the issuer, the offeror or the person asking for admission to trading on a regulated market as soon as practicable and, in any event, at a reasonable time in advance of, and at the latest at the beginning of, the offer to the public or the admission to trading of the securities involved. In addition, in the case of an initial public offer of a class of shares not already admitted to trading on a regulated market that is to be admitted to trading for the first time, the prospectus shall be available at least six working days before the end of the offer.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20184a. ESMA shall publish on its website the list of prospectuses approved in accordance with Article 13, including, if applicable, a hyperlink to the prospectus published on the website of the competent authority of the home Member State, or on the website of the issuer, or on the website of the regulated market. The published list shall be kept up-to-date and each item shall remain on the website for a period of at least 12 months.\u2019.\n(7)\nIn Article 16, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation, to specify the requirements laid down in this Article and to take account of technical developments on financial markets, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify situations where a significant new factor, material mistake or inaccuracy relating to the information included in the prospectus requires a supplement to the prospectus to be published. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2014.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(8)\nArticle 17 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Without prejudice to Article 23, where an offer to the public or admission to trading on a regulated market is provided for in one or more Member States, or in a Member State other than the home Member State, the prospectus approved by the home Member State and any supplements thereto shall be valid for the public offer or the admission to trading in any number of host Member States, provided that ESMA and the competent authority of each host Member State are notified in accordance with Article 18. Competent authorities of host Member States shall not undertake any approval or administrative procedures relating to prospectuses.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. If significant new factors, material mistakes or inaccuracies come to light after approval of the prospectus, as referred to in Article 16, the competent authority of the home Member State shall require the publication of a supplement to be approved in accordance with Article 13(1). ESMA and the competent authority of the host Member State may inform the competent authority of the home Member State of the need for new information.\u2019.\n(9)\nIn Article 18, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u20183. The competent authority of the home Member State shall notify ESMA of the certificate of approval of the prospectus at the same time as it is notified to the competent authority of the host Member State.\nESMA and the competent authority of the host Member State shall publish on their websites the list of certificates of approval of prospectuses and any supplements thereto, which are notified in accordance with this Article, including, if applicable, a hyperlink to those documents published on the website of the competent authority of the home Member State, on the website of the issuer, or on the website of the regulated market. The published list shall be kept up-to-date and each item shall remain on the websites for a period of at least 12 months.\n4. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Directive and to take account of technical developments on financial markets, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the notification of the certificate of approval, the copy of the prospectus, the supplement of the prospectus and the translation of the summary.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(10)\nArticle 21 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following paragraphs are inserted:\n\u20181a. The competent authorities shall cooperate with ESMA for the purposes of this Directive, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n1b. The competent authorities shall without delay provide ESMA with all information necessary to carry out its duties, in accordance with Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Member States shall inform the Commission, ESMA and the competent authorities of other Member States of any arrangements entered into with regard to delegation of tasks, including the precise conditions regulating such delegation.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 4, the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018In accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, ESMA shall be entitled to participate in on-site inspections referred to in point (d) where they are carried out jointly by two or more competent authorities.\u2019.\n(11)\nArticle 22 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018The competent authorities may refer to ESMA situations where a request for cooperation, in particular to exchange information, has been rejected or has not been acted upon within a reasonable time. Without prejudice to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), ESMA may, in the situations referred to in the first sentence, act in accordance with the power conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent the competent authorities from exchanging confidential information or from transmitting confidential information to ESMA or the European Systemic Risk Board (hereinafter the \u201cESRB\u201d), subject to constraints relating to firm-specific information and effects on third countries as provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 and Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (27) respectively. Information exchanged between competent authorities and ESMA or the ESRB shall be covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, to which the persons employed or formerly employed by the competent authorities receiving the information are subject.\n(c)\nThe following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article and to take account of technical developments on financial markets, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information required in paragraph 2.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraph 2, and to take account of technical developments on financial markets, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the cooperation and exchange of information between competent authorities.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(12)\nArticle 23 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 23\nPrecautionary measures\n1. Where the competent authority of the host Member State finds that irregularities have been committed by the issuer or by the financial institutions in charge of the public offer or that the issuer has breached its obligations by reason of the fact that securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, it shall refer those findings to the competent authority of the home Member State and to ESMA.\n2. If, despite the measures taken by the competent authority of the home Member State or because such measures prove inadequate, the issuer or the financial institution in charge of the public offer persists in breaching the relevant legal or regulatory provisions, the competent authority of the host Member State, after informing the competent authority of the home Member State and ESMA, shall take all appropriate measures in order to protect investors and shall inform the Commission and ESMA thereof at the earliest opportunity.\u2019.\nArticle 6\nAmendments to Directive 2004/39/EC\nDirective 2004/39/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 5(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Member States shall register all investment firms. The register shall be publicly accessible and shall contain information on the services or activities for which the investment firm is authorised. It shall be updated on a regular basis. Every authorisation shall be notified to the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (hereinafter \u201cESMA\u201d), established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (28).\nESMA shall establish a list of all investment firms in the Union. The list shall contain information on the services or activities for which the investment firm is authorised and it shall be updated on a regular basis. ESMA shall publish and keep up-to-date that list on its website.\nWhere a competent authority has withdrawn an authorisation in accordance with Article 8(b) to (d), that withdrawal shall be published on the list for a period of 5 years.\n(2)\nIn Article 7, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article and of Article 9(2) to (4), Article 10(1) and (2), ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify:\n(a)\nthe information to be provided to the competent authorities under Article 7(2) including the programme of operations;\n(b)\nthe requirements applicable to the management of investment firms under Article 9(4) and the information for the notifications under Article 9(2);\n(c)\nthe requirements applicable to shareholders and members with qualifying holdings, as well as obstacles which may prevent effective exercise of the supervisory functions of the competent authority, under Article 10(1) and (2).\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of Article 7(2) and Article 9(2), ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine standard forms, templates and procedures for the notification or provision of information provided for in those Articles.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(3)\nIn Article 8 the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018Every withdrawal of authorisation shall be notified to ESMA.\u2019.\n(4)\nIn Article 10a, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20188. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to establish an exhaustive list of information, referred to in paragraph 4 to be included by proposed acquirers in their notification, without prejudice to paragraph 2.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2014.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of Articles 10, 10a and 10b, ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to determine standard forms, templates and procedures for the modalities of the consultation process between the relevant competent authorities as referred to in Article 10(4).\nESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2014.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the fourth subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(5)\nArticle 15 is amended as follows\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following::\n\u20181. Member States shall inform the Commission and ESMA of any general difficulties which their investment firms encounter in establishing themselves or providing investment services and/or performing investment activities in any third country.\u2019\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Whenever it appears to the Commission, on the basis of information submitted to it under paragraph 1, that a third country does not grant Union investment firms effective market access comparable to that granted by the Union to investment firms from that third country, the Commission, taking into account guidance issued by ESMA, shall submit proposals to the Council for an appropriate mandate for negotiation with a view to obtaining comparable competitive opportunities for Union investment firms. The Council shall act by qualified majority.\nThe European Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure in accordance with Article 217 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).\nESMA shall assist the Commission for the purposes of this Article.\u2019.\n(6)\nIn Article 16(2), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018ESMA may develop guidelines regarding the monitoring methods referred to in this paragraph.\u2019.\n(7)\nIn Article 19(6), the first indent is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nthe services referred to in the introductory part relate to shares admitted to trading on a regulated market or in an equivalent third-country market, money market instruments, bonds or other forms of securitised debt (excluding those bonds or securitised debt that embed a derivative), UCITS and other non-complex financial instruments. A third-country market shall be considered as equivalent to a regulated market if it complies with equivalent requirements to those established under Title III. The Commission and ESMA shall publish on their websites a list of those markets that are to be considered as equivalent. That list shall be updated periodically. ESMA shall assist the Commission in the assessment of third-country markets.\u2019.\n(8)\nIn Article 23(3), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Member States that decide to allow investment firms to appoint tied agents shall establish a public register. Tied agents shall be registered in the public register in the Member State where they are established. ESMA shall publish on its website references or hyperlinks to the public registers established under this Article by the Member States that decide to allow investment firms to appoint tied agents.\u2019.\n(9)\nArticle 25 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Without prejudice to the allocation of responsibilities for enforcing the provisions of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (29), Member States coordinated by ESMA in accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 shall ensure that appropriate measures are in place to enable the competent authority to monitor the activities of investment firms to ensure that they act honestly, fairly and professionally and in a manner which promotes the integrity of the market.\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Member States shall require investment firms to keep at the disposal of the competent authority, for at least 5 years, the relevant data relating to all transactions in financial instruments which they have carried out, whether on own account or on behalf of a client. In the case of transactions carried out on behalf of clients, the records shall contain all the information and details of the identity of the client, and the information required under Directive 2005/60/EC.\nESMA may request access to that information in accordance with the procedure and under the conditions set out in Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(10)\nArticle 27(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The competent authority of the most relevant market in terms of liquidity as defined in Article 25 for each share shall determine at least annually, on the basis of the arithmetic average value of the orders executed in the market in respect of that share, the class of shares to which it belongs. That information shall be made public to all market participants and transmitted to ESMA, which shall publish it on its website.\u2019.\n(11)\nArticle 31 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In cases where the investment firm intends to use tied agents, the competent authority of the home Member State of the investment firm shall, at the request of the competent authority of the host Member State and within a reasonable time, communicate the identity of the tied agents that the investment firm intends to use in that Member State. The host Member State may make public such information. ESMA may request access to that information in accordance with the procedure and under the conditions set out in Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20187. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information to be notified in accordance with paragraphs 2, 4 and 6.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the transmission of information in accordance with paragraphs 3, 4 and 6.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(12)\nIn Article 32, the following paragraph is added:\n\u201810. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information to be notified in accordance with paragraphs 2, 4 and 9.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the transmission of information in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 9.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(13)\nIn Article 36, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20186. ESMA shall be notified of any withdrawal of authorisation.\u2019.\n(14)\nArticle 41(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. A competent authority which requests the suspension or removal of a financial instrument from trading on one or more regulated markets shall immediately make public its decision and inform ESMA and the competent authorities of the other Member States. Save where it is likely to cause significant damage to the investors\u2019 interests or the orderly functioning of the internal market, the competent authorities of the other Member States shall request the suspension or removal of that financial instrument from trading on the regulated markets and MTFs that operate under their supervision.\u2019.\n(15)\nIn Article 42(6), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The regulated market shall communicate to the competent authority of its home Member State the Member State in which it intends to provide such arrangements. The competent authority of the home Member State shall communicate that information to the Member State in which the regulated market intends to provide such arrangements within 1 month. ESMA may request access to that information in accordance with the procedure and under the conditions set out in Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(16)\nArticle 47 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 47\nList of regulated markets\nEach Member State shall draw up a list of the regulated markets for which it is the home Member State and shall forward that list to the other Member States and ESMA. A similar communication shall be effected in respect of each change to that list. ESMA shall publish and keep up-to-date a list of all regulated markets on its website.\u2019.\n(17)\nArticle 48 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Each Member State shall designate the competent authorities which are to carry out each of the duties provided for in this Directive. Member States shall inform the Commission, ESMA and the competent authorities of other Member States of the identity of the competent authorities responsible for enforcement of each of those duties, and of any division of those duties.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Member States shall inform the Commission, ESMA and the competent authorities of other Member States of any arrangements entered into with regard to delegation of tasks, including the precise conditions regulating such delegation.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. ESMA shall publish and keep up-to-date a list of the competent authorities referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 on its website.\u2019.\n(18)\nIn Article 51, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u20184. Member States shall provide ESMA annually with aggregated information about all administrative measures and sanctions imposed in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2.\n5. Where the competent authority has disclosed an administrative measure or sanction to the public, it shall, contemporaneously, report that fact to ESMA.\n6. Where a published sanction relates to an investment firm authorised in accordance with this Directive, ESMA shall add a reference to the published sanction in the register of investment firms established under Article 5(3).\u2019.\n(19)\nIn Article 53, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. The competent authorities shall notify ESMA of the complaint and redress procedures referred to in paragraph 1 which are available under its jurisdictions.\nESMA shall publish and keep up-to-date a list of all extra-judicial mechanisms on its website.\u2019.\n(20)\nThe Title of Chapter II is replaced by the following:\n(21)\nArticle 56 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In order to facilitate and accelerate cooperation, and more particularly exchange of information, Member States shall designate a single competent authority as a contact point for the purposes of this Directive. Member States shall communicate to the Commission, ESMA and to the other Member States the names of the authorities which are designated to receive requests for exchange of information or cooperation pursuant to this paragraph. ESMA shall publish and keep up-to-date a list of those authorities on its website.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Where a competent authority has good reasons to suspect that acts contrary to the provisions of this Directive, carried out by entities not subject to its supervision, are being or have been carried out on the territory of another Member State, it shall notify the competent authority of the other Member State and ESMA in as specific a manner as possible. The notified competent authority shall take appropriate action. It shall inform the notifying competent authority and ESMA of the outcome of the action and, to the extent possible, of significant interim developments. This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the competence of the notifying competent authority.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20186. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the cooperation arrangements referred to in paragraph 2.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(22)\nArticle 57 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe existing text is renumbered as paragraph 1.\n(b)\nthe following paragraphs are added:\n\u20182. With the objective of converging supervisory practices, ESMA shall be able to participate in the activities of the colleges of supervisors, including on-site verifications or investigations, carried out jointly by two or more competent authorities in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n3. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of paragraph 1, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information to be exchanged between competent authorities when cooperating in supervisory activities, on-the-spot-verifications, and investigations.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation. (EU) No 1095/2010.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraph 1, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for competent authorities to cooperate in supervisory activities, on-site verifications, and investigations.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(23)\nArticle 58 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraphs 1 and 2, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the exchange of information.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. Neither this Article nor Articles 54 or 63 shall prevent a competent authority from transmitting to ESMA, the European Systemic Risk Board (hereinafter the \u201cESRB\u201d), central banks, the European System of Central Banks and the European Central Bank, in their capacity as monetary authorities, and, where appropriate, to other public authorities responsible for overseeing payment and settlement systems, confidential information intended for the performance of their tasks; likewise such authorities or bodies shall not be prevented from communicating to the competent authorities such information as they may need for the purpose of performing their functions provided for in this Directive.\u2019.\n(24)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 58a\nBinding mediation\nThe competent authorities may refer to ESMA situations where a request relating to one of the following has been rejected or has not been acted upon within a reasonable time:\n(a)\nto carry out a supervisory activity, an on-the-spot verification, or an investigation, as provided for in Article 57; or\n(b)\nto exchange information as provided for in Article 58.\nIn the situations referred to in the first paragraph, ESMA may act in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, without prejudice to the possibilities for refusing to act on a request for information foreseen in Article 59a and to the possibility of ESMA acting in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(25)\nArticle 59, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In the case of such a refusal, the competent authority shall notify the requesting competent authority and ESMA accordingly, providing as detailed information as possible.\u2019.\n(26)\nIn Article 60, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraphs 1 and 2, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the consultation of other competent authorities prior to granting an authorisation.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(27)\nArticle 62 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018If, despite the measures taken by the competent authority of the home Member State or because such measures prove inadequate, the investment firm persists in acting in a manner that is clearly prejudicial to the interests of host Member State investors or the orderly functioning of markets, the following shall apply:\n(a)\nafter informing the competent authority of the home Member State, the competent authority of the host Member State shall take all the appropriate measures needed in order to protect investors and the proper functioning of the markets, which shall include the possibility of preventing offending investment firms from initiating any further transactions within their territories. The Commission and ESMA shall be informed of such measures without delay;\n(b)\nin addition, the competent authority of the host Member State may refer the matter to ESMA, which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018If, despite the measures taken by the host Member State, the investment firm persists in breaching the legal or regulatory provisions referred to in the first subparagraph in force in the host Member State, the following shall apply:\n(a)\nafter informing the competent authority of the home Member State, the competent authority of the host Member State shall take all the appropriate measures needed in order to protect investors and the proper functioning of the markets. The Commission and ESMA shall be informed of such measures without delay;\n(b)\nin addition, the competent authority of the host Member State may refer the matter to ESMA, which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018If, despite the measures taken by the competent authority of the home Member State or because such measures prove inadequate, that regulated market or the MTF persists in acting in a manner that is clearly prejudicial to the interests of host Member State investors or the orderly functioning of markets, the following shall apply:\n(a)\nafter informing the competent authority of the home Member State, the competent authority of the host Member State shall take all the appropriate measures needed in order to protect investors and the proper functioning of the markets, which shall include the possibility of preventing that regulated market or the MTF from making their arrangements available to remote members or participants established in the host Member State. The Commission and ESMA shall be informed of such measures without delay;\n(b)\nin addition, the competent authority of the host Member State may refer the matter to ESMA, which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(28)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 62a\nCooperation and exchange of information with ESMA\n1. The competent authorities shall cooperate with ESMA for the purposes of this Directive, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n2. The competent authorities shall, without delay, provide ESMA with all information necessary to carry out its duties under this Directive and in accordance with Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(29)\nArticle 63(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States and in accordance with Article 33 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, ESMA may conclude cooperation agreements providing for the exchange of information with the competent authorities of third countries only if the information disclosed is subject to guarantees of professional secrecy at least equivalent to those required under Article 54. Such exchange of information must be intended for the performance of the tasks of those competent authorities.\nMember States and ESMA may transfer personal data to a third country in accordance with Chapter IV of Directive 95/46/EC.\nMember States and ESMA may also conclude cooperation agreements providing for the exchange of information with third country authorities, bodies and natural or legal persons responsible for one or more of the following:\n(a)\nthe supervision of credit institutions, other financial institutions, insurance undertakings and the supervision of financial markets;\n(b)\nthe liquidation and bankruptcy of investment firms and other similar procedures;\n(c)\nthe carrying out of statutory audits of the accounts of investment firms and other financial institutions, credit institutions and insurance undertakings, in the performance of their supervisory functions, or which administer compensation schemes, in the performance of their functions;\n(d)\noversight of the bodies involved in the liquidation and bankruptcy of investment firms and other similar procedures;\n(e)\noversight of persons charged with carrying out statutory audits of the accounts of insurance undertakings, credit institutions, investment firms and other financial institutions.\nThe cooperation agreements referred to in the third subparagraph may be concluded only where the information disclosed is subject to guarantees of professional secrecy at least equivalent to those required under Article 54. Such exchange of information shall be intended for the performance of the tasks of those authorities or bodies or natural or legal persons.\u2019.\n(30)\nThe following Article is inserted\n\u2018Article 64a\nSunset clause\nBy 1 December 2011 the Commission shall review Articles 2, 4, 10b, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24 and 25, Articles 27 to 30, and Articles 40, 44, 45, 56 and 58 and present any appropriate legislative proposal in order to allow the full application of the delegated acts under Article 290 TFEU and implementing acts under Article 291 TFEU in respect of this Directive. Without prejudice to implementing measures already adopted, the powers conferred on the Commission in Article 64 to adopt implementing measures that remain after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009 shall cease to apply on 1 December 2012.\u2019.\nArticle 7\nAmendments to Directive 2004/109/EC\nDirective 2004/109/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2(3) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. In order to take account of technical developments on financial markets, to specify the requirements and to ensure the uniform application of paragraph 1, the Commission shall adopt, in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, measures concerning the definitions set out in paragraph 1.\u2019.\n(b)\nthe third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The measures referred to in points (a) and (b) of the second subparagraph shall be laid down by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b.\u2019.\n(2)\nArticle 5(6) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. The Commission shall adopt, in accordance with Article 27(2) or Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), in order to take account of technical developments on financial markets, measures to specify the requirements and ensure the uniform application of paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Article.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The measures referred to in point (a) shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 27(2). The measures referred to in points (b) and (c) shall be laid down by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe fourth subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Where appropriate, the Commission may also adapt the five-year period referred to in paragraph 1 by means of a delegated act in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b.\u2019.\n(3)\nArticle 9(7) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, measures in order to take account of technical developments on financial markets and to specify the requirements laid down in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5.\u2019.\n(b)\nthe second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Commission shall specify, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, the maximum length of the \u201cshort settlement cycle\u201d referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article, as well as the appropriate control mechanisms by the competent authority of the home Member State.\u2019.\n(4)\nArticle 12 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 8:\n(i)\nin the first subparagraph, the introductory part is replaced by the following:\n\u20188. In order to take account of technical developments on financial markets and to specify the requirements laid down in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of this Article, the Commission shall adopt, in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, measures:\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (a) is deleted;\n(iii)\nthe second subparagraph is deleted;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20189. In order to ensure the uniform conditions of application of this Article and to take account of technical developments on financial markets, the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (hereinafter \u201cESMA\u201d), established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (30) may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures to be used when notifying the required information to the issuer under paragraph 1 of this Article or when filing information under Article 19(3).\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n(5)\nArticle 13 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2:\n(i)\nthe first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, measures in order to take account of technical developments on financial markets and to specify the requirements laid down in paragraph 1. It shall in particular determine:\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nthe contents of the notification to be made;\u2019;\n(iii)\nthe second subparagraph is deleted;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraph 1 of this Article and to take account of technical developments on financial markets, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures to be used when notifying the required information to the issuer under paragraph 1 of this Article or when filing information under Article 19(3).\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(6)\nArticle 14(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, measures in order to take account of technical developments on financial markets and to specify the requirements laid down in paragraph 1.\u2019.\n(7)\nArticle 17(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, measures in order to take account of technical developments on financial markets, to take account of developments in information and communication technology and to specify the requirements laid down in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. The Commission shall, in particular, specify the types of financial institution through which a shareholder may exercise the financial rights provided for in paragraph 2(c).\u2019.\n(8)\nArticle 18(5) is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, measures in order to take account of technical developments on financial markets, to take account of developments in information and communication technology and to specify the requirements laid down in paragraphs 1 to 4. The Commission shall, in particular, specify the types of financial institution through which a debt security holder may exercise the financial rights provided for in paragraph 2(c).\u2019.\n(9)\nArticle 19(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, measures in order to specify the requirements laid down in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.\nThe Commission shall, in particular, specify the procedure in accordance with which an issuer, a holder of shares or other financial instruments, or a person or entity referred to in Article 10, is to file information with the competent authority of the home Member State under paragraph 1 or 3, respectively, in order to enable filing by electronic means in the home Member State.\u2019.\n(10)\nArticle 21(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, measures to take account of technical developments on financial markets, to take account of developments in information and communication technology and to specify the requirements laid down in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.\nThe Commission shall, in particular, specify:\n(a)\nminimum standards for the dissemination of regulated information, as referred to in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nminimum standards for the central storage mechanism as referred to in paragraph 2.\nThe Commission may also specify and update a list of media for the dissemination of information to the public.\u2019.\n(11)\nIn Article 22, the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. ESMA shall draw up guidelines, in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, with a view to further facilitating public access to information to be disclosed under Directive 2003/6/EC, Directive 2003/71/EC and under this Directive.\u2019.\n(12)\nArticle 23 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Where the registered office of an issuer is situated in a third country, the competent authority of the home Member State may exempt that issuer from requirements under Articles 4 to 7, Article 12(6) and Articles 14 to 18, provided that the law of the third country in question lays down equivalent requirements or such an issuer complies with requirements of the law of a third country that the competent authority of the home Member State considers as equivalent.\nThe competent authority shall then inform ESMA of the exemption granted.\u2019.\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. In order to ensure the uniform conditions of application of paragraph 1, the Commission shall adopt, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 27(2), implementing measures:\n(i)\nsetting up a mechanism ensuring the establishment of equivalence of information required under this Directive, including financial statements and information, required under the law, regulations or administrative provisions of a third country;\n(ii)\nstating that, by reason of its domestic law, regulations, administrative provisions, or of the practices or procedures based on the international standards set by international organisations, the third country where the issuer is registered ensures the equivalence of the information requirements provided for in this Directive.\nIn the context of point (ii) of the first subparagraph, the Commission shall also adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, measures concerning the assessment of standards relevant to the issuers of more than one country.\nThe Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 27(2), take the necessary decisions on the equivalence of accounting standards which are used by third-country issuers under the conditions set out in Article 30(3). If the Commission decides that the accounting standards of a third country are not equivalent, it may allow the issuers concerned to continue using such accounting standards during an appropriate transitional period.\nIn the context of the third subparagraph, the Commission shall also adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, measures aimed at establishing general equivalence criteria regarding accounting standards relevant to issuers of more than one country.\u2019.\n(c)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. In order to specify the requirements laid down in paragraph 2, the Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, measures defining the type of information disclosed in a third country that is of importance to the public in the Union.\u2019.\n(d)\nin paragraph 7, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Commission shall also adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, measures aimed at establishing general equivalence criteria for the purpose of the first subparagraph.\u2019.\n(e)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20188. ESMA shall assist the Commission in carrying out its tasks under this Article in accordance with Article 33 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(13)\nArticle 24 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Each Member State shall designate the central authority referred to in Article 21(1) of Directive 2003/71/EC as the central competent administrative authority responsible for carrying out the obligations provided for in this Directive and for ensuring that the provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive are applied. Member States shall inform the Commission and ESMA accordingly.\u2019.\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Member States shall inform the Commission, ESMA in accordance with Article 28(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, and competent authorities of other Member States of any arrangements entered into with regard to the delegation of tasks, including the precise conditions for regulating the delegations.\u2019.\n(14)\nArticle 25 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following paragraphs are inserted:\n\u20182a. The competent authorities may refer to ESMA situations where a request for cooperation has been rejected or has not been acted upon within a reasonable time. Without prejudice to the Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), ESMA may, in situations referred to in the first sentence, act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n2b. The competent authorities shall cooperate with ESMA for the purposes of this Directive, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n2c. The competent authorities shall without delay provide ESMA with all information necessary to carry out its duties under this Directive and under Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, in accordance with Article 35 of that Regulation.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, the first sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent the competent authorities from exchanging confidential information with, or from transmitting information to, other competent authorities, ESMA and the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) established by Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (31).\n(c)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Member States and ESMA in accordance with Article 33 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, may conclude cooperation agreements providing for the exchange of information with the competent authorities or bodies of third countries enabled by their respective legislation to carry out any tasks under this Directive in accordance with Article 24. Member States shall notify ESMA when they conclude cooperation agreements. Such an exchange of information is subject to guarantees of professional secrecy at least equivalent to those referred to in this Article. Such an exchange of information shall be intended for the performance of the supervisory task of the authorities or bodies mentioned. Where the information originates in another Member State, it shall not be disclosed without the express agreement of the competent authorities which disclosed it and, where appropriate, solely for the purposes for which those authorities gave their agreement.\u2019.\n(15)\nArticle 26 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 26\nPrecautionary measures\n1. Where the competent authority of a host Member State finds that the issuer or the holder of shares or other financial instruments, or the person or entity referred to in Article 10, has committed irregularities or infringed its obligations, it shall refer its findings to the competent authority of the home Member State and to ESMA.\n2. If, despite the measures taken by the competent authority of the home Member State, or because such measures prove inadequate, the issuer or the security holder persists in infringing the relevant legal or regulatory provisions, the competent authority of the host Member State shall, after informing the competent authority of the home Member State, take, in accordance with Article 3(2), all the appropriate measures in order to protect investors, informing the Commission and ESMA thereof at the earliest opportunity.\u2019.\n(16)\nThe title of Chapter VI is replaced by the following:\n(17)\nArticle 27 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2a is replaced by the following:\n\u20182a. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 2(3), Article 5(6), Article 9(7), Article 12(8), Article 13(2), Article 14(2), Article 17(4), Article 18(5), Article 19(4), Article 21(4), Article 23(4), Article 23(5) and Article 23(7) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 4 years from 4 January 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of delegated power at the latest 6 months before the end of the four-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 27a.\u2019.\n(b)\nthe following paragraphs are inserted:\n\u20182b. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n2c. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 27a and 27b.\u2019.\n(18)\nThe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 27a\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 2(3), Article 5(6), Article 9(7), Article 12(8), Article 13(2), Article 14(2), Article 17(4), Article 18(5), Article 19(4) Article 21(4), Article 23(4), Article 23(5) and Article 23(7) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke a delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 27b\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 3 months from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 3 months.\n2. If, on the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. In accordance with Article 296 TFEU, the institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\u2019.\nArticle 8\nAmendments to Directive 2005/60/EC\nDirective 2005/60/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 11(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Member States shall inform each other, the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (hereinafter \u201cEBA\u201d), established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (32), the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) (hereinafter \u201cEIOPA\u201d), established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (33), and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (hereinafter \u201cESMA\u201d), established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (34) (collectively, the \u201cESA\u201d) to the extent relevant for the purposes of this Directive and in accordance with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, and the Commission of cases where they consider that a third country meets the conditions laid down in paragraphs 1 or 2 or in other situations which meet the technical criteria established in accordance with Article 40(1)(b).\n(2)\nArticle 16(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The Member States shall inform each other, the ESA to the extent relevant for the purposes of this Directive and in accordance with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010, and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, and the Commission of cases where they consider that a third country meets the conditions laid down in paragraph 1(b).\u2019.\n(3)\nArticle 28(7) is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. The Member States shall inform each other, the ESA to the extent relevant for the purposes of this Directive and in accordance with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010, and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 and the Commission of cases where they consider that a third country meets the conditions laid down in paragraphs 3, 4 or 5.\u2019.\n(4)\nArticle 31 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The Member States, the ESA to the extent relevant for the purposes of this Directive and in accordance with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010, and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 and the Commission shall inform each other of cases where the legislation of the third country does not permit application of the measures required under the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 and coordinated action could be taken to pursue a solution.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article and to take account of technical developments in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, the ESA taking into account the existing framework and cooperating, as appropriate, with other relevant Union bodies in that field, may develop draft regulatory technical standards in accordance with Article 56 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010, and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively to specify the type of additional measures referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article and the minimum action to be taken by credit and financial institutions where the legislation of the third country does not permit application of the measures required under the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(5)\nIn Article 34, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation and to take account of technical developments in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, the ESA, taking into account the existing framework and cooperating, as appropriate, with other relevant Union bodies in that field, may develop draft regulatory technical standards in accordance with Article 56 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively, to specify the minimum content of the communication referred to in paragraph 2.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(6)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 37a\n1. The competent authorities shall cooperate with the ESA for the purposes of this Directive, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010, and Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, respectively.\n2. The competent authorities shall provide the ESA with all information necessary to carry out their duties under this Directive and under Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, respectively.\u2019.\n(7)\nThe title of Chapter VI is replaced by the following:\n(8)\nArticle 40 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1:\n(i)\nin the first subparagraph, the introductory part is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. In order to take account of technical developments in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing and to specify the requirements laid down in this Directive, the Commission may, adopt the following measures:\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The measures shall be adopted by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 41(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 41a and 41b.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The measures shall be adopted by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 41(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 41a and 41b.\u2019.\n(9)\nArticle 41 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to Article 8 thereof and provided that the measures adopted in accordance with that procedure do not modify the essential provisions of this Directive.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2a is replaced by the following:\n\u20182a. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 40 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 4 years from 4 January 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated power at the latest 6 months before the end of the four-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 41a.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraphs are inserted:\n\u20182b. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n2c. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 41a and 41b.\u2019;\n(d)\nparagraph 3 is deleted.\n(10)\nThe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 41a\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 40 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke a delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or on a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 41b\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 3 months from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 3 months.\n2. If, on the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. In accordance with Article 296 TFEU, the institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\u2019.\nArticle 9\nAmendments to Directive 2006/48/EC\nDirective 2006/48/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 6 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe existing paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall require credit institutions to obtain authorisation before commencing their activities. Without prejudice to Articles 7 to 12, they shall lay down the requirements for such authorisation and notify the Commission and the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (35) (hereinafter \u201cEBA\u201d) thereof.\n(b)\nthe following paragraphs are added:\n\u20182. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, EBA may develop draft regulatory technical standards:\n(a)\non the information to be provided to the competent authorities in the application for the authorisation of credit institutions, including the programme of operations provided for in Article 7;\n(b)\nspecifying the conditions to comply with the requirement set out in Article 8;\n(c)\nspecifying the requirements applicable to shareholders and members with qualifying holdings, as well as to specify obstacles which may prevent effective exercise of the supervisory functions of the competent authority, as provided for in Article 12.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\n3. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, EBA may develop draft implementing technical standards on standard forms, templates and procedures for such provision of information;\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(2)\nIn Article 9(2), point b is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nthe Member States concerned shall notify the Commission and EBA of their reasons for exercising that option; and\u2019.\n(3)\nArticle 14 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 14\nEvery authorisation shall be notified to EBA.\nThe name of each credit institution to which authorisation has been granted shall be entered in a list. EBA shall publish and keep that list up-to-date on its website.\u2019.\n(4)\nArticle 17(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Withdrawal of authorisation shall be notified to the Commission and EBA and shall be reasoned. The persons concerned shall be notified of those reasons.\u2019.\n(5)\nIn Article 19, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20189. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, EBA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to establish an exhaustive list of information, referred to in Article 19a(4), to be included by proposed acquirers in their notification, without prejudice to paragraph 3 of this Article.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Directive, EBA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish common procedures, forms and templates for the consultation process between the relevant competent authorities as referred to in Article 19b.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(6)\nIn Article 22, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. In order to specify the requirements laid down in this Article and to ensure the convergence of supervisory practices, EBA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the arrangements, processes and mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1, in accordance with the principles of proportionality and comprehensiveness set out in paragraph 2.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(7)\nIn Article 25, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information to be notified in accordance with this Article.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, EBA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for such notification.\nEBA shall submit those draft technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2014.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\nPower is also conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the second subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(8)\nIn Article 26, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information to be notified in accordance with this Article.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, EBA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for such notification.\nEBA shall submit those draft technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2014.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\nPower is also conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the second subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(9)\nIn Article 28, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information to be notified in accordance with this Article.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, EBA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for such notification.\nEBA shall submit those draft technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2014.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\nPower is also conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the second subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(10)\nIn Article 33, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Before following the procedure provided for in Article 30, the competent authorities of the host Member State may, in emergencies, take any precautionary measures necessary to protect the interests of depositors, investors and others to whom services are provided. The Commission, EBA and the competent authorities of the other Member States concerned shall be informed of such measures at the earliest opportunity.\u2019.\n(11)\nArticle 36 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 36\nThe Member States shall inform the Commission and EBA of the number and type of cases in which there has been a refusal pursuant to Article 25 and Article 26(1), (2) and (3) or in which measures have been taken in accordance with Article 30(3).\u2019.\n(12)\nArticle 38(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The competent authorities shall notify the Commission, EBA and the European Banking Committee of all authorisations for branches granted to credit institutions having their head office in a third country.\u2019.\n(13)\nIn Article 39 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, the following point is added:\n\u2018(c)\nthat EBA is able to obtain the information from the competent authorities of the Member States received from national authorities of third countries in accordance with Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010;\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. EBA shall assist the Commission for the purposes of this Article in accordance with Article 33 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(14)\nIn Article 42, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u2018The competent authorities may refer to EBA situations where a request for collaboration, in particular to exchange information, has been rejected or has not been acted upon within a reasonable time. Without prejudice to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), EBA may, in situations referred to in the first sentence, act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\nIn order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information contained in this Article.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, EBA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the information sharing requirements which are likely to facilitate the monitoring of credit institutions.\nEBA shall submit those draft technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2014.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the third paragraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\nPower is also conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the fourth paragraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(15)\nArticle 42a is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the following subparagraph is inserted after the fourth subparagraph:\n\u2018If, at the end of the initial two-month period any of the competent authorities concerned has referred the matter to EBA in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, the competent authorities of the host Member State shall defer their decision and await the decision that EBA may take in accordance with Article 19(3) of that Regulation. The competent authorities of the host Member State shall take their decision in conformity with that of EBA. The two-month period shall be deemed to be the \u201cconciliation phase\u201d within the meaning of Article 19 of that Regulation. EBA shall take its decision within 1 month. The matter shall not be referred to EBA after the end of the initial two month period or after a joint decision has been reached.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, the following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, EBA may develop draft regulatory technical standards in order to specify general conditions for the functioning of colleges of supervisors.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the fourth subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, EBA may develop draft implementing technical standards in order to determine the operational functioning of colleges of supervisors.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the sixth subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(16)\nArticle 42b is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. In the exercise of their duties, the competent authorities shall take into account the convergence in respect of supervisory tools and supervisory practices in the application of the laws, regulations and administrative requirements adopted pursuant to this Directive. For that purpose, Member States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nthe competent authorities participate in the activities of EBA;\n(b)\nthe competent authorities follow the guidelines and recommendations of EBA and state the reasons if they do not do so;\n(c)\nnational mandates conferred on the competent authorities do not inhibit the performance of their duties as members of EBA or under this Directive.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is deleted.\n(17)\nArticle 44(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent the competent authorities of the various Member States from exchanging information or transmitting information to EBA in accordance with this Directive, with other Directives applicable to credit institutions, and with Articles 31 and 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. That information shall be subject to the conditions relating to professional secrecy set out in paragraph 1\u2019.\n(18)\nArticle 46 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 46\nIn accordance with Article 33 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, Member States and EBA may conclude cooperation agreements, providing for exchanges of information, with the competent authorities of third countries or with authorities or bodies of third countries as defined in Article 47 and Article 48(1) of this Directive only if the information disclosed is subject to guarantees of professional secrecy at least equivalent to those referred to in Article 44(1) of this Directive. Such exchange of information shall be for the purpose of performing the supervisory tasks of those authorities or bodies.\nWhere the information originates in another Member State, it shall not be disclosed without the express agreement of the authorities which have disclosed it and, where appropriate, solely for the purposes for which those authorities gave their agreement.\u2019.\n(19)\nArticle 49 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018This Section shall not prevent a competent authority from transmitting information to the following for the purposes of their tasks:\n(a)\ncentral banks of the European System of the Central Banks and other bodies with a similar function in their capacity as monetary authorities when the information is relevant for the exercise of their respective statutory tasks, including the conduct of monetary policy and related liquidity provision, oversight of payments, clearing and settlement systems, and the safeguarding of stability of the financial system;\n(b)\nwhere appropriate, other public authorities responsible for overseeing payment systems;\n(c)\nthe European Systemic Risk Board (hereinafter the \u201cESRB\u201d), where that information is relevant for the exercise of its statutory tasks under Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (36).\nThis Section shall not prevent the authorities or bodies referred to in the first subparagraph from communicating to the competent authorities such information as they may need for the purposes of Article 45.\n(b)\nthe fourth paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In an emergency situation as referred to in Article 130(1), Member States shall allow the competent authorities to communicate, without delay, information to the central banks in the European System of the Central Banks where that information is relevant for the exercise of their statutory tasks, including the conduct of monetary policy and related liquidity provision, the oversight of payments, clearing and securities settlement systems, and the safeguarding stability of the financial system, and to the ESRB under Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010, where such information is relevant for the exercise of its statutory tasks.\u2019\n(20)\nArticle 63a is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The provisions governing the instrument shall provide for principal, unpaid interest or dividend to be such as to absorb losses and to not hinder the recapitalisation of the credit institution through appropriate mechanisms, as developed by EBA under paragraph 6\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation and to ensure the convergence of supervisory practices, EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the requirements applicable to the instruments referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2014. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\nEBA shall also issue guidelines in relation to instruments referred to in point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 57.\nEBA shall monitor the application of those guidelines.\u2019.\n(21)\nIn Article 74(2), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Directive, for the communication of those calculations by credit institutions, the competent authorities shall apply, from 31 December 2012, uniform formats, frequencies and dates of reporting. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Directive, EBA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to introduce, within the Union, uniform formats (with associated instructions), frequencies and dates of reporting before 1 January 2012. The reporting formats shall be proportionate to the nature, scale and complexity of the credit institutions\u2019 activities.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Directive, EBA shall also develop draft implementing technical standards regarding IT solutions to be applied for such reporting.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the second and third subparagraphs in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(22)\nIn Article 81(2) the following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, EBA, in consultation with the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (hereinafter \u201cESMA\u201d), established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (37), shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the assessment methodology relating to credit assessments. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2014.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the second subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\n(23)\nIn Article 84(2), the following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, EBA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the assessment methodology under which the competent authorities permit credit institutions to use the IRB approach.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(24)\nIn Article 97(2), the following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, EBA, in consultation with ESMA, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the assessment methodology relating to credit assessments. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2014.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the second subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(25)\nIn Article 105(1), the following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, EBA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the assessment methodology under which the competent authorities permit credit institutions to use Advanced Measurement Approaches.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the second subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(26)\nIn Article 106(2), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this paragraph, EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards in order to specify the exemptions in points (c) and (d) as well as to specify the conditions used to determine the existence of a group of connected clients, as stated in paragraph 3. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2014.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to the second subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(27)\nArticle 110(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Member States shall provide that reporting shall be carried out at least twice a year. The competent authorities shall apply, from 31 December 2012, uniform formats, frequencies and dates of reporting. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Directive, EBA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to introduce, within the Union, uniform formats (with associated instructions), frequencies and dates of reporting before 1 January 2012. The reporting formats shall be proportionate to the nature, scale and complexity of the credit institutions\u2019 activities.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Directive, EBA shall also develop draft implementing technical standards regarding IT solutions to be applied for such reporting.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first and second subparagraphs in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(28)\nIn Article 111(1), the fourth subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Member States may set a lower limit than EUR 150 million and shall inform EBA and the Commission thereof.\u2019.\n(29)\nArticle 122a(10) is replaced by the following:\n\u201810. EBA shall report to the Commission annually on the compliance with this Article by the competent authorities.\nIn order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards for the convergence of supervisory practices with regard to this Article, including the measures taken in case of breach of the due diligence and risk management obligations. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2014.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the second subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(30)\nIn Article 124, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20186. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, EBA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify this Article and a common risk assessment procedure and methodology.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(31)\nArticle 126(4) is replaced by the following.\n\u20184. The competent authorities shall notify the Commission and EBA of any agreement falling within paragraph 3.\u2019.\n(32)\nArticle 129 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the following subparagraph is inserted after the first subparagraph:\n\u2018Where the consolidating supervisor fails to carry out the tasks referred to in the first subparagraph or where the competent authorities do not cooperate with the consolidating supervisor to the extent required in carrying out the tasks in the first subparagraph, any of the competent authorities concerned may refer the matter to EBA, which may act in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the following is added to the fifth subparagraph:\n\u2018If, at the end of the six month period, any of the competent authorities concerned has referred the matter to EBA in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, the consolidating supervisor shall defer its decision and await any decision that EBA may take in accordance with Article 19(3) of that Regulation on its decision, and shall take its decision in conformity with the decision of EBA. The six-month period shall be deemed the conciliation period within the meaning of that Regulation. EBA shall take its decision within 1 month. The matter shall not be referred to EBA after the end of the six month period or after a joint decision has been reached.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 2, the following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018EBA may develop draft implementing technical standards to ensure uniform conditions of application of the joint decision process referred to in this paragraph, with regard to the applications for permissions referred to in Article 84(1), Article 87(9) and Article 105 and in Annex III part 6, with a view to facilitating joint decisions.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the sixth and the seventh subparagraphs in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019;\n(d)\nparagraph 3 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin the third subparagraph, the term \u2018Committee of European Banking Supervisors\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EBA\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe fourth subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In the absence of such a joint decision between the competent authorities within 4 months, a decision on the application of Articles 123 and 124 and Article 136(2) shall be taken on a consolidated basis by the consolidating supervisor after duly considering the risk assessment of subsidiaries performed by relevant competent authorities. If, at the end of the four month period, any of the competent authorities concerned has referred the matter to EBA in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, the consolidating supervisor shall defer its decision and await any decision that EBA may take in accordance with Article 19(3) of that Regulation, and shall take its decision in conformity with the decision of EBA. The four month period shall be deemed the conciliation period within the meaning of the Regulation. EBA shall take its decision within 1 month. The matter shall not be referred to EBA after the end of the four month period or after a joint decision has been reached.\u2019;\n(iii)\nthe fifth subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The decision on the application of Articles 123 and 124 and Article 136(2) shall be taken by the respective competent authorities responsible for supervision of subsidiaries of a Union parent credit institution or a Union parent financial holding company on an individual or sub-consolidated basis after duly considering the views and reservations expressed by the consolidating supervisor. If, at the end of the four-month period, any of the competent authorities concerned has referred the matter to EBA in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, the competent authorities shall defer their decision and await any decision that EBA shall take in accordance with Article 19(3) of that Regulation, and shall take its decision in conformity with the decision of EBA. The four month period shall be deemed the conciliation period within the meaning of that Regulation. EBA shall take its decision within 1 month. The matter shall not be referred to EBA after the end of the four-month period or after a joint decision has been reached.\u2019;\n(iv)\nthe seventh subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Where EBA has been consulted, all the competent authorities shall consider its advice, and explain any significant deviation therefrom.\u2019;\n(v)\nthe tenth subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018EBA may develop draft implementing technical standards to ensure uniform conditions of application of the joint decision process referred to in this paragraph, with regard to the application of Articles 123 and 124 and Article 136(2) with a view to facilitating joint decisions.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the tenth subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(33)\nIn Article 130(1), the first and second subparagraphs are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Where an emergency situation, including a situation as defined in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 or a situation of adverse developments in markets, arises, which potentially jeopardises the market liquidity and the stability of the financial system in any of the Member State where entities of a group have been authorised or where significant branches referred to in Article 42a are established, the consolidating supervisor shall, subject to Chapter 1, Section 2, alert as soon as is practicable, EBA, ESRB and the authorities referred to in the fourth subparagraph of Article 49 and in Article 50 and shall communicate all information essential for the pursuance of their tasks. Those obligations shall apply to all competent authorities under Articles 125 and 126 and to the competent authority identified under Article 129(1).\nIf the authority referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 49 becomes aware of a situation described in the first subparagraph, it shall alert as soon as is practicable the competent authorities referred to in Articles 125 and 126, and EBA.\u2019.\n(34)\nIn Article 131, the third paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The competent authorities responsible for authorising the subsidiary of a parent undertaking which is a credit institution may, by bilateral agreement, in accordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, delegate their responsibility for supervision to the competent authorities which authorised and supervise the parent undertaking so that they assume responsibility for supervising the subsidiary in accordance with this Directive. EBA shall be kept informed of the existence and content of such agreements. It shall forward such information to the competent authorities of the other Member States and to the European Banking Committee.\u2019.\n(35)\nArticle 131a is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The consolidating supervisor shall establish colleges of supervisors to facilitate the exercise of the tasks referred to in Article 129 and Article 130(1) and subject to the confidentiality requirements of paragraph 2 of this Article and compatibility with Union law, ensure appropriate coordination and cooperation with relevant third-country competent authorities where appropriate.\nEBA shall contribute to promoting and monitoring the efficient, effective and consistent functioning of colleges of supervisors referred to in this Article in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. To that end, EBA shall participate as it deems appropriate and shall be considered as a competent authority for that purpose.\nColleges of supervisors shall provide a framework for the consolidating Supervisor, EBA and the other competent authorities concerned to carry out the following tasks:\n(a)\nexchanging information among themselves and with EBA in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010;\n(b)\nagreeing on voluntary entrustment of tasks and voluntary delegation of responsibilities where appropriate;\n(c)\ndetermining supervisory examination programmes based on a risk assessment of the group in accordance with Article 124;\n(d)\nincreasing the efficiency of supervision by removing unnecessary duplication of supervisory requirements, including in relation to the information requests referred to in Article 130(2) and Article 132(2);\n(e)\nconsistently applying the prudential requirements under this Directive across all entities within a banking group without prejudice to the options and discretions available in Union legislation;\n(f)\napplying Article 129(1)(c) taking into account the work of other forums that may be established in that area.\nThe competent authorities participating in the colleges of supervisors and EBA shall cooperate closely. The confidentiality requirements under Chapter 1, Section 2 shall not prevent the competent authorities from exchanging confidential information within colleges of supervisors. The establishment and functioning of colleges of supervisors shall not affect the rights and responsibilities of the competent authorities under this Directive.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2:\n(i)\nthe second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, EBA may develop draft regulatory technical standards in order to specify general conditions of functioning of the colleges of supervisors.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the second subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No1093/2010.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, EBA may develop draft implementing technical standards in order to determine the operational functioning of the colleges of supervisors.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the fourth subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe sixth subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The consolidating supervisor, subject to the confidentiality requirements under Chapter 1, Section 2, shall inform EBA of the activities of the college of supervisors, including in emergency situations, and communicate to EBA all information that is of particular relevance for the purposes of supervisory convergence.\u2019.\n(36)\nArticle 132(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following subparagraphs are inserted after the first subparagraph:\n\u2018The competent authorities shall cooperate with EBA for the purposes of this Directive, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\nThe competent authorities shall provide EBA with all information necessary to carry out its duties under this Directive and under Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, in accordance with Article 35 of that Regulation.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018The competent authorities may refer to EBA situations where:\n(a)\na competent authority has not communicated essential information, or\n(b)\na request for cooperation, in particular to exchange relevant information, has been rejected or has not been acted upon within a reasonable time.\nWithout prejudice to Article 258 TFEU, EBA may, in situations referred to in the seventh subparagraph, act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(37)\nIn Article 140, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The competent authorities responsible for supervision on a consolidated basis shall establish lists of the financial holding companies referred to in Article 71(2). Those lists shall be communicated to the competent authorities of the other Member States, to EBA and to the Commission.\u2019.\n(38)\nArticle 143 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph (2) is amended as follows:\n(i)\nthe following sentence is added at the end of the first subparagraph:\n\u2018EBA shall assist the Commission and the European Banking Committee in carrying out those tasks, including as to whether such guidance should be updated.\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The competent authority carrying out the verification referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall take into account any such guidance. For that purpose, the competent authority shall consult EBA before adopting a decision.\u2019.\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, the fourth subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The supervisory techniques shall be designed to achieve the objectives of consolidated supervision as defined in this Chapter and shall be notified to the other competent authorities involved, EBA and the Commission.\u2019.\n(39)\nIn Article 144, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u2018In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, EBA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the format, structure, contents list and annual publication date of the disclosures provided for in this Article. EBA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2014.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the third paragraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(40)\nIn Article 150, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. EBA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Directive with respect to the conditions of application of:\n(a)\npoints 15 to 17 of Annex V;\n(b)\npoint 23(l) of Annex V as regards the criteria to determine the appropriate ratios between fixed and the variable component of the total remuneration and of point 23(o)(ii) of Annex V as regards specifying the classes of instruments that satisfy the conditions laid down in that point.\n(c)\nPart 2 of Annex VI as regards the quantitative factors referred to in point 12, the qualitative factors referred to in point 13 and the benchmark referred to in point 14;\nEBA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2014.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\u2019.\n(41)\nArticle 156 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe term \u2018Committee of European Banking Supervisors\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EBA\u2019;\n(b)\nthe first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Commission, in cooperation with EBA and the Member States, and taking into account the contribution of the European Central Bank, shall periodically monitor whether this Directive, together with Directive 2006/49/EC, has significant effects on the economic cycle and, in the light of that examination, shall consider whether any remedial measures are justified.\u2019.\nArticle 10\nAmendments to Directive 2006/49/EC\nDirective 2006/49/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 18, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. The European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (hereinafter \u201cEBA\u201d) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (38), may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the assessment methodology under which competent authorities permit institutions to use internal models for the purposes of calculating capital requirements under this Directive.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\n(2)\nIn Article 22(1), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Where the competent authorities waive the application of capital requirements on a consolidated basis provided for in this Article, they shall notify the Commission and EBA.\u2019.\n(3)\nArticle 32(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The competent authorities shall notify EBA, the Council and the Commission of those procedures.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018EBA shall issue guidelines in relation to the procedures referred to in this paragraph.\u2019.\n(4)\nArticle 36(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall designate the authorities which are competent to carry out the duties provided for in this Directive. They shall inform EBA and the Commission thereof, indicating any division of duties.\u2019.\n(5)\nIn Article 38(1), the following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018The competent authorities shall cooperate with EBA for the purposes of this Directive, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\nThe competent authorities shall without delay provide EBA with all information necessary to carry out its duties under this Directive and under Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, in accordance with Article 35 of that Regulation.\u2019.\nArticle 11\nAmendments to Directive 2009/65/EC\nDirective 2009/65/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 5, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20188. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (hereinafter \u201cESMA\u201d), established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (39) may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information to be provided to the competent authorities in the application for authorisation of a UCITS.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n(2)\nIn Article 6(1) the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018ESMA shall be notified of every authorisation granted and shall publish and keep up-to-date a list of authorised management companies on its website.\u2019.\n(3)\nIn Article 7, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20186. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify:\n(a)\nthe information to be provided to the competent authorities in the application for the authorisation of the management company, including the programme of activity;\n(b)\nthe requirements applicable to the management company under paragraph 2 and the information for the notification provided for in paragraph 3;\n(c)\nthe requirements applicable to shareholders and members with qualifying holdings, as well as obstacles which may prevent effective exercise of the supervisory functions of the competent authority, as provided for in Article 8(1) of this Directive and in Article 10(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/39/EC, in accordance with Article 11 of this Directive.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine standard forms, templates and procedures for the notification or provision of information provided for in points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(4)\nArticle 9(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Member States shall inform ESMA and the Commission of any general difficulties which UCITS encounter in marketing their units in any third country.\nThe Commission shall examine such difficulties as quickly as possible in order to find an appropriate solution. ESMA shall assist it in discharging that task.\u2019.\n(5)\nIn Article 11, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Directive, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to establish an exhaustive list of information, as provided for in this Article, with reference to Article 10b(4) of Directive 2004/39/EC, to be included by proposed acquirers in their notification, without prejudice to Article 10a(2) of that Directive.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the modalities of the consultation process between the relevant competent authorities, as provided for in this Article, with reference to Article 10(4) of Directive 2004/39/EC.\nPower is conferred to the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(6)\nArticle 12 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 3 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nthe first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Without prejudice to Article 116, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112(2), (3) and (4), and subject to the conditions of Articles 112a and 112b, measures specifying the procedures and arrangements as referred to under point (a) of the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 and the structures and organisational requirements to minimise conflicts of interests as referred to under point (b) of the second subparagraph of paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe second subparagraph is deleted.\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the conditions of applications of the delegated acts adopted by the Commission regarding the procedures, arrangements, structures and organisational requirements referred to in paragraph 3.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(7)\nArticle 14 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin the first subparagraph, the introductory part is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Without prejudice to Article 116, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112(2), (3) and (4), and subject to the conditions of Articles 112a and 112b, measures with a view to ensuring that the management company complies with the duties set out in paragraph 1, in particular to:\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe second subparagraph is deleted.\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the delegated acts adopted by the Commission regarding the criteria, principles and steps referred to in paragraph 2.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(8)\nIn Article 17, the following paragraph is added:\n\u201810. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information to be notified in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the transmission of information in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 9.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(9)\nIn Article 18, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information to be notified in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 4.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the transmission of information in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 4.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(10)\nIn Article 20, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to determine the information to be provided to the competent authorities in the application for managing a UCITS established in another Member State.\nThe Commission may adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for such provision of information.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(11)\nArticle 21 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. If, despite the measures taken by the competent authorities of the management company's home Member State or because such measures prove to be inadequate or are not available in the Member State in question, the management company continues to refuse to provide the information requested by the management company's host Member State pursuant to paragraph 2, or persists in breaching the legal or regulatory provisions, referred to in the same paragraph, in force in the management company's host Member State, the competent authorities of the management company's host Member State may take either of the following actions:\n(a)\nafter informing the competent authorities of the management company's home Member State, take appropriate measures, including under Articles 98 and 99, to prevent or penalise further irregularities and, in so far as necessary, to prevent that management company from initiating any further transaction within its territory. Member States shall ensure that within their territories it is possible to serve the legal documents necessary for those measures on management companies. Where the service provided within the management company's host Member State is the management of a UCITS, the management company's host Member State may require the management company to cease managing that UCITS; or\n(b)\nwhere they consider that the competent authority of the management company's home Member State has not acted adequately, refer the matter to ESMA, which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 7, the first and second subparagraphs are replaced by the following:\n\u20187. Before following the procedure laid down in paragraphs 3, 4 or 5, the competent authorities of the management company's host Member State may, in emergencies, take any precautionary measures necessary to protect the interests of investors and others for whom services are provided. The Commission, ESMA, and the competent authorities of the other Member States concerned shall be informed of such measures at the earliest opportunity.\nAfter consulting the competent authorities of the Member States concerned, the Commission may decide that the Member State in question must amend or abolish those measures, without prejudice to power of ESMA under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 9, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20189. Member States shall inform ESMA and the Commission of the number and type of cases in which they refuse authorisation under Article 17 or an application under Article 20 and of any measures taken in accordance with paragraph 5 of this Article.\u2019.\n(12)\nArticle 23(6) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. The Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112(2), (3) and (4), and subject to the conditions of Articles 112a and 112b, measures in relation to the measures to be taken by a depositary in order to fulfil its duties regarding a UCITS managed by a management company established in another Member State, including the particulars that need to be included in the standard agreement to be used by the depositary and the management company in accordance with paragraph 5.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe second subparagraph is deleted.\n(13)\nIn Article 29, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u20185. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Directive, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify:\n(a)\nthe information to be provided to the competent authorities in the application for the authorisation of the investment company, including the programme of operations; and\n(b)\nthe obstacles which may prevent effective exercise of the supervisory functions of the competent authority under paragraph 1(c).\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n6. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the provision of information referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 5.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(14)\nArticle 32(6) is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. Member States shall inform ESMA and the Commission of the identities of the investment companies benefiting from the derogations provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5.\u2019.\n(15)\nArticle 33(6) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. The Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112(2), (3) and (4), and subject to the conditions of Articles 112a and 112b, measures in relation to the measures to be taken by a depositary in order to fulfil its duties regarding a UCITS managed by a management company established in another Member State, including the particulars that need to be included in the standard agreement to be used by the depositary and the management company in accordance with paragraph 5.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe second subparagraph is deleted.\n(16)\nArticle 43 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 5:\n(i)\nthe first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. The Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112(2), (3) and (4), and subject to the conditions of Articles 112a and 112b, measures specifying the detailed content, format and method by which to provide the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3.\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe second subparagraph is deleted.\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20186. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the conditions of applications of the delegated acts adopted by the Commission regarding the content, format and method by which the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article is to be provided.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(17)\nIn Article 50, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the provisions concerning the categories of assets in which UCITS can invest in accordance with this Article and with delegated acts adopted by the Commission which relate to such provisions.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(18)\nArticle 51 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Competent authorities shall ensure that all information received under the third paragraph aggregated in respect of all the management or investment companies they supervise is accessible to ESMA in accordance with Article 35 of the Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, and the European Systemic Risk Board (the \u201cESRB\u201d) established by Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (40) in accordance with Article 15 of that Regulation for the purpose of monitoring systemic risks at Union level.\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Without prejudice to Article 116, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112(2), (3) and (4), and subject to the conditions of Articles 112a and 112b, measures specifying the following:\n(a)\ncriteria for assessing the adequacy of the risk management process employed by the management company in accordance with the first subparagraph of paragraph 1;\n(b)\ndetailed rules regarding the accurate and independent assessment of the value of OTC derivatives; and\n(c)\ndetailed rules regarding the content of and procedure to be followed for communicating the information referred to in the third subparagraph of paragraph 1 to the competent authorities of the management company's home Member State.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the conditions of application of the delegated acts adopted by the Commission regarding the criteria and rules referred to in paragraph 4.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(19)\nIn Article 52(4), the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Member States shall send to ESMA and to the Commission a list of the categories of bonds referred to in the first subparagraph together with the categories of issuers authorised, in accordance with the laws and supervisory arrangements mentioned in that subparagraph, to issue bonds complying with the criteria set out in this Article. A notice specifying the status of the guarantees offered shall be attached to those lists. The Commission and ESMA shall immediately forward that information to the other Member States together with any comments they consider appropriate and shall make the information available to the public on their website. Such communications may be the subject of exchanges of views within the European Securities Committee referred to in Article 112(1).\u2019.\n(20)\nArticle 60 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 6:\n(i)\nin the first subparagraph, the introductory part is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. The Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112(2), (3) and (4), and subject to the conditions of Articles 112a and 112b, measures specifying:\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe second subparagraph is deleted;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20187. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the conditions of application of the delegated acts adopted by the Commission regarding the agreement, measures and procedures referred to in paragraph 6.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(21)\nArticle 61 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112(2), (3) and (4), and subject to the conditions of Articles 112a and 112b, measures further specifying the following:\n(a)\nthe particulars that need to be included in the agreement referred to in paragraph 1; and\n(b)\nthe types of irregularities referred to in paragraph 2 which are deemed to have a negative impact on the feeder UCITS.\u2019.\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the conditions of application of the delegated acts adopted by the Commission regarding the agreement, measures and types of irregularities referred to in paragraph 3.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(22)\nArticle 62(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112(2), (3) and (4), and subject to the conditions of Articles 112a and 112b, measures specifying the content of the agreement referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1.\u2019.\n(23)\nArticle 64 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112(2), (3) and (4), and subject to the conditions of Articles 112a and 112b, measures specifying:\n(a)\nthe format and the manner in which to provide the information referred to in paragraph 1; or\n(b)\nin the event that the feeder UCITS transfers all or parts of its assets to the master UCITS in exchange for units, the procedure for valuing and auditing such a contribution in kind and the role of the depositary of the feeder UCITS in that process.\u2019.\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application in which the information is provided, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the conditions of application of the delegated acts adopted by the Commission regarding the format and the manner of the information provided and procedure referred to in paragraph 4.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(24)\nIn Article 69, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the provisions concerning the content of the prospectus, the annual report and the half-yearly report as laid down in Annex I, and the format of those documents.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(25)\nIn Article 75, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112(2), (3) and (4), and subject to the conditions of Articles 112a and 112b, measures which define the specific conditions which need to be met when providing the prospectus in a durable medium other than paper or by means of a website which does not constitute a durable medium.\u2019.\n(26)\nArticle 78 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112(2), (3) and (4), and subject to the conditions of Articles 112a and 112b, measures which define the following:\n(a)\nthe detailed and exhaustive content of the key investor information to be provided to investors as referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4;\n(b)\nthe detailed and exhaustive content of the key investor information to be provided to investors in the following specific cases:\n(i)\nfor UCITS having different investment compartments, the key investor information to be provided to investors subscribing to a specific investment compartment, including how to pass from one investment compartment into another and the costs related thereto,\n(ii)\nfor UCITS offering different share classes, the key investor information to be provided to investors subscribing to a specific share class,\n(iii)\nfor fund of funds structures, the key investor information to be provided to investors subscribing to a UCITS, which invests itself in other UCITS or other collective investment undertakings referred to in Article 50(1)(e),\n(iv)\nfor master-feeder structures, the key investor information to be provided to investors subscribing to a feeder UCITS,\n(v)\nfor structured, capital protected and other comparable UCITS, the key investor information to be provided to investors in relation to the special characteristics of such UCITS; and\n(c)\nthe specific details of the format and presentation of the key investor information to be provided to investors as referred to in paragraph 5.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20188. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the conditions of application of the delegated acts adopted by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 7 regarding the information referred to in paragraph 3.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(27)\nArticle 81(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112(2), (3) and (4), and subject to the conditions of Articles 112a and 112b, measures which define the specific conditions which need to be met when providing key investor information in a durable medium other than on paper or by means of a website which does not constitute a durable medium.\u2019.\n(28)\nIn Article 83, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the requirements of this Article relating to borrowing.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(29)\nIn Article 84, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the conditions which need to be met by the UCITS after the adoption of the temporary suspension of the re-purchase or redemption of the units of the UCITS as referred to in paragraph 2(a), once the suspension has been decided.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(30)\nArticle 95 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 95\n1. The Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112(2), (3) and (4), and subject to the conditions of Articles 112a and 112b, measures specifying:\n(a)\nthe scope of the information referred to in Article 91(3);\n(b)\nthe facilitation of access for the competent authorities of the UCITS host Member States to the information or documents referred to in Article 93(1), (2) and (3) in accordance with Article 93(7).\n2. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of Article 93, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine:\n(a)\nthe form and contents of a standard model notification letter to be used by a UCITS for the purpose of notification referred to in Article 93(1), including an indication as to which documents the translations refer to;\n(b)\nthe form and contents of a standard model attestation to be used by competent authorities of Member States referred to in Article 93(3);\n(c)\nthe procedure for the exchange of information and the use of electronic communication between competent authorities for the purpose of notification under Article 93.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(31)\nArticle 97(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall designate the competent authorities which are to carry out the duties provided for in this Directive. They shall inform ESMA and the Commission thereof, indicating any division of duties.\u2019.\n(32)\nArticle 101 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20182a. The competent authorities shall cooperate with ESMA for the purposes of this Directive, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nThe competent authorities shall without delay provide ESMA with all information necessary to carry out its duties, in accordance with Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraphs 8 and 9 are replaced by the following:\n\u20188. The competent authorities may refer to ESMA situations where a request:\n(a)\nto exchange information as provided for in Article 109 has been rejected or has not been acted upon within a reasonable time;\n(b)\nto carry out an investigation or on-the-spot verification as provided for in Article 110 has been rejected or has not been acted upon within a reasonable time; or\n(c)\nfor authorisation for its officials to accompany those of the competent authority of the other Member State has been rejected or has not been acted upon within a reasonable time.\nWithout prejudice to Article 258 of the Treaty of on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), ESMA may, in situations referred to in the first subparagraph, act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, without prejudice to the possibilities for refusing to act on a request for information or for an investigation provided for in paragraph 6 of this Article and to the ability of ESMA to act in accordance with Article 17 of that Regulation in those cases.\n9. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish common procedures for competent authorities to cooperate in on-the-spot verifications and investigations as referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(33)\nArticle 102 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent the competent authorities of the Member States from exchanging information in accordance with this Directive or other Union legislation applicable to UCITS or to undertakings contributing towards their business activity or from transmitting it to ESMA in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 or the ESRB. That information shall be subject to the conditions of professional secrecy laid down in paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 5, the following point is added:\n\u2018(d)\nESMA, the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (41), the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (42) and the ESRB.\n(34)\nArticle 103 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Member States shall communicate to ESMA, to the Commission and to the other Member States the names of the authorities which may receive information pursuant to paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. Member States shall communicate to ESMA, to the Commission and to the other Member States the names of the authorities or bodies which may receive information pursuant to paragraph 4.\u2019.\n(35)\nArticle 105 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 105\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions of application of the provisions in this Directive concerning the exchange of information, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the conditions of application with regard to the procedures for exchange of information between competent authorities and between the competent authorities and ESMA.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019.\n(36)\nArticle 108(5) is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (b) of the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nif necessary, refer the matter to ESMA, which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Commission and ESMA shall be informed without delay of any measure taken pursuant to point (a) of the first subparagraph.\u2019.\n(37)\nThe title of chapter XIII is replaced by the following:\n(38)\nArticle 111 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 111\nThe Commission may adopt technical amendments to this Directive in the following areas:\n(a)\nclarification of the definitions in order to ensure consistent harmonisation and uniform application of this Directive throughout the Union; or\n(b)\nalignment of terminology and the framing of definitions in accordance with subsequent acts on UCITS and related matters.\nThe measures referred to in the first subparagraph shall be adopted by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112(2), (3) and (4), and subject to the conditions of Articles 112a and 112b.\u2019.\n(39)\nArticle 112 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 112\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the European Securities Committee established by Commission Decision 2001/528/EC.\n2. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Articles 12, 14, 23, 33, 43, 51, 60, 61, 62, 64, 75, 78, 81, 95 and 111 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 4 years from 4 January 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of delegated powers at the latest 6 months before the end of the four-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes them in accordance with Article 112a.\n3. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify the European Parliament and the Council thereof simultaneously.\n4. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 112a and 112b.\u2019.\n(40)\nThe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 112a\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 12, 14, 23, 33, 43, 51, 60, 61, 62, 64, 75, 78, 81, 95 and 111 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke a delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 112b\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 3 months from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period may be extended by 3 months.\n2. If, on the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. In accordance with Article 296 TFEU, the institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\u2019.\nArticle 12\nReview\nThe Commission shall, by 1 January 2014, submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report specifying whether the ESA have submitted the draft regulatory technical standards and the draft implementing technical standards provided for in this Directive, whether the submission is mandatory or optional, with any appropriate proposals.\nArticle 13\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1(1) and (2), Article 2(1)(a), Article 2(2), (5), (7) and (9), Article 2(11)(b), Article 3(4), Article 3(6)(a) and (b), Article 4(1)(a), Article 4(3), Article 5(5)(a), the first subparagraph of Article 5(5)(b), Article 5(6), (8), (9) (in relation to Article 18(3) of Directive 2003/71/EC), Article 5(10), Article 5(11)(a) and (b), Article 5(12), Article 6(1) (in relation to the first subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Directive 2004/39/EC), Article 6(3), Article 6(5)(a), Article 6(10), (13), (14) and (16), Article 6(17)(a) and (b), Article 6(18) and (19) (in relation to the first subparagraph of Article 53(3) of Directive 2004/39/EC), Article 6(21)(a) and (b), Article 6(23)(b), Article 6(24), (25) and (27), Article 7(12)(a), Article 7(13), (14) (15) and (16), Article 9(1)(a), Article 9(2), (3), (4), (10), (11), (12), (15), (16), (17), (18), (20), (29) and (32), Article 9(33)(a) and (b), Article 9(33)(d)(ii) to (iv), Article 9(34) and (35), Article 9(36)(b)(ii), Article 9(37)(b), Article 9(38) and (39), Article 10(2), Article 10(3)(a), Article 10(4), Article 11(2), (4), (11), (14), (19) and (31), Article 11(32)(b) in regard to Article 101(8) of Directive 2009/65/EC, and Article 11(33), (34) and (36) of this Directive, by 31 December 2011. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nWhen Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 15\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["65", "85", "48", "73", "42", "99", "14", "89", "58", "98", "94", "11", "40", "51", "97", "23", "64", "38", "68", "56", "53", "84", "20", "59", "28", "69", "61", "57", "32", "34", "No Label", "24", "25", "29", "30", "31", "49"], "gold": ["24", "25", "29", "30", "31", "49"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 392/2012\nof 1 March 2012\nsupplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of household tumble driers\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2010/30/EU requires the Commission to adopt delegated acts for the labelling of energy-related products representing significant potential for energy savings and presenting a wide disparity in performance levels with equivalent functionality.\n(2)\nProvisions for the energy labelling of household tumble driers were established by Commission Directive 95/13/EC of 23 May 1995 implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric tumble driers (2).\n(3)\nThe energy used by household tumble driers accounts for a significant part of total household energy demand in the Union. In addition to the energy efficiency improvements already achieved, the scope for further reducing the energy consumption of household tumble driers is substantial.\n(4)\nDirective 95/13/EC should be repealed and new provisions should be laid down by this Regulation in order to ensure that the energy label provides dynamic incentives for suppliers to further improve the energy efficiency of household tumble driers and to accelerate market transformation towards energy-efficient technologies.\n(5)\nHousehold combined washer-driers are addressed in Commission Directive 96/60/EC of 19 September 1996 implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household combined washer-driers (3). They have particular characteristics and should therefore be exempted from the scope of this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe information provided on the label should be obtained through reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement procedures which take into account the recognised state-of-the-art measurement methods, including, where available, harmonised standards adopted by the European standardisation bodies, as listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (4).\n(7)\nThis Regulation should specify a uniform design and content for the label for household tumble driers, including gas-fired driers.\n(8)\nIn addition, this Regulation should specify requirements as to the \u2018technical documentation\u2019 and the \u2018product fiche\u2019 for household tumble driers.\n(9)\nMoreover, this Regulation should specify requirements as to the information to be provided for any form of distance selling and advertisement of household tumble driers and any form of technical promotional material for such appliances.\n(10)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a review of this Regulation in order to take into account technological progress.\n(11)\nIn order to facilitate the transition from Directive 95/13/EC to this Regulation, household tumble driers labelled in accordance with this Regulation should be considered as compliant with Directive 95/13/EC.\n(12)\nDirective 95/13/EC should therefore be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation establishes requirements for the labelling of and the provision of supplementary product information on electric mains-operated and gas-fired household tumble driers and built-in household tumble driers, including those sold for non-household use.\n2. This Regulation shall not apply to household combined washer-driers and household spin-extractors.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2010/30/EU, the following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this Regulation:\n(1)\n\u2018household tumble drier\u2019 means an appliance in which textiles are dried by tumbling in a rotating drum, through which heated air is passed and which is designed to be used principally for non-professional purposes;\n(2)\n\u2018built-in household tumble drier\u2019 means a household tumble drier intended to be installed in a cabinet, a prepared recess in a wall or a similar location, requiring furniture finishing;\n(3)\n\u2018household combined washer-drier\u2019 means a household washing machine which includes both a spin extraction function and also a means for drying the textiles, usually by heating and tumbling;\n(4)\n\u2018household spin-extractor\u2019, also known commercially as \u2018spin-drier\u2019, means an appliance in which water is removed from the textiles by centrifugal action in a rotating drum and drained through an automatic pump and which is designed to be used principally for non-professional purposes;\n(5)\n\u2018air-vented tumble drier\u2019 means a tumble drier that draws in fresh air, passes it over the textiles and vents the resulting moist air into the room or outside;\n(6)\n\u2018condenser tumble drier\u2019 means a tumble drier which includes a device (either using condensation or any other means) for removing moisture from the air used for the drying process;\n(7)\n\u2018automatic tumble drier\u2019 means a tumble drier which switches off the drying process when a certain moisture content of the load is detected, for example through conductivity or temperature sensing;\n(8)\n\u2018non-automatic tumble drier\u2019 means a tumble drier which switches off the drying process after a predefined period, usually controlled by a timer, but which may also be manually switched off;\n(9)\n\u2018programme\u2019 means a series of operations that are predefined and which are declared by the supplier as suitable for drying certain types of textile;\n(10)\n\u2018cycle\u2019 means a complete drying process, as defined for the selected programme;\n(11)\n\u2018programme time\u2019 means the time that elapses from the initiation of the programme until the completion of the programme, excluding any end-user programmed delay;\n(12)\n\u2018rated capacity\u2019 means the maximum mass in kilograms, indicated by the supplier in 0,5 kilogram increments of dry textiles of a particular type, which can be treated in a household tumble drier with the selected programme, when loaded in accordance with the supplier\u2019s instructions;\n(13)\n\u2018partial load\u2019 means half of the rated capacity of a household tumble drier for a given programme;\n(14)\n\u2018condensation efficiency\u2019 means the ratio between the mass of moisture condensed by a condenser tumble drier and the mass of moisture removed from the load at the end of a cycle;\n(15)\n\u2018off-mode\u2019 means a condition where the household tumble drier is switched off using appliance controls or switches accessible to and intended for operation by the end-user during normal use to attain the lowest power consumption that may persist for an indefinite time while the household tumble drier is connected to a power source and used in accordance with the supplier\u2019s instructions; where there is no control or switch accessible to the end-user, \u2018off-mode\u2019 means the condition reached after the household tumble drier reverts to a steady-state power consumption on its own;\n(16)\n\u2018left-on mode\u2019 means the lowest power consumption mode that may persist for an indefinite time after completion of the programme without any further intervention by the end-user besides unloading of the household tumble drier;\n(17)\n\u2018equivalent household tumble drier\u2019 means a model of household tumble drier placed on the market with the same rated capacity, technical and performance characteristics, energy consumption, condensation efficiency where relevant, standard cotton programme time and airborne acoustical noise emissions during drying as another model of household tumble drier placed on the market under a different commercial code number by the same supplier;\n(18)\n\u2018end-user\u2019 means a consumer buying or expected to buy a household tumble drier;\n(19)\n\u2018point of sale\u2019 means a location where household tumble driers are displayed or offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase.\n(20)\n\u2018standard cotton programme\u2019 means the cycle which dries cotton laundry with an initial moisture content of the load of 60 % up to a remaining moisture content of the load of 0 %.\nArticle 3\nResponsibilities of suppliers\nSuppliers shall ensure that:\n(a)\neach household tumble drier is supplied with a printed label in the format and containing the information set out in Annex I;\n(b)\na product fiche, as set out in Annex II, is made available;\n(c)\ntechnical documentation as set out in Annex III is made available on request to the authorities of the Member States and to the Commission;\n(d)\nany advertisement for a specific model of household tumble drier contains the energy efficiency class, if the advertisement discloses energy-related or price information;\n(e)\nany technical promotional material concerning a specific model of household tumble drier which describes its specific technical parameters includes the energy efficiency class of that model.\nArticle 4\nResponsibilities of dealers\nDealers shall ensure that:\n(a)\neach household tumble drier, at the point of sale, bears the label provided by suppliers in accordance with Article 3(a) on the outside of the front or top of the household tumble drier, in such a way as to be clearly visible;\n(b)\nhousehold tumble driers offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase where the end-user cannot be expected to see the product displayed, as specified in Article 7 of Directive 2010/30/EU, are marketed with the information provided by suppliers in accordance with Annex IV to this Regulation;\n(c)\nany advertisement for a specific model of household tumble drier contains a reference to the energy efficiency class, if the advertisement discloses energy-related or price information;\n(d)\nany technical promotional material concerning a specific model of household tumble drier which describes its specific technical parameters includes a reference to the energy efficiency class of that model.\nArticle 5\nMeasurement methods\nThe information to be provided under Articles 3 and 4 shall be obtained by reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement procedures, which take into account the recognised state-of-the-art measurement methods.\nArticle 6\nVerification procedure for market surveillance purposes\nMember States shall apply the procedure set out in Annex V for assessing the conformity of the declared energy efficiency class, the energy consumption per cycle, the condensation efficiency class where applicable, the rated capacity, the power consumption in off-mode and left-on mode, the duration of the left-on mode, the programme time and airborne acoustical noise emissions.\nArticle 7\nRevision\nThe Commission shall review this Regulation in the light of technological progress no later than five years after its entry into force. The review shall in particular assess the verification tolerances set out in Annex V.\nArticle 8\nRepeal\nDirective 95/13/EC shall be repealed from 29 May 2012.\nArticle 9\nTransitional provisions\n1. Article 3(d) and (e) and Article 4(b), (c) and (d) shall not apply to printed advertisements and printed technical promotional material published before 29 September 2012.\n2. Household tumble driers placed on the market before 29 May 2012 shall comply with the provisions of Directive 95/13/EC.\n3. Household tumble driers which comply with the provisions of this Regulation and which are placed on the market or offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase before 29 May 2012 shall be regarded as complying with the requirements of Directive 95/13/EC.\nArticle 10\nEntry into force and application\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. It shall apply from 29 May 2012. However, Article 3(d) and (e) and Article 4(b), (c) and (d) shall apply from 29 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2012.", "references": ["4", "15", "67", "33", "62", "57", "55", "64", "91", "0", "18", "45", "37", "46", "28", "49", "38", "84", "10", "53", "1", "99", "9", "32", "88", "31", "47", "90", "22", "65", "No Label", "25", "78", "86"], "gold": ["25", "78", "86"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 July 2011\naddressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit\n(recast)\n(2011/734/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 126(9) and Article 136 thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Decision 2010/320/EU of 10 May 2010 addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit (1) has been substantially amended several times (2). Since further amendments are to be made, it should be recast in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nArticle 136(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) foresees the possibility of adopting measures specific to the Member States whose currency is the euro with a view to strengthening the coordination and surveillance of their budgetary discipline.\n(3)\nArticle 126 TFEU establishes that Member States are to avoid excessive government deficits and sets out the excessive deficit procedure to that effect. The Stability and Growth Pact, which in its corrective arm implements the excessive deficit procedure, provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.\n(4)\nOn 27 April 2009, the Council decided, in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), that an excessive deficit existed in Greece and issued recommendations to correct that deficit by 2010 at the latest, in accordance with Article 104(7) (TEC) and Article 3(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (3). The Council also set a deadline of 27 October 2009 for Greece to take effective action. On 30 November 2009, the Council established, in accordance with Article 126(8) TFEU, that Greece had not taken effective action; consequently, on 16 February 2010, the Council gave notice to Greece in accordance with Article 126(9) TFEU to take measures to correct the excessive deficit by 2012 at the latest (hereinafter \u2018the Council Decision pursuant to Article 126(9)\u2019). The Council also set a deadline of 15 May 2010 for effective action to be taken.\n(5)\nAccording to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, if effective action has been taken in compliance with Article 126(9) TFEU and unexpected adverse economic events with major unfavourable consequences for government finances occur after the adoption of that notice, the Council may decide, on a recommendation from the Commission, to adopt a revised notice pursuant to Article 126(9) TFEU.\n(6)\nAccording to the Commission services\u2019 autumn 2009 forecasts, which provided the basis for the initial notice addressed to Greece, GDP was expected to contract by \u00bc % in 2010, and recover as from 2011, when the economy was forecast to grow by 0,7 %. A deeper contraction in real GDP took place in 2010 and this contraction is expected to continue in 2011. A gradual resumption of growth is expected thereafter. This marked worsening of the economic scenario implies a corresponding deterioration of the outlook for public finances at unchanged policy. To this should be added the upward revision of the government deficit outcome for 2009 (from an estimated 12,7 % of GDP at the time of the Council Decision pursuant to Article 126(9) to 13,6 % of GDP according to the fiscal notification submitted by Greece on 1 April 2010) (4) and later on to 15,4 % of GDP following completion of the investigations that Eurostat undertook with the Greek Statistical Authorities (5). Lastly, concerns in the markets for the public finances outlook have been reflected in a sharp rise in risk premiums on government debt, compounding the difficulties in controlling the path of government deficit and debt.\n(7)\nGross government debt at the end of 2009 stood at 127,1 % of GDP. This is the highest debt ratio in the EU, and is considerably higher than the 60 %-of-GDP reference value of the Treaty. Achieving the deficit reduction path that is considered necessary and feasible in the light of the circumstances would imply that the increase in debt would be reversed from 2013. In addition to persistently high government deficits, certain financial operations have further increased debt. These factors have contributed to undermining market confidence in the ability of the Greek Government to service the debt going forward. There is an urgent need for Greece to take decisive action, on an unprecedented scale, on its deficit and on other factors contributing to the increase in debt, in order to reverse the increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio and allow it to return as soon as possible to market financing.\n(8)\nThe very severe deterioration of the financial situation of the Greek Government has led the other euro area Member States to decide to provide stability support to Greece, with a view to safeguarding the financial stability of the euro area as a whole, in conjunction with multilateral assistance provided by the International Monetary Fund. Support provided by the euro area Member States will take the form of a pooling of bilateral loans, coordinated by the Commission. The lenders have decided that their support shall be conditional on Greece respecting this Decision. In particular, Greece is expected to carry out the measures specified in this Decision in accordance with the calendar set out herein.\n(9)\nIn June 2011, it became evident that, taking into account the 2010 budgetary slippage and budgetary execution until May, with unchanged policies, the 2011 target for the deficit would be missed by a significant amount which would jeopardise the overall credibility of the programme. Therefore, there has been a need to update specific budgetary measures to allow Greece to stick to the deficit target in 2011 and respect the deficit ceilings for the following years established by Decision 2010/320/EU. These measures have been extensively discussed with the Greek government and commonly agreed by the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund.\n(10)\nIn the light of the above considerations, it appears appropriate to amend Decision 2010/320/EU in a number of respects, while keeping unchanged the deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Greece shall put an end to the present excessive deficit situation as rapidly as possible and, at the latest, by the deadline of 2014.\n2. The adjustment path towards the correction of the excessive deficit shall aim to achieve a general government deficit not exceeding EUR 18 508 million (8,0 % of GDP) in 2010, EUR 17 065 million (7,6 % of GDP) in 2011, EUR 14 916 million (6,5 % of GDP) in 2012, EUR 11 399 million (4,8 % of GDP) in 2013 and EUR 6 385 million (2,6 % of GDP) in 2014. To this aim, an improvement in the structural balance of at least 10 % of GDP will have to be achieved over the period 2009-2014.\n3. The adjustment path referred to in paragraph 2 requires that the annual change in the general government consolidated gross debt does not exceed EUR 34 058 million in 2010, EUR 17 365 million in 2011, EUR 15 016 million in 2012, EUR 11 599 million in 2013 and EUR 7 885 million in 2014. Based on May 2011 GDP projections, the corresponding path for the debt-to-GDP ratio shall not exceed 143 % in 2010, 154 % in 2011, 158 % in 2012, 159 % in 2013 and 157 % in 2014.\nArticle 2\n1. Greece shall adopt the following measures before the end of June 2010:\n(a)\na law introducing a progressive tax scale for all sources of income and a horizontally unified treatment of income generated by labour and capital assets;\n(b)\na law repealing all exemptions and autonomous taxation provisions in the tax system, including income from special allowances paid to civil servants;\n(c)\nthe cancellation of the budgetary appropriations in the contingency reserve, with the aim of saving EUR 700 million;\n(d)\nthe abolition of most of the budgetary appropriation for the solidarity allowance (except a part for poverty relief) with the aim of saving EUR 400 million;\n(e)\na reduction of the highest pensions with the aim of saving EUR 500 million for a full year (EUR 350 million for 2010);\n(f)\na reduction of the Easter, summer and Christmas bonuses and allowances paid to civil servants with the aim of saving EUR 1 500 million for a full year (EUR 1 100 million in 2010);\n(g)\nthe abolition of the Easter, summer and Christmas bonuses paid to pensioners, though protecting those receiving low pensions, with the aim of saving EUR 1 900 million for a full year (EUR 1 500 million in 2010);\n(h)\nan increase in the VAT rate, with a yield of at least EUR 1 800 million for a full year (EUR 800 million in 2010);\n(i)\nan increase in excises for fuel, tobacco and alcohol, with a yield of at least EUR 1 050 million for a full year (EUR 450 million in 2010);\n(j)\nlegislation implementing the Services Directive (6);\n(k)\na law reforming and simplifying public administration at local level with the aim of reducing operating costs;\n(l)\nthe establishment of a task force aiming at improving the absorption rate of structural and cohesion funds;\n(m)\na law to simplify the start-up of new businesses;\n(n)\na reduction of public investment by EUR 500 million compared to plans;\n(o)\nthe channelling of the budgetary appropriations for the co-financing of structural and cohesion funds to a special central account that cannot be used for any other purpose;\n(p)\nthe establishment of an independent financial stability fund to deal with potential capital shortfalls and preserve the soundness of the financial sector, by providing equity support to banks as needed;\n(q)\nthe reinforced supervision of banks, with increased human resources, more frequent reporting and quarterly stress tests.\n2. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of September 2010:\n(a)\nfiscal consolidation measures amounting to at least 3,2 % of GDP (4,3 % of GDP if carryovers from measures implemented in 2010 are considered) to be included in the draft budget for 2011: a reduction in intermediate consumption of the general government by at least EUR 300 million compared to the 2010 level (on top of savings stemming from the reform of public administration and of local government referred to in this paragraph); a freeze in the indexation of pensions (with the aim of saving EUR 100 million); a temporary crisis levy on highly profitable firms (yielding at least EUR 600 million in additional revenue per year in 2011, 2012 and 2013); a presumptive taxation of professionals (with a yield of at least EUR 400 million in 2011 and increasing returns by at least EUR 100 million per year in 2012 and 2013); a broadening of the VAT base by including certain services currently exempted and by moving 30 % of goods and services from the reduced rate to the main rate (with a yield of EUR 1 billion); a phased-in green tax on CO2 emissions (with a yield of at least EUR 300 million in 2011); the implementation by the government of the legislation reforming the public administration and a reorganisation of local government (with the aim of reducing costs by at least EUR 500 million in 2011, and additional EUR 500 million in each year 2012 and 2013); a reduction in domestically-financed investments (by at least EUR 500 million) by giving priority to investment projects financed by EU structural funds, incentives to regularise land-use violations (yielding at least EUR 1 500 million from 2011 to 2013, of which at least EUR 500 million in 2011); a collection of revenue from the licensing of gaming (at least EUR 500 million in sales of licences and EUR 200 million in annual royalties); an expansion of the base of the real estate tax by updating asset values (to yield at least EUR 400 million additional revenue); an increased taxation of wages in kind, including by taxing car lease payments (by at least EUR 150 million); an increased taxation of luxury goods (by at least EUR 100 million); a special tax on unauthorised establishments (to yield at least EUR 800 million per year) and a replacement of only 20 % of retiring employees in the public sector (central government, local governments, social security funds, public companies, State agencies and other public institutions). Measures yielding comparable budgetary savings may be considered after consultation with the Commission;\n(b)\na reinforcement of the role and resources of the general accounting office and the establishment of safeguards against possible political interference in data projection and accounting;\n(c)\na draft reform of wage legislation in the public sector, including, in particular, the creation of a single payment authority for the payment of wages, the introduction of unified principles and a timetable to establish a streamlined and unified public sector wage grid to apply to the State sector, local authorities and other agencies;\n(d)\nlegislation to improve the efficiency of the tax administration and controls;\n(e)\nthe launch of independent reviews of central administration and of existing social programmes;\n(f)\nthe publication of monthly statistics (on a cash basis) on revenue, expenditure, financing and spending arrears for the \u2018available general government\u2019 and its sub entities;\n(g)\nan action plan to improve the collection and processing of general government data, in particular by enhancing the control mechanisms of statistical authorities and of the general accounting office and ensuring effective personal responsibility for cases of misreporting, in order to ensure the prompt supply of high quality general government data required by Regulations (EC) No 2223/96 (7), (EC) No 264/2000 (8), (EC) No 1221/2002 (9), (EC) No 501/2004 (10), (EC) No 1222/2004 (11), (EC) No 1161/2005 (12), (EC) No 223/2009 (13) and (EC) No 479/2009 (14);\n(h)\nthe regular publication of information on the financial position of public undertakings and other public entities not classified as part of the general government (including detailed income statements, balance sheets and data on employment and the wage bill);\n(i)\nthe establishment of a comprehensive central registry for public enterprises;\n(j)\nan action plan with a timetable for concrete actions leading to the creation of a central procurement authority;\n(k)\nan act establishing an upper limit of EUR 50 million for the annual public service obligation contribution from the general government to railway operators for the period 2011-2013 and establishing the principle that the State provides no additional explicit or implicit support to railway operators;\n(l)\na business plan for the Greek railways. The business plan specifies how operational activities will be made profitable, including covering depreciation costs, as from 2011, including by closing loss-making lines, by increasing tariffs and by reducing wages and staffing; provides a detailed sensitivity analysis on the implication for wage costs of various scenarios for the outcome of collective agreement and provides information on several options concerning staff; and provides for the restructuring of the holding company, including the sale of land and other assets;\n(m)\na law to reform the wage bargaining system in the private sector, which should provide for a reduction in pay rates for overtime work, enhanced flexibility in the management of working time and allow local territorial pacts to set wage growth below sectoral agreements;\n(n)\na reform of employment protection legislation to extend the probationary period for new jobs to one year, and to facilitate greater use of temporary contracts and part-time work;\n(o)\nan amendment of the regulation of the arbitration system to allow each of the parties to resort to arbitration if they disagree with the proposal of the mediator;\n(p)\na reform of the arbitration procedure to ensure that it operates according to transparent objective criteria, with an independent committee of arbitrators with decision making capacity free from government influence.\n3. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of December 2010:\n(a)\nthe final adoption of the measures referred to in paragraph 2(a);\n(b)\nthe implementation of legislation strengthening the fiscal framework. This should, in particular, include the establishment of a medium-term fiscal framework, the creation of a compulsory contingency reserve in the budget corresponding to 5 % of total appropriations of government departments, other than wages, pensions and interest, the creation of stronger expenditure monitoring mechanisms and the establishment of a budget office attached to Parliament;\n(c)\na significant increase in the absorption rate of structural and cohesion funds;\n(d)\nlegislation simplifying and accelerating the process of licensing undertakings, industrial activities and professions;\n(e)\na modification of the institutional framework of the Hellenic competition authority (HCC) with a view to increasing its independence, establishing reasonable deadlines for the investigation and issue of decisions and entrusting it with the power to reject complaints;\n(f)\nmeasures aiming at removing existing restrictions on the freedom to provide services;\n(g)\na decree disallowing local governments to run deficits at least until 2014; reduction in transfers to local government in line with planned savings and transfers of competences;\n(h)\npublication of interim long-term projections of pension expenditure up to 2060 as set out in the July 2010 legislative reform covering the main pension schemes (IKA, including the pension scheme for civil servants, OGA and OAEE);\n(i)\nimplementation of a uniform e-prescribing system; publication of the complete price list for the medicines in the market; application of the list of non-reimbursed medicines and of the list of over-the-counter medicines; publication of the new list of reimbursed medicines using the new reference price system; the use of the information made available through e-prescribing and scanning for the collection of rebates from pharmaceutical companies; introduction of a monitoring mechanism allowing for pharmaceutical expenditure to be assessed on a monthly basis; enforcement of co-payments for regular outpatient services of EUR 5 and extension of co-payments to unwarranted visits to emergency departments; publication of audited accounts for hospitals and health centres; and creation of an independent taskforce of health policy experts whose task is to produce, by end May 2011, a detailed report for an overall reform of the health system aimed at improving efficiency and effectiveness in the health system;\n(j)\nfurther reduction in operational expenditure by at least 5 % yielding savings of at least EUR 100 million;\n(k)\nfurther reduction in transfers yielding savings for the government as a whole of at least EUR 100 million. The beneficiary public entities will ensure the concomitant reduction in expenditure so that there is no accumulation of arrears;\n(l)\nmeans-testing of family allowances from January 2011 on yielding savings of at least EUR 150 million (net of the respective administrative costs);\n(m)\nreduction in the purchase of military equipment (deliveries) by at least EUR 500 million compared to the actual 2010 level;\n(n)\nreduction in pharmaceutical expenditure by social security funds by EUR 900 million owing to an additional reduction in drug prices and new procurement procedures and by hospitals (also including expenditure in equipment) by at least EUR 350 million;\n(o)\nchanges in the management, pricing and wages of public enterprises yielding savings of at least EUR 800 million;\n(p)\nincrease in the reduced rates of VAT from 5,5 % to 6,5 % and from 11 % to 13 %, yielding at least EUR 880 million and reduction in the VAT rate applicable to medicines and hotel accommodation from 11 % to 6,5 % with a cost not exceeding EUR 250 million, net of savings for social security funds and hospitals that result from the lower VAT rate on medicines;\n(q)\nintensification of the fight against smuggling on fuel (at least EUR 190 million);\n(r)\nincrease in court trial fees (at least EUR 100 million);\n(s)\nimplementation of an action plan to accelerate the collection of tax arrears (at least EUR 200 million);\n(t)\nspeeding up tax penalty collection (at least EUR 400 million);\n(u)\ncollection of revenue that results from the new framework of tax disputes and trials (at least EUR 300 million);\n(v)\nrevenue from the renewal of telecommunication licences that are about to expire (at least EUR 350 million);\n(w)\nrevenue from concessions (at least EUR 250 million);\n(x)\na restructuring plan for the Athens transportation network (OASA). The objective of the plan shall be to reduce operational losses of the company and make it economically viable. The plan shall include cuts in operational expenditure of the company and tariff increases. The required actions shall be implemented by March 2011;\n(y)\nan act that limits recruitment in the whole general government to a ratio of not more than one recruitment for five retirements or dismissals, without sectoral exceptions, and including staff transferred from public enterprises under restructuring to government entities;\n(z)\nacts to strengthen labour market institution and establish that: firm-level agreements prevail over those under sector and occupational agreements without undue restrictions; firm-level collective agreements are not restricted by requirements regarding the minimum size of firms; the extension of sector and occupational agreements to parties not represented in negotiations is eliminated; the probationary period for new jobs is extended; temporal limits in the use of temporary working agencies are eliminated; impediments for greater use of fixed-term contracts are removed; the provision that establishes higher hourly remuneration to part-time workers is eliminated; and a more flexible working-time management including part-time shift work is allowed for.\n4. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of March 2011:\n(a)\npublication of comprehensive long-term projections of pension expenditure up to 2060 as set out in the July 2010 legislative reform. The projections shall encompass the supplementary (auxiliary) schemes, based on a comprehensive set of data collected and elaborated by the National Actuarial Authority. The projections shall be peer-reviewed and validated by the Economic Policy Committee;\n(b)\nthe government clears payment of arrears accumulated in 2010 and reduces those of previous years;\n(c)\nan anti-evasion plan which includes quantitative performance indicators to hold revenue administration accountable; legislation to streamline the administrative tax dispute and judicial appeal processes and the required acts and procedures to better address misconduct, corruption and poor performance of tax officials, including prosecution in cases of breach of duty; and publication of monthly reports of the five anti-evasion taskforces, including a set of progress indicators;\n(d)\na detailed action plan with a timeline to complete and implement the simplified remuneration system; preparation of a medium-term human resource plan for the period up to 2013 in line with the rule of one recruitment for five exits, also specifying plans to reallocate qualified staff to priority areas; and publication of monthly data on staff movements (entries, exits, transfers among entities) of the several government departments;\n(e)\nimplementation of the comprehensive reform of the healthcare system started in 2010 with the objective to keep public health expenditure at or below 6 % of GDP; measures yielding savings on pharmaceuticals of at least EUR 2 billion relative to the 2010 level, of which at least EUR 1 billion in 2011; improvement in the accounting and billing systems of hospitals, through: finalising the introduction of double-entry accrual accounting systems in all hospitals; the use of the uniform coding system and a common registry for medical supplies; the calculation of stocks and flows of medical supplies in all the hospitals using the uniform coding system for medical supplies; and the timely invoicing of treatment costs (no later than two months) to Greek social security funds, other Member States and private health insurers; and ensure that at least 50 % of the volume of medicines used by public hospitals by the end of 2011 is composed of generics and off-patent medicines by making it compulsory for all public hospitals to procure pharmaceutical products by active substance;\n(f)\nwith the aim of fighting waste and mismanagement in State-owned companies and yield fiscal savings of at least EUR 800 million, an act that: cuts primary remuneration in public enterprises by at least 10 % at company level; limits secondary remuneration to 10 % of primary remuneration; establishes a ceiling of EUR 4 000 per month for gross earnings (12 payments per year); increases urban transport tariffs by at least 30 %; actions that reduce operational expenditure in public companies between 15 % to 25 %; and an act for the restructuring of the OASA;\n(g)\na new regulatory framework to facilitate the conclusion of concession agreements for regional airports;\n(h)\nestablishment of an independent taskforce of education policy aiming at increasing the efficiency of the public education system (primary, secondary and higher education) and reach a more efficient use of resources;\n(i)\nadoption of a law to establish the Single Public Procurement Authority in line with the Action Plan; and development of an e-procurement IT platform and setting up of intermediate milestones in line with the Action Plan, including: testing a pilot version, availability of all functionalities for all contracts and phasing-in of the mandatory use of e-procurement system for supplies, services and works contracts.\n5. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of July 2011:\n(a)\nintroduces to Parliament a streamlined and unified public sector wage grid to apply to the State sector, local authorities and other agencies, phased in over three years, with remunerations reflecting productivity and tasks;\n(b)\na medium-term staffing plan for the period up to 2015 in line with the rule of one recruitment for five exits (one for 10 in 2011). The plan shall include tighter rules for temporary staff, cancellation of vacant job post and reallocation of qualified staff to priority areas and take into account the extension of working hours in the public sector;\n(c)\na detailed action plan with a timeline to complete and implement the simplified remuneration system, in line with private sector wages, achieving a reduction in the total wage bill. This plan shall be based on the results of the report published by the Ministry of Finance and the single payment authority. The legislation for a simplified remuneration system shall be phased in over three years. Wages of State-owned enterprises employees shall be in line with the new wage grid for the public sector;\n(d)\na reinforcement of the labour inspectorate, which shall be fully resourced with qualified staff and have quantitative targets on the number of controls to be carried out;\n(e)\nan act revising the main parameters of the pension system in order to limit the increase in public sector spending on pensions over the period 2009-2060 to less than 2,5 % of GDP, if long-term projections show that the projected increase in public pension expenditure would exceed this amount. The National Actuarial Authority (NAA) shall continue the submission of long-term projections of pension expenditure up to 2060 under the adopted reform. The projections shall encompass the main supplementary (auxiliary) schemes (ETEAM, TEADY, MTPY), based on comprehensive data collected and elaborated by the NAA;\n(f)\na revision of the list of heavy and arduous professions to reduce its coverage to no more than 10 % of employment; the new list of difficult and hazardous occupations shall apply with effect from 1 August 2011 to all current and future employees;\n(g)\nlegislation to establish the Single Public Procurement Authority (SPPA) with the mandate, objectives, competences, powers and schedule for entry into force, in line with the Action Plan;\n(h)\nadditional measures to promote the use of generic medicines through: compulsory e-prescription by active substance and of less expensive generics when available; associating a lower cost-sharing rate to generic medicines that have a significantly lower price than the reference price (lower than 60 % of the reference price) on the basis of the experience of other EU Member States; setting the maximum price of generics to 60 % of the branded medicine with similar active substance;\n(i)\npublication of an inventory of State-owned assets, including stakes in listed and non-listed enterprises and commercially viable real estate and land; a General Secretariat of Real Estate Development shall be established with the aims of improving management of real estate assets, clearing them of encumbrances and preparing them for privatisation;\n(j)\nthe medium-term fiscal strategy (hereinafter \u2018MTFS\u2019) through 2015 as described in Annex I to this Decision and respective implementing bills. The MTFS shall elaborate on the permanent fiscal consolidation measures which ensure that the deficit ceiling for 2011-15 as established by the Council Decision are not exceeded, and that the debt-to-GDP ratio is put on a sustainable downward path;\n(k)\nprivatisation of assets worth at least EUR 390 million; adoption of a privatisation programme with the aim of collecting at least EUR 15 billion by end-2012, EUR 22 billion by end-2013, EUR 35 billion by end-2014 and at least EUR 50 billion by end-2015; proceeds from the privatisation of assets (real estate, concessions and financial assets) shall be used to redeem debt and will not reduce the fiscal consolidation efforts to comply with the deficit ceilings in Article 1(2);\n(l)\nestablishment of a privatisation fund with sound governance to accelerate the privatisation process and guarantee its irreversibility and professional management. The Fund obtains the legal ownership of the assets to privatise. The Fund cannot pledge its assets in a way that would frustrate its purpose, i.e. privatisation of assets;\n(m)\ntables legislation to close, merge and downsize non-viable entities;\n(n)\nmeasures to strengthen expenditure control: a decision specifying the qualification and responsibilities of accounting officers to be appointed in all line ministries with the responsibility to ensure sound financial controls;\n(o)\nnew criteria and terms for the conclusions of contracts by social security funds with all healthcare providers, with the aim of achieving the targeted reduction in spending; initiates joint purchase of medical services and goods to achieve substantial expenditure reduction of at least 25 % compared to 2010 through price-volume agreements;\n(p)\npublication of binding prescription guidelines for physicians on the basis of international prescription guidelines to ensure a cost-effective use of medicines; publication and continuous update of the positive list of reimbursed medicines;\n(q)\npreparation of a plan for the reorganisation and restructuring of hospitals for the short and medium term with a view to reducing existing inefficiencies, utilising economies of scale and scope, and improving quality of care for patients. The aim is to reduce hospital costs by at least 10 % in 2011 and by an additional 5 % in 2012 in addition to the previous year.\n6. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of September 2011:\n(a)\na budget for 2012 in line with the MTFS and the objective of respecting the deficit ceilings established in Article 1(2);\n(b)\na mitigation of tax obstacles to mergers and acquisitions;\n(c)\na simplification of the custom clearing process for exports and imports;\n(d)\na further increase in the absorption rates of structural and cohesion funds;\n(e)\nthe full implementation of the Better Regulation agenda with a view to reducing administrative burdens by 20 % (compared with 2008);\n(f)\nlegislation to close, merge and downsize large non-viable entities;\n(g)\nmeasures enabling a reduction in procurement and third party costs in State-owned enterprises, updating tariffs, and creating new business lines, and reduce personnel costs by completing and implementing an employment retrenchment plan. Excess staff that cannot be removed by the hiring rule of one recruitment for five exits (one for 10 in 2011) shall be dealt with through non-voluntary redundancies and furlough (labour reserve). This rule is without sectoral exceptions; it shall also apply to staff transferred from public enterprises to other government entities after screening of professional qualifications by ASEP under its regular evaluation criteria. Staff in the labour reserve shall be paid at 60 % of their wage for not more than 12 months, after which they shall be dismissed;\n(h)\na legal framework enabling fast assignment of land use and accelerates State land ownership registration;\n(i)\nan act enabling the promotion of investment in the tourism sector (tourist resorts and secondary tourist housing), with a view to, together with the bill on land use, allow for accelerating the privatisation process of land plots managed by the Greek Tourist Real Estate Agency (ETA);\n(j)\nfinalisation of the functional review of existing social programmes; assessment by the government of the results of the second and final phase of the independent functional review of central administration; legislation and measures to implement the operational recommendations of the first phase of the functional review of public administration at central level and of the full review of existing social programmes;\n(k)\nan in-depth revision of the functioning of secondary/supplementary public pension funds, including welfare funds and lump-sum schemes. The aim of the revision is to stabilise pension expenditure, guarantee the budgetary neutrality of these schemes, and ensure medium- and long-term sustainability of the system. The revision shall achieve: a further reduction in the number of existing funds; the elimination of imbalances in those funds with deficits; the stabilisation of the current spending at sustainable level, through appropriate adjustments to be made from 1 January 2012; the long-term sustainability of secondary schemes through a strict link between contributions and benefits;\n(l)\nidentification of the schemes for which lump sums paid on retirement are out of line with contributions paid with the aim of adjusting payment by the end of December 2011;\n(m)\nfurther measures to extend in a cost-effective way the e-prescribing of medicines, diagnostics and doctors\u2019 referrals to all social security funds, health centres and hospitals. In compliance with EU procurement rules, the government shall conduct the necessary tendering procedures to implement a comprehensive and uniform healthcare information system (e-health system);\n(n)\nfurther measures to ensure that at least 30 % of the volume of medicines used by public hospitals is composed of generics with a price below that of similar branded products and off-patent medicines, in particular by making it compulsory that all public hospitals procure pharmaceutical products by active substance;\n(o)\ndecisions to provide for the institution and establishment of positions for the SPPA\u2019s (Single Public Procurement Authority) personnel, as well as for the organisation of human resources and services of the Authority in accordance with the provisions of the law on the SPPA; to appoint the members of the SPPA;\n(p)\nPublication of monthly data on staff movements (entries, exits, transfers among entities) of the several government departments.\n7. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of December 2011:\n(a)\nthe final adoption of the budget for 2012;\n(b)\na reinforcement of the managerial capacity of all managing authorities and intermediate bodies of operational programmes under the framework of the national strategy reference framework 2007-2013 and their ISO 9001:2008 (quality management) certification;\n(c)\na hospital case-based costing system to be used for budgeting purposes from 2013 on;\n(d)\nacts to implement the operational recommendations of the first phase of the functional review of public administration at central level and of the full review of existing social programmes; assessment of the results of the second and final phase of the independent functional review of central administration;\n(e)\nstarting of operations of the Single Public Procurement Authority with the necessary resources to fulfil its mandate, objectives, competences and powers as defined in the Action Plan;\n(f)\nreview of fees for medical services outsourced to private providers with the aim of reducing related costs by at least 15 % in 2011, and by an additional 15 % in 2012;\n(g)\nmeasures to simplify the tax system, broaden bases and reduce tax rates in a fiscally-neutral manner, in relation to the personal income tax, corporate income tax and VAT;\n(h)\nfurther measures to ensure that at least 50 % of the volume of medicines used by public hospitals is composed of generics with a price below that of similar branded products and off-patent medicines, in particular by making compulsory that all public hospitals procure pharmaceutical products by active substance.\n8. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of March 2012:\n(a)\na reform of the secondary/supplementary pension schemes, by merging funds and starting the calculation of benefits on the basis of the new notional defined contribution system; freezing of nominal supplementary pensions and reduction of the replacement rates for accrued rights in funds with deficits, based on the actuarial study prepared by the National Actuarial Authority. In case the actuarial study is not ready, replacement rates shall be reduced, starting from 1 January 2012, to avoid deficits;\n(b)\ncalculation of pharmacies\u2019 profit margins as a flat amount or flat fee combined with a small profit margin with the aim of reducing the overall profit margin to no more than 15 %, including on the most expensive drugs.\nArticle 3\nGreece shall fully cooperate with the Commission and transmit without delay, upon a reasoned request from the latter, any data or document required in order to monitor compliance with this Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. Greece shall submit to the Council and the Commission a report outlining the policy measures taken to comply with this Decision on a quarterly basis.\n2. The reports referred to in paragraph 1 shall contain detailed information on:\n(a)\nconcrete measures implemented by the date of the report in order to comply with this Decision, including their quantified budgetary impact;\n(b)\nconcrete measures planned to be implemented after the date of the report in order to comply with this Decision, their implementation calendar and an estimation of their budgetary impact;\n(c)\nthe monthly State budget execution;\n(d)\ninfra-annual budgetary implementation by social security, local government and extra budgetary funds;\n(e)\ngovernment debt issue and reimbursement;\n(f)\npermanent and temporary public sector employment developments;\n(g)\ngovernment expenditure pending payment, specifying those past due date;\n(h)\nthe financial position of public undertakings and other public entities.\n3. The Commission and the Council shall analyse the reports with a view to assessing Greece\u2019s compliance with this Decision. In the context of those assessments, the Commission may indicate the measures needed to respect the adjustment path set by this Decision for the correction of the excessive deficit.\nArticle 5\nDecision 2010/320/EU is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Decision shall be construed as references to this Decision and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex III.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["99", "82", "68", "65", "45", "54", "53", "56", "93", "10", "84", "90", "47", "20", "85", "71", "8", "22", "19", "24", "21", "98", "69", "64", "18", "46", "58", "36", "60", "57", "No Label", "4", "15", "27", "32", "34", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "15", "27", "32", "34", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 11 February 2011\nrelating to the clearance of the accounts presented by Romania for the expenditure financed under the special accession programme for agriculture and rural development (Sapard) in 2007\n(notified under document C(2011) 759)\n(Only the Romanian text is authentic)\n(2011/96/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000 of 7 June 2000 laying down financial rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (2), and in particular Article 13 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Multiannual Financing Agreement concluded with Romania on 2 February 2001 and in particular Article 11 of Section A to the Annex thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 248/2007 of 8 March 2007 on measures concerning the Multi-annual Financing Agreements and the Annual Financing Agreements concluded under the Sapard programme and the transition from Sapard to rural development (3), in conjunction with the Multiannual Financing Agreements as referred to in Annex II, point 1 to that Regulation, and in particular Article 11 of Section A to the Annex thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission, acting on behalf of the European Union, concluded multiannual financing agreements (MAFAs) laying down the technical, legal and administrative framework for the execution of the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (Sapard) with Romania.\n(2)\nArticle 11 of Section A of the Annex to the MAFAs provides for the adoption of a clearance of accounts Decision by the Commission. That provision continues to apply to Romania, by virtue of Regulation (EC) No 248/2007.\n(3)\nThe time limits granted to the recipient countries for the submission to the Commission of the requisite documents have expired.\n(4)\nCommission Decision C(2008) 5524 of 30 September 2008 cleared the accounts of Bulgaria and Croatia. However, pending the review of supplementary information which had been requested from Romania, the decision concerning the accounts of this country could not be adopted at that stage.\n(5)\nThe supplementary information has in the meantime been submitted. The checks carried out enable the Commission to take a decision on the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the Sapard Agency.\n(6)\nThis Decision is adopted on the basis of accounting information. It does not prejudice the possibility for the Commission to decide subsequently to exclude from EU financing expenditure not incurred in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accounts of the Sapard Agency, situated on the territory of Romania, which concern expenditure financed by the general budget of the European Union in 2007 are hereby cleared.\nArticle 2\nThe expenditure and funding received from the EU for the financial year 2007, as stated on 31 December 2007, and the assets held by this Beneficiary Country on behalf of the EU on 31 December 2007, to be cleared under this Decision, are laid down in the Annex.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Romania.\nDone at Brussels, 11 February 2011.", "references": ["32", "99", "60", "51", "1", "23", "25", "42", "24", "64", "70", "12", "7", "50", "56", "39", "16", "6", "55", "41", "20", "22", "31", "44", "75", "46", "69", "9", "94", "30", "No Label", "17", "33", "47", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["17", "33", "47", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 940/2011/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 14 September 2011\non the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations (2012)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 153(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 147(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Union is to contribute to a high level of employment by encouraging cooperation between Member States and by supporting and, if necessary, complementing their action.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 153(1) TFEU, the Union is to support and complement the activities of the Member States on working conditions, the integration of persons excluded from the labour market and the combating of social exclusion.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union, the Union is, inter alia, to combat social exclusion and discrimination and is to promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men and solidarity between generations.\n(4)\nArticle 174 TFEU recognises that some regions of the Union suffer from severe and permanent demographic handicaps that may adversely affect their level of development and require particular attention if the Union is to achieve the objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 25 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Union recognises and respects the rights of the elderly to lead a life of dignity and independence and to participate in social and cultural life.\n(6)\nAgeing is undoubtedly a challenge for the whole of society and for all generations in Europe, and it is also a matter for intergenerational solidarity and for the family.\n(7)\nThe part of the population of the Union comprised of people in their late 50s and over will increase at a much faster rate than ever before. This is very positive as it is a logical consequence of the improvement in health and the quality of life. Nevertheless, due to this demographic change, the Union faces a number of challenges.\n(8)\nSuccessive European Councils have recognised the need to tackle the effect of ageing populations on European social models. A key response to this rapid change in the age structure consists in promoting the creation of a culture of active ageing as a lifelong process and thus ensuring that the rapidly-growing population comprised of people who are currently in their late 50s and over, who are, on the whole, healthier and better educated than any such age group before them, have good opportunities for employment and active participation in social and family life, including through volunteering, lifelong learning, cultural expression and sports.\n(9)\nActive ageing is, according to the World Health Organisation, the process of optimising opportunities for health, participation and security in order to enhance quality of life as people age. Active ageing allows people to realise their potential for physical, social, and mental well-being throughout the life course and to participate in society, while providing them with adequate protection, security and care when they need it. Accordingly, the promotion of active ageing requires a multi-dimensional approach and ownership by and lasting support among all generations.\n(10)\nThe European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations (2012) should build on the legacy of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (2010) and the European Year of Voluntary Activities Promoting Active Citizenship (2011) and, therefore, the synergies between those European Years and the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations (2012) (\u2018the European Year\u2019) should be promoted.\n(11)\nThe growing proportion of older people in Europe and the increase in chronic health conditions makes it more important than ever to promote the healthy ageing of all, and in particular older people, supporting their vitality and dignity by, inter alia, ensuring access to appropriate and high-quality health care, long-term care and social services and developing initiatives promoting the prevention of health risks associated with ageing. Healthy ageing can help to raise the labour market participation of older people, enable them to be active in society for longer, improve their individual quality of life and limit pressure on health, social care and pension systems.\n(12)\nThe Commission presented its views on the demographic challenges that the Union faces and on opportunities for tackling them in its communications \u2018The demographic future of Europe - from challenge to opportunity\u2019 of 12 October 2006, \u2018Promoting Solidarity between the Generations\u2019 of 10 May 2007 and \u2018Dealing with the impact of an ageing population in the EU (2009 Ageing Report)\u2019 of 29 April 2009.\n(13)\nThe diversity of older generations in Europe will further increase. It is therefore necessary to actively promote equal opportunities and to encourage participation. Active citizens from different backgrounds have important bridge functions in society, foster integration and contribute to the economy.\n(14)\nThe Council and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, adopted, on 22 February 2007, a Resolution on \u2018The opportunities and challenges of demographic change in Europe: the contribution of older people to economic and social development\u2019 which emphasised both the need to increase the possibilities for active participation by older people, including in the form of voluntary work, and the new economic opportunities (\u2018the silver economy\u2019) created by the growing demand on the part of older people for certain goods and services, as well as the importance of a positive public image of older people.\n(15)\nThe Council adopted, on 8 June 2009, Conclusions on \u2018Equal opportunities for women and men: active and dignified ageing\u2019, which recognised that, throughout the Union, older women and men face serious challenges as they seek to live active lives and to age with dignity, and proposed a number of measures to Member States and the Commission, including the promotion of active ageing policies, taking into account the different situations in the various Member States and the different challenges faced by women and men.\n(16)\nThe Council adopted, on 30 November 2009, Conclusions on \u2018Healthy and dignified ageing\u2019, inviting the Commission, inter alia, \u2018to develop awareness-raising activities to promote active ageing, including a possible European Year on Active Ageing and Intergenerational Solidarity in 2012\u2019.\n(17)\nThe Commission emphasised, in its Communication entitled \u2018Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth\u2019 of 3 March 2010, the importance, to the Union, of promoting a healthy and actively-ageing population in the interests of social cohesion and higher productivity. On 23 November 2010, as part of the Europe 2020 strategy, the Commission adopted a flagship initiative entitled \u2018An agenda for new skills and jobs: A European contribution towards full employment\u2019, under which Member States should notably promote active ageing policies. On 16 December 2010, the Commission also adopted a flagship initiative on a \u2018European Platform against Poverty and social exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion\u2019. Achieving those policy goals requires action from all levels of government and various non-governmental stakeholders; those goals can in turn be supported, at the level of the Union, by European Year activities that aim to raise awareness and to foster the exchange of good practice. National coordinators should see to it that national activities are coordinated and are consistent with the objectives of the European Year. The participation of other institutions and stakeholders should also be planned.\n(18)\nThe Council adopted, on 7 June 2010, Conclusions on \u2018Active Ageing\u2019 inviting the Commission \u2018to pursue the preparation of a European Year for Active Ageing in 2012, during which the benefits of active ageing and its contribution to solidarity between generations can be highlighted and promising initiatives in support of active ageing at all levels can be publicised\u2019.\n(19)\nThe European Parliament adopted, on 11 November 2010, a Resolution entitled \u2018Demographic challenge and solidarity between generations\u2019, calling on Member States to make active ageing one of the priorities for the coming years. The resolution also stressed that the European Year should, in particular, highlight the contribution that older people make to society and afford opportunities to foster solidarity, cooperation and understanding between generations and to get younger and older people to work together.\n(20)\nOpinions drawn up by the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions have also stressed the importance of active ageing for Europe by highlighting, inter alia, the value of cross-generational health care.\n(21)\nCouncil Decision 2010/707/EU of 21 October 2010 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (3) calls, under Guidelines 7 and 8, on Member States to increase labour force participation through policies to promote active ageing, to raise employment rates of older workers through promoting innovation in the organisation of work and to increase the employability of older workers through their up-skilling and participation in lifelong learning schemes. Guideline 10 emphasises the need to enhance social protection systems, lifelong learning and active inclusion policies with the aim of creating opportunities at different stages of people\u2019s lives, of shielding them from the risk of poverty and social exclusion and of enhancing their active participation in society.\n(22)\nIn its Communication \u2018A Digital Agenda for Europe\u2019, the first Europe 2020 flagship initiative, adopted on 19 May 2010, the Commission stressed the importance of information and communication technology (ICT) applications and services for ageing well, proposing, in particular, the reinforcement of the Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) Joint Programme. The Digital Agenda for Europe also recommended taking concerted action to increase the digital competences of all Europeans, including older people, a group that is overrepresented within the 150 million citizens, or approximately 30 % of the total number of citizens, who have never used the internet. Facilitating access to, and providing training in the use of, new technologies would further improve the opportunities of older people.\n(23)\nIn the context of the Europe 2020 strategy, the Commission has proposed launching an Active and Healthy Ageing Innovation Partnership (AHAIP) within the framework of the \u2018Innovation Union\u2019 flagship initiative. The AHAIP would seek to enable citizens to live independently and in good health for longer and to increase by two the average number of healthy years of life by 2020.\n(24)\nThe Commission is implementing the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020, which, given the frequent correlation between disability and ageing, contains relevant actions for older people. In particular, actions on accessibility following \u2018Design for All\u2019 approaches are relevant. Actions to support independent living and inclusion in the community are also relevant, including those directed at older persons with disabilities who are in need of a high level of support, who have complex needs and who are particularly vulnerable and prone to social exclusion. Furthermore the Union and all Member States have signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which contains, inter alia, provisions that are relevant for older people.\n(25)\nThe European Day of Intergenerational Solidarity is celebrated annually on 29 April. It provides a good opportunity for the Union to renew its commitment to strengthen solidarity and cooperation between generations in order to promote a fair and sustainable society.\n(26)\nThis Decision establishes a financial envelope which is to constitute the prime reference for the budgetary authority within the meaning of point 37 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (4).\n(27)\nActive ageing is also targeted by several Union funds, programmes and action plans, such as the European Social Fund (5), the European Regional Development Fund (6), the Progress programme (7), the Lifelong Learning Programme (8) and in particular its Grundtvig programme, the Health Programme (9), the specific programmes on ICTs and on socio-economic sciences and humanities in the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development (10), the Action Plan on \u2018Ageing well in the information society\u2019, the AAL Joint Programme (11), the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (12) with pilot deployment projects on ICT for Ageing Well, the Calypso Preparatory Action on Social Tourism and the Action Plan on urban mobility.\n(28)\nIn order to ensure the participation of a diverse range of organisations, smaller scale events and operations should, as far as possible, be facilitated during the European Year.\n(29)\nParticipation of relevant Union-level networks in the European Year should be encouraged and supported with adequate resources.\n(30)\nSince the objectives of the European Year cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States due to the need for transnational exchange of information and the Union-wide dissemination of good practice, and can therefore, by reason of the scale of the 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. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject\nThe year 2012 shall be designated as the \u2018European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations\u2019 (\u2018the European Year\u2019). It shall promote the vitality and the dignity of all.\nArticle 2\nObjectives\nThe overall objective of the European Year shall be to facilitate the creation of an active ageing culture in Europe based on a society for all ages. Within this framework, the European Year shall encourage and support the efforts of Member States, their regional and local authorities, social partners, civil society and the business community, including small and medium-sized enterprises, to promote active ageing and to do more to mobilise the potential of the rapidly growing population in their late 50s and over. In doing so, it shall foster solidarity and cooperation between generations, taking into account diversity and gender equality. Promoting active ageing means creating better opportunities so that older women and men can play their part in the labour market, combating poverty, particularly that of women, and social exclusion, fostering volunteering and active participation in family life and society and encouraging healthy ageing in dignity. This involves, inter alia, adapting working conditions, combating negative age stereotypes and age discrimination, improving health and safety at work, adapting lifelong learning systems to the needs of an ageing workforce and ensuring that social protection systems are adequate and provide the right incentives.\nOn the basis of the first paragraph, the objectives of the European Year shall be:\n(a)\nto raise general awareness of the value of active ageing and its various dimensions and to ensure that it is accorded a prominent position on the political agendas of stakeholders at all levels in order to highlight the useful contribution that older people make to society and the economy, raising the appreciation thereof, to promote active ageing, solidarity between generations and the vitality and the dignity of all people, and to do more to mobilise the potential of older people, regardless of their origin, and to enable them to lead an independent life;\n(b)\nto stimulate debate, to exchange information and to develop mutual learning between Member States and stakeholders at all levels in order to promote active ageing policies, to identify and disseminate good practice and to encourage cooperation and synergies;\n(c)\nto offer a framework for commitment and concrete action to enable the Union, Member States and stakeholders at all levels, with the involvement of civil society, the social partners and businesses and with particular emphasis on promoting information strategies, to develop innovative solutions, policies and long-term strategies, including comprehensive age-management strategies related to employment and work, through specific activities, and to pursue specific objectives related to active ageing and intergenerational solidarity;\n(d)\nto promote activities which will help to combat age discrimination, to overcome age-related stereotypes and to remove barriers, particularly with regard to employability.\nArticle 3\nContent of measures\n1. The measures to be taken to achieve the objectives set out in Article 2 shall include the following activities at Union, national, regional or local level:\n(a)\nconferences, events and initiatives, with the active participation of all relevant stakeholders, to promote debate, to raise awareness and to encourage the commitment to specific objectives contributing to sustained and lasting impacts;\n(b)\ninformation, promotion and educational campaigns, making use of multimedia;\n(c)\nexchange of information, experience and good practice, by using, inter alia, the Open Method of Coordination and networks of stakeholders working to achieve the objectives of the European Year;\n(d)\nresearch and surveys on a Union, national or regional scale, and dissemination of the results, focusing on the economic and social impact of promoting active ageing and of active-ageing-friendly policies.\n2. When implementing the activities referred to in paragraph 1, attention shall be paid to involving all generations in the pursuit of the objectives of the European Year, in particular by seeking to develop an inclusive approach and by encouraging the participation of older and younger people in common initiatives.\n3. The Commission or Member States may identify other activities as contributing to the objectives of the European Year and may allow the name of the European Year to be used in promoting those activities provided that they contribute to achieving the objectives set out in Article 2.\n4. The Commission and Member States shall take into account gender mainstreaming in all their activities in connection with the running of the European Year.\n5. The Commission shall take into account the potential of cross-border activities taking place at regional or local level for achieving the objectives set out in Article 2.\n6. Efforts shall be made to ensure that all activities of the European Year addressed to the wider public are easily accessible to all, including persons with disabilities.\nArticle 4\nCoordination with Member States\n1. Each Member State shall appoint a national coordinator to be responsible for organising its involvement in the European Year and shall inform the Commission of that appointment.\n2. The national coordinators shall also see to it that national activities of the European Year are properly coordinated and may also promote and facilitate local and regional activities in this context. The national coordinators shall also foster the involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including civil society, in the activities of the European Year.\n3. By 25 November 2011, Member States are invited to inform the Commission of their work programme, which shall outline details of the national activities planned under the European Year.\nArticle 5\nParticipating countries\nParticipation in the European Year shall be open to:\n(a)\nMember States;\n(b)\ncandidate countries;\n(c)\nthe countries of the Western Balkans; and\n(d)\nEuropean Free Trade Association States that are parties to the European Economic Area Agreement.\nArticle 6\nCoordination at the level of the Union\n1. The Commission shall implement the European Year at the level of the Union.\n2. The Commission shall convene meetings of the national coordinators for the purpose of coordinating activities of the European Year at the level of the Union and of exchanging information and knowledge, including on possible commitments and their implementation in Member States.\n3. The Commission shall facilitate and support the activities of the European Year at national, regional and local level, including by proposing, where appropriate, new pathways and tools for the achievement of the objectives of the European Year and their evaluation.\n4. Coordination of the activities of the European Year at the level of the Union shall also be a matter for the existing policy committees and advisory groups.\n5. The Commission shall also convene meetings of representatives of European organisations or bodies working in the field of active ageing in order to help it run the European Year.\n6. The theme of the European Year shall be made a priority by the Commission in the communication activities of its representations in the Member States and by relevant key Union-level networks receiving support for their running costs from the general budget of the Union in their work programmes.\n7. The European Parliament, Member States, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions shall be associated in the activities of the European Year.\nArticle 7\nFinancial and non-financial support\n1. Activities referred to in Article 3(1) that occur at the level of the Union may give rise to a procurement contract or the award of grants financed from the general budget of the Union.\n2. Where appropriate, programmes and policies in fields which contribute to the promotion of active ageing, such as employment, social affairs and equal opportunities, education and culture, health, research, the information society, regional policy and transport policy may support the European Year, in accordance with the applicable rules and within their existing possibilities for priority setting.\n3. Non-financial support may be granted by the Union for activities undertaken by public and private organisations in accordance with Article 3(3).\nArticle 8\nBudget\n1. The financial envelope for the implementation, at the level of the Union, of this Decision, in particular in respect of the activities set out in Article 3(1), for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2012, shall be EUR 5 000 000.\n2. Annual appropriations shall be authorised by the budgetary authority within the limits of the financial framework.\nArticle 9\nConsistency\nThe Commission - together with Member States - shall ensure that the measures provided for in this Decision are consistent with any other Union, national and regional schemes and initiatives that help attain the objectives of the European Year.\nArticle 10\nInternational cooperation\nFor the purpose of the European Year, the Commission may cooperate with relevant international organisations, in particular with the United Nations and the Council of Europe, while ensuring the visibility of the Union\u2019s efforts to promote active ageing.\nArticle 11\nEvaluation\n1. By 30 June 2014, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions containing an overall assessment of the initiatives provided for in this Decision with details of implementation and results to serve as a basis for future Union policies, measures and actions in this field.\n2. The report referred to in paragraph 1 shall also provide information on how gender equality has been mainstreamed in the activities of the European Year and how the accessibility of those activities for persons with disabilities has been ensured.\n3. The report referred to in paragraph 1 shall also highlight how the European Year has produced lasting effects for the promotion of active ageing across the Union.\nArticle 12\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 13\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 14 September 2011.", "references": ["43", "79", "77", "87", "95", "65", "80", "99", "35", "85", "16", "15", "76", "81", "34", "46", "49", "28", "41", "4", "82", "2", "22", "58", "78", "23", "84", "51", "13", "19", "No Label", "36", "50"], "gold": ["36", "50"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 763/2011\nof 29 July 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2011.", "references": ["18", "88", "72", "78", "36", "76", "85", "11", "8", "34", "92", "46", "28", "32", "58", "52", "79", "42", "68", "59", "37", "7", "19", "47", "93", "43", "45", "64", "82", "98", "No Label", "21", "40", "86"], "gold": ["21", "40", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 874/2010\nof 5 October 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of lasalocid A sodium as a feed additive for turkeys up to 16 weeks (holder of authorisation Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA) and amending Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).\n(2)\nLasalocid A sodium, CAS number 25999-20-6, was authorised for 10 years in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC as a feed additive for use on chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1455/2004 (3) and for use on turkeys up to 12 weeks by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (4). That additive was subsequently entered in the Community Register of feed additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 of that Regulation, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of lasalocid A sodium as a feed additive for turkeys, extending the maximum age from 12 to 16 weeks and requesting that additive to be classified in the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 7 April 2010 that, under the proposed conditions of use, lasalocid A sodium does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer health or the environment, and that that additive is effective in controlling coccidiosis in turkeys (5). It considers that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring to control the possible development of bacterial and/or Eimeria spp. resistances. The Authority also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of that additive shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that additive should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nAs a consequence of the granting of a new authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, the provisions on that additive in Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 should be deleted.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019 is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999, the entry under the registration number of additive E 763, concerning lasalocid A sodium, is deleted.\nPremixture and compound feed containing the feed additive labelled in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 may continue to be placed on the market and remain on the market and used until stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 October 2010.", "references": ["47", "17", "19", "30", "60", "43", "4", "44", "54", "69", "16", "18", "2", "28", "12", "8", "9", "97", "39", "59", "64", "75", "7", "88", "35", "85", "63", "3", "10", "77", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 August 2010\nproviding for the temporary marketing of varieties of Avena strigosa Schreb. not included in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species or in the national catalogues of varieties of the Member States\n(notified under document C(2010) 5835)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/468/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 66/402/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of cereal seed (1), and in particular Article 17(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Directive 2009/74/EC of 26 June 2009 amending Council Directives 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 2002/55/EC and 2002/57/EC as regards the botanical names of plants, the scientific names of other organisms and certain Annexes to Directives 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC and 2002/57/EC in the light of developments of scientific and technical knowledge (2) has identified the species Avena strigosa Schreb. (hereinafter \u2018A. strigosa\u2019) as an independent species to be included in the list of species covered by Directive 66/402/EEC.\n(2)\nA. strigosa is a crop proved to be among the most effective in reducing soil erosion, nitrogen leaching, in particular leaching of nitrates from agricultural sources, and it is an important component of seed mixtures for forage purposes. According to the information provided by the authorities of 6 Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal), the demand for seed of this species has in the last years increased considerably in the Union and in particular in these Member States.\n(3)\nBefore the entry into force of Directive 2009/74/EC and the subsequent listing of A. strigosa among the species covered by Directive 66/402/EEC, the supply of the market was ensured by national production and mainly by the import from third countries of seed of this species in accordance with national legislation applicable at that time. Following the inclusion of A. strigosa in the list of the species covered by Directive 66/402/EEC, only seed of varieties registered in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species may be marketed and imported.\n(4)\nSince the inclusion of the species A. strigosa among the list of species covered by Directive 66/402/EEC, only two varieties of that species have been registered in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species.\n(5)\nIn the light of these circumstances, temporary difficulties in the general supply of A. strigosa have occurred and are expected to continue. These difficulties cannot be overcome otherwise than through Member States permitting, for a specified period and subject to an appropriate maximum quantity, the marketing of varieties of A. strigosa not included in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species or in the national catalogues of varieties of the Member States.\n(6)\nMember States should therefore be authorised to temporarily permit the marketing of such seed, subject to certain conditions and limitations and without prejudice to the more stringent provisions concerning the presence of Avena fatua in cereal seed which Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland may apply pursuant to the relevant Commission Decisions.\n(7)\nIt appears from the information provided to the Commission by the Member States that, in total, a quantity of 4 970 tonnes is necessary to resolve these supply difficulties (Belgium 300 tonnes, France 3 700 tonnes, Germany 200 tonnes, Italy 220 tonnes, Spain 300 tonnes and Portugal 250 tonnes), for a period expiring on 31 December 2010. To ensure that this seed is of sufficient quality it should meet at least the requirements laid down in Annex II to Directive 66/402/EEC as regards germination, analytical purity and content of seeds of other plant species for the category certified seed, 2nd generation of A. strigosa.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate that one Member State acts in order to ensure that the quantity of seed authorised for marketing by the Member States pursuant to this Decision does not exceed the total maximum quantity of 4 970 tonnes that is necessary to resolve the supply difficulties. In line with the requests of the six Member States, France should therefore act as single coordinator. In order to ensure the good functioning of the system set out by this Decision, it is further necessary that the coordinating Member State, the other Member States and the Commission immediately share the relevant information regarding applications and the granting of authorisations for marketing.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The marketing in the Union of seed of varieties of A. strigosa not included in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species or in the national catalogues of varieties of the Member States shall be permitted, for a period expiring on 31 December 2010 and subject to the conditions referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5.\n2. The total quantity of seed authorised for marketing in the Union pursuant to this Decision shall not exceed 4 970 tonnes.\n3. The seed referred to in paragraph 1 shall comply with the requirements laid down in Annex II to Directive 66/402/EEC as regards the conditions concerning germination, analytical purity and content of seeds of other plant species to be satisfied by the seed for the category certified seed, 2nd generation of A. strigosa.\n4. Without prejudice to any labelling requirement of Directive 66/402/EEC, the official label shall contain the statement that the seed in question is of a category satisfying less stringent requirements than those laid down by that Directive, and that this category is lower than the category certified seed, 2nd generation. The colour of the label shall be brown.\n5. The marketing of the seed referred in paragraph 1 shall be permitted upon application in conformity with Article 2.\nArticle 2\nAny seed supplier wishing to place on the market the seed referred to in Article 1(1) shall apply for authorisation to the Member State in which he is established or to the Member State in which he wishes to place the seed on the market. The application shall specify the quantity of seed that the supplier wishes to place on the market.\nThe Member State concerned shall authorise the supplier to place the quantity of seed specified in the application on the market, unless:\n(a)\nthere is sufficient evidence to doubt whether the supplier is able and intends to place the quantity of seed specified in his application on the market; or\n(b)\nhaving regard to the information provided by the coordinating Member State referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 3, granting the authorisation would result in the total maximum quantity of seed referred to in Article 1(2) being exceeded; or\n(c)\nthe conditions concerning germination, analytical purity and content of seeds of other plant species referred to in Article 1(3) have not been met.\nAs regard point (b), in case the total maximum quantity would only allow for authorisation of part of the quantity specified in the application, the Member State concerned may authorise the supplier to place that lesser quantity on the market.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall assist each other administratively in the application of this Decision.\nFor the period starting from the entry into force of this Decision until 31 December 2010, France shall act as coordinating Member State in order to ensure that the quantity of seed authorised for marketing in the Union by the Member States pursuant to this Decision shall not exceed the total maximum quantity of seed referred to in Article 1(2).\nAny Member State receiving an application pursuant to Article 2 shall immediately inform the coordinating Member State of the quantity specified in that application. The coordinating Member State shall immediately inform that Member State as to whether and to what extent granting authorisation for marketing upon that application would result in the total maximum quantity of seed being exceeded.\nArticle 4\nMember States shall immediately notify the Commission and the other Member States of the quantities in respect of which they have granted authorisation for marketing pursuant to this Decision.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 August 2010.", "references": ["60", "24", "5", "16", "14", "50", "80", "19", "87", "10", "72", "74", "9", "26", "56", "4", "86", "67", "2", "70", "35", "92", "46", "63", "91", "51", "37", "82", "83", "47", "No Label", "25", "65", "68"], "gold": ["25", "65", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 204/2012\nof 8 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2012.", "references": ["42", "64", "78", "33", "25", "8", "43", "48", "24", "65", "34", "70", "53", "14", "41", "9", "71", "0", "86", "92", "32", "88", "23", "50", "56", "85", "91", "54", "4", "74", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1132/2011\nof 8 November 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards transit of consignments of eggs and egg products from Belarus through Lithuania to the Russian territory of Kaliningrad\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1) and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first paragraph of point 1 of Article 8, point 4 of Article 8 and Article 9(4)(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2002/99/EC lays down the general animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution within the Union and the introduction from third countries of products of animal origin for human consumption and provides for establishing specific rules and certification for transit.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (2) provides that the commodities covered by it are only to be imported into and transited through the Union from the third countries, territories, zones or compartments listed in Part 1 of Annex I thereto. It also lays down the veterinary certification requirements for such commodities. Those requirements take into account whether or not additional guarantees are requested due to the disease status of those third countries, territories, zones or compartments. The additional guarantees with which those commodities are to comply are set out in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008.\n(3)\nArticle 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 provides that eggs and egg products transiting through the Union are to be accompanied by a certificate drawn up in accordance with the model certificate set out in Annex XI thereto and complying with the conditions set out in that certificate.\n(4)\nIn view of the isolated geographic situation of the Russian territory of Kaliningrad, Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 derogates from the requirements of Article 4(4) of that Regulation and lays down specific conditions for transit of certain consignments from and bound for Russia through Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Those conditions include additional controls and the sealing of the consignments.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 798/2008, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 241/2010 (3), lists Belarus as a third country from which transit through the Union of eggs and egg products is authorised until 13 October 2011.\n(6)\nThe Food and Veterinary Office carried out an inspection in Belarus in March 2010. The outcome of that inspection showed that measures to control avian influenza and Newcastle disease are in place in that third country. However, the national legislation of Belarus and the laboratory testing protocols are not fully equivalent to Union legislation.\n(7)\nIn view of the outcome of that inspection, it can be concluded that the animal health risks for the Union posed by the transit of consignments of eggs and egg products from Belarus to the Russian territory of Kaliningrad are very low. In addition, Lithuania has undertaken to carry out additional controls on such consignments when they enter and leave its territory.\n(8)\nIn view of those elements and of the already existing procedural structures with regard to transit of commodities from and bound for Russia, the transit of eggs and egg products from Belarus through Lithuania to the Russian territory of Kaliningrad by rail or road should continue to be permitted, provided that identical conditions to those already laid down in Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 for other commodities are complied with.\n(9)\nA new provision, derogating from the requirements of Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 798/2008, with regard to the transit of eggs and egg products from Belarus should therefore be inserted in Article 18 of that Regulation and the entry for Belarus in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 798/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 18 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 18\nDerogations for transit through Latvia, Lithuania and Poland\n1. By way of derogation from Article 4(4), transit by road or by rail shall be authorised between the border inspection posts in Latvia, Lithuania and Poland listed in the Annex to Commission Decision 2009/821/EC (4), of consignments of meat, minced meat and mechanically separated meat of poultry including ratites and wild game-birds, eggs and egg products and specified pathogen-free eggs coming from and bound for Russia, directly or via another third country, where the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe consignment is sealed with a serially numbered seal by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry in Latvia, Lithuania or Poland;\n(b)\nthe documents accompanying the consignment, as provided for in Article 7 of Directive 97/78/EC, are stamped with the words \u201cONLY FOR TRANSIT TO RUSSIA VIA THE EU\u201d on each page by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry in Latvia, Lithuania or Poland;\n(c)\nthe procedural requirements provided for in Article 11 of Directive 97/78/EC are complied with;\n(d)\nthe consignment is certified as acceptable for transit on the common veterinary entry document issued by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry in Latvia, Lithuania or Poland.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 4(4), transit by road or rail shall be authorised between the border inspection posts in Lithuania listed in the Annex to Decision 2009/821/EC, of consignments of eggs and egg products coming from Belarus and bound for the Russian territory of Kaliningrad, where the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe consignment is sealed with a serially numbered seal by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry in Lithuania;\n(b)\nthe documents accompanying the consignment, as provided for in Article 7 of Directive 97/78/EC, are stamped with the words \u201cONLY FOR TRANSIT TO RUSSIA VIA LITHUANIA\u201d on each page by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry in Lithuania;\n(c)\nthe procedural requirements provided for in Article 11 of Directive 97/78/EC are complied with;\n(d)\nthe consignment is certified as acceptable for transit on the common veterinary entry document issued by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry in Lithuania.\n3. The consignments, as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, may not be unloaded or put into storage, as referred to in Article 12(4) or in Article 13 of Directive 97/78/EC, within the Union.\n4. Regular audits shall be conducted by the competent authority to ensure that the number of consignments, as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, and the corresponding quantities of products leaving the Union correspond with the number and quantities entering the Union.\n(2)\nAnnex I is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2011.", "references": ["76", "78", "36", "56", "61", "34", "89", "60", "68", "99", "24", "84", "58", "57", "20", "13", "53", "79", "25", "30", "49", "63", "31", "74", "98", "28", "70", "40", "87", "88", "No Label", "38", "54", "66", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "54", "66", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 236/2011\nof 10 March 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 232/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 March 2011.", "references": ["11", "14", "56", "66", "76", "44", "45", "43", "77", "16", "63", "91", "58", "32", "80", "30", "25", "42", "23", "92", "88", "84", "15", "99", "97", "89", "75", "60", "47", "28", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 651/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 4 July 2012\non the issuance of euro coins\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 133 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the Opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Council conclusions of 23 November 1998 and of 5 November 2002 on euro coins intended for collection, the Commission Recommendation 2009/23/EC of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (3), endorsed by Council conclusions of 10 February 2009, and the Commission Recommendation 2010/191/EU of 22 March 2010 on the scope and effects of legal tender of euro banknotes and coins (4), recommend practices regarding the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation, including commemorative euro coins, consultation prior to the destruction of fit euro circulation coins and the use of euro collector coins.\n(2)\nThe lack of mandatory provisions for the issuance of euro coins may result in different practices among Member States and does not achieve a sufficiently integrated framework for the single currency. In the interests of transparency and legal certainty, it is therefore necessary to introduce binding rules for the issuance of euro coins.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (5), coins denominated in euro and cent and complying with the denominations and technical specifications laid down by the Council have the status of legal tender in all Member States whose currency is the euro. Denominations and technical specifications of euro coins are laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 975/98 of 3 May 1998 on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation (6).\n(4)\nMember States whose currency is the euro should also be able to issue 2-euro commemorative coins to celebrate specific subjects, subject to limits set per year and per issuing Member State for the number of issues of such coins. It is necessary to establish certain volume limits for commemorative euro coins in order to ensure that such coins remain a minor percentage of the total number of the 2-euro coins in circulation. Such volume limits should, however, allow for the issuance of a sufficient volume of coins to ensure that commemorative euro coins can circulate effectively.\n(5)\nMember States whose currency is the euro should also be able to issue euro collector coins, which are not intended for circulation and which should be readily distinguishable from circulation coins. Euro collector coins should have the status of legal tender only in the Member State of issuance and should not be issued with a view to their entry into circulation.\n(6)\nIt is appropriate that issuances of euro collector coins are accounted for in the volume of coins to be approved by the European Central Bank, but on an aggregate basis rather than for each individual issue.\n(7)\nThe use of different denominations of euro coins and euro banknotes, as currently devised, should be periodically and carefully examined by the competent institutions against the criteria of cost and public acceptability. In particular, the Commission should conduct an impact assessment on the continued issuance of 1- and 2-cent coins.\n(8)\nIn order to avoid that fit euro circulation coins are destroyed by one Member State while there may be a need of such coins in another, Member States should consult each other prior to the destruction of such coins,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018circulation coins\u2019 means euro coins intended for circulation, the denominations and technical specifications of which are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 975/98;\n(2)\n\u2018commemorative coins\u2019 means circulation coins, which are intended to commemorate a specific subject as specified in Article 1h of Regulation (EC) No 975/98;\n(3)\n\u2018collector coins\u2019 means euro coins intended for collection that are not issued with a view to their entry into circulation.\nArticle 2\nTypes of euro coin\n1. Member States may issue two types of euro coin: circulation coins and collector coins.\n2. The Commission shall conduct an impact assessment on the continued issuance of 1- and 2-cent coins. That impact assessment shall include a cost-benefit analysis which takes into account the real production costs of those coins set against their value and benefits.\nArticle 3\nIssuance of circulation coins\n1. Circulation coins shall be issued and put into circulation at face value.\n2. A minor proportion, not exceeding 5 % of the cumulated total net value and volume of circulation coins issued by a Member State, taking into account only years with positive net issuance, may be put on the market above face value if justified by the special quality of the coin, a special packaging or any additional services provided.\nArticle 4\nIssuance of commemorative coins\n1. Each Member State whose currency is the euro may only issue two commemorative coins per year, save where:\n(a)\ncommemorative coins are collectively issued by all Member States whose currency is the euro; or\n(b)\na commemorative coin is issued on the occasion of a temporary vacancy or a provisional occupation of the function of Head of State.\n2. The total number of commemorative coins put into circulation for each individual issue shall not exceed the higher of the following two ceilings:\n(a)\n0,1 % of the cumulated total net number of 2-euro coins put into circulation by all Member States whose currency is the euro up to the beginning of the year preceding the year of issuance of the commemorative coin; this ceiling may be raised to 2,0 % of the cumulated total net number of 2-euro coins of all Member States whose currency is the euro if a widely recognised and highly symbolic subject is commemorated, in which case the issuing Member State shall refrain from launching another commemorative coin issue using the raised ceiling during the subsequent four years and shall set out the reasons for choosing the raised ceiling; or\n(b)\n5,0 % of the cumulated total net number of 2-euro coins put into circulation by the Member State concerned up to the beginning of the year preceding the year of issuance of the commemorative coin.\n3. The decision whether to issue commemorative coins with a common design collectively issued by all Member States whose currency is the euro shall be taken by the Council. The voting rights of the Member States whose currency is not the euro shall be suspended for the adoption of that decision.\nArticle 5\nIssuance of collector coins\n1. Collector coins shall have the status of legal tender only in the issuing Member State.\nThe identity of the issuing Member State shall be clearly and easily recognisable on the coin.\n2. In order to be easily differentiated from circulation coins, collector coins shall meet all of the following criteria:\n(a)\ntheir face value must be different from the face values of circulation coins;\n(b)\ntheir images must not be similar to the common sides of circulation coins, and if their images are similar to any national side of circulation coins, their overall appearance can still be easily differentiated;\n(c)\ntheir colour, diameter and weight must differ significantly from circulation coins for at least two of these three characteristics; the difference shall be regarded as significant if the values including tolerances are outside the tolerance ranges fixed for circulation coins; and\n(d)\nthey must not have a shaped edge with fine scallops or a \u2018Spanish flower\u2019 shape.\n3. Collector coins may be put on the market at or above face value.\n4. The issuances of collector coins shall be accounted for on an aggregated basis in the volume of coin issuance to be approved by the European Central Bank.\n5. Member States shall take all appropriate measures to discourage the use of collector coins as a means of payment.\nArticle 6\nConsultation prior to the destruction of circulation coins\nPrior to the destruction of circulation coins which are not euro coins unfit for circulation within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (7), Member States shall consult each other via the relevant subcommittee of the Economic and Financial Committee and inform the mint directors of the Member States whose currency is the euro.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["93", "10", "46", "36", "29", "25", "0", "85", "43", "96", "62", "84", "95", "78", "7", "33", "73", "64", "60", "17", "26", "74", "16", "3", "57", "67", "5", "31", "39", "30", "No Label", "27", "28", "76"], "gold": ["27", "28", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/298/CFSP\nof 25 May 2010\namending and extending Joint Action 2008/112/CFSP on the European Union mission in support of security sector reform in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (EU SSR GUINEA-BISSAU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/112/CFSP on the European Union mission in support of security sector reform in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (EU SSR GUINEA-BISSAU) (1). That Joint Action was to apply until 31 May 2009.\n(2)\nOn 18 May 2009, the Council adopted Joint Action 2009/405/CFSP (2), which amended Joint Action 2008/112/CFSP and extended it until 30 November 2009. On 17 November 2009 the Council adopted Joint Action 2009/841/CFSP (3), which amended Joint Action 2008/112/CFSP and extended it until 31 May 2010.\n(3)\nOn 5 February 2010 the Political and Security Committee (PSC) endorsed the continuation of the EU engagement in SSR in Guinea-Bissau and requested planning of a new Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) mission supporting implementation of SSR.\n(4)\nBy letter dated 22 February 2010, the Prime Minister of Guinea-Bissau invited the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) to launch a new mission with a mandate to provide training, guidance and advice to ensure successful continuation of SSR process.\n(5)\nFollowing the 1 April 2010 events and the launch, on 19 April 2010, of an EU political demarche vis-\u00e0-vis the Guinea-Bissau authorities, on 30 April 2010 the PSC agreed that, in order to ensure coherence across EU external policy instruments, the mandate of EU SSR GUINEA-BISSAU should be extended until 30 September 2010 with a view to making a final decision on further CSDP engagement in Guinea-Bissau by July 2010, based on a strategic review and on developments on the ground. In this context, the PSC recalled and reaffirmed the pre-conditions for further EU engagement in the field of SSR, including respect for democratic principles, human rights and the rule of law.\n(6)\nJoint Action 2008/112/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nJoint Action 2008/112/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The European Union (EU) hereby establishes an EU Mission in support of security sector reform in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (hereinafter referred to as \u201cEU SSR GUINEA-BISSAU\u201d or the \u201cMission\u201d), comprising a preparatory phase beginning on 26 February 2008 and with an implementation phase beginning no later than 1 May 2008. The duration of the Mission will be up to 28 months from the declaration of initial operational capability.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 9(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount to cover the expenditure related to the Mission for the period from 26 February 2008 to 30 November 2009 shall be EUR 5 650 000.\nThe financial reference amount to cover the expenditure related to the Mission for the period from 1 December 2009 to 30 June 2010 shall be EUR 1 530 000.\nThe financial reference amount to cover the expenditure related to the Mission for the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 September 2010 shall be EUR 630 000.\u2019;\n3.\nIn Article 17, the second paragraph shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall apply until 30 September 2010.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2010.", "references": ["8", "26", "63", "18", "30", "20", "70", "2", "45", "69", "56", "7", "80", "33", "83", "71", "67", "44", "53", "77", "54", "68", "62", "48", "12", "25", "50", "16", "75", "61", "No Label", "4", "6", "9", "94"], "gold": ["4", "6", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 893/2010\nof 8 October 2010\namending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acequinocyl, bentazone, carbendazim, cyfluthrin, fenamidone, fenazaquin, flonicamid, flutriafol, imidacloprid, ioxynil, metconazole, prothioconazole, tebufenozide and thiophanate-methyl in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor bentazone, carbendazim, cyfluthrin, fenamidone, ioxynil, and thiophanate-methyl maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Annex II and Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For acequinocyl, fenazaquin, flonicamid, Flutriafol, imidacloprid, metconazole, prothioconazole, and tebufenozide, MRLs were set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(2)\nIn the context of a procedure, in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2), for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance bentazone on sweet corn an application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing MRLs.\n(3)\nAs regards acequinocyl, such an application was made for the use on oranges, mandarins, peaches, grapes, tomatoes and aubergines. As regards carbendazim, such an application was made for the use on lemon, limes and mandarins. As regards cyfluthrin, such an application was made for the use on courgettes, gherkins, beans with pods, peas with pods and potatoes. As regards fenamidone, such an application was made for the use on strawberries and cucurbits. As regards fenazaquin, such an application was made for the use on tea. As regards flonicamid, such an application was made for the use on citrus fruit, cherries, peppers, aubergines and peas without pods. As regards flutriafol, such an application was made for the use on apples, bananas and wine grapes. As regards imidacloprid, such an application was made for the use on rice. As regards ioxynil, such an application was made for the use on chives. As regards metconazole, such an application was made for the use on cherries, peaches, apricots, cotton seed, wheat and sugar beet. As regards prothioconazole, such an application was made for the use on broccoli and cauliflower. As regards tebufenozide, such an application was made for the use on rice. As regards thiophanate-methyl, such an application was made for the use on grapefruit, orange, lemon, limes and mandarins.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, these applications were evaluated by the Member States concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission.\n(5)\nThe European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, assessed the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs (3). It forwarded these opinions to the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public.\n(6)\nThe Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs requested by the applicants were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime exposure to these substances via consumption of all food products that may contain these substances, nor the short term exposure due to extreme consumption of the relevant crops showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference dose (ARfD) is exceeded.\n(7)\nBased on the reasoned opinions of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["56", "74", "24", "82", "23", "87", "59", "5", "97", "81", "52", "28", "58", "75", "91", "3", "22", "46", "55", "9", "95", "13", "98", "80", "33", "62", "2", "71", "83", "70", "No Label", "38", "65", "66", "69", "76"], "gold": ["38", "65", "66", "69", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1130/2011\nof 11 November 2011\namending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on food additives by establishing a Union list of food additives approved for use in food additives, food enzymes, food flavourings and nutrients\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Articles 10 and 30(2), (3) and (5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 provides for the establishment of Union lists of approved food additives and their conditions of use in food additives (Parts 1 and 2), in food enzymes (Part 3), in food flavourings (Part 4) and in nutrients or categories thereof (Part 5), to which the food additives may be added according to Article 4(4) of that Regulation. The aim of the use of those food additives is to have a technological function in food additives or enzymes or flavourings or nutrients.\n(2)\nFood additives included in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 may be assigned one of the functional classes laid down in Annex I on the basis of the principal technological function of the food additive. However, according to Article 9 of that Regulation, allocating a food additive to a functional class should not preclude it from being used for several functions.\n(3)\nFood additives authorised having a function as carriers for use in food additives in European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (2) and their conditions of use should be included in Part 1 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 as their compliance with general conditions for inclusion and use of food additives in Union lists and particularly with Article 6(1)(a) of that Regulation has been reviewed.\n(4)\nFood additives listed as permitted carriers and carrier solvents in Directive 95/2/EC and having a function as a food additive other than carrier, should be included in Part 2 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 with the same conditions of use. Other food additives having a function other than carriers should also be included in this list.\n(5)\nFood additives and carriers authorised for use in food enzymes as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1332/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on enzymes (3) and their conditions of use should be included in Part 3 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.\n(6)\nFood additives authorised for use in food flavourings in Directive 95/2/EC and their conditions of use should be included in Part 4 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, as their compliance with Article 6 of that Regulation has been reviewed.\n(7)\nFood additives and carriers authorised for use in nutrients defined by Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (4) as well as by Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (5), Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses (6), and Commission Regulation (EC) No 953/2009 of 13 October 2009 on substances that may be added for specific nutritional purposes in foods for particular nutritional uses (7), and their conditions of use should be included in Part 5 Section A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Other food additives having a function other than carriers should also be included in that list, because of a technological need, which was not foreseen at the time of the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.\n(8)\nFood additives listed as food additives permitted in foods for infants and young children by Directive 95/2/EC and having a function as a food additive in nutrients should be included with the same conditions of use in the list set out in Part 5 Section B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. That list should be completed by taking into account the opinion of Scientific Committee on Food on additives in nutrient preparations for use in infant formulae, follow-on formulae and weaning food of 13 June 1997 (8).\n(9)\nFor the reasons of transparency and consistency specific rules for conditions of use of food additives in food additive/enzyme/nutrient preparation should be laid down.\n(10)\nSubstances like sulphites, benzoates, polysorbates, sorbitan esters and sucrose esters should be listed in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008; those substances are subject to tier 3 screening according to Commission Report of 2001 on Dietary Food Additive Intake in the European Union (9) and are raising concerns with respect to the ADI value. The conditions of use of those substances may be revised as a follow-up of the expected opinion of the European Food Safety Authority in the framework of the re-evaluation programme as established by Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 (10) setting up a programme for the re-evaluation of approved additives, which includes among others an intake assessment.\n(11)\nThe specifications of food additives listed in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 relating to origin, purity criteria and any other necessary information are set out in Commission Directives 2008/128/EC of 22 December 2008 laying down specific purity criteria concerning colours for use in foodstuffs (11), 2008/60/EC of 17 June 2008 laying down specific purity criteria concerning sweeteners for use in foodstuffs (12) and 2008/84/EC of 27 August 2008 laying down specific purity criteria on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (13).\n(12)\nDue to the fact that some of preparations have been used since decades, a transitional period of 24 months following the entry into force of this Regulation should be provided to enable the food business operators to adapt to the requirements laid down in Parts 2, 3 and 5 Section A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 as amended by this Regulation. A transitional period of 18 months following the entry into force of this Regulation should be provided to enable the food business operators to adapt to the requirements laid down in Parts 1 and 4 of the Annex III as amended by this Regulation.\n(13)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 is replaced by the text of the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nTransitional measures\nPreparations not complying with Parts 2, 3 and/or Section A of Part 5 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, as amended by this Regulation, may continue to be placed on the market in accordance with national provisions during a period of 24 months from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. Foods containing such preparations that have been lawfully placed on the market within that period may be marketed until stocks are exhausted.\nPreparations not complying with Parts 1 and 4 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, as amended by this Regulation, may continue to be placed on the market in accordance with the provisions of Annexes I to VI to Directive 95/2/EC until 31 May 2013. Foods containing such preparations that have been lawfully placed on the market within that period may be marketed until stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 2 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 November 2011.", "references": ["11", "67", "80", "39", "32", "44", "16", "15", "13", "49", "56", "55", "24", "57", "89", "5", "29", "9", "45", "63", "61", "66", "64", "46", "6", "7", "83", "27", "14", "76", "No Label", "25", "38", "43", "72", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "43", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 29 July 2011\namending Decision 2005/50/EC on the harmonisation of the 24 GHz range radio spectrum band for the time-limited use by automotive short-range radar equipment in the Community\n(notified under document C(2011) 5444)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/485/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 7 November 2008, the Commission issued a mandate to the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) to undertake technical studies on automotive short-range radar systems in support of the fundamental review pursuant to Article 5(2) of Commission Decision 2005/50/EC (2) and to undertake radio compatibility studies with regard to possible alternative approaches to the use of the 24 GHz range.\n(2)\nCEPT reports 36 and 37 delivered pursuant to this mandate and the fundamental review carried out pursuant to Decision 2005/50/EC on evolution regarding the 24 GHz and 79 GHz bands indicate that the reference date of 30 June 2013 provided in Article 2(5) of that Decision is still valid, and that considering the current absence of harmful impact on other users of the 24 GHz band, there is no need to move it forward.\n(3)\nDevelopment of automotive short-range radar technology in the 79 GHz range is progressing. However, there are strong indications that integration of the applications of that technology in car manufacturing will not be achieved by the deadline set for short-range technology in the 24 GHz range and that, considering the time still necessary for the development, integration and testing phases, it is likely that integration of 79 GHz radars in cars to allow for a mass market distribution will be feasible by 2018 or a few years before at the earliest.\n(4)\nMoreover, an additional period will be necessary in order to ensure the transition from the 24 GHz technology to the 79 GHz technology on car lines using 24 GHz technology which will exist when the new car lines equipped with the 79 GHz technology appear.\n(5)\nIt is essential to ensure continuity of the existing and future production of cars equipped with 24 GHz radars, considering their importance for traffic safety and the need to encourage the development of such applications in as many of the existing vehicles as possible; therefore a discontinuity of usable spectrum for radars must be avoided and a temporary solution is needed in order to ensure the transition between 1 July 2013 and 1 January 2018. To allow for an additional transition period, the date of 1 January 2018 should be extended by 4 years for automotive short-range radar equipment mounted on motor vehicles for which a type-approval application has been granted before 1 January 2018.\n(6)\nConsidering the international protection granted to radio astronomy, earth exploration satellite and space research passive services in the 23,60 GHz to 24 GHz band, and the exceptional character of the designation of that band for short-range radars by Decision 2005/50/EC, a prolongation of such designation is not a viable option. Moreover, the band 24 GHz to 24,25 GHz has been designated for industrial, scientific and medical purposes (ISM band).\n(7)\nCEPT compatibility studies, including some military systems, indicate that the 24,25 GHz to 27,50 GHz band may be a technically feasible alternative solution. The band above 26,50 GHz has been identified by NATO as a planned military band for fixed and mobile systems.\n(8)\nThe threshold of a 7 % penetration rate imposed by Decision 2005/50/EC should be maintained, as there is no indication that such a limit would be exceeded before the switch-over to the 79 GHz band and to underline that the 24 GHz band remains a transitional solution.\n(9)\nThe Commission, assisted by the Member States, should continue to monitor the application of this Decision, in particular regarding the threshold limit, and the absence of harmful interference to other users of the band or to neighbouring bands, whether or not the threshold of 7 % is exceeded.\n(10)\nDecision 2005/50/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Radio Spectrum Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2005/50/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 2, point 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185.\n\u201creference dates\u201d means 30 June 2013 for the frequency between 21,65 and 24,25 GHz and 1 January 2018 for the frequency between 24,25 and 26,65 GHz;\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the second paragraph, the words \u2018reference date\u2019 are replaced by \u2018reference dates\u2019;\n(b)\nin the third paragraph, the words \u2018that date\u2019 are replaced in two places by \u2018those dates\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraph is added after the third paragraph:\n\u2018However, the date of 1 January 2018 shall be extended by 4 years for automotive short-range radar equipment mounted on motor vehicles for which a type-approval application has been submitted pursuant to Article 6(6) of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and has been granted before 1 January 2018.\n3.\nArticle 5 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (d) of paragraph 1, the words \u2018the reference date\u2019 are replaced by \u2018the reference dates\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraphs 2 and 3 are deleted;\n(c)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Member States shall assist the Commission to carry out the scrutiny referred to in paragraph 1 by ensuring that the necessary information is collected and provided to the Commission in a timely manner, in particular the information set out in the Annex.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2011.", "references": ["50", "76", "21", "20", "62", "24", "77", "98", "73", "23", "82", "22", "69", "89", "52", "85", "84", "37", "65", "71", "4", "46", "93", "60", "67", "43", "44", "94", "27", "58", "No Label", "40", "54", "55", "86"], "gold": ["40", "54", "55", "86"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 9 March 2012\nappointing a German member and a German alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/155/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the German Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions will become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Monika HELBIG on 31 March 2012. An alternate member\u2019s seat will become vacant following the appointment of Ms Hella DUNGER-L\u00d6PER as member of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions with effect from 1 April 2012 for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas member:\n-\nMs Hella DUNGER-L\u00d6PER, Bevollm\u00e4chtigte des Landes Berlin beim Bund und Europabeauftragte,\nand\n(b)\nas alternate member:\n-\nMr Bernd KR\u00d6MER, Staatssekret\u00e4r f\u00fcr Inneres bei der Senatsverwaltung f\u00fcr Inneres und Sport des Landes Berlin.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2012.", "references": ["14", "20", "11", "78", "4", "2", "1", "47", "69", "76", "62", "23", "12", "72", "15", "98", "46", "65", "24", "64", "59", "42", "10", "0", "81", "32", "40", "30", "26", "21", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 296/2012\nof 3 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 April 2012.", "references": ["77", "50", "67", "38", "15", "16", "99", "21", "54", "93", "30", "89", "58", "66", "48", "10", "29", "49", "31", "52", "85", "37", "44", "9", "97", "71", "80", "41", "60", "12", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 708/2012\nof 2 August 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) gives effect to the measures provided for in Decision 2010/413/CFSP. That Regulation provides for, inter alia, the freezing of all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the persons, entities and bodies listed in Annexes VIII and IX thereto.\n(2)\nIn order to clarify the criteria for listing persons, entities and bodies in Annex IX to that Regulation, an amendment to Article 23 is necessary.\n(3)\nThis Regulation falls within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement it, in particular with a view to ensuring its uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 267/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, it should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 23, point (e) of paragraph 2 of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nbeing a legal person, entity or body owned or controlled by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), or a natural or legal person, entity or body acting on their behalf.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2012.", "references": ["36", "64", "52", "39", "99", "18", "76", "17", "83", "11", "21", "4", "2", "27", "78", "90", "6", "32", "20", "16", "73", "34", "63", "53", "5", "48", "88", "91", "75", "30", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 3 March 2011\namending Decision 2008/457/EC laying down rules for the implementation of Council Decision 2007/435/EC establishing the European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme \u2018Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows\u2019 as regards Member States\u2019 management and control systems, the rules for administrative and financial management and the eligibility of expenditure on projects co-financed by the Fund\n(notified under document C(2011) 1289)\n(Only the Bulgarian, Czech, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2011/151/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2007/435/EC of 25 June 2007 establishing the European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme \u2018Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows\u2019 (1), and in particular Article 21 and Article 33(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn the light of the experience gained since the launch of the European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals, it is appropriate to clarify the obligations in Commission Decision 2008/457/EC (2) relating to transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination when implementing projects.\n(2)\nMember States are required to report on the implementation of the annual programmes. It is therefore appropriate to clarify which information Member States have to provide.\n(3)\nIn order to reduce the administrative burden on the Member States and to provide greater legal certainty the rules on the eligibility of expenditure of actions co-financed by the European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals should be simplified and clarified.\n(4)\nMost of the changes introduced by this Decision should apply immediately. However, since the 2009 and 2010 annual programmes are ongoing, the revised rules on the eligibility of expenditure of actions co-financed by the European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals should apply from the 2011 annual programme. Member States should nonetheless be given the possibility to apply those rules earlier under certain conditions.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom is bound by the basic act and, as a consequence, by this Decision.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Ireland is bound by the basic act and, as a consequence, by this Decision.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not bound by this Decision or subject to the application thereof.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the common Committee \u2018Solidarity and management of Migration Flows\u2019 established by Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing the External Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme \u2018Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows\u2019 (3).\n(9)\nDecision 2008/457/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2008/457/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 9(1), the second sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Any substantial change to the content of the calls for proposals shall also be published under the same conditions.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\nImplementation contracts\nWhen awarding contracts for the implementation of the projects, the State, regional or local authorities, bodies governed by public law, associations formed by one or several of such authorities or several of such bodies governed by public law shall act in accordance with the applicable Union and national public procurement law and principles.\nEntities other than those referred to in the first paragraph shall award contracts for the implementation of the projects following appropriate publicity in order to ensure compliance with the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment. Contracts with a value of less than EUR 100 000 may be awarded provided the concerned entity requests at least three offers. Without prejudice to national rules, contracts with a value of less than EUR 5 000 shall not be subject to any procedural obligations.\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 21, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The responsible authority shall notify the Commission by formal letter of any substantial change in the management and control system and shall send a revised description of the management and control system to the Commission as soon as possible and at the latest at the time any such change takes effect.\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 24, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The financial tables linked to the progress reports and final reports shall present a breakdown of the amounts both by priority and by specific priority, as defined in the strategic guidelines.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 25 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1 the following sentences are added:\n\u2018Any changes to the audit strategy submitted in respect of Article 28(1)(c) of the basic act and accepted by the Commission shall be sent to the Commission as soon as possible. The revised audit strategy shall be established in accordance with the model in Annex VI, marking the revisions introduced.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Except when each of the last two annual programmes adopted by the Commission corresponds to an annual Community contribution of less than EUR 1 million, the audit authority shall submit an annual audit plan before 15 February each year, as from 2010. The audit plan shall be established in accordance with the model in Annex VI. Member States are not required to resubmit the audit strategy when submitting the annual audit plans. In the case of a combined audit strategy, as provided for in Article 28(2) of the basic act, a combined annual audit plan may be submitted.\u2019;\n6.\nArticle 26 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 26\nDocuments established by the certifying authority\n1. The certification relating to the request for a second pre-financing payment referred to in Article 37(4) of the basic act shall be drawn up by the certifying authority and transmitted by the responsible authority to the Commission in the format in Annex VIII.\n2. The certification relating to the request for a final payment referred to in Article 38(1)(a) of the basic act shall be drawn up by the certifying authority and transmitted by the responsible authority to the Commission in the format in Annex IX.\u2019;\n7.\nArticle 37 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 37\nElectronic exchange of documents\nIn addition to the duly signed paper versions of the documents referred to in Chapter 3, the information shall also be sent by electronic means.\u2019;\n8.\nthe Annexes are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\n1. Points 1 to 7 of Article 1 and points 1 to 5 of the Annex shall apply from the date of adoption of this Decision.\n2. Point 6 of the Annex shall apply from the implementation of the 2011 annual programmes at the latest.\n3. Member States may decide to apply point 6 of the Annex in respect of ongoing or future projects as from the 2009 and 2010 annual programmes in full respect of the principles of equal treatment, transparency and non-discrimination. In that case Member States shall apply the new rules in their entirety to the project concerned and, where necessary, shall amend the grant agreement. In respect of technical assistance expenditure only, Member States may decide to apply point 6 of the Annex as from the 2008 annual programme.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 3 March 2011.", "references": ["94", "90", "84", "8", "78", "42", "58", "54", "63", "5", "31", "7", "28", "55", "36", "21", "20", "39", "26", "49", "60", "11", "57", "83", "48", "71", "30", "56", "62", "12", "No Label", "4", "9", "10", "13", "41", "46"], "gold": ["4", "9", "10", "13", "41", "46"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 29 July 2010\namending Decision 2004/277/EC, Euratom as regards rules for the implementation of Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom establishing a Community civil protection mechanism\n(notified under document C(2010) 5090)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/481/EU, Euratom)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom of 8 November 2007 establishing a Community Civil Protection Mechanism (1), and in particular Article 12 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2004/277/EC, Euratom of 29 December 2003 laying down rules for the implementation of Council Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom establishing a Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil protection assistance intervention (2) has been amended by Commission Decision 2008/73/EC, Euratom (3) to incorporate implementing rules concerning European civil protection. These rules cover the main characteristics of civil protection modules such as their tasks, capacities, components, and deployment time, and define their appropriate degree of self-sufficiency and interoperability.\n(2)\nCivil protection modules made up of national resources from one or more Member States on a voluntary basis constitute a contribution to the civil protection rapid response capability called for by the European Council in the conclusions of its meeting of 16 and 17 June 2005 and by the European Parliament in its Resolution of 13 January 2005 on the tsunami disaster. For civil protection modules to be able to contribute to responding to major emergencies, their main characteristics should meet certain general requirements.\n(3)\nCivil protection modules should be capable of working self-sufficiently for a given period of time. It is therefore necessary to define general requirements for self-sufficiency and, where appropriate, specific requirements that may vary in function of the type of intervention or the type of module concerned. Account should be taken of the common practice of Member States and of international organisations such as extended self-sufficiency periods for urban search and rescue modules or the sharing of tasks between the offering and the requesting country for supporting the operation of modules having an aerial component.\n(4)\nMeasures are needed at Union and participating state levels to enhance the interoperability of civil protection modules, notably regarding training and exercises.\n(5)\nRecent civil protection operations and exercises with deployment of modules demonstrated the need to partially change the general requirements of two modules listed in Annex II to Decision 2008/73/EC, Euratom, namely the \u2018Aerial forest firefighting using airplanes\u2019 and \u2018Field hospital\u2019 modules.\n(6)\nRecent civil protection operations proved the need to add and implement four new types of civil protection modules to reinforce the civil protection rapid response capability, namely \u2018Ground forest firefighting\u2019, \u2018Ground forest firefighting using vehicles\u2019, \u2018Flood containment\u2019 and \u2018Flood rescue using boats\u2019 modules.\n(7)\nDecision 2004/277/EC, Euratom should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe amendments and addition of those modules provided for in the Annex to this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Civil Protection,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Decision 2004/277/EC, Euratom is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2010.", "references": ["49", "85", "87", "39", "83", "41", "64", "69", "59", "88", "78", "51", "89", "0", "42", "36", "38", "20", "40", "66", "60", "97", "72", "68", "98", "14", "48", "33", "10", "29", "No Label", "1", "4", "9", "96"], "gold": ["1", "4", "9", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 12 January 2011\non certain types of information about biofuels and bioliquids to be submitted by economic operators to Member States\n(notified under document C(2011) 36)\n(2011/13/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 18(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC (2), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 7c(3) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee established by Article 25(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMember States should ensure that economic operators report to them on the compliance of bioliquids with the sustainability criteria established by Directive 2009/28/EC and on the compliance of biofuels with the sustainability criteria established by that Directive and Directive 98/70/EC, and also that economic operators provide information on certain additional environmental and social aspects.\n(2)\nAs far as these additional environmental and social aspects are concerned, the Commission is required to establish the list of appropriate and relevant information to be reported.\n(3)\nSeveral voluntary schemes setting standards for the production of biomass products are in existence or under development that lay down requirements that cover, in part or whole, both the sustainability criteria and additional environmental and social aspects such as those to be covered by the Commission\u2019s list. The Commission may recognise these voluntary schemes as reliable and acceptable sources of data for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the criteria. It may, in addition, recognise them as containing accurate data in relation to the additional environmental and social aspects.\n(4)\nThe greenhouse gas calculation for biofuels and bioliquids included in the sustainability scheme allows for the use of a bonus if biomass is obtained from restored degraded land.\n(5)\nThe greenhouse gas calculation included in the sustainability scheme includes a factor reflecting emission savings from soil carbon accumulation via improved agricultural management.\n(6)\nTaking into account the need to ensure that the provision of information on environmental and social aspects does not represent an excessive administrative burden for economic operators, it is appropriate to lay down that this information should be provided in the form of a statement identifying whether or not the consignments of biofuels or bioliquids in question have been certified or accepted as fulfilling the requirements of a recognised voluntary scheme that includes such aspects; whether or not the bonus referred to in recital 4 is used; and whether or not the carbon accumulation factor referred to in recital 5 is used.\n(7)\nThe bonus referred to in recital 4 and the carbon stock accumulation factor referred to in recital 5 concern crop cultivation. For that reason, it is not necessary for information on these matters to be submitted for biofuels and bioliquids made from wastes or residues,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe information to be submitted by economic operators for each consignment of biofuel or bioliquid shall consist of an indication of:\n(a)\nwhether the consignment has been certified or accepted as fulfilling the requirements of a voluntary scheme that has been recognised by the Commission, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 18(4) of Directive 2009/28/EC and the second subparagraph of Article 7c(4) of Directive 98/70/EC, as containing accurate data for the purposes of information on measures taken for soil, water and air protection, the restoration of degraded land, the avoidance of excessive water consumption in areas where water is scarce and/or to take into account the issues referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 17(7) of Directive 2009/28/EC and the second subparagraph of Article 7b(7) of Directive 98/70/EC;\n(b)\nif the consignment has been certified or accepted as referred to in point (a), the name of the voluntary scheme in question;\nWith the exception of biofuels and bioliquids produced from waste and residues, it shall consist in addition of an indication of:\n(c)\nwhether the bonus referred to in Annex V, part C, points 7 and 8 of Directive 2009/28/EC and Annex IV, part C, points 7 and 8 of Directive 98/70/EC has been used in the greenhouse gas calculation referred to in Annex V, part C, point 1 of Directive 2009/28/EC and Annex IV, part C, point 1 of Directive 98/70/EC for the consignment;\n(d)\nwhether the factor for emissions savings from soil carbon accumulation via improved agricultural management referred to in Annex V, part C, point 1 of Directive 2009/28/EC and Annex IV, part C, point 1 of Directive 98/70/EC has been used in the greenhouse gas calculation referred to in the same paragraph for the consignment.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be without prejudice to the Commission\u2019s right to request additional information from economic operators for the purposes of Article 23(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 January 2011.", "references": ["72", "68", "64", "7", "40", "93", "94", "13", "46", "6", "34", "67", "82", "43", "20", "21", "57", "89", "5", "56", "87", "76", "83", "91", "52", "29", "15", "10", "97", "25", "No Label", "39", "59", "78", "96"], "gold": ["39", "59", "78", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 836/2010\nof 22 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2010.", "references": ["11", "51", "14", "22", "70", "17", "4", "49", "86", "59", "71", "38", "84", "6", "93", "46", "63", "54", "7", "2", "9", "40", "83", "20", "85", "89", "23", "26", "79", "82", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1318/2011\nof 15 December 2011\nfixing the export refunds on beef and veal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XV of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in beef and veal, export refunds should therefore be set in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167, 168 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007 of 21 November 2007 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals (5) provides for a reduction of the special refund if the quantity of cuts of boned meat to be exported amounts to less than 95 %, but not less than 85 %, of the total weight of cuts produced by boning.\n(6)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2011 (6). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004, and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nIn the case referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007, the rate of the refund on products falling within product code 0201 30 00 9100 shall be reduced by EUR 3,5/100 kg.\nArticle 3\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2011.", "references": ["85", "40", "83", "15", "58", "49", "96", "21", "91", "88", "48", "27", "79", "9", "63", "72", "62", "17", "14", "47", "99", "25", "82", "95", "84", "4", "75", "56", "36", "7", "No Label", "20", "22", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 851/2010\nof 27 September 2010\namending for the 136th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Articles 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 9 September 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to amend the identifying data concerning four natural persons from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["29", "56", "19", "58", "18", "48", "26", "86", "52", "10", "13", "95", "6", "73", "8", "60", "74", "83", "84", "55", "4", "78", "22", "14", "37", "25", "57", "87", "23", "72", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "11"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "11"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 503/2010\nof 11 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 June 2010.", "references": ["81", "10", "71", "42", "44", "75", "83", "53", "60", "21", "79", "31", "12", "58", "73", "69", "37", "84", "67", "59", "62", "54", "55", "65", "2", "76", "4", "49", "52", "1", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 329/2010\nof 21 April 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 April 2010.", "references": ["70", "66", "37", "47", "98", "9", "64", "52", "21", "41", "84", "23", "56", "95", "90", "96", "82", "78", "32", "6", "17", "85", "60", "54", "75", "59", "27", "55", "0", "79", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 687/2011\nof 18 July 2011\nimplementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 610/2010 and (EU) No 83/2011\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 July 2010, the Council adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010 (2) implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001, by establishing an updated list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies.\n(2)\nOn 31 January 2011, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 (3), the Council established an updated list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies and repealed Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010, except in so far as it concerns the group mentioned in entry number 25 in Part 2 of the Annex thereto.\n(3)\nThe 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 83/2011.\n(4)\nBy way of a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), the Council informed the persons, groups and entities listed in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 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\u2019s reasons for putting them on the list where one had not already been communicated to them. In relation to certain persons and groups, an amended statement of reasons was made available.\n(5)\nThe 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, the Council took account of observations submitted to it by the persons, groups and entities concerned.\n(6)\nThe Council has concluded that there are no longer grounds for keeping certain persons and groups on the list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies.\n(7)\nThe 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 (5), 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.\n(8)\nThe list of the persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies should be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe list provided for in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 shall be replaced by the list set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010, in so far as it concerns the group mentioned in entry number 25 in Part 2 of the Annex thereto, and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 are hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["77", "56", "58", "98", "96", "60", "74", "52", "9", "95", "4", "41", "69", "34", "18", "10", "55", "70", "42", "31", "17", "87", "20", "35", "23", "73", "86", "36", "11", "32", "No Label", "1", "2", "3"], "gold": ["1", "2", "3"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 472/2012\nof 4 June 2012\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use of glycerol esters of wood rosins (E 445) for printing on hard-coated confectionery products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Article 10(3) and Article 30(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 lays down a Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and their conditions of use.\n(2)\nThat list may be amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (2).\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, the Union list of food additives may be updated either on the initiative of the Commission or following an application.\n(4)\nAn application for authorisation of the use of glycerol esters of wood rosins (E 445) as an emulsifier for printing on hard-coated confectionery products was submitted and has been made available to the Member States.\n(5)\nCurrently available food colour preparations used for printing on hard-coated confectionery products do not allow sufficient quality for the printing of texts, logos and pictures. Research and development have identified that the use of glycerol esters of wood rosins (E 445) as an emulsifier in aqueous based food colour preparations improves the mixing and integrity of the ingredients which results in a more homogenous preparation delivering good fixing and coverage properties. This facilitates printing of high quality text and high resolution pictures to personalised and/or promotional hard-coated confectionery products intended for celebratory occasions.\n(6)\nThe Report from the Commission on Dietary Food Additive Intake in the European Union (3) concluded that glycerol esters of wood rosins (E 445) needed no further examination, since the theoretical intake based on conservative assumptions on food consumption and additive usage (Tier 1) did not exceed the acceptable daily intake. The acceptable daily intake value was established on 19 June 1992 by the Scientific Committee for Food (4). The additional intake based on the new use for printing on hard-coated confectionery products does not significantly contribute to the overall intake. It is therefore appropriate to allow the use of glycerol esters of wood rosins (E 445) as an emulsifier for printing on hard-coated confectionery products.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, the Commission is to seek the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority in order to update the Union list of food additives set out in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, except where the update in question is not liable to have an effect on human health. Since the authorisation of use of glycerol esters of wood rosins (E 445) as an emulsifier for printing on hard-coated confectionery products constitutes an update of that list which is not liable to have an effect on human health, it is not necessary to seek the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority.\n(8)\nPursuant to the transitional provisions of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1129/2011 of 11 November 2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing a Union list of food additives (5), Annex II establishing the Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and conditions of use applies from 1 June 2013. In order to allow the use of glycerol esters of wood rosins (E 445) for printing on hard-coated confectionery products before that date, it is necessary to specify an earlier date of application with regard to this use of that food additive.\n(9)\nTherefore, Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 should be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 June 2012.", "references": ["88", "45", "48", "86", "96", "21", "79", "10", "14", "43", "31", "53", "65", "52", "83", "67", "39", "68", "20", "85", "2", "80", "57", "24", "95", "36", "84", "12", "27", "54", "No Label", "25", "38", "72", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 August 2010\non imports of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species into the Union\n(notified under document C(2010) 5780)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/472/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), and in particular Article 17(2)(b), Article 17(3), the first indent of Article 18(1), and the introductory phrase and point (b) of Article 19 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health conditions governing imports into the Union of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species (\u2018the commodities\u2019). It provides only commodities that come from a third country included on a list of third countries drawn up in accordance with that Directive and accompanied by a health certificate corresponding to a model also drawn up in accordance with that Directive, may be imported into the Union. The health certificate must certify that commodities come from approved collection and storage centres or collection and production teams offering guarantees at least equivalent to those laid down in Annex D(I) to that Directive.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2008/635/EC of 22 July 2008 on imports of semen, ova and embryos of the ovine and caprine species into the Community as regards lists of third countries and of semen collection centres and embryo collection teams, and certification requirements (2) currently sets out the list of third countries from which Member States are to authorise imports of the commodities.\n(3)\nDirective 92/65/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 2008/73/EC (3), introduced a simplified procedure for the listing of semen collection and storage centres and embryo collection and production teams in third countries approved for imports of the commodities into the Union.\n(4)\nIn addition, Annex D to Directive 92/65/EEC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 176/2010 (4), sets out certain new requirements for the commodities which are to apply from 1 September 2010. It introduces rules concerning semen storage centres and detailed conditions for their approval and supervision. It also sets out detailed conditions for the approval and supervision of embryo collection and production teams, for the collection and processing of in vivo derived embryos and the production and processing of in vitro fertilised embryos and micromanipulated embryos. It also amended the conditions to be applied to the donor animals of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species.\n(5)\nAccordingly, it is necessary to establish new health certificates for imports into the Union of the commodities taking into account the amendments made to Directive 92/65/EEC by Directive 2008/73/EC and Regulation (EU) No 176/2010.\n(6)\nIn addition, it is appropriate that consignments of the commodities imported into the Union from Switzerland are accompanied by a health certificate drawn up in accordance with the models used for trade within the Union in semen, ova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species set out in Commission Decision 2010/470/EU of 26 August 2010 laying down model health certificates for trade within the Union of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine, ovine and caprine species and in ova and embryos of animals of the porcine species (5), with the adaptations set out in point 7 of Chapter IX(B) of Appendix 2 of Annex 11 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in Agricultural Products, as approved by Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council, and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation (6).\n(7)\nIn the application of this Decision, account should be taken of the specific certification requirements and model health attestations which may be laid down in accordance with 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 (7), as approved by Council Decision 1999/201/EC (8).\n(8)\nIn the application of this Decision, account should also be taken of the specific certification requirements and model health attestations which may be laid down in accordance with the Agreement between the European Community and New Zealand on sanitary measures applicable to trade in live animals and animal products (9), as approved by Council Decision 97/132/EC (10).\n(9)\nIn the interest of clarity and consistency of Union's legislation, Decision 2008/635/EC should be repealed and replaced by this Decision.\n(10)\nTo avoid any disruption of trade, the use of health certificates issued in accordance with Decision 2008/635/EC should be authorised during a transitional period subject to certain consitions.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision sets out a list of third countries or parts thereof from which Members States are to authorise the importation into the Union of consignments of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species.\nIt also lays down certification requirements for the importation of those commodities into the Union.\nArticle 2\nImports of semen\nMember States shall authorise imports of consignments of semen of animals of the ovine and caprine species provided that they comply with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey come from a third country or part thereof listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nthey come from an approved semen collection or storage centre listed in accordance with Article 17(3)(b) of Directive 92/65/EEC;\n(c)\nthey are accompanied by a health certificate drawn up in accordance with the following model health certificates set out in Part 2 of Annex II, and completed in accordance with the explanatory notes set out in Part 1 of that Annex:\n(i)\nmodel 1 as set out in Section A, for consignments of semen dispatched from an approved semen collection centre of origin of the semen;\n(ii)\nmodel 2 as set out in Section B, for consignments of semen dispatched from an approved semen storage centre.\nHowever, where specific certification requirements are laid down in bilateral agreements between the Union and third countries, those requirements shall apply.\n(d)\nthey comply with the requirements set out in the health certificates referred to in point (c).\nArticle 3\nImports of ova and embryos\nMember States shall authorise imports of consignments of ova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species provided that they comply with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey come from a third country or part thereof listed in Annex III;\n(b)\nthey come from an approved embryo collection or production team listed in accordance with Article 17(3)(b) of Directive 92/65/EEC;\n(c)\nthey are accompanied by a health certificate drawn up in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex IV, and completed in accordance with the explanatory notes set out in Part 1 of that Annex.\nHowever, where specific certification requirements are laid down in bilateral agreements between the Union and third countries, those requirements must apply.\n(d)\nthey comply with the requirements set out in the health certificate referred to in point (c).\nArticle 4\nGeneral conditions concerning the transport of consignments of semen, ova and embryos to the Union\n1. Consignments of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species shall not be transported in the same container as other consignments of semen, ova and embryos that:\n(a)\nare not intended for introduction into the Union, or\n(b)\nare of a lower health status.\n2. During transport to the European Union, consignments of semen, ova and embryos shall be placed in closed and sealed containers and the seal must not be broken during the transport.\nArticle 5\nRepeal\nDecision 2008/635/EC is repealed.\nArticle 6\nTransitional provisions\nFor a transitional period until 31 August 2011, Member States shall authorise imports from third countries of stocks of the following commodities:\n(a)\nsemen of animals of the ovine and caprine species which were collected, processed and stored in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC by 31 August 2010 and which are accompanied by a health certificate issued not later than 31 May 2011 in accordance with the model set out in Annex II to Decision 2008/635/EC.\n(b)\nova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species which were collected or produced, processed and stored in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC by 31 August 2010 and which are accompanied by a health certificate issued not later than 31 May 2011 in accordance with the model set out in Annex VI to Decision 2008/635/EC.\nArticle 7\nApplicability\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 September 2010.\nArticle 8\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 August 2010.", "references": ["60", "32", "93", "1", "82", "72", "50", "85", "94", "84", "81", "24", "96", "36", "69", "23", "80", "71", "98", "43", "55", "18", "19", "90", "44", "22", "64", "76", "11", "7", "No Label", "4", "21", "38", "61", "65", "66"], "gold": ["4", "21", "38", "61", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 824/2012\nof 14 September 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 September 2012.", "references": ["70", "84", "3", "83", "82", "93", "60", "10", "45", "8", "77", "89", "41", "75", "9", "95", "16", "15", "69", "73", "13", "86", "98", "32", "1", "49", "11", "26", "56", "40", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 683/2012\nof 24 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["74", "87", "36", "94", "89", "79", "18", "45", "99", "41", "47", "97", "98", "3", "43", "90", "69", "16", "51", "14", "64", "48", "27", "13", "71", "15", "54", "40", "55", "88", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 31 October 2011\nState aid SA. 30931 (C/11) - Romania\nAid scheme for the development of air transport infrastructure\n(notified under document C(2011) 7863)\n(Only the Romanian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/63/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy electronic notification dated 17 May 2010, the Romanian authorities notified to the Commission, in accordance with Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter \u2018TFEU\u2019), an aid scheme providing for public support in favour of regional airports. The notification has been registered under case number N 185/10.\n(2)\nThe Commission requested additional information on the proposed measure on 23 June 2010, 7 October 2010, 3 December 2010 and 17 March 2011. The Romanian authorities provided the information requested on 22 July 2010, 27 October 2010, 20 January 2011 and 5 April 2011.\n(3)\nOn 15 September 2010 the Romanian authorities informed the Commission of certain changes to the notified scheme, in particular as regards the number of beneficiaries.\n(4)\nBy letter of 24 May 2011 the Commission informed the Romanian authorities that it had decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for by Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the notified aid and other measures in favour of airports (hereinafter \u2018the opening decision\u2019) (1). The Commission subsequently adopted a corrigendum to that decision on 23 June 2011.\n(5)\nThe opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments.\n(6)\nBy letters of 27 June 2011, 5 July 2011, and 19 August 2011, Romania submitted its comments on the opening decision.\n(7)\nThe Commission received comments from three interested parties, namely Carpatair (an airline operating at Timi\u0219oara airport), Cluj-Napoca airport and the Romanian Association of Airports. The comments of the interested parties concerned both the notified scheme and the additional public funding granted to the airports as of Romania's accession to the EU in order to cover operating losses.\n(8)\nBy letters dated 16 September 2011, the Commission forwarded the comments of the interested parties to Romania.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE NOTIFIED MEASURE\n(9)\nThe notified measure concerns the public financing of infrastructure investments at small regional airports.\n(10)\nThe notified measure aims to support the observance of aviation safety standards at Romanian regional airports, the development of safe and viable air transport infrastructure, and improved accessibility and regional development.\n(11)\nDuring the preliminary assessment phase, the Romanian authorities have clarified that regional airports in Romania are generally loss-making and that their operating losses are covered every year by the State. The Romanian authorities have provided the Commission with a comprehensive list of the public financing made available to airports in category D as of Romania's accession to the EU.\n(12)\nThe Romanian authorities have indicated that the subsidies granted annually to the airports reached, for the most part, the level of aid exempted from the notification requirement on the basis of Commission Decision 2005/842/EC of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 106(2) TFEU) to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (3) (hereinafter \u2018the SGEI Decision\u2019).\n(13)\nThe only exception would be the public financing granted to Timi\u0219oara airport, which, according to the Romanian authorities, does not constitute aid in so far as the measure complies with the market economy investor test. The public financing granted to Timi\u0219oara airport is the object of a separate assessment by the Commission.\n3. WITHDRAWAL OF THE NOTIFICATION\n(14)\nBy letter dated 25 July 2011, the Romanian authorities withdrew their notification under SA. 30931 concerning the financing scheme for infrastructure investments in Romanian small regional airports. The Romanian authorities have announced their intention to finance such airports in compliance with the provisions of the Community Guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports (4) (hereinafter \u2018the Aviation Guidelines\u2019) and the SGEI Decision.\n(15)\nThe Aviation Guidelines recognise that certain activities carried out by airports, and in exceptional cases even the overall management of an airport, can constitute services of general economic interest (hereinafter \u2018SGEI\u2019). In such a case, the public authority imposes on the airport operator certain public service obligations and the latter may be compensated for the additional costs deriving from the discharge of those obligations.\n(16)\nThe SGEI Decision applies to public service compensations granted to undertakings with an average annual turnover before tax, all activities included, of less than EUR 100 million in the two financial years preceding that in which the service of general economic interest was assigned, which receive annual compensation, for the service in question, of less than EUR 30 million, as well as to public service compensations for airports with average annual flows not exceeding one million passengers in the two financial years preceding that in which the service of general economic interest was assigned. Where the conditions set out in the SGEI Decision are met, public service compensations are compatible with the internal market and exempted from the requirement of notification provided for by Article 108(3) TFEU.\n(17)\nAccording to Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (now Article 88) of the EC Treaty (5), the Member State concerned may withdraw the notification in due time before the Commission has taken a decision on the aid. According to Article 8(2) of the abovementioned regulation, in cases where the Commission has opened the formal investigation procedure, the Commission shall close the procedure.\n(18)\nDue to the fact that Romania has withdrawn its notification and will finance regional airports in full compliance with the provisions of the Aviation Guidelines and the SGEI Decision, the Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the notified measure.\n(19)\nThis decision is without prejudice to the other measures which form the object of the opening decision. Therefore, the formal investigation concerning those measures is still underway,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Commission has decided to partially close the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the notified scheme providing for public financing to support infrastructure improvements at small regional airports, as Romania has withdrawn its notification concerning the project in question.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to Romania.\nDone at Brussels, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["18", "0", "99", "70", "13", "77", "54", "63", "94", "11", "14", "89", "5", "81", "86", "35", "3", "40", "52", "73", "78", "72", "31", "62", "30", "37", "56", "20", "95", "29", "No Label", "2", "8", "15", "24", "48", "53", "57", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "8", "15", "24", "48", "53", "57", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 June 2010\non the Union financial contribution to national programmes of certain Member States in 2010 for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector\n(notified under document C(2010) 3797)\n(2010/369/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea (1), and in particular Article 24(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 861/2006 lays down the conditions whereby Member States may receive a contribution from the European Union for expenditure incurred in their national programmes of collection and management of data.\n(2)\nThose programmes are to be drawn up in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 of 14 July 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 (3).\n(3)\nBelgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Finland have submitted national programmes for 2009-2010 as provided for in Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. These programmes were approved in 2009 in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008.\n(4)\nThose Member States have submitted annual budget forecasts covering the period 2009-2010 according to Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 (4). The Commission has evaluated Member States\u2019 annual budget forecasts, as laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008, by taking into account the national programmes approved in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008.\n(5)\nArticle 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 establishes that the Commission is to approve the annual budget forecast and is to decide on the annual Union financial contribution to each national programme in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and on the basis of the outcome of the evaluation of the annual budget forecasts as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008.\n(6)\nArticle 24(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 establishes that a Commission Decision is to fix the rate of the financial contribution. Article 16 of that Regulation provides that Union financial measures in the area of basic data collection are not to exceed 50 % of the costs incurred by Member States in carrying out the programme of collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector. Article 24(2) provides that priority shall be given to the actions which are most appropriate in order to improve the collection of data necessary for the Common Fisheries Policy.\n(7)\nThis Decision is to constitute the financing decision within the meaning of Article 75(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5).\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe maximum global amounts of the Union financial contribution to be granted to each Member State for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for 2010, and the rate of the Union financial contribution, are established in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2010.", "references": ["32", "84", "90", "43", "69", "25", "15", "40", "70", "14", "81", "82", "36", "74", "0", "73", "39", "31", "38", "68", "59", "65", "88", "44", "93", "78", "50", "22", "96", "61", "No Label", "10", "41", "42", "67"], "gold": ["10", "41", "42", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1252/2011\nof 30 November 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for anglerfish in VII by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["52", "9", "87", "94", "18", "41", "44", "99", "24", "34", "61", "2", "27", "30", "47", "23", "84", "85", "63", "45", "28", "72", "74", "73", "49", "48", "93", "16", "43", "92", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 237/2011\nof 11 March 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Mostviertler Birnmost (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Austria's application to register the name \u2018Mostviertler Birnmost\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 March 2011.", "references": ["59", "61", "98", "70", "88", "85", "90", "19", "56", "9", "1", "13", "17", "58", "81", "75", "33", "69", "93", "67", "4", "38", "78", "79", "10", "55", "11", "39", "48", "74", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "71", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "71", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1236/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\nlaying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries (the Convention), was approved by the Council in Decision 81/608/EEC (3) and entered into force on 17 March 1982.\n(2)\nThe Convention provides for an appropriate framework for multilateral cooperation on the rational conservation and management of fishery resources in the Area defined by the Convention (the Convention Area).\n(3)\nThe North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), at its Annual Meeting on 15 November 2006, adopted a recommendation establishing a scheme of control and enforcement (the Scheme) applicable to fishing vessels operating in the waters of the Convention Area which lie beyond the waters under the fisheries jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties (the Regulatory Area). The Scheme, which came into force on 1 May 2007, was amended by several recommendations at the Annual Meetings in November 2007, 2008 and 2009.\n(4)\nUnder Articles 12 and 15 of the Convention, these recommendations came into force on 9 February 2008, 6 and 8 January 2009, and 6 February 2010 respectively.\n(5)\nThe Scheme provides for control and enforcement measures applicable to vessels flying the flag of Contracting Parties and operating in the Regulatory Area, and arrangements for inspection at sea which include inspection and surveillance procedures and infringement procedures which must be implemented by the Contracting Parties.\n(6)\nThe Scheme provides for a new Port State Control system which will effectively close European ports to landings and transhipments of frozen fish which have not been verified to be legal by the flag state of fishing vessels flying the flag of a Contracting Party other than the port state.\n(7)\nCertain control provisions adopted by NEAFC have been incorporated into Union law by way of the yearly TAC and quotas Regulation, and most recently by Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 of 16 January 2009 fixing for 2009 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (4). For the sake of legal certainty, such provisions which are not of a temporary nature should be the subject of a new separate regulation.\n(8)\nThe Scheme also comprises provisions to promote compliance by vessels flying the flag of a non-Contracting Party with the control and enforcement measures in order to ensure full respect of conservation and management measures adopted by NEAFC. NEAFC recommended removing a number of vessels from the list of vessels that have been confirmed to have engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries. The incorporation of those recommendations into Union law should be ensured.\n(9)\nArticle 5(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (5) provides that Member States shall control access to waters and resources and control activities outside EU waters carried out by vessels flying their flag. Provision should therefore be made for Member States whose vessels are authorised to fish in the Regulatory Area to assign inspectors to the Scheme to undertake monitoring and surveillance as well as adequate resources for inspection.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure the monitoring of fishing activities in the Convention Area, it is necessary for Member States to cooperate with one another and with the Commission and the body designated by it in applying the Scheme.\n(11)\nIt is the responsibility of Member States to ensure that their inspectors comply with the inspection procedures laid down by NEAFC.\n(12)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in respect of detailed rules concerning lists of the fishery resources to be notified, procedures for prior notification of entry into port and for the cancellation thereof as well as authorisation to land or tranship. The Commission should also be empowered to adopt delegated acts in respect of the incorporation into Union law of future amendments of those measures of the Scheme which form the subject matter of certain expressly defined non-essential elements of this Regulation and which become binding upon the Union in accordance with the terms of the Convention. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(13)\nThe measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted by the Commission by means of implementing acts in accordance with Article 291 TFEU. According to that Article, rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers are to be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (6) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable.\n(14)\nAs this Regulation will establish new rules concerning control and enforcement in the Convention Area, Council Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999 of 16 December 1999 laying down certain control measures applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries (7) should be repealed,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down the general rules and conditions for the application by the Union of the Scheme adopted by NEAFC.\nArticle 2\nScope\nUnless otherwise stated, this Regulation shall apply to all EU vessels used or intended for use for fishing activities carried out in respect of fishery resources in the Regulatory Area.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018Convention\u2019 means the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in North-East Atlantic fisheries, as amended;\n2.\n\u2018Convention Area\u2019 means the Convention Area as defined in Article 1(1) of the Convention;\n3.\n\u2018Regulatory Area\u2019 means the waters of the Convention Area which lie beyond the waters under the fisheries jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties;\n4.\n\u2018Contracting Parties\u2019 means the Contracting Parties to the Convention;\n5.\n\u2018NEAFC\u2019 means the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission;\n6.\n\u2018fishing activities\u2019 means fishing, including joint fishing operations, fish processing operations, the transhipment or landing of fish or fish products and any other commercial activity in preparation for or related to fishing;\n7.\n\u2018fishery resources\u2019 means the resources referred to in Article 1(2) of the Convention;\n8.\n\u2018regulated resources\u2019 means those fishery resources which are subject to recommendations under the Convention and are listed in the Annex;\n9.\n\u2018fishing vessel\u2019 means any vessel used or intended for use for the purposes of the commercial exploitation of fishery resources, including fish processing vessels and vessels engaged in transhipment;\n10.\n\u2018non-Contracting Party vessel\u2019 means any fishing vessel not flagged in a Contracting Party, including vessels for which there are reasonable grounds for suspecting them to be without nationality;\n11.\n\u2018joint fishing operation\u2019 means any operations between two or more vessels where catch is taken from the fishing gear of one fishing vessel to another;\n12.\n\u2018transhipment operation\u2019 means the unloading of all or any fishery products on board a fishing vessel onto another fishing vessel;\n13.\n\u2018port\u2019 means any place used for landing or a place close to the shore designated by a Contracting Party for transhipping fishery resources.\nArticle 4\nContact points\n1. Member States shall designate the competent authority which shall act as the contact point for the purposes of receiving surveillance and inspection reports in accordance with Articles 12, 19, 20 and 27 and for receiving notifications and issuing authorisations in accordance with Articles 24 and 25.\n2. Contact points for receiving notifications and issuing authorisations in accordance with Articles 24 and 25 shall be available 24 hours a day.\n3. Member States shall send to the Commission or to the body designated by it and to the NEAFC Secretary the telephone number, e-mail address and fax number of the designated contact point.\n4. Any subsequent changes to the information concerning the contact points referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 shall be notified to the Commission or the body designated by it and to the NEAFC Secretary no later than 15 days before the change comes into force.\n5. The format for transmission of the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 shall be established in accordance with Article 50(2).\nCHAPTER II\nMONITORING MEASURES\nArticle 5\nUnion participation\n1. Member States shall send to the Commission, in a computer-readable form, a list of all vessels flying their flag and registered in the Union which are authorised to fish in the Regulatory Area, in particular the vessels authorised to fish directly for one or more regulated resources together with any amendments to the list. This information shall be sent no later than 15 December each year or no later than 5 days before the vessel enters the Regulatory Area. The Commission shall forward the information promptly to the NEAFC Secretary.\n2. The format for transmission of the list referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined in accordance with Article 50(2).\nArticle 6\nMarking of gear\n1. Member States shall ensure that gear used by their fishing vessels in the Regulatory Area is marked in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 356/2005 of 1 March 2005 laying down detailed rules for the marking and identification of passive fishing gear and beam trawls (8).\n2. Member States may remove and dispose of fixed gear that is not marked in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 356/2005 or that contravenes in any other way recommendations adopted by NEAFC, as well as fish that are found in the gear.\nArticle 7\nRetrieval of lost gear\n1. The competent authority of the flag Member State shall send without delay to the NEAFC Secretary the information provided to it pursuant to Article 48(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 as well as the call sign of the vessel that has lost the gear.\n2. Member States shall undertake to retrieve on a regular basis lost gears belonging to vessels flying their flag.\nArticle 8\nRecording of catches\n1. In addition to the information specified in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (9), the masters of EU fishing vessels shall record, either in a bound paginated fishing logbook or by electronic means, the following:\n(a)\neach entry into and exit from the Regulatory Area;\n(b)\non a daily basis and/or for each haul the estimated cumulative catches retained on board since the last entry into the Regulatory Area;\n(c)\non a daily basis and/or for each haul the amount of fish discarded;\n(d)\nimmediately after each communication pursuant to Article 9, the date and time, according to Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), of transmission of a report and, in the case of radio transmission, the name of the radio station through which the report was transmitted;\n(e)\nthe fishing depth, where appropriate.\n2. The masters of EU fishing vessels engaged in fishing activities carried out in respect of regulated resources and which process and/or freeze their catch shall:\n(a)\nrecord their cumulative production by species and product form in a production logbook; and\n(b)\nstow in the hold all processed catch in such a way that the location of each species can be identified from a stowage plan maintained on board the fishing vessel.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may exempt from the obligation to record in a fishing logbook or electronically a vessel engaged in transhipment operations which on-loads quantities on board. Vessels benefiting from this derogation shall specify in a stowage plan the location in the hold of frozen fish referred to in Article 14(1) and record in a production logbook:\n(a)\nthe date and time, according to UTC, of transmission of a report referred to in Article 9;\n(b)\nin the case of radio transmission, the name of the radio station through which the report was transmitted;\n(c)\nthe date and time, according to UTC, of the transhipment operation;\n(d)\nthe location (latitude/longitude) of the transhipment operation;\n(e)\nthe quantities of each species on-loaded;\n(f)\nthe name and international radio call sign of the fishing vessel from which the catch has been off-loaded.\n4. Detailed rules for the implementation of this Article shall be determined in accordance with Article 50(2).\nArticle 9\nReporting of catches of regulated resources\n1. The masters of EU fishing vessels engaged in fishing activities carried out in respect of regulated resources shall communicate catch reports by electronic means to their Fisheries Monitoring Centre, as defined in point (15) of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. The data contained in such reports shall be accessible to the Commission on request. Reports shall include the following:\n(a)\nreports on the quantities held on board when entering the Regulatory Area. Such reports shall be transmitted no earlier than 12 hours and no later than 2 hours before each entry into the Regulatory Area;\n(b)\nreports on weekly catches. Such reports shall be transmitted for the first time no later than the end of the seventh day following the entry of the vessel into the Regulatory Area or, when fishing trips take more than 7 days, no later than Monday noon for catches taken in the Regulatory Area during the preceding week ending at midnight on Sunday. This report shall include the number of fishing days since the start of fishing, or since the last catch report;\n(c)\nreports on catches on board when exiting the Regulatory Area. Such reports shall be transmitted no earlier than 8 hours and no later than 2 hours before each departure from the Regulatory Area. Such reports shall include, where appropriate, the number of fishing days and the catch taken in the Regulatory Area since the start of fishing, or since the last catch report;\n(d)\nreports on the quantities on-loaded and off-loaded for each transhipment of fish during the vessel\u2019s stay in the Regulatory Area. Donor vessels shall make this report no later than 24 hours before the transhipment, and receiving vessels no later than 1 hour after the transhipment. The report shall include the date, time and geographical position of the planned transhipment as well as the total round weight by species which are to be off-loaded or which have been on-loaded in kilograms and the call signs of the donor and receiving vessels. Without prejudice to Chapter IV, at least 24 hours before any landing, the receiving vessel shall report the total catch on board, the total weight to be landed, the name of the port and the estimated date and time of landing.\n2. The reports on catches referred to in this Article shall be expressed in kilograms (rounded to the nearest 100 kg). The total round weight shall be reported by species, using the FAO codes. The total quantity of species for which the total round weight by species is less than 1 tonne may be reported under the 3-alpha code MZZ (marine fish not specified).\n3. Member States shall record the data contained in the catch reports in the database referred to in Article 109(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\n4. The detailed rules for the implementation of this Article and in particular the format and the specifications for the transmissions shall be determined in accordance with Article 50(2).\nArticle 10\nGlobal reporting of catches and fishing effort\n1. Member States shall inform the Commission by computer transmission before the 15th day of each month of the quantities of fishery resources caught in the Regulatory Area by vessels flying their flag which have been landed or transhipped during the preceding month.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Member States shall also inform the Commission by computer transmission before the 15th day of each month of the quantities of regulated resources caught in areas under the national fisheries jurisdiction of third countries and in EU waters of the Convention Area by vessels flying their flag which have been landed or transhipped during the preceding month.\n3. The format for transmission of the data pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be determined in accordance with Article 50(2).\nThe list of the fishery resources referred to in paragraph 1 shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 46 to 49.\n4. The Commission shall compile the data referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 for all Member States and forward them to the NEAFC Secretary within 30 days following the calendar month in which the catches were landed or transhipped.\nArticle 11\nVessel Monitoring System\nMember States shall ensure the automatic and electronic transmission to the NEAFC Secretary of information obtained by the vessel monitoring system (VMS) concerning vessels flying their flag which fish or plan to fish in the Regulatory Area. The format and the specifications of these transmissions shall be determined in accordance with Article 50(2).\nArticle 12\nCommunication of information\n1. Member States shall communicate the reports and the information referred to in Articles 9 and 11 without delay to the NEAFC Secretary. In the event of technical malfunction, however, such reports and information shall be transmitted to the NEAFC Secretary within 24 hours of receipt. Member States shall ensure that all reports and messages forwarded by them are numbered sequentially.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the reports and information transmitted to the NEAFC Secretary are in accordance with the data exchange formats and protocols determined in accordance with Article 50(2).\nArticle 13\nTranshipments and joint fishing operations\n1. EU fishing vessels shall engage in transhipment activities in the Regulatory Area only if they have received prior authorisation from the competent authorities in their flag Member State.\n2. EU fishing vessels may only engage in transhipment operations or joint fishing operations with vessels flying the flag of a Contracting Party and vessels of a non-Contracting Party granted the status of a cooperating non-Contracting Party by NEAFC.\n3. EU fishing vessels engaged in transhipment operations which on-load quantities on board shall not engage in other fishing activities, including joint fishing operations, during the same trip, with the exception of fish-processing operations and landings.\nArticle 14\nSeparate stowage\n1. EU fishing vessels which carry on board frozen fishery resources caught in the Convention Area by more than one fishing vessel may stow the fish from each of those vessels in more than one part of the hold but shall keep it clearly separate from fish caught by other vessels, in particular by using plastic, plywood or netting.\n2. All catches taken inside the Convention Area shall be stowed separately from all catches taken outside the area.\nArticle 15\nLabelling of frozen fish\nWhen frozen, all fish caught in the Convention Area shall be identified with a clearly legible label or stamp. The label or stamp shall be placed at the time of stowage on each box or block of frozen fish and shall indicate the species, the production date, the ICES sub-area and division where the catch was taken and the name of the vessel which caught the fish.\nCHAPTER III\nINSPECTIONS AT SEA\nArticle 16\nNEAFC inspectors\n1. Member States whose fishing vessels are authorised to fish in the Regulatory Area shall assign inspectors to the Scheme to carry out surveillance and inspection (NEAFC inspectors).\n2. Member States shall issue a special identity document to each NEAFC inspector. The form of this document shall be determined in accordance with Article 50(2).\n3. Each NEAFC inspector shall carry and produce the special identity document when boarding a fishing vessel.\nArticle 17\nGeneral provisions for inspection and surveillance\n1. The Commission or the body designated by it shall coordinate the surveillance and inspection activities for the Union and shall draw up each year, in concert with the Member States concerned, a joint deployment plan for Union participation in the Scheme in the following year. This deployment plan shall, inter alia, determine the number of inspections to be carried out.\nWhere at any time more than ten EU fishing vessels are engaged in fishing activities carried out in respect of regulated resources in the Regulatory Area, the Commission or the body designated by it shall ensure that an inspection vessel from a Member State is present during that time in the Regulatory Area or that an agreement has been concluded with another Contracting Party to ensure the presence of an inspection vessel.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the inspections by their NEAFC inspectors are carried out in a non-discriminatory manner and in accordance with the Scheme. The number of inspections shall be based on fleet size, taking into account the time spent by fishing vessels in the Regulatory Area.\n3. The Commission or the body designated by it shall seek to ensure, through an equitable distribution of inspections, equal treatment of all Contracting Parties with fishing vessels operating in the Regulatory Area.\n4. Member States shall take steps to ensure that NEAFC inspectors from another Contracting Party are permitted to carry out inspections on board vessels flying their flag.\n5. NEAFC inspectors shall avoid the use of force except in cases of legitimate self-defence. When carrying out inspections on board fishing vessels, NEAFC inspectors shall not carry fire-arms. This paragraph shall be without prejudice to national provisions concerning the prohibition of the use of force.\n6. NEAFC inspectors shall avoid causing any inconvenience to the fishing vessel or interfering with its activities and the catch retained on board, except when and to the degree necessary to carry out their mandates.\nArticle 18\nMeans to carry out inspection\n1. Member States shall make available to their NEAFC inspectors adequate means to enable them to carry out their surveillance and inspection tasks. To that end they shall assign inspection vessels and aircraft to the Scheme.\n2. The Commission or the body designated by it shall send to the NEAFC Secretary before 1 January each year details of the plan together with the names of the NEAFC inspectors and special inspection vessels as well as the types of aircraft and their identification details (registration number, name, radio call-sign) which Member States are assigning to the Scheme during that year. Where appropriate, this information shall be taken from the list of inspectors referred to in Article 79(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. Member States shall send changes to this list to the Commission or the body designated by it which in turn shall forward them to the NEAFC Secretary and the other Member States 1 month before the changes are due to come into effect.\n3. Any vessel assigned to the Scheme and carrying NEAFC inspectors, as well as the boarding craft deployed by that vessel, shall display the NEAFC inspection special signal to indicate that NEAFC inspectors on board may carry out inspection duties in accordance with the Scheme. Aircraft assigned to the Scheme shall have their international radio call-sign clearly displayed. The form of the special signal shall be determined in accordance with Article 50(2).\n4. For each Union inspection vessel or aircraft assigned to the Scheme, the Commission or the body designated by it shall keep a record of the date and hour of the start and termination of their duties under the Scheme as set out in the form determined in accordance with Article 50(2).\nArticle 19\nSurveillance procedure\n1. Surveillance shall be based on sightings of fishing vessels by NEAFC inspectors from a vessel or aircraft assigned to the Scheme. NEAFC inspectors shall forward a copy of each sighting report for every vessel without delay, by electronic transmission in the form set out in accordance with Article 50(2), to the flag state of the vessel concerned, to the Commission or the body designated by it and to the NEAFC Secretary. A hard copy of each sighting report and any photographs shall be forwarded on request to the flag state of the vessel concerned.\n2. NEAFC inspectors shall record their sightings in a surveillance report using a form established in accordance with Article 50(2).\nArticle 20\nInspection procedure\n1. NEAFC inspectors shall not board any fishing vessel without prior notice being transmitted by radio to that vessel or without that vessel being given the appropriate signal using the International Code of Signals, including the identity of the inspection platform; however, it shall not be necessary for such notice to be acknowledged as received.\n2. NEAFC inspectors shall have the authority to examine all relevant areas, decks and rooms of the fishing vessels, catch (whether processed or not), nets or other gear, equipment, and any relevant documents which they deem necessary to verify compliance with the conservation and management measures adopted by NEAFC and to question the master or a person designated by the master.\n3. The fishing vessel to be boarded shall not be required to stop or manoeuvre when fishing, shooting or hauling. The NEAFC inspectors may order that the hauling of the fishing gear be interrupted or delayed until they have boarded the fishing vessel but may not do so in any event more than 30 minutes after the fishing vessel has received the signal referred to in paragraph 1.\n4. Masters of inspection platforms shall ensure that they manoeuvre at a safe distance from the fishing vessels in accordance with good seamanship.\n5. NEAFC inspectors may instruct a fishing vessel to delay its entry into or exit from the Regulatory Area for up to 6 hours from the time of transmission by the fishing vessel of the reports referred to in Article 9(1)(a) and (c).\n6. The duration of an inspection shall not exceed 4 hours, or the time it takes to haul in the net and to inspect the net and the catch, whichever is longer. Where an infringement is detected the NEAFC inspectors may stay on board for the time necessary for the completion of the measures provided for in Article 29(1)(b).\n7. In special circumstances relating to the size of a fishing vessel and the quantities of fish retained on board, the duration of the inspection may exceed the limits laid down in paragraph 6. In such a situation, NEAFC inspectors shall under no circumstances stay on board the fishing vessel longer than the time required to complete the inspection. The reasons for exceeding the limit laid down in paragraph 6 shall be recorded in the inspection report referred to in paragraph 9.\n8. No more than two NEAFC inspectors assigned by a Member State shall board a fishing vessel of another Contracting Party. In carrying out their inspection, the NEAFC inspectors may request the master to provide any assistance which is required. NEAFC inspectors shall not interfere with the master\u2019s ability to communicate with the authorities of the flag state during the boarding and inspection.\n9. Each inspection shall be documented by the completion of an inspection report in the format established in accordance with Article 50(2). The master may add his comments to the inspection report which shall be signed by the NEAFC inspectors at the end of the inspection. A copy of the inspection report shall be given to the master of the fishing vessel. A copy of each inspection report shall be transmitted without delay to the flag state of the inspected vessel and to the Commission or the body designated by it. The Commission or the body designated by it shall forward the copy promptly to the NEAFC Secretary. The original or a certified copy of each inspection report shall be forwarded on request to the flag state of the inspected vessel.\nArticle 21\nObligations of the master of the vessel during the inspection procedure\nThe master of a fishing vessel shall:\n(a)\nfacilitate prompt and safe boarding and disembarkation pursuant to specifications adopted in accordance with Article 50(2);\n(b)\ncooperate with and assist in the inspection of the fishing vessel conducted pursuant to this Regulation, not obstruct, intimidate or interfere with the NEAFC inspectors in the performance of their duties and ensure their safety;\n(c)\nallow the NEAFC inspectors to communicate with the authorities of the flag state and the inspecting state;\n(d)\nprovide access to any areas, decks and rooms of the fishing vessel, catch (whether processed or not), nets or other gear, equipment, and to any relevant information or documents which the NEAFC inspectors deem necessary in accordance with Article 20(2);\n(e)\nprovide copies of documents as required by the NEAFC inspectors; and\n(f)\nprovide NEAFC inspectors with reasonable facilities, including, where appropriate, food and accommodation when they remain on board the vessel in accordance with Article 32(3).\nCHAPTER IV\nPORT STATE CONTROL OF FISHING VESSELS FLYING THE FLAG OF ANOTHER CONTRACTING PARTY\nArticle 22\nScope\nWithout prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (10), the provisions set out in this Chapter shall apply to landing or transhipping in ports of Member States of fishery resources frozen after being caught in the Convention Area by fishing vessels flying the flag of another Contracting Party.\nArticle 23\nDesignated ports\nMember States shall designate and notify the Commission of ports where the landing or transhipment of fishery resources frozen after being caught in the Convention Area by fishing vessels flying the flag of another Contracting Party are permitted. The Commission shall notify the NEAFC Secretary of these ports and of any changes to the list of ports designated at least 15 days before the change comes into force.\nLandings and transhipments of fish frozen after being caught in the Convention Area by fishing vessels flying the flag of another Contracting Party shall be allowed only in designated ports.\nArticle 24\nPrior notification of entry into port\n1. In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, when the master of a fishing vessel carrying fish referred to in Article 22 of this Regulation intends to call into a port to land or tranship fish, the master of the vessel, or his representative, shall notify the competent authorities of the Member State of the port he wishes to use no later than three working days before the estimated time of arrival.\nHowever, a Member State may make provision for another notification period, taking into account, in particular, the distance between the fishing grounds and its ports. In such a case, the Member State shall inform the Commission, or the body designated by it, and the NEAFC Secretary thereof without delay.\n2. Masters or their representatives may cancel a prior notification by notifying the competent authorities of the port they wish to use no later than 24 hours before the notified estimated time of arrival in that port. The notification shall be accompanied by a copy of the original notification form with the word \u2018CANCELLED\u2019 written across it.\nHowever, a Member State may make provision for another notification period for cancellation. In such a case, the Member State shall inform the Commission, or the body designated by it, and the NEAFC Secretary thereof without delay.\n3. The competent authorities of the port Member State shall forward without delay a copy of the notifications referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 to the flag state of the fishing vessel and to the flag state or states of the donor vessels when the fishing vessel has engaged in transhipment operations. A copy of the notification referred to in paragraph 2 shall also be forwarded without delay to the NEAFC Secretary.\n4. The format and the specifications of the notifications shall be determined in accordance with Article 50(2).\nAs far as necessary, further detailed rules on the notification and cancellation procedures under this Article, including periods, shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 46 to 49.\nArticle 25\nAuthorisation to land or tranship\n1. The flag state of the fishing vessel intending to land or tranship or, where the fishing vessel has engaged in transhipment operations outside EU waters, the flag state or states of the donor vessels, shall, by returning a copy of the prior notification referred to in Article 24 to the competent authorities of the port Member State, confirm that:\n(a)\nthe fishing vessel which declared having caught the fish had sufficient quota for the species declared;\n(b)\nthe quantities of fish on board have been duly reported and taken into account for the calculation of any catch or effort limitations that may be applicable;\n(c)\nthe fishing vessel which declared having caught the fish had authorisation to fish in the areas declared;\n(d)\nthe presence of the fishing vessel in the area of catch declared has been verified according to VMS data.\n2. Landing or transhipment operations may only start after authorisation has been given by the competent authorities of the port Member State. Such authorisation shall only be given if the confirmation from the flag state referred to in paragraph 1 has been received.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, the competent authorities of the port Member State may authorise all or part of a landing in the absence of the confirmation referred to in paragraph 1, but in such cases they shall keep the fish concerned in storage under their control. The fish shall only be released to be sold, taken over or transported once the confirmation referred to in paragraph 1 has been received. If the confirmation has not been received within 14 days of the landing the competent authorities of the port Member State may confiscate and dispose of the fish in accordance with national rules.\n4. The competent authorities of the port Member State shall without delay notify their decision on whether or not to authorise the landing or transhipment to the master and shall inform the NEAFC Secretary thereof.\n5. Detailed rules on the authorisation to land or tranship under this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 46 to 49.\nArticle 26\nPort inspections\n1. Each Member State shall carry out inspections of at least 15 % of landings or transhipments in its ports during each reporting year.\n2. Inspections shall involve the monitoring of the entire discharge or transhipment and include a cross-check between the quantities by species recorded in the prior notification of landing and the quantities by species landed or transhipped. When the landing or transhipment has been completed, the inspector shall verify and note the quantities by species of fish remaining on board.\n3. National inspectors shall make all possible efforts to avoid delaying a vessel unduly and to ensure that the vessel suffers the minimum interference and inconvenience and that degradation of the quality of the fish is avoided.\n4. The port Member State may invite inspectors of other Contracting Parties to accompany their own inspectors and observe the inspection of landings or transhipment operations of fishery resources caught by fishing vessels flying the flag of another Contracting Party.\nArticle 27\nInspection reports\n1. Each inspection shall be documented by the completion of an inspection report using the form established in accordance with Article 50(2).\n2. The master may add his comments to the inspection report, which shall be signed by the inspector and the master at the end of the inspection. A copy of the inspection report shall be given to the master of the fishing vessel.\n3. A copy of each inspection report shall be transmitted without delay to the flag state of the inspected fishing vessel, to the flag state or states of the donor vessels where the vessel has engaged in transhipment operations, to the Commission or the body designated by it and to the NEAFC Secretary. The original or a certified copy of each inspection report shall be forwarded on request to the flag state of the inspected vessel.\nCHAPTER V\nINFRINGEMENTS\nArticle 28\nScope\nWithout prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 the provisions set out in this Chapter shall apply to EU fishing vessels and to fishing vessels flying the flag of another Contracting Party used or intended for use for fishing activities carried out in respect of fishery resources in the Regulatory Area.\nArticle 29\nInfringement procedures\n1. Where inspectors find that there are clear grounds for believing that a fishing vessel has engaged in any activity contrary to the conservation and management measures adopted by NEAFC they shall:\n(a)\nrecord the infringement in the report referred to in Articles 19(2), 20(9) or 27;\n(b)\ntake all necessary measures to ensure security and continuity of the evidence. An identification mark may be affixed securely to any part of the fishing gear which appears to the inspector to be or to have been in contravention of applicable measures;\n(c)\nattempt immediately to communicate with an inspector or designated authority of the flag state of the inspected fishing vessel;\n(d)\ntransmit the inspection report promptly to the Commission or the body designated by it.\n2. The Member State carrying out the inspection shall communicate in writing the details of the infringement to the designated authority of the flag state of the inspected vessel and to the Commission or the body designated by it and, whenever possible, shall do so during the first working day following the start of the inspection.\n3. The Member State carrying out the inspection shall send without delay the original of the surveillance or inspection report with any supporting documents to the competent authorities of the flag state of the inspected fishing vessel as well as a copy to the Commission or the body designated by it, which shall forward a copy to the NEAFC Secretary.\nArticle 30\nFollow-up in the case of infringement\n1. Where a Member State is notified by another Contracting Party or another Member State of an infringement committed by a fishing vessel flying its flag, it shall take prompt action in conformity with its national law to obtain and consider the evidence of the infringement and to conduct any further investigation necessary for the follow-up to the infringement and, whenever possible, to inspect the fishing vessel concerned.\n2. Member States shall designate the competent authorities which are to receive evidence of infringement and shall inform the Commission or the body designated by it of the address of those authorities and of any change in this information. The Commission or the body designated by it shall subsequently forward the information to the NEAFC Secretary.\nArticle 31\nSerious infringements\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the following infringements shall be considered to be serious:\n(a)\nfishing without a valid authorisation issued by the flag state;\n(b)\nfishing without quota or after its exhaustion;\n(c)\nuse of prohibited fishing gear;\n(d)\nserious misrecording of catches;\n(e)\nrepeated failure to comply with Articles 9 or 11;\n(f)\nlanding or transhipping in a port not designated in accordance with Article 23;\n(g)\nfailure to comply with Article 24;\n(h)\nlanding or transhipment without authorisation of the port state as referred to in Article 25;\n(i)\npreventing an inspector from carrying out his duties;\n(j)\ndirected fishing for a stock which is subject to a moratorium or for which fishing is prohibited;\n(k)\nfalsifying or concealing the markings, identity or registration of a fishing vessel;\n(l)\nconcealing, tampering with or disposing of evidence relating to an investigation;\n(m)\nmultiple violations which together constitute a serious disregard of conservation and management measures;\n(n)\nengaging in transhipment or joint fishing operations with vessels of a non-Contracting Party which has not been accorded the status of a cooperating non-Contracting Party by NEAFC;\n(o)\nsupplying any provisions, fuel or other services to vessels that have been placed on the list referred to in Article 44.\nArticle 32\nFollow-up in the case of serious infringements\n1. If an inspector considers that there are clear grounds for believing that a fishing vessel has committed a serious infringement under Article 31, that inspector shall promptly notify that infringement to the Commission or the body designated by it, the competent authorities of the flag state of the inspected fishing vessel and the flag state or states of the donor vessels where the inspected vessel has engaged in transhipment operations, in accordance with Article 29(3), and shall also transmit a copy to the NEAFC Secretary.\n2. In order to preserve the evidence, the inspector shall take all necessary measures to ensure the security and continuity thereof whilst minimising inconvenience to the vessel and interference with its operation.\n3. The inspector shall be entitled to remain on board the fishing vessel for the period necessary to provide information on the infringement to the duly authorised inspector referred to in Article 33, or until receiving a reply from the flag state requesting him to leave the fishing vessel.\nArticle 33\nFollow-up in the case of serious infringements by an EU fishing vessel\n1. Flag Member States shall respond to the notification referred to in Article 32(1) without delay and shall ensure that the fishing vessel concerned is inspected within 72 hours by an inspector duly authorised in relation to the infringement. The duly authorised inspector shall board the fishing vessel concerned and examine the evidence of the suspected infringement established by the inspector, and forward the results of the examination as quickly as possible to the competent authority in the flag Member State and to the Commission or the body designated by it.\n2. Following notification of the results of the examination referred to in paragraph 1, flag Member States shall, if the evidence so warrants, require the fishing vessel to proceed immediately, and in any case within 24 hours, to a port designated by that flag Member State, for a thorough inspection under its authority.\n3. The flag Member State may authorise the inspecting state to bring without delay the fishing vessel to a port designated by the flag Member State.\n4. If the fishing vessel is not called to port, the flag Member State must provide due justification in a timely manner to the Commission or the body designated by it and to the inspecting state. The Commission or the body designated by it shall forward such justification to the NEAFC Secretary.\n5. Where a fishing vessel is required to proceed to port for a thorough inspection pursuant to paragraphs 2 or 3, a NEAFC inspector from another Contracting Party may, subject to the consent of the flag Member State of the fishing vessel, board and remain on board the fishing vessel as it proceeds to port, and may be present during the inspection of the fishing vessel in port.\n6. Flag Member States shall inform promptly the Commission or the body designated by it of the outcome of the thorough inspection and of the measures that they have adopted as a result of the infringement.\n7. The detailed rules for the implementation of this Article shall be determined in accordance with Article 50(2).\nArticle 34\nReporting and follow-up of infringements\n1. By 15 February each year, Member States shall report to the Commission or the body designated by it on the status of the proceedings concerning infringements of the conservation and management measures adopted by NEAFC which were committed during the previous calendar year. The infringements shall continue to be listed in each subsequent report until the proceedings are concluded in accordance with the relevant provisions of national law. The Commission or the body designated by it shall forward the reports to the NEAFC Secretary before 1 March of the same year.\n2. The report referred to in paragraph 1 shall indicate the current status of the proceedings and in particular whether the case is pending, under appeal or still under investigation. The report shall describe in specific terms any sanctions imposed, stating in particular the level of fines, the value of forfeited fish and/or gear and any written warnings given and, if no action has been taken, it shall state the reasons thereof.\nArticle 35\nTreatment of inspection reports\nWithout prejudice to Article 77 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Member States shall collaborate with each other and with other Contracting Parties in order to facilitate judicial or other proceedings arising from a report submitted by an inspector under the Scheme, subject to the rules governing the admissibility of evidence in domestic judicial or other systems.\nArticle 36\nReports on surveillance and inspection activities\n1. Each Member State shall report to the Commission or the body designated by it by 15 February each year for the previous calendar year:\n(a)\nthe number of inspections it has carried out under Articles 19, 20 and 26, specifying the number of inspections on the vessels of each Contracting Party and, where an infringement has been committed, the date and position of the inspection of the individual vessel concerned and the nature of the infringement;\n(b)\nthe number of hours flown and the number of days at sea on NEAFC patrols, the number of sightings of both Contracting Party vessels and non-Contracting Party vessels, and the list of individual vessels for which a surveillance report has been completed.\n2. The Commission or the body designated by it shall compile a Union report on the basis of the reports of the Member States. It shall send the Union report to the NEAFC Secretary by 1 March each year.\nCHAPTER VI\nMEASURES TO PROMOTE COMPLIANCE BY NON-CONTRACTING PARTY FISHING VESSELS\nArticle 37\nScope\n1. This Chapter shall apply to non-Contracting Parties\u2019 fishing vessels used or intended for use for fishing activities carried out in respect of fishery resources in the Convention Area.\n2. This Chapter shall be without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008.\nArticle 38\nSightings and identifications of non-Contracting Party vessels\n1. Member States shall transmit without delay to the Commission or the body designated by it any information regarding non-Contracting Party vessels sighted or otherwise identified as engaging in fishing activities in the Convention Area. The Commission or the body designated by it shall inform promptly the NEAFC Secretary and all other Member States of each sighting report it receives.\n2. The Member State which sighted the non-Contracting Party vessel shall attempt to inform that vessel without delay that it has been sighted or otherwise identified as engaging in fishing activities in the Convention Area and is consequently presumed, unless its flag state has been accorded the status of cooperating non-Contracting Party by NEAFC, to be undermining the NEAFC conservation and management measures.\n3. In the case of a non-Contracting Party vessel sighted or otherwise identified as engaging in transhipment activities, the presumption of undermining the NEAFC conservation and management measures shall apply to any other non-Contracting Party vessel that has been identified as having engaged in such activities with that vessel.\nArticle 39\nInspections at sea\n1. NEAFC inspectors shall request permission to board and inspect non-Contracting Party vessels sighted or otherwise identified by a Contracting Party as engaging in fishing activities in the Convention Area. If the master consents to the boarding and inspection of the vessel, the inspection shall be documented by the completion of an inspection report, as referred to Article 20(9).\n2. NEAFC inspectors shall without delay transmit a copy of the inspection report to the Commission or the body designated by it, to the NEAFC Secretary and to the master of the non-Contracting Party vessel. Where the evidence in that report so warrants, a Member State may take such action as may be appropriate in accordance with international law. Member States are encouraged to examine whether their national measures are appropriate for the exercise of jurisdiction over such vessels.\n3. If the master does not consent to the boarding and inspection of his vessel or does not fulfil any one of the obligations laid down in Article 21(a) to (d), the vessel shall be presumed to have engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities (IUU activities). The NEAFC Inspector shall inform without delay the Commission or the body designated by it thereof. In turn the Commission or the body designated by it shall promptly inform the NEAFC Secretary thereof.\nArticle 40\nEntry into port\n1. The master of a non-Contracting Party fishing vessel may only call into a port designated in accordance with Article 23. The master intending to call into a port of a Member State shall notify the competent authorities of the port Member State in accordance with the provisions of Article 24. The port Member State concerned shall forward this information without delay to the flag state of the vessel and to the Commission or the body designated by it. In turn, the Commission or the body designated by it shall forward this information to the NEAFC Secretary.\n2. The port Member State shall prohibit the entry into its ports of vessels that have not given the required prior notification of entry into port as referred to in Article 24.\nArticle 41\nInspections in port\n1. Member States shall ensure that all non-Contracting Party vessels entering one of their ports are inspected. The vessel shall not be allowed to land or tranship any fish until this inspection has been completed. Each inspection shall be documented by the completion of an inspection report as provided for in Article 27. Where the master of the vessel has failed to fulfil any one of the obligations laid down in Article 21(a) to (d), the vessel shall be presumed to have engaged in IUU activities.\n2. Information on the results of all inspections of non-Contracting Party vessels conducted in the ports of Member States, and concerning subsequent action, shall immediately be transmitted to the Commission or the body designated by it, which shall forward such information to the NEAFC Secretary.\nArticle 42\nLandings and transhipments\n1. Landings and transhipments may only start after authorisation has been given by the competent authorities of the port state.\n2. Landings and transhipments from a non-Contracting Party vessel which has been inspected pursuant to Article 41 shall be prohibited in the ports and waters of all Member States if such an inspection reveals that the vessel has species on board which are subject to recommendations established under the Convention, unless the master of the vessel provides satisfactory evidence to the competent authorities proving that the fish were caught outside the Regulatory Area or in compliance with all relevant recommendations established under the Convention.\n3. The vessel shall not be authorised to engage in landings or transhipments if the flag state of the vessel, or the flag state or states of the donor vessels, where the vessel has engaged in transhipment operations, does not provide the confirmation referred to in Article 25.\n4. Furthermore, landings and transhipments shall be prohibited where the master of the vessel has failed to fulfil any one of the obligations laid down in Article 21(a) to (d).\nArticle 43\nReports on non-Contracting Parties activities\n1. Each Member State shall report to the Commission or the body designated by it by 15 February each year for the previous calendar year:\n(a)\nthe number of inspections of non-Contracting Party vessels that it conducted under this Scheme at sea or in its ports, the names of the vessels inspected and their respective flag states, the dates of the inspections and the names of any ports where the inspections were conducted, and the results of such inspections; and\n(b)\nwhere fish are landed or transhipped following an inspection pursuant to this Scheme, the evidence provided pursuant to Article 42.\n2. In addition to surveillance reports and information on inspections, Member States may at any time submit to the Commission or the body designated by it any further information which might be relevant for the identification of non-Contracting Party vessels that might be carrying out IUU activities in the Convention Area.\n3. On the basis of this information, the Commission or the body designated by it shall send a global report on non-Contracting Parties\u2019 activities to the NEAFC Secretary by 1 March each year.\nArticle 44\nVessels engaged in IUU activities\n1. Member States shall ensure that vessels appearing in the provisional list of vessels engaged in IUU activities established by NEAFC (\u2018A\u2019 list) are:\n(a)\ninspected in accordance with the provisions of Article 41 when they enter their ports;\n(b)\nnot authorised to land or tranship in their ports or in the waters under their jurisdiction;\n(c)\nnot given assistance by fishing vessels, support vessels, refuel vessels, the mother-ship and cargo vessels flying their flag or permitted to participate in any transhipment or joint fishing operation with such vessels;\n(d)\nnot supplied with provisions, fuel or other services.\n2. The provisions laid down in paragraph 1(b) and (d) shall not be applied to any vessel appearing on the \u2018A\u2019 list where a recommendation has been made to NEAFC that the vessel in question should be removed from the \u2018A\u2019 list.\nCHAPTER VII\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 45\nConfidentiality\n1. In addition to the obligations laid down in Articles 112 and 113 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Member States shall ensure confidential treatment of electronic reports and messages transmitted to and received from the NEAFC Secretary pursuant to Articles 11, 12 and 19(1).\n2. The detailed rules for the implementation of this Article shall be determined in accordance with Article 50(2).\nArticle 46\nDelegation of powers\n1. The Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 47 and subject to the conditions of Articles 48 and 49 the detailed rules for the application of Article 25, as well as the list of fishery resources referred to in Article 10(1) and detailed rules on the notification and cancellation procedures, including periods, as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 24(4).\n2. When adopting such delegated acts, the Commission shall act in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation.\nArticle 47\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 46 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 3 years from 1 January 2011. The Commission shall make a report in respect of the delegated powers at the latest 6 months before the end of the three-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 48.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 48 and 49.\nArticle 48\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 46 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 49\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 2 months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council this period shall be extended by 2 months.\n2. If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force at the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 50\nImplementation\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 4 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply. The period referred to in Article 4(3) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at 3 months.\nArticle 51\nProcedure for amendments\nAs far as is necessary, in order to incorporate into Union law amendments to the existing provisions of the Scheme which become obligatory for the Union, the Commission may amend the provisions of this Regulation by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 47 and subject to the conditions set out in Articles 48 and 49, concerning:\n(a)\nparticipation of Contracting Parties in the fishery in the Regulatory area as referred to in Article 5;\n(b)\nremoval and disposal of fixed gear and the retrieval of lost gear as referred to in Articles 6 and 7;\n(c)\nuse of VMS as referred to in Article 11;\n(d)\ncooperation and communication of information to the NEAFC Secretary as referred to in Article 12;\n(e)\nrequirements for separate stowage and labelling of frozen fishery resources as referred to in Articles 14 and 15;\n(f)\nassignment of NEAFC inspectors as referred to in Article 16;\n(g)\nmeasures to promote compliance with the Scheme by non-Contracting Party fishing vessels under Chapter VI;\n(h)\nthe list of regulated resources set out in the Annex.\nWhen adopting such delegated acts, the Commission shall act in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation.\nArticle 52\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 2791/1999 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 53\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["22", "16", "65", "32", "83", "56", "8", "26", "11", "84", "73", "87", "69", "18", "81", "54", "79", "96", "17", "27", "38", "23", "55", "36", "82", "71", "78", "14", "37", "43", "No Label", "3", "4", "59", "67"], "gold": ["3", "4", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 344/2012\nof 19 April 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 as regards representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1484/95 should be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["20", "45", "83", "34", "67", "80", "6", "10", "18", "23", "31", "7", "33", "54", "82", "12", "78", "88", "75", "9", "28", "55", "94", "39", "65", "8", "66", "99", "4", "93", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 13 December 2011\nterminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Oman and Saudi Arabia\n(2011/834/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation) and in particular Article 14 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 3 January 2011, the European Commission (Commission) received a complaint concerning the alleged subsidisation of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in Oman and Saudi Arabia (the countries concerned), thereby causing injury to the Union Industry.\n(2)\nThe complaint was lodged by the Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME) (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain PET pursuant to Article 10 of the basic Regulation.\n(3)\nThe complaint contained prima facie evidence of the existence of subsidisation and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding.\n(4)\nPrior to the initiation of the proceeding and in accordance with Article 10(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission notified the governments of Oman and Saudi Arabia that it had received a properly documented complaint alleging that subsidised imports of certain PET originating in Oman and Saudi Arabia were causing material injury to the Union Industry. The governments of Oman and Saudi Arabia were separately invited for consultations with the aim of clarifying the situation as regards the content of the complaint and arriving at a mutually agreed solution. During the consultations no mutually agreed solution was found.\n(5)\nThe Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) on 16 February 2011, initiated an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports into the European Union of certain PET originating in Oman and Saudi Arabia.\n(6)\nOn the same day, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain PET originating in the countries concerned (3).\n(7)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the Union industry, to the exporters/producers in the countries concerned, to the importers, to any association known to be concerned, and to the authorities of the countries concerned. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(8)\nAll interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\nB. WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(9)\nBy a letter of 12 October 2011 to the Commission, the CPME formally withdrew its complaint.\n(10)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(11)\nIn this respect it is noted that Commission did not identify any reason to indicate that termination would not be in the Union interest, nor was any such reason raised by interested parties. Therefore, the Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment.\n(12)\nSome interested parties expressed support for the termination of the proceeding. Other interested parties, although supporting the termination of the proceeding, requested a disclosure of the findings of the investigation.\n(13)\nIt is noted in this regard that the Commission did not reach a conclusion on its findings and is therefore not in a position to disclose data gathered prior to the withdrawal of the complaint.\n(14)\nIn view of the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against terminating this proceeding.\n(15)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in Oman and Saudi Arabia should be terminated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, originating in Oman and Saudi Arabia, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["41", "0", "29", "53", "54", "30", "34", "79", "24", "90", "96", "1", "11", "5", "39", "82", "18", "72", "16", "47", "86", "20", "76", "56", "6", "13", "51", "65", "98", "26", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 962/2011\nof 27 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2011.", "references": ["32", "90", "43", "39", "82", "24", "85", "0", "52", "25", "66", "42", "44", "40", "91", "11", "71", "57", "62", "14", "13", "17", "79", "63", "3", "28", "12", "21", "48", "4", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 991/2011\nof 5 October 2011\namending Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC and Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the entries for South Africa in the lists of third countries or parts thereof with respect to highly pathogenic avian influenza\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1) and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first paragraph of point 1 of Article 8 and point 4 of Article 8 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (2), and in particular Articles 23(1) and 24(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2007/777/EC of 29 November 2007 laying down the animal and public health conditions and model certificates for imports of certain meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption from third countries and repealing Decision 2005/432/EC (3) lays down rules on imports into the Union and the transit and storage in the Union of consignments of meat products, and of consignments of treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (4).\n(2)\nDecision 2007/777/EC also lays down lists of third countries and parts thereof from which such imports and transit and storage are to be authorised, sets out the model public and animal health certificates, and the rules on the origin and treatments required for those imported products.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (5) lays down veterinary certification requirements for imports into and transit, including storage during transit, through the Union of poultry, hatching eggs, day-old chicks, specified pathogen-free eggs, meat, minced meat and mechanically separated meat of poultry, including ratites and wild game birds, eggs and egg products. That Regulation provides that those commodities are only to be imported into the Union from the third countries, territories, zones or compartments listed in Part 1 of Annex I thereto.\n(4)\nDue to recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in South Africa, Decision 2007/777/EC and Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 were amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 536/2011 (6), in order to prescribe specific treatments for imports from South Africa of meat products, treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption obtained from meat of farmed ratites and of biltong/jerky and pasteurised meat products consisting of, or containing meat of farmed feathered game, ratites and wild game birds which are sufficient to eliminate animal health risks linked to these commodities and to prohibit imports of breeding and productive ratites and of day-old chicks, hatching eggs and meat of ratites. from the whole territory of South Africa covered by Regulation (EC) No 798/2008.\n(5)\nSouth Africa has submitted information to the Commission on the control measures taken in relation to the recent HPAI outbreaks. The Commission has evaluated that information and the epidemiological situation following those outbreaks in South Africa.\n(6)\nIn addition, the Union\u2019s Veterinary Emergency Team carried out a mission to South Africa to assess the situation and give recommendations to improve disease control.\n(7)\nSouth Africa has implemented a stamping-out policy in order to control the disease and limit its spread. South Africa is carrying out surveillance activities for avian influenza which appear to meet the requirements laid down in Part II of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008.\n(8)\nThe positive outcome of the evaluation of the disease situation and the epidemiological investigations carried out by South Africa allow limiting the restrictions on imports of ratite meat into the Union to the disease-affected part of the territory of South Africa, placed under restrictions by South Africa. However, the restrictions on imports of live ratites and their hatching eggs should be maintained for the whole territory of South Africa owing to the higher risk for a possible virus introduction into the Union.\n(9)\nWith respect to the treatments laid down in Decision 2007/777/EC for imports of certain meat products, treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption as well as for biltong/jerky and pasteurised meat products, the treatments applied before the occurrence of the HPAI outbreaks should again be applied for those commodities originating from the disease-free part of the territory of South Africa.\n(10)\nPart 1 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC lists the territories or parts of territories of third countries to which regionalisation for animal health reasons applies. South Africa\u2019s entry should be amended to take account of the new disease situation as regards HPAI in that third country and the resulting consequences for the restrictions on imports of affected commodities into the Union.\n(11)\nDecision 2007/777/EC and Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Decision 2007/777/EC is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 October 2011.", "references": ["38", "14", "16", "59", "93", "9", "54", "73", "30", "37", "12", "91", "83", "18", "67", "26", "24", "10", "27", "97", "15", "58", "87", "78", "98", "75", "44", "84", "20", "8", "No Label", "22", "61", "66", "69", "72", "94"], "gold": ["22", "61", "66", "69", "72", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 790/2011\nof 5 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2011.", "references": ["80", "73", "59", "58", "23", "81", "74", "19", "83", "31", "52", "95", "20", "72", "51", "36", "15", "7", "30", "87", "9", "29", "49", "69", "26", "2", "99", "38", "45", "75", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/34/CFSP\nof 23 January 2012\nappointing the Chairman of the Military Committee of the European Union\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 240 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2001/79/CFSP setting up the Military Committee of the European Union (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 3(1) of Decision 2001/79/CFSP, the Chairman of the Military Committee of the European Union (\"the Military Committee\") shall be appointed by the Council on the recommendation of the Military Committee meeting at the level of the Chiefs of Defence. According to Article 3(2) of the said Decision, the term of office of the Chairman of the Military Committee is three years, unless the Council decides otherwise.\n(2)\nOn 8 December 2008, the Council appointed General H\u00e5kan SYR\u00c9N as Chairman of the Military Committee for a period of three years as from 6 November 2009 (2).\n(3)\nAt its meeting on 22 November 2011, the Military Committee meeting at the level of the Chiefs of Defence recommended that General Patrick de ROUSIERS be appointed Chairman of the Military Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGeneral Patrick de ROUSIERS is hereby appointed Chairman of the Military Committee of the European Union for a period of three years as from 6 November 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["60", "88", "86", "51", "97", "46", "66", "14", "44", "19", "79", "62", "25", "45", "61", "94", "96", "0", "47", "72", "15", "56", "95", "26", "80", "39", "29", "69", "4", "38", "No Label", "7", "9"], "gold": ["7", "9"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1062/2011\nof 20 October 2011\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural market and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(s) and listed in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 714/2011 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Part XIX of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 714/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["63", "16", "60", "23", "55", "79", "81", "94", "24", "52", "64", "47", "78", "83", "30", "31", "15", "90", "12", "99", "17", "2", "51", "86", "84", "32", "36", "6", "35", "70", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "69", "72"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1210/2011\nof 23 November 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 in particular to determine the volume of greenhouse gas emission allowances to be auctioned prior to 2013\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Articles 3d(3) and 10(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 of 12 November 2010 on the timing, administration and other aspects of auctioning of greenhouse gas emission allowances pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowances trading within the Community (2) provides for determining the volumes of any allowances to be auctioned in 2011 and 2012 as soon as practicable following its adoption. The volumes so determined are to be listed in an Annex to that Regulation. The foremost objective in specifying the volume is to ensure a smooth transition from the second to the third trading period of the Union Emissions Trading Scheme that underpins the proper functioning of the secondary market.\n(2)\nWhen determining the volumes to be auctioned in 2011 and 2012, due account should be taken of factors determining demand for and supply of allowances, notably hedging needs for compliance in the early years of the third trading period in particular from the power sector; the volume of allowances valid for the second trading period not needed for compliance in the said trading period and which is held largely by the industrial sectors; the share of those allowances that has been and is likely to be sold on the market in the second trading period; the volume of certified emission reductions and emission reduction units stemming from emission reduction projects under the Clean Development Mechanism or under Joint Implementation provisions available for hedging or for surrendering by operators covered by the Union Emissions Trading Scheme; and the monetisation of allowances from the new entrant reserve for the third trading period for support of demonstration projects of carbon capture and sequestration and innovative renewable energy technologies (NER300) pursuant to Commission Decision 2010/670/EU of 3 November 2010 laying down criteria and measures for the financing of commercial demonstration projects that aim at the environmentally safe capture and geological storage of CO2 as well as demonstration projects of innovative renewable energy technologies under the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community established by Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). Although all these factors are subject to different degrees of uncertainty, it is important to determine the volume to be auctioned in 2012 in a timely manner.\n(3)\nThe assessment based on those factors concludes that no allowances valid for the third trading period should be auctioned in 2011.\n(4)\nThe auction calendars for the auctioning of allowances in 2012 should be determined such as to limit the impact of the auctions on the functioning of the secondary market, whilst ensuring that auctions are large enough to attract sufficient participation. There should be a smooth transition from the auctioning on transitional auction platforms to the auctioning on later auction platforms. Moreover, adjustment of a published auction calendar could be justified in certain additional precisely specified situations.\n(5)\nSince delivery of the allowances to be auctioned can be expected to be enabled in time, there is no need for transitionally auctioning forwards and futures. The procurement of a transitional auction platform remains, however, desirable in order to mitigate risk inherent to the procurement of the auction platform to which the Regulation will apply in full. Given the importance of the full application of the Regulation, transitional auction platforms should conduct auctions no longer than necessary. The appointment of a transitional auction platform should be facilitated by imposing fewer requirements on the conduct of its auctions, as was already foreseen for the auctioning of forwards and futures. In this way, the services to be procured can remain more aligned to services already existing in the market. In addition, the application of the national measures transposing Title III of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) to the auctions conducted by a transitional auction platform is not indispensable. Similarly, it would be disproportionate to require the authorisation of the transitional auction platform to be updated in accordance with the requirements of the Auctioning Regulation. However, in order to ensure effective market oversight, the provisions in the present Regulation relating to the prohibition of market abuse should apply to auctions conducted on a transitional auction platform from the moment the Member State concerned has implemented the relevant provisions in national law. This encourages a level playing field between candidate auction platforms without making the start of the auctions dependent on such implementation. This applies to the transitional auction platform to be procured by means of a joint procurement procedure, as well as to transitional auction platforms to be appointed by Member States that do not join the joint action and appoint their own auction platform.\n(6)\nIt is not necessary to distribute the share of the costs of the auction monitor attributable to services procured by the Commission over the number of auction platforms.\n(7)\nFor efficient and adequate preparation and conduct of the joint procurement procedure to appoint a common auction platform, it is desirable to have timely clarity on participation by Member States in that joint action. Therefore, in certain situations, it should be possible that a Member State that starts making use of the common auction platform at a later stage bears costs attributable to services provided by an auction platform not borne by Member States participating in the joint action from the start.\n(8)\nThe appointment of the auctioneers and the auction monitor is of crucial importance for the proper conduct of the auctions and it would generally not be possible to conduct auctions without the conclusion and entry into force of the arrangements between the auctioneers and the auction monitor on the one side and the auction platforms on the other. These arrangements should be properly implemented, but the non-implementation, or a dispute on the implementation, should not in all situations lead to withholding allowances from the auctions.\n(9)\nThe auction monitor is to be appointed following a joint procurement procedure between the Commission and the Member States. Although it is foreseen that all Member States participate in this joint action from the outset, it is appropriate to provide rules in case a Member State joins only at a later stage. Moreover, Member States that have decided to appoint an auction platform of their own should be able to join the joint action for the sole purpose of making use of a common auction platform in the absence of listing of the auction platform of their own, without prejudice to their observer status in that joint action.\n(10)\nThe risk of insider trading by withdrawing a bid should be mitigated. Where such behaviour is not covered by Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), the relevant provisions in the Auctioning Regulation should apply.\n(11)\nA limited number of technical clarifications and corrections to the Auctioning Regulation should be provided for in this Amendment.\n(12)\nRegulation (EU) No 1031/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nIn order to ensure predictable and timely auctions, this Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010\nRegulation (EU) No 1031/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\npoint (f) of Article 3(43) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(f)\nthe same as in point 20(b) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC for the purposes of Article 28(4) and (5), Article 35(4), (5) and (6) and Article 42(1) of this Regulation;\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Each Member State shall auction allowances in the form of either two-day spot or five-day futures.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is deleted;\n(3)\nthe second and third subparagraphs of Article 6(1) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018One lot auctioned by an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or Article 30(1) shall be 500 allowances.\nOne lot auctioned by an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(2) or Article 30(2) shall be 500 or 1 000 allowances.\u2019;\n(4)\nthe first subparagraph of Article 8(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. As from the sixth auction or earlier, the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) shall conduct auctions of allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC at least on a weekly basis and auctions of allowances covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC at least on a two-monthly basis, except that during 2012, the said auction platforms shall conduct auctions of allowances covered by Chapter III of that Directive on a monthly basis at least.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 10(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. For each Member State, Annex I to this Regulation sets out the volume of any allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned in 2012.\u2019;\n(6)\nthe first subparagraph of Article 10(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The volume of allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned each calendar year as from 2013 shall be based on Annex I and on the Commission\u2019s determination and publication pursuant to Article 10(1) of that Directive of the estimated amount of allowances to be auctioned or on the most recent amendment of the Commission\u2019s original estimate as published by 31 January of the preceding year, taking into account to the extent possible any transitional free allocations deducted or to be deducted from the quantity of allowances that a given Member State would otherwise auction pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC as provided for in Article 10c(2) of that Directive.\u2019;\n(7)\nArticle 11(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) of this Regulation shall make their determinations and publications as provided in paragraph 1 of this Article in accordance with Annex I and the Commission\u2019s determination and publication of the estimated amount of allowances to be auctioned or the most recent amendment of the Commission\u2019s original estimate, including any adjustment, referred to in Article 10(3).\u2019;\n(8)\nthe following indent points are added to Article 14(1):\n\u2018(j)\nany withholding of allowances from the auctions pursuant to Article 22(5) or the second subparagraph of Article 24(1);\n(k)\nthe necessity for an auction platform to avoid conducting an auction in breach of this Regulation or Directive 2003/87/EC.\u2019;\n(9)\nArticle 16(2) and (3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) shall ensure that its auctions can be accessed remotely by means of an electronic interface accessible securely and reliably through the Internet.\nIn addition, an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) shall offer bidders the option of accessing its auctions through dedicated connections to the electronic interface.\n3. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) may offer one or more alternative means of accessing its auctions, should the main means of access be inaccessible for whatever reason, provided that such alternative means of access are secure and reliable and their use does not lead to any discrimination between bidders.\u2019;\n(10)\nArticle 17 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 17\nTraining and helpline\nAn auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) shall offer a practical web-based training module on the auction process it is conducting, including guidance on how to complete and submit any forms and a simulation of how to bid in an auction. It shall also make available a helpline service accessible by telephone, facsimile and electronic mail at least during the working hours of each trading day.\u2019;\n(11)\nArticle 18(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Persons referred to in paragraph 1(b) or (c) shall be eligible to apply for admission to bid directly in the auctions on behalf of their clients when bidding for auctioned products that are not financial instruments provided that a Member State in which they are established has enacted legislation enabling the relevant competent national authority in that Member State to authorise them to bid on behalf of their clients.\u2019;\n(12)\nArticle 19(1) and (2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. When an auction platform organises a secondary market, members or participants of the secondary market organised by an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) that are eligible persons pursuant to Article 18(1) or (2) shall be admitted to bid directly in the auctions conducted by that auction platform without any further admission requirements, provided that all of the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe requirements for admission of the member or participant to trade allowances through the secondary market organised by the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) are no less stringent than those listed under paragraph 2 of this Article;\n(b)\nthe auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) receives any additional information necessary to verify the fulfilment of any requirements referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article that have not been previously verified.\n2. Persons, who are not members or participants of the secondary market organised by an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1), and that are eligible persons pursuant to Article 18(1) or (2) shall be admitted to bid directly in the auctions conducted by that auction platform provided that they:\n(a)\nare established in the Union, an operator or an aircraft operator;\n(b)\nhold a nominated holding account;\n(c)\nhold a nominated bank account;\n(d)\nappoint at least one bidder\u2019s representative as defined in the third subparagraph of Article 6(3);\n(e)\nsatisfy the auction platform concerned in line with applicable customer due diligence measures as to their identity, the identity of their beneficial owners, integrity, business and trading profile having regard to the means of establishing the relationship with the bidder, the type of bidder, the nature of the auctioned product, the size of prospective bids, and the means of payment and delivery;\n(f)\nsatisfy the auction platform concerned of their financial standing, in particular, that they are able to meet their financial commitments and current liabilities as they fall due;\n(g)\nhave in place or are able to put in place when requested, the internal processes, procedures and contractual agreements necessary to give effect to a maximum bid-size imposed pursuant to Article 57;\n(h)\nfulfil the requirements of Article 49(1).\nWhen an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) does not organise a secondary market, persons who are eligible persons pursuant to Article 18(1) or (2) shall be admitted to bid directly in the auctions conducted by that auction platform provided that they satisfy the conditions set out in subparagraphs (a) to (h) of this paragraph.\u2019;\n(13)\nparagraphs 1, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of Article 20 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Before submitting their first bid directly through any auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1), persons eligible under Article 18(1) or (2) shall apply to the auction platform concerned for admission to bid.\nWhen an auction platform organises a secondary market, members of or participants in the secondary market organised by the auction platform concerned fulfilling the requirements of Article 19(1) shall be admitted to bid without applying under the first subparagraph of this paragraph.\u2019\n\u20185. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) may refuse admission to bid in its auctions if the applicant refuses any of the following:\n(a)\nto comply with requests made by the auction platform for additional information or clarification or substantiation of information provided;\n(b)\nto attend an invitation made by the auction platform to interview any officers of the applicant including at its business premises or elsewhere;\n(c)\nto allow investigations or verifications, requested by the auction platform including on-site visits or spot-checks at the applicant\u2019s business premises;\n(d)\nto comply with requests made by the auction platform for any information required from an applicant, the clients of an applicant or the clients of their clients as provided for in Article 18(4) to check compliance with the requirements of Article 19(3);\n(e)\nto comply with requests made by the auction platform for any information required to check compliance with the requirements of Article 19(2).\n6. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) shall apply the measures provided for in Article 13(4) of Directive 2005/60/EC in respect of its transactions or business relationships with politically exposed persons irrespective of their country of residence.\n7. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) shall require an applicant for admission to bid in its auctions to ensure that clients of the applicant comply with any request made pursuant to paragraph 5 and that any client of the applicant\u2019s clients as provided for in Article 18(4) does the same.\u2019\n\u20189. An applicant shall not provide any auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1), with false or misleading information. An applicant shall notify the auction platform concerned fully, frankly and promptly of any changes in its circumstances that could affect its application for admission to bid in auctions conducted by that auction platform or any admission to bid already granted to it.\n10. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) shall decide on an application submitted to it and notify its decision to the applicant.\nThe auction platform concerned may:\n(a)\ngrant unconditional admission to the auctions for a period not exceeding the term of its appointment, including any extension or renewal of that appointment;\n(b)\ngrant conditional admission to the auctions for a period not exceeding the term of its appointment, subject to fulfilment of the specified conditions, by a given date, which shall be duly verified by the auction platform concerned;\n(c)\nrefuse to grant admission.\u2019;\n(14)\nparagraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 21 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) shall refuse to grant admission to bid in its auctions, revoke or suspend any admission to bid already granted to any person who:\n(a)\nis not or is no longer eligible to apply for admission to bid under Article 18(1) or (2);\n(b)\ndoes not or no longer meets the requirements of Articles 18, 19 and 20;\n(c)\nis wilfully or repeatedly in breach of this Regulation, the terms and conditions of its admission to bid in the auctions conducted by the auction platform concerned or any other related instructions or agreements.\n2. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) shall refuse to grant admission to bid in its auctions, revoke or suspend any admission to bid already granted, if it suspects money laundering, terrorist financing, criminal activity or market abuse in relation to an applicant, provided that such refusal, revocation or suspension is unlikely to frustrate efforts by the competent national authorities, to pursue or apprehend the perpetrators of such activities.\nIn such a case, the auction platform concerned shall make a report to the financial intelligence unit (FIU) referred to in Article 21 of Directive 2005/60/EC in accordance with Article 55(2) of this Regulation.\n3. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) may refuse to grant admission to bid in its auctions, revoke or suspend any admission to bid already granted, to any person:\n(a)\nwho is negligently in breach of this Regulation, the terms and conditions of its admission to bid in the auctions conducted by the auction platform concerned or any other related instructions or agreements;\n(b)\nwho has otherwise behaved in a manner that is prejudicial to the orderly or efficient conduct of an auction;\n(c)\nwho is referred to in Article 18(1)(b) or (c) or Article 18(2) and has not bid in any auction during the preceding 220 trading days.\u2019;\n(15)\nArticle 22 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. For Member States not participating in the joint actions as provided in Article 26(1) and (2), the auctioneer shall be appointed by the appointing Member State in good time prior to the commencement of the auctions on the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) and (2) so as to conclude and implement the necessary arrangements with these auction platforms, including any clearing system and settlement system connected to them, to enable the auctioneer to auction allowances on behalf of the appointing Member State on such auction platforms upon mutually agreed terms and conditions, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 30(7) and the first subparagraph of Article 30(8).\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. The allowances to be auctioned on behalf of a Member State shall be withheld from the auctions whenever that Member State does not have in place a duly appointed auctioneer or whenever the arrangements referred to in paragraph 2 are not concluded or in force.\u2019;\n(16)\nArticle 24 is amended as follows:\n(a)\na second and third subparagraph is inserted in the first paragraph:\n\u2018Without prejudice to the third subparagraph, the allowances to be auctioned on behalf of a Member State shall be withheld from the auctions whenever that Member State does not have in place a duly appointed auction monitor or whenever the contractual arrangements with the auction monitor are not concluded or in force.\nWhere reasons of force majeure prevent the auction monitor from performing its tasks in respect of a given auction, in full or in part, the auction platform concerned may decide to conduct that auction provided that it takes appropriate measures to ensure adequate monitoring of the auction itself. The foregoing shall also apply where the appointment of the auction monitor has been delayed until no later than 1 January 2013, or until no later than 1 July 2013 where the first procurement procedure does not result in an appointment of the auction monitor and the conduct of a second procurement procedure is necessary.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. Any Member State that joins the joint action referred to in paragraph 2 after the entry into force of the joint procurement agreement entered into between the Member States and the Commission shall accept the terms and conditions agreed by the Member States and the Commission in the joint procurement agreement as well as any decisions already adopted under that agreement.\nAfter the entry into force of the joint procurement agreement and until a Member State joins the joint action referred to in paragraph 2, it may be given observer status upon terms and conditions agreed in the joint procurement agreement between the Member States and the Commission subject to any applicable public procurement rules.\u2019;\n(17)\nthe first subparagraph of Article 25(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. A Member State not participating in the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2) of this Regulation but opting to appoint its own auction platform pursuant to Article 30(1) and (2) of this Regulation may request the auction monitor to provide the Member States, the Commission and the auction platform concerned with a technical report on the ability of the auction platform it proposes or intends to propose, to carry out the auction process in accordance with the requirements of this Regulation and in conformity with the objectives set out in Article 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\u2019;\n(18)\nArticle 26 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Without prejudice to Article 30, Member States shall appoint an auction platform to auction allowances pursuant to Article 27 following a joint procurement procedure between the Commission and the Member States participating in the joint action pursuant to this Article.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 30, Member States shall appoint an auction platform to auction allowances pursuant to Article 28 following a joint procurement procedure between the Commission and the Member States participating in the joint action pursuant to this Article.\nAn auction platform appointed pursuant to the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall auction allowances pursuant to Article 28 until the commencement of the auctions on an auction platform appointed pursuant to paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. Any Member State that joins the joint actions as provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 after the entry into force of the joint procurement agreement entered into between the Commission and the Member States participating in that action shall accept the terms and conditions agreed by the Commission and the Member States joining the joint action prior to the entry into force of that agreement as well as any decisions already adopted under that agreement.\nAny Member State that decides pursuant to Article 30(4) not to participate in the joint action as provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 but to appoint its own auction platform may be given observer status upon terms and conditions agreed in the joint procurement agreement between the Member States participating in the joint action as provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 and the Commission subject to any applicable public procurement rules.\u2019;\n(19)\nthe first paragraph of Article 27 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (e) the phrase \u2018through sub-contracting\u2019 is deleted;\n(b)\nin point (g), the word \u2018supervising\u2019 is replaced by the word \u2018surveying\u2019 and the reference to \u2018Article 44\u2019 is replaced by a reference to \u2018Article 54\u2019;\n(20)\nArticle 28 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (e) of the first paragraph, the reference to \u2018except that Article 40 shall apply in any case\u2019 is replaced by \u2018without prejudice to Articles 44 to 50\u2019;\n(b)\nthe third paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Without prejudice to paragraphs 4 and 5, Article 16(2) and (3), Articles 17 and 19 to 21, Articles 36 to 43, Articles 54 to 56, Articles 60(3) and 63(4), and Article 64 shall not apply with respect to the auctions conducted by an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(2) or 30(2).\n4. Paragraph 3 shall not preclude Article 36(1) from being applicable with respect to the auctions of allowances in the form of two-day spot or five-day futures that are a financial instrument within the meaning of Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/6/EC conducted by an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(2) or 30(2), where the Member State where the auction platform is established has implemented Article 36(1) of this Regulation or where such implementation is not necessary for the application of Article 36(1) of this Regulation.\n5. Paragraph 3 shall not preclude Article 36(2) and Articles 37 to 43 from being applicable with respect to the auctions of allowances in the form of two-day spot or five-day futures that are not a financial instrument within the meaning of Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/6/EC conducted by an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(2) or 30(2) where the Member State where the auction platform is established has implemented Article 43 of this Regulation or where such implementation is not necessary for the application of Article 43 of this Regulation.\u2019;\n(21)\nArticle 29(e) is deleted.\n(22)\nArticle 30 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraphs 1 to 5 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Any Member State not participating in the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2) may appoint its own auction platform for the auctioning of its share of the volume of allowances covered by Chapters II and III of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned as provided for in Article 31(1) of this Regulation.\n2. Any Member State not participating in the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2) may appoint its own auction platform for the auctioning of its share of the volume of allowances covered by Chapters II and III of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned as provided for in Article 31(2) of this Regulation.\n3. Member States not participating in the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2) may appoint the same auction platform or separate auction platforms for the auctioning pursuant to Article 31(1) and (2) respectively.\n4. Any Member State not participating in the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2), shall inform the Commission of its decision not to participate in the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2) but to appoint its own auction platform pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article within 3 months of the entry into force of this Regulation.\n5. Any Member State not participating in the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2) shall select its own auction platform appointed pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article on the basis of a selection procedure compliant with Union and national procurement law where a public procurement process is required by either Union or national law, respectively. The selection procedure shall be subject to all applicable remedies and enforcement procedures under Union and national law.\nAny period of appointment of the auction platform referred to in paragraph 1 and 2 shall be no longer than 3 years renewable for no more than a further 2 years. However, the term of appointment of the auction platform referred to in paragraph 2 shall expire either 3 months from the listing of the auction platform referred to in paragraph 1 pursuant to paragraph 7, 4 months from denial of that listing, or 6 months from the start of the auctions on the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) in case the Member State has not notified pursuant to Article 30(6) an auction platform referred to in Article 30(1) by the date of the start of the auctions on the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1), whichever is the earliest.\nThe appointment of the auction platforms referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be subject to listing the auction platform concerned in Annex III pursuant to paragraph 7. It shall not be implemented before the entry into force of the listing of the auction platform concerned in Annex III as provided for in paragraph 7.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe first subparagraph of paragraph six is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. Each Member State not participating in the joint action as provided for in Article 26(1) and (2) but opting to appoint its own auction platform pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall provide the Commission with a complete notification containing all of the following:\n(a)\nthe identity of the auction platform it proposes to appoint;\n(b)\nthe detailed operative rules that would govern the auction process to be conducted by the auction platform(s) it proposes to appoint, including the contractual provisions concerning the appointment of the auction platform concerned including the any clearing system(s) and settlement system(s) connected to the proposed auction platform stipulating the terms and conditions governing the structure and level of fees, collateral management, payment and delivery;\n(c)\nthe proposed bidding windows, individual volumes, auction dates indicating the occurrence of relevant public holidays, as well as the auctioned product, payment and delivery dates of the allowances to be auctioned in individual auctions in a given calendar year and any other information necessary for the Commission to assess whether the proposed auction calendar is compatible with the auction calendar of the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) as well as other auction calendars proposed by other Member States not participating in the joint action provided for in Article 26 but opting to appoint their own auction platforms;\n(d)\nthe detailed rules and conditions on surveying and supervising the auctions to which its proposed auction platform shall be subject pursuant to Article 35(4), (5) and (6) as well as the detailed rules protecting against money laundering, terrorist financing, criminal activity or market abuse, including any remedial measures or sanctions;\n(e)\nthe detailed measures put in place to comply with Article 22(4) and Article 34 regarding the appointment of the auctioneer.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe second subparagraph of paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In the absence of any listing provided for in the first subparagraph, a Member State not participating in the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2) but opting to appoint its own auction platform pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall use the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) to auction its share of allowances that would have otherwise been auctioned on the auction platform to be appointed pursuant to paragraphs 1 or 2 of this Article in the period until the expiry of 3 months after the entry into force of the listing provided for in the first subparagraph.\nWithout prejudice to paragraph 8, a Member State not participating in the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2) but opting to appoint its own auction platform pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article may nevertheless participate in the joint action for the sole purpose of being able to make use of the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) and (2) as provided in the second subparagraph. Such participation shall take place in accordance with the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 26(6) and subject to the terms and conditions of the joint procurement agreement.\u2019;\n(d)\nthe first subparagraph of paragraph 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u20188. Any Member State not participating in the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2) but opting to appoint its own auction platform pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article may join the joint action provided for in Article 26, pursuant to Article 26(6).\u2019;\n(23)\nArticle 32 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe first paragraph shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The volume of allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC auctioned in individual auctions conducted by an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 30(1) or (2) of this Regulation shall be no greater than 20 million allowances and no less than 3,5 million allowances; save where the total volume of allowances, covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC, to be auctioned by the appointing Member State is less than 3,5 million in a given calendar year, in which case the allowances shall be auctioned in a single auction per calendar year. However, the volume of allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC auctioned in an individual auction conducted by those auction platforms in 2012 shall be no greater than 6,5 million allowances and no less than 1 million allowances.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following sentences are added at the end of the third paragraph:\n\u2018These requirements shall be considered to be met where each auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 30(1) or (2) meets these requirements individually. With respect to the calendar year 2012, the foregoing shall apply as from 1 month after the start of the auctions conducted by any of these auction platforms.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe first subparagraph of paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 30(1) or (2) of this Regulation shall determine and publish the bidding windows, individual volumes, auction dates as well as the auctioned product, payment and delivery dates of the allowances, covered by Chapters II and III of Directive 2003/87/EC, to be auctioned in individual auctions each year, by 31 March of the previous year or as soon as practicable thereafter. The auction platforms concerned shall make their determination and publication only after the determination and publication pursuant to Articles 11(1) and 13(1) of this Regulation by the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) of this Regulation, unless such an auction platform has not yet been appointed. The auction platforms concerned shall make their determination and publication only after having consulted the Commission and obtained its opinion thereon. The auction platforms concerned shall take the utmost account of the Commission\u2019s opinion.\u2019;\n(d)\nthe following third subparagraph is added to the fourth paragraph:\n\u2018The auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 30(1) or (2) shall determine and publish as provided for in the first subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with the volumes attributed to the Member State appointing the auction platform concerned as set out in Annex I and the Commission\u2019s latest determination and publication of the estimated number of allowances to be auctioned referred to in Article 10(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, taking into account to the extent possible any transitional free allocations deducted or to be deducted from the quantity of allowances that a given Member State would otherwise auction pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC as provided for in Article 10c(2) of that Directive.\u2019;\n(24)\nArticle 35 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Auctions shall only be conducted on an auction platform authorised as a regulated market.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe first and second subparagraphs of paragraph 4 are replaced by the following:\n\u20184. An auction platform may only be appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) where the Member State where the candidate regulated market and its market operator are established has ensured that the national measures transposing Title III of Directive 2004/39/EC apply to the auctioning of two-day spot or five-day futures to the extent relevant.\nAn auction platform shall only be appointed pursuant to Articles 26(1) and 30(1) after the Member State, where the candidate regulated market and its market operator are established, has ensured that the competent authorities of that Member State are able to authorise and supervise them in accordance with the national measures transposing Title IV of Directive 2004/39/EC to the extent relevant.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. The competent national authorities of the Member State referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 4 of this Article designated under Article 48(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC shall decide on the authorisation of a regulated market appointed, or to be appointed, pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) of this Regulation, provided that the regulated market and its market operator comply with the provisions of Title III of Directive 2004/39/EC, as transposed into the national legal order of the Member State of their establishment pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article. The decision on authorisation shall be taken in accordance with Title IV of Directive 2004/39/EC as transposed into the national legal order of the Member State of their establishment pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article.\u2019;\n(25)\nthe following sentence is added to Article 36(1):\n\u2018The foregoing shall be without prejudice to the application of Articles 38 to 40 of this Regulation to the use of inside information to withdraw a bid.\u2019;\n(26)\nArticle 46(1) and (2) is deleted and replaced by the following:\n\u2018Allowances auctioned by any auction platform shall be transferred by the Union registry prior to the opening of a bidding window, into a nominated holding account, to be held in escrow by the clearing system or settlement system acting as custodian, until delivery of the allowances to successful bidders or their successors in title, pursuant to the results of the auction, as provided for in the applicable Commission regulation adopted under Article 19(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\u2019;\n(27)\nArticle 50(2) is deleted and the reference to \u2018paragraphs 1 or 2\u2019 in paragraph 3 is replaced by a reference to \u2018paragraph 1\u2019;\n(28)\nArticle 52 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Without prejudice to paragraph 2, the costs of the services provided for in Articles 27(1) and 28(1) and Article 31 shall be paid for through fees paid by the bidders, except that any cost of the arrangements between the auctioneer and the auction platform referred to in Article 22(2) and (3) allowing the auctioneer to auction allowances on behalf of the appointing Member State, but excluding the costs of any clearing or settlement system connected to the auction platform concerned, shall be borne by the auctioning Member State.\nThe costs referred to in the first subparagraph shall be deducted from the auction proceeds payable to the auctioneers, pursuant to Article 44(2) and (3).\u2019;\n(b)\nthe first, second and third subparagraphs of paragraph 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Without prejudice to the third subparagraph, the terms and conditions of the joint procurement agreement, referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 26(6) or the contract appointing an auction platform pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) may derogate from paragraph 1 of this Article by requiring Member States that have notified the Commission pursuant to Article 30(4) of their decision not to participate in the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2), but subsequently make use of the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2), may be required to pay to the auction platform concerned, including the clearing system(s) or settlement system(s) connected to it, the costs of the services provided for in Articles 27(1) and 28(1) related to the share of allowances which that Member State auctions from the date when that Member State commences auctioning through the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) until the termination or expiry of the term of appointment of that auction platform.\nThe foregoing shall also apply to Member States that have not joined the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2) within 6 months of the entry into force of the joint procurement agreement referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 26(6).\nThe first subparagraph shall not apply where a Member State joins the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) or (2) following the expiry of the appointment period referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 30(5), or where it uses the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) to auction its share of allowances in the absence of a listing, pursuant to Article 30(7), of an auction platform that has been notified pursuant to Article 30(6).\u2019;\n(c)\nthe first subparagraph of paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The share of the costs of the auction monitor that varies according to the number of auctions, as specified in the contract appointing the auction monitor, shall be evenly distributed over the number of auctions. All other costs of the auction monitor, as specified in the contract appointing the auction monitor, save costs attributable to services procured by the Commission and costs relating to any report made pursuant to Article 25(4), shall be evenly distributed over the number of auction platforms, unless otherwise specified in the contract appointing the auction monitor.\u2019;\n(29)\nArticle 54 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 54\nMonitoring the relationship with bidders\n1. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) shall monitor the relationship with bidders admitted to bid in its auctions throughout its subsistence, by doing the following:\n(a)\nscrutinising bids made throughout the course of that relationship to ensure that the bidding behaviour of bidders is consistent with the auction platform\u2019s knowledge of the customer, its business and risk profile, including, where necessary, the source of funds;\n(b)\nmaintaining effective arrangements and procedures for the regular monitoring of the compliance by persons admitted to bid pursuant to Article 19(1), (2) and (3) with its market conduct rules;\n(c)\nmonitoring transactions undertaken by persons admitted to bid pursuant to Articles 19(1), (2) and (3) and 20(6) using its systems in order to identify breaches of the rules referred to in point (b) of this subparagraph, unfair or disorderly auctioning conditions or conduct that may invoke market abuse.\nWhere scrutinising bids in accordance with point (a) of the first subparagraph, the auction platform concerned shall pay particular attention to any activity which it regards as particularly likely, by its nature, to be related to money laundering, terrorist financing or criminal activity.\n2. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) shall ensure that the documents, data or information it holds on a bidder are kept up-to-date. For this purpose, such an auction platform may:\n(a)\nrequest any information of the bidder, pursuant to Article 19(2) and (3) and Article 20(5), (6) and (7), for the purposes of monitoring the relationship with that bidder following its admission to bid in the auctions, throughout the subsistence of that relationship and for a period of 5 years following its termination;\n(b)\nrequire any person admitted to bid to re-submit an application for admission to bid at regular intervals;\n(c)\nrequire any person admitted to bid to promptly notify the auction platform concerned of any changes to the information submitted to it pursuant to Article 19(2) and (3) and Article 20(5), (6) and (7).\n3. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) shall keep records of:\n(a)\nthe application for admission to bid submitted by an applicant, pursuant to Article 19(2) and (3), including any amendments thereto;\n(b)\nthe checks carried out in:\n(i)\nprocessing the application for admission to bid submitted, pursuant to Articles 19, 20 and 21;\n(ii)\nscrutinising and monitoring the relationship, pursuant to points (a) and (c) of paragraph 1, following an applicant\u2019s admission to bid;\n(c)\nall information relating to a given bid submitted by a given bidder in an auction, including any withdrawal or modification of such bids, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) and Article 6(4);\n(d)\nall information relating to the conduct of each auction in which a bidder has submitted a bid.\n4. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) shall keep the records referred to in paragraph 3 for as long as a bidder is admitted to bid in its auctions and for at least 5 years following the termination of the relationship with that bidder.\u2019;\n(30)\nArticle 55(1), (2) and (4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The competent national authorities referred to in Article 37(1) of Directive 2005/60/EC shall monitor and take the necessary measures to ensure compliance of an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) with the customer due diligence requirements of Article 19 and Article 20(6) of this Regulation, the monitoring and record keeping requirements of Article 54 of this Regulation and the notification requirements of the paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article.\nThe competent national authorities referred to in the first subparagraph shall have the powers provided for in the national measures transposing Article 37(2) and (3) of Directive 2005/60/EC.\nAn auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) may be held liable for infringements of Article 19, Article 20(6) and (7), Article 21(1) and (2), and Article 54 of this Regulation and paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article. The national measures transposing Article 39 of Directive 2005/60/EC shall apply in this regard.\n2. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1), its directors and employees, shall cooperate fully with the FIU referred to in Article 21 of Directive 2005/60/EC by promptly:\n(a)\ninforming the FIU, on their own initiative, where they know, suspect or have reasonable grounds to suspect that money laundering, terrorist financing or criminal activity is being or has been committed or attempted in the auctions;\n(b)\nproviding the FIU, at its request, with all necessary information, in accordance with the procedures established by the applicable legislation.\u2019\n\u20184. The Member State in whose territory an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) is situated shall ensure that the national measures transposing Articles 26 to 29, 32, Article 34(1) and Article 35 of Directive 2005/60/EC apply to the auction platform concerned.\u2019;\n(31)\nArticle 56(1) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20181. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1), shall notify the competent national authorities designated under Article 43(2) of Directive 2004/39/EC, responsible for supervising the auction platform concerned or for investigating and prosecuting market abuse, occurring on or through the systems of the auction platform concerned, of suspicion of market abuse by any person admitted to bid in the auctions or by any person on whose behalf the person admitted to bid in the auctions is acting.\nNational measures transposing Article 25(2) of Directive 2005/60/EC shall apply.\u2019;\n(32)\nArticle 58 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 58\nMarket conduct rules or any other contractual arrangements\nArticles 53 to 57 shall be without prejudice to any other action that an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) is entitled to take under its market conduct rules or any other contractual arrangements in place, directly or indirectly, with any bidders admitted to bid in the auctions, provided that such action does not conflict with or undermine the provisions of Articles 53 to 57.\u2019;\n(33)\nArticle 60(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. A list of the names, addresses, telephone and facsimile numbers, electronic mail addresses and websites of all persons admitted to bid on behalf of others in auctions conducted by any auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) shall be published on the website maintained by the auction platform concerned.\u2019;\n(34)\nthe phrase \u2018is made public\u2019 in Article 62(3)(e) is replaced by \u2018is disclosed or made public\u2019;\n(35)\nArticle 64 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 64\nRight of appeal\n1. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) shall ensure that it has in place an extra-judicial mechanism to deal with complaints from applicants for admission to bid, bidders admitted to bid, or whose admission to bid has been refused, revoked or suspended.\n2. Member States where a regulated market appointed as an auction platform pursuant to Article 26(1) or 30(1) or its market operator are supervised, shall ensure that any decisions made by the extra-judicial mechanism dealing with complaints referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article are properly reasoned and are subject to the right to apply to the courts referred to in Article 52(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC. That right shall be without prejudice to any rights of appealing directly to the courts or competent administrative bodies provided for in the national measures transposing Article 52(2) of Directive 2004/39/EC.\u2019;\n(36)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 is replaced as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 November 2011.", "references": ["70", "10", "49", "75", "30", "95", "71", "55", "14", "9", "7", "44", "4", "47", "53", "65", "46", "28", "22", "56", "69", "1", "72", "74", "64", "0", "59", "39", "40", "50", "No Label", "20", "25", "58", "60", "96"], "gold": ["20", "25", "58", "60", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1309/2011\nof 14 December 2011\nfixing allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available quantities of out-of-quota isoglucose to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2011/2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1240/2011 of 30 November 2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing 2011/2012 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe quantities covered by certificate applications for out-of-quota isoglucose submitted from 4 December 2011 to 7 December 2011 and notified to the Commission exceed the limit set in Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1240/2011.\n(2)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 5 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1240/2011 it is necessary to fix an allocation coefficient, which the Member States shall apply to the quantities covered by each notified certificate application, to reject the applications which have not yet been notified and to close the periods for submitting the applications.\n(3)\nIn order to act before the issuing of certificates applied for, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which certificates applications for out-of-quota isoglucose have been submitted under Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1240/2011 from 4 December 2011 to 7 December 2011 and notified to the Commission shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 99,290780 %.\nApplications for certificates submitted from 8 December 2011 to 15 December 2011 are hereby rejected.\nThe periods for submitting applications for certificates are closed as from 15 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2011.", "references": ["77", "20", "80", "82", "67", "19", "57", "88", "12", "46", "1", "69", "30", "44", "38", "26", "66", "21", "50", "91", "40", "63", "36", "24", "49", "96", "84", "13", "42", "83", "No Label", "25", "61", "62", "71", "75"], "gold": ["25", "61", "62", "71", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 4 May 2010\nconcerning Bulgaria\u2019s application for protective measures with regard to a derogation from obligations under Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants\n(notified under document C(2010) 2688)\n(Only the Bulgarian text is authentic)\n(2010/264/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the treaties on which the European Union is founded (1), and in particular Article 36 thereof,\nHaving regard to the application by Bulgaria,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (2) aims to limit the emissions into air of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and dust from combustion plants with a rated thermal input of 50 megawatts (MW) or more. To this end, the Directive sets out emission limit values for these plants as well as monitoring and reporting obligations. For existing plants the emission limit values apply since 1 January 2008.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 4(4) of Directive 2001/80/EC, certain existing plants can \u2018opt out\u2019. The precondition for such \u2018opt out\u2019 is that the operator of the plant had to notify the competent authorities that the plant would be operated not more than 20 000 hours between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2015. For those \u2018opted out\u2019 plants, the emission limit values of the Directive do not apply.\n(3)\nDuring the accession negotiations Bulgaria obtained derogations from the application of the emission limit values under Directive 2001/80/EC for 4 combustion plants (TPP \u2018Varna\u2019, TPP \u2018Bobov dol\u2019, TPP \u2018Ruse East\u2019 and TPP \u2018Lukoil Neftochim\u2019).\n(4)\nBulgaria, by letter of 31 December 2009, applied to the Commission for authorisation to invoke Article 36 of the Act of Accession for protective measures, until 31 December 2014, in respect of five combustion plants (TPP \u2018Bobov dol\u2019, Brikel SJSC, Maritza 3 SJSC, TPP \u2018Republika\u2019 and TPP \u2018Sliven\u2019).\n(5)\nTPP \u2018Bobov dol\u2019 has a derogation under the Accession Treaty for two units until 31 December 2011 and 31 December 2014, respectively; the third unit should have complied with the requirements of Directive 2001/80/EC from 1 January 2008 on.\n(6)\nBrikel SJSC and Maritza 3 SJSC are opted out pursuant to Article 4(4) of Directive 2001/80/EC, therefore they cannot operate for more than 20 000 hours between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2015.\n(7)\nThe Bulgarian authorities base their application upon the economic difficulties, which caused substantial delays in the investments required to upgrade or replace the plants concerned. Therefore, the plants would not be able to comply with the requirements of Directive 2001/80/EC in the foreseen time frame (under Directive 2001/80/EC or the Accession Treaty) and their operation would have to be ended. According to the application of Bulgaria, closure of the plants would put at risk the electricity and heat supply for the region of South-eastern and South-western Bulgaria. It would also lead to the closure of adjacent mines, whose operation depends on the coal demand of the combustion plants.\n(8)\nArticle 36 of the Act of Accession concerns only serious difficulties that arise as a result of application of internal market rules by the new Member State either for it or for the previous Members. Its aim is to temporarily lighten effects of the rules on the country\u2019s economy but it does not allow derogations from the EU\u2019s acquis in other policy areas such as environmental legislation.\n(9)\nThe alleged difficulties of Bulgaria are not a consequence of the EU\u2019s internal market rules but relate to compliance with EU environmental legislation. They are not short-term difficulties having arisen during the 3 years after Bulgaria\u2019s accession to the EU. They existed already at the time of drafting the Act of Accession, and the Annex VI embodying transitional measures applicable to Bulgaria, including those concerning Directive 2001/80/EC.\n(10)\nBulgaria\u2019s application falls therefore out of the scope of Article 36 of the Act of Accession and should be rejected as inadmissible,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe application for protective measures made by Bulgaria pursuant to Article 36 of the Act of Accession, aimed at obtaining a derogation from obligations under Directive 2001/80/EC, is rejected.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2010.", "references": ["93", "67", "65", "88", "23", "70", "83", "57", "78", "30", "28", "38", "72", "42", "95", "77", "51", "94", "18", "84", "59", "87", "76", "56", "29", "3", "11", "54", "55", "98", "No Label", "8", "58", "60", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "58", "60", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 943/2010\nof 20 October 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 937/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["5", "7", "73", "69", "45", "80", "3", "33", "14", "11", "26", "19", "58", "81", "97", "38", "68", "64", "6", "91", "77", "79", "96", "62", "92", "87", "9", "98", "51", "93", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 64/2011\nof 26 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 January 2011.", "references": ["21", "56", "53", "17", "90", "98", "3", "93", "23", "48", "27", "65", "88", "60", "40", "9", "7", "86", "89", "24", "75", "91", "66", "34", "41", "79", "58", "19", "49", "87", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 334/2011\nof 7 April 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (1) and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe restrictions on liquids, aerosols and gels carried by passengers arriving on flights from third countries and transferring at Union airports create certain operational difficulties at those airports and cause inconvenience to the passengers concerned.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 358/2010 of 23 April 2010 amending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 of 4 March 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (2) provides for exemptions to permit the carriage by passengers of liquids, aerosols and gels obtained at certain airports situated in third countries. Those exemptions expire on 29 April 2011.\n(3)\nThose exemptions have facilitated operations and convenience as regards transfer passengers carrying liquids, aerosols and gels arriving on flights from third countries and transferring at Union airports, whilst maintaining a high level of aviation security. Provided that the conditions under which those exemptions were granted continue to be met at those airports in third countries, those benefits should be retained.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 of 4 March 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (3) should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Civil Aviation Security set up by Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 April 2011.", "references": ["3", "64", "46", "54", "43", "26", "7", "39", "38", "60", "11", "85", "69", "78", "58", "74", "94", "89", "23", "9", "65", "47", "86", "80", "70", "83", "16", "28", "52", "71", "No Label", "53", "57", "76"], "gold": ["53", "57", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 22 June 2012\nabrogating Decision 2010/422/EU on the existence of an excessive deficit in Bulgaria\n(2012/370/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 126(12) thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 13 July 2010, by Decision 2010/422/EU (1), following a proposal from the Commission in accordance with Article 126(6) of the Treaty, the Council decided that an excessive deficit existed in Bulgaria. The Council noted that the general government deficit reached 3,9 % of GDP in 2009, above the 3 % of GDP Treaty reference value, while the general government gross debt was 14,8 % of GDP, well below the 60 % of GDP Treaty reference value (2).\n(2)\nOn 13 July 2010, in accordance with Article 126(7) of the Treaty and Article 3(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (3), the Council, based on a recommendation from the Commission, addressed a recommendation to Bulgaria with a view to bringing the excessive deficit situation to an end by 2011 at the latest. The recommendation was made public.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaties, the Commission provides the data for the implementation of the procedure. As part of the application of this Protocol, Member States are to notify data on government deficits and debt and other associated variables twice a year, namely before 1 April and before 1 October, in accordance with Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 of 25 May 2009 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (4).\n(4)\nWhen considering whether a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit should be abrogated, the Council should take a decision on the basis of notified data. Moreover, a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit should be abrogated only if the Commission forecasts indicate that the deficit will not exceed the 3 % of GDP threshold over the forecast horizon (5).\n(5)\nBased on data provided by the Commission (Eurostat) in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 following the notification by Bulgaria before 1 April 2012 and on the Commission services 2012 spring forecast, the following conclusions are justified:\n-\nThe budgetary targets have been consistently overachieved in the period following the year of the excessive deficit. The general government deficit was reduced to 3,1 % of GDP in 2010 and decreased further to 2,1 % of GDP in 2011, against initially set targets of 3,8 % and 2,5 % respectively. The correction of the deficit has been driven mainly by strict control of expenditure growth, including through freezing the government sector wage bill and pensions, which led the expenditure-to-GDP ratio to fall by 5,5 percentage points between 2009 and 2011. The 2012 Convergence Programme projects the deficit to continue falling to 1,6 % of GDP in 2012 and 1,3 % of GDP in 2013. In the Commission services 2012 spring forecast the general government deficit is projected to improve to 1,9 % of GDP in 2012 and to 1,7 % of GDP in 2013, supported by a continued freeze in the government sector wage bill, as well as a cyclical improvement in revenues.\n-\nThe Commission services 2012 spring forecast projects a cyclically adjusted balance net of one-off and temporary measures of 0,7 % in 2012 and of 0,8 % of GDP in 2013, under a no-policy-change assumption. Meanwhile, in 2012 and 2013, the growth rate of government expenditure net of discretionary revenue measures is forecast to remain below the benchmark reference medium-term rate of potential GDP growth, as specified in Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (6).\n-\nThe Commission services 2012 spring forecast projects the general government gross debt to increase moderately from 16,3 % of GDP in 2011 to 18,5 % of GDP in 2013. This debt forecast does not include possible external debt issuance in 2012 to pre-fund the repayment of euro-denominated bonds of around 2 % of GDP in January 2013. Similarly, the latest convergence programme projects the debt ratio to increase to 18,4 % by 2013.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 126(12) of the Treaty, a Council Decision on the existence of an excessive deficit is to be abrogated when the excessive deficit in the Member State concerned has, in the view of the Council, been corrected.\n(7)\nIn the view of the Council, the excessive deficit in Bulgaria has been corrected and Decision 2010/422/EU should therefore be abrogated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFrom an overall assessment it follows that the excessive deficit situation in Bulgaria has been corrected.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2010/422/EU is hereby abrogated.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria.\nDone at Luxembourg, 22 June 2012.", "references": ["23", "44", "5", "88", "37", "87", "68", "69", "25", "34", "80", "63", "89", "20", "29", "99", "24", "46", "86", "19", "93", "55", "98", "12", "10", "0", "83", "14", "17", "21", "No Label", "16", "28", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["16", "28", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 262/2011\nof 16 March 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 March 2011.", "references": ["47", "63", "88", "1", "8", "23", "34", "33", "90", "60", "24", "99", "84", "45", "21", "20", "57", "19", "86", "6", "28", "89", "40", "26", "70", "65", "55", "62", "54", "83", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 828/2011\nof 17 August 2011\nsuspending the introduction into the Union of specimens of certain species of wild fauna and flora\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1), and in particular Article 19(1) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Scientific Review Group,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 provides that the Commission may establish restrictions to the introduction of certain species into the Union in accordance with the conditions laid down in points (a) to (d) thereof. Furthermore, implementing measures for such restrictions have been laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 of 4 May 2006 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (2).\n(2)\nA list of species for which the introduction into the Union is suspended was established in Commission Regulation (EU) No 997/2010 of 5 November 2010 suspending the introduction into the Union of specimens of certain species of wild fauna and flora (3).\n(3)\nOn the basis of recent information, the Scientific Review Group has concluded that the conservation status of Sagittarius serpentarius, listed in Annex B to Regulation (EC) No 338/97, will be seriously jeopardised if its introduction into the Union from Tanzania is not suspended. The introduction of Sagittarius serpentarius from Tanzania should therefore be suspended.\n(4)\nThe Scientific Review Group has also concluded that, on the basis of the most recent available information, the suspension of the introduction into the Union of the following species should no longer be required:\n-\nLynx lynx (Hunting trophies) from Azerbaijan;\n-\nHexaprotodon liberiensis from Guinea;\n-\nMoschus anhuiensis, Moschus berezovskii, Moschus chrysogaster, Moschus fuscus and Moschus moschiferus from China;\n-\nUromastyx aegyptia from Egypt;\n-\nChamaeleo ellioti from Burundi;\n-\nChamaeleo pfefferi from Cameroon;\n-\nVaranus exanthematicus (ranched specimens lesser than or equal to 35 cm total length), Varanus niloticus (ranched specimens lesser than or equal to 35 cm total length) and Kinixys belliana (ranched specimens lesser than or equal to 5 cm straight carapace length) from Benin;\n-\nVaranus niloticus from Burundi and Mozambique;\n-\nVaranus salvator from China, India and Singapore;\n-\nPython reticulatus from India and Singapore;\n-\nAldabrachelys gigantea from the Seychelles;\n-\nGeochelone elegans from Pakistan;\n-\nGeochelone platynota from Myanmar;\n-\nIndotestudo elongata from Bangladesh, China and India.\n(5)\nThe countries of origin of the species which are subject to new restrictions to introduction into the Union pursuant to this Regulation have all been consulted.\n(6)\nThe species names for Pachypodium sofiense and Euphorbia suzannae-marnierae have been adapted to latest official CITES references. Technical errors under the phylum MOLLUSCA have been corrected as well.\n(7)\nThe list of species for which the introduction into the Union is suspended should therefore be amended and Regulation (EU) No 997/2010 should be, for reasons of clarity, replaced.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject to the provisions of Article 71 of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, the introduction into the Union of specimens of the species of wild fauna and flora listed in the Annex to this Regulation is suspended.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 997/2010 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 August 2011.", "references": ["94", "95", "28", "0", "64", "20", "85", "29", "5", "55", "50", "21", "70", "79", "56", "37", "2", "26", "75", "47", "22", "24", "12", "90", "43", "30", "96", "68", "81", "61", "No Label", "23", "25", "58", "59"], "gold": ["23", "25", "58", "59"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/29/EU\nof 27 April 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include flonicamid (IKI-220) as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC France received on 23 December 2003 an application from ISK Biosciences Europe SA for the inclusion of the active substance flonicamid (IKI-220) in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2004/686/EC (2) confirmed that the dossier was \u2018complete\u2019 in the sense that it could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annexes II and III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(2)\nFor that active substance, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicant. The designated rapporteur Member State submitted a draft assessment report on 24 May 2005.\n(3)\nThe assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the EFSA and presented to the Commission in the format of the EFSA Scientific Report for flonicamid on 18 December 2009 (3). This report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and was finalised on 12 March 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for flonicamid.\n(4)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing flonicamid may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) and Article 5(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include flonicamid in Annex I to that Directive, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance may be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(5)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing provisional authorisations of plant protection products containing flonicamid to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should transform existing provisional authorisations into full authorisations, amend them or withdraw them in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(6)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 28 February 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 March 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing flonicamid as active substance by 28 February 2011. By that date, they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to flonicamid are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning the active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(2) of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing flonicamid as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, by 31 August 2010 at the latest Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning flonicamid. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing flonicamid as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 29 February 2012 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing flonicamid as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 29 February 2012 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 September 2010.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2010.", "references": ["13", "98", "78", "32", "57", "30", "51", "56", "82", "24", "19", "89", "96", "26", "93", "85", "43", "79", "27", "97", "31", "11", "54", "40", "47", "75", "5", "35", "73", "67", "No Label", "2", "25", "41", "65", "76"], "gold": ["2", "25", "41", "65", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 256/2011\nof 15 March 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 March 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 March 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 March 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 March 2011.", "references": ["46", "72", "44", "59", "57", "74", "86", "93", "82", "85", "91", "70", "88", "15", "95", "83", "16", "65", "11", "66", "63", "56", "8", "5", "67", "53", "26", "78", "61", "71", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 973/2011\nof 29 September 2011\non the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the fifth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2010/11 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011, the Commission is to decide, in the light of the tenders received in response to a partial invitation to tender, either to fix a minimum customs duty or not to fix a minimum customs duty per eight digit CN code.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the fifth partial invitation to tender, a minimum customs duty should be fixed for certain eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701 and no minimum customs duty should be fixed for the other eight digit codes for sugar falling within that CN code.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the fifth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 28 September 2011, a minimum customs duty has been fixed, or has not been fixed, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation for the eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 September 2011.", "references": ["54", "78", "66", "69", "7", "18", "44", "2", "17", "50", "29", "80", "38", "23", "91", "5", "45", "1", "96", "87", "73", "68", "6", "65", "60", "13", "41", "56", "33", "62", "No Label", "10", "20", "21", "22", "71"], "gold": ["10", "20", "21", "22", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 September 2011\non State aid granted by Germany to HSH Nordbank AG SA.29338 (C 29/09 (ex N 264/09))\n(notified under document C(2011) 6483)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/477/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on Member States and other interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions (1),\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 30 April 2009 Germany notified the Commission of state aid measures for HSH Nordbank AG (hereinafter \u2018HSH\u2019) in the form of a guarantee comprising a EUR 10 billion second-loss tranche (hereinafter \u2018the risk shield\u2019) and a EUR 3 billion capital injection (hereinafter \u2018the recapitalisation\u2019). The measures had been provided indirectly by the public-sector owners of HSH, namely the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg and the Land of Schleswig-Holstein (hereinafter referred to separately as \u2018Hamburg\u2019 and \u2018Schleswig-Holstein\u2019 respectively, or together as \u2018the public-sector owners\u2019).\n(2)\nBy Decision of 29 May 2009 in case N 264/09 (2) (hereinafter \u2018the Rescue Decision\u2019), the Commission authorised the recapitalisation and the risk shield for HSH for a period of six months, as rescue measures compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (3). In the Decision the Commission required the German authorities to submit a restructuring plan within three months.\n(3)\nOn 1 September 2009 Germany notified a restructuring plan to the Commission.\n(4)\nOn 22 October 2009 the Commission adopted a Decision initiating the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU with regard to the risk shield and the valuation of HSH in the context of the recapitalisation (hereinafter the \u2018Decision initiating the procedure\u2019) (4).\n(5)\nOn 21 November 2009 the Decision initiating the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5) and interested parties were requested to submit their comments within two weeks from the publication date.\n(6)\nOn 30 November and 11 December 2009 the Commission received comments from Sparkassen- und Giroverband f\u00fcr Schleswig-Holstein and from Schleswig-Holsteinische Sparkassen-Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs- und Beteiligungs GmbH & Co. KG (hereinafter referred to separately as \u2018SGVSH\u2019 and \u2018SVB\u2019 respectively, or together as \u2018the savings bank associations\u2019).\n(7)\nOn 3 December 2009 a group of investors advised by J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC (hereinafter \u2018Flowers\u2019) requested an extension of the deadline to submit comments, which was granted by the Commission on 7 December 2009. The Commission received their comments on 17 December 2009.\n(8)\nOn 1 December 2009 Germany requested an extension of the deadline to submit comments, which was granted by the Commission on 7 December 2009. On 7 December 2009, HSH also requested an extension of the deadline to submit comments, which was granted by the Commission on 17 December 2009. On 17 December 2009, Germany forwarded joint comments from the public-sector owners and HSH on the Decision initiating the procedure.\n(9)\nOn 2 December 2009 a meeting took place between Flowers, the savings bank associations, the German authorities and the Commission.\n(10)\nOn 21 December 2009 the Commission sent Germany the non-confidential versions of the comments submitted by interested parties and requested Germany to comment within one month.\n(11)\nOn 18 January 2010 Germany forwarded the response made by the public-sector owners to the comments by Flowers and the savings bank associations.\n(12)\nAs regards the risk shield, and in particular the valuation of the portfolio of assets whose risk was covered by the risk shield (\u2018the shielded portfolio\u2019), several meetings, teleconferences and other information exchanges between the German authorities and the Commission took place between September 2009 and February 2010. The German authorities submitted additional information, inter alia, on 6, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 29 October, 11, 12, 16 and 27 November and 17 December 2009, 26 and 27 January and 19 February 2010.\n(13)\nThe restructuring plan, risk shield and recapitalisation, and the valuation of the shielded portfolio were discussed by the German authorities and the Commission departments in a series of meetings, teleconferences and other information exchanges in the period between October 2009 and June 2011, including on 5, 21 and 27 October, 4, 12, 13, 18, 27 and 30 November, 7, 9, 14 and 15 December 2009, 14 and 19 January, 21 April, 5, 12, 20, 26, 28 and 31 May, 15 June, 13, 16, 22 and 23 July, 30 September, 22 November, 9 and 22 December 2010, 23 and 28 February, 18 March, 1 and 8 April, 25 May and 7, 16 and 29 June 2011. The final version of the restructuring plan was submitted on 11 July 2011.\n(14)\nOn 5 September 2011 Germany submitted the list of commitments that is attached in Annex I to this Decision.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE BENEFICIARY\n(15)\nThe HSH group is the fifth-largest German Landesbank, with head offices in Hamburg and Kiel. It is a public limited company (Aktiengesellschaft), established on 2 June 2003 as the result of the merger between Hamburgische Landesbank and Landesbank Schleswig-Holstein. In October 2006, Flowers (6) acquired 24,1 % of HSH shares (26,6 % of voting rights) from WestLB, with a view to an initial public offering (IPO) of HSH in 2008.\n(16)\nOn 31 December 2008 HSH had a balance sheet total of EUR 208 billion and risk-weighted assets (\u2018RWA\u2019) of EUR 112 billion.\n(17)\nAfter the implementation of the measures approved by the Commission in the Rescue Decision on 29 May 2009, the ownership structure of HSH was as follows: Hamburg 10,89 %; Schleswig-Holstein 10,42 %; HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R, a public-law institution established and controlled in equal shares by Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein, 64,18 %; SGVSH 4,73 %; SVB 0,58 %; and Flowers 9,19 % (7).\n(18)\nHSH is a commercial bank, its core region is northern Germany and its main focus is on merchant and private banking. The merchant banking activities are concentrated on shipping, corporate banking, transportation, real estate and renewable energy projects. HSH is the world\u2019s largest provider of ship finance and has a significant market share in aviation financing (part of its transportation business unit). As at December 2008 HSH was present in 21 major financial centres in Europe, Asia and America.\n(19)\nHSH is one of the German public banks which until 18 July 2005 benefited from the unlimited State guarantees Anstaltslast and Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung (8).\n(20)\nIn the beginning of the 1990s asset and capital transfers of EUR 523 million took place that favoured HSH\u2019s predecessor institutes, Hamburgische Landesbank and Landesbank Schleswig-Holstein. On 20 October 2004 the Commission decided that those transfers were incompatible state aid and had to be recovered (9). HSH had to repay its public-sector owners a total amount of EUR 756 million, including interest. It did so in two instalments, on 31 December 2004 and 3 January 2005.\n(21)\nIn order to compensate for the capital outflow, the shareholders increased HSH\u2019s capital by EUR 556 million on 20 July 2005 (10). The capital increase was provided from own funds in combination with so-called partial payments. As a result of this mechanism the ownership structure changed only slightly. On 6 September 2005 the Commission decided that the capital increase was in line with the market investor principle, and thus did not constitute state aid (11).\n(22)\nIn mid-July 2008, HSH\u2019s shareholders decided to increase its capital base with a view to financing its growth. The capital measures had a volume of nearly EUR 2 billion, and around EUR 1,26 billion of that figure was fresh funds.\n(23)\nThe first part of the capital measures consisted of a conversion into ordinary shares of all silent participations (stille Beteiligungen) totalling EUR 685 million (12), and preference shares, totalling EUR 57 million, held by the public-sector owners. At the time of the conversion, Flowers signed a cash equity issue in order to avoid a dilution of their shareholdings (13). As a result, HSH received an additional EUR 300 million or thereabouts.\n(24)\nAs a second part of the capital measures the owners made a new convertible silent capital contribution, totalling EUR 962 million. The public and private shareholders participated in the silent partnership in line with the ratio of their shareholdings (public EUR 660 million, private EUR 240 million). An additional EUR 62 million was taken over by the private shareholders. With effect from 31 December 2010, these silent partnerships were converted into ordinary shares.\n(25)\nGermany informed the Commission about the capital measures described in recitals 21 to 23. The Commission considered the investments by the public-sector shareholders to be in conformity with the market economy investor principle, because a private investor participated significantly in the transaction on the same conditions as the public-sector shareholders. On 1 August 2008 the Commission informed Germany that it would not pursue the issue.\n(26)\nIn the period 1999-2009, HSH registered cumulated losses of EUR 1,85 billion and paid cumulated dividends of EUR 354 million to its public-sector owners. In the same period the public-sector owners recapitalised HSH with EUR [4-5] (14) billion of new capital and guaranteed liabilities of up to EUR 166 billion.\nTable 1\nHSH financial track record for public-sector owners 1999-2009 (15)\nBusiness year\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\n2003\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nProfit and Loss (EUR million) (16)\n111\n110\n204\n239\n261\n127\n400\n460\n270\n-3 195\n- 838\nCumulated Profit and loss (EUR million)\n111\n221\n425\n664\n925\n1 052\n1 452\n1 912\n2 182\n-1 013\n-1 851\nDividend payments to public-sector owners (EUR million)\n36\n44\n72\n96\n105\n0\n0\nCumulated dividend payments to public-sector owners (EUR million)\n36\n80\n153\n248\n354\n354\n354\nNew capital injection by owners (EUR million) according to local GAAP\n[300-600]\n0\n0\n[700-1 400]\n3 000\nCumulated capital injection by public-sector owners (EUR million)\n[300-600]\n[300-600]\n[300-600]\n[1 000-2 000]\n[4 000-5 000]\nRisk shield - guarantee (EUR billion)\n10\nGuaranteed liabilities (EUR billion), of which\n162\n166\n152\n144\n161\n88\n78\n75\n73\nGew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung (EUR billion)\n162\n166\n152\n144\n161\n88\n78\n65\n56\nSoFFin guarantees (EUR billion)\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n10\n17\n(27)\nHistorically HSH has been rated in the AA range by all three major rating agencies (17). The long-term rating has reflected the unlimited state guarantees provided by HSH\u2019s public-sector owners. The assumption of future support from the public-sector owners remains a significant factor in HSH\u2019s credit rating, which includes a rating uplift (18) of 7 notches by Fitch. Moody\u2019s assigns in total 7 notches support uplift, of which one notch is for the support provided by the public-sector owners (regional support).\n(28)\nThe C stand-alone rating (for Moody\u2019s \u2018Bank Financial Strength Rating\u2019, or \u2018BFSR\u2019) (19) reflected the rating agencies\u2019 view that HSH possessed adequate financial strength with a limited but valuable business franchise. According to Moody\u2019s BFSR methodology, banks rated at C display either acceptable financial fundamentals within a predictable and stable environment or good financial fundamentals within a less predictable and stable operating environment.\n(29)\nIn July 2004 Fitch started to provide a rating for HSH\u2019s non-guaranteed obligations in an A range, keeping its stand-alone rating at C. Moody\u2019s and S&P followed with ratings for non-guaranteed obligations in July 2005. Until the beginning of the crisis in 2008, the ratings of HSH remained stable.\n(30)\nSince October 2008, two trends can be observed in the ratings of HSH. The first trend started in October 2008 when HSH\u2019s stand-alone ratings were successively downgraded to the lower D and higher E range by Fitch and Moody\u2019s (E being the lowest possible BFSR rating by Moody\u2019s) (20). As reasons for the downgrading the agencies referred to (a) the significant risk stemming from HSH\u2019s cyclical asset base and in particular the shipping assets; (b) HSH\u2019s limited access to capital while running a highly capital-intensive lending business; and (c) HSH\u2019s weak and low profitability compared to pre-crisis levels due to lower asset yields, relatively higher risk-provisioning levels in asset-based finance and significantly increased funding costs compared to the pre-crisis environment. Furthermore, the agencies raised fundamental concerns about HSH\u2019s business profile. Because HSH does not have access to retail customers to any significant extent, the bank will continue to rely on the wholesale markets where it will have difficulties securing funding. Compliance with more stringent regulatory requirements on capitalisation, liquidity buffers, and funding mismatches would be a particular challenge for pure wholesale banks like HSH.\n(31)\nThe second trend started in May 2009, when S&P downgraded HSH\u2019s credit rating to BBB+, followed by Moody\u2019s and Fitch downgrading HSH to A3/A- in May and July 2010. As justification for the downgrading the rating agencies pointed to the limit on further support by the public-sector owners due to (a) the EU state aid rules and (b) their budgetary restrictions. The extent of the past support measures represented a high burden on the public-sector owners\u2019 financial strength so that they would be less inclined to offer further support. An important aspect in assessing the public-sector owners\u2019 further availability to offer support measures was the large amount of grandfathered debt (21) that then remained on HSH\u2019s balance sheet.\n(32)\nAlready in 2007 the impact of the financial crisis led to EUR 1,3 billion of loss-provisioning in HSH\u2019s USD 30 billion structured credit portfolio (CIP) (22). The contagion effect on the real economy adversely affected the traditional loan portfolio and had a severe impact on the quality of HSH\u2019s claims related to its shipping, transportation, real estate and renewable energy project financing. Additional loss-provisioning of EUR 1,6 billion on the CIP and loan loss provisions of EUR 1,9 billion on the loan portfolio significantly contributed to the negative result of EUR 3,2 billion in 2008.\n(33)\nThe bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 also intensified the refinancing difficulties of HSH, so that it applied for EUR 30 billion liquidity guarantees with the Sonderfonds Finanzmarktstabilisierung (German Fund for Stabilising the Financial Markets, hereinafter \u2018SoFFin\u2019).\n(34)\nOn 29 April 2009, the Bundesanstalt f\u00fcr Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (German Banking Regulator, hereinafter \u2018BaFin\u2019) informed HSH that, in light of its prudential situation, BaFin considered that HSH had difficulties meeting the regulatory capital requirements. BaFin announced that it would order a moratorium pursuant to paragraph 47 of the German Banking Act if the owners of HSH did not reinforce its capital basis.\n(35)\nOn 6 May 2009, S&P downgraded HSH\u2019s credit rating by two notches from A to BBB + with a negative outlook.\n3. THE AID MEASURES\n(36)\nIn May and June 2009 HSH obtained aid of two kinds from Schleswig-Holstein and Hamburg: the EUR 3 billion recapitalisation and a EUR 10 billion second-loss guarantee measure (the \u2018risk shield\u2019). In addition HSH received aid from SoFFin in the form of liquidity guarantees which in the end amounted to EUR 17 billion (hereinafter \u2018liquidity guarantees\u2019).\n3.1. THE RECAPITALISATION\n(37)\nThe recapitalisation consisted of a cash injection of EUR 3 billion in total of core Tier 1 capital in exchange for ordinary shares with voting rights. The shares were issued by HSH and fully subscribed by HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R. The latter is an institution under public law established, owned and controlled by Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein in equal shares.\n(38)\nHSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R obtained the financial means needed for the recapitalisation by issuing bonds on the capital markets. Its liabilities resulting from the bond issues are guaranteed equally by Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein as partial debtors and by means of guarantees to the bond holders. The bonds issued by HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R serve solely to finance the HSH recapitalisation. HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R operates exclusively as a vehicle for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein and does not pursue any other purpose besides providing the recapitalisation and the risk shield.\n(39)\nThe issue price of the new shares was based on a valuation of HSH by PricewaterhouseCoopers (\u2018PwC\u2019), which arrived at a value in a range between EUR [> 2] billion and EUR [< 3] billion (EUR [> 19] to EUR [< 28] per share). The average value of HSH based on the valuation is EUR [2-3] billion (EUR [19-28] per share). The valuation was established before the rating downgrade of HSH of 6 May 2009. The impact of the downgrading on the value of HSH was not taken into account in the valuation, but was considered during the pricing discussion. The valuation was based on the assumption that an upgrade to the previous A rating would be achieved in 2013.\n(40)\nFor the EUR 3 billion in newly injected capital Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein intended to achieve a yearly remuneration of 10 % (EUR 300 million per year). Given that HSH\u2019s business plan did not project sufficient profits for the period 2009-2012 to pay a 10 % dividend on all ordinary shares, the issue price of the new ordinary shares was reduced by a discounted 10 % dividend payment for the period 2009-2012. The present value of the 10 % dividend payment for the period 2009-2012 amounts to EUR [650-800] million (EUR [3-6] per share). The price for the new shares was fixed at EUR 19 per share (EUR [19-28] minus EUR [3-6]). HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R acquired 157 894 737 new ordinary shares.\n(41)\nThe savings bank associations and Flowers did not participate in the recapitalisation. Consequently, following the recapitalisation, their shareholdings were diluted from 13,20 %, 1,62 % and 25,67 % to 4,73 %, 0,58 % and 9,19 % respectively, and the joint direct and indirect shareholdings of Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein (including the shares held via HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R) increased from 59,51 % to 85,49 %.\n3.2. THE RISK SHIELD\n(42)\nThe risk shield was put in place at the same time as the recapitalisation in June 2009. It was also provided directly by HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R. Neither the savings bank associations nor Flowers participated. The risk shield consists of a second-loss guarantee in the amount of EUR 10 billion, which shelters HSH from losses stemming from total assets of about EUR 172 billion (EUR 187 billion exposure at default) as of a cut-off date in March 2009. The first-loss tranche of EUR 3,2 billion is to be covered by HSH. The second-loss tranche of up to EUR 10 billion is to be covered by HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R. Losses beyond EUR 13,2 billion (first- and second-loss tranches together) are to be covered by HSH. The transfer value of the shielded portfolio is [around EUR 168] billion ([around EUR 172] billion total assets value minus EUR 3,2 billion).\n(43)\nIn principle, HSH can cancel the guarantee at any time, but until 31 December 2013 the cancellation is limited to EUR [2-5] billion in total and at most to EUR [1-4] billion per year. HSH cancelled EUR 1 billion of the guarantee as of 9 March 2011. On 18 June and again on 6 September 2011, HSH cancelled another EUR 1 billion of the guarantee, thus reducing the remaining guarantee to EUR 7 billion. BaFin was informed of the cancellations. BaFin indicated that it would not object to the termination.\n(44)\nImpaired assets such as assets-backed securities (\u2018ABS\u2019) represent around [3-6] % of the approximately EUR [172] billion portfolio covered by the risk shield. The majority of the shielded assets consist of customer loans, HSH\u2019s core activity. The shielded portfolio is denominated in various currencies including EUR, USD and GBP.\nTable 2\nBreakdown of the shielded EUR [172] billion approximately of assets\nCategory of assets\nAssets on balance sheet\n(in EUR billion)\n% of the portfolio\nCustomer loans\n[115 approx]\n[\u2026]\nFixed income securities\n[30 approx]\n[\u2026]\nSecured tradable loans (23)\n[15 approx]\n[\u2026]\nAssets-backed securities\n[10 approx]\n[\u2026]\nGuarantees on payments\n[5 approx]\n[\u2026]\nTotal\n[172 approx]\n100,0\n(45)\nHSH did not have a valuation of the whole portfolio conducted by external experts before the implementation of the risk shield, except for the ABS portfolio and part of the CIP portfolio, which were valued by Blackrock and by Cambridge Place. At the Commission\u2019s request, HSH conducted a valuation of the shielded portfolio in the period November 2009 to January 2010 based on the Commission\u2019s severe stress assumptions. The valuation was conducted in cooperation with the Commission\u2019s experts. The valuation assumptions were in line with the severe stress scenarios applied by the Commission in other cases. The valuation was based on the in-depth analysis of a sample of 40 deals representing a notional amount of EUR 1 billion, i.e. 0,6 % of the total exposure, and a tranche valuation on a large representative part of the portfolio using Moody\u2019s CDOROM (24) tool. The underlying assumptions were discussed with the Commission\u2019s experts. HSH was assisted by its external expert Morgan Stanley, who confirmed the technical accuracy of the calculations. The capital relief effect of the risk shield at the time of its implementation was determined to be [around EUR 3,5] billion. The accuracy of the method and the underlying calculations used to determine the capital relief effect was confirmed by BaFin in February 2010.\n(46)\nAccording to the contract on the provision of a guarantee concluded between HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R and HSH on 2 June 2009, HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R receives a premium for providing the second-loss guarantee in the amount of 400 bps p.a. on the nominal amount of the guarantee (EUR 10 billion) (hereinafter the \u2018basic premium\u2019). Drawings and cancellations reduce the amount on which the remuneration of 400 bps is paid. Table 3 below represents the total amount of the cumulative payment in three scenarios: (a) Scenario 1: HSH\u2019s base case, which assumes that the guarantee will not be drawn and will be fully cancelled by HSH by the end of 2015; (b) Scenario 2: an intermediate scenario, which assumes a drawing of the guarantee to the tune of EUR 5 billion; and (c) Scenario 3: the underlying case of the assets\u2019 valuation, which assumes that the guarantee will be fully drawn by [2015-2020] (no cancellations).\nTable 3\nRemuneration of risk shield as proposed by Germany in different scenarios\n(In EUR million)\nScenario 1\n(EUR 0 drawing of guarantee)\nScenario 2\n(EUR 5 billion drawing of guarantee)\nScenario 3\n(EUR 10 billion drawing of guarantee)\nBasic premium (400 bps on outstanding nominal amount of the guarantee)\n[> 1,5]\n[> 2,5]\n[> 4]\n(47)\nOver the restructuring period the payments of the basic premium would represent between EUR [100-150] million and EUR 405 million per year depending on the drawing of the guarantee as described in Table 4 below.\nTable 4\nProjected basic premium (400 bps) payment of HSH to HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R in EUR million over the restructuring period\n(In EUR million)\n2009 actual\n2010 actual\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\nScenario 1 (EUR 0 drawing)\n- 300\n- 405\n- [300-350]\n- [200-250]\n- [150-200]\n- [100-150]\nScenario 2 (EUR 5 billion drawing)\n- 300\n- 405\n- [300-350]\n- [200-250]\n- [180-230]\n- [150-200]\nScenario 3 (EUR 10 billion drawing)\n- 300\n- 405\n- [300-400]\n- [300-400]\n- [300-400]\n- [300-400]\n3.3. LIQUIDITY GUARANTEES\n(48)\nAdditionally, HSH had applied for SoFFin guarantees covering new issuances of debt up to an amount of EUR 30 billion. SoFFin approved the issuance of a first tranche of EUR 10 billion at the beginning of December 2008. The guarantees were approved within the framework of the German rescue scheme (25). The remaining EUR 20 billion were to be activated after the submission of a restructuring plan. The second tranche of EUR 20 billion was activated after submission of the restructuring plan by HSH to SoFFin on 7 March 2009. As of 30 September 2009, a total of EUR 17 billion had been drawn. As of 1 January 2010, SoFFin reduced the guarantee limit from EUR 30 to EUR 17 million. The limit was not extended again.\n4. THE RESTRUCTURING PLAN\n4.1. INITIAL RESTRUCTURING PLAN AND SUBSEQUENT REVISION OF THE FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS\n(49)\nThe initial restructuring plan submitted on 1 September 2009 (hereinafter \u2018the initial restructuring plan\u2019) was described in the Decision initiating the procedure (recitals 23 to 28). Additional information on the restructuring model contained in the initial restructuring plan was provided in subsequent submissions during the period from October 2009 to June 2011. The modified version of the restructuring plan was submitted on 11 July 2011 (hereinafter \u2018modified restructuring plan\u2019). The financial projections contained in the initial restructuring plan with the related updates are briefly described below.\n(50)\nThe initial restructuring plan projected a decrease of [around 20 %] in the net interest income for the period 2009 to 2014, from EUR [1,4] billion approximately to EUR [1,1] billion approximately. In respect of the components of the financial results, HSH projected an increase in net income before restructuring (and after loan loss provisions) for the core bank (26) of more than 200 % between 2009 and 2014, from approximately EUR [350] million to approximately EUR [1,1] billion. The projected net income before restructuring of approximately EUR [1,1] billion in 2014 included a positive effect of approximately EUR [100] million from reversing loan loss provisions. The net fee income and the trading result each represented [some 20 %] of the net income before restructuring costs of the core bank in 2014. In the modified restructuring plan the projected net income before restructuring for 2014 was revised to EUR [350-450] million, with net fee income and trading result representing [10-15] %.\n(51)\nThe initial restructuring plan projected a total asset reduction for HSH from approximately EUR [175] billion in 2009 to approximately EUR [150] billion in 2014. The initial restructuring plan projected an increase in the assets of the core bank from approximately EUR [100] billion in 2009 to approximately EUR [110] billion in 2014. The 2014 projected total assets for HSH and for the core bank were revised to EUR 120 billion and EUR 82 billion respectively in the modified restructuring plan.\n(52)\nAccording to the initial restructuring plan the segment assets of the sector bank comprising shipping, energy and transport were projected to increase from around EUR [30] billion in 2009 to around EUR [35] billion in 2014, of which some EUR [20] billion would be mainly US dollar-financed shipping assets. In the modified restructuring plan the projected segment assets of the sector bank and the shipping assets in 2014 were revised to EUR [20-25] billion and EUR 15 billion respectively. As compared with the initial restructuring plan the aviation business line was discontinued in the modified restructuring plan.\n(53)\nThe projected Tier 1 capital ratio in the initial restructuring plan was [around 10] % in 2014 and was revised to a projected level of [10-15] % in the modified restructuring plan.\n(54)\nIn the initial restructuring plan the bank provided a breakdown per projected source of funding for some EUR [100] billion in 2014 of funded balance sheet (of which [around EUR 25 billion] of unsecured wholesale funding), leaving a gap of some EUR [50] billion as against the projected total assets of EUR around [150] billion. In the modified restructuring plan, the gap between the projected total assets and the projected total liabilities was reduced and HSH provided information on sources of funding to be used to cover the funding needs resulting from the gap.\n(55)\nThe growth assumptions in the main segments of activity of HSH as presented in the initial restructuring plan and the assumptions adjusted in the modified restructuring plan are presented in the table below.\nTable 5\nComparison growth rates shipping and corporate\nSegment\nInitial restructuring plan\n(1 September 2009)\nModified restructuring plan\n(11 July 2011)\nComment on growth assumption in modified restructuring plan\nShipping\nGrowth rate of new business around [250] % from 2010 IST - 2014 (some [40] % CAGR)\nGrowth rate of new business [90-130] % from 2010 IST - 2014 ([\u2026] % CAGR)\nThe growth rate is based on an annual absolute volume of new business of EUR [\u2026] billion on average from 2011 to 2014. It compares to a total market volume of around EUR [25] billion of new business on average over the period\nCorporate\nGrowth in loan volume [around 100] % (2010 IST - 2014)\nGrowth in loan volume [\u2026] % (2010 IST - 2014)\nThat growth corresponds to an absolute volume amount of new business of EUR [\u2026] billion over four years and compares to total assets in that segment of EUR 25,7 billion as of 31 December 2008\n4.2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE MODIFIED RESTRUCTURING PLAN\n(56)\nThe modified restructuring plan was submitted on 11 July 2011. It comprises substantial changes to HSH\u2019s business model. The new business model is characterised by reduced risk, a stronger focus on regional business, and sustainability on the funding and lending sides. The planned and already initiated restructuring measures include, besides the focus on core business activities and consequently the divestment or cessation of various activities and major holdings, the adaptation of the branch network and optimisation of the cost structure. The modified restructuring plan includes the establishment of an internal restructuring unit in which activities that will not be continued will be concentrated for accounting and organisational purposes. The key points of the new business model are:\n(a)\na reorientation towards a viable core bank by way of a substantial assets reduction, a strengthening of regional business (corporates in Germany, real estate business in Germany and private banking) and the retention of core competencies in selected international business activities with a strong regional connection (shipping and renewable energies, with a focus on Europe);\n(b)\nthe exclusive focusing of the capital market business on treasury activities and customer-related business, especially in the role of a supplier of products to other business units (cross-selling); proprietary trading has been discontinued;\n(c)\nthe cessation of activities that are not in line with the strategic refocusing of HSH, i.e. the international Leverage Buy Out (LBO) business, foreign real estate business, asset-based aircraft financing and other credit business without a clear connection to the core competency;\n(d)\nthe divestment of all subsidiaries that are not in line with the strategic refocusing of HSH; the modified restructuring plan entails the divestment of [100-120] holdings in total; HSH has already reduced the number of holdings by 25; all sales are expected to happen by [\u2026] at the latest;\n(e)\na clear separation of the discontinued businesses to be reduced or sold in the internal restructuring unit; the restructuring unit will not engage in any new business;\n(f)\na significant adaptation of the national and international branches. The run-off of non-strategic activities will result in the closure of 15 out of 21 international branches. The branches or representation offices in Helsinki, Shanghai, Mumbai, Stockholm, Naples, Oslo, Riga, Tallinn, Warsaw, San Francisco and Hanoi have already been closed. The branches or representations in Copenhagen, Paris, Amsterdam and Moscow are to be closed by 2012. After the restructuring period HSH will keep six branches or representations in London, Hong Kong, New York, Singapore, Luxembourg and Athens. However, the branches in London, Luxembourg and New York will be reduced and the branch in Hong Kong transformed into a representative office.\n(57)\nThe regional focus comprises in particular the northern German corporate business and private banking, the real estate business and the savings bank business. In addition, HSH will concentrate on selected areas of international ship financing as well as on project financing in renewable energy with a focus on Europe as well as certain investments in infrastructure. HSH will close the office in L\u00fcbeck by the end of 2011.\n(58)\nOverall, the balance sheet total of the new core bank will be reduced substantially, in particular through transfer of assets from the core bank to the internal RU. At the end of the restructuring period on 31 December 2014 HSH (core bank) will have a balance sheet total of EUR 82 billion. Compared to the balance sheet total of EUR 208 billion in 2008, this amounts to a reduction of EUR 126 billion, i.e. almost 61 %.\n(59)\nThe modified restructuring plan is based on general assumptions about the evolution of the German, euro area, US and global GDP, short-term and long-term interest rates changes, euro area and US inflation, oil prices and the EUR/USD exchange rate. The projections of the individual business units are based on assumptions about the growth rates of the relevant market, volumes and margins on new production per segment and cross-selling capacity. Given the importance of the shipping unit in the overall financial results of HSH, HSH has provided sector-specific assumptions on the evolution of the shipping market. The projections on the evolution of the size of the market in terms of global new business (aggregated for the bulk, container and tanker segments), the size of the new business of HSH and the market share of HSH are presented in the table below.\nTable 6\nAssumptions on ship financing 2011-2014\nAverage 2005-2008\n2009\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\nTotal global new business shipping (in EUR billion)\n109,4\n25,9\n48,3\n[10-15]\n[15-25]\n[25-35]\n[40-50]\nNew business HSH (in EUR billion)\n6,7\n0,2\n1\n[0,5-1,5]\n[0,5-1,5]\n[1-2]\n[2-3]\nMarket share HSH (%)\n6,1\n0,8\n2,1\nAbout [4]\nAbout [5]\nAbout [5]\nAbout [5]\n(60)\nHSH is assuming an average EUR/USD exchange rate of [1,30-1,50]. It has provided sensitivity data on the impact of changes in the assumptions on profit and loss and its net liquidity position, and in particular a sensitivity analysis for changes in the interest rates and for changes in the EUR/USD exchange rate. The outcome of the sensitivity analysis is that HSH would not suffer losses beyond what it can absorb in the event of significant differences in interest rates and EUR/USD exchange rate assumptions. Moreover, HSH\u2019s liquidity position would not be negative if the EUR/USD exchange rate were to vary considerably compared to the base case assumption.\n(61)\nHSH furthermore provided an adverse and worst case scenario for the group based on less favourable market assumptions. The financial projections in the adverse and worst case scenario show that the impact of stress on the solvency of HSH is buffered through the structure of the risk shield. In an adverse scenario HSH would delay the partial cancellations of the guarantee and thus limit the RWA increase due to the negative economic environment. In both scenarios, the resulting Tier 1 capital ratio of HSH would remain at around 10 % during the restructuring period.\n4.3. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS UNITS OF HSH\n(62)\nThe balance sheet total of the core bank\u2019s corporates business unit will be reduced from EUR 26,3 billion in 2008 to EUR [10-20] billion in 2014. In total, the unit will be reduced by about [45-55] % during that period.\n(63)\nIn the corporates business unit HSH will offer financing to larger medium-sized undertakings, most notably in the core region of northern Germany.\n(64)\nHSH has ceased its activities in the refinancing of leasing companies and the international LBO business and will discontinue its relationship-driven business with corporate customers in Asia and Scandinavia. The corporates business unit will not provide asset-based financing of aircraft or ships. However, the ability of HSH to support regional business in the core region will not be curtailed.\n(65)\nHSH will focus primarily on larger medium-sized businesses in the region of northern Germany as well as German companies within defined core industries. It will have a clear focus on profitable business as well as on customers with a good credit standing and a demand for multiple products. HSH will strive to achieve \u2018first\u2019 bank status with those customers.\n(66)\nTo support the funding situation the business unit will increasingly aim to acquire deposits and to use financing structures that enable syndications, are eligible as ECB collateral or can be passed on to investors.\n(67)\nThe balance sheet of the core bank\u2019s real estate business unit will be reduced from EUR 30,5 billion in 2008 to EUR [9-18] billion in 2014. This amounts to a reduction of [50-70] %.\n(68)\nHSH will offer all types of loan products and any other bank products that are relevant for real estate companies. The bank will focus on business in northern Germany and in German metropolitan regions. The main emphasis will be put on financing solutions for [\u2026] and project financing with a manageable degree of risk. In the real-estate line of business, HSH will concentrate on the financing of [\u2026]. Special property classes will be financed only selectively.\n(69)\nActivities in other countries - including the international real-estate business, which consists of supporting German clients in European metropolitan regions - will be discontinued. In these areas, HSH will not carry out any new business and the existing business will expire.\n(70)\nHSH will focus mainly on professional real estate investors with a focus on existing clients and on selected real estate developers and customers with a sustainable real-estate track record and a high potential for cross-selling, as well as customers connected to northern Germany with a need for complex financing structures. HSH will continue to use structures and products that reduce the funding need, e.g. business eligible for covered bonds, ECB-eligible loans, or funding and sureties provided by the Kreditanstalt f\u00fcr Wiederaufbau (KfW).\n(71)\nThe balance sheet of the core bank\u2019s savings banks business unit will be reduced from EUR 8,7 billion in 2008 to EUR [< 3] billion in 2014, in particular by reducing refinancing activities for savings banks.\n(72)\nThis business unit\u2019s customer base is composed primarily of savings banks and public-sector customers in northern Germany and secondarily of savings banks and public-sector customers outside northern Germany (secondary bank relationship).\n(73)\nHSH provides a large range of products which focus on the core business areas of savings banks. This includes in particular the private and corporate customers business, treasury business, own securities management and credit portfolio management.\n(74)\nIn the private banking business unit the core bank\u2019s balance sheet total will be reduced from EUR 1,7 billion (in 2008) to EUR [0,5-1,5] billion (in 2014).\n(75)\nHSH will focus on providing services to wealthy private customers in the core region of northern Germany. In addition, it will offer private banking services at supra-regional distribution branches belonging to the other market segments. The range of services is to include [\u2026].\n(76)\nHSH will concentrate on the acquisition and support of wealthy and very wealthy private customers as well as foundations. As part of cross-selling, private banking services will also be provided to customers/natural persons of the other business units of the core bank.\n(77)\nIn the shipping business unit the balance sheet will be reduced from a balance sheet total in 2008 of EUR 28,3 billion to about EUR 15 billion in the core bank in 2014, i.e. a reduction of 46 %.\n(78)\nUntil 31 December 2014 the market share of HSH in relation to new business in global ship financing will not exceed [< 8] % on an annual basis. In addition, HSH will ensure that up to 31 December 2014 it will not be among the top three ship-financing providers with the highest annual volume of new business worldwide, according to the market rankings determined on an annual basis.\n(79)\nHSH\u2019s portfolio will be diversified both in relation to ship types and countries. In relation to asset classes an emphasis will remain on [\u2026] as well as several [\u2026]. Conventional long-term mortgage loans for new constructions and financing of second-hand ships will be important products. Furthermore, HSH will selectively operate as a supplier of structured financial services.\n(80)\nHSH will reduce its business activities by ceasing to finance roll-on/roll-off and cruise ships as well as [\u2026].\n(81)\nHSH will focus on medium-sized and larger worldwide shipping companies, small profitable customers and customers selected by reference to their overall revenue potential and aspects of risk. Furthermore, the readiness of the customer regarding syndications will be considered, as well as the fulfilment of syndication (e.g. transparency) and refinancing requirements.\n(82)\nThe shipping business unit will mainly offer plain vanilla (27) and, to a limited extent, structural financing and will act as a mandated lead arranger and bookrunner.\n(83)\nThe transport/aviation business unit of the core bank will cease to exist. The EUR 11,7 billion balance sheet (in 2008) will expire within the restructuring unit or be assigned to other business units. In the future, HSH will not carry out any new asset-based financing of aircraft. The corresponding existing business will expire, be sold or be transferred to the restructuring unit for the purpose of reduction. As a part of the restructuring, HSH has already partially redesigned the business unit and assigned the divisions of rail and infrastructure, which are still strategically relevant, to the energy and infrastructure business unit.\n(84)\nDue to the realignment of the energy and infrastructure business unit in the course of the restructuring process, the balance sheet total of the energy and infrastructure unit in the core bank in 2014 will be increased from EUR 4,6 billion in 2008 (which refers to the former energy business unit) to EUR [5-10] billion. The energy and infrastructure business unit includes both the renewable energy segment and the infrastructure and rail segments, which had previously been assigned to the transport business unit.\n(85)\nIn the energy segment, HSH will act as a provider of project financing in the areas of wind and solar energy projects. They include the asset categories of wind (on- and offshore), solar (photovoltaic and thermal) and, as a supplementary business, networks in conjunction with wind and solar projects. The target region for those activities is mainly Europe. HSH\u2019s business relating to conventional energy sources and the entire North American energy business will be discontinued.\n(86)\nThe adjustments in the business units, in particular the cessation of the aviation business unit and the reduction in the international real estate and the shipping segments, will automatically lead to a reduction of the \u2018miscellaneous segment\u2019.\n(87)\nThe \u2018miscellaneous segment\u2019 includes - besides the corporate centre - the capital markets business, in which HSH manages its treasury and which serves as a supplier of products for the business units.\n(88)\nHSH will continuously improve the stability and quality of its funding. Starting from the end of 2012, it will ensure that its net stable funding ratio (NSFR) and its liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) (28) [\u2026]. The share of the core bank\u2019s USD business that is refinanced by means of USD-denominated funding (and not through swaps) will increase to at least [\u2026] % by the end of 2012 and to at least [\u2026] % by the end of 2014.\n(89)\nHSH will consistently reduce capital market business with a high risk potential and has already reduced its product catalogue significantly. Proprietary trading has already been discontinued.\n4.4. DESCRIPTION OF THE FINANCIAL PLANNING IN THE MODIFIED RESTRUCTURING PLAN\n(90)\nHSH presented a detailed business plan for the period 2011 to 2014 including profit and loss calculations and balance sheet, profitability and production indicators broken down per business unit and consolidated for the group. HSH furthermore provided a sensitivity analysis in the form of an adverse and worst case scenario for the group. According to the profit and loss projections the HSH group will suffer an additional loss of around EUR [100-200] million in 2011 and continuously increase its profits to around EUR [400-500] million after tax in 2014. The return on equity will be negative in 2011 and increase to around [7-8] % in 2014. The Tier 1 ratio will reach around [13-16] % in the period 2012 to 2014. At the request of the Commission, the financial projections contained in the modified restructuring plan include a one-off payment of EUR 500 million in 2011 which has been deducted from net income before tax. The total assets are projected to decrease from EUR 208 billion (in 2008) to EUR 120 billion (in 2014).\n(91)\nThe most important figures of the modified restructuring plan for HSH and the core bank are shown in the following tables.\nTable 7\nFinancial planning HSH 2011-2014\n2008 actual\n2009 actual\n2010 actual\n2011 plan\n2012 plan\n2013 plan\n2014 plan\nTotal income (in EUR million)\n157\n2 876\n1 603\n[1 300-1 800]\n[1 300-1 800]\n[1 300-1 800]\n[1 300-1 800]\nNet income before restructuring expenses (in EUR million)\n(2 796)\n(718)\n545\n[500-1 000]\n[500-1 000]\n[500-1 000]\n[500-1 000]\nNet income before tax (in EUR million)\n(2 968)\n(1 325)\n17\n[- 200-300]\n[0-500]\n[100-600]\n[200-700]\nNet income (in EUR million)\n(3 195)\n(902)\n48\n[- 400-100]\n[0-500]\n[0-500]\n[0-500]\nCost income ratio (CIR) (%)\n573\n29\n54\n[45-55]\n[45-55]\n[45-55]\n[40-50]\nReturn on equity after tax (RoE) (%)\n< 0\n< 0\n< 0\n[- 5-+ 5]\n[5-10]\n[5-10]\n[5-10]\nTotal assets (in EUR billion)\n208\n175\n151\n[130-150]\n[125-145]\n[120-140]\n[115-135]\nTable 8\nFinancial planning core bank 2011-2014\n2008 actual\n2009 actual\n2010 actual\n2011 plan\n2012 plan\n2013 plan\n2014 plan\nTotal income (in EUR million)\n1 582\n1 756\n1 103\n[750-1 250]\n[750-1 250]\n[750-1 250]\n[750-1 250]\nNet income before restructuring (in EUR million)\n418\n354\n574\n[300-600]\n[300-600]\n[300-600]\n[300-600]\nNet income before tax (in EUR million)\n295\n18\n318\n[200-500]\n[200-500]\n[200-500]\n[200-500]\nCost income ratio (CIR) (%)\n39\n32\n52\n[40-60]\n[40-60]\n[40-60]\n[40-60]\nSegment assets (EUR billion)\n113\n97\n88\n[60-90]\n[60-90]\n[60-90]\n82\n(92)\nHSH\u2019s funding plan in respect of the overall funding strategy and in respect of the USD funding strategy are shown in the following tables.\nTable 9\nHSH funding plan 2010-2014\n(in EUR billion)\nVolumes per funding channel\n2010 actual\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\nCovered bonds\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nState guaranteed long-term bonds\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nSenior unsecured long-term\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nShort-term wholesale funding\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nWholesale funding other\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nCommercial and retail deposits (until 2010)/Residual deposits (permanent average balances from 2011)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nDevelopment banks and commercial lending\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nHybrids (Tier 1 and Tier 2)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTotal\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nDerivatives\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTotal assets\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTotal assets - (total liabilities + derivatives) to be financed by short-term secured funding, excess deposits and equity\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(93)\nThe state-guaranteed long-term bonds will decrease from EUR 44 billion at the end of 2010 to EUR [13-18] billion at the end of 2014. At the same time HSH\u2019s total assets will decrease by EUR [25-35] billion. The difference between total assets and total liabilities (adjusted for the effect of derivatives) represents a gap in the funding plan which has to be covered by short-term unsecured and secured funding as well as an excess of deposits and equity. HSH\u2019s planning in respect of deposits factors in only a proportion of total deposits considered as stable (residual deposits (permanent average balances - Bodensatz) although the actual volume of deposits is expected to be higher and to cover a proportion of the funding gap. Although a proportion of the funding gap between funded assets and liabilities could be covered by short-term wholesale funding, HSH\u2019s reliance on short-term wholesale funding decreases in absolute terms over the restructuring period. In respect of the funding strategy in EUR, HSH will in relative terms rely more on covered bonds.\nTable 10\nFunding strategy in USD 2010-2014\n(in USD billion)\nVolumes\n2010 actual\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\nUSD denominated funding\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nUSD funding through swaps\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTotal assets USD\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTotal assets USD shipping\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(94)\nWhereas in 2010 HSH funded 75 % of its US dollar assets through cross currency swaps, the reliance on swaps will decrease to [\u2026] % of total US assets (including assets in the restructuring unit). The decreased reliance in relative terms on financing through swaps will be achieved through a decrease of US dollar denominated assets and therefore a decrease in the absolute amounts of US dollar funding.\n(95)\nOver the year 2010, the saving banks provided EUR [2,5-3,5] billion of long-term unsecured funding for HSH and EUR [200-500] million of long-term secured funding. That total amount of EUR [2,7-4] billion compares to EUR [150-250] million of total funding provided by other Landesbanks and EUR [1-2] billion provided by other financial institutions (private and public other than saving banks and Landesbanks).\n(96)\nThe modified restructuring plan shows an increase in the capital positions and ratios of HSH over the restructuring period with a projected common equity ratio of [10-13] % at the end of 2014. At the request of the Commission HSH included in its financial projections an increase in share capital of EUR 500 million in 2013.\nTable 11\nHSH capital position 2009-2015\n2009 actual\n2010 actual\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\nRisk-weighted assets after guarantee (EUR billion)\n71\n41\n[40-60]\n[40-60]\n[45-65]\n[50-70]\n[50-70]\nGuarantee outstanding (EUR billion)\n10\n10\n7,0\n[< 7,0]\n[< 7,0]\n[< 5,0]\n[< 5,0]\nCapital evolution (EUR billion)\nCommon equity Tier I capital (EUR billion)\n5,080\n4,433\n[4 000-6 000]\n[4 500-6 500]\n[5 000-7 000]\n[5 500-7 500]\n[6 000-8 000]\nTier I capital (EUR billion)\n7,491\n6,274\n[5 000-7 000]\n[5 500-7 500]\n[6 000-8 000]\n[6 500-8 500]\n[7 000-9 000]\nTotal capital (EUR billion)\n11,523\n9,400\n[8 000-12 000]\n[8 000-12 000]\n[8 000-12 000]\n[8 000-12 000]\n[8 000-12 000]\nCapital ratios\nCommon equity/RWA (%)\n7,1\n10,7\n[> 7,0]\n[> 8,0]\n[> 9,0]\n[> 10,0]\n[> 10,0]\nTier 1 capital/RWA (%)\n10,5\n15,2\n[> 10,0]\n[> 10,0]\n[> 10,0]\n[> 10,0]\n[> 10,0]\n4.5. COMMITMENTS MADE BY GERMANY\n(97)\nGermany has given an undertaking that HSH will implement the modified restructuring plan and has submitted the commitments set out in Annex I and III to this Decision.\n4.6. MONITORING\n(98)\nGermany has given an undertaking that a monitoring trustee will provide the Commission with detailed quarterly reports. The reports will in particular contain information on the remuneration of the impaired asset measure (in line with Annex V to the Communication from the Commission on the treatment of impaired assets in the Community banking sector, hereinafter the \u2018Impaired Assets Communication\u2019 (29)), and on the implementation of the modified restructuring plan (in line with paragraph 46 of the Commission communication on the return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis, hereinafter the \u2018Restructuring Communication\u2019 (30)).\n5. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE IN RESPECT OF THE AID MEASURES FOR HSH\n(99)\nOn 30 October 2009 the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure in order to verify whether the risk shield complied with the conditions of the Impaired Assets Communication regarding the definition of the eligible assets, the valuation (including the valuation methodology), the remuneration and the management of the impaired assets. Furthermore the Commission wanted to investigate the conditions of the recapitalisation measure, the burden sharing, and the measures to limit distortions of competition.\n(100)\nRegarding the eligibility of the assets covered by the risk shield, the Commission expressed doubts (recital 40 of the Decision initiating the procedure) as to whether they met the eligibility criteria laid down in the Impaired Assets Communication, since only a small fraction of the shielded portfolio fell directly into the definition of impaired assets provided for in the Communication.\n(101)\nRegarding transparency and disclosure, the Commission stated in recital 42 of the Decision initiating the procedure that HSH had provided valuation reports by independent experts which covered only a residual fraction of the shielded portfolio, namely a large proportion of the structured credit securities. Furthermore at that time Germany had not provided a validation of the valuation process and outcome by BaFin.\n(102)\nRegarding asset management, the Commission expressed doubts in recital 44 of the Decision initiating the procedure as to whether HSH\u2019s planned arrangements fulfilled the requirements laid down in the Impaired Assets Communication, since all assets would remain on HSH\u2019s balance sheet.\n(103)\nRegarding the valuation, the Commission stated in recital 46 of the Decision initiating the procedure that only the valuation of the structured credit portfolio had been carried out by independent experts, and that at the time the Commission did not have sufficient information for the assessment of the real economic value of the whole shielded portfolio. The Commission sought to verify the correlation assumptions used for the shielded assets.\n(104)\nRegarding remuneration, in recital 49 of the Decision initiating the procedure the Commission expressed doubts about the adequacy of the burden sharing, as the Impaired Assets Communication would require HSH to contribute to the loss or risk coverage in the form of first-loss clauses (typically with a minimum of 10 %). In addition, in recital 51 et seq. of the Decision initiating the procedure, the Commission expressed doubts that the fee of 400 bps adequately remunerated the risk taken by the public-sector owners.\n(105)\nRegarding a return to viability, in recital 59 of the Decision initiating the procedure the Commission expressed doubts as to whether HSH would be able to restore its long-term viability. In particular, in view of HSH\u2019s strong reliance on wholesale funding, the Commission questioned whether the funding strategy presented would be sustainable on a stand-alone basis in the medium and longer term once public guarantees were phased out.\n(106)\nIn recitals 60 and 61 of the Decision initiating the procedure the Commission queried the underlying assumptions of the initial restructuring plan in regard to growth rates and asset margins. The Commission questioned in particular the increased margins in the private banking segment and the growth assumptions in the shipping and transport segments, where HSH already had proportionally high market shares.\n(107)\nIn recital 62 of the Decision initiating the procedure the Commission questioned HSH\u2019s plan to continue its international capital market activities at a significant level while declaring at the same time that it intended to refocus its business model towards regional activities. In recital 63 of the Decision initiating the procedure the Commission expressed scepticism as to whether it was realistic to assume that an upgrade to the previous A rating would be achieved in 2013.\n(108)\nRegarding the recipient\u2019s own contribution, the Commission stated that no far-reaching proposals had been made in the initial restructuring plan. The scope of the own contribution in the form of divestments remained vague. As to the burden sharing of the minority shareholders, the Commission expressed doubts about the valuation of HSH and consequently the price of the newly issued shares. In recitals 10 and 32 of the Decision initiating the procedure, the Commission questioned whether the savings bank associations and Flowers, who had not participated in the recapitalisation, might not have benefited from the capital injection by maintaining excessively high shareholdings in HSH.\n6. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY\n(109)\nOn 17 December 2009 Germany submitted joint comments by the public-sector owners and HSH on the Decision initiating the procedure.\n6.1. COMMENTS ON THE RISK SHIELD\n(110)\nGermany took the view that the Commission\u2019s legal assessment of the risk shield was erroneous, because it was based on the application of the Impaired Assets Communication, which, according to Germany, was not applicable in the present case.\n(111)\nGermany disagreed with the Commission\u2019s assessment that the Impaired Assets Communication had to be applied and that the Commission was obliged to apply laws and guidelines in force at the time of the adoption of the Decision, irrespective of the time at which the aid measures were designed or notified (31). According to Germany, that view would be correct only if the assessed measure fell within the scope of application of the relevant legal provision or Communication, which was not the case here. Germany further argued that the Impaired Assets Communication could not be read as covering all kinds of support measures targeting impaired assets. The Impaired Assets Communication should be regarded as an administrative instruction only, designed solely to ensure consistent administrative practice and binding on the Commission alone. The compatibility of the risk shield with the internal market should be assessed directly under the TFEU. According to Germany, the fact that the objective of the second-loss guarantee and the composition of the shielded portfolio were outside the terms of the Impaired Assets Communication was evidence that the Communication was not applicable in the HSH case.\n(112)\nGermany stated that applying the Impaired Assets Communication led to an erroneous assessment framework, which was unfavourable to HSH as regards the aid element, the value of the portfolio, the remuneration of the measure and the scope of restructuring.\n(113)\nGermany referred to recital 38 of the Decision initiating the procedure, where the Commission mentioned the difficulties in assessing the market value of the portfolio, which consisted mainly of loans to corporate customers. Germany regarded those difficulties as evidence that the second-loss guarantee should not be assessed under the Impaired Assets Communication. It pointed out that the Commission had by extrapolation arrived at an aid amount equal to the nominal value of the guarantee. Germany further argued that such an outcome was evidence that the chosen method must be wrong, since the Commission estimated the aid element of a guarantee as being the same as the aid element of a recapitalisation, although the two measures were different in nature. Whereas the recapitalisation was a permanent capital injection, the guarantee was only a regulatory stability measure limited to the maturity of the covered assets.\n(114)\nGermany pointed out that the estimation of the aid element on the basis of the market value showed that the Commission had misunderstood the nature of the risk shield, which did not cover market fluctuations. Germany considered that the Commission should determine the aid element of the second-loss guarantee according to the general state aid rules and in particular the Commission Notice on the application of Article 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to state aid in the form of guarantees (32) (hereinafter the \u2018Guarantees Notice\u2019). According to Germany, in so far as it was recognised that the remuneration for the risk shield was market-oriented, applying the Guarantees Notice would lead to a marginal aid element.\n(115)\nEven assuming it was correct to apply the Impaired Assets Communication, Germany took the view that the Commission had applied it erroneously as regards the quantification of the aid element and the remuneration, burden sharing and the management of assets by the restructuring unit. The aid element involved in the second-loss guarantee was incorrect because incorrect assumptions had been made in regard to the transfer and market value of the portfolio. As regards the remuneration of the capital relief effect, Germany pointed out that the estimation of the capital relief effect in the Decision initiating the procedure was based on old data. According to more recently submitted data, the capital relief effect would be significantly lower. The Commission\u2019s preliminary assessment of the burden sharing was incorrect and too limited, since the Commission referred only to the first-loss tranche of the guarantee, which was considerably below the 10 % of the shielded portfolio required by the Impaired Assets Communication. There was no link between the burden sharing and the first-loss tranche measured in absolute numbers. Furthermore HSH was to bear all losses going beyond the second-loss tranche. As regards the management of assets, the principles of the Impaired Assets Communication did not apply to the risk shield and it would be unreasonable to manage all shielded assets separately. HSH might create a restructuring unit and ensure a clear accounting and organisational division between the core bank and the restructuring unit up to management board level.\n(116)\nGermany disagreed with the asset valuation referred to in recital 47 of the Decision initiating the procedure. The shielded portfolio contained mostly customer loans, which were difficult to value in a cash flow-based valuation. Valuation methods which used flat-rate haircuts to simulate market uncertainties and which were designed for the valuation of \u2018complex\u2019 assets were inappropriate for the valuation of the shielded portfolio in the current case. Whereas the CIP portfolio had been valued by external experts on a cash-flow-based valuation method, the assets in the much larger credit portfolio had been valued by applying a standard credit analysis in line with the regulatory rules. The key point of such analysis was the creditworthiness of the borrower.\n(117)\nGermany argued that it was inappropriate to apply to the second-loss guarantee the calculation methods laid down in the Impaired Assets Communication (as described in the Decision initiating the procedure) and concluded that the Guarantees Notice should be applied in order to determine the remuneration. In several meetings, teleconferences and other information exchanges between January and August 2010 Germany provided information demonstrating that a full claw-back of the [\u2026] would impede HSH\u2019s capacity to restore viability.\n6.2. COMMENTS ON THE RECAPITALISATION\n(118)\nGermany took the view that the Commission\u2019s assessment of the recapitalisation measure was incorrect as regards the valuation of HSH and the legal assessment of the possible benefits to the minority shareholders who did not participate in the recapitalisation.\n(119)\nThe Commission\u2019s doubts about the valuation of HSH were based on incorrect facts. It was unimportant that the downgrading of HSH by S&P was not taken into account in the valuation conducted by PwC, and there were good reasons to believe that HSH would return to an A rating in 2013.\n(120)\nAs regards the issue price of the new shares, discounts in a range of 30 % to 60 % were usual for listed banks. The valuation of HSH was an appropriate basis for the setting of the price of the newly issued shares and the \u2018old\u2019 shareholders of HSH did not benefit from the aid measures by maintaining too high a share in HSH.\n6.3. COMMENTS ON THE RISK SHIELD AND THE RECAPITALISATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE UNLIMITED STATE GUARANTEE PROVIDED BY THE PUBLIC-SECTOR OWNERS (GEW\u00c4HRTR\u00c4GERHAFTUNG)\n(121)\nGermany argued that without the rescue measures HSH would have gone bankrupt and the public-sector owners would have been liable for much higher losses under the unlimited state guarantee (Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung). The possible claims under Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung were estimated at around EUR 30 billion or higher. Germany pointed out that a private investor in the situation of the public-sector owners would have taken the same rescue measures to avoid higher losses.\n(122)\nGermany took the view that the rescue measures met the private investor test and therefore did not constitute state aid. The private investor test was fulfilled if it could be reasonably argued that the company would return to viability and if the liquidation costs of the company were higher than the capital measures (33). According to Germany, the initial restructuring plan submitted on 1 September 2009 was sufficient proof of the capacity of HSH to return to viability. As for the estimation of the liquidation costs, Germany stated that a distinction should be made between the obligations of the public-sector owners as HSH\u2019s owners and as public bodies. Their obligations as public bodies (unemployment benefit, social insurance contributions) could not be taken into account when estimating the liquidation costs. Only their obligations as HSH\u2019s owners were to be counted towards the liquidation costs. Germany cited the Linde judgment (34) to argue that liabilities originating from state aid that had already been properly granted had to be taken into account when conducting the private investor test. Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung was approved by the Commission and was therefore compatible state aid. In addition, the liabilities covered by Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung pertained to the obligations of the L\u00e4nder in their capacity as HSH\u2019s owners, not as public bodies. Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung was in its nature comparable to a \u2018letter of responsibility\u2019(Patronatserkl\u00e4rung). Therefore the liabilities of the public-sector owners under Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung amounting to at least EUR 30 billion, should be taken into account when estimating the liquidation costs. Finally, Germany concluded that the liquidation costs would be much higher than the capital measures provided to HSH by the public-sector owners. Therefore the conditions of the private investor test were fulfilled and the rescue measures did not constitute state aid.\n6.4. COMMENTS ON HSH\u2019S VIABILITY\n(123)\nAlthough Germany initially viewed the Commission\u2019s preliminary assessment of HSH\u2019s business model as expressed in recital 62 of the Decision initiating the procedure as too negative, it subsequently updated HSH\u2019s initial restructuring plan in order to alleviate the Commission\u2019s concerns.\n6.5. COMMENTS ON OWN CONTRIBUTION AND COMPENSATORY MEASURES\n(124)\nGermany argued that the own contribution measures included in the initial restructuring plan, which consisted of the remuneration of the measures, the release of capital reserves, the sale of subsidiaries and cost reductions, added up to EUR 5,9 billion and should be sufficient.\n(125)\nMoreover, while Germany initially considered the proposed compensatory measures, consisting of the balance sheet reduction, the cessation of profitable business portfolios, the closure of 12 (35) out of 21 international locations and the sale of sizeable subsidiaries (REAG and DAL (36)), to be sufficient, it later reconsidered them in the modified restructuring plan.\n7. COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES\n(126)\nThe Commission also received comments from interested third parties. Comments were submitted on 30 November and 11 December 2009 by the savings bank associations and on 17 December 2009 by Flowers.\n7.1. COMMENTS FROM SGVSH AND SVB\n(127)\nThe savings bank associations disagreed with the Commission\u2019s preliminary view that they had disproportionately benefited from the recapitalisation granted to HSH by the public-sector shareholders as they considered that the share price of the newly issued shares was rather low.\n(128)\nSplitting the proceedings in the HSH case, with the aid measures being authorised in one set of proceedings and the issue of indirect aid to the minority shareholders being dealt with in another, would breach Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (37) (\u2018the Procedural Regulation\u2019). The aid measure could not at the same time be compatible with the internal market in respect of HSH, and incompatible in respect of HSH\u2019s owners. A negative decision on the recapitalisation in respect of the savings bank associations and Flowers would render the recapitalisation incompatible aid. According to the savings bank associations, the Commission should address the issue of burden sharing by the minority shareholders in the general context of the burden sharing assessment of the recapitalisation.\n(129)\nAs regards the Commission\u2019s consideration that there was insufficient dilution of the minority shareholdings, the savings bank associations did not see how this could constitute state aid. They considered a dilution to be a secondary effect of a recapitalisation. Moreover, the conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU were not fulfilled, in so far as the savings bank associations were not an undertaking within the meaning of the state aid rules. SGVSH and SVB were not active on any market; they only held shareholdings on behalf of their members (the public savings banks in Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein). The advantage to the savings banks could be seen only in the increase of the value of the HSH shares, which was inherent in all capital injections. Furthermore, the alleged advantage was not granted from state resources. The level of dilution depended on the number of the shares and the share price. The price was decided not by the State, but by the shareholders\u2019 meeting. That decision was not imputable to the State and, in line with the Stardust Marine judgment (38), could not be considered aid. In any event, the alleged advantage had no impact on the competitive position of the savings banks in the markets in which they operated. Therefore the alleged advantage did not distort competition or affect trade between Member States.\n(130)\nThe savings bank associations also pointed out that the Commission had not investigated secondary effects in other recapitalisation cases. Nor had the Union courts endorsed such an approach in the WestLB judgment (39). Furthermore, the savings bank associations observed that the Commission had not investigated secondary effects in other cases where the issue price of the new shares appeared extremely high (40) and concluded that an investigation of the issue only in cases such as those of HSH and BayernLB would infringe the principle of equal treatment.\n(131)\nThe savings bank associations further explained that the shareholders in a public limited company Aktiengesellschaft had an option on new stock. It was, however, an option and not a purchase obligation. The savings bank associations considered the share price of the new shares appropriate but they were not able to participate in the recapitalisation for financial reasons.\n(132)\nFurthermore, the savings bank associations argued that in 2008 they contributed significantly to capital measures in favour of HSH. In July 2008, the savings bank associations converted a silent participation in the amount of EUR 685 million into EUR 125 million equity and EUR 560 million capital reserves. In July 2008 the savings bank associations together with Flowers subscribed to a mandatory convertible silent capital contribution (hybrid instrument) of EUR 962 million (of which the savings banks took EUR 660,5 million). At the end of 2008, HSH released capital reserves of EUR 3,1 billion in order to compensate the balance sheet loss and avoid the loss absorption of the hybrid instruments. In that context the savings bank associations lost their EUR 560 million of the capital reserves. The mandatory convertible silent capital contribution was loss-absorbing. A coupon on that instrument had not been paid. The savings bank associations had not received dividends since 2008.\n(133)\nIn May 2009, the savings bank associations had been willing to sell their shares. A sale had, however, not been possible owing to a \u2018holding agreement\u2019 which had been concluded with the public-sector owners on 25 March 2003. The parties to that holding agreement had undertaken to exercise their voting rights in a manner allowing the public-sector owners and the savings bank associations to maintain the majority voting rights and not to sell certain percentages of their shares. The holding agreement could not be terminated before 31 December 2013.\n(134)\nThe savings bank associations pointed out that in the course of the recapitalisation their shareholdings had been considerably diluted, from 13,2 % and 1,62 % to 4,7 % and 0,6 % respectively. With 85,5 % of direct and indirect shareholdings, the public-sector owners had joint control over all strategic decisions in HSH. From the point of view of a private investor that joint control meant an additional decrease of the value of the shares held by the minority shareholders.\n(135)\nThe savings bank associations noted that the valuation of HSH by PwC was commissioned by HSH and not by the minority shareholders. PwC conducted the valuation in line with recognised valuation principles. The savings bank associations argued that specific values and a modified risk premium should have been taken into account, which would have given a share price of EUR 30 per share. The savings bank associations concluded that their holdings had been excessively diluted and estimated the loss at around EUR 200 million.\n7.2. COMMENTS FROM FLOWERS\n(136)\nFlowers put forward similar arguments to those of the savings bank associations. In addition, they argued that they had already made a considerable contribution of their own to the restructuring of HSH. They noted in particular that the capital measures taken in favour of HSH in July 2008 were closely connected to the capital injection in May 2009. In July 2008 Flowers had brought in EUR 300 million in cash. As regards the mandatory convertible silent capital contribution in the amount of EUR 962 million, Flowers had subscribed EUR 301,5 million. The mandatory convertible silent capital contribution had participated in losses; a coupon had not been paid. The investors provided 48 % of those capital measures, which went considerably beyond their shareholding of 25,67 % at the time.\n(137)\nFlowers disagreed with the Commission\u2019s preliminary assessment, in recitals 65 and 73 of the Decision initiating the procedure, regarding an insufficient own contribution and lack of genuine burden sharing measures. In 2009, they had taken a participation of EUR 794 million in the capital reserves of EUR 3,1 billion released by HSH. They referred to the Commerzbank (41) decision, arguing that there the Commission had considered the sale of subsidiaries and other assets as sufficient own contribution, and a ban on coupons and dividend payment as burden sharing. The investors considered that the capital measures provided in 2008 should be taken into account.\n(138)\nThe investors contended that their loss of the blocking minority due to the dilution should also be considered as own contribution. Despite their dilution to 9,19 % they would still be liable under Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung in line with their shareholding before the recapitalisation, i.e. 26,85 %. The investors also disputed the Commission\u2019s doubts regarding the valuation of HSH and an excessive share price. They argued that a number of aspects that would increase the share value had not been sufficiently considered.\n(139)\nFinally, the investors pointed out that German law did not provide for a transfer of shares, which would make a recovery of the indirect aid to the minority shareholders impossible. The investors considered that a split of the ongoing proceedings would not be possible, as there was only one aid measure granted in favour of HSH.\n8. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY ON THIRD PARTIES\u2019 COMMENTS\n(140)\nGermany submitted comments on the arguments by the savings bank associations and Flowers. Germany maintained its opinion that the valuation of HSH was appropriate and that the minority shareholders had not benefited from any indirect state aid. Moreover, Germany favoured a split of proceedings if it would accelerate the conclusion of the case, which was expected by HSH and the markets. Germany questioned whether a recapitalisation was a homogeneous legal act and had to be assessed in one decision. Germany referred to the case law of the Union courts and argued that a split of the proceedings would be legally possible and that differing legal assessments of one aid measure in relation to different beneficiaries, i.e. HSH and the minority shareholders, would not put at risk the compatibility of the aid measure in favour of HSH. The proportionality of the aid measure in relation to HSH could be ensured through a set of measures in the restructuring plan, whereas any advantage granted to the minority shareholders via an excessively high issue price would have to be treated and corrected differently. Germany disagreed with Flowers that German law did not provide for a transfer of shares and thus rendered recovery of the indirect aid to the minority shareholders impossible. Germany argued that such transfer was possible under German law, and that even if it were not possible, Germany would not be able to cite a lack of means of enforcement to justify the non-implementation of a Commission recovery decision.\n9. ASSESSMENT\n9.1. EXISTENCE OF STATE AID\n(141)\nAccording to Article 107(1) TFEU, \u2018any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(142)\nThe classification of a measure as state aid requires that the following conditions be met: (a) it must be financed by a Member State or through state resources; (b) it must grant an advantage liable to favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods; (c) that advantage must be selective; and (d) the measure must distort or threaten to distort competition and have the potential to affect trade between Member States. Those conditions being cumulative, they must all be present before a measure is characterised as state aid. The Commission maintains its view that the conditions are met.\n(143)\nFirst, the measures were granted by HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R. This is an institution governed by German public law that was established by the public-sector owners and is owned and controlled by them in equal shares. It was created on the basis of the State Agreement between theL\u00e4nder of Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein (42) signed on 3 April 2009 in Kiel and on 5 April 2009 in Hamburg. The object of HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R is the support of HSH on behalf of the public-sector owners. In order to fulfil its task, HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R is empowered to issue guarantees of up to EUR 10 billion, to acquire the shares of HSH and to obtain loans for such acquisitions. According to paragraph 3 of the State Agreement, the public-sector owners are responsible for the liabilities of HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R. The measures are thus clearly financed by the State.\n(144)\nSecond, the risk shield and the recapitalisation were put in place to avoid insolvency on the part of HSH (43) and consequently helped it to remain in business. Therefore, they constitute economic advantages within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(145)\nThird, the measures are individually targeted at HSH, so they are selective.\n(146)\nLastly, to qualify as aid, the measures in question must distort or threaten to distort competition and have the potential to affect trade between Member States. Those effects can be assessed on the basis of the aid amount, the features of the aid measure and the aid beneficiary (44). The aid measures allowed HSH to avoid insolvency and remain active in a number of markets. HSH is an internationally active bank, competing with other banks in Germany and other countries. Furthermore, HSH is a bank of systemic importance for the banking system in Germany (45) and a major competitor in ship and aviation financing (HSH is the world\u2019s largest provider of ship finance and has a significant market share in aviation financing). Finally it has received a relatively high amount of aid (see below): in particular, the risk shield covers around 75 % of its balance sheet. Taking into account the effect of the measure, the position of HSH in the banking sector and in shipping financing in particular, and the aid amount, the advantage granted to HSH was liable to affect trade between Member States.\n(147)\nThat assessment is not altered by the comments from Germany and third parties. The comments by Germany on the aid nature of the measures in favour of HSH are contradictory. On the one hand, Germany argues that the Commission should assess the risk shield under the Guarantees Notice instead of the Impaired Assets Communication, which seems to assume that the risk shield constitutes state aid. On the other hand, as summarised in section 6.3 of this Decision, Germany argues that, in the light of the unlimited state guarantee (Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung) covering estimated claims of at least EUR 30 billion, a private investor in the position of the public-sector owners would also have taken the measures in question to rescue HSH in order to avoid higher losses. Germany contends on that basis that the private investor test is fulfilled, and that the measures in question are therefore not state aid.\n(148)\nGermany has misinterpreted the case-law cited by it. In the case at hand Germany argues that one state aid measure (an unlimited state guarantee, Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung) should be treated as a liquidation cost in order to declare other state aid measures (the recapitalisation and risk shield) to be in line with the private investor principle. In Linde the parties concluded, on market terms, a transaction involving a subsidy in order to cancel a supply contract which had previously been concluded, and which was also on market terms, because the performance of that supply contract had subsequently given rise to significant annual losses. The General Court stated that \u2018[t]he comprehensive arrangement represents a normal commercial transaction in the course of which the [Treuhandanstalt] and LWG behaved as rational operators in a market economy. It is evident that they were motivated primarily by commercial considerations and did not have regard to any economic or social policy objectives\u2019 (46). That situation is not comparable with the case in hand, as in Linde both transactions were concluded on market terms, while here neither of the transactions was concluded on market terms.\n(149)\nGew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung is defined as a direct liability, based on statute or by-laws, on the part of a regional authority or an association under public law with respect to the creditors of a public-law credit institution for all of its obligations. Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung therefore obliges the guarantor (\u2018Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4ger\u2019) to intervene in the case of insolvency or liquidation of the credit institution. It creates direct claims by the creditors of the credit institution against the guarantor, which can, however, only be called in if the assets of the credit institution are not sufficient to satisfy the creditors. Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung is unlimited in time and in amount. In addition, the credit institution pays no remuneration for the guarantee (47). In summary, Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung constitutes an unremunerated unlimited subsidiary liability of a public corporate body (municipality or Land) for creditor claims against a public institution (public bank) where that institution is insolvent. A private investor in the situation of the public-sector owners would not have granted a bank an unlimited unremunerated guarantee covering the entire balance sheet of that bank as the public-sector owners did with Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung.\n(150)\nThe Commission has in fact considered Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung to be state aid. It has called for the abolition of Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung by Germany.\n(151)\nGew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung is anchored in public law. The public-sector owners are liable under that guarantee as public bodies and not as private owners. In line with the Commission\u2019s decision-making practice (48) and the case law (49), liquidation costs cover only liabilities that could have been paid by a private investor. As mentioned in recital 149, a private investor would not have granted a bank unlimited unremunerated guarantees covering its entire balance sheet. Therefore, the Linde judgment is of limited relevance for the assessment of the current case as the liabilities under Gew\u00e4hrtr\u00e4gerhaftung cannot be counted as liquidation costs.\n(152)\nThe aid element of the recapitalisation should be the nominal value of that recapitalisation, as no private investor would have provided such funds to a firm in difficulty. As established in recitals 27 and 28 of the Rescue Decision, the non-participation of the minority shareholders in the recapitalisation and the disproportionate share of the burden of the rescue measures borne by the public-sector owners indicate that the recapitalisation was motivated by public policy objectives, and not by private investor considerations. In line with its case practice (50) the Commission confirms its view that the aid element in the recapitalisation amounts to EUR 3 billion.\n(153)\nMoreover, the aid element of the risk shield is confirmed to be EUR 10 billion. Despite Germany\u2019s arguments, the Commission remains convinced that the measure must be assessed on the basis of the Impaired Assets Communication. In the Impaired Assets Communication, the Commission has provided guidance on the treatment under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU of asset relief measures adopted by Member States. Impaired assets correspond to categories of assets on which banks are likely to incur losses. The Commission considers that the Impaired Assets Communication must cover any kind of support measure targeting impaired assets and providing effective asset relief to the recipient institution because the Impaired Assets Communication defines asset relief as any measure whereby a bank is dispensed from the need for severe downward value adjustments of certain asset classes (51). The risk shield to HSH falls into that category of measure.\n(154)\nThe Commission does not agree with Germany that the Impaired Assets Communication is inapplicable and that the aid amount involved in the second-loss guarantee should be determined according to the general state aid rules and the Guarantees Notice in particular. The Guarantees Notice applies to aid measures that are designed to provide liquidity to a bank (52). The risk shield serves another purpose. It is designed to be implemented on the asset side in order to free up as much capital as possible, so that the bank can improve its capital ratio.\n(155)\nAs regards the ratione temporis objection of Germany, the Commission would point out that it has to apply the law and guidelines in force at the time of the adoption of a decision, irrespective of the time at which the aid measures were designed or notified (53). This is a general rule, and any departure from it has to be clearly mentioned in the legal act that would otherwise be applicable. The Union courts have confirmed that a notified measure should be assessed under the rules applicable at the date of the decision (54). Consequently, in the context of the current financial crisis, the Commission has previously applied the Impaired Assets Communication to measures notified before its publication (55).\n(156)\nAccording to the Impaired Assets Communication, the amount of aid in an asset relief measure corresponds to the difference between the transfer value of the assets and their market price. The transfer value of the shielded portfolio amounts to [approximately EUR 168] billion, which corresponds to the nominal value of the portfolio of approximately EUR [172] billion minus the first loss of EUR 3,2 billion (first-loss tranche).\n(157)\nGiven the significant size and the composition of the shielded portfolio ([60-80] % of the assets covered are loans to customers), the quantification of its market value is difficult. In the absence of a market, the market value may effectively be as low as zero for some assets (56). In any case the market value of the shielded portfolio lies significantly below its real economic value (REV) (57), which reflects the underlying long-term economic value of the assets. Given that the aid amount involved in the guarantee cannot exceed its nominal value (EUR 10 billion) it is not necessary to determine the exact value. Therefore the Commission considers that the aid element involved in the risk shield is EUR 10 billion.\n(158)\nFinally, the Commission would point out that the liquidity guarantees provided by Soffin for an amount of EUR 17 billion constitute aid granted under the German scheme.\n(159)\nThe Commission has come to the conclusion that the aid element in the risk shield and the recapitalisation amounts to EUR 13 billion. The Commission further considers that the aid element in the liquidity guarantees is up to EUR 17 billion.\n9.2. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID MEASURES\n9.2.1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 107(3)(B) TFEU\n(160)\nIn accordance with Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, aid can be found compatible with the internal market if it serves to \u2018remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State\u2019. The Commission acknowledged in its approval of the German bank rescue scheme (58) that there is a threat of serious disturbance in the German economy and that state support of banks is a suitable way to remedy that disturbance. Despite a slow economic recovery having taken hold since the beginning of 2010, the Commission still considers that the requirements for state aid to be approved pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU are fulfilled, in view of the reappearance of stress in financial markets. The Commission has confirmed that view by adopting in December 2010 a Communication that prolongs until 31 December 2011 the application of state aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis (59).\n(161)\nThe collapse of a bank such as HSH could directly affect the financial markets and thus the entire economy of a Member State. Given the current fragility of the financial markets, the Commission continues to base its assessment of state aid measures in the banking sector on Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.\n9.2.2. COMPATIBILITY OF THE RISK SHIELD WITH THE IMPAIRED ASSETS COMMUNICATION\n(162)\nThe Commission should examine the compatibility of asset relief measures in the light of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and on the basis of the Impaired Assets Communication. Contrary to what is argued by Germany, the Impaired Assets Communication does not serve merely to ensure consistent administrative practice (60). Rather, it sets out the state aid rules to be applied to asset relief measures. Taking account of their specific features, it translates the state aid rules into compatibility criteria to be applied to such measures. Applying the Impaired Assets Communication should ensure consistency between asset relief measures introduced by the Member States and compliance with state aid monitoring requirements. Paragraph 18 of the Impaired Assets Communication states that the Communication aims to establish coordinated principles and conditions to ensure the effectiveness of asset relief measures in the internal market as far as possible, taking account of the long-term objective of a return to normal market conditions. Thus the objectives of the Communication are broader than what is argued by Germany, and are not confined to administrative practice. To fulfil the above objectives the Commission has to apply the Impaired Assets Communication to all asset relief measures.\n(163)\nThe Commission therefore does not see any grounds to assess the measure directly under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, as suggested by Germany.\n(164)\nThe Impaired Assets Communication lays down a set of conditions with which asset relief measures have to comply in order to be compatible with Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. The examination of their compatibility is carried out using a number of criteria including the eligibility of the assets, the management of the assets, the valuation of the shielded portfolio, the appropriate identification of the problem and full ex ante transparency and disclosure, the alignment of the measure with public policy objectives, the appropriateness of the remuneration and burden sharing, and the requirement of the assessment of a restructuring plan by the Commission.\n9.2.2.1. Eligible assets\n(165)\nParagraphs 33 et seq. of the Impaired Assets Communication require identification of eligible assets and their organisation into categories of assets (baskets). Detailed guidance on the definitions of those categories is provided in Annex III to the Impaired Assets Communication. The variety of assets covered by the risk shield goes beyond the basket system covered by the Impaired Assets Communication. However, paragraph 35 of the Communication allows for additional flexibility in the identification of eligible assets. It allows banks to be relieved of impaired assets that are not covered by paragraph 33 without a specific justification, but only for a maximum of 10-20 % of the overall assets of a given bank. However, since [around 75] % of HSH\u2019s balance sheet is covered by the risk shield, paragraph 35 of the Impaired Assets Communication does not provide a satisfactory solution here.\n(166)\nNevertheless, under paragraph 32 of the Impaired Assets Communication, which lays down the guiding principles on the eligibility of assets, a pragmatic approach should be adopted when assessing the nature of the assets involved in an impaired assets measure. The Commission notes that the range of asset classes affected by the financial crisis has become broader over time due to spill-over effects. In particular, securities related to shipping, aircraft and real estate in general face illiquid markets or are subject to severe downward adjustments. Asset relief for such assets can help to achieve the objectives of the Impaired Assets Communication, namely to increase transparency and to contribute to financial stability, even if they are not in the asset classes that initially triggered the financial crisis. Therefore the Commission has in previous cases accepted asset relief measures for these assets (61). The Commission considers it appropriate to do so again in the present case.\n(167)\nLastly, paragraph 36 of the Impaired Assets Communication allows for wider eligibility criteria if the measure is compensated by in-depth restructuring. The greater the proportion that guaranteed assets represent in the portfolio of a bank, the more thorough the restructuring that the bank will have to undergo. In the Decision initiating the procedure the Commission expressed its doubts regarding the eligibility of assets because the initial restructuring plan submitted to it at that time was not sufficiently far-reaching to adequately compensate for the flexible application of the eligibility criteria. HSH submitted the modified restructuring plan on 11 July 2011. The modified restructuring measures comprise a balance sheet reduction of around 61 %, divestment of [\u2026] shareholdings and closure of 15 out of 21 international locations. They allow the Commission to conclude that the depth of the restructuring compensates for the flexible application of the Impaired Assets Communication as regards the eligibility of assets. Consequently, the Commission\u2019s doubts regarding the eligibility of assets have been allayed.\n9.2.2.2. Management of assets\n(168)\nIn recital 45 of the Decision initiating the procedure, the Commission expressed doubts about the compatibility of the guarantee in relation to the management of assets on the basis that there was no evidence of a clear functional and organisational separation between HSH and the shielded assets as all assets would remain on HSH\u2019s balance sheet; this applied in particular to management, staff and customers.\n(169)\nGermany provided additional information, explaining that HSH had set up a restructuring unit which was an internal winding-down bank with separate management. HSH had introduced segment-based reporting, including separate management for the restructuring unit, so that no conflict of interest between the core bank and the restructuring unit could arise. The Commission agrees with the comments from Germany on management of assets as summarised in recital 115 of this Decision, and accepts the changes introduced by HSH in the management of assets. Consequently, the risk shield is in line with the requirements of the Impaired Assets Communication with regard to the management of assets.\n9.2.2.3. Valuation of the shielded portfolio\n(170)\nIn recital 45 of the Decision initiating the procedure the Commission also raised doubts about the valuation of the shielded portfolio, because only a small portion of the portfolio had been valued by independent experts, and HSH had not provided enough information for the assessment of the REV of the entire portfolio. Prior to the implementation of the measure HSH had appointed two independent experts, Blackrock and Cambridge Place. They had valued only a small fraction of the shielded portfolio, namely the assets-backed securities (ABS) and parts of the CIP portfolio.\n(171)\nThe Commission does not share Germany\u2019s view, set out in recital 116 above that customer loans are difficult to value given the number of assumptions involved in cash flow projections (such as those on future delinquencies, probabilities of default, the timing of default and recovery, and interest rates both in respect of the risk-free rate and the risk premium). Although the valuation is more complex in the case of loans with extendable maturities, which is typically the case of the shipping loans and commercial real estate loans that make up a large proportion of the shielded portfolio, the Commission\u2019s decision-making practice demonstrates that cash-flow-based valuations of portfolios including similar assets have already been performed (62). In addition, Germany has failed to demonstrate that a valuation based on cash flow projections would result in a materially different outcome.\n(172)\nValuation should follow a general methodology established at Union level. At the Commission\u2019s request, HSH and its external expert Morgan Stanley conducted a full valuation of the portfolio in close cooperation with the Commission\u2019s experts. The underlying assumptions applied by HSH in the valuation were in line with the severe stress scenarios applied by the Commission in other cases. A consistent methodology has therefore been applied.\n(173)\nThe result of the valuation was that the expected losses would considerably exceed the EUR 3,2 billion first-loss tranche and exhaust the EUR 10 billion second-loss tranche [\u2026]. The valuation of the portfolio showed that the REV lies [\u2026], at around EUR [155-170] billion (around EUR [172] billion minus EUR 3,2 billion minus EUR [2,5-10] billion).\n(174)\nThe valuation was conducted in line with the conditions set out in the Impaired Assets Communication and the Commission therefore takes the view that its doubts as expressed in recital 45 of the Decision initiating the procedure have been allayed.\n9.2.2.4. Full ex ante transparency and disclosure\n(175)\nIn recital 42 of the Decision initiating the procedure the Commission raised doubts about the compatibility of the measure with regard to transparency and disclosure, in so far as Germany had not provided a full valuation of the assets of the shielded portfolio carried out by a recognised independent expert.\n(176)\nIn accordance with paragraph 20 of the Impaired Assets Communication, applications for aid should be subject to full transparency and disclosure of impairments by eligible banks on the assets which will be covered by the relief measures, based on adequate valuation, certified by recognised independent experts and validated by the relevant supervisory authority. The information on the impaired assets should be provided with the degree of detail suggested in point II and Table 2 of Annex III to the Impaired Assets Communication.\n(177)\nSince the adoption of the Decision initiating the procedure, detailed information about the shielded portfolio and the assets has been provided to the Commission. The valuation determines the REV of the portfolio at around EUR [155-170] billion. The capital relief effect of the risk shield was calculated to be [around EUR 3,5] billion. Morgan Stanley has officially signed and validated the valuation, including the underlying assumptions and the applied methodology. The capital relief effect of the measure was confirmed by BaFin in February 2010. The capital relief effect calculated on the basis of the asset valuation differs from the Commission\u2019s preliminary assessment in recitals 51 et seq. of the Decision initiating the procedure. The Commission accepts the result of the valuation and the calculated capital relief effect submitted by Germany. In view of the outcome of the investigation, the comments that Germany made on the capital relief effect no longer need to be addressed.\n(178)\nThe Commission\u2019s doubts regarding adequate transparency and ex ante disclosure have been allayed.\n9.2.2.5. Alignment with public policy objectives\n(179)\nSection 5.3 of the Impaired Assets Communication requires incentives for banks to participate in an impaired asset relief measure to be aligned with public policy objectives, through (a) a six-month maximum enrolment window, (b) mechanisms to ensure participation by banks most in need of asset relief and (c) appropriate behavioural constraints to, among other things, limit the impact on competition.\n(180)\nThe guarantee was specifically designed for HSH and tailored to its particular situation in the light of its systemic importance to the economy of the public-sector owners. In the context of the modified restructuring plan, HSH will be subject to a number of behavioural commitments, in particular related to the payment of coupons and dividends, corporate governance, remuneration and market presence in specific sectors such as shipping.\n(181)\nBased on the above, the risk shield for HSH is compatible with the requirements of the Impaired Assets Communication with regard to alignment with public policy objectives.\n9.2.2.6. Remuneration and burden sharing\n(182)\nIn recital 49 of the Decision initiating the procedure the Commission expressed doubts about the adequacy of the burden sharing. Under paragraph 24 of the Impaired Assets Communication, HSH should be requested to contribute to the loss or risk coverage in the form of first-loss clauses (typically with a minimum of 10 %). Adequate burden sharing can also be ensured by higher remuneration or ex post compensation. In addition, in recitals 51 et seq. of the Decision initiating the procedure, the Commission expressed doubts that the fee of 400 bps adequately remunerated the risk taken by the public-sector owners.\n(183)\nParagraph 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication states that for any impaired asset measure an adequate remuneration must be secured for the State. An adequate remuneration for an impaired asset measure is one that would remunerate the regulatory capital impact of the measure. Thus the capital relief effect should be adequately remunerated.\n(184)\nAs regards the remuneration of the capital relief effect, in its Decision on the state aid granted by Germany for the restructuring of Landesbank Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg (63), the Commission established that an adequate remuneration of the capital relief effect would be 6,25 % of the amount of the capital relief obtained through the measure (64). The capital relief effect for the risk shield has been determined to be around EUR [3,5] billion, hence there should be an annual remuneration of approximately EUR 220 million (which corresponds to [about 220] bps of the nominal value of the guarantee) where HSH benefits from the full amount of the guarantee. Upon (partial) cancellation of the guarantee, the minimum remuneration of the capital relief should decrease proportionally to about 220 bps of the outstanding nominal value of the guarantee.\n(185)\nAs explained in recital 46, HSH has proposed to pay a guarantee fee of 400 bps for the risk shield. Thus, depending on the scenario, HSH will pay EUR [> 1,5] billion (no drawing of the guarantee), EUR [> 2,5] billion (EUR 5 billion drawing) or EUR [> 4] billion (EUR 10 billion drawing).\n(186)\nRegarding the adequacy of the minimum capital relief remuneration of [about 220] bps per annum on EUR 10 billion (or - in the event of partial cancellations - on the outstanding nominal amount of the guarantee (65)), the absolute amount of capital relief remuneration is reduced if the guarantee is partially cancelled. Although it is likely that the capital relief effect will not decrease in direct proportion to the amount of the risk shield, the Commission considers that, over the life of the risk shield, it is a reasonable approximation to make for the purpose of calculating the minimum required capital relief remuneration. Consequently, the Commission would view as adequate a remuneration of [around 220] bps per annum on the outstanding nominal amount of the guarantee.\n(187)\nAs [around 220] bps on the outstanding guarantee amount is an acceptable approximation for 6,25 % on the capital relief amount, the Commission is satisfied that 6,25 % per annum on the capital relief effect will always be paid to HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R. The capital relief remuneration can accordingly be considered to be in line with the Impaired Assets Communication.\n(188)\nIn addition, paragraph 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication requires the transfer value for asset purchase or asset guarantee to be based on the REV of the assets.\n(189)\nAccording to the Commission\u2019s valuation of the risk shield, the guaranteed value of around EUR [168] billion was set too high (above the REV) and the first-loss tranche too low when designing the guarantee measure. The difference between the guaranteed value and the REV is EUR [2,5-10] billion. The consequence should be a \u2018correction\u2019 of the guaranteed value and an increase in the first-loss tranche. Germany has provided evidence that it is not possible for HSH to pay back EUR [2,5-10] billion, and does not accept such a claw-back. However, even though HSH is unable to increase the first-loss tranche by EUR [2,5-10] billion in order to cover the expected losses, the difference could, pursuant to paragraph 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication, also be recovered at a later stage, for example through some combination of a claw-back mechanism and far-reaching restructuring measures.\n(190)\nA claw-back mechanism can be put in place through the 400 bps basic premium paid to the State. It can take the form of that part of the payment which is in excess of the remuneration of the capital relief effect of [about 220] bps. In addition, that amount would also depend on the drawing of the guarantee, given that the basic premium can change, as illustrated in the table below.\nTable 12\nClaw-back payment through the basic premium and additional claw-back requirement\n(In EUR million)\nScenario 1\n(EUR 0 drawing of guarantee)\nScenario 2\n(EUR 5 billion drawing of guarantee)\nScenario 3\n(EUR 10 billion drawing of guarantee)\nBasic premium (400 bps on outstanding nominal amount of the guarantee)\n[> 1,5]\n[> 2,5]\n[> 4]\nOf which, capital relief remuneration ([about 220] bps on outstanding nominal amount of the guarantee)\n[700-900]\n[1 200-1 600]\n[1 800-2 500]\nClaw-back in basic premium\n[500-800]\n[1 000-1 400]\n[1 500-2 000]\nFurther claw-back needed\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(191)\nThe remuneration would result in an insufficient claw-back through the basic premium. Therefore, to achieve a full claw-back, the difference between the REV and the transfer price not covered by the basic premium of 400 bps remains to be paid to the State by HSH. Depending on the scenario, that difference ranges from EUR [\u2026] billion to EUR [\u2026] billion.\n(192)\nAs Germany and HSH refuse to increase the payment in that respect the aid measure cannot be approved as compatible under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.\n(193)\nThe Commission observes that the modified restructuring plan does demonstrate that it is impossible to ask for an additional claw-back payment of between EUR [\u2026] billion and EUR [\u2026] billion without threatening HSH\u2019s viability, because a full claw-back would consume its profits over the entire restructuring period and beyond, based on the projections in recital 91 above.\n(194)\nNevertheless the Commission considers that the compatibility of the aid measure might be ensured if a remuneration system were put in place that allowed for a correction in line with the rules established by the Impaired Assets Communication and the Commission\u2019s decision-making practice regarding claw-backs and remuneration. Paragraph 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication in fact specifies that it can be acceptable for the transfer value (guaranteed value) of the assets to exceed their REV if there is far-reaching restructuring and if conditions are introduced that allow for the recovery of the additional aid at a later stage. In sum, paragraph 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication leaves some room for accepting partial claw-backs if adequately compensated through restructuring.\n(195)\nIn the case in hand the Commission considers that a partial additional claw-back could be obtained if a combination of measures were implemented.\n(196)\nFirst of all, the Commission considers that, to the greatest possible extent (and without undermining HSH\u2019s return to long-term viability), the payment of any additional claw-back should be made immediately and not deferred any longer than necessary. It has therefore investigated the possibility of an upfront payment. As explained in recital 90, the Commission requested HSH to include in the financial projections a one-off lump sum payment of EUR 500 million in 2011. The financial projections in recital 91 above demonstrate that HSH is able to pay such a lump sum amount of EUR 500 million to the State. Such a payment would consume all of HSH\u2019s expected profits and is expected to lead to a EUR [150-200] million net loss for 2011. However, that loss can be absorbed in subsequent years and will not prevent HSH from establishing a track record of consistent profits (representative of its business profitability) for all the remaining years of the restructuring period. Such a track record will be necessary to demonstrate HSH\u2019s return to long-term viability and ultimately to improve its ability to attract investors. On that basis, the Commission considers that EUR 500 million is the largest possible upfront contribution towards an additional partial claw-back that HSH could afford.\n(197)\nHowever, in any event, the Commission does not consider that the amount clawed back up front needs to be paid back to the State in cash. Given HSH\u2019s capital situation, which to date has been insufficient to cover losses from its investing activities or to contribute to the strengthening of its capital basis, the Commission considers that the lump sum payment of EUR 500 million could be made in shares rather than in cash. HSH\u2019s capital position needs to be reinforced, in particular in view of the fact that it will continue to operate and focus on business lines which exhibit a strong pro-cyclicality and volatility, such as ship financing, as explained in detail below (see recitals 223 to 226).\n(198)\nIn addition to the one-off up-front payment described above, the Commission considers that HSH is also able to pay additional claw-back amounts on an ongoing basis. A further correction of the transfer price can be achieved through an additional premium paid over the restructuring period on top of the basic premium. Based on the financial projections in recital 91, the Commission considers that such an additional premium could be set as high as 385 bps without endangering the capacity of HSH to return to viability. An additional premium of 385 bps would not exceed the payments of the basic premium of 400 bps set out in Table 4 above over the restructuring period (66). The payments of the additional premium would only exceed HSH\u2019s expected net profit for the period 2012-2014 only in the scenario involving a EUR 10 billion drawing (see recital 90 above). The Commission further notes that HSH has already cancelled EUR 3 billion of the guarantee, which implies that the third scenario set out in Table 4 above (drawing of the entire EUR 10 billion of the guarantee) can be ruled out.\n(199)\nIf more than this additional premium had to be paid it would endanger HSH\u2019s ability to achieve a common equity ratio of 10 %. For the reasons set out in recitals 223 to 226 and further explained in recitals 229 to 232 below, the Commission considers that achieving a level of capitalisation sufficient to buffer variations in the financial performance of HSH resulting from swings in the economic cycle is crucial in order not to compromise its return to viability. Such a sufficient buffer is considered to be a common equity ratio of 10 %. Thus if the additional premium were to compromise that ratio, its payment should be deferred to the extent necessary to avoid compromising HSH\u2019s viability.\n(200)\nOn that basis, the Commission considers that it would be possible for HSH to make further payments during future years without impeding its ability to return to viability.\n(201)\nBased on the above considerations, and in order to ensure the compatibility of the risk shield with the Impaired Assets Communication, the Commission requires an alternative remuneration mechanism which alters the guarantee provision agreement concluded on 2 June 2009 as follows. It should be based on the existing basic premium in the guarantee provision agreement in the amount of 400 bps p.a. on the nominal amount of the outstanding guarantee. That basic premium should remain unchanged, except that any drawings under the guarantee would no longer reduce the nominal amount of the guarantee for the purposes of calculating the premium. This avoids providing incentives to draw the guarantee. In addition, the basic premium should be supplemented by an additional premium amounting to 385 bps and a lump sum payment of EUR 500 million in ordinary shares (\u2018lump sum payment\u2019 or \u2018lump sum payment in shares\u2019). In order to implement these conditions the initial guarantee contract needs to be amended as set out in recitals 201 to 208.\n(202)\nFirst, the additional premium needs to be added. The basis for the calculation of the additional premium should be similar to the basis for the calculation the basic premium, namely the nominal amount of the guarantee reduced by partial cancellations but not by drawings. However, the basis for the additional premium should depend on the extent to which HSH ultimately cancels the guarantee regardless of the timing of such cancellations. Thus, HSH\u2019s profitability would be affected only to the extent that it makes actual use of the guarantee. Therefore, upon partial cancellation, the portion of all the paid additional premiums corresponding to the amount of guarantee cancelled should be reimbursed to HSH. In order to achieve that effect, whilst both premiums are to be calculated on the contractually agreed guarantee amount reduced by cancellations but not by drawings, the basic premium should be paid on an annual basis on the outstanding guarantee amount but the additional premium should be set aside into a reserve account. The additional premium would be paid to HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R only if the guarantee is drawn. On the other hand, upon partial cancellation of the guarantee, the additional premium set aside in the reserve account corresponding to the cancelled amount should be repaid to HSH.\n(203)\nIn order to ensure that cancellations are not performed at the expense of viability, partial cancellations of the guarantee should be carried out only as long as they do not result in the ratio of HSH\u2019s common equity falling below [8,5-9,5] % as at 31 December 2011, [9-10] % as at 31 December 2012, [9,5-10,5] % as at 31 December 2013 or [10-11] % as at 31 December 2014. Further, a partial cancellation may not take place if, despite the ratios being met at the time of the partial cancellation, this would no longer be the case in the light of conservative estimates for the following years.\n(204)\nThe additional premium should be calculated retroactively from 31 March 2009 and on a pro rata basis for parts of financial years. The additional premium should be payable together with the basic premium as long as HSH\u2019s common equity ratio is at least 10 % (the \u2018minimum common equity ratio\u2019).\n(205)\nIn order to ensure that HSH\u2019s viability will not be endangered by the payments of the additional premium, the claw-back mechanism should contain a debtor warrant (Besserungsschein). The debtor warrant should have a maturity of up to 31 December [2030-2040]. If HSH\u2019s common equity ratio were to fall below the minimum common equity ratio because of the additional premium, the payment would be delayed and transformed into a debtor warrant. If the common equity ratio increased above the target, the debtor warrant would be repaid up to the limit of that target. That mechanism gives HSH the necessary flexibility but at the same time ensures that the claw-back will be paid at a later point in time once it is again in a situation to pay.\n(206)\nThe deferred additional premium entitlement should be completely restored for the duration of the debtor warrant. The additional premium will be payable until 31 December [2015-2025] at the latest. In any case, the basic premium and the additional premium should be payable at the latest until the sum of partial cancellations and drawings on the guarantee reaches EUR 10 billion.\n(207)\nSecond, HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R and HSH should be required to amend the initial guarantee provision agreement by adding a claim by HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R against HSH to a lump sum payment amounting to EUR 500 million. In order to prevent further reductions of HSH\u2019s own capital ratio, that claim should be payable by HSH in ordinary shares by means of a capital increase. The issue price is to be calculated on the basis of the value of HSH as of the day of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on that capital increase, and the net value of the lump-sum payment claim. HSH should issue shares corresponding to the net amount of the claim directly to HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R (and thus indirectly to the public-sector owners).\n(208)\nThe capital increase can take place either through an ordinary contribution in kind, with no right of option for minority shareholders, or through a mixed capital increase by way of contribution in kind and cash, with a right of option for all shareholders other than HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R regarding the cash portion. It is up to HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R and HSH to choose the form of the capital increase which will ensure speedier implementation and entry in the commercial register.\n(209)\nIf the guarantee provision agreement is amended, the absolute amount of the additional premium should vary based on the amount of losses actually covered by HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R (i.e. the greater the amount of losses absorbed by HSH Finanzfonds A\u00f6R, the greater the amount of the claw-back). To summarise, the cumulative claw-back payments resulting from the two conditions imposed by the Commission and described above are represented in the table below for the three scenarios presented in recital 46.\nTable 13\nClaw-back payment through the basic premium, lump-sum payment and additional premium\n(In EUR million)\nScenario 1\n(EUR 0 drawing of guarantee)\nScenario 2\n(EUR 5 billion drawing of guarantee)\nScenario 3\n(EUR 10 billion drawing of guarantee)\nBasic premium (400 bps on outstanding nominal amount of the guarantee)\n[> 1,5]\n[> 2,5]\n[> 4]\nOf which capital relief remuneration ([around 220] bps on outstanding nominal amount of the guarantee)\n[700-900]\n[1 200-1 600]\n[1 800-2 500]\nClaw-back in basic premium\n[500-800]\n[1 000-1 400]\n[1 500-2 000]\nAdditional premium (385 bps on the ultimately drawn amount of the guarantee)\n0\n[1 500-2 500]\n[3 500-4 500]\nLump sum payment shares\n500\n500\n500\nTotal claw-back paid\n[1 000-1 300]\n[3 000-4 400]\n[5 500-7 000]\nFurther claw-back needed\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(210)\nThe Commission acknowledges that, in spite of the additional conditions imposed, in all the scenarios set out in Table 13 the remuneration mechanism will still result in only a partial claw-back of the EUR [2,5-10] billion gap between the REV and the guaranteed value (EUR [\u2026] billion in scenario 1, EUR [\u2026] billion in scenario 2 and EUR [\u2026] billion in scenario 3).\n(211)\nHowever, the Commission has compared the risk shield measure (including the additional conditions on remuneration) with impaired asset measures approved in respect of other banks. The Commission also notes that paragraph 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication provides some flexibility for the assessment of impaired asset measures in which adequate remuneration cannot be paid, if the measure is accompanied by in-depth restructuring and/or claw-back mechanisms. The Commission observes as well that its decision-making practice ranges from measures for which a full claw-back was provided (such as ING (67) or LBBW (68)) to others for which no claw-back was paid but for which a very far-reaching restructuring was undertaken (such as Parex (69)).\n(212)\nThe risk shield allows for a partial claw-back and is combined with far-reaching restructuring. It consequently meets the requirements of paragraph 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication and falls within the outer limits of the range observed in the Commission\u2019s decision-making practice. Furthermore, the HSH guarantee remuneration mechanism provides a partial claw-back in all possible scenarios. In particular, if the full amount of the guarantee were to be drawn (as in scenario 3), that partial claw-back would amount to [\u2026] % of the claw-back required. At the same time, as illustrated below at recitals 266 to 270, the restructuring of HSH will lead to a 61 % downsizing of its balance sheet. Considered in combination with the present extent of the restructuring, that partial claw-back is in line with the Commission\u2019s decision-making practice. Therefore the Commission is of the view that the impaired asset measures can be considered compatible with the Impaired Assets Communication if the conditions described above and further detailed in Annex II are met.\n9.2.2.7. Conclusion\n(213)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the comments provided by the Member State and third parties have not allayed its doubts regarding the risk shield. In the Commission\u2019s view, the risk shield is not in line with the Impaired Assets Communication as regards the points examined in section 9.2.2 of this Decision. However, compatibility can be achieved under the conditions laid down in Annex II to the present Decision.\n9.2.3. COMPATIBILITY OF THE MODIFIED RESTRUCTURING PLAN WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET\n9.2.3.1. The degree of restructuring required\n(214)\nThe Restructuring Communication sets out the state aid rules applicable to the restructuring of financial institutions where the measures are notified to the Commission on or before 31 December 2010. Therefore the modified HSH restructuring plan will be assessed on that basis. According to the Restructuring Communication, in order to be compatible with Article 107(3)(b) TFEU in the context of the current financial crisis the restructuring of a financial institution has to:\n(i)\nlead to a restoration of the long-term viability of the institution;\n(ii)\ninclude a sufficient contribution of the beneficiary\u2019s own (burden sharing);\n(iii)\ncontain sufficient measures limiting the distortion of competition.\n(215)\nIn line with its practice during the financial crisis, when assessing the restructuring requirements the Commission will not add the amount of liquidity guarantees to the amount of aid.\n9.2.3.2. Restoration of long-term viability\n(216)\nThe Decision initiating the procedure raised doubts on the ability of HSH to restore its long-term viability. Those doubts were confirmed by an in-depth viability analysis performed after the adoption of the Decision initiating the procedure.\n(217)\nIn the Decision initiating the procedure, three main areas were identified as major weaknesses likely to jeopardise HSH\u2019s long-term viability which had not been properly addressed in the initial restructuring plan: (a) HSH\u2019s dependency on wholesale funding, (b) its reliance on volatile and cyclical activities and (c) the large size of its capital market activities relative to its banking activities. Furthermore, doubts were raised as to the sustainability of the growth rates and other assumptions used in the restructuring plan.\n(218)\nConcerning the funding position of HSH, the analysis performed highlighted the following issues: (a) a weak funding structure with limited sources of long-term stable funding, in particular as grandfathered state-guaranteed bonds gradually come to maturity and have to be refinanced, (b) a heavy reliance on savings banks as a privileged source of funding, and (c) a lack of USD-denominated funding.\n(219)\nThe Decision initiating the procedure (70) highlighted the need for HSH to refinance EUR [60-110] billion of wholesale funding coming to maturity by 2014, and questioned its ability to do so. The Commission had identified a gap of around EUR [15-30] billion for which HSH had not planned and allocated specific sources of funding. As described in recital 53 above, HSH\u2019s funding plan showed a gap of EUR 48 billion, which can be adjusted based on assumptions on equity and derivatives in line with historical levels to around EUR [15-30] billion of uncovered funding needs. However, the additional group balance sheet reduction of EUR 34 billion to a balance sheet amount of EUR 120 billion as of the end of 2014 (as opposed to EUR 150 billion in the initial restructuring plan) will reduce the wholesale funding needs, and alleviate the pressure on the funding situation of HSH. It will bridge the funding gap for which no specific sources had been identified by HSH. Further, HSH has demonstrated that its assumptions on the projected level of deposits (permanent average balances, Bodensatz) are conservative compared to current and historical levels of the funding from that source. The Commission therefore considers that EUR [15-25] billion of funding needs not covered by the funding sources allocated can be covered through equity, excess deposits and short-term funding (secured or unsecured funding) without a negative impact on HSH\u2019s funding costs. Thus HSH will not have to find new funding sources, and will be able to rely on identified and existing sources for its entire funding needs through to 2014.\n(220)\nConcerning the reliance on savings banks as a privileged source of funding (as described in recital 95 above), the Commission notes that the reduction of HSH\u2019s risk profile will also reduce their importance in comparison with other sources. The additional balance sheet reduction contained in the modified restructuring plan (EUR 30 billion additional reduction compared to the initial restructuring plan, see recital 50 above) will considerably reduce the new funding needs and the funding gap. The projected funding mix at the end of the restructuring period (as described in Table 7 and recital 93) reduces HSH\u2019s reliance on short-term unsecured funding and therefore its exposure to a liquidity crisis. HSH will also rely more for its funding in relative terms on covered bonds, which in Germany comply with strict issuance requirements and can be considered as a stable and relatively cheap source of funding.\n(221)\nThe lack of USD-denominated funding of HSH constitutes another main weakness in HSH\u2019s business profile. At the end of 2010 around [20-30] % of HSH\u2019s total assets were dollar-denominated, amounting to USD [50-70] billion, of which only USD [15-20] billion (or [20-25] %) were directly funded in USD. That gap is covered by foreign exchange swap transactions, which are rolled over on a continuous basis. Due to the permanent widening of the EUR/USD foreign exchange swap basis since the outbreak of the financial crisis, that funding strategy costs an additional [20-30] bps approximately when compared to a funding strategy based on USD-denominated funding. Furthermore, the strategy brings a number of risks. They include (a) potential additional costs resulting from likely mismatches between actual and expected USD assets cash flows, (b) increased volatility of the short-term liquidity position due to margin call obligations related to the swap positions (71), and (c) increased exposure to counterparty risk due to the fact that swaps are concluded over the counter and HSH bears the full counterparty credit risk for those transactions. However, as the reduction of HSH\u2019s risk profile is to take place mainly in segments which generate USD-denominated assets (i.e. aircraft, shipping and international real estate financing), it also constitutes a material step forward towards reducing the USD funding need. Further, HSH has committed to increase the share of the core bank\u2019s USD business that is refinanced by means of USD-denominated funding to at least [\u2026] % by 2014.\n(222)\nIn conclusion, the proposed measures address the concerns identified by the Commission. They should ensure that HSH is on the right path for developing a more sustainable and stable funding mix with regards to volumes, maturities, seniority, security and currency. The commitment to reach a net stable funding ratio and a liquidity coverage ratio [\u2026] by 2012, ahead of the deadline imposed for implementation of those two ratios by the Basel Committee on Banking Regulation, will enable monitoring of HSH\u2019s progress in that area and should contribute to ensuring that it will keep improving the quality and stability of its funding and retain sufficient excess liquidity in case of stress.\n(223)\nThe Decision initiating the procedure (72) questioned the ability of HSH to ensure long-term viability by concentrating on an expansion of business segments which are cyclical and volatile in nature (73). The in-depth viability analysis reinforced those doubts, as it revealed a growing proportion of HSH\u2019s net interest income to be generated by volatile and cyclical activities (74). The relative importance of shipping and aircraft financing was viewed as being particularly problematic. However, the modified restructuring plan takes proper account of assets\u2019 cyclical nature while preserving the HSH franchise in the shipping business.\n(224)\nThe EUR [30-35] billion additional asset reduction will come entirely from the core bank (to a EUR 82 billion target in 2014) and in particular from the cyclical and volatile activities. HSH will end its aircraft financing activities. The existing aircraft financing assets, amounting to EUR [3-8] billion, will be transferred to the restructuring unit as of the end of [2011-2012] and run down. HSH undertakes not to generate new business in that area. HSH has also committed to reducing its shipping division to total assets of EUR 15 billion in the core bank by the end of 2014. The reduction will be achieved by transferring an additional EUR [0,5-2] billion into the restructuring unit by the end of [2011-2012] and by limiting new business volumes. That total amount of EUR 15 billion of shipping and air transport financing assets compares to EUR [25-30] billion as of 2008.\n(225)\nThe total assets of the real estate division will also be reduced, to EUR 13 billion as of end 2014, as new international real estate business of German corporate clients will be stopped and other new business reduced. The activities of the corporate division will be significantly decreased by 2014 through lower new business volumes.\n(226)\nThat absolute reduction will be accompanied by an improvement in HSH\u2019s risk management processes. In particular, HSH is engaging in a process of reducing individual risks, in particular in the shipping segment. It has also undertaken to reduce existing large single exposures to EUR [\u2026] million and to limit new single exposures to a maximum of EUR [\u2026] million.\n(227)\nIn recital 62 of the Decision initiating the procedure, the Commission raised concerns in regard to the volume of HSH\u2019s capital market operations, which were viewed as remaining disproportionately large despite the refocusing on regional activities. In particular, proprietary trading contributed to HSH\u2019s difficulties.\n(228)\nThe downsizing of HSH\u2019s balance sheet will lead to a very substantial diminution of capital market operations. Capital market operations will be reduced to reach EUR [25-35] billion in assets in the core bank by 2014. That figure compares to EUR 98,8 billion in 2008. Further, Germany has given a commitment that HSH will not engage in proprietary trading. HSH will engage in trading activities only to the extent that they are necessary to execute customers\u2019 orders, to hedge customer business, or for treasury liquidity and balance sheet management purposes (in each case, up to a ceiling expresses as a maximum value at risk). Consequently, those measures address the concerns raised in the Decision initiating the procedure.\n(229)\nHSH\u2019s weak capital structure constitutes another potential obstacle to its long-term viability. The adequacy of the low capitalisation which in the initial restructuring plan was expected at the end of the restructuring period (Tier 1 ratio of [around 9] %) was questionable in particular in light of (a) the cyclical and volatile nature of HSH\u2019s business profile, which called for an additional capital buffer to absorb recurring increased correlated losses, (b) the impact on HSH\u2019s capital of the financial crisis (75) and (c) the introduction of the new Basel III rules, which will very substantially raise the new minimum capital levels (76) required by the regulators. It can also be assumed that market operators, and in particular institutions likely to provide unsecured wholesale funding, will expect higher capital ratios.\n(230)\nThe further reduction of HSH\u2019s risk profile, profit retention and the EUR 500 million capital increase in 2013 will materially improve HSH\u2019s capitalisation. At the end of 2014 HSH\u2019s common equity ratio is expected to be above 10 % and the Tier 1 ratio above 12 %. Those figures compare to [around 7] % and [around 9] % levels in the initial plan for the same ratios. They are more in line with the newly emerging capital standards for banks. Although part of that improvement is also linked to the still significant reduction in risk weighted assets created by the risk shield, the capital position would improve in any event. The improvement has to be put in the context of the reduction of the risk profile of HSH\u2019s balance sheet, and in particular the reduction in the proportion of highly cyclical assets.\n(231)\nFurthermore, one of the requirements to be imposed by the Commission as a condition for finding that the risk shield\u2019s remuneration and claw-back are compatible is that HSH cannot cancel the risk shield if that cancellation would lead to a decrease in the common equity ratio below set levels through the restructuring period, and in particular below 10 % as of 31 December 2014 (see recital 203). That safeguard ensures that HSH is able to maintain adequate levels of capitalisation throughout the restructuring period even in the event of the economic situation deteriorating. The mechanism should help HSH regain the confidence of market counterparties. HSH\u2019s plan provides that it will fully exit the guarantee by [2014-2016], at which point the common equity ratio is expected to be [> 10] %.\n(232)\nTo conclude, the capital position of HSH is improved by the proposed measures so that it is aligned with newly emerging international standards. The improved capital ratios and the higher resistance to stress will have a positive impact on HSH\u2019s funding costs in the mid-term.\n(233)\nThe Decision initiating the procedure (recitals 60 and 63) raised doubts over the sustainability of certain assumptions used in HSH\u2019s planning. Those doubts related in particular to assumptions for (a) the growth of the main business segments; (b) the growth of non-interest income; (c) margins on the key business segments; and (d) the evolution of loan loss provisions.\n(234)\nThe Commission considered the growth assumptions, especially in the shipping, transportation and corporate segments, too optimistic. The ability of HSH to achieve the planned total income was therefore questioned. The revised restructuring plan is, however, based on more reasonable growth assumptions for the shipping and the corporate segments (see Table 5 above). Furthermore, since HSH is now exiting the aircraft financing business, the issue of growth in that segment has also been addressed. As shown in Tables 5 and 6, the growth rates used for the planning of the shipping and corporate segments are materially lower than those used in the original restructuring plan of 1 September 2009. Further, they correspond to absolute volumes which are considered more reasonably achievable for HSH in those sectors in light of its market share and of the overall market volume.\n(235)\nHSH has also revised its assumptions for the growth of its non-interest income. On average over the period 2010 to 2014, non-interest income is expected to represent about [7-12] % of net interest income for the core bank. That target should be achievable in light of HSH\u2019s plan to improve the cross-selling of products between its financial markets division and other business units.\n(236)\nThe Decision initiating the procedure questioned the margins assumptions used in the original planning. However new business margins as of end 2010 were in fact higher than initially expected and planning assumptions were adequately adjusted to reflect that fact.\n(237)\nThe Decision initiating the procedure questioned HSH\u2019s ability to withstand the next economic downturn without having recourse once again to State aid, and therefore its long-term viability. That scepticism was based on the following weaknesses: (a) a fragile funding structure, and in particular a large upcoming funding gap and a chronic shortage of USD-denominated funding, (b) a focus on cyclical and volatile activities likely to create recurring large combined losses, and (c) too low a capitalisation to be able to absorb such losses. However, the proposed additional measures included in the modified restructuring plan address the Commission\u2019s doubts. The new plan has been built using more realistic and credible assumptions and therefore gives a more reliable view of HSH\u2019s viability. The resulting picture is that of a bank which by the end of the restructuring period will be adequately capitalised, with a lower proportion of its operations focused on highly cyclical segments and a stabilised, albeit still challenging, funding position, but with monitoring tools (the net stable funding ratio and USD funding proportion) that should help maintain the focus on continual improvement in the medium term. On that basis, HSH should now have the capital base and the funding position necessary to be able to withstand an economic downturn without recourse to state aid. Regarding the overall profitability of HSH, the modified restructuring plan shows that HSH\u2019s return on equity during the restructuring period reaches [5-10] % in 2014 (77). That figure is low in absolute terms, but should be more stable as a result of HSH\u2019s significantly lower risk profile. It should therefore be viewed as much improved compared to the levels observed in the 10 years preceding the crisis.\n9.2.3.3. Own contribution and burden sharing by minority shareholders\n(238)\nThe Restructuring Communication indicates that, in order to limit the distortions of competition and to prevent moral hazard, (a) restructuring costs and (b) the aid amount should be limited, and there should be a significant own contribution. The Restructuring Communication states further that, in order to keep the aid limited to a minimum banks should first use their own resources to finance the restructuring. The costs associated with the restructuring should not be borne only by the State but also by those who invested in the institution. These include shareholders and subordinated bondholders.\n9.2.3.3.1. Own contribution, burden sharing and aid limited to the minimum\n(239)\nIn recital 65 of the Decision initiating the procedure, the Commission noted that the volume of the divestments that were to serve as the institution\u2019s own contribution was vague. Germany has given a commitment that HSH will sell [100-120] subsidiaries by the end of the restructuring period. Besides, HSH has already sold [30-40] of those [100-120] subsidiaries and expects to have completed all sales by [\u2026] at the latest. The revenues and profits generated will be used to cover restructuring costs. The financial participations to be sold are listed in Annex III and include, among others, HSH Real Estate AG, [\u2026], DekaBank and [\u2026], which are HSH\u2019s largest subsidiaries.\n(240)\nFurther, Germany has given a commitment that HSH will not engage in any acquisition until 31 December 2014.\n(241)\nThe Commission considers that the own contribution measures set out in recitals 239 and 240 do not ensure that in HSH\u2019s current financial circumstances it is providing the maximum contribution of its own to the costs of the restructuring. In particular, the Commission considers that, in line with point 26 of the Restructuring Communication, in a restructuring context the discretionary offset of losses by beneficiary banks (for example by releasing reserves or reducing equity) in order to guarantee the payment of dividends and coupons on outstanding subordinated debt, is in principle not compatible with the objective of limiting the aid amount to the minimum. In particular financial instruments with equity components should participate in losses incurred.\n(242)\nAs Germany refuses to propose additional own contribution measures, the aid measure cannot be approved as compatible under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. Such measures can, however, be imposed by attaching conditions to the Decision.\n(243)\nThus, during the restructuring phase, the Commission should impose the condition that HSH must not make any payments in respect of profit-related equity instruments (such as hybrid financial instruments and profit participation certificates), in so far as those payments are not owed on the basis of a contract or the law. As part of such a dividend ban the Commission also considers that if HSH\u2019s balance sheet, without the adjustment of reserves and retained earnings, shows a loss, those instruments must participate in the loss. There should be no participation in losses brought forward from previous years.\n(244)\nIn order to ensure that the owners of HSH participate to the maximum extent in the reconstitution of an adequate capital basis over the restructuring period (see recitals 229 to 231 above), the Commission would also consider any dividend payment over the restructuring period to be against the principles of keeping state aid to the minimum necessary. Therefore the Commission takes the view that HSH should not pay dividends in the period up to and including the 2014 financial year.\n9.2.3.3.2. Burden sharing by minority shareholders\n(245)\nIn the Decision initiating the procedure (recitals 66 to 72), the Commission took the preliminary view that the minority shareholders who had not participated in the recapitalisation of HSH in May 2009 had not seen their stakes sufficiently diluted. The original restructuring plan did not include burden sharing sufficient to allow the aid to HSH to be considered compatible. Further, the Commission questioned whether the minority shareholders themselves might have benefited from the state aid by maintaining excessively high shareholdings in HSH. The Commission concluded that the measure might include potential indirect aid to the minority shareholders, which might be unlawful if mechanisms to achieve adequate burden sharing were not put in place (recital 73).\n(246)\nThe savings banks associations have asserted that the Commission has not investigated secondary indirect aid effects in any previous recapitalisation case (see recital 129); the Commission points out that it has in fact investigated indirect aid in a great variety of aid measures in a number of decisions (78).\n(247)\nThe Commission recalls that according to settled case-law, Article 107(1) TFEU does not distinguish between measures of state intervention by reference to their causes or aims but defines them in relation to their effects (79). The origin of the advantage indirectly conferred on the minority shareholders was the renunciation by the public-sector owners of that additional shareholding in HSH which they would have received if the price of the new shares had been determined correctly. There is a causal link between the aid granted through state resources to HSH and the advantage to the minority shareholders.\n(248)\nThe Commission also disagrees with the statement that the advantage to the minority shareholders is not imputable to the State because the decision about the recapitalisation, including the number of shares and the share price, was taken by the shareholders\u2019 meeting (see recital 128). At that meeting the public-sector owners were present as shareholders, and acted in their function as public bodies (80). There was a political discussion on the future of HSH at that time.\n(249)\nThe main comments from Germany and the minority shareholders revolve around the arguments that a lesser dilution is not aid and that in any case dilution is simply the result of the parameters chosen for the capital increase, namely the number of shares and the price of those shares. Further, regarding such parameters, Germany and the minority shareholders have pointed to the fact that the valuation was conducted by PwC, a respected company, in line with recognised valuation standards. The valuation was based on the assumption that HSH would return to A rating in 2013, which it was claimed was a reasonable premise. The savings bank associations and Flowers agree with Germany as to that assessment. They claim that the issue price of the new shares was in fact too low.\n(250)\nThe Commission does not question that PwC is a respected company and that it conducted the valuation of HSH in line with recognised valuation standards. However, it maintains that the valuation of HSH did not take into account several aspects which, had they been considered, would have led to a lower value of HSH.\n(251)\nThe PwC valuation report (\u2018the Valuation Report\u2019) was delivered on 15 May 2009 (81). On 30 April 2009 Germany notified the State aid measures for HSH to the Commission because HSH was at risk of not being able to meet regulatory capital requirements. At that point in time it was apparent that HSH would have to undergo substantial restructuring and that it would have to offer compensatory measures for competition distortions that the aid measures might cause. The PwC valuation was conducted on the basis of a business plan that did not take all those aspects into account. In the summary (82) of the Valuation Report PwC clearly stated that the valuation was based on HSH\u2019s planning, which assumed a normalisation of the markets as of 2011. That assumption cannot be considered conservative.\n(252)\nFurthermore, the valuation was conducted under the assumption that HSH would return to an A rating in 2013. PwC explicitly mentioned in the Valuation Report that on 6 May 2009 S&P downgraded HSH from A to BBB + with negative outlook (83), and that the downgrade was not reflected in the funding planning on which the valuation was based and consequently was not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative value of HSH. In addition, PwC observed that, in view of the upcoming state aid investigation, it could be expected that in order to ensure the compatibility of the aid measures, requirements would be imposed which would have a considerable impact on HSH\u2019s business plan. PwC also noted that the general economic conditions in the sectors relevant for HSH (shipping, aviation) and restrictions on the capital market (funding) made it difficult to predict future developments.\n(253)\nFinally, it should be mentioned that the valuation was conducted under the assumption that the risk shield would be implemented. Without the risk shield the RWA relief would not have taken place, and the scale of the necessary recapitalisation would have had to have been increased and the rating assumptions reviewed. PwC also calculated the value of HSH for the scenario in which the risk shield was not implemented (84), and arrived at an indicative value for HSH of EUR [0,8-1,2] billion to EUR [1,5-2] billion, which corresponds to a share price between [> 9] and [< 22] EUR. In view of those facts the Commission continues to consider that the price of the newly issued shares was considerably too high.\n(254)\nThe minority shareholders also argued that in its Decision on HRE the Commission accepted a price for new shares that was above the stock exchange price without questioning its adequacy for burden sharing purposes. They claim that the issue of the share price in HSH should therefore not be investigated either. The Commission is of the opinion that those two cases are not comparable. In HRE a series of measures was taken leading to a full nationalisation of HSH. The main difference between the two cases is that HRE was taken into public ownership and that the State acquired the shares at a price based on the value of the company without state support (85). That is not the case for HSH. The valuation of HSH for determining the price of the newly issued shares was conducted under the assumption that the risk shield of EUR 10 billion would be implemented. That assumption must have significantly influenced the result of the valuation.\n(255)\nThe minority shareholders further explained that in 2008 they supported HSH with significant financial contributions and would not have been able to participate in the recapitalisation in April 2009. They contend that they were also not obliged to do so since an option on new shares does not imply a purchase obligation.\n(256)\nThe Commission understands that the savings bank associations had an option on the new stock and were not obliged to exercise that right. However, the Commission cannot treat the financial support granted to HSH by the minority shareholders in 2008 as a contribution to burden sharing in the context of the aid measures provided to HSH in May and June 2009. The support granted to HSH in 2008 was a consequence of an investment decision taken by the minority shareholders at that time. The Commission does not see a connection between the capital measures in 2008 and the aid measures in 2009.\n(257)\nThe Commission does not agree with the savings bank associations\u2019 comments stating that they do not conduct any economic activities and therefore cannot be regarded as undertakings for the purposes of the state aid rules (see recital 128). The savings banks in Schleswig-Holstein carry on an economic activity (86). They have grouped their economic interests in the savings bank associations. The savings bank associations provide services to the savings banks in Schleswig-Holstein and hold participations/shareholdings for the savings banks, as is the case with the savings bank\u2019s shares in HSH Nordbank. If the participations of the savings banks in the associations increase in value, the value of the savings banks also increases. The savings bank associations and their member savings banks form an economic unit. Any advantage to the associations is by the same token an advantage to the savings banks in Schleswig-Holstein. Therefore the savings bank associations, which economically speaking can be wholly identified with the Schleswig-Holstein savings banks, can be considered recipients of state aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(258)\nThe comments received from Germany and third parties have not allayed the Commission\u2019s doubts on the insufficiency of the burden sharing by minority shareholders. The Commission still believes that the minority shareholders who did not participate in the recapitalisation of HSH in 2009, did not see their stakes sufficiently diluted because the number of shares allocated to the public owners in the recapitalisation was not based on a correct valuation of HSH at the relevant time. However the Commission observes that the modified restructuring plan contains additional measures which considerably improve burden sharing by the minority shareholders.\n(259)\nIn particular, the additional measures on remuneration of the risk shield imposed by the Commission (recitals 202 to 208) will increase the degree of burden sharing. The additional remuneration for the risk shield consisting of the additional premium and the EUR 500 million lump sum payment in shares will have two major effects. First, the increase of the absolute amount of the remuneration payments to the public-sector owners will decrease the distributable profits of HSH and therefore the value of HSH to its shareholders. Second, the EUR 500 million lump sum payment in shares will dilute the stakes held by the minority shareholders, whose shareholding will decrease from 16,8 % currently to about 14-15 % (depending on the share price valuation).\n(260)\nIn addition to the effect resulting from the conditions imposed in respect of the remuneration of the risk shield, burden sharing by minority shareholders will be further improved by the restriction on remuneration of capital instruments set out in recitals 241 to 244. The value of HSH to its shareholders depends on future cash flows, and those cash flows, in the form of dividends, will not be paid until 2014. Therefore the constraints on the timing of the future cash flows imposed by the Commission will further enhance burden sharing by the minority shareholders.\n(261)\nThe Commission considers that even though burden sharing by the minority shareholders has been significantly improved in the modified restructuring plan and through the conditions imposed by the Commission, the measures do not ensure that the burdens are shared to the maximum extent by the minority shareholders. As Germany refuses to propose additional burden sharing measures, the aid measure cannot be approved as compatible under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. On that basis, the indirect aid to the minority shareholders would have to be deemed incompatible, unless some other conditional measures can be found which improve burden sharing by the minority shareholders.\n(262)\nIn light of the potential benefit received by the minority shareholders and the need for adequate burden sharing, the Commission considers that an extension of the dividend ban beyond 2014 is required. However, in order to be proportional, the dividend ban should be limited. To that end, the Commission should impose the condition that in the period from 1 January 2015 until 31 December 2016, dividend payments may not exceed 50 % of the annual surplus for the previous financial year. Furthermore, dividend payments should be permissible during that period only in so far as they would not jeopardise compliance with the Basel III provisions on the capital of credit institutions in the medium-term.\n9.2.3.3.3. Conclusion on own contribution and burden sharing by minority shareholders\n(263)\nThe Commission concludes that adequate own contribution and burden sharing of the minority shareholders can be achieved, and consequently that the aid can be viewed as compatible subject to the conditions described in recitals 262, 202 to 208 and 241 to 244.\n9.2.3.4. Measures limiting distortion of competition\n(264)\nThe Restructuring Communication requires that the restructuring plan contains measures limiting distortions of competition and ensuring a competitive banking sector. The Restructuring Communication indicates, in point 30, that the measures to limit the distortion of competition created by the aid should be tailor-made to address the distortions identified on the markets where the beneficiary bank operates following its return to viability after restructuring. The Commission in its assessment should take as a starting point the size, scale and scope of the activities of HSH.\n(265)\nIn the Decision initiating the procedure, the Commission viewed the proposed measures to address distortion of competition as insufficient. However, the modified restructuring plan provides more measures to address distortion of competition.\n(266)\nIn the modified restructuring plan the projected balance sheet reduction has been considerably increased by comparison with the initial restructuring plan. HSH will reduce its balance sheet by 61 % by the end of 2014 compared to 2008 (87). The reduction of HSH by more than half is appropriate, given the distortions of competition stemming from the large amount of aid received. The reduction is in line with Commission decision-making practice for comparable aid amounts in relative terms. However, in the case of HSH the need to restructure and to reduce the balance sheet is especially great, owing to the insufficient burden sharing stemming from the incomplete claw-back. The reduction complements HSH\u2019s commitment to divest the majority of its participations.\n(267)\nFurther, HSH has given a commitment to reduce the number of its international branches or representation offices from 21 to 6 and the number of national branches from 9 to 7. The remaining branches or representations in London and New York will also be substantially downsized and the branch in Luxembourg will remain solely as a branch of the restructuring unit.\n(268)\nHSH has given a further commitment to observe an acquisition ban during the restructuring period (until 31 December 2014). HSH will not expand business activities through the acquisition of other firms. Landesbank mergers remain possible, subject to the Commission\u2019s approval. Debt-to-equity-swaps and other usual asset management measures are allowed as long as they do not lead to a circumvention of the acquisition ban. If the public-sector owners relinquish control over HSH, then the acquisition ban will apply for three years only. The Commission considers that the privatisation of HSH would have a positive effect on HSH\u2019s viability and ensure effective competition. The continuation of the acquisition ban significantly beyond the date of sale could hinder a possible privatisation process.\n(269)\nMore specifically, HSH has given a commitment to take additional measures which will directly address distortion of competition in the markets in which HSH had acquired strong market positions and in which it had planned to expand. HSH will discontinue its business activities in financial services in relation to aviation (88). EUR [3-8] billion of aviation assets will be transferred to the restructuring unit or sold as of the end of [2011-2012]. HSH will also significantly reduce its shipping, real estate and corporate activities. In particular, in the shipping segment, where HSH has established itself as a leading provider of ship financing and in which HSH had planned to further expand, HSH undertakes that its global market share in new shipping business will not exceed [< 8] % during the entire restructuring period and HSH will not be one of the top three shipping financing providers in terms of new business.\n(270)\nIn conclusion, the proposed measures to limit distortion of competition constitute a material improvement to the steps taken by HSH in the initial restructuring plan, and are viewed as appropriate and sufficient.\n9.2.3.5. Conclusion regarding the restructuring\n(271)\nThe Commission comes to the conclusion that the restructuring measures, including Germany\u2019s commitments in Annexes I and III, are such as to restore the long-term viability of HSH, for an adequate contribution on HSH\u2019s own part, and make up for the distortion of competition due to the aid measures in question. Under the conditions in regard to remuneration and burden sharing which are to be imposed by the Commission, and which are specified in Annex II, the modified restructuring plan also provides for adequate and sufficient burden sharing, and therefore may be deemed to be compatible with the internal market in accordance with Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.\n(272)\nFinally, the Commission considers that the aid contained in the EUR 17 billion of liquidity guarantees provided by Soffin constitutes compatible restructuring aid in so far as it was necessary to address a market failure, in the form of the collapse of the interbank market.\n10. POTENTIAL BENEFIT TO OTHER SHAREHOLDERS\n(273)\nThe minority shareholders have argued that Article 7 of the Procedural Regulation would be breached by dividing the procedure into an authorisation of the direct aid measures for HSH in one set of proceedings while dealing with the issue of the indirect aid to the minority shareholders in another. A negative decision on the recapitalisation in respect of the savings bank associations and Flowers would render the recapitalisation incompatible. According to the savings bank associations, the Commission should address the issue of burden sharing by the minority shareholders in the context of the burden sharing assessment of the recapitalisation.\n(274)\nThe Commission does not agree with the minority shareholders as to the interpretation of the Procedural Regulation. A split of the procedure is legally possible and has been carried out by the Commission in several cases (89). If a single state aid measure has several beneficiaries whose status requires different legal assessments and might result in different paces of investigation, the formal investigation procedure can be split for the purpose of the effectiveness of the proceedings.\n(275)\nThe Commission does not agree either that a different legal assessment on the aid measure in relation to the minority shareholders as indirect beneficiaries would affect the legal assessment (and the compatibility) of the same aid measure in relation to HSH as direct beneficiary of the aid. The Commission refers to the ruling in Case C-382/99 Netherlands v Commission (90), where the Court upheld the Commission\u2019s assessment that an aid measure granted to a recipient could be compatible aid (because in line with de minimis rules), while the same aid measure was not compatible in relation to indirect beneficiaries, and should be recovered. The Commission notes that the proportionality of the recapitalisation in relation to HSH can be ensured through adequate measures in the restructuring plan, whereas any advantage granted to the minority shareholders by means of an excessively high issue price can be treated and corrected differently, for instance by burden sharing.\n(276)\nNevertheless, the Commission does not see any grounds to split the case, and can deal with the different aspects of the aid measure in one decision. If there were not sufficient burden sharing any potential benefit to the minority shareholders could also be assessed, as indicated in the operational part of the Decision initiating the procedure. However, in light of the modification of the remuneration of the risk shield and the additional burden sharing measures, a substantial dilution of the minority shareholders\u2019 stakes and additional burden sharing will be achieved which mitigates substantially the flaws stemming from the valuation by PwC and thus re-establishes adequate burden sharing. In view of that adequate burden sharing established on the basis of the conditions imposed by the present Decision, the Commission considers that the sharing of burdens is sufficient and will therefore not pursue that issue further.\n11. CONCLUSIONS\n(277)\nIn view of the commitments entered into by Germany regarding the restructuring and the conditions imposed by the Commission on that Member State in regard to the remuneration and burden sharing, the Commission comes to the conclusion that the risk shield is in line with Section 5 of the Impaired Assets Communication. In view of the modified restructuring plan submitted, the commitments given by Germany and the conditions imposed on that Member State by the Commission, the restructuring aid composed of the risk shield, the recapitalisation and the liquidity guarantees is in accordance with Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and can be found compatible with the internal market. The objections set out by the Commission in the Decision initiating the procedure have been dispelled,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The EUR 3 billion recapitalisation, the EUR 10 billion guarantee granted by Germany to HSH in the form of a risk shield and the liquidity guarantees granted by Germany constitute state aid caught by Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n2. The aid in the form of a EUR 3 billion recapitalisation, a EUR 10 billion guarantee granted by Germany to HSH in the form of a risk shield and the liquidity guarantees granted by Germany are compatible with the internal market, in light of the commitments set out in Annexes I and III and subject to compliance with the conditions set out in in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nGermany shall ensure that the original restructuring plan submitted on 1 September 2009, as last modified by Germany\u2019s communication of 11 July 2011, is implemented in full, including the commitments set out in Annexes I and III and the conditions set out in in Annex II, and in accordance with the timetable laid down therein.\nArticle 3\nGermany shall inform the Commission within two months of notification of this Decision of the measures taken to comply with it.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nGermany is requested to forward a copy of this Decision to the beneficiary of the aid without delay.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2011.", "references": ["59", "12", "84", "93", "72", "87", "42", "32", "78", "40", "75", "36", "95", "86", "1", "80", "51", "35", "37", "94", "57", "30", "7", "70", "50", "6", "81", "89", "38", "33", "No Label", "15", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/423/CFSP\nof 23 July 2012\nin support of ballistic missile non-proliferation in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and of the Council Common Position 2003/805/CFSP\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 31(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 December 2003, the European Council adopted the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (\"WMD\"), Chapter III of which contains a list of measures that need to be taken both within the European Union and in third countries to combat such proliferation;\n(2)\nThe Union is actively implementing that Strategy and giving effect to the measures listed in Chapters II and III thereof, for example by releasing financial resources to support specific projects leading to the enhancement of a multilateral non-proliferation system and multilateral confidence building measures. The Hague Code of Conduct against ballistic missile proliferation (\u2027the Code\u2027 or \u2027HCoC\u2027) is an integral part of that system. It aims at preventing and curbing the proliferation of ballistic missile systems capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction and related technologies;\n(3)\nOn 17 November 2003, the Council adopted Common Position 2003/805/CFSP (1) on the universalisation and reinforcement of multilateral agreements in the field of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery.\nThat Common Position calls, inter alia, for the promotion of the subscription of as many countries as possible to the Code, especially those with ballistic missile capabilities, as well as for the further development and implementation of the Code, especially its confidence building measures, and for the promotion of a closer relationship between the Code and the UN multilateral non-proliferation system;\n(4)\nOn 8 December 2008, the Council adopted its conclusions and a document entitled \"New lines for action by the European Union in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems\", which states that proliferation of WMD and their delivery systems continue to constitute one of the greatest security challenges and that non-proliferation policy constitute an essential part of the Common and Security Policy. In the light of progress made and of ongoing efforts in the implementation of the \"new lines for action\", the Council agreed in December 2010 to prolong their implementation period until the end of 2012;\n(5)\nOn 18 December 2008, the Council adopted Decision 2008/974/CFSP (2) in support of the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation in the framework of the implementation of the EU Security Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. That Decision allowed the successful promotion of the universality of the Code and compliance with its principles. It is a priority of the Union to continue the dialogue among subscribing and non-subscribing States with the aim of further promoting the universality of the Code as well as its better implementation and enhancement. This follow-up Decision should contribute to this process;\n(6)\nBeyond The HCoC, the continued proliferation of ballistic missiles capable of delivering WMD constitutes a cause of growing concern for the international community, in particular ongoing missiles programmes in the Middle-East, North-East Asia and South Asia, including Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea;\n(7)\nThe UN security Council emphasised in its Resolution (UNSCR) 1540 (2004) and recalled in UNSCR 1977 (2011) that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constituted a threat to international peace and security and obliged States, inter alia, to refrain from supporting by any means non-State actors from developing, acquiring, manufacturing, possessing, transporting, transferring or using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their delivery systems. The threat caused by nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery to international peace and security was reaffirmed in UNSCR 1887 (2009) on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. Furthermore, the UN Security Council decided in UNSCR 1929 (2010), based inter alia on the prior Security Council resolutions, that Iran should not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States should take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities. This Decision should serve, more generally, to support a range of activities aimed to fight the proliferation of ballistic missiles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. For the purposes of ensuring the continuous and practical implementation of certain elements of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Union shall:\n(a)\nsupport activities in support of The Hague Code of Conduct against ballistic missile proliferation, in particular with the aim to:\n-\npromoting the universality of the Code, and in particular the subscription to the Code by all States with ballistic missile capabilities;\n-\nsupporting the implementation of the Code;\n-\nreinforce the visibility of the Code, in particular on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of its signature;\n(b)\nmore generally, support a range of activities to fight against the proliferation of ballistic missiles, aimed in particular at raising awareness of this threat, stepping up efforts to increase the effectiveness of multilateral instruments, building up support to initiatives to address these specific challenges and helping interested countries to reinforce nationally their relevant export control regimes.\n2. In this context, the projects to be supported by the Union shall cover the following specific activities:\n(a)\nActivities in support of the Code:\n-\nThe preparation and publication of a \"welcome package\" for outreach activities towards non-subscribing States, also recalling obligations for subscribing States;\n-\nOrganising outreach side events in Vienna in the margins of the HCoC annual meeting of subscribing states;\n-\nOrganising outreach side events in support of the HCoC in the margins of the UN General Assembly First Committee;\n-\nOrganising up to three regional outreach seminars based on Union priorities (possibly Asia, Gulf countries and Latin America);\n-\nEncouraging subscribing and non-subscribing States' representatives from developing countries to attend the HCoC Annual meetings and outreach seminars;\n-\nOrganising awareness sessions for States having recently joined the HCoC to assist them in fulfilling their obligations, including in the margins of the HCoC annual meeting in Vienna;\n-\nSupporting the coordination of HCoC promotion efforts with the activities of the UN 1540 Committee, including through financing the participation of HCoC experts into 1540 Committee country visits;\n-\nSupporting the HCoC secure internet-based information and communication mechanism (e-ICC), including through technical enhancement of the website;\n-\nProviding financial support to activities to mark the tenth anniversary of the HCoC.\n(b)\nActivities in support of ballistic missile non-proliferation in general:\n-\nOrganising up to four seminars to raise awareness on ballistic missile proliferation in the margins of multilateral fora, possibly linked with the HCoC outreach events referred to in point (a), such as a seminar in the margins of UNGA, the Conference on Disarmament or the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory committees;\n-\nOrganising up to three regional seminars to raise awareness of ballistic missile proliferation and encourage discussions on perspectives to better address the ballistic missile proliferation threat at a regional level, possibly linked with other Union outreach activities on HCoC; in association with the States concerned, seminars could take place in Asia, the Gulf region and Latin America;\n-\nProviding three food-for-thought papers on possible further multilateral steps to prevent the threat of missile proliferation and to promote disarmament efforts in the field of ballistic missiles, focusing in particular on possible confidence-building measures; possible legally-binding measures on short-range and intermediate range ground-to-ground ballistic missiles; and exploring the possibility of adopting a regional focus as a first step, for instance in regions of particular interest for the Union and/or where progress can be expected in the near future;\n-\nIn order to prevent dual-use technology and knowledge transfer at an early stage, organising up to three awareness-building sessions for experts, especially from the scientific and/or space communities and industry;\n-\nEncouraging access for academics from developing countries working on missile non-proliferation to projects of the European Union Centres of Excellence;\n-\nIn coordination with the European Union Centres of Excellence, organising targeted expert missions in countries outside the Union in order to share information and lessons learned regarding missile technology and dual use goods related export control and help them build up their national capabilities;\n-\nSupporting experts' training on ballistic non-proliferation, through participation in Union programmes such as that of the ESDP College or in EU Member States' programmes.\nArticle 2\n1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.\n2. Technical implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be carried out by the Fondation pour la recherche strat\u00e9gique (FRS), which shall perform this task under the responsibility of the HR. For this purpose, the HR shall enter into the necessary arrangements with the FRS.\nArticle 3\n1. The financial reference amount for the implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be EUR 930 000.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the Union budget.\n3. The Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 1. For that purpose, it shall conclude a financing agreement with the FRS. The agreement shall stipulate that the FRS is to ensure visibility of the Union contribution, appropriate to its size.\n4. The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the agreement.\nArticle 4\n1. The HR shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular reports prepared by the FRS. Those reports shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council.\n2. The Commission shall provide information on the financial aspects of the projects referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 5\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall expire 24 months after the date of the conclusion of the financing agreements referred to in Article 3(3). However, it shall expire six months after its entry into force if no financing agreement has been concluded by that time.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["89", "51", "95", "17", "87", "37", "44", "66", "94", "25", "42", "80", "74", "60", "72", "38", "57", "96", "73", "67", "61", "97", "43", "64", "48", "63", "33", "76", "8", "55", "No Label", "3", "5", "6"], "gold": ["3", "5", "6"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 29 June 2011\non the State aid No SA.32504 (2011/N) and C 11/10 (ex N 667/09) implemented by Ireland for Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society\n(notified under document C(2011) 4432)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/269/EU)\nTHE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1),\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Anglo Irish Bank\n(1)\nBy Decision of 14 January 2009, the Commission temporarily approved a recapitalisation of Anglo Irish Bank (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Anglo\u2019) (2). That recapitalisation was not implemented as Ireland decided to nationalise Anglo instead. By Decision of 16 February 2009, the Commission concluded that the nationalisation did not involve State aid (3).\n(2)\nBy Decision of 26 June 2009, the Commission authorised emergency aid to Anglo in the form of a capital injection of EUR 4 billion (4 000 million) on the basis of Article 87(3)(b) of the Treaty establishing the European Community for a period of six months and the Commission took note of Ireland\u2019s commitment to notify a restructuring plan to the Commission by the end of November 2009 (4).\n(3)\nOn 30 November 2009, Ireland notified a restructuring plan to the Commission (5) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the initial Anglo restructuring plan\u2019) prepared by Anglo. On 24 November and 18 December 2009, the Commission sent information requests to Ireland regarding the initial Anglo restructuring plan.\n(4)\nOn 17 February 2010, Ireland notified the Commission of its intention to inject additional capital of up to EUR 10,44 billion into Anglo (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the second recapitalisation\u2019).\n(5)\nBy Decision of 31 March 2010 (6), the Commission approved the second recapitalisation on a temporary basis until the final decision by it on Anglo\u2019s restructuring plan. The Commission also decided in that Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Treaty\u2019) on the initial Anglo restructuring plan and the associated aid measures by Ireland (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the opening decision\u2019). The opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 7 August 2010. The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid. No comments were submitted by third parties.\n(6)\nOn 31 May 2010, Ireland submitted a revised restructuring plan for Anglo Irish Bank (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the second Anglo restructuring plan\u2019).\n(7)\nOn 2 June 2010, the Commission sent an information request to Ireland regarding the second Anglo restructuring plan. Those questions were discussed in a meeting on 24 June 2010 between Commission officials, the Irish authorities and representatives of Anglo. Moreover, the Irish authorities replied to those questions in writing on 9 and 12 July 2010.\n(8)\nOn 28 June 2010, Ireland notified the Commission of another capital injection of up to EUR 10 054 million in favour of Anglo (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the third recapitalisation\u2019) (7).\n(9)\nBy Decision of 10 August 2010 (8), the Commission approved the third recapitalisation on a temporary basis until the final decision by it on Anglo\u2019s final restructuring plan.\n(10)\nOn 31 August 2010, Ireland submitted a new proposal to the Commission on the restructuring of Anglo which set out a split and wind-down of the bank over 10 years.\n(11)\nIn light of a detailed assessment of the prospects of Anglo, the Irish Minister of Finance announced on 30 September 2010 that the resolution of Anglo would require in total a cumulated capital injection of EUR 29,3 billion under base projections, and an additional EUR 5 billion under a stress scenario.\n(12)\nOn 26 October 2010, Ireland submitted a work-out plan for Anglo (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the third Anglo restructuring plan\u2019), explaining in detail how it would implement the work-out of the entity which had been presented for the first time in its submission of 31 August 2010.\n(13)\nIn the subsequent weeks, the Commission services requested some clarifications and sought additional information on 29 October 2010. The Irish authorities replied in a number of e-mail exchanges and conference calls.\n(14)\nOn 8 December 2010, Ireland notified to the Commission an additional recapitalisation of EUR 4 946 million (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the fourth recapitalisation\u2019) and State guarantees in respect of certain liabilities in favour of Anglo.\n(15)\nBy Decision of 21 December 2010 (9), the Commission approved the fourth recapitalisation and guarantees in respect of certain liabilities in favour of Anglo on a temporary basis until the approval of Anglo\u2019s final restructuring plan.\n1.2. Irish Nationwide Building Society\n(16)\nBy Decision of 30 March 2010, the Commission temporarily approved a EUR 2,7 billion recapitalisation of Irish Nationwide Building Society (hereinafter referred to as \u2018INBS\u2019) for six months as of the date the recapitalisation was put into effect (22 December 2009), or, if Ireland submitted a restructuring plan before that date, until the Commission had adopted a final decision on INBS\u2019s restructuring plan (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the first INBS recapitalisation\u2019) (10).\n(17)\nFurthermore, on 30 March 2010, the Irish Minister of Finance announced that, in the light of the reduction of INBS\u2019s balance sheet resulting from transfers to the National Asset Management Agency (hereinafter referred to as \u2018NAMA\u2019), that institution did not have a future as an independent stand-alone entity.\n(18)\nOn 22 June 2010, Ireland notified a restructuring plan for INBS to the Commission (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the INBS restructuring plan\u2019). That plan envisages the continued management of the society as a going concern in anticipation of a sale to a trade buyer.\n(19)\nIn the following weeks, Ireland informally informed the Commission that it was assessing other options for the future of INBS. In particular, Ireland was planning to test the market appetite for acquiring parts of INBS.\n(20)\nOn 30 September 2010, the Irish Minister of Finance made a public statement on the situation of the Irish banking sector and announced that INBS needed an additional recapitalisation of EUR 2,7 billion (leading to a total recapitalisation of EUR 5,4 billion). That capital injection (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the second INBS recapitalisation\u2019) was notified to the Commission on 12 October 2010.\n(21)\nBy Decision of 21 December 2010, the Commission temporarily approved the second INBS recapitalisation for a period of six months or, if Ireland submitted a restructuring plan before 31 January 2011, until the Commission had adopted a final decision on the restructuring plan of that bank (11).\n1.3. Joint procedure\n(22)\nOn 28 November 2010, an agreement was reached between Ireland and the European Union, the European Central Bank (hereinafter referred to as \u2018ECB\u2019) and the International Monetary Fund on a Programme for Support for Ireland (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Programme for Support\u2019). As part of the Programme for Support, Ireland agreed to undertake certain bank recapitalisation and reorganisation measures under a Programme for the Recovery of the Banking System (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Banking System Programme\u2019). In the context of the Banking System Programme, the Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies (hereinafter referred to as \u2018MEFP\u2019) sets out measures which are necessary to restore the viability of the financial sector in Ireland (12). Point 10 of the MEFP states that: \u2018swift and decisive action will be taken to resolve the position of Anglo Irish Bank (Anglo) and Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS) in a way that protects depositors and strengthens the banking system. To this end, by end-January 2011, we will submit to the European Commission a revised proposal developed in collaboration with IMF to resolve Anglo and INBS\u2019 (13).\n(23)\nOn 12 January 2011, Ireland provided information to the Commission regarding the planned sale of deposits by Anglo and INBS. Further information regarding the sales process was submitted on 2 February 2011 and 21 February 2011.\n(24)\nOn 16 January 2011, Ireland submitted information to the Commission regarding the contemplated resolution of the businesses of Anglo and INBS. On 31 January 2011, Ireland notified the Commission of a joint restructuring and work-out plan for Anglo and INBS (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the joint restructuring plan\u2019).\n(25)\nOn 5 April 2011, Ireland updated the joint restructuring plan by including the impact of the deposits and NAMA bond transfers which had taken place in the meantime and by replacing the forecast results and balance sheets of Anglo and INBS for 2010 by the actual ones, which had become known in the meantime. A further update was received on 21 April 2010.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\n2.1. The beneficiaries and their difficulties\n2.1.1. Anglo Irish Bank\n(26)\nMeasured by balance sheet size, Anglo is one of the largest banks operating in Ireland. As at 31 December 2010, it had a balance sheet size of EUR 72,2 billion (14) and a loan book of EUR [\u2026] (15) billion. In terms of its business model, Anglo was a \u2018monoline\u2019 bank specialising in commercial real estate lending in three core markets: Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States. Since the beginning of the financial crisis, Anglo registered heavy losses mainly driven by impairment charges on its commercial loan book. Anglo was nationalised by Ireland on [\u2026] 2009.\n(27)\nA detailed description of Anglo and its difficulties was provided in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the opening decision of 31 March 2010.\n(28)\nAnglo\u2019s business model proved to be unsustainable and led to unprecedented financial difficulties and losses in the context of the global financial crisis. Anglo\u2019s business model was overly concentrated on commercial property lending and led to excessive exposures to that sector of the economy which was particularly hard-hit during the financial crisis: commercial property prices decreased peak-to-trough by more than 62 % in Ireland, 37 % in the United Kingdom and 45 % in the United States (16). In addition, Anglo\u2019s lending was partly financed by wholesale funding, a source of funding which dried up as a result of the financial crisis.\n(29)\nRisk management in Anglo was not sufficiently developed and allowed uncontrolled balance sheet growth combined with risky lending practices (such as high loan-to-value lending and interest-only lending), in particular during the years of the Irish property boom. Between 1984 and 2008, the Bank\u2019s balance sheet grew at a compound growth rate of approximately 30 % per year, reaching a balance sheet of EUR [\u2026] billion in 2008. The loans-to-deposit ratio (hereinafter referred to as \u2018LtD\u2019) increased from 100 % pre-1990 to an average of 217 % in the period from 2008 to 2009.\n(30)\nAnglo benefited from four recapitalisations, an asset relief measure which allowed it to transfer around EUR 35 billion of impaired loans to the NAMA and State guarantees on most of its liabilities (see recital 66).\n2.1.2. INBS\n(31)\nA detailed description of INBS was provided in Section 2.1 of the Commission Decision of 30 March 2010 concerning the first recapitalisation of INBS. A short summary is therefore provided in this Section.\n(32)\nINBS is a building society and had a balance sheet total of EUR 12,1 billion as at 31 December 2010. Before the financial crisis, it was the sixth-largest Irish financial institution in terms of balance sheet size. It offered traditional retail banking products to its members (namely, savings and mortgages). In the years preceding the financial crisis, INBS aggressively increased its activities in risky commercial property lending, which became its main activity. INBS was predominantly active in Ireland, where it had a branch network of 50 branch offices and 40 branch agents, and in the United Kingdom where it had no branch offices.\n(33)\nINBS\u2019s loan book as at 31 December 2010 had a value of EUR 1,9 billion following the transfer of EUR 8,5 billion of loans to NAMA (17). Retail deposits amounted to EUR 3,9 billion as at 31 December 2010. INBS recorded a loss of EUR 3,3 billion in 2009.\n(34)\nINBS\u2019s difficulties were caused by its overexposure to poorly underwritten Irish commercial property loans (approximately 80 % of INBS\u2019s total loan book). Consequently, when the financial crisis hit and property prices, especially commercial property prices, fell dramatically in both Ireland and the United Kingdom, INBS was highly exposed to losses in its loan book. Those losses have forced it to take significant impairments in 2009 and 2010.\n(35)\nINBS benefited from two recapitalisations, an asset relief measure which enabled it to transfer around EUR 8,9 billion of impaired commercial property loans to NAMA and State guarantees on most of its liabilities (see recital 67).\n(36)\nPrior to the first recapitalisation by Ireland, INBS was owned by its members. As a result of the first recapitalisation of INBS, the State has taken full control of the bank. The members have thus lost control of INBS and have lost all economic ownership rights.\n2.2. The individual restructuring plans\n2.2.1. The initial Anglo restructuring plan\n(37)\nThe initial Anglo restructuring plan was notified to the Commission on 30 November 2009. A comprehensive description of the initial Anglo restructuring plan can be found in Section 2.4 of the opening decision, in which the Commission raised a number of doubts as to whether that plan complied with the conditions laid down in the Restructuring Communication (18). In particular, the Commission questioned whether the plan would lead to a restoration of the long-term viability of Anglo, would limit the restructuring costs to a minimum and would limit distortions of competition. Therefore, the Commission initiated the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty with regard to that plan. At the same time, the Commission requested the submission of a revised restructuring plan by 31 May 2010.\n2.2.2. The second Anglo restructuring plan\n(38)\nOn 31 May 2010, Ireland submitted a revised restructuring plan which set out a significantly revised approach to restructuring Anglo.\n(39)\nAs requested in the opening decision, the second Anglo restructuring plan presented a number of possible restructuring scenarios: (i) liquidate 100 % of Anglo over 12 months; (ii) wind-down 100 % of Anglo over 10 years; (iii) wind-down 100 % of Anglo over 20 years; (iv) stabilise the whole of Anglo and keep it as a going concern; and (v) a split which included the wind-down of 80 % of Anglo through the creation of an asset management company while the remainder would continue to do business (a good bank).\n(40)\nThe split scenario, referred to in (v) of recital 39, was presented as the preferred option of the Irish authorities. In that scenario, the asset management company would hold \u2018lower quality assets\u2019 that would not be transferred to NAMA or the good bank (book of EUR 13,6 billion at split), and would be managed to maximise asset recovery values while minimising State funding. The asset management company would not conduct any new business and would be liquidated in 2020.\n(41)\nThe good bank would become a significantly smaller State-owned commercial bank which could deliver long-term viability with a sharply reduced balance sheet having a lower risk profile. It was envisaged to privatise the good bank within a five-year timeframe, providing a partial return to the State of its investment in Anglo.\n2.2.3. The third Anglo restructuring plan\n(42)\nOn 26 October 2010, elaborating on its submission of 31 August 2010, Ireland submitted a substantially revised proposal on the restructuring of Anglo. The third Anglo restructuring plan sets out the broad lines of a split of Anglo into two legally independent State-owned entities, namely a Funding Bank and a Recovery Bank, which would result in the wind-down of Anglo over a period of approximately 10 years. Further State aid would be needed in the form of capital injections, persistent Central Bank funding and a comprehensive structure of State guarantees over the lifetime of the two Banks. The plan forecast a capital requirement of EUR 29,3 billion in the base case and EUR 34 billion in stress case.\n(43)\nIreland indicated that the new approach to the restructuring of Anglo, which foresees that it would cease to operate as a lender, was triggered by deteriorating market circumstances. It argued that funding conditions for Anglo and sentiment towards the State (Sovereign) had worsened since the submission of the second Anglo restructuring plan, while the discounts on loans transferred to NAMA and the losses on the non-NAMA loan book were higher than expected.\n2.2.4. The INBS restructuring plan\n(44)\nThe restructuring plan for INBS was submitted to the Commission on 22 June 2010. In line with what was requested in the first INBS recapitalisation decision, the INBS restructuring plan explored several options for the bank: (i) restructuring and continuation of the business with a view to selling it around 2013; (ii) immediate wind-down; or (iii) gradual wind-down to be completed by 2020. The sale required the lowest amount of State support in addition to EUR 2,7 billion already provided by the State at the time the plan was submitted.\n(45)\nIn the preparation for the sale, INBS was supposed to become a small savings and loan institution. It would transfer a significant portion of its existing commercial loan portfolio to NAMA and cease commercial lending, and provide only residential mortgage lending and savings accounts to its customers.\n(46)\nThe INBS restructuring plan did not envisage any particular measures aimed at limiting the distortion of competition created by the aid.\n2.3. The joint restructuring plan for Anglo and INBS\n2.3.1. Description of the joint restructuring plan\n(47)\nOn 31 January 2011, Ireland submitted to the Commission the joint restructuring and work-out plan for Anglo and INBS. The joint restructuring plan foresees the merger of Anglo and INBS, after the sales of their respective deposit books, into one single entity (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the merged entity\u2019) which will be licensed, fully regulated and 100 % State-owned. The joint opening balance sheet after the merger will amount to EUR [60-70] billion.\n(48)\nThe merged entity will: (i) work out the legacy commercial property loan book of Anglo over a period of 10 years through redemptions and sales; (ii) work out the retail mortgage book of INBS over a period of [\u2026] years [\u2026]; and (iii) rely [\u2026]. The merged bank will only hold a small amount of deposits and will not engage in any new lending or other activities.\n(49)\nThe merged entity will hold the various promissory notes which have been used to recapitalise both Anglo and INBS. All the promissory notes will be settled in accordance with their payment schedule (19). [\u2026]. The merged entity also have a small amount of subordinated debt, which will correspond to the amount which it does not manage to buy back in the framework of successive liability management exercises.\n(50)\nThe objective of the proposed joint restructuring plan is to avoid the risk of further losses from new lending, manage the work-out of the loan books efficiently and keep State aid requirements to a minimum. Working out the two loan books in one merged entity enables synergies with regard to capabilities, infrastructure and processes.\n2.3.1.1. Deposits\n(51)\nIn conformity with the Programme for Support, Ireland committed to transfer, before the merger, the deposits (which are recorded on the liability side of the balance sheet) and NAMA bonds (which are recorded on the asset side of the balance sheet) of Anglo and INBS to viable institutions in an open process. Bids were invited on the package of NAMA bonds and deposits. The sale of circa EUR 12,2 billion of deposits and of circa EUR 15,9 billion of NAMA bonds of both entities was completed (20) on 24 February 2011.\n(52)\nIn contrast to previous versions of the Anglo restructuring plans, the merged entity will, in principle, not hold deposits to fund its assets but will instead exit the deposit market.\n(53)\nHowever, in compliance with the commitments (see Section 2.2.5.1), the merged entity will be allowed to keep a small amount of corporate deposits which are held as guarantee for loans granted to several corporate institutions (legacy secured or deposits related to borrower accounts). The joint restructuring plan assumes that there will be a maximum amount of EUR 1 billion of deposits at the time of the merger.\n2.3.1.2. Funding\n(54)\nThe joint restructuring plan is based on the following assumptions:\n(i)\n[\u2026]\n(ii)\nExisting wholesale funding of EUR [\u2026] billion to mature as per existing schedules (majority within four years), [\u2026].\n2.3.1.3. Guarantees\n(55)\nThe merged entity requires a comprehensive set of State guarantees (see also recital 69), covering the following exposures:\n(i)\nA State guarantee on deposits and bonds still outstanding. That guarantee would be needed for the entire duration of the joint restructuring plan and is currently provided under the Eligible Liabilities Guarantee Scheme (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the ELG scheme\u2019). Once the ELG scheme expires, the guarantee would have to be provided on an ad hoc basis;\n(ii)\nA State guarantee to the CBI on the unsecured part of the ELA to Anglo/INBS, which would allow the merged entity to access CBI/ELA funding as needed [\u2026];\n(iii)\nA State guarantee on certain liabilities for its off-balance sheet transactions, services and transactional capabilities [\u2026.] (21).\n(56)\nUnder the joint restructuring plan, no payments will be made by the merged entity for the State guarantees, except for the guarantees on deposits (50 bps) for the duration of the ELG scheme and on already guaranteed bonds outstanding (for which a fee of 95 to 125 bps will be paid during the duration of the ELG scheme until they mature).\n2.3.1.4. Capital\n(57)\nIn the base case, the joint restructuring plan assumes that no additional capital beyond that effectively injected to date, namely EUR 34,7 billion (EUR 29,3 billion for Anglo and EUR 5,4 billion for INBS) will be required (22). Those amounts correspond to the amounts already authorised under the four rescue decisions for Anglo and the two rescue decisions for INBS (23). The joint restructuring plan indicates that in a stress scenario (implying in particular higher impairments and losses on loans disposals), capital requirements would increase up to EUR 38 billion, meaning that an additional EUR 3,3 billion of capital [\u2026] over the period of the plan (namely 10 years). Besides the risk of higher impairments and losses on loans disposals, the joint restructuring plan also identifies several additional risks which could lead to the merged entity having recourse to [\u2026] EUR 3,3 billion capital in a stress case.\n2.3.1.5. Main additional risks associated with the joint restructuring plan\n(58)\nFirstly, the joint restructuring plan identifies a risk of an increase in the cost of funding and an exchange rate risk. [\u2026] (24). In total, the merged entity will need to access circa [\u2026] of Central Bank funding at the time of the merger. That funding need would gradually decrease to [\u2026]. If the reliance on Central Bank funding is not feasible to the extent and for the duration projected (25), the merged entity will have to rely on other sources of funding, if they exist, which could be more expensive.\n(59)\nFurthermore, some of the merged entity\u2019s assets are fixed interest rate, long-term assets (typically, promissory notes) which are funded through very short-term funding [\u2026].\n(60)\n[\u2026].\n(61)\nIn addition, the joint restructuring plan highlights the risks associated with the merged entity\u2019s difficulties in running its business on a going concern basis while being in resolution mode. [\u2026]. Finally, the merger process may lead to elevated operational risks, which in turn might require further capital.\n(62)\nThe probability of such risks materialising is difficult to assess. Those risks and uncertainties were not incorporated in the expected capital needs in the stress case scenario.\n2.3.2. The Commitments\n(63)\nIreland has provided a number of commitments related to the merged entity in order to specifically limit the distortion of competition resulting from the State support received by Anglo and INBS. Those commitments are attached to this Decision in their entirety in Annex I. For the purposes of this Decision, the Commission has provided a non-exhaustive summary in recitals 63 to 66.\n(i)\nDuration of the commitments. Unless otherwise specified, all commitments provided by Ireland will remain valid and applicable until the assets of the merged entity are fully worked out, including the promissory notes.\n(ii)\nBan to develop new activities and to enter new markets: The merged entity will not develop any new activities and will not enter new markets, that is to say that the merged entity will not carry out any activities other than those that are consistent with managing the work-out of the Anglo and INBS legacy loan book (including loan sales, where appropriate, to maximise recovery values). In particular, the merged entity will maintain and use its banking licence only as long as necessary for the work-out of the loan portfolios and will not use it to develop new activities. [\u2026].\n(iii)\nManagement of existing assets: The merged entity will manage existing commercial assets in a way that maximises Net Present Value (hereinafter referred to as \u2018NPV\u2019) of the assets in accordance with normal commercial practice. Specifically, if a client cannot respect the terms of his/her loan, the merged entity will only restructure the lending terms if such a restructuring would lead to enhancing the NPV of the loan (that is to say, if the NPV of the cash flows to be expected from the restructuring is higher than the present value of the cash flows which can be expected from liquidation). In summary, the merged entity will manage its commercial asset portfolio in the same way as a private asset manager would manage the work-out of a similar book.\nAs regards the merged entity\u2019s mortgage assets, the same obligations that apply to the commercial assets will apply mutatis mutandis.\n(iv)\nBan on acquisitions: The merged entity will not acquire or take participations in any other firm, except with the prior consent of the Commission.\n(v)\nBan on coupons and exercising calls on subordinated debt and hybrid capital instruments: The merged entity will not pay coupons or exercise calls on subordinated debt instruments and hybrid capital instruments, unless it is legally obliged to do so.\n(vi)\nCap on new lending: The merged entity\u2019s net commercial loan book will not exceed the forecasts in the joint restructuring plan by more than [\u2026] in any single year during the plan period. Concerning the mortgage loan book, the merged entity will limit further advances to contractually committed amounts and amounts arising as part of the restructuring of existing mortgage facilities. The aggregate total of further mortgage advances is capped at a maximum of [\u2026] for the period starting 1 January 2011 and ending 31 December 2012, and [\u2026] per annum thereafter.\n(vii)\nIn addition, the following lending commitments will also apply to the commercial loan book:\n(a)\nContractually committed but not yet paid-out amounts: The merged entity will be allowed to advance funds under contractually committed but not yet paid-out loan facilities. However, such payments will not exceed a cumulative amount of [\u2026] over the entire period of the joint restructuring plan with regard to the merged entity\u2019s loan book.\n(b)\nAdditional financing to existing borrowers: The merged entity may not provide additional financing which is not contractually committed at the time of the approval of the joint restructuring plan (in line with the commitment referred to in point (ii)).\nAs an exception to that prohibition, the merged entity may finance small additional amounts to existing regulatory groups if it complies with the commitment in point (iii)\n-\nIt is strictly necessary to preserve the value of the loan collateral (for example, to cover collateral maintenance, insurance, tax, security, insolvency or legal costs); or\n-\nIt is otherwise related to enhancing the expected recovery value of a loan or other asset on an NPV basis (for example, meeting essential investment working capital or liquidity needs of the underlying business)\n-\nThe merged entity may only provide such additional financing where:\n-\nIf the nominal exposure concerned is less than [\u2026], the additional financing will not exceed [\u2026] of the nominal exposure;\n-\nIf the nominal exposure concerned is between [\u2026] and [\u2026], the additional financing will not exceed [\u2026];\n-\nIf the nominal exposure concerned exceeds [\u2026], the additional financing will not exceed [\u2026] of the nominal exposure.\n(c)\nNew borrowers: The merged entity may lend to a new borrower (or a group of borrowers, also called \u2018a regulatory group\u2019) only where the following conditions are met:\n-\nThe proceeds are used to reduce the exposure of an existing borrower or regulatory group;\n-\nThe transaction overall does not increase the total net exposure to the merged entity;\n-\nThe new lending enhances expected recovery values (as measured by NPV) compared to other restructuring or foreclosure strategies; and\n-\nThere is no capitalisation of interest (\u2018interest roll-up\u2019)\n(viii)\nSpecific lending commitments on the mortgage book. The merged entity will not be allowed to provide financing which it is not contractually committed to providing at the time of the approval of the joint restructuring plan. As an exception to that rule, the merged entity may, when the balance of the loan exceeds the value of the mortgaged property, facilitate its redemption through selling off the property by providing additional finance to a vendor enabling the repayment of the outstanding balance if the provision of financing is in line with the commitment in point (iii).\n(ix)\nFurther exceptions in the national interest. On an exceptional basis and in the national interest, Ireland may determine that further exceptions to the lending restrictions set out in points (vii) and (viii) may be required to enhance expected recovery values on a NPV basis. Such determinations will be subject to prior approval by the Commission.\n(x)\nDeposits - transfer of Anglo and INBS deposits. Following the transfer of legacy Anglo and INBS deposits, the merged entity will be left with certain categories of deposits and accounts, not considered for the transfer. The overall amount of deposits from existing customers at the date of the merger will at no point in time exceed EUR [\u2026] billion. The merged entity will reduce its deposits at broadly the same rate as the overall net loan book is worked out. In addition, the deposit book of the merged entity will not exceed the forecasts of the joint restructuring plan by more than EUR 200 million at any time. The categories of deposits retained by the merged entity are listed in the following points (a) to (h):\n(a)\nDeposits which at the time of transferring the legacy deposits of Anglo and INBS to viable institutions, are held by or on behalf of any subsidiary of Anglo or INBS, except the Isle of Man subsidiary of Anglo;\n(b)\nSecured accounts (in favour of Anglo or INBS or any other person) and deposits related or connected to a regulatory group from Anglo or INBS or tracker bond accounts at the time of transfer of Anglo\u2019s and INBS\u2019s deposits to two other Irish banks (26);\n(c)\nDeposits denominated in currencies other than euro, US dollar (USD) or pound sterling (GBP) at the time of transferring the deposits. They will not be replaced as they mature;\n(d)\nDeposits held or booked at branches at Jersey, at Dusseldorf, Germany or at Vienna, Austria. They will not be replaced as they mature;\n(e)\nAny account which has a negative balance;\n(f)\nInternal control accounts;\n(g)\nAccounts where the account or the customer to whom the account relates has been the subject of notification of an investigation by any police, fraud or investigative authority; and\n(h)\nAll INBS accounts identified in the accounting records of the Transferor by branch \u2018[\u2026]\u2019.\n(xi)\nMonitoring Trustee: The merged entity will appoint a Monitoring Trustee, subject to the Commission\u2019s approval, who will verify adherence by the merged entity with the commitments set out in Annex I. The Monitoring Trustee will be nominated for a period of three years.\n(64)\nIreland will ensure that the merged entity complies with the commitments set out in Annex I. Ireland will submit regular reports on the measures taken to comply with those commitments. The first report will be submitted to the Commission not later than six months from the date of notification of this Decision and thereafter at six monthly intervals.\n2.4. The State measures assessed in this Decision\n(65)\nBoth Anglo and INBS have received a substantial amount of State aid. After the merger, the merged entity will also benefit from several State measures. This Section presents those measures (see also Table 1).\n(66)\nOver the course of the rescue period, Anglo received several State aid measures which have been approved by the Commission in the various decisions pertaining to this case (27), and which are referred to in points (a) to (v) of this recital and recitals 67, 68 and 69):\n(a)\nA State guarantee under the CIFS scheme covering Anglo\u2019s deposits (retail, commercial, institutional and interbank), covered bonds, senior debt and dated subordinated debt for the period from 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2010 (28);\n(b)\nA first recapitalisation of Anglo for an amount of EUR 4 billion (29);\n(c)\nState guarantees under the ELG scheme covering deposits, senior unsecured certificates of deposit, senior unsecured commercial paper, senior unsecured bonds and notes (30);\n(d)\nAn asset relief measure in the form of the transfer of EUR 35 billion (31) of impaired commercial property loans to NAMA at an average discount of [50-70] % (32);\n(e)\nA second recapitalisation for an amount of EUR 10,44 billion, of which EUR 10,3 billion was effectively granted by Ireland (33);\n(f)\nA third recapitalisation for an amount of EUR 10 054 million (of which EUR 8 580 million was granted upon approval while the remainder (EUR 1 474 million) was injected together with the fourth capital injection), see measure (h) (34);\n(g)\nA guarantee on Anglo\u2019s short-term liabilities following the reapplication of the ELG scheme to cover such securities, notably commercial paper, certificates of deposit, interbank deposits and corporate deposits with a maturity of less than three months (covered amount is around EUR [\u2026] billion as at 31 December 2010) (35);\n(h)\nAn additional recapitalisation of EUR 4 946 million was granted to cover further losses resulting from the accelerated transfer of impaired property development loans to NAMA and losses on the non-NAMA loan book until [\u2026]. The remaining balance of the third recapitalisation (measure (f)) amounting to EUR 1 474 million has already been injected together with EUR 4 946 billion (36);\n(i)\nA guarantee on certain off-balance sheet transactions covering an amount estimated at around EUR [\u2026] billion (37).\n(67)\nINBS, during the rescue period, has received the following measures (j) to (o) that were approved by the Commission:\n(j)\nA guarantee under the CIFS scheme covering INBS\u2019s deposits (retail, commercial, institutional and interbank), covered bonds, senior debt and dated subordinated debt from 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2010 (38);\n(k)\nA first recapitalisation for an amount of EUR 2,7 billion (39);\n(l)\nState Guarantees under the ELG scheme covering deposits, senior unsecured certificates of deposit, senior unsecured commercial paper, senior unsecured bonds and notes (40);\n(m)\nAn asset relief measure in the form of the transfer of EUR 8,9 billion (41) of impaired commercial property loans NAMA at an average discount of 64 % (42);\n(n)\nA State guarantee on INBS\u2019s short-term liabilities following the reapplication of the ELG scheme to cover such securities, notably commercial paper, certificates of deposit, interbank deposits and corporate deposits with a maturity of less than three months (covered amount as at 31 December 2010 is approximately EUR [\u2026] million) (43);\n(o)\nA second recapitalisation for an amount of EUR 2,7 billion (44).\n(68)\nIn addition to the State aid measures (a) to (o) referred to in recitals 66 and 67, Anglo and INBS have received prior to the merger further rescue measures (p) and (q):\n(p)\nAnglo has received a State guarantee on a part of the ELA provided to Anglo by the CBI from March 2009 until the merger with INBS. That guarantee covers up to EUR [\u2026] billion of ELA (45);\n(q)\nINBS also received a State guarantee on a part of the ELA granted to INBS by the CBI from 24 February 2011 until the merger with Anglo. That guarantee covers up to EUR [\u2026] billion.\n(69)\nAfter the merger, the merged entity will be provided with the following measures (r) to (v):\n(r)\nA State guarantee for the remaining customer deposits, for a maximum amount of EUR [\u2026] billion;\n(s)\nA continuation of the State guarantee on off-balance sheet transactions covering an amount estimated at approximately EUR [\u2026] billion;\n(t)\nA State guarantee on a part of the ELA provided by the CBI to the merged entity, essentially combining both guarantees on the ELA granted to Anglo and INBS separately. That guarantee is estimated at up to EUR [\u2026] billion at the commencement of merger, declining thereafter [\u2026];\n(u)\nAn additional recapitalisation, [\u2026] to cover additional losses in case of additional stress of EUR 3,3 billion;\n(v)\nA State guarantee on the outstanding ELG-covered wholesale funding transferred from Anglo to the merged entity covering an amount of EUR [\u2026] billion (46).\n2.4.1. Rescue measures approved by the Commission\n(70)\nAs regards the measures (a) to (o) referred to in recitals 66 and 67, they have already been assessed by the Commission in the context of the earlier decisions regarding Anglo and INBS and have been qualified as rescue aid. Further to the rescue measures, Ireland notified the Commission of additional measures that are intended to enable the resolution of Anglo and INBS, measures (p) to (v) referred to in recitals 68 and 69.\n(71)\nWith regard to the measures already approved by the Commission (namely measures (a) to (o) referred to in recitals 66 and 67), it should be pointed out that the CIFS guarantee scheme is no longer in force since 30 September 2010 (measures (a) and (j) referred to in recitals 66 and 67) and has been replaced by the ELG scheme and the reapplication of the ELG scheme to short-term liabilities (measures (c), (g), (l) and (n) referred to in recitals 66 and 67). After the merger, those schemes will be replaced by individual State guarantees (measures (r) and (v) referred to in recital 69), once the ELG scheme is no longer in place, see recitals 77 and 81.\n(72)\nAs for measures (d) and (m) referred to in recitals 66 and 67, the transfer of [\u2026] loans to NAMA was completed in November 2010 at an average haircut of 62 % for Anglo and 64 % for INBS.\n(73)\nTogether with the fourth recapitalisation, Anglo also received a State guarantee on its off-balance sheet transactions (measure (i) referred to in recital 66). That guarantee, for which Anglo does not pay a fee, essentially provides comfort to Anglo\u2019s counterparties in derivatives transactions (mostly hedging contracts) and clearing arrangements.\n2.4.2. Further rescue measures\n(74)\nAnglo and INBS both have received further rescue measures prior to the merger and thus the effective restructuring (measures (p) and (q) referred to in recital 68). From March 2009 until the merger, Anglo has already received an ELA from the CBI which was partly State-guaranteed (measure (p)). The State guaranteed part of the ELA has fluctuated, from EUR [\u2026] billion in September 2010 to EUR [\u2026] billion in March 2011. Anglo pays the CBI an interest rate consisting of the ECB base rate (currently 125 basis points) plus [\u2026] basis points (hereafter \u2018bps\u2019) for the ELA but does not pay a fee for the guarantee.\n(75)\nINBS also has received a State guarantee on part of the ELA provided by the CBI (measure (q) referred to in recital 68). In total, INBS received a State guarantee on its ELA of EUR [\u2026] billion from 24 February 2011 onwards until the merger with Anglo. INBS also pays the CBI an interest rate consisting of the ECB base rate (currently 125 bps) plus [\u2026] bps for the ELA, but does not pay a fee for the State guarantee.\n2.4.3. Measures for the merged entity\n(76)\nThe merged entity [\u2026] from several State guarantees and a capital injection of EUR 3,3 billion in a stress case (measures (r) to (v) referred to in recital 69).\n(77)\nThe merged entity will benefit from a State guarantee on the deposits that will be transferred to it from both Anglo and INBS (measure (r) referred to in recital 69). The maximum amount of those deposits will be EUR 1,05 billion. They are made up in particular of deposits that are either secured or connected to a borrower account that is transferred to the merged entity, and they have therefore not been transferred out of Anglo and INBS. The merged entity will pay a flat fee of 50 bps for the duration of the ELG scheme and nothing thereafter.\n(78)\nThe merged entity will also benefit from a measure granted to Anglo before the merger, namely the continuation of the State guarantee on off-balance sheet transactions for an amount estimated at around EUR [\u2026] billion (47) (measure (s) referred to in recital 69). The merged entity will not pay a fee for that guarantee.\n(79)\nIn order to fund the resolution of Anglo and INBS, it is foreseen in the joint restructuring plan that the merged entity will benefit from a State guarantee on part of the ELA that it will receive (measure (t) referred to in recital 69). In total, the merged entity will have access to an ELA of up to EUR [\u2026] billion, at the commencement of the merger, declining thereafter [\u2026]. The merged entity will pay the CBI an interest rate of [\u2026] bps for euro currency funding and [\u2026] bps for foreign currency funding, but will pay no fee for the State guarantee.\n(80)\nAccording to the joint restructuring plan, [\u2026] in case of a further deterioration of its financial position (stress case - measure (u) referred to in recital 69). In that case, [\u2026] up to EUR 3,3 billion of capital [\u2026]. That approach will ensure that the merged entity satisfies the relevant minimum regulatory capital requirements set by the Irish Financial Regulator (currently an 8 % total capital ratio).\n(81)\nFinally, the merged entity will benefit from a State guarantee on the existing wholesale funding of around EUR 3 billion that will be transferred from Anglo to the merged entity (measure (v) referred to in recital 69). The merged entity will pay a fee of between 95 to 125 bps during the duration of the ELG and will pay no fee thereafter.\nOverview of the measures granted to Anglo, INBS and the merged entity (referred to in recitals 66 to 69)\nMeasures granted to Anglo, Recovery Bank and Funding Bank\nNo\nType of measure\nAmount\nRemuneration\nRescue measures approved\nAnglo Irish Bank\na\nGuarantee under the CIFS scheme\nPeak EUR [\u2026] billion at September 2008 (48)\nflat fee 18,5 bps rising to 32 bps\nb\nFirst recapitalisation\nEUR 4 billion\nno remuneration\nc\nGuarantee under the ELG scheme\nEUR [\u2026] billion (49)\nECB recommendation + 40 bps (50)\nd\nAsset relief measure - transfer of eligible loans to NAMA\nEUR 35 billion transferred\nn/a\ne\nSecond recapitalisation\nEUR 10,44 billion (51) (EUR 10,3 billion)\nno remuneration\nf\nThird recapitalisation\nEUR 10 054 million\nno remuneration\ng\nGuarantee on short-term liabilities\nc. EUR [\u2026] billion at December 2010\n160 bps as at December 2010 (50)\nh\nFourth recapitalisation\nEUR 4 946 million\nno remuneration\ni\nGuarantee on certain off balance sheet liabilities\nestimated gross max. EUR [\u2026] billion (52)\nno fee\nIrish Nationwide Building Society\nj\nGuarantee under the CIFS scheme\nPeak EUR [\u2026] billion at October 2008 (48)\nflat fee 18,5 bps rising to 25,6 bps\nk\nFirst recapitalisation\nEUR 2,7 billion\nSecured the rights to the net surplus assets of the Society\nl\nGuarantee under the ELG scheme\nEUR [\u2026] billion (49)\nECB recommendation + 40 bps (50)\nm\nAsset relief measure - transfer of eligible loans to NAMA\nEUR 8,9 billion transferred\nn/a\nn\nGuarantee on short-term liabilities\nc. EUR [\u2026] million at December 2010\n160 bps as at December 2010 (50)\no\nSecond recapitalisation\nEUR 2,7 billion\nno remuneration\nFurther rescue measures\nAnglo Irish Bank\np\nGuarantee on Emergency Liquidity Assistance\nPeak guaranteed EUR [\u2026] billion up to 16 March 2011 (53)\n,[\u2026] no fee for guarantee\nIrish Nationwide Building Society\nq\nGuarantee on Emergency Liquidity Assistance\nGuaranteed EUR [\u2026] billion\n[\u2026], no fee for guarantee\nRestructuring measures\nMerged entity\nr\nContinuation of guarantee on remaining deposits\nmax. EUR [\u2026] billion\nGuaranteed for the life of the workout, first under ELG and following its expiry on an ad hoc basis at 50 bps\ns\nContinuation of guarantee on off-balance sheet transactions\nestimated at around EUR [\u2026] billion (52)\nno fee\nt\nContinuation of guarantee on Emergency Liquidity Assistance or other similar facility\nestimated at up to EUR [\u2026] billion\n3\nu\nRecapitalisation in stress case\nEUR 3,2 billion\nno remuneration\nv\nGuarantee on outstanding ELG wholesale funding\naround EUR [\u2026] billion\nfee in line with ELG for its duration, no fee thereafter\n3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE\n(82)\nThe Commission opened the formal investigation procedure on the initial Anglo restructuring plan on 31 March 2010 with the adoption of the opinion decision. Since then, Ireland has fundamentally altered the restructuring plan for Anglo several times before submitting the joint restructuring plan for Anglo and INBS on 31 January 2011. Most of the doubts raised in the opening decision (see Section 4.3.1 of that Decision (54)) were specific to the initial Anglo restructuring plan, which was based on the assumption that Anglo would be split into a good bank and a bad bank. Those doubts are therefore no longer relevant as Anglo will cease to undertake new activities and instead will be merged with INBS and focus on working out its loan book over time.\n(83)\nFor the sake of completeness however, a summary is provided in Section 3.1 of the doubts raised by the Commission in its opening decision.\n3.1. The opening decision\n(84)\nAs regards the return to viability of the good bank (in the opening decision also referred to as \u2018NewCo\u2019) and the orderly wind-down of the bad bank (in the opening decision also referred to as \u2018Old Anglo\u2019), the Commission expressed doubts, since at the time of that decision there was not enough information on the business plans of both entities. The Commission also doubted whether the estimation of the impairments on both the loans transferred to NAMA and the non-NAMA loans was sufficient. In addition, the macroeconomic assumptions provided in the initial Anglo restructuring plan seemed to be incomplete, thus leading to doubts as to their reasonableness. The Commission also expressed doubts with regard to certain new activities the good bank would be undertaking in areas where it did not have any previous experience. The Commission also doubted whether the funding and liquidity needs of the good bank could be met based on the plan.\n(85)\nAs regards burden-sharing and Anglo\u2019s own contribution, the Commission questioned whether the own contribution to the restructuring by Anglo itself was sufficient in view of the fact that the good bank was to expand into new activities, something which would require significant investment. In addition, the Commission pointed out that the Irish authorities had not explored in the initial Anglo restructuring plan whether Anglo could contribute to its restructuring by selling assets or through other means.\n(86)\nConcerning the measures limiting distortion of competition caused by the massive State aid provided to Anglo, the Commission indicated that it doubted that the measures presented in the plan were sufficient to offset the distortive effects of the aid to Anglo.\n4. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(87)\nThe Commission did not receive any third party comments following the publication of the opening decision in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n5. COMMENTS FROM IRELAND\n(88)\nIreland did not provide any comments on the opening decision, but instead submitted the second Anglo restructuring plan and then the third Anglo restructuring plan on 26 October 2010.\n(89)\nThe third restructuring plan is now replaced by the joint restructuring plan submitted on 31 January 2011 by Ireland.\n6. ASSESSMENT\n6.1. Existence of aid\n(90)\nIt must be assessed whether the measures contained in the joint restructuring plan constitute State aid. Article 107(1) of the Treaty provides that any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the internal market.\n6.1.1. Measures already temporarily approved\n(91)\nWith regard to the measures already temporarily approved by the Commission as rescue aid in its earlier decisions pertaining to Anglo and INBS (namely measures (a) to (o) as set out in recitals 66 and 67), the Commission has already concluded that those measures constitute State aid in favour of Anglo and INBS. As a consequence, it is not necessary to reassess whether they constitute State aid in this Decision.\n(92)\nThe measures that have to be assessed in this Decision in order to determine whether they constitute State aid have already been described in recitals 68 and 69. The relevant measures are: for Anglo measure (p), for INBS measure (q) and for the merged entity measures (r) to (v). In that context, it should be noted that Ireland accepts that the measures represent State aid.\n6.1.2. State resources\n(93)\nMeasures (p) to (v) referred to in recitals 68 and 69 are financed through State resources as the measures are made up of State guarantees and direct grants financed by the State and should therefore be considered to constitute State aid.\n6.1.3. Selectivity\n(94)\nIt is also necessary to assess whether the measures referred to in recitals 66 to 69 confer a selective advantage on the beneficiary or beneficiaries of the State aid. The measures concerned are selective as they solely benefit Anglo, INBS and the merged entity.\n6.1.4. Advantage\n(95)\nThe measures referred to in recitals 66 to 69 confer an advantage on the economic activity of both Anglo and INBS as carried on by them until the merger and their successor, the merged entity, thereafter.\n(96)\nAnglo benefits from a State guarantee covering EUR [\u2026] billion of ELA it receives from the CBI (measure (p) referred to in recital 68), and which enables Anglo to fund its assets. That guarantee represents an advantage for Anglo as such a guarantee would not be available on the market and. [\u2026]. Furthermore, the State guarantee on the ELA is provided without Anglo having to pay a remuneration for it. That absence of remuneration presents a further advantage to Anglo as it avoids the costs associated with the guarantee.\n(97)\nFor the same reasons, the State guarantee on the ELA that INBS has received from 24 February 2011 onwards for an amount of EUR [\u2026] billion provides an advantage to INBS (measure (q) referred to in recital 68).\n(98)\nAs regards the measures in favour of the merged entity, that entity will benefit from a continuation of several State guarantees, namely on the remaining deposits (measure (r) referred to in recital 68), on off-balance sheet transactions (measure (s) referred to in recital 69), on the ELA (measure (t) referred to in recital 69) and on the existing wholesale funding (measure (v) referred to in recital 69). The merged entity only pays a fee for the guarantee [\u2026], the deposits and the wholesale funding for the duration of the ELG scheme (no fee will be paid thereafter), but does not pay a fee for the other guarantees. Those guarantees provide an advantage to the merged entity by helping to ensure that the merged entity does not default on its obligations. Indeed, without the necessary funding through the guaranteed ELA, the remaining deposits and the remaining wholesale funding and without the guarantee on its off-balance sheet liabilities, an orderly resolution is not possible. Furthermore, the fact that the merged entity does not have to pay a fee for several of those guarantees provides a further advantage to it as it avoids higher funding costs and thus more losses.\n(99)\nFinally, [\u2026] EUR 3,3 billion in the stress case to cover further losses as a result of the work out of its loan book. [\u2026] The recapitalisation [\u2026] an advantage to the merged entity as it ensures that it fulfils its relevant regulatory capital requirements during the resolution period. [\u2026].\n6.1.5. Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member State\n(100)\nIt should be concluded that measures (p) to (v) referred to in recitals 66 and 67 are able to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.\n(101)\nAs indicated in Section 6.1.4, without the State support measures, both Anglo and INBS would have defaulted and completely exited the markets in which they were active. As a result of the very substantial amount of State support, they remained active on the deposit market (until the transfer of their deposits to Allied Irish Bank and Irish Life & Permanent in February 2011) and to a very limited degree on the commercial property lending market and residential mortgage market (servicing existing loans). Therefore, that State support distorted competition. In those markets, Anglo and INBS competed not only with Irish banks but also the foreign players active in Ireland. Anglo was also active (both for deposits and commercial lending) in the United Kingdom and thus has competed with domestic UK players and players from other Member States active on that market. It should be noted, however, that the activity of those two entities has been more and more limited over the last couple years, thus reducing the negative affect on competition and trade.\n(102)\nAs regards the merged entity, it will carry out some limited economic activities in a market where both Irish and foreign banks remain active. In particular, it will be allowed to retain a small amount of deposits and to provide some loans to its existing customers in order to increase the NPV of the loans in question in line with the commitments provided by Ireland (see Section 2.3.2). Without the State support measures, it would not be able to carry out those activities. It should be noted that as the balance sheet of the merged entity will be reduced as a result of its resolution, the distortion of competition and the affect on trade will be significantly reduced due to the very limited operations which the merged entity will continue to carry out on competitive markets.\n6.1.6. Application of the market investor principle\n(103)\nFinally, the market economy investor principle does not apply to the measures referred to in recitals 66 to 69 since they are part of a substantial package of rescue measures in favour of Anglo and INBS. In addition, even if it were applicable, those measures are not in line with normal market conduct. No market economy investor would implement all those measures in order to rescue Anglo and INBS and then merge them in order to work out the loan book as the chances that it would recoup its investments (total recapitalisations provided to Anglo and INBS together amount to EUR 34,7 billion in a base case) are negligible. No market economy operator placed in a similar situation as the State would have been able to provide the amount of capital and funding needed in order to facilitate the resolution of both Anglo and INBS. Taking into consideration the situation on the markets and the appetite for Irish assets and liabilities, it would not be possible for a market operator to obtain such financing.\n6.1.7. Identification of the beneficiary of the aid\n(104)\nIreland intends to introduce new aid measures (measures (r) to (v) referred to in recital 69) in order to facilitate the resolution of Anglo and INBS. Those measures will enable the merger of Anglo and INBS into one legal entity. The main objective of the merged entity is to work out the loan books of Anglo and INBS with a view to maximise the return and reduce the cost for the Irish taxpayer.\n(105)\nUnder the joint restructuring plan, the merged entity will carry out only limited lending required by existing contractual obligations and then only to ensure that the NPV of the loan book is preserved, thus limiting the situations where it is in competition with other banks to the minimum. The merged entity will, according to Ireland, only realise its assets as they mature or by selling them on the market. The merged entity will use the proceeds of those sales to repay its debts as they become due and fund its ongoing operational costs as well as any retained historic liabilities. It should, therefore, be concluded that the merged entity will continue to carry out some limited economic activities following the merger and thus should be considered as a beneficiary of the State aid measures.\n(106)\nWith regard to Anglo and INBS, prior to the intended merger they have both been able to continue to operate aided by State guarantees on their liabilities, recapitalisations and an asset relief measure (measures (a) to (o) referred to in recitals 67 and 68). Anglo and INBS are therefore the beneficiaries of those measures.\n6.1.8. Conclusion\n(107)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, it should be concluded that measures (a) to (v) referred to in recitals 68 and 69 constitute State aid.\n6.2. Amount of aid\n6.2.1. Recapitalisations of Anglo and INBS\n(108)\nBoth Anglo and INBS have received individual State aid in the form of several recapitalisations. Anglo received a total of EUR 29,3 billion through four capital injections (55). INBS received a total of EUR 5,4 billion through two capital injections.\n6.2.2. Impaired asset measure for Anglo and INBS\n(109)\nBoth Anglo and INBS have participated in NAMA (measures (d) and (m) referred to in recitals in 66 and 67). As regards the aid amount included in the impaired asset measure, namely the transfer of assets to NAMA, it should be noted that footnote 2 to paragraph 20(a) of the Impaired Assets Communication (hereinafter referred to as \u2018IAC\u2019) (56) defines the aid amount in an asset relief measure as the difference between the transfer value of the assets and the market price. However, it is very difficult to estimate the market value of the covered assets as most of them are loans which are not traded. Furthermore, the actual aid amount can only be determined after the valuation by Ireland of the assets transferred to it has been finalised in line with the Commission\u2019s Decision in Case N 725/09 (57) which will lead to final conclusions regarding the amount of aid involved. In that context, information on the amount of aid associated with the first and second tranches of loans transferred to NAMA has been made available to the Commission, while the information on the final tranches is still pending.\n(110)\nBased on the information available for the first and second tranches transferred to NAMA, a number of conclusions may be made. Firstly, the first tranche of commercial property loans that Anglo transferred to NAMA had a nominal value of EUR 9 251 million. That transfer contained an aid amount of EUR 870 million, which represents 9,4 % of the nominal loan balances transferred. Secondly, in the second tranche, Anglo transferred loans with a nominal value of EUR 6 747 million to NAMA. That transfer contained an aid amount of EUR 427 million and represents 6,3 % of the nominal loan balances transferred. Accordingly, the average percentage of aid to nominal loan balances for the two tranches is 7,9 %. When applying that average percentage to the still outstanding tranches (EUR 19 billion), the aid amount for those tranches would be approximately EUR 1,5 billion. In total, the State aid amount associated with the transfer of Anglo\u2019s commercial property and development loans and associated loans to NAMA may therefore be estimated at around EUR 2 797 million (58).\n(111)\nINBS transferred loan balances with a nominal value of EUR 669 million in the first tranche. That transfer contained an aid amount of EUR 70 million, which represents 10,5 % of the nominal loan balances transferred. As part of the second tranche, INBS transferred loan balances with a nominal value of EUR 591 million. That transfer resulted in an aid amount of EUR 43,7 million which represents 7,4 % of the nominal loan balances transferred. Accordingly, the average percentage of aid to nominal loan balances for the two tranches is 9 %. When applying that average percentage to the still outstanding tranches (EUR 7,7 billion), the aid amount associated may therefore be estimated at approximately EUR 693 million. In total, the State aid amount associated with the transfer of INBS\u2019s commercial property and development loans and associated loans to NAMA may therefore be estimated at around EUR 806 million (59).\n(112)\nAlthough the exact amount of State aid for the still outstanding tranches will be verified at a later stage, it is not necessary to know the exact aid amount contained in those last tranches in order to assess the joint restructuring plan\u2019s compatibility with the Treaty as: (i) the way the transfer price will be determined has already been agreed by the Commission in its Decision on NAMA (60); (ii) any potential change in the aid amount will not affect the Commission\u2019s assessment of the aid in this Decision given the large amounts already involved and the fact that Anglo and INBS will completely exit the market; and (iii) in particular, an increased aid would not increase the distortion of competition created by the resolution of the merged entity as it would not mean that the merged entity would carry out more competitive activities.\n6.2.3. Guarantees for Anglo and INBS\n(113)\nAnglo and INBS have also participated in the CIFS and ELG guarantee schemes (measures (a), (c), (g), (j), (l) and (n) referred to in recitals 66 and 67). The amount of the liabilities covered for each institution under both schemes has fluctuated over time. For instance, in the case of Anglo, the liabilities covered under the CIFS scheme peaked at EUR [\u2026] billion in September 2008, decreasing to EUR [\u2026] billion as at 30 June 2010, partly as a result of the introduction of the ELG. Furthermore, Anglo\u2019s liabilities covered by the ELG, decreased to EUR [\u2026] billion as at 31 March 2011 from a peak of EUR [\u2026] billion as at 30 June 2010 as a result of the transfer of its deposits to Allied Irish Banks. For INBS, the same trend can be observed.\n(114)\nIn addition, both Anglo and INBS have received State guarantees on short-term liabilities and ELA, while Anglo has also received a State guarantee [\u2026] on its off-balance sheet liabilities.\n(115)\nIt should be noted that, as regards companies in financial difficulty, if a bank is not able to raise sufficient non-guaranteed debt to cover all its funding needs, the aid element of such guarantees might go up to the level of their nominal value. That was manifestly the case when Anglo and INBS started to use the CIFS in 2008 and the ELG, the guarantee on short-term liabilities in 2010 and the guarantee on their ELA, while Anglo also received a State guarantee on its off-balance sheet liabilities. In that context, there was a significant overlap between the different guarantees, more specifically, the CIFS and ELG scheme, which could lead to double-counting. At the same time, the amounts covered by the various guarantees fluctuated over time (CIFS, ELG scheme and ELA). It should also be recalled that the participation of those two banks in State guarantee schemes is not taken into account for the calculation of the amount of aid relative to their risk weighted assets (hereafter \u2018RWA\u2019) in order to establish whether an in-depth restructuring is necessary. On the other hand, the aid element in the guarantees will be taken into account in the context of the restructuring. For those reasons, the Commission has not calculated the aid amount associated with those State guarantees.\n6.2.4. Aid measures for the merged entity\n(116)\nThe merged entity [\u2026] a further EUR 3,3 billion of capital in case the stress scenario materialises.\n(117)\nThe merged entity also benefits from State guarantees on its remaining deposits which stands at a maximum of EUR 1 billion, its off-balance sheet transactions which is estimated at a gross maximum amount of [\u2026], and a continuation of the State guarantee on the ELA or other similar facility it receives which is estimated at up to [\u2026] at commencement of the merger. For the calculation of the State aid amount, the Commission finds that as regards the guarantees provided to the merged entity, the reasoning in recital 115 applies.\n6.2.5. Conclusion as regards the amount of aid\n(118)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, it should be concluded that Anglo has received State aid in the form of recapitalisations and an asset relief measures amounting to at least EUR 32 billion (43,9 % of RWA). INBS has received State aid in the form of recapitalisations and an asset relief measure amounting to at least EUR 6,2 billion (59 % of RWA). Those levels are substantially above the 2 % threshold as indicated in the Recapitalisation Communication (61) and the IAC.\n(119)\nFinally, it should be concluded that the total State aid amount involved, when adding up the figures for the recapitalisations and asset relief measure in favour of Anglo and INBS, as well as the recapitalisation of the merged entity in a stress case, may be estimated to be at least EUR 41,5 billion (62).\n6.3. Compatibility of the aid\n(120)\nWhen assessing the compatibility of the joint restructuring plan for Anglo and INBS, it should be first assessed whether Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty is applicable before assessing whether the joint restructuring plan fulfils the requirements of the Recapitalisation Communication and the Restructuring Communication.\n6.3.1. Legal basis for the compatibility assessment\n(121)\nArticle 107(3)(b) of the Treaty permits the Commission to declare aid compatible with the internal market if it is intended \u2018to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State\u2019. In that regard, market conditions have been difficult worldwide since the last quarter of 2008. Ireland, in particular, has been severely hit by the financial crisis. The economic downturn combined with the fall in property prices and the exposure of the Irish banks to land and property development loans have lead to significant impairments for Irish banks. Irish banks have also been faced with persisting difficulties in obtaining funding and capital from the markets due to the uncertainty associated with the property market in Ireland. As a result, the Irish State (Sovereign) has also come under pressure, in the end leading to the Programme for Support.\n(122)\nThe Commission has acknowledged that the global financial crisis can create a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State and that measures supporting banks are apt to remedy that disturbance; that view has been confirmed in the Banking Communication (63), the Recapitalisation Communication, the IAC and the Restructuring Communication. In respect of the Irish economy, it has been confirmed in the Commission\u2019s various decisions approving the measures undertaken by Ireland to combat the financial crisis (64).\n(123)\nGiven the specific circumstances in Ireland, combined with the improved but not yet stabilised situation on the financial markets, the Commission considers that the measures may be examined under Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty.\n6.3.2. Compatibility assessment\n(124)\nAnglo, INBS and the merged entity have benefited and will benefit from several State aid measures whose compatibility has not previously been assessed by the Commission. They include the State guarantee on the ELA for both Anglo and INBS (measures (p) and (q) referred to in recital 68) and the State guarantees and recapitalisation in the stress case [\u2026] (measures (r) to (v) referred to in recital 69). Furthermore, Anglo and INBS have received measures that have been found compatible by the Commission as rescue aid (measures (a) to (o) referred to in recitals 66 and 67), but which now will have to be assessed to determine whether they are compatible as restructuring aid. It is necessary to assess the compatibility of those measures and the joint restructuring plan in the context of the Banking Communication, the Recapitalisation Communication and the Restructuring Communication.\n(125)\nAlthough Anglo and INBS have benefited from asset relief measures while transferring assets to NAMA, Anglo\u2019s and INBS\u2019s resolution in itself does not give rise to a State aid in the form of an asset relief measure. All Anglo and INBS assets and liabilities will be merged into one entity exclusively for their work-out in its entirety. Accordingly, it is not necessary to assess the merger and resolution of the assets under the IAC.\n6.3.3. The application of the Banking and the Recapitalisation Communication to measures (p) to (v) referred to in recitals 68 and 69\n(126)\nIn line with point 15 of the Banking Communication, in order for an aid or aid scheme to be compatible under Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty it must comply with general criteria for compatibility under Article 107(3) of the Treaty, which imply compliance with the following conditions:\n(i)\nAppropriateness: The aid has to be well-targeted in order to be able to effectively achieve the objective of remedying a serious disturbance in the economy. This would not be the case if the measure were not appropriate to remedy the disturbance;\n(ii)\nNecessity: The aid measure must, in its amount and form, be necessary to achieve the objective. That requirement implies that it must be of the minimum amount necessary to reach the objective, and take the form most appropriate to remedy the disturbance;\n(iii)\nProportionality: The positive effects of the measure must be properly balanced against the distortions of competition, in order for the distortions to be limited to the minimum necessary to reach the measure\u2019s objectives.\n(127)\nThose general criteria apply both to recapitalisations and guarantees. The Recapitalisation Communication further elaborates on the three principles of the Banking Communication and states that recapitalisations can contribute to the restoration of financial stability. In particular the Recapitalisation Communication states in point 6 that recapitalisations may be an appropriate response to the problems of financial institutions facing insolvency.\n(i) Appropriateness of the Measures\n(128)\nThe recapitalisation of the merged entity in the stress case (measure (u) referred to in recital 69) aims at ensuring that it has sufficient capital to comply with its regulatory capital requirements while it works out the Anglo and INBS loan books. A capital injection is the most efficient and straightforward measure to deal with the potential capital shortfall that could arise in the stress case as it directly improves the total capital ratio of the merged entity.\n(129)\n[\u2026]\n(130)\nThe State guarantees provided to Anglo and INBS on the ELA they receive (measures (p) and (q) referred to in recital 68) and to the merged entity on its remaining deposits (measure (r) referred to in recital 69), its wholesale funding (measure (v) referred to in recital 69), the State guarantee on the ELA it receives (measure (t) referred to in recital 69) and the off-balance sheet liabilities (measure (s) referred to in recital 69) aim to ensure that the funding the merged entity receives is secure and that the merged entity will not default. That funding is needed in order to ensure that Anglo and INBS have sufficient funding to cover their assets, while the funding the merged entity receives will enable it to work out the Anglo and INBS loan books over time. [\u2026].\n(131)\nThe recapitalisation of the merged entity in a stress case is appropriate because it effectively meets its objective to ensure that the merged entity is in compliance with its regulatory capital requirements. The measure therefore effectively achieves the objective of preventing the default of the merged entity.\n(132)\nThe guarantee measures are appropriate since they ensure that Anglo and INBS pre-merger and the merged entity post-merger have sufficient funding to carry out their tasks, while it prevents a potential default of the merged entity.\n(133)\nFurthermore, the different State aid measures ensure that financial stability in Ireland is maintained.\n(ii) Necessity - limitation of the aid to the minimum\n(134)\nAccording to the Banking Communication, the aid measure must, in its amount and form, be necessary to achieve the aid\u2019s objective. That requirement implies that the capital injection and the guarantees must be of the minimum amount necessary to reach the objective. In that context, it may be observed that the capital injection will only occur in the stress case and is limited to an amount of EUR 3,3 billion. The recapitalisation will ensure that the merged entity will fulfil the relevant regulatory capital requirements. As for the State guarantees, they will ensure that there will be funding available for the merged entity so as to meet its obligations as a going concern.\n(135)\nAs regards the remuneration that the merged entity has to pay for the recapitalisation, the State will receive no fixed remuneration on the recapitalisation. Anglo, INBS and the merged entity also do not pay a fee for the guarantee on the ELA, while the merged entity does not pay a fee on the guarantee on the off-balance sheet liabilities. The merged entity will also cease to pay a fee for the guarantee on wholesale funding and deposits once the ELG scheme has expired.\n(136)\nAs regards the recapitalisation, points 15 and 44 of the Recapitalisation Communication explain that in duly justified cases lower remuneration can be accepted in the short-term for distressed banks on the condition that the lack of remuneration will be reflected in the restructuring plan. The merged entity essentially is a resolution vehicle which will facilitate the orderly resolution of Anglo and INBS. It will not carry out any economic activities besides those necessary to work out the loan book. Ireland has provided the necessary commitments in that regard (see Section 2.3.2). Anglo and INBS will both disappear from the Irish lending and deposit markets. It may be concluded that restructuring in that form compensates for the lack of remuneration. Finally, Anglo and INBS have been fully nationalised and their respective shareholders have lost their rights and interests in both institutions. As a consequence, any potential proceeds realised on termination of the resolution of the merged entity will accrue to the State in full.\n(137)\nThe Banking Communication assumes in point 26 that, for guarantee schemes, an adequate fee should be paid. The fee should be set as close as possible to what could be considered the market price, however taking into account the potential difficulties for beneficiaries to bear the amounts that might properly be charged. As elaborated in recital 135, it should be noted that the merged entity will be charged with the resolution of Anglo and INBS. In view of those circumstances, it should be concluded that the fact that the merged entity does not pay a fee for the guarantee is justified.\n(138)\nIt should be concluded that the recapitalisation of the merged entity in a stress case and the State guarantees to Anglo, INBS and the merged entity are necessary in order to ensure the latter\u2019s capital adequacy and to ensure that sufficient funding is available, while also reducing the potential risk of default of the merged entity. As regards the remuneration of the aid measures in order to keep the aid to the minimum, it is justified that no remuneration is paid given the resolution of Anglo and INBS by the merged entity.\n(iii) Proportionality - measures limiting negative spill-over effects\n(139)\nThe merged entity will ensure the resolution of Anglo and INBS and that as a result both institutions will exit the Irish deposit and lending markets. As established in recital 105, the merged entity will carry on some limited economic activities in order to work out the loan books of Anglo and INBS. The Commission notes positively that Ireland has provided the necessary commitments to ensure that the economic activities carried out by the merged entity will be limited to the minimum. The lending granted by the merged entity will be in the sole context of the management of the legacy loan books of Anglo and INBS (restructuring of loans, preservation of collateral value) and will be subject to strict restrictions. The merged entity will not collect any deposits nor engage in new activities. Consequently, the distortion of competition caused by the massive aid to Anglo, INBS and the merged entity will be limited.\n(140)\nIt should be concluded that that: (i) the recapitalisation of the merged entity in a stress case and the guarantees are appropriate to ensure the resolution of Anglo and INBS; (ii) Anglo and INBS will exit the Irish deposit and lending markets; (iii) the fact that the investment in Anglo, INBS and the merged entity will not provide any remuneration or positive return is justified under the circumstances of the case; and (iv) there are sufficient measures limiting the negative spill-over effects for other competitors.\n6.3.4. The application of the Restructuring Communication\n(141)\nThe Restructuring Communication sets out the State aid rules applicable to the restructuring of financial institutions in the current financial crisis. According to the Restructuring Communication, in order to be compatible with Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty, the restructuring of a financial institution in the context of the current financial crisis has to:\n(i)\nlead to a restoration of the viability of the bank, or to the orderly winding-up of the bank;\n(ii)\ninclude sufficient own contribution by the beneficiary (burden-sharing);\n(iii)\ncontain sufficient measures limiting the distortion of competition.\n6.3.4.1. Orderly resolution of the merged entity\n(142)\nThe joint restructuring plan aims at the resolution of Anglo and INBS by the merged entity in an orderly fashion. Accordingly, it is not necessary to assess the viability of the merged entity.\n(143)\nThe joint restructuring plan presents an orderly resolution of Anglo and INBS based on State support. The legacy loan books of both banks will be worked out over a 10-year period. Ireland has estimated the capital injections necessary in [\u2026] in order to guarantee the merged entity against any risk of default. In addition, the merged entity will benefit from State guarantees to pursue operations necessary to work out Anglo and INBS assets.\n(144)\nConsequently, the conditions to work out the assets of the merged entity in an orderly fashion are in place.\n6.3.4.2. Own contribution/burden-sharing\n(145)\nThe Restructuring Communication indicates that an appropriate contribution by the beneficiary is necessary in order to limit the aid to a minimum and to address distortions of competition and moral hazard. To that end: (a) both the restructuring costs and the amount of aid should be limited; and (b) a significant own contribution is necessary.\n(a) Limitation of restructuring costs and of the amount of aid\n(146)\nThe principles of the Restructuring Communication require that the aid amount is limited to the minimum and banks should first use their own resources to finance restructuring.\n(147)\nIreland has decided that Anglo and INBS should not pursue their activities in view of the massive losses suffered by both institutions and in view of the uncertainty that the continuation of their activities would convey to the market. In particular, the State would be at risk of having to continuously inject capital into Anglo and INBS as long as both banks are active in order to cover for losses and to ensure that both institutions fulfil the new capital requirements set by the Financial Regulator. By opting for the resolution of both banks, Ireland has put an end to market speculation on Anglo and INBS and has clarified the cost of the State support for them.\n(148)\nThat decision by Ireland, combined with the commitments outlined in Section 2.3.2, will ensure that the aid is not used to develop new activities, which would require capital and funding, and thus contributes to limit the amount of aid to the minimum. The merged entity will, in particular, not engage in new lending and will limit its activities to managing the legacy loan book of Anglo and INBS under strict restrictions.\n(149)\nAs part of the resolution of both Anglo and INBS, Ireland has decided to merge the two entities in order to manage only one resolution vehicle. That solution is likely to create synergies in terms of the loan books\u2019 work-out, human resources and funding management. Although limited, such synergies will facilitate the work-out of the assets. [\u2026] Merging the two entities in this specific case limits the capital that Ireland has to inject into those banks.\n(150)\nMore generally, merging the two banks will simplify the resolution structure, and has the potential to reduce the structural costs, albeit to a limited extent.\n(151)\nAlternatively, Ireland could consider an immediate liquidation of Anglo and INBS. The Commission is, however, of the view that a liquidation would be more costly than an orderly resolution and would require more State aid. [\u2026].\n(152)\nConcerning the commercial loans transferred to the merged entity from Anglo, the joint restructuring plan foresees impairments on the nominal value of [\u2026] (65). Considering the discount levels estimated by Anglo\u2019s market advisors in May 2010, the fire sale of non-NAMA loans from Anglo would imply substantially higher losses than an orderly work-out of the loan book ([\u2026]) (66). Overall, the losses that would be incurred in case of an immediate liquidation of Anglo would imply greater losses to those that the loans would bear if they are worked out over a long period. It should be underlined that, as regards the Irish loans in particular, there has been no transaction of the size discussed here. Consequently, all the figures are estimations based on experts\u2019 judgment and in case of rapid sale it is far from certain that a buyer could be found for that enormous volume of assets, even at very low prices.\n(153)\nIn a liquidation process, the proceeds from the sale of assets would be distributed to repay senior bondholders, depositors and State-guaranteed ECB/CBI funding. [\u2026].\n(154)\nIn Anglo, approximately EUR [\u2026] billion of unsecured debt is not covered by the State guarantee (67). [\u2026]. The rest of the unsecured debt in Anglo (approximately EUR 3 billion) is guaranteed by the State and the relevant debt holders would be paid at par by the State. In total, in case of liquidation, the senior unsecured bond holders would thus contribute to the losses by a net amount of maximum [\u2026] billion. That amount is exceeded by the additional losses that would result from fire sales of Anglo assets.\n(155)\nIn addition, in case of liquidation, the subordinated debt holders would have to assume losses. However, since the subordinated debts have been bought back in the last years and the remaining outstanding subordinated debts are small, those losses would not compensate the additional State aid required to repay the other, more senior, debt holders (68).\n(156)\nIn conclusion, a rapid liquidation of the loan portfolio, assuming that it would be feasible - which is far from certain - would crystallise a cost for Ireland superior to the costs incurred by an envisaged 10-year work-out of the assets of Anglo and INBS, where the assets easier to sell will be sold first while the assets for which there is no market will be held for several years.\n(157)\nConcerning INBS, similar considerations as those for Anglo apply with regard to the legacy commercial loan book of the bank (almost transferred to NAMA in full). The large majority of liabilities of INBS are also guaranteed by Ireland (69).\n(158)\nConcerning the legacy mortgage book of INBS, in the INBS restructuring plan, Ireland indicated that, based on the quality of the book and market intelligence available on transactions involving similar assets of better quality in Ireland and the United Kingdom, [\u2026], it is reasonable to anticipate a high discount on any short-term transactions concerning the mortgage book of INBS.\n(159)\nThe joint restructuring plan foresees total losses on the INBS mortgage book of approximately [\u2026], based on impairments of [\u2026]. If the mortgage book were to be sold in 2011, [\u2026]. The benefit of an orderly resolution of INBS could be reduced if a higher than expected discount were offered for the mortgage book. However, it is likely that the discount [\u2026].\n(160)\nIt should be concluded that the orderly resolution of Anglo and INBS, via a merged entity, limits the restructuring costs and the amount of State aid to the minimum necessary.\n(b) Significant own contribution\n(161)\nThe principles on the own contribution of the beneficiary bank in the restructuring phase require: (i) that the beneficiary bank should use to the extent possible its own resources to finance restructuring, for example, through the sale of assets; and (ii) that the costs associated with the restructuring are also adequately borne by those who invested in the bank by absorbing losses with available capital and by paying an adequate remuneration for State interventions. The objective of burden-sharing is twofold: to limit distortions of competition and to address moral hazard (70).\n(i) Own contribution of the institutions concerned\n(162)\nIn the present resolution of Anglo and INBS, the own contribution of both institutions to their restructuring is maximised because all assets are identified for sale and the proceeds accrue in full to the financing of the resolution. However, the value of assets is so depreciated that the proceeds of their sale is dwarfed by the capital injected into both banks.\n(163)\nIn addition both banks have sold their deposits books.\n(ii) Burden-sharing by shareholders and subordinated creditors\n(164)\nAs regards burden-sharing, the Restructuring Communication requires that the restructuring costs are not only borne by the State but also by the bank\u2019s past investors and former shareholders.\n(165)\nIn the particular case of Anglo, private shareholders have been fully \u2018wiped out\u2019 and the bank was fully nationalised.\n(166)\nConcerning INBS, prior to the State recapitalisation INBS was owned by its members. In particular \u2018share members\u2019 (persons who have a deposit account in INBS) had a right to gains on any surplus of assets realised in case of its demutualisation (transformation of INBS into an ordinary bank), winding-down or dissolution. As a result of the first recapitalisation of INBS, the State has taken full control of INBS via the issuance of Special Investment Shares, following which the members have lost all rights to gains on surpluses of the assets realised to the benefit of the State (for instance, in case of a sale of INBS). As a result, the economic rights of the share members have been completely \u2018wiped out\u2019.\n(167)\nBoth shareholders of Anglo and members of INBS have thus contributed to the maximum extent possible by releasing to the State control and ownership of the institutions.\n(168)\nSubordinated debt holders have also contributed to a significant extent to the restructuring by means of two Liability Management Exercises (hereinafter referred to as \u2018LMEs\u2019) in Anglo and one in INBS. The two LMEs in Anglo were conducted in August 2009 and December 2010 respectively, crystallized large losses for the bond holders, generated pre-tax profits of approximately EUR 3,5 billion and provided additional core tier one capital to the bank (71). INBS conducted an LME in 2009, with bondholders exchanging their securities at a 42 % discount to par, thereby releasing EUR 112 million of core tier 1 equity for the institution.\n(169)\nIn total, the merged entity will hold EUR 500 million of subordinated liabilities (as at 31 December 2010), significantly less than the subordinated debt held by Anglo and INBS at 31 December 2008 (respectively EUR 5 billion and EUR 300 million), illustrating the massive losses taken by subordinated bond holders. Ireland has committed, in addition, that the merged entity will not pay coupons or exercise calls on subordinated debt instruments and hybrid capital instruments, unless it is legally obliged to do so.\n(170)\nGiven the extraordinarily high amount of State aid those two institutions have received compared to their size and the corresponding cost for the State, it is legitimate to assess whether burden-sharing by senior creditors could not be achieved. In that context, in Ireland senior bond holders have the same level of seniority as holders of deposit accounts. [\u2026]. As already indicated, liquidation of the banks would result in a substantially higher State aid requirement and eventual cost for the taxpayer. To date, the Commission has not received any detailed proposal on how to make the senior creditors participate [\u2026] in the burden-sharing without increasing the cost of the resolution for the State.\n(171)\nOverall, it should be concluded that, in the current legal framework, the own contribution of Anglo and INBS to their orderly resolution respects the conditions laid down in the Restructuring Communication.\n6.3.4.3. Measures limiting the distortion of competition\n(172)\nThe Restructuring Communication provides that the measures limiting distortion must be a function of the aid amount and of the presence of the aided institution on the markets after the restructuring.\n(173)\nAs described previously in Section 6.2.5, the amount received by Anglo, INBS and their successor, the merged entity, is extraordinarily large both in absolute amounts and when compared to the size and RWA of the institutions. It reflects the size of the failure of those institutions.\n(174)\nAt the same time, the distortion of competition is limited as the institutions will almost completely exit all the markets where they were present. The commercial activities of the merged entity will be limited to the maximum extent possible by the commitments provided Ireland as described in Section 2.3.2. It will work out the legacy loan book of Anglo and INBS, and will not enter into new activities. It will also stop the collection of deposits (72). All commitments provided by Ireland will remain valid and applicable until the assets are fully worked out.\n(175)\nThe following recitals explain why those commitments by Ireland ensure that the distortions of competition are limited to the minimum.\n(176)\nThe Commission notes positively that Ireland has committed that the merged entity will not develop new activities and will not enter into new markets. The merged entity will work out the legacy loan book of Anglo and INBS exclusively and will be liquidated once legacy assets are fully worked out.\n(177)\nIn addition, the merged entity will not be authorised to acquire or take participations in other firms, preventing it to use State resources to expand its activities.\n(178)\nThe merged entity will not grant lending to new customers and will restrict its lending activities to the management of the legacy loan book of Anglo and INBS. As such, the merged entity will actively manage that loan book in a way that maximises the NPV of the assets, which is normal commercial practice for all going concern banks.\n(179)\nWith regard to the commercial loan book, active management may also imply limited additional lending to a borrower in order to finish or improve a property when it preserves or increases the NPV of the assets. However, such active management is restricted, in that the merged entity commercial loan book may not exceed the joint restructuring plan forecasts by more than [\u2026] in any single year during the plan period. Furthermore, that overall cap on the increase of the commercial loan book is complemented by several additional caps which apply to specific borrowers as described in Section 2.3.2.\n(180)\nIreland has furthermore committed that no additional mortgage residential property lending will be granted in relation to the INBS legacy mortgage portfolio (unless the bank is contractually obliged to do so). The mortgage book will be managed so as to maximise its NPV, and new lending will be strictly limited, with further residential mortgage advances capped at EUR 20 million for the period 2011 to 2012, and EUR 5 million per year thereafter. These caps (yearly average of EUR 10 million in 2011 and 2012, and EUR 5 million per year after) amount to less than 1 % of the nominal value of the mortgage book of the merged entity, therefore preventing it from expanding its activities in the mortgage market.\n(181)\nOverall, the cap on the loan book and the commitments undertaken by Ireland will ensure that the legacy loan books of Anglo and INBS are managed in a prudent way aiming at maximising their return, and preventing the merged entity from engaging into genuinely new lending activities with new or existing customers. The commercial activities of the merged entity will thus be limited to the minimum necessary, and the commitments by Ireland will ensure that the activities of the merged entity will not raise significant concerns with regard to the distortion of competition.\n(182)\nIn conformity with the Programme for Support, the sale of circa EUR 12,2 billion of Anglo and INBS deposits and of circa EUR 15,9 billion of NAMA bonds of both entities was completed on 24 February 2011 (see Section 2.3.1.1).\n(183)\nThe merged entity has, however, retained up to EUR 1 billion of deposits at the date of the transfer of the deposits.\n(184)\nIn particular, some of those corporate deposits are held as guarantee for loans granted to several corporate institutions (income sweep accounts). Holding those deposits is part of the contractual lending arrangements between the institutions and some of their customers, and is as such part of the orderly work-out of the Anglo and INBS loan portfolios. However, the activities of the merged entity will be limited as it will not collect deposits from new customers and the deposits it will continue to hold will be progressively redeemed.\n(185)\nThe merged entity will decrease the deposits remaining in the merged entity at broadly the same rate as their related or connected assets are wound down (or, if there are no related or connected assets, at broadly the same rate as the overall net loan book is wound down). In addition, Ireland has committed that the deposit book of the merged entity will not exceed the forecasts of the joint restructuring plan by more than EUR 200 million at any moment.\n(186)\nTo conclude, the commercial activities of the merged entity in the deposit market is dramatically reduced and limited to the strict minimum necessary to work out the legacy loan books of Anglo and INBS in an orderly fashion. The commitments by Ireland will thus guarantee that the deposit activities of the merged entity do not lead to a significant distortion of competition in the Irish deposit market.\n(187)\nIt should be concluded that the extraordinarily large State aid amounts do not lead to undue distortion of competition as they are offset by a corresponding large reduction of market presence. The measures addressing distortion of competition fulfil the requirements of the Restructuring Communication because the merged entity will not enter into new activities and will stop the collection of deposits, while its lending activities will be limited to the normal management and work-out of the legacy loan book of Anglo and INBS. The merged entity will eventually fully disappear from the Irish lending and deposit markets, and therefore no longer distort competition. In addition, the merged entity will apply a ban on acquisitions.\n6.3.4.4. Monitoring\n(188)\nPoint 46 of the Restructuring Communication indicates that, in order to verify that the restructuring plan is being implemented properly, detailed regular reports from the Member State are necessary. Accordingly, Ireland should provide the Commission with such reports every six months, starting from the date of notification of this Decision.\n(189)\nIn the case of the restructuring of Anglo and INBS, a monitoring trustee will also be nominated for a period of three years to monitor the application of the commitments undertaken by Ireland. The monitoring trustee will be in charge of monitoring all the commitments (see Annex II). In particular the monitoring trustee will monitor on a regular basis whether the merged entity manages the legacy loan books of Anglo and INBS in line with the terms of the commitments and will ensure that the management of the Anglo and INBS loan books does not result in distortion of competition in the market.\n6.3.4.5. Conclusion\n(190)\nIt should be concluded that the joint restructuring plan of Anglo and INBS fulfils the requirements of the Restructuring Communication. The plan foresees an orderly work-out of Anglo and INBS assets. The own contribution of the banks is sufficient, while the burden-sharing is substantial and the State aid is limited to the minimum. The measures addressing distortion of competition are appropriate, and finally proper monitoring will be implemented.\n7. CONCLUSION\n(191)\nThe measures (a) to (v) referred to in recitals 66 to 69 and listed of Table 1 are considered to be restructuring aid. Concerning the aid measures covered by the opening decision of 31 March 2010, the Commission finds, pursuant to Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (73), that those measure are compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. As regards the remaining measures covered by this Decision, the Commission, pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Regulation No 659/1999, raises no objections to those measures as they are compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following aid, which Ireland has implemented in favour of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society or which it plans to implement in favour of the merged entity of those two banks, is compatible with the internal market, in light of the commitments by Ireland set out in Annex I:\n(a)\n[\u2026] recapitalisations of Anglo Irish Bank in the amount of EUR 29,44 billion;\n(b)\nImplemented recapitalisations of Irish Nationwide Building Society in the amount of EUR 5,4 billion;\n(c)\nImplemented State guarantees for Anglo Irish Bank, including the Guarantee Scheme for Credit Institutions (CIFS), the Eligible Liabilities Guarantee Scheme (ELG), the Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) and guarantees on short-term liabilities and off-balance sheet liabilities;\n(d)\nImplemented State guarantees for Irish Nationwide Building Society, including CIFS, ELG, ELA and guarantees on short-term liabilities;\n(e)\nImplemented asset relief measure for Anglo Irish Bank, namely transfers of eligible loans to the National Assets Management Agency (NAMA) of EUR 35 billion;\n(f)\nImplemented asset relief measure for Irish Nationwide Building Society, namely transfers of eligible loans to NAMA of EUR 8,9 billion;\n(g)\n[\u2026] recapitalisation of the merged entity of EUR 3,3 billion in a stress case;\n(h)\nPlanned guarantees for the merged entity on its wholesale funding, deposits and off-balance sheet liabilities.\nArticle 2\nIreland shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it. Furthermore, Ireland shall, from the date of notification of this Decision, submit detailed six-monthly reports on the measures taken to comply with it.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2011.", "references": ["37", "7", "65", "98", "76", "63", "86", "84", "79", "55", "24", "6", "50", "32", "31", "35", "16", "67", "45", "51", "95", "66", "99", "74", "77", "28", "47", "49", "34", "30", "No Label", "8", "15", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 595/2011\nof 20 June 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of June 2011 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of June 2011 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2011 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["82", "70", "0", "11", "73", "4", "7", "55", "22", "59", "52", "47", "5", "1", "25", "62", "17", "28", "38", "12", "42", "90", "78", "61", "39", "79", "80", "91", "60", "65", "No Label", "21", "69"], "gold": ["21", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 778/2012\nof 27 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 August 2012.", "references": ["23", "75", "41", "95", "70", "63", "16", "25", "56", "66", "33", "62", "97", "59", "72", "67", "83", "28", "93", "79", "73", "9", "34", "19", "64", "12", "27", "0", "51", "39", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1280/2011\nof 8 December 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1269/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2011.", "references": ["38", "96", "5", "43", "21", "13", "89", "60", "48", "1", "33", "47", "81", "12", "55", "94", "8", "7", "40", "61", "79", "51", "90", "64", "78", "52", "46", "16", "88", "65", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1239/2010\nof 20 December 2010\nadjusting with effect from 1 July 2010 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and in particular Article 12 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), and in particular Articles 63, 64, 65 and 82 of the Staff Regulations and Annexes VII, XI and XIII thereto, and Articles 20(1), 64, 92 and 132 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas in order to guarantee that the purchasing power of Union officials and other servants develops in parallel with that of national civil servants in the Member States, the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union should be adjusted under the 2010 annual review,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the date \u20181 July 2009\u2019 in the second paragraph of Article 63 of the Staff Regulations shall be replaced by \u20181 July 2010\u2019.\nArticle 2\nWith effect from 1 July 2010 the table of basic monthly salaries in Article 66 of the Staff Regulations applicable for the purposes of calculating remuneration and pensions shall be replaced by the following:\n1.7.2010\nSTEP\nGRADE\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n16\n16 919,04\n17 630,00\n18 370,84\n15\n14 953,61\n15 581,98\n16 236,75\n16 688,49\n16 919,04\n14\n13 216,49\n13 771,87\n14 350,58\n14 749,83\n14 953,61\n13\n11 681,17\n12 172,03\n12 683,51\n13 036,39\n13 216,49\n12\n10 324,20\n10 758,04\n11 210,11\n11 521,99\n11 681,17\n11\n9 124,87\n9 508,31\n9 907,86\n10 183,52\n10 324,20\n10\n8 064,86\n8 403,76\n8 756,90\n9 000,53\n9 124,87\n9\n7 127,99\n7 427,52\n7 739,63\n7 954,96\n8 064,86\n8\n6 299,95\n6 564,69\n6 840,54\n7 030,86\n7 127,99\n7\n5 568,11\n5 802,09\n6 045,90\n6 214,10\n6 299,95\n6\n4 921,28\n5 128,07\n5 343,56\n5 492,23\n5 568,11\n5\n4 349,59\n4 532,36\n4 722,82\n4 854,21\n4 921,28\n4\n3 844,31\n4 005,85\n4 174,18\n4 290,31\n4 349,59\n3\n3 397,73\n3 540,50\n3 689,28\n3 791,92\n3 844,31\n2\n3 003,02\n3 129,21\n3 260,71\n3 351,42\n3 397,73\n1\n2 654,17\n2 765,70\n2 881,92\n2 962,10\n3 003,02\nArticle 3\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the correction coefficients applicable to the remuneration of officials and other servants under Article 64 of the Staff Regulations shall be as indicated in column 2 of the following table.\nWith effect from 1 January 2011, the correction coefficients applicable under Article 17(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations to transfers by officials and other servants shall be as indicated in column 3 of the following table.\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the correction coefficients applicable to pensions under Article 20(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations shall be as indicated in column 4 of the following table.\nWith effect from 16 May 2010, the correction coefficients applicable to the remuneration of officials and other servants under Article 64 of the Staff Regulations shall be as indicated in column 5 of the following table. The effective date for the annual adjustment for those places of employment shall be 16 May 2010.\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\nCountry/Place\nRemuneration\n1.7.2010\nTransfer\n1.1.2011\nPension\n1.7.2010\nRemuneration\n16.5.2010\nBulgaria\n62,7\n59,3\n100,0\nCzech Rep.\n84,2\n77,5\n100,0\nDenmark\n134,1\n130,5\n130,5\nGermany\n94,8\n96,5\n100,0\nBonn\n94,7\nKarlsruhe\n92,1\nM\u00fcnich\n103,7\nEstonia\n75,6\n76,6\n100,0\nIrland\n109,1\n103,9\n103,9\nGreece\n94,8\n94,3\n100,0\nSpain\n97,7\n91,0\n100,0\nFrance\n116,1\n107,6\n107,6\nItaly\n106,6\n102,3\n102,3\nVarese\n92,3\nCyprus\n83,7\n86,7\n100,0\nLatvia\n74,3\n69,4\n100,0\nLithuania\n72,5\n68,8\n100,0\nHungary\n79,2\n68,6\n100,0\nMalta\n82,2\n84,8\n100,0\nNetherlands\n104,1\n98,0\n100,0\nAustria\n106,2\n105,1\n105,1\nPoland\n77,1\n68,1\n100,0\nPortugal\n85,0\n85,1\n100,0\nRomania\n59,1\n100,0\n69,5\nSlovenia\n89,6\n84,4\n100,0\nSlovakia\n80,0\n75,4\n100,0\nFinland\n119,4\n112,4\n112,4\nSweden\n118,6\n112,6\n112,6\nUnited Kingdom\n108,4\n108,4\n134,4\nCulham\n104,5\nArticle 4\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the amount of the parental leave allowance referred to in the second and third paragraphs of Article 42a of the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 911,73, and shall be EUR 1 215,63 for single parents.\nArticle 5\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the basic amount of the household allowance referred to in Article 1(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 170,52.\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the amount of the dependent child allowance referred to in Article 2(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 372,61.\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the amount of the education allowance referred to in Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 252,81.\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the amount of the education allowance referred to in Article 3(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 91,02.\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the minimum amount of the expatriation allowance referred to in Article 69 of the Staff Regulations and in the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Annex VII thereto shall be EUR 505,39.\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the expatriation allowance referred to in Article 134 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be EUR 363,31.\nArticle 6\nWith effect from 1 January 2011, the kilometric allowance referred to in Article 8(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be adjusted as follows:\nEUR 0 for every km from\n0 to 200 km\nEUR 0,3790 for every km from\n201 to 1 000 km\nEUR 0,6316 for every km from\n1 001 to 2 000 km\nEUR 0,3790 for every km from\n2 001 to 3 000 km\nEUR 0,1262 for every km from\n3 001 to 4 000 km\nEUR 0,0609 for every km from\n4 001 to 10 000 km\nEUR 0 for every km over\n10 000 km.\nTo the above kilometric allowance a flat-rate supplement shall be added, amounting to:\n-\nEUR 189,48 if the distance by train between the place of employment and the place of origin is between 725 km and 1 450 km,\n-\nEUR 378,93 if the distance by train between the place of employment and the place of origin is greater than 1 450 km.\nArticle 7\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the daily subsistence allowance referred to in Article 10(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be:\n-\nEUR 39,17 for an official who is entitled to the household allowance,\n-\nEUR 31,58 for an official who is not entitled to the household allowance.\nArticle 8\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the lower limit for the installation allowance referred to in Article 24(3) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be:\n-\nEUR 1 114,99 for a servant who is entitled to the household allowance,\n-\nEUR 662,97 for a servant who is not entitled to the household allowance.\nArticle 9\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, for the unemployment allowance referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 28a(3) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, the lower limit shall be EUR 1 337,19, the upper limit shall be EUR 2 674,39.\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the standard allowance referred to in Article 28a(7) shall be EUR 1 215,63.\nArticle 10\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the table of basic monthly salaries in Article 93 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be replaced by the following:\nFUNCTION GROUP\n1.7.2010\nSTEP\nGRADE\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nIV\n18\n5 832,42\n5 953,71\n6 077,52\n6 203,91\n6 332,92\n6 464,62\n6 599,06\n17\n5 154,85\n5 262,04\n5 371,47\n5 483,18\n5 597,20\n5 713,60\n5 832,42\n16\n4 555,99\n4 650,73\n4 747,45\n4 846,17\n4 946,95\n5 049,83\n5 154,85\n15\n4 026,70\n4 110,44\n4 195,92\n4 283,18\n4 372,25\n4 463,17\n4 555,99\n14\n3 558,90\n3 632,91\n3 708,46\n3 785,58\n3 864,31\n3 944,67\n4 026,70\n13\n3 145,45\n3 210,86\n3 277,63\n3 345,80\n3 415,37\n3 486,40\n3 558,90\nIII\n12\n4 026,63\n4 110,36\n4 195,84\n4 283,09\n4 372,15\n4 463,07\n4 555,88\n11\n3 558,86\n3 632,87\n3 708,41\n3 785,53\n3 864,25\n3 944,60\n4 026,63\n10\n3 145,43\n3 210,84\n3 277,61\n3 345,77\n3 415,34\n3 486,36\n3 558,86\n9\n2 780,03\n2 837,84\n2 896,86\n2 957,09\n3 018,59\n3 081,36\n3 145,43\n8\n2 457,08\n2 508,17\n2 560,33\n2 613,57\n2 667,92\n2 723,40\n2 780,03\nII\n7\n2 779,98\n2 837,80\n2 896,82\n2 957,07\n3 018,58\n3 081,36\n3 145,45\n6\n2 456,97\n2 508,07\n2 560,24\n2 613,49\n2 667,84\n2 723,33\n2 779,98\n5\n2 171,49\n2 216,65\n2 262,76\n2 309,82\n2 357,86\n2 406,91\n2 456,97\n4\n1 919,18\n1 959,10\n1 999,84\n2 041,44\n2 083,90\n2 127,24\n2 171,49\nI\n3\n2 364,28\n2 413,35\n2 463,43\n2 514,56\n2 566,74\n2 620,01\n2 674,39\n2\n2 090,12\n2 133,50\n2 177,78\n2 222,98\n2 269,11\n2 316,21\n2 364,28\n1\n1 847,76\n1 886,11\n1 925,25\n1 965,21\n2 005,99\n2 047,63\n2 090,12\nArticle 11\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the lower limit for the installation allowance referred to in Article 94 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be:\n-\nEUR 838,66 for a servant who is entitled to the household allowance,\n-\nEUR 497,22 for a servant who is not entitled to the household allowance.\nArticle 12\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, for the unemployment allowance referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 96(3) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, the lower limit shall be EUR 1 002,90, the upper limit shall be EUR 2 005,78.\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the standard allowance referred to in Article 96(7) shall be EUR 911,73.\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, for the unemployment allowance referred to in Article 136 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, the lower limit shall be EUR 882,33 and the upper limit shall be EUR 2 076,07.\nArticle 13\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the allowances for shift work laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 (2) shall be EUR 382,17, EUR 576,84, EUR 630,69 and EUR 859,84.\nArticle 14\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the amounts referred to in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 260/68 (3) shall be subject to a coefficient of 5,516766.\nArticle 15\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the table in Article 8(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations shall be replaced by the following:\n1.7.2010\nSTEP\nGRADE\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n16\n16 919,04\n17 630,00\n18 370,84\n18 370,84\n18 370,84\n18 370,84\n15\n14 953,61\n15 581,98\n16 236,75\n16 688,49\n16 919,04\n17 630,00\n14\n13 216,49\n13 771,87\n14 350,58\n14 749,83\n14 953,61\n15 581,98\n16 236,75\n16 919,04\n13\n11 681,17\n12 172,03\n12 683,51\n13 036,39\n13 216,49\n12\n10 324,20\n10 758,04\n11 210,11\n11 521,99\n11 681,17\n12 172,03\n12 683,51\n13 216,49\n11\n9 124,87\n9 508,31\n9 907,86\n10 183,52\n10 324,20\n10 758,04\n11 210,11\n11 681,17\n10\n8 064,86\n8 403,76\n8 756,90\n9 000,53\n9 124,87\n9 508,31\n9 907,86\n10 324,20\n9\n7 127,99\n7 427,52\n7 739,63\n7 954,96\n8 064,86\n8\n6 299,95\n6 564,69\n6 840,54\n7 030,86\n7 127,99\n7 427,52\n7 739,63\n8 064,86\n7\n5 568,11\n5 802,09\n6 045,90\n6 214,10\n6 299,95\n6 564,69\n6 840,54\n7 127,99\n6\n4 921,28\n5 128,07\n5 343,56\n5 492,23\n5 568,11\n5 802,09\n6 045,90\n6 299,95\n5\n4 349,59\n4 532,36\n4 722,82\n4 854,21\n4 921,28\n5 128,07\n5 343,56\n5 568,11\n4\n3 844,31\n4 005,85\n4 174,18\n4 290,31\n4 349,59\n4 532,36\n4 722,82\n4 921,28\n3\n3 397,73\n3 540,50\n3 689,28\n3 791,92\n3 844,31\n4 005,85\n4 174,18\n4 349,59\n2\n3 003,02\n3 129,21\n3 260,71\n3 351,42\n3 397,73\n3 540,50\n3 689,28\n3 844,31\n1\n2 654,17\n2 765,70\n2 881,92\n2 962,10\n3 003,02\nArticle 16\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, for the application of Article 18(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, the amount of the fixed allowance mentioned in the former Article 4a of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in force before 1 May 2004 shall be:\n-\nEUR 131,84 per month for officials in Grade C 4 or C 5,\n-\nEUR 202,14 per month for officials in Grade C 1, C 2 or C 3.\nArticle 17\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the scale for basic monthly salaries in Article 133 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be replaced by the following:\nGrade\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nFull-time basic salary\n1 680,76\n1 958,08\n2 122,97\n2 301,75\n2 495,58\n2 705,73\n2 933,59\nGrade\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\nFull-time basic salary\n3 180,63\n3 448,48\n3 738,88\n4 053,72\n4 395,09\n4 765,20\n5 166,49\nGrade\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\nFull-time basic salary\n5 601,56\n6 073,28\n6 584,71\n7 139,21\n7 740,41\nArticle 18\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["69", "30", "59", "64", "63", "89", "34", "86", "55", "68", "81", "82", "58", "4", "46", "41", "0", "36", "79", "60", "11", "93", "5", "39", "92", "16", "95", "27", "94", "56", "No Label", "2", "7", "37"], "gold": ["2", "7", "37"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the EU-Swiss Joint Committee established by Article 14 of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, as regards the replacement of Annex III (Mutual recognition of professional qualifications) thereto\n(2011/467/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 218(9) in conjunction with Articles 46, 53 and 62 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) was signed on 21 June 1999 and entered into force on 1 June 2002.\n(2)\nArticle 14 of the Agreement establishes a Joint Committee. Pursuant to Article 18 of the Agreement, amendments to, inter alia, Annex III (Mutual recognition of professional qualifications) thereto are to be adopted by decision of that Joint Committee.\n(3)\nIn order to preserve the coherent and correct application of EU legal acts and to avoid administrative - and possibly legal - difficulties, Annex III to the Agreement should be amended to integrate new EU legal acts to which the Agreement does not currently refer.\n(4)\nIn the interests of clarity and rationality, Annex III to the Agreement should be consolidated and replaced by a new Annex.\n(5)\nThe position of the Union within the EU-Swiss Joint Committee should therefore be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the EU-Swiss Joint Committee established by Article 14 of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, as regards the replacement of Annex III (Mutual recognition of professional qualifications) thereto shall be based on the draft Decision of the EU-Swiss Joint Committee, attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Decision of the EU-Swiss Joint Committee shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["45", "53", "90", "60", "85", "76", "83", "66", "34", "54", "9", "81", "82", "12", "74", "8", "95", "87", "44", "22", "61", "71", "23", "37", "4", "32", "39", "80", "51", "35", "No Label", "7", "13", "26", "38", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "13", "26", "38", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 August 2012\nsetting a new deadline for the submission of dossiers for certain substances to be examined under the 14-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2012) 5787)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/483/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.\n(2)\nFor a number of substance/product-type combinations included in that list, either all participants have discontinued their participation from the review programme, or no complete dossier was received within the time period specified in Article 9 and Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 by the Member State designated as rapporteur for the evaluation.\n(3)\nConsequently, and pursuant to Articles 11(2), 12(1) and 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the Commission informed the Member States accordingly. That information was also made public by electronic means on 17 January 2011.\n(4)\nWithin three months of the electronic publication of that information, several companies indicated an interest in taking over the role of participant for some of the substances and product-types concerned, in accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(5)\nA new deadline should therefore be established for the submission of dossiers for those substances and product-types in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 12(3) of that Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the substances and product-types set out in the Annex, the new deadline for the submission of dossiers is 30 September 2013.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 August 2012.", "references": ["77", "9", "41", "91", "86", "93", "60", "30", "78", "49", "73", "88", "20", "15", "87", "56", "0", "17", "96", "85", "42", "32", "1", "35", "27", "59", "19", "8", "63", "43", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 958/2011\nof 26 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 September 2011.", "references": ["81", "58", "89", "47", "72", "8", "20", "59", "73", "82", "6", "60", "76", "2", "32", "39", "13", "98", "0", "18", "44", "56", "37", "91", "4", "3", "31", "24", "86", "80", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 735/2011\nof 22 July 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (G\u00f6ttinger Stracke (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany\u2019s application to register the name \u2018G\u00f6ttinger Stracke\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2011.", "references": ["89", "79", "77", "90", "71", "4", "50", "63", "93", "47", "62", "6", "43", "48", "84", "3", "33", "30", "41", "15", "28", "99", "31", "73", "59", "74", "19", "66", "20", "26", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 16 July 2012\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and the provisional application of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand\n(2012/653/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43 paragraph 2 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 June 2007, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 753/2007 (1) concerning the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland (2) (\u2018the Agreement\u2019). A Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Agreement (3) (\u2018the current Protocol\u2019) was attached thereto. The current Protocol will expire on 31 December 2012.\n(2)\nThe Union has negotiated with the Government of Denmark and the Government of Greenland a new Protocol to the Agreement setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution (\u2018the Protocol\u2019).\n(3)\nOn the conclusion of those negotiations, the new Protocol was initialled on 3 February 2012.\n(4)\nIn order to allow EU vessels to carry on fishing activities, Article 12 of the Protocol provides for it to be applied provisionally from 1 January 2013.\n(5)\nThe Protocol should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019), is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Protocol.\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe Protocol shall be applied on a provisional basis as from 1 January 2013, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["31", "92", "8", "70", "5", "20", "87", "62", "56", "90", "84", "60", "35", "86", "79", "55", "83", "11", "76", "17", "98", "51", "28", "41", "23", "52", "89", "33", "69", "36", "No Label", "3", "9", "67", "91", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "67", "91", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 7 December 2011\non the recognition of Cape Verde pursuant to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers\n(notified under document C(2011) 8998)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/821/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 19(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the request from Cyprus on 13 May 2005,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Directive 2008/106/EC Member States may decide to endorse seafarers\u2019 appropriate certificates issued by third countries, provided that the third country concerned is recognised by the Commission. Those third countries have to meet all the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW Convention) (2), as revised in 1995.\n(2)\nBy letters of 13 May 2005 and 1 December 2005, Cyprus submitted a request for recognition of Cape Verde. Following that request, the Commission assessed the training and certification systems in Cape Verde in order to verify whether Cape Verde meets all the requirements of the STCW Convention and whether the appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. That assessment was based on the results of an inspection carried out by experts of the European Maritime Safety Agency in June 2006. During that inspection certain deficiencies in the training and certification systems were identified.\n(3)\nThe Commission provided the Member States with a report on the results of the assessment.\n(4)\nBy letters of 2 February 2009, 8 December 2009 and 17 September 2010, the Commission requested Cape Verde to provide evidence demonstrating that the deficiencies identified had been corrected.\n(5)\nBy letters of 23 April 2009, 19 January 2010, 4 December 2010, 25 February 2011, 10 March 2011 and 25 May 2011 Cape Verde provided the requested information and evidence concerning the implementation of appropriate and sufficient corrective action to address most of the deficiencies identified during the assessment of compliance.\n(6)\nThe remaining shortcomings concern on the one hand missing certain training equipment at the main maritime education and training institution of Cape Verde, and on the other hand certain course content relating to Section A-III/2 of the STCW Code. Cape Verde has therefore been invited to implement further corrective action in this respect. However, these shortcomings do not warrant calling into question the overall level of compliance of Cape Verde with STCW requirements on training and certification of seafarers.\n(7)\nThe outcome of the assessment of compliance and the evaluation of the information provided by Cape Verde demonstrates that Cape Verde complies with the relevant requirements of the STCW Convention, while this country has taken appropriate measures to prevent fraud involving certificates.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of Article 19 of Directive 2008/106/EC, Cape Verde is recognised as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2011.", "references": ["32", "91", "92", "67", "53", "7", "89", "15", "26", "60", "98", "57", "99", "20", "1", "74", "10", "51", "13", "28", "58", "52", "48", "31", "87", "61", "16", "47", "27", "42", "No Label", "49", "54", "56", "94"], "gold": ["49", "54", "56", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 128/2012\nof 14 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 February 2012.", "references": ["34", "36", "66", "60", "72", "40", "1", "98", "74", "8", "55", "44", "97", "73", "26", "5", "67", "45", "90", "9", "78", "87", "41", "71", "52", "15", "16", "12", "14", "18", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 579/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 8 June 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms and Council Regulation (EC) No 1288/2009 establishing transitional technical measures from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1288/2009 (3) provides for the continuation of temporary technical measures previously covered by Annex III to Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 (4), thereby allowing those measures to continue to apply until the adoption of permanent measures.\n(2)\nIn view of the forthcoming reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and its relevance for the content and scope of new permanent technical measures, it is appropriate to delay the adoption of such measures until a new legislative framework is in place.\n(3)\nIn order to maintain the proper conservation and management of marine resources, and given that it can reasonably be expected that a new legislative framework will apply as from 1 January 2013, the technical measures currently in force should continue to apply until that date.\n(4)\nConsequently, since the temporary technical measures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1288/2009 will cease to apply from 1 July 2011, that Regulation should be amended to extend their validity until 31 December 2012.\n(5)\nFishing quotas for Boarfish (Caproidae) were established for the first time under Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 (5). It is therefore appropriate to clarify that boarfish may be targeted using towed nets with a mesh size range of 32 to 54 millimetres. Consequently, Annexes I and II to Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 (6) should be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 850/98 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Annex I, in the table, the following entry is inserted:\n\u2018 \u201cBoarfish (Caproidae)\u201d, with a mesh size range of 32 to 54 mm and a minimum percentage of target species of 90/60.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Annex II, in the table, the following entry is inserted:\n\u2018 \u201cBoarfish (Caproidae)\u201d, with a mesh size range of 32 to 54 mm and a minimum percentage of target species of 90 %.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 1288/2009 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the words \u201830 June 2011\u2019 are replaced by the words \u201831 December 2012\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(i)\npoint (a) is amended as follows:\n-\nin point (i), the words \u2018point 6.8 second paragraph\u2019 are deleted,\n-\nin point (ii), the words \u2018from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2011\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2012\u2019,\n-\nin point (iv), the words \u201830 June 2011\u2019 are replaced by the words \u201831 December 2012\u2019,\n-\nin point (v), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Member States concerned shall submit to the Commission a preliminary report on the total amount of catches and discards of vessels subject to the observer programme no later that 30 June of the year in which the programme is implemented. The final report for the calendar year concerned shall be submitted no later that 1 February of the year following that calendar year.\u2019,\n-\nthe following point (vi) is added:\n\u2018(vi)\npoint 6.8, second paragraph, is replaced by the following:\n\u201cMember States concerned shall submit the results of the trials and experiments to the Commission no later than 30 September of the year in which these are carried out.\u201d \u2019;\n(ii)\nin point (e), the words \u2018both in the year 2010 as well as that of 2011\u2019 are deleted;\n(iii)\nin point (h), the year \u20182010\u2019 is deleted;\n(2)\nin Article 2, the words \u201830 June 2011\u2019 are replaced by the words \u201831 December 2012\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 8 June 2011.", "references": ["46", "50", "49", "19", "71", "10", "65", "64", "51", "20", "66", "33", "26", "47", "56", "86", "42", "70", "34", "89", "38", "74", "75", "36", "44", "7", "29", "63", "99", "3", "No Label", "67", "76"], "gold": ["67", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 768/2011\nof 2 August 2011\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 of 17 June 2011 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 191 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 of 17 June 2011 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector (2) introduced temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector following an outbreak of Escherichia coli (E. coli) in Germany, which caused a significant disturbance of the Union fruit and vegetable market.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 7(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011, Member States had to notify their requests for total Union support to the Commission by 18 July 2011. On the basis of the information notified by Member States in accordance with that Article, it appears that the impact of the crisis has been bigger than expected.\n(3)\nGiven the significant disturbance of the fruit and vegetables market and the harm caused to the fruit and vegetables sector, it is appropriate to increase the maximum amount of support provided for in Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011. For reasons of urgency, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nMaximum amount of support\nTotal Union expenditure incurred for the purposes of this Regulation shall not exceed EUR 227 000 000. It shall be financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and be used solely for the purpose of financing the measures provided for under this Regulation.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2011.", "references": ["19", "75", "91", "25", "89", "5", "64", "59", "6", "55", "97", "90", "8", "37", "99", "41", "77", "36", "42", "50", "63", "33", "43", "12", "57", "16", "28", "86", "0", "46", "No Label", "10", "61", "66", "68"], "gold": ["10", "61", "66", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 263/2011\nof 17 March 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 458/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European system of integrated social protection statistics (ESSPROS) as regards the launch of full data collection for the ESSPROS module on net social protection benefits\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 458/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 April 2007 on the European system of integrated social protection statistics (ESSPROS) (1), and in particular Articles 5(2) and 7(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 458/2007 established a methodological framework to be used for compiling statistics on a comparable basis for the benefits of the European Union and time limits for the transmission and dissemination of statistics compiled in accordance with the European system of integrated social protection statistics (hereinafter referred to as \u2018ESSPROS\u2019).\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 458/2007, pilot data collection for the year 2005 was carried out in all Member States with a view to introducing a module on net social protection benefits.\n(3)\nA synthesis of the national pilot data collection showed that the outcome of a very large majority of the pilot studies was positive, so the implementing measures needed to launch full data collection for the module on net social protection benefits should be adopted.\n(4)\nThe module on net social protection benefits should be obtained using the restricted approach, in order to have the same population of beneficiaries of the gross social protection benefits collected in the ESSPROS core system.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 458/2007, implementing measures relating to the first year for which full data shall be collected, and measures relating to the detailed classification of data covered, the definitions to be used and the rules on dissemination for the module on net social protection benefits should be adopted.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Member States shall submit data relating to the ESSPROS module on net social protection benefits to the Commission (Eurostat) annually. The reference period shall be the calendar year.\n2. The deadline for the transmission of data for the year N, together with any revision of previous years\u2019 data, shall be 31 December of the year N + 2.\n3. The first reference year for which full data shall be collected on net social protection benefit shall be 2010.\nArticle 2\n1. The definitions to be applied to the module on net social protection benefits shall be as laid down in Annex I.\n2. The detailed classifications to be used in the module on net social protection benefits shall be as laid down in Annex II.\n3. The criteria for dissemination of the data relating to the module on net social benefits shall be as laid down in Annex III.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 March 2011.", "references": ["88", "0", "54", "57", "97", "2", "64", "38", "56", "17", "8", "20", "3", "42", "11", "76", "35", "49", "92", "14", "90", "6", "81", "27", "33", "84", "30", "23", "70", "87", "No Label", "19", "36", "37", "40"], "gold": ["19", "36", "37", "40"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1247/2011\nof 29 November 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of 3 months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of 3 months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2011.", "references": ["72", "41", "30", "69", "18", "90", "76", "81", "14", "77", "79", "34", "73", "64", "88", "7", "26", "38", "10", "17", "1", "20", "2", "75", "24", "22", "46", "95", "91", "3", "No Label", "21", "86"], "gold": ["21", "86"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 28 June 2011\namending the Council Act of 12 March 1999 adopting rules on the Europol pension fund\n(2011/400/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees, as laid down in the Council Act of 3 December 1998 (\u2018Europol Staff Regulations\u2019) (1), and in particular Article 37(3) of Appendix 6 thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol) (2) (\u2018Europol Decision\u2019), replaces the Council Act of 26 July 1995 drawing up the Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of a European Police Office (3) (\u2018Europol Convention\u2019) as of its date of application, that is as of 1 January 2010.\n(2)\nThe Europol Decision provides that all measures implementing the Europol Convention shall be repealed with effect from 1 January 2010, unless otherwise provided in the Europol Decision.\n(3)\nThe Europol Decision further provides that the Europol Staff Regulations and other relevant instruments shall continue to apply to staff members who are not recruited under the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union in accordance with Article 57(2) of that Decision.\n(4)\nThe Europol Decision also provides that the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union, as laid down in Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (4) shall apply to the Director, the Deputy Directors and to Europol staff engaged after 1 January 2010.\n(5)\nThe Europol Decision furthermore provides that all employment contracts concluded by Europol as established by the Europol Convention and in force on 1 January 2010 shall be honoured until their expiry date and may not be renewed on the basis of the Europol Staff Regulations after the date of application of the Europol Decision.\n(6)\nThe Europol Decision also provides that members of staff under contract on 1 January 2010 shall be offered the possibility of concluding temporary agent or contract agent contracts under the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union. Several members of staff have made use of this possibility.\n(7)\nConsequently, the number of staff members continuing to be employed under the Europol Staff Regulations, and hence their contributions to the Europol pension fund pursuant to Article 37(1) of Appendix 6 of the Europol Staff Regulations, have, as from 1 January 2010, steadily decreased and are to be discontinued once the last employment contract to which the Europol Staff Regulations apply has expired.\n(8)\nAs a result, the management of the fund is to be adapted to the decreased volume of both the contributions and disbursements to be made by the fund, by reducing the number of members of the Board of the fund and the number of its meetings.\n(9)\nIt is also reasonable to limit the personal liability of members of the Board acting in the fulfilment of their tasks to gross negligence and serious wrongdoings.\n(10)\nThe liabilities of the fund are also to end at an earlier stage than foreseen when it was created. In the event that the fund\u2019s assets would not suffice to fulfil its liabilities, the shortfall should be covered by Europol\u2019s budget. Given the present financial state of the fund, this eventuality appears to be theoretical, taking also into account that Europol has reinsured the risks stemming from its obligations under Articles 63 to 71 of the Europol Staff Regulations by concluding an insurance on invalidity and survivors\u2019 pensions.\n(11)\nThe Council Act of 12 March 1999 adopting rules on the Europol pension fund (5) should thus be amended accordingly. Other technical amendments to that Act resulting from the entry into force of the Europol Decision should also be introduced,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Council Act of 12 March 1999 adopting rules on the Europol pension fund is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1 the following point is inserted:\n\u2018(aa)\n\u201cEuropol Decision\u201d means the Council Decision of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (6) and replacing the Europol Convention;\n(2)\nin Article 1, point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\n\u201cEuropol\u201d means the European Police Office as established by the Europol Decision;\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 1, point (g) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(g)\n\u201cManagement Board of Europol\u201d means Europol\u2019s Management Board as mentioned in Article 37(1) of the Europol Decision;\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 1 the following point is added:\n\u2018(h)\n\u201cEuropol Staff Committee\u201d means the Staff Committee set up in accordance with Article 4 of the Staff Regulations or, in case it ceases to exist, the Staff Committee mentioned in Article 9(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (7).\n(5)\nin Article 3(1), point (g) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(g)\nother income, including exceptional contributions received from Europol pursuant to Article 12b.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 3(2), point (d), the words \u2018or desirable\u2019 are deleted;\n(7)\nArticle 4(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The Board shall consist of four members.\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 4(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Of the four members, two shall be appointed by the Management Board of Europol, one shall be appointed by Europol, and one shall be appointed by the Europol Staff Committee. Each member may be assisted at the Board\u2019s meetings by a maximum of two experts; the costs of any outside experts will be borne by the fund only if the Board so decides.\u2019;\n(9)\nin Article 4(7), the words \u2018the secretary shall in all cases be from the members appointed by Europol or the Europol Staff Committee\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018the secretary shall in all cases be either the member appointed by Europol or the one appointed by the Europol Staff Committee\u2019;\n(10)\nin Article 5, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20186. The Board and its members shall represent the interests of all participants and the interests of Europol.\u2019;\n(11)\nin Article 6(1), the word \u2018twice\u2019 is replaced by the word \u2018once\u2019;\n(12)\nArticle 7(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Decisions of the Board can only be taken at meetings where at least one member appointed by the Management Board of Europol and the representatives of the other parties are present.\u2019;\n(13)\nin Article 8(1), the words \u2018solvability, liquidity, rentability\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018solvency, liquidity, profitability\u2019;\n(14)\nin Article 10(3), the second sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018To this end, the Board shall appoint a certified accountant registered in accordance with the applicable Dutch law.\u2019;\n(15)\nArticle 10(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The yearly report shall be forwarded to the Management Board of Europol, and shall be controlled by the European Court of Auditors, in accordance with Articles 43 and 58(2)(a) of the Europol Decision.\u2019;\n(16)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 12a\nLimitation of liability\n1. The members of the Board shall be released from any liability for claims concerning the fulfilment of their tasks referred to in Article 5.\n2. Europol shall indemnify the members of the Board against any claims for damages brought by the participants to the fund and/or by other interested parties concerning the fulfilment of their tasks referred to in Article 5.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, members of the Board shall be liable for gross negligence and serious wrongdoings, including but not limited to, fraud, corruption, misappropriation of funds and theft.\u2019;\n(17)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 12b\nMonitoring of the fund\u2019s assets\n1. In addition to the report drawn up in accordance with Article 10, the Board shall produce, every quarter, a financial report monitoring the coverage ratio of the fund. In case the coverage ratio is lower than the threshold set out in Article 132 of the Dutch Pensioenwet, the Board shall carry out a risk assessment to evaluate a potential situation of insolvency of the fund during the next five budgetary years. The results shall be reported to the Management Board of Europol and to the Europol Director and shall indicate the reasons, the preventive measures proposed, the expected financial evolution and the estimated needed cash flow for each budgetary year for which exceptional contributions from Europol are required.\n2. Notwithstanding the possibility to dissolve the fund in accordance with Article 13, Europol shall cover any shortfall in case the assets of the Europol Pension Fund are not sufficient to fulfil its liabilities, except for liabilities covered by Europol\u2019s reinsurance schemes.\u2019;\n(18)\nArticle 13(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The fund has been established for an undetermined period. It may only be dissolved by unanimous decision of the Council. Such decision shall be taken on the basis of a proposal from the Management Board of Europol, submitted after hearing the Board.\u2019;\n(19)\nArticle 14 is repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 28 June 2011.", "references": ["54", "92", "17", "41", "19", "53", "10", "8", "81", "34", "35", "95", "88", "14", "67", "42", "71", "52", "25", "20", "86", "49", "91", "68", "98", "36", "82", "50", "75", "60", "No Label", "7", "9", "37"], "gold": ["7", "9", "37"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 21 December 2010\nexempting certain cases of irregularity arising from operations co-financed by the Structural Funds and by the Cohesion Fund for the 2000-2006 programming period from the special reporting requirements laid down by Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 and by Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/94\n(notified under document C(2010) 9244)\n(2010/802/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1), and in particular Articles 70(3) and 105(1) thereof; and Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (2) and in particular Article 103(3) thereof; and Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (3) and in particular Articles 74(4) and 92 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe legal framework for the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guidance Section, the Financial Instrument for the Fisheries Guidance (hereinafter \u2018the Structural Funds\u2019) and for the Cohesion Fund is largely established although it has been subject to frequent adjustments. Programming involves the preparation of multiannual development plans in several stages, with each stage constituting a 7-year period. Each programming period is governed by a set of individual Regulations which are based on the same general principles but introduce certain new rules specifically designed for the programming period concerned. The relevant provisions governing the 2007-2013 programming period are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 of 8 December 2006 setting out rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund (4), Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 498/2007 of 26 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (5), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1848/2006 of 14 December 2006 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organisation of an information system in this field and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 (6) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (7).\n(2)\nThe relevant provisions governing the 2000-2006 programming period are laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (8) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (9). Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organization of an information system in this field (10) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1831/94 of 26 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the Cohesion Fund and the organization of an information system in this field (11) established rules as to irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of policies by the Funds, and applied to that programming period. Those Regulations established reporting requirements in case of detected irregularities. Those requirements resulted in a disproportionate administrative burden on Member States and the Commission.\n(3)\nBy virtue of Article 28(1) of the Protocol Concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (12), measures which on the date of accession have been subject to assistance under Council Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 of 21 June 1999 establishing an Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession (13) (ISPA) not completed by that date are considered to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 and all provisions governing the implementation of measures approved pursuant to the latter Regulation apply to those measures. Concerning ex-ISPA projects, this Decision should therefore also be addressed to Bulgaria and Romania.\n(4)\nAccordingly, in order to reduce the burden imposed on Member States and to improve efficiency, Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 was amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2035/2005 (14) and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/94 was amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2168/2005 (15) so that, for the 2000-2006 programming period, Member States do not need to report cases where the irregularity consists solely of the failure to partially or totally execute an operation co-financed by the Union budget owing to the bankruptcy of the final beneficiary or the final recipient, and which do not involve other irregularities preceding the bankruptcy or suspected fraud (hereinafter referred to as \u2018simple bankruptcies\u2019).\n(5)\nWhile Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 as amended and Regulation (EC) No 1831/94 as amended simplified the existing reporting system, the simplifications introduced did not extend to the requirement relating to the submission of the special report referred to in Article 5(2) of both Regulations. Experience of dealing with reported irregularities, and examining the special reports submitted, in particular for the 1994-1999 programming period, has shown that the administrative burden for the Member States in applying the provisions of Article 5(2) of both Regulations to simple bankruptcies is disproportionate, given that it is highly unlikely that the failure to recover in such cases results from the fault or negligence of the authorities of the Member State.\n(6)\nIn order to give full effect, therefore, to the aims of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 as amended and Regulation (EC) No 1831/94 as amended, it is appropriate to extend that simplification to the requirement to submit a special report under Article 5(2) of both Regulations so that Member States which are benefiting from the simplification provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of those Regulations equally benefit from the simplification of the requirement to report under Article 5(2).\n(7)\nWhile the legal framework governing the Structural Funds as well as the Cohesion Fund and the irregular use thereof is clearly identifiable by programming period, the identification of disproportionate administrative requirements in the established reporting system is only possible at the closure of a given programming period. Therefore, in order to effectively assess and improve the reporting system, a certain period of time was necessary.\n(8)\nFurther efforts to simplify the reporting obligations were introduced by Regulation (EC) No 2035/2005 and Regulation (EC) No 2168/2005 amending, respectively, Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 and Regulation (EC) No 1831/94. Most notably, the reporting threshold laid down in both Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 and Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/94 was raised from EUR 4 000 to EUR 10 000. Given the short period of time between the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 2035/2005 and Regulation (EC) No 2168/2005 and the end of the 2000-2006 programming period, however, the intended simplification of the reporting system could not be fully achieved for that programming period, thus necessitating the elimination of the reporting obligations for cases involving an amount of less than EUR 10 000 which were notified before 28 February 2006.\n(9)\nFor reasons of equal treatment, therefore, all reporting obligations with regard to the irregular use of the Structural Funds and of the Cohesion Fund should benefit from the raised threshold and the intended simplification of the reporting system introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 as amended and Regulation (EC) No 1831/94 as amended.\n(10)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to the obligation for Member States to take all appropriate measures to recover amounts unduly paid and to account to the Commission for amounts which are recovered.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Coordination Committee of the Funds, the European Fisheries Fund Committee and of the Rural Development Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nWith respect to irregularities arising from operations co-financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for the 2000-2006 programming period, Member States shall not be required to submit the following reports:\n(a)\nspecial reports under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 and Regulation (EC) No 1831/94 in cases of simple bankruptcy referred to in the first indent of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of those Regulations unless expressly requested by the Commission;\n(b)\nreports under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 and Regulation (EC) No 1831/94 in cases involving an amount of less than EUR 10 000 unless expressly requested by the Commission.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2010.", "references": ["87", "43", "82", "63", "26", "17", "39", "7", "31", "5", "50", "51", "99", "38", "69", "76", "25", "0", "14", "92", "70", "28", "78", "85", "80", "46", "68", "89", "58", "19", "No Label", "10", "12", "15", "33", "41", "42"], "gold": ["10", "12", "15", "33", "41", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 990/2010\nof 4 November 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Jab\u0142ka \u0142\u0105ckie (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Jab\u0142ka \u0142\u0105ckie\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 November 2010.", "references": ["98", "85", "78", "59", "27", "76", "81", "11", "34", "37", "80", "17", "87", "1", "9", "10", "48", "16", "90", "65", "6", "30", "7", "45", "53", "29", "88", "77", "19", "23", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 391/2012\nof 7 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2012.", "references": ["98", "57", "90", "53", "99", "6", "12", "8", "32", "93", "56", "3", "11", "38", "17", "48", "0", "31", "94", "27", "25", "30", "88", "67", "97", "60", "76", "33", "71", "21", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/747/CFSP\nof 2 December 2010\namending Joint Action 2005/797/CFSP and Council Decision 2009/955/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28 and 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 14 November 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/797/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (1) (EUPOL COPPS) for a period of 3 years. The operational phase of EUPOL COPPS began on 1 January 2006. Joint Action 2005/797/CFSP was extended by Joint Action 2008/958/CFSP (2) until 31 December 2010.\n(2)\nCouncil Decision 2009/955/CFSP (3) provided for a financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL COPPS for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2010. This financial reference amount should be increased to cover the Mission\u2019s operational needs.\n(3)\nJoint Action 2005/797/CFSP and Decision 2009/955/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 14 of Joint Action 2005/797/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 14\nFinancial arrangements\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL COPPS for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2010 shall be EUR 6 870 000.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount referred to in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the European Union. Nationals of third States participating financially in the mission, of host parties and, if required for the operational needs of the mission, of neighbouring countries shall be allowed to tender for contracts.\n3. The Head of Mission/Police Commissioner shall report fully to, and be supervised by, the Commission on the activities undertaken in the framework of his contract.\n4. The financial arrangements shall respect the operational requirements of EUPOL COPPS, including compatibility of equipment and interoperability of its teams.\n5. Expenditure shall be eligible as of the date of entry into force of this Joint Action.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nArticle 2 of Decision 2009/955/CFSP is hereby deleted.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["99", "57", "13", "97", "61", "68", "25", "47", "26", "19", "14", "11", "5", "38", "24", "39", "40", "41", "18", "53", "92", "69", "46", "33", "30", "22", "55", "45", "58", "35", "No Label", "4", "7", "9", "10", "32", "95"], "gold": ["4", "7", "9", "10", "32", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 458/2011\nof 12 May 2011\nconcerning type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers with regard to the installation of their tyres and implementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 is a separate Regulation for the purposes of the type-approval procedure provided for by Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 repeals Council Directive 92/23/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting (3). The requirements set out in that Directive should be carried over to this Regulation and, where necessary, adapted to the development of scientific and technical knowledge.\n(3)\nThe scope of this Regulation should be in line with that of Directive 92/23/EEC. The Regulation should therefore cover vehicles of categories M, N and O.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 lays down basic requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to the installation of tyres. Therefore, it is necessary to set out the specific procedures, tests and requirements for such type-approval to ensure that the tyres used on a vehicle are appropriate for the load, speed and use characteristics of that vehicle.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation applies to vehicles of categories M, N and O, as defined in Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018vehicle type with regard to the installation of its tyres\u2019 means vehicles which do not differ in such essential respects as the types of tyres, minimum and maximum tyre size designations, wheel dimensions and off-sets as well as speed and load capabilities suitable for fitment, and the characteristics of the wheel guards;\n(2)\n\u2018type of tyre\u2019 means a range of tyres which do not differ in the following essential characteristics:\n(a)\nthe tyre class: C1, C2 or C3, as described in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009; and\n(b)\nin the case of class C1, tyres, the characteristics of a type of pneumatic tyre as defined in paragraph 2.1 of UNECE Regulation No 30 (4);\n(c)\nin the case of class C2 or C3 tyres, the characteristics of a type of pneumatic tyre as defined in paragraph 2.1 of UNECE Regulation No 54 (5);\n(3)\n\u2018tyre size designation\u2019 means the designation as defined in paragraph 2.17 of UNECE Regulation No 30 for class C1 tyres and paragraph 2.17 of UNECE Regulation No 54 for class C2 and C3 tyres;\n(4)\n\u2018wheel off-set\u2019 means the distance from the hub abutment face to the centre line of the rim;\n(5)\n\u2018pneumatic-tyre structure\u2019 means the technical characteristics of the tyre\u2019s carcass;\n(6)\n\u2018normal tyre\u2019 means a tyre or run flat tyre intended for normal on-road use;\n(7)\n\u2018run flat tyre\u2019 means a tyre as defined in paragraph 2.4.3 of UNECE Regulation No 64 (6);\n(8)\n\u2018temporary-use spare tyre\u2019 means a tyre different from a tyre intended to be fitted to any vehicle for normal driving conditions but intended only for temporary-use under restricted driving conditions;\n(9)\n\u2018wheel\u2019 means a complete wheel consisting of a rim and a wheel disc;\n(10)\n\u2018temporary-use spare wheel\u2019 means a wheel different from one of the normal wheels on the vehicle type;\n(11)\n\u2018unit\u2019 means an assembly of a wheel and tyre;\n(12)\n\u2018standard unit\u2019 means a unit which is capable of being fitted to the vehicle for normal operation;\n(13)\n\u2018spare unit\u2019 means a unit which is intended to be exchanged for a standard unit in case of malfunction of the latter and may be either of the following;\n(14)\n\u2018standard spare unit\u2019 means an assembly of a wheel and tyre identical in terms of wheel and tyre size designation, wheel offset and tyre structure to that fitted in the same axle position and to the particular vehicle variant and version for normal operation, including wheels produced from a different material and which may use different wheel fixing nut or bolt designs, but which is otherwise identical to the wheel intended for normal operation;\n(15)\n\u2018temporary-use spare unit\u2019 means an assembly of any wheel and tyre that does not fall within the definition of standard spare unit and which falls within one of the temporary-use spare unit type descriptions as defined in paragraph 2.10 of UNECE Regulation No 64;\n(16)\n\u2018speed category symbol\u2019 means the symbol as defined in paragraph 2.29 of UNECE Regulation No 30 for class class C1 tyres and paragraph 2.28 of UNECE Regulation No 54 for class C2 and C3;\n(17)\n\u2018load capacity index\u2019 means a number associated to the maximum load rating of the tyre in relation to the definition in paragraph 2.28 of UNECE Regulation No 30 for class C1 tyres and paragraph 2.27 of UNECE Regulation No 54 for class C2 and C3 tyres;\n(18)\n\u2018maximum load rating\u2019 means the mass which a tyre can carry when operated in conformity with requirements governing utilisation specified by the tyre manufacturer.\nArticle 3\nProvisions for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to the installation of its tyres\n1. The manufacturer or the representative of the manufacturer shall submit to the type-approval authority the application for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to the installation of its tyres.\n2. The application shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Part 1 of Annex I.\n3. If the relevant requirements set out in Annex II to this Regulation are met, the type-approval authority shall grant an EC type-approval and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nA Member State may not assign the same number to another vehicle type.\n4. For the purposes of paragraph 3, the approval authority shall deliver an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2011.", "references": ["13", "63", "78", "36", "53", "5", "82", "14", "20", "94", "45", "41", "30", "88", "85", "65", "75", "89", "32", "49", "79", "35", "21", "71", "72", "96", "15", "43", "24", "44", "No Label", "54", "55", "76", "83"], "gold": ["54", "55", "76", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 581/2012\nof 29 June 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 July 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 July 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 July 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2012.", "references": ["29", "51", "2", "39", "9", "5", "11", "91", "90", "70", "79", "26", "45", "36", "14", "0", "31", "30", "12", "99", "72", "17", "93", "18", "3", "44", "86", "98", "37", "57", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1075/2011\nof 24 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 October 2011.", "references": ["70", "94", "71", "11", "44", "79", "17", "97", "69", "40", "67", "37", "31", "81", "13", "8", "43", "34", "62", "30", "90", "89", "9", "64", "72", "60", "92", "7", "36", "84", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 April 2011\nconcerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock subsystem - \u2018Locomotives and passenger rolling stock\u2019 of the trans-European conventional rail system\n(notified under document C(2011) 2737)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/291/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 2(e) and Annex II of Directive 2008/57/EC, the rail system is subdivided into structural and functional subsystems, including a rolling stock subsystem.\n(2)\nBy Decision C(2006) 124 final of 9 February 2007, the Commission gave a mandate to the European Railway Agency (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019) to develop technical specifications for interoperability (TSIs) under Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (2). Under the terms of that mandate, the Agency was requested to draw up the draft TSIs related to passenger carriages and locomotives and traction units, related to the rolling stock subsystem of the conventional rail system.\n(3)\nTechnical specifications for interoperability (TSIs) are specifications adopted in accordance with Directive 2008/57/EC. The TSI to be set up by this Decision should cover the rolling stock subsystem in order to meet the essential requirements and ensure the interoperability of the rail system.\n(4)\nThe TSI on rolling stock to be set up by this Decision does not fully deal with all essential requirements. In accordance with Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/57/EC, technical aspects which are not covered should be identified as open points.\n(5)\nThe TSI on rolling stock should refer to Commission Decision 2010/713/EU of 9 November 2010 on modules for the procedures for assessment of conformity, suitability for use and EC verification to be used in the technical specifications for interoperability adopted under Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 17(3) of Directive 2008/57/EC, Member States are to notify to the Commission and other Member States the technical rules, the conformity assessment and verification procedures to be used for the specific cases, as well as the bodies responsible for carrying out these procedures.\n(7)\nCommission Decision 2008/163/EC of 20 December 2007 concerning the technical specification of interoperability relating to \u2018safety in railway tunnels\u2019 in the trans-European conventional and high-speed rail system (4), includes in its scope some requirements of the rolling stock running in the conventional rail system. Therefore Decision 2008/163/EC should be amended\n(8)\nThe TSI on rolling stock should be without prejudice to the provisions of other relevant TSIs which may be applicable to rolling stock subsystems.\n(9)\nThe TSI on rolling stock should not impose the use of specific technologies or technical solutions except where this is strictly necessary for the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union.\n(10)\nIn accordance with Article 11(5) of Directive 2008/57/EC, the TSI on rolling stock should allow, for a limited period of time, for interoperability constituents to be incorporated into subsystems without certification if certain conditions are met.\n(11)\nTo continue to encourage innovation and to take into account the experience acquired, this Decision should be subject to periodic revision.\n(12)\nThe provisions of this Decision are in conformity with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 21 of Council Directive 96/48/EC (5),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe technical specification for interoperability (TSI) relating to the rolling stock subsystem, \u2018Locomotive and passenger rolling stock\u2019, of the trans-European conventional railway system as set out in the Annex is hereby adopted.\nArticle 2\n1. The TSI set out in the Annex shall apply to all new rolling stock of the trans-European conventional rail system as defined in Annex I to Directive 2008/57/EC. The technical and geographical scope of this Decision is set out in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the Annex.\nThe TSI set out in the Annex shall also apply to existing rolling stock when it is subject to renewal or upgrading in accordance with Article 20 of Directive 2008/57/EC.\n2. Until 1 June 2017, the application of this TSI shall not be compulsory for the following rolling stock:\n(a)\nprojects at an advanced stage of development, as referred to in clause 7.1.1.2.2 of the TSI set out in the Annex;\n(b)\ncontracts in course of performance, as referred to in clause 7.1.1.2.3 of the TSI set out in the Annex;\n(c)\nrolling stock of an existing design, as referred to in clause 7.1.1.2.4 of the TSI set out in the Annex.\nArticle 3\n1. With regard to those issues classified as open points set out in the TSI set out in the Annex, the conditions to be complied with for the verification of the interoperability pursuant to Article 17(2) of Directive 2008/57/EC shall be the applicable technical rules in use in the Member State which authorises the placing in service of the subsystems covered by this Decision.\n2. Each Member State shall notify to the other Member States and to the Commission within six months of the notification of this Decision:\n(a)\nthe applicable technical rules referred to in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe conformity assessment and checking procedures to be applied with regard to the application of the technical rules referred to in paragraph 1;\n(c)\nthe bodies it appoints for carrying out the conformity assessment and checking procedures of the open points referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. With regard to the national rules applicable to vehicles categorised for national use in section 4.2.3.5.2.2, paragraph 2 of this Article also applies.\nArticle 4\n1. With regard to those issues classified as specific cases set out in Section 7 of the TSI set out in the Annex, the conditions to be complied with for the verification of the interoperability pursuant to Article 17(2) of Directive 2008/57/EC shall be the applicable technical rules in use in the Member State which authorises the placing in service of the subsystems covered by this Decision.\n2. Each Member State shall notify to the other Member States and to the Commission within six months of the notification of this Decision:\n(a)\nthe applicable technical rules referred to in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe conformity assessment and checking procedures to be applied with regard to the application of the technical rules referred to in paragraph 1;\n(c)\nthe bodies it appoints for carrying out the conformity assessment and checking procedures of the specific cases referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 5\nThe procedures for assessment of conformity, suitability for use and EC verification set out in Section 6 of the TSI set out in the Annex shall be based on the modules defined in Decision 2010/713/EU.\nArticle 6\n1. An EC certificate of verification for a subsystem that contains interoperability constituents not holding an EC declaration of conformity or suitability for use may be issued during a transition period of six years from the date of application of this Decision, on the condition that the provisions set out in Section 6.3 of the Annex are met.\n2. The production or upgrade/renewal of the subsystem with use of the non-certified interoperability constituents must be completed within the transition period, including the placing in service.\n3. During the transition period Member States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nthe reasons for non-certification of the interoperability constituents are properly identified in the verification procedure referred to in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe details of the non-certified interoperability constituents and the reasons for non-certification, including the application of national rules notified under Article 17 of Directive 2008/57/EC, are included by the national safety authorities in their annual report referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6).\n4. After the transition period and with the exceptions allowed under Section 6.3.3 of the Annex on maintenance, interoperability constituents shall be covered by the required EC declaration of conformity and/or suitability for use before being incorporated into the subsystem.\nArticle 7\nWith regard to the rolling stock concerned by projects at advanced stage of development, each Member State shall communicate to the Commission within one year of entry into force of this Decision a list of projects that are taking place within its territory and are at an advanced stage of development.\nArticle 8\nAmendments to Decision 2008/163/EC\nDecision 2008/163/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nthe following text is inserted after the second paragraph of point 4.2.5.1 Material properties for rolling stock:\n\u2018In addition, the requirements of clause 4.2.10.2 (Material requirements) of the CR LOC & PAS TSI shall apply to CR rolling stock.\u2019;\n2.\npoint 4.2.5.4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184.2.5.4.\nFire barriers for passenger rolling stock\n-\nThe requirements of clause 4.2.7.2.3.3 (Fire resistance) of the high-speed RST TSI apply to HS rolling stock.\n-\nThe requirements of clause 4.2.7.2.3.3 (Fire resistance) of the high-speed RST TSI and the requirements of clause 4.2.10.5 (Fire barriers) of the conventional LOC & PAS TSI apply to CR rolling stock.\u2019;\n3.\npoint 4.2.5.7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184.2.5.7.\nCommunication means on trains\n-\nThe requirements of clause 4.2.5.1 (Public address system) of the high-speed RST TSI apply to HS rolling stock.\n-\nThe requirements of clause 4.2.5.2 (Public address system: audible communication system) of the conventional LOC & PAS TSI apply to CR rolling stock.\u2019;\n4.\npoint 4.2.5.8 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184.2.5.8.\nEmergency brake override\n-\nThe requirements in clause 4.2.5.3 (Passenger alarm) of the high-speed RST TSI apply to HS rolling stock.\n-\nThe requirements in clause 4.2.5.3 (Passenger alarm: functional requirements) of the conventional LOC & PAS TSI apply to CR rolling stock.\u2019;\n5.\npoint 4.2.5.11.1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184.2.5.11.1.\nPassengers\u2019 emergency exits\n-\nThe requirements in clause 4.2.7.1.1 (Passengers\u2019 emergency exits) of the high-speed RST TSI apply to HS rolling stock.\n-\nThe requirements in clause 4.2.10.4 (Passenger evacuation) of the conventional LOC & PAS TSI apply to CR rolling stock.\u2019.\nArticle 9\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 June 2011.\nArticle 10\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2011.", "references": ["39", "45", "8", "52", "13", "96", "91", "68", "53", "95", "5", "47", "31", "20", "43", "1", "12", "80", "56", "36", "22", "44", "4", "58", "26", "64", "2", "17", "92", "49", "No Label", "9", "55", "76"], "gold": ["9", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 971/2011\nof 29 September 2011\nfixing the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), lays down that the cif import prices for white sugar and raw sugar are to be considered the representative prices. Those prices are fixed for the standard qualities defined in points II and III respectively of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(2)\nFor the purposes of fixing those representative prices, account must be taken of all the information provided for in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, except in the cases provided for in Article 24 of that Regulation.\n(3)\nFor the purposes of adjusting prices not relating to the standard quality, the price increases or reductions referred to in Article 26(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 should be applied to the offers taken into consideration in the case of white sugar. In the case of raw sugar, the corrective factors provided for in point (b) of that paragraph should be applied.\n(4)\nWhere there is a difference between the trigger price for the product concerned and the representative price, additional import duties should be fixed under the terms laid down in Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(5)\nThe representative prices and additional import duties for the products concerned should be fixed in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and the additional duties applying to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 September 2011.", "references": ["36", "66", "8", "21", "6", "86", "75", "64", "26", "5", "56", "92", "43", "90", "23", "93", "2", "58", "74", "51", "73", "7", "19", "85", "25", "54", "65", "14", "48", "20", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1121/2010\nof 2 December 2010\nentering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Edam Holland (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 7(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first paragraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, and pursuant to Article 17(2) of the same Regulation, the application of the Netherlands to enter the designation \u2018Edam Holland\u2019 in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nThe Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Austria, Slovakia, the governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America, as well as Diary Australia, Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand and the National Milk Producers Federation together with U.S. Dairy Export Council submitted objections to the registration under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. The objections were deemed admissible under Article 7(3) of that Regulation, except the objections of Australia and of Dairy Australia, which were deemed inadmissible due to their late arrival.\n(3)\nStatements of objection concerned non-compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, in particular the name and its use, specificity and reputation of the product, delimitation of geographical area as well as restrictions on the origin of raw materials. The objections also claimed that registration would be contrary to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, would jeopardise the existence of names, trademarks or products which had been legally on the market for at least five years preceding the date of the publication provided for in Article 6(2) and that the name proposed for registration is generic.\n(4)\nBy letters dated 21 October 2008, the Commission asked the Netherlands and the objectors to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with their internal procedures.\n(5)\nGiven that no agreement with the objectors was reached within the designated time limit, the Commission should adopt a decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(6)\nConcerning the alleged failure of compliance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 in respect of the name, geographical area, specificity of the product, link between the product characteristics and the geographical area, reputation and restrictions concerning the origin of raw material, the national authorities responsible provided confirmation that these elements were present and in addition no manifest error was identified. It should be pointed out that \u2018Holland\u2019 is not the name of the Member State concerned, and that \u2018Edam Holland\u2019 is considered a traditional geographical name encompassed by Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. The requirements of Article 2(1), point b) of the said Regulation are in this connection fulfilled since the related geographical area is delimited accordingly to the link and the main elements of the product specificity. The specificity of Edam Holland is due to a combination of factors linked to the geographical area: such as the quality of milk (high fat level and protein content), amino acids originating from \u03b2-CN and \u03b3-glutamyl peptide, prevalence of grazing on meadows, use of calf rennet, natural ripening, as well as the skills of the farmers and cheese producers.\n(7)\nAs regards objections based on non compliance with Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Netherlands submitted information regarding the distinction between the product bearing the registered name \u2018Noord-Hollandse Edammer\u2019 and that for which the name \u2018Edam Holland\u2019 is applied. No evidence was provided in the statement of objections that consumers would be liable to be misled or that the producers would be treated in an inequitable manner.\n(8)\nIt appears that the objectors did not refer to the entire name \u2018Edam Holland\u2019 when claiming that registration would jeopardize the existence of names, trademarks or products and that the name proposed for registration is generic, but only to one element of it, namely \u2018Edam\u2019. However, protection is granted to the term \u2018Edam Holland\u2019 as a whole. Pursuant to the second sub-paragraph of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the term \u2018Edam\u2019 may continue to be used provided the principles and rules applicable in the Union\u2019s legal order are respected. For the sake of clarification, the specification and the summary have been modified accordingly.\n(9)\nIn the light of the above, the name \u2018Edam Holland\u2019 should be entered in the \u2018Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications\u2019.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Protected Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe designation contained in Annex I to this Regulation shall be entered in the Register.\nNotwithstanding the first paragraph, the name \u2018Edam\u2019 may continue to be used within the territory of the Union, provided the principles and rules applicable in its legal order are respected.\nArticle 2\nA consolidated version of the summary containing the main points of the specification is set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["36", "20", "52", "89", "48", "10", "47", "88", "60", "94", "58", "93", "11", "56", "86", "51", "0", "79", "29", "87", "1", "16", "69", "84", "12", "65", "90", "99", "85", "74", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 366/2012\nof 27 April 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on cucumbers and cherries, other than sour cherries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2) provides for the surveillance of the imports of the products listed in Annex XVIII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2009, 2010 and 2011, the trigger levels for additional duties should be adjusted from 1 May 2012 for cucumbers and from 21 May 2012 for cherries other than sour cherries.\n(3)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVIII to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2012.", "references": ["21", "28", "47", "96", "56", "18", "51", "26", "85", "36", "12", "20", "27", "90", "75", "53", "31", "25", "8", "74", "9", "72", "77", "32", "92", "59", "29", "86", "97", "16", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 160/2011\nof 21 February 2011\nentering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (\u2018Loveck\u00fd sal\u00e1m\u2019/\u2018Loveck\u00e1 sal\u00e1ma\u2019 (TSG))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 9(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, the Czech Republic and Slovakia's joint application to register the name \u2018Loveck\u00fd sal\u00e1m\u2019/\u2018Loveck\u00e1 sal\u00e1ma\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register.\n(3)\nProtection as referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has not been requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2011.", "references": ["58", "38", "54", "11", "52", "86", "84", "64", "8", "90", "39", "81", "2", "20", "94", "10", "76", "35", "13", "99", "78", "7", "9", "1", "29", "12", "26", "60", "19", "44", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 63/2011\nof 26 January 2011\nlaying down detailed provisions for the application for a derogation from the specific CO2 emission targets pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community\u2019s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (1), and in particular Article 11(8) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 small-volume and niche manufacturers may apply for alternative emissions reduction targets relating to the reduction potential of a given manufacturer\u2019s vehicles to reduce their specific emissions of CO2, and consistent with the characteristics of the market for the types of cars concerned.\n(2)\nIn determining the small-volume manufacturer\u2019s reduction potential, the applicant\u2019s economic and technological potential should be assessed. For that purpose the applicant should provide detailed information on its economic activities as well as information on CO2 reducing technologies used in the cars. The information requested include data that is readily available to the applicant and should not entail an additional administrative burden.\n(3)\nTo provide consistency between the reduction target requested from small-volume and niche manufacturers, and in order to avoid putting at a disadvantage the small-volume manufacturers that decreased their average specific CO2 emissions prior to 2012, the specific CO2 emission targets for those manufacturers should be compared to their baseline average specific CO2 emissions in 2007. Where this data does not exist the target should be compared to the average specific CO2 emissions in the following calendar year closest to 2007.\n(4)\nIn order to take into account the limited product offer of some small-volume manufacturers and resulting limited scope for distribution of the reduction effort over the fleet, the applicants should be allowed to choose between a single yearly specific emission target for the period of derogation or different yearly targets, resulting in reduction from the 2007 baseline at the end of the derogation period.\n(5)\nArticle 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 allows certain niche manufacturers to benefit from an alternative specific emissions target which is 25 % lower than their average specific emissions of CO2 in 2007. An equivalent specific emissions target based on the best available CO2-reducing technologies in 2007 should be determined where information on a manufacturer\u2019s average specific emissions of CO2 does not exist for the year 2007. The ratio of maximum power to vehicle mass should be used to distinguish different market characteristics for cars of a given mass for the purpose of identifying the best available CO2 emissions reduction technologies.\n(6)\nIn order to provide small-volume and niche manufacturers with a clear baseline to be used for setting the specific emissions targets, a list of manufacturers and their average specific CO2 emissions in the Union in 2007 has been drawn up following a formal consultation with the Member States and the main stakeholders, including the associations of European (ACEA), Japanese (JAMA) and Korean (KAMA) car manufacturers, and European Association of Small Volume Manufacturers (ESCA).\n(7)\nCertain information contained in the application for derogation should be exempted from public access where disclosure of this information would undermine the protection of commercial interest, in particular information on the manufacturer\u2019s product planning, expected costs and impacts on the profitability of the company. The decisions granting derogations will be published by the Commission on the Internet.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee established by Article 9 of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation specifies the information to be provided by manufacturers for the purpose of demonstrating that the conditions for a derogation pursuant to Article 11(1) or (4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 are satisfied.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions set out in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018applicant\u2019 means a manufacturer within the meaning of Article 11(1) or (4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009;\n(b)\n\u2018vehicle characteristics\u2019 means the features of the vehicle, including mass, its specific CO2 emissions, the number of seats, engine performance, power to mass ratio and top speed;\n(c)\n\u2018characteristics of the market\u2019 means information on vehicle characteristics, and names and price ranges of cars directly competing with the vehicles for which a derogation is sought;\n(d)\n\u2018own production facility\u2019 means a manufacturing or assembly plant used solely by the applicant for the purpose of manufacturing or assembling new passenger cars exclusively for that manufacturer, including, where relevant, passenger cars which are intended for export;\n(e)\n\u2018own design centre\u2019 means a facility in which the whole vehicle is designed and developed, and which is under the control and exclusive use of the applicant.\nArticle 3\nApplication for a derogation pursuant to Article 11(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009\n1. An application for a derogation pursuant to Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 shall be submitted by the applicant in accordance with the format specified in Annex I to this Regulation, and shall include the information set out in Article 4(1) and Article 5 of this Regulation.\n2. An application for a derogation pursuant to Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 shall be submitted by the applicant in accordance with the format specified in Annex II to this Regulation, and shall include the information set out in Article 4(2) and Article 6 of this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nInformation on eligibility criteria\n1. The applicant shall provide the following information on the eligibility criteria:\n(a)\ninformation on the ownership structure of the manufacturer or group of connected manufacturers, together with the relevant declaration set out in Annex III;\n(b)\nfor the manufacturer applying for a derogation pursuant to Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, or the group of connected manufacturers in accordance with point (b) of Article 11(1) of that Regulation, or for the member of a group of connected manufacturers in accordance with point (c) of Article 11(1) of that Regulation, the number of passenger cars officially registered in the Union in the three calendar years preceding the date of application, or where such data is not available, one of the following:\n-\nan estimate based on verifiable data of the number of cars registered in the period referred to in point (b) for which the applicant is responsible,\n-\nif no cars were registered in the period referred to in point (b), the number of cars registered in the last calendar year for which such data is available.\n2. An applicant applying for a derogation pursuant to Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 shall provide the data referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 of this Article only for the calendar year preceding the date of application.\nArticle 5\nSpecific emissions target and reduction potential pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009\n1. The applicant shall provide the average specific CO2 emissions of its passenger cars registered in 2007, unless the average specific CO2 emissions for that year are listed in Annex IV to this Regulation. Where this information is not available, the applicant shall provide the average specific CO2 emissions of its passenger cars registered in the following calendar year closest to 2007.\n2. The applicant shall provide the following information on its activity:\n(a)\nfor the calendar year preceding the date of application, the number of employees and the size of the production facility in square metres;\n(b)\nthe operational model of the production facility specifying which design and production activities are performed by the applicant or outsourced;\n(c)\nin the case of a connected undertaking, if the technology is shared by the manufacturers, and which activities are outsourced;\n(d)\nfor five calendar years preceding the date of application, the sales volumes, yearly turnover, net profit, and R & D spending, and in the case of a connected undertaking, the net transfers to the parent company;\n(e)\nthe characteristics of their market;\n(f)\nthe price list for all versions of cars to be covered by the derogation in the calendar year preceding the date of application, and the expected price list for the cars planned to be launched and to be covered by the derogation.\nWhen an application is submitted by a manufacturer responsible for more than 100 cars per year, the information referred to in point (d) shall be accompanied by the official certified accounts, or shall be certified by an independent auditor.\n3. The applicant shall provide the following information on its technological potential:\n(a)\nthe list of CO2 reducing technologies used in its passenger cars deployed on the market in 2007 or, where those data are not available, for the following year closest to 2007, or in case of manufacturers planning to enter the market, for the year in which the derogation starts to apply;\n(b)\nthe list of CO2 reducing technologies used in its passenger cars under the reduction programme and the additional costs of these technologies for each vehicle version covered by the application.\n4. The applicant shall in accordance with its reduction potential propose a specific emissions target for the period of the derogation. The applicant may also propose yearly specific emissions targets.\nThe specific emissions target or yearly specific emissions targets shall be determined so that the average specific emissions at the expiry of the derogation period are reduced in comparison to the average specific emissions of CO2 referred to in paragraph 1.\n5. The specific emissions target or yearly specific emissions targets proposed by the applicant in accordance with point (d) of Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 shall be accompanied by a programme of reduction for the new fleet\u2019s specific CO2 emissions.\nThe reduction programme shall specify the following:\n(a)\nthe timetable for introduction of CO2 reducing technologies in the applicant\u2019s fleet;\n(b)\nthe estimated Union registrations per year for the period of the derogation and the expected average specific emissions of CO2 and average mass;\n(c)\nin the case of yearly specific emissions targets, yearly improvement of specific CO2 emissions of the vehicle versions for which CO2 reducing technologies are introduced.\n6. The applicant\u2019s compliance with a specific emissions target or yearly specific emissions targets shall be assessed in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 each year during the derogation period.\nArticle 6\nReduction target for a derogation pursuant to Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009\n1. The applicant shall provide the average specific CO2 emissions of its passenger cars registered in 2007, unless the average specific CO2 emissions for that year are listed in Annex IV to this Regulation.\n2. The reduction target determined in accordance with Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 shall apply in relation to the baseline average specific CO2 emissions as set out in paragraph 1.\n3. Where information on a manufacturer\u2019s average specific CO2 emissions in 2007 does not exist, the applicant shall provide information on the vehicle characteristics for all types of cars manufactured by him as well as the number of cars manufactured by the applicant that the applicant expects to be registered in the Union in the first year of the derogation. The applicant shall indicate for all variants of cars to which of the vehicle classes specified in the table in Annex V the variant belongs.\n4. The specific emissions target shall be calculated annually based on the 25 % reduction from the baseline for each vehicle class set out in Annex V.\nArticle 7\nAssessment by the Commission\n1. Where the Commission has raised no objections within nine months of official receipt of a complete application pursuant to Article 11(1) or Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 the relevant conditions for applying the derogation shall be deemed to be satisfied. If the Commission finds that the application is incomplete, additional information may be requested. Where the additional information is not submitted within the time period specified in the request, the Commission may reject the application.\nIn the case of a rejection due to the incompleteness of the application or due to the Commission finding the proposed specific emissions target inconsistent with the applicant\u2019s reduction potential, the applicant may submit a completed or revised application for a derogation.\n2. Applications shall be sent in printed and electronic versions and be addressed to the Secretariat General of the European Commission, 1049 Brussels, Belgium, marked \u2018Derogation under Regulation (EC) No 443/2009\u2019. The electronic version shall be also sent to the functional mailbox specified in Annex I.\n3. Where information contained in the application is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the decision to grant a derogation shall be revoked.\nArticle 8\nPublic access to information\n1. An applicant that considers that information submitted in the application should not be disclosed in accordance with Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 shall indicate this in the application and justify why disclosure would undermine the protection of the commercial interests of the applicant, including intellectual property.\n2. The exception from the right to public access to documents set out in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) shall be deemed to apply to the following types of information:\n(a)\ndetails of the reduction programme referred to in Article 5, and in particular details concerning the development of the manufacturer\u2019s product portfolio;\n(b)\nexpected impacts of CO2 reducing technologies on the production costs, purchase prices of vehicles and profitability of the company.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 January 2011.", "references": ["33", "15", "71", "51", "56", "18", "2", "38", "62", "68", "59", "89", "46", "53", "48", "76", "66", "17", "14", "63", "5", "85", "8", "80", "19", "90", "49", "74", "79", "21", "No Label", "54", "55", "58", "78"], "gold": ["54", "55", "58", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 553/2011\nof 7 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2011.", "references": ["20", "21", "26", "47", "83", "75", "5", "11", "68", "74", "48", "67", "7", "58", "89", "29", "32", "65", "73", "56", "42", "76", "22", "80", "27", "43", "23", "54", "39", "98", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 85/2012\nof 1 February 2012\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance altrenogest\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nAltrenogest is currently included in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as an allowed substance, for porcine species, applicable to skin, fat and liver and to equidae species, applicable to fat and liver.\n(4)\nAn application for the modification of the existing entry for altrenogest has been submitted to the European Medicines Agency.\n(5)\nAdditional data were provided and assessed leading the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use to recommend the modification of the current MRLs for altrenogest.\n(6)\nThe entry for altrenogest in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period of time for the stakeholders concerned to take measures that may be required to comply with the newly set MRL.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 2 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 February 2012.", "references": ["32", "53", "10", "73", "77", "12", "95", "94", "60", "47", "66", "31", "28", "74", "89", "27", "4", "91", "70", "79", "1", "24", "98", "23", "63", "81", "14", "13", "29", "39", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65", "69", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2012/17/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 June 2012\namending Council Directive 89/666/EEC and Directives 2005/56/EC and 2009/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the interconnection of central, commercial and companies registers\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 50 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBusinesses are increasingly expanding beyond national borders, using the opportunities offered by the internal market. Cross-border groups, as well as many restructuring operations, such as mergers and divisions, involve companies from different Member States. Consequently, there is an increasing demand for access to information on companies in a cross-border context. However, official information on companies is not always readily available on a cross-border basis.\n(2)\nEleventh Council Directive 89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989 concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State by certain types of company governed by the law of another State (3) establishes the list of documents and particulars that companies have to disclose in the register of their branch. However, there is no legal obligation on the registers to exchange data concerning foreign branches. This leads to legal uncertainty for third parties as, despite the striking-off of the company from the register, its branch may continue to operate.\n(3)\nOperations such as cross-border mergers have made day-to-day cooperation between business registers a necessity. Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (4) requires the registers to cooperate across borders. There are, however, no established channels of communication that could accelerate procedures, help overcome language problems, and enhance legal certainty.\n(4)\nDirective 2009/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (5) ensures, inter alia, that documents and particulars stored in the register can be accessed by paper means or by electronic means. However, citizens and companies still need to search the register on a country-by-country basis, in particular because the current voluntary cooperation between registers has not proved to be sufficient.\n(5)\nThe Commission Communication on the Single Market Act identified the interconnection of central, commercial and companies registers as a measure required to create a more business-friendly legal and fiscal environment. The interconnection should contribute to fostering the competitiveness of European business by reducing administrative burdens and increasing legal certainty and thus contributing to an exit from the global economic and financial crisis, which is one of the priorities of the agenda Europe 2020. It should also improve cross-border communication between registers by using innovations in information and communication technology.\n(6)\nThe Council Conclusions of 25 May 2010 on the interconnection of business registers confirmed that improving access to up-to-date and trustworthy information on companies could encourage greater confidence in the market, help recovery, and increase the competitiveness of European business.\n(7)\nThe European Parliament in its resolution of 7 September 2010 on the interconnection of business registers (6) emphasised that the usefulness of the project for the further integration of the European Economic Area can only be exploited if all Member States take part in the network.\n(8)\nThe Multi-annual European e-Justice action plan 2009-2013 (7) provides for the development of a European e-Justice portal (\u2018the portal\u2019) as the single European electronic access point for legal information, judicial and administrative institutions, registers, databases and other services and considers the interconnection of central, commercial and companies registers to be important.\n(9)\nCross-border access to business information on companies and their branches opened in other Member States can only be improved if all Member States engage in enabling electronic communication to take place between registers and transmitting information to individual users in a standardised way, by means of identical content and interoperable technologies, throughout the Union. This interoperability of registers should be ensured by the registers of Member States (\u2018domestic registers\u2019) providing services, which should constitute interfaces to the European central platform (\u2018the platform\u2019). The platform should be a centralised set of information technology tools integrating services and should form a common interface. That interface should be used by all domestic registers. The platform should also provide services constituting an interface to the portal serving as the European electronic access point, and to the optional access points established by Member States. The platform should be conceived only as an instrument for the interconnection of registers and not as a distinct entity possessing legal personality. On the basis of unique identifiers, the platform should be capable of distributing information from each of the Member States\u2019 registers to the competent registers of other Member States in a standard message format (an electronic form of messages exchanged between information technology systems, such as, for example, xml) and in the relevant language version.\n(10)\nThis Directive is not aimed at establishing any centralised registers database storing substantive information about companies. At the stage of implementation of the system of interconnection of central, commercial and companies registers (\u2018the system of interconnection of registers\u2019), only the set of data necessary for the correct functioning of the platform should be defined. The scope of those data should include, in particular, operational data, dictionaries and glossaries. It should be determined taking also into account the need to ensure the efficient operation of the system of interconnection of registers. Those data should be used for the purpose of enabling the platform to perform its functions and should never be made publicly available in a direct form. Moreover, the platform should modify neither the content of the data on companies stored in domestic registers nor the information about companies transmitted through the system of interconnection of registers.\n(11)\nSince the objective of this Directive is not to harmonise national systems of central, commercial and companies registers, there is no obligation on the Member States to change their internal systems of registers, in particular as regards the management and storage of data, fees, and the use and disclosure of information for national purposes.\n(12)\nWithin the framework of this Directive, the portal will deal, through the use of the platform, with queries submitted by individual users concerning the information on companies and their branches opened in other Member States which is stored in the domestic registers. That will enable the search results to be presented on the portal, including the explanatory labels in all the official languages of the Union, listing the information provided. In addition, in order to improve the protection of third parties in other Member States, basic information on the legal value of documents and particulars disclosed pursuant to the laws of Member States adopted in accordance with Directive 2009/101/EC should be available on the portal.\n(13)\nMember States should be able to establish one or more optional access points, which may have an impact on the use and operation of the platform. Therefore, the Commission should be notified of their establishment and of any significant changes to their operation, in particular of their closure. Such notification should not in any way restrict the powers of Member States as to the establishment and operation of the optional access points.\n(14)\nCompanies and their branches opened in other Member States should have a unique identifier allowing them to be unequivocally identified within the Union. The identifier is intended to be used for communication between registers through the system of interconnection of registers. Therefore, companies and branches should not be obliged to include the unique identifier in the company letters or order forms mentioned in Directives 89/666/EEC and 2009/101/EC. They should continue to use their domestic registration number for their own communication purposes.\n(15)\nIt should be made possible to establish a clear connection between the register of a company and the registers of its branches opened in other Member States, consisting in the exchange of information on the opening and termination of any winding-up or insolvency proceedings of the company and on the striking-off of the company from the register, if this entails legal consequences in the Member State of the register of the company. While Member States should be able to decide on the procedures they follow with respect to the branches registered in their territory, they should ensure, at least, that the branches of a dissolved company are struck off the register without undue delay and, if applicable, after liquidation proceedings of the branch concerned. This obligation should not apply to branches of companies that have been struck off the register but which have a legal successor, such as in the case of any change in the legal form of the company, a merger or division, or a cross-border transfer of its registered office.\n(16)\nThis Directive should not apply to a branch opened in a Member State by a company which is not governed by the law of a Member State, as provided for in Article 7 of Directive 89/666/EEC.\n(17)\nDirective 2005/56/EC should be amended in order to ensure that communication between registers is carried out through the system of interconnection of registers.\n(18)\nMember States should ensure that, in the event of any changes to information entered in the registers concerning companies, the information is updated without undue delay. The update should be disclosed, normally, within 21 days from receipt of the complete documentation regarding those changes, including the legality check in accordance with national law. That time limit should be interpreted as requiring Member States to make reasonable efforts to meet the deadline laid down in this Directive. It should not be applicable as regards the accounting documents which companies are obliged to submit for each financial year. This exclusion is justified by the overload on the domestic registers during reporting periods. In accordance with general legal principles common to all Member States, the time limit of 21 days should be suspended in cases of force majeure.\n(19)\nShould the Commission decide to develop and/or operate the platform through a third party, this should be done in accordance with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (8). An appropriate degree of Member States\u2019 involvement in this process should be ensured by establishing the technical specifications for the purpose of the public procurement procedure by means of implementing acts adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (9).\n(20)\nShould the Commission decide to operate the platform through a third party, the continuity of the provision of services by the system of interconnection of registers and a proper public supervision of the functioning of the platform should be ensured. Detailed rules on the operational management of the platform should be adopted by means of implementing acts adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. In any case, the involvement of Member States in the functioning of the whole system should be ensured by means of a regular dialogue between the Commission and the representatives of Member States on the issues concerning the operation of the system of interconnection of registers and its future development.\n(21)\nThe interconnection of central, commercial and companies registers necessitates the coordination of national systems having varying technical characteristics. This entails the adoption of technical measures and specifications which need to take account of differences between registers. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to tackle these technical and operational issues. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n(22)\nThis Directive should not limit the right of Members States to charge fees for obtaining information on companies through the system of interconnection of registers, if such fees are required under national law. Therefore, technical measures and specifications for the system of interconnection of registers should allow for the establishment of payment modalities. In this respect, this Directive should not prejudge any specific technical solution as the payment modalities should be determined at the stage of adoption of the implementing acts, taking into account widely available online payment facilities.\n(23)\nIt could be desirable for third countries to be able, in the future, to participate in the system of interconnection of registers.\n(24)\nAn equitable solution regarding the funding of the system of interconnection of registers entails participation both by the Union and by its Member States in the financing of that system. The Member States should bear the financial burden of adjusting their domestic registers to that system, while the central elements - the platform and the portal serving as the European electronic access point - should be funded from an appropriate budget line in the general budget of the Union. In order to supplement non-essential elements of this Directive, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the charging of fees for obtaining company information. This does not affect the possibility for the domestic registers to charge fees, but it may involve an additional fee in order to co-finance the maintenance and functioning of the platform. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(25)\nDirective 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (10) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (11) govern the processing of personal data, including the electronic transmission of personal data within the Member States. Any processing of personal data by the registers of Member States, by the Commission and, if applicable, by any third party involved in operating the platform should take place in compliance with those acts. The implementing acts to be adopted in relation to the system of interconnection of registers should, where appropriate, ensure such compliance, in particular by establishing the relevant tasks and responsibilities of all the participants concerned and the organisational and technical rules applicable to them.\n(26)\nThe system of interconnection of registers requires the Member States to make necessary adaptations consisting, in particular, in the development of an interface linking each register to the platform in order for that system to become operational. Therefore, this Directive should provide for a deferred time limit for the transposition and application by the Member States of the provisions regarding the technical operation of that system. This time limit should follow the adoption by the Commission of all the implementing acts concerning the technical measures and specifications for the system of interconnection of registers. The time limit for the transposition and application of the provisions of the Directive regarding the technical operation of the system of interconnection of registers should be sufficient to enable Member States to accomplish the legal and technical adaptations needed in order to make that system fully operational within a reasonable time-frame.\n(27)\nIn accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of Member States and the Commission of 28 September 2011 on explanatory documents (12), Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments. With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of such documents to be justified.\n(28)\nThis Directive respects fundamental rights and observes the principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 8 thereof, which states that everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.\n(29)\nSince the objectives of this Directive, namely improving cross-border access to business information, ensuring that up-to-date information is stored in the register of branches and establishing clear channels of communication between registers in cross-border registration procedures, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of their scale and effects, 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 those objectives.\n(30)\nDirectives 89/666/EEC, 2005/56/EC and 2009/101/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(31)\nThe European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and delivered an opinion on 6 May 2011 (13),\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Directive 89/666/EEC\nDirective 89/666/EEC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 1, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u20183. The documents and particulars referred to in Article 2(1) shall be made publicly available through the system of interconnection of central, commercial and companies registers established in accordance with Article 4a(2) of Directive 2009/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (14) (\u201cthe system of interconnection of registers\u201d). Article 3b and Article 3c(1) of that Directive shall apply mutatis mutandis.\n4. Member States shall ensure that branches have a unique identifier allowing them to be unequivocally identified in communication between registers through the system of interconnection of registers. That unique identifier shall comprise, at least, elements making it possible to identify the Member State of the register, the domestic register of origin and the branch number in that register, and, where appropriate, features to avoid identification errors.\n(2)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 5a\n1. The register of the company shall, through the system of interconnection of registers, make available, without delay, the information on the opening and termination of any winding-up or insolvency proceedings of the company and on the striking-off of the company from the register, if this entails legal consequences in the Member State of the register of the company.\n2. The register of the branch shall, through the system of interconnection of registers, ensure the receipt, without delay, of the information referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. The exchange of information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be free of charge for the registers.\n4. Member States shall determine the procedure to be followed upon receipt of the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. Such procedure shall ensure that, where a company has been dissolved or otherwise struck off the register, its branches are likewise struck off the register without undue delay.\n5. The second sentence of paragraph 4 shall not apply to branches of companies that have been struck off the register as a consequence of any change in the legal form of the company concerned, a merger or division, or a cross-border transfer of its registered office.\u2019.\n(3)\nThe following Section is inserted:\n\u2018SECTION IIIA\nDATA PROTECTION\nArticle 11a\nThe processing of personal data carried out in the context of this Directive shall be subject to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (15).\nArticle 2\nAmendments to Directive 2005/56/EC\nDirective 2005/56/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 13 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 13\nRegistration\nThe law of each of the Member States to whose jurisdiction the merging companies were subject shall determine, with respect to the territory of that State, the arrangements, in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 2009/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (16), for publicising the completion of the cross-border merger in the public register in which each of the companies is required to file documents.\nThe registry for the registration of the company resulting from the cross-border merger shall notify, through the system of interconnection of central, commercial and companies registers established in accordance with Article 4a(2) of Directive 2009/101/EC and without delay, the registry in which each of the companies was required to file documents that the cross-border merger has taken effect. Deletion of the old registration, if applicable, shall be effected on receipt of that notification, but not before.\n(2)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 17a\nData protection\nThe processing of personal data carried out in the context of this Directive shall be subject to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (17).\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Directive 2009/101/EC\nDirective 2009/101/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 2a\n1. Member States shall take the measures required to ensure that any changes in the documents and particulars referred to in Article 2 are entered in the competent register referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) and are disclosed, in accordance with Article 3(3) and (5), normally within 21 days from receipt of the complete documentation regarding those changes including, if applicable, the legality check as required under national law for entry in the file.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the accounting documents referred to in Article 2(f).\u2019.\n(2)\nIn Article 3(1), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Member States shall ensure that companies have a unique identifier allowing them to be unequivocally identified in communication between registers through the system of interconnection of central, commercial and companies registers established in accordance with Article 4a(2) (\u201cthe system of interconnection of registers\u201d). That unique identifier shall comprise, at least, elements making it possible to identify the Member State of the register, the domestic register of origin and the company number in that register and, where appropriate, features to avoid identification errors.\u2019.\n(3)\nThe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 3a\n1. Member States shall ensure that up-to-date information is made available explaining the provisions of national law according to which third parties can rely on particulars and each type of document referred to in Article 2, in accordance with Article 3(5), (6) and (7).\n2. Member States shall provide the information required for publication on the European e-Justice portal (\u201cthe portal\u201d) in accordance with the portal\u2019s rules and technical requirements.\n3. The Commission shall publish that information on the portal in all the official languages of the Union.\nArticle 3b\n1. Electronic copies of the documents and particulars referred to in Article 2 shall also be made publicly available through the system of interconnection of registers.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the documents and particulars referred to in Article 2 are available through the system of interconnection of registers in a standard message format and accessible by electronic means. Member States shall also ensure that minimum standards for the security of data transmission are respected.\n3. The Commission shall provide a search service in all the official languages of the Union in respect of companies registered in the Member States, in order to make available through the portal:\n(a)\nthe documents and particulars referred to in Article 2;\n(b)\nthe explanatory labels, available in all the official languages of the Union, listing those particulars and the types of those documents.\nArticle 3c\n1. The fees charged for obtaining the documents and particulars referred to in Article 2 through the system of interconnection of registers shall not exceed the administrative costs thereof.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the following particulars are available free of charge through the system of interconnection of registers:\n(a)\nthe name and legal form of the company;\n(b)\nthe registered office of the company and the Member State where it is registered; and\n(c)\nthe registration number of the company.\nIn addition to those particulars, Member States may choose to make further documents and particulars available free of charge.\nArticle 3d\n1. The register of the company shall, through the system of interconnection of registers, make available, without delay, the information on the opening and termination of any winding-up or insolvency proceedings of the company and on the striking-off of the company from the register, if this entails legal consequences in the Member State of the register of the company.\n2. The register of the branch shall, through the system of interconnection of registers, ensure receipt, without delay, of the information referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. The exchange of information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be free of charge for the registers.\u2019.\n(4)\nThe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 4a\n1. A European central platform (\u201cthe platform\u201d) shall be established.\n2. The system of interconnection of registers shall be composed of:\n-\nthe registers of Member States,\n-\nthe platform,\n-\nthe portal serving as the European electronic access point.\n3. The Member States shall ensure the interoperability of their registers within the system of interconnection of registers via the platform.\n4. Member States may establish optional access points to the system of interconnection of registers. They shall notify the Commission without undue delay of the establishment of such access points and of any significant changes to their operation.\n5. Access to information from the system of interconnection of registers shall be ensured through the portal and through the optional access points established by the Member States.\n6. The establishment of the system of interconnection of registers shall not affect existing bilateral agreements concluded between Member States concerning the exchange of information on companies.\nArticle 4b\n1. The Commission shall decide to develop and/or operate the platform either by its own means or through a third party.\nShould the Commission decide to develop and/or operate the platform through a third party, the choice of the third party and the enforcement by the Commission of the agreement concluded with that third party shall be done in accordance with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (18).\n2. Should the Commission decide to develop the platform through a third party, it shall, by means of implementing acts, establish the technical specifications for the purpose of the public procurement procedure and the duration of the agreement to be concluded with that third party.\n3. Should the Commission decide to operate the platform through a third party, it shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt detailed rules on the operational management of the platform.\nThe operational management of the platform shall include, in particular:\n-\nthe supervision of the functioning of the platform,\n-\nthe security and protection of data distributed and exchanged using the platform,\n-\nthe coordination of relations between Member States\u2019 registers and the third party.\nThe supervision of the functioning of the platform shall be carried out by the Commission.\n4. The implementing acts referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 4e(2).\nArticle 4c\nBy means of implementing acts, the Commission shall adopt the following:\n(a)\nthe technical specification defining the methods of communication by electronic means for the purpose of the system of interconnection of registers;\n(b)\nthe technical specification of the communication protocols;\n(c)\nthe technical measures ensuring the minimum information technology security standards for communication and distribution of information within the system of interconnection of registers;\n(d)\nthe technical specification defining the methods of exchange of information between the register of the company and the register of the branch as referred to in Article 3d of this Directive and in Article 5a of Eleventh Council Directive 89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989 concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State by certain types of company governed by the law of another State (19);\n(e)\nthe detailed list of data to be transmitted for the purpose of exchange of information between registers, as referred to in Article 3d of this Directive, in Article 5a of Directive 89/666/EEC, and in Article 13 of Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (20);\n(f)\nthe technical specification defining the structure of the standard message format for the purpose of the exchange of information between the registers, the platform and the portal;\n(g)\nthe technical specification defining the set of the data necessary for the platform to perform its functions as well as the method of storage, use and protection of such data;\n(h)\nthe technical specification defining the structure and use of the unique identifier for communication between registers;\n(i)\nthe specification defining the technical methods of operation of the system of interconnection of registers as regards the distribution and exchange of information, and the specification defining the information technology services, provided by the platform, ensuring the delivery of messages in the relevant language version;\n(j)\nthe harmonised criteria for the search service provided by the portal;\n(k)\nthe payment modalities, taking into account available payment facilities such as online payments;\n(l)\nthe details of the explanatory labels listing the particulars and the types of documents referred to in Article 2;\n(m)\nthe technical conditions of availability of services provided by the system of interconnection of registers;\n(n)\nthe procedure and technical requirements for the connection of the optional access points to the platform.\nThose implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 4e(2).\nThe Commission shall adopt those implementing acts by 7 July 2015.\nArticle 4d\n1. The establishment and future development of the platform and the adjustments to the portal resulting from this Directive shall be financed from the general budget of the Union.\n2. The maintenance and functioning of the platform shall be financed from the general budget of the Union and may be co-financed by fees for access to the system of interconnection of registers charged to its individual users. Nothing in this paragraph shall affect fees at the national level.\n3. By means of delegated acts and in accordance with Article 13a, the Commission may adopt rules on whether to co-finance the platform by charging fees, and, in that case, the amount of the fees charged to individual users in accordance with paragraph 2.\n4. Any fees imposed in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be without prejudice to the fees, if any, charged by Member States for obtaining documents and particulars as referred to in Article 3c(1).\n5. Any fees imposed in accordance with paragraph 2 shall not be charged for obtaining the particulars referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 3c(2).\n6. Each Member State shall bear the costs of adjusting its domestic registers, as well as their maintenance and functioning costs resulting from this Directive.\nArticle 4e\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (21).\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\n(5)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 7a\nThe processing of personal data carried out in the context of this Directive shall be subject to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (22).\n(6)\nThe following Chapter is inserted:\n\u2018CHAPTER 4A\nDELEGATED ACTS\nArticle 13a\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 4d(3) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 4d(3) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 4d(3) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of three months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by three months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\u2019.\nArticle 4\nReport and regular dialogue\n1. The Commission shall, not later than five years after the final date for application of the provisions referred to in Article 5(2), publish a report concerning the functioning of the system of interconnection of registers, in particular examining its technical operation and its financial aspects.\n2. That report shall be accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals for amending this Directive.\n3. The Commission and the representatives of the Member States shall regularly convene to discuss the matters covered by this Directive in any appropriate forum.\nArticle 5\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt, publish and apply the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 7 July 2014.\n2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States shall, not later than two years after the adoption of the implementing acts referred to in Article 4c of Directive 2009/101/EC, adopt, publish and apply the provisions necessary to comply with:\n-\nArticle 1(3) and (4) and Article 5a of Directive 89/666/EEC,\n-\nArticle 13 of Directive 2005/56/EC,\n-\nArticle 3(1), second subparagraph, Article 3b, Article 3c, Article 3d and Article 4a(3) to (5) of Directive 2009/101/EC.\nUpon the adoption of those implementing acts, the Commission shall publish in the Official Journal of the European Union the final date for application of the provisions referred to in this paragraph.\n3. When Member States adopt the measures referred to in paragraph 1, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.\n4. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 6\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 7\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 June 2012.", "references": ["15", "67", "84", "18", "69", "51", "12", "64", "57", "8", "1", "55", "54", "68", "9", "10", "36", "83", "45", "20", "32", "59", "37", "70", "60", "27", "86", "80", "25", "11", "No Label", "40", "41", "42", "44"], "gold": ["40", "41", "42", "44"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 64/2012\nof 23 January 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 582/2011 implementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on type-approval of motor vehicles and engines with respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and Directive 2007/46/EC and repealing Directives 80/1269/EEC, 2005/55/EC and 2005/78/EC (1), and in particular Article 4(3), Article 5(4), Article 6(2) and Article 12 thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2), and in particular Article 39(7) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 595/2009 establishes common technical requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles and replacement parts with regard to their emissions and lays down rules for in-service conformity, durability of pollution control devices, on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems, measurement of fuel consumption and accessibility of vehicle repair and maintenance information.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 3(15) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 582/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and amending Annexes I and III to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), vehicles and engines are to be type-approved in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 and its implementing measures only once measurement procedures for measuring PM number as set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 595/2009, any specific provisions regarding multi-setting engines that are needed and provisions implementing Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 have been adopted. Therefore, it is appropriate to amend Regulation (EU) No 582/2011 in order to include such requirements.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009, Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis. Therefore, it is appropriate to carry over to this Regulation the provisions on access to repair and maintenance information set out in Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and its implementing measures. However, it is necessary to adapt those provisions in order to take into account the specificities of the heavy-duty vehicles.\n(4)\nIn particular, it is appropriate to adopt specific procedures for access to vehicle repair and maintenance information in accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 in the case of multi-stage type-approval. It is also appropriate to adopt specific requirements and procedures for access to vehicle repair and maintenance information in the case of customer adaptations and small volume production. Finally, it is appropriate to make reference to the specific standards for reprogramming developed for the heavy-duty vehicles.\n(5)\nApplication of the provisions on access to repair and maintenance information may be too burdensome for vehicle manufacturers in the short term with respect to certain systems which are carried over from old vehicle types to new vehicle types. It is therefore appropriate to introduce certain limited derogations from the general provisions on access to vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information.\n(6)\nProvisions on the access to OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information for the purposes of the design and manufacture of automotive equipment for alternative fuel vehicles should be set once type-approval for such equipment becomes possible.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Council Directive 92/6/EEC of 10 February 1992 on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community (5), speed limitation devices are to be installed by workshops or bodies approved by the Member States. In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (6), only approved workshops may calibrate recording equipment in motor vehicles. It is therefore appropriate to exclude the information concerning the reprogramming of control units for speed limitation devices and recording equipment from the provisions on giving access to repair and maintenance information.\n(8)\nRegulation (EU) No 582/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 582/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2, the following points (42), (43) and (44) are added:\n\u2018(42)\n\u201ccustomer adaptation\u201d means any change to a vehicle, system, component or separate technical unit made at the specific request of a customer and subject to approval;\n(43)\n\u201cvehicle OBD information\u201d means information relating to an on-board diagnostic system for any electronic system on the vehicle;\n(44)\n\u201ccarry-over system\u201d means a system, as defined in Article 3(23) of Directive 2007/46/EC, carried over from an old type of vehicle to a new type of vehicles.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following Articles 2a to 2h are inserted:\n\u2018Article 2a\nAccess to vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information\n1. Manufacturers shall put in place the necessary arrangements and procedures, in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 and Annex XVII to this Regulation, to ensure that vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information is accessible through websites using a standardised format in a readily accessible and prompt manner, and in a manner which is non-discriminatory compared to the provisions given or access granted to authorised dealers and repairers. Manufacturers shall also make training material available to independent operators and authorised dealers and repairers.\n2. Approval authorities shall only grant type-approval after receiving from the manufacturer a Certificate on Access to Vehicle OBD and Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Information.\n3. The Certificate on Access to Vehicle OBD and Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Information shall serve as the proof of compliance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009.\n4. The Certificate on Access to Vehicle OBD and Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Information shall be drawn up in accordance with the model set out in Appendix 1 of Annex XVII.\n5. The vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information shall include the following:\n(a)\nan unequivocal identification of the vehicle, system, component or separate technical unit for which the manufacturer is responsible;\n(b)\nservice handbooks, including service and maintenance records;\n(c)\ntechnical manuals;\n(d)\ncomponent and diagnosis information (such as minimum and maximum theoretical values for measurements);\n(e)\nwiring diagrams;\n(f)\ndiagnostic trouble codes, including manufacturer specific codes;\n(g)\nthe software calibration identification number applicable to a vehicle type;\n(h)\ninformation provided concerning, and delivered by means of, proprietary tools and equipment;\n(i)\ndata record information and two-directional monitoring and test data;\n(j)\nstandard work units or time periods for repair and maintenance tasks if they are made available to authorised dealers and repairers of the manufacturer either directly or through a third party;\n(k)\nin case of multi-stage type-approval, the information required under Article 2b.\n6. Authorised dealers or repairers within the distribution system of a given vehicle manufacturer shall be regarded as independent operators for the purposes of this Regulation to the extent that they provide repair or maintenance services for vehicles in respect of which they are not members of the vehicle manufacturer\u2019s distribution system.\n7. The vehicle repair and maintenance information shall always be available, except as required for maintenance purposes of the information system.\n8. For the purposes of manufacture and servicing of OBD-compatible replacement or service parts and diagnostic tools and test equipment, manufacturers shall provide the relevant vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information on a non-discriminatory basis to any interested component, diagnostic tools or test equipment manufacturer or repairer.\n9. The manufacturer shall make subsequent amendments and supplements to vehicle repair and maintenance information available on its websites at the same time they are made available to authorised repairers.\n10. Where repair and maintenance records of a vehicle are kept in a central data base of the vehicle manufacturer or on its behalf, independent repairers, who have been approved and authorised as required in Section 2.2 of Annex XVII, shall have access to such record free of charge and under the same conditions as authorised repairers in order to be able to enter information on repair and maintenance which they have performed.\n11. The manufacturer shall make available to interested parties the following information:\n(a)\nrelevant information to enable the development of replacement components which are critical to the correct functioning of the OBD system;\n(b)\ninformation to enable the development of generic diagnostic tools.\nFor the purposes of point (a) of the first subparagraph, the development of replacement components shall not be restricted by any of the following:\n(a)\nthe unavailability of pertinent information;\n(b)\nthe technical requirements relating to malfunction indication strategies if the OBD thresholds are exceeded or if the OBD system is unable to fulfil the basic OBD monitoring requirements of this Regulation;\n(c)\nspecific modifications to the handling of OBD information to deal independently with vehicle operation on petrol or on gas;\n(d)\nthe type-approval of gas-fuelled vehicles that contain a limited number of minor deficiencies.\nFor the purposes of point (b) of the first subparagraph, where manufacturers use diagnostic and test tools in accordance with ISO 22900 Modular vehicle communication interface (MVCI) and ISO 22901 Open diagnostic data exchange (ODX) in their franchised networks, the ODX files shall be accessible to independent operators via the website of the manufacturer.\nArticle 2b\nMulti-stage type-approval\n1. In the case of multi-stage type-approval, as defined in Article 3(7) of Directive 2007/46/EC, the final manufacturer shall be responsible for providing access to vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information regarding its own manufacturing stage(s) and the link to the previous stage(s).\nIn addition, the final manufacturer shall on its website provide independent operators with the following information:\n(a)\nwebsite address of the manufacturer(s) responsible for the previous stage(s);\n(b)\nname and address of all the manufacturers responsible for the previous stage(s);\n(c)\ntype-approval number(s) of the previous stage(s);\n(d)\nthe engine number.\n2. Each manufacturer responsible for a particular stage or stages of type-approval shall be responsible for providing through his website access to vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information regarding the stage(s) of type-approval for which he is responsible and the link to the previous stage(s).\n3. The manufacturer responsible for a particular stage or stages of type-approval shall provide the following information to the manufacturer responsible for the next stage:\n(a)\nthe Certificate of Conformity relating to the stage(s) for which he is responsible;\n(b)\nthe Certificate on Access to Vehicle OBD and Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Information, including its appendices;\n(c)\nthe type-approval number corresponding to the stage(s) for which he is responsible;\n(d)\nthe documents referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) as provided by the manufacturer(s) involved in the previous stage(s).\nEach manufacturer shall authorise the manufacturer responsible for the next stage to pass the documents provided to the manufacturers responsible for any subsequent stages and the final stage.\nIn addition, on a contractual basis, the manufacturer responsible for a particular stage or stages of type-approval shall:\n(a)\nprovide the manufacturer responsible for the next stage with access to vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information and interface information corresponding to the particular stage(s) for which he is responsible;\n(b)\nprovide, at the request of a manufacturer responsible for a subsequent stage of type-approval, with access to vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information and interface information corresponding to the particular stage(s) for which he is responsible.\n4. A manufacturer, including a final manufacturer, may only charge fees in accordance with Article 2f concerning the particular stage(s) for which he is responsible.\nA manufacturer, including a final manufacturer, shall not charge fees for providing information relating to the website address or contact details of any other manufacturer.\nArticle 2c\nCustomer adaptations\n1. By derogation from Article 2a, if the number of systems, components or separate technical units subject to a specific customer adaptation is lower than a total of 250 units produced worldwide, repair and maintenance information for the customer adaptation shall be provided in a readily accessible and prompt manner, and in a manner which is non-discriminatory compared to the provisions given or access granted to authorised dealers and repairers.\nFor the servicing and reprogramming of the electronic control units relating to the customer adaptation, the manufacturer shall make the respective proprietary specialist diagnostic tool or test equipment available to independent operators as provided to authorised repairers.\nThe customer adaptations shall be listed on the manufacturer\u2019s repair and maintenance information website and mentioned in the Certificate on Access to Vehicle OBD and Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Information at the time of type-approval.\n2. Until 31 December 2015, if the number of systems, components or separate technical units subject to a specific customer adaptation is higher than 250 units worldwide, the manufacturer may derogate from the obligation under Article 2a to provide access to vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information using a standardised format. Where the manufacturer makes use of such derogation, he shall provide access to vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information in a readily accessible and prompt manner, and in a manner which is non-discriminatory compared to the provisions given or access granted to authorised dealers and repairers.\n3. Manufacturers shall make the proprietary specialist diagnostic tool or test equipment to service the customer-adapted systems, components or technical units available to independent operators via sale and rent.\n4. The manufacturer shall mention in the Certificate on Access to Vehicle OBD and Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Information at the time of type-approval the customer adaptations for which the obligation under Article 2a to provide access to vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information using a standardised format is derogated from and any electronic control unit related to them.\nThose customer adaptations and any electronic control unit related to them shall also be listed on the manufacturer\u2019s repair and maintenance information website.\nArticle 2d\nSmall volume manufacturers\n1. By derogation from Article 2a, manufacturers whose worldwide annual production of a type of vehicle, system, component or separate technical unit subject to this Regulation is less than 250 units, shall provide access to repair and maintenance information in a readily accessible and prompt manner, and in a manner which is non-discriminatory compared to the provisions given or access granted to authorised dealers and repairers.\n2. The vehicle, system, component and separate technical unit subject to paragraph 1 shall be listed on the manufacturer\u2019s repair and maintenance information website.\n3. The approval authority shall inform the Commission of each type-approval granted to small volume manufacturers.\nArticle 2e\nCarry-over systems\n1. Until 30 June 2016, with respect to the carry-over systems listed in Appendix 3 to Annex XVII, the manufacturer may derogate from the obligation to reprogramme the electronic control units in accordance with the standards mentioned in Annex XVII.\nSuch a derogation shall be indicated on the Certificate on Access to Vehicle OBD and Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Information at the time of type-approval.\nThe systems for which a manufacturer derogates from the obligation to reprogramme the electronic control units in accordance with the standards mentioned in Annex XVII shall be listed on its repair and maintenance information website.\n2. For the servicing and reprogramming of the electronic control units in the carry-over systems for which the manufacturer derogates from the obligation to reprogramme the electronic control units in accordance with the standards mentioned in Annex XVII, manufacturers shall ensure that the respective proprietary tool or equipment can be purchased or rented by independent operators.\nArticle 2f\nFees for access to vehicle repair and maintenance information\n1. Manufacturers may charge reasonable and proportionate fees for access to the vehicle repair and maintenance information covered by this Regulation.\nFor the purposes of the first subparagraph, a fee shall be considered unreasonable or disproportionate if it discourages access by failing to take into account the extent to which the independent operator uses it.\n2. Manufacturers shall make available vehicle repair and maintenance information, including transactional services such as reprogramming or technical assistance, on an hourly, daily, monthly, and yearly basis, with fees for access to such information varying in accordance with the respective periods of time for which access is granted.\nIn addition to time-based access, manufacturers may offer transaction-based access, for which fees are charged per transaction and not based on the time for which access is granted. Where both access systems are offered by manufacturers, independent repairers shall choose a preferred access system, either time-based or transaction-based\nArticle 2g\nCompliance with the obligations regarding access to vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information\n1. An approval authority may, at any time, whether on its own initiative, on the basis of a complaint, or on the basis of an assessment by a technical service, check the compliance of a manufacturer with Regulation (EC) No 595/2009, this Regulation, and the terms of the Certificate on Access to Vehicle OBD and Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Information.\n2. Where an approval authority finds that the manufacturer has failed to comply with his obligations regarding access to vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information, the approval authority which granted the relevant type-approval shall take appropriate measures to remedy the situation.\nThose measures may include withdrawal or suspension of type-approval, fines, or other measures adopted in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009.\n3. The approval authority shall proceed to an audit in order to verify compliance by the manufacturer with the obligations concerning access to vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information, if an independent operator or a trade association representing independent operators files a complaint to the approval authority.\n4. When carrying out the audit, the approval authority may ask a technical service or any other independent expert to carry out an assessment to verify whether these obligations are met.\nArticle 2h\nForum on Access to Vehicle Information\nThe scope of application of the activities carried out by the Forum on Access to Vehicle Information established in accordance with Article 13(9) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 (7) shall be extended to the vehicles covered by Regulation (EC) No 595/2009.\nOn the basis of evidence of deliberate or unintentional misuse of vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information, the Forum shall advise the Commission on measures to prevent such misuse of information.\n(3)\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. In order to receive an EC type-approval of an engine system or engine family as a separate technical unit, EC type-approval of a vehicle with an approved engine system with regard to emissions and vehicle repair and maintenance information, or an EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to emissions and vehicle repair and maintenance information the manufacturer shall, in accordance with the provisions of Annex I, demonstrate that the vehicles or engine systems are subject to the tests and comply with the requirements set out in Articles 4 and 14 and in Annexes III to VIII, X, XIII, XIV and XVII. The manufacturer shall also ensure compliance with the specifications of reference fuels set out in Annex IX.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraphs 1a, 1b and 1c are inserted:\n\u20181a. If the vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information is not available, or does not conform to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009, Article 2a and, where relevant, Articles 2b, 2c and 2d of this Regulation, and Annex XVII to this Regulation, when the application for type-approval is made, the manufacturer shall provide that information within six months of the date set out in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 or within six months of the date of type-approval, whichever date is later.\n1b. The obligations to provide information within the dates referred to in paragraph 1a shall apply only if, following type-approval, the vehicle is placed on the market.\nWhere the vehicle is placed on the market more than six months after type-approval, the information shall be provided on the date on which the vehicle is placed on the market.\n1c. The approval authority may presume that the manufacturer has put in place satisfactory arrangements and procedures with regard to access to vehicle OBD and vehicle repair and maintenance information, on the basis of a completed Certificate on Access to Vehicle OBD and Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Information, providing that no complaint was made, and that the manufacturer provides the certificate within the periods referred to in paragraph 1a.\nIf the certificate of compliance is not provided within that period, the approval authority shall take appropriate measures to ensure compliance.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 15 is deleted;\n(4)\nArticle 5 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nApplication for EC type-approval of an engine system or engine family as a separate technical unit with regard to emissions and access to repair and maintenance information\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 4, point (g) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(g)\nthe Certificate on Access to Vehicle OBD and Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Information;\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 6, the title is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\nAdministrative provisions for EC type-approval of an engine system or engine family as a separate technical unit with regard to emissions and access to repair and maintenance information\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 7(4), point (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nthe Certificate on Access to Vehicle OBD and Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Information;\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 14(1), point (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nthe requirements with respect to the PEMS demonstration test at type-approval and any additional requirements with respect to off-cycle in-use vehicle testing, as provided for in this Regulation;\u2019;\n(8)\nin Article 15(1), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The manufacturer shall ensure that replacement pollution control devices intended to be fitted to EC type-approved engine systems or vehicles covered by Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 are EC type-approved, as separate technical units in accordance with the requirements of this Article and of Articles 1a, 16 and 17.\u2019;\n(9)\nin Article 16, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The manufacturer shall submit the Certificate on Access to Vehicle OBD and Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Information.\u2019;\n(10)\nAnnexes I, II, III, VI, X, XI and XIII are amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation;\n(11)\na new Annex XVII, the text of which is set out in Annex II to this Regulation, is added.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["77", "10", "0", "69", "87", "18", "19", "93", "7", "91", "74", "86", "98", "68", "56", "12", "67", "88", "84", "37", "59", "57", "97", "50", "42", "65", "15", "83", "82", "79", "No Label", "41", "54", "60", "75", "76", "85"], "gold": ["41", "54", "60", "75", "76", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 489/2010\nof 3 June 2010\nfixing the minimum selling price for butter for the first individual invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO Regulation\u2019) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 (2) has opened the sales of butter by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the common conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the first individual invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the first individual invitation to tender for selling of butter within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 1 June 2010, the minimum selling price for butter shall be EUR 345/100 kg.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["89", "87", "3", "92", "18", "2", "99", "86", "21", "95", "48", "15", "78", "53", "79", "44", "32", "26", "11", "8", "91", "64", "38", "71", "98", "17", "52", "43", "33", "22", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/28/EU\nof 23 April 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include metalaxyl as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMetalaxyl is one of the substances listed in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2).\n(2)\nAs a consequence of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 July 2007 in Case C-326/05 P Industrias Qu\u00edmicas del Vall\u00e9s v Commission (3), which annulled Commission Decision 2003/308/EC (4) concerning the non-inclusion of metalaxyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 1313/2007 of 8 November 2007 amending Regulations (EC) No 2076/2002 as regards the extension of the time period referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC with respect to metalaxyl and (EC) No 2024/2006 as regards the deletion of the derogation concerning metalaxyl (5) and Regulation (EC) No 416/2008 of 8 May 2008 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 as regards the assessment of the active substance metalaxyl in the framework of Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (6).\n(3)\nArticle 266 TFEU requires the institution whose act has been declared void to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice. It is therefore necessary to assess metalaxyl once more taking into account the additional information submitted.\n(4)\nAn additional assessment report has been submitted by the rapporteur Member State Portugal, which has been peer reviewed by the Member States and the Commission and finalised within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 12 March 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for metalaxyl.\n(5)\nThe review of metalaxyl did not reveal any open questions to be addressed by the European Food Safety Authority which has taken over the role of the Scientific Committee on Plants.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing metalaxyl may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include metalaxyl in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing metalaxyl can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(8)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing metalaxyl to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(9)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(10)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31 December 2010 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 January 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing metalaxyl as an active substance by 31 December 2010.\nBy that date, they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to metalaxyl are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing metalaxyl as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 30 June 2010 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning metalaxyl. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing metalaxyl as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 June 2014 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing metalaxyl as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 June 2014 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective directive or directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 July 2010.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2010.", "references": ["9", "0", "97", "46", "2", "90", "47", "70", "52", "15", "91", "64", "32", "92", "79", "3", "22", "11", "24", "55", "49", "23", "66", "89", "75", "96", "71", "19", "5", "82", "No Label", "25", "41", "65", "76"], "gold": ["25", "41", "65", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 June 2012\nappointing an Austrian member of the European Economic and Social Committee\n(2012/300/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Austrian Government,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Johann K\u00d6LTRINGER,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDr Ferdinand MAIER, Generalsekret\u00e4r des \u00d6sterreichischen Raiffeisenverbands is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["51", "49", "62", "80", "6", "83", "61", "28", "84", "37", "44", "64", "53", "81", "26", "73", "45", "41", "12", "20", "43", "5", "68", "56", "82", "75", "15", "11", "89", "4", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 284/2011\nof 22 March 2011\nlaying down specific conditions and detailed procedures for the import of polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware originating in or consigned from the People\u2019s Republic of China and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 48(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Directive 2002/72/EC (2) lays down specific provisions relating to plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs, including compositional requirements, and restrictions and specifications for substances that may be used therein.\n(2)\nSeveral notifications and alerts have been received by the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed pursuant to Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) concerning food contact materials imported into the Union from the People\u2019s Republic of China (hereinafter \u2018China\u2019) and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People\u2019s Republic of China (hereinafter \u2018Hong Kong\u2019), releasing into food or food simulant amounts of chemicals that are not in compliance with the Union legislation.\n(3)\nThese notifications and alerts primarily concern polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware that does not comply with the requirements concerning the release of primary aromatic amines and formaldehyde into food as laid down in Part A of Annex V and Section A of Annex II to Directive 2002/72/EC respectively.\n(4)\nPrimary aromatic amines (hereinafter \u2018PAA\u2019) are a family of compounds, some of which are carcinogenic, while others of these compounds are suspected carcinogens. PAA may arise in materials intended for food contact as a result of the presence of impurities or breakdown products.\n(5)\nPolyamide kitchenware originating in or consigned from China and Hong Kong has been reported to release high level of PAA into food.\n(6)\nDirective 2002/72/EC authorises the use of formaldehyde in the manufacture of plastics, provided that these plastics do not release into food more than 15 mg/kg of formaldehyde (specific migration limit (SML) expressed as total formaldehyde and hexamethylenetetramine).\n(7)\nMelamine kitchenware originating in or consigned from China and Hong Kong has been reported to release into food levels of formaldehyde that are higher than those authorised.\n(8)\nIn the past few years, in order to increase knowledge of the requirements set out in Union legislation concerning food contact materials imported into the Union, the Commission has taken several initiatives, including training sessions for Chinese control authorities and the industry concerned.\n(9)\nDespite those initiatives, the missions of the Food and Veterinary Office to China and Hong Kong in 2009 identified serious deficiencies in the official control system regarding plastic food contact materials intended for importation into the Union and large quantities of controlled polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware originating in or consigned from China and Hong Kong still do not fulfil the requirements of Union legislation.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) lays down specific provisions relating to the materials and articles intended to come into contact directly or indirectly with food, including certain general and specific requirements that these materials and articles should fulfil. Pursuant to Article 24 thereof, Member States shall carry out official controls in order to enforce compliance with that Regulation in accordance with the relevant provisions of Union law relating to official food and feed controls. Those provisions are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\n(11)\nMore specifically, Article 48(1) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 provides that in so far as Union legislation does not lay down the conditions and detailed procedures to be respected when importing goods from third countries, they may, if necessary, be laid down by the Commission.\n(12)\nArticle 48(2) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 provides for the possibility to impose specific import conditions on particular products coming from certain third countries, taking into account the risks associated with these products.\n(13)\nIn order to minimise the health risks that may arise from polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware originating in or consigned from China or Hong Kong, each consignment of such products should be accompanied by appropriate documentation, including analytical results showing that it meets the requirements concerning the release of PAA and formaldehyde respectively, as laid down in Directive 2002/72/EC.\n(14)\nIn order to ensure a more efficient organisation of the controls of polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware originating in or consigned from China or Hong Kong, the importers or their representatives should give prior notification of the arrival and of the nature of the consignments. Likewise, Member States should have the possibility to designate specific first points of introduction through which consignments of these articles may enter the Union. This information should be publicly available.\n(15)\nIn order to ensure a degree of uniformity at the Union level with regard to the controls of polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware originating in or consigned from China or Hong Kong, the procedure for the official controls, as defined in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, should be defined in this Regulation. These controls should include documentary, identity and physical checks.\n(16)\nIn the event of non-compliance being identified during the physical checks, Member States should immediately inform the Commission through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed.\n(17)\nMember States should have the possibility, in specific cases, to authorise the onward transportation of consignments of polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware originating in or consigned from China or Hong Kong from the first point of introduction, provided arrangements are made with the competent authority at the point of destination to ensure the traceability of the consignments pending the results of the physical checks, in order to allow the competent authority to deal with the process of importing such consignments effectively and efficiently.\n(18)\nThe release into free circulation of polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware originating in or consigned from China or Hong Kong should take place only once all the checks have been completed and the results are known. For that purpose the result of the controls should be made available to the customs authorities before the goods can be released for free circulation.\n(19)\nA procedure for recording the information obtained from these controls should be established. This information should be submitted regularly to the Commission.\n(20)\nThe provisions of this Regulation should be periodically reviewed, taking into account the information received from the Member States.\n(21)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down specific conditions and detailed procedures for the import of polyamide and of melamine plastic kitchenware originating in or consigned from the People\u2019s Republic of China (hereinafter \u2018China\u2019) and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People\u2019s Republic of China (hereinafter \u2018Hong Kong\u2019).\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018plastic kitchenware\u2019 means plastic materials as described in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1 of Directive 2002/72/EC and falling within CN code ex 3924 10 00;\n(b)\n\u2018consignment\u2019 means a quantity of polyamide or melamine plastic kitchenware, covered by the same document(s), conveyed by the same means of transport and coming from the same third country;\n(c)\n\u2018competent authorities\u2019 means the competent authorities of the Member States designated in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004;\n(d)\n\u2018first point of introduction\u2019 means the point of entry of a consignment into the Union;\n(e)\n\u2018documentary check\u2019 means the checking of the documents referred to in Article 3 of this Regulation;\n(f)\n\u2018identity check\u2019 means a visual inspection to ensure that the documents accompanying the consignment tally with the contents of the consignment;\n(g)\n\u2018physical check\u2019 means the sampling for analysis and laboratory testing and any other check necessary to verify compliance with the requirements concerning the release of PAA and formaldehyde laid down in Directive 2002/72/EC.\nArticle 3\nImport conditions\n1. Polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware originating in or consigned from China and Hong Kong shall be imported into the Member States only if the importer submits to the competent authority for each consignment a declaration, duly completed, confirming that it meets the requirements concerning the release of primary aromatic amines and formaldehyde laid down in Part A of Annex V and in Section A of Annex II to Directive 2002/72/EC respectively.\n2. A model of the declaration referred to in paragraph 1 is set out in the Annex to this Regulation. The declaration shall be drawn up in the official language, or in one of the official languages, of the Member State in which the consignment is imported.\n3. The declaration referred to in paragraph 1 shall be accompanied by a laboratory report providing:\n(a)\nas regards polyamide kitchenware, analytical results demonstrating that they do not release into foods or food simulants primary aromatic amines in a detectable quantity. The detection limit applies to the sum of primary aromatic amines. For the purpose of the analysis the detection limit for primary aromatic amines is set at 0,01 mg/kg food or food simulants;\n(b)\nas regards melamine kitchenware, analytical results demonstrating that they do not release into foods or food simulants formaldehyde in a quantity exceeding 15 mg/kg food.\n4. The competent authority shall indicate in the declaration set out in the Annex to this Regulation, whether the goods are acceptable or not for release into free circulation, depending on whether they fulfil the terms and conditions provided for in Directive 2002/72/EC as set out in paragraph 1.\nArticle 4\nPrior notification of consignments\nImporters or their representatives shall notify the competent authority at the first point of introduction at least two working days in advance of the estimated date and time of physical arrival of consignments originating in or consigned from China and Hong Kong.\nArticle 5\nNotification of the first point of introduction\nWhere the Member States decide to designate specific first points of introduction for consignments originating in or consigned from China and Hong Kong, they shall publish on the Internet an up-to-date list of these points and communicate the Internet address to the Commission.\nThe Commission shall display on its website; for information purposes, the links to the national lists of specific first points of introduction.\nArticle 6\nControls at the first point of introduction\n1. The competent authority at the first point of introduction shall carry out:\n(a)\ndocumentary checks on all consignments within two working days from the time of their arrival;\n(b)\nidentity and physical checks, including laboratory analysis of 10 % of consignments, and in such a way that it is not possible for the importers or their representatives to predict whether any particular consignment will be subjected to such checks; the results of physical checks must be available as soon as technically possible.\n2. If the laboratory analysis referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 identifies non-compliance, the competent authorities shall immediately inform the Commission of the results through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed established by Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.\nArticle 7\nOnward transportation\nThe competent authority at the first point of introduction may authorise the onward transportation of the consignments originating in or consigned from China and Hong Kong, pending the results of the checks referred to in point (b) of Article 6(1).\nIf the competent authority grants the authorisation referred to in the first paragraph, it shall notify the competent authority at the point of destination and shall supply a copy of the declaration set out in the Annex, duly completed as provided in Article 3 and the results of the checks referred to in point (b) of Article 6(1), as soon as the latter are available.\nThe Member States shall ensure that appropriate arrangements are put in place to ensure that the consignments remain under the continuous control of the competent authorities and cannot be tampered with in any way pending the results of the checks mentioned in point (b) of Article 6(1).\nArticle 8\nRelease for free circulation\nThe release for free circulation of polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware originating in or consigned from China and Hong Kong is subject to the presentation to the customs authorities of the declaration set out in the Annex duly completed as provided for in Article 3.\nArticle 9\nReporting to the Commission\n1. When checks referred to in Article 6(1) are performed, the competent authorities shall keep records of the following information:\n(a)\ndetails of each consignment checked, including:\n(i)\nthe size in terms of number of articles;\n(ii)\nthe country of origin;\n(b)\nthe number of consignments subject to sampling and analysis;\n(c)\nthe results of the controls referred to in Article 6.\n2. Member States shall submit to the Commission a report including the information referred to in paragraph 1, quarterly by the end of the month following each quarter.\nArticle 10\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 22 March 2011.", "references": ["61", "80", "50", "92", "74", "15", "28", "0", "81", "64", "52", "56", "34", "5", "75", "17", "1", "58", "43", "16", "62", "10", "94", "35", "98", "82", "97", "12", "77", "33", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "38", "60", "83", "89", "90", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "38", "60", "83", "89", "90", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 178/2011\nof 24 February 2011\namending for the 145th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 8 February 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add two natural persons to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2011.", "references": ["84", "19", "74", "78", "46", "51", "2", "18", "69", "53", "39", "57", "21", "9", "30", "24", "12", "99", "64", "14", "87", "63", "73", "25", "33", "5", "41", "23", "17", "65", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 26 October 2011\namending Decision 2009/821/EC as regards the lists of border inspection posts and veterinary units in Traces\n(notified under document C(2011) 7564)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/707/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 20(1) and (3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (2), and in particular the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (3), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/821/EC of 28 September 2009 drawing up a list of approved border inspection posts, laying down certain rules on the inspections carried out by Commission veterinary experts and laying down the veterinary units in Traces (4) lays down a list of border inspection posts approved in accordance with Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC. That list is set out in Annex I to that Decision.\n(2)\nFollowing communication from Belgium, in the entries for the inspection centres Avia Partner and Swiss Port of the border inspection post at the airport of Brussel-Zaventem, the approval should be extended to all packed products for human consumption. The list of entries for that Member State as set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC should be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nDenmark has communicated that the name of the border inspection post at the port of \u00c5rhus should be written \u2018Aarhus\u2019. The list of border inspection posts for that Member State should be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nFollowing a satisfactory inspection by the Commission inspection services, the Food and Veterinary Office, a new border inspection post at Koidula rail in Estonia should be added to the entries for that Member State in the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC. In addition, Estonia has communicated that the border inspection post at Luhamaa road should be also approved for certain other live animals than equidae and ungulates. The entry for that border inspection post should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nItaly has communicated that the inspection centre, Sintermar, in the border inspection post of the port of Livorno-Pisa has been suspended. The list of border inspection posts for that Member State should be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nFollowing communication of Latvia, the inspection centre \u2018Kravu Termin\u0101ls\u2019 in the border inspection post at the port of Riga should be deleted from the list of entries for that Member State as set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(7)\nThe Netherlands has communicated that the names of the inspection centres within the border inspection post of Vlissingen have changed. The entry for that border inspection post should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nFollowing communication from Portugal, the entry for the border inspection post at the port of Horta (A\u00e7ores) should be deleted in the list of entries for that Member State as set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(9)\nFollowing communication from Sweden, in the entry for the border inspection post at the port of G\u00f6teborg, the approval for live animals should be deleted in the list of entries for that Member State as set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(10)\nThe entry for the border inspection post at Manston airport in the United Kingdom had been deleted in Commission Decision 2011/93/EU (5). Following a new request from the United Kingdom and a satisfactory inspection by the Commission inspection services, the Food and Veterinary Office, Manston airport should be approved for equidae and ungulates and be added to the list of border inspection posts set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC. In addition, the United Kingdom communicated that the border inspection port of Southampton has been split into two inspection centres approved for different categories of products. The entry for that border inspection post should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nAnnex II to Decision 2009/821/EC lays down the list of central units, regional units and local units in the integrated computerised veterinary system (Traces).\n(12)\nFollowing communications from Denmark, Germany and Poland, certain changes should be brought to the list of central, regional and local units in Traces for those Member States laid down in Annex II to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(13)\nDecision 2009/821/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2009/821/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 October 2011.", "references": ["8", "83", "23", "39", "97", "50", "6", "94", "71", "17", "2", "64", "29", "58", "34", "92", "14", "62", "48", "47", "84", "21", "66", "98", "73", "75", "56", "15", "51", "72", "No Label", "1", "4", "13", "22", "38", "54", "61", "69"], "gold": ["1", "4", "13", "22", "38", "54", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/95/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\non standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted\n(recast)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular points (a) and (b) of Article 78(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA number of substantive changes are to be made to Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (3). In the interests of clarity, that Directive should be recast.\n(2)\nA common policy on asylum, including a Common European Asylum System, is a constituent part of the European Union\u2019s objective of progressively establishing an area of freedom, security and justice open to those who, forced by circumstances, legitimately seek protection in the Union.\n(3)\nThe European Council at its special meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 agreed to work towards establishing a Common European Asylum System, based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees (\u2018the Geneva Convention\u2019), as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 (\u2018the Protocol\u2019), thus affirming the principle of non-refoulement and ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution.\n(4)\nThe Geneva Convention and the Protocol provide the cornerstone of the international legal regime for the protection of refugees.\n(5)\nThe Tampere conclusions provide that a Common European Asylum System should include, in the short term, the approximation of rules on the recognition of refugees and the content of refugee status.\n(6)\nThe Tampere conclusions also provide that rules regarding refugee status should be complemented by measures on subsidiary forms of protection, offering an appropriate status to any person in need of such protection.\n(7)\nThe first phase in the creation of a Common European Asylum System has now been achieved. The European Council of 4 November 2004 adopted the Hague Programme, which sets the objectives to be implemented in the area of freedom, security and justice in the period 2005-2010. In this respect, the Hague Programme invited the European Commission to conclude the evaluation of the first-phase legal instruments and to submit the second-phase instruments and measures to the European Parliament and the Council, with a view to their adoption before the end of 2010.\n(8)\nIn the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, adopted on 15 and 16 October 2008, the European Council noted that considerable disparities remain between one Member State and another concerning the grant of protection and the forms that protection takes and called for new initiatives to complete the establishment of a Common European Asylum System, provided for in the Hague Programme, and thus to offer a higher degree of protection.\n(9)\nIn the Stockholm Programme, the European Council reiterated its commitment to the objective of establishing a common area of protection and solidarity, based on a common asylum procedure and a uniform status, in accordance with Article 78 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), for those granted international protection, by 2012 at the latest.\n(10)\nIn the light of the results of the evaluations undertaken, it is appropriate, at this stage, to confirm the principles underlying Directive 2004/83/EC as well as to seek to achieve a higher level of approximation of the rules on the recognition and content of international protection on the basis of higher standards.\n(11)\nThe resources of the European Refugee Fund and of the European Asylum Support Office should be mobilised to provide adequate support to Member States\u2019 efforts in implementing the standards set in the second phase of the Common European Asylum System, in particular to those Member States which are faced with specific and disproportionate pressure on their asylum systems, due in particular to their geographical or demographic situation.\n(12)\nThe main objective of this Directive is, on the one hand, to ensure that Member States apply common criteria for the identification of persons genuinely in need of international protection, and, on the other hand, to ensure that a minimum level of benefits is available for those persons in all Member States.\n(13)\nThe approximation of rules on the recognition and content of refugee and subsidiary protection status should help to limit the secondary movement of applicants for international protection between Member States, where such movement is purely caused by differences in legal frameworks.\n(14)\nMember States should have the power to introduce or maintain more favourable provisions than the standards laid down in this Directive for third-country nationals or stateless persons who request international protection from a Member State, where such a request is understood to be on the grounds that the person concerned is either a refugee within the meaning of Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention, or a person eligible for subsidiary protection.\n(15)\nThose third-country nationals or stateless persons who are allowed to remain in the territories of the Member States for reasons not due to a need for international protection but on a discretionary basis on compassionate or humanitarian grounds fall outside the scope of this Directive.\n(16)\nThis Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular this Directive seeks to ensure full respect for human dignity and the right to asylum of applicants for asylum and their accompanying family members and to promote the application of Articles 1, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 24, 34 and 35 of that Charter, and should therefore be implemented accordingly.\n(17)\nWith respect to the treatment of persons falling within the scope of this Directive, Member States are bound by obligations under instruments of international law to which they are party, including in particular those that prohibit discrimination.\n(18)\nThe \u2018best interests of the child\u2019 should be a primary consideration of Member States when implementing this Directive, in line with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In assessing the best interests of the child, Member States should in particular take due account of the principle of family unity, the minor\u2019s well-being and social development, safety and security considerations and the views of the minor in accordance with his or her age and maturity.\n(19)\nIt is necessary to broaden the notion of family members, taking into account the different particular circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be paid to the best interests of the child.\n(20)\nThis Directive is without prejudice to the Protocol on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union as annexed to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the TFEU.\n(21)\nThe recognition of refugee status is a declaratory act.\n(22)\nConsultations with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees may provide valuable guidance for Member States when determining refugee status according to Article 1 of the Geneva Convention.\n(23)\nStandards for the definition and content of refugee status should be laid down to guide the competent national bodies of Member States in the application of the Geneva Convention.\n(24)\nIt is necessary to introduce common criteria for recognising applicants for asylum as refugees within the meaning of Article 1 of the Geneva Convention.\n(25)\nIn particular, it is necessary to introduce common concepts of protection needs arising sur place, sources of harm and protection, internal protection and persecution, including the reasons for persecution.\n(26)\nProtection can be provided, where they are willing and able to offer protection, either by the State or by parties or organisations, including international organisations, meeting the conditions set out in this Directive, which control a region or a larger area within the territory of the State. Such protection should be effective and of a non-temporary nature.\n(27)\nInternal protection against persecution or serious harm should be effectively available to the applicant in a part of the country of origin where he or she can safely and legally travel to, gain admittance to and can reasonably be expected to settle. Where the State or agents of the State are the actors of persecution or serious harm, there should be a presumption that effective protection is not available to the applicant. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the availability of appropriate care and custodial arrangements, which are in the best interest of the unaccompanied minor, should form part of the assessment as to whether that protection is effectively available.\n(28)\nIt is necessary, when assessing applications from minors for international protection, that Member States should have regard to child-specific forms of persecution.\n(29)\nOne of the conditions for qualification for refugee status within the meaning of Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention is the existence of a causal link between the reasons for persecution, namely race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, and the acts of persecution or the absence of protection against such acts.\n(30)\nIt is equally necessary to introduce a common concept of the persecution ground \u2018membership of a particular social group\u2019. For the purposes of defining a particular social group, issues arising from an applicant\u2019s gender, including gender identity and sexual orientation, which may be related to certain legal traditions and customs, resulting in for example genital mutilation, forced sterilisation or forced abortion, should be given due consideration in so far as they are related to the applicant\u2019s well-founded fear of persecution.\n(31)\nActs contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations are set out in the Preamble and Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations and are, amongst others, embodied in the United Nations resolutions relating to measures combating terrorism, which declare that \u2018acts, methods and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations\u2019 and that \u2018knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations\u2019.\n(32)\nAs referred to in Article 14, \u2018status\u2019 can also include refugee status.\n(33)\nStandards for the definition and content of subsidiary protection status should also be laid down. Subsidiary protection should be complementary and additional to the refugee protection enshrined in the Geneva Convention.\n(34)\nIt is necessary to introduce common criteria on the basis of which applicants for international protection are to be recognised as eligible for subsidiary protection. Those criteria should be drawn from international obligations under human rights instruments and practices existing in Member States.\n(35)\nRisks to which a population of a country or a section of the population is generally exposed do normally not create in themselves an individual threat which would qualify as serious harm.\n(36)\nFamily members, merely due to their relation to the refugee, will normally be vulnerable to acts of persecution in such a manner that could be the basis for refugee status.\n(37)\nThe notion of national security and public order also covers cases in which a third-country national belongs to an association which supports international terrorism or supports such an association.\n(38)\nWhen deciding on entitlements to the benefits included in this Directive, Member States should take due account of the best interests of the child, as well as of the particular circumstances of the dependency on the beneficiary of international protection of close relatives who are already present in the Member State and who are not family members of that beneficiary. In exceptional circumstances, where the close relative of the beneficiary of international protection is a married minor but not accompanied by his or her spouse, the best interests of the minor may be seen to lie with his or her original family.\n(39)\nWhile responding to the call of the Stockholm Programme for the establishment of a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and with the exception of derogations which are necessary and objectively justified, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status should be granted the same rights and benefits as those enjoyed by refugees under this Directive, and should be subject to the same conditions of eligibility.\n(40)\nWithin the limits set out by international obligations, Member States may lay down that the granting of benefits with regard to access to employment, social welfare, healthcare and access to integration facilities requires the prior issue of a residence permit.\n(41)\nIn order to enhance the effective exercise of the rights and benefits laid down in this Directive by beneficiaries of international protection, it is necessary to take into account their specific needs and the particular integration challenges with which they are confronted. Such taking into account should normally not result in a more favourable treatment than that provided to their own nationals, without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to introduce or retain more favourable standards.\n(42)\nIn that context, efforts should be made in particular to address the problems which prevent beneficiaries of international protection from having effective access to employment-related educational opportunities and vocational training, inter alia, relating to financial constraints.\n(43)\nThis Directive does not apply to financial benefits from the Member States which are granted to promote education.\n(44)\nSpecial measures need to be considered with a view to effectively addressing the practical difficulties encountered by beneficiaries of international protection concerning the authentication of their foreign diplomas, certificates or other evidence of formal qualifications, in particular due to the lack of documentary evidence and their inability to meet the costs related to the recognition procedures.\n(45)\nEspecially to avoid social hardship, it is appropriate to provide beneficiaries of international protection with adequate social welfare and means of subsistence, without discrimination in the context of social assistance. With regard to social assistance, the modalities and detail of the provision of core benefits to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status should be determined by national law. The possibility of limiting such assistance to core benefits is to be understood as covering at least minimum income support, assistance in the case of illness, or pregnancy, and parental assistance, in so far as those benefits are granted to nationals under national law.\n(46)\nAccess to healthcare, including both physical and mental healthcare, should be ensured to beneficiaries of international protection.\n(47)\nThe specific needs and particularities of the situation of beneficiaries of refugee status and of subsidiary protection status should be taken into account, as far as possible, in the integration programmes provided to them including, where appropriate, language training and the provision of information concerning individual rights and obligations relating to their protection status in the Member State concerned.\n(48)\nThe implementation of this Directive should be evaluated at regular intervals, taking into consideration in particular the evolution of the international obligations of Member States regarding non-refoulement, the evolution of the labour markets in the Member States as well as the development of common basic principles for integration.\n(49)\nSince the objectives of this Directive, namely to establish standards for the granting of international protection to third-country nationals and stateless persons by Member States, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of this Directive, 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 TEU. 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 those objectives.\n(50)\nIn accordance with Articles 1, 2 and Article 4a(1) of the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, the United Kingdom and Ireland are not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(51)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(52)\nThe obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive change as compared with Directive 2004/83/EC. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under that Directive.\n(53)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limit for transposition into national law of Directive 2004/83/EC set out in Annex I, Part B,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this Directive is to lay down standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection-granted.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018international protection\u2019 means refugee status and subsidiary protection status as defined in points (e) and (g);\n(b)\n\u2018beneficiary of international protection\u2019 means a person who has been granted refugee status or subsidiary protection status as defined in points (e) and (g);\n(c)\n\u2018Geneva Convention\u2019 means the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951, as amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967;\n(d)\n\u2018refugee\u2019 means a third-country national who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, is outside the country of nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country, or a stateless person, who, being outside of the country of former habitual residence for the same reasons as mentioned above, is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to return to it, and to whom Article 12 does not apply;\n(e)\n\u2018refugee status\u2019 means the recognition by a Member State of a third-country national or a stateless person as a refugee;\n(f)\n\u2018person eligible for subsidiary protection\u2019 means a third-country national or a stateless person who does not qualify as a refugee but in respect of whom substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if returned to his or her country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person, to his or her country of former habitual residence, would face a real risk of suffering serious harm as defined in Article 15, and to whom Article 17(1) and (2) does not apply, and is unable, or, owing to such risk, unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country;\n(g)\n\u2018subsidiary protection status\u2019 means the recognition by a Member State of a third-country national or a stateless person as a person eligible for subsidiary protection;\n(h)\n\u2018application for international protection\u2019 means a request made by a third-country national or a stateless person for protection from a Member State, who can be understood to seek refugee status or subsidiary protection status, and who does not explicitly request another kind of protection, outside the scope of this Directive, that can be applied for separately;\n(i)\n\u2018applicant\u2019 means a third-country national or a stateless person who has made an application for international protection in respect of which a final decision has not yet been taken;\n(j)\n\u2018family members\u2019 means, in so far as the family already existed in the country of origin, the following members of the family of the beneficiary of international protection who are present in the same Member State in relation to the application for international protection:\n-\nthe spouse of the beneficiary of international protection or his or her unmarried partner in a stable relationship, where the law or practice of the Member State concerned treats unmarried couples in a way comparable to married couples under its law relating to third-country nationals,\n-\nthe minor children of the couples referred to in the first indent or of the beneficiary of international protection, on condition that they are unmarried and regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law,\n-\nthe father, mother or another adult responsible for the beneficiary of international protection whether by law or by the practice of the Member State concerned, when that beneficiary is a minor and unmarried;\n(k)\n\u2018minor\u2019 means a third-country national or stateless person below the age of 18 years;\n(l)\n\u2018unaccompanied minor\u2019 means a minor who arrives on the territory of the Member States unaccompanied by an adult responsible for him or her whether by law or by the practice of the Member State concerned, and for as long as he or she is not effectively taken into the care of such a person; it includes a minor who is left unaccompanied after he or she has entered the territory of the Member States;\n(m)\n\u2018residence permit\u2019 means any permit or authorisation issued by the authorities of a Member State, in the form provided for under that State\u2019s law, allowing a third-country national or stateless person to reside on its territory;\n(n)\n\u2018country of origin\u2019 means the country or countries of nationality or, for stateless persons, of former habitual residence.\nArticle 3\nMore favourable standards\nMember States may introduce or retain more favourable standards for determining who qualifies as a refugee or as a person eligible for subsidiary protection, and for determining the content of international protection, in so far as those standards are compatible with this Directive.\nCHAPTER II\nASSESSMENT OF APPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION\nArticle 4\nAssessment of facts and circumstances\n1. Member States may consider it the duty of the applicant to submit as soon as possible all the elements needed to substantiate the application for international protection. In cooperation with the applicant, it is the duty of the Member State to assess the relevant elements of the application.\n2. The elements referred to in paragraph 1 consist of the applicant\u2019s statements and all the documentation at the applicant\u2019s disposal regarding the applicant\u2019s age, background, including that of relevant relatives, identity, nationality(ies), country(ies) and place(s) of previous residence, previous asylum applications, travel routes, travel documents and the reasons for applying for international protection.\n3. The assessment of an application for international protection is to be carried out on an individual basis and includes taking into account:\n(a)\nall relevant facts as they relate to the country of origin at the time of taking a decision on the application, including laws and regulations of the country of origin and the manner in which they are applied;\n(b)\nthe relevant statements and documentation presented by the applicant including information on whether the applicant has been or may be subject to persecution or serious harm;\n(c)\nthe individual position and personal circumstances of the applicant, including factors such as background, gender and age, so as to assess whether, on the basis of the applicant\u2019s personal circumstances, the acts to which the applicant has been or could be exposed would amount to persecution or serious harm;\n(d)\nwhether the applicant\u2019s activities since leaving the country of origin were engaged in for the sole or main purpose of creating the necessary conditions for applying for international protection, so as to assess whether those activities would expose the applicant to persecution or serious harm if returned to that country;\n(e)\nwhether the applicant could reasonably be expected to avail himself or herself of the protection of another country where he or she could assert citizenship.\n4. The fact that an applicant has already been subject to persecution or serious harm, or to direct threats of such persecution or such harm, is a serious indication of the applicant\u2019s well-founded fear of persecution or real risk of suffering serious harm, unless there are good reasons to consider that such persecution or serious harm will not be repeated.\n5. Where Member States apply the principle according to which it is the duty of the applicant to substantiate the application for international protection and where aspects of the applicant\u2019s statements are not supported by documentary or other evidence, those aspects shall not need confirmation when the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe applicant has made a genuine effort to substantiate his application;\n(b)\nall relevant elements at the applicant\u2019s disposal have been submitted, and a satisfactory explanation has been given regarding any lack of other relevant elements;\n(c)\nthe applicant\u2019s statements are found to be coherent and plausible and do not run counter to available specific and general information relevant to the applicant\u2019s case;\n(d)\nthe applicant has applied for international protection at the earliest possible time, unless the applicant can demonstrate good reason for not having done so; and\n(e)\nthe general credibility of the applicant has been established.\nArticle 5\nInternational protection needs arising sur place\n1. A well-founded fear of being persecuted or a real risk of suffering serious harm may be based on events which have taken place since the applicant left the country of origin.\n2. A well-founded fear of being persecuted or a real risk of suffering serious harm may be based on activities which the applicant has engaged in since he or she left the country of origin, in particular where it is established that the activities relied upon constitute the expression and continuation of convictions or orientations held in the country of origin.\n3. Without prejudice to the Geneva Convention, Member States may determine that an applicant who files a subsequent application shall not normally be granted refugee status if the risk of persecution is based on circumstances which the applicant has created by his or her own decision since leaving the country of origin.\nArticle 6\nActors of persecution or serious harm\nActors of persecution or serious harm include:\n(a)\nthe State;\n(b)\nparties or organisations controlling the State or a substantial part of the territory of the State;\n(c)\nnon-State actors, if it can be demonstrated that the actors mentioned in points (a) and (b), including international organisations, are unable or unwilling to provide protection against persecution or serious harm as defined in Article 7.\nArticle 7\nActors of protection\n1. Protection against persecution or serious harm can only be provided by:\n(a)\nthe State; or\n(b)\nparties or organisations, including international organisations, controlling the State or a substantial part of the territory of the State;\nprovided they are willing and able to offer protection in accordance with paragraph 2.\n2. Protection against persecution or serious harm must be effective and of a non-temporary nature. Such protection is generally provided when the actors mentioned under points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 take reasonable steps to prevent the persecution or suffering of serious harm, inter alia, by operating an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution or serious harm, and when the applicant has access to such protection.\n3. When assessing whether an international organisation controls a State or a substantial part of its territory and provides protection as described in paragraph 2, Member States shall take into account any guidance which may be provided in relevant Union acts.\nArticle 8\nInternal protection\n1. As part of the assessment of the application for international protection, Member States may determine that an applicant is not in need of international protection if in a part of the country of origin, he or she:\n(a)\nhas no well-founded fear of being persecuted or is not at real risk of suffering serious harm; or\n(b)\nhas access to protection against persecution or serious harm as defined in Article 7;\nand he or she can safely and legally travel to and gain admittance to that part of the country and can reasonably be expected to settle there.\n2. In examining whether an applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted or is at real risk of suffering serious harm, or has access to protection against persecution or serious harm in a part of the country of origin in accordance with paragraph 1, Member States shall at the time of taking the decision on the application have regard to the general circumstances prevailing in that part of the country and to the personal circumstances of the applicant in accordance with Article 4. To that end, Member States shall ensure that precise and up-to-date information is obtained from relevant sources, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the European Asylum Support Office.\nCHAPTER III\nQUALIFICATION FOR BEING A REFUGEE\nArticle 9\nActs of persecution\n1. In order to be regarded as an act of persecution within the meaning of Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention, an act must:\n(a)\nbe sufficiently serious by its nature or repetition as to constitute a severe violation of basic human rights, in particular the rights from which derogation cannot be made under Article 15(2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; or\n(b)\nbe an accumulation of various measures, including violations of human rights which is sufficiently severe as to affect an individual in a similar manner as mentioned in point (a).\n2. Acts of persecution as qualified in paragraph 1 can, inter alia, take the form of:\n(a)\nacts of physical or mental violence, including acts of sexual violence;\n(b)\nlegal, administrative, police, and/or judicial measures which are in themselves discriminatory or which are implemented in a discriminatory manner;\n(c)\nprosecution or punishment which is disproportionate or discriminatory;\n(d)\ndenial of judicial redress resulting in a disproportionate or discriminatory punishment;\n(e)\nprosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes or acts falling within the scope of the grounds for exclusion as set out in Article 12(2);\n(f)\nacts of a gender-specific or child-specific nature.\n3. In accordance with point (d) of Article 2, there must be a connection between the reasons mentioned in Article 10 and the acts of persecution as qualified in paragraph 1 of this Article or the absence of protection against such acts.\nArticle 10\nReasons for persecution\n1. Member States shall take the following elements into account when assessing the reasons for persecution:\n(a)\nthe concept of race shall, in particular, include considerations of colour, descent, or membership of a particular ethnic group;\n(b)\nthe concept of religion shall in particular include the holding of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, the participation in, or abstention from, formal worship in private or in public, either alone or in community with others, other religious acts or expressions of view, or forms of personal or communal conduct based on or mandated by any religious belief;\n(c)\nthe concept of nationality shall not be confined to citizenship or lack thereof but shall, in particular, include membership of a group determined by its cultural, ethnic, or linguistic identity, common geographical or political origins or its relationship with the population of another State;\n(d)\na group shall be considered to form a particular social group where in particular:\n-\nmembers of that group share an innate characteristic, or a common background that cannot be changed, or share a characteristic or belief that is so fundamental to identity or conscience that a person should not be forced to renounce it, and\n-\nthat group has a distinct identity in the relevant country, because it is perceived as being different by the surrounding society.\nDepending on the circumstances in the country of origin, a particular social group might include a group based on a common characteristic of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation cannot be understood to include acts considered to be criminal in accordance with national law of the Member States. Gender related aspects, including gender identity, shall be given due consideration for the purposes of determining membership of a particular social group or identifying a characteristic of such a group;\n(e)\nthe concept of political opinion shall, in particular, include the holding of an opinion, thought or belief on a matter related to the potential actors of persecution mentioned in Article 6 and to their policies or methods, whether or not that opinion, thought or belief has been acted upon by the applicant.\n2. When assessing if an applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted it is immaterial whether the applicant actually possesses the racial, religious, national, social or political characteristic which attracts the persecution, provided that such a characteristic is attributed to the applicant by the actor of persecution.\nArticle 11\nCessation\n1. A third-country national or a stateless person shall cease to be a refugee if he or she:\n(a)\nhas voluntarily re-availed himself or herself of the protection of the country of nationality; or\n(b)\nhaving lost his or her nationality, has voluntarily re-acquired it; or\n(c)\nhas acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his or her new nationality; or\n(d)\nhas voluntarily re-established himself or herself in the country which he or she left or outside which he or she remained owing to fear of persecution; or\n(e)\ncan no longer, because the circumstances in connection with which he or she has been recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself or herself of the protection of the country of nationality; or\n(f)\nbeing a stateless person, he or she is able, because the circumstances in connection with which he or she has been recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist, to return to the country of former habitual residence.\n2. In considering points (e) and (f) of paragraph 1, Member States shall have regard to whether the change of circumstances is of such a significant and non-temporary nature that the refugee\u2019s fear of persecution can no longer be regarded as well-founded.\n3. Points (e) and (f) of paragraph 1 shall not apply to a refugee who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself or herself of the protection of the country of nationality or, being a stateless person, of the country of former habitual residence.\nArticle 12\nExclusion\n1. A third-country national or a stateless person is excluded from being a refugee if:\n(a)\nhe or she falls within the scope of Article 1(D) of the Geneva Convention, relating to protection or assistance from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitely settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, those persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Directive;\n(b)\nhe or she is recognised by the competent authorities of the country in which he or she has taken up residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country, or rights and obligations equivalent to those.\n2. A third-country national or a stateless person is excluded from being a refugee where there are serious reasons for considering that:\n(a)\nhe or she has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;\n(b)\nhe or she has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his or her admission as a refugee, which means the time of issuing a residence permit based on the granting of refugee status; particularly cruel actions, even if committed with an allegedly political objective, may be classified as serious non-political crimes;\n(c)\nhe or she has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations as set out in the Preamble and Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations.\n3. Paragraph 2 applies to persons who incite or otherwise participate in the commission of the crimes or acts mentioned therein.\nCHAPTER IV\nREFUGEE STATUS\nArticle 13\nGranting of refugee status\nMember States shall grant refugee status to a third-country national or a stateless person who qualifies as a refugee in accordance with Chapters II and III.\nArticle 14\nRevocation of, ending of or refusal to renew refugee status\n1. Concerning applications for international protection filed after the entry into force of Directive 2004/83/EC, Member States shall revoke, end or refuse to renew the refugee status of a third-country national or a stateless person granted by a governmental, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial body if he or she has ceased to be a refugee in accordance with Article 11.\n2. Without prejudice to the duty of the refugee in accordance with Article 4(1) to disclose all relevant facts and provide all relevant documentation at his or her disposal, the Member State which has granted refugee status shall, on an individual basis, demonstrate that the person concerned has ceased to be or has never been a refugee in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article.\n3. Member States shall revoke, end or refuse to renew the refugee status of a third-country national or a stateless person if, after he or she has been granted refugee status, it is established by the Member State concerned that:\n(a)\nhe or she should have been or is excluded from being a refugee in accordance with Article 12;\n(b)\nhis or her misrepresentation or omission of facts, including the use of false documents, was decisive for the granting of refugee status.\n4. Member States may revoke, end or refuse to renew the status granted to a refugee by a governmental, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial body, when:\n(a)\nthere are reasonable grounds for regarding him or her as a danger to the security of the Member State in which he or she is present;\n(b)\nhe or she, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that Member State.\n5. In situations described in paragraph 4, Member States may decide not to grant status to a refugee, where such a decision has not yet been taken.\n6. Persons to whom paragraphs 4 or 5 apply are entitled to rights set out in or similar to those set out in Articles 3, 4, 16, 22, 31, 32 and 33 of the Geneva Convention in so far as they are present in the Member State.\nCHAPTER V\nQUALIFICATION FOR SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION\nArticle 15\nSerious harm\nSerious harm consists of:\n(a)\nthe death penalty or execution; or\n(b)\ntorture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of an applicant in the country of origin; or\n(c)\nserious and individual threat to a civilian\u2019s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict.\nArticle 16\nCessation\n1. A third-country national or a stateless person shall cease to be eligible for subsidiary protection when the circumstances which led to the granting of subsidiary protection status have ceased to exist or have changed to such a degree that protection is no longer required.\n2. In applying paragraph 1, Member States shall have regard to whether the change in circumstances is of such a significant and non-temporary nature that the person eligible for subsidiary protection no longer faces a real risk of serious harm.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous serious harm for refusing to avail himself or herself of the protection of the country of nationality or, being a stateless person, of the country of former habitual residence.\nArticle 17\nExclusion\n1. A third-country national or a stateless person is excluded from being eligible for subsidiary protection where there are serious reasons for considering that:\n(a)\nhe or she has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;\n(b)\nhe or she has committed a serious crime;\n(c)\nhe or she has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations as set out in the Preamble and Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations;\n(d)\nhe or she constitutes a danger to the community or to the security of the Member State in which he or she is present.\n2. Paragraph 1 applies to persons who incite or otherwise participate in the commission of the crimes or acts mentioned therein.\n3. Member States may exclude a third-country national or a stateless person from being eligible for subsidiary protection if he or she, prior to his or her admission to the Member State concerned, has committed one or more crimes outside the scope of paragraph 1 which would be punishable by imprisonment, had they been committed in the Member State concerned, and if he or she left his or her country of origin solely in order to avoid sanctions resulting from those crimes.\nCHAPTER VI\nSUBSIDIARY PROTECTION STATUS\nArticle 18\nGranting of subsidiary protection status\nMember States shall grant subsidiary protection status to a third-country national or a stateless person eligible for subsidiary protection in accordance with Chapters II and V.\nArticle 19\nRevocation of, ending of or refusal to renew subsidiary protection status\n1. Concerning applications for international protection filed after the entry into force of Directive 2004/83/EC, Member States shall revoke, end or refuse to renew the subsidiary protection status of a third-country national or a stateless person granted by a governmental, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial body if he or she has ceased to be eligible for subsidiary protection in accordance with Article 16.\n2. Member States may revoke, end or refuse to renew the subsidiary protection status of a third-country national or a stateless person granted by a governmental, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial body, if after having been granted subsidiary protection status, he or she should have been excluded from being eligible for subsidiary protection in accordance with Article 17(3).\n3. Member States shall revoke, end or refuse to renew the subsidiary protection status of a third-country national or a stateless person, if:\n(a)\nhe or she, after having been granted subsidiary protection status, should have been or is excluded from being eligible for subsidiary protection in accordance with Article 17(1) and (2);\n(b)\nhis or her misrepresentation or omission of facts, including the use of false documents, was decisive for the granting of subsidiary protection status.\n4. Without prejudice to the duty of the third-country national or stateless person in accordance with Article 4(1) to disclose all relevant facts and provide all relevant documentation at his or her disposal, the Member State which has granted the subsidiary protection status shall, on an individual basis, demonstrate that the person concerned has ceased to be or is not eligible for subsidiary protection in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article.\nCHAPTER VII\nCONTENT OF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION\nArticle 20\nGeneral rules\n1. This Chapter shall be without prejudice to the rights laid down in the Geneva Convention.\n2. This Chapter shall apply both to refugees and persons eligible for subsidiary protection unless otherwise indicated.\n3. When implementing this Chapter, Member States shall take into account the specific situation of vulnerable persons such as minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children, victims of human trafficking, persons with mental disorders and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence.\n4. Paragraph 3 shall apply only to persons found to have special needs after an individual evaluation of their situation.\n5. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for Member States when implementing the provisions of this Chapter that involve minors.\nArticle 21\nProtection from refoulement\n1. Member States shall respect the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with their international obligations.\n2. Where not prohibited by the international obligations mentioned in paragraph 1, Member States may refoule a refugee, whether formally recognised or not, when:\n(a)\nthere are reasonable grounds for considering him or her as a danger to the security of the Member State in which he or she is present; or\n(b)\nhe or she, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that Member State.\n3. Member States may revoke, end or refuse to renew or to grant the residence permit of (or to) a refugee to whom paragraph 2 applies.\nArticle 22\nInformation\nMember States shall provide beneficiaries of international protection, as soon as possible after refugee status or subsidiary protection status has been granted, with access to information, in a language that they understand or are reasonably supposed to understand, on the rights and obligations relating to that status.\nArticle 23\nMaintaining family unity\n1. Member States shall ensure that family unity can be maintained.\n2. Member States shall ensure that family members of the beneficiary of international protection who do not individually qualify for such protection are entitled to claim the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 35, in accordance with national procedures and as far as is compatible with the personal legal status of the family member.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are not applicable where the family member is or would be excluded from international protection pursuant to Chapters III and V.\n4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States may refuse, reduce or withdraw the benefits referred to therein for reasons of national security or public order.\n5. Member States may decide that this Article also applies to other close relatives who lived together as part of the family at the time of leaving the country of origin, and who were wholly or mainly dependent on the beneficiary of international protection at that time.\nArticle 24\nResidence permits\n1. As soon as possible after international protection has been granted, Member States shall issue to beneficiaries of refugee status a residence permit which must be valid for at least 3 years and renewable, unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require, and without prejudice to Article 21(3).\nWithout prejudice to Article 23(1), the residence permit to be issued to the family members of the beneficiaries of refugee status may be valid for less than 3 years and renewable.\n2. As soon as possible after international protection has been granted, Member States shall issue to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status and their family members a renewable residence permit which must be valid for at least 1 year and, in case of renewal, for at least 2 years, unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require.\nArticle 25\nTravel document\n1. Member States shall issue to beneficiaries of refugee status travel documents, in the form set out in the Schedule to the Geneva Convention, for the purpose of travel outside their territory unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require.\n2. Member States shall issue to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status who are unable to obtain a national passport, documents which enable them to travel outside their territory, unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require.\nArticle 26\nAccess to employment\n1. Member States shall authorise beneficiaries of international protection to engage in employed or self-employed activities subject to rules generally applicable to the profession and to the public service, immediately after protection has been granted.\n2. Member States shall ensure that activities such as employment-related education opportunities for adults, vocational training, including training courses for upgrading skills, practical workplace experience and counselling services afforded by employment offices, are offered to beneficiaries of international protection, under equivalent conditions as nationals.\n3. Member States shall endeavour to facilitate full access for beneficiaries of international protection to the activities referred to in paragraph 2.\n4. The law in force in the Member States applicable to remuneration, access to social security systems relating to employed or self-employed activities and other conditions of employment shall apply.\nArticle 27\nAccess to education\n1. Member States shall grant full access to the education system to all minors granted international protection, under the same conditions as nationals.\n2. Member States shall allow adults granted international protection access to the general education system, further training or retraining, under the same conditions as third-country nationals legally resident.\nArticle 28\nAccess to procedures for recognition of qualifications\n1. Member States shall ensure equal treatment between beneficiaries of international protection and nationals in the context of the existing recognition procedures for foreign diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications.\n2. Member States shall endeavour to facilitate full access for beneficiaries of international protection who cannot provide documentary evidence of their qualifications to appropriate schemes for the assessment, validation and accreditation of their prior learning. Any such measures shall comply with Articles 2(2) and 3(3) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (4).\nArticle 29\nSocial welfare\n1. Member States shall ensure that beneficiaries of international protection receive, in the Member State that has granted such protection, the necessary social assistance as provided to nationals of that Member State.\n2. By way of derogation from the general rule laid down in paragraph 1, Member States may limit social assistance granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status to core benefits which will then be provided at the same level and under the same eligibility conditions as nationals.\nArticle 30\nHealthcare\n1. Member States shall ensure that beneficiaries of international protection have access to healthcare under the same eligibility conditions as nationals of the Member State that has granted such protection.\n2. Member States shall provide, under the same eligibility conditions as nationals of the Member State that has granted protection, adequate healthcare, including treatment of mental disorders when needed, to beneficiaries of international protection who have special needs, such as pregnant women, disabled people, persons who have undergone torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence or minors who have been victims of any form of abuse, neglect, exploitation, torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or who have suffered from armed conflict.\nArticle 31\nUnaccompanied minors\n1. As soon as possible after the granting of international protection Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure the representation of unaccompanied minors by a legal guardian or, where necessary, by an organisation responsible for the care and well-being of minors, or by any other appropriate representation including that based on legislation or court order.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the minor\u2019s needs are duly met in the implementation of this Directive by the appointed guardian or representative. The appropriate authorities shall make regular assessments.\n3. Member States shall ensure that unaccompanied minors are placed either:\n(a)\nwith adult relatives; or\n(b)\nwith a foster family; or\n(c)\nin centres specialised in accommodation for minors; or\n(d)\nin other accommodation suitable for minors.\nIn this context, the views of the child shall be taken into account in accordance with his or her age and degree of maturity.\n4. As far as possible, siblings shall be kept together, taking into account the best interests of the minor concerned and, in particular, his or her age and degree of maturity. Changes of residence of unaccompanied minors shall be limited to a minimum.\n5. If an unaccompanied minor is granted international protection and the tracing of his or her family members has not already started, Member States shall start tracing them as soon as possible after the granting of international protection, whilst protecting the minor\u2019s best interests. If the tracing has already started, Member States shall continue the tracing process where appropriate. In cases where there may be a threat to the life or integrity of the minor or his or her close relatives, particularly if they have remained in the country of origin, care must be taken to ensure that the collection, processing and circulation of information concerning those persons is undertaken on a confidential basis.\n6. Those working with unaccompanied minors shall have had and continue to receive appropriate training concerning their needs.\nArticle 32\nAccess to accommodation\n1. Member States shall ensure that beneficiaries of international protection have access to accommodation under equivalent conditions as other third-country nationals legally resident in their territories.\n2. While allowing for national practice of dispersal of beneficiaries of international protection, Member States shall endeavour to implement policies aimed at preventing discrimination of beneficiaries of international protection and at ensuring equal opportunities regarding access to accommodation.\nArticle 33\nFreedom of movement within the Member State\nMember States shall allow freedom of movement within their territory to beneficiaries of international protection, under the same conditions and restrictions as those provided for other third-country nationals legally resident in their territories.\nArticle 34\nAccess to integration facilities\nIn order to facilitate the integration of beneficiaries of international protection into society, Member States shall ensure access to integration programmes which they consider to be appropriate so as to take into account the specific needs of beneficiaries of refugee status or of subsidiary protection status, or create pre-conditions which guarantee access to such programmes.\nArticle 35\nRepatriation\nMember States may provide assistance to beneficiaries of international protection who wish to be repatriated.\nCHAPTER VIII\nADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION\nArticle 36\nCooperation\nMember States shall each appoint a national contact point and communicate its address to the Commission. The Commission shall communicate that information to the other Member States.\nMember States shall, in liaison with the Commission, take all appropriate measures to establish direct cooperation and an exchange of information between the competent authorities.\nArticle 37\nStaff\nMember States shall ensure that authorities and other organisations implementing this Directive have received the necessary training and shall be bound by the confidentiality principle, as defined in the national law, in relation to any information they obtain in the course of their work.\nCHAPTER IX\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 38\nReports\n1. By 21 June 2015, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive and shall propose any amendments that are necessary. Those proposals for amendment shall be made by way of priority in Articles 2 and 7. Member States shall send the Commission all the information that is appropriate for drawing up that report by 21 December 2014.\n2. After presenting the report, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive at least every 5 years.\nArticle 39\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 by 21 December 2013. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. They shall also include a statement that references in existing laws, regulations and administrative provisions to the directive repealed by this Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made and how that statement is to be formulated.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law covered by this Directive.\nArticle 40\nRepeal\nDirective 2004/83/EC is repealed for the Member States bound by this Directive with effect from 21 December 2013, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limit for transposition into national law of the Directive set out in Annex I, Part B.\nFor the Member States bound by this Directive, references to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II.\nArticle 41\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticles 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 shall apply from 22 December 2013.\nArticle 42\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["89", "27", "41", "56", "44", "29", "87", "24", "78", "53", "37", "63", "77", "33", "58", "47", "65", "98", "51", "57", "17", "40", "59", "10", "8", "43", "85", "95", "28", "76", "No Label", "5", "13", "14"], "gold": ["5", "13", "14"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 21 March 2011\nappointing ten Greek members and nine Greek alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/191/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Greek Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nTen members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Panagiotis PSOMIADIS, Mr Yannis SGOUROS, Mr Konstantinos TZATZANIS, Mr Konstantinos TATSIS, Mr Andreas FOURAS, Mr Dimitris KALOGEROPOULOS, Ms Evangelina SCHOINARAKI-ILIAKI, Mr Dimitrios TSIGKOUNIS, Mr Georgios PAPASTERGIOU and Mr Grigorios ZAFEIROPOULOS. Eight alternate members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Panagiotis OIKONOMIDIS, Mr Ioannis MACHAIRIDIS, Mr Dimitrios DRAKOS, Mr Polydoros LAMPRINOUDIS, Mr Miltiadis KLAPAS, Mr Spyros SPYRIDON, Mr Lukas KATSAROS and Mr Konstantinos KONTOYORGOS. One alternate member\u2019s seat will become vacant following the appointment of Mr Georgios KOTRONIAS as member of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nStavros ARNAOUTAKIS, Head of the Region of Crete,\n-\nGrigorios ZAFEIROPOULOS, Councillor of the Region of Attica,\n-\nDimitrios KALOGEROPOULOS, Municipal Councillor of Aigaleo,\n-\nGeorgios KAMINIS, Mayor of Athens,\n-\nApostolos KATSIFARAS, Head of the Region of Western Greece,\n-\nGeorgios KOTRONIAS, Mayor of Lamia,\n-\nIoannis BOUTARIS, Mayor of Thessaloniki,\n-\nNikolaos PAPANDREOU, Councillor of the Region of Sterea Ellada,\n-\nIoannis SGOUROS, Head of the Region of Attica,\n-\nPanagiotis PSOMIADIS, Head of the Region of Central Macedonia;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nPavlos ALTINIS, Councillor of the Region of West Macedonia,\n-\nAthanasios GIAKALIS, Head of the Region of North Aegean,\n-\nAristeidis GIANNAKIDIS, Head of the Region of Eastern Macedonia-Thrace,\n-\nDimitrios DRAKOS, Councillor of the Region of Peloponnesus,\n-\nPolydoros LAMPRINOUDIS, Mayor of Chios,\n-\nChristos LAPPAS, Mayor of Trikala,\n-\nIoannis MACHAIRIDIS, Head of the Region of South Aegean,\n-\nDimitrios BIRMPAS, Municipal Councillor of Aigaleo,\n-\nSpyros SPYRIDON, Councillor of the Region of Attica.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["59", "80", "10", "13", "70", "8", "24", "52", "72", "65", "18", "27", "84", "62", "48", "41", "51", "5", "4", "20", "58", "88", "29", "94", "82", "68", "28", "3", "32", "63", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 19 October 2010\npursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data in Andorra\n(notified under document C(2010) 7084)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/625/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1), and in particular Article 25(6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Data Protection Supervisor,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Directive 95/46/EC, Member States are required to provide that the transfer of personal data to a third country may take place only if the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection and if the Member States\u2019 laws implementing other provisions of the Directive are complied with prior to the transfer.\n(2)\nThe Commission may find that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection. In that case, personal data may be transferred from the Member States without additional guarantees being necessary.\n(3)\nPursuant to Directive 95/46/EC the level of data protection should be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding a data transfer operation or a set of data transfer operations and giving particular consideration to a number of elements relevant for the transfer and listed in Article 25 thereof.\n(4)\nGiven the different approaches to data protection in third countries, the adequacy assessment should be carried out, and any decision based on Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC should be made and enforced in a way that does not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate against or between third countries where like conditions prevail, nor constitute a disguised barrier to trade, regard being had to the European Union\u2019s present international commitments.\n(5)\nAndorra is a State with a system of Parliamentary Co-Principality with the President of the French Republic and the Archbishop of Urgell being Co-Princes.\n(6)\nThe right to privacy is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of the Principality of Andorra (Constituci\u00f3 del Principat d\u2019Andorra), as approved by popular referendum on 14 March 1993.\n(7)\nThe legal rules for the protection of personal data in Andorra are largely based on the standards set out in Directive 95/46/EC and are laid down in the Qualified Law 15/2003 of 18 December on the protection of personal data (Llei qualificada de protecci\u00f3 de dades personals) (LQPDP). This data protection legislation is further complemented by Decree of 1 July 2004, establishing the Public Register for the Inscription of Personal Data Files and by Decree of 9 June 2010 approving the Regulations of the Andorra Data Protection Agency. This latter instrument clarifies several issues raised by the Working Party on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data established under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC in its Opinion of 1 December 2009 (2).\n(8)\nData protection provisions are also contained in a number of legal instruments regulating different sectors, such as financial sector legislation, health regulations and public registries.\n(9)\nAndorra has ratified the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data of 28 January 1981, and the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows of 8 November 2001 as well as the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, in Andorra in force since 22 January 1996, and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, in Andorra in force since 19 July 2006.\n(10)\nThe legal data protection standards applicable in Andorra cover all the basic principles necessary for an adequate level of protection for natural persons, and also provides for exceptions and limitations in order to safeguard important public interests The application of these legal data protection standards is guaranteed by administrative and judicial remedies and by an independent supervision carried out by the supervisory authority, the Andorran Data Protection Agency, which is invested with powers of investigation and intervention and which acts completely independently.\n(11)\nAndorran data protection authorities have provided explanations and assurances as to how the Andorran law is to be interpreted, and has given assurances that the Andorran data protection legislation is implemented in accordance with such interpretation. This Decision takes account of those explanations and assurances, and is therefore conditional upon them.\n(12)\nAndorra should therefore be regarded as providing an adequate level of protection for personal data as referred to in Directive 95/46/EC.\n(13)\nIn the interest of transparency and in order to safeguard the ability of the competent authorities in the Member States to ensure the protection of individuals as regards the processing of their personal data, it is necessary to specify the exceptional circumstances in which the suspension of specific data flows may be justified, notwithstanding the finding of adequate protection.\n(14)\nThe Working Party on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data established under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC has delivered a favourable opinion on the level of adequacy as regards protection of personal data, which has been taken into account in the preparation of this Decision (3). In its favourable opinion, the Working Party has encouraged the Andorran authorities in the ongoing process of adopting further provisions which will extend the application of Andorran legislation to automated individual decisions, as this is currently not expressly recognised by the Andorran Qualified Law on the protection of personal data.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 31(1) of Directive 95/46/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of Article 25(2) of Directive 95/46/EC, Andorra is considered as providing an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision concerns the adequacy of protection provided in Andorra with a view to meeting the requirements of Article 25(1) of Directive 95/46/EC and does not affect other conditions or restrictions implementing other provisions of that Directive that pertain to the processing of personal data within the Member States.\nArticle 3\n1. Without prejudice to their powers to take action to ensure compliance with national provisions adopted pursuant to provisions other than Article 25 of Directive 95/46/EC, the competent authorities in Member States may exercise their existing powers to suspend data flows to a recipient in Andorra in order to protect individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data in the following cases:\n(a)\nwhere a competent Andorran authority has determined that the recipient is in breach of the applicable standards of protection; or\n(b)\nwhere there is a substantial likelihood that the standards of protection are being infringed, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the competent Andorran authority is not taking or will not take adequate and timely steps to settle the case at issue, the continuing transfer would create an imminent risk of grave harm to data subjects and the competent authorities in the Member State have made reasonable efforts in the circumstances to provide the party responsible for processing established in Andorra with notice and an opportunity to respond.\n2. The suspension shall cease as soon as the standards of protection are assured and the competent authority of the Member States concerned is notified thereof.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall inform the Commission without delay when measures are adopted on the basis of Article 3.\n2. The Member States and the Commission shall inform each other of cases where the action of bodies responsible for ensuring compliance with the standards of protection in Andorra fails to secure such compliance.\n3. If the information collected under Article 3 and under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article provides evidence that any body responsible for ensuring compliance with the standards of protection in Andorra is not effectively fulfilling its role, the Commission shall inform the competent Andorran authority and, if necessary, present draft measures in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 31(2) of Directive 95/46/EC with a view to repealing or suspending this Decision or limiting its scope.\nArticle 5\nThe Commission shall monitor the functioning of this Decision and report any pertinent findings to the Committee established under Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC, including any evidence that could affect the finding in Article 1 of this Decision, that protection in Andorra is adequate within the meaning of Article 25 of Directive 95/46/EC and any evidence that this Decision is being implemented in a discriminatory way.\nArticle 6\nMember States shall take all the measures necessary to comply with the Decision by 1 January 2011.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 October 2010.", "references": ["72", "43", "1", "46", "93", "73", "66", "7", "50", "23", "16", "49", "8", "63", "19", "27", "88", "82", "28", "25", "65", "18", "20", "60", "99", "89", "76", "33", "95", "83", "No Label", "14", "40", "41", "42", "91", "97"], "gold": ["14", "40", "41", "42", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1019/2010\nof 10 November 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1012/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2010.", "references": ["62", "17", "6", "78", "84", "3", "11", "16", "57", "36", "46", "8", "81", "34", "47", "53", "61", "56", "88", "74", "77", "87", "79", "41", "21", "59", "48", "80", "65", "44", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 371/2012\nof 27 April 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 353/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2012.", "references": ["19", "74", "95", "65", "85", "99", "92", "93", "16", "76", "82", "8", "26", "60", "6", "84", "9", "2", "30", "45", "54", "47", "94", "50", "96", "41", "18", "17", "49", "68", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 411/2011\nof 27 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2011.", "references": ["19", "11", "31", "73", "10", "93", "12", "65", "38", "98", "2", "16", "99", "90", "44", "62", "89", "15", "67", "57", "91", "6", "26", "48", "83", "74", "22", "54", "63", "56", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 265/2012\nof 23 March 2012\nimplementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (1), and in particular Article 8a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 May 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex IB to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.\n(3)\nThe information relating to one person on the list in Annex IB to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 should be updated.\n(4)\nAnnex IB to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IB to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 shall be amended as set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe persons and entities listed in Annex II to this Regulation shall be added to Annex IB to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["60", "93", "58", "61", "42", "8", "62", "47", "0", "1", "37", "50", "69", "6", "79", "96", "70", "10", "28", "73", "27", "24", "16", "74", "83", "7", "81", "94", "80", "41", "No Label", "3", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 13 July 2011\non the State aid No SA.26117 - C 2/10 (ex NN 62/09) implemented by Greece in favour of Aluminium of Greece SA\n(notified under document C(2011) 4916)\n(Only the Greek text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/339/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the decision by which the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above, and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nIn July 2008 the Commission received two complaints alleging aid in favour of Aluminium of Greece and its successor company Aluminium SA, 100 % successor of Aluminium of Greece in the aluminium production since July 2007 (hereinafter referred to jointly as AoG). The complaints concerned two alleged State aid measures; a preferential electricity tariff and the construction of a gas pipeline linking AoG to the main grid.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 27 January 2010 the Commission informed Greece that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (\u2018TFEU\u2019) in respect of the measures.\n(3)\nGreece submitted its comments to the Commission\u2019s opening decision on 31 March 2010.\n(4)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures.\n(5)\nThe Commission received comments from two interested parties: from AoG on 12 May 2010 and 4 May 2011 and from Public Power Corporation (hereinafter: PPC), the State owned company which applied one of the alleged measures (privileged electricity tariff), on 17 May 2010. The comments were transmitted to Greece which was given the opportunity to react; its comments were received on 16 July 2010, 6 August 2010 and 16 May 2011.\n(6)\nThe Commission requested additional information from the Greek authorities on 1 December 2010, to which Greece replied by letter of 11 February 2011.\nII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED AID\nII(a) THE BENEFICIARY\n(7)\nAoG is a large company, located in the region of Viotia, Greece. It is active in the production of aluminium as raw material. In July 2007, AoG was split into two newly created companies, after a division of sectors: (a) Aluminium SA and (b) Endessa Hellas SA. Aluminium took over the aluminium production and Endessa Hellas took over the electricity production (AoG had acquired permits for electricity production a few years earlier). Therefore, Aluminium is the 100 % successor of AoG in the aluminium production. AoG also owns three electricity production units, located next to its aluminium plant. In 2009 it had a turnover of EUR 427,3 million (with EBT of EUR 34,4 million) and 960 employees. In 2006 (year before the aid measures under scrutiny) it had a turnover of EUR 470,9 million (23 % increase since 2005), with EBT of EUR 102,5 million (39 % increase since 2005), and 1 047 employees. It belongs to the private business group \u2018Mitilineos S.A.\u2019 since 2005.\nII(b) MEASURE 1: PREFERENTIAL ELECTRICITY TARIFF\n(8)\nAoG was established in 1960, with certain privileges granted by the Greek State, including electricity supply at reduced price. Under the terms of the statutes laying down the privileges, the supply of electricity at reduced rate was due to expire in March 2006, provided that PPC gave AoG due notice thereof two years in advance. On 26 February 2004 (i.e. more than two years before the privilege\u2019s expiry), PPC duly gave AoG such notice, following which PPC stopped applying the preferential rate at the end of March 2006.\n(9)\nConsequently, from March 2006 until January 2007, AoG paid the standard electricity tariff applicable to large industrial consumers.\n(10)\nHowever, AoG challenged the termination of the preferential rate in court and in January 2007, a first instance court ordered as an interim measure that the preferential rate be resumed pending a judgement on the substance. This interim decision was in turn appealed by PPC and overturned in March 2008 (a judgment on the substance is still pending).\n(11)\nThe practical consequence of the court decisions was that the preferential rate was again applied to AoG from January 2007 to March 2008. In this period, according to data provided by the Greek authorities, AoG paid EUR 17,4 million less than it would have paid under the \u2018standard\u2019 tariff for large industrial consumers.\nII(c) MEASURE 2: EXTENSION OF THE GAS GRID TO AoG\n(12)\nThe national gas transmission system in Greece can be extended at the request of a (potential) customer provided that the following conditions are met:\n-\na favourable opinion is granted by the Regulatory Authority for Energy (hereinafter \u2018RAE\u2019), the Greek energy regulator,\n-\nthe grid operator is satisfied that it will be able, in time, to recoup the cost of the extension through the tariff revenues from the grid.\n(13)\nIn the case of AoG, the national grid was extended by the building of a 29,5 km pipeline that would allow to connect AoG following the favourable opinion of RAE (15 April 2005) and the approval by the transmission system operator (13 June 2005) (3). The operations of the gas pipeline started on 16 May 2008.\n(14)\nThe total construction cost of the extension was EUR 12,64 million. Of that, EUR 9,04 million were paid by the National Gas System Operator, i.e. the owner of the national gas transmission system (hereafter: \u2018NGSO\u2019), EUR 3,3 million were paid by AoG and EUR 3,6 million were financed through the Community Support Framework 2000-2006 (4).\nIII. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(15)\nIn the opening decision of 27 January 2010, the Commission questioned whether the privileged electricity tariff charged to AoG by PPC after March 2006 was at the same level as for all large industrial consumers. Reason for the Commission\u2019s doubts was that the privileged tariff was set to expire in March 2006, under the terms of AoG\u2019s establishment statutes laying down the privileges. Reference was made to the fact that PPC had duly tried to terminate the privilege, however the latter was extended by a court\u2019s decision.\n(16)\nAs regards the measure of the extension of the national gas transmission system to AoG, in the opening decision of 27 January 2010, the Commission questioned why the construction cost of the pipeline had mainly been borne by the State and not by AoG. Those doubts were raised in the absence of information from Greece, despite the Commission\u2019s repeated requests, which was also the reason why the opening decision included an information injunction to Greece.\nIV. COMMENTS FROM GREECE AND INTERESTED PARTIES\nIV(a) COMMENTS FROM GREECE AND THE BENEFICIARY\nMeasure 1: Preferential electricity tariff\n(17)\nGreece acknowledges that for the period between the two court decisions (January 2007-March 2008), AoG paid EUR 131,4 million, under the preferential tariff, instead of EUR 148,8 million, which would be the charge under the \u2018standard\u2019 tariff for large industrial consumers.\n(18)\nHowever, Greece argues that the privileged pricing to AoG, even if it was considered as aid, would be existing aid.\n(19)\nIn this respect, AoG argues that the national court decision of January 2007 did not entail any substantial amendment to the original agreement and that the court merely decided to \u2018suspend\u2019 the notice to end the preferential rate and to postpone the court ruling on the merits of the dispute between AoG and PPC.\nMeasure 2: Extension of the gas grid to AoG\n(20)\nGreece denies that AoG received a selective advantage through the subsidisation of the construction cost of its gas pipeline. In particular, Greece argues that national rules on the basis of which the extension of the grid was decided are applicable on equal terms to all gas end-users, therefore AoG was not given any selective advantage.\n(21)\nFurthermore, Greece argues that the pipeline in question is not dedicated to AoG but also open to other industrial and household end-users in the area. It is part of the national gas transmission system capacity and property of the NGSO. Moreover, its capacity exceeds the annual consumption of AoG (1,7 billion Nm3/year comparing to 0,7 billion Nm3/year).\n(22)\nAoG has argued that its yearly contractual gas consumption equals to 13,5 % of the total national consumption and that its yearly actual gas consumption equals to 10,5 % of the total national consumption. AoG also states that the investment brings to the grid operator annual tariff revenue of EUR 11,6 million, which makes the investment very interesting and profitable for the grid operator. These figures have been confirmed by the Greek authorities.\nIV(b) COMMENTS FROM PPC\n(23)\nPPC supports the Commission\u2019s investigation on the electricity tariff measure. PPC confirms that the advantage to AoG would be EUR 17,4 million.\nV. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n(24)\nOn the basis of the above facts and also of the arguments of Greece and other third parties, the Commission will assess the measures in question in this section. First, the Commission will assess the presence of aid in the measures under scrutiny, in order to conclude if there is aid or not (sub-section V(a)). Secondly, where a measure indeed involves aid, the Commission will assess its compatibility with the internal market (sub-section V(b)).\nV(a) PRESENCE OF AID IN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU\n(25)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU states that \u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(26)\nIn the light of this provision, the Commission will assess hereunder whether the contested measures in favour of AoG constitute State aid.\nMeasure 1: Preferential electricity tariff\n(a) Advantage\n(27)\nThe Commission observes that the tariff paid by AoG is lower than the standard tariff paid by other large industrial consumers. The Commission considers that a market economy vendor would not accept to charge a monthly reduced tariff without any specific justification. In this regard, Greece did not submit any convincing arguments permitting to conclude that this preferential tariff was a market tariff although the Commission formally raised this issue in its correspondence. To the contrary, two significant factors indicate that the tariff paid by AoG cannot be considered as a price fixed by the market forces:\n(a)\nThe first indication refers to PPC\u2019s behaviour. Indeed, as soon as it could free itself from the legal constraint imposed by the 1960 statutes laying down the privileges for AoG, PPC took the decision to move immediately away from the preferential tariff and started charging the standard rate for large industrial customers. This is demonstrated by PPC\u2019s renouncement notified to AoG in February 2004 (see paragraph 8 above). The Commission considers this to constitute a good indication that the tariff set by the 1960 statutes doesn\u2019t reflect market price for PPC;\n(b)\nThe second indication derives from a previous Commission decision. On 16 October 2002, the Commission approved a subsidy of maximum EUR 178 million, to be granted by Greece to PPC (case N133/01 (5)). The subsidy aimed at allowing PPC to be compensated for stranded costs it had to bear in the context of the 1960 privileged tariff in favour of AoG, until its expiry in March 2006. The subsidy was approved as no aid to PPC, because it was merely a compensation for a disadvantage that it had to bear. The decision also included a remark that if the subsidy was to be considered as aid, it would be aid in favour of AoG and not in favour of PPC. In conclusion, this decision acknowledges that PPC had to bear a privileged tariff in favour of AoG that it would not have had to bear under normal market conditions., Thus, the Commission considers that the advantage for AoG consists of the difference between the standard tariff for large industrial consumers (that AoG would have paid in the absence of the special \u2018privileged\u2019 tariff) and the tariff paid by AoG between January 2007 and March 2008.\n(b) State resources\n(28)\nThe lower pricing resulted in reduced revenue for PPC. PPC SA is a company controlled by the State. The Greek State has a 51 % shareholding and the Greek Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change is supervising the company (Ministry of Finance until 2009). The Greek State can appoint the majority of the members of the Board and it is directly represented in the General Assembly by the Greek Minister of Environment, Energy and Climate Change (Minister of Finance until 2009). Therefore, State resources are involved. In addition, the Commission notes that the prolongation decision is imputable to the Greek State, as it was adopted by a Greek court, which constitutes a body of the State.\n(29)\nThus, the State resources criterion is fulfilled.\n(c) Selectivity\n(30)\nThe privileged tariff was applied only to AoG, therefore the latter benefited selectively from the measure. Thus, the Commission considers that the measure is selective.\n(d) Distortion of competition and affectation of trade between Member States\n(31)\nAoG is active in sectors whose products are widely traded among Member States. In particular, there is aluminium production in 9 Member States, apart from Greece, i.e. in France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom (6). As regards the production of electricity, it exists in all Member States as a liberalised economic activity. When State aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in trade between Member States, those other undertakings must be regarded as affected by that aid. Thus, the criterion of distortion of competition and affectation of trade between Member States is indeed fulfilled.\n(32)\nNeither Greece nor the beneficiary has contested this point.\n(e) Conclusion on the existence of aid in measure 1\n(33)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that the preferential electricity tariff to AoG constitutes State aid in favour of the latter within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The amount of aid equals EUR 17,4 million, which is the difference between (a) the revenues of PPC from the standard tariff that should have been applied in period January 2007- March 2008, i.e. EUR 148,8 million, and (b) the revenues of PPC from the tariff that was actually applied in the same period, i.e. EUR 131,4 million.\n(f) Measure 1 is unlawful aid\n(34)\nAoG argues that the first court decision of January 2007 did not involve a substantial amendment to the original privilege agreement (see paragraph 16 above). Therefore, according to AoG, the decision did not grant new aid to AoG and the measure of privileged electricity pricing remained as existing aid.\n(35)\nThe Commission cannot accept AoG\u2019s argument. The original terms of the preferential rate, which constituted existing aid, provided that the aid would end in March 2006 on condition that PPC gives due notice. Once this was done, the existing aid ceased, as it was due to do under the terms of the original grant of the privileged rate. Any granting of a reduced electricity rate which meets the definition of State aid (as is the case here) is thus new aid, irrespective of the fact that its terms may be similar to the earlier existing aid. The case-law of the Court of justice clearly spells out that the extension of an existing aid constitutes a new aid and must be notified (7). A fortiori, this is also the case when a terminated existing aid is reactivated several months later.\n(36)\nAs this new aid has not been notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 108 TFEU, it is unlawful.\nMeasure 2: Extension of the gas grid to AoG\n(a) Advantage\n(37)\nThe investigation has shown that the decision to extend the grid has led to a considerable increase of tariff revenues for NGSO. Indeed, customers like AoG have to pay tariff to NGSO for their use of the network. The Commission has found that the measure, i.e. the construction of the pipeline, was economically rational for the grid operator and consequently did not entail any advantage to AoG. Indeed, a private grid operator would have carried out the same investment.\n(38)\nThe Commission notes, according to the submissions of the Greek authorities, that the investment in question brings NGSO an annual revenue in tariffs of EUR 11,6 million. The Commission has compared this amount to the investment cost (one-off investment) and the operating costs (on a yearly basis) of the pipeline, in order to verify if the investment is in conformity with the Market Economy Investor Principle, i.e. if it generates an adequate return to the investor.\n(39)\nAccording to the submissions of the Greek authorities, the investment cost of the AoG pipeline was EUR 12,64 million in total (9,04 million paid by NGSO and 3,6 financed by Community support as described under point 14 above). In addition to the one-off investment cost, the annual operating expenses are evaluated to EUR 0,933 million. Therefore, it is clear that the annual revenue of EUR 11,6 million provides NGSO with a very high return. The pay-back period of the investment (including the part financed by Community support) is lower than 15 months. The return on investment (IRR - Internal Rate of Return) assuming, hypothetically, a 20-year exploitation period for the gas connection, is 84 %. In view of its high level, the Commission is satisfied that the return would have been sufficient to motivate a private investor to make the same investment (8). Thus, the Commission considers that the State decision to extent the gas grid did not grant AoG an advantage that it would not have been able to obtain on market terms.\n(40)\nThus, the advantage criterion is not fulfilled. There is consequently no need to further assess the other criteria that need to be fulfilled for a measure to constitute State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(b) Conclusion on the existence of aid in measure 2\n(41)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that the extension of the gas grid does not constitute State aid in favour of AoG within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nV(b) COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET\n(42)\nInasmuch as measure 1 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, its compatibility must be assessed in the light of the exceptions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 of that Article.\n(43)\nArticle 107(2) and 107(3) TFEU provide for exemptions to the general rule that State aid is incompatible with the internal market as stated in Article 107(1).\n(44)\nThe exemptions in Article 107(2) TFEU do not apply in the present case because this measure does not have a social character, has not been awarded to individual consumers, is not designed to make good damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and has not been awarded to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of that country.\n(45)\nFurther exemptions are laid out in Article 107(3) TFEU. The exceptions laid down in Article 107(3)(b), (d) and (e) are clearly not applicable and have not been invoked by the Greek authorities. In the following, the Commission will assess the potential compatibility of measure 1 under Article 107(3)(a) and (c).\n(46)\nArticle 107(3)(a) states that \u2018aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment\u2019 may be declared compatible with the internal market. AoG is located in an assisted area under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU, therefore it could potentially be eligible for regional aid.\n(47)\nThe Guidelines on national regional aid applicable at the time of application of the preferential tariff, i.e. in January 2007 (\u2018the 2006 Regional aid guidelines\u2019 (9)) set out the conditions for the approval of regional investment aid.\n(48)\nThe 2006 Regional aid guidelines define operating aid as aid aimed at reducing a firm\u2019s current expenses. In accordance with the Guidelines, operating aid may be granted in regions eligible under the derogation in Article 107(3)(a) provided that (i) it is justified in terms of its contribution to regional development and its nature and (ii) its level is proportional to the handicaps it seeks to alleviate, and it is for the Member State to demonstrate the existence and importance of any handicaps (paragraph 76).\n(49)\nThe Commission notes that current expenses are non-capital but usually recurrent expenditures necessary for the operation of a business. In this sense, the preferential electricity tariff applied to AoG reduced its current expenses. Thus, it constitutes operating aid, which was not allowed by the 2006 Regional aid guidelines. The Greek authorities did not produce any evidence to demonstrate that the reduction of the electricity tariff was justified in terms of its contribution to regional development, or its nature, nor have they shown that it was proportionate to any handicaps that it would have sought to alleviate. Also, the Greek authorities did not provide any kind of measurement or calculation of the handicaps of the region and of the level of the aid, in order to demonstrate that the latter is proportional to the former.\n(50)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that the aid can not be declared compatible on the basis of the 2006 Regional aid guidelines.\n(51)\nAs regards compatibility under the general block exemption Regulation, declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU (10), the Commission considers that on the basis of the financial figures submitted by the Greek authorities, AoG is a large enterprise, as demonstrated in paragraph (7) above. According to the general block exemption Regulation, Article 1(5), ad hoc aid to large companies is excluded from the scope of its application.\n(52)\nAlso according to the general block exemption Regulation, Article 8(3), in case that any aid covered by it is granted to a large enterprise, the Member State should confirm the material incentive effect of the aid, on the basis of a document that analyses the viability of the aided project or activity, with and without aid. The Commission has not been provided with such evidence.\n(53)\nIn conclusion, the aid granted to AoG is not compatible under the general block exemption Regulation.\n(54)\nArticle 107(3)(c) TFEU states that \u2018aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest\u2019 may be declared compatible with the internal market.\n(55)\nThe Commission considers that the derogation under Article 107(3)(c) does not apply in the case at hand. Indeed, regarding the development of certain economic areas, AoG is located in an assisted area under Article 107(3)(a) and not under 107(3)(c) (11). Regarding the development of certain economic activities, the Commission observes that the sector of aluminium production is not subject to specific State aid rules that could be applied to the beneficiary. The other State aid rules adopted on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) are manifestly not applicable. In particular, AoG is not eligible for rescue and/or restructuring aid. Indeed, AoG was not a firm in difficulty at the time of the aid, as it did not fulfil any of the criteria of points 9-11 of the 1999 Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, applicable at the time of the preferential tariff application (12). Also, restructuring aid is conditional on the existence of a sound restructuring plan. Greece did not provide such a restructuring plan. In conclusion, the aid granted to AoG is not compatible under the rescue and/or restructuring aid rules.\n(56)\nIn the view of the above, the Commission concludes that the aid measure in question is incompatible with TFEU. In particular, the Commission considers that the difference between (a) the revenues of PPC from the standard tariff that should have been applied to AoG in period January 2007-March 2008 and (b) the revenues of PPC from the tariff that was actually applied to AoG in the same period is incompatible aid in favour of AoG.\nVI. CONCLUSION\n(57)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that measure 1 is State aid and is incompatible with the internal market. The Commission has also come to the conclusion that the extension of the national gas grid does not constitute State aid.\n(58)\nArticle 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (13) lays down that \u2018where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary\u2019.\n(59)\nThus, given that the measure at hand is to be considered as unlawful and incompatible aid, the amount of aid must be recovered in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid. Recovery shall be hence affected from the time when the advantage occurred to the beneficiary, i.e. when the aid was put at the disposal of the beneficiary and shall bear recovery interest until effective recovery.\n(60)\nThe incompatible aid element of the measure is calculated as the difference between (a) the revenues of PPC from the standard tariff that should have been applied to AoG in period January 2007-March 2008 and (b) the revenues of PPC from the tariff that was actually applied to AoG in the same period is incompatible aid in favour of AoG. The amount of aid thus granted to AOG in this period is EUR 17,4 million,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The State aid amounting to EUR 17,4 million unlawfully granted by Greece in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of Aluminium of Greece SA and its successor Aluminium SA, by way of a preferential electricity tariff, is incompatible with the internal market.\n2. The extension of the national gas grid does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\n1. Greece shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1, paragraph 1, from the beneficiary.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (14) and to Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 (15) amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\n4. Greece shall cancel all outstanding payments of the aid referred to in Article 1, paragraph 1, with effect from the date of adoption of this decision.\nArticle 3\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1, paragraph 1, shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Greece shall ensure that this decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. Within two months following notification of this Decision, Greece shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Greece shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1, paragraph 1, has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2011.", "references": ["61", "89", "34", "73", "56", "17", "23", "32", "11", "60", "83", "26", "33", "0", "18", "1", "29", "51", "55", "57", "27", "69", "90", "59", "70", "94", "40", "74", "79", "6", "No Label", "4", "8", "15", "48", "78", "84", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "8", "15", "48", "78", "84", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1091/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe composition of the lists of third countries in Annexes I and II to Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (2) should be, and should remain, consistent with the criteria laid down in recital 5 of that Regulation. Third countries for which the situation has changed as regards those criteria should be transferred from one Annex to the other.\n(2)\nIn accordance with the political commitment made by the European Union on the liberalisation of the short-term visa requirement for citizens of the Western Balkan countries as part of the Thessaloniki Agenda and taking into consideration the progress made since December 2009 in the visa liberalisation dialogues with Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Commission considers that those two countries have met the benchmarks of their respective roadmaps.\n(3)\nAlbania and Bosnia and Herzegovina should therefore be transferred to Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. Visa liberalisation should apply only to holders of biometric passports issued by each of those two countries.\n(4)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (3), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point (B), of Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement (4).\n(5)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (5), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points (B) and (C), of Decision 1999/437/EC, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (6).\n(6)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol signed between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points (B) and (C) of Decision 1999/437/EC, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/261/EC (7).\n(7)\nThis Regulation constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (8); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(8)\nThis Regulation constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (9); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(9)\nAs regards Cyprus, this Regulation constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the 2003 Act of Accession.\n(10)\nThis Regulation constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the 2005 Act of Accession,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 539/2001 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nin Annex I, Part 1, the references to Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina are deleted;\n2.\nin Annex II, Part 1, the terms \u2018Albania (*)\u2019 and \u2018Bosnia and Herzegovina (*)\u2019 are inserted in the list, where appropriate, with the following footnote:\n\u2018(*)\nThe exemption from the visa requirement applies only to holders of biometric passports.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["6", "99", "49", "30", "21", "17", "95", "55", "52", "86", "85", "2", "93", "28", "1", "92", "20", "16", "96", "39", "43", "53", "69", "11", "70", "88", "9", "35", "82", "54", "No Label", "4", "13"], "gold": ["4", "13"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 220/2012\nof 14 March 2012\nderogating from Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 as regards the deadlines for communicating sugar quantities carried forward from the marketing year 2011/2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Articles 85, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 17 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards sugar production in excess of the quota (2), lays down deadlines within which Member States have to communicate to the Commission the quantities of sugar carried forward to the next marketing year.\n(2)\nBy way of derogation from Article 63(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 214/2012 (3) extended, for the marketing year 2011/2012, the time limits within which Member States determine the deadline within which operators have to communicate to Member States their decision to carry forward surplus sugar production.\n(3)\nConsequently, deadlines within which Member States have to communicate to the Commission the quantities to be carried forward, pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006, should be shifted accordingly.\n(4)\nIt is therefore necessary to derogate, for the marketing year 2011/2012, from the deadlines fixed in points (a) and (b) of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from points (a) and (b) of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006, Member States shall communicate to the Commission not later than 1 September 2012, the quantities of beet and cane sugar from the 2011/2012 marketing year that are to be carried forward to the next marketing year.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 March 2012.", "references": ["90", "1", "6", "73", "2", "61", "31", "67", "82", "89", "45", "72", "91", "21", "95", "74", "15", "49", "16", "33", "5", "20", "57", "34", "93", "35", "58", "44", "55", "17", "No Label", "8", "25", "42", "71", "75"], "gold": ["8", "25", "42", "71", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 743/2010\nof 17 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 August 2010.", "references": ["66", "28", "64", "63", "95", "54", "97", "22", "87", "39", "74", "53", "93", "4", "26", "67", "57", "75", "13", "72", "91", "98", "37", "18", "34", "90", "45", "52", "9", "79", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 249/2012\nof 21 March 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 19/2011 as regards type-approval requirements for the manufacturer\u2019s statutory plate of motor vehicles and their trailers\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 is a separate Regulation for the purposes of type-approval provided for in Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2).\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 19/2011 of 11 January 2011 concerning type-approval requirements for the manufacturer\u2019s statutory plate and for the vehicle identification number of motor vehicles and their trailers and implementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (3) is one of the implementing measures with regard to the provisions of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 19/2011 introduced the possibility for vehicle manufacturers to use self-adhesive labels for the making of the statutory plates. In order to ease the making of such labels by data processing, as well as their printing by electronic means, it is necessary to adapt the existing technical requirements to the specificities of these modern techniques.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 19/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart A of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 19/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\npoint 2.2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182.2.\nThe height of the characters of the vehicle identification number referred to in point 2.1(c) shall not be less than 4 mm.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following point 2.3 is inserted after point 2.2:\n\u20182.3.\nThe height of the characters of the information referred to in point 2.1, other than the vehicle identification number, shall not be less than 2 mm.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2012.", "references": ["8", "74", "47", "52", "90", "95", "63", "69", "73", "9", "64", "14", "43", "30", "10", "20", "46", "60", "82", "75", "21", "4", "51", "91", "23", "97", "35", "26", "70", "36", "No Label", "54", "55", "76", "77"], "gold": ["54", "55", "76", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 26 April 2011\nallowing Member States to extend provisional authorisations granted for the new active substances ascorbic acid, ipconazole, spiromesifen, topramezone, and Pseudomonas sp. strain DSMZ 13134\n(notified under document C(2011) 2668)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/252/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in September 2004 the Netherlands received an application from Citrex Nederland BV for the inclusion of the active substance ascorbic acid in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2005/751/EC (2) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in March 2007 the United Kingdom received an application from Kureha GmbH for the inclusion of the active substance ipconazole in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2008/20/EC (3) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in April 2002 the United Kingdom received an application from Bayer CropScience AG for the inclusion of the active substance spiromesifen in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2003/105/EC (4) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in May 2003 France received an application from BASF SE for the inclusion of the active substance topramezone in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2003/850/EC (5) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in August 2008 the Netherlands received an application from Sourcon-Padena GmbH & Co KG for the inclusion of the active substance Pseudomonas sp. strain DSMZ 13134 in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2008/599/EC (6) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(6)\nConfirmation of the completeness of the dossiers was necessary in order to allow them to be examined in detail and to allow Member States the possibility of granting provisional authorisations, for periods of up to 3 years, for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned, while complying with the conditions laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and, in particular, the condition relating to the detailed assessment of the active substances and the plant protection products in the light of the requirements laid down by that Directive.\n(7)\nFor these active substances, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicants. The rapporteur Member States submitted the respective draft assessment reports to the Commission on 10 September 2007 (ascorbic acid), on 29 May 2008 (ipconazole), on 9 March 2004 (spiromesifen), on 26 July 2007 (topramezone) and on 3 November 2009 (Pseudomonas sp. strain DSMZ 13134).\n(8)\nFollowing submission of the draft assessment reports by the rapporteur Member States, it has been found to be necessary to request further information from the applicants and to have the rapporteur Member States examine that information and submit their assessment. Therefore, the examination of the dossiers is still ongoing and it will not be possible to complete the evaluation within the timeframe provided for in Directive 91/414/EEC, read in conjunction with Commission Decisions 2009/579/EC (7) (ascorbic acid) and 2009/311/EC (8) (topramezone).\n(9)\nAs the evaluation so far has not identified any reason for immediate concern, Member States should be given the possibility of prolonging provisional authorisations granted for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned for a period of 24 months in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of Directive 91/414/EEC so as to enable the examination of the dossiers to continue. It is expected that the evaluation and decision-making process with respect to a decision on a possible inclusion in Annex I to that Directive for ascorbic acid, ipconazole, spiromesifen, topramezone, and Pseudomonas sp. strain DSMZ 13134 will have been completed within 24 months.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States may extend provisional authorisations for plant protection products containing ascorbic acid, ipconazole, spiromesifen, topramezone, or Pseudomonas sp. strain DSMZ 13134 for a period ending on 30 April 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall expire on 30 April 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2011.", "references": ["54", "9", "11", "79", "57", "17", "30", "85", "84", "16", "55", "98", "7", "28", "53", "50", "33", "38", "15", "0", "45", "94", "56", "31", "40", "42", "61", "89", "46", "36", "No Label", "25", "65", "83"], "gold": ["25", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 940/2010\nof 20 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["2", "77", "26", "44", "17", "37", "93", "70", "62", "54", "73", "57", "16", "64", "23", "66", "71", "60", "53", "9", "15", "11", "84", "98", "78", "59", "52", "1", "48", "31", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 58/2012\nof 23 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["4", "78", "82", "84", "47", "39", "31", "55", "85", "19", "58", "32", "53", "70", "10", "23", "89", "57", "74", "3", "17", "0", "65", "38", "9", "25", "63", "92", "80", "91", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1260/2011\nof 2 December 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 945/2010 adopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 2011 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the EU and derogating from certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular points (f) and (g) of Article 43, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro (2), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nTaking into account that the availability of intervention stocks for the supply of the scheme for food distribution to the most deprived persons in the 2012 annual plan adopted by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 562/2011 (3) is substantially reduced as compared to the previous years, it is appropriate to extend the implementation period of the 2011 annual plan adopted by Commission Regulation (EU) No 945/2010 (4) in order to allow the Member States to complement the foodstuffs to be distributed to the final recipients under the 2012 annual plan with resources that could be saved under the 2011 annual plan.\n(2)\nAs a result of appeals launched against tender procedures and delays in the relevant judicial procedures, Greece has been unable to complete payments for certain purchases of food products in the market and to withdraw a part of the allocated quantity of butter from Union intervention stocks. The Greek authorities submitted to the Commission a request for the extension of the deadline fixed by Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 of 14 September 2010 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Union (5), and of the deadline fixed by Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 945/2010. Portugal presented a similar request relating to the deadline for payment operations fixed by Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010. In view of the difficult financial situation faced by these Member States, it is appropriate to allow them to complete payment operations for products mobilised on the market and to allow the withdrawal of the remaining quantities of intervention stocks, so that these allocations remain available to increase the quantity of food products distributed to the most deprived people. It is, therefore, necessary to grant an extension of those two deadlines. In order to ensure equal treatment of Member States, the derogations should cover all payment operations for products mobilised on the market and all withdrawals of dairy products from intervention stocks under the 2011 annual plan. As the deadline for the payment operations for products mobilised on the market was set at 1 September and for the withdrawal of dairy products from Union intervention stocks at 30 September, these two derogations should apply retroactively.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 945/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following Article 3a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 3a\nBy way of derogation from Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, the implementation period of the 2011 annual distribution plan shall finish on 29 February 2012.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 4, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018By way of derogation from the first and third subparagraphs of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, for the 2011 distribution plan, withdrawal of butter and skimmed milk powder from intervention stocks shall take place from 1 June to 31 December 2011. The expenses arising from keeping the allocated quantities of butter and skimmed milk powder in intervention stocks between 30 September and the date of the actual withdrawal from intervention storage shall be born by the Member State to which the products are allocated under the 2011 distribution plan.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe following Article 5a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 5a\nBy way of derogation from Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, for the 2011 annual distribution plan, payment operations for products to be supplied by the operator shall, in case of products to be mobilised on the market under Article 2(3)(a)(iii) and (iv) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, be closed before 31 December 2011.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1, points (2) and (3) shall apply from 31 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2011.", "references": ["77", "7", "32", "78", "13", "85", "39", "82", "21", "25", "90", "56", "58", "2", "24", "75", "63", "60", "11", "45", "79", "67", "97", "81", "68", "65", "41", "31", "96", "57", "No Label", "4", "20", "37", "70"], "gold": ["4", "20", "37", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/170/CFSP\nof 21 March 2011\namending Council Decision 2010/330/CFSP on the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX - IRAQ\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 7 March 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/190/CFSP on the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission in Iraq, EUJUST LEX (1). That Joint Action, as subsequently amended and extended, expired on 30 June 2009.\n(2)\nOn 11 June 2009, the Council adopted Joint Action 2009/475/CFSP (2) which continued EUJUST LEX for another 12 months until 30 June 2010 and which provided that during this period EUJUST LEX was to start a pilot phase of activities in Iraq.\n(3)\nOn 14 June 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/330/CFSP (3) which continued EUJUST LEX for a further 24 months until 30 June 2012 and which provided that during this period EUJUST LEX - IRAQ should progressively shift its activities and relevant structures to Iraq, focusing on specialised training, while maintaining out-of-country activities as appropriate.\n(4)\nCouncil Decision 2010/330/CFSP provided for a financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUJUST LEX-IRAQ for the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011. This financial reference amount should be increased to cover the Mission\u2019s operational needs and Council Decision 2010/330/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe mandate of the Mission is being carried out in a security context that is liable to deteriorate and to undermine the objectives of the external action of the Union as defined in Article 21 of the Treaty.\n(6)\nThe command and control structure of the Mission should be without prejudice to the contractual responsibility of the Head of Mission towards the Commission for implementing the budget of the Mission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 11(1) of Council Decision 2010/330/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the Mission between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2011 shall be EUR 22 300 000.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["12", "49", "63", "82", "41", "56", "19", "30", "45", "61", "70", "5", "72", "92", "65", "78", "51", "76", "8", "4", "67", "43", "1", "23", "28", "22", "13", "40", "32", "50", "No Label", "0", "3", "6", "9", "95"], "gold": ["0", "3", "6", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/782/CFSP\nof 1 December 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1).\n(2)\nOn 23 October 2011, the European Council stated that the Union would impose further measures against the Syrian regime as long as the repression of the civilian population continued.\n(3)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, the Council considers it necessary to impose additional restrictive measures.\n(4)\nMoreover, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/273/CFSP.\n(5)\nFor the sake of clarity, the measures imposed by Decision 2011/273/CFSP and the additional measures should be integrated into a single legal instrument.\n(6)\nDecision 2011/273/CFSP should therefore be repealed.\n(7)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Decision are effective, it should enter into force on the day of its adoption,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nCHAPTER 1\nEXPORT AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS\nArticle 1\n1. The sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related mat\u00e9riel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, as well as equipment which might be used for internal repression, to Syria by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States or using their flag vessels or aircraft, shall be prohibited, whether originating or not in their territories.\n2. It shall be prohibited to:\n(a)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance, brokering services or other services related to the items referred to in paragraph 1 or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of such items, to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Syria;\n(b)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the items referred to in paragraph 1, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for the provision of related technical assistance, brokering services or other services to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Syria.\nArticle 2\n1. Article 1 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nsupplies and technical assistance intended solely for the support of or use by the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF);\n(b)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal military equipment or of equipment which might be used for internal repression, intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, or for institution building programmes of the United Nations (UN) and the European Union, or for European Union and UN crisis management operations;\n(c)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of non-combat vehicles which have been manufactured or fitted with materials to provide ballistic protection, intended solely for the protective use of personnel of the European Union and its Member States in Syria;\n(d)\nthe provision of technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to such equipment or to such programmes and operations;\n(e)\nthe provision of financing and financial assistance related to such equipment or to such programmes and operations;\non condition that such exports and assistance have been approved in advance by the relevant competent authority.\n2. Article 1 shall not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to Syria by UN personnel, personnel of the European Union or its Member States, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only.\nArticle 3\nThe sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment or software intended primarily for use in the monitoring or interception by the Syrian regime, or on its behalf, of the Internet and of telephone communications on mobile or fixed networks in Syria and the provision of assistance to install, operate or update such equipment or software shall be prohibited.\nThe Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant elements to be covered by this Article.\nArticle 4\n1. The purchase, import or transport from Syria of crude oil and petroleum products shall be prohibited.\n2. It shall be prohibited to provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, including financial derivatives, as well as insurance and reinsurance, related to the prohibitions referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 5\nThe prohibitions in Article 4 shall be without prejudice to the execution, until 15 November 2011, of obligations provided for in contracts concluded before 2 September 2011.\nArticle 6\n1. The sale, supply or transfer of key equipment and technology for the following key sectors of the oil and natural gas industry in Syria, or to Syrian or Syrian-owned enterprises engaged in those sectors outside Syria, by nationals of Member States, or from the territories of Member States, or using vessels or aircraft under the jurisdiction of Member States shall be prohibited whether or not originating in their territories:\n(a)\nrefining;\n(b)\nliquefied natural gas;\n(c)\nexploration;\n(d)\nproduction.\nThe Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this paragraph.\n2. It shall be prohibited to provide the following to enterprises in Syria that are engaged in the key sectors of the Syrian oil and gas industry referred to in paragraph 1 or to Syrian, or Syrian-owned enterprises engaged in those sectors outside Syria:\n(a)\ntechnical assistance or training and other services related to key equipment and technology as referred to in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nfinancing or financial assistance for any sale, supply, transfer or export of key equipment and technology as set out in paragraph 1 or for the provision of related technical assistance or training.\nArticle 7\n1. The prohibition in Article 6(1) shall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation relating to the delivery of goods provided for in contracts awarded or concluded before 1 December 2011.\n2. The prohibitions in Article 6 shall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts awarded or concluded before 1 December 2011 and relating to investments made in Syria before 23 September 2011 by enterprises established in Member States.\nArticle 8\nThe delivery of Syrian denominated banknotes and coinage to the Central Bank of Syria shall be prohibited.\nRESTRICTIONS ON FINANCING OF CERTAIN ENTERPRISES\nArticle 9\nThe following shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nthe granting of any financial loan or credit to enterprises in Syria that are engaged in the Syrian oil industry sectors of exploration, production or refining, or to Syrian or Syrian-owned enterprises engaged in those sectors outside Syria;\n(b)\nthe granting of any financial loan or credit to enterprises in Syria that are engaged in the construction of new power plants for the production of electricity in Syria;\n(c)\nthe acquisition or extension of a participation in enterprises in Syria that are engaged in the Syrian oil industry sectors of exploration, production or refining, or in Syrian or Syrian-owned enterprises engaged in those sectors outside Syria, including the acquisition in full of such enterprises and the acquisition of shares or securities of a participating nature;\n(d)\nthe acquisition or extension of a participation in enterprises in Syria that are engaged in the construction of new power plants for the production of electricity in Syria, including the acquisition in full of such enterprises and the acquisition of shares or securities of a participating nature;\n(e)\nthe creation of any joint venture with enterprises in Syria that are engaged in the Syrian oil industry sectors of exploration, production or refining and with any subsidiary or affiliate under their control;\n(f)\nthe creation of any joint venture with enterprises in Syria that are engaged in the construction of new power plants for the production of electricity in Syria and with any subsidiary or affiliate under their control.\nArticle 10\n1. The prohibitions set out in points (a) and (c) of Article 9:\n(i)\nshall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts or agreements concluded before 23 September 2011;\n(ii)\nshall not prevent the extension of a participation, if such extension is an obligation under an agreement concluded before 23 September 2011.\n2. The prohibitions set out in points (b) and (d) of Article 9:\n(i)\nshall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts or agreements concluded before 1 December 2011;\n(ii)\nshall not prevent the extension of a participation, if such extension is an obligation under an agreement concluded before 1 December 2011.\nRESTRICTIONS ON INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS\nArticle 11\n1. Participation in the construction of new power plants for the production of electricity in Syria shall be prohibited.\n2. It shall be prohibited to provide technical assistance or financing or financial assistance to the construction of new power plants for the production of electricity in Syria.\n3. The prohibition in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts or agreements concluded before 1 December 2011.\nRESTRICTIONS ON FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR TRADE\nArticle 12\n1. Member States shall exercise restraint in entering into new short and medium term commitments for public and private provided financial support for trade with Syria, including the granting of export credits, guarantees or insurance, to their nationals or entities involved in such trade, with a view to reducing their outstanding amounts, in particular to avoid any financial support contributing to the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria. In addition, Member States shall not enter into new long-term commitments for public and private provided financial support for trade with Syria.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not affect commitments established prior to 1 December 2011.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not concern trade for food, agricultural, medical or other humanitarian purposes.\nCHAPTER 2\nFINANCIAL SECTOR\nArticle 13\nMember States shall not enter into new commitments for grants, financial assistance or concessional loans to the Government of Syria, including through their participation in international financial institutions, except for humanitarian and developmental purposes.\nArticle 14\nThe following shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nany disbursement or payment by the European Investment Bank (EIB) under or in connection with any existing loan agreements entered into between Syria and the EIB;\n(b)\nthe continuation by the EIB of any existing Technical Assistance Service Contracts for sovereign projects located in Syria.\nArticle 15\nThe following shall be prohibited: the direct or indirect sale or purchase of, or brokering or assistance in the issuance of Syrian public or public-guaranteed bonds issued after 1 December 2011 to and from the Government of Syria, its public bodies, corporations and agencies, the Central Bank of Syria, or banks domiciled in Syria, or branches and subsidiaries within and outside the jurisdiction of Member States of banks domiciled in Syria, or financial entities that are neither domiciled in Syria nor within the jurisdiction of the Member States, but are controlled by persons and entities domiciled in Syria as well as any persons and entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them.\nArticle 16\n1. The opening of new branches, subsidiaries, or representative offices of Syrian banks in the territories of Member States, and the establishment of new joint ventures, or the taking of an ownership interest, or the establishment of new correspondent banking relationships by Syrian banks, including the Central Bank of Syria, its branches and subsidiaries and financial entities that are not domiciled in Syria, but are controlled by persons or entities domiciled in Syria, with banks in the jurisdiction of Member States, shall be prohibited.\n2. Financial institutions within the territories of the Member States or under their jurisdiction shall be prohibited from opening representative offices, subsidiaries or banking accounts in Syria.\nArticle 17\n1. The provision of insurance and re-insurance to the Government of Syria, its public bodies, corporations and agencies or to any persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or to entities owned or controlled by them, including through illicit means, shall be prohibited.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the provision of:\n(a)\nhealth or travel insurance to natural persons;\n(b)\ncompulsory or third party insurance to Syrian persons, entities or bodies based in the Union;\n(c)\ninsurance or re-insurance to the owner of a vessel, aircraft or vehicle chartered by a Syrian person, entity or body and which person, entity or body is not listed in Annexes I or II.\nCHAPTER 3\nRESTRICTIONS ON ADMISSION\nArticle 18\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, persons benefiting from or supporting the regime, and persons associated with them, as listed in Annex I.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation of international law, namely:\n(a)\nas a host country to an international intergovernmental organisation;\n(b)\nas a host country to an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the UN;\n(c)\nunder a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities; or\n(d)\nunder the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran pact) concluded by the Holy See (State of the Vatican City) and Italy.\n4. Paragraph 3 shall be considered as also applying in cases where a Member State is host country to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).\n5. The Council shall be duly informed in all cases where a Member State grants an exemption pursuant to paragraphs 3 or 4.\n6. Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed under paragraph 1 where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the Union, or hosted by a Member State holding the Chairmanship in office of the OSCE, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Syria.\n7. A Member State wishing to grant exemptions referred to in paragraph 6 shall notify the Council in writing. The exemption shall be deemed to be granted unless one or more of the Council members raises an objection in writing within two working days of receiving notification of the proposed exemption. Should one or more of the Council members raise an objection, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to grant the proposed exemption.\n8. Where, pursuant to paragraphs 3 to 7, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in Annex I, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the person concerned therewith.\nCHAPTER 4\nFREEZING OF FUNDS AND ECONOMIC RESSOURCES\nArticle 19\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime, and persons and entities associated with them, as listed in Annexes I and II, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of, the natural or legal persons or entities listed in Annexes I and II.\n3. The competent authority of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources concerned are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of the persons listed in Annexes I and II and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for the routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the competent authority has notified the competent authority of the other Member States and the Commission of the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted, at least two weeks prior to the authorisation;\n(e)\nnecessary for humanitarian purposes, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuations from Syria;\n(f)\nto be paid into or from an account of a diplomatic or consular mission or an international organisation enjoying immunities in accordance with international law, in so far as such payments are intended to be used for official purposes of the diplomatic or consular mission or international organisation.\nA Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation it grants under this paragraph.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the natural or legal person or entity referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article was included in Annex I or II, or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by the applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a natural or legal person or entity listed in Annex I or II; and\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgement is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\nA Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this paragraph.\n5. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent a designated person or entity from making a payment due under a contract entered into before the listing of such a person or entity, provided that the relevant Member State has determined that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1.\n6. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent a designated entity listed in Annex II, for a period of two months after the date of its designation, from making a payment from frozen funds or economic resources received by such entity after the date of its designation, where such payment is due under a contract in connection with the financing of trade, provided that the relevant Member State has determined that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1.\n7. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to this Decision,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments remain subject to paragraph 1.\nCHAPTER 5\nGENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 20\nNo claims, including for compensation or indemnification or any other claim of this kind, such as a claim of set-off, fines or a claim under a guarantee, claims for extension or payment of a bond, financial guarantee, including claims arising from letters of credit and similar instruments in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which was affected, directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, by reason of measures covered by this Decision, shall be granted to the designated persons or entities listed in Annexes I and II, or any other person or entity in Syria, including the Government of Syria, its public bodies, corporations and agencies, or any person or entity claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or entity.\nArticle 21\n1. The Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall establish and amend the lists in Annexes I and II.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision on listing, including the grounds therefor, to the person or entity concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person or entity with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person or entity concerned accordingly.\nArticle 22\n1. Annexes I and II shall include the grounds for listing the persons and entities concerned.\n2. Annexes I and II shall also contain, where available, the information necessary to identify the persons or entities concerned. With regard to persons, such information may include names, including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and identity card numbers, gender, address if known, and function or profession. With regard to entities, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\nArticle 23\nIt shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly or intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions laid down in this Decision.\nArticle 24\nIn order to maximise the impact of the measures set out in this Decision, the Union shall encourage third States to adopt restrictive measures similar to those contained in this Decision.\nArticle 25\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 12 months. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\nArticle 26\nDecision 2011/273/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 27\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2011.", "references": ["68", "22", "61", "73", "11", "54", "67", "92", "37", "24", "77", "45", "51", "85", "86", "94", "78", "15", "1", "72", "49", "26", "28", "42", "30", "79", "38", "8", "16", "41", "No Label", "3", "5", "12", "23", "76", "80", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "12", "23", "76", "80", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 May 2012\non the European Union financial contribution to national programmes of 10 Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Romania, Slovenia and Finland) in 2012 for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector\n(notified under document C(2012) 3024)\n(Only the Bulgarian, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, Greek, Italian, Latvian, Romanian, Slovenian and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2012/276/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea (1), and in particular Article 24(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 861/2006 lays down the conditions whereby Member States may receive a contribution from the European Union for expenditure incurred in their national programmes of collection and management of data.\n(2)\nThose programmes are to be drawn up in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 of 14 July 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (3).\n(3)\nBelgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Romania, Slovenia and Finland have submitted national programmes for 2011-2013 as provided for in Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. These programmes were approved in 2011 in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008.\n(4)\nThose Member States have submitted annual budget forecasts for the year 2012 according to Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States for the collection and management of the basic fisheries data (4). The Commission has evaluated Member States\u2019 annual budget forecasts, as laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008, by taking into account the approved national programmes.\n(5)\nArticle 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 establishes that the Commission is to approve the annual budget forecast and is to decide on the annual Union financial contribution to each national programme in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and on the basis of the outcome of the evaluation of the annual budget forecasts as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008.\n(6)\nArticle 24(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 establishes that a Commission Decision is to fix the rate of the financial contribution. Article 16 of that Regulation provides that Union financial measures in the area of basic data collection are not to exceed 50 % of the costs incurred by Member States in carrying out the programme of collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector.\n(7)\nThis Decision constitutes the financing decision within the meaning of Article 75(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5).\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe maximum global amounts of the Union financial contribution to be granted to each Member State for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for 2012 and the rate of the Union financial contribution, are established in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Estonia, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Finland.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2012.", "references": ["66", "30", "94", "36", "58", "24", "74", "69", "4", "62", "12", "55", "88", "90", "77", "25", "99", "5", "43", "17", "68", "0", "16", "21", "82", "7", "39", "47", "57", "65", "No Label", "10", "33", "42", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "33", "42", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 October 2011\nopposing the adoption by the European Commission of the draft Directive amending Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of defence-related products\n(2011/713/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (1), and in particular Article 5a(3)(b) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products within the Community (2),\nHaving regard to the draft Commission Directive amending Directive 2009/43/EC, which the Commission submitted on 15 July 2011 to the Council for scrutiny in accordance with Article 5a(3)(a) of Decision 1999/468/EC,\nWhereas:\nThe draft Directive submitted by the Commission exceeds the implementing powers provided for in the basic act, by requiring Member States to give notice of their transposition measures in the form of correlation tables,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn accordance with Article 5a(3)(b) of Decision 1999/468/EC, the Council opposes the adoption by the Commission of the draft Directive amending Directive 2009/43/EC, which the Commission has submitted to the Council for scrutiny in accordance with Article 5a(3)(a) of Decision 1999/468/EC.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 10 October 2011.", "references": ["47", "61", "83", "40", "31", "79", "22", "11", "52", "34", "14", "90", "96", "23", "3", "93", "42", "43", "44", "87", "13", "9", "37", "32", "16", "71", "35", "39", "21", "81", "No Label", "6", "7", "8"], "gold": ["6", "7", "8"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 12 June 2012\non the measures SA. 27420 (C 12/2009) (ex N 19/2009) implemented by Finland for Osuuskunta Karjaportti\n(notified under document C(2012) 3249)\n(Only the Finnish and the Swedish versions are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2013/8/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to their comments (1),\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter dated 15 January 2009, Finland notified the Commission of a rescue aid consisting of a guarantee and debt rescheduling to Osuuskunta Karjaportti (hereinafter referred to as \u2027Karjaportti\u2027; at the time of notification it was known as J\u00e4rvi-Suomen Portti Osuuskunta). By letters dated 5 February 2009, 11 February 2009, 16 February 2009 and 20 February 2009, Finland provided the Commission with further information.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 8 April 2009, the Commission informed Finland that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (2) in respect of the notified measures and several measures granted in the past. Following that opening Decision, Finland submitted further information to the Commission by letter dated 13 May 2009.\n(3)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid measures.\n(4)\nThe Commission received comments from one interested party. It forwarded them to Finland, which was given the opportunity to comment. Those comments were received by letter dated 28 August 2009. Finland provided further information by e-mail dated 3 November 2009.\n(5)\nBy letter dated 15 December 2009, the Commission informed Finland that it had decided to extend the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU in respect of additional aid measures granted in the past. Finland submitted further information by letter dated 12 February 2010.\n(6)\nThe Commission decision to extend the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid measures. The Commission received no further comments from interested parties.\n(7)\nOn 1 March 2010, Finland informed the Commission that it had withdrawn the notification concerning the guarantee in favour of Karjaportti. By letter dated 26 March 2010 the Commission informed Finland that it would deal with the withdrawal of the notification of the guarantee in the final decision, together with the other measures under assessment. In addition, the Commission addressed questions to Finland, to which Finland replied by letter dated 22 April 2010. The Commission sent an information request to Finland on 15 July 2010, to which Finland replied on 20 August 2010. Another information request was sent by the Commission on 28 September 2010, to which Finland replied on 29 November 2010. Lastly, the Commission asked for additional information by letter dated 16 November 2011. Finland submitted that information on 16 December 2011.\n2. BENEFICIARY\n2.1. The co-operative Karjaportti\n(8)\nKarjaportti is a co-operative company located in Mikkeli, with production facilities in Mikkeli and Kouvola, both in Eastern Finland (It\u00e4-Suomi), a region eligible for regional aid under Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU. The co-operative was originally established in 1914. In 1950 it was named Osuusteurastamo Karjaportti; from 31 December 2002 it was known as J\u00e4rvi-Suomen Portti Osuuskunta and since 14 December 2010, it has been known as Karjaportti. To date, Karjaportti employs 300 people permanently and an additional 100 to 120 seasonal workers during spring and summer.\n(9)\nKarjaportti is active in the manufacturing of food, namely in the field of processing meat into products such as meatballs and sausages. In addition, the co-operative sells packed meat, pieces of meat and carcases. Karjaportti exports little to other Member States.\n2.2. Financial situation of Karjaportti\n(10)\nSince 1 December 2004, Karjaportti is subject to court-supervised restructuring proceedings under the Restructuring of Enterprises Act 47/1993 (5) (hereinafter referred to as \u2027court-supervised restructuring proceedings\u2027; for more detailed information on the court-supervised restructuring see recitals 31-43).\n(11)\nDetails on the financial situation of Karjaportti before and during the court-supervised restructuring proceedings are provided in the following Table:\nTable I\nKarjaportti's key financial data in EURO\nYear\nTurnover\nOperating result\nNet result (profit/losses)\nDeficit for previous accounting periods\nShare capital / Reserves and contingency\nEquity balance\n2000\n139 620 882\n8 682\n-1 169 091\n7 681 411/ 10 247 107\n8 893 097\n2001\n139 748 861\n2 082 662\n549 865\n7 812 809/ 9 078 473\n9 442 963\n2002\n135 781 234\n2 259 488\n14 382\n7 783 428/ 9 559 942\n17 357 751\n2003\n128 354 480\n-3 299 914\n-6 009 055\n7 585 778/ 9 506 525\n11 083 248\n2004\n125 849 631\n-3 972 464\n-10 686 420\n7 234 608/ 3 497 953\n46 141\n2005\n101 507 619\n-6 629 915\n-9 235 908\n-7 404 955\n7 772 913/ 216 662\n-8 651 289\n2006\n99 802 293\n-3 485 054\n4 277 565\n-16 640 864\n8 141 610/ 216 662\n-4 005 028\n2007\n86 962 069\n-8 916 539\n-7 943 878\n-12 363 299\n6 244 277/ 216 662\n-13 846 239\n2008\n80 901 753\n-3 791 985\n-2 770 037\n-20 307 178\n5 768 185/ 216 662\n-17 092 368\n2009\n64 793 763\n305 936\n-2 124 435\n-23 077 214\n5 077 160/ 216 662\n-19 907 828\n(12)\nIn the year 2008, the Finnish Tax authorities filed twice for bankruptcy proceedings against Karjaportti. At the first filing, on 7 October 2008, they presented an injunction to pay EUR 461 579. The filing was then withdrawn by the tax authorities. A re-filing took place on 1 December 2008 with an injunction to pay EUR 981 658. The bankruptcy proceedings against Karjaportti have been closed since June 2009 as the co-operative has paid outstanding debt to the tax authorities.\n3. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES\n(13)\nThe measures under consideration consist of measures granted by the City of Mikkeli, where Karjaportti is located, and measures granted by Finnvera Oyj (hereinafter referred to as \u2027Finnvera\u2027). Finnvera is a specialised financing company owned by the state of Finland and it is the official Export Credit Agency of Finland (6). In the following, the measures granted by the City of Mikkeli are first described (Section 3.1.), and thereafter the measures granted by Finnvera (Section 3.2.).\n3.1. Measures granted by the City of Mikkeli\n3.1.1. Guarantee granted on 12 June 2000 (measure 1) and Assignment of land (measure 2)\n(14)\nMeasure 1: By decision of 12 June 2000, the City Council of Mikkeli granted an absolute guarantee (\"takaus\") to Karjaportti, covering 100 % of a future loan amounting to FIM 25 million (approximately EUR 4,2 million (7). The loan was provided to Karjaportti in September 2000 at a fixed interest rate of 5,35 % and for a duration of 10 years by the bank Tapiola Pankki Oy (\u2027Tapiola\u2027). At the same time, the guarantee was implemented by the City Board of Mikkeli, signing the guarantee agreement. The guarantee was provided without a guarantee fee and as an absolute guarantee where the guarantor is liable for the principal debt as if it were the guarantor's own debt, meaning that the creditor could ask for the repayment of principal debt from the guarantor when the principal debt has become due. The guaranteed loan was provided in order to finance the construction of a production facility in the district of Tikkala in Mikkeli (8).\n(15)\nThe guarantee was collateralised by way of already existing real property mortgages with a registered value of FIM 7,5 million (EUR 1 261 409) (9). When measure 1 was granted, approximately FIM 3 million of the real property mortgages was available as collateral. In addition, the guarantee was collateralised by business mortgages (10) with a registered value of FIM 25 million and FIM 30,5 million respectively on movable assets of Karjaportti.\n(16)\nWhen the court-supervised restructuring proceedings commenced in December 2004, Tapiola demanded payment of the outstanding debts of Karjaportti from the City of Mikkeli under the guarantee. After having made such payments to Tapiola, the City of Mikkeli stepped in as a creditor of Karjaportti in place of Tapiola (see recital 34).\n(17)\nMeasure 2: Also in 2000, Karjaportti was assigned a plot for the construction of the Tikkala production facility by Mikkeli rural district (11). The size of the plot was 152 366 m2 and the City of Mikkeli provided it without consideration to Karjaportti, that is to say, no purchase price was paid. In addition, the City of Mikkeli made a commitment to transfer the land ready for construction. To that end, the City of Mikkeli reimbursed Karjaportti the costs of levelling the land, amounting to FIM 2 000 000 (approximately EUR 336 376) (12).\n(18)\nOther measures were granted to Karjaportti for the construction of the production facility in Tikkala. Finnvera granted loans and guarantees of FIM 20 000 000 (approximately EUR 3 363 759) and the Ministry of Employment and the Economy (then: Ministry of Trade and Industry) awarded direct grants amounting to FIM 15 000 000 (approximately EUR 2 552 819).\n(19)\nOverall, the measures described in recitals 14-18 to be provided for the construction of the production facility in Tikkala had a nominal value of FIM 63 783 719 (approximately EUR 10 757 652). The gross grant equivalent of the measures granted amounted to EUR 3 617 143, according to the overview provided in the following Table:\nTable II\nGross grant equivalent of the measures granted in EURO\nMeasure\nAmount\nGross grant equivalent\nGuarantee City of Mikkeli\n4 204 698\n345 786\nAssignment of land by City of Mikkeli\n300 000\n300 000\nLevelling of the site paid by City of Mikkeli\n336 376\n336 376\nFinnvera loan\n1 681 879\n82 162\nDirect grants Ministry of Trade and Industry\n2 552 819\n2 552 819\nTOTAL\n10 757 652\n3 617 143\n(20)\nThe gross grant equivalent of the guarantee granted by the City of Mikkeli was calculated by Finland in the following way: it compared the market rate for a comparable guarantee (1,75 %) to the guarantee premium actually charged by the City of Mikkeli (0 %). The aid element in the guarantee equals the difference between the two premiums, that is 1,75 %. If the City of Mikkeli had charged a premium at that rate, it would have collected FIM 2 406 250 FIM as premiums during the validity of the guarantee of 10 years, which discounted at a rate of 5,7 % on the date the guarantee was granted would make FIM 1 055 949 FIM (approximately EUR 345 786).\n(21)\nThe gross grant equivalent for the Finnvera loan was calculated by Finland in the following way: It compared the interest that Finnvera charged for the loan (6 months EURIBOR plus 1,75 %) with the reference rate in accordance with Commission Notice on the method for setting the reference and discount rates (13) that was valid at the time the loan was granted. The aid element equals the difference between the two rates for the duration of the loan (10 years). The commission that Karjaportti had to pay for the loan (0,5 %) was deducted from the result of the calculation. Discounted at a rate of 5,7 %, on the date the guarantee was granted, the aid element was EUR 82 162.\n(22)\nThe eligible investment costs were calculated on the basis of the costs relating to acquisition prices, according to the breakdown provided in the following Table:\nTable III\nBreakdown of the project costs relating to acquisition prices in EURO\nLand and Buildings\n14 208 192\nMachinery and equipment\n11 155 379\nOffice equipment / software\n572 356\nTOTAL\n25 935 928\n(23)\nThe aid element of EUR 3 617 143 corresponds to an aid intensity of 13,95 % of the total eligible costs of EUR 25 935 928.\n(24)\nKarjaportti had applied for the measures granted by the City of Mikkeli before work on the investment project was started (14). The measures were taken by Finland to promote regional development. The new production site should raise the number of jobs in the region from around 400 to 550 or 600.\n3.1.2. Purchase of Land (measure 3)\n(25)\nOn 28 February 2002, the City of Mikkeli bought six properties and one building with related leases from Karjaportti. The purchase price paid was EUR 6 646 787 (15). At the closing date of the purchase of the properties by the City of Mikkeli, and in case of one property, at the date when its possession was transferred to the City of Mikkeli, the properties were free of mortgages.\n3.1.3. Guarantee granted on 8 March 2004 (measure 4)\n(26)\nBy decision of 8 March 2004, the City Council of Mikkeli granted a guarantee covering 100 % of a loan of EUR 607 054 to be granted by Tapiola. On 14 April 2004, the loan was granted at a fixed interest rate of 4 % with a duration of 10 years. The guarantee was granted without guarantee fee and as an absolute guarantee. The loan and the guarantee respectively were given to replace a loan granted by Tapiola for which the City of Mikkeli had originally granted a guarantee by a decision of 2 November 1992. The original loan amounted to FIM 7,5 million (EUR 1 261 409) and was granted at an interest rate of 4,5 % for a duration of 10 years.\n(27)\nThe guarantee was collateralised by way of the property mortgages on the production site of Tikkala that were already used as collateral for measure 1. In addition, the City of Mikkeli held a business mortgage with a value registered in the business mortgage register of FIM 25 million. Also this business mortgage was already used as collateral for measure 1.\n(28)\nWhen the court-supervised restructuring proceedings commenced in December 2004, Tapiola demanded payment of the outstanding debts towards Karjaportti from the City of Mikkeli under the guarantee. After having made such payments, the City of Mikkeli stepped in as a creditor of Karjaportti in place of Tapiola (see recital 34).\n3.1.4. Guarantee granted on 10 May 2004 (measure 5)\n(29)\nBy decision of 10 May 2004, the City Council of Mikkeli granted an absolute guarantee that covered 100 % of a EUR 1,7 million loan to be granted by Tapiola. Subsequently, on 8 June 2004, Tapiola decided to grant the 3 year investment loan amounting to EUR 1,7 million at a variable interest rate of 12 months EURIBOR plus a fixed margin of 0,3 %. The guarantee was granted without a guarantee fee and as an absolute guarantee. The guarantee was collateralised by way of the same property mortgage on the production site of Tikkala as measure 1 and measure 4 and the very same business mortgage (16), held by the City of Mikkeli. In addition, the City of Mikkeli received a new collateral mortgage instrument with a registered value of EUR 1 135 268 on the production site of Tikkala as a special pledge.\n(30)\nWhen the court-supervised restructuring proceedings commenced in December 2004, Tapiola demanded payment of the outstanding debts towards Karjaportti from the City of Mikkeli under the guarantee. After having made such payments, the City of Mikkeli stepped in as a creditor of Karjaportti in place of Tapiola (see recital 34).\n3.1.5. Measures taken within the court supervised restructuring proceedings (measure 6)\n(31)\nOn 17 November 2004, Karjaportti, together with the creditors Nordea Bank Finland Abp (hereinafter \u2027Nordea Bank\u2027), Nordea Rahoitus Suomi Oy (hereinafter \u2027Nordea Financing\u2027) and OKO Osuuspankkien Keskuspankki Oyj (since 1 March 2008, this company is named Pohjola Pankki Oyj; hereinafter \u2027OKO/Pohjola Bank\u2027) filed for court-supervised restructuring proceedings with the District Court of Mikkeli. According to Finnish law, such restructuring proceedings may be undertaken in order to rehabilitate a distressed debtor's viable business, to ensure its continued viability and to achieve debt arrangements (17). The court-supervised proceedings concerning Karjaportti were commenced by decision of the District Court of Mikkeli on 1 December 2004. Legally, from the commencement, the debtor is not allowed to repay restructuring debts or provide security for such debts (18). Restructuring debts are all debts accrued before the commencement date.\n(32)\nSubsequently, a restructuring programme was submitted to the District Court on 23 June 2005 and a revised restructuring programme on 30 November 2005. The duration of the restructuring programme, which was approved by the District Court on 30 January 2006, was ten years (until 1 July 2015). Between 2004 and 2008 Karjaportti has terminated 372 employment contracts and outsourced some of its activities such as acquisitions, butchery and cutting activities.\n(33)\nOverall, approximately [30-70] (19) % of the restructuring debts subject to the court-supervised restructuring proceedings were owed to private creditors. The private creditors having the biggest shares in those debts were the above mentioned banks Nordea Bank and OKO/Pohjola Bank as well as Nordea Financing.\n(34)\nOn 16 December 2004 in relation to these court-supervised restructuring proceedings Tapiola demanded the City of Mikkeli to pay the outstanding amounts of the three loans guaranteed by the City of Mikkeli described under 3.1.1, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4. After having paid Tapiola, the City of Mikkeli became creditor of Karjaportti as regards the overall amount of the three outstanding loans, which was EUR 5 356 895. The loans were secured by the collateral described in recitals 15, 27 and 29.\n(35)\nIn addition, the City of Mikkeli entered a claim amounting to EUR 682 087 in the court-supervised restructuring proceedings, consisting of unpaid charges to the City property administration, the water management department of Mikkeli and the waste management department of Mikkeli. This claim was also secured by the collateral described in recitals15, 27 and 29.\n(36)\nThe loans and other debts (unpaid charges) towards the City of Mikkeli were considered as large secured debts (20) in the court-supervised restructuring proceedings. The other large secured claims were held by private parties (Nordea Bank, Nordea Financing, OKO/Pohjola Bank) as well as by Finnvera (21).\nTable IV\nLarge secured debts in EUR\nCreditor of secured large debts\nAmount\nShare in %\nNordea Bank\n[\u2026](*)\n[10-40] %\nNordea Financing\n[\u2026]\n[0-20] %\nOKO/Pohjola Bank\n[\u2026]\n[10-40] %\nFinnvera\n[\u2026]\n[10-40] %\nCity of Mikkeli - loans due to triggered guarantees\n[\u2026]\n[10-40] %\nCity of Mikkeli - other debts (unpaid charges)\n[\u2026]\n[0-20] %\nTOTAL\n24 579 150\n100 %\n(37)\nIn relation to the loans and to other debts (unpaid charges) towards the City of Mikkeli, the following measures were foreseen in the restructuring programme:\n(38)\nThe EUR 5 356 895 loan of the City of Mikkeli was treated as \"secured debt\" and was divided in two parts. For both parts the interest rates were reduced according to the restructuring programme: On a portion of EUR 4,0 million, the interest rate amounted to [\u2026] EURIBOR minus [\u2026]% (however, the rate was supposed not be more than [\u2026]% or less than [\u2026]%) until 31 December 2010. After that date, an interest rate of [\u2026] EURIBOR has been charged. To the remaining portion of EUR 1 356 895 million an interest rate of [\u2026] EURIBOR has been charged (22). Like the loans, the unpaid charges of EUR 682 087 were treated as \"secured debt\" and the interest rate was reduced to a rate of [\u2026] EURIBOR (23).\n(39)\nAlso for the secured debts of the private creditors, an interest rate equivalent to [\u2026] EURIBOR is foreseen in the restructuring programme. For a certain amount for each creditor except [\u2026], until 31 December 2010, a reduced interest rate was foreseen, equivalent to [\u2026] EURIBOR minus [\u2026]%; minimum interest [\u2026]% and maximum interest [\u2026]%. After 31 December 2010, the interest rate for all secured debts has been [\u2026] EURIBOR.\nTable V\nInterest amounts for large secured debts in EUR\nCreditor of secured large debts\nInterest rate of [\u2026] EURIBOR minus [\u2026]% until 31 December 2010; after that date, interest rate [\u2026] EURIBOR will be charged for an amount of\nInterest rate of [\u2026] EURIBOR for an amount of\nNordea Bank and Nordea Financing\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nOKO/Pohjola Bank\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nFinnvera\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nCity of Mikkeli - loans due to triggered guarantees\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nCity of Mikkeli - other debts (unpaid charges)\n[\u2026]\n(40)\nThe City of Mikkeli agreed to a deferral of payments on the debts mentioned above. According to the restructuring programme, the reimbursement of the secured debts of the City of Mikkeli is foreseen for 2015. The first instalment should have been paid on 1 July 2009, from 2010 onwards two instalments per year were foreseen, and in 2015 the remaining major part of the secured debts has to be paid, that is EUR [\u2026] for the loans due to triggered guarantees and EUR [\u2026] for other debts (unpaid charges) respectively.\n(41)\nAlso the private creditors agreed to the deferral of payments on their secured debts.\nTable VI\nDeferral of payment in EUR\nCreditor of secured large debts\nDebt\nInstalment due on 1.7.2009 and 2.1.2010 and 1.7.2010\n% of total amount of debts\nInstalment due on 2.1.2011 and 1.7.2011\n% of total amount of debts\nInstalment due every six months starting 2.1.2012 until 2.1.2015\n% of total amount of debts\nInstalment due on 1.7.2015\n% of total amount of debts\nNordea Bank\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nNordea Financing\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nOKO/Pohjola Bank\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nFinnvera\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nCity of Mikkeli\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nCity of Mikkeli\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTotal\n24 579 150\n500 000\n2 %\n1 000 000\n4 %\n1 500 000\n6 %\n10 579 150\n43 %\n(42)\nAccording to the restructuring programme, the reimbursement of the loans and unpaid charges to the City of Mikkeli should be accomplished by 2015, with the major part of the outstanding amount due in 2015. If in 2015 Karjaportti does not meet certain economic requirements at the end of the court-supervised restructuring proceedings (ratio between liabilities and operating margin bigger than 4), the City of Mikkeli will waive a maximum of EUR [0-3] million of the outstanding debts.\n(43)\nAlso the claims of the other creditors will be reduced at the end of the court-supervised restructuring proceedings. Nordea Bank will waive a maximum of EUR [0-3 million] and Nordea Financing will waive a maximum of EUR [0-2 million]. Finnvera's claim will be reduced by a maximum of EUR [0-2 million]. The claim of [\u2026] will not be reduced. According to the restructuring programme, the sums by which the secured debts are reduced are based on the value of the collaterals for the secured loans in two different scenarios: first scenario was that Karjaportti continues its operation; second scenario was that Karjaportti changes or terminates its operation, that is to say that the collaterals have to be realised. The two values were determined by two independent evaluations (24). The concrete amount by which the secured debt was reduced was then determined for each creditor separately, taking into account the ranking of the creditor and comparing the values in the two difference scenarios.\n3.1.6. Purchase of shares from Karjaportti (measure 7)\n(44)\nOn 2 September 2005 Karjaportti sold 50 % of the shares in the real estate company Kiinteist\u00f6 Oy Suksim\u00e4ki to a company owned by the City of Mikkeli, for a purchase price of EUR 860 000.\n3.1.7. Conversion of unpaid interest rates into loans (measure 8)\n(45)\nKarjaportti did not pay interest due for the secured debts of the City of Mikkeli accrued between 16 December 2004 and 19 December 2005 (25). Those interests amounted to EUR 281 982 and were converted into a loan for a loan period until the end of 2010 by decision of the City Council of Mikkeli dated 19 December 2005. The interest rate of the loan is EURIBOR 3 months plus 0,3 %. The repayment was supposed to start in March 2009 and consisted of four equal instalments to be paid twice a year, that is to say EUR 144 991 should be paid in 2009 and EUR 144 991 in 2010 (26). The repayment of the due amounts was at least partially postponed (see measure 12).\n(46)\nThe conversion of unpaid interest rates into loans in the year 2005 was in principle laid down in the restructuring programme. According to the programme, not only the City of Mikkeli, but all secured creditors in this context were to be treated similarly. Accordingly, on 28 December 2005, [one private creditor] converted interest rates into a loan amounting to approximately EUR 1 623 000 with a loan period until the end of 2010. The interest rate was EURIBOR 3 months plus 1,5 %. The repayment was supposed to start in 2009. On 29 December 2005, [another private creditor] converted interest rates into a loan amounting to approx. EUR 1 532 500 with a loan period until the end of 2010. The interest rate was 3 months EURIBOR plus 2 %. The repayment was supposed to start in 2009.\n3.1.8. Write-off of debts in the financial statements of 2006 (measure 9)\n(47)\nBy a decision of 5 February 2007, the Mikkeli City Board agreed on the write-off from the 2006 accounts of a receivable from Karjaportti amounting to EUR 274 023. The writing-off of the debt in the accounts had no effect on the legal relationship between the creditor and the debtor, and consequently, the City of Mikkeli continued to pursue the collection of the debts.\n3.1.9. Write-off of debts in the financial statements of 2008 (measure 10)\n(48)\nThe City of Mikkeli made a write-off for an uncertain receivable from Karjaportti amounting to EUR 5,7 million in its financial statements of 2008. The writing-off of the debt in the accounts had no effect on the legal relationship between the creditor and the debtor, and consequently, the City of Mikkeli continued to pursue the collection of the debts.\n3.1.10. Non-implemented guarantee that had been planned for 2009 (measure 11)\n(49)\nThe City Council of Mikkeli decided on 8 December 2008 to provide an absolute guarantee amounting to EUR 2,75 million to cover a future loan by Tapiola to Karjaportti. The City Council entitled the City Board to decide on the detailed conditions relating to the absolute guarantee, that is to implement the guarantee. According to the notification the loan should have amounted to EUR 5 819 807 at an interest rate of 3,65 %. As remuneration for the guarantee the notified measure foresees a one time fee of 4 % and the guarantee will be granted for 10 years (27).\n(50)\nThe decision of the City Council of Mikkeli did not become final, as a complaint was made at the administrative court of Kuopio (Kuopion Hallinto-Oikeus). Following this complaint, the court ordered the City of Mikkeli to halt the implementation of the guarantee and to seek approval of the aid by the Commission.\n(51)\nAs the decision of the City Council of Mikkeli to provide the guarantee did not become final, Tapiola refrained from granting the loan to Karjaportti. Lastly, Finland withdrew the notification of the guarantee in March 2010, as Karjaportti withdrew its application for the guarantee and the City Board decided on 22 February 2010 not to implement the decision of the City Council.\n3.1.11. Rescheduling of debts since 2009 (measure 12)\n(52)\nDeferral of the repayment of secured debts: According to the restructuring programme approved by the court, Karjaportti was supposed to reimburse EUR [\u2026] in 2009 and EUR [\u2026] in 2010 of the outstanding amount of the secured debts (see Table VI). According to the notification, the reimbursement of these amounts should have been postponed, the latest until 1 July 2015.\n(53)\nDeferral of the repayment of the loan granted in 2005 (conversion of unpaid interest rates): Karjaportti was supposed to reimburse EUR 140 991 in 2009 and the same amount in 2010 of the outstanding amount of the interests converted into a loan (see recital 40). According to the notification the reimbursement of these amounts should have been postponed to the years 2011 to 2013 (28).\n(54)\nThe administrative court of Kuopio (Kuopion Hallinto-Oikeus) prohibited the implementation of the City Council's decision concerning the debt rescheduling on 4 February 2009. It seems, however, that a rescheduling of debts nevertheless took place. Starting from May 2009, Karjaportti on a regular basis made proposals to the City of Mikkeli and its other creditors to postpone payments of due debts in order to safeguard the continued operation of the cooperative (29). These proposals were approved by the City Board of Mikkeli.\n3.2. Measures granted by Finnvera\n(55)\nAccording to the information submitted by Finland, Finnvera granted several loans and guarantees to Karjaportti in the years 2004 to 2008.\n(56)\nFinnvera is a specialised financing company owned by Finland and it is the official Export Credit Agency of Finland. Finnvera's operations are steered by the industrial and ownership policy goals laid down by the state. These goals include: increasing the number of starting enterprises; enabling financing for changes encountered by SMEs; and promotion of enterprise growth, internationalisation and exports. In its operations, Finnvera is expected to adhere to the principle of economic self-sustainability. Finland, however, covers part of Finnvera\u2019s credit and guarantee losses; the State is directly responsible for the domestic guarantees and export credit guarantees granted by Finnvera and the State grants guarantees for Finnvera\u2019s own acquisition of funds. These state measures in relation to Finnvera do not fall within the scope of this decision; the Commission reserves the right to assess them at a later stage. Finnvera is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act 434/2003.\n(57)\nConcerning Finnvera's corporate governance, the Supervisory Board, which supervises the company\u2019s administration by the Board of Directors and the Managing Director, represents the owner of the company, which is in Finnvera's case the State. The Supervisory Board members are selected from the parliamentary groups of political parties on the basis of their representation in the Finnish Parliament. In addition, Finnvera\u2019s Supervisory Board includes representatives of organisations in line with the company\u2019s industrial policy goals. The Board of Directors, which has 6-9 members and 2 deputy members, confirms the company\u2019s strategy, approves the financial statements and the interim report, advances the company\u2019s development and ensures that the operations are conform to law and meet the goals set by the owner. Four of the Board members and the two deputy members are elected among candidates named by various ministries. The Managing Director is responsible for the company's administration.\n(58)\nFinnvera is exempted from paying income tax since 25 September 2007. The Commission has approved this exemption. The approval decision is based on the fact that Finnish authorities have given a commitment that Finnvera will limit its activities to the administration of state aid schemes (30).\n3.2.1. Guarantee granted on 17 March 2004 (measure 13)\n(59)\nOn 17 March 2004, Finnvera granted a 100 % guarantee for a loan amounting to EUR 91 000 with a guarantee fee of 3 % per year. The loan, which had a duration of 3 years, was granted by Tapiola at a fixed interest rate of [2-5] % per year. The loan and the guarantee respectively were given to replace a loan granted by Tapiola in 1992.\n3.2.2. Loan granted on 12 January 2006 (measure 14)\n(60)\nOn 12 January 2006, Finnvera granted a loan amounting to EUR 180 000 at an interest rate of EURIBOR 6 months + 2 % per year. The loan relates to interest accrued during the restructuring process between 2 December 2004 and 28 February 2008, which was converted into a new credit facility. The loan was collateralised by mortgages in properties located in Tikkala, Lappeenranta and Kouvola, and shares in [\u2026]. The duration of the loan was until the end of 2010 and repayment should have started in 2009. On 23 November 2011, EUR [\u2026] of the capital was still outstanding. Private creditors [\u2026] and [\u2026] converted the interest rates at the same time into loans.\n(61)\nOn 28 December 2005, [a private creditor] converted interest rates into a loan amounting to approximately EUR 1 623 000 with a loan period until the end of 2010. The interest rate is EURIBOR 3 months plus 1,5 %. The repayment was supposed to start in 2009.\n(62)\nOn 29 December 2005, [another private creditor] converted interest rates into a loan amounting to approx. EUR 1 532 500 with a loan period until the end of 2010. The interest rate was 3 months EURIBOR plus 2 %. The repayment was supposed to start in 2009.\n3.2.3. Guarantee granted on 14 September 2006 (measure 15)\n(63)\nOn 14 September 2006, Finnvera granted a counter-guarantee to [\u2026] amounting to EUR 300 000 with a guarantee fee of 1,65 % per year paid by Karjaportti. [\u2026] in turn granted a guarantee to Karjaportti for the same amount at an interest rate of 1,25 %. This guarantee and the counter-guarantee covered 16,7 % of EUR 1,8 million relating to a subcontracting agreement between [\u2026] and Karjaportti. The duration of Finnvera's guarantee was 8 months. The remainder of the subcontracting agreement was covered by guarantees from [\u2026] and [\u2026] (EUR 825 000 and EUR 675 000 respectively) who charged a guarantee fee of 1,75 %. Finnvera was not involved in the grant of these guarantees, that is to say they were not counter-guaranteed. Finnvera's counter-guarantee expired on 30 June 2007 without having been invoked. Accordingly, no payment obligations were incurred by Finnvera on the basis of this guarantee.\n3.2.4. Loan granted on 6 July 2007 (measure 16)\n(64)\nOn 6 July 2007, Finnvera granted a loan amounting to EUR 250 000 at an interest rate of EURIBOR 6 months + 2,5 % per year. The loan had a duration of six months and should have been reimbursed by 15 January 2008. So far, only part of the loan was reimbursed (outstanding amount on 23 November 2011: [\u2026]).\n(65)\nAt the same time, private creditors, [\u2026] and [\u2026], granted loans amounting to EUR 800 000 and EUR 650 000 respectively, also for a duration of six months. The interest rate for those loans was 1 month EURIBOR plus 2 %. The reimbursement of their loans has also been delayed (outstanding amounts on 23 November 2011: EUR [\u2026] and EUR [\u2026]).\n(66)\nFor those two loans and the loan granted by Finnvera, Karjaportti provided the following collateral: a business mortgage with a registered value of EUR 1 850 067; shares in the company [\u2026]; and a bank account. These collaterals were divided between Finnvera, [\u2026] and [\u2026] according to their risk in relation to the loans. In fact, the three creditors had the same ranking and divided the collateral by way of a share of percentages (Finnvera: [0-30] %; [the first private creditor]: [10-50] %; [the second private creditor]: [10-50] %).\n3.2.5. Guarantee granted on 9 January 2008 (measure 17)\n(67)\nOn 9 January 2008, Finnvera granted a counter-guarantee to [\u2026] amounting to EUR 280 000 with a guarantee fee of 2,5 % per year paid by Karjaportti. The counter-guarantee covered 80 % of a guarantee provided by [\u2026] to Karjaportti on 11 January 2008 amounting to EUR 350 000 relating to a subcontracting agreement between [\u2026] and [\u2026]. [\u2026]charged a guarantee fee of [0-3] %. Finnvera had access to a collateral in the form of a shareholding of Karjaportti in [\u2026]. According to an estimate undertaken by Finnvera, dated 8 January 2008, at the time of the grant of the counter-guarantee these shares had a security value for Finnvera of EUR [\u2026]. The counter-guarantee expired on 28 February 2011, and no payments were made under it.\n4. GROUNDS FOR OPENING THE PROCEDURE\n(68)\nAs described in recitals 2, 3 and 6 the Commission decided on 8 April 2009 to open a formal investigation procedure (hereinafter \u2027the first opening decision\u2027). This formal investigation procedure was extended to several additional measures on 15 December 2009 (hereinafter \u2027the second opening decision\u2027).\n4.1. Measures granted by the City of Mikkeli\n4.1.1. Guarantee granted on 12 June 2000 (measure 1)\n(69)\nIn its first opening decision, the Commission doubted that the measure in question would be in conformity with the private market economy investor principle. First, in accordance with Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (31) (\u2027the Guarantee Notice 2000\u2027) that was in force at the time when the measure was granted, the measure may constitute state aid since the guarantee covered 100 % of the loan in question. This conclusion would not be changed by the Guarantee Notice 2008 currently in force (32). Moreover, granting the guarantee without a commission fee, that is in effect taking on a financial risk without any quid-pro-quo, cannot be described as the behaviour of a market operator.\n(70)\nAs regards compatibility, the Commission had doubts that the guarantee could qualify for an exception under Article 107(3) of the TFEU; according to a preliminary assessment the conditions of Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (33) (\u2027the R&R Guidelines 1999\u2027) seemed not to have been met.\n4.1.2. Assignment of land (measure 2)\n(71)\nIn the second opening decision, the Commission expressed doubts that the sale was undertaken in accordance with the market economy investor principle, as the requirements of the Commission Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (34) were not met. It was considered that no market price was paid, as the land was assigned to Karjaportti without consideration. In addition, Karjaportti did not have to bear the costs of levelling the site.\n4.1.3. Purchase of land (measure 3)\n(72)\nIn the second opening decision, the Commission expressed doubts that the terms and conditions of the purchase complied with the market economy investor principle, as Finland did not provide evidence that the purchase of the properties was done under market conditions, such as an evaluation of the properties by an independent expert.\n4.1.4. Guarantee granted on 8 March 2004 (measure 4)\n(73)\nIn the second opening decision, the Commission doubted that the measure in question would be in conformity with the private market economy investor principle. First, in accordance with the Guarantee Notice 2000 that was in force at the time of the granting, the measure may constitute state aid since the guarantee covered 100 % of the loan in question. This conclusion would not be changed by the Guarantee Notice 2008 currently in force. Moreover, granting the guarantee without a commission fee, that is in effect taking on a financial risk without any quid-pro-quo, cannot be described as the behaviour of a market operator, in particular in a situation where the company already was in difficulties.\n(74)\nAs regards the compatibility of the measure, the Commission was not provided sufficient information that would allow it to determine whether the requirements set out in the R&R Guidelines 1999 were met.\n4.1.5. Guarantee granted on 10 May 2004 (measure 5)\n(75)\nThe Commission had similar doubts as for the guarantee granted on 8 March 2004.\n4.1.6. Agreement to the court supervised restructuring proceedings (measure 6)\n(76)\nIn the first opening decision, the Commission doubted that the measures taken during restructuring would be in conformity with the private market economy investor principle.\n(77)\nFirst, the City of Mikkeli agreed to reducing the interest rates for the secured debts with the effect that the interest rates charged were far below the reference rate for Finland at that time. Since the reference rate is considered to be the market rate for healthy companies, and since Karjaportti was in difficulties at the time, the Commission found it unlikely that a private creditor would have granted the loans at such a low interest rate.\n(78)\nAs regards the compatibility of the measures, the Commission at the time of the opening only had limited knowledge of the restructuring measures taken by Karjaportti since 2004. It was considered that the continuous restructuring had not been successful as the tax authorities filed for bankruptcy proceedings concerning Karjaportti in December 2008. Thus, the Commission had doubts that the long-term viability of the company could be achieved through the restructuring measures undertaken. As regards the other criteria for restructuring aid according to the R&R Guidelines 2004 (35), the Commission could not, in the absence of a notification and a restructuring plan, evaluate whether the other requirements of the R&R Guidelines 2004 were met.\n4.1.7. Purchase of shares from Karjaportti (measure 7)\n(79)\nIn the second opening decision, the Commission doubted that the measure in question was in conformity with the private market economy investor principle, as Finland did not provide the evidence that the purchase of the shares was done under market conditions.\n4.1.8. Conversion of unpaid interest rates into loans (measure 8)\n(80)\nAs regards the conversion of the unpaid interest rates into a loan, the City of Mikkeli agreed to charge a very low interest rate for the loan. In fact, private creditors converting their unpaid interest rates negotiated higher interest rates, which led the Commission to question whether such an approach could have been in line with the market economy investor principle.\n4.1.9. Write-off of debts in the financial statements in 2006 and 2008 (measure 9 and measure 10)\n(81)\nIn the second opening decision, the Commission considered that if the write-off of debts in the financial statements in 2006 and 2008 also included the legal obligation ceasing to exist, the write-off would confer an advantage to Karjaportti. In the Commission's view it was questionable whether a private market investor would have acted in the same way.\n4.1.10. Non-implemented guarantee that had been planned for 2009 (measure 11)\n(82)\nIn the first opening decision, the Commission doubted that the City of Mikkeli would act like a private market investor when granting the guarantee and considered preliminarily that the guarantee entailed state aid. As regards compatibility, the Commission had doubts whether the guarantee would comply with the R&R Guidelines 2004, as the \"one time, last time principle\" seemed not to have been met. In addition, the guarantee fee and the interest rate for the loan were too low in order to satisfy point 25(a) of the Guidelines and the guarantee was not in line with point 25(c) of the Guidelines, as it was not limited to six months.\n4.1.11. Rescheduling of debts since 2009 (measure 12)\n(83)\nIn the first opening decision, the Commission doubted that the City of Mikkeli acted like a private market creditor when agreeing to the rescheduling of debts and considered preliminarily that the measure entailed state aid. As regards compatibility, the Commission had doubts whether the debt rescheduling would comply with the R&R Guidelines 2004, as the \"one time, last time principle\" seemed not to have been met. In addition, the debt rescheduling did not meet the requirements for rescue aid. It was not limited to six months and was hence not in line with point 25(c) of the Guidelines.\n4.2. Measures granted by Finnvera (measures 13-17)\n(84)\nIn the second opening decision, the Commission considered that the measures were granted through state resources and were imputable to the State, as Finland owns 100 % of Finnvera. Concerning the loans, the Commission had doubts that the interest rate charged exceeded the relevant reference rates. In addition, it did not have sufficient information to assess whether the measures were granted together and at equal conditions with private investors. Concerning the guarantees, the Commission had doubts that they were granted under existing schemes, as guarantees granted to a large company in difficulty would not fall under such schemes. If the measures were granted outside an existing aid scheme, the Commission doubted that they would comply with the market economy investor principle.\n5. COMMENTS FROM FINLAND\n5.1. Measures granted by the City of Mikkeli\n5.1.1. Guarantee granted on 12 June 2000 (measure 1)\n(85)\nFinland argues that the guarantee should not be considered state aid, as Karjaportti would probably have been able to acquire such a guarantee from private capital markets. Finland refers to the fact that Tapiola granted the loan that was secured by the guarantee in question as part of a financing package of EUR 25 million for the investments in the Tikkala production site. Other parties contributed to the financing. State support for the investment consisted of the assignment of land and bearing the costs for the levelling of the site by the City of Mikkeli (see recitals 89 and 90), loans and guarantees granted by Finnvera as well as direct grants granted by the Ministry of Trade and Industry.\n(86)\nIn addition, Finland claims that the City of Mikkeli was treating all companies applying for guarantees on an equal basis.\n(87)\nIf the measure was to be considered as state aid, Finland is of the opinion that such aid would have been compatible with the internal market as it was granted in accordance with Guidelines on national regional aid (36) (\u2027the RAG 1998\u2027). Large companies were eligible for regional aid measures under Article 107(3)(a) of the TFEU if they did not exceed the amount of 24 % of the eligible net costs. These conditions were met. In particular, Finland provided a calculation according to which the gross grant equivalent would still remain under 24 % when taking into account all the state support for the investment.\n5.1.2. Assignment of land (measure 2)\n(88)\nFinland claims that the current book value of the plot is not a comparable indicator for the determination of the value of the plot at the time of the transfer. The City of Mikkeli estimates the market value of the land at the time of the assignment at EUR 300 000. According to Finland the costs of levelling the site amounted to FIM 2 million (EUR 336 376).\n(89)\nFinland considers that the transfer of the plot of land and bearing the costs for levelling of the site has been in line with the RAG 1998 (see recital 87).\n5.1.3. Purchase of land (measure 3)\n(90)\nAccording to Finland, the purchase of the properties in the year 2002 related to the construction project of the Tikkala production facility for which Karjaportti needed funding. Finland claims that the properties were bought at a market price. The evaluation took into account that the properties were purchased in order to turn them into predominantly residential use through an alteration of plans, while part of the area was still in business use. In addition, the properties were subject to mortgages given to private creditors and alone one of the six properties had a total mortgage of approximately EUR 9,6 million, which confirms that the value of the properties was higher than the purchase price. Hence, the City of Mikkeli respected the market economy investor principle and the purchase did not include state aid.\n5.1.4. Guarantee granted on 8 March 2004 (measure 4)\n(91)\nFinland states that the guaranteed loan was granted to offset an old pension loan that was granted in 1992. At that time, the City of Mikkeli, together with Finnvera and [\u2026], guaranteed for the pension loan. As a counter-security, the City of Mikkeli received a mortgage with the value of FIM 7,5 million (EUR 1 261 409) on a property of Karjaportti. When issuing the guarantee on 8 March 2004, the City of Mikkeli retained this security.\n(92)\nFinland argues that the original guarantee was granted before Finland's accession to the EU. When the City of Mikkeli granted the new guarantee on 8 March 2004, no new aid was granted, as the existing original guarantee was converted into a new guarantee while retaining sufficient counter-securities. In addition, at the same time, also other guarantors of the original pension loan of 1992 granted loans to Karjaportti.\n(93)\nFinally, Finland disputes that Karjaportti was in difficulty within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 1999 in spring 2004. According to Finland, the market projections were satisfactory in the first half of 2004 and Karjaportti had budgeted a profit of EUR 3 million for 2004. In addition, Karjaportti was able to get loans from private lenders at relatively low interest rates during spring and summer 2004. Finally, in December 2004, Karjaportti was considered a viable undertaking when its creditors approved the restructuring despite its prolonged financial difficulties. Otherwise, Karjaportti would have been declared bankrupt.\n5.1.5. Guarantee granted on 10 May 2004 (measure 5)\n(94)\nFinland considers the guarantee as a continuum of funding provided for the investment in the Tikkala production facility in the year 2000 by the City of Mikkeli. The guarantee was granted to complete the original investment plan initiated in 2000. At the time the guarantee was granted, Karjaportti was not in difficulty within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 1999, as already brought forward for the guarantee granted in March 2004 (see recital 93).\n(95)\nAccording to Finland, if the guarantee involved state aid, it was compatible as it was in line with the RAG 1998. Large companies were eligible for regional aid measures under Article 107(3)(a) of the TFEU if they did not exceed the amount of 24 % of the eligible net costs. These conditions were met, as the aid element of the guarantee was only EUR 57 835 whereas the overall investments of Karjaportti in Tikkala amounted to EUR [\u2026].\n5.1.6. Court supervised restructuring proceedings (measure 6)\n(96)\nFinland argues that the measures taken were all related to the commencement of the court-supervised restructuring proceeding. In accordance with the Court of Justice case-law, legislation on court-supervised recovery schemes and insolvency does not in itself justify treating that legislation as aid (37).\n(97)\nSecond, no new loans were granted during the proceedings, but payment of debts granted prior to the restructuring was rescheduled in conformity with the national legislation on restructuring of enterprises, treating the creditors on an equal basis. In addition to the City of Mikkeli's receivables, receivables of private players were also rearranged during the proceedings. The creditors of Karjaportti were divided into several groups. The receivables of each group of creditors were subject to mutually equal and similar terms. Finland points out that this is in particular true as regards the secured debts of the City of Mikkeli. Hence, it seems that the City of Mikkeli has acted like a private market economy investor when agreeing to the court-supervised restructuring proceedings.\n(98)\nIn addition, Finland points out that the City of Mikkeli had deemed it more profitable to reschedule the debts than to allow Karjaportti to go bankrupt and to close down permanently, which is also showed in a liquidation balance sheet attached to the restructuring programme.\n(99)\nAs regards the compatibility of the measures under the R&R Guidelines 1999, Finland argues that a company subject to restructuring proceedings should generally be deemed as firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines. It then repeats that the restructuring proceeding did not involve state aid and that the City of Mikkeli did not carry out support measures during the restructuring proceedings.\n(100)\nThen Finland brings forward arguments relating to each of the measures granted: As regards the triggering of City of Mikkeli's guarantee for the loan granted in 2000, Finland argues that Mikkeli did not grant any new loans to Karjaportti, but simply stepped in as a creditor on the demand of Tapiola at the beginning of the court-supervised restructuring proceedings, which was an ordinary measure under such restructuring proceedings. As regards the terms and conditions of the repayment of the loan, Finland points out that they had been specified in the restructuring programme and were equal for all creditors within the same group of creditors.\n(101)\nAs regards the unpaid charges, Finland clarifies that the receivables are owed to the City property administration, the water management department and the waste management department of the City. The receivables consist of unpaid charges that had arisen prior to the commencement of the court-supervised restructuring proceeding. No guarantee was granted for those outstanding amounts by the City of Mikkeli, as they were receivables due to the City. Hence, when the court-supervised restructuring proceedings started, they were entered into the restructuring programme as one sum.\n5.1.7. Purchase of shares from Karjaportti (measure 7)\n(102)\nFinland claims that the shares of the real estate company Kiinteist\u00f6 Oy Suksim\u00e4ki were purchased at a market price from Karjaportti. Finland submitted an independent valuer\u2019s statement according to which the value of the shares amounted to approximately EUR 1 million based on the prevailing rent level. This value was adjusted as regards the actual prevailing rent level and the shares were accordingly bought at a price of EUR 860 000. Hence, the property transaction did not include any aid element.\n5.1.8. Conversion of unpaid interest rates into loans (measure 8)\n(103)\nConcerning the conversion of the unpaid interest into a loan, Finland firstly argues that the non-payment of interest rates is a typical measure to court-supervised restructuring proceedings. The conversion of such unpaid interest into loans, which will be better ranked than other loans, is foreseen by Finnish legislation. In addition, Finland considers that the conversion of the unpaid interest into a loan was taken in accordance with the private market investor principle, as private creditors converted unpaid interest receivables into loans together with the City of Mikkeli.\n5.1.9. Write-off of debts in the financial statements of 2006 and 2008 (measure 9 and measure 10)\n(104)\nFinland confirms that recording the debts as a loss is simply a bookkeeping operation on the creditor's part, done in accordance with the principle of prudence and the respective provisions in the Accounting Act 1336/1997. Finland argues that the debt write-off does not affect the legal relationship between the creditor and the debtor, i.e. the debts were not waived. The City of Mikkeli has confirmed that it has not waived the debts recorded as losses and that it continues to pursue collection. The debt is part of the secured debt under the court-supervised restructuring proceedings.\n5.1.10. Non-implemented guarantee that had been planned for 2009 (measure 11)\n(105)\nBefore the notification of the guarantee was withdrawn in March 2010, Finland argued that the guarantee was compatible according to the R&R Guidelines 2004. In light of the withdrawal of the notification, Finland's arguments are not presented in more detail.\n5.1.11. Rescheduling of debts since 2009 (measure 12)\n(106)\nFinland argues that rescheduling of debts is a measure inherent to court-supervised restructuring proceedings and does not involve state aid. According to Finland, the creditors of Karjaportti had a mutual understanding that the rescheduling of debts was a reasonable alternative in order to safeguard their receivables. It informs the Commission that the notified rescheduling was never implemented, as the administrative court of Kuopio (Kuopion Hallinto-Oikeus) halted the implementation of the debt rescheduling. Finland explains that Karjaportti's debts were nevertheless rescheduled, following several proposals by Karjaportti in the period 2009-2011, which were accepted by the City of Mikkeli. Finland claims that this subsequent rescheduling was in line with the market economy investor principle, as the City of Mikkeli and all other creditors implemented the rescheduling at equal terms.\n5.2. Measures granted by Finnvera\n5.2.1. Guarantee granted on 17 March 2004 (measure 13)\n(107)\nFinland considers that the guarantee was granted in line with the Guarantee Notice 2000. In any event, the guarantee did not involve state aid. First, Finnvera's risk was not increased, as the guarantee replaced a guarantee that Finnvera granted earlier (in 1992) for a pension loan. This loan was replaced by a new pension loan in 2004, for which Finnvera granted the guarantee in question. In addition, two private creditors granted credit facilities to Karjaportti at the same time in order to allow for funding the postponement of the 2004 payments. Furthermore, the guarantee was subject to a high fee and the aid element of the guarantee was below the de-minimis threshold. Finally, the forecasts for Karjaportti were good at the time the guarantee was granted.\n5.2.2. Loan granted on 12 January 2006 (measure 14)\n(108)\nFinland considers that the loan granted in 2006 did not involve state aid as Finnvera acted like a private market creditor when converting the unpaid interest into a new loan in line with the restructuring programme. In addition, private creditors converted their unpaid interest into new loans shortly before Finnvera did so and at similar conditions.\n5.2.3. Guarantee granted on 14 September 2006 (measure 15)\n(109)\nFinland considers that the guarantee was granted in line with the Guarantee Notice 2000. In any event, the guarantee does not involve state aid as it only covers 16,7 % of EUR 1,8 million and private creditors were covering the remainder of this amount by way of guarantees.\n5.2.4. Loan granted on 6 July 2007 (measure 16)\n(110)\nFinland considers that the loan granted in 2007 did not involve state aid as Finnvera acted together with two private creditors who granted new loans at the same time and at similar conditions. In addition, the loan was collateralised by way of valuable mortgages and business mortgages.\n5.2.5. Guarantee granted on 9 January 2008 (measure 17)\n(111)\nFinland considers that the counter-guarantee was granted in accordance with the Guarantee Notice 2000. In any event, it does not involve state aid as the other party involved was a private lender and the guarantee fee imposed by Finnvera was considerably higher than the guarantee fee imposed by the private lender.\n6. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(112)\nThe interested party only commented on measures 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10.\n6.1.1. Guarantee granted on 12 June 2000 (measure 1)\n(113)\nThe interested party states that the guarantee was granted in order to secure a loan of FIM 25 million for the investment in a new production site.\n6.1.2. Assignment of land (measure 2)\n(114)\nThe interested party claims that a plot of land was allocated to Karjaportti and the City of Mikkeli undertook to provide municipal engineering and other requisite technical work, with costs totalling FIM 2,5 million. Karjaportti paid FIM 1,2 million for the plot. In the books of Karjaportti, the plot is valued EUR 403 000 and the interested party wonders whether the allocation of the land could have been state aid.\n6.1.3. Purchase of land (measure 3)\n(115)\nThe interested party alleges that the City of Mikkeli bought six abandoned factory buildings in Mikkeli and paid a total of EUR 6,7 million for them. An investor acting in accordance with the market economy investor principle would not have bought properties of a company in deep financial troubles at such a price.\n6.1.4. Guarantee granted on 10 May 2004 (measure 5)\n(116)\nThe interested party alleges that Karjaportti was in grave difficulties at the time the guarantee was granted. The company had substantial debts already towards the City of Mikkeli and the group companies owned by the City of Mikkeli.\n6.1.5. Purchase of shares from Karjaportti (measure 7)\n(117)\nThe interested party alleges that the price paid for the shares in the real estate company was above the book value of the shares.\n6.1.6. Write-off of debts in the financial statements of 2006 and 2008 (measure 9 and measure 10)\n(118)\nThe interested party submitted a copy of minutes of the meeting of the Mikkeli City Board dated 5 February 2007, in which the debt-write off in the financial statements of 2006 was decided. In addition, the interested party points out that it was at least unusual that the City of Mikkeli wrote off millions of euros of Karjaportti's debts in its 2008 financial statements, and questions in particular why the City of Mikkeli was at the same time prepared to grant further guarantees to Karjaportti.\n7. ASSESSMENT\n(119)\nArticle 107(1) of the TFEU lays down that any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever, which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods and affects trade between Member States is incompatible with the internal market.\n(120)\nThe conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are cumulative and thus for a measure to be qualified as state aid all the conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously.\n(121)\nWhereas Article 107(1) of the TFEU provides for the general prohibition of state aid within the Union, Articles 107(2) and 107(3) of the TFEU provide for exemptions to the general rule that such aid is incompatible with the internal market as stated in Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n(122)\nIn the following sections, the Commission assesses the existence of state aid separately for each of the measures described. If a measure entails state aid, the Commission goes on to assess the compatibility of the aid measure. The Commission distinguishes between measures withdrawn, measures that were granted by the City of Mikkeli and measures that were granted by Finnvera. As a preliminary point, it is assessed at what point in time Karjaportti could be considered a company in difficulty.\n7.1. Company in difficulty\n(123)\nFor both, the existence of state aid and the compatibility of the measures in question it is relevant whether the beneficiary was in difficulty at the time when the measures were granted. The question whether Karjaportti can be considered a company in difficulty has to be assessed under the R&R Guidelines 1999 until 9 October 2004, the date of expiry of the R&R Guidelines 1999 (38). As from 10 October 2004, the R&R Guidelines 2004 are applicable (39).\n(124)\nAccording to the R&R Guidelines 1999, a company can be considered as being in difficulty when it meets the so called hard criteria laid down in Point 5 of those Guidelines, that is when it lost more than half of its registered capital or could be subject to collective insolvency proceedings under national law. If the hard criteria are not met, a company can still show the \"usual signs of a firm being in difficulty\" according to point 6 of the R&R Guidelines 1999, such as increasing losses, diminishing turnover, growing stock inventories, excess capacity, declining cash flow, mounting debt, rising interest charges and falling or nil net asset value (so-called soft criteria). The R&R Guidelines 2004 include similar hard and soft criteria in Points 10 and 11.\n(125)\nAgainst this background, the Commission notes that in the year 2000, Karjaportti has not lost capital nor has it shown the \"usual signs\" of a firm being in difficulty in the year 2000. In fact it seems that Karjaportti was a healthy company which recorded a high turnover, a positive operating result, stable share capital and reserves at relatively high levels for the period between 2000 and 2002 (see also Table I).\n(126)\nThe situation looked gloomier in the following years. Turnover was decreasing and losses had significantly increased from 2003 to 2004. Debt was mounting and already at the beginning of 2004, the beneficiary started rescheduling of debts and had to ask the creditors for deferral of due payments (40). It also seems that Karjaportti had some excess capacities. In addition, it has to be taken into account that already in 2004, Karjaportti's losses were not covered by the contingency fund anymore (see Table I).\n(127)\nAccording to Karjaportti's financial statements, the share capital of Karjaportti almost disappeared in 2004, as it dramatically fell to less than a tenth of its value compared to the year 2003. Since then the company recorded negative equity that tended to increase over the last years. With the exception of the year 2006, Karjaportti has since 2003 been loss making. The profit made in 2006 cannot be perceived as a sign of recovery of the company as it did not stem from the core activity of the company. Karjaportti's operational profit remained negative, similarly to the preceding and the following years. The profit in 2006 was not sufficient to offset the amount of deficit accumulated over past accounting periods nor to compensate for the negative equity. Overall the financial situation of Karjaportti remained considerably unfavourable. In 2008, Karjaportti was twice put into bankruptcy proceedings by the tax authorities.\n(128)\nIn light of the facts presented in recitals 125-127, it can be concluded that Karjaportti qualifies as a firm in difficulty under Point 5 of the R&R Guidelines 1999 and under Point 11 of the R&R Guidelines 2004 respectively since the beginning of 2004. In 2008, when Karjaportti was subject to bankruptcy proceedings, it also qualified as a firm in difficulty under Point 10(c) of the R&R Guidelines 2004.\n7.2. Measures withdrawn\n7.2.1. Non-implemented guarantee that had been planned for 2009 (measure 11)\n(129)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the Treaty (41) (\u2027the Procedural Regulation\u2027), a Member State can withdraw the notification after the opening of the formal investigation procedure in due time before the Commission has taken a decision on the aid character of the notified measure. In such case, the Commission will decide to close that procedure on the ground that it is without object.\n(130)\nAs the decision of the City Council of Mikkeli to provide a guarantee to Karjaportti did not become final and the City Board decided in February 2010 not to implement the guarantee, Finland withdrew the notification of the guarantee in March 2010. Thus, as regards the guarantee, the investigation became without object.\n7.3. Measures granted by the City of Mikkeli\n7.3.1. Guarantee granted on 12 June 2000 (measure 1) and assignment of land (measure 2)\n(131)\nGuarantee (measure 1): As described in recitals (14)-(16), the City of Mikkeli gave the guarantee in June 2000 and made payments under the guarantee in December 2004. After the City of Mikkeli had become creditor of Karjaportti, the conditions for the loan were changed within the court-supervised restructuring proceedings (for details see recitals 34-39).\n(132)\nAccordingly, several steps have to be distinguished. Whereas the aid is granted at the moment when a state guarantee is given, any payments by the state according to the terms of the guarantee are not to be considered as granting of state aid (42). On the other hand, the change of the conditions of the loan after the state guarantor has become creditor could entail state aid. In the following, it is examined whether the guarantee given in June 2000 constitutes state aid. The question whether the changes in the conditions of the loan could entail state aid is assessed as part of measure 6 (see recitals 188-195).\n(133)\nThe guarantee was given by the City of Mikkeli and accordingly consists of state resources and is imputable to the state.\n(134)\nTo involve state aid, within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, a measure must confer an advantage that an undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions. In order to carry out that assessment, the Commission will rely on the Guarantee Notice 2000. At the time when the measure was granted, the Guarantee Notice 2000 was in force. However, as the case-law of the Court clearly indicates, \"the question whether aid is State aid within the meaning of the Treaty must be determined on the basis of objective elements, which must be appraised on the date on which the Commission takes its decision\" (43). Accordingly, for the assessment in hand, the Commission will rely on the Guarantee Notice 2008.\n(135)\nAccording to point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008, the existence of state aid within an individual state guarantee can be ruled out if four cumulative requirements are fulfilled: \"(a) The borrower is not in financial difficulty [\u2026], (b) The extent of the guarantee can be properly measured when it is granted, [\u2026] (c) The guarantee does not cover more than 80 % of the outstanding loan or other financial obligation [\u2026], (d) A market-oriented price is paid for the guarantee [\u2026].\"\n(136)\nIn the case at hand, the borrower has not been in financial difficulties at the time of granting (see recitals 123-128). However, the guarantee under assessment covers 100 % of the loan.\n(137)\nIn addition, the guarantee was granted without any guarantee fee, even though the granting authority itself considered that a great risk was entailed (44). Whereas Finland argues that Karjaportti could have obtained a similar guarantee on the market, the Commission is of the opinion that a guarantee premium of zero cannot be considered as close to the market premium applicable at the time of granting. The guarantee covered 100 % of the loan in question, that is to say that the granting authority bore the risk of default of the beneficiary alone and the guarantee was granted as an absolute guarantee, i.e. the guarantor was liable for the principal debt as if it were the guarantor's own and the creditor could ask for the repayment of principal debt from the guarantor when the principal debt had become due.\n(138)\nAccordingly, in the case at hand, contrary to the view of Finland, the Commission is of the opinion that the measure cannot be considered free of aid.\n(139)\nFinland's argument that the measure was granted together with other parties can be rejected, as according to the information provided by Finland the other parties taking part in the investment were also state owned. Accordingly, it is considered that the measure confers an advantage to Karjaportti.\n(140)\nTo be considered state aid, a measure must be specific or selective in that it favours only certain undertakings or the production of certain goods. The measure under assessment was granted to Karjaportti, one specific company. Therefore, the Commission considers that the measure taken constitutes a selective advantage to the beneficiary.\n(141)\nFinally, the Commission has to consider whether the measure taken by the City of Mikkeli in favour of Karjaportti is likely to distort competition and affect trade between Member States, by providing this company with an advantage over (potential) competitors not receiving public support. There is trade in meat products between Member States, the area in which the beneficiary operates. According to Finland, Karjaportti exports its products mainly to Russia, but also to Member States. Therefore, the Commission considers that the measure taken is likely to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.\n(142)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the measure constitutes state aid.\n(143)\nAssignment of land (measure 2): Finland does not deny that the measure could constitute state aid. The beneficiary was clearly granted an advantage, as it did not have to pay anything for the assignment of the land. In addition, the City of Mikkeli reimbursed the beneficiary the costs for the levelling of the site. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the measure confers an advantage to Karjaportti that it would not have received on the market.\n(144)\nIn addition, the measure meets all other requirements for the existence of state aid. As described in detail in recitals 133, 140 and 141, also the assignment of land consists of state resources and is imputable to the state, is selective, and it distorts competition and affects trade among the Member States.\n(145)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the measure constitutes state aid.\n(146)\nFinland argues that the guarantee, together with the assignment of land for building the production site in Tikkala, is compatible as regional aid. At the time when measures 1 and 2 were granted, that is in the year 2000, the RAG 1998 were in force (45). The measures under consideration were not granted under a scheme, but as an individual ad hoc payment. As they were granted in a sector to which the RAG 1998 are applicable, the measures fall in principle within the scope of the RAG 1998. At the time of granting, the beneficiary was not in difficulty, as described in recitals 123-128 above, and it was located in It\u00e4-Suomen, a region eligible for regional aid under Article 107(3)(a) of the TFEU. Therefore, the Commission has assessed the project under the RAG 1998. This assessment has led to the following observations:\n(147)\nAccording to Section 2 of the RAG 1998, regional aid can only be compatible if there is a balance between its distortive effect and its advantage as regards the development of a less favoured region. In this context, the Commission notes that the investment project in question was supposed to have positive impact on the regional development. It contributed to the further development of the economic activity and to the creation of new and indirect jobs. In fact, as described in recital 24, the new production site should raise the number of jobs in the region from 400 to 550-600.\n(148)\nSection 4 of the RAG 1998 lays down the conditions for granting compatible regional aid.\n(149)\nFirst, according to Point 4.1 of the RAG 1998, the object of regional aid is to secure either productive investment (initial investment) or job creation linked to investment. Initial investment means according to Point 4.4 of the RAG 1998 an investment in fixed capital relating to the setting-up of a new establishment, the extension of an existing establishment, or the starting-up of an activity involving a fundamental change in the product or production process of an existing establishment. The measures under consideration were used to build a new production site, which is an initial investment within the meaning of point 4.4 of the RAG 1998.\n(150)\nSecondly, the aid intensity must be below the regional aid ceiling of 24 % (46). In order to calculate the aid intensity, the value of the investment and the aid element involved in the measures considered have to be determined.\n(a)\nConcerning the investment's value, according to Point 4.5 of the RAG 1998, the eligible costs in this context may include costs for land, building plants and machinery. In the event of a purchase, only the costs of buying these assets should be taken into account. In fact, Finland calculated the eligible costs according to these provisions, resulting in an amount of EUR 25 935 928 (see recital 22 and Table III).\n(b)\nConcerning the aid element involved, Finland provided a calculation, the credibility of which has been cross-checked by the Commission. For measure 1, the guarantee granted by the City of Mikkeli, the Guarantee Notice 2000 can be used to quantify the aid element. Three methods are foreseen to quantify the aid element, out of which one is to calculate it \"by any other objectively justifiable and generally accepted method\" (Section 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2000). Finland has compared the market rate for a comparable guarantee to the guarantee premium actually charged by the City of Mikkeli, which seems in fact to be an objectively justifiable and generally accepted method. For measure 2, the aid element consists of the value of the land plus the costs for levelling the site, which is also acceptable. As regards the funding from Finnvera and the Ministry of Trade and Industry, which is not subject to this Decision, if the funding were to be considered to involve state aid, the aid element would also have to be taken into account. Finland provided a calculation for the aid element involved in the Finnvera loan, which is considered credible. For the direct grants of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the whole amount was taken into account. Overall, taking into account the aid element involved in the measures granted by the City of Mikkeli, Finnvera and the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the aid element (calculated as gross grant equivalent), is EUR 3 617 143 (see Table II).\n(151)\nThe aid element of EUR 3 617 143 corresponds to an aid intensity of 13,95 % of the total eligible costs of EUR 25 935 928 The aid intensity is hence below the threshold of 24 %.\n(152)\nThird, according to Point 4.10 of the RAG 1998, aid for initial investment must be conditional on maintaining the investment in question for a minimum period of five years. Finland confirmed that the investment in question was to be maintained for a minimum period of five years.\n(153)\nFourth, according to Point 4.2 of the RAG 1998, the beneficiary's contribution to the investment's financing must be at least 25 %. Finland confirmed that this was the case.\n(154)\nFifth, the Commission notes that, in line with Point 4.2 of the RAG 1998, the aid application has been submitted before work on the project was started and that the rules on cumulation of aid are respected, as foreseen in Point 4.18 of the RAG 1998, and that the regional aid ceiling was not exceeded.\n(155)\nOn the basis of the foregoing arguments, the Commission concludes that measures 1 and 2 met the conditions of the RAG 1998 and are therefore compatible.\n7.3.2. Purchase of land (measure 3)\n(156)\nIn principle, the market economy investor principle is also applicable to the purchase of land or other assets by a State. Such purchase could include state aid if it cannot be considered a normal commercial transaction. Even if a public authority purchases goods and services at a market price, state aid may nevertheless still be present if it turns out that the State did not have an actual need for the land or assets in question (47).\n(157)\nAccordingly, the Commission has to assess whether the purchase of land can be considered a normal commercial transaction. To this end, it has to be considered whether the price paid by the City of Mikkeli reflected the value of the properties and the building bought.\n(158)\nAccording to the interested party, a private market investor would not have been willing to pay EUR 6,7 million for the factory buildings which the City of Mikkeli bought at this price.\n(159)\nFinland, on the other hand, provided the Commission with an indication of the value of the properties. According to Finland, private bank [\u2026] held a mortgage amounting to EUR 7,5 million on one of the properties sold at the time of the purchase (48).\n(160)\nFinland informed the Commission that no evaluation of the land exists. The Commission considers that the value of the mortgage held by a private bank might give an indication of the value of the property. Indeed, before accepting collaterals, a bank will value the property in question so that if the debtor is not able to pay back its debt, the bank may be satisfied by realising the mortgage.\n(161)\nFor the properties in question, the City of Mikkeli paid a purchase price of EUR 6 646 787, which is below the registered amount of the mortgage held by a private party on one of the properties prior to closing the sale procedure. In addition to this property, five other properties and a building were sold to the City of Mikkeli. In addition, the Commission notes that the City of Mikkeli bought the properties with a view to converting the land into residential area by implementing changes to local plans; the properties were located near city centre and in an attractive residential area.\n(162)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the doubts raised by the Commission in the opening decision concerning the price paid for the properties and the buildings are dispelled. It is considered that the City of Mikkeli bought the properties and the building at a price that reflected their value and that the market investor test is met. The Commission therefore concludes that the measure does not involve state aid.\n7.3.3. Guarantee granted on 8 March 2004 (measure 4) and guarantee granted on 10 May 2004 (measure 5)\n(163)\nAs for the guarantee granted in June 2000, several steps have to be distinguished (granting of the guarantee; payment under the guarantee; change of conditions in the loan; compare recital 132). Accordingly, in the following, it is examined whether the guarantees given in March 2004 and in May 2004 constitute state aid. The question whether the changes in the conditions of the loan could entail state aid is assessed as part of measure 6 (see recitalsto 188-195).\n(164)\nMeasure 4: Contrary to Finland's arguments, presented under recital (92), the Commission considers that converting existing liabilities in a new guarantee can constitute state aid. In this context, a distinction has to be made between existing aid and new aid. The definition of existing aid entails individual aid measures that had been put into effect prior to the entry into force of the Treaty (Article 1(b) of the Procedural Regulation). New aid, on the contrary, is \"all aid [\u2026] which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid\" (Article 1(c) of the Procedural Regulation). According to Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (49), an alteration is \"any change, other than modifications of a purely formal or administrative nature which cannot affect the evaluation of the compatibility of the aid measure with the common market\".\n(165)\nIn fact, the City of Mikkeli granted a new guarantee on 8 March 2004 that was securing a new loan granted by Tapiola on 14 April 2004. The new guarantee cannot be seen as a continuation of the old guarantee as it was granted for a new loan with new conditions. The fact that this loan replaced a loan granted in 1992 by Tapiola that had already been guaranteed by the City of Mikkeli does not alter the view of the Commission. Whereas it is true that the new loan amounted to the outstanding capital of the old loan, and the interest rate was more favourable for Karjaportti (4,5 % p.a. for the old loan; 4 % p.a. for the new loan), there was a change in the duration of the loan (the old loan should have been repaid ten years after granting, that is to say in November 2002; the new loan allowed repayment until 2014). Overall, the amount of the new loan (capital plus interest for the years 2004 to 2014) is higher than the amount of the old loan. Accordingly, by granting the new guarantee, the risk of the City of Mikkeli and hence the amount of the measure increased compared to the old guarantee. Granting the new guarantee has to be seen as an alteration of the old guarantee that allows classifying the new guarantee as new aid. Accordingly, Finland's argument that the old guarantee was granted before Finland's accession and can thus be considered as existing aid and that the new guarantee cannot be considered as involving granting new aid can be dismissed.\n(166)\nThe question whether the guarantee conferred an advantage to the beneficiary can be assessed on the basis of the Guarantee Notice 2008. At the time when the measure was granted, the Guarantee Notice 2000 was in force. However, as explained in recital (134), the Commission will rely on the Guarantee Notice 2008 when assessing the measure. According to point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008, the existence of state aid within an individual state guarantee can be ruled out if four cumulative requirements are fulfilled (see recital 135). The guarantee under assessment covers 100 % of the loan. This suffices to say that the existence of state aid cannot be ruled out on the basis of point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008. In addition, and contrary to Finland's arguments, the Commission considers that Karjaportti was in difficulty, within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 1999, already in March 2004 (see recitals123-128), which is another reason that the guarantee cannot fall under point 3.2. of the Guarantee Notice 2008.\n(167)\nIn addition, the guarantee was granted without any guarantee fee, even though the company was facing difficulty and the risk for the City of Mikkeli could be considered as considerable. The guarantee covered 100 % of the loan in question, i.e. that the granting authority bore the risk of default of the beneficiary alone and the guarantee was granted as an absolute guarantee, that is to say the guarantor is liable for the principal debt as if it were the guarantor's own and the creditor can ask for the repayment of principal debt from the guarantor when the principal debt has become due.\n(168)\nIn addition, Finland believes that the measure is in line with the market economy investor principle, in particular as private parties were involved. This argument can be rejected. According to the information submitted by Finland, firstly, the private parties did not grant guarantees but loans to the beneficiary. Second, the loans by the private parties were not granted at the same time as the guaranteed pension loans. Third, the interest rate asked for by at least one of the private parties for a loan was already higher than the interest rate for the pension loan. More importantly, private parties only agreed on short term loans, with a duration of several months, whereas the guarantee granted by the City of Mikkeli covered a loan with a duration of ten years.\n(169)\nIn view of the foregoing, it is considered that the measure confers an advantage to Karjaportti. In addition, measure 4 meets all other requirements for the existence of state aid. As described in detail in recitals 133, 140 and 141, also this guarantee consists of state resources and is imputable to the state, is selective and distorts competition and affects trade among the Member States.\n(170)\nMeasure 5: Finland's argument that the measure was granted to continue the investment started in 2000 can be rejected, as the guarantee was clearly a new measure.\n(171)\nAccording to point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008, the existence of state aid within an individual state guarantee can be ruled out if four cumulative requirements are fulfilled (see recital 135). Like measure 4, the guarantee under assessment covers 100 % of the loan and Karjaportti was already in difficulty within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 1999 in May 2004 (see recitals 123-128). Accordingly, the guarantee cannot fall under point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008.\n(172)\nIn addition, and similar to measure 4, the guarantee was granted without any guarantee fee, even though the company was facing difficulty and the risk for the City of Mikkeli could be considered as considerable. The guarantee covered 100 % of the loan in question and was granted as an absolute guarantee. Accordingly, in the case at hand, contrary to the view of Finland, the Commission is of the opinion that the measure confers an advantage to Karjaportti.\n(173)\nIn addition, measure 5 meets all other requirements for the existence of state aid. As described in detail in recitals 133, 140 and 141 also this guarantee consists of state resources and is imputable to the state, is selective and distorts competition and affects trade among the Member States.\n(174)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that measure 4 and measure 5 constitute state aid.\n(175)\nFinland did not bring forward any arguments as regards the compatibility of measure 4. For measure 5, Finland invoked Article 107(3)(a) of the TFEU and the RAG 1998 (see recital 95). The RAG 1998 can however not serve as compatibility basis, as, Karjaportti was in difficulty at the time of granting of the two guarantees (see recitals 123-128). According to the RAG 1998, aid to companies in difficulty has to be assessed under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (50). Therefore, the Commission first assesses whether measures 4 and 5 are compatible as rescue and restructuring aid according to the R&R Guidelines. At the time of granting, the R&R Guidelines 1999 were applicable (51).\n(176)\nAccording to the R&R Guidelines 1999, a rescue aid has to meet certain requirements, which are not all fulfilled by the measure under consideration.\n(a)\nFirst, whereas the measures consist of liquidity support in the form of a guarantee (point 23(a) of the R&R Guidelines 1999), the loans covered by the respective guarantees were not granted at an interest rate at least comparable to those observed for loans to healthy firms (reference rate for Finland in March 2004: 4,43 % plus 100 basis points; reference rate for Finland in May 2004: 4,43 % plus 100 basis points).\n(b)\nSecond, the guarantees were not linked to a loan that was to be reimbursed over a period of not more than twelve months after disbursement of the last instalment to the firm (point 23(b) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).\n(c)\nThird, Finland did not provide any information that the aid was warranted on the grounds of serious social difficulties and had no unduly adverse spillover effects on other Member States (point 23(c) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).\n(d)\nFourth, the guarantees were neither reimbursed within 6 months nor had a restructuring plan within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 1999 been set up (point 23(d) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).\n(e)\nLastly, there are no indications that the guarantees were restricted to the amount needed to keep the firm in business for the period during which the aid was authorised (point 23(e) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).\n(177)\nMeasure 4 and 5 do not meet all the requirements for restructuring aid set out in the R&R Guidelines 1999 either.\n(a)\nFirst, the measures were not conditional on the implementation of a restructuring plan (point 31 of the R&R Guidelines 1999). It is noted that no restructuring plan within the meaning of point 32 et seq. of the R&R Guidelines 1999 has been set up.\n(b)\nSecond, aid beneficiaries are expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources (point 40 of the R&R Guidelines 1999) and for the measures under consideration, there is no indication of an own contribution of the beneficiary.\n(c)\nThird, in order to avoid undue distortions of competition, compensatory measures must be taken (point 37 of the R&R Guidelines 1999). Such measures have not been provided for.\n(178)\nAccordingly, the Commission considers that the measures were not granted in accordance with the R&R Guidelines 1999.\n(179)\nFurther, it has to be considered whether measure 4 and 5 could be compatible on the basis of any other of the exemptions laid down in Article 107(2) and (3) of the TFEU.\n(180)\nThe exemptions in Article 107(2) of the TFEU do not apply in the present case because the measures in question do not have a social character, have not been awarded to individual consumers, are not designed to make good damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and have not been awarded to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of that country.\n(181)\nFurther exemptions are laid out in Article 107(3) of the TFEU.\n(182)\nArticle 107(3)(a) of the TFEU states that \u201caid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment\u201d may be declared compatible with the internal market. Karjaportti, at the time of granting, was located in such an area.\n(183)\nAt the time when measures 4 and measures 5 were granted, the compatibility of state aid to assisted areas was regulated by the RAG 1998. Under those Guidelines, companies in difficulties are not eligible for regional aid. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the aid is not eligible for the derogation provided for in Article 107(3)(a) of the TFEU.\n(184)\nArticle 107(3)(b) of the TFEU states that \"aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State\" may be declared compatible with the internal market. The Commission notes that the aid in question is not designed to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest nor has the Commission found any evidence that it is designed to remedy a serious disturbance in the Finnish economy. In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the aid does not qualify for the derogation enshrined in Article 107(3)(b) of the TFEU.\n(185)\nArticle 107(3)(d) of the TFEU states that aid to promote culture and heritage conservation may be declared compatible with the TFEU where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Community to an extent that is contrary to the common interest. This Article obviously does not apply to the current case.\n(186)\nArticle 107(3)(c) of the TFEU provides for the authorisation of state aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. The Commission has developed several guidelines and communications that explain how it will apply the derogation contained in this Article. However, the Commission considers that because of the nature and characteristics of the aid, it is self-evident that the exceptions under these guidelines and communications are not applicable to the present case.\n(187)\nOn the basis of the foregoing arguments, the Commission considers that measures 4 and 5 involve state aid that is not compatible with the internal market.\n7.3.4. Court-supervised restructuring proceedings (measure 6)\n(188)\nFinland's main argument, as described in recitals 96-98, is that the City of Mikkeli was not more generous than other creditors of the company, but that the City of Mikkeli acted together with private creditors of the beneficiary and at the same conditions. Accordingly, it acted like a private market economy investor when agreeing to the restructuring programme.\n(189)\nThe first question to be verified in this context is if the market economy operator test applies to situations where one or several public entities, the behaviour of which is imputable to the State, carry out multiple measures in respect of one undertaking. The General Court has addressed this question in BP Chemicals v Commission (52). According to the Court, the mere fact that a public undertaking has already made capital injections into a subsidiary which are classed as \u2027aid\u2027 does not automatically mean that a further capital injection cannot be classed as an investment which satisfies the private market economy investor test. The Commission has, however, to determine whether multiple measures in respect of one undertaking can be reasonably severed and can be seen as independent measures. In this context, according to the Court, the chronology of the measures in question, their purpose, and the subsidiary's situation at the time when each decision to make an injection was made have to be considered (53).\n(190)\nIn the case at hand, the Commission has to determine whether the guarantees granted in March and May 2004 (measure 4 and measure 5) can be severed from the court-supervised restructuring proceedings (measure 6). Whereas it is true that all three measures have been decided within one year, the Commission observes that they intervened in a different context. In the meantime, a court-supervised restructuring proceeding had been initiated, in which all creditors of the company participated. The purpose of measure 6 therefore was no longer to enable the company to return to viability without insolvency by obtaining fresh money from private banks. Rather, the City of Mikkeli, as all other creditors, aimed, in their role as creditors, to maximize the recovery of their outstanding claims under the constraints of the national bankruptcy law. Therefore, the Commission considers that measure 6 can be severed from measures 4 and 5.\n(191)\n.As described in recital 31, Karjaportti, together with its private creditors, filed for court-supervised restructuring proceedings with the District Court of Mikkeli according to the Restructuring of Enterprises Act 47/1993. A restructuring programme was submitted to the Court, including details of the measures currently under assessment. The Court, after having checked the details, approved the restructuring programme. The Commission notes that Karjaportti has been subject to court-supervised restructuring proceedings under Finnish law. In fact, the purpose of such a court-supervised restructuring proceeding is to rehabilitate a distressed debtor's viable business, to ensure its continued viability and to achieve debt arrangements. Therefore, the Commission considers that the measures taken by the City of Mikkeli during the court-supervised restructuring proceeding can be assessed according to the market economy investor principle.\n(192)\nAccording to the Magefesa case law (54), if the state is more generous than other creditors of the company, measures under a court-supervised restructuring procedure can constitute state aid. Accordingly, the Commission verifies whether indeed the private and the public creditors were equally treated in the restructuring proceedings\n(193)\nFirst, it is noted that overall, the [\u2026] of restructuring debts (approximately [30-70] %) is owed to private creditors. The main private creditors are Nordea Bank, Pohjola Bank and Nordea Financing. Second, it has to be considered that the creditors of Karjaportti were divided into different groups, according to their ranking. Together with the private creditors Nordea Bank, OKO/Pohjola Bank and Nordea Financing as well as the state owned specialised financing company Finnvera, the City of Mikkeli belonged to the group of creditors of large secured debts. As can be seen in Table IV, within these large secured debts, the City of Mikkeli has a share of [10-40]%, whereas the private creditors together have a share of [30-70] %. Finnvera has a share of [10-40] %.\n(194)\nIn the following, each of the measures taken by the City of Mikkeli is assessed in more detail:\n(195)\nReduction of interest rates for secured debts: As can be seen in Table V, the interest rates for the loans and other debts (unpaid charges) which were considered \"large secured debts\" were the same for private and public creditors, with the exception of [\u2026]. This creditor received an interest rate of [\u2026] EURIBOR for all outstanding amounts from the commencement of the restructuring proceedings, whereas the other creditors received for a part of the outstanding amounts only [\u2026] EURIBOR minus [\u2026]% until 2010. This difference was due to the fact that [\u2026] had the highest ranking as regards the collaterals provided by Karjaportti as security. It is considered that [\u2026] higher ranking justifies the difference in the interest rates applied.\n(196)\nRescheduling of loans: The claims of the City of Mikkeli were deferred to the same extent as the claims of other secured debtors. As can be seen in Table VI, Karjaportti has to pay instalments to all secured creditors from July 2009 on until 2015, when the biggest part of instalments becomes due (43 % of the capital of each of the secured debts). The instalments to be paid to each creditor all have the same proportion in relation to the overall amount of the claim of the respective creditor (2 % of the outstanding amount for the first three instalments; 4 % for the next two instalments; 6 % for the remaining instalment). The last instalment amounts to 43 % of the capital for each of the secured creditors. Accordingly, the City of Mikkeli has not been treated less favourable than the private creditors in a similar situation.\n(197)\nConditional debt waiver: According to the restructuring programme, as described in recitals 42 and 43, the amounts to be waived at the end of the court-supervised restructuring proceedings, if certain economic requirements are not met, are based on a comparison between the value of the collateral if Karjaportti continues its operations, and the value of the collateral in case of its realisation, determined for each of the respective creditors, taking into account their respective rankings. The value of the collateral in the two scenarios was determined by two independent valuators at the time when the restructuring programme was set up, based on comparable prices and rental information. Against this background, [\u2026] does not have to waive debts at the end of the court-supervised restructuring proceedings, as it is the highest ranking creditor. The amounts for the other creditors were also determined according to the said methodology, resulting in the amounts presented in recital 43. The methodology used in determining the respective amounts can be considered credible, in particular as it relates the respective ranking to the value of the respective collateral in the two scenarios. In practice, the calculation was based on independent expert evaluations, and the same principles were used to all creditors when determining the amounts by which the restructuring debts can be at maximum reduced at the end of the court-supervised restructuring proceedings. In light of this, it can be considered that all creditors were treated on an equal basis.\n(198)\nOverall, the Commission considers that the City of Mikkeli was not treated less favourably than the private creditors during the court-supervised restructuring proceedings. Where differences to the other creditors occur, they were justified by the different quality of collaterals the respective creditors held. Therefore, in light of the above, it has to be concluded that the beneficiary did not gain an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU from the court-supervised restructuring proceedings. The doubts that the Commission raised in the opening decision are dispelled and the measures described in recitals 31-43 do not constitute state aid.\n7.3.5. Purchase of shares (measure 7)\n(199)\nFirst, the Commission notes that the purchase of shares was not part of the court-supervised restructuring proceedings.\n(200)\nFinland claims that the City of Mikkeli acted in line with the market economy investor principle when purchasing the shares. First, following the logic of the BP Chemicals case (see recitals 189-191), it has to be determined whether the market economy investor principle can be applied to measure 7, as the City of Mikkeli had already granted aid measures to Karjaportti in the past. In this context, the Commission notes that measures 4 and 5 were taken before the beginning of the court-supervised restructuring proceedings, whereas the purchase of shares only took place afterwards. In addition, whereas the purpose of measures 4 and 5 was to allow the beneficiary to continue to have access to liquidity, after the beginning of the court-supervised restructuring proceedings it was clear that those needs would be addressed within such proceedings. Therefore, it is considered that measure 7 can be severed from measures 4 and 5 and that the market economy investor principle is in principle applicable to measure 7.\n(201)\nAs described at recital 156, the market economy investor principle is applicable to the purchase of land or other assets by a state. Finland provided a valuation of the value of the shares, undertaken by [\u2026] (55), a real estate management agency based in Helsinki. The valuation, dated 29 March 2005, valued the shares in the real estate company between EUR 1 million and EUR 1,1 million. The valuation was based on the value of the property owned by the company. Two methods were applied to determine the value: the capital value at market rent (after housing statistics compiled by Statistics Finland) and the resale value (after asking prices).\n(202)\nAt the time the shares were sold, the property was rented out below the market rent level. According to the valuation, the market rent level could be reached in two years, with the maximum yearly rent increase. Accordingly, the value of the property was adjusted at the time of the purchase and in the end, the City of Mikkeli bought the shares at a price of EUR 860 000.\n(203)\nThe valuation was undertaken by an independent expert. The methodology used, as described above, was to first check the capital value at market rent, then the resale value. Both values were based on market data and the two values were used to determine the value of the shares, which was also adjusted to the rent level prevailing at the time of the purchase. This methodology is considered as plausible. The Commission concludes that the shares in Kiinteist\u00f6 Oy Suksim\u00e4ki were bought at a market price and that the measure did not confer an advantage to Karjaportti.\n(204)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the doubts raised by the Commission in the opening decision have been dispelled and it is concluded that the measure does not include state aid.\n7.3.6. Conversion of unpaid interest rates into loans (measure 8)\n(205)\nFinland argues that the conversion of unpaid interest rates into loans is a typical measure to court-supervised restructuring proceedings. It is true that such a measure can be seen as inherent to court-supervised restructuring proceedings. In the case at hand, the conversion of unpaid interest rates into loans in the year 2005 was in principle already laid down in the restructuring programme for all creditors of large secured debts ([two private creditors] and Finnvera). In light of this, the Commission does not consider the fact that unpaid interest rates were converted into a loan as such as state aid. It has, however, to be verified whether the interest rate that the City of Mikkeli charged from Karjaportti involved an advantage to the latter.\n(206)\nIn this context, Finland considers that the City of Mikkeli acted in accordance with the private market investor principle, as private creditors converted unpaid interest rates into loans together with the City of Mikkeli. First of all, by the same token as for the court-supervised restructuring proceedings, it is considered that in principle the private market investor principle can be applied to measure 8, as this measure is severable from measures 4 and 5 (see recitals 189-191). Applying the private market investor principle to the case at hand, the Commission notes the following: Whereas it is true that not only the City of Mikkeli, but also [the private creditors] were subject to the conversion, the interest margin charged for the loans was not the same. In fact, [one private creditor] asked for EURIBOR 3 months plus 1,5 % and [the other private creditor] for EURIBOR 3 months plus 2 %, whereas the City of Mikkeli only asked for EURIBOR 3 months plus 0,3 %. Hence, the interest rate which the City of Mikkeli agreed to charge for the loan is 1,2 % below the interest that [one private creditor] charged and 1,7 % below the interest that [another private creditor] charged. Therefore, the argument that the City of Mikkeli acted on equal terms with private creditors can be rejected. In light of the difference in interest rates it can also be excluded that the City of Mikkeli charged a market fee for the loan. Therefore, the loan into which the unpaid interest rates were converted by the City of Mikkeli provides an advantage to Karjaportti.\n(207)\nIn addition, measure 8 meets all other requirements for the existence of state aid. As described in detail in recitals 133, 140 and 141 the loan consists of state resources and is imputable to the state, is selective and distorts competition and affects trade among the Member States.\n(208)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that measure 8 constitutes state aid.\n(209)\nFinland did not bring forward any arguments as regards the compatibility of measure 8. As Karjaportti was in difficulty at the time of the conversion of the unpaid interest rates (see recitals 123-129), the Commission first assesses whether measure 8 is compatible as rescue and restructuring aid according to the R&R Guidelines. At the time of granting, the R&R Guidelines 2004 were applicable (56).\n(210)\nAccording to the R&R Guidelines 2004, a rescue aid has to meet certain requirements, which are not all fulfilled by the measure in question.\n(a)\nFirst, whereas the measure consists of liquidity support in the form a loan (point 25(a) of the R&R Guidelines 2004), the interest rate charged is not at least comparable to those observed for loans to healthy firms (reference rate for Finland in December 2005: 4,08 % plus 100 basis points; the interest rate charged for the loan was EURIBOR 3 months + 0,3 %, which amounted on 19 December 2005 to 2,486 % plus 30 basis points).\n(b)\nSecond, Finland did not undertake to communicate a restructuring plan within six months of the authorisation of the aid and the duration of the measure was not limited to six months (point 25(a) and (c) of the R&R Guidelines 2004).\n(c)\nThird, the one time, last time principle (point 25(e) of the R&R Guidelines 2004) is not met, as the company has received incompatible and illegal state aid at times when it was in difficulty before.\n(211)\nThe measure does not meet all the requirements for restructuring aid set out in the R&R Guidelines 2004 either.\n(a)\nFirst, the measure is not conditional on the implementation of a restructuring plan (point 34 of the R&R Guidelines 2004). Whereas it is true that a restructuring programme for Karjaportti was set up during the court-supervised restructuring proceedings, it does not comply with the requirements of point 35 of the R&R Guidelines 2004 (duration of 10 years, no sensitivity analysis, no return to long term viability within a reasonable time frame).\n(b)\nSecond, aid beneficiaries are expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources (point 43 of the R&R Guidelines 2004) and for the measures under consideration, there is no indication of an own contribution of the beneficiary.\n(c)\nThird, the measure does not meet the one time, last time principle, as the company had received incompatible and illegal state aid at times when it was in difficulty before.\n(212)\nAccordingly, the Commission considers that the measure was not granted in accordance with the R&R Guidelines 2004.\n(213)\nFurther, it has to be considered whether measure 8 could be compatible on the basis of any other of the exemptions laid down in Article 107(2) and (3) of the TFEU. For the same reasons as set out above for measure 4 and measures 5 (see recitals 179-186), the Commission considers that none of the exemptions is met. Therefore, the Commission concludes that measure 8 involves state aid that is not compatible with the internal market.\n7.3.7. Write-off of debts in the financial statements in 2006 and in 2008 (measure 9 and measure 10)\n(214)\nFirst, it has to be verified whether these debt write-offs could confer an advantage to Karjaportti. This would be the case if the City of Mikkeli abandoned to pursue the collection of the debts, that is if it waived the debts in question.\n(215)\nAs described at recital 105, Finland confirmed that the write-off of debts was only an accounting measure that does not affect the legal relationship between the creditor and the debtor, that is to say that the debts were not waived. According to the documents submitted by Finland, the City of Mikkeli is still pursuing collection of the debts.\n(216)\nAccording to the principle of prudence under the good accounting practice and in accordance with Accounting Act 1336/1997, the value of receivables entered in the balance sheet may not exceed their probable value. Accordingly, receivables that probably cannot be collected are recorded in the profit and loss statement as an expense.\n(217)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the debt write-off was only done in the financial accounts of the City of Mikkeli in line with accounting standards and the respective claims are still pursued within the court-supervised restructuring proceedings.\n(218)\nThe doubts raised by the Commission in the opening decision have been dispelled and it can be concluded that the measures did not provide an advantage to Karjaportti. Therefore, measure 9 and 10 do not involve state aid.\n7.3.8. Rescheduling of debts since 2009 (measure 12)\n(219)\nFinland's argument that the measure is inherent to court-supervised restructuring proceedings and does not involve state aid can be rejected. First, the rescheduling of debts in 2009 was not foreseen in the initial restructuring programme and second, the fact that such a restructuring would be undertaken in line with the national legislation is not sufficient to exclude state aid (57).\n(220)\nIn principle, also measures mitigating the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking, can be considered as state aid. Concerning rescheduling of debts, the Commission is assessing such behaviour with the private creditor test (58). There, the state is rather viewed as a public creditor which, like a private creditor, seeks to recover sums due to it and which, to that end, concludes agreements with the debtor, under which the accumulated debts are to be rescheduled or paid by instalments in order to facilitate their repayment (59). There is favourable treatment in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU if the amount owed can be paid back to the public creditor at more favourable terms than would be permitted by a private creditor. The Commission takes note of the argument of Finland that the rescheduling was never implemented as the administrative court of Kuopio (Kuopion Hallinto-Oikeus) prohibited its implementation. However, as Finland states, the repayment schedule of the debt has nonetheless been extended, resulting in a deferral of due payments. In this context, the Commission notes that the actually implemented rescheduling differs from the notified rescheduling as regards the amounts and the timeframe. The amount actually rescheduled by the City of Mikkeli is lower than the originally notified amount and the rescheduling was only granted for shorter periods than originally notified. In light of this, it is considered that the notified measure has been implemented with modifications. Irrespective of these modifications, the Commission notes that no private creditor would ever have accepted a debt rescheduling in whatever form for reasons set out in this recital.\n(221)\nA private creditor will normally enforce its claims if it has previously entered into agreements on the rescheduling of debts which have not been honoured by the debtor (60). The City of Mikkeli, on the contrary, agreed to a subsequent debt rescheduling after Karjaportti had failed to respect the conditions of the debt rescheduling agreed to during the court-supervised restructuring proceedings. In addition, there are no particular reasons for non-enforcement, such as higher securities provided to the City of Mikkeli. Lastly, as regards the prospects of future profitability and viability of the company, the Commission considers that the financial situation of the company was such that it did not give cause to believe that investments would reach an acceptable level of profitability within a reasonable period. At the time of granting, Karjaportti was in bankruptcy proceedings and in addition, since 2004, the company had been in court-supervised restructuring proceedings. In light of this, the Commission notes that a hypothetical private creditor, in the same situation as the City of Mikkeli, would not have accepted continued rescheduling of the debts.\n(222)\nIn this context, Finland states that the City of Mikkeli has acted on equal terms with the other creditors of Karjaportti.\n(223)\nIn fact, concerning the notified debt rescheduling, the agreement of the private creditors was, according to Finland, conditional on the agreement by the City of Mikkeli. Second, it seems that the intended debt rescheduling did not foresee the same conditions for all of the secured creditors. Whereas the City of Mikkeli would have deferred the payment of the outstanding debts to 2011, the private creditors would still have received an instalment in 2009. In the light of this, the argument brought forward by Finland can be rejected.\n(224)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the measure does not meet the private creditor test and that it provides an advantage to Karjaportti.\n(225)\nAs regards the other requirements for the existence of state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, the Commission notes that the rescheduling was agreed to by the City of Mikkeli and accordingly consists of state resources and is imputable to the state. In addition, the measure can be considered selective. Finally, it distorts competition and affects trade among the Member States, as described in more detail in recitals 133, 140 and 141.\n(226)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the measure constitutes state aid.\n(227)\nFinland's main argument was that this measure did not involve state aid; it had, however, also notified measure 12 as rescue aid (see recital 1). In fact, when the City of Mikkeli agreed to the debt rescheduling, Karjaportti was in difficulty within the meaning of point 10(c) of the R&R Guidelines 2004 (see recitals 123-129). Accordingly, the compatibility of the measure in question has to be considered on the basis of the R&R Guidelines 2004.\n(228)\nAccording to the R&R Guidelines 2004, a rescue aid has to meet certain requirements, which are not all fulfilled by the measure in question.\n(a)\nFirst, the measure does not consist of liquidity support in the form of loan guarantees or loans (point 25 (a) of the R&R Guidelines 2004, but of deferral of payments.\n(b)\nSecond, Finland did not undertake to communicate a restructuring plan within six months of the authorisation of the aid and the duration of the measure was not limited to six months (point 25(a) and (c) of the R&R Guidelines 2004).\n(c)\nThird, the one time, last time principle (point 25(e) of the R&R Guidelines 2004) is not met, as the company has received incompatible and illegal state aid at times when it was in difficulty before.\n(229)\nThe measure does not meet all the requirements for restructuring aid set out in the R&R Guidelines 2004 either.\n(a)\nFirst, the measure is not conditional on the implementation of a restructuring plan (point 34 of the R&R Guidelines 2004). It is noted that no restructuring plan within the meaning of point 35 of the R&R Guidelines 2004 was set up.\n(b)\nSecond, aid beneficiaries are expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources (point 43 of the R&R Guidelines 2004) and for the measures under consideration, there is no indication of an own contribution of the beneficiary.\n(c)\nThird, in order to avoid undue distortions of competition, compensatory measures must be taken (point 38 of the R&R Guidelines 2004). Such measures were not provided for.\n(d)\nFourth, the measure does not meet the one time, last time principle, as the company had received incompatible and illegal state aid at times when it was in difficulty before.\n(230)\nAccordingly, the Commission considers that the measure was not granted in accordance with the R&R Guidelines 2004.\n(231)\nFurther, it has to be considered whether measure 12 could be compatible on the basis of any other of the exemptions laid down in Article 107(2) and (3) of the TFEU.\n(232)\nThe exemptions in Article 107(2) of the TFEU do not apply in the present case because this measure does not have a social character, has not been awarded to individual consumers, is not designed to make good damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and has not been awarded to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of that country.\n(233)\nFurther exemptions are set out in Article 107(3) of the TFEU.\n(234)\nArticle 107(3)(a) of the TFEU states that \u201caid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment\u201d may be declared compatible with the internal market. Karjaportti, at the time of granting, was located in such an area.\n(235)\nCompatibility of State aid to assisted areas is regulated by the RAG 1998. Under those Guidelines, companies in difficulties are not eligible for regional aid. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the aid is not eligible for the derogation provided for in Article 107(3)(a) of the TFEU.\n(236)\nArticle 107(3)(b) of the TFEU states that \u201caid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State\u201d may be declared compatible with the internal market. The Commission notes that the aid in question is not designed to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest nor has the Commission found any evidence that it is designed to remedy a serious disturbance in the Finnish economy. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the aid does not qualify for the derogation enshrined in Article 107(3)(b) of the TFEU.\n(237)\nArticle 107(3)(d) of the TFEU states that aid to promote culture and heritage conservation may be declared compatible with the TFEU where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Community to an extent that is contrary to the common interest. This Article obviously does not apply to the current case.\n(238)\nArticle 107(3)(c) of the TFEU provides for the authorisation of state aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. The Commission has developed several guidelines and communications that explain how it will apply the derogation contained in this Article. However, the Commission considers that because of the nature and characteristics of the aid, it is self-evident that the exceptions under these guidelines and communications are not applicable to the present case.\n(239)\nOn the basis of the foregoing arguments, the Commission considers that measure 12 involves state aid that is not compatible with the internal market.\n7.4. Measures granted by Finnvera\n(240)\nAs a preliminary remark, the Commission recalls that Finland has, in the context of state aid decision N 715/2006, given a commitment that the activities of Finnvera will be limited to administering state aid schemes. On this basis, the Commission has decided on 25 September 2007 (the date of the Commission decision) that the exemption from income tax for Finnvera does not constitute state aid. Measures 13 to 17 have been granted before the Commission decision in case N 715/2006. Measure 18 has been granted after the adoption of the Commission decision in case N 715/2006. The Commission therefore has to take into account the commitment given by the Finnish authorities in this case in its assessment of measure 18.\n7.4.1. Guarantee granted on 17 March 2004 (measure 13)\n(241)\nIn order to be considered state aid in the sense of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, a measure must be granted directly or indirectly from state resources and it must be imputable to the State. Finland has not disputed that measures taken by Finnvera consist of state resources and are imputable to the State. According to case law, resources of an undertaking are to be considered state resources if the State is capable, by exercising its dominant influence over such undertakings, to direct the use of their resources (61). Measures granted by a special financing institution, which can be considered a public sector body according to its statute, are generally imputable to the State (62). The Court has further explained the notion of imputability in Stardust Marine (63). It provided the following indicators for establishing imputability: integration of the public undertaking into the structures of the public administration; the nature of its activities and the exercise of the latter on the market in normal conditions of competition with private operators; the legal status of the undertaking (in the sense of its being subject to public law or ordinary company law); the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking. In this context, the Commission notes that Finnvera's actions are subject to administrative law, indicating that it is closely linked to the administration. Finnvera is a 100 % state owned special financing company, which enjoys a State guarantee and is mainly providing state aid and financing which is not readily available on the market, such as export credits. Therefore, although its activities may overlap on the margins with commercial banks, it does not exercise its activities in normal conditions of competition with private operators. It is incorporated under ordinary company law; at the same time, the State exercises strong supervision: the State appoints the Supervisory Board members from the parliamentary groups of political parties on the basis of their representation in the Finnish Parliament. Most of the Managing Board members have to be chosen among candidates elected by several Ministries. (see recitals 56-57). In light of this, the Commission considers that measures taken by Finnvera consist of state resources and are imputable to Finland.\n(242)\nConcerning the question whether measure 13 provides an advantage to the beneficiary, contrary to Finland's view, the measure was not granted together with private creditors at the same conditions. Whereas it is true that [\u2026] and [\u2026] both granted loans to Karjaportti in 2004, the Commission has no indication that those banks also granted guarantees. In addition, the loans granted by the two private creditors were only granted in summer 2004, that is to say a couple of months after Finnvera had granted measure 13, and it can hence not be considered that Finnvera acted \"together\" with them. Finland's argument that the guarantee was granted in accordance with the Guarantee Notice 2000, can also be rejected. First, as explained above, the Commission relies on the Guarantee Notice 2008 when assessing the measure (see recital 134). According to point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008, the existence of state aid within an individual state guarantee can be ruled out if the borrower is not in financial difficulty. As the Commission considers that Karjaportti was already in difficulty, within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 1999, in March 2004 (see recitals 123-128), the application of the Guarantee Notice can be excluded. Finland also brings forward that the guarantee was subject to a high fee. In light of Karjaportti's financial difficulties at the time of granting of the guarantee, it is, however considered that the guarantee fee charged by Finnvera is not a market fee. In fact, the beneficiary had total financing costs of [5-8]% for the loan together with the guarantee, whereas the Reference Rate applicable at that time was 4.43 %, to which at least 400 basis points would have to be added, considering the beneficiary's financial difficulties. In view of the foregoing, it is considered that the measure confers an advantage to Karjaportti.\n(243)\nFurthermore, to be considered state aid, a measure must be specific or selective in that it favours only certain undertakings or the production of certain goods. Measure 13 was granted to Karjaportti, one specific company. Therefore, the Commission considers that it constitutes a selective advantage to the beneficiary.\n(244)\nIn addition, the Commission has to consider whether measure 13 is likely to distort competition and affect trade between the Member States. In this context, Finland argues that the aid element of the guarantee was below the de minimis threshold. When measure 13 was granted, Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (64) (\u2027the de minimis Regulation 2001\u2027) was applicable (65). One of the requirements for applying the de minimis Regulation 2001 is that the total de minimis aid granted to an enterprise must not exceed EUR 100 000 over any period of three years. The guarantee under assessment only amounted to EUR 91 000, that is to say it would even respect the ceiling of EUR 100 000 if the whole amount had to be taken into account as aid element. It has, however, to be determined whether measure 13 has to be assessed together with measure 4, a guarantee which the City of Mikkeli granted in March 2004, only 9 days prior to measure 13, the guarantee granted by Finnvera. Whereas the two guarantees were granted by two different entities and covered two separate loans with a different duration, these two loans replaced one single loan granted by Tapiola in 1992. It can hence be considered that measure 4 and measure 13 were granted for the same purpose, which was to allow converting the Tapiola loan granted in 1992 into new loans. In light of this close link between the two measures, the Commission considers that measure 4 and measure 13 have to be seen as one measure for the purpose of applying the ceiling of EUR 100 000 ceiling of the de minimis Regulation 2001. Taken together, the aid element involved in those two measures exceeds EUR 100 000. The Commission therefore concludes that measure 13 does not fall under the de minimis Regulation 2001.\n(245)\nFinally, Finland argues that measure 13 is the continuation of already existing liabilities and that hence Finnvera's exposure is not increased. Finland presented a similar argument in relation to measure 4. By the same token as for measure 4, the Commission does not consider measure 13 as mere continuation of a previously granted measure (see recitals 164-165).\n(246)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that measure 13 constitutes state aid.\n(247)\nFinland did not bring forward any arguments as regards the compatibility of measure 13. As Karjaportti was in difficulty when Finnvera granted the guarantee (see recitals 123-128), the Commission first assesses whether it is compatible as rescue and restructuring aid according to the R&R Guidelines. At the time of time of granting, the R&R Guidelines 1999 were applicable (66).\n(248)\nAccording to the R&R Guidelines 1999, a rescue aid has to meet certain requirements, which are not all fulfilled by the measure in question.\n(a)\nFirst, the guarantee was not linked to a loan that was to be reimbursed over a period of not more than twelve months after disbursement of the last instalment to the firm (point 23(b) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).\n(b)\nSecond, Finland did not provide any information that the aid was warranted on the grounds of serious social difficulties and had no unduly adverse spillover effects on other Member States (point 23(c) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).\n(c)\nThird, the guarantee was neither reimbursed within 6 months nor had a restructuring plan within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 1999 been set up (point 23(d) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).\n(d)\nLastly, there are no indications that the guarantee was restricted to the amount needed to keep the firm in business for the period during which the aid was authorised (point 23(e) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).\n(249)\nFor the same reasons as set out above for measure 4 and measure 5 (see recitals 177-178), the Commission considers measure 13 does not meet all the requirements for restructuring aid set out in the R&R Guidelines 1999 either. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the measure was not granted in accordance with the R&R Guidelines 1999.\n(250)\nFurther, it has to be considered whether measure 13 could be compatible on the basis of any other of the exemptions laid down in Article 107(2) and (3) of the TFEU. For the same reasons as set out above for measure 4 and measure 5 (see recitals 179-186), the Commission considers that none of the exemptions is met. Therefore, the Commission concludes that measure 13 involves state aid that is not compatible with the internal market.\n7.4.2. Loan granted on 12 January 2006 (measure 14)\n(251)\nFinland argues that the measure was foreseen in the restructuring programme for the court-supervised restructuring proceedings and that Finnvera took the measure together with private creditors.\n(252)\nIt is true that the measure was already foreseen in the restructuring programme for both private and public creditors of Karjaportti. According to the documents submitted by Finland, the conversion of interest actually took place in the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006. Also private creditors converted their interest rates into loans.\n(253)\nFirst, following the logic of the BP Chemicals case (see recitals 189-191), it has to be determined whether the market economy investor principle can be applied to measure 14. In this context, the Commission notes that measures 4, 5 and 13 were taken before the beginning of the court-supervised restructuring proceedings, whereas measure 14 was taken in the course of such proceedings. For the reasons set out above in recitals 189-191, the Commission considers that measure 14 can be severed from measures 4, 5, and 13. In addition, measure 14 was even foreseen in the restructuring programme itself, which had the purpose of bringing the company back on track.\n(254)\nSecond, as regards the application of the market economy investor principle to the measure at hand, the Commission considers that the loans granted by the private creditors [\u2026] and by [\u2026] are comparable to the loan granted by Finnvera. As secured creditors in the court supervised restructuring proceedings the companies are all in a similar situation. Given that these loans were granted at similar conditions to the loan granted by Finnvera (same loan period, comparable reimbursement period) and that the interest rate that Finnvera asked was even more favourable for Finnvera (EURIBOR 6 months + 2 % was 4,643 % on 1 January 2006) than the interest rate the private creditors received (on 1 January 2006, EURIBOR 3 months + 1,5 % was 3,988 %; EURIBOR 3 months + 2 % was 4,488 %), the Commission concludes that the measure did not confer an advantage to Karjaportti.\n(255)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, it is concluded that the measure does not include state aid.\n7.4.3. Counter-guarantee granted on 14 September 2006 (measure 15)\n(256)\nFirst, the Commission considers that the beneficiary of the measure is Karjaportti, although the counter-guarantee was granted to [\u2026]. The low fee charged by [\u2026] from Karjaportti indicates that [\u2026] only granted the guarantee in the light of the guarantee granted by Finnvera. Indeed, in fact, Karjaportti and not [\u2026] pays the guarantee premium for the counter-guarantee to Finnvera.\n(257)\nIn any event, Finland considers that Finnvera acted on the same terms as private creditors [\u2026] and [\u2026] did. It is true that [\u2026] and [\u2026] were in a similar situation as Finnvera. All three companies are secured creditors in the court-supervised restructuring proceedings. They all have granted loans and guarantees to Karjaportti before ([\u2026]).\n(258)\nBy the same token as for measure 14, following the logic of the BP Chemicals case (see recitals 189-191) it is considered that the market economy investor principle can be applied to measure 15, as this measure is severable from measures 4, 5 and 13 (see recital 253).\n(259)\nConcerning the measure in question, overall the guaranteed loan amounted to EUR 1,8 million. Finnvera counter-guaranteed [\u2026] for only 16,7 % of this sum (EUR 300 000). The remainder of the loan was covered by guarantees from [\u2026] and [\u2026] (EUR 825 000 and EUR 675 000 respectively), which were not counter-guaranteed by Finnvera. From the perspective of the beneficiary Karjaportti, the overall costs for the counter-guaranteed guarantee were higher than for the guarantees granted by [\u2026] and [\u2026]. Whereas the latter two charged a guarantee fee of 1,75 % from Karjaportti, the total financing costs for the counter-guarantee for Karjaportti were 2,9 % (1,65 % for the [\u2026] guarantee plus 1,25 % for the counter-guarantee). It follows that the measure taken by Finnvera did not confer an advantage to Karjaportti.\n(260)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, it is concluded that the measure does not include state aid.\n7.4.4. Loan granted on 6 July 2007 (measure 16)\n(261)\nAs described at recital 110, Finland argues that the loan did not involve state aid as it was part of a larger funding measure in which also private creditors took part.\n(262)\nBy the same token as for measure 14, following the logic of the BP Chemicals case (see recitals 189-191) it is considered that the market economy investor principle can be applied to measure 16 (see recital 253).\n(263)\nAs outlined in recital 254, the Commission considers that [\u2026] and [\u2026] are in a comparable situation to Finnvera. Concerning the specific measure under consideration, it is true that Finnvera granted the loan at the same time at similar conditions as [\u2026] and [\u2026]. The duration of the loans was for all creditors six months; for all loans, payment was delayed in the same proportion (outstanding amount for all creditors is approximately [\u2026]% of the original amount). All three loans were secured with the same collateral, as described in recital 66, and the collateral is divided among the creditors according to the risk of the respective creditor in relation to the loan it granted. Concerning the interest rate, it seems that the interest rate that Finnvera asked was even more favourable for Finnvera (EURIBOR 6 months + 2,5 % was 6,847 % on 6 July 2007) than the interest rate the private creditors received (on 9 July 2007, EURIBOR 1 month + 2 % was 6,105 %). Accordingly, the loan can be considered to be in line with the market economy investor principle and not to entail state aid.\n(264)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, it is concluded that the measure does not include state aid.\n7.4.5. Guarantee granted on 9 January 2008 (measure 17)\n(265)\nFirst, it has to be determined which entity benefits from the measure in question, [\u2026] or Karjaportti Finnvera granted the counter-guarantee to [\u2026], the main bank of Karjaportti. [\u2026] granted in turn a guarantee to Karjaportti. [\u2026] charged a very low fee from Karjaportti for this guarantee, which indicates, that [\u2026] only granted the guarantee to Karjaportti as it was covered by the counter-guarantee of Finnvera. The Commission also notes that not [\u2026], but Karjaportti pays the guarantee premium for the counter-guarantee to Finnvera. In light of this, the Commission considers that the beneficiary of the measure is Karjaportti.\n(266)\nSecondly, it has to be assessed whether the measure gives an advantage to Karjaportti. In this context, Finland claims that the counter-guarantee does not involve state aid, as another private party was involved in the arrangement. This argument can be rejected, as Finnvera granted a counter-guarantee for the guarantee of the private party involved, meaning that Finnvera and the private party were not at all in a similar situation.\n(267)\nIn light of this, the Commission assesses the measure on the basis of the Guarantee Notice 2008. Whereas it is true that Finnvera's counter-guarantee does not cover more than 80 % of [\u2026] guarantee, the beneficiary, Karjaportti, was in difficulty at the time of granting, as described in more detail in recitals 123-128. Accordingly, the existence of state aid cannot be ruled out on the basis of point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008.\n(268)\nEven if a guarantee does not fulfil all the requirements of point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008, the fee paid for a guarantee can still justify the conclusion that the guarantee does not entail state aid. In any event, in the case at hand, contrary to the view of Finland, the Commission is of the opinion that the measure cannot be considered aid free. The guarantee was granted at a low guarantee fee, even though the company was facing difficulties (see recitals 123-128) and the risk for Finnvera could be considered as considerable. Accordingly, it is considered that the measure confers an advantage to Karjaportti. The Commission observes in this context also that Finnvera, according to the commitment given by the Finnish authorities in the context of case N 715/2006, was not allowed to grant market-based financing.\n(269)\nIn addition, the measure meets all other requirements for the existence of state aid. As described in recital 241, measures granted by Finnvera consist of state resources and are imputable to the state. Measure 17 is also selective, as the only company benefitting from it is Karjaportti. Lastly, it distorts competition and affects trade among the Member States..\n(270)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the measure constitutes state aid.\n(271)\nFinland did not argue that measure 17 was compatible with the internal market. In fact, when Finnvera granted the measure, Karjaportti was in difficulty within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 2004 (see recitals 123-128). Accordingly, the measure could only be compatible as rescue and restructuring aid according to the R&R Guidelines 2004.\n(272)\nAccording to the R&R Guidelines 2004, a rescue aid has to meet certain requirements, which are not all fulfilled by the measure under consideration.\n(a)\nFirst, the guarantee did not come to an end within a period of not more than six months after the disbursement of the first instalment (point 25(a) of the R&R Guidelines 2004).\n(b)\nSecond, Finland did not communicate within six months after the first implementation of the measure a restructuring plan or liquidation plan or proof that the guarantee had been terminated (point 25(c) of the R&R Guidelines 2004).\n(c)\nThird, the one time, last time principle (point 25(e) of the R&R Guidelines 2004) is not met, as the company had received incompatible and illegal state aid at times when it was in difficulty before.\n(273)\nThe measure does not meet all the requirements for restructuring aid set out in the R&R Guidelines 2004 either.\n(a)\nFirst, the measure is not conditional on the implementation of a restructuring plan (point 34 of the R&R Guidelines 2004). It is noted that no restructuring plan within the meaning of point 35 of the R&R Guidelines was set up.\n(b)\nSecond, aid beneficiaries are expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources (point 43 of the R&R Guidelines 2004) and for the measures under consideration, there is no indication of an own contribution of the beneficiary.\n(c)\nThird, in order to avoid undue distortions of competition, compensatory measures must be taken (point 38 of the R&R Guidelines 2004). Such measures were not provided for.\n(d)\nFourth, the measure does not meet the one time, last time principle, as the company had received incompatible and illegal state aid at times when it was in difficulty before.\n(274)\nAccordingly, the Commission considers that the measure was not granted in accordance with the R&R Guidelines 2004.\n(275)\nFurther, it has to be considered whether measure 17 could be compatible on the basis of any other of the exemptions laid down in Article 107(2) and (3) of the TFEU. For the same reasons as set out above for measure 4 and measures 5 (see recitals 179-186), the Commission considers that none of the exemptions is met. Therefore, the Commission concludes that measure 17 involves state aid that is not compatible with the internal market.\n8. RECOVERY\n(276)\nAccording to the TFEU and the Court of Justice's established case-law, the Commission is competent to decide that the state concerned must abolish or alter aid (67) when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market. The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a state to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation (68). In this context, the Court has established that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored (69).\n(277)\nFollowing that case-law, Article 14 of the Procedural Regulation laid down that \u201cwhere negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.\u201d\n(278)\nThus, six measures at hand are to be considered as illegal and incompatible aid:\n-\nGuarantee granted on 8 March 2004 by the City of Mikkeli (measure 4);\n-\nGuarantee granted on 10 May 2004 by the City of Mikkeli (measure 5);\n-\nConversion of unpaid interest rates into loans (measure 8);\n-\nRescheduling of debt since 2009 (measure 12);\n-\nGuarantee granted on 17 March 2004 by Finnvera (measure 13);\n-\nGuarantee granted on 9 January 2008 by Finnvera (measure 17).\n(279)\nThey must therefore be recovered in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid. Recovery shall hence take place from the time when the advantage occurred to the beneficiary, that is to say when the aid was put at the disposal of the beneficiary and shall bear recovery interest until effective recovery.\n8.1. Recovery of the aid measures granted in the form of guarantees\n(280)\nThe incompatible aid element of two guarantees granted by the City of Mikkeli in 2004 (measure 4 and measure 5) and of the guarantees granted by Finnvera in the years 2005 (measure 13) and 2008 (measure 17) shall be determined based on the following principles.\n(281)\nIn principle, a state guarantee could be aid up to the total amount of the underlying loan, if the beneficiary is not capable of accessing financial markets on its own powers (70). In the case at hand, Finland has, however, demonstrated that Karjaportti was still able to access financial markets at the time of granting the guarantees in 2004, by providing information on loans granted by private lenders to the beneficiary (see recital 93). There are little indications on whether Karjaportti had still access to the markets in 2008, when measure 17 was granted. In this context, the Commission notes that the counter-guarantee granted by Finnvera only covered 80 % of the guarantee provided by a private creditor, which means that for 20 % the private creditor still carried the risk. In light of this, it can be considered that the company was still capable of assessing financial markets without the guarantee of 2008.\n(282)\nHowever, given Karjaportti's financial difficulties at the time of the granting of the measures, commercial banks would have charged a correspondingly higher interest rate than the one achieved with the state guarantees, because the latter are an additional security for the banks. Thus, the Commission considers that Karjaportti benefitted from lower interest rates, which it received thanks to the guarantees.\n(283)\nAccording to Point 4.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008, in the absence of a comparable market guarantee premium, the total financing costs of the guaranteed loan (interest rate plus guarantee premium) should be compared to the interest rate on the market for a similar loan without a state guarantee. In many cases, such a market interest rate is not available. Therefore, the Commission has developed in its Communication on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (71) (\u2027the Reference Rate Communication 2008\u2027) a financial methodology which, for the reasons set out in point 4.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008, can be used as proxy for the market interest rate.\n(284)\nIn the case at hand, there is no indication of what Karjaportti would have paid for a comparable non-guaranteed loan. Furthermore, the granting of the three guarantees predates the economic and financial crisis. In addition, the Commission is of the view that due to the time elapsed since the granting of the measures, the calculation of a \"real\" market rate for a Finnish meat producer would be a difficult exercise. Therefore, the Commission will use the relevant reference rate as proxy for the market rate.\n8.1.1. Guarantee granted on 8 March 2004 (measure 4)\n(285)\nAs regards measure 4, the securisation of Karjaportti's loans could be considered as normal for the purpose of the Reference Rate Communication 2008. Karjaportti provided a property mortgage and a business mortgage for measure 4. The registered values of these two instruments are quite high (see recital 27). It has, however, to be taken into account that the very same collateral was already used to collateralise other claims of the City of Mikkeli (such as measure 1), so that not the full amount would be available for the measure at stake. Also, it has to be considered that the actual value of the property mortgage as well as of the business mortgage depends on the value of the encumbered goods and the City of Mikkeli's ranking.\n(286)\nIn this context, it is noted that Finland could not provide an evaluation of the value of the collaterals at the time of granting the guarantee. It provided, however, two independent valuations of the collateral in general, used for drawing up the restructuring programme, dated 15 February 2005 (see recital 43), which is quite close to the date of granting the guarantee. In this context, it is mentioned that in light of the rank of the City of Mikkeli the property mortgage might suffice to cover its claims if the property is kept in use; if Karjaportti has to be liquidated, the value of the property might be too low to cover any of the City of Mikkeli's claims. The business mortgage might cover only part of the City of Mikkeli's claims. In light of this, it seems plausible to consider the collateral provided as normal quality collateral.\n(287)\nTherefore, the interest rate Karjaportti should have paid for a loan under market conditions, without a guarantee, is the reference interest rate of 4,43 % plus a risk premium of 650 basis points, which reflects the risk premium applicable to a firm in difficulty providing normal collateral. The aid amount should therefore be calculated as the difference between this theoretical market rate and the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was actually provided (4 %), after the deduction of the price actually paid for the guarantee, that is to say 0 basis points. The difference between these rates shall be calculated for the period the rate actually provided was applied.\n(288)\nThe aid shall bear recovery interests calculated from the moment the difference between the theoretical interests and the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was actually provided would have been due until effective recovery.\n8.1.2. Guarantee granted on 10 May 2004 (measure 5)\n(289)\nAs regards measure 5, the securisation could be considered as normal for the purpose of the Reference Rate Communication 2008. Karjaportti provided the same collateral as for measure 4, that is to say a property mortgage on the production site of Tikkala and a business mortgage. In addition, a \"special pledge\" on the production site of Tikkala was granted, with a registered value of EUR 1 135 268 (see recital 29). To all these collaterals the same reasoning applies as provided above for measure 4, and it seems plausible to consider the collateral provided as normal collateral.\n(290)\nThe interest rate Karjaportti should have paid for a loan under market conditions, without the guarantee, is again the reference interest rate of 4,43 % plus a risk premium of 650 basis points. The aid amount should therefore be calculated as the difference between this theoretical market rate and the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was actually provided (12 months EURIBOR + 0,3 %), after the deduction of the price actually paid for the guarantee, i.e. 0 basis points. The difference between these rates shall be calculated for the period the rate actually provided was applied.\n(291)\nThe aid shall bear recovery interests calculated from the moment the difference between the theoretical interests and the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was actually provided would have been due until effective recovery.\n8.1.3. Guarantee granted on 17 March 2004 (measure 13)\n(292)\nThe Commission is not aware of details of the securisation of measure 13, and it can thus only provide the method how the recovery has to be effected. In a first step, if measure 13 was indeed collateralised, the value of such collateral according to the Reference Rate Communication has to be determined.\n(293)\nThe interest rate that Karjaportti should have paid for a loan under market conditions, without the guarantee, is again the reference interest rate of 4,43 % plus a risk premium reflecting the value of the securisation. The aid element should be calculated as the difference between this theoretical market rate and the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was actually provided ([2-5] %), after the deduction of the price actually paid for the guarantee, which was 3 %. The difference between these rates shall be calculated for the period the rate actually provided was applied.\n(294)\nThe aid shall bear recovery interests calculated from the moment the difference between the theoretical interests and the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was actually provided would have been due until effective recovery.\n8.1.4. Guarantee granted on 9 January 2008 (measure 17)\n(295)\nAs regards measure 17, the securisation could be considered as normal for the purpose of the Reference Rate Communication 2008. Karjaportti provided collateral in the form of a shareholding in a company, which Finnvera estimated to have a security value of EUR [\u2026], as described in more detail in recital (67). The interest rate Karjaportti should have paid for a loan under market conditions, without the guarantee, is again the reference interest rate of 5,19 % plus a risk premium of 650 basis points. The aid amount should therefore be calculated as the difference between this theoretical market rate and the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was actually provided ([0-3] % plus the interest rate for outstanding amounts under the subcontracting agreement) after the deduction of the price actually paid for the guarantee, that is to say 250 basis points. The difference between these rates shall be calculated for the period the rate actually provided was applied.\n(296)\nThe aid shall bear recovery interests calculated from the moment the difference between the theoretical interests and the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was actually provided would have been due until effective recovery.\n8.2. Recovery of the aid granted in the form of the conversion of unpaid interests into loans (Measure 8)\n(297)\nThe incompatible aid element in measure 8, a loan granted by the City of Mikkeli, has to be determined. As described in recitals 45-46, the City of Mikkeli granted the loan at lower interest rates than the private creditors of Karjaportti. In principle, for a loan, the aid element is calculated as the difference between the interest rate at which the loan was actually provided and the market rate. In the case at hand, private creditors granted loans together with the City of Mikkeli. The interest rates the private creditors charged can be seen as indication for a market rate.\n(298)\nThe aid amount should therefore be calculated as the difference between the average interest rate charged for the loans granted by the private creditors (EURIBOR 3 months + 2 % and EURIBOR 3 months + 1,5 %) and the interest rate at which the loan was actually provided (EURIBOR 3 months + 0,3 %).\n(299)\nThe difference between these rates shall be calculated for the period the rate actually provided was applied.\n(300)\nThe aid shall bear recovery interests calculated from the moment the difference between the theoretical interests and the interest rate at which the loan was actually provided would have been due until effective recovery.\n8.3. Recovery of the aid granted in the form of a rescheduling of debts since 2009 (Measure 12)\n(301)\nThe incompatible aid element in measure 12, the rescheduling of debts by the City of Mikkeli since 2009, has to be established. As described in recitals 219-226, the notified debt rescheduling has been implemented with modifications. As the Commission is not aware of the details of the actually implemented rescheduling, it can only provide the method how the recovery has to be effected.\n(302)\nThe aid was put at the disposal of the company from the moment Osuuskunta Karjaportti deviated from the payment schedule as agreed to during the court-supervised restructuring proceedings in 2006. The Commission considers that at the time of granting the aid, Karjaportti was no longer capable of accessing financial markets. Therefore, the aid equals the amount of rescheduled debt. The amounts to be recovered therefore equate to the amount of rescheduled debts towards the City of Mikkeli. Payments already made may however be deducted from the amounts to be recovered.\n(303)\nThe aid shall bear interests from the date the aid was put at the disposal of the company until effective recovery.\n9. CONCLUSION\n(304)\nThe Commission notes that the formal investigation as regards the guarantee of EUR 2,75 million notified but subsequently withdrawn by Finland became without object pursuant to Article 8 of the Procedural Regulation.\n(305)\nConcerning the guarantee granted in the year 2000 and the assignment of the land in the same year by the City of Mikkeli, the Commission considers those measures to be state aid that is compatible as investment aid under the RAG 1998.\n(306)\nThe purchase of land undertaken in 2002 by the City of Mikkeli is considered not to entail aid as it was done under market conditions.\n(307)\nThe guarantees granted by the City of Mikkeli in March 2004 and May 2004 can be considered as state aid, taking into account that Karjaportti was a company in difficulty within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 1999 at the time of granting. These measures are not compatible with the internal market, as none of the provisions of Article 107(2) and (3) of the TFEU are met.\n(308)\nThe measures taken within the court-supervised restructuring proceedings by the City of Mikkeli were granted together with comparable private creditors and under similar conditions. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the market economy investor principle was met and that the measures do not entail state aid.\n(309)\nThe purchase of shares by the City of Mikkeli and the write-off of debts in the financial statements in 2007 and 2008 can be both considered as aid free.\n(310)\nThe conversion of unpaid interest rates into a loan by the City of Mikkeli in December 2005 can be considered as state aid, taking into account that Karjaportti was a company in difficulty within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 2004 at the time of granting. These measures are not compatible with the internal market, as none of the provisions of Article 107(2) and (3) of the TFEU are met.\n(311)\nAs regards the rescheduling of debts agreed to by the City of Mikkeli in 2009, it is noted that it was a subsequent rescheduling of debts. In the light of this, the Commission considers that a private creditor would not have agreed to such a debt rescheduling and that the measure constitutes state aid. As Karjaportti was in difficulty within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 2004 at the time of granting, the measure could only have been compatible under those Guidelines. As not all requirements are fulfilled, it is concluded that the measure constitutes incompatible state aid.\n(312)\nThe guarantee granted by Finnvera on 17 March 2004 also entails state aid, which is not compatible under the R&R Guidelines 1999. The loan granted by Finnvera on 12 January 2006 does not constitute state aid, as it was granted together with comparable private creditors and at similar conditions. The same is true for the guarantee granted by Finnvera in September 2006 and the loan granted in July 2007.\n(313)\nFinally, the guarantee granted on 9 January 2008 by Finnvera can be considered as state aid, taking into account that Karjaportti was in difficulties within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 2004 at the time of granting. The measure is not compatible with the internal Market, as none of the provisions of Article 107(2) and (3) of the TFEU is met.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of the guarantee of EUR 2,75 million (measure 11), notified but subsequently withdrawn by Finland, is terminated.\nArticle 2\nThe measures which Finland has implemented for Osuuskunta Karjaportti, consisting of:\n-\npurchase of land in 2002 (measure 3),\n-\nthe measures taken within the court-supervised restructuring proceedings (measure 6),\n-\nthe purchase of shares from Osuuskunta Karjaportti (measure 7),\n-\nthe write-off of debts in the financial statements of 2006 and 2008 (measure 9 and measure 10),\n-\nthe Finnvera loan granted in June 2006 (measure 14),\n-\nthe Finnvera counter-guarantee granted in September 2006 (measure 15) and\n-\nthe Finnvera loan granted in July 2007 (measure 16)\ndo not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThe state aid measures which Finland has implemented for Osuuskunta Karjaportti, consisting of:\n-\na guarantee granted in June 2000 (measure 1) and\n-\nthe assignment of land in the same year (measure 2)\nare compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThe state aid measures which Finland has implemented for Osuuskunta Karjaportti, consisting of:\n-\nGuarantee granted on 8 March 2004 by the City of Mikkeli (measure 4);\n-\nGuarantee granted on 10 May 2004 by the city of Mikkeli (measure 5);\n-\nConversion of unpaid interest rates into loans (measure 8);\n-\nGuarantee granted by Finnvera on 17 March 2004 (measure 13);\n-\nGuarantee granted on 9 January 2008 by Finnvera (measure 17);\n-\nRescheduling of debt since 2009 (measure 12).\nwere unlawfully put into effect by Finland in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and are incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 5\n1. Finland shall recover the aid referred to in Article 4 from the beneficiary.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\n4. Finland shall cancel all outstanding payments of the aid referred to in Article 4 with effect from the date of notification of this decision.\nArticle 6\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 4 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Finland shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 7\n1. Within two months following notification of this Decision, Finland shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Finland shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 4 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Finland.\nDone at Brussels, 12 June 2012.", "references": ["98", "47", "49", "79", "56", "80", "18", "76", "60", "94", "95", "27", "32", "64", "75", "44", "17", "37", "38", "84", "19", "99", "3", "86", "50", "57", "35", "43", "20", "34", "No Label", "8", "15", "48", "73", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "48", "73", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/273/CFSP\nof 9 May 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 April 2011, the European Union expressed its grave concern about the situation unfolding in Syria and the deployment of military and security forces in a number of Syrian cities.\n(2)\nThe Union strongly condemned the violent repression, including through the use of live ammunition, of peaceful protest in various locations across Syria resulting in the death of several demonstrators, wounded persons and arbitrary detentions, and called on the Syrian security forces to exercise restraint instead of repression.\n(3)\nIn view of the seriousness of the situation, restrictive measures should be imposed against Syria and against persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria.\n(4)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related mat\u00e9riel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, as well as equipment which might be used for internal repression, to Syria by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States or using their flag vessels or aircraft, shall be prohibited, whether originating or not in their territories.\n2. It shall be prohibited to:\n(a)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance, brokering services or other services related to the items referred to in paragraph 1 or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of such items, to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Syria;\n(b)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the items referred to in paragraph 1, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for the provision of related technical assistance, brokering services or other services to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Syria;\n(c)\nparticipate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities, the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) or (b).\nArticle 2\n1. Article 1 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nsupplies and technical assistance intended solely for the support of or use by the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF);\n(b)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal military equipment or of equipment which might be used for internal repression, intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, or for institution building programmes of the United Nations (UN) and the European Union, or for European Union and UN crisis management operations;\n(c)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of non-combat vehicles which have been manufactured or fitted with materials to provide ballistic protection, intended solely for the protective use of personnel of the European Union and its Member States in Syria;\n(d)\nthe provision of technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to such equipment or to such programmes and operations;\n(e)\nthe provision of financing and financial assistance related to such equipment or to such programmes and operations;\non condition that such exports and assistance have been approved in advance by the relevant competent authority.\n2. Article 1 shall not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to Syria by UN personnel, personnel of the European Union or its Member States, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, and persons associated with them, as listed in the Annex.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation of international law, namely:\n(a)\nas a host country to an international intergovernmental organisation;\n(b)\nas a host country to an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the UN;\n(c)\nunder a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities; or\n(d)\nunder the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran pact) concluded by the Holy See (State of the Vatican City) and Italy.\n4. Paragraph 3 shall be considered as also applying in cases where a Member State is host country to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).\n5. The Council shall be duly informed in all cases where a Member State grants an exemption pursuant to paragraphs 3 or 4.\n6. Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed under paragraph 1 where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the Union, or hosted by a Member State holding the Chairmanship in office of the OSCE, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Syria.\n7. A Member State wishing to grant exemptions referred to in paragraph 6 shall notify the Council in writing. The exemption shall be deemed to be granted unless one or more of the Council members raises an objection in writing within two working days of receiving notification of the proposed exemption. Should one or more of the Council members raise an objection, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to grant the proposed exemption.\n8. In cases where pursuant to paragraphs 3, 4, 6 and 7, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in the Annex, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned therewith.\nArticle 4\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, and natural or legal persons, and entities associated with them, as listed in the Annex, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of, natural or legal persons or entities listed in the Annex.\n3. The competent authority of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources concerned are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of the persons listed in the Annex and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for the routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the competent authority has notified the competent authority of the other Member States and the Commission of the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted, at least two weeks prior to the authorisation.\nA Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation it grants under this paragraph.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the natural or legal person or entity referred to in Article 4(1) was included in the Annex, or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a natural or legal person or entity listed in the Annex; and\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgement is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\nA Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this paragraph.\n5. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent a designated person or entity from making a payment due under a contract entered into before the listing of such a person or entity, provided that the relevant Member State has determined that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1.\n6. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to this Decision,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments remain subject to paragraph 1.\nArticle 5\n1. The Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall establish and amend the list in the Annex.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the person or entity concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person or entity with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person or entity concerned accordingly.\nArticle 6\n1. The Annex shall include the grounds for listing the persons and entities concerned.\n2. The Annex shall also contain, where available, the information necessary to identify the persons or entities concerned. With regard to persons, such information may include names, including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and identity card numbers, gender, address if known, and function or profession. With regard to entities, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\nArticle 7\nIn order to maximise the impact of the measures set out in this Decision, the Union shall encourage third States to adopt restrictive measures similar to those contained in this Decision.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 12 months. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\nArticle 9\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 9 May 2011.", "references": ["53", "82", "33", "74", "77", "70", "39", "36", "34", "96", "55", "16", "4", "41", "98", "69", "31", "19", "0", "37", "48", "88", "75", "78", "42", "47", "15", "99", "8", "81", "No Label", "3", "9", "12", "14", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "9", "12", "14", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 194/2011\nof 28 February 2011\ncancelling the registration of a name in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (H\u00f6llen Sprudel (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, and pursuant to Article 17(2) of the same Regulation, the application submitted by Germany to cancel the name \u2018H\u00f6llen Sprudel\u2019 in the register was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, registration of this name must therefore be cancelled.\n(3)\nIn light of the above, this name must therefore be removed from the \u2018Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications\u2019.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Protected Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegistration of the name listed in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby cancelled.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["51", "45", "94", "46", "12", "18", "6", "3", "53", "34", "35", "38", "15", "59", "30", "89", "27", "9", "20", "14", "26", "74", "82", "68", "29", "61", "73", "75", "40", "19", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "71", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "71", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/28/EU\nof 4 March 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include indolylbutyric acid as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 1112/2002 (2) and (EC) No 2229/2004 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included indolylbutyric acid.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 24e of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/941/EC of 8 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of indolylbutyric acid.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the application of the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to France, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/941/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nFrance evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 26 January 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on indolylbutyric acid to the Commission on 3 September 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for indolylbutyric acid.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing indolylbutyric acid may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include indolylbutyric acid in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information confirming: the absence of clastogenicity potential of indolylbutyric acid, the vapour pressure of indolylbutyric acid and, consequently, an inhalation toxicity study, and the natural background concentration of indolylbutyric acid in the soil.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing indolylbutyric acid to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/941/EC provides for the non-inclusion of indolylbutyric acid and the withdrawal of authorisation of plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning indolylbutyric acid in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/941/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning indolylbutyric acid in the Annex to Decision 2008/941/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing indolylbutyric acid as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to indolylbutyric acid are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing indolylbutyric acid as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning indolylbutyric acid. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing indolylbutyric acid as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing indolylbutyric acid as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 March 2011.", "references": ["47", "72", "33", "11", "80", "26", "50", "13", "70", "24", "29", "34", "76", "89", "79", "91", "39", "35", "66", "14", "43", "15", "4", "52", "31", "78", "44", "81", "19", "71", "No Label", "2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 February 2011\non a derogation from the rules of origin set out in Council Decision 2001/822/EC as regards certain fishery products imported from Saint Pierre and Miquelon\n(notified under document C(2011) 986)\n(2011/122/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community (\u2018Overseas Association Decision\u2019) (1), and in particular Article 37 of Annex III thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex III to Decision 2001/822/EC concerns the definition of the concept of \u2018originating products\u2019 and methods of administrative cooperation. Pursuant to Article 37 thereof derogations from those rules of origin may be adopted where justified by the development of existing industries or the creation of new industries in a country or territory.\n(2)\nOn 19 October 2010 Saint Pierre and Miquelon requested a derogation from the rules of origin set out in Annex III to Decision 2001/822/EC for a period of 8 years. On 12 November additional information was provided by Saint Pierre and Miquelon. The request covers a total annual quantity of 225 tonnes of lobster (Homarus americanus) of HS headings 0306 and 1605, 600 tonnes of mackerel and herring (Scomber scombrus, Clupea harengus) of HS headings 0303, 0304, 0305 and 1604 and 250 tonnes of mussels (Mytilus edulis) of HS headings 0307 and 1605 originating in third countries and processed in Saint Pierre and Miquelon for export to the Union.\n(3)\nSaint Pierre and Miquelon has based its request on the continuing shortfall in the sources of supply of other fish.\n(4)\nThis derogation is justified pursuant to Article 37(1) and (5)(a) and (b) of Annex III to Decision 2001/822/EC, in particular as regards the development of an existing local industry, the economic and social impact and the particular situation of Saint Pierre and Miquelon. As the derogation is being granted for products which involve actual processing, it will contribute to the development of an existing industry. The derogation is essential for the success of the plant in question, which employs a significant number of staff. Therefore current production should be complemented with new species.\n(5)\nSubject to compliance with certain conditions relating to quantities, surveillance and duration, the derogation would not cause serious injury to an established industry of the Union or one or more of the Member States.\n(6)\nAs regards products falling within HS heading 0303, however, it follows from the general scheme of Article 37 that a derogation from the rules of origin set out in Annex III to Decision 2001/822/EC may not be granted for these products. These products do not in fact contribute to the development of an existing industry because they are subject of packaging operations, which are not in the nature of genuinely industrial activities.\n(7)\nThe derogation should also not be granted for fresh and frozen fillets of mackerel and herrings of HS heading 0304 since associated filleting operations are characterised by increasingly high levels of mechanisation. The use of labour force in the filleting operations turns out to be too insignificant to have an impact on the employment level. Processing those products will therefore not contribute to the development of the existing industry and any derogation in their favour is not justified.\n(8)\nAs regards mackerel and herring of HS headings 0305 and 1604 the derogation should cover only smoked and processed mackerel and herring. To allow the local industry to fully benefit from the regular and qualitative supply of raw materials and to offer a complementary activity during low season thus generating an economy of scale for the local industry, the requested annual quantity of 600 tonnes should be granted for those products.\n(9)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Common Customs Code (2) lays down rules for the management of tariff quotas. To ensure an efficient management, those rules should be applied mutatis mutandis to the management of the quantities in respect of which the derogation in question is granted.\n(10)\nAs Decision 2001/822/EC expires on 31 December 2013, it should be laid down that the derogation will continue to apply after 31 December 2013 if a new decision is adopted on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community or if Decision 2001/822/EC is extended.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Annex III to Decision 2001/822/EC, the fishery products processed in Saint Pierre and Miquelon which are listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be regarded as originating in Saint Pierre and Miquelon where they are obtained from non-originating fish, in accordance with the terms of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to the fishery products and to the annual quantities shown in the Annex which are imported into the Union from Saint Pierre and Miquelon during the period from 1 February 2011 to 31 January 2019.\nArticle 3\nArticles 308a, 308b and 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 relating to the management of tariff quotas shall apply mutatis mutandis to the management of the quantities set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThe customs authorities of Saint Pierre and Miquelon shall take the necessary steps to carry out quantitative checks on exports of the products referred to in Article 1.\nTo that end, all the certificates they issue pursuant to this Decision shall bear a reference to it.\nThe competent authorities of Saint Pierre and Miquelon shall forward to the Commission every 3 months a statement of the quantities in respect of which EUR 1 movement certificates have been issued pursuant to this Decision and the serial numbers of those certificates.\nArticle 5\nBox 7 of EUR 1 certificates issued under this Decision shall contain one of the following entries:\n-\n\u2018Derogation - Decision 2011/122/EU\u2019,\n-\n\u2018D\u00e9rogation - D\u00e9cision 2011/122/UE\u2019.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 February 2011 until 31 January 2019.\nHowever, if a new preferential regime is adopted replacing Decision 2001/822/EC beyond 31 December 2013, or if the current regime is extended, this Decision shall continue to apply until the date of expiry of the new regime or of the extended current regime but in any case not later than 31 January 2019.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 February 2011.", "references": ["86", "32", "62", "92", "44", "28", "54", "15", "73", "68", "26", "11", "90", "64", "85", "58", "82", "3", "39", "42", "21", "46", "30", "77", "79", "29", "40", "48", "17", "24", "No Label", "8", "22", "23", "67", "93", "98"], "gold": ["8", "22", "23", "67", "93", "98"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 593/2011\nof 20 June 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of June 2011 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 of 14 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the poultrymeat sector (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 533/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of June 2011 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["13", "40", "47", "5", "68", "10", "28", "12", "14", "70", "51", "50", "78", "16", "64", "6", "94", "79", "3", "18", "99", "75", "73", "58", "97", "29", "61", "49", "33", "31", "No Label", "21", "69"], "gold": ["21", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 2 May 2012\nappointing a Spanish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/242/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Timoteo MART\u00cdNEZ AGUADO,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed as alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMs Mar\u00eda del Mar ESPA\u00d1A MART\u00cd, Viceconsejera de la Consejer\u00eda de Presidencia y Administraciones P\u00fablicas de la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 2 May 2012.", "references": ["74", "28", "6", "98", "75", "86", "95", "85", "93", "37", "9", "78", "47", "26", "49", "13", "76", "69", "21", "33", "55", "62", "94", "27", "41", "71", "79", "99", "35", "8", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 775/2012\nof 23 August 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for black scabbardfish in EU and international waters of VIII, IX and X by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 August 2012.", "references": ["61", "29", "41", "14", "55", "57", "6", "45", "7", "84", "99", "81", "60", "63", "93", "25", "39", "72", "88", "58", "46", "11", "73", "2", "69", "89", "62", "42", "80", "24", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 268/2011\nof 18 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 March 2011.", "references": ["43", "45", "52", "75", "90", "1", "4", "74", "27", "76", "50", "11", "69", "42", "47", "33", "56", "44", "83", "41", "46", "6", "55", "38", "2", "59", "85", "79", "24", "22", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 4 April 2012\namending Decisions 2008/603/EC, 2008/691/EC and 2008/751/EC as regards the temporary derogations from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Mauritius, Seychelles and Madagascar with regard to preserved tuna and tuna loins\n(notified under document C(2012) 2321)\n(2012/190/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements (1), and in particular Article 36(4) of Annex II thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 17 July 2008 the Commission adopted Decision 2008/603/EC (2) granting a temporary derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Mauritius with regard to preserved tuna and tuna loins. By Commission Implementing Decision 2011/377/EU (3) extension of that temporary derogation was granted until 31 December 2011. On 6 October 2011 Mauritius requested in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 a new derogation from the rules of origin set out in that Annex. According to the information received from Mauritius the catches of raw tuna remain unusually low even compared to the normal seasonal variations. Given that the abnormal situation since 2008 remains unchanged and because of the problem of piracy in the Indian Ocean a new derogation should be granted with effect from 1 January 2012.\n(2)\nOn 14 August 2008 the Commission adopted Decision 2008/691/EC (4) granting a temporary derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Seychelles with regard to preserved tuna. By Implementing Decision 2011/377/EU extension of that temporary derogation was granted until 31 December 2011. On 17 November 2011 Seychelles requested in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 a new derogation from the rules of origin set out in that Annex. According to the information provided by Seychelles the catches of raw tuna remain very low even compared to the normal seasonal variations. Furthermore, the threat of piracy results in a reduced number of fishing days in lucrative but high risk areas. Given that the abnormal situation since 2008 remains unchanged, a new derogation should be granted with effect from 1 January 2012.\n(3)\nOn 18 September 2008 the Commission adopted Decision 2008/751/EC (5) granting a temporary derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Madagascar with regard to preserved tuna and tuna loins. By Implementing Decision 2011/377/EU extension of that temporary derogation was granted until 31 December 2011. On 25 October 2011 Madagascar requested in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 a new derogation from the rules of origin set out in that Annex. According to this information sourcing of raw originating tuna remains difficult due to the problem of piracy in the Indian Ocean. Given that the abnormal situation since 2008 remains unchanged, a new derogation should be granted with effect from 1 January 2012.\n(4)\nDecisions 2008/603/EC, 2008/691/EC and 2008/751/EC applied until 31 December 2011. It is necessary to ensure continuity of importations from the ACP countries to the Union as well as a smooth transition to the Interim Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States on the one part and the European Community and its Member States on the other part (ESA-EU Interim Economic Partnership Agreement). Decisions 2008/603/EC, 2008/691/EC and 2008/751/EC should therefore be extended from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n(5)\nIt would be inappropriate to grant derogations in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 which exceed the annual quota granted to the ESA region under the ESA-EU Interim Economic Partnership Agreement. Consequently the quota amounts for 2012 should be set at 3 000 tonnes of preserved tuna and 600 tonnes of tuna loins for Mauritius, 3 000 tonnes of preserved tuna and 600 tonnes of tuna loins for Seychelles and 2 000 tonnes of preserved tuna and 500 tonnes of tuna loins for Madagascar.\n(6)\nIn the interest of clarity, it is appropriate to set out explicitly that the only non-originating materials to be used for the manufacture of preserved tuna and tuna loins of CN code 1604 14 16 should be tuna of HS Headings 0302 or 0303, in order for the preserved tuna and tuna loins to benefit from the derogation.\n(7)\nDecisions 2008/603/EC, 2008/691/EC and 2008/751/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2008/603/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nBy way of derogation from Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 and in accordance with Article 36(1)(a) of that Annex, preserved tuna and tuna loins of HS Heading 1604 manufactured from non-originating tuna of HS Headings 0302 or 0303 shall be regarded as originating in Mauritius in accordance with the terms set out in Articles 2 to 5 of this Decision.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to the products and the quantities set out in the Annex which are declared for release for free circulation into the Community from Mauritius during the periods of 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2008, 1 January 2009 until 31 December 2009, 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2010, 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011 and 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2012.\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2012.\u2019;\n4.\nthe Annex is replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2008/691/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nBy way of derogation from Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 and in accordance with Article 36(1)(a) of that Annex, preserved tuna and tuna loins of HS Heading 1604 manufactured from non-originating tuna of HS Headings 0302 or 0303 shall be regarded as originating in Seychelles in accordance with the terms set out in Articles 2 to 5 of this Decision.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to the products and the quantities set out in the Annex which are declared for release for free circulation into the Community from Seychelles during the periods of 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2008, 1 January 2009 until 31 December 2009, 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2010, 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011 and 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2012.\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2012.\u2019;\n4.\nthe Annex is replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nDecision 2008/751/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nBy way of derogation from Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 and in accordance with its Article 36(1)(a), preserved tuna and tuna loins of HS Heading 1604 manufactured from non-originating tuna of HS Headings 0302 or 0303 shall be regarded as originating in Madagascar in accordance with the terms set out in Articles 2 to 5 of this Decision.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to the products and the quantities set out in the Annex which are declared for release for free circulation into the Community from Madagascar during the periods of 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2008, 1 January 2009 until 31 December 2009, 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2010, 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011 and 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2012.\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2012.\u2019;\n4.\nthe Annex is replaced by the text set out in Annex III to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 April 2012.", "references": ["82", "11", "32", "28", "5", "39", "16", "53", "24", "91", "73", "45", "41", "64", "66", "98", "60", "85", "59", "75", "90", "80", "47", "20", "25", "65", "48", "61", "88", "74", "No Label", "8", "21", "22", "23", "67", "72", "94"], "gold": ["8", "21", "22", "23", "67", "72", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1093/2011\nof 28 October 2011\non the application of derogations from the rules of origin laid down in the Protocol on the definition of originating products attached to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and Korea\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/265/EU of 16 September 2010 on the signing and provisional application of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea (1), of the other part, and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision 2011/265/EU, the Council authorised the signature of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part (2) (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) on behalf of the European Union. Decision 2011/265/EU confirmed the provisional application of the Agreement, subject to its conclusion at a later stage, as provided for in Article 15.10.5 of the Agreement. The date from which the Agreement applies on a provisional basis was set at 1 July 2011.\n(2)\nFor a number of specific products, Annex II(a) to the Protocol attached to the Agreement concerning the definition of \u2018originating products\u2019 and methods of administrative cooperation (3) (\u2018the Protocol\u2019) provides for derogations from the rules of origin set out in Annex II to the Protocol. However, the derogations are limited by annual quotas. It is therefore necessary to lay down the conditions for the application of those derogations.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Annex II(a) to the Protocol, the proof of origin for surimi preparations (CN code 1604 20 05) should be accompanied by documentary evidence that the surimi preparation contains at least 40 per cent fish by weight and that the Alaska Pollack (Theragra chalcogramma) species has been used as the primary ingredient of the surimi base.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Annex II(a) to the Protocol, the proof of origin for dyed woven fabrics of CN codes 5408 22 and 5408 32 should be accompanied by documentary evidence that the undyed fabric used does not exceed 50 per cent of the ex-works price of the product.\n(5)\nSince the quotas set out in Annex II(a) to the Protocol are to be managed by the Commission on a first-come, first-served basis, they should be managed in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (4).\n(6)\nSince the Agreement takes effect on 1 July 2011, this Regulation should apply from the same date.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The rules of origin set out in Annex II(a) to the Protocol concerning the definition of \u2018originating products\u2019 and methods of administrative cooperation attached to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Korea (\u2018the Protocol\u2019) shall apply for the products set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The rules of origin referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply by derogation from the rules of origin set out in Annex II to the Protocol, subject to the quotas set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThe rules of origin provided for in this Regulation shall apply under the following conditions:\n(a)\na declaration signed by the approved exporter certifying that the products concerned satisfy the conditions of the derogation shall be provided upon the release of the products for free circulation within the Union;\n(b)\nthe declaration referred to in point (a) shall contain the following statement in English: \u2018Derogation - Annex II(a) of the Protocol concerning the definition of originating products and methods of administrative cooperation\u2019.\nArticle 3\n1. Where a proof of origin is provided for surimi preparations of CN code 1604 20 05, it shall be accompanied by documentary evidence that the surimi preparation contains at least 40 per cent fish by weight and that the Alaska Pollack (Theragra chalcogramma) species has been used as the primary ingredient of the surimi base.\n2. Where necessary, the meaning of \u2018primary ingredient\u2019 as referred to in paragraph 1 shall be interpreted by the Customs Committee in accordance with Article 28 of the Protocol.\nArticle 4\n1. The documentary evidence referred to in Article 3 shall consist of at least a signed statement in English by the approved exporter that:\n(a)\nthe surimi preparation contains at least 40 per cent fish by weight;\n(b)\nthe Alaska Pollack (Theragra chalcogramma) species has been used as the primary ingredient of the surimi base.\n2. The statement referred to in paragraph 1 shall also include the following:\n(a)\nthe amount used of the Alaska Pollack (Theragra chalcogramma) species as a percentage of the fish used for producing the surimi;\n(b)\nthe country of origin of the Alaska Pollack.\nArticle 5\nWhere a proof of origin is provided for dyed woven fabrics of CN codes 5408 22 and 5408 32, it shall be accompanied by documentary evidence that the undyed fabric used does not exceed 50 per cent of the ex-works price of the product.\nArticle 6\nThe documentary evidence referred to in Article 5 shall consist of at least a signed statement in English by the approved exporter that the undyed fabric used does not exceed 50 per cent of the ex-works price of the product. The statement shall also include the following:\n(a)\nthe price in euro of the non-originating undyed fabrics used to make the dyed woven fabrics (CN codes 5408 22 and 5408 32);\n(b)\nthe ex-works price in euro of the dyed woven fabrics (CN codes 5408 22 and 5408 32).\nArticle 7\nThe quotas listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be managed by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Articles 308a to 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\nArticle 8\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 October 2011.", "references": ["71", "31", "47", "28", "11", "68", "84", "33", "30", "25", "76", "69", "62", "4", "55", "24", "90", "35", "82", "93", "45", "38", "94", "19", "56", "5", "2", "18", "50", "64", "No Label", "3", "8", "9", "23", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "8", "9", "23", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 December 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MIR604xGA21 (SYN-IR6\u00d84-5xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 9533)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/892/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Article 7(3) and Article 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 31 October 2007, Syngenta Seeds SAS submitted to the competent authority of the United Kingdom an application, in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MIR604xGA21 maize (the application).\n(2)\nThe application also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of MIR604xGA21 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with Articles 5(5) and 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.\n(3)\nOn 18 May 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It considered that maize MIR604xGA21 is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment. Therefore, it concluded that it is unlikely that the placing on the market of the products containing, consisting of, or produced from MIR604xGA21 maize as described in the application (the products) will have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment in the context of their intended uses (3).\n(4)\nIn its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Articles 6(4) and 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(5)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.\n(6)\nTaking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products.\n(7)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).\n(8)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MIR604xGA21 maize. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (5), lays down in Article 4(6) labelling requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs. Traceability requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs are laid down in paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article 4 and for food and feed produced from GMOs are laid down in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(10)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the d eliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). The EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in point (e) of Article 6(5) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(11)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(12)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing-House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and point (c) of Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).\n(13)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(14)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chair and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures.\n(15)\nSince, at its meeting on 15 December 2011, the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal and the Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded, these measures are to be adopted by the Commission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) MIR604xGA21, as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier SYN-IR6\u00d84-5xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Articles 4(2) and 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from SYN-IR6\u00d84-5xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9 maize;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from SYN-IR6\u00d84-5xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9 maize;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of SYN-IR6\u00d84-5xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018maize\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of SYN-IR6\u00d84-5xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9 maize referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 2.\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nCommunity register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Syngenta Seeds SAS France, representing Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Switzerland.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Syngenta Seeds SAS, Chemin de l\u2019Hobit 12, 31790 Saint-Sauveur, France.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2011.", "references": ["57", "48", "81", "4", "37", "41", "59", "43", "96", "27", "6", "73", "89", "64", "9", "8", "52", "51", "18", "91", "44", "39", "72", "98", "20", "93", "85", "42", "29", "90", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 April 2011\non suspected aid to the company Tr\u00e8ves C 4/10 (ex NN 64/09) implemented by the French Republic\n(notified under document C(2011) 2585)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/676/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy means of various articles appearing in the press in spring 2009, it came to the Commission\u2019s attention that the company Tr\u00e8ves would appear to have benefited from an investment amounting to EUR 55 million by the Fonds de Modernisation des Equipementiers Automobiles (Fund for the Modernisation of Automobile Parts Manufacturers) (below: \u2018FMEA\u2019). The Commission sent the French authorities requests for information on this subject by letters dated 5 May 2009, 11 June 2009, 10 July 2009 and 4 November 2009. The French authorities replied to these requests by letters (or e-mails) dated 5 June 2009, 23 June 2009, 18 August 2009, 18 November 2009 and 23 December 2009.\n(2)\nMoreover, at the request of the French authorities, a meeting was held at the Commission\u2019s offices on 8 January 2010. Following this meeting, the French authorities provided additional information by e-mail dated 15 January 2010.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 29 January 2010, the Commission notified France of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (below: \u2018TFEU\u2019) concerning the FMEA investment and a plan to reschedule Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 tax and social security debts (also referred to as the \u2018debt settlement plan\u2019) authorised by the French administration. France communicated its comments concerning the initiation of the formal investigation procedure on 25 March 2010.\n(4)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures in question.\n(5)\nThe Commission received comments on this subject from the following interested parties: the Italian Republic, the company Tr\u00e8ves, the PSA Peugeot Citro\u00ebn group, the Renault group, one of Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 competitors wishing to remain anonymous and the FMEA (3). The Commission forwarded these comments to France, giving it the opportunity to comment on them, and received its comments by letter dated 5 October 2010. A meeting was also held with the French authorities on 18 November 2010. Finally, additional information was forwarded to the Commission by e-mails dated 21 December 2010 and 22 February 2011.\nII. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES UNDER INVESTIGATION\n(6)\nBefore describing the measures under investigation, it is appropriate to present the Fonds Strat\u00e9gique d\u2019Investissement (Strategic Investment Fund) (below: \u2018FSI\u2019), the FMEA and CDC Entreprises (the FMEA management company) (point II.1 below) and the company Tr\u00e8ves and the measures taken in relation to it (point II.2 below). Finally, the reasons will be set out leading to the initiation of the formal investigation procedure regarding the FMEA investment and the tax and social security debt rescheduling plan (point II.3 below).\nII.1. The FSI, the FMEA and CDC Entreprises\n(7)\nOn account of the crisis which started in 2008, France established the Strategic Investment Fund (below: \u2018FSI\u2019) to bolster its economy. Shortly afterwards, the FSI, in partnership with the PSA Peugeot Citro\u00ebn group (below: \u2018PSA\u2019) and the Renault group (below: \u2018Renault\u2019), set up the FMEA. Whereas the object of the FSI is to intervene in any type of enterprise, whichever the economic sector concerned, the FMEA intervenes only in favour of automobile parts manufacturers.\n(8)\nThe Strategic Investment Fund, with capital of EUR 20 billion, was set up by the French Government in December 2008 to meet the capital requirements of undertakings deemed to boost the growth and competitiveness of the French economy. According to its managers, the FSI invests only in undertakings which offer good prospects of growth and competitiveness for the French economy.\n(9)\nThe FSI is 49 % owned by the French Government and 51 % by the Caisse des D\u00e9p\u00f4ts et Consignations (below: \u2018CDC\u2019). The CDC \u2018and its subsidiaries constitute a public group serving the general interest and economic development\u2019 of France (4); its managers are appointed by decree.\n(10)\nThe FSI Board of Directors is chaired by the Director-General of the CDC and, in addition to its Chairman, comprises six directors, of whom one represents the CDC, two represent the State (the Director-General for State Holdings and the Director-General for Enterprises) and three represent the interests of undertakings (the company directors of SCOR, Essilor and Art\u00e9mis).\n(11)\nThe FMEA is a venture capital mutual fund, the object of which is to promote the emergence of competitive automobile parts manufacturers capable of offering their customers research and development capacity and strong international support. It makes investments of up to a maximum of EUR 60 million, for the exclusive benefit of its subscribers, alone or together with other private investors or other funds.\n(12)\nThe FMEA was established (on 25 March 2009) under the plan to support the motor vehicle industry, announced by the President of the French Republic on 4 December 2008. Its capital of EUR 600 million is funded by the FSI (EUR 200 million), PSA (EUR 200 million) and Renault (EUR 200 million).\n(13)\nThe FMEA is managed by CDC Entreprises, a subsidiary of the CDC. Investment decisions are therefore taken by CDC Entreprises.\n(14)\nThe FMEA has a selection committee and an investment committee, which are responsible for preparing files before investments are made by the management company CDC Entreprises. The three investors, PSA, Renault and the FSI, are represented equally on these committees.\n(15)\nAccording to the FMEA organisational rules, the selection committee must be consulted by the management company concerning the strategic nature of investment projects. Its advisory opinions are not binding on the management company. They are adopted by a two-thirds majority.\n(16)\nThe investment committee must be consulted prior to each investment or divestment carried out or concerning any derogation from the investment policy criteria and rules. When pronouncing on an investment or divestment project, its opinions too are adopted by a two-thirds majority and are not binding on the management company. However, if one of the three investors votes against, the opinion given will be considered as a negative opinion. In this case, the investment or divestment project is returned to the selection committee.\n(17)\nCDC Entreprises plays a key role in venture capital in France. It is required to comply with all the rules laid down by the Financial Markets Authority regarding third-party asset management and especially the rules relating to independence concerning choice of investments and prevention of conflicts of interests. CDC Entreprises\u2019 management activities include FSI\u2019s investments in unlisted SMEs and investments on behalf of the CDC and other investors.\n(18)\nCDC Entreprises is a full subsidiary of the CDC. The Chairman and Managing Director of CDC Entreprises are appointed by its Board of Directors, the members of which are appointed by the CDC.\n(19)\nCDC Entreprises has concluded an assistance and advice agreement with the FSI, under which a dedicated FSI team assists CDC Entreprises in preselection of investment projects (including feasibility and risk assessment studies, study and assistance in the implementation of these interventions) and monitoring the investments made.\n(20)\nThe organisation and functioning of the FMEA committees mean that CDC Entreprises alone has the authority to commit the FMEA. The decisions taken by the committees are not binding on the management company (apart from derogations from the investment policy criteria and rules and the management of conflicts of interests, which are not relevant in the present case). The French authorities specified that, to date, CDC Entreprises has never deemed it appropriate to take investment decisions contrary to the opinion of the committees.\n(21)\nFigure 1 below summarises the links between the French State, the CDC, CDC Entreprises, the FSI, the FMEA, PSA and Renault.\nFigure 1\nLinks between the French State, the CDC, CDC Entreprises, the FSI, the FMEA, PSA and Renault\nII.2. The company Tr\u00e8ves and the measures taken in relation to it\n(22)\nTr\u00e8ves is a company specialising in car interior components. Tr\u00e8ves employed about 6 500 persons before the current restructuring plan was implemented (the restructuring plan concerns 1 300 persons). It is structured around three areas of activity: noise insulation (5), seats and components, and textiles. The company owned 9 factories (2 have now been closed) and is established in 14 countries (including Spain, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Slovenia and the Czech Republic). 40 % of its turnover comes from France. Its main customers are Renault, Peugeot SA, Volkswagen, Nissan and Toyota.\n(23)\nShortly before the outbreak of the crisis in 2008, Tr\u00e8ves was starting to reap the benefits of a first restructuring plan launched in 2005 aiming to reduce the workforce and rationalise production capacity. When the crisis arose, Tr\u00e8ves decided to modify and extend its restructuring plan and expressed the wish to conduct discussions with its lenders under a conciliation procedure (6).\n(24)\nA conciliation protocol was therefore concluded on 25 May 2009 between the Tr\u00e8ves shareholder (the holding company \u2018Severt\u2019, the sole shareholder), the companies of the Tr\u00e8ves group, the lenders (i.e. the banks) and the FMEA. This protocol is based on the implementation of a restructuring plan (this plan is described in Section V.1.1).\n(25)\nThe financing of the restructuring plan was estimated at EUR [110-140] (7) million. Under this plan, the various parties entered into the commitments described in the protocol of 25 May 2009.\n(26)\nManufacturers Peugeot and Renault committed to contributing EUR 33,3 million under the financing [\u2026].\n(27)\nThe Tr\u00e8ves group committed to doing its utmost to generate a sum during 2009 corresponding to [5-20] % of the cash resource requirements, i.e. EUR [5-30] million.\n(28)\nThe banks granted a new bank loan of EUR [10-30] million. The banks also granted a consolidation loan amounting to EUR [30-60] million to repay the existing short-term loans (EUR [0-20] million) and medium-term loans (EUR [30-40] million). The new loan and the consolidation loan must be repaid in full by [\u2026] 2014.\n(29)\nThe FMEA invested EUR 55 million in the company. Of this sum, EUR [40-50] million was in the form of debt securities providing access to capital (i.e. convertible bonds with adjustable parity), bearing a fixed coupon of [> 8] %. In parallel, EUR [5-15] million came from a capital increase (subscription of new ordinary shares), thereby providing the FMEA with a [< 50] % holding in Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 capital.\n(30)\nThe public creditors authorised a tax and social security debt settlement plan amounting to EUR 18,4 million [\u2026]. This plan consists in rescheduling the repayment of Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 tax and social security debts, together with the payment of penalties and interest on arrears.\nII.3. Reasons for initiating the procedure\n(31)\nThe financing of Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 restructuring plan is based on the investment of new funds to a total of EUR [100-120] million (this amount does not include the consolidation loan). Of this amount, EUR 55 million is contributed by the FMEA. To this is added the tax and social security debt settlement plan amounting to EUR 18,4 million. In its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission expresses its doubts as to whether these latter two measures should not be categorised as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(32)\nAs regards the FMEA investment, the Commission points out that several factors seem to indicate that this investment is of state origin. At first sight, this investment appears to have been made from state resources and to be imputable to the State (8). The Commission\u2019s doubts are based in particular on observation of the functioning of the FSI, the FMEA and CDC Entreprises described above.\n(33)\nThe Commission then expresses its doubts about compliance with the criterion of the private investor operating in a market economy through this investment. In particular, the Commission was unable to establish with certainty, in the light of the situation in both the motor vehicle sector and the company which was experiencing certain financial difficulties (9), firstly, that the assumptions of the restructuring plan were credible, realistic and prudent, secondly, that the valuation of Tr\u00e8ves prior to the investment was prudent and, thirdly, that the prospect of an internal rate of return (below: \u2018IRR\u2019) of [> 12 %] (10) was to be considered sufficient in view of the risk assumed by the FMEA.\n(34)\nAs regards the tax and social security debt settlement plan, the Commission wonders whether the French authorities acted like a private creditor placed in the same conditions and seeking to recover sums due to it. The Commission was not in possession of all the information enabling it to conclude that the public creditors, by virtue of the conciliation protocol of 25 May 2009, were in a position at least as favourable as Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 private creditors (i.e. the banks) which also agreed to reschedule their claims by granting a consolidation loan. The Commission therefore expresses doubts about compliance with the principle of the private creditor operating in a market economy through the tax and social security debt settlement plan.\n(35)\nFinally, if the two measures mentioned above were to be categorised as State aid, the Commission points out in its decision to initiate the procedure that their compatibility could be examined on the basis of the Commission guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (11) (below: \u2018the guidelines\u2019). However, the Commission asserts that, at this stage, it is unable to establish with certainty that all the conditions provided for by the guidelines are met.\nIII. COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES\n(36)\nThe Tr\u00e8ves group communicated its comments to the Commission by letter dated 2 July 2010. In its opinion, the terms and conditions of the FMEA investment in the Tr\u00e8ves group and the implementation of the tax and social security debt rescheduling plan are not covered by Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(37)\nFirstly, the Tr\u00e8ves group points out that the argument of the imputability of the aid to the State is unfounded because, through the FMEA, the Tr\u00e8ves group opted for a commitment with two motor vehicle manufacturers of international dimension which account for [> 50] % of its turnover. Furthermore, it contests the Commission\u2019s analysis that the company had to call on state resources as, on the one hand, the FMEA resources, in its view, come from private operators and, on the other hand, the participation of other private investors in the financing of the company (the banks), proves that it was capable of financing itself on the market.\n(38)\nSecondly, the Tr\u00e8ves group categorically refutes the Commission\u2019s analysis of the economic situation of the company Tr\u00e8ves between 2005 and 2008. In its opinion, the Commission confuses the general crisis in the motor vehicle sector in 2008 with the individual situation of the company, which recorded an uninterrupted, substantial increase in its turnover between 1999 (EUR [500-700] million) and 2004 (EUR [900-1 100] million). This rise was in fact checked by the crisis which hit the motor vehicle sector in the second half of 2008. The object of the restructuring plans of 2005 and 2009 was not to remedy liquidity problems, but consisted in rationalising the company\u2019s production capacity in order to relaunch the company in a difficult economic climate and not to ensure its survival, as evidenced by the rising trend in Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 EBITDA (12) between 2005 and 2007 and the recovery in its results from 2009.\n(39)\nFurthermore, the Tr\u00e8ves group challenges the importance which the Commission attributes to the declarations by the French Minister for Industry that if the State had not intervened, Tr\u00e8ves would have filed a petition in bankruptcy. A subjective political declaration pronounced in a tense social climate has no relevance to the assessment of the real economic and financial situation of an undertaking.\n(40)\nConsequently, the FMEA investment in the company Tr\u00e8ves was undeniably prudent, both financially and industrially. The company recalls that the FMEA was not the only investor, but that several other potential investors came forward and private partners entered into commitments alongside the FMEA. Contrary to what the Commission seems to assume, there is no contradiction between the financial logic and the industrial logic of the FMEA investment. According to the Tr\u00e8ves group, the fact that a manufacturer holds a participating interest in one of its suppliers for the purpose of strengthening their industrial ties and obtaining a financial benefit from its growth is current practice in the motor vehicle sector.\n(41)\nThirdly, the Tr\u00e8ves group pays particular attention to compliance with the principle of the prudent investor operating in a market economy. The terms of the investment are not only very strict, but also advantageous for the FMEA. Furthermore, in 2008-09, the company Tr\u00e8ves had key strengths at its disposal to ensure its rapid return to profitability (establishment and growth in emerging countries, diversification of its portfolio of manufacturer customers, marked focus on research and development). Taking account of these strengths, Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 industrial and financial restructuring plan was drawn up on the basis of prudent and reasonable forecasts after a detailed audit of the company\u2019s situation. Finally, the good results recorded by Tr\u00e8ves in 2009-10 demonstrate the prudent nature of the investment.\n(42)\nFinally, the Tr\u00e8ves group considers that, if the FMEA investment were to come under Article 107(1) TFEU, this aid would be compatible with the guidelines, as the company\u2019s long-term return to viability is ensured and the restructuring of Tr\u00e8ves does not give rise to any distortion of competition and is accompanied by compensatory measures already implemented in part ([\u2026], reduction in production capacity, reduction in workforce and finally the share in funding the restructuring of Tr\u00e8ves allegedly of state origin remains confined to the strict minimum of the restructuring costs).\n(43)\nAs regards the tax and social security debt rescheduling plan, the Tr\u00e8ves group considers firstly that it respects the principles of the private creditor operating in a market economy and that the Commission cannot presuppose that any categorisation as aid adopted would in fact preclude the possibility of a prudent rescheduling plan on the part of the financial authorities. The rescheduling plan provides for penalties and surcharges for late payment, an interest rate higher than the statutory rate which a private creditor could expect, first-ranking mortgages [\u2026] and the co-existence of the intervention by the public authorities with that of private creditors.\n(44)\nThe FMEA forwarded its comments to the Commission by letter dated 22 June 2010. The FMEA rejects the categorisation of its investment in the company Tr\u00e8ves as State aid, on account of its autonomy firstly in the choice of its investments and secondly in the approach adopted to achieve its objectives.\n(45)\nThe FMEA emphasises the fact that its intervention decisions are entirely independent. This autonomy results not only from its status, but also from its governance. The FMEA, as a venture capital mutual fund, has a management company which in turn is subject to the rules of third-party asset management. The statutory independence of the management company in the choice of its investments, as it acts in accordance with the proprietary interest of the subscribers, contributes to ensuring the autonomy of the FMEA at the investment decision stage. As regards the FMEA advisory committees, the opinions of the selection committee and the investment committee can be adopted only with the approval of one of the two manufacturers. The management company, CDC Entreprises, has so far never departed from the opinions given by the committees. Consequently, the influence of the private investors, i.e. Renault and Peugeot, is predominant in the selection and definition of the investment projects.\n(46)\nMoreover, the FMEA investment in Tr\u00e8ves illustrates the FMEA investment policy, which gives preference to undertakings with strong innovative capacity and strong potential for growth and profitability in the automobile parts manufacturers sector. Tr\u00e8ves is a leading European parts manufacturer which for that matter was of interest to [\u2026] other private funds. The distinct improvement in the company\u2019s results from 2010 shows the reality and relevance of the restructuring plan presented by Tr\u00e8ves. The temporary difficulties experienced by the company on account of the economic and financial crisis also enabled the FMEA to negotiate an investment on terms providing a very high level of protection.\n(47)\nThe FMEA consequently considers that its investment cannot be categorised as State aid.\n(48)\nRenault forwarded its comments to the Commission by letter dated 6 July 2010. First of all, it challenges the Commission\u2019s assertions that its subscription to the FMEA is linked to the loan granted to it by the State in April 2009. The company recalls that when the Fund was set up on 20 January 2009 (13), it had no information about a possible future loan granted by the State to manufacturers. The object of the loan granted to it in April 2009 was to finance the general needs of the undertaking arising from the contraction in the financial markets during the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009.\n(49)\nFurthermore, Renault\u2019s subscription to the FMEA was justified for economic, industrial and financial reasons: it is in fact strategically and financially essential for Renault to consolidate its supply on a permanent basis by relying on sound, competitive suppliers, while at the same time expecting a return on its financial investment. The FMEA in this way enables Renault to invest in undertakings which are absolutely essential for the sector, such as Tr\u00e8ves, which remains a key supplier for the European motor vehicle industry. Consequently, the FMEA interventions follow the same approach as that adopted by Renault, which is itself a prudent investor operating in a market economy.\n(50)\nFinally, Renault unreservedly endorses the FMEA\u2019s comments, presented in response to the Commission\u2019s decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, on its role in the governance of the FMEA, how the FMEA operates, its autonomy and that of its management company in relation to the public authorities.\n(51)\nPSA forwarded its comments to the Commission by letter dated 6 July 2010. According to PSA, the FMEA investment in Tr\u00e8ves is not only profitable, but also in keeping with its economic and strategic interests.\n(52)\nPSA\u2019s participation in the FMEA is part of the joint wish of the manufacturer and the Fund to invest in strategic undertakings with strong innovative capacity, capable of ensuring security of supply and optimum consolidation of the automobile parts manufacturers sector. Furthermore, PSA considers that the FMEA investment meets its profitability requirements in the light of the risk assumed.\n(53)\nFinally, PSA emphasises the lack of conditionality between its decision to participate in the FMEA and the conclusion of a loan agreement for EUR 3 billion between the French State and the manufacturer in March 2009.\n(54)\nBy letter dated 23 June 2010, one of Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 competitors, which wishes to remain anonymous, forwarded its comments to the Commission. This competitor endorses the Commission analyses described in the decision to initiate the procedure of 29 January 2010. It considers in fact that Tr\u00e8ves was experiencing economic difficulties before the start of the economic crisis and therefore is not eligible to benefit from measures under the temporary Community framework. Moreover, irrespective of Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 economic situation, the State aid from which it could benefit must be accompanied by substantial compensatory measures, on account of the very significant negative effects on competition. In fact aid with the sole aim of maintaining an undertaking artificially in existence in a sector experiencing long-term structural overcapacity is unjustified. It considers that Tr\u00e8ves should be obliged to limit its presence on the markets by selling subsidiaries or by reducing its activities drastically and contributing more from its own resources to its restructuring.\n(55)\nThe Italian Ministry of Economic Development forwarded its comments to the Commission by letter dated 15 June 2010. It endorses the Commission\u2019s \u2018arguments\u2019 (14) on two fundamental points: the FMEA investment is undoubtedly State aid on account of the decisive presence of public funds and this type of aid is intended to support undertakings which, before the second quarter of 2008, were encountering difficulties within the meaning of the guidelines.\nIV. COMMENTS FROM FRANCE\n(56)\nBy letter dated 25 March 2010, the French authorities forwarded their comments to the Commission in response to the initiation of the formal investigation procedure on 29 January 2010.\n(57)\nIn their opinion, the terms and conditions of the FMEA investment in Tr\u00e8ves do not fall within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU, as the investment was not financed by state resources, but by funds of predominantly private origin and not imputable to the State. Even if the FMEA resources were to be considered state resources or the investment decision were to be imputable to the State, the French authorities consider that this investment displays all the characteristics of a prudent investment in a market economy. Furthermore, they also consider that the rescheduling of the tax and social security debt authorised by the public creditors meets the criteria of the private creditor seeking to recover the sums due to it.\n(58)\nThe French authorities point out that the FMEA investment in no way involved the transfer of state resources within the meaning of the \u2018Stardust Marine\u2019 case-law (15). Concerning the share of the manufacturers PSA and Renault (2/3), the FMEA funds are purely private; concerning the share of the FSI (1/3), these funds, although public in origin, are not under the permanent control of the State. The FSI, created according to the private investment fund model, is constituted in the form of a joint stock company (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 anonyme) in competition with other private investment funds. It makes long-term investments with profitability as their objective.\n(59)\nFurthermore, on account of its status and operating procedures, the FMEA management company, CDC Entreprises, is not under the surveillance of the public authorities. On account of its status, it is legally independent of the CDC and invests for the exclusive benefit of its subscribers, in competition or together with private investors. CDC Entreprises therefore manages FMEA\u2019s funds entirely independently. As regards the investment in Tr\u00e8ves, it followed the FMEA selection and investment committee recommendations without any state intervention. Consequently, the French authorities conclude on the one hand that the resources invested are not state resources in so far as they are not constantly under public control and therefore available to the national authorities and, on the other hand, that the decision to invest is not imputable to the State as CDC Entreprises is acting only in the exclusive interest of the FMEA subscribers and totally independently.\n(60)\nAs regards the conformity of the FMEA investment with the principle of the prudent investor operating in a market economy, the French authorities recall that FMEA\u2019s investment policy gives preference to viable projects of strategic interest to the motor vehicle sector, with strong growth and strong innovative capacity. In the case of Tr\u00e8ves, the investment was made on the basis of a realistic, rigorous business plan, validated by several private analysts. In addition, the acquisition of the FMEA\u2019s participating interest in Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 capital and the subscription to convertible bonds with adjustable parity occurred at the same time as other private investments and under the same conditions (\u2018pari passu\u2019 investments). According to the French authorities, these factors are sufficient to establish that the investment is in conformity with market practices.\n(61)\nAs regards the application of the principle of the private creditor operating in a market economy, the French authorities consider that authorisation of Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 tax and social security debt rescheduling plan is in keeping with the idea underlying the application of this criterion, i.e. that the public creditor, like the private creditor, must seek to recover the sums due to it by a debtor experiencing financial difficulties. The French authorities specify firstly that no remission of tax or social security debts was granted to the Tr\u00e8ves group. They consider that the two basic elements allowing the assessment of the private creditor principle, i.e. the presence of penalties and supplements for late payment and the interest rate charged, are observed in this case. In fact, the rescheduling plan provides for interest and penalties for late payment, defined prior to the agreement on the rescheduling plan and taken into account in the calculation of the monthly instalments payable by Tr\u00e8ves. Furthermore, this is in accordance with Article 1153 of the Civil Code, which provides that, in the absence of a contractual term, lateness in payment of a sum due to a private creditor gives rise to the imposition of the payment of interest on arrears at the statutory rate. This rate was 3,79 % in 2009, the year when the rescheduling plan was drawn up. The annual interest over the total duration of the rescheduling plan is approximately [5-10] %. In the alternative, the French authorities recall that, at the same time as the tax and social security debt rescheduling plan, the lending banks of the Tr\u00e8ves group granted a rescheduling of their own liabilities through a consolidation loan. Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 private creditors therefore also granted payment facilities to ensure the repayment of their claims.\n(62)\nThe French authorities find firstly that the majority of the comments received confirm that the FMEA investment in Tr\u00e8ves cannot be categorised as State aid. Consequently, the French authorities will make no further comments on this subject.\n(63)\nOn the other hand, concerning the comments presented by the Italian authorities and the anonymous company presenting itself as one of Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 competitors, the French authorities wish to communicate the following comments to the Commission.\n(64)\nThe French authorities find that the Italian authorities confine themselves to asserting that the FMEA investment in Tr\u00e8ves must be categorised as State aid on account of the \u2018decisive role\u2019 played by public resources. This assertion is not substantiated by any demonstration or justification.\n(65)\nStill according to the French authorities, the company competing with Tr\u00e8ves also presumes, without proving it, the existence of State aid which would be incompatible with the guidelines and with the temporary framework adopted by the Commission in December 2008 in the context of the economic and financial crisis. The factors relied upon by this company are either entirely inaccurate or taken out of context and therefore interpreted in an erroneous and biased manner.\nV. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES UNDER INVESTIGATION\n(66)\nWhen the Commission investigates a national measure, it must first examine whether this measure can be categorised as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. Once this categorisation has been established, the Commission can then assess the extent to which this measure can be considered compatible with the common market on the basis of the derogations permitted by the TFEU to the principle of prohibition of State aid. If the measure under investigation does not constitute State aid, the examination of the compatibility of the aid is not applicable.\nV.1. Evaluation of the presence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU\n(67)\nArticle 107(1) of the TFEU provides that: \u2018any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\u2019\n(68)\nThis provision mentions the criteria according to which a national measure can be categorised as State aid. As the Court of Justice recalls in its judgment of 15 June 2006, these criteria are \u2018the financing of that measure by the State or through State resources, the existence of a benefit for an undertaking, the selective nature of the said measure, and its effect on trade between Member States and the distortion of competition resulting therefrom\u2019 (16).\n(69)\nThese criteria are cumulative and must therefore all be satisfied in order for it to be possible to categorise a measure as State aid. Consequently, as soon as the Commission establishes that one of these criteria is not satisfied, it can assert with certainty that the measure under investigation does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nV.1.1. The FMEA investment of EUR 55 million\n(70)\nAs regards the FMEA investment in Tr\u00e8ves amounting to EUR 55 million, it should first be verified whether the criterion of benefit is met.\n(71)\nAccording to settled case-law (17), a contribution of funds to an undertaking does not constitute State aid if this contribution is made in circumstances which would be acceptable for a private investor operating in the normal conditions of a market economy (\u2018criterion of private investor operating in a market economy\u2019).\n(72)\nIn this respect, assuming that the FMEA will sell its participating interest in Tr\u00e8ves during 2012, the internal rate of return (\u2018IRR\u2019) calculated by the FMEA on the basis of its investment is [> 12 %] per year. This rate represents the pre-tax rate of return on the entire FMEA investment, i.e. both the direct capital injection of EUR [5-15] million and the contribution in the form of debt securities giving access to capital (convertible bonds with adjustable parity) amounting to EUR [40-50] million.\n(73)\nConsequently, with a view to assessing whether the criterion of the private investor operating in a market economy is respected, the Commission must reach a decision on the following questions:\n(a)\nIs Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 restructuring plan, the basis for the FMEA\u2019s commitment, credible and realistic?\n(b)\nWas the Tr\u00e8ves group valued appropriately before the FMEA capital injection of EUR [5-15] million?\n(c)\nWere the assumptions of the restructuring plan underlying the IRR reasonable and realistic at the time of the FMEA investment?\n(d)\nIs an expected IRR of [> 12 %] sufficient?\n(74)\nThe Commission will add considerations relating to the structure of the FMEA investment and the sharing of the capital gain to the replies to questions b) and d) respectively.\n(75)\nThe replies given to these questions will enable the Commission to determine whether the FMEA acted under similar conditions to those that a private investor would have required whose investment presents a risk arising from both the situation in the motor vehicle sector at the time of the investment and that of the undertaking which was experiencing certain financial difficulties.\n(76)\nAs already indicated in recital 23, shortly before the outbreak of the financial and economic crisis of 2008, Tr\u00e8ves was starting to reap the benefits of a first restructuring plan, launched in 2005, aiming to cut the workforce and to rationalise production capacity (18). When the crisis occurred, Tr\u00e8ves decided to modify and intensify its restructuring plan.\n(77)\nIn this way, from the end of summer 2008, Tr\u00e8ves gave fresh impetus to its restructuring plan and at the end of December 2008, i.e. several months before the conciliation protocol of 25 May 2009, the following results could already be observed:\n-\na significant reduction in overhead costs: the measures taken in this respect allowed a reduction of [20-30] % in the total amount of Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 actual overhead costs in the last 4 months of 2008 compared with the 2008 budget forecast,\n-\na hefty reduction in stocks: the cost of stocks fell by [30-40] % during the second half of 2008, from EUR [20-80] million in June to EUR [0-60] million in December,\n-\ncontrol of tangible investments: these were reduced by [40-50] % in 2008 compared with the 2008 budget forecast,\n-\na cut in the workforce: the group\u2019s workforce in France was cut by [10-20] % during 2008 alone ([\u2026] employees in France in December 2008 compared with [\u2026] employees in January 2008).\n(78)\nAt the beginning of 2009, Tr\u00e8ves then drew up more formally a new version of the restructuring plan, with the assistance of the independent consultancy firm [\u2026]. This firm in particular confirmed the amount of cash resource requirements considered necessary to finance the plan (EUR [110-140] million, see recitals 25 et seq.).\n(79)\nFirstly, it must be stressed that the forecasts for future turnover appearing in the restructuring plan seem to be credible and realistic. In fact, the estimate of orders from manufacturers on which these forecasts are based had been revised substantially downwards. For example, the volumes expected for 2009 are [15-25] % below their 2008 level. On the other hand, the forecasts are consistent with those drawn up at the same time by motor vehicle sector analysts (the company JD Power, for example) concerning the expected recovery of the sector and its configuration by the year 2011. Tr\u00e8ves therefore estimated its future turnover on the basis of a prudent, sound estimate of volumes. The plan remains prudent concerning the trend in the sector and counts on a level of activity in 2011 [\u2026] than the sales recorded in 2008.\n(80)\nSecondly, the plan introduces a significant reduction in costs. This reduction is achieved, inter alia, by boosting the efficiency of the workforce and by cutting operating costs [\u2026] (19) [\u2026]. The reduction in costs is also based on a sizeable reduction in the workforce (the restructuring involves a total of 1 300 persons).\n(81)\nOn the basis of these measures, the restructuring plan provides for:\n-\na return to breakeven from 2010, with a pre-tax result of EUR [0-10] million, a positive cash flow of EUR [0-10] million and an EBITDA of EUR [40-70] million,\n-\na pre-tax result of EUR [10-30] million from 2011, with a cash flow of EUR [10-30] million and an EBITDA of EUR [50-80] million.\n(82)\nIt should be noted that, before committing itself, the FMEA itself instructed the firm [\u2026] to conduct a full audit, between mid-March and end-April 2009, of Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 situation (due diligence exercises). The FMEA teams themselves also analysed and confirmed the restructuring plan.\n(83)\nMoreover, in the context of its restructuring, Tr\u00e8ves undertakes to dispose of its \u2018[\u2026]\u2019 activity, taking into account the industrial and social balances relating to this operation and seeking to contribute to the competitiveness of the industrial plant and processes of the new Tr\u00e8ves group.\n(84)\nIn the light of the factors above, the Commission concludes that the restructuring plan on which the FMEA based its investment in Tr\u00e8ves can be considered credible and realistic.\n(85)\nTr\u00e8ves\u2019 equity prior to the FMEA investment was valued at EUR [15-40] million. On this basis, the FMEA acquired [< 50] % of Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 equity through a capital increase of EUR [5-15] million. The Commission has to check that this valuation is appropriate and prudent in the light of the situation of the undertaking at the time.\n(86)\nSeveral methods exist for estimating the value of the equity of an undertaking (20). One method often used is that of the multiple of the EBITDA. It allows the value of the equity of an undertaking for year X to be assessed by multiplying the EBITDA of year X by a factor (the multiple) considered to be appropriate for the sector and subtracting the net debt from the result.\n(87)\nAnother method is discounted cash flow analysis. The undertaking\u2019s nominal free cash flows for the coming years are discounted at the weighted average cost of capital, or WACC) and the net debt is subtracted from the value obtained.\n(88)\nA third method is that of the multiple of turnover. It allows the value of an undertaking\u2019s equity in year X to be assessed by multiplying the turnover of year X by a factor (the multiple) considered to be appropriate for the sector and subtracting the net debt from the result.\n(89)\nTo value the company Tr\u00e8ves prior to its investment, the FMEA used the discounted cash flow analysis and the multiple of turnover methods. In fact, since Tr\u00e8ves did not have a positive EBITDA at the end of 2008, the first method mentioned, i.e. the multiple of the EBITDA, was not practicable.\n(90)\nOn the other hand, the method of the discounted cash flow analysis was possible and allowed the prospects of return to profitability to be taken into account, which results in the integration in the valuation of the beneficial effects expected from the improvement in the performance of the undertaking. The multiple of turnover method was also used as a precaution and for confirmation.\n(91)\nAs regards the method of the discounted cash flow analysis of the undertaking, the sectoral capital cost or WACC, integrating the specific sectoral risk, was estimated at 12 %. The FMEA then calculated a more prudent WACC of [> 12] % by integrating the additional specific risk premiums associated with the dimension of the undertaking and the non-liquid nature of the investment. It finally adopted a WACC of [> 12] % to take account of the additional risk associated with the turnaround (i.e. restructuring) of the undertaking. The long-term value of the undertaking (known as the terminal value) is calculated on the basis of the 2011 results. The FMEA therefore established the value of the equity of the Tr\u00e8ves group at EUR [15-40] million.\n(92)\nAs regards the multiple of turnover method, the multiple adopted and applied to the end-2008 turnover was [0-1]. This multiple corresponds to the multiples observed on the market for comparable undertakings at the time of the transaction. It should be pointed out that in late 2008 and early 2009, these multiples reached historically low levels on account of the financial and economic crisis which greatly affected the motor vehicle manufacturing sector and the automobile parts manufacturers (in fact the long-term average of the multiple of turnover for the automobile parts manufacturers is set at 0,51). On the basis of a multiple of [0-1], the value of Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 equity stands at EUR [15-40] million.\n(93)\nTherefore, even though the multiple of [0-1] is a multiple which has to be considered to be historically weak, the FMEA adopted the value based on this multiple and not that resulting from an average long-term multiple or a multiple smoothed over several years. Likewise, the FMEA did not adopt the valuation resulting from the discounted cash flow analysis either. As a result of the above, the valuation of Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 equity before the FMEA made its investment is appropriate and prudent. It is in fact at the low end of the interval calculated according to the discounted cash flow analysis method and the stock market multiples. A valuation undertaken in this context is a favourable factor for the private investor, as it tends to strengthen the prospects of a capital gain in the perspective of valuation multiples returning to their average historical levels.\n(94)\nFurthermore, it should be recalled that the FMEA investment is not confined to a capital contribution of EUR [5-15] million providing it with [< 50] % of the Tr\u00e8ves group shares. The FMEA also contributed EUR [40-50] million in the form of debt securities giving access to capital (convertible bonds with adjustable parity), bearing interest of [> 8] % p.a. This is a sophisticated structure which a private investor would have demanded in a sector such as the motor vehicle subcontracting sector. In fact, the presence of a significant quantity of convertible bonds, with parity varying in accordance with the performance of the company, is one of the control mechanisms with the greatest possible incentive effect.\n(95)\nThe mechanism put in place by the FMEA is the following. The convertible bonds can be redeemed through the issue of new Tr\u00e8ves company shares. The parity is determined in 2011 by attaining a gross operating surplus margin of [\u2026] %. If this threshold is reached, the FMEA will obtain [\u2026] % of the equity by redeeming bonds. If this threshold is not reached, redemption of the bonds would lead to the FMEA holding [\u2026] % of equity. It is therefore in the interests of the Tr\u00e8ves managers to ensure that this gross operating surplus margin is achieved [\u2026]. There is therefore strong convergence in the interests of the financial investor and those of the manager shareholders in maximising the value of the company on exit.\n(96)\nThe approach generally adopted by a private investor consists in assessing the annual internal rate of return arising from the investment project under consideration. With a view to calculating the annual IRR of an investment in an undertaking, it is appropriate to determine the value of the equity of this undertaking at the time when the profitability is expected.\n(97)\nAs has already been indicated in recitals 85 to 87, several methods are available for determining the value of an undertaking. To assess the value of the undertaking prevailing in 2012, the year when the FMEA could dispose of its participation (21), the FMEA used the method of the multiple of the EBITDA. This method is often used in the industrial sector with a view to providing for the exit terms for a capital or quasi-capital investor. Furthermore, by calculating the expected return on the basis of the EBITDA, the FMEA takes as a basis a pertinent measure for the recovery of the undertaking which must be achieved between its investment (25 May 2009) and the end of 2011. In addition, by adopting the EBITDA forecasted for 2011 and not the - higher - EBITDA forecasted for 2012, the FMEA adopts a prudent approach consisting of verifying that the undertaking is making a satisfactory recovery in a reasonably short period (just over 2\u00bd years).\n(98)\nConsequently, in the case in point, the IRR calculated by the FMEA is based on three assumptions mentioned in the restructuring plan. Firstly, the Tr\u00e8ves group should achieve an EBITDA of EUR [50-80] million at the end of 2011. Secondly, the value of Tr\u00e8ves at the end of 2011 is determined on the basis of a multiple of the EBlTDA of [1-6]. Thirdly, the net debt is estimated at EUR [50-150] million at the end of 2011. The Commission must in this way determine whether these three assumptions are to be considered as credible and realistic at the time when the FMEA investment was made.\n(99)\nFirstly, as regards the EBITDA value for 2011, it should be emphasised that this forecast is based on the implementation of the restructuring plan. As explained in recitals 76 et seq., this plan can be considered to be credible and realistic. Therefore, it should be recalled that the reduction in costs is primarily implemented by boosting labour efficiency and cutting operating costs thanks, in particular, [\u2026]. The reduction in costs is also based on a sizeable reduction in the workforce (the restructuring involves a total of 1 300 persons).\n(100)\nSecondly, the EBlTDA multiple used ([1-6]) to determine the value of the undertaking corresponds to the average multiple for the sector calculated over the period 2000-09 ([1-6]), minus, as a precaution, the standard deviation associated with the context of the turnaround of the company. This multiple is slightly higher than the multiple of the sector at the time of the investment (about 4,2). Nevertheless, it is sufficiently prudent to take a figure of [1-6] as a basis for the valuation at the end of 2011, in view of the foreseeable recovery in the ratio, and for that matter this recovery already having made a good start at the time of the investment ([1-6] in December 2008 as opposed to [1-6] in May 2009). This multiple also seems to be particularly prudent in the light of the long-term forecasts for the sector indicating multiples of between [1-6] and [1-6].\n(101)\nThirdly, the forecasts drawn up in April 2009 showed an improvement in the net debt, which was to fall from EUR [100-200] million at end-2008 to EUR [100-200] million at end-2010 (it had deteriorated previously, increasing from EUR [100-200] million at end-2005 to EUR [100-200] million at end-2008). In view of the aggregate level of the forecasted EBITDA for the period 2009-11, the absence of significant additional costs associated with tangible and intangible investments and the absence of additional provisions to cover the restructuring costs, the forecast of a reduction of EUR [0-30] million seems prudent.\n(102)\nIn the light of the above, it is appropriate to conclude that the calculation of the IRR at the time of the investment is based on reasonable assumptions.\n(103)\nAs regards the question whether the IRR referred to of [> 12 %] is acceptable in the light of the risk entailed in the investment, the Commission makes the following comments.\n(104)\nFirstly, it should be recalled that the calculation made on the basis of the information set out in recitals 97 to 100 in reality results in an IRR of [> 15 %]. However, in the interests of safety and prudence, the FMEA applied a discount of [\u2026] % to the EBITDA forecasted for 2011. Consequently, the IRR of [> 12 %] adopted for the purposes of the present analysis is an IRR resulting from a pessimistic scenario regarding the development of the undertaking. In fact, as has already been indicated, the base scenario results in an IRR of [> 15 %] whereas an optimistic scenario (EBITDA exceeded by [\u2026] %) results in an IRR in the region of [> 20 %].\n(105)\nAt present, it should be pointed out that, in view of the non-liquid nature of the transaction, it is not possible to refer to comparable quoted prices (for example for subordinated loans) at the time of the FMEA investment to assess whether the level of the forecasted IRR is appropriate. On the other hand, several factors presented below allow the \u2018minimum\u2019 IRR of [> 12 %] adopted by the FMEA in May 2009 to be assessed.\n(106)\nIt should be pointed out firstly that the returns on investment observed in the automobile subcontracting sector are often low. In fact, in the 5 years before the crisis of the second half of 2008, the average IRR amounted to 8,5 % (22). Nevertheless, professional investors have often invested in this sector, aware of the potential gain linked to the low valuation of the undertakings in this sector [compared with other sectors]. In this way, in 2006, exceptional IRRs were to be found (exceeding 20 % per year over 3 years) for investors having invested during the market trough in 2003.\n(107)\nConsequently, in order to exceed the average returns observed, a professional investor must rely on in-depth knowledge of the market, which is the case for the FMEA, and provide for a participation structure enabling it to optimise its return, which is also the case for the FMEA investment (see the considerations concerning the structure of the investment in recitals 94 and 95 and the sharing of the capital gain in recitals 110 and 111).\n(108)\nSecondly, the French authorities invoke a study by the AFIC (French Venture Capital Association), which follows the performance trend of the venture capital sector in France. This study is based on data communicated by more than 120 structures managing more than 500 investment funds. The work of the AFIC shows a net performance of between 14,1 % for end- 2007 and 10,8 % for end-2008 (the closest date to the FMEA investment) for \u2018development capital\u2019. Development capital is the relevant subdivision of venture capital from the point of view of the FMEA investment policy (acquisition of minority holding and injection of fresh capital). After taking account of the cost of remuneration of the management company, estimated at a maximum of [\u2026], the target IRR to be attained to be able to produce a \u2018market\u2019 performance is between 12 % and 15 %.\n(109)\nFinally, the parameters available at the time of the investment enable a weighted average capital cost (\u2018WACC\u2019) to be determined on the basis of the CAPM (23) and adapted to the motor vehicle sector in France, integrating the additional specific risk premiums associated with the dimension of Tr\u00e8ves and the non-liquid nature of the investment. In view of these additional factors inherent in the risk premium, the corresponding WACC is estimated at [> 12] % at the time of the investment, raised to [> 12] % by the FMEA (see recital 91). It must be borne in mind that the WACC is the minimum rate of return required by the providers of capital of an undertaking (shareholders and creditors) to finance investment projects. The WACC calculated for Tr\u00e8ves therefore gives a significant indication regarding the acceptability of a \u2018minimum\u2019 IRR of [> 12 %] (24).\n(110)\nMoreover, it should be emphasised that Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 capital gain will not be shared between the FMEA and the historical shareholder according to their respective share in Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 capital. In fact, assuming an exit in [\u2026], the shareholder agreement specifies that the first EUR [\u2026] million of the value of the company will be allocated in full to the FMEA (first tranche). Then, the proceeds from the sale amounting to between EUR [\u2026] million and an amount equal to that of the FMEA investment capitalised at [\u2026] % per year is shared between the FMEA ([\u2026] %) and the historical shareholders ([\u2026] %) (second tranche). Finally, the FMEA receives [\u2026] % of the proceeds of the sale beyond this threshold and the historical shareholders [\u2026] %.\n(111)\nThis agreement on the sharing of the capital gain provides protection for the FMEA. In fact, the FMEA in this way receives a significant guarantee that an IRR of [> 12 %] on its investment will rapidly be attained (this rate corresponds to the WACC of Tr\u00e8ves presented above). Secondly, this agreement is a strong incentive for the historical shareholder and the company managers to achieve, and even exceed, the objectives of the restructuring plan, with this plan resulting in an IRR of [> 12 %], [> 15 %] or [> 20 %] for the FMEA, depending on the scenario.\n(112)\nConsequently, it results from the findings above that the estimated IRR of [> 12 %] was reasonable at the time of the investment and acceptable in the light of the risk it entails.\n(113)\nHaving analysed the Tr\u00e8ves restructuring plan, its valuation prior to the FMEA investment, the structure of this investment, the assumptions underlying an IRR of [> 12 %] and the appropriateness of this IRR, especially in the light of the shareholder agreement provided for regarding the sharing of the capital gain, it should be pointed out that the FMEA operated under conditions similar to those that a private investor would have required in respect of an investment presenting a risk associated with both the situation of the motor vehicle industry at the time of the investment and that of the company, which was experiencing certain financial difficulties. In other words, the FMEA investment amounting to EUR 55 million respects the criterion of the private investor operating in a market economy. Therefore it does not confer any benefit on Tr\u00e8ves.\nV.1.2. The tax and social security debt rescheduling plan\n(114)\nThe French authorities authorised Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 tax and social security debt rescheduling plan for an amount of EUR 18,4 million. The Commission first wishes to examine the criterion of benefit in relation to this measure.\n(115)\nAccording to the Commission\u2019s decision-making practice and case-law, a debt rescheduling agreement by a public creditor is not State aid if it has acted like a private creditor which \u2018seeks to recover sums due to it and which, to that end, concludes agreements with the debtor, under which the accumulated debts are to be rescheduled or paid by instalments in order to facilitate their repayment\u2019 (25).\n(116)\nFor Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 public creditors, the debt rescheduling plan is a better solution than enforced recovery. In fact, in the case of forced recovery, the public creditors, in the light of the company\u2019s general level of debt, would have recovered only part of their non-preferential claims. On the other hand, by authorising the rescheduling, first-ranking mortgages [\u2026] (Article [\u2026] of the conciliation protocol of 25 May 2009) were established with a view to guaranteeing the tax and social security debts. These assets are identified in Annex 7 to the protocol. At 31 December 2008, their net accounting value was EUR [25-35] million. The volume of the collateral established in favour of the public creditors therefore covers over 140 % of the amount of their claim, which comprises the principal (EUR 18,4 million), penalties for late payment and interest on arrears (see recital 117).\n(117)\nMoreover, Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 public creditors will receive interest. In fact, the amount of EUR 18,4 million was supplemented by penalties for late payment of EUR [1-2] million and interest on arrears of EUR [1-2] million, with the sum being repayable in full between [\u2026] and [\u2026] in monthly instalments of EUR [\u2026]. The addition of penalties and interest on arrears amounts to EUR [2-4] million, i.e. [10-20] % of the principal, which represents annual interest of about [0-10] % over the weighted average duration of the rescheduling plan. This rate was from the start higher than the rates granted by the financial institutions for the loans granted to Tr\u00e8ves under the conciliation protocol of 25 May 2009, for both the new credit and the consolidation loan (26).\n(118)\nIn this respect, it should also be emphasised that the commitment of the public creditors occurred at the same time as a major commitment by the banks (consolidation loan of EUR [30-60] million and new credit facility of EUR [10-30] million). Moreover, the conciliation protocol explicitly indicates that the securities granted to the banks are second-ranking [\u2026], which means that these creditors cannot call upon any security until the first-ranking public creditors have all been repaid in full.\n(119)\nIn addition, no tax and social security debt remission was granted to the Tr\u00e8ves group.\n(120)\nFinally, the French authorities confirmed that the current rescheduling plan did not constitute an extension or modification of a previous plan.\n(121)\nConsequently, it results from the above that Tr\u00e8ves\u2019 tax and social security debt rescheduling plan was authorised by the French authorities on the basis of the assumptions, deemed to be credible, which underlie the restructuring plan (see Section V) and subject to terms and conditions which are acceptable to a private creditor operating in a market economy under the same circumstances.\nV.2. Conclusion regarding the assessment of the presence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU\n(122)\nIn the light of the factors set out in Section V.1., it appears that neither the FMEA investment amounting to EUR 55 million or the tax and social security debt rescheduling plan amounting to EUR 18,4 million confer a benefit on the Tr\u00e8ves group. Consequently, these measures do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nVI. GENERAL CONCLUSION\n(123)\nAfter having carried out a detailed investigation of the measures in question, the Commission finds that they do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe two measures taken in relation to the company Tr\u00e8ves, consisting of an investment by the Fonds de Modernisation des Equipementiers Automobiles (Fund for the Modernisation of Automobile Parts Manufacturers) (FMEA) amounting to EUR 55 million and a tax and social security debt rescheduling plan amounting to EUR 18,4 million authorised by the French Republic, do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["59", "65", "27", "34", "28", "45", "31", "76", "26", "40", "89", "67", "82", "72", "81", "19", "14", "2", "9", "95", "3", "12", "41", "60", "78", "75", "62", "32", "21", "74", "No Label", "15", "48", "54", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "48", "54", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 864/2011\nof 26 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 August 2011.", "references": ["3", "67", "12", "14", "4", "33", "66", "42", "49", "39", "86", "7", "6", "38", "73", "21", "87", "50", "0", "88", "28", "25", "90", "2", "81", "91", "9", "74", "32", "89", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 604/2011\nof 20 June 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["79", "43", "12", "76", "85", "95", "1", "72", "0", "77", "2", "90", "59", "33", "23", "13", "66", "63", "98", "65", "69", "50", "26", "97", "81", "39", "84", "20", "27", "94", "No Label", "21", "54"], "gold": ["21", "54"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 348/2012\nof 20 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2012.", "references": ["69", "72", "77", "20", "87", "75", "24", "74", "12", "28", "51", "23", "76", "21", "48", "65", "1", "52", "4", "14", "60", "50", "47", "36", "58", "80", "16", "89", "17", "11", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 485/2010\nof 3 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["23", "34", "43", "97", "20", "72", "57", "82", "40", "38", "71", "92", "69", "45", "89", "13", "19", "56", "74", "27", "52", "78", "30", "83", "22", "77", "53", "65", "24", "55", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 971/2010\nof 28 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Vastedda della valle del Bel\u00ecce (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and the designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Vastedda della valle del Bel\u00ecce\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 October 2010.", "references": ["6", "20", "37", "18", "64", "54", "9", "47", "7", "5", "36", "50", "68", "31", "42", "16", "40", "89", "78", "30", "26", "28", "60", "56", "14", "3", "49", "63", "46", "32", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 3 June 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas\n(2010/706/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 November 2008 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with Georgia on an agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Agreement\u2019). The negotiations were successfully concluded and the Agreement was initialled on 25 November 2009.\n(2)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (1); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(3)\nThis 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 of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (2); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be signed subject to its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (3).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["26", "99", "34", "68", "87", "58", "41", "45", "44", "33", "24", "17", "65", "55", "71", "20", "94", "78", "47", "39", "64", "98", "12", "76", "23", "93", "6", "42", "36", "38", "No Label", "2", "3", "9", "13", "91"], "gold": ["2", "3", "9", "13", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 793/2012\nof 5 September 2012\nadopting the list of flavouring substances provided for by Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council, introducing it in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000 and Commission Decision 1999/217/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 1996 laying down a Community procedure for flavouring substances used or intended for use in or on foodstuffs (1) and in particular Articles 3(2), 4(1) and 5 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91, Regulations (EC) No 2232/96 and (EC) No 110/2008 and Directive 2000/13/EC (2) and in particular Article 25(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 2232/96 provides for a Community procedure for evaluation and authorisation of flavouring substances. The Member States notified to the Commission the list of flavouring substances which may be used in or on foods marketed on their territory.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 2232/96 provides for a list of flavouring substances that are authorised to the exclusion of all others. That list is to be established on the basis of a register containing the flavouring substances notified by the Member States and on the basis of a specific evaluation programme.\n(3)\nThe notified substances were entered in a register laid down by Commission Decision 1999/217/EC of 23 February 1999 adopting a register of flavouring substances used in or on foodstuffs drawn up in application of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 1996 (3).\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000 (4) has laid down the measures necessary for the adoption of an evaluation programme in application of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96. Pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96, flavouring substances not included in the register have also been included in the evaluation programme.\n(5)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Authority\u2019) evaluated a number of flavouring substances (5) through a stepwise approach that integrates information on structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern, and available data on metabolism and toxicity. Those flavouring substances which do not give rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intakes should be included in the list referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2232/96.\n(6)\nPursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000 substances that are contained in the register and have already been classified by the Scientific Committee on Food (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the SCF\u2019) in Category 1 (6) or by the Council of Europe in Category A (7) or by Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (hereinafter referred to as \u2018JECFA\u2019), so as to present no safety concern, as laid down in the reports of its 46th, 49th, 51st and 53rd meeting (8) need not be re-evaluated within the evaluation programme. These substances should be included in the list referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2232/96.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000, substances contained in the register and classified by JECFA, since 2000, so as to present no safety concern on the basis of the default approach for estimation of intake, have to be considered by the Authority. Those substances, for which the Authority agreed with the JECFA conclusion, should be included in the list referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2232/96.\n(8)\nFlavouring substances may be used in or on foods in accordance with the good manufacturing practices or, if necessary, with specific conditions. The list referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 should contain information on the unique identification number of the substance (FL No), the name of the substance (Chemical name), the Chemical Abstracts Service registry number, the JECFA number, the Council of Europe number, the purity, the specific conditions of use and reference to the scientific body that has carried or is carrying out the evaluation.\n(9)\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the food categories as laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (9), should be referred to. When necessary, interpretation decisions can be adopted in accordance with Article 13(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 in order to clarify whether or not a particular food belongs to a certain category of food.\n(10)\nFlavouring substances which did not receive a favourable assessment on their safety have been listed in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 concerning substances which shall not be added as such to food or have been deleted from the register by Commission Decisions 2005/389/EC (10), 2006/252/EC (11) and 2008/478/EC (12).\n(11)\nFlavouring substances for which the requested information has not been provided and which, therefore, have not been evaluated by the Authority in accordance with Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000, should not be included in the list referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2232/96.\n(12)\nFlavouring substances for which the persons responsible for placing them on the market have withdrawn the application should not be included in the list referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2232/96.\n(13)\nFor a number of substances, the Authority has not completed the evaluation or it has requested additional scientific data to be provided for completion of the evaluation. In accordance with the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 and Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 and in order to enhance legal certainty it is appropriate to include those substances in the list referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 to allow those substances which are currently placed on the market, to continue to be used in or on foods until risk assessment and authorisation procedures have been concluded.\n(14)\nTo manage the submissions of additional scientific data requested by the Authority, time limits should be set for the persons responsible for placing flavouring substances on the market so as to comply with the Authority\u2019s requests as expressed in the published opinions. Therefore, footnotes 2 to 4 have been assigned for those substances for which the Authority has requested additional scientific data in the list referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2232/96. A time limit should be set for the Authority to evaluate the submitted data. Where the necessary information is not provided by the time requested the flavouring substance in question may not be evaluated in accordance with Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000 and therefore will be withdrawn from the Union list in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (13).\n(15)\nFlavouring substances for which the Authority has not yet completed the evaluation and no request for additional information is pending, should be identified as such by footnote 1 in the list referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2232/96.\n(16)\nIf the authorised flavouring substance is a racemate (an equal mixture of optical isomers), both the R- and S- form should also be authorised for use. If only the R-form is authorised then the S-form should not be covered by that authorisation and vice versa.\n(17)\nSeveral D- and D,L-amino acids have been evaluated as safe by the Authority for use as flavouring substances, provided that the substances are in an unchanged form when they are consumed. Therefore, the amino acids should be included in the list referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 concerning their use as flavouring substances only.\n(18)\nThe list referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 is intended only to regulate the use of flavouring substances which are added to food in order to impart or modify odour and/or taste. Certain substances on the list may be also added to food for other purposes than flavouring and such uses remain subject to other rules. For some substances it is necessary to lay down a use level which refers to their use as a flavouring substance. These substances are caffeine (FL 16.016), theobromine (FL 16.032), neohesperidin dihydrocalcone (FL 16.061) and rebaudioside A (FL 16.113). For ammonium chloride (FL 16.048) national provisions are already in place. Therefore, for ensuring the functioning of the internal market the use levels should be harmonised.\n(19)\nThe Authority has recommended in its opinion adopted on 22 May 2008 (14), that for d-camphor (FL 07.215), a maximum use level should be set to ensure that exposure to d-camphor does not exceed 2 mg/kg body weight on a single day in any age group. Therefore, specific conditions of use should be set for d-camphor.\n(20)\nThe SCF concluded in its opinion adopted on 19 February 1988 (15), that it saw no objection from a toxicological point of view to the continued use at present levels (up to max 100 mg/l) of quinine in bitter drinks. The Authority does not contest this evaluation but recommends that the toxicological database on quinine should be reconsidered (16). Pending the re-evaluation of quinine, the use of three quinine salts (FL 14.011, FL 14.152 and FL 14.155) should be restricted to non-alcoholic and alcoholic drinks.\n(21)\nThe Authority considered glycyrrhizic acid and its ammoniated form in the opinion adopted 22 May 2008 (17). The Authority agreed with the evaluation by the SCF (18), which considered that the intake up to 100 mg/person/day would not give rise to safety concerns. Therefore, specific conditions of use should be set for glycyrrhizic acid (FL 16.012) and its ammoniated form (FL 16.060) as flavouring substances.\n(22)\nRegulation (EC) No 1334/2008 repeals Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 from the date of application of the list referred to in Article 2(2) of that Regulation. It is therefore appropriate, for reasons of legal certainty, to fix the date of application of that list. The principle of mutual recognition laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 should however continue to apply to flavouring substances included in the Annex to this Regulation for which footnotes 1 to 4 have been assigned. Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 will cease to apply and will become obsolete once the risk assessment and authorisation procedures for those flavouring substances have been concluded.\n(23)\nThe evaluation programme provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000 was intended for the establishment of the list referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96. With the establishment of that list Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000 becomes obsolete and should be repealed. It should however continue to apply to flavouring substances included in the Annex to this Regulation for which footnotes 1 to 4 have been assigned. Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000 will cease to apply and will become obsolete once the risk assessment and authorisation procedures for those flavouring substances have been concluded.\n(24)\nThe register of flavouring substances used in or on foods adopted by Decision 1999/217/EC has become obsolete with the establishment of the list referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 and should be repealed.\n(25)\nRegulation (EC) No 1334/2008 provides that the Union list of flavourings and source materials shall be established by introducing the list of flavouring substances referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 into Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 at the time of its adoption. The list of flavouring substances referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 should be introduced into Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 accordingly.\n(26)\nThe Union list of flavourings and source materials is to apply without prejudice to other provisions laid down in sector specific legislation.\n(27)\nThe use of flavourings and source materials in infant formulae, follow-on formulae, processed cereal-based foods and baby foods and dietary foods for special medical purposes intended for infants and young children as referred to in Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses (19) will be harmonised in the future in the framework of specific rules to be adopted on the composition of foodstuffs intended for infants and young children. Meanwhile, the Member States should be able to apply national provisions in this matter stricter than the ones provided for in the list of flavouring substances referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96.\n(28)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 flavouring substances not included in the Union list may be placed on the market as such and used in or on food until 18 months after the date of application of the Union list. Since flavouring substances are already on the market in the Member States, provisions have been made to ensure that the transition to a Union authorisation procedure is smooth. To this effect transitional periods have been laid down for food containing those flavouring substances in Commission Regulation (EU) No 794/2012 (20).\n(29)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018Union list\u2019 means the list of flavourings and source materials set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008.\n(b)\n\u2018Evaluated flavouring substances\u2019 means substances for which the evaluation and approval have been completed at Union level. Those substances are assigned no footnotes in Part A of the Union list of flavourings and source materials.\n(c)\n\u2018Flavouring substances under evaluation\u2019 means substances for which the risk assessment at Union level has not been completed at the time of entry into force of this Regulation. Those substances are assigned footnotes 1 to 4 in Part A of the Union list of flavourings and source materials.\nArticle 2\nAdoption of the list of flavouring substances referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2232/96\nThe list of flavouring substances referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 is hereby adopted as set out in Part A of the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nIntroduction of the list of flavouring substances into Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008\nThe text in the Annex to this Regulation is introduced into Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008.\nArticle 4\nFlavouring substances under evaluation\nFlavouring substances under evaluation may be placed on the market and used in or on foods pending their inclusion as evaluated flavouring substances in Part A of the Union list or their removal from that list.\nArticle 5\nUpdating the list\nWhere necessary, Part A of the Union list shall be updated in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 as from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 6\nRepeal of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96\n1. For the purposes of Article 24(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008, concerning the repeal of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96, the date of application of the list of flavouring substances referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 shall be 27 March 2013.\n2. However, Articles 1 and 2, Article 3(1) and (2), and Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 and the Annex thereto shall continue to apply to flavouring substances under evaluation pending their inclusion as evaluated substances in Part A of the Union list or their removal from that list. References made in those Articles to the Register of flavouring substances shall be construed as references to Part A of the Union list.\nArticle 7\nRepeal of Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000\nRegulation (EC) No 1565/2000 is hereby repealed with effect from 27 March 2013. However it shall continue to apply to flavouring substances under evaluation.\nArticle 8\nRepeal of Decision 1999/217/EC\nDecision 1999/217/EC is repealed with effect from 27 March 2013.\nArticle 9\nProvisions for foods for infants and young children\nMember States may apply national provisions which are more restrictive than Part A of the Union list as regards the use of flavouring substances in infant formulae, follow-on formulae, processed cereal-based foods and baby foods and dietary foods for special medical purposes intended for infants and young children as referred to in Directive 2009/39/EC. Those national measures must be essential to ensure that consumers are adequately protected and must be proportionate to the attainment of that objective.\nArticle 10\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 27 March 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 September 2012.", "references": ["20", "24", "49", "28", "4", "30", "63", "9", "46", "44", "39", "91", "69", "67", "13", "42", "58", "5", "97", "52", "60", "75", "79", "8", "89", "72", "40", "85", "23", "77", "No Label", "7", "25", "38", "73", "74"], "gold": ["7", "25", "38", "73", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 980/2011\nof 3 October 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 October 2011.", "references": ["89", "54", "96", "69", "81", "79", "27", "12", "60", "90", "62", "38", "61", "55", "97", "50", "49", "44", "86", "29", "64", "48", "65", "99", "92", "78", "70", "6", "63", "95", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/100/EU\nof 20 December 2011\namending Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on in-vitro diagnostic medical devices\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in-vitro diagnostic medical devices (1), and in particular Article 14 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 98/79/EC, the United Kingdom has requested that the Commission take the necessary measures to add \u2018Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease\u2019 (vCJD) assays to List A of Annex II to that Directive.\n(2)\nIn order to ensure the highest level of health protection and ensure that the conformity of vCJD assays with the essential requirements set out in Annex I to Directive 98/79/EC is verified by notified bodies, vCJD assays for blood screening, diagnosis and confirmation should be added to List A of Annex II to Directive 98/79/EC.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 6(2) of Council Directive 90/385/EEC (2) and referred to in Article 7(1) of Directive 98/79/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Directive 98/79/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 June 2012 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nMember States shall apply those provisions from 1 July 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["4", "99", "78", "35", "92", "40", "7", "20", "31", "49", "55", "77", "45", "98", "57", "44", "86", "76", "42", "67", "47", "59", "65", "8", "30", "79", "68", "9", "37", "17", "No Label", "38"], "gold": ["38"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 February 2011\namending Decision 2007/756/EC adopting a common specification of the national vehicle register\n(notified under document C(2011) 665)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/107/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSection 2.2 of the Annex to Commission Decision 2007/756/EC of 9 November 2007 adopting a common specification of the national vehicle register provided for pursuant to Article 14(4) and (5) of Directives 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC (2) describes the implementation of the European global architecture for national vehicle registers (NVRs) and provides for an update of the Decision, if appropriate, following the evaluation of a pilot project by the European Railway Agency. Moreover, it provides for a decision to connect national vehicle registers to the central Virtual Vehicle Register (VVR). The European Railway Agency has implemented and evaluated the pilot project. On 26 March 2010, it delivered to the Commission recommendation ERA/REC/01-2010/INT proposing an update of the Annex to Decision 2007/756/EC. Decision 2007/756/EC should therefore be amended.\n(2)\nArticle 33(2) of Directive 2008/57/EC provides that the NVR is to contain, among other compulsory information, the identification of the owner of the vehicle and the entity in charge of maintenance. A transition period is therefore needed for adapting non-standard NVRs to contain Field 9.2 \u2018registered business number\u2019 and updating the information on the owner and entity in charge of maintenance for vehicles already registered in the NVR.\n(3)\nThe transition periods for existing vehicles described in Section 4.3 of the Annex to Decision 2007/756/EC have expired or are expiring. The former registration entity responsible for vehicle registration should have made all required information available under an agreement between itself and the registration entity designated according to Article 4 of Decision 2007/756/EC. This information should have been transferred by 9 November 2008. The registration entity of each Member State should have entered vehicles used in international traffic in its NVR by 9 November 2009. The registration entity of each Member State should have entered vehicles used in domestic traffic in its NVR by 9 November 2010.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2007/756/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\n1. The European Railway Agency shall adapt the installation files and documents to be used for setting up the standard national vehicle register (sNVR), the translation engine and the virtual vehicle register to add information on authorisations for placing in service granted in other Member States (items 2, 6, 12 and 13) by 30 June 2011.\n2. The European Railway Agency shall publish a guide on the application of the EU global NVR architecture by 30 June 2011.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall adapt their national vehicle register to include information on authorisations for placing in service granted in other Member States (items 2, 6, 12 and 13 specified in the Annex) and, if they use non-standard national vehicle register, to include Field 9.2 \u2018registered business number\u2019 specified in the Annex in accordance with the installation files referred to in Article 2 by 31 December 2011.\n2. Member States shall ensure that, for the vehicles registered before the entry into force of this Decision, the registered business number of the entity in charge of maintenance is recorded in the national vehicle register by 31 December 2011.\nArticle 4\nMember States shall ensure that their national vehicle register is connected to the virtual vehicle register by 31 December 2011.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2011.", "references": ["20", "35", "38", "33", "28", "87", "49", "11", "92", "15", "96", "77", "79", "6", "64", "32", "2", "66", "67", "19", "50", "86", "70", "7", "34", "97", "12", "40", "42", "4", "No Label", "9", "41", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["9", "41", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1208/2010\nof 16 December 2010\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Community,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2010.", "references": ["3", "54", "85", "1", "41", "49", "33", "94", "67", "89", "45", "65", "11", "28", "25", "68", "71", "12", "34", "57", "42", "82", "40", "78", "64", "39", "97", "7", "2", "55", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 766/2012\nof 24 July 2012\napproving minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Patata di Bologna (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the second sentence of Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \"Patata di Bologna\", registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 228/2010 (2).\n(2)\nThe application concerns the amendments to the description of the product of the protected designation of origin \"Patata di Bologna\" and involves changes to the single document.\n(3)\nThe Commission has examined the amendment in question and decided that it is justified. Since this concerns a minor amendment, in accordance with Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission may adopt it without using the procedure set out in Articles 6 and 7 of that Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe specification for the protected designation of origin \"Patata di Bologna\" is hereby amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe consolidated single document setting out the main points of the specification is set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["0", "60", "35", "19", "2", "86", "69", "34", "23", "93", "8", "80", "76", "61", "16", "52", "33", "6", "51", "20", "9", "90", "41", "71", "21", "40", "84", "54", "29", "73", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 563/2010\nof 28 June 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 552/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2010.", "references": ["50", "41", "56", "40", "69", "18", "64", "30", "93", "9", "17", "8", "94", "14", "87", "15", "80", "54", "99", "6", "66", "4", "96", "65", "5", "90", "16", "24", "36", "98", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 565/2010\nof 29 June 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 opening and providing for the management of autonomous tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and industrial products\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure sufficient and uninterrupted supplies of certain goods insufficiently produced in the Union and to avoid any disturbances on the market for certain agricultural and industrial products, autonomous tariff quotas have been opened by Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 (1). Products within those tariff quotas can be imported at reduced or zero duty rates. For the same reasons it is necessary to open, with effect from 1 July 2010, for certain products new tariff quotas at a zero duty rate for an appropriate volume.\n(2)\nThe quota volumes for autonomous tariff quotas of the Union with order Nos 09.2814, 09.2816 and 09.2807 are insufficient to meet the needs of the Union industry. Consequently, those quota volumes should be increased.\n(3)\nThe product description for the autonomous tariff quota of the Union with order No 09.2907 should be revised.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 7/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nSince the tariff quotas provided for in this Regulation should take effect from 1 July 2010, this Regulation should apply from the same date and enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 is amended as follows:\n1.\nthe rows set out in Annex I to this Regulation are added;\n2.\nthe rows for the tariff quotas with order Nos 09.2814, 09.2907, 09.2816 and 09.2807 are replaced by the rows set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 29 June 2010.", "references": ["77", "28", "6", "34", "19", "38", "13", "39", "27", "71", "72", "30", "64", "40", "4", "37", "57", "48", "95", "62", "53", "15", "60", "43", "49", "5", "97", "1", "96", "93", "No Label", "21", "22", "66", "82"], "gold": ["21", "22", "66", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 445/2010\nof 21 May 2010\non the division between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 of national milk quotas fixed for 2009/2010 in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 69(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 67(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that producers may have one or two individual quotas, one for deliveries and the other for direct sales and quantities may be converted from one quota to the other only by the competent authority of the Member State, at the duly justified request of the producer.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 416/2009 of 20 May 2009 on the division between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 of national milk quotas fixed for 2008/2009 in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (2) sets out the division between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 for the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009 for all Member States.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 25(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (3), Member States have notified the quantities which have been definitively converted at the request of the producers between individual quotas for deliveries and for direct sales.\n(4)\nThe total national quotas for all Member States fixed in point 1 of Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 72/2009 (4) were increased with effect from 1 April 2009. Member States, except Malta, which has no direct sales part of its national quota, have notified the Commission of the division between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 of the additional quota.\n(5)\nIt is therefore appropriate to establish the division between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 of the national quotas applicable for the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 fixed in Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(6)\nGiven the fact that the division between direct sales and deliveries is used as a reference basis for controls pursuant to Articles 19 to 21 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 and for the establishment of the annual questionnaire set out in Annex I to that Regulation, it is appropriate to determine a date of expiry of this Regulation after the last possible date for these controls.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe division, applicable for the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010, between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 of the national quotas fixed in Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 is set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2010.", "references": ["63", "46", "60", "7", "50", "81", "31", "16", "93", "5", "48", "27", "91", "41", "78", "49", "35", "95", "64", "84", "40", "13", "32", "92", "55", "51", "76", "58", "17", "71", "No Label", "61", "62", "70", "96"], "gold": ["61", "62", "70", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 April 2012\non the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2011 financial year\n(notified under document C(2012) 2883)\n(2012/234/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 33 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the Commission, on the basis of the annual accounts submitted by the Member States, accompanied by the information required for the clearance of accounts and a certificate regarding the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts and the reports established by the certification bodies, clears the accounts of the paying agencies referred to in Article 6 of the said Regulation.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the keeping of accounts by the paying agencies, declarations of expenditure and revenue and the conditions for reimbursing expenditure under the EAGF and the EAFRD (2), the financial year for the EAGF accounts begins on 16 October of year N-1 and ends on 15 October of year N. In the framework of clearing the accounts, for the purpose of aligning the reference period for EAFRD expenditure with that of the EAGF, account should be taken for the 2011 financial year of expenditure incurred by the Member States between 16 October 2010 and 15 October 2011.\n(3)\nThe second subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (3) lays down that the amounts that are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State, in accordance with the accounts clearance decision referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the said Regulation, shall be established by deducting the intermediate payments in respect of the financial year concerned from the expenditure recognised for the same year in accordance with paragraph 1. The Commission shall deduct that amount from or add it to the following intermediate payment.\n(4)\nThe Commission has checked the information submitted by the Member States and it has communicated to the Member States before 31 March 2012 the results of its verifications, along with the necessary amendments.\n(5)\nThe annual accounts and the accompanying documents permit the Commission to take, for certain paying agencies, a decision on the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts submitted. Annex I lists the amounts cleared by Member States and the amounts to be recovered from or paid to the Member States.\n(6)\nThe information submitted by certain other paying agencies requires additional inquiries and their accounts cannot be cleared in this Decision. Annex II lists the paying agencies concerned.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 33(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities shall be borne by the Member State concerned if the recovery of those irregularities has not taken place prior to the closure of a rural development programme within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within eight years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, or on the closure of the programme if those deadlines expire prior such closure. Article 33(4) of the said Regulation obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, together with the annual accounts, a summary report on the recovery procedures undertaken in response to irregularities. Detailed rules on the application of the Member States\u2019 reporting obligation of the amounts to be recovered are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. Annex III to the said Regulation provides the table that had to be provided in 2012 by the Member States. On the basis of the tables completed by the Member States, the Commission should decide on the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities older than four or eight years respectively. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 33(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(8)\nPursuant to Article 33(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, after closure of a rural development programme Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. Such a decision may only be taken if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered or if the recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. If that decision has been taken within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within eight years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, 100 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery should be borne by the EU budget. In the summary report referred to in Article 33(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 the amounts for which the Member State decided not to pursue recovery and the grounds for the decision are shown. These amounts are not charged to the Member States concerned and are consequently to be borne by the EU budget. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 33(5) of the said Regulation.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision, does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from European Union financing expenditure not effected in accordance with European Union rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nWith the exception of the paying agencies referred to in Article 2, the accounts of the paying agencies of the Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in respect of the 2011 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State under each rural development programme pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 33(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 2\nFor the 2011 financial year, the accounts of the Member States\u2019 paying agencies in respect of expenditure per rural development programme financed by the EAFRD, set out in Annex II, are disjoined from this Decision and shall be the subject of a future clearance of accounts Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2012.", "references": ["24", "97", "43", "90", "42", "36", "53", "18", "21", "29", "78", "41", "34", "26", "38", "50", "19", "85", "44", "64", "77", "54", "25", "57", "22", "82", "91", "48", "51", "87", "No Label", "10", "17", "47", "61"], "gold": ["10", "17", "47", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1050/2010\nof 16 November 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1039/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 November 2010.", "references": ["55", "27", "12", "18", "43", "54", "53", "59", "0", "24", "86", "85", "1", "42", "20", "47", "33", "60", "73", "80", "64", "87", "39", "92", "65", "98", "57", "29", "67", "96", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 September 2010\non the duty-free importation of goods intended to be distributed or made available free of charge to victims of the floods which occurred in May 2010 in Poland\n(notified under document C(2010) 6624)\n(Only the Polish text is authentic)\n(2010/586/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (1), and in particular Article 76 thereof,\nHaving regard to the request, made by the Government of Poland dated 2 June 2010, seeking the duty-free importation of goods intended to be made available free of charge to victims of the floods which occurred in May 2010 in Poland,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA flood constitutes a disaster within the meaning of Title XVII C of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009; whereas there is consequently reason to authorise the duty-free importation of goods which satisfy the requirements of Articles 74 to 80 of the abovementioned Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009.\n(2)\nIn order that the Commission may be suitably informed of the use made of the goods admitted duty-free, the Government of Poland must communicate the measures taken to prevent such goods imported duty-free from being employed otherwise than for the use laid down.\n(3)\nThe Commission should also be informed of the extent and the nature of the importations made.\n(4)\nOther Member States have been consulted as laid down in Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Goods imported for release for free circulation by State bodies or by organisations approved by the competent Polish authorities for the purpose of being distributed by them free of charge to the victims of the floods which occurred in May 2010 in Poland, or made available to them free of charge while remaining the property of the organisations in question shall be admitted free of import duties within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009.\n2. Goods imported for release for free circulation by relief agencies in order to meet their needs during the period of their activity shall also be admitted duty-free.\nArticle 2\nThe Government of Poland shall communicate to the Commission at the latest on 31 December 2010 the list of approved organisations referred to in Article 1(1).\nArticle 3\nThe Government of Poland shall communicate to the Commission at the latest on 31 December 2010, by broad category of products, all information regarding the nature and quantities of the various goods admitted free of duty in pursuance of Article 1.\nArticle 4\nThe Government of Poland shall communicate to the Commission at the latest on 31 December 2010 the measures which it takes to ensure that Articles 78, 79 and 80 of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 are respected.\nArticle 5\nArticle 1 of this Decision shall apply to importations made on or after 1 May 2010 and not later than 30 November 2010.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Poland.\nDone at Brussels, 30 September 2010.", "references": ["69", "54", "26", "83", "64", "61", "36", "67", "51", "49", "75", "28", "37", "98", "50", "41", "1", "9", "66", "18", "8", "30", "58", "45", "88", "57", "24", "72", "99", "23", "No Label", "4", "10", "12", "21", "22", "60", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "12", "21", "22", "60", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 469/2012\nof 1 June 2012\ncorrecting Implementing Regulation (EU) No 69/2012 on the issue of licences for importing rice under the tariff quotas opened for the January 2012 subperiod by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 of 7 December 2011 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (2), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA check has revealed an error in the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 69/2012 (3) regarding the quantity available for the July 2012 subperiod for the quota of broken rice falling within CN Code 1006 40 00 provided for in Article 1(1)(c) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 and with order number 09.4149.\n(2)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 69/2012 should therefore be corrected accordingly.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure for issuing import licences, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn point (c) of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 69/2012, \u2027Quota of broken rice covered by CN code 1006 40 00 as provided for in Article 1(1)(c) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011\u2027, in the line concerning the quota with order number 09.4149, the quantity \u202744 047 269\u2027 shall be replaced by the quantity \u202744 921 269\u2027.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2012.", "references": ["81", "52", "55", "24", "51", "95", "43", "13", "4", "70", "93", "74", "84", "99", "98", "42", "44", "91", "49", "96", "0", "38", "66", "5", "78", "50", "23", "12", "89", "35", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 737/2011\nof 26 July 2011\namending Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 as regards the list of divisions\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 of 30 November 2009 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Community (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to the requests of France and Hungary,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 contains a list of divisions within the meaning of Article 2(d) of that Regulation.\n(2)\nAccording to that Annex, France is divided into 22 divisions. For the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009, France has requested to add Guadeloupe, Martinique and La R\u00e9union to the list of divisions.\n(3)\nAccording to that Annex, Hungary is divided into seven divisions. For the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009, Hungary has requested to reduce the number of divisions by merging the divisions K\u00f6z\u00e9p-Dun\u00e1nt\u00fal, Nyugat-Dun\u00e1nt\u00fal and D\u00e9l-Dun\u00e1nt\u00fal into one division Dun\u00e1nt\u00fal and by merging K\u00f6z\u00e9p-Magyarorsz\u00e1g, \u00c9szak-Alf\u00f6ld and D\u00e9l-Alf\u00f6ld into one division Alf\u00f6ld.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1217/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the 2012 accounting year.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2011.", "references": ["72", "71", "4", "97", "45", "67", "6", "88", "13", "80", "21", "36", "78", "23", "70", "52", "38", "12", "20", "26", "82", "95", "11", "79", "54", "61", "5", "77", "9", "94", "No Label", "63", "92"], "gold": ["63", "92"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 June 2010\nestablishing the Union\u2019s financial contribution towards the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency measures taken to combat bluetongue in Spain in 2004 and 2005\n(notified under document C(2010) 3804)\n(Only the Spanish text is authentic)\n(2010/418/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOutbreaks of bluetongue occurred in Spain in 2004 and 2005. The emergence of that disease presented a serious risk to the Union\u2019s livestock population.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2005/650/EC of 13 September 2005 concerning a financial contribution by the Community in the context of the emergency measures taken to combat bluetongue in Spain in 2004 and 2005 (2) granted a financial contribution from the Community to Spain towards the expenditure incurred under the emergency measures to combat bluetongue in 2004 and 2005.\n(3)\nThat Decision provided for a first instalment of EUR 2 500 000 subject to the results of the Commission in situ inspections.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of that Decision, the balance of the Union financial contribution is to be paid on the basis of the application submitted within 60 days of that Decision. Spain submitted that application on 11 November 2005.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 4(2) of Decision 2005/650/EC, the balance of the Union financial contribution should now be fixed through a Commission decision to be adopted in accordance with the procedure of Article 40 of Decision 2009/470/EC.\n(6)\nThe results of the inspections carried out by the Commission in compliance with Article 7 of Decision 2005/650/EC and the conditions for granting Union\u2019s financial contributions mean the entire amount of the expenditure submitted cannot be recognised as eligible.\n(7)\nThe Commission\u2019s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Spain in a letter dated 1 July 2009.\n(8)\nIn view of the above considerations, the total amount of the Union\u2019s financial contribution to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication and surveillance of bluetongue in Spain in 2004 and 2005 should now be fixed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFinancial contribution from the Union to Spain\nThe total Union financial contribution towards the expenditure associated with eradicating bluetongue in Spain in 2004 and 2005 pursuant to Decision 2005/650/EC is fixed at EUR 2 850 183,00.\nArticle 2\nPayment arrangements\nThe balance of the Union\u2019s financial contribution is fixed at EUR 350 183,00.\nArticle 3\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2010.", "references": ["27", "47", "83", "71", "35", "1", "78", "13", "25", "44", "64", "45", "7", "3", "31", "51", "92", "56", "77", "29", "73", "0", "2", "12", "59", "63", "87", "55", "84", "46", "No Label", "4", "11", "15", "38", "65", "66", "74", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "11", "15", "38", "65", "66", "74", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 292/2012\nof 2 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 April 2012.", "references": ["71", "28", "16", "86", "40", "3", "42", "45", "64", "85", "6", "58", "47", "88", "55", "53", "4", "72", "50", "67", "43", "5", "15", "65", "62", "39", "57", "79", "82", "1", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/133/CFSP\nof 21 February 2011\non the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Montenegro establishing a framework for the participation of Montenegro in European Union crisis management operations\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 37 thereof, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 218(5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (\u2018HR\u2019),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nConditions regarding the participation of third States in European Union crisis management operations should be laid down in an agreement establishing a framework for such possible future participation, rather than defining those conditions on a case-by-case basis for each operation concerned.\n(2)\nFollowing the adoption of a Decision by the Council on 26 April 2010 authorising the opening of negotiations, the HR negotiated an agreement between the European Union and Montenegro establishing a framework for the participation of Montenegro in European Union crisis management operations (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and Montenegro establishing a framework for the participation of Montenegro in European Union crisis management operations (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe Agreement shall be applied on a provisional basis as from the date of signature thereof, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion (1).\nArticle 4\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 16(1) of the Agreement.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2011.", "references": ["89", "65", "32", "12", "6", "92", "62", "83", "1", "54", "84", "48", "71", "42", "69", "30", "95", "55", "43", "47", "66", "33", "0", "68", "4", "21", "29", "38", "74", "77", "No Label", "3", "5", "9", "44", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "5", "9", "44", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 886/2011\nof 5 September 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Trichoderma reesei (CBS 122001) as a feed additive for sows (holder of authorisation Roal Oy)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the enzyme preparation 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Trichoderma reesei (CBS 122001). The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Trichoderma reesei (CBS 122001) as a feed additive for sows, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of that preparation was authorised for 10 years for poultry for fattening and breeding other than turkeys for fattening, for poultry for laying and for pigs other than sows by Commission Regulation (EU) No 277/2010 (2), and for turkeys by Commission Regulation (EU) No 891/2010 (3).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for the authorisation of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Trichoderma reesei (CBS 122001) for sows. The European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 15 March 2011 (4) that, under the proposed conditions of use, 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Trichoderma reesei (CBS 122001) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use can improve the calcium and phosphorus digestibility in sows. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Trichoderma reesei (CBS 122001) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018digestibility enhancers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 September 2011.", "references": ["18", "62", "3", "94", "45", "48", "13", "34", "54", "86", "55", "23", "98", "49", "79", "35", "52", "0", "24", "93", "81", "21", "80", "28", "70", "40", "89", "31", "71", "2", "No Label", "25", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1241/2010\nof 20 December 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 of 23 July 2001 on the measures that may be taken by the Community following a report adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy matters (1), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nFollowing an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ironing boards originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019) and Ukraine (\u2018the first investigation\u2019), anti-dumping measures were imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 (2). That Regulation entered into force on 27 April 2007.\n(2)\nIt is recalled that the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on ironing boards produced by the Chinese exporting producer Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. Ltd (\u2018Since Hardware\u2019) was 0 % while it ranged between 18,1 % and 38,1 % for other Chinese exporting producers. Following a subsequent interim review, these duty rates were increased to up to 42,3 % by Implementing Regulation of the Council (EU) No 270/2010 of 29 March 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 (3).\n2. Initiation of a new proceeding\n(3)\nOn 2 October 2009, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) (\u2018notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (5) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) concerning imports into the Union of ironing boards originating in the PRC, limited to Since Hardware. In the notice of initiation, the Commission also announced the initiation of a review pursuant to Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 in order to allow for any necessary amendment of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in the light of the WTO Appellate Body report entitled \u2018Mexico - Definitive Anti-dumping Measures on Beef and Rice\u2019 (AB-2005-6) (6). This report stipulates in paragraphs 305 and 306 that an exporting producer not found to be dumping in an original investigation has to be excluded from the scope of the definitive measure imposed as a result of such investigation and cannot be made subject to administrative and changed circumstances reviews.\n3. Exclusion of Since Hardware from the definitive anti-dumping measure imposed by Regulation (EC) No 452/2007\n(4)\nSince Hardware should be excluded from the definitive anti-dumping measure imposed by Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in order not to make Since Hardware fall under two anti-dumping proceedings at the same time,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 452/2007 is hereby amended as follows:\nIn Article 1(2), in the table, the entry concerning Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. Ltd shall be deleted and the entry \u2018All other companies\u2019 shall be replaced by the entry \u2018All other companies (except Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. Ltd, Guangzhou - TARIC additional code A784)\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["30", "60", "16", "66", "12", "31", "79", "44", "41", "21", "18", "3", "55", "61", "43", "77", "50", "6", "63", "68", "25", "42", "11", "45", "13", "4", "93", "29", "67", "36", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "90", "91", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "90", "91", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 177/2011\nof 24 February 2011\ntemporarily suspending customs duties on imports of certain cereals for the 2010/2011 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nWorld cereal prices have increased extremely rapidly since the start of the 2010/11 marketing year, more than during the previous price increase in the 2007/8 marketing year. For example, world common wheat prices have increased by 65 % since July 2010. Since then cereal prices on the EU market have followed the same trend. The price of common wheat on the EU market has increased by over 90 % to stabilise at around EUR 280 per tonne. The price of other cereals on the EU market has followed the same trend, \u2018Rouen delivered\u2019 barley and \u2018Bordeaux delivered\u2019 maize being above EUR 215 per tonne. The trend in prices on the world cereal market is largely due to the failing ability of production to meet demand.\n(2)\nThe outlook for the global cereal market for the end of the 2010/11 marketing year suggests that these high prices will persist, global stocks being estimated at 342 million tonnes at the end of the 2010/11 marketing year, i.e. 62 million tonnes less than at the end of the 2009/10 marketing year.\n(3)\nThe reduced-duty import quota opened by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 (2) for common wheat of low and medium quality and the reduced-duty import quota for feed barley opened by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 (3) were much under-used in 2010, with a percentage of 13 % and 5 % respectively. This under-use is set to continue in 2011, all the more so since the EU\u2019s traditional suppliers - Russia and the Ukraine - have imposed restrictions on exports.\n(4)\nThe persistence of high world prices until the end of the 2010/11 marketing year and the expected under-use in 2011 of reduced-duty import quotas threatens to disrupt the availability of supply on the Union market in the last few months of the 2010/11 marketing year. In this context, in order to make it easier to maintain a flow of imports which will help maintain EU market equilibrium, it is therefore considered appropriate to temporarily suspend customs duties for the import tariff quotas for common wheat of low and medium quality and feed barley opened by Regulations (EC) No 1067/2008 and (EC) No 2305/2003 respectively, until 30 June 2011, end of the 2010/11 marketing year.\n(5)\nHowever, traders should not be penalised in cases where cereals are en route for importation into the Union. Therefore, the time required for transport should be taken into account and traders allowed to release cereals for free circulation under the customs-duty suspension regime provided for in this Regulation, for all products whose direct transport to the Union has started at the latest on 30 June 2011. The evidence to be provided showing direct transport to the Union and the date on which the transport commenced should also be established.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The application of customs duties on imports for products of CN codes 1001 90 99, of a quality other than high quality as defined in Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 (4), and CN 1003 00 is suspended for the 2010/11 marketing year for all imports under the reduced-duty tariff quotas opened by Regulations (EC) No 1067/2008 and (EC) No 2305/2003.\n2. Where the cereals referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article undergo direct transport to the Union and such transport began at the latest by 30 June 2011, the suspension of customs duties under this Regulation shall continue to apply for the purposes of the release into free circulation of the products concerned.\nProof of direct transport to the Union and of the date on which the transport commenced shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities, by the original transport document.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply up to 30 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2011.", "references": ["74", "11", "82", "27", "66", "54", "12", "94", "30", "75", "3", "28", "79", "31", "17", "8", "90", "1", "60", "43", "72", "77", "59", "2", "81", "18", "38", "34", "36", "0", "No Label", "4", "21", "22", "25", "68"], "gold": ["4", "21", "22", "25", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 629/2012\nof 6 July 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Nostrano Valtrompia (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy's application to register the name \u2027Nostrano Valtrompia\u2027 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2012.", "references": ["98", "43", "68", "59", "41", "19", "85", "55", "28", "95", "36", "90", "66", "2", "56", "38", "74", "87", "7", "83", "26", "22", "99", "40", "51", "82", "89", "71", "78", "0", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1017/2011\nof 12 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for blue marlin in the Atlantic Ocean by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 October 2011.", "references": ["1", "37", "85", "29", "12", "93", "87", "70", "14", "13", "98", "18", "22", "47", "99", "34", "62", "20", "61", "31", "72", "52", "39", "55", "89", "23", "69", "65", "49", "77", "No Label", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 May 2011\ndesignating the European Capital of Culture for the year 2015 in Czech Republic\n(2011/323/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019 (1), and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the Selection Panel report of September 2010 regarding the selection process of the European Capitals of Culture in the Czech Republic,\nWhereas:\nConsidering that the criteria referred to in Article 4 of Decision No 1622/2006/EC are entirely fulfilled,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nPlze\u0148 is designated as \u2018European Capital of Culture 2015\u2019 in the Czech Republic.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 19 May 2011.", "references": ["29", "37", "45", "56", "55", "33", "95", "90", "84", "34", "17", "14", "1", "54", "47", "76", "19", "6", "61", "28", "64", "26", "39", "12", "99", "22", "49", "21", "85", "67", "No Label", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1046/2011\nof 19 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 October 2011.", "references": ["57", "28", "3", "65", "66", "70", "36", "95", "99", "43", "81", "92", "8", "58", "44", "27", "72", "47", "4", "79", "48", "59", "16", "39", "10", "75", "55", "31", "83", "7", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1092/2011\nof 27 October 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1076/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["69", "21", "7", "20", "41", "2", "42", "19", "54", "64", "67", "9", "94", "27", "89", "76", "98", "16", "14", "33", "63", "44", "29", "36", "60", "11", "99", "12", "4", "34", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1245/2010\nof 21 December 2010\nopening Union tariff quotas for 2011 for sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Articles 144(1) and 148 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnion tariff quotas for sheepmeat and goatmeat should be opened for 2011. The duties and quantities should be fixed in accordance with the respective international agreements in force during the year 2011.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 312/2003 of 18 February 2003 implementing for the Community the tariff provisions laid down in the Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part (2) has provided for an additional bilateral tariff quota of 2 000 tonnes with a 10 % annual increase of the original quantity to be opened for product code 0204 from 1 February 2003. Therefore, a further 200 tonnes shall be added to the GATT/WTO quota for Chile and both quotas should continue to be managed in the same way during 2011.\n(3)\nCertain quotas are defined for a period running from 1 July of a given year to 30 June of the following year. Since imports under this Regulation should be managed on a calendar-year basis, the corresponding quantities to be fixed for the calendar year 2011 with regard to the quotas concerned are the sum of half of the quantity for the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 and half of the quantity for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012.\n(4)\nA carcass-weight equivalent needs to be fixed in order to ensure a proper functioning of the Union tariff quotas.\n(5)\nQuotas of the sheepmeat and goatmeat products should, by way of derogation from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1439/95 of 26 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 as regards the import and export of products in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector (3), be managed in conformity with Article 144(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. This should be done in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (4).\n(6)\nTariff quotas under this Regulation should be regarded initially as non-critical within the meaning of Article 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 when managed under the first-come, first-served system. Therefore, customs authorities should be authorised to waive the requirement for security in respect of goods initially imported under those quotas in accordance with Articles 308c(1) and 248(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93. Due to the particularities of the transfer from one management system to the other, Article 308c(2) and (3) of that Regulation should not apply.\n(7)\nIt should be clarified which kind of proof certifying the origin of products has to be provided by operators in order to benefit from the tariff quotas under the first-come, first served system.\n(8)\nWhen sheepmeat products are presented by operators to the customs authorities for import, it is difficult for those authorities to establish whether they originate from domestic sheep or other sheep, which determines the application of different duty rates. It is therefore appropriate to provide that the proof of origin contains a clarification to that end.\n(9)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1234/2009 of 15 December 2009 opening Community tariff quotas for 2010 for sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat (5) becomes obsolete at the end of the year 2010. For this reason, it should be repealed.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation opens Union import tariff quotas for sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nThe customs duties applicable to the products under the quotas referred to in Article 1, the CN codes, the countries of origin, listed by country group, and the order numbers are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 3\n1. The quantities, expressed in carcass-weight equivalent, for the import of products under the quotas referred to in Article 1, shall be those as laid down in the Annex.\n2. For the purpose of calculating the quantities of \u2018carcase weight equivalent\u2019 referred to in paragraph 1 the net weight of sheep and goat products shall be multiplied by the following coefficients:\n(a)\nfor live animals: 0,47;\n(b)\nfor boneless lamb and boneless goatmeat of kid: 1,67;\n(c)\nfor boneless mutton, boneless sheep and boneless goatmeat other than of kid and mixtures of any of these: 1,81;\n(d)\nfor bone-in products: 1,00.\n\u2018Kid\u2019 shall mean goat of up to 1 year old.\nArticle 4\nBy way of derogation from Title II (A) and (B) of Regulation (EC) No 1439/95, the tariff quotas set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall be managed on a first-come, first-served basis in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 from 1 January to 31 December 2011. Article 308c(2) and (3) of that Regulation shall not apply. No import licences shall be required.\nArticle 5\n1. In order to benefit from the tariff quotas set out in the Annex, a valid proof of origin issued by the competent authorities of the third country concerned together with a customs declaration for release for free circulation for the goods concerned shall be presented to the Union customs authorities.\nThe origin of products subject to tariff quotas other than those resulting from preferential tariff agreements shall be determined in accordance with the provisions in force in the Union.\n2. The proof of origin referred to in paragraph 1 shall be as follows:\n(a)\nin the case of a tariff quota which is part of a preferential tariff agreement, it shall be the proof of origin laid down in that agreement;\n(b)\nin the case of other tariff quotas, it shall be a proof established in accordance with Article 47 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 and, in addition to the elements provided for in that Article, the following data:\n-\nthe CN code (at least the first four digits),\n-\nthe order number or order numbers of the tariff quota concerned,\n-\nthe total net weight per coefficient category as provided for in Article 3(2) of this Regulation;\n(c)\nin the case of a country whose quota falls under points (a) and (b) and are merged, it shall be the proof referred to in point (a).\nWhere the proof of origin referred to in point (b) is presented as supporting document for only one declaration for release for free circulation, it may contain several order numbers. In all other cases, it shall only contain one order number.\nArticle 6\nRegulation (EU) No 1234/2009 is repealed.\nArticle 7\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2010.", "references": ["57", "39", "80", "71", "27", "84", "98", "51", "96", "48", "73", "92", "82", "58", "99", "11", "34", "2", "18", "20", "0", "1", "50", "72", "5", "17", "23", "30", "22", "54", "No Label", "21", "65", "66", "69"], "gold": ["21", "65", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 6 June 2010\nconcerning the conclusion of consultations with the Republic of Madagascar under Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement\n(2010/371/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Partnership agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1), as revised in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (2) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018ACP-EU Partnership Agreement\u2019), and in particular Article 96 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe essential elements referred to in Article 9 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement have been violated.\n(2)\nOn 6 July 2009, under Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, consultations were opened with Madagascar in the presence of representatives of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States, during which representatives of the High Transitional Authority failed to present satisfactory proposals or undertakings.\n(3)\nThe European Union proposed that consultations remain open in order to encourage Madagascar\u2019s High Transitional Authority to continue negotiations with the country\u2019s political factions under the aegis of the joint mediation team in order to arrive at a consensual agreement.\n(4)\nUnder the aegis of the joint mediation team headed by Mr Chissano, on 9 August 2009, Madagascar\u2019s four political factions signed, in Maputo, agreements including provisions for the establishment of transition institutions to manage the transition process and organise presidential and legislative elections within fifteen months. These agreements were supplemented by the \u2018Additional Act to the Malagasy Charter of the Transition\u2019, which was signed in Addis Ababa on 6 November 2009.\n(5)\nSince then, no compromise has been reached between the four political factions on the practical implementation of these agreements. The High Transitional Authority, which currently holds the reins of power, has, however, committed itself to a unilateral transition process, including the appointment of a Prime Minister and a government and the organisation of elections for 2010, which runs counter to the spirit and the letter of the Maputo agreements and the Addis Ababa Charter.\n(6)\nConsequently, the consultations opened under Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement should be closed and appropriate measures adopted,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nConsultations with the Republic of Madagascar under Article 96 of the Partnership agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, as revised in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018ACP-EU Partnership Agreement\u2019) are hereby concluded.\nArticle 2\nThe measures set out in the annexed letter are hereby adopted as appropriate measures under Article 96(2)(c) of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall remain in force for a period of 12 months and shall be re-examined regularly.\nDone at Luxembourg, 6 June 2010.", "references": ["49", "97", "95", "66", "20", "35", "12", "36", "18", "91", "85", "96", "27", "75", "61", "57", "44", "42", "80", "4", "53", "90", "69", "30", "59", "54", "56", "68", "52", "1", "No Label", "0", "2", "3", "8", "9", "14", "94"], "gold": ["0", "2", "3", "8", "9", "14", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 September 2010\nauthorising the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to apply a measure derogating from Article 5 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(2010/579/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 291(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letters registered with the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 15 October and 18 November 2009 respectively, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg requested authorisation to apply a measure derogating from the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC in relation to the renovation and maintenance of a border bridge.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 395(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission informed the other Member States by letter dated 25 February 2010 of the requests made by the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. By letter dated 2 March 2010, the Commission informed the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg that it had all the information necessary to consider the requests.\n(3)\nThe purpose of the measure is, for supplies of goods and services, intra-Community acquisitions of goods and importations of goods intended for the renovation and subsequent maintenance of a cross-border bridge over the Mosel, to regard that bridge and its building site, as entirely on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in accordance with an agreement between the two countries.\n(4)\nIn absence of such a measure, it would be necessary to ascertain whether the place of taxation was the Federal Republic of Germany or the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Work at the border bridge carried out on German territory would be subject to value added tax in Germany while work carried out in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg would be subject to value added tax in Luxembourg. In addition, the bridge crosses a jointly managed territory (condominium) and work in this area could not be attributed exclusively to the territory of one of the two Member States to determine a single place of supply.\n(5)\nThe purpose of the measure is therefore to simplify the procedure for charging value added tax on the renovation and the maintenance of the bridge in question.\n(6)\nThe derogation will have no negative impact on the Union\u2019s own resources accruing from value added tax,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 5 of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are hereby authorised, in respect of the existing border bridge over the river Mosel linking the German B 419 and the Luxembourg N 1 motorways between Wellen and Grevenmacher, to consider that bridge and its building site as entirely on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for the purposes of supplies of goods and services, intra-Community acquisitions of goods and importations of goods intended for the renovation or subsequent maintenance of that bridge.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["74", "46", "50", "54", "80", "20", "24", "12", "79", "19", "52", "45", "38", "63", "44", "84", "3", "7", "27", "86", "18", "71", "41", "0", "29", "70", "87", "67", "73", "62", "No Label", "8", "17", "25", "34", "53", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "17", "25", "34", "53", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/332/CFSP\nof 25 June 2012\namending and extending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 November 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nOn 19 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/857/CFSP (2) amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP and extending it until 30 June 2012.\n(3)\nOn 4 May 2012, the Political and Security Committee recommended an extension of EU BAM Rafah for 12 months.\n(4)\nEU BAM Rafah should be further extended from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2013 on the basis of its current mandate.\n(5)\nIt is also necessary to lay down the financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EU BAM Rafah for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013.\n(6)\nEU BAM Rafah will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nJoint Action 2005/889/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following subparagraph is added to Article 13(1):\n\u2018The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EU BAM Rafah for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 shall be EUR 980 000.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 16, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 30 June 2013.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["84", "83", "42", "7", "73", "17", "14", "66", "74", "67", "45", "52", "31", "86", "39", "24", "82", "40", "97", "46", "88", "72", "57", "26", "27", "35", "53", "13", "33", "80", "No Label", "1", "4", "5", "10"], "gold": ["1", "4", "5", "10"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 June 2010\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania on certain aspects of air services\n(2010/364/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.\n(2)\nOn behalf of the Community, the Commission negotiated an agreement with the Republic of Albania on certain aspects of air services (hereafter referred to as the \u2018Agreement\u2019) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.\n(3)\nThe Agreement was signed on behalf of the Community on 5 May 2006 subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Council Decision 2006/716/EC (1).\n(4)\nFollowing the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union should make a notification to the Republic of Albania as regards the European Union having replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania on certain aspects of air services is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to make the notification provided for in Article 8(1) of the Agreement and to make the following notification:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d in the text of the Agreement are, where appropriate, to be read as \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 June 2010.", "references": ["95", "63", "81", "27", "86", "39", "60", "83", "72", "56", "68", "93", "47", "99", "7", "92", "1", "14", "61", "65", "71", "42", "10", "73", "24", "74", "82", "36", "88", "23", "No Label", "3", "9", "53", "57", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "53", "57", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 481/2011\nof 18 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 May 2011.", "references": ["31", "36", "94", "41", "29", "8", "84", "99", "69", "72", "60", "26", "52", "56", "89", "40", "59", "92", "53", "15", "78", "11", "67", "57", "27", "66", "4", "46", "73", "42", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 12 May 2010\namending Decision 2006/968/EC implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards guidelines and procedures for the electronic identification of ovine and caprine animals\n(notified under document C(2010) 3009)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/280/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC (1), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 21/2004 provides that each Member State is to establish a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals in accordance with that Regulation. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 ovine and caprine animals are identified by a first and a second means of identification. One of those means of identification must be an electronic identifier and the other one a visible identifier.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2006/968/EC (2) sets out guidelines and procedures for the approval of identifiers and readers for the electronic identification of ovine and caprine animals pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 21/2004. That Decision lays down minimum requirements concerning certain conformance and performance tests for the approval of those devices in order to ensure that electronic identifiers are readable throughout the Union and fulfil the minimum reading distances as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 21/2004.\n(3)\nThose test procedures were laid down in accordance with methods specified in the International Agreement on Recording Practices of the International Committee on Animal Recording (ICAR Guidelines). The ICAR Guidelines have been further developed and now replaced by ISO standards 24631-1, 24631-2, 24631-3 and 24631-4. For the sake of transparency, a direct reference to the relevant points in the ISO standards should be established.\n(4)\nThroughout their lifetime, animals may be moved and thus be kept in different holdings. It is necessary to lay down minimum performance criteria for electronic identifiers, in order to ensure that those devices are readable under different conditions in the whole Union.\n(5)\nIn order to reduce potential administrative burden, the requirements for the approval procedure for readers should be clarified. In contrast to identifiers, no binding requirements for readers should be laid down at the level of the Union. However, Member States should have the possibility of setting additional criteria in order to ensure the functionality of electronic identification under their specific geographic, climatic and management conditions, if necessary.\n(6)\nPractical experience in implementing Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 has shown that only a small number of laboratories are sufficient, in order to carry out all the tests provided for by that Regulation. A specific procedure for designating national test laboratories in all Member States is therefore not needed. It is sufficient that tests be carried out in laboratories accredited for those tests in accordance with standard EN ISO/IEC 17025.\n(7)\nDecision 2006/968/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2006/968/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 July 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2010.", "references": ["68", "61", "25", "80", "79", "60", "82", "73", "39", "91", "28", "43", "14", "4", "88", "26", "98", "89", "11", "35", "38", "54", "24", "72", "49", "53", "74", "67", "22", "99", "No Label", "42", "46", "65", "76", "77", "86"], "gold": ["42", "46", "65", "76", "77", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 25 August 2011\non the recognition of Azerbaijan pursuant to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers\n(notified under document C(2011) 6003)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/517/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 19(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the request from Belgium on 7 August 2008,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Directive 2008/106/EC Member States may decide to endorse seafarers\u2019 appropriate certificates issued by third countries, provided that the third country concerned is recognised by the Commission. Those third countries have to meet all the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW Convention) (2), as revised in 1995.\n(2)\nBy letter of 7 August 2008, Belgium submitted a request for recognition of Azerbaijan. Following that request of Belgium, the Commission assessed the training and certification systems in Azerbaijan in order to verify whether Azerbaijan meets all the requirements of the STCW Convention and whether the appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. That assessment was based on the results of an inspection carried out by experts of the European Maritime Safety Agency in February 2009. During that inspection certain deficiencies in the training and certification systems were identified.\n(3)\nThe Commission provided the Member States with a report on the results of the assessment.\n(4)\nBy letters of 4 December 2009 and 26 October 2010, the Commission requested Azerbaijan to provide evidence demonstrating that the deficiencies identified had been corrected.\n(5)\nBy letters of 13 January and 24 December 2010, Azerbaijan provided the requested information and evidence concerning the implementation of appropriate and sufficient corrective action to address all the deficiencies identified during the assessment of compliance.\n(6)\nThe outcome of the assessment of compliance and the evaluation of the information provided by Azerbaijan demonstrate that Azerbaijan meets all the requirements of the STCW Convention, and has taken appropriate measures to prevent fraud involving certificates. It should therefore be recognised by the Commission.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of Article 19 of Directive 2008/106/EC, Azerbaijan is recognised as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 August 2011.", "references": ["16", "18", "14", "98", "85", "7", "26", "25", "88", "47", "30", "34", "22", "15", "37", "99", "72", "28", "31", "24", "92", "89", "3", "13", "10", "32", "33", "38", "9", "11", "No Label", "49", "54", "56", "91"], "gold": ["49", "54", "56", "91"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 512/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 11 May 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSince 1971, the Union has granted trade preferences to developing countries in the framework of its Generalised Scheme of Preferences (\u2018GSP\u2019). The GSP has been implemented through successive Regulations applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences (\u2018the scheme\u2019) with periods of application usually of three years at a time.\n(2)\nThe current scheme was established by Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (2) and applies until 31 December 2011. This Regulation should ensure that the operation of the scheme continues to apply after that date.\n(3)\nFuture improvements to the scheme should be based on a Commission proposal for a new regulation (\u2018the next Regulation\u2019) which should take into account relevant considerations relating to the effectiveness of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 in achieving the objectives of the scheme. The next Regulation should include the necessary amendments to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the scheme. It is also essential that the Commission\u2019s proposal take into account statistical trade data, which only became available in July 2010, on imports covered by the scheme for the period including 2009, a year marked by a sharp fall in global trade including that of developing countries. It is equally important to ensure that economic operators and beneficiary countries be given adequate notice of the changes to be brought about by the next Regulation. For those reasons, the remaining period of application of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 is insufficient to allow for the Commission to draw up a proposal and the subsequent adoption of the next Regulation in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. It is however desirable to ensure continuity in the operation of the scheme beyond 31 December 2011 until such time as the next Regulation is adopted and applies.\n(4)\nThe period of extension of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 should not be open-ended. Consequently, and in order to provide the time needed for the legislative procedure for the adoption of the new scheme, the period of application of that Regulation should be extended until 31 December 2013. In case the next Regulation becomes applicable before that date, the period of extension should be correspondingly shortened.\n(5)\nSome technical amendments to Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 are necessary to ensure coherence and continuity in the operation of the scheme.\n(6)\nDeveloping countries which fulfil the criteria for being eligible for the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance (GSP+) should be able to benefit from the additional tariff preferences under that arrangement if, upon their request by 31 October 2011 or 30 April 2013, the Commission decides to grant them the special incentive arrangement by 15 December 2011 or 15 June 2013 respectively. Developing countries which have already been granted benefits under the special incentive arrangement as a result of Commission Decisions 2008/938/EC of 9 December 2008 on the list of the beneficiary countries which qualify for the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance, provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (3), and 2010/318/EU of 9 June 2010 on the beneficiary countries which qualify for the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance for the period from 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2011, as provided in Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (4) should retain that status during the extension of the current scheme.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 732/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 732/2008 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n(2)\nin the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) the following points are added:\n\u2018(c)\nfor the purpose of Article 9(1)(a)(iii) - those available on 1 September 2010, as an annual average over three consecutive years;\n(d)\nfor the purpose of Article 9(1)(a)(iv) - those available on 1 September 2012, as an annual average over three consecutive years.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 9 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (a) of paragraph 1, the following is inserted after point (ii):\n\u2018or\n(iii)\nby 31 October 2011, to be granted the special incentive arrangement as from 1 January 2012;\nor\n(iv)\nby 30 April 2013, to be granted the special incentive arrangement as from 1 July 2013;\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nthe second sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Countries granted the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance on the basis of a request under paragraph 1(a)(i) shall not be required to submit a request under paragraph 1(a)(ii), 1(a)(iii) or 1(a)(iv).\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Countries granted the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance on the basis of a request under paragraph 1(a)(ii) shall not be required to submit a request under paragraph 1(a)(iii) or paragraph 1(a)(iv). Countries granted the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance on the basis of a request under paragraph 1(a)(iii) shall not be required to submit a request under paragraph 1(a)(iv).\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 10(3) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe word \u2018or\u2019 is added at the end of point (b);\n(b)\nthe following points are added:\n\u2018(c)\nby 15 December 2011 for a request under Article 9(1)(a)(iii); or\n(d)\nby 15 June 2013 for a request under Article 9(1)(a)(iv).\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 32(2), the words \u201831 December 2011\u2019 are replaced by the words: \u201831 December 2013 or until a date laid down by the next Regulation, whichever is the earlier\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 11 May 2011.", "references": ["83", "93", "18", "3", "74", "51", "11", "66", "91", "12", "24", "13", "89", "45", "7", "95", "82", "88", "10", "41", "32", "8", "49", "73", "38", "17", "55", "81", "29", "27", "No Label", "4", "15", "16", "20", "21"], "gold": ["4", "15", "16", "20", "21"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 955/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 14 September 2011\nrepealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1541/98 on proof of origin for certain textile products falling within Section XI of the Combined Nomenclature and released for free circulation in the Community and on the conditions for the acceptance of such proof, and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1541/98 (2) lays down the rules on proof of origin for certain textile products originating in third countries with which the Union concluded bilateral textile agreements, protocols or other arrangements, and for textile products in respect of which the Union has established a system of surveillance in order to monitor the trends of imports of products or to which it applies special safeguard measures.\n(2)\nSince Regulation (EC) No 1541/98 was adopted a number of major developments have taken place. The import measures applied by the Union to textile products falling within Section XI of the Combined Nomenclature have gradually decreased in number and impact and are now of a residual nature, in terms of both Combined Nomenclature headings covered and countries concerned.\n(3)\nArticle 26 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (3) provides that the customs authorities may, in the event of serious doubts, require any additional proof of origin.\n(4)\nIn all cases, the country of origin of imported products must be indicated in box 34 of the Single Administrative Document, which is to be completed in accordance with the Single Administrative Document Explanatory Notes contained in Annex 37 to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (4). This indication is subject to the normal verification procedures, which include the possibility for the customs authorities to require additional proof, where appropriate, on a case-by-case basis.\n(5)\nThe obligation to provide additional proof of origin on a systematic basis for the textile products referred to in recital 1 has become disproportionate in relation to its aim, which is to supplement certain import measures which have themselves practically fallen into disuse. Thus this obligation places an unnecessary burden on economic operators.\n(6)\nGiven that the textile products in question can be imported without any constraints and that customs authorities are able, as mentioned in recital 4, to require additional information, notably in the event of doubt concerning the origin of the imported products, there is no longer any need to maintain the additional administrative requirements provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1541/98.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1541/98 should therefore be repealed.\n(8)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 (5), under which the proof of origin provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1541/98 may be accepted in certain cases, should be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1541/98 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 2\nIn the first subparagraph of Article 1(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 the second sentence is deleted.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 14 September 2011.", "references": ["44", "62", "3", "72", "18", "39", "13", "60", "10", "81", "15", "54", "2", "85", "43", "7", "80", "50", "86", "37", "98", "88", "56", "27", "99", "40", "93", "53", "14", "17", "No Label", "22", "23", "89"], "gold": ["22", "23", "89"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/39/EU\nof 22 June 2010\namending Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the specific provisions relating to the active substances clofentezine, diflubenzuron, lenacil, oxadiazon, picloram and pyriproxyfen\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe active substances clofentezine, diflubenzuron, lenacil, oxadiazon, picloram and pyriproxyfen were included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by Commission Directive 2008/69/EC (2) in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 11b of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 12a of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 EFSA presented to the Commission the conclusions on the peer review for clofentezine (4) on 4 June 2009, for diflubenzuron (5) on 16 July 2009, for lenacil (6) on 25 September 2009, for oxadiazon (7) and picloram (8) on 26 November 2009 and for pyriproxyfen (9) on 21 July 2009. These conclusions were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 May 2010 in the format of the Commission review reports for clofentezine, diflubenzuron, lenacil, oxadiazon, picloram and pyriproxyfen.\n(3)\nTaking into account the EFSA conclusions, it is confirmed that plant protection products containing clofentezine, diflubenzuron, lenacil, oxadiazon, picloram or pyriproxyfen may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report.\n(4)\nFor certain substances it is necessary to include specific provisions requiring Member States, when authorising those substances, to pay particular attention to certain points or to ensure that appropriate risk mitigation measures are taken.\n(5)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusions referred to in recital 3, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I to that Directive may be subject to conditions. It is appropriate as regards clofentezine, to require that the notifier carry out a monitoring programme to assess the potential of that substance for long-range atmospheric transport and related environmental risks. Moreover, the notifier shall also submit confirmatory studies in respect of toxicological and environmental risks of clofentezine metabolites.\n(6)\nIt is appropriate as regards diflubenzuron, to require that the notifier submit confirmatory data in respect of the potential toxicological relevance of the impurity and metabolite 4-chloroaniline (PCA).\n(7)\nIt is appropriate as regards lenacil, to require that the notifier submit further information on certain soil metabolites which occurred in lysimeter studies and confirmatory data on rotational crops, including possible phytotoxic effects. If a decision on the classification of lenacil under Council Directive 67/548/EEC (10) identifies the need for further information on the relevance of certain metabolites, the Member States concerned should request the submission of such information.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate as regards oxadiazon, to require that the notifier submit further information on the potential toxicological relevance of an impurity in the proposed technical specification and on the occurrence of a metabolite in primary crops and rotational crops. In addition, the notifier should be required to submit a metabolism study on ruminants and information on further trials on rotational crops and information on the risk to earthworm-eating birds and mammals and on the long-term risk to fish.\n(9)\nIt is appropriate as regards picloram, to require that the notifier submit confirmatory information in respect of the monitoring analytical method applied in residue trials and a soil photolysis study to confirm the evaluation of picloram degradation.\n(10)\nIt is appropriate as regards pyriproxifen, to require that the notifier submit information confirming the risk assessment in respect of two points, namely the risk posed to aquatic insects by pyriproxfen and the metabolite DPH-pyr and the risk posed by pyriproxfen to pollinators.\n(11)\nDirective 91/414/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish, by 31 December 2010 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 January 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2010.", "references": ["35", "88", "67", "14", "12", "70", "32", "77", "78", "54", "79", "86", "52", "94", "95", "50", "64", "66", "45", "41", "55", "16", "93", "58", "21", "7", "29", "80", "68", "37", "No Label", "25", "38", "42", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "38", "42", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 718/2011\nof 20 July 2011\napproving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Riviera Ligure (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and having regard to Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Riviera Ligure\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 123/97 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["41", "98", "34", "9", "46", "4", "73", "94", "21", "29", "2", "47", "60", "1", "5", "39", "63", "95", "23", "3", "76", "82", "13", "61", "72", "51", "66", "65", "59", "33", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1317/2011\nof 15 December 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 December 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 December 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 December 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2011.", "references": ["66", "52", "20", "19", "33", "80", "97", "85", "46", "43", "26", "36", "24", "16", "62", "14", "34", "51", "40", "18", "49", "75", "81", "94", "79", "54", "56", "71", "57", "4", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 440/2012\nof 24 May 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 439/2011 on a derogation from Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 in respect of the definition of the concept of originating products used for the purposes of the scheme of generalised tariff preferences to take account of the special situation of Cape Verde regarding exports of certain fisheries products to the European Union\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1), and in particular Article 247 thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (2), and in particular Article 89(1)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 815/2008 (3) the Commission granted Cape Verde a derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93. By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 439/2011 (4) the Commission granted Cape Verde a new derogation from those rules of origin (5). That derogation expired on 31 December 2011.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 21 November 2011, Cape Verde submitted a request for a prolongation of that derogation for three years, i.e. from 2012 until 2014. That application concerns a volume of 2 500 tonnes for prepared or preserved mackerel fillets and 875 tonnes for prepared or preserved frigate tuna or frigate mackerel.\n(3)\nBetween 2008 and 2011, the total annual derogation quantities that were granted to Cape Verde contributed, to a significant extent, to improving the situation in the Cape Verdean fishery processing sector. Those quantities also led, to a certain extent, to the revitalisation of Cape Verde\u2019s artisanal fleet, which is of vital importance for the country. However, fully revitalising the Cape Verdean fleet to the degree envisaged requires a renewal of the increased available capacity to provide enough originating raw materials to Cape Verde\u2019s fish processing industries.\n(4)\nThe request demonstrates that, without the derogation, the ability of the Cape Verdean fish processing industry to continue to export to the Union would be significantly affected, which might deter further development of the Cape Verdean fleet for small pelagic fishing.\n(5)\nThe derogation should give Cape Verde sufficient time to prepare itself to comply with the rules for the acquisition of preferential origin. Additional time is needed to consolidate the results already obtained by Cape Verde in its efforts to revitalise its local fishing fleet.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure that the temporary derogation be limited to the time needed for Cape Verde to achieve compliance with the rules, the derogation should be granted for a period of three years, i.e. from 2012 until 2014, in respect of yearly quantities of 2 500 tonnes for prepared or preserved mackerel fillets and 875 tonnes for prepared or preserved frigate tuna or frigate mackerel.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure continuity of exports from Cape Verde to the Union, the derogation should be granted with retroactive effect from 1 January 2012.\n(8)\nIn the interest of clarity, it is appropriate to set out explicitly that the only non-originating materials to be used for the manufacture of prepared or preserved fillets of mackerel, and prepared or preserved fillets of frigate tuna and frigate mackerel of CN codes 1604 15 11 and ex 1604 19 97 should be mackerel or frigate tuna or frigate mackerel of HS headings 0302 or 0303, in order for the prepared or preserved fillets of mackerel, frigate tuna and frigate mackerel to benefit from the derogation.\n(9)\nSince with effect from 1 January 2012 CN code 1604 19 98 was replaced by CN code 1604 19 97, it is appropriate to update the CN codes for the products for which the derogation is granted.\n(10)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 439/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 439/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticles 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nBy way of derogation from Articles 72, 73 and 75 to 79 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, the following goods shall be regarded as originating in Cape Verde in accordance with the arrangements set out in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of this Regulation:\n(a)\nprepared or preserved fillets of mackerel of CN codes 1604 15 11 and ex 1604 19 97 produced in Cape Verde from non-originating mackerel of HS headings 0302 or 0303;\n(b)\nprepared or preserved fillets of frigate tuna or frigate mackerel of CN code ex 1604 19 97 produced in Cape Verde from non-originating frigate tuna or frigate mackerel of HS headings 0302 or 0303.\nArticle 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to products exported from Cape Verde and declared for release for free circulation in the Union, where the conditions specified in Article 74 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 are satisfied, during the periods from 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011, 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2012, 1 January 2013 until 31 December 2013 and 1 January 2014 until 31 December 2014, up to the quantities listed in the Annex against each product imported.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe Annex is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 24 May 2012.", "references": ["50", "9", "88", "5", "51", "1", "87", "61", "58", "25", "45", "92", "63", "28", "18", "68", "53", "13", "37", "99", "36", "42", "95", "55", "71", "14", "82", "46", "81", "48", "No Label", "8", "21", "22", "23", "67", "72", "94"], "gold": ["8", "21", "22", "23", "67", "72", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2011/85/EU\nof 8 November 2011\non requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 126(14) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThere is a need to build upon the experience gained during the first decade of the economic and monetary union. Recent economic developments have posed new challenges to the conduct of fiscal policy across the Union and have in particular highlighted the need for strengthening national ownership and having uniform requirements as regards the rules and procedures forming the budgetary frameworks of the Member States. In particular, it is necessary to specify what national authorities must do to comply with the provisions of the Protocol (No 12) on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Article 3 thereof.\n(2)\nMember State governments and government sub-sectors maintain public accounting systems which include elements such as bookkeeping, internal control, financial reporting, and auditing. Those systems should be distinguished from statistical data which relate to the outcomes of government finances based on statistical methodologies, and from forecasts or budgeting actions which relate to future government finances.\n(3)\nComplete and reliable public accounting practices for all sub-sectors of general government are a precondition for the production of high-quality statistics that are comparable across Member States. Internal control should ensure that existing rules are enforced throughout the sub-sectors of general government. Independent audits conducted by public institutions such as courts of auditors or by private auditing bodies should encourage best international practices.\n(4)\nThe availability of fiscal data is crucial to the proper functioning of the budgetary surveillance framework of the Union. The regular availability of timely and reliable fiscal data is the key to proper and well timed monitoring, which in turn allows prompt action in the event of unexpected budgetary developments. A crucial element in ensuring the quality of fiscal data is transparency, which must entail the regular public availability of such data.\n(5)\nWith regard to statistics, Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (3) established a legislative framework for the production of European statistics with a view to the formulation, application, monitoring and assessment of the policies of the Union. That Regulation also laid down the principles governing the development, production and dissemination of European statistics: professional independence, impartiality, objectivity, reliability, statistical confidentiality and cost-effectiveness, giving precise definitions of each of these principles. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 of 25 May 2009 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (4), strengthened the Commission\u2019s powers to verify statistical data used for the excessive deficit procedure.\n(6)\nThe definitions of \u2018government\u2019, \u2018deficit\u2019 and \u2018investment\u2019 are laid down in the Protocol (No 12) on the excessive deficit procedure by reference to the European System of Integrated Economic Accounts (ESA), replaced by the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community, adopted by Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community (5) (ESA 95).\n(7)\nThe availability and quality of ESA 95 data is crucial to ensure the proper functioning of the Union\u2019s fiscal surveillance framework. ESA 95 relies on information provided on an accrual basis. However, these accrual fiscal statistics rely on the previous compilation of cash data, or their equivalent. These can play a relevant role in enhancing timely budgetary monitoring, so as to avoid the late detection of significant budgetary errors. The availability of cash-data time series on budgetary developments can reveal patterns warranting closer surveillance. The cash-based fiscal data (or equivalent figures from public accounting if cash-based data are not available) to be published should at least include an overall balance, total revenue and total expenditure. Where justified, for example where there is a large number of local government bodies, timely publication of data could rely on suitable estimation techniques based on a sample of bodies, with a subsequent revision using complete data.\n(8)\nBiased and unrealistic macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts can considerably hamper the effectiveness of fiscal planning and consequently impair commitment to budgetary discipline, while transparency and discussion of forecasting methodologies can significantly increase the quality of macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts for fiscal planning.\n(9)\nA crucial element in ensuring the use of realistic forecasts for the conduct of budgetary policy is transparency, which should entail the public availability not only of the official macroeconomic and budgetary forecast prepared for fiscal planning, but also of the methodologies, assumptions and relevant parameters on which such forecasts are based.\n(10)\nSensitivity analysis and corresponding budgetary projections supplementing the most likely macrofiscal scenario allow the analysis of how main fiscal variables would evolve under various growth and interest rates assumptions, and thus greatly reduce the risk of budgetary discipline being jeopardised by forecast errors.\n(11)\nForecasts by the Commission and information regarding the models on which they are based can provide Member States with a useful benchmark for their most likely macrofiscal scenario, enhancing the validity of the forecasts used for budgetary planning. However, the extent to which Member States can be expected to compare the forecasts used for budgetary planning with the Commission\u2019s forecasts varies according to the timing of forecast preparation and the comparability of the forecast methodologies and assumptions. Forecasts from other independent bodies can also provide useful benchmarks.\n(12)\nSignificant differences between the chosen macrofiscal scenario and the Commission\u2019s forecast should be described and reasons therefor should be given, in particular if the level or growth of variables in external assumptions departs significantly from the values contained in the Commission\u2019s forecasts.\n(13)\nGiven the interdependence between Member States\u2019 budgets and the Union\u2019s budget, in order to support Member States in preparing their budgetary forecasts, the Commission should provide forecasts for the Union\u2019s expenditure based on the level of expenditure programmed within the multiannual financial framework.\n(14)\nIn order to facilitate the production of the forecasts used for budgetary planning and to clarify differences between the forecasts of the Member States and those of the Commission, each Member State should, on an annual basis, have the opportunity to discuss with the Commission the assumptions underpinning the preparation of macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts.\n(15)\nThe quality of official macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts is critically enhanced by regular, unbiased and comprehensive evaluation based on objective criteria. Thorough evaluation includes scrutiny of the economic assumptions, comparison with forecasts prepared by other institutions, and evaluation of past forecast performance.\n(16)\nConsidering the documented effectiveness of rules-based budgetary frameworks of the Member States in enhancing national ownership of the Union\u2019s fiscal rules promoting budgetary discipline, strong country-specific numerical fiscal rules that are consistent with the budgetary objectives at the level of the Union should be a cornerstone of the strengthened budgetary surveillance framework of the Union. Strong numerical fiscal rules should be equipped with well-specified target definitions together with mechanisms for effective and timely monitoring. Those rules should be based on reliable and independent analysis carried out by independent bodies or bodies endowed with functional autonomy vis-\u00e0-vis the fiscal authorities of the Member States. In addition, policy experience has shown that for numerical fiscal rules to work effectively, consequences must be attached to non-compliance, where the costs involved may be simply reputational.\n(17)\nBy virtue of the Protocol (No 15) on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, the reference values mentioned in the Protocol (No 12) on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to those Treaties are not directly binding on the United Kingdom. The obligation to have in place numerical fiscal rules that effectively promote compliance with the specific reference values for the excessive deficit, and the related obligation for the multiannual objectives in medium-term budgetary frameworks to be consistent with such rules, should therefore not apply to the United Kingdom.\n(18)\nMember States should avoid pro-cyclical fiscal policies, and fiscal consolidation efforts should be greater in economic good times. Well-specified numerical fiscal rules are conducive to these objectives and should be reflected in the annual budget legislation of the Member States.\n(19)\nNational fiscal planning can be consistent with both the preventive and the corrective parts of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) only if it adopts a multiannual perspective and pursues the achievement, in particular, of the medium-term budgetary objectives. Medium-term budgetary frameworks are strictly instrumental in ensuring that budgetary frameworks of the Member States are consistent with the legislation of the Union. In the spirit of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (6) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (7), the preventive and corrective parts of the SGP should not be regarded in isolation.\n(20)\nAlthough the approval of annual budget legislation is the key step in the budget process in which important budgetary decisions are adopted in the Member States, most fiscal measures have budgetary implications that go well beyond the annual budgetary cycle. A single-year perspective therefore provides a poor basis for sound budgetary policies. In order to incorporate the multiannual budgetary perspective of the budgetary surveillance framework of the Union, planning of annual budget legislation should be based on multiannual fiscal planning stemming from the medium-term budgetary framework.\n(21)\nThat medium-term budgetary framework should contain, inter alia, projections of each major expenditure and revenue item for the budget year and beyond, based on unchanged policies. Each Member State should be able appropriately to define unchanged policies and those definitions should be made public together with the assumptions involved, the methodologies and other relevant parameters.\n(22)\nThis Directive should not prevent a Member State\u2019s new government from updating its medium-term budgetary framework to reflect its new policy priorities. In this case, the new government should highlight the differences from the previous medium-term budgetary framework.\n(23)\nProvisions of the budgetary surveillance framework established by the TFEU and in particular the SGP apply to general government as a whole, which comprises the sub-sectors central government, state government, local government, and social security funds, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 2223/96.\n(24)\nA significant number of Member States have experienced a sizeable fiscal decentralisation with the devolution of budgetary powers to sub-national governments. The role of such sub-national governments in ensuring that the SGP is complied with has thereby increased considerably, and particular attention should be paid to ensuring that all general government sub-sectors are duly covered by the scope of the obligations and procedures laid down in domestic budgetary frameworks, in particular, but not exclusively, in those Member States.\n(25)\nTo be effective in promoting budgetary discipline and the sustainability of public finance, budgetary frameworks should comprehensively cover public finances. For this reason, operations of those general government bodies and funds which do not form part of the regular budgets at sub-sector level and that have an immediate or medium-term impact on Member States\u2019 budgetary positions should be given particular consideration. Their combined impact on general government balances and debts should be presented in the framework of the annual budgetary processes and in the medium-term budgetary plans.\n(26)\nSimilarly, due attention should be paid to the existence of contingent liabilities. More specifically, contingent liabilities encompass possible obligations depending on whether some uncertain future event occurs, or present obligations where payment is not probable or the amount of the probable payment cannot be measured reliably. They comprise for instance relevant information on government guarantees, non-performing loans, and liabilities stemming from the operation of public corporations, including, where appropriate, the likelihood and potential due date of expenditure of contingent liabilities. Market sensitivities should be duly taken into account.\n(27)\nThe Commission should regularly monitor the implementation of this Directive. Best practices concerning the provisions of this Directive dealing with the different aspects of national budgetary frameworks should be identified and shared.\n(28)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely uniform compliance with budgetary discipline as required by the TFEU, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at the level of the Union, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the TEU. 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.\n(29)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (8), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT MATTER AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nThis Directive lays down detailed rules concerning the characteristics of the budgetary frameworks of the Member States. Those rules are necessary to ensure Member States\u2019 compliance with obligations under the TFEU with regard to avoiding excessive government deficits.\nArticle 2\nFor the purposes of this Directive, the definitions of \u2018government\u2019, \u2018deficit\u2019 and \u2018investment\u2019 set out in Article 2 of the Protocol (No 12) on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU shall apply. The definition of sub-sectors of general government set out in point 2.70 of Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 shall also apply.\nIn addition, the following definition shall apply:\n\u2018budgetary framework\u2019 means the set of arrangements, procedures, rules and institutions that underlie the conduct of budgetary policies of general government, in particular:\n(a)\nsystems of budgetary accounting and statistical reporting;\n(b)\nrules and procedures governing the preparation of forecasts for budgetary planning;\n(c)\ncountry-specific numerical fiscal rules, which contribute to the consistency of Member States\u2019 conduct of fiscal policy with their respective obligations under the TFEU, expressed in terms of a summary indicator of budgetary performance, such as the government budget deficit, borrowing, debt, or a major component thereof;\n(d)\nbudgetary procedures comprising procedural rules to underpin the budget process at all stages;\n(e)\nmedium-term budgetary frameworks as a specific set of national budgetary procedures that extend the horizon for fiscal policy-making beyond the annual budgetary calendar, including the setting of policy priorities and of medium-term budgetary objectives;\n(f)\narrangements for independent monitoring and analysis, to enhance the transparency of elements of the budget process;\n(g)\nmechanisms and rules that regulate fiscal relationships between public authorities across sub-sectors of general government.\nCHAPTER II\nACCOUNTING AND STATISTICS\nArticle 3\n1. As concerns national systems of public accounting, Member States shall have in place public accounting systems comprehensively and consistently covering all sub-sectors of general government and containing the information needed to generate accrual data with a view to preparing data based on the ESA 95 standard. Those public accounting systems shall be subject to internal control and independent audits.\n2. Member States shall ensure timely and regular public availability of fiscal data for all sub-sectors of general government as defined by Regulation (EC) No 2223/96. In particular Member States shall publish:\n(a)\ncash-based fiscal data (or the equivalent figure from public accounting if cash-based data are not available) at the following frequencies:\n-\nmonthly for central government, state government and social security sub-sectors, before the end of the following month, and\n-\nquarterly, for the local government sub-sector, before the end of the following quarter;\n(b)\na detailed reconciliation table showing the methodology of transition between cash-based data (or the equivalent figures from public accounting if cash-based data are not available) and data based on the ESA 95 standard.\nCHAPTER III\nFORECASTS\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall ensure that fiscal planning is based on realistic macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts using the most up-to-date information. Budgetary planning shall be based on the most likely macrofiscal scenario or on a more prudent scenario. The macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts shall be compared with the most updated forecasts of the Commission and, if appropriate, those of other independent bodies. Significant differences between the chosen macrofiscal scenario and the Commission\u2019s forecast shall be described with reasoning, in particular if the level or growth of variables in external assumptions departs significantly from the values contained in the Commission\u2019s forecasts.\n2. The Commission shall make public the methodologies, assumptions and relevant parameters that underpin its macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts.\n3. In order to support Member States in preparing their budgetary forecasts, the Commission shall provide forecasts for the expenditure of the Union based on the level of expenditure programmed within the multiannual financial framework.\n4. Within the framework of a sensitivity analysis, the macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts shall examine paths of main fiscal variables under different assumptions as to growth and interest rates. The range of alternative assumptions used in macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts shall be guided by the performance of past forecasts and shall endeavour to take into account relevant risk scenarios.\n5. Member States shall specify which institution is responsible for producing macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts and shall make public the official macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts prepared for fiscal planning, including the methodologies, assumptions and relevant parameters underpinning those forecasts. At least annually, the Member States and the Commission shall engage in a technical dialogue concerning the assumptions underpinning the preparation of macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts.\n6. The macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts for fiscal planning shall be subject to regular, unbiased and comprehensive evaluation based on objective criteria, including ex post evaluation. The result of that evaluation shall be made public and taken into account appropriately in future macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts. If the evaluation detects a significant bias affecting macroeconomic forecasts over a period of at least 4 consecutive years, the Member State concerned shall take the necessary action and make it public.\n7. Member States\u2019 quarterly debt and deficit levels shall be published by the Commission (Eurostat) every 3 months.\nCHAPTER IV\nNUMERICAL FISCAL RULES\nArticle 5\nEach Member State shall have in place numerical fiscal rules which are specific to it and which effectively promote compliance with its obligations deriving from the TFEU in the area of budgetary policy over a multiannual horizon for the general government as a whole. Such rules shall promote in particular:\n(a)\ncompliance with the reference values on deficit and debt set in accordance with the TFEU;\n(b)\nthe adoption of a multiannual fiscal planning horizon, including adherence to the Member State\u2019s medium-term budgetary objective.\nArticle 6\n1. Without prejudice to the provisions of the TFEU concerning the budgetary surveillance framework of the Union, country-specific numerical fiscal rules shall contain specifications as to the following elements:\n(a)\nthe target definition and scope of the rules;\n(b)\nthe effective and timely monitoring of compliance with the rules, based on reliable and independent analysis carried out by independent bodies or bodies endowed with functional autonomy vis-\u00e0-vis the fiscal authorities of the Member States;\n(c)\nthe consequences in the event of non-compliance.\n2. If numerical fiscal rules contain escape clauses, such clauses shall set out a limited number of specific circumstances consistent with the Member States\u2019 obligations deriving from the TFEU in the area of budgetary policy, and stringent procedures in which temporary non-compliance with the rule is permitted.\nArticle 7\nThe annual budget legislation of the Member States shall reflect their country-specific numerical fiscal rules in force.\nArticle 8\nArticles 5 to 7 shall not apply to the United Kingdom.\nCHAPTER V\nMEDIUM-TERM BUDGETARY FRAMEWORKS\nArticle 9\n1. Member States shall establish a credible, effective medium-term budgetary framework providing for the adoption of a fiscal planning horizon of at least 3 years, to ensure that national fiscal planning follows a multiannual fiscal planning perspective.\n2. Medium-term budgetary frameworks shall include procedures for establishing the following items:\n(a)\ncomprehensive and transparent multiannual budgetary objectives in terms of the general government deficit, debt and any other summary fiscal indicator such as expenditure, ensuring that these are consistent with any numerical fiscal rules as provided for in Chapter IV in force;\n(b)\nprojections of each major expenditure and revenue item of the general government with more specifications on the central government and social security level, for the budget year and beyond, based on unchanged policies;\n(c)\na description of medium-term policies envisaged with an impact on general government finances, broken down by major revenue and expenditure item, showing how the adjustment towards the medium-term budgetary objectives is achieved compared to projections under unchanged policies;\n(d)\nan assessment as to how in the light of their direct long-term impact on general government finances, the policies envisaged are likely to affect the long-term sustainability of the public finances.\n3. Projections adopted within medium-term budgetary frameworks shall be based on realistic macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts in accordance with Chapter III.\nArticle 10\nAnnual budget legislation shall be consistent with the provisions of the medium-term budgetary framework. Specifically, revenue and expenditure projections and priorities resulting from the medium-term budgetary framework as set out in Article 9(2) shall constitute the basis for the preparation of the annual budget. Any departure from those provisions shall be duly explained.\nArticle 11\nNo provision of this Directive shall prevent a Member State\u2019s new government from updating its medium-term budgetary framework to reflect its new policy priorities. In this case, the new government shall indicate the differences from the previous medium-term budgetary framework.\nCHAPTER VI\nTRANSPARENCY OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES AND COMPREHENSIVE SCOPE OF BUDGETARY FRAMEWORKS\nArticle 12\nMember States shall ensure that any measures taken to comply with Chapters II, III and IV are consistent across, and comprehensive in coverage of, all sub-sectors of general government. This shall, in particular, require the consistency of accounting rules and procedures, and the integrity of their underlying data collection and processing systems.\nArticle 13\n1. Member States shall establish appropriate mechanisms of coordination across sub-sectors of general government to provide for comprehensive and consistent coverage of all sub-sectors of general government in fiscal planning, country-specific numerical fiscal rules, and in the preparation of budgetary forecasts and setting-up of multiannual planning as laid down, in particular, in the multiannual budgetary framework.\n2. In order to promote fiscal accountability, the budgetary responsibilities of public authorities in the various sub-sectors of general government shall be clearly laid down.\nArticle 14\n1. Within the framework of the annual budgetary processes, Member States shall identify and present all general government bodies and funds which do not form part of the regular budgets at sub-sector level, together with other relevant information. The combined impact on general government balances and debts of those general government bodies and funds shall be presented in the framework of the annual budgetary processes and the medium-term budgetary plans.\n2. Member States shall publish detailed information on the impact of tax expenditures on revenues.\n3. For all sub-sectors of general government, Member States shall publish relevant information on contingent liabilities with potentially large impacts on public budgets, including government guarantees, non-performing loans, and liabilities stemming from the operation of public corporations, including the extent thereof. Member States shall also publish information on the participation of general government in the capital of private and public corporations in respect of economically significant amounts.\nCHAPTER VII\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 15\n1. Member States shall bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 December 2013. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. The Council encourages the Member States to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own correlation tables which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n2. When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n3. The Commission shall prepare an interim progress report on the implementation of the main provisions of this Directive on the basis of relevant information from Member States, which shall be submitted to the European Parliament and to the Council by 14 December 2012.\n4. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 16\n1. By 14 December 2018 the Commission shall publish a review of the suitability of this Directive.\n2. The review shall assess, inter alia, the suitability of:\n(a)\nthe statistical requirements for all sub-sectors of government;\n(b)\nthe design and effectiveness of numerical fiscal rules in the Member States;\n(c)\nthe general level of transparency of public finances in the Member States.\n3. By 31 December 2012, the Commission shall assess the suitability of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards for the Member States.\nArticle 17\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 18\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2011.", "references": ["2", "1", "24", "40", "30", "54", "36", "7", "43", "71", "97", "59", "83", "16", "5", "48", "49", "0", "76", "99", "51", "80", "37", "58", "52", "73", "72", "90", "38", "34", "No Label", "8", "15", "32", "33"], "gold": ["8", "15", "32", "33"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 July 2010\nauthorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11xGA21 (SYN-BT\u00d811-1xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 5135)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/426/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 7(3) and 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 31 October 2007, Syngenta Seeds SAS on behalf of Syngenta Crop Protection AG submitted to the competent authority of the United Kingdom an application, in accordance with Article 5 and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from Bt11xGA21 maize (the application).\n(2)\nThe application also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of Bt11xGA21 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with Article 5(5) and Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.\n(3)\nOn 22 September 2009, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Article 6 and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It considered that maize Bt11xGA21 is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment. Therefore it concluded that it is unlikely that the placing on the market of the products containing, consisting of, or produced from Bt11xGA21 maize as described in the application (the products) will have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment in the context of their intended uses (3). In its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Article 6(4) and Article 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(4)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.\n(5)\nTaking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products.\n(6)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).\n(7)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from Bt11xGA21 maize. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(8)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).\n(9)\nThe EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in Article 6(5)(e) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(10)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(11)\nArticle 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (6), lays down labelling requirements for products consisting of, or containing GMOs.\n(12)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).\n(13)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(14)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman.\n(15)\nAt its meeting on 29 June 2010, the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal. The Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded. It is accordingly for the Commission to adopt the measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) Bt11xGA21, as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier SYN-BT\u00d811-1xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Article 4(2) and Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from SYN-BT\u00d811-1xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9 maize;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from SYN-BT\u00d811-1xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9 maize;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of SYN-BT\u00d811-1xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018maize\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of SYN-BT\u00d811-1xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9 maize referred to in Article 2(b) and (c).\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nCommunity register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Syngenta Seeds SAS, France, representing Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Switzerland.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Syngenta Seeds SAS, Chemin de l\u2019Hobit 12, BP 27, 31790 Saint-Sauveur, France.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2010.", "references": ["43", "12", "13", "70", "93", "3", "41", "57", "94", "86", "53", "44", "15", "78", "63", "61", "0", "1", "8", "35", "49", "31", "87", "83", "6", "9", "28", "74", "42", "98", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 293/2011\nof 23 March 2011\nfixing allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 of 3 March 2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2010/2011 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe quantities covered by certificate applications for out-of-quota sugar submitted from 14 to 18 March 2011 and notified to the Commission exceed the limit set in Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 222/2011.\n(2)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 it is necessary to fix an allocation coefficient, which the Member States shall apply to the quantities covered by each notified certificate application, to reject the applications which have not yet been notified and to close the period for submitting the applications.\n(3)\nIn order to act before the issuing of certificates applied for, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which certificate applications for out-of-quota sugar have been submitted under Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 from 14 to 18 March 2011 and notified to the Commission shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 67,106224 %. Applications for certificates submitted from 21 to 25 March 2011 are hereby rejected and the period for submitting applications for certificates is closed as from 28 March 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2011.", "references": ["25", "32", "13", "7", "48", "17", "28", "93", "8", "16", "65", "85", "42", "27", "78", "4", "47", "41", "74", "66", "38", "52", "49", "3", "12", "24", "43", "87", "73", "63", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "62", "71", "72", "75"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "62", "71", "72", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 11 May 2012\nconcerning the non-inclusion of naled for product type 18 in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market\n(notified under document C(2012) 3050)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/257/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes naled.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, naled (CAS Nr 300-76-5; EC Nr 206-098-3) has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nFrance was designated as Rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 17 February 2010 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 9 December 2011, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nThe assessment has demonstrated that biocidal products used as insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods and containing naled cannot be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. The scenarios evaluated in the human health risk assessment as well as in the environmental risk assessment showed a potential and unacceptable risk. Furthermore, the evaluation has not demonstrated sufficient efficacy. It is therefore not appropriate to include naled for use in product type 18 in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.\n(6)\nIn the interest of legal certainty, the date as of which biocidal products of product type 18 containing naled should no longer be placed on the market should be specified, taking into account both the unacceptable effects of those products and the legitimate expectations of manufacturers of those products.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nNaled shall not be included in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC for product type 18.\nArticle 2\nFor the purposes of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, biocidal products of product type 18 containing naled (CAS Nr 300-76-5; EC Nr 206-098-3) shall no longer be placed on the market with effect from 1 November 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 May 2012.", "references": ["86", "41", "24", "19", "2", "18", "48", "74", "80", "50", "64", "7", "99", "76", "55", "28", "32", "27", "6", "43", "36", "12", "78", "72", "38", "46", "34", "29", "58", "37", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 465/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 22 May 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004\n(Text of relevance to the EEA and to the EU/Switzerland Agreement)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 48 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nTo take account of legal changes in certain Member States and to guarantee legal certainty for stakeholders, Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) need to be adapted.\n(2)\nRelevant proposals were received from the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems concerning the coordination of social security schemes with a view to improving and modernising Union law and have been included in this Regulation.\n(3)\nChanges in social reality can affect the coordination of social security systems. In order to respond to such changes, amendments in the field of the determination of applicable legislation and unemployment benefits are necessary.\n(4)\nThe concept of \u2018home base\u2019, for flight crew and cabin crew members, under Union law is defined in Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (4). In order to facilitate the application of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to this group of persons, it is justified to create a special rule whereby the concept of \u2018home base\u2019 becomes the criterion for determining the applicable legislation for flight crew and cabin crew members. However, the applicable legislation for flight crew and cabin crew members should remain stable and the \u2018home base\u2019 principle should not result in frequent changes of applicable legislation due to the industry\u2019s work patterns or seasonal demands.\n(5)\nIn situations where a person is working in two or more Member States, it should be made clear that the condition of pursuing a \u2018substantial part\u2019 of the activity within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 also applies to persons pursuing activities for various undertakings or employers.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 883/2004 should be amended by inserting a new provision that ensures that a self-employed frontier worker who becomes wholly unemployed receives benefits if he/she has completed periods of insurance as a self-employed person or periods of self-employment recognised for the purposes of granting unemployment benefits in the competent Member State and if no unemployment benefits system covering self-employed persons exists in the Member State of residence. That provision should be reviewed in the light of the experience after two years of implementation and, if necessary, it should be amended.\n(7)\nRegulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 883/2004 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nThe term \u2018the Commission of the European Communities\u2019 is replaced by the term \u2018the European Commission\u2019 throughout the text.\n(2)\nThe following recital is inserted:\n\u2018(18b)\nIn Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (5), the concept of \u201chome base\u201d for flight crew and cabin crew members is defined as the location nominated by the operator to the crew member from where the crew member normally starts and ends a duty period, or a series of duty periods, and where, under normal conditions, the operator is not responsible for the accommodation of the crew member concerned. In order to facilitate the application of Title II of this Regulation for flight crew and cabin crew members, it is justified to use the concept of \u201chome base\u201d as the criterion for determining the applicable legislation for flight crew and cabin crew members. However, the applicable legislation for flight crew and cabin crew members should remain stable and the home base principle should not result in frequent changes of applicable legislation due to the industry\u2019s work patterns or seasonal demands.\n(3)\nArticle 9 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 9\nDeclarations by the Member States on the scope of this Regulation\n1. The Member States shall notify the European Commission in writing of the declarations made in accordance with point (l) of Article 1, the legislation and schemes referred to in Article 3, the conventions entered into as referred to in Article 8(2), the minimum benefits referred to in Article 58, and the lack of an insurance system as referred to in Article 65a(1), as well as substantive amendments. Such notifications shall indicate the date from which this Regulation will apply to the schemes specified by the Member States therein.\n2. These notifications shall be submitted to the European Commission every year and shall be given the necessary publicity.\u2019.\n(4)\nThe following paragraph is added to Article 11:\n\u20185. An activity as a flight crew or cabin crew member performing air passenger or freight services shall be deemed to be an activity pursued in the Member State where the home base, as defined in Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91, is located.\u2019.\n(5)\nIn Article 12, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. A person who pursues an activity as an employed person in a Member State on behalf of an employer which normally carries out its activities there and who is posted by that employer to another Member State to perform work on that employer\u2019s behalf shall continue to be subject to the legislation of the first Member State, provided that the anticipated duration of such work does not exceed 24 months and that he/she is not sent to replace another posted person.\u2019.\n(6)\nIn Article 13, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. A person who normally pursues an activity as an employed person in two or more Member States shall be subject:\n(a)\nto the legislation of the Member State of residence if he/she pursues a substantial part of his/her activity in that Member State; or\n(b)\nif he/she does not pursue a substantial part of his/her activity in the Member State of residence:\n(i)\nto the legislation of the Member State in which the registered office or place of business of the undertaking or employer is situated if he/she is employed by one undertaking or employer; or\n(ii)\nto the legislation of the Member State in which the registered office or place of business of the undertakings or employers is situated if he/she is employed by two or more undertakings or employers which have their registered office or place of business in only one Member State; or\n(iii)\nto the legislation of the Member State in which the registered office or place of business of the undertaking or employer is situated other than the Member State of residence if he/she is employed by two or more undertakings or employers, which have their registered office or place of business in two Member States, one of which is the Member State of residence; or\n(iv)\nto the legislation of the Member State of residence if he/she is employed by two or more undertakings or employers, at least two of which have their registered office or place of business in different Member States other than the Member State of residence.\u2019.\n(7)\nIn Article 36, paragraph 2a is replaced by the following:\n\u20182a. The competent institution may not refuse to grant the authorisation provided for in Article 20(1) to a person who has sustained an accident at work or who has contracted an occupational disease and who is entitled to benefits chargeable to that institution, where the treatment appropriate to his/her condition cannot be given in the Member State in which he/she resides within a time-limit which is medically justifiable, taking into account his/her current state of health and the probable course of the illness.\u2019.\n(8)\nArticle 63 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 63\nSpecial provisions for the waiving of residence rules\nFor the purpose of this Chapter, Article 7 shall apply only in the cases provided for by Articles 64, 65 and 65a and within the limits prescribed therein.\u2019.\n(9)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 65a\nSpecial provisions for wholly unemployed self-employed frontier workers where no unemployment benefits system covering self-employed persons exists in the Member State of residence\n1. By way of derogation from Article 65, a wholly unemployed person who, as a frontier worker, has most recently completed periods of insurance as a self-employed person or periods of self-employment recognised for the purposes of granting unemployment benefits in a Member State other than his/her Member State of residence and whose Member State of residence has submitted notification that there is no possibility for any category of self-employed persons to be covered by an unemployment benefits system of that Member State, shall register with and make himself/herself available to the employment services in the Member State in which he/she pursued his/her last activity as a self-employed person and, when he/she applies for benefits, shall continuously adhere to the conditions laid down under the legislation of the latter Member State. The wholly unemployed person may, as a supplementary step, make himself/herself available to the employment services of the Member State of residence.\n2. Benefits shall be provided to the wholly unemployed person referred to in paragraph 1 by the Member State to whose legislation he/she was last subject in accordance with the legislation which that Member State applies.\n3. If the wholly unemployed person referred to in paragraph 1 does not wish to become or remain available to the employment services of the Member State of last activity after having been registered there, and wishes to seek work in the Member State of residence, Article 64 shall apply mutatis mutandis, except Article 64(1)(a). The competent institution may extend the period referred to in the first sentence of Article 64(1)(c) up to the end of the period of entitlement to benefits.\u2019.\n(10)\nIn Article 71, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The Administrative Commission shall act by a qualified majority as defined by the Treaties, except when adopting its rules which shall be drawn up by mutual agreement among its members.\nDecisions on questions of interpretation referred to in Article 72(a) shall be given the necessary publicity.\u2019.\n(11)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 87a\nTransitional provision for application of Regulation (EU) No 465/2012\n1. If as a result of the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 465/2012, a person is subject, in accordance with Title II of this Regulation, to the legislation of a different Member State than that to which he/she was subject before that entry into force, the legislation of the Member State applicable before that date shall continue to apply to him/her for a transitional period lasting for as long as the relevant situation remains unchanged and, in any case, for no longer than 10 years from the date of entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 465/2012. Such a person may request that the transitional period no longer applies to him/her. Such request shall be submitted to the institution designated by the competent authority of the Member State of residence. Requests submitted by 29 September 2012 shall be deemed to take effect on 28 June 2012. Requests submitted after 29 September 2012 shall take effect on the first day of the month following that of their submission.\n2. No later than 29 June 2014, the Administrative Commission shall evaluate the implementation of the provisions laid down in Article 65a of this Regulation and present a report on their application. On the basis of this report, the European Commission may, as appropriate, submit proposals to amend those provisions.\u2019.\n(12)\nAnnexes X and XI are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 987/2009 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 6(1), points (b) and (c) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nthe legislation of the Member State of residence if the person concerned pursues employment or self-employment in two or more Member States and performs part of his/her activity or activities in the Member State of residence, or if the person concerned is neither employed nor self-employed;\n(c)\nin all other cases, the legislation of the Member State, the application of which was first requested if the person pursues an activity, or activities, in two or more Member States.\u2019.\n(2)\nArticle 14 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. For the purposes of the application of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, a person who \u201cnormally pursues an activity as an employed person in two or more Member States\u201d shall refer to a person who simultaneously, or in alternation, for the same undertaking or employer or for various undertakings or employers, exercises one or more separate activities in two or more Member States.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraphs are inserted:\n\u20185a. For the purposes of the application of Title II of the basic Regulation, \u201cregistered office or place of business\u201d shall refer to the registered office or place of business where the essential decisions of the undertaking are adopted and where the functions of its central administration are carried out.\nFor the purposes of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, an employed flight crew or cabin crew member normally pursuing air passenger or freight services in two or more Member States shall be subject to the legislation of the Member State where the home base, as defined in Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (6), is located.\n5b. Marginal activities shall be disregarded for the purposes of determining the applicable legislation under Article 13 of the basic Regulation. Article 16 of the implementing Regulation shall apply to all cases under this Article.\n(3)\nIn Article 15(1), the second sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018That institution shall issue the attestation referred to in Article 19(2) of the implementing Regulation to the person concerned and shall without delay make information concerning the legislation applicable to that person, pursuant to Article 11(3)(b) or Article 12 of the basic Regulation, available to the institution designated by the competent authority of the Member State in which the activity is pursued.\u2019.\n(4)\nIn Article 54, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. For the purposes of applying Article 62(3) of the basic Regulation, the competent institution of the Member State to whose legislation the person concerned was subject in respect of his/her last activity as an employed or self-employed person shall, without delay, at the request of the institution of the place of residence, provide it with all the information necessary to calculate unemployment benefits which can be obtained in the Member State where it is situated, in particular the salary or professional income received.\u2019.\n(5)\nArticle 55 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. In order to be covered by Article 64 or Article 65a of the basic Regulation, the unemployed person going to another Member State shall inform the competent institution prior to his/her departure and request a document certifying that he/she retains his/her entitlement to benefits under the conditions laid down in Article 64(1)(b) of the basic Regulation.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20187. Paragraphs 2 to 6 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the situation covered by Article 65a(3) of the basic Regulation\u2019.\n(6)\nIn Article 56, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Where the unemployed person decides, in accordance with Article 65(2) or Article 65a(1) of the basic Regulation, to make himself/herself also available to the employment services in the Member State not providing the benefits, by registering there as a person seeking work, he/she shall inform the institution and the employment services of the Member State providing the benefits.\nAt the request of the employment services of the Member State not providing the benefits, the employment services in the Member State that is providing the benefits shall send the relevant information concerning the unemployed person\u2019s registration and his/her search for employment.\n2. Where the legislation applicable in the Member States concerned requires the fulfilment of certain obligations and/or job-seeking activities by the unemployed person, the obligations and/or job-seeking activities by the unemployed person in the Member State providing the benefits shall have priority.\nThe non-fulfilment by the unemployed person of all the obligations and/or job-seeking activities in the Member State which does not provide the benefits shall not affect the benefits awarded in the other Member State.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 22 May 2012.", "references": ["89", "79", "91", "26", "69", "66", "44", "2", "41", "81", "78", "80", "39", "60", "59", "18", "32", "67", "98", "71", "24", "87", "27", "58", "23", "48", "46", "85", "84", "17", "No Label", "13", "37", "50", "54"], "gold": ["13", "37", "50", "54"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 December 2010\nconcerning State aid C 39/96 (ex NN 127/92) implemented by France in favour of Coop\u00e9rative d\u2019exportation du livre fran\u00e7ais (CELF)\n(notified under document C(2010) 8938)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/179/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments in accordance with the above Article (2), and having regard to those comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy judgment of 15 April 2008 (3) (hereinafter \u2018the judgment of the Court of First Instance\u2019), the Court of First Instance of the European Union annulled Commission Decision 2005/262/EC of 20 April 2004 on the aid implemented by France in favour of the Coop\u00e9rative d\u2019exportation du livre fran\u00e7ais (CELF) (4) (5).\n(2)\nFollowing the judgment of the Court of First Instance, the Commission must adopt a new decision.\n(3)\nThis judgment is the culmination of a procedure the principal stages of which are set out below.\nA. First stage\n(4)\nBy letter dated 20 March 1992, Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 internationale de diffusion et d\u2019\u00e9dition (SIDE) drew the Commission\u2019s attention to aid measures for promotion, transport and marketing granted by the French authorities to CELF, aid which had not been notified to the Commission\u2019s services in advance.\n(5)\nBy letter dated 2 April 1992, the Commission, having pointed out to the French authorities that any plans to grant or alter aid had to be notified to its services in advance, asked the said authorities to inform it as to the nature and purpose of the aid measures referred to by SIDE.\n(6)\nBy letter dated 29 June 1992, the French authorities confirmed to the Commission the existence of grants to CELF. They explained that these measures were designed to make French language and literature known in non-French-speaking countries and that CELF had also been asked to manage three schemes of ad hoc aid which were also designed to facilitate access to French books by readers in far-distant places.\n(7)\nBy letter dated 7 August 1992, the Commission confirmed to SIDE the existence of aid to CELF, explained its purpose and informed the company that the measures at issue had not been notified. It stated, however, that the disputed aid did not seem likely to adversely affect trade between Member States. SIDE was accordingly asked to submit its comments.\n(8)\nBy letter dated 7 September 1992, SIDE informed the Commission that it intended to submit a complaint with regard to the discriminatory nature of the measures and the consequences for intra-Community trade, without however disputing the cultural purpose of the Ministry of Culture, which was to see the spread of the French language and French literature.\n(9)\nBy Decision dated 18 May 1993 (6), the Commission concluded that, given the special nature of competition in the book trade and the cultural purpose of the aid schemes at issue, the exemption provided for in former Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty was applicable to them.\n(10)\nBy application dated 2 August 1993, SIDE filed an action for annulment of the Decision. By judgment of 18 September 1995 (7), the Court of First Instance (CFI) partially granted SIDE\u2019s request, annulling the Commission Decision of 18 May 1993 but only in relation to the measures granted to CELF with regard to small orders.\n(11)\nThe Court concluded that the Commission was in a position to adopt a favourable decision concerning the following three aid schemes administered by CELF on behalf of the State:\n(a)\nsubsidies for airfreight or airmail;\n(b)\nthe \u2018Page \u00e0 Page\u2019 programme (8) (aid for the dissemination of French-language books in the countries of central and eastern Europe);\n(c)\nthe \u2018Programme Plus\u2019 (university textbooks in French for students in sub-Saharan Africa).\n(12)\nThe Court held that the Commission had obtained sufficient information on these three schemes to justify the finding that their impact on competition was negligible. The Court stated that \u2018as regards the cultural purpose of the aids at issue, it is common ground that the aim of the French Government is the spread of the French language and French literature\u2019. The Court felt bound to conclude that determining the cultural purpose of the aid at issue did not pose any particular difficulties for the Commission and that it was not necessary for it to obtain further information in order to accept that its purpose was cultural.\n(13)\nOn the other hand, the Court found that, as regards the compensation granted exclusively to CELF for small orders, the Commission should have thoroughly examined the conditions of competition in the sector concerned before expressing an opinion on the compatibility of the measures with the internal market.\n(14)\nThe Court therefore concluded (paragraph 76 of the judgment) that the Commission should have initiated the procedure provided by former Article 93(2) EC (now Article 108(2) TFEU), and it was therefore necessary to annul the Commission Decision of 18 May 1993 in so far as it concerned the aid granted exclusively to CELF for the purpose of offsetting the extra costs involved in handling small orders for French-language books placed by booksellers established abroad.\nB. Second stage\n(15)\nIn accordance with the Court\u2019s judgment of 18 September 1995, the Commission decided, by Decision of 30 July 1996, to open a formal investigation procedure. Interested parties were invited to submit their comments to the Commission, and these were largely received during December 1996 and January 1997.\n(16)\nOnce its investigation was complete, on 10 June 1998 the Commission adopted Decision 1999/133/EC (9). It confirmed the cultural purpose of aid for small orders and considered that, on the basis of former Article 87(3)(d) of the Treaty, the said aid was not likely to affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent that was contrary to the common interest with regard to the export market for French-language books.\n(17)\nBy a judgment dated 28 February 2002 (10), the Court of First Instance annulled the last sentence of Article 1 of the said Decision. The Court concluded that the Commission should have carried out the necessary verifications in order to obtain relevant data enabling it to distinguish the agency market from that of the export of French-language books in general.\n(18)\nThe Court found that, by failing to carry out such verification, the Commission had committed a manifest error of assessment in taking the export market for French-language books in general as the reference market when it was established that the contested aid was intended only for export agencies.\n(19)\nHowever, in its judgment of 22 June 2000 (11), the Court of Justice rejected the appeal brought by the French authorities against the Commission Decision of 10 June 1998, without going into the substance of the case, and confirmed that, even if the aid could be considered compatible with the common market, this was irrelevant to the obligation to notify and that the obligation to give prior notification meant that the aid had to be suspended.\nC. Third stage\n(20)\nFollowing the partial annulment of the Decision of 10 June 1998, the Commission asked the French authorities and SIDE, by letters dated 14 June 2002, to give their views on the grounds for the annulment of the Decision and, in particular, on the aspects relating to the relevant market.\n(21)\nThe French authorities were asked to comment in particular on the special features of the CELF offer compared with those of other market operators, including SIDE. SIDE was asked to comment in particular on the notion of small orders and to indicate any special feature its offer might have compared with CELF\u2019s and those of the other market operators.\n(22)\nSIDE sent its reply to the Commission by letter dated 12 August 2002. The French authorities sent their reply by letter dated 17 September 2002.\n(23)\nHaving asked SIDE, by letter dated 19 September 2002, to say whether its reply contained confidential information, and having obtained a negative reply on 30 September 2002, the Commission, by letter dated 17 October 2002, sent SIDE\u2019s reply together with its annexes to the French authorities for comment. It also asked them a series of further questions on this occasion.\n(24)\nBy letter dated 30 October 2002, the Commission also asked SIDE some further questions, to which the company replied by letters dated 31 October 2002 and 9 December 2002. Following the Commission\u2019s request of 16 December 2002, SIDE informed it, by letter dated 23 December 2002, that its replies contained no confidential information and could be sent to the French authorities for comment.\n(25)\nSince the French authorities did not reply within the time limit, the Commission was obliged to send them a reminder by letter dated 27 November 2002. By letter dated 19 December 2002, the French authorities sent a further request for an extension to the Commission.\n(26)\nOn 9 January 2003, the Commission sent SIDE\u2019s reply of 23 December 2002 to the French authorities for comment. By letter dated 17 January 2003, the French authorities replied to the Commission\u2019s questions sent on 17 October 2002.\n(27)\nBy letter dated 4 February 2003, the French authorities asked the Commission for a further extension in relation to the request for comments on SIDE\u2019s second reply, dated 23 December 2002. By letter dated 11 February 2003, the Commission granted the requested extensions in part. By letter dated 11 March 2003, the French authorities sent their reply to the Commission.\n(28)\nIn the meantime, SIDE was received by the Commission\u2019s services at its request and was able to explain its view of the case from the beginning, at a meeting held on 4 March 2003.\n(29)\nAt the end of this procedure, the Commission adopted Decision 2005/262/EC, concluding that the disputed aid was compatible on the basis of former Article 87(3)(d) of the Treaty, having established that the aid did not overcompensate for the costs of processing small orders.\nD. Fourth stage\n(30)\nBy its judgment of 15 April 2008, the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission Decision of 20 April 2004.\n(31)\nIt concluded that, with regard to the part of the aid paid to CELF prior to 1 November 1993, the date of entry into force of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission had committed an error of law by considering that the aid at issue was compatible with the common market by virtue of former Article 87(3)(d) when the substantive law in force prior to 1 November 1993 should have been applied. In particular, the Court took into account the fact that the EU Treaty did not include any transitional provisions for the application of former Article 87(3)(d) and that the principle of legal certainty, barring exceptions, precluded a Community measure from taking effect from a point in time before its publication.\n(32)\nMoreover, the Court concluded that the Commission had committed a manifest error of assessment when examining the compatibility of the disputed aid by overestimating the small order processing costs that were actually borne by CELF. In its Decision of 20 April 2004, the Commission did not take account of the actual costs of processing small orders but estimated these costs on the basis of the total costs borne by CELF (allocating a share of the total costs to the processing of small orders, using a different method of apportioning costs for each cost category). Multiplying factors were applied for certain categories of cost, bearing in mind the additional difficulties small order processing would entail in relation to CELF\u2019s other activities. The Court, however, considered that these difficulties would have been resolved through the use of tele-transmission, which related to two thirds of small orders. The Court therefore concluded that the Commission had made an error of judgment by applying multiplying factors to some costs (and, in any case, to the tele-transmitted orders) and concluded that, in the absence of the said multiplying factors, the costs related to small order processing would have been reduced and the trading results for the activity relating to small orders would have been positive (FRF 600 000, or EUR 91 469). According to the Court, the Commission had therefore not demonstrated the absence of overcompensation.\nE. Fifth Phase\n(33)\nFollowing the Court\u2019s judgment of 15 April 2008, the investigation procedure initiated by the Commission Decision of 30 July 1996 therefore remains open and the Commission has to adopt a new decision.\n(34)\nHaving regard to the grounds for the Court\u2019s judgment of 15 April 2008, and in view of the fact that the decision initiating the procedure dates back to 30 July 1996, the Commission wished to invite the French authorities and the parties concerned to submit their comments again.\n(35)\nThe Commission therefore adopted a decision extending the procedure dated 8 April 2009 (12) (Decision C(2009) 2481, the \u2018decision extending the procedure\u2019). By setting a new time limit for the submission of comments, this decision extending the procedure supplemented the decision initiating the procedure on 30 July 1996. It states that the two decisions should be regarded as forming an inseparable whole, that they will give rise to one and the same formal investigation procedure and that, should the description of facts and law or the Commission\u2019s preliminary assessment in the decision extending the procedure diverge from the decision initiating the procedure on 30 July 1996, it would be appropriate to take into consideration only the decision extending the procedure.\n(36)\nThe Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure at issue.\n(37)\nThe Commission received comments from the French authorities on 9 June 2009 and from SIDE on 23 July 2009. It sent SIDE\u2019s comments to the French authorities on 24 August 2009, giving them the opportunity to comment on them, and received their comments on 24 September 2009.\n(38)\nThe French authorities did not, however, provide the detailed elements that were requested by the Commission in its decision extending the procedure and, in relation to the proportionality of the aid, merely referred back to information already provided on 17 September 2002, 17 January 2003 and 11 March 2003, which the Commission could not use as such due to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2008.\n(39)\nBy letter of 8 October 2009, the Commission\u2019s services therefore reminded the French authorities of their request for information on the specific points mentioned, indicating that if this information were not provided within ten working days, the Commission would have to take a final decision on the basis of the information at its disposal, in accordance with Article 13(1) of the procedural Regulation, after delivering, if appropriate, an information injunction in accordance with Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (13).\n(40)\nBy letter dated 21 October 2009, the French authorities informed the Commission that CELF had been put into receivership by judgment of the Paris Commercial Court dated 9 September 2009 and had ceased trading. Moreover, with regard to the elements requested in the Commission\u2019s letter of 8 October 2009, the French authorities indicated that they had no further information to provide and referred back to their comments sent on 9 June 2009.\n(41)\nBy decision dated 20 November 2009 (Decision C(2009) 9256, the \u2018injunction decision\u2019), the Commission therefore decided to order France to present the information requested since, despite repeated requests, this information had not been provided.\n(42)\nBy letter dated 2 December 2009, the French authorities indicated that they had no further information to give the Commission and referred back to their comments sent on 9 June 2009.\n(43)\nIt should be noted that, on 2 December 2009, the French authorities also sent a letter relating to the aid scheme known as the \u2018University and Scientific Books Programme\u2019 also called \u2018Programme Plus\u2019. This aid scheme does not form the object of this Decision.\n(44)\nBy letter dated 22 December 2009, the Commission asked the French authorities for information on CELF\u2019s situation and applicable liquidation procedure. The French authorities replied on 27 January 2010. Clarifications were also provided on 9 March 2010 and 26 November 2010.\nF. Proceedings before the national courts and preliminary questions\n(45)\nIt should, moreover, be noted that proceedings are under way in France before the national courts, and that they have given rise to referrals to the Court of Justice on the basis of Article 267 TFEU (former Article 234 EC). The main stages in these proceedings are briefly outlined below.\n(46)\nSIDE referred the matter of the direct effect of former Article 88(3) EC to the French courts. By judgment of 5 October 2004, confirming a judgment of the Paris Administrative Court of 26 April 2001, the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal ordered the French State to recover the aid paid to CELF.\n(47)\nAfter appealing to the Council of State, by judgment of 29 March 2006 this body confirmed certain aspects of the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal, particularly the fact that the disputed aid was not of a purely compensatory nature for public service obligations (14), that it could not be described as existing aid by the national judge and that CELF could not claim a legitimate expectation.\n(48)\nNevertheless, in its judgment of 29 March 2006, the Council of State also decided to stay proceedings on the appeal until the Court of Justice had issued its judgment on the preliminary questions it had raised with it regarding the national judicature\u2019s obligations in relation to State aid that had not been notified but was subsequently declared compatible with the common market by a decision of the Commission.\n(49)\nIn its judgment of 12 February 2008 (15), the Court of Justice ruled:\n\u2018The last sentence of Article 88(3) EC is to be interpreted as meaning that the national court is not bound to order the recovery of aid implemented contrary to that provision, where the Commission has adopted a final decision declaring that aid to be compatible with the common market, within the meaning of Article 87 EC. Applying Community law, the national court must order the aid recipient to pay interest in respect of the period of unlawfulness. Within the framework of its domestic law, it may, if appropriate, also order the recovery of the unlawful aid, without prejudice to the Member State\u2019s right to re-implement it, subsequently. It may also be required to uphold claims for compensation for damage caused by reason of the unlawful nature of the aid.\nIn a procedural situation such as that in the main proceedings, the obligation, arising from the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC, to remedy the consequences of the aid\u2019s unlawfulness extends also, for the purposes of calculating the sums to be paid by the recipient, and save for exceptional circumstances, to the period between a decision of the Commission of the European Communities declaring the aid to be compatible with the common market and the annulment of that decision by the Community court.\u2019\n(50)\nAfter considering the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 February 2008, along with the previously mentioned judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2008, in its judgment of 19 December 2008, the Council of State annulled Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the above-stated judgment of 5 October 2004 of the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal and ruled as follows.\n(51)\nFirstly, the Minister for Culture and Communication was ordered to recover the interest relating to the State aid paid to CELF since 1980 and up to the date of the Council of State judgment, calculated in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (16). The Minister was then ordered to take the necessary steps to collect the interest due between the date of the Council of State\u2019s judgment and either the date when the compatibility of the aid with the common market was definitively noted or the date when the aid was finally returned.\n(52)\nIn addition, the Council of State decided to stay proceedings until the Court of Justice had issued an opinion on the following preliminary questions:\n\u20181.\nMay the national court stay proceedings concerning the obligation to recover State aid until the Commission of the European Communities has ruled, by way of a final decision, on the compatibility of the aid with the rules of the common market, where a first decision of the Commission declaring that aid to be compatible has been annulled by the Community judicature?\n2.\nWhere the Commission has on three occasions declared the aid to be compatible with the common market, before those decisions were annulled by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, is such a situation capable of being an exceptional circumstance which may lead the national court to limit the obligation to recover the aid?\u2019\n(53)\nOn 11 March 2010 (17), the Court of Justice deferred judgment on the said preliminary questions and ruled:\n\u20181.\nA national court before which an application has been brought, on the basis of Article 88(3) EC, for repayment of unlawful State aid may not stay the adoption of its decision on that application until the Commission of the European Communities has ruled on the compatibility of the aid with the common market following the annulment of a previous positive decision;\n2.\nThe adoption by the Commission of the European Communities of three successive decisions declaring aid to be compatible with the common market, which were subsequently annulled by the Community judicature, is not, in itself, capable of constituting an exceptional circumstance such as to justify a limitation of the recipient\u2019s obligation to repay that aid, in the case where that aid was implemented contrary to Article 88(3) EC.\u2019\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE DISPUTED MEASURE\n(54)\nThe French authorities informed the Commission that, in 1980, the Ministry of Culture had decided, in line with the French Government\u2019s general policy guidelines on promoting French-language books and French literature, to grant aid to export agents accepting any kind of order, irrespective of its amount and profitability. These measures were presumably introduced to alleviate the effects of market failure and to foster the continuation of activity relating to \u2018small non-profitable orders\u2019 in the export agency market.\n(55)\nAccording to the French authorities, small bookshops, established in essentially non-French-speaking areas, sometimes with difficult access and/or remote, were experiencing serious supply difficulties, since their orders could not be met by the traditional distribution channels when the quantities of books ordered were insufficient or when the unit price of the books ordered was not high enough to make the service profitable.\n(56)\nAccording to the French authorities, the aid at issue was therefore designed to allow export agencies to meet all orders from booksellers established abroad in essentially non-French-speaking areas, irrespective of amount, profitability or destination. The aim was to ensure, as part of France\u2019s policy of supporting cultural diversity, the optimum distribution of books in the French language, thus promoting the dissemination of French literature throughout the world.\n(57)\nThe aid mechanism chosen by the French authorities, the Small Orders Programme, consisted of a grant intended to offset the extra costs of handling small orders, defined by the French authorities as being orders of FRF 500 (approximately EUR 76) or less.\n(58)\nAccording to the French authorities, the company receiving the grants had to promise to provide the Ministry of Culture\u2019s Book Directorate with all information concerning the general activity of the firm (overall turnover, financial accounts, provisional budgets, copies of the proceedings validating these figures, the auditor\u2019s report where appropriate, and a summary salary scale), along with any documents relating to the activity to be subsidised, including in particular the grant utilisation account, substantiating that the services giving rise to the grant awarded the previous year had been carried out.\n(59)\nIn practice, only one firm, CELF, had qualified under the Small Orders Programme. According to the French authorities, the company had to justify the extra costs incurred each year by the small orders service in relation to its application for a grant for the following year. Specifically, one quarter of the grant awarded the previous year was paid at the start of the year, the balance being awarded in the autumn, after the authorities had examined the provisional budget of the recipient firm and the flows recorded in the first part of the financial year. It was agreed that if the amount of aid was not fully utilised, the balance would be deducted from the planned grants for the following year. In addition, the Ministry of Culture attended CELF\u2019s board meetings and general meetings as an invited observer.\n(60)\nAfter steadily declining from 1997 onwards, the aid at issue was abolished in 2002. Every year from 1980 to the end of 2001, CELF therefore received aid to reduce, according to the French authorities, the costs of processing small orders from abroad for books in French. In all, from 1980 until the end of 2001, CELF received approximately EUR 4,8 million by way of the aid at issue.\nTable\nAmounts of aid allocated to CELF since 1980 for processing \u2018small orders\u2019\nInformation supplied by the French authorities\n(amounts given in euro)\nYear\nAmount of aid\n1980\n91 469,41\n1981\n91 469,41\n1982\n205 806,17\n1983\n164 644,94\n1984\n137 204,12\n1985\n141 777,59\n1986\n248 491,90\n1987\n214 953,11\n1988\n213 428,62\n1989\n259 163,33\n1990\n304 898,03\n1991\n373 500,09\n1992\n422 283,78\n1993\n382 647,03\n1994\n304 898,03\n1995\n304 898,03\n1996\n304 898,03\n1997\n243 918,43\n1998\n182 938,82\n1999\n121 959,21\n2000\n60 979,61\n2001\n38 112,25\n2002\n0\n3. COMMENTS FROM FRANCE AND OBSERVATIONS FROM SIDE FOLLOWING THE EXTENSION OF THE PROCEDURE\n(61)\nIn their reply of 9 June 2009 to the decision extending the procedure, the French authorities made the following comments in particular.\n(62)\nThey first stated that they shared the Commission\u2019s analysis that the aid to CELF represented State aid and that the exemptions laid down in Article 107(2) and Article 107(3)(a) and (b) TFEU were not applicable.\n(63)\nIn terms of assessing the aid under Article 107(3)(c) and (d) TFEU, the French authorities did not provide any new information with regard to the proportionality of the aid.\n(64)\nThe French authorities also stated that they considered that the tasks allocated to CELF formed a public service within the meaning of Article 106(2) TFEU.\n(65)\nThe French authorities finally, and above all, pleaded the existence of exceptional circumstances that should lead the Commission not to recover the aid.\n(66)\nAs previously indicated, the French authorities did not therefore provide the detailed elements that were requested by the Commission in its decision extending the procedure, and merely referred back, with regard to the proportionality of the aid, to information already provided in 2002 and 2003, which the Commission could not use as such due to the Court judgment of 15 April 2008. After a reminder letter dated 8 October 2009, the Commission therefore decided, on 20 November 2009, to order the French authorities to submit the requested information, in application of Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. By letter dated 2 December 2009, the French authorities replied that they had no further information to give to the Commission.\n(67)\nIn its comments of 23 July 2009, SIDE made the following observations in particular.\n(68)\nSIDE recalled that only CELF had benefited from the aid when, in its opinion, this activity was not specific to CELF since the act of honouring orders of all sizes, however small, coming from geographically dispersed bookshops, in order to group them together and issue larger orders to publishers, was specifically, in SIDE\u2019s opinion, the definition of the activity of an export agent. SIDE also stated that it was not due to an alleged lack of transparency that it had been refused the aid but because it was a private company and not a publishing cooperative.\n(69)\nMoreover, SIDE contested in detail the fact that the aid was necessary. In this context, it considered, in particular, that the notion of \u2018small orders\u2019 was arbitrary and rejected the figures presented by the French authorities.\n(70)\nIn addition, SIDE considered that the aid could not be justified on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU and based its opinion particularly on national rulings with regard to CELF\u2019s activity.\n(71)\nFinally, SIDE indicated that it considered that, in this particular case, there were no exceptional circumstances that would enable the obligation to recover the aid to be limited.\n4. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n(72)\nIt must be established whether the measure at issue constitutes State aid and whether it can, if appropriate, be considered compatible with the internal market. In the context of its assessment, the Commission must, in particular, take note of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2008.\nA. Assessment of the measure pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU\n(73)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU provides that \u2018Save as otherwise provided by the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(74)\nBy way of introduction, as already stated in the decision extending the procedure, the Commission recalls that the Commission\u2019s conclusion that the measure at issue constitutes State aid within the meaning of the Treaty has never been challenged, either at the different stages of the procedure before the Commission or before the courts of the European Union (18), nor even, moreover, before the national courts (19). Thus in their reply of 9 June 2009 to the decision extending the procedure, the French authorities indicated that they shared the Commission\u2019s analysis that the aid to CELF was State aid.\n(75)\nThe Commission considers that the measure in question constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (former Article 87(1) EC), for the following reasons.\n(76)\nFirstly, the measure gives CELF an advantage, since it enables it to reduce the cost of its small orders. It is selective, given that in practice it has only benefited CELF.\n(77)\nMoreover, the measure is financed from the budgetary resources of the French State, i.e. from state resources. Its implementation was decided by the Ministry of Culture and the measure is therefore attributable to the French authorities.\n(78)\nFurthermore, the measure is likely to affect trade between Member States and distort competition. The aid is granted to French agents (in practice to CELF) who export books in the French language principally to non-French-speaking countries. French agents are therefore competing, at least potentially, with other agents for the export of French-language books that may be established in other French-speaking countries of the EU (Belgium and Luxembourg). The fact that the impact on trade and the distortion of competition as a result of the measure seem to be small does not alter this conclusion. In line with the Court of Justice\u2019s established case law, the Commission is not required to determine the actual impact of aid on trade between Member States and the actual distortion of competition; it is sufficient that the aid is likely to have an impact on trade and distort competition.\n(79)\nFinally, the Commission considers that the conditions for application of the Altmark case law are not met. In its judgment of 24 July 2003 (20), the Court of Justice specified the conditions under which a grant to a company responsible for managing services of general economic interest does not constitute State aid: \u2018First, the recipient undertaking is actually required to discharge public service obligations and those obligations have been clearly defined; second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner; third, the compensation does not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations; fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation needed has been determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.\u2019\n(80)\nIn this particular case, and without it being necessary to consider each of the conditions individually since they are cumulative, the Commission notes that the choice of CELF was not made in the context of a public procurement procedure and that the level of compensation was not determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs incurred by a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with production resources.\n(81)\nIn these circumstances, the aid granted to CELF constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, since all the constituent elements of the concept of State aid are present.\n(82)\nAnd yet the French authorities did not notify the Commission of the measure in question. The aid was therefore granted in violation of Article 108(3) TFEU, which stipulates that the Commission must be informed of projects aimed at instituting or amending aid in sufficient time to be able to submit its comments. The aid was therefore granted unlawfully.\n(83)\nAs the measure in question thus constitutes State aid, it is necessary to assess its compatibility with the internal market.\nB. Assessment of the measure pursuant to Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU\n(84)\nThe Commission considers that the exemptions listed in Article 107(2) TFEU are not applicable in this case, since the measures in question were clearly not intended to achieve the objectives defined therein.\n(85)\nNor does the aid satisfy the conditions for the exemption established in Article 107(3)(a) TFEU, since it was not intended to promote the development of the areas that were eligible for this provision. The exemption provided for in Article 107(3)(b) concerning the promotion of the execution of an important project of common European interest cannot be applied in this case either, since the aid in question was not intended to promote this kind of project. Since the aid was also not intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the French economy, the exemption in the second part of Article 107(3)(b) is not applicable in the case in point.\n(86)\nThe Commission must therefore look into the applicability of Article 107(3)(c) and (d) TFEU (former Article 87(3)(c) and (d) EC).\n(87)\nGiven the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2008, a distinction must be made between the aid granted after the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union (1 November 1993) and that granted before its entry into force, to which the substantive rules in effect during the period in question must be applied.\n(88)\nTo this end, the Commission takes note of the fact that the grant awarded the previous year was paid to CELF at the start of the year, the balance being awarded in the following autumn, after the authorities had examined the provisional budget of the recipient firm and the flows recorded in the first part of the financial year. If the amount of aid was not fully utilised, the balance would be deducted from the planned grants for the following year. The grant paid for 1993 was therefore paid partly at the start of 1993 and the balance allocated in autumn 1993. The decision to grant aid for 1993 was taken by the French authorities at the end of 1992 or at the start of 1993, and in any case before the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission therefore considers that the aid paid in 1993 should be assessed according to the legal rules applicable prior to the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union.\n(a) Assessment of the aid pursuant to Article 107(3)(d) TFEU\n(89)\nArticle 107(3)(d) TFEU (former Article 87(3)(d) EC) states that \u2018Aid to promote culture and heritage conservation where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent that is contrary to the common interest may be considered to be compatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(90)\nIt is therefore necessary to verify whether the aid paid to CELF between 1994 and the end of 2001 did indeed have a cultural purpose and whether it affected trading conditions and competition in the European Union to an extent that was contrary to the common interest or not.\n(i) Cultural purpose\n(91)\nFirstly, the Commission recalls that the cultural purpose of the aid paid to CELF was admitted by the Court of First Instance in the above-cited judgment of 18 September 1995. Thus in paragraph 62 of its judgment, the Court stated that \u2018as regards the cultural purpose of the aids at issue, it is common ground that the aim of the French Government is the spread of the French language and French literature. In that connection, the Court finds also that the information available to the Commission when it adopted its decision, including the facts contained in the letter from the applicant\u2019s legal adviser of 7 September 1992, was capable of supporting its assessment that that aim was a real and proper one. Accordingly, the Court must conclude that determining the aim of the aids at issue did not pose any particular difficulties for the Commission and that it was not necessary for it to obtain further information in order to accept that their purpose was cultural.\u2019\n(92)\nThe French authorities stated that the aid at issue had a cultural purpose consisting of encouraging the distribution of French-language books in non-French-speaking countries. It was thus a proactive policy aimed at safeguarding and encouraging cultural diversity at the international level.\n(93)\nThe preservation and promotion of cultural diversity are among the founding principles of the European model. They are set out in Article 167(1) TFEU (former Article 151(1) EC). \u2018The Union shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore\u2019, and again in Article 167(4), which states that \u2018The Union shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of this Treaty, in particular in order to respect and to promote the diversity of its cultures\u2019.\n(94)\nThe Commission considers, therefore, that the aid granted to CELF by the French authorities for marketing French-language works did indeed pursue a cultural purpose.\n(ii) The criterion of affecting trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent that is contrary to the common interest\n(95)\nThe Commission must verify whether the measures in question were really necessary and proportional in relation to the cultural policy objective pursued by the French authorities.\n(96)\nBy way of introduction, it should be recalled that, in line with the above-cited judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 February 2002, the measures at issue must be considered within the context of the export agency market for French-language books.\n(97)\nFirstly, the need for the aid must be questioned.\n(98)\nAccording to the French authorities, the measures were designed in 1980, by the Ministry of Culture, at a time when certain actors in the industry (Groupe Hachette and Messageries du livre) wanted to quit the export agency market. According to the French authorities, the disputed mechanism was introduced to encourage operators to become involved in the market, so that all orders for French-language books from bookshops in non French-speaking areas could be met. This ensured that French-language books could reach all bookshops, including the very smallest in far distant countries, even if they only needed a few books, and often, moreover, published by different publishers.\n(99)\nFor its part, SIDE indicated that, particularly in the context of the comments it sent following the decision extending the procedure, the aid in question was not necessary. Whilst it is true that some actors had withdrawn from the export agency business in 1980, SIDE recalls that it was precisely at this time that it was itself created to intervene on the market. Moreover, SIDE contests the fact that CELF had the specific activity of processing small orders. In particular, SIDE questions the figures provided by the French authorities and considers that data for CELF and SIDE with regard to proportion, each company\u2019s respective turnover, number of invoices and number of order lines were, in fact, quite similar. More broadly, SIDE questions the notion of \u2018small orders\u2019 as defined by the French authorities. According to SIDE, this notion is arbitrary as the cost of processing an order does not depend on its amount but on the number of lines.\n(100)\nThe Commission considers that there is no need to draw a definitive conclusion with regard to the need for the aid since the conditions of need and proportionality are cumulative and it will be concluded in recital (123) that the condition of proportionality is not shown to be fulfilled.\n(101)\nSecondly, the Commission considers that the impact on trade within the European Union and distortion of competition caused by the measure are very low, given in particular the amounts in question, the very low substitutability of books in the French language and those of another language, and the considerable gap existing between the volume of French-language books exported to non-French-speaking countries from France, on the one hand, and Belgium and Luxembourg, on the other.\n(102)\nMore specifically, with regard to the export agency market for books in French, the Commission notes that, as part of their export agency activity, CELF and SIDE distribute books in non-French-speaking countries and territories. In French-speaking countries, the local market is covered by large publishers through their subsidiaries or representatives. The export agency has only a very marginal role, therefore, in the French-speaking markets, which are, however, the main outlets for books in French.\n(103)\nIn the national export agency market for French-language books, there are general agents such as SIDE and CELF and, to a lesser extent, specialist agents who also sell, on a very small scale, directly to end users and who would therefore in some way be in competition with the two general agents, along with a certain number of bookshops servicing orders for foreign bookshops and online booksellers even on an occasional basis, whose activity was, however, relatively low at the time of the measures in question.\n(104)\nIn the relevant market, the complainant was therefore the main operator affected by the disputed measures. On the one hand, the French authorities state that the Small Orders Programme was in principle accessible to any firm applying, provided it accepted the conditions on which the aid was granted. They state that the Ministry of Culture\u2019s rejection of SIDE in 1991 was justified by SIDE\u2019s refusal to submit to the required obligation of transparency in order to benefit from the said aid. On the other hand, SIDE indicated that the French authorities\u2019 rejection was linked to the fact that it was a private company and not a publishing cooperative. Moreover, in 1996, following the annulment of the Commission Decision of 18 May 1993, the Ministry of Culture, wishing to put an end to the proceedings, pointed out to SIDE that the aid scheme for small orders was not by nature reserved for CELF. By letter dated 3 September 1996, the Ministry offered the company a meeting to examine whether it was able to provide, under the same conditions of transparency, the same services as CELF. During a meeting on 26 September 1996, SIDE executives told the Ministry of Culture that they refused to benefit from a programme whose compatibility with Community law could be called into question by the Commission.\n(105)\nIn any case, the elements mentioned above in recitals (103) et seq. seem to indicate that the impact on trading conditions and competition in the European Union on the part of the measures in question was relatively limited.\n(106)\nIn order to establish if the measure is proportional, however, the Commission must also compare, thirdly, the amount of aid received with the costs borne by CELF in achieving the purpose pursued by the French authorities.\n(107)\nTo this end, the different stages in the orders handling process must be recalled, and on which the different parties agree:\n(a)\nreceipt of the bookseller\u2019s order form;\n(b)\nencoding of the order;\n(c)\ninputting of the order;\n(d)\ndispatch of the order to the publisher;\n(e)\nreceipt of the books;\n(f)\nallocation of space (\u2018compartment\u2019) to each customer for storage of the books ordered;\n(g)\npackaging.\n(108)\nAccording to the French authorities, CELF bore certain costs linked to the processing of \u2018small orders\u2019. The French authorities consider that, within the export agency market, some orders generate extra costs such that the service cannot be profitable. The French authorities stated that they had taken the threshold of FRF 500 (EUR 76,22) as the definition of a \u2018small order\u2019 and that this threshold had been empirically determined. They explained that some orders of less than FRF 500 might be profitable, whereas others, above that amount, might not. The objective was to find an economically acceptable solution, so that CELF wanted to take on small orders even if they were not profitable enough.\n(109)\nAs the Commission indicated in its decision extending the procedure, it is for the French authorities, in the context of analysing compatibility, to establish the amount and veracity of costs borne by CELF.\n(110)\nIn this regard, in its decision extending the procedure, the Commission asked the French authorities to provide a certain number of elements in order to be able to draw conclusions from the judgment of the Court of First Instance and rule on the proportionality of the aid. The Commission asked, in particular, for the following information:\n-\nsufficient justification of the reasons why the data relating to costs linked to small orders was not available for the different years in question and sufficient demonstration of the reasons why an extrapolation solely on the basis of 1994 was considered acceptable;\n-\ndata enabling consideration of actual costs (and not mere estimates) for the processing of small orders in 1994 (at least for some cost categories) and possible sufficient justification of the reasons why an estimate of the costs on the basis of the total costs incurred by CELF was considered acceptable;\n-\nconvincing methods for apportioning costs that would enable part of the total costs to be allocated to small order processing, and which could in particular be applied to each cost category during the whole period in question;\n-\ninformation on trends in the proportion of orders tele-transmitted over the years in question;\n-\nthe costs related to small orders in the absence of unjustified multiplying factors;\n-\ncalculations of the costs incurred by CELF for the processing of small orders without the application of multiplying factors, or with multiplying factors applied only in the case of orders which were not tele-transmitted;\n-\nthe position of the French authorities on the calculation of the Court of First Instance by which, in the absence of the said multiplying factors, the costs linked to small order processing had been reduced by more than FRF 635 000 (EUR 96 805,13), even without taking into account cost categories other than those for which a multiplying factor of \u2018three\u2019 had been applied. It should be recalled that, according to the Court\u2019s calculation, the operating results from small order processing would consequently have been positive by more than FRF 600 000 (EUR 91 469,41);\n-\nthe French authorities\u2019 position on the possibility of CELF obtaining a reasonable profit.\n(111)\nIn particular, as already indicated in its decision extending the procedure, in the absence of additional explanations and updated data from the French authorities, the Commission is not in a position to use the grant utilisation statements for small order processing that the French authorities provided for the years 1994 to 2001 in their letter dated 17 January 2003, nor the explanations as to how the analytical compatibility analysis was conducted, provided in the letter dated 5 March 1998.\n(112)\nThe French authorities did not, however, provide the detailed information that was requested by the Commission in its decision extending the procedure, and merely referred back, with regard to the proportionality of the aid, to elements already provided on 17 September 2002, 17 January 2003 and 11 March 2003, which the Commission could not use due to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2008.\n(113)\nBy letter of 8 October 2009, the Commission\u2019s services therefore reminded the French authorities of their request for information on the specific points mentioned, indicating that if this information was not provided within a period of ten working days, the Commission would have to take a final decision on the basis of the information at its disposal, in accordance with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, after issuing, if appropriate, an information injunction, in application of Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.\n(114)\nBy letter dated 21 October 2009, the French authorities indicated that they had no further information to provide and referred back to their comments sent on 9 June 2009.\n(115)\nBy a decision dated 20 November 2009 (the \u2018injunction decision\u2019), the Commission therefore decided to order France to present the information requested since, despite repeated requests, this information had not been provided.\n(116)\nBy letter dated 2 December 2009, the French authorities indicated that they had no further information to give the Commission and referred back to their comments sent on 9 June 2009.\n(117)\nArticle 13 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 states that \u2018The examination of possible unlawful aid shall result in a decision \u2026 If a Member State fails to comply with an information injunction, that decision shall be taken on the basis of the information available.\u2019\n(118)\nAs previously indicated, the French authorities did not provide the Commission with the information that it had requested on several occasions and, most recently, in its injunction decision of 20 November 2009.\n(119)\nIn accordance with Article 13 of the procedural Regulation, the Commission is therefore taking a decision on the basis of the available information, recalling, in any case, that it is for the French authorities to demonstrate the compatibility of the aid in question with the internal market, and thus the proportionality of this aid.\n(120)\nIn the light of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2008 and the elements available to the Commission, it does not seem justified to extrapolate on the basis of estimated costs for processing small orders in 1994. Nor does it appear possible to use measures for apportioning costs that are not justified and to base one\u2019s argument on data to which unjustified multiplying factors have been applied, particularly to tele-transmitted orders. In the light of the costs calculation linked to the processing of small orders that appears in the Court judgment, and given that the French authorities have failed to provide the Commission with information that would enable it to clarify the doubts it raised in its decision extending the procedure, with regard to the proportionality of the aid, the loss-making nature of the activity of small order processing has not been established.\n(121)\nThe Commission therefore considers that it has not been demonstrated that the aid paid during the period 1994-2001 was in line with the criterion of proportionality.\n(122)\nThis aid is therefore not compatible on the basis of Article 107(3)(d) TFEU.\n(b) Assessment of the aid pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU\n(123)\nArticle 107(3)(c) TFEU (former Article 87(3)(c) EC) states that \u2018Aid to promote culture and heritage conservation where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent that is contrary to the common interest may be considered to be compatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(124)\nIn accordance with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2008, the exemption stipulated in Article 107(3)(d) TFEU (former Article 87(3)(d) EC) cannot be applied to the aid that was paid to CELF over the period 1980 to 1993. It is therefore necessary to establish whether the exemption stipulated in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (former Article 87(3)(c) EC) could be applicable.\n(125)\nSuch consideration should also be given to the aid paid between 1994 and the end of 2001, for which the Commission concluded in recital (124) above that the exemption stipulated in Article 107(3)(d) TFEU (former Article 87(3)(d) EC) was not applicable.\n(126)\nIn order to determine whether Article 107(3)(c) TFEU could serve as a basis for compatibility, the Commission must verify whether the aid in question did indeed have a common interest purpose and whether it affected trading relations to an extent that was contrary to the common interest.\n(127)\nThe Commission considers that the aid was in pursuit of a common interest, as previously identified. It should, in this regard, be recalled that the introduction, in the Treaty on European Union, of the exemption stipulated in former Article 87(3)(d) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) TFEU) confirmed the policy followed by the Commission on the basis of former Article 92(3)(c) prior to the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission had in the past authorised aid with a cultural purpose on the basis of this Article. This practice was confirmed by the European Union courts, for example, in the above-cited judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 1995 in which the Court concluded that the Commission was in a position to adopt, on the basis of former Article 92(3)(c) EC, a favourable decision with regard to three aid schemes managed by CELF (aid to air freight, the \u2018Page \u00e0 Page\u2019 programme and \u2018Programme Plus\u2019).\n(128)\nOn the other hand, the Commission considers that it has not been demonstrated that the aid was proportional to the intended purpose.\n(129)\nIn its decision extending the procedure, and later in its injunction decision, the Commission asked the French authorities to present their comments on the proportionality of the aid pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\n(130)\nAs previously indicated, the French authorities did not provide the Commission with the information that would enable the proportionality of the aid paid since 1980 to be demonstrated, a request most recently made to them in the Commission\u2019s injunction decision of 20 November 2009.\n(131)\nIn accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the Commission is therefore taking a decision on the basis of the available information, recalling, in any case, that it is for the French authorities to demonstrate the compatibility of the aid in question with the internal market, and thus the proportionality of this aid.\n(132)\nMutatis mutandis, the reasoning stated previously with regard to the proportionality of the aid in the context of Article 107(3)(d) TFEU, is transposable here.\n(133)\nThe Commission therefore considers that it has not been demonstrated that the aid paid was in line with the criterion of proportionality.\n(134)\nIn conclusion, the Commission considers that the measure in question is not compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\nC. Assessment of the measure pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU\n(135)\nThe French authorities have argued on many occasions that CELF was entrusted with a public service task and that, consequently, the disputed measures had to be assessed pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU (former Article 86(2) EC).\n(136)\nThis Article states that \u2018undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.\u2019\n(137)\nFirstly, in this particular case, the question must be asked as to whether there was a service of general economic interest. It emerges from the Court of Justice\u2019s case law that, with the exception of sectors for which this issue already forms the object of EU regulations, the Member States have a wide margin of discretion regarding the nature of services that would be classified as being services of general economic interest. Consequently, it is the Commission\u2019s task to ensure that this margin of discretion is used without manifest error when it comes to defining services of general economic interest.\n(138)\nIn this particular case, the French authorities indicated on several occasions that CELF had been given a specific public service task of a cultural nature, consisting of honouring all orders for French-language books coming from bookshops abroad, whatever the volume and nature of the order. The Commission considers that this task could, in fact, form a service of general economic interest.\n(139)\nSecondly, it should be verified whether CELF had actually been given responsibility for this service of general economic interest. In accordance with EU case law, the companies in question must have been entrusted with managing the service by the State by means of one or more official acts, the form of which may be determined by each Member State.\n(140)\nIn this particular case, the French authorities produced a number of agreements signed between CELF and the Ministry of Culture which they consider demonstrate that CELF was indeed given responsibility for the service of general economic interest in question. According to the French authorities, the Book and Reading Directorate concluded annual agreements with CELF, up until 2001.\n(141)\nHowever, despite the Commission\u2019s requests, including in its injunction decision, the French authorities have not produced copies of the public service agreements for each of the years in question.\n(142)\nIn addition, the precise nature of the public service obligations is not established in the agreements available to the Commission (and thus the amount at which orders are considered \u2018small orders\u2019 is not stated in the agreement). It emerges that, even for these years, there is no document indicating the public service obligations entrusted to CELF with sufficient clarity.\n(143)\nConsequently, the Commission considers that it has not been demonstrated that CELF was actually entrusted with the public service in question by means of an official act for each of the years in question.\n(144)\nFinally, and without it being necessary to conclude as to the condition of necessity, since the conditions are cumulative, the Commission considers that the condition of proportionality has not been met.\n(145)\nIn the agreements available to the Commission, there is no explanation of the way in which the amount of aid was calculated. Moreover, CELF\u2019s obligation to provide grant utilisation statements for the aid was not accompanied by a clear definition of the parameters of the calculation or monitoring of the cost of the public service activity, which would enable verification that there was no overcompensation. In addition, while the agreements did anticipate a carry forward from 1 year to another if part of the grant was not used, they contained no clarity as to how this mechanism would operate. It would seem, moreover, that this mechanism was not applied. Finally, in more general terms and in the context of analysing the proportionality criterion with regard to Article 107(3) TFEU, the French authorities did not provide any new information demonstrating the proportionality of the aid with regard to the different points of the Court\u2019s judgment.\n(146)\nThe French authorities thus did not provide the Commission with the information that would enable the proportionality of the aid in the context of Article 106(2) TFEU to be demonstrated, and this was last requested of them in its injunction decision of 20 November 2009.\n(147)\nIn accordance with Article 13 of the procedural Regulation, the Commission is therefore taking a decision on the basis of the available information, recalling, in any case, that it is for the French authorities to demonstrate the compatibility of the aid in question with the internal market, and thus the proportionality of this aid.\n(148)\nFor the same reasons as those mentioned in the context of the analysis of the proportionality of the aid pursuant to Article 107(3)(d) TFEU, the Commission therefore considers that it has not been demonstrated that the aid paid was in line with the criterion of proportionality.\n(149)\nThe Commission therefore considers that the conditions for application of Article 106(2) TFEU are not met.\n(150)\nIn conclusion, the Commission therefore considers that the aid mechanism known as the Small Orders Programme, implemented by France in favour of CELF between 1980 and the end of 2001, constitutes aid incompatible with the internal market.\n5. LIMITATION PERIOD, EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE, LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION, PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY, PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY\n(151)\nWhen a State aid is unlawful and incompatible, the Commission must first order the Member State in question to take all necessary measures to recover the aid from its recipient. Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 states that, \u2018Where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.\u2019\n(152)\nThe Commission must, nevertheless, take the following elements into account.\n(153)\nFirstly, Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 stipulates that the powers of the Commission to recover aid are subject to a limitation period of 10 years. The limitation period commences on the day when the unlawful aid is granted to the beneficiary, and any measure taken by the Commission, or a Member State acting at the request of the Commission, with regard to the unlawful aid suspends the limitation period.\n(154)\nAs already stated in its decision extending the procedure, without receiving specific comments on this point from the interested parties, the Commission considers that the limitation rule mentioned in the previous recital is applicable in this particular case. In its judgment of 5 October 2006 in the Transalpine case (21), the Court of Justice held that, in so far as Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 contains rules of a procedural nature, these are applicable to all administrative procedures in relation to State aid pending before the Commission at the time when Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 entered into force, namely on 16 April 1999. This case falls within the context of the formal investigation procedure opened on 30 June 1996.\n(155)\nIn this particular case, the aid having been paid each year since 1980 and the Commission having asked for information from the French authorities in April 1992, the aid paid to CELF in 1980 and 1981 cannot be recovered because it is time barred.\n(156)\nSecondly, the Commission is not calling for recovery of the aid if, by so doing, it would run counter to a general principle of EU law. According to European Union case law, the Commission is required to take exceptional circumstances into consideration that might justify its waiving the order for recovery of the aid unlawfully granted when the said recovery runs counter to a general principle of EU law.\n(157)\nIt was in this context that, in its decision extending the procedure, the Commission called on the French authorities, the beneficiary of the aid and any other interested parties to submit their comments on the application, in this case, of the principle of legitimate expectation, the principle of legal certainty, or any other principles which might lead the Commission not to require the recovery of the aid.\n(158)\nThe Commission notes that, in their comments, the French authorities considered that exceptional circumstances did exist that would enable the obligation to recover the aid to be limited. In contrast, SIDE considered that such exceptional circumstances were not present.\n(159)\nIn this regard, the Commission recalls that, in the context of the preliminary questions raised in the Court of Justice in the above-cited CELF case, the court that referred the case had asked, in essence, whether the Commission\u2019s adoption of three successive decisions declaring aid compatible, which were then annulled by the Community judicature, was not in itself likely to form an exceptional circumstance that might justify a limitation of the beneficiary\u2019s obligation to return this aid.\n(160)\nIn its above-cited judgment of 11 March 2010, the Court of Justice first referred to its judgment of 12 February 2008, in which it indicated in paragraphs 65 et seq. that, after the annulment of a positive decision of the Commission, the recipient of unlawfully implemented aid is not precluded from relying on exceptional circumstances on the basis of which it had legitimately assumed the aid to be lawful and thus from declining to refund that aid (22).\n(161)\nNevertheless, the Court of Justice also stated that a legitimate expectation on the part of an aid recipient could not arise from a positive decision of the Commission either when that decision was challenged within the deadlines for judicial appeal then annulled by the EU Courts, or when the deadline for appeal had not passed or, in the case of an appeal, so long as the EU Courts have not delivered a definitive ruling (23).\n(162)\nIn this particular case, in its judgment of 11 March 2010, the Court of Justice indicated that the annulment of the Commission\u2019s third positive decision by judgment of the Court of First Instance on 15 April 2008 was not, in itself, liable to give rise to a legitimate expectation or to constitute an exceptional circumstance (24).\n(163)\nThe Court of Justice added that the unusual succession of three annulments demonstrated, a priori, the complexity of the case and, far from giving rise to a legitimate expectation, was more likely to increase the beneficiary\u2019s doubts as to the compatibility of the aid in question. It acknowledged that a succession of three actions leading to three annulments amounted to a very unusual situation. Such circumstances, however, arose as part of the normal operation of the judicial system, which granted individuals who believed that they had suffered as a result of the unlawfulness of aid the possibility of bringing proceedings for the annulment of successive decisions which they considered to be the cause of that situation.\n(164)\nThe Court of Justice considered, moreover, that in this particular case the existence of an exceptional circumstance could not be upheld in the light of the principle of legal certainty (25). So long as the Commission had not taken a decision of approval and so long as the period for bringing an action against such a decision had not expired, the recipient could not be certain as to the lawfulness of the aid, with the result that neither the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations nor that of legal certainty could be relied upon.\n(165)\nIn addition, as the Court of Justice indicated in its judgment of 11 March 2010, (26) the existence of an exceptional circumstance could not be upheld in the case in point in the light of the principle of proportionality. Abolishing unlawful aid by means of recovery was the logical consequence of a finding that it was unlawful. Accordingly, the recovery of such aid, for the purpose of restoring the previously existing situation, could not in principle be regarded as disproportionate to the objectives of the provisions of the Treaty relating to State aid.\n(166)\nConsequently, the Court of Justice concluded that the adoption by the Commission of three successive decisions declaring aid to be compatible, which were subsequently annulled by the Community judicature, was not in itself capable of constituting an exceptional circumstance such as to justify a limitation of the recipient\u2019s obligation to repay that unlawful and incompatible aid.\n(167)\nGiven the above, and in the absence of any other fact capable of constituting an exceptional circumstance, the Commission therefore concludes that in this particular case there is no exceptional circumstance capable of limiting CELF\u2019s obligation to repay the aid in question (apart from the sums paid in 1980 and 1981, as previously explained).\n6. RECOVERY\n(168)\nIn application of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the French authorities must therefore recover the amount of aid paid to CELF by way of the Small Orders Programme during the years 1982 to 2001.\n(169)\nAs can be seen from Table (27), the total amount of aid to be recovered from CELF, received during the years 1982 to 2001, amounts to EUR 4 631 401, to which interest should be added.\n(170)\nIn application of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the aid to be recovered must include compound interest from the date on which the unlawful aid was at the disposal of the beneficiary until the date of its effective recovery.\n(171)\nNevertheless, it follows from the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 October 2000 in the Magefesa case (28) that, when a company is in liquidation, and the national legislation so provides, interest falling due after the company\u2019s declaration of insolvency on the amount of aid unlawfully received before such declaration is not due.\n(172)\nIn this regard, it should be noted that, in their note sent on 27 January 2010, the French authorities informed the Commission of CELF\u2019s current situation.\n(173)\nGiven CELF\u2019s financial situation, the company was placed in a solvency safeguard procedure on 25 February 2009. A receiver was appointed.\n(174)\nIn the context of the dispute over State aid, the French State declared the following claims: EUR 11 885 785,02 (by way of interest payments, in accordance with the above-stated judgment of the Council of State of 19 December 2008) and EUR 4 814 339,9 (by way of possible reimbursement of the aid capital received over the period 1980-2001).\n(175)\nAccording to the French authorities, the debt statement showed that, out of total declared liabilities of EUR 21 254 232,29, the contested debts totalled EUR 17 045 039,50.\n(176)\nNoting that a recovery plan was clearly impossible, the insolvency administrator requested that the solvency safeguard procedure be replaced with an official ruling of bankruptcy, particularly in the light of the claims declared by the State.\n(177)\nBy judgment of 9 September 2009 noting the existence of liabilities that ruled out the prospect of a continuation plan, the Paris Commercial Court ruled on the insolvency of CELF and appointed a receiver. The Court set a two-year period at the end of which the completion of the bankruptcy proceedings would be examined. The French authorities have indicated that disputes under way and/or to come could nonetheless justify delaying the date of completion of bankruptcy proceedings.\n(178)\nThe French authorities have indicated that all of CELF\u2019s staff were made redundant and that the liquidation unit was dissolved on 31 December 2009. The only operations under way were aimed at recovering the remaining debts due to clients.\n(179)\nThe French authorities indicated in an e-mail dated 9 March 2010 that the liquidation procedure implemented in respect of CELF was in line with the normal rules for company liquidation procedures.\n(180)\nAccording to the information that the Commission has received from the French authorities, CELF is therefore no longer exercising any economic activity.\n(181)\nConsequently, given the liquidation procedure under way for CELF, and given their obligation to recover the incompatible aid, the French authorities must ensure that the applicable case law is followed in the case of the liquidation of the beneficiary company (29). This assumes, in particular, that CELF\u2019s assets will be sold at their market price, that the State will register its claims with regard to recovering the incompatible and unlawful aid in the liabilities of the bankrupt company, and that it will fully enforce its creditor\u2019s claim at all stages of the procedure until the liquidation is complete.\n(182)\nWith regard to the calculation of interest, it should be noted that, in French law, Article L 622-28 of the Commercial Code stipulates that \u2018the issuance of the commencement order [of the safeguard procedure] shall stay the legal and contractual interest, as well as any interest due to late payment and surcharges.\u2019\n(183)\nConsequently, in this case, the sums paid to CELF give rise to interest from the date on which they were placed at its disposal until 25 February 2009, the date of the decision of the Paris Commercial Court opening the insolvency safeguard procedure which led to a ruling on its formal receivership on 9 September 2009.\n7. CONCLUSION\n(184)\nThe Commission finds that France unlawfully implemented aid in favour of CELF, in violation of Article 108(3) TFEU.\n(185)\nThis aid is incompatible with the internal market and must be recovered by the French authorities, with the exception of sums paid in 1980 and 1981, which are time barred.\n(186)\nThe French authorities must therefore recover from CELF an amount of EUR 4 631 401, to which interest should be added for aid paid annually since 1982. The sums to be recovered give rise to interest from the date on which they were placed at the disposal of the beneficiary until 25 February 2009, the date of the decision of the Paris Commercial Court commencing the insolvency safeguard procedure,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid granted unlawfully by France, in violation of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of Coop\u00e9rative d\u2019exportation du livre fran\u00e7ais (CELF) is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\n1. France is required to obtain reimbursement of the sum of EUR 4 631 401, corresponding to sums received by CELF over the period 1982 to 2001 by way of the aid referred to in Article 1.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall give rise to interest from the date on which they were placed at the disposal of the beneficiary, until 25 February 2009, the date of the decision of the Paris Commercial Court commencing the insolvency safeguard procedure.\n3. Interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\nArticle 3\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. France shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within 4 months of the date of its notification.\nArticle 4\n1. Within 2 months of notification of this Decision, France shall provide the following information:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned in order to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiary has been given formal notice to repay the aid.\n2. France shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until complete recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2. It shall immediately forward to the Commission, at the latter\u2019s request, any information on the measures already taken and planned in order to comply with this Decision, as well as detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to France.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["8", "23", "67", "75", "55", "27", "36", "66", "70", "43", "99", "54", "17", "18", "2", "12", "35", "69", "86", "58", "57", "6", "72", "42", "31", "7", "71", "19", "37", "49", "No Label", "15", "22", "40", "41", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "22", "40", "41", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1113/2011\nof 3 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2011.", "references": ["16", "96", "21", "4", "52", "36", "56", "1", "55", "20", "53", "86", "69", "2", "98", "70", "23", "85", "72", "39", "33", "83", "58", "6", "18", "31", "74", "30", "95", "8", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 728/2011\nof 25 July 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 722/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2011.", "references": ["93", "68", "53", "40", "31", "57", "6", "30", "20", "28", "79", "67", "49", "61", "38", "71", "9", "17", "23", "48", "21", "19", "29", "12", "45", "42", "74", "34", "46", "84", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 527/2011\nof 30 May 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of a preparation of endo-1,4-\u03b2-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49755), endo-1,3(4)-\u03b2-glucanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49754) and polygalacturonase produced by Aspergillus aculeatus (CBS 589.94) as feed additive for weaned piglets (holder of the authorisation Aveve NV)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation of endo-1,4-\u03b2-xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) produced by Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49755), endo-1,3(4)-\u03b2-glucanase (EC 3.2.1.6) produced by Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49754) and polygalacturonase (EC 3.2.1.15) produced by Aspergillus aculeatus (CBS 589.94), as set out in the Annex. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex as a feed additive for weaned piglets, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinions of 8 July 2009 (2) and 2 February 2011 (3) that the preparation set out in the Annex, under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer health or the environment, and that this additive has the potential to increase the body weight and feed to gain ratio in the target species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory for Feed Additives set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of the preparation set out in the Annex shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018digestibility enhancers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 May 2011.", "references": ["26", "12", "62", "30", "24", "8", "32", "35", "83", "54", "43", "85", "29", "22", "61", "47", "97", "3", "59", "48", "70", "71", "17", "38", "53", "50", "37", "95", "44", "63", "No Label", "25", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 25 November 2010\non the quality accreditation procedure for manufacturers of euro banknotes\n(ECB/2010/22)\n(2010/773/EU)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 128(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the \u2018Statute of the ESCB\u2019), and in particular Article 16 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 128(1) of the Treaty and Article 16 of the Statute of the ESCB provide that the European Central Bank (ECB) has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of euro banknotes within the Union. This right includes the competence to take measures to protect the integrity of euro banknotes as a means of payment.\n(2)\nProducing euro banknotes and euro banknote raw materials according to identical quality standards is of paramount importance to guaranteeing their quality, wherever they are produced.\n(3)\nA quality accreditation procedure should therefore be put in place to ensure that only manufacturers conforming with minimum quality requirements are accredited to produce euro banknotes and euro banknote raw materials,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSECTION I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision:\n(a)\n\u2018quality accreditation\u2019 means the status, the scope of which is set out in Articles 3 and 4, granted by the ECB to a manufacturer confirming that it is in conformity with the quality requirements;\n(b)\n\u2018euro banknote production activity\u2019 means the production of euro banknotes or of any euro banknote raw materials;\n(c)\n\u2018manufacturer\u2019 means any entity that is, or wishes to be, involved in a euro banknote production activity;\n(d)\n\u2018manufacturing site\u2019 means any premises that a manufacturer uses, or wishes to use, for a euro banknote production activity;\n(e)\n\u2018quality requirements\u2019 means the substantive rules to be conformed with by a manufacturer seeking quality accreditation, as separately laid down by the ECB;\n(f)\n\u2018quality arrangements\u2019 means the measures taken by a manufacturer at a manufacturing site to conform with the quality requirements;\n(g)\n\u2018certification authority\u2019 means an independent certification authority which evaluates manufacturers\u2019 quality management systems and is entitled to certify that a manufacturer fulfils the requirements of the ISO 9001 series of standards;\n(h)\n\u2018euro banknote raw materials\u2019 means paper, ink, foil and thread used to produce euro banknotes;\n(i)\n\u2018euro secure items\u2019 and \u2018euro secure activity\u2019 have the meaning given to them in Decision ECB/2008/3 of 15 May 2008 on security accreditation procedures for manufacturers of euro secure items for euro banknotes (1);\n(j)\n\u2018ECB working day\u2019 means a day from Monday to Friday, excluding ECB public holidays;\n(k)\n\u2018NCB\u2019 means the national central bank of a Member State whose currency is the euro;\n(l)\n\u2018pre-audit questionnaire\u2019 means a form used by the quality audit team to collect information from a manufacturer on the specificities of a manufacturing site and on any changes that have been made to the quality arrangements since the last quality audit.\nArticle 2\nGeneral principles\n1. A manufacturer shall apply for and receive quality accreditation from the ECB before starting or continuing its euro banknote production activity.\n2. An accredited manufacturer may only carry out a euro banknote production activity at the manufacturing sites for which it has been granted quality accreditation under this Decision.\n3. The ECB requirements for quality accreditation shall be minimum requirements. Manufacturers may adopt and implement stricter quality standards, which shall be laid down in their quality plan, as defined in the quality requirements.\n4. The Executive Board shall be competent to take all decisions relating to a manufacturer\u2019s quality accreditation, taking into account the views of the Banknote Committee, and shall inform the Governing Council thereof.\n5. Any costs and associated losses that a manufacturer incurs in connection with the application of this Decision shall be borne by the manufacturer.\n6. The provisions of this Decision are without prejudice to any full or temporary quality accreditation granted before the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nFull quality accreditation\n1. A manufacturer may only carry out a euro banknote production activity if the ECB grants it full quality accreditation for that activity.\n2. A manufacturer may be granted full quality accreditation for a euro banknote production activity provided that it fulfils all of the following conditions:\n(a)\nit has been involved in a euro banknote production activity in the 24 months preceding the request for full quality accreditation or has been granted temporary quality accreditation as laid down in Article 4 and has started a euro banknote production activity in accordance with Article 10(3);\n(b)\nit conforms with the quality management series of standards ISO 9001 at a particular manufacturing site for a particular euro banknote production activity and a certification authority has issued a certificate to that effect;\n(c)\nit conforms with the quality requirements at the abovementioned manufacturing site for the abovementioned euro banknote production activity;\n(d)\nif it produces euro secure items, it has full security accreditation at the abovementioned manufacturing site for the abovementioned euro secure activity pursuant to Decision ECB/2008/3;\n(e)\nif it is a printing works, its manufacturing site is located in a Member State; and\n(f)\nif it is not a printing works, its manufacturing site is located in a Member State or in a European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Member State.\n3. The Executive Board may grant exemptions to the location requirement set out in points (e) and (f) on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the views of the Banknote Committee. Any such decision shall be promptly notified to the Governing Council. The Executive Board shall abide by any decision of the Governing Council on this issue.\n4. Full quality accreditation shall be granted to a manufacturer for 24 months, subject to a decision taken pursuant to Articles 15, 16 or 17. Full quality accreditation may be renewed every 24 months.\n5. The ECB\u2019s prior written consent shall be required for an accredited manufacturer to outsource the production of euro banknotes or euro banknote raw materials to another manufacturing site or to any third party, including the manufacturer\u2019s subsidiaries and associated companies.\nArticle 4\nTemporary quality accreditation\n1. If a manufacturer has not been involved in a euro banknote production activity in the 24 months preceding the request for full quality accreditation as described in Article 3(2)(a), it may be granted temporary quality accreditation for a planned euro banknote production activity.\n2. A manufacturer may be granted temporary quality accreditation for a planned euro banknote production activity provided that it fulfils all of the following conditions:\n(a)\nit conforms with the quality management series of standards ISO 9001 at a particular manufacturing site for a planned euro banknote production activity and a certification authority has issued a certificate to that effect;\n(b)\nit has established the procedures and the infrastructure necessary to conform with the quality requirements at the abovementioned manufacturing site for the abovementioned euro banknote production activity;\n(c)\nif it plans to produce a euro secure item, it has been granted security accreditation at the abovementioned manufacturing site for a planned euro secure activity pursuant to Decision ECB/2008/3;\n(d)\nif it is a printing works, its manufacturing site is located in a Member State; and\n(e)\nif it is not a printing works, its manufacturing site is located in a Member State or in an EFTA Member State.\n3. Temporary quality accreditation shall be granted to a manufacturer for one year, subject to a decision taken pursuant to Articles 15, 16 or 17. If the manufacturer tenders for or is commissioned to carry out a euro banknote production activity within this period, its temporary quality accreditation may be extended as necessary until the ECB has taken a decision on whether to grant it full quality accreditation.\nSECTION II\nPROCEDURE FOR FULL QUALITY ACCREDITATION\nArticle 5\nInitiation request and appointment of a quality audit team\n1. A manufacturer with temporary quality accreditation for a planned euro banknote production activity who wishes to carry out this activity, or who has carried out a euro banknote production activity in the last 24 months and wishes to continue carrying out this activity, shall make a written request to the ECB to initiate the procedure for full quality accreditation. This request shall include all of the following:\n(a)\na specification of the manufacturing site and its location and the euro banknote production activity for which the manufacturer seeks full quality accreditation;\n(b)\ninformation on the euro banknote production activity carried out;\n(c)\na copy of the certificate referred to in Article 3(2)(b).\n2. The ECB shall check whether the manufacturer has conformed with the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 and inform the manufacturer of the outcome of this evaluation within 30 ECB working days from the date of receipt of the initiation request. The ECB may extend this time limit once, with written notice to the manufacturer. While the ECB is carrying out this evaluation, it may request additional information from the manufacturer in relation to the requirements listed in paragraph 1. If the ECB requests additional information, it shall inform the manufacturer of the outcome of the evaluation within 20 ECB working days from the date of receipt of the additional information. The ECB may agree with the manufacturer to extend the deadlines mentioned in this paragraph.\n3. In the event of a positive evaluation, the ECB shall inform the manufacturer that a quality audit will be carried out at the manufacturer\u2019s premises. The ECB shall appoint a quality audit team composed of experts from the ECB and NCBs. Such appointments shall avoid conflicts of interest. If a conflict of interest arises after an appointment, the ECB shall immediately replace the expert in question with an expert who does not have a conflict of interest.\n4. The ECB shall reject the initiation request and inform the manufacturer in writing of its decision to do so and the reasons if any of the following applies:\n(a)\nthe manufacturer fails to provide the information required pursuant to paragraph 1;\n(b)\nit fails to supply any additional information requested by the ECB pursuant to paragraph 2 within a reasonable period to be mutually agreed;\n(c)\nthe ECB has revoked the manufacturer\u2019s full quality accreditation and the period of prohibition on reapplication specified in the revocation decision has not elapsed;\n(d)\nthe location of the manufacturing site does not meet the requirements laid down in Article 3(2)(e) or (f);\n(e)\nthe manufacturer produces euro secure items and the ECB has not granted it security accreditation as referred to in Article 3(2)(d).\n5. If an accredited manufacturer wishes to have its quality accreditation renewed, and provided it re-applies for full quality accreditation before the date established in accordance with Article 7(2)(c), its quality accreditation shall remain valid until the ECB has taken a decision pursuant to Article 7(1).\nArticle 6\nQuality audit\n1. The quality audit shall commence on a date that has been mutually agreed between the manufacturer and the ECB. If the manufacturer is a printing works, the quality audit shall take place during euro banknote production.\n2. At the latest two weeks before the quality audit, the ECB shall provide the manufacturer with a pre-audit questionnaire which it shall complete and send back to the ECB at least one week before the quality audit.\n3. The quality audit shall take place at the manufacturing site for which the manufacturer seeks quality accreditation.\n4. The quality audit team shall assess whether the manufacturer\u2019s quality arrangements conform with the quality requirements. If the manufacturer proposes improvements to conform with the quality requirements, quality accreditation shall not be granted until such improvements are in place. The quality audit team may conduct a follow-up quality audit to verify whether, following such improvements, the quality arrangements conform with the quality requirements, before submitting to the manufacturer the draft audit report referred to in paragraph 6.\n5. On completion of the quality audit, and, where applicable, the follow-up quality audit, and before leaving the manufacturing site, the quality audit team shall set out its findings, including any non-conformity with the quality requirements and any improvements proposed by the manufacturer, in a preliminary summary, agreed and signed by both the quality audit team and the manufacturer.\n6. The quality audit team shall prepare a draft audit report based on the preliminary summary. This report shall in particular contain details of:\n(a)\nthe quality arrangements in place at the manufacturing site that conform with the quality requirements;\n(b)\nany instances of non-conformity with the quality requirements that the quality audit team has identified;\n(c)\nany action taken by the manufacturer during the quality audit;\n(d)\nany improvements proposed by the manufacturer and, in cases where a follow-up quality audit is carried out, the quality audit team\u2019s assessment of whether such improvements have been carried out;\n(e)\nthe quality audit team\u2019s assessment of whether full quality accreditation should be granted.\n7. The draft audit report shall be sent to the manufacturer within 30 ECB working days from the date of completion of the quality audit or, where applicable, the follow-up quality audit. The manufacturer may comment on the draft audit report within 30 ECB working days from receipt. The ECB shall finalise the draft audit report taking into account the manufacturer\u2019s comments before taking a decision pursuant to Article 7. The ECB may agree with the manufacturer to extend the deadlines mentioned in this paragraph.\n8. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, in the event of a quality problem affecting the quality of euro banknotes or of euro banknote raw materials, the ECB may organise an ad hoc quality audit to investigate the issue. Paragraphs 5 to 7 shall apply accordingly.\nArticle 7\nDecision on full quality accreditation\n1. The ECB shall notify the manufacturer in writing of its decision on the request for full quality accreditation within 30 ECB working days from receipt of the manufacturer\u2019s comments on the draft audit report, or from the expiry of the time limit for providing such comments.\n2. In the event of a positive decision, the ECB shall grant the manufacturer full quality accreditation. The decision shall clearly identify:\n(a)\nthe manufacturer;\n(b)\nthe euro banknote production activity and the manufacturing site for which full quality accreditation is granted;\n(c)\nthe date of expiry of the full quality accreditation;\n(d)\nany specific conditions relating to points (a) to (c).\nThe decision shall be based on the information set out in the final audit report, which shall be attached to the decision.\n3. If full quality accreditation is not granted to the manufacturer, the ECB shall specify the reasons and the manufacturer may initiate the review procedure laid down in Article 18.\nSECTION III\nPROCEDURE FOR TEMPORARY QUALITY ACCREDITATION\nArticle 8\nInitiation request and appointment of a quality pre-audit team\n1. If a manufacturer:\n(i)\nhas not carried out a euro banknote production activity in the 24 months preceding the request for temporary quality accreditation; or\n(ii)\nhas not carried out any euro banknote production activity but has been requested by an NCB or a printing works to start a euro banknote production activity;\nit shall make a written request to the ECB to initiate the procedure for temporary quality accreditation.\nThis request shall include all of the following:\n(a)\na specification of the manufacturing site and its location and the euro banknote production activity for which the manufacturer seeks temporary quality accreditation;\n(b)\ninformation on the euro banknote production activity to be carried out;\n(c)\na copy of the certificate referred to in Article 4(2)(a).\n2. A manufacturer whose temporary quality accreditation has expired may apply for a new temporary quality accreditation. In addition to the information required under paragraph 1, it shall specify in the written request to the ECB the reasons for not having (a) tendered for; or (b) been commissioned to carry out a euro banknote production activity as referred to in Article 4(3).\n3. The ECB shall check whether the manufacturer has conformed with the requirements laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 and inform the manufacturer of the outcome of this evaluation within 30 ECB working days from the date of receipt of the initiation request. The ECB may extend this time limit once with written notice to the manufacturer. While the ECB is carrying out this evaluation, it may request additional information from the manufacturer in relation to the requirements listed in paragraphs 1 and 2. If the ECB requests additional information, it shall inform the manufacturer of the outcome of the evaluation within 20 ECB working days from the date of receipt of the additional information. The ECB may agree with the manufacturer to extend the deadlines mentioned in this paragraph.\n4. In the event of a positive evaluation, the ECB shall inform the manufacturer that a quality pre-audit will be carried out at the manufacturer\u2019s premises. The quality pre-audit team shall be appointed as laid down in Article 5(3).\n5. The ECB shall reject the initiation request and inform the manufacturer in writing of its rejection and the reasons if any of the following applies:\n(a)\nthe manufacturer fails to provide the information required pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2;\n(b)\nit fails to supply any additional information requested by the ECB pursuant to paragraph 3 within a reasonable period to be mutually agreed;\n(c)\nthe ECB has revoked its temporary or full quality accreditation and the period of prohibition on reapplication specified in the revocation decision has not elapsed;\n(d)\nthe location of the manufacturing site does not meet the requirements laid down in Article 4(2)(d) and (e);\n(e)\nthe manufacturer plans to produce euro secure items and the ECB has not granted it security accreditation as referred to in Article 4(2)(c).\n6. Subject to paragraph 2, if an accredited manufacturer wishes to have its quality accreditation renewed, and provided it re-applies for temporary quality accreditation before the date established in accordance with Article 10(2)(c), its quality accreditation shall remain valid until the ECB has taken a decision pursuant to Article 10(1).\nArticle 9\nQuality pre-audit\n1. The quality pre-audit shall commence on a date that has been mutually agreed between the manufacturer and the ECB.\n2. The quality pre-audit shall take place at the manufacturing site for which the manufacturer seeks quality accreditation.\n3. The quality pre-audit team shall assess whether the quality arrangements that the manufacturer has in place will conform with the quality requirements as soon as the manufacturer starts a euro banknote production activity.\n4. The quality pre-audit team shall set out its findings in a draft pre-audit report. This draft pre-audit report shall in particular contain details of all of the following:\n(a)\nthe quality arrangements already in place at the manufacturing site that conform with the quality requirements;\n(b)\nany quality arrangements that the manufacturer still needs to put in place in order to conform with the quality requirements;\n(c)\nthe quality pre-audit team\u2019s assessment of whether temporary quality accreditation should be granted.\n5. The draft pre-audit report shall be sent to the manufacturer within 30 ECB working days from the date of completion of the quality pre-audit. The manufacturer may comment within 30 ECB working days from receipt of the draft pre-audit report. The ECB shall finalise the draft pre-audit report taking into account the manufacturer\u2019s comments before taking a decision pursuant to Article 10. The ECB may agree with the manufacturer to extend the deadlines mentioned in this paragraph.\nArticle 10\nDecision on temporary quality accreditation\n1. The ECB shall notify the manufacturer in writing of its decision on the request for temporary quality accreditation within 30 ECB working days from receipt of the manufacturer\u2019s comments on the draft pre-audit report, or from the expiry of the time limit for providing such comments.\n2. In the event of a positive decision, the ECB shall grant the manufacturer temporary quality accreditation. The ECB decision shall clearly identify:\n(a)\nthe manufacturer;\n(b)\nthe euro banknote production activity and the manufacturing site for which temporary quality accreditation is granted;\n(c)\nthe date of expiry of the temporary quality accreditation;\n(d)\nany specific conditions relating to points (a) to (c).\nThe decision shall be based on the information set out in the final pre-audit report referred to in Article 9(5), which shall be attached to the decision.\n3. A manufacturer that has been granted temporary quality accreditation may tender for or be commissioned to carry out a euro banknote production activity. Once the manufacturer starts a euro banknote production activity, it shall immediately make a written request to the ECB to initiate the procedure for full quality accreditation pursuant to Section II. The quality audit referred to in Article 6 shall commence no later than 12 months from the date on which the manufacturer has been granted temporary quality accreditation.\n4. The ECB shall specify the reasons for not granting temporary quality accreditation. The manufacturer may initiate the review procedure laid down in Article 18.\nSECTION IV\nCONTINUING OBLIGATIONS\nArticle 11\nContinuing obligations of quality accredited manufacturers and of the ECB\n1. An accredited manufacturer shall, for the relevant manufacturing site, provide the ECB with a copy of the certificate for its quality management system each time the initial certificate referred to in Articles 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(a) is renewed.\n2. An accredited manufacturer shall inform the ECB in writing and without undue delay of any of the following:\n(a)\nthe commencement of any procedure for its winding-up or reorganisation or any analogous procedure;\n(b)\nthe appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator or similar officer;\n(c)\nany intention to involve third parties in a euro banknote production activity, including through subcontracting;\n(d)\nany change made after quality accreditation has been granted that affects, or may affect, the fulfilment of the requirements for quality accreditation;\n(e)\nany change of control of the manufacturer following a change in its ownership structure or for any other reason.\n3. An accredited manufacturer shall keep the quality requirements confidential.\n4. The ECB shall inform accredited manufacturers of any update of the quality requirements.\nSECTION V\nCONSEQUENCES OF NON-CONFORMITY\nArticle 12\nDecision-making procedure\n1. In making an observation or taking a decision as referred to in Articles 14 to 17, the ECB shall:\n(a)\nassess the non-conformity, taking into account the (pre-)audit report; and\n(b)\ninform the manufacturer in writing of the observation made or decision taken within 30 ECB working days from receipt of the manufacturer\u2019s comments on the draft (pre-)audit report, specifying: (i) the non-conformity; (ii) the manufacturing site and euro banknote production activity to which the observation or decision relates; (iii) the date of the observation or the date on which the decision will become effective; and (iv) the reasons for the observation or decision.\n2. In all cases where the ECB makes an observation or takes a decision pursuant to Articles 14 to 17, it shall be proportionate to the seriousness of the non-conformity. The ECB shall inform the NCBs and all manufacturers of the observation made or decision taken, and its scope and duration. It shall also specify that the NCBs will be notified of any change in the non-conforming manufacturer\u2019s status.\nArticle 13\nInstances of non-conformity\n1. Non-conformity by a manufacturer with the quality requirements, the other requirements for quality accreditation, or the obligations laid down in Article 11, shall be classified by the quality (pre-)audit team in one of the categories listed in paragraphs 2 to 5.\n2. Non-conformity that the quality (pre-)audit team deems to have an immediate and serious impact on the quality of the manufacturer\u2019s production of euro banknotes or euro banknote raw materials shall qualify as a major non-conformity and the ECB shall take a decision pursuant to Article 16.\n3. Non-conformity that the quality (pre-)audit team deems not to have an immediate and serious impact on the quality of the manufacturer\u2019s production of euro banknotes or euro banknote raw materials but that may have a direct adverse effect on the quality of such production shall qualify as a standard non-conformity and the ECB shall take a decision pursuant to Article 15.\n4. Non-conformity that the quality (pre-)audit team deems not to have a direct adverse effect on the quality of the manufacturer\u2019s production of euro banknotes or euro banknote raw materials but that has to be remedied before the next quality audit shall be referred to in the (pre-)audit report as an observation and the ECB shall make a written observation pursuant to Article 14.\n5. Non-conformity that is not of a type referred to in paragraphs 2 to 4 shall be referred to in the (pre-) audit report as a note but shall not give rise to any further action pursuant to Articles 14 to 17.\nArticle 14\nWritten observation\n1. The ECB shall make a written observation to the manufacturer in the event of non-conformity of the type referred to in Article 13(4), which may be added to the (pre-)audit report.\n2. The written observation shall state that if the non-conformity has not been remedied when the next (pre-)audit takes place, the ECB shall take a decision under Article 15.\nArticle 15\nCorrective measures and suspension of quality accreditation in relation to new orders\nIf non-conformity of the type referred to in Article 13(3) is identified, but the manufacturer puts forward a reasonable case that it will be able to correct the non-conformity, the ECB shall take a decision:\n(a)\nlaying down, in consultation with the manufacturer, a time limit for the manufacturer to remedy the non-conformity;\n(b)\nspecifying that the manufacturer may not accept new orders for the relevant euro banknote production activity, including participation in relevant tender procedures, if the non-conformity has not been remedied by the expiry of the time limit referred to in point (a).\nArticle 16\nSuspension of euro banknote production activity\n1. If non-conformity referred to in Article 13(2) is identified, the quality (pre-)audit team may recommend to the ECB suspension of the relevant euro banknote production activity with immediate effect until the non-conformity has been remedied. The manufacturer shall provide the quality (pre-)audit team with information concerning any other manufacturer which may be affected as a customer or supplier by the suspension.\n2. As soon as possible after suspension takes effect pursuant to paragraph 1, the quality (pre-)audit team shall, in a follow-up quality audit, assess whether the non-conformity has been remedied. If the quality (pre-)audit team decides that the non-conformity has been remedied, the ECB shall lift the suspension. If the manufacturer does not rectify the non-conformity, the ECB shall take a decision pursuant to Article 17.\nArticle 17\nRevocation of quality accreditation\n1. The ECB shall revoke a manufacturer\u2019s quality accreditation if it is not able to rectify non-conformity of a type referred to in Article 13(2).\n2. In its revocation decision, the ECB shall specify the date from which the manufacturer may reapply for quality accreditation.\nArticle 18\nReview procedure\n1. If the ECB takes any of the following decisions:\n(a)\nrejecting a request to initiate the full or temporary quality accreditation procedure;\n(b)\nrefusing to grant full or temporary quality accreditation;\n(c)\npursuant to Articles 14 to 17;\nthe manufacturer may, within 30 ECB working days of notification of such a decision, submit a written request to the Governing Council to review the decision. The manufacturer shall include its reasons for such a request and all supporting information.\n2. If the manufacturer explicitly so requests, and gives reasons, the Governing Council may suspend the application of the decision that is to be reviewed.\n3. The Governing Council shall review the decision and communicate its reasoned decision in writing to the manufacturer within two months of receipt of the request.\n4. The application of paragraphs 1 to 3 shall be without prejudice to any rights under Articles 263 and 265 of the Treaty.\nSECTION VI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 19\nECB quality accreditation register\n1. The ECB shall keep a register of quality accreditations:\n(a)\nlisting the manufacturers which have been granted full or temporary quality accreditation and their manufacturing sites;\n(b)\nindicating in respect of each manufacturing site the euro banknote production activity for which quality accreditation has been granted;\n(c)\nrecording the expiry of any quality accreditation.\n2. If the ECB takes a decision under Article 16, it shall record the duration of the suspension.\n3. If the ECB takes a decision under Article 17, it shall remove the name of the manufacturer from the register.\n4. The ECB shall make available to NCBs and accredited manufacturers a list of all manufacturers contained in the register and any updates thereof.\nArticle 20\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 May 2011.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 25 November 2010.", "references": ["71", "48", "75", "83", "53", "21", "79", "60", "51", "49", "68", "99", "20", "80", "35", "39", "38", "47", "5", "52", "42", "23", "25", "34", "87", "19", "66", "78", "84", "73", "No Label", "7", "27", "28", "76"], "gold": ["7", "27", "28", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1056/2010\nof 18 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for spurdog/dogfish in EU waters of IIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2010.", "references": ["39", "19", "82", "52", "7", "31", "33", "8", "88", "15", "5", "4", "63", "10", "49", "98", "71", "65", "58", "32", "2", "99", "70", "51", "54", "62", "93", "73", "41", "17", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1021/2010\nof 12 November 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Peperone di Pontecorvo (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Peperone di Pontecorvo\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 November 2010.", "references": ["73", "26", "88", "93", "38", "87", "45", "11", "20", "7", "33", "67", "42", "12", "94", "4", "70", "77", "84", "63", "49", "30", "95", "36", "19", "92", "10", "98", "48", "50", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 706/2010\nof 5 August 2010\ncorrecting the Spanish, French, Portuguese and Romanian versions of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143, Article 144(1), Articles 148 and 156, and Article 188(2) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAn error appears in the Spanish, French and Romanian language versions of the text of Article 13(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 (2). Moreover, another error appears in the Portuguese version of Part I of Annex I to that Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 891/2009 should therefore be corrected accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nConcerns only the Spanish, French, Portuguese and Romanian language versions.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2010.", "references": ["75", "49", "61", "48", "96", "0", "4", "74", "36", "41", "59", "93", "45", "60", "24", "38", "47", "20", "76", "46", "13", "39", "63", "16", "57", "27", "85", "77", "32", "15", "No Label", "21", "71", "72"], "gold": ["21", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\nappointing a Swedish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/460/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Swedish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Carin J\u00c4MTIN,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed as alternate member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr Roger MOGERT, Ledamot i kommunfullm\u00e4ktige, Stockholms kommun.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["18", "38", "13", "26", "84", "74", "48", "20", "62", "24", "56", "6", "89", "81", "72", "88", "99", "53", "93", "40", "57", "52", "47", "87", "46", "17", "12", "64", "75", "10", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 792/2010\nof 7 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 September 2010.", "references": ["66", "14", "95", "64", "47", "85", "45", "51", "3", "27", "8", "63", "10", "90", "83", "40", "18", "7", "9", "97", "50", "74", "84", "76", "37", "59", "42", "77", "1", "6", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 570/2011\nof 15 June 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 565/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2011.", "references": ["7", "63", "82", "11", "96", "31", "54", "83", "89", "47", "68", "65", "57", "86", "39", "36", "45", "76", "15", "51", "73", "78", "91", "90", "99", "0", "93", "81", "16", "33", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1168/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 25 October 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 74 and points (b) and (d) of Article 77(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe development of a forward-looking and comprehensive European migration policy, based on human rights, solidarity and responsibility, especially for those Member States facing specific and disproportionate pressures, remains a key policy objective for the Union.\n(2)\nUnion policy in the field of the external borders aims at an integrated border management ensuring a uniform and high level of control and surveillance, which is a necessary corollary to the free movement of persons within the Union and a fundamental component of an area of freedom, security and justice. To that end, the establishment of common rules on standards and procedures for the control and surveillance of the external borders is contemplated.\n(3)\nThe efficient implementation of the common rules on standards and procedures for the control and surveillance of the external borders calls for increased coordination of the operational cooperation between the Member States.\n(4)\nEfficient management of the external borders through checks and surveillance contributes to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings and to reduce the threats to the internal security, public policy, public health and international relations of the Member States.\n(5)\nBorder control at the external borders is in the interest not only of the Member State at whose external borders it is carried out, but also of all Member States which have abolished internal border controls.\n(6)\nIn 2004 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (3) (Frontex) (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019) which became operational in May 2005. Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 was amended in 2007 by Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a mechanism for the creation of Rapid Border Intervention Teams (4).\n(7)\nA further enhancement of the role of the Agency is in line with the objective of the Union to develop a policy with a view to the gradual introduction of the concept of Integrated Border Management. The Agency should, within the limits of its mandate, support the Member States in implementing that concept as defined in the Council conclusions on Integrated Border Management of 4-5 December 2006.\n(8)\nThe multiannual programme for an area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen (the Stockholm Programme) adopted by the European Council on 10-11 December 2009 calls for a clarification and enhancement of the role of the Agency regarding the management of the external borders.\n(9)\nThe mandate of the Agency should therefore be revised in order to strengthen in particular its operational capabilities while ensuring that all measures taken are proportionate to the objectives pursued, are effective and fully respect fundamental rights and the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, including in particular the prohibition of refoulement.\n(10)\nCurrent possibilities for providing effective assistance to the Member States regarding the operational aspects of external border management should be reinforced in terms of the available technical resources. The Agency should be able to plan with sufficient accuracy the coordination of joint operations or pilot projects.\n(11)\nMinimum levels of necessary technical equipment provided by the Agency and/or, on a compulsory basis, by the Member States on the basis of annual bilateral negotiations and agreements will largely contribute to a better planning and implementation of the envisaged operations coordinated by the Agency.\n(12)\nThe Agency should manage lists of technical equipment owned either by the Member States or by the Agency and equipment co-owned by the Member States and the Agency, by setting up and keeping centralised records in a technical equipment pool. That pool should contain the minimum number of categories of technical equipment necessary to enable the Agency to conduct its activities.\n(13)\nTo ensure effective operations, teams of border guards should be set up by the Agency. Member States should contribute to those teams with an appropriate number of skilled border guards and make them available for deployment, unless they are faced with exceptional situations substantially affecting the discharge of national tasks.\n(14)\nThe Agency should be able to contribute to those teams with the border guards who are seconded by Member States to the Agency on a semi-permanent basis, who should be subject, in the exercise of their tasks and powers, to the same legal framework as the guest officers contributed directly to those teams by Member States. The Agency should adapt its internal rules on seconded national experts to allow for direct instructions by the host Member State to the border guards during joint operations and pilot projects.\n(15)\nA well-defined operational plan, including an evaluation and an obligation to report incidents, agreed prior to the start of joint operations or pilot projects amongst the Agency and the host Member State, in consultation with the participating Member States, will largely contribute to the objectives of this Regulation with a more harmonised modus operandi regarding the coordination of joint operations and pilot projects.\n(16)\nThe incident reporting scheme should be used by the Agency to transmit to the relevant national public authorities and to its Management Board (\u2018the Management Board\u2019) any information concerning credible allegations of breaches of, in particular, Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 or the Schengen Borders Code established by Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), including fundamental rights, during joint operations, pilot projects or rapid interventions.\n(17)\nRisk analysis has been demonstrated to be a key element for conducting operations at the external borders. Its quality should be improved by adding a method for assessing the capacity of Member States to face upcoming challenges, including present and future threats and pressures at the external borders. However, those assessments should be without prejudice to the Schengen evaluation mechanism.\n(18)\nThe Agency should provide training, including on fundamental rights, access to international protection and access to asylum procedures, at European level, for instructors of the national border guards of Member States and additional training and seminars related to control and surveillance at the external borders and removal of third-country nationals illegally present in the Member States for officers of the competent national services. The Agency may organise training activities, including an exchange programme, in cooperation with Member States on their territory. Member States should integrate the results of the Agency's work in that perspective in the national training programmes of their border guards.\n(19)\nThe Agency should monitor and contribute to the developments in scientific research relevant to its field of activity and disseminate that information to the Commission and the Member States.\n(20)\nIn most Member States, the operational aspects of the return of third-country nationals illegally present in the Member States fall within the competence of the authorities responsible for controlling the external borders. As there is a clear added value in performing those tasks at Union level, the Agency should, in full compliance with the return policy of the Union, accordingly ensure the coordination or the organisation of joint return operations of Member States and identify best practices on the acquisition of travel documents, and define a code of conduct to be followed during the removal of third-country nationals illegally present on the territories of the Member States. No Union financial means should be made available for activities or operations that are not carried out in conformity with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u2018the Charter of Fundamental Rights\u2019).\n(21)\nFor the purpose of fulfilling its mission and to the extent required for the accomplishment of its tasks, the Agency may cooperate with Europol, the European Asylum Support Office, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and other Union agencies and bodies, the competent authorities of third countries and the international organisations competent in matters covered by Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 within the framework of working arrangements concluded in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (\u2018TFEU\u2019). The Agency should facilitate operational cooperation between Member States and third countries within the framework of the external relations policy of the Union.\n(22)\nCooperation with third countries regarding matters covered by Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 is increasingly important. To establish a solid cooperation model with relevant third countries, the Agency should be able to launch and finance projects of technical assistance and to deploy liaison officers in third countries in cooperation with the competent authorities of those countries. The Agency should be able to invite observers from third countries to participate in its activities, after having provided the necessary training. Establishing cooperation with third countries is also relevant with regard to promoting Union standards of border management, including respect for fundamental rights and human dignity.\n(23)\nIn order to ensure open and transparent employment conditions and equal treatment of staff, the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, laid down in Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (6), should apply to the staff and to the Executive Director of the Agency, including the rules of professional secrecy or other equivalent duties of confidentiality.\n(24)\nFurthermore, specific provisions should be adopted by the Management Board to allow national experts from Member States to be seconded to the Agency. Such provisions should, among others, specify that seconded national border guards to be deployed during joint operations, pilot projects or rapid interventions should be considered as guest officers with the corresponding tasks and powers.\n(25)\nRegulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (7) applies to the processing of personal data by the Agency. The European Data Protection Supervisor should therefore monitor the processing of personal data by the Agency and have the power to obtain from the Agency access to all information necessary for his or her enquiries.\n(26)\nIn so far as the Member States are processing personal data, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (8) applies in full.\n(27)\nWhen ensuring the operational management of IT systems, the Agency should follow European and international standards, including on data protection, taking into account the highest professional requirements.\n(28)\nRegulation (EC) No 2007/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(29)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, notably the right to human dignity, the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to liberty and security, the right to protection of personal data, the right to asylum, the principle of non-refoulement, the principle of non-discrimination, the rights of the child, and the right to an effective remedy. This Regulation should be applied by the Member States in accordance with those rights and principles. Any use of force should be in accordance with the national law of the host Member State, including the principles of necessity and proportionality.\n(30)\nThe implementation of this Regulation should not affect the rights or obligations of Member States under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue or the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.\n(31)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely to contribute to the creation of an integrated management of operational cooperation at the external borders of the Member States, 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 (\u2018TEU\u2019). In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.\n(32)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (9), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A of Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement (10). Consequently, the delegations of the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway should participate as members of the Management Board, albeit with limited voting rights.\n(33)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (11), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points A, B and G of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (12). Consequently, the delegation of the Swiss Confederation should participate as member of the Management Board, albeit with limited voting rights.\n(34)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (13) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points A, B and G of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (14). Consequently, the delegation of the Principality of Liechtenstein should participate as member of the Management Board, albeit with limited voting rights.\n(35)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Regulation builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of six months after the Council has decided on this Regulation whether it will implement it in its national law.\n(36)\nThis Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (15); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(37)\nThis Regulation 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 of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland's request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (16); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(38)\nThe Agency should facilitate the organisation of operational actions in which the Member States may avail themselves of the expertise and facilities which Ireland and the United Kingdom may be willing to offer, in accordance with modalities to be decided on a case-by-case basis by the Management Board. To that end, representatives of Ireland and the United Kingdom should be invited to attend all the meetings of the Management Board in order to allow them to participate fully in the deliberations for the preparation of such operational actions.\n(39)\nA controversy exists between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom on the demarcation of the borders of Gibraltar.\n(40)\nThe suspension of the applicability of this Regulation to the borders of Gibraltar does not imply any change in the respective positions of the States concerned,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments\nRegulation (EC) No 2007/2004 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20182. While considering that the responsibility for the control and surveillance of external borders lies with the Member States, the Agency, as a body of the Union as defined in Article 15 and in accordance with Article 19 of this Regulation, shall facilitate and render more effective the application of existing and future Union measures relating to the management of external borders, in particular the Schengen Borders Code established by Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (17). It shall do so by ensuring the coordination of the actions of the Member States in the implementation of those measures, thereby contributing to an efficient, high and uniform level of control on persons and of surveillance of the external borders of the Member States.\nThe Agency shall fulfil its tasks in full compliance with the relevant Union law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (\u201cthe Charter of Fundamental Rights\u201d); the relevant international law, including the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 (\u201cthe Geneva Convention\u201d); obligations related to access to international protection, in particular the principle of non-refoulement; and fundamental rights, and taking into account the reports of the Consultative Forum referred to in Article 26a of this Regulation.\n3. The Agency shall also provide the Commission and the Member States with the necessary technical support and expertise in the management of the external borders and promote solidarity between Member States, especially those facing specific and disproportionate pressures.\n(2)\nArticle 1a is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following point is inserted:\n\u20181a.\n\u201cEuropean Border Guard Teams\u201d means for the purpose of Article 3, Article 3b, Article 3c, Article 8 and Article 17, teams to be deployed during joint operations and pilot projects; for the purpose of Articles 8a to 8g, teams to be deployed for rapid border interventions (\u201crapid interventions\u201d) within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 (18), and for the purpose of points (ea) and (g) of Article 2(1) and Article 5, teams to be deployed during joint operations, pilot projects and rapid interventions;\n(b)\npoint 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182.\n\u201chost Member State\u201d means a Member State in which a joint operation, a pilot project or a rapid intervention takes place or from which it is launched;\u2019;\n(c)\npoints 4 and 5 are replaced by the following:\n\u20184.\n\u201cmembers of the teams\u201d means border guards of Member States serving with the European Border Guard Teams other than those of the host Member State;\n5.\n\u201crequesting Member State\u201d means a Member State whose competent authorities request the Agency to deploy teams for rapid interventions on its territory;\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(i)\npoints (c) and (d) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\ncarry out risk analyses, including the assessment of the capacity of Member States to face threats and pressures at the external borders;\n(d)\nparticipate in the development of research relevant for the control and surveillance of external borders;\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe following point is inserted:\n\u2018(da)\nassist Member States in circumstances requiring increased technical and operational assistance at the external borders, taking into account that some situations may involve humanitarian emergencies and rescue at sea;\u2019;\n(iii)\npoint (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nassist Member States in circumstances requiring increased technical and operational assistance at the external borders, especially those Member States facing specific and disproportionate pressures;\u2019;\n(iv)\nthe following point is inserted:\n\u2018(ea)\nset up European Border Guard Teams that are to be deployed during joint operations, pilot projects and rapid interventions;\u2019;\n(v)\npoints (f) and (g) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(f)\nprovide Member States with the necessary support, including, upon request, coordination or organisation of joint return operations;\n(g)\ndeploy border guards from the European Border Guard Teams to Member States in joint operations, pilot projects or in rapid interventions in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 863/2007;\u2019;\n(vi)\nthe following points are added:\n\u2018(h)\ndevelop and operate, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, information systems that enable swift and reliable exchanges of information regarding emerging risks at the external borders, including the Information and Coordination Network established by Decision 2005/267/EC (19);\n(i)\nprovide the necessary assistance to the development and operation of a European border surveillance system and, as appropriate, to the development of a common information sharing environment, including interoperability of systems.\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20181a. In accordance with Union and international law, no person shall be disembarked in, or otherwise handed over to the authorities of, a country in contravention of the principle of non-refoulement, or from which there is a risk of expulsion or return to another country in contravention of that principle. The special needs of children, victims of trafficking, persons in need of medical assistance, persons in need of international protection and other vulnerable persons shall be addressed in accordance with Union and international law.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 2 the last subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Member States shall report to the Agency on those operational matters at the external borders outside the framework of the Agency. The Executive Director of the Agency (\u201cthe Executive Director\u201d) shall inform the Management Board of the Agency (\u201cthe Management Board\u201d) on those matters on a regular basis and at least once a year.\u2019;\n(4)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 2a\nCode of Conduct\nThe Agency shall draw up and further develop a Code of Conduct applicable to all operations coordinated by the Agency. The Code of Conduct shall lay down procedures intended to guarantee the principles of the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights with particular focus on unaccompanied minors and vulnerable persons, as well as on persons seeking international protection, applicable to all persons participating in the activities of the Agency.\nThe Agency shall develop the Code of Conduct in cooperation with the Consultative Forum referred to in Article 26a.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\nJoint operations and pilot projects at the external borders\n1. The Agency shall evaluate, approve and coordinate proposals for joint operations and pilot projects made by Member States, including the requests of Member States related to circumstances requiring increased technical and operational assistance, especially in cases of specific and disproportionate pressures.\nThe Agency may itself initiate and carry out joint operations and pilot projects in cooperation with the Member States concerned and in agreement with the host Member States.\nIt may also decide to put its technical equipment at the disposal of Member States participating in the joint operations or pilot projects.\nJoint operations and pilot projects should be preceded by a thorough risk analysis.\n1a. The Agency may terminate, after informing the Member State concerned, joint operations and pilot projects if the conditions to conduct those joint operations or pilot projects are no longer fulfilled.\nThe Member States participating in a joint operation or pilot project may request the Agency to terminate that joint operation or pilot project.\nThe home Member State shall provide for appropriate disciplinary or other measures in accordance with its national law in case of violations of fundamental rights or international protection obligations in the course of a joint operation or pilot project.\nThe Executive Director shall suspend or terminate, in whole or in part, joint operations and pilot projects if he/she considers that such violations are of a serious nature or are likely to persist.\n1b. The Agency shall constitute a pool of border guards called European Border Guard Teams in accordance with Article 3b, for possible deployment during joint operations and pilot projects referred to in paragraph 1. It shall decide on the deployment of human resources and technical equipment in accordance with Articles 3a and 7.\n2. The Agency may operate through its specialised branches provided for in Article 16 for the practical organisation of joint operations and pilot projects.\n3. The Agency shall evaluate the results of the joint operations and pilot projects and transmit the detailed evaluation reports within 60 days following the end of those operations and projects to the Management Board, together with the observations of the Fundamental Rights Officer referred to in Article 26a. The Agency shall make a comprehensive comparative analysis of those results with a view to enhancing the quality, coherence and effectiveness of future joint operations and pilot projects and include it in its general report provided for in point (b) of Article 20(2).\n4. The Agency shall finance or co-finance the joint operations and pilot projects referred to in paragraph 1, with grants from its budget in accordance with the financial rules applicable to the Agency.\n5. Paragraphs 1a and 4 shall apply also to rapid interventions.\u2019;\n(6)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 3a\nOrganisational aspects of joint operations and pilot projects\n1. The Executive Director shall draw up an operational plan for the joint operations and pilot projects referred to in Article 3(1). The Executive Director and the host Member State, in consultation with the Member States participating in a joint operation or pilot project, shall agree on the operational plan detailing the organisational aspects in due time before the envisaged beginning of that joint operation or pilot project.\nThe operational plan shall cover all aspects considered necessary for carrying out the joint operation or the pilot project, including the following:\n(a)\na description of the situation, with modus operandi and objectives of the deployment, including the operational aim;\n(b)\nthe foreseeable duration of the joint operation or pilot project;\n(c)\nthe geographical area where the joint operation or pilot project will take place;\n(d)\na description of the tasks and special instructions for the guest officers, including on permissible consultation of databases and permissible service weapons, ammunition and equipment in the host Member State;\n(e)\nthe composition of the teams of guest officers, as well as the deployment of other relevant staff;\n(f)\ncommand and control provisions, including the names and ranks of the host Member State's border guards responsible for cooperating with the guest officers and the Agency, in particular those of the border guards who are in command during the period of deployment, and the place of the guest officers in the chain of command;\n(g)\nthe technical equipment to be deployed during the joint operation or pilot project, including specific requirements such as conditions for use, requested crew, transport and other logistics, and financial provisions;\n(h)\ndetailed provisions on immediate incident reporting by the Agency to the Management Board and to relevant national public authorities;\n(i)\na reporting and evaluation scheme containing benchmarks for the evaluation report and final date of submission of the final evaluation report in accordance with Article 3(3);\n(j)\nregarding sea operations, specific information on the application of the relevant jurisdiction and legislation in the geographical area where the joint operation or pilot project takes place, including references to international and Union law regarding interception, rescue at sea and disembarkation;\n(k)\nmodalities of cooperation with third countries, other Union agencies and bodies or international organisations.\n2. Any amendments to or adaptations of the operational plan shall require the agreement of the Executive Director and the host Member State. A copy of the amended or adapted operational plan shall immediately be sent by the Agency to the participating Member States.\n3. The Agency shall, as part of its coordinating tasks, ensure the operational implementation of all the organisational aspects, including the presence of a staff member of the Agency during the joint operations and pilot projects referred to in this Article.\nArticle 3b\nComposition and deployment of European Border Guard Teams\n1. On a proposal by the Executive Director, the Management Board shall decide by an absolute majority of its members with a right to vote on the profiles and the overall number of border guards to be made available for the European Border Guard Teams. The same procedure shall apply with regard to any subsequent changes in the profiles and the overall numbers. Member States shall contribute to the European Border Guard Teams via a national pool on the basis of the various defined profiles by nominating border guards corresponding to the required profiles.\n2. The contribution by Member States as regards their border guards to specific joint operations and pilot projects for the following year shall be planned on the basis of annual bilateral negotiations and agreements between the Agency and Member States. In accordance with those agreements, Member States shall make the border guards available for deployment at the request of the Agency, unless they are faced with an exceptional situation substantially affecting the discharge of national tasks. Such a request shall be made at least 45 days before the intended deployment. The autonomy of the home Member State in relation to the selection of staff and the duration of their deployment shall remain unaffected.\n3. The Agency shall also contribute to the European Border Guard Teams with competent border guards seconded by the Member States as national experts pursuant to Article 17(5). The contribution by Member States as regards the secondment of their border guards to the Agency for the following year shall be planned on the basis of annual bilateral negotiations and agreements between the Agency and Member States.\nIn accordance with those agreements, Member States shall make the border guards available for secondment, unless that would seriously affect the discharge of national tasks. In such situations Member States may recall their seconded border guards.\nThe maximum duration of such secondments shall not exceed six months in a 12-month period. The seconded border guards shall, for the purpose of this Regulation, be considered as guest officers and have the tasks and powers provided for in Article 10. The Member State having seconded the border guards in question shall be considered as the home Member State, as defined in point 3 of Article 1a, for the purpose of applying Articles 3c, 10 and 10b. Other staff employed by the Agency on a temporary basis who are not qualified to perform border control functions shall only be deployed during joint operations and pilot projects for coordination tasks.\n4. Members of the European Border Guard Teams shall, in the performance of their tasks and in the exercise of their powers, fully respect fundamental rights, including access to asylum procedures, and human dignity. Any measures taken in the performance of their tasks and in the exercise of their powers shall be proportionate to the objectives pursued by such measures. While performing their tasks and exercising their powers, they shall not discriminate against persons on grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.\n5. In accordance with Article 8g, the Agency shall nominate a coordinating officer for each joint operation or pilot project where members of the European Border Guard Teams will be deployed.\nThe role of the coordinating officer shall be to foster cooperation and coordination amongst host and participating Member States.\n6. The Agency shall meet the costs incurred by the Member States in making their border guards available pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article for the European Border Guard Teams in accordance with Article 8h.\n7. The Agency shall inform the European Parliament on an annual basis of the number of border guards that each Member State has committed to the European Border Guard Teams in accordance with this Article.\nArticle 3c\nInstructions to the European Border Guard Teams\n1. During deployment of European Border Guard Teams, the host Member State shall issue instructions to the teams in accordance with the operational plan referred to in Article 3a(1).\n2. The Agency, via its coordinating officer as referred to in Article 3b(5), may communicate its views on the instructions referred to in paragraph 1 to the host Member State. If it does so, the host Member State shall take those views into consideration.\n3. In accordance with Article 8g, the host Member State shall give the coordinating officer all necessary assistance, including full access to the European Border Guard Teams at all times throughout the deployment.\n4. Members of the European Border Guard Teams shall, while performing their tasks and exercising their powers, remain subject to the disciplinary measures of their home Member State.\u2019;\n(7)\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nRisk analysis\nThe Agency shall develop and apply a common integrated risk analysis model.\nIt shall prepare both general and tailored risk analyses to be submitted to the Council and the Commission.\nFor the purpose of risk analysis, the Agency may assess, after prior consultation with the Member States concerned, their capacity to face upcoming challenges, including present and future threats and pressures at the external borders of the Member States, especially for those Member States facing specific and disproportionate pressures. To that end, the Agency may assess the equipment and the resources of the Member States regarding border control. The assessment shall be based on information given by the Member States concerned, and on the reports and results of joint operations, pilot projects, rapid interventions and other activities of the Agency. Those assessments are without prejudice to the Schengen evaluation mechanism.\nThe results of those assessments shall be presented to the Management Board.\nFor the purposes of this Article, Member States shall provide the Agency with all necessary information regarding the situation and possible threats at the external borders.\nThe Agency shall incorporate the results of a common integrated risk analysis model in its development of the common core curricula for the training of border guards referred to in Article 5.\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 5 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Agency shall provide border guards who are members of the European Border Guard Teams with advanced training relevant to their tasks and powers and shall conduct regular exercises with those border guards in accordance with the advanced training and exercise schedule referred to in the annual work programme of the Agency.\nThe Agency shall also take the necessary initiatives to ensure that all border guards and other personnel of the Member States who participate in the European Border Guard Teams, as well as the staff of the Agency, have received, prior to their participation in operational activities organised by the Agency, training in relevant Union and international law, including fundamental rights and access to international protection and guidelines for the purpose of identifying persons seeking protection and directing them towards the appropriate facilities.\nThe Agency shall establish and further develop common core curricula for the training of border guards and provide training at European level for instructors of the national border guards of Member States, including with regard to fundamental rights, access to international protection and relevant maritime law.\nThe Agency shall draw up the common core curricula after consulting the Consultative Forum referred to in Article 26a.\nMember States shall integrate the common core curricula in the training of their national border guards.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is inserted after the last paragraph:\n\u2018The Agency shall establish an exchange programme enabling border guards participating in the European Border Guard Teams to acquire knowledge or specific know-how from experiences and good practices abroad by working with border guards in a Member State other than their own.\u2019;\n(9)\nArticles 6 and 7 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\nMonitoring and contributing to research\nThe Agency shall proactively monitor and contribute to the developments in research relevant for the control and surveillance of the external borders and disseminate that information to the Commission and the Member States.\nArticle 7\nTechnical equipment\n1. The Agency may acquire, itself or in co-ownership with a Member State, or lease technical equipment for external border control to be deployed during joint operations, pilot projects, rapid interventions, joint return operations or technical assistance projects in accordance with the financial rules applicable to the Agency. Any acquisition or leasing of equipment entailing significant costs to the Agency shall be preceded by a thorough needs and cost/benefit analysis. Any such expenditure shall be provided for in the Agency's budget as adopted by the Management Board in accordance with Article 29(9). Where the Agency acquires or leases major technical equipment, such as open sea and coastal patrol vessels or vehicles, the following conditions shall apply:\n(a)\nin case of acquisition and co-ownership, the Agency shall agree formally with one Member State that the latter will provide for the registration of the equipment in accordance with the applicable legislation of that Member State;\n(b)\nin case of leasing, the equipment shall be registered in a Member State.\nOn the basis of a model agreement drawn up by the Agency, the Member State of registration and the Agency shall agree on modalities ensuring the periods of full availability of the co-owned assets for the Agency, as well as on the terms of use of the equipment.\nThe Member State of registration or the supplier of technical equipment shall provide the necessary experts and technical crew to operate the technical equipment in a legally sound and safe manner.\n2. The Agency shall set up and keep centralised records of equipment in a technical equipment pool composed of equipment owned either by the Member States or by the Agency and equipment co-owned by the Member States and the Agency for external border control purposes. The technical equipment pool shall contain a minimum number per type of technical equipment as referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article. The equipment listed in the technical equipment pool shall be deployed during the activities referred to in Articles 3, 8a and 9.\n3. Member States shall contribute to the technical equipment pool referred to in paragraph 2. The contribution by Member States to the pool and deployment of the technical equipment for specific operations shall be planned on the basis of annual bilateral negotiations and agreements between the Agency and Member States. In accordance with those agreements and to the extent that it forms part of the minimum number of technical equipment for a given year, Member States shall make their technical equipment available for deployment at the request of the Agency, unless they are faced with an exceptional situation substantially affecting the discharge of national tasks. Such request shall be made at least 45 days before the intended deployment. The contributions to the technical equipment pool shall be reviewed annually.\n4. The Agency shall manage the records of the technical equipment pool as follows:\n(a)\nclassification by type of equipment and by type of operation;\n(b)\nclassification by owner (Member State, Agency, other);\n(c)\noverall numbers of required equipment;\n(d)\ncrew requirements if applicable;\n(e)\nother information, such as registration details, transportation and maintenance requirements, national applicable export regimes, technical instructions, or other relevant information to handle the equipment correctly.\n5. The Agency shall finance the deployment of the technical equipment which forms part of the minimum number of technical equipment provided by a given Member State for a given year. The deployment of technical equipment which does not form part of the minimum number of technical equipment shall be co-financed by the Agency up to a maximum of 100 % of the eligible expenses, taking into account the particular circumstances of the Member States deploying such technical equipment.\nOn a proposal of the Executive Director, the Management Board shall decide, in accordance with Article 24, on a yearly basis, on the rules relating to technical equipment, including the required overall minimum numbers per type of technical equipment, the conditions for deployment and reimbursement of costs. For budgetary purposes that decision should be taken by the Management Board by 31 March each year.\nThe Agency shall propose the minimum number of technical equipment in accordance with its needs, notably in order to be able to carry out joint operations, pilot projects, rapid interventions and joint return operations, in accordance with the its work programme for the year in question.\nIf the minimum number of technical equipment proves to be insufficient to carry out the operational plan agreed for joint operations, pilot projects, rapid interventions or joint return operations, the Agency shall revise it on the basis of justified needs and of an agreement with the Member States.\n6. The Agency shall report on the composition and the deployment of equipment which is part of the technical equipment pool to the Management Board on a monthly basis. Where the minimum number of technical equipment referred to in paragraph 5 is not reached, the Executive Director shall inform the Management Board without delay. The Management Board shall take a decision on the prioritisation of the deployment of the technical equipment urgently and take the appropriate steps to remedy the identified shortcomings. It shall inform the Commission of the identified shortcomings and the steps taken. The Commission shall subsequently inform the European Parliament and the Council thereof, communicating as well its own assessment.\n7. The Agency shall inform the European Parliament on an annual basis of the number of technical equipment that each Member State has committed to the technical equipment pool in accordance with this Article.\u2019;\n(10)\nArticle 8 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Without prejudice to Article 78(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (\u201cTFEU\u201d), one or more Member States facing specific and disproportionate pressures and confronted with circumstances requiring increased technical and operational assistance when implementing their obligations with regard to control and surveillance of external borders may request the Agency for assistance. The Agency shall in accordance with Article 3 organise the appropriate technical and operational assistance for the requesting Member State(s).\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the following point is added:\n\u2018(c)\ndeploy border guards from the European Border Guard Teams.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Agency may acquire technical equipment for checks and surveillance of external borders to be used by its experts and within the framework of rapid interventions for their duration.\u2019;\n(11)\nArticle 8a is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8a\nRapid interventions\nAt the request of a Member State faced with a situation of urgent and exceptional pressure, especially the arrival at points of the external borders of large numbers of third-country nationals trying to enter the territory of that Member State illegally, the Agency may deploy for a limited period one or more European Border Guard Teams (\u201cteam(s)\u201d) on the territory of the requesting Member State for the appropriate duration in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 863/2007.\u2019;\n(12)\nin Article 8d, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. If the Executive Director decides to deploy one or more teams, the Agency together with the requesting Member State shall draw up an operational plan in accordance with Article 8e immediately, and in any event no later than five working days from the date of the decision.\u2019;\n(13)\nin Article 8e, paragraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoints (e), (f) and (g) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nthe composition of the teams, as well as the deployment of other relevant staff;\n(f)\ncommand and control provisions, including the names and ranks of the border guards of the host Member State responsible for cooperating with the teams, in particular of those border guards who are in command of the teams during the period of deployment, and the place of the teams in the chain of command;\n(g)\nthe technical equipment to be deployed together with the teams, including specific requirements such as conditions for use, requested crew, transport and other logistics, and financial provisions;\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following points are added:\n\u2018(h)\ndetailed provisions on immediate incident reporting by the Agency to the Management Board and to relevant national public authorities;\n(i)\na reporting and evaluation scheme containing benchmarks for the evaluation report and final date of submission of the final evaluation report in accordance with Article 3(3);\n(j)\nregarding sea operations, specific information on the application of the relevant jurisdiction and legislation in the geographical area where the rapid intervention takes place, including references to international and Union law regarding interception, rescue at sea and disembarkation;\n(k)\nmodalities of cooperation with third countries, other Union agencies and bodies or international organisations.\u2019;\n(14)\nin Article 8h(1), the introductory part is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Agency shall fully meet the following costs incurred by Member States in making available their border guards for the purposes mentioned in Article 3(1b), Article 8a and Article 8c:\u2019;\n(15)\nArticle 9 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 9\nReturn cooperation\n1. Subject to the return policy of the Union, and in particular Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (20), and without entering into the merits of return decisions, the Agency shall provide the necessary assistance, and at the request of the participating Member States ensure the coordination or the organisation of joint return operations of Member States, including through the chartering of aircraft for the purpose of such operations. The Agency shall finance or co-finance the operations and projects referred to in this paragraph with grants from its budget in accordance with the financial rules applicable to the Agency. The Agency may also use financial means of the Union available in the field of return. The Agency shall ensure that in its grant agreements with Member States any financial support is conditional upon the full respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights.\n1a. The Agency shall develop a Code of Conduct for the return of illegally present third-country nationals which shall apply during all joint return operations coordinated by the Agency, describing common standardised procedures which should simplify the organisation of joint return operations and assure return in a humane manner and with full respect for fundamental rights, in particular the principles of human dignity, prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to liberty and security and the rights to the protection of personal data and non-discrimination.\n1b. The Code of Conduct shall in particular pay attention to the obligation set out in Article 8(6) of Directive 2008/115/EC to provide for an effective forced-return monitoring system and to the Fundamental Rights Strategy referred to in Article 26a(1) of this Regulation. The monitoring of joint return operations should be carried out on the basis of objective and transparent criteria and cover the whole joint return operation from the pre-departure phase until the hand-over of the returnees in the country of return.\n1c. Member States shall regularly inform the Agency of their needs for assistance or coordination by the Agency. The Agency shall draw up a rolling operational plan to provide the requesting Member States with the necessary operational support, including technical equipment referred to in Article 7(1). The Management Board shall decide in accordance with Article 24 on a proposal of the Executive Director, on the content and modus operandi of the rolling operational plan.\n2. The Agency shall cooperate with the competent authorities of the third countries referred to in Article 14 to identify best practices on the acquisition of travel documents and the return of illegally present third-country nationals.\n(16)\nin Article 10, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. While performing their tasks and exercising their powers, guest officers shall comply with Union and international law, and shall observe fundamental rights and the national law of the host Member State.\u2019;\n(17)\nArticle 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\nInformation exchange systems\nThe Agency may take all necessary measures to facilitate the exchange of information relevant to its tasks with the Commission and the Member States and, where appropriate, the Union agencies referred to in Article 13. It shall develop and operate an information system capable of exchanging classified information with those actors, including personal data referred to in Articles 11a, 11b and 11c.\nThe Agency may take all necessary measures to facilitate the exchange of information relevant for its tasks with the United Kingdom and Ireland if it relates to the activities in which they participate in accordance with Article 12 and Article 20(5).\u2019;\n(18)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 11a\nData protection\nRegulation (EC) No 45/2001 shall apply to the processing of personal data by the Agency.\nThe Management Board shall establish measures for the application of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 by the Agency, including those concerning the Data Protection Officer of the Agency. Those measures shall be established after consultation of the European Data Protection Supervisor. Without prejudice to Articles 11b and 11c, the Agency may process personal data for administrative purposes.\nArticle 11b\nProcessing of personal data in the context of joint return operations\n1. In performing its tasks of organising and coordinating the joint return operations of Member States referred to in Article 9, the Agency may process personal data of persons who are subject to such joint return operations.\n2. The processing of such personal data shall respect the principles of necessity and proportionality. In particular, it shall be strictly limited to those personal data which are required for the purposes of the joint return operation.\n3. The personal data shall be deleted as soon as the purpose for which they have been collected has been achieved and no later than 10 days after the end of the joint return operation.\n4. Where the personal data are not transferred to the carrier by a Member State, the Agency may transfer such data.\n5. This Article shall be applied in accordance with the measures referred to in Article 11a.\nArticle 11c\nProcessing of personal data collected during joint operations, pilot projects and rapid interventions\n1. Without prejudice to the competence of Member States to collect personal data in the context of joint operations, pilot projects and rapid interventions, and subject to the limitations set out in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Agency may further process personal data collected by the Member States during such operational activities and transmitted to the Agency in order to contribute to the security of the external borders of the Member States.\n2. Such further processing of personal data by the Agency shall be limited to personal data regarding persons who are suspected, on reasonable grounds, by the competent authorities of the Member States of involvement in cross-border criminal activities, in facilitating illegal migration activities or in human trafficking activities as defined in points (a) and (b) of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (21).\n3. Personal data referred to in paragraph 2 shall be further processed by the Agency only for the following purposes:\n(a)\nthe transmission, on a case-by-case basis, to Europol or other Union law enforcement agencies, subject to Article 13;\n(b)\nthe use for the preparation of risk analyses referred to in Article 4. In the result of the risk-analyses, data shall be depersonalised.\n4. The personal data shall be deleted as soon as they have been transmitted to Europol or other Union agencies or used for the preparation of risk analyses referred to in Article 4. The term of storage shall in any event not exceed three months after the date of the collection of those data.\n5. The processing of such personal data shall respect the principles of necessity and proportionality. The personal data shall not be used by the Agency for the purpose of investigations, which remain under the responsibility of the competent authorities of the Member States.\nIn particular, it shall be strictly limited to those personal data which are required for the purposes referred to in paragraph 3.\n6. Without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, onward transmission or other communication of such personal data processed by the Agency to third countries or other third parties shall be prohibited.\n7. This Article shall be applied in accordance with the measures referred to in Article 11a.\nArticle 11d\nSecurity rules on the protection of classified information and non-classified sensitive information\n1. The Agency shall apply the Commission's rules on security as set out in the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending its internal Rules of Procedure (22). Those rules shall apply, inter alia, to the exchange, processing and storage of classified information.\n2. The Agency shall apply the security principles relating to the processing of non-classified sensitive information as set out in the Decision referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and as implemented by the Commission. The Management Board shall establish measures for the application of those security principles.\n(19)\nArticles 13 and 14 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 13\nCooperation with Union agencies and bodies and international organisations\nThe Agency may cooperate with Europol, the European Asylum Support Office, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (\u201cthe Fundamental Rights Agency\u201d), other Union agencies and bodies, and the international organisations competent in matters covered by this Regulation within the framework of working arrangements concluded with those bodies, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the TFEU and the provisions on the competence of those bodies. In every case the Agency shall inform the European Parliament of any such arrangements.\nOnward transmission or other communication of personal data processed by the Agency to other Union agencies or bodies shall be subject to specific working arrangements regarding the exchange of personal data and subject to the prior approval of the European Data Protection Supervisor.\nThe Agency may also, with the agreement of the Member State(s) concerned, invite observers of Union agencies and bodies or international organisations to participate in its activities referred to in Articles 3, 4 and 5, to the extent that their presence is in accordance with the objectives of those activities, may contribute to the improvement of cooperation and the exchange of best practices, and does not affect the overall safety of those activities. The participation of those observers may take place only with the agreement of the Member State(s) concerned regarding the activities referred to in Articles 4 and 5 and only with the agreement of the host Member State regarding those referred to in Article 3. Detailed rules on the participation of observers shall be included in the operational plan referred to in Article 3a(1). Those observers shall receive the appropriate training from the Agency prior to their participation.\nArticle 14\nFacilitation of operational cooperation with third countries and cooperation with competent authorities of third countries\n1. In matters covered by its activities and to the extent required for the fulfilment of its tasks, the Agency shall facilitate operational cooperation between Member States and third countries, within the framework of the external relations policy of the Union, including with regard to human rights.\nThe Agency and the Member States shall comply with norms and standards at least equivalent to those set by Union legislation also when cooperation with third countries takes place on the territory of those countries.\nThe establishment of cooperation with third countries shall serve to promote European border management standards, also covering respect for fundamental rights and human dignity.\n2. The Agency may cooperate with the authorities of third countries competent in matters covered by this Regulation within the framework of working arrangements concluded with those authorities, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the TFEU. Those working arrangements shall be purely related to the management of operational cooperation.\n3. The Agency may deploy its liaison officers, who should enjoy the highest possible protection to carry out their duties, in third countries. They shall form part of the local or regional cooperation networks of immigration liaison officers of the Member States set up pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 of 19 February 2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers network (23). Liaison officers shall only be deployed to third countries in which border management practices comply with minimum human rights standards. Their deployment shall be approved by the Management Board. Within the framework of the external relations policy of the Union, priority for deployment should be given to those third countries, which on the basis of risk analysis constitute a country of origin or transit regarding illegal migration. On a reciprocal basis the Agency may receive liaison officers posted by those third countries also, for a limited period of time. The Management Board shall adopt, on a proposal of the Executive Director and in accordance with Article 24, the list of priorities on a yearly basis.\n4. The tasks of the Agency's liaison officers shall include, in compliance with Union law and in accordance with fundamental rights, establishing and maintaining contacts with the competent authorities of the third country to which they are assigned with a view to contributing to the prevention of and fight against illegal immigration and the return of illegal migrants.\n5. The Agency may benefit from Union funding in accordance with the provisions of the relevant instruments supporting the external relations policy of the Union. It may launch and finance technical assistance projects in third countries regarding matters covered by this Regulation.\n6. The Agency may also, with the agreement of the Member State(s) concerned invite observers from third countries to participate in its activities referred to in Articles 3, 4 and 5, to the extent that their presence is in accordance with the objectives of those activities, may contribute to improving cooperation and the exchange of best practices, and does not affect the overall safety of those activities. The participation of those observers may take place only with the agreement of the Member State(s) concerned regarding the activities referred to in Articles 4 and 5 and only with the agreement of the host Member State regarding those referred to in Article 3. Detailed rules on the participation of observers shall be included in the operational plan referred to in Article 3a(1). Those observers shall receive the appropriate training from the Agency prior to their participation.\n7. When concluding bilateral agreements with third countries as referred to in Article 2(2), Member States may include provisions concerning the role and competence of the Agency, in particular regarding the exercise of executive powers by members of the teams deployed by the Agency during the joint operations or pilot projects referred to in Article 3.\n8. The activities referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall be subject to receiving a prior opinion of the Commission, and the European Parliament shall be fully informed of those activities as soon as possible.\n(20)\nin Article 15, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Agency shall be a body of the Union. It shall have legal personality.\u2019;\n(21)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 15a\nHeadquarters Agreement\nThe necessary arrangements concerning the accommodation to be provided for the Agency in the Member State in which the Agency has its seat and the facilities to be made available by that Member State, as well as the specific rules applicable to the Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director, the members of the Management Board, the staff of the Agency and members of their families, in that Member State shall be laid down in a Headquarters Agreement between the Agency and the Member State in which the Agency has its seat. The Headquarters Agreement shall be concluded after obtaining the approval of the Management Board. The Member State in which the Agency has its seat should provide the best possible conditions to ensure proper functioning of the Agency, including multilingual, European-oriented schooling and appropriate transport connections.\u2019;\n(22)\nArticle 17 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. For the purpose of implementing Article 3b(5) only a staff member of the Agency subject to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union or to Title II of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union may be designated as coordinating officer in accordance with Article 8g. For the purpose of implementing Article 3b(3), only national experts seconded by a Member State to the Agency may be designated for attachment to the European Border Guard Teams. The Agency shall designate those national experts who shall be attached to the European Border Guard Teams in accordance with that Article.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraphs are added:\n\u20184. The Management Board shall adopt the necessary implementing measures in agreement with the Commission pursuant to Article 110 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.\n5. The Management Board may adopt provisions to allow national experts from Member States to be seconded to the Agency. Those provisions shall take into account the requirements of Article 3b(3), in particular the fact that they are considered as guest officers and have the tasks and powers provided for in Article 10. They shall include provisions on the conditions of deployment.\u2019;\n(23)\nArticle 20 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(i)\npoint (h) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(h)\nestablish the organisational structure of the Agency and adopt the Agency's staff policy, in particular the multiannual staff policy plan. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (24) the multiannual staff policy plan shall be submitted to the Commission and the budgetary authority after receiving a favourable opinion of the Commission;\n(ii)\nthe following point is added:\n\u2018(i)\nadopt the Agency's multiannual plan aiming at outlining the future long term strategy regarding the activities of the Agency.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Management Board may advise the Executive Director on any matter strictly related to the development of operational management of the external borders, including activities related to research provided for in Article 6.\u2019;\n(24)\nArticle 21 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the last sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The terms of office shall be extendable.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Countries associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis shall participate in the Agency. They shall have one representative and one alternate each in the Management Board. Under the relevant provisions of their association agreements, arrangements have been developed that specify the nature and extent of, and the detailed rules for, the participation by those countries in the work of the Agency, including provisions on financial contributions and staff.\u2019;\n(25)\nArticle 25 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The European Parliament or the Council may invite the Executive Director to report on the carrying out of his/her tasks, in particular on the implementation and monitoring of the Fundamental Rights Strategy, the general report of the Agency for the previous year, the work programme for the following year and the Agency's multiannual plan referred to in point (i) of Article 20(2).\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, the following point is added:\n\u2018(g)\nto ensure the implementation of the operational plans referred to in Articles 3a and 8e.\u2019;\n(26)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 26a\nFundamental Rights Strategy\n1. The Agency shall draw up and further develop and implement its Fundamental Rights Strategy. The Agency shall put in place an effective mechanism to monitor the respect for fundamental rights in all the activities of the Agency.\n2. A Consultative Forum shall be established by the Agency to assist the Executive Director and the Management Board in fundamental rights matters. The Agency shall invite the European Asylum Support Office, the Fundamental Rights Agency, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other relevant organisations to participate in the Consultative Forum. On a proposal by the Executive Director, the Management Board shall decide on the composition and the working methods of the Consultative Forum and the modalities of the transmission of information to the Consultative Forum.\nThe Consultative Forum shall be consulted on the further development and implementation of the Fundamental Rights Strategy, Code of Conduct and common core curricula.\nThe Consultative Forum shall prepare an annual report of its activities. That report shall be made publicly available.\n3. A Fundamental Rights Officer shall be designated by the Management Board and shall have the necessary qualifications and experience in the field of fundamental rights. He/she shall be independent in the performance of his/her duties as a Fundamental Rights Officer and shall report directly to the Management Board and the Consultative Forum. He/she shall report on a regular basis and as such contribute to the mechanism for monitoring fundamental rights.\n4. The Fundamental Rights Officer and the Consultative Forum shall have access to all information concerning respect for fundamental rights, in relation to all the activities of the Agency.\u2019;\n(27)\nin Article 33, the following paragraphs are inserted:\n\u20182a. The first evaluation following the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 1168/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (25) shall also analyse the needs for further increased coordination of the management of the external borders of the Member States, including the feasibility of the creation of a European system of border guards.\n2b. The evaluation shall include a specific analysis on the way the Charter of Fundamental Rights was complied with in the application of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["6", "3", "57", "34", "28", "10", "0", "73", "71", "46", "31", "21", "92", "26", "68", "96", "77", "43", "51", "99", "56", "74", "25", "88", "35", "17", "19", "2", "67", "69", "No Label", "1", "4", "7", "13"], "gold": ["1", "4", "7", "13"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 March 2011\nauthorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection\n(2011/167/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 329(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the requests made by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the Union shall establish an internal market, shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and shall promote scientific and technological advance. The creation of the legal conditions enabling undertakings to adapt their activities in manufacturing and distributing products across national borders and providing companies with more choice and opportunities contributes to attaining this objective. A unitary patent which provides uniform effects throughout the Union should feature amongst the legal instruments which undertakings have at their disposal.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 118 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market, measures should include the creation of uniform patent protection throughout the Union and the establishment of centralised Union-wide authorisation, coordination and supervision arrangements.\n(3)\nOn 5 July 2000, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community patent for the creation of a unitary patent providing uniform protection throughout the Union. On 30 June 2010, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent (hereinafter \u2018the proposed Regulation on the translation arrangements\u2019) providing for the translation arrangements applicable to the European Union patent.\n(4)\nAt the Council meeting on 10 November 2010, it was recorded that there was no unanimity to go ahead with the proposed Regulation on the translation arrangements. It was confirmed on 10 December 2010 that insurmountable difficulties existed, making unanimity impossible at the time and in the foreseeable future. Since the agreement on the proposed Regulation on the translation arrangements is necessary for a final agreement on unitary patent protection in the Union, it is established that the objective to create unitary patent protection for the Union could not be attained within a reasonable period by applying the relevant provisions of the Treaties.\n(5)\nIn these circumstances, 12 Member States, namely Denmark, Germany, Estonia, France, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, addressed requests to the Commission by letters dated 7, 8 and 13 December 2010 indicating that they wished to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection on the basis of the existing proposals supported by these Member States during the negotiations and that the Commission should submit a proposal to the Council to that end. The requests were confirmed at the meeting of the Council on 10 December 2010. In the meantime, 13 more Member States, namely Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Latvia, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia have written to the Commission indicating that they also wish to participate in the envisaged enhanced cooperation. In total, 25 Member States have requested enhanced cooperation.\n(6)\nEnhanced cooperation should provide the necessary legal framework for the creation of unitary patent protection in participating Member States and ensure the possibility for undertakings throughout the Union to improve their competitiveness by having the choice of seeking uniform patent protection in participating Member States, as well as contributing to scientific and technological advance.\n(7)\nEnhanced cooperation should aim at creating a unitary patent, providing uniform protection throughout the territories of the participating Member States, which would be granted in respect of all those Member States by the European Patent Office (EPO). As a necessary part of the unitary patent, the applicable translation arrangements should be simple and cost-effective and correspond to those provided for in the proposal for a Council Regulation on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent, presented by the Commission on 30 June 2010, combined with the elements of compromise proposed by the Presidency in November 2010 that had wide support in Council. The translation arrangements would maintain the possibility of filing patent applications in any language of the Union at the EPO, and would ensure compensation of the costs related to the translation of applications filed in languages other than an official language of the EPO. The patent having unitary effect should be granted only in one of the official languages of the EPO as provided for in the Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention). No further translations would be required without prejudice to transitional arrangements which would be proportionate and require additional translations on a temporary basis, without legal effect and purely for information purposes. In any case, transitional arrangements would terminate when high quality machine translations are made available, subject to an objective evaluation of their quality. In case of a dispute, mandatory translation obligations should apply to the patent proprietor.\n(8)\nThe conditions laid down in Article 20 TEU and in Articles 326 and 329 TFEU are fulfilled.\n(9)\nThe area within which enhanced cooperation would take place, the establishment of measures for the creation of a unitary patent providing protection throughout the Union and the setting-up of centralised Union-wide authorisation, coordination and supervision arrangements, is identified by Article 118 TFEU as one of the areas covered by the Treaties.\n(10)\nIt was recorded at the Council meeting on 10 November 2010 and confirmed on 10 December 2010 that the objective to establish unitary patent protection within the Union cannot be attained within a reasonable period by the Union as a whole, thus fulfilling the requirement in Article 20(2) TEU that enhanced cooperation be adopted only as a last resort.\n(11)\nEnhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection aims at fostering scientific and technological advance and the functioning of the internal market. The creation of unitary patent protection for a group of Member States would improve the level of patent protection by providing the possibility to obtain uniform patent protection throughout the territories of the participating Member States and eliminate the costs and complexity for those territories. Thus, it furthers the objectives of the Union, protects its interests and reinforces its integration process in accordance with Article 20(1) TEU.\n(12)\nThe creation of unitary patent protection is not included in the list of areas of exclusive competence of the Union set out in Article 3(1) TFEU. The legal basis for the creation of European intellectual property rights is Article 118 TFEU, which falls within Chapter 3 (Approximation of Laws) of Title VII (Common Rules on Competition, Taxation and Approximation of Laws), and makes a specific reference to the establishment and functioning of the internal market, which is one of the shared competences of the Union according to Article 4 TFEU. The creation of unitary patent protection, including applicable translation arrangements, therefore falls within the framework of the Union\u2019s non-exclusive competence.\n(13)\nEnhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection complies with the Treaties and Union law, and does not undermine the internal market or economic, social or territorial cohesion. It does not constitute a barrier to, or discrimination in, trade between Member States and does not distort competition between them.\n(14)\nEnhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection respects the competences, rights and obligations of non-participating Member States. The possibility of obtaining unitary patent protection on the territories of the Member States participating does not affect the availability or the conditions of patent protection on the territories of non-participating Member States. Moreover, undertakings from non-participating Member States should have the possibility to obtain unitary patent protection on the territories of the participating Member States under the same conditions as undertakings from participating Member States. Existing rules of non-participating Member States determining the conditions of obtaining patent protection on their territory remain unaffected.\n(15)\nIn particular, enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection would comply with Union law on patents since enhanced cooperation would respect pre-existing acquis.\n(16)\nSubject to compliance with any conditions of participation laid down in this Decision, enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection is open at any time to all Member States willing to comply with the acts already adopted within this framework in accordance with Article 328 TFEU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are hereby authorised to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, by applying the relevant provisions of the Treaties.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 March 2011.", "references": ["64", "39", "24", "36", "93", "68", "47", "15", "52", "32", "1", "16", "81", "35", "75", "67", "87", "49", "86", "11", "37", "82", "79", "99", "53", "54", "2", "85", "55", "5", "No Label", "8", "9", "77"], "gold": ["8", "9", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 739/2012\nof 14 August 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 732/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 August 2012.", "references": ["8", "99", "54", "57", "77", "9", "3", "49", "44", "76", "64", "5", "52", "90", "2", "26", "91", "12", "47", "13", "78", "16", "51", "86", "31", "11", "1", "36", "41", "20", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 350/2011\nof 11 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 as regards the placing on the market requirements for consignments of Pacific oysters intended for Member States or parts thereof with national measures regarding ostreid herpes virus 1 \u03bc\u03bdar (OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar) approved by Decision 2010/221/EU\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (1), and in particular Article 61(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 of 12 December 2008 implementing Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards conditions and certification requirements for the placing on the market and the import into the Community of aquaculture animals and products thereof and laying down a list of vector species (2) lays down placing on the market requirements, including animal health certification requirements, for movements of aquaculture animals into areas covered by national measures approved by Commission Decision 2010/221/EU of 15 April 2010 approving national measures for limiting the impact of certain diseases in aquaculture animals and wild aquatic animals in accordance with Article 43 of Council Directive 2006/88/EC (3).\n(2)\nSince 2008, increased mortality in Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) has occurred in several areas in Ireland, France and the United Kingdom. The epidemiological investigations undertaken in 2009 suggested that a newly described strain of ostreid herpesvirus-1 (OsHV-1), namely OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar, played a major role in the increased mortality.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 175/2010 of 2 March 2010 implementing Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards measures to control increased mortality in oysters of the species Crassostrea gigas in connection with the detection of Ostreid herpesvirus 1 \u03bc\u03bdar (OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar) (4) was adopted with the aim of preventing the further spread of OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar. It introduced measures to control the spread of that disease and it applies until 30 April 2011.\n(4)\nDecision 2010/221/EU, as recently amended by Commission Decision 2011/187/EU (5), allows the Member States listed in Annex III thereto to impose placing on the market requirements on the movement of Pacific oysters into areas covered by approved surveillance programmes, in order to prevent the introduction of OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar into those areas. In the interests of clarity and simplification of Union legislation, the respective placing on the market requirements should be laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008.\n(5)\nIn order to prevent the introduction of OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar into Member States or parts thereof listed in Annex III to Decision 2010/221/EU, consignments of Pacific oysters intended for farming or relaying areas, and for dispatch centres, purification centres or similar businesses before human consumption, introduced into such Member States or parts thereof, should originate from an area with an equivalent health status.\n(6)\nTo ensure that those requirements are complied with, such consignments should be accompanied by an animal health certificate providing the necessary attestations.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1251/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate to provide for transitional measures to allow Member States and the industry to take the necessary measures to comply with the requirements laid down in this Regulation.\n(9)\nTo avoid the further spread of OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar, this Regulation should apply immediately following the date of expiry of Regulation (EU) No 175/2010.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1251/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, point (b)(ii) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(ii)\naquaculture animals intended for farming, relaying areas, put and take fisheries, open ornamental facilities and restocking, and for dispatch centres, purification centres and similar businesses before human consumption in Member States and parts thereof with national measures approved by Commission Decision 2010/221/EU (6);\n(2)\nin Article 8a(1)(a), the following point (iii) is added:\n\u2018(iii)\nAnnex III to Decision 2010/221/EU as subject to a surveillance programme for one or more of the diseases listed in the first column of that table;\u2019;\n(3)\nthe following Article 8b is inserted:\n\u2018Article 8b\nLive molluscs intended for dispatch centres, purification centres or similar businesses before human consumption in Member States and parts thereof with national measures approved by Decision 2010/221/EU\n1. Consignments of live molluscs intended for dispatch centres, purification centres or similar businesses before human consumption shall be accompanied by an animal health certificate completed in accordance with the model set out in Part B of Annex II and the explanatory notes set out in Annex V, where the animals:\n(a)\nare introduced into Member States or parts thereof listed in the second and fourth column of the table set out in Annex III to Decision 2010/221/EU as subject to a surveillance programme for one or more of the diseases listed in the first column of that table;\n(b)\nare of species which are listed in Part C of Annex II as species susceptible to the disease(s), for which a surveillance programme applies in accordance with Decision 2010/221/EU, as referred to in point (a).\n2. Consignments of live molluscs referred to in paragraph 1 shall comply with the animal health requirements set out in the model animal health certificate and explanatory notes as referred to in that paragraph.\n3. This Article shall not apply to consignments intended for dispatch centres, purification centres or similar businesses which are equipped with an effluent treatment system validated by the competent authority that:\n(a)\ninactivates enveloped viruses; or\n(b)\nreduces the risk of transmitting diseases to the natural waters to an acceptable level.\u2019;\n(4)\nAnnex II is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\n1. For a transitional period until 15 May 2011, consignments of Pacific oysters accompanied by animal health certificates issued in accordance with Part A or B of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 before the amendments introduced by the present Regulation, and an animal health certificate issued in accordance with Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 175/2010 may be placed on the market provided that they reach their place of final destination before that date.\n2. For a transitional period until 1 July 2012, consignments of aquaculture animals accompanied by animal health certificates issued in accordance with Part A or B of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 before the amendments introduced by the present Regulation, may continue to be placed on the market provided that the animal health attestations as regards OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar set out in Part II of those certificates are not applicable and they reach their place of final destination before that date.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["57", "19", "85", "84", "0", "16", "59", "60", "42", "32", "71", "20", "90", "95", "23", "4", "28", "27", "50", "26", "37", "97", "29", "55", "70", "69", "63", "11", "93", "14", "No Label", "21", "38", "66", "67"], "gold": ["21", "38", "66", "67"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 705/2012\nof 1 August 2012\nimplementing Article 11(4) of Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 of 1 August 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 August 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 753/2011.\n(2)\nOn 19 July 2012, the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 30 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1988 (2011) deleted two persons from the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entries for the persons appearing in the Annex to this Regulation are deleted from the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 753/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 August 2012.", "references": ["28", "31", "10", "99", "50", "12", "43", "34", "76", "62", "97", "94", "21", "39", "78", "83", "57", "14", "52", "88", "35", "69", "2", "71", "53", "24", "15", "79", "17", "90", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1345/2011\nof 19 December 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar (1), and in particular Article 18(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 February 2008, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2011/859/CFSP of 19 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/232/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar (2), the information relating to one entity on the list in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 should be updated.\n(3)\nAnnex V to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 should be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008, the entry for Mayar (H.K) Ltd shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Mayar India Ltd (Yangon Branch)\n37, Rm (703/4), Level (7), Alanpya Pagoda Rd, La Pyayt Wun Plaza, Dagon, Yangon.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["28", "82", "24", "78", "52", "15", "84", "66", "6", "74", "12", "49", "53", "57", "35", "86", "46", "91", "73", "4", "81", "31", "64", "94", "17", "51", "9", "40", "41", "27", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 39/2011\nof 19 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 January 2011.", "references": ["49", "58", "93", "70", "44", "0", "13", "80", "6", "15", "22", "65", "48", "10", "4", "60", "39", "9", "32", "47", "26", "75", "41", "43", "19", "52", "7", "99", "59", "16", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1017/2010\nof 10 November 2010\nopening the sale on the internal market of cereals held by the intervention agencies of the Member States\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (2) provides that cereals held by the intervention agencies are to be sold by invitation to tender.\n(2)\nThe Member States have intervention stocks of common wheat and barley. To meet market needs, these stocks of cereals should be made available on the internal market. To this end, standing invitations to tender should be opened for the resale on the internal market of cereals held by the intervention agencies of the Member States. Each sale should be considered to constitute a separate invitation to tender.\n(3)\nTo take account of the situation on the internal market, provision should be made for the Commission to manage this invitation to tender. In addition, provision must be made for an award coefficient for tenders offering the minimum selling price.\n(4)\nTo ensure sound management of the system, the conditions and deadlines for transmission of the information required by the Commission should be laid down.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nA tendering procedure shall be opened for the resale of intervention stocks of cereals on the internal market, in accordance with the provisions of Title III of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\nThe maximum quantities available per Member State are listed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nDates of submission\n1. The closing date for the submission of tenders for the first partial invitation to tender shall be 11:00 (Brussels time) on 24 November 2010.\nThe deadline for the submission of tenders under subsequent partial invitations to tender shall be on the following days at 11:00 (Brussels time):\n-\n8 and 15 December 2010,\n-\n12 and 26 January 2011,\n-\n9 and 23 February 2011,\n-\n9 and 23 March 2011,\n-\n13 and 27 April 2011,\n-\n11 and 25 May 2011,\n-\n15 and 29 June 2011.\n2. Tenders shall be submitted to the intervention agencies approved by the Member States, the list of which is published on the internet (3).\nArticle 3\nNotification to the Commission\nThe notification provided for in Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 shall be made by 16:00 (Brussels time), on the closing date for submission of tenders referred to in Article 2 of this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nDecisions on the basis of tenders\nIn accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 the Commission shall fix, for each cereal concerned and by Member State, the minimum selling price, or decide to take no action in respect of the tenders received, in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2010.", "references": ["69", "82", "61", "86", "87", "55", "9", "11", "38", "90", "19", "32", "5", "53", "63", "84", "60", "59", "95", "13", "17", "75", "65", "30", "0", "15", "99", "77", "4", "48", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 November 2010\nconcerning a questionnaire for Member States reports on the implementation of Council Directive 1999/13/EC on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations during the period 2011-2013\n(notified under document C(2010) 7591)\n(2010/681/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations (1), and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 on standardising and rationalising reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 11(1) of Directive 1999/13/EC, Member States are obliged to draw up reports on the implementation of that Directive on the basis of a questionnaire or outline drafted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 6 of Directive 91/692/EEC.\n(2)\nMember States have drawn up reports on the implementation of that Directive for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2004 according to Commission Decision 2002/529/EC of 27 June 2002 concerning a questionnaire for Member States reports on the implementation of Directive 1999/13/EC on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations (3).\n(3)\nMember States have drawn up reports on the implementation of that Directive for the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2007 according to Commission Decision 2006/534/EC of 20 July 2006 concerning a questionnaire for Member States reports on the implementation of Directive 1999/13/EC during the period 2005-2007 (4).\n(4)\nMember States are obliged to report on the implementation of that Directive for the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2010 according to Commission Decision 2007/531/EC of 26 July 2007 concerning a questionnaire for Member States reports on the implementation of Council Directive 1999/13/EC on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations during the period 2008-2010 (5) by 30 September 2011 at the latest.\n(5)\nThe fourth report should cover the period 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2013.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 91/692/EEC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Member States shall use the questionnaire set out in the Annex to this Decision for the purposes of drawing up the report, covering the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2013, to be submitted to the Commission pursuant to Article 11(1) of Directive 1999/13/EC.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2010.", "references": ["57", "54", "84", "16", "73", "76", "93", "71", "59", "86", "33", "81", "64", "70", "56", "0", "43", "53", "62", "32", "47", "17", "21", "55", "61", "23", "19", "77", "27", "63", "No Label", "58", "60", "82", "83"], "gold": ["58", "60", "82", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1153/2010\nof 8 December 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 175/2010 by prolonging the period of application of measures to control increased mortality in Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (1), and in particular Articles 41(3) and 61(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 175/2010 of 2 March 2010 implementing Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards measures to control increased mortality in oysters of the species Crassostrea gigas in connection with the detection of Ostreid herpesvirus-1 \u03bcvar (OsHV-1 \u03bcvar) (2) was adopted to contain the spread of a disease potentially caused by a viral infection in Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) in France, Ireland and the Channel Islands.\n(2)\nAs it was unclear whether that virus really caused increased mortality in Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas), those measures were adopted on a temporary basis until 31 December 2010.\n(3)\nIncreased mortality in Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) in connection with the detection of OsHV-1 \u03bcvar has continued to occur in 2010.\n(4)\nReports on experience gained by the Member States with programmes for the early detection of OsHV-1 \u03bcvar, as well as an opinion of the European Food Safety Authority on the causes will only become available in autumn 2010 and they will need to be evaluated before the measures adopted pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 175/2010 can be reconsidered.\n(5)\nConsequently, the period of application of Regulation (EU) No 175/2010 should be extended until 30 April 2011. That Regulation should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn the second paragraph of Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 175/2010, the date \u201831 December 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u201830 April 2011\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2010.", "references": ["43", "55", "64", "69", "42", "63", "52", "10", "25", "70", "78", "13", "96", "58", "95", "81", "16", "31", "37", "29", "84", "8", "83", "93", "32", "41", "40", "56", "4", "0", "No Label", "19", "21", "23", "38", "66", "67"], "gold": ["19", "21", "23", "38", "66", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 180/2011\nof 24 February 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 164/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2011.", "references": ["69", "28", "27", "8", "80", "97", "53", "31", "2", "70", "99", "38", "29", "21", "44", "86", "95", "49", "18", "73", "11", "77", "39", "46", "85", "24", "83", "79", "37", "59", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 May 2011\nauthorising the Republic of Lithuania to apply a measure derogating from Article 287 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(2011/335/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) (the VAT Directive), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter registered with the Secretariat General of the Commission on 19 November 2010, Lithuania requested authorisation for a measure derogating from Article 287(11) of the VAT Directive in order to exempt taxable persons whose annual turnover is no higher than EUR 45 000 (the measure). The measure would release those taxable persons from certain or all of the value added tax (VAT) obligations referred to in Chapters 2 to 6 of Title XI of the VAT Directive.\n(2)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 395(2) of the VAT Directive, the Commission informed the other Member States by letter dated 21 January 2011 of the request made by Lithuania. By letter dated 25 January 2011, the Commission notified Lithuania that it had all the information necessary to consider the request.\n(3)\nA special scheme for small enterprises is an option which is already available to Member States under Title XII of the VAT Directive. The measure derogates from Title XII of the VAT Directive only in so far as the taxable person\u2019s annual turnover threshold for the special scheme is higher than that currently allowed for Lithuania under Article 287(11) of the VAT Directive, which is EUR 29 000.\n(4)\nA higher threshold for the special scheme is a simplification measure as it may significantly reduce the VAT obligations of the smallest businesses, whilst that special scheme is optional for taxable persons and allows businesses to opt for the normal VAT arrangements.\n(5)\nIn its proposal for a Directive simplifying valued added tax obligations of 29 October 2004 (2), the Commission included provisions aimed at allowing Member States to set the annual turnover ceiling for the VAT exemption scheme at up to EUR 100 000 or the equivalent in national currency, with the possibility of updating this amount each year. The request submitted by Lithuania is in line with this proposal.\n(6)\nThe derogation will have no impact on the Union\u2019s own resources accruing from VAT and will only have a negligible effect on the overall amount of VAT revenue of Lithuania collected at the stage of final consumption,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 287(11) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Republic of Lithuania is authorised to exempt from VAT taxable persons whose annual turnover is no higher than the equivalent in national currency of EUR 45 000 at the conversion rate on the day of its accession to the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012 until the date of entry into force of a Directive amending the amounts of the annual turnover ceilings below which taxable persons may qualify for VAT exemption or until 31 December 2014, whichever date is earlier.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Lithuania.\nDone at Brussels, 30 May 2011.", "references": ["17", "55", "71", "63", "18", "94", "51", "11", "75", "90", "59", "95", "96", "6", "23", "46", "24", "98", "49", "0", "28", "61", "15", "64", "36", "86", "41", "32", "3", "69", "No Label", "8", "34", "45", "91"], "gold": ["8", "34", "45", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 578/2010\nof 29 June 2010\non the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds for certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 of 30 June 2005 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2) has been substantially amended several times. Since further amendments are necessary, it should be replaced.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (3) provides that, to the extent required to allow certain agricultural products to be exported in the form of certain processed goods not listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the basis of world market quotations or prices for such products, the difference between such quotations or prices and prices in the Union may be covered by an export refund. The granting of refunds for all those agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty should therefore be subject to common rules.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 relating to the granting of export refunds, such refunds should not be granted for goods from third countries used in the manufacture of goods which are exported after having been in free circulation in the Union.\n(4)\nExport refunds should be paid for goods which are obtained directly from basic products, from products obtained from the processing of basic products and from products assimilated to either of these categories. The method for determining the amount of the export refund in each of those cases should be established.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (4) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products (5) apply in general to goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty. It is therefore necessary to specify the manner in which certain provisions of those Regulations apply.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 of 10 November 2006 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 as regards the fixing and granting of adjusted refunds in respect of cereals exported in the form of certain spirit drinks (6), the rate of the export refund is to be that applicable on the day on which the cereals are placed under customs control for the manufacture of spirit drinks. The placing of cereals under customs control for the production of the spirit drinks referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 should therefore be deemed to be equivalent to export for the purpose of granting export refunds.\n(7)\nSpirit drinks are considered less sensitive to the price of the agricultural products used in their manufacture than other goods. However, Protocol 19 of the Act of Accession of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark provides that the necessary measures must be decided to facilitate the use of Union cereals in the manufacture of spirit drinks obtained from cereals.\n(8)\nMany goods manufactured by an undertaking under clearly defined technical conditions and having constant characteristics and quality follow a regular export pattern. To ease export formalities, a simplified procedure should be adopted for such goods whereby the manufacturer communicates to the competent authorities such information as the latter consider necessary concerning the conditions of manufacture of the goods. Where the quantities of agricultural products actually used in the manufacture of the exported goods are registered with the competent authorities, provision should be included for annual confirmation of such registration in order to reduce the risks associated with failure to communicate changes in those quantities.\n(9)\nMany agricultural products are subject to natural and seasonal variability. The agricultural product content of exported goods may consequently vary. The amount of the refund should therefore be determined on the basis of the quantities of agricultural products actually used in the manufacture of the exported goods. However, for certain goods of a simple and relatively constant composition, the amount of the refund should, for ease of administration, be determined on the basis of fixed quantities of agricultural products.\n(10)\nIn order to qualify for a refund, the agricultural products used and in particular the goods manufactured from such products must be exported. Any exception to that rule should be interpreted restrictively. However, during the process of manufacturing the goods, producers may incur losses of raw materials for which Union prices have nevertheless been paid while the losses incurred by producers established outside the Union are limited to world market prices. In addition, in the process of manufacturing, certain by-products are obtained which differ markedly in value from the principal products. In some instances, these by-products can be used only as animal feed. Therefore, it is necessary to lay down common rules for determining the concept of the quantity of products actually used in the process of manufacturing the exported goods.\n(11)\nFor the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009, it is necessary to provide that the refunds for basic products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I be fixed for the same period as that for refunds for agricultural products exported in the unprocessed state. However, it is also necessary to provide for a possibility to derogate from that rule in circumstances of market disturbance to be determined in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009.\n(12)\nWhen fixing the rate of refund for basic products or assimilated products, account should be taken of aids or other measures having similar effect which are applicable in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(13)\nPotato starch should be assimilated to maize starch for the purposes of determining export refunds. However, it should be possible to fix a specific refund rate for potato starch in market situations where its price is significantly lower than that of maize starch.\n(14)\nIn accordance with Article 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, refunds granted for exports of agricultural products incorporated in goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty may not exceed the refunds that would be payable on those products when exported in the unprocessed state. That should be taken into account when rates of refund are fixed and assimilation rules are established.\n(15)\nCertain goods having similar characteristics may have been obtained by various techniques from different base materials. Exporters should be required to identify the nature of the base materials and to make certain declarations in respect of the manufacturing process where such information is necessary to determine entitlement to a refund or the appropriate refund rate to apply.\n(16)\nIt is appropriate when calculating the quantities of agricultural products actually used to have regard to the dry matter content in the case of starches and certain glucose and maltodextrin syrups.\n(17)\nWhere the world trade situation, the specific requirements of certain markets or international trade agreements so require, it should be possible to differentiate the refund for certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty according to destination.\n(18)\nIn view of the management of the amounts of refunds which may be granted during a budget year on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, different rates for exports should be permitted to be fixed with or without advance fixing of the rate of refund on the basis of developments in Union and world markets.\n(19)\nThe amount of refunds that may be granted in any budget year is limited in accordance with the international commitments entered into by the Union. It should be made possible to export goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty under conditions which are known in advance. In particular, it should be possible that operators have an assurance that such exports are eligible for a refund compatible with the commitments of the Union. Where such an assurance can no longer be given, exporters should be informed sufficiently in advance. The issue of refund certificates makes it possible to follow up on refund applications and guarantee to their holders that they will be able to benefit from a refund up to the amount for which the certificate is issued, provided that they comply with the other conditions for refund laid down by Union rules.\n(20)\nManagement measures should be laid down for the system of refund certificates. In particular, provision should be made for a reduction coefficient to be applied where applications for refund certificates exceed the available amounts. In certain circumstances, provision should be made for the issue of refund certificates to be suspended.\n(21)\nRefund certificates serve to ensure compliance with the international commitments entered into by the Union. They also make it possible to determine in advance the refund which can be granted for agricultural products used in the manufacture of goods exported to third countries. This purpose differs, in some respects, from the objectives of export licences issued for basic products exported in the unprocessed state which are subject to international commitments involving quantitative restrictions. It is therefore necessary to specify which general provisions applicable to agricultural licences and certificates, currently laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (7) should not apply to refund certificates.\n(22)\nFor the most part, refund rates are fixed or modified on Thursdays. It is necessary to reduce the risk of applications for advance fixing for products submitted for speculative reasons. Accordingly, where an application for advance fixing is submitted on a Thursday, the application should be deemed to have been submitted on the following working day.\n(23)\nIn order to facilitate the operation of the system of export refunds by Member States, refund rates for the different basic products incorporated in goods not covered by Annex I should be simultaneously fixed in advance.\n(24)\nApplications received for certificates may be for amounts greater than can be granted. The budget year should therefore be divided into periods so that certificates can be made available both to operators who export at the end of the budget year and to those who export at the beginning of the budget year. Where appropriate, a reduction coefficient should be applied to all amounts requested during a particular period.\n(25)\nIn cases where the total amount of refunds applied for in respect of a particular tranche is less than the amount available for that tranche, operators should be permitted to submit applications for refund certificates on a weekly basis in respect of any remaining amount available for that tranche.\n(26)\nIt is necessary to specify how certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 relating to certificates, fixing the export refund in advance, applied for in connection with an invitation to tender issued in an importing third country, should apply to refund certificates.\n(27)\nConditions should be laid down for the release of the security which is lodged in respect of refund certificates. Those conditions should include the obligations which are considered primary requirements, against which security is lodged, and the evidence which needs to be produced to demonstrate compliance with those obligations.\n(28)\nMost exporters receive less than EUR 100 000 a year in refunds. Taken together, those exports are of minor economic importance and account for only a small part of the total amount of refunds granted for agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty. In those cases, it should therefore be possible to exempt small exporters from the requirement to present a certificate. In the interest of simplification, they should, in certain circumstances, be entitled to use refund certificates without losing the status of small exporter. However, in order to prevent misuse, it is necessary to limit application of that exemption to the Member State in which the small exporter is established.\n(29)\nMonitoring arrangements should be established, based on the principle that the exporter should declare the quantities of products used to manufacture the exported goods to the competent authorities each time goods are exported. The competent authorities should take any measure they consider necessary to verify the accuracy of such declarations.\n(30)\nThe authorities responsible for checking the exporter\u2019s declaration may not possess sufficient evidence to enable them to accept the declaration of the quantities used, even if it is based on a chemical analysis. Such situations are particularly likely to arise when the goods to be exported have been manufactured in a Member State other than the exporting Member State. Therefore, the competent authorities of the exporting Member State should be able, if necessary, to obtain directly from the competent authorities of the other Member States all the information which the latter authorities are able to obtain concerning the conditions of manufacture of the goods.\n(31)\nIn consultation with the competent authorities of the Member State in which the goods are manufactured, operators should be permitted to make a simplified declaration of the products used, in the form of aggregated quantities of those products, provided they keep a detailed record of the products used and make it available to those authorities.\n(32)\nIt is not always possible for the exporter to know the precise quantities of agricultural products used in respect of which he can claim a refund, particularly if he is not the manufacturer. Therefore, the exporter is not always able to declare such quantities. It is therefore necessary to provide an alternative method for calculating the refund which the person concerned may ask to be applied, restricted to certain goods, based on the chemical analysis of those goods, and using a table created for that purpose.\n(33)\nIn accordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 no refund is to be granted on products that are not of sound and fair marketable quality on the day of acceptance of the export declaration. In order to ensure that this rule is uniformly applied, it should be clarified that for a refund to be granted on certain animal products covered by Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (8) and by Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (9) and that are included in Annex II to this Regulation, the animal products concerned should be prepared in accordance with the requirements of those Regulations and display the required health mark.\n(34)\nIt is essential to enable the Commission to monitor any measures adopted concerning export refunds granted. Therefore, the competent authorities of Member States should transmit certain statistical information to the Commission. The format and scope of that information should be specified.\n(35)\nIn accordance with Article 12(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009, ingredients other than sugar products referred to in point (iii) of Article 162(1)(a) and point (b) of Article 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for which an export refund is granted must be of Union origin. The measures needed to ensure compliance with this requirement should therefore be laid down.\n(36)\nThe volume of applications in respect of which refunds are granted in accordance with this Regulation is high. Most goods for which those applications are submitted are manufactured under clearly defined technical conditions, have constant characteristics and quality, follow regular export patterns and have manufacturing formulas which have been registered and confirmed by the competent authorities. In the light of these special circumstances and with a view to simplifying the administrative work involved in granting export refunds under this Regulation, it is appropriate to give Member States greater flexibility in applying Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 in so far as it relates to the thresholds below which Member States may exempt operators from furnishing the proof required other than the transport document.\n(37)\nIt is appropriate to ensure the uniform application throughout the Union of the provisions on the granting of refunds for goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty. To that end, each Member State should inform the Commission of the monitoring arrangements applied in its territory to the various types of exported goods.\n(38)\nSufficient time should be allowed for the transition from the administrative arrangements for refund certificates under Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 to the administrative arrangements provided for in this Regulation. This Regulation should therefore apply to applications for certificates submitted as of the first date of the first period of submission of budget period 2011 and enter into force on that date.\n(39)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee on horizontal questions concerning trade in processed agricultural products not listed in Annex I to the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT-MATTER AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\n1. This Regulation lays down rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds established pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nIt shall apply to exports of basic products, of products derived from the processing thereof, or of products assimilated to one of those two categories in accordance with Article 3 of this Regulation, where those products are exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty but listed in Parts I to V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and in Annex II to this Regulation.\n2. The export refund referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be granted in respect of goods put into free circulation in accordance with Article 29 of the Treaty and re-exported.\nNo refund shall be granted for such goods where they are exported after processing or when they are incorporated in other goods.\n3. Except in the case of cereals, no refund shall be granted for products used in the manufacture of alcohol contained in the spirituous beverages referred to in Annex II and falling within CN code 2208.\nArticle 2\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018budget period\u2019 means the period from 1 October of one year to 30 September of the following year;\n(b)\n\u2018budget year\u2019 means the period from 16 October of one year to 15 October of the following year;\n(c)\n\u2018basic products\u2019 means products listed in Annex I to this Regulation;\n(d)\n\u2018ingredients\u2019 means basic products, products derived from the processing thereof, or products assimilated to those two categories that are used in the manufacturing of the goods and are listed in points (i), (ii), (iii), (v) and (vii) of Article 162(1)(a) and point (b) of Article 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(e)\n\u2018goods\u2019 means products not covered by Annex I to the Treaty but listed in Parts I to V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and in Annex II to this Regulation;\n(f)\n\u2018the Agreement\u2019 means the Agreement on Agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations;\n(g)\n\u2018food aid\u2019 means food aid operations meeting the conditions laid down in Article 10(4) of the Agreement;\n(h)\n\u2018residues\u2019 means the products of the manufacturing process, of compositions distinctly different from the goods actually exported and which cannot be marketed;\n(i)\n\u2018by-products\u2019 means the products or goods obtained in the course of the manufacturing process, of compositions or characteristics distinct from the goods actually exported and which are capable of being marketed;\n(j)\n\u2018losses\u2019 means the quantities of products or goods resulting from the manufacturing process, from the stage at which agricultural products are used unprocessed in the manufacture, other than the quantities of goods which are actually exported, other than residues and by-products and which cannot be marketed.\n2. For the purposes of points (h), (i) and (j) of paragraph 1, the products obtained in the course of the manufacturing process, of composition distinct from the goods actually exported, sold against a payment representing exclusively the costs incurred for their disposal, shall not be considered as being marketed.\nFor the purposes of point (j) of paragraph 1, the products or goods resulting from the manufacturing process, and which can be disposed of, whether or not against payment, only as animal feed, shall be assimilated to losses.\nArticle 3\n1. Potato starch falling within CN code 1108 13 00 directly produced from potatoes, excluding sub-products, shall be assimilated to a product derived from the processing of maize.\n2. Whey falling within CN codes 0404 10 48 to 0404 10 62 not concentrated, whether or not frozen, shall be assimilated to whey in powder as listed in Annex I, hereinafter \u2018Product Group 1\u2019.\n3. The following products shall be assimilated to milk in powder of a fat content not exceeding 1,5 % as listed in Annex I, hereinafter \u2018Product Group 2\u2019:\n(a)\nmilk and milk products falling within CN codes 0403 10 11, 0403 90 51 and 0404 90 21, not concentrated nor containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, whether or not frozen, of a milk fat content, by weight, not exceeding 0,1 %;\n(b)\nmilk and milk products falling within CN codes 0403 10 11, 0403 90 11 and 0404 90 21, in powder, granules or other solid forms, not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, of a milk fat content, by weight, not exceeding 1,5 %.\n4. The following products shall be assimilated to milk in powder of a fat content of 26 % as listed in Annex I, hereinafter \u2018Product Group 3\u2019:\n(a)\nmilk, cream and milk products falling within CN codes 0403 10 11, 0403 10 13, 0403 90 51, 0403 90 53, 0404 90 21 and 0404 90 23, not concentrated nor containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, whether or not frozen, of a milk fat content, by weight, exceeding 0,1 % but not exceeding 6 %;\n(b)\nmilk, cream and milk products falling within CN codes 0403 10 11, 0403 10 13, 0403 10 19, 0403 90 13, 0403 90 19, 0404 90 23 and 0404 90 29 in powder, granules or other solid forms, not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, of a milk fat content, by weight, exceeding 1,5 % but less than 45 %.\n5. The following products shall be assimilated to Product Group 6:\n(a)\nmilk, cream and milk products falling within CN codes 0403 10 19, 0403 90 59, 0404 90 23 and 0404 90 29, not concentrated nor containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, of a milk fat content, by weight, exceeding 6 %;\n(b)\nmilk, cream and milk products falling within CN codes 0403 10 19, 0403 90 19 and 0404 90 29, in powder, granules or other solid forms, not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, of a milk fat content, by weight, of not less than 45 %;\n(c)\nbutter and other milk fats with a milk fat content, by weight, other than 82 % but not less than 62 %, falling within CN codes 0405 10, 0405 20 90, 0405 90 10, 0405 90 90.\n6. Milk, cream and milk products falling within CN codes 0403 10 11 to 0403 10 19, 0403 90 51 to 0403 90 59 and 0404 90 21 to 0404 90 29, concentrated, other than in powder, granules or other solid forms, not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, shall, so far as the non-fat part of the dry matter content of such a product is concerned, be assimilated to Product Group 2. So far as the milk fat part of such a product is concerned, it shall be assimilated to Product Group 6.\nThe first subparagraph shall also apply to cheese and curd.\n7. Husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20 and semi-milled rice falling within CN codes 1006 30 21 to 1006 30 48 shall be assimilated to wholly-milled rice falling within CN codes 1006 30 61 to 1006 30 98.\n8. Where the following products meet the conditions of eligibility for a refund laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 (10) when exported unprocessed, they shall be assimilated to white sugar falling within CN code 1701 99 10:\n(a)\nraw beet or cane sugar falling within CN code 1701 11 90 or CN code 1701 12 90 and containing, in the dry state, at least 92 % by weight of sucrose determined by the polarimetric method;\n(b)\nsugar falling within CN codes 1701 91 00 or 1701 99 90;\n(c)\nthe products referred to in Part III (c) of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, excluding mixtures obtained partly using products covered by Part I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(d)\nthe products referred to in Part III (d) and (g) of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, excluding mixtures obtained partly using products covered by Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 4\nRegulation (EC) No 612/2009 and Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 shall apply in addition to the provisions of this Regulation except where Article 39(4) and Article 50 of this Regulation provide otherwise.\nCHAPTER II\nEXPORT REFUNDS\nSECTION 1\nMethod of calculation\nArticle 5\n1. The amount of the refund granted for the quantity, determined in accordance with Section 2, of each of the basic products exported in the form of the same type of goods shall be obtained by multiplying that quantity by the rate of the refund for the basic product calculated per unit of weight in accordance with Section 3.\n2. Where, pursuant to Article 15(2), different refund rates are fixed for a particular basic product, a separate amount shall be calculated for each of the quantities of the basic product for which there is a different refund rate.\n3. Where goods are used in the manufacture of the goods exported, the refund rate to be used in calculating the amount applying to each of the basic products, to products derived from the processing thereof, or to products assimilated to one of those two categories in accordance with Article 3 which were used in the manufacture of the goods exported, shall be the rate applicable when the former goods are exported unprocessed.\nSECTION 2\nReference quantity\nArticle 6\nIn respect of goods, the quantity of each of the basic products to serve as a basis for calculating the amount of the refund, hereinafter \u2018the reference quantity\u2019, shall be determined in accordance with Articles 7, 8 and 9, except where reference is made to Annex III or where Article 47(2) applies.\nArticle 7\nIn the case of use of a basic product, unprocessed, or of an assimilated product, the reference quantity shall be the quantity which is actually used in the manufacture of the exported goods, account being taken of the conversion rates set out in Annex VII.\nArticle 8\n1. In cases of use of a product covered by point (a) of Article 1(1) and Part I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 or by point (b) of Article 1(1) and Part II of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the reference quantity shall be the quantity which is actually used in the manufacture of the exported goods, adjusted to correspond to a quantity of the basic product by applying the coefficients set out in Annex V to this Regulation where one of the following applies to the product concerned:\n(a)\nthe product results from the processing of a basic product or of a product assimilated to that basic product;\n(b)\nthe product is assimilated to a product resulting from the processing of a basic product;\n(c)\nthe product results from the processing of a product assimilated to a product resulting from the processing of a basic product.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the reference quantity for grain spirit contained in spirituous beverages falling within CN code 2208, shall be 3,4 kg of barley per % vol. of alcohol derived from cereals per hectolitre of the spirituous beverage exported.\nArticle 9\n1. Subject to Article 11, in the case of use of either of the following products, the reference quantity for each of the basic products shall be equal to the quantity established by the competent authorities in accordance with Article 45:\n(a)\na product, not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, which is derived from the processing of a product referred to in Articles 7 or 8 of this Regulation;\n(b)\na product derived from the mixture or processing of several products referred to in Articles 7 or 8, or of products referred to in point (a) of this subparagraph.\nThe reference quantity shall be determined on the basis of the quantity of the product actually used in the manufacture of the goods exported.\nFor the purpose of calculating that quantity, the conversion rates referred to in Annex VII or, as the case may be, the special rules for calculation, equivalence ratios and coefficients referred to in Article 8 shall apply.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1 the cereal-based spirituous beverages contained in spirituous beverages falling within CN code 2208, the reference quantity shall be 3,4 kg of barley per % vol. of alcohol derived from cereals per hectolitre of the spirituous beverage exported.\nArticle 10\n1. For the purposes of Articles 6 to 9, the products used unprocessed in the manufacture of exported goods shall be considered as actually used.\n2. Where, during one of the stages of manufacture of such goods, a basic product is itself processed into another more elaborate basic product and used at a later stage, only the latter basic product shall be considered as actually used.\n3. The quantities of products actually used, within the meaning of paragraph 1, shall be determined for each of the goods exported.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, in the case of regular exports of goods manufactured by a particular undertaking under clearly defined technical conditions and having constant characteristics and quality, those quantities may, upon agreement with the competent authorities, be determined either from the manufacturing formula for the goods or from the average quantities of product used over a specified period in the manufacture of a given quantity of these goods. The quantities of products thus determined shall remain the basis of calculation so long as there is no change in the conditions under which the goods are manufactured.\nExcept in the case of a formal authorisation given by the competent authority, the quantities of products thus determined shall be confirmed at least once a year.\nArticle 11\n1. In respect of the goods listed in Annex III, the reference quantity in kilograms of basic product per 100 kg of goods shall be that shown in that Annex against each of those goods.\nHowever, in the case of fresh pasta, the quantities of basic products set out in Annex III shall be reduced to an equivalent quantity of dry pasta by multiplying those quantities by the percentage of the dry extract of the pasta and dividing them by 88.\n2. Where the goods listed in Annex III have been manufactured partly from products for which the payment of export refund is covered by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and partly from other products, the reference quantity in respect of those former products shall be determined in accordance with Articles 6 to 10.\nArticle 12\n1. For the purposes of determining the quantities of agricultural products actually used, paragraphs 2 and 3 shall apply.\n2. All agricultural products, used within the meaning of Article 10 and conferring a right to a refund, which disappear during the normal course of the manufacturing process in such forms as steam or smoke or by conversion into non-recoverable powder or ash, shall be eligible for that refund in respect of all of the quantities used.\n3. Any quantity of goods which is not actually exported shall not be eligible for refunds in respect of the quantities of agricultural products actually used.\nIf such goods have the same composition as those actually exported, a pro rata reduction in the quantities of agricultural products actually used in the manufacture of the latter may be applied.\nArticle 13\n1. By way of derogation from Article 12(3), losses of 2 % or less by weight inherent in the manufacture of the goods shall be eligible for refunds.\nThe threshold of 2 % shall be calculated as the proportion of the weight of the dry matter of all raw materials used, after deduction of the quantities referred to in Article 12(2), in relation to the weight of the dry matter of the goods actually exported, or using any other method of calculation appropriate to the conditions of manufacture of the goods.\n2. Where the losses inherent in manufacture of the goods exceed 2 %, the excess loss shall not be eligible for refunds in respect of the quantities of agricultural products actually used. The competent authorities of Member States may, however, accept properly justified higher losses. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the cases in which the competent authorities have accepted higher losses, as well as their reasons for such acceptance.\n3. The quantities of agricultural products actually used incorporated in residues shall be eligible for refunds.\n4. In cases where by-products are obtained, the quantities of agricultural products actually used shall be attributed respectively to the goods exported and to the by-products.\nSECTION 3\nRates of refund\nArticle 14\n1. The rate of refund on the basic products listed in Annex I to this Regulation exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed by the Commission per 100 kg of basic product for the same period as that for the refunds on those products exported in the unprocessed state.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the refund may be fixed according to another timetable determined in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009.\nArticle 15\n1. The rate of the refund shall be determined by the Commission with particular reference to the following:\n(a)\nthe average cost incurred by the processing industries in obtaining supplies of basic products on the Union market and the prices prevailing on the world market;\n(b)\nthe level of the refund for exports of processed agricultural products covered by Annex I to the Treaty which are manufactured under similar conditions;\n(c)\nthe need to ensure equal conditions of competition between industries which use Union products and those which use third country products under inward processing arrangements;\n(d)\non the one hand, the trend in budgetary expenditure and, on the other hand, the trend in market prices for basic products in the Union and on the world market;\n(e)\ncompliance with the limits resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 218 of the Treaty.\n2. In fixing the rates of the refund account shall be taken, where appropriate, of aids or other measures, having equivalent effect, applicable in all Member States to basic products or to assimilated products in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n3. The refunds granted for exports of agricultural products incorporated in goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty may not exceed the refunds that are payable on those products when exported in the unprocessed state.\nArticle 16\n1. In the case of potato starch falling within CN code 1108 13 00, the rate of the refund shall be fixed separately, in maize equivalent, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 by applying the criteria set out in Article 15(1) of this Regulation. The quantities of potato starch used shall be converted into equivalent quantities of maize in accordance with Article 8 of this Regulation.\n2. In the case of D-glucitol (sorbitol) mixtures falling within CN codes 2905 44 and 3824 60, where the party concerned does not draw up the declaration referred to in Article 45 giving the information required under point (d) of Article 48(1) or where the party concerned does not provide satisfactory documentation in support of his declaration, the rate of refund for those mixtures shall be that for the basic product to which the lowest rate of refund applies.\nArticle 17\n1. Refunds for starches falling within CN code 1108 11 00 to 1108 19 90 or products listed in point (d) of Part I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 resulting from the processing of such starches shall be granted only on production of a declaration from the supplier of those products attesting that they have been directly produced from cereals, potatoes or rice, excluding all use of sub-products obtained in the production of other agricultural products or goods.\n2. The declaration referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply, until revocation, to all supplies from the same producer. It shall be verified in accordance with Article 45.\nArticle 18\n1. Where the dry-extract content of potato starch assimilated to maize starch pursuant to Article 3(1) is 80 % or higher, the rate of the export refund shall be that laid down in accordance with Article 14. Where the dry-extract content is less than 80 %, the rate of the refund shall be that laid down in accordance with Article 14 multiplied by 1/80 of the actual dry-extract percentage.\nFor all other starches with a dry-extract content of 87 % or more, the rate of the export refund shall be that laid down in accordance with Article 14. Where the dry-extract content is less than 87 %, the rate of the refund shall be that laid down in accordance with Article 14 multiplied by 1/87 of the actual dry-extract percentage.\n2. Where the dry-extract content of glucose or maltodextrin syrups falling within CN codes 1702 30 90, 1702 40 90, 1702 90 50 or 2106 90 55 is 78 % or more, the rate of the export refund shall be that laid down in accordance with Article 14. Where the dry-extract content of such syrups is less than 78 %, the rate of the refund shall be that laid down in accordance with Article 14, multiplied by 1/78th of the actual dry-extract percentage.\n3. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the dry-extract content of starches shall be determined using the method referred to in Annex IV to Commission Regulation (EC) No 687/2008 (11) and the dry matter content of glucose or maltodextrin syrups shall be determined using method 2 referred to in Annex II to Commission Directive 79/796/EEC (12) or any other suitable method of analysis offering at least the same guarantees.\n4. When the declaration referred to in Article 45 is made, the applicant shall declare the dry-extract content of the starches or glucose or maltodextrin syrups used.\nArticle 19\n1. The refunds for casein falling within CN code 3501 10, on caseinates falling within CN code 3501 90 90 or, on ovalbumin falling within CN codes 3502 11 90 and 3502 19 90 exported in the unaltered state, may be differentiated according to destination where that is required by any of the following:\n(a)\nthe world trade situation with regard to those goods;\n(b)\nspecific requirements of certain markets;\n(c)\ninternational trade agreements.\n2. The rate of refunds for goods falling within CN codes 1902 11 00, 1902 19 and 1902 40 10 may be differentiated according to destination.\n3. The refund may vary according to whether or not it is fixed in advance in accordance with Article 26.\nArticle 20\n1. The rate of the refund shall be that which applies on the day on which the goods are exported, except in the following cases:\n(a)\nan application has been made in accordance with Article 26 for the refund rate to be fixed in advance;\n(b)\nan application has been made in accordance with Article 37(2) and the refund rate has been fixed in advance on the day the application for the refund certificate was submitted.\n2. Where the system of advance fixing of the rate of the refund is applied, the rate in force on the day on which the application for advance fixing is submitted shall apply to goods exported at a later date during the period of validity of the refund certificate as provided for in Article 35(2).\nIn the case of processed cereal and rice products, the rate of the refund shall be adjusted using the same rules as those that apply to the advance fixing of refunds for basic products exported unprocessed, but using the conversion coefficients laid down in Annex V.\n3. Extracts of refund certificates, within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, shall not be the subject of advance fixing independently of the certificates from which they are taken.\nCHAPTER III\nREFUND CERTIFICATES\nSECTION 1\nGeneral provisions\nArticle 21\n1. Member States shall issue to any applicant, regardless of his place of establishment in the Union, refund certificates which are valid throughout the Union.\nThe refund certificates shall guarantee payment of the refund, provided that the conditions set out in Chapter V are met. Those conditions may include advance fixing of the refund rates. Certificates shall be valid in a single budget period only.\n2. The granting of refunds for exports of basic products in the form of goods listed in Annex II to this Regulation or for cereals placed under customs control for the production of spirit drinks referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 shall be conditional on production of a refund certificate issued in accordance with Article 24 of this Regulation.\nThe cereals referred to in the first subparagraph shall be deemed to be exported.\nThe first subparagraph shall not apply to the supplies referred to in the third indent of the second subparagraph of Article 4(1), Articles 33(1), 37(1), 41(1) and 43(1) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009, or to the exports referred to in Chapter IV of this Regulation.\n3. The granting of the refund under the advance fixing system provided for in Article 20(2) shall be conditional on production of a refund certificate showing advance fixing of the refund rates.\nArticle 22\n1. Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 shall apply to the refund certificates referred to in this Regulation.\n2. The provisions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 on the rights and obligations stemming from refund certificates denominated in quantities shall apply mutatis mutandis to the rights and obligations stemming from the refund certificates referred to in this Regulation for amounts denominated in euros, taking into account Annex VI to this Regulation.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, Article 7(2) and (4), Articles 8, 11 and 13, Article 17(1), Articles 20, 23, 31, 32 and 34, Article 35(6) and Articles 41, 45, 46 and 48 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 shall not apply to the refund certificates referred to in this Regulation.\n4. For the purposes of Articles 39 and 40 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, certificates valid until 30 September may not be extended.\nIn such cases, the certificate shall be cancelled for any amounts not applied for due to force majeure and the relevant security shall be released.\nArticle 23\n1. Applications for refund certificates, except those in respect of food aid operations referred to in Article 36, shall be valid only if a security equal to 10 % of the amount applied for has been lodged in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008.\n2. The security shall be released in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 40 of this Regulation.\nArticle 24\n1. The application for a refund certificate and the refund certificate itself shall be based on the form \u2018Export Licence or Advance Fixing Certificate\u2019 set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 and shall indicate the amount in euros.\nThose documents shall be completed in accordance with the instructions set out in Annex VI to this Regulation.\n2. Where the applicant does not have the intention to export from a Member State other than that in which he is applying for the refund certificate, the competent authority may keep the ensuing refund certificate, notably in electronic format. In such cases, the competent authority shall inform the applicant that his refund certificate has been registered and provide him with the information set out on the holder\u2019s copy of the refund certificate, hereinafter \u2018Copy No 1\u2019. The issuing authorities\u2019 copy of the refund certificate, hereinafter \u2018Copy No 2\u2019, shall not be issued.\nThe competent authority shall record all the information from the refund certificates referred to in Sections III and IV of Annex VI and the amounts claimed under the certificate.\nArticle 25\n1. Obligations deriving from certificates shall not be transferable. Rights deriving from certificates may be transferred by their titular holder during the period of their validity, provided that the rights deriving from each certificate or extract thereof are transferred to a single transferee only. Such transfer shall relate to the amounts not yet attributed to the certificate or extract.\n2. Transferees may not further transfer their rights but may transfer them back to the titular holder. Transfers back to the titular holder shall relate to amounts not yet attributed to the certificate or extract. In such cases, one of the entries set out in Annex VIII shall be made by the issuing authority in box 6 of the certificate.\n3. In the event of a request for transfer by the titular holder or in the event of a transfer back to the titular holder by the transferee, the issuing authority or the agency or agencies designated by each Member State shall enter the following on the certificate or, where appropriate, on the extract thereof:\n(a)\nthe name and address of the transferee as indicated in accordance with paragraph 1 or the entry referred to in paragraph 2.\n(b)\nthe date of transfer or transfer back to the titular holder certified by the stamp of the authority or agency.\n4. The transfer or transfer back to the titular holder shall take effect from the date of the entry referred to in point (b) of paragraph 3.\nArticle 26\n1. Applications for advance fixing of the refund rates shall concern all the applicable refund rates.\n2. The application for advance fixing may be submitted either at the time of the application for the refund certificate or at any time from the day on which the refund certificate is granted.\n3. Applications for advance fixing shall be made in accordance with Section II of Annex VI using the form set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008. The advance fixing shall not apply to exports taking place before the date on which the application was submitted.\n4. Applications for advance fixing submitted on a Thursday shall be deemed to have been submitted on the following working day.\nArticle 27\n1. The holder of a refund certificate may apply for an extract of the certificate, drawn up in the form set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008. The application shall contain the information referred to in point 3 of Section II of Annex VI to this Regulation.\nThe amount for which the extract is requested shall be recorded on the original certificate.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, extracts valid throughout the Union may be taken from certificates registered as valid in a single Member State.\nArticle 28\n1. Each exporter shall complete a specific application for payment within the meaning of Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009. It shall be presented to the authority responsible for payment, accompanied by the corresponding certificates, except in the case of registration of the certificates as provided for in Article 24(2) of this Regulation or in the case of exports not covered by refund certificates.\nThe competent authority may consider that the specific application is not the payment documents referred to in Article 46(2) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009.\nThe competent authority may consider the specific application to be the export declaration within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009. In that case, the date of receipt of the specific application by the authority responsible for payment referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article shall be the date on which that authority received the export declaration. In all other cases, the specific application must contain particulars of the export declaration including the reference number of the export declaration.\n2. The authority responsible for payment shall determine the amount requested on the basis of the information contained in the specific application, taking as sole basis the quantity and nature of the basic product(s) exported and the applicable refund rate(s). That data shall be indicated or referred to clearly in the export declaration.\nThe authority responsible for payment shall record that amount on the refund certificate within six months of the date of receipt of the specific application.\nThe certificates shall be attributed on the reverse of Copy No 1. Boxes 28, 29 and 30 shall contain the amount in euros instead of the quantity.\nThe third subparagraph shall apply mutatis mutandis to certificates kept in electronic format.\n3. After attribution, if the refund certificate is not registered as provided for in Article 24(2), Copy No 1 of the certificate shall be returned to the holder or kept by the paying authority at the request of the exporter.\n4. The security retained in respect of the amount for which the refund certificate has been attributed for goods exported may be released or may be transferred to guarantee advance payment of the refund in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009.\nArticle 29\n1. Refund certificates issued for a single budget period may be applied for separately in six tranches. Applications for certificates may be submitted at the latest on:\n(a)\n7 September for certificates for use from 1 October;\n(b)\n7 November for certificates for use from 1 December;\n(c)\n7 January for certificates for use from 1 February;\n(d)\n7 March for certificates for use from 1 April;\n(e)\n7 May for certificates for use from 1 June;\n(f)\n7 July for certificates for use from 1 August.\n2. Operators may submit an application for a refund certificate only in respect of the tranche corresponding to the first closing date, as set out in paragraph 1, following the date of submission.\nArticle 30\nThe deadline for the notification by the Member States to the Commission of applications for certificates shall be the following:\n(a)\n14 September for certificates referred to in point (a) of Article 29(1);\n(b)\n14 November for certificates referred to in point (b) of Article 29(1);\n(c)\n14 January for certificates referred to in point (c) of Article 29(1);\n(d)\n14 March for certificates referred to in point (d) of Article 29(1);\n(e)\n14 May for certificates referred to in point (e) of Article 29(1);\n(f)\n14 July for certificates referred to in point (f) of Article 29(1).\nArticle 31\n1. The total amount in respect of which refund certificates may be issued for each budget period shall be determined in accordance with paragraph 2.\n2. From the figure representing the maximum amount of refunds, as determined in accordance with Article 9(2) of the Agreement, the following elements shall be deducted:\n(a)\nthe amount exceeding the maximum amount and unduly granted during the previous budget year;\n(b)\nthe amount reserved to cover the exports referred to in Chapter IV of this Regulation;\n(c)\nthe amounts in respect of which refund certificates valid during the budget period concerned have been issued.\n3. The amount in respect of which certificates issued, as referred to in Article 41, have been returned shall be added to the figure obtained in accordance with paragraph 2.\n4. Any amount reserved to cover the exports referred to in Chapter IV which remains unused shall be added to the figure obtained in accordance with paragraph 2.\n5. Where there is uncertainty regarding any of the amounts referred to in paragraph 2, that shall be taken into account when determining the final amount.\nArticle 32\nThe total amount in respect of which certificates may be issued for each of the tranches referred to in Article 29 shall be:\n(a)\n30 % of the amount calculated in accordance with Article 31, as determined on 14 September, in the case of the tranche referred to in point (a) of Article 29(1);\n(b)\n27 % of the amount calculated in accordance with Article 31, as determined on 14 November, in the case of the tranche referred to in point (b) of Article 29(1);\n(c)\n32 % of the amount calculated in accordance with Article 31, as determined on 14 January, in the case of the tranche referred to in point (c) of Article 29(1);\n(d)\n44 % of the amount calculated in accordance with Article 31, as determined on 14 March, in the case of the tranche referred to in point (d) of Article 29(1);\n(e)\n67 % of the amount calculated in accordance with Article 31, as determined on 14 May, in the case of the tranche referred to in point (e) of Article 29(1);\n(f)\n100 % of the amount calculated in accordance with Article 31, as determined on 14 July, in the case of the tranche referred to in point (f) of Article 29(1).\nSECTION 2\nApplications for and issue of refund certificates\nArticle 33\n1. Where the total amount requested in the applications received in respect of each of the periods concerned exceeds the maximum amount referred to in Article 31(2), the Commission shall set a reduction coefficient applicable to all applications submitted before the corresponding date referred to in Article 29 so as to comply with the maximum amount referred to in Article 31.\nThe Commission will publish the coefficient in the Official Journal of the European Union within five working days of the dates referred to in Article 30.\n2. Where a reduction coefficient is set by the Commission, certificates shall be issued for the amount requested, multiplied by 1 minus the reduction coefficient set as provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article or in point (a) of Article 34(3).\nHowever, in respect of the tranche referred to in point (f) of Article 29(1), applicants may withdraw their applications within five working days from publication of the coefficient in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n3. Member States shall notify the Commission by 1 August of the amounts represented by the applications for refund certificates withdrawn pursuant to the second subparagraph of paragraph 2.\nArticle 34\n1. Where, after the closing date for the submission of applications for refund certificates in respect of a particular tranche referred to in Article 29(1), no reduction coefficient has been published pursuant to Article 33(1), operators may submit an application for the issue of a refund certificate for any remaining amount available for that tranche not yet applied for.\nThe application shall be submitted in the period up to the next closing date set out in Article 29(1).\n2. Applications submitted in the course of each week shall be notified by Member States to the Commission on the following Monday. The corresponding certificates may be issued from the Wednesday following the notification, unless the Commission issues instructions to the contrary.\n3. Where the total amount for which the applications are received in a particular application week exceeds the remaining amount available referred to in paragraph 1 the Commission shall take one or more of the following measures:\n(a)\nset a reduction coefficient applicable to applications for refund certificates submitted in that particular application week, which have been notified to the Commission and for which refund certificates have not yet been issued;\n(b)\ndirect Member States to reject applications, submitted in that particular application week, which have yet to be notified to the Commission;\n(c)\nsuspend the submission of applications for refund certificates.\n4. Any Regulation adopted pursuant to paragraph 3 shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union within three days of notification of the applications referred to in paragraph 2.\nArticle 35\n1. Refund certificates shall be valid from the date of issue as defined in Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008.\n2. Subject to the second subparagraph, refund certificates shall be valid until the last day of the fifth month following the month in which the application for the certificate was made, or, until the last day of the budget period, whichever is earlier.\nThe refund certificates referred to in Article 36 shall be valid until the last day of the fifth month following the month in which the application for the certificate was made.\n3. If refund rates are fixed in advance in accordance with Article 26, those rates shall remain valid until the last day of the period of validity of the certificate.\nArticle 36\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2298/2001 (13) shall apply to applications for refund certificates and refund certificates issued for export of goods, which are part of an international food aid operation within the meaning of Article 10(4) of the Agreement.\nArticle 37\n1. For the purposes of Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, paragraphs 2 to 11 of this Article shall apply.\n2. From 1 October of each budget period, applications for certificates in connection with an invitation to tender issued in an importing third country, fixing the export refund in advance on the day the application is submitted, may be made in accordance with this Article outside the periods laid down in Articles 29 and 34, where the sum of the amounts corresponding to a single invitation to tender for which one or more applications for refund certificates have been made by one or more exporters and for which no certificate has yet been issued does not exceed EUR 2 million.\nHowever, that limit may be increased to EUR 4 million where none of the reduction coefficients published since the beginning of the budget period and referred to in Article 33(1) or in Article 34(3) exceeds 50 %.\n3. The amount in respect of which the certificate or certificates are applied for may not exceed the quantity specified in the invitation to tender multiplied by the corresponding refund rate(s), fixed in advance on the day the application is submitted. No account shall be taken of tolerances or options provided for in the invitation to tender.\n4. In addition to the particulars referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 47(3), of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, Member States shall immediately inform the Commission of the amounts in respect of which each certificate is applied for, and the date and time of submission of each application.\n5. Where the amounts notified under paragraph 4, when added to the amounts in respect of which one or more certificates have already been applied for as part of the same invitation to tender, exceed the applicable limit referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall inform the Member States within two working days of the receipt of the additional information referred to in paragraph 4 that the refund certificate shall not be issued to the operator.\n6. The Commission may suspend the application of paragraph 2 where the cumulative sum of the amounts of refund certificates which may be issued in accordance with Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 exceeds EUR 4 million in a single budget period. Decisions to suspend shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n7. By way of derogation from Article 35(1) and (2) of this Regulation refund certificates issued in accordance with Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 shall be valid from the day on which they are issued within the meaning of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008. Refund certificates shall be valid until the end of the eighth month following the month of issue, or until 30 September, whichever is earlier. Rates fixed in advance are valid until the last day of the certificate\u2019s validity.\n8. Where, in accordance with point (a) of Article 47(9) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, the competent authority is satisfied that the agency that issued the invitation to tender has cancelled the contract for reasons which are not attributable to the successful tenderer and are not considered to constitute force majeure, it shall release the security in cases where the rate of the refund fixed in advance in respect of the basic product corresponding to the largest refund compared with the other basic products used is higher than or equal to the rate of the refund valid on the last day of the certificate\u2019s validity.\n9. Where, in accordance with point (b) of Article 47(9) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, the competent authority is satisfied that the agency that issued the invitation to tender has obliged the successful tenderer to accept changes to the contract for reasons that are not attributable to him and are not considered to constitute force majeure, it may extend the validity of the certificate and the period during which the rate of the refund fixed in advance are to apply until 30 September.\n10. Where, in accordance with point (c) of Article 47(9) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, the successful tenderer furnishes proof that the invitation to tender or the contract concluded following the award provided for a downward tolerance or option of more than 5 % and that the agency that issued the invitation to tender is invoking the relevant clause, the obligation to export shall be deemed to have been fulfilled where the quantity exported is not more than 10 % less than the quantity corresponding to the amount for which the certificate was issued.\nThe first subparagraph shall apply on condition that the rate of the refund fixed in advance in respect of the basic product corresponding to the largest refund compared with the other basic products used is higher than or equal to the rate of the refund valid on the last day of validity of the certificate. In such cases the rate of 95 % referred to in Article 40(3) and (5) of this Regulation shall be replaced by 90 %.\n11. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 to 10 of this Article the time-limit of 21 days specified in Article 47(5) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 shall be 44 days.\nSECTION 3\nSecurities\nArticle 38\n1. The issue of a refund certificate shall oblige the holder to apply for refunds equal to the amount for which the certificate has been issued for goods exported during the period of validity of the refund certificate.\nThe security referred to in Article 23 shall be lodged to guarantee compliance with the obligation referred to in the first subparagraph.\n2. The obligation referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article shall be considered a primary requirement within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85.\nArticle 39\n1. The primary requirement shall be considered to have been fulfilled if the exporter has transmitted the specific application relating to goods exported during the period of validity of the refund certificate in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 28 and in section V of Annex VI.\n2. Where the specific application is not the export declaration, it must be submitted within three months of the date of expiry of the refund certificate the number of which has been entered on the specific application, except in cases of force majeure.\nIf the time-limit of three months set out in the first subparagraph is not complied with, the primary requirement cannot be deemed to have been met.\n3. Evidence that the primary requirement has been fulfilled shall be provided by means of the presentation to the competent authority of Copy No 1 of the refund certificate, duly recorded in accordance with Article 28(2). That evidence shall be presented by the end of the twelfth month following the end of the period of validity of the refund certificate.\nThe first subparagraph shall apply mutatis mutandis to certificates registered as provided for in Article 24(2).\n4. By way of derogation from Article 22(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85, the security provided for in Article 23 of this Regulation shall be forfeited in proportion to the amount for which the required evidence was not provided within the time-limits set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article.\nArticle 40\n1. If a reduction coefficient is applied pursuant to Article 33(2) or point (a) of Article 34(3), part of the security, equal to the amount lodged multiplied by the reduction coefficient, shall be released immediately.\n2. If the applicant withdraws his application for a certificate, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 33(2), 80 % of the original security shall be released.\n3. The security shall be released in full once the holder of the certificate has applied for refunds totalling 95 % of the amount in respect of which the certificate was issued.\n4. On application by the titular holder, Member States may release the security by instalments in proportion to the amounts in respect of which the conditions referred to in Article 39(1) and (3) have been fulfilled, provided that evidence has been produced that an amount equal to at least 5 % of that indicated on the certificate has been applied for.\n5. Where applications have been made for refunds in respect of less than 95 % of the amount for which the certificate was issued, part of the security, equal to 10 % of the difference between 95 % of the amount for which the certificate was issued and the amount of refunds actually used, shall be forfeited.\n6. Where the amount in respect of which the conditions referred to in Article 39(1) and (3) have been fulfilled is less than 5 % of the amount indicated on the certificate, the whole of the security shall be forfeited.\n7. If the total amount of the security which would be forfeited comes to EUR 100 or less for a given certificate, the Member State concerned shall release the whole of the security.\nArticle 41\n1. Where the certificate or an extract of the certificate is returned to the issuing authority within a period corresponding to the initial two thirds of its term of validity, the corresponding amount of security to be forfeited shall be reduced by 40 %, for which purpose, any part of a day shall count as a whole day.\n2. Where the certificate or extract of the certificate is returned to the issuing authority within a period corresponding to the last third of its term of validity or during the month following the expiry date, the corresponding amount of security to be forfeited shall be reduced by 25 %.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply only to certificates and extracts from certificates returned to the issuing authority during the budget period in respect of which the certificates have been issued, provided that they are returned no later than 31 August of that period.\nCHAPTER IV\nEXPORTS NOT COVERED BY CERTIFICATES\nArticle 42\n1. Certificates shall not be required for exports for which applications submitted by the operator during the budget year do not give rise to payment of more than EUR 100 000.\n2. Certificates shall not be required for the supplies referred to in the third indent of the second subparagraph of Article 4(1), Articles 33(1), 37(1), 41(1) and 43(1) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall also apply to exports by operators who have held a refund certificate during the budget period in question or who hold such a certificate on the date of export.\n4. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall apply only in the Member State in which the operator is established.\nArticle 43\n1. For each budget period, exports referred to in Article 42(1) shall be eligible for payment of a refund within the limit of a total reserve of EUR 40 million for each budget year.\n2. Refunds on exports which are part of an international food aid operation within the meaning of Article 10(4) of the Agreement, and refunds on the supplies referred to in the third indent of the second subparagraph of Article 4(1), Articles 33(1), 37(1), 41(1) and 43(1) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 shall not be taken into account in establishing the level of expenditure under the reserve referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 44\n1. Where the sum of the amounts notified by the Member States in accordance with Article 53 reaches EUR 30 million, the Commission may, taking account of the Union\u2019s international commitments, suspend the application of Article 43(1) to exports not covered by a refund certificate for a maximum of 20 working days.\n2. Under the circumstances set out in paragraph 1, the Commission may, in accordance with Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009, suspend the application of Article 43(1) of this Regulation to exports not covered by a refund certificate for a period exceeding 20 working days.\nCHAPTER V\nOBLIGATIONS ON THE EXPORTER\nArticle 45\n1. When goods are to be exported, the party concerned shall declare the quantities of basic products, of products derived from the processing thereof, or of products assimilated to one of those two categories in accordance with Article 3, which have actually been used, within the meaning of Article 10, in the manufacture of those goods, on which a refund will be requested, or shall otherwise refer to that composition if it has been determined in accordance with Article 10(4).\n2. When goods have been used in the manufacture of goods to be exported, the declaration by the party concerned shall include the quantity of the goods actually used and the nature and quantity of each of the basic products, of products derived from the processing thereof and/or of products assimilated to one of those two categories in accordance with Article 3, from which the goods are derived.\nThe party concerned shall, in support of his declaration, supply the competent authorities with all documents and information which the latter consider relevant. The documents and information concerned may be held and submitted in electronic form.\nThe competent authorities shall verify the accuracy of the declaration by any appropriate means.\n3. At the request of the competent authorities of the Member State on whose territory the customs export formalities are carried out, the competent authorities of the other Member States shall directly communicate to them all information they are able to obtain to enable the declaration made by the party concerned to be verified.\nArticle 46\nBy way of derogation from Article 45, and in consultation with the competent authorities, the declaration of the products or goods used may be replaced by an aggregated declaration of the quantities of products used or by a reference to a declaration of those quantities, where the latter have already been determined pursuant to Article 10(4) and on condition that the manufacturer places all the information necessary to verify the declaration at the disposal of the authorities.\nArticle 47\n1. Where the exporter does not draw up the declaration referred to in Article 46 or does not provide satisfactory information in support of his declaration, he shall not be entitled to a refund.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where the goods concerned are listed in columns 1 and 2 of Annex IV, the party concerned may be granted a refund, at his express request. The nature and quantity of the basic products taken into consideration for the calculation of such refund shall be determined from an analysis of the goods to be exported and in accordance with the table in Annex IV. The competent authority shall decide on the conditions under which the analysis is to be carried out and the information to be supplied in support of the request.\n3. The cost of such analysis shall be borne by the exporter.\nArticle 48\n1. Article 45 shall not apply to the quantities of agricultural products determined in accordance with Annex III, with the exception of the following:\n(a)\nquantities of products as referred to in Article 45(1) exported in the form of goods obtained partly from products for which the payment of export refund is covered by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and partly from other products, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 11(2);\n(b)\nquantities of eggs or egg products exported in the form of pasta falling within CN code 1902 11 00;\n(c)\nthe quantity of dry-matter contained in fresh pasta, as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11(1);\n(d)\nthe nature of the basic products actually used in the manufacture of D-glucitol (sorbitol) falling within CN codes 2905 44 and 3824 60, and, where necessary, the proportions of D-glucitol (sorbitol) obtained from amylaceous products and sucrose;\n(e)\nquantities of casein exported in the form of goods falling within CN code 3501 90 90;\n(f)\nthe degree plato of beer made from malt falling within CN code 2202 90 10;\n(g)\nthe quantities of unmalted barley accepted by the competent authorities.\nThe description of the goods given on the export declaration and the application for a refund on goods listed in Annex III shall take account of the nomenclature in that Annex.\n2. When goods are analysed for the purposes of Articles 45, 46, 47 or of paragraphs 1 or 3 of this Article, the methods of analysis shall be those referred to in Commission Regulation (EC) No 904/2008 (14) or, in their absence, those referred to in Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2008 (15) or, in their absence, those applicable to the Common Customs Tariff classification of similar goods which are imported into the Union.\n3. The quantities of goods exported and the quantities of the products referred to in Article 45(1) or a reference to the composition determined in accordance with Article 10(4) shall be entered on the document certifying exportation. However, where Article 47(2) applies, the latter quantities shall be replaced by the quantities of basic products listed in column 4 of Annex IV, corresponding to the results of the analysis of the goods exported.\n4. For a refund to be granted for goods falling within CN codes 0403 10 51 to 0403 10 99, 0403 90 71 to 0403 90 99, 0405 20 10, 0405 20 30, 2105 00 99, 3502 11 90 and 3502 19 90 the goods shall meet the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, including the requirement of having been prepared in an approved establishment and of complying with the health marking requirements listed in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\n5. For the purposes of Articles 45 and 46, each Member State shall inform the Commission of the checks carried out in its territory on the various kinds of goods exported. The Commission shall inform the other Member States accordingly.\nArticle 49\n1. Pursuant to Articles 45 and 46 of this Regulation and in application of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009, for goods containing cereals, rice, milk and milk products or eggs referred to in points (i), (ii), (v) and (vii) of Article 162(1)(a) and point (b) of Article 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the party concerned shall provide a declaration that none of the ingredients have been imported from third countries or a specification of the quantities of those products imported from third countries.\n2. Where a request is made for the quantities to be determined in accordance with Article 10(4), the competent authority may accept a declaration by the party concerned that the cereal, rice, milk and egg products referred to in paragraph 1 which have been imported from third countries will not be used.\n3. Where a request is made for the quantities to be determined in accordance with Article 11(1) or in accordance with Article 47(2) the competent authority may accept a declaration by the party concerned that the cereal, rice, milk and egg products referred to in paragraph 1 which have been imported from third countries will not be used.\n4. The declarations referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be subject to verification by the competent authorities by any appropriate means.\nCHAPTER VI\nPAYMENT OF THE REFUND\nArticle 50\n1. In the case of goods exported between 1 October and 15 October of each year, refunds shall not be paid before 16 October.\nAs regards goods exported with presentation of a refund certificate issued in respect of a budget period, and where the Commission considers that there is a danger that the Union may not meet its international commitments, refund payments scheduled after the end of that period shall not be made before 16 October. In that case, the time limit referred to in Article 46(8) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 may be temporarily extended to three months and 15 days by way of a regulation to be published before 20 September in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. For the goods listed in Annex II to this Regulation and by way of derogation from Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009, the amount set out in Article 24(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 shall apply regardless of the country or territory of destination to which the goods are exported:\n(a)\nin the case of goods which are packaged for consumer retail sale in immediate packing of a net content not exceeding 2.5 kg or in containers not holding more than 2 litres, with labelling within the meaning of point (a) of Article 1(3) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (16) which mentions either the importer in the country of destination or whose text is in an official language of the country of destination or in a language easily understood in that country;\n(b)\nin cases where a particular exporter, at least 12 times in the two years preceding the date of request for an authorisation as referred to in paragraph 3, exports goods containing not more than 90 % by weight of any single basic product on which a refund is payable, which are of the same eight-digit CN code to the same consignee(s).\n3. In the cases provided for in paragraph 2, Member States may, on request, grant formal authorisation exempting the exporter concerned from producing the documents required under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 other than the transport document.\nThe authorisation referred to in the first subparagraph shall be valid, unless revoked, for a maximum period of two years and shall be renewable. Member States may revoke the authorisation at their sole discretion and, in particular, shall immediately withdraw the authorisation where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the exporter did not follow the conditions specified therein.\nExemptions granted according to the first subparagraph shall be considered as risk factors to be taken into account for the purposes of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 485/2008 (17).\nExporters using the exemption shall mention the authorisation number on the single administrative document and on the specific application for payment as referred to in Article 28 of this Regulation.\n4. By derogation from paragraph 3, in the cases provided for in point (b) of paragraph 2, Member States may exempt the exporter concerned from producing the transport documents for all exports covered by an authorisation, provided that the exporter concerned is required to produce the transport documents in respect of a minimum of 10 % of such export declarations or one per year, whichever is greater, to be selected by Member States applying the criteria laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1276/2008 (18).\n5. In the case of the goods listed in Annex II to this Regulation where the export declaration was accepted not later than 30 September 2007 and for which the exporter is unable to provide the proof referred to in Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009, the goods shall be deemed to have been imported into a third country on presentation of a copy of the transport document and either one of the documents listed in Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 or a bank document issued by approved intermediaries established in the Union, certifying that payment for the export has been credited to the account of the exporter opened with them, or the proof of payment.\n6. For the purposes of applying Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009, Member States shall take into account paragraph 5.\nCHAPTER VII\nOBLIGATION TO NOTIFY\nArticle 51\n1. Before the tenth day of each month, Member States shall notify the Commission of the following:\n(a)\nthe amounts, expressed in euros, in respect of which refund certificates were returned during the previous month in accordance with Article 41(1);\n(b)\nthe amounts, expressed in euros, in respect of which, during the previous month, it was established that the primary requirement referred to in Article 38 was not fulfilled;\n(c)\nrefund certificates, expressed in euros, issued during the previous month, as referred to in Article 35;\n(d)\nrefund certificates, expressed in euros, issued during the previous month in accordance with Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008.\nThe amounts referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph shall be differentiated by reference to the budget period of the refund certificate to which they relate.\n2. Before 1 November of each year, Member States shall notify the Commission of the total amounts, expressed in euros, attributed before 1 October of that year to refund certificates issued in the budget period ending 30 September of the previous calendar year.\nArticle 52\n1. Member States shall, at the latest by the end of the month following each month of the calendar year, communicate to the Commission by way of the Data Exchange System known as DEX, statistical information on goods covered by this Regulation in respect of which export refunds were granted in the previous month, broken down by eight-digit CN code and comprising:\n(a)\nthe quantities of such goods, expressed in tonnes or another stated unit of measurement;\n(b)\nthe amount, expressed in euros, of export refunds granted the previous month in respect of each of the basic agricultural products concerned;\n(c)\nthe quantities, expressed in tonnes, of each of the basic agricultural products in respect of which refunds were granted.\n2. Before 31 December of each year, Member States shall notify the Commission of the total amounts of refunds expressed in euros which they have actually granted during the budget period ending 30 September of that year in relation to goods exported in the budget period ending 30 September of the preceding year and in any previous budget periods not already notified, specifying the periods concerned.\n3. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, refunds granted shall include advance payments.\n4. Before 31 December of each year, Member States shall notify the Commission of the total amounts, expressed in euros, of reimbursements of refunds unduly paid which were recovered during the budget period ending 30 September of that year, specifying the budget period(s) concerned.\nArticle 53\nMember States shall notify the Commission no later than the fifth day of each month of the amounts of the refunds granted pursuant to Article 43(1) from the sixteenth day to the end of the previous month, and no later than the twentieth day of each month of the amounts of the refunds granted pursuant to Article 43(1) from the first to the fifteenth day of that month. Where applicable, Member States shall inform the Commission that no amounts have been granted between the relevant days.\nCHAPTER VIII\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 54\nRegulation (EC) No 1043/2005 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex IX.\nArticle 55\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the second day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply to applications submitted from 8 July 2010 for certificates for use from 1 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2010.", "references": ["68", "86", "49", "87", "24", "97", "54", "1", "46", "65", "35", "62", "99", "59", "45", "67", "69", "91", "82", "27", "30", "71", "33", "79", "26", "12", "18", "11", "37", "14", "No Label", "8", "20", "22", "23", "53", "73"], "gold": ["8", "20", "22", "23", "53", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1333/2011\nof 19 December 2011\nlaying down marketing standards for bananas, rules on the verification of compliance with those marketing standards and requirements for notifications in the banana sector\n(codification)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 121(a) and Article 194, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 of 16 September 1994 laying down quality standards for bananas (2), Commission Regulation (EC) No 2898/95 of 15 December 1995 concerning verification of compliance with quality standards for bananas (3) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 239/2007 of 6 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the requirements for communications in the banana sector (4) have been substantially amended (5). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulations should be codified by assembling them in a single act.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1234/2007 makes provision for laying down marketing standards for bananas. The purpose of those standards is to ensure that the market is supplied with products of uniform and satisfactory quality, in particular in the case of bananas harvested in the Union, for which efforts to improve quality should be made.\n(3)\nGiven the wide range of varieties marketed in the Union and of marketing practices, minimum standards should be set for unripened green bananas, without prejudice to the later introduction of standards applicable at a different marketing stage. The characteristics of fig bananas and the way in which they are marketed are such that they should not be covered by the Union standards.\n(4)\nIt seems appropriate, in view of the objectives pursued, to allow the banana-producing Member States to apply national standards within their territory to their own production but only at stages subsequent to unripened green bananas, provided those rules are not in conflict with Union standards and do not impede the free circulation of bananas in the Union.\n(5)\nAccount should be taken of the fact that, because climatic factors make production conditions difficult in Madeira, the Azores, the Algarve, Crete, Lakonia and Cyprus, bananas there do not develop to the minimum length laid down. In those cases such bananas should still be allowed to be marketed, but only in Class II.\n(6)\nMeasures should be adopted to ensure uniform application of the rules on marketing standards for bananas, in particular as regards conformity checks.\n(7)\nWhile taking due account of the nature of a highly perishable product and of the marketing practices and inspection procedures used in the trade, it should be laid down that checks on conformity are to be carried out in principle at the stage to which the standards apply.\n(8)\nA product which has satisfied checks at that stage is deemed to comply with the standards. That assessment should be without prejudice to any unannounced checks carried out subsequently up to the ripening depot stage.\n(9)\nThe check on conformity should not be systematic but random, by assessment of an overall sample taken at random from the lot selected for checking by the competent body and assumed to be representative of that lot. For that purpose, the appropriate provisions of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (6) apply.\n(10)\nThe banana trade is subject to strong competition. The traders concerned have themselves introduced strict checks. Checks should not, therefore, be carried out at the stage laid down on traders who offer suitable guarantees as regards staff and handling facilities and who can guarantee that the bananas they market in the Union conform with Union standards. Such exemptions should be granted by the Member State on the territory of which the check is in principle to be carried out. Such exemptions should be withdrawn where the standards and conditions relating thereto are not met.\n(11)\nIn order for checks to be carried out, information should be supplied to the competent bodies by the traders concerned.\n(12)\nThe certificate of conformity issued upon completion of the checks should not constitute an accompanying document for the bananas up to the final stage of marketing, but a document of proof of the conformity of the bananas with Union standards up to the ripening depot stage, in accordance with the scope of the standard, to be presented at the request of the competent authorities. It should be stressed that bananas not conforming with the standards laid down in this Regulation may not be marketed for fresh consumption in the Union.\n(13)\nIn order to monitor how the banana market functions, it is necessary for the Commission to receive information on the production and marketing of bananas produced in the Union. Rules covering the notification of such information by Member States should be laid down.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER 1\nMARKETING STANDARDS\nArticle 1\nThe marketing standards applicable to bananas falling within CN code 0803 00, excluding plantains, fig bananas and bananas intended for processing, are laid down in Annex I.\nThose marketing standards shall apply to bananas originating in third countries at the stage of release for free circulation, to bananas originating in the Union at the stage of first landing at a Union port, and to bananas delivered fresh to the consumer in the producing region at the stage of leaving the packing shed.\nArticle 2\nThe marketing standards referred to in Article 1 shall not affect the application, at later stages of marketing, of national rules which:\n(a)\ndo not impede the free circulation of bananas originating in third countries or other regions of the Union and complying with the marketing standards referred to in Article 1; and\n(b)\nare not incompatible with the marketing standards referred to in Article 1.\nCHAPTER 2\nVERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH MARKETING STANDARDS\nArticle 3\nMember States shall carry out checks in accordance with this Chapter to verify that bananas falling within CN code 0803 00 excluding plantains, fig bananas and bananas intended for processing conform with the marketing standards referred to in Article 1.\nArticle 4\nBananas produced in the Union shall be subject to a check on their conformity with the marketing standards referred to in Article 1 before loading onto a means of transport with a view to be marketed fresh. Such checks may be carried out at the packing plant.\nBananas which are marketed outside their region of production shall be subject to spot checks when they are first unloaded elsewhere in the Union.\nThe checks referred to in the first and second paragraphs shall be carried out subject to Article 9.\nArticle 5\nBefore release for free circulation in the Union, bananas imported from third countries shall be subject to checks on their conformity with the marketing standards referred to in Article 1 in the Member State of first unloading in the Union, subject to Article 9.\nArticle 6\n1. The conformity checks shall be carried out in accordance with Article 17 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011.\n2. For products which, for technical reasons, cannot be checked for conformity upon first unloading in the Union, checks shall be carried out subsequently, at the latest on arrival at the ripening depot and in any case, as regards products imported from third countries, before release for free circulation.\n3. On completion of the conformity check, a certificate drawn up in accordance with Annex II shall be issued for products whose compliance with the standard has been ascertained.\nThe inspection certificate issued for bananas originating in third countries shall be presented to the customs authorities for release of those products for free circulation in the Union.\n4. In the event on non-compliance, point 2.7 of Annex V to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 shall apply.\n5. Where the competent body has not inspected certain products, it shall place its official stamp on the notification provided for in Article 7 or, failing that, in the case of imported products it shall duly inform the customs authorities by any other appropriate means.\n6. Traders shall provide all the facilities required by the competent body for carrying out verifications pursuant to this Chapter.\nArticle 7\nThe traders concerned or their representatives, who do not qualify for the exemption provided for in Article 9, shall provide the competent body in good time with all the information necessary for identification of the lots and detailed information on the place and date of packing and shipping for bananas harvested in the Union, the planned place and date of unloading in the Union for bananas from third countries or from Union regions of production and deliveries to ripening depots for bananas which cannot be checked when they are first unloaded in the Union.\nArticle 8\n1. Conformity checks shall be carried out by the departments or bodies designated by the competent national authorities. Such departments or bodies must present suitable guarantees for carrying out such checks, in particular as regards equipment, training and experience.\n2. The competent national authorities may delegate responsibility for carrying out conformity checks to private bodies approved for that purpose which:\n(a)\nhave inspectors who have followed a training course recognised by the competent national authorities;\n(b)\nhave the equipment and facilities necessary for carrying out the verifications and analyses required for the checks; and\n(c)\nhave adequate facilities for communicating information.\n3. The competent national authorities shall periodically check the execution and efficiency of conformity checks. They shall withdraw approval where they find anomalies or irregularities which could affect the correct execution of conformity checks or where the requirements are no longer met.\nArticle 9\n1. Traders marketing bananas harvested in the Union or bananas imported from third countries shall not be subject to the checks on conformity with marketing standards at the stages referred to in Articles 4 and 5 where they:\n(a)\nhave staff experienced in marketing standards and handling and inspection facilities;\n(b)\nkeep records of the operations they carry out; and\n(c)\npresent guarantees that the quality of bananas they market conforms with the marketing standards referred to in Article 1.\nTraders exempted from checks shall obtain a certificate of exemption in accordance with the specimen shown in Annex III.\n2. Exemption from checks shall be granted, at the request of the trader concerned, by the inspection departments or bodies appointed by the competent national authorities of either the Member State of production, for bananas marketed in the Union production region, or the Member State of unloading, for Union bananas marketed elsewhere in the Union and bananas imported from third countries. Exemption from checks shall be granted for a maximum period of three years and shall be renewable. Such exemption shall apply to the whole of the Union market for products unloaded in the Member State which granted the exemption.\nThose departments or bodies shall withdraw the exemption where they detect anomalies or irregularities which could affect the conformity of bananas with the marketing standards referred to in Article 1 or where the conditions set out in paragraph 1 are no longer met. Withdrawal shall be either temporary or permanent, according to the gravity of the deficiencies detected.\nMember States shall establish a register of banana traders exempted from checks, allocate them a registration number and take appropriate steps to disseminate such information.\n3. The competent departments or bodies of the Member States shall periodically verify the quality of bananas marketed by the traders referred to in paragraph 1 and compliance with the conditions set out therein. Exempted traders shall also provide all the facilities required for carrying out such verifications.\nThe competent departments or bodies of the Member States shall notify the Commission of the list of traders granted the exemption provided for in this Article and of any withdrawals of exemption.\nArticle 10\nThis Regulation shall apply without prejudice to any spot checks carried out subsequently up to the ripening depot stage.\nCHAPTER 3\nNOTIFICATIONS\nArticle 11\n1. Member States shall notify the Commission in respect of each reporting period of the following:\n(a)\nthe quantity of bananas produced in the Union which are marketed:\n(i)\nin their region of production;\n(ii)\noutside their region of production;\n(b)\nthe average selling prices on local markets of green bananas produced in the Union which are marketed in their region of production;\n(c)\nthe average selling prices for green bananas at the stage of delivery at first port of unloading (goods not unloaded) in respect of bananas produced in the Union which are marketed in the Union outside their region of production;\n(d)\nforecasts of the data referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) for the two subsequent reporting periods.\n2. The regions of production shall be:\n(a)\nthe Canary Islands;\n(b)\nGuadeloupe;\n(c)\nMartinique;\n(d)\nMadeira, the Azores and the Algarve;\n(e)\nCrete and Lakonia;\n(f)\nCyprus.\n3. The reporting periods for a calendar year shall be:\n(a)\nJanuary to April inclusive;\n(b)\nMay to August inclusive;\n(c)\nSeptember to December inclusive.\nThe notifications for each reporting period shall be made at the latest by the fifteenth day of the second month following the reporting period.\n4. The notifications referred to in this Chapter shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (7).\nArticle 12\nRegulations (EC) No 2257/94, (EC) No 2898/95 and (EC) No 239/2007 are repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulations shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex VI.\nArticle 13\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["42", "20", "5", "32", "84", "58", "2", "28", "67", "3", "73", "26", "9", "92", "70", "21", "79", "22", "59", "17", "91", "1", "64", "36", "23", "31", "15", "14", "10", "11", "No Label", "24", "25", "61", "68"], "gold": ["24", "25", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 611/2011\nof 23 June 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria and in accordance with Council Implementing Decision 2011/367/CFSP of 23 June 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (2), additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 June 2011.", "references": ["23", "70", "16", "96", "28", "40", "31", "58", "78", "88", "54", "49", "85", "99", "76", "18", "25", "79", "75", "62", "89", "24", "17", "55", "32", "30", "35", "57", "86", "45", "No Label", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 879/2010\nof 6 October 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 554/2008 as regards the minimum content of 6-phytase (Quantum Phytase) as a feed additive in feed for laying hens\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe use of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) (Quantum Phytase) as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, laying hens, ducks for fattening, turkeys for fattening and weaned piglets was authorised for 10 years by Commission Regulation (EC) No 554/2008 of 17 June 2008 concerning the authorisation of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) (Quantum Phytase) as a feed additive (2).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, the holder of the authorisation has submitted an application with which it requests changing the terms of authorisation of that feed additive when used in laying hens by reducing the minimum recommended dose of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) (Quantum Phytase) from 2 000 FTU/kg to 250 FTU/kg. That application was accompanied by the relevant data supporting the request for the change.\n(3)\nThe European Food Safety Authority concluded in its opinion of 10 March 2010 that the additive 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) (Quantum Phytase) is efficacious in laying hens at the requested minimum dose of 250 FTU/kg of complete feed (3).\n(4)\nThe conditions provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 are satisfied.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 554/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 554/2008 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 October 2010.", "references": ["82", "3", "10", "54", "48", "77", "76", "29", "20", "41", "51", "89", "67", "9", "13", "90", "91", "72", "52", "24", "31", "5", "49", "35", "18", "64", "70", "83", "58", "40", "No Label", "38", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["38", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 June 2011\nappointing a member of the Court of Auditors\n(2011/373/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal by the Swedish Government,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMr Lars HEIKENSTEN, member of the Court of Auditors, has resigned with effect from 15 May 2011.\n(2)\nMr Lars HEIKENSTEN should therefore be replaced for the remainder of his term of office,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr H. G. WESSBERG is hereby appointed member of the Court of Auditors for the remainder of the term of office of Mr Lars HEIKENSTEN, which runs until 29 February 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 10 June 2011.", "references": ["3", "41", "1", "77", "48", "23", "22", "20", "10", "93", "65", "53", "28", "78", "38", "72", "92", "37", "70", "46", "69", "25", "30", "86", "39", "24", "50", "67", "2", "81", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 13 July 2011\non the State aid SA.28903 (C 12/10) (ex N 389/09) implemented by Bulgaria in favour of Ruse Industry\n(notified under document C(2011) 4903)\n(Only the Bulgarian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/706/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1),\nWhereas:\nI PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 30 June 2009 the Bulgarian authorities notified the Commission a restructuring measure in favour of Ruse Industry AD (hereinafter \u2018Ruse Industry\u2019 or \u2018the company\u2019), in form of deferral and rescheduling of public debt amounting to EUR 9,85 million.\n(2)\nA detailed information request was sent to the Bulgarian authorities on 28 July 2009. Bulgaria replied partially on 24 August 2009 and asked for an extension of delay by the same letter, which was granted by letter of 28 August 2009. Bulgaria submitted further information on 30 September 2009. The Commission asked further clarification on 27 November 2009 to which Bulgaria replied on 15 December 2009. A further extension to complete the missing information was granted on 20 December 2009. Bulgaria submitted further information on 17 February 2010.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 14 April 2010 the Commission informed Bulgaria that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2) (\u2018TFEU\u2019) in respect of the aid.\n(4)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).\n(5)\nThe Commission received no comments from interested parties.\n(6)\nBulgaria submitted comments to the Commission\u2019s opening decision by letter dated 10 May 2010, sent to the Commission and registered by it on 17 June 2010. On 7 June 2010 the Bulgarian authorities provided further information.\n(7)\nA further request for information was sent by the Commission on 29 October 2010, to which the Bulgarian authorities replied by letter dated 12 November 2010, sent to the Commission and registered on 23 November 2010 and by letter dated 3 December 2010, sent to the Commission and registered on 6 December 2010.\n(8)\nOn 11 November 2010 the Bulgarian authorities filed bankruptcy proceedings against the company.\n(9)\nBy letter dated 14 June 2010 sent to the Commission on 23 November 2010, the Bulgarian authorities withdrew their notification of 30 June 2009.\nII DESCRIPTION\n(10)\nThe beneficiary of the aid measure is Ruse Industry. The company (initially called Ruse Shipyard (4)) was created in 1991 and is located in Ruse, Bulgaria, a region eligible for aid under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU. The company was privatised in April 1999, when 80 % of its shares were sold to the German firm Rousse Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH.\n(11)\nRuse Industry is engaged in the production and repair of metal structures as well as the manufacturing of cranes, ships and marine equipment (5). The company had 196 employees in 2009.\n(12)\nFinancially, the company showed a constant trend of declining turnover and growing losses over several years prior to the notification, as indicated in the table below. In 2008 the company featured a negative operating profit and negative cash flow.\nTable 1\nRuse Industry\u2019s annual turnover and profit\nin million BGN (6)\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nAnnual turnover\n76 239\n65 086\n17 963\n7 035\nProfit before tax\n(2 091)\n1 977\n(827)\n(3 924)\n(13)\nRuse Industry owed EUR 9,85 million to the Bulgarian State at the time of the notification.\n(14)\nThe debt originates from loan agreements (7) dating back to 1996 and 1997 between the State Reconstruction and Development Fund and Ruse Shipyard concerning a principal at the time of USD 8,45 million.\n(15)\nIn April 1999 an agreement (\u2018the 1999 rescheduling\u2018) was concluded between the Ministry of Finance (hereinafter \u2018MoF\u2019) which has taken over the claims of the State Reconstruction and Development Fund, under which USD 8 million out of the debt described above plus interest accrued were renominated (8) in EUR and Rousse Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH undertook to repay this sum between 1 December 2000 and 30 June 2006 under a rescheduled reimbursement plan.\n(16)\nOn 21 May 2001 the MoF and Ruse Industry concluded a further agreement, according to which the full reimbursement of the company\u2019s public debt (9), plus the interest accrued, was deferred until 30 September 2015, with a grace period (with payment of only interest, not principal) until 31 March 2006 (\u2018the 2001 rescheduling\u2019).\n(17)\nAccording to the 2001 rescheduling the entire debt was as follows: the principal was set at EUR 7,97 million and the interest (accrued until 1 April 1999) set at EUR 2 million. According to this agreement, the principal was subject to an interest of 1 % p.a., whereas penalty interest of 3 % p.a. was applicable on overdue amounts (i.e. in case the company is late with the reimbursement).\n(18)\nIn September 2005, just before the end of the grace period, the beneficiary requested a new rescheduling of its public debt (in addition to the 2001 agreement). In December 2006 the Bulgarian Competition Commission found this request inadmissible under Bulgaria\u2019s State aid rules. Ruse Industry lodged an appeal against the Competition Commission\u2019s decision before the Supreme Administrative Court, which was rejected in July 2007. A further appeal against this decision was ruled out as well. Nevertheless, the State did not attempt to effectively enforce the debt overdue in accordance with the 2001 rescheduling.\n(19)\nIn July 2008 the beneficiary offered voluntarily to pay EUR 1 million of the amount overdue in two equal instalments. According to this offer the first instalment was to be paid by October 2008 and the second one by February 2009. When Ruse Industry did not pay any of these, the State - upon the company\u2019s request - extended twice the deadline of the first instalment, until December 2008 and until January 2009, respectively.\n(20)\nGiven that no reimbursement of the amounts promised by Ruse Industry took place, the Bulgarian authorities sent a reminder for payment in February 2009. Additional reminders for reimbursement of the amounts overdue were filed in April and twice in June 2010. Nevertheless, the State failed to effectively enforce the debt which was not paid in respect to the 2001 rescheduling.\n(21)\nBy letter dated 4 June 2009 Ruse Industry asked further the Bulgarian authorities to reschedule the public debt until 2019 with a grace period until 2012. Upon this request and in accordance with Article 108(3) of TFEU Bulgaria notified the envisaged debt rescheduling as restructuring aid.\n(22)\nBy letter dated 28 June 2010 Ruse Industry offered again to the State to repay its outstanding liabilities according to the repayment arrangements of the 2001 rescheduling. In July 2010 the company undertook to cover all amounts overdue and unpaid in two equal instalments: the first one due by the end of July 2010 and the second by the end of August 2010. However, the company failed to fulfil this arrangement.\n(23)\nAccording to the information submitted by the Bulgarian authorities, by the end of 2010 the beneficiary has reimbursed EUR 1 million out of the total amounts due under the 2001 rescheduling. At the end of 2010, the unpaid and overdue debt in respect of the total sum owed amounted to EUR 3.7 million.\n(24)\nIt results from the correspondence between Ruse Industry and the Bulgarian authorities that the latter have been sending several reminders for the payment of the amounts due but unpaid. Although the beneficiary expressed willingness, or voluntarily offered repayment, in practice it never covered in full the outstanding amounts under rescheduling 2001. Apart from reminders, there is no evidence that the Bulgarian authorities took any steps to seek to enforce effectively their claims.\n(25)\nWith regard to the principal, Ruse Industry did not pay the stipulated amounts (10) and thus did not comply with the half-yearly repayment schedule. Besides, the ordinary interest was paid only until July 2008.\n(26)\nAs regards the penalty interest, the Bulgarian authorities indicated that the contractually stipulated 3 % (see paragraph (17) above) was charged on the due instalments as from 2006, when the company was supposed to start repaying the instalments. These penalty interests were paid by Ruse only between August 2006 and July 2008. Since July 2008 the company did not pay the charged penalty interest.\n(27)\nOn 3 November 2010 the Bulgarian authorities made an official request for repayment. At the time of this request the overdue debt amounted to EUR 3,7 million (of which EUR 3,4 million principal, EUR 151 000 interest and EUR 140 000 penalty interest).\n(28)\nAt the time of this request the beneficiary had reimbursed in total EUR 1 million due under the 2001 rescheduling (of which EUR 245 000 principal, EUR 705 000 interest and EUR 50 000 penalty interest). The latest actual reimbursement that Ruse Industry made was on 11 July 2008.\n(29)\nFollowing the request and the company\u2019s failure to comply with its obligations the national authorities filed for insolvency proceedings against the beneficiary on 11 November 2010 (i.e. nine years after the 2001 rescheduling, more than four years after the end of the grace period and over two years since the last payment of any kind by Ruse Industry).\n(30)\nOn 11 November 2010 the Bulgarian authorities filed for bankruptcy proceedings against the beneficiary.\nIII THE OPENING DECISION\n(31)\nAs mentioned above (see paragraph (21)) in June 2009, the beneficiary submitted further request for rescheduling the debt outstanding under the 2001 agreement. This planned rescheduling was the measure that was notified to the Commission as restructuring aid on 30 June 2009.\n(32)\nAccording to the notification, the plan would have provided for the repayment of the debt of EUR 9,85 million over a period of 10 years (i.e. until 2019), with a grace period until 30 June 2012.\n(33)\nBulgaria was of the view that the planned measure is compatible with the Internal Market on the basis of the Communication from the Commission Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (11) as restructuring aid.\n(34)\nThe Commission had doubts with regard to the compatibility of the notified aid. Accordingly, on 14 April 2010 the Commission initiated the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of TFEU.\n(35)\nIn addition, the opening decision raised doubts as to whether the past non-enforcement of the company\u2019s liabilities overdue under the 2001 rescheduling agreement might constitute further State aid.\n(36)\nThe Bulgarian authorities withdrew this notification on 23 November 2010, therefore the formal investigation with regard to the notified measure became without object.\nIV BULGARIA\u2019S COMMENTS TO THE OPENING DECISION\n(37)\nConcerning the non-enforcement of the debt, Bulgaria merely asserts that the State behaved in a private market economy investor manner, which maximises the chances to recover its debt by allowing for voluntary repayment. No detailed arguments were submitted by Bulgaria in this regard.\nV ASSESSMENT\n(38)\nBulgaria withdrew the notification of the rescheduling of the public debt of Ruse Industry in November 2010. As a result, the formal investigation with regard to the notified restructuring aid measure has become without object pursuant to Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (12).\n(39)\nThe measure under assessment is the non-enforcement of the debt in compliance with the 2001 Rescheduling.\n(40)\nWith regard to Bulgaria\u2019s accession to the EU and thus whether this non-enforcement of the debt as of 1 January 2007 potentially constitutes new aid in the sense of Article 1(e) of the Procedural Regulation, the Commission notes that the failure of the beneficiary to repay the amounts due under the 2001 rescheduling and the lack of State action led to changes in the total exposure of the State under the 2001 rescheduling. This increase in the liability of the State (i.e. the non-enforcement) produces effects after the date of accession and therefore the measure is to be regarded as applicable after accession and thus to involve new State aid.\n(41)\nIt must be also noted that this non-notified measure was not covered by Appendix to Annex V of Bulgaria\u2019s Act of accession (13). In particular, it was a) neither put into effect before 31 December 1994, b) nor listed in the Appendix to Annex V, and c) nor covered by the interim mechanism that applied in connection with the accession.\n(42)\nAgainst this background, the Commission will assess in the following whether the non-enforcement of the debt as from 1 January 2007 constitutes new aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(43)\nAccording to Article 107(1) TFEU, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, and affects trade between Member States is incompatible with the Internal Market.\n(44)\nThe measure is financed by State resources - as it results in forgone revenues to the State - and the decisions of the MoF are directly imputable to the State.\n(45)\nThe non-enforcement of the debt also concerns Ruse Industry individually and as such is selective.\n(46)\nIn addition, Ruse Industry is an undertaking producing goods which are freely traded within the Union. The Commission thus considers that the condition of the affectation of competition and trade within the Union is fulfilled.\n(47)\nThe Commission should further assess whether the measure in the form of non-enforcement of debt confers an advantage to the company which it would not have been able to obtain otherwise in the market.\n(48)\nAs explained above, the debt dates back to 1996-97 and has been rescheduled already twice (in 1999 and 2001). With regard to the non-enforcement of the debt under the 2001 rescheduling and the company\u2019s previous failures to meet its obligations, no private creditor would have behaved like the Bulgarian State. Indeed, from the information available it results that no concrete steps were taken to enforce the debt as from 30 March 2006, when the grace period ended and the first instalments of the principal became due but were not paid. Moreover, the company\u2019s financial situation was weak (see Table 1 above) as it showed diminishing turnover and increasing losses, and there was no prospect of the company returning to profitability. Furthermore, it has to be also noted that even if part of the debt (BGN 1,13 million (14)) was secured with collaterals (15), the Bulgarian authorities did not take any steps to enforce that part of the debt either.\n(49)\nIn fact, the Bulgarian authorities did not provide any justifications as to why the repayment schedule was not enforced and did not justify their claim that waiting for voluntary repayment (in the light of the debt default history of the company) would have maximised their chance for the recovery of the debt.\n(50)\nIn similar circumstances, a private creditor would have pursued the enforcement of the agreement. Therefore, the non-compliance with the 2001 rescheduling and Bulgaria\u2019s failure to enforce its debt confers an advantage to Ruse Industry.\n(51)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission considers the non-enforcement of public debt in favour of Ruse industry constitutes new aid as from 1 January 2007 in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(52)\nConcerning possible compatibility of the measure, it should be noted that Bulgaria did not bring forward any arguments in this respect.\n(53)\nEven if Ruse Industry were to formally qualify as a company in difficulty in the sense of the Communication from the Commission Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, the criteria for compatible rescue or restructuring aid are not met. In particular as regards rescue aid, it has not been demonstrated that the measure would be restricted to the minimum necessary, would be warranted on the grounds of serious social difficulties and has no unduly adverse spill-over effects on other Member States. Moreover, it goes beyond 6 months. From the restructuring aid point of view in the absence of restructuring plan, the restoration of long-term viability is not proven. In addition it has not been demonstrated that the aid is kept to a minimum, and that undue distortions of competition are avoided.\n(54)\nThe company is located in an assisted area pursuant to Article 107(3)(a) TFEU and as such eligible for regional aid under the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 (16) (hereinafter: \u2018RAG\u2019). The measure, however, does not comply with the RAG. In particular, as regards possible operating aid, this aid does not facilitate the development of any activities or economic areas and it is not limited in time, degressive or proportionate to what is necessary to remedy specific economic handicaps.\n(55)\nNo other grounds for compatibility seem to apply. Therefore, the aid is unlawful and incompatible with the TFEU.\n(56)\nAccording to the TFEU and the Court of Justice\u2019s established case law, the Commission is competent to decide that the State concerned must abolish or alter aid (17) when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market. The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation (18). In this context, the Court has established that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored (19).\n(57)\nFollowing that case-law, Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laid down that \u2018where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.\u2019\n(58)\nThus, given that the measure at hand is to be considered as unlawful and incompatible aid, the amounts of aid must be recovered in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid. Recovery shall be hence affected from the time when the advantage occurred to the beneficiary, i.e. when the aid was put at the disposal of the beneficiary and shall bear recovery interest until effective recovery.\n(59)\nThe incompatible aid element of the measures is calculated as the amount due and unpaid according to 2001 rescheduling starting from 1 January 2007 until 11 November 2010, when Bulgaria registered its claim in the liquidation procedure. At that time, the overdue amount was estimated to be EUR 3,7 million. The exact recovery amount and the recovery interest to be applied on these amounts have to be calculated by Bulgaria. Payments made other than the amounts paid under the agreement may be deducted from the sum to be recovered as unlawful and incompatible aid.\nVI CONCLUSION\n(60)\nFirst, the Commission notes that Bulgaria withdrew the notification concerning the notified debt rescheduling of EUR 9,85 million, the formal investigation procedure with regard to this measure has thus become without object.\n(61)\nSecond, the Commission concludes that non-enforcement of public debt as from 1 January 2007 constitutes new State aid in favour of Ruse industry in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(62)\nAs this State aid is illegal and incompatible, it has to be recovered from the beneficiary.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of the notified debt rescheduling of EUR 9,85 recording that Bulgaria has withdrawn its notification.\nArticle 2\nThe State aid unlawfully granted by Bulgaria in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of Ruse Industry, by way of non-effective enforcement of public debt as from 1 January 2007, is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 3\n1. Bulgaria shall recover the aid referred to in Article 2 from the beneficiary.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from 1 January 2007 until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (20).\nArticle 4\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Bulgaria shall ensure that this decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 5\n1. Within two months following notification of this Decision, Bulgaria shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Bulgaria shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to Bulgaria.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2011.", "references": ["39", "70", "35", "59", "93", "87", "13", "12", "77", "7", "55", "21", "65", "42", "37", "38", "81", "34", "30", "54", "73", "88", "83", "52", "45", "2", "86", "17", "92", "0", "No Label", "8", "11", "15", "48", "84", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "11", "15", "48", "84", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 342/2011\nof 8 April 2011\namending Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first subparagraph of Article 8(1), and Article 8(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 (2) lays down the veterinary certification requirements for the introduction into the Union of certain consignments of live animals or fresh meat. It also lays down the lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof from which those consignments may be introduced into the Union.\n(2)\nRegulation (EU) No 206/2010 provides that consignments of fresh meat intended for human consumption are to be imported into the Union only if they come from the third countries, territories or parts thereof listed in Part 1 of Annex II to that Regulation for which there is a model veterinary certificate corresponding to the consignment concerned listed in that Part.\n(3)\nOn 25 February 2011, South Africa notified the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. In the absence of clinical signs, the outbreaks were confirmed on 11 February 2011 based on serology.\n(4)\nAccording to the notification, the outbreaks were detected in two neighbouring districts in the north-eastern part of the KwaZulu-Natal province. These districts are part of the territories of South Africa from which export into the Union of fresh de-boned and matured meat from ungulates are authorised. Those territories are set out in Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010.\n(5)\nDue to the risk of introduction of foot-and-mouth disease through import into the Union of fresh meat from species susceptible to that disease and in absence of guarantees allowing for regionalisation of South Africa, the authorisation to export such fresh meat into the Union should no longer apply. The entry for South Africa in Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 should be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010, the entry for South Africa is replaced by the following:\n\u2018ZA - South Africa\nZA-0\nWhole country\nEQU, EQW\nZA-1\nThe whole country except:\n-\nthe part of the foot-and-mouth disease control area situated in the veterinary regions of Mpumalanga and Northern provinces, in the district of Ingwavuma of the veterinary region of Natal and in the border area with Botswana east of longitude 28\u00b0, and\n-\nthe district of Camperdown, in the province of KwaZulu-Natal.\nBOV, OVI, RUF, RUW\nF\n1\n11 February 2011\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 April 2011.", "references": ["60", "45", "2", "32", "1", "76", "48", "28", "57", "88", "9", "74", "96", "36", "25", "40", "99", "3", "4", "90", "23", "11", "47", "97", "50", "0", "84", "81", "20", "72", "No Label", "21", "22", "38", "61", "69", "94"], "gold": ["21", "22", "38", "61", "69", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 626/2011\nof 4 May 2011\nsupplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of air conditioners\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2010/30/EU of 19 May 2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources energy-related products (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2010/30/EU requires the Commission to adopt delegated acts as regards the labelling of energy-related products representing significant potential for energy savings and having a wide disparity in performance levels with equivalent functionality.\n(2)\nProvisions for the energy labelling of air conditioners were established by Commission Directive 2002/31/EC of 22 March 2002 implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household air-conditioners (2). The implementing Directive establishes different labelling scales for air conditioners using different technologies and the determination of energy efficiency is based on full load operation only.\n(3)\nThe electricity used by air conditioners accounts for a significant part of total household and commercial electricity demand in the Union. In addition to the energy efficiency improvements already achieved, the scope for further reducing the energy consumption of air conditioners is substantial.\n(4)\nDirective 2002/31/EC should be repealed and new provisions should be laid down by this Regulation in order to ensure that the energy label provides dynamic incentives for manufacturers to further improve the energy efficiency of air conditioners and to accelerate the market transformation towards energy-efficient technologies.\n(5)\nThe provisions of this Regulation should apply to air-to-air air conditioners up to 12 kW cooling power output (or heating power output, if only heating function is provided).\n(6)\nTechnological developments in the energy efficiency improvement of air conditioners have been very rapid in recent years. This has allowed several third-countries to introduce stringent minimum energy efficiency requirements and led to a process of introducing new energy labelling schemes based on seasonal performance. Today's appliances, excluding single and double duct air conditioners, that achieve the highest efficiency levels have largely surpassed the A efficiency levels established by Directive 2002/31/EC.\n(7)\nThis Regulation introduces two energy efficiency scales based on the primary function and on specific aspects important to consumer. Given that air conditioners are used mainly in part-load conditions, the efficiency testing should be changed to a seasonal efficiency measurement method, except for single and double duct air conditioners. The seasonal measurement method takes better into account the benefits of the inverter driven technology and the conditions in which these appliances are used. The new efficiency calculation method with an Ecodesign implementing measure setting minimum energy efficiency requirements higher than the current A level, will lead to a reclassification of these appliances. Consequently, split, window and wall air conditioners should have a new A-G energy efficiency class scale with a \u2018+\u2019 added on the top of the scale every two years until the A+++ class has been reached.\n(8)\nFor double duct and single duct air conditioners, steady-state energy efficiency performance indicators should continue to be applied, as there are currently no inverter units on the market. As no reclassification of these appliances is appropriate, single and double duct air conditioners should have an A+++-D scale. While these, inherently less efficient than split appliances, can go only up to an A+ energy efficiency class in a scale of A+++-D, the more efficient split appliances can reach up to the A+++ energy efficiency class.\n(9)\nThis Regulation should ensure that consumers get more accurate comparative information about the performance of air conditioners.\n(10)\nThe combined effect of energy labeling set out in this Regulation and of Regulation implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for air conditioners (3) is expected to result in annual electricity savings of 11 TWh by 2020, compared to the situation if no measures are taken.\n(11)\nThe noise level of an air conditioner could be an important aspect for end-users. In order to enable them to make an informed decision, information on noise emissions should be included on the label of air conditioners.\n(12)\nThe information provided on the label should be obtained through reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement procedures, which take into account the recognised state of the art measurement methods including, where available, harmonised standards adopted by the European standardisation bodies, as listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (4).\n(13)\nThis Regulation should specify a uniform design and requirements as to the content of labels for air conditioners.\n(14)\nIn addition, this Regulation should specify requirements as to the technical documentation and the fiche for air conditioners.\n(15)\nMoreover, this Regulation should specify requirements as to the information to be provided for any form of distance selling, advertisements and technical promotional material of air conditioners.\n(16)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a review of the provisions of this Regulation taking into account technological progress.\n(17)\nIn order to facilitate the transition from Directive 2002/31/EC to this Regulation, air conditioners labelled in accordance with this Regulation should be considered compliant with Directive 2002/31/EC.\n(18)\nSuppliers wishing to place on the market air conditioners that can meet the requirements for higher energy efficiency classes should be allowed to provide labels showing those classes in advance of the date for mandatory display of such classes.\n(19)\nDirective 2002/31/EC should therefore be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation establishes requirements for the labelling and the provision of supplementary product information for electric mains-operated air conditioners with a rated capacity of \u2264 12 kW for cooling, or heating, if the product has no cooling function.\n2. This Regulation shall not apply to:\na)\nappliances that use non-electric energy sources;\nb)\nair conditioners of which the condensor- or evaporator-side, or both, do not use air for heat transfer medium.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions set out in Article 2 of Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018air conditioner\u2019 means a device capable of cooling or heating, or both, indoor air, using a vapour compression cycle driven by an electric compressor, including air conditioners that provide additional functionalities such as dehumidification, air-purification, ventilation or supplemental air-heating by means of electric resistance heating and appliances that may use water (either condensate water that is formed on the evaporator side or externally added water) for evaporation on the condensor, provided that the device is also able to function without the use of additional water, using air only;\n(2)\n\u2018double duct air conditioner\u2019 means an air conditioner in which, during cooling or heating, the condensor or evaporator intake air is introduced from the outdoor environment to the unit by a duct and rejected to the outdoor environment by a second duct, and which is placed wholly inside the space to be conditioned, near a wall;\n(3)\n\u2018single duct air conditioner\u2019 means an air conditioner in which, during cooling or heating, the condensor or evaporator intake air is introduced from the space containing the unit and discharged outside this space;\n(4)\n\u2018rated capacity\u2019 (Prated ) means the cooling or heating capacity of the vapour compression cycle of the unit at standard rating conditions;\n(5)\n\u2018end-user\u2019 means a consumer buying or expected to buy an air conditioner;\n(6)\n\u2018point of sale\u2019 means a location where air conditioners are displayed or offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase.\nAdditional definitions for the purpose of Annexes II to VIII are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 3\nResponsibilities of suppliers\n1. Suppliers shall take action as described in points (a) to (g):\n(a)\na printed label is provided for each air conditioner respecting energy efficiency classes as set out in Annex II. The label shall comply with the format and content of information as set out in Annex III. For air conditioners, except single and double duct air conditioners, a printed label must be provided, at least in the packaging of the outdoor unit, for at least one combination of indoor and outdoor units at capacity ratio 1. For other combinations, the information can be alternatively provided on a free access web site;\n(b)\na product fiche, as set out in Annex IV, is made available. For air conditioners, except single and double duct air conditioners, a product fiche must be provided at least in the packaging of the out door unit, for at least one combination of indoor and outdoor units at capacity ratio 1. For other combinations, the information can be alternatively provided on a free access web site;\n(c)\ntechnical documentation as set out in Annex V is made available electronically on request to the authorities of the Member States and to the Commission;\n(d)\nany advertisement for a specific model of an air conditioner shall contain the energy efficiency class, if the advertisement discloses energy-related or price information. Where more than one efficiency class is possible, the supplier or the manufacturer, as appropriate, shall declare the energy efficiency class for heating at least in \u2018Average\u2019 heating season. Information in the cases where end-users cannot be expected to see the product displayed is to be provided as set out in Annex VI;\n(e)\nany technical promotional material concerning a specific model of an air conditioner which describes its specific technical parameters shall include the energy efficiency class of that model as set out Annex II;\n(f)\ninstructions for use are made available;\n(g)\nsingle ducts shall be named \u2018local air conditioners\u2019 in packaging, product documentation and in any advertisement material, whether electronic or in paper.\n2. The energy efficiency class shall be determined as set out in Annex VII.\n3. The format of the label for air conditioners except for single and double duct air conditioners shall be as set out in Annex III.\n4. For the air conditioners, except for single and double duct air conditioners, the format of the label set out in Annex III shall be applied according to the following timetable:\n(a)\nas regards air conditioners, except single duct and double duct air conditioners, placed on the market from 1 January 2013, labels with energy efficiency classes A, B, C, D, E, F, G shall be in accordance with point 1.1 of Annex III for reversible air conditioners, with point 2.1 of Annex III for cooling-only air conditioners and with point 3.1 of Annex III for heating-only air conditioners;\n(b)\nas regards air conditioners, except single duct and double duct air conditioners, placed on the market from 1 January 2015, labels with energy efficiency classes A+, A, B, C, D, E, F, shall be in accordance with point 1.2 of Annex III for reversible air conditioners, with point 2.2 of Annex III for cooling-only air conditioners and with point 3.2 of Annex III for heating-only air conditioners;\n(c)\nas regards air conditioners, except single duct and double duct air conditioners, placed on the market from 1 January 2017, labels with energy efficiency classes A++, A+, A, B, C, D, E, shall be in accordance with point 1.3 of Annex III for reversible air conditioners, with point 2.3 of Annex III for cooling-only air conditioners and with point 3.3 of Annex III for heating-only air conditioners;\n(d)\nas regards air conditioners, except single duct and double duct air conditioners, placed on the market from 1 January 2019, labels with energy efficiency classes A+++, A++, A+, A, B, C, D shall be in accordance with point 1.4 of Annex III for reversible air conditioners, with point 2.4 of Annex III for cooling-only air conditioners and with point 3.4 of Annex III for heating-only air conditioners.\n5. The format of the label for double duct air conditioners placed on the market from 1 January 2013 with energy efficiency classes A+++, A++, A+, A, B, C, D shall be in accordance with point 4.1 of Annex III for reversible double duct air conditioners, with point 4.3 of Annex III for cooling-only double duct air conditioners and with point 4.5 of Annex III for heating-only double duct air conditioners.\n6. The format of the label for single duct air conditioners placed on the market from 1 January 2013 with energy efficiency classes A+++, A++, A+, A, B, C, D shall be in accordance with point 5.1 of Annex III for reversible single duct air conditioners, with point 5.3 of Annex III for cooling-only single ducts air conditioners and with point 5.5 of Annex III heating-only single duct air conditioners.\nArticle 4\nResponsibilities of dealers\nDealers shall ensure that:\n(a)\nair conditioners, at the point of sale, bear the label provided by suppliers in accordance with Article 3(1) on the outside of the front or top of the appliance, in such a way as to be clearly visible;\n(b)\nair conditioners offered for sale, hire or hire purchase where the end-user cannot be expected to see the product displayed, are marketed with the information provided by suppliers in accordance with Annexes V and VI;\n(c)\nany advertisement for a specific model of air conditioner contains a reference to the energy efficiency class, if the advertisement discloses energy-related or price information. Where more than one efficiency class is possible, the supplier/manufacturer will declare the energy efficiency class at least in \u2018Average\u2019 season zone;\n(d)\nany technical promotional material concerning a specific model which describes the technical parameters of an air conditioner includes a reference to the energy efficiency class(es) of the model and the instructions for use provided by the supplier. Where more than one efficiency class is possible, the supplier/manufacturer will declare the energy efficiency class at least in \u2018Average\u2019 season zone;\n(e)\nsingle ducts shall be named \u2018local air conditioners\u2019 in packaging, product documentation and in any promotional or advertisement material, whether electronic or in paper.\nArticle 5\nMeasurement methods\nThe information to be provided under Article 3 shall be obtained by reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement procedures, which take into account the recognised state of the art calculation and measurement methods, as set out in Annex VII.\nArticle 6\nVerification procedure for market surveillance purposes\nWhen Member States assess the conformity of the declared energy efficiency class, the annual or hourly energy consumption, as appropriate, and the noise emissions, they shall apply the procedure laid down in Annex VIII.\nArticle 7\nRevision\nThe Commission shall review this Regulation in the light of technological progress no later than five years after its entry into force. In particular, attention will be paid to any significant changes in market shares of various types of appliances.\nArticle 8\nRepeal\nDirective 2002/31/EC is repealed from 1 January 2013.\nArticle 9\nTransitional provision\n1. Air conditioners placed on the market before 1 January 2013 shall comply with the provisions set out in Directive 2002/31/EC.\nArticle 10\nEntry into force and application\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. It shall apply from 1 January 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2011.", "references": ["29", "15", "11", "42", "93", "94", "32", "1", "90", "6", "8", "9", "56", "65", "52", "18", "76", "79", "47", "51", "57", "21", "48", "17", "34", "77", "3", "16", "74", "19", "No Label", "24", "25", "60", "78", "87"], "gold": ["24", "25", "60", "78", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 696/2012\nof 25 July 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2012.", "references": ["75", "73", "22", "91", "34", "4", "67", "16", "28", "95", "33", "37", "0", "79", "92", "53", "15", "69", "72", "32", "26", "62", "98", "7", "64", "81", "84", "63", "61", "17", "No Label", "21", "89"], "gold": ["21", "89"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\non the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument\n(2011/29/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular the fifth paragraph of point 27 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas, after having examined all possibilities for re-allocating appropriations under subheading 1a and heading 4, at the conciliation meeting on 11 November 2010, the two arms of the budgetary authority agreed to mobilise the Flexibility Instrument to complement the financing in the 2011 budget, beyond the ceilings of subheading 1a and heading 4, of:\n-\nEUR 18 million for the Lifelong Learning programme under subheading 1a,\n-\nEUR 16 million for the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme under subheading 1a,\n-\nEUR 71 million for Palestine under heading 4,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the Flexibility Instrument shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 34 million in commitment appropriations in subheading 1a and of EUR 71 million in commitment appropriations in heading 4.\nThat amount shall be used to complement the financing of:\n-\nEUR 18 million for the Lifelong Learning programme under subheading 1a,\n-\nEUR 16 million for the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme under subheading 1a,\n-\nEUR 71 million for Palestine under heading 4.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["87", "95", "22", "64", "61", "66", "13", "37", "85", "11", "33", "54", "18", "14", "67", "96", "32", "94", "72", "7", "63", "99", "3", "68", "12", "65", "97", "31", "47", "52", "No Label", "10"], "gold": ["10"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 395/2012\nof 8 May 2012\nopening a tariff quota for certain quantities of industrial sugar for the 2012/2013 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 142, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure that the supply necessary for the production of the products referred to in Article 62(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 is available at a price that corresponds to the world price, it is in the interest of the Union to suspend the import duties on sugar intended for the production of those products for the 2012/2013 marketing year, for a quantity that would correspond to half of its industrial sugar needs.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2) provides for the administration of the tariff quotas for imports of sugar products under Article 142 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 with order number 09.4390 (industrial import sugar). However, in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 the quantities of those products for which import duties are to be suspended has to be determined by a separate legal act.\n(3)\nThe import quantities of industrial sugar for which no import duties should apply for the 2012/2013 marketing year, need to be set accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe import duties for industrial sugar falling within CN code 1701 and with order number 09.4390 shall be suspended for a quantity of 400 000 tonnes from 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2012.\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 May 2012.", "references": ["91", "36", "93", "90", "30", "58", "20", "17", "50", "74", "64", "33", "95", "16", "24", "42", "66", "61", "87", "11", "37", "77", "84", "94", "97", "63", "40", "35", "19", "99", "No Label", "21", "22", "25", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "25", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1106/2010\nof 30 November 2010\nestablishing the list of measures to be excluded from the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 485/2008 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 485/2008 of 26 May 2008 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (1), and in particular Article 1(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 485/2008 relates to scrutiny of the commercial documents of those entities receiving or making payments relating directly or indirectly to the system of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in order to ascertain whether transactions forming part of the system of financing by the EAGF have actually been carried out and have been executed correctly. It is however appropriate to exclude from the application of that Regulation those measures which are by their nature unsuited to ex post control by way of scrutiny of commercial documents.\n(2)\nA list of exempted measures is currently set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2311/2000 of 18 October 2000 establishing the list of measures to which Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 does not apply and repealing Decision 96/284/EC (2). Given the changes occurred in the agricultural legislation, it is necessary to update that list.\n(3)\nCertain measures are concerned with payments that are either area related or unrelated to commercial documents that can be subject to scrutiny. It is accordingly appropriate to exclude such measures from the scope of application of Regulation (EC) No 485/2008.\n(4)\nAccount should be taken that certain measures previously financed through the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guarantee Section) are now financed through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) as established by Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (3).\n(5)\nFor reasons of clarity, Regulation (EC) No 2311/2000 should be repealed and replaced by a new text.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe system of scrutinies established by Regulation (EC) No 485/2008 does not apply to the measures listed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 2311/2000 is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["44", "98", "87", "20", "57", "6", "70", "63", "29", "59", "11", "54", "83", "96", "49", "73", "2", "39", "30", "43", "9", "93", "7", "92", "95", "50", "52", "88", "72", "78", "No Label", "8", "10", "12", "33", "46"], "gold": ["8", "10", "12", "33", "46"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 727/2010\nof 6 August 2010\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3 of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column 2 of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 August 2010.", "references": ["17", "92", "78", "62", "31", "7", "30", "33", "67", "51", "35", "99", "85", "58", "54", "83", "72", "16", "91", "23", "57", "88", "41", "45", "32", "19", "1", "36", "9", "2", "No Label", "21", "86"], "gold": ["21", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1179/2011\nof 17 November 2011\nlaying down technical specifications for online collection systems pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the citizens\u2019 initiative\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens\u2019 initiative (1), and in particular Article 6(5) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Data Protection Supervisor,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 211/2011 provides that where statements of support are collected online, the system used for that purpose must satisfy certain security and technical requirements and must be certified by the competent authority of the relevant Member State.\n(2)\nAn online collection system within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 is an information system, consisting of software, hardware, hosting environment, business processes and staff in order to accomplish the online collection of statements of support.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 211/2011 sets out the requirements that online collection systems have to comply with in order to be certified and provides that the Commission should adopt technical specifications for implementing those requirements.\n(4)\nThe Open Web Application Security Project\u2019s (OWASP) Top 10 2010 project provides an overview of the most critical web application security risks as well as tools for addressing these risks; the technical specifications therefore draw upon the findings of this project.\n(5)\nImplementation by the organisers of the technical specifications should guarantee certification of the online collection systems by the Member States\u2019 authorities, and contribute to ensure the implementation of the appropriate technical and organisational measures required to comply with the obligations imposed by Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) on the security of the processing activities, both at the time of the design of the processing system and at the time of the processing itself, in order to maintain security and thereby to prevent any unauthorised processing and protect personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure or access.\n(6)\nThe process of certification should be facilitated by the use by the organisers of the software provided by the Commission in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011.\n(7)\nOrganisers of citizens\u2019 initiatives, as data controllers, should, when collecting statements of support online, implement the technical specifications set out in this Regulation in order to ensure the protection of personal data processed. Where the processing is carried out by a processor, the organisers should ensure that the processor acts only on instructions from the organisers and that he implements the technical specifications set out in this Regulation.\n(8)\nThis Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 8 thereof, which states that everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe technical specifications referred to in Article 6(5) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 November 2011.", "references": ["58", "98", "17", "65", "38", "11", "59", "72", "91", "77", "51", "82", "97", "6", "89", "30", "47", "2", "33", "75", "8", "36", "96", "20", "81", "90", "52", "32", "5", "83", "No Label", "40", "42", "76"], "gold": ["40", "42", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 427/2010\nof 19 May 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 423/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 May 2010.", "references": ["76", "73", "50", "81", "38", "16", "2", "9", "94", "93", "70", "42", "37", "97", "66", "65", "82", "40", "84", "41", "23", "57", "86", "18", "3", "29", "95", "56", "0", "33", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 785/2011\nof 5 August 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the maximum guaranteed area for which the protein crop premium may be granted\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular Article 81(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 81(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishes the maximum guaranteed area for which the protein crop premium may be granted.\n(2)\nArticle 81(3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 provides that where a Member State decides, in accordance with Article 67, to integrate the protein crop premium into the single payment scheme, the Commission is to reduce the maximum guaranteed area referred to in Article 81(1) in proportion to the area corresponding to the protein crops amount attributed to that Member State in Annex XII.\n(3)\nDenmark, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, except England, have decided to integrate the protein crop premium into the single payment scheme.\n(4)\nArticle 81(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 81(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. A maximum guaranteed area of 1 505 056 ha for which the protein crop premium may be granted is hereby established.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2011.", "references": ["57", "0", "10", "92", "18", "17", "67", "91", "29", "1", "22", "75", "51", "88", "73", "46", "60", "41", "9", "24", "33", "76", "25", "20", "50", "77", "55", "87", "47", "11", "No Label", "15", "61", "62", "63", "68"], "gold": ["15", "61", "62", "63", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 564/2012\nof 27 June 2012\nestablishing budgetary ceilings for 2012 applicable to certain direct support schemes provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 51(2), the first subparagraph of Article 69(3), the first subparagraph of Article 123(1), the second subparagraph of Article 128(2), and the first subparagraph of Article 131(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor the Member States implementing, in 2012, the single payment scheme provided for under Title III of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the budgetary ceilings for each of the payments referred to in Articles 52, 53 and 54 of that Regulation should be established for 2012.\n(2)\nFor the Member States making use, in 2012, of the options provided for in Articles 69(1) or 131(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the budgetary ceilings for the specific support referred to in Chapter 5 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 should be established for 2012.\n(3)\nArticle 69(4) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 limits the resources that can be used for any coupled measure provided for in points (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Article 68(1)(a) and in Article 68(1)(b) and (e) to 3.5% of the national ceiling referred to in Article 40 of the same Regulation. For the sake of clarity, the Commission should publish the ceiling resulting from the amounts notified by the Member States for the measures concerned.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 69(6)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the amounts calculated in accordance with Article 69(7) of that Regulation have been laid down in Annex III of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (2). For the sake of clarity, the Commission should publish the amounts notified by Member States which they intend to use in accordance with Article 69(6)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.\n(5)\nFor the sake of clarity, the 2012 budgetary ceilings for the single payment scheme, resulting from deduction of the ceilings established for the payments referred to in Articles 52 53, 54 and 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 from the ceilings given in Annex VIII to the same Regulation, should be published. The amount to be deducted from the said Annex VIII in order to finance the specific support provided for in Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 corresponds to the difference between the total amount for the specific support notified by the Member States and the amounts notified to finance the specific support in accordance with article 69(6)(a) of the same Regulation. Where a Member State implementing the single payment scheme decides to grant the support referred to in point (c) of Article 68(1), the amount notified to the Commission is to be included in the single payment scheme ceiling, as this support takes the form of an increase in the unit value and/or the number of the farmer's payment entitlements.\n(6)\nFor Member States implementing, in 2012, the single area payment scheme provided for in Chapter 2 of Title V of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the annual financial envelopes should be established in accordance with Article 123(1) of that Regulation.\n(7)\nFor the sake of clarity, the maximum amount of funds available to Member States applying the single area payment scheme for granting separate sugar payments in 2012 under Article 126 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, established on the basis of their notification, should be published.\n(8)\nFor the sake of clarity, the maximum amount of funds available to Member States applying the single area payment scheme for granting separate fruit and vegetables payments in 2012 pursuant to Article 127 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, established on the basis of their notification, should be published.\n(9)\nFor Member States applying the single area payment scheme, the 2012 budgetary ceilings applicable to transitional payments for fruit and vegetables payments in 2012 in accordance with Article 128(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, should be published on the basis of their notification.\n(10)\nFor the sake of clarity, the maximum amount of funds available to Member States applying the single area payment scheme for granting separate soft fruit payments in 2012 pursuant to Article 129 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, established on the basis of their notification, should be published\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The budgetary ceilings for 2012 referred to in Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. The budgetary ceilings for 2012 referred to in Article 69(3) and 131(4) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\n3. The budgetary ceilings for 2012 for the support provided for in points (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Article 68(1)(a) and in Article 68(1)(b) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex III to this Regulation.\n4. The amounts that can be used by the Member States in accordance with Article 69(6)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 to cover the specific support provided in Article 68(1) of the same Regulation are set out in Annex IV to this Regulation.\n5. The budgetary ceilings for 2012 for the single payment scheme referred to in Title III of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex V to this Regulation.\n6. The annual financial envelopes for 2012 referred to in Article 123(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex VI to this Regulation.\n7. The maximum amounts of funding available to the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia for granting the separate sugar payment in 2012, as referred to in Article 126 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, are set out in Annex VII to this Regulation.\n8. The maximum amounts of funding available to the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia for granting the separate fruit and vegetables payment in 2012, as referred to in Article 127 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, are set out in Annex VIII to this Regulation.\n9. The budgetary ceilings for 2012 referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 128(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex IX to this Regulation.\n10. The maximum amounts of funding available to Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland for granting the separate soft fruit payment in 2012, as referred to in Article 129 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, are set out in Annex X to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2012.", "references": ["98", "77", "71", "43", "65", "74", "95", "99", "32", "0", "7", "64", "51", "23", "52", "69", "35", "1", "80", "4", "3", "75", "40", "87", "63", "83", "8", "20", "73", "34", "No Label", "33", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["33", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 398/2011\nof 20 April 2011\nfixing the export refunds on eggs\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in eggs, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely within the Union and comply with requirements under Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2) and of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3), as well as marking requirements under point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 45/2011 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 and those defined in point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 45/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["30", "37", "84", "0", "27", "61", "75", "94", "87", "53", "71", "31", "99", "34", "98", "91", "88", "10", "24", "17", "63", "68", "38", "70", "4", "14", "25", "7", "29", "43", "No Label", "20", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["20", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 787/2011\nof 5 August 2011\napproving the active substance 1-naphthylacetic acid, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and Commission Decision 2008/941/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. 1-naphthylacetic acid, previously referred to as \u2018naphthylacetic acid\u2019, is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 1112/2002 (4) and (EC) No 2229/2004 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included 1-naphthylacetic acid.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 24e of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report referred to in Article 24(2) of that Regulation. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/941/EC of 8 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (6) was adopted on the non-inclusion of 1-naphthylacetic acid.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to France, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/941/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nFrance evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 12 March 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on 1-naphthylacetic acid to the Commission on 15 February 2011 (7). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for 1-naphthylacetic acid.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing 1-naphthylacetic acid may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve 1-naphthylacetic acid in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that 1-naphthylacetic acid should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(11)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of the approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing 1-naphthylacetic acid. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw existing authorisations. By way of derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(12)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (8) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(13)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (9) should be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nDecision 2008/941/EC provides for the non-inclusion of 1-naphthylacetic acid and the withdrawal of authorisations for plants protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning \u2018naphthylacetic acid\u2019 in the Annex to that Decision. It is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/941/EC accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance 1-naphthylacetic acid, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing 1-naphthylacetic acid as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing 1-naphthylacetic acid as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Following that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing 1-naphthylacetic acid as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing 1-naphthylacetic acid as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2008/941/EC\nThe line concerning \u2018naphthylacetic acid\u2019 in the Annex to Decision 2008/941/EC is deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2011.", "references": ["49", "91", "9", "21", "2", "42", "12", "1", "77", "62", "17", "11", "51", "22", "64", "71", "10", "15", "36", "29", "3", "23", "78", "67", "60", "84", "94", "52", "44", "63", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "83"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 532/2010\nof 18 June 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (1), and in particular Article 15(1)(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 lists persons, entities and bodies who, having been designated by the United Nations Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council, are covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 9 June 2010, the UN Security Council decided to amend the list of persons, entities and bodies to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex IV should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe Articles 8(a), 9 and 11 (2) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 refer to the date on which the person, entity or body has been designated by the Sanctions Committee, the UN Security Council or the Council. It is appropriate to add the relevant date to each entry.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2010.", "references": ["92", "77", "8", "49", "43", "74", "37", "56", "1", "16", "63", "65", "35", "23", "52", "82", "36", "0", "2", "21", "55", "42", "96", "72", "98", "61", "13", "18", "70", "29", "No Label", "3", "5", "9", "11", "20", "76", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "9", "11", "20", "76", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 266/2011\nof 17 March 2011\nfixing the export refunds on poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2) and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in poultrymeat, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely in the Union and bear the identification mark provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products should also comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1207/2010 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements under Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the identification marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 1207/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 March 2011.", "references": ["86", "77", "28", "1", "18", "12", "68", "55", "56", "39", "62", "48", "43", "10", "8", "83", "6", "3", "44", "27", "21", "25", "35", "64", "85", "63", "4", "72", "80", "47", "No Label", "20", "38", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "38", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1040/2010\nof 16 November 2010\namending Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 as regards the quantitative limits of certain steel products from the Russian Federation\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 of 22 October 2007 on administering certain restrictions on imports of certain steel products from the Russian Federation (1), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Community and the Russian Federation signed an agreement on trade in certain steel products on 26 October 2007 (2) (the Agreement).\n(2)\nArticle 3(3) of the Agreement provides that unused quantities for a given year may be carried over to the following year up to a maximum of 7 % of the relevant quantitative limit set out in Annex II to the Agreement.\n(3)\nRussia has, as in 2009, notified the European Union of its intent to make use of the provisions in Article 3(3) within the time limits set by the Agreement. It is appropriate to make the necessary adjustments to the quantitative limits for the year 2010 resulting from Russia\u2019s request.\n(4)\nArticle 10 stipulates that with each yearly renewal, quantities in every product group shall be increased by 2,5 %.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1342/2007 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantitative limits for the year 2010 set out in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 are replaced by those set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe quantitative limits for the year 2011 resulting from the application of Article 10(1) of the 2007 Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on trade in certain steel products are set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 November 2010.", "references": ["57", "77", "35", "86", "10", "26", "33", "32", "53", "39", "45", "89", "67", "41", "17", "5", "40", "44", "25", "51", "4", "55", "3", "87", "68", "38", "72", "93", "34", "99", "No Label", "2", "21", "23", "84", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "21", "23", "84", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION No 448/2011/EU\nof 19 July 2011\namending Decision 2004/162/EC as regards the products that may benefit from exemption from or a reduction in dock dues\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 349 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Decision 2004/162/EC of 10 February 2004 concerning the dock dues in the French overseas departments and extending the period of validity of Decision 89/688/EEC (2) authorises the French authorities to apply exemptions from or reductions in the dock dues tax for the products listed in the Annex thereto. The maximum permitted tax differential is, depending on the products and the overseas department in question, 10, 20 or 30 percentage points.\n(2)\nIn accordance with the second paragraph of Article 4 of Decision 2004/162/EC, on 31 July 2008 the French authorities presented to the Commission a report on the application of the taxation arrangements provided for in that Decision. On 22 December 2008 a supplement was submitted, and the further information requested by the Commission on 15 April 2009 was sent to it on 16 April 2010. The report from the French authorities included a request for the list of products to which differentiated taxation may be applied to be adapted for French Guiana.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the report from the French authorities, the Commission presented to the Council the report provided for in the third paragraph of Article 4 of Decision 2004/162/EC and a proposal for amendments to that Decision. The proposals concern either the four DOMs or French Guiana specifically.\n(4)\nIt should first be noted that there is no longer any local production of certain products in the DOM concerned, and the French authorities no longer apply differentiated taxation to certain other products because those produced locally are now at a price equivalent to that of products from outside the DOM. Those products should therefore be removed from the lists in the Annex to Decision 2004/162/EC. This is the case in Guadeloupe for margarine (product 1517 10 (3) and for pebbles, gravel, etc. (product 2517 10). In the case of Martinique the products concerned are anti-freezing preparations and prepared de-icing liquids (product 3820), margarine (product 1517 10) and certain acids (product 2811). Lastly, the products concerned in the case of R\u00e9union are soya-bean oil (product 1507 90), certain olive oils (product 1510 00 90), certain chemical products (products 2828 10 00 and 2828 90 00) and certain photographic materials (product 3705 10 00).\n(5)\nSecondly, the tax differential actually applied is, for a limited number of products, significantly below the maximum authorised. The maximum differential authorised for these products should therefore be reduced as there is no specific reason to believe that an increase in the existing tax differential may become necessary in the near future. For Guadeloupe, the products concerned are certain meats (product 0210), certain vegetables (products 0702, 0705, 0706 10 00, 0707 00, 0709 60 and 0709 90), certain kinds of animal feedstuffs (product 2309), certain paints (products 3208, 3209 and 3210), certain abrasive products (product 6805) and certain glasses for corrective spectacles (product 7015 10 00). For French Guiana, the products concerned are certain kinds of rice (product 1006 20). For Martinique they are certain cereals (product 1008 90 90), certain flours (product 1102) and pebbles, gravel, etc. (product 2517 10).\n(6)\nThirdly, in certain cases the products manufactured locally do not appear to be less competitive than those coming from outside the DOMs. These concern products currently falling within Part A of the Annex to Decision 2004/162/EC where the volume of production in the DOM concerned is high and, although the differential applied is small, no imports of equivalent products have been recorded in the last 3 years analysed. These products should therefore be removed from the lists in the Annex to Decision 2004/162/EC. For Guadeloupe the products concerned are certain food production residues (product 2302). For R\u00e9union the products concerned are certain residues from the manufacture of wood pulp (product 3804 00).\n(7)\nThe amendments relating specifically to French Guiana, namely the addition of new products and an increase in the differential authorised for certain products, are justified in each case by the higher costs of the products manufactured locally compared with equivalent imported products manufactured in the European territory of the Union.\n(8)\nThe amendments to be made in this respect for French Guiana consist principally in adding to the lists in the Annex to Decision 2004/162/EC the products which were already being manufactured locally in 2004 and for which no request for inclusion in the list of products to which differential taxation may be applied was made in 2004.\n(9)\nIn the agriculture, fisheries and agri-food industry sectors, the products to be included in the lists in the Annex to Decision 2004/162/EC are certain meats (products 0201, 0202, 0203, 0204, 0208 and 0210), certain species of fish (products 0304 and 0305), certain meat preparations (products 1601 and 1602), certain sugar products (product 1702), certain breads, cakes or pastries (product 1905), certain preserved vegetables or fruit (products 2001 and 2006), jams (product 2007), certain sauces (product 2103), ice cream and other edible ice (product 2105), certain miscellaneous food preparations (product 2106) and certain liqueurs and cordials and rum-based beverages (products 2208 70 and 2208 90).\n(10)\nIn the housing and construction sector the products concerned are certain plastic products (products 3919 and 3926), certain articles of cement, concrete or artificial stone, (product 6810 19) and certain iron products (products 7210, 7214 20, 7216, 7217 90 90, 7309, 7310 and 7314).\n(11)\nFor products derived from forestry and other miscellaneous products, the products concerned are various woods and joinery products (products 4403 99 95, 4407 22, 4407 99 96, 4409 29 91, 4409 29 99, 4418 (except subheadings 4418 10 50, 4418 20 50, 4418 71, 4418 72 and 4418 79), certain categories of furniture (products 9403 40 10 and 9406 except subheading 9406 00 31), certain printed products (products 4910 and 4911) and certain items of clothing (products 6109, 6205 and 6206).\n(12)\nFor some products already included in the lists in the Annex to Decision 2004/162/EC, still referring to French Guiana, the maximum differential concerned should be extended to cover subheadings of the Combined Nomenclature which they do not currently cover, or the maximum differential should be increased, or both.\n(13)\nThus all fruit juices (product 2009), all mineral waters containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured (product 2202) and all plastic articles for the conveyance or packaging of goods (product 3923) should be included in list C of products to which a tax differential of 30 percentage points may be applied, while fruit juices of subheading 2009 80, mineral waters of heading 2202 10 and plastic articles for the conveyance or packaging of goods (product 3923), for which a tax differential of 20 percentage points is currently authorised, should be removed from list B.\n(14)\nIn the case of cements, in list B (products to which a tax differential of 20 percentage points may be applied) white cement (product 2523 21 00) should be replaced by other Portland cement (product 2523 29). For structures and parts of structures of iron or steel, the authorised tax differential of 20 percentage points should be applied to all products of heading 7308 and not only to those of subheading 7308 90, as at present. For articles of aluminium, the tax differential of 20 percentage points should be applied to all products of heading 7610 and not only to those of subheading 7610 90, as at present. This would mean that this tax differential could also be applied to doors, windows, doorframes and thresholds for doors of heading 7610 10.\n(15)\nFinally, still in the case of French Guiana, three products which are not yet produced locally but for which there are concrete plans to launch production in the near future, should be added to the lists of products to which differentiated taxation may be applied. They are: milk (product 0401), mineral waters (product 2201) and certain articles of stone or other mineral substances (product 6815).\n(16)\nDecision 2004/162/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2004/162/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 February 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["47", "76", "27", "14", "33", "78", "97", "5", "30", "43", "16", "64", "49", "7", "15", "28", "51", "60", "95", "29", "75", "96", "56", "90", "1", "65", "85", "6", "10", "80", "No Label", "20", "23", "34", "98"], "gold": ["20", "23", "34", "98"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 407/2010\nof 11 May 2010\nestablishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Article 122(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 122(2) of the Treaty foresees the possibility of granting Union financial assistance to a Member State in difficulties or seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by exceptional occurrences beyond its control.\n(2)\nSuch difficulties may be caused by a serious deterioration in the international economic and financial environment.\n(3)\nThe unprecedented global financial crisis and economic downturn that have hit the world over the last two years have seriously damaged economic growth and financial stability and provoked a strong deterioration in the deficit and debt positions of the Member States.\n(4)\nThe deepening of the financial crisis has led to a severe deterioration of the borrowing conditions of several Member States beyond what can be explained by economic fundamentals. At this point, this situation, if not addressed as a matter of urgency, could present a serious threat to the financial stability of the European Union as a whole.\n(5)\nIn order to address this exceptional situation beyond the control of the Member States, it appears necessary to put in place immediately a Union stabilisation mechanism to preserve financial stability in the European Union. Such a mechanism should allow the Union to respond in a coordinated, rapid and effective manner to acute difficulties in a particular Member State. Its activation will be in the context of a joint EU/International Monetary Fund (IMF) support.\n(6)\nGiven their particular financial implications, the decisions to grant Union financial assistance pursuant to this Regulation require the exercise of implementing powers, which should be conferred on the Council.\n(7)\nStrong economic policy conditions should be imposed in case of activation of this mechanism with a view to preserving the sustainability of the public finances of the beneficiary Member State and restoring its capacity to finance itself on the financial markets.\n(8)\nThe Commission should regularly review whether the exceptional circumstances threatening the financial stability of the European Union as a whole still exist.\n(9)\nThe existing facility providing medium-term financial assistance for non-euro-area Member States, as established by Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 (1), should remain in place,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAim and scope\nWith a view to preserving the financial stability of the European Union, this Regulation establishes the conditions and procedures under which Union financial assistance may be granted to a Member State which is experiencing, or is seriously threatened with, a severe economic or financial disturbance caused by exceptional occurrences beyond its control, taking into account the possible application of the existing facility providing medium-term financial assistance for non-euro-area Member States\u2019 balances of payments, as established by Regulation (EC) No 332/2002.\nArticle 2\nForm of the Union financial assistance\n1. Union financial assistance for the purposes of this Regulation shall take the form of a loan or of a credit line granted to the Member State concerned.\nTo this end, in accordance with a Council decision pursuant to Article 3, the Commission shall be empowered on behalf of the European Union to contract borrowings on the capital markets or with financial institutions.\n2. The outstanding amount of loans or credit lines to be granted to Member States under this Regulation shall be limited to the margin available under the own resources ceiling for payment appropriations.\nArticle 3\nProcedure\n1. The Member State seeking Union financial assistance shall discuss with the Commission, in liaison with the European Central Bank (ECB), an assessment of its financial needs and submit a draft economic and financial adjustment programme to the Commission and the Economic and Financial Committee.\n2. Union financial assistance shall be granted by a decision adopted by the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission.\n3. The decision to grant a loan shall contain:\n(a)\nthe amount, the average maturity, the pricing formula, the maximum number of instalments, the availability period of the Union financial assistance and the other detailed rules needed for the implementation of the assistance;\n(b)\nthe general economic policy conditions which are attached to the Union financial assistance with a view to re-establishing a sound economic or financial situation in the beneficiary Member State and to restoring its capacity to finance itself on the financial markets; these conditions will be defined by the Commission, in consultation with the ECB; and\n(c)\nan approval of the adjustment programme prepared by the beneficiary Member State to meet the economic conditions attached to the Union financial assistance.\n4. The decision to grant a credit line shall contain:\n(a)\nthe amount, the fee for the availability of the credit line, the pricing formula applicable for the release of funds and the availability period of the Union financial assistance and the other detailed rules needed for the implementation of the assistance;\n(b)\nthe general economic policy conditions which are attached to the Union financial assistance with a view to re-establishing a sound economic or financial situation in the beneficiary Member State; these conditions will be defined by the Commission, in consultation with the ECB; and\n(c)\nan approval of the adjustment programme prepared by the beneficiary Member State to meet the economic conditions attached to the Union financial assistance.\n5. The Commission and the beneficiary Member State shall conclude a Memorandum of Understanding detailing the general economic policy conditions laid down by the Council. The Commission shall communicate the Memorandum of Understanding to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n6. The Commission shall re-examine, in consultation with the ECB, the general economic policy conditions referred to in paragraphs 3(b) and 4(b) at least every six months and discuss with the beneficiary Member State the changes that may be needed to its adjustment programme.\n7. The Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall decide on any adjustments to be made to the initial general economic policy conditions and shall approve the revised adjustment programme as prepared by the beneficiary Member State.\n8. If a financing outside the Union subject to economic policy conditions is envisaged, notably from the IMF, the Member State concerned shall first consult the Commission. The Commission shall examine the possibilities available under the Union financial assistance facility and the compatibility of the envisaged economic policy conditions with the commitments taken by the Member State concerned for the implementation of the Council recommendations and Council decisions adopted on the basis of Article 121, Article 126 and Article 136 of the TFEU. The Commission shall inform the Economic and Financial Committee.\nArticle 4\nDisbursement of the loan\n1. The loan shall, as a rule, be disbursed in instalments.\n2. The Commission shall verify at regular intervals whether the economic policy of the beneficiary Member State accords with its adjustment programme and with the conditions laid down by the Council pursuant to Article 3(3)(b). To this end, that Member State shall provide all the necessary information to the Commission and give the latter its full cooperation.\n3. On the basis of the findings of such verification, the Commission shall decide on the release of further instalments.\nArticle 5\nRelease of funds\n1. The beneficiary Member State shall inform the Commission in advance of its intention to draw down funds from its credit line. Detailed rules shall be laid down in the decision referred to in Article 3(4).\n2. The Commission shall verify at regular intervals whether the economic policy of the beneficiary Member State accords with its adjustment programme and with the conditions laid down by the Council pursuant to Article 3(4)(b). To this end, that Member State shall provide all the necessary information to the Commission and give the latter its full cooperation.\n3. On the basis of the findings of such verification, the Commission shall decide on the release of the funds.\nArticle 6\nBorrowing and lending operations\n1. The borrowing and lending operations referred to in Article 2 shall be carried out in euro.\n2. The characteristics of the successive instalments released by the Union under the financial assistance facility shall be negotiated between the beneficiary Member State and the Commission.\n3. Once the decision on a loan has been made by the Council, the Commission shall be authorised to borrow on the capital markets or from financial institutions at the most appropriate time in between planned disbursements so as to optimise the cost of funding and preserve its reputation as the Union's issuer in the markets. Funds raised but not yet disbursed shall be kept at all times on dedicated cash or securities account which are handled in accordance with rules applying to off-budget operations and cannot be used for any other goal than to provide financial assistance to Member States under the present mechanism.\n4. Where a Member State receives a loan carrying an early repayment clause and decides to exercise this option, the Commission shall take the necessary steps.\n5. At the request of the beneficiary Member State and where circumstances permit an improvement in the interest rate on the loan, the Commission may refinance all or part of its initial borrowing or restructure the corresponding financial conditions.\n6. The Economic and Financial Committee shall be kept informed of the developments in the operations referred to in paragraph 5.\nArticle 7\nCosts\nThe costs incurred by the Union in concluding and carrying out each operation shall be borne by the beneficiary Member State.\nArticle 8\nAdministration of the loans\n1. The Commission shall establish the necessary arrangements for the administration of the loans with the ECB.\n2. The beneficiary Member State shall open a special account with its National Central Bank for the management of the Union financial assistance received. It shall also transfer the principal and the interest due under the loan to an account with the ECB fourteen TARGET2 business days prior to the corresponding due date.\n3. Without prejudice to Article 27 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, the European Court of Auditors shall have the right to carry out in the beneficiary Member State any financial controls or audits that it considers necessary in relation to the management of that assistance. The Commission, including the European Anti-Fraud office, shall in particular have the right to send its officials or duly authorised representatives to carry out in the beneficiary Member State any technical or financial controls or audits that it considers necessary in relation to that assistance.\nArticle 9\nReview and adaptation\n1. The Commission shall forward to the Economic and Financial Committee and to the Council, within six months following the entry into force of this Regulation and where appropriate every six months thereafter, a report on the implementation of this Regulation and on the continuation of the exceptional occurrences that justify the adoption of this Regulation.\n2. Where appropriate, the report shall be accompanied by a proposal for amendments to this Regulation with a view to adapting the possibility of granting financial assistance without affecting the validity of decisions already adopted.\nArticle 10\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 May 2010.", "references": ["94", "61", "52", "32", "22", "48", "51", "39", "77", "82", "20", "91", "31", "71", "10", "81", "53", "1", "62", "18", "2", "12", "42", "40", "89", "85", "58", "27", "14", "73", "No Label", "4", "9", "15", "16", "30", "96"], "gold": ["4", "9", "15", "16", "30", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 3 October 2011\nappointing eight Spanish members and 10 Spanish alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/661/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nEight members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Francesc ANTICH I OLIVER, Mr Marcelino IGLESIAS RICOU, Mr Vicente \u00c1LVAREZ ARECES, Ms Dolores GOROSTIAGA SAIZ, Mr Jos\u00e9 Mar\u00eda BARREDA FONTES, Mr Guillermo FERN\u00c1NDEZ VARA, Mr Miguel SANZ SESMA and Mr Francisco CAMPS ORTIZ. Ten alternate members\u2019 seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Alberto GARC\u00cdA CERVI\u00d1O, Ms Luc\u00eda MART\u00cdN DOM\u00cdNGUEZ, Mr Juan Antonio MORALES RODR\u00cdGUEZ, Ms Elsa CASAS CABELLO, Ms Esther MONTERRUBIO VILLAR, Mr Javier VELASCO MANCEBO, Ms Luisa ARA\u00daJO CHAMORRO, Mr Antonio GONZ\u00c1LEZ TEROL, Mr Alberto CATAL\u00c1N HIGUERAS and Mr Rafael RIPOLL NAVARRO,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMs Luisa Fernanda RUDI \u00daBEDA, Presidenta del Gobierno de Arag\u00f3n\n-\nMr Francisco \u00c1LVAREZ-CASCOS FERN\u00c1NDEZ, Presidente del Principado de Asturias\n-\nMr Jos\u00e9 Ram\u00f3n BAUZ\u00c1 D\u00cdAZ, Presidente del Gobierno de las Illes Balears\n-\nMr Juan Ignacio DIEGO PALACIOS, Presidente del Gobierno de Cantabria\n-\nMs Dolores de COSPEDAL GARC\u00cdA, Presidenta de la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha\n-\nMr Jos\u00e9 Antonio MONAGO TERRAZA, Presidente de la Junta de Extremadura\n-\nMs Mar\u00eda Yolanda BARCINA ANGULO, Presidenta de la Comunidad Foral de Navarra\n-\nMr Alberto FABRA PART, Presidente de la Comunidad Valenciana\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMr Roberto Pablo BERM\u00daDEZ DE CASTRO MUR, Consejero de Presidencia del Gobierno de Arag\u00f3n\n-\nMr Jos\u00e9 PORTILLA GONZ\u00c1LEZ, Viceconsejero de Relaciones Institucionales de la Presidencia del Principado de Asturias\n-\nMr Javier GONZ\u00c1LEZ ORTIZ, Consejero de Econom\u00eda, Hacienda y Seguridad del Gobierno de Canarias\n-\nMs Cristina MAZAS P\u00c9REZ-OLEAGA, Consejera de Econom\u00eda, Hacienda y Empleo de la Comunidad Aut\u00f3noma de Cantabria\n-\nMr Timoteo MART\u00cdNEZ AGUADO, Viceconsejero de Econom\u00eda de la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha\n-\nMs Cristina Elena TENIENTE S\u00c1NCHEZ, Vicepresidenta y Portavoz de la Junta de Extremadura\n-\nMr Borja COROMINAS FISAS, Director General de Asuntos Europeos y Cooperaci\u00f3n con el Estado de la Comunidad de Madrid\n-\nMs Carmen Mar\u00eda SANDOVAL S\u00c1NCHEZ, Directora General de la Uni\u00f3n Europea y Relaciones Exteriores de la Regi\u00f3n de Murcia\n-\nMr Juan Luis S\u00c1NCHEZ DE MUNI\u00c1IN LACASIA, Consejero de Cultura, Turismo y Relaciones Institucionales de la Comunidad Foral de Navarra\n-\nMs Mar\u00eda Victoria PALAU T\u00c1RREGA, Directora General de Relaciones con la Uni\u00f3n Europea de la Comunidad Valenciana\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 3 October 2011.", "references": ["34", "82", "55", "16", "17", "88", "62", "18", "33", "6", "20", "5", "36", "12", "99", "74", "52", "68", "47", "15", "8", "72", "30", "76", "67", "58", "54", "11", "4", "85", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 457/2012\nof 30 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 May 2012.", "references": ["10", "79", "13", "30", "54", "40", "73", "43", "51", "85", "76", "38", "39", "62", "3", "55", "48", "44", "34", "12", "71", "23", "25", "98", "69", "93", "91", "63", "65", "58", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 78/2011\nof 28 January 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for common sole in VIIIa and VIIIb by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 January 2011.", "references": ["8", "82", "93", "9", "84", "39", "25", "52", "99", "89", "57", "95", "18", "62", "0", "7", "26", "69", "55", "30", "80", "22", "35", "59", "17", "64", "60", "23", "85", "75", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/847/CFSP\nof 16 December 2011\nimplementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus, additional persons should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex IIIA to Decision 2010/639/CFSP.\n(3)\nAnnex IIIA to Decision 2010/639/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex IIIA to Decision 2010/639/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["90", "16", "57", "83", "25", "29", "14", "54", "94", "9", "99", "96", "86", "11", "42", "55", "84", "95", "77", "62", "48", "18", "26", "69", "73", "34", "27", "31", "21", "37", "No Label", "3", "12", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "12", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1295/2011\nof 13 December 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/706/CFSP of 27 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/638/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 (2) imposed certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea, in accordance with Council Common Position 2009/788/CFSP (3) (later replaced by Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP (4)), in response to the violent crackdown by security forces on political demonstrators in Conakry on 28 September 2009.\n(2)\nDecision 2010/638/CFSP was amended by Decision 2011/706/CFSP in order to modify, inter alia, the scope of the measures relating to military equipment and equipment capable of being used for internal repression.\n(3)\nCertain aspects of those measures fall within the scope of the Treaty and, therefore, notably with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement them.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 1284/2009 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nParagraph (1) of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. By way of derogation from Articles 2 and 3, the competent authorities of the Member States as indicated in the websites listed in Annex III, may in duly justified cases authorise:\n(a)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment which might be used for internal repression, provided it is intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, or for institution-building programmes of the United Nations (UN) and the European Union, or for European Union and UN crisis management operations;\n(b)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal equipment which might be used for internal repression, provided it is intended solely to enable the police and gendarmerie of the Republic of Guinea to use only appropriate and proportionate force while maintaining public order;\n(c)\nthe provision of financing, financial assistance, technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to equipment or to programmes and operations referred to in points (a) and (b);\n(d)\nthe provision of financing, financial assistance, technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, for institution-building programmes of the UN and the European Union, or for European Union and UN crisis management operations;\n(e)\nthe provision of financing, financial assistance, technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to non-lethal military equipment intended solely to enable the police and gendarmerie of the Republic of Guinea to use only appropriate and proportionate force while maintaining public order;\n(f)\nprovision of financing, financial assistance, technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to non-combat vehicles which have been manufactured or fitted with materials to provide ballistic protection, intended solely for protective use of personnel of the European Union and its Member States in the Republic of Guinea.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["40", "66", "35", "84", "90", "82", "30", "50", "56", "9", "93", "63", "55", "26", "81", "48", "80", "89", "38", "46", "54", "4", "83", "21", "74", "92", "14", "88", "37", "0", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 October 2011\nappointing a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank\n(2011/775/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 283(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 11.2 thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation of the Council of the European Union (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter dated 27 September 2011 the President of the European Central Bank, Mr Jean-Claude TRICHET, announced the decision of Mr J\u00fcrgen STARK to resign from his position on the Executive Board prior to the end of his term of office on 31 May 2014, and his willingness to remain in function until the date on which his successor takes up his responsibilities. It is therefore necessary to appoint a new member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank.\n(2)\nThe European Council wishes to appoint Mr J\u00f6rg ASMUSSEN who, in its view, fulfils all the requirements set out in Article 283(2) of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr J\u00f6rg ASMUSSEN is hereby appointed a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank for a term of office of 8 years as from 1 January 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 October 2011.", "references": ["48", "59", "61", "28", "0", "52", "4", "84", "76", "26", "99", "16", "20", "77", "83", "53", "44", "21", "97", "57", "46", "10", "89", "47", "49", "50", "39", "81", "70", "54", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 735/2010\nof 13 August 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 August 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 August 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 August 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 August 2010.", "references": ["17", "20", "81", "57", "30", "6", "59", "67", "50", "8", "69", "44", "93", "23", "41", "74", "92", "43", "87", "83", "28", "42", "53", "24", "64", "29", "91", "32", "25", "75", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 828/2012\nof 14 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for roundnose grenadier in EU and international waters of Vb, VI, VII by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 September 2012.", "references": ["62", "51", "39", "64", "3", "69", "89", "90", "4", "7", "5", "82", "74", "48", "18", "75", "36", "17", "78", "50", "80", "86", "92", "52", "76", "20", "68", "27", "31", "26", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 924/2011\nof 15 September 2011\non the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the fourth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2010/2011 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011, the Commission is to decide, in the light of the tenders received in response to a partial invitation to tender, either to fix a minimum customs duty or not to fix a minimum customs duty per eight digit CN code.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the fourth partial invitation to tender, a minimum customs duty should be fixed for certain eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701 and no minimum customs duty should be fixed for the other eight digit codes for sugar falling within that CN code.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the fourth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 14 September 2011, a minimum customs duty has been fixed, or has not been fixed, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation for the eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 September 2011.", "references": ["26", "48", "0", "34", "15", "67", "81", "96", "16", "29", "11", "47", "56", "17", "86", "5", "52", "3", "1", "28", "2", "18", "31", "42", "88", "49", "57", "63", "70", "93", "No Label", "10", "20", "21", "22", "71"], "gold": ["10", "20", "21", "22", "71"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 11 April 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Argentine Republic pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union\n(2011/256/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 January 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with certain other Members of the World Trade Organization under Article XXIV:6 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 in the course of the accessions to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania.\n(2)\nNegotiations have been conducted by the Commission within the framework of the negotiating directives adopted by the Council.\n(3)\nThese negotiations have been concluded and the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Argentine Republic pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (the Agreement) was initialled on 22 September 2010.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Argentine Republic pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (the Agreement) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the Agreement (1).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["7", "40", "39", "30", "5", "79", "53", "63", "29", "41", "81", "85", "50", "2", "38", "67", "19", "10", "48", "11", "22", "84", "12", "8", "27", "74", "61", "56", "17", "87", "No Label", "9", "21", "93"], "gold": ["9", "21", "93"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 621/2010\nof 3 June 2010\nconcerning the allocation of the fishing opportunities under the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Solomon Islands\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA new Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Solomon Islands (hereinafter: \u2018Fisheries Partnership Agreement\u2019) was initialled on 26 September 2009.\n(2)\nCouncil has adopted on 3 June 2010 Decision No 2010/397/EU (1) on the signing and provisional application of the new Fisheries Partnership Agreement.\n(3)\nThe method for allocating the fishing opportunities among the Member States should be defined for the duration of the new Fisheries Partnership Agreement as well as for the period of its provisional application.\n(4)\nThis Regulation should enter into force on the first day following its publication and should apply from 9 October 2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The fishing opportunities set out in the Protocol of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Solomon Islands shall be allocated among the Member States as follows:\n- Freezer tuna seiners:\nSpain\n:\n75 % of fishing opportunities available\nFrance\n:\n25 % of fishing opportunities available\n2. If applications for fishing authorisations from the Member States referred to in paragraph 1 do not cover all the fishing opportunities set by the Protocol, the Commission may consider applications for fishing authorisations from any other Member State.\n3. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement and the Protocol, Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 of 29 September 2008 concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters (2) shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the first day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 9 October 2009.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["62", "34", "52", "57", "99", "98", "13", "70", "91", "10", "93", "72", "38", "18", "37", "81", "44", "83", "14", "4", "86", "12", "0", "51", "5", "64", "96", "90", "6", "58", "No Label", "3", "67", "95"], "gold": ["3", "67", "95"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 27 September 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/028 NL/Overijssel Division 18 from the Netherlands)\n(2011/655/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nThe Netherlands submitted an application on 20 December 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in nine enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (\u2018Printing and reproduction of recorded media\u2019) in the NUTS II region of Overijssel (NL21) in the Netherlands, and supplemented it by additional information up to 7 March 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 718 140.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Netherlands,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 718 140 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 27 September 2011.", "references": ["4", "95", "51", "58", "38", "35", "34", "55", "89", "19", "39", "81", "60", "93", "29", "78", "45", "56", "12", "43", "32", "64", "94", "52", "65", "61", "87", "20", "73", "13", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "40", "41", "49", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "40", "41", "49", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "European Council Decision\nof 11 May 2012\non the examination by a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States of the amendment to the Treaties proposed by the Irish Government in the form of a Protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon, to be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and not to convene a Convention\n(2013/106/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 48(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal for the amendment of the Treaties submitted to the Council by the Irish Government on 20 July 2011 and submitted to the European Council by the Council on 12 October 2011,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament not to convene a Convention [1],\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament [2],\nAfter notification of the proposal to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission [3],\nWhereas:\n(1) On 18- 19 June 2009, the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States of the European Union, meeting within the European Council, adopted a Decision on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon and declared that, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, they would set out the provisions of that Decision in a protocol to be annexed, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).\n(2) On 20 July 2011, the Irish Government submitted, in accordance with the first sentence of Article 48(2) TEU, a proposal for the amendment of the Treaties in the form of a Protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon.\n(3) On 12 October 2011, in accordance with the third sentence of Article 48(2) TEU, the proposal of the Irish Government was submitted by the Council to the European Council. It was also notified to the national parliaments.\n(4) At its meeting on 23 October 2011, the European Council decided, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 48(3) TEU, to consult the European Parliament and the Commission on the proposed amendments. It also decided, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 48(3) TEU, to request the consent of the European Parliament not to convene a Convention given that, in its view, the convening of such Convention was not justified by the extent of the proposed amendments.\n(5) On 18 April 2012, the European Parliament adopted a favourable opinion on the proposed amendments. It also gave its consent not to convene a Convention on account of this not being justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. On 4 May 2012, the Commission adopted a favourable opinion on the proposed amendments.\n(6) Therefore, it is appropriate that, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 48(3) TEU, the European Council decide that a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States should examine the amendments proposed by the Irish Government, define the terms of reference of the conference and decide not to convene a Convention,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe European Council hereby decides that a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall examine the amendments proposed by the Irish Government in the form of a Protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon, to be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in the wording as attached to this Decision, which will constitute the terms of reference of the said conference. In view of the extent of the proposed amendments, a Convention under Article 48(3) of the Treaty on European Union shall not be convened.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 11 May 2012.", "references": ["80", "46", "81", "18", "37", "12", "69", "70", "47", "88", "52", "0", "19", "1", "58", "25", "20", "82", "40", "27", "10", "95", "83", "71", "21", "92", "31", "39", "49", "43", "No Label", "3", "8", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "8", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 923/2011\nof 15 September 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 September 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 September 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 September 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 September 2011.", "references": ["67", "41", "34", "7", "0", "92", "38", "35", "19", "62", "44", "33", "28", "61", "84", "12", "78", "13", "40", "57", "58", "97", "95", "2", "86", "59", "42", "1", "79", "50", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 810/2012\nof 10 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for Anglerfish in areas VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 September 2012.", "references": ["15", "77", "31", "60", "88", "35", "63", "17", "65", "52", "12", "27", "92", "14", "32", "38", "3", "83", "39", "69", "24", "7", "36", "40", "11", "29", "50", "5", "80", "68", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 894/2011\nof 22 August 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Coppa Piacentina (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and in accordance with Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Coppa Piacentina\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1263/96 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 August 2011.", "references": ["93", "9", "64", "84", "8", "10", "57", "40", "68", "21", "31", "90", "54", "44", "3", "86", "45", "98", "59", "30", "50", "0", "78", "83", "81", "87", "35", "65", "28", "5", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 December 2011\nconcerning the specific programme, to be carried out by means of indirect actions, implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013)\n(2012/94/Euratom)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission submitted after consultation of the Scientific and Technical Committee,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nJoint national and European efforts in the area of research and training are essential to promote and ensure economic growth and the well-being of citizens in Europe.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2012/93/Euratom of 19 December 2011 concerning the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013) (3) (hereinafter \u2027the Framework Programme\u2027), the Framework Programme is to be implemented through specific programmes that define detailed rules for their implementation, fix their duration and provide for the means deemed necessary.\n(3)\nThe Framework Programme comprises two types of activities: indirect actions in fusion energy research and research on nuclear fission, safety and radiation protection, and direct actions for activities of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in the field of nuclear waste management, environmental impact, safety and security, especially related to nuclear events and taking into account lessons learned from previous experiences. The indirect actions should be implemented by this specific programme.\n(4)\nThe rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results under the Framework Programme should apply to this specific programme.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 101 of the Treaty, the Community has concluded a number of international agreements in the field of nuclear research, and efforts should be made to strengthen international research cooperation, with a view to further integrating the Community within the worldwide research community. Bilateral international cooperation is based on a solid legal framework of cooperation agreements between the Community and third countries. The Framework Programme is fundamental to the implementation of those agreements. Therefore, this specific programme should be open to the participation of countries that have concluded agreements to this effect and should be also open at project level, and on the basis of mutual benefit, to the participation of entities from third countries and of international organisations for scientific cooperation.\n(6)\nThis specific programme should contribute towards promoting sustainable development and ensuring that an appropriate safety culture is maintained.\n(7)\nSound financial management of this specific programme and its implementation should be ensured in an effective and user-friendly manner, while ensuring legal certainty and the accessibility of this programme to all participants, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4) and Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5).\n(8)\nAppropriate measures - proportionate to the Union's financial interests - should be taken to monitor both the effectiveness of the financial support granted and the effectiveness of the utilisation of these funds in order to prevent irregularities and fraud. The necessary steps should also be taken to recover funds lost, wrongly paid or incorrectly used, in accordance with Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (6), Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (7) and Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (8).\n(9)\nEach thematic area of this specific programme should have its own budget line in the general budget of the Union.\n(10)\nResearch activities carried out within this specific programme should respect fundamental ethical principles, including those reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe specific programme, to be carried out by means of indirect actions, implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013) (hereinafter the \u2027specific programme\u2027) is adopted for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013.\nArticle 2\nThe specific programme shall support activities for research and training on nuclear energy, covering the whole range of indirect research actions carried out in the following thematic areas:\n(a)\nfusion energy research (including the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER));\n(b)\nresearch on nuclear fission, safety and radiation protection.\nThe objectives and broad lines of the activities referred to in this Article are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 3\nIn accordance with Article 3 of Decision 2012/93/Euratom, the maximum amount for the execution of the specific programme is EUR 2 327 054 000, of which up to 15 % shall be for the Commission's administrative expenditure. This amount is allocated as follows:\n(a)\nfusion energy research\nEUR 2 208 809 000;\n(b)\nnuclear fission, safety and radiation protection\nEUR 118 245 000.\nArticle 4\nAll research activities carried out under the specific programme shall be carried out in compliance with fundamental ethical principles.\nArticle 5\n1. The specific programme shall be implemented by means of the funding schemes established in Annex II to Decision 2012/93/Euratom.\n2. The rules for participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results relating to indirect actions set out in Council Regulation (Euratom) No 139/2012 of 19 December 2011 laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in indirect actions under the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community and for the dissemination of research results (2012-2013) (9) shall apply to this specific programme.\nArticle 6\n1. The Commission shall draw up an annual work programme for the implementation of the specific programme, setting out in greater detail the objectives and scientific and technological priorities set out in the Annex, the funding schemes to be used for the topics on which proposals are invited, and the timetable for implementation.\n2. The work programme shall take account of relevant research activities carried out by the Member States, associated states and European and international organisations. It shall be updated where appropriate.\n3. The work programme shall specify the criteria on which proposals for indirect actions under the funding schemes are to be evaluated and projects selected. The criteria shall be those of excellence, impact and implementation. Additional requirements, weightings and thresholds may be further specified or complemented in the work programme.\n4. The work programme may identify the following:\n(a)\norganisations that receive subscriptions in the form of a membership fee;\n(b)\nactions to support the activities of specific legal entities.\nArticle 7\n1. The Commission shall be responsible for the implementation of the specific programme.\n2. For the purposes of implementing the specific programme the Commission shall be assisted by a consultative committee. The members of this committee can vary according to the different subjects on the committee's agenda. For fission-related aspects, the composition of this committee and the detailed operational rules and procedures applicable to it shall be as laid down in Council Decision 84/338/Euratom, ECSC, EEC of 29 June 1984 dealing with structures and procedures for the management and coordination of Community research, development and demonstration activities (10). For the fusion-related aspects they shall be as laid down in Council Decision of 16 December 1980 setting up a Consultative Committee for the fusion programme (11).\n3. The Commission shall regularly inform the committee of the overall progress of the implementation of the specific programme, and shall provide it with timely information on all actions proposed or funded under this specific programme.\nArticle 8\nThe Commission shall arrange for the independent monitoring, assessment and review provided for in Article 6 of Decision 2012/93/Euratom to be conducted concerning the activities carried out in the fields covered by the specific programme.\nArticle 9\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["39", "4", "87", "62", "50", "99", "79", "74", "85", "19", "82", "11", "96", "16", "29", "42", "54", "17", "83", "89", "3", "13", "30", "15", "59", "78", "0", "5", "88", "64", "No Label", "9", "76", "77", "81"], "gold": ["9", "76", "77", "81"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 306/2012\nof 10 April 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 280/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 April 2012.", "references": ["52", "31", "86", "95", "90", "73", "93", "51", "69", "66", "16", "67", "70", "50", "83", "5", "0", "9", "15", "55", "43", "99", "48", "39", "33", "19", "75", "40", "54", "1", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1032/2010\nof 15 November 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 174/2005 imposing restrictions on the supply of assistance related to military activities to C\u00f4te-d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 174/2005 of 31 January 2005 imposing restrictions on the supply of assistance related to military activities to C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (2) provides for prohibitions on the export of equipment which might be used for internal repression and on the provision of certain technical assistance, financing and financial assistance. Those restrictions were enacted in accordance with Council Common Position 2004/852/CFSP of 13 December 2004 concerning restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (3).\n(2)\nTaking into account United Nations Security Council Resolution 1946 (2010) of 15 October 2010 and Decision 2010/656/CFSP, it is necessary to amend Regulation (EC) No 174/2005 in order to permit the export of non-lethal equipment, as well as non-lethal equipment capable of being used for internal repression, intended solely to enable the Ivorian security forces to use only appropriate and proportionate force while maintaining public order, as well as the provision of related technical assistance, financing and financial assistance.\n(3)\nThe list of equipment which might be used for internal repression should be updated following recommendations made by experts, taking into account Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 of 27 June 2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (4).\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to update the article on Union jurisdiction in light of recent drafting practice.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 174/2005 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 174/2005 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 4(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. By way of derogation from Article 2, the prohibitions referred to therein shall not apply to:\n(a)\nthe provision of technical assistance, financing and financial assistance related to arms and related materiel, where such assistance or services are intended solely for support of and use by the United Nations Operation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (UNOCI) and the French forces who support it;\n(b)\nthe provision of technical assistance related to non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, including such equipment intended for EU, UN, African Union and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) crisis management operations, where such activities have also been approved in advance by the Sanctions Committee;\n(c)\nthe provision of financing or financial assistance related to non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, including such equipment intended for EU, UN, African Union and ECOWAS crisis management operations;\n(d)\nthe provision of technical assistance related to arms and related materiel intended solely for support of or use in the process of restructuring defence and security forces pursuant to paragraph 3, subparagraph (f) of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement, where such activities have also been approved in advance by the Sanctions Committee;\n(e)\nthe provision of financing or financial assistance related to arms and related materiel intended solely for support of or use in the process of restructuring defence and security forces pursuant to paragraph 3, subparagraph (f) of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement;\n(f)\nthe sales or supplies temporarily transferred or exported to C\u00f4te d'Ivoire to the forces of a State which is taking action, in accordance with international law, solely and directly to facilitate the evacuation of its nationals and those for whom it has consular responsibility in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire, where such activities have also been notified in advance to the Sanctions Committee;\n(g)\nthe provision of technical assistance, financing or financial assistance related to non-lethal military equipment intended solely to enable the Ivorian security forces to use only appropriate and proportionate force while maintaining public order.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 4a\n1. By way of derogation from Article 3, the competent authority, as listed in Annex II, of the Member State where the exporter or service provider is established may authorise, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, the sale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal equipment listed in Annex I or the provision of technical assistance, financing or financial assistance related to such non-lethal equipment, after having determined that the non-lethal equipment concerned is intended solely to enable the Ivorian security forces to use only appropriate and proportionate force while maintaining public order.\n2. The relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraph 1.\n3. No authorisations shall be granted for activities that have already taken place.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 9 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 9\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\u2019;\n(4)\nAnnex I is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation;\n(5)\nthe title of Annex II is replaced by the following:\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 29 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["68", "69", "1", "11", "34", "72", "36", "17", "84", "2", "37", "41", "75", "56", "92", "31", "79", "96", "7", "50", "14", "87", "54", "38", "71", "13", "89", "48", "95", "20", "No Label", "3", "4", "6", "9", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "6", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 797/2011\nof 9 August 2011\napproving the active substance spiroxamine, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances listed in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 of 27 June 2007 on laying down the procedure of the renewal of the inclusion of a first group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and establishing the list of those substances (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Spiroxamine is listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 737/2007.\n(2)\nThe approval of spiroxamine, as set out in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (4), expires on 31 December 2011. A notification was submitted in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 for the renewal of the inclusion of spiroxamine in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within the time period provided for in that Article.\n(3)\nThat notification was found to be admissible by Commission Decision 2008/656/EC of 28 July 2008 on the admissibility of the notifications concerning the renewal of the inclusion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances azimsulfuron, azoxystrobin, fluroxypyr, imazalil, kresoxim-methyl, prohexadion-calcium and spiroxamine, and establishing the list of the notifiers concerned (5).\n(4)\nWithin the time period provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007, the notifier submitted the data required in accordance with that Article together with an explanation as regards the relevance of each new study submitted.\n(5)\nThe rapporteur Member State prepared an assessment report in consultation with the co-rapporteur Member State and submitted it to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and the Commission on 17 September 2009. In addition to the assessment of the active substance, that report includes a list of the studies the rapporteur Member State relied on for its assessment.\n(6)\nThe Authority communicated the assessment report to the notifier and to the Member States for comments and forwarded the comments received to the Commission. The Authority also made the assessment report available to the public.\n(7)\nAt the request of the Commission, the assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority. The Authority presented its conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of spiroxamine (6) to the Commission on 1 September 2010. The assessment report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for spiroxamine.\n(8)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing spiroxamine may be expected to continue to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve spiroxamine.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions not provided for in the first inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that spiroxamine should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(11)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(12)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of six months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing spiroxamine. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(13)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(14)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should be amended accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance spiroxamine, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing spiroxamine as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing spiroxamine as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing spiroxamine as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing spiroxamine as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 August 2011.", "references": ["68", "55", "89", "6", "94", "40", "59", "83", "78", "32", "39", "71", "50", "60", "37", "84", "31", "79", "98", "41", "62", "45", "75", "42", "48", "2", "53", "44", "17", "57", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 342/2010\nof 22 April 2010\nfixing the export refunds on poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), last subparagraph, and Article 170 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Community for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in poultrymeat, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162 to 164, 167, 169 and 170 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely in the Community and bear the identification mark provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products should also comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The products on which the export refunds provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 may be paid, subject to the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 of this Article, and the amounts of those refunds are specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The products on which a refund may be paid under paragraph 1 shall meet the requirements under Regulations (EC) Nos 852/2004 and 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the identification marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 April 2010.", "references": ["38", "44", "89", "51", "36", "10", "83", "61", "88", "56", "79", "81", "21", "0", "3", "7", "12", "13", "26", "96", "41", "24", "11", "77", "54", "2", "55", "45", "27", "86", "No Label", "20", "69", "72"], "gold": ["20", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 481/2012\nof 7 June 2012\nlaying down rules for the management of a tariff quota for high-quality beef\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) and Article 148, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 617/2009 (2) opened on a multiannual basis an autonomous import tariff quota for the import of 20 000 tonnes of high-quality beef. That Regulation has been amended by Regulation (EU) No 464/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) which increases the import tariff quota to 21 500 tonnes from the first day of the month following its publication, and to 48 200 tonnes as from 1 August 2012. Tariff quotas for agricultural products are to be managed in conformity with Article 144(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 617/2009 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 464/2012 provides that the tariff quota is to be managed by the Commission by means of implementing acts, to be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (4).\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (5) lays down rules for the administration of the tariff quota concerned by applying the simultaneous examination method of import licence applications, as referred to in Article 144(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. Recent experience with the administration of the Union tariff quota for high-quality beef has shown a need to improve the management of this tariff quota. Experience in the use of the first-come, first-served management system referred to in Article 144(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 has been positive in other agricultural sectors. Therefore, in the interest of administrative simplification and in order to avoid any speculative behaviour, the tariff quota concerning the import of high-quality beef originating in third countries should be managed in accordance with Articles 308a and 308b and Article 308c(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (6), which lays down rules for the management of tariff quotas designed to be used following the chronological order of dates of acceptance of customs declarations. Where imports are managed in accordance with those rules, no import licences should be required any more.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure a regular flow of imports, it is appropriate to sub-divide the annual tariff quota into quarterly sub-periods. Appropriate order numbers should be fixed in line with Article 308a(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 617/2009 establishes that the quota year runs from 1 July to 30 June. In order to ensure a swift transfer from the current simultaneous examination method to the first-come, first-served management system the new management method should apply as from 1 July 2012.\n(5)\nThe quantity available for the first quarterly sub-period (1 July to 30 September 2012) should be calculated on a pro-rata basis taking into account the volume of the annual tariff quota applicable until 31 July 2012 and the new increased volume of the annual tariff quota applicable as of 1 August 2012.\n(6)\nThe release into free circulation of the goods imported under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 617/2009 should be subject to the presentation of a certificate of authenticity issued by the competent authority of the exporting third country. The issue of such certificates of authenticity should guarantee that the imported goods qualify as high quality beef as defined in this Regulation.\n(7)\nFor reasons of clarity, Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 should be repealed and replaced by a new implementing regulation.\n(8)\nSince the new management system is to apply as from 1 July 2012, licences applied for in June 2012 under Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 should not be issued.\n(9)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation lays down rules for the management of an annual Union tariff quota for high-quality beef provided for in Regulation (EC) No 617/2009, hereinafter referred to as \u2018the tariff quota\u2019. The tariff quota period, volume and duty shall be as set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. This Regulation shall apply to high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef that fulfils the requirements laid down in Annex II.\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, \u2018frozen meat\u2019 means meat with an internal temperature of - 12 \u00b0C or lower when it enters the customs territory of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nManagement of the tariff quota\n1. The tariff quota shall be managed on a first-come, first-served basis in accordance with Articles 308a and 308b and Article 308c(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93. No import licences shall be required.\n2. The tariff quota shall be managed as a parent tariff quota under order number 09.2201 with four quarterly sub-tariff quotas under order number 09.2202.\nThe benefit from the tariff quota can be granted only by applying for order number 09.2202 referring to the sub-tariff quotas.\n3. The drawings on the sub-tariff quotas until 30 September, 31 December and 31 March shall be stopped respectively on the fifth working day of the Commission in November, February and May. Their unused balances shall be added to the quantities for the quarterly sub-tariff quotas starting respectively on 1 October, 1 January and 1 April. No unused balance at the end of a quota year shall be transferred to another quota year.\nArticle 3\nCertificates of authenticity\n1. In order to benefit from the tariff quota, a certificate of authenticity issued in the third country concerned, together with a customs declaration for release for free circulation for the goods concerned, shall be presented to the Union\u2019s customs authorities.\n2. The certificate of authenticity referred to in paragraph 1 shall be established in accordance with the model set out in Annex III.\n3. On the reverse side of the certificate of authenticity it shall be stated that the meat originating in the exporting country fulfils the requirements laid down in Annex II.\n4. A certificate of authenticity shall be valid only if it is duly completed and endorsed by the issuing authority.\n5. A certificate of authenticity shall be considered to have been duly endorsed if it states the date and place of issue and if it bears the stamp of the issuing authority and the signature of the person or persons empowered to sign it.\n6. The stamp may be replaced by a printed seal on the original of the certificate of authenticity and any copies thereof.\n7. The validity of a certificate of authenticity shall expire at the latest on 30 June following the date of its issue.\nArticle 4\nIssuing authorities in third countries\n1. The issuing authority referred to in Article 3 shall:\n(a)\nbe recognised as such by the competent authority of the exporting country;\n(b)\nundertake to verify entries in the certificates of authenticity.\n2. The following information shall be notified to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe name and address, if possible including e-mail and internet address, of the authority or authorities recognised to issue the certificates of authenticity referred to in Article 3;\n(b)\nspecimen of the stamps used by the issuing authority or authorities;\n(c)\nthe procedures and criteria followed by the issuing authority or authorities in order to establish whether the requirements laid down in Annex II are fulfilled.\nArticle 5\nThird country notifications\nWhen the requirements laid down in Annex II are fulfilled, the Commission shall publish the name of the issuing authority or authorities concerned in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union or by any other appropriate means.\nArticle 6\nOn-the-spot checks in third countries\nThe Commission may request the third country to authorise representatives of the Commission to carry out, where required, on-the-spot checks in that third country. Those checks shall be performed jointly with the competent authorities of the third country concerned.\nArticle 7\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 620/2009 is repealed.\nArticle 8\nTransitional measures\nLicence applications submitted in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 during the first seven days of June 2012 shall be rejected on the date of entry into force of this Regulation. The securities lodged in relation with those applications shall be released.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nHowever, Article 8 shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["74", "23", "7", "67", "82", "41", "38", "35", "86", "1", "81", "96", "91", "62", "52", "94", "70", "24", "66", "43", "79", "87", "57", "0", "36", "85", "65", "37", "20", "78", "No Label", "21", "22", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 931/2010\nof 18 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 October 2010.", "references": ["62", "67", "21", "38", "71", "76", "79", "27", "72", "10", "77", "8", "2", "6", "33", "56", "15", "32", "14", "55", "13", "37", "18", "97", "44", "98", "81", "53", "63", "86", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\napproving annual and multiannual programmes and the financial contribution from the Union for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses presented by the Member States for 2012 and following years\n(notified under document C(2011) 8719)\n(2011/807/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 27(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the Union financial contribution for programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses.\n(2)\nIn addition, Article 27(1) of Decision 2009/470/EC provides that a Union financial measure is to be introduced to reimburse the expenditure incurred by the Member States for the financing of national programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of the animal diseases and zoonoses listed in Annex 1 to that Decision.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2008/341/EC of 25 April 2008 laying down Community criteria for national programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses (2) provides that in order to be approved under the Union financial measures, programmes submitted by the Member States must meet at least the criteria set out in the Annex to that Decision.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (3) provides for annual monitoring programmes by Member States for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in bovine, ovine and caprine animals.\n(5)\nCouncil Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza (4) also provides for surveillance programmes by Member States to be carried out in respect of poultry and wild birds in order to contribute, inter alia, on the basis of regularly updated risk-assessments, to the knowledge on the threats posed by the wild birds in relation to any influenza virus of avian origin in birds. Those annual programmes, and their financing, for monitoring should also be approved.\n(6)\nCertain Member States have submitted to the Commission annual programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases, programmes of checks aimed at the prevention of zoonoses, and annual monitoring programmes for the eradication and monitoring of certain TSEs for which they wish to receive a financial contribution from the Union.\n(7)\nFor the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 certain multiannual programmes submitted by Member States for the eradication, control and monitoring of the animal diseases were approved under Commission Decisions 2007/782/EC (5), 2008/897/EC (6), 2009/883/EC (7) and 2010/712/EU (8).\n(8)\nThe commitment of the expenditure for those multiannual programmes was adopted in accordance with Article 76(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (9). The first budget commitment for those programmes was made after their approval. Each subsequent annual commitment should be made by the Commission in function of the execution of the programme for the previous year, on the basis of a decision to grant a contribution referred to in Article 27(5) of Decision 2009/470/EC.\n(9)\nCertain Member States which have been successfully implementing rabies eradication programmes that have been co-financed for several years, share land borders with third countries where that disease is present. In order to finally eradicate rabies, certain vaccination activities need to be carried out in the territory of those third countries adjacent to the Union.\n(10)\nIn order to support the implementation of rabies vaccination activities to be carried out in the territory of those third countries adjacent to the Union, the payment of an advance of up to 60 % of the maximum amount set for such activities under the Member State programmes, should be made possible.\n(11)\nThe Commission has assessed the annual programmes submitted by the Member States, as well as the fifth, fourth, third and second years respectively of the multiannual programmes approved for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, from both the veterinary and financial point of view. Those programmes comply with the relevant Union veterinary legislation and in particular with the criteria set out in Decision 2008/341/EC.\n(12)\nIn the light of the importance of the annual and multiannual programmes for the achievement of Union objectives in the field of animal and public health, as well as the obligatory application in all Member States in the case of the Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) and avian influenza programmes, it is appropriate to fix the appropriate rate of the Union financial contribution to reimburse the costs to be incurred by the Member States concerned for the measures referred to in this Decision up to a maximum amount for each programme.\n(13)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing Decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(14)\nVerification of individual justifications of eligible costs creates extensive administrative burdens while not notably increasing the efficient use of Union funds or transparency. It is thus more appropriate to fix the Union financial contribution, for each programme, where appropriate, at a level that ensures that costs entailed by the type of measure, if implemented are adequately covered. Union financial contribution supporting in particular defined activities such as sampling, testing and vaccination should accordingly be specified as lump sum intended to compensate for all costs normally incurred to perform the activity or to produce the respective test result.\n(15)\nUnder Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (10), programmes for the eradication and control of animal diseases are to be financed under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. For financial control purposes, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of that Regulation are to apply.\n(16)\nThe financial contribution from the Union should be granted subject to the condition that the actions planned are efficiently carried out and that the competent authorities supply all the necessary information within the time limits laid down in this Decision.\n(17)\nFor reasons of administrative efficiency all expenditure submitted for a financial contribution by the Union should be expressed in euro. In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the conversion rate for expenditure in a currency other than the euro should be the most recent exchange rate set by the European Central Bank prior to the first day of the month in which the application is submitted by the Member State concerned.\n(18)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nCHAPTER I\nANNUAL PROGRAMMES\nArticle 1\nBovine brucellosis\n1. The programmes for the eradication of bovine brucellosis submitted by Spain, Italy Portugal and the United Kingdom are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall consist of a lump sum compensating for all costs incurred to perform the following activities and/or tests:\n(i)\nEUR 0,5 per domestic animal sampled;\n(ii)\nEUR 0,2 per rose bengal test;\n(iii)\nEUR 0,2 per SAT test;\n(iv)\nEUR 0,4 per complement fixation test;\n(v)\nEUR 0,5 per ELISA test;\n(vi)\nEUR 10 per bacteriological test;\n(vii)\nEUR 1 per domestic animal vaccinated;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for the cost of the compensation to be paid to owners for the value of their animals slaughtered subject to those programmes and shall on average not exceed EUR 375 per animal slaughtered; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 4 800 000 for Spain;\n(ii)\nEUR 2 300 000 for Italy;\n(iii)\nEUR 1 550 000 for Portugal;\n(iv)\nEUR 2 000 000 for the United Kingdom.\nArticle 2\nBovine tuberculosis\n1. The programmes for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis submitted by Ireland, Spain, Italy Portugal and the United Kingdom are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall consist of a lump sum compensating for all costs incurred to perform the following activities and/or tests:\n(i)\nEUR 0,5 per domestic animal sampled;\n(ii)\nEUR 1,5 per tuberculin test;\n(iii)\nEUR 5 per gamma-interferon test;\n(iv)\nEUR 10 per bacteriological test;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for the compensation to be paid to owners for the value of their animals slaughtered subject to those programmes shall on average not exceed EUR 375 per animal slaughtered; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 14 000 000 for Ireland;\n(ii)\nEUR 12 700 000 for Spain;\n(iii)\nEUR 5 000 000 for Italy;\n(iv)\nEUR 2 650 000 for Portugal;\n(v)\nEUR 31 200 000 for the United Kingdom.\nArticle 3\nOvine and caprine brucellosis\n1. The programmes for the eradication of ovine and caprine brucellosis submitted by Greece, Italy, Spain, Cyprus, and Portugal are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall consist of a lump sum compensating for all costs incurred to perform the following activities and/or tests:\n(i)\nEUR 0,5 per domestic animal sampled;\n(ii)\nEUR 0,2 per rose bengal test;\n(iii)\nEUR 0,4 per complement fixation test;\n(iv)\nEUR 10 per bacteriological test;\n(v)\nEUR 1 per domestic animal vaccinated;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for the cost of the compensation to be paid to owners for the value of their animals slaughtered subject to those programmes and shall on average not exceed EUR 50 per animal slaughtered; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 2 050 000 for Greece;\n(ii)\nEUR 8 700 000 for Spain;\n(iii)\nEUR 3 700 000 for Italy;\n(iv)\nEUR 190 000 for Cyprus;\n(v)\nEUR 1 950 000 for Portugal.\nArticle 4\nBluetongue in endemic or high risk areas\n1. The programmes for the eradication and monitoring of bluetongue submitted by Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall consist of a lump sum compensating for all costs incurred to perform the following activities and/or tests:\n(i)\nEUR 0,5 per domestic animal sampled;\n(ii)\nEUR 1 per domestic animal vaccinated;\n(iii)\nEUR 2 per ELISA test;\n(iv)\nEUR 10 per PCR test;\n(v)\nEUR 10 per virological test;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for:\n(i)\nthe cost of carrying out laboratory tests for entomological surveillance;\n(ii)\nthe purchase of traps; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 360 000 for Belgium;\n(ii)\nEUR 15 000 for Bulgaria;\n(iii)\nEUR 40 000 for the Czech Republic;\n(iv)\nEUR 80 000 for Germany;\n(v)\nEUR 10 000 for Estonia;\n(vi)\nEUR 40 000 for Ireland;\n(vii)\nEUR 100 000 for Greece;\n(viii)\nEUR 1 000 000 for Spain;\n(ix)\nEUR 1 700 000 for France;\n(x)\nEUR 400 000 for Italy;\n(xi)\nEUR 20 000 for Latvia;\n(xii)\nEUR 10 000 for Lithuania;\n(xiii)\nEUR 10 000 for Luxembourg;\n(xiv)\nEUR 30 000 for Hungary;\n(xv)\nEUR 10 000 for Malta;\n(xvi)\nEUR 40 000 for the Netherlands;\n(xvii)\nEUR 10 000 for Austria;\n(xviii)\nEUR 50 000 for Poland;\n(xix)\nEUR 2 350 000 for Portugal;\n(xx)\nEUR 100 000 for Romania;\n(xxi)\nEUR 40 000 for Slovenia;\n(xxii)\nEUR 50 000 for Slovakia;\n(xxiii)\nEUR 10 000 for Finland;\n(xxiv)\nEUR 10 000 for Sweden.\nArticle 5\nSalmonellosis (zoonotic salmonella) in breeding, laying and broiler flocks of Gallus gallus and in flocks of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo)\n1. The programmes for the control of certain zoonotic salmonella in breeding, laying and broiler flocks of Gallus gallus and in flocks of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) submitted by Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia Slovakia, and the United Kingdom are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n2. The programmes for the control of certain zoonotic salmonella in broiler flocks of Gallus gallus and in flocks of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) submitted by Poland is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n3. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall include a lump sum of EUR 0,5 per official sample taken;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 and 2 for the cost of:\n(i)\ncarrying out bacteriological and serotyping tests in the framework of official sampling;\n(ii)\ncarrying out bacteriological tests to verify the efficiency of disinfection;\n(iii)\ncarrying out tests for the detection of antimicrobials or bacterial growth inhibitory effect in tissues from birds from flocks tested for salmonella;\n(iv)\nthe purchase of vaccine doses;\n(v)\nthe compensation to be paid to owners for the value of:\n-\nthe culled breeding and laying birds of Gallus gallus,\n-\nthe culled breeding turkey birds of Meleagris gallopavo,\n-\nthe destroyed eggs as referred to in paragraph 4; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 1 300 000 for Belgium;\n(ii)\nEUR 60 000 for Bulgaria;\n(iii)\nEUR 1 500 000 for the Czech Republic;\n(iv)\nEUR 250 000 for Denmark;\n(v)\nEUR 1 000 000 for Germany;\n(vi)\nEUR 30 000 for Estonia;\n(vii)\nEUR 300 000 for Ireland;\n(viii)\nEUR 1 000 000 for Greece;\n(ix)\nEUR 1 000 000 for Spain;\n(x)\nEUR 1 300 000 for France;\n(xi)\nEUR 700 000 for Italy;\n(xii)\nEUR 100 000 for Cyprus;\n(xiii)\nEUR 130 000 for Latvia;\n(xiv)\nEUR 10 000 for Luxembourg;\n(xv)\nEUR 2 000 000 for Hungary;\n(xvi)\nEUR 150 000 for Malta;\n(xvii)\nEUR 3 000 000 for the Netherlands;\n(xviii)\nEUR 800 000 for Austria;\n(xix)\nEUR 500 000 for Poland;\n(xx)\nEUR 200 000 for Portugal;\n(xxi)\nEUR 200 000 for Romania;\n(xxii)\nEUR 70 000 for Slovenia;\n(xxiii)\nEUR 600 000 for Slovakia;\n(xxiv)\nEUR 75 000 for the United Kingdom.\n4. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the programmes referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\nfor a bacteriological test (cultivation/isolation):\nEUR 7 per test;\n(b)\nfor the purchase of vaccine:\nEUR 0,05 per dose;\n(c)\nfor serotyping of relevant isolates of salmonella spp.:\nEUR 20 per test;\n(d)\nfor a bacteriological test to verify the efficiency of disinfection of poultry houses after depopulation of a salmonella-positive flock:\nEUR 5 per test;\n(e)\nfor a test for the detection of antimicrobials or bacterial growth inhibitory effect in tissues from birds from flocks tested for salmonella:\nEUR 5 per test;\n(f)\nfor the compensation to be paid to owners for the value of:\n(i)\na parent breeding bird of Gallus gallus culled:\nEUR 4 per bird;\n(ii)\na commercial laying bird of Gallus gallus culled:\nEUR 2,20 per bird;\n(iii)\na parent breeding turkey bird of Meleagris gallopavo culled:\nEUR 12 per bird;\n(iv)\nhatching eggs of parent breeding Gallus gallus:\nEUR 0,20 per hatching egg destroyed;\n(v)\ntable eggs of Gallus gallus:\nEUR 0,04 per table egg destroyed;\n(vi)\nhatching eggs of parent breeding Meleagris gallopavo:\nEUR 0,40 per hatching egg destroyed.\nArticle 6\nClassical swine fever and African swine fever\n1. The programmes for the control and monitoring of:\n(a)\nClassical swine fever submitted by Bulgaria, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012;\n(b)\nAfrican swine fever submitted by Italy is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall consist of a lump sum compensating for all costs incurred to perform the following activities and/or tests:\n(i)\nEUR 0,5 per domestic pig sampled;\n(ii)\nEUR 5 per wild boar sampled;\n(iii)\nEUR 1 per bait/vaccine;\n(iv)\nEUR 2 per ELISA test;\n(v)\nEUR 10 per PCR test;\n(vi)\nEUR 10 per virological test;\n(b)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 210 000 for Bulgaria;\n(ii)\nEUR 1 300 000 for Germany;\n(iii)\nEUR 260 000 for France;\n(iv)\nEUR 100 000 for Italy;\n(v)\nEUR 10 000 for Luxembourg;\n(vi)\nEUR 340 000 for Hungary;\n(vii)\nEUR 900 000 for Romania;\n(viii)\nEUR 30 000 for Slovenia;\n(ix)\nEUR 500 000 for Slovakia.\nArticle 7\nSwine vesicular disease\n1. The programme for the eradication of swine vesicular disease submitted by Italy is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall consist of a lump sum compensating for all costs incurred to perform the following activities and/or tests:\n(i)\nEUR 0,5 per domestic pig sampled;\n(ii)\nEUR 2 per ELISA test;\n(iii)\nEUR 4 per seroneutralisation test;\n(iv)\nEUR 10 per PCR test;\n(v)\nEUR 10 per virological test;\n(b)\nshall not exceed EUR 900 000.\nArticle 8\nAvian influenza in poultry and wild birds\n1. The survey programmes for avian influenza in poultry and wild birds submitted by Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall consist of a lump sum compensating for all costs incurred to perform the following activities and/or tests:\n(i)\nEUR 0,5 per sample from poultry flocks;\n(ii)\nEUR 5 per wild bird sampled in the framework of the passive surveillance;\n(iii)\nEUR 1 per ELISA test;\n(iv)\nEUR 1 per agar gel immune diffusion test;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State for the costs of carrying out laboratory tests other than those foreseen in point (a); and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 40 000 for Belgium;\n(ii)\nEUR 40 000 for Bulgaria;\n(iii)\nEUR 30 000 for the Czech Republic;\n(iv)\nEUR 40 000 for Denmark;\n(v)\nEUR 80 000 for Germany;\n(vi)\nEUR 10 000 for Estonia;\n(vii)\nEUR 60 000 for Ireland;\n(viii)\nEUR 10 000 for Greece;\n(ix)\nEUR 90 000 for Spain;\n(x)\nEUR 130 000 for France;\n(xi)\nEUR 800 000 for Italy;\n(xii)\nEUR 10 000 for Cyprus;\n(xiii)\nEUR 20 000 for Latvia;\n(xiv)\nEUR 10 000 for Lithuania;\n(xv)\nEUR 10 000 for Luxembourg;\n(xvi)\nEUR 130 000 for Hungary;\n(xvii)\nEUR 10 000 for Malta;\n(xviii)\nEUR 190 000 for the Netherlands;\n(xix)\nEUR 50 000 for Austria;\n(xx)\nEUR 100 000 for Poland;\n(xxi)\nEUR 20 000 for Portugal;\n(xxii)\nEUR 250 000 for Romania;\n(xxiii)\nEUR 30 000 for Slovenia;\n(xxiv)\nEUR 20 000 for Slovakia;\n(xxv)\nEUR 10 000 for Finland;\n(xxvi)\nEUR 40 000 for Sweden;\n(xxvii)\nEUR 100 000 for the United Kingdom.\n3. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the tests covered by the programmes shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\nHI test for H5/H7:\nEUR 12 per test;\n(b)\nvirus isolation test:\nEUR 40 per test;\n(c)\nPCR test:\nEUR 20 per test.\nArticle 9\nTransmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE), bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and scrapie\n1. The programmes for the monitoring of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE), and for the eradication of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and of scrapie submitted by Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall consist of a lump sum of:\n(i)\nEUR 8,5 per test, compensating for all costs incurred to perform rapid tests, to fulfil the requirements of Article 12 paragraph 2 and Annex III Chapter A Part I to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 or used as confirmatory tests in accordance with Annex X, Chapter C to the same Regulation;\n(ii)\nEUR 15 per test, compensating for all costs incurred to perform rapid tests to fulfil the requirements of Article 12 paragraph 2, Annex III Chapter A Part II points 1 to 5 and Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001;\n(iii)\nEUR 4 per test, compensating for all costs incurred to perform genotyping tests;\n(iv)\nEUR 120 per test, compensating for all costs incurred to perform primary molecular discriminatory tests as referred to in point 3.2(c)(i) of Chapter C of Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001; and\n(v)\nEUR 25 per test, compensating for all costs incurred to perform confirmatory tests, other than rapid tests, as referred to in Annex X Chapter C to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the cost incurred by each Member State for the compensation to be paid to owners for the value of their animals culled and destroyed in accordance with their BSE and scrapie eradication programmes;\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 1 220 000 for Belgium;\n(ii)\nEUR 500 000 for Bulgaria;\n(iii)\nEUR 590 000 for the Czech Republic;\n(iv)\nEUR 730 000 for Denmark;\n(v)\nEUR 7 690 000 for Germany;\n(vi)\nEUR 120 000 for Estonia;\n(vii)\nEUR 2 890 000 for Ireland;\n(viii)\nEUR 1 540 000 for Greece;\n(ix)\nEUR 4 320 000 for Spain;\n(x)\nEUR 12 310 000 for France;\n(xi)\nEUR 4 160 000 for Italy;\n(xii)\nEUR 1 910 000 for Cyprus;\n(xiii)\nEUR 220 000 for Latvia;\n(xiv)\nEUR 420 000 for Lithuania;\n(xv)\nEUR 80 000 for Luxembourg;\n(xvi)\nEUR 1 000 000 for Hungary;\n(xvii)\nEUR 20 000 for Malta;\n(xviii)\nEUR 2 080 000 for the Netherlands;\n(xix)\nEUR 1 410 000 for Austria;\n(xx)\nEUR 2 690 000 for Poland;\n(xxi)\nEUR 970 000 for Portugal;\n(xxii)\nEUR 930 000 for Romania;\n(xxiii)\nEUR 210 000 for Slovenia;\n(xxiv)\nEUR 380 000 for Slovakia;\n(xxv)\nEUR 350 000 for Finland;\n(xxvi)\nEUR 500 000 for Sweden;\n(xxvii)\nEUR 5 000 000 for the United Kingdom.\n3. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\nfor culled and destroyed bovine animals:\nEUR 500 per animal;\n(b)\nfor culled and destroyed sheep or goats:\nEUR 70 per animal.\nArticle 10\nRabies\n1. The programmes for the eradication of rabies submitted by Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall include a lump sum of EUR 5 per wild animal sampled;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 75 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for the cost of:\n(i)\ncarrying out laboratory tests for the detection of rabies antigen or antibodies;\n(ii)\nthe isolation and characterisation of rabies virus;\n(iii)\nthe detection of biomarker and the titration of vaccine baits;\n(iv)\nthe purchase and distribution of oral vaccine plus baits;\n(v)\nthe purchase and administration of parenteral vaccines to grazing animals; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 1 540 000 for Bulgaria;\n(ii)\nEUR 620 000 for Estonia;\n(iii)\nEUR 1 160 000 for Hungary;\n(iv)\nEUR 9 270 000 for Poland;\n(v)\nEUR 4 000 000 for Romania;\n(vi)\nEUR 540 000 for Slovakia.\n3. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\nfor a serological test:\nEUR 12 per test;\n(b)\nfor a test to detect tetracycline in bone:\nEUR 12 per test;\n(c)\nfor a fluorescent antibody test (FAT):\nEUR 18 per test;\n(d)\nfor the purchase of oral vaccine plus baits:\nEUR 0,60 per dose;\n(e)\nfor the distribution of oral vaccine plus baits:\nEUR 0,35 per dose;\n(f)\nfor the purchase of parenteral vaccine:\nEUR 1 per dose;\n(g)\nfor the administration of rabies vaccines to grazing animals:\nEUR 1,50 per animal vaccinated, regardless of the number of doses used.\n4. Notwithstanding paragraph 2 points (a) and (b) and paragraph 3, for the part of the Polish programme that will be implemented outside its territory, the financial contribution by the Union shall:\n(a)\nbe granted only for the costs of the purchase and of the distribution of oral vaccine plus baits;\n(b)\nbe at the rate of 100 %; and\n(c)\nnot exceed EUR 1 260 000.\n5. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed for the costs referred to in paragraph 4 shall on average not exceed for the purchase and the distribution of oral vaccine plus baits EUR 0,95 per dose.\nCHAPTER II\nMULTIANNUAL PROGRAMMES\nArticle 11\nRabies\n1. The multiannual programme for rabies submitted by Finland is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2014.\n2. The second year of the multiannual programmes for the eradication of rabies submitted by Italy and Latvia is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n3. The third year of the multiannual programmes for the eradication of rabies submitted by Lithuania and Austria is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n4. The fifth year of the multiannual programme for the eradication of rabies submitted by Slovenia is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n5. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall include a lump sum of EUR 5 per wild animal sampled;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 75 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 to 4 for the cost of:\n(i)\ncarrying out laboratory tests for the detection of rabies antigen or antibodies;\n(ii)\nthe isolation and characterisation of rabies virus;\n(iii)\nthe detection of biomarker and the titration of vaccine baits;\n(iv)\nthe purchase and distribution of oral vaccine plus baits;\n(v)\nthe purchase and administration of parenteral vaccines to grazing animals; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following for the year 2012:\n(i)\nEUR 1 600 000 for Italy;\n(ii)\nEUR 1 700 000 for Latvia;\n(iii)\nEUR 2 900 000 for Lithuania;\n(iv)\nEUR 190 000 for Austria;\n(v)\nEUR 810 000 for Slovenia;\n(vi)\nEUR 360 000 for Finland.\n6. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\nfor a serological test:\nEUR 12 per test;\n(b)\nfor a test to detect tetracycline in bone:\nEUR 12 per test;\n(c)\nfor a fluorescent antibody test (FAT):\nEUR 18 per test;\n(d)\nfor the purchase of oral vaccine plus baits:\nEUR 0,60 per dose;\n(e)\nfor the distribution of oral vaccine plus baits:\nEUR 0,35 per dose;\n(f)\nfor the purchase of parenteral vaccine:\nEUR 1 per dose;\n(g)\nfor the administration of rabies vaccines to grazing animals:\nEUR 1,50 per animal vaccinated, regardless of the number of doses used.\n7. Notwithstanding paragraph 5 points (a) and (b) and paragraph 6, for the parts of the Latvian, Lithuanian and Finnish multiannual programmes that will be implemented outside these Member States\u2019 territories, the financial contribution by the Union shall:\n(a)\nbe granted only for the costs for the purchase and the distribution of oral vaccine plus baits;\n(b)\nbe at the rate of 100 %; and\n(c)\nnot exceed for the year 2012:\n(i)\nEUR 520 000 for Latvia;\n(ii)\nEUR 1 260 000 for Lithuania;\n(iii)\nEUR 80 000 for Finland.\n8. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed for the costs referred to in paragraph 7 shall on average not exceed for the purchase and the distribution of oral vaccine plus baits EUR 0,95 per dose.\nArticle 12\nSalmonellosis (zoonotic salmonella) in breeding and in laying flocks of Gallus gallus\n1. The multiannual programmes for Salmonellosis (zoonotic salmonella) in breeding and in laying flocks of Gallus gallus submitted by Poland is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall include a lump sum of EUR 0,5 per official sample taken;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred by Poland referred to in paragraph 1 for the cost of the same measures as in paragraph 3 of Article 5.\nThe maximum financial contribution for the measures set out in Article 5 by the Union shall not exceed EUR 2 500 000 for 2012.\n3. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to Poland for the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall not exceed those set out in paragraph 4 of Article 5.\nCHAPTER III\nArticle 13\nEligible expenditure\n1. Without prejudice to the upper limits of the financial contribution by the Union provided for in Articles 1 to 12, the eligible expenditure covered by the measures referred to in those Articles shall be limited to the expenditure set out in the Annex.\n2. Only costs incurred in the carrying out of the annual or multiannual programmes referred to in Articles 1 to 12 and paid before the submission of the final report by the Member States shall be eligible for co-financing by means of a financial contribution by the Union.\n3. In order to receive the lump sum fixed in Articles 1 to 12 in its entirety Member States shall confirm that they paid all costs incurred in the performance of the activity or test and that none of the costs have been borne by a third party, other than a Competent Authority. If part of the costs has been borne by a third party, Member States shall indicate the percentage or proportion of the total costs borne by that third party. The lump sum paid shall be reduced accordingly.\n4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2, for the costs referred to in Articles 10(4) and 11(7), the Commission, upon the request of the concerned Member State, shall pay an advance of up to 60 % of the specified maximum amount within the three months following the receipt of the request.\nCHAPTER IV\nGENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 14\n1. The compensation to be paid to owners for the value of the animals culled or slaughtered and of the destroyed products shall be granted within 90 days from the date of:\n(a)\nthe slaughter or culling of the animal;\n(b)\nthe destruction of the products; or\n(c)\nthe presentation of the completed claim by the owner.\n2. Article 9(1), (2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 (11) shall apply to compensation payments made after the period 90 days referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.\nArticle 15\n1. The expenditure submitted by the Member States for a financial contribution by the Union shall be expressed in euro and shall exclude value added tax and all other taxes.\n2. Where the expenditure of a Member State is in a currency other than the euro, the Member State concerned shall convert it into euro by applying the most recent exchange rate set by the European Central Bank prior to the first day of the month in which the application is submitted by the Member State.\nArticle 16\n1. The financial contribution by the Union for the annual and multiannual programmes referred to in Articles 1 to 12 (\u2018the programmes\u2019) shall be granted provided that the Member States concerned:\n(a)\nimplement the programmes in accordance with the relevant provisions of Union law, including rules on competition and on the award of public contracts;\n(b)\nbring into force by 1 January 2012 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for implementing the programmes;\n(c)\nforward to the Commission by 31 July 2012 at the latest, the intermediate technical and financial reports for the programmes, in accordance with Article 27(7)(a) of Decision 2009/470/EC, covering the period from 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2012;\n(d)\nonly for the programmes referred to in Article 8, report to the Commission the positive and negative results of investigations detected during their surveillance of poultry and wild birds through the Commission online system, every six months, in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Decision 2010/367/EU (12);\n(e)\nforward an annual detailed technical report to the Commission for the programmes in accordance with Article 27(7)(b) of Decision 2009/470/EC by 30 April 2013 at the latest on the technical execution of the programme concerned accompanied by justifying evidence as to the costs paid by the Member State and the results attained during the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012;\n(f)\nimplement the programmes efficiently;\n(g)\ndo not submit further requests for other contributions from the Union for those measures, and have not previously submitted such requests.\n2. Where a Member State does not comply with paragraph 1, the Commission may reduce the financial contribution by the Union having regard to the nature and gravity of the infringement, and to the financial loss for the Union.\nArticle 17\nThis decision constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 18\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nArticle 19\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["81", "21", "26", "49", "94", "41", "52", "62", "17", "18", "75", "0", "2", "29", "80", "43", "42", "44", "90", "14", "77", "84", "78", "33", "11", "46", "72", "48", "93", "20", "No Label", "10", "38", "61", "66", "96"], "gold": ["10", "38", "61", "66", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1084/2011\nof 27 October 2011\namending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008, laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (1), and in particular Article 33(2) and Article 38(d) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 (2) provides that the list of recognised third countries shall contain all the information necessary in respect of each third country to allow verifying whether products placed on the Union market have been subject to the control system of the third country recognised in accordance with Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. Tunisia has transmitted an amendment to the relevant specifications provided in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 following the creation of a new general direction in charge of organic farming in the agricultural department, which has become the new competent authority responsible for the control system in Tunisia.\n(2)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 590/2011 (3) has inserted in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 a new text relating to Canada. Point 1 \u2018Product categories\u2019 of that text contains an error in so far it has established a separate point (c) for \u2018feed\u2019 as one of those categories, while indeed it constitutes one of the possible uses of \u2018processed agricultural products\u2019 referred to in point 1(b) of the said text.\n(3)\nCanada informed the Commission that the list of control bodies included in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 includes another error, as the control body \u2018Control Union Certifications\u2019 is not accredited by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to provide certification services in Canada.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1235/2008 should therefore be amended and corrected accordingly.\n(5)\nFor the sake of legal certainty, the correcting provision established in this Regulation should apply from the date of entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 590/2011.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the regulatory Committee on organic production,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmending provisions\nIn the text relating to Tunisia in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008, point 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Competent authority: Direction g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de l\u2019Agriculture Biologique (Minist\u00e8re de l\u2019Agriculture et de l\u2019Environnement); www.agriportail.tn\u2019.\nArticle 2\nCorrecting provisions\nThe text relating to Canada in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin point 1, points (b) and (c) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nprocessed agricultural products for use as food and feed.\u2019;\n(2)\nin point 5, the sixth indent \u2018Control Union Certifications (CUC), www.controlunion.com\u2019 is deleted.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nHowever, Article 2 shall apply from 28 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["7", "6", "28", "77", "8", "83", "86", "20", "91", "87", "26", "78", "61", "74", "62", "48", "15", "59", "70", "0", "90", "45", "31", "21", "24", "37", "14", "38", "66", "92", "No Label", "4", "22", "23", "25", "72", "93", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "22", "23", "25", "72", "93", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 390/2010\nof 6 May 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Hopfen aus der Hallertau (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Hopfen aus der Hallertau\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2010.", "references": ["2", "6", "8", "19", "26", "48", "55", "38", "45", "33", "59", "54", "53", "77", "3", "76", "39", "22", "89", "93", "15", "50", "87", "83", "29", "86", "42", "94", "99", "36", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "71", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "71", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 736/2012\nof 14 August 2012\nfixing the coefficients applicable to cereals exported in the form of Irish whiskey for the period 2012/2013\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 of 10 November 2006 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 as regards the fixing and granting of adjusted refunds in respect of cereals exported in the form of certain spirit drinks (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 lays down that the quantities of cereals eligible for the refund are to be the quantities placed under control and distilled, weighted by a coefficient to be fixed annually for each Member State concerned. The coefficient is to express the average ratio between the total quantities exported and the total quantities marketed of the spirit drink concerned, on the basis of the trend noted in those quantities during the number of years corresponding to the average ageing period of the spirit drink in question.\n(2)\nAccording to the information provided by Ireland in respect of the period 1 January to 31 December 2011, the average ageing period for Irish whiskey in 2011 was five years.\n(3)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 899/2011 of 7 September 2011 fixing the coefficients applicable to cereals exported in the form of Irish whiskey for the period 2011/12 (3) has exhausted its effects, as it concerns the coefficients applicable for the year 2011/2012. The coefficients for the period 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013 should therefore be fixed accordingly.\n(4)\nArticle 10 of Protocol 3 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area excludes the grant of refunds in respect of exports to Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway. Moreover, the Union has concluded agreements abolishing export refunds with certain third countries. Under the terms of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006, this should be taken into account in calculating the coefficients for 2012/2013,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the period 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013, the coefficients provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 applying to cereals used in Ireland for manufacturing Irish whiskey shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 August 2012.", "references": ["82", "10", "52", "70", "21", "37", "15", "64", "62", "2", "74", "1", "35", "7", "98", "4", "63", "34", "75", "78", "65", "59", "47", "83", "46", "43", "53", "61", "29", "90", "No Label", "20", "22", "68", "71", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "22", "68", "71", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1184/2011\nof 14 November 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for saithe in IIIa and IV; EU waters of IIa, IIIb, IIIc, and Subdivisions 22-32 by vessels flying the flag of Sweden\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["92", "63", "32", "12", "39", "73", "43", "28", "8", "23", "18", "62", "90", "16", "25", "0", "38", "11", "89", "26", "54", "40", "51", "5", "75", "95", "79", "65", "50", "98", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 790/2010\nof 7 September 2010\namending Annexes VII, X and XI to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (1), and in particular the first and second subparagraphs of Article 32(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1774/2002 lays down animal and public health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption.\n(2)\nArticle 19 of that Regulation provides that processed animal protein and other processed products that could be used as feed material are to be placed on the market only if they comply with certain requirements. In this respect, Annex VII to that Regulation sets out specific hygiene requirements for the processing and placing on the market of such products.\n(3)\nIn addition, Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 provides that the importation into, and the transit through the Union of the products referred to in Annex VII may take place only if such products comply with certain requirements. Those requirements include that the products must come from a third country or parts of third countries on a list to be drawn up and updated in accordance with the procedure referred to in that Article, except where Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 provides otherwise.\n(4)\nColostrum is a feed material of animal origin, within the meaning of the definition laid down in point 23 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.\n(5)\nPart A of Chapter V of Annex VII to that Regulation does not set out any specific requirements for the production of colostrum or colostrum products. That Part only sets out the general principle that colostrum must be produced under conditions offering adequate guarantees as regards animal health.\n(6)\nIn addition, Part B of Chapter V of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 does not set out specific requirements for the importation of colostrum and colostrum products and the Commission has not laid down any list of third countries or parts of third countries from which imports of colostrum are accepted. Accordingly, the importation of colostrum or colostrum products into the European Union is currently not authorised.\n(7)\nThere is an interest to import into the Union colostrum and colostrum products as feed material for farmed animals and for technical purposes. Economic operators have indicated their interest in the use of colostrum and colostrum products for the production of feed material and for technical purposes.\n(8)\nThe demand for such products from economic operators should be met and rules should therefore be laid down for the importation of such animal by-products. However, colostrum is an animal by-product which may pose a risk for the transmission of certain diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease, tuberculosis, brucellosis and enzootic-bovine-leukosis to susceptible animals. In order to safeguard animal health, the importation of colostrum and colostrum products should therefore be subject to certain conditions.\n(9)\nIn accordance with the first paragraph of Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 the provisions applicable to the importation of products referred to in Annex VII to that Regulation from third countries are not to be more favourable or less favourable than those applicable to the production and marketing of those products in the Union. The specific requirements set out for the importation of whey and colostrum or colostrum products should therefore also apply to the production and placing on the market of those animal by-products in the Union.\n(10)\nThe opinion of the European Food Safety Authority, adopted on 29 March 2006, related to the animal health risks of feeding animals with ready-to-use dairy products without further treatment (2), confirmed that specific hygiene requirements and treatments for milk and milk-based products are to be established to limit the risk of transmitting infectious diseases, in particular through feeding of milk or milk products to animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease. In the absence of suitable scientific data, the aforementioned opinion does not recommend any treatment which would provide the necessary guarantees that the considered pathogens are effectively inactivated in colostrum while preserving antibodies contained therein.\n(11)\nIn the absence of approved treatments and in order to prevent the transmission of possible animal diseases through colostrum and colostrum products, it is appropriate to establish health requirements for those animal by-products based on guarantees at origin.\n(12)\nIn particular, as regards foot-and-mouth disease prevention, colostrum and colostrum products should be obtained from animals free of foot-and-mouth disease and not at risk of contracting this disease. Imports of colostrum and colostrum products should therefore be limited to bovine colostrum and its products from countries approved for imports of raw milk. Imports of colostrum and colostrum products should be limited to bovine colostrum and its products from countries where the risk of foot-and-mouth disease is limited.\n(13)\nCommission Decision 2004/438/EC of 29 April 2004 laying down animal and public health and veterinary certifications conditions for introduction in the Community of heat-treated milk, milk-based products and raw milk intended for human consumption (3) provides that Member States are to authorise imports of raw milk and raw milk-based products only from the third countries listed in column A of Annex I thereto. The list of third countries from which the importation into the Union of colostrum and colostrum products should be authorised should therefore be the same as the list of third countries set out in column A of Annex I to Decision 2004/438/EC. Chapter V of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 should therefore refer to that list.\n(14)\nThe health status with regard to bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis and enzootic-bovine-leukosis of the herds from which colostrum and colostrum products originate should also be taken into account, in particular where such animal by-products are intended for feeding animals or the production of certain technical products. The herds from which colostrum and colostrum products originate should be free of those diseases.\n(15)\nCouncil Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (4) applies to intra-Union trade in bovine animals and sets out provisions for recognising herds as being disease-free. It lays down the definitions for officially tuberculosis-free bovine herds, officially brucellosis-free bovine herds and officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free herds. The requirements for placing on the market and importation of colostrum and colostrum products should therefore take account of those definitions.\n(16)\nColostrum and colostrum products should have undergone a primary high temperature short term treatment for their preservation. In addition, the placing on the market, including the importation, of such animal by-products should only be allowed if they originate from animals that do not show clinical signs of any disease communicable through colostrum to humans or animals. Colostrum and colostrum products should therefore be produced from bovine animals kept in areas for which guarantees can be provided that foot-and-mouth disease has not occurred within at least one incubation period of 21 days after the collection and before such colostrum or colostrum products are placed on the market in Member States.\n(17)\nPart A of Chapter V of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 provides that whey to be fed to animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease and produced from milk treated in accordance with the rules set out therein must be collected at least 16 hours after milk clotting and its pH must be recorded as below 6,0 before transport to animal holdings.\n(18)\nChapter 2 of Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 sets out a single model health certificate for milk and milk products not intended for human consumption originating in third countries for dispatch to or for transit through the European Union. That model certificate should be amended in order to cover also colostrum and colostrum products, as well as to reflect the new rules concerning whey.\n(19)\nAnnex XI to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 sets out lists of third countries from which Member States may authorise imports of certain animal by-products not intended for human consumption. Part I of that Annex should be amended to take account of the rules for the importation of colostrum and colostrum products.\n(20)\nCameroon applied for the authorisation for imports of apiculture animal by-products. Cameroon is already authorised for the imports of honey for human consumption. Part XII of Annex XI should be amended appropriately and Cameroon should be authorised for the imports of apiculture animal by-products.\n(21)\nAnnexes VII, X and XI to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(22)\nA transitional period should be provided for after the date of entry into force of this Regulation, in order to provide the necessary time for stakeholders to comply with the new rules and to allow for the continued importation into the European Union of the animal by-products concerned, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, before the amendments introduced by this Regulation.\n(23)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes VII, X and XI to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nConsignments of milk and milk products not intended for human consumption accompanied by a health certificate completed and signed in accordance with the appropriate model set out in Chapter 2 of Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 before the date of entry into force of this Regulation shall continue to be accepted for importation into the Union until 30 September 2010, where those certificates were completed and signed before 31 August 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 September 2010.", "references": ["48", "40", "36", "60", "47", "81", "22", "86", "95", "53", "17", "2", "39", "18", "66", "10", "32", "92", "28", "41", "68", "99", "37", "98", "5", "52", "44", "4", "25", "96", "No Label", "24", "38", "61", "69", "82"], "gold": ["24", "38", "61", "69", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 947/2010\nof 21 October 2010\ngranting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 19 October 2010.\n(3)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 19 October 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in point (c) of Article 1 and in Article 2 respectively of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["55", "17", "88", "83", "64", "32", "98", "52", "31", "16", "50", "79", "57", "60", "69", "38", "43", "0", "51", "30", "68", "78", "8", "49", "48", "96", "61", "74", "90", "23", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 904/2011\nof 7 September 2011\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for import licences lodged from 26 August 2011 to 2 September 2011 in the context of the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 for barley\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 (3) opens an annual tariff quota for the import of 306 215 tonnes of barley (order number 09.4126).\n(2)\nThe notification made under Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 shows that the applications lodged between 26 August 2011 at 13.00 and 2 September 2011 at 13.00 (Brussels time), in accordance with Article 3(1) of that Regulation, exceed the quantities available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined and the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities applied for should be fixed.\n(3)\nNo further import licences should be issued under Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 for the current quota period.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Each application for an import licence for barley under the quota referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 lodged between 26 August 2011 at 13.00 and 2 September 2011 at 13.00 (Brussels time) shall give rise to the issue of a licence for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 77,115913 %.\n2. The issue of licences for quantities applied for from 13.00 (Brussels time) on 2 September 2011 is hereby suspended for the current quota period.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 September 2011.", "references": ["52", "43", "47", "15", "53", "26", "46", "27", "50", "75", "23", "77", "92", "67", "1", "83", "12", "86", "2", "33", "64", "55", "56", "37", "54", "9", "85", "99", "84", "48", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 928/2010\nof 15 October 2010\ncorrecting Regulation (EU) No 909/2010 establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for export licences for cheese to be exported to the United States of America in 2011 under certain GATT quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1).\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (2), and in particular Article 23 (1), first subparagraph and (3), first subparagraph thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAn error has occurred in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 909/2010 (3), for the allocation coefficients of groups 16-Uruguay and 17-Uruguay. These coefficients have not yet been applied by the Member States.\n(2)\nIn order to ensure that operators in different Member States are treated in a non-discriminatory way and no licences are issued on the basis of the incorrect coefficients, this Regulation should apply from the day of publication of Regulation (EU) No 909/2010.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 909/2010 should therefore be corrected accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 909/2010 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 12 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 October 2010.", "references": ["12", "80", "9", "90", "39", "14", "72", "41", "49", "2", "71", "53", "89", "24", "85", "33", "38", "10", "4", "55", "84", "0", "82", "94", "35", "58", "42", "57", "1", "46", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "70", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "70", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 750/2012\nof 14 August 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 August 2012.", "references": ["28", "80", "10", "2", "36", "22", "43", "79", "77", "69", "81", "68", "29", "60", "6", "35", "16", "97", "4", "75", "46", "73", "92", "93", "33", "49", "52", "34", "58", "31", "No Label", "21", "72"], "gold": ["21", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1246/2011\nof 29 November 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Mantecados de Estepa (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Mantecados de Estepa\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2011.", "references": ["67", "6", "45", "66", "42", "16", "22", "77", "87", "31", "12", "3", "74", "64", "49", "1", "82", "2", "89", "8", "88", "93", "33", "47", "39", "63", "53", "37", "51", "59", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 1 April 2011\non a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat Newcastle disease in Spain in 2009\n(notified under document C(2011) 2062)\n(Only the Spanish text is authentic)\n(2011/208/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nNewcastle disease is an infectious viral disease which causes high mortality in poultry.\n(2)\nIn the event of an outbreak of Newcastle disease, there is a risk that the disease agent might spread to other poultry holdings within that Member State, but also to other Member States and to third countries through trade in live poultry or their products.\n(3)\nAn outbreak of that disease can therefore quickly take on epidemic proportions liable to reduce sharply the profitability of poultry farming.\n(4)\nCouncil Directive 92/66/EEC of 14 July 1992 introducing Community measures for the control of Newcastle disease (2) sets out measures which in the event of an outbreak have to be immediately implemented by Member States as a matter of urgency to prevent further spread of the virus.\n(5)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the Community financial contribution towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. Pursuant to Articles 3(2) and 6(2) of that Decision, Member States shall obtain a financial contribution towards the costs of certain measures to eradicate Newcastle disease.\n(6)\nArticle 3(6) of Decision 2009/470/EC lays down rules on the percentage of the costs incurred by the Member State that may be covered by the Community's financial contribution.\n(7)\nThe payment of a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to eradicate Newcastle disease is subject to the rules laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (3).\n(8)\nAn outbreak of Newcastle disease was confirmed in Spain on 26 November 2009. Spain took measures, in accordance with Directive 92/66/EEC and Article 3(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC, to combat this outbreak.\n(9)\nSpain has fully complied with its technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(10)\nOn 23 December 2009, 26 January 2010 and 25 February 2010, Spain submitted an estimate of the costs incurred in taking measures to eradicate Newcastle disease.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFinancial contribution from the Union to Spain\n1. A financial contribution from the Union may be granted to Spain towards the costs incurred by that Member State in taking measures pursuant to Articles 3(2) and 6(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC, to combat Newcastle disease in 2009.\n2. The financial contribution mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be fixed in a subsequent decision to be adopted in accordance with the procedure established in Article 40(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC.\nArticle 2\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 1 April 2011.", "references": ["29", "46", "50", "93", "87", "72", "92", "3", "82", "51", "37", "48", "75", "27", "49", "25", "79", "17", "35", "71", "54", "20", "56", "47", "22", "34", "8", "19", "5", "41", "No Label", "10", "38", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "38", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 21 October 2010\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the Stabilisation and Association Council established by the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part, with regard to the adoption of provisions on the coordination of social security systems\n(2010/701/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(2)(b) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 46 of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, on the other part (1) (the Agreement), provides that the Stabilisation and Association Council shall, by decision, adopt the appropriate provisions to implement the objectives set out in that Article.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 21) on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the Stabilisation and Association Council set up by the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part, concerning the implementation of Article 46 of the Agreement, shall be based on the draft decision of the Stabilisation and Association Council attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["43", "64", "90", "74", "54", "69", "16", "33", "61", "51", "29", "1", "98", "70", "49", "8", "7", "36", "79", "71", "82", "80", "94", "92", "65", "86", "27", "24", "31", "45", "No Label", "2", "9", "37", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "9", "37", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 173/2011\nof 23 February 2011\namending Regulations (EC) No 2095/2005, (EC) No 1557/2006, (EC) No 1741/2006, (EC) No 1850/2006, (EC) No 1359/2007, (EC) No 382/2008, (EC) No 436/2009, (EC) No 612/2009, (EC) No 1122/2009, (EC) No 1187/2009 and (EU) No 479/2010 as regards the notification obligations within the common organisation of agricultural markets and the direct support schemes for farmers\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 161(3), Article 170, Article 171(1) and Article 192(2), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (2), and in particular Article 142(q) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 of 31 August 2009 laying down detailed rules for the Member States\u2019 notification to the Commission of information and documents in implementation of the common organisation of the markets, the direct payments\u2019 regime, the promotion of agricultural products and the regimes applicable to the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean islands (3) lays down common rules for notifying information and documents by the competent authorities of the Member States to the Commission. Those rules cover in particular the obligation for the Member States to use the information systems made available by the Commission and the validation of the access rights of the authorities or individuals authorised to send notifications. In addition, that Regulation sets common principles applying to the information systems so that they guarantee the authenticity, integrity and legibility over time of the documents and provides for personal data protection.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 the obligation to use the information systems in accordance with that Regulation has to be provided for in the Regulations establishing a specific notification obligation.\n(3)\nThe Commission has developed an information system that allows managing documents and procedures electronically in its own internal working procedures and in its relations with the authorities involved in the common agricultural policy.\n(4)\nIt is considered that several notification obligations can be fulfilled via that system in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009, in particular those provided for in Commission Regulations (EC) No 2095/2005 of 20 December 2005 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 as regards communication of information on tobacco (4), (EC) No 1557/2006 of 18 October 2006 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1952/2005 as regards registration of contracts and the communication of data concerning hops (5), (EC) No 1741/2006 of 24 November 2006 laying down the conditions for granting the special export refund on boned meat of adult male bovine animals placed under the customs warehousing procedure prior to export (6), (EC) No 1850/2006 of 14 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the certification of hops and hop products (7), (EC) No 1359/2007 of 21 November 2007 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals (8), (EC) No 382/2008 of 21 April 2008 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector (9), (EC) No 436/2009 of 26 May 2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards the vineyard register, compulsory declarations and the gathering of information to monitor the wine market, the documents accompanying consignments of wine products and the wine sector registers to be kept (10), (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (11), (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (12), (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (13) and (EU) No 479/2010 of 1 June 2010 laying down rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards Member States\u2019 notifications to the Commission in the milk and milk products sector (14).\n(5)\nIn the interest of efficient administration and taking account of the experience, the notifications should be simplified. In particular, it should be established that only Member States producing tobacco and hop respectively should be obliged to send the data required under Regulations (EC) No 2095/2005, (EC) No 1557/2006 and (EC) No 1850/2006. Furthermore, for reasons of clarity, the content of some notifications should be specified in those Regulations.\n(6)\nThe information that Member States have to submit to the Commission pursuant to Article 19(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) of Regulation (EC) No 436/2009, are to be sent to Eurostat. For reasons of coherence and good administration, the notifications concerned should be made by electronic means to the single entry point for data at Eurostat, in conformity with the technical specifications provided by the Commission (Eurostat).\n(7)\nThe exchange rate to be used should be in coherence with the principle established in Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1913/2006 of 20 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of the agrimonetary system for the euro in agriculture and amending certain regulations (15).\n(8)\nRegulations (EC) No 2095/2005, (EC) No 1557/2006, (EC) No 1741/2006, (EC) No 1850/2006, (EC) No 1359/2007, (EC) No 382/2008, (EC) No 436/2009, (EC) No 612/2009, (EC) No 1122/2009, (EC) No 1187/2009 and (EU) No 479/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments and the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 2095/2005 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\n1. For each harvest, the producing Member States shall notify the Commission, by 31 July of the year following the harvest year, of the following information given as a total and, except for point (a), broken down by the raw tobacco variety groups referred to in paragraph 3:\n(a)\nnumber of first processing enterprises;\n(b)\nnumber of farmers;\n(c)\narea in hectares;\n(d)\nquantity delivered in tonnes;\n(e)\naverage price, excluding taxes and other levies, paid to farmers;\n(f)\nstocks in tonnes at the end of June of the year following the harvest year concerned, held by the first processor.\nThe price referred to in point (e) shall be expressed in EUR per kg, using if necessary, the most recent exchange rate set by the European Central Bank prior to 1 January of the year following the harvest year.\n2. For each harvest, the producing Member States shall notify the Commission, by 31 July of the ongoing harvest year, of the following information given as a total and broken down by the raw tobacco variety groups referred to in paragraph 3:\n(a)\nestimated area in hectares;\n(b)\nestimated production in tonnes.\n3. The variety groups of raw tobacco are:\n(a) Group I: Flue-cured: tobacco dried in ovens with controlled air circulation, temperature and humidity, in particular Virginia;\n(b) Group II: Light air-cured: tobacco dried in the air under cover, not left to ferment, in particular Burley and Maryland;\n(c) Group III: Dark air-cured: tobacco dried in the air under cover, left to ferment naturally before being marketed, in particular Badischer Geudertheimer, Fermented Burley, Havana, Mocny Skroniowski, Nostrano del Brenta and Pulawski;\n(d) Group IV: Fire-cured: tobacco dried by fire, in particular Kentucky and Salento;\n(e) Group V: Sun-cured: tobacco dried in the sun, also called \u2018Oriental varieties\u2019, in particular Basmas, Katerini and Kaba-Koulak.\n4. Member States growing less than 3 000 hectares in the preceding harvest year may notify only the information referred to in points (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2(a) and only given as a total without breakdown by raw tobacco variety groups.\n5. The notifications referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (16).\n(2)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nMember States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the economic operators concerned, including producer organisations, provide them with the information required within the relevant time limits.\u2019;\n(3)\nAnnexes IA, IB, II and III are deleted.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 1557/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\n1. For each harvest, the producing Member States shall notify the Commission, by 15 April of the year following the hop harvest concerned, of the following information given as a total and, except for points (a) and (g), broken down by two groups of hops varieties (bitter and aromatic):\n(a)\nnumber of farmers growing hops;\n(b)\narea harvested and area newly sown in the harvest year (in hectares);\n(c)\nquantity in tonnes and average farm-gate price of hops sold under contracts concluded in advance;\n(d)\nquantity in tonnes and average farm-gate price of hops sold under other contracts or without contracts;\n(e)\nquantity of hops in tonnes remaining unsold;\n(f)\nalpha-acid production in tonnes and average alpha-acid content (in percent);\n(g)\nquantity of hops in tonnes covered by contracts concluded in advance for the next harvest.\nThe prices referred to in points (c) and (d) shall be expressed in EUR per kg, using, if necessary, the most recent exchange rate set by the European Central Bank prior to 1 January of the year following the harvest year.\n2. The notifications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (17).\n3. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the economic operators concerned, including producer organisations, provide them with the information required within the relevant time limits.\n(2)\nthe Annex is deleted.\nArticle 3\nArticle 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1741/2006 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 13\nNotification to the Commission\n1. Member States shall each month notify the Commission of the quantities of boned meat of adult male bovine animals placed under the customs warehousing procedure prior to export in accordance with this Regulation, with a breakdown of those quantities by 12-figure code of the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds established by Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87.\nMember States shall notify the Commission of the information referred to in the first subparagraph no later than the second month following the month in which the declaration of entry into storage is accepted.\n2. The notifications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (18).\nArticle 4\nArticle 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1850/2006 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 23\nNotification to the Commission\n1. Producing Member States shall notify to the Commission, by 30 June each year at the latest, of:\n(a)\na list of hop production areas;\n(b)\na list of the certification centres and the code for each centre;\n(c)\nthe names and addresses of the competent certification authorities.\n2. The notifications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (19).\nArticle 5\nRegulation (EC) No 1359/2007 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 9, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Member States shall determine the conditions for supervision and shall notify the Commission accordingly. They shall take all necessary measures to make substitution of the products in question impossible, in particular by identification of each piece of meat. Member States shall notify the Commission of any changes of the conditions for supervision without delay.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 10, the introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u2018For certificates as provided for in Article 5(1), endorsed by the competent authorities each quarter and covering boned cuts produced from hindquarters, the Member States shall notify the following no later than the end of the second month following each quarter:\u2019;\n(3)\nthe following Article 10a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 10a\nThe notifications to the Commission referred to in this Regulation shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (20).\nArticle 6\nRegulation (EC) No 382/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 14, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. Member States shall notify the Commission of:\n(a)\nby 6 p.m. (Brussels time) on each working day, the total quantity of products for which applications have been lodged;\n(b)\nno later than the end of the month following the month in which the applications were lodged, a list of applicants.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 15, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. Member States shall notify the Commission of:\n(a)\nby 6 p.m. (Brussels time) on each working day, the total quantity of products for which applications have been lodged;\n(b)\nno later than the end of the month following the month in which the applications were lodged, a list of applicants.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 16 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 16\n1. Member States shall notify the Commission of the following:\n(a)\nby Friday each week:\n(i)\napplications for licences with advance fixing of the refund lodged in accordance with Article 10(1) or the fact that no applications were lodged from Monday to Friday that week;\n(ii)\napplications for licences lodged in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 or the fact that no applications were lodged from Monday to Friday that week;\n(iii)\nthe quantities for which licences have been issued pursuant to Article 12(6) of this Regulation or the fact that no licences were issued from Monday to Friday that week;\n(iv)\nthe quantities for which licences have been issued in respect of applications lodged in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, indicating the date on which the application was lodged and the country of destination, from Monday to Friday that week;\n(v)\nthe quantities for which export licence applications have been withdrawn pursuant to Article 12(5) of this Regulation, during that week, indicating the date on which the application was lodged;\n(b)\nby the 14th day of each month for the previous month:\n(i)\napplications for licences as referred to in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008;\n(ii)\nthe quantities for which licences have been issued pursuant to Article 10(1) of this Regulation and pursuant to Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 and not used.\n2. The notifications referred to in paragraph 1 shall specify:\n(a)\nthe quantity by weight of product or the number of heads for each category referred to in Article 10(5);\n(b)\nthe quantity breakdown by destination for each category.\u2019;\n(4)\nthe following Article 16a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 16a\nThe notifications referred to in this Chapter shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (21).\n(5)\nAnnex VIII is deleted.\nArticle 7\nRegulation (EC) No 436/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 15, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. To convert quantities of products other than wine into hectolitres of wine, Member States may set coefficients that may vary according to different objective criteria having a bearing on the conversion. Member States shall notify the Commission of the coefficients along with the summary provided for in Article 19(1).\u2019;\n(2)\nthe heading of Chapter III of Title II is replaced by the following:\n\u2018CHAPTER III\nNotifications to be made by the Member States \u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 19(3), the introductory phrase of the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018With a view to establishing price trends, Member States whose wine production during the past five years was on average more than 5 % of the total Union wine production shall notify the Commission of the following in relation to the wines referred to in point 1 of Annex XIb to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (22):\n(4)\nArticle 49 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 49\nNotification\n1. Each Member State shall notify the Commission of:\n(a)\nthe name and address of the competent authority or authorities for the purposes of implementing this title;\n(b)\nwhere appropriate, the name and address of any bodies empowered by a competent authority for the purposes of implementing this title.\n2. Each Member State shall also notify the Commission of:\n(a)\nany subsequent changes concerning the competent authorities and bodies referred to in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe measures they have taken to implement this title, where those measures are of specific value for the purposes of cooperation between Member States as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 555/2008.\n3. The Commission shall draw up and keep up to date a list containing the names and addresses of the competent bodies and authorities based on information notified by the Member States. The Commission shall publish that list on the Internet.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 50 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 50\nNotification\n1. Without prejudice to any specific provisions of this Regulation, Member States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are able to meet the deadlines for notification set out in this Regulation.\n2. Member States shall retain the information recorded under this Regulation for at least five wine years following the one during which it was recorded.\n3. The notifications requested in this Regulation shall not prejudice the Member States\u2019 obligations laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 357/79 on statistical surveys of areas under vines.\n4. The notifications to the Commission referred to in this Regulation shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (23).\nHowever, the notifications referred to in Article 19(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) shall be sent by the Member States in electronic form or uploaded by electronic means to the single entry point for data at Eurostat, in conformity with the technical specifications provided by the Commission (Eurostat).\nArticle 8\nArticle 50 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 50\nNotification to the Commission\n1. Member States shall notify the Commission:\n(a)\nwithout delay, of cases where Article 27(1) applies. The Commission shall subsequently notify the other Member States;\n(b)\nno later than the end of the second month following the month in which the export declarations have been accepted, for each 12-digit code, of the quantities of exported products not covered by export licences with advance fixing of the refund for the cases referred to in the first indent of the second subparagraph of Article 4(1), Article 6 and Article 42. The codes shall be grouped by sector.\n2. The notifications to the Commission referred to in this Regulation shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (24).\nArticle 9\nIn Article 84 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, the following paragraph 6 is added:\n\u20186. The notifications referred to in Article 40(2) and paragraph 5 of this Article shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (25).\nArticle 10\nRegulation (EC) No 1187/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 10, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Export licences with advanced fixing of the refund shall be issued on the fifth working day following the day on which applications are submitted, provided that the quantities for which licences have been applied for have been notified in accordance with Article 6(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 479/2010 (26) and that measures referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 of this Article have not been adopted.\n(2)\nin Article 24(2), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Member State shall notify the Commission as soon as possible of the change of designated importer and the Commission shall notify the change to the competent authorities of the United States.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 31 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Not later than the fifth working day following the expiry of the period for lodging licence applications, Member States shall notify the Commission, for each of the two parts of the quota and for each product code of the export refund nomenclature, of the quantities covered by licence applications or, where applicable, that no applications have been lodged.\nBefore the notification referred to in the first subparagraph, Member States shall verify in particular that the conditions referred to in Article 27(2) and in Article 28(1) and (2) are fulfilled.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018If the application of the allocation coefficient results in a quantity per applicant of less than 20 tonnes, applicants may withdraw their applications. In such cases, they shall notify the competent authority within three working days of publication of the Commission\u2019s decision. The security shall be released immediately. The competent authority shall notify the Commission, within eight working days of publication of the decision, of the quantities broken down by product codes of the export refund nomenclature, for which applications have been withdrawn and for which the security has been released.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 32 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Licences shall be issued at the request of the operator, not earlier than 1 June and not later than 15 February of the following year. They shall be issued only to operators whose licence applications were notified in accordance with Article 31(1).\nIf the information provided by an operator to whom a licence has been issued is found to be incorrect, the licence shall be cancelled and the security forfeited.\nMember States shall notify the Commission by the end of February at the latest for both parts of the quota referred to in Article 28(1), of the quantities for which no licences were issued, broken down by product code of the export refund nomenclature.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. By 31 August each year at the latest, Member States shall notify the Commission for both parts of the quota referred to in Article 28(1), and in respect to the previous 12-month period as referred to in Article 28(1), of the following quantities, broken down by product code of the export refund nomenclature:\n-\nthe quantity for which licences have been allocated,\n-\nthe quantity for which licences have been issued,\n-\nthe quantity exported.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 33, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The notifications to the Commission referred to in this Regulation shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (27).\n(6)\nAnnexes IV, V and VI are deleted.\nArticle 11\nIn Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 479/2010, the following paragraph 3 is added:\n\u20183. By way of derogation from Article 8, the notifications referred to in this Article shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (28).\nArticle 12\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2011.", "references": ["35", "27", "45", "38", "31", "4", "30", "47", "62", "46", "9", "57", "26", "85", "37", "44", "90", "86", "97", "71", "34", "16", "52", "93", "81", "32", "51", "75", "72", "84", "No Label", "15", "41", "42", "48", "61"], "gold": ["15", "41", "42", "48", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 880/2012\nof 28 June 2012\nsupplementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards transnational cooperation and contractual negotiations of producer organisations in the milk and milk products sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 126e(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSection IIA of Chapter II of Title II of Part II of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 inserted by Regulation (EU) No 261/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) contains rules on producer organisations and their associations in the milk and milk products sector, in particular with respect to their recognition and contractual negotiations. Those rules need to be supplemented as regards the conditions for recognising transnational producer organisations and transnational associations of recognised producer organisations, clarifying the responsibility of the Member States involved and, while respecting the freedom of establishment, ensuring that the applicable rules are those of the Member State where a significant share of the activities of such organisations or associations takes place.\n(2)\nIn addition, rules should be laid down relating to the establishment and the conditions of administrative assistance to be given in the case of transnational cooperation. Such assistance should in particular include the transfer of information that would allow the competent Member State to assess whether a producer organisation or association of recognised producer organisations complies with the terms of recognition. Such information is necessary to allow the competent Member State to take action in case of non-compliance.\n(3)\nAdditional rules should be laid down regarding the calculation of the volume of raw milk covered by the negotiations between recognised producer organisations and processors or collectors of raw milk. To take into account the seasonal variability of milk production, the calculation should compare the milk volume covered by the negotiation for the time period of delivery with the estimated volume of milk production representative for that period, to assess compliance with the maximum ceilings laid down in Article 126c of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nHeadquarters\n1. A transnational producer organisation shall establish its headquarters in the Member State in which it has a significant number of members or a significant volume of marketable production.\n2. A transnational association of recognised producer organisations, hereinafter referred to as \u2018transnational association\u2019, shall establish its headquarters in the Member State where it has a significant number of member organisations or a significant volume of marketable production.\nArticle 2\nResponsibilities of the Member States\n1. The Member State in which the headquarters of the transnational producer organisation or transnational association are established shall be responsible for the following:\n(a)\nrecognising the transnational producer organisation or the transnational association in accordance with Article 126a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and carrying out the tasks referred to in Article 126a(4) of that Regulation;\n(b)\nestablishing the necessary administrative collaboration with the other Member States in which the members or member organisations are located with respect to verifying compliance with the terms of recognition referred to in Article 126a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(c)\nproviding, on request of the other Member States, all relevant information and documentation to the other Member States in which the members or member organisations are located.\n2. For the purposes of point (b) of paragraph 1, the other Member States shall give all necessary administrative assistance to the Member State in which the headquarters of the transnational producer organisation or transnational association are established, including the transfer of all relevant information.\n3. Where a producer organisation or an association of recognised producer organisations conducts negotiations as referred to in Article 126c of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in a Member State other than that in which its headquarters are established, the Member States involved shall ensure that all necessary mutual administrative assistance is given.\nArticle 3\nCalculation of amounts of raw milk for negotiation\nFor the purposes of Article 126c(2)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the negotiation ceilings shall be calculated taking into account the delivery period of the raw milk covered by contractual negotiations and the seasonal variability in milk production, where that variability is significant.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2012.", "references": ["91", "84", "27", "99", "85", "49", "89", "46", "30", "73", "21", "74", "51", "14", "50", "6", "77", "78", "75", "58", "28", "90", "22", "68", "44", "66", "7", "1", "61", "96", "No Label", "4", "11", "45", "62", "63", "70"], "gold": ["4", "11", "45", "62", "63", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 107/2012\nof 8 February 2012\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance octenidine dihydrochloride\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nAn application for the establishment of maximum residue limits (hereinafter \u2027MRL\u2027) for octenidine dihydrochloride for cutaneous use in all mammalian food-producing species has been submitted to the European Medicines Agency.\n(4)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use has recommended that there is no need to establish an MRL for octenidine dihydrochloride in all mammalian food-producing species, for cutaneous use only.\n(5)\nTable 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to include the substance octenidine dihydrochloride for cutaneous use in all mammalian food-producing species.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 February 2012.", "references": ["17", "92", "44", "54", "80", "9", "3", "30", "20", "5", "94", "71", "88", "21", "68", "76", "91", "40", "0", "57", "6", "83", "46", "29", "4", "35", "49", "58", "79", "12", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "69", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 322/2012\nof 16 April 2012\namending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for clopyralid, dimethomorph, fenpyrazamine, folpet and pendimethalin in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor folpet and pendimethalin maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Annex II and Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For clopyralid and dimethomorph MRLs were set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For fenpyrazamine, no MRLs were set before in any of the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, so the default value of 0,01 mg/kg applied.\n(2)\nIn the context of a procedure, for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance dimethomorph on spinach and beet leaves an application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing MRLs.\n(3)\nAs regards clopyralid, such an application was made for cauliflower, broccoli, head cabbage, linseed, swedes, turnips and animal products, taking into account uses on animal feed crops fed to domestic food producing animals. As regards fenpyrazamine, such an application was made for grapes, tomatoes, peppers, aubergines, and cucurbits with edible peel. As regards folpet, such an application was made for wine grapes, garlic and tomatoes. As regards pendimethalin, such an application was made for leafy brassica, kohlrabi and herbs.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, these applications were evaluated by the Member States concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission.\n(5)\nThe European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \"the Authority\", assessed the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs (2). It forwarded these opinions to the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public.\n(6)\nThe Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that, as regards use of folpet on wine grapes, a potential risk to consumer health could not be excluded, if the MRL was raised, as requested by the applicant. Therefore, the MRL should not be raised. As regards clopyralid on milk, the Authority proposed a lower MRL provided that the analytical method was validated. As there is no evidence provided for this, the MRL should be kept unmodified.\n(7)\nAs regards all other applications, the Authority concluded that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs requested by the applicants were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime exposure to these substances via consumption of all food products that may contain these substances, nor the short term exposure due to extreme consumption of the relevant crops and products showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference dose (ARfD) is exceeded.\n(8)\nBased on the reasoned opinions of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 April 2012.", "references": ["14", "86", "64", "81", "70", "6", "18", "22", "21", "43", "99", "78", "84", "52", "44", "74", "8", "11", "30", "19", "13", "35", "26", "7", "95", "82", "40", "27", "92", "34", "No Label", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "66"], "gold": ["25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 789/2010\nof 6 September 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 786/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 September 2010.", "references": ["37", "46", "1", "59", "66", "50", "80", "88", "5", "40", "28", "57", "95", "43", "61", "81", "54", "24", "44", "25", "58", "13", "65", "96", "55", "75", "79", "69", "63", "77", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 13 July 2011\nadopting guidelines for reporting by the Member States under Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 4947)\n(2011/453/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport (1) and in particular Article 15(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 17(1) of Directive 2010/40/EU requires the Member States to submit to the Commission, by 27 August 2011, a report on their national activities and projects regarding the priority areas.\n(2)\nArticle 17(2) of Directive 2010/40/EU requires the Member States to provide the Commission by 27 August 2012 with information on national ITS actions envisaged over the following 5-year period.\n(3)\nArticle 17(3) of Directive 2010/40/EU requires the Member States to report every 3 years following the initial report on the progress made in the deployment of the actions referred to in Article 17(1).\n(4)\nArticle 17(2) of Directive 2010/40/EU also requires guidelines for reporting by the Member States to be adopted.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the European ITS Committee established under Article 15(1) of Directive 2010/40/EU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe guidelines for reporting by the Member States, as set out in the Annex, are hereby adopted.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2011.", "references": ["56", "6", "29", "19", "60", "45", "2", "4", "73", "59", "10", "57", "90", "76", "64", "85", "80", "27", "66", "79", "3", "92", "14", "91", "1", "33", "61", "17", "51", "69", "No Label", "8", "39", "41", "54"], "gold": ["8", "39", "41", "54"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 February 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports\n(2012/508/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(a) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated on behalf of the European Union an Agreement with the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports.\n(2)\nThat Agreement was signed, on behalf of the European Union, on 8 November 2010 subject to its conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2010/622/EU (1).\n(3)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (2); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(4)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (3); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall give the notification provided for in Article 9(1) of the Agreement (4).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2011.", "references": ["38", "75", "6", "22", "12", "10", "94", "63", "1", "64", "84", "24", "71", "80", "35", "14", "97", "83", "0", "79", "99", "25", "62", "61", "53", "89", "45", "42", "36", "82", "No Label", "3", "9", "13", "93"], "gold": ["3", "9", "13", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 9 February 2012\non the recognition of Ghana pursuant to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers\n(notified under document C(2012) 616)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/75/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 19(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the request from Cyprus on 13 May 2005,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Directive 2008/106/EC Member States may decide to endorse seafarers\u2019 appropriate certificates issued by third countries, provided that the third country concerned is recognised by the Commission. Those third countries have to meet all the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW Convention) (2), as revised in 1995.\n(2)\nThe request for the recognition of Ghana was submitted by Cyprus by letter of 13 May 2005. Following this request, the Commission assessed the training and certification system in Ghana in order to verify whether Ghana meets all the requirements of the STCW Convention and whether the appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. That assessment was based on the results of an inspection carried out by experts of the European Maritime Safety Agency in December 2009. During that inspection certain deficiencies in the training and certification systems were identified.\n(3)\nThe Commission provided the Member States with a report on the results of the assessment.\n(4)\nBy letter of 20 December 2010, the Commission requested Ghana to provide evidence demonstrating that the deficiencies identified had been corrected.\n(5)\nBy letter of 21 February 2011, Ghana provided the requested information and evidence concerning the implementation of appropriate and sufficient corrective action to address most of the deficiencies identified during the assessment of compliance.\n(6)\nTwo shortcomings remain. The first refers to the fact that Ghana does not fully ensure that seagoing service carried out in the navy or on pilot ships is actually relevant for the competencies required for certification. The other relates to deficiencies of fire-fighting training and equipment of a maritime training institution. Ghana has therefore been invited to implement further corrective actions in this respect. However, these shortcomings do not warrant calling into question the overall level of compliance of Ghana with STCW requirements on training and certification of seafarers.\n(7)\nThe outcome of the assessment of compliance and the evaluation of the information provided by Ghana demonstrates that Ghana complies with the relevant requirements of the STCW Convention, while this country has taken appropriate measures to prevent fraud involving certificates.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of Article 19 of Directive 2008/106/EC, Ghana is recognised as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 February 2012.", "references": ["82", "36", "83", "32", "27", "44", "28", "71", "26", "48", "4", "53", "52", "10", "96", "11", "77", "29", "43", "46", "75", "42", "2", "12", "25", "91", "99", "41", "89", "6", "No Label", "49", "54", "56", "94"], "gold": ["49", "54", "56", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 January 2011\nappointing three Swedish members and four Swedish alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/55/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Swedish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nThree members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Kent JOHANSSON, Ms Maria WALLHAGER NECKMAN and Ms Kristina ALVENDAL. Four alternate members\u2019 seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Ms Susanna HABY, Mr Bernth JOHNSON, Mr Jens NILSSON and Ms Ingela NYLUND WATZ,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMr Kent JOHANSSON, Skara kommun,\n-\nMs Britt-Marie L\u00d6VGREN, Ume\u00e5 kommun,\n-\nMs Jelena DRENJANIN, Huddinge kommun,\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMr Martin ANDREASSON, V\u00e4stra G\u00f6talands l\u00e4ns landsting,\n-\nMs Marie S\u00c4LLSTR\u00d6M, Blekinge l\u00e4ns landsting,\n-\nMs Marie-Louise R\u00d6NNMARK, Ume\u00e5 kommun,\n-\nMs Carin J\u00c4MTIN, Stockholms kommun.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 January 2011.", "references": ["10", "56", "87", "55", "38", "58", "50", "17", "85", "43", "77", "60", "23", "83", "32", "68", "46", "84", "73", "31", "90", "4", "49", "30", "2", "24", "20", "9", "57", "79", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1271/2011\nof 5 December 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 December 2011.", "references": ["44", "88", "15", "7", "8", "47", "55", "35", "40", "83", "79", "5", "34", "42", "12", "59", "58", "74", "53", "2", "25", "85", "93", "37", "66", "11", "61", "6", "30", "1", "No Label", "21", "70"], "gold": ["21", "70"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 511/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 11 May 2011\nimplementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Korea\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 April 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations for a free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea (\u2018Korea\u2019) on behalf of the Union and its Member States.\n(2)\nThose negotiations have been concluded and the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) was signed on 6 October 2010 (2), received the consent of the European Parliament on 17 February 2011 (3) and is to apply as provided for in Article 15.10 of the Agreement.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to lay down the procedures for applying certain provisions of the Agreement which concern safeguards.\n(4)\nThe terms \u2018serious injury\u2019, \u2018threat of serious injury\u2019 and \u2018transition period\u2019 as referred to in Article 3.5 of the Agreement should be defined.\n(5)\nSafeguard measures may be considered only if the product in question is imported into the Union in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to Union producers of like or directly competitive products as laid down in Article 3.1 of the Agreement.\n(6)\nSafeguard measures should take one of the forms referred to in Article 3.1 of the Agreement.\n(7)\nThe tasks of following up and reviewing the Agreement and, if necessary, imposing safeguard measures should be carried out in the most transparent manner possible.\n(8)\nThe Commission should submit a report once a year on the implementation of the Agreement and the application of the safeguard measures.\n(9)\nThere should be detailed provisions on the initiation of proceedings. The Commission should receive information including available evidence from the Member States of any trends in imports which might call for the application of safeguard measures.\n(10)\nThe reliability of statistics on all imports from Korea to the Union is therefore crucial to determining whether the conditions to apply safeguard measures are met.\n(11)\nIn some cases, an increase of imports concentrated in one or several Member States may cause or threaten to cause by itself serious injury to the Union industry. In the event that there is an increase of imports concentrated in one or several Member States, the Commission may introduce prior surveillance measures. The Commission will give full consideration to how the product subject to investigation, and consequently the Union industry producing the like product, can be defined in a manner which provides for an effective remedy, while fully respecting the criteria under this Regulation and the Agreement.\n(12)\nIf there is sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the initiation of a proceeding the Commission should publish a notice as provided for in Article 3.2.2 of the Agreement in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(13)\nThere should be detailed provisions on the initiation of investigations, access and inspections by interested parties to the information gathered, hearings for the parties involved and the opportunities for those parties to submit their views as provided for in Article 3.2.2 of the Agreement.\n(14)\nThe Commission should notify Korea in writing of the initiation of an investigation and consult with Korea as provided for in Article 3.2.1 of the Agreement.\n(15)\nIt is also necessary, pursuant to Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the Agreement, to set time limits for the initiation of investigations and for determinations as to whether or not measures are appropriate, with a view to ensuring that such determinations are made quickly, in order to increase legal certainty for the economic operators concerned.\n(16)\nAn investigation should precede the application of any safeguard measure, subject to the Commission being allowed to apply provisional measures in critical circumstances as referred to in Article 3.3 of the Agreement.\n(17)\nSafeguard measures should be applied only to the extent, and for such time, as may be necessary to prevent serious injury and to facilitate adjustment. The maximum duration of safeguard measures should be determined and specific provisions regarding extension and review of such measures should be laid down, as referred to in Article 3.2.5 of the Agreement.\n(18)\nClose monitoring will facilitate any timely decision concerning the possible initiation of an investigation or the imposition of measures. Therefore the Commission should regularly monitor imports and exports in sensitive sectors from the date of application of the Agreement.\n(19)\nIt is necessary to lay down certain procedures relating to the application of Article 14 (Drawback of, or Exemption from, Customs Duties) of the Protocol concerning the Definition of \u2018Originating Products\u2019 and Methods of Administrative Cooperation (\u2018the Rules of Origin Protocol\u2019) of the Agreement in order to ensure the effective operation of the mechanisms provided for therein and to provide for a comprehensive exchange of information with relevant stakeholders.\n(20)\nBecause it will not be possible to limit customs duty drawback until 5 years after the Agreement enters into force, it may be necessary, on the basis of this Regulation, to impose safeguard measures in response to a serious injury or threat of serious injury to Union producers that is caused by imports benefiting from duty drawback or exemption from customs duty. In such a proceeding the Commission should evaluate all relevant factors having a bearing on the situation of the Union industry, including the conditions set out in Article 14.2.1 of the Rules of Origin Protocol. Therefore the Commission should monitor Korean statistics for sensitive sectors potentially affected by duty drawback from the date of application of the Agreement.\n(21)\nFrom the date of application of the Agreement, the Commission should also monitor particularly closely, especially in sensitive sectors, the statistics showing the evolution of imports into and exports from Korea.\n(22)\nDefinitive safeguard measures adopted pursuant to this Regulation may be referred to by Member States in applications for financial contributions under Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (4).\n(23)\nThe implementation of the bilateral safeguard clause of the Agreement requires uniform conditions for the adoption of provisional and definitive safeguard measures, for the imposition of prior surveillance measures, and for the termination of an investigation without measures. Those measures should be adopted by the Commission in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (5).\n(24)\nIt is appropriate that the advisory procedure be used for the adoption of surveillance and provisional measures given the effects of these measures and their sequential logic in relation to the adoption of definitive safeguard measures. Where a delay in the imposition of measures would cause damage which would be difficult to repair it is necessary to allow the Commission to adopt immediately applicable provisional measures.\n(25)\nThis Regulation should apply only to products originating in the Union or Korea,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation:\n(a)\n\u2018products\u2019 means goods originating in the Union or Korea. A product subject to an investigation may cover one or several tariff lines or a subsegment thereof depending on the specific market circumstances, or any product segmentation commonly applied in the Union industry;\n(b)\n\u2018interested parties\u2019 means parties affected by the imports of the product in question;\n(c)\n\u2018Union industry\u2019 means the Union producers as a whole of the like or directly competitive products, operating within the territory of the Union, or those Union producers whose collective output of the like or directly competitive products constitutes a major proportion of the total Union production of those products. In cases where the like or directly competitive product is only one of several products that are made by the producers constituting the Union industry, the industry shall be defined as the specific operations that are involved in the production of the like or directly competitive product;\n(d)\n\u2018serious injury\u2019 means a significant overall impairment in the position of Union producers;\n(e)\n\u2018threat of serious injury\u2019 means serious injury that is clearly imminent. A determination of the existence of a threat of serious injury shall be based on verifiable facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility. Forecasts, estimations and analyses made on the basis of factors referred to in Article 5(5), should, inter alia, be taken into account in order to determine the existence of a threat of serious injury;\n(f)\n\u2018transition period\u2019 means, for a product, the period from the date of application of the Agreement, as provided for in Article 15.10 thereof, until 10 years from the date of completion of tariff elimination or reduction, as the case may be for each product.\nArticle 2\nPrinciples\n1. A safeguard measure may be imposed in accordance with this Regulation where a product originating in Korea is, as a result of the reduction or the elimination of the customs duties on that product, being imported into the Union in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to Union production, and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the Union industry producing a like or directly competitive product.\n2. Safeguard measures may take one of the following forms:\n(a)\nsuspension of further reduction of the rate of customs duty on the product concerned provided for under the Agreement; or\n(b)\nincrease in the rate of customs duty on the product to a level which does not exceed the lesser of:\n-\nthe most-favoured-nation (\u2018MFN\u2019) applied rate of customs duty on the product in effect at the time the measure is taken, or\n-\nthe base rate of customs duty specified in the Schedules in Annex 2-A to the Agreement pursuant to Article 2.5.2 of the Agreement.\nArticle 3\nMonitoring\n1. The Commission shall monitor the evolution of import and export statistics of Korean products in sensitive sectors potentially affected by duty drawback from the date of application of the Agreement and shall cooperate and exchange data on a regular basis with Member States and the Union industry.\n2. Upon a duly justified request by the industries concerned, the Commission may consider extending the scope of the monitoring to other sectors.\n3. The Commission shall present an annual monitoring report to the European Parliament and the Council on updated statistics on imports from Korea of products in the sensitive sectors and those sectors to which monitoring has been extended.\n4. For a period of 5 years following the date of application of the Agreement and upon a duly reasoned request from the Union industry, the Commission shall pay particular attention to any increase in the import of finished sensitive products originating in Korea into the Union where such an increase is attributable to increased use of parts or components imported into Korea from third countries which have not concluded a free trade agreement with the Union and which are covered by the provisions on customs duty drawback or exemption from customs duty.\n5. For the purposes of paragraph 4, at least the following products shall be considered as falling within the category of sensitive products: textiles and clothing (HS 2007 headings 5204, 5205, 5206, 5207, 5408, 5508, 5509, 5510, 5511), consumer electronics (HS 2007 headings 8521, 8528), passenger cars (HS 2007 headings 870321, 870322, 870323, 870324, 870331, 870332, 870333) and also those included in the additional list drawn up in accordance with Article 11.\nArticle 4\nInitiation of proceedings\n1. An investigation shall be initiated upon request by a Member State, by any legal person or any association not having legal personality, acting on behalf of the Union industry, or on the Commission\u2019s own initiative if it is apparent to the Commission that there is sufficient prima facie evidence, as determined on the basis of factors referred to in Article 5(5), to justify such initiation.\n2. The request to initiate an investigation shall contain evidence that the conditions for imposing the safeguard measure set out in Article 2(1) are met. The request shall generally contain the following information: the rate and amount of the increase in imports of the product concerned in absolute and relative terms, the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports, changes in the level of sales, production, productivity, capacity utilisation, profits and losses, and employment.\nAn investigation may also be initiated in the event that there is a surge of imports concentrated in one or several Member States, provided that there is sufficient prima facie evidence that the conditions for initiation are met, as determined on the basis of factors referred to in Article 5(5).\n3. A Member State shall inform the Commission if trends in imports from Korea appear to call for safeguard measures. That information shall include the evidence available as determined on the basis of factors referred to in Article 5(5). The Commission shall pass that information on to all Member States.\n4. The Commission shall consult Member States forthwith if a request is received pursuant to paragraph 1 or if the Commission considers initiation of an investigation on its own initiative. Consultation with the Member States shall take place within 8 working days of the Commission sending the request or information, as provided for in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article respectively, within the Committee referred to in Article 14. Where, after consultation, it is apparent that there is sufficient prima facie evidence as determined on the basis of factors referred to in Article 5(5) to justify the initiation of a proceeding the Commission shall publish a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. Initiation shall take place within 1 month of the request received pursuant to paragraph 1.\n5. The notice referred to in paragraph 4 shall:\n(a)\ngive a summary of the information received, and require that all relevant information be communicated to the Commission;\n(b)\nstate the period within which interested parties may make known their views in writing and submit information, if such views and information are to be taken into account during the investigation;\n(c)\nstate the period within which interested parties may apply to be heard orally by the Commission in accordance with Article 5(9).\n6. Evidence collected for the purpose of initiating proceedings in accordance with Article 14.2 of the Rules of Origin Protocol may also be used for investigations with a view to the imposition of safeguard measures where the conditions stipulated in this Article are met, in particular during the first 5-year period following the date of application of the Agreement.\nArticle 5\nThe investigation\n1. Following the initiation of the proceeding, the Commission shall commence an investigation. The period as set out in paragraph 3 shall start on the day the decision to initiate the investigation is published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. The Commission may request Member States to supply information and Member States shall take whatever steps are necessary in order to give effect to any such request. If that information is of general interest and is not confidential within the meaning of Article 12, it shall be added to the non-confidential files as provided for in paragraph 8.\n3. The investigation shall, whenever possible, be concluded within 6 months of its initiation. That time limit may be extended by a further period of 3 months in exceptional circumstances such as the involvement of an unusually high number of parties, or complex market situations. The Commission shall notify all interested parties of any such extension and explain the reasons which have led to this extension.\n4. The Commission shall seek all information it considers necessary to make a determination with regard to the conditions set out in Article 2(1), and, where it considers it appropriate, endeavour to verify that information.\n5. In the investigation the Commission shall evaluate all relevant factors of an objective and quantifiable nature having a bearing on the situation of the Union industry, in particular, the rate and amount of the increase in imports of the product concerned in absolute and relative terms, the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports, changes in the level of sales, production, productivity, capacity utilisation, profits and losses, and employment. This list is not exhaustive and other relevant factors may also be taken into consideration by the Commission for its determination of the existence of serious injury or threat of serious injury, such as stocks, prices, return on capital employed, cash flow, and other factors which are causing or may have caused serious injury, or threaten to cause serious injury to the Union industry.\n6. Interested parties who have come forward pursuant to Article 4(5)(b) and representatives of Korea may, upon written request, inspect all information made available to the Commission in connection with the investigation other than internal documents prepared by the Union authorities or those of the Member States, provided that that information is relevant to the presentation of their case and not confidential within the meaning of Article 12 and that it is used by the Commission in the investigation. Interested parties who have come forward may communicate their views on the information to the Commission. Those views shall be taken into consideration where they are backed by sufficient prima facie evidence.\n7. The Commission shall ensure that all data and statistics which are used for the investigation are available, comprehensible, transparent and verifiable.\n8. The Commission shall, as soon as the necessary technical framework is in place, ensure password-protected online access to the non-confidential file (\u2018online platform\u2019), which it shall manage and through which all information which is relevant and is not confidential within the meaning of Article 12 shall be disseminated. Interested parties to the investigation as well as Member States and the European Parliament shall be granted access to this online platform.\n9. The Commission shall hear the interested parties, in particular where they have made a written application within the period laid down in the notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union, showing that they are actually likely to be affected by the outcome of the investigation and that there are special reasons for them to be heard orally.\nThe Commission shall hear such parties on further occasions if there are special reasons for them to be heard again.\n10. When information is not supplied within the time limits set by the Commission, or the investigation is significantly impeded, findings may be made on the basis of the facts available. Where the Commission finds that any interested party or third party has supplied it with false or misleading information, it shall disregard that information and may make use of the facts available.\n11. The Commission shall notify Korea in writing of the initiation of an investigation and consult with Korea as far in advance of applying a safeguard measure as practicable, with a view to reviewing the information arising from the investigation and exchanging views on the measure.\nArticle 6\nPrior surveillance measures\n1. Where the trend in imports of a product originating in Korea is such that it could lead to one of the situations referred to in Articles 2 and 3, imports of that product may be subject to prior surveillance measures.\n2. In the event that there is a surge of imports of products falling into sensitive sectors concentrated in one or several Member States, the Commission may introduce prior surveillance measures.\n3. Prior surveillance measures shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 14(2).\n4. Prior surveillance measures shall have a limited period of validity. Unless otherwise provided, they shall cease to be valid at the end of the second 6-month period following the first 6 months after the measures were introduced.\nArticle 7\nImposition of provisional safeguard measures\n1. Provisional safeguard measures shall be applied in critical circumstances where a delay would cause damage which would be difficult to repair, pursuant to a preliminary determination on the basis of the factors referred to in Article 5(5) that there is sufficient prima facie evidence that imports of a product originating in Korea have increased as the result of the reduction or elimination of a customs duty under the Agreement, and such imports cause serious injury, or threat thereof, to the Union industry.\nProvisional measures shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 14(2). In cases of imperative grounds of urgency, including the case referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall adopt immediately applicable provisional safeguard measures in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 14(4).\n2. Where a Member State requests immediate intervention by the Commission and where the conditions set out in paragraph 1 are met, the Commission shall take a decision within 5 working days of receiving the request.\n3. Provisional measures shall not apply for more than 200 days.\n4. Should the provisional safeguard measures be repealed because the investigation shows that the conditions set out in Article 2(1) are not met, any customs duty collected as a result of those provisional measures shall be refunded automatically.\n5. The measures referred to in this Article shall apply to every product which is put into free circulation after their entry into force. However, such measures shall not prevent the release for free circulation of products already on their way to the Union provided that the destination of such products cannot be changed.\nArticle 8\nTermination of investigation and proceeding without measures\n1. Where the facts as finally established show that the conditions set out in Article 2(1) are not met, the Commission shall adopt a decision terminating the investigation and proceeding in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 14(3).\n2. The Commission shall make public, with due regard to the protection of confidential information within the meaning of Article 12, a report setting forth its findings and reasoned conclusions reached on all pertinent issues of fact and law.\nArticle 9\nImposition of definitive measures\n1. Where the facts as finally established show that the conditions set out in Article 2(1) are met, the Commission shall adopt a decision imposing definitive safeguard measures in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 14(3).\n2. The Commission shall make public, with due regard to the protection of confidential information within the meaning of Article 12, a report containing a summary of the material facts and considerations relevant to the determination.\nArticle 10\nDuration and review of safeguard measures\n1. A safeguard measure shall remain in force only for such period of time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy the serious injury and to facilitate adjustment. That period shall not exceed 2 years, unless it is extended under paragraph 3.\n2. A safeguard measure shall remain in force, pending the outcome of the review, during any extension period.\n3. The initial period of duration of a safeguard measure may exceptionally be extended by up to 2 years provided it is determined that the safeguard measure continues to be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment and that there is evidence that the Union industry is adjusting.\n4. Extensions shall be adopted in accordance with the procedures of this Regulation applying to investigations and using the same procedures as for the initial measures.\nThe total duration of a safeguard measure may not exceed 4 years, including any provisional measure.\n5. A safeguard measure shall not be applied beyond the expiry of the transition period, except with the consent of Korea.\nArticle 11\nProcedure for the application of Article 14 of the Rules of Origin Protocol\n1. For the purpose of applying Article 14 of the Rules of Origin Protocol, the Commission shall monitor closely the evolution of relevant import and export statistics both in value and as appropriate in quantities and regularly share these data with, and report its findings to, the European Parliament, the Council and the Union industries concerned. Monitoring shall start from the date of application of the Agreement and data shall be shared on a bimonthly basis.\nIn addition to the tariff lines included in Article 14.1 of the Rules of Origin Protocol, the Commission shall draw up, in cooperation with the Union industry, a list of key tariff lines that are not specific to the automotive sector, but are important for car manufacturing and other related sectors. Specific monitoring shall be carried out as laid down in Article 14.1 of the Rules of Origin Protocol.\n2. Upon request of a Member State or on its own initiative the Commission shall immediately examine whether the conditions for invoking Article 14 of the Rules of Origin Protocol are met and report its findings within 10 working days of the request. Following consultations in the framework of the special committee referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 207(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union the Commission shall request consultations with Korea whenever the conditions of Article 14 of the Rules of Origin Protocol are met. The Commission shall consider that the conditions are met, inter alia, when the thresholds mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Article are reached.\n3. A difference of 10 percentage points shall be considered as \u2018significant\u2019 for the purposes of application of paragraph 2.1(a) of Article 14 of the Rules of Origin Protocol when assessing the increased rate of imports of parts or components into Korea as compared with the increased rate of exports from Korea to the Union of finished products. An increase of 10 % shall be considered as \u2018significant\u2019 for the purposes of application of paragraph 2.1(b) of Article 14 of the Rules of Origin Protocol when assessing the increase of exports from Korea to the Union of finished products in absolute terms, or relative to Union production. Increases below these thresholds may also be considered as \u2018significant\u2019 on a case-by-case basis.\nArticle 12\nConfidentiality\n1. Information received pursuant to this Regulation shall be used only for the purpose for which it was requested.\n2. No information of a confidential nature nor any information provided on a confidential basis received pursuant to this Regulation shall be disclosed without specific permission from the supplier of such information.\n3. Each request for confidentiality shall state the reasons why the information is confidential. However, if the supplier of the information wishes neither to make it public nor to authorise its disclosure in general terms or in the form of a summary and if it appears that the request for confidentiality is unjustified, the information concerned may be disregarded.\n4. Information shall in any case be considered to be confidential if its disclosure is likely to have a significantly adverse effect upon the supplier or the source of such information.\n5. Paragraphs 1 to 4 shall not preclude reference by the Union authorities to general information and in particular to reasons on which decisions taken pursuant to this Regulation are based. Those authorities shall, however, take into account the legitimate interest of natural and legal persons concerned that their business secrets should not be divulged.\nArticle 13\nReport\n1. The Commission shall make public an annual report on the application and implementation of the Agreement. The report shall include information about the activities of the various bodies responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Agreement and fulfilment of the obligations arising therefrom, including obligations concerning barriers to trade.\n2. Special sections of the report shall deal with the fulfilment of obligations under Chapter 13 of the Agreement and with the activities of the Domestic Advisory Group and the Civil Society Forum.\n3. The report shall also present a summary of the statistics and the evolution of trade with Korea. Specific mention shall be made of the results of the monitoring of duty drawback.\n4. The report shall include information on the implementation of this Regulation.\n5. The European Parliament may, within 1 month from the Commission making public the report, invite the Commission to an ad hoc meeting of its responsible committee to present and explain any issues related to the implementation of the Agreement.\nArticle 14\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee established by Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 260/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the common rules for imports (6). That Committee shall be a Committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\n3. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\n4. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof, shall apply.\n5. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 do not prejudice in any way the exercise by the European Parliament and the Council of the power established in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\nArticle 15\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the date of application of the Agreement as provided for in Article 15.10 thereof. A notice shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union specifying the date of application of the Agreement.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 11 May 2011.", "references": ["43", "55", "94", "76", "86", "54", "97", "5", "75", "53", "48", "29", "78", "91", "16", "63", "30", "44", "93", "56", "90", "51", "57", "49", "12", "80", "8", "85", "19", "84", "No Label", "3", "9", "22", "23", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "22", "23", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1214/2010\nof 17 December 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Carota Novella di Ispica (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Carota Novella di Ispica (PGI)\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 December 2010.", "references": ["16", "98", "87", "32", "35", "80", "73", "59", "49", "79", "26", "75", "41", "40", "99", "14", "66", "47", "39", "58", "50", "86", "8", "1", "36", "55", "56", "93", "71", "46", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 244/2011\nof 11 March 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pera de Lleida (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Pera de Lleida\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 March 2011.", "references": ["80", "84", "20", "2", "5", "1", "58", "51", "43", "37", "93", "71", "10", "83", "14", "45", "36", "65", "72", "79", "98", "39", "34", "49", "33", "0", "44", "88", "57", "7", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 390/2012\nof 7 May 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Community and the quarantine conditions thereof\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), and in particular Article 17(3)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 (2) lays down the animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union, one of which is that the birds are to be imported into the Union only if they originate from third countries or parts thereof referred to in Annex I thereto.\n(2)\nThe Philippines have requested the Commission to authorise imports into the Union of captive bred birds pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 from part of its territory. Commission experts carried out an inspection mission in the Philippines to evaluate if the required animal health conditions for such birds and controls in place were met by that country.\n(3)\nThe Philippines provided appropriate guarantees as regards compliance with Union rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 required for imports into the Union of captive bred birds from part of its territory, namely the National Capital Region of Manila. That part of the Philippines\u2019 territory should therefore be included in the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 318/2007.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 318/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 318/2007, the following entry is added:\n\u20183.\nPhilippines: National Capital Region of Manila.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2012.", "references": ["92", "4", "70", "98", "35", "25", "84", "94", "27", "67", "91", "55", "71", "29", "11", "9", "89", "62", "26", "23", "7", "50", "83", "39", "82", "45", "5", "40", "16", "81", "No Label", "21", "22", "59", "61", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "59", "61", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1109/2011\nof 3 November 2011\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005 as regards the equivalent methods for Trichinella testing\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (1), and in particular the former part of the introductory phrase of Article 18 and points 8, 9 and 10 of that Article,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down specific rules on official controls for Trichinella in meat (2) provides for methods of detection of Trichinella in samples of carcases. The reference method is laid down in Chapter I of Annex I to that Regulation. Three methods of detection equivalent to the reference method are laid down in Chapter II of Annex I to that Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 2075/2005, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1245/2007 (3), permits the use of liquid pepsin for the detection of Trichinella in meat and establishes its requirements when used as a reagent in methods of detection. It is therefore appropriate to also provide for identical requirements for the equivalent detection methods, where relevant. Part C of Chapter II of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nIn addition, new apparatuses for Trichinella testing using the digestion method equivalent to the reference method started being produced by private companies. Following these developments, guidelines for the validation of new apparatuses for testing of Trichinella by the digestion method were endorsed unanimously during the meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 16 December 2008.\n(4)\nIn 2010 a new apparatus method for testing of Trichinella in domestic swine was validated by the EU Reference Laboratory for parasites in accordance with those guidelines.\n(5)\nResults of the validation show that the new apparatus and related method of detection of Trichinella, validated under the code of the EU Reference Laboratory, No EURLP_D_001/2011 (4), is equivalent to the reference method as laid down in Chapter I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005. Therefore, it should be included in the list of equivalent methods of detection listed in Chapter II of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005.\n(6)\nChapter II of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2011.", "references": ["60", "55", "36", "41", "95", "33", "54", "96", "31", "29", "62", "23", "9", "76", "83", "57", "18", "80", "48", "81", "85", "39", "77", "15", "14", "97", "16", "65", "4", "28", "No Label", "38", "43", "61", "66", "69"], "gold": ["38", "43", "61", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 847/2010\nof 24 September 2010\non the issue of licences for importing rice under the tariff quotas opened for the September 2010 subperiod by Regulation (EC) No 327/98\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 of 10 February 1998 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (3), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 327/98 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 IX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nSeptember is the fourth subperiod for the quotas laid down in Article 1(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98, the third subperiod for the quotas laid down in Article 1(1)(d) and the first subperiod for the quota laid down in Article 1(1)(e).\n(3)\nThe notifications presented under Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98 show that, for the quotas with order numbers 09.4118 - 09.4119 - 09.4168, the applications lodged in the first ten working days of September 2010 under Article 4(1) of the Regulation cover a quantity greater than that available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested under the quotas in question.\n(4)\nIt is also clear from the notifications that, for the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4129 - 09.4117, the applications lodged in the first ten working days of September 2010 under Article 4(1) of the Regulation cover a quantity less than that available.\n(5)\nThe quantities not used for the September subperiod of the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4129 - 09.4130 are transferred to the quota bearing the order number 09.4138 for the following subperiod under Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 327/98.\n(6)\nThe total quantities available for the following subperiod should therefore be fixed for the quotas with order numbers 09.4138 and 09.4168, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 327/98.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. For import licence applications for rice under the quotas with order numbers 09.4118 - 09.4119 - 09.4168 as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98 lodged in the first ten working days of September 2010, licences shall be issued for the quantities requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The total quantities available under the quotas with order numbers 09.4138 and 09.4168 as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98 for the following subperiod are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 September 2010.", "references": ["64", "3", "27", "49", "5", "1", "53", "16", "44", "80", "20", "63", "71", "91", "83", "89", "36", "37", "57", "12", "22", "0", "70", "34", "85", "25", "74", "10", "24", "28", "No Label", "4", "21", "66", "68"], "gold": ["4", "21", "66", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 351/2012\nof 23 April 2012\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards type-approval requirements for the installation of lane departure warning systems in motor vehicles\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) and Article 14(3)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 lays down basic requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 with regard to the installation of lane departure warning systems. It is necessary to set out the specific procedures, tests and requirements for such type-approval.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 provides that the Commission may adopt measures exempting certain vehicles or classes of vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 from the obligation to install lane departure warning systems, where following a cost/benefit analysis and taking into account all relevant safety aspects, the application of those systems proves not to be appropriate to the vehicle or class of vehicles concerned.\n(3)\nThe cost/benefit analysis has proven that the application of lane departure warning systems to semi-trailer towing vehicles of category N2 with a maximum mass exceeding 3,5 tonnes but not exceeding 8 tonnes is not appropriate as it would generate more costs than benefits. In addition, it is considered that due to their typical use in specific traffic conditions, the installation of lane departure warning systems would generate only limited safety benefits for category M2 and M3 vehicles of Class A, Class I and Class II, and for articulated buses of category M3 of Class A, Class I and Class II, as well as for certain special purpose vehicles, off-road vehicles and vehicles with more than three axles. Those vehicles should therefore be exempted from the obligation to install those systems.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation applies to vehicles of categories M2, N2, M3 and N3, as defined in Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), with the exception of the following:\n(1)\nsemi-trailer towing vehicles of category N2 with a maximum mass exceeding 3,5 tonnes but not exceeding 8 tonnes;\n(2)\ncategories M2 and M3 vehicles of Class A, Class I and Class II;\n(3)\ncategory M3 articulated buses of Class A, Class I and Class II;\n(4)\noff-road vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 as referred to in points 4.2 and 4.3 of Part A of Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC;\n(5)\nspecial purpose vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 as referred to in point 5 of Part A of Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC;\n(6)\nvehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 with more than three axles.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply in addition to the definitions set out in Regulation (EC) No 661/2009:\n(1)\n\u2018vehicle type with regard to its Lane Departure Warning System\u2019 means a category of vehicles which do not differ in such essential respects as:\n(a)\nthe manufacturer\u2019s trade name or mark;\n(b)\nvehicle features which significantly influence the performances of the Lane Departure Warning System;\n(c)\nthe type and design of the Lane Departure Warning System;\n(2)\n\u2018lane\u2019 means one of the longitudinal strips into which a roadway is divided (as shown in the Appendix to Annex II);\n(3)\n\u2018visible lane marking\u2019 means delineators intentionally placed on the borderline of the lane that are directly visible by the driver while driving;\n(4)\n\u2018rate of departure\u2019 means the subject vehicle\u2019s approach velocity at a right angle to the visible lane marking at the warning issue point;\n(5)\n\u2018common space\u2019 means an area on which two or more information functions may be displayed, but not simultaneously.\nArticle 3\nEC type-approval of a type of vehicle with regard to LDWS\n1. The manufacturer or his representative shall submit to the type-approval authority the application for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to lane departure warning systems.\n2. The application shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Part 1 of Annex I.\n3. If the relevant requirements set out in Annex II to this Regulation are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC type-approval and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nA Member State may not assign the same number to another vehicle type.\n4. For the purposes of paragraph 3, the type-approval authority shall issue an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2012.", "references": ["77", "42", "62", "83", "60", "15", "51", "7", "74", "9", "36", "1", "26", "35", "84", "97", "73", "95", "81", "47", "88", "79", "3", "58", "24", "4", "89", "63", "30", "72", "No Label", "54", "76"], "gold": ["54", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 April 2011\nconcerning the non-inclusion of propisochlor in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC\n(notified under document C(2011) 2726)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/262/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 1112/2002 (2) and (EC) No 2229/2004 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included propisochlor.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 24e of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/941/EC of 8 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted which provides for the non-inclusion of propisochlor.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Hungary, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/941/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nHungary evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 30 November 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on propisochlor to the Commission on 9 September 2010 (6) based on data submitted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 33/2008. The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 24 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for propisochlor.\n(6)\nDuring the evaluation of this active substance, a number of concerns have been identified. In particular, it was not possible to perform a reliable consumer risk assessment and to conclude on a residue definition for propisochlor and its metabolites due to a lack of data on the toxicological relevance of several metabolites (M2 (7), M7 (8), M12 (9), M14 (10), M17 (11), M20 (12), M22 (13) and M35 (14). In addition, harmful effects on groundwater cannot be excluded for several metabolites (M1 (15), M2, M5 (16), M7 and M9 (17) of unknown toxicological and ecotoxicological relevance whose levels exceeded the maximum permissible concentration of 0,1 \u03bcg/l as laid down by Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (18) in several model scenarios for groundwater leaching. Finally, the data available were not sufficient to conclude on the soil, sediment and groundwater exposure for the major soil metabolite M9 and to finalise the risk assessment for aquatic organisms.\n(7)\nThe Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the results of the focused peer review. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the applicant to submit comments on the draft review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(8)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns identified could not be eliminated, and assessments made on the basis of the information submitted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and evaluated during the meetings of the Authority have not demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing propisochlor satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(9)\nPropisochlor should therefore not be included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThis Decision does not prejudice the submission of a further application for propisochlor pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(11)\nIn the interest of clarity, the entry for propisochlor in the Annex to Decision 2008/941/EC should be deleted.\n(12)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/941/EC accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nPropisochlor shall not be included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nauthorisations for plant protection products containing propisochlor are withdrawn by 27 October 2011;\n(b)\nno authorisations for plant protection products containing propisochlor are granted or renewed from the date of publication of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nAny period of grace granted by Member States in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(6) of Directive 91/414/EEC, shall be as short as possible and shall expire on 27 October 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 4\nIn the Annex to Decision 2008/941/EC, the entry for \u2018propisochlor\u2019 is deleted.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2011.", "references": ["36", "0", "24", "79", "13", "52", "80", "40", "95", "50", "30", "74", "26", "88", "87", "11", "42", "53", "2", "83", "25", "6", "32", "19", "99", "27", "34", "9", "59", "70", "No Label", "20", "38", "48", "60", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "38", "48", "60", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 49/2011\nof 20 January 2011\non the issue of licences for the import of preserved mushrooms in 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe quantities for which licence applications have been lodged by traditional importers and/or by new importers between 1 and 7 January 2011 pursuant to Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1979/2006 of 22 December 2006 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for preserved mushrooms imported from third countries (3) exceed the quantities available for products originating in China and other third countries.\n(2)\nIt is therefore necessary to establish the extent to which the licence applications sent to the Commission no later than 14 January 2011 can be met,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApplications for import licences lodged pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1979/2006 between 1 and 7 January 2011 and sent to the Commission no later than 14 January 2011 shall be met at a percentage rate of the quantities applied for as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2011.", "references": ["67", "99", "31", "24", "89", "33", "42", "30", "38", "40", "11", "82", "13", "10", "56", "27", "57", "54", "6", "76", "44", "79", "60", "29", "93", "52", "78", "64", "28", "53", "No Label", "4", "21", "22", "23", "66", "72"], "gold": ["4", "21", "22", "23", "66", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 323/2011\nof 31 March 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for deep-sea sharks in EU and international waters of V, VI, VII, VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2011 and 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["95", "35", "28", "76", "39", "23", "46", "26", "53", "63", "74", "48", "15", "87", "2", "8", "12", "5", "84", "21", "36", "64", "75", "19", "61", "83", "25", "47", "51", "78", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/91/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\non indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs\n(codification)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 89/396/EEC of 14 June 1989 on indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs (3) has been substantially amended several times (4). In the interests of clarity and rationality that Directive should be codified.\n(2)\nThe internal market comprises an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured.\n(3)\nTrade in foodstuffs occupies a very important place in the internal market.\n(4)\nIndication of the lot to which a foodstuff belongs meets the need for better information on the identity of products. It is therefore a useful source of information when foodstuffs are the subject of dispute or constitute a health hazard for consumers.\n(5)\nDirective 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (5) contains no provisions on indication of lot identification.\n(6)\nAt international level there is a general obligation to provide a reference to the manufacturing or packaging lot of prepackaged foodstuffs. It is the duty of the Union to contribute to the development of international trade.\n(7)\nIt is therefore advisable to provide for rules of a general and horizontal nature in order to manage a common lot identification system.\n(8)\nThe efficiency of that system depends on its application at the various marketing stages. It is nevertheless desirable to exclude certain products and operations, in particular those taking place at the start of the distribution network for agricultural products.\n(9)\nIt is necessary to take account of the fact that the immediate consumption upon purchase of certain foodstuffs such as ice cream in individual portions means that indicating the lot directly on the individual packaging would serve no useful purpose. However, it should be compulsory in the case of those products to indicate the lot on the combined package.\n(10)\nThe concept of a lot implies that several sales units of a foodstuff have almost identical production, manufacture or packaging characteristics. That concept should, therefore, not apply to bulk products or products which, owing to their individual specificity or heterogeneous nature, cannot be considered as forming a homogeneous batch.\n(11)\nIn view of the variety of identification methods used, it should be up to the trader to determine the lot and to affix the corresponding indication or mark.\n(12)\nIn order to satisfy the information requirements for which it is intended, that indication should be clearly distinguishable and recognisable as such.\n(13)\nThe date of minimum durability or \u2018use by\u2019 date, may, in conformity with Directive 2000/13/EC, serve as the lot identification, provided it is indicated precisely.\n(14)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex I, Part B,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\n1. This Directive concerns the indication which allows identification of the lot to which a foodstuff belongs.\n2. For the purposes of this Directive, \u2018lot\u2019 means a batch of sales units of a foodstuff produced, manufactured or packaged under practically the same conditions.\nArticle 2\n1. A foodstuff may not be marketed unless it is accompanied by an indication as referred to in Article 1(1).\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply:\n(a)\nto agricultural products which, on leaving the holding, are:\n(i)\nsold or delivered to temporary storage, preparation or packaging stations;\n(ii)\ntransported to producers\u2019 organisations; or\n(iii)\ncollected for immediate integration into an operational preparation or processing system;\n(b)\nwhen, at the point of sale to the ultimate consumer, the foodstuffs are not prepackaged, are packaged at the request of the purchaser or are prepackaged for immediate sale;\n(c)\nto packagings or containers the largest side of which has an area of less than 10 cm2;\n(d)\nto individual portions of ice cream. The indication enabling the lot to be identified shall appear on the combined package.\nArticle 3\nThe lot shall be determined in each case by the producer, manufacturer or packager of the foodstuff in question, or the first seller established within the Union.\nThe indication referred to in Article 1(1) shall be determined and affixed under the responsibility of one or other of those operators. It shall be preceded by the letter \u2018L\u2019 except in cases where it is clearly distinguishable from the other indications on the label.\nArticle 4\nWhen the foodstuffs are prepackaged, the indication referred to in Article 1(1) and, where appropriate, the letter \u2018L\u2019 shall appear on the prepackaging or on a label attached thereto.\nWhen the foodstuffs are not prepackaged, the indication referred to in Article 1(1) and, where appropriate, the letter \u2018L\u2019 shall appear on the packaging or on the container or, failing that, on the relevant commercial documents.\nIt shall in all cases appear in such a way as to be easily visible, clearly legible and indelible.\nArticle 5\nWhen the date of minimum durability or \u2018use by\u2019 date appears on the label, the indication referred to in Article 1(1) need not appear on the foodstuff, provided that the date consists at least of the uncoded indication of the day and the month in that order.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive shall apply without prejudice to the indications laid down by specific provisions of the Union.\nThe Commission shall publish and keep up to date a list of the provisions in question.\nArticle 7\nDirective 89/396/EEC, as amended by the Directives listed in Annex I, Part A, is repealed, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex I, Part B.\nReferences to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II.\nArticle 8\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 9\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["74", "17", "22", "44", "7", "18", "54", "0", "48", "95", "81", "61", "78", "90", "2", "59", "52", "73", "84", "14", "66", "29", "19", "3", "92", "67", "49", "30", "99", "89", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "77"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 494/2012\nof 11 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 593/2007 on the fees and charges levied by the European Aviation Safety Agency\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 100(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (1), and in particular Article 64(1) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Management Board of the European Aviation Safety Agency,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 the scope of activities of the European Aviation Safety Agency (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019) has been extended; hence the Agency is required to issue a certificate, approval, licence or other document as a result of certification according to the extended scope.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 593/2007 of 31 May 2007 on the fees and charges levied by the European Aviation Safety Agency (2) does not allow for fees and charges to be levied for any certification activities referred to in Article 5(5)(e) and Articles 21, 22, 22a, 22b and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 other than those detailed in Commission Regulations (EC) No 1702/2003 of 24 September 2003 laying down implementing rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production (3) and (EC) No 2042/2003 of 20 November 2003 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks (4).\n(3)\nFees and charges referred to in this Regulation should be set in a transparent, fair and uniform manner, reflecting the actual cost of each individual service as stipulated in Article 64(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. It is necessary to ensure a balance between overall expenditure incurred by the Agency in carrying out certification tasks and overall income from the fees it levies.\n(4)\nThe geographical location of the undertakings in the territories of the Member States should not be a discriminatory factor when setting fees.\n(5)\nThe applicant should have the choice to request a financial quote of the foreseeable amount to be paid for the service which will be provided. The criteria for determining the amount to be paid should be clear, uniform and public. Where it is not possible to accurately determine this amount in advance, transparent principles for assessing the amount to be paid during the provision of the service should be established by the Agency.\n(6)\nDeadlines for the payment of fees and charges levied under this Regulation should be fixed. Appropriate remedies in cases of non-payment should be laid down such as the termination of the related application processes, invalidation of related approvals, ceasing of any further provision of services to the same applicant, and recovery of the outstanding amount through available means.\n(7)\nCharges for appeals against decisions of the Agency should be paid in full before the appeal is declared admissible.\n(8)\nInterested parties should be consulted prior to any modification of fees. Moreover, the Agency should regularly provide interested parties with information on how and on what basis the fees are calculated to provide interested parties with an insight into the costs incurred by the Agency, and to provide the industry with the appropriate financial visibility and the ability to anticipate the cost of the fees it will be required to pay. It should therefore be possible to review the levels of fees annually on the basis of the Agency\u2019s financial results and forecasts.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 593/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 65 of the Regulation (EC) No 216/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 593/2007 is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 1, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It determines in particular the matters for which fees and charges referred to in Article 64(4) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 are due, the amount of those fees and charges and the way in which they are to be paid.\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 2 points (a) to (d) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\n\u201cfees\u201d means the amounts levied by the Agency and payable by applicants for certification tasks;\n(b)\n\u201ccharges\u201d means the amounts levied by the Agency and payable by applicants for services other than certification tasks provided by the Agency, including the supply of goods;\n(c)\n\u201ccertification tasks\u201d means all activities carried out by the Agency directly or indirectly for the purposes of issuing, maintaining or amending certificates pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its implementing rules;\n(d)\n\u201capplicant\u201d means any natural or legal person requesting to benefit from a certification task or a service provided by the Agency;\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 4, the following second and third paragraphs are added:\n\u2018Upon application of future Regulations, the Agency may levy fees according to Part II of the Annex for certification tasks other than those referred to in Part I of the Annex.\nAny changes to the organisation that are reported to the Agency and affect its approval may have the effect of a recalculation of the surveillance fee due, which will be applicable as of the next fee cycle.\u2019;\n4.\nArticle 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8\n1. The fee shall be payable by the applicant in euros. The terms of payment shall be made available to applicants on the Agency\u2019s website. The applicant shall pay the fee in full including possible bank charges related to the payment before the issuing, maintaining or amending of the certificate, unless the Agency decides otherwise after due consideration of financial risks. The fee shall be paid within 30 calendar days from the date on which the invoice is notified to the applicant by the Agency. The application may be cancelled or the certificate may be suspended or revoked if the fees due have not been received upon the expiry of the deadline and after the Agency has sent out a formal warning.\n2. The Agency may invoice the fee in one instalment after having received the application or at the start of the annual or surveillance period.\n3. For all certification tasks which give rise to the payment of fees calculated on an hourly basis, the Agency may, on request, provide the applicant with an estimate. The estimate shall be amended by the Agency if it appears that the task is simpler or can be carried out faster than initially foreseen or, on the contrary, if it is more complex and takes longer to carry out than the Agency could reasonably have foreseen.\n4. If, following a verification of an application, the Agency decides not to accept this application, any fees already paid shall be returned to the applicant, with the exception of an amount to cover the administrative costs of handling the application. That amount shall be equivalent to two times the hourly fee set out in Part II of the Annex. Where the Agency has evidence that the applicant\u2019s financial ability is at risk, it may refuse an application unless the applicant provides a bank guarantee or secured deposit. The Agency may also refuse an application, where the applicant has not fulfilled its payment obligations arising out of certification tasks or services performed by the Agency, unless the applicant pays for the outstanding amounts due for those certification tasks or services provided.\n5. If a certification task has to be interrupted by the Agency because the applicant has insufficient resources or fails to comply with the applicable requirements, or because the applicant decides to abandon its application or to postpone its project, the balance of any fees due, calculated on an hourly basis for the ongoing period of 12 months but not exceeding the applicable flat fee, shall be payable in full at the time the Agency stops working, together with any other amounts due at that time. The relevant number of hours shall be invoiced at the hourly fee set out in Part II of the Annex. When, on demand of the applicant, the Agency starts again a certification task previously interrupted, this task shall be charged as a new project.\n6. If the certificate holder surrenders the corresponding certificate or the Agency revokes the certificate, the balance of any fees due, calculated on an hourly basis but not exceeding the applicable flat fee, shall be payable in full at the time the surrender or revocation takes place, together with any other amounts due at that time. The relevant number of hours shall be invoiced at the hourly fee set out in Part II of the Annex.\n7. If the Agency suspends the certificate due to non-payment of the annual fee or surveillance fee or because the applicant fails to comply with the applicable requirements, the respective fee periods shall continue.\u2019;\n5.\nin Article 10, paragraph 2 is deleted;\n6.\nin Article 11, the second and third paragraphs are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Charges shall be levied for processing an appeal lodged pursuant to Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5). The amounts of charges are set out in Part IV of the Annex. Where the appellant is a legal person, it is required to supply to the Agency a signed certificate from an authorised officer of the organisation concerned specifying the financial turnover of the appellant. This certificate shall be submitted together with the appeal notification. Appeal charges shall be paid within 60 calendar days from the date on which the appeal was filed at the Agency according to the applicable procedure established by the Agency. In the event the payment is not made within this deadline, the Board of Appeal shall reject the appeal. If the appeal is concluded in favour of the appellant, the appeal charges paid shall be reimbursed by the Agency without delay.\nAn estimate of the amount of the charges may be communicated on request to the applicant before the service is provided. The estimate shall be amended by the Agency if it appears that the task is simpler or can be carried out faster than initially foreseen or, on the contrary, if it is more complex and takes longer to carry out than the Agency could reasonably have foreseen.\n7.\nin Article 14 the following paragraph 3 is added:\n\u20183. The Annex to this Regulation shall be reviewed periodically to ensure that significant information related to the underlying assumptions for anticipated income and expenditure of the Agency is duly reflected in the amounts of fees or charges levied by the Agency. Where necessary, this Regulation and its Annex may be revised at the latest five years after its entry into force.\u2019;\n8.\nthe Annex is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 June 2012.", "references": ["11", "97", "63", "23", "51", "9", "60", "84", "10", "16", "79", "77", "55", "52", "80", "57", "58", "13", "32", "42", "30", "44", "50", "59", "70", "94", "72", "41", "0", "67", "No Label", "7", "25", "47", "76"], "gold": ["7", "25", "47", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 16 July 2012\non recognition of the \u2018Red Tractor Farm Assurance Combinable Crops & Sugar Beet Scheme\u2019 for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria under Directives 98/70/EC and 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(2012/395/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1), and in particular Article 18(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels (2) as amended by Directive 2009/30/EC (3), and in particular Article 7c(6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee established by Article 25, paragraph 2 of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 98/70/EC and 2009/28/EC both lay down sustainability criteria for biofuels. Provisions of Articles 7b, 7c and Annex IV of Directive 98/70/EC are similar to provisions of Articles 17, 18 and Annex V of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(2)\nWhere biofuels and bioliquids are to be taken into account for the purposes referred to in Article 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2009/28/EC, Member States should require economic operators to show the compliance of biofuels and bioliquids with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(2) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(3)\nRecital 76 of Directive 2009/28/EC states that the imposition of an unreasonable burden on industry should be avoided and voluntary schemes can help create efficient solutions for proving compliance with these sustainability criteria.\n(4)\nThe Commission may decide that a voluntary national or international scheme demonstrates that consignments of biofuel comply with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(3) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC or that a voluntary national or international scheme to measure greenhouse gas emission savings contains accurate data for the purposes of Article 17(2) of this Directive.\n(5)\nThe Commission may recognise such a voluntary scheme for a period of five years.\n(6)\nWhen an economic operator provides proof or data obtained in accordance with a voluntary scheme that has been recognised by the Commission, to the extent covered by the recognition decision, a Member State should not require the supplier to provide further evidence of compliance with the sustainability criteria.\n(7)\nThe \u2018Red Tractor Farm Assurance Combinable Crops & Sugar Beet Scheme\u2019 was submitted on 4 April 2012 to the Commission with the request for recognition. This scheme covers cereals, oil seeds and sugar beet produced in the United Kingdom up to the first point of delivery of these crops. The recognised scheme should be made available at the transparency platform established under Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission should take into account considerations of commercial sensitivity and may decide to only partially publish the scheme.\n(8)\nAssessment of the \u2018Red Tractor Farm Assurance Combinable Crops & Sugar Beet Scheme\u2019 found it to adequately cover the sustainability criteria in Article 7b(3), (4) and (5) of Directive 98/70/EC and Article 17(3), (4) and (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC, as well as applying up to the first point of delivery of these crops a mass balance methodology in line with the requirements of Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC and Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC. The scheme does not cover Article 7b(2) of Directive 98/70/EC and Article 17(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC but gives accurate data on two elements necessary for the purposes of Article 7b(2) of Directive 98/70/EC and Article 17(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC, in particular, the geographic area the crops come from and the annualised emissions from carbon stock changes caused by land-use change. A small percentage of members of the scheme do not cover the sustainability criteria for part of their land. The scheme indicates the status of full or partial compliance of the land of its members in its online member checker database and shows compliance of consignments with the sustainability criteria on the combinable crops passport, also referred to as post-harvest declaration.\n(9)\nThe evaluation of the \u2018Red Tractor Farm Assurance Combinable Crops & Sugar Beet Scheme\u2019 found that it meets adequate standards of reliability, transparency and independent auditing.\n(10)\nAny additional sustainability elements covered by the \u2018Red Tractor Farm Assurance Combinable Crops & Sugar Beet Scheme\u2019 are not part of the consideration of this Decision. These additional sustainability elements are not mandatory to show compliance with sustainability requirements provided for by Directives 98/70/EC and 2009/28/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018Red Tractor Farm Assurance Combinable Crops & Sugar Beet Scheme\u2019 for which the request for recognition was submitted to the Commission on 4 April 2012 demonstrates by means of its combinable crops passport that consignments of cereals, oil seeds and sugar beet comply with the sustainability criteria as laid down in Article 17(3), 17(4) and 17(5) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(3), 7b(4) and 7b(5) of Directive 98/70/EC. The scheme also contains accurate data for purposes of Article 17(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(2) of Directive 98/70/EC in as far as it concerns annualised emissions from carbon stock changes caused by land-use change (e l ) referred to in point 1 of part C of Annex IV to Directive 98/70/EC and point 1 of part C of Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC, which it demonstrates to be equal to zero, and the geographic area referred to in point 6 of part C of Annex IV to Directive 98/70/EC and point 6 of part C of Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC.\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018Red Tractor Farm Assurance Combinable Crops & Sugar Beet Scheme\u2019 may be used up to the first point of delivery for the consignments concerned for demonstrating compliance with Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC and Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\nArticle 2\nThe Decision is valid for a period of five years after it enters into force. If the scheme, after adoption of this Decision, undergoes changes to its contents in a way that might affect the basis of this Decision, such changes shall be notified to the Commission without delay. The Commission shall assess the notified changes with a view to establish whether the scheme is still adequately covering the sustainability criteria for which it is recognised.\nIf it has been clearly demonstrated that the scheme has not implemented elements considered to be decisive for this Decision and if severe and structural breach of those elements has taken place, the Commission may repeal this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["74", "85", "0", "48", "23", "46", "9", "22", "65", "5", "47", "37", "42", "44", "54", "17", "81", "29", "90", "93", "20", "87", "15", "19", "33", "51", "59", "3", "86", "57", "No Label", "58", "76", "77", "78"], "gold": ["58", "76", "77", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 720/2010\nof 11 August 2010\ninitiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America by imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada and Singapore, whether declared as originating in Canada and Singapore or not and by imports of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel originating in the United States of America, and making such imports subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Articles 13(3), 14(3) and 14(5) thereof,\nAfter having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. REQUEST\nThe European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) has received a request pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America.\nThe request was lodged on 30 June 2010 by the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) on behalf of the Union producers of biodiesel.\nB. PRODUCT\nThe product concerned by the possible circumvention is fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, commonly known as \u2018biodiesel\u2019, in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, currently falling within CN codes ex 1516 20 98, ex 1518 00 91, ex 1518 00 99, ex 2710 19 41, 3824 90 91, ex 3824 90 97, and originating in the United States of America (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\nThe product under investigation is fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, commonly known as \u2018biodiesel\u2019, in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, consigned from Canada and Singapore and biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, originating in the United States of America (\u2018the product under investigation\u2019), currently falling within the same CN codes as the product concerned with the exception of CN code 3824 90 91 for which the investigation is limited to products consigned from Canada and Singapore.\nC. EXISTING MEASURES\nThe measures currently in force and possibly being circumvented are anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 (2).\nD. GROUNDS\nThe request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America are being circumvented by means of the transhipment of biodiesel via Canada and Singapore and by exports of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel.\nThe evidence submitted is as follows:\nThe request shows that a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the United States of America, Canada and Singapore to the Union has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned, and that there is insufficient due cause or justification other than the imposition of the duty for such a change.\nThis change in the pattern of trade appears to stem from the transhipment of biodiesel originating in the United States of America via Canada and Singapore.\nIt is also submitted that following the imposition of the measures, exports of biodiesel in blends containing 20 % or less of biodiesel from the United States of America begun to arrive into the Union, allegedly taking advantage of the biodiesel content threshold set in the description of the product concerned.\nFurthermore, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned are being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. Significant volumes of imports of biodiesel from Canada and Singapore and of biodiesel in blends containing 20 % or less of biodiesel, appear to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, there is sufficient evidence that this increased volume of imports is made at prices well below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures.\nFinally, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the prices of the product under investigation are dumped in relation to the normal value previously established for the product concerned.\nShould circumvention practices covered by Article 13 of the basic Regulation, other than the practices described above, be identified in the course of the investigation, the investigation may also cover these practices.\nE. PROCEDURE\nIn the light of the above, the Commission has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation and to make imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada and Singapore, whether declared as originating in Canada and Singapore or not, as well as imports from the United States of America of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(a) Questionnaires\nIn order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the exporters/producers and to the associations of exporters/producers in Canada, and Singapore, to the exporters/producers and to the associations of exporters/producers in the United States of America, to the known importers and to the known associations of importers in the Union and to the authorities of the United States of America, Canada and Singapore. Information, as appropriate, may also be sought from the Union industry.\nIn any event, all interested parties should contact the Commission forthwith, but not later than the time limit set in Article 3 of this Regulation in order to find out whether they are listed in the request and request a questionnaire within the time limit set in Article 3(1) of this Regulation, given that the time limit set in Article 3(2) of this Regulation applies to all interested parties.\nThe authorities of the United States of America and Canada and Singapore will be notified of the initiation of the investigation.\n(b) Collection of information and holding of hearings\nAll interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\n(c) Exemption of registration of imports or measures\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation may be exempted from registration or measures if the importation does not constitute circumvention.\nSince the possible circumvention takes place outside the Union, exemptions may be granted, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, to producers of the product under investigation that can show that they are not related (3) to any producer subject to the measures (4) and that are found not to be engaged in circumvention practices as defined in Articles 13(1) and 13(2) of the basic Regulation. Producers wishing to obtain an exemption should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the time limit indicated in Article 3(3) of this Regulation.\nF. REGISTRATION\nPursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied retroactively from the date of registration of such imports consigned from Canada and Singapore as well as imports from the United States of America of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin.\nIn order that the registration is sufficiently effective in view of an eventual retroactive levying of an anti-dumping duty, the declarant should indicate on the customs declaration the proportion in the blend, by weight, of the total content of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin (biodiesel content).\nG. TIME LIMITS\nIn the interest of sound administration, time limits should be stated within which:\n-\ninterested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,\n-\nproducers in Canada Singapore and the United States of America may request exemption from registration of imports or measures,\n-\ninterested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.\nAttention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the time limits mentioned in Article 3 of this Regulation.\nH. NON-COOPERATION\nIn cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.\nWhere it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.\nI. SCHEDULE OF THE INVESTIGATION\nThe investigation will be concluded, according to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, within nine months of the date of the publication of this regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nJ. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\nIt is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5).\nK. HEARING OFFICER\nIt is also noted that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of Directorate-General for Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views. For further information and contact details, interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages on the website of the Directorate-General for Trade (http://ec.europa.eu/trade),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAn investigation is hereby initiated pursuant to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, in order to determine:\n(a)\nif imports into the Union of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, commonly known as \u2018biodiesel\u2019, in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, consigned from Canada and Singapore, whether declared as originating in Canada and Singapore or not, and currently falling within CN codes ex 1516 20 98 (TARIC code 1516209821), ex 1518 00 91 (TARIC code 1518009121), ex 1518 00 99 (TARIC code 1518009921), ex 2710 19 41 (TARIC code 2710194121), ex 3824 90 91 (TARIC code 3824909110) and ex 3824 90 97 (TARIC code 3824909701) are circumventing the measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 and\n(b)\nif imports into the Union of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, originating in the United States of America, and currently falling within CN codes ex 1516 20 98 (TARIC code 1516209830), ex 1518 00 91 (TARIC code 1518009130), ex 1518 00 99 (TARIC code 1518009930), ex 2710 19 41 (TARIC code 2710194130) and ex 3824 90 97 (TARIC code 3824909704) are circumventing the measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 599/2009.\nArticle 2\nThe Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 13(3) and Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union identified in Article 1 of this Regulation.\nThe declarant shall indicate on the customs declaration the proportion in the blend, by weight, of the total content of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin (biodiesel content).\nRegistration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThe Commission, by Regulation, may direct Customs authorities to cease registration in respect of imports into the Union of products manufactured by producers having applied for an exemption of registration and having been found to fulfil the conditions for an exemption to be granted.\nArticle 3\n1. Questionnaires should be requested from the Commission within 15 days from publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. Interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 37 days from the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.\n3. Producers in Canada, Singapore and the United States of America requesting exemption from registration of imports or measures should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the same 37-day time limit.\n4. Interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 37-day time limit.\n5. Any information, any request for a hearing or for a questionnaire as well as any request for exemption from registration of imports or measures must be made in writing (not in electronic format, unless otherwise specified) and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers of the interested party. All written submissions, including the information requested in this Regulation, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labelled as \u2018Limited\u2019 (6) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labelled \u2018For inspection by interested parties\u2019.\nCommission address for correspondence:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N-105 4/92\n1049 Bruxelles/Brussels\nBELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb\nFax +32 22956505\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["39", "75", "21", "82", "27", "83", "5", "85", "74", "88", "50", "80", "15", "60", "43", "32", "77", "58", "64", "19", "87", "45", "2", "3", "12", "99", "56", "49", "9", "28", "No Label", "8", "22", "23", "48", "78", "93", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "22", "23", "48", "78", "93", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 19/2012\nof 11 January 2012\nfixing an acceptance percentage for the issuing of export licences, rejecting export-licence applications and suspending the lodging of export-licence applications for out-of-quota sugar\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 7e in conjunction with Article 9(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 61, first subparagraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 the sugar produced during the marketing year in excess of the quota referred to in Article 56 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit fixed by the Commission.\n(2)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011 of 15 April 2011 fixing the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2011/2012 marketing year (3) sets the abovementioned limits.\n(3)\nThe quantities of sugar covered by applications for export licences exceed the quantitative limit fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011. An acceptance percentage should therefore be set for quantities applied for from 2 to 6 January 2012. All export-licence applications for sugar lodged after 6 January 2012 should accordingly be rejected and the lodging of export-licence applications should be suspended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export licences for out-of-quota sugar for which applications were lodged from 2 to 6 January 2012 shall be issued for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an acceptance percentage of 38,474060 %.\n2. Applications for out-of-quota sugar export licences submitted on 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 January 2012 are hereby rejected.\n3. The lodging of applications for out-of-quota sugar export licences shall be suspended for the period 16 January 2012 to 30 September 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 January 2012.", "references": ["1", "89", "43", "4", "61", "2", "37", "36", "46", "13", "90", "44", "38", "52", "42", "93", "85", "64", "76", "70", "6", "40", "12", "92", "53", "83", "7", "77", "96", "75", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "71"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 755/2011\nof 1 August 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 442/2011.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria and in accordance with Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (2), additional persons should be added to the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 August 2011.", "references": ["60", "39", "68", "62", "37", "53", "48", "14", "40", "61", "47", "81", "99", "30", "4", "93", "78", "0", "56", "16", "32", "41", "43", "5", "72", "2", "66", "70", "91", "73", "No Label", "3", "11", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "11", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/421/CFSP\nof 18 July 2011\nimplementing Decision 2010/145/CFSP renewing measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/145/CFSP of 8 March 2010 renewing measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (1), and in particular Article 2 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision 2010/145/CFSP the Council renewed measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, the territories of Member States of persons who are engaged in activities which help persons at large indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to continue to evade justice, or who are otherwise acting in a manner which could obstruct the ICTY\u2019s effective implementation of its mandate.\n(2)\nFollowing the transfer of Ratko MLADIC to the custody of the ICTY on 31 May 2011, certain persons connected with Mr MLADIC should be removed from the list in the Annex to Decision 2010/145/CFSP.\n(3)\nThe list contained in the Annex to Decision 2010/145/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2010/145/CFSP shall be replaced by the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["41", "22", "70", "17", "0", "21", "89", "44", "94", "42", "18", "56", "19", "39", "81", "8", "87", "7", "38", "51", "20", "62", "76", "98", "5", "29", "54", "72", "79", "71", "No Label", "3", "11", "12", "14", "97", "99"], "gold": ["3", "11", "12", "14", "97", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 272/2012\nof 7 February 2012\nsupplementing Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to fees charged by the European Securities and Markets Authority to credit rating agencies\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies (1), and in particular Article 19(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 62 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (2) provides that the revenues of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) should also consist of fees paid to ESMA in cases specified in Union legislation alongside contributions from national public authorities and a subsidy from the Union.\n(2)\nTo ensure an efficient use of ESMA\u2019s budget and, at the same time, alleviate the financial burden for Member States and the Union, it is necessary to ensure that credit rating agencies pay at least all the costs related to their supervision. Any deficit that may occur during 1 financial year should be recovered from credit rating agencies in the following year.\n(3)\nAn annual supervisory fee should be charged to credit rating agencies exceeding a certain threshold of turnover in order to provide for budgetary certainty for both ESMA and the credit rating agencies concerned. Annual supervisory fees should not become a burden for new entrants to the credit rating market. Moreover, small credit rating agencies are expected to engender significantly less supervisory costs than larger ones. It would be therefore proportionate to fully exempt small credit rating agencies from paying the annual supervisory fee where the credit rating agency or the group of credit rating agencies to which it belong do not exceed a certain threshold of turnover.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure a fair and clear allocation of fees which, at the same time, reflects the actual administrative burden per supervised entity, the supervisory fee should be calculated according to the credit rating agencies\u2019 turnover, generated from rating activities and ancillary services, since the cost of supervision is higher for larger credit rating agencies than for smaller ones. Moreover, the provision of ancillary services requires additional supervisory effort as possible conflicts of interests resulting from the provision of ancillary services need monitoring. Credit rating agencies should not circumvent the fair allocation of fees according to this Regulation by reallocating revenue to other entities within their group in order to reduce their fee contributions. ESMA should monitor and report any critical developments in this respect.\n(5)\nA registration fee should be charged to credit rating agencies established in the Union to reflect ESMA\u2019s costs for processing the application for registration. The complexity of an application and costs associated to assessing the application increase where a credit rating agency applies for issuing ratings for structured finance instruments or plans to endorse ratings from third country agencies or has branches. Therefore the registration fee should be calculated according to those factors. The processing costs also depend to a large extent on the size of the applicant credit rating agency. As the future turnover of a new credit rating agency would not be known at the moment of its application for registration, the number of employees should replace turnover as a common basis for calculation of all credit rating agencies.\n(6)\nThis Regulation should provide for fees to be charged to third country credit rating agencies that apply for certification in the Union according to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 in order to cover their certification and annual supervisory costs. In this regard, ESMA\u2019s necessary expenditure relates to the certification of such third country credit rating agencies according to Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 which follows a similar procedure as the one applicable to the registration of credit rating agencies established in the Union, as well as ESMA\u2019s expenditure necessary for the supervision of certified credit rating agencies.\n(7)\nCredit rating agencies should be reimbursed a percentage of the fee initially charged for their registration or certification when withdrawing their application during the registration or certification process as ESMA\u2019s costs for processing the application would be lower in such cases.\n(8)\nIn view of possible future developments, it is appropriate for the thresholds for exempting credit rating agencies from paying annual supervisory fees and the amounts of registration and certification fees to be reviewed and updated as necessary. The Commission should assess the correct application of these measures within 4 years from the entry into force of this Regulation and report to the European Parliament and the Council on the possible need to review it.\n(9)\nNational competent authorities incur costs when carrying out tasks delegated to them by ESMA in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 and when providing assistance to ESMA in the other cases specified in that Regulation. The fees to be charged by ESMA to credit rating agencies should also cover those costs. In order to avoid that competent authorities incur loss or realise profit from carrying out delegated tasks or from assisting ESMA, ESMA should reimburse the actual costs incurred by that national competent authority.\n(10)\nThis Regulation should form the basis for ESMA\u2019s right to charge fees to credit rating agencies. In order to immediately facilitate effective and efficient supervisory and enforcement activity, it should enter into force on the third day following its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down rules regarding the fees that the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) shall charge to credit rating agencies for supervision, registration and certification.\nArticle 2\nRecovery of supervisory costs in full\nThe fees charged to credit rating agencies shall cover:\n(a)\nall costs relating to the supervision of credit rating agencies by ESMA in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, including costs resulting from the registration and certification of credit rating agencies;\n(b)\nall costs for the reimbursement of competent authorities to which ESMA has delegated tasks in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009;\n(c)\nall costs for the reimbursement of competent authorities that have provided assistance to ESMA in accordance to Article 23c(4) and Article 23d(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nArticle 3\nApplicable turnover\n1. For the purposes of calculating the fees referred to in Article 5, Article 7(1) and Article 11(1) and (2), the applicable turnover for a given financial year (n) shall be the revenues of a credit rating agency as published in its audited accounts of the previous year (n-1) generated from rating activities and ancillary services.\n2. Where the credit rating agency did not operate during the full year (n-1), the applicable revenue shall be estimated by extrapolating that amount for the whole financial year.\nCHAPTER II\nFEES\nArticle 4\nTypes of fees and general payment modalities\n1. Credit rating agencies established in the Union that apply for registration in accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 shall be charged the following types of fees\n(a)\nannual supervisory fees according to Article 5;\n(b)\nregistration fees according to Article 6.\n2. Credit rating agencies established in third countries that apply for certification in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 shall be charged the following types of fees:\n(a)\nflat annual supervisory fees according to Article 7;\n(b)\ncertification fees according to Article 8.\n3. The fees shall be payable in Euro. They shall be payable as specified in Articles 5(3), 6(6), 7(2) and 8(2).\nAny late payments shall incur a daily penalty equal to 0,1 % of the amount due.\nArticle 5\nAnnual supervisory fee for registered credit rating agencies\n1. A registered credit rating agency shall be charged an annual supervisory fee.\nBy way of derogation from the first subparagraph, a registered credit rating agency shall be exempted from paying an annual supervisory fee where its total revenues as published in its most recent audited accounts is less than EUR 10 million, or in case it belongs to a group of credit rating agencies, where the group of credit rating agencies has aggregate total revenues of less than EUR 10 million.\n2. The annual supervisory fee for a given financial year shall be calculated as follows:\n(a)\nthe basis for the calculation of the annual supervisory fee for a given financial year shall be the estimate of expenditure relating to the supervision of credit rating agencies as included in the ESMA budget for that year, set out and approved in accordance with Article 63 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010;\n(b)\nthe relevant amount for the calculation of the annual supervisory fee for a given financial year shall be the estimate of expenditure according to point (a) reduced by any annual supervisory fees to be charged to certified credit rating agencies for a given financial year according to Article 7 and increased by any deficit from the previous financial year;\n(c)\na registered credit rating agency as referred to in paragraph 1 shall pay as an annual supervisory fee a part of the relevant amount which corresponds to the ratio of the credit rating agency\u2019s applicable turnover to the total applicable turnover of all registered credit rating agencies required to pay an annual supervisory fee in accordance with paragraph 1.\n3. The annual supervisory fee for a given financial year shall be paid in two instalments.\nThe first instalment shall be due by the end of February of that year and shall amount to two thirds of the estimated annual supervisory fee. If the applicable turnover is not yet available at that time, ESMA shall base the calculation on the turnover included in the most recent audited accounts available.\nThe second instalment shall be due by the end of August. The amount of the second instalment shall be the annual supervisory fee calculated according to paragraph 2 reduced by the amount of the first instalment.\nESMA shall send the invoices for the instalments to the credit rating agencies at least 30 days before the respective payment date.\nArticle 6\nRegistration fee\n1. The amount of the registration fee to be paid by individual credit rating agencies applying for registration shall be proportionate to the complexity of the application and the size of the credit rating agency as specified in paragraphs 2 to 5.\n2. For the purposes of calculating the amount of the registration fee, the following criteria shall be taken into consideration:\n(a)\nwhether a credit rating agency intends to issue ratings for structured finance instruments;\n(b)\nwhether a credit rating agency has a branch in another Member State or in a third country;\n(c)\nwhether a credit rating agency intends to endorse ratings.\n3. Where none of the criteria set out in paragraph 2 apply, the registration fees shall be calculated according to the number of employees, as follows:\n(a)\ncredit rating agencies with fewer than 15 employees shall pay EUR 2 000;\n(b)\ncredit rating agencies with 15 to 49 employees shall pay EUR 15 000;\n(c)\ncredit rating agencies with at least 50 employees shall pay EUR 40 000.\n4. Credit rating agencies that only meet one of the criteria set out in paragraph 2 shall pay the following registration fees according to the number of their employees, as follows:\n(a)\ncredit rating agencies with fewer than 15 employees shall pay EUR 10 000;\n(b)\ncredit rating agencies with 15 to 49 employees shall pay EUR 40 000;\n(c)\ncredit rating agencies with at least 50 employees shall pay EUR 100 000.\n5. Credit rating agencies that meet at least two of the criteria set out in paragraph 2 shall pay the following registration fees according to the number of their employees, as follows:\n(a)\ncredit rating agencies with fewer than 15 employees shall pay EUR 30 000;\n(b)\ncredit rating agencies with 15 to 49 employees shall pay EUR 85 000;\n(c)\ncredit rating agencies with at least 50 employees shall pay EUR 125 000.\n6. The registration fee shall be payable in full at the time the credit rating agency applies for registration.\n7. If a credit rating agency withdraws its application for registration before ESMA has notified it that the application is complete in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, ESMA shall reimburse three quarters of the registration fee paid. If the application is withdrawn after this date, but before ESMA adopts the reasoned decision to register or refuse registration, ESMA shall reimburse one quarter of the registration fee paid.\n8. By way of derogation from Article 5, a registered credit rating agency that is required to pay an annual supervisory fee in accordance with Article 5(1) shall pay in the year of its registration an initial supervisory fee of EUR 500 for each complete month in the time period between the date of registration and the end of the financial year. This fee shall be payable in full once the registration is notified to the credit rating agency.\nArticle 7\nFlat annual supervisory fee for certified credit rating agencies\n1. A credit rating agency certified in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 shall pay an annual supervisory fee of EUR 6 000.\nBy way of derogation from the first subparagraph, a certified credit rating agency shall be exempted from paying an annual supervisory fee where its total revenues as published in its most recent audited accounts is less than EUR 10 million, or in case it belongs to a group of credit rating agencies, where the group of credit rating agencies has aggregate total revenues of less than EUR 10 million.\n2. The annual supervisory fee for a certified credit rating agency shall be due by the end of February. ESMA shall send a payment invoice to a certified credit rating agency at least 30 days before that date.\nArticle 8\nCertification fee\n1. A credit rating agency applying for certification shall pay a certification fee of EUR 10 000.\n2. The certification fee shall be payable in full at the time the credit rating agency applies for certification.\n3. If a credit rating agency withdraws its application for certification before ESMA has notified it that the application is complete in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, ESMA shall reimburse three quarters of the certification fee. If the application is withdrawn after that date, but before ESMA adopts the reasoned decision to certify or refuse certification, ESMA shall reimburse one quarter of the certification fee.\n4. By way of derogation from Article 7, a certified credit rating agency that is required to pay an annual supervisory fee according to Article 7(1) shall pay in the year of its certification an initial supervisory fee of EUR 500 for each complete month in the time period between the date of certification and the end of the financial year. This fee shall be payable in full once the certification is notified to the credit rating agency.\nArticle 9\nReimbursement of competent authorities\n1. Only ESMA shall charge fees to credit rating agencies for their registration, certification and supervision. Competent authorities shall not charge fees to credit rating agencies, including cases where those authorities carry out tasks on behalf of ESMA according to Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\n2. ESMA shall reimburse a competent authority for the actual costs incurred as a result of carrying out delegated tasks in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 or as a result of assisting ESMA in accordance with Article 23c(4) or 23d(5) of that Regulation. Costs to be reimbursed shall comprise all fixed costs and variable costs related to the performance of the delegated tasks or the assistance provided to ESMA.\nCHAPTER III\nTRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 10\nFees in 2011\n1. Credit rating agencies registered in 2011 shall pay, for 2011, an initial supervisory fee of EUR 500 for each complete month in the period between the date of registration, but not earlier than 1 July 2011, and 31 December 2011. This fee shall be payable in full by end of April 2012.\nBy way of derogation from the first subparagraph a registered credit rating agency shall be exempted from paying a supervisory fee in 2011 where its total revenues as published in its most recent audited accounts is less than EUR 10 million, or in case it belongs to a group of credit rating agencies, where the group of credit rating agencies has aggregate total revenues of less than EUR 10 million.\n2. Credit rating agencies certified in 2011 shall pay, for 2011, an initial supervisory fee of EUR 500 for each complete month between the date of certification, but not earlier than 1 July 2011, and 31 December 2011. This fee shall be payable in full by end of April 2012.\nBy way of derogation from the first subparagraph, a certified credit rating agency shall be exempted from paying a supervisory fee in 2011 where it has an applicable turnover of less than EUR 10 million, or in case it belongs to a group of credit rating agencies, where the group of credit rating agencies has an aggregate applicable turnover of less than EUR 10 million.\nArticle 11\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 February 2012.", "references": ["74", "88", "66", "35", "34", "70", "45", "26", "67", "10", "28", "52", "13", "11", "83", "97", "91", "77", "76", "87", "56", "38", "3", "93", "75", "6", "40", "5", "79", "81", "No Label", "7", "29", "46", "47"], "gold": ["7", "29", "46", "47"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 67/2012\nof 25 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 January 2012.", "references": ["48", "10", "60", "80", "11", "36", "40", "7", "47", "34", "87", "57", "26", "24", "69", "72", "46", "42", "94", "2", "49", "4", "32", "9", "70", "95", "81", "44", "17", "18", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 724/2010\nof 12 August 2010\nlaying down detailed rules for the implementation of real-time closures of certain fisheries in the North Sea and Skagerrak\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular 51(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticles 51, 52 and 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establish rules and procedures regarding the adoption of real-time closures by Member States. According to those provisions, Member States shall temporarily close the fishery in a certain area if a trigger catch level of a particular species, or group of species, has been reached.\n(2)\nThe Agreed Record of the Conclusions between the European Union and Norway of 3 July 2009 lays down the procedures and sampling methodology for the adoption of real-time closures in the North Sea and Skagerrak. Those provisions were transposed into Union law by way of Council Regulation (EC) No 753/2009 (2), amending Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 and fixing for 2009 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks.\n(3)\nThose provisions thus introduced in Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 applied to cod, haddock, saithe and whiting caught by any fishing gear other than pelagic trawls, purse seines, driftnets and jiggers targeting herring, mackerel and horse mackerel, and pots, scallop dredges and gillnets. In addition, they specified, inter alia, the obligations of the coastal Member States regarding the decisions on real-time closures and the information to be provided to other Member States and/or third countries concerned and the Commission.\n(4)\nConsidering that the concerned provisions ceased to apply as from 1 January 2010, it is necessary to provide for the transposition of the Agreed Record by way of detailed rules implementing Articles 51, 52 and 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 in the North Sea and Skagerrak.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation establishes detailed rules for the implementation of real-time closures of certain fisheries in the North Sea and Skagerrak in accordance with Articles 51, 52 and 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to cod, haddock, saithe and whiting caught in the North Sea and Skagerrak by any fishing gear other than:\n(a)\npelagic trawls, purse seines, driftnets and jiggers targeting herring, mackerel, and horse mackerel;\n(b)\npots;\n(c)\nscallop dredges;\n(d)\ngillnets.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\nICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) zones means zones as defined in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3880/91 (3);\n(b)\n\u2018Skagerrak\u2019 means the area bounded on the west by a line drawn from the Hanstholm lighthouse to the Lindesnes lighthouse and on the south by a line drawn from the Skagen lighthouse to the Tistlarna lighthouse and from this point to the nearest point on the Swedish coast;\n(c)\n\u2018North Sea\u2019 means ICES zone IV;\n(d)\n\u2018haul\u2019 means the act between the deployment and retrieval of a net.\nArticle 4\nCatch trigger level\n1. The catch level which shall trigger real-time closures of fisheries, as referred to in Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, shall be 15 % by weight of juveniles as compared to the total of the four species referred to in Article 2, in a haul.\n2. However, if the quantity of cod in the sample exceeds 75 % as compared to the total of the four species in a haul, the catch trigger level shall be 10 % by weight of juveniles as compared to the total of the four species in a haul.\nArticle 5\nDefinition of juveniles\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, \u2018juveniles\u2019 means:\n-\nspecimens of cod smaller than 35 cm,\n-\nspecimens of haddock smaller than 30 cm,\n-\nspecimens of saithe smaller than 35 cm,\n-\nspecimens of whiting smaller than 27 cm.\nArticle 6\nCalculation of the catch level of juveniles\n1. For the purpose of calculating the catch level of juveniles in accordance with Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, the coastal Member State and/or the Member State participating in a joint operation under a Joint Deployment Plan shall identify areas where there is a risk of reaching the trigger level.\n2. In the areas identified in accordance with paragraph 1, the coastal Member State and/or the Member State participating in a joint operation under a Joint Deployment Plan shall carry out inspections to measure whether the percentage of juveniles reaches the trigger level, including through Joint Deployment Plans.\n3. When carrying out the inspections referred to in paragraph 2, the coastal Member State and/or the Member State participating in a joint operation under a Joint Deployment Plan shall:\n(a)\ntake and measure samples of cod, haddock, saithe and whiting from a haul in accordance with provisions in Annex I;\n(b)\ndocument each sampling by completing a sampling report as set out in Annex II and send it to the coastal State.\n4. Member States may invite other countries undertaking inspections in the area concerned to carry out samples on their behalf.\n5. The coastal Member State concerned shall publish without delay on its website the position at which the sample referred to in paragraph 3(a) was taken, the time it was taken and the quantity of juveniles as a percentage of the total catch of cod, haddock, saithe and whiting in weight. The percentage shall be published both by species and as a total of the four species.\nArticle 7\nClosure of fisheries\n1. When a sample referred to in Article 6(3)(a) shows a percentage of juveniles that reaches the trigger level, the coastal Member State concerned shall prohibit fishing in the area concerned with any fishing gear other than:\n(a)\npelagic trawls, purse seines, driftnets and jiggers targeting herring, mackerel, and horse mackerel;\n(b)\npots;\n(c)\nscallop dredges; and\n(d)\ngillnets,\nin accordance with Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\n2. The area to be closed in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be defined on the basis of the following criteria:\n(a)\nthe area shall have 4, 5 or 6 joining points;\n(b)\nthe midpoint of the fishing operation or operations with samples above the trigger level shall equal the midpoint of the closed area;\n(c)\nwhen the closed area is based on one sample and lies outside the waters up to 12 miles from the baseline of the coastal Member State, it shall be 50 square miles.\n3. The real-time closure referred to in paragraph 1 shall:\n(a)\nenter into force 12 hours following the decision by the concerned Member State; and\n(b)\napply for 21 days after which it shall automatically cease to apply at midnight UTC.\n4. If the area to be closed includes zones under the jurisdiction or sovereignty of neighbouring third countries, the coastal Member State concerned shall without delay inform those third countries.\nArticle 8\nInformation\n1. For the purpose of Article 53(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, the coastal Member State shall without delay make the details of the real-time closure decided in accordance with Article 7 available on its website and inform of the real-time closure:\n(a)\nthe vessels in the vicinity of the area to the extent possible;\n(b)\nthe Commission;\n(c)\nthe Fisheries Monitoring Centres (\u2018FMCs\u2019), as referred to in Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2244/2003 (4); and\n(d)\nthe other Member States and third countries whose fishing vessels are authorised to operate in the area concerned.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that their FMCs inform the vessels flying their flag that are affected by the real-time closure.\n3. For the purpose of Article 53(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, upon request, the coastal Member State concerned shall provide the Commission with the detailed sampling reports and justifications underlying the real-time closure decided in accordance with Article 7.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 August 2010.", "references": ["16", "9", "46", "7", "76", "66", "11", "52", "50", "88", "84", "93", "53", "72", "70", "27", "94", "33", "31", "75", "44", "60", "15", "54", "39", "20", "78", "36", "97", "61", "No Label", "13", "40", "42", "59", "67"], "gold": ["13", "40", "42", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/440/CFSP\nof 11 August 2010\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for the African Great Lakes Region\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 15 February 2007, the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/112/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Roeland VAN DE GEER European Union Special Representative (hereinafter the EUSR) for the African Great Lakes Region.\n(2)\nOn 22 February 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/113/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 31 August 2010.\n(3)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 31 August 2011. However, the mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter the HR) following the entry into force of the Decision establishing the European External Action Service.\n(4)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Roeland VAN DE GEER as the EUSR for the African Great Lakes Region is hereby extended until 31 August 2011. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the HR following the entry into force of the Decision establishing the European External Action Service.\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the European Union (hereinafter \u2018the EU\u2019 or \u2018the Union\u2019) regarding the further stabilisation and consolidation of the post-conflict situation in the African Great Lakes Region, paying particular attention to the regional dimension of the developments in the countries concerned. These objectives, which promote, in particular, compliance with the basic norms of democracy and good governance, including respect for human rights and the rule of law, include:\n(a)\ncontributing actively and effectively to a consistent, sustainable and responsible policy of the Union in the African Great Lakes Region, and promoting a coherent overall Union approach in the region. The EUSR shall support the work of the HR in the region;\n(b)\nensuring the continued commitment of the Union to the stabilisation and reconstruction processes in the region, through an active presence on the ground and in relevant international forums, staying in touch with key players and contributing to crisis management;\n(c)\ncontributing to the post-transition phase in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), in particular as regards the political process of consolidating the new institutions and defining a broader international framework for political consultation and coordination with the new government;\n(d)\ncontributing, in close cooperation with the United Nations/MONUC, to the international support efforts to pursue a comprehensive Security Sector Reform in the DRC, in particular in view of the coordinating role the Union is ready to assume in this context;\n(e)\ncontributing to appropriate follow-up measures to the International Conference of the Great Lakes Region, in particular by establishing close contacts with the Great Lakes Secretariat and its Executive Secretary as well as with the Troika of the follow-up mechanism and by promoting good neighbourly relations in the region;\n(f)\naddressing the still considerable problem of armed groups operating across the borders, which risks destabilising the countries in the region and aggravating their internal problems;\n(g)\ncontributing to the post-conflict stabilisation in Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, in particular through accompanying peace negotiations with armed groups such as the FNL and LRA.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the policy objectives, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\nestablish and maintain close contact with the countries of the Great Lakes Region, the United Nations, the African Union, key African countries and main partners of the DRC and the Union, as well as regional and sub-regional African organisations, other relevant third countries and other key regional leaders;\n(b)\nadvise and report on the possibilities for the Union to support the stabilisation and consolidation process and on how best to pursue Union initiatives;\n(c)\nprovide advice and assistance for security sector reform (SSR) in the DRC;\n(d)\ncontribute to the follow-up to the International Conference of the Great Lakes Region, in particular by supporting policies, defined in the region, which pursue the objectives of non-violence and mutual defence in the resolution of conflicts as well as, regarding regional cooperation, by promoting human rights and democratisation, good governance, judicial cooperation, and the fight against impunity and the illegal exploitation of natural resources;\n(e)\ncontribute to a better understanding of the role of the Union among opinion leaders in the region;\n(f)\ncontribute, where requested, to the negotiation and implementation of peace and cease-fire agreements between the parties and engage with them diplomatically in the event of non-compliance with the terms of these agreements; in the context of the ongoing LRA negotiations, such activities should be pursued in close coordination with the EUSR for Sudan;\n(g)\ncontribute to the implementation of the EU human rights policy and EU Guidelines on Human Rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict, and the EU policy regarding UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security, including by monitoring and reporting on developments in this regard.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (hereinafter the PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011 shall be EUR 1 520 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of his mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting his team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of his team.\n2. Member States and institutions of the Union may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of personnel who are seconded by a Member State or an institution of the Union to the EUSR shall be covered by the Member State or the institution of the Union concerned respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the General Secretariat of the Council may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State or Union institution and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and his staff\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of his staff shall be agreed with the host party/parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of his team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council\u2019s security regulations (3), in particular when managing EU classified information.\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegations and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with his mandate and the security situation in his geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under his direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the General Secretariat of the Council, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as management of security incidents and a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of his team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the General Secretariat of the Council;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the HR, the Council and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report as necessary to Council working parties. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote coherence between Common Foreign and Security Policy/Common Security and Defence Policy actors and shall promote overall Union political coordination. The EUSR shall help to ensure that all Union instruments in the field are engaged coherently to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSRs active in the region as appropriate. The EUSR shall provide Member States\u2019 missions and the Union delegations with regular briefings.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegations and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\n3. The EUSR shall ensure consistency between the activities of the European Union mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUSEC RD Congo) and the European Union police mission undertaken in the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo) and provide the Heads of these missions with local political guidance. The EUSR shall contribute to coordination with the other international players involved in SSR in the DRC. The EUSR and the Civilian Operation Commander shall consult each other as required.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the HR, the Council and the Commission with a progress report at the end of February 2011 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["43", "53", "34", "8", "54", "98", "23", "21", "70", "58", "20", "97", "89", "42", "80", "38", "85", "19", "86", "49", "71", "84", "46", "72", "44", "67", "82", "45", "22", "91", "No Label", "3", "9", "11", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "11", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 377/2010\nof 3 May 2010\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of sodium gluconate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 30 June 2009, the Commission received a complaint concerning imports of dry sodium gluconate (SG) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (China) lodged pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of dry sodium gluconate.\n(2)\nThe complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping and of material injury caused by such dumping which was considered sufficient to justify the opening of an anti-dumping proceeding.\n(3)\nOn 11 August 2009, a proceeding was initiated by the publication of a notice of initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(4)\nThe Commission officially advised the exporting producers in China, importers, traders, users and associations known to be concerned, the authorities of China and the complainant Union producers of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(5)\nAll interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\n(6)\nIn order to allow exporting producers to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the Chinese exporting producers known to be concerned and to the authorities of China. One exporting producer requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation and another exporting producer, including two related companies, requested IT pursuant to Article 9(5) of the same Regulation.\n(7)\nIn view of the apparent high number of exporting producers in China and importers in the Union, the Commission indicated in the notice of initiation that sampling might be applied for these parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(8)\nIn order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers in China and Union importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the investigation period (1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009).\n(9)\nGiven the limited number of responses to the sampling exercise, it was decided that sampling was not necessary for Chinese exporting producers or importers in the Union.\n(10)\nQuestionnaires were sent to all companies in China and importers in the Union who responded to the sampling exercise, to the Union producers, and to all known importers and users in the Union. Replies were received from two exporting producers or groups of exporting producers in China, two producers in the Union and four importers/users.\n(11)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest and carried out verifications at the premises of the following companies:\n1.\nProducers in the Union:\n-\nJungbunzlauer (JBL), Marckolsheim, France and related sales companies,\n-\nRoquette Italia SpA, Cassano Spinola, Italy and related sales companies;\n2.\nExporting producers in China:\n-\nShandong Kaison Biochemical Co., Ltd,\n-\nQingdao Kehai Biochemistry Co., Ltd;\n3.\nUsers/importers in the Union:\n-\nChryso SAS, Issy les Moulineaux, France,\n-\nHenkel AG, D\u00fcsseldorf, Germany,\n-\nCHT R. Beitlich GmbH, T\u00fcbingen, Germany.\n(12)\nIn view of the need to establish a normal value for exporting producers in China to which MET might not be granted, a verification to establish normal value on the basis of data from an analogue country, the USA in this case, took place at the premises of the following company:\n-\nProducer in the USA: PMP - Fermentation Products Inc., Peoria, USA.\n3. Investigation period\n(13)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2005 to the end of the investigation period (period considered).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(14)\nThe product concerned is dry sodium gluconate originating in China (the product concerned), with a Customs Union and Statistics (CUS) number 0023277-9 and a Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number 527-07-1 , currently falling within CN code ex 2918 16 00.\n(15)\nDry sodium gluconate is used mainly in the construction industry as a set retarder and concrete plasticiser and in other industries as surface treatment for metals (removal of rust, oxides and fat) and for the cleaning of bottles and industrial equipment. The product can also be used in the food and pharmaceutical industries.\n2. Like product\n(16)\nThe investigation has shown that dry sodium gluconate produced and sold by the Union industry in the Union, dry sodium gluconate produced and sold on the domestic market in the USA, which was selected as an analogue country, dry sodium gluconate produced and sold on the domestic market in China and dry sodium gluconate produced in China and sold to the Union have essentially the same basic physical and technical characteristics.\n(17)\nTherefore these products are provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n1. Market Economy Treatment (MET)\n(18)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in China, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those exporting producers which are found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.\n(19)\nBriefly, and for ease of reference only, the MET criteria are set out in summarised form below:\n1.\nbusiness decisions and costs are made in response to market signals and without significant State interference; costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values;\n2.\nfirms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and are applied for all purposes;\n3.\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;\n4.\nbankruptcy and property laws guarantee legal certainty and stability;\n5.\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates.\n(20)\nFollowing the initiation of the proceeding, one Chinese exporting producer, Shandong Kaison Biochemical Co., Ltd, requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form within the given deadline.\n(21)\nThe company demonstrated that it fulfilled the criteria of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and could be granted MET.\n2. Individual treatment (IT)\n(22)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a countrywide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation to be granted IT.\n(23)\nBriefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below:\n1.\nin the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;\n2.\nexport prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined;\n3.\nthe majority of the shares belong to private persons. State officials appearing on the board of directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from State interference;\n4.\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and\n5.\nState interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.\n(24)\nFollowing the initiation of the proceeding, one Chinese exporting producer, Qingdao Kehai Biochemistry Co., Ltd requested IT pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and replied to the IT claim form within the given deadline.\n(25)\nOn the basis of information available, it was found that the Chinese exporting producer met all the requirements for IT as set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.\n3. Normal value\n3.1. Analogue country\n(26)\nAccording to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, in economies in transition, normal value for exporting producers not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country (analogue country).\n(27)\nIn the notice of initiation, USA was proposed as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for China. The Commission invited all interested parties to comment on this proposal.\n(28)\nThere were no comments from any interested party.\n(29)\nOutside the EU, dry sodium gluconate is produced in very few countries, namely the USA, China and South Korea. Therefore the only possible alternative to the USA was South Korea. The Commission contacted the known companies producing dry sodium gluconate in South Korea, however, no replies were received from those producers.\n(30)\nThe producer in the USA cooperated fully with the investigation by submitting a full questionnaire response and accepting a verification visit.\n(31)\nThe Commission found that the USA met the criteria for an appropriate analogue country since the quantities sold in this market were sufficiently large and there was significant competition on the market with both domestic production and imports from other countries, i.e. China, Italy and France. In addition, the USA had no anti-dumping duty on the product concerned.\n(32)\nIn view of the above, it is therefore provisionally concluded that the USA constitutes an appropriate analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n3.2. Methodology applied for the determination of normal value\n3.2.1. For the company granted MET\n(33)\nFor the company granted MET, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined whether the domestic sales of dry sodium gluconate to independent customers were representative during the IP, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of Chinese export sales of the product concerned to the Union.\n(34)\nThe Commission subsequently identified those product types sold domestically by the company having overall representative domestic sales that were identical or directly comparable with the types sold for export to the Union.\n(35)\nFor each type sold by the exporting producer on its domestic market and found to be directly comparable with the type of dry sodium gluconate sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the volume of that product type sold on the domestic market to independent customers during the IP represented at least 5 % of the total volume of the comparable product type sold for export to the Union.\n(36)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of dry sodium gluconate sold domestically in representative quantities could be considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for each product type the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market during the investigation period.\n(37)\nWhere the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price. This price was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that type made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not.\n(38)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of that type only.\n(39)\nSince the investigation showed that domestic sales were both representative and were made in the ordinary course of trade, the normal value was therefore based on the actual domestic price of all transactions during the investigation period.\n3.2.2. For the company granted IT\n(40)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for China was established on the basis of verified information received from the cooperating producer in the analogue country. The domestic sales of the US producer of the like product were found to be representative compared to the product concerned exported to the Union by the sole cooperating exporting producer in China.\n(41)\nAn examination was also made as to whether the domestic sales could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, by establishing the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers. Therefore, normal value was based on the actual domestic price per product type, calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales made during the IP.\n3.3. Export Price\n(42)\nAll export sales of the product concerned by the cooperating exporting producers were made directly to independent customers in the Union, and therefore the export price was established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in the IP in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n3.4. Comparison\n(43)\nThe comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-factory basis.\n(44)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. For all investigated companies (cooperating exporting producers and the producer in the analogue country) allowances for differences in transport costs, freight and insurance costs, indirect taxation, bank charges, packing costs, credit costs and commissions were made where applicable and justified.\n4. Dumping margins\n(45)\nFor the company granted MET the dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price, as provided for in Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.\n(46)\nFor the company granted IT, the weighted average normal value established for the analogue country was compared with the weighted average export price to the Union, as provided for in Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation.\n(47)\nThe provisional weighted average dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:\nCompany\nProvisional dumping margin\nShandong Kaison Biochemical Co., Ltd\n5,6 %\nQingdao Kehai Biochemistry Co. Ltd\n51,1 %\n(48)\nWith regard to all other Chinese exporters, the Commission first established the level of cooperation. A comparison was made between the total export quantities indicated in the questionnaire replies of the cooperating exporting producers and total imports from China as derived from Eurostat import statistics.\n(49)\nSince the level of cooperation was low, i.e. 56 %, and given the lack of suitable Eurostat price data since it included other high-priced products which could not be accurately deducted, the countrywide dumping margin was calculated by using data from the complaint updated to the IP.\n(50)\nOn this basis, the countrywide level of dumping is provisionally established at 79,2 % of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.\nD. INJURY\n1. Definition of Union industry and Union production\n(51)\nThe cooperating industrial groups Jungbunzlauer (JBL) and Roquette Fr\u00e8res (RF) accounted for 100 % of the Union production.\n(52)\nThey are therefore deemed to constitute the Union industry (UI) within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(53)\nAs the UI is thus constituted of only two producers, all figures related to sensitive data had to be indexed or given in a range for reasons of confidentiality.\n2. Union consumption\n(54)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market, plus imports into the Union as per Eurostat data. As these latter data include not only the product concerned but also some products other than sodium gluconate, appropriate adjustments were made to Eurostat figures in order to estimate reasonable import volumes of the product concerned into the Union.\n(55)\nConsumption in the Union market increased by 12 % between 2005 and 2007. After that, it decreased by 21 % up to the IP below levels of 2005. Overall, during the period under consideration consumption decreased by 8 %.\nTable 1\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nUnion consumption (in tonnes) Index\n100\n106\n112\n104\n91\nSource: Adjusted import volumes from Eurostat and questionnaire replies.\n3. Imports into the Union from China\n3.1. Volume and market share of imports\n(56)\nChinese import volume increased significantly from around 2 300 tonnes in 2005 to around 4 000 tonnes in the IP, i.e. by 77 %, having reached a peak of ca 5 300 tonnes in 2008. The corresponding Chinese market share almost doubled from 12,8 % in 2005 to 24,8 % during the IP. It is noted that market share of the Chinese imports reached 28,6 % in 2008 just prior to the IP and dropped in the IP to 24,8 %.\nTable 2\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nChinese import volumes (in tonnes)\n2 291\n3 470\n5 204\n5 348\n4 065\nChinese imports (tonnes) Index\n100\n152\n227\n234\n177\nChinese market share\n12,8 %\n18,3 %\n26 %\n28,6 %\n24,8 %\nChinese market share, index\n100\n143\n203\n224\n194\nSource: Adjusted import volumes from Eurostat.\n3.2. Unit selling price\n(57)\nAverage Chinese import prices were EUR 482 per tonne in 2005. They steadily increased until reaching a level of EUR 524 per tonne in 2008 and then dropped in the IP to EUR 502 per tonne. Overall during the period considered they increased by 4 %.\nTable 3\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nChinese import prices (EUR/tonnes)\n482\n511\n514\n524\n502\nIndex\n100\n106\n107\n109\n104\nSource: Adjusted import prices from Eurostat.\n3.3. Price undercutting\n(58)\nFor the purposes of analysing price undercutting, the weighted average sales prices per product type of the UI to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports concerned, established on a CIF basis with an appropriate adjustment for customs duties and post-importation costs. The comparison was made after deduction of rebates and discounts.\n(59)\nBased on the above methodology, the difference between the abovementioned prices, expressed as a percentage of the UI\u2019s weighted average price (ex-works), showed a price undercutting margin ranging from 13 % to 29 %, with the higher end being attributed to non-cooperating exporting producers.\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(60)\nIn accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the UI included an evaluation of all economic factors having a bearing on the state of the UI during the period considered.\n4.1. Production capacity, production and capacity utilisation\n(61)\nThe production capacity increased by 4 % in the period from 2005 to 2007, and remained at that level until the end of the period considered.\n(62)\nProduction of the product concerned increased between 2005 and 2007 before decreasing in the period up to the IP. Overall, production decreased by 12 % over the period considered. Total output during the IP was between 30 000 and 40 000 tonnes.\n(63)\nAs a result of the decrease in production volumes, the capacity utilisation decreased by 15 % over the period considered.\nTable 4\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProduction capacity Index\n100\n100\n104\n104\n104\nProduction volume Index\n100\n104\n105\n84\n88\nCapacity utilisation Index\n100\n104\n101\n81\n85\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n4.2. Sales volume, market share and average unit prices in the Union\n(64)\nSales in volume of the product concerned by the UI to unrelated customers on the Union market remained at similar levels from 2005 to 2007 and then dropped by 13 percentage points. Over the period considered the decrease in sales volumes was of 21 %.\n(65)\nMarket share of the UI decreased over the period considered, falling from 74,9 % in 2005 to 64,7 % during the IP.\n(66)\nAverage sales prices to unrelated customers in the Union market decreased by 12 % over the period considered. From 2006 to 2008 average sales prices stayed at similar levels but then dropped by 9 % during the IP.\nTable 5\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nSales volumes Index\n100\n104\n99\n86\n79\nMarket share of UI\n74,9 %\n73,4 %\n66,5 %\n61,4 %\n64,7 %\nIndex\n100\n98\n89\n82\n86\nAverage prices Index\n100\n97\n97\n97\n88\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n4.3. Stocks\n(67)\nDuring the period considered stocks decreased by 37 %. At the end of the IP, the stock level was between 1 000 and 5 000 tonnes.\nTable 6\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nStocks Index\n100\n92\n120\n92\n63\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n4.4. Profitability, investments, return on investments and cash flow\n(68)\nThe sales of the UI of the like product in the Union market were profitable during the period considered but profitability fell dramatically from 2005 to the IP.\n(69)\nAlthough investments continued over the period between 2005 and 2007, with a decrease in 2006, they fell drastically in 2008 and during the IP. Over the period considered investments decreased by 76 %.\n(70)\nIn a similar trend, return on investments from the production and sale of the product concerned was stable from 2005 to 2007 but decreased in 2008 and during the IP.\n(71)\nAs with the other financial indicators, the cash flow generated by the UI fell by 51 % over the period considered.\nTable 7\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProfitability Index\n100\n90\n86\n52\n19\nInvestments Index\n100\n61\n140\n16\n24\nReturns on investments Index\n100\n100\n100\n60\n21\nCash flow Index\n100\n92\n20\n106\n49\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n4.5. Employment, productivity and wages\n(72)\nEmployment slightly increased from 2005 to 2007 and then decreased in 2008 and the IP. Over the period considered employment decreased by 13 %.\n(73)\nWages decreased by 6 % in 2006 but returned to the 2005 levels in 2007 and then increased in 2008 and during the IP. Over the period considered wages increased by 10 %.\n(74)\nProductivity per employee remained stable along the period considered, increasing by 1 % from 2005 to the IP.\nTable 8\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nEmployment Index\n100\n99\n104\n85\n87\nWages Index\n100\n94\n100\n104\n110\nProductivity Index\n100\n104\n101\n99\n101\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n4.6. Growth\n(75)\nWhile Union consumption decreased by 9 % over the period considered, the sales volume of the UI decreased by 21 %. This led to a loss of market share by the UI during the period considered of 10 percentage points.\n4.7. Magnitude of the margin of dumping\n(76)\nThe dumping margins for China, specified above in the dumping section, are significant. Given the volumes and the prices of the dumped imports, the impact of the margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.\n5. Conclusion on injury\n(77)\nMost injury indicators pertaining to the UI developed negatively during the period considered. The indicators related to the financial performance of the UI, including return on investments, cash flow and profitability, also developed negatively during the period considered.\n(78)\nThe investigation also showed that low-priced Chinese imports were undercutting Union industry prices by up to 29 % during the IP. The UI suffered a decrease in sales volumes and a drop in market share.\n(79)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is provisionally concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\nE. CAUSALITY\n1. Introduction\n(80)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the European Commission has examined whether the dumped imports of dry sodium gluconate originating in China have caused injury to the UI to a degree that enables it to be classified as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time have injured the UI, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n2. Effect of the dumped imports\n(81)\nOver the period considered low-priced dumped imports from China increased in terms of volume by 77 %, which resulted in an increase of Union market share by Chinese imports of 94 % in the same period. The decrease in imports from China between 2008 and the IP including the loss of market share is not considered significant in comparison to the overall situation observed during the period considered.\n(82)\nThis increase in imports from China over the period considered coincided with a downward trend in most injury indicators of the UI. The UI suffered a decrease in its sales, both in terms of volumes and of values, on the Union market, resulting in a loss of market share of 10 percentage points over the period considered as mentioned above at recital 65. Price undercutting by the dumped Chinese imports prevented the UI to keep their price levels in the Union market. This lead to a significant decrease in profitability below levels which would allow for necessary investments.\n(83)\nBased on the above, it is provisionally concluded that the low-priced dumped imports from China which significantly undercut the prices of the UI during the period considered have had a determining role in the injury suffered by the Union industry, which is reflected in its poor financial situation and in the deterioration of other injury indicators during the period considered, as well as in loss of market share.\n3. Effect of other factors\n3.1. Imports from other third countries\n(84)\nThe imports from third countries not concerned by this investigation decreased by 23 % over the period considered resulting in a loss of market share of 2 percentage points over the period considered. The prices of these imports increased by 102 % during the period considered.\n(85)\nThe trends in import volumes and prices from other third countries over the period considered were as follows:\nTable 9\nOther third countries\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nTotal other imports in volume (tonnes)\n2 210\n1 566\n1 502\n1 867\n1 709\nIndex\n100\n71\n68\n84\n77\nAverage price other imports (EUR/tonne)\n914\n1 275\n1 305\n1 680\n1 844\nIndex\n100\n140\n143\n184\n202\nSource: Adjusted Eurostat data\n(86)\nImport volumes from other third countries decreased by 23 % over the period considered, while import prices doubled during the same period. Import prices from other third countries were significantly above the UI\u2019s sales prices during the entire period considered. On this basis, it is provisionally concluded that imports from other third countries did not break the causal link between the dumping found and the material injury caused to the UI by the dumped imports from China.\n3.2. Export performance of the Union industry\n(87)\nDuring the period considered export sales by the UI decreased by 10 % and prices increased by 8 %.\n(88)\nIn view of the above, it is considered that the UI\u2019s export sales to other third countries could not break the causal link between the dumped imports from China and the material injury suffered by it.\n3.3. Captive use\n(89)\nDuring the period considered captive use by the UI increased by 56 %, as shown in the following table:\nTable 10\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nCaptive use Index\n100\n126\n115\n148\n156\nSource: Questionnaire replies\n(90)\nHowever, it is noted that the UI still had a spare capacity ranging between 10 000 and 20 000 tonnes. This means that a shift to captive use can be seen as a business response against dumped imports from China, as it may be more lucrative to produce downstream products given the low price levels of sodium gluconate. The fact that considerable spare capacity for sodium gluconate is still available indicates that the UI does not seek to definitively shift production to the downstream products and that the production of downstream products may be seen as a measure in defence of the dumped imports.\n(91)\nTherefore it is considered that the increase in captive use did not break the causal link between the dumped imports from China and the material injury suffered by the UI.\n3.4. Development of EU consumption\n(92)\nIt is noted that EU consumption decreased by 9 % during the period considered, and this may be seen as a consequence of the ongoing economic downturn. It was therefore examined whether the decrease in consumption could have had an effect on the injurious situation of the UI.\n(93)\nHowever, the UI sales volume decreased to a much larger extent, i.e. by 21 % while Chinese imports increased by 77 % during the same period. Concerning market share, the same trends can be observed. The UI lost about 10 percentage points of their market share while the Chinese imports almost doubled theirs, from 12,8 % in 2005 to 24,9 % in the IP.\n(94)\nConsidering the above, it is provisionally concluded that the decrease in the EU consumption cannot be considered by itself as a cause for breaking the causal link between the dumped imports from China and the material injury suffered by the UI.\n4. Conclusion on causation\n(95)\nThe above analysis has demonstrated that there was a substantial increase in volume and market share of the dumped imports originating in China over the period considered together with significant price undercutting. This increase in market share of the low-priced imports from China coincided with a drop in the market share of the UI which, together with the downward pressure on prices, resulted in a deterioration of the situation of the UI during the period considered. On the other hand, the examination of the other factors which could have injured the UI revealed that none of these could have had a significant negative impact.\n(96)\nBased on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors having an effect on the situation of the UI from the injurious effect of the dumped imports, it is provisionally concluded that the imports from China have caused material injury to the UI within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n1. Preliminary remark\n(97)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the European Commission examined whether, despite the conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed for concluding that it is not in the Union interest to adopt anti-dumping measures in this particular case. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, i.e. those of the UI, the importers and the users of the product concerned.\n2. Union industry\n2.1. Effects of the imposition or non-imposition of measures on the Union industry\n(98)\nAs explained above, due to the dumped imports, injury has occurred in the form of a significant decrease in sales volume and prices, which in turn resulted in a deterioration of the situation of the UI. It is expected that, following the imposition of anti-dumping duties, volumes and prices of dry sodium gluconate sold by the UI would increase and this would consequently enable the UI to reach an acceptable level of profitability.\n(99)\nIt is considered that the imposition of measures would restore fair competition on the market. It should be noted that the decrease in profits of the UI is the result of its difficulty in competing with the dumped, low-priced imports originating in China. The imposition of anti-dumping measures is likely to put the UI in the position to regain at least part of its lost market share with a consequent positive impact on profitability.\n(100)\nIf measures are not imposed, a further deterioration in the situation of the UI is probable. The price-depressive effect of the dumped imports would continue to foil all efforts made by the UI to regain a sufficiently profitable level. Not taking measures would put at risk the long-term presence of the UI.\n(101)\nIn conclusion, it is expected that measures would be effective in giving the Union industry the opportunity to recover from the injurious dumping found during the investigation.\n3. Importers/traders\n(102)\nQuestionnaires were sent to five importers. None of them cooperated with the investigation.\n(103)\nIn these circumstances, it is provisionally concluded that the effect of the anti-dumping measures, if any, will most likely not have a material impact on importers/traders.\n4. Users\n(104)\nQuestionnaires were sent to 23 users. However, only four users cooperated in the investigation, out of which only three were using and directly importing the product concerned from China. The direct imports of these three cooperating users accounted for 10 % of the total imports of dry sodium gluconate from China during the IP. The fourth cooperating user was not using the product concerned imported from China.\n(105)\nThese four users, located in Germany, France and the UK, are active in the chemical industry, producing a wide variety of products, some using sodium gluconate as a raw material. On average, sodium gluconate does not represent a significant part of the input cost. In general, the maximum effect of the anti-dumping duty proposed, assuming that price increases cannot be passed on to the final customer, was estimated to be very low. It should also be noted that the turnover of these companies for products using sodium gluconate was less than 5 % of their total turnover.\n(106)\nIn light of the above, it is provisionally concluded that, on the basis of the information provided, the effect of the anti-dumping measures, if any, will most likely not have a material impact on users.\n5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(107)\nGiven the above, it is provisionally concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of anti-dumping duties in the present case.\nG. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n1. Injury elimination level\n(108)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, resulting injury, causation and Union interest, provisional measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.\n(109)\nFor the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the dumping margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the UI.\n(110)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the UI to cover its costs of production and to obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the Union. The pre-tax profit margin claimed in the complaint was considered reasonable and used for this purpose.\n(111)\nOn this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the UI for the like product. The non-injurious price was obtained by adding the abovementioned profit margin to the cost of production.\n(112)\nThe necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison of the adjusted weighted average import price, as established for the price undercutting calculations, with the weighted average non-injurious price of the like product sold by the UI on the Union market. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the total CIF import value.\n(113)\nConcerning the calculation of the countrywide injury elimination level for all other exporting producers in China, it should be recalled that the level of cooperation was low. Therefore this injury margin was calculated using data from the complaint updated to the IP.\n2. Provisional measures\n(114)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed on imports originating in China at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(115)\nThe proposed anti-dumping duties are the following:\nCompany\nInjury elimination margin\nDumping margin\nAnti-dumping duty rate\nShandong Kaison Biochemical Co., Ltd\n29,9 %\n5,6 %\n5,6 %\nQingdao Kehai Biochemistry Co. Ltd\n27,3 %\n51,1 %\n27,3 %\nAll other companies\n53,4 %\n79,2 %\n53,4 %\n(116)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the country concerned and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(117)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (3) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(118)\nIn order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the residual duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.\n3. Special monitoring\n(119)\nIn order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in the duty rates, it is considered that special measures are needed in this case to ensure the proper application of the anti-dumping duties. These special measures include the following:\n(120)\nThe presentation to the Customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all other exporters.\n(121)\nShould the exports by the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances and provided the conditions are met, an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rates and the consequent imposition of a countrywide duty.\nH. FINAL PROVISION\n(122)\nIn the interests of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of anti-dumping duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive duty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of dry sodium gluconate with a Customs Union and Statistics (CUS) number 0023277-9 and a Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number 527-07-1, currently falling within CN code ex 2918 16 00 (TARIC code 2918160010) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nDuty\nTARIC additional codes\nShandong Kaison Biochemical Co., Ltd\n5,6 %\nA972\nQingdao Kehai Biochemistry Co. Ltd\n27,3 %\nA973\nAll other companies\n53,4 %\nA999\n3. The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the duty rate applicable to all other companies shall apply.\n4. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n5. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nWithout prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within 1 month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nPursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within 1 month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of 6 months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 May 2010.", "references": ["90", "21", "12", "94", "27", "6", "7", "71", "92", "14", "5", "88", "59", "24", "30", "72", "75", "49", "77", "97", "52", "89", "67", "84", "42", "50", "1", "54", "43", "35", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 343/2011\nof 8 April 2011\nopening and providing for the administration of Union tariff quotas for wines originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Stabilisation and Association Agreement\u2019), signed on 16 June 2008, is in the process of ratification.\n(2)\nThe Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Interim Agreement\u2019), and the measures adopted by Council Regulation (EC) No 594/2008 of 16 June 2008, on certain procedures for applying the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part, and for applying the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part (2), provide for the early implementation of the trade and trade-related provisions of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.\n(3)\nThe Interim Agreement and the Stabilisation and Association Agreement provide that wines originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina may be imported into the Union, within the limits of Union tariff quotas, and subject to the condition that no export subsidies should be paid for exports of these quantities by Bosnia and Herzegovina, at a zero-rate customs duty.\n(4)\nThe Commission should adopt the implementing measures for the opening and the administration of those Union tariff quotas.\n(5)\nIn Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3), management rules for tariff quotas designed to be used following the chronological order of dates of acceptance of customs declarations are set out.\n(6)\nParticular care should be taken to ensure that all Union importers have equal and continuous access to the tariff quotas and that the zero-rate duty laid down for the quotas is applied uninterruptedly to all imports of the products concerned into all Member States until the quotas are exhausted. In order to ensure the efficiency of a common administration of those quotas, there should be no obstacle to authorising the Member States to draw from the quota volumes the necessary quantities corresponding to actual imports. Communication between the Member States and the Commission should, as far as possible, take place by electronic transmission.\n(7)\nFrom the entry into force of the Interim Agreement on 1 July 2008 until the final day of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 of 30 November 2009 introducing exceptional measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union\u2019s Stabilisation and Association process (4), wine exports from Bosnia and Herzegovina took place within quota number 09.1515 set out in that Regulation. This Regulation should therefore apply from 1 January 2011.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. An import tariff quota at zero-rate customs duty is hereby opened for wines imported into the Union and originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina as set out in the Annex.\n2. The zero-rate duty is applied subject to the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe imported wines shall be accompanied by a proof of origin as provided for in Protocol 2 to the Interim Agreement and to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement;\n(b)\nthe imported wines shall not benefit from export subsidies.\nArticle 2\nThe tariff quota referred to in Article 1 shall be administered by the Commission in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\nArticle 3\nThe Member States and the Commission shall cooperate closely to ensure compliance with this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 April 2011.", "references": ["12", "2", "18", "72", "19", "27", "81", "93", "95", "87", "44", "6", "52", "48", "65", "8", "41", "29", "79", "31", "76", "0", "3", "74", "25", "58", "92", "34", "53", "82", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "61", "71", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "61", "71", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 1 March 2012\non imports into the Union of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species\n(notified under document C(2012) 1148)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/137/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/429/EEC of 26 June 1990 laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species (1), and in particular Article 7(1), Article 9(2) and (3) and Article 10(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 90/429/EEC lays down the animal health conditions applicable to intra-Union trade in and imports from third countries of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species. It provides that Member States may authorise importation of such semen only from those third countries which appear on a list drawn up in accordance with the procedure laid down therein and accompanied by an animal health certificate, the model of which must correspond to a specimen drawn up in accordance with that Directive. The animal health certificate is to certify that the semen comes from approved semen collection centres offering the guarantees provided for in Article 8(1) of that Directive.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2009/893/EC of 30 November 2009 on importation of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species into the Community as regards lists of third countries and of semen collection centres, and certification requirements (2) sets out a list of third countries from which Member States are to authorise imports of semen. That list is established on the basis of the animal health status of those third countries.\n(3)\nDirective 90/429/EEC, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 176/2012 (3), provides for revised animal health requirements for donor animals of the porcine species and semen as regards brucellosis and Aujeszky\u2019s disease.\n(4)\nCouncil Directive 2002/60/EC of 27 June 2002 laying down specific provisions for the control of African swine fever and amending Directive 92/119/EEC as regards Teschen disease and African swine fever (4) deleted Teschen disease (porcine enterovirus encephalomyelitis) from the list of diseases laid down in Annex I to Council Directive 92/119/EEC of 17 December 1992 introducing general Community measures for the control of certain animal diseases and specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease (5) and consequently by Commission Decision 2008/650/EC of 30 July 2008 amending Council Directive 82/894/EEC on the notification of animal diseases within the Community to include certain diseases in the list of notifiable diseases and to delete porcine enterovirus encephalomyelitis from that list (6) that disease was deleted from the list of the compulsorily notifiable diseases within the Union.\n(5)\nIn addition, it is necessary to align certain animal health requirements for imports into the Union of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species to the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in particular as regards country freedom of swine vesicular disease and semen collection centre freedom of tuberculosis and rabies.\n(6)\nAccordingly, the model animal health certificate set out in Part 1 of Annex II to Decision 2009/893/EC should be amended to take account of those amendments made to Directive 90/429/EEC and to delete all references to Teschen disease (porcine enterovirus encephalomyelitis), country freedom of swine vesicular disease and semen collection centre freedom of tuberculosis and rabies.\n(7)\nThere are bilateral agreements concluded between the Union and certain third countries containing specific conditions for the imports into the Union of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species. Therefore, where the bilateral agreements contain specific conditions and model animal health certificates for imports, those conditions and models should apply instead of the conditions and the model set out in this Decision.\n(8)\nSwitzerland is a third country with an animal health status equivalent to that of the Member States. It is therefore appropriate that semen of domestic animals of the porcine species imported into the Union from Switzerland is accompanied by an animal health certificate drawn up in accordance with the models used for intra-Union trade in such semen set out in Annex D to Directive 90/429/EEC, with the adaptations set out in point 3 of Chapter VIII(B) of Appendix 2 of Annex 11 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Trade in Agricultural Products, as approved by Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council, and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation (7).\n(9)\nIn the interest of clarity and consistency of Union legislation, Decision 2009/893/EC should be repealed and replaced by this Decision.\n(10)\nTo avoid any disruption of trade, the use of animal health certificates issued in accordance with Decision 2009/893/EC should be authorised during a transitional period.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision lays down a list of third countries or parts thereof from which Member States shall authorise imports into the Union of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species.\nIt also lays down certification requirements for imports of semen into the Union.\nArticle 2\nImports of semen\n1. Member States shall authorise the import of semen provided that it complies with the following conditions:\n(a)\nit comes from a third country, or part thereof, listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nit comes from a semen collection centre listed in accordance with Article 8(2) of Directive 90/429/EEC;\n(c)\nit is accompanied by an animal health certificate drawn up in accordance with the model animal health certificate set out in Part 1 of Annex II, and completed in accordance with the explanatory notes set out in Part 2 of that Annex;\n(d)\nit complies with the requirements set out in the animal health certificate referred to in point (c).\n2. Where specific animal health and certification conditions are laid down in bilateral agreements between the Union and third countries, those conditions shall apply instead of the conditions laid down in paragraph 1.\nArticle 3\nConditions concerning the transport of semen to the Union\n1. The semen referred to in Article 2 shall not be transported in the same container as other consignments of semen that:\n(a)\nare not intended for introduction into the Union; or\n(b)\nare of a lower health status.\n2. During transport to the Union, semen shall be placed in closed and sealed flasks and the seal shall not be broken during transport.\nArticle 4\nRepeal\nDecision 2009/893/EC is repealed.\nArticle 5\nTransitional provision\nFor a transitional period until 30 November 2012, Member States shall authorise imports of semen from third countries which are accompanied by an animal health certificate issued not later than 31 October 2012 in accordance with the model set out in Part 1 of Annex II to Decision 2009/893/EC.\nArticle 6\nApplicability\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 June 2012.\nArticle 7\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2012.", "references": ["7", "16", "8", "32", "54", "15", "60", "0", "63", "10", "42", "30", "77", "33", "46", "35", "56", "44", "99", "59", "85", "62", "24", "11", "5", "76", "57", "82", "19", "17", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "65", "66", "91", "93", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "65", "66", "91", "93", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 420/2010\nof 12 May 2010\nfixing the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 677/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAn invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Portugal from third countries was opened by Commission Regulation (EC) No 677/2009 (2).\n(2)\nUnder Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 of 18 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of tariff quotas for imports of maize and sorghum into Spain and imports of maize into Portugal (3) the Commission, in accordance the procedure laid down in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, may decide to fix a maximum reduction in the import duty. In fixing this maximum the criteria provided for in Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 must be taken into account.\n(3)\nA contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum reduction in the duty.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor tenders lodged from 30 April to 12 May 2010 under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 677/2009, the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported shall be EUR 10,17/t for a total maximum quantity of 33 000 t.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2010.", "references": ["56", "19", "14", "44", "26", "7", "35", "11", "1", "10", "42", "17", "8", "88", "12", "40", "16", "30", "90", "29", "79", "67", "25", "81", "5", "59", "27", "94", "63", "62", "No Label", "4", "20", "21", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "20", "21", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 28 June 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the Joint Management Committee for Sanitary and Phytosanitary matters set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part as regards the amendment of Appendix V.A. to Annex IV to that Agreement\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/449/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 168(4)(b) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision 2005/269/EC (1), the Council approved on behalf of the Community the conclusion of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Association Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nAnnex IV to the Association Agreement contains an Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures applicable to trade in animals and animal products, plants, plant products and other goods and animal welfare (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the EU-Chile SPS Agreement\u2019).\n(3)\nPursuant to point (c) of Article 16(2) of the EU-Chile SPS Agreement, the Joint Management Committee for Sanitary and Phytosanitary matters (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Joint Management Committee\u2019), established by Article 89(3) of the Association Agreement, is empowered to modify, by means of a decision, Appendices I to XII to the EU-Chile SPS Agreement.\n(4)\nAppendix V.A. to the EU-Chile SPS Agreement should contain priority sectors or sub-sectors in order of priority for which equivalence may be recognised.\n(5)\nThe Republic of Chile would like to apply a processing treatment to bivalve molluscs which is not provided for in the relevant Union legislation.\n(6)\nIn order to evaluate if the proposed processing treatment could meet the same level of consumer protection as accomplished by the treatment provided for by the Union legislation, it is necessary to assess the equivalence of both treatments.\n(7)\nThe second subparagraph of Article 7(4) of the EU-Chile SPS Agreement requires that Appendix V.A. to the EU-Chile SPS Agreement be amended to identify priority sectors or sub-sectors before consultations to assess equivalence can be initiated. The sector \u2018fish products\u2019 and its sub-sector \u2018bivalve molluscs\u2019 should therefore be introduced in the list of priorities in that Appendix.\n(8)\nThe Union should therefore take the position set out in the attached draft Decision of the Joint Management Committee with regard to the amendment of Appendix V.A. to Annex IV to the Association Agreement,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the Joint Management Committee for Sanitary and Phytosanitary matters (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Joint Management Committee\u2019), established under the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part regarding the amendment to Appendix V.A. to the EU-Chile SPS Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the Joint Management Committee, attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Decision of the Joint Management Committee on the amendment to Appendix V.A. to the EU-Chile SPS Agreement shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union as soon as it has been adopted.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 28 June 2011.", "references": ["0", "4", "95", "94", "56", "65", "26", "69", "6", "55", "50", "66", "71", "25", "76", "78", "68", "53", "9", "21", "22", "88", "80", "32", "99", "23", "11", "83", "19", "33", "No Label", "3", "38", "61", "67", "74", "93"], "gold": ["3", "38", "61", "67", "74", "93"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 May 2012\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part\n(2012/272/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(3), Articles 91 and 100, Article 191(4) and Articles 207 and 209 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 November 2004, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a Framework Agreement with the Republic of the Philippines on Partnership and Cooperation (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nThe provisions of the Agreement that fall within the scope of Part Three, Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union bind the United Kingdom and Ireland as separate Contracting Parties, and not as part of the European Union, unless the European Union together with the United Kingdom and/or Ireland have jointly notified the Republic of the Philippines that the United Kingdom or Ireland is bound as part of the European Union in accordance with the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. If the United Kingdom and/or Ireland cease(s) to be bound as part of the European Union in accordance with Article 4a of the Protocol (No 21), the European Union together with the United Kingdom and/or Ireland are to immediately inform the Republic of the Philippines of any change in their position in which case they are to remain bound by the provisions of the Agreement in their own right. The same applies to Denmark in accordance with the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to those Treaties.\n(3)\nWhere the United Kingdom and/or Ireland has/have not provided the notification required under Article 3 of the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice, they do not take part in the adoption by the Council of this Decision to the extent that it covers provisions pursuant to Part Three, Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The same applies to Denmark in accordance with the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be signed, subject to its conclusion at a later date,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part, is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (1).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 May 2012.", "references": ["44", "6", "50", "72", "23", "87", "2", "81", "55", "94", "51", "34", "17", "76", "60", "27", "63", "52", "71", "92", "29", "54", "14", "41", "88", "80", "10", "84", "26", "98", "No Label", "3", "9", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 321/2012\nof 13 April 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 April 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 April 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 April 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 April 2012.", "references": ["31", "54", "0", "44", "57", "51", "19", "49", "17", "5", "91", "36", "64", "92", "1", "75", "65", "78", "29", "95", "96", "33", "84", "43", "77", "16", "89", "94", "12", "98", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 November 2010\non an additional Union financial contribution for 2010 towards expenditure incurred by Member States for certain projects in the field of fisheries control, inspection and surveillance\n(notified under document C(2010) 7996)\n(Only the Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, French, German, Greek, Italian, Latvian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2010/711/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea (1), and in particular Article 21 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBased upon the requests for Union co-finance that have been submitted by Member States in their fisheries control programmes for 2010, the Commission has adopted Decision 2010/352/EU (2), which has left some of the 2010 budget available for fisheries control unused.\n(2)\nThat unused part of the 2010 budget should now be allocated by a new Decision.\n(3)\nIn conformity with Article 21(2) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006, Member States have been asked to submit programmes related to additional funding in the priority areas defined by the Commission, i.e. automation and management of data, new technologies, and seminars in the area of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.\n(4)\nOn that basis requests in the programmes for Union funding related to actions such as pilot projects, training and exchange programmes as well as the construction of patrol vessels and aircrafts, have been rejected since they were not dedicated to the priority areas defined above.\n(5)\nWithin the priority areas indicated by the Commission, not all the eligible expenditure in the programmes could be retained, due to budgetary restraints. The Commission selected the projects to be co-financed on the grounds that they were in conformity with the priorities defined by the Commission. Concerning electronic recording and reporting devices, a priority was given to devices combining ERS and VMS functions\n(6)\nApplications concerning actions listed in Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 may qualify for Union funding.\n(7)\nApplications for Union funding are to comply with the rules set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 391/2007 (3).\n(8)\nIt is appropriate to fix the maximum amounts and the rate of the Union financial contribution within the limits set by Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and to lay down the conditions under which such contribution may be granted.\n(9)\nIn order to encourage investment in the priority actions defined by the Commission and in view of the negative impact of the financial crisis on Member States\u2019 budgets, expenditure related to the abovementioned priority areas should benefit from a high co-financing rate, within the limits laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006.\n(10)\nIn order to qualify for the contribution, automatic localisation devices should satisfy the requirements fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2244/2003 of 18 December 2003 laying down detailed provisions regarding satellite-based Vessel Monitoring Systems (4).\n(11)\nIn order to qualify for the contribution, electronic recording and reporting devices on board fishing vessels should satisfy the requirements laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1077/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1966/2006 on electronic recording and reporting of fishing activities and on means of remote sensing and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1566/2007 (5).\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision provides for a Union financial contribution for 2010 towards expenditure incurred by Member States for 2010 in implementing certain projects on monitoring and control systems applicable to the common fisheries policy (CFP), as referred to in Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006. It establishes the amount of the Union financial contribution for each Member State, the rate of the Union financial contribution and the conditions on which such contribution may be granted.\nArticle 2\nClosure of outstanding commitments\nAll payments in respect of which a reimbursement is claimed shall be made by the Member State concerned by 30 June 2014. Payments made by a Member State after that deadline shall not be eligible for reimbursement. Unused budgetary appropriations related to this Decision shall be de-committed at the latest by 31 December 2015.\nArticle 3\nNew technologies and IT networks\nExpenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex I, on the setting up of new technologies and IT networks, in order to allow efficient and secure collection and management of data in connection with monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries activities, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 4\nAutomatic localisation devices\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex II, on the purchase and fitting on board of fishing vessels of automatic localisation devices enabling vessels to be monitored at a distance by a fisheries monitoring centre through a vessel monitoring system (VMS) shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits established in that Annex.\n2. The financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 shall be limited to EUR 2 500 per vessel.\n3. In order to qualify for the financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1, automatic localisation devices shall satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2244/2003.\nArticle 5\nElectronic recording and reporting systems\nExpenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex III, on the development, purchase, and installation of, as well as technical assistance for, the components necessary for electronic recording and reporting systems (ERS), in order to allow efficient and secure data exchange related to monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries activities, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 6\nElectronic recording and reporting devices\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex IV, on the purchase and fitting on board of fishing vessels of ERS devices enabling vessels to record and report electronically to a Fisheries Monitoring Centre data on fisheries activities, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits established in that Annex.\n2. The financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 shall be limited to EUR 3 000 per vessel, without prejudice to paragraph 4.\n3. In order to qualify for a financial contribution, ERS devices shall satisfy the requirements established under Regulation (EC) No 1077/2008.\n4. In case of devices combining ERS and VMS functions, and fulfilling the requirements laid down in Regulations (EC) No 2244/2003 and (EC) No 1077/2008, the financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be limited to EUR 4 500.\nArticle 7\nInitiatives raising awareness of CFP rules\nExpenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex V, on initiatives including seminar and media tools aimed at enhancing awareness among fishermen and other players such as inspectors, public prosecutors and judges, as well as among the general public, on the need to fight illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and to implement the new control Regulation, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 8\nTotal maximum Union contribution per Member State\nThe total planned expenditure, the total expenditure for projects selected under this Decision, and the total maximum Union contribution per Member State allocated under this Decision are as follows:\n(in EUR)\nMember State\nExpenditure planned in the additional national fisheries control programme for 2010\nExpenditure for projects selected under this Decision\nMaximum Union contribution\nBelgium\n235 000\n222 500\n195 000\nDenmark\n2 284 608\n907 124\n816 412\nGermany\n1 367 695\n1 151 035\n1 035 932\nEstonia\n161 803\n89 835\n80 852\nIreland\n2 145 000\n580 000\n330 000\nGreece\n9 150 000\n1 800 000\n1 620 000\nSpain\n400 000\n0\n0\nFrance\n7 429 203\n2 424 000\n2 181 600\nItaly\n10 890 000\n4 040 000\n3 636 000\nCyprus\n100 000\n70 000\n63 000\nLatvia\n11 459\n0\n0\nMalta\n358 029\n8 460\n7 614\nNetherlands\n2 085 000\n157 500\n141 750\nPoland\n1 091 633\n922 493\n830 243\nPortugal\n3 105 763\n2 408 000\n1 354 500\nRomania\n30 500\n0\n0\nSweden\n1 674 595\n103 541\n93 187\nUnited Kingdom\n1 610 375\n1 178 824\n1 060 940\nTotal\n44 130 664\n16 063 311\n13 447 030\nArticle 9\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Kingdom of Sweden, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 23 November 2010.", "references": ["20", "78", "62", "14", "28", "92", "99", "17", "91", "54", "1", "75", "32", "7", "84", "46", "80", "56", "21", "24", "85", "87", "53", "57", "76", "25", "88", "5", "16", "52", "No Label", "10", "13", "41", "42", "67"], "gold": ["10", "13", "41", "42", "67"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/98/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\non a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular points (a) and (b) of Article 79(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor the gradual establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides for measures to be adopted in the fields of asylum, immigration and protection of the rights of third-country nationals.\n(2)\nThe European Council, at its special meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999, acknowledged the need for harmonisation of national law governing the conditions for admission and residence of third-country nationals. In this context, it stated in particular that the European Union should ensure fair treatment of third-country nationals who are legally residing in the territory of the Member States and that a more vigorous integration policy should aim to grant them rights and obligations comparable to those of citizens of the Union. The European Council accordingly asked the Council to adopt the legal instruments on the basis of Commission proposals. The need for achieving the objectives defined at Tampere was reaffirmed by the Stockholm Programme, which was adopted by the European Council at its meeting of 10 and 11 December 2009.\n(3)\nProvisions for a single application procedure leading to a combined title encompassing both residence and work permits within a single administrative act will contribute to simplifying and harmonising the rules currently applicable in Member States. Such procedural simplification has already been introduced by several Member States and has made for a more efficient procedure both for the migrants and for their employers, and has allowed easier controls of the legality of their residence and employment.\n(4)\nIn order to allow initial entry into their territory, Member States should be able to issue a single permit or, if they issue single permits only after entry, a visa. Member States should issue such single permits or visas in a timely manner.\n(5)\nA set of rules governing the procedure for examination of the application for a single permit should be laid down. That procedure should be effective and manageable, taking account of the normal workload of the Member States\u2019 administrations, as well as transparent and fair, in order to offer appropriate legal certainty to those concerned.\n(6)\nThe provisions of this Directive should be without prejudice to the competence of the Member States to regulate the admission, including the volumes of admission, of third-country nationals for the purpose of work.\n(7)\nPosted third-country nationals should not be covered by this Directive. This should not prevent third-country nationals who are legally residing and working in a Member State and posted to another Member State from continuing to enjoy equal treatment with respect to nationals of the Member State of origin for the duration of their posting, in respect of those terms and conditions of employment which are not affected by the application of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (4).\n(8)\nThird-country nationals who have acquired long-term resident status in accordance with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 on the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (5) should not be covered by this Directive given their more privileged status and their specific type of residence permit \u2018long-term resident-EU\u2019.\n(9)\nThird-country nationals who have been admitted to the territory of a Member State to work on a seasonal basis should not be covered by this Directive given their temporary status.\n(10)\nThe obligation on the Member States to determine whether the application is to be made by a third-country national or by his or her employer should be without prejudice to any arrangements requiring both to be involved in the procedure. The Member States should decide whether the application for a single permit is to be made in the Member State of destination or from a third country. In cases where the third-country national is not allowed to make an application from a third country, Member States should ensure that the application may be made by the employer in the Member State of destination.\n(11)\nThe provisions of this Directive on the single application procedure and on the single permit should not concern uniform or long-stay visas.\n(12)\nThe designation of the competent authority under this Directive should be without prejudice to the role and responsibilities of other authorities and, where applicable, the social partners, with regard to the examination of, and the decision on, the application.\n(13)\nThe deadline for adopting a decision on the application should not include the time required for the recognition of professional qualifications or the time required for issuing a visa. This Directive should be without prejudice to national procedures on the recognition of diplomas.\n(14)\nThe single permit should be drawn up in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002, of 13 June 2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals (6), enabling Member States to enter further information, in particular as to whether or not the person is permitted to work. A Member State should indicate, inter alia, for the purpose of better control of migration, not only on the single permit but also on all the issued residence permits, the information relating to the permission to work, irrespective of the type of the permit or the residence title on the basis of which the third-country national has been admitted to the territory and has been given access to the labour market of that Member State.\n(15)\nThe provisions of this Directive on residence permits for purposes other than work should apply only to the format of such permits and should be without prejudice to Union or national rules on admission procedures and on procedures for issuing such permits.\n(16)\nThe provisions of this Directive on the single permit and on the residence permit issued for purposes other than work should not prevent Member States from issuing an additional paper document in order to be able to give more precise information on the employment relationship for which the format of the residence permit leaves insufficient space. Such a document can serve to prevent the exploitation of third-country nationals and combat illegal employment but should be optional for Member States and should not serve as a substitute for a work permit thereby compromising the concept of the single permit. Technical possibilities offered by Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 and point (a)16 of the Annex thereto can also be used to store such information in an electronic format.\n(17)\nThe conditions and criteria on the basis of which an application to issue, amend or renew a single permit can be rejected, or on the basis of which the single permit can be withdrawn, should be objective and should be laid down in national law including the obligation to respect the principle of Union preference as expressed in particular in the relevant provisions of the 2003 and 2005 Acts of Accession. Rejection and withdrawal decisions should be duly reasoned.\n(18)\nThird-country nationals who are in possession of a valid travel document and a single permit issued by a Member State applying the Schengen acquis in full, should be allowed to enter into and move freely within the territory of the Member States applying the Schengen acquis in full, for a period up to three months in any six-month period in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (7) and Article 21 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (8) (Schengen Convention).\n(19)\nIn the absence of horizontal Union legislation, the rights of third-country nationals vary, depending on the Member State in which they work and on their nationality. With a view to developing further a coherent immigration policy and narrowing the rights gap between citizens of the Union and third-country nationals legally working in a Member State and complementing the existing immigration acquis, a set of rights should be laid down in order, in particular, to specify the fields in which equal treatment between a Member State\u2019s own nationals and such third-country nationals who are not yet long-term residents is provided. Such provisions are intended to establish a minimum level playing field within the Union, to recognise that such third-country nationals contribute to the Union economy through their work and tax payments and to serve as a safeguard to reduce unfair competition between a Member State\u2019s own nationals and third-country nationals resulting from the possible exploitation of the latter. A third-country worker in this Directive should be defined, without prejudice to the interpretation of the concept of employment relationship in other provisions of Union law, as a third-country national who has been admitted to the territory of a Member State, who is legally residing and who is allowed, in the context of a paid relationship, to work there in accordance with national law or practice.\n(20)\nAll third-country nationals who are legally residing and working in Member States should enjoy at least a common set of rights based on equal treatment with the nationals of their respective host Member State, irrespective of the initial purpose of or basis for admission. The right to equal treatment in the fields specified by this Directive should be granted not only to those third-country nationals who have been admitted to a Member State to work but also to those who have been admitted for other purposes and have been given access to the labour market of that Member State in accordance with other provisions of Union or national law, including family members of a third-country worker who are admitted to the Member State in accordance with Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (9); third-country nationals who are admitted to the territory of a Member State in accordance with Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service (10); and researchers admitted in accordance with Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research (11).\n(21)\nThe right to equal treatment in specified fields should be strictly linked to the third-country national\u2019s legal residence and the access given to the labour market in a Member State, which are enshrined in the single permit encompassing the authorisation to reside and work and in residence permits issued for other purposes containing information on the permission to work.\n(22)\nWorking conditions as referred to in this Directive should cover at least pay and dismissal, health and safety at the workplace, working time and leave taking into account collective agreements in force.\n(23)\nA Member State should recognise professional qualifications acquired by a third-country national in another Member State in the same way as those of citizens of the Union and should take into account qualifications acquired in a third country in accordance with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (12). The right to equal treatment accorded to third-country workers as regards recognition of diplomas, certificates and other professional qualifications in accordance with the relevant national procedures should be without prejudice to the competence of Member States to admit such third-country workers to their labour market.\n(24)\nThird-country workers should enjoy equal treatment as regards social security. Branches of social security are defined in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (13). The provisions on equal treatment concerning social security in this Directive should also apply to workers admitted to a Member State directly from a third country. Nevertheless, this Directive should not confer on third-country workers more rights than those already provided in existing Union law in the field of social security for third-country nationals who are in cross-border situations. This Directive, furthermore, should not grant rights in relation to situations which lie outside the scope of Union law, such as in relation to family members residing in a third country. This Directive should grant rights only in relation to family members who join third-country workers to reside in a Member State on the basis of family reunification or family members who already reside legally in that Member State.\n(25)\nMember States should ensure at least equal treatment of third-country nationals who are in employment or who, after a minimum period of employment, are registered as unemployed. Any restrictions to the equal treatment in the field of social security under this Directive should be without prejudice to the rights conferred pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality (14).\n(26)\nUnion law does not limit the power of the Member States to organise their social security schemes. In the absence of harmonisation at Union level, it is for each Member State to lay down the conditions under which social security benefits are granted, as well as the amount of such benefits and the period for which they are granted. However, when exercising that power, Member States should comply with Union law.\n(27)\nEqual treatment of third-country workers should not apply to measures in the field of vocational training which are financed under social assistance schemes.\n(28)\nThis Directive should be applied without prejudice to more favourable provisions contained in Union law and applicable international instruments.\n(29)\nMember States should give effect to the provisions of this Directive without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic characteristics, language, religion or beliefs, political or other opinions, membership of a national minority, fortune, birth, disabilities, age or sexual orientation in particular in accordance with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (15) and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (16).\n(30)\nSince the objectives of this Directive, namely laying down a single application procedure for issuing a single permit for third-country nationals to work in the territory of a Member State and a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the 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 Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(31)\nThis Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in accordance with Article 6(1) of the TEU.\n(32)\nIn accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents of 28 September 2011, Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments. With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of such documents to be justified.\n(33)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(34)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. This Directive lays down:\n(a)\na single application procedure for issuing a single permit for third-country nationals to reside for the purpose of work in the territory of a Member State, in order to simplify the procedures for their admission and to facilitate the control of their status; and\n(b)\na common set of rights to third-country workers legally residing in a Member State, irrespective of the purposes for which they were initially admitted to the territory of that Member State, based on equal treatment with nationals of that Member State.\n2. This Directive is without prejudice to the Member States\u2019 powers concerning the admission of third-country nationals to their labour markets.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions apply:\n(a)\n\u2018third-country national\u2019 means a person who is not a citizen of the Union within the meaning of Article 20(1) TFEU;\n(b)\n\u2018third-country worker\u2019 means a third-country national who has been admitted to the territory of a Member State and who is legally residing and is allowed to work in the context of a paid relationship in that Member State in accordance with national law or practice;\n(c)\n\u2018single permit\u2019 means a residence permit issued by the authorities of a Member State allowing a third-country national to reside legally in its territory for the purpose of work;\n(d)\n\u2018single application procedure\u2019 means any procedure leading, on the basis of a single application made by a third-country national, or by his or her employer, for the authorisation of residence and work in the territory of a Member State, to a decision ruling on that application for the single permit.\nArticle 3\nScope\n1. This Directive shall apply to:\n(a)\nthird-country nationals who apply to reside in a Member State for the purpose of work;\n(b)\nthird-country nationals who have been admitted to a Member State for purposes other than work in accordance with Union or national law, who are allowed to work and who hold a residence permit in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002; and\n(c)\nthird-country nationals who have been admitted to a Member State for the purpose of work in accordance with Union or national law.\n2. This Directive shall not apply to third-country nationals:\n(a)\nwho are family members of citizens of the Union who have exercised, or are exercising, their right to free movement within the Union in accordance with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (17);\n(b)\nwho, together with their family members, and irrespective of their nationality, enjoy rights of free movement equivalent to those of citizens of the Union under agreements either between the Union and the Member States or between the Union and third countries;\n(c)\nwho are posted for as long as they are posted;\n(d)\nwho have applied for admission or have been admitted to the territory of a Member State to work as intra-corporate transferees;\n(e)\nwho have applied for admission or have been admitted to the territory of a Member State as seasonal workers or au pairs;\n(f)\nwho are authorised to reside in a Member State on the basis of temporary protection, or who have applied for authorisation to reside there on that basis and are awaiting a decision on their status;\n(g)\nwho are beneficiaries of international protection under Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (18) or who have applied for international protection under that Directive and whose application has not been the subject of a final decision;\n(h)\nwho are beneficiaries of protection in accordance with national law, international obligations or the practice of a Member State or have applied for protection in accordance with national law, international obligations or the practice of a Member State and whose application has not been the subject of a final decision;\n(i)\nwho are long-term residents in accordance with Directive 2003/109/EC;\n(j)\nwhose removal has been suspended on the basis of fact or law;\n(k)\nwho have applied for admission or who have been admitted to the territory of a Member State as self-employed workers;\n(l)\nwho have applied for admission or have been admitted as seafarers for employment or work in any capacity on board of a ship registered in or sailing under the flag of a Member State.\n3. Member States may decide that Chapter II does not apply to third-country nationals who have been either authorised to work in the territory of a Member State for a period not exceeding six months or who have been admitted to a Member State for the purpose of study.\n4. Chapter II shall not apply to third-country nationals who are allowed to work on the basis of a visa.\nCHAPTER II\nSINGLE APPLICATION PROCEDURE AND SINGLE PERMIT\nArticle 4\nSingle application procedure\n1. An application to issue, amend or renew a single permit shall be submitted by way of a single application procedure. Member States shall determine whether applications for a single permit are to be made by the third-country national or by the third-country national\u2019s employer. Member States may also decide to allow an application from either of the two. If the application is to be submitted by the third-country national, Member States shall allow the application to be introduced from a third country or, if provided for by national law, in the territory of the Member State in which the third-country national is legally present.\n2. Member States shall examine an application made under paragraph 1 and shall adopt a decision to issue, amend or renew the single permit if the applicant fulfils the requirements specified by Union or national law. A decision to issue, amend or renew the single permit shall constitute a single administrative act combining a residence permit and a work permit.\n3. The single application procedure shall be without prejudice to the visa procedure which may be required for initial entry.\n4. Member States shall issue a single permit, where the conditions provided for are met, to third-country nationals who apply for admission and to third-country nationals already admitted who apply to renew or modify their residence permit after the entry into force of the national implementing provisions.\nArticle 5\nCompetent authority\n1. Member States shall designate the authority competent to receive the application and to issue the single permit.\n2. The competent authority shall adopt a decision on the complete application as soon as possible and in any event within four months of the date on which the application was lodged.\nThe time limit referred to in the first subparagraph may be extended in exceptional circumstances, linked to the complexity of the examination of the application.\nWhere no decision is taken within the time limit provided for in this paragraph, any consequences shall be determined by national law.\n3. The competent authority shall notify the decision to the applicant in writing in accordance with the notification procedures laid down in the relevant national law.\n4. If the information or documents in support of the application are incomplete according to the criteria specified in national law, the competent authority shall notify the applicant in writing of the additional information or documents required, setting a reasonable deadline to provide them. The time limit referred to in paragraph 2 shall be suspended until the competent authority or other relevant authorities have received the additional information required. If the additional information or documents is not provided within the deadline set, the competent authority may reject the application.\nArticle 6\nSingle permit\n1. Member States shall issue a single permit using the uniform format as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 and shall indicate the information relating to the permission to work in accordance with point (a)7.5-9 of the Annex thereto.\nMember States may indicate additional information related to the employment relationship of the third-country national (such as the name and address of the employer, place of work, type of work, working hours, remuneration) in paper format, or store such data in electronic format as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 and in point (a)16 of the Annex thereto.\n2. When issuing the single permit Member States shall not issue additional permits as proof of authorisation to access the labour market.\nArticle 7\nResidence permits issued for purposes other than work\n1. When issuing residence permits in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 Member States shall indicate the information relating to the permission to work irrespective of the type of the permit.\nMember States may indicate additional information related to the employment relationship of the third-country national (such as the name and address of the employer, place of work, type of work, working hours, remuneration) in paper format, or store such data in electronic format as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 and point (a)16 of the Annex thereto.\n2. When issuing residence permits in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002, Member States shall not issue additional permits as proof of authorisation to access the labour market.\nArticle 8\nProcedural guarantees\n1. Reasons shall be given in the written notification of a decision rejecting an application to issue, amend or renew a single permit, or a decision withdrawing a single permit on the basis of criteria provided for by Union or national law.\n2. A decision rejecting the application to issue, amend or renew or withdrawing a single permit shall be open to legal challenge in the Member State concerned, in accordance with national law. The written notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall specify the court or administrative authority where the person concerned may lodge an appeal and the time limit therefor.\n3. An application may be considered as inadmissible on the grounds of volume of admission of third-country nationals coming for employment and, on that basis, need not to be processed.\nArticle 9\nAccess to information\nMember States shall provide, upon request, adequate information to the third-country national and the future employer on the documents required to make a complete application.\nArticle 10\nFees\nMember States may require applicants to pay fees, where appropriate, for handling applications in accordance with this Directive. The level of such fees shall be proportionate and may be based on the services actually provided for the processing of applications and the issuance of permits.\nArticle 11\nRights on the basis of the single permit\nWhere a single permit has been issued in accordance with national law, it shall authorise, during its period of validity, its holder at least to:\n(a)\nenter and reside in the territory of the Member State issuing the single permit, provided that the holder meets all admission requirements in accordance with national law;\n(b)\nhave free access to the entire territory of the Member State issuing the single permit within the limits provided for by national law;\n(c)\nexercise the specific employment activity authorised under the single permit in accordance with national law;\n(d)\nbe informed about the holder\u2019s own rights linked to the permit conferred by this Directive and/or by national law.\nCHAPTER III\nRIGHT TO EQUAL TREATMENT\nArticle 12\nRight to equal treatment\n1. Third-country workers as referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) shall enjoy equal treatment with nationals of the Member State where they reside with regard to:\n(a)\nworking conditions, including pay and dismissal as well as health and safety at the workplace;\n(b)\nfreedom of association and affiliation and membership of an organisation representing workers or employers or of any organisation whose members are engaged in a specific occupation, including the benefits conferred by such organisations, without prejudice to the national provisions on public policy and public security;\n(c)\neducation and vocational training;\n(d)\nrecognition of diplomas, certificates and other professional qualifications in accordance with the relevant national procedures;\n(e)\nbranches of social security, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004;\n(f)\ntax benefits, in so far as the worker is deemed to be resident for tax purposes in the Member State concerned;\n(g)\naccess to goods and services and the supply of goods and services made available to the public including procedures for obtaining housing as provided by national law, without prejudice to the freedom of contract in accordance with Union and national law;\n(h)\nadvice services afforded by employment offices.\n2. Member States may restrict equal treatment:\n(a)\nunder point (c) of paragraph 1 by:\n(i)\nlimiting its application to those third-country workers who are in employment or who have been employed and who are registered as unemployed;\n(ii)\nexcluding those third-country workers who have been admitted to their territory in conformity with Directive 2004/114/EC;\n(iii)\nexcluding study and maintenance grants and loans or other grants and loans;\n(iv)\nlaying down specific prerequisites including language proficiency and the payment of tuition fees, in accordance with national law, with respect to access to university and post-secondary education and to vocational training which is not directly linked to the specific employment activity;\n(b)\nby limiting the rights conferred on third-country workers under point (e) of paragraph 1, but shall not restrict such rights for third-country workers who are in employment or who have been employed for a minimum period of six months and who are registered as unemployed.\nIn addition, Member States may decide that point (e) of paragraph 1 with regard to family benefits shall not apply to third-country nationals who have been authorised to work in the territory of a Member State for a period not exceeding six months, to third-country nationals who have been admitted for the purpose of study, or to third-country nationals who are allowed to work on the basis of a visa.\n(c)\nunder point (f) of paragraph 1 with respect to tax benefits by limiting its application to cases where the registered or usual place of residence of the family members of the third-country worker for whom he/she claims benefits, lies in the territory of the Member State concerned.\n(d)\nunder point (g) of paragraph 1 by:\n(i)\nlimiting its application to those third-country workers who are in employment;\n(ii)\nrestricting access to housing;\n3. The right to equal treatment laid down in paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member State to withdraw or to refuse to renew the residence permit issued under this Directive, the residence permit issued for purposes other than work, or any other authorisation to work in a Member State.\n4. Third-country workers moving to a third country, or their survivors who reside in a third country and who derive rights from those workers, shall receive, in relation to old age, invalidity and death, statutory pensions based on those workers\u2019 previous employment and acquired in accordance with the legislation referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, under the same conditions and at the same rates as the nationals of the Member States concerned when they move to a third country.\nCHAPTER IV\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 13\nMore favourable provisions\n1. This Directive shall apply without prejudice to more favourable provisions of:\n(a)\nUnion law, including bilateral and multilateral agreements between the Union, or the Union and its Member States, on the one hand and one or more third countries on the other; and\n(b)\nbilateral or multilateral agreements between one or more Member States and one or more third countries.\n2. This Directive shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States to adopt or maintain provisions that are more favourable to the persons to whom it applies.\nArticle 14\nInformation to the general public\nEach Member State shall make available to the general public a regularly updated set of information concerning the conditions of third-country nationals\u2019 admission to and residence in its territory in order to work there.\nArticle 15\nReporting\n1. Periodically, and for the first time by 25 December 2016, the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive in the Member States and shall propose amendments it deems necessary.\n2. Annually, and for the first time by 25 December 2014, Member States shall communicate to the Commission statistics on the volumes of third-country nationals who have been granted a single permit during the previous calendar year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection (19).\nArticle 16\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 25 December 2013. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 17\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 18\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["61", "21", "99", "86", "95", "52", "90", "60", "42", "51", "43", "98", "47", "91", "28", "5", "58", "59", "94", "41", "29", "76", "4", "0", "44", "68", "25", "38", "34", "11", "No Label", "13", "14", "49", "50"], "gold": ["13", "14", "49", "50"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 16 July 2012\nestablishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organisation on the Philippines\u2019 request for a WTO waiver to extend the special treatment for rice\n(2012/410/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Philippines was provided with special treatment for rice for a period of 10 years upon the entry into force of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO Agreement) and in particular the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).\n(2)\nIn accordance with the AoA the Philippines was subsequently granted an extension of the special treatment for rice from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2012 by modifying its Schedule LXXV.\n(3)\nContinuation of special treatment for rice after 30 June 2012 was contingent on the outcome of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations, providing an alternative special mechanism. However, the DDA negotiations have not yet been concluded.\n(4)\nThe Philippines notified the Committee on Agriculture of the WTO on 22 November 2011 of its intention to enter into negotiations with WTO Members that have substantial interest in the products concerned for the continuation of its special treatment for rice.\n(5)\nArticle IX paragraphs 3 and 4 of the WTO Agreement sets out the procedures for the granting of waivers concerning Multilateral Trade Agreements.\n(6)\nOn that basis on 20 March 2012, the Philippines requested a WTO waiver from its obligations under Article 4.2 and Section B of Annex 5 of the AoA in order to receive special treatment for rice from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2017.\n(7)\nThe Union is a net importer of rice. The granting of this waiver would thus be of minimal economic and trade importance to the Union.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate, therefore, to establish the position to be taken by the Union within the WTO General Council in relation to this waiver request,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organisation is to support the Philippines\u2019 waiver request to extend its special treatment for rice from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2017 in accordance with the terms of the waiver request.\nThis position shall be expressed by the Commission.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["45", "20", "15", "8", "16", "75", "98", "62", "70", "11", "19", "93", "77", "24", "43", "61", "90", "29", "86", "23", "72", "30", "80", "84", "58", "28", "56", "35", "42", "79", "No Label", "21", "22", "68", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 306/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 9 March 2011\nrepealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 on the tariff rates for bananas\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 (2) provides that, from 1 January 2006, the tariff rate for bananas of CN code 0803 00 19 is to be EUR 176/metric tonne.\n(2)\nOn 31 May 2010, the Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas (3) between the European Union and Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) regarding the structure and operation of the Union\u2019s trading regime for bananas of CN code 0803 00 19 was signed.\n(3)\nIn accordance with the Agreement, the Union will gradually reduce its banana tariff from EUR 176/metric tonne to EUR 114/metric tonne. A first cut, which was applied retroactively from 15 December 2009, the date of initialling of the Agreement, reduced the tariff to EUR 148/metric tonne. The subsequent cuts are to apply in seven annual instalments with a possible delay of a maximum of two years if agreement on agriculture modalities in the Doha Round of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is delayed. The final tariff of EUR 114/metric tonne is to be reached on 1 January 2019 at the latest. The tariff reductions will be bound in the WTO at the moment of the certification of the EU banana schedule.\n(4)\nAfter having been applied provisionally since its date of signature, the Agreement was approved by Council Decision 2011/194/EU (4).\n(5)\nIn light of the new banana tariffs to be applied pursuant to the Agreement, it is appropriate to repeal Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1964/2005 is repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the date of entry into force of the Agreement.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 9 March 2011.", "references": ["47", "45", "73", "5", "76", "75", "62", "53", "32", "59", "44", "9", "95", "57", "40", "79", "41", "85", "6", "64", "84", "91", "71", "63", "52", "56", "29", "24", "66", "37", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "23", "68", "96"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "23", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/638/CFSP\nof 25 October 2010\nconcerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 October 2009, the Council adopted Common Position 2009/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea (1), in response to the violent crackdown by security forces on political demonstrators in Conakry on 28 September 2009.\n(2)\nOn 22 December 2009, the Council adopted Decision 2009/1003/CFSP amending Common Position 2009/788/CFSP (2), including additional restrictive measures.\n(3)\nOn 29 March 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/186/CFSP amending Common Position 2009/788/CFSP (3).\n(4)\nOn the basis of a review of Common Position 2009/788/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 27 October 2011.\n(5)\nThe Union implementing measures are set out in Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea (4),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related material of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, as well as equipment which might be used for internal repression, to the Republic of Guinea by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States or using their flag vessels or aircraft, shall be prohibited whether originating or not in their territories.\n2. It shall be prohibited to:\n(a)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance, brokering services or other services related to the items referred to in paragraph 1 or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of such items, to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, the Republic of Guinea;\n(b)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the items referred to in paragraph 1, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for the provision of related technical assistance, brokering services or other services to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, the Republic of Guinea;\n(c)\nparticipate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities, the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) or (b).\nArticle 2\n1. Article 1 shall not apply to the:\n(a)\nsale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal military equipment or of equipment which might be used for internal repression, intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, or for institution building programmes of the United Nations (UN) and the European Union, or for Union and UN crisis management operations;\n(b)\nsale, supply, transfer or export of non-combat vehicles which have been manufactured or fitted with materials to provide ballistic protection, intended solely for protective use of personnel of the Union and its Member States in the Republic of Guinea;\n(c)\nprovision of technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to such equipment or to such programmes and operations;\n(d)\nprovision of financing and financial assistance related to such equipment or to such programmes and operations;\non condition that such exports and assistance have been approved in advance by the relevant competent authority.\n2. Article 1 shall not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to the Republic of Guinea by UN personnel, personnel of the Union or its Member States, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the individual members of the National Council for Democracy and Development (CNDD) and persons associated with them, as listed in the Annex.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation of international law, namely:\n(a)\nas a host country to an international intergovernmental organisation;\n(b)\nas a host country to an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the UN;\n(c)\nunder a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities; or\n(d)\nunder the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran pact) concluded by the Holy See (State of the Vatican City) and Italy.\n4. Paragraph 3 shall be considered as applying also in cases where a Member State is host country to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).\n5. The Council shall be duly informed in all cases where a Member State grants an exemption pursuant to paragraphs 3 or 4.\n6. Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed under paragraph 1 where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the Union, or hosted by a Member State holding the Chairmanship in office of the OSCE, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the Republic of Guinea.\n7. A Member State wishing to grant exemptions referred to in paragraph 6 shall notify the Council in writing. The exemption shall be deemed to be granted unless one or more of the Council members raises an objection in writing within two working days of receiving notification of the proposed exemption. Should one or more of the Council members raise an objection, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to grant the proposed exemption.\n8. In cases where pursuant to paragraphs 3, 4, 6 and 7, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in the Annex, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\nArticle 4\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the individual members of the CNDD and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in the Annex, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of, natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in the Annex.\n3. The competent authority of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources concerned are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of the persons listed in the Annex and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for the routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the competent authority has notified the competent authority of the other Member States and the Commission of the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted, at least two weeks prior to the authorisation.\nA Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation it grants under this paragraph.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 4(1) was included in the Annex or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a natural or legal person, entity or body listed in the Annex; and\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgement is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\nA Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this paragraph.\n5. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to Common Position 2009/788/CFSP,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments remain subject to paragraph 1.\nArticle 5\n1. The Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall adopt amendments to the list contained in the Annex as required by political developments in the Republic of Guinea.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the person concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person concerned accordingly.\nArticle 6\nIn order to maximise the impact of the abovementioned measures, the EU shall encourage third States to adopt restrictive measures similar to those contained in this Decision.\nArticle 7\nCommon Position 2009/788/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 8\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall apply until 27 October 2011. It shall be kept under constant review. It may be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 October 2010.", "references": ["34", "27", "71", "70", "17", "31", "82", "81", "47", "62", "32", "49", "99", "64", "22", "12", "88", "92", "69", "48", "36", "39", "87", "25", "79", "59", "5", "15", "84", "8", "No Label", "1", "3", "6", "10", "16", "23", "94"], "gold": ["1", "3", "6", "10", "16", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1023/2011\nof 14 October 2011\nopening the tendering procedure for aid for private storage of olive oil\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(a), (d) and (j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the Commission may decide to authorise bodies, offering sufficient guarantees and approved by the Member States, to conclude contracts for the storage of olive oil that they market in the event of a serious disturbance on the market in certain regions of the European Union.\n(2)\nIn Spain the average price of virgin olive oil recorded in the market during the period specified in Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 of 20 August 2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products (2), is below the level indicated in Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. The prospect of a consecutive good harvest and the accumulation of stocks in Spain create an imbalance between supply and demand which exerts a downward pressure on virgin olive oil prices and causes a serious disturbance on the Spanish market. Spain is the most important olive oil producer of the Union and the price leader. The Union olive oil market is characterised by a high level of interdependence and therefore the serious disturbance of the Spanish market risks to propagate to all the olive oil producing Member States.\n(3)\nArticle 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that aid for private storage may be granted for olive oil and that the aid should be fixed by the Commission in advance or by means of a tendering procedure.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 826/2008 has established common rules for the implementation of the private storage aid scheme. Pursuant to Article 6 of that Regulation, a tendering procedure is to be opened in accordance with the detailed rules and conditions provided for in its Article 9.\n(5)\nThe global quantity up to which private storage aid can be granted should be set at a level which, according to market analysis, would contribute to the stabilisation of the market.\n(6)\nIn order to facilitate the administrative and control work relating to the conclusion of contracts, the minimum quantity of product each tender must provide for should be fixed.\n(7)\nA security should be fixed in order to ensure that the operators fulfil their contractual obligations and that the measure will have its desired effect on the market.\n(8)\nIn the light of the evolution of the market situation in the current marketing year and the forecasts for the following marketing year, the Commission should have the possibility to decide to shorten the term of contracts which are being performed and adjust the level of aid accordingly. That possibility has to be included in the contract, as provided for by Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008.\n(9)\nPursuant to Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008, the time period of notification of all valid tenders by Member States to the Commission is to be fixed.\n(10)\nIn order to prevent uncontrolled price falls, to react swiftly to the exceptional market situation and to ensure efficient management of this measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(11)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. A tendering procedure is hereby opened in order to determine the level of aid for private storage referred to in Article 31(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for virgin olive oil as defined in point 1(b) of Annex XVI to that Regulation.\n2. The global quantity up to which aid for private storage can be granted shall be 100 000 tonnes.\nArticle 2\nApplicable rules\nRegulation (EC) No 826/2008 shall apply save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nSubmission of tenders\n1. The sub-period during which tenders may be submitted in response to the first partial invitation to tender shall begin on 19 October 2011 and shall end on 25 October 2011 at 11:00 Brussels time.\nThe sub-period during which tenders may be submitted in response to the second partial invitation to tender shall begin on the first working day following the end of the preceding sub-period and shall end on 8 November at 11:00 Brussels time.\n2. Tenders shall relate to a storage period of 180 days.\n3. Each tender shall cover a minimum quantity of at least 50 tonnes.\n4. Where an operator takes part in a tendering procedure for more than one category of oil or for vats located at different addresses, it shall submit a separate tender in each case.\n5. Tenders may be lodged only in Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Portugal and Slovenia.\nArticle 4\nSecurities\nTenderers shall establish a security of EUR 50 per tonne of olive oil covered by a tender.\nArticle 5\nShortening the term of contracts\nThe Commission may, on the basis of developments on the market in olive oil and the outlook for the future, decide, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, to shorten the term of contracts which are being performed and adjust the amount of the aid accordingly. The contract with the successful tenderer shall include reference to this option.\nArticle 6\nNotification of the tenders to the Commission\nIn accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 all valid tenders shall be notified separately by Member States to the Commission, within 24 hours from the end of each tendering sub-period as referred to in Article 3(1) of this Regulation.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2011.", "references": ["69", "42", "84", "59", "88", "22", "30", "14", "29", "11", "6", "71", "57", "39", "2", "60", "78", "10", "99", "46", "24", "48", "64", "51", "27", "7", "74", "85", "93", "34", "No Label", "15", "20", "26", "62", "70"], "gold": ["15", "20", "26", "62", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 793/2011\nof 5 August 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing in category 9 \u2018pelagic freezer trawlers\u2019 in the Mauritanian Economic Zone by vessels flying the flag of a Member State of the European Union\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 704/2008 of 15 July 2008 on the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partership Agreement between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania for the period 1 August 2008 to 31 July 2012 (2) has limited the fishing opportunities for category 9 (pelagic freezer trawlers) to a reference tonnage of 250 000 tonnes.\n(2)\nConsidering that on the basis of Article 2(3) of this aforementioned regulation, a supplementary a quota of 50 000 tonnes has been allocated for the period from 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2011, bringing the total reference tonnage to 300 000 tonnes.\n(3)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches reported in this fishing category by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member States concerned have exhausted the quota for the above reference period.\n(4)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for this fishing category.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member States concerned shall be deemed to be exhausted from 19 July 2011.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities in category 9 by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member States concerned shall be prohibited from 19 July 2011 until 31 July 2011. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish caught by those vessels during this period.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2011.", "references": ["36", "2", "40", "63", "98", "33", "21", "25", "23", "81", "69", "82", "35", "14", "83", "71", "78", "60", "94", "79", "70", "59", "29", "38", "4", "10", "15", "65", "86", "57", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "96"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 786/2012\nof 30 August 2012\namending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 134, Article 161(3), Article 170 and Article 192(2), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 of 31 August 2009 laying down detailed rules for the Member States\u2019 notification to the Commission of information and documents in implementation of the common organisation of the markets, the direct payments\u2019 regime, the promotion of agricultural products and the regimes applicable to the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean islands (2) lays down common rules for notifying information and documents by the competent authorities of the Member States to the Commission. Those rules cover in particular the obligation for the Member States to use the information systems made available by the Commission and the validation of the access rights of the authorities or individuals authorised to send notifications. In addition, that Regulation sets common principles applying to the information systems so that they guarantee the authenticity, integrity and legibility over time of the documents and provides for personal data protection.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 the obligation to use the information systems in accordance with that Regulation has to be provided for in the Regulations establishing a specific notification obligation.\n(3)\nThe Commission has developed an information system that allows managing documents and procedures electronically in its own internal working procedures and in its relations with the authorities involved in the common agricultural policy. It is considered that several notification obligations can be fulfilled via that system in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009, in particular those provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 (3).\n(4)\nIn the interest of an efficient administration and taking account of the experience, some notifications should be either simplified and specified or deleted in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(5)\nFor reasons of clarity, it is appropriate to provide explicitly that Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (4) applies to the licences provided for in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, save as otherwise provided in the latter Regulation.\n(6)\nIsoglucose products are not listed in Section C of Part II of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, therefore no export licence is required for the exports of isoglucose which is in free circulation on the Union market and which is not considered as \u2018out-of-quota\u2019 to be exported without refund. This should be reflected in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, where any reference to isoglucose should be deleted.\n(7)\nAccording to point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 61 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the sugar or isoglucose produced in excess of the quota referred to in Article 56 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed by the Commission. When fixing the quantitative limit the Commission has to respect the commitments resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 218 of the Treaty.\n(8)\nAt times of large Union production of out-of-quota sugar, in particular when coupled with high world market prices, applications for export licences submitted by sugar manufacturers can exceed significantly the available quantities. The strong competition of operators for export licences may lead to a situation where certain operators apply for licences exceeding their actual production of out-of-quota sugar in respect of the marketing year concerned. Such speculative behaviour could mean loss of export possibilities for Union out-of-quota sugar and increasing the pressure on the Union market for out-of-quota sugar and therefore also increasing the risk of accumulation of surplus sugar.\n(9)\nAccording to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 the rights deriving from licences or certificates can be transferred once by their titular holder during the validity of the licence or certificate concerned. In order to reduce the risks of speculative behaviour of sugar manufacturers it is appropriate to prohibit the transfer of export licences in the case of out-of-quota sugar.\n(10)\nArticle 3(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixing additional import duties in the poultry meat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regulation No 163/67/EEC (5) and Article 4(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 504/2007 of 8 May 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements for additional import duties in the milk and milk products sector (6) set the time limit for the importers concerned to prove that the consignment in question was disposed of under conditions confirming the correctness of the declared cif import price. For the sake of harmonisation of the implementing rules applicable to the additional import duties in the different sectors, it is appropriate to align Article 38(4) of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 to Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 and Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 504/2007.\n(11)\nArticle 34(3) of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 lays down that Member States have to provide the Commission each month with information related to the molasses world market. Experience has shown that, due to the characteristics of the molasses markets, such information is difficult to obtain and most Member States have no relevant information to provide. It is therefore appropriate to delete that notification obligation.\n(12)\nChapter 17 of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (7) as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 (8) contains new CN codes for the various raw sugar products which are different from those referred to in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006. For the sake of legal clarity those new codes should be reflected in Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(13)\nAt the occasion of those amendments it is appropriate to correct an obvious error regarding an internal reference.\n(14)\nRegulation (EC) No 951/2006 should therefore be amended and corrected accordingly.\n(15)\nFor reasons of transparency and equal treatment this Regulation should apply from the beginning of the 2012-2013 marketing year. However, since the correction of Article 12a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 should have a retroactive effect which duly respects the legitimate expectations of those concerned, that correction should apply as from the date of entry into force of the amending act which inserted the erroneous reference into Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, namely Commission Regulation (EC) No 910/2008 (9).\n(16)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 951/2006\nRegulation (EC) No 951/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nScope\n1. This Regulation lays down, in accordance with Part III of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (10), the special detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences, the granting of export refunds and the management of imports, in particular the application of additional import duties in the sugar sector.\n2. Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 (11) shall apply, save as otherwise provided in this Regulation.\n(2)\nArticles 7 and 7a are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 7\nExport licence for sugar without refund\nWhere sugar which is in free circulation on the Union market and which is not considered as \u201cout-of-quota\u201d is to be exported without refund, Section 20 of the licence application and of the licence shall contain one of the entries listed in Part C of the Annex.\nArticle 7a\nExport licences for out-of-quota exports\n1. By way of derogation from Article 5, exports of out-of-quota isoglucose within the quantitative limit referred to in point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 61 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be subject to the presentation of an export licence.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, the rights deriving from export licences issued for out-of-quota sugar shall not be transferable.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 7c(1), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall notify the Commission, by Monday each week, of the quantities of sugar and/or isoglucose, for which applications for export licence have been submitted during the preceding week.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 9, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Applicants may withdraw their licence applications until the end of the week following that of the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of an acceptance percentage as indicated in point (a) of paragraph 1 if it is less than 80 %. Member States shall thereupon release the security.\u2019;\n(5)\nthe title of Chapter V is replaced by the following:\n\u2018ADDITIONAL RULES FOR EXPORT LICENCES\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\nApplication for and issue of export licences\n1. Export licences for sugar falling within CN code 1701 for quantities exceeding 10 tonnes shall be issued:\n(a)\non the fifth working day following that on which the application was lodged;\n(b)\nin the case of export licences with advance fixing of the refund, on the fifth working day following that on which the application was lodged provided that no specific action as indicated in Article 9(1) has been taken by the Commission in the meantime.\nThe first subparagraph shall not apply to:\n(a)\ncandy sugar;\n(b)\nflavoured sugar and sugar with added colouring matter.\n2. When an application for a licence in respect of the products to which the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 applies relates to quantities not exceeding 10 tonnes, the party concerned may not lodge on the same day and with the same competent authority more than one such application.\u2019;\n(7)\nArticles 17, 18 and 19 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 17\nNotification of export licences issued\n1. Member States shall notify the Commission by the 15th of each month in respect of the preceding month of the quantities for which licences have been issued pursuant to Article 7.\n2. During the periods when export refunds are granted in the sugar sector, Member States shall notify the Commission by the 15th of each month in respect of the preceding month of:\n(a)\nthe quantities for which licences have been issued with the amounts of export refunds fixed pursuant to Article 164(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 broken down between:\n-\nsugar products falling within CN codes 1701 91 00, 1701 99 10 and 1701 99 90,\n-\ntel quel raw sugar falling within CN codes 1701 12 90, 1701 13 90 and 1701 14 90,\n-\nsucrose syrups, expressed as white sugar, falling within CN codes 1702 90 71, 1702 90 95 and 2106 90 59,\n-\nisoglucose, expressed as dry matter, falling within CN codes 1702 40 10, 1702 60 10, 1702 90 30 and 2106 90 30;\n(b)\nthe quantities of white sugar falling within CN code 1701 99 10 for which a licence has been issued with the amounts of export refunds fixed pursuant to Article 164(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(c)\nthe quantities, with the corresponding amounts of export refunds fixed pursuant to Article 164(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, of white sugar, the quantities of raw sugar and sucrose syrup, expressed as white sugar, and the quantities of isoglucose, expressed as dry matter, for which an export licence has been issued with a view to export in the form of products referred to in point (b) of Part X of Annex I to that Regulation.\nArticle 18\nNotification of quantities exported\n1. Member States shall notify the Commission for each calendar month, and not later than by the end of the third calendar month following the calendar month in question, of the quantities of sugar covered by quotas exported as white sugar or in the form of processed products expressed as white sugar, for which an export licence has been issued for the implementation of Union and national food aid under international conventions or other complementary programmes and for the implementation of other Union measures for the free supply of food.\n2. During the periods when export refunds are granted in the sugar sector, Member States shall notify the Commission, not later than the end of each calendar month in respect of the preceding calendar month, of the quantities of white sugar referred to in Article 17(2)(b) exported in accordance with Article 7(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008.\n3. During the periods when export refunds are granted in the sugar sector, Member States shall notify the Commission for each calendar month, and not later than the end of the third calendar month following the calendar month in question:\n(a)\nin the case of exports referred to in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009, of the quantities of sugar and sucrose syrups, expressed as white sugar, and of isoglucose, expressed as dry matter, exported without further processing, together with the amounts of the corresponding refunds;\n(b)\nof the quantities, with the corresponding amounts of export refunds fixed pursuant to Article 164(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, of white sugar, the quantities of raw sugar and sucrose syrup, expressed as white sugar, and the quantities of isoglucose, expressed as dry matter, exported in the form of the products referred to in Part IV of Annex XX to that Regulation and in the form of the products referred to in Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 (12).\nThe notifications referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph shall be supplied separately to the Commission for each Regulation applicable to the processed product in question.\nArticle 19\nNotification of import licences\nMember States shall notify the Commission of the quantities of sugar imported from third countries and exported as compensating products under the inward processing arrangements referred to in Article 116 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. That notification shall refer to each marketing year. It shall be submitted no later than the end of the second calendar month following the marketing year in question.\n(8)\nArticle 21 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 21\nMethod of notification\nThe notifications by the Member States provided for in this Regulation shall be made as follows:\n(a)\nuntil 31 December 2012, by electronic transmission in accordance with methods made available to the Member States by the Commission;\n(b)\nas from 1 January 2013, in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (13).\n(9)\nin Article 23, the introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u2018When the most favourable purchasing opportunities on the world market are being established, account shall be taken of the relevant information available to the Commission either directly or through the competent agencies of the Member States relating to:\u2019;\n(10)\nin Article 29, the introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u2018When the most favourable purchasing opportunities on the world market are being established, account shall be taken of the relevant information relating to:\u2019;\n(11)\nin Article 34, paragraph 3 is deleted;\n(12)\nin Article 38, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The importer shall have two months from the sale of the products in question, subject to a limit of nine months from the date of acceptance of the declaration of release for free circulation, to prove that the consignment was disposed of under conditions confirming the correctness of the prices referred to in paragraph 2. Failure to meet one or other of these deadlines shall entail the loss of the security lodged. However, the time limit of nine months may be extended by the competent authorities by a maximum of three months following a duly substantiated request of the importer.\nThe security lodged shall be released to the extent that proof of the conditions of disposal is provided to the satisfaction of the competent authorities. Otherwise, the security shall be forfeit by way of payment of the additional duties.\u2019;\n(13)\nArticle 42 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 42\nCalculating methods\n1. If the yield of imported raw sugar as determined in accordance with Section B.III of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 differs from the yield fixed for the standard quality, the customs tariff duty for products falling within CN codes 1701 12 10, 1701 13 10 and 1701 14 10, and the additional duty for products falling within CN codes 1701 12 10, 1701 12 90, 1701 13 10, 1701 13 90, 1701 14 10 and 1701 14 90 to be levied per 100 kilograms of the said raw sugar shall be calculated by multiplying the corresponding duty fixed for raw sugar of the standard quality by a correcting coefficient. The correcting coefficient shall be obtained by dividing the percentage of the yield of the imported raw sugar by 92.\n2. For the products referred to in point (c) of Part III of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the sucrose content, including other sugars expressed as sucrose, shall be determined by the application of the Lane and Eynon method (copper reduction method) to the solution inverted according to Clerget-Herzfeld. The total sugar content thus determined shall be expressed as sucrose by multiplying by 0,95.\nHowever, the sucrose content, including other sugars expressed as sucrose, of products containing less than 85 % sucrose or other sugars expressed as sucrose, and invert sugar expressed as sucrose shall be determined by ascertaining the dry matter content. The dry matter content shall be determined according to the specific gravity of the solution diluted in a proportion of 1 to 1 by weight and, for solid products, by drying. The dry matter content shall be expressed as sucrose by multiplying by the coefficient 1.\n3. For the products referred to in points (d) and (g) of Part III of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the dry matter content shall be determined in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of this Article.\n4. For the products referred to in point (e) of Part III of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the conversion into sucrose equivalent shall be obtained by multiplying the dry matter determined in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of this Article by the coefficient 1,9.\u2019;\n(14)\nPart C of the Annex is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nCorrection of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006\nIn Article 12a, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The security referred to in paragraph 1 shall be released in accordance with Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 for the quantity for which the applicant has fulfilled, within the meaning of Articles 30(b) and 31(b)(i) of that Regulation, the export obligation resulting from the licences issued in accordance with Article 7d of this Regulation.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2012. However, Article 2 shall apply from 26 September 2008.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 August 2012.", "references": ["92", "85", "55", "36", "40", "13", "4", "7", "94", "52", "78", "93", "23", "97", "35", "61", "66", "84", "29", "25", "95", "83", "63", "77", "16", "79", "37", "74", "34", "24", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "39", "41", "71"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "39", "41", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 909/2010\nof 11 October 2010\nestablishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for export licences for cheese to be exported to the United States of America in 2011 under certain GATT quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (2), and in particular Article 23(1) and (3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 635/2010 of 19 July 2010 opening the procedure for the allocation of export licences for cheese to be exported to the United States of America in 2011 under certain GATT quotas (3) opens the procedure for the allocation of export licences for cheese to be exported to the United States of America in 2011 under the GATT quotas referred to in Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\n(2)\nApplications for export licences for certain quotas and product groups exceed the quantities available for the 2011 quota year. Allocation coefficients as provided for in Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 should therefore be established.\n(3)\nIn the case of product groups and quotas for which the applications lodged are for quantities less than those available, it is appropriate, in accordance with Article 23(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009, to provide for the allocation of the remaining quantities to the applicants in proportion to the quantities applied for. The allocation of such further quantities should be conditional upon the competent authority being notified of the quantities accepted by the operator concerned and upon the interested operators lodging a security.\n(4)\nGiven the time limit for carrying out the procedure for establishing those coefficients, as provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 635/2010, this Regulation should apply as soon as possible,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApplications for export licences lodged pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 635/2010 in respect of the product groups and quotas identified by 16-Tokyo, 16-, 17-, 18-, 20- and 21-Uruguay in column 3 of the Annex to this Regulation shall be accepted, subject to the application of the allocation coefficients in column 5 of that Annex.\nArticle 2\nApplications for export licences lodged pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 635/2010 in respect of the product groups and quotas identified by 22- and 25- Tokyo, 22- and 25-Uruguay in column 3 of the Annex to this Regulation shall be accepted for the quantities requested.\nExport licences may be issued for further quantities distributed in accordance with the allocation coefficients in column 6 of the Annex, after acceptance by the operator within one week of publication of this Regulation and subject to the lodging of the security applicable.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 October 2010.", "references": ["52", "44", "5", "27", "77", "91", "79", "89", "75", "84", "80", "36", "60", "58", "54", "53", "43", "46", "29", "69", "94", "0", "10", "57", "18", "14", "33", "64", "73", "78", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "70", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "70", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 984/2010\nof 3 November 2010\nentering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed [Ov\u010d\u00ed hrudkov\u00fd syr - sala\u0161n\u00edcky (TSG)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 9(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, Slovakia's application to register the name \u2018Ov\u010d\u00ed hrudkov\u00fd syr - sala\u0161n\u00edcky\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register.\n(3)\nProtection as referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has not been requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2010.", "references": ["58", "11", "17", "64", "29", "90", "67", "42", "94", "99", "77", "19", "82", "85", "12", "8", "63", "41", "95", "30", "14", "18", "59", "83", "47", "55", "6", "23", "88", "26", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2012/19/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 4 July 2012\non waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)\n(recast)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA number of substantial changes are to be made to Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (4). In the interests of clarity, that Directive should be recast.\n(2)\nThe objectives of the Union\u2019s environment policy are, in particular, to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment, to protect human health and to utilise natural resources prudently and rationally. That policy is based on the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should, as a priority, be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.\n(3)\nThe Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development (Fifth Environmental Action Programme) (5) stated that the achievement of sustainable development calls for significant changes in current patterns of development, production, consumption and behaviour and advocates, inter alia, the reduction of wasteful consumption of natural resources and the prevention of pollution. It mentioned waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) as one of the target areas to be regulated, in view of the application of the principles of prevention, recovery and safe disposal of waste.\n(4)\nThis Directive supplements the general waste management legislation of the Union, such as Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste (6). It refers to the definitions in that Directive, including the definitions of waste and general waste management operations. The definition of collection in Directive 2008/98/EC includes the preliminary sorting and preliminary storage of waste for the purposes of transport to a waste treatment facility. Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) establishes a framework for setting ecodesign requirements for energy-related products and enables the adoption of specific ecodesign requirements for energy-related products which may also be covered by this Directive. Directive 2009/125/EC and the implementing measures adopted pursuant thereto are without prejudice to the waste management legislation of the Union. Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (8) requires the substitution of banned substances in respect of all electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) within its scope.\n(5)\nAs the market continues to expand and innovation cycles become even shorter, the replacement of equipment accelerates, making EEE a fast-growing source of waste. While Directive 2002/95/EC has contributed effectively to reducing hazardous substances contained in new EEE, hazardous substances such as mercury, cadmium, lead, hexavalent chromium and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and ozone-depleting substances will still be present in WEEE for many years. The content of hazardous components in EEE is a major concern during the waste management phase, and recycling of WEEE is not undertaken to a sufficient extent. A lack of recycling results in the loss of valuable resources.\n(6)\nThe purpose of this Directive is to contribute to sustainable production and consumption by, as a first priority, the prevention of WEEE and, in addition, by the re-use, recycling and other forms of recovery of such wastes so as to reduce the disposal of waste and to contribute to the efficient use of resources and the retrieval of valuable secondary raw materials. It also seeks to improve the environmental performance of all operators involved in the life cycle of EEE, e.g. producers, distributors and consumers and, in particular, those operators directly involved in the collection and treatment of WEEE. In particular, different national applications of the \u2018producer responsibility\u2019 principle may lead to substantial disparities in the financial burden on economic operators. Having different national policies on the management of WEEE hampers the effectiveness of recycling policies. For that reason, the essential criteria should be laid down at the level of the Union and minimum standards for the treatment of WEEE should be developed.\n(7)\nThe provisions of this Directive should apply to products and producers irrespective of selling technique, including distance and electronic selling. In this connection, the obligations of producers and distributors using distance and electronic selling channels should, as far as is practicable, take the same form, and should be enforced in the same way, as for other distribution channels, in order to avoid those other distribution channels having to bear the costs resulting from this Directive arising from WEEE for which the equipment was sold by distance or electronic selling.\n(8)\nIn order to fulfil the obligations pursuant to this Directive in a given Member State, a producer should be established in that Member State. By exception, to reduce existing barriers to the proper functioning of the internal market and administrative burdens, Member States should allow producers that are not established on their territory, but that are established in another Member State, to appoint an authorised representative to be responsible for fulfilling the obligations of that producer under this Directive. In addition, administrative burdens should be reduced by simplifying registration and reporting procedures and by ensuring that duplicate charges are not levied for registrations within individual Member States.\n(9)\nThis Directive should cover all EEE used by consumers and EEE intended for professional use. This Directive should apply without prejudice to Union legislation on safety and health requirements protecting all actors in contact with WEEE, as well as specific Union waste management legislation, in particular Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators (9), and Union product design legislation, in particular Directive 2009/125/EC. The preparing for re-use, recovery and recycling of waste cooling equipment and the substances, mixtures or components thereof should be in accordance with the relevant legislation of the Union, in particular Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (10) and Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases (11). The objectives of this Directive can be achieved without including large-scale fixed installations such as oil platforms, airport luggage transport systems or elevators within its scope. However, any equipment which is not specifically designed and installed as part of those installations, and which can fulfil its function even if it is not part of those installations, should be included in the scope of this Directive. This refers for instance to equipment such as lighting equipment or photovoltaic panels.\n(10)\nA number of definitions should be included in this Directive in order to specify its scope. However, in the framework of a revision of the scope, the definition of EEE should be further clarified in order to bring Member States\u2019 relevant national measures and current, applied and established practices closer together.\n(11)\nEcodesign requirements facilitating the re-use, dismantling and recovery of WEEE should be laid down in the framework of measures implementing Directive 2009/125/EC. In order to optimise re-use and recovery through product design, the whole life cycle of the product should be taken into account.\n(12)\nThe establishment, by this Directive, of producer responsibility is one of the means of encouraging design and production of EEE which take into full account and facilitate its repair, possible upgrading, re-use, disassembly and recycling.\n(13)\nIn order to guarantee the safety and health of distributors\u2019 personnel involved in the take-back and handling of WEEE, Member States should, in accordance with national and Union legislation on safety and health requirements, determine the conditions under which take-back may be refused by distributors.\n(14)\nSeparate collection is a precondition for ensuring specific treatment and recycling of WEEE and is necessary to achieve the chosen level of protection of human health and the environment in the Union. Consumers have to actively contribute to the success of such collection and should be encouraged to return WEEE. For this purpose, convenient facilities should be set up for the return of WEEE, including public collection points, where private households should be able to return their waste at least free of charge. Distributors have an important role in contributing to the success of WEEE collection. Therefore, collection points set up at retail shops for very small WEEE should not be subject to the registration or permit requirements of Directive 2008/98/EC.\n(15)\nIn order to attain the chosen level of protection and the harmonised environmental objectives of the Union, Member States should adopt appropriate measures to minimise the disposal of WEEE as unsorted municipal waste and to achieve a high level of separate collection of WEEE. In order to ensure that Member States strive to set up efficient collection schemes, they should be required to achieve a high level of collection of WEEE, particularly for cooling and freezing equipment containing ozone-depleting substances and fluorinated greenhouse gases, given their high environmental impact and in view of the obligations contained in Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009. Data included in the impact assessment carried out by the Commission in 2008 show that 65 % of the EEE placed on the market was already separately collected then, but more than half of this was potentially the object of improper treatment and illegal exports, and, even when properly treated, this was not reported. This leads to losses of valuable secondary raw materials, environmental degradation, and provision of inconsistent data. To avoid this, it is necessary to set an ambitious collection target and to ensure that WEEE collected is treated in an environmentally sound way and is correctly reported. It is appropriate to lay down minimum requirements for shipments of used EEE suspected to be WEEE, in the application of which Member States may have regard to any relevant Correspondents\u2019 Guidelines elaborated in the context of the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (12). Such minimum requirements should in any case have the purpose of avoiding unwanted shipments of non-functional EEE to developing countries.\n(16)\nThe setting of ambitious collection targets should be based on the amount of WEEE generated where due account is taken of the differing life cycles of products in the Member States, of non-saturated markets and of EEE with a long life cycle. Therefore, a methodology for calculating collection rates based on WEEE generated should be developed in the near future. According to current estimates, a collection rate of 85 % of WEEE generated is broadly equivalent to a collection rate of 65 % of the average weight of EEE placed on the market in the three preceding years.\n(17)\nSpecific treatment for WEEE is indispensable in order to avoid the dispersion of pollutants in recycled material or the waste stream. Such treatment is the most effective means of ensuring compliance with the chosen level of protection of the environment of the Union. Any establishment or undertaking carrying out collection, recycling and treatment operations should comply with minimum standards to prevent negative environmental impacts associated with the treatment of WEEE. The best available treatment, recovery and recycling techniques should be used, provided that they ensure human health and a high level of environmental protection. Best available treatment, recovery and recycling techniques may be further defined in accordance with the procedures of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (13).\n(18)\nThe Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, in its opinion on \u2018Risk Assessment of Products of Nanotechnology\u2019 of 19 January 2009, stated that exposure to nanomaterials that are firmly embedded in large structures, for example in electronic circuits, may occur in the waste phase and during recycling. To control possible risks to human health and the environment from the treatment of WEEE that contains nanomaterials, it is appropriate for the Commission to assess whether specific treatment may be necessary.\n(19)\nThe collection, storage, transport, treatment and recycling of WEEE as well as its preparation for re-use shall be conducted with an approach geared to protecting the environment and human health and preserving raw materials and shall aim at recycling valuable resources contained in EEE with a view to ensuring a better supply of commodities within the Union.\n(20)\nWhere appropriate, priority should be given to preparing for re-use of WEEE and its components, sub-assemblies and consumables. Where this is not preferable, all WEEE collected separately should be sent for recovery, in the course of which a high level of recycling and recovery should be achieved. In addition, producers should be encouraged to integrate recycled material in new equipment.\n(21)\nThe recovery, preparation for re-use and recycling of WEEE should be counted towards the achievement of the targets laid down in this Directive only if that recovery, preparation for re-use or recycling does not conflict with other Union or national legislation applicable to the equipment. Ensuring proper preparation for re-use, recycling and recovery of WEEE is important for sound resource management and will optimise supply of resources.\n(22)\nBasic principles with regard to the financing of WEEE management have to be set at the level of the Union, and financing schemes have to contribute to high collection rates, as well as to the implementation of the principle of producer responsibility.\n(23)\nUsers of EEE from private households should have the possibility of returning WEEE at least free of charge. Producers should finance at least the collection from collection facilities, and the treatment, recovery and disposal of WEEE. Member States should encourage producers to take full responsibility for the WEEE collection, in particular by financing the collection of WEEE throughout the entire waste chain, including from private households, in order to avoid separately collected WEEE becoming the object of suboptimal treatment and illegal exports, to create a level playing field by harmonising producer financing across the Union and to shift payment for the collection of this waste from general tax payers to the consumers of EEE, in line with the \u2018polluter pays\u2019 principle. In order to give maximum effect to the concept of producer responsibility, each producer should be responsible for financing the management of the waste from his own products. The producer should be able to choose to fulfil this obligation either individually or by joining a collective scheme. Each producer should, when placing a product on the market, provide a financial guarantee to prevent costs for the management of WEEE from orphan products from falling on society or the remaining producers. The responsibility for the financing of the management of historical waste should be shared by all existing producers through collective financing schemes to which all producers that exist on the market when the costs occur contribute proportionately. Collective financing schemes should not have the effect of excluding niche and low-volume producers, importers and new entrants. Collective schemes could provide for differentiated fees based on how easily products and the valuable secondary raw materials that they contain could be recycled. In the case of products which have a long life cycle and which are now covered by this Directive, such as photovoltaic panels, the best possible use should be made of existing collection and recovery systems, provided that they meet the requirements laid down in this Directive.\n(24)\nProducers could be allowed to show purchasers, on a voluntary basis at the time of sale of new products, the costs of collecting, treating and disposing of WEEE in an environmentally sound way. This is in line with the Commission Communication on Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan, in particular with regard to smarter consumption and green public procurement.\n(25)\nInformation to users about the requirement not to dispose of WEEE as unsorted municipal waste and to collect WEEE separately and about the collection systems and their role in the management of WEEE is indispensable for the success of WEEE collection. Such information necessitates the proper marking of EEE which could end up in rubbish bins or similar means of municipal waste collection.\n(26)\nInformation on component and material identification to be provided by producers is important to facilitate the management, and in particular the treatment and recovery or recycling, of WEEE.\n(27)\nMember States should ensure that inspection and monitoring infrastructure enables the proper implementation of this Directive to be verified, having regard, inter alia, to Recommendation 2001/331/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States (14).\n(28)\nMember States should provide for effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties to be imposed on natural and legal persons responsible for waste management, where they infringe the provisions of this Directive. Member States should also be able to take action to recover the costs of non-compliance and remedial measures, without prejudice to Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (15).\n(29)\nInformation about the weight of EEE placed on the market in the Union and the rates of collection, preparation for re-use, including as far as possible preparation for re-use of whole appliances, recovery or recycling and export of WEEE collected in accordance with this Directive is necessary to monitor the achievement of the objectives of this Directive. For the purposes of calculating collection rates, a common methodology for the calculation of weight of EEE should be developed to ascertain, inter alia, whether this term includes the actual weight of the entire equipment in the form in which it is marketed, including all components, sub-assemblies, accessories and consumables but excluding packaging, batteries, instructions for use and manuals.\n(30)\nIt is appropriate to allow Member States to choose to implement certain provisions of this Directive by means of agreements between the competent authorities and the economic sectors concerned, provided that particular requirements are met.\n(31)\nIn order to address difficulties faced by Member States in achieving the collection rates, to take into account technical and scientific progress and to supplement the provisions on fulfilment of recovery targets, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) should be delegated to the Commission in respect of transitional adjustments for certain Member States, adaptation to technical and scientific progress and the adoption of detailed rules on WEEE exported out of the Union counting towards the fulfilment of recovery targets. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(32)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (16).\n(33)\nThe obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive change as compared with the earlier Directives. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under the earlier Directives.\n(34)\nIn accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents (17), Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments. With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of such documents to be justified.\n(35)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law and application of the Directives set out in Annex XI, Part B.\n(36)\nSince the objective of this Directive cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale of the problem, be better achieved at the level of the Union, 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,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Directive lays down measures to protect the environment and human health by preventing or reducing the adverse impacts of the generation and management of waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and by reducing overall impacts of resource use and improving the efficiency of such use in accordance with Articles 1 and 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC, thereby contributing to sustainable development.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Directive shall apply to electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) as follows:\n(a)\nfrom 13 August 2012 to 14 August 2018 (transitional period), subject to paragraph 3, to EEE falling within the categories set out in Annex I. Annex II contains an indicative list of EEE which falls within the categories set out in Annex I;\n(b)\nfrom 15 August 2018, subject to paragraphs 3 and 4, to all EEE. All EEE shall be classified within the categories set out in Annex III. Annex IV contains a non-exhaustive list of EEE which falls within the categories set out in Annex III (open scope).\n2. This Directive shall apply without prejudice to the requirements of Union legislation on safety and health, on chemicals, in particular Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency (18), as well as of specific Union waste management or product design legislation.\n3. This Directive shall not apply to any of the following EEE:\n(a)\nequipment which is necessary for the protection of the essential interests of the security of Member States, including arms, munitions and war material intended for specifically military purposes;\n(b)\nequipment which is specifically designed and installed as part of another type of equipment that is excluded from or does not fall within the scope of this Directive, which can fulfil its function only if it is part of that equipment;\n(c)\nfilament bulbs.\n4. In addition to the equipment specified in paragraph 3, from 15 August 2018, this Directive shall not apply to the following EEE:\n(a)\nequipment designed to be sent into space;\n(b)\nlarge-scale stationary industrial tools;\n(c)\nlarge-scale fixed installations, except any equipment which is not specifically designed and installed as part of those installations;\n(d)\nmeans of transport for persons or goods, excluding electric two-wheel vehicles which are not type-approved;\n(e)\nnon-road mobile machinery made available exclusively for professional use;\n(f)\nequipment specifically designed solely for the purposes of research and development that is only made available on a business-to-business basis;\n(g)\nmedical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices, where such devices are expected to be infective prior to end of life, and active implantable medical devices.\n5. No later than 14 August 2015, the Commission shall review the scope of this Directive set out in point (b) of paragraph 1, including the parameters to distinguish between large and small equipment in Annex III, and shall present a report thereon to the European Parliament and to the Council. The report shall be accompanied by a legislative proposal, if appropriate.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018electrical and electronic equipment\u2019 or \u2018EEE\u2019 means equipment which is dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields in order to work properly and equipment for the generation, transfer and measurement of such currents and fields and designed for use with a voltage rating not exceeding 1 000 volts for alternating current and 1 500 volts for direct current;\n(b)\n\u2018large-scale stationary industrial tools\u2019 means a large size assembly of machines, equipment, and/or components, functioning together for a specific application, permanently installed and de-installed by professionals at a given place, and used and maintained by professionals in an industrial manufacturing facility or research and development facility;\n(c)\n\u2018large-scale fixed installation\u2019 means a large-size combination of several types of apparatus and, where applicable, other devices, which:\n(i)\nare assembled, installed and de-installed by professionals;\n(ii)\nare intended to be used permanently as part of a building or a structure at a pre-defined and dedicated location; and\n(iii)\ncan only be replaced by the same specifically designed equipment;\n(d)\n\u2018non-road mobile machinery\u2019 means machinery, with on-board power source, the operation of which requires either mobility or continuous or semi-continuous movement between a succession of fixed working locations while working;\n(e)\n\u2018waste electrical and electronic equipment\u2019 or \u2018WEEE\u2019 means electrical or electronic equipment which is waste within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC, including all components, sub-assemblies and consumables which are part of the product at the time of discarding;\n(f)\n\u2018producer\u2019 means any natural or legal person who, irrespective of the selling technique used, including distance communication within the meaning of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (19):\n(i)\nis established in a Member State and manufactures EEE under his own name or trademark, or has EEE designed or manufactured and markets it under his name or trademark within the territory of that Member State;\n(ii)\nis established in a Member State and resells within the territory of that Member State, under his own name or trademark, equipment produced by other suppliers, a reseller not being regarded as the \u2018producer\u2019 if the brand of the producer appears on the equipment, as provided for in point (i);\n(iii)\nis established in a Member State and places on the market of that Member State, on a professional basis, EEE from a third country or from another Member State; or\n(iv)\nsells EEE by means of distance communication directly to private households or to users other than private households in a Member State, and is established in another Member State or in a third country.\nWhoever exclusively provides financing under or pursuant to any finance agreement shall not be deemed to be a \u2018producer\u2019 unless he also acts as a producer within the meaning of points (i) to (iv);\n(g)\n\u2018distributor\u2019 means any natural or legal person in the supply chain, who makes an EEE available on the market. This definition does not prevent a distributor from being, at the same time, a producer within the meaning of point (f);\n(h)\n\u2018WEEE from private households\u2019 means WEEE which comes from private households and WEEE which comes from commercial, industrial, institutional and other sources which, because of its nature and quantity, is similar to that from private households. Waste from EEE likely to be used by both private households and users other than private households shall in any event be considered to be WEEE from private households;\n(i)\n\u2018finance agreement\u2019 means any loan, lease, hiring or deferred sale agreement or arrangement relating to any equipment whether or not the terms of that agreement or arrangement or any collateral agreement or arrangement provide that a transfer of ownership of that equipment will or may take place;\n(j)\n\u2018making available on the market\u2019 means any supply of a product for distribution, consumption or use on the market of a Member State in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge;\n(k)\n\u2018placing on the market\u2019 means the first making available of a product on the market within the territory of a Member State on a professional basis;\n(l)\n\u2018removal\u2019 means manual, mechanical, chemical or metallurgic handling with the result that hazardous substances, mixtures and components are contained in an identifiable stream or are an identifiable part of a stream within the treatment process. A substance, mixture or component is identifiable if it can be monitored to verify environmentally safe treatment;\n(m)\n\u2018medical device\u2019 means a medical device or accessory within the meaning of, respectively, point (a) or (b) of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (20) which is EEE;\n(n)\n\u2018in vitro diagnostic medical device\u2019 means an in vitro diagnostic device or accessory within the meaning of, respectively, point (b) or (c) of Article 1(2) of Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (21) which is EEE;\n(o)\n\u2018active implantable medical device\u2019 means an active implantable medical device within the meaning of point (c) of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices (22) which is EEE.\n2. In addition, the definitions of \u2018hazardous waste\u2019, \u2018collection\u2019, \u2018separate collection\u2019, \u2018prevention\u2019, \u2018re-use\u2019, \u2018treatment\u2019, \u2018recovery\u2019, \u2018preparing for re-use\u2019, \u2018recycling\u2019 and \u2018disposal\u2019 laid down in Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC shall apply.\nArticle 4\nProduct design\nMember States shall, without prejudice to the requirements of Union legislation on the proper functioning of the internal market and on product design, including Directive 2009/125/EC, encourage cooperation between producers and recyclers and measures to promote the design and production of EEE, notably in view of facilitating re-use, dismantling and recovery of WEEE, its components and materials. In this context, Member States shall take appropriate measures so that the ecodesign requirements facilitating re-use and treatment of WEEE established in the framework of Directive 2009/125/EC are applied and producers do not prevent, through specific design features or manufacturing processes, WEEE from being re-used, unless such specific design features or manufacturing processes present overriding advantages, for example, with regard to the protection of the environment and/or safety requirements.\nArticle 5\nSeparate collection\n1. Member States shall adopt appropriate measures to minimise the disposal of WEEE in the form of unsorted municipal waste, to ensure the correct treatment of all collected WEEE and to achieve a high level of separate collection of WEEE, notably, and as a matter of priority, for temperature exchange equipment containing ozone-depleting substances and fluorinated greenhouse gases, fluorescent lamps containing mercury, photovoltaic panels and small equipment as referred to in categories 5 and 6 of Annex III.\n2. For WEEE from private households, Member States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nsystems are set up allowing final holders and distributors to return such waste at least free of charge. Member States shall ensure the availability and accessibility of the necessary collection facilities, taking into account, in particular, the population density;\n(b)\nwhen supplying a new product, distributors are responsible for ensuring that such waste can be returned to the distributor at least free of charge on a one-to-one basis as long as the equipment is of equivalent type and has fulfilled the same functions as the supplied equipment. Member States may derogate from this provision provided that they ensure that returning the WEEE is not thereby made more difficult for the final holder and that it remains free of charge for the final holder. Member States making use of this derogation shall inform the Commission thereof;\n(c)\ndistributors provide for the collection, at retail shops with sales areas relating to EEE of at least 400 m2, or in their immediate proximity, of very small WEEE (no external dimension more than 25 cm) free of charge to end-users and with no obligation to buy EEE of an equivalent type, unless an assessment shows that alternative existing collection schemes are likely to be at least as effective. Such assessments shall be available to the public. WEEE collected shall be properly treated in accordance with Article 8;\n(d)\nwithout prejudice to points (a), (b) and (c), producers are allowed to set up and to operate individual and/or collective take-back systems for WEEE from private households provided that these are in line with the objectives of this Directive;\n(e)\nhaving regard to national and Union health and safety standards, WEEE that presents a health and safety risk to personnel because of contamination may be refused for return under points (a), (b) and (c). Member States shall make specific arrangements for such WEEE.\nMember States may provide for specific arrangements for the return of WEEE pursuant to points (a), (b) and (c) for cases in which the equipment does not contain its essential components or if the equipment contains waste other than WEEE.\n3. Member States may designate the operators that are allowed to collect WEEE from private households as referred to in paragraph 2.\n4. Member States may require that the WEEE deposited at collection facilities referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 is handed over to producers or third parties acting on their behalf or is handed over, for purposes of preparing for re-use, to designated establishments or undertakings.\n5. In the case of WEEE other than WEEE from private households, and without prejudice to Article 13, Member States shall ensure that producers or third parties acting on their behalf provide for the collection of such waste.\nArticle 6\nDisposal and transport of collected WEEE\n1. Member States shall prohibit the disposal of separately collected WEEE which has not yet undergone the treatment specified in Article 8.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the collection and transport of separately collected WEEE is carried out in a way which allows optimal conditions for preparing for re-use, recycling and the confinement of hazardous substances.\nIn order to maximise preparing for re-use, Member States shall promote that, prior to any further transfer, collection schemes or facilities provide, where appropriate, for the separation at the collection points of WEEE that is to be prepared for re-use from other separately collected WEEE, in particular by granting access for personnel from re-use centres.\nArticle 7\nCollection rate\n1. Without prejudice to Article 5(1), each Member State shall ensure the implementation of the \u2018producer responsibility\u2019 principle and, on that basis, that a minimum collection rate is achieved annually. From 2016, the minimum collection rate shall be 45 % calculated on the basis of the total weight of WEEE collected in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 in a given year in the Member State concerned, expressed as a percentage of the average weight of EEE placed on the market in the three preceding years in that Member State. Member States shall ensure that the volume of WEEE collected evolves gradually during the period from 2016 to 2019, unless the collection rate laid down in the second subparagraph has already been achieved.\nFrom 2019, the minimum collection rate to be achieved annually shall be 65 % of the average weight of EEE placed on the market in the three preceding years in the Member State concerned, or alternatively 85 % of WEEE generated on the territory of that Member State.\nUntil 31 December 2015, a rate of separate collection of at least 4 kilograms on average per inhabitant per year of WEEE from private households or the same amount of weight of WEEE as was collected in that Member State on average in the three preceding years, whichever is greater, shall continue to apply.\nMember States may set more ambitious rates for separate collection of WEEE and shall in such a case report this to the Commission.\n2. In order to establish whether the minimum collection rate has been achieved, Member States shall ensure that information concerning the WEEE that is separately collected in accordance with Article 5 is transmitted to the Member States free of charge, including at least information on WEEE that has been:\n(a)\nreceived by collection and treatment facilities;\n(b)\nreceived by distributors;\n(c)\nseparately collected by producers or third parties acting on their behalf.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia may, because of their lack of the necessary infrastructure and their low level of EEE consumption, decide to:\n(a)\nachieve, from 14 August 2016, a collection rate that is lower than 45 % but higher than 40 % of the average weight of EEE placed on the market in the three preceding years; and\n(b)\npostpone the achievement of the collection rate referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 until a date of their own choice which shall not be later than 14 August 2021.\n4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 20 laying down the necessary transitional adjustments in order to address difficulties faced by Member States in adhering to the requirements laid down in paragraph 1.\n5. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Article, the Commission shall, by 14 August 2015, adopt implementing acts establishing a common methodology for the calculation of the weight of EEE placed on the national market and a common methodology for the calculation of the quantity of WEEE generated by weight in each Member State. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 21(2).\n6. The Commission shall, by 14 August 2015, present a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the re-examination of the deadlines relating to the collection rates referred to in paragraph 1 and on possibly setting individual collection rates for one or more categories set out in Annex III, particularly for temperature exchange equipment, photovoltaic panels, small equipment, small IT and telecommunication equipment and lamps containing mercury. The report shall, if appropriate, be accompanied by a legislative proposal.\n7. If the Commission considers, on the basis of an impact study, that the collection rate based on WEEE generated requires revision, it shall submit a legislative proposal to the European Parliament and the Council.\nArticle 8\nProper treatment\n1. Member States shall ensure that all separately collected WEEE undergoes proper treatment.\n2. Proper treatment, other than preparing for re-use, and recovery or recycling operations shall, as a minimum, include the removal of all fluids and a selective treatment in accordance with Annex VII.\n3. Member States shall ensure that producers or third parties acting on their behalf set up systems to provide for the recovery of WEEE using best available techniques. The systems may be set up by producers individually or collectively. Member States shall ensure that any establishment or undertaking carrying out collection or treatment operations stores and treats WEEE in compliance with the technical requirements set out in Annex VIII.\n4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 20 concerning the amendment of Annex VII in order to introduce other treatment technologies that ensure at least the same level of protection for human health and the environment.\nThe Commission shall evaluate, as a matter of priority, whether the entries regarding printed circuit boards for mobile phones and liquid crystal displays need to be amended. The Commission is invited to evaluate whether amendments to Annex VII are necessary to address nanomaterials contained in EEE.\n5. For the purposes of environmental protection, Member States may set up minimum quality standards for the treatment of the WEEE that has been collected.\nMember States which opt for such quality standards shall inform the Commission thereof, which shall publish these standards.\nThe Commission shall, not later than 14 February 2013, request the European standardisation organisations to develop European standards for the treatment, including recovery, recycling and preparing for re-use, of WEEE. Those standards shall reflect the state of the art.\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Article, the Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down minimum quality standards based in particular on the standards developed by the European standardisation organisations. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 21(2).\nA reference to the standards adopted by the Commission shall be published.\n6. Member States shall encourage establishments or undertakings which carry out treatment operations to introduce certified environmental management systems in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) (23).\nArticle 9\nPermits\n1. Member States shall ensure that any establishment or undertaking carrying out treatment operations obtains a permit from the competent authorities in compliance with Article 23 of Directive 2008/98/EC.\n2. Exemptions from permit requirements, conditions for exemptions and registration shall be in compliance, respectively, with Articles 24, 25 and 26 of Directive 2008/98/EC.\n3. Member States shall ensure that the permit or the registration referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 includes all the conditions that are necessary for compliance with the requirements of Article 8(2), (3) and (5) and for the achievement of the recovery targets set out in Article 11.\nArticle 10\nShipments of WEEE\n1. The treatment operation may also be undertaken outside the respective Member State or the Union provided that the shipment of WEEE is in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 of 29 November 2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council to certain countries to which the OECD Decision on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply (24).\n2. WEEE exported out of the Union shall only count towards the fulfilment of obligations and targets set out in Article 11 of this Directive if, in compliance with Regulations (EC) No 1013/2006 and (EC) No 1418/2007, the exporter can prove that the treatment took place in conditions that are equivalent to the requirements of this Directive.\n3. The Commission shall, not later than 14 February 2014, adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 20, laying down detailed rules supplementing those in paragraph 2 of this Article, in particular the criteria for the assessment of equivalent conditions.\nArticle 11\nRecovery targets\n1. Regarding all WEEE separately collected in accordance with Article 5 and sent for treatment in accordance with Articles 8, 9 and 10, Member States shall ensure that producers meet the minimum targets set out in Annex V.\n2. The achievement of the targets shall be calculated, for each category, by dividing the weight of the WEEE that enters the recovery or recycling/preparing for re-use facility, after proper treatment in accordance with Article 8(2) with regard to recovery or recycling, by the weight of all separately collected WEEE for each category, expressed as a percentage.\nPreliminary activities including sorting and storage prior to recovery shall not count towards the achievement of these targets.\n3. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Article, the Commission may adopt implementing acts establishing additional rules on the calculation methods for the application of the minimum targets. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 21(2).\n4. Member States shall ensure that, for the purpose of calculating these targets, producers or third parties acting on their behalf keep records on the weight of WEEE, its components, materials or substances when leaving (output) the collection facility, entering (input) and leaving (output) the treatment facilities and when entering (input) the recovery or recycling/preparing for re-use facility.\nMember States shall also ensure that, for the purposes of paragraph 6, records on the weight of products and materials when leaving (output) the recovery or recycling/preparing for re-use facility are kept.\n5. Member States shall encourage the development of new recovery, recycling and treatment technologies.\n6. On the basis of a report of the Commission accompanied, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal, the European Parliament and the Council shall, by 14 August 2016, re-examine the recovery targets referred to in Annex V, Part 3, examine the possibility of setting separate targets for WEEE to be prepared for re-use and re-examine the calculation method referred to in paragraph 2 with a view to analysing the feasibility of setting targets on the basis of products and materials resulting (output) from the recovery, recycling and preparation for re-use processes.\nArticle 12\nFinancing in respect of WEEE from private households\n1. Member States shall ensure that producers provide at least for the financing of the collection, treatment, recovery and environmentally sound disposal of WEEE from private households that has been deposited at collection facilities set up under Article 5(2).\n2. Member States may, where appropriate, encourage producers to finance also the costs occurring for collection of WEEE from private households to collection facilities.\n3. For products placed on the market later than 13 August 2005, each producer shall be responsible for financing the operations referred to in paragraph 1 relating to the waste from his own products. The producer may choose to fulfil this obligation either individually or by joining a collective scheme.\nMember States shall ensure that each producer provides a guarantee when placing a product on the market showing that the management of all WEEE will be financed and shall ensure that producers clearly mark their products in accordance with Article 15(2). This guarantee shall ensure that the operations referred to in paragraph 1 relating to this product will be financed. The guarantee may take the form of participation by the producer in appropriate schemes for the financing of the management of WEEE, a recycling insurance or a blocked bank account.\n4. The responsibility for the financing of the costs of the management of WEEE from products placed on the market on or before 13 August 2005 (\u2018historical waste\u2019) shall be borne by one or more systems to which all producers existing on the market when the respective costs occur contribute proportionately, e.g. in proportion to their respective share of the market by type of equipment.\n5. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that appropriate mechanisms or refund procedures are developed for the reimbursement of contributions to the producers where EEE is transferred for placing on the market outside the territory of the Member State concerned. Such mechanisms or procedures may be developed by producers or third parties acting on their behalf.\n6. The Commission is invited to report, by 14 August 2015, on the possibility of developing criteria to incorporate the real end-of-life costs into the financing of WEEE by producers, and to submit a legislative proposal to the European Parliament and the Council if appropriate.\nArticle 13\nFinancing in respect of WEEE from users other than private households\n1. Member States shall ensure that the financing of the costs for the collection, treatment, recovery and environmentally sound disposal of WEEE from users other than private households resulting from products placed on the market after 13 August 2005 is to be provided for by producers.\nFor historical waste being replaced by new equivalent products or by new products fulfilling the same function, the financing of the costs shall be provided for by producers of those products when supplying them. Member States may, as an alternative, provide that users other than private households also be made, partly or totally, responsible for this financing.\nFor other historical waste, the financing of the costs shall be provided for by the users other than private households.\n2. Producers and users other than private households may, without prejudice to this Directive, conclude agreements stipulating other financing methods.\nArticle 14\nInformation for users\n1. Member States may require producers to show purchasers, at the time of sale of new products, the costs of collection, treatment and disposal in an environmentally sound way. The costs mentioned shall not exceed the best estimate of the actual costs incurred.\n2. Member States shall ensure that users of EEE in private households are given the necessary information about:\n(a)\nthe requirement not to dispose of WEEE as unsorted municipal waste and to collect such WEEE separately;\n(b)\nthe return and collection systems available to them, encouraging the coordination of information on the available collection points irrespective of the producers or other operators which have set them up;\n(c)\ntheir role in contributing to re-use, recycling and other forms of recovery of WEEE;\n(d)\nthe potential effects on the environment and human health as a result of the presence of hazardous substances in EEE;\n(e)\nthe meaning of the symbol shown in Annex IX.\n3. Member States shall adopt appropriate measures so that consumers participate in the collection of WEEE and to encourage them to facilitate the process of re-use, treatment and recovery.\n4. With a view to minimising the disposal of WEEE as unsorted municipal waste and to facilitating its separate collection, Member States shall ensure that producers appropriately mark - preferably in accordance with the European standard EN 50419 (25) - EEE placed on the market with the symbol shown in Annex IX. In exceptional cases, where this is necessary because of the size or the function of the product, the symbol shall be printed on the packaging, on the instructions for use and on the warranty of the EEE.\n5. Member States may require that some or all of the information referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 shall be provided by producers and/or distributors, e.g. in the instructions for use, at the point of sale and through public awareness campaigns.\nArticle 15\nInformation for treatment facilities\n1. In order to facilitate the preparation for re-use and the correct and environmentally sound treatment of WEEE, including maintenance, upgrade, refurbishment and recycling, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that producers provide information free of charge about preparation for re-use and treatment in respect of each type of new EEE placed for the first time on the Union market within one year after the equipment is placed on the market. This information shall identify, as far as it is needed by centres which prepare for re-use and treatment and recycling facilities in order to comply with the provisions of this Directive, the different EEE components and materials, as well as the location of dangerous substances and mixtures in EEE. It shall be made available to centres which prepare for re-use and treatment and recycling facilities by producers of EEE in the form of manuals or by means of electronic media (e.g. CD-ROM, online services).\n2. In order to enable the date upon which the EEE was placed on the market to be determined unequivocally, Member States shall ensure that a mark on the EEE specifies that the latter was placed on the market after 13 August 2005. Preferably, the European Standard EN 50419 shall be applied for this purpose.\nArticle 16\nRegistration, information and reporting\n1. Member States shall, in accordance with paragraph 2, draw up a register of producers, including producers supplying EEE by means of distance communication. That register shall serve to monitor compliance with the requirements of this Directive.\nProducers supplying EEE by means of distance communication as defined in Article 3(1)(f)(iv) shall be registered in the Member State that they sell to. Where such producers are not registered in the Member State that they are selling to, they shall be registered through their authorised representatives as referred to in Article 17(2).\n2. Member States shall ensure that:\n(a)\neach producer, or each authorised representative where appointed under Article 17, is registered as required and has the possibility of entering online in their national register all relevant information reflecting that producer\u2019s activities in that Member State;\n(b)\nupon registering, each producer, or each authorised representative where appointed under Article 17, provides the information set out in Annex X, Part A, undertaking to update it as appropriate;\n(c)\neach producer, or each authorised representative where appointed under Article 17, provides the information set out in Annex X, Part B;\n(d)\nnational registers provide links to other national registers on their website to facilitate, in all Member States, registration of producers or, where appointed under Article 17, authorised representatives.\n3. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Article, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts establishing the format for registration and reporting and the frequency of reporting to the register. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 21(2).\n4. Member States shall collect information, including substantiated estimates, on an annual basis, on the quantities and categories of EEE placed on their markets, collected through all routes, prepared for re-use, recycled and recovered within the Member State, and on separately collected WEEE exported, by weight.\n5. Member States shall, at three-year intervals, send a report to the Commission on the implementation of this Directive and on the information set out in paragraph 4. The implementation report shall be drawn up on the basis of a questionnaire laid down in Commission Decisions 2004/249/EC (26) and 2005/369/EC (27). The report shall be made available to the Commission within nine months of the end of the three-year period covered by it.\nThe first report shall cover the period from 14 February 2014 to 31 December 2015.\nThe Commission shall publish a report on the implementation of this Directive within nine months after receiving the reports from the Member States.\nArticle 17\nAuthorised representative\n1. Each Member State shall ensure that a producer as defined in Article 3(1)(f)(i) to (iii) established in another Member State is allowed, by way of exception to Article 3(1)(f)(i) to (iii), to appoint a legal or natural person established on its territory as the authorised representative that is responsible for fulfilling the obligations of that producer, pursuant to this Directive, on its territory.\n2. Each Member State shall ensure that a producer as defined in Article 3(1)(f)(iv) and established on its territory, which sells EEE to another Member State in which it is not established, appoints an authorised representative in that Member State as the person responsible for fulfilling the obligations of that producer, pursuant to this Directive, on the territory of that Member State.\n3. Appointment of an authorised representative shall be by written mandate.\nArticle 18\nAdministrative cooperation and exchange of information\nMember States shall ensure that authorities responsible for implementing this Directive cooperate with each other, in particular to establish an adequate flow of information to ensure that producers comply with the provisions of this Directive and, where appropriate, provide each other and the Commission with information in order to facilitate the proper implementation of this Directive. The administrative cooperation and exchange of information, in particular between national registers, shall include electronic means of communication.\nCooperation shall include, inter alia, granting access to the relevant documents and information including the results of any inspections, subject to the provisions of the data protection law in force in the Member State of the authority which is requested to cooperate.\nArticle 19\nAdaptation to scientific and technical progress\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 20 concerning the amendments necessary in order to adapt Article 16(5) and Annexes IV, VII, VIII and IX to scientific and technical progress. When amending Annex VII, the exemptions granted under Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (28) shall be taken into consideration.\nBefore the Annexes are amended, the Commission shall, inter alia, consult producers of EEE, recyclers, treatment operators and environmental organisations and employees\u2019 and consumer associations.\nArticle 20\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 7(4), Article 8(4), Article 10(3) and Article 19 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from 13 August 2012. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 7(4), Article 8(4), Article 10(3) and Article 19 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 7(4), Article 8(4), Article 10(3) and Article 19 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 21\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee established by Article 39 of Directive 2008/98/EC. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nWhere the committee delivers no opinion, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act and the third subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 22\nPenalties\nThe Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission by 14 February 2014 at the latest and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.\nArticle 23\nInspection and monitoring\n1. Member States shall carry out appropriate inspections and monitoring to verify the proper implementation of this Directive.\nThose inspections shall at least cover:\n(a)\ninformation reported in the framework of the register of producers;\n(b)\nshipments, in particular exports of WEEE outside the Union in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007; and\n(c)\nthe operations at treatment facilities in accordance with Directive 2008/98/EC and Annex VII of this Directive.\n2. Member States shall ensure that shipments of used EEE suspected to be WEEE are carried out in accordance with the minimum requirements in Annex VI and shall monitor such shipments accordingly.\n3. The costs of appropriate analyses and inspections, including storage costs, of used EEE suspected to be WEEE may be charged to the producers, to third parties acting on their behalf or to other persons arranging the shipment of used EEE suspected to be WEEE.\n4. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Article and of Annex VI, the Commission may adopt implementing acts establishing additional rules on inspections and monitoring and in particular uniform conditions for the implementation of Annex VI, point 2. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 21(2).\nArticle 24\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 14 February 2014. They shall immediately communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. They shall also include a statement that references in existing laws, regulations and administrative provisions to the directives repealed by this Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made and how that statement is to be formulated.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\n3. Provided that the objectives set out in this Directive are achieved, Member States may transpose the provisions set out in Article 8(6), Article 14(2) and Article 15 by means of agreements between the competent authorities and the economic sectors concerned. Such agreements shall meet the following requirements:\n(a)\nagreements shall be enforceable;\n(b)\nagreements shall specify objectives with the corresponding deadlines;\n(c)\nagreements shall be published in the national official journal or an official document equally accessible to the public and transmitted to the Commission;\n(d)\nthe results achieved shall be monitored regularly, reported to the competent authorities and the Commission and made available to the public under the conditions set out in the agreement;\n(e)\nthe competent authorities shall ensure that the progress achieved under the agreement is examined;\n(f)\nin the case of non-compliance with the agreement, Member States must implement the relevant provisions of this Directive by legislative, regulatory or administrative measures.\nArticle 25\nRepeal\nDirective 2002/96/EC as amended by the Directives listed in Annex XI, Part A is repealed with effect from 15 February 2014, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law and application of the Directives set out in Annex XI, Part B.\nReferences to the repealed Directives shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex XII.\nArticle 26\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 27\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["5", "19", "64", "77", "18", "32", "61", "85", "2", "73", "33", "94", "56", "42", "1", "83", "51", "35", "25", "90", "6", "30", "7", "80", "65", "38", "59", "91", "84", "13", "No Label", "58", "60", "86"], "gold": ["58", "60", "86"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1232/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (2) requires dual-use items (including software and technology) to be subject to effective control when they are exported from or transit through the Union, or are delivered to a third country as a result of brokering services provided by a broker resident or established in the Union.\n(2)\nIt is desirable to achieve uniform and consistent application of controls throughout the Union in order to avoid unfair competition among Union exporters, harmonise the scope of Union General Export Authorisations and conditions of their use among Union exporters and ensure efficiency and effectiveness of the security controls in the Union.\n(3)\nIn its communication of 18 December 2006, the Commission put forward the idea of the creation of new Union General Export Authorisations in a bid to enhance the industry\u2019s competitiveness and establish a level playing field for all Union exporters when they export certain specific dual-use items to certain specific destinations while at the same time ensuring a high level of security and full compliance with international obligations.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 428/2009 repealed Council Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 of 22 June 2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology (3) with effect from 27 August 2009. However, the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 continue to apply for export authorisation applications made before that date.\n(5)\nIn order to create new Union General Export Authorisations for the export of certain specific dual-use items to certain specific destinations, the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 need to be amended by adding new Annexes thereto.\n(6)\nThe competent authorities of the Member State where the exporter is established should be provided with the possibility of prohibiting the use of the Union General Export Authorisations under the conditions set out in Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 as amended by this Regulation.\n(7)\nSince the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, arms embargoes under the Union\u2019s common foreign and security policy are adopted by Council decisions. Pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, the legal effects of common positions adopted by the Council under Title V of the Treaty on European Union prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are to be preserved until they are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 428/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 428/2009 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2, point 9 is replaced by the following:\n\u20189.\n\u201cUnion General Export Authorisation\u201d shall mean an export authorisation for exports to certain countries of destination available to all exporters who respect its conditions and requirements for use as listed in Annexes IIa to IIf.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 4(2), the words \u2018decided by a common position or a joint action\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018imposed by a decision or a common position\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 9 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Union General Export Authorisations for certain exports as set out in Annexes IIa to IIf are established by this Regulation.\nThe competent authorities of the Member State where the exporter is established can prohibit the exporter from using these authorisations if there is reasonable suspicion about his ability to comply with such authorisation or with a provision of the export control legislation.\nThe competent authorities of the Member States shall exchange information on exporters deprived of the right to use a Union General Export Authorisation, unless they determine that the exporter will not attempt to export dual-use items through another Member State. The system referred to in Article 19(4) shall be used for this purpose.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 4, point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nexclude from their scope items listed in Annex IIg\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 4(c), the words \u2018decided by a common position or joint action\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018imposed by a decision or a common position\u2019;\n(4)\nin the first sentence of Article 11(1), the reference to \u2018Annex II\u2019 is replaced by a reference to \u2018Annex IIa\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 12(1)(b), the words \u2018a common position or joint action\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018a decision or a common position\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 13, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. All notifications required pursuant to this Article shall be made via secure electronic means including the system referred to in Article 19(4).\u2019;\n(7)\nArticle 19 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2(a), the words \u2018Community General Export Authorisations\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018Union General Export Authorisations\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. A secure and encrypted system for the exchange of information between Member States and, whenever appropriate, the Commission shall be set up by the Commission, in consultation with the Dual-Use Coordination Group set up pursuant to Article 23. The European Parliament shall be informed about the system\u2019s budget, development, provisional and final set-up and functioning, and network costs.\u2019;\n(8)\nin Article 23, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. The Commission shall submit an annual report to the European Parliament on the activities, examinations and consultations of the Dual-Use Coordination Group, which shall be subject to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (4).\n(9)\nArticle 25 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 25\n1. Each Member State shall inform the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted in implementation of this Regulation, including the measures referred to in Article 24. The Commission shall forward the information to the other Member States.\n2. Every 3 years the Commission shall review the implementation of this Regulation and present a comprehensive implementation and impact assessment report to the European Parliament and the Council, which may include proposals for its amendment. Member States shall provide to the Commission all appropriate information for the preparation of the report.\n3. Special sections of the report shall deal with:\n(a)\nthe Dual-Use Coordination Group and its activities. Information that the Commission provides on the Dual-Use Coordination Group\u2019s examinations and consultations shall be treated as confidential pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Information shall in any case be considered to be confidential if its disclosure is likely to have a significantly adverse effect upon the supplier or the source of such information;\n(b)\nthe implementation of Article 19(4), and shall report on the stage reached in the set-up of the secure and encrypted system for the exchange of information between Member States and the Commission;\n(c)\nthe implementation of Article 15(1);\n(d)\nthe implementation of Article 15(2);\n(e)\ncomprehensive information provided on the measures taken by the Member States pursuant to Article 24 and notified to the Commission under paragraph 1 of this Article.\n4. No later than 31 December 2013, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report evaluating the implementation of this Regulation with a specific focus on the implementation of Annex IIb, Union General Export Authorisation No EU002, accompanied by, if appropriate, a legislative proposal to amend this Regulation, in particular as regards the issue of low-value shipments.\u2019;\n(10)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 25a\nWithout prejudice to the provisions on mutual administrative assistance agreements or protocols in customs matters concluded between the Union and third countries, the Council may authorise the Commission to negotiate with third countries agreements providing for the mutual recognition of export controls of dual-use items covered by this Regulation and in particular to eliminate authorisation requirements for re-exports within the territory of the Union. These negotiations shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures established in Article 207(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, as appropriate.\u2019;\n(11)\nAnnex II is renumbered as Annex IIa and is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n\u2018UNION GENERAL EXPORT AUTHORISATION NO EU001\n(referred to in Article 9(1) of this Regulation)\nExports to Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, including Liechtenstein, and United States of America\nIssuing authority: European Union\u2019;\n(b)\nPart 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Part 1\nThis general export authorisation covers all dual-use items specified in any entry in Annex I to this Regulation, except those listed in Annex IIg.\u2019;\n(c)\nPart 2 is deleted;\n(d)\nPart 3 is renumbered as Part 2 and is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin the first paragraph, the word \u2018Community\u2019 is replaced by the word \u2018Union\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe word \u2018Switzerland\u2019 is replaced by the words \u2018Switzerland, including Liechtenstein\u2019;\n(iii)\nthe words \u2018the Community General Export Authorisation\u2019 and \u2018this Community General Export Authorisation\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018this authorisation\u2019;\n(iv)\nthe words \u2018decided by a common position or joint action\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018imposed by a decision or a common position\u2019;\n(12)\nAnnexes IIb to IIg, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation, are inserted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 30th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["77", "56", "89", "21", "38", "54", "3", "78", "88", "4", "27", "79", "97", "71", "72", "0", "60", "80", "31", "51", "47", "95", "92", "74", "40", "83", "17", "30", "99", "50", "No Label", "5", "20", "22", "76", "81"], "gold": ["5", "20", "22", "76", "81"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1183/2010\nof 14 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["93", "33", "75", "55", "37", "34", "59", "10", "95", "44", "54", "57", "98", "85", "86", "20", "97", "76", "9", "58", "29", "50", "90", "41", "24", "51", "88", "49", "78", "46", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 644/2011\nof 1 July 2011\nopening tendering procedure No 1/2011 EU for the sale of wine alcohol for new industrial uses\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 491/2009 of 25 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (2) stipulates that Article 128(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine, amending Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999, (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 3/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2392/86 and (EC) No 1493/1999 (3) continues to apply even though the latter regulation has been repealed.\n(2)\nArticle 128 of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 stipulates that the measures concerning market mechanisms set out in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (4) continue to apply even if the latter regulation is repealed, if those measures have been initiated or undertaken by 1 August 2008. Similarly, pursuant to Article 103 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine (5) as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector, the relevant rules set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms (6) continue to apply even though Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 has been repealed, in so far as those rules relate to measures commenced before 1 August 2008.\n(3)\nStocks of wine alcohol acquired before 1 August 2008 must be disposed of. In accordance with Article 128(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 and Article 103(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 555/2008, Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 and Chapter IV of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 continue to apply for this measure.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1623/2000 lays down, inter alia, the detailed rules for disposing of stocks of alcohol arising from distillation pursuant to Articles 27, 28 and 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 held by intervention agencies.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 80 of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000, a tendering procedure should be organised for the sale of wine alcohol for new industrial uses with a view to reducing the stocks of wine alcohol in the Union and enabling small-scale industrial projects to be carried out in the Union. The wine alcohol of EU origin in storage in the Member States consists of quantities produced from distillation pursuant to Articles 27, 28 and 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999.\n(6)\nMinimum prices should be fixed for the submission of tenders, broken down according to the type of end-use.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Pursuant to this Regulation, which constitutes a notice of invitation to tender within the meaning of Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000, the sale shall take place of wine alcohol for new industrial uses.\nThe tendering procedure shall be No 01/2011 EU.\nThe alcohol concerned has been produced from distillation pursuant to Articles 27, 28 and 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 and is held by the Cypriot and Hungarian intervention agencies.\n2. The volume put up for sale is 61 834,8931 hectolitres of alcohol at 100 % vol. The vat numbers, places of storage and the volume of alcohol at 100 % vol. contained in each vat are detailed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThe sale shall be conducted in accordance with Articles 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 and 102 of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000.\nArticle 3\n1. Tenders must be submitted to the intervention agencies holding the alcohol concerned:\nHungarian intervention agency:\nMez\u0151gazdas\u00e1gi \u00e9s Vid\u00e9kfejleszt\u00e9si Hivatal\nBudapest\nSoroks\u00e1ri \u00fat 22-24.\n1095\nHUNGARY\nTel. +36 12196260\nFax +36 15771317\nPostal address: 1385 Budapest 62. Pf. 867\nE-mail: ertekesites@mvh.gov.hu\nInternet: http://www.mvh.gov.hu/\nCypriot intervention agency:\nWine Products Council\nPetra Business Centre\nFranklin Roosevelt Street 86\n3011 Limassol\nCYPRUS\nE-mail: extaff@wpc.org.cy\nInternet: http://www.wpc.org.cy/en_index.html\n2. Tenders shall be submitted in a sealed double envelope, the inside envelope marked: \u2018Tender under procedure No 01/2011 EU for new industrial uses\u2019, the outer envelope bearing the address of the intervention agency concerned.\n3. Tenders must reach the intervention agency concerned not later than 12:00 Brussels time on the third Tuesday following the date of publication of this Regulation.\n4. All tenders must be accompanied by proof that a tendering security of EUR 4 per hectolitre of alcohol at 100 % vol. has been lodged with the intervention agency concerned.\nArticle 4\nThe minimum prices which may be offered are EUR 5 per hectolitre of alcohol at 100 % vol. intended for use as fuel in boiler rooms and cement works and EUR 30 per hectolitre of alcohol at 100 % vol. intended for manufacturing other industrial products, particularly antifreezes and detergents.\nArticle 5\nThe formalities for sampling shall be as set out in Article 98 of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000. The price of samples shall be EUR 10 per litre.\nThe intervention agency shall provide all the necessary information on the characteristics of the alcohol put up for sale.\nArticle 6\nThe performance guarantee shall be EUR 30 per hectolitre of alcohol at 100 % vol.\nArticle 7\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2011.", "references": ["65", "89", "84", "99", "37", "17", "4", "36", "2", "39", "45", "69", "87", "61", "79", "60", "12", "64", "41", "48", "81", "31", "3", "95", "32", "35", "33", "54", "98", "94", "No Label", "20", "71", "82"], "gold": ["20", "71", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 993/2010\nof 4 November 2010\ngranting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 2 November 2010.\n(3)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 2 November 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in point (c) of Article 1 and in Article 2 respectively of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 November 2010.", "references": ["37", "38", "45", "21", "27", "5", "85", "42", "80", "26", "14", "19", "36", "32", "84", "54", "13", "64", "81", "24", "95", "74", "35", "8", "88", "22", "18", "6", "71", "39", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 12 December 2011\non the reuse of Commission documents\n(2011/833/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 249 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nEurope 2020 sets out a vision of Europe\u2019s social market economy for the 21st century. One of the priority themes in that context is \u2018Smart growth: developing an economy based on knowledge and innovation\u2019.\n(2)\nThe new information and communication technologies have created unprecedented possibilities to aggregate and combine content from different sources.\n(3)\nPublic sector information is an important source of potential growth of innovative online services through value-added products and services. Governments can stimulate content markets by making public sector information available on transparent, effective and non-discriminatory terms. For this reason, the Digital Agenda for Europe (1) singled out the reuse of public sector information as one of the key areas for action.\n(4)\nThe Commission and the other Institutions are themselves holders of many documents of all kinds which could be reused in added-value information products and services and which could provide a useful content resource for companies and citizens alike.\n(5)\nThe right to access Commission documents is regulated through Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (2).\n(6)\nDirective 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) sets minimum rules for the reuse of public sector information throughout the European Union. In its recitals it encourages Member States to go beyond these minimum rules and to adopt open data policies, allowing a broad use of documents held by public sector bodies.\n(7)\nThe Commission has set an example to public administrations in making statistics, publications and the full corpus of Union law freely available online. This is a good basis to make further progress in ensuring the availability and reusability of data held by the institution.\n(8)\nCommission Decision 2006/291/EC, Euratom of 7 April 2006 on the reuse of Commission information (4) determines the conditions for the reuse of Commission documents.\n(9)\nIn order to make the reuse regime of Commission documents more effective, the rules on the reuse of Commission documents should be adapted with a view to achieving a broader reuse of such documents.\n(10)\nA data portal as a single point of access to documents available for reuse should be set up. In addition, it is appropriate to include in the documents available for reuse the research information produced by the Joint Research Centre. A provision should be adopted to take into account the move towards machine-readable formats. An important improvement with respect to Decision 2006/291/EC, Euratom consists in making Commission documents generally available for reuse without the need for individual applications, through open reuse licences or simple disclaimers.\n(11)\nDecision 2006/291/EC, Euratom should therefore be replaced by this Decision.\n(12)\nAn open reuse policy at the Commission will support new economic activity, lead to a wider use and spread of Union information, enhance the image of openness and transparency of the Institutions, and avoid unnecessary administrative burden for users and Commission services. In 2012, the Commission envisages exploring with other Union institutions and key Agencies to what extent they could adopt their own rules on reuse.\n(13)\nThis Decision should be implemented and applied in full compliance with the principles relating to the protection of personal data in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5).\n(14)\nThis Decision should not apply to documents for which the Commission is not in a position to allow reuse, e.g. in view of third party intellectual property rights or where the documents have been received from the other Institutions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision determines the conditions for the reuse of documents held by the Commission or on its behalf by the Publications Office of the European Union (the Publications Office) with the aim of facilitating a wider reuse of information, enhancing the image of openness of the Commission, and avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens for reusers and the Commission services alike.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Decision applies to public documents produced by the Commission or by public and private entities on its behalf:\n(a)\nwhich have been published by the Commission or by the Publications Office on its behalf through publications, websites or dissemination tools; or\n(b)\nwhich have not been published for economic or other practical reasons, such as studies, reports and other data.\n2. This Decision shall not apply:\n(a)\nto software or to documents covered by industrial property rights such as patents, trademarks, registered designs, logos and names;\n(b)\nto documents for which the Commission is not in a position to allow their reuse in view of intellectual property rights of third parties;\n(c)\nto documents which pursuant to the rules established in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are excluded from access or only made accessible to a party under specific rules governing privileged access;\n(d)\nto confidential data, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6);\n(e)\nto documents resulting from ongoing research projects conducted by the staff of the Commission which are not published or available in a published database, and whose reuse would interfere with the validation of provisional research results or where reuse would constitute a reason to refuse registration of industrial property rights in the Commission\u2019s favour.\n3. This Decision is without prejudice to and in no way affects Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.\n4. Nothing in this Decision authorises reuse of documents in a manner calculated to deceive or to defraud. The Commission shall take the appropriate measures to protect the interests and the public image of the EU in accordance to applicable rules.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018document\u2019 means:\n(a)\nany content whatever its medium (written on paper or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording);\n(b)\nany part of such content;\n(2)\n\u2018reuse\u2019 means the use of documents by persons or legal entities of documents, for commercial or non-commercial purposes other than the initial purpose for which the documents were produced. The exchange of documents between the Commission and other public sector bodies which use these documents purely in the pursuit of their public tasks does not constitute reuse;\n(3)\n\u2018personal data\u2019 means data as defined in Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001;\n(4)\n\u2018licence\u2019 means the granting of permission to reuse documents under specified conditions. \u2018Open licence\u2019 means a licence where reuse of documents is permitted for all specified uses in a unilateral declaration by the rightholder;\n(5)\n\u2018machine-readable\u2019 means that digital documents are sufficiently structured for software applications to identify reliably individual statements of fact and their internal structure;\n(6)\n\u2018structured data\u2019 is data organised in a way that allows reliable identification of individual statements of fact and all their components, as exemplified in databases and spreadsheets;\n(7)\n\u2018portal\u2019 refers to a single point of access to data from a variety of web sources. The sources generate both the data and the related metadata. The metadata needed for indexing are automatically harvested by the portal and integrated to the extent needed to support common functionalities such as search and linking. The portal may also cache data from the contributing sources in order to improve performance or provide additional functionalities.\nArticle 4\nGeneral principle\nAll documents shall be available for reuse:\n(a)\nfor commercial or non-commercial purposes under the conditions laid down in Article 6;\n(b)\nwithout charge, subject to the provisions laid down in Article 9; and\n(c)\nwithout the need to make an individual application, unless otherwise provided in Article 7.\nThis Decision shall be implemented in full respect of the rules on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data, and in particular Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\nArticle 5\nData portal\nThe Commission shall set up a data portal as a single point of access to its structured data so as to facilitate linking and reuse for commercial and non-commercial purposes.\nCommission services will identify and progressively make available suitable data in their possession. The data portal may provide access to data of other Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies at their request.\nArticle 6\nConditions for reuse of documents\n1. Documents shall be made available for reuse without application unless otherwise specified and without restrictions or, where appropriate, an open licence or disclaimer setting out conditions explaining the rights of reusers.\n2. Those conditions, which shall not unnecessarily restrict possibilities for reuse, may include the following:\n(a)\nthe obligation for the reuser to acknowledge the source of the documents;\n(b)\nthe obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents;\n(c)\nthe non-liability of the Commission for any consequence stemming from the reuse.\nWhere it is necessary to apply other conditions to a particular class of documents, the inter-service group referred to in Article 12 will be consulted.\nArticle 7\nIndividual applications for reuse of documents\n1. Where an individual application for reuse is necessary, the Commission services shall clearly indicate this in the relevant document or notice pointing to it and provide an address to which the application is to be submitted.\n2. Individual applications for reuse shall be handled promptly by the relevant Commission service. An acknowledgement of receipt shall be submitted to the applicant. Within 15 working days from registration of the application, the Commission service or the Publications Office shall either allow reuse of the document requested and, where relevant, provide a copy of the document, or, in a written reply, indicate the total or partial refusal of the application, stating the reasons.\n3. Where an application for reuse of a document concerns a very long document, a very large number of documents or the application needs to be translated, the time limit provided for in paragraph 2 may be extended by 15 working days, provided that the applicant is notified in advance and that detailed reasons for the extension are given.\n4. Where an application for reuse of a document is refused, the Commission service or the Publications Office shall inform the applicant of the right to bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union or to lodge a complaint with the European Ombudsman, under the conditions laid down in Articles 263 and 228, respectively, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n5. Where a refusal is based on point (b) of Article 2(2) of this Decision, the reply to the applicant shall include a reference to the natural or legal person who is the rightholder, where known, or alternatively to the licensor from which the Commission has obtained the relevant material, where known.\nArticle 8\nFormats for documents available for reuse\n1. Documents shall be made available in any existing format or language version, in machine-readable format where possible and appropriate.\n2. This shall not imply an obligation to create, adapt or update documents in order to comply with the application, nor to provide extracts from documents where it would involve disproportionate effort, going beyond a simple operation.\n3. This Decision does not create any obligation for the Commission to translate the requested documents into any other official language versions than those already available at the moment of the application.\n4. The Commission or the Publications Office may not be required to continue the production of certain types of documents or to preserve them in a given format with a view to the reuse of such documents by a natural or legal person.\nArticle 9\nRules on charging\n1. The reuse of documents shall in principle be free of charge.\n2. In exceptional cases, marginal costs incurred for the reproduction and dissemination of documents may be recovered.\n3. Where the Commission decides to adapt a document in order to satisfy a specific application, the costs involved in the adaptation may be recovered from the applicant. The assessment of the need to recover such costs shall take into account the effort necessary for the adaptation as well as the potential advantages the reuse may bring to the Union, for example in terms of spreading information on the functioning of the Union or in terms of enhancing the public image of the Institution.\nArticle 10\nTransparency\n1. Any applicable conditions and standard charges for the documents available for reuse shall be pre-established and published, through electronic means where possible and appropriate.\n2. The search for documents shall be facilitated by practical arrangements, such as asset-lists of main documents available for reuse.\nArticle 11\nNon-discrimination and exclusive rights\n1. Any applicable conditions for the reuse of documents shall be non-discriminatory for comparable categories of reuse.\n2. The reuse of documents shall be open to all potential actors in the market. No exclusive rights shall be granted.\n3. However, where an exclusive right is necessary for the provision of a service in the public interest, the validity of the reason for granting such an exclusive right shall be subject to regular review, and shall, in any event, be reviewed after 3 years. Any exclusive arrangement shall be transparent and made public.\n4. Exclusive rights may be granted to publishers of scientific and scholarly journals for articles based on the work of Commission officials for a limited period.\nArticle 12\nInter-service group\n1. An inter-service group shall be set up, chaired by the Director-General responsible for this Decision, or his representative. It shall be composed of representatives of the Directorates-General and Services. It shall discuss issues of common concern and draw up a report on the implementation of the Decision every 12 months.\n2. A steering committee chaired by the Publications Office and comprising the Secretariat-General, the Directorate-General for Communication, the Directorate-General for Information Society and Media, the Directorate-General for Informatics and several Directorates-General representing the data providers will oversee the project leading to the implementation of the data portal. Other institutions may be invited to join the committee at a later stage.\n3. The terms of the open licence referred to in Article 6 shall be settled in agreement by the Directors-General responsible for this Decision and for the administrative execution of decisions related to intellectual property rights at the Commission, after consultation of the inter-service group referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThis Decision shall be reviewed 3 years after its entry into force.\nArticle 14\nRepeal\nDecision 2006/291/EC, Euratom is repealed.\nDone at Brussels, 12 December 2011.", "references": ["40", "13", "21", "34", "6", "52", "85", "48", "8", "88", "24", "71", "67", "17", "60", "73", "16", "22", "56", "15", "87", "47", "59", "89", "92", "66", "74", "3", "69", "14", "No Label", "7", "39", "41"], "gold": ["7", "39", "41"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1115/2010\nof 1 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2010.", "references": ["40", "22", "73", "17", "50", "45", "31", "90", "39", "93", "76", "56", "20", "88", "98", "23", "81", "51", "9", "70", "55", "60", "63", "75", "16", "96", "13", "38", "6", "69", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 79/2011\nof 28 January 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for Greenland halibut in NAFO 3LMNO by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 January 2011.", "references": ["4", "55", "43", "34", "2", "70", "40", "99", "98", "19", "20", "16", "11", "45", "0", "76", "68", "54", "8", "47", "21", "65", "78", "27", "38", "95", "5", "42", "29", "9", "No Label", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 626/2012\nof 26 June 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 349/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9 and Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nIn 2006, the Council imposed, by means of Regulation (EC) No 130/2006 (2), a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019 or \u2018the country concerned\u2019) (\u2018the original anti-dumping measures\u2019). This Regulation was amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 150/2008 (3). In 2012, the Council amended those measures by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 332/2012 (4) and extended them for a further five years by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 349/2012 (5).\n2. Initiation of an interim review\n(2)\nA request for review was lodged by the following producers in the Union: Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Industria Chimica Valenzana SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA, Caviro Distillerie SRL and Comercial Quimica Sarasa SL (\u2018the applicants\u2019).\n(3)\nThe review request was limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far as two PRC exporting producers were concerned, namely Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd, Changzhou, and Ninghai Organic Chemical Factory, Ninghai. The request alleged that the continued imposition of measures at the existing level, which was based on the level of dumping previously established, appeared to be no longer sufficient to counteract dumping, given that both companies should be denied market economy treatment (MET).\n(4)\nHaving determined that the Commission had at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence for the initiation of an interim review, and after consulting the Advisory Committee, the Commission announced on 29 July 2011, in a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (6) (\u2018the notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an interim review limited to dumping pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.\n3. Investigation\n3.1. Investigation period\n(5)\nThe investigation concerning dumping covered the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019).\n3.2. Parties concerned by this investigation\n(6)\nThe Commission officially advised the two exporting producers in the country concerned and the authorities of the country concerned of the initiation of the interim review.\n(7)\nInterested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n3.3. Questionnaire replies and verifications\n(8)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the two exporting producers named in the request for review and to producers in the analogue country, Argentina.\n(9)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from the two PRC exporting producers, and also from the cooperating producer in the analogue country.\n(10)\nIn order to allow the two exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms for this purpose. Claims for MET, or for IT in case the investigation established that they do not meet the conditions for MET, were received from both of them.\n(11)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a determination of dumping and carried out verifications at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nExporting producers in the PRC:\n-\nNinghai Organic Chemical Factory, Ninghai,\n-\nChangmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd, Changzhou;\n(b)\nExporting producers in the analogue country:\n-\nTarcol SA, Buenos Aires.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(12)\nThe product concerned by this review is the same as the one in the original investigation, namely tartaric acid, excluding D-(-)- tartaric acid with a negative optical rotation of at least 12,0 degrees, measured in a water solution according to the method described in the European Pharmacopoeia, originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN code ex 2918 12 00 (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n(13)\nThe product concerned is used in wine, in beverage and food additives, as a retardant in plaster and in numerous other products. It can be obtained either from the by-products of winemaking, as is the case with production in the Union or via chemical synthesis from petrochemical compounds, as is the case with production in the PRC. Only L+ tartaric acid is manufactured from the by-products of winemaking. Synthetic production allows the manufacture of both L+ and DL tartaric acid. Both types are product concerned and have overlapping uses.\n2. Like product\n(14)\nAs in the previous investigation, it was considered that the tartaric acid produced in the PRC and exported to the Union, the tartaric acid produced and sold on the domestic market of the analogue country (Argentina) and the tartaric acid manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics, and the same basic uses. They were therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n1. Market economy treatment\n(15)\nBoth companies named in the request for review claimed market economy treatment. Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value is to be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of that Article for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.\n(16)\nBriefly, and for ease of reference only, the MET criteria are set out in summarised form below:\n(1)\nbusiness decisions and costs are made in response to market conditions and without significant State interference;\n(2)\naccounting records are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes;\n(3)\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;\n(4)\nlegal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy and property laws;\n(5)\ncurrency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.\n(17)\nBoth producers in the PRC requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. Each MET application was analysed, and on-the-spot investigations were carried out at the premises of these cooperating companies.\n(18)\nFor both companies, MET was denied under Criterion 1 of Article 2(7)(c) based on evidence that the price of the basic raw material, benzene, was distorted. A comparison of domestic prices in the PRC, using the purchase prices of one cooperating producer as a source, against prices in other market economy countries showed a price difference of between 19 % and 51 % during the investigation period. The PRC imposes an import tariff on benzene of 40 % (although this was not in fact in force during the RIP) and also does not refund any of the 17 % VAT levied on its export. Distortions were also found in the price of the intermediate raw material, maleic anhydride, purchased by the other cooperating producer using its purchases as a source.\n(19)\nMET was also denied to one company under Criteria 2 and 3 due to evidence of depressed land use right prices and also overvaluation of the company\u2019s assets for the purpose of guaranteeing a loan from a State-owned bank.\n(20)\nBoth companies disputed the findings of the Commission after they were disclosed to them. However neither company could explain the low price of benzene on the PRC market. The company referred to in recital 19 provided some documents to dispute the Commission\u2019s findings regarding the land use right prices and the valuation of their assets. However as these documents were requested during the inspection and were not provided, it was therefore decided that this information could not be verified or relied upon.\n(21)\nMET is therefore denied to both companies.\n(22)\nHowever both companies meet the requirements set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and are therefore entitled to an individual anti-dumping duty using their own export prices.\n2. Analogue country\n(23)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value was determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in an appropriate market economy third country (\u2018the analogue country\u2019), or the price from the analogue country to other countries, including the Union, or, where those are not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit margin.\n(24)\nAs in the original investigation, Argentina was proposed in the notice of initiation as an appropriate analogue country for the purposes of establishing normal value pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. Following the publication of the notice of initiation, one company in India and one company in Australia were identified as alternative possible producers in a market economy third country. However neither of the two companies responded to the questionnaire sent to them.\n(25)\nOne producer of tartaric acid in Argentina cooperated with the investigation by replying to a questionnaire. The investigation showed that Argentina had a competitive market for tartaric acid with two competing local producers and imports from third countries. The production volume in Argentina constitutes more than 20 % of the volume of PRC exports of the product concerned to the Union. The Argentinian market was therefore deemed sufficiently representative for the determination of normal value for the PRC.\n(26)\nIt is therefore concluded, as in the previous investigation, that Argentina constitutes an appropriate analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n3. Normal value\n(27)\nNormal value was established on the basis of the information received from the cooperating producer in the analogue country. Although the analogue country producer had domestic sales of the product concerned, given the difference in the production method between Argentina and the PRC which has a significant impact on prices and costs, it was decided to construct normal value, rather than use these domestic sales prices. The cost of raw materials in Argentina was replaced by an average market price for benzene and an adjustment made to selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) in Argentina to better reflect the domestic market in the PRC.\n(28)\nNormal value for L+ tartaric acid (which is manufactured by the Argentinian producer) was therefore constructed from the cost of production in Argentina of L+ tartaric acid, taking into account the difference in production methods between Argentina and the PRC.\n(29)\nGiven that the Argentinian producer did not manufacture DL tartaric acid, a normal value was also constructed using the difference in price found between the two product types.\n4. Export price\n(30)\nExport prices were determined based on the actual price paid or payable by the first independent customer in the Union for both PRC exporting producers.\n5. Comparison\n(31)\nFor the purposes of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made with regard to certain differences in transport, insurance and indirect taxation, where these were proven to affect prices and price comparability.\n6. Dumping margins\n(32)\nFor both companies the weighted average normal value for each product was compared with the weighted average export price for the same product type, as provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation.\n(33)\nOn this basis, the weighted average dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price duty unpaid are:\nCompany\nDumping margin\nChangmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd, Changzhou\n13,1 %\nNinghai Organic Chemical Factory, Ninghai\n8,3 %\n7. Lasting nature of changed circumstances\n(34)\nThe request for review alleged that the two PRC exporting producers should no longer be granted MET and that this change was of a lasting nature. Given the reasons for denial of MET it can be considered that the conclusions of this review are of a lasting nature. Evidence shows that the distortion in the price of benzene in the PRC was in existence prior to the RIP and there is no evidence to show that the PRC government has, or will, remove such distortions.\n(35)\nFor the company-specific reasons set out in recital 19 these are also of a lasting nature, as they affect the company\u2019s costs and decisions over a significant period of time. They were not events that would have affected the original investigation in which MET was granted to this company.\nD. AMENDMENT OF THE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES IN FORCE\n(36)\nIn light of the above, it is considered that the present anti-dumping review should amend the level of the existing measures in force on imports of tartaric acid from the PRC.\n(37)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be amended. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.\n(38)\nOne PRC company replied to the disclosure again disputing the findings regarding the denial of MET on the grounds of price distortion of the main raw material. However, it provided no new evidence to support its assertions and its arguments were therefore rejected. It also requested further information on the adjustments referred to in recital 27, but this had to be rejected as it would be impossible to do so without disclosing the production methods and costs of the sole producer in Argentina.\n(39)\nThe Union industry responded to the disclosure by contesting the use of a constructed normal value rather than domestic sales prices in the analogue country, and also the adjustments referred to above to the constructed normal value to take account of the difference in raw materials and production processes between Argentina and the PRC.\n(40)\nAs regards the use of a constructed normal value rather than prices from Argentina, this cannot be considered a change of methodology under Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation. In the original investigation both PRC companies were granted MET and therefore normal value was taken from their own domestic prices. Now that MET has been denied to both companies, the same methodology could no longer be used.\n(41)\nThe Union industry further claimed that the Commission should have used the methodology set out in the original investigation to calculate the residual duty for the PRC to calculate the individual margins for the two exporters concerned by this review. This argument was rejected as the residual duty was calculated for companies that did not cooperate with the original investigation. It is therefore not comparable to calculating an individual duty for a cooperating exporter that has been denied MET.\n(42)\nAs regards the adjustments made to the normal value referred to above, these were necessary to ensure a fair comparison between the export price of a synthetically produced tartaric acid, and a normal value based on a natural production process. Attempting the same calculation using domestic sales prices in Argentina and then adjusting the normal value and/or export price under Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation would not have provided for a fair comparison. These arguments were therefore rejected.\nE. UNDERTAKINGS\n(43)\nOne exporting producer in the PRC offered a price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. The product concerned is not suitable for a fixed price undertaking due to the volatility of the export price. In order to overcome this problem, the exporting producer offered an indexation clause, but without specifying how this indexation would be calculated. It also offered an indexation based on the distorted domestic benzene price in the PRC, which could not be accepted.\n(44)\nMoreover, that exporting producer produces different types of other chemical products and may sell these products to common customers in the European Union via related trading companies. This would create a serious risk of cross-compensation and would make effective monitoring extremely difficult.\n(45)\nFurthermore, there are different types of the product concerned which are not easily distinguishable and have a considerable difference in price. The different MIPs proposed by the exporting producer would therefore render monitoring impracticable. On the basis of the above, it was concluded that the undertaking offers cannot be accepted,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Table in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 349/2012 shall be amended to read as follows:\n\u2018Company\nAnti-dumping duty\nTARIC additional code\nChangmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd, Changzhou\n13,1 %\nA688\nNinghai Organic Chemical Factory, Ninghai\n8,3 %\nA689\nAll other companies (except Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd, Hangzhou - TARIC additional code A687)\n34,9 %\nA999\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 June 2012.", "references": ["64", "74", "79", "68", "78", "43", "77", "44", "84", "47", "73", "35", "99", "1", "25", "81", "67", "87", "40", "30", "24", "4", "59", "76", "36", "60", "71", "54", "72", "70", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/389/CFSP\nof 16 July 2012\non the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 14 November 2011, the Council adopted a Strategic Framework for the Horn of Africa to guide the EU\u2019s engagement in the region.\n(2)\nOn 8 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/819/CFSP (1) appointing a European Union Special Representative for the Horn of Africa.\n(3)\nOn 16 December 2011, the Council agreed on the Crisis Management Concept for the Regional Maritime Capacity Building Mission.\n(4)\nOn 23 March 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/173/CFSP (2) activating the EU Operations Centre for the Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operation in the Horn of Africa.\n(5)\nThe Governments of Djibouti, Kenya and the Seychelles, and the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia have welcomed the deployment of the Mission in their countries.\n(6)\nOn 18 June 2007, the Council approved the Guidelines for Command and Control Structure for the EU Civilian Operations in Crisis Management.\n(7)\nThe Watch-Keeping Capability should be activated for the Mission established by this Decision.\n(8)\nThe Mission will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMission\nThe Union hereby establishes a Regional Maritime Capacity Building Mission in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR).\nArticle 2\nMission Statement\nThe objective of EUCAP NESTOR is to assist the development in the Horn of Africa and the Western Indian Ocean States of a self-sustainable capacity for continued enhancement of their maritime security including counter-piracy, and maritime governance. EUCAP NESTOR shall have initial geographic focus on Djibouti, Kenya, the Seychelles and Somalia. EUCAP NESTOR shall also be deployed in Tanzania, following receipt by the Union of an invitation from the Tanzanian authorities.\nArticle 3\nTasks\n1. In order to achieve the objective set out in Article 2, the tasks of EUCAP NESTOR shall be to:\n(a)\nassist authorities in the region in achieving the efficient organisation of the maritime security agencies carrying out the coast guard function;\n(b)\ndeliver training courses and training expertise to strengthen the maritime capacities of the States in the region, initially Djibouti, Kenya and the Seychelles, with a view to achieving self-sustainability in training;\n(c)\nassist Somalia in developing its own land-based coastal police capability supported by a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework;\n(d)\nidentify priority equipment capability gaps and provide assistance in addressing them, as appropriate, to meet the objective of EUCAP NESTOR;\n(e)\nprovide assistance in strengthening national legislation and the rule of law through a regional legal advisory programme, and legal expertise to support the drafting of maritime security and related national legislation;\n(f)\npromote regional cooperation between national authorities responsible for maritime security;\n(g)\nstrengthen regional coordination in the field of maritime capacity building;\n(h)\nprovide strategic advice through the assignment of experts to key administrations;\n(i)\nimplement mission projects and coordinate donations;\n(j)\ndevelop and conduct a regional information and communication strategy.\n2. EUCAP NESTOR shall not carry out any executive function.\nArticle 4\nChain of command and structure\n1. EUCAP NESTOR shall have a unified chain of command as a crisis management operation.\n2. EUCAP NESTOR shall be structured as follows:\n(a)\nMission Headquarters in Djibouti;\n(b)\ncountry offices, as appropriate.\n3. EUCAP NESTOR shall have a Project Cell for identifying and implementing projects. EUCAP NESTOR may, as appropriate, coordinate, facilitate and provide advice on projects implemented by Member States and third States under their responsibility, in areas related to EUCAP NESTOR and in support of its objective.\nArticle 5\nCivilian Operation Commander\n1. The Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) Director shall be the Civilian Operation Commander for EUCAP NESTOR.\n2. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and overall authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), shall exercise command and control of EUCAP NESTOR at the strategic level.\n3. The Civilian Operation Commander shall ensure, with regard to the conduct of operations, proper and effective implementation of the Council\u2019s decisions as well as the PSC\u2019s decisions, including by issuing instructions at the strategic level as required to the Head of Mission and providing him with advice and technical support.\n4. The EU Operations Centre activated by Decision 2012/173/CFSP shall provide direct support to the Civilian Operation Commander for the operational planning and conduct of EUCAP NESTOR.\n5. The Civilian Operation Commander shall report to the Council through the HR.\n6. All seconded staff shall remain under the full command of the national authorities of the seconding State in accordance with national rules, of the Union institution concerned or of the European External Action Service (EEAS). National authorities shall transfer Operational Control (OPCON) of their personnel, teams and units to the Civilian Operation Commander.\n7. The Civilian Operation Commander shall have overall responsibility for ensuring that the Union\u2019s duty of care is properly discharged.\n8. The Civilian Operation Commander, the European Union Special Representative for the Horn of Africa (EUSR) and the Heads of Union delegations in the region shall consult each other as required.\nArticle 6\nHead of Mission\n1. The Head of Mission shall assume responsibility for, and exercise command and control of, EUCAP NESTOR at theatre level and shall be directly responsible to the Civilian Operation Commander.\n2. The Head of Mission shall exercise command and control over personnel, teams and units from contributing States as assigned by the Civilian Operation Commander together with administrative and logistic responsibility including over assets, resources and information placed at the disposal of EUCAP NESTOR.\n3. The Head of Mission shall issue instructions to all EUCAP NESTOR staff for the effective conduct of EUCAP NESTOR in theatre, assuming its coordination and day-to-day management, and following the instructions at the strategic level of the Civilian Operation Commander.\n4. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the implementation of the budget of EUCAP NESTOR. For this purpose, the Head of Mission shall sign a contract with the Commission.\n5. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for disciplinary control over the staff. For seconded staff, disciplinary action shall be exercised by the national authority in accordance with national rules, by the Union institution concerned or by EEAS.\n6. The Head of Mission shall represent EUCAP NESTOR in the operations area and shall ensure appropriate visibility of EUCAP NESTOR.\n7. The Head of Mission shall coordinate, as appropriate, with other Union actors on the ground. The Head of Mission shall, without prejudice to the chain of command, receive local political guidance from the EUSR, in close coordination with the relevant Heads of Union delegations in the region.\n8. In the context of the Project Cell, the Head of Mission shall be authorised to seek recourse to financial contributions from the Member States or third States to implement projects identified as supplementing in a consistent manner the other actions of EUCAP NESTOR, if the project is:\n(a)\nprovided for in the Budgetary Impact Statement relating to this Decision; or\n(b)\nincluded in the course of EUCAP NESTOR in the Budgetary Impact Statement at the request of the Head of Mission.\nIn such cases the Head of Mission shall conclude an arrangement with the States concerned, covering in particular the specific procedures for dealing with any complaint from third parties concerning damage caused as a result of acts or omissions by the Head of Mission in the use of the funds provided by the contributing States.\nUnder no circumstances may the Union or the HR be held liable by contributing States as a result of acts or omissions by the Head of Mission in the use of funds provided by the contributing States.\nArticle 7\nStaff\n1. EUCAP NESTOR shall consist primarily of staff seconded by Member States, Union institutions or EEAS. Each Member State or Union institution, or EEAS shall bear the costs related to any of the staff seconded by it, including travel expenses to and from the place of deployment, salaries, medical coverage and allowances other than applicable daily allowances.\n2. The State or Union institution, or EEAS having seconded a member of staff shall be responsible for answering any claims linked to the secondment, either from or concerning the member of staff, and for bringing any action against the seconded person.\n3. International and local staff may also be recruited by EUCAP NESTOR on a contractual basis if the functions required are not provided by personnel seconded by Member States. Exceptionally, in duly justified cases, where no qualified applications from Member States are available, nationals from participating third States may be recruited on a contractual basis, as appropriate.\n4. The conditions of employment and the rights and obligations of international and local staff shall be laid down in the contracts between the Head of Mission and the members of staff concerned.\nArticle 8\nStatus of EUCAP NESTOR and of its staff\nThe status of EUCAP NESTOR and its staff, including, where appropriate, the privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of EUCAP NESTOR, shall be the subject of an agreement concluded pursuant to Article 37 TEU and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 9\nPolitical control and strategic direction\n1. The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and of the HR, political control and strategic direction of EUCAP NESTOR. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions for this purpose in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 TEU. This authorisation shall include the powers to appoint a Head of Mission, upon a proposal from the HR, and to amend the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and the Operation Plan (OPLAN). The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of EUCAP NESTOR shall remain vested in the Council.\n2. The PSC shall report to the Council at regular intervals.\n3. The PSC shall receive, on a regular basis and as required, reports by the Civilian Operation Commander and the Head of Mission on issues within their areas of responsibility.\nArticle 10\nParticipation of third States\n1. Without prejudice to the decision-making autonomy of the Union and its single institutional framework, third States may be invited to contribute to EUCAP NESTOR, provided that they bear the cost of the staff seconded by them, including salaries, all risk insurance cover, daily subsistence allowances and travel expenses to and from the place of deployment, and that they contribute to the running costs of EUCAP NESTOR, as appropriate.\n2. Third States contributing to EUCAP NESTOR shall have the same rights and obligations in terms of the day-to-day management of EUCAP NESTOR as Member States.\n3. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions and to establish a Committee of Contributors.\n4. Detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States shall be covered by agreements concluded in accordance with Article 37 TEU and additional technical arrangements as necessary. Where the Union and a third State conclude an agreement establishing a framework for the participation of that third State in Union crisis-management operations, the provisions of that agreement shall apply in the context of EUCAP NESTOR.\nArticle 11\nSecurity\n1. The Civilian Operation Commander shall direct the Head of Mission\u2019s planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation by EUCAP NESTOR in accordance with Article 5.\n2. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the security of EUCAP NESTOR and for ensuring compliance with minimum security requirements applicable to EUCAP NESTOR, in line with the policy of the Union on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V TEU, and its supporting instruments.\n3. The Head of Mission shall be assisted by a Senior Mission Security Officer (SMSO), who shall report to the Head of Mission and also maintain a close functional relationship with the EEAS.\n4. EUCAP NESTOR staff shall undergo mandatory security training before taking up their duties, in accordance with the OPLAN. They shall also receive regular in-theatre refresher training organised by the SMSO.\n5. The Head of Mission shall ensure the protection of EU classified information in accordance with Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (3).\nArticle 12\nWatch-Keeping Capability\nThe Watch-Keeping Capability shall be activated for EUCAP NESTOR.\nArticle 13\nFinancial arrangements\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP NESTOR for the first 12 months following the entry into force of this Decision shall be EUR 22 880 000. The financial reference amount for the subsequent periods shall be decided by the Council.\n2. All expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. Subject to the Commission\u2019s approval, the Head of Mission may conclude technical arrangements with Member States, participating third States and other international actors regarding the provision of equipment, services and premises to EUCAP NESTOR.\n4. The financial arrangements shall respect the operational requirements of EUCAP NESTOR including compatibility of equipment and interoperability of its teams.\n5. The Head of Mission shall report fully to, and be supervised by, the Commission regarding the activities undertaken in the framework of his/her contract.\n6. The expenditure incurred shall be eligible as of the date of entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 14\nConsistency of the Union\u2019s response and coordination\n1. The HR shall ensure the consistency of the implementation of this Decision with the Union\u2019s external action as a whole, including the Union\u2019s development programmes.\n2. Without prejudice to the chain of command, the Head of Mission shall act in close coordination with the Union delegations in the region to ensure the consistency of Union action in the Horn of Africa region.\n3. The Head of Mission shall coordinate closely with Union and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission in the region.\n4. The Head of Mission shall cooperate with the other international actors in the region, in particular the United Nations (UN) Political Office for Somalia, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the UN Development Programme and the International Maritime Organisation.\n5. The Head of Mission shall coordinate closely with EUNAVFOR Atalanta, the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia), the Maritime Security Project and the Critical Maritime Routes Programme.\nArticle 15\nRelease of information and documents\n1. The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States associated with this Decision, as appropriate and in accordance with the needs of EUCAP NESTOR, EU classified information up to \u2018CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL\u2019 level generated for the purposes of EUCAP NESTOR, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU.\n2. The HR shall also be authorised to release to the UN and the African Union (AU) in accordance with the operational needs of EUCAP NESTOR, EU classified information up to \u2018RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED\u2019 level generated for the purposes of EUCAP NESTOR, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU. Arrangements between the HR and the competent authorities of UN and AU shall be drawn up for this purpose.\n3. In the event of a specific and immediate operational need, the HR shall also be authorised to release to the host State any EU classified information up to \u2018RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED\u2019 level generated for the purposes of EUCAP NESTOR, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU. Arrangements between the HR and the competent authorities of the host State shall be drawn up for this purpose.\n4. The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States associated with this Decision any EU non-classified documents connected with the deliberations of the Council relating to EUCAP NESTOR and covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (4).\n5. The HR may delegate the powers referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4, as well as the ability to conclude the arrangements referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 to persons placed under his/her authority, to the Civilian Operations Commander and/or to the Head of Mission.\nArticle 16\nEntry into force and duration\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply for a period of 24 months.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["67", "0", "31", "73", "86", "64", "11", "65", "69", "74", "42", "2", "84", "48", "68", "55", "17", "6", "75", "10", "88", "57", "15", "49", "61", "13", "99", "30", "28", "52", "No Label", "7", "9", "12", "53", "94"], "gold": ["7", "9", "12", "53", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 27 October 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the Trade Committee set up by the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, as regards the adoption of the rules of procedure of the Trade Committee and the establishment of a list of 15 arbitrators\n(2011/722/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 91 and 100(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 207(4) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 April 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea on behalf of the European Union and its Member States.\n(2)\nThose negotiations have been concluded and the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part (1) (the Agreement) was signed on 6 October 2010.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 15.10.5 of the Agreement, the Agreement has been provisionally applied since 1 July 2011 pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.\n(4)\nArticle 15.1 of the Agreement establishes a Trade Committee, which shall, inter alia, ensure that the Agreement operates properly.\n(5)\nArticle 15.1.4(f) of the Agreement provides that the Trade Committee may adopt its own rules of procedure.\n(6)\nArticle 14.18 of the Agreement provides that the Trade Committee shall, no later than 6 months after the entry into force of the Agreement or its provisional application, establish a list of 15 individuals to serve as arbitrators.\n(7)\nThe Union should determine the position to be taken as regards the adoption of the rules of procedure of the Trade Committee and the establishment of the list of arbitrators,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the Union in the Trade Committee, set up by the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, as regards the adoption of the rules of procedure of the Trade Committee and the establishment of the list of 15 individuals to serve as arbitrators shall be based on the draft decisions of the Trade Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe delegation of the EU Party to the Trade Committee shall be composed, in accordance with the division of competences established pursuant to the Treaty, of representatives of the Commission and of the Member States, acting within their respective areas of competence as derived from the Treaties.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["57", "65", "62", "63", "50", "13", "56", "94", "90", "19", "38", "6", "79", "53", "26", "31", "87", "27", "17", "34", "64", "59", "73", "15", "98", "21", "82", "16", "78", "12", "No Label", "1", "7", "9", "23", "95", "96"], "gold": ["1", "7", "9", "23", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 27 January 2012\namending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of the De Nederlandsche Bank\n(2012/61/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular to Article 27.1 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 9 December 2011 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of De Nederlandsche Bank (ECB/2011/22) (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are to be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the Governing Council of the ECB and approved by the Council of the European Union.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the current external auditors of De Nederlandsche Bank ended after the audit for the financial year of 2011. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2012.\n(3)\nDe Nederlandsche Bank has selected Deloitte Accountants BV as its external auditors for the financial years 2012 to 2018.\n(4)\nThe Governing Council of the ECB recommended that Deloitte Accountants BV be appointed as the external auditors of De Nederlandsche Bank for the financial years 2012 to 2018.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to follow the recommendation of the Governing Council of the ECB and to amend Council Decision 1999/70/EC (2) accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1(8) of Decision 1999/70/EC shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20188. Deloitte Accountants BV are hereby approved as the external auditors of De Nederlandsche Bank for the financial years 2012 to 2018.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the European Central Bank.\nDone at Brussels, 27 January 2012.", "references": ["77", "94", "26", "10", "27", "76", "29", "51", "11", "68", "78", "53", "45", "62", "63", "0", "36", "44", "93", "5", "13", "67", "41", "9", "31", "3", "65", "89", "40", "86", "No Label", "28", "47", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["28", "47", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 419/2010\nof 12 May 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 May 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 4 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 May 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 May 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2010.", "references": ["67", "72", "20", "1", "75", "95", "98", "97", "90", "42", "12", "32", "17", "89", "74", "45", "50", "65", "60", "43", "37", "73", "35", "79", "78", "8", "53", "28", "58", "9", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 382/2012\nof 3 May 2012\non the minimum customs duty for sugar to be fixed in response to the fifth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/2012 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, the Commission is to decide, in the light of the tenders received in response to a partial invitation to tender, either to fix a minimum customs duty or not to fix a minimum customs duty per eight-digit CN code.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the fifth partial invitation to tender, a minimum customs duty should be fixed for certain eight-digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701 and no minimum customs duty should be fixed for the other eight-digit codes for sugar falling within that CN code.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the fifth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 2 May 2012, a minimum customs duty has been fixed, or has not been fixed, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation for the eight-digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 May 2012.", "references": ["19", "59", "66", "9", "38", "16", "28", "70", "54", "42", "91", "35", "79", "56", "0", "26", "82", "55", "52", "99", "46", "63", "51", "72", "78", "7", "95", "41", "50", "29", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "71", "73"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "71", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 690/2010\nof 30 July 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 August 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 August 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 August 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 July 2010.", "references": ["17", "71", "16", "82", "55", "35", "21", "20", "2", "46", "57", "18", "59", "25", "47", "56", "15", "87", "29", "83", "76", "96", "74", "64", "13", "33", "72", "23", "28", "51", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 15 September 2010\non State aid that Italy plans to grant to Fri-El Acerra Srl (Case C 8/09 (ex N 357/08))\n(notified under document C(2010) 6159)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/110/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions (1) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 22 May 2008, a pre-notification meeting took place between the Commission departments and the Italian authorities.\n(2)\nBy electronic notification dated 16 July 2008, registered at the Commission on the same day, the Italian authorities notified the Commission, pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU, of their intention to grant ad hoc aid to Fri-El Acerra Srl.\n(3)\nBy letters dated 2 September 2008 (D/53398) and 12 December 2008 (D/54895) the Commission requested additional information, which the Italian authorities provided by letters of 1 October 2008 (A/20101), 22 October 2008 (A/22018), and 19 January 2009, which last was registered at the Commission on 21 January 2009 (A/1460).\n(4)\nOn 10 March 2009 the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the aid. The decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal on 24 April 2009 (2). The Commission there invited interested parties to submit their comments.\n(5)\nOn 15 May 2009 the recipient of the aid, Fri-El Acerra Srl, submitted its observations on the opening decision (A/11823). On 9 June 2009 these observations were sent to Italy for comment (D/52516). On 7 July 2009 the Italian authorities asked for a three-month extension of the deadline for the submission of comments (A/16162). On 20 August 2009 the Commission departments replied, allowing a further month for the submission of comments (D/53581). On 10 September 2009 the Italian authorities requested an urgent meeting to discuss the case with the Commission departments (A/19513). On 18 September 2009 the Italian authorities submitted comments for discussion at the meeting (A/20172); the meeting took place in Brussels on 24 September 2009, in the presence of the lawyers representing the granting authority (the Region of Campania) and the recipient (Fri-El Acerra Srl).\n(6)\nBy letter dated 21 October 2009 (D/54421) the Commission departments reminded the Italian authorities that at the meeting they had agreed to submit additional documents and information. The Italian authorities eventually provided this material on 2 November 2009, the consignment being registered at the Commission on the same day (A/23266). By letter dated 23 December 2009 (D/55541) the Commission departments asked the Italian authorities to submit further documents if available. By letter dated 1 February 2010 (A/1892) the Italian authorities provided various documents, mainly originating with the recipient of the aid. Italy submitted additional clarification by e-mail message of 5 May 2010.\n2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID MEASURE\n(7)\nThe Italian authorities notified their intention to provide ad hoc regional aid to Fri-El Acerra Srl, in accordance with the guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 (\u2018the 2007 Guidelines\u2019) (3), for the conversion of a closed thermoelectric power plant in Acerra in the Region of Campania into a power plant fuelled by vegetable oil (biofuel). Campania is a NUTS II region that qualifies for regional aid under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU, which in accordance with the Italian regional aid map 2007-2013 has a standard regional aid ceiling for large enterprises of 30 % gross grant equivalent (GGE) (4). The Italian authorities intended the aid to promote regional development.\n2.1. The recipient of the aid\n(8)\nThe recipient of the aid is Fri-El Acerra Srl (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Fri-El Acerra\u2019 or \u2018the recipient\u2019). Fri-El Acerra was set up on 20 December 2005, in the form of a private limited company (societ\u00e0 a responsabilit\u00e0 limitata), 95 % of the shares being held by Fri-El Acerra Holding Srl and the remaining 5 % by NGP SpA, the owner of the closed thermoelectric plant. On 9 February 2006 NGP temporarily increased its equity share in Fri-El Acerra from 5 % to 90,5 %, against the transfer to Fri-El Acerra of the branch of NGP\u2019s business related to the power plant. A few days later, on 20 February 2006, NGP\u2019s stake was reduced to 49 %, and some months thereafter, on 10 October 2006, it was brought back to 5 %.\n(9)\nAt the time the measure was notified, Fri-El Acerra was a 95 % subsidiary of Fri-El Acerra Holding, and the remaining 5 % belonged to NGP. In January 2009 the Italian authorities informed the Commission that on 11 December 2008 NGP had decided to withdraw from the ownership of Fri-El Acerra. At present, therefore, Fri-El is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fri-El Acerra Holding, and consequently of Fri-El Group Green Power SpA.\n(10)\nFri-El Green Power SpA (the \u2018Fri-El Group\u2019) was set up in the Province of Bolzano in 1994, by the three Gostner brothers: it produces and sells electricity from renewable sources. The Fri-El Group operates especially in wind power production, producing electrical energy in 19 wind farms in Italy. The investment project in Acerra is the first in which the group to which the recipient belongs is to produce energy from liquid biomass: other biomass and biogas power plants are under development (5).\n(11)\nNGP was set up in 2003, as a result of the divestment of polyester polymer production in Acerra by Montefibre, a producer of acrylic and polyester fibres. NGP ran into difficulties and received aid for restructuring, which was notified to the Commission (NN 15/2007, C 14/2007), to a total amount of EUR 20,87 million. The Commission approved the aid to NGP on 16 July 2008 (6). One component in the restructuring plan presented by the Italian authorities was the sale of the closed thermoelectric power plant.\n(12)\nThe Italian authorities supplied data confirming that in 2006 the aid recipient and the Fri-El Group were both SMEs.\n(13)\nIn the course of the assessment, the Italian authorities provided information about the changes in the structure of ownership of the aid recipient. This information showed that when ownership of the closed power plant was transferred, in February 2006, NGP, the former owner of the assets, owned 90,5 % of Fri-El Acerra\u2019s shares. Subsequently, in the course of 2006, NGP\u2019s stake in Fri-El Acerra decreased to 5 %.\n2.2. The investment project\n(14)\nThe notified investment project has been carried out in the Region of Campania, in the Acerra industrial area. A closed thermoelectric power plant belonging to NGP has been acquired and converted into a power plant fuelled by vegetable oil, principally palm oil.\n(15)\nThe new power plant accommodates four W\u00e4rtsil\u00e4 18V46 combustion engines, each with a capacity of 17,2 MW, and one 6-MW steam turbine. Total production of electricity and heat is 74,8 MW.\n(16)\nThe Italian authorities told the Commission that work on the project had started in July 2007 and was to be completed in 2009. However, the purchase of the old power plant was in fact initiated in February 2006. According to publicly available information, the biofuel power plant has been operational since 2009 (7).\n(17)\nThe Italian authorities provided the Commission with authorisations and licences regarding the compliance of the investment project with national and European environmental regulations.\n2.3. Eligible costs of the project\n(18)\nThe total eligible investment costs of the project amount to EUR 80 635 000 in nominal value (8), made up of EUR 3 300 000 for design and feasibility studies, EUR 60 920 000 for new equipment and machinery (the new biofuel power plant), and the remainder for existing infrastructure and building works. The cost of purchase of the existing infrastructure includes the cost of buying the closed thermoelectric power plant and the steel fuel tanks previously belonging to NGP.\n(19)\nThe Italian authorities gave the Commission details of Fri-El Acerra\u2019s purchase of the closed power plant from NGP. The Italian authorities explained that when NGP had subscribed to the increase in Fri-El Acerra\u2019s capital it had transferred to Fri-El Acerra the branch of its business related to the power plant, at a total value of EUR 8 296 520; this was subject to EUR 3 771 043 in debts to third parties, and the difference, rounded to EUR 4 525 000, was allocated to reserves. The Italian authorities provided an external evaluation confirming the value of the power plant.\n(20)\nThe Italian authorities also provided a copy of the agreement between Fri-El Acerra and NGP concerning the sale of fuel tanks. The price agreed was EUR 4 200 000. During the preliminary assessment stage, notwithstanding a request from the Commission, the Italian authorities did not present any external evaluation confirming the value of these fuel tanks.\n(21)\nThe Italian authorities stated that the costs incurred by the recipient were EUR 35 000 000 in 2007 and EUR 45 635 000 in 2008.\n2.4. Financing of the investment\n(22)\nThe Italian authorities stated that EUR 21 000 000, equal to 25 % of the total EUR 80 635 000 cost of the investment (nominal value), was to be financed out of Fri-El Acerra\u2019s own resources; the aid would amount to EUR 19 000 000, and the rest would be covered by short-term and medium- to long-term bank loans.\n2.5. Legal basis of the ad hoc aid measure\n(23)\nThe Italian authorities stated that Fri-El Acerra had launched the investment project to convert the Acerra power plant in 2006 (on the date of the purchase of the closed power plant), on the basis of a commitment given by the Italian authorities under the Programme Agreement for Coordinated Action in the Industrial Crisis Area of NGP SpA in Acerra (Accordo di programma per l\u2019attuazione coordinata dell\u2019intervento nell\u2019area di crisi industriale della NGP Spa di Acerra). According to the Italian authorities, the incentive effect could be seen from the Programme Agreement, which was binding in law.\n(24)\nThe Programme Agreement was concluded on 15 July 2005 between the national, regional and local authorities and NGP, Montefibre and Edison SpA, and concerns the NGP site and other activities in the Acerra zone. The agreement does not refer to aid for the conversion of the closed power plant. It lists investments to be carried out and measures to be taken with the aim of restructuring NGP. The energy company Edison SpA, which is not related to Fri-El Acerra, was cited at the time as a future investor in the existing power plant, but it ultimately withdrew from the transaction. The Programme Agreement was subsequently amended by a protocol of 6 April 2006 (9) and a protocol of 8 April 2008.\n(25)\nThe decision of the Region of Campania to grant ad hoc regional aid to Fri-El Acerra for the conversion of the power plant in Acerra was taken on 26 October 2007.\n(26)\nIn the initial notification the Italian authorities provided a chronology of events, and stated that the legal basis of the aid was provided by the following documents:\n-\nthe protocol of 8 April 2008 amending the Programme Agreement; and,\n-\nResolution No 1857 of the Campania Regional Executive, 26 October 2007 (10).\n2.6. The aid\n(27)\nThe notified measure concerns aid for the takeover and the conversion of an existing establishment that has closed. The aid would be in the form of a direct grant totalling EUR 19,5 million in nominal value.\n3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(28)\nAfter a preliminary assessment of the measure, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the notified aid could be considered compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU in the light of the 2007 Guidelines, and decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU. The doubts expressed by the Commission in that decision are explained below.\n(29)\nThe Commission doubted whether the aid would have the incentive effect required by paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines: \u2018In the case of ad hoc aid, the competent authority must have issued a letter of intent, conditional on Commission approval of the measure, to award aid before work starts on the project\u2019. The document the Italian authorities referred to as the letter of intent - the Programme Agreement of 15 July 2005 - did not seem to fulfil these conditions: it did not grant aid for the project, nor did it mention the recipient, the project or the amount of the aid. The recipient of the aid was formally set up only later, on 20 December 2005. According to the information available to the Commission, the project had started in February 2006, with the takeover of the closed thermoelectric power plant, which was the first eligible cost for purposes of the aid measure notified, while the first document that could be considered a letter of intent within the meaning of paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines had been issued by the Region of Campania much later, on 26 October 2007.\n(30)\nThe Commission also doubted whether part of the existing assets, namely the closed thermoelectric power plant, had been bought by an independent investor within the meaning of paragraphs 34 and 35 of the 2007 Guidelines, which read: \u2018In case of acquisition of an establishment, only the costs of buying assets from third parties should be taken into consideration \u2026 The acquisition of the assets directly linked to an establishment may also be regarded as initial investment provided the establishment \u2026 is bought by an independent investor\u2019. At the time of the transaction, Fri-El Acerra, the recipient of the aid, was controlled by NGP, the owner of the assets being sold. More precisely, at the time that the transfer of assets took place, NGP owned 90,5 % of the shares in Fri-El Acerra: on 9 February 2006 Fri-El Acerra\u2019s capital had been increased from EUR 10 000 to EUR 100 000, and this capital increase had been subscribed exclusively by NGP. NGP had thus temporarily increased its equity share in Fri-El Acerra from 5 % to 90,5 %. After the transfer on 9 February 2006, the process which led to the withdrawal of NGP as majority shareholder in Fri-El Acerra was almost immediate. Only a few days later, on 20 February, NGP\u2019s stake was reduced to 49 %, and some months later, on 10 October, it was reduced to 5 %.\n(31)\nIt was not clear whether the subsequent purchase from NGP of other existing assets - fuel tanks - had taken place \u2018under market conditions\u2019, as required by paragraphs 34 and 52 of the 2007 Guidelines. The Italian authorities had not provided a valuation by an independent expert clearly establishing the market price of the fuel tanks.\n(32)\nThe regional contribution of the ad hoc aid to Fri-El Acerra had not been demonstrated as required by paragraph 10 of the 2007 Guidelines: \u2018Where, exceptionally, it is envisaged to grant individual ad hoc aid to a single firm \u2026 it is the responsibility of the Member State to demonstrate that the project contributes towards a coherent regional development strategy\u2019. The creation (or maintenance) of 25 jobs, against aid of EUR 19,5 million, and the contribution of a biofuel power plant with a capacity of 75 MW to a regional energy deficit of 2 489 MW, did not appear to be sufficient, and the aid appeared to be disproportionate to the impact of the project. Nor had it been clearly shown that the project would contribute to a revitalisation of the industrial area of Acerra.\n(33)\nThe Commission asked the Italian authorities and third parties for their observations on the question whether the new power plant fuelled by palm oil would indeed contribute to the development of the Acerra area and the Region of Campania.\n(34)\nIn the decision, the Commission also requested observations from the Italian authorities regarding the application of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (\u2018the 2008 Environmental Guidelines\u2019) (11).\n4. OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED FROM THIRD PARTIES AND COMMENTS BY THE MEMBER STATE\n(35)\nAs previously mentioned, the Commission received observations from the recipient of the aid, Fri-El Acerra, on 15 May 2009. The Italian authorities commented on those observations by letters of 18 September and of 2 November 2009. On 1 February 2010, following a further request from the Commission, the Italian authorities supplied the Commission with documents provided by the recipient.\n4.1. Summary of the observations from the recipient, Fri-El Acerra\n(36)\nWith regard to the incentive effect, Fri-El Acerra refers to various documents signed by the Italian authorities between 2004 and 2008 with the aim of revitalising the industrial area of Acerra. More specifically, Fri-El Acerra refers to the Memorandum of Understanding of 12 May 2004 (12), the Programme Agreement of 15 July 2005 (13), the amendment to the Programme Agreement of 6 April 2006 (14), Resolution No 1857 of the Regional Executive of Campania (15), and the amendment to the Programme Agreement of 8 April 2008 (16). Fri-El Acerra argues essentially that the doubts expressed by the Commission in the opening decision do not take proper account of these documents, and in particular of the Programme Agreement signed on 15 July 2005, which it says is an instrument that is legally binding with regard to the aid for all the steps it took subsequently.\n(37)\nThe committee supervising the implementation of the Programme Agreement held two meetings, on 29 September and 6 October 2005, for which Italy provided the Commission with the minutes; at the second of these meetings the representative of NGP mentioned Fri-El Acerra as a potential investor, which had manifested interest in a takeover of the old power plant on the condition that the investment project would qualify for regional aid.\n(38)\nFri-El Acerra considers that the legitimate expectation was reinforced by the first amendment to the Programme Agreement signed by the Italian authorities on 6 April 2006, Article 3 of which clearly referred to the Region of Campania\u2019s obligation to provide financial support for the new biofuel power plant project. Fri-El Acerra therefore takes the view that the Region of Campania was under a legal obligation to aid the investment long before 7 June 2006, when Fri-El Acerra formally submitted the first application for aid. The steps subsequently taken by the Region of Campania on 26 October 2007 and 8 April 2008 merely confirmed this obligation.\n(39)\nOn the question of eligible costs, Fri-El Acerra agrees with the Commission that at the time of the transfer of the assets (the closed power plant), the two companies NGP and Fri-El Acerra were not independent, as NGP had 90,5 % control of Fri-El Acerra. However, Fri-El Acerra emphasises that the transaction did take place on market terms, as the purchase price was set at a value established by an independent expert. Fri-El Acerra adds that NGP\u2019s stake in Fri-El Acerra had fallen to 5 % by the end of 2006. In order to eliminate any possible doubt that there might be an advantage conferred on NGP, the Fri-El Group took over the remaining 5 % from NGP on 11 December 2008. Fri-El Acerra takes the view, therefore, that the transitional control by NGP did not reflect a medium- to long-term economic rationale, but was due to the specific mechanism chosen for the transfer of the assets (the closed power plant).\n(40)\nThe price paid for the other assets Fri-El Acerra bought from NGP (the fuel tanks) was set in the preliminary purchase contract of 8 March 2006, and Fri-El Acerra confirms that it reflected the market value of the assets. In evidence Fri-El Acerra has produced a new document assessing the value of the fuel tanks, which was prepared by the same independent expert who assessed the value of the closed power plant. This new expert\u2019s report, drawn up ex post in 2009, during the formal investigation stage, refers expressly to the market prices of these used assets at November 2008 and confirms the price paid by the aid recipient to NGP.\n(41)\nAs to the project\u2019s contribution to regional development, Fri-El Acerra draws attention in the first place to the 25 jobs created. Fri-El Acerra also emphasises that the biofuel power plant forms part of the new development strategy for the Acerra industrial area. This development strategy takes account of the need for new investments with a low environmental impact, such as Fri-El Acerra\u2019s biofuel power plant. With the exception of the section formerly occupied by Montefibre, the Industrial Development Agency of the Province of Naples (17) intends to transform the area into an innovation pole for the aeronautic industry. All this would have a major impact on employment, on the environment and on social and economic conditions in the region, and Fri-El Acerra\u2019s biofuel power plant contributes positively to the strategy.\n(42)\nAs regards the environmental aspects, finally, Fri-El Acerra refers to the same programming documents of the Region of Campania previously mentioned by the Italian authorities: the 2002 guidelines for sustainable development in the energy sector, which set out the goals of the regional energy policy; the action plan for regional economic development of 2006; and the environmental energy plan of 2008. Fri-El Acerra considers that all these documents clearly point to the need for a power plant fuelled by renewable sources in the Region of Campania.\n4.2. Summary of comments by the Member State\n(43)\nIn their letter of 18 September 2009, the Italian authorities submit detailed argument regarding the requirement of an incentive effect laid down in paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines. In particular, they consider that the 2007 Guidelines do not clearly specify the form of the required letter of intent.\n(44)\nThey repeat that the Programme Agreement signed on 15 July 2005 was of a binding nature, and reaffirm that the administrative proceedings started no later than the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding, which included a commitment on the part of the public authorities to provide incentives for the revitalisation of the Acerra industrial area. They observe that the first amendment to the Programme Agreement, dated 6 April 2006, contains an implicit reference to Fri-El Acerra, and that it states that the Region of Campania intends to provide incentives for the investment in the new power plant.\n(45)\nThe Italian authorities argue that the identity of the private entities that are to implement the project is of absolutely marginal importance, as long as the project remains within the agreed scope and the agreed socioeconomic and industrial aims. They stress that if the incentives had not been available the investor would not have located its operation in the area concerned, as can be seen from the minutes of the meeting of the committee supervising the implementation of the Programme Agreement held on 6 October 2005.\n(46)\nThe Italian authorities confirm Fri-El Acerra\u2019s position with regard to the mutual independence of Fri-El Acerra and NGP: the sole and exclusive project owner and recipient of the aid is Fri-El Acerra, a company wholly independent of NGP. NGP held a temporary stake in Fri-El Acerra only for a brief period, as a consequence of the mechanism chosen by the parties for transferring the power plant (18). In their letter of 2 November 2009, the Italian authorities explain the reasons why the power plant was transferred from NGP to Fri-El Acerra, not by selling the assets, but by first transferring the business division to Fri-El Acerra and then transferring NGP\u2019s shareholding to the Fri-El Group; this was due essentially to (a) tax considerations; (b) the possibility of payment by instalments; and (c) authorisation issues.\n(47)\nAs regards the determination of the value of the assets, the Italian authorities observe that for the closed power plant Fri-El Acerra paid the equivalent of the value arrived at by an independent expert, and that there appears therefore to be no possible doubt that the transfer of the power plant took place between independent parties, and that in any event it was undertaken on market terms.\n(48)\nThe same considerations regarding the independence between NGP and Fri-El Acerra naturally also apply to the acquisition of the fuel tanks. Hence, the sale of the tanks was also between independent parties. And the parties determined the asset value of the tanks in strict adherence to market conditions, applying the same criteria and parameters that had been applied by the independent expert in the report valuing the power plant.\n(49)\nAs regards the regional contribution, the Italian authorities in their comments reaffirm that the investment project will:\n-\nincrease employment, by creating 25 jobs directly,\n-\nproduce a multiplier effect, as a result of the concentration of significant industrial initiatives on the Acerra site, with at least a further 10 jobs linked to the supply and storage of palm oil and assistance in transporting it,\n-\nplay a significant part in the development strategy for the Acerra industrial area, with the revitalisation of the area in social, industrial, and employment terms and the development in the area of a power plant with a low environmental impact,\n-\nhelp to overcome the deficit in electrical power in the region in terms of quality of the energy, which will be produced from renewable sources (biofuels); with its output of 75 MW, the plant will play an important role in achieving the regional target of 200 MW from biomass by 2013 set in the Regional Environmental Energy Plan (PEAR) 2008.\n(50)\nWith their letter of 2 November 2009 the Italian authorities enclose a memo from the Ministry of Economic Development, dated 21 October 2009, which they say will confirm the contribution the project will make to regional development. The Ministry there confirms the following:\n-\nThe Programme Agreement of 15 July 2005 focuses on: putting together a package of investments for the diversification of industrial activities in the area; modernising the main support infrastructure - the power plant and treatment plant - with a view among other things to reemploying redundant workers; and combining funding from central government and the Region of Campania in order to finance the incentives necessary to attract new investment.\n-\nThree major economic and industrial objectives are to be pursued: (a) to avoid the closure of the newest part of the SIMPE (formerly NGP) establishment; (b) to launch a process of diversifying industrial activities on a site which in the past had been dominated by just one large business group, and thereby to reduce the risk of recurrent business crises; and (c) to exploit the potential of an industrial conurbation such as Acerra, which is particularly hard hit by unemployment and social difficulties.\n-\nGreat efforts have been made in all quarters to promote new investment aimed at giving shape to the \u2018industrial park\u2019 in Acerra proposed by the Region of Campania in the Programme Agreement,\n(51)\nIn their letter of 2 November 2009 the Italian authorities comment on the compliance of the power plant with the legal requirements governing energy sources and fuel supply, showing that the technology used allows the plant to be fuelled not only by palm oil but also by coconut, copra or rape-seed oil or other similar vegetable-based biofuels without prejudice to its normal operation or productivity.\n4.3. Further documents originating with the recipient provided by the Member State\n(52)\nOn 23 December 2009, in order to have a full understanding of the decision-making process, the Commission departments asked the Italian authorities to provide any further documents available, dating from before the point at which Fri-El Acerra embarked upon the investment project, which might serve to justify the investment decision.\n(53)\nThe Italian authorities answered on 1 February 2010, repeating that the minutes of the meeting of 6 October 2005 clearly identified the Fri-El Group as the alternative investor after Edison\u2019s withdrawal. In these minutes, the NGP representative stated that the Fri-El Group expects regional support.\n(54)\nWith their reply the Italian authorities enclosed a further letter from the recipient of the aid, enclosing internal documents of the Fri-El Group: a memo from a consultant, referring to the opportunity to take over NGP\u2019s power plant in Acerra after Edison\u2019s withdrawal; two subsequent contracts with the same consultant; and an internal report dated 26 January 2006, examining the financial feasibility of the project with and without regional aid\n5. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID MEASURE\n5.1. State aid\n(55)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU states that \u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\u2019\n(56)\nThe aid is to be granted by the Italian authorities in the form of a direct grant. The assistance can thus be considered to be granted by the Member State and through state resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(57)\nThe aid is to be granted to a single company, Fri-El Acerra, and is therefore selective.\n(58)\nThe aid is to be granted for an investment relating to the production of energy. The electricity market has been gradually opened to competition, notably by Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (OJ L 27, 30.1.1997, p. 20), a process that culminated in the full liberalisation of the sector on 1 July 2007 (19). Moreover, there was some competition in this sector in Italy even before the Community legislation (20). Since the product is traded between Member States, the measure is likely to affect trade between Member States.\n(59)\nThe aid granted to Fri-El Acerra will relieve the company from costs which, if it were to install a similar power station, it would ordinarily have to bear itself, and thus gives it an economic advantage over its competitors.\n(60)\nBy favouring Fri-El Acerra and its product over its competitors, the measure distorts or threatens to distort competition.\n(61)\nConsequently, the Commission considers that the notified measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(62)\nHaving established that the notified measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Commission must consider whether it can be held to be compatible with the internal market.\n5.2. Legality of the aid measure\n(63)\nBy notifying the aid to Fri-El Acerra before putting it into effect, Italy has complied with the individual notification requirement laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU.\n5.3. Legal basis of the assessment\n(64)\nHaving established that the notified measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Commission must consider whether it can be held to be compatible with the internal market under one of the exemptions in Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU.\n5.3.1. Article 107(2) TFEU\n(65)\nThe exemptions in Article 107(2) TFEU concern aid having a social character granted to individual consumers, aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences, and aid granted to certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany: they do not apply in this case.\n5.3.2. Article 107(3)(a) TFEU\n(66)\nArticle 107(3)(a) TFEU provides for the authorisation of aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment. As explained in section 2 of this Decision, the Region of Campania qualifies for aid under this exemption.\n(67)\nThe Commission observes that the objective of the aid is to promote regional development, and the measure constitutes ad hoc regional aid towards an investment. The Commission notes that the investment project which the Italian authorities intend to support started in 2006. This raises the question whether the measure has to be assessed under the 2007 Guidelines or under the guidelines on national regional aid that covered the period 2000-2006 (\u2018the 1998 Guidelines\u2019) (21).\n(68)\nRules on the application ratione temporis of the two sets of guidelines are set out in paragraph 105 of the 2007 Guidelines: the 2007 Guidelines are to apply to all regional aid to be granted after 31 December 2006, and the 1998 Guidelines are to apply to all regional aid awarded or to be granted before 2007. In the present case, the aid was not awarded before 2007, despite the fact that the project started in 2006. The first act that can be considered an award of aid to the recipient is the decision of the Region of Campania of 26 October 2007 (see section 5.4.1.5) (22). The compatibility of the aid with the internal market under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU has consequently to be assessed on the basis of the 2007 Guidelines.\n5.3.3. Article 107(3)(b), (c) and (d) TFEU\n(69)\nThe measure cannot be considered to be aid towards an important project of common European interest or aid to remedy a serious disturbance in the Italian economy, as provided for by Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. It is not aid to promote culture and heritage conservation as provided for by Article 107(3)(d) TFEU.\n(70)\nThe exemption in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU allows the authorisation of aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest: the Commission notes that aid for the protection of the environment can be declared compatible on this basis, provided that it meets the conditions of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (\u2018the 2008 Environmental Guidelines\u2019) (23).\n(71)\nThe Italian authorities have not put forward any arguments to suggest the aid concerned might be compatible with other Treaty provisions or other state aid rules, frameworks or guidelines.\n5.4. Compatibility under Article 107(3)(a) in the light of the 2007 Guidelines\n(72)\nThe 2007 Guidelines set out the conditions for the approval of regional investment aid in sections 2 (\u2018Scope\u2019) and 4 (\u2018Regional investment aid\u2019). The aid in the present case must comply with paragraph 10, on the contribution to be made by ad hoc measures to regional development strategy, and with sections 4.1 (\u2018Form of aid and aid ceilings\u2019) and 4.2 (\u2018Eligible expenses\u2019), which lay down the following requirements:\n- Incentive effect: In order to ensure that regional aid provides a real incentive to undertake investments which would not otherwise be made in the assisted areas, paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines states that \u2018In the case of ad hoc aid, the competent authority must have issued a letter of intent, conditional on Commission approval of the measure, to award aid before work starts on the project\u2019.\n- Contribution to a coherent regional development strategy: Paragraph 10 of the 2007 Guidelines states that: \u2018Where, exceptionally, it is envisaged to grant individual ad hoc aid to a single firm \u2026 it is the responsibility of the Member State to demonstrate that the project contributes towards a coherent regional development strategy\u2019.\n- Eligible costs: The precise definition of eligible costs is set out in paragraphs 34-36 and 50-56 of the 2007 Guidelines.\n- Recipient\u2019s own contribution: Paragraph 39 of the 2007 Guidelines requires that the recipient provide a financial contribution of 25 %.\n- Maintenance of investment in the region: Paragraph 40 of the 2007 Guidelines requires that the investment be maintained in the region for at least 5 years (or 3 years for an SME).\n- Aid ceilings: Aid ceilings are set in paragraphs 42-49 of the 2007 Guidelines.\n(73)\nThe Commission assessed the compliance of the proposed aid measure in paragraph 34, section 3.3 of the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure (24). In paragraph 34(i) it explained that the measure concerned initial investment, namely the setting-up of a new establishment. The acquisition of assets directly linked to an establishment, in this case the closed thermoelectric power plant and the used fuel tanks, could also be regarded as initial investment, provided that the assets were bought by an independent investor (see paragraphs 34-35 of the 2007 Guidelines): this aspect will be assessed in section 5.4.3 below. Paragraph 34(vi) of the decision initiating the procedure stated that the recipient was to provide a financial contribution of at least 25 % of the eligible costs in a form free of any public support (see paragraph 39 of the 2007 Guidelines). Paragraph 34(vii) of the decision initiating the procedure stated that the aid was subject to an obligation to maintain the investment for at least 5 years after its completion (see paragraph 40 of the 2007 Guidelines). Paragraph 34(ii) and (iii) stated that the notified intensity of the aid was below the applicable regional aid ceiling of 30 % GGE adjusted in accordance with paragraph 67 of the 2007 Guidelines (see paragraphs 42-49 of the 2007 Guidelines). Paragraph 34(iv) stated that the aid towards the costs of preparatory studies and consultancy costs was below the ceiling of 50 % authorised for SMEs (see paragraph 51 of the 2007 Guidelines).\n(74)\nIn what follows the Commission will assess compliance with the conditions relating to the incentive effect, to the contribution to regional development, and to eligible investment costs.\n5.4.1. Incentive effect (paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines)\n(75)\nParagraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines reads as follows:\n-\n\u2018It is important to ensure that regional aid produces a real incentive effect to undertake investments which would not otherwise be made in the assisted areas. Therefore aid may only be granted under aid schemes if the beneficiary has submitted an application for aid and the authority responsible for administering the scheme has subsequently confirmed in writing that, subject to detailed verification, the project in principle meets the conditions of eligibility laid down by the scheme before the start of work on the project. An express reference to both conditions must also be included in all aid schemes. In the case of ad hoc aid, the competent authority must have issued a letter of intent, conditional on Commission approval of the measure, to award aid before work starts on the project. If work begins before the conditions laid down in this paragraph are fulfilled, the whole project will not be eligible for aid.\u2019\n-\nFootnote 39 reads: \u2018In the case of aid which is subject to individual notification to and approval by the Commission, confirmation of eligibility must be made conditional on the Commission decision approving the aid.\u2019\n-\nFootnote 40 reads: \u2018\u201cStart of work\u201d means either the start of construction work or the first firm commitment to order equipment, excluding preliminary feasibility studies.\u2019\n-\nFootnote 41 reads: \u2018The only exception to these rules is in the case of approved tax aid schemes where a tax exemption or reduction is granted automatically to qualifying expenditure without any discretion on the part of the authorities.\u2019\n(76)\nAccording to settled case-law:\nThe Commission can declare an aid measure compatible with Article 87(3) EC only if it can make a finding that the aid contributes to the achievement of one of the objectives listed, and that the recipient undertaking could not achieve that objective relying on its own resources under normal market conditions. In other words, in order for aid to benefit from one of the derogations contained in Article 87(3) EC, it must not only comply with one of the objectives set out in Article 87(3)(a), (b), (c) or (d) EC, but it must also be necessary for the attainment of those objectives (Court of First Instance in Case Case T-187/99 Agrana Zucker und St\u00e4rke v Commission [2001] ECR II-1587, paragraph 74).\nAid which improves the financial situation of the recipient undertaking without being necessary for the attainment of the objectives specified in Article 87(3) EC cannot be considered compatible with the common market (Court of Justice in Case C-390/06 Nuova Agricast [2008] ECR I-2577, paragraph 68; to the same effect Court of Justice in Case 310/85 Deufil v Commission [1987] ECR 901, paragraph 18, and Case C-400/92 Germany v Commission [1994] ECR I-4701, paragraphs 12, 20 and 21) (25).\nThe Court of First Instance took the same approach in a case (26) involving an ad hoc measure under the previous guidelines on national regional aid (27), where it made it clear that the provisions on the incentive effect also applied to ad hoc measures. It confirmed that the Commission could base its assessment of the incentive effect on a circumstance of a chronological nature (28).\n(77)\nThe Commission\u2019s settled practice in its decisions with regard to ad hoc aid measures to be approved under the 2007 Guidelines is that in order to be considered proof of incentive effect within the meaning of paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines, the written confirmation provided by the authority responsible should specify at least the investment project to be supported, the amount of the eligible costs, and the amount of the aid, and should include the conditionality clause (29).\n(78)\nThe Italian authorities and the recipient have submitted a number of documents which in their view constitute confirmation in writing within the scope of paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines. The Commission will analyse each one of them, in order to verify whether it meets the conditions laid down in paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines. Before doing so the Commission must determine the date on which realisation of the project began.\n5.4.1.1. Date on which realisation of the project began\n(79)\nThe Italian authorities have stated that the realisation of the project began in July 2007. However, the Commission points out that the purchase of the closed thermoelectric power plant was initiated on 9 February 2006, with the transfer to Fri-El Acerra of the branch of NGP\u2019s business related to the power plant. Since the acquisition of assets directly linked to an establishment (in this case the closed power plant) is regarded as an initial investment, the date on which realisation of the project began is the date of purchase of the closed thermoelectric power plant. The Commission consequently considers that the date on which the realisation of the project began is 9 February 2006. However, the Commission observes that its findings with regard to the incentive effect would remain unchanged if the view were to be taken that the relevant date was 4 August 2006, when Fri-El Acerra placed the order for the supply of the new power plant with W\u00e4rtsil\u00e4, or even 23-30 July 2007, when Fri-El Acerra started work on the construction of the new biofuel plant.\n5.4.1.2. The Programme Agreement of 15 July 2005\n(80)\nThe Commission considers that this document, described in paragraphs 23 and 24, cannot be considered as written confirmation within the scope of Article 38 of the 2007 Guidelines, as it is concerned mainly with the rescue and restructuring plan for NGP (30). The document does speak of the construction of a new power plant, but is referring to another company (Edison) and another project (a new 400 MW thermoelectric power plant), and does not mention any plan to grant aid towards that project. The Programme Agreement indicates only that NGP, Edison and the Italian authorities are to conclude a further agreement within 60 days, something that did not in fact happen. As explained in paragraph 24, Edison is a company completely unrelated to Fri-El Acerra\n(81)\nThe Italian authorities have argued that the 2007 Guidelines do not specify the precise form of the written confirmation required; the Commission considers that this argument does not justify the view that the requirements of paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines are met by any document making a vague reference to a possible aid project. The Programme Agreement does not mention the investment project to be supported (the biofuel power plant), nor the amount of the eligible costs, nor the amount of the aid. It does not even mention that any aid is planned for the conversion of the closed power plant. The requirements for proof of incentive effect set out in paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines clearly refer to an investment project; to aid; to a recipient; and to the need for Commission approval. A document establishing the incentive effect must contain all of this information.\n(82)\nNor can the Commission accept the Italian authorities\u2019 argument that the Programme Agreement has created a legitimate expectation that subsidies will be available for any project relating to the production of electricity in the Acerra industrial area: the Programme Agreement does not state that aid is to be granted for this purpose.\n(83)\nThe Commission concludes that the Programme Agreement of 15 July 2005 does not satisfy the tests of paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines.\n5.4.1.3. The amendment of 6 April 2006 to the Programme Agreement\n(84)\nThe Programme Agreement was amended on 6 April 2006 by the Region of Campania and NGP (see paragraph 36 above). The amendment contains a reference to an alternative plan for the power plant, in which it would be converted to biofuel, and envisages aid for this project under a block-exempted scheme, namely measure 1.12 in the operational programme for the Region of Campania (31).\n(85)\nHowever, that scheme could not cover the whole of the aid planned for the Fri-El Acerra project, because it excluded projects where the amount of aid would be substantial, i.e. projects with eligible costs above EUR 25 million and an aid intensity above 17,5 % GGE, and projects for which the total amount of aid was above EUR 15 million. The exempted scheme also excluded from the eligible costs the acquisition of used machinery and equipment (32).\n(86)\nEven if the Commission were to consider that the amendment of 6 April 2006 constituted a letter awarding aid (which it does not), the letter would not satisfy the tests of paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines. First, the amendment came after the start of work (9 February 2006). Second, the amendment, like the original Programme Agreement, does not provide all the information required in a letter of intent: in particular, it does not indicate the amount of the eligible costs or the amount of aid to be granted, and does not contain a conditionality clause. Third, the letter refers expressly to a regional scheme that expired on 31 December 2006 (33). The Commission has already decided that the incentive effect cannot be transferred from one aid scheme to another, because every scheme is independent and has its own conditions of eligibility (34); this is all the more true when the national authorities have made reference to the prospect of assistance being provided under a specific scheme that would not in fact allow the granting of aid of an amount such as that at issue here, or to a project of this size.\n(87)\nThe Commission concludes that the amendment of 6 April 2006 to the Programme Agreement of 15 July 2005 does not satisfy the tests of paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines, and that in any event it dates from after the date on which the realisation of the project began.\n(88)\nIn the course of 2006, before the existing aid schemes expired, Fri-El Acerra applied for state aid twice: on 7 June 2006 it applied for EUR 30 000 000 under measure 1.12 in the operational programme for the Region of Campania 2000-2006, and on 18 December 2006 it applied for EUR 43 396 000 under the national scheme N 488/1992, as amended and approved as state aid measure N 715/99 (35). The Commission is not aware of any positive reaction to those requests on the part of the Italian authorities. Nonetheless, Fri-El Acerra had already started work by taking over the assets from NGP in February 2006, and it placed the order for the supply of the new power plant with W\u00e4rtsil\u00e4 on 4 August 2006. Finally, Fri-El Acerra started the construction work on 23-30 July 2007. Those applications consequently cannot be considered to be a letter of intent within the meaning of paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines, and do not prove that the aid has a real incentive effect.\n5.4.1.4. The authorisation of the Region of Campania dated 9 October 2006\n(89)\nAnother document dated 2006 which is mentioned by the Italian authorities in their comments, namely the authorisation granted by the Region of Campania on 9 October 2006 (36), relates to administrative authorisations for the technical conversion of the existing power plant, and not to aid to be granted by the regional authorities for this purpose. Thus it cannot be considered a letter of intent within the meaning of paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines; and it is dated after the date on which the realisation of the project began.\n5.4.1.5. The decision of the Region of Campania dated 26 October 2007\n(90)\nThe Commission takes the view that the Resolution of the Campania Regional Executive of 26 October 2007 referred to in paragraphs 25, 26, 29 and 68 above (Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale della Regione Campania No 1857) is the first document issued by the Italian authorities which legally binds them to grant the aid to Fri-El Acerra and satisfies the tests of paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines. This document clearly identifies the investment project (the biofuel power plant) and the amount of aid (maximum EUR 19,5 million), and is conditional on notification and Commission approval.\n(91)\nSince work on the project began in February 2006, more than one and half years before the date of this document, the Commission considers that the notified project does not satisfy the tests of incentive effect laid down in paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines (37). The project was notified only on 16 July 2008. A decision of the Region taken in October 2007, containing a conditional commitment to grant aid, cannot be regarded as a decisive factor that provided Fri-El Acerra with an incentive to carry out an investment project that had in fact started with the purchase of the plant in February 2006. The decision of the Region taken in October 2007 cannot be considered sufficient to prove the incentive effect of the aid even if the date on which work started on the project is taken to be the date of the first construction work carried out by Fri-El Acerra, in July 2007, as that work also predated the decision.\n5.4.1.6. The minutes of a meeting, held on 6 October 2005, of the committee supervising the implementation of the Programme Agreement of 15 July 2005\n(92)\nAs proof of the incentive effect for Fri-El Acerra\u2019s incentive project, the Italian authorities further refer to the minutes of a meeting, held on 6 October 2005, of the committee supervising the implementation of the Programme Agreement of 15 July 2005. At this meeting, according to the minutes, the NGP representative for the first time referred to the Fri-El Group as a potential investor that had manifested an interest in taking over the closed power plant. The Fri-El Group\u2019s interest was said to be motivated by the availability of regional aid to the industry which could reduce the financial costs at the site, which at the time was not very competitive.\n(93)\nThe Commission considers that the presence of this statement in the minutes does not point to a firm and binding intention on the part of the Italian authorities to grant aid to the investment project subject only to the Commission\u2019s approval. The statement comes from the representative of NGP, a company in difficulty that was looking for a buyer for its closed power plant. The minutes do not contain any statement on the part of the Italian authorities confirming that the Fri-El Group\u2019s expectations of regional investment aid would be fulfilled.\n(94)\nThe Commission stresses that a letter of intent clearly has to be a written document originating from the authority competent to grant the aid, and not from the representative of a company which is not the recipient of the aid and which has an interest in the sale of the asset in question (the thermoelectric plant). Moreover, these minutes do not meet the minimum requirements set out in paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines for the content of a letter of intent.\n5.4.1.7. Internal company documents\n(95)\nWith regard to the other documents provided by the Italian authorities (see paragraph 54), the Commission considers that, in the light of the clear language of the last sentence of paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines, and of the fact that a letter of intent must originate from the authority competent to grant the aid, the company\u2019s internal documents cannot be deemed equivalent to a letter of intent showing that the authorities intended to award aid for a regional investment project.\n(96)\nIn any event, these documents tend in fact to confirm that the investment decision was taken without a firm and binding commitment on the part of the Italian authorities to grant aid. In particular, an internal report of 26 January 2006 assesses the financial feasibility of the project with and without regional aid. This shows that both hypotheses were being considered. The report concludes that if Fri-El Acerra did not receive regional investment aid the project would be less profitable and more risky. Nevertheless, just a couple of weeks thereafter, on 9 February 2006, Fri-El Acerra set the investment in motion by acquiring NGP\u2019s closed power plant. Neither the Italian authorities nor the recipient have argued that between 26 January 2006 and 9 February 2006 there was any event that might have indicated or confirmed the Italian authorities\u2019 intention to grant aid.\n5.4.1.8. Conclusion: no incentive effect\n(97)\nThe Commission therefore considers that the notified project does not fulfil the conditions with regard to the incentive effect of ad hoc aid set out in paragraph 38 of the 2007 Guidelines, which stipulates that the incentive effect has to be shown by a letter of intent from the authorities in charge, before work on the project starts, stating that the investment project is in principle eligible for aid subject to the Commission\u2019s approval.\n5.4.2. Contribution to a coherent regional development strategy (paragraph 10 of the 2007 Guidelines)\n(98)\nThe Commission repeats, first of all, that under paragraph 10 of the 2007 Guidelines ad hoc regional aid is to be considered admissible only by way of exception. Thus it is for the Member State to demonstrate that ad hoc regional aid contributes to regional development by producing positive effects on such things as job creation (number of jobs directly and indirectly created by the investment), training and knowledge transfer, and spillover and multiplier effects generating further investment by related service providers and manufacturers, while limiting distortion of competition\n(99)\nThe Commission takes account of the fact that the direct creation (or maintenance) of 25 jobs and the indirect creation of 10 jobs does represent a contribution to regional development. But the Commission considers that the number of jobs created is manifestly disproportionate to the amount to be given in aid, which is EUR 19,5 million, meaning that the ad hoc aid per directly created job is EUR 780 000; the disproportion is especially striking by comparison with a large number of ad hoc regional aid measures that the Commission has approved in recent years, where the average aid per job maintained or created was below EUR 70 000 (38). This conclusion holds even when allowance is made for fact that the costs of job creation or maintenance may be vary between Member States.\n(100)\nThe Commission considers, secondly, that the formal conditions laid down for energy production in the various regional development programming and planning documents (39), in particular the target of 200 MW capacity for electricity generation from biomass by 2013 set in the regional environmental energy plan of 2008, do not provide a substantial and significant argument for this ad hoc regional aid. The contribution of the Fri-El Acerra power plant, with a capacity of 74,8 MW and an output of 600 GWh per year, is marginal by comparison with the overall regional energy deficit of 15 000 GWh per year. The Commission considers that the existence of a functioning energy market renders this specific investment unnecessary. The Commission acknowledges that the investment project may help to achieve other formal targets set in various regional programming documents, but considers that its contribution in terms of energy produced from renewable sources is hardly a sufficient justification for ad hoc regional aid to a single company.\n(101)\nAt the notification stage the Italian authorities repeatedly argued that the power plant would produce energy for the Acerra industrial area, shielding enterprises to be established there from the risk of power failures. In the formal investigation stage this argument has been dropped, as Italy has confirmed that Fri-El Acerra must sell its output on the energy market by connecting to the national grid (40). Thus one of the main arguments advanced in justification at the time of the notification has gone, because the energy produced by Fri-El Acerra is to be sold on the national energy market and the new biofuel power plant is directly connected to the national grid.\n(102)\nIn the light of the information provided by the Italian authorities during the formal investigation, the Commission takes note of the argument that the development of the Acerra industrial site might be adversely affected if the Fri-El Acerra investment project were to be discontinued, because this would give another negative signal to potential investors in the area, which is already hard hit by social and economic difficulties. The other enterprises that have manifested an interest in setting up on the site might withdraw, with a further negative impact on a run-down urban area already in crisis. However, it must be pointed out that if an aid measure has no incentive effect ex ante, the fact that the Commission declares it incompatible cannot prevent other investors from locating on the same industrial site or deprive other aid measures of their own incentive effect.\n(103)\nFinally, the Commission observes that the Italian authorities have not provided specific data to show that the investment would produce a transfer of training or knowledge, a spillover effect or a multiplier effect similar to the effects demonstrated in most ad hoc regional aid cases approved by the Commission in recent years (41).\n(104)\nFor the reasons set out here, and taking account of the practice followed in the past and of all possible relevant factors (the number of jobs created directly and indirectly by the project is limited, the contribution to the regional energy policy is negligible, there would be no direct energy supply to the industrial area, there would be no spillover effects, and above all the amount of aid per job created or maintained would clearly be excessive), the Commission concludes that the investment does not contribute to a coherent regional development strategy, as required by paragraph 10 of the 2007 Guidelines.\n5.4.3. Eligible costs (paragraphs 34-36 and 50-56 of the 2007 Guidelines)\n(105)\nNotwithstanding the economic rationale put forward by the Italian authorities, the transfer of the assets (the power plant) from NGP to Fri-El Acerra did not take place in full observance of the rules. The purchaser, Fri-El Acerra, confirms that at the time of the transfer it was 90,5 % controlled by NGP.\n(106)\nNevertheless, NGP\u2019s temporary stake in Fri-El Acerra seems to be linked to the chosen method for transferring the existing plant between two formally independent parties, in which a branch of the business of one was passed to the other as a contribution in kind to capital. The branch of NGP\u2019s business became a contribution to the joint venture, and the shares were then sold to the Fri-El Group; when the transaction was complete, the two companies were again independent. The requirement that the price of the closed thermoelectric power plant be assessed by an independent valuer has been complied with, in line with the principles and the purpose of paragraph 35 of the 2007 Guidelines.\n(107)\nThe Commission concludes that in formal terms the transfer of the closed thermoelectric power plant did not comply fully with paragraph 35 of the 2007 Guidelines, under which an establishment must be \u2018bought by an independent investor\u2019, but that the substance of that paragraph has in any event been respected. The price paid by Fri-El Acerra for the closed power plant was the value assessed by an independent expert, and shortly after completion of the transfer of the assets the buyer became independent of the seller, NGP.\n(108)\nWith regard to the other used assets included in the eligible costs, the Commission accepts the reasoning put forward by the Italian authorities and by Fri-El Acerra that even if there was no formal ex ante valuation by an independent expert, the transfer of the used fuel tanks took place between two independent parties at arm\u2019s length. The price paid for these assets corresponds to the market price, as confirmed in the new document drawn up by the same independent expert that had previously assessed the value of the closed power plant.\n(109)\nConsequently, the acquisition of these assets directly linked to the establishment, i.e. the closed thermoelectric power plant and the used fuel tanks, can be considered to be initial investment within the meaning of paragraph 35 of the 2007 Guidelines.\n5.4.4. Compatibility with the 2007 Guidelines\n(110)\nWhile some of the requirements for regional investment aid set out in the 2007 Guidelines are fulfilled, therefore, the Commission concludes that the obligations for regional ad hoc aid to an investment project in terms of incentive effect and regional contribution are not met. The Commission concludes that the measure cannot be declared compatible under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU and the 2007 Guidelines.\n5.5. Compatibility with the 2008 Environmental Guidelines\n(111)\nNeither at the preliminary assessment stage nor at the formal investigation stage have the Italian authorities responded to the Commission\u2019s observation that the 2008 Environmental Guidelines seem more relevant to the assessment of measures of this kind, where the objectives have to do with energy and the environment, and the investment is in a biofuel plant.\n(112)\nSection 1.3.4 of the 2008 Environmental Guidelines requires a measure to have an incentive effect. Point 27 provides, therefore, that \u2018it needs to be verified that the investment concerned would not have been undertaken without any State aid.\u2019.\n(113)\nIn the present case, as explained in section 5.4.1 above, the investment was undertaken before the authority that was competent to grant the aid had expressed any firm intention actually to do so. The notified aid consequently cannot have any incentive effect, and for this reason alone the tests of the Environmental Guidelines 2008 are not satisfied.\n(114)\nIn addition, the Commission observes that despite an express invitation to that effect Italy has not provided the information necessary to demonstrate that the measure meets the conditions for investment aid for renewable energy set out in the Environmental Guidelines 2008 (points 102-106).\n(115)\nIt is for the Member State to demonstrate that an aid measure is compatible (42). As Italy has not provided information on this point the Commission does not possess sufficient information to reach a conclusion regarding compliance with the other criteria of the 2008 Environmental Guidelines.\n(116)\nThe Commission concludes that the aid measure cannot be declared compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU or with the 2008 Environmental Guidelines, or with any of the other exemption clauses in the TFEU. The measure should therefore be prohibited.\n6. CONCLUSIONS\n(117)\nIn its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission explained why it doubted that the measure under scrutiny would qualify for exemption under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU; the reasons are summarised in section 3 of this Decision. Those doubts have not been entirely dispelled by the information and argument in the observations supplied by the Italian authorities and the recipient of the aid.\n(118)\nThe Commission concludes that the notified ad hoc regional aid to be granted by the Italian authorities to Fri-El Acerra, described in section 2 of this Decision, does not satisfy all the tests set out in the 2007 Guidelines for compatibility with the internal market under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU, nor all the tests set out in the 2008 Environmental Guidelines for compatibility with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. There are no other grounds for compatibility that might apply.\n(119)\nAs it does not qualify for any of the other exemptions set out in the TFEU, the aid measure may not be implemented. According to the Italian authorities, the aid has not yet been granted; there is consequently no need to order its recovery,\nHAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe state aid which Italy plans to grant to Fri-El Acerra Srl, amounting to EUR 19,5 million, is incompatible with the internal market.\nConsequently, the aid may not be implemented.\nArticle 2\nWithin 2 months of notification of this Decision, Italy shall inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply with it.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 15 September 2010.", "references": ["90", "93", "77", "65", "62", "84", "12", "63", "79", "92", "87", "42", "83", "43", "51", "69", "76", "19", "32", "4", "9", "50", "94", "0", "1", "34", "53", "25", "71", "75", "No Label", "15", "17", "41", "48", "70", "78", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "17", "41", "48", "70", "78", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 317/2012\nof 12 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 April 2012.", "references": ["8", "64", "26", "97", "11", "45", "47", "17", "36", "44", "29", "12", "23", "72", "74", "91", "59", "51", "60", "50", "95", "94", "79", "56", "70", "63", "33", "65", "83", "86", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 5 January 2011\nterminating the examination procedure concerning the measures imposed by Brazil affecting the import of textile products\n(2011/2/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community\u2019s rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (1) and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND\n(1)\nOn 12 January 1998 Febeltex, (F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Belge du Textile) lodged a complaint pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3286/94.\n(2)\nThe complainant alleged that European Community sales of textile products in Brazil were hindered by a number of obstacles to trade within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3286/94, including a non-automatic import licensing system and the way this system is developed through, notably, compulsory import payment terms and minimum import prices.\n(3)\nThe Commission decided, after consultation of the Advisory Committee established by Regulation (EC) No 3286/94, that there was sufficient evidence to justify initiating an examination procedure for the purpose of considering the legal and factual issues involved. Consequently, an examination procedure was initiated on 27 February 1998 (2).\nB. THE FINDINGS OF THE EXAMINATION PROCEDURE\n(4)\nThe final report on the investigation procedure was circulated to EU Member States at the 9 November 1998 meeting of the Advisory Committee.\n(5)\nThe report concluded that the Brazilian non-automatic import licensing system, as applied with a minimum price requirement, appeared to be in breach of:\n(a)\nArticles 1, 3 and 5 of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, as: (a) it was not neutral in application; (b) it was not administered in a fair and equitable manner; (c) it did not implement any WTO compatible restrictions and therefore was not limited in scope and duration to a measure it implemented; and (d) it had additional trade-restrictive and distortive effects on imports. In addition, the list of products submitted to non-automatic licensing was not published and the applications for licenses for imports under the minimum price were left without official reply for several months;\n(b)\nArticles X.1 and X.3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, as the non-automatic import licensing system was not published and was not administered in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner;\n(c)\nArticle XI.1 of GATT (1994) as the minimum price system was a restriction other than duties, taxes or other charges made effective through import licenses on the importation of any product of the territory of any other contracting party, without any WTO compatible justification.\nC. DEVELOPMENTS AFTER THE INVESTIGATION\n(6)\nOn 17 March 1999 (3), the Commission decided to initiate a WTO Dispute Settlement procedure. WTO consultations were held on 19 November 1999. On this occasion, while denying all allegations relative to minimum pricing practices both at import licensing or customs valuation levels, Brazil admitted that it did not comply with several of its WTO obligations concerning notification in relation with its import licensing system.\n(7)\nFollowing these consultations, the Brazilian import licensing and customs valuation systems underwent significant changes and the Community industry\u2019s access to the Brazilian market for textile products improved. However there were still several aspects of the Brazilian import licensing and customs valuation systems that needed to be modified in order to ensure Brazil\u2019s full compliance with its obligations under the relevant WTO Agreements.\n(8)\nThe Commission therefore decided, by Decision 2001/429/EC (4), to suspend the abovementioned examination procedure for a period of 6 months, while monitoring the effect of the changes in the Brazilian system.\n(9)\nDuring the first quarter of 2002, several contacts with the Brazilian authorities took place with the aim of finding a mutually acceptable solution. The European Community and Brazil signed a Memorandum of Understanding on arrangements in the area of market access for textiles and clothing products on 6 November 2002, under which both parties agreed to refrain from applying non-tariff barriers. In addition the Memorandum of Understanding addressed also the problem concerning customs valuation.\n(10)\nIn the more than 7 years since the signature of the Memorandum of Understanding, the Commission has not been notified of any particular problems or new obstacles related to market access in Brazil for textile products.\nD. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n(11)\nIn view of the above analysis, it is considered that the examination procedure has led to a satisfactory situation with regard to the obstacles identified in the complaint lodged by Febeltex. The examination procedure should therefore be terminated in accordance with Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3286/94.\n(12)\nThe Advisory Committee has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe examination procedure concerning the measures imposed by Brazil affecting the import of textile products is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 5 January 2011.", "references": ["84", "60", "80", "66", "88", "29", "32", "52", "13", "75", "62", "40", "1", "59", "83", "54", "72", "30", "15", "28", "18", "51", "85", "11", "17", "19", "16", "46", "63", "42", "No Label", "21", "23", "25", "34", "89", "93"], "gold": ["21", "23", "25", "34", "89", "93"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1343/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\non certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Community acceded to the Agreement for the establishment of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM Agreement) pursuant to Council Decision 98/416/EC of 16 June 1998 on the accession of the European Community to the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (3) (GFCM).\n(2)\nThe GFCM Agreement provides an appropriate framework for multilateral cooperation to promote the development, conservation, rational management and best utilisation of living marine resources in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea at levels which are considered sustainable and at low risk of collapse.\n(3)\nThe European Union, as well as Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Romania and Slovenia are contracting parties to the GFCM Agreement.\n(4)\nRecommendations adopted by the GFCM are binding on its contracting parties. As the Union is a contracting party to the GFCM Agreement, these recommendations are binding on the Union and should therefore be implemented in Union law unless their content is already covered thereby.\n(5)\nAt its Annual Sessions in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 the GFCM adopted a number of recommendations and resolutions for certain fisheries in the GFCM Agreement area which have been temporarily implemented in Union law by the annual Regulations on fishing opportunities or, in the case of GFCM Recommendations 2005/1 and 2005/2, by Article 4(3) and Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 (4).\n(6)\nFor reasons of clarity, simplification and legal certainty, and since the permanent character of recommendations requires also a permanent legal instrument for their implementation in Union law, it is appropriate to implement these recommendations via a single legislative act, where future recommendations can be added by way of amendments to that act.\n(7)\nGFCM recommendations apply to the entire GFCM Agreement area, that is the Mediterranean and the Black Sea and connecting waters, as defined in the preamble to the GFCM Agreement, and therefore, for reasons of clarity and legal certainty, they should be implemented in a single separate Regulation rather than through amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 which covers only the Mediterranean Sea.\n(8)\nCertain provisions contained in Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 should apply not only to the Mediterranean Sea but to the entire GFCM Agreement area. Those provisions should therefore be deleted from Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 and included in this Regulation. In addition, certain provisions regarding minimum mesh size that are laid down in that Regulation should be further clarified.\n(9)\nThe \u2018fisheries restricted areas\u2019 established by GFCM recommendations for spatial management measures are equivalent to the \u2018fishing protected areas\u2019 as used in Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.\n(10)\nAt its Annual Session of 23 to 27 March 2009 the GFCM adopted, on the basis of scientific advice by the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), contained in the report of its 11th session (FAO report No 890), a recommendation on the establishment of a fisheries restricted area in the Gulf of Lions. It is appropriate to implement this measure by means of a fishing effort management system.\n(11)\nIn Mediterranean mixed fisheries, the selectivity of some fishing gears cannot be permitted to go beyond a certain level. In addition to the overall control and limitation of fishing effort, it is fundamental to limit fishing effort in areas where adults of important stocks aggregate, in order to ensure a risk of reproduction impairment that is low enough to allow for their sustainable exploitation. It is therefore advisable, in respect of the area examined by the SAC, first to limit the fishing effort to previous levels and then not to allow any increase of that level.\n(12)\nThe advice upon which management measures are based should itself be based on the scientific use of relevant data on fleet capacity and activity, on the biological status of exploited resources and on the social and economic situation of fisheries. Those data need to be collected and submitted in time to allow the subsidiary bodies of the GFCM to prepare their advice.\n(13)\nAt its Annual Session in 2008, the GFCM adopted a recommendation on a regional scheme of port state measures to combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing in the GFCM Area. While Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (5) covers generally the content of that recommendation and has been applied since 1 January 2010, there are nevertheless some parts thereof, such as the frequency, the coverage and the procedure for port inspections, which need to be referred to in this Regulation in order to adapt them to the particularities of the GFCM Agreement area.\n(14)\nImplementing powers should be conferred on the Commission in order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the provisions of this Regulation in respect of the format and transmission of: the report on the fishing activities carried out in fisheries restricted areas; applications for carrying over lost days due to bad weather in the closed season for dolphinfish fisheries and the report on such carrying over; the report in the context of collecting data on dolphinfish fisheries; information in respect of the use of minimum mesh size for nets used for trawling activities exploiting demersal stocks in the Black Sea; and data on statistical matrices, as well as in respect of cooperation and exchange of information with the Executive Secretary of the GFCM. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (6).\n(15)\nIn order to ensure that the Union continues to fulfil its obligations under the GFCM Agreement, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the implementation in Union law of amendments, which have become binding on the Union, to existing GFCM measures which have already been implemented in Union law, as regards the provision to the Executive Secretary of the GFCM of information on minimum mesh size in the Black Sea; the transmission to the Executive Secretary of the GFCM of the list of authorised vessels for the purpose of the GFCM Register; port state measures; cooperation, information and reporting; the table, map and geographic coordinates of the GFCM Geographical Sub-Areas; port state inspection procedures for vessels; and GFCM statistical matrices. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nTITLE I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down the rules for the application by the Union of the conservation, management, exploitation, monitoring, marketing and enforcement measures for fishery and aquaculture products established by the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM).\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Regulation applies to all commercial fishing and aquaculture activities conducted by EU fishing vessels and nationals of Member States in the GFCM Agreement area.\nIt shall apply without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, this Regulation shall not apply to fishing operations conducted solely for the purpose of scientific investigations which are carried out with the permission and under the authority of the Member State whose flag the vessel is flying and of which the Commission and the Member States in whose waters the research is carried out have been informed in advance. Member States conducting fishing operations for the purpose of scientific investigations shall inform the Commission, the Member States in whose waters the research is carried out and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries of all catches from such fishing operations.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall, in addition to the definitions laid down in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (7) and Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006, apply:\n(a)\n\u2018GFCM Agreement area\u2019 means the Mediterranean and the Black Sea and connecting waters, as described in the GFCM Agreement;\n(b)\n\u2018fishing effort\u2019 means the product resulting from multiplying the capacity of a fishing vessel, expressed either in kW or in GT (gross tonnage), by the activity expressed in number of days at sea;\n(c)\n\u2018day at sea\u2019 means any calendar day on which a vessel is absent from port, irrespective of the amount of time in the course of that day that that vessel is present in an area;\n(d)\n\u2018EU Fleet Register number\u2019 means the Community Fleet Register number defined in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 26/2004 of 30 December 2003 on the Community fishing fleet register (8).\nTITLE II\nTECHNICAL MEASURES\nCHAPTER I\nFisheries restricted areas\nSection I\nFisheries restricted area in the Gulf of Lions\nArticle 4\nEstablishment of a fisheries restricted area\nA fisheries restricted area is established in the eastern Gulf of Lions, bounded by lines joining the following geographic coordinates:\n-\n42\u00b0 40\u2032 N, 4\u00b0 20\u2032 E\n-\n42\u00b0 40\u2032 N, 5\u00b0 00\u2032 E\n-\n43\u00b0 00\u2032 N, 4\u00b0 20\u2032 E\n-\n43\u00b0 00\u2032 N, 5\u00b0 00\u2032 E.\nArticle 5\nFishing effort\nFor demersal stocks, the fishing effort of vessels using towed nets, bottom- and mid-water longlines and bottom-set nets in the fisheries restricted area as referred to in Article 4 shall not exceed the level of fishing effort applied in 2008 by each Member State in that area.\nArticle 6\nFishing track record\nMember States shall, not later than 16 February 2012, submit to the Commission in electronic format a list of vessels flying their flag that had a track record of fishing during the year 2008 in the area referred to in Article 4 and in GFCM Geographical Sub-Area 7 as defined in Annex I. That list shall contain the name of the vessel, its EU Fleet Register number, the period for which the vessel was authorised to fish in the area referred to in Article 4 and the number of days spent by each vessel in the year 2008 in Geographical Sub-Area 7 and more specifically in the area referred to in Article 4.\nArticle 7\nAuthorised vessels\n1. Vessels authorised to fish in the area referred to in Article 4 shall be issued with a fishing authorisation by their Member State in accordance with Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (9).\n2. Fishing vessels which do not have records of fishing within the area referred to in Article 4 prior to 31 December 2008 shall not be authorised to start fishing therein.\n3. Member States shall, not later than 16 February 2012, communicate to the Commission the national legislation in force on 31 December 2008 concerning:\n(a)\nthe maximum number of hours per day a vessel is permitted to engage in fishing activity;\n(b)\nthe maximum number of days per week a vessel is permitted to stay at sea and be absent from port; and\n(c)\nthe compulsory times for fishing vessels to exit from, and return to, their registered port.\nArticle 8\nProtection of sensitive habitats\nMember States shall ensure that the area referred to in Article 4 is protected from the impact of any other human activity jeopardising the conservation of the features that characterise that area as an area of spawners\u2019 aggregation.\nArticle 9\nInformation\nBefore 1 February of each year, Member States shall submit to the Commission in electronic format a report on the fishing activities carried out in the area referred to in Article 4.\nThe Commission may adopt implementing acts as regards detailed rules for the format and transmission of the report on such fishing activities. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 25(2).\nSection II\nFisheries restricted areas in order to protect deep-sea sensitive habitats\nArticle 10\nEstablishment of fisheries restricted areas\nFishing with towed dredges and bottom trawl nets shall be prohibited in the following areas:\n(a)\ndeep-sea fisheries restricted area \u2018Lophelia reef off Capo Santa Maria di Leuca\u2019 bounded by lines joining the following coordinates:\n-\n39\u00b0 27,72\u2032 N, 18\u00b0 10,74\u2032 E\n-\n39\u00b0 27,80\u2032 N, 18\u00b0 26,68\u2032 E\n-\n39\u00b0 11,16\u2032 N, 18\u00b0 32,58\u2032 E\n-\n39\u00b0 11,16\u2032 N, 18\u00b0 04,28\u2032 E;\n(b)\ndeep-sea fisheries restricted area \u2018The Nile delta area cold hydrocarbon seeps\u2019 bounded by lines joining the following coordinates:\n-\n31\u00b0 30,00\u2032 N, 33\u00b0 10,00\u2032 E\n-\n31\u00b0 30,00\u2032 N, 34\u00b0 00,00\u2032 E\n-\n32\u00b0 00,00\u2032 N, 34\u00b0 00,00\u2032 E\n-\n32\u00b0 00,00\u2032 N, 33\u00b0 10,00\u2032 E;\n(c)\ndeep-sea fisheries restricted area \u2018The Eratosthenes Seamount\u2019 bounded by lines joining the following coordinates:\n-\n33\u00b0 00,00\u2032 N, 32\u00b0 00,00\u2032 E\n-\n33\u00b0 00,00\u2032 N, 33\u00b0 00,00\u2032 E\n-\n34\u00b0 00,00\u2032 N, 33\u00b0 00,00\u2032 E\n-\n34\u00b0 00,00\u2032 N, 32\u00b0 00,00\u2032 E.\nArticle 11\nProtection of sensitive habitats\nMember States shall ensure that their competent authorities are called upon to protect the deep-sea sensitive habitats in the areas referred to in Article 10 from, in particular, the impact of any other activity jeopardising the conservation of the features that characterise those habitats.\nCHAPTER II\nEstablishment of a closed season for the dolphinfish fisheries using fish aggregating devices\nArticle 12\nClosed season\n1. The common dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) fisheries using fish aggregating devices (FADs) shall be prohibited from 1 January to 14 August of each year.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, if a Member State can demonstrate that, due to bad weather, the fishing vessels flying its flag were unable to make use of their normal fishing days, that Member State may carry over days lost by its vessels in FAD fisheries until 31 January of the following year. In that case, before the end of the year Member States shall submit to the Commission an application in respect of the number of days to be carried over.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall also apply in the management zone referred to in Article 26(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.\n4. The application referred to in paragraph 2 shall contain the following information:\n(a)\na report containing the details of the cessation of fishing activities in question, including appropriate supporting meteorological information;\n(b)\nthe name of the vessel and its EU Fleet Register number.\n5. The Commission shall decide on applications of the kind referred to in paragraph 2 within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of an application and shall inform the Member State in writing of that decision.\n6. The Commission shall inform the Executive Secretary of the GFCM of decisions taken pursuant to paragraph 5. Before 1 November of each year, Member States shall send to the Commission a report on the carrying over of days lost in the previous year as referred to in paragraph 2.\n7. The Commission may adopt implementing acts as regards detailed rules for the format and transmission of the applications referred to in paragraph 4 and of the report on such carrying over referred to in paragraph 6. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 25(2).\nArticle 13\nFishing authorisations\nFishing vessels authorised to participate in the common dolphinfish fishery shall be granted a fishing authorisation in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and shall be included in a list containing the name of the vessel and its EU Fleet Register number, which the Member State concerned shall provide to the Commission. Vessels of an overall length of less than 10 metres shall be required to have a fishing authorisation.\nThis requirement shall also apply to the management zone referred to in Article 26(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.\nArticle 14\nData collection\n1. Without prejudice to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (10), Member States shall set up an appropriate system of collection and treatment of fisheries catch and fishing effort data.\n2. Member States shall report to the Commission by 15 January of each year the number of vessels involved in the fishery, as well as the total landings and transhipments of common dolphinfish carried out in the previous year by the fishing vessels flying their flag in each Geographical Sub-Area of the GFCM Agreement area as set out in Annex I.\nThe Commission may adopt implementing acts as regards detailed rules for the format and transmission of such reports. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 25(2).\n3. The Commission shall forward the information received from the Member States to the Executive Secretary of the GFCM.\nCHAPTER III\nFishing gear\nArticle 15\nMinimum mesh size in the Black Sea\n1. The minimum mesh size for nets used for trawling activities exploiting demersal stocks in the Black Sea shall be 40 mm. Panels of netting smaller than 40 mm mesh size opening shall not be used or kept on board.\n2. Before 1 February 2012, the net referred to in paragraph 1 shall be replaced by a square-meshed net of 40 mm at the cod-end or, at the duly justified request of the ship-owner, by a diamond meshed net of 50 mm with an acknowledged size selectivity equivalent to or higher than that of square-meshed nets of 40 mm at the cod-end.\n3. Member States whose fishing vessels conduct trawling activities exploiting demersal stocks in the Black Sea shall submit to the Commission, for the first time not later than 16 February 2012 and subsequently every 6 months, the list of fishing vessels that conduct such activities in the Black Sea and that are equipped with a square-meshed net of at least 40 mm at the cod-end or diamond meshed nets of at least 50 mm, as well as the percentage that such vessels represent of the whole national demersal trawl fleet.\nThe Commission may adopt implementing acts as regards detailed rules for the format and transmission of the information referred to in this paragraph. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 25(2).\n4. The Commission shall forward the information referred to in paragraph 3 to the Executive Secretary of the GFCM.\nArticle 16\nUse of towed dredges and trawl nets fisheries\nThe use of towed dredges and trawl nets fisheries at depths beyond 1 000 m shall be prohibited.\nTITLE III\nCONTROL MEASURES\nCHAPTER I\nRegister of vessels\nArticle 17\nRegister of authorised vessels\n1. Before 1 December of each year, each Member State shall send to the Commission, through the accustomed data-processing support, an updated list of the vessels of more than 15 metres in overall length flying its flag and registered in its territory that it authorises to fish in the GFCM Agreement area by issuance of a fishing authorisation.\n2. The list indicated in paragraph 1 shall include the following information:\n(a)\nthe vessel\u2019s EU Fleet Register number and its external marking, as defined in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 26/2004;\n(b)\nthe period during which fishing and/or transhipment is authorised;\n(c)\nthe fishing gears used.\n3. The Commission shall send the updated list to the Executive Secretary of the GFCM before 1 January of each year so that the vessels concerned can be entered on the GFCM register of vessels of more than 15 metres in overall length authorised to fish in the GFCM Agreement area (GFCM register).\n4. Any change to be made to the list referred to in paragraph 1 shall be notified to the Commission for transmission to the Executive Secretary of the GFCM, through the accustomed data-processing support, at least 10 working days before the vessel begins fishing activity in the GFCM Agreement area.\n5. EU fishing vessels of more than 15 metres in overall length that are not entered on the list referred to in paragraph 1 shall not fish, retain on board, tranship or land any type of fish or shellfish within the GFCM Agreement area.\n6. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that:\n(a)\nonly vessels flying their flag that are included in the list referred to in paragraph 1 and that hold on board a fishing authorisation issued by them are permitted, under the terms of the authorisation, to carry out fishing activities in the GFCM Agreement area;\n(b)\nno fishing authorisation is issued to vessels that have carried out illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing (IUU fishing) in the GFCM Agreement area or elsewhere, unless the new owners provide adequate documentary evidence that the previous owners and operators no longer have any legal, beneficial or financial interest in, or exercise any control over, their vessels, or that their vessels neither take part in nor are associated with IUU fishing;\n(c)\nas far as possible, their national legislation prohibits owners and operators of vessels flying their flag that are included in the list referred to in paragraph 1 from taking part in, or being associated with, fishing activities carried out in the GFCM Agreement area by vessels not on the GFCM register;\n(d)\nas far as possible, their national legislation requires owners of vessels flying their flag that are included in the list referred to in paragraph 1 to be nationals or legal entities within the flag Member State;\n(e)\ntheir vessels comply with all the relevant GFCM conservation and management measures.\n7. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prohibit fishing, retention on board, transhipment and landing of fish and shellfish caught in the GFCM Agreement area carried out by vessels of more than 15 metres in overall length that are not on the GFCM register.\n8. Member States shall, without delay, communicate to the Commission any information showing that there are strong reasons for suspecting that vessels of more than 15 metres in overall length that are not on the GFCM register are fishing for or transhipping fish and shellfish in the GFCM Agreement area.\nCHAPTER II\nPort state measures\nArticle 18\nScope\nThis Chapter shall apply to third-country fishing vessels.\nArticle 19\nPrior notice\nBy way of derogation from Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, the period for prior notification shall be at least 72 hours before the estimated time of arrival at the port.\nArticle 20\nPort inspections\n1. Notwithstanding Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, Member States shall carry out inspections in their designated ports of at least 15 % of landings and transhipment operations each year.\n2. Notwithstanding Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, fishing vessels that enter into a Member State\u2019s port without prior authorisation shall be inspected in all cases.\nArticle 21\nInspection procedure\nIn addition to the requirements provided for in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, port inspections shall comply with the requirements set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 22\nDenial of use of port\n1. Member States shall not allow a third-country vessel to use their ports for landing, transhipping or processing fisheries products caught in the GFCM Agreement area and shall deny it access to port services, including, inter alia, refuelling and re-supplying services, if the vessel:\n(a)\ndoes not comply with the requirements of this Regulation;\n(b)\nis included in a list of vessels that have engaged in, or have supported, IUU fishing adopted by a regional fisheries management organisation; or\n(c)\ndoes not have a valid authorisation to engage in fishing or fishing-related activities in the GFCM Agreement area.\nBy way of derogation from the first subparagraph, nothing shall prevent Member States from allowing, in situations of force majeure or distress within the meaning of Article 18 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (11), a third-country vessel from using their ports for services strictly necessary to remedy such situations.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall apply in addition to the provisions on denial of use of port provided for by Article 4(2) and Article 37(5) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008.\n3. Where a Member State has denied the use of its ports to a third-country vessel in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2, it shall promptly notify the master of the vessel, the flag State, the Commission and the Executive Secretary of the GFCM of such action.\n4. Where the grounds for denial referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 no longer apply, the Member State shall withdraw its denial and notify the addressees referred to in paragraph 3 of that withdrawal.\nTITLE IV\nCOOPERATION, INFORMATION AND REPORTING\nArticle 23\nCooperation and information\n1. The Commission and Member States shall cooperate and exchange information with the Executive Secretary of the GFCM, in particular by:\n(a)\nrequesting information from, and providing information to, relevant databases;\n(b)\nrequesting cooperation and cooperating in order to promote the effective implementation of this Regulation.\n2. Member States shall ensure that their national fisheries-related information systems allow for the direct electronic exchange of information on port state inspections referred to in Title III between them and the Executive Secretary of the GFCM, taking due account of appropriate confidentiality requirements.\n3. Member States shall take measures to share, by electronic means, information among relevant national agencies and to coordinate the activities of such agencies in the implementation of the measures set out in Chapter II of Title III.\n4. Member States shall establish a list of contact points for the purpose of this Regulation, which shall be transmitted electronically, without delay, to the Commission and to the Executive Secretary and the contracting parties of the GFCM.\n5. The Commission may adopt implementing acts as regards detailed rules for cooperation and the exchange of information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 25(2).\nArticle 24\nReporting of statistical matrices\n1. Member States shall submit before 1 May of each year to the Executive Secretary of the GFCM the data for Tasks 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 of the GFCM statistical matrix as set out in Section C of Annex III.\n2. For the submission of data referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall use the GFCM data-entry system or any other appropriate data submission standard and protocol that is set by the Executive Secretary of the GFCM and that is available on the GFCM website.\n3. Member States shall inform the Commission of the data submitted on the basis of this Article.\nThe Commission may adopt implementing acts as regards detailed rules for the format and transmission of data referred to in this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 25(2).\nTITLE V\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 25\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture established by Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. That Committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 26\nDelegation of powers\nAs far as is necessary, in order to implement in Union law amendments that become obligatory for the Union to existing GFCM measures that have already been implemented in Union law, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 27, in order to amend the provisions of this Regulation in respect of the following:\n(a)\nthe provision to the Executive Secretary of the GFCM of information under Article 15(4);\n(b)\nthe transmission of the list of authorised vessels to the Executive Secretary of the GFCM under Article 17;\n(c)\nport state measures set out in Articles 18 to 22;\n(d)\ncooperation, information and reporting set out in Articles 23 and 24;\n(e)\nthe table, the map and the geographical coordinates of GFCM Geographical Sub-Areas (GSAs) set out in Annex I;\n(f)\nport state inspection procedures for vessels set out in Annex II; and\n(g)\nGFCM statistical matrices set out in Annex III.\nArticle 27\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 26 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 3 years from 19 January 2012. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 6 months before the end of the three-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than 3 months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of powers referred to in Article 26 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 26 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 28\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006\nRegulation (EC) No 1967/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 4, paragraph 3 is deleted;\n(2)\nin Article 9, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. For towed nets, other than those referred to in paragraph 4, the minimum mesh size shall be at least:\n(a)\na square-meshed net of 40 mm at the cod-end; or\n(b)\nat the duly justified request of the ship owner, a diamond-meshed net of 50 mm of an acknowledged size selectivity that is equivalent to or higher than that of nets referred to under point (a).\nFishing vessels shall be authorised to use and keep on board only one of the two types of nets.\nThe Commission shall submit a report on the implementation of this paragraph to the European Parliament and the Council by 30 June 2012, on the basis of which, as well as on the basis of the information supplied by Member States before 31 December 2011, it shall propose due amendments where appropriate.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 24 is deleted;\n(4)\nin Article 27, paragraphs 1 and 4 are deleted.\nArticle 29\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["42", "76", "25", "95", "77", "60", "94", "6", "40", "37", "58", "10", "69", "88", "85", "4", "78", "52", "90", "2", "86", "66", "50", "84", "46", "33", "26", "56", "93", "9", "No Label", "59", "67"], "gold": ["59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1005/2010\nof 8 November 2010\nconcerning type-approval requirements for motor vehicle towing devices and implementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 is a separate Regulation for the purposes of the Community type-approval procedure provided for by Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 repeals Council Directive 77/389/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to motor vehicle towing devices (3). The requirements set out in that Directive should be carried over to this Regulation and, where necessary, amended in order to adapt them to the development of scientific and technical knowledge.\n(3)\nThe scope of this Regulation is in line with that of Directive 77/389/EEC and thus limited to vehicles of category M and N.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 lays down fundamental provisions on requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to towing devices. Therefore, it is necessary to set out the specific procedures, tests and requirements for such type-approval.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to motor vehicles of categories M and N, as defined in Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018vehicle type with regard to the towing devices\u2019 means vehicles which do not differ in such essential respects as the characteristics of the towing devices.\n(2)\n\u2018towing device\u2019 means a device in the shape of a hook, eye or other form, to which a connecting part, such as a towing bar or towing rope, can be fitted.\nArticle 3\nProvisions for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to towing devices\n1. The manufacturer or his representative shall submit to the type-approval authority the application for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to towing devices.\n2. The application shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Part 1 of Annex I.\n3. If the relevant requirements set out in Annex II to this Regulation are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC type-approval and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nA Member State may not assign the same number to another vehicle type.\n4. For the purposes of paragraph 3, the type-approval authority shall deliver an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 4\nValidity and extension of approvals granted under Directive 77/389/EEC\nNational authorities shall permit the sale and entry into service of vehicles type-approved before the date referred to in Article 13, paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009, and continue to grant extension of approvals to those vehicles under the terms of Directive 77/389/EEC.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["39", "6", "98", "97", "89", "4", "92", "0", "10", "35", "29", "72", "11", "99", "12", "94", "16", "75", "47", "69", "45", "63", "71", "84", "24", "82", "52", "31", "66", "78", "No Label", "8", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["8", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1075/2010\nof 22 November 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1069/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["6", "11", "32", "40", "81", "24", "45", "5", "36", "44", "16", "87", "17", "86", "50", "77", "4", "42", "31", "15", "69", "55", "20", "49", "39", "29", "12", "92", "48", "95", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 534/2010\nof 18 June 2010\nsuspending submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 1 to 7 June 2010 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, are equal to the quantity available under order number 09.4319.\n(2)\nSubmission of further applications for licences for order number 09.4319 should be suspended until the end of the marketing year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubmission of further applications for licences, which correspond to the order numbers indicated in the Annex, shall be suspended until the end of the marketing year 2009/10.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2010.", "references": ["74", "57", "17", "5", "38", "33", "23", "9", "36", "96", "11", "34", "7", "61", "99", "78", "28", "15", "39", "45", "95", "46", "88", "3", "80", "90", "8", "62", "64", "51", "No Label", "21", "22", "25", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "25", "71"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/168/CFSP\nof 21 March 2011\non the International Criminal Court and repealing Common Position 2003/444/CFSP\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn its action on the international scene the Union seeks to advance the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law, as provided for in Article 21 of the Treaty. The Union seeks to develop relations and build partnerships with, inter alia, international organisations which share these principles.\n(2)\nOne of the objectives of the Union is to preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.\n(3)\nThe Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter the \u2018Rome Statute\u2019) entered into force on 1 July 2002.\n(4)\nAll Member States have ratified the Rome Statute.\n(5)\nThe principles of the Rome Statute, as well as those governing the functioning of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter the \u2018ICC\u2019), are fully in line with the principles and objectives of the Union. The serious crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC are of concern to the international community as a whole and to the Union and its Member States.\n(6)\nThe Union and its Member States are determined to put an end to the impunity of the perpetrators of those crimes by taking measures at national level and by enhancing international cooperation to ensure their effective prosecution.\n(7)\nThe Union and the ICC signed an agreement on cooperation and assistance on 10 April 2006 which entered into force on 1 May 2006 (1).\n(8)\nThe principles and rules of international criminal law embodied in the Rome Statute should be taken into account in other international legal instruments.\n(9)\nThe Union is convinced that universal accession to the Rome Statute is essential for the full effectiveness of the ICC and, to that end, considers that initiatives to enhance the acceptance of the Rome Statute are to be encouraged, provided they are consistent with the letter and spirit of the Rome Statute.\n(10)\nIt is most important that the integrity of the Rome Statute and the independence of the ICC be preserved.\n(11)\nBy its Conclusions of 30 September 2002 on the International Criminal Court the Council has developed a set of principles attached to those Conclusions to serve as guidelines for Member States when considering the necessity and scope of possible agreements or arrangements in responding to proposals regarding the conditions to surrender persons to the ICC.\n(12)\nOn 25 May 2010, the Council adopted Conclusions on the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter the \u2018Review Conference\u2019), which was held in Kampala, Uganda, from 31 May to 11 June 2010.\n(13)\nThe Review Conference adopted amendments to the Rome Statute, in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 2 thereof to define the crime of aggression and to establish conditions under which the ICC could exercise jurisdiction with respect to that crime; adopted amendments to the Rome Statute to expand the jurisdiction of the ICC to three additional war crimes when committed in armed conflicts not of an international character; and decided to retain, for the time being, Article 124 of the Rome Statute. Those amendments are subject to ratification or acceptance and shall enter into force in accordance with Article 121, paragraph 5 of the Rome Statute. The ICC shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for the adoption of an amendment to the Rome Statute.\n(14)\nThe Union pledged at the Review Conference to review and update its instruments in support of the ICC and to continue the promotion of the universality and preservation of the integrity of the Rome Statute.\n(15)\nThe implementation of the Rome Statute requires practical measures that the Union and its Member States should fully support.\n(16)\nThe Action Plan which was, inter alia, called for by a Resolution on entry into force of the Statute of the International Criminal Court approved by the European Parliament on 28 February 2002 to follow up Council Common Position 2001/443/CFSP of 11 June 2001 on the International Criminal Court (2) was adopted on 4 February 2004 and should be adapted as appropriate.\n(17)\nIn the light of the above, Common Position 2003/444/CFSP of 16 June 2003 on the International Criminal Court (3) should be repealed and replaced by this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The International Criminal Court (hereinafter the \u2018ICC\u2019), for the purpose of preventing and curbing the commission of the serious crimes falling within its jurisdiction, is an essential means of promoting respect for international humanitarian law and human rights, thus contributing to freedom, security, justice and the rule of law as well as contributing to the preservation of peace, the prevention of conflicts and the strengthening of international security, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.\n2. The objective of this Decision is to advance universal support for the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter the \u2018Rome Statute\u2019) by promoting the widest possible participation in it, to preserve the integrity of the Rome Statute, to support the independence of the ICC and its effective and efficient functioning, to support cooperation with the ICC, and to support the implementation of the principle of complementarity.\nArticle 2\n1. In order to contribute to the objective of the widest possible participation in the Rome Statute, the Union and its Member States shall make every effort to further this process by raising the issue of the widest possible ratification, acceptance, approval or accession to the Rome Statute and the implementation of the Rome Statute in negotiations, including negotiations of agreements, or political dialogues with third States, groups of States or relevant regional organisations, whenever appropriate.\n2. The Union and its Member States shall contribute to the worldwide participation in and implementation of the Rome Statute also by other means, such as by adopting initiatives to promote the dissemination of the values, principles and provisions of the Rome Statute and related instruments. In furtherance of the objectives of this Decision, the Union shall cooperate as necessary with other interested States, international institutions, non-governmental organisations and other representatives of civil society.\n3. The Member States shall share with all interested States their own experiences on the issues related to the implementation of the Rome Statute and, when appropriate, provide other forms of support to that objective. The Member States shall contribute, when requested, with technical and, where appropriate, financial assistance to the legislative work needed for the participation in and implementation of the Rome Statute by third States. The Union may, when requested, also contribute with such assistance. States considering to become party to the Rome Statute or to cooperate with the ICC shall be encouraged to inform the Union of difficulties encountered on that path.\n4. In implementing this Article, the Union and its Member States shall coordinate political and technical support for the ICC with regard to various States or groups of States.\nArticle 3\nIn order to support the independence of the ICC, the Union and its Member States shall, in particular:\n(a)\nencourage States Parties to transfer promptly and in full their assessed contributions in accordance with the decisions taken by the Assembly of States Parties;\n(b)\nmake every effort towards the accession or ratification by Member States of the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court as soon as possible and promote such accession or ratification by other States; and\n(c)\nendeavour to support as appropriate the development of training and assistance for judges, prosecutors, officials and counsel in work related to the ICC.\nArticle 4\n1. The Union and its Member States shall follow closely developments concerning cooperation with the ICC in accordance with the Rome Statute.\n2. The Union shall keep under review the implementation of the Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the European Union on cooperation and assistance.\n3. The Union and its Member States shall consider the conclusion, as appropriate, of ad hoc arrangements and agreements to enable the effective functioning of the ICC and shall encourage third parties to do so.\n4. The Union and its Member States shall continue, as appropriate, to draw the attention of third States to the Council Conclusions of 30 September 2002 on the International Criminal Court and to the EU Guiding Principles annexed thereto, with regard to proposals for agreements or arrangements concerning conditions for the surrender of persons to the ICC.\nArticle 5\nThe Union and its Member States shall, as appropriate, take initiatives or measures to ensure the implementation of the principle of complementarity at national level.\nArticle 6\nThe Council and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall, where appropriate, coordinate measures by the Union and its Member States for the implementation of Articles 2 to 5.\nArticle 7\nMember States shall cooperate to ensure the smooth functioning of the Assembly of States Parties in all respects.\nArticle 8\nThe Union shall ensure consistency and coherence between its instruments and policies in all areas of its external and internal action in relation to the most serious international crimes as referred to in the Rome Statute.\nArticle 9\nThe Council shall review this Decision as appropriate.\nArticle 10\nCommon Position 2003/444/CSFP is hereby repealed and replaced by this Decision. References to the repealed Common Position 2003/444/CSFP shall be construed as being made to this Decision.\nArticle 11\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["76", "85", "33", "67", "21", "0", "22", "77", "7", "74", "29", "80", "37", "46", "65", "66", "69", "57", "56", "55", "70", "62", "54", "41", "60", "45", "92", "34", "11", "28", "No Label", "4", "5", "9", "14"], "gold": ["4", "5", "9", "14"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 February 2011\namending Decision 2007/697/EC granting a derogation requested by Ireland pursuant to Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources\n(notified under document C(2011) 1032)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(2011/127/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIf the amount of manure that a Member State intends to apply per hectare each year is different from those specified in the first sentence of the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC and in point (a) of that subparagraph, that amount is to be fixed so as not to prejudice the achievement of the objectives specified in Article 1 of that Directive and it has to be justified on the basis of objective criteria, such as long growing seasons and crops with high nitrogen uptake.\n(2)\nOn 22 October 2007, the Commission adopted Decision 2007/697/EC granting a derogation requested by Ireland pursuant to Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (2), allowing Ireland the application of 250 kg nitrogen per hectare per year from livestock manure on farms with at least 80 % grassland.\n(3)\nThe derogation granted by Decision 2007/697/EC concerned approximately 5 000 farms in Ireland corresponding to approximately 2,7 % of total number of holdings with cattle or sheep, 10 % of total grazing livestock numbers and 4,2 % of the total net agricultural area. Decision 2007/697/EC expires on 17 July 2010.\n(4)\nOn 12 May 2010 Ireland submitted to the Commission a request for an extension of the derogation. The request contained a justification on the basis of the objective criteria specified in the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC.\n(5)\nIreland has adopted a new action programme for the period July 2010 to December 2013, which mainly maintains the measures of the action programme for the period until 30 June 2010 and applies to the whole territory of Ireland.\n(6)\nThe fourth report on implementation of Directive 91/676/EEC in Ireland for the period 2004-2007 shows in general stable or improving water quality. For groundwater, 2 % of sites showed average nitrate values above 50 mg/l and 74 % of sites values below 25 mg/l. For surface river waters, 97 % of monitoring sites showed average nitrate values below 25 mg/l, and no sites showed average values above 50 mg/l. 93 % of lakes were classified as either oligotrophic or mesotrophic and 7 % of lakes were classified as eutrophic or hypertrophic.\n(7)\nLivestock numbers decreased further during the period 2004-2007, by about 4 % for cattle, 19 % for sheep, 4 % for pigs and 7 % for poultry (3). The annual use of organic nitrogen from livestock manure and of mineral nitrogen decreased by 5 % and 17 % respectively. The total farmed area decreased by 3 % to 4,28 million hectares and grassland still accounts for over 90 % of the agricultural area.\n(8)\nIn the light of the scientific information referred to in the request for extension of the derogation and the measures which Ireland has committed itself to in the action programme for the period July 2010 to December 2013, it can be concluded that the conditions for obtaining the derogation as specified in Directive 91/676/EEC, such as long growing seasons and crops with high nitrogen uptake, are still fulfilled, and that the derogation does not prejudice the achievement of the objectives of that Directive.\n(9)\nFor the purpose of ensuring that the grassland farms concerned may continue to benefit from a derogation, it is appropriate to extend the period of application of Decision 2007/697/EC to 31 December 2013.\n(10)\nThe deadlines for reporting to the Commission set out in Decision 2007/697/EC should however be adapted in order to simplify the administrative burden by allowing Ireland to establish only one deadline for all reporting obligations.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Nitrates Committee set up pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 91/676/EEC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2007/697/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThe derogation requested by Ireland by letter of 18 October 2006 and the extension requested by letter of 12 May 2010, for the purpose of allowing a higher amount of livestock manure than that provided for in the first sentence of the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC and in point (a) of that subparagraph, is granted, subject to conditions laid down in this Decision.\u2019.\n2.\nThe second subparagraph of Article 8(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Those maps shall be submitted to the Commission annually by June.\u2019.\n3.\nArticle 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\nApplication\nThis Decision shall apply in the context of the Irish Action Programme as implemented by the European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2010 (Statutory Instrument No 610 of 2010).\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2013.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2011.", "references": ["33", "73", "26", "57", "50", "84", "48", "53", "37", "95", "87", "74", "99", "7", "35", "5", "70", "64", "47", "32", "9", "49", "10", "63", "31", "25", "81", "56", "85", "24", "No Label", "8", "58", "60", "83", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "58", "60", "83", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUPOL COPPS/1/2010\nof 21 December 2010\nextending the mandate of the Head of the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS)\n(2010/796/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/784/CFSP of 17 December 2010 on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 10(1) of Decision 2010/784/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of EUPOL COPPS, including in particular the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nThe High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed an extension of the mandate of Mr Henrik MALMQUIST as Head of EUPOL COPPS,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Mr Henrik MALMQUIST as Head of the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) is hereby extended from 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply until 31 December 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2010.", "references": ["6", "98", "73", "48", "41", "20", "51", "91", "33", "64", "37", "35", "72", "57", "96", "93", "71", "16", "42", "47", "74", "67", "46", "39", "36", "66", "17", "60", "26", "28", "No Label", "5", "9", "52", "95"], "gold": ["5", "9", "52", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 396/2011\nof 20 April 2011\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["67", "47", "4", "37", "87", "62", "50", "0", "57", "68", "21", "71", "53", "32", "58", "42", "29", "76", "82", "54", "84", "90", "25", "34", "74", "99", "13", "77", "83", "59", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 7 February 2012\non a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat, in 2011, swine vesicular disease in Italy and classical swine fever in Lithuania\n(notified under document C(2012) 577)\n(Only the Italian and Lithuanian texts are authentic)\n(2012/72/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSwine vesicular disease is an infectious viral disease of pigs causing disturbance to trade and export to third countries.\n(2)\nClassical swine fever is an infectious viral disease of pigs and wild boar which causes disturbance to intra-Union trade and export to third countries.\n(3)\nIn the event of an outbreak of swine vesicular disease, there is a risk that the disease agent might spread to other pig holdings within that Member State, but also to other Member States and to third countries through trade in live pigs or their products.\n(4)\nIn the event of an outbreak of classical swine fever, there is a risk that the disease agent might spread to other pig holdings within that Member State, but also to other Member States and to third countries through trade in live pigs, their products, semen, ova and embryos.\n(5)\nCouncil Directive 92/119/EEC of 17 December 1992 introducing general Community measures for the control of certain animal diseases and specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease (2) sets out measures which in the event of an outbreak have to be immediately applied by Member States to prevent further spread of the virus.\n(6)\nCouncil Directive 2001/89/EC of 23 October 2001 on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever (3) lays down the measures to be immediately applied in the event of an outbreak by Member States to prevent further spread of the virus.\n(7)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. Pursuant to Article 3(2) of that Decision, Member States shall obtain a financial contribution towards the costs of certain measures to eradicate communicable diseases listed in Article 3(1).\n(8)\nArticle 3(6) first indent of Decision 2009/470/EC lays down rules on the percentage of the costs incurred by the Member State that may be covered by the financial contribution from the Union.\n(9)\nThe payment of a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to eradicate communicable diseases listed in Article 3(1) is subject to the rules laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (4).\n(10)\nOutbreaks of swine vesicular disease occurred in Italy in 2011. The authorities of Italy informed the Commission and the other Member States in the framework of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health of the measures applied in accordance with Union legislation on notification and eradication of the disease and the results thereof.\n(11)\nOutbreaks of classical swine fever occurred in Lithuania in 2011. The authorities of Lithuania informed the Commission and the other Member States in the framework of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health of the measures applied in accordance with Union legislation on notification and eradication of the disease and the results thereof.\n(12)\nThe authorities of Italy and Lithuania have therefore fulfilled their technical and administrative obligations with regard to the measures provided for in Article 3(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(13)\nAt this stage, the exact amount of the financial contribution from the Union cannot be determined as the information on the cost of compensation and on operational expenditure provided are estimates. Because of the large amount involved a first tranche should be fixed for Lithuania.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFinancial contribution from the Union to Italy\n1. A financial contribution from the Union shall be granted to Italy towards the costs incurred by this Member State in taking measures pursuant to Article 3(2) and (6) of Decision 2009/470/EC, to combat swine vesicular disease in Italy in 2011.\n2. The amount of the financial contribution mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be fixed in a subsequent decision to be adopted in accordance with the procedure established in Article 40(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC.\nArticle 2\nFinancial contribution from the Union to Lithuania\n1. A financial contribution from the Union shall be granted to Lithuania towards the costs incurred by this Member State in taking measures pursuant to Article 3(2) and (6) of Decision 2009/470/EC, to combat classical swine fever in Lithuania in 2011.\n2. The amount of the financial contribution mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be fixed in a subsequent decision to be adopted in accordance with the procedure established in Article 40(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC.\nArticle 3\nPayment arrangements\nA first tranche of EUR 700 000,00 shall be paid to Lithuania as part of the Union financial contribution provided for in Article 2(1).\nArticle 4\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic and the Republic of Lithuania.\nDone at Brussels, 7 February 2012.", "references": ["88", "83", "43", "21", "48", "46", "37", "94", "59", "54", "72", "0", "75", "7", "71", "10", "79", "41", "32", "53", "89", "22", "68", "73", "40", "23", "69", "84", "80", "77", "No Label", "4", "15", "33", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "15", "33", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1200/2010\nof 14 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for saithe in Norwegian waters of I and II by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["75", "63", "92", "79", "21", "52", "62", "69", "22", "99", "66", "86", "46", "65", "40", "98", "42", "87", "51", "41", "90", "72", "20", "36", "38", "0", "76", "54", "78", "48", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/270/CFSP\nof 5 May 2011\nappointing the European Union Special Representative in Kosovo (1)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 10 June 1999, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1244.\n(2)\nOn 15 September 2006, the Council adopted Joint Action 2006/623/CFSP (2) on the establishment of a team to contribute to the preparations of the establishment of a possible International Civilian Office in Kosovo, including a European Union Special Representative component (ICO/EUSR Preparation Team).\n(3)\nOn 13/14 December 2007, the European Council underlined that the Union stands ready to play a leading role in strengthening stability in the region and in implementing a settlement defining Kosovo's future status. It stated the Union's readiness to assist Kosovo in the path towards sustainable stability, including by a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) mission and a contribution to an International Civilian Office as part of the international presences.\n(4)\nOn 4 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/123/CFSP (3) appointing Mr Pieter FEITH European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Kosovo, whose mandate expires on 30 April 2011.\n(5)\nMr Fernando GENTILINI should be appointed as EUSR in Kosovo from 1 May 2011 to 31 July 2011.\n(6)\nThe Stabilisation and Association Process is the strategic framework of the Union\u2019s policy towards the Western Balkan region, and its instruments apply to Kosovo, including a European partnership, political and technical dialogue under the Stabilisation and Association Process dialogue, and related Union assistance programmes.\n(7)\nThe mandate of the EUSR will be implemented in coordination with the Commission in order to ensure consistency with other relevant activities falling within Union competence.\n(8)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nMr Fernando GENTILINI is hereby appointed as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Kosovo from 1 May 2011 until 31 July 2011. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the Union in Kosovo. These include to play a leading role in strengthening stability in the region and in implementing a settlement defining Kosovo's future status, with the aim of a stable, viable, peaceful, democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo, contributing to regional cooperation and stability, on the basis of good neighbourly relations; a Kosovo that is committed to the rule of law and to the protection of minorities and of cultural and religious heritage.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the policy objectives, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\noffer the Union\u2019s advice and support in the political process;\n(b)\npromote overall Union political coordination in Kosovo;\n(c)\nprovide local political guidance to the Head of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX KOSOVO), including on the political aspects of issues relating to executive responsibilities;\n(d)\nensure consistency and coherence of Union action towards the public. The EUSR spokesperson shall be the main Union point of contact for Kosovo media on Common Foreign and Security Policy/Common Security and Defence Policy (CFSP/CSDP) issues. All press and public information activities shall be conducted in close and continued coordination with the HR spokesperson/Council Secretariat Press Office;\n(e)\ncontribute to the development and consolidation of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Kosovo, including with regard to women and children, in accordance with Union human rights policy and Union Guidelines on Human Rights.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (EEAS).\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 May 2011 to 31 July 2011 shall be EUR 690 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union. Nationals of the countries of the Western Balkans region shall be allowed to tender for contracts.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. A dedicated staff shall be assigned to assist the EUSR to implement his mandate and to contribute to the coherence, visibility and effectiveness of Union action in Kosovo overall. Within the limits of his mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting his team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of his team.\n2. Member States, institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, institution of the Union or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and his staff\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of his staff shall be agreed with the host party/parties as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of classified information\n1. The EUSR and the members of his team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council's security regulations (4), in particular when managing EU classified information.\n2. The HR shall be authorised to release to NATO/KFOR EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018CONFIDENTIEL UE\u2019 generated for the purposes of the action, in accordance with the Council's security regulations.\n3. The HR shall be authorised to release to the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), in accordance with the operational needs of the EUSR, EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018RESTREINT UE\u2019 which are generated for the purposes of the action, in accordance with the Council's security regulations. Local arrangements shall be drawn up for this purpose.\n4. The HR shall be authorised to release to third parties associated with this Decision EU non-classified documents related to the deliberations of the Council with regard to the action covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council's Rules of Procedure (5).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegation in the region and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with his mandate and the security situation in his geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under his direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as the management of security incidents and including a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of his team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the HR, the Council and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report as necessary to Council working parties. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote overall Union political coordination. He shall help ensure that all Union instruments in the field are engaged coherently to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSRs active in the region as appropriate. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States\u2019 missions and the Union\u2019s delegations.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of Union delegations in the region and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall provide local political guidance to the Head of the EULEX KOSOVO, including on the political aspects of issues relating to executive responsibilities. The EUSR and the Civilian Operation Commander will consult each other as required.\n3. The EUSR shall also liaise with relevant local bodies and other international and regional actors in the field.\n4. The EUSR, with other Union actors present in the field, shall ensure the dissemination and sharing of information among Union actors in theatre with a view to achieving a high degree of common situation awareness and assessment.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the HR, the Council and the Commission with a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 May 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 5 May 2011.", "references": ["50", "8", "84", "83", "32", "94", "42", "26", "87", "58", "45", "60", "17", "51", "89", "48", "56", "30", "69", "23", "64", "44", "29", "71", "39", "15", "14", "2", "24", "33", "No Label", "3", "9", "52", "91", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "52", "91", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 July 2010\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India and Malaysia\n(2010/392/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. Procedure\n(1)\nOn 30 June 2009, the European Commission (\u2018Commission\u2019) received a complaint concerning the alleged injurious dumping of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India and Malaysia (the \u2018countries concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe complaint was lodged by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute (EIFI) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of certain stainless steel fasteners pursuant to Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(3)\nThe complaint contained prima facie evidence of the existence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding.\n(4)\nThe Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), accordingly initiated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the countries concerned, currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70.\n(5)\nOn the same day, the Commission initiated an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the countries concerned (3).\n(6)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the Union industry and to any known association of producers in the Union, to the exporters/producers in the countries concerned, to any association of exporters/producers, to the importers, to any known association of importers, and to the authorities of the countries concerned. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\nB. Withdrawal of the complaint and termination of the proceeding\n(7)\nBy its letter of 1 April 2010 to the Commission, EIFI formally withdrew its complaint.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(9)\nThe Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated since the investigation had not brought to light any considerations showing that such termination would not be in the Union interest. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received indicating that such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(10)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the countries concerned should be terminated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India and Malaysia, currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 14 July 2010.", "references": ["56", "24", "29", "60", "94", "16", "25", "55", "18", "27", "90", "65", "13", "83", "59", "3", "42", "76", "12", "32", "73", "44", "64", "15", "31", "79", "57", "54", "92", "51", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/644/CFSP\nof 25 October 2010\namending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 23(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP.\n(2)\nThe Council has carried out a complete review of the list of persons and entities, as set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP, to which Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of the Decision apply. When doing so, the Council took account of observations submitted by those concerned.\n(3)\nThe Council has concluded that, with the exception of two entities, the persons and entities listed in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP should continue to be subject to the specific restrictive measures provided for therein.\n(4)\nThe Council has also concluded that the entries concerning certain entities in the list should be amended.\n(5)\nThe list of persons and entities referred to in Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP should be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP shall be replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 October 2010.", "references": ["81", "6", "84", "44", "41", "42", "18", "33", "99", "64", "56", "54", "7", "65", "24", "76", "70", "60", "53", "85", "1", "52", "35", "89", "28", "26", "67", "10", "77", "40", "No Label", "3", "5", "11", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "11", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 750/2010\nof 7 July 2010\namending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for certain pesticides in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor acetamiprid, acibenzolar-S-methyl, azoxystrobin, imazalil, prohexadione, pyraclostrobin and thiacloprid maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Annex II and part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For dimethomorph, dithiocarbamates (mancozeb), fipronil, fludioxonil, pirimicarb, prosulfocarb, tebuconazole, triclopyr and valiphenal, MRLs were set in part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. So far, for amisulbrom, ametoctradin and bixafen no specific MRLs were set nor were the substances included in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(2)\nIn the context of a procedure, in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2), for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance azoxystrobin on cardoon an application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing MRL.\n(3)\nAs regards acetamiprid, such an application was made for the use on beet leaves and cherries. As regards acibenzolar-S-methyl, such an application was made for the use on peach and apricots. As regards amisulbrom, such an application was made for the use on wine and table grapes. As regards bixafen, such an application was made for cereals. In view of that application, it is necessary to set MRLs for meat, fat, liver, kidney and milk from bovines, sheep and goats, since cereals are used as feed and residues may end up on forage for these animals. As regards ametoctradin, such an application was made for the use on table and wine grapes, potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, courgette, melon, watermelon, pumpkin, lettuce, and lamb's lettuce. As regards dithiocarbamates (mancozeb), such an application was made for the use on peas without pods. As regards dimethomorph, such an application was made for the use on peas without pods and leeks. As regards fludioxonil, such an application was made for the use on celeriac. As regards fipronil, an application was made to modify the values for cereals. As regards imazalil, an application was made to modify the value for the limit of determination, LOD. As regards pirimicarb, such an application was made for the use on fennel. As regards prohexadione, such an application was made to change the residue definition and for the use on rye. As regards prosulfocarb, such an application was made for the use on carrots and celeriac. As regards tebuconazole, such an application was made for the use on mandarins. As regards thiacloprid, such an application was made for olives, poppy seeds and various root and tuber vegetables. As regards triclopyr, such an application was made to change the residue definition on animal products and to change the MRLs on animal products. As regards valifenalate, such an application was made for the use on tomatoes and aubergine.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 an application was made for tebuconazole on passion fruit. The authorised use of tebuconazole on passion fruit in Kenya leads to higher residues than the MRL in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. To avoid trade barriers for the importation of passion fruits, a higher MRL is necessary. The authorised uses of pyraclostrobin on cherries, plums, strawberries, cane fruit, other small fruits and berries, spring onions, cucumbers, melon, watermelon, pumpkin sunflower seeds and coffee beans in USA, Canada and Brazil lead to higher residues than the MRL in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. To avoid trade barriers for the importation of these crops, higher MRLs are necessary.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, these applications were evaluated by the Member States concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission.\n(6)\nThe European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, assessed the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs (3). It forwarded these opinions to the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public.\n(7)\nThe Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs requested by the applicants were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime exposure to these substances via consumption of all food products that may contain these substances, nor the short term exposure due to extreme consumption of the relevant crops showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference dose (ARfD) is exceeded. In the case of valifenalate the Authority considered that lower MRLs than the MRLs proposed by the evaluating Member State were sufficient. In that case it is appropriate to set the lower MRLs.\n(8)\nBased on the reasoned opinions of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II, and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 July 2010.", "references": ["5", "84", "6", "62", "49", "73", "60", "28", "17", "95", "88", "56", "91", "70", "48", "19", "78", "36", "93", "47", "55", "46", "37", "45", "35", "71", "75", "64", "22", "80", "No Label", "38", "65", "66", "69", "76"], "gold": ["38", "65", "66", "69", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 271/2011\nof 21 March 2011\nimplementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (1), and in particular Article 8a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 May 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus, additional persons should be included in the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annexes I and IA to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006. Furthermore, the information relating to certain persons on the lists in Annexes I and IA to that Regulation should be updated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and IA to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 shall be replaced by the text set out in Annexes I and II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["24", "10", "57", "60", "18", "36", "58", "79", "31", "72", "21", "43", "55", "30", "22", "62", "61", "78", "76", "75", "27", "87", "45", "51", "63", "70", "17", "80", "38", "23", "No Label", "0", "2", "3", "7", "11", "91", "97"], "gold": ["0", "2", "3", "7", "11", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 44/2012\nof 17 January 2012\nfixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 43(3) of the Treaty provides that the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, is to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1) requires that Union measures governing access to waters and resources and the sustainable pursuit of fishing activities be established taking into account available scientific, technical and economic advice and in particular reports drawn up by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), as well as in the light of any advice received from Regional Advisory Councils.\n(3)\nIt is incumbent upon the Council to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities by fishery or by group of fisheries, including certain conditions functionally linked thereto, as appropriate. Fishing opportunities should be distributed among Member States in such a way as to assure each Member State relative stability of fishing activities for each stock or fishery and having due regard to the objectives of the common fisheries policy established in Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation relating to revising quotas for capelin available to the Union in Greenland waters of ICES subareas V and XIV under the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Greenland, powers should be conferred on the Commission.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of catch limits for certain stocks of short-lived species, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission relating to revising the TAC in the light of scientific information collected during the first half of 2012. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (2).\n(6)\nThe Commission should adopt immediately applicable implementing acts relating to revising the TAC of these stocks of short-lived species where, in duly justified cases relating to the need for the Union to comply with its international obligations, imperative grounds of urgency so require.\n(7)\nCertain TACs allow Member States to grant additional allocations for vessels participating in trials on fully documented fisheries. The aim of those trials is to test a catch-quota system to avoid discards and the waste of otherwise usable fish resources it entails. Uncontrolled discards of fish are a threat to the long term sustainability of fish as a public good and thus to the common fisheries policy objectives. By contrast, catch-quota systems inherently present the fishers with an incentive to optimise the catch selectivity of their operations. In order to achieve a rational management of discards, a fully documented fishery should cover every operation at sea, rather than what is landed at port. The conditions for Member States to grant such additional allocations should therefore include an obligation to ensure the use of close circuit television cameras (CCTV) associated to a system of sensors. This should enable to record in detail all retained and discarded parts of catches. A system based on human observers operating in real time on board would be less efficient, more costly, and less reliable. Consequently, the use of CCTV is at this time a prerequisite for the achievement of discard reduction schemes such as fully documented fisheries, provided that the requirements of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (3) are complied with.\n(8)\nThe TACs should be established on the basis of available scientific advice, taking into account biological and socio-economic aspects whilst ensuring fair treatment between fishing sectors, as well as in the light of the opinions expressed during the consultation of stakeholders, in particular at the meetings with the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Regional Advisory Councils concerned.\n(9)\nFor stocks subject to specific multiannual plans, the TACs should be established in accordance with the rules laid down in those plans. Consequently, the TACs for stocks of sole in the North Sea, of plaice in the North Sea, of cod in the North Sea, Skagerrak and the eastern Channel, and of bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean should be established in accordance with the rules laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 676/2007 of 11 June 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea (4); Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks (5) (the \u2018Cod Plan\u2019); and Council Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 of 6 April 2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean (6).\n(10)\nFor stocks for which there is no sufficient or reliable data in order to provide size estimates, management measures and TAC levels should follow the precautionary approach to fisheries management as defined in point (i) of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, while taking into account stock-specific factors, including, in particular, available information on stock trends and mixed fisheries considerations.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (7), the stocks that are subject to the various measures referred to therein should be identified.\n(12)\nIt is necessary to establish the fishing effort ceilings for 2012 in accordance with Articles 11 and 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008, Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 676/2007 and Articles 5 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009, while taking into account Council Regulation (EC) No 754/2009 of 27 July 2009 excluding certain groups of vessels from the fishing effort regime laid down in Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 (8).\n(13)\nIt is appropriate, following advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), to maintain and revise a system to manage sandeel in EU waters of ICES divisions IIa and IIIa and ICES subarea IV.\n(14)\nFor certain species, such as certain species of sharks, even a limited fishing activity could result in a serious risk to their conservation. Fishing opportunities for such species should therefore be fully restricted through a general prohibition on fishing those species.\n(15)\nNorway lobster is caught in mixed demersal fisheries together with various other species. In a zone to the west of Ireland, known as the Porcupine Bank, scientific advice has recommended that catches of this species do not increase in 2012. In order to help continue the recovery of the stock, it is appropriate to keep fishing opportunities confined, in a certain part of that zone and in certain periods, to the catching of pelagic species with which Norway lobster is not caught.\n(16)\nIn accordance with the procedure provided for in the agreements or protocols on fisheries relations with Norway (9), the Faroe Islands (10), Greenland (11) and Iceland (12), the Union has held consultations on fishing rights with those partners. The consultations with the Faroe Islands have not been finalised and the arrangements for 2012 with that partner are expected to be concluded in early 2012. Similarly, consultations with Iceland will continue in 2012. In order to avoid interruption of Union fishing activities whilst allowing for the necessary flexibility for the conclusion of those arrangements in 2012, it is appropriate for the Union to establish on a provisional basis the fishing opportunities for stocks subject to the agreements with Iceland and/or the Faroe Islands.\n(17)\nIn accordance with the consultations between coastal states on the management of mackerel, blue whiting, Atlanto-Scandian herring and North Sea haddock, the Union may authorise fishing by EU vessels of up to 10 % beyond the quota available to the Union, provided that any quantities fished beyond the quota available to the Union would be deducted from its quota in 2013. Similarly, the Union may use in 2013 any unused quantities up to 10 % of the quota available to it in 2012. It is appropriate to enable such flexibility in the management of those fishing opportunities to the Member States concerned, in particular by allowing the Member States concerned to opt for the use of a flexibility quota.\n(18)\nThe Union fisheries for cod in EU and international waters of ICES zones I and IIB have traditionally entailed by-catches of haddock. It is therefore necessary to fix haddock by-catch limits for those fisheries that are in line with historical levels.\n(19)\nThe Union is a contracting party to several fisheries organisations and participates in other organisations as a cooperating non-party. Moreover, by virtue of the 2003 Act of Accession, fisheries agreements previously concluded by the Republic of Poland, such as the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock resources in the central Bering Sea, are as from the date of accession of Poland managed by the Union. Those fisheries organisations have recommended the introduction for 2012 of a number of measures, including fishing opportunities for EU vessels. Those fishing opportunities should be implemented in the law of the Union.\n(20)\nAt its 33rd Annual Meeting in 2011, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) adopted a number of fishing opportunities for 2012 of certain stocks in Subareas 1-4 of the NAFO Convention Area. Those fishing opportunities, which consist of certain TACs and, in the case of shrimp in fishery Division 3M, an effort allocation scheme, should be implemented in the law of the Union.\n(21)\nAt its 82nd Annual Meeting in 2011, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) adopted conservation measures for yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna and skipjack tuna. IATTC also adopted a resolution on the conservation of oceanic whitetip sharks. Those measures should be implemented in the law of the Union.\n(22)\nAt its Annual Meeting in 2011, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) adopted the compliance tables fixing the adjusted quotas and indicating the under-utilisation and over-utilisation of the fishing opportunities of the ICCAT contracting parties. In that context, ICCAT recognised that, during the year 2010, the Union had under-exploited its quota for Northern and Southern swordfish, bigeye tuna and Northern albacore. In order to respect the adjustments to the Union quotas established by ICCAT, it is necessary to carry out the distribution of the fishing opportunities arising from this under-utilisation on the basis of the respective contribution of each Member State towards the under-utilisation without any modification of the distribution key established in this Regulation concerning the annual allocation of TACs. Furthermore, as a result of the same annual meeting, the rebuilding plan for blue and white marlins was amended, the Union quota for blue marlin decreased, the Union quota for white marlin slightly increased, and an ICCAT recommendation was adopted on the conservation of silky sharks. Those measures should be implemented in the law of the Union.\n(23)\nAt its Annual Meeting in 2011, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) did not modify its measures regarding fishing opportunities as currently implemented in the law of the Union. The currently applicable measures adopted by the IOTC should be implemented in the law of the Union.\n(24)\nDuring the Third International Meeting, held in May 2007, for the creation of a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) in the high seas of the South Pacific (SPRFMO), the participants adopted interim measures, including fishing opportunities, in order to regulate pelagic fishing activities as well as bottom fisheries in that area until the establishment of such RFMO. Those interim measures were revised at the 2nd Preparatory Conference for the SPRFMO Commission held in January 2011 and will be revised again at the 3rd Preparatory Conference for the SPRFMO Commission to be held from 30 January to 3 February 2012. Those interim measures are voluntary and not legally binding under international law. It is however appropriate, in accordance with the cooperation and conservation obligations enshrined in the International Law of the Sea, to implement those measures in the law of the Union by establishing an overall quota for the Union and an allocation among the Member States concerned.\n(25)\nAt its Annual Meeting in 2011, the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO) did not modify the total allowable catches for Patagonian toothfish, orange roughy, alfonsinos and deep-sea red crab agreed for 2011 and 2012 at its Annual Meeting in 2010. The currently applicable measures adopted by the SEAFO should be implemented in the law of the Union.\n(26)\nIn the light of the most recent scientific advice from ICES and in accordance with the international commitments in the context of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Convention (NEAFC), it is necessary to limit the fishing effort on certain deep-sea species.\n(27)\nThe 8th Annual Meeting of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) in 2011 has been postponed until 2012. However, it is appropriate that the currently applicable conservation and management measures remain in place until that Annual Meeting is held.\n(28)\nAt its Annual Meeting in 2011, the Parties to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock resources in the central Bering Sea did not modify its measures regarding fishing opportunities. The currently applicable measures should be implemented in the law of the Union.\n(29)\nCertain international measures which create or restrict fishing opportunities for the Union are adopted by the relevant RFMOs at the end of the year and become applicable before the entry into force of this Regulation. It is therefore necessary for the provisions that implement such measures in the law of the Union to apply retroactively. In particular, since the fishing season in CCAMLR (Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) Convention Area runs from 1 December to 30 November, and thus certain fishing opportunities or prohibitions in the CCAMLR Convention Area are laid down for a period of time starting from 1 December 2011, it is appropriate that the relevant provisions of this Regulation apply from that date. Such retroactive application will be without prejudice to the principle of legitimate expectations as CCAMLR members are forbidden to fish in the CCAMLR Convention Area without authorisation.\n(30)\nOn 16 December 2011 the Union made a declaration with respect to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (\u2018Venezuela\u2019) on the granting of fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of Venezuela in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the coast of French Guyana. It is necessary to fix the fishing opportunities for snappers available to Venezuela in EU waters.\n(31)\nThe use of fishing opportunities available to EU vessels set out in this Regulation is subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (13), and in particular to Articles 33 and 34 thereof concerning the recording of catches and fishing effort and the notification of data on the exhaustion of fishing opportunities. It is therefore necessary to specify the codes to be used by Member States when sending data to the Commission relating to landings of stocks subject to this Regulation.\n(32)\nIn order to avoid the interruption of fishing activities and to ensure the livelihood of the fishermen of the Union, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2012, except for the provisions concerning fishing effort limits, which should apply from 1 February 2012, and specific provisions in particular regions, which should have a specific date of application as indicated in recital 29. For reasons of urgency, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication.\n(33)\nFishing opportunities should be used in full compliance with the applicable law of the Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nTITLE I\nSCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. This Regulation fixes fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements.\n2. The fishing opportunities referred to in paragraph 1 shall include:\n(a)\ncatch limits for the year 2012;\n(b)\nfishing effort limits for the period from 1 February 2012 to 31 January 2013;\n(c)\nfishing opportunities for the period from 1 December 2011 to 30 November 2012 for certain stocks in the CCAMLR Convention Area; and\n(d)\nfishing opportunities for the periods set out in Article 27 for certain stocks in the IATTC Convention Area.\n3. This Regulation also fixes provisional fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to fisheries consultations with third countries. The definitive fishing opportunities shall be fixed upon conclusion of those consultations in accordance with the Treaty.\n4. Certain fishing opportunities identified in Annex I remain unallocated and may not be fished by the Member States until definitive fishing opportunities have been established in accordance with paragraph 3.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to:\n(a)\nEU vessels; and\n(b)\nthird-country vessels in EU waters.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018EU vessel\u2019 means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State and registered in the Union;\n(b)\n\u2018third-country vessel\u2019 means a fishing vessel flying the flag of, and registered in, a third country;\n(c)\n\u2018EU waters\u2019 means waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of waters adjacent to the overseas countries and territories listed in Annex II to the Treaty;\n(d)\n\u2018total allowable catch\u2019 (TAC) means the quantity that can be taken and landed from each fish stock each year;\n(e)\n\u2018quota\u2019 means a proportion of the TAC allocated to the Union, a Member State or a third country;\n(f)\n\u2018international waters\u2019 means waters falling outside the sovereignty or jurisdiction of any State;\n(g)\n\u2018mesh size\u2019 means the mesh size of fishing nets as determined in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 517/2008 (14).\nArticle 4\nFishing zones\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following zone definitions shall apply:\n(a)\nICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) zones are the geographical areas specified in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 218/2009 (15);\n(b)\n\u2018Skagerrak\u2019 means the geographical area bounded on the west by a line drawn from the Hanstholm lighthouse to the Lindesnes lighthouse and on the south by a line drawn from the Skagen lighthouse to the Tistlarna lighthouse and from this point to the nearest point on the Swedish coast;\n(c)\n\u2018Kattegat\u2019 means the geographical area bounded on the north by a line drawn from the Skagen lighthouse to the Tistlarna lighthouse and from this point to the nearest point on the Swedish coast and on the south by a line drawn from Hasen\u00f8re to Gnibens Spids, from Korshage to Spodsbjerg and from Gilbjerg Hoved to Kullen;\n(d)\nCECAF (Committee for Eastern Central Atlantic Fisheries) zones are the geographical areas specified in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 216/2009 (16);\n(e)\nNAFO (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation) zones are the geographical areas specified in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 217/2009 (17);\n(f)\n\u2018SEAFO (South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation) Convention Area\u2019 is the geographical area defined in the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources in the South-East Atlantic Ocean (18);\n(g)\n\u2018ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) Convention Area\u2019 is the geographical area defined in the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (19);\n(h)\n\u2018CCAMLR (Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) Convention Area\u2019 is the geographical area defined in point (a) of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 601/2004 (20);\n(i)\n\u2018IATTC (Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission) Convention Area\u2019 is the geographical area defined in the Convention for the Strengthening of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission established by the 1949 Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Costa Rica (21);\n(j)\n\u2018IOTC (Indian Ocean Tuna Commission) Convention Area\u2019 is the geographical area defined in the Agreement for the establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (22);\n(k)\n\u2018SPRFMO (South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation) Convention Area\u2019 is the high seas geographical area south of 10\u00b0 N, north of the CCAMLR Convention Area, east of the SIOFA Convention Area as defined in the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (23), and west of the areas of fisheries jurisdictions of South American States;\n(l)\n\u2018the WCPFC (Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission) Convention Area\u2019 is the geographical area defined in the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (24);\n(m)\n\u2018high seas of the Bering Sea\u2019 is the geographical area of the high seas of the Bering Sea beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of the coastal States of the Bering Sea is measured.\nTITLE II\nFISHING OPPORTUNITIES FOR EU VESSELS\nCHAPTER I\nGeneral provisions\nArticle 5\nTACs and allocations\n1. The TACs for EU vessels in EU waters or in certain non-EU waters and the allocation of such TACs among Member States, and the conditions functionally linked thereto, where appropriate, are set out in Annex I.\n2. EU vessels are authorised to make catches, within the TACs set out in Annex I, in waters falling within the fisheries jurisdiction of the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland and Norway, and the fishing zone around Jan Mayen, subject to the condition set out in Article 14 of and Annex III to this Regulation and in Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 (25) and its implementing provisions.\n3. The Commission shall revise quotas for capelin available to the Union in Greenland waters of ICES subareas V and XIV on the basis of the TAC and its allocation to the Union established by Greenland in accordance with the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand, and the Protocol thereto.\n4. In the light of scientific information collected during the first half of 2012, TACs set out in Annex I for the following stocks may be revised by the Commission by means of implementing acts adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 38(2):\n(a)\nthe stock of sandeel and associated by-catches in EU waters of ICES divisions IIa and IIIa and ICES subarea IV in accordance with Annex IIB to this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe stock of Norway pout and associated by-catches in ICES subarea IIIa and EU waters of ICES division IIa and ICES subarea IV; and\n(c)\nthe stock of sprat and associated by-catches in EU waters of ICES division IIa and ICES subarea IV.\n5. On duly justified imperative grounds of urgency relating to the obligation of the Union to comply with its international obligations, the Commission shall revise the TACs set out in Annex I for the stocks referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article by means of immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 38(3). Those acts shall remain in force for the period of application of this Regulation, and in any case not later than 31 December 2012.\nArticle 6\nAdditional allocation for vessels participating in trials on fully documented fisheries\n1. For certain stocks, a Member State may grant an additional allocation to vessels flying its flag participating in trials on fully documented fisheries. Those stocks are identified in Annex I. The additional allocation shall not exceed an overall limit set out in Annex I as a percentage of the quota allocated to that Member State.\n2. The additional allocation referred to in paragraph 1 may be granted only in accordance with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe vessel makes use of close circuit television cameras (CCTV) associated to a system of sensors to record all fishing and processing activities on board the vessels;\n(b)\nthe amount of the additional allocation granted to an individual vessel that participates in trials on fully documented fisheries shall be no more than 75 % of the discards estimated for the type of vessel to which it belongs, and in any case shall not represent more than a 30 % increase of the vessel's basic allocation; and\n(c)\nall catches of the relevant stock subject to the additional allocation by that vessel shall be counted against its total allocation.\nNotwithstanding point (b), a Member State may exceptionally grant to vessel flying its flag additional allocation that corresponds to more than 75 % of the estimated discards for the type of vessel to which the vessel concerned belongs, provided that:\n(i)\nthe estimated discards for the type of vessel are less than 10 %;\n(ii)\nit can be demonstrated that the inclusion of that type of vessel is important to evaluate the potential of the CCTV system for control purposes; and\n(iii)\nan overall limit of 75 % of the estimated discards is not exceeded for all vessels participating in the trials.\n3. Where a Member State detects that a vessel participating in trials on fully documented fisheries fails to comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 2, it shall immediately withdraw the additional allocation granted to that vessel and exclude it from participation in those trials for the remainder of the year 2012.\n4. Prior to granting the additional allocation referred to in paragraph 1, a Member State shall submit to the Commission the following information:\n(a)\nthe list of vessels flying its flag participating in trials on fully documented fisheries,\n(b)\nthe specifications of the remote electronic monitoring equipment installed on board those vessels;\n(c)\nthe capacity, type and specification of gears used by those vessels;\n(d)\nthe estimated discards for each type of vessel participating in the trials; and\n(e)\nthe amount of catches of the stock subject to the relevant TAC made in 2011 by the vessels participating in the trials.\n5. The Commission may request that the assessment of the estimated discards for the type of vessel referred to in point (b) of paragraph 2, be submitted to a scientific advisory body for review. In the absence of a confirming assessment, the Member State concerned shall inform the Commission, in writing, of the measures taken to ensure that the relevant vessels comply with the estimated discards condition established in point (b) of paragraph 2.\nArticle 7\nFlexibility in the management of certain stocks\n1. For certain stocks identified in Annex I, a Member State may opt to increase its initial quota set in Annex I by 10 %. The Member State concerned shall notify its decision to the Commission. Upon such notification, the increased quota shall be considered the quota allocated to that Member State.\n2. Any quantities fished in 2012 under such increased quota that exceed the initial quota shall be deducted for the purpose of calculating the quota of the Member State concerned for the relevant stock for 2013.\n3. Any quantities not fished under the initial quota up to 10 % of that quota shall be added for the purpose of calculating the quota of the Member State concerned for the relevant stock for 2013.\nArticle 8\nConditions for landing catches and by-catches\nFish from stocks for which TACs are established shall be retained on board or landed only if:\n(a)\nthe catches have been taken by vessels flying the flag of a Member State having a quota and that quota is not exhausted; or\n(b)\nthe catches consist of a share in a EU quota which has not been allocated by quota among Member States, and that EU quota has not been exhausted.\nArticle 9\nFishing effort limits\nFrom 1 February 2012 to 31 January 2013, the fishing effort measures laid down in Annex IIA shall apply for the management of certain cod, plaice and sole stocks in:\n(a)\nthe Skagerrak;\n(b)\nthat part of ICES division IIIa not covered by the Skagerrak and the Kattegat;\n(c)\nICES subarea IV;\n(d)\nEU waters of ICES division IIa; and\n(e)\nICES division VIId.\nArticle 10\nCatch and effort limits for deep-sea fisheries\n1. Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 (26) establishing the requirement of holding a deep-sea fishing permit shall apply to Greenland halibut. The catching, retaining on board, transhipping and landing of Greenland halibut shall be subject to the conditions referred to in that Article.\n2. Member States shall ensure that for 2012 the fishing effort levels, measured in kilowatt days absent from port, by vessels holding deep-sea fishing permits referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 do not exceed 65 % of the average annual fishing effort deployed by the vessels of the Member State concerned in 2003 on trips when deep-sea fishing permits were held or deep-sea species, as listed in Annexes I and II to that Regulation, were caught. This paragraph shall apply only to fishing trips on which more than 100 kg of deep-sea species, other than greater silver smelt, were caught.\nArticle 11\nSpecial provisions on allocations of fishing opportunities\n1. The allocation of fishing opportunities among Member States as set out in this Regulation shall be without prejudice to:\n(a)\nexchanges made pursuant to Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;\n(b)\nreallocations made pursuant to Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 or pursuant to Article 10(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008;\n(c)\nadditional landings allowed under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(d)\nquantities withheld in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(e)\ndeductions made pursuant to Articles 37, 105, 106 and 107 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\n2. Except where otherwise specified in Annex I to this Regulation, Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 shall apply to stocks subject to precautionary TAC and Article 3(2) and (3) and Article 4 of that Regulation shall apply to stocks subject to analytical TAC.\nArticle 12\nClosed fishing season\n1. It shall be prohibited to fish or retain on board any of the following species in the Porcupine Bank during the period from 1 May to 31 July 2012: tusk, blue ling and ling.\n2. For the purposes of this Article, the Porcupine Bank shall comprise the geographical area bounded by rhumb lines sequentially joining the following positions:\nPoint\nLatitude\nLongitude\n1\n52\u00b0 27\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 19\u2032 W\n2\n52\u00b0 40\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 30\u2032 W\n3\n52\u00b0 47\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 39,600\u2032 W\n4\n52\u00b0 47\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 56\u2032 W\n5\n52\u00b0 13,5\u2032 N\n13\u00b0 53,830\u2032 W\n6\n51\u00b0 22\u2032 N\n14\u00b0 24\u2032 W\n7\n51\u00b0 22\u2032 N\n14\u00b0 03\u2032 W\n8\n52\u00b0 10\u2032 N\n13\u00b0 25\u2032 W\n9\n52\u00b0 32\u2032 N\n13\u00b0 07,500\u2032 W\n10\n52\u00b0 43\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 55\u2032 W\n11\n52\u00b0 43\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 43\u2032 W\n12\n52\u00b0 38,800\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 37\u2032 W\n13\n52\u00b0 27\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 23\u2032 W\n14\n52\u00b0 27\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 19\u2032 W\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, transit through the Porcupine Bank, carrying on board the species referred to in that paragraph, shall be permitted in accordance with Article 50(3), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\nArticle 13\nProhibitions\n1. It shall be prohibited for EU vessels to fish for, to retain on board, to tranship or to land the following species:\n(a)\nbasking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) in EU and non-EU waters;\n(b)\nporbeagle (Lamna nasus) in all waters, except where it is provided otherwise in Annex I, Part B to Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 (27);\n(c)\nangel shark (Squatina squatina) in EU waters;\n(d)\ncommon skate (Dipturus batis) in EU waters of ICES division IIa and ICES subareas III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X;\n(e)\nundulate ray (Raja undulata) and white skate (Rostroraja alba) in EU waters of ICES subareas VI, VII, VIII, IX and X; and\n(f)\nguitarfishes (Rhinobatidae) in EU waters of ICES subareas I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XII.\n2. When accidentally caught, species referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be harmed. They shall be promptly released.\nArticle 14\nData transmission\nWhen, pursuant to Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Member States submit to the Commission data relating to the landings of quantities of stocks caught, they shall use the stock codes set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nCHAPTER II\nFishing authorisations in third-country waters\nArticle 15\nFishing authorisations\n1. The maximum number of fishing authorisations for EU vessels fishing in waters of a third country is set out in Annex III.\n2. Where one Member State transfers quota to another Member State (\u2018swap\u2019) in the fishing areas set out in Annex III on the basis of Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, the transfer shall include an appropriate transfer of fishing authorisations and shall be notified to the Commission. However, the total number of fishing authorisations for each fishing area, as set out in Annex III, shall not be exceeded.\nCHAPTER III\nFishing opportunities in waters of regional fisheries management organisations\nSection 1\nICCAT Convention Area\nArticle 16\nFishing, farming and fattening capacity limitations for bluefin tuna\n1. The number of EU bait boats and trolling boats authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna between 8 kg/75 cm and 30 kg/115 cm in the Eastern Atlantic shall be limited as set out in point 1 of Annex IV.\n2. The number of EU coastal artisanal fishing vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna between 8 kg/75 cm and 30 kg/115 cm in the Mediterranean shall be limited as set out in point 2 of Annex IV.\n3. The number of EU vessels fishing for bluefin tuna in the Adriatic Sea for farming purposes authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna between 8 kg/75 cm and 30 kg/115 cm shall be limited as set out in point 3 of Annex IV.\n4. The number and total capacity in gross tonnage of fishing vessels authorised to fish for, retain on board, tranship, transport, or land bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean shall be limited as set out in point 4 of Annex IV.\n5. The number of traps engaged in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery shall be limited as set out in point 5 of Annex IV.\n6. The bluefin tuna farming capacity, the fattening capacity and the maximum input of wild caught bluefin tuna allocated to the farms in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean shall be limited as set out in point 6 of Annex IV.\nArticle 17\nAdditional conditions to the bluefin tuna quota allocated in Annex ID\nIn addition to the prohibition period provided for in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009, purse-seine fishing for bluefin tuna shall be prohibited in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean from 15 April to 15 May 2012.\nArticle 18\nRecreational and sport fisheries\nMember States shall allocate a specific quota of bluefin tuna for recreational and sport fisheries from their quotas allocated in Annex ID.\nArticle 19\nSharks\n1. Retaining on board, transhipping or landing any part or whole carcass of bigeye thresher sharks (Alopias superciliosus) in any fishery shall be prohibited.\n2. It shall be prohibited to undertake a directed fishery for species of thresher sharks of the genus Alopias.\n3. Retaining on board, transhipping or landing any part or whole carcass of hammerhead sharks of the family Sphyrnidae (except for the Sphyrna tiburo) in association with fisheries in the ICCAT Convention Area shall be prohibited.\n4. Retaining on board, transhipping or landing any part or whole carcass of oceanic whitetip sharks (Carcharhinus longimanus) taken in any fishery shall be prohibited.\n5. Retaining on board silky sharks (Carcharhinus falciformis) taken in any fishery shall be prohibited.\nSection 2\nCCAMLR Convention Area\nArticle 20\nProhibitions and catch limitations\n1. Direct fishing of the species set out in Annex V, Part A, shall be prohibited in the zones and during the periods set out therein.\n2. For exploratory fisheries, the TACs and by-catch limits set out in Annex V, Part B, shall apply in the subareas set out therein.\nArticle 21\nExploratory fisheries\n1. Only those Member States which are members of the CCAMLR Commission may participate in longline exploratory fisheries for Dissostichus spp. in FAO Subareas 88.1 and 88.2 as well as in Divisions 58.4.1, 58.4.2 and 58.4.3a outside areas of national jurisdiction in 2012. If such a Member State intends to participate in such fisheries, it shall notify the CCAMLR Secretariat in accordance with Articles 7 and 7a of Regulation (EC) No 601/2004 and in any case no later than 1 June 2012.\n2. With regard to FAO Subareas 88.1 and 88.2 as well as Divisions 58.4.1,58.4.2 and 58.4.3a TACs and by-catch limits per subarea and division, and their distribution among Small Scale Research Units (SSRUs) within each of them, shall be as set out in Annex V, Part B. Fishing in any SSRU shall cease when the reported catch reaches the specified TAC, and the SSRU shall be closed to fishing for the remainder of the season.\n3. Fishing shall take place over as large a geographical and bathymetric range as possible to obtain the information necessary to determine fishery potential and to avoid over-concentration of catch and fishing effort. However, fishing in FAO Subareas 88.1 and 88.2 as well as in Divisions 58.4.1, 58.4.2 and 58.4.3a shall be prohibited in depths less than 550 m.\nArticle 22\nKrill fishery during the 2012/2013 fishing season\n1. Only those Member States which are members of the CCAMLR Commission may fish for krill (Euphausia superba) in the CCAMLR Convention Area during the 2012/2013 fishing season. If such a Member State intends to fish for krill in the CCAMLR Convention Area, it shall notify the CCAMLR Secretariat, in accordance with Article 5a of Regulation (EC) No 601/2004, and the Commission, and in any case no later than 1 June 2012:\n(a)\nof its intention to fish for krill, using the format laid down in Annex V, Part C;\n(b)\nof the net configuration form, using the format laid down in Annex V, Part D.\n2. The notification referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall include the information provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 601/2004 for each vessel to be authorised by the Member State to participate in the krill fishery.\n3. A Member State intending to fish for krill in the CCAMLR Convention Area shall only notify its intention to do so in respect of authorised vessels either flying its flag at the time of the notification or flying the flag of another CCAMLR member that are expected, at the time the fishery takes place, to be flying the flag of that Member State.\n4. Member States shall be entitled to authorise participation in a krill fishery by vessels other than those notified to CCAMLR Secretariat in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article, if an authorised vessel is prevented from participation due to legitimate operational reasons or force majeure. In such circumstances the Member States concerned shall immediately inform the CCAMLR Secretariat and the Commission, providing:\n(a)\nfull details of the intended replacement vessel(s), including information provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 601/2004;\n(b)\na comprehensive account of the reasons justifying the replacement and any relevant supporting evidence or references.\n5. Member States shall not authorise a vessel on either of the CCAMLR illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) Vessel Lists to participate in krill fisheries.\nSection 3\nIOTC Convention Area\nArticle 23\nLimitation of fishing capacity of vessels fishing in the IOTC Convention Area\n1. The maximum number of EU vessels fishing for tropical tunas in the IOTC Convention Area and the corresponding capacity in gross tonnage shall be as set out in point 1 of Annex VI.\n2. The maximum number of EU vessels fishing for swordfish (Xiphias gladius) and albacore (Thunnus alalunga) in the IOTC Convention Area and the corresponding capacity in gross tonnage shall be as set out in point 2 of Annex VI.\n3. Member States may re-allocate vessels assigned to one of the two fisheries referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 to the other fishery, provided that they can demonstrate to the Commission that this change does not lead to an increase of fishing effort on the fish stocks involved.\n4. Member States shall ensure that, where there is a proposed transfer of capacity to their fleet, vessels to be transferred are on the IOTC Record of Vessels or on the record of vessels of other tuna regional fisheries organisations. Furthermore, no vessels featuring on the list of vessels engaged in IUU fishing activities (IUU vessels) of any RFMO may be transferred.\n5. In order to take into account the implementation of the development plans submitted to the IOTC, Member States may only increase their fishing capacity beyond the ceilings referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 within the limits set out in those plans.\nArticle 24\nSharks\n1. Retaining on board, transhipping or landing any part or whole carcass of thresher sharks of all the species of the family Alopiidae in any fishery shall be prohibited.\n2. When accidentally caught, species referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be harmed. They shall be promptly released.\nSection 4\nSPRFMO Convention Area\nArticle 25\nPelagic fisheries - capacity limitation\nMember States having actively exercised pelagic fisheries activities in the SPRFMO Convention Area in 2007, 2008 or 2009 shall limit the total level of gross tonnage of vessels flying their flag and fishing for pelagic stocks in 2012 to the levels of total 78 610 gross tonnage in that area in such manner that sustainable exploitation of the pelagic fishery resources in the South Pacific is ensured.\nArticle 26\nPelagic fisheries - TACs\n1. Only Member States having actively exercised pelagic fisheries activities in the SPRFMO Convention Area in 2007, 2008 or 2009, as specified in Article 25, may fish for pelagic stocks in that area in accordance with the TACs set out in Annex IJ.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission on a monthly basis of the names and characteristics, including gross tonnage, of vessels flying their flag engaged in the fishery referred to in this Article.\n3. For the purpose of monitoring the fishery referred to in this Article, Member States shall send to the Commission, in order to communicate them to the SPRFMO Interim Secretariat, records from vessel monitoring systems (VMS), monthly catch reports and, where available, port calls at the latest by the 15th day of the following month.\nArticle 27\nBottom fisheries\nMember States with a track record in bottom fishing effort or catch in the SPRFMO Convention Area over the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2006 shall limit their effort or catch to:\n(a)\nthe average level of catches or effort parameters over that period; and\n(b)\nonly those parts of the SPRFMO Convention Area where bottom fisheries has occurred in any previous fishing season.\nSection 5\nIATTC Convention Area\nArticle 28\nPurse-seine fisheries\n1. The fishing by purse-seine vessels for yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) and skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nfrom 29 July to 28 September 2012 or from 18 November 2012 to 18 January 2013 in the area defined by the following limits:\n-\nthe Pacific coastlines of the Americas,\n-\nlongitude 150\u00b0 W,\n-\nlatitude 40\u00b0 N,\n-\nlatitude 40\u00b0 S;\n(b)\nfrom 29 September to 29 October 2012 in the area defined by the following limits:\n-\nlongitude 96\u00b0 W,\n-\nlongitude 110\u00b0 W,\n-\nlatitude 4\u00b0 N,\n-\nlatitude 3\u00b0 S.\n2. The Member States concerned shall notify the Commission of the selected period of closure referred to in paragraph 1 before 1 April 2012. All the purse-seine vessels of the Member States concerned shall stop purse-seine fishing in the areas defined in paragraph 1 during the selected period.\n3. Purse-seine vessels fishing for tuna in the IATTC Convention Area shall retain on board and then land or tranship all yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack tuna caught.\n4. Paragraph 3 shall not apply in the following cases:\n(a)\nwhere the fish is considered unfit for human consumption for reasons other than size; or\n(b)\nduring the final set of a trip when there may be insufficient well space remaining to accommodate all the tuna caught in that set.\n5. It shall be prohibited to fish for oceanic whitetip sharks (Carcharhinus longimanus) in the IATTC Convention Area, and to retain on board, to tranship, to store, to offer to sell, to sell or to land any part or whole carcass of oceanic whitetip sharks in that area.\n6. When accidentally caught, the species referred to in paragraph 5 shall not be harmed. It shall be promptly released by vessel operators, who shall also:\n(a)\nrecord the number of releases with indication of status (dead or alive);\n(b)\nreport the information specified in paragraph (a) to the Member State of which they are nationals. Member States shall transmit this information to the Commission by 31 January 2013.\nSection 6\nSEAFO Convention Area\nArticle 29\nProhibition of fishing for deep water sharks\nDirected fishing for the following deep water sharks in the SEAFO Convention Area shall be prohibited:\n-\nskates (Rajidae),\n-\nspiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias),\n-\nblurred smooth lanternshark (Etmopterus bigelowi),\n-\nshorttail lanternshark (Etmopterus brachyurus),\n-\ngreat lanternshark (Etmopterus princeps),\n-\nsmooth lanternshark (Etmopterus pusillus),\n-\nghost catshark (Apristurus manis),\n-\nvelvet dogfish (Scymnodon squamulosus),\n-\nand deep-sea sharks of super-order Selachimorpha.\nSection 7\nWCPFC Convention Area\nArticle 30\nFishing effort limitations for bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, skipjack tuna and south Pacific albacore\nMember States shall ensure that the total fishing effort for bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) and south Pacific albacore (Thunnus alalunga) in the WCPFC Convention Area is limited to the fishing effort provided for in fisheries partnership agreements between the Union and coastal States in that region.\nArticle 31\nClosed area for FAD fishing\n1. In the part of the WCPFC Convention Area located between 20\u00b0 N and 20\u00b0 S, fishing activities of purse-seine vessels making use of fish aggregating devices (FADs) shall be prohibited between 00:00 hours of 1 July 2012 and 24:00 hours of 30 September 2012. During that period, a purse-seine vessel may only engage in fishing operations within that part of the WCPFC Convention Area if it carries onboard an observer to monitor that at no time does the vessel:\n(a)\ndeploy or service a FAD or associated electronic device;\n(b)\nfish on schools in association with FADs.\n2. All purse-seine vessels fishing in the part of the WCPFC Convention Area referred to in paragraph 1 shall retain onboard and land or tranship all bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna caught.\n3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply in the following cases:\n(a)\nin the final set of a trip, if the vessel has insufficient well space left to accommodate all fish;\n(b)\nwhere the fish is unfit for human consumption for reasons other than size; or\n(c)\nwhen a serious malfunction of freezer equipment occurs.\nArticle 32\nClosed areas for purse-seine fisheries\nThe fishing by purse-seine vessels for bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna shall be prohibited in the following high seas areas:\n(a)\nthe international waters enclosed by the boundaries of the EEZ of Indonesia, Palau, Micronesia and Papua New Guinea;\n(b)\nthe international waters enclosed by the boundaries of the EEZ of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Fiji, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea.\nArticle 33\nLimitations to the number of EU vessels authorised to fish swordfish\nThe maximum number of EU vessels authorised to fish for swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in areas south of 20\u00b0 S of the WCPFC Convention Area shall be as indicated in Annex VII.\nSection 8\nBering Sea\nArticle 34\nProhibition on fishing in the high seas of the Bering Sea\nFishing for pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) in the high seas of the Bering Sea shall be prohibited.\nTITLE III\nFISHING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIRD-COUNTRY VESSELS IN EU WATERS\nArticle 35\nTACs\nFishing vessels flying the flag of Norway and fishing vessels registered in the Faroe Islands shall be authorised to make catches in EU waters within the TACs set out in Annex I to this Regulation and subject to the conditions provided for in this Title and Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008.\nArticle 36\nFishing authorisations\n1. The maximum number of fishing authorisations for third-country vessels fishing in EU waters is laid down in Annex VIII.\n2. Fish from stocks for which TACs are fixed shall not be retained on board or landed unless the catches have been taken by third-country vessels having a quota and that quota is not exhausted.\nArticle 37\nProhibitions\n1. It shall be prohibited for third-country vessels to fish for, to retain on board, to tranship or to land the following species:\n(a)\nbasking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) in all EU waters;\n(b)\nangel shark (Squatina squatina) in all EU waters;\n(c)\ncommon skate (Dipturus batis) in EU waters of ICES division IIa and ICES subareas III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X;\n(d)\nundulate ray (Raja undulata) and white skate (Rostroraja alba) in EU waters of ICES subareas VI, VII, VIII, IX and X;\n(e)\nporbeagle (Lamna nasus) in all EU waters; and\n(f)\nguitarfishes (Rhinobatidae) in EU waters of ICES subareas I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XII.\n2. When accidentally caught, species referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be harmed. They shall be promptly released.\nTITLE IV\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 38\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee for fisheries and aquaculture established by Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\n3. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, in conjunction with Article 5 thereof, shall apply.\nArticle 39\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nHowever, Article 9 shall apply from 1 February 2012.\nThe fishing opportunities or prohibitions for the CCAMLR Convention Area set out in Articles 20, 21 and 22 and Annexes IE and V shall apply with effect from the beginning of the respective periods of application specified for those fishing opportunities or prohibitions.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 January 2012.", "references": ["41", "6", "84", "75", "33", "35", "56", "19", "3", "54", "89", "5", "0", "15", "94", "50", "68", "63", "26", "39", "71", "74", "76", "29", "17", "43", "45", "80", "83", "32", "No Label", "9", "13", "67"], "gold": ["9", "13", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 301/2012\nof 2 April 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 April 2012.", "references": ["27", "28", "84", "71", "82", "35", "5", "48", "54", "39", "79", "20", "17", "99", "43", "93", "91", "7", "22", "97", "78", "13", "25", "52", "90", "46", "63", "3", "41", "44", "No Label", "21", "55"], "gold": ["21", "55"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 July 2010\nconcerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation in the audiovisual field, establishing the terms and conditions for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the Community programme MEDIA 2007, and a Final Act\n(2010/478/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 166(4) and 173(3), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the European Community, an agreement with the Swiss Confederation in the audiovisual field, establishing the terms and conditions for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the Community programme MEDIA 2007 (\u2018the Agreement\u2019), and a Final Act.\n(2)\nThe Agreement and the Final Act were signed on behalf of the Community on 11 October 2007, subject to their conclusion at a later date, and have been applied provisionally as from 1 September 2007, in accordance with Council Decision 2007/745/EC (1).\n(3)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation in the audiovisual field, establishing the terms and conditions for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the Community programme MEDIA 2007 (2) (\u2018the Agreement\u2019), is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 13 of the Agreement (3) and make the following notification:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d in the text of the Agreement are, where appropriate, to be read as \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019\nArticle 3\nThe Commission shall represent the Union in the Joint Committee provided for in Article 8 of the Agreement.\nArticle 4\nThe Agreement is related to the seven agreements with Switzerland which were signed on 21 June 1999 and concluded by Council and Commission Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom (4).\nThe Agreement shall not be renewed or renegotiated in accordance with its Article 12 in case the agreements referred to in the first paragraph have been terminated.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its adoption.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["23", "45", "84", "4", "52", "87", "86", "49", "66", "26", "75", "85", "37", "81", "50", "89", "68", "93", "95", "21", "76", "46", "57", "56", "88", "47", "34", "41", "64", "6", "No Label", "9", "40", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "40", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 551/2010\nof 23 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 June 2010.", "references": ["82", "88", "38", "92", "39", "79", "45", "21", "20", "43", "77", "36", "57", "89", "32", "26", "66", "95", "69", "49", "70", "25", "4", "83", "58", "76", "1", "60", "50", "3", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 370/2010\nof 29 April 2010\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under the quota referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (2), and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSection 3 of Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 determines the procedure for allocating export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under a quota opened for that country.\n(2)\nApplications submitted for the 2010/2011 quota year cover quantities greater than those available. As a result, allocation coefficients should be set for the quantities applied for,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities covered by export licence applications for the products referred to in Article 27(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 submitted for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 shall be multiplied by the following allocation coefficients:\n-\n0,631009 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 28(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009,\n-\n0,567088 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 28(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 April 2010.", "references": ["67", "4", "6", "72", "2", "55", "33", "45", "1", "80", "82", "23", "74", "87", "98", "84", "88", "17", "61", "39", "15", "37", "53", "11", "68", "28", "71", "12", "42", "46", "No Label", "20", "21", "70", "93"], "gold": ["20", "21", "70", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1046/2010\nof 15 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for anglerfish in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["48", "65", "92", "72", "59", "20", "30", "15", "1", "93", "98", "50", "89", "40", "19", "60", "83", "95", "81", "4", "32", "44", "90", "16", "86", "85", "31", "27", "8", "76", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1125/2011\nof 31 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for common sole in VIIIa and VIIIb by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["50", "72", "44", "89", "34", "49", "26", "68", "6", "12", "10", "86", "9", "78", "7", "63", "65", "2", "3", "14", "47", "8", "79", "70", "29", "46", "77", "45", "21", "61", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 148/2012\nof 20 February 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (New Season Comber Potatoes/Comber Earlies (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom\u2019s application to register the name \u2018New Season Comber Potatoes/Comber Earlies\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 February 2012.", "references": ["99", "19", "89", "13", "86", "74", "84", "94", "79", "45", "50", "40", "26", "17", "71", "8", "64", "14", "81", "15", "61", "6", "11", "93", "32", "21", "20", "88", "56", "9", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 355/2010\nof 23 April 2010\non the issue of licences for importing rice under the tariff quotas opened for the April 2010 subperiod by Regulation (EC) No 327/98\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 of 10 February 1998 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (3), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 327/98 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 IX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nApril is the second subperiod for the quotas provided for in Article 1(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98.\n(3)\nThe notification sent in accordance with Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98 shows that, for the quota with order number 09.4130, the applications lodged in the first 10 working days of April 2010 under Article 4(1) of that Regulation relate to a quantity greater than that available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined and the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities applied for under the quota concerned should be laid down.\n(4)\nThe notification also shows that, for the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4129, the applications lodged in the first 10 working days of April 2010 in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Regulation relate to a quantity less than that available.\n(5)\nFor the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4129 - 09.4130 the total quantities available for the following subperiod should therefore be set, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 327/98.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. For import licence applications for rice under the quotas with order number 09.4130 referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98 lodged in the first 10 working days of April 2010, licences shall be issued for the quantities requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficient set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The total quantities available for the following subperiod under the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4129 - 09.4130, referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98, are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2010.", "references": ["53", "88", "61", "42", "35", "77", "83", "39", "27", "81", "47", "97", "12", "26", "37", "10", "18", "44", "98", "93", "7", "8", "60", "29", "40", "99", "48", "45", "50", "33", "No Label", "4", "21", "66", "68"], "gold": ["4", "21", "66", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 197/2012\nof 8 March 2012\nfixing the reference prices for certain fishery products for the 2012 fishing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1), and in particular Article 29(1) and (5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 104/2000 provides that reference prices valid for the Union may be fixed each year, by product category, for products that are the subject of a tariff suspension under Article 28(1). The same holds for products which, by virtue of being either the subject of a binding tariff reduction under the WTO or some other preferential arrangements, must comply with a reference price.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 29(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, the reference price for the products listed in Annex I, Parts A and B to that Regulation, is to be the same as the withdrawal price fixed in accordance with Article 20(1) of that Regulation.\n(3)\nThe Union withdrawal prices for the products concerned are fixed for the 2012 fishing year by Commission Regulation (EU) No 198/2012 (2).\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 29(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, the reference price for products other than those listed in Annexes I and II to that Regulation is to be established in particular on the basis of the weighted average of customs values recorded on the import markets or in the ports of import in the three years immediately preceding the date on which the reference price is fixed.\n(5)\nThere is no need to fix reference prices for those products falling under the criteria laid down in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 which are imported from third countries in insignificant volumes.\n(6)\nIn order to allow a swift application of the reference prices in the year 2012, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe reference prices for the 2012 fishing year of fishery products, as referred to in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2012.", "references": ["44", "85", "13", "95", "77", "10", "36", "71", "0", "1", "38", "56", "73", "64", "27", "23", "82", "87", "31", "29", "9", "28", "99", "3", "20", "33", "40", "89", "93", "90", "No Label", "21", "22", "35", "67"], "gold": ["21", "22", "35", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 31 January 2011\npursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data by the State of Israel with regard to automated processing of personal data\n(notified under document C(2011) 332)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/61/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, (1) and in particular Article 25(6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Data Protection Supervisor,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Directive 95/46/EC, Member States are required to provide that the transfer of personal data to a third country may take place only if the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection and if the Member States\u2019 laws implementing other provisions of the Directive are complied with prior to the transfer.\n(2)\nThe Commission may find that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection. In that case, personal data may be transferred from the Member States without additional guarantees being necessary.\n(3)\nPursuant to Directive 95/46/EC the level of data protection should be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding a data transfer operation or a set of data transfer operations and giving particular consideration to a number of elements relevant for the transfer and listed in Article 25 thereof.\n(4)\nGiven the different approaches to data protection in third countries, the adequacy assessment should be carried out, and any decision based on Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC should be made and enforced in a way that does not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate against or between third countries where like conditions prevail, nor constitute a disguised barrier to trade, regard being had to the European Union\u2019s present international commitments.\n(5)\nThe State of Israel\u2019s legal system has no written constitution but constitutional status has been conferred on certain \u2018Basic Laws\u2019 by the Supreme Court of the State of Israel. Those \u2018Basic Laws\u2019 are complemented by a large body of case law, as the Israeli legal system adheres to a great extent to common law principles. The right to privacy is included in the \u2018Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty\u2019 under section 7.\n(6)\nThe legal standards for the protection of personal data in the State of Israel are largely based on the standards set out in Directive 95/46/EC and are laid down in the Privacy Protection Act 5741-1981, lastly amended in 2007 in order to establish new processing requirements for personal data and the detailed organization of the supervisory authority.\n(7)\nThat data protection legislation is further complemented by governmental decisions on the implementation of the Privacy Protection Act 5741-1981 and on the organisation and functioning of the supervisory authority, largely based upon recommendations formulated in the Report to the Ministry of Justice by the Committee for the Examination of Legislation relating to Databases (Schoffman Report).\n(8)\nData protection provisions are also contained in a number of legal instruments regulating different sectors, such as financial sector legislation, health regulations and public registries.\n(9)\nThe legal data protection standards applicable in the State of Israel cover all the basic principles necessary for an adequate level of protection for natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data in automated databases. Chapter 2 of Privacy Protection Act 5741-1981, which lays down the principles for the processing of personal data, does not apply to the processing of personal data in non-automated databases (manual databases).\n(10)\nThe application of the legal data protection standards is guaranteed by administrative and judicial remedies and by independent supervision carried out by the supervisory authority, the Israeli Law, Information and Technology Authority (ILITA), which is invested with powers of investigation and intervention, and which acts completely independently.\n(11)\nIsraeli data protection authorities have provided explanations and assurances as to how the Israeli law is to be interpreted, and have given assurances that the Israeli data protection legislation is implemented in accordance with such interpretation. This Decision takes account of these explanations and assurances, and is therefore conditional upon them.\n(12)\nThe State of Israel should therefore be regarded as providing an adequate level of protection for personal data as referred to in Directive 95/46/EC with regard to automated international transfers of personal data from the European Union to the State of Israel or, where those transfers are not automated, they are subject to further automated processing in the State of Israel. Conversely, international transfers of personal data from the EU to the State of Israel whereby the transfer itself as well as the subsequent data processing is carried out exclusively through non-automated means should not be covered by this Decision.\n(13)\nIn the interest of transparency and in order to safeguard the ability of the competent authorities in the Member States to ensure the protection of individuals as regards the processing of their personal data, it is necessary to specify the exceptional circumstances in which the suspension of specific data flows may be justified, notwithstanding the finding of adequate protection.\n(14)\nThe adequacy findings pertaining to this Decision refer to the State of Israel, as defined in accordance with international law. Further onward transfers to a recipient outside the State of Israel, as defined in accordance with international law, should be considered as transfers of personal data to a third country.\n(15)\nThe Working Party on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data established under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC has delivered a favourable opinion on the level of adequacy as regards protection of personal data in relation to automated international transfers of personal data from the European Union or, whether they are non-automated they are subject to further automated processing in the State of Israel. In its favourable opinion, the Working Party has encouraged the Israeli authorities to adopt further provisions which extend the application of Israeli legislation to manual databases, which expressly recognise the application of the proportionality principle to personal data processing in the private sector and which interpret the exemptions in international data transfers as in accordance with the criteria set out in its \u2018Working document on a common interpretation of Article 26(1) of Directive 95/46/EC\u2019 (2). This opinion has been taken into account in the preparation of this Decision (3).\n(16)\nThe Committee established under Article 31(1) of Directive 95/46/EC did not deliver an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. For the purposes of Article 25(2) of Directive 95/46/EC, the State of Israel is considered as providing an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the European Union in relation to automated international transfers of personal data from the European Union or, where they are not automated, they are subject to further automated processing in the State of Israel.\n2. The competent supervisory authority of the State of Israel for the application of the legal data protection standards in the State of Israel is the \u2018Israeli Law, Information and Technology Authority (ILITA)\u2019, referred to in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\n1. This Decision concerns only the adequacy of protection provided in the State of Israel, as defined in accordance with international law, with a view to meeting the requirements of Article 25(1) of Directive 95/46/EC and does not affect other conditions or restrictions implementing other provisions of that Directive that pertain to the processing of personal data within the Member States.\n2. This Decision shall be applied in accordance with international law. It is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, under the terms of international law.\nArticle 3\n1. Without prejudice to their powers to take action to ensure compliance with national provisions adopted pursuant to provisions other than Article 25 of Directive 95/46/EC, the competent authorities in Member States may exercise their existing powers to suspend data flows to a recipient in the State of Israel in order to protect individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data in the following cases:\n(a)\nwhere a competent Israeli authority has determined that the recipient is in breach of the applicable standards of protection; or\n(b)\nwhere there is a substantial likelihood that the standards of protection are being infringed, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the competent Israeli authority is not taking or will not take adequate and timely steps to settle the case at issue, the continuing transfer would create an imminent risk of grave harm to data subjects and the competent authorities in the Member State have made reasonable efforts in the circumstances to provide the party responsible for processing established in the State of Israel with notice and an opportunity to respond.\n2. The suspension shall cease as soon as the standards of protection are assured and the competent authority of the Member States concerned is notified thereof.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall inform the Commission without delay when measures are adopted on the basis of Article 3.\n2. The Member States and the Commission shall inform each other of cases where the action of bodies responsible for ensuring compliance with the standards of protection in the State of Israel fails to secure such compliance.\n3. If the information collected under Article 3 and under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article provides evidence that any body responsible for ensuring compliance with the standards of protection in the State of Israel is not effectively fulfilling its role, the Commission shall inform the competent Israeli authority and, if necessary, present draft measures in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 31(2) of Directive 95/46/EC with a view to repealing or suspending this Decision or limiting its scope.\nArticle 5\nThe Commission shall monitor the functioning of this Decision and report any pertinent findings to the Committee established under Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC, including any evidence that could affect the finding in Article 1 of this Decision, that protection in the State of Israel is adequate within the meaning of Article 25 of Directive 95/46/EC and any evidence that this Decision is being implemented in a discriminatory way. In particular, it shall monitor the processing of personal data in manual databases.\nArticle 6\nMember States shall take all the measures necessary to comply with the Decision within three months of the date of its notification.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2011.", "references": ["60", "82", "59", "62", "89", "31", "5", "30", "74", "25", "6", "26", "83", "81", "0", "33", "47", "70", "67", "98", "9", "18", "76", "53", "24", "65", "4", "80", "44", "43", "No Label", "14", "40", "41", "42", "95", "96"], "gold": ["14", "40", "41", "42", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 957/2011\nof 26 September 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 as regards the buying-in and sale of butter and skimmed milk powder\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(d), (f) and (j) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 4(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) of intervention measures in the form of public storage operations and the accounting of public storage operations by the paying agencies of the Member States (2), the EAGF finances expenditure on the physical operations referred to in Annex V to that Regulation on the basis of standard amounts, provided the corresponding expenditure has not been fixed under the applicable sectoral agricultural legislation.\n(2)\nThe standard amounts set and notified to the Member States for 2010 were calculated on the basis of the rules applicable before 1 March 2010. On that date the rules regarding the buying-in and the sales of products for and from intervention, including new rules regarding the costs to be borne by intervention agencies and operators, as established by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3) became applicable for the dairy sector.\n(3)\nIn order to take account of this situation regarding sales, Commission Regulation (EU) No 569/2010 of 29 June 2010 derogating from Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 as regards sales by tender of butter and skimmed milk powder provided for respectively by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 and Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (4) introduced a derogation from Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 on the relevant rules for the sales by tender of butter and skimmed milk powder for tenders submitted until 21 September 2010.\n(4)\nIn order to provide time for the further examination of the uniform application of the rules regarding the costs to be borne by the intervention agencies and operators regarding the buying-in and the sale of butter and skimmed milk powder for and from intervention, the derogation introduced by Regulation (EU) No 569/2010 was extended until the end of the 2011 accounting year by Commission Regulation (EU) No 826/2010 of 20 September 2010 derogating from Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 as regards buying-in and sales of butter and skimmed milk powder (5).\n(5)\nAn on-the-ground examination of the physical operations involved when butter and skimmed milk powder are removed from an intervention storage site was carried out. It showed that the movement of the product from the storage cell and the subsequent loading of vehicles has to be considered as a single operation. It also showed that it is not appropriate to disaggregate the cost of moving the product from the storage cell from the cost of loading of the vehicle. The same situation applies when the products are delivered to the intervention store, unloaded from vehicles and moved to the storage cell. Therefore, it is necessary to amend Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 to reflect this situation and to ensure coherence with Regulation (EC) 884/2006.\n(6)\nIn order to provide for continuity of application, this Regulation should apply from the day following the expiry of Regulation (EU) No 826/2010.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) 1272/2009 is amended as follows:\n1.\nIn Article 28(3), the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The cost incurred in unloading the butter or skimmed milk powder at the loading bay of the storage place shall be borne by the paying agency.\u2019\n2.\nIn Article 42(1), point (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nit indicates the price in euro tendered per unit of measure, rounded to no more than two decimal places, exclusive of VAT:\n(i)\nin the case of cereals and rice, for the product loaded onto the means of transport;\n(ii)\nin the case of butter or skimmed milk powder, for the product supplied on pallets at the loading bay of the storage place or, if necessary, supplied on pallets loaded onto the means of transport where this concerns a lorry or railway wagon; or\n(iii)\nfor the other products delivered to the loading-bay of the storage place;\u2019\n3.\nIn Article 52, paragraph (1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. At the time of removal from the storage place, the intervention agency shall, in the case of delivery outside of the storage place, make the butter and skimmed milk powder available on pallets at the storage place loading bay, and loaded onto the means of transport where this is a lorry or a railway wagon. The costs involved shall be borne by the paying agency.\u2019\n4.\nIn Article 52(3), the first sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Any stowage and depalletising costs shall be borne by the buyer of the butter or skimmed milk powder.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 September 2011.", "references": ["29", "41", "96", "67", "76", "38", "12", "63", "90", "85", "57", "15", "13", "61", "58", "49", "5", "23", "39", "33", "34", "65", "4", "77", "21", "97", "3", "54", "86", "89", "No Label", "26", "66", "70"], "gold": ["26", "66", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 1 December 2011\nappointing a Swedish member and a Swedish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/812/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Swedish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Kent JOHANSSON.\n(3)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat will become vacant following the appointment of Ms Ewa-May KARLSSON as a member of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas member:\n-\nMs Ewa-May KARLSSON, Ledamot i kommunfullm\u00e4ktige, Vindelns kommun;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate member:\n-\nMs Carola GUNNARSSON, Ledamot i kommunfullm\u00e4ktige, Sala kommun.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2011.", "references": ["49", "41", "22", "64", "20", "59", "40", "16", "70", "10", "85", "9", "87", "25", "12", "58", "84", "45", "1", "77", "54", "31", "82", "68", "14", "21", "57", "32", "6", "35", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 242/2012\nof 19 March 2012\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of March 2012 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of March 2012 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2012 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2012 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 March 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 March 2012.", "references": ["10", "87", "72", "19", "93", "15", "81", "84", "32", "39", "57", "50", "60", "95", "79", "55", "42", "38", "97", "59", "18", "33", "83", "20", "51", "48", "49", "7", "89", "65", "No Label", "21", "22", "66", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 715/2010\nof 10 August 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 as regards adaptations following the revision of the statistical classification of economic activities NACE Revision 2 and the statistical classification of products by activity (CPA) in national accounts\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community (1), and in particular Articles 2(2) and 3(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe introduction of an updated classification system is central to the Commission\u2019s ongoing efforts to maintain the relevance of European statistics, by taking into account technological developments and structural changes in the economy.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the statistical classification of economic activities NACE Revision 2 and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 as well as certain EC Regulations on specific statistical domains (2) established a revised statistical classification of economic activities, called NACE Revision 2 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018NACE Rev. 2\u2019).\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 451/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 establishing a new statistical classification of products by activity (CPA) and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3696/93 (3) established a revised statistical classification of products by activity (hereinafter referred to as \u2018CPA 2008\u2019).\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 2223/96 setting up the European System of Accounts 1995 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018ESA 95\u2019) provides a methodology of common standards, definitions, classifications and accounting rules for drawing up the accounts of the Member States.\n(5)\nThe establishment of a revised statistical classification of economic activities and a revised statistical classification of products by activity require adaptation of Regulation (EC) No 2223/96.\n(6)\nThe Committee on Monetary, Financial and Balance of Payments Statistics (CMFB) set up by Council Decision 2006/856/EC (4) has been consulted.\n(7)\nThe European Statistical System Committee has been consulted,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 2223/96 is amended as follows:\n1.\nThe term \u2018NACE rev. 1\u2019 is replaced by \u2018NACE Rev. 2\u2019 throughout the text with the exception of paragraph 8.153.\n2.\nIn paragraph 2.34, \u2018division 70\u2019 is replaced by \u2018division 68\u2019.\n3.\nThe text of footnote (1) to paragraph 2.103 is replaced by \u2018NACE Rev. 2: Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the statistical classification of economic activities NACE Revision 2 and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 as well as certain EC Regulations on specific statistical domains\u2019.\n4.\nIn footnote (2) to paragraph 2.106, \u2018ISIC Rev. 3\u2019 is replaced by \u2018ISIC Rev. 4\u2019.\n5.\nThe text of footnote to paragraph 2.118 is replaced by the following: \u2018CPA: Statistical Classification of Products by Activity in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 451/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 establishing a new statistical classification of products by activity (CPA) and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3696/93\u2019.\n6.\nIn Annex 7.1 to Chapter 7, the definition of \u2018Transport equipment (AN.11131)\u2019 is replaced by the following: \u2018Equipment for moving people and objects. Examples include products other than parts included in CPA (1) divisions 29 and 30, such as motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers, ships, railway and tramway locomotives and rolling stock, aircraft and spacecraft, motorcycles, bicycles, etc.\u2019\n7.\nIn Annex 7.1 to Chapter 7, the definition for \u2018Other machinery and equipment (AN.11132)\u2019 is replaced by the following: \u2018Machinery and equipment not elsewhere classified. Examples include products other than parts, installation, repair and maintenance services included in CPA groups 28.1, general purpose machinery; 28.2, other general purpose machinery; 28.3, agricultural and forestry machinery; 28.4, metal forming machinery and machine tools; 28.9, other special-purpose machinery; 26.2, computers and peripheral equipment; 26.3, communication equipment; 26.4, consumer electronics; 26.5, measuring, testing and navigating equipment; watches and clocks; 26.6, irradiation, electromedical and electrotherapeutic equipment; 26.7, optical instruments and photographic equipment; and in CPA division 27, electrical equipment. Other examples are products other than parts, installation, repair and maintenance services included in CPA sub-category 20.13.14, fuel elements (cartridges), non-irradiated, for nuclear reactors; in CPA division 31, furniture; in CPA groups 32.2, musical instruments; 32.3, sports goods; and 25.3, steam generators, except central heating hot water boilers\u2019.\n8.\nThe text of footnote (1) to Annex 7.1 to Chapter 7 is replaced by the following: \u2018Statistical Classification of Products by Activity (CPA)\u2019.\n9.\nIn Annex II paragraph 7, \u2018class 70.20 \u201cLetting of own property\u201d \u2019 is replaced by \u2018class 68.20 \u201cRenting and operating of own or leased real estate\u201d \u2019, \u2018division 71 \u201cRenting of machinery and equipment without operator and of personal and household goods\u201d \u2019 is replaced by \u2018division 77 \u201cRental and leasing activities\u201d \u2019 and \u2018class 60.24\u2019 is replaced by \u2018class 49.41\u2019.\n10.\nIn Annex II paragraph 11, \u2018class 65.21\u2019 is replaced by \u2018class 64.91\u2019.\n11.\nIn Annex II paragraph 14, \u2018class 65.22\u2019 is replaced by \u2018class 64.92\u2019.\n12.\nIn Annex III paragraph 14, \u2018class 75.30\u2019 is replaced by \u2018class 84.30\u2019.\n13.\nIn Annex III paragraph 17, \u2018class 66.02\u2019 is replaced by \u2018class 65.30\u2019.\n14.\nIn Annex III paragraph 32, \u2018class 66.01\u2019 is replaced by \u2018class 65.11\u2019.\n15.\nIn Annex III paragraph 37, \u2018class 66.03\u2019 is replaced by \u2018class 65.12\u2019.\n16.\nIn Annex III paragraph 41, \u2018class 67.20\u2019 is replaced by \u2018group 66.2\u2019.\n17.\nIn Table 8.22, the Table title \u2018INDUSTRIES (by NACE-sections)\u2019 is replaced by \u2018INDUSTRIES (by NACE rev. 1 sections)\u2019.\n18.\nIn Annex IV, the Section title \u2018REGROUPING AND CODING OF INDUSTRIES (A), PRODUCTS (P) AND INVESTMENTS (FIXED CAPITAL FORMATION) (PI)\u2019 is replaced by the following: \u2018REGROUPING AND CODING OF INDUSTRIES (A*), PRODUCTS (P*) AND FIXED ASSETS (FIXED CAPITAL FORMATION) (AN)\u2019.\n19.\nIn Annex IV, the text following the title: \u2018REGROUPING AND CODING OF INDUSTRIES (A), PRODUCTS (P) AND INVESTMENTS (FIXED CAPITAL FORMATION) (PI)\u2019 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\n20.\nIn Annex B, \u2018A3\u2019 is replaced by \u2018A*3\u2019, \u2018A6\u2019 is replaced by \u2018A*10\u2019, \u2018A6\u2020\u2019 is replaced by \u2018A*10\u2019, \u2018A17\u2019 is replaced by \u2018A*21\u2019, \u2018A31\u2019 is replaced by \u2018A*38\u2019, and \u2018A60\u2019 is replaced by \u2018A*64\u2019 throughout the text.\n21.\nIn Annex B, in Table \u2018Overview of the tables\u2019:\n-\nSections with reference to Tables 15 and 16 are deleted:\n15\nSupply table at basic prices including transformation into purchasers prices, A60 * P60\n36\n2007\n2000 onwards\n16\nUse table at purchasers prices, A60 * P60\n36\n2007\n2000 onwards\nand replaced by the following:\n15\nSupply table at basic prices including transformation into purchasers prices\n36\n2007\n2000 onwards\n16\nUse table at purchasers prices\n36\n2007\n2000 onwards\n-\nSections with reference to Tables 17, 18 and 19 are deleted:\n17\nSymmetric input-output table at basic prices, P60 * P60, five yearly\n36\n2008\n2000 onwards\n18\nSymmetric input-output table for domestic output at basic prices, P60 * P60, five yearly\n36\n2008\n2000 onwards\n19\nSymmetric input-output table for imports at basic prices, P60 * P60, five yearly\n36\n2008\n2000 onwards\nand replaced by the following:\n17\nSymmetric input-output table at basic prices, five yearly\n36\n2008\n2000 onwards\n18\nSymmetric input-output table for domestic output at basic prices, five yearly\n36\n2008\n2000 onwards\n19\nSymmetric input-output table for imports at basic prices, five yearly\n36\n2008\n2000 onwards\n22.\nIn Annex B, \u2018n = 60\u2019 is replaced by \u2018n = 64\u2019 and \u2018m = 60\u2019 is replaced by \u2018m = 64\u2019 throughout the text.\n23.\nIn Annex B, Table 10 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Table 10 - Tables by industry and by region (NUTS II)\nCode\nList of variables\nBreakdown\nB1.g\n1.\nGross value added at basic prices (current prices)\nA*10\nD.1\n2.\nCompensation of employees (current prices)\nA*10\nP.51\n3.\nGross fixed capital formation (current prices)\nA*10\n4.\nEmployment in thousands of persons and thousands of hours worked\nETO\n-\nTotal\nA*10\nEEM\n-\nEmployees\nA*10\u2019\n24.\nIn Annex B, Table 12 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Table 12 - Tables by industry and by region (NUTS III)\nCode\nList of variables\nBreakdown\nB1.g\n1.\nGross value added at basic prices (current prices)\nA*10\n2.\nEmployment (thousands of persons)\nETO\n-\nTotal\nA*10\nEEM\n-\nEmployees\nA*10\u2019\n25.\nIn Annex B, in Tables 15 and 16, \u2018Products (CPA)\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Products (P*64)\u2019 and \u2018Industries (NACE A60)\u2019 is \u2018replaced by Industries (A*64)\u2019.\n26.\nIn Annex B, in Tables 17, 18 and 19, \u2018Products\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Products (P*64)\u2019.\n27.\nIn Annex B, in Section \u2018Derogations by Member State\u2019:\n-\nBulgaria: Table 2.1 \u2018Derogations for tables\u2019 the following reference to Table 22 is deleted:\n22\nAll variables\nYear 2005: first transmission in 2008\n2005\n2008\nYears 2000-2004: first transmission in 2010\n2000-2004\n2010\nYears 1998-1999: first transmission in 2011\n1998-1999\n2011\nYears 1995-1997: not to be transmitted\n1995-1997\nNot to be transmitted\nand replaced by the following:\n22\nAll variables\nYear 2005: first transmission in 2008\n2005\n2008\nYears 2000-2004: first transmission in 2010\n2000-2004\n2010\nYears 1995-1999: not to be transmitted\n1995-1999\nNot to be transmitted\n-\nBulgaria: Table 2.2 \u2018Derogations for single variables/items in the Tables\u2019 the following reference to Table 10 is deleted:\n10\nGross fixed capital formation (P.51)\nYears 2005-2006: first transmission in 2009\n2005-2006\n2009\nYears 2000-2004: first transmission in 2011\n2000-2004\n2011\nYears 1998-1999: first transmission in 2012\n1998-1999\n2012\nYears 1995-1997: not to be transmitted\n1995-1997\nNot to be transmitted\nand replaced by the following:\n10\nGross fixed capital formation (P.51)\nYears 2005-2006: first transmission in 2009\n2005-2006\n2009\nYears 2000-2004: first transmission in 2011\n2000-2004\n2011\nYear 1999: first transmission in 2012\n1999\n2012\nYears 1995-1998: not to be transmitted\n1995-1998\nNot to be transmitted\n-\nGreece: Table 7.2 \u2018Derogations for single variable/items in the tables\u2019 the following reference to Table 1 is deleted:\n1\nEmployment - quarterly\nYears 1990-1994: first transmission in 2011\n1990-1994\n2011\nand replaced by the following:\n1\nEmployment - quarterly - totals\nYears 1990-1994: first transmission in 2011\n1990-1994\n2011\nEmployment - quarterly - industry breakdown\nYears 1990-1994: not to be transmitted\n1990-1994\nNot to be transmitted\n-\nFrance: Table 9.1 \u2018Derogations for tables\u2019 the following reference to Table 3 is deleted:\n3\nAll variables: breakdown by industry A31, A60\nYears 1980-1998: first transmission in 2011\n1980-1998\n2011\nand replaced by the following:\n3\nAll variables excluding population, employment, compensation of employees: breakdown by industry A*38, A*64\nYears 1995-1998: first transmission in 2012\n1995-1998\n2012\nYears 1980-1994: not to be transmitted\n1980-1994\nNot to be transmitted\n-\nNetherlands: Table 18.2 \u2018Derogations for single variables/items in the tables\u2019 the following reference to Table 1 is deleted:\n1\nEmployed and self-employed in resident production units: industry J to K and L to P, persons - annual\nYears 1980-1986: not to be transmitted\n1980-1986\nNot to be transmitted\nand replaced by the following:\n1\nEmployed and self-employed in resident production units: industry K to L and O to T, persons - annual\nYears 1980-1986: not to be transmitted\n1980-1986\nNot to be transmitted\n-\nNetherlands: Table 18.2 \u2018Derogations for single variables/items in the tables\u2019 the following references to Table 3 are deleted:\n3\nCurrent prices:\nVariables P.1, P.2, B.1G, D.29-D.39, D.1, D.11 for industries B, DC_DD, DI, DN\nYears 1980-1986: not to be transmitted\n1980-1986\nNot to be transmitted\nVariables B.2N+B.3N for industries, B, CA_CB, DC_DD, DH_DI, DK_DN, DH, DO\nYears 1980-1986: not to be transmitted\n1980-1986\nNot to be transmitted\n3\nPrevious year\u2019s prices and chain-linked volumes:\nVariables B.1G for industries B, CA_CB, DB_DE, DH_DN, J_K, O_P\nYears 1980-1987: not to be transmitted\n1980-1987\nNot to be transmitted\nVariable K.1 for industries B, CA_CB, DC_DD, DH_DI, DK_DN, H_O\nYears 1980-1995: not to be transmitted\n1980-1995\nNot to be transmitted\n3\nCurrent prices:\nVariables P.5, P.52, P.53 breakdown by industry\nYears 1980-1994: not to be transmitted\n1980-1994\nNot to be transmitted\nVariable P.51 for industries B, CA_CB, DC_DD, DI\nYears 1980-1986: not to be transmitted\n1980-1986\nNot to be transmitted\n3\nPrevious year\u2019s prices and chain-linked volumes:\nVariables P.5, P.52, P.53\nYears 1980-1987: not to be transmitted\n1980-1987\nNot to be transmitted\nVariables P.5, P.52, P.53 breakdown by industry\nYears 1988-1995: not to be transmitted\n1988-1995\nNot to be transmitted\nVariable P.51 for industries B, CA_CB, DC_DD, DI\nYears 1980-1987: not to be transmitted\n1980-1987\nNot to be transmitted\nand replaced by the following:\n3\nCurrent prices:\nVariables P.1, P.2, B.1G, D.29-D.39, for industries 03, 13-16, 23, 28\nYears 1980-1986: not to be transmitted\n1980-1986\nNot to be transmitted\nVariables B.2N+B.3N for industries, 03, 05-09, 13-16, 22-23, 27-32\nYears 1980-1986: not to be transmitted\n1980-1986\nNot to be transmitted\n3\nPrevious year\u2019s prices and chain-linked volumes:\nVariables B.1G for industries 03, 05-09, 13-17, 22-33, 64-68, 96-98\nYears 1980-1987: not to be transmitted\n1980-1987\nNot to be transmitted\nVariable K.1 for industries 03, 05-09, 13-16, 22-23, 27-32, 55-96\nYears 1980-1995: not to be transmitted\n1980-1995\nNot to be transmitted\n3\nCurrent prices:\nVariables P.5, P.52, P.53 breakdown by industry\nYears 1980-1994: not to be transmitted\n1980-1994\nNot to be transmitted\nVariable P.51 for industries 03, 05-09, 13-16, 23\nYears 1980-1986: not to be transmitted\n1980-1986\nNot to be transmitted\n3\nPrevious year\u2019s prices and chain-linked volumes:\nVariables P.5, P.52, P.53\nYears 1980-1987: not to be transmitted\n1980-1987\nNot to be transmitted\nVariables P.5, P.52, P.53 breakdown by industry\nYears 1988-1995: not to be transmitted\n1988-1995\nNot to be transmitted\nVariable P.51 for industries 03, 05-09, 13-16, 23\nYears 1980-1987: not to be transmitted\n1980-1987\nNot to be transmitted\n-\nSweden: Table 26.2 \u2018Derogations for single variables/items in the tables\u2019 the term \u2018Split of industries 50-52\u2019 is deleted and replaced by \u2018Split of industries 45-47\u2019.\n28.\nIn Annex B, the following is added after Table 26:\n\u2018DATA TRANSMISSION\n1.\nThe breakdowns A*3, A*10, A*21, A*38 and A*64 derived from NACE Rev. 2 and P*3, P*10, P*21, P*38 and P*64 derived from CPA 2008 shall be used for all data transmitted due after 31 August 2011, with the exceptions listed in the second subparagraph.\nMember States for which a derogation for data transmissions for Tables 15 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 is granted until 2011 or later shall apply the breakdowns A3, A6, A17, A31, A60, P3, P6, P17, P31 and P60 for reference periods up to 2007 and the breakdowns A*3, A*10, A*21, A*38, A*64, P*3, P*10, P*21, P*38 and P*64 for reference periods from 2008 onwards, regardless of the time of data transmission.\n2.\nUntil 31 December 2014, the transmission of Table 10 shall use either the NACE Rev. 2 breakdown A*10 or the following aggregated positions of NACE Rev. 2 breakdown A*10:\n-\n(G, H, I and J) instead of (G, H and I) and (J),\n-\n(K, L, M and N) instead of (K), (L) and (M and N),\n-\n(O, P, Q, R, S, T and U) instead of (O, P and Q) and (R, S, T and U).\nFrom 1 January 2015 the transmission of Table 10 shall use the NACE Rev. 2 breakdown A*10.\n3.\nThe transmission of Table 12 shall use either the NACE Rev. 2 breakdown A*10 or the aggregated positions of NACE Rev. 2 breakdown A*10:\n-\n(G, H, I and J) instead of (G, H and I) and (J),\n-\n(K, L, M and N) instead of (K), (L) and (M and N),\n-\n(O, P, Q, R, S, T and U) instead of (O, P and Q) and (R, S, T and U).\n4.\nThe data transmission according to the breakdowns A*38 and A*64 of respectively items 26a and 44a \u201cof which: imputed rents of owner-occupied dwellings\u201d specified in the Section REGROUPING AND CODING OF INDUSTRIES (A*), PRODUCTS (P*) AND FIXED ASSETS (FIXED CAPITAL FORMATION) (AN) of Annex IV is compulsory only for variables P.1, P.2, and B.1G specified in Table 3 of Annex B to Regulation (EC) No 2223/96.\n5.\nWith the first transmission due after 31 August 2011 under the ESA 95 transmission programme of national accounts data using NACE Rev. 2 or CPA 2008 data broken down by industry or product shall be supplied covering the following observation periods:\n(a)\n:\nTable 1\n:\nfrom 2000 (2000Q1 for quarterly data) onwards;\n(b)\n:\nTable 3\n:\nfrom 2000 onwards;\n(c)\n:\nTable 10\n:\n2009;\n(d)\n:\nTable 12\n:\n2009;\n(e)\n:\nTable 20\n:\nfrom 2000 onwards;\n(f)\n:\nTable 22\n:\nfrom 2000 onwards.\nMember States shall transmit annual data for Table 1, together with the first transmission of Table 1 quarterly for 2011Q2 and no later than 30 September 2011.\n6.\nWith the first transmission due after 31 August 2012 of Tables under the ESA 95 transmission programme of national accounts data using NACE Rev. 2 or CPA 2008 data broken down by industry or product shall be supplied covering at least the following observation periods:\n(a) Table 1 (except variables listed under \u201cPopulation, Employment, Compensation of employees\u201d):\n-\n1990 (1990Q1 for quarterly data) onwards for Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden, and United Kingdom,\n-\n1995 (1995Q1 for quarterly data) onwards for Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia;\n(b) Table 3 (except variables listed under \u201cEmployment and Compensation of employees\u201d): 1995 onwards for A*10 and A*38;\n(c) Table 10: from 2000 onwards;\n(d) Table 12: from 2000 onwards.\n7.\nFor Tables 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, no backward data using NACE Rev. 2 or CPA 2008 is required.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2010.", "references": ["8", "99", "16", "35", "96", "1", "68", "81", "29", "60", "20", "33", "92", "55", "9", "84", "24", "10", "53", "66", "22", "25", "47", "30", "46", "54", "80", "26", "58", "3", "No Label", "18", "19", "40", "41"], "gold": ["18", "19", "40", "41"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 664/2012\nof 19 July 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 as regards representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1484/95 should be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2012.", "references": ["13", "68", "40", "5", "9", "20", "0", "27", "67", "56", "63", "95", "88", "77", "96", "26", "60", "74", "99", "1", "84", "28", "29", "24", "23", "7", "62", "90", "92", "52", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "69", "70", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "69", "70", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 68/2012\nof 26 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 January 2012.", "references": ["27", "78", "69", "20", "93", "12", "45", "28", "82", "0", "37", "43", "94", "49", "81", "55", "62", "14", "75", "10", "1", "67", "88", "15", "52", "95", "34", "50", "57", "74", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 813/2011\nof 11 August 2011\namending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acequinocyl, emamectin benzoate, ethametsulfuron-methyl, flubendiamide, fludioxonil, kresoxim-methyl, methoxyfenozide, novaluron, thiacloprid and trifloxystrobin in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor kresoxim-methyl, methoxyfenozide, thiacloprid, and trifloxystrobin maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Annex II and Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For acequinocyl, emamectin benzoate, flubendiamide, fludioxonil and novaluron, MRLs were set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For ethametsulfuron-methyl no MRLs were set before in any of the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, so the default value of 0,01 mg/kg applied.\n(2)\nIn the context of a procedure, in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2), for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance thiacloprid on peas (with pods) an application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing MRL.\n(3)\nAs regards acequinocyl, such an application was made for use on hops. As regards emamectin benzoate, such an application was made for use \u043en citrus fruit, plums and apricots. As regards fludioxonil, such an application was made for use on table and wine grapes. As regards kresoxim-methyl, such an application was made for use on blueberries and cranberries. As regards methoxyfenozide, such an application was made for use on plums. As regards trifloxystrobin, such an application was made for use on aubergines and cranberries.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 an application was made for ethametsulfuron-methyl for use on rape seed. The authorised use of ethametsulfuron-methyl on rape seed in Canada leads to higher residues than the MRL fixed at the default value in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. To avoid trade barriers for the importation of rape seed, a higher MRL is necessary.\n(5)\nAs regards flubendiamide, such an application was made to raise the current MRLs for tree nuts, apples, pears, cherries, peaches, table and wine grapes, lettuce, spinach, celery, soya bean, cotton seed, maize and plums in order to avoid trade barriers for the importation of these products from the United States. Concerning the same active substance, such an application was made to raise the current MRL for rice in order to avoid trade barriers for the importation of rice from India. As regards fludioxonil, such an application was made to raise the current MRLs for sweet potatoes and yams in order avoid trade barriers for the importation of these products from the United States. As regards novaluron, such an application was made to raise the current MRL for cranberries in order to avoid trade barriers for the importation of cranberries from the United States. As regards methoxyfenozide, such an application was made to raise the current MRLs for avocados and pomegranates in order to avoid trade barriers for the importation of these products from the United States.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, these applications were evaluated by the Member States concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission.\n(7)\nThe European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \"the Authority\", assessed the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs (3). It forwarded these opinions to the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public.\n(8)\nThe Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that, as regards use of trifloxystrobin on cranberries and flubendiamide on soya bean, cotton seed, maize and plums, residue data were not adequate to support the MRLs requested. For tomatoes, peppers and sweet corn the Authority concluded that the MRLs were already fixed at the levels corresponding to the current authorised use. As regards emamectin benzoate on citrus the Authority concluded that the MRLs were already fixed at the levels corresponding to the current authorised use. As regards all other applications the Authority concluded that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs requested by the applicants were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime exposure to these substances via consumption of all food products that may contain these substances, nor the short term exposure due to extreme consumption of the relevant crops showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference dose (ARfD) is exceeded.\n(9)\nBased on the reasoned opinions of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2011.", "references": ["93", "15", "13", "37", "73", "46", "43", "39", "97", "76", "50", "3", "54", "32", "60", "52", "49", "2", "10", "18", "44", "51", "0", "57", "99", "12", "85", "81", "79", "88", "No Label", "38", "65", "66", "72"], "gold": ["38", "65", "66", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 December 2010\non a Union financial contribution for 2010 to cover expenditure incurred by Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus and Portugal for the purpose of combating organisms harmful to plants or plant products\n(notified under document C(2010) 8933)\n(Only the French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(2010/772/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 23(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 22 of Directive 2000/29/EC, Member States may receive a \u2018plant health control\u2019 financial contribution from the Union to cover expenditure relating directly to the necessary measures which have been taken or are planned to be taken for the purpose of combating harmful organisms introduced from third countries or from other areas in the Union, in order to eradicate or, if that is not possible, to contain them.\n(2)\nGermany introduced three requests for financial contribution. The first one was introduced on 22 December 2009 and relates to the control measures of Anoplophora glabripennis in Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg, for measures executed in 2008 and 2009 to control an outbreak of the harmful organism detected at the border between France and Germany and notified by France in 2008. The second request, introduced on 22 December 2009, relates to the control measures of Saperda candida in Schleswig-Holstein for measures executed in 2008 and 2009 to control an outbreak detected in 2008. The third request, introduced on 28 April 2010, relates to the control measures of Diabrotica virgifera in Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg, for measures executed in 2009 to control outbreaks of the harmful organism detected in 2007 and 2009, the outbreaks in 2007 having already been the subject of a co-financing in 2008 and 2009.\n(3)\nFrance introduced a request for financial contribution on 30 April 2010 relating to the control measures of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus for measures executed in 2009, executed or planned in 2010, and planned for 2011 to control outbreaks detected in 2009 and 2010. The request has been revised on 15 October 2010 on the basis of the comments received during its evaluation by the ad hoc Working Group of the Commission. Based on the technical information provided by France, there is no indication that the presence of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in the areas proposed for a co-financing is due to natural spread from other infested areas in the region Provence-Alpes-C\u00f4te d'Azur.\n(4)\nItaly introduced two requests for financial contribution on 30 April 2010. The first request relates to the control measures of Anoplophora chinensis in Lazio, in the commune of Rome, for measures executed in 2009 and 2010 to control an outbreak detected in 2008. Measures executed in 2008 and 2009 have already been the subject of co-financing in 2009. The second request relates to the control measures of Anoplophora glabripennis in Lombardia, in the commune of Corbetta, for measures executed from 1 May until 31 December 2009 and in 2010 to control an outbreak detected in 2007. The measures executed in 2007, 2008 and until April 2009 have already been the subject of co-financing in 2009.\n(5)\nMoreover, Italy introduced two other requests for financial contribution on 30 April 2010. The first one relates to the control measures of Anoplophora chinensis in Lombardia in the province of Brescia, commune of Gussago, for measures executed from 1 May until 31 December 2009 to control an outbreak detected in 2008. The second one relates to the control measures of Anoplophora glabripennis in Veneto in the province of Treviso, commune of Cornuda, for measures executed in 2009 and 2010 to control an outbreak detected in 2009. Both sets of measures consist of a variety of plant health actions, in the sense of Article 23(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2000/29/EC. They also consist of prohibitions or restrictions in the sense of Article 23(2)(c) of that Directive, namely the replacement in 2009 and 2010 of destroyed deciduous trees by tree species which are not susceptible to the abovementioned harmful organisms.\n(6)\nCyprus introduced a request for financial contribution on 29 April 2010 relating to the control measures of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus for measures executed or planned in 2010 to control outbreaks detected in 2009 and 2010. The request has been revised on 15 October 2010 after the comments received during its evaluation by the ad hoc Working Group of the Commission. Based on the technical information provided by Cyprus, there is no indication that the presence of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in the areas proposed for a co-financing is due to natural spread from other infested areas in Cyprus.\n(7)\nPortugal introduced a request for financial contribution on 30 April 2010 relating to the control measures of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus for measures planned in 2010 to control outbreaks detected in 2008. The measures executed in 2008 and 2009 have already been the subject of co-financing in 2009.\n(8)\nSpain introduced a request for financial contribution on 30 April 2010 relating to the control measures of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus for measures planned in 2010 for an outbreak detected in 2008. The measures executed in 2008 and 2009 have already been the subject of co-financing in 2009.\n(9)\nGermany, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus and Portugal have each established a programme of actions to eradicate or contain organisms harmful to plants introduced in their territories. These programmes specify the objectives to be achieved, the measures carried out, their duration and their cost.\n(10)\nAll the above measures consist of a variety of plant health measures, including destruction of contaminated trees or crops, application of plant protection products, sanitation techniques, inspections and testings carried out officially or upon official request to monitor the presence or extent of contamination by the respective harmful organisms, and replacement of destroyed trees, in the sense of Article 23(2)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2000/29/EC.\n(11)\nGermany, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus and Portugal have applied for the allocation of a Union financial contribution to these programmes in accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 23 of Directive 2000/29/EC, in particular paragraphs 1 and 4 thereof, and in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1040/2002 of 14 June 2002 establishing detailed rules for the implementation of the provisions relating to the allocation of a financial contribution from the Union for plant-health control and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2051/97 (2).\n(12)\nThe technical information provided by Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus and Portugal has enabled the Commission to analyse the situation accurately and comprehensively. The Commission has concluded that the conditions for the granting of a Union financial contribution, as laid down in particular in Article 23 of Directive 2000/29/EC, have been met. Accordingly, it is appropriate to provide a Union financial contribution to cover the expenditure on those programmes.\n(13)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 23(5) of Directive 2000/29/EC, the Union financial contribution may cover up to 50 % of eligible expenditure for measures that have been taken within a period of not more than 2 years after the date of detection of the appearance or that are planned for that period. However, in accordance with the third subparagraph of that Article, that period may be extended if it has been established that the objective of the measures will be achieved within a reasonable additional period, in which case the rate of the Union financial contribution shall be digressive over the years concerned. Having regard to the conclusions of the Working Group on evaluation of solidarity dossiers, it is appropriate to extend the 2-year period for the programmes concerned, while reducing the rate of the Union financial contributions for these measures to 45 % of eligible expenditure for the third year and to 40 % for the fourth year of these programmes.\n(14)\nThe Union financial contribution up to 45 % of eligible expenditure should therefore apply to the following programmes: Italy, Lombardia, Anoplophora chinensis (2010); Italy, Lazio, Anoplophora chinensis (2010); Italy, Lombardia, Anoplophora glabripennis (2009); Portugal, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (2010); and Spain, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (2010), as the measures concerned have already been the subject of a Union financial contribution under Commission Decision 2009/996/EU (3) for the first 2 years of their implementation. The same level of contribution should apply to the third year (2009) of the programme presented by Germany in Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg for Diabrotica virgifera in the rural districts of Ortenaukreis and Bodenseekreis, which measures have been the subject of a Union financial contribution under Commission Decision 2009/147/EC (4) and Decision 2009/996/EU.\n(15)\nMoreover, a Union contribution up to 40 % should therefore apply to the fourth year (2010) of the programme presented by Italy for Lombardia for Anoplophora glabripennis, which measures have been the subject of a Union financial contribution under Decision 2009/996/EU for the first 3 years of their implementation.\n(16)\nIn accordance with Article 24 of Directive 2000/29/EC the Commission should determine whether the introduction of the relevant harmful organism has been caused by inadequate examinations, inspections or controls, with a view to possibly adopting the measures required by the findings from its verification.\n(17)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (5), plant-health measures are financed from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. For the purpose of financial control of these measures, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of the above Regulation should apply.\n(18)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (6) and Article 90(1) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (7), the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision adopted by the institution to which powers have been delegated, setting out the essential elements of the action involving the expenditure.\n(19)\nThe present decision constitutes a financing decision for the expenditure provided in the co-financing requests presented by Member States.\n(20)\nThe measures provided in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe allocation of a Union financial contribution for 2010 to cover expenditure incurred by Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus and Portugal relating to necessary measures as specified in Article 23(2)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2000/29/EC and taken for the purpose of combating the organisms concerned by the eradication programmes listed in the Annex, is hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThe total amount of the Union financial contribution referred to in Article 1 is EUR 7 342 161. The maximum amounts of the Union financial contribution for each of the programmes shall be as indicated in the Annex.\nArticle 3\nThe Union financial contribution as set out in the Annex shall be paid on the following conditions:\n(a)\nevidence of the measures taken has been submitted by the Member State concerned in accordance with the provisions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1040/2002;\n(b)\na request for payment has been submitted by the Member State concerned to the Commission, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1040/2002.\nThe payment of the financial contribution is without prejudice to the verifications by the Commission under Article 24 of Directive 2000/29/EC.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus and the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["54", "24", "47", "79", "59", "8", "22", "65", "60", "5", "2", "20", "51", "92", "4", "91", "53", "50", "63", "44", "78", "19", "7", "49", "85", "29", "87", "61", "37", "9", "No Label", "10", "38", "46", "58", "66", "96"], "gold": ["10", "38", "46", "58", "66", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 232/2011\nof 9 March 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 227/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2011.", "references": ["62", "36", "39", "37", "78", "77", "2", "74", "18", "49", "87", "82", "64", "63", "90", "19", "8", "66", "38", "94", "92", "45", "1", "28", "25", "40", "48", "23", "32", "46", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 921/2010\nof 13 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 October 2010.", "references": ["60", "90", "32", "14", "85", "75", "56", "66", "48", "72", "31", "69", "95", "6", "58", "45", "99", "21", "81", "11", "12", "7", "71", "46", "9", "49", "84", "38", "16", "57", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 370/2012\nof 27 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2012.", "references": ["66", "78", "10", "11", "64", "92", "63", "14", "90", "81", "46", "99", "52", "30", "28", "29", "97", "16", "5", "79", "98", "59", "53", "41", "2", "36", "74", "17", "1", "86", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 602/2010\nof 8 July 2010\nfixing the minimum selling price for butter for the third individual invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO Regulation\u2019) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 (2) has opened the sales of butter by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the common conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the third individual invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the third individual invitation to tender for selling of butter within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 6 July 2010, the minimum selling price for butter shall be EUR 361,00/100 kg.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 July 2010.", "references": ["6", "43", "52", "79", "71", "8", "69", "0", "37", "34", "23", "56", "67", "4", "87", "32", "17", "53", "96", "99", "30", "94", "27", "72", "26", "9", "7", "81", "36", "44", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1337/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\nconcerning European statistics on permanent crops and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 357/79 and Directive 2001/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 338(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 357/79 of 5 February 1979 on statistical surveys of areas under vines (2) and Directive 2001/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 concerning the statistical surveys to be carried out by the Member States in order to determine the production potential of plantations of certain species of fruit trees (3) have been amended several times. As further amendments and simplifications are now necessary, those acts should, for reasons of clarity and in accordance with the new approach to the simplification of Union legislation and better regulation, be replaced by one single act.\n(2)\nIn order to perform the task conferred upon it by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and by Union legislation governing the common organisation of agricultural markets, the Commission needs to be kept accurately informed about the production potential of plantations of certain species of permanent crops within the Union. In order to ensure that the common agricultural policy is properly administered, the Commission requires data on permanent crops to be regularly provided on a five-year basis.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (4) provides a reference framework for European statistics on permanent crops. In particular, that Regulation requires conformity with principles of professional independence, impartiality, objectivity, reliability, statistical confidentiality and cost-effectiveness.\n(4)\nIt is necessary to strengthen cooperation between the authorities involved in the drawing up and the publication of European statistics.\n(5)\nWhen preparing and drawing up European statistics, account should be taken of international recommendations and best practices.\n(6)\nStructural statistics on permanent crops should be available in order to ensure that the production potential and the market situation can be monitored. In addition to the information provided in the context of the single Common Market Organisation, information on the regional breakdown of statistics is essential. The Member States should therefore be required to collect this information and send it to the Commission on certain fixed dates.\n(7)\nStructural statistics on permanent crops are essential for the management of markets at Union level. It is also essential for structural statistics on permanent crops to be covered in addition to the annual statistics on areas and production governed by other Union legislation concerning statistics.\n(8)\nTo avoid placing an unnecessary burden on farms and administrations, thresholds should be established that exclude non-relevant entities from the basic entities in respect of which statistics on permanent crops are to be collected.\n(9)\nTo guarantee the harmonisation of data, it is necessary to clearly state the most important definitions, the reference periods and the precision requirements to be applied in the production of statistics on permanent crops.\n(10)\nTo guarantee the availability of these statistics to users within the necessary timeframe, a time schedule for transmitting the data to the Commission should be established.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) (5), all Member State statistics transmitted to the Commission which are broken down by territorial unit are to use the NUTS classification. Consequently, in order to establish comparable regional statistics on permanent crops, the territorial units should be defined in accordance with the NUTS classification. However, since, for sound management of the wine and vine sector, other territorial breakdowns are necessary, different territorial units can be specified for that sector.\n(12)\nMethodological and quality reports are essential in order to assess the quality of the data and to analyse the results, and such reports should therefore be provided on a regular basis.\n(13)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely the establishment of a common framework for the systematic production of European statistics on permanent crops, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.\n(14)\nIn order to ensure a smooth transition from the regime applicable under Directive 2001/109/EC, this Regulation should allow for the granting of a derogation to Member States where the application of this Regulation to their national statistical systems would require major adaptations and would be likely to cause significant practical problems.\n(15)\nIn order to take into account economic and technical developments, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending the breakdowns of species by groups, density classes and age classes set out in Annex I and the variables/characteristics, size classes, degree of specialisation and vine varieties set out in Annex II, except in respect of the optional nature of the required information. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out the appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(16)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (6).\n(17)\nRegulation (EEC) No 357/79 and Directive 2001/109/EC should be repealed.\n(18)\nIn order to ensure the continuity of activities provided in the framework for European statistics on permanent crops, this Regulation should enter into force the day following its publication and apply from 1 January 2012.\n(19)\nThe Standing Committee for Agricultural Statistics has been consulted,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. This Regulation establishes a common framework for the systematic production of European statistics on the following permanent crops:\n(a)\ndessert apple trees;\n(b)\napple trees for industrial processing;\n(c)\ndessert pear trees;\n(d)\npear trees for industrial processing;\n(e)\napricot trees;\n(f)\ndessert peach trees;\n(g)\npeach trees for industrial processing;\n(h)\norange trees;\n(i)\nsmall citrus fruit trees;\n(j)\nlemon trees;\n(k)\nolive trees;\n(l)\nvines intended for the production of table grapes;\n(m)\nvines for other purposes.\n2. The production of European statistics on the permanent crops referred to in points (b), (d), (g) and (l) of paragraph 1 shall be optional for the Member States.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018permanent crop\u2019 means a crop not grown in rotation, other than permanent grassland, which occupies the soil for a long period and yields crops over several years;\n(2)\n\u2018parcel planted\u2019 means an agricultural parcel, as defined in point (1) of the second paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (7), planted with one of the permanent crops referred to in Article 1(1) of this Regulation;\n(3)\n\u2018planted area\u2019 means the area of the parcels planted with a homogeneous plantation of the relevant permanent crop, rounded to the nearest 0,1 hectare (ha);\n(4)\n\u2018harvest year\u2019 means the calendar year in which the harvest begins;\n(5)\n\u2018density\u2019 means the number of plants by hectare;\n(6)\n\u2018usual planting period\u2019 means the period of the year when permanent crops are usually planted starting in mid-autumn and finishing by mid-spring of the following year;\n(7)\n\u2018planting year\u2019 means the first year where the plant has vegetative development after the day on which it is installed on its definitive production place;\n(8)\n\u2018age\u2019 means the number of years since the planting year, which shall be considered to be year 1;\n(9)\n\u2018dessert apple tree, dessert pear tree and dessert peach tree\u2019 means apple tree plantations, pear tree plantations and peach tree plantations, except those specifically intended for industrial processing. Where it is not possible to identify the plantations intended for industrial processing, the correspondent areas shall be included under this category;\n(10)\n\u2018vines for other purposes\u2019 means all areas under vines to be included in the vineyard register as established under Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 436/2009 of 26 May 2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards the vineyard register, compulsory declarations and the gathering of information to monitor the wine market, the documents accompanying consignments of wine products and the wine sector registers to be kept (8);\n(11)\n\u2018dual-purpose grapes\u2019 means grapes from vine varieties listed in the classification of vine varieties drawn up by Member States in accordance with Article 120a(2) to (6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (9) that are produced, for the same administrative unit, both as wine grape varieties and, as the case may be, as table grape varieties, varieties for the production of dried grapes or varieties for the production of wine spirits;\n(12)\n\u2018combined crops\u2019 means a combination of crops occupying a parcel of land at the same time.\nArticle 3\nCoverage\n1. Statistics to be provided on permanent crops referred to under points (a) to (l) of Article 1(1) shall be representative of at least 95 % of the total planted area producing entirely or mainly for the market of each permanent crop referred to in each Member State.\n2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States may exclude holdings below a threshold of 0,2 ha of each permanent crop producing entirely or mainly for the market in each Member State. If the area covered by such holdings is less than 5 % of the total planted area of the individual crop, Member States may increase that threshold provided that this does not lead to the exclusion of more than an additional 5 % of the total planted area of the individual crop.\n3. The area of combined crops shall be distributed between the different crops in proportion to the area of ground they occupy.\n4. The statistics on the permanent crop referred to in point (m) of Article 1(1) of this Regulation shall be provided using the data available in the vineyard register implemented in accordance with Article 185a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for all the holdings included in this register, as defined in point (a) of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 436/2009.\nArticle 4\nData production\n1. Save where the option referred to in Article 1(2) has been exercised, Member States with a minimum planted area of 1 000 ha of each individual crop referred to in points (a) to (l) of Article 1(1) shall produce, during 2012 and every 5 years thereafter, the data referred to in Annex I.\n2. Member States with a minimum planted area of 500 ha of the crop referred to in point (m) of Article 1(1) shall produce, during 2015 and every 5 years thereafter, the data referred to in Annex II.\n3. In order to take into account economic and technical developments, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 11 concerning the amendment of:\n-\nthe breakdowns of species by groups, density classes and age classes set out in Annex I, and\n-\nthe variables/characteristics, size classes, degree of specialisation and vine varieties set out in Annex II,\nexcept in respect of the optional nature of the required information.\nIn exercising this power, the Commission shall ensure that the delegated acts do not impose a significant additional administrative burden on the Member States and on the respondents.\nArticle 5\nReference year\n1. The first reference year for the data referred to in Annex I with regard to the statistics on permanent crops referred to in points (a) to (l) of Article 1(1) shall be 2012.\n2. The first reference year for the data referred to in Annex II with regard to the statistics on the permanent crop referred to in point (m) of Article 1(1) shall be 2015.\n3. The statistics on permanent crops provided shall refer to the planted area after the usual planting period.\nArticle 6\nPrecision requirements\n1. Member States conducting sample surveys in order to obtain statistics on permanent crops shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the coefficient of variation of the data shall not exceed, at national level, 3 % for the planted area for each of the crops referred to in Article 1(1).\n2. Member States which decide to use sources of statistical information other than surveys shall ensure that the information thereby obtained is of at least equal quality to the information obtained from statistical surveys.\n3. Member States which decide to use an administrative source to provide the statistics on permanent crops referred to in points (a) to (l) of Article 1(1) shall inform the Commission in advance and shall provide details concerning the method to be used and the quality of the data obtained from that administrative source.\nArticle 7\nRegional statistics\n1. Data with regard to statistics on permanent crops referred to in points (a) to (l) of Article 1(1) of this Regulation, and further specified in Annex I to this Regulation, shall be broken down by NUTS 1 territorial units as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003, save where a less detailed breakdown is specified in Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. Data with regard to statistics on the permanent crop referred to in point (m) of Article 1(1) of this Regulation, and further specified in Annex II to this Regulation, shall be broken down by NUTS 2 territorial units as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003, save where a less detailed breakdown is specified in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 8\nTransmission to the Commission\n1. Member States shall transmit to the Commission (Eurostat) the data set out in Annexes I and II by 30 September of the year following the reference period.\n2. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts concerning the appropriate technical format for the transmission of the data set out in Annexes I and II. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 12(2).\nArticle 9\nMethodological and quality report\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the quality criteria to be applied to the data to be transmitted are those referred to in Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009.\n2. By 30 September 2013, and every 5 years thereafter, Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with reports on the quality of the data transmitted and the methods used for statistics on permanent crops referred to in points (a) to (l) of Article 1(1) of this Regulation.\n3. By 30 September 2016, and every 5 years thereafter, Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with reports on the quality of the data transmitted and the methods used for statistics on the permanent crop referred to in point (m) of Article 1(1) of this Regulation.\n4. The reports shall describe:\n(a)\nthe organisation of the surveys covered by this Regulation and the methodology applied;\n(b)\nthe level of precision and the coverage achieved for the sample surveys referred to in this Regulation; and\n(c)\nthe quality of sources other than surveys which are used, using the quality criteria referred to in paragraph 1.\n5. Member States shall inform the Commission of any methodological or other change that might have a considerable effect on the statistics on permanent crops, not later than 3 months before that change enters into force.\n6. The principle that additional costs and burdens remain within reasonable limits shall be taken into account.\nArticle 10\nDerogation\n1. Where the application of this Regulation to the national statistical system of a Member State requires major adaptations and is likely to cause significant practical problems with regard to the permanent crops referred to in points (a) to (l) of Article 1(1), the Commission may adopt implementing acts granting a derogation from its application to that Member State until 31 December 2012. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 12(2).\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, a Member State shall present a duly justified request to the Commission not later than 1 February 2012.\n3. Those Member States benefiting from a derogation shall continue to apply Directive 2001/109/EC.\nArticle 11\nExercise of delegation\n1. The power to adopt the delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 4(3) and Article 13 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 31 December 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 9 months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than 3 months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 4(3) and Article 13 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 4(3) and Article 13 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 12\nCommittee Procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Standing Committee for Agricultural Statistics established by Article 1 of Council Decision 72/279/EEC of 31 July 1972 setting up a Standing Committee for Agricultural Statistics (10). That Committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 13\nReview\nBy 31 December 2018 and every 5 years thereafter, the Commission shall review the functioning of this Regulation. In the context of this review, the Commission shall assess whether it is necessary to produce all the data referred to in Article 4. Where the Commission considers that some of those data are no longer required, it shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 11 that delete certain data from Annexes I and II.\nArticle 14\nRepeal\nRegulation (EEC) No 357/79 and Directive 2001/109/EC are hereby repealed with effect from 1 January 2012.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation and Directive shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 15\nTransitional provisions\nBy way of derogation from Article 14 of this Regulation, Directive 2001/109/EC shall remain applicable under the conditions provided for in Article 10 of this Regulation.\nArticle 16\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["79", "87", "77", "40", "31", "73", "97", "81", "24", "8", "52", "61", "93", "45", "91", "50", "83", "57", "49", "33", "80", "60", "99", "37", "25", "6", "27", "3", "23", "32", "No Label", "19", "63", "64", "66", "75"], "gold": ["19", "63", "64", "66", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 56/2011\nof 21 January 2011\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for import licences for olive oil lodged from 17 to 18 January 2011 under the Tunisian tariff quota and suspending the issue of import licences for the month of January 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(1) and (2) of Protocol No 1 (3) to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part (4), opens a tariff quota at a zero rate of duty for imports of untreated olive oil falling within CN codes 1509 10 10 and 1509 10 90, wholly obtained in Tunisia and transported direct from that country to the European Union, up to the limit laid down for each year.\n(2)\nArticle 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 of 20 December 2006 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quota for olive oil originating in Tunisia (5) lays down monthly quantitative limits for the issue of import licences.\n(3)\nImport licence applications have been submitted to the competent authorities under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 in respect of a total quantity exceeding the limit laid down for the month of January in Article 2(2) of that Regulation.\n(4)\nIn these circumstances, the Commission must set an allocation coefficient allowing import licences to be issued in proportion to the quantity available.\n(5)\nSince the limit for the month of January has been reached, no more import licences can be issued for that month,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications were lodged for 17 and 18 January 2011 under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 21,673003 %.\nThe issue of import licences in respect of amounts applied for as from 24 January 2011 shall be suspended for January 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 January 2011.", "references": ["59", "89", "9", "36", "35", "85", "24", "41", "49", "34", "93", "45", "27", "50", "75", "31", "43", "51", "72", "42", "14", "81", "68", "8", "73", "1", "12", "66", "95", "10", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "70", "94"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "70", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 25 May 2012\non a Union financial contribution towards Member States\u2019 fisheries control, inspection and surveillance programmes for 2012\n(notified under document C(2012) 3262)\n(Only the Bulgarian, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2012/294/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea (1), and in particular Article 21 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMember States have submitted to the Commission their fisheries control programme for 2012, in accordance with Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006, inclusive of the applications for a Union financial contribution towards the expenditure to be incurred in carrying out the projects contained in such programme.\n(2)\nApplications concerning actions listed in Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 may qualify for Union funding.\n(3)\nThe applications for Union funding have been assessed with regard to their compliance with the rules set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 391/2007 (2).\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to fix the maximum amounts and the rate of the Union financial contribution within the limits set by Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and to lay down the conditions under which such contribution may be granted.\n(5)\nIn conformity with Article 21(2) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006, Member States have been asked to submit programs related to funding in the priority areas defined by the Commission in its letter of 14 October 2011, i.e. traceability, validation and cross-checking of data, measurement of engine power, equipment of small scale fleet with Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) and Electronic Recording and Reporting Systems (ERS).\n(6)\nOn that basis and given budgetary constraints, requests in the programs for Union funding related to non-priority actions such as installation of Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) on board fishing vessels, training and initiatives raising awareness of CFP rules as well as the purchase or modernisation of fisheries patrol vessels and aircraft were rejected.\n(7)\nIn order to encourage investment in the priority actions defined by the Commission and in view of the negative impact of the financial crisis on Member States\u2019 budgets, expenditure related to the abovementioned priority areas and retained for this financing decision should benefit from a high co-financing rate, within the limits laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006.\n(8)\nWithin the priority areas defined by the Commission, it appeared that projects on traceability that were presented by Member States required a global and coordinated approach among Member States to be put in place before a Union contribution could be granted. The assessment of these traceability projects for a Union contribution was consequently postponed to an additional financing decision to be prepared in 2012.\n(9)\nIn order to qualify for the contribution, automatic localisation devices should satisfy the requirements fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (3)\n(10)\nIn order to qualify for the contribution, electronic recording and reporting devices on board fishing vessels should satisfy the requirements fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision provides for a Union financial contribution for 2012 towards expenditure incurred by Member States for 2012 in implementing the monitoring and control systems applicable to the common fisheries policy (CFP), as referred to in Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006.\nArticle 2\nClosure of outstanding commitments\nAll payments in respect of which a reimbursement is claimed shall be made by the Member State concerned by 30 June 2016. Payments made by a Member State after that deadline shall not be eligible for reimbursement. The budgetary appropriations related to this Decision shall be decommitted at the latest by 31 December 2017.\nArticle 3\nNew technologies & IT networks\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex I, on the setting up of new technologies and IT networks in order to allow efficient and secure collection and management of data in connection with monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries activities as well as on the verification of engine power, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\n2. Any other expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex I, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 4\nAutomatic localisation devices\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex II, on the purchase and fitting on board of fishing vessels of automatic localisation devices enabling vessels to be monitored at a distance by a fisheries monitoring centre through a vessel monitoring system (VMS) shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits established in that Annex.\n2. The financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated on the basis of a price capped at EUR 2 500 per vessel.\n3. In order to qualify for the financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1, automatic localisation devices shall satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2244/2003.\nArticle 5\nElectronic recording and reporting systems\nExpenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex III, on the development, purchase, and installation of, as well as technical assistance for, the components necessary for electronic recording and reporting systems (ERS), in order to allow efficient and secure data exchange related to monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries activities, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 6\nElectronic recording and reporting devices\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex IV, on the purchase and fitting on board of fishing vessels of ERS devices enabling vessels to record and report electronically to a Fisheries Monitoring Centre data on fisheries activities, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits established in that Annex.\n2. The financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated on the basis of a price capped at EUR 3 000 per vessel, without prejudice of paragraph 4.\n3. In order to qualify for a financial contribution, ERS devices shall satisfy the requirements established in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011.\n4. In case of devices combining ERS and VMS functions, and fulfilling the requirements laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011, the financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be calculated on the basis of a price capped at EUR 4 500 per vessel.\nArticle 7\nPilot projects\nExpenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex V, on pilot projects on new control technologies shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 8\nAddresses\n1. This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\n2. The planned expenditure, the eligible share thereof, and the maximum Union contribution per Member State are as follows:\n(in EUR)\nMember State\nExpenditure planned in the national fisheries control programme\nExpenditure for projects selected under this Decision\nMaximum Union contribution\nBelgium\n610 000\n410 000\n345 000\nBulgaria\n25 565\n25 565\n23 009\nDenmark\n3 462 722\n2 656 563\n2 350 599\nGermany\n5 971 900\n181 000\n162 900\nIreland\n52 370 000\n270 000\n163 000\nGreece\n12 110 000\n6 040 000\n5 400 000\nSpain\n207 080\n84 200\n75 780\nFrance\n3 550 955\n2 152 500\n1 937 250\nItaly\n5 877 000\n4 412 000\n3 846 000\nCyprus\n65 000\n65 000\n38 500\nLatvia\n17 856\n17 856\n13 400\nLithuania\n284 939\n284 939\n256 445\nMalta\n117 000\n104 500\n94 050\nNetherlands\n1 709 400\n1 580 000\n1 422 000\nPoland\n2 674 000\n0\n0\nPortugal\n3 379 192\n539 979\n485 981\nRomania\n615 000\n430 000\n367 000\nSlovenia\n204 800\n185 800\n145 700\nFinland\n2 500 000\n1 987 500\n1 584 750\nSweden\n11 463 574\n242 177\n195 782\nUnited Kingdom\n10 017 803\n4 424 309\n3 705 547\nTotal\n117 233 786\n26 093 889\n22 612 693\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2012.", "references": ["16", "39", "54", "74", "98", "46", "88", "50", "91", "29", "43", "2", "0", "35", "82", "97", "51", "22", "18", "58", "99", "64", "25", "92", "59", "44", "26", "89", "65", "80", "No Label", "10", "42", "67", "76", "96"], "gold": ["10", "42", "67", "76", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 591/2010\nof 5 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2010.", "references": ["15", "87", "34", "93", "57", "65", "89", "90", "99", "74", "29", "76", "72", "7", "25", "97", "52", "75", "45", "77", "54", "5", "6", "84", "16", "98", "44", "73", "91", "0", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 25 November 2010\non the interim distribution of the income of the European Central Bank on euro banknotes in circulation and arising from securities purchased under the securities markets programme\n(recast)\n(ECB/2010/24)\n(2011/10/EU)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the \u2018Statute of the ESCB\u2019), and in particular Article 33 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision ECB/2005/11 of 17 November 2005 on the distribution of the income of the European Central Bank on euro banknotes in circulation to the national central banks of the participating Member States (1) needs to be substantially amended to take account of the distribution of the European Central Bank\u2019s (ECB\u2019s) income arising from securities purchased in accordance with Decision ECB/2010/5 of 14 May 2010 establishing a securities markets programme (2). It should be recast in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nDecision ECB/2010/29 of 13 December 2010 on the issue of euro banknotes (3) establishes the allocation of euro banknotes in circulation to the NCBs in proportion to their paid-up shares in the ECB\u2019s capital. Article 4 of Decision ECB/2010/29 and the Annex to that Decision allocates to the ECB 8 % of the total value of euro banknotes in circulation. The ECB holds intra-Eurosystem claims on NCBs in proportion to their shares in the subscribed capital key, for a value equivalent to the value of euro banknotes that it issues.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Decision ECB/2010/23 of 25 November 2010 on the allocation of monetary income of the national central banks of Member States whose currency is the euro (4), the intra-Eurosystem balances on euro banknotes in circulation are remunerated at the reference rate. Under Article 2(3) of Decision ECB/2010/23, this remuneration is settled by TARGET2 payments.\n(4)\nRecital 7 to Decision ECB/2010/23 states that the income accruing to the ECB on the remuneration of its intra-Eurosystem claims on NCBs related to its share of euro banknotes in circulation should in principle be distributed to the NCBs in accordance with the decisions of the Governing Council, in proportion to their shares in the subscribed capital key in the same financial year it accrues.\n(5)\nIn the same manner the ECB\u2019s income arising from securities purchased under the securities markets programme (SMP) should in principle be distributed to the NCBs in proportion to their shares in the subscribed capital key in the same financial year it accrues.\n(6)\nIn distributing the ECB\u2019s income on euro banknotes in circulation and the ECB\u2019s income arising from SMP securities, the ECB should take into account an estimate of its financial result for the year that makes due allowance for the need to allocate funds to a provision for foreign exchange rate, interest rate, credit and gold price risks, and for the availability of provisions that may be released to offset anticipated expenses.\n(7)\nIn determining the amount of the ECB\u2019s net profit to be transferred to the general reserve fund pursuant to Article 33.1 of the Statute of the ESCB, the Governing Council should consider that any part of that profit which corresponds to income on euro banknotes in circulation and income arising from SMP securities should be distributed to the NCBs in full,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision:\n(a)\n\u2018NCB\u2019 means the national central bank of a Member State whose currency is the euro;\n(b)\n\u2018intra-Eurosystem balances on euro banknotes in circulation\u2019 means the claims and liabilities arising between an NCB and the ECB and between an NCB and the other NCBs as a result of the application of Article 4 of Decision ECB/2010/29;\n(c)\n\u2018ECB\u2019s income on euro banknotes in circulation\u2019 means the income accruing to the ECB on the remuneration of its intra-Eurosystem claims on NCBs related to its share of euro banknotes in circulation as a result of the application of Article 2 of Decision ECB/2010/23;\n(d)\n\u2018ECB\u2019s income arising from SMP securities\u2019 means the net income arising from securities purchased by the ECB under the SMP in accordance with Decision ECB/2010/5.\nArticle 2\nInterim distribution of the ECB\u2019s income on euro banknotes in circulation and the ECB\u2019s income arising from SMP securities\n1. The ECB\u2019s income on euro banknotes in circulation and the ECB\u2019s income arising from SMP securities shall be due in full to the NCBs in the same financial year it accrues and shall be distributed to the NCBs in proportion to their paid-up shares in the subscribed capital of the ECB.\n2. The ECB shall distribute to the NCBs its income on euro banknotes in circulation accrued each financial year on the second working day of the following year.\n3. The ECB shall distribute to the NCBs its income arising from SMP securities earned in each financial year on the last working day in January of the following year.\n4. The amount of the ECB\u2019s income on euro banknotes in circulation may be reduced in accordance with any decision by the Governing Council on the basis of the Statute of the ESCB in respect of expenses incurred by the ECB in connection with the issue and handling of euro banknotes.\nArticle 3\nDerogation from Article 2\nIn derogation from Article 2:\n1.\nThe Governing Council shall decide before the end of the financial year whether all or part of the ECB\u2019s income arising from SMP securities and, if necessary, all or part of the ECB\u2019s income on euro banknotes in circulation should be retained to the extent necessary to ensure that the amount of the distributed income does not exceed the ECB\u2019s net profit for that year. Any such decision shall be taken where, on the basis of a reasoned estimate prepared by the Executive Board, the Governing Council expects that the ECB will have an overall annual loss or will make an annual net profit that is less than the estimated amount of its income on euro banknotes in circulation and the estimated amount of its income arising from SMP securities.\n2.\nThe Governing Council may decide before the end of the financial year to transfer all or part of the ECB\u2019s income arising from SMP securities and, if necessary, all or part of the ECB\u2019s income on euro banknotes in circulation to a provision for foreign exchange rate, interest rate, credit and gold price risks.\nArticle 4\nRepeal\nDecision ECB/2005/11 is hereby repealed. References to the repealed Decision shall be construed as references to this Decision.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 31 December 2010.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 25 November 2010.", "references": ["71", "12", "22", "43", "34", "13", "21", "78", "17", "74", "41", "53", "49", "88", "16", "77", "94", "6", "48", "62", "4", "82", "27", "66", "11", "98", "65", "8", "37", "92", "No Label", "7", "18", "28", "30", "47"], "gold": ["7", "18", "28", "30", "47"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 726/2010\nof 12 August 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 on detailed rules to implement Council Regulation (EC) No 797/2004 on measures improving general conditions for the production and marketing of apiculture products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 110 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 (2) lays down provisions for the implementation of the national apiculture programmes provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. The Community\u2019s financial contribution to those programmes is based on the bee census in each Member State as set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 917/2004.\n(2)\nIn the Member States\u2019 communications updating the structural data on the situation in the sector as provided for in Article 1(a) of Regulation (EC) No 917/2004, there have been changes in the number of hives.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 917/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nGiven that Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 fixes 31 August as the final date for implementation of measures under the apiculture programmes for the year to which those measures relate, this Regulation should apply from the 2010/2011 marketing year.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation for Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply for the first time to programmes covering the 2010/2011 marketing year.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 August 2010.", "references": ["38", "32", "78", "13", "18", "97", "71", "4", "48", "61", "43", "70", "21", "88", "89", "46", "49", "65", "82", "53", "11", "50", "56", "36", "90", "28", "55", "76", "1", "99", "No Label", "8", "25", "66", "75"], "gold": ["8", "25", "66", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 809/2010\nof 14 September 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 804/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 September 2010.", "references": ["66", "30", "79", "59", "40", "18", "78", "45", "62", "82", "92", "96", "11", "7", "99", "19", "58", "41", "51", "49", "34", "88", "31", "73", "42", "76", "0", "64", "13", "80", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/430/CFSP\nof 18 July 2011\nupdating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 December 2001, the Council adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (1).\n(2)\nOn 12 July 2010, by Decision 2010/386/CFSP (2), the Council updated the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.\n(3)\nOn 31 January 2011, by Decision 2011/70/CFSP (3) the Council further updated the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and repealed Decision 2010/386/CFSP except in so far as it concerns the group mentioned in entry number 25 in Part 2 of the Annex thereto.\n(4)\nIn 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 Decisions 2010/386/CFSP and 2011/70/CFSP apply.\n(5)\nThis Decision sets out the result of that review, which has been carried out by the Council.\n(6)\nThe Council has determined that there are no longer grounds for keeping certain persons and groups on the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply.\n(7)\nThe Council has concluded that the persons, groups and entities listed in the Annex to this Decision 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.\n(8)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply shall be that set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2010/386/CFSP, in so far as it concerns the group mentioned in entry number 25 in Part 2 of the Annex thereto, and Decision 2011/70/CFSP are hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["72", "64", "19", "40", "20", "26", "23", "10", "17", "37", "71", "42", "78", "11", "32", "36", "94", "18", "5", "45", "89", "39", "60", "59", "97", "85", "25", "16", "74", "82", "No Label", "1", "3", "12"], "gold": ["1", "3", "12"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 186/2012\nof 7 March 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Schw\u00e4bische Sp\u00e4tzle / Schw\u00e4bische Kn\u00f6pfle (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany's application to register the name \u2018Schw\u00e4bische Sp\u00e4tzle / Schw\u00e4bische Kn\u00f6pfle\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2012.", "references": ["52", "3", "16", "70", "0", "12", "61", "19", "36", "41", "51", "89", "2", "81", "56", "42", "8", "67", "49", "53", "95", "88", "21", "11", "74", "98", "26", "90", "6", "1", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/448/CFSP\nof 11 August 2010\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in the Republic of Moldova\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 15 February 2007, the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/107/CFSP (1) appointing Mr K\u00e1lm\u00e1n MIZSEI European Union Special Representative (hereinafter the EUSR) in the Republic of Moldova.\n(2)\nOn 22 February 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/108/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 31 August 2010.\n(3)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 28 February 2011 or until the Council decides, on a proposal by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter the HR), that appropriate corresponding functions to those under Decision 2010/108/CFSP have been established in the European External Action Service and terminates the mandate.\n(4)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the Common Foreign and Security Policy objectives set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/108/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr K\u00e1lm\u00e1n MIZSEI as the EUSR in the Republic of Moldova is hereby extended until 28 February 2011 or until the Council decides, on a proposal by the High Representative, that appropriate corresponding functions to those under the current Decision have been established in the European External Action Service and terminates the mandate.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 March 2010 to 31 August 2010 shall be EUR 1 025 000.\n2. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 September 2010 to 28 February 2011 shall be EUR 830 000.\n3. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n4. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["30", "18", "66", "1", "42", "53", "20", "5", "44", "49", "69", "57", "68", "99", "55", "16", "87", "11", "6", "27", "24", "56", "78", "75", "10", "77", "23", "81", "52", "72", "No Label", "3", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1036/2010\nof 15 November 2010\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 17 February 2010, the European Commission (the \u2018Commission\u2019) announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (\u2018Notice of Initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina (\u2018BiH\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 4 January 2010 by Industrias Quimicas del Ebro SA, MAL Magyar Aluminium, PQ Silicas BV, Silkem d.o.o. and Zeolite Mira Srl Unipersonale (the \u2018complainants\u2019), representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 % of the total Union production of zeolite A powder. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.\n1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainants, other known Union producers, the exporting producer group in BiH, importers, users, and other parties known to be concerned, and representatives of BiH of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(4)\nThe complainants, Union producers, the exporting producer group in BiH, importers and users made their views known. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(5)\nIn view of the apparent high number of Union producers and importers, sampling was envisaged in the Notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and if so, to select a sample, all known Union producers and importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the Notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned (as defined in section 2.1. below) during the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009.\n(6)\nAs explained in recital (16) below, eight Union producers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in a sample. On the basis of the information received from the cooperating Union producers, the Commission selected a sample of four Union producers having the largest volume of production/sales in the Union.\n(7)\nAs explained in recital (20) below, only three unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in a sample. However one of these importers did not import/purchase the product concerned. Therefore, in view of the limited number of importers, sampling was deemed to be no longer necessary.\n(8)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to all the other companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the Notice of initiation, namely to the exporting producer group in BiH, the four sampled Union producers and three unrelated importers/users.\n(9)\nReplies were received from the exporting producer group in BiH, including its related companies, from the four sampled Union producers and three Union unrelated importer/users.\n(10)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\nProducers in the Union\n-\nIndustrias Quimicas del Ebro SA, Zaragoza, Spain\n-\nMAL Magyar Aluminium, Ajke, Hungary\n-\nPQ Silicas BV, Eijsden, Netherlands\n-\nZeolite Mira Srl Unipersonale, Mira, Italy\nImporters/users in the Union\n-\nReckitt Benckiser Group, Slough, UK and Mira, Italy\n-\nHenkel AG, Dusseldorf, Germany\n-\nChemiewerk Bad Kostritz GmbH, Bad Kostritz, Germany\nExporting producers in BiH\n-\nFabrika Glinice Birac AD, Zvornik\n-\nAlumina d.o.o., Zvornik (related to the above mentioned exporting producer)\nRelated importer in the Union\n-\nKauno Tiekimas AB, Kaunas, Lithuania\n1.3. Investigation period\n(11)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (the \u2018investigation period\u2019 or the \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from January 2005 to the end of the IP (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(12)\nThe product concerned is zeolite A powder, also referred to as zeolite NaA powder or zeolite 4A powder (the \u2018product concerned\u2019), currently falling within CN code ex 2842 10 00.\n(13)\nThe product concerned is destined at end-use applications as a builder, used in the production of dry detergents and water softeners.\n2.2. Like product\n(14)\nThe product concerned, the product sold domestically in BiH as well as the one manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers were found to have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses and are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(15)\nThe Bosnian exporting producer group submitted that the product concerned exported by both Fabrika Glinice Birac AD and its related company Alumina d.o.o. (\u2018the Birac group\u2019), has different production costs, production processes and quality than the like product produced by some Union producers. It was also argued that the production process of the Birac group is based on alumina liquor from the alumina production process instead of aluminium trihydrate, while production in the Union is typically based on hydrate crystals which, by heating and adding caustic soda, are brought back to liquid state for the production of the zeolite slurry. With respect to the above arguments it is noted that the information submitted by the Birac group does not put in dispute the established facts that irrespectively of any alleged differences in production processes, costs or quality, the product concerned has the same basic physical and technical characteristics and serves the same purposes as the like product.\n3. SAMPLING\n3.1. Sampling of Union producers\n(16)\nEight Union producers representing around 50 % of the Union producers\u2019 sales volume on the market replied to the request for sampling data in the Notice of Initiation. Initially the five largest Union producers were selected to be part of the sample. However, one company decided to terminate its co-operation. Therefore the remaining four Union producers form the sample in this investigation.\n(17)\nThese four producers represented around 37 % of the Union producers\u2019 total sales volume on the Union market in the IP and more than 75 % of the sales volume of the eight producers that provided data for the sampling exercise. The four producers selected in the sample were considered to be representative of the overall producers in the Union.\n(18)\nThe Bosnian exporting producer group argued that three Union producers (MAL Magyar Aluminium, Silkem d.o.o. and Industrias Quimicas del Ebro SA) should be considered as non-cooperating with the investigation. It was argued that these companies submitted non-confidential replies to deficiency letters some days latter than the dateline set. With respect to the above it is noted that the information provided by the aforesaid parties was submitted in a timely fashion and it did not impede in any way the progress of the investigation or the rights of defence of parties.\n(19)\nIt was also argued that one Union producer (MAL Magyar Aluminium) failed to mention in its reply on sampling that it was related to another Union producer (Silkem d.o.o.). The latter company was not sampled and was not included in MAL Magyar Aluminium's questionnaire reply. It was therefore argued that both these two Union producers should be considered as non-cooperating with the present investigation. To this it is noted that the relationship between these two parties was known to the Commission services at complaint stage and the relationship was stated in the reply on sampling from one of the two parties. Furthermore the relationship was disclosed in MAL Magyar Aluminium's questionnaire response. Finally it should be made clear that Silkem d.o.o. and MAL Magyar Aluminium have fully co-operated with the investigation. In respect of Silkem d.o.o. they submitted data at sampling stage but were not sampled and hence were not requested to complete a questionnaire response. In respect of MAL Magyar Aluminium there was no need for them to submit a consolidated response including Silkem d.o.o. as Silkem d.o.o. is a separate legal entity.\n3.2. Sampling of unrelated importers\n(20)\nOnly three unrelated importers replied to the request for information for the sampling exercise in the Notice of Initiation. It was subsequently discovered that one of these companies did not import or purchase the product concerned. Subsequently it was decided that sampling was not necessary for unrelated importers.\n4. DUMPING\n4.1. Normal value\n(21)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined whether the domestic sales of the like product to independent customers by each of the two exporting producers of the Birac group were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was equal to or greater than 5 % of the total volume of the corresponding export sales to the Union. It was found that the domestic sales were not representative.\n(22)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each exporting producer could be considered as having been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers.\n(23)\nDomestic sales transactions were considered profitable where the unit price was equal to or above the cost of production. Cost of production on the domestic market during the IP was therefore determined.\n(24)\nThe above analysis showed that all domestic sales of both exporting producers were profitable, given that the unit net sales price was above the calculated unit cost of production.\n(25)\nSince the sales on the domestic market were not sold in representative quantities, normal value had to be constructed, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(26)\nTo construct normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses incurred and the weighted average profit realised by each of the cooperating exporting producers on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period, was added to their own average cost of production during the investigation period. Where necessary, the costs of production and SG&A expenses were adjusted, before being used in the ordinary course of trade test and in constructing normal values.\n4.2. Export price\n(27)\nSince all exports to the Union were made via a related importer, the export price was constructed on the basis of the resale price to independent customers in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments were made in the resale price to the first independent buyer in the Union for all costs including duties and taxes, incurred between importation and resale, as well as a reasonable margin for SG&A and profits. As regards the SG&A, the related importer\u2019s own SG&A costs were used. In the absence of cooperation by unrelated importers in the investigation, a reasonable profit margin of 5 % was used, based on information obtained from users who also imported the product concerned in the IP.\n(28)\nThe Birac group claimed that the functions of its related importer were similar to those of an export department rather than an importer, and therefore the export price should not be constructed in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, but rather established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable. In this respect, it is noted that, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, the export price is established on the basis of the resale price to independent customers whenever the product concerned is resold to independent customers by companies related to the exporter in the exporting country. The investigation showed that the related company is located in the Union. It handles, inter alia, the customer orders and the invoicing of the product concerned produced by the Birac group. It was further found that the Birac group sells the product concerned to the related company in the Union for resale to EU independent customers. Consequently, the claim has to be rejected. It should be noted that the fact that certain activities are performed by the related company prior to importation does not mean that the export price may not be reconstructed on the basis of the resale price to the first independent customer with the necessary allowances being made pursuant to Article 2(9).\n4.3. Comparison\n(29)\nThe comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Appropriate adjustments for transport costs, freight and insurance costs, bank charges, packing costs and credit costs were granted in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.\n4.4. Dumping margin\n(30)\nAccording to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin for both exporting producers was established based on the comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price.\n(31)\nThe individual dumping margins of both exporting producers were weighted based on quantities exported to the Union, resulting in a dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union border price, duty unpaid, of 28,1 % for the Birac group.\n(32)\nBased on information available from the complaint and the cooperating exporting producer group in BiH, there are no other known producers of the product concerned in BiH. Therefore, the country-wide dumping margin to be established for BiH should be equal to the dumping margin established for the sole cooperating exporting producer group in BiH.\n5. INJURY\n5.1. Introductory remarks\n(33)\nIt is recalled that in this case there is only one Bosnian exporting producer (the Birac group). Therefore, no precise figures can be given relating to import volumes, import prices, market shares and Union production as well as sales volumes in order to protect business proprietary information. In these circumstances, indicators are given in indexed form or ranges.\n(34)\nIn line with section 3.1 above, the four sampled Union producers constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will be hereafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\n5.2. Union Consumption\n(35)\nDuring the provisional stage of the investigation the calculation of Union consumption was based on figures contained in the complaint and supplemented by verified figures established from producers and importer/users involved in the investigation. This data was sent to all interested parties for comment. No comments were provided to dispute the Union consumption data.\n(36)\nThe Union consumption was thus established on the basis of the volume of sales in the Union of the like product produced by the Union industry, the volume of sales in the Union of the like product produced by the other known Union producers and the volume of imports of the product concerned from third countries.\n(37)\nOn this basis the Union consumption developed as follows:\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009 (IP)\nTonnes\n324 395\n347 183\n371 567\n315 642\n300 491\nSource: Complaint and Questionnaire replies\n(38)\nThe consumption of the product concerned and the like product in the Union fell 7 % over the period considered. This reflects a gradual reduction of the amount of the product concerned incorporated into key products such as laundry detergents by users. It also reflects that more user industry products are becoming zeolite free.\n5.3. Imports from the country concerned\n5.3.1. Volume, price and market share of dumped imports from the country concerned\n(39)\nThe volume of imports of the product concerned increased by 359 % through the period considered.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009 (IP)\nVolume of imports\n100\n73\n68\n252\n459\nIndex: 2005 = 100\nSource: Verified questionnaire reply\n(40)\nThe average import price was stable from 2005 to 2008 and increased by around 10 % in the IP. This was mainly due to an improved situation on the EU market which permitted price increases for all producers of the product concerned.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009 (IP)\nAverage import price (CIF)\n100\n100\n102\n99\n109\nIndex: 2005 = 100\nSource: Verified questionnaire reply\n(41)\nThe market share of the imports from the country concerned nearly quadrupled in the period considered and represented a market share of between 10-15 % in the IP.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009 (IP)\nB&H market share\n0-5 %\n0-5 %\n0-5 %\n5-10 %\n10-15 %\nIndex: 2005 = 100\n100\n68\n59\n259\n495\nSource: Verified questionnaire reply\n5.3.2. Effect of dumped imports on prices\n(42)\nFor the purpose of analysing price undercutting, the import prices of the Bosnian exporting producer were compared to the Union industry prices during the IP, on an average to average basis. The Union industry prices were adjusted to a net ex-works level, and compared to CIF import prices. No customs duties were taken into account as the Bosnian exporting producer was subject to a 0 % preferential rate in the IP.\n(43)\nThe weighted average undercutting margin found, expressed as a percentage of the Union industry\u2019s prices is between 20 and 25 %.\n5.4. Situation of the Union industry\n5.4.1. Preliminary remarks\n(44)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry.\n(45)\nThe indicators referring to macroeconomic elements, such as production, capacity, sales volume, market share etc, are based on data established by the Commission services and sent to interested parties for comment as mentioned above at recital (35). The data for these indicators represent all Union producers. Whenever data relating to the Union producers as a whole are used, the tables below refer to macro data as a source. Other indicators are based on verified data from the sampled producers. These indicators are referred to as micro data. With respect to the macro data the Bosnian exporting producer argued that due to the controversy concerning the appropriate CN code used for classification of the product it is unlikely that these data is reliable. In this respect it is noted that the injury indicators are not in anyway affected by the alleged controversy on CN codes. It is recalled that the definition of the product concerned was provided in the published notice of initiation. This definition is clear leaving out any possibility of misinterpretation. Interested parties were requested to provide information on the basis of the product definition irrespectively of CN codes as the notice of initiation states that the CN code is given for information only. Furthermore it is recalled that the Bosnian exporting producer has not disputed the information concerning Union consumption. Most of the information on imports was directly derived from the Bosnian exporting producer data while the remainder referred to a small volume of imports from other countries. Account taken of the above and of the fact that no concrete evidence was presented to corroborate the claim on unreliable data this argument had to be rejected.\n5.4.2. Injury indicators\nProduction, capacity and capacity utilisation\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009 (IP)\nProduction\n100\n108\n114\n90\n86\nCapacity\n100\n99\n104\n100\n100\nCapacity utilisation\n72 %\n79 %\n78 %\n65 %\n62 %\nIndex: 2005 = 100\nSource: Macro data\n(46)\nDuring the period considered, the Union industry's production volume decreased by 14 %. In 2008-2009 an Union producer (Sasol Italy SpA) ceased production altogether. In addition Henkel AG stopped production of its zeolite slurry (this is not the product concerned but is a liquid version which is used as a substitutute). To some extent these developments helped the situation of the remaining producers.\n(47)\nDespite the developments mentioned above capacity was relatively stable across the period considered based on the method of calculation normally employed by the industry. However, the verification of the sampled producers showed that calculation of capacity for this industry can fluctuate depending on the relative fortunes of the market for the product concerned and the market for other products which can be produced using the same facilities.\n(48)\nThe capacity utilisation figures above show a decrease of 14 %. Furthermore at no point did this rate reach 80 % which demonstrates a certain overcapacity. This issue is further discussed under causation.\nStocks\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009 (IP)\nEnd of year stock\nLess than 2 %\nLess than 2 %\nLess than 2 %\nLess than 2 %\nLess than 2 %\nIndex: 2005 = 100\nSource: Macro data\n(49)\nThe Union industry's stock level was low and stable throughout the period considered. The production of the like product was planned to match orders and stocks were always kept to the minimum possible level. This was not therefore an important factor in this investigation.\nSales volume and market share\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009 (IP)\nEU sales volume\n100\n108\n116\n93\n82\nMarket share\n95-100 %\n95-100 %\n95-100 %\n90-95 %\n85-90 %\nIndex of market share\n100\n101\n101\n96\n89\nIndex: 2005 = 100\nSource: Macro data\n(50)\nThe sales volume of the union industry decreased during the period considered by 18 %.\n(51)\nThe market share of the union industry decreased during the period considered by 11 %.\nSales prices\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009 (IP)\nAverage sales price in Euro/tonne\n292\n306\n315\n332\n354\nSource: Micro data\n(52)\nThe average sales price of the Union industry to unrelated parties in the EU increased by 21 % over the period considered. This reflected by and large higher raw material and energy prices and, in isolation, is therefore not considered to be a meaningful indicator.\nProfitability\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009 (IP)\nPre-tax profit margin\n3,2 %\n0,8 %\n1,4 %\n-1,8 %\n4,3 %\nSource: Micro data\n(53)\nThe profitability of the Union industry was low throughout the period considered. This situation resulted from its inability to raise its prices for the reasons discussed under the \u2018Causation\u2019 section below and in particular the existence of increasing volumes of dumped imports. It also resulted from the low capacity utilisation explained at recital (47).\n(54)\nFrom 2005 to 2008 the Union industry\u2019s profitability fell substantially and in 2008 became loss-making. It recovered during the IP to the highest level during the period examined but still fell short to the profit of 5,9 % that the industry could have achieved in the absence of dumped imports (see below recital (67)).\n(55)\nThe exporting producer claimed that the profitability of the Union producers was healthy in 2009. This assumption was not backed up by any positive evidence but rather the claim refers to unspecified \u2018publicly available information\u2019. The sampled producers claimed that the profitability rate achieved in 2009 was a one-off and was not sustainable in the light of the vigorous Bosnian exporting producers\u2019 entry to the market in large quantities and low dumped prices. The sampled producers claimed that profitability in 2010 was likely to fall back to 2008 levels.\n(56)\nThe above claims were examined by the Commission services. The examination comprised in particular the development of raw material and sales costs, prices as reflected in the relevant contracts. It was found that the Union industry benefited in 2009 from certain temporary factors which increased its profitability despite the existence of significant volumes of dumped imports:\n(i)\nThe sampled producers benefited to a certain degree from increased production and sales volume following the cessation of production of two other Union producers as mentioned at recital (46).\n(ii)\nAlthough there was a general increase in raw material prices from 2008 some sampled producers benefited from annual raw material contracts which limited the impact of such increases.\n(iii)\nOne sampled producer benefited from significantly lower finance costs in 2009 due to a restructuring within its group.\n(57)\nOn this basis, the development of the profit margin still pointed to the existence of injury as the profit would have been considerably higher without the dumped imports.\nInvestments, return on investment, cash flow and the ability to raise capital\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009 (IP)\nInvestments (Euro)\n577 448\n337 865\n324 636\n1 012 717\n366 235\nReturn on net assets\n17 %\n6 %\n11 %\n-10 %\n26 %\nCash flow (Euro)\n1 013 223\n744 905\n905 792\n- 930 920\n1 638 112\nSource: Micro data\n(58)\nIt was claimed by the Bosnian exporting producer that investments were low over the period considered while the Union industry explained that returns on investment were too low to justify substantial investment in the product concerned.\n(59)\nThe return on investment, expressed in terms of net profits of the Union industry and the net book value of its investments follows the trend of profitability shown above. It should be noted that the net assets involved had already been largely depreciated.\n(60)\nThe cash flow situation of the Union industry also follows the trend of profitability shown above. The cash flow situation was serious in 2008 as losses in sale volume were compounded by the producers having to continue to meet their contractual obligations to purchase raw materials.\n(61)\nAbility to raise capital was not raised as an issue by the Union industry.\nEmployment, productivity and wages\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009 (IP)\nEmployment (FTE)\n241\n241\n253\n244\n221\nAverage labour cost per worker (Euro)\n36 574\n39 644\n40 207\n39 130\n40 225\nProductivity per worker\n1 423\n1 529\n1 535\n1 296\n1 223\nSource: Micro data except Employment - macro data\n(62)\nThe number of employees of all Union producers involved with the like product decreased during the period considered in line with reductions in production and sales volume. The average labour cost per worker increased reflecting inflation rises.\n(63)\nProductivity, expressed in terms of output per worker, decreased by 14 % over the period considered as the sales volume decreased more than employment. This negative development is likely to lead to further job losses in the future.\n5.4.3. Magnitude of dumping\n(64)\nGiven the volume and the prices of dumped imports from the country concerned the impact on the EU market of the actual margin of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.\n5.5. Conclusion on injury\n(65)\nDuring the period considered the Union producers suffered substantial volume injury which is clearly evident from the above analysis of its production, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, employment and productivity trends.\n(66)\nIn terms of prices and profitability an injurious picture is also present. However this analysis is complicated by raw material and energy price increases which have impacted on prices of the product concerned. Profitability, cash flow, and return on investment all deteriorated over the period 2005-2008. 2008 was a particularly serious year for the industry mainly because the companies were locked into raw material contracts but lost more than 20 % of its sales volume.\n(67)\nIn 2009 the market situation eased and price increases enabled an improved profitability situation but as explained above at recital (56) it was clear that this was a temporary respite and that the 2009 market situation is unlikely to be repeated. However, it should be noted that even in 2009 the profitability rate did not reach the 5,9 % deemed as a normal profit for this industry.\n(68)\nInjury was assessed for the whole Union industry (macro-economic indicators) although for some indicators only the sampled producers were assessed (micro-economic indicators). No significant differences were identified between the micro and macro indicators.\n(69)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is provisionally established that a major proportion of the Union industry has suffered injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\n6. CAUSATION\n6.1. Introduction\n(70)\nIn accordance with Articles 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports from the country concerned had caused injury to the Union industry to a degree sufficient to be considered as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time have injured the Union industry, were also examined in order to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n6.2. Effects of the dumped imports\n(71)\nOver the period considered imports from the country concerned increased by nearly 400 % and gained a substantial market, i.e. they increased from below 5 % to between 10 and 15 %. In parallel there was a direct and comparable deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry being the only other significant player on the EU market as imports from other sources are negligible.\n(72)\nThe market share increases of the dumped imports occurred against the backdrop of a fall in EU consumption of 7 % over the period considered.\n(73)\nThe dumped imports of increasing volume undercut the prices of the Union industry by between 20-25 % in the IP. It can be reasonably concluded that such increasing imports in a contracting market were responsible for price suppression in 2008 and 2009. This effect of the dumped imports on prices was magnified by the fact that most sales were made on the basis of annual contracts. Thus, the dumped Bosnian imports could be used to suppress price increases for large volumes of sales despite increases in raw material prices. In 2009 there was an easing of this effect but not enough to enable the industry as a whole to reach the normal profit level of 5,9 %.\n(74)\nIn view of the clearly established coincidence in time between, on the one hand, the surge of dumped imports at prices undercutting the Union industry\u2019s prices and, on the other hand, the Union industry\u2019s loss of sales and production volume, decrease in market shares and price suppression, it is provisionally concluded that the dumped imports played a major role in the injurious situation of the Union industry.\n6.3. Effects of other factors\n6.3.1. Export performance of the Union producers\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009 (IP)\nExport sales of Union production\n100\n108\n90\n57\n121\nIndex: 2005 = 100\nSource: Macro data\n(75)\nThe export volume of all the Union producers increased during the period considered but represented on average only about 10 % of production. The exports of the sampled producers increased and partially compensated for lost EU sales volumes.\n(76)\nTherefore, the export performance of the Union producers helped sustain its business and did not contribute to the material injury suffered.\n6.3.2. Imports from third countries\n(77)\nImports from third countries were negligible during the period considered and could not have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry. The Bosnian exporting producer argued that market share of Union producers has been lost to imports from China and Korea but this claim is not supported by the actual facts as imports from these countries were marginal.\n6.3.3. Impact of a fall in consumption\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009 (IP)\nEU Consumption in tonnes\n324 395\n347 183\n371 567\n315 642\n300 491\nSource: Macro data\n(78)\nOver the period considered consumption fell by around 24 000 tonnes (7 %) reflecting the fact that the laundry detergent industry was gradually using more alternative products in their formulas to replace the product concerned. It was claimed by the exporting producer that this led to \u2018saturated stocks, cancellations of orders and lower profits\u2019.\n(79)\nIt should be said that two producers in the EU market have ceased production towards the end of the period considered and therefore an adjustment of capacity has taken place to compensate for the decrease in consumption. Furthermore, as explained at recital (49) stock levels have remained low and stable meaning that production has adjusted to the lower consumption levels.\n(80)\nTherefore whilst it cannot be excluded that the fall in consumption has contributed to the injury suffered by the Union producers, it appears that this impact is not important.\n6.3.4. Impact of investments\n(81)\nIt was claimed by the exporting producer that compliance with REACH legislation caused the injury. However, as explained at recital (58) given the level of investments in the product concerned throughout the period considered this could not have contributed to the injury suffered to any significant degree. Furthermore, the costs associated with REACH have been moderate.\n6.3.5. Impact of increases in raw material and energy costs\n(82)\nIt was claimed by certain parties that increased raw material and energy costs contributed to the injury. The increases in these costs were indeed significant and took place mainly in 2008. This no doubt had some impact on profitability in that year because they occurred at a time of falling sales volume. However, to a certain degree increases in energy costs were reflected in increases in sales prices as shown at recital (52) although the price depression effect of the dumped imports has prevented adequate increase levels.\n(83)\nTherefore it is considered that the increase in raw material and energy costs has not contributed to the injury suffered.\n6.3.6. Impact of capacity issues\n(84)\nThe issues of overcapacity and low capacity utilisation were discussed at recital (46). The effect of the capacity issues on profitability has to be looked at in view of both the structural characteristics of this industry and the existence of dumped imports. The effect on profitability is because of the substantial fixed costs which would be recovered if utilisation rates were higher.\n(85)\nHowever, the overcapacity and low capacity utilisation issues can partially explain some of the negative injury indicators suffered by the Union producers but do not explain the large declines in production, sales volume and market share in 2009. They clearly therefore do not break the causal link between the big increase in imports at dumped prices and the injury suffered by the Union producers.\n6.3.7. Impact of global credit crisis/general economic crisis\n(86)\nIt was claimed by certain interested parties that the global credit crisis and the general economic crisis contributed to the injury. In fact consumption of the product concerned did fall in 2008/2009 when these crises occurred.\n(87)\nHowever, these issues cannot explain why the market share of the Union producers fell substantially in 2009 while the market share held by Bosnian imports increased and undercut the EU prices by over 20 %. Therefore whilst the decline in consumption in 2008/2009 would in itself have affected the Union industry, the significant rise of imports from BiH had a much more significant impact on sales volumes of the Union industry and, in view of the undercutting, on prices. Thus, the crisis did not break the causal link between the big increase in imports at dumped prices and the injury suffered by the Union producers.\n6.3.8. Impact of consolidated user industry\n(88)\nAlthough more than 10 companies manufactured the product concerned in the IP the main user industry (laundry detergent and water softener producers) consisted essentially of 4 big groups (Reckitt Benckiser, Henkel, Proctor & Gamble and Unilever). In fact the two main co-operating users represented nearly 40 % of purchases of the product concerned in the EU. Using centralised purchasing these 4 groups are indeed able to keep prices of the product concerned low.\n(89)\nHowever, this issue is not a new phenomenon but has existed for many years. Therefore, it again cannot explain the large declines in production, sales volume and market share in 2009. It clearly therefore does not break the causal link between the big increase in imports at dumped prices and the injury suffered by the Union producers.\n6.4. Conclusion of causation\n(90)\nBased in the above, it is provisionally concluded that the material injury to the Union industry was caused by the dumped imports concerned.\n(91)\nA number of factors other than the dumped imports were examined but none of these could explain the serious losses in market share, production and sales volume which occurred in 2008 and 2009 which coincides with the increases in volumes of dumped imports.\n(92)\nGiven the above analysis which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all the known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports, it is provisionally concluded that the imports from BiH have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\n7. UNION INTEREST\n7.1. General remarks\n(93)\nThe Commission examined whether, despite the provisional conclusion on the existence of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed that could lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this particular case. For this purpose, and in accordance with Article 21(1) of the basic Regulation, the impact of possible measures on all parties involved in this proceeding and also the consequences of not taking measures were considered on the basis of all evidence submitted.\n7.2. Interest of the Union industry\n(94)\nThe injury analysis has clearly demonstrated that the Union industry has suffered from the dumped imports. The increased presence of dumped imports in recent years caused a suppression of sales in the Union market and a loss of market share for the Union industry. This prevented the Union industry from achieving profitability levels similar to those achieved for other products.\n(95)\nThe investigation has shown that any increase in the market share of the dumped imports from the country concerned is gained at the direct expense of the Union industry. Despite the restructuring that occurred with respect to the Union producers (two companies stopped production) the situation has not ameliorated. In this respect it is noted that zeolite A powder is an important product in terms of the turnover of the sampled companies being up to 30 % of their sales turnover. Without the imposition of measures the Union industry situation would clearly deteriorate further. The imposition of measures will restore the import price to non-injurious levels, allowing the Union industry to compete under fair trade circumstances.\n(96)\nIt is therefore provisionally concluded that imposing measures would clearly be in the interest of the Union industry.\n7.3. Interest of importers\n(97)\nThe likely impact of measures on importers has been considered in accordance with Article 21 (2) of the basic Regulation. In this respect it is noted that the unrelated importers that made themselves known were also users. Thus the analysis referring to them is presented under the relevant section on interest of users.\n7.4. Interest of users and consumers\n(98)\nNo representations were received from consumers\u2019 organisations following the publication of the notice of initiation of this proceeding. Therefore, the analysis has been limited to the effect of measures on users.\n(99)\nQuestionnaires were sent to 8 known users. However, meaningful comments were received from only two of them. Therefore, the Union interest analysis is based on the responses of two rather large users, which together represent almost 40 % of Union consumption.\n(100)\nThe two co-operating Union users represent major players in the Union laundry detergent and water softener industry. They both objected to the imposition of measures.\n(101)\nThe investigation established that with respect to the co-operating Union users\u2019 consumption less than 1/3 of it is imported from the Bosnian exporting producer. The remaining part is covered by procurements from the Union producers which remain the prime supply source of the co-operating users. Account taken of the low capacity utilisation rate of the Union producers, as explained above at recitals (47) and (48), it is clear that any imposition of measures is not expected to lead to any shortages in supply or consequent increase of prices.\n(102)\nFurther to the above it appears that the Union user industry has already started exploring the possibility of imports from China. The fact that such option exists and is considered reliable demonstrates that any imposition of measures will not in any way lead to a shortage of the product concerned.\n(103)\nThe percentage in turnover of the final products incorporating the product concerned was also looked at. To this respect it is noted that in both cases the relevant products represent less than 10 % of their turnovers.\n(104)\nThe percentages of the product concerned being incorporated into the final products was also investigated. The investigation established that in general these percentages are extremely small (on average less than 5 % on the total cost), and therefore the product concerned does not represent a very significant cost element in the finished products.\n(105)\nThe Commission examined also if the imposition of measures would have any significant negative financial impact on the situation of these two users. The Commission established two scenarios, i.e. worst case scenario and a more realistic scenario.\n(106)\nThe worst case scenario assumes that both the import and Union prices increased by the level of the duty. This would increase on average the costs of the users by less than 2 %.\n(107)\nThe above situation has to be compared with the profitability rates of the co-operating Union users. The users\u2019 profitability on products incorporating the product concerned is around 11 % and for all their products was over 20 %. Account taken of such profitability rates even a full pass of measures to both import and Union prices would not have a disproportionate effect on these parties\u2019 financial situation.\n(108)\nIn fact a much more realistic scenario is that the imposition of measures would lead to a situation where only import prices from BiH increase while the Union industry benefits from increased economies of scale. Indeed, as explained above, the supply situation of the product concerned within the EU is fully sufficient, since most Union producers operate at far from full capacity.\n(109)\nIt should also be noted that the investigation established that there are products that could be substituted for the product concerned. Indeed, it is clear that both the co-operating and non co-operating users also produce laundry detergents without the product concerned. In this more realistic scenario, the costs of the cooperating users will only increase by a fraction of one percent. In other words, in light of the profitability figures the imposition of measures will only have negligible consequences for users.\n(110)\nAccount taken of the above it is clear that the imposition of measures would not lead to any significant impact to users and thus it is highly unlikely that there would even be any increase in price to the consumers.\n7.5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(111)\nOverall, it is expected that the Union industry would clearly be in a position to benefit from measures. Indeed, they could in the first place benefit from increased economies of scale because of a higher capacity utilization due to an increase in production and sales.\n(112)\nAccount taken of the above it is provisionally concluded that the imposition of measures on dumped imports of the product concerned from Bosnia and Herzegovina will not affect the Union users significantly and that overall it is in the Union interest.\n8. PROPOSAL FOR PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(113)\nIn view of the conclusions reached above with regard to dumping, resulting injury and Union interest, provisional measures on imports of the product concerned from Bosnia and Herzegovina should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by dumped imports.\n8.1. Injury elimination level\n(114)\nThe level of the provisional anti-dumping measures should be sufficient to eliminate the injury to the Union industry caused by the dumped imports, without exceeding the dumping margins found.\n(115)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs and obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports. The pre-tax profit margin used for this calculation was 5,9 % of turnover. This was the profit level achieved by the Union industry in the IP for all its products including the product concerned. Bearing in mind that the profitability for the product concerned was affected by dumped imports it is clear that this level of profit is prudent and not excessive. It was also considered whether the profit rates achieved by the Union industry in 2005-2007 should be used but the profit rates were low in terms of profitability achieved by the companies for similar products and were not considered to be representative for a viable industry. This is because the Bosnian imports undercut those of the Union industry by between 10-20 % during these 3 years and such differences would have played a significant role in annual contract negotiations. Thus these profit margins could not be considered representative of a normal situation in the EU market. On the basis mentioned above, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry of the like product. The non-injurious price has been obtained by adding the above mentioned profit margin to the cost of production.\n(116)\nThe necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price, as established for the undercutting calculations, with the average non-injurious price of products sold by the Union industry on the EU market. The difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the average import CIF value. The underselling margin thereby calculated was 31,5 %.\n8.2. Provisional measures\n(117)\nIn the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed on imports originating in the Bosnia and Herzegovina at the level of the dumping margin found.\n(118)\nOn the basis of the above, the rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty for Bosnia and Herzegovina is 28,1 %.\n9. DISCLOSURE\n(119)\nIn the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of duties made for the purpose of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive duty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of zeolite A powder, also referred to as Zeolite NaA or Zeolite 4A powder, currently falling within CN code ex 2842 10 00 (TARIC code 2842100030) and originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 shall be 28,1 %.\n3. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security, equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Without prejudice to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["6", "52", "55", "3", "14", "2", "9", "29", "69", "79", "75", "89", "67", "26", "85", "34", "60", "32", "12", "8", "84", "61", "19", "81", "13", "95", "51", "10", "62", "66", "No Label", "23", "48", "83", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "48", "83", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 203/2011\nof 1 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2011.", "references": ["13", "48", "64", "90", "83", "6", "46", "19", "77", "56", "24", "67", "72", "51", "30", "22", "91", "55", "75", "2", "15", "21", "93", "38", "65", "36", "49", "1", "10", "81", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 27 September 2011\non mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/000 TA 2011 - technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission)\n(2011/658/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support to redundant workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1927/2006 provides that 0,35 % of the annual maximum amount can be made available each year for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 610 000.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 610 000 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 27 September 2011.", "references": ["11", "94", "55", "72", "84", "91", "59", "87", "89", "7", "46", "9", "32", "41", "64", "69", "73", "98", "90", "75", "76", "18", "12", "21", "34", "92", "35", "81", "39", "88", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "49"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1216/2011\nof 24 November 2011\namending Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functionning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 11 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and nework functions and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services (2) provides for Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and binding targets on the key performance areas of safety, environment, capacity and cost-efficiency.\n(2)\nThe safety KPIs for national or functional airspace block (FAB) target setting set out in Annex 1 to Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 are: the effectiveness of safety management as measured by a methodology based on the ATM Safety Framework Maturity Survey; the application of the severity classification of the Risk Analysis Tool to allow harmonised reporting of severity assessment of Separation Minima Infringement, Runway Incursions and Air Traffic Management (ATM) Specific Technical Events; and the reporting of just culture.\n(3)\nPursuant to Annex 1 to Regulation (EU) No 691/2010, those safety KPIs should be further developed jointly by the Commission, the Member States, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) and adopted by the Commission prior to the first reference period.\n(4)\nTo this effect the Commission established a Working Group consisting of representatives from EASA, Eurocontrol and the Commission (so-called E3-Task Force). That working group produced a technical report entitled \u201cMetrics for Safety Key Performance Indicators for the Performance Scheme\u201d. That report was further developed on the basis of the comments received from Member States and the stakeholders and constitutes the technical concept for this Regulation and its associated Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM).\n(5)\nWork already done in respect of other initiatives such as EASA Safety Plan and Eurocontrol's Risk Analysis Tool and Safety Framework Maturity Survey should be taken into account in the development of safety KPIs.\n(6)\nExperience gained from the gradual implementation of the performance scheme shows that the time allocated to the Commission for the assessment of revised performance targets should be increased in view of the workload generated by the detailed assessment of performance plans and in order to conduct the necessary dialogue with the national supervisory authorities and to ensure an appropriate justification of the results of that assessment.\n(7)\nRegulation (EU) No 691/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 691/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 14 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nIn paragraph 1, the words \u2018two months\u2019 are replaced by \u2018four months\u2019;\n(b)\nIn paragraph 2, the words \u2018two months\u2019 are replaced by \u2018four months\u2019;\n(c)\nIn paragraph 3, the words \u2018two months\u2019 are replaced by \u2018four months\u2019;\n(2)\nIn Annex I point 1 of Section 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. SAFETY KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS\n(a)\nThe first national/FAB safety KPI for the first reference period shall be the effectiveness of safety management as measured by a methodology based on the ATM Safety Framework Maturity Survey.\nWith regard to Member States and their national supervisory authorities and air navigation service providers, certified to provide air traffic services or communication, navigation and surveillance services, this KPI shall be measured by the level of implementation of the following Management Objectives:\n-\nSafety policy and objectives;\n-\nSafety risk management;\n-\nSafety assurance;\n-\nSafety promotion;\n-\nSafety Culture.\n(b)\nThe second national/FAB safety KPI for the first reference period shall be the application of the severity classification below based on the Risk Analysis Tool methodology to the reporting of, as a minimum, three categories of occurrences: Separation Minima Infringements, Runway Incursions and ATM-specific occurrences at all Air Traffic Control Centres and at airports. Member States may decide not to apply the method at airports with less than 50 000 commercial air transport movements per year.\nWhen reporting the above occurrences Member States and air navigation service providers shall use the following severity classes:\n-\nSerious incident\n-\nMajor incident\n-\nSignificant incident\n-\nNo safety effect\n-\nNot determined; for example insufficient information available, or inconclusive or conflicting evidence precluded such determination.\nReporting on the application of the method shall be done for individual occurrences.\n(c)\nThe third national/FAB safety KPI for the first reference period shall be the reporting by the Member States and their air navigation service providers through a questionnaire established in accordance with paragraph (e), which measures the level of presence and corresponding level of absence of just culture.\n(d)\nDuring the first reference period, there will be no EU wide safety performance targets. However, Member States may set targets corresponding to these Safety KPIs.\n(e)\nIn order to facilitate the implementation and measurement of the safety KPIs, EASA - in consultation with the Performance Review Body - shall adopt before the start of the first reference period acceptable means of compliance and guidance material in accordance with the procedure adopted under Article 52 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n(f)\nEurocontrol shall provide, in a timely manner, the information needed for the development of the documents referred to in point (e), including at least the specification of the Risk Analysis Tool methodology and its further development and the details of the methodology of the Safety Framework Maturity Survey and its weighting factors.\n(g)\nThe yearly measurement of the KPIs referred to in points (a) and (c) (questionnaires on effectiveness of safety management and just culture) by national supervisory authorities and air navigation service providers shall be reported to the EASA for the previous year by the national supervisory authorities before 1st February of each year. These yearly measurements shall be used as input for the monitoring functions described in points (h) and (i). If any changes in the yearly measurement of the KPIs occur the national supervisory authorities shall present those changes before the next yearly report is being due.\n(h)\nNational supervisory authorities shall monitor the implementation and measurement of the safety KPIs by air navigation service providers, in accordance with the procedures for safety oversight established in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1034/2011 (3).\n(i)\nIn the context of its standardisation inspections the EASA shall monitor the implementation and measurement of the safety KPIs by national supervisory authorities, in accordance with the working methods referred to in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. The EASA shall inform the Performance Review Body of the outcome of these inspections.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 November 2011.", "references": ["3", "44", "2", "89", "36", "4", "13", "66", "98", "83", "34", "62", "20", "85", "15", "51", "46", "48", "40", "88", "81", "37", "56", "69", "91", "28", "68", "19", "45", "43", "No Label", "25", "53", "54", "57", "76"], "gold": ["25", "53", "54", "57", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1273/2011\nof 7 December 2011\nopening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice\n(codification)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/96 of 18 June 1996 on the implementation of the concessions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in the wake of the conclusion of the GATT XXIV.6 negotiations (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 96/317/EC of 13 May 1996 concerning the conclusion of the results of the consultations with Thailand under GATT Article XXIII (2), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 of 10 February 1998 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (3) has been substantially amended several times (4). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.\n(2)\nUnder the negotiations conducted pursuant to GATT Article XXIV(6) in the wake of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to the European Community, it was agreed to open from 1 January 1996 an annual import quota for 63 000 tonnes of semi-milled and wholly milled rice covered by CN code 1006 30 at zero duty. That quota was included in the European Community list provided for in Article II(1)(a) of GATT 1994.\n(3)\nUnder the consultations with Thailand pursuant to GATT Article XXIII, it was agreed to open an annual import quota for 80 000 tonnes of broken rice covered by CN code 1006 40 00 at an import duty reduced by EUR 28 per tonne.\n(4)\nCouncil Decision 2005/953/EC of 20 December 2005 on the conclusion of an agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and Thailand pursuant to Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 relating to the modification of concessions with respect to rice provided for in EC Schedule CXL annexed to GATT 1994 (5) provides for the opening of a new global annual import quota of 13 500 tonnes of semi-milled or wholly milled rice falling within CN code 1006 30 at zero duty and an increase in the annual import quota for broken rice falling within CN code 1006 40 00 to 100 000 tonnes.\n(5)\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Thailand pursuant to Article XXIV: 6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic in the course of their accession to the European Union (6), approved by Council Decision 2006/324/EC (7), provides for an increase in the annual global tariff quota at zero duty for wholly milled and semi-milled rice covered by CN code 1006 30 of 25 516 tonnes for all origins and of 1 200 tonnes for Thailand. It also provides for the opening of an additional zero duty tariff quota of 31 788 tonnes of broken rice covered by CN code 1006 40 for all origins, and for new quotas at 15 % duty valid for all origins of 7 tonnes of paddy rice covered by CN code 1006 10 and 1 634 tonnes of husked rice covered by CN code 1006 20.\n(6)\nThe commitments for the annual import tariff quotas referred to in Article 1(1)(a), (c) and (d) of this Regulation provide that the administration of those quotas is to take account of traditional suppliers.\n(7)\nWith a view to preventing imports under those quotas from causing disturbance in the normal marketing of Union-grown rice, such imports should be staggered over the year so they can be absorbed more easily by the Union market.\n(8)\nWith a view to the sound administration of the quotas and in particular in order to ensure that the quantities fixed are not exceeded, special detailed rules should be laid down to cover the submission of applications and the issue of licences. Such detailed rules should either supplement or derogate from Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (8).\n(9)\nIt should be stipulated that Commission Regulation (EC) No 1342/2003 of 28 July 2003 laying down special detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences for cereals and rice (9) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (10) apply in the framework of this Regulation.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The following annual global tariff quotas are hereby opened on 1 January each year:\n(a)\n63 000 tonnes of wholly milled or semi-milled rice covered by CN code 1006 30, at zero duty;\n(b)\n1 634 tonnes of husked rice covered by CN code 1006 20 at an ad valorem duty fixed at 15 %;\n(c)\n100 000 tonnes of broken rice covered by CN code 1006 40 00, with a reduction of 30,77 % in the duty fixed in Article 140 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (11);\n(d)\n40 216 tonnes of wholly milled or semi-milled rice covered by CN code 1006 30, at zero duty;\n(e)\n31 788 tonnes of broken rice covered by CN code 1006 40 00, at zero duty.\nThose overall import tariff quotas shall be broken down into import tariff quotas by country of origin and divided among a number of subperiods in accordance with Annex I.\nRegulations (EC) No 1342/2003, (EC) No 1301/2006 and (EC) No 376/2008 shall apply to the quotas referred to in the first subparagraph, save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.\n2. An annual quota of 7 tonnes of paddy rice covered by CN code 1006 10, at an ad valorem duty fixed at 15 %, shall be opened on 1 January each year under order number 09.0083.\nIt shall be managed by the Commission in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (12).\nArticle 2\nFor quantities not covered by import licences issued for the quotas referred to in Article 1(1)(a), (b) and (e) in respect of the subperiod of the month of September, import licence applications may be submitted in respect of all origins covered by the overall import tariff quota in the subperiod of the month of October.\nArticle 3\nWhere import licence applications are submitted in respect of rice and broken rice originating in Thailand and rice originating in Australia or the United States under the quantities referred to in Article 1(1)(a) and (c), they shall be accompanied by the original of the export licence drawn up in accordance with Annexes II, III and IV and issued by the competent body in the countries indicated therein.\nThe entries shall be optional for Sections 7, 8 and 9 of Annex II.\nArticle 4\n1. Licence applications shall be lodged in the first 10 working days of the first month of each subperiod.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2003, the security for the import licences shall be:\n-\nEUR 46 per tonne for the quotas provided for in Article 1(1)(a) and (d),\n-\nEUR 5 per tonne for the quotas provided for in Article 1(1)(c) and (e).\n3. The country of origin shall be entered in section 8 of licence applications and of the import licences and the word \u2018yes\u2019 shall be marked with a cross.\nLicences shall be valid only for products originating in the country indicated in section 8.\n4. Section 24 of the licences shall bear one of the following entries:\n(a)\nin the case of the quota referred to in Article 1(1)(a), one of the entries listed in Annex V;\n(b)\nin the case of the quota referred to in Article 1(1)(b), one of the entries listed in Annex VI;\n(c)\nin the case of the quota referred to in Article 1(1)(c), one of the entries listed in Annex VII;\n(d)\nin the case of the quota referred to in Article 1(1)(d), one of the entries listed in Annex VIII;\n(e)\nin the case of the quota referred to in Article 1(1)(e), one of the entries listed in Annex IX.\n5. By way of derogation from Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, in the case of the tariff quotas concerned by the import licence applications referred to in the first paragraph of Article 3 of this Regulation, applicants may submit several applications for the same quota order number by import tariff quota subperiod.\nArticle 5\nThe allocation coefficient referred to in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 shall be fixed by the Commission within 10 days of the final day for notification referred to in point (a) of Article 8 of this Regulation. At the same time the Commission shall fix the quantities available in respect of the following subperiod and, where applicable, in respect of the additional subperiod of the month of October.\nIf the allocation coefficient referred to in the first paragraph results in one or more quantities of less than 20 tonnes per application, Member States shall allocate the total of such quantities by drawing lots among the operators concerned for each quantity of 20 tonnes, with the remainder distributed equally between the 20-tonne quantities. However, where adding together the quantities of less than 20 tonnes does not result in the constitution of a 20-tonne quantity, the remainder shall be distributed by the Member State equally between the operators whose licences are for 20 tonnes or more.\nWhere, following the application of the second paragraph, the quantity for which a licence is to be issued is less than 20 tonnes, the licence application may be withdrawn by the operator within two working days following the date of entry into force of the Regulation fixing the allocation coefficient.\nArticle 6\nWithin three working days of the date of publication of the Commission\u2019s Decision fixing the quantities available, as provided for in Article 5, import licences shall be issued for the quantities resulting from the application of Article 5.\nArticle 7\n1. Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 shall not apply.\n2. The benefits in terms of customs duties provided for in Article 1(1) shall not apply to quantities imported under the tolerance specified in Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008.\n3. By way of derogation from Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2003 and pursuant to Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, import licences for husked, semi-milled and wholly milled rice shall be valid from their actual day of issue until the end of the third month following that day.\n4. Under the quotas referred to in Article 1(1), the release of the products into free circulation within the Union shall be subject to the presentation of a certificate of origin issued by the competent national authorities of the country concerned in accordance with Article 47 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\nHowever, in respect of those parts of the quotas relating to countries for which an export licence is required in accordance with Article 3 of this Regulation or in respect of quotas the origin of which is described as \u2018all countries\u2019, a certificate of origin is not required.\nArticle 8\nThe Member States shall send the Commission, by electronic means:\n(a)\nno later than the second working day following the final day for the submission of licence applications at 18.00 (Brussels time), the information on the import licence applications referred to in Article 11(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, with a breakdown by eight-digit CN code and by country of origin of the quantities covered by those applications, specifying the number of the import licence and the number of the export licence where this is required;\n(b)\nno later than the second working day following the issue of the import licences, information on the licences issued, as referred to in Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, with a breakdown by eight-digit CN code and by country of origin of the quantities for which import licences have been issued, specifying the number of the import licence and the quantities for which licence applications have been withdrawn in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of this Regulation;\n(c)\nno later than the last day of each month, the total quantities actually released for free circulation under the quota concerned during the previous month but one, broken down by eight-digit CN code and by country of origin, giving details of the packaging if that packaging is less than or equal to 5 kg. If no quantities have been released for free circulation during the period, a \u2018nil\u2019 notification shall be sent.\nArticle 9\n1. The Commission shall monitor the quantities of goods imported under this Regulation, with a view in particular to establishing:\n(a)\nthe extent to which traditional trade flows, in terms of volume and presentation, to the Union are significantly changed; and\n(b)\nwhether there is subsidisation between exports benefiting directly from this Regulation and exports subject to the normal import charge.\n2. If either of the criteria set out in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 is met, and in particular if the imports of rice in packages of five kilograms or less exceed the figure of 33 428 tonnes, and in any event on an annual basis, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate proposals to avoid disruption of the Union rice sector.\n3. Quantities imported in packages of the kind referred to in paragraph 2 and released for free circulation shall be indicated in the relevant import licence in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008.\nArticle 10\nRegulation (EC) No 327/98 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex XI.\nArticle 11\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2011.", "references": ["12", "18", "64", "0", "49", "80", "87", "58", "53", "26", "5", "98", "62", "27", "59", "43", "57", "28", "37", "61", "51", "67", "56", "88", "52", "47", "77", "33", "71", "13", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "68", "93", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "68", "93", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 22 November 2010\nauthorising Germany, Italy and Austria to introduce a special measure derogating from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC and amending Decision 2007/250/EC to extend the period of validity of the authorisation granted to the United Kingdom\n(2010/710/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letters registered with the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 3 August 2007, 23 December 2009 and 17 February 2010 respectively Italy, Germany and Austria requested authorisation to introduce a special measure derogating from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the person liable for payment of value added tax (hereinafter \u2018VAT\u2019). By letter registered with the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 10 February 2010, the United Kingdom requested to extend the period of validity of the authorisation provided for by Council Decision 2007/250/EC of 16 April 2007 authorising the United Kingdom to introduce a special measure derogating from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (2).\n(2)\nThe Commission informed the other Member States by letter dated 11 January 2010 of the request made by Germany, and by letter dated 9 March 2010 of the requests made by Italy, Austria and the United Kingdom. The Commission informed Germany by letter dated 12 January 2010 and Italy, Austria and the United Kingdom, by letters dated 11 March 2010, that it had all the information it considered necessary for the appraisal of the requests.\n(3)\nThe person liable for the payment of VAT pursuant to Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC is the taxable person supplying the goods. The purpose of the derogations requested by Germany, Italy and Austria is to place that liability on the taxable person to whom the supplies are made, but only under certain conditions and only in relation to particular products, notably mobile telephones and integrated circuit devices.\n(4)\nA significant number of traders in particular products, notably mobile telephones and integrated circuit devices, evade paying VAT to the tax authorities after selling their products. Their customers, however, are entitled to a tax deduction as they are in possession of a valid invoice. In the most aggressive cases of such tax evasion the same goods are, via a \u2018carousel\u2019 scheme, supplied several times without payment of VAT to the tax authorities. By designating the person to whom the goods are supplied as the person liable for the payment of VAT in such cases, the derogation would eliminate the opportunity to engage in that form of tax evasion. It would not affect the amount of VAT due.\n(5)\nFor the purposes of ensuring the effective operation of the derogation and preventing tax evasion from being shifted to other products or towards the retail level, Germany, Italy and Austria should introduce appropriate control and reporting obligations. The Commission should be informed of the specific measures adopted in view of monitoring the operation of the derogation.\n(6)\nThe measure is proportionate to the objectives pursued since it is not intended to apply generally, but only to specific groups of products, where there is a high risk of tax evasion and where the scale of tax evasion has resulted in considerable tax losses. Moreover, the use of a reverse charge mechanism implies less risk of shifting of fraud towards the retail trade of the products in question, as mobile phones are generally supplied by large phone companies and as the measure is applicable to integrated circuits in a state prior to integration into end-user products.\n(7)\nIn principle, the authorisation shall be valid only for a short period, because it cannot be established with certainty that the objectives of the measure will be achieved nor can the impact of the measure on the functioning of the VAT systems within those Member States who apply it, or in other Member States, be gauged in advance.\n(8)\nThe United Kingdom should be allowed to continue to apply its existing special measure until the date of expiry of the authorisations granted to Germany, Italy and Austria.\n(9)\nThe derogation has no negative impact on the Union\u2019s own resources accruing from VAT,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. By way of derogation from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC, Germany is authorised to designate the taxable person to whom supplies of the following goods are made as the person liable to pay VAT:\n(a)\nmobile telephones, being devices made or adapted for use in connection with a licensed network and operated on specified frequencies, whether or not they have any other use;\n(b)\nintegrated circuit devices such as microprocessors and central processing units in a state prior to integration into end-user products.\n2. The derogation shall apply in respect of supplies of goods for which the taxable amount is equal to or higher than EUR 5 000.\nArticle 2\nBy way of derogation from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC, Italy is authorised to designate the taxable person to whom supplies of the following goods are made as the person liable to pay VAT:\n(a)\nmobile telephones, being devices made or adapted for use in connection with a licensed network and operated on specified frequencies, whether or not they have any other use;\n(b)\nintegrated circuit devices such as microprocessors and central processing units in a state prior to integration into end-user products.\nArticle 3\n1. By way of derogation from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC, Austria is authorised to designate the taxable person to whom supplies of the following goods are made as the person liable to pay VAT:\n(a)\nmobile telephones, being devices made or adapted for use in connection with a licensed network and operated on specified frequencies, whether or not they have any other use;\n(b)\nintegrated circuit devices such as microprocessors and central processing units in a state prior to integration into end-user products.\n2. The derogation shall apply in respect of supplies of goods for which the taxable amount is equal to or higher than EUR 5 000.\nArticle 4\nThe derogation provided for in Articles 1, 2 and 3 is subject to Germany, Italy and Austria introducing appropriate and effective control and reporting obligations on taxable persons who supply goods to which the reverse charge applies in accordance with this Decision.\nArticle 5\nArticle 4 of Decision 2007/250/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nThis Decision shall expire on the date of entry into force of the Union rules allowing all Member States to adopt such measures derogating from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC, but on 31 December 2013 at the latest.\u2019.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nThis Decision shall expire on the date of entry into force of the Union rules allowing all Member States to adopt such measures derogating from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC, but on 31 December 2013 at the latest.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Austria, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["72", "98", "22", "26", "59", "7", "51", "60", "99", "44", "12", "83", "53", "77", "43", "29", "48", "90", "55", "92", "31", "23", "19", "37", "27", "85", "88", "14", "62", "39", "No Label", "8", "34", "40", "42", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "34", "40", "42", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 21 December 2011\namending Decision 2009/861/EC on transitional measures under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regard the processing of non-compliant raw milk in certain milk-processing establishments in Bulgaria\n(notified under document C(2011) 9568)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/899/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (1) and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business operators. Those rules include hygiene requirements for raw milk and dairy products.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2009/861/EC (2) provides for certain derogations from the requirements set out in subchapters II and III of Chapter I of Section IX of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 for the milk-processing establishments in Bulgaria listed in that Decision. That Decision applies until 31 December 2011.\n(3)\nAccordingly, certain milk-processing establishments listed in Annex I to Decision 2009/861/EC may, by way of derogation from the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, process compliant and non-compliant milk provided that the processing of compliant and non-compliant milk is carried out on separate production lines. In addition, certain milk-processing establishments listed in Annex II to that Decision may process non-compliant milk without separate production lines.\n(4)\nBulgaria has informed the Commission that, since the entry into force of Decision 2009/861/EC, the proportion of raw milk that complies with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, delivered to milk-processing establishments in that Member State, has considerably increased. Bulgaria has also established an action plan aimed at covering the entire production chain of milk in that Member State ensuring compliance with the EU rules.\n(5)\nHowever, according with the report submitted by Bulgaria on the basis of Article 5 of Decision 2009/861/EC and on the information provided by Bulgarian authorities during the Standing Committee of Food Chain and Animal Health of 17 October 2011, the situation of the milk sector in Bulgaria is still not in conformity with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\n(6)\nTaking into account the current situation, and in order to avoid frustrating the efforts made by the Bulgarian authorities, it is appropriate to extend the application of the measures provided for in Decision 2009/861/EC.\n(7)\nBulgaria should continue the process of bringing the raw milk processed by the establishments listed in the Annexes to Decision 2009/861/EC, in compliance with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\n(8)\nIn particular, Bulgaria should continue to monitor the situation and submit to the Commission regular reports on progress towards full compliance with those requirements. Based on the conclusions of those reports, appropriate measures should be taken.\n(9)\nDecision 2009/861/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2009/861/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 2, the date \u201831 December 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2013\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 3, the date \u201831 December 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2013\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\n1. Bulgaria shall submit annual reports to the Commission on progress made in bringing the following in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 853/2004:\n(a)\nproduction holdings producing non-compliant milk;\n(b)\nthe system for collecting and transporting non-compliant milk.\nThe first annual report shall be submitted to the Commission by 31 December 2012, at the latest, and the second annual report by 31 October 2013, at the latest.\nThe reports shall be submitted in the form set out in Annex III.\n2. The Commission shall closely monitor the progress in bringing the raw milk processed by the establishments listed in Annexes I and II in compliance with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\nIf, on the basis of the reports submitted by Bulgaria, the Commission considers that compliance is not likely to be achieved by 31 December 2013, it shall propose appropriate measures to remedy the situation.\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 6, the date \u201831 December 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2013\u2019;\n5.\nAnnexes I and II are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["16", "1", "19", "54", "36", "62", "4", "77", "61", "29", "3", "59", "60", "45", "7", "90", "58", "14", "82", "12", "85", "87", "23", "76", "95", "26", "18", "81", "84", "27", "No Label", "9", "38", "70", "73", "74", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "38", "70", "73", "74", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 22 September 2011\nappointing three German members and four German alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/643/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the German Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nThree members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Karl-Heinz KL\u00c4R, Ms Kerstin KIESSLER and Mr Rolf HARLINGHAUSEN. Four alternate members\u2019 seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Ms Nicole MORSBLECH, Mr Peter STRAUB, Mr Michael GWOSDZ and Ms Jacqueline KRAEGE,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nDr Eva QUANTE-BRANDT, Staatsr\u00e4tin, Mitglied des Senats der Freien Hansestadt Bremen,\n-\nMs Margit CONRAD, Bevollm\u00e4chtigte des Landes Rheinland-Pfalz beim Bund und f\u00fcr Europa,\n-\nMs Barbara DUDEN, Mitglied des Europaausschusses der Hamburgischen B\u00fcrgerschaft;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMs Ulrike H\u00d6FKEN, Ministerin f\u00fcr Umwelt, Landwirtschaft, Ern\u00e4hrung, Weinbau und Forsten,\n-\nMr Nils WIECHMANN, Mitglied des Landtages,\n-\nMr Heino VAHLDIECK, Mitglied des Europaausschusses der Hamburgischen B\u00fcrgerschaft,\n-\nMr Peter FRIEDRICH, Minister f\u00fcr Bundesrat, Europa und internationale Angelegenheiten.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2011.", "references": ["64", "34", "95", "10", "60", "5", "11", "84", "31", "2", "4", "12", "73", "58", "42", "52", "99", "32", "74", "6", "20", "22", "75", "14", "45", "51", "25", "93", "30", "33", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 February 2012\nauthorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87701 (MON-877\u00d81-2) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2012) 701)\n(Only the Dutch and French texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/83/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 7(3) and 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 6 May 2010, Monsanto Europe SA submitted to the competent authority of Belgium an application, in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON 87701 soybean (\u2018the application\u2019).\n(2)\nThe application also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of MON 87701 soybean for the same uses as any other soybean with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with Articles 5(5) and 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.\n(3)\nOn 26 July 2011, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It concluded that soybean MON 87701, as described in the application, is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment (3).\n(4)\nIn its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Articles 6(4) and 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(5)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.\n(6)\nTaking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products containing, consisting of, or produced from MON 87701 soybean as described in the application (\u2018the products\u2019).\n(7)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each genetically modified organism (GMO) as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).\n(8)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON 87701 soybean. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (5) lays down labelling requirements in Article 4(6) for products containing or consisting of GMOs. Traceability requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs are laid down in paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article 4 and for food and feed produced from GMOs are laid down in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(10)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). The EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in point (e) of Article 6(5) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(11)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the EU register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(12)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).\n(13)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(14)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman. An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation. The appeal committee did not deliver an opinion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified soybean MON 87701, as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier MON-877\u00d81-2, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Articles 4(2) and 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-877\u00d81-2 soybean;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-877\u00d81-2 soybean;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of MON-877\u00d81-2 soybean for the same uses as any other soybean with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018soybean\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of MON-877\u00d81-2 soybean referred to in Article 2(b) and (c).\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nEU register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the EU register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Monsanto Europe SA, Belgium, representing Monsanto Company, United States.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Monsanto Europe SA, Avenue de Tervuren 270-272, 1150 Brussels, BELGIUM.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["29", "19", "70", "22", "81", "15", "33", "71", "17", "45", "42", "49", "0", "14", "96", "18", "46", "63", "8", "10", "6", "20", "37", "74", "28", "65", "59", "13", "55", "88", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 April 2010\nappointing one Spanish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/243/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Anna TERR\u00d3N I CUS\u00cd,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as alternate member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nD. Albert MORENO HUMET\nSecretario para la Uni\u00f3n Europea de la Generalitat de Catalunya.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["38", "2", "89", "64", "24", "50", "11", "43", "20", "66", "44", "58", "35", "73", "4", "72", "9", "75", "78", "16", "83", "18", "26", "65", "3", "67", "85", "29", "99", "39", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 362/2012\nof 25 April 2012\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under the quota referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (2), and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSection 3 of Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 determines the procedure for allocating export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under a quota opened for that country.\n(2)\nApplications submitted for the 2012/2013 quota year cover quantities less than those available. As a result, it is appropriate, pursuant to Article 31(2), fourth subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 to provide for the allocation of the remaining quantities. The issue of export licences for such remaining quantities should be conditional upon the competent authority being notified of the quantities accepted by the operator concerned and upon the interested operators lodging a security,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe applications for export licences lodged from 1 to 10 April 2012 for the quota period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 shall be accepted.\nThe quantities covered by export licence applications referred to in the first paragraph of this Article for the products referred to in Article 27(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 shall be multiplied by the following allocation coefficients:\n-\n1,294210 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 28(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009,\n-\n2,928104 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 28(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\nExport licences for the quantities exceeding the quantities applied for and which are allocated in accordance with the coefficients set out in the second paragraph, shall be issued after acceptance by the operator within one week from the date of publication of this Regulation and subject to the lodging of the security applicable.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 April 2012.", "references": ["58", "61", "91", "1", "52", "81", "33", "79", "39", "69", "41", "54", "2", "89", "34", "97", "20", "75", "14", "80", "29", "92", "37", "4", "42", "47", "25", "6", "65", "45", "No Label", "21", "22", "70", "93"], "gold": ["21", "22", "70", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 552/2010\nof 23 June 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 545/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 June 2010.", "references": ["74", "56", "77", "42", "82", "67", "34", "13", "28", "75", "97", "48", "2", "40", "96", "1", "0", "4", "64", "41", "70", "31", "50", "55", "99", "14", "20", "83", "59", "7", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1386/2011\nof 19 December 2011\ntemporarily suspending autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the Canary Islands\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 349 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national Parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Council Regulation (EC) No 704/2002 of 25 March 2002 temporarily suspending autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products and opening and providing for the administration of autonomous Community tariff quotas on imports of certain fishery products into the Canary Islands (3), the Common Customs Tariff duty suspension for certain capital goods for commercial or industrial use is to expire on 31 December 2011.\n(2)\nIn September 2010, the government of Spain requested on behalf of the government of the Canary Islands, the prolongation of the suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for a number of products in accordance with Article 349 of the Treaty. The justification of their request was that in view of the remoteness of those islands, the economic operators suffer severe economic and commercial disadvantages which have negative effects on demographic trends, employment and social and economic developments.\n(3)\nThe Canary Islands industrial sector, together with construction, has been severely affected by the recent economic crisis. The slump in building depressed all the auxiliary industry that depends on it. Unfavourable financial conditions had a serious impact on many areas of business. In addition, the sharp rise in unemployment in Spain aggravated the slump in domestic demand, including demand for industrial products.\n(4)\nUnemployment in the Canary Islands has been consistently exceeding the national average for Spain for the last 10 years and, since 2009, the Canary Islands have recorded the highest level throughout the country (Eurostat: Regional statistics - Unemployment rate, by NUTS 2 regions, 1999-2009). Moreover, more than half of the industrial production of the Canary Islands is consumed there, which is particularly serious since demand there has been hit harder.\n(5)\nTherefore, with the aim of giving a long-term perspective to investors and enabling economic operators to reach a level of industrial and commercial activities which stabilises the economic and social environment on the Canary Islands, it is appropriate to prolong in full the suspension of the Common Customs Tariff duties for certain goods as detailed in Annex II and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 704/2002 for a period of 10 years.\n(6)\nIn addition, in the same context the Spanish authorities have requested the suspension of the Common Customs Tariff duties for three new products falling within CN codes 3902 10, 3903 11 and 3906 10. This request was accepted as these suspensions would strengthen the economy of the Canary Islands.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure that only economic operators located on the territory of the Canary Islands benefit from those tariff measures, the suspensions should be made conditional on the end-use of the products, in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (4) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (5).\n(8)\nIn case of a deflection of trade and in order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission allowing the Commission to temporarily withdraw the suspension. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (6).\n(9)\nAmendments to the Combined Nomenclature may not give rise to any substantive changes to the nature of the suspension of duties. The power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should therefore be delegated to the Commission for the purpose of making necessary amendments and technical adaptations to the list of goods for which a suspension applies. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the Council.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure continuity with the measures set out in Regulation (EC) No 704/2002, it is necessary to apply the measures provided in this Regulation from 1 January 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2021, the Common Customs Tariff duties applicable to imports into the Canary Islands of capital goods for commercial or industrial use falling under the CN codes listed in Annex I shall be suspended in full.\nThose goods shall be used in accordance with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 for a period of at least 24 months after the release into free circulation by economic operators located in the Canary Islands.\nArticle 2\nFrom 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2021, the Common Customs Tariff duties applicable to imports into the Canary Islands of raw materials, parts and components falling under the CN codes listed in Annex II and used for industrial transformation or maintenance in the Canary Islands, shall be suspended in full.\nArticle 3\nThe suspension of duties referred to in Articles 1 and 2 shall be subject to end-use in accordance with Articles 21 and 82 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and to the controls provided for in Articles 291 to 300 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\nArticle 4\n1. Where the Commission has reasons to believe that the suspensions laid down in this Regulation have led to a deflection of trade for a specific product, it may adopt implementing acts, temporarily withdrawing the suspension for a period not longer than 12 months. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 8.\nImport duties for products for which the suspension has been temporarily withdrawn shall be secured by a guarantee, and the release of the products concerned for free circulation in the Canary Islands shall be conditional upon the provision of such guarantee.\n2. When the Council decides, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Treaty, within a 12-month period, that the suspension should definitively be withdrawn, the amounts of duties secured by guarantees shall be collected definitively.\n3. If no definitive decision has been adopted within the 12-month period in accordance with paragraph 2, the securities shall be released.\nArticle 5\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 6 concerning amendments and technical adaptations to Annexes I and II as are required as a consequence of amendments to the Combined Nomenclature.\nArticle 6\n1. The power to adopt the delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 5 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time as from 1 January 2012.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 5 may be revoked at any time by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 5 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed by the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the Council has informed the Commission that it will not object.\nArticle 7\nThe European Parliament shall be informed of the adoption of delegated acts by the Commission, of any objection formulated to them, or of the revocation of the delegation of powers by the Council.\nArticle 8\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Customs Code Committee, established by Article 247a(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 9\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["34", "8", "20", "90", "19", "73", "17", "57", "59", "0", "83", "96", "74", "46", "28", "97", "86", "18", "45", "5", "71", "27", "65", "58", "43", "85", "80", "79", "62", "99", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "82", "92"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "82", "92"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 738/2012\nof 14 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 August 2012.", "references": ["6", "46", "41", "0", "15", "91", "43", "65", "4", "53", "78", "67", "20", "1", "75", "39", "80", "74", "59", "2", "96", "52", "36", "99", "98", "56", "14", "55", "58", "44", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 530/2011\nof 30 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 31 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 May 2011.", "references": ["0", "98", "67", "20", "52", "50", "63", "26", "32", "47", "42", "17", "62", "72", "91", "27", "6", "12", "22", "48", "16", "43", "11", "74", "81", "49", "10", "23", "2", "90", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 May 2010\non the conclusion of a Memorandum of Cooperation between the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the European Community regarding security audits/inspections and related matters\n(2010/302/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Council authorised the Commission on 30 November 2007 to open negotiations on an agreement regarding aviation security audits/inspections and related matters between the European Community and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).\n(2)\nOn behalf of the Union, the Commission has negotiated a Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) with the ICAO regarding security audits/inspections and related matters in accordance with the directives set out in Annex I to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations and the ad hoc procedure set out in Annex II thereto.\n(3)\nThe MoC was signed on 17 September 2008 on behalf of the Community subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Decision 2009/97/EC of the Council of 24 July 2008 on the signing and provisional application of a Memorandum of Cooperation between the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the European Community regarding security audits/inspections and related matters (1).\n(4)\nFollowing the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union should make a notification to the ICAO as regards the European Union having replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(5)\nThe MoC should be approved.\n(6)\nParagraph 6(3) of the MoC provides that the MoC shall enter into force on the first day of the second month following the last of the two notifications through which the parties have informed each other of the termination of their respective internal procedures. Accordingly, the President of the Council should be authorised to make the required notification on behalf of the Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) between the European Community and the International Civil Aviation Organisation regarding security audits/inspections and related matters is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\n2. The text of the MoC is attached to this Decision (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is authorised to designate the person empowered to make the notification provided in paragraph 6(3) of the MoC and to make the following notification:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d in the text of the MoC are, where appropriate, to be read as \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2010.", "references": ["81", "54", "8", "47", "67", "19", "20", "96", "59", "38", "82", "35", "22", "84", "3", "37", "10", "88", "41", "33", "63", "89", "11", "64", "95", "50", "45", "0", "83", "24", "No Label", "9", "53", "76", "99"], "gold": ["9", "53", "76", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1053/2010\nof 18 November 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 494/98 as regards administrative sanctions in cases of failure to prove the identification of an animal\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (1), and in particular Article 10(e) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 494/98 of 27 February 1998 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 as regards the application of minimum administrative sanctions in the framework of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals (2) was adopted on the basis of Article 10(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (3). That Regulation was repealed and replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000.\n(2)\nArticle 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 494/98 provides that if the keeper of an animal cannot prove its identification within 2 working days, the animal is to be destroyed without delay under the supervision of the veterinary authorities and without compensation from the competent authority.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4) lays down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin.\n(4)\nThat Regulation provides that the official veterinarian is to verify that animals are not slaughtered unless the slaughterhouse operator has been provided with and checked relevant food chain information.\n(5)\nIn addition, Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 provides that the official veterinarian may allow animals to undergo slaughter in the slaughterhouse even if the relevant food chain information is not available. In that case, however, all relevant food chain information must be supplied before the carcase is approved for human consumption. Pending a final judgement, such carcases and related offal must be stored separately from other meat.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 also provides that when relevant food chain information is not available within 24 hours of an animal\u2019s arrival at the slaughterhouse, all meat from the animal is to be declared unfit for human consumption. If the animal has not yet been slaughtered, it is to be killed separately from other animals.\n(7)\nAccordingly, the risks posed by unidentified animals for human health are reduced by the provisions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 854/2004. The destruction of animals within the framework of Regulation (EC) No 494/98 has therefore now primarily a deterrent effect, promoting identification of animals for purposes other than food safety.\n(8)\nAnimals of unknown origin may affect the animal health status of the areas where they have been held.\n(9)\nExperience gained in the application of Regulation (EC) No 494/98 has shown that the strict time limit of 2 days is not sufficient to properly evaluate the identity of unidentified animals. Member States should have the necessary administrative discretion to evaluate the situation on the basis of a risk analysis and to apply proportionate sanctions.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 494/98 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe Committee on Agricultural Funds has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 494/98, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. If the keeper of an animal cannot prove its identification and traceability, the competent authority shall, where appropriate, on the basis of an assessment of the animal health and food safety risks, order the destruction of the animal without compensation.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2010.", "references": ["91", "81", "37", "22", "97", "98", "15", "29", "51", "3", "76", "71", "20", "86", "39", "24", "74", "99", "28", "89", "80", "46", "32", "44", "93", "42", "13", "75", "41", "94", "No Label", "2", "8", "25", "38", "72"], "gold": ["2", "8", "25", "38", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 25 June 2012\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and Central America on the other, and the provisional application of Part IV thereof concerning trade matters\n(2012/734/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 April 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate an Association Agreement with Central America, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. The negotiating directives were amended on 10 March 2010 to include Panama in the negotiation process.\n(2)\nThose negotiations were concluded at the occasion of the EU-Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid in May 2010 and the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Union and its Member States on the one hand, and Central America on the other (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was initialled on 22 March 2011.\n(3)\nArticle 353(4) of the Agreement provides for the provisional application of Part IV of the Agreement concerning trade matters.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be signed on behalf of the European Union and Part IV thereof applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for the conclusion of the Agreement.\n(5)\nThe Agreement does not affect the rights of investors of the Member States to benefit from any more favourable treatment provided for in any agreement related to investment to which a Member State and a signatory Central American Republic are Parties.\n(6)\nThe provisional application of Part IV of the Agreement does not prejudge the allocation of competences between the European Union and its Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 218(7) of the Treaty, it is appropriate for the Council to authorise the Commission to approve modifications to the list of geographical indications recommended by the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property to the Association Committee for approval by the Association Council pursuant to Articles 247 and 274.2(a) of the Agreement.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate to set out the relevant procedures for the protection of geographical indications pursuant to the Agreement.\n(9)\nPursuant to Article 356 of the Agreement, it is appropriate to clarify that the Agreement shall not be construed as conferring rights or imposing obligations which can be directly invoked before Union or Member State courts and tribunals.\n(10)\nThe provisions of the Agreement that fall within the scope of Part Three, Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union bind the United Kingdom and Ireland as separate Contracting Parties, and not as part of the European Union, unless the European Union together with the United Kingdom and/or Ireland have jointly notified the Central America Party that the United Kingdom or Ireland is bound as part of the European Union in accordance with the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(11)\nIf the United Kingdom and/or Ireland ceases to be bound as part of the European Union in accordance with Article 4a of that Protocol (No 21), the European Union together with the United Kingdom and/or Ireland shall immediately inform the Central America Party of any change in their position. In that case, they shall remain bound by the provisions of the Agreement in their own right. The same applies to Denmark in accordance with the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to those Treaties,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and Central America on the other, is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nPart IV of the Agreement shall be applied on a provisional basis by the European Union in accordance with Article 353(4) of the Agreement, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion. Article 271 shall not be provisionally applied.\nIn order to determine the date of provisional application the Council shall fix the date by which the notification referred to in Article 353(4) of the Agreement is to be sent to the Republics of Central America. That notification shall include reference to the provision which is not to be provisionally applied.\nThe date from which Part IV of the Agreement will be provisionally applied shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.\nArticle 4\nFor the purposes of Article 247 of the Agreement, modifications of the Agreement through decisions of the Association Council, as proposed by the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property on geographical indications, shall be approved by the Commission on behalf of the European Union. Where interested parties cannot reach agreement following objections relating to a geographical indication, the Commission shall adopt a position on the basis of the procedure laid down in Article 15(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1).\nArticle 5\n1. A name protected under Annex XVIII to the Agreement (Protected Geographical Indications) may be used by any operator marketing agricultural products, foodstuffs, wines, aromatised wines or spirits conforming to the corresponding specification.\n2. The Member States and the institutions of the European Union shall enforce the protection provided for in Article 246 of the Agreement, including at the request of an interested party.\nArticle 6\nThe applicable provision for the purposes of adopting the necessary implementing rules for the application of the rules contained in Appendix 2A of Annex II (Concerning the Definition of the Concept of \u2018Originating Products\u2019 and Methods of Administrative Cooperation) and Appendix 2 of Annex I (Elimination of Customs Duties) to the Agreement is Article 247a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\nArticle 7\nThe Agreement shall not be construed as conferring rights or imposing obligations which can be directly invoked before Union or Member State courts and tribunals.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["29", "96", "79", "54", "46", "87", "84", "56", "60", "14", "91", "25", "67", "6", "16", "26", "39", "17", "70", "63", "50", "18", "1", "94", "31", "12", "27", "13", "55", "30", "No Label", "3", "9", "23", "93"], "gold": ["3", "9", "23", "93"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1083/2011\nof 27 October 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/239/CFSP of 12 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/232/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar (2) provides for certain measures, including restrictions on certain exports from Burma/Myanmar and a freezing of the assets of certain individuals and entities.\n(2)\nBy Decision 2011/239/CFSP, the Council amended Decision 2010/232/CFSP (3). Some of the amendments, in particular those relating to the freezing of funds of certain individuals and entities, require further action by the Union.\n(3)\nThe power to amend the lists in Annexes V, VI and VII to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 should be exercised by the Council in view of the serious political situation in Burma/Myanmar and to ensure consistency with the process for amending and reviewing Annexes I, II and III to Decision 2010/232/CFSP.\n(4)\nThe procedure for amending the lists in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 should include providing designated natural or legal persons, entities or bodies with the grounds for listing, so as to give them an opportunity to submit observations. Where observations are submitted, or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in light of those observations and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n(5)\nFor the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 194/2008, and in order to create maximum legal certainty within the Union, the names and other relevant data concerning natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources must be frozen in accordance with that Regulation, must be made public. Any processing of personal data should comply with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (4) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (5).\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 194/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately upon its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 194/2008 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex VI shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex VI.\n3. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited.\n4. The prohibition set out in paragraph 2 shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal persons or entities concerned, if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe this prohibition.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 11a\n1. Annex VI shall include:\n(a)\nsenior members of the former State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), Burmese authorities in the tourism sector, senior members of the military, the Government or the security forces who formulate, implement or benefit from policies that impede Burma/Myanmar\u2019s transition to democracy, and members of their families;\n(b)\nsenior serving members of the Burmese military and members of their families;\n(c)\nnatural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with persons referred to in points (a) and (b).\n2. Annex VI shall include the grounds for listing of listed persons, entities and bodies concerned.\n3. Annex VI shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies concerned. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known, and function or profession. With regards to legal persons, entities or bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 18 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 18\n1. The Commission shall be empowered to amend Annex IV on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\n2. Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to measures referred to in Article 11(1), it shall amend Annex VI accordingly.\n3. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 2, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\n4. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the natural or legal person, entity or body accordingly.\n5. The Council shall amend Annexes V and VII on the basis of decisions taken in respect of Annexes I and III to Council Decision 2010/232/CFSP (6).\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["24", "87", "18", "82", "97", "78", "25", "58", "99", "52", "37", "90", "66", "32", "77", "64", "71", "36", "26", "72", "48", "92", "28", "27", "6", "8", "5", "67", "30", "43", "No Label", "3", "23", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "23", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1233/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 663/2009 establishing a programme to aid economic recovery by granting Community financial assistance to projects in the field of energy\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular point (c) of Article 194(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 663/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) established the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR) to aid economic recovery by granting a financial envelope of EUR 3,98 billion for 2009 and 2010.\n(2)\nThis Regulation should be without prejudice to the aim of granting as much of the financial envelope of EUR 3,98 billion as possible by the end of 2010 to the sub-programmes referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 663/2009. However, it has been established that part of that amount will not be committed under those sub-programmes.\n(3)\nIn the spirit of the Europe 2020 strategy for sustainable growth and jobs, and in line with the EU climate and energy package and the 2006 Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, the development of further renewable energy sources and the promotion of energy efficiency would contribute to green growth, building a competitive and sustainable economy, and tackling climate change. By supporting those policies, the Union will create new jobs and green market opportunities, thereby fostering the development of a competitive, secure and sustainable economy. Cooperation among the various tiers of government (multi-level governance) is essential in this context.\n(4)\nProviding increased financial incentive is a key element in lowering the barriers that high up-front costs represent and in stimulating sustainable energy improvements. A dedicated financial facility (the facility) should therefore be created to use the funding under Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 663/2009 which cannot be committed by the end of 2010. The creation of the facility should be considered in the light of the Sustainable Energy Financing Initiative proposed by the Commission. The facility should support the development of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects and facilitate the financing of investment projects related to energy efficiency and renewable energy by local, regional and national public authorities, in particular in urban settings. In this process, attention should be paid to synergies with other financial resources available in the Member States, such as the Structural and Cohesion Funds, the European Local Energy Assistance (ELENA) Facility and the European Regional Development Fund under Regulation (EC) No 397/2009 (4), in order to avoid overlaps with other financial instruments.\n(5)\nInvestment support in sustainable energy can be most effective and beneficial when targeted at local level. However, in duly justified cases it may be more effective to aim at the national level, e.g. for reasons related to the availability or functioning of relevant administrative structures.\n(6)\nTo maximise the impact of the Union funding in the short term, the facility should be managed by one or more financial intermediaries such as international financial institutions. The selection of such financial intermediaries should take place on the basis of their demonstrated ability to use the funding in the most efficient and effective way, with the objective of maximising the participation, within the shortest possible time, of other public and private investors and of achieving the highest leverage between the Union funding and the total investment with a view to raising significant investments in the Union. However, in times of financial and economic crises which have a particularly adverse effect on the finances of local and regional authorities, it should be ensured that the difficult budgetary situation of those authorities does not hinder them from being able to access the funding.\n(7)\nIn compliance with Regulation (EC) No 663/2009, investment projects should be financed under the facility only if they have a rapid, measurable and substantial impact on economic recovery within the Union, increased energy security and the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Such investment projects contribute to green growth, the development of a competitive, connected, sustainable and green economy, as well as to the protection of employment, job creation and tackling climate change, in accordance with the \u2018Europe 2020\u2019 objectives.\n(8)\nThe criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 663/2009 should apply to the selection and eligibility of the projects financed under the facility. The geographical balance of the projects should also be taken into account as an essential element, to ensure the impact of this Regulation on economic recovery throughout the Union, and in recognition of the fact that in some Member States, projects have not or have only partially been financed under Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 663/2009.\n(9)\nIn view of the required short-term economic impact of this Regulation, the period between receipt of an application for a project and the final decision thereon should not exceed 6 months.\n(10)\nIndividual legal commitments implementing budgetary commitments under Chapter IIa should be made by 31 March 2011.\n(11)\nThe facility should not constitute a precedent with regard to the use of the general budget of the Union and possible future funding measures, including in the energy sector, but should be considered rather as an exceptional measure adopted during a period of economic difficulty.\n(12)\nDue to the urgent need to address the economic crisis, expenditure incurred under Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 663/2009 should be eligible as from 13 July 2009 as many applicants requested the eligibility of expenditure from the submission of the grant application in line with Article 112 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5) (the Financial Regulation). Expenditure incurred under Chapter IIa should be eligible as from 1 January 2011.\n(13)\nDue to the urgent need to address the economic crisis, this Regulation should enter into force immediately on publication,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 663/2009\nRegulation (EC) No 663/2009 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 1, the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018This Regulation provides for the creation of a financial facility (the facility) to support energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Individual legal commitments under Chapter II implementing the budgetary commitments made in 2009 and 2010 shall be made by 31 December 2010. Individual legal commitments under Chapter IIa shall be made by 31 March 2011.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. The financial intermediaries described in Annex II shall endeavour to allocate all the funding from the Union contribution available in the facility to investment projects and to technical assistance for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects by 31 March 2014. No funding from the Union contribution shall be allocated after that date. All funding from the Union contribution not allocated by the financial intermediaries by 31 March 2014 shall be returned to the general budget of the Union. The funding from the Union contribution allocated to investment projects shall remain invested for a specified length of time that may not extend beyond 31 March 2034. The Union shall be entitled to returns on its investment in the facility throughout the lifetime of the facility, in proportion to its contribution to the facility and in accordance with its shareholder rights.\u2019;\n3.\nthe following Chapter is inserted:\n\u2018CHAPTER IIa\nFINANCIAL FACILITY\nArticle 21a\nFunding that cannot be committed under Chapter II\n1. Funding which according to Article 3(2) cannot be subject to individual legal commitments under Chapter II for an amount of EUR 146 344 644,50 shall be for the facility referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 1, for the purpose of developing suitable funding instruments in cooperation with financial institutions, so as to give a major stimulus to energy efficiency projects and projects for the exploitation of renewable energy sources.\n2. The facility shall be implemented in compliance with Annex II. Article 23(1) shall not apply to the facility.\n3. The Union\u2019s exposure to the facility, including management fees and other eligible costs, shall be limited to the amount of the Union contribution to that facility specified in paragraph 1, and there shall be no further liability on the general budget of the Union.\u2019;\n4.\nArticle 22 is deleted;\n5.\nArticle 23 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. EEPR assistance shall cover only project-related expenditure incurred by the beneficiaries and, as regards projects under Article 9, also by third parties responsible for the implementation of a project. Expenditure incurred under Chapter II may be eligible as from 13 July 2009.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20182a. Financial assistance given under Chapter IIa shall cover expenditure relating to investment projects and to technical assistance for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects incurred by the beneficiaries described in point 3 of Part A of Annex II. Such expenditure may be eligible as from 1 January 2011.\u2019;\n6.\nArticle 27 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20181a. By 30 June 2013 the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a mid-term evaluation report on the measures taken under Chapter IIa focusing in particular on:\n(a)\nthe cost-effectiveness, leverage effect and additionality demonstrated by the facility;\n(b)\nevidence of sound financial management;\n(c)\nthe extent to which the facility has achieved the objectives set out in this Regulation;\n(d)\nthe extent to which continued support under the facility for projects relating to energy efficiency and energy from renewable sources is required.\nThe mid-term evaluation report shall, if appropriate, and in particular if the Commission\u2019s assessment of the measures taken under Chapter IIa is positive, be accompanied by a legislative proposal for the continuation of the facility.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Commission shall present to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions an evaluation report on the results achieved by the EEPR and in accordance with Article 27(4) of the Financial Regulation.\u2019;\n7.\nin Article 28, the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018The report shall include information about all overhead costs related to the establishment and implementation of the facility set up under Chapter IIa.\u2019;\n8.\nthe Annex is renamed \u2018Annex I\u2019 and the following Annex is added:\n\u2018ANNEX II\nFINANCIAL FACILITY\nA. Implementation of the financial facility for sustainable energy projects\n1. Scope of the facility\nThe financial facility (the facility) shall be used for the development of energy saving, energy efficiency and renewable energy projects and shall facilitate the financing of investments in those areas by local, regional and, in duly justified cases, national public authorities. The facility shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions on the delegation of budgetary execution tasks laid down in the Financial Regulation and its implementing rules.\nThe facility shall be used for sustainable energy projects, in particular in urban settings. This shall include, in particular, projects concerning:\n(a)\npublic and private buildings incorporating energy efficiency and/or renewable energy solutions including those based on the usage of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT);\n(b)\ninvestments in high energy efficient combined heat and power (CHP), including micro-cogeneration, and district heating/cooling networks, in particular from renewable energy sources;\n(c)\ndecentralised renewable energy sources embedded in local settings and their integration in electricity grids;\n(d)\nmicrogeneration from renewable energy sources;\n(e)\nclean urban transport to support increased energy efficiency and integration of renewable energy sources, with an emphasis on public transport, electric and hydrogen vehicles and reduced greenhouse gas emissions;\n(f)\nlocal infrastructure, including efficient lighting of outdoor public infrastructure such as street lighting, electricity storage solutions, smart metering, and smart grids, that make full usage of ICT;\n(g)\nenergy efficiency and renewable energy technologies with innovation and economic potential using the best available procedures.\nThe facility may be also used to provide incentives and technical assistance as well as to raise the awareness of local, regional and national authorities so as to ensure optimal use of the Structural and Cohesion Funds, in particular in the areas of energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements in housing and other types of buildings. The facility shall sustain investment projects demonstrating an economic and financial viability, in order to refund the investments allocated by the facility and to attract public and private investments. Thus, the facility may, inter alia, include provisioning and capital allocation for loans, guarantees, equity and other financial products. Furthermore, up to 15 % of the funding referred to in Article 21a may be used to provide technical assistance to local, regional or national, authorities on the setting up of, and on the initial deployment phase of technology related to, energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.\n2. Synergies\nWhen granting financial or technical assistance, attention shall also be paid to synergies with other financial resources available in the Member States, such as the Structural and Cohesion Funds and the ELENA Facility, in order to avoid overlaps with other instruments.\n3. Beneficiaries\nThe beneficiaries of the facility shall be public authorities, preferably at local and regional level, and public or private entities acting on behalf of those public authorities.\nB. Cooperation with financial intermediaries\n1. Selection and general requirements, including costs\nThe facility shall be set up in cooperation with one or more financial intermediaries, and shall be open to participation by appropriate investors. The selection of the financial intermediaries shall take place on the basis of their demonstrated ability to use the funding in the most efficient and effective way, in accordance with the rules and criteria set out in this Annex.\nThe Commission shall ensure that the total amount of overhead costs related to the establishment and implementation of the facility, including management fees and other eligible costs invoiced by the financial intermediaries, remains as limited as possible, in line with best practice for similar instruments and whilst safeguarding the required quality of the facility.\nThe Union contribution to the facility shall be implemented by the Commission in accordance with the provisions set out in Articles 53 and 54 of the Financial Regulation.\nThe financial intermediaries shall comply with the relevant requirements on the delegation of budgetary execution tasks set out in the Financial Regulation and its implementing rules, in particular as regards procurement rules, internal control, accounting and external audit. No funding other than management fees or costs related to the establishment and implementation of the facility shall be made available to those financial intermediaries.\nThe detailed terms and conditions of the establishment and the framework conditions of the facility, including monitoring and control, shall be laid down in one or more agreements between the Commission and the financial intermediaries.\n2. Availability of information\nThe facility shall make available online all information on programme management that is relevant for interested parties. This shall include, notably, application procedures, information on best practices and an overview of projects and reports.\nC. Funding conditions and eligibility and selection criteria\n1. Scope of financing\nIn accordance with this Annex, the facility shall be limited to the financing of:\n(a)\ninvestment projects that have a rapid, measurable and substantial impact on economic recovery within the Union, increased energy security and the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; and\n(b)\ntechnical assistance for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.\n2. Factors to be taken into account\nAs regards the selection of projects, particular attention shall be paid to the geographical balance.\nAs regards the financing of investment projects, due attention shall be paid to reaching a significant leverage factor between the total investment and the Union funding in order to raise significant investments in the Union. However, the leverage factor for individual investment projects may vary, depending on a number of factors such as the actual size and type of a project and on local conditions including the size and financial capabilities of the beneficiary.\n3. Conditions for public authorities\u2019 access to financing under the facility\nPublic authorities requesting financing for investment projects or technical assistance for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects shall comply with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey have made, or are in the process of making, a political commitment to mitigate climate change, where appropriate including concrete objectives, for example relating to increasing energy efficiency and/or the use of energy from renewable sources;\n(b)\nthey are either working towards developing multi-annual strategies to mitigate climate change and, where appropriate, to attain their objectives, or are participating in a multi-annual strategy at local, regional or national level to mitigate climate change;\n(c)\nthey agree to be publicly accountable for the progress in their overall strategy.\n4. Eligibility and selection criteria for investment projects financed under the facility\nInvestment projects financed under the facility shall comply with the following eligibility and selection criteria:\n(a)\nthe soundness and technical adequacy of the approach;\n(b)\nthe soundness and cost effectiveness of the funding for the full investment phase of the action;\n(c)\nthe geographical balance of all projects covered by this Regulation;\n(d)\nmaturity, defined as reaching the investment stage, and incurring substantial capital expenditure as soon as possible;\n(e)\nthe extent to which lack of access to finance is delaying the implementation of the action;\n(f)\nthe extent to which funding from the facility will stimulate public and private finance;\n(g)\nquantified socioeconomic impacts;\n(h)\nquantified environmental impacts.\n5. Eligibility and selection criteria for technical assistance projects financed under the facility\nTechnical assistance projects financed under the facility shall comply with the eligibility and selection criteria referred to in point 4(a), (c), (e), (f) and (g).\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["34", "90", "49", "1", "7", "71", "39", "73", "43", "62", "80", "54", "98", "48", "67", "11", "21", "83", "44", "23", "63", "47", "66", "32", "56", "20", "60", "87", "33", "46", "No Label", "9", "15", "59", "78", "81"], "gold": ["9", "15", "59", "78", "81"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 823/2012\nof 14 September 2012\nderogating from Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the expiry dates of the approval of the active substances 2,4-DB, benzoic acid, beta-cyfluthrin, carfentrazone ethyl, Coniothyrium minitans Strain CON/M/91-08 (DSM 9660), cyazofamid, cyfluthrin, deltamethrin, dimethenamid-P, ethofumesate, ethoxysulfuron, fenamidone, flazasulfuron, flufenacet, flurtamone, foramsulfuron, fosthiazate, imazamox, iodosulfuron, iprodione, isoxaflutole, linuron, maleic hydrazide, mecoprop, mecoprop-P, mesosulfuron, mesotrione, oxadiargyl, oxasulfuron, pendimethalin, picoxystrobin, propiconazole, propineb, propoxycarbazone, propyzamide, pyraclostrobin, silthiofam, trifloxystrobin, warfarin and zoxamide\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 17 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor active substances set out in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (2) for which approvals expire before 14 June 2014, applicants could not give the three years\u2019 notice required under Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as regards applications for renewal.\n(2)\nTherefore, it is necessary to extend the period of approval of those active substances taking into account, the elements provided for in the third paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(3)\nIn view of the aim of the second paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, as regards cases where no application is submitted three years before the respective expiry date laid down in Article 1 of this Regulation, the Commission will set the expiry date at the same date as before this Regulation or at the earliest date thereafter.\n(4)\nIn view of the aim of the second paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, as regards cases where the Commission will adopt a Regulation providing that the approval of an active substance referred to in Article 1 of this Regulation is not renewed because the approval criteria are not satisfied, the Commission will set the expiry date at the same date as before this Regulation or at the date of the adoption of the Regulation providing that the approval of the active substance is not renewed, whichever date is later.\n(5)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nExpiry dates\nBy way of derogation from Part A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, the following expiry dates shall apply:\n(1)\n31 July 2016, as regards the active substances: ethofumesate (entry 29), imazamox (entry 41), oxasulfuron (entry 42), ethoxysulfuron (entry 43), foramsulfuron (entry 44), oxadiargyl (entry 45), cyazofamid (entry 46), linuron (entry 51), pendimethalin (entry 53), trifloxystrobin (entry 59), carfentrazone ethyl (entry 60), mesotrione (entry 61), fenamidone (entry 62), isoxaflutole (entry 63) and warfarin (entry 120);\n(2)\n31 October 2016, as regards the active substances: deltamethrin (entry 40), 2,4-DB (entry 47), beta-cyfluthrin (entry 48), cyfluthrin (entry 49), iprodione (entry 50), maleic hydrazide (entry 52), flurtamone (entry 64), flufenacet (entry 65), iodosulfuron (entry 66), dimethenamid-P (entry 67), picoxystrobin (entry 68), fosthiazate (entry 69), silthiofam (entry 70) and Coniothyrium minitans Strain CON/M/91-08 (DSM 9660) (entry 71);\n(3)\n31 January 2017, as regards the active substances: propineb (entry 54), propyzamide (entry 55), mecoprop (entry 56), mecoprop-P (entry 57), propiconazole (entry 58), mesosulfuron (entry 75), propoxycarbazone (entry 76), zoxamide (entry 77), benzoic acid (entry 79), flazasulfuron (entry 80) and pyraclostrobin (entry 81).\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 September 2012.", "references": ["7", "90", "33", "26", "80", "92", "95", "51", "93", "88", "43", "29", "10", "38", "61", "47", "49", "31", "12", "56", "0", "75", "42", "82", "37", "87", "39", "48", "5", "68", "No Label", "8", "25", "65"], "gold": ["8", "25", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 209/2012\nof 9 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2012.", "references": ["70", "37", "43", "3", "30", "20", "33", "29", "36", "14", "58", "83", "54", "94", "40", "38", "73", "65", "28", "90", "26", "25", "12", "50", "5", "23", "63", "18", "99", "46", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 358/2012\nof 24 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["41", "20", "94", "70", "12", "23", "59", "13", "91", "86", "98", "30", "74", "28", "37", "44", "96", "72", "43", "47", "76", "2", "56", "11", "40", "15", "53", "92", "85", "31", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 264/2011\nof 17 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 March 2011.", "references": ["46", "55", "19", "99", "9", "2", "71", "64", "13", "16", "31", "5", "1", "89", "94", "70", "52", "21", "3", "81", "28", "7", "67", "14", "95", "25", "78", "80", "15", "29", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1129/2011\nof 11 November 2011\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing a Union list of food additives\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Article 10, Article 30(1) and Article 30(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1333/2008 provides for the establishment of a Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and their conditions of use.\n(2)\nFood additives which are currently permitted for use in foods under European Parliament and Council Directive 94/35/EC of 30 June 1994 on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs (2), European Parliament and Council Directive 94/36/EC of 30 June 1994 on colours for use in foodstuffs (3) and European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (4), should be included in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 after a review of their compliance with Articles 6, 7 and 8 thereof. The review should not include a new risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019). Food additives and uses which are no longer needed shall not be entered in Annex II to that Regulation.\n(3)\nOnly food additives included in the Union list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 may be placed on the market and used in foods under the conditions of use specified therein. The additives should be listed on the basis of the categories of food to which they may be added. In order to facilitate the transfer and to enhance transparency of the authorisation procedure, it is appropriate to develop a new food categorisation system which will form the basis of Annex II.\n(4)\nThe established Codex Alimentarius General Standard for Food Additives (5), food category system has been used as a starting point for developing the Union system. However, that system needs to be adapted to take into account the specificity of the existing food additive authorisations in the Union. Current sector specific Union provisions on foods have been taken into account. The categories are created with the sole purpose of listing the authorised additives and their conditions of use.\n(5)\nFor reasons of clarity it is necessary to list food additives in groups of additives for authorisation for certain foods. Guidance should be provided to describe the different categories in order to ensure uniform interpretation. When necessary, interpretation decisions can be adopted in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 in order to clarify whether or not a particular food belongs to a certain category of food.\n(6)\nNitrites (E 249-250) are needed as a preservative in meat products to control the possible growth of harmful bacteria, in particular Clostridium botulinum. The use of nitrites in meat may however lead to formation of nitrosamines which are carcinogenic substances. The current authorisation of nitrites as food additives makes a balance between these effects, taking into account the scientific opinion of the Authority and the need to maintain certain traditional foods on the market. For some traditionally manufactured meat products maximum residual limits were set out in Annex III to Directive 95/2/EC. Those limits should be maintained in adequately specified and identified products; however it should be clarified that the limits apply at the end of the production process. In addition, the Commission will consult Member States, the stakeholders and the Authority to discuss the possibility to reduce the current maximum limits in all meat products and to further simplify the rules for the traditionally manufactured products. Depending on the outcome of such consultation, the Commission will consider whether it is appropriate to propose an adaptation to the maximum levels of nitrites that may be added to certain meat products.\n(7)\nFor prepared table water covered by category 14.1.1, the only permitted additives should be phosphoric acid and phosphates. Taking into account that Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 is intended to further harmonise the use of food additives in foods in the Union and to ensure the effective functioning of the internal market, mineral salts which are added to prepared waters for standardisation purposes should not be considered as additives and, therefore, should not fall within the scope of this Regulation.\n(8)\nAll currently authorised food additives are subject to a re-evaluation by the Authority in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 (6) that sets up a programme for the re-evaluation of approved food additives. The re-evaluation of food additives is being carried out in accordance with the priorities laid down in that Regulation.\n(9)\nIn January 2008, the Authority adopted an opinion on lycopene (7) in which it derived an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0,5 mg/kg bw/day for lycopene (E 160d) from all sources and that the potential intake might exceed the ADI, particularly for children. The use of lycopene as a food colour should therefore be restricted.\n(10)\nIn September 2009, the Authority adopted scientific opinions on sunset yellow FCF (E 110) (8), quinoline yellow (E 104) (9) and ponceau 4R (E 124) (10). Based on the dietary exposure assessment in the scientific opinions, the Authority concluded that, in the case of quinoline yellow and ponceau 4R at the maximum levels of use, intake estimates at the mean and the high percentiles are generally above the ADI. Also for sunset yellow exposure may be too high in particular for 1- to 10-year-old children. The intake estimates are calculated based on the use levels provided by the food industry in 2009. The Commission is revising the current authorised uses and use levels in order to verify that the exposure to these substances is safe for the consumer and it plans to prepare a new proposal with the revised levels by July 2011.\n(11)\nIn its opinion on the safety of aluminium from dietary intake adopted on 22 May 2008 the Authority concluded that the exposure might be too high in a significant part of the European population. The Authority could not conclude on the specific sources contributing to the aluminium content of a particular food, such as the amount inherently present, the contributions from use of food additives, and the amounts released to the food during processing and storage from aluminium-containing foils, containers, or utensils. In order to reduce exposure to aluminium the use of certain aluminium containing food additives should be restricted. The Commission is preparing measures to limit exposure to aluminium containing additives and intend to prepare a proposal with revised levels by September 2011.\n(12)\nThe stakeholders were requested to provide information about the use and the need to use the food colours as listed in Annex V to Directive 94/36/EC. Some of those food colours are currently not used in some of the food categories listed in that Annex. However, some of those authorised colours should be maintained on the list as they may be needed to replace or partly replace colours that might raise concern to the Authority during re-evaluation. At this stage the number of authorised food colours can be reduced in the following food categories: flavoured processed cheese, preserves of red fruit, fish paste and crustacean paste, precooked crustacean and smoked fish.\n(13)\nFood colour ethyl ester of beta-apo-8'-carotenoic acid (C 30) (E 160f) is not offered anymore by the manufacturer and re-evaluation of this substance by the Authority is no longer supported by the business operators. Therefore, this additive should not be included in the Union list.\n(14)\nThe use of food colour canthaxanthin (E 161g) is authorised only in \u2018Saucisses de Strasbourg\u2019. The Commission was informed that this food colour is no longer used. Therefore, the authorisation of use of this additive in Saucisses de Strasbourg should not be included in the Union list. However Directive 2009/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the colouring matters which may be added to medicinal products (11) lays down that Member States shall not authorise, for the colouring of medicinal products for human and veterinary use any colouring matters other than those covered by Annex I to Directive 94/36/EC. Canthaxanthin is currently being used in some medicinal products. The additive should therefore remain on the list of authorised additives.\n(15)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 884/2007 of 26 July 2007 on emergency measures suspending the use of Red 2G (E 128) as food colour (12) suspended the use of the colour and the placing on the market of foods containing this colour. Therefore, Red 2G (E 128) should not be included in the Union list.\n(16)\nDuring the re-evaluation by the Authority it appeared that the food colour, brown FK (E 154) only authorised in kippers, is no longer used. During its re-evaluation, the Authority could not conclude on the safety of this substance due to the deficiencies in the available toxicity data (13). Therefore, this additive should not be included in the Union list.\n(17)\nThe anti-caking agent silicon dioxide (E 551) is currently authorised under Directive 95/2/EC for a variety of uses. This food additive has been allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) \u2018not specified\u2019 by the Scientific Committee on Food in its opinion of 18 May 1990 (14). There is a technological need to extend its uses to a higher level than is currently authorised for salt substitutes. Such use would benefit the consumer by providing anti-caking salt substitutes for sale in hot and humid European countries, since currently caking effects result in an inconvenient and often impossible usage of salt substitutes. Therefore, it is appropriate to authorise an increased maximum limit for salt substitutes.\n(18)\nThe Authority assessed the information on the safety of basic methacrylate copolymer as a glazing agent/coating agent in solid food supplements. In its opinion of 10 February 2010, the Authority concluded that this uses is of no safety concern, since basic methacrylate copolymer is virtually not absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract after oral administration. The additive is expected to play a technological role by moisture protection and taste masking of various nutrients in combination with a fast release of the nutrient in the stomach. Therefore, it is appropriate to authorise the use of basic methacrylate copolymer as a glazing agent/coating agent in solid food supplements as defined in Article 2 of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (15) at a level of 100 000 mg/kg. This new food additive should be assigned the E number E 1205.\n(19)\nIt is necessary to regulate the use of additives in table-top sweeteners as defined in point (g) of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Those preparations containing permitted sweeteners are intended for sale to the final consumer as a substitute for sugar. The need for additives may be different depending on the different forms in which they are presented: liquid, powder and tablet form.\n(20)\nThe transfer of food additives to Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 should be considered as complete in accordance with Article 34 of that Regulation from the date of application of amendments introduced by this Regulation. Until then, the provisions of Article 2(1), (2) and (4) of Directive 94/35/EC, Article 2(1) to (6) and (8) to (10) of Directive 94/36/EC and Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 95/2/EC and Annexes to these Directives should continue to apply.\n(21)\nThe current uses of additives covered by Articles 6, 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, should not be affected by their transfer to the Union list. However, a transitional period should be provided in order to allow business operators to comply with the provisions of this Regulation.\n(22)\nIt is necessary to clarify the exception to the carry-over principle in a compound food other than as referred to in Annex II as laid down in point (a) of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In Article 3 of Directive 95/2/EC and Article 3 of Directive 94/36/EC this exception applied to the foods that are now listed in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. In other compound foods belonging to the categories listed in part E (such as soups, sauces, salads etc) the carry over principle should continue to apply.\n(23)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health, and neither the European Parliament nor the Council has opposed them,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 is replaced by the text of the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nTransitional provisions\n1. Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, as amended by this Regulation, shall apply from 1 June 2013.\n2. By derogation to paragraph 1, the following entries in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, as amended by this Regulation, shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation:\n(a)\nin point 3 of part B, the entry concerning basic methacrylate copolymer (E 1205);\n(b)\nin point 12.1.2 of Part E, the entry concerning the use of silicon dioxide (E 551) in salt substitutes;\n(c)\nin point 17.1 of Part E, the entry concerning the use of basic methacrylate copolymer (E 1205) in food supplements supplied in solid form.\n3. Article 2(1), (2) and (4) of Directive 94/35/EC, Article 2(1) to (6), (8), (9) and (10) of Directive 94/36/EC and Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 95/2/EC and the Annexes to those Directives shall cease to apply from 1 June 2013.\n4. By derogation to paragraph 3, the entry in Annex IV to Directive 95/2/EC concerning of use of silicon dioxide (E 551) in salt substitutes shall cease to apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n5. Foods that have been lawfully placed on the market before 1 June 2013, but do not comply with this regulation, may continue to be marketed until their date of minimal durability or use-by-date.\nArticle 3\nRegulation (EC) No 884/2007 is repealed as from 1 June 2013.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 November 2011.", "references": ["34", "31", "23", "11", "42", "36", "8", "87", "57", "21", "79", "44", "99", "81", "49", "15", "56", "70", "2", "67", "17", "40", "95", "9", "84", "0", "37", "88", "80", "10", "No Label", "25", "38", "72", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 221/2012\nof 14 March 2012\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance closantel\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit (MRL) for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding MRLs in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nClosantel is currently included in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as an allowed substance, for bovine and ovine species, applicable to muscle, fat, liver and kidney, excluding animals producing milk for human consumption.\n(4)\nIreland has submitted to the European Medicines Agency a request for an opinion for the extrapolation of the existing entry for closantel applicable to bovine and ovine milk.\n(5)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use has recommended the establishment of provisional MRL for closantel for bovine and ovine milk and the removal of the provision \u2018Not for use in animals from which milk is produced for human consumption\u2019.\n(6)\nThe entry for closantel in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to include the recommended provisional MRL for bovine and ovine milk and to remove the existing provision \u2018Not for use in animals from which milk is produced for human consumption\u2019. The provisional MRL set out in that Table for closantel should expire on 1 January 2014. The CVMP recommended a two-year period to allow for the completion of scientific studies required to respond to the list of questions addressed by the CVMP to Ireland.\n(7)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period of time for the stakeholders concerned to take measures that may be required to comply with the newly set MRL.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 14 May 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 March 2012.", "references": ["18", "86", "37", "39", "68", "34", "56", "49", "29", "87", "26", "95", "32", "40", "48", "61", "22", "82", "5", "28", "50", "9", "83", "78", "60", "57", "47", "62", "67", "13", "No Label", "25", "38", "65", "69", "70", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "65", "69", "70", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organization on the extension of the WTO waiver in order to implement the EU autonomous preferential trade regime for the Western Balkans\n(2011/809/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(9), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union has adopted legislation renewing the autonomous preferential trade regime for the Western Balkans until 31 December 2015. In the absence of a waiver from the Union\u2019s obligations under paragraph 1 of Article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), the treatment provided for in the autonomous preferential trade regime would need to be extended to all other Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It is therefore appropriate to seek a waiver from paragraph 1 of Article I GATT 1994 pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.\n(2)\nThe Union submitted such a request on 26 October 2011, and the WTO General Council is to deliberate thereon.\n(3)\nIt is appropriate, therefore, to establish the position to be taken by the Union within the WTO General Council concerning that request,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organization is to approve the extension of the WTO waiver for the Western Balkans until 31 December 2016.\nThis position shall be expressed by the Commission.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["57", "59", "33", "68", "42", "32", "39", "60", "70", "14", "6", "95", "37", "76", "63", "52", "16", "66", "67", "72", "86", "27", "93", "87", "98", "56", "47", "55", "92", "43", "No Label", "20", "21", "96"], "gold": ["20", "21", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1072/2011\nof 20 October 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Liquirizia di Calabria (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Liquirizia di Calabria\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["70", "29", "20", "22", "19", "50", "73", "23", "2", "1", "6", "54", "56", "79", "45", "21", "48", "12", "28", "59", "15", "27", "75", "61", "57", "77", "41", "94", "39", "53", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 28 November 2011\nauthorising Romania to use certain approximate estimates for the calculation of the VAT own resources base\n(notified under document C(2011) 8627)\n(Only the Romanian text is authentic)\n(2011/777/EU, Euratom)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 of 29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the collection of own resources accruing from value added tax (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee on Own Resources,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 390b of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (2) as amended by Directive 2009/162/EU (3), Romania may continue to exempt international transport of passengers, as referred to in point (10) of Part B of Annex X to that Directive. These transactions must be taken into account for the determination of the VAT own resources base.\n(2)\nRomania has requested authorisation from the Commission to use certain approximate estimates for the calculation of the VAT own resources base since it is unable to make the precise calculation of the VAT own resources base for transactions referred to in point (10) of Part B of Annex X to Directive 2006/112/EC. Such calculation is likely to involve an unjustified administrative burden in relation to the effect of these transactions on Romania\u2019s total VAT own resources base. Romania is able to make a calculation using approximate estimates for this category of transactions. Romania should therefore be authorised to calculate the VAT own resource base using approximate estimates in accordance with the second indent of Article 6(3) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89.\n(3)\nFor reasons of transparency and legal certainty it is appropriate to limit the applicability of the authorisation in time,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purpose of calculating the VAT own resources base from 1 January 2011, Romania is authorised to use approximate estimates in respect of the following category of transactions referred to in part B of Annex X to Directive 2006/112/EC:\nTransport of passengers (point (10)).\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2015.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Romania.\nDone at Brussels, 28 November 2011.", "references": ["20", "36", "67", "72", "82", "4", "56", "52", "83", "11", "51", "14", "1", "37", "7", "40", "23", "59", "66", "17", "99", "95", "28", "38", "19", "55", "25", "24", "41", "79", "No Label", "2", "10", "18", "34", "54", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "10", "18", "34", "54", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/41/EU\nof 11 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include dithianon as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included dithianon.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of dithianon.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Greece, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nGreece evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 27 January 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on dithianon to the Commission on 15 November 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for dithianon.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing dithianon may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include dithianon in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit information confirming the storage stability and the nature of residues in processed products, the aquatic and groundwater exposure assessment for phthalic acid and the risk assessment for aquatic organisms with respect to phthalic acid, phthalaldehyde and 1,2 benzenedimethanol.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing dithianon to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties, it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of dithianon and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning dithianon in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning dithianon in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing dithianon as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to dithianon are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing dithianon as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account Part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning dithianon. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing dithianon as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing dithianon as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["40", "74", "85", "69", "63", "13", "49", "99", "37", "98", "57", "90", "16", "96", "8", "20", "15", "19", "0", "12", "47", "64", "27", "35", "32", "48", "88", "51", "50", "52", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION ATALANTA/1/2011\nof 13 April 2011\non the appointment of an EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)\n(2011/237/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (Atalanta), and in particular Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Force Commander.\n(2)\nOn 26 November 2010, the PSC adopted Decision Atalanta/5/2010 (2) appointing Rear Admiral Juan RODR\u00cdGUEZ GARAT as EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\n(3)\nThe EU Operation Commander has recommended the appointment of Commodore Alberto Manuel Silvestre CORREIA as the new EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\n(4)\nThe EU Military Committee supports that recommendation.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nCommodore Alberto Manuel Silvestre CORREIA is hereby appointed EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 14 April 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 13 April 2011.", "references": ["32", "38", "26", "7", "70", "61", "25", "4", "68", "14", "41", "44", "99", "79", "29", "17", "66", "90", "98", "8", "10", "63", "85", "78", "89", "76", "3", "51", "22", "81", "No Label", "5", "6", "9", "12", "52", "94"], "gold": ["5", "6", "9", "12", "52", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 989/2010\nof 3 November 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 943/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2010.", "references": ["80", "94", "11", "70", "8", "5", "65", "24", "74", "48", "89", "76", "28", "46", "7", "67", "52", "77", "44", "2", "41", "84", "90", "47", "0", "29", "31", "61", "39", "92", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 530/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 June 2012\non the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers\n(recast)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 417/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers (3) has been substantially amended several times (4). Since further amendments are necessary, that Regulation should be recast in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nWithin the framework of the common transport policy, measures should be taken to enhance safety and prevent pollution in maritime transport.\n(3)\nThe Union is seriously concerned by shipping accidents involving oil tankers and the associated pollution of its coast-lines and harm to its fauna and flora and other marine resources.\n(4)\nIn its communication on a common policy on safe seas, the Commission underlined the request of the extraordinary Council on Environment and Transport of 25 January 1993 to support the action in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on the reduction of the safety gap between new and existing ships by upgrading and/or phasing out existing ships.\n(5)\nBy its Resolution of 8 June 1993 on a common policy on safe seas (5), the Council fully supported the objectives of the Commission communication.\n(6)\nIn its Resolution of 11 March 1994 on a common policy on safe seas (6), the European Parliament welcomed the Commission communication and called in particular for action to be taken to improve tanker safety standards.\n(7)\nIn its Resolution of 20 January 2000 on the oil slick disaster caused by the wreck of the Erika (7), the European Parliament welcomed any efforts by the Commission to bring forward the date by which oil tankers will be obliged to have a double-hull construction.\n(8)\nIn its Resolution of 21 November 2002 on the \u2018Prestige\u2019 oil tanker disaster off the coast of Galicia (8), the European Parliament called for stronger measures that can enter into force more rapidly, and stated that this new disaster has again underlined the need for effective action at international and Union level in order to significantly improve maritime safety.\n(9)\nThe IMO has established, in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 and the Protocol of 1978 related thereto (MARPOL 73/78), internationally agreed pollution prevention rules affecting the design and operation of oil tankers. Member States are Parties to MARPOL 73/78.\n(10)\nAccording to Article 3.3 of MARPOL 73/78, that Convention does not apply to warships, naval auxiliary or other ships owned or operated by a State and used only for government non-commercial services.\n(11)\nComparison of tanker age and accident statistics shows increasing accident rates for older ships. It has been internationally agreed that the adoption of the 1992 amendments to MARPOL 73/78 requiring the application of the double-hull or equivalent design standards to existing single-hull oil tankers when they reach a certain age will provide those oil tankers with a higher degree of protection against accidental oil pollution in the event of collision or stranding.\n(12)\nIt is in the Union\u2019s interest to adopt measures to ensure that oil tankers entering into ports and offshore terminals or anchoring in an area under the jurisdiction of Member States and oil tankers flying the flags of Member States comply with Regulation 20 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 as revised in 2004 by Resolution MEPC 117(52) adopted by the IMO\u2019s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in order to reduce the risk of accidental oil pollution in European waters.\n(13)\nResolution MEPC 114(50), adopted on 4 December 2003, introduced a new Regulation 21 into Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 on the prevention of oil pollution from oil tankers when carrying heavy grade oil (HGO) which bans the carriage of HGO in single-hull oil tankers. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation 21 provide for the possibility of exemptions from the application of certain provisions of that Regulation. The statement by the Italian Presidency of the European Council on behalf of the European Union, recorded in the official report of the MEPC on its 50th session (MEPC 50/3), expresses a political commitment to refrain from making use of those exemptions.\n(14)\nAmendments to MARPOL 73/78 adopted by the IMO on 6 March 1992 entered into force on 6 July 1993. Those measures impose double-hull or equivalent design requirements for oil tankers delivered on or after 6 July 1996 aimed at preventing oil pollution in the event of collision or stranding. Within those amendments, a phasing-out scheme for single-hull oil tankers delivered before that date took effect from 6 July 1995 requiring oil tankers delivered before 1 June 1982 to comply with the double-hull or equivalent design standards not later than 25 years and, in some cases, 30 years after the date of their delivery. Such existing single-hull oil tankers would not be allowed to operate beyond 2005 and, in some cases, 2012 unless they comply with the double-hull or equivalent design requirements of Regulation 19 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78. For existing single-hull oil tankers delivered after 1 June 1982 or those delivered before 1 June 1982 and which have been converted to comply with the requirements of MARPOL 73/78 on segregated ballast tanks and their protective location, this deadline will be reached at the latest in 2026.\n(15)\nImportant amendments to Regulation 20 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 were adopted on 27 April 2001 by the 46th session of the MEPC by Resolution MEPC 95(46) and on 4 December 2003 by Resolution MEPC 111(50) in which a new accelerated phasing-out scheme for single-hull oil tankers was introduced. The respective final dates by which oil tankers must comply with Regulation 19 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 depend on the size and age of the ship. Oil tankers in that scheme are therefore divided into three categories according to their tonnage, construction and age. All these categories, including the lowest one, Category 3, are important for trade within the Union.\n(16)\nThe final date by which a single-hull oil tanker is to be phased out is the anniversary of the date of delivery of the ship, according to a schedule starting in 2003 until 2005 for Category 1 oil tankers, and until 2010 for Category 2 and Category 3 oil tankers.\n(17)\nRegulation 20 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 introduces a requirement that all single-hull oil tankers may only continue to operate subject to compliance with a Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS), adopted on 27 April 2001 by Resolution MEPC 94(46) as amended by Resolution MEPC 99(48) of 11 October 2002 and by Resolution MEPC 112(50) of 4 December 2003. The CAS imposes an obligation that the flag State administration issues a Statement of Compliance and is involved in the CAS survey procedures. The CAS is designed to detect structural weaknesses in ageing oil tankers and should apply to all oil tankers above the age of 15 years.\n(18)\nRegulation 20.5 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 allows for an exception for Category 2 and Category 3 oil tankers to operate, under certain circumstances, beyond the time limit of their phasing-out. Regulation 20.8.2 of the same Annex gives the right for Parties to MARPOL 73/78 to deny entry into the ports or offshore terminals under their jurisdiction to oil tankers allowed to operate under this exception. Member States have declared their intention to use this right. Any decision to have recourse to this right should be communicated to the IMO.\n(19)\nIt is important to ensure that the provisions of this Regulation do not lead to the safety of crew or oil tankers in search of a safe haven or a place of refuge being endangered.\n(20)\nIn order to allow shipyards in Member States to repair single-hull oil tankers, Member States may make exceptions to allow entry into their ports of such vessels, provided they are not carrying any cargo.\n(21)\nIt is very unlikely that the IMO would modify the content of the relevant Regulations in MARPOL 73/78 and Resolutions MEPC 111(50) and 94(46) adopted by the MEPC referred to in this Regulation. However, non-substantial amendments, such as renumbering, could be introduced in those texts. In order to keep this Regulation updated with the most recent developments of relevant international law, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission only in respect of such amendments in so far as they do not broaden the scope of this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this Regulation is to establish an accelerated phasing-in scheme for the application of the double-hull or equivalent design requirements of MARPOL 73/78, as defined in Article 3 of this Regulation, to single-hull oil tankers, and to ban the transport to or from ports of the Member States of heavy grade oil in single-hull oil tankers.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to oil tankers of 5 000 tonnes deadweight and above:\n(a)\nwhich fly the flag of a Member State;\n(b)\nirrespective of their flag, which enter or leave a port or offshore terminal or anchor in an area under the jurisdiction of a Member State.\nFor the purposes of Article 4(3), this Regulation shall apply to oil tankers of 600 tonnes deadweight and above.\n2. This Regulation shall not apply to any warship, naval auxiliary or other ship, owned or operated by a State and used, for the time being, only on government non-commercial service. Member States shall, so far as is reasonable and practicable, endeavour to respect this Regulation for the ships referred to in this paragraph.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018MARPOL 73/78\u2019 means the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as amended by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, in their up-to-date versions;\n(2)\n\u2018oil tanker\u2019 means an oil tanker as defined in Regulation 1.5 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78;\n(3)\n\u2018deadweight\u2019 means deadweight as defined in Regulation 1.23 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78;\n(4)\n\u2018Category 1 oil tanker\u2019 means an oil tanker of 20 000 tonnes deadweight or above and carrying crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo or of 30 000 tonnes deadweight or above and carrying oil other than the above and which does not comply with the requirements in Regulations 18.1 to 18.9, 18.12 to 18.15, 30.4, 33.1, 33.2, 33.3, 35.1, 35.2 and 35.3 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78;\n(5)\n\u2018Category 2 oil tanker\u2019 means an oil tanker of 20 000 tonnes deadweight or above and carrying crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo or of 30 000 tonnes deadweight or above and carrying oil other than the above and which complies with the requirements in Regulations 18.1 to 18.9, 18.12 to 18.15, 30.4, 33.1, 33.2, 33.3, 35.1, 35.2 and 35.3 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 and is fitted with segregated ballast tanks protectively located (SBT/PL);\n(6)\n\u2018Category 3 oil tanker\u2019 means an oil tanker of 5 000 tonnes deadweight or above but less than that specified in points (4) and (5);\n(7)\n\u2018single-hull oil tanker\u2019 means an oil tanker which does not comply with the double-hull or equivalent design requirements in Regulations 19 and 28.6 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78;\n(8)\n\u2018double-hull oil tanker\u2019 means an oil tanker:\n(a)\nof 5 000 tonnes deadweight or above, complying with the double-hull or equivalent design requirements in Regulations 19 and 28.6 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 or with the requirements in Regulation 20.1.3 thereof; or\n(b)\nof 600 tonnes deadweight or above but less than 5 000 tonnes deadweight, fitted with double-bottom tanks or spaces complying with Regulation 19.6.1 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 and wing tanks or spaces arranged in accordance with Regulation 19.3.1 thereof and complying with the requirement as to distance w in Regulation 19.6.2 thereof;\n(9)\n\u2018age\u2019 means the age of the ship, expressed in number of years from its date of delivery;\n(10)\n\u2018heavy diesel oil\u2019 means diesel oil as defined in Regulation 20 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78;\n(11)\n\u2018fuel oil\u2019 means heavy distillates of crude oil or residues therefrom or blends of such materials as defined in Regulation 20 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78;\n(12)\n\u2018heavy grade oil\u2019 means:\n(a)\ncrude oils of a density at 15 \u00b0C of over 900 kg/m3 (corresponding to an API grade of less than 25,7);\n(b)\noils other than crude oils and of a density at 15 \u00b0C of over 900 kg/m3 or a kinematic viscosity at 50 \u00b0C of over 180 mm2/s (corresponding to a kinematic viscosity of over 180 cSt);\n(c)\nbitumen and tar and emulsions thereof.\nArticle 4\nCompliance with the double-hull or equivalent design requirements by single-hull oil tankers\n1. No oil tanker shall be allowed to operate under the flag of a Member State, nor shall any oil tanker, irrespective of its flag, be allowed to enter into ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of a Member State unless such tanker is a double-hull oil tanker.\n2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, oil tankers of Category 2 or Category 3 which are equipped only with double bottoms or double sides not used for the transport of oil and extending for the whole length of the cargo tank, or with double-hulled spaces not used for the transport of oil and extending for the whole length of the cargo tank, but which do not meet the conditions for exemption from the provisions of Regulation 20.1.3 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78, may continue to be operated, but not beyond the anniversary of the date of delivery of the ship in the year 2015 or the date on which the ship reaches the age of 25 years from its date of delivery, whichever is the sooner.\n3. No oil tanker carrying heavy grade oil shall be allowed to fly the flag of a Member State unless such tanker is a double-hull oil tanker.\nNo oil tanker carrying heavy grade oil, irrespective of its flag, shall be allowed to enter or leave ports or offshore terminals or to anchor in areas under the jurisdiction of a Member State, unless such tanker is a double-hull oil tanker.\n4. Oil tankers operated exclusively in ports and inland navigation may be exempted from paragraph 3 provided that they are duly certified under inland waterway legislation.\nArticle 5\nCompliance with the Condition Assessment Scheme\nIrrespective of its flag, a single-hull oil tanker above 15 years of age shall not be allowed to enter or leave ports or offshore terminals or anchor in areas under the jurisdiction of a Member State unless such tanker complies with the Condition Assessment Scheme referred to in Article 6.\nArticle 6\nCondition Assessment Scheme\nFor the purposes of Article 5, the Condition Assessment Scheme adopted by Resolution MEPC 94(46) of 27 April 2001 as amended by Resolution MEPC 99(48) of 11 October 2002 and by Resolution MEPC 112(50) of 4 December 2003, shall apply.\nArticle 7\nFinal date\nAfter the anniversary of the date of delivery of the ship in 2015, the following shall no longer be allowed:\n(a)\nthe continued operation, in accordance with Regulation 20.5 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78, of Category 2 and Category 3 oil tankers under the flag of a Member State;\n(b)\nthe entry into the ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of a Member State of other Category 2 and Category 3 oil tankers, irrespective of the fact that they continue to operate under the flag of a third State in accordance with Regulation 20.5 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78.\nArticle 8\nExemptions for ships in difficulty or for ships to be repaired\nBy way of derogation from Articles 4, 5 and 7, the competent authority of a Member State may, subject to national provisions, allow, under exceptional circumstances, an individual ship to enter or leave a port or offshore terminal or anchor in an area under the jurisdiction of that Member State, when:\n(a)\nan oil tanker is in difficulty and in search of a place of refuge;\n(b)\nan unloaded oil tanker is proceeding to a port of repair.\nArticle 9\nNotification to the IMO\n1. Each Member State shall inform the IMO of its decision to deny entry to oil tankers, pursuant to Article 7 of this Regulation, operating in accordance with Regulation 20.5 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 into the ports or offshore terminals under its jurisdiction, on the basis of Regulation 20.8.2 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78.\n2. Each Member State shall notify the IMO if it allows, suspends, withdraws or declines the operation of a Category 1 or a Category 2 oil tanker entitled to fly its flag, in accordance with Article 5 of this Regulation, on the basis of Regulation 20.8.1 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78.\nArticle 10\nAmendment procedure\n1. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 11 concerning the alignment of the references in this Regulation to the non-substantial amendments, such as renumbering, adopted by the IMO to the Regulations of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78, as well as to Resolutions MEPC 111(50) and 94(46) as amended by Resolutions MEPC 99(48) and 112(50), in so far as such amendments do not broaden the scope of this Regulation.\n2. The amendments to MARPOL 73/78 may be excluded from the scope of this Regulation, pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 establishing a Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS) and amending the Regulations on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships (9).\nArticle 11\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this article.\n2. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 10(1) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from 20 July 2012. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 10(1) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 10(1) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or by the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 12\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 417/2002 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II.\nArticle 13\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 June 2012.", "references": ["36", "40", "29", "55", "78", "2", "47", "12", "82", "19", "75", "73", "8", "1", "77", "98", "85", "93", "68", "69", "39", "28", "95", "26", "57", "37", "66", "62", "65", "59", "No Label", "53", "56", "58", "60", "76", "80"], "gold": ["53", "56", "58", "60", "76", "80"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 492/2010\nof 3 June 2010\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and Indonesia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9 and Article 11(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. MEASURES IN FORCE\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 435/2004 (2), the Council imposed, following an anti-dumping investigation (\u2018the original investigation\u2019), a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018China\u2019) and Indonesia (together \u2018the countries concerned\u2019).\n2. PRESENT INVESTIGATION\n2.1. REQUEST FOR REVIEW\n(2)\nA request for an expiry review was lodged on 11 December 2008 by Productos Aditivos S.A., the sole Union producer of sodium cyclamate.\n(3)\nThe request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.\n2.2. INITIATION\n(4)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission initiated an investigation pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation on 10 March 2009 by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) (\u2018the notice of initiation\u2019).\n2.3. INVESTIGATION PERIOD\n(5)\nThe investigation of likelihood or recurrence of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008 (\u2018review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2005 to the end of the RIP (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n3. PARTIES CONCERNED BY THIS INVESTIGATION\n(6)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicant Union producer, known importers, suppliers and users, the known exporting producers in China and Indonesia and the authorities of the countries concerned of the initiation of the expiry review.\n(7)\nInterested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limits set in the notice of initiation, but no one submitted such a request to the Commission.\n(8)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all known exporting producers in China and in Indonesia. Two companies from China, both belonging to the Hong Kong-based group Rainbow Rich Industrial Ltd, and two companies from Indonesia indicated their willingness to cooperate and replied to the dumping questionnaire.\n(9)\nTwo additional Chinese producers, Fang Da Food Additive (Shenzhen) Limited and Fang Da Food Additive (Yan Quan) Limited, made themselves known. The original investigation found that those companies were not dumping in the Union market. As a consequence, Fang Da Food Additive (Shenzhen) and Fang Da Food Additive (Yan Quan) are not subject to the present expiry review.\n4. VERIFICATION OF INFORMATION RECEIVED\n(10)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of the determination of the continuation or likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n4.1.\nEXPORTING PRODUCERS IN CHINA:\n-\nGolden Time Enterprises (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd, Shenzhen,\n-\nJintian Enterprises (Nanjing) Co., Ltd, Nanjing,\n-\nand the related company Rainbow Rich Industrial Ltd (Hong Kong).\n4.2.\nEXPORTING PRODUCERS IN INDONESIA:\n-\nPT Golden Sari (Chemical Industry), Bandar Lampung,\n-\nPT Tunggak Waru Semi, Solo.\n4.3.\nUNION INDUSTRY PRODUCER\n-\nProductos Aditivos S.A., Spain.\n4.4.\nUNRELATED IMPORTER/TRADER\n-\nBeneo Palatinit GmbH, Germany.\n4.5.\nUSER\n-\nSchweppes International Ltd, the Netherlands.\n5. DISCLOSURE\n(11)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of anti-dumping duties on imports of sodium cyclamate originating from China and Indonesia.\n(12)\nIn accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, parties were granted a period in which they could make representation subsequent to this disclosure.\n(13)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered and, when appropriate, the definitive findings have been modified accordingly.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. PRODUCT CONCERNED\n(14)\nThe product concerned by this review is the same as the one in the original investigation, i.e. sodium cyclamate (\u2018SC\u2019) originating in China and Indonesia (\u2018the product concerned\u2019), currently falling within CN code ex 2929 90 00.\n(15)\nAs established in the original investigation and confirmed in the current review, SC is a commodity product used as a food additive, permitted in the European Union and in many other countries as a sweetener for low-calorie and dietetic food and beverages. It is widely used as an additive by the food industry, as well as by the producers of low-calorie and dietetic table-top sweeteners. Small volumes are also used by the pharmaceutical industry.\n2. LIKE PRODUCT\n(16)\nAs in the original investigation, it was shown that the product concerned produced in China and Indonesia and sold to the Union is identical in terms of physical and chemical characteristics and uses to the product produced and sold by the applicant on the Union market, or to the one produced and sold on the domestic market in Indonesia, which also served as an analogue country for the purpose of establishing the normal value with respect to China.\n(17)\nConsequently, all those products are considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS\n(18)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether dumping was currently taking place and, if so, whether or not the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping. It is recalled that in the context of investigations under that Article, market economy treatment (\u2018MET\u2019) is not reconsidered.\n(19)\nIn accordance with Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation, the same general methodology was used as in the original investigation, provided that circumstances had not changed. In order to establish the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, in accordance with standard practice, a sampling of transactions was carried out by taking data from four months, each being the last of one quarter, of the RIP. The outcome was verified by also analysing a number of other transactions. No operator contested this approach.\n(20)\nEurostat data showed that during the RIP, between 3 000 and 5 000 tonnes of product concerned were imported into the Union. Among them, more than 90 % came from China and the rest from Indonesia. Practically no imports were registered from other countries.\n2. DUMPING OF IMPORTS DURING THE INVESTIGATION PERIOD\n2.1. CHINA\n2.1.1. Analogue country\n(21)\nExcept for companies that were granted MET in the original investigation, the normal value for China was established in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(22)\nIn the previous investigation, Indonesia was used as an appropriate market economy country for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of China.\n(23)\nThis choice has been proposed by the Commission in the notice of initiation, and no interested party has opposed this choice within the time limits.\n(24)\nPrices in Indonesia have been considered a reasonable surrogate for prices in China because Indonesia has a competitive domestic market, with increasing imports from China and where at least six producers operate. In addition, it appears that the product under investigation is produced only in the Union, China and Indonesia. No evidence to the contrary has been presented in the current investigation.\n(25)\nTherefore, Indonesia has been used as an analogue market economy country for the purpose of this review.\n2.1.2. Cooperating Chinese exporting producers\n2.1.2.1. Preliminary remarks\n(26)\nAs set out in recital 8, two producers belonging to the same Hong Kong-based group, \u2018Rainbow Rich Industries\u2019, cooperated in this review. They represent more than half of the exports to the Union during the RIP. Not taking into account the production and sales volumes of the companies not subject to the proceedings, the cooperating producers represented more than three-quarters of total Chinese production and almost half of its capacity. The representativeness in terms of exports to the Union was more than 80 %. Given this level of cooperation, detailed information obtained from the cooperating exporters was used as a source for the assessment of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injurious dumping from China.\n(27)\nOne of the cooperators, Golden Time Enterprises (Shenzhen), exported significant quantities to the Union during the RIP, while its sister company, Jintian Enterprises (Nanjing), did not export to the EU since the imposition of the measures. The data gathered during the on-the-spot verification visit of the company that did not export, Jintian Enterprises (Nanjing), did however allow for a more detailed insight into the Chinese domestic market, where the company holds a significant part of the market share and of the installed capacity.\n(28)\nDuring the investigation, one Chinese company alleged that regular meetings were held between major domestic producers to fix a reference price for the Chinese domestic market. Given the dominant position of those producers, this arrangement appears to successfully keep Chinese domestic prices at a relatively high level.\n2.1.2.2. Normal value\n(29)\nThe normal value for Golden Time Enterprises (Shenzhen) was calculated as the weighted average price of all domestic sales made during the RIP, paid or payable by independent customers, of the type in question.\n2.1.2.3. Export price\n(30)\nThe export price to the Union of Golden Time Enterprises (Shenzhen) was the duly adjusted price actually paid or payable for the product when sold for export to the EU.\n2.1.2.4. Price comparison\n(31)\nThe weighted average normal value was compared with the weighted average export price for each type of product concerned, on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, and for the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison, differences in factors which were claimed and demonstrated to affect price and price comparability were taken into account. Adjustments were made for ocean and domestic freight, insurance, credit, handling and packaging costs.\n2.1.2.5. Dumping margin\n(32)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established per product type on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export prices at the same level of trade. This comparison showed the existence of dumping during the RIP at a significantly higher level than in the original investigation. The weighted average dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF value at the Union frontier was over 30 % for Golden Time Enterprises.\n2.1.3. Other Chinese exporting producers\n2.1.3.1. Preliminary remarks\n(33)\nThe residual imports from China accounted for less than 5 % of the consumption in the Union.\n(34)\nThe Commission based its conclusions about the remaining Chinese exporting producers on the data collected from the investigation and on official Eurostat statistics.\n2.1.3.2. Normal value\n(35)\nNormal value for non-cooperating Chinese exporters was established as the weighted average domestic sales prices of the cooperating Indonesian producers to independent customers.\n2.1.3.3. Export price\n(36)\nThe export price for non-cooperating Chinese exporters was determined on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. In the absence of other more reliable information, this was done by reference to the average CIF Union border import price obtained from the Eurostat import statistics during the RIP.\n2.1.3.4. Price comparison\n(37)\nThe weighted average export price found for the remaining Chinese exporters was compared with the weighted average normal value of the verified Indonesian producers, on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade.\n(38)\nIn order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting the price and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. In this respect, adjustments were made for ocean and domestic freight, insurance, handling and packaging costs. In the absence of more reliable information, the adjustments were based on verified costs of the Chinese cooperating exporter.\n2.1.3.5. Dumping margin\n(39)\nThe dumping margin was calculated as the amount by which the normal value, as calculated in recital 35, exceeded the export price, as established in recital 36. The results so obtained point to a clear continuation of dumping practices over the period of validity of the measures, with a dumping margin of over 5 %.\n2.1.4. Conclusions on dumping from China\n(40)\nIn view of the above, it is concluded that dumping continued from China during the period of application of the measures.\n2.2. INDONESIA\n2.2.1. Preliminary remarks\n(41)\nAs set out in recital 8, two producers cooperated in this review, PT Golden Sari and PT Tunggak Waru Semi. Their representativeness in terms of exports to the Union was between 40 % and 60 % during RIP (4).\n(42)\nThe data collected by the Commission revealed that there are at least four more producers of the product concerned in Indonesia. According to those data, the cooperating producers accounted for circa one-third of total Indonesian production and capacity. Therefore, cooperation from Indonesia in this review has been low.\n(43)\nIn view of the above, and according to Article 18 of the Basic Regulation, information on domestic prices, export prices to other countries, production and capacity in Indonesia for the non-cooperating Indonesian exporting producers has been based on best facts available, including the complaint and publicly available information. The relevant Indonesian authorities were notified of the application of Article 18 and the reasons thereof. No comments were submitted by the Indonesian authorities in this respect.\n(44)\nAmong the two cooperators, only one, PT Golden Sari, exported to the Union during the RIP. While a dumping margin could not be established for PT Tunggak Waru Semi, since this company did not export to the Union in the RIP, its data was nevertheless used to obtain information, inter alia, on production, capacities and exports to third markets allowing for a more detailed insight into the Indonesian domestic and export markets.\n2.2.2. Cooperating Indonesian exporting producers\n2.2.2.1. Normal value\n(45)\nThe normal value was calculated for PT Golden Sari as the weighted average price of all domestic sales made during the RIP, paid or payable by independent customers, of the type in question.\n2.2.2.2. Export price\n(46)\nThe export price for PT Golden Sari was established on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable during the RIP to independent customers in the Union.\n2.2.2.3. Price comparison\n(47)\nThe weighted average normal value was compared with the weighted average export price into the Union of the product concerned, on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade.\n(48)\nIn order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting the price and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. In this respect, adjustments were made for international freight, insurance, domestic freight, packaging and credit costs.\n2.2.2.4. Dumping margin\n(49)\nThe result of the comparison of normal value and export price showed that no dumping had taken place in the RIP from the company PT Golden Sari.\n2.2.3. Other Indonesian exporting producers\n2.2.3.1. Preliminary remarks\n(50)\nAs mentioned in recital 43, due to the low level of cooperation for Indonesia, the dumping margin of non-cooperating exporters was determined in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the basis of facts available.\n2.2.3.2. Normal value\n(51)\nThe normal value was calculated as the weighted average normal value which has been calculated for the two cooperating producers.\n2.2.3.3. Export price\n(52)\nIn the absence of other more reliable information, the export price for non-cooperating Indonesian exporters was determined on the basis of the average CIF Union border import price obtained from the Eurostat import statistics during the RIP.\n2.2.3.4. Price comparison\n(53)\nThe weighted average export price into the Union for Indonesia thus obtained, was compared at ex-works level to the weighted average normal value established for the cooperating Indonesian producers.\n(54)\nIn order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting the price and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. In this respect, adjustments were made for international freight, insurance, domestic freight, handling, packaging and credit costs.\n2.2.3.5. Dumping margin\n(55)\nThe comparison of normal value and export price, as established above, showed the existence of dumping. The dumping margin found, as a percentage of the CIF Union-frontier import price, was close to 30 %.\n2.2.4. Conclusions on dumping from Indonesia\n(56)\nIn view of the above, it is concluded that dumping continued for a significant part of Indonesian producers during the period of application of the measures.\n3. DEVELOPMENT OF IMPORTS SHOULD MEASURES BE REPEALED\n(57)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether dumping would be likely to recur upon a possible expiry of the measures in force against China and Indonesia.\n(58)\nIn order to establish whether dumping would be likely to recur should the measures be repealed, the Commission examined the available information on the circumstances of the exporters and market conditions. The analysis was primarily based on information provided in the questionnaire replies of the cooperating producers and verified during the on-the-spot verification visits. Other sources of information have also been used, such as Eurostat import statistics and official export and market statistics from the countries concerned.\n3.1. CHINA\n3.1.1. Preliminary remarks\n(59)\nAs set out in recital 26, the cooperating producers represented more than three quarters of Chinese production during the RIP. Since the level of cooperation is high, it was determined that reliable information on exports of the product concerned to the Union during the RIP could be gathered directly from the exporting producer. More generally, data concerning the Chinese domestic market has been gathered from both verified producers.\n(60)\nIt is recalled that the investigation showed that dumping from the Chinese companies concerned by this review has continued at a level which is considerably higher than that established in the original investigation.\n3.1.2. Unused capacity and stocks\n(61)\nAccording to the data collected by the Commission during the investigation, the freely available production capacity of the companies concerned by this review in China is many times the size of the Union market. The investigation has shown that domestic consumption in China is not likely to absorb to any significant extent this extra capacity.\n(62)\nOne Chinese producer argued that it had the intention to considerably reduce its production capacity after the RIP. However, no tangible evidence in this regard was provided. Even if this could theoretically lead to a decrease in Chinese capacity, it would nevertheless create an incentive for the rest of Chinese producers to increase the utilisation of their freely available capacity in order to fill the gap that would arise in China\u2019s exports.\n(63)\nFurthermore, the ability of other third country markets to absorb significant additional volumes of Chinese imports is limited. To start with, several large countries do not import the product concerned for regulatory reasons (inter alia, the United States, India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea and the entire Middle East). In addition, according to information gathered during the investigation, the remaining sizeable markets for SC (South America, South Africa and Asia) are not likely to grow significantly in the coming years. Therefore, the Union market would remain a key outlet for the product, attractive not only because of its size, but also due to the existence of well known, well established distribution channels for importing the product.\n(64)\nIt was finally considered whether the excess capacity could be channelled into the manufacturing of other products within the companies involved. This would not, however, be likely as the verified producers do not manufacture any other product in significant quantities and there is no evidence that other Chinese producers of SC could easily switch to other products.\n(65)\nThe foregoing point to a likely continuation of large export volumes from China to the Union, should the measures be repealed.\n3.1.3. Relationship between prices in the Union and prices in the Chinese domestic market\n(66)\nThe Commission found that the high volumes of imports from China were made at prices in the Union that were lower than the prices in the Chinese domestic market. The sale prices of those imports, given their level and market share of the Chinese dumped imports, must be considered as the reference price in the Union: other Chinese exporters wishing to enter the market in significant quantities would in all likelihood align themselves to these low prices, thus engaging in dumping.\n3.1.4. Relationship between export prices to third countries and prices in the Chinese domestic market\n(67)\nThe Commission compared verified Chinese export prices to third countries with verified Chinese domestic prices, to further examine the price behaviour of Chinese exporters, should the measures be terminated.\n(68)\nIt was found that export prices to third countries were consistently lower than the domestic prices and in line with export prices to the EU, underlining a pattern of dumping behaviour which appears to be structural in this sector in China.\n3.1.5. Relationship between export prices to third countries and the price level in the Union\n(69)\nThe Commission compared the Chinese export prices to third countries with prices prevailing in the Union, so as to establish whether there would be an incentive to shift exports to the Union should the measures be terminated.\n(70)\nChinese export prices to third countries were generally in line with the price level in the Union. This confirms that Chinese exporters are not likely to shift exports away from the EU to other markets.\n3.1.6. Conclusions on China\n(71)\nThe assessment of the abovementioned factors showed that the exporters concerned by the review have continued to export very significant volumes of the product concerned to the Union, at dumped prices. Chinese exports to other third countries are also made at dumped prices, underlining a structural pattern of dumping behaviour. Chinese domestic prices are high and there are no indications that they will decrease in the foreseeable future. Given the large freely available capacity of Chinese exporters, the lack of other sizeable outlets for such capacity, and the attractiveness of the EU market, there is therefore an incentive for Chinese exporting producers to direct even larger volumes at dumped prices to the Union market, should the measures be repealed.\n(72)\nHaving considered the data and information above, it is concluded that dumping from China is likely to continue or recur if the measures were allowed to lapse.\n3.2. INDONESIA\n3.2.1. Preliminary remarks\n(73)\nAs explained in recital 42, the cooperating producers represented a minority of the Indonesian production and capacity and, therefore, Article 18 has been applied.\n(74)\nIt is also recalled that the investigation concluded that dumping from Indonesia continued in the RIP for the non-cooperating producers.\n3.2.2. Unused capacity and stocks\n(75)\nDuring the review, it was established that the total freely available capacity in Indonesia is more than three fourths of the size of the Union market. Even if the cooperating exporter were to be excluded, the remaining free capacity would still account for almost half of the Union market. Official Indonesian statistics show that Indonesian producers appear to be losing market shares to the aggressive pricing policy of Chinese competitors, both in the domestic and international market. It is, therefore, likely that Indonesia\u2019s freely available capacity will grow even further in the near future.\n(76)\nIt was examined whether the total freely available capacity in Indonesia could be absorbed by sales to third countries, but as concluded in recital 63, third countries\u2019 markets are not foreseen to significantly absorb the excess capacity at hand. It was also examined whether the excess capacity could be absorbed by sales in the domestic market. However, as stated above, according to Indonesian official data, the market share of Indonesian producers in the domestic market is shrinking under the pressure of Chinese imports. Finally, the possibility of a switch of production to other similar products was considered; for the same reason as that set out in recital 64, it is not likely that excess capacity could be utilised in such a way.\n(77)\nIn conclusion, the large (and increasing) available capacity in Indonesia would, to a significant extent, be directed towards the Union should measures be repealed.\n3.2.3. Relationship between prices in the Union and prices in the Indonesian domestic market\n(78)\nThe prices in the Indonesian domestic market are higher than the prices in the Union market, notwithstanding the increasing pressure exerted by Chinese exports in the Indonesian market. Given the low price levels of Chinese imports into the Union for such a rather homogeneous product, those prices would be the reference price to which Indonesian exporters would in all likelihood align themselves, thus engaging in dumping, should the measures lapse. This consideration is applicable to both cooperating and non-cooperating exporters.\n(79)\nIf measures were to lapse only for Indonesia and not for China, this would render the Union market even more attractive for Indonesian producers from a price perspective. Indeed, without anti-dumping duties, they would be able to increase their prices to take advantage of the anti-dumping duty still payable by Chinese exporters. It should be added that under the similar scenario as regards price levels and price differentials of Chinese and Indonesian exporters witnessed in the original investigation, the latter exported significant volumes to the EU.\n(80)\nFinally, it should also be noted that Indonesian exports to the EU have consistently decreased after the imposition of the measures which would reinforce the conclusion that Indonesian exporters are not able or willing to sell significant quantities in the EU market at non-dumped prices.\n3.2.4. Relationship between export prices to third countries and prices in the Indonesian domestic market\n(81)\nAs regards the cooperating exporting producers, their verified export prices to third countries have been found to be higher than Indonesian domestic prices.\n(82)\nAs for non-cooperating exporters, it was not possible to obtain individual data during the investigation. Available official Indonesian statistics on average export prices of all Indonesian exports appear to be inaccurate in absolute terms, overstating export prices by very significant amounts. Nonetheless, from the same statistics it can be inferred that export prices to third countries appear to be lower than export prices to the Union. This would indicate that, for at least a significant part of Indonesian exports to third countries, these would also be dumped. In any event, Indonesian export statistics point to a sharp decrease of exported volumes, underlining that, at the current price levels, Indonesian exporters are suffering from Chinese competition.\n3.2.5. Relationship between export prices to third countries and prices in the Union\n(83)\nFor the cooperating producer, export prices to third countries were found to be generally higher than price levels in the Union. However, regarding the rest of Indonesian producers, the available official Indonesian statistics suggest an opposed picture. This indicates that for a significant part of Indonesian exporters, dumping would exist also when exporting to third countries.\n(84)\nThis price differential between export prices to the Union and export prices to the rest of the world underlines the Indonesian exporters\u2019 incentive to divert exports to the Union. This conclusion is reinforced were measures on imports originating in China allowed to lapse.\n3.2.6. Conclusions on Indonesia\n(85)\nThe assessment of the above factors showed that Indonesian exports have to a significant extent been made at dumped prices in the Union and in third country markets, underlining a structural pattern of dumping behaviour. Given the large freely available capacity of Indonesian exporters, the lack of other sizeable outlets for such capacity, and the attractiveness of the EU market, there is therefore an incentive for Indonesian exporting producers to direct large volumes at dumped prices to the Union market, should measures be repealed.\n(86)\nHaving considered the data and information above, it is concluded that dumping from Indonesia is likely to continue or recur if the measures were allowed to lapse.\n4. COMMENTS FOLLOWING DISCLOSURE\n(87)\nThe Indonesian authorities did not provide any reaction within the specified time limit to the notification that Article 18 may be applied to the non-cooperating producers. However, following disclosure, the Indonesian authorities as well as one of the Indonesian cooperating producers claimed that the two cooperating Indonesian producers represent a considerable segment of the Indonesian industry. The parties claimed that as a result, the degree of cooperation of Indonesia should be considered as being significant and Article 18 should not be applied. Furthermore, the abovementioned parties have claimed that since several Indonesian producers did not export to the Union during RIP, they were not in a position to cooperate. Finally, it was claimed that, since one of the cooperating producers represents an extremely large part of Indonesian exports, those cooperating producers should be considered as being representative thereof and the fact that dumping was not found for this company should lead to the lapse of measures for Indonesia.\n(88)\nIt should be clarified that Article 18 has not been applied to the cooperating producers, whose data have been fully taken into consideration during the investigation. As to the application of Article 18 to the rest of the Indonesian producers, it follows that, in the absence of information from these parties, the Commission services have no choice but to rely on the best facts available. It should be recalled that in order to assess the likelihood of continuation and/or recurrence of dumping in expiry reviews, the Commission services have also to assess elements concerning the state of the totality of the exporting country\u2019s industry, such as domestic capacity, production and prices, and exports to third countries.\n(89)\nAs the Indonesian producing companies which did not cooperate represent a large part of the Indonesian industry in terms of exports to the Union as well as in terms of production and exports to third countries, the Commission confirms the application of Article 18 with reference to the non-cooperating Indonesian producers as set out in recital 43.\n(90)\nAs for the request to lift measures on Indonesian exports, it should be noted that the Indonesian authorities did not provide data that could change the Commission\u2019s conclusion on the representativeness of the cooperating exporter, which corresponds to between 40 % and 60 % of the total Indonesian exports during RIP, as set out in recital 41. Therefore, the cooperating exporter found not to be dumping could not be considered as being representative of the entire Indonesian exports. The rest of Indonesian exports have been made at dumped prices, as set out in recital 55. Therefore, the conclusion that dumping continued from that part of Indonesian exports is confirmed. Furthermore, the lack of continuation of dumping is not, per se, a sufficient reason to discontinue anti-dumping measures, if the likelihood of recurrence is established, as it is the case in this expiry review. To conclude, the request to discontinue measures on the basis of the lack of dumping from the cooperating Indonesian exporter could not be accepted.\n(91)\nThe Indonesian authorities and one Indonesian cooperating producer have also asked that the figures of total Indonesian exports to the Union be fully disclosed. It is however recalled that the indexation of those data (see note to recital 41) was necessary to protect the Indonesian exporting producer from disclosure of business sensitive data. The small size of the market and the limited number of interested parties justify the indexation of those figures. In sum, there is good cause to maintain confidentiality and the request to disclose the figures of total Indonesian exports to the Union can therefore not be accepted.\n5. CONCLUSION ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION AND/OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n(92)\nOn the basis of the above, it is concluded that dumping from both counties concerned by this review is likely to continue, should measures be repealed.\nD. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(93)\nSC is manufactured in the Union only by the applicant producer, Productos Aditivos S.A. This company was therefore deemed to constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.\n2. UNION CONSUMPTION\n(94)\nData on Union consumption was based on the cumulated volumes of imports of the product concerned into the Union based on Eurostat statistics and on the total verified sales of the Union industry on the Union market. Taking into account that these data are derived from two sources and that sales by the applicant should be kept confidential, the development of consumption is reported below in indexes.\n(95)\nUnion consumption of SC ranged between 5 000 and 7 000 tonnes during the period considered. It increased by 6 % between 2005 and 2006 and by 15 % between 2006 and 2007. It dropped by 18 % between 2007 and the RIP.\nTable 1\nUnion consumption\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008 (RIP)\nIndex\n100\n106\n122\n103\n3. IMPORTS FROM THE COUNTRIES CONCERNED\n3.1. CUMULATION\n(96)\nThe Commission considered whether the effects of dumped imports from the countries concerned should be assessed cumulatively, on the basis of the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation. That Article provides that the effects of imports from two or more countries simultaneously subject to anti-dumping investigations are to be assessed cumulatively only if it is determined that: (a) the margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than de minimis as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation and that the volume of imports of each country is not negligible; and (b) a cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports is appropriate in the light of the conditions of competition between imported products and the conditions of competition between the imported products and the like Union product.\n(97)\nIn this respect, it was firstly found that the dumping margins established for each of the countries concerned were more than de minimis. In addition, the volume of the dumped imports from each of those countries was not negligible in the sense of Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation. Indeed, the import volume represented for China and Indonesia around 50 % of the Union consumption during the RIP. In calculating the import volume, non-dumped imports have been excluded.\n(98)\nThe investigation further showed that the conditions of competition both between the dumped imports and between the dumped imports and the like Union product were similar. It was found that, irrespective of their origin, SC produced/sold by the countries concerned and the one produced/sold by the Union industry compete against each other since they are alike in terms of their basic characteristics, largely interchangeable from the user\u2019s point of view and distributed via the same distribution channels. The prices relating to imports from China subject to measures and dumped imports from Indonesia were also in the same range of magnitude. In addition, when comparing the prices at the same level of trade, these prices were found to undercut the Union industry\u2019s prices.\n(99)\nIn the light of the above, it was considered that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met regarding imports from China subject to measures and dumped imports from Indonesia and that the effect of these imports should be assessed cumulatively.\n3.2. VOLUME AND MARKET SHARE OF DUMPED IMPORTS\n(100)\nThe evolution of dumped imports from China and Indonesia and their market shares during the period considered was as follows:\nTable 2\nTotal dumped imports\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008 (RIP)\nIndex\n100\n109\n198\n195\nTable 3\nMarket share of dumped imports\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008 (RIP)\nIndex\n100\n103\n161\n189\n(101)\nVolumes of dumped imports as well as market share of dumped imports have nearly doubled during the period considered.\n3.3. PRICE EVOLUTION AND PRICE BEHAVIOUR OF THE IMPORTS OF THE PRODUCT CONCERNED\n3.3.1. Evolution of prices\n(102)\nThe average price of dumped imports from the countries concerned developed as follows over the period under consideration:\nTable 4\nAverage prices of dumped imports\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008 (RIP)\nIndex\n100\n103\n104\n99\n(103)\nTable 4 was sourced from the available statistical data, including Eurostat. The general trend of the import prices into the Union shows an increase until 2007 and then a decrease in the RIP below the 2005 level.\n3.3.2. Price undercutting\n(104)\nFor the determination of price undercutting, the Commission based its analysis on the information submitted in the course of the investigation by the cooperating exporting producer in China. For other companies from both China and Indonesia that did not cooperate in the case, price undercutting was established by reference to Eurostat data.\n(105)\nThe approach to calculate the price undercutting follows that of the original investigation. The import prices, including the anti-dumping duties, of the exporting producer were compared with the Union industry prices, on the basis of weighted averages for the same product qualities during the RIP. The Union industry prices were adjusted to an ex-works level and compared to CIF Union border import prices, adding anti-dumping and customs duties. This price comparison was made at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and discounts.\nTable 5\nPrice undercutting\n2008 (RIP)\nChina:\n-\nGolden Time\n21,6 %\n-\nother companies\n3,2 %\nIndonesia:\n-\nother companies\n18,7 %\n4. IMPORTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES\nImports from other third countries were negligible (less than 50 tonnes yearly) during the period considered and therefore could not have had any impact on the situation of the Union industry.\n5. ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(106)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry from 2005 to the RIP.\n(107)\nIn order to respect confidential business information, it has been necessary to present information concerning the Union industry in indexed form.\n5.1. PRODUCTION, PRODUCTION CAPACITY AND CAPACITY UTILISATION\n(108)\nThe production of the Union industry decreased by 13 % from 2005 to the RIP. As production capacity remained unchanged during the same period, the capacity utilisation decreased by 10 % in line with the development in production.\nTable 6\nIn indexes\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008 (RIP)\nProduction capacity\n100\n100\n100\n100\nProduction volume\n100\n106\n88\n87\nCapacity utilisation\n100\n106\n88\n87\n5.2. SALES IN THE UNION\n(109)\nThe data in table 7 indicates a clear decrease in sales volumes of the Union industry. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that the overall consumption, as shown in Table 1, increased by 3 % over the same period. The market share of the Union industry dropped significantly between 2005 and the RIP. This is in contrast to the continuously increasing market shares (see recital 100) of cumulated dumped imports from China and Indonesia throughout the period considered. The Union industry did increase its unit selling prices against a background of falling volumes. On balance, despite the increase in unit prices, the Union industry still generated losses on its SC sales in the RIP.\nTable 7\nIn indexes\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008 (RIP)\nVolume of sales\n100\n93\n81\n72\nMarket share\n100\n88\n66\n70\nUnit selling prices\n100\n100\n108\n123\n5.3. STOCKS\n(110)\nThe stock level of the Union producer fluctuated significantly between 2005 and the RIP, dropping nearly by half over the period considered.\nTable 8\nIndex\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008 (RIP)\nStock (tonnes)\n100\n113\n29\n53\n5.4. PROFITABILITY\n(111)\nDespite an overall slight improvement, the Union industry\u2019s profitability remained consistently negative throughout the period considered.\n5.5. EMPLOYMENT, PRODUCTIVITY AND WAGES\n(112)\nEmployment of the Union industry decreased by 19 % during the period under consideration. The productivity per employee (established on the basis of the number of tonnes produced divided by the number of employees) increased. The average employment cost per employee increased by 5 % over the period considered.\nTable 9\nIn indexes\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008 (RIP)\nEmployment\n100\n88\n91\n81\nEmployment cost per employee\n100\n99\n81\n105\nProductivity (per employee)\n100\n121\n97\n107\n5.6. INVESTMENTS, RETURN ON INVESTMENT\n(113)\nDuring the period considered, investments declined by almost half, mirroring the overall negative state of the Union producer. The level of the return on investment expressed as the relation between the net profit of the sole Union producer and the gross book value of its fixed assets mirrors the profitability trend. It sharply declined by almost 80 % over the period considered.\nTable 10\nIn indexes\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008 (RIP)\nInvestment\n100\n44\n7\n53\nReturn on investment\n100\n54\n20\n21\n5.7. CASH FLOW AND ABILITY TO RAISE CAPITAL\n(114)\nThe Union industry\u2019s cash flow could only be assessed in relation to the total activity of the Union industry. It remained slightly positive in 2005 but deteriorated in the subsequent period and became negative in the rest of the period considered. It also became more difficult for the Union industry to raise capital because of the losses suffered during the period considered.\n5.8. MAGNITUDE OF DUMPING\n(115)\nDumping from both countries concerned continued during the RIP, with the exception of the cooperating Indonesian exporting producer. Given the total volume exported and the prices of the dumped imports from the countries concerned, this impact cannot be considered negligible.\n5.9. RECOVERY FROM PAST DUMPING\n(116)\nAnti-dumping measures against imports of SC originating in China and Indonesia were imposed in March 2004. In this period only a partial recovery of the situation of the Union producers has been observed as detailed above.\n5.10. CONCLUSION ON INJURY\n(117)\nThe presence of low-priced imports from China and Indonesia significantly increased on the Union market. Some injury indicators for the Union industry show signs of recovery while others indicate a negative development.\n(118)\nTaking into account the overall worsening situation of the only Union producer as well as the magnitude of dumped imported volumes from China and Indonesia and the significant price undercutting found, it is considered that the Union industry has suffered material injury.\n6. IMPACT OF DUMPED IMPORTS FROM THE COUNTRIES CONCERNED AND IMPACT OF OTHER FACTORS\n6.1. IMPACT OF THE DUMPED IMPORTS FROM THE COUNTRIES CONCERNED\n(119)\nAs set out in recital 100, the cumulated volume and market share of dumped imports from the countries concerned have almost doubled in the period considered. Significant price undercutting was also found for both countries concerned. Taking into account the clear coincidence in time between the deterioration of the situation of the Union industry and the significant increase of cumulated dumped imports from China and Indonesia, these imports have caused injury to the Union industry. Indeed, dumped imports from China and Indonesia have increased their penetration of the EU market and have taken over significant market shares previously held by the Union producer.\n6.2. IMPACT OF OTHER FACTORS\n(120)\nThe Commission analysed whether any other known factors than the dumped imports could have had a bearing on the continued injury suffered by the Union producer in order to ensure that possible injury caused by any such factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n6.2.1. Impact of non-dumped imports from China and Indonesia\n(121)\nThe volume of non-dumped imports from China and Indonesia continuously decreased in the period considered. Corresponding prices of these imports were consistently higher than those of the dumped imports. On these grounds, the non-dumped imports from China and Indonesia have not contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n6.2.2. Performance on export markets\n(122)\nExport sales of the Union\u2019s producer outside the EU represented less than 25 % of its total sales. Contrary to sales in the Union, export sales profitability has improved over the period considered and therefore it could not have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n6.2.3. Fluctuation of raw material prices\n(123)\nPrice fluctuations of raw materials of SC may have had some negative effect on the performance of the Union industry. This factor however is not sufficient to break the causal link between the injury suffered and the dumped imports. The latter should have been affected by raw materials price changes in similar proportion as the costs of the Union producer, since they are closely linked to oil and urea prices.\n6.2.4. Changes in consumption patterns\n(124)\nChanges in consumption patterns with the emergence of new products on the market did not have a noticeable impact on consumption of SC. Indeed, it appears that there is no direct product substitution between SC and these new products.\n6.3. CONCLUSION\n(125)\nOn these grounds, it is concluded that dumped imports from China and Indonesia have caused material injury to the Union industry and that no other factor broke this causal link.\nE. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF INJURY\n1. IMPACT OF THE PROJECTED VOLUME AND PRICE EFFECTS ON THE STATE OF THE UNION INDUSTRY IN CASE OF REPEAL OF MEASURES\n(126)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, imports from the countries currently being reviewed were assessed in order to establish if there was a likelihood of continuation of injury.\n(127)\nWith regard to the likely effect on the Union industry of the expiry of the measures in force, the following factors were considered in line with the elements summarised above in respect of the likelihood of continuation of dumping.\n1.1. CHINA\n(128)\nAs concluded in recital 40, exports from China made by the exporters concerned by this review continue to be made at dumped prices. Chinese exports to other third countries also appear to be dumped, indicating a structural pattern of dumping behaviour.\n(129)\nAn analysis of available capacities in China has shown that the freely available production capacity of the companies concerned by the review in China is many times the size of the Union market (see recital 61). The ability of other third country markets to absorb significant additional volumes of Chinese imports is also limited (see recital 63). There is therefore an incentive for Chinese exporting producers to direct large export volumes at dumped prices to the Union market, should measures be repealed (see recital 65).\n(130)\nThe significant levels of dumping and undercutting observed indicate that the export volumes to the Union mentioned above would be made at dumped prices which would lie significantly below the prices and costs of the Union producer.\n(131)\nThe combined effect of such volumes and prices would as such be capable of leading to a deterioration of the Union industry\u2019s already precarious situation. Such a scenario would in all likelihood lead to further depressed prices and/or lower production and sales by the Union industry. The financial position of the Union industry would further deteriorate, leading to increased injury. Such developments are likely to put an end to the existence of the only Union producer.\n1.2. INDONESIA\n(132)\nThe investigation has shown that dumping from Indonesia has continued in the RIP. The investigation has also shown that the total freely available capacity in Indonesia is more than three fourths of the size of the Union market and is likely to grow even further in the near future (see recital 75). As there is no indication that other third markets or the domestic market could absorb this excess capacity, this could cause an increase of exports at a lower price to the Union, should measures be allowed to lapse.\n(133)\nAs in the case of China, the significant level of dumping and undercutting observed indicates that the export volumes from Indonesia to the Union would be made at dumped prices which would lie significantly below the prices and costs of the Union producer. Similarly, the combined effect of such volumes and prices would as such be capable of leading to a further deterioration of the already precarious situation of Union producers and would probably put an end to the existence of the only Union producer. As in the case of China, Indonesian exports to other third countries also appear to be indicatively dumped as far as they are below the prices relating to exports to the European Union, showing also a structural pattern of dumping behaviour.\n2. CONCLUSION ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF INJURY\n(134)\nThe Union industry has been suffering from the effects of the dumped imports for several years and is still currently in a precarious economic situation.\n(135)\nAs established above, the investigation has shown that the injurious situation of the Union industry has continued in the RIP. The continuation of injury is, according to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, in itself a strong indicator that injury is likely to continue in the future which would suggest that the measures should be maintained.\n(136)\nThe findings pertaining to imports show that imports of large volumes at dumped prices are likely to continue and that price pressure is likely to intensify the competition between dumped imports and the Union-produced SC. The investigation has not identified any factors that would break the strong link between the dumped imports and the injury the Union industry would suffer.\n(137)\nShould measures be terminated, the situation of the Union industry would deteriorate and the very existence of the only Union producer would be jeopardised.\n(138)\nTherefore, it is concluded that there is, due to dumped imports from China and Indonesia, a clear likelihood of continuation of injury to the Union industry.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n1. INTRODUCTION\n(139)\nPursuant to Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of the various interests involved, i.e. those of the applicant Union producer, of importers, of suppliers and of users.\n2. INTEREST OF THE APPLICANT UNION PRODUCER\n(140)\nAs far as the only Union producer is concerned, it should be noted that its loss-making situation has resulted from its difficulties to compete with low-priced dumped imports, which held a significant market share already at the beginning of the period considered and which have increased their market share considerably during that.\n(141)\nIt is considered that the continuation of measures would benefit the Union producer which should then, at least, be able to increase volumes and, perhaps, its sales prices thereby generating the necessary return level which would enable it to continue to invest in its production facilities. By contrast, the discontinuation of the measures would halt recovery and lead to a continuation and even an exacerbation of the injury suffered by the Union producer. It would seriously threaten the viability of the Union producer and, as a consequence, it may even cease to exist, thus reducing supply and competition on the market.\n3. INTEREST OF IMPORTERS\n(142)\nOn initiation, a questionnaire was sent to twenty unrelated importers. Three replied that they were no longer active on the market of the product concerned. Two other importers replied to the questionnaire. The cooperating unrelated importers represented 7 % of total imports concerned.\n(143)\nThe investigation found that having a diversity of SC suppliers is essential. Importers have to rely on both Asian and European sources of supply because of quality and food security reasons.\n4. INTEREST OF USERS\n(144)\nOn initiation, a questionnaire was sent to thirteen potential users but only two of them replied to the Commission.\n(145)\nThe main users of the product concerned in the Union are in the food, beverage and pharmaceutical industries. The demand for the product concerned is therefore dependent upon the situation of these industries.\n(146)\nThe users that came forward showed robust profit margins on downstream products using SC. Indeed, the effect of the anti-dumping duties on their total costs was so minimal (less than 1 %) that they were not disproportionally affected by the existing measures.\n5. INTEREST OF SUPPLIERS\n(147)\nA questionnaire was sent to eight potential suppliers but none replied to the Commission. From information available, it appears that their SC business-related portfolio is rather negligible. In any event, further deterioration of the sole Union producer may have some negative, even though limited, knock-on effects on the sole producer\u2019s suppliers of raw materials. On these grounds it is not unreasonable to assume that the measures would also benefit the supplier industry as they would help to keep in place one of their customers.\n6. CONCLUSION ON UNION INTEREST\n(148)\nTaking into account all of the above factors, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of anti-dumping measures.\nG. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(149)\nIn view of the conclusions reached above, the measures in force applicable to imports of the product concerned originating in China and Indonesia should be maintained,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of sodium cyclamate, currently falling within CN code ex 2929 90 00 (TARIC code 2929900010), originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and Indonesia.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty for the products described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies below shall be as follows:\nCountry\nCompany\nRate of duty\n(EUR per kilogramme)\nTARIC additional code\nThe People\u2019s Republic of China:\nFang Da Food Additive (Shen Zhen) Limited, Gong Le Industrial Estate, Xixian County, Bao An, Shenzhen, 518102, People\u2019s Republic of China\n0\nA471\nFang Da Food Additive (Yang Quan) Limited, Da Lian Dong Lu, Economic and Technology Zone, Yangquan City, Shanxi 045000, People\u2019s Republic of China\n0\nA472\nGolden Time Enterprise (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd, Shanglilang, Cha Shan Industrial Area, Buji Town, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, People\u2019s Republic of China\n0,11\nA473\nAll other companies\n0,26\nA999\nIndonesia:\nPT. Golden Sari (Chemical Industry), Mitra Bahari Blok D1-D2, Jalan Pakin No 1, Sunda Kelapa, Jakarta 14440, Indonesia.\n0,24\nA502\nAll other companies\n0,27\nA999\n3. In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (5), the amount of anti-dumping duty, calculated on the basis of paragraph 2 of this Article, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["34", "62", "59", "78", "98", "4", "77", "49", "93", "83", "28", "10", "97", "69", "60", "37", "32", "66", "18", "54", "68", "53", "30", "7", "70", "52", "8", "46", "42", "76", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "74", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "74", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 599/2010\nof 8 July 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1077/2008 laying down rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1966/2006 on electronic recording and reporting of fishing activities and on means of remote sensing and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1566/2007\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1966/2006 (1) on electronic recording and reporting of fishing activities and on means of remote sensing, and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1966/2006 provides for the adoption of detailed rules fixing the formats that the competent national authorities are to use to exchange information for control and inspection purposes.\n(2)\nThe application of the format defined in the annex of current version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1077/2008 of 3 November 2008, laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1966/2006 on electronic recording and reporting of fishing activities and on means of remote sensing and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1566/2007 (2) and recent developments in Member States have shown that this format shall be further improved to ensure mutually compatible data exchange according to the agreed XML format. It is therefore necessary to replace the annex by a new one.\n(3)\nThe measure provided for in this Regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment of Regulation (EC) No 1077/2008\nRegulation (EC) No 1077/2008 is hereby amended as follows:\nThe Annex is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 July 2010.", "references": ["98", "4", "34", "49", "52", "15", "71", "25", "59", "23", "14", "20", "10", "77", "68", "60", "70", "2", "16", "56", "6", "50", "92", "31", "1", "47", "36", "97", "83", "89", "No Label", "40", "41", "42", "67"], "gold": ["40", "41", "42", "67"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 580/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 8 June 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 establishing the European Network and Information Security Agency as regards its duration\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn 2004 the European Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 (3) which established the European Network and Information Security Agency (the Agency).\n(2)\nIn 2008 the European Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1007/2008 (4) amending Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 as regards the duration of the Agency.\n(3)\nFrom November 2008 a public debate was held on the general direction of European efforts towards increased network and information security, including a debate on the Agency. In line with the Commission\u2019s Better Regulation strategy, and as a contribution to this debate, the Commission launched a public consultation on the objectives for a strengthened network and information security policy at Union level, which ran from November 2008 to January 2009. In December 2009 the debate resulted in a Council Resolution of 18 December 2009 on a collaborative European approach to Network and Information Security (5).\n(4)\nTaking account of the results of the public debate, it is envisaged to replace Regulation (EC) No 460/2004.\n(5)\nA legislative procedure to reform the Agency may require extensive time for debate, and since the mandate of the Agency will expire on 13 March 2012, it is necessary to adopt an extension which will both enable sufficient discussion in the European Parliament and in the Council and ensure consistency and continuity.\n(6)\nThe duration of the Agency should therefore be extended until 13 September 2013,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 27 of Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 27\nDuration\nThe Agency shall be established from 14 March 2004 for a period of 9 years and 6 months.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 8 June 2011.", "references": ["34", "22", "41", "18", "5", "71", "88", "47", "17", "54", "96", "60", "3", "48", "38", "15", "29", "70", "67", "6", "30", "94", "99", "23", "61", "62", "80", "12", "35", "43", "No Label", "1", "7", "40", "42"], "gold": ["1", "7", "40", "42"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 October 2010\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters\n(2010/616/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 82(1)(d), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26-27 February 2009 the Council authorised the Presidency, assisted by the Commission, to open negotiations for an Agreement between the European Union and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2010/88/CFSP/JHA of 30 November 2009, the Agreement between the European Union and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (hereinafter the Agreement) was signed on 30 November and 15 December 2009, subject to its conclusion.\n(3)\nThe Agreement has not yet been concluded. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the procedures to be followed by the Union in order to conclude the Agreement are governed by Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be approved.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, these Member States have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (1) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to the exchange of the instruments of approval provided for in Article 31(1) of the Agreement in order to bind the Union (2).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 October 2010.", "references": ["23", "75", "22", "10", "71", "5", "35", "59", "76", "20", "31", "84", "38", "43", "32", "89", "62", "61", "79", "56", "87", "64", "6", "69", "51", "60", "46", "27", "85", "18", "No Label", "3", "4", "9", "12", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "4", "9", "12", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 112/2011\nof 7 February 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 February 2011.", "references": ["66", "34", "30", "7", "85", "29", "4", "99", "39", "60", "89", "24", "33", "47", "79", "20", "73", "86", "35", "57", "2", "74", "71", "95", "8", "96", "50", "64", "54", "25", "No Label", "21", "38"], "gold": ["21", "38"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 1105/2011/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 25 October 2011\non the list of travel documents which entitle the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa and on setting up a mechanism for establishing this list\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn the basis of Article 17(3)(a) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 (2), Decisions SCH/Com-ex (98)56 (3) and SCH/Com-ex (99)14 (4) established the Manual of travel documents entitling the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa. Those Decisions should be adapted to the institutional and legal framework of the Union.\n(2)\nThe list of travel documents issued by third countries should be monitored systematically to ensure that Member States' authorities dealing with the processing of visa applications and with border controls have accurate information at their disposal about the travel documents presented by third-country nationals. Exchanges of information between Member States on the travel documents issued and on Member States' recognition of those travel documents, and making the entire compilation available to the public, should be modernised and made more efficient.\n(3)\nThe purpose of the list of travel documents is twofold: on the one hand, it allows border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document is recognised for the purpose of crossing the external borders as set out in point (a) of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (5); on the other hand, it allows consular staff to verify whether Member States recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing a visa sticker.\n(4)\nUnder point (c) of Article 48(1) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (6) an exhaustive list of travel documents issued by the host country should be drawn up within local Schengen cooperation.\n(5)\nA mechanism should be established to ensure that the list of travel documents is constantly updated.\n(6)\nConsidering the relevance of the security of the travel documents with regard to their possible recognition, the Commission, assisted by experts of the Member States, should provide a technical assessment, where appropriate.\n(7)\nMember States are and should remain competent for the recognition of travel documents for the purpose of allowing the holder to cross the external borders and affixing a visa sticker.\n(8)\nMember States should notify their position in relation to all travel documents and endeavour to harmonise their positions on the different types of travel documents. Since a Member State's failure to notify its position with regard to a travel document may cause problems to holders of that travel document, a mechanism should be established to place an obligation on Member States to state their position on the recognition and non-recognition of such documents. That mechanism should not preclude Member States from notifying a change in their position at any given moment.\n(9)\nAn online database containing specimens of all travel documents should be established in the long term to facilitate the examination of a given travel document by border control authorities and consular staff. That database should be kept up to date in line with any changes to previously indicated recognition or non-recognition of a given travel document by Member States.\n(10)\nFor information purposes, the Commission should draw up a non-exhaustive list of known fantasy and camouflage passports brought to its attention by the Member States. The fantasy and camouflage passports which are on the list should not be subject to recognition or non-recognition. They should not entitle their holders to cross the external borders and should not be endorsed with a visa.\n(11)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for compiling and updating the list of travel documents, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (7).\n(12)\nThe advisory procedure should be used for drawing up and updating the list of travel documents, given that those acts merely constitute the compilation of issued travel documents.\n(13)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters' association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (8), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points A, B and C, of Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement (9).\n(14)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (10), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points A, B and C, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (11).\n(15)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol signed between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points A, B and C, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (12).\n(16)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Decision builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of 6 months after the Council has decided on this Decision whether it will implement it in its national law.\n(17)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (13); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(18)\nThis 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 of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland's request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (14); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(19)\nAs regards Cyprus, this Decision constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession.\n(20)\nThis Decision constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Decision establishes the list of travel documents which entitle the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa (the list of travel documents) and a mechanism for compiling it.\n2. This Decision applies to travel documents such as a national passport (ordinary, diplomatic, service/official or special passport), an emergency travel document, a refugee or stateless person's travel document, a travel document issued by international organisations, or a laissez-passer.\n3. This Decision does not affect Member States' competence for the recognition of travel documents.\nArticle 2\nCompilation of the list of travel documents\n1. The Commission shall draw up the list of travel documents with the assistance of Member States on the basis of information gathered within local Schengen cooperation, as referred to in point (c) of Article 48(1) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009.\n2. The list of travel documents shall be drawn up in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 8(2).\nArticle 3\nStructure of the list of travel documents\n1. The list of travel documents shall be divided into three parts.\n2. Part I shall consist of travel documents issued by the third countries and territorial entities listed in Annexes I and II to Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (15).\n3. Part II shall consist of the following travel documents issued by Member States, including those issued by the Member States of the European Union which are not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and by the Member States of the European Union which do not yet apply the provisions of the Schengen acquis in full:\n(a)\ntravel documents issued to third-country nationals;\n(b)\ntravel documents issued to refugees under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951;\n(c)\ntravel documents issued to stateless persons under the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons of 28 September 1954;\n(d)\ntravel documents issued to persons who do not hold the nationality of any country and who reside in a Member State;\n(e)\ntravel documents issued by the United Kingdom to British citizens who are not nationals of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the purposes of Union law.\n4. Part III shall consist of travel documents issued by international organisations.\n5. As a general rule, the listing of a given travel document applies to all series of that travel document that are still valid.\n6. If a third country does not issue a particular type of travel document, this shall be indicated by entering \u2027not issued\u2027 in the list of travel documents.\nArticle 4\nNotification of recognition or non-recognition of listed travel documents\n1. Within 3 months after the communication of the list of travel documents, Member States shall notify to the Commission their position on recognition or non-recognition of the listed travel documents.\n2. If a Member State fails to notify its position within the period referred to in paragraph 1, the travel document concerned shall be deemed to be recognised until that Member State's notification of its non-recognition.\n3. Within the framework of the committee referred to in Article 8(1), Member States shall exchange information on the grounds for the recognition or non-recognition of specific travel documents with a view to reaching a harmonised position.\n4. Member States shall notify the Commission of all changes to previously indicated recognition or non-recognition of a given travel document.\nArticle 5\nNew travel documents issued\n1. Member States shall notify the Commission of new travel documents referred to in points (a) to (d) of Article 3(3).\n2. Member States shall inform the Commission of new travel documents issued by third countries, Member States and international organisations referred to in Article 3(2), in point (e) of Article 3(3) and in Article 3(4). The Commission shall, in cooperation with the Member States, endeavour to collect specimens of new travel documents in order to share them.\n3. The Commission shall update the list of travel documents in accordance with the notifications and information received and shall request Member States to notify their position on recognition or non-recognition in accordance with Article 4.\n4. The updated list of travel documents shall be drawn up in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 8(2).\nArticle 6\nInformation concerning known fantasy and camouflage passports\nThe Commission shall also draw up and update a non-exhaustive list of known fantasy and camouflage passports on the basis of information received from the Member States.\nArticle 7\nAssessment of travel documents\n1. In order to assist the Member States in their technical assessment of travel documents, the Commission, assisted by experts of the Member States, may provide for a technical analysis of the travel documents, taking into account in particular the relevant International Civil Aviation Organization standards and recommendations.\n2. Where relevant, the conditions and procedures for issuing travel documents may also be analysed within this framework.\n3. The results of the assessments referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be communicated to the Member States.\nArticle 8\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee (the Travel Document Committee). That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 9\nPublication of the lists\nThe Commission shall make the list of travel documents, including the notifications pursuant to Article 4, and the list referred to in Article 6, available to the Member States and the public via a constantly updated electronic publication.\nArticle 10\nRepeals\nDecisions SCH/Com-ex (98)56 and SCH/Com-ex (99)14 shall be repealed.\nArticle 11\nEntry into force\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. This Decision shall apply with effect from the date of its entry into force, except for Article 10, which shall apply with effect from the date of the first publication by the Commission of the list of travel documents.\nArticle 12\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["8", "47", "95", "93", "63", "67", "24", "40", "92", "91", "38", "35", "16", "21", "26", "50", "90", "98", "78", "48", "83", "19", "41", "56", "7", "27", "53", "89", "17", "72", "No Label", "1", "13"], "gold": ["1", "13"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 160/2012\nof 23 February 2012\nfixing for 2012 the amount of aid in advance for private storage of butter\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(a) and (d), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides for the granting of private storage aid for butter.\n(2)\nDevelopments in prices and stocks of butter indicate an imbalance in the market which may be eliminated or reduced by the seasonal storage. In view of the current market situation, it is appropriate to grant aid for private storage of butter as from 1 March 2012.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 of 20 August 2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products (2) has established common rules for the implementation of a private storage aid scheme.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008, aid fixed in advance is to be granted in accordance with the detailed rules and conditions provided for in Chapter III of that Regulation.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 the aid should be fixed in the light of storage costs and the likely trends in prices for fresh butter and butter from stocks.\n(6)\nIt is appropriate to fix aid for the costs for entry and exit of the products concerned and for daily costs for cold storage and financing.\n(7)\nTo facilitate the implementation of the present measure and taking into consideration the existing practice in the Member States, the aid should relate only to products that have been fully placed into storage. Consequently, a derogation from Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 should be provided for.\n(8)\nFor reasons of administrative efficiency and simplification, where the required information concerning storage details are already included in the application for aid, it is appropriate to waive the request to notify the same information after the conclusion of the contract as provided for in point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008.\n(9)\nFor reasons of simplification and logistic efficiency, Member States should be allowed to waive the requirement to mark the contract number on each unit stored where the contracts number is entered in the stores register.\n(10)\nFor reasons of administrative efficiency and simplification, taking into account the particular situation for butter storage, the checks provided for in Article 36(6) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 should be carried out in respect of at least one half of the contracts. Consequently, a derogation from that Article should be provided for.\n(11)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 of 31 August 2009 laying down detailed rules for the Member States\u2019 notification to the Commission of information and documents in implementation of the common organisation of the markets, the direct payments\u2019 regime, the promotion of agricultural products and the regimes applicable to the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean islands (3) lays down common rules for notifying information and documents by the competent authorities of the Member States to the Commission. Those rules cover in particular the obligation for the Member States to use the information systems made available by the Commission and the validation of the access rights of the authorities or individuals authorised to send notifications. In addition, that Regulation sets common principles applying to the information systems in order to guarantee the authenticity, integrity and legibility over time of the documents. It also provides for personal data protection.\n(12)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 the obligation to use the information systems in accordance with that Regulation has to be provided for in the Regulations establishing a specific notification obligation.\n(13)\nThe Commission has developed an information system that allows managing documents and procedures electronically in its own internal working procedures and in its relations with the authorities involved in the common agricultural policy.\n(14)\nIt is considered that notification obligations for the private storage of butter can be fulfilled via that system in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009, in particular those provided for in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008.\n(15)\nFor reasons of clarity, this Regulation should expire on the final date laid down for the end of contractual storage.\n(16)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. This Regulation provides for private storage aid for salted and unsalted butter as referred to in Article 28(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for contracts concluded from 1 March 2012.\n2. Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 shall apply save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe unit of measurement referred to in Article 16(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 is the \u2018storage lot\u2019 which corresponds to the quantity of the product covered by this Regulation, weighing at least one tonne and of homogeneous composition and quality, produced in a single factory, taken into storage in a single warehouse on a single day.\nArticle 3\n1. By way of derogation from Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008, applications shall only relate to products that have been fully placed into storage.\n2. Point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 shall not apply.\n3. Member States may waive the requirements referred to in Article 22(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 to mark the contract number provided that the store manager undertakes to enter the contract number in the register referred to in point III of Annex I to that Regulation.\n4. By way of derogation from Article 36(6) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008, at the end of the contractual storage period, the authority responsible for checking shall, throughout the whole removal period from August 2012 to February 2013, in respect of at least one half of the number of contracts, by sampling, verify weight and identification of the butter in storage.\nArticle 4\n1. The aid for the products referred in Article 1 shall be:\n-\nEUR 14,88 per tonne of storage for fixed storage costs,\n-\nEUR 0,26 per tonne per day of contractual storage.\n2. Entry into contractual storage shall take place between 1 March and 15 August 2012. Removal from store may take place only as from 16 August 2012. Contractual storage shall end on the day preceding that of the removal from storage or at the latest the last day of February following the year of entry into store.\n3. Aid may be granted only where the contractual storage period is between 90 and 210 days.\nArticle 5\n1. Member States shall notify the Commission of the following:\n(a)\nby each Tuesday for the previous week, the quantities for which contracts have been concluded as well as the quantities of products for which applications to conclude contracts have been submitted, as required under Article 35(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008;\n(b)\nnot later than the end of each month for the previous month, the information on the stocks required under Article 35(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008.\n2. The notifications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009.\nArticle 6\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 28 February 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2012.", "references": ["58", "45", "66", "21", "77", "38", "98", "69", "88", "86", "23", "74", "73", "64", "87", "72", "92", "33", "24", "78", "85", "18", "94", "34", "39", "43", "49", "3", "7", "19", "No Label", "4", "15", "26", "62", "70"], "gold": ["4", "15", "26", "62", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 21 August 2012\npursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay with regard to automated processing of personal data\n(notified under document C(2012) 5704)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/484/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1), and in particular Article 25(6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Data Protection Supervisor (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Directive 95/46/EC, Member States are required to provide that the transfer of personal data to a third country may take place only if the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection and if the Member States\u2019 laws implementing other provisions of the Directive are complied with prior to the transfer.\n(2)\nThe Commission may find that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection. In that case, personal data may be transferred from the Member States without additional guarantees being necessary.\n(3)\nPursuant to Directive 95/46/EC the level of data protection should be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding a data transfer operation or a set of data transfer operations and giving particular consideration to a number of elements relevant for the transfer and listed in Article 25 thereof.\n(4)\nGiven the different approaches to data protection in third countries, the adequacy assessment should be carried out, and any decision based on Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC should be made and enforced in a way that does not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate against or between third countries where like conditions prevail, nor constitute a disguised barrier to trade, regard being had to the European Union\u2019s present international commitments.\n(5)\nThe Political Constitution of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay, passed in 1967, does not expressly recognise the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data. However, the catalogue of fundamental rights is not a closed list since Article 72 of the Constitution provides that the listing of rights, obligations and guarantees made by the Constitution does not exclude others that are inherent to the human personality or that derive from the republican form of government. Article 1 of Act No 18.331 on the Protection of Personal Data and \u2018Habeas Data\u2019 Action of 11 August 2008 (Ley No 18.331 de Protecci\u00f3n de Datos Personales y Acci\u00f3n de \u2018Habeas Data\u2019) expressly sets out that \u2018the right to the protection of personal data is inherent to the human being and it is therefore included in Article 72 of the Constitution of the Republic\u2019. Article 332 of the Constitution provides that the application of the provisions of this Constitution that acknowledge individuals\u2019 rights as well as those awarding rights and imposing obligations on public authorities, shall not be impaired by of the lack of specific regulation; rather, it shall be based, through recourse to the underlying principles of similar laws, on the general principles of the law and generally accepted doctrines.\n(6)\nThe legal standards for the protection of personal data in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay are largely based on the standards set out in Directive 95/46/EC and are laid down in Act No 18.331 on the Protection of Personal Data and \u2018Habeas Data\u2019 Action (Ley No 18.331 de Protecci\u00f3n de Datos Personales y de Acci\u00f3n de \u2018Habeas Data\u2019) of 11 August 2008. It covers natural persons and legal persons.\n(7)\nThis Act is further complemented by Decree No 414/009 of 31 August 2009, adopted in order to clarify several aspects of the Act and to lay down the detailed regulation of the organisation, powers and functioning of the data protection supervisory authority; The Preamble of the Decree sets out that it is appropriate to adjust the national legal system on this matter to the most accepted comparable legal regime, essentially that established by European countries through Directive 95/46/EC.\n(8)\nData protection provisions are also contained in a number of special acts that create and regulate databases, namely, acts regulating certain public registries (public deeds, industrial property and trade marks, personal acts, real estate, mining or credit reporting). Act No 18.331 applies additionally to these acts in relation to those issues that are not governed by these specific legal instruments, pursuant to Article 332 of the Constitution.\n(9)\nThe legal data protection standards applicable in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay cover all the basic principles necessary for an adequate level of protection for natural persons, and also provide for exceptions and limitations in order to safeguard important public interests. These legal data protection standards and the exceptions reflect the principles laid down by Directive 95/46/EC.\n(10)\nThe application of the legal data protection standards is guaranteed by administrative and judicial remedies, in particular, by the \u2018habeas data\u2019 action, which enables a data subject to take a data controller to court in order to enforce his right of access, rectification and deletion, and by independent supervision carried out by the supervisory authority, the Unit for the Regulation and Control of Personal Data (Unidad Reguladora y de Control de Datos Personales (URCDP)), which is invested with powers of investigation, intervention and sanction in line with Article 28 of Directive 95/46/EC, and which acts completely independently. Moreover, any interested party is entitled to seek judicial redress for compensation for damages suffered as a result of the unlawful processing of his personal data.\n(11)\nUruguayan data protection authorities have provided explanations and assurances as to how the Uruguayan law is to be interpreted, and have given assurances that the Uruguayan data protection legislation is implemented in accordance with such interpretation. In particular, Uruguayan data protection authorities have explained that, pursuant to Article 332 of the Constitution, Act No 18.331 applies additionally to special acts that create and regulate specific databases in relation to those issues that are not governed by these specific legal instruments. They have also clarified that, regarding the lists referred to in Article 9 C) of Act No 18.331, and which do not require the consent of the data subject for the processing, the Act also applies, namely the principles of proportionality and finality, the rights of data subjects and that they are subject to the supervision by the data protection authority. With regard to the transparency principle, the Uruguayan data protection authorities have informed that the obligation to provide the data subject with the necessary information applies in all cases. Regarding the right of access, the data protection authority has clarified that it is sufficient for a data subject to prove its identity when making a request. The Uruguayan data protection authorities have clarified that the exceptions relating to the principle on international transfers laid down in Article 23(1) of Act No 18.331 cannot be understood as having a broader application than that of Article 26(1) of Directive 95/46/EC.\n(12)\nThis Decision takes into account these explanations and assurances and it is based upon them.\n(13)\nThe Eastern Republic of Uruguay is also party to the American Convention of Human Rights (\u2018Pact of San Jos\u00e9 de Costa Rica) of 22 November 1969, and in force since 18 July 1978 (3). Article 11 of this Convention lays down the right to privacy and Article 30 sets out that restrictions that, pursuant to this Convention, may be placed on the enjoyment or exercise of the rights or freedoms recognised by the Convention may not be applied except in accordance with laws enacted for reasons of general interest and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions have been established (Article 30). Moreover the Eastern Republic of Uruguay has accepted the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Furthermore at the 1118th meeting of the Ministers\u2019 Deputies of the Council of Europe held on 6 July 2011, the Deputies invited the Eastern Republic of Uruguay to accede the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No 108) and to its Additional Protocol (ETS No 118), after a favourable opinion of the relevant Consultative Committee (4).\n(14)\nThe Eastern Republic of Uruguay should therefore be regarded as providing an adequate level of protection for personal data as referred to in Directive 95/46/EC.\n(15)\nThis Decision should concern the adequacy of protection provided in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay with a view to meeting the requirements of Article 25(1) of Directive 95/46/EC. It should not affect other conditions or restrictions implementing other provisions of that Directive that pertain to the processing of personal data within the Member States.\n(16)\nIn the interest of transparency and in order to safeguard the ability of the competent authorities in the Member States to ensure the protection of individuals as regards the processing of their personal data, it is necessary to specify the exceptional circumstances in which the suspension of specific data flows may be justified, notwithstanding the finding of adequate protection.\n(17)\nThe Commission should monitor the functioning of the Decision and report any pertinent findings to the Committee established under Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC. Such monitoring should cover, inter alia, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay\u2019s regime applicable to transfers in the framework of international treaties.\n(18)\nThe Working Party on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data established under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC has delivered a favourable opinion on the level of adequacy as regards protection of personal data which has been taken into account in the preparation of this Decision (5).\n(19)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 31(1) of Directive 95/46/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. For the purposes of Article 25(2) of Directive 95/46/EC, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay is considered as ensuring an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the European Union.\n2. The competent supervisory authority of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay for the application of the legal data protection standards in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\n1. Without prejudice to their powers to take action to ensure compliance with national provisions adopted pursuant to provisions other than Article 25 of Directive 95/46/EC, the competent authorities in Member States may exercise their existing powers to suspend data flows to a recipient in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay in order to protect individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data in the following cases:\n(a)\nwhere a competent Uruguayan authority has determined that the recipient is in breach of the applicable standards of protection; or\n(b)\nwhere there is a substantial likelihood that the standards of protection are being infringed, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the competent Uruguayan authority is not taking or will not take adequate and timely steps to settle the case at issue, the continuing transfer would create an imminent risk of grave harm to data subjects and the competent authorities in the Member State have made reasonable efforts in the circumstances to provide the party responsible for processing established in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay with notice and an opportunity to respond.\n2. The suspension shall cease as soon as the standards of protection are assured and the competent authority of the Member States concerned is notified thereof.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall inform the Commission without delay when measures are adopted on the basis of Article 2.\n2. The Member States and the Commission shall inform each other of cases where the action of bodies responsible for ensuring compliance with the standards of protection in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay fails to secure such compliance.\n3. Where the information collected under Article 2 and under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article provides evidence that any body responsible for ensuring compliance with the standards of protection in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay is not effectively fulfilling its role, the Commission shall inform the competent Uruguayan authority and, if necessary, present draft measures in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 31(2) of Directive 95/46/EC with a view to repealing or suspending this Decision or limiting its scope.\nArticle 4\nThe Commission shall monitor the functioning of this Decision and report any pertinent findings to the Committee established under Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC, including any evidence that could affect the finding in Article 1 of this Decision, that protection in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay is adequate within the meaning of Article 25 of Directive 95/46/EC and any evidence that this Decision is being implemented in a discriminatory way.\nArticle 5\nMember States shall take all the measures necessary to comply with the Decision within three months of the date of its notification.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 August 2012.", "references": ["76", "60", "34", "71", "7", "22", "70", "25", "52", "99", "81", "24", "96", "89", "69", "3", "88", "48", "91", "10", "14", "79", "73", "50", "85", "58", "35", "55", "30", "92", "No Label", "40", "41", "42", "93"], "gold": ["40", "41", "42", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 576/2010\nof 30 June 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 July 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 4 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 July 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 July 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 June 2010.", "references": ["80", "12", "3", "67", "31", "94", "63", "36", "77", "47", "71", "78", "45", "23", "42", "59", "20", "17", "93", "56", "33", "64", "99", "14", "74", "58", "2", "0", "72", "92", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 453/2011\nof 4 May 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of furfuraldehyde originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 11(2) and (5) and Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (Commission) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nFollowing an anti-dumping investigation (the original investigation), the Council imposed by Regulation (EC) No 95/95 (2) of 21 January 1995 a definitive anti-dumping duty in the form of a specific duty on imports of furfuraldehyde originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC) (the definitive anti-dumping measures). The specific duty rate was set at EUR 352 per tonne.\n(2)\nFollowing an interim review initiated in May 1997 upon the request of a Chinese exporter, the measures were maintained by Regulation (EC) No 2722/1999 (3) for a further period of 4 years.\n(3)\nIn April 2005, following an expiry review, the Council by Regulation (EC) No 639/2005 (4) extended the measures for a further period of 5 years.\n2. Request for an expiry review\n(4)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry (5) of the definitive anti-dumping measures in force, the Commission received on 28 January 2010 a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged by two Union producers, Lenzing AG and Tanin Sevnica kemi\u010dna industrija d.d. (the applicants), representing a major proportion of the Union production of furfuraldehyde, in this case more than 50 %.\n(5)\nThe request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Union industry (the \u2018UI\u2019).\n3. Initiation of an expiry review\n(6)\nHaving determined that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, and after consulting the Advisory Committee, the Commission announced on 27 April 2010, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (6) (the Notice of initiation), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n4. Investigation\n4.1. Investigation period\n(7)\nThe investigation concerning the likelihood of a continuation of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the review investigation period (the period considered).\n4.2. Parties concerned by this investigation\n(8)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicants, exporting producers in the country concerned, importers, users known to be concerned, and the representatives of the country concerned of the initiation of the expiry review.\n(9)\nInterested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the Notice of initiation. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n4.3. Sampling\n(10)\nIn view of the apparent large number of exporting producers in the PRC, it was considered appropriate to examine whether sampling should be used, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the Notice of initiation. Given that no exporting producers came forward to cooperate, sampling was not necessary.\n4.4. Verification of information received\n(11)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to those who made themselves known within the deadlines set in the Notice of initiation.\n(12)\nReplies to the questionnaires were received from the two Union producers, one importer/user and one producer in the analogue country, Argentina. None of the Chinese exporting producers cooperated in the current investigation.\n(13)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for a determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following interested parties:\n(a)\nUnion producers\n-\nLenzing AG, (Lenzing), Austria\n-\nTanin Sevnica kemi\u010dna industrija d.d (Tanin), Slovenia\n(b)\nUnrelated importer/user\n-\nInternational Furan Chemicals BV (IFC), Rotterdam\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(14)\nThe product concerned by this review is the same as the one in the original investigation and the following reviews mentioned above in recitals 2 and 3, namely furfuraldehyde originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN code 2932 12 00 (the product concerned). Furfuraldehyde is also known as 2-furaldehyde or furfural.\n(15)\nFurfuraldehyde is a light yellow liquid with a characteristic pungent odour, which is obtained by processing different types of agricultural waste. Furfuraldehyde has two main applications: as a selective solvent in petroleum refining for the production of lubricating oils and as raw material for processing into furfuryl alcohol, which is used to make synthetic resin for foundry moulds.\n2. Like product\n(16)\nAs in the previous investigations, this investigation confirmed that the furfuraldehyde produced in the PRC and exported to the European Union, the furfuraldehyde produced and sold on the domestic market of the analogue country Argentina and the furfuraldehyde manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics, and the same basic uses. They were therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF DUMPING\n(17)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.\n1. General\n(18)\nOf the 34 known Chinese exporting producers contacted at the initiation, none cooperated with the investigation and no information was submitted by any of them. Therefore, the findings on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping set out below had to be based on facts available, in particular the information submitted by the cooperating importer/industrial user, Eurostat data, official export statistics of the PRC and information in the review request.\n2. Analogue country\n(19)\nSince the PRC is an economy in transition, in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation normal value had to be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in an appropriate market economy third country (the analogue country), or the price from the analogue country to other countries, including the Union, or, where those are not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit margin.\n(20)\nAs in the original investigation, Argentina was proposed in the Notice of initiation as an appropriate analogue country for the purposes of establishing normal value. Following the publication of the Notice of initiation, no comments concerning the proposed analogue country were received.\n(21)\nOne producer of furfuraldehyde in Argentina cooperated with the investigation by replying to a questionnaire. The investigation showed that Argentina had a competitive market for furfuraldehyde with around 90 % of the market supplied by local production and the rest by imports from third countries. The production volume in Argentina constitutes more than 70 % of the volume of Chinese exports of the product concerned to the Union for inward processing. The Argentinean market was therefore deemed sufficiently representative for the determination of normal value for the PRC.\n(22)\nIt is therefore concluded, as in the original investigation, that Argentina constitutes an appropriate analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n3. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n3.1. Normal value\n(23)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value was established on the basis of the information received from the cooperating producer in the analogue country, i.e. on the basis of the price paid or payable on the domestic market of Argentina by unrelated customers, since these sales were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade.\n(24)\nAs a result, normal value was established as the weighted average domestic sales price to unrelated customers by the cooperating producer in Argentina.\n(25)\nIt was first established whether the total domestic sales of the like product to independent customers were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. whether they accounted for 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the product concerned exported to the Union. The domestic sales of the cooperating producer in Argentina were considered sufficiently representative during the RIP.\n(26)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of the like product could be regarded as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for the like product sold on the Argentinean market the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers during the RIP. Since all sales of the like product during the RIP were profitable, normal value was based on weighted average of all domestic sales.\n3.2. Export price\n(27)\nAs none of the Chinese exporters to the Union cooperated with the investigation, export prices were established on the basis of the facts available. The most appropriate basis was found to be the information provided by the cooperating importer and the Eurostat data in relation to imports into the Union of the product concerned. Though most of these imports were made under inward processing regime (IPR) (Chinese furfuraldehyde was further processed into furfuryl alcohol for export), there was no reason to believe that they were not a reasonable basis for establishing export prices.\n3.3. Comparison\n(28)\nFor the purposes of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, and in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made with regard to certain differences in transport and insurance, which affected prices and price comparability.\n3.4. Dumping margin\n(29)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export prices at the same level of trade. This comparison showed the existence of significant dumping.\n4. Development of imports should measures be repealed\n(30)\nFurther to the analysis of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood of the continuation of dumping should measures be repealed was investigated. Given the fact that no exporting producer in the PRC cooperated in this investigation, the conclusions below rely on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, namely the information provided by the cooperating importer, Eurostat data, official export statistics of the PRC and the review request.\n(31)\nIn this respect the following elements were analysed: development of imports into the Union from the PRC under IPR, development of Chinese exports to third countries and the spare capacity of the Chinese producers.\n4.1. Development of imports from the PRC\n(32)\nAccording to the Chinese official export statistics the total worldwide exports from the PRC of the product concerned increased by 117 % during the period considered. This increase was mainly absorbed by the US and other third country markets.\n(33)\nConcerning the exports to the Union, according to Eurostat and verified import data, it should be noted that during the RIP 99,9 % of all the imports from the PRC of the product concerned into the Union were made for inward processing, the remaining 0,1 % for free circulation. There were no imports for free circulation in 2007 and 2008. For completeness of data, the imports for free circulation have been taken into account in the total import volume, however, a detailed analysis of the development of prices of these imports was considered immaterial due to the negligible volumes involved.\n(34)\nThe import volume from PRC under the IPR and free circulation decreased by 67 % from 2007 to the RIP, which coincided with shrinking consumption on the Union market by 24 % as set out in recital 45 below. The Chinese furfuraldehyde imported under IPR was further processed into furfuryl alcohol which was then exported. There is no information available as to how the imports for free circulation have been used in the Union, however, it can be reasonably assumed that, should the measures be repealed, at least part of the current imports under IPR could be imported for free circulation as such or as the final downstream product (furfuryl alcohol) sold on the Union market.\n(35)\nThe price of Chinese exports has varied between markets in the period from 2007 to the RIP. While there has been a sharp decrease in the export price to the Union (by 11 %) in this period, the other export markets have experienced an increase of approximately 10 %. It is, however, notable that the prices for the US market during the RIP have been at roughly the same level as to the Union, while, according to the Chinese export statistics, the exports to other markets have been by 19 % per tonne more expensive. Considering that the product concerned is very homogeneous, such price differences can only be explained by the deliberate pricing strategy of Chinese exporters who obtain higher prices and profits on markets with less competition than in markets such as the Union and the US where lower prices are practised. Considering that exports to the Union and the US constituted 46 % of total Chinese exports, this leads to a conclusion that this price discrimination could be maintained, if duties were to lapse, in order to sustain dumping at least on the Union market.\n4.2. Spare capacity of the exporters\n(36)\nSince little public information is available about the Chinese industry of furfuraldehyde, the following conclusions rely mainly on the information contained in the review request.\n(37)\nAccording to the request for the expiry review, the Chinese production of furfuraldehyde has been steadily increasing since 1999, and in 2009 the production volume reached around 320 000 tonnes. The Chinese capacity utilisation rate is said to be at around 94 % which means that there is idle capacity of around 20 000 tonnes per year in the PRC, i.e. approximately half of total consumption in the Union. More than 200 production plants of furfuraldehyde are said to currently operate in the PRC, of which more and more engage in export activities.\n(38)\nBased on the above, it can be concluded that, if the measures were repealed, it can be expected that the exports of the product concerned from the PRC would enter the Union market outside the IPR in significant quantities and most likely would continue being dumped.\n5. Conclusion on the likelihood of a continuation of dumping\n(39)\nConsidering the large production capacity available in the PRC, the ability of Chinese producers to increase rapidly the production volumes and direct them for export, as well as the pricing of those exports, it is reasonable to assume that a repeal of the measures would result in a resumption of exports from the PRC to the Union outside the IPR.\n(40)\nThe current export prices under IPR do not bear the anti-dumping duty. It is considered therefore that such prices are also indicative as to future price levels, should measures be repealed. In this regard, it was found that Chinese export prices under IPR were dumped and were undercutting the Union producers\u2019 prices by 11 % in the RIP, as set out in recital 69 below.\n(41)\nIn view of the findings described above, it can be concluded that the exports from the PRC are still being dumped and that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping on the Union market if the current anti-dumping measures were to lapse.\nD. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(42)\nThe UI consists of two companies: Lenzing AG (Austria) and Tanin Sevnica kemi\u010dna industrija d.d (Slovenia), which together account for 100 % of the Union\u2019s production of the product concerned in the RIP. Both companies replied to the questionnaires and fully cooperated in the investigation. On this basis, the two Union producers constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. For reasons of confidentiality data concerning the performance of the UI are given only in indexed form.\n(43)\nCompared to the original investigation, the UI has changed: significantly Furfural Espa\u00f1ol S.A., now called Nutrafur, the Spanish producer that lodged the original complaint in 1994, ceased production in October 2008. Nutrafur, which supports the present request for review, has not cooperated in this proceeding. However, Nutrafur is still active in the market, as a trader buying the product concerned from its former Union competitors. The production figures of Nutrafur in 2007 and 2008 mentioned in the request were included in the consumption in the Union market.\nE. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Consumption in the Union market\n(44)\nUnion consumption of furfuraldehyde was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the UI on the Union market (including the sales of Nutrafur while it was still producing furfuraldehyde) plus imports under IPR from the PRC and imports from other third countries into free circulation, based on verified data of the importer International Furan Chemicals BV (IFC) and Eurostat. As Eurostat does not disclose the complete information for confidentiality reasons, Eurostat data were used only for the imports from other third countries except PRC and the Dominican Republic, since IFC is the sole importer of furfuraldehyde from these sources.\n(45)\nOn this basis, during the period considered, the Union consumption decreased by 24 %, from 48 534 tonnes in 2007 to 36 725 tonnes, during the RIP.\nTable 1 - Union consumption\nYear\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nTonnes\n48 534\n45 738\n38 175\n36 725\nIndex (2007=100)\n100\n94\n79\n76\nY/Y trend\n-6\n-15\n-3\nSource: verified questionnaire replies of the UI and IFC, review request and Eurostat\n2. Imports from the PRC\n2.1. Volume, market share and prices\n(46)\nAccording to Chinese export statistics, during the RIP there were only insignificant (2,5 tonnes) Chinese imports for free circulation, most of the Chinese imports being made under IPR. The Chinese IPR volume decreased from 8 264 tonnes in 2007 to 2 749 tonnes in the RIP, i.e. by 67 %. In 2008 Chinese IPR imports reached a peak of approximately 10 000 tonnes which decreased in the following years. Over the period considered the Chinese market share for IPR decreased from 17 % to 8 %, i.e. by 9 percentage points.\n(47)\nThe Chinese IPR price decreased by 12 % from EUR 774 in 2007 to EUR 685 in the RIP.\nTable 2 - Imports from the PRC\nYear\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nTonnes\n8 264\n10 002\n5 159\n2 749\nIndex (2007=100)\n100\n121\n62\n33\nY/Y trend\n21\n-59\n-29\nMarket share\n17 %\n22 %\n14 %\n7 %\nPrice, EUR/tonne\n774\n1 014\n690\n685\nIndex (2007=100)\n100\n131\n89\n88\nSource: Verified questionnaire response of IFC\n3. Import volumes and prices from other third countries\n(48)\nIt should be noted that, as in the original investigation, the imports from the Dominican Republic were entirely shipments from a parent company to its European subsidiary to produce furfuryl alcohol. Thus, the prices used in these transactions are transfer prices between related companies and did not reflect real market prices. According to Eurostat, import volumes of furfuraldehyde into the Union from countries other than the PRC, together with their average prices, developed as follows:\nTable 3 - Imports into the Union from the Dominican Republic\nYear\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nTonnes\n32 003\n27 662\n24 996\n25 959\nIndex (2007=100)\n100\n86\n78\n81\nY/Y trend\n-14\n-8\n3\nMarket share\n66 %\n60 %\n65 %\n71 %\nPrice, EUR/tonne\n809\n982\n582\n670\nIndex (2007=100)\n100\n121\n72\n83\nTable 4 - Imports into the Union from other third countries\nYear\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nTonnes\n1 687\n1 583\n1 226\n1 158\nIndex (2007=100)\n100\n94\n73\n69\nY/Y trend\n-6\n-21\n-4\nMarket share\n3 %\n3 %\n3 %\n3 %\nPrice, EUR/tonne\n800\n997\n632\n621\nIndex (2007=100)\n100\n125\n79\n78\n(49)\nDuring the period considered the import volumes of furfuraldehyde from the Dominican Republic and all other third countries decreased significantly by 19 % and 31 % respectively. However the decrease of imports from the Dominican Republic still allowed for an increase in the market share from 66 % to 71 %. However all these imports were incorporated in the production of furfuryl alcohol by the European subsidiary of the producer in the Dominican Republic. Therefore, the prices of these transactions were transfer prices between related companies and may not reflect real market prices.\n3.1. Export volumes and prices from the PRC to other third countries\n(50)\nDuring the period considered export volumes increased by 105 % (equivalent to approximately 9 % of total Union sales in the RIP). It is noted that export sales by the UI to other third countries were made at low prices during the RIP. This can be explained by the competition in large quantities at low prices with Chinese furfuraldehyde in other third countries.\nTable 5 - Export volumes and prices of the UI to other third countries\nYear\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nQuantities - Index (2007=100)\n100\n136\n211\n205\nY/Y trend\n36\n75\n-6\nPrices - Index (2007=100)\n100\n114\n88\n82\nY/Y trend\n14\n-26\n-6\n4. Economic situation of the UI\n(51)\nThe economic situation of the UI, i.e. the two companies Lenzing and Tanin is analysed below.\n4.1. Production\n(52)\nThe total production by the UI of the product concerned increased by 14 % during the period considered.\nTable 6 - Union production\nYear\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex (2007=100)\n100\n109\n114\n114\nY/Y trend\n9\n5\n0\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n4.2. Production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(53)\nThe total production capacity of the UI remained the same during the period considered. The capacity utilisation of the UI increased by 12 percentage points from 85 % to 97 % meaning that production was almost at full capacity.\nTable 7 - Union capacity\nYear\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex (2007=100)\n100\n100\n100\n100\nCapacity utilisation\n85 %\n92 %\n96 %\n97 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n4.3. Level of stocks\n(54)\nThe table below shows that the level of stocks of the UI increased by 26 % during the period considered. The increase of stocks was particularly significant between 2007 and 2008, when stocks increased by 193 %.\nTable 8 - Stocks\nYear\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex (2007=100)\n100\n293\n165\n126\nY/Y trend\n193\n- 128\n-40\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n4.4. Sales volume and market share\n(55)\nThe UI\u2019s sales volume to unrelated customers in the Union market increased by 13 %, during the RIP. Following the increase in sales, the market share of the UI increased by 5 percentage points during the period considered.\nTable 9 - Sales volume and Union market share\nYear\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex (2007=100)\n100\n100\n112\n113\nMarket share ranged\n10-20 %\n10-20 %\n14-24 %\n15-25 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n4.5. Average sales prices\n(56)\nDuring the period considered the average sales prices charged by the UI on the Union market decreased by 1 %. In 2008 the average sales price reached a peak with an increase of 11 %, but then decreased rapidly in the following year. The slight decrease in the sales prices must be seen in view of the increase of 5 % in the unit cost of production, that the UI was not able to take into account.\nTable 10 - Average sales price in the Union\nYear\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex (2007=100)\n100\n111\n98\n99\nY/Y trend\n11\n-13\n1\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n4.6. Average cost of production\n(57)\nDuring the period considered the average cost of production (COP) increased by 5 % mainly due to the increase in employment and therefore an increase in the total cost of labour.\nTable 11 - Average cost of production\nYear\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex (2007=100)\n100\n105\n105\n105\nY/Y trend\n5\n0\n0\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n4.7. Profitability and cash flow\n(58)\nThe profits made by the UI decreased significantly during the period considered together with the cash flow, which decreased by 56 %. This was due to pressure on sales prices, despite the increase both in production and in sales.\nTable 12 - Profitability and cash flow\nYear\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProfitability Index (2007=100)\n100\n175\n-7\n-4\nY/Y trend\n75\n- 182\n3\nCash Flow - Index (2007=100)\n100\n144\n49\n44\nY/Y trend\n44\n-95\n-5\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n4.8. Investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital\n(59)\nInvestments dropped by 95 % between 2007 and the RIP. Return on investments, expressed as profits/losses of the product concerned in relation to the net book value of investments, decreased considerably during the period considered, following the trend of investments. As a result of the deterioration in profitability and cash flow, the applicants\u2019 ability to raise capital has worsened significantly during the period under consideration. This worsening can also be clearly seen in the applicants\u2019 investments, which fell by 95 % during the period considered.\nTable 13 - Investments and return on investments\nYear\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nInvestments index (2007=100)\n100\n61\n2\n5\nY/Y trend\n-39\n-59\n3\nReturn on investments index (2007=100)\n100\n196\n-7\n-4\nY/Y trend\n96\n- 203\n3\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n4.9. Employment and productivity\n(60)\nThe employment level within the UI during the period considered increased by 8 %. Productivity, measured as output in tonnes per person employed, increased by 6 %. However, the total labour costs increased by 16 % during the period considered.\nTable 14 - Employment and productivity\nYear\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nEmployment - Index\n100\n109\n109\n108\nProductivity (tonnes/employees) - Index\n100\n100\n105\n106\nLabour costs - Index\n100\n114\n115\n116\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n4.10. Magnitude of dumping margin\n(61)\nGiven the volume, the market share and the prices of the dumped imports from the PRC, the impact on the UI of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.\n4.11. Recovery from the effects of dumping\n(62)\nAs shown by the positive evolution of most of the indicators listed above, during the period considered the financial situation of the UI has partially recovered from the injurious effect of dumped imports originating in the PRC.\n4.12. Growth\n(63)\nWhile Union consumption decreased by 24 % during the period considered, the UI\u2019s production, sales volume and market share increased over the same period. At the same time, the volume and market share of imports from the PRC decreased. However, the UI could benefit from the measures to a certain extent as the Chinese pressure on the sales prices did not allow them to have profits nor to reach their target profit.\n5. Conclusion on the economic situation of the UI\n(64)\nFurfuraldehyde from the Dominican Republic is not available on the free Union market. Therefore, no indication was found that these imports would have contributed to the precarious situation of the UI. With regard to the imports of other third countries their volumes decreased substantially to such a level that, even if made at very low prices, their effect cannot be considered to be significant.\n(65)\nThe measures against the PRC have had a positive impact on the economic situation of the UI, since most of the injury indicators showed a positive development: production, sales volume and sales value increased. Despite the decreasing consumption, the UI managed to increase its market share. Profitability, however, decreased substantially during the RIP. The UI has not been in a position to achieve the target profit, set at the original investigation as being 5 % to ensure its development. In that sense, it is concluded that the UI has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation and that its financial situation remains vulnerable.\nF. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY\n(66)\nRecitals 39 and 40 above concluded that the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to a significant increase of dumped exports from the PRC to the Union.\n(67)\nAs mentioned above, the Chinese producers have the potential to redirect large export volumes to the Union market if measures were repealed. According to the review request, the Chinese production capacity reached 320 000 tonnes in 2009 with a spare capacity of at least 20 000 tonnes. Moreover, it seems that other export markets, such as Japan, Thailand and the USA, could not absorb that spare capacity, which therefore would most probably be directed to the Union market.\n(68)\nWith regard to prices, the Chinese export statistics show that the price of the product concerned to the USA was similar to that of the exports to the Union under IPR. To other export markets Chinese prices were higher.\n(69)\nHowever given that the Chinese prices undercut those of the UI by 11 %, if measures were allowed to lapse, it is likely that the Chinese exporters will continue their practices in order to regain the lost market share. Such behaviour coupled with their ability to deliver significant quantities of the product concerned to the Union market would lead to a very negative impact on the UI and in particular on its profitability.\n(70)\nOn the basis of the above, it is concluded that a repeal of measures would in all likelihood lead to a recurrence of injury resulting from the dumped imports from the PRC.\nG. UNION INTEREST\n1. Preliminary remark\n(71)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole.\n(72)\nThe determination of Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, i.e. those of the UI, the importers/traders as well as the users and suppliers of the product concerned.\n(73)\nIn the previous investigations the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the present investigation is an expiry review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures are in place.\n(74)\nOn this basis it was examined whether, despite the conclusion on the likelihood of continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury, there are compelling reasons which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case.\n2. Interest of the UI\n(75)\nThe UI has proven to be a viable industry, able to adapt to changing conditions on the market. This was confirmed in particular by the positive development of production and sales in a context of decreasing consumption in the Union. However, due to the enormous pressure on the sales prices, profitability could not follow the same positive trend.\n(76)\nGiven the existing spare capacity for furfuraldehyde in the PRC, combined with the fact that other export markets (such as Japan, Thailand and the USA) cannot absorb that spare capacity, if the measures were allowed to lapse, the Chinese exporters would in all likelihood try to regain their lost market share by continuing their dumping behaviour in the Union market.\n(77)\nTherefore, without the continuation of anti-dumping measures, the situation of the UI will in all likelihood severely deteriorate due to low-priced dumped Chinese exports as explained in recitals 65 to 68.\n3. Interest of importers\n(78)\nOnly one importer in the Union cooperated in the proceeding: IFC, a company located in the Netherlands and owned by a producer of furfuraldehyde in the Dominican Republic. IFC, is the only active importer of furfuraldehyde in the Union, a few other companies only import the product concerned occasionally. IFC is the major player in the Union market of furfuraldehyde (and of furfuryl alcohol) since it represents around 80 % of the consumption in the Union. IFC imports from the Dominican Republic, from the PRC under IPR and from other third countries. Additionally IFC is the main customer of the UI buying approximately 32 % of their total sales. The furfuraldehyde purchased is then further processed into furfuryl alcohol by TFC, IFC\u2019s related company in Geel, Belgium.\n(79)\nThis importer is fairly neutral regarding the proceeding as on the one hand it would like to have access to Chinese furfuraldehyde without any restrictions and the burden of completing the customs requirements for the IPR, and on the other hand it would want the UI to be maintained in order to source the product concerned at short notice. Moreover the continuation of measures removes competition with the imports from its parent producer in the Dominican Republic and consolidates the group\u2019s stronghold on both the furfuraldehyde and furfuryl alcohol markets (including IPR) in the Union.\n4. Interest of users\n(80)\nThe Commission sent out questionnaires to 27 industrial users of furfuraldehyde. Only three users cooperated in the proceeding however they did not source furfuradehyde in the PRC but bought it directly from the UI. For these users the importance of furfuraldehyde in their business, oil refining or the lube oils industry, is negligible. Therefore they do not feel particularly affected by the anti-dumping measures.\n5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(81)\nTaking into account the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.\nH. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(82)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. Relevant comments submitted were analysed but have not led to the alteration of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to maintain the anti-dumping measures.\n(83)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 639/2005 on imports of furfuraldehyde originating in the PRC should be maintained. These measures consist of a specific duty.\n(84)\nHowever, given that this specific duty was established on the basis of the findings of the original investigation in 1995 and never revised, it has been considered appropriate to assess if the level of the duty is still relevant. In that respect, the Commission will give consideration to initiate ex officio an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of 2-furaldehyde (also known as furfuraldehyde or furfural) currently falling within CN code 2932 12 00 originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The amount of duty applicable is EUR 352 per tonne.\n3. In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (7), the amount of the anti-dumping duty, calculated on the basis of paragraph 2 of this Article, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2011.", "references": ["40", "62", "39", "8", "98", "50", "15", "46", "27", "88", "28", "37", "94", "56", "13", "69", "68", "63", "2", "84", "64", "92", "23", "38", "45", "11", "42", "35", "25", "31", "No Label", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 26 March 2012\namending Decision 98/213/EC on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards internal partition kits\n(notified under document C(2012) 1866)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/201/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1), and in particular Article 13(4) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee on Construction,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 98/213/EC (2) only refers to products as defined in European technical approvals, while some of those products may also be covered by harmonised European standards.\n(2)\nThe European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) is currently preparing harmonised European standards for certain products referred to in Decision 98/213/EC.\n(3)\nDecision 98/213/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 98/213/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following Article 3a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 3a\nThe procedure for attesting conformity as set out in Annex IV shall be indicated in mandates for harmonised European standards.\u2019;\n(2)\nAnnex IV is added, the text of which is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 March 2012.", "references": ["74", "61", "39", "60", "11", "27", "26", "98", "65", "63", "69", "66", "9", "70", "64", "29", "82", "86", "15", "77", "78", "37", "52", "58", "90", "85", "48", "14", "99", "6", "No Label", "76", "87"], "gold": ["76", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 4/2012\nof 4 January 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1290/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 January 2012.", "references": ["29", "81", "30", "25", "89", "56", "78", "26", "8", "51", "87", "94", "49", "11", "13", "5", "97", "98", "68", "16", "48", "46", "6", "73", "4", "64", "70", "31", "74", "37", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 12 July 2010\namending Decision 2008/630/EC on emergency measures applicable to crustaceans imported from Bangladesh and intended for human consumption\n(notified under document C(2010) 4739)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/387/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1)(b)(ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 178/2002 lays down the general principles governing food and feed in general, and food and feed safety in particular, at Union and national level. It provides for emergency measures where it is evident that food or feed imported from a third country is likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment, and that such risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member State(s) concerned.\n(2)\nCouncil Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products (2) provides that the production process of animals and primary products of animal origin is to be monitored for the purpose of detecting the presence of certain residues and substances in live animals, their excrements and body fluids and in tissue, animal products, animal feed and drinking water.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2002/657/EC of 14 August 2002 implementing Council Directive 96/23/EC concerning the performance of analytical methods and the interpretation of results (3) provides rules for the analytical methods to be used in the testing of official samples taken pursuant to Directive 96/23/EC, and specifies common criteria for the interpretation of analytical results of official control laboratories for such samples.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin (4) lays down rules and procedures for the classification of pharmacologically active substances and for establishing the maximum concentration of residues of such substances which may be permitted in food of animal origin, namely maximum residue limits (MRLs).\n(5)\nIn addition, Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 lays down rules and procedures in order to establish the level of residues of a pharmacologically active substance for control reasons in the case of certain substances for which an MRL has not been laid down in accordance with that Regulation, namely reference points for action.\n(6)\nCommission Decision 2008/630/EC of 24 July 2008 on emergency measures applicable to crustaceous imported from Bangladesh and intended for human consumption (5) was adopted following the detection of the presence of residues of veterinary medicinal products and unauthorised substances in crustaceans imported from that third country and intended for human consumption. It provides that consignments of crustaceans imported into the Union from Bangladesh and intended for human consumption are to be tested for the presence of chloramphenicol, metabolites of nitrofurans, tetracycline, malachite green and crystal violet.\n(7)\nThe results of a Commission inspection to Bangladesh in January 2010 have revealed that the previously identified lack of appropriate laboratory capacity for the testing of certain residues of veterinary medicinal products in live animals and animal products still persists. In addition, oxytetracycline and chlortetracycline are also known to be used in Bangladesh.\n(8)\nSince the measures taken to date by Bangladesh are not sufficient, it is appropriate to review the emergency measures laid down in Decision 2008/630/EC to ensure the effective and uniform protection of human health in all Member States. In particular, it is necessary to allow the importation of crustaceans imported from Bangladesh and intended for human consumption into the Union, provided that appropriate tests are carried out at the place of origin.\n(9)\nIn addition, a significant proportion of crustaceans imported from Bangladesh should undergo analytical testing by the Member States for the detection of the presence of residues of pharmacologically active substances before they are placed on the market in the Union. The results of such testing should provide more accurate information on the actual level of contamination with those residues in crustaceans originating from Bangladesh.\n(10)\nIt is appropriate that Member States notify the Commission of the results of the analytical tests carried out, where those results reveal the presence of pharmacologically active substances not authorised for use in food-producing animals, or exceeding the maximum residue limits laid down in Union law. Member States should also regularly submit reports to the Commission on all the tests carried out by them.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticles 2, 3 and 4 of Decision 2008/630/EC are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\n1. Member States shall authorise the importation into the Union of consignments of the products provided that they are accompanied by the results of an analytical test carried out at the place of origin to ensure that they do not present a danger to human health (\u201cthe analytical test\u201d).\n2. The analytical test must have been carried out on an official sample, in order to detect the presence of residues of pharmacologically active substances, as defined in Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), and in particular they must have been tested for the presence of:\n-\nchloramphenicol, tetracycline, oxytetracycline, chlortetracycline,\n-\nmetabolites of nitrofurans,\n-\nmalachite green and crystal violet and their respective leuco-metabolites.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States shall authorise the importation of consignments of the products that are not accompanied by the results of the analytical test provided that the Member State concerned ensures that each consignment undergoes appropriate checks including the analytical test of official samples on arrival at the border inspection post of the point of entry into the Union to ensure that they do not present a danger to human health.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall, by using appropriate sampling plans, ensure that official samples are taken from at least 20 % of the consignments referred to in Article 1.\nThose official samples shall undergo analytical tests for the detection of the presence of residues of pharmacologically active substances, as defined in Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009, and in particular they must have been tested for the presence of chloramphenicol, tetracycline, oxytetracycline, chlortetracycline and metabolites of nitrofurans.\nArticle 4\nThe consignments from which official samples have been taken pursuant to Article 2(3) and Article 3 shall be kept under official detention by the competent authority of the Member State concerned, until the analytical tests have been completed.\nThose consignments can be placed on the market only if the results of the analytical tests confirm that the consignments comply with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\nArticle 4a\nMember States shall immediately inform the Commission of the results of the analytical tests if those tests reveal the presence of residues of any pharmacologically active substance:\n(a)\nclassified in accordance with Article 14(2)(a), (b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 at a level exceeding the maximum residue limit established pursuant to that Regulation; or\n(b)\nnot classified in accordance with Article 14(2)(a), (b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\nThe results of those analytical tests shall be notified to the Commission via the rapid alert system established pursuant to Article 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. The Member State concerned is not required to notify the Commission of the results of such tests via the rapid alert system where the level of residues of pharmacologically active substance is lower than:\n(i)\nthe reference point for action established for that substance pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009; or\n(ii)\nthe minimum required performance limit established for that substance referred to in Article 4 of Commission Decision 2002/657/EC (7).\nArticle 4b\nMember States shall prepare a report every three months, giving an account of all the results of all analytical tests carried out in the previous three months on consignments of the products from Bangladesh.\nThose reports shall be submitted to the Commission during the month following each three-month period, in April, July, October, and January.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 15 July 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2010.", "references": ["2", "37", "57", "58", "60", "8", "12", "26", "6", "66", "29", "44", "0", "18", "71", "36", "31", "10", "45", "83", "56", "7", "81", "78", "32", "42", "69", "54", "27", "49", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "38", "67", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "38", "67", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 541/2012\nof 21 June 2012\nterminating the interim review of the anti-dumping measures concerning imports of furfuraldehyde originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and repealing those measures\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9 and Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nIn 1995, the Council imposed by Regulation (EC) No 95/95 (2) a definitive anti-dumping duty in the form of a specific duty on imports of furfuraldehyde originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019 or \u2018the country concerned\u2019) (\u2018the original anti-dumping measures\u2019). The specific duty rate was set at EUR 352 per tonne.\n(2)\nFollowing an interim review initiated in May 1997 upon the request of a Chinese exporter, the measures were maintained by Council Regulation (EC) No 2722/1999 (3) for a further period of four years.\n(3)\nIn April 2005, following an expiry review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 639/2005 (4), extended the measures for a further period of five years.\n(4)\nIn May 2011, following a further expiry review, the Council, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 453/2011 (5), extended the measures for a further period of five years. The specific duty rate was set at the same level as in the original anti-dumping measures, i.e. EUR 352 per tonne.\n2. Initiation of an interim review\n(5)\nRecital 84 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 453/2011 states that the Council considered it appropriate to assess if the level of the duty was still relevant, given that the specific duty had been established on the basis of the findings of the original investigation in 1995 and never revised. The Commission would therefore consider the ex officio initiation of an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(6)\nHaving determined that the Commission had at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence for the initiation of an ex officio interim review, and after consulting the Advisory Committee, the Commission announced on 5 July 2011, in a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (6) (\u2018the notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.\n3. Investigation\n3.1. Investigation period\n(7)\nThe investigation concerning dumping covered the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of the review investigation period (\u2018the period considered\u2019).\n3.2. Parties concerned by this investigation\n(8)\nThe Commission officially advised the Union industry, exporting producers in the country concerned, importers, users known to be concerned, and the authorities of the country concerned of the initiation of the interim review.\n(9)\nInterested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n3.3. Sampling for exporting producers in the People\u2019s Republic of China\n(10)\nIn view of the apparent large number of exporting producers in the PRC, it was considered appropriate to examine whether sampling should be used, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the exporting producers in the PRC were requested to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation. Given that no exporting producers came forward to cooperate, sampling was therefore not necessary.\n3.4. Questionnaire replies and verifications\n(11)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned. No other parties made themselves known within the deadlines set in the notice of initiation.\n(12)\nNo replies to the questionnaires were received from the two Union producers, the Chinese exporting producers or from any importers or users. One producer in the analogue country, Argentina, replied to the questionnaire.\n(13)\nGiven the lack of cooperation from parties, no verification visits were carried out.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(14)\nThe product concerned by this review is the same as the one in the original investigation and the following reviews mentioned above, namely furfuraldehyde originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN code 2932 12 00 (\u2018the product concerned\u2019). Furfuraldehyde is also known as 2-furaldehyde or furfural.\n(15)\nFurfuraldehyde is a light yellow liquid with a characteristic pungent odour, which is obtained by processing different types of agricultural waste. Furfuraldehyde has two main applications: as a selective solvent in petroleum refining for the production of lubricating oils and as raw material for processing into furfuryl alcohol, which is used to make synthetic resin for foundry moulds.\n2. Like product\n(16)\nAs in the previous investigations, it was considered that the furfuraldehyde produced in the PRC and exported to the EU, the furfuraldehyde produced and sold on the domestic market of the analogue country Argentina and the furfuraldehyde manufactured and sold in the EU by the Union producers have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics, and the same basic uses. They were therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n1. General\n(17)\nNo Chinese exporting producer cooperated with the investigation and they did not submit any information. Therefore, the findings on dumping set out below had to be based on facts available, in particular Eurostat data, official export statistics of the PRC and information submitted by the company in the analogue country, Argentina.\n2. Analogue country\n(18)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation normal value was determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in an appropriate market economy third country (\u2018the analogue country\u2019), or the price from the analogue country to other countries, including the Union, or, where those are not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit margin.\n(19)\nAs in the original investigation, Argentina was proposed in the notice of initiation as an appropriate analogue country for the purposes of establishing normal value pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. Following the publication of the notice of initiation, no comments concerning the proposed analogue country were received.\n(20)\nOne producer of furfuraldehyde in Argentina cooperated with the investigation by replying to a questionnaire. The investigation showed that Argentina had a competitive market for furfuraldehyde with around 90 % of the market supplied by local production and the rest by imports from third countries. The production volume in Argentina constitutes more than 70 % of the volume of Chinese exports of the product concerned to the EU for inward processing. The Argentinean market was therefore deemed sufficiently representative for the determination of normal value for the PRC.\n(21)\nIt is therefore concluded, as in the previous investigations, that Argentina constitutes an appropriate analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n3. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n3.1. Normal value\n(22)\nNormal value was established on the basis of the information received from the cooperating producer in the analogue country, i.e. on the basis of the price paid or payable on the domestic market of Argentina by unrelated customers, since these sales were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade.\n(23)\nAs a result, normal value was established as the weighted average domestic sales price to unrelated customers by the cooperating producer in Argentina.\n(24)\nIt was first established whether the total domestic sales of the like product to independent customers were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. whether they accounted for 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the product concerned exported to the EU. The domestic sales of the cooperating producer in Argentina were sufficiently representative during the RIP.\n(25)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of the like product could be regarded as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for the like product sold on the Argentinean market the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers during the RIP. Since all sales of the like product during the RIP were profitable, normal value was based on weighted average of all domestic sales.\n3.2. Export price\n(26)\nAs none of the Chinese exporters to the EU cooperated with the investigation, export prices were established on the basis of the facts available. The most appropriate basis was found to be the information provided by Eurostat data in relation to imports into the EU of the product concerned. Though most of these imports were made under the inward processing regime (Chinese furfuraldehyde was further processed into furfuryl alcohol for export), there was no reason to consider that they were not a reasonable basis for establishing export prices.\n3.3. Comparison\n(27)\nFor the purposes of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made with regard to certain differences in transport, credit costs and insurance, which affected prices and price comparability.\n3.4. Dumping margin\n(28)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export prices at the same level of trade. This comparison showed a margin of dumping of 5,6 %.\n4. Lasting nature of changed circumstances\n(29)\nFurther to the analysis of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood of the continuation of dumping should measures be repealed was investigated. Given the fact that no exporting producer in the PRC cooperated in this investigation, the conclusions below rely on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.\n(30)\nIn this respect the following elements were analysed: Chinese domestic demand and consumption, and the development of Chinese exports to the EU under the inward processing regime (IPR).\n(31)\nAccording to information available, since 2007 the domestic consumption of furfuraldehyde in the PRC has been increasing at a faster pace (an average forecasted annual growth for the time period 2007-12 of approx. 9 %) than the Chinese production capacity of that product (approx. + 6 %). The rise in Chinese domestic furfural consumption is mostly explained by the growing demand for furfuraldehyde\u2019s main downstream product, furfuryl alcohol. Chinese production of furfuryl alcohol has been drastically increasing since 1999, reflecting an emphasis on manufacturing higher-value furfural products and increasing demand for furan resins from the foundry industry.\n(32)\nMoreover, domestic demand for corn cob, the main raw material used by Chinese furfuraldehyde producers, has been increasing. With the rising global population, especially in the PRC and India, and the change from a grain based diet to a protein based diet, the global demand for corn is forecasted to grow at an increased rate. The PRC is the world\u2019s second largest corn consumer. In addition to the increase in industrial uses of corn, the Chinese demand for feed and livestock production is growing 3 % to 6 % annually. Whereas the PRC\u2019s corn consumption has been growing rapidly over the last few years, its production has been falling behind the demand. It is expected that during the time period 2011-15 corn exports from the USA to the PRC will quintuple. It also has to be noted that Chinese furfural producers are facing more and more competition from xylose and xylitol producers, with whom they share the same feedstock (corn cobs).\n(33)\nConcerning Chinese exports to the EU during the RIP, it should be noted that virtually all furfuraldehyde from the country concerned is imported exclusively under inward processing arrangements (IPR). This practice started in 2000 with approx. 75 % of Chinese yearly quantities of furfuraldehyde being shipped into the Union without being subject to anti-dumping duty, with the aim of further processing them into furfuryl alcohol destined for export to third countries. Since 2001, free market imports from the country concerned have almost completely ceased.\n(34)\nThe long-term changes in the domestic demand for furfural in the PRC and the tight supply-demand situation on the Chinese corn market, along with the structure of Chinese imports to the EU as explained in the previous recital, seem to have led to a change in the level of dumping practiced by the Chinese exporting producers. A comparison of Chinese export prices to the EU with the normal value of the product concerned, all duly adjusted, shows a decrease in the dumping margin during the RIP, as compared to the previous expiry review investigation.\n(35)\nIn conclusion, the above analysis shows that the changes in the Chinese domestic demand and consumption of corn cobs and furfuraldehyde and consequently of prices, are of a lasting nature. Therefore it can be concluded that if anti-dumping measures are repealed, Chinese exports into the Union would not significantly increase.\nD. UNION INDUSTRY\n(36)\nThe Union industry (\u2018UI\u2019) consists of two companies: Lenzing AG (Austria) and Tanin Sevnica kemicna industrija d.d (Slovenia), which together account for 100 % of Union production of the like product in the RIP. On this basis, the two Union producers constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation. Neither company replied to the questionnaires sent to them or fully cooperated in the investigation.\n(37)\nGiven the lack of cooperation from the Union industry, data for examining the situation of the Union market and injury caused to the Union industry by dumped imports from the PRC has been taken from facts available, including data extrapolated from information collected in the recent expiry review which covered the period from 1 January 2007 until 31 March 2010. Any sources given for the data in the tables below therefore relates to the period 2007-09 unless specified. Nutrafur, the Spanish producer that lodged the original complaint in 1994 under the name of Furfural Espanol S.A., ceased production in October 2008. The production figures of Nutrafur in 2008 were included in the consumption in the Union market. For reasons of confidentiality data concerning the performance of the Union industry are given only in indexed form.\nE. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Consumption in the Union market\n(38)\nUnion consumption of furfuraldehyde for 2008 and 2009 was established on the basis of the verified sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market (including the sales of Nutrafur until October 2008 while it was still producing furfuraldehyde) plus imports under Inward Processing Regime (IPR) from the PRC and imports from other third countries into free circulation, based on data of the importer International Furan Chemicals BV (\u2018IFC\u2019) verified during the last expiry review investigation and Eurostat. As Eurostat does not disclose the complete information for confidentiality reasons, Eurostat data were used only for the imports from other third countries except the PRC and the Dominican Republic, since IFC is the sole importer of furfuraldehyde from these sources.\n(39)\nFacts available were used for 2010 and the RIP due to the lack of cooperation from both the Union industry and the sole importer and the confidentiality of large amounts of data usually available from Eurostat. In the absence of any indications to the contrary, there was no reason to believe that there has been any marked shift in Union consumption since 2009 and it was considered that it remained at the same levels during 2010 and the RIP.\n(40)\nOn this basis, during the period considered, the Union consumption decreased by 17 %, from 45 738 tonnes in 2008 to 38 000 tonnes during the RIP.\nTable 1 - Union consumption\nYear\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nTonnes\n45 738\n38 175\n38 000\n38 000\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n83\n83\n83\nY/Y trend\n-17\n0\n0\nSource:\nverified questionnaire replies of the Union industry and IFC, Eurostat\n2. Imports from the PRC\n2.1. Volume, market share and prices\n(41)\nAccording to Chinese export statistics, Chinese imports were being made under IPR during the RIP. The Chinese IPR volume increased from 10 002 tonnes in 2008 to 13 975 tonnes in the RIP, i.e. by 40 %. Over the period considered the Chinese market share for IPR increased from 22 % to 37 %, i.e. by 15 percentage points.\n(42)\nThe Chinese IPR price increased by 47 % from EUR 1 014 per MT in 2008 to EUR 1 488 in the RIP. It is noted that during the RIP prices of Chinese imports increased rapidly, reaching a high point of over 1 700 EUR/MT.\nTable 2 - Imports from the PRC\nYear\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nTonnes\n10 002\n5 159\n8 375\n13 975\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n52\n84\n140\nY/Y trend\n-48\n32\n56\nMarket share\n22 %\n14 %\n22 %\n37 %\nPrice, EUR/tonne\n1 014\n690\n1 362\n1 488\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n68\n134\n147\nSource:\nVerified questionnaire response of IFC, Chinese export statistics\n3. Import volumes and prices from other third countries\n(43)\nIt should be noted that, as in the original investigation, imports from the Dominican Republic were entirely shipments from a parent company to its European subsidiary to produce furfuryl alcohol. Thus, the prices used in these transactions are transfer prices between related companies which may not reflect real market prices. Given the lack of cooperation from the importer concerned and the confidentiality of data in Eurostat, it has been assumed that imports and prices from the Dominican Republic remained constant during 2010 and the RIP.\nTable 3 - Imports into the Union from the Dominican Republic\nYear\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nTonnes\n27 662\n24 996\n25 000\n25 000\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n90\n90\n90\nY/Y trend\n-10\n0\n0\nMarket share\n60 %\n65 %\n66 %\n66 %\nPrice, EUR/tonne\n982\n582\n582\n582\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n59\n59\n59\n(44)\nAccording to Eurostat, import volumes of furfuraldehyde into the Union from countries other than the PRC, together with their average prices, developed as follows:\nTable 4 - Imports into the Union from other third countries\nYear\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nTonnes\n1 583\n1 226\n138\n162\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n77\n9\n10\nY/Y trend\n-23\n-68\n1\nMarket share\n3 %\n3 %\n1 %\n1 %\nPrice, EUR/tonne\n997\n632\n1 473\n1 685\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n63\n148\n169\n4. Export volumes and prices from the EU to other third countries\n(45)\nDuring the period considered data was only available for 2008 and 2009. No reliable statistical data was available to assess the evolution of the dataset into 2010 and the RIP. In the absence of cooperation from the Union industry facts available were used and the assumption made that exports from the EU would continue at the same volume levels as 2009 with a price increase in line with that found on the Union market.\nTable 5 - Export volumes and prices of the Union Industry to other third countries\nYear\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nQuantities - Index (2008 = 100)\n100\n155\n155\n155\nY/Y trend\n55\n0\n0\nPrices - Index (2008 = 100)\n100\n77\n134\n147\nY/Y trend\n-23\n57\n13\n5. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(46)\nThe economic situation of the Union industry, i.e. the two companies Lenzing and Tanin, is analysed below using data collected during the expiry review plus facts available for the current review investigation period (RIP).\n5.1. Production\n(47)\nThe total production by the Union industry of the like product increased by 5 % until 2009. In the absence of other data it was assumed that production remained stable in 2010 and the RIP.\nTable 6 - Union production\nYear\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n105\n105\n105\nY/Y trend\n5\n0\n0\nSource:\nVerified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n5.2. Production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(48)\nThe total production capacity of the Union industry remained the same in 2008 and 2009. Given the lack of cooperation from the Union industry it was assumed that capacity and utilisation remained the same in 2010 and the RIP.\nTable 7 - Union capacity\nYear\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n100\n100\n100\nCapacity utilisation\n92 %\n96 %\n96 %\n96 %\nSource:\nVerified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n5.3. Level of stocks\n(49)\nGiven the lack of cooperation of the Union industry it was assumed that stock levels remained the same as they were at the end of 2009.\nTable 8 - Stocks\nYear\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n56\n56\n56\nY/Y trend\n-44\n0\n0\nSource:\nVerified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n5.4. Sales volume and market share\n(50)\nThe Union industry\u2019s sales volume to unrelated customers in the Union market increased by 12 % from 2008 to 2009. In the absence of data from the Union industry it was assumed that volume of sales did not increase in 2010 or the RIP.\nTable 9 - Sales volume and Union market share\nYear\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n112\n112\n112\nMarket share ranged\n10-20 %\n14-24 %\n14-24 %\n14-24 %\nSource:\nVerified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n5.5. Average sales prices\n(51)\nDuring the period considered the average sales prices charged by the Union industry on the Union market increased substantially by 36 %. This was caused by a large price increase during 2010 and the RIP.\nTable 10 - Average sales price in the EU\nYear\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n89\n108\n136\nY/Y trend\n-11\n19\n28\nSource:\nVerified questionnaire replies of the Union producers plus facts made available to the Commission\n5.6. Average cost of production\n(52)\nAs no cost of production data was made available by the Union industry for 2010 and the RIP data from the previous expiry review was increased by 6 % to take into account inflation during the period.\nTable 11 - Average cost of production\nYear\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n100\n102\n106\nY/Y trend\n0\n2\n4\nSource:\nVerified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n5.7. Profitability and cash flow\n(53)\nCalculation of the profits made by the Union industry, based on the price and cost data above, showed a significant increase during the period considered due to the price increases on the Union market combined with no evidence of increase in production costs beyond inflation. Cash flow is considered, in the absence of any other data, to have followed a trend similar to profitability.\nTable 12 - Profitability and cash flow\nYear\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nProfitability Index (2008 = 100)\n100\n96\n153\n297\nY/Y trend\n-4\n57\n144\nCash Flow - Index (2008 = 100)\n100\n34\n69\n69\nY/Y trend\n-66\n35\n0\nSource:\nVerified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n5.8. Investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital\n(54)\nIn the absence of data from the Union industry, given the increases in prices in 2010 and the RIP it has been assumed that there was a return to the level of investment as that seen in 2007. Return on investment has been assumed to follow the same basic trend as profitability shown in Table 12.\nTable 13 - Investments and return on investments\nYear\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nInvestments index (2008 = 100)\n100\n3\n163\n163\nY/Y trend\n-97\n160\n0\nReturn on investments index (2008 = 100)\n100\n-4\n100\n200\nY/Y trend\n- 104\n104\n100\nSource:\nVerified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n5.9. Employment and productivity\n(55)\nGiven the lack of information from the Union industry for 2010 and the RIP it has been considered that employment and productivity remained constant during the period considered.\nTable 14 - Employment and productivity\nYear\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nEmployment - Index\n100\n100\n100\n100\nProductivity (tonnes/employees) - Index\n100\n100\n100\n100\nLabour costs - Index\n100\n100\n100\n100\nSource:\nVerified questionnaire replies of the Union producers\n5.10. Magnitude of dumping margin\n(56)\nDespite the lack of cooperation from the Chinese exporting producers, the volume and value of imports was analysed from Eurostat together with an estimation of market share. The significant price increase in 2010 and 2011 has dramatically reduced the margin of dumping from the PRC since the expiry review investigation period.\n5.11. Recovery from the effects of dumped imports\n(57)\nAs shown by the positive evolution of most of the indicators listed above, during the period considered the financial situation of the Union industry has fully recovered from the injurious effect of the significantly dumped imports that were identified by previous investigations originating in the PRC.\n6. Conclusion on the economic situation of the Union industry\n(58)\nThe measures against the PRC have had a positive impact on the economic situation of the Union industry, since most of the injury indicators showed a positive development: production, sales volume and sales value increased between 2008 and the RIP. However given the substantial increase in prices on the Union market, the Union industry is now achieving profits far in excess of the target profit, set at the original investigation as being 5 %, to ensure its development.\n(59)\nGiven the significant increase in prices on the Union market during the RIP, with no evidence of a parallel increase in costs, it is concluded that the Union industry has not suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5).\n7. Conclusion on the lasting nature of these changed circumstances\n(60)\nConsideration has been given as to whether the increase in prices on the Union market is a lasting change in circumstances from the findings of the previous expiry review investigation. The data available shows prices on the Union market recovering strongly, matching the levels of 2008 and then overtaking these amounts whereas in the expiry review investigation prices were falling. Moreover, unlike in the expiry review, no evidence of undercutting was found. In the expiry review, profitability was on a downward trend but data after the end of that investigation shows profitability recovering strongly, matching the levels of 2008 and then exceeding them.\n(61)\nIt was analysed whether, however, the change in prices since the end of the expiry review investigation period could be based on a particularly poor harvest season in the PRC, as furfuraldehyde is produced there from agricultural waste. However the price has not fallen significantly since the harvest season at the end of 2010 and therefore this was discounted. It appeared that there had been an increase in the prices of imports originating in the PRC caused by the long-term growth in the domestic demand for furfuraldehyde and the rising raw material costs in the country concerned. Due to the lack of cooperation from the Chinese exporting producers, this could not be verified, but the Commission received no evidence that this was not the case.\n(62)\nGiven the evidence available to the Commission referred to above, and the lack of information showing that the price increases referred to have been temporary, it has been concluded that this change is of a lasting nature.\nF. TERMINATION OF THE ANTI-DUMPING PROCEEDING AND REPEAL OF THE ANTIDUMPING MEASURES IN FORCE\n(63)\nIn light of the above, it is considered that the present anti-dumping review should be terminated and the anti-dumping measures in force be repealed.\n(64)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be terminated. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. No comments were received.\n(65)\nIt follows from the above that the present anti-dumping review should be terminated and the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 453/2011 on imports of furfuraldehyde originating in the PRC should be terminated and the existing duty repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe interim review of the anti-dumping duties applicable to imports of 2-furaldehyde (also known as furfuraldehyde or furfural) currently falling within CN code 2932 12 00 originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 453/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 21 June 2012.", "references": ["82", "61", "11", "77", "67", "19", "65", "88", "43", "85", "36", "57", "89", "42", "0", "17", "91", "46", "69", "16", "14", "41", "74", "78", "32", "3", "94", "12", "35", "31", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "IMPLEMENTING REGULATION OF THE COUNCIL (EU) No 364/2010\nof 26 April 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain finished polyester filament fabrics originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005 (2),\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. MEASURES IN FORCE\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the European Union of woven fabrics of synthetic filament yarn containing 85 % or more by weight of textured and/or non-textured polyester filament, dyed (including dyed white) or printed, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 5407 51 00, 5407 52 00, 5407 54 00, ex 5407 61 10, 5407 61 30, 5407 61 90, ex 5407 69 10 and ex 5407 69 90 (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nGiven the large number of cooperating parties, a sample of Chinese exporting producers was selected during the investigation which led to the imposition of the measures.\n(3)\nThe sampled companies were attributed the individual duty rates established during the investigation. The cooperating non-sampled companies which were granted market economy treatment (MET), in accordance with the provisions of Article 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3), were attributed the weighted average duty of 14,1 % which was established for the sampled companies which were granted MET. The cooperating non-sampled companies which were granted individual treatment (IT), in accordance with the provisions of Article 9(5) of the same Regulation, received the weighted average duty of 37,1 % established for the sampled companies that were granted IT. A countrywide duty of 56,2 % was imposed on all other companies.\n(4)\nFollowing an anti-absorption reinvestigation pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1087/2007 (4) increased the countrywide duty to 74,8 %. In addition, Chinese exporting producers with individual duty rates that did not cooperate in the reinvestigation were attributed higher anti-dumping duties in accordance with the provisions of Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96.\n(5)\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005 gives the possibility to Chinese exporting producers which meet the four criteria set out in that Article to be granted the same treatment as the one set out in recital 3 for the cooperating companies not included in the sample (\u2018New Exporting Producer Treatment\u2019 or \u2018NEPT\u2019).\n2. NEW EXPORTING PRODUCERS\u2019 REQUEST\n(6)\nOne group of companies consisting of two related companies, namely AlbaChiara Printing and Dyeing (Jiaxing) Co. Ltd, and Jiaxing E. Boselli Textile Trading Co. Ltd (\u2018the applicant\u2019), requested to be granted NEPT.\n(7)\nAn examination has been carried out to determine whether the applicant fulfils the criteria for being granted NEPT as set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005, by verifying that:\n(a)\nit did not export the product concerned to the European Union during the investigation period on which the measures are based (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) (\u2018the first criterion\u2019),\n(b)\nit is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the People\u2019s Republic of China which are subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by that Regulation (\u2018the second criterion\u2019),\n(c)\nit has actually exported to the European Union the product concerned after the investigation period on which the measures are based, or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity of the product concerned to the European Union (\u2018the third criterion\u2019),\n(d)\nit operates under market economy conditions defined in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation or, alternatively, that it fulfils the requirements to have an individual duty in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation (\u2018the fourth criterion\u2019).\n(8)\nQuestionnaires were sent to the applicant asking it to supply evidence to demonstrate that it met the first, second and third criteria.\n(9)\nSince the fourth criterion implies that the applicants submit a claim for MET and/or IT, the Commission sent MET and IT claim forms to the applicant. The applicant requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.\n(10)\nBriefly, and for ease of reference only, the MET criteria are set out in summarised form below:\n(a)\nbusiness decisions and costs are made in response to market signals and without significant State interference; and costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values;\n(b)\nfirms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards (5) and are applied for all purposes;\n(c)\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;\n(d)\nbankruptcy and property laws guarantee legal certainty and stability;\n(e)\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates.\n(11)\nExporting producers fulfilling the criteria mentioned in recital 7 may, pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005, be granted either the 14,1 % duty rate applicable to companies to which MET was granted in accordance with Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, or the weighted average duty rate of 37,1 % applicable to companies to which IT was granted in accordance with Article 9(5) of the same Regulation.\n(12)\nThe European Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of determining whether the four criteria set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005 had been fulfilled. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n-\nAlbaChiara Printing and Dyeing (Jiaxing) Co. Ltd, Jiaxing,\n-\nJiaxing E. Boselli Textile Trading Co. Ltd, Jiaxing.\n3. FINDINGS\n(13)\nThe applicant has provided sufficient evidence to prove that it meets the four criteria mentioned in recital 7. The applicant in fact could prove that (i) it did not export the product concerned to the European Union during the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004, (ii) it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the People\u2019s Republic of China which are subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005, (iii) it actually exported a significant quantity of the product concerned to the European Union starting from the year 2008, (iv) it fulfils all the requirements for MET and can therefore be granted an individual duty in accordance with Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, the applicant could be granted the weighted average duty rate applicable to cooperating companies not included in the sample which have been granted MET (i.e. 14,1 %) in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005, and should be added to the list of exporting producers in Article 1(2) of that Regulation.\n4. MODIFICATION OF THE LIST OF COMPANIES BENEFITING FROM INDIVIDUAL DUTY RATES\n(14)\nIn consideration of the findings of the investigation as indicated in recital 13, it is concluded that the companies AlbaChiara Printing and Dyeing (Jiaxing) Co. Ltd, and Jiaxing E. Boselli Textile Trading Co. Ltd should be added to the list of individual companies mentioned under Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005 with a duty rate of 14,1 %.\n(15)\nThe applicant and the Union industry have been informed of the findings of the investigation and have had the opportunity to submit their comments. No additional information was brought forward permitting to lead to any different conclusion for the applicant,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005 shall be amended by adding the following companies in the table of companies with individual duty rates:\nCompany\nDefinitive anti-dumping duty\nTARIC additional code\n\u2018AlbaChiara Printing and Dyeing (Jiaxing) Co. Ltd\n14,1 %\nA617\nJiaxing E. Boselli Textile Trading Co. Ltd\n14,1 %\nA617\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["42", "87", "40", "47", "51", "53", "69", "41", "29", "37", "59", "71", "64", "32", "91", "49", "50", "52", "14", "38", "90", "74", "27", "88", "35", "2", "28", "18", "20", "44", "No Label", "48", "89", "95", "96"], "gold": ["48", "89", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 913/2011\nof 12 September 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 911/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2011.", "references": ["18", "21", "99", "48", "97", "70", "44", "83", "30", "62", "88", "67", "75", "73", "54", "29", "51", "60", "26", "45", "80", "13", "76", "61", "92", "57", "17", "69", "27", "79", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 29 April 2011\non the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2010 financial year\n(notified under document C(2011) 2927)\n(2011/271/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 33 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the Commission, on the basis of the annual accounts submitted by the Member States, accompanied by the information required for the clearance of accounts and a certificate regarding the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts and the reports established by the certification bodies, clears the accounts of the paying agencies referred to in Article 6 of the said Regulation.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the keeping of accounts by the paying agencies, declarations of expenditure and revenue and the conditions for reimbursing expenditure under the EAGF and the EAFRD (2), the financial year for the EAGF accounts begins on 16 October of year N-1 and ends on 15 October of year N. In the framework of clearing the accounts, for the purpose of aligning the reference period for EAFRD expenditure with that of the EAGF, account should be taken for the 2010 financial year of expenditure incurred by the Member States between 16 October 2009 and 15 October 2010.\n(3)\nThe second subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (3) lays down that the amounts that are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State, in accordance with the accounts clearance decision referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the said Regulation, shall be established by deducting the intermediate payments in respect of the financial year concerned from the expenditure recognised for the same year in accordance with paragraph 1. The Commission shall deduct that amount from or add it to the following intermediate payment.\n(4)\nThe Commission has checked the information submitted by the Member States and it has communicated to the Member States before 31 March 2011 the results of its verifications, along with the necessary amendments.\n(5)\nThe annual accounts and the accompanying documents permit the Commission to take, for certain paying agencies, a decision on the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts submitted. Annex I lists the amounts cleared by Member States and the amounts to be recovered from or paid to the Member States.\n(6)\nThe information submitted by certain other paying agencies requires additional inquiries and their accounts cannot be cleared in this Decision. Annex II lists the paying agencies concerned.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 33(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities shall be borne by the Member State concerned if the recovery of those irregularities has not taken place prior to the closure of a rural development programme within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, or on the closure of the programme if those deadlines expire prior such closure. Article 33(4) of the said Regulation obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, together with the annual accounts, a summary report on the recovery procedures undertaken in response to irregularities. Detailed rules on the application of the Member States\u2019 reporting obligation of the amounts to be recovered are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. Annex III to the said Regulation provides the table that had to be provided in 2010 by the Member States. On the basis of the tables completed by the Member States, the Commission should decide on the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities older than 4 or 8 years respectively. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 33(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(8)\nPursuant to Article 33(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, after closure of a rural development programme Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. Such a decision may only be taken if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered or if the recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. If that decision has been taken within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, 100 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery should be borne by the Community budget. In the summary report referred to in Article 33(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 the amounts for which the Member State decided not to pursue recovery and the grounds for the decision are shown. These amounts are not charged to the Member States concerned and are consequently to be borne by the Community budget. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 33(5) of the said Regulation.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision, does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from European Union financing expenditure not effected in accordance with European Union rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nWith the exception of the paying agencies referred to in Article 2, the accounts of the paying agencies of the Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in respect of the 2010 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State under each rural development programme pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 33(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 2\nFor the 2010 financial year, the accounts of the Member States\u2019 paying agencies in respect of expenditure per Rural Development programme financed by the EAFRD, set out in Annex II, are disjoined from this Decision and shall be the subject of a future clearance of accounts Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 April 2011.", "references": ["53", "4", "16", "6", "58", "22", "56", "75", "23", "74", "90", "38", "13", "7", "43", "12", "73", "33", "1", "11", "85", "27", "64", "45", "0", "52", "5", "95", "79", "94", "No Label", "10", "17", "47", "61", "96"], "gold": ["10", "17", "47", "61", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 343/2010\nof 22 April 2010\nfixing the export refunds on pigmeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), final subparagraph, and Article 170 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVII of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Community market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in pigmeat, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162 to 164, 167, 169 and 170 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Community and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the condition provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 must meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) Nos 852/2004 and 853/2004, notably preparation in an approved establishment and compliance with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 April 2010.", "references": ["13", "88", "23", "28", "21", "31", "85", "86", "70", "67", "43", "71", "11", "22", "48", "35", "0", "51", "97", "32", "68", "58", "53", "12", "76", "83", "36", "78", "44", "7", "No Label", "20", "69", "72"], "gold": ["20", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 816/2010\nof 16 September 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on tomatoes\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single \u2018CMO Regulation\u2019) (1), and in particular Article 143(b) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2) provides for surveillance of imports of the products listed in Annex XVII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of applying Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded as part of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2007, 2008 and 2009, the trigger levels for additional duties on tomatoes should be adjusted.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 September 2010.", "references": ["30", "98", "54", "53", "61", "71", "15", "70", "44", "50", "51", "14", "68", "78", "20", "81", "37", "72", "90", "95", "29", "65", "43", "63", "41", "11", "77", "59", "27", "82", "No Label", "4", "10", "17", "21", "25", "62"], "gold": ["4", "10", "17", "21", "25", "62"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 8 November 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products reached on the basis of Article 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area\n(2010/676/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area foresees that the contracting parties undertake to continue their efforts with a view to achieving progressive liberalisation of agricultural trade between them.\n(2)\nIn September 2005 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with Norway with a view to achieving greater liberalisation of bilateral trade in agricultural products, in the framework of Article 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. The negotiations were successfully concluded and an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products reached on the basis of Article 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) was initialled on 28 January 2010.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products reached on the basis of Article 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (1).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["90", "2", "24", "53", "37", "46", "84", "45", "39", "82", "48", "74", "69", "54", "43", "28", "65", "47", "14", "80", "26", "92", "85", "34", "60", "35", "79", "95", "87", "52", "No Label", "21", "23", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "23", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "Council Decision\nof 27 October 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Argentine Republic pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union\n(2011/769/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1) On 29 January 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with certain other Members of the World Trade Organisation under Article XXIV:6 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 in the course of the accessions to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania.\n(2) Negotiations have been conducted by the Commission within the framework of the negotiating directives adopted by the Council.\n(3) These negotiations have been concluded and the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Argentine Republic pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (\"the Agreement\") was initialled on 22 September 2010.\n(4) The Agreement was signed on behalf of the Union on 20 April 2011, subject to its conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2011/256/EU [1].\n(5) The Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Argentine Republic pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (\"the Agreement\") is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to give, on behalf of the Union, the notification provided for in the Agreement [2].\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["29", "35", "5", "50", "16", "79", "14", "94", "58", "39", "55", "90", "44", "26", "98", "63", "15", "30", "74", "40", "64", "46", "20", "2", "48", "36", "6", "7", "99", "53", "No Label", "3", "9", "21", "22", "23", "91", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "21", "22", "23", "91", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 12 May 2010\namending Decision 2009/821/EC as regards the lists of border inspection posts and veterinary units in Traces\n(notified under document C(2010) 3040)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/277/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 20(1) and (3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (2), and in particular the last sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (3), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/821/EC of 28 September 2009 drawing up a list of approved border inspection posts, laying down certain rules on the inspections carried out by Commission veterinary experts and laying down the veterinary units in Traces (4) lays down a list of border inspection posts approved in accordance with Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC. That list is set out in Annex I to that Decision.\n(2)\nThe Commission inspection service, the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) carried out an inspection at the border inspection post at the port of Antwerp in Belgium. The results of the inspection were satisfactory. An additional inspection centre should therefore be added for that border inspection post in the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC. In addition, the categories of the existing inspection centres at this border inspection post should be amended.\n(3)\nThe Commission inspection service, the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) carried out an inspection at the border inspection post at the port of Gda\u0144sk in Poland. The results of the inspection were satisfactory. An additional inspection centre should therefore be added for that border inspection post in the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(4)\nFollowing communications from Denmark and Poland, certain inspection centres at border inspection posts for those Member States should be deleted from the list of border inspection posts set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(5)\nFollowing communication from France, the border inspection post at Brest airport should be deleted from the list of border inspection posts set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC. In addition, certain categories at the border inspection posts at the airports at Lyon-Saint Exup\u00e9ry, Marseille a\u00e9roport and Nice should be modified in the list of border inspection posts set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(6)\nFollowing communication from Italy, certain categories at the border inspection posts at the airports at Milano-Linate, Milano-Malpensa, Palermo, Reggio Calabria and Rimini should be suspended in the list of border inspection posts set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC. In addition, certain categories at the border inspection post at the port at Napoli should be modified in the list of border inspection posts set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(7)\nFollowing communication from Latvia, the border inspection post at the port of Riga (Baltmarine Terminal) should be deleted from the list of border inspection posts set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC. In addition, the listing of the categories for the two inspection centres at the approved border inspection post at Riga port should be corrected in the list of border inspection posts set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(8)\nFollowing communication from Spain, the list of border inspection posts for that Member State should be amended to take account of the suspension of two of its border inspection posts, of lifting the suspension for certain categories of products of animal origin that can be checked at one of its border inspection posts and of limiting the approval categories for products of animal origin at another one of its border inspection posts already approved in accordance with Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(9)\nFollowing communication from the Netherlands, the name of one Inspection Centre at the port of Rotterdam should be amended in the list of border inspection posts set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(10)\nThe list of central units, regional units and local units in Traces is laid down in Annex II to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(11)\nFollowing communications from Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia and Finland, certain changes to the central, regional and local units in Traces should be reflected in the Annex II to Decision 2009/821/EC for those Member States.\n(12)\nDecision 2009/821/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Decision.\n2. Annex II to Decision 2009/821/EC is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2010.", "references": ["11", "77", "92", "99", "16", "53", "46", "17", "12", "74", "7", "70", "63", "9", "91", "95", "49", "23", "98", "76", "82", "60", "18", "47", "72", "71", "38", "50", "41", "81", "No Label", "2", "13", "21", "22", "39", "54", "61", "69"], "gold": ["2", "13", "21", "22", "39", "54", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 582/2012\nof 2 July 2012\napproving the active substance bifenthrin, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Bifenthrin is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included bifenthrin. By Commission Decision 2009/887/EC (6) it was decided not to include bifenthrin in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to France, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2009/887/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nFrance evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 6 August 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on bifenthrin to the Commission on 11 May 2011 (7). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 1 June 2012 in the format of the Commission review report for bifenthrin.\n(6)\nThe additional report by the rapporteur Member State and the new conclusion by the Authority concentrate on the concerns that led to the non-inclusion. Those concerns were in particular the potential contamination of groundwater by a major soil degradation product (TFP acid), a possible underestimation of the risk to consumers, due to the limited number of residue data made available and the lack of investigation on the metabolism pattern of the two isomers constituting bifenthrin. As regards ecotoxicology, the risk for mammals, aquatic organisms, earthworms, non-target arthropods, non-target plants and non-target soil macro-organisms had not been sufficiently addressed.\n(7)\nThe new information submitted by the applicant shows that the potential contamination of groundwater by bifenthrin and its metabolites, including TFP acid, is low. Adequate residue data and information as regards the metabolisation of the isomers have been submitted and confirm an acceptable risk for consumers. As regards ecotoxicology, the refined risk assessment for mammals, aquatic organisms, earthworms, non-target arthropods, non-target macro-organisms and non-target plants permitted to identify acceptable risk scenarios for the concerned species.\n(8)\nConsequently, the additional information provided by the applicant permits to eliminate the specific concerns that led to the non-inclusion. No other open scientific questions have arisen.\n(9)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing bifenthrin may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve bifenthrin in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(10)\nThe acceptable risk scenarios as regards ecotoxicology notwithstanding, the risk assessment revealed that bifenthrin has a potential to show bioaccumulation effects. The approval period should therefore be seven years rather than the possible maximum of 10 years.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions.\n(12)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that bifenthrin should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(13)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (8) should be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance bifenthrin, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 July 2012.", "references": ["99", "7", "93", "1", "53", "18", "41", "15", "19", "96", "2", "77", "10", "22", "20", "47", "68", "16", "92", "36", "66", "72", "11", "21", "38", "82", "98", "58", "56", "69", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 620/2010\nof 14 July 2010\non the issuing of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of July 2010 under tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for poultry meat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 of 4 June 2007 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for poultry meat originating in Brazil, Thailand and other third countries (3), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 616/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of products in the poultry meat sector.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of July 2010 for the subperiod 1 October to 31 December 2010 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined and an allocation coefficient\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod 1 October to 31 December 2010 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 July 2010.", "references": ["54", "27", "86", "51", "99", "40", "82", "4", "95", "26", "12", "0", "11", "16", "79", "35", "88", "97", "98", "23", "57", "32", "87", "5", "89", "3", "72", "81", "33", "53", "No Label", "21", "61", "66", "69"], "gold": ["21", "61", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 399/2012\nof 7 May 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature and which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2012.", "references": ["54", "42", "15", "74", "51", "40", "25", "11", "44", "98", "32", "68", "39", "97", "13", "69", "34", "80", "50", "6", "8", "0", "41", "94", "19", "58", "4", "46", "78", "95", "No Label", "21", "90"], "gold": ["21", "90"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 140/2011\nof 16 February 2011\nwithdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSubmission of applications for import licences concerning order number 09.4320 were suspended as from 28 September 2010 by Commission Regulation (EU) No 854/2010 of 27 September 2010 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 8 to 14 September 2010 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences (3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009.\n(2)\nFollowing notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for that order number. The suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe suspension laid down by Regulation (EU) No 854/2010 of submission of applications for import licences for order number 09.4320 as from 28 September 2010 is withdrawn.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 February 2011.", "references": ["5", "32", "56", "26", "65", "73", "86", "69", "30", "96", "78", "80", "77", "62", "53", "33", "67", "83", "23", "14", "2", "1", "92", "85", "82", "44", "3", "81", "93", "91", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 150/2011\nof 18 February 2011\namending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards farmed and wild game and farmed and wild game meat\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. It provides, inter alia, the requirements for the production and placing on the market of meat from farmed and wild game. Food business operators are to ensure that such meat is placed on the market only if it is produced in compliance with Sections III and IV of Annex III to that Regulation.\n(2)\nSection III of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 provides that food business operators may slaughter farmed ratites and certain farmed ungulates at the place of origin with the authorisation of the competent authority subject to certain conditions. In particular, those conditions include that the slaughtered animals are to be accompanied to the slaughterhouse by a declaration by the food business operator who reared the animals and by a certificate issued and signed by the official or approved veterinarian.\n(3)\nThe certificate issued and signed by the official or approved veterinarian is to attest to a favourable result of the ante-mortem inspection, correct slaughter and bleeding and the date and time of slaughter.\n(4)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing (2) lays down rules for the killing of animals bred or kept for the production of food, wool, skin, fur or other products. That Regulation provides that business operators are to ensure that certain slaughter operations are only carried out by persons holding a certificate of competence for such operations, demonstrating their ability to carry them out in accordance with the rules laid down in that Regulation.\n(5)\nThe presence of the official veterinarian or of the approved veterinarian at all times during slaughter and bleeding at the farm may be considered unnecessary if the food business operators carrying out slaughter operations would have the appropriate level of competence and would hold a certificate of competence for such operations, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009. In such cases, it should be permitted for the attestation of the correct slaughter and bleeding, as well as of the date and time of slaughter, to be made by the food business operators instead of by the official or approved veterinarian.\n(6)\nIn addition, Chapter II of Section IV of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 provides that, as soon as possible after the killing of large wild game, the trained person must carry out an examination of the body, and of any viscera removed, to identify any characteristics that may indicate that the meat presents a health risk. If during that examination no abnormal characteristics are found that may indicate that the meat presents a health risk, no abnormal behaviour was observed before killing and there is no suspicion of environmental contamination, the trained person must attach to the animal body a numbered declaration to that effect.\n(7)\nExperience in the application of those rules shows that it is reasonable to provide for the possibility not to attach the declaration to the animal body and also for that declaration to cover more than one animal body, provided that a clear link between the animal bodies and the declaration covering them is established and guaranteed.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (3) lays down animal and public health rules for the collection, transport, storage, handling, processing and use or disposal of animal by-products, to prevent those products from presenting a risk to animal or public health. Chapter VII of Annex VIII to that Regulation sets out the requirements for the production of game trophies.\n(9)\nIn addition, pursuant to that Regulation, technical plants are to be subject to approval by the competent authority, provided that certain conditions are met. Those conditions include, inter alia, the obligation of the technical plant to comply with the specific production requirements set out in that Regulation.\n(10)\nChapter II of Section IV of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 provides that, in the case of large wild game, the head and the viscera need not accompany the body to the game-handling establishment, except in the case of species susceptible to trichinosis, whose head (except of tusks) and diaphragm must accompany the body.\n(11)\nIn some Member States, where there is a long tradition of hunting game, it is customary to use whole heads of animals, including of those susceptible to Trichinella infestation, as a game trophy. The requirement in Chapter II of Section IV of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 creates difficulties to hunters and technical plants with regard to the production of game trophies in the case of species susceptible to Trichinella infestation.\n(12)\nThe possibility should therefore be given to the competent authority to authorise the sending of heads of animals susceptible to Trichinella infestation to an approved technical plant for the production of game trophies, even before the result of the test for Trichinella is available. In all such cases, there should be sufficient guarantees of traceability.\n(13)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 February 2011.", "references": ["32", "6", "72", "4", "76", "88", "7", "35", "67", "1", "79", "27", "52", "50", "3", "48", "55", "71", "53", "89", "36", "75", "37", "92", "47", "81", "11", "61", "0", "9", "No Label", "38", "66", "69", "73", "74"], "gold": ["38", "66", "69", "73", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 476/2012\nof 5 June 2012\nprohibiting fishing activities for purse seiners flying the flag of Spain or France or registered in Spain or France, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and in the Mediterranean Sea\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules on the common fisheries policy, (1) and in particular Article 36, paragraph 2 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements fixes the amount of bluefin tuna which may be fished in 2012 in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea by European Union fishing vessels.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 of 6 April 2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean (2), amending Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1559/2007, requires Member States to inform the Commission of the individual quota allocated to their vessels over 24 metres.\n(3)\nThe Common Fisheries Policy is designed to ensure the long-term viability of the fisheries sector through sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources based on the precautionary approach.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 36, paragraph (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, where the Commission finds that, on the basis of information provided by Member States and of other information in its possession fishing opportunities available to the European Union, a Member State or group of Member States are deemed to have been exhausted for one or more gears or fleets, the Commission shall inform the Member States concerned thereof and shall prohibit fishing activities for the respective area, gear, stock, group of stocks or fleet involved in those specific fishing activities.\n(5)\nThe information in the Commission\u2019s possession indicates that the fishing opportunities for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea allocated to purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Spain or France have been exhausted on 29 May 2012.\n(6)\nOn the 26, 27, and 29 May, France informed the Commission of the fact that it had imposed a stop on the fishing activities of its 9 purse seine vessels active in the 2012 bluefin tuna fishery with effect from 26 May for 3 vessels, from 27 May for 2 vessels, and with effect from 29 May for the remaining 4 vessels following the last transfer authorized that day for those 4 vessels, resulting in the prohibition of all the activities as of 30 May 2012.\n(7)\nOn 1 June 2012 Spain informed the Commission of the fact that it had imposed a stop on the fishing activities of its 6 purse seine vessels active in the 2012 bluefin tuna fishery, with effect from 29 May for 2 of the said vessels and with effect from of 30 May for the remaining 4 vessels, resulting in the prohibition of all the activities as of 30 May 2012\n(8)\nWithout prejudice to the actions by France and Spain mentioned above, it is necessary that the Commission confirms the prohibition of fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W and the Mediterranean Sea, as from 30 May 2012 by purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Spain or France.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean by purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in France or Spain shall be prohibited as from 30 May at the latest.\nIt shall also be prohibited to retain on board, place in cages for fattening or farming, tranship, transfer or land such stock caught by those vessels as from that date.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 June 2012.", "references": ["77", "12", "13", "94", "60", "64", "57", "53", "76", "7", "18", "87", "43", "40", "84", "83", "21", "27", "81", "74", "75", "34", "82", "52", "46", "33", "44", "78", "80", "66", "No Label", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 927/2010\nof 15 October 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 October 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 October 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 October 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 October 2010.", "references": ["63", "7", "36", "97", "90", "81", "69", "3", "67", "18", "52", "61", "83", "76", "78", "51", "48", "17", "94", "75", "16", "5", "73", "87", "44", "21", "30", "37", "24", "55", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 518/2010\nof 15 June 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 June 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 4 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 June 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 June 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2010.", "references": ["77", "1", "63", "2", "28", "4", "70", "7", "21", "61", "89", "75", "5", "56", "84", "76", "83", "72", "52", "36", "60", "19", "29", "27", "65", "64", "94", "39", "42", "15", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1020/2011\nof 14 October 2011\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 as regards the maximum amount of support for markets withdrawals for nectarines and peaches\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 103h in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2) provide for rules on the application of crisis management and prevention measures in respect of fruit and vegetables, production of which is highly unpredictable.\n(2)\nSurplus of fruit and vegetables on the market may occur and can significantly disturb the market. In this case, crisis management and prevention measures can include market withdrawals as referred to in Article 103c(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and in Article 75 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 to stabilise producer prices.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 79(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, Annex XI to that Regulation sets out the maximum amounts of support for market withdrawals for the products referred thereto. Those amounts have to be fixed so as to avoid that withdrawals become a permanent alternative outlet for products compared to placing them on the market and to ensure at the same time that withdrawals remain an effective instrument for crisis prevention and management.\n(4)\nIn the light of the prevailing market situation for peaches and nectarines and in order to mitigate the impact of a sudden drop in prices this summer, the maximum amounts of support for market withdrawals for peaches and nectarines should be adjusted.\n(5)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nIt is appropriate to apply the new amounts of support as from 19 July 2011 onwards, the date around which the significance of the drop in prices for peaches and nectarines became apparent. This Regulation should therefore enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(7)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XI to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 19 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2011.", "references": ["53", "8", "41", "23", "33", "77", "0", "17", "70", "51", "55", "66", "26", "38", "83", "50", "75", "5", "19", "91", "78", "3", "30", "46", "97", "14", "44", "25", "65", "81", "No Label", "20", "62", "68"], "gold": ["20", "62", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 46/2012\nof 19 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 January 2012.", "references": ["43", "93", "80", "81", "40", "65", "23", "26", "10", "52", "5", "2", "25", "63", "74", "73", "62", "94", "4", "76", "71", "15", "31", "16", "53", "46", "14", "77", "70", "7", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 169/2012\nof 27 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 February 2012.", "references": ["82", "49", "80", "51", "87", "76", "58", "83", "98", "94", "84", "3", "42", "65", "59", "19", "10", "17", "30", "5", "28", "78", "33", "77", "13", "4", "47", "46", "8", "6", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 618/2011\nof 24 June 2011\nwithdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under tariff quota 09.4380\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2011 of 28 March 2011 opening an exceptional import tariff quota for certain quantities of sugar in the 2010/11 marketing year (3) suspends the import duties for sugar falling within CN 1701 and with order number 09.4380 for a quantity of 300 000 tonnes.\n(2)\nSubmission of applications for import licences concerning order number 09.4380 were suspended as from 20 April 2011 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 393/2011 of 19 April 2011 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 April 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences (4), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009.\n(3)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 589/2011 of 20 June 2011 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2011 opening an exceptional import tariff quota for certain quantities of sugar in the 2010/11 marketing year (5), increased by 200 000 tonnes the quantities for which import duties for sugar falling within CN 1701 and with order number 09.4380 shall be suspended until 30 September 2011.\n(4)\nThe suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe suspension laid down by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 393/2011 of submission of applications for import licences for order number 09.4380 as from 20 April 2011 is withdrawn.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 June 2011.", "references": ["42", "20", "86", "98", "12", "73", "62", "17", "77", "50", "18", "69", "44", "29", "87", "34", "61", "31", "97", "15", "26", "83", "49", "57", "10", "89", "85", "67", "80", "33", "No Label", "21", "22", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 287/2012\nof 30 March 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance triflusulfuron\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2)(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Directive 2009/77/EC (2) triflusulfuron was included as active substance in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (3) for uses as a herbicide in application on sugar and fodder beet at a maximum application rate of 60 g/ha only every third year on the same field. That inclusion was further restricted by a prohibition to feed foliage of treated crops to livestock. Regarding the purity of the active substance a limit of maximum 6 g/kg was set for the impurity N,N-dimethyl-6-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine.\n(2)\nSince the replacement of Directive 91/414/EEC by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, this substance is deemed to have been approved under that Regulation and is listed in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011, implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (4).\n(3)\nOn 25 June 2010 the notifier at whose request triflusulfuron was included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC submitted an application for an amendment to the conditions of approval of triflusulfuron. It requested the removal of the restrictions on use as a herbicide and of the limit on the content of the impurity referred to in recital 1. That application was accompanied by additional information. It was submitted to France which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 (5).\n(4)\nThe rapporteur Member State assessed the additional information submitted by the applicant and prepared an addendum to the draft assessment report. It submitted that addendum to the Commission on 17 December 2010 which communicated it to the other Member States and to the European Food Safety Authority for comments. The addendum to the draft assessment report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 9 March 2012 in the format of an addendum to the Commission review report for triflusulfuron.\n(5)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations carried out that the amendment to the conditions of approval applied for does not cause any risks in addition to those already taken into account in the approval of triflusulfuron and in the Commission review report for that substance.\n(6)\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nRow number 289, triflusulfuron, of Part A of the Annex is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe column purity is replaced by the following:\n\u2018\u2265 960 g/kg\u2019;\n(2)\nin the column \u2018Specific provisions\u2019 Part A is replaced by the following:\n\u2018PART A\nOnly uses as a herbicide may be authorised.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 March 2012.", "references": ["13", "39", "52", "26", "67", "14", "28", "12", "18", "97", "78", "86", "16", "58", "7", "55", "50", "46", "92", "37", "57", "29", "36", "85", "22", "2", "81", "0", "48", "20", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 111/2012\nof 9 February 2012\nopening the tendering procedure for aid for private storage of olive oil\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(a), (d) and (j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the Commission may decide to authorise bodies, offering sufficient guarantees and approved by the Member States, to conclude contracts for the storage of olive oil that they market in the event of a serious disturbance on the market in certain regions of the European Union.\n(2)\nIn Spain and Greece, Member States that together produce more than two thirds of the total olive oil production in the Union, the average olive oil price recorded on the market during the period specified in Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 of 20 August 2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products (2), is below the level indicated in Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. This causes a serious disturbance on the markets of those Member States. The Union olive oil market is characterised by a high level of interdependence and therefore the serious disturbance of the Spanish and Greek market risks to propagate to all the olive oil producing Member States.\n(3)\nArticle 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that aid for private storage may be granted for olive oil and that the aid should be fixed by the Commission in advance or by means of a tendering procedure.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 826/2008 has established common rules for the implementation of the private storage aid scheme. Pursuant to Article 6 of that Regulation, a tendering procedure is to be opened in accordance with the detailed rules and conditions provided for in its Article 9.\n(5)\nThe global quantity up to which private storage aid can be granted should be set at a level which, according to market analysis, would contribute to the stabilisation of the market.\n(6)\nIn order to facilitate the administrative and control work relating to the conclusion of contracts, the minimum quantity of product each tender must provide for should be fixed.\n(7)\nA security should be fixed in order to ensure that the operators fulfil their contractual obligations and that the measure will have its desired effect on the market.\n(8)\nIn the light of the evolution of the market situation in the current marketing year and the forecasts for the following marketing year, the Commission should have the possibility to decide to shorten the term of contracts which are being performed and adjust the level of aid accordingly. That possibility has to be included in the contract, as provided for by Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008.\n(9)\nPursuant to Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008, the time period of notification of all valid tenders by Member States to the Commission is to be fixed.\n(10)\nIn order to prevent uncontrolled price falls, to react swiftly to the exceptional market situation and to ensure efficient management of this measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(11)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. A tendering procedure is hereby opened in order to determine the level of aid for private storage referred to in Article 31(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for the categories of olive oil listed in the Annex to this Regulation and defined in point 1 of Annex XVI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n2. The global quantity up to which aid for private storage can be granted shall be 100 000 tonnes.\nArticle 2\nApplicable rules\nRegulation (EC) No 826/2008 shall apply save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nSubmission of tenders\n1. The sub-period during which tenders may be submitted in response to the first partial invitation to tender shall begin on 17 February 2012 and shall end on 21 February 2012 at 11:00 Brussels time.\nThe sub-period during which tenders may be submitted in response to the second partial invitation to tender shall begin on the first working day following the end of the preceding sub-period and shall end on 1 March 2012 at 11:00 Brussels time.\n2. Tenders shall relate to a storage period of 150 days.\n3. Each tender shall cover a minimum quantity of at least 50 tonnes.\n4. Where an operator takes part in a tendering procedure for more than one category of oil or for vats located at different addresses, it shall submit a separate tender in each case.\n5. Tenders may be lodged only in Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Portugal and Slovenia.\nArticle 4\nSecurities\nTenderers shall establish a security of EUR 50 per tonne of olive oil covered by a tender.\nArticle 5\nShortening the term of contracts\nThe Commission may, on the basis of developments on the market in olive oil and the outlook for the future, decide, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, to shorten the term of contracts which are being performed and adjust the amount of the aid accordingly. The contract with the successful tenderer shall include reference to this option.\nArticle 6\nNotification of the tenders to the Commission\nIn accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 all valid tenders shall be notified separately by Member States to the Commission, within 24 hours from the end of each tendering sub-period as referred to in Article 3(1) of this Regulation.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 February 2012.", "references": ["54", "63", "28", "14", "40", "83", "50", "2", "11", "19", "86", "1", "78", "27", "72", "53", "47", "52", "88", "51", "45", "61", "87", "58", "79", "7", "75", "55", "67", "73", "No Label", "15", "20", "26", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "20", "26", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/72/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 14 September 2011\namending Directive 2000/25/EC as regards the provisions for tractors placed on the market under the flexibility scheme\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2000/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2000 on action to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by engines intended to power agricultural or forestry tractors (3) regulates exhaust emissions from engines installed in agricultural and forestry tractors with a view to further safeguarding human health and the environment. Directive 2000/25/EC provided that the emission limits applicable in 2010 for type approval of the majority of compression ignition engines, referred to as Stage III A, were to be replaced by the more stringent Stage III B limits, entering into force progressively as from 1 January 2011 with regard to the placing on the market, and from 1 January 2010 as regards the type-approval for those engines. Stage IV, providing for emission limits more stringent than Stage III B, will enter into force progressively as of 1 January 2013 as regards the type-approval for those engines and as of 1 January 2014 with regard to the placing on the market.\n(2)\nThe transition to Stage III B involves a step change in technology requiring significant implementation costs for re-designing the engines and for developing advanced technical solutions. However, the current global financial and economic crisis or any economic downturn should not lead to a lowering of environmental standards. This revision of Directive 2000/25/EC should therefore be considered to be exceptional. Furthermore, investments in environmentally friendly technologies are important for the promotion of future growth, jobs and health security.\n(3)\nDirective 2000/25/EC provides for a flexibility scheme to allow tractor manufacturers to purchase, during a given stage, a limited number of engines that do not comply with emission limits applicable during that stage, but which are approved in accordance with the requirements of the stage immediately preceding the applicable one.\n(4)\nSince 2005, Directive 2000/25/EC has provided for the evaluation of the possible need for additional flexibilities in relation to Stages III B and IV emission limits. In order to provide temporary relief to the industry when moving to the next stage, it is necessary to adapt the conditions for applying the flexibility scheme.\n(5)\nDuring Stage III B, the number of tractors that are placed on the market and that enter into service should, in each engine category, not exceed 40 % of the number of tractors placed on the market by the tractor manufacturer in that engine category. The alternative option of allowing a fixed number of tractors to be placed on the market and to enter into service under the flexibility scheme should be adapted accordingly.\n(6)\nManufacturers of tractors falling within the scope of this Directive should benefit from European financial support programmes or any relevant support programmes provided by Member States. Those support programmes may favour projects employing the best available technologies with the highest emission standards.\n(7)\nDirective 2000/25/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive reflect a temporary difficulty faced by the industry. As such, the application of those measures should be restricted to the duration of Stage III B.\n(9)\nCurrent emission limits should be made more stringent, including with respect to ultrafine black carbon particles notably by introducing particulate number limits in future legislation if this is justified by relevant impact assessments,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Directive 2000/25/EC\nDirective 2000/25/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, the following indents are added:\n\u2018-\n\u201cflexibility scheme\u201d means the exemption procedure by means of which a Member State permits the placing on the market and entry into service of a limited number of tractors in accordance with the requirements laid down by Article 3a,\n-\n\u201cengine category\u201d means the classification of engines which combines the power range with the stage of exhaust emission limits,\n-\n\u201cmaking available on the market\u201d means any supply of a tractor or engine for distribution or use on the Union market in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge,\n-\n\u201cplacing on the market\u201d means the first making available on the market of a tractor or engine,\n-\n\u201centry into service\u201d means the first use, for its intended purpose, in the Union of a tractor or engine. The date on which it is registered, if applicable, or placed on the market shall be considered the date of entry into service.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 3a is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3a\nFlexibility scheme\nBy way of derogation from Article 3(1) and (2), Member States shall provide that, at the request of the tractor manufacturer, and on condition that the approval authority has granted the relevant permit for placing on the market in accordance with the procedures laid down in Annex IV, a limited number of tractors fitted with engines approved in accordance with the requirements of the emission limits stage immediately preceding the applicable one may enter into service.\nThe flexibility scheme shall begin when a given stage becomes applicable and shall have the same duration as the stage itself. The flexibility scheme set out in section 1.2 of Annex IV shall, however, be restricted to the duration of Stage III B or to three years where no subsequent stage exists.\u2019;\n(3)\nAnnex IV is replaced by the text appearing in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 24 September 2011 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 14 September 2011.", "references": ["53", "31", "20", "19", "14", "92", "38", "51", "89", "64", "6", "57", "22", "72", "49", "13", "41", "16", "61", "7", "5", "77", "99", "84", "0", "11", "27", "69", "73", "66", "No Label", "58", "60", "65", "76", "85"], "gold": ["58", "60", "65", "76", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 November 2010\nconcerning aid for the costs of removal and destruction of fallen stock on agricultural holdings in the Walloon Region (State aid C 1/10 - Belgium)\n(notified under document C(2010) 7263)\n(Only the French and Dutch texts are authentic)\n(2010/789/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 108(2)(1) (1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) (2) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those Articles (3),\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nFollowing a complaint submitted on 23 April 2007, the Commission decided to initiate an investigation concerning alleged State aid granted by Belgium to cover costs associated with the removal and destruction of fallen stock on agricultural holdings in the Walloon Region.\n(2)\nOn 2 July 2007 the Commission sent a letter to the Belgian authorities, asking for information on the measure in question. The Belgian authorities provided information by letter of 27 July 2007, registered on 3 August 2007. At the request of the competent Belgian authorities a technical meeting was held on 21 August 2007. Following the meeting, the Belgian authorities provided, on 4 October 2007, additional information concerning the case.\n(3)\nBy letter of 10 September 2007, the Commission services informed Belgium that the aid scheme was included in the register of non-notified aid, under No NN 56/2007, as part of the funds had clearly already been paid out.\n(4)\nAt the request of the competent Belgian authorities a second technical meeting was held on 12 October 2007.\n(5)\nBy letter of 25 October 2007 the Commission services asked the Belgian authorities to provide further information. As no reply was received within the prescribed time limit, a reminder letter was sent to the Belgian authorities on 21 December 2007 with a new prescribed time limit to reply.\n(6)\nOn 4 June 2008, not having received a reply to the first reminder letter within the prescribed time limit, the Commission services sent a new reminder letter drawing the attention of the Belgian authorities to the fact that if the four-week time limit assigned for the sending of a reply was not complied with, the Commission could send an information injunction according to Article 10(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (4). This time limit expired on 4 July 2008. For this reason, on 1 October 2008 the Commission adopted a decision requiring the Belgian authorities to provide the relevant information. In this Decision, the Commission requested the Belgian authorities to submit, inter alia, the relevant information sheets, as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (5) for the assessment of the aid granted after 31 January 2007.\n(7)\nThe Belgian authorities finally replied by letter of 27 November 2008 and sent additional information on 5 December 2008. However, they did not provide the information sheets as required in the Decision of the Commission of 1 October 2008.\n(8)\nOn 27 January 2009, the Commission sent the Belgian authorities a request for additional information. The Belgian authorities replied to this request by letter of 16 March 2009, registered on 19 March 2009.\n(9)\nBy letter of 14 January 2010, the Commission informed Belgium that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (\u2018TFEU\u2019) in respect of the notified aid. The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 15 July 2010. The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures concerned. No third party submitted comments.\n(10)\nBy letter of 19 February 2010 the Belgian authorities requested that the deadline for replying set in the Commission letter of 14 January 2010 be extended by a further month. By letter of 5 March 2010 the Commission granted an extension of 1 month. Lastly, by letter of 12 March 2010 the Belgian authorities responded to the decision to initiate the procedure.\nII. BACKGROUND\nII.1. Commission Decision - Case No NN 48/2003\n(11)\nDuring the Commission\u2019s investigation it became clear that the complaint relates to the implementation of the aid scheme approved by the Commission on 26 November 2003, in State aid case NN 48/2003 (ex. N. 157/2003) entitled \u2018Management of removal and destruction of fallen stock on agricultural holdings in the Walloon Region\u2019. This case concerned a scheme notified by the Belgian authorities, whereby the Belgian State would grant, through subsided services, aid to agricultural holdings covering all costs relating to the removal, storage, processing and destruction of fallen stock.\n(12)\nIn order for the clearance decision to be adopted, and in view of the imminent entry into force of the Community Guidelines for State aid concerning TSE tests, fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste (\u2018the TSE Guidelines\u2019) (6) on 1 January 2004, the Belgian authorities committed themselves to amending their scheme. These amendments were necessary so as to comply with the conditions of the TSE Guidelines, and more specifically point 29 thereof. This point provided that Member States may grant State aid of up to 100 % of costs for the removal of fallen stock and 75 % of the costs of destruction of the carcasses. The Belgian scheme, as notified, was not in compliance with this provision, since it provided that the aid could cover 100 % of the costs of destruction of the carcasses.\n(13)\nFollowing the considerations mentioned in recitals (11) and (12) the Belgian authorities committed themselves (see recitals (33) and (34) of the Commission Decision in case No NN 48/2003) to amending their aid scheme accordingly so that from 1 January 2004, the aid provided for to cover the costs for the destruction of the carcasses would be covered only up to 75 % and not 100 %. The Belgian authorities also committed themselves to sending the Commission, at the latest by mid December 2003, evidence that the necessary changes had been made to the aid scheme.\n(14)\nBased on these commitments, the Commission approved this scheme for a duration of 5 years, beginning on 31 January 2002. This period therefore expired on 31 January 2007.\nII.2. Complaint\n(15)\nOn 23 April 2007, the Commission received a complaint alleging that the Belgian authorities were in breach of the TSE Guidelines by continuing to grant aid of up to 100 % for both the removal of fallen stock and the destruction of carcasses.\nIII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n(16)\nThe aid scheme in question concerns a regional measure aiming at covering all the costs for the provision of services for the removal, transport, storage, processing and destruction of fallen stock found on agricultural holdings located in the Walloon Region.\n(17)\nThe organisation and management of the elimination of the carcasses found on the agricultural holdings has been organised through the award by the regional authorities of a service procurement contract. Following a general call for tender launched at European Union level by means of notice of a service procurement contract (7), the contract was awarded on 31 January 2002 to the company S.A. RENDAC-UDES. It was divided into three separate lots, which corresponded to the different services to be provided.\n-\nthe collection of animal carcasses found on agricultural holdings, their transport to a processing plant, possibly through a regrouping or intermediary storage centre,\n-\nthe processing of animal carcasses, considered in their entirety as items of specified risk, and the transport of the waste resulting from the processing to thermal destruction units, and,\n-\nthe complete destruction of the waste resulting from this treatment within ad hoc facilities.\n(18)\nThe only company that submitted a bid in the framework of this call for tender was S.A. RENDAC-UDES, and it did so for all three lots. Therefore, the contract was awarded to this company on 31 January 2002, for a period of 5 years. According to the information that the Belgian authorities have submitted, the validity of the contract was extended at least four times: up to 31 December 2007, up to 31 December 2008, up to 30 June 2009 and finally up to the future implementation of the new procurement contract which, according to the Belgian authorities, should be operational by the third quarter of 2010.\n(19)\nThe aid scheme in question involves aid to owners of agricultural holdings. The Belgian authorities confirmed that although the aid was granted directly to the company S.A. RENDAC-UDES, as a service provider, for the costs of the services provided to owners of agricultural holdings, it was fully passed through to the farmers in order to cover all the costs linked to different activities of collection, transport, storage, processing and destruction, that they would otherwise have to bear. The Belgian authorities also confirmed that as regards the amounts paid directly to the company S.A. RENDAC-UDES for the costs for the services provided to owners of agricultural holdings, these corresponded entirely and uniquely to the market prices for the services provided.\n(20)\nThe Walloon waste office (Office wallon des d\u00e9chets), a service within the regional Ministry for the Environment, was in charge of paying the invoices presented by S.A. RENDAC-UDES, partly on a flat-rate basis and partly on the basis of price schedules.\n(21)\nIn the framework of the examination of Case No NN 48/2003, the Belgian authorities have confirmed that the scheme concerns only fallen stock on agricultural holdings in the Walloon Region. It does not concern animal carcasses found in animal markets or slaughterhouses.\nIV. COMMISSION DECISION OF 13 JANUARY 2010\n(22)\nIn its decision of 13 January 2010 to initiate an investigation procedure, the Commission expressed doubts as to the compatibility of the aid scheme with the EU State aid rules. More precisely the Commission concluded that the aid scheme measures in question aiming to cover more than 75 % of the costs of destroying carcasses, can be considered to be incompatible with the internal market on the basis of the TSE Guidelines and the Community Guidelines concerning State aid in the agricultural and forestry sector 2007-2013 (\u2018the 2007-2013 Guidelines\u2019) (8).\n(23)\nIn addition, given that the Commission approved the aid scheme until 31 January 2007 on the basis of the Belgian authorities\u2019 commitments to amend the scheme so as to meet the conditions of the TSE Guidelines as of 1 January 2004 and these commitments were not complied with by the Belgian authorities, the Commission has concluded that the aid granted for measures aiming to cover more than 75 % of the costs for the destruction of the carcasses was misused.\n(24)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, and in conjunction with Article 16 of this Regulation concerning misuse of aid, the Commission has decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure and has invited Belgium to submit its comments.\nV. COMMENTS FROM BELGIUM\n(25)\nIn its reply of 12 March 2010 Belgium informed the Commission that it would take the required measures to implement a new service procurement contract. According to the Belgian authorities, the specifications intended to govern the future service procurement contract was due to be finalised by 15 April 2010 at the latest and it should be operational by the third quarter of 2010. The Belgian authorities have since claimed that the service procurement contract implemented on 31 January 2002 has been extended by means of an amendment subject to the same conditions as those applicable when it was awarded on 31 January 2002.\n(26)\nMoreover, the Belgian authorities have also claimed that (i) the Walloon Region will request the application of the de minimis principle in order to settle the situation of owners of agricultural holdings for the period of 1 January 2004 to 30 June 2008, and (ii) that within a maximum of 3 months it will recover from each owner of an agricultural holding an amount corresponding to 25 % of the costs of the processing and destruction of fallen stock, calculated for the period from 1 July 2008 to the date of entry into force of the next public contract.\n(27)\nFinally, the Belgian authorities have informed the Commission that they would require the recovery of de minimis aid amounts on the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 of 6 October 2004 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the agriculture sector (9) exceeding EUR 3 000 over a period of 3 years. The Belgian authorities have also indicated that the maximum admissible amount of EUR 3 000 would have been exceeded for 58 owners of agricultural holdings.\nVI. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE\nVI.1. Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU\n(28)\nAccording to Article 107(1) of the TFEU, aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\n(29)\nThese conditions are fulfilled in the present case with regard to aid in favour of the owners of agricultural holdings. The aid in question is granted by the public authorities of the Walloon Region and confers an advantage to owners of agricultural holdings in the Walloon Region, by eliminating the costs for the removal and destruction of carcasses, which in normal circumstances should have been borne by themselves.\n(30)\nAccording to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the mere fact that the competitive position of an undertaking is strengthened compared to other competing undertakings, by giving it an economic benefit which it would not otherwise have received in the normal course of its business, points to a possible distortion of competition (10).\n(31)\nAid to an undertaking is considered to affect trade between Member States where that undertaking operates in a market open to trade within the European Union (11). There is substantial trade in the sector concerned within the European Union. Therefore, the present measure is liable to affect trade between Member States.\n(32)\nIn view of the above, it is obvious that the conditions of Article 107(1) of the TFEU are fulfilled, except for aid to which the de minimis legislation applies.\nVI.1.1. De minimis legislation\n(33)\nOn several occasions the Belgian authorities have claimed that they have applied the de minimis rules which apply to the agricultural sector. The rules which apply during the period for granting the aid are Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 of 20 December 2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the sector of agricultural production (12), which repealed Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004.\n(34)\nAid which fulfils the conditions for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 or Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 is considered not to fulfil all the criteria contained in Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n(35)\nAccording to Article 3(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007, de minimis aid cannot be cumulated with State aid in respect of the same eligible costs, if such cumulation would result in an aid intensity exceeding that laid down by European Union rules in the specific circumstances of each case. This provision applies in this case: there can be no cumulation of de minimis aid (which would represent 25 % of the costs for the destruction of carcasses that should be borne by the owners of agricultural holdings) with the remaining 75 % which according to European Union rules (point 133 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines in combination with Article 16(1)(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 (13)) can be considered compatible with Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU.\n(36)\nHowever, according to the scheme laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, it appears that a cumulation of the de minimis aid and the amounts making up 75 % of the costs of the destruction of carcasses was not excluded. This can be inferred by recital 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, according to which \u2018The de minimus rule is without prejudice to the possibility that enterprises may receive, for the same project, State aid authorised by the Commission or covered by a group exemption Regulation\u2019. The conditions for applying the Regulation and in particular the maximum aid threshold of EUR 3 000 must be fulfilled, so that any aid in excess of the EUR 3 000 threshold cannot benefit from Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 for the whole of the aid amount. In accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007, this cumulation would be possible up to 6 months after the entry into force of the Regulation, that is until 30 June 2008. After this date the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 will apply.\nVI.2. Legality of the aid\n(37)\nThe aid scheme, approved by the Commission under case No NN 48/2003 has been notified and approved for the period between 31 January 2003 and 31 January 2007. However, the Commission notes that although Belgium continued to apply the aid scheme after 1 February 2007, it failed to notify it to the Commission in accordance with Article 108(3) of the TFEU. The aid scheme therefore became an illegal State aid after 1 February 2007.\nVI.3. Compatibility of the aid\n(38)\nArticle 107(3)(c) of the TFEU provides that aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, may be considered to be compatible with the internal market.\n(39)\nThe scheme in question concerns the granting of aid, which takes the form of subsidised services, covering all the costs for services relating to the removal, transportation, processing and destruction of fallen stock on agricultural holdings in the Walloon Region.\n(40)\nAs regards the period between 31 January 2002 until 31 December 2003, the Commission Decision in case No NN 48/2003 found that the scheme could benefit from the derogation of Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU. However, as explained above, for the period after 1 January 2004, the Belgian authorities committed themselves to amending the notified State aid scheme so that it complies with the TSE Guidelines as applicable from 1 January 2004. In particular, they committed themselves to ensuring that the aid would cover only 75 % of the costs for the destruction of the carcasses (the remaining costs having to be borne by the owner of the agricultural holding himself) and to sending the Commission, at the latest by mid December 2003, evidence that the necessary changes had been made to the aid scheme.\n(41)\nThis was a requirement imposed by the TSE Guidelines, which was the text applicable at the time. In point 29, the TSE Guidelines provided that:\n\u201829.\nFrom 1 January 2004 onwards, Member States may grant State aid of up to 100 % of costs of removal of fallen stock, which has to be disposed of, and 75 % of the costs of destruction of such carcasses; [\u2026]\u2019\n(42)\nPoints 30 and 31 of the TSE Guidelines provided exceptions to the rule that the aid may cover only up to 75 % of the costs of destroying the fallen stock:\n\u201830.\nAlternatively, Member States may grant State aid of up to 100 % for costs of removal and destruction of carcasses where the aid is financed through fees or through compulsory contributions destined for the financing of the destruction of such carcasses, provided that such fees or contributions are limited to and directly imposed on the meat sector.\n31.\nMember States may grant State aid of up to 100 % for the costs of removal and destruction of fallen stock where there is an obligation to perform TSE tests on the fallen stock concerned.\u2019\n(43)\nIt is to be noted, that within the framework of the examination of Case NN 48/2003, the Belgian authorities did at no time argue that one of these exceptions could apply.\n(44)\nThe TSE Guidelines were revoked on 1 January 2007, as provided for in point 194 c) of the 2007-2013 Guidelines. Point 134 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines states that the Commission declares State aid concerning TSE tests and fallen stock compatible with Article 108(3)(c) of the TFEU, if it fulfils all the conditions of Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006.\n(45)\nArticle 16 of the Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 does not alter the substance as regards the assessment of aid granted for the removal and destruction of fallen stock. As was the case in the TSE Guidelines, it stipulates that aid at a rate of up to 100 % of costs of removal of fallen stock and 75 % of the costs of destruction of such carcasses shall be deemed compatible with the internal market (Article 16(1)(d)). The provisions of Article 16(1)(e) and 16(1)(f) provide for the possibility of derogating from the 75 % ceiling, whereby the aid rate can be increased to 100 %, when: (i) the aid is financed through fees or through compulsory contributions destined for the financing of the destruction of such carcasses, provided that such fees or contributions are limited to and directly imposed on the meat sector; or (ii) there is an obligation to carry out a TSE test on fallen stock.\n(46)\nSince the situation has not been changed in terms of the substance under the new rules (2007-2013 Guidelines and Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006) as compared to the old rules (the TSE Guidelines), the assessment of the case as regards the applicable European Union rules should be the same for the whole of the period concerned (1 January 2004 - present).\n(47)\nAs emphasised above, the Belgian authorities had committed themselves, in the framework of the examination of Case No NN 48/2003, to amending their aid scheme in a way that from 1 January 2004, the aid provided for to cover the costs for the destruction of the carcasses would not exceed 75 % of those costs. However, during the investigation of the present case, the Belgian authorities did not deny that the State aid scheme had not been amended as they had promised.\n(48)\nIn addition, the Belgian authorities have argued on several occasions (for instance in the letter dated 27 November 2008) that the second of the exceptions mentioned in recital 42 can indeed apply and that the aid can cover up to 100 % of the costs for the destruction of the carcasses. The reason, according to the Belgian authorities, was that there was an obligation to perform TSE tests on all fallen stock (Point 31 of the TSE Guidelines, and Article 16(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006. However, they have not submitted evidence in support of this claim.\n(49)\nThe main argument that Belgium brings in support of its claim is that it is obliged to perform such tests, in application of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (14). However, this argument cannot be accepted. The reason is that in application of this Regulation, the Walloon authorities have the obligation to test fallen stock for TSE as follows:\n-\nbetween 1 July 2001 and 31 December 2008, on all bovine animals over 24 months of age which have died on the holding, and,\n-\nas from 1 January 2009, on all bovine animals over 48 months of age which have died on the holding. A Member State may, however, decide to continue testing at a lower age limit between 24-48 months.\n(50)\nTherefore, the obligation to perform tests applies only for animals of a certain age (24 months for the period 1 July 2001-31 December 2008 and 48 months after that). More importantly the obligation applies only for bovine animals. Animals of other fallen species on the holding (pigs, horses, poultry etc.) do not have to be compulsorily subjected to TSE tests. From the information provided by the Belgian authorities (letter dated 27 November 2008) it appears that the number of carcasses that might be affected by this exemption under the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 represents less than 20 % - 25 % of the total costs for the fallen stock processed within the framework of the service contract. Therefore only aid related to costs which are strictly linked to the obligation to carry out the TSE tests, as provided for by Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 may be declared compatible, on the condition that these costs can be quantified precisely.\n(51)\nThe Commission also notes that the first exception allowing for the costs of removing and destroying carcasses to be covered up to 100 % by means of advance payments and compulsory contributions in the meat sector is not applicable in this case. The Belgian authorities have never invoked the applicability of this exception nor provided any evidence supporting it.\n(52)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission concludes that the measures under the aid scheme in question aiming to cover more than 75 % of the costs of destroying the carcasses are not compatible with the internal market on the basis of the TSE Guidelines or the Guidelines for 2007-2013, with the exception of the costs which are directly linked to processing animal carcasses for which there is an obligation to carry out TSE tests.\n(53)\nIn addition, given that the Commission has approved the aid scheme until 31 January 2007 on the basis of the commitments of the Belgian authorities to amend the scheme so as to comply with the conditions of the TSE Guidelines as of 1 January 2004, and these commitments were not complied with by the Belgian authorities, the Commission concludes that the aid to cover more than 75 % of the costs for the destruction of the carcasses was misused, at least with regard to the aid which is not intended to compensate the obligation to carry out TSE tests.\n(54)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, where an illegally granted State aid is incompatible with the internal market it must be recovered from the beneficiaries. The purpose is achieved once the aid in question, together where appropriate with default interest, has been repaid by the recipients or, in other words, by the undertakings which actually benefited from it.\n(55)\nThis Decision must be implemented immediately, particularly with regard to the recovery of all the individual aid granted under the scheme, apart from that granted for specific projects which, at the time the aid was granted, fulfilled all the conditions set out in the De minimis Regulation or the exemption applicable on the basis of Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to certain categories of horizontal State aid (15), or in an aid scheme approved by the Commission.\nVII. CONCLUSION\n(56)\nThe Commission finds that Belgium has unlawfully implemented the aid in question in breach of Article 108(3) of the TFEU. As the aid is partially incompatible with the internal market, Belgium must bring it to an end and recover from the beneficiary the amounts already unlawfully paid.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The aid scheme implemented by Belgium for farmers in the Walloon Region for the costs of removing and destroying the carcasses of fallen stock on agricultural holdings in the Walloon Region is partially incompatible with the internal market.\n2. Only the part of the aid intended strictly to compensate the farmers obligation to carry out TSE tests in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 is compatible with the internal market, provided that it is possible to quantify the costs precisely.\nArticle 2\nBelgium must abolish the aid scheme referred to in Article 1 above.\nArticle 3\nThe amounts granted under the aid scheme referred to in Article 1 of this Decision does not constitute aid within the meaning of the Treaty if, at the time it was granted, it fulfilled the conditions laid down by the regulation adopted pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 994/98 which was applicable at the time the aid was granted.\nArticle 4\nIndividual aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 of this Decision which, at the time it was granted, fulfilled the conditions laid down by a regulation adopted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 994/98 or by any other approved aid scheme is compatible with the internal market up to the maximum aid intensities applicable to that type of aid.\nArticle 5\n1. Notwithstanding Article 1(2), Article 3 and Article 4, Belgium shall take all the necessary measures to recover from its beneficiaries the incompatible aid referred to in Article 1 which has already been made available unlawfully.\n2. Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of this Decision. The aid to be recovered shall include interest from the date on which it was available to the beneficiaries until the date of its recovery. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the reference rate used for calculating the grant-equivalent of regional aid.\nArticle 6\nBelgium shall inform the Commission within 2 months of the date of notification of this Decision of the measures taken to comply with it.\nBelgium shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately forward to the Commission, at the latter\u2019s request, any information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision, as well as detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and interest already recovered from the beneficiary(ies).\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.\nDone at Brussels, 17 November 2010.", "references": ["66", "19", "63", "56", "61", "25", "60", "44", "59", "88", "80", "14", "30", "89", "45", "33", "95", "8", "68", "86", "83", "7", "29", "76", "27", "35", "31", "6", "77", "3", "No Label", "15", "48", "74", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "48", "74", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 444/2010\nof 21 May 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pemento da Arnoia (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Pemento da Arnoia\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2010.", "references": ["81", "21", "52", "80", "77", "22", "82", "34", "28", "65", "5", "89", "48", "40", "88", "37", "60", "57", "39", "12", "45", "1", "47", "59", "38", "55", "7", "64", "67", "49", "No Label", "23", "24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 15 February 2011\non the conclusion of the Interim Partnership Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Pacific States, of the other part\n(2011/144/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(iii) and 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 June 2002, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations to conclude Economic Partnership Agreements with ACP countries.\n(2)\nNegotiations for an Interim Partnership Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018interim EPA\u2019) were concluded on 23 November 2007 with Papua New Guinea and the Republic of the Fiji Islands.\n(3)\nThe interim EPA has not yet been concluded. Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the procedure to be followed to that end is laid down in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(4)\nThe interim EPA should be concluded on behalf of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Interim Partnership Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Pacific States, of the other part, is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall give the notification referred to in Article 76(2) of the interim EPA on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThe date of entry into force of the Agreement shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2011.", "references": ["41", "57", "79", "68", "36", "85", "89", "35", "5", "46", "48", "25", "30", "90", "6", "55", "37", "95", "88", "33", "29", "31", "63", "22", "98", "51", "59", "62", "60", "72", "No Label", "3", "9", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1088/2010\nof 23 November 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 976/2009 as regards download services and transformation services\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (1), and in particular Article 16 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 976/2009 of 19 October 2009 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the Network Services (2) sets out common technical specifications and minimum performance criteria for two types of network services - view and discovery services.\n(2)\nNetwork services also include download services and transformation services. Download services are services which give users access to the information contained in the spatial data sets related to the spatial data themes defined in Directive 2007/2/EC. Spatial data sets made available through download services should be in conformity with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 (3). Transformation services are services which may be used to put spatial data sets in conformity with that Regulation.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure the interoperability of the infrastructures for spatial information established by the Member States, it is appropriate to lay down common technical specifications and minimum performance criteria for download services and transformation services.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 976/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 22 of Directive 2007/2/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 976/2009 is amended as follows:\n1.\nin the second subparagraph of Article 2, the following point (12) is added:\n\u201812.\n\u201cDirect Access Download\u201d means a Download Service which provides access to the Spatial Objects in Spatial Data Sets based upon a query.\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 3, the following points (c) and (d) are added:\n\u2018(c)\nas concerns the Download Services, the applicable specific requirements and characteristics set out in Annexes I and IV;\n(d)\nas concerns the Transformation Services, the applicable specific requirements and characteristics set out in Annexes I and V.\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 4, the following paragraphs 3 to 6 are added:\n\u20183. Not later than 28 June 2012, Member States shall provide the Download Services with initial operating capability.\n4. Not later than 28 December 2012, Member States shall provide the Download Services in conformity with this Regulation.\n5. Not later than 28 June 2012, Member States shall provide the Transformation Services with initial operating capability.\n6. Not later than 28 December 2012, Member States shall provide the Transformation Services in conformity with this Regulation.\u2019;\n4.\nAnnex I is replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this Regulation;\n5.\nAnnex IV, set out in Annex II to this Regulation, is added;\n6.\nAnnex V, set out in Annex III to this Regulation, is added.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 November 2010.", "references": ["21", "85", "37", "96", "51", "48", "82", "17", "49", "11", "3", "84", "44", "61", "16", "40", "73", "67", "62", "80", "45", "83", "86", "81", "30", "75", "98", "46", "18", "52", "No Label", "24", "41", "42", "43", "76"], "gold": ["24", "41", "42", "43", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 539/2012\nof 22 June 2012\nfixing the maximum amount of aid granted for the private storage of olive oil under the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(d) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2012 of 22 May 2012 opening the tendering procedure for aid for private storage of olive oil (2) provides for two tendering sub-periods.\n(2)\nUnder Article 13(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 of 20 August 2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products (3), on the basis of the tenders notified by the Member States the Commission is to decide whether or not to fix a maximum amount of aid.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders submitted in response to the first partial invitation to tender, a maximum amount of aid for private storage of olive oil should be fixed for the tendering sub-period ending on 19 June 2012. The fixing of such a maximum amount of aid would lead to the global quantity provided for in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2012 being exceeded. Consequently, in accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008, the Commission is fixing an allocation coefficient for tenders which have been introduced at the maximum aid level in order to comply with the global quantity laid down.\n(4)\nIn order to send the market a swift signal and ensure that the measure is managed efficiently, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. For the tendering sub-period ending on 19 June 2012 under the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2012, the maximum amount of aid for olive oil is hereby fixed in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. An allocation coefficient of 73,37992 % shall apply to tenders introduced at the maximum aid level.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2012.", "references": ["6", "49", "61", "36", "41", "80", "69", "1", "73", "82", "44", "9", "45", "99", "68", "38", "58", "65", "35", "57", "60", "3", "72", "32", "22", "46", "14", "95", "64", "93", "No Label", "15", "20", "26", "62", "70"], "gold": ["15", "20", "26", "62", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1100/2010\nof 26 November 2010\nderogating from Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, as regards import duties for the CXL concessions sugar with order numbers 09.4317, 09.4318, 09.4319 and 09.4320, during the 2010/2011 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 144(1) and 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe world market prices for raw cane sugar have been at a constant high level since the beginning of the 2010/2011 marketing year. Forecasts of world market prices based on the New York's sugar futures exchange market for the terms of March, May and July 2011 further indicate a constant high world market price.\n(2)\nThe forecasted EU sugar balance for the 2010/2011 marketing year identifies a negative difference of 0,2 million tonnes between utilisation and what should have been available. The cumulated negative difference between availability and utilisation over the last two marketing years, which is estimated at 0,6 million tonnes, would result in the lowest level of ending stocks since the implementation of the 2006 reform. Any further shortfall of imports threatens to disrupt the availability of supply of the European Union's sugar market and increase EU internal sugar market price.\n(3)\nPursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), imports for CXL concessions sugar with order numbers 09.4317, 09.4318, 09.4319 and 09.4320 shall be subject to an in-quota rate of 98 EUR per tonne. Given the high level of world market prices for raw cane sugar, importing raw cane sugar for refining at an in-quota rate of 98 EUR per tonne is becoming uneconomical and risks disrupting the availability of supply on the European market.\n(4)\nConsidering that the situation is likely to continue, the in-quota rate of 98 EUR per tonne should be suspended for the remaining period of the 2010/2011 marketing year. It is accordingly appropriate to provide for the possibility for all interested operators to apply for licenses for the CXL concession at zero rate of import duties from 1 December 2010 until 31 August 2011.\n(5)\nImport licences, which were issued before 1 December 2010 for the CXL quotas, should remain valid under the conditions applicable during the application period. However, to protect their legitimate expectations, the concerned operators should have the possibility to return unused or partly used import licences to the competent authority without incurring the penalty provided for in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009.\n(6)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and the second paragraph of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, the import duty for CXL concessions sugar with order numbers 09.4317, 09.4318, 09.4319 and 09.4320 shall be reduced to zero until 31 August 2011.\n2. Licenses for the CXL concession sugar, that were issued before 1 December 2010 may continue to be used under the conditions valid at the time those licenses had been applied for. Alternatively, they may be returned, in which case the penalty provided in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 shall not apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall expire on 31 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 November 2010.", "references": ["47", "87", "23", "91", "38", "57", "3", "40", "73", "15", "67", "27", "78", "66", "88", "42", "33", "11", "60", "52", "41", "31", "58", "64", "80", "0", "59", "9", "13", "48", "No Label", "21", "71", "72"], "gold": ["21", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management\n(2010/804/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the \u2018Fund\u2019) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.\n(2)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.\n(4)\nPortugal submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by landslides and flooding on Madeira Island.\n(5)\nFrance submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by the storm \u2018Xynthia\u2019,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 66 891 540 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["89", "86", "20", "36", "72", "45", "59", "12", "93", "39", "50", "38", "95", "41", "63", "46", "2", "56", "19", "67", "64", "29", "48", "37", "53", "30", "32", "58", "11", "76", "No Label", "4", "10", "15", "60", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "15", "60", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/46/EU\nof 2 July 2010\namending Directives 2003/90/EC and 2003/91/EC setting out implementing measures for the purposes of Article 7 of Council Directives 2002/53/EC and 2002/55/EC respectively, as regards the characteristics to be covered as a minimum by the examination and the minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species and vegetable species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (1), and in particular Article 7(2)(a) and (b) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/55/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of vegetable seed (2), and in particular Article 7(2)(a) and (b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Directives 2003/90/EC (3) and 2003/91/EC (4) were adopted to ensure that the varieties the Member States include in their national catalogues comply with the guidelines established by the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) as regards the characteristics to be covered as a minimum by the examination of the various species and the minimum conditions for examining the varieties, as far as such guidelines had been established. For other varieties those Directives provide that guidelines of the International Union for Protection of new Varieties of Plants (UPOV) are to apply.\n(2)\nThe CPVO and UPOV have since established further guidelines for a number of other species, and have updated existing ones.\n(3)\nDirectives 2003/90/EC and 2003/91/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Directive 2003/90/EC are replaced by the text in part A of the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe Annexes to Directive 2003/91/EC are replaced by the text in part B of the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 3\nFor examinations started before 1 January 2011 Member States may apply Directives 2003/90/EC and 2003/91/EC in the version applying before their amendment by this Directive.\nArticle 4\nMember States shall adopt and publish, by 31 December 2010 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 January 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 July 2010.", "references": ["28", "41", "20", "13", "17", "71", "73", "58", "2", "47", "54", "4", "86", "84", "25", "36", "79", "21", "57", "18", "31", "23", "45", "29", "82", "9", "27", "56", "44", "42", "No Label", "7", "39", "61", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["7", "39", "61", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 248/2011\nof 9 March 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation) and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROVISIONAL MEASURES\n(1)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 812/2010 (2) (the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 3 November 2009 (the complaint) by the European Glass Fibre Producers Association (APFE, now renamed \u2018GlassFibreEurope\u2019) (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 % of the total Union production of certain continuous filament glass fibre products.\n(3)\nIt is recalled that, as set out in recital 14 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2009 (\u2018the investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (the period considered).\nB. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE\n(4)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional measures (provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard.\n(5)\nThe Commission continued to seek information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. In addition to the verifications mentioned in recital 11 of the provisional Regulation, a further verification was carried out at the premises of Saertex in Saerbeck, Germany, one of the users of glass fibres which had cooperated by replying to a users\u2019 questionnaire.\n(6)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty, as revised in accordance with this Regulation (final disclosure). They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.\n(7)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.\n1. Scope of investigation: imports originating in Malaysia, Taiwan and Turkey\n(8)\nOne exporting producer claimed that imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Malaysia, Taiwan and Turkey should have been included in the scope of the present investigation. It argued that the exclusion of these countries was discriminatory as, according to the provisional findings, the volume of imports from these three countries would not be negligible and there would be prima facie evidence of undercutting.\n(9)\nIn this respect, it should first be noted that at initiation stage, there was no prima facie evidence of dumping, injury and causal link, as required pursuant to Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation, which would justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding on imports from these countries. On the contrary, as concerns import volumes, the complainants submitted information that imports and market shares from other countries had decreased since 2004.\n(10)\nAs concerns Malaysia, Taiwan and Turkey, the analysis at the provisional stage confirmed that imports from both Taiwan and Turkey decreased over the period considered (from 2,0 % to 1,5 % and from 2,9 % to 2,5 % respectively) whereas imports from Malaysia increased slightly, from 1,0 % to 1,7 %. Although these import levels are above the de minimis import levels required pursuant to Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation, other requirements for including these countries in the investigation were not satisfied. In particular, no information has been received that would point at dumping from either one of these countries. The claim for the inclusion of Malaysia, Taiwan and Turkey is therefore rejected.\nC. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND THE LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(11)\nIt is recalled that, as set out in recital 15 of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned as described in the Notice of initiation is chopped glass fibre strands, of a length of not more than 50 mm; glass fibre rovings; slivers and yarns of glass fibre filaments; and mats made of glass fibre filaments excluding mats of glass wool and currently falling within CN codes 7019 11 00, 7019 12 00, 7019 19 10 and ex 7019 31 00 (the product concerned).\n(12)\nIn addition, as set out in recital 19 of the provisional Regulation, it was decided to provisionally treat yarns as forming part of the product concerned although this was subject to further investigation and consideration at the definitive stage.\n1.1. Yarns\n(13)\nFollowing the disclosure of provisional measures, the claim for exclusion of yarns was further investigated. In this respect it is recalled that a large number of submissions claiming that yarns should be excluded had been received prior to the imposition of provisional measures (see recitals 18 and 19 of the provisional Regulation). In addition, after the imposition of provisional measures, a substantive amount of additional and more detailed information was received from interested parties. All these comments were analysed in detail as explained below.\n(14)\nSeveral interested parties claimed that yarns should be distinguished from the other three basic product types mentioned in recital 17 of the provisional Regulation because: (i) yarns would have different physical and chemical characteristics, (ii) the production process of yarns and of the other three basic product types would be different, and (iii) yarns would be used for different purposes.\n(15)\nAs concerns the arguments (i) and (ii), evidence was submitted that pointed to distinctive features of rovings, chopped strands and mats at the one side, and yarns at the other side. More specifically, the information indicated that mats and chopped strands are typically made from rovings and not from yarns. After final disclosure, the Union industry contested this separation, claiming that some speciality chopped strands would in fact be made of yarns. However, the existence of some specialty chopped strands made from yarns does not imply that yarns should be considered as falling within the definition of the product concerned (see also recital 20 below).\n(16)\nWith regard to the first claim concerning the differences in basic chemical and physical characteristics, a study of a leading research institute was submitted by an interested party. This study compared, inter alia, the physical and chemical characteristics of rovings and yarns. After final disclosure, some reservations were made as to the findings of this comparison which in turn provoked some important comments from certain users of yarns. From this information it can be concluded that an essential chemical component of rovings, mats and chopped strands is \u2018silane\u2019, a chemical coupling agent facilitating the absorption of resin for matrixes. Yarns are usually not made with such chemical agent but rather with a starch oil based chemical substance (size) which is added as a lubricant and protective agent in order for the yarn to withstand the rigours of high-speed weaving. In contrast to the rovings, where the coupling agent helps to absorb resin, \u2018size\u2019 repels resin. As concerns the basic chemical characteristics, it was also established that the glass raw material for yarns has a more stable composition and higher uniformity of particle size than the raw material for the other product types.\n(17)\nFrom the point of view of physical characteristics, yarns appear not to share the same basic physical characteristics as the other product types. Firstly, it is generally acknowledged that yarns are in general a finer material with a much lower fibre diameter and linear density than rovings. Secondly, yarns are the only product type which is twisted (though zero twist yarns also exist).\n(18)\nWith regard to the second claim concerning the differences in the production process, although all parties acknowledge that the four basic product types are manufactured from molten glass containing silica sand, soda ash, limestone, kaolin and dolomite, which is drawn through a multi-hole heat resistant platinum-rhodium trays (bushings), there are certain important differences in the production process of yarns as compared to the other products under investigation. Firstly, for the production of yarns, higher precision and stable temperature control as well as energy input are required, with more strict controlling parameters applied (bushing output, etc.). As the holes in the bushings are smaller, the production output is substantially lower in comparison to the other products. Therefore, furnaces are usually used for producing either yarns or rovings - indeed, for economic reasons glass fibres producers do not alternate in the production of these two products on the same furnace. Another difference in the production process is that, subsequent to the bushing process, yarns go through the process of twisting.\n(19)\nWith regard to the argument (iii) concerning the differences in the applications, it was found that the different chemical characteristics of yarns as compared to rovings, chopped strands and mats are linked to the different uses of yarns. Although it had provisionally been concluded that \u2018almost all the different types of the product concerned (\u2026) are basically used for the same purposes\u2019, based on the comments received after provisional disclosure this issue was further investigated and it was established that, whereas rovings, chopped strands and mats were used to reinforce plastics in composites, yarns were primarily used in the production of much lighter weight engineered materials for technical fabric applications such as high performance insulation, protection and filtration applications. In some cases, yarns might also be suitable for reinforcing purposes, but this would be in a very limited number of instances only and even then, in view of the relatively very high cost price of yarns as compared to rovings, very often unlikely for economic reasons.\n(20)\nIn view of the above differences, it is not surprising that the market also perceives yarns as different from the other three products. Indeed, a market report published in an independent magazine specialised in composite products was submitted by both users and the Union industry. This report, which was in no way related to this anti-dumping proceeding, firstly explained that, for reasons of production and uses, a distinction should be made between yarns and rovings. It then analysed in detail the global glass fibre production capacity for the two groups: (i) rovings, chopped strands and mats altogether; and (ii) yarns (3).\n(21)\nAs concerns the potential substitutability of yarns with the other basic product types, it should be noted that, as already stated in recital 19 of the provisional Regulation, this would in theory be possible as yarns could be used in a limited number of applications instead of other types. However, following further analysis the Commission found that in practice this would not at all be an economically viable option due to the substantial cost difference in the cost of manufacturing yarns compared to that of other products, which can be explained by the differences of the production process mentioned in recital 18 above.\n(22)\nIn the complaint on the basis of which this investigation was initiated, it was explicitly mentioned that the product concerned has one unique function and thus purpose or use, namely the reinforcement of plastics in composites. However, the above analysis established that differences in the production process of yarns as compared to rovings (and chopped strands and mats) resulted in fundamental different basic physical and chemical characteristics, in view of different applications of yarns including several uses other than composite material. The comments received in this respect after final disclosure were not such as to alter this conclusion.\n(23)\nIn the light of above, the claim to exclude yarns on the basis of different physical and chemical characteristics and different uses as compared to rovings, chopped strands and mats, is hereby accepted. It is thus concluded that yarns should be excluded from the definition of the product concerned as defined in the provisional Regulation. Yarns are therefore definitively excluded from the proceeding.\n(24)\nIt should also be noted that a claim on exclusion of thin yarns was submitted by an interested party, but this has no more relevance in view of the exclusion of all yarns from the product scope.\n1.2. Texturised rovings\n(25)\nOne interested party claimed the exclusion of texturised rovings. This claim was based on the argumentation that texturised rovings should be treated according to the same principle as impregnated rovings, because the product is no longer a roving but a more downstream product.\n(26)\nIn this respect it is important to repeat the reason for excluding certain impregnated rovings. Indeed, certain rovings and yarns were excluded since these types were specially treated by coating and impregnating and they have a loss of ignition of more than 3 %, giving them different physical and chemical characteristics.\n(27)\nAs concerns texturised rovings, it is understood that these are rovings that are not coated or impregnated and which have a loss of ignition value of between 0,3 % and 0,13 %. They are therefore clearly different products as compared to the impregnated rovings which were excluded at the provisional stage. Secondly, it was found that, like the other rovings, chopped strands and mats, texturised rovings are primarily used for reinforcing plastics in composites. They are therefore clearly covered by the product scope definition, in the complaint as well as in the notice initiating this proceeding, and no grounds appear to exist which would justify their exclusion.\n(28)\nIt is therefore concluded that texturised rovings fall clearly and indisputably within the product scope of this proceeding and the claim to exclude them from that scope has no sufficient factual basis and has to be rejected.\n1.3. Conclusion\n(29)\nAs concerns product scope, no further claims have been submitted.\n(30)\nIn view of the above, it was deemed appropriate to revise the product scope definition as determined in the provisional Regulation. Therefore, the product concerned is definitively defined as chopped glass fibre strands, of a length of not more than 50 mm; glass fibre rovings, excluding glass fibre rovings which are impregnated and coated and have a loss on ignition of more than 3 % (as determined by the ISO Standard 1887); and mats made of glass fibre filaments excluding mats of glass wool.\n2. Like product\n(31)\nIn the absence of any related claim or comment and taking into account the findings set out in recitals 13 to 23 above, the conclusions in recital 20 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\nD. DUMPING\n1. Market economy treatment (MET)\n(32)\nFollowing the publication of the provisional measures, one exporting producer/group that was not granted MET reiterated its disagreement with the rejection of its MET claim. However, the exporting producer/group in question merely repeated the claims made earlier in the proceeding without presenting any new arguments. It is recalled that, as explained in the provisional Regulation, those arguments were already addressed in detail in individual communication with the exporting producer/group in question.\n(33)\nIn addition, following final disclosure, the exporting producer/group in question alleged that the Commission overlooked new evidence that it had submitted. It is noted in this regard that the evidence referred to was only a submission of some documents supporting the argument already raised and replied to concerning the composition of the company\u2019s board of directors. Thus, no new evidence was presented that would put in question the decision to refuse the MET claim of the exporting producer/group in question.\n(34)\nConsequently, the provisional findings with respect to the MET claim of the exporting producer/group in question are definitively confirmed.\n(35)\nIn the absence of any other comments, the content of recitals 21 to 29 of the provisional Regulation concerning MET findings is hereby definitively confirmed.\n2. Individual treatment (IT)\n(36)\nFurther to provisional disclosure the same exporting producer/group that commented on the decision regarding its MET disagreed with the rejection of its IT claim. It alleged that the Commission failed to provide sufficient reasoning for the rejection of its IT claim.\n(37)\nIt is reiterated in this regard that, as stated in recital 26 of the provisional Regulation, under the MET analysis part, the majority of the directors on this company\u2019s Board of Directors were appointed by a majority State owned company. Consequently significant State interference in the decision-making process of this exporting producer could not be excluded.\n(38)\nConsequently, it was confirmed for this exporting producer that, given that it failed to demonstrate that it was sufficiently independent from the State, it did not fulfil the criteria of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and that thus its claim for the IT must be rejected.\n(39)\nFollowing final disclosure, the above exporting producer and the other exporting producers not granted IT argued that the decision to reject their IT was not in accordance with the WTO Panel Report in dispute DS 397 concerning Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from the Peoples\u2019 Republic of China. In this respect, it should be noted that the above-mentioned Panel Report is not yet final since it has not been adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body. Moreover, the time period for appeal against that Panel Report has not lapsed. This claim was therefore rejected.\n(40)\nConsequently and in the absence of any other comments concerning IT, the content of recitals 30 to 33 of the provisional Regulation is hereby definitively confirmed and it is definitely concluded that IT should not be granted to any of the sampled exporting producers/groups, which were denied MET.\n3. Normal value\n3.1. Determination of the normal value for the exporting producer/group granted MET\n(41)\nFollowing the provisional disclosure, the exporting producer/group granted MET submitted that for the product types which were not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market (or not sold at all), the normal value of the like product should be calculated on the basis of constructed normal value and not as the Commission did at the provisional stage - i.e. using for normal value representative domestic prices of closely resembling types (duly adjusted).\n(42)\nThe claim was accepted and consequently the normal value for the non-representative types (i.e. those of which domestic sales constituted less than 5 % of export sales to the Union or were not sold at all in the domestic market) was calculated on the basis of the cost of manufacturing per product type plus an amount for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits. In case of existing domestic sales, the profit of all transactions on the domestic market per product type for the product types concerned was used (since all domestic sales transactions of these product types were found profitable the test of Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation was clearly complied with). In case of no domestic sales, an average profit was used. For one product type, for which no cost of manufacturing was provided, constructed normal value of a closely resembling type was used.\n(43)\nFor the remaining product types it was subsequently examined whether each type of the product concerned sold domestically in representative quantities could be considered as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation and as described in recitals 37 to 40 of the provisional Regulation.\n(44)\nThe further investigation established that the profitable sales of only few comparable product types were more than 80 % of total domestic sales and, thus, all domestic sales could be used in calculating the average price for normal value for these product types. For the remaining types only the profitable sales were used.\n(45)\nFurther to the final disclosure, the exporting producer/group granted MET argued that the methodology used for constructing normal value of non-representative product types as described in recital 42 above; i.e. using the profit of profitable transactions of the product types in question would be contrary to the letter of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation. It further argued that it has been a standard practice to use an average profit of all profitable transactions of all product types when constructing normal value for a particular product type and that any change to that practice would infringe the principle of legal certainty.\n(46)\nIt should be noted that the methodology described in recital 42 is in accordance with Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation following which the amounts for profits should be based on actual data pertaining to sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product by the exporter or producer. The use of the words \u2018of the like product\u2019 does not exclude the division of the product investigated into product types where appropriate. Moreover, the applicable WTO case law (4), provides that the actual profit margin established for the transactions in the ordinary course of trade of the relevant product types for which normal value has to be constructed cannot be disregarded. It is also noted that the exporting producer/group has not demonstrated that the transactions of the product types for which normal value had to be constructed should be considered as not being in the ordinary course of trade. Finally, it should be noted that the methodology described above is even-handed. Indeed, in cases where the profit margin of the sales in the ordinary course of trade of the product type in question is lower than the weighted average profit of all product types sales in the ordinary course of trade, it is the lower profit margin of the product type concerned that would be used for the construction of the normal value. The claim is therefore rejected.\n3.2. Determination of normal value for exporting producers/groups not granted MET\n(a) Analogue country\n(47)\nFollowing the provisional disclosure, one interested party commented that Turkey should not be used as an analogue country and suggested to use Malaysia in this regard. This comment was not further substantiated and consequently was not taken into account.\n(48)\nIt is noted that following the exclusion of yarns from the product scope of the investigation (see above) the fact that yarns are not produced in Turkey no longer creates any obstacle for the choice of Turkey as analogue country since there will be no need for construction of a normal value of any of the investigated product types (see also recitals 50 and 51 below).\n(49)\nGiven the above it is definitively concluded that Turkey should be used as analogue country in this proceeding.\n(b) Determination of normal value\n(50)\nFollowing the provisional disclosure one party argued that the normal value of the like product in Turkey may not be accurate, as the cost structure of the Turkish cooperating company is distorted. Indeed, the investigation established that the cooperating company in Turkey had significant financial costs that may be distorting the calculation of the normal value, in particular when it is constructed.\n(51)\nConsequently, in order to avoid any possible distortion in the calculation, it was decided to group the product types and to distinguish only the main product characteristics. This grouping increased comparability in terms of sales volumes between the product concerned and the Turkish like product and allowed using actual prices as opposed to constructed normal value where selling, general and administrative costs (potentially distorted by the financial costs) would have to be used.\n4. Export price and price comparison\n(52)\nIn the absence of any comments, the content of recitals 48 to 50 of the provisional Regulation concerning the establishing of export price and comparing the export prices with the respective normal value is hereby definitively confirmed.\n5. Dumping margins\n(53)\nIn the absence of any comments, the content of recitals 51 to 54 of the provisional Regulation concerning the general methodology for calculating dumping margins is hereby definitively confirmed.\n(54)\nIn the light of the above mentioned changes in the calculation of the normal values, and after correction of some calculation errors, the amount of dumping finally determined, expressed as a percentage of the CIF net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, is as follows:\nTable 1\nDumping margins\nChangzhou New Changhai Fiberglass Co., Ltd and Jiangsu Changhai Composite Materials Holding Co., Ltd, Tangqiao, Yaoguan Town, Changzhou City, Jiangsu\n9,6 %\nOther cooperating companies\n29,7 %\nE. INJURY\n(55)\nIt should be noted that, following the exclusion of yarns from the product scope (see recitals 13 to 23 above), the injury analysis had to be adapted to the remaining three main product types: rovings, chopped strands and mats. This necessitated revisions of some injury indicators, the volume of dumped imports as well as the calculation of price undercutting and the injury elimination level.\n1. Union industry\n(56)\nWith regard to the definition of the Union industry and the representativity of the sample of Union producers, no new comments or claims have been received. In view of this, and the fact that the product type excluded from the product scope, i.e. yarns, represented a limited proportion of production and sales of the Union producers, the conclusions in recitals 56 to 58 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Union consumption\n(57)\nIn respect of the Union consumption, it should be noted that, as mentioned in recital 55 above, the exclusion of one of the four main product types i.e. yarns from the product scope resulted in a revision of the volumes of Union consumption.\n(58)\nIn view of the above revision, the total Union consumption has developed as follows during the period considered:\nTable 2\nUnion consumption\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n903 351\n944 137\n937 373\n697 128\nIndexed\n100\n105\n104\n77\n(59)\nThe above consumption trend is similar to the trend observed for the product under investigation as defined in the provisional Regulation, i.e. an increase by ca. 5 % in 2007-2008 and then a very significant drop, by 23 % in the IP as compared to 2006.\n3. Imports from the country concerned\n(60)\nIn view of the exclusion of yarns from the product scope, the import data had to be revised.\n(61)\nOne interested party argued that the imports from the PRC coming from producers related to the Union industry should have been excluded from the imports concerned.\n(62)\nIn this regard it is first recalled that, as already mentioned in recital 58 of the provisional Regulation, during the IP the volume of imports from the PRC of the sampled producers only represented less than 4 % of total Chinese imports. This remains unchanged following the exclusion of yarns from the product scope.\n(63)\nGiven that only two Union producers have imported the product concerned from the PRC during the IP, the exact volume of these imports cannot be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality. In any event, even if the amount of these imports were deducted for each year of the period considered, the trend of import volumes and market shares would remain substantially unchanged. The market share of dumped imports would be lower, though only by less than one percentage point in each year of the period considered, thereby not affecting the overall trend during the period considered.\n(64)\nFollowing the exclusion of yarns, the revised import data are as follows:\n(a) Volumes\nTable 3\nImports from the PRC (volumes)\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n71 061\n110 641\n132 023\n98 723\nIndexed\n100\n156\n186\n139\n(b) Market share\nTable 4\nImports from the PRC (market share)\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nMarket share (%)\n7,9 %\n11,7 %\n14,1 %\n14,2 %\nIndexed\n100\n149\n179\n180\n(65)\nAfter these changes, the trends observed at the provisional stage concerning import volumes of the product concerned have changed to a limited extent. However, the increase in volume of imports both in absolute and relative terms remains substantial. Such imports increased very rapidly during the period considered, notably between 2006 and 2008 (by 86 %), after which there was a drop in Chinese imports due to the overall decline in demand. However, the market share of these imports continued to increase between 2008 and the IP and it increased over the whole period by 6,3 percentage points.\n(c) Price evolution\n(66)\nAfter exclusion of yarns, the average CIF import price of the product concerned has decreased significantly (by ca. 3 %):\nTable 5\nImports from the PRC (prices)\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nAverage price/tonne (EUR)\n901\n907\n945\n909\nIndexed\n100\n101\n105\n101\n(67)\nHowever, the above table shows that the trend of substantially stable prices during the period considered has not altered, and therefore, the conclusion regarding the price trend of these imports, as established in the provisional Regulation, can be confirmed.\n(d) Price undercutting\n(68)\nAs regards the calculation of price undercutting, the provisional margins had to be revised since the exclusion of yarns from the product scope necessitated the elimination of the corresponding sales from the injury calculations.\n(69)\nMoreover, as was done on the dumping side of the investigation (see recitals 50 and 51 above) it was decided to group the product types and to only distinguish the main product characteristics. This resulted in an increase of the volume of Chinese imports included in the comparison with the sales of the like product produced by the Union industry, thereby ensuring a better representativeness of the undercutting calculations.\n(70)\nFinally, an adjustment for post-importation costs was applied, given that these costs are indispensable for the selling of the product concerned.\n(71)\nFollowing the changes in the calculation of price undercutting due to (i) the exclusion of yarns, (ii) the grouping of product types, and (iii) adjustment for post-importation costs, the revised undercutting margins amount to up to 18,2 %, while the average price undercutting is 10,9 %. The above changes have been applied also to the calculation of the injury elimination level - see recital 134 of this Regulation.\n(72)\nApart from the changes mentioned above and in the absence of any other claim or comments, the conclusions in recitals 61 to 65 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n4.1. Revision of injury indicators due to the exclusion of yarns\n(73)\nThe exclusion of yarns from the product scope necessitated the adjustment of certain tables in Section D.4 of the provisional Regulation. In addition, a minor correction to the sales data of one of the sampled producers had to be made. It should be noted that there was only a relatively limited presence of yarns in the production and sales of the sampled producers. Therefore, most affected by these adjustments were the indicators on the basis of all Union producers (sales volumes and market share). To a more limited extent, average sales prices of the sampled producers were also affected. However, the trends observed, also for these indicators, remain substantially unchanged as compared to the findings in the provisional Regulation, as the below tables demonstrate. In view of the limited presence of yarns within the producers\u2019 sample, the financial indicators (profitability, return on investment (ROI), cash flow and investments) have not been affected by the exclusion of yarns from the product scope. For the sake of transparency, all tables concerning the injury indicators listed in Section D.4 of the provisional Regulation are shown below, including those unchanged.\n(74)\nAs the development in production volumes of the sampled producers, as compared to the figures provided in the provisional Regulation, was only affected to a very limited extent (a 1 % increase for 2008 and the IP) by the exclusion of yarns from the product scope, the conclusion in recital 67 of the provisional Regulation is herewith confirmed.\nTable 6\nUnion industry - production\nSampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n488 335\n503 711\n498 739\n310 257\nIndexed\n100\n103\n102\n64\n(75)\nThe Union industry production capacity figures have overall been decreased by the exclusion of yarns, but that has had no effect on the trend and the capacity utilisation. Therefore, the conclusion in recital 69 of the provisional Regulation is herewith confirmed.\nTable 7\nUnion industry - production capacity\nSampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nCapacity (tonnes)\n567 067\n567 822\n580 705\n506 509\nIndexed\n100\n100\n102\n89\nCapacity utilisation (%)\n86 %\n89 %\n86 %\n61 %\nIndexed\n100\n103\n100\n71\n(76)\nAs the development of stocks of the sampled producers, as compared to the figures provided in the provisional Regulation, was only affected to a very limited extent (a 1 % increase for 2007, 2008 and the IP) by the exclusion of yarns from the product scope, the conclusion in recital 70 of the provisional Regulation is herewith confirmed.\nTable 8\nUnion industry - stocks\nSampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n87 603\n72 282\n122 926\n81 485\nIndexed\n100\n83\n140\n93\n(77)\nAlthough, as compared to the sales volumes reported in the provisional Regulation, the decrease since 2006 in sales volumes is 1 % stronger in 2007 and 2008 and 3 % less pronounced in the IP, sales volumes declined still by 27 % during the period considered and the conclusions in recitals 71-72 are, therefore, herewith confirmed.\nTable 9\nUnion industry - EU sales (volumes)\nAll EU producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n689 541\n683 861\n654 956\n501 519\nIndexed\n100\n99\n95\n73\n(78)\nAfter the exclusion of yarns from the product scope, EU market share of the Union industry has decreased from 76,3 % to 71,9 % (as opposed to from 75,1 % to 69,5 %). The conclusions in recital 73 of the provisional Regulation regarding the market share of the Union industry are therefore confirmed.\nTable 10\nUnion industry - EU market share\nAll EU producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nEU market share (%)\n76,3 %\n72,4 %\n69,9 %\n71,9 %\nIndexed\n100\n95\n92\n94\n(79)\nAs concerns average sales prices, the exclusion of yarns from the product scope resulted in overall slightly lower average sales prices. The trend is however identical to the sales price trend reported in the provisional Regulation (only 1 % higher figures for 2008 and the IP) and the conclusions in recital 74 of that Regulation are, therefore, herewith confirmed.\nTable 11\nUnion industry - EU sales (average prices)\nSampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nEUR/tonne\n1 163\n1 154\n1 181\n1 147\nIndexed\n100\n99\n102\n99\n(80)\nThe employment figures of the Union producers have been adjusted to exclude the production of yarns. The relatively small reduction in numbers has left the trend unchanged (only 1 % higher figures for 2008 and the IP), therefore, the conclusions in recital 75 of the provisional Regulation are herewith confirmed.\nTable 12\nUnion industry - employment\nSampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nNumber of employees\n4 050\n3 851\n3 676\n3 275\nIndexed\n100\n95\n91\n81\n(81)\nThe productivity of the Union industry has not been affected by the exclusion of yarns and the conclusions in recital 76 of the provisional Regulation can therefore be confirmed.\nTable 13\nUnion industry - productivity\nSampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nTonnes/employee\n121\n131\n136\n95\nIndexed\n100\n108\n113\n79\n(82)\nAs already mentioned in recital 73 above, in view of the limited presence of yarns within the producers sample, the financial indicators listed below have not been affected by the exclusion of yarns from the product scope.\n(83)\nLabour costs in the sense of yearly average wages are unaffected by the exclusion of yarns from the product scope and the conclusions in recital 77 of the provisional Regulation are therefore herewith confirmed.\nTable 14\nUnion industry - labour costs\nSampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nYearly wages (EUR)\n42 649\n43 257\n43 991\n41 394\nIndexed\n100\n101\n103\n97\n(84)\nProfitability and ROI are unaffected by the exclusion of yarns from the product scope and the conclusions in recitals 78-81 of the provisional Regulation are therefore herewith confirmed.\nTable 15\nUnion industry - profitability & ROI\nSampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nNet profit (as % of turnover)\n0,3 %\n4,7 %\n3,5 %\n-15,0 %\nROI\n2,5 %\n6,2 %\n3,0 %\n-16,8 %\n(85)\nThe cash flow situation of the Union industry is unaffected by the exclusion of yarns from the product scope and the conclusion in recital 83 of the provisional Regulation is therefore herewith confirmed.\nTable 16\nUnion industry - cash flow\nSampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nCash flow (EUR)\n34 261 986\n17 230 139\n7 452 912\n-22 001 723\nIndexed\n100\n50\n22\n-64\n(86)\nThe level of investments of the Union industry is unaffected by the exclusion of yarns from the product scope and the conclusions in recital 85 of the provisional Regulation are therefore herewith confirmed.\nTable 17\nUnion industry - investments\nSampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nNet investments (EUR)\n40 089 991\n20 804 311\n43 613 463\n28 387 044\nIndexed\n100\n52\n109\n71\n4.2. Comments received following disclosure of provisional findings\n(87)\nOne interested party claimed that the Commission should have analysed injury (and also causation) on a segment-specific basis, i.e. for each of the main product types separately. This party considered that the main product types were too different from each other to be analysed as a whole.\n(88)\nIt should first of all be recalled that any conclusions concerning dumping and injury can only be drawn for the product concerned and the like product as a whole. If claims exist about the definition of the product concerned, these should be analysed in that context and should not result in separate injury analysis depending on the various product types covered by the investigation. As mentioned in recitals 13 to 23 above, the product scope of this investigation has been amended at the definitive stage of the investigation by the exclusion of yarns. Any conclusion on dumping and injury can only be made on this newly defined product concerned and like product as a whole. For these reasons the above claim cannot be accepted.\n(89)\nThe same interested party argued that the data presented for the Union industry was not coherent. In particular, it considered that the Commission was wrong in sometimes providing data from the entire Union industry whereas on other occasions use had been made from the verified data from the sampled producers only.\n(90)\nIn respect of this claim it should firstly be noted that sampling is a procedure expressly provided for under Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to deal with cases where it is not possible to investigate certain groups of economic operators in detail. The selected sample of Union producers has been considered as representative for the whole Union industry and no substantiated claims stating the contrary have been submitted by interested parties. Therefore, as already mentioned in recital 66 of the provisional Regulation, all the injury indicators, except those concerning sales volume and market share, were established on the basis of information collected from and verified at the premises of the sampled Union producers. The sales volume of the Union industry comprising all Union producers was a prerequisite for the calculation of Union consumption, and in turn both the sales volume and the Union consumption were necessary for determining the market share of the Union industry.\n(91)\nAnother interested party argued that the imports from the PRC from producers related to the sampled Union producers, as mentioned in recital 58 of the provisional Regulation, should have been added to the sales of the producers concerned.\n(92)\nGiven that the products in question are only re-sold by the Union producers concerned, the addition of these imports to their sales volume would distort the picture does not therefore appear justified. In any case, as already stated in recitals 62 and 63 above, the volume of these imports is limited. As mentioned in the same recitals above, also the market shares would be affected only to a minimal extent without altering the trends of the relating injury indicators.\n(93)\nOne interested party mentioned that the Commission had not explained why the sales for captive use had been included in the sales figures of the Union industry. It claimed that the Commission should have analysed the captive market independently from the free market.\n(94)\nIn this respect it is important to underline that sales for captive use were included in the Union industry\u2019s sales volumes and market share analysis as it was found that these sales did compete with imports. Indeed, the investigation had established that the quantities used for captive use, by the companies concerned in the Union, could in principle be substituted by purchased glass fibres, e.g. if market circumstances and/or financial considerations would trigger such a change. They have therefore been included in the Union market analysis. In any case, should captive sales be excluded from the analysis, the trends in sales would show no substantive changes.\n(95)\nThe Union industry questioned the average Union sales prices of the Union industry as summarised in table 10 of the provisional Regulation. It suspected a calculation error and claimed that, in reality, the drop in sales prices over the period considered was more significant than the reported 2 %. In view of this allegation, the calculation of the average Union sales prices of the sampled Union producers was reviewed. The calculation was based on verified sales prices and was found to be accurate. However, in view of the exclusion of yarns from the product scope, the average sales prices had to be recalculated by excluding yarns and the revised average sales prices are reported in table 11 above.\n(96)\nTwo of the sampled producers questioned some of the adjustments made on their submitted profitability figures. The contested adjustments referred to intra-company transfers, changes in accounting and certain extraordinary elements which were considered by the Commission to unnecessarily distort the resulting profit figures. The adjustments were contested as the producers concerned considered that important costs were consequently not shown, although they had been incurred and in some cases could even be linked to the dumped imports. The adjustments which had been made on the profitability figures of the two companies were reviewed and they were found again to be justified. This claim, therefore, had to be dismissed.\n(97)\nIn the absence of any other claim or comments, and with the modifications indicated in recitals 55 to 80 above, the conclusions in recitals 66 to 86 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5. Conclusion on injury\n(98)\nIn the absence of any other claim or comments, the conclusions in recitals 87 to 89 in the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\nF. CAUSATION\n1. Effect of the dumped imports\n(99)\nSome parties reiterated the claim that, in view of the volume and prices of imports from the PRC, there was no causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the imports concerned. In particular, it was claimed again that the average import price of these imports had remained substantially stable throughout the period considered and that the Union industry had managed to maintain profitability at levels close to the mentioned target profit during the years 2007 and 2008 when the most significant increase in Chinese import volumes occurred.\n(100)\nA reply to these claims was already contained in recitals 94 and 95 of the provisional Regulation, which are hereby confirmed. Moreover, as already indicated in recital 107 of the provisional Regulation, it cannot be concluded that the causal link is broken simply on the basis of the development of a limited number of injury indicators looked at for a limited part of the period considered; on the contrary, the overall development of all injury indicators over the whole period considered should be assessed. The provisional analysis had already shown that imports of the product concerned have caused price depression on the Union market throughout the period considered and largely undercut the Union industry sales prices in the IP. The Union industry has, therefore, not been in a position to reach the necessary levels of profitability, even in periods of relatively strong demand, as in the years 2007 and 2008. The imports from the PRC have, in addition, consistently gained market share and mostly in 2007, when the EU glass fibres market grew significantly. This aggressive strategy of gaining market shares by consistently selling at prices undercutting the Union industry prices had not resulted in a serious deterioration of the Union industry profitability before the IP only because of the relatively high levels of Union consumption which mitigated the effect of the injurious dumping. However, the developments during the IP confirm that as soon as the market conditions deteriorated the material injury caused by the dumped imports displayed all its effects. The claims mentioned in recital 99 above are therefore dismissed.\n2. Effects of other factors\n(101)\nIn view of the exclusion of yarns from the product scope, the import data had to be revised as follows:\nTable 18\nImports from other countries\nCountry\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nNorway\nVolumes (tonnes)\n34 945\n28 834\n35 396\n24 980\nMarket share (%)\n3,9 %\n3,0 %\n3,8 %\n3,6 %\nAv. price/tonne (EUR)\n1 255\n1 412\n1 359\n1 256\nTurkey\nVolumes (tonnes)\n28 946\n24 928\n20 511\n18 523\nMarket share (%)\n3,2 %\n2,6 %\n2,2 %\n2,6 %\nAv. price/tonne (EUR)\n1 088\n1 151\n1 202\n1 074\nUSA\nVolumes (tonnes)\n16 757\n15 821\n12 145\n8 726\nMarket share (%)\n1,8 %\n1,7 %\n1,3 %\n1,2 %\nAv. price/tonne (EUR)\n1 521\n1 421\n2 056\n2 012\nMalaysia\nVolumes (tonnes)\n9 541\n25 569\n35 118\n12 601\nMarket share (%)\n1,1 %\n2,7 %\n3,7 %\n1,8 %\nAv. price/tonne (EUR)\n979\n1 019\n1 021\n1 025\nTaiwan\nVolumes (tonnes)\n9 043\n9 919\n8 791\n6 996\nMarket share (%)\n1,0 %\n1,0 %\n0,9 %\n1,0 %\nAv. price/tonne (EUR)\n928\n925\n928\n854\nIndia\nVolumes (tonnes)\n4 363\n11 227\n3 741\n5 353\nMarket share (%)\n0,5 %\n1,2 %\n0,4 %\n0,8 %\nAv. price/tonne (EUR)\n1 304\n1 228\n1 292\n1 230\nRep. of Korea\nVolumes (tonnes)\n6 277\n4 845\n13 918\n5 112\nMarket share (%)\n0,7 %\n0,5 %\n1,5 %\n0,7 %\nAv. price/tonne (EUR)\n1 037\n1 109\n886\n999\nJapan\nVolumes (tonnes)\n21 142\n9 498\n9 949\n3 710\nMarket share (%)\n2,3 %\n1,0 %\n1,1 %\n0,5 %\nAv. price/tonne (EUR)\n1 125\n1 164\n1 336\n1 580\nMexico\nVolumes (tonnes)\n1 017\n2 977\n1 803\n1 763\nMarket share (%)\n0,1 %\n0,3 %\n0,2 %\n0,3 %\nAv. price/tonne (EUR)\n364\n729\n977\n1 033\nCanada\nVolumes (tonnes)\n3 930\n3 096\n2 123\n2 029\nMarket share (%)\n0,4 %\n0,3 %\n0,2 %\n0,3 %\nAv. price/tonne (EUR)\n1 047\n1 664\n1 711\n1 919\nOther countries\nVolumes (tonnes)\n6 787\n12 923\n6 899\n7 092\nMarket share (%)\n0,7 %\n1,4 %\n0,7 %\n1,0 %\nAv. price/tonne (EUR)\n1 521\n1 402\n1 635\n1 586\n(102)\nApart from the import volumes from the USA and Taiwan, which went down by ca. 35 % (IP) as compared to the volumes reported in table 17 of the provisional Regulation, imports from other countries appear to be influenced only to a very moderate extent by the exclusion of yarns.\n(103)\nSeveral interested parties reiterated the claim that the economic crisis rather than the dumped imports had caused the injury to the Union industry - or, alternatively, that the economic crisis was the main cause of injury while imports from the PRC were at most only a second, additional factor. In this respect it was argued that there was a correlation between consumption and profitability and that the profitability only deteriorated when the demand collapsed. At the same time, it was argued, there would be no correlation between EU market share, sales prices and profitability of the Union industry, on the one hand and the EU market share and sales prices of Chinese imports on the other. It was also claimed that the Commission would not have properly assessed the injurious effects of the downturn in EU consumption and consequently acted in violation with Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation.\n(104)\nThe first part of the above claim has extensively been dealt with in recitals 99-102 of the provisional Regulation. Indeed, the impact of the economic crisis in the injury has been examined and it is recognised in recital 101 of the provisional Regulation that the economic downturn and the contraction in demand had a negative effect on the state of the Union industry and that, as such, it has contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry. However, this does not diminish the damaging injurious effect of the low priced and dumped Chinese imports on the Union market throughout the period considered. In other words, the economic crisis during the IP aggravated the injury to the Union industry but imports from the PRC have by all means caused the injury which is considered to be material in the sense of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation. This claim was therefore rejected.\n3. Conclusion on causation\n(105)\nNone of the arguments submitted by the interested parties demonstrates that the impact of factors other than dumped imports from the PRC is such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury found. In the light of the foregoing and in the absence of any other comments which had not yet been addressed, it is concluded that the dumped imports from the PRC caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\n(106)\nThe conclusions on causation in the provisional Regulation, as summarised in the recitals 117-119 thereof, are hereby confirmed.\nG. UNION INTEREST\n(107)\nIn view of parties\u2019 comments the Commission conducted further analysis of all arguments pertaining to the Union interest.\n1. Interest of the Union industry\n(108)\nThe complainants reiterated that the imposition of anti-dumping measures was essential for the Union industry to continue to be viable and operate in the future, as the price erosion caused by dumped imports from the PRC had severely affected the sales, profitability and ability to invest of the Union industry. In the absence of any further specific comment on this point, recitals 122 to 126 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Interest of unrelated importers in the Union\n(109)\nIn the absence of any specific comment on this point, recitals 127 and 128 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. Interest of the users\n(110)\nAfter the imposition of provisional measures, a number of users and user associations that had not come forward at the provisional stage made themselves known and provided comments.\n(111)\nMany users reiterated general comments on some of the issues which were already analysed in the provisional Regulation, without providing new information in this respect or additional evidence substantiating such claims. On some other issues, however, new information was obtained and, subsequently, analysed.\n(112)\nSeveral interested parties argued that the cooperation obtained from the users was not representative of the complexity of the sector and that most users were small to medium sized companies whose situation and views have been neglected in the Union interest analysis.\n(113)\nIn this respect it is firstly to be recalled that 13 users submitted a questionnaire reply and several other users submitted, in addition, comments. Moreover, several associations acting on behalf of users submitted comments. Many of these interested parties also made their views known in a hearing. After adjusting the count in view of the exclusion of yarns from the product scope, the cooperating users accounted for ca. 24 % of the imports of the product concerned. Such cooperation is considered representative.\n(114)\nNevertheless, it is acknowledged that most users that completed a users\u2019 questionnaire were rather large companies. The Commission is in this respect dependant on the cooperation eventually obtained. It is however considered that, through the cooperation obtained from several associations (PlasticsEurope, EuCIA, EuPC, Plastindustrien, BPF), the concerns of the small and medium sized companies were indeed voiced and they have been taken into account.\n(115)\nA number of users and an association contested the assessment of the Commission concerning the number of people employed in the glass fibres users industry made in recital 130 of the provisional Regulation. In this respect it should be recalled that in recital 130 of the provisional Regulation the Commission estimated the total number of people working in all the downstream Union industry of companies using glass fibre products, including the manufacturing of further downstream products, at ca. 50 000 to 75 000. The above interested parties claimed that this number could reach a total of 200 000 to 250 000 people and they were requested to substantiate these estimations. Although one association, the European Boating Industry, did provide some back up figures concerning the boatbuilding industry, no conclusive evidence was submitted that would link these employment figures with the product concerned and the like product.\n(116)\nIn any event, establishing the interest of glass fibres users on such general data, which comprise the totality of people employed in all downstream levels of the Union industry including divisions of multinational companies having no relation whatsoever with glass fibre products, would seriously affect the credibility of the Union interest analysis.\n(117)\nIt should also be recalled that, as mentioned in recital 130 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission also estimated the number of employees of glass fibres using divisions of those companies that used Chinese glass fibres during the IP, at ca. 27 000 people. This estimate was based on detailed data as submitted by the users\u2019 in their questionnaire replies specifically on the Union employment of those divisions. The estimation was made by aggregating these figures and then extrapolating them to all Chinese imports of the product concerned during the IP. The extrapolation was based on the cooperating users\u2019 share in the total Chinese imports of the product concerned during the IP.\n(118)\nFinally in this respect it should also be noted that, following the exclusion of yarns from the product scope, the above estimation had to be revised. The revision resulted in an estimated employment of ca. 22 000 people.\n3.1. Impact of duty cost on profitability of users\n(119)\nSeveral users claimed that the Commission, in recitals 132-136 of the provisional Regulation, had underestimated the impact of the provisional anti-dumping duty on the profitability and, hence, viability of the European user industry. They claimed that the actual impact was much higher and that the provisional duty level put the existence of many of these businesses in the Union in peril.\n(120)\nIn this respect it is important to note that the economic assessment made in the provisional Regulation was based on the economic data submitted by the users cooperating in the investigation. This was in fact the only verifiable information available in this respect. Though this assessment was criticised by a large number of users, only one of them submitted additional information that could be used in order to render the analysis more precise. In any event, the party in question is a user of yarns, therefore its submission was eventually not considered in the cost impact analysis.\n(121)\nAdditional claims were made alleging that the impact on small and medium-sized users is larger than that established. However, little concrete evidence has been provided in this respect in the absence of full cooperation of such users. Indeed, the cooperating users include some multinational companies on which the effect of duties is likely to be more limited. However, in order to exclude this distorting impact in the calculation, at definitive stage the Commission established the average cost impact only for the glass- fibre- using division of the cooperating users, instead of the whole companies - see recital 123 below.\n(122)\nFollowing the exclusion of yarns from the product scope, the assessment made at the provisional stage had to be revised by eliminating from the analysis the companies using yarns. In addition, the assessment necessitated further modifications in view of the duty levels to be applied (see recital 139 below).\n(123)\nIn view of the above revisions, the calculated impact of the duty for the user industry will be on average only around 0,5 and up to 2,3 percentage points on the profit of glass fibre using divisions of users. The impact will thus be much smaller than anticipated at the provisional stage, if significant at all, as it is unlikely that a small cost price increase as the one possibly caused by the preset duty rates cannot be passed on completely or at least in part.\n(124)\nIndeed, as concerns the ability to pass on cost price increases, information has been obtained from the complainant on the development of the cost price of resins, another key cost for users and sometimes even representing a majority part of the cost price of composite end products. According to this submission, whereas the glass fibres sales price (cost price for users) would have remained stable for very long, the cost price of resins would have doubled in the same period. The price increase of resins would again be pronounced since the end of 2009. In spite of these very significant price increases, users have continued to buy this key raw material and to sell their end-products, remaining competitive. It is therefore likely that they have managed to pass on at least a part of the cost price increase to their customers. If such a very significant cost price increase can (partly) be passed on to customers, there is no reason why that could not be the case with an anti-dumping duty on glass fibres at the level of the injury elimination level.\n(125)\nSome parties claimed that certain users including global groups are and/or will be moving production outside the Union which can create job losses at the Union users; besides, there can be an impact also on the customers of users, as well as on the plastics manufacturers that also supply material to glass fibre users producing composite material. However, this is a potential consequence of the imposition of duties on any intermediate product and not just on glass fibres. Downstream users may as well apply for protection in the framework of anti-dumping proceedings as it has already occurred for glass fibre mesh fabrics. In any event, any such effects as claimed would now appear very limited due to the duty levels to be applied (see recital 139 below).\n(126)\nIn view of the above, it can be concluded that none of the users which cooperated in the investigation and submitted economic data which could be examined by the Commission would risk survival, as a consequence of the cost increase caused by the proposed measures.\n3.2. Security of supply\n(127)\nSeveral users reiterated the claim that the security of supply on the Union market was in peril and that the anti-dumping measures further aggravated this situation. They substantiated their claim with some evidence, pointing to an inability of the Union industry to secure supply of glass fibres to the user industry at the requested volumes and prices. In the same vein, the Commission\u2019s mentioning that the idle capacity in the EU was significant enough to replace the imports from the PRC was considered simplified and unjustified.\n(128)\nThe issue was further analysed. New information on production volumes, capacity utilisation and demand was also obtained from the complainant. The information thus obtained and analysed confirmed that there had indeed been a bottleneck of supply of certain products manufactured by the Union industry in the first half of 2010, due to the stock shortages following the recovery of the market after the economic crisis. In the meantime, however, and in line with the expectation in this respect mirrored in the provisional Regulation (recitals 145-149), the increase in demand appears to have stabilised and evidence was provided that the EU suppliers had significantly increased their immediately available production during 2010. Further increases in Union industry production capacity were also announced for the short and middle-long term. In addition, proof of a significant increase in production capacity in several other producing countries outside the Union was also submitted.\n(129)\nThe updated production and production capacity data for yarns were less reassuring and an independent market study also pointed at a clearly less favourable supply situation as concerns yarns. However, as yarns were excluded from the product scope, this issue is of no further relevance.\n(130)\nSeveral users also claimed that some Union producers had increased considerably the prices of certain products immediately before the publication of the provisional Regulation and had started a practice of requesting an increase in prices when additional quantities were requested by users. It was also claimed that some Union producers were only willing to subscribe to short-term contracts (less than 1 year) contrary to the previous practice. Some evidence was provided of this, which was seen by users as an indication of the fact that the Union industry would not be in a position to supply the quantities requested by the market at reasonable prices.\n(131)\nIn this respect, it should be noted that, following the imposition of anti-dumping measures, some increase in prices in the Union market can be expected. It is therefore not unusual to also observe a certain increase in the prices made by Union producers. As concerns the short-term contracts, this is an issue between buyer and seller which is not necessarily linked to a temporary shortage of supply but may be explained by many other factors affecting the market. In any event, as already mentioned in recital 128 above, the situation with regard to glass fibres supply appears to have normalised in the course of the year 2010. For these reasons, the above claims are dismissed.\n4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(132)\nOn the basis of the above, the conclusions in recitals 150-151 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed and it is definitively concluded that, on balance, no compelling reasons exist against the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC.\nH. DEFINITIVE MEASURES\n1. Injury elimination level\n(133)\nThe complainant argued that the 5 % target profit, as established at the provisional stage, was excessively low and it reiterated the view that a level between 12 % and 15 % would be more justified, in view of the fact that the glass fibres industry is highly capital intensive. It argued that such a much higher profitability level would be necessary to generate a healthy return on capital and allow for new investments. However, the above claim was not convincingly substantiated and it is therefore concluded that the 5 % profit margin established at the provisional stage should be maintained.\n(134)\nAs regards the determination of the injury elimination level, as already stated in recital 71 above, the changes in methodology that affected the calculation of price undercutting - that is, (i) the exclusion of yarns,(ii) the grouping of product types, and (iii) the adjustment for post-importation costs - were also applied in the calculation of the injury elimination level.\n(135)\nIn order to exclude yarns and to take into account the specificities of each product group (rovings, chopped strands and mats) in the injury analysis, the Commission made use of the detailed financial information submitted separately by product type by the sampled Union producers. In this respect, the separate financial data of the main product groups (rovings, chopped strands and mats) were used instead of the overall data which have been used in the provisional calculations and which included yarns (see recital 155 of the provisional Regulation). The resulting calculation better reflects the situation on the market and takes into account the revised product scope as well as the specificities of the main product types to the extent possible.\n(136)\nThe above changes resulted in a considerable revision of the provisional injury elimination levels.\n2. Definitive measures\n(137)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 9 of the basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of the product concerned should be imposed.\n(138)\nAs the injury elimination levels are now lower than the dumping margins established, the definitive measures should be based on the injury elimination level.\n(139)\nOn the basis of the above, the duty rate, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, customs duty unpaid, is as follows:\nExporting producer\nProposed anti-dumping duty (%)\nChangzhou New Changhai Fiberglass Co., Ltd and Jiangsu Changhai Composite Materials Holding Co., Ltd, Tangqiao, Yaoguan Town, Changzhou City, Jiangsu\n7,3\nAll other companies\n13,8\n(140)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rate specified in this Regulation was established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, it reflects the situation found during that investigation with respect to the company concerned. This duty rate (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) is thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the country concerned and produced by the company mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from this rate and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(141)\nAny claim requesting the application of this individual company anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (5) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be accordingly amended by updating the reference to the company benefiting from an individual duty rate.\n(142)\nIn order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the country-wide duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.\n3. Definitive collection of provisional duties\n(143)\nIn view of the magnitude of the dumping margin found and given the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by the provisional Regulation should be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the definitive duties imposed. As yarns are now excluded from the product scope (see recitals 13 to 24), the amounts provisionally secured on imports of yarns should be released. As the definitive duty rates are lower than the provisional duty rates, amounts provisionally secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duty should be released,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of chopped glass fibre strands, of a length of not more than 50 mm; glass fibre rovings, excluding glass fibre rovings which are impregnated and coated and have a loss on ignition of more than 3 % (as determined by the ISO Standard 1887); and mats made of glass fibre filaments excluding mats of glass wool currently falling within CN codes 7019 11 00, ex 7019 12 00 and ex 7019 31 00 (TARIC codes 7019120021, 7019120022, 7019120023, 7019120024, 7019120039, 7019310029 and 7019310099) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nAnti-dumping duty (%)\nTARIC additional code\nChangzhou New Changhai Fiberglass Co., Ltd and Jiangsu Changhai Composite Materials Holding Co., Ltd, Tangqiao, Yaoguan Town, Changzhou City, Jiangsu\n7,3\nA983\nAll other companies\n13,8\nA999\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 812/2010 on imports of yarns of glass fibre filaments, excluding yarns that are impregnated and coated and have a loss on ignition of more than 3 % (as determined by the ISO Standard 1887) currently falling within CN code ex 7019 19 10 (TARIC codes 7019191061, 7019191062, 7019191063, 7019191064, 7019191065, 7019191066 and 7019191079) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, shall be released.\n2. Amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 812/2010 on imports of chopped glass fibre strands, of a length of not more than 50 mm; glass fibre rovings, excluding glass fibre rovings which are impregnated and coated and have a loss on ignition of more than 3 % (as determined by the ISO Standard 1887); and mats made of glass fibre filaments excluding mats of glass wool currently falling within CN codes 7019 11 00, ex 7019 12 00 and ex 7019 31 00 (TARIC codes 7019120021, 7019120022, 7019120023, 7019120024, 7019120039, 7019310029 and 7019310099) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of the rates of the definitive anti-dumping duties shall be released.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2011.", "references": ["28", "31", "98", "56", "18", "74", "44", "62", "42", "41", "9", "43", "68", "1", "59", "80", "57", "61", "53", "21", "6", "17", "85", "70", "99", "20", "5", "86", "46", "30", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 9 August 2011\non the compliance of standard EN 16156:2010 \u2018Cigarettes - Assessment of the ignition propensity - Safety requirement\u2019 and of standard EN ISO 12863:2010 \u2018Standard test method for assessing the ignition propensity of cigarettes\u2019 with the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and publication of the references of standard EN 16156:2010 \u2018Cigarettes - Assessment of the ignition propensity - Safety requirement\u2019 and of standard EN ISO 12863:2010 \u2018Standard test method for assessing the ignition propensity of cigarettes\u2019 in the Official Journal of the European Union\n(notified under document C(2011) 5626)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/496/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee set up in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(1) of Directive 2001/95/EC obliges producers to place only safe products on the market.\n(2)\nUnder the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC, a product shall be presumed safe, as far as the risks and risk categories covered by the relevant national standards are concerned, when it conforms to voluntary national standards transposing European standards, the references of which have been published by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Union, in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Directive.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 4(1) of the Directive, European standards are established by European standardisation bodies under mandates drawn up by the Commission.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 4(2), the Commission is to publish the references of such standards.\n(5)\nIn June 2008, the Commission issued Mandate M/425 to CEN (European Committee for Standardisation) to draft a European safety standard to address the fire risk of cigarettes.\n(6)\nCEN adopted standard EN 16156:2010 \u2018Cigarettes - Assessment of the ignition propensity - Safety requirement\u2019 in response to the Commission\u2019s mandate. That standard refers to standard EN ISO 12863:2010 \u2018Standard test method for assessing the ignition propensity of cigarettes\u2019. Therefore, reference should also be made to the EN ISO standard when publishing the reference to EN 16156:2010.\n(7)\nEN ISO 12863:2010 was amended by a technical corrigendum (3). The corrigendum was endorsed by CEN without any modification (4) and thus included in standard EN 16156:2010.\n(8)\nStandards EN 16156:2010 and EN ISO 12863:2010 fulfil Mandate M/425 and comply with the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC. Their references should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(9)\nIn order to ensure a successful introduction of the standards, industry should be given sufficient time to adapt their production to the safety level provided for in the standards. The publication of the references of the standards in the Official Journal of the European Union 12 months after the standards were made available on 17 November 2010 by CEN is intended to ensure that thereafter in all Member States the presumption of fire safety would be based on common criteria. In order to ensure clarity and legal certainty on the internal market, market surveillance authorities in all Member States should take into account the European standards mentioned in recital 8 when assessing the fire safety of cigarettes, including at the stage of cigarette sales to consumers.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up under Directive 2001/95/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nStandard EN 16156:2010 \u2018Cigarettes - Assessment of the ignition propensity - Safety requirement\u2019 and standard EN ISO 12863:2010 \u2018Standard test method for assessing the ignition propensity of cigarettes\u2019 meet the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC for the risk they cover.\nArticle 2\nThe references of standards EN 16156:2010 and EN ISO 12863:2010 shall be published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on 17 November 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 August 2011.", "references": ["61", "20", "3", "32", "65", "62", "52", "66", "46", "94", "35", "28", "85", "57", "1", "23", "72", "53", "19", "41", "8", "4", "14", "67", "26", "15", "89", "55", "9", "43", "No Label", "24", "58", "73", "76"], "gold": ["24", "58", "73", "76"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 305/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 9 March 2011\nlaying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe rules of Member States require that construction works be designed and executed so as not to endanger the safety of persons, domestic animals or property nor damage the environment.\n(2)\nThose rules have a direct influence on the requirements of construction products. Those requirements are consequently reflected in national product standards, national technical approvals and other national technical specifications and provisions related to construction products. Due to their disparity, those requirements hinder trade within the Union.\n(3)\nThis Regulation should not affect the right of Member States to specify the requirements they deem necessary to ensure the protection of health, the environment and workers when using construction products.\n(4)\nMember States have introduced provisions, including requirements, relating not only to safety of buildings and other construction works but also to health, durability, energy economy, protection of the environment, economic aspects, and other important aspects in the public interest. Laws, regulations, administrative measures or case-law, established either at Union or Member State level, concerning construction works may have an impact on the requirements of construction products. Since their effect on the functioning of the internal market is likely to be very similar, it is appropriate to consider such laws, regulations, administrative measures or case-law as \u2018provisions\u2019 for the purposes of this Regulation.\n(5)\nWhere applicable, provisions for an intended use or uses of a construction product in a Member State, aimed at fulfilling basic requirements for construction works, determine the essential characteristics the performance of which should be declared. In order to avoid an empty declaration of performance, at least one of the essential characteristics of a construction product which are relevant for the declared use or uses should be declared.\n(6)\nCouncil Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (3) aimed to remove technical barriers to trade in the field of construction products in order to enhance their free movement in the internal market.\n(7)\nIn order to achieve that objective, Directive 89/106/EEC provided for the establishment of harmonised standards for construction products and provided for the granting of European technical approvals.\n(8)\nDirective 89/106/EEC should be replaced in order to simplify and clarify the existing framework, and improve the transparency and the effectiveness of the existing measures.\n(9)\nThis Regulation should take account of the horizontal legal framework for the marketing of products in the internal market, established by Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products (4) as well as by Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products (5).\n(10)\nThe removal of technical barriers in the field of construction may only be achieved by the establishment of harmonised technical specifications for the purposes of assessing the performance of construction products.\n(11)\nThose harmonised technical specifications should include testing, calculation and other means, defined within harmonised standards and European Assessment Documents for assessing performance in relation to the essential characteristics of construction products.\n(12)\nThe methods used by the Member States in their requirements for construction works, as well as other national rules relating to the essential characteristics of construction products, should be in accordance with harmonised technical specifications.\n(13)\nWhere appropriate, classes of performance in relation to the essential characteristics of construction products should be encouraged to be used in harmonised standards, so as to take account of different levels of basic requirements for construction works for certain construction works as well as of the differences in climate, geology and geography and other different conditions prevailing in the Member States. On the basis of a revised mandate, the European standardisation bodies should be entitled to establish such classes in cases where the Commission has not already established them.\n(14)\nWhere an intended use requires threshold levels in relation to any essential characteristic to be fulfilled by construction products in Member States, those levels should be established in the harmonised technical specifications.\n(15)\nWhen assessing the performance of a construction product, account should also be taken of the health and safety aspects related to its use during its entire life cycle.\n(16)\nThreshold levels determined by the Commission pursuant to this Regulation should be generally recognised values for the essential characteristics of the construction product in question with regard to the provisions in Member States and should ensure a high level of protection within the meaning of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).\n(17)\nThreshold levels can be of a technical or regulatory nature, and may be applicable to a single characteristic or to a set of characteristics.\n(18)\nThe European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (Cenelec) are recognised as the competent organisations for the adoption of harmonised standards in accordance with the general guidelines for cooperation between the Commission and those two organisations signed on 28 March 2003. Manufacturers should use those harmonised standards when the references to them have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union and in accordance with the criteria established under Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (6). Once a sufficient level of technical and scientific expertise on all the relevant aspects is attained, recourse to harmonised standards with regard to construction products should be increased, including, where appropriate, and after consultation of the Standing Committee on Construction, by requiring, by means of mandates, that those standards be developed on the basis of existing European Assessment Documents.\n(19)\nThe procedures under Directive 89/106/EEC for assessing performance in relation to the essential characteristics of construction products not covered by a harmonised standard should be simplified in order to make them more transparent and to reduce costs to manufacturers of construction products.\n(20)\nIn order to allow a manufacturer of a construction product to draw up a declaration of performance for a construction product which is not covered or not fully covered by a harmonised standard, it is necessary to provide for a European Technical Assessment.\n(21)\nManufacturers of construction products should be allowed to request European Technical Assessments to be issued for their products on the basis of the guidelines for European technical approval established under Directive 89/106/EEC. The right to use those guidelines as European Assessment Documents should therefore be ensured.\n(22)\nThe establishment of draft European Assessment Documents and the issuing of European Technical Assessments should be entrusted to Technical Assessment Bodies (hereinafter referred to as \u2018TABs\u2019) designated by Member States. In order to ensure that TABs have the necessary competence for carrying out those tasks, the requirements for their designation should be set out at Union level.\n(23)\nTABs should establish an organisation (hereinafter referred to as an \u2018organisation of TABs\u2019), supported, where applicable, through Union financing, to coordinate procedures for the establishment of draft European Assessment Documents and for the issuing of the European Technical Assessments, ensuring the transparency and the necessary confidentiality of those procedures.\n(24)\nExcept in the cases laid down in this Regulation, the placing on the market of a construction product which is covered by a harmonised standard or for which a European Technical Assessment has been issued should be accompanied by a declaration of performance in relation to the essential characteristics of the construction product in accordance with the relevant harmonised technical specifications.\n(25)\nWhere applicable, the declaration of performance should be accompanied by information on the content of hazardous substances in the construction product in order to improve the possibilities for sustainable construction and to facilitate the development of environment-friendly products. Such information should be provided without prejudice to the obligations, particularly with regard to labelling, laid down in other instruments of Union law applicable to hazardous substances and should be made available at the same time and in the same form as the declaration of performance so as to reach all potential users of construction products. Information on the content of hazardous substances should initially be limited to substances referred to in Articles 31 and 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency (7). However, the specific need for information on the content of hazardous substances in construction products should be further investigated with a view to completing the range of substances covered so as to ensure a high level of protection of the health and safety of workers using construction products and of users of construction works, including with regard to recycling and/or reuse requirements of parts or materials. This Regulation is without prejudice to Member States\u2019 rights and obligations pursuant to other instruments of Union law that may apply to hazardous substances, in particular, Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (8), Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (9), Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste (10) and Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (11).\n(26)\nIt should be possible for the declaration of performance to be numbered in accordance with the product-type reference number.\n(27)\nIt is necessary to provide for simplified procedures for the drawing up of declarations of performance in order to alleviate the financial burden of enterprises, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).\n(28)\nIn order to ensure that the declaration of performance is accurate and reliable, the performance of the construction product should be assessed and the production in the factory should be controlled in accordance with an appropriate system of assessment and verification of constancy of performance of the construction product. Several systems could be chosen to be applied for a given construction product, in order to take into account the specific relationship of some of its essential characteristics to the basic requirements for construction works.\n(29)\nGiven the specificity of construction products and the particular focus of the system for their assessment, the procedures for the conformity assessment provided for in Decision No 768/2008/EC, and the modules set out therein, are not appropriate. Specific methods should therefore be established for the assessment and verification of constancy of performance in relation to the essential characteristics of construction products.\n(30)\nDue to the difference in the meaning of the CE marking for construction products, when compared to the general principles set out in Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, specific provisions should be put in place to ensure the clarity of the obligation to affix the CE marking to construction products and the consequences thereof.\n(31)\nBy affixing the CE marking or having such marking affixed to a construction product, manufacturers should indicate that they take responsibility for the conformity of that product with its declared performance.\n(32)\nThe CE marking should be affixed to all construction products for which the manufacturer has drawn up a declaration of performance in accordance with this Regulation. If a declaration of performance has not been drawn up, the CE marking should not be affixed.\n(33)\nThe CE marking should be the only marking of conformity of the construction product with the declared performance and compliance with applicable requirements relating to Union harmonisation legislation. However, other markings may be used, provided that they help to improve the protection of users of construction products and are not covered by existing Union harmonisation legislation.\n(34)\nTo avoid the unnecessary testing of construction products for which performance has already been sufficiently demonstrated by stable test results or other existing data, the manufacturer should be allowed, under conditions set up in the harmonised technical specifications or in a Commission decision, to declare a certain level or class of performance without testing or without further testing.\n(35)\nTo avoid duplicating tests already carried out, a manufacturer of a construction product should be allowed to use the test results obtained by a third party.\n(36)\nConditions should be defined for the use of simplified procedures for the assessment of the performance of construction products, in order to reduce as far as possible the cost of placing them on the market, without reducing the level of safety. The manufacturers using such simplified procedures should demonstrate appropriately the fulfilment of those conditions.\n(37)\nIn order to enhance the impact of market surveillance measures, all simplified procedures provided for in this Regulation for the assessment of the performance of construction products should apply only to natural or legal persons which manufacture the products they place on the market.\n(38)\nTo further decrease the cost to micro-enterprises of placing construction products, which they have manufactured, on the market, it is necessary to provide for simplified procedures for the assessment of performance when the products in question do not imply significant safety concerns while complying with the applicable requirements, whatever the origin of those requirements. Enterprises applying those simplified procedures should, in addition, demonstrate that they qualify as micro-enterprises. Moreover, they should follow the applicable procedures for verification of constancy of performance provided for in the harmonised technical specifications for their products.\n(39)\nFor an individually designed and manufactured construction product, the manufacturer should be allowed to use simplified procedures for the assessment of performance, where it can be demonstrated that the product placed on the market complies with the applicable requirements.\n(40)\nThe interpretative framework for the definition of \u2018non-series process\u2019, to be applied to different construction products covered by this Regulation, should be established by the Commission in consultation with the Standing Committee on Construction.\n(41)\nAll economic operators intervening in the supply and distribution chain should take appropriate measures to ensure that they place or make available on the market only construction products which are in compliance with the requirements of this Regulation, which aim to ensure the performance of construction products and fulfil basic requirements for construction works. In particular, importers and distributors of construction products should be aware of the essential characteristics for which there are provisions on the Union market, and of the specific requirements in Member States in relation to the basic requirements for construction works, and should use this knowledge in their commercial transactions.\n(42)\nIt is important to ensure the accessibility of national technical rules so that enterprises, and in particular SMEs, can gather reliable and precise information about the law in force in the Member State where they intend to place or make available on the market their products. Member States should therefore designate Product Contact Points for Construction for this purpose. In addition to the tasks defined in Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State (12), Product Contact Points for Construction should also provide information on rules applicable to the incorporation, assembling or installation of a specific type of construction product.\n(43)\nIn order to facilitate the free movement of goods, Product Contact Points for Construction should provide, free of charge, information about provisions aimed at fulfilling basic requirements for construction works applicable to the intended use of each construction product in the territory of each Member State. Product Contact Points for Construction may also provide economic operators with additional information or observations. For additional information, Product Contact Points for Construction should be allowed to charge fees that are proportionate to the costs of providing such information or observations. Member States should furthermore ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to the Product Contact Points for Construction.\n(44)\nSince the creation of Product Contact Points for Construction should not interfere with the allocation of functions among competent authorities within the regulatory systems of the Member States, it should be possible for Member States to set up Product Contact Points for Construction in accordance with regional or local competences. Member States should be able to entrust the role of Product Contact Points for Construction to existing contact points established in accordance with other Union instruments, in order to prevent the unnecessary proliferation of contact points and to simplify administrative procedures. In order not to increase administrative costs for enterprises and competent authorities, Member States should also be able to entrust the role of Product Contact Points for Construction not only to existing services within the public administration, but also to national SOLVIT centres, chambers of commerce, professional organisations and private bodies.\n(45)\nThe Product Contact Points for Construction should be able to carry out their functions in a manner that avoids conflicts of interest, particularly in respect of the procedures for obtaining the CE marking.\n(46)\nFor the purposes of ensuring an equivalent and consistent enforcement of Union harmonisation legislation, effective market surveillance should be operated by the Member States. Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 provides the basic conditions for the functioning of such market surveillance, notably for programmes, financing and penalties.\n(47)\nThe responsibility of Member States for safety, health and other matters covered by the basic requirements for construction works on their territory should be recognised in a safeguard clause providing for appropriate protective measures.\n(48)\nSince it is necessary to ensure throughout the Union a uniform level of performance of bodies carrying out the assessment and verification of constancy of performance of construction products, and since all such bodies should perform their functions to the same level and under conditions of fair competition, requirements should be set for those bodies seeking to be notified for the purposes of this Regulation. Provision should also be made for the availability of adequate information about such bodies and for their monitoring.\n(49)\nIn order to ensure a coherent level of quality in the assessment and verification of constancy of performance of construction products, it is also necessary to establish requirements applicable to the authorities responsible for notifying the bodies carrying out those tasks to the Commission and the other Member States.\n(50)\nIn accordance with Article 291 TFEU, rules and general principles for the control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers are to be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (13) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is no longer applicable.\n(51)\nFor the purposes of achieving the objectives of this Regulation, the Commission should be empowered to adopt certain delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(52)\nIn particular, the Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts outlining the conditions for the use of websites to make available the declaration of performance.\n(53)\nSince a period of time is required to ensure that the framework for the proper functioning of this Regulation is in place, its application should be deferred with the exception of the provisions concerning the designation of TABs, notifying authorities and notified bodies, the establishment of an organisation of TABs and the establishment of the Standing Committee on Construction.\n(54)\nThe Commission and the Member States should, in collaboration with stakeholders, launch information campaigns to inform the construction sector, particularly economic operators and users of construction products, of the establishment of a common technical language, the distribution of responsibilities between individual economic operators and users, the affixing of the CE marking on construction products, the revision of the basic requirements for construction works and the systems of assessment and verification of constancy of performance.\n(55)\nThe basic requirement for construction works on sustainable use of natural resources should notably take into account the recyclability of construction works, their materials and parts after demolition, the durability of construction works and the use of environmentally compatible raw and secondary materials in construction works.\n(56)\nFor the assessment of the sustainable use of resources and of the impact of construction works on the environment Environmental Product Declarations should be used when available.\n(57)\nWherever possible, uniform European methods should be laid down for establishing compliance with the basic requirements set out in Annex I.\n(58)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely to achieve the proper functioning of the internal market for construction products by means of harmonised technical specifications to express the performance of construction products, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down conditions for the placing or making available on the market of construction products by establishing harmonised rules on how to express the performance of construction products in relation to their essential characteristics and on the use of CE marking on those products.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018construction product\u2019 means any product or kit which is produced and placed on the market for incorporation in a permanent manner in construction works or parts thereof and the performance of which has an effect on the performance of the construction works with respect to the basic requirements for construction works;\n2.\n\u2018kit\u2019 means a construction product placed on the market by a single manufacturer as a set of at least two separate components that need to be put together to be incorporated in the construction works;\n3.\n\u2018construction works\u2019 means buildings and civil engineering works;\n4.\n\u2018essential characteristics\u2019 means those characteristics of the construction product which relate to the basic requirements for construction works;\n5.\n\u2018performance of a construction product\u2019 means the performance related to the relevant essential characteristics, expressed by level or class, or in a description;\n6.\n\u2018level\u2019 means the result of the assessment of the performance of a construction product in relation to its essential characteristics, expressed as a numerical value;\n7.\n\u2018class\u2019 means a range of levels, delimited by a minimum and a maximum value, of performance of a construction product;\n8.\n\u2018threshold level\u2019 means a minimum or maximum performance level of an essential characteristic of a construction product;\n9.\n\u2018product-type\u2019 means the set of representative performance levels or classes of a construction product, in relation to its essential characteristics, produced using a given combination of raw materials or other elements in a specific production process;\n10.\n\u2018harmonised technical specifications\u2019 means harmonised standards and European Assessment Documents;\n11.\n\u2018harmonised standard\u2019 means a standard adopted by one of the European standardisation bodies listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC, on the basis of a request issued by the Commission, in accordance with Article 6 of that Directive;\n12.\n\u2018European Assessment Document\u2019 means a document adopted by the organisation of TABs for the purposes of issuing European Technical Assessments;\n13.\n\u2018European Technical Assessment\u2019 means the documented assessment of the performance of a construction product, in relation to its essential characteristics, in accordance with the respective European Assessment Document;\n14.\n\u2018intended use\u2019 means the intended use of the construction product as defined in the applicable harmonised technical specification;\n15.\n\u2018Specific Technical Documentation\u2019 means documentation demonstrating that methods within the applicable system for assessment and verification of constancy of performance have been replaced by other methods, provided that the results obtained by those other methods are equivalent to the results obtained by the test methods of the corresponding harmonised standard;\n16.\n\u2018making available on the market\u2019 means any supply of a construction product for distribution or use on the Union market in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge;\n17.\n\u2018placing on the market\u2019 means the first making available of a construction product on the Union market;\n18.\n\u2018economic operator\u2019 means the manufacturer, importer, distributor or authorised representative;\n19.\n\u2018manufacturer\u2019 means any natural or legal person who manufactures a construction product or who has such a product designed or manufactured, and markets that product under his name or trademark;\n20.\n\u2018distributor\u2019 means any natural or legal person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer, who makes a construction product available on the market;\n21.\n\u2018importer\u2019 means any natural or legal person established within the Union, who places a construction product from a third country on the Union market;\n22.\n\u2018authorised representative\u2019 means any natural or legal person established within the Union who has received a written mandate from a manufacturer to act on his behalf in relation to specified tasks;\n23.\n\u2018withdrawal\u2019 means any measure aimed at preventing a construction product in the supply chain from being made available on the market;\n24.\n\u2018recall\u2019 means any measure aimed at achieving the return of a construction product that has already been made available to the end-user;\n25.\n\u2018accreditation\u2019 has the meaning assigned to it by Regulation (EC) No 765/2008;\n26.\n\u2018factory production control\u2019 means the documented, permanent and internal control of production in a factory, in accordance with the relevant harmonised technical specifications;\n27.\n\u2018micro-enterprise\u2019 means a micro-enterprise as defined in the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (14);\n28.\n\u2018life cycle\u2019 means the consecutive and interlinked stages of a construction product\u2019s life, from raw material acquisition or generation from natural resources to final disposal.\nArticle 3\nBasic requirements for construction works and essential characteristics of construction products\n1. The basic requirements for construction works set out in Annex I shall constitute the basis for the preparation of standardisation mandates and harmonised technical specifications.\n2. The essential characteristics of construction products shall be laid down in harmonised technical specifications in relation to the basic requirements for construction works.\n3. For specific families of construction products covered by a harmonised standard, the Commission shall, where appropriate and in relation to their intended uses as defined in harmonised standards, determine by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 60, those essential characteristics for which the manufacturer shall declare the performance of the product when it is placed on the market.\nWhere appropriate, the Commission shall also determine, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 60, the threshold levels for the performance in relation to the essential characteristics to be declared.\nCHAPTER II\nDECLARATION OF PERFORMANCE AND CE MARKING\nArticle 4\nDeclaration of performance\n1. When a construction product is covered by a harmonised standard or conforms to a European Technical Assessment which has been issued for it, the manufacturer shall draw up a declaration of performance when such a product is placed on the market.\n2. When a construction product is covered by a harmonised standard or conforms to a European Technical Assessment which has been issued for it, information in any form about its performance in relation to the essential characteristics, as defined in the applicable harmonised technical specification, may be provided only if included and specified in the declaration of performance except where, in accordance with Article 5, no declaration of performance has been drawn up.\n3. By drawing up the declaration of performance, the manufacturer shall assume responsibility for the conformity of the construction product with such declared performance. In the absence of objective indications to the contrary, Member States shall presume the declaration of performance drawn up by the manufacturer to be accurate and reliable.\nArticle 5\nDerogations from drawing up a declaration of performance\nBy way of derogation from Article 4(1) and in the absence of Union or national provisions requiring the declaration of essential characteristics where the construction products are intended to be used, a manufacturer may refrain from drawing up a declaration of performance when placing a construction product covered by a harmonised standard on the market where:\n(a)\nthe construction product is individually manufactured or custom-made in a non-series process in response to a specific order, and installed in a single identified construction work, by a manufacturer who is responsible for the safe incorporation of the product into the construction works, in compliance with the applicable national rules and under the responsibility of those responsible for the safe execution of the construction works designated under the applicable national rules;\n(b)\nthe construction product is manufactured on the construction site for its incorporation in the respective construction works in compliance with the applicable national rules and under the responsibility of those responsible for the safe execution of the construction works designated under the applicable national rules; or\n(c)\nthe construction product is manufactured in a traditional manner or in a manner appropriate to heritage conservation and in a non-industrial process for adequately renovating construction works officially protected as part of a designated environment or because of their special architectural or historic merit, in compliance with the applicable national rules.\nArticle 6\nContent of the declaration of performance\n1. The declaration of performance shall express the performance of construction products in relation to the essential characteristics of those products in accordance with the relevant harmonised technical specifications.\n2. The declaration of performance shall contain, in particular, the following information:\n(a)\nthe reference of the product-type for which the declaration of performance has been drawn up;\n(b)\nthe system or systems of assessment and verification of constancy of performance of the construction product, as set out in Annex V;\n(c)\nthe reference number and date of issue of the harmonised standard or the European Technical Assessment which has been used for the assessment of each essential characteristic;\n(d)\nwhere applicable, the reference number of the Specific Technical Documentation used and the requirements with which the manufacturer claims the product complies.\n3. The declaration of performance shall in addition contain:\n(a)\nthe intended use or uses for the construction product, in accordance with the applicable harmonised technical specification;\n(b)\nthe list of essential characteristics, as determined in the harmonised technical specification for the declared intended use or uses;\n(c)\nthe performance of at least one of the essential characteristics of the construction product, relevant for the declared intended use or uses;\n(d)\nwhere applicable, the performance of the construction product, by levels or classes, or in a description, if necessary based on a calculation in relation to its essential characteristics determined in accordance with Article 3(3);\n(e)\nthe performance of those essential characteristics of the construction product which are related to the intended use or uses, taking into consideration the provisions in relation to the intended use or uses where the manufacturer intends the product to be made available on the market;\n(f)\nfor the listed essential characteristics for which no performance is declared, the letters \u2018NPD\u2019 (No Performance Determined);\n(g)\nwhen a European Technical Assessment has been issued for that product, the performance, by levels or classes, or in a description, of the construction product in relation to all essential characteristics contained in the corresponding European Technical Assessment.\n4. The declaration of performance shall be drawn up using the model set out in Annex III.\n5. The information referred to in Article 31 or, as the case may be, in Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, shall be provided together with the declaration of performance.\nArticle 7\nSupply of the declaration of performance\n1. A copy of the declaration of performance of each product which is made available on the market shall be supplied either in paper form or by electronic means.\nHowever, where a batch of the same product is supplied to a single user, it may be accompanied by a single copy of the declaration of performance either in paper form or by electronic means.\n2. A paper copy of the declaration of performance shall be supplied if the recipient requests it.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, the copy of the declaration of performance may be made available on a web site in accordance with conditions to be established by the Commission by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 60. Such conditions shall, inter alia, guarantee that the declaration of performance remains available at least for the period referred to in Article 11(2).\n4. The declaration of performance shall be supplied in the language or the languages required by the Member State where the product is made available.\nArticle 8\nGeneral principles and use of CE marking\n1. The general principles set out in Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 shall apply to the CE marking.\n2. The CE marking shall be affixed to those construction products for which the manufacturer has drawn up a declaration of performance in accordance with Articles 4 and 6.\nIf a declaration of performance has not been drawn up by the manufacturer in accordance with Articles 4 and 6, the CE marking shall not be affixed.\nBy affixing or having affixed the CE marking, manufacturers indicate that they take responsibility for the conformity of the construction product with the declared performance as well as the compliance with all applicable requirements laid down in this Regulation and in other relevant Union harmonisation legislation providing for its affixing.\nThe rules for affixing the CE marking provided for in other relevant Union harmonisation legislation shall apply without prejudice to this paragraph.\n3. For any construction product covered by a harmonised standard, or for which a European Technical Assessment has been issued, the CE marking shall be the only marking which attests conformity of the construction product with the declared performance in relation to the essential characteristics, covered by that harmonised standard or by the European Technical Assessment.\nIn this respect, Member States shall not introduce any references or shall withdraw any references in national measures to a marking attesting conformity with the declared performance in relation to the essential characteristics covered by a harmonised standard other than the CE marking.\n4. A Member State shall not prohibit or impede, within its territory or under its responsibility, the making available on the market or the use of construction products bearing the CE marking, when the declared performances correspond to the requirements for such use in that Member State.\n5. A Member State shall ensure that the use of construction products bearing the CE marking shall not be impeded by rules or conditions imposed by public bodies or private bodies acting as a public undertaking, or acting as a public body on the basis of a monopoly position or under a public mandate, when the declared performances correspond to the requirements for such use in that Member State.\n6. The methods used by the Member States in their requirements for construction works, as well as other national rules in relation to the essential characteristics of construction products, shall be in accordance with harmonised standards.\nArticle 9\nRules and conditions for the affixing of CE marking\n1. The CE marking shall be affixed visibly, legibly and indelibly to the construction product or to a label attached to it. Where this is not possible or not warranted on account of the nature of the product, it shall be affixed to the packaging or to the accompanying documents.\n2. The CE marking shall be followed by the two last digits of the year in which it was first affixed, the name and the registered address of the manufacturer, or the identifying mark allowing identification of the name and address of the manufacturer easily and without any ambiguity, the unique identification code of the product-type, the reference number of the declaration of performance, the level or class of the performance declared, the reference to the harmonised technical specification applied, the identification number of the notified body, if applicable, and the intended use as laid down in the harmonised technical specification applied.\n3. The CE marking shall be affixed before the construction product is placed on the market. It may be followed by a pictogram or any other mark notably indicating a special risk or use.\nArticle 10\nProduct Contact Points for Construction\n1. Member States shall designate Product Contact Points for Construction pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 764/2008.\n2. Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 shall apply to Product Contact Points for Construction.\n3. With regard to the tasks defined in Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 764/2008, each Member State shall ensure that the Product Contact Points for Construction provide information, using transparent and easily understandable terms, on the provisions within its territory aimed at fulfilling basic requirements for construction works applicable for the intended use of each construction product, as provided for in Article 6(3)(e) of this Regulation.\n4. Product Contact Points for Construction shall be able to carry out their functions in a manner that avoids conflicts of interest, particularly in respect of the procedures for obtaining the CE marking.\nCHAPTER III\nOBLIGATIONS OF ECONOMIC OPERATORS\nArticle 11\nObligations of manufacturers\n1. Manufacturers shall draw up a declaration of performance in accordance with Articles 4 and 6, and affix the CE marking in accordance with Articles 8 and 9.\nManufacturers shall, as the basis for the declaration of performance, draw up technical documentation describing all the relevant elements related to the required system of assessment and verification of constancy of performance.\n2. Manufacturers shall keep the technical documentation and the declaration of performance for a period of 10 years after the construction product has been placed on the market.\nWhere appropriate, the Commission may, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 60, amend that period for families of construction products on the basis of the expected life or part played by the construction product in the construction works.\n3. Manufacturers shall ensure that procedures are in place to ensure that series production maintains the declared performance. Changes in the product-type and in the applicable harmonised technical specifications shall be adequately taken into account.\nManufacturers shall, where deemed appropriate with regard to ensuring the accuracy, reliability and stability of the declared performance of a construction product, carry out sample testing of construction products placed or made available on the market, investigate, and, if necessary, keep a register of complaints, of non-conforming products and of product recalls, and keep distributors informed of any such monitoring.\n4. Manufacturers shall ensure that their construction products bear a type, batch or serial number or any other element allowing their identification, or, where the size or nature of the product does not allow it, that the required information is provided on the packaging or in a document accompanying the construction product.\n5. Manufacturers shall indicate on the construction product or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or in a document accompanying it, their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark and their contact address. The address shall indicate a single point at which the manufacturer can be contacted.\n6. When making a construction product available on the market, manufacturers shall ensure that the product is accompanied by instructions and safety information in a language determined by the Member State concerned which can be easily understood by users.\n7. Manufacturers who consider or have reason to believe that a construction product which they have placed on the market is not in conformity with the declaration of performance or not in compliance with other applicable requirements in this Regulation, shall immediately take the necessary corrective measures to bring that construction product into conformity, or, if appropriate, to withdraw or recall it. Furthermore, where the product presents a risk, manufacturers shall immediately inform the competent national authorities of the Member States in which they made the construction product available to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective measures taken.\n8. Manufacturers shall, further to a reasoned request from a competent national authority, provide it with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the construction product with the declaration of performance and compliance with other applicable requirements in this Regulation, in a language which can be easily understood by that authority. They shall cooperate with that authority, at its request, on any action taken to eliminate the risks posed by construction products which they have placed on the market.\nArticle 12\nAuthorised representatives\n1. A manufacturer may appoint, by written mandate, an authorised representative.\nThe drawing up of technical documentation shall not form part of the authorised representative\u2019s mandate.\n2. An authorised representative shall perform the tasks specified in the mandate. The mandate shall allow the authorised representative to carry out at least the following tasks:\n(a)\nkeep the declaration of performance and the technical documentation at the disposal of national surveillance authorities for the period referred to in Article 11(2);\n(b)\nfurther to a reasoned request from a competent national authority, provide that authority with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the construction product with the declaration of performance and compliance with other applicable requirements in this Regulation;\n(c)\ncooperate with the competent national authorities, at their request, on any action taken to eliminate the risks posed by construction products covered by the mandate of the authorised representative.\nArticle 13\nObligations of importers\n1. Importers shall place on the Union market only construction products which are compliant with the applicable requirements of this Regulation.\n2. Before placing a construction product on the market, importers shall ensure that the assessment and the verification of constancy of performance has been carried out by the manufacturer. They shall ensure that the manufacturer has drawn up the technical documentation referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) and the declaration of performance in accordance with Articles 4 and 6. They shall also ensure that the product, where required, bears the CE marking, that the product is accompanied by the required documents and that the manufacturer has complied with the requirements set out in Article 11(4) and (5).\nWhere an importer considers or has reason to believe that the construction product is not in conformity with the declaration of performance or not in compliance with other applicable requirements in this Regulation, the importer shall not place the construction product on the market until it conforms to the accompanying declaration of performance and it complies with the other applicable requirements in this Regulation or until the declaration of performance is corrected. Furthermore, where the construction product presents a risk, the importer shall inform the manufacturer and the market surveillance authorities thereof.\n3. Importers shall indicate on the construction product or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or in a document accompanying the product their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark and their contact address.\n4. Importers shall ensure that, when making a construction product available on the market, the product is accompanied by instructions and safety information in a language determined by the Member State concerned which can be easily understood by users.\n5. Importers shall ensure that, while a construction product is under their responsibility, storage or transport conditions do not jeopardise its conformity with the declaration of performance and compliance with other applicable requirements in this Regulation.\n6. Importers shall, when deemed appropriate with regard to ensuring the accuracy, reliability and stability of the declared performance of a construction product, carry out sample testing of construction products placed or made available on the market, investigate, and, if necessary, keep a register of complaints, of non-conforming products and of product recalls, and shall keep distributors informed of any such monitoring.\n7. Importers who consider or have reason to believe that a construction product which they have placed on the market is not in conformity with the declaration of performance or not in compliance with other applicable requirements in this Regulation, shall immediately take the necessary corrective measures to bring that construction product into conformity, or, where appropriate, to withdraw or recall it. Furthermore, where the product presents a risk, importers shall immediately inform the competent national authorities of the Member States in which they made the construction product available thereof, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective measures taken.\n8. Importers shall, for the period referred to in Article 11(2), keep a copy of the declaration of performance at the disposal of the market surveillance authorities and ensure that the technical documentation is made available to those authorities, upon request.\n9. Importers shall, further to a reasoned request from a competent national authority, provide it with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the construction product with the declaration of performance and compliance with other applicable requirements in this Regulation, in a language which can be easily understood by that authority. They shall cooperate with that authority, at its request, on any action taken to eliminate the risks posed by construction products which they have placed on the market.\nArticle 14\nObligations of distributors\n1. When making a construction product available on the market, distributors shall act with due care in relation to the requirements of this Regulation.\n2. Before making a construction product available on the market distributors shall ensure that the product, where required, bears the CE marking and is accompanied by the documents required under this Regulation and by instructions and safety information in a language determined by the Member State concerned which can be easily understood by users. Distributors shall also ensure that the manufacturer and the importer have complied with the requirements set out in Article 11(4) and (5) and Article 13(3) respectively.\nWhere a distributor considers or has reason to believe that a construction product is not in conformity with the declaration of performance or not in compliance with other applicable requirements in this Regulation, the distributor shall not make the product available on the market until it conforms to the accompanying declaration of performance and it complies with the other applicable requirements in this Regulation or until the declaration of performance is corrected. Furthermore, where the product presents a risk, the distributor shall inform the manufacturer or the importer thereof, and the market surveillance authorities.\n3. A distributor shall ensure that, while a construction product is under his responsibility, storage or transport conditions do not jeopardise its conformity with the declaration of performance and compliance with other applicable requirements in this Regulation.\n4. Distributors who consider or have reason to believe that a construction product which they have made available on the market is not in conformity with the declaration of performance or not in compliance with other applicable requirements in this Regulation, shall make sure that the corrective measures necessary to bring that product in conformity, to withdraw it or recall it, as appropriate, are taken. Furthermore, where the product presents a risk, distributors shall immediately inform the competent national authorities of the Member States in which they made the product available thereof, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective measures taken.\n5. Distributors shall, further to a reasoned request from a competent national authority, provide it with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the construction product with the declaration of performance and compliance with other applicable requirements in this Regulation in a language which can be easily understood by that authority. They shall cooperate with that authority, at its request, on any action taken to eliminate the risks posed by construction products which they have made available on the market.\nArticle 15\nCases in which obligations of manufacturers apply to importers and distributors\nAn importer or distributor shall be considered a manufacturer for the purposes of this Regulation and shall be subject to the obligations of a manufacturer pursuant to Article 11, where he places a product on the market under his name or trademark or modifies a construction product already placed on the market in such a way that conformity with the declaration of performance may be affected.\nArticle 16\nIdentification of economic operators\nFor the period referred to in Article 11(2), economic operators shall, on request, identify the following to market surveillance authorities:\n(a)\nany economic operator who has supplied them with a product;\n(b)\nany economic operator to whom they have supplied a product.\nCHAPTER IV\nHARMONISED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS\nArticle 17\nHarmonised standards\n1. Harmonised standards shall be established by the European standardisation bodies listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC on the basis of requests (hereinafter referred to as \u2018mandates\u2019) issued by the Commission in accordance with Article 6 of that Directive after having consulted the Standing Committee on Construction referred to in Article 64 of this Regulation (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Standing Committee on Construction\u2019).\n2. Where stakeholders are involved in the process of developing harmonised standards pursuant to this Article, the European standardisation bodies shall ensure that the various categories of stakeholders are in all instances represented in a fair and equitable manner.\n3. Harmonised standards shall provide the methods and the criteria for assessing the performance of the construction products in relation to their essential characteristics.\nWhen provided for in the relevant mandate, a harmonised standard shall refer to an intended use of products to be covered by it.\nHarmonised standards shall, where appropriate and without endangering the accuracy, reliability or stability of the results, provide methods less onerous than testing for assessing the performance of the construction products in relation to their essential characteristics.\n4. The European standardisation bodies shall determine in harmonised standards the applicable factory production control, which shall take into account the specific conditions of the manufacturing process of the construction product concerned.\nThe harmonised standard shall include technical details necessary for the implementation of the system of assessment and verification of constancy of performance.\n5. The Commission shall assess the conformity of harmonised standards established by the European standardisation bodies with the relevant mandates.\nThe Commission shall publish in the Official Journal of the European Union the list of references of harmonised standards which are in conformity with the relevant mandates.\nThe following shall be indicated for each harmonised standard in the list:\n(a)\nreferences of superseded harmonised technical specifications, if any;\n(b)\ndate of the beginning of the coexistence period;\n(c)\ndate of the end of the coexistence period.\nThe Commission shall publish any updates to that list.\nFrom the date of the beginning of the coexistence period it shall be possible to use a harmonised standard to make a declaration of performance for a construction product covered by it. National standardisation bodies are under the obligation to transpose the harmonised standards in conformity with Directive 98/34/EC.\nWithout prejudice to Articles 36 to 38, from the date of the end of the coexistence period, the harmonised standard shall be the only means used for drawing up a declaration of performance for a construction product covered by it.\nAt the end of the coexistence period, conflicting national standards shall be withdrawn and Member States shall terminate the validity of all conflicting national provisions.\nArticle 18\nFormal objection against harmonised standards\n1. When a Member State or the Commission considers that a harmonised standard does not entirely satisfy the requirements set out in the relevant mandate, the Member State concerned or the Commission, after having consulted the Standing Committee on Construction, shall bring the matter before the Committee set up pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC, giving its arguments. That Committee shall, after having consulted the relevant European standardisation bodies deliver its opinion without delay.\n2. In the light of the opinion of the Committee set up pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC, the Commission shall decide to publish, not to publish, to publish with restriction, to maintain, to maintain with restriction or to withdraw the references to the harmonised standard concerned in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n3. The Commission shall inform the European standardisation body concerned of its decision and, if necessary, request the revision of the harmonised standard concerned.\nArticle 19\nEuropean Assessment Document\n1. Following a request for a European Technical Assessment by a manufacturer, a European Assessment Document shall be drawn up and adopted by the organisation of TABs for any construction product not covered or not fully covered by a harmonised standard, for which the performance in relation to its essential characteristics cannot be entirely assessed according to an existing harmonised standard, because, inter alia:\n(a)\nthe product does not fall within the scope of any existing harmonised standard;\n(b)\nfor at least one essential characteristic of that product, the assessment method provided for in the harmonised standard is not appropriate; or\n(c)\nthe harmonised standard does not provide for any assessment method in relation to at least one essential characteristic of that product.\n2. The procedure for adopting the European Assessment Document shall respect the principles set out in Article 20 and shall comply with Article 21 and Annex II.\n3. The Commission may adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 60 to amend Annex II and establish supplementary procedural rules for the development and adoption of a European Assessment Document.\n4. Where appropriate, the Commission, after having consulted the Standing Committee on Construction, shall take existing European Assessment Documents as a basis for the mandates to be issued pursuant to Article 17(1) with a view to developing harmonised standards as regards the products referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.\nArticle 20\nPrinciples for the development and adoption of European Assessment Documents\n1. The procedure for developing and adopting European Assessment Documents shall:\n(a)\nbe transparent to the manufacturer concerned;\n(b)\ndefine appropriate mandatory time limits in order to avoid unjustified delay;\n(c)\ntake appropriately into account the protection of commercial secrecy and confidentiality;\n(d)\nallow for adequate participation by the Commission;\n(e)\nbe cost-effective for the manufacturer; and\n(f)\nensure sufficient collegiality and coordination amongst TABs designated for the product in question.\n2. The TABs shall, together with the organisation of TABs, bear the full costs of the development and adoption of European Assessment Documents.\nArticle 21\nObligations of the TAB receiving a request for a European Technical Assessment\n1. The TAB receiving a request for a European Technical Assessment shall inform the manufacturer if the construction product is covered, fully or partially, by a harmonised technical specification as follows:\n(a)\nwhere the product is fully covered by a harmonised standard, the TAB shall inform the manufacturer that, in accordance with Article 19(1), a European Technical Assessment cannot be issued;\n(b)\nwhere the product is fully covered by a European Assessment Document, the TAB shall inform the manufacturer that such a document will be used as the basis for the European Technical Assessment to be issued;\n(c)\nwhere the product is not covered, or not fully covered, by any harmonised technical specification, the TAB shall apply the procedures set out in Annex II or those established in accordance with Article 19(3).\n2. In the cases referred to in points (b) and (c) of paragraph 1, the TAB shall inform the organisation of TABs and the Commission of the content of the request and of the reference to a relevant Commission decision for assessment and verification of constancy of performance, which the TAB intends to apply for that product, or of the lack of such a Commission decision.\n3. If the Commission considers that an appropriate decision for assessment and verification of constancy of performance does not exist for the construction product, Article 28 shall apply.\nArticle 22\nPublication\nEuropean Assessment Documents adopted by the organisation of TABs shall be sent to the Commission, which shall publish a list of references of the final European Assessment Documents in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThe Commission shall publish any updates to that list.\nArticle 23\nDispute resolution in cases of disagreement between TABs\nIf the TABs do not agree upon the European Assessment Document within the time limits provided for, the organisation of TABs shall submit this matter to the Commission for appropriate resolution.\nArticle 24\nContent of the European Assessment Document\n1. A European Assessment Document shall contain, at least, a general description of the construction product, the list of essential characteristics, relevant for the intended use of the product as foreseen by the manufacturer and agreed between the manufacturer and the organisation of TABs, as well as the methods and criteria for assessing the performance of the product in relation to those essential characteristics.\n2. Principles for the applicable factory production control to be applied shall be set out in the European Assessment Document, taking into account the conditions of the manufacturing process of the construction product concerned.\n3. Where the performance of some of the essential characteristics of the product can appropriately be assessed with methods and criteria already established in other harmonised technical specifications or the Guidelines referred to in Article 66(3), or used in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 89/106/EEC before 1 July 2013 in the context of issuing European technical approvals, those existing methods and criteria shall be incorporated as parts of the European Assessment Document.\nArticle 25\nFormal objections against European Assessment Documents\n1. Where a Member State or the Commission considers that a European Assessment Document does not entirely satisfy the demands to be met in relation to the basic requirements for construction works set out in Annex I, the Member State concerned or the Commission shall bring the matter before the Standing Committee on Construction, giving its arguments. The Standing Committee on Construction shall, after having consulted the organisation of TABs, deliver its opinion without delay.\n2. In the light of the opinion of the Standing Committee on Construction, the Commission shall decide to publish, not to publish, to publish with restriction, to maintain, to maintain with restriction or to withdraw the references to the European Assessment Documents concerned in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n3. The Commission shall inform the organisation of TABs accordingly and, if necessary, request the revision of the European Assessment Document concerned.\nArticle 26\nEuropean Technical Assessment\n1. The European Technical Assessment shall be issued by a TAB, at the request of a manufacturer on the basis of a European Assessment Document established in accordance with the procedures set out in Article 21 and Annex II.\nProvided that there is a European Assessment Document, a European Technical Assessment may be issued even in the case where a mandate for a harmonised standard has been issued. Such issuing shall be possible until the beginning of the coexistence period as determined by the Commission in accordance with Article 17(5).\n2. The European Technical Assessment shall include the performance to be declared, by levels or classes, or in a description, of those essential characteristics agreed by the manufacturer and the TAB receiving the request for the European Technical Assessment for the declared intended use, and technical details necessary for the implementation of the system of assessment and verification of constancy of performance.\n3. In order to ensure the uniform implementation of this Article, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts to establish the format of the European Technical Assessment in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 64(2).\nArticle 27\nLevels or classes of performance\n1. The Commission may adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 60, to establish classes of performance in relation to the essential characteristics of construction products.\n2. Where the Commission has established classes of performance in relation to the essential characteristics of construction products, the European standardisation bodies shall use those classes in harmonised standards. The organisation of TABs shall where relevant use those classes in European Assessment Documents.\nWhere classes of performance in relation to the essential characteristics of construction products are not established by the Commission, they may be established by the European standardisation bodies in harmonised standards, on the basis of a revised mandate.\n3. When provided for in the relevant mandates, the European standardisation bodies shall establish in harmonised standards threshold levels in relation to essential characteristics and, when appropriate, for intended uses, to be fulfilled by construction products in Member States.\n4. Where the European standardisation bodies have established classes of performance in a harmonised standard, the organisation of TABs shall use those classes in the European Assessment Documents where they are relevant for the construction product.\nWhen deemed appropriate, the organisation of TABs may, with the agreement of the Commission and after consulting the Standing Committee on Construction, establish in the European Assessment Document classes of performance and threshold levels in relation to the essential characteristics of a construction product within its intended use as foreseen by the manufacturer.\n5. The Commission may adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 60, to establish conditions under which a construction product shall be deemed to satisfy a certain level or class of performance without testing or without further testing.\nWhere such conditions are not established by the Commission, they may be established by the European standardisation bodies in harmonised standards, on the basis of a revised mandate.\n6. When the Commission has established classification systems in accordance with paragraph 1, Member States may determine the levels or classes of performance to be respected by construction products in relation to their essential characteristics only in accordance with those classification systems.\n7. The European standardisation bodies and the organisation of TABs shall respect the regulatory needs of Member States when determining threshold levels or classes of performance.\nArticle 28\nAssessment and verification of constancy of performance\n1. Assessment and verification of constancy of performance of construction products in relation to their essential characteristics shall be carried out in accordance with one of the systems set out in Annex V.\n2. By means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 60, the Commission shall establish and may revise, taking into account in particular the effect on the health and safety of people, and on the environment, which system or systems are applicable to a given construction product or family of construction products or a given essential characteristic. In doing so, the Commission shall also take into account the documented experiences forwarded by national authorities with regard to market surveillance.\nThe Commission shall choose the least onerous system or systems consistent with the fulfilment of all basic requirements for construction works.\n3. The system or systems thus determined shall be indicated in the mandates for harmonised standards and in the harmonised technical specifications.\nCHAPTER V\nTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT BODIES\nArticle 29\nDesignation, monitoring and evaluation of TABs\n1. Member States may designate TABs within their territories, notably for one or several product areas listed in Table 1 of Annex IV.\nMember States which have designated a TAB shall communicate to the other Member States and the Commission its name and address and the product areas for which that TAB is designated.\n2. The Commission shall make publicly available by electronic means the list of TABs indicating the product areas for which they are designated, endeavouring to achieve the highest possible level of transparency.\nThe Commission shall make any updates to that list publicly available.\n3. Member States shall monitor the activities and competence of the TABs they have designated, and evaluate them in relation to the respective requirements set out in Table 2 of Annex IV.\nMember States shall inform the Commission of their national procedures for the designation of TABs, of the monitoring of their activity and competence, and of any changes to that information.\n4. The Commission shall adopt guidelines for carrying out the evaluation of TABs, after consulting the Standing Committee on Construction.\nArticle 30\nRequirements for TABs\n1. A TAB shall carry out the assessment and issue the European Technical Assessment in a product area for which it has been designated.\nThe TAB shall satisfy the requirements set out in Table 2 of Annex IV within the scope of its designation.\n2. A TAB shall make publicly available its organigram and the names of the members of its internal decision-making bodies.\n3. Where a TAB no longer complies with the requirements referred to in paragraph 1, the Member State shall withdraw the designation of that TAB for the relevant product area and inform the Commission and the other Member States thereof.\nArticle 31\nCoordination of TABs\n1. The TABs shall establish an organisation for technical assessment.\n2. The organisation of TABs shall be considered a body pursuing an aim of general European interest within the meaning of Article 162 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (15).\n3. The common cooperation objectives and the administrative and financial conditions relating to the grants awarded to the organisation of TABs may be defined in a framework partnership agreement signed by the Commission and that organisation, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (16) (the Financial Regulation) and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002. The European Parliament and the Council shall be informed of the conclusion of any such agreement.\n4. The organisation of TABs shall at least carry out the following tasks:\n(a)\norganise the coordination of the TABs and, if necessary, ensure cooperation and consultation with other stakeholders;\n(b)\nensure that examples of best practice are shared between TABs to promote greater efficiency and provide a better service to industry;\n(c)\ncoordinate the application of the procedures set out in Article 21 and in Annex II, as well as provide the support needed to that end;\n(d)\ndevelop and adopt European Assessment Documents;\n(e)\ninform the Commission of any question related to the preparation of European Assessment Documents and of any aspects related to the interpretation of the procedures set out in Article 21 and in Annex II and suggest improvements to the Commission based on experience gained;\n(f)\ncommunicate any observations concerning a TAB not fulfilling its tasks in accordance with the procedures set out in Article 21 and in Annex II to the Commission and the Member State which designated the TAB;\n(g)\nensure that adopted European Assessment Documents and references to European Technical Assessments are kept publicly available.\nThe organisation of TABs shall have a Secretariat in order to carry out these tasks.\n5. Member States shall ensure that the TABs contribute with financial and human resources to the organisation of TABs.\nArticle 32\nUnion financing\n1. Union financing may be granted to the organisation of TABs for the implementation of the tasks referred to in Article 31(4).\n2. The appropriations allocated to the tasks set out in Article 31(4) shall be determined each year by the budgetary authority within the limits of the financial framework in force.\nArticle 33\nFinancing arrangements\n1. Union financing shall be provided, without a call for proposals, to the organisation of TABs to carry out the tasks referred to in Article 31(4) for which grants can be awarded in accordance with the Financial Regulation.\n2. The activities of the Secretariat of the organisation of TABs, referred to in Article 31(4), may be financed on the basis of operating grants. In the event of renewal, the operating grants shall not be decreased automatically.\n3. Grant agreements may authorise flat-rate cover of the beneficiary\u2019s overheads up to a maximum of 10 % of total eligible direct costs for actions, except where the beneficiary\u2019s indirect costs are covered by an operating grant financed from the general budget of the Union.\nArticle 34\nManagement and monitoring\n1. The appropriations determined by the budgetary authority for the financing of tasks set out in Article 31(4) may also cover administrative expenses relating to preparation, monitoring, inspection, auditing and evaluation which are directly necessary for the achievement of the objectives of this Regulation, and in particular studies, meetings, information and publication activities, expenses relating to informatics networks for the exchange of information and any other expenditure on administrative and technical assistance which the Commission may use for activities related to the development and adoption of European Assessment Documents and the issuing of European Technical Assessments.\n2. The Commission shall evaluate the relevance of the tasks set out in Article 31(4) that receive Union financing in the light of the requirements of Union policies and legislation, and inform the European Parliament and the Council of the outcome of that evaluation by 1 January 2017 and every 4 years thereafter.\nArticle 35\nProtection of the Union\u2019s financial interests\n1. The Commission shall ensure that when the activities financed under this Regulation are implemented, the Union\u2019s financial interests are protected by the application of preventive measures against fraud, corruption and other illegal activities, by effective checks and by the recovery of amounts unduly paid and, if irregularities are detected, by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities\u2019 financial interests (17), Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities\u2019 financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (18) and Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (19).\n2. For the activities financed under this Regulation, the notion of irregularity referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 shall mean any infringement of a provision of Union law or any breach of a contractual obligation resulting from an act or omission by an economic operator which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Union or budgets managed by it by an unjustified item of expenditure.\n3. Any agreements and contracts resulting from this Regulation shall provide for monitoring and financial control by the Commission or any representative which it authorises and for audits by the Court of Auditors, which, if necessary, may be conducted on-the-spot.\nCHAPTER VI\nSIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES\nArticle 36\nUse of Appropriate Technical Documentation\n1. In determining the product-type, a manufacturer may replace type-testing or type-calculation by Appropriate Technical Documentation demonstrating that:\n(a)\nfor one or several essential characteristics of the construction product, which the manufacturer places on the market, that product is deemed to achieve a certain level or class of performance without testing or calculation, or without further testing or calculation, in accordance with the conditions set out in the relevant harmonised technical specification or a Commission decision;\n(b)\nthe construction product, covered by a harmonised standard, which the manufacturer places on the market corresponds to the product-type of another construction product, manufactured by another manufacturer and already tested in accordance with the relevant harmonised standard. When these conditions are fulfilled, the manufacturer is entitled to declare performance corresponding to all or part of the test results of this other product. The manufacturer may use the test results obtained by another manufacturer only after having obtained an authorisation of that manufacturer, who remains responsible for the accuracy, reliability and stability of those test results; or\n(c)\nthe construction product, covered by a harmonised technical specification, which the manufacturer places on the market is a system made of components, which the manufacturer assembles duly following precise instructions given by the provider of such a system or of a component thereof, who has already tested that system or that component for one or several of its essential characteristics in accordance with the relevant harmonised technical specification. When these conditions are fulfilled, the manufacturer is entitled to declare performance corresponding to all or part of the test results for the system or the component provided to him. The manufacturer may use the test results obtained by another manufacturer or system provider only after having obtained an authorisation of that manufacturer or system provider, who remains responsible for the accuracy, reliability and stability of those test results.\n2. If the construction product referred to in paragraph 1 belongs to a family of construction products for which the applicable system for assessment and verification of constancy of performance is system 1 + or 1, as set out in Annex V, the Appropriate Technical Documentation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be verified by a notified product certification body as referred to in Annex V.\nArticle 37\nUse of simplified procedures by micro-enterprises\nMicro-enterprises manufacturing construction products covered by a harmonised standard may replace the determination of the product-type on the basis of type-testing for the applicable systems 3 and 4 as set out in Annex V by using methods differing from those contained in the applicable harmonised standard. Those manufacturers may also treat construction products to which system 3 applies in accordance with provisions for system 4. When a manufacturer uses these simplified procedures, the manufacturer shall demonstrate compliance of the construction product with the applicable requirements by means of a Specific Technical Documentation and shall demonstrate the equivalence of the procedures used to the procedures laid down in the harmonised standards.\nArticle 38\nOther simplified procedures\n1. In relation to construction products covered by a harmonised standard and which are individually manufactured or custom-made in a non-series process in response to a specific order, and which are installed in a single identified construction work, the performance assessment part of the applicable system, as set out in Annex V, may be replaced by the manufacturer by Specific Technical Documentation demonstrating compliance of that product with the applicable requirements and equivalence of the procedures used to the procedures laid down in the harmonised standards.\n2. If the construction product referred to in paragraph 1 belongs to a family of construction products for which the applicable system for assessment and verification of constancy of performance is system 1 + or 1, as set out in Annex V, the Specific Technical Documentation shall be verified by a notified product certification body as referred to in Annex V.\nCHAPTER VII\nNOTIFYING AUTHORITIES AND NOTIFIED BODIES\nArticle 39\nNotification\nMember States shall notify the Commission and the other Member States of bodies authorised to carry out third-party tasks in the process of assessment and verification of constancy of performance under this Regulation (hereinafter referred to as \u2018notified bodies\u2019).\nArticle 40\nNotifying authorities\n1. Member States shall designate a notifying authority that shall be responsible for setting up and carrying out the necessary procedures for the assessment and notification of the bodies to be authorised to carry out third-party tasks in the process of assessment and verification of constancy of performance for the purposes of this Regulation, and for the monitoring of notified bodies, including their compliance with Article 43.\n2. Member States may decide that the assessment and monitoring referred to in paragraph 1 shall be carried out by their national accreditation bodies within the meaning of, and in accordance with, Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.\n3. Where the notifying authority delegates or otherwise entrusts the assessment, notification or monitoring referred to in paragraph 1 to a body which is not a governmental entity, that body shall be a legal entity and shall comply mutatis mutandis with the requirements laid down in Article 41. In addition, it shall have arrangements to cover liabilities arising from its activities.\n4. The notifying authority shall take full responsibility for the tasks performed by the body referred to in paragraph 3.\nArticle 41\nRequirements relating to notifying authorities\n1. The notifying authority shall be established in such a way that no conflicts of interest with notified bodies occur.\n2. The notifying authority shall be organised and operated so as to safeguard the objectivity and impartiality of its activities.\n3. The notifying authority shall be organised in such a way that each decision relating to notification of a body to be authorised to carry out third party tasks in the process of assessment and verification of constancy of performance is taken by competent persons different from those who carried out the assessment.\n4. The notifying authority shall not offer or provide activities performed by notified bodies, or consultancy services on a commercial or competitive basis.\n5. The notifying authority shall safeguard the confidentiality of the information obtained.\n6. The notifying authority shall have a sufficient number of competent personnel at its disposal for the proper performance of its tasks.\nArticle 42\nInformation obligation for Member States\nMember States shall inform the Commission of their national procedures for the assessment and notification of bodies to be authorised to carry out third party tasks in the process of assessment and verification of constancy of performance and the monitoring of notified bodies, and of any changes thereto.\nThe Commission shall make that information publicly available.\nArticle 43\nRequirements for notified bodies\n1. For the purposes of notification, a notified body shall meet the requirements set out in paragraphs 2 to 11.\n2. A notified body shall be established under national law and have legal personality.\n3. A notified body shall be a third-party body independent from the organisation or the construction product it assesses.\nA body belonging to a business association or professional federation representing undertakings involved in the design, manufacturing, provision, assembly, use or maintenance of construction products which it assesses, can on condition that its independence and the absence of any conflict of interest are demonstrated, be considered to be such a body.\n4. A notified body, its top-level management and the personnel responsible for carrying out the third party tasks in the process of assessment and verification of constancy of performance shall not be the designer, manufacturer, supplier, installer, purchaser, owner, user or maintainer of the construction products which it assesses, nor the authorised representative of any of those parties. This shall not preclude the use of assessed products that are necessary for the operations of the notified body or the use of products for personal purposes.\nA notified body, its top-level management and the personnel responsible for carrying out the third party tasks in the process of assessment and verification of constancy of performance shall not become directly involved in the design, manufacture or construction, marketing, installation, use or maintenance of those construction products, nor represent the parties engaged in those activities. They shall not engage in any activity that may conflict with their independence of judgement and integrity related to the activities for which they have been notified. This shall, in particular, apply to consultancy services.\nA notified body shall ensure that activities of its subsidiaries or subcontractors do not affect the confidentiality, objectivity and impartiality of its assessment and/or verification activities.\n5. A notified body and its personnel shall carry out the third party tasks in the process of assessment and verification of constancy of performance with the highest degree of professional integrity and requisite technical competence in the specific field and must be free from all pressures and inducements, particularly financial, which might influence their judgement or the results of their assessment and/or verification activities, especially from persons or groups of persons with an interest in the results of those activities.\n6. A notified body shall be capable of carrying out all the third party tasks in the process of assessment and verification of constancy of performance assigned to it in accordance with Annex V in relation to which it has been notified, whether those tasks are carried out by the notified body itself or on its behalf and under its responsibility.\nAt all times and for each system of assessment and verification of constancy of performance and for each kind or category of construction products, essential characteristics and tasks in relation to which it has been notified, the notified body shall have the following at its disposal:\n(a)\nthe necessary personnel with technical knowledge and sufficient and appropriate experience to perform the third party tasks in the process of assessment and verification of constancy of performance;\n(b)\nthe necessary description of procedures according to which the assessment of performance is carried out, ensuring the transparency and the ability of reproduction of these procedures; it shall have appropriate policies and procedures in place that distinguish between the tasks it carries out as a notified body and other activities;\n(c)\nthe necessary procedures to perform its activities which take due account of the size of an undertaking, the sector in which it operates, its structure, the degree of complexity of the product technology in question and the mass or serial nature of the production process.\nA notified body shall have the means necessary to perform the technical and administrative tasks connected with the activities for which it is notified in an appropriate manner and shall have access to all necessary equipment or facilities.\n7. The personnel responsible for carrying out the activities in relation to which the body has been notified, shall have the following:\n(a)\nsound technical and vocational training covering all the third party tasks in the process of assessment and verification of constancy of performance within the relevant scope for which the body has been notified;\n(b)\nsatisfactory knowledge of the requirements of the assessments and verifications they carry out and adequate authority to carry out such operations;\n(c)\nappropriate knowledge and understanding of the applicable harmonised standards and of the relevant provisions of the Regulation;\n(d)\nthe ability required to draw up the certificates, records and reports to demonstrate that the assessments and the verifications have been carried out.\n8. The impartiality of the notified body, its top-level management and assessment personnel shall be guaranteed.\nThe remuneration of the notified body\u2019s top-level management and assessment personnel shall not depend on the number of assessments carried out or on the results of such assessments.\n9. A notified body shall take out liability insurance unless liability is assumed by the Member State in accordance with national law, or the Member State itself is directly responsible for the assessment and/or the verification performed.\n10. The personnel of the notified body shall be bound to observe professional secrecy with regard to all information gained in carrying out its tasks under Annex V, except in relation to the competent administrative authorities of the Member State in which its activities are carried out. Proprietary rights shall be protected.\n11. A notified body shall participate in, or ensure that its assessment personnel is informed of, the relevant standardisation activities and the activities of the notified body coordination group established under this Regulation and shall apply as general guidance the administrative decisions and documents produced as a work result of that group.\nArticle 44\nPresumption of conformity\nA notified body to be authorised to carry out third party tasks in the process of assessment and verification of constancy of performance which demonstrates its conformity with the criteria laid down in the relevant harmonised standards or parts thereof, the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be presumed to comply with the requirements set out in Article 43 in so far as the applicable harmonised standards cover those requirements.\nArticle 45\nSubsidiaries and subcontractors of notified bodies\n1. Where a notified body subcontracts specific tasks connected with the third party tasks in the process of assessment and verification of constancy of performance or has recourse to a subsidiary, it shall ensure that the subcontractor or the subsidiary meets the requirements set out in Article 43, and shall inform the notifying authority accordingly.\n2. The notified body shall take full responsibility for the tasks performed by subcontractors or subsidiaries wherever these are established.\n3. Activities may be subcontracted or carried out by a subsidiary only with the agreement of the client.\n4. The notified body shall keep at the disposal of the notifying authority the relevant documents concerning the assessment of the qualifications of any subcontractor or the subsidiary and the tasks carried out by such parties under Annex V.\nArticle 46\nUse of facilities outside the testing laboratory of the notified body\n1. On request of the manufacturer and where justified by technical, economic or logistic reasons, notified bodies may decide to carry out the tests referred to in Annex V, for the systems of assessment and verification of constancy of performance 1+, 1 and 3 or have such tests carried out under their supervision, either in the manufacturing plants using the test equipments of the internal laboratory of the manufacturer or, with the prior consent of the manufacturer, in an external laboratory, using the test equipments of that laboratory.\nNotified bodies carrying out such tests shall be specifically designated as competent to work away from their own accredited test facilities.\n2. Before carrying out those tests, the notified body shall verify whether the requirements of the test method are satisfied and shall evaluate whether:\n(a)\ntest equipment has an appropriate calibration system and the traceability of the measurements is guaranteed;\n(b)\nthe quality of the test results is ensured.\nArticle 47\nApplication for notification\n1. A body to be authorised to carry out third party tasks in the process of assessment and verification of constancy of performance shall submit an application for notification to the notifying authority of the Member State in which it is established.\n2. The application shall be accompanied by a description of the activities to be performed, the assessment and/or verification procedures for which the body claims to be competent, an accreditation certificate, where one exists, issued by the national accreditation body within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, attesting that the body meets the requirements laid down in Article 43.\n3. Where the body concerned cannot provide an accreditation certificate, it shall provide the notifying authority with all documentary evidence necessary for the verification, recognition and regular monitoring of its compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 43.\nArticle 48\nNotification procedure\n1. Notifying authorities may notify only bodies which have satisfied the requirements laid down in Article 43.\n2. They shall notify the Commission and the other Member States, notably using the electronic notification tool developed and managed by the Commission.\nExceptionally, for cases set out in point 3 of Annex V, for which the appropriate electronic tool is not available, a hard copy of the notification shall be accepted.\n3. The notification shall include full details of the functions to be performed, reference to the relevant harmonised technical specification and, for the purposes of the system set out in Annex V, the essential characteristics for which the body is competent.\nHowever, reference to the relevant harmonised technical specification is not required in the cases set out in point 3 of Annex V.\n4. Where a notification is not based on an accreditation certificate as referred to in Article 47(2), the notifying authority shall provide the Commission and the other Member States with all documentary evidence which attests to the notified body\u2019s competence and the arrangements in place to ensure that that body will be monitored regularly and will continue to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 43.\n5. The body concerned may perform the activities of a notified body only where no objections are raised by the Commission or the other Member States within 2 weeks of notification where an accreditation certificate is used or within 2 months of notification where an accreditation certificate is not used.\nOnly such a body shall be considered as a notified body for the purpose of this Regulation.\n6. The Commission and the other Member States shall be notified of any subsequent relevant changes to the notification.\nArticle 49\nIdentification numbers and lists of notified bodies\n1. The Commission shall assign an identification number to each notified body.\nIt shall assign a single such number even where the body is notified under several Union acts.\n2. The Commission shall make publicly available the list of bodies notified under this Regulation, including the identification numbers that have been allocated to them and the activities for which they have been notified, notably using the electronic notification tool developed and managed by the Commission.\nThe Commission shall ensure that this list is kept up-to-date.\nArticle 50\nChanges to the notification\n1. Where a notifying authority has ascertained or has been informed that a notified body no longer meets the requirements laid down in Article 43, or that it is failing to fulfil its obligations, the notifying authority shall restrict, suspend or withdraw the notification as appropriate, depending on the seriousness of the failure to meet those requirements or to fulfil those obligations. It shall immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States accordingly, notably using the electronic notification tool developed and managed by the Commission.\n2. In the event of withdrawal, restriction or suspension of notification or where the notified body has ceased its activity, the notifying Member State concerned shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that the files of that body are either processed by another notified body or kept available for the responsible notifying and market surveillance authorities at their request.\nArticle 51\nChallenge of the competence of notified bodies\n1. The Commission shall investigate all cases where it doubts, or doubt is brought to its attention regarding, the competence of a notified body or the continued fulfilment by a notified body of the requirements and responsibilities to which it is subject.\n2. The notifying Member State shall provide the Commission, on request, with all information related to the basis for notification or the maintenance of the competence of the body concerned.\n3. The Commission shall ensure that all sensitive information obtained in the course of its investigations is treated confidentially.\n4. Where the Commission ascertains that a notified body does not meet, or no longer meets, the requirements for its notification, it shall inform the notifying Member State accordingly and request it to take the necessary corrective measures, including withdrawal of notification, if necessary.\nArticle 52\nOperational obligations for notified bodies\n1. Notified bodies shall carry out third party tasks in accordance with the systems of assessment and verification of constancy of performance provided for in Annex V.\n2. Assessments and verifications of constancy of performance shall be carried out with transparency as regards the manufacturer, and in a proportionate manner, avoiding an unnecessary burden for economic operators. The notified bodies shall perform their activities taking due account of the size of the undertaking, the sector in which the undertaking operates, its structure, the degree of complexity of the product technology in question and the mass or serial nature of the production process.\nIn so doing, the notified bodies shall nevertheless respect the degree of rigour required for the product by this Regulation and the part played by the product for the fulfilment of all basic requirements for construction works.\n3. Where, in the course of the initial inspection of the manufacturing plant and of factory production control, a notified body finds that the manufacturer has not ensured the constancy of performance of the manufactured product, it shall require the manufacturer to take appropriate corrective measures and shall not issue a certificate.\n4. Where, in the course of the monitoring activity aiming at the verification of the constancy of performance of the manufactured product, a notified body finds that a construction product no longer has the same performance to that of the product-type, it shall require the manufacturer to take appropriate corrective measures and shall suspend or withdraw its certificate if necessary.\n5. Where corrective measures are not taken or do not have the required effect, the notified body shall restrict, suspend or withdraw any certificates, as appropriate.\nArticle 53\nInformation obligations for notified bodies\n1. Notified bodies shall inform the notifying authority of the following:\n(a)\nany refusal, restriction, suspension or withdrawal of certificates;\n(b)\nany circumstances affecting the scope of, and conditions for, notification;\n(c)\nany request for information on assessment and/or verification of constancy of performance activities carried out which they have received from market surveillance authorities;\n(d)\non request, third party tasks in accordance with the systems of assessment and verification of constancy of performance carried out within the scope of their notification and any other activity performed, including cross-border activities and subcontracting.\n2. Notified bodies shall provide the other bodies notified under this Regulation carrying out similar third party tasks in accordance with the systems of assessment and verification of constancy of performance and for construction products covered by the same harmonised technical specification with relevant information on issues relating to negative and, on request, positive results from these assessments and/or verifications.\nArticle 54\nExchange of experience\nThe Commission shall provide for the organisation of exchange of experience between the Member States\u2019 national authorities responsible for policy on notification.\nArticle 55\nCoordination of notified bodies\nThe Commission shall ensure that appropriate coordination and cooperation between bodies notified pursuant to Article 39 are put into place and properly operated in the form of a group of notified bodies.\nMember States shall ensure that the bodies notified by them participate in the work of that group, directly or by means of designated representatives, or shall ensure that the representatives of notified bodies are informed thereof.\nCHAPTER VIII\nMARKET SURVEILLANCE AND SAFEGUARD PROCEDURES\nArticle 56\nProcedure to deal at national level with construction products presenting a risk\n1. Where the market surveillance authorities of one Member State have taken action pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 or where they have sufficient reason to believe that a construction product covered by a harmonised standard or for which a European Technical Assessment has been issued does not achieve the declared performance and presents a risk for the fulfilment of the basic requirements for construction works covered by this Regulation, they shall carry out an evaluation in relation to the product concerned covering the respective requirements laid down by this Regulation. The relevant economic operators shall cooperate as necessary with the market surveillance authorities.\nWhere, in the course of that evaluation, the market surveillance authorities find that the construction product does not comply with the requirements laid down in this Regulation, they shall without delay require the relevant economic operator to take all appropriate corrective actions to bring the product into compliance with those requirements, notably with the declared performance, or to withdraw the product from the market, or recall it within a reasonable period, commensurate with the nature of the risk, as they may prescribe.\nThe market surveillance authorities shall inform the notified body accordingly, if a notified body is involved.\nArticle 21 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 shall apply to the measures referred to in the second subparagraph of this paragraph.\n2. Where the market surveillance authorities consider that the non-compliance is not limited to their national territory, they shall inform the Commission and the other Member States of the results of the evaluation and of the actions which they have required the economic operator to take.\n3. The economic operator shall ensure that all appropriate corrective action is taken in respect of all the construction products concerned which that economic operator has made available on the market throughout the Union.\n4. Where the relevant economic operator, within the period referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, does not take adequate corrective action, the market surveillance authorities shall take all appropriate provisional measures to prohibit or restrict the making available of the construction product on the national market or to withdraw the construction product from that market or to recall it.\nThe market surveillance authorities shall inform the Commission and the other Member States, without delay, of those measures.\n5. The information referred to in paragraph 4 shall include all available details, in particular the data necessary for the identification of the non-compliant construction product, the origin of the construction product, the nature of the non-compliance alleged and the risk involved, the nature and duration of national measures taken as well as the arguments put forward by the relevant economic operator. In particular, the market surveillance authorities shall indicate whether the non-compliance is due to either of the following:\n(a)\nfailure of the product to achieve the declared performance and/or to meet the requirements related to the fulfilment of basic requirements for construction works laid down in this Regulation;\n(b)\nshortcomings in the harmonised technical specifications or in the Specific Technical Documentation.\n6. Member States other than the Member State initiating the procedure shall without delay inform the Commission and the other Member States of any measures adopted and of any additional information at their disposal relating to the non-compliance of the construction product concerned, and, in the event of disagreement with the notified national measure, of their objections.\n7. Where, within 15 working days of receipt of the information referred to in paragraph 4, no objection has been raised by either a Member State or the Commission in respect of a provisional measure taken by a Member State in relation to the construction product concerned, that measure shall be deemed justified.\n8. Member States shall ensure that appropriate restrictive measures are taken without delay in respect of the construction product concerned, such as withdrawal of the product from their market.\nArticle 57\nUnion safeguard procedure\n1. Where, on completion of the procedure set out in Article 56(3) and (4), objections are raised against a measure taken by a Member State or where the Commission considers a national measure to be contrary to Union legislation, the Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the Member States and the relevant economic operator(s) and shall evaluate the national measure. On the basis of the results of that evaluation, the Commission shall decide whether the measure is justified or not.\nThe Commission shall address its decision to all Member States and shall immediately communicate it to them and to the relevant economic operator(s).\n2. If the national measure is considered justified, all Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the non-compliant construction product is withdrawn from their markets and shall inform the Commission accordingly. If the national measure is considered unjustified, the Member State concerned shall withdraw the measure.\n3. Where the national measure is considered to be justified and the non-compliance of the construction product is attributed to shortcomings in the harmonised standards as referred to in Article 56(5)(b), the Commission shall inform the relevant European standardisation body or bodies and shall bring the matter before the Committee set up pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC. That Committee shall consult with the relevant European standardisation body or bodies and deliver its opinion without delay.\nWhere the national measure is considered to be justified and the non-compliance of the construction product is attributed to shortcomings in the European Assessment Document or in the Specific Technical Documentation as referred to in Article 56(5)(b), the Commission shall bring the matter before the Standing Committee on Construction and subsequently adopt the appropriate measures.\nArticle 58\nComplying construction products which nevertheless present a risk to health and safety\n1. Where, having performed an evaluation pursuant to Article 56(1), a Member State finds that, although a construction product is in compliance with this Regulation, it presents a risk for the fulfilment of the basic requirements for construction works, to the health or safety of persons or to other aspects of public interest protection, it shall require the relevant economic operator to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the construction product concerned, when placed on the market, no longer presents that risk, to withdraw the construction product from the market or to recall it within a reasonable period, commensurate with the nature of the risk, which it may prescribe.\n2. The economic operator shall ensure that any corrective action is taken in respect of all the construction products concerned which that economic operator has made available on the market throughout the Union.\n3. The Member State shall immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States. That information shall include all available details, in particular the data necessary for the identification of the construction product concerned, the origin and the supply chain of the product, the nature of the risk involved and the nature and duration of the national measures taken.\n4. The Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the Member States and the relevant economic operator(s) and shall evaluate the national measures taken. On the basis of the results of that evaluation, the Commission shall decide whether the measure is justified or not and, where necessary, propose appropriate measures.\n5. The Commission shall address its decision to all Member States and shall immediately communicate it to them and to the relevant economic operator(s).\nArticle 59\nFormal non-compliance\n1. Without prejudice to Article 56, where a Member State makes one of the following findings, it shall require the relevant economic operator to put an end to the non-compliance concerned:\n(a)\nthe CE marking has been affixed in breach of Article 8 or 9;\n(b)\nthe CE marking has not been affixed, when required, in accordance with Article 8(2);\n(c)\nwithout prejudice to Article 5, the declaration of performance has not been drawn up, when required, in accordance with Article 4;\n(d)\nthe declaration of performance has not been drawn up in accordance with Articles 4, 6 and 7;\n(e)\nthe technical documentation is either not available or not complete.\n2. Where the non-compliance referred to in paragraph 1 continues, the Member State shall take all appropriate measures to restrict or prohibit the making available on the market of the construction product or ensure that it is recalled or withdrawn from the market.\nCHAPTER IX\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 60\nDelegated acts\nFor the purposes of achieving the objectives of this Regulation, in particular removing and avoiding restrictions on making construction products available on the market, the following matters shall be delegated to the Commission in accordance with Article 61, and subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 62 and 63:\n(a)\nthe determination, where appropriate, of the essential characteristics or threshold levels within specific families of construction products, in relation to which, in accordance with Articles 3 to 6, the manufacturer shall declare, in relation to their intended use, by levels or classes, or in a description, the performance of the manufacturer\u2019s product when it is placed on the market;\n(b)\nthe conditions on which a declaration of performance may be electronically processed, in order to make it available on a web site in accordance with Article 7;\n(c)\nthe amendment of the period for which the manufacturer shall keep the technical documentation and the declaration of performance after the construction product has been placed on the market, in accordance with Article 11, based on the expected life or the part played by the construction product in the construction works;\n(d)\nthe amendment of Annex II and where necessary the adoption of supplementary procedural rules in accordance with Article 19(3) in order to ensure compliance with the principles in Article 20, or the application in practice of the procedures set out in Article 21;\n(e)\nthe adaptation of Annex III, table 1 of Annex IV, and Annex V in response to technical progress;\n(f)\nthe establishment and adaptation of classes of performance in response to technical progress in accordance with Article 27(1);\n(g)\nthe conditions on which a construction product shall be deemed to satisfy a certain level or class of performance without testing or without further testing in accordance with Article 27(5), provided that the fulfilment of the basic requirements for construction works is not thereby jeopardised;\n(h)\nthe adaptation, establishment and revision of the systems of assessment and verification of constancy of performance in accordance with Article 28, relating to a given product, a given product family or a given essential characteristic, and in accordance with:\n(i)\nthe importance of the part played by the product or those essential characteristics with respect to the basic requirements for construction works;\n(ii)\nthe nature of the product;\n(iii)\nthe effect of the variability of the essential characteristics of the construction product during the expected life of the product; and\n(iv)\nthe susceptibility to defects in the product\u2019s manufacture.\nArticle 61\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 60 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 24 April 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated power at the latest 6 months before the end of the 5-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 62.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 62 and 63.\nArticle 62\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 60 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 63\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 3 months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council, that period shall be extended by 3 months.\n2. If, on expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 64\nCommittee\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Standing Committee on Construction.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 3 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply.\n3. Member States shall ensure that the members of the Standing Committee on Construction are able to carry out their functions in a manner that avoids conflicts of interest, particularly in respect of the procedures for obtaining the CE marking.\nArticle 65\nRepeal\n1. Directive 89/106/EEC is repealed.\n2. References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 66\nTransitional provisions\n1. Construction products which have been placed on the market in accordance with Directive 89/106/EEC before 1 July 2013 shall be deemed to comply with this Regulation.\n2. Manufacturers may draw up a declaration of performance on the basis of a certificate of conformity or a declaration of conformity, which has been issued before 1 July 2013 in accordance with Directive 89/106/EEC.\n3. Guidelines for European technical approval published before 1 July 2013 in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 89/106/EEC may be used as European Assessment Documents.\n4. Manufacturers and importers may use European technical approvals issued in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 89/106/EEC before 1 July 2013 as European Technical Assessments throughout the period of validity of those approvals.\nArticle 67\nReporting by the Commission\n1. By 25 April 2014, the Commission shall assess the specific need for information on the content of hazardous substances in construction products and consider the possible extension of the information obligation provided for in Article 6(5) to other substances, and shall report thereon to the European Parliament and to the Council. In its assessment, the Commission shall take into account, inter alia, the need to ensure a high level of protection of the health and safety of workers using construction products and of users of construction works, including with regard to recycling and/or reuse requirements of parts or materials.\nIf appropriate, the report shall, within 2 years of its submission to the European Parliament and to the Council, be followed up by appropriate legislative proposals.\n2. By 25 April 2016, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation of this Regulation, including on Articles 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 37 on the basis of reports provided by Member States, as well as by other relevant stakeholders, accompanied, where relevant, by appropriate proposals.\nArticle 68\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nHowever, Articles 3 to 28, Articles 36 to 38, Articles 56 to 63, Articles 65 and 66, as well as Annexes I, II, III and V shall apply from 1 July 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 9 March 2011.", "references": ["46", "62", "68", "19", "4", "21", "0", "69", "47", "51", "15", "55", "95", "36", "30", "67", "79", "73", "82", "56", "53", "97", "13", "2", "89", "18", "24", "80", "9", "63", "No Label", "8", "23", "25", "76", "87"], "gold": ["8", "23", "25", "76", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 430/2012\nof 22 May 2012\nopening the tendering procedure for aid for private storage of olive oil\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(a), (d) and (j), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the Commission may decide to authorise bodies, offering sufficient guarantees and approved by the Member States, to conclude contracts for the storage of olive oil that they market in the event of a serious disturbance on the market in certain regions of the European Union.\n(2)\nIn Spain and Greece, Member States that together produce more than two thirds of the total olive oil production in the Union, the average olive oil price recorded on the market during the period specified in Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 of 20 August 2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products (2) is below the level indicated in Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. This causes a serious disturbance on the markets of those Member States. The Union olive oil market is characterised by a high level of interdependence and therefore the serious disturbance of the Spanish and Greek market risks to propagate to all the olive oil-producing Member States.\n(3)\nArticle 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that aid for private storage may be granted for olive oil and that the aid should be fixed by the Commission in advance or by means of a tendering procedure.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 826/2008 has established common rules for the implementation of the private storage aid scheme. Pursuant to Article 6 of that Regulation, a tendering procedure is to be opened in accordance with the detailed rules and conditions provided for in its Article 9.\n(5)\nThe global quantity up to which private storage aid can be granted should be set at a level which, according to market analysis, would contribute to the stabilisation of the market.\n(6)\nIn order to facilitate the administrative and control work relating to the conclusion of contracts, the minimum quantity of product each tender must provide for should be fixed.\n(7)\nA security should be fixed in order to ensure that the operators fulfil their contractual obligations and that the measure will have its desired effect on the market.\n(8)\nIn the light of the evolution of the market situation in the current marketing year and the forecasts for the following marketing year, the Commission should have the possibility to decide to shorten the term of contracts which are being performed and adjust the level of aid accordingly. That possibility has to be included in the contract, as provided for by Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008.\n(9)\nPursuant to Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008, the time period of notification of all valid tenders by Member States to the Commission is to be fixed.\n(10)\nIn order to prevent uncontrolled price falls, to react swiftly to the exceptional market situation and to ensure efficient management of this measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(11)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. A tendering procedure is hereby opened in order to determine the level of aid for private storage referred to in Article 31(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for the categories of olive oil listed in the Annex to this Regulation and defined in point 1 of Annex XVI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n2. The global quantity up to which aid for private storage can be granted shall be 100 000 tonnes.\nArticle 2\nApplicable rules\nRegulation (EC) No 826/2008 shall apply save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nSubmission of tenders\n1. The sub-period during which tenders may be submitted in response to the first partial invitation to tender shall begin on 31 May 2012 and shall end on 5 June 2012 at 11:00 Brussels time.\nThe sub-period during which tenders may be submitted in response to the second partial invitation to tender shall begin on the first working day following the end of the preceding sub-period and shall end on 19 June 2012 at 11:00 Brussels time.\n2. Tenders shall relate to a storage period of 180 days.\n3. Each tender shall cover a minimum quantity of at least 50 tonnes.\n4. Where an operator takes part in a tendering procedure for more than one category of oil or for vats located at different addresses, it shall submit a separate tender in each case.\n5. Tenders may be lodged only in Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Portugal and Slovenia.\nArticle 4\nSecurities\nTenderers shall establish a security of EUR 50 per tonne of olive oil covered by a tender.\nArticle 5\nShortening the term of contracts\nThe Commission may, on the basis of developments on the market in olive oil and the outlook for the future, decide, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, to shorten the term of contracts which are being performed and adjust the amount of the aid accordingly. The contract with the successful tenderer shall include reference to this option.\nArticle 6\nNotification of the tenders to the Commission\nIn accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 all valid tenders shall be notified separately by Member States to the Commission, within 24 hours from the end of each tendering sub-period as referred to in Article 3(1) of this Regulation.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 May 2012.", "references": ["11", "18", "88", "56", "59", "94", "13", "85", "67", "39", "52", "19", "21", "2", "3", "14", "55", "86", "0", "22", "54", "15", "98", "25", "38", "63", "78", "40", "32", "72", "No Label", "20", "26", "35", "61", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "26", "35", "61", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 210/2011\nof 2 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 3 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2011.", "references": ["93", "3", "76", "28", "54", "38", "97", "92", "52", "85", "31", "53", "45", "58", "46", "57", "96", "48", "79", "8", "59", "22", "14", "33", "90", "83", "13", "40", "51", "74", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 428/2011\nof 27 April 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of 3 months, continue to be invoked by the holder, pursuant to Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of 3 months pursuant to Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2011.", "references": ["97", "78", "69", "73", "16", "37", "20", "2", "88", "65", "93", "13", "8", "18", "32", "27", "39", "19", "96", "99", "98", "48", "66", "17", "58", "52", "29", "56", "6", "15", "No Label", "21", "83"], "gold": ["21", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 983/2011\nof 30 September 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Cordero de Extremadura (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Cordero de Extremadura\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 September 2011.", "references": ["27", "82", "73", "7", "6", "88", "57", "28", "95", "31", "2", "94", "45", "8", "86", "43", "90", "83", "53", "20", "11", "18", "21", "68", "51", "4", "5", "41", "38", "12", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 678/2010\nof 28 July 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 626/2010 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 July 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 July 2010 were fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 626/2010 (3).\n(2)\nAs the average of the import duties calculated differs by more than EUR 5/tonne from that fixed, a corresponding adjustment must be made to the import duties fixed by Regulation (EU) No 626/2010.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 626/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 626/2010 are hereby replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 29 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2010.", "references": ["61", "90", "28", "9", "79", "96", "57", "38", "83", "41", "47", "3", "29", "75", "0", "15", "25", "19", "17", "44", "86", "89", "65", "97", "71", "91", "64", "23", "5", "55", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 597/2012\nof 5 July 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances aluminium ammonium sulphate, fat distillation residues, repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/fish oil and urea\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2)(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe active substances aluminium ammonium sulphate, fat distillation residues, repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/fish oil and urea were included in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) by Commission Directive 2008/127/EC (3) in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 24b of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 of 3 December 2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4). Since the replacement of Directive 91/414/EEC by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, these substances are deemed to have been approved under that Regulation and are listed in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (5).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 25a of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004, the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) presented to the Commission its views on the draft review reports for aluminium ammonium sulphate (6) on 6 December 2011, for fat distillation residues (7), repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/fish oil (8) and urea (9) on 16 December 2011. The draft review reports and the views of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 1 June 2012 in the format of the Commission review reports for aluminium ammonium sulphate, fat distillation residues, repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/fish oil and urea.\n(3)\nThe Authority communicated its views on aluminium ammonium sulphate, fat distillation residues, repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/fish oil and urea to the notifiers, and the Commission invited them to submit comments on the review reports.\n(4)\nIt is confirmed that the active substances aluminium ammonium sulphate, fat distillation residues, repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/fish oil and urea are to be deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is necessary to amend the conditions of approval of aluminium ammonium sulphate, fat distillation residues, repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/fish oil and urea. It is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information as regards those active substances. At the same time certain technical adaptations should be made, in particular the name of the active substances \u2018Repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/fish oil\u2019 and \u2018fat distillation residues\u2019 should be replaced respectively by \u2018fish oil\u2019 and fat distillation residues. The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nA reasonable period of time should be allowed before the application of this Regulation in order to allow Member States, notifiers and holders of authorisations for plant protection products to meet the requirements resulting from amendment to the conditions of the approval.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 November 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2012.", "references": ["74", "86", "4", "20", "26", "62", "16", "99", "17", "85", "82", "15", "34", "75", "77", "80", "52", "13", "50", "42", "48", "88", "81", "47", "33", "29", "59", "98", "44", "79", "No Label", "25", "60", "61", "65", "70", "83"], "gold": ["25", "60", "61", "65", "70", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1320/2011\nof 16 December 2011\nimplementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (1), and in particular Article 8a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 May 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus, additional persons should be included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["67", "48", "10", "43", "61", "98", "47", "89", "51", "12", "56", "45", "83", "86", "57", "38", "44", "19", "33", "80", "24", "96", "87", "20", "1", "63", "6", "62", "66", "78", "No Label", "3", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2012/18/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 4 July 2012\non the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (3) lays down rules for the prevention of major accidents which might result from certain industrial activities and the limitation of their consequences for human health and the environment.\n(2)\nMajor accidents often have serious consequences, as evidenced by accidents like Seveso, Bhopal, Schweizerhalle, Enschede, Toulouse and Buncefield. Moreover the impact can extend beyond national borders. This underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment. There is therefore a need to ensure that the existing high level of protection remains at least the same or increases.\n(3)\nDirective 96/82/EC has been instrumental in reducing the likelihood and consequences of such accidents thereby leading to a better level of protection throughout the Union. A review of that Directive has confirmed that the rate of major accidents has remained stable. While overall the existing provisions are fit for purpose, some changes are required in order to further strengthen the level of protection, in particular with regard to the prevention of major accidents. At the same time the system established by Directive 96/82/EC should be adapted to changes to the Union system of classification of substances and mixtures to which that Directive refers. In addition, a number of other provisions should be clarified and updated.\n(4)\nIt is therefore appropriate to replace Directive 96/82/EC in order to ensure that the existing level of protection is maintained and further improved, by making the provisions more effective and efficient, and where possible by reducing unnecessary administrative burdens by streamlining or simplification, provided that safety and environmental and human health protection are not compromised. At the same time, the new provisions should be clear, coherent and easy to understand to help improve implementation and enforceability, while the level of protection of human health and the environment remains at least the same or increases. The Commission should cooperate with the Member States on the practical implementation of this Directive. That cooperation should, inter alia, address the issue of self-classification of substances and mixtures. As appropriate, stakeholders such as representatives of industry, workers and non-governmental organisations promoting the protection of human health or the environment should be involved in the implementation of this Directive.\n(5)\nThe Convention of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, which was approved on behalf of the Union by Council Decision 98/685/EC of 23 March 1998 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (4), provides for measures regarding the prevention of, preparedness for, and response to industrial accidents capable of causing transboundary effects as well as for international cooperation in this field. Directive 96/82/EC implements the Convention within Union law.\n(6)\nMajor accidents can have consequences beyond frontiers, and the ecological and economic costs of an accident are borne not only by the establishment affected, but also by the Member States concerned. It is therefore necessary to establish and apply safety and risk-reduction measures to prevent possible accidents, to reduce the risk of accidents occurring and to minimise the effects if they do occur, thereby making it possible to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union.\n(7)\nThe provisions of this Directive should apply without prejudice to the provisions of Union law relating to health and safety at work and the working environment, and, in particular, without prejudice to Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (5).\n(8)\nCertain industrial activities should be excluded from the scope of this Directive provided they are subject to other legislation at Union or national level providing for an equivalent level of safety. The Commission should continue to examine whether there are significant gaps in the existing regulatory framework, in particular as regards new and emerging risks from other activities as well as from specific dangerous substances and, if appropriate, present a legislative proposal to address those gaps.\n(9)\nAnnex I to Directive 96/82/EC lists the dangerous substances falling within its scope, inter alia, by reference to certain provisions of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (6) as well as Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (7). Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC have been replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (8), which implements within the Union the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals that has been adopted at international level, within the structure of the United Nations (UN). That Regulation introduces new hazard classes and categories only partially corresponding to those used under those repealed Directives. Certain substances or mixtures would, however, not be classified under that system due to an absence of criteria within that framework. Annex I to Directive 96/82/EC therefore needs to be amended to align it to that Regulation while maintaining the existing level, or further increasing the level, of protection provided for in that Directive.\n(10)\nFor the purpose of classifying upgraded biogas, any developments on standards under the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) should be taken into account.\n(11)\nUnwanted effects from the alignment to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and subsequent adaptations to that Regulation having an impact on the classification of substances and mixtures may occur. On the basis of criteria included in this Directive, the Commission should assess whether, notwithstanding their hazard classification, there are dangerous substances which do not present a major-accident hazard and, where appropriate, submit a legislative proposal to exclude the dangerous substance concerned from the scope of this Directive. The assessment should start swiftly, in particular after the change of classification of a substance or mixture, in order to avoid unnecessary burdens for operators and competent authorities in the Member States. Exclusions from the scope of this Directive should not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective measures.\n(12)\nOperators should have a general obligation to take all necessary measures to prevent major accidents, to mitigate their consequences and to take recovery measures. Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers. The operator should also draw up and, where required by national law, send to the competent authority a major-accident prevention policy (MAPP) setting out the operator\u2019s overall approach and measures, including appropriate safety management systems, for controlling major-accident hazards. When the operators identify and evaluate the major-accident hazards, consideration should also be given to the dangerous substances which may be generated during a severe accident within the establishment.\n(13)\nDirective 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (9) is normally relevant for environmental damage caused by a major accident.\n(14)\nIn order to reduce the risk of domino effects, where establishments are sited in such a way or so close together as to increase the likelihood of major accidents, or aggravate their consequences, operators should cooperate in the exchange of appropriate information and in informing the public, including neighbouring establishments that could be affected.\n(15)\nIn order to demonstrate that all that is necessary has been done to prevent major accidents, and to prepare emergency plans and response measures, the operator should, in the case of establishments where dangerous substances are present in significant quantities, provide the competent authority with information in the form of a safety report. That safety report should contain details of the establishment, the dangerous substances present, the installation or storage facilities, possible major-accident scenarios and risk analysis, prevention and intervention measures and the management systems available, in order to prevent and reduce the risk of major accidents and to enable the necessary steps to be taken to limit the consequences thereof. The risk of a major accident could be increased by the probability of natural disasters associated with the location of the establishment. This should be considered during the preparation of major-accident scenarios.\n(16)\nTo prepare for emergencies, in the case of establishments where dangerous substances are present in significant quantities, it is necessary to establish internal and external emergency plans and to establish procedures to ensure that those plans are tested and revised as necessary and implemented in the event of a major accident or the likelihood thereof. The staff of an establishment should be consulted on the internal emergency plan and the public concerned should have the opportunity to give its opinion on the external emergency plan. Sub-contracting may have an impact on the safety of an establishment. Member States should require operators to take this into account when drafting a MAPP, a safety report or an internal emergency plan.\n(17)\nWhen considering the choice of appropriate operating methods, including those for monitoring and control, operators should take into account available information on best practices.\n(18)\nIn order to provide greater protection for residential areas, areas of substantial public use and the environment, including areas of particular natural interest or sensitivity, it is necessary for land-use or other relevant policies applied in the Member States to ensure appropriate distances between such areas and establishments presenting such hazards and, where existing establishments are concerned, to implement, if necessary, additional technical measures so that the risk to persons or the environment is maintained at an acceptable level. Sufficient information about the risks and technical advice on these risks should be taken into account when decisions are taken. Where possible, to reduce administrative burdens, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, procedures and measures should be integrated with those under other relevant Union legislation.\n(19)\nIn order to promote access to environmental information under the Convention of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (the Aarhus Convention), which was approved on behalf of the Union by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (10), the level and quality of information to the public should be improved. In particular, persons likely to be affected by a major accident should be given sufficient information on the correct action to be taken in that event. Member States should make information available on where to find information on the rights of persons affected by a major accident. Information disseminated to the public should be worded clearly and intelligibly. In addition to providing information in an active way, without the public having to submit a request, and without precluding other forms of dissemination, it should also be made available permanently and kept up to date electronically. At the same time there should be appropriate confidentiality safeguards, to address security-related concerns, among others.\n(20)\nThe way information is managed should be in line with the Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) initiative introduced by the Commission Communication of 1 February 2008 entitled \u2018Towards a Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS)\u2019. It should also be in line with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (11) and its implementing rules, aimed at enabling the sharing of environmental spatial information among public sector organisations and better facilitating public access to spatial information across the Union. Information should be held on a publicly available database at Union level, which will also facilitate monitoring and reporting on implementation.\n(21)\nIn line with the Aarhus Convention, effective public participation in decision-making is necessary to enable the public concerned to express, and the decision-maker to take account of, opinions and concerns that may be relevant to those decisions, thereby increasing the accountability and transparency of the decision-making process and contributing to public awareness of environmental issues and support for the decisions taken.\n(22)\nIn order to ensure that adequate response measures are taken if a major accident occurs, the operator should immediately inform the competent authority and communicate the information necessary to enable it to assess the effects of that accident on human health and on the environment.\n(23)\nLocal authorities have an interest in the prevention of major accidents and mitigation of their consequences and can have an important role to play. This should be taken into account by the Member States in the implementation of this Directive.\n(24)\nIn order to facilitate the exchange of information and to prevent future accidents of a similar nature, Member States should forward information to the Commission regarding major accidents occurring on their territory, so that the Commission can analyse the hazards involved, and operate a system for the distribution of information concerning, in particular, major accidents and lessons learned from them. That exchange of information should also cover \u2018near misses\u2019 which Member States regard as being of particular technical interest for preventing major accidents and limiting their consequences. Member States and the Commission should strive to ensure the completeness of the information held on information systems established to facilitate the exchange of information on major accidents.\n(25)\nMember States should determine the competent authorities responsible for ensuring that operators fulfil their obligations. The competent authorities and the Commission should cooperate in activities in support of implementation such as the development of appropriate guidance and exchanges of best practice. To avoid unnecessary administrative burden, information obligations should be integrated, where appropriate, with those under other relevant Union legislation.\n(26)\nMember States should ensure that competent authorities take the necessary measures in the event of non-compliance with this Directive. In order to ensure effective implementation and enforcement, there should be a system of inspections, including a programme of routine inspections at regular intervals and non-routine inspections. Where possible, inspections should be coordinated with those under other Union legislation, including Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (12), where appropriate. Member States should ensure that sufficient staff is available with the skills and qualifications needed to carry out inspections effectively. Competent authorities should provide appropriate support using tools and mechanisms for exchanging experience and consolidating knowledge, including at Union level.\n(27)\nIn order to take into account technical developments, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending Annexes II to VI to adapt them to technical progress. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(28)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (13).\n(29)\nMember States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n(30)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment, cannot be sufficiently achieved by 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.\n(31)\nIn accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of Member States and the Commission of 28 September 2011 on explanatory documents (14), Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments. With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of such documents to be justified.\n(32)\nDirective 96/82/EC should therefore be amended and subsequently repealed,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Directive lays down rules for the prevention of major accidents which involve dangerous substances, and the limitation of their consequences for human health and the environment, with a view to ensuring a high level of protection throughout the Union in a consistent and effective manner.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Directive shall apply to establishments as defined in Article 3(1).\n2. This Directive shall not apply to any of the following:\n(a)\nmilitary establishments, installations or storage facilities;\n(b)\nhazards created by ionising radiation originating from substances;\n(c)\nthe transport of dangerous substances and directly related intermediate temporary storage by road, rail, internal waterways, sea or air, outside the establishments covered by this Directive, including loading and unloading and transport to and from another means of transport at docks, wharves or marshalling yards;\n(d)\nthe transport of dangerous substances in pipelines, including pumping stations, outside establishments covered by this Directive;\n(e)\nthe exploitation, namely the exploration, extraction and processing, of minerals in mines and quarries, including by means of boreholes;\n(f)\nthe offshore exploration and exploitation of minerals, including hydrocarbons;\n(g)\nthe storage of gas at underground offshore sites including both dedicated storage sites and sites where exploration and exploitation of minerals, including hydrocarbons are also carried out;\n(h)\nwaste land-fill sites, including underground waste storage.\nNotwithstanding points (e) and (h) of the first subparagraph, onshore underground gas storage in natural strata, aquifers, salt cavities and disused mines and chemical and thermal processing operations and storage related to those operations which involve dangerous substances, as well as operational tailings disposal facilities, including tailing ponds or dams, containing dangerous substances shall be included within the scope of this Directive.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018establishment\u2019 means the whole location under the control of an operator where dangerous substances are present in one or more installations, including common or related infrastructures or activities; establishments are either lower-tier establishments or upper-tier establishments;\n2.\n\u2018lower-tier establishment\u2019 means an establishment where dangerous substances are present in quantities equal to or in excess of the quantities listed in Column 2 of Part 1 or in Column 2 of Part 2 of Annex I, but less than the quantities listed in Column 3 of Part 1 or in Column 3 of Part 2 of Annex I, where applicable using the summation rule laid down in note 4 to Annex I;\n3.\n\u2018upper-tier establishment\u2019 means an establishment where dangerous substances are present in quantities equal to or in excess of the quantities listed in Column 3 of Part 1 or in Column 3 of Part 2 of Annex I, where applicable using the summation rule laid down in note 4 to Annex I;\n4.\n\u2018neighbouring establishment\u2019 means an establishment that is located in such proximity to another establishment so as to increase the risk or consequences of a major accident;\n5.\n\u2018new establishment\u2019 means\n(a)\nan establishment that enters into operation or is constructed, on or after 1 June 2015; or\n(b)\na site of operation that falls within the scope of this Directive, or a lower-tier establishment that becomes an upper-tier establishment or vice versa, on or after 1 June 2015 due to modifications to its installations or activities resulting in a change in its inventory of dangerous substances;\n6.\n\u2018existing establishment\u2019 means an establishment that on 31 May 2015 falls within the scope of Directive 96/82/EC and from 1 June 2015 falls within the scope of this Directive without changing its classification as a lower-tier establishment or upper-tier establishment;\n7.\n\u2018other establishment\u2019 means a site of operation that falls within the scope of this Directive, or a lower-tier establishment that becomes an upper-tier establishment or vice versa, on or after 1 June 2015 for reasons other than those referred to in point 5;\n8.\n\u2018installation\u2019 means a technical unit within an establishment and whether at or below ground level, in which dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored; it includes all the equipment, structures, pipework, machinery, tools, private railway sidings, docks, unloading quays serving the installation, jetties, warehouses or similar structures, floating or otherwise, necessary for the operation of that installation;\n9.\n\u2018operator\u2019 means any natural or legal person who operates or controls an establishment or installation or, where provided for by national legislation, to whom the decisive economic or decision-making power over the technical functioning of the establishment or installation has been delegated;\n10.\n\u2018dangerous substance\u2019 means a substance or mixture covered by Part 1 or listed in Part 2 of Annex I, including in the form of a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate;\n11.\n\u2018mixture\u2019 means a mixture or solution composed of two or more substances;\n12.\n\u2018presence of dangerous substances\u2019 means the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment, or of dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee may be generated during loss of control of the processes, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment, in quantities equal to or exceeding the qualifying quantities set out in Part 1 or Part 2 of Annex I;\n13.\n\u2018major accident\u2019 means an occurrence such as a major emission, fire, or explosion resulting from uncontrolled developments in the course of the operation of any establishment covered by this Directive, and leading to serious danger to human health or the environment, immediate or delayed, inside or outside the establishment, and involving one or more dangerous substances;\n14.\n\u2018hazard\u2019 means the intrinsic property of a dangerous substance or physical situation, with a potential for creating damage to human health or the environment;\n15.\n\u2018risk\u2019 means the likelihood of a specific effect occurring within a specified period or in specified circumstances;\n16.\n\u2018storage\u2019 means the presence of a quantity of dangerous substances for the purposes of warehousing, depositing in safe custody or keeping in stock;\n17.\n\u2018the public\u2019 means one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national law or practice, their associations, organisations or groups;\n18.\n\u2018the public concerned\u2019 means the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the taking of a decision on any of the matters covered by Article 15(1); for the purposes of this definition, non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and meeting any applicable requirements under national law shall be deemed to have an interest;\n19.\n\u2018inspection\u2019 means all actions, including site visits, checks of internal measures, systems and reports and follow-up documents, and any necessary follow-up, undertaken by or on behalf of the competent authority to check and promote compliance of establishments with the requirements of this Directive.\nArticle 4\nAssessment of major-accident hazards for a particular dangerous substance\n1. The Commission shall assess, where appropriate or in any event on the basis of a notification by a Member State in accordance with paragraph 2, whether it is impossible in practice for a particular dangerous substance covered by Part 1 or listed in Part 2 of Annex I, to cause a release of matter or energy that could create a major accident under both normal and abnormal conditions which can reasonably be foreseen. That assessment shall take into account the information referred to in paragraph 3, and shall be based on one or more of the following characteristics:\n(a)\nthe physical form of the dangerous substance under normal processing or handling conditions or in an unplanned loss of containment;\n(b)\nthe inherent properties of the dangerous substance, in particular those related to dispersive behaviour in a major-accident scenario, such as molecular mass and saturated vapour pressure;\n(c)\nthe maximum concentration of the substances in the case of mixtures.\nFor the purposes of the first subparagraph, the containment and generic packing of the dangerous substance should, where appropriate, also be taken into account, including in particular where covered under specific Union legislation.\n2. Where a Member State considers that a dangerous substance does not present a major-accident hazard in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall notify the Commission together with supporting justification, including the information referred to in paragraph 3.\n3. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, information necessary for assessing the health, physical and environmental hazard properties of the dangerous substance concerned shall include:\n(a)\na comprehensive list of properties necessary to assess the dangerous substance\u2019s potential for causing physical, health or environmental harm;\n(b)\nphysical and chemical properties (for instance molecular mass, saturated vapour pressure, inherent toxicity, boiling point, reactivity, viscosity, solubility and other relevant properties);\n(c)\nhealth and physical hazard properties (for instance reactivity, flammability, toxicity together with additional factors such as mode of attack on the body, injury to fatality ratio, and long-term effects, and other properties as relevant);\n(d)\nenvironmental hazard properties (for instance ecotoxicity, persistence, bio-accumulation, potential for long-range environmental transport, and other properties as relevant);\n(e)\nwhere available, the Union classification of the substance or mixture;\n(f)\ninformation about substance-specific operating conditions (for instance temperature, pressure and other conditions as relevant) under which the dangerous substance is stored, used and/or may be present in the event of foreseeable abnormal operations or an accident such as fire.\n4. Following the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall, if appropriate, present a legislative proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council to exclude the dangerous substance concerned from the scope of this Directive.\nArticle 5\nGeneral obligations of the operator\n1. Member States shall ensure that the operator is obliged to take all necessary measures to prevent major accidents and to limit their consequences for human health and the environment.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the operator is required to prove to the competent authority referred to in Article 6, at any time, in particular for the purposes of inspections and controls referred to in Article 20, that the operator has taken all necessary measures as specified in this Directive.\nArticle 6\nCompetent authority\n1. Without prejudice to the operator\u2019s responsibilities, Member States shall set up or appoint the competent authority or authorities responsible for carrying out the duties laid down in this Directive (\u2018the competent authority\u2019) and, if necessary, bodies to assist the competent authority at technical level. Member States which set up or appoint more than one competent authority shall ensure that the procedures for carrying out their duties are fully coordinated.\n2. The competent authorities and the Commission shall cooperate in activities in support of implementation of this Directive, involving stakeholders as appropriate.\n3. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities accept equivalent information submitted by operators in accordance with other relevant Union legislation, which fulfils any of the requirements of this Directive, for the purposes of this Directive. In such cases the competent authorities shall ensure that the requirements of this Directive are complied with.\nArticle 7\nNotification\n1. Member States shall require the operator to send a notification to the competent authority containing the following information:\n(a)\nthe name and/or trade name of the operator and the full address of the establishment concerned;\n(b)\nthe registered place of business of the operator, with the full address;\n(c)\nthe name and position of the person in charge of the establishment, if different from point (a);\n(d)\ninformation sufficient to identify the dangerous substances and category of substances involved or likely to be present;\n(e)\nthe quantity and physical form of the dangerous substance or substances concerned;\n(f)\nthe activity or proposed activity of the installation or storage facility;\n(g)\nthe immediate environment of the establishment, and factors likely to cause a major accident or to aggravate the consequences thereof including, where available, details of neighbouring establishments, of sites that fall outside the scope of this Directive, areas and developments that could be the source of or increase the risk or consequences of a major accident and of domino effects.\n2. The notification or its update shall be sent to the competent authority within the following time-limits:\n(a)\nfor new establishments, a reasonable period of time prior to the start of construction or operation, or prior to the modifications leading to a change in the inventory of dangerous substances;\n(b)\nfor all other cases, one year from the date from which this Directive applies to the establishment concerned.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply if the operator has already sent a notification to the competent authority under the requirements of national legislation before 1 June 2015, and the information contained therein complies with paragraph 1 and has remained unchanged.\n4. The operator shall inform the competent authority in advance of the following events:\n(a)\nany significant increase or decrease in the quantity or significant change in the nature or physical form of the dangerous substance present, as indicated in the notification provided by the operator pursuant to paragraph 1, or a significant change in the processes employing it;\n(b)\nmodification of an establishment or an installation which could have significant consequences in terms of major-accident hazards;\n(c)\nthe permanent closure of the establishment or its de-commissioning; or\n(d)\nchanges in the information referred to in points (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1.\nArticle 8\nMajor-accident prevention policy\n1. Member States shall require the operator to draw up a document in writing setting out the major-accident prevention policy (MAPP) and to ensure that it is properly implemented. The MAPP shall be designed to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment. It shall be proportionate to the major-accident hazards. It shall include the operator\u2019s overall aims and principles of action, the role and responsibility of management, as well as the commitment towards continuously improving the control of major-accident hazards, and ensuring a high level of protection.\n2. The MAPP shall be drawn up and, where required by national law, sent to the competent authority within the following time-limits:\n(a)\nfor new establishments, a reasonable period of time prior to the start of construction or operation, or prior to the modifications leading to a change in the inventory of dangerous substances;\n(b)\nfor all other cases, one year from the date from which this Directive applies to the establishment concerned.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply if the operator has already established the MAPP and, where required by national law, sent it to the competent authority before 1 June 2015, and the information contained therein complies with paragraph 1 and has remained unchanged.\n4. Without prejudice to Article 11, the operator shall periodically review and where necessary update the MAPP, at least every five years. Where required by national law the updated MAPP shall be sent to the competent authority without delay.\n5. The MAPP shall be implemented by appropriate means, structures and by a safety management system, in accordance with Annex III, proportionate to the major-accident hazards, and the complexity of the organisation or the activities of the establishment. For lower-tier establishments, the obligation to implement the MAPP may be fulfilled by other appropriate means, structures and management systems, proportionate to major-accident hazards, taking into account the principles set out in Annex III.\nArticle 9\nDomino effects\n1. Member States shall ensure that the competent authority, using the information received from the operators in accordance with Articles 7 and 10, or following a request for additional information from the competent authority, or through inspections pursuant to Article 20, identifies all lower-tier and upper-tier establishments or groups of establishments where the risk or consequences of a major accident may be increased because of the geographical position and the proximity of such establishments, and their inventories of dangerous substances.\n2. Where the competent authority has additional information to that provided by the operator pursuant to point (g) of Article 7(1), it shall make this information available to that operator, if it is necessary for the application of this Article.\n3. Member States shall ensure that operators of the establishments identified in accordance with paragraph 1:\n(a)\nexchange suitable information to enable those establishments to take account of the nature and extent of the overall hazard of a major accident in their MAPP, safety management systems, safety reports and internal emergency plans, as appropriate;\n(b)\ncooperate in informing the public and neighbouring sites that fall outside the scope of this Directive, and in supplying information to the authority responsible for the preparation of external emergency plans.\nArticle 10\nSafety report\n1. Member States shall require the operator of an upper-tier establishment to produce a safety report for the purposes of:\n(a)\ndemonstrating that a MAPP and a safety management system for implementing it have been put into effect in accordance with the information set out in Annex III;\n(b)\ndemonstrating that major-accident hazards and possible major-accident scenarios have been identified and that the necessary measures have been taken to prevent such accidents and to limit their consequences for human health and the environment;\n(c)\ndemonstrating that adequate safety and reliability have been taken into account in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of any installation, storage facility, equipment and infrastructure connected with its operation which are linked to major-accident hazards inside the establishment;\n(d)\ndemonstrating that internal emergency plans have been drawn up and supplying information to enable the external emergency plan to be drawn up;\n(e)\nproviding sufficient information to the competent authority to enable decisions to be made regarding the siting of new activities or developments around existing establishments.\n2. The safety report shall contain at least the data and information listed in Annex II. It shall name the relevant organisations involved in the drawing up of the report.\n3. The safety report shall be sent to the competent authority within the following time-limits:\n(a)\nfor new establishments, a reasonable period of time prior to the start of construction or operation, or prior to the modifications leading to a change in the inventory of dangerous substances;\n(b)\nfor existing upper-tier establishments, 1 June 2016;\n(c)\nfor other establishments, two years from the date from which this Directive applies to the establishment concerned.\n4. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not apply if the operator has already sent the safety report to the competent authority under the requirements of national law before 1 June 2015, and the information contained therein complies with paragraphs 1 and 2 and has remained unchanged. In order to comply with paragraphs 1 and 2, the operator shall submit any changed parts of the safety report in the format agreed by the competent authority, subject to the time-limits referred to in paragraph 3.\n5. Without prejudice to Article 11, the operator shall periodically review and where necessary update the safety report at least every five years.\nThe operator shall also review and where necessary update the safety report following a major accident at its establishment, and at any other time at the initiative of the operator or at the request of the competent authority, where justified by new facts or by new technological knowledge about safety matters, including knowledge arising from analysis of accidents or, as far as possible, \u2018near misses\u2019, and by developments in knowledge concerning the assessment of hazards.\nThe updated safety report or updated parts thereof shall be sent to the competent authority without delay.\n6. Before the operator commences construction or operation, or in the cases referred to in points (b) and (c) of paragraph 3 and in paragraph 5 of this Article, the competent authority shall within a reasonable period of receipt of the report communicate the conclusions of its examination of the safety report to the operator and, where appropriate, in accordance with Article 19, prohibit the bringing into use, or the continued use, of the establishment concerned.\nArticle 11\nModification of an installation, an establishment or a storage facility\nIn the event of the modification of an installation, establishment, storage facility, or process or of the nature or physical form or quantity of dangerous substances which could have significant consequences for major-accident hazards, or could result in a lower-tier establishment becoming an upper-tier establishment or vice versa, Member States shall ensure that the operator reviews, and where necessary updates the notification, the MAPP, the safety management system and the safety report and informs the competent authority of the details of those updates in advance of that modification.\nArticle 12\nEmergency plans\n1. Member States shall ensure that, for all upper-tier establishments:\n(a)\nthe operator draws up an internal emergency plan for the measures to be taken inside the establishment;\n(b)\nthe operator supplies the necessary information to the competent authority, to enable the latter to draw up external emergency plans;\n(c)\nthe authorities designated for that purpose by the Member State draw up an external emergency plan for the measures to be taken outside the establishment within two years following receipt of the necessary information from the operator pursuant to point (b).\n2. Operators shall comply with the obligations set out in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 within the following time-limits:\n(a)\nfor new establishments, a reasonable period of time prior to the start of operation, or prior to the modifications leading to a change in the inventory of dangerous substances;\n(b)\nfor existing upper-tier establishments, by 1 June 2016 unless the internal emergency plan drawn up under the requirements of national law before that date, and the information contained therein, and the information referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1, complies with this Article and has remained unchanged;\n(c)\nfor other establishments, two years from the date from which this Directive applies to the establishment concerned.\n3. The emergency plans shall be established with the following objectives:\n(a)\ncontaining and controlling incidents so as to minimise the effects, and to limit damage to human health, the environment and property;\n(b)\nimplementing the necessary measures to protect human health and the environment from the effects of major accidents;\n(c)\ncommunicating the necessary information to the public and to the services or authorities concerned in the area;\n(d)\nproviding for the restoration and clean-up of the environment following a major accident.\nEmergency plans shall contain the information set out in Annex IV.\n4. Member States shall ensure that the internal emergency plans provided for in this Directive are drawn up in consultation with the personnel working inside the establishment, including long-term relevant subcontracted personnel.\n5. Member States shall ensure that the public concerned is given early opportunity to give its opinion on external emergency plans when they are being established or substantially modified.\n6. Member States shall ensure that internal and external emergency plans are reviewed, tested, and where necessary updated by the operators and designated authorities respectively at suitable intervals of no longer than three years. The review shall take into account changes occurring in the establishments concerned or within the emergency services concerned, new technical knowledge, and knowledge concerning the response to major accidents.\nWith regard to external emergency plans, Member States shall take into account the need to facilitate enhanced cooperation in civil protection assistance in major emergencies.\n7. Member States shall ensure that emergency plans are put into effect without delay by the operator and, if necessary, by the competent authority designated for this purpose when a major accident occurs, or when an uncontrolled event occurs which by its nature could reasonably be expected to lead to a major accident.\n8. The competent authority may decide, giving reasons for their decision, in view of the information contained in the safety report, that the requirement to produce an external emergency plan under paragraph 1 shall not apply.\nArticle 13\nLand-use planning\n1. Member States shall ensure that the objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents for human health and the environment are taken into account in their land-use policies or other relevant policies. They shall pursue those objectives through controls on:\n(a)\nthe siting of new establishments;\n(b)\nmodifications to establishments covered by Article 11;\n(c)\nnew developments including transport routes, locations of public use and residential areas in the vicinity of establishments, where the siting or developments may be the source of or increase the risk or consequences of a major accident.\n2. Member States shall ensure that their land-use or other relevant policies and the procedures for implementing those policies take account of the need, in the long term:\n(a)\nto maintain appropriate safety distances between establishments covered by this Directive and residential areas, buildings and areas of public use, recreational areas, and, as far as possible, major transport routes;\n(b)\nto protect areas of particular natural sensitivity or interest in the vicinity of establishments, where appropriate through appropriate safety distances or other relevant measures;\n(c)\nin the case of existing establishments, to take additional technical measures in accordance with Article 5 so as not to increase the risks to human health and the environment.\n3. Member States shall ensure that all competent authorities and planning authorities responsible for decisions in this area set up appropriate consultation procedures to facilitate implementation of the policies established under paragraph 1. The procedures shall be designed to ensure that operators provide sufficient information on the risks arising from the establishment and that technical advice on those risks is available, either on a case-by-case or on a generic basis, when decisions are taken.\nMember States shall ensure that operators of lower-tier establishments provide, at the request of the competent authority, sufficient information on the risks arising from the establishment necessary for land-use planning purposes.\n4. The requirements of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article shall apply without prejudice to the provisions of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (15), Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (16) and other relevant Union legislation. Member States may provide for coordinated or joint procedures in order to fulfil the requirements of this Article and the requirements of that legislation, inter alia, to avoid duplication of assessment or consultations.\nArticle 14\nInformation to the public\n1. Member States shall ensure that the information referred to in Annex V is permanently available to the public, including electronically. The information shall be kept updated, where necessary, including in the event of modifications covered by Article 11.\n2. For upper-tier establishments, Member States shall also ensure that:\n(a)\nall persons likely to be affected by a major accident receive regularly and in the most appropriate form, without having to request it, clear and intelligible information on safety measures and requisite behaviour in the event of a major accident;\n(b)\nthe safety report is made available to the public upon request subject to Article 22(3); where Article 22(3) applies, an amended report, for instance in the form of a non-technical summary, which shall include at least general information on major-accident hazards and on potential effects on human health and the environment in the event of a major accident, shall be made available;\n(c)\nthe inventory of dangerous substances is made available to the public upon request subject to Article 22(3).\nThe information to be supplied under point (a) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall include at least the information referred to in Annex V. That information shall likewise be supplied to all buildings and areas of public use, including schools and hospitals, and to all neighbouring establishments in the case of establishments covered by Article 9. Member States shall ensure that the information is supplied at least every five years and periodically reviewed and where necessary, updated, including in the event of modifications covered by Article 11.\n3. Member States shall, with respect to the possibility of a major accident with transboundary effects originating in an upper-tier establishment, provide sufficient information to the potentially affected Member States so that all relevant provisions contained in Articles 12 and 13 and in this Article can be applied, where applicable, by the potentially affected Member States.\n4. Where the Member State concerned has decided that an establishment close to the territory of another Member State is incapable of creating a major-accident hazard beyond its boundary for the purposes of Article 12(8) and is not therefore required to produce an external emergency plan under Article 12(1), it shall inform the other Member State of its reasoned decision.\nArticle 15\nPublic consultation and participation in decision-making\n1. Member States shall ensure that the public concerned is given an early opportunity to give its opinion on specific individual projects relating to:\n(a)\nplanning for new establishments pursuant to Article 13;\n(b)\nsignificant modifications to establishments under Article 11, where such modifications are subject to obligations provided for in Article 13;\n(c)\nnew developments around establishments where the siting or developments may increase the risk or consequences of a major accident pursuant to Article 13.\n2. With regard to the specific individual projects referred to in paragraph 1, the public shall be informed by public notices or other appropriate means, including electronic media where available, of the following matters early in the procedure for the taking of a decision or, at the latest, as soon as the information can reasonably be provided:\n(a)\nthe subject of the specific project;\n(b)\nwhere applicable, the fact that a project is subject to a national or transboundary environmental impact assessment or to consultations between Member States in accordance with Article 14(3);\n(c)\ndetails of the competent authority responsible for taking the decision, from which relevant information can be obtained and to which comments or questions can be submitted, and details of the time schedule for transmitting comments or questions;\n(d)\nthe nature of possible decisions or, where there is one, the draft decision;\n(e)\nan indication of the times and places where, or means by which, the relevant information will be made available;\n(f)\ndetails of the arrangements for public participation and consultation made pursuant to paragraph 7 of this Article.\n3. With regard to the specific individual projects referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that, within appropriate time-frames, the following is made available to the public concerned:\n(a)\nin accordance with national legislation, the main reports and advice issued to the competent authority at the time when the public concerned was informed pursuant to paragraph 2;\n(b)\nin accordance with the provisions of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information (17), information other than that referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article which is relevant for the decision in question and which only becomes available after the public concerned was informed in accordance with that paragraph.\n4. Member States shall ensure that the public concerned is entitled to express comments and opinions to the competent authority before a decision is taken on a specific individual project as referred to in paragraph 1, and that the results of the consultations held pursuant to paragraph 1 are duly taken into account in the taking of a decision.\n5. Member States shall ensure that when the relevant decisions are taken, the competent authority shall make available to the public:\n(a)\nthe content of the decision and the reasons on which it is based, including any subsequent updates;\n(b)\nthe results of the consultations held before the decision was taken and an explanation of how they were taken into account in that decision.\n6. Where general plans or programmes are being established relating to the matters referred to in points (a) or (c) of paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that the public is given early and effective opportunities to participate in their preparation and modification or review using the procedures set out in Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment (18).\nMember States shall identify the public entitled to participate for the purposes of this paragraph, including relevant non-governmental organisations meeting any relevant requirements imposed under national law, such as those promoting environmental protection.\nThis paragraph shall not apply to plans and programmes for which a public participation procedure is carried out under Directive 2001/42/EC.\n7. The detailed arrangements for informing the public and consulting the public concerned shall be determined by the Member States.\nReasonable time-frames for the different phases shall be provided, allowing sufficient time for informing the public and for the public concerned to prepare and participate effectively in environmental decision-making subject to the provisions of this Article.\nArticle 16\nInformation to be supplied by the operator and actions to be taken following a major accident\nMember States shall ensure that, as soon as practicable following a major accident, the operator shall be required, using the most appropriate means to:\n(a)\ninform the competent authority;\n(b)\nprovide the competent authority with the following information as soon as it becomes available:\n(i)\nthe circumstances of the accident;\n(ii)\nthe dangerous substances involved;\n(iii)\nthe data available for assessing the effects of the accident on human health, the environment and property;\n(iv)\nthe emergency measures taken;\n(c)\ninform the competent authority of the steps envisaged to:\n(i)\nmitigate the medium-term and long-term effects of the accident;\n(ii)\nprevent any recurrence of such an accident;\n(d)\nupdate the information provided if further investigation reveals additional facts which alter that information or the conclusions drawn.\nArticle 17\nAction to be taken by the competent authority following a major accident\nFollowing a major accident, Member States shall require the competent authority to:\n(a)\nensure that any urgent, medium-term and long-term measures which may prove necessary are taken;\n(b)\ncollect, by inspection, investigation or other appropriate means, the information necessary for a full analysis of the technical, organisational and managerial aspects of the accident;\n(c)\ntake appropriate action to ensure that the operator takes any necessary remedial measures;\n(d)\nmake recommendations on future preventive measures; and\n(e)\ninform the persons likely to be affected, of the accident which has occurred and, where relevant, of the measures undertaken to mitigate its consequences.\nArticle 18\nInformation to be supplied by the Member States following a major accident\n1. For the purpose of prevention and mitigation of major accidents, Member States shall inform the Commission of major accidents meeting the criteria of Annex VI which have occurred within their territory. They shall provide it with the following details:\n(a)\nthe Member State, the name and address of the authority responsible for the report;\n(b)\nthe date, time and place of the accident, including the full name of the operator and the address of the establishment involved;\n(c)\na brief description of the circumstances of the accident, including the dangerous substances involved, and the immediate effects on human health and the environment;\n(d)\na brief description of the emergency measures taken and of the immediate precautions necessary to prevent recurrence;\n(e)\nthe results of their analysis and recommendations.\n2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be provided as soon as practicable and at the latest within one year of the date of the accident, using the database referred to in Article 21(4). Where only preliminary information under point (e) of paragraph 1 can be provided within this time-limit for inclusion in the database, the information shall be updated once the results of further analysis and recommendations are available.\nReporting of the information referred to in point (e) of paragraph 1 by Member States may be delayed to allow for the completion of judicial proceedings where such reporting may affect those proceedings.\n3. For the purposes of providing the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article by Member States, a report form shall be established in the form of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 27(2).\n4. Member States shall inform the Commission of the name and address of any body which might have relevant information on major accidents and which is able to advise the competent authorities of other Member States which have to intervene in the event of such an accident.\nArticle 19\nProhibition of use\n1. Member States shall prohibit the use or bringing into use of any establishment, installation or storage facility, or any part thereof where the measures taken by the operator for the prevention and mitigation of major accidents are seriously deficient. To this end, Member States shall, inter alia, take into account serious failures to take the necessary actions identified in the inspection report.\nMember States may prohibit the use or bringing into use of any establishment, installation or storage facility, or any part thereof if the operator has not submitted the notification, reports or other information required by this Directive within the specified period.\n2. Member States shall ensure that operators may appeal against a prohibition order by a competent authority under paragraph 1 to an appropriate body determined by national law and procedures.\nArticle 20\nInspections\n1. Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities organise a system of inspections.\n2. Inspections shall be appropriate to the type of establishment concerned. They shall not be dependent upon receipt of the safety report or any other report submitted. They shall be sufficient for a planned and systematic examination of the systems being employed at the establishment, whether of a technical, organisational or managerial nature, so as to ensure in particular that:\n(a)\nthe operator can demonstrate that he has taken appropriate measures, in connection with the various activities of the establishment, to prevent major accidents;\n(b)\nthe operator can demonstrate that he has provided appropriate means for limiting the consequences of major accidents, on-site and off-site;\n(c)\nthe data and information contained in the safety report, or any other report submitted, adequately reflects the conditions in the establishment;\n(d)\ninformation has been supplied to the public pursuant to Article 14.\n3. Member States shall ensure that all establishments are covered by an inspection plan at national, regional or local level and shall ensure that this plan is regularly reviewed and, where appropriate, updated.\nEach inspection plan shall include the following:\n(a)\na general assessment of relevant safety issues;\n(b)\nthe geographical area covered by the inspection plan;\n(c)\na list of the establishments covered by the plan;\n(d)\na list of groups of establishments with possible domino effects pursuant to Article 9;\n(e)\na list of establishments where particular external risks or hazard sources could increase the risk or consequences of a major accident;\n(f)\nprocedures for routine inspections, including the programmes for such inspections pursuant to paragraph 4;\n(g)\nprocedures for non-routine inspections pursuant to paragraph 6;\n(h)\nprovisions on the co-operation between different inspection authorities.\n4. Based on the inspection plans referred to in paragraph 3, the competent authority shall regularly draw up programmes for routine inspections for all establishments including the frequency of site visits for different types of establishments.\nThe period between two consecutive site visits shall not exceed one year for upper-tier establishments and three years for lower-tier establishments, unless the competent authority has drawn up an inspection programme based on a systematic appraisal of major-accident hazards of the establishments concerned.\n5. The systematic appraisal of the hazards of the establishments concerned shall be based on at least the following criteria:\n(a)\nthe potential impacts of the establishments concerned on human health and the environment;\n(b)\nthe record of compliance with the requirements of this Directive.\nWhere appropriate, relevant findings of inspections carried out under other Union legislation shall also be taken into account.\n6. Non-routine inspections shall be carried out to investigate serious complaints, serious accidents and \u2018near misses\u2019, incidents and occurrences of non-compliance as soon as possible.\n7. Within four months after each inspection, the competent authority shall communicate the conclusions of the inspection and all the necessary actions identified to the operator. The competent authority shall ensure that the operator takes all those necessary actions within a reasonable period after receipt of the communication.\n8. If an inspection has identified an important case of non-compliance with this Directive, an additional inspection shall be carried out within six months.\n9. Inspections shall, where possible, be coordinated with inspections under other Union legislation and combined, where appropriate.\n10. Member States shall encourage the competent authorities to provide mechanisms and tools for exchanging experience and consolidating knowledge, and to participate in such mechanisms at Union level where appropriate.\n11. Member States shall ensure that operators provide the competent authorities with all necessary assistance to enable those authorities to carry out any inspection and to gather any information necessary for the performance of their duties for the purposes of this Directive, in particular to allow the authorities to fully assess the possibility of a major accident and to determine the scope of possible increased probability or aggravation of major accidents, to prepare an external emergency plan and to take into account substances which, due to their physical form, particular conditions or location, may require additional consideration.\nArticle 21\nInformation system and exchanges\n1. Member States and the Commission shall exchange information on the experience acquired with regard to the prevention of major accidents and the limitation of their consequences. This information shall concern, in particular, the functioning of the measures provided for in this Directive.\n2. By 30 September 2019, and every four years thereafter, Member States shall provide the Commission with a report on the implementation of this Directive.\n3. For establishments covered by this Directive, Member States shall supply the Commission with at least the following information:\n(a)\nthe name or trade name of the operator and the full address of the establishment concerned;\n(b)\nthe activity or activities of the establishment.\nThe Commission shall set up and keep up to date a database containing the information supplied by the Member States. Access to the database shall be restricted to persons authorised by the Commission or the competent authorities of the Member States.\n4. The Commission shall set up and keep at the disposal of Member States a database containing, in particular, details of the major accidents which have occurred within the territory of Member States, for the purpose of:\n(a)\nthe rapid dissemination of the information supplied by Member States pursuant to Article 18(1) and (2) among all competent authorities;\n(b)\ndistribution to competent authorities of an analysis of the causes of major accidents and the lessons learned from them;\n(c)\nsupply of information to competent authorities on preventive measures;\n(d)\nprovision of information on organisations able to provide advice or relevant information on the occurrence, prevention and mitigation of major accidents.\n5. The Commission shall, by 1 January 2015, adopt implementing acts to establish the formats for communicating the information referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article from Member States and the relevant databases referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 27(2).\n6. The databases referred to in paragraph 4 shall contain, at least:\n(a)\nthe information supplied by Member States in accordance with Article 18(1) and (2);\n(b)\nan analysis of the causes of the accidents;\n(c)\nthe lessons learned from the accidents;\n(d)\nthe preventive measures necessary to prevent a recurrence.\n7. The Commission shall make publicly available the non-confidential part of the data.\nArticle 22\nAccess to information and confidentiality\n1. Member States shall ensure, in the interests of transparency, that the competent authority is required to make any information held pursuant to this Directive available to any natural or legal person who so requests in accordance with Directive 2003/4/EC.\n2. Disclosure of any information required under this Directive, including under Article 14, may be refused or restricted by the competent authority where the conditions laid down in Article 4 of Directive 2003/4/EC are fulfilled.\n3. Disclosure of the complete information referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 14(2) held by the competent authority may be refused by that competent authority, without prejudice to paragraph 2 of this Article, if the operator has requested not to disclose certain parts of the safety report or the inventory of dangerous substances for the reasons provided for in Article 4 of Directive 2003/4/EC.\nThe competent authority may also decide for the same reasons that certain parts of the report or inventory shall not be disclosed. In such cases, and on approval of that authority, the operator shall supply to the competent authority an amended report or inventory excluding those parts.\nArticle 23\nAccess to justice\nMember States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nany applicant requesting information pursuant to points (b) or (c) of Article 14(2) or Article 22(1) of this Directive is able to seek a review in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2003/4/EC of the acts or omissions of a competent authority in relation to such a request;\n(b)\nin their respective national legal system, members of the public concerned have access to the review procedures set up in Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU for cases subject to Article 15(1) of this Directive.\nArticle 24\nGuidance\nThe Commission may develop guidance on safety distance and domino effects.\nArticle 25\nAmendment of Annexes\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 26 in order to adapt Annexes II to VI to technical progress. Such adaptations shall not result in substantial changes in the obligations of the Member States and the operators as laid down in this Directive.\nArticle 26\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 25 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from 13 August 2012. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power no later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than four months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 25 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 25 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 27\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee established by Directive 96/82/EC. That Committee is a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 28\nPenalties\nMember States shall determine penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive. The penalties thus provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission by 1 June 2015 and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.\nArticle 29\nReporting and review\n1. By 30 September 2020, and every four years thereafter, the Commission, on the basis of information submitted by Member States in accordance with Article 18 and Article 21(2) and of information held in databases, as referred to in Article 21(3) and (4), and taking into account the implementation of Article 4, shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation and efficient functioning of this Directive, including information on major accidents that have occurred within the Union and their potential impact upon the implementation of this Directive. The Commission shall include in the first of those reports an assessment of the need to amend the scope of this Directive. Any report may, where appropriate, be accompanied by a legislative proposal.\n2. In the context of relevant Union legislation, the Commission may examine the need to address the issue of financial responsibilities of the operator in relation to major accidents, including issues related to insurance.\nArticle 30\nAmendment of Directive 96/82/EC\nIn Directive 96/82/EC, the words \u2018(d) heavy fuel oils\u2019 are added to the heading \u2018Petroleum products\u2019 in Part 1 of Annex I.\nArticle 31\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 May 2015. They shall apply those measures from 1 June 2015.\nNotwithstanding the first subparagraph, Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 30 of this Directive by 14 February 2014. They shall apply those measures from 15 February 2014.\nThey shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 32\nRepeal\n1. Directive 96/82/EC is repealed with effect from 1 June 2015.\n2. References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex VII.\nArticle 33\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 34\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["44", "26", "76", "20", "46", "97", "51", "31", "41", "83", "25", "86", "0", "50", "36", "7", "14", "42", "71", "92", "28", "11", "19", "9", "48", "37", "82", "95", "90", "77", "No Label", "38", "58", "60"], "gold": ["38", "58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 639/2010\nof 19 July 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 627/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2010.", "references": ["92", "96", "59", "38", "34", "74", "4", "90", "91", "97", "11", "52", "17", "62", "32", "16", "56", "69", "93", "26", "47", "94", "31", "60", "6", "36", "63", "28", "15", "83", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 June 2010\non the position to be adopted by the European Union within the ACP-EU Council of Ministers concerning the transitional measures applicable from the date of signing to the date of entry into force of the Agreement amending for the second time the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005\n(2010/614/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217 in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1), as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (2) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Cotonou Agreement\u2019) and in particular Article 95(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Cotonou Agreement was concluded for 20 years commencing on 1 March 2000. However, provision was made for the possibility of amending it through a revision process after each five-year period.\n(2)\nNegotiations for the first amendment of the Cotonou Agreement were concluded in Brussels on 23 February 2005. The Amending Agreement was signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 and entered into force on 1 July 2008.\n(3)\nOn 23 February 2009, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States with a view to undertaking the second amendment of the Cotonou Agreement.\n(4)\nThe negotiations were concluded on 19 March 2010 by the initialling, at an extraordinary ACP-EU Council of Ministers\u2019 meeting, of the texts forming the basis of the Agreement amending for the second time the Cotonou Agreement (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(5)\nThe Agreement, to be signed in Ouagadougou on 22 June 2010, will enter into force upon completion of the ratification procedures referred to in Article 93 of the Cotonou Agreement.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 95(3) of the Cotonou Agreement, the ACP-EU Council of Ministers shall adopt transitional measures as necessary to cover the period from the date of signing to the date of entry into force of the Agreement.\n(7)\nThe provisional application of the Agreement should constitute both a necessary and sufficient transitional measure,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the ACP-EU Council of Ministers regarding the transitional measures applicable from the date of signing to the date of entry into force of the Agreement amending for the second time the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019), is to approve the provisional application of the Agreement, pursuant to the terms of the annexed draft Decision of the ACP-EU Council of Ministers.\nMinor changes to the draft Decision may be agreed without requiring that this Decision be amended.\nDone at Luxembourg, 14 June 2010.", "references": ["62", "1", "70", "37", "94", "75", "63", "80", "41", "40", "33", "46", "44", "91", "22", "81", "82", "55", "42", "49", "2", "98", "50", "67", "35", "84", "61", "30", "93", "10", "No Label", "3", "9", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 568/2011\nof 14 June 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Mi\u00f3d drahimski (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Mi\u00f3d drahimski\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 June 2011.", "references": ["78", "4", "18", "93", "63", "30", "37", "88", "48", "23", "16", "40", "51", "99", "57", "17", "31", "76", "71", "41", "53", "8", "10", "5", "46", "12", "95", "22", "3", "45", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 428/2010\nof 20 May 2010\nimplementing Article 14 of Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards expanded inspections of ships\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on port State control (1), and in particular Article 14(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nWhen carrying out an expanded inspection of a ship, the port State control officer should be guided by a list of specific items to be verified, subject to their practical feasibility or any constraints relating to the safety of persons, the ship or the port.\n(2)\nWith regard to the identification of the specific items to be verified in the course of an expanded inspection of any of the risk areas listed in Annex VII to Directive 2009/16/EC, it appears necessary to build upon the expertise of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control.\n(3)\nThe Port State Control Officers should use their professional judgement to determine the applicability of and the appropriate depth of examination of, each specific item.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nList of specific items to be verified in an expanded inspection\nAn expanded inspection as referred to in Article 14 of Directive 2009/16/EC shall, where applicable, as a minimum comprise the verification of the specific items listed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nIn the case where no specific areas are indicated for a particular type of ship, as defined in Directive 2009/16/EC, the inspector shall use his professional judgement to decide which items must be inspected, and to what extent, in order to check the overall condition in these areas.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2010.", "references": ["80", "26", "75", "88", "51", "5", "43", "33", "7", "77", "20", "97", "55", "23", "98", "38", "12", "41", "70", "50", "52", "6", "32", "37", "71", "11", "2", "1", "84", "3", "No Label", "39", "53", "56", "58", "60", "76"], "gold": ["39", "53", "56", "58", "60", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 96/2011\nof 3 February 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Limone di Siracusa (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Limone di Siracusa\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2011.", "references": ["59", "39", "51", "3", "57", "10", "20", "50", "61", "94", "69", "4", "64", "26", "55", "16", "81", "63", "22", "73", "70", "67", "27", "28", "7", "88", "41", "17", "31", "43", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "66", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "66", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 379/2012\nof 3 May 2012\nrefusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children\u2019s development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 18(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on foods are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Authority\u2019.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission thereof and to deliver an opinion on the health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nFollowing an application from Valio Ltd, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) on maintenance of defence against pathogenic gastrointestinal micro-organisms (Question No EFSA-Q-2010-01028) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Lactobacillus GG helps to maintain defence against intestinal pathogens\u2019.\n(6)\nOn 1 June 2010, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(7)\nFollowing an application from Gelita AG, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of collagen hydrolysate on maintenance of joints (Question No EFSA-Q-2011-00201) (3). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Characteristic collagen peptide mixture (collagen hydrolysate) having a beneficial physiological effect on the maintenance of joint health in physically active people\u2019.\n(8)\nOn 20 July 2011, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of collagen hydrolysate and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(9)\nThe health claims subject to this Regulation are health claims as referred to in point (a) of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and may benefit from the transitional period laid down in Article 28(5) of that Regulation. As the Authority concluded that cause and effect relationships have not been established between the foods and the claimed effects, the claims do not comply with Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and therefore they may not benefit from the transitional period provided for in that Article.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure that this Regulation is fully complied with, both food business operators and the national competent authorities should take the necessary actions to ensure that, at the latest six months following the entry into force of this Regulation, the health claims listed in its Annex are no longer used.\n(11)\nThe comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(12)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The health claims listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall not be included in the Union list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\n2. However, the health claims referred to in paragraph 1 used prior to the entry into force of this Regulation may continue to be used for a maximum period of six months after the entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 May 2012.", "references": ["69", "21", "10", "82", "77", "95", "68", "91", "11", "54", "34", "6", "28", "19", "60", "71", "33", "63", "76", "84", "13", "92", "40", "66", "14", "23", "0", "85", "29", "59", "No Label", "20", "24", "25", "38", "39", "72"], "gold": ["20", "24", "25", "38", "39", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 964/2011\nof 26 September 2011\nlaying down the weightings applicable from 1 July 2010 to the remuneration of officials, temporary staff and contract staff of the European Union serving in third countries\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 336 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of employment of other servants of the Communities laid down by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X thereto,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt is necessary to take account of changes in the cost of living in countries outside the Union and to determine accordingly the weightings applicable from 1 July 2010 to the remuneration of officials, temporary staff and contract staff of the Union serving in third countries, payable in the currency of the country of employment.\n(2)\nThe weightings in respect of which payment has been made on the basis of Council Regulation (EU) No 768/2010 (2) may lead to retrospective upward or downward adjustments to remuneration.\n(3)\nProvision should be made for back-payments in the event of an increase in remuneration as a result of the new weightings.\n(4)\nProvision should be made for the recovery of sums overpaid in the event of a reduction in remuneration as a result of the new weightings for the period between 1 July 2010 and the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n(5)\nProvision should be made for any such recovery to be restricted to a period of no more than 6 months preceding the date of entry into force of this Regulation and for its effects to be spread over a period of no more than 12 months following that date, as is the case with the weightings applicable within the Union to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the weightings applicable to the remuneration of officials, temporary staff and contract staff of the Union serving in third countries payable in the currency of the country of employment shall be as shown in the Annex.\nThe exchange rates for the calculation of such remuneration shall be established in accordance with the rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3) and shall correspond to the rates applicable on 1 July 2010.\nArticle 2\n1. The institutions shall make back-payments in the event of an increase in remuneration as a result of the weightings shown in the Annex.\n2. The institutions shall make retrospective downward adjustments to remuneration in the event of a reduction as a result of the weightings shown in the Annex for the period between 1 July 2010 and 29 September 2011.\nRetrospective adjustments involving the recovery of sums overpaid shall be restricted to a period of no more than 6 months preceding 29 September 2011. Recovery shall be spread over a period of no more than 12 months from that date.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 September 2011.", "references": ["74", "36", "48", "46", "79", "64", "56", "53", "2", "39", "76", "80", "63", "89", "11", "88", "81", "38", "16", "32", "9", "75", "70", "47", "92", "72", "87", "95", "23", "22", "No Label", "4", "7", "19", "28", "52"], "gold": ["4", "7", "19", "28", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1090/2011\nof 27 October 2011\non the issue of licences for importing rice under the tariff quotas opened for the October 2011 subperiod by Regulation (EC) No 327/98\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 of 10 February 1998 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (3) 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 IX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nOctober is the only subperiod for the quota with order number 09.4138 laid down in Article 1(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98. This quota comprises the balance of the unused quantities from the quotas with order numbers 09.4127-09.4128-09.4129-09.4130 in the previous subperiod. October is the last subperiod for the quotas with order numbers 09.4148 and 09.4168 laid down in Article 1(1)(b) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98, which comprise the balance of the unused quantities from the previous subperiod.\n(3)\nThe notifications presented under Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98 show that, for the quota with order number 09.4138 the applications lodged in the first 10 working days of October 2011 under Article 4(1) of that Regulation cover a quantity greater than that available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested under the quota concerned.\n(4)\nThe final percentage take-up for 2011 of each quota provided for by Regulation (EC) No 327/98 should also be made known.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. For import licence applications for rice under the quota with order number 09.4138 as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98 lodged in the first 10 working days of October 2011, licences shall be issued for the quantities requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficient set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The final percentage take-up for 2011 of each quota provided for by Regulation (EC) No 327/98 is given in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["44", "34", "85", "19", "7", "13", "12", "26", "18", "16", "81", "69", "3", "87", "65", "35", "8", "94", "80", "0", "96", "47", "43", "59", "23", "97", "56", "51", "50", "42", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 July 2010\non the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Arrangement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein, of the other part, on the modalities of the participation by those States in the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union\n(2010/490/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(b) and Article 74 in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 21(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (1) provides for countries associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis to participate in the Agency. The modalities of their participation are to be specified in further arrangements to be concluded between the Union and those countries.\n(2)\nFollowing the authorisation given to the Commission on 11 March 2008, negotiations with the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein for an Arrangement on the modalities of the participation by those States in the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union have been concluded.\n(3)\nAs consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Decision builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol, decide within a period of six months after the Council has decided on this Decision whether it will implement it in its national law.\n(5)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (2). The United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(6)\nThis 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 of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (3). Ireland is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(7)\nThe Arrangement should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Arrangement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein, of the other part, on the modalities of the participation by those States in the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (4) (\u2018the Arrangement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit on behalf of the Union the instrument of approval provided for in Article 9(4) of the Arrangement in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound and make the following notification:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cEuropean Community\u201d in the text of the Arrangement are, where appropriate, to be read as \u201cEuropean Union\u201d.\u2019\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["30", "74", "5", "10", "25", "26", "35", "42", "78", "36", "64", "62", "31", "12", "57", "63", "17", "40", "87", "48", "2", "69", "55", "54", "94", "67", "89", "8", "59", "66", "No Label", "3", "4", "7", "13", "21", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "4", "7", "13", "21", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1035/2011\nof 17 October 2011\nlaying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services and amending Regulations (EC) No 482/2008 and (EU) No 691/2010\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (the service provision Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 4, 6 and 7 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (2), and in particular Article 8b(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, the Commission, assisted by the European Aviation Safety Agency (the Agency), is required to adopt implementing rules for the provision of air traffic management and air navigation services (ATM/ANS) throughout the Union. Article 8b(6) of that Regulation requires those implementing rules to be based on the regulations adopted under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (3).\n(2)\nThe provision of air navigation services within the Union should be subject to certification by Member States or the Agency. Air navigation service providers which comply with the common requirements should be granted a certificate in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 and Article 8b(2) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n(3)\nThe application of the common requirements laid down pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 and Article 8b of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 should be without prejudice to Member States\u2019 sovereignty over their airspace and to the requirements of the Member States relating to public order, public security and defence matters, as set out in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004. The common requirements should not cover military operations and training, as provided for in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 and Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n(4)\nThe definition of common requirements for the provision of air navigation services should take due account of the legal status of air navigation service providers in the Member States. Furthermore, when an organisation pursues activities other than the provision of air navigation services, the common requirements should not apply to such other activities or to resources allocated to activities outside the provision of air navigation services, unless provision is made to the contrary.\n(5)\nThe application of the common requirements to air navigation service providers should be proportionate to the risks linked with the specific features of each activity such as the number and/or the nature and characteristics of processed movements. Should certain air navigation service providers elect not to avail themselves of the opportunity to provide cross-border services within the single European sky, a competent authority should be entitled to allow those providers to comply commensurately with, respectively, certain general requirements for the provision of air navigation services and certain specific requirements for the provision of air traffic services. Consequently, the conditions attached to the certificate should reflect the nature and the scope of the derogation.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure the proper functioning of the certification scheme, Member States should provide the Commission and the Agency with all relevant information on the derogations granted by their competent authority in the context of their annual reports.\n(7)\nThe different types of air navigation service activities are not necessarily subject to the same requirements. It is therefore necessary to adjust common requirements to the special features of each type of activity.\n(8)\nThe onus of proving compliance with the applicable common requirements should lie with the air navigation service provider, for the period of validity of the certificate and for all the services covered by it.\n(9)\nIn order to ensure the effective application of the common requirements, a system of regular supervision and inspection of compliance with those common requirements and with the conditions specified in the certificate should be established. The competent authority should examine the suitability of a provider prior to issuing a certificate and should assess the ongoing compliance of the air navigation service providers it has certified on a yearly basis. Consequently, it should establish and update annually an indicative inspection programme covering all the providers it has certified, on the basis of an assessment of the risks. That programme should allow the inspection of all relevant parts of the air navigation service providers within a reasonable time frame. When assessing the compliance of designated providers of air traffic services and meteorological services, the competent authority should be entitled to check relevant requirements stemming from the international obligations on the Member State in question.\n(10)\nPeer reviews of national supervisory authorities could further a common approach to the supervision of air navigation service providers throughout the Union. The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States and the Agency, may arrange these peer reviews, which should be coordinated with the activities undertaken within the framework of Articles 24 and 54 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and any other international monitoring and oversight programmes. This would avoid duplication of work. In order to allow the exchange of experience and best practice during a peer review, the experts should preferably be from a competent authority.\n(11)\nEurocontrol has developed Safety Regulatory Requirements (ESARRs) which have been of the highest importance for the safe provision of air traffic services. In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 550/2004, the Commission should identify and adopt the relevant provisions of ESARRs in Union regulations. The ESARRs incorporated in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 of 20 December 2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services (4) form the basis of these implementing rules.\n(12)\nWhen adopting Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005, the Commission concluded that it was not appropriate to repeat the ESARR 2 provisions on reporting and assessment of safety occurrences in ATM, which are covered by Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 October 2010 on the investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation and repealing Directive 94/56/EC (5) and by Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2003 on occurrence reporting in civil aviation (6). However, new provisions on safety occurrences should be introduced in order to require a competent authority, as defined by this Regulation, to check whether providers of air traffic services, and also providers of communication, navigation or surveillance services, meet the arrangements required to cover the reporting and assessment of such occurrences.\n(13)\nIt should be recognised in particular that, firstly, safety management is that function of air navigation services which ensures that all safety risks have been identified, assessed and satisfactorily mitigated, and that, secondly, a formal and systematic approach to safety management and management systems, towards a total system approach, will maximise safety benefits in a visible and traceable way. The Agency should further evaluate the safety requirements of this Regulation and integrate them into a common regulatory structure for civil aviation safety.\n(14)\nUntil the Agency has drawn up the implementing measures transposing the relevant standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) into Union implementing measures, acceptable means of compliance, certification specifications and guidance material, air navigation service providers should operate in compliance with the relevant ICAO standards. With a view to facilitating the cross-border provision of air navigation services, and until the finalisation of the work of the Agency to draw up the relevant measures transposing the ICAO standards, the Member States, the Commission and the Agency, acting in close cooperation with Eurocontrol where relevant, should work towards minimising the differences notified by Member States in the application of ICAO standards in the field of air navigation services in order to reach a common set of standards between Member States within the single European sky.\n(15)\nDifferent national arrangements as to liability should not prevent air navigation service providers from entering into agreements on the cross-border provision of services, once the air navigation service providers have set up arrangements to cover losses for damages arising from liabilities under the applicable law. The method employed should comply with the requirements of national law. Member States which allow the provision of air navigation services in all or part of the airspace under their responsibility without certification in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 should cover the liabilities of those air navigation service providers.\n(16)\nThe Agency should further evaluate the provisions of this Regulation, in particular those related to the safety assessment of changes to the provision of air navigation services by the certified organisation and engineering and technical personnel, and issue an opinion to adapt them towards a total system approach, taking into account the integration of these provisions into a future common regulatory structure for civil aviation safety and the experience gained by stakeholders and competent authorities in the field of safety oversight.\n(17)\nRegulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the organisation and use of the airspace in the single European sky (the airspace Regulation) (7) requires that specific functions called network functions are to be set up to allow optimum use of airspace and scarce resources, while allowing users maximum access to airspace as well as the ability to operate preferred trajectories. As provided for in Regulation (EC) No 551/2004, Commission Regulation (EU) No 677/2011 of 7 July 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of air traffic management (ATM) network functions and amending Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 (8) lays down the rights, obligations and responsibilities of the entity involved in the provision of those functions.\n(18)\nFor the safe execution of certain network functions, the entity involved is subject to certain requirements. These requirements aim to ensure that the entity or organisation operates in a safe manner and they are laid down in Annex VI Regulation (EU) No 677/2011. These are organisation safety requirements which are very similar to the general requirements for the provision of air navigation services laid down in Annex I to this Regulation but adapted to the safety responsibilities of the network functions.\n(19)\nRegulation (EC) No 2096/2005 should therefore be repealed.\n(20)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 482/2008 of 30 May 2008 establishing a software safety assurance system to be implemented by air navigation service providers and amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 (9) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services (10) should be amended in order to be adapted to this Regulation.\n(21)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee established by Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\nThis Regulation lays down the common requirements for the provision of air navigation services.\nHowever, unless Annex I or II makes provision to the contrary, those common requirements shall not apply to:\n(a)\nactivities other than the provision of air navigation services by a provider of such services;\n(b)\nresources allocated to activities outside the provision of air navigation services.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 and Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 apply. However, the definition of \u2018certificate\u2019 in Article 2(15) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 does not apply.\nThe following definitions also apply:\n(1)\n\u2018aerial work\u2019 means an aircraft operation in which an aircraft is used for specialised services such as agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, search and rescue or aerial advertisement;\n(2)\n\u2018commercial air transport\u2019 means any aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire;\n(3)\n\u2018functional system\u2019 means a combination of systems, procedures and human resources organised to perform a function within the context of ATM;\n(4)\n\u2018general aviation\u2019 means any civil aircraft operation other than aerial work or commercial air transport;\n(5)\n\u2018national supervisory authority\u2019 means the body or bodies nominated or established by Member States as their national supervisory authority pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004;\n(6)\n\u2018hazard\u2019 means any condition, event, or circumstance which could induce an accident;\n(7)\n\u2018organisation\u2019 means an entity providing air navigation services;\n(8)\n\u2018operating organisation\u2019 means an organisation responsible for the provision of engineering and technical services supporting air traffic, communication, navigation or surveillance services;\n(9)\n\u2018risk\u2019 means the combination of the overall probability, or frequency of occurrence of a harmful effect induced by a hazard and the severity of that effect;\n(10)\n\u2018safety assurance\u2019 means all planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a product, a service, an organisation or a functional system achieves acceptable or tolerable safety;\n(11)\n\u2018safety objective\u2019 means a qualitative or quantitative statement that defines the maximum frequency or probability at which a hazard can be expected to occur;\n(12)\n\u2018safety requirement\u2019 means a risk-mitigation means, defined from the risk-mitigation strategy that achieves a particular safety objective, including organisational, operational, procedural, functional, performance, and interoperability requirements or environment characteristics;\n(13)\n\u2018services\u2019 means either an air navigation service or a bundle of such services;\n(14)\n\u2018pan-European air navigation service\u2019 means an air navigation service which is designed and established for users within most or all Member States and which may also extend beyond the airspace of the territory to which the Treaty applies.\n(15)\n\u2018air navigation service provider\u2019 means any public or private entity providing ANS for general air traffic, including an organisation having applied for a certificate to provide such services.\nArticle 3\nCompetent authority for certification\n1. For the purpose of this Regulation, the competent authority for the certification of air navigation service providers shall be:\n(a)\nfor organisations having their principal place of operation and, if any, their registered office located in a Member State, the national supervisory authority nominated or established by that Member State;\n(b)\nfor organisations providing air navigation services in the airspace of the territory to which the Treaty applies and having their principal place of operation and, if any, their registered office located outside the territory subject to the provisions of the Treaty, the Agency;\n(c)\nfor organisations providing pan-European air navigation services in the airspace of the territory to which the Treaty applies, the Agency.\n2. The competent authority for safety oversight shall be the authority determined in accordance with Article 3 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1034/2011 (11).\nArticle 4\nGranting of certificates\n1. In order to obtain the certificate necessary to provide air navigation services, and without prejudice to Article 7(5) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004, organisations shall comply with:\n(a)\nthe general requirements for the provision of air navigation services set out in Annex I;\n(b)\nthe additional specific requirements set out in Annexes II to V according to the type of service they provide.\n2. A competent authority shall verify an organisation\u2019s compliance with the common requirements before issuing a certificate to it.\n3. An organisation shall comply with the common requirements no later than at the time at which the certificate is issued pursuant to:\n(a)\nArticle 7 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004;\n(b)\nArticle 8b(2) and Article 22a(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\nArticle 5\nDerogations\n1. By way of derogation from Article 4(1), certain air navigation service providers may elect not to avail themselves of the opportunity to provide cross-border services and may waive the right to mutual recognition within the single European sky.\nThey may, in those circumstances, apply for a certificate which is limited to the airspace under the responsibility of the Member State referred to in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004.\n2. In order to make an application as referred to in paragraph 1, a provider of air traffic services shall provide services or plan to provide them only with respect to one or more of the following categories:\n(a)\naerial work;\n(b)\ngeneral aviation;\n(c)\ncommercial air transport limited to aircraft with less than 10 tonnes of maximum take-off mass or less than 20 passenger seats;\n(d)\ncommercial air transport with less than 10 000 movements per year, regardless of the maximum take-off mass and the number of passenger seats; \u2018movements\u2019 being counted as the sum of take-offs and landings and calculated as an average over the previous three years.\nIn order to make such an application, an air navigation service provider other than a provider of air traffic services shall have a gross annual turnover of EUR 1 000 000 or less in relation to the services it provides or plans to provide.\nWhere, owing to objective practical reasons, an air navigation service provider is unable to provide evidence that it meets those qualifying criteria, the competent authority may accept analogous figures or forecasts in relation to the ceilings defined in the first and the second subparagraphs.\nWhen submitting such an application, the air navigation service provider shall submit to the competent authority, at the same time the relevant evidence regarding the qualifying criteria.\n3. The competent authority may grant specific derogations to applicants who fulfil the qualifying criteria of paragraph 1, commensurately with their contribution to ATM in the airspace under the responsibility of the Member State concerned.\nThose derogations may relate only to the requirements set out in Annex I.\nHowever, no derogation shall be granted for the following requirements:\n(a)\ntechnical and operational competence and capability (point 1);\n(b)\nsafety management (point 3.1);\n(c)\nhuman resources (point 5);\n(d)\nopen and transparent provision of air navigation services (point 8.1).\n4. In addition to the derogations provided for in paragraph 3, the competent authority may grant derogations to applicants who provide aerodrome flight information services by operating regularly not more than one working position at any aerodrome. It shall do so commensurately with the applicants\u2019 contribution to ATM in the airspace under the responsibility of the Member State concerned.\nThose derogations may relate only to the following requirements of point 3 of Annex II:\n(a)\nsafety management responsibility and external services and supplies (point 3.1.2(b) and (e));\n(b)\nsafety surveys (point 3.1.3(a));\n(c)\nsafety requirements for risk assessment and mitigation with regard to changes (point 3.2).\n5. No derogations shall be granted from the requirements in Annexes III, IV or V.\n6. In accordance with Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004, the competent authority shall:\n(a)\nspecify the nature and the scope of the derogation in the conditions attached to the certificate by indicating its legal basis;\n(b)\nlimit the validity of the certificate in time, where considered necessary for oversight purposes;\n(c)\nmonitor whether the air navigation service providers continue to qualify for the derogation.\nArticle 6\nDemonstration of compliance\n1. Organisations shall provide all the relevant evidence to demonstrate compliance with the applicable common requirements at the request of the competent authority. Organisations may make full use of existing data.\n2. A certified organisation shall notify the competent authority of planned changes to its provision of air navigation services which may affect its compliance with the applicable common requirements or with the conditions attached to the certificate, where applicable.\n3. Where a certified organisation no longer complies with the applicable common requirements or, where applicable, with the conditions attached to the certificate, the competent authority shall, within one month of the date of discovering the non-compliance, require the organisation to take corrective action.\nThat decision shall immediately be notified to the relevant organisation.\nThe competent authority shall check that the corrective action has been implemented before notifying its approval to the relevant organisation.\nWhere the competent authority considers that corrective action has not been properly implemented within the timetable agreed with the organisation, it shall take appropriate enforcement measures as provided for in Article 7(7) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 and Article 10, Article 22a(d), and Articles 25 and 68 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, while taking into account the need to ensure the continuity of air navigation services.\nArticle 7\nFacilitation of compliance monitoring\nOrganisations shall facilitate inspections and surveys by the competent authority or by a qualified entity acting on the latter\u2019s behalf, including site visits and visits without prior notice.\nThe authorised persons shall be empowered to perform the following acts:\n(a)\nto examine the relevant records, data, procedures and any other material relevant to the provision of air navigation services;\n(b)\nto take copies of or extracts from such records, data, procedures and other material;\n(c)\nto ask for an oral explanation on site;\n(d)\nto enter relevant premises, lands or means of transport.\nSuch inspections and surveys, when conducted by a competent authority or by a qualified entity acting on their behalf, shall be carried out in compliance with the legal provisions of the Member State in which they are to be undertaken.\nArticle 8\nOngoing compliance\nThe competent authority shall, on the basis of the evidence at its disposal, monitor annually the ongoing compliance of the organisations which it has certified.\nTo that end, the competent authority shall establish and update annually an indicative inspection programme which covers all the providers it has certified and which is based on an assessment of the risks associated with the different operations constituting the air navigation services provided. It shall consult the organisation concerned as well as any other competent authority concerned, if appropriate, before establishing such a programme.\nThe programme shall indicate the envisaged interval of the inspections of the different sites.\nArticle 9\nSafety regulation of engineering and technical personnel\nWith regard to the provision of air traffic, communication, navigation or surveillance services, the competent authority or any other authority designated by a Member State to fulfil this task shall:\n(a)\nissue appropriate safety rules for engineering and technical personnel who undertake operational safety-related tasks;\n(b)\nensure adequate and appropriate safety oversight of the engineering and technical personnel assigned by any operating organisation to undertake operational safety-related tasks;\n(c)\non reasonable grounds and after due enquiry, take appropriate action in respect of the operating organisation and/or its technical and engineering personnel who do not comply with the requirements of point 3.3 of Annex II;\n(d)\nverify that appropriate methods are in place to ensure that third parties assigned to operational safety-related tasks comply with the requirements of point 3.3 of Annex II.\nArticle 10\nPeer review procedure\n1. The Commission, acting in cooperation with the Member States and the Agency may arrange peer reviews of national supervisory authorities in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 6.\n2. A peer review shall be carried out by a team of national experts and, where appropriate, observers from the Agency.\nA team shall be comprised of experts coming from at least three different Member States and the Agency.\nExperts shall not participate in peer reviews in the Member State where they are employed.\nThe Commission shall establish and maintain a pool of national experts, designated by Member States, which shall cover all aspects of the common requirements as listed in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004.\n3. Not less than three months before a peer review, the Commission shall inform the Member State and the national supervisory authority concerned of the peer review, the date on which it is scheduled to take place and the identity of the experts taking part in it.\nThe Member State whose national supervisory authority is subject to review shall approve the team of experts before it may carry out the review.\n4. Within a period of three months from the date of the review, the review team shall draw up, by consensus, a report which may contain recommendations.\nThe Commission shall convene a meeting with the Agency, the experts and the national supervisory authority to discuss that report.\n5. The Commission shall forward the report to the Member State concerned.\nThe Member State may, within three months from the date of receipt of the report, present its observations.\nThose observations shall include, where relevant, the measures which the Member State has taken or intends to take to respond to the review within a given timescale.\nUnless otherwise agreed with the Member State concerned, the report and the follow-up shall not be published.\n6. The Commission shall inform the Member States through the Single Sky Committee of the main findings of these reviews on an annual basis.\nArticle 11\nTransitional provisions\n1. Air navigation service providers holding a certificate issued in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 on the date of entry into force of this Regulation shall be deemed to hold a certificate issued in accordance with this Regulation.\n2. Applicants for an air navigation service providers\u2019 certificate which submitted their application before the date of entry into force of this Regulation and were not already issued with a certificate on that date shall show compliance with the provisions of this Regulation before the certificate is issued.\n3. Where organisations, for which the competent authority will be the Agency in accordance with Article 3, have applied to a national supervisory authority of a Member State for the issue of a certificate before the date entry into force of this Regulation, the national supervisory authority shall finalise the certification process in coordination with the Agency and transfer the file to the Agency upon the issue of the certificate.\nArticle 12\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 2096/2005 is repealed.\nArticle 13\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 482/2008\nRegulation (EC) No 482/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 4(5), the reference to \u2018Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005\u2019 is replaced by a reference to \u2018Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1035/2011 (12).\n(2)\nArticle 6 is deleted;\n(3)\nin Annex I, in points 1 and 2, the reference to \u2018Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005\u2019 is replaced by a reference to \u2018Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1035/2011\u2019.\nArticle 14\nAmendment to Regulation (EU) No 691/2010\nIn Regulation (EU) No 691/2010, Article 25 is deleted.\nArticle 15\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 October 2011.", "references": ["6", "8", "64", "96", "74", "48", "27", "66", "5", "50", "52", "73", "0", "39", "19", "84", "98", "17", "40", "58", "30", "43", "23", "85", "90", "87", "10", "63", "89", "97", "No Label", "7", "20", "53", "57"], "gold": ["7", "20", "53", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 November 2010\non the clearance of the accounts of certain paying agencies in Germany and Spain concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2009 financial year\n(notified under document C(2010) 8223)\n(Only the German and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(2010/722/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 33 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Fund Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2010/263/EU (2) cleared for the 2009 financial year the accounts of all the paying agencies, except for the German paying agencies \u2018Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg\u2019, \u2018Bayern\u2019, \u2018Hessen\u2019, \u2018Rheinland-Pfalz\u2019, \u2018Th\u00fcringen\u2019, \u2018IBH\u2019 and \u2018Helaba\u2019, the Spanish paying agencies \u2018Andalucia\u2019 and \u2018Asturias\u2019, the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019, and the Romanian paying agency \u2018PARDF\u2019.\n(2)\nFollowing the transmission of new information and after additional checks, the Commission can now take a decision concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the German paying agencies \u2018Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg\u2019, \u2018Hessen\u2019, \u2018IBH\u2019, \u2018Helaba\u2019 and \u2018Th\u00fcringen\u2019, and the Spanish paying agencies \u2018Andalucia\u2019 and \u2018Asturias\u2019.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from Community financing expenditure not effected in accordance with Community rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accounts of the German paying agencies \u2018Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg\u2019, \u2018Hessen\u2019, \u2018IBH\u2019, \u2018Helaba\u2019 and \u2018Th\u00fcringen\u2019, and the Spanish paying agencies \u2018Andalucia\u2019 and \u2018Asturias\u2019 concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in respect of the 2009 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State under each rural development programme pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 33(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 26 November 2010.", "references": ["98", "66", "39", "27", "62", "87", "5", "81", "31", "46", "52", "35", "14", "95", "49", "7", "42", "86", "54", "11", "26", "8", "50", "15", "44", "6", "55", "83", "89", "75", "No Label", "10", "17", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "17", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 672/2010\nof 27 July 2010\nconcerning type-approval requirements for windscreen defrosting and demisting systems of certain motor vehicles and implementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 is a separate Regulation for the purposes of the type-approval procedure provided for by Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 repeals Council Directive 78/317/EEC of 21 December 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the defrosting and demisting systems of glazed surfaces of motor vehicles (3). The requirements set out in that Directive should be carried over to this Regulation and, where necessary, amended in order to adapt them to the development of scientific and technical knowledge, in particular to take into account the specific characteristics of hybrid and electrical vehicles.\n(3)\nThe scope of this Regulation is in line with that of Directive 78/317/EEC and thus limited to vehicles of category M1.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 lays down fundamental provisions on requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to windscreen defrosting and demisting systems. Therefore, it is necessary to also set out the specific procedures, tests and requirements for such type-approval.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation applies to motor vehicles of category M1, as defined in Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC, which are fitted with a windscreen.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018vehicle type with regard to the windscreen defrosting and demisting systems\u2019 means vehicles which do not differ in such essential respects as:\n-\nthe characteristics of the defrosting and demisting systems,\n-\nthe external and internal forms and arrangements within the 180\u00b0 forward field of vision area of the driver which may affect visibility,\n-\nthe shape, size, thickness and characteristics of the windscreen and its mounting,\n-\nthe maximum number of seating positions;\n2.\n\u2018engine\u2019 means a combustion engine running on either liquid or gaseous fuel;\n3.\n\u2018defrosting system\u2019 means the system intended to eliminate frost or ice on the outside surface of the windscreen;\n4.\n\u2018defrosted area\u2019 means the area of the windscreen having a dry outside surface or an outside surface covered with melted or partially melted wet frost which can be removed by the vehicle\u2019s windscreen wiper system;\n5.\n\u2018demisting system\u2019 means the system intended to remove mist on the inside surface of the windscreen;\n6.\n\u2018mist\u2019 means a film of condensate on the inside face of the glazed surface of the windscreen;\n7.\n\u2018demisted area\u2019 means the area of the windscreen having a dry inside surface, without any drops or traces of water, after previously being covered by mist;\n8.\n\u2018vision area A\u2019 means test area A as defined in paragraph 2.2 of Annex 18 of UN-ECE Regulation 43 (4);\n9.\n\u2018vision area B\u2019 means reduced test area B as defined in paragraph 2.4 of Annex 18 of UN-ECE Regulation 43, without the exclusion of the area defined in paragraph 2.4.1 thereof;\n10.\n\u2018design torso angle\u2019 means the angle measured between a vertical line through the R-point or seating reference point and the torso line in a position which corresponds to the design position of the seat-back as declared by the vehicle manufacturer;\n11.\n\u2018R-point\u2019 or seating reference point means the design point defined by the vehicle manufacturer for each seating position with respect to the three-dimensional reference system;\n12.\n\u2018three-dimensional reference system\u2019 means a reference grid which consists of a vertical longitudinal plane X-Z, a horizontal plane X-Y and a vertical transverse plane Y-Z in accordance with the provisions of Appendix 2 of Annex II;\n13.\n\u2018primary reference marks\u2019 means holes, surfaces, marks or other identification signs on the vehicle body or chassis of which the X, Y and Z coordinates within the three-dimensional reference grid are specified by the vehicle manufacturer;\n14.\n\u2018vehicle master control switch\u2019 means the device by which the vehicle\u2019s on-board electronics system is brought from being switched off, as is the case when a vehicle is parked without the driver being present, to normal operation mode.\nArticle 3\nProvisions for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to windscreen defrosting and demisting systems\n1. The manufacturer or his representative shall submit to the type-approval authority the application for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to windscreen defrosting and demisting systems.\n2. The application shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Part 1 of Annex I.\n3. If the relevant requirements set out in Annex II are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC type-approval and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nA Member State may not assign the same number to another vehicle type.\n4. For the purposes of paragraph 3, the type-approval authority shall deliver an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 4\nValidity and extension of approvals granted under Directive 78/317/EEC\nNational authorities shall permit the sale and entry into service of vehicles type-approved before the date referred to in Article 13, paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 and continue to grant extension of approvals to those vehicles under the terms of Directive 78/317/EEC.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2010.", "references": ["48", "91", "32", "99", "77", "65", "80", "45", "19", "72", "53", "58", "96", "85", "81", "93", "2", "34", "39", "10", "88", "84", "28", "18", "25", "6", "51", "75", "97", "38", "No Label", "8", "54", "76"], "gold": ["8", "54", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\non a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Cloppenburg, Germany in December 2008 and January 2009\n(notified under document C(2011) 8716)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2011/796/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3), first and second indents, of that Decision identifies the percentage of Union financial contributions that can be paid to compensate the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nArticle 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2009/581/EC of 29 July 2009 on a financial contribution from the Community towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Cloppenburg, Germany in December 2008 and January 2009 (3) provided for a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Germany in December 2008 and January 2009.\n(5)\nGermany submitted an official request for reimbursement on 3 September 2009, as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(6)\nArticle 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 makes the payment of that financial contribution from the Union subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(7)\nDecision 2009/581/EC provided that a first tranche of EUR 2 000 000 should be paid as part of the Union\u2019s financial contribution.\n(8)\nAn audit according to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 carried out by the Commission\u2019s services did reveal only minor financial issues.\n(9)\nGermany has thus to this point complied with its technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(10)\nIn view of the above considerations, a second tranche of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred in association with the eradication of avian influenza in Cloppenburg, Germany in December 2008 and January 2009 should now be fixed.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nA second tranche of EUR 4 000 000 shall be paid to Germany as part of the Union financial contribution.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision constituting a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["9", "34", "30", "2", "78", "36", "41", "60", "23", "20", "51", "67", "32", "44", "47", "52", "40", "69", "3", "72", "57", "98", "18", "99", "45", "87", "64", "15", "62", "79", "No Label", "4", "10", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/800/CFSP\nof 22 December 2010\nconcerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and repealing Common Position 2006/795/CFSP\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 20 November 2006, the Council adopted Common Position 2006/795/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (1) (the \u2018DPRK\u2019) which implemented United Nations Security Council Resolution (\u2018UNSCR\u2019) 1718 (2006).\n(2)\nOn 27 July 2009, the Council adopted Common Position 2009/573/CFSP (2) which amended Common Position 2006/795/CFSP and implemented UNSCR 1874 (2009).\n(3)\nOn 22 December 2009, the Council adopted Decision 2009/1002/CFSP (3) which amended Common Position 2006/795/CFSP.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) of Common Position 2006/795/CFSP, the Council has carried out a complete review of the lists as set out in Annexes II and III to that Common Position, of persons to whom and entities to which Articles 3(1)(b) and (c) and 4(1)(b) and (c) thereof applied. The Council has concluded that the persons and entities concerned should continue to be subject to restrictive measures.\n(5)\nThe Council has identified additional persons and entities that should be subject to restrictive measures.\n(6)\nThe procedure for amending Annexes I and II to this Decision should include providing to designated persons and entities the grounds for listing so as to give them an opportunity to present observations. Where observations are submitted or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in the light of those observations and inform the person or entity concerned accordingly.\n(7)\nThis Decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the right to property and the right to the protection of personal data. This Decision should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(8)\nThis Decision also fully respects the obligations of Member States under the Charter of the United Nations and the legally binding nature of Security Council Resolutions.\n(9)\nCommon Position 2006/795/CFSP should be repealed and replaced by this Decision.\n(10)\nThe Union implementing measures are set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 of 27 March 2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (4),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer of the following items and technology, including software, to the DPRK by nationals of Member States or through or from the territories of Member States, or using the flag vessels or aircraft of Member States, shall be prohibited, whether or not originating in the territories of the Member States:\n(a)\narms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, with the exception of non-combat vehicles which have been manufactured or fitted with materials to provide ballistic protection, intended solely for protective use of personnel of the Union and its Member States in the DPRK;\n(b)\nall items, materials, equipment, goods and technology as determined by the Security Council or the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 12 of UNSCR 1718 (2006) (the \u2018Sanctions Committee\u2019) in accordance with paragraph 8(a)(ii) of UNSCR 1718 (2006), which could contribute to the DPRK's nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes;\n(c)\ncertain other items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to the DPRK's nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes or which could contribute to its military activities, which shall include all dual-use goods and technology listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (5). The Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this provision.\n2. It shall also be prohibited to:\n(a)\nprovide technical training, advice, services, assistance or brokering services, related to items and technology referred to in paragraph 1 or to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of those items, directly or indirectly to any person, entity or body in, or for use in, the DPRK;\n(b)\nprovide financing or financial assistance related to items and technology referred to in paragraph 1, including, in particular, grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of these items and technology, or for the provision of related technical training, advice, services, assistance, or brokering services, directly or indirectly to any person, entity or body in, or for use in, the DPRK;\n(c)\nto participate, knowingly or intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibition referred to in points (a) and (b).\n3. The procurement from the DPRK by nationals of Member States, or using the flag vessels or aircraft of Member States, of items or technology referred to in paragraph 1, as well as the provision to nationals of Member States by the DPRK of technical training, advice, services, assistance, financing and financial assistance referred to in paragraph 2, shall also be prohibited, whether or not originating in the territory of the DPRK.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall not enter into new commitments for grants, financial assistance or concessional loans to the DPRK, including through their participation in international financial institutions, except for humanitarian and developmental purposes directly addressing the need of the civilian population or the promotion of denuclearisation. Member States shall also exercise vigilance with a view to reducing current commitments and, if possible, putting an end to them.\n2. Member States shall not provide public financial support for trade with the DPRK, including the granting of export credits, guarantees or insurance, to their nationals or entities involved in such trade, where such financial support could contribute to the DPRK's nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes or activities.\nArticle 3\nThe direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer of luxury goods to the DPRK by nationals of Member States or through or from the territories of Member States, or using the flag vessels or aircraft of Member States, shall be prohibited whether originating or not in the territories of Member States.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of:\n(a)\nthe persons designated by the Sanctions Committee or by the Security Council as being responsible for, including through supporting or promoting, the DPRK's policies in relation to its nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes, together with their family members, as listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nthe persons not covered by Annex I who are responsible for, including through supporting or promoting, the DPRK's nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes, as listed in Annex II;\n(c)\nthe persons not covered by Annex I or Annex II who provide financial services or the transfer to, through, or from the territory of Member States, or involving nationals of Member States or entities organised under their laws, or persons or financial institutions in their territory, of any financial or other assets or resources that could contribute to the DPRK's nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes, as listed in Annex III.\n2. Paragraph 1(a) shall not apply where the Sanctions Committee determines on a case-by-case basis that such travel is justified on the grounds of humanitarian need, including religious obligations, or where the Sanctions Committee concludes that an exemption would otherwise further the objectives of UNSCR 1718 (2006) or UNSCR 1874 (2009).\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n4. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation of international law, namely:\n(a)\nas a host country of an international intergovernmental organisation;\n(b)\nas a host country to an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the United Nations;\n(c)\nunder a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities;\n(d)\nunder the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran pact) concluded by the Holy See (State of the Vatican City) and Italy.\n5. Paragraph 4 shall also be considered as applying in cases where a Member State is host country of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).\n6. The Council shall be duly informed in all cases where a Member State grants an exemption pursuant to paragraphs 4 or 5.\n7. Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed in paragraph 1(b) and (c) where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the Union, or hosted by a Member State holding the Chairmanship in office of the OSCE, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the DPRK.\n8. A Member State wishing to grant exemptions referred to in paragraph 7 shall notify the Council thereof in writing. The exemption shall be deemed to be granted unless one or more of the Council Members raises an objection in writing within two working days of receiving notification of the proposed exemption. Should one or more of the Council Members raise an objection, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to grant the proposed exemption.\n9. In cases where, pursuant to paragraphs 4, 5 and 7, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in Annexes I, II or III, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\nArticle 5\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled, directly or indirectly, by:\n(a)\nthe persons and entities designated by the Sanctions Committee or by the Security Council as being engaged in or providing support for, including through illicit means, the DPRK's nuclear-related, ballistic missiles-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes, as listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nthe persons and entities not covered by Annex I that are responsible for the DPRK's nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes or persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them, as listed in Annex II;\n(c)\nthe persons and entities not covered by Annex I or Annex II that provide financial services or the transfer to, through, or from the territory of Member States, or involving nationals of Member States or entities organised under their laws, or persons or financial institutions in their territory, of any financial or other assets or resources that could contribute to the DPRK's nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes, or persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them, as listed in Annex III,\nshall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of persons and entities referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. Exemptions may be made for funds and economic resources which are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy basic needs, including payment for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services; or\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges, in accordance with national laws, for the routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds and economic resources,\nafter notification by the Member State concerned to the Sanctions Committee, for persons and entities listed in Annex I, of the intention to authorise, where appropriate, access to such funds and economic resources and in the absence of a negative decision by the Sanctions Committee within five working days of such notification.\n4. Exemptions may also be made for funds and economic resources which are:\n(a)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, after notification by the Member State concerned to and approval by the Sanctions Committee for persons and entities listed in Annex I; or\n(b)\nthe subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien or judgment, in which case the funds and economic resources may be used to satisfy that lien or judgment, provided that the lien or judgment was entered prior to the date on which the person or entity referred to in paragraph 1 was designated by the Sanctions Committee, the Security Council or by the Council, and is not for the benefit of a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1, after notification by the Member State concerned to the Sanctions Committee for persons and entities listed in Annex I.\n5. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to 14 October 2006,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to paragraph 1.\nArticle 6\n1. In order to prevent the provision of financial services or the transfer to, through, or from the territory of Member States, or to or by nationals of Member States or entities organised under their laws, or persons or financial institutions within their jurisdiction, of any financial or other assets or resources that could contribute to the DPRK's nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes or activities, Member States shall exercise enhanced monitoring of the activities of financial institutions within their jurisdiction with:\n(a)\nbanks domiciled in the DPRK;\n(b)\nbranches and subsidiaries within the jurisdiction of the Member States of banks domiciled in the DPRK, as listed in Annex IV;\n(c)\nbranches and subsidiaries outside the jurisdiction of the Member States of banks domiciled in the DPRK, as listed in Annex V; and\n(d)\nfinancial entities that are neither domiciled in the DPRK nor within the jurisdiction of the Member States but are controlled by persons and entities domiciled in the DPRK, as listed in Annex V,\nin order to avoid such activities contributing to the DPRK's nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes or activities.\n2. For the above purpose, financial institutions shall be required, in their activities with banks and financial entities set out in paragraph 1, to:\n(a)\nexercise continuous monitoring over account activity, including through their programmes on customer due diligence and under their obligations relating to money-laundering and financing of terrorism;\n(b)\nrequire that all information fields of payment instructions which relate to the originator and beneficiary of the transaction in question be completed, and if that information is not supplied, refuse the transaction;\n(c)\nmaintain all records of transactions for a period of five years and make them available to national authorities on request;\n(d)\nif they suspect or have reasonable grounds to suspect that funds could contribute to the DPRK's nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes or activities, promptly report their suspicions to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) or another competent authority designated by the Member State concerned. The FIU or such other competent authority shall have access, directly or indirectly, on a timely basis to the financial, administrative and law enforcement information that it requires to undertake this function properly, including the analysis of suspicious transaction reports.\nArticle 7\n1. Member States shall inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, all cargo to and from the DPRK in their territory, including at their airports and seaports, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items whose supply, sale, transfer or export is prohibited under this Decision.\n2. Member States shall inspect vessels, with the consent of the flag State, on the high seas, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo of such vessels contains items whose supply, sale, transfer or export is prohibited under this Decision.\n3. Member States shall cooperate, in accordance with their national legislation, with inspections pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2.\n4. Aircrafts and vessels transporting cargo to and from the DPRK shall be subject to the requirement of additional pre-arrival or pre-departure information for all goods brought into or out of a Member State.\n5. In cases where inspection referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 is undertaken, Member States shall seize and dispose of items whose supply, sale, transfer or export is prohibited under this Decision in accordance with paragraph 14 of UNSCR 1874 (2009).\n6. The provision by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States of bunkering or ship supply services, or other servicing of vessels, to DPRK vessels shall be prohibited if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the vessels carry items whose supply, sale, transfer or export is prohibited under this Decision unless provision of such services is necessary for humanitarian purposes or until the cargo has been inspected, and seized and disposed of if necessary, in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 4.\nArticle 8\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to exercise vigilance and prevent specialised teaching or training of DPRK nationals, within their territories or by their nationals, of disciplines which would contribute to the DPRK's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities and the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.\nArticle 9\n1. The Council shall adopt modifications to Annex I on the basis of the determinations made by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\n2. The Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal from Member States or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall establish the lists in Annexes II and III and adopt modifications thereto.\nArticle 10\n1. Where the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee lists a person or entity, the Council shall include such person or entity in Annex I.\n2. Where the Council decides to subject a person or entity to the measures referred to in Articles 4(1)(b) and (c) and 5(1)(b) and (c), it shall amend Annex II accordingly.\n3. The Council shall communicate its decision to the person or entity referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, including the grounds for listing, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person or entity an opportunity to present observations.\n4. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person or entity accordingly.\nArticle 11\n1. Annexes I and II shall include the grounds for listing of listed persons and entities, as provided by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee with regard to Annex I.\n2. Annexes I and II shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify the persons or entities concerned, as provided by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee for Annex I. With regard to persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known, and function or profession. With regard to entities, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. Annex I shall also include the date of designation by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 12\n1. This Decision shall be reviewed, and, if necessary, amended, in particular as regards the categories of persons, entities or items or additional persons, entities or items to be covered by the restrictive measures, or taking into account relevant Security Council Resolutions.\n2. The measures provided for in Article 6 shall be reviewed within six months of the adoption of this Decision.\n3. The measures referred to in Articles 4(1)(b) and (c) and 5(1)(b) and (c) shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months. They shall cease to apply in respect of the persons and entities concerned if the Council determines, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9(2), that the conditions for their application are no longer met.\nArticle 13\nCommon Position 2006/795/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 14\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2010.", "references": ["51", "32", "94", "66", "86", "77", "46", "18", "83", "68", "45", "8", "92", "53", "99", "96", "39", "29", "22", "49", "59", "10", "27", "97", "9", "54", "64", "28", "7", "33", "No Label", "3", "5", "6", "11", "12", "23", "30", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "6", "11", "12", "23", "30", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 March 2012\namending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of the Bank of Greece\n(2012/177/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular to Article 27.1 thereof,\nHaving regard to Recommendation ECB/2012/1 of the European Central Bank of 10 February 2012 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Bank of Greece (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are to be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the Governing Council of the ECB and approved by the Council of the European Union.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the current external auditors of the Bank of Greece will end after the audit for the financial year 2011. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2012.\n(3)\nThe Bank of Greece has selected KPMG Certified Auditors A.E. as its external auditors for the financial years 2012 to 2016.\n(4)\nThe Governing Council of the ECB recommended that KPMG Certified Auditors A.E. should be appointed as the external auditors of the Bank of Greece for the financial years 2012 to 2016.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to follow the recommendation of the Governing Council of the ECB and to amend Council Decision 1999/70/EC (2) accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1(12) of Decision 1999/70/EC shall be replaced by the following:\n\u201812. KPMG Certified Auditors A.E. are hereby approved as the external auditors of the Bank of Greece for the financial years 2012 to 2016.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the European Central Bank.\nDone at Brussels, 19 March 2012.", "references": ["34", "3", "22", "87", "71", "43", "67", "82", "37", "90", "2", "53", "10", "46", "66", "78", "38", "27", "7", "31", "19", "85", "56", "95", "15", "77", "99", "25", "55", "41", "No Label", "28", "47", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["28", "47", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 August 2012\namending Decisions 2010/2/EU and 2011/278/EU as regards the sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage\n(notified under document C(2012) 5715)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/498/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Article 10a(1) and (13) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2010/2/EU (2) determines, pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2011/278/EU (3) determines transitional Union-wide rules for the harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n(3)\nEvery year a sector or subsector may be added to the list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage when it has been demonstrated, in an analytical report, that the sector or subsector satisfies the criteria set out in paragraphs 14 to 17 of Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC, following a change that has a substantial impact on the sector\u2019s or subsector\u2019s activities.\n(4)\nSome sectors not found to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage at the NACE 4-level in Decision 2010/2/EU were disaggregated and a number of corresponding subsectors, for which certain specific distinguishing characteristics led to a significantly different impact from the rest of the sector, were assessed. For the subsectors \u2018Voiles, webs, mats, mattresses, boards and other articles of glass fibres, except woven fabrics\u2019 and \u2018Slag wool, rock wool and similar mineral wools and mixtures thereof, in bulk, sheets or rolls\u2019, this assessment has shown that they can be clearly distinguished from other subsectors on the basis of specific characteristics and that they satisfy the quantitative criteria set out in Article 10a(15) of Directive 2003/87/EC. Accordingly, the subsectors \u2018Voiles, webs, mats, mattresses, boards and other articles of glass fibres, except woven fabrics\u2019 and \u2018Slag wool, rock wool and similar mineral wools and mixtures thereof, in bulk, sheets or rolls\u2019 should be added to the list of sectors and subsectors deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage.\n(5)\nNACE 4-level code 2614 \u2018Manufacture of glass fibres\u2019 consists of two 6-digit Prodcom codes: \u2018261411 Slivers, rovings, yarn and chopped strands, of glass fibre\u2019 and \u2018261412 Voiles, webs, mats, mattresses, boards and other articles of glass fibres, except woven fabrics\u2019. The subsector covered by 6-digit Prodcom code 261411 was deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage in Decision 2010/2/EU. By adding also Prodcom code 261412 to the list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage, the entire sector at NACE 4-level 2614 will be covered. Therefore, for reasons of clarity and to avoid duplication, NACE 4-level code 2614 has been added to Section 1.2 of the list, while Prodcom code 261411 is deleted from Section 2.\n(6)\nDecisions 2010/2/EU and 2011/278/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Decision 2010/2/EU\nThe Annex to Decision 2010/2/EU is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nAmendments to Decision 2011/278/EU\nAnnex I to Decision 2011/278/EU is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 August 2012.", "references": ["66", "70", "43", "25", "74", "89", "52", "97", "18", "54", "7", "85", "71", "92", "78", "56", "1", "27", "63", "39", "73", "15", "34", "13", "68", "11", "5", "55", "57", "80", "No Label", "58", "60", "83", "87"], "gold": ["58", "60", "83", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 641/2011\nof 30 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 June 2011.", "references": ["9", "4", "65", "67", "56", "23", "82", "36", "88", "60", "62", "39", "20", "22", "91", "32", "26", "30", "7", "48", "41", "77", "75", "6", "54", "72", "57", "78", "29", "18", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 May 2011\nconcerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park Area\n(2011/646/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1), in conjunction with point (6)(a) of Article 218, thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1) (\u2018the EU Water Framework Directive\u2019) requires, where river basins extend beyond the territory of the Union, Member States to endeavour to establish appropriate coordination with the relevant non-Member States, with the aim of achieving the objectives of the Directive throughout the river basin district.\n(2)\nOn 27 June 2006, the Council adopted a decision authorising the Commission, on behalf of the European Community, to negotiate the conclusion of international river basin agreements to improve cooperation in European river basins shared between certain Member States and third countries.\n(3)\nThe Prespa Lakes and their surroundings are a unique natural area with high ecological significance, which can only be preserved through a holistic approach at basin level.\n(4)\nAn Agreement on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park Area has been negotiated by the European Commission, Greece, Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and constitutes an upgrade of the existing cooperation in the area, while holding the potential to contribute to the successful implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive.\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park Area is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to the notification provided for in Article 18 of the Agreement, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the Agreement.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption (2).\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["30", "53", "44", "12", "41", "43", "25", "84", "65", "7", "31", "90", "93", "69", "48", "9", "29", "79", "8", "37", "11", "49", "56", "5", "67", "36", "17", "86", "61", "39", "No Label", "4", "15", "58", "59", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "15", "58", "59", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 9 March 2011\nconcerning the renewal of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine\n(2011/182/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 186, in conjunction with point (v) of Article 218(6)(a), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy its Decision 2003/96/EC of 6 February 2003 (1), the Council approved the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine.\n(2)\nArticle 12(b) of the Agreement provided that the Agreement would be concluded for an initial period ending on 31 December 2002 and would be renewable by common agreement between the Parties for additional periods of 5 years.\n(3)\nBy a Decision of 22 September 2003 (2) which entered into force on 8 November 2004, the Council approved the renewal of the Agreement for a further period of 5 years.\n(4)\nAt the third meeting of the EU-Ukraine Sub-Committee No 7, held on 26 and 27 November 2008 in Kyiv, both Parties confirmed their interest in a renewal of the abovementioned Agreement for a further 5 years.\n(5)\nThe material content of the renewed Agreement is identical with the material content of the Agreement which expired on 7 November 2009.\n(6)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(7)\nThe renewal of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine should be approved on behalf of the Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe renewal of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine, for an additional period of 5 years, is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall, acting on behalf of the Union and in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement, give notification to the Government of Ukraine that the Union has completed its internal procedures necessary for the entry into force of the renewed Agreement (3) and make the following notification to Ukraine:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d in the text of the Agreement are, where appropriate, to be read as \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2011.", "references": ["22", "15", "74", "23", "78", "40", "71", "75", "18", "61", "72", "52", "73", "25", "98", "65", "57", "50", "46", "84", "2", "10", "31", "56", "12", "1", "66", "42", "93", "92", "No Label", "3", "4", "9", "58", "76", "77", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "4", "9", "58", "76", "77", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EULEX KOSOVO/1/2012\nof 12 June 2012\nextending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (1), EULEX KOSOVO\n(2012/310/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP of 4 February 2008 on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (2), and in particular Article 12(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 12(2) of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX KOSOVO), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nOn 5 June 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/291/CFSP (3) extending the duration of EULEX KOSOVO until 14 June 2014.\n(3)\nBy Decision 2010/431/CFSP (4), following a proposal by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), the PSC appointed Mr Xavier BOUT DE MARNHAC as Head of Mission of EULEX KOSOVO with effect from 15 October 2010, by Decision 2011/688/CFSP (5), it extended the mandate of Mr Xavier BOUT DE MARNHAC until 14 December 2011, and by Decision 2011/849/CFSP (6), it extended that mandate until 14 June 2012.\n(4)\nOn 7 June 2012, the HR proposed the extension of the mandate of Mr Xavier BOUT DE MARNHAC as Head of Mission of EULEX KOSOVO until 14 October 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Mr Xavier BOUT DE MARNHAC as Head of Mission of EULEX KOSOVO is hereby extended until 14 October 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 15 June 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 12 June 2012.", "references": ["74", "69", "89", "57", "15", "55", "65", "36", "83", "50", "94", "45", "60", "44", "84", "95", "80", "48", "88", "22", "6", "12", "2", "82", "14", "61", "20", "13", "38", "42", "No Label", "0", "3", "7", "9", "91", "96"], "gold": ["0", "3", "7", "9", "91", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 700/2010\nof 4 August 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pemento de Herb\u00f3n (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Pemento de Herb\u00f3n\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 August 2010.", "references": ["56", "52", "92", "67", "16", "33", "99", "2", "69", "82", "6", "50", "63", "89", "45", "19", "84", "1", "55", "0", "59", "80", "98", "65", "75", "60", "76", "27", "30", "14", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 406/2012\nof 4 May 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for anglerfish in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2012.", "references": ["4", "33", "2", "80", "87", "25", "34", "53", "48", "20", "81", "58", "76", "11", "27", "92", "14", "8", "50", "83", "9", "77", "62", "51", "52", "6", "12", "41", "99", "18", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 441/2010\nof 21 May 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Canestrato di Moliterno (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Canestrato di Moliterno\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2010.", "references": ["9", "98", "22", "19", "79", "50", "53", "26", "46", "10", "63", "13", "49", "1", "31", "34", "3", "74", "60", "38", "8", "89", "45", "94", "56", "30", "86", "61", "90", "36", "No Label", "23", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 767/2012\nof 17 August 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for Bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of 45\u00b0 W, and Mediterranean by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non- EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 August 2012.", "references": ["72", "1", "38", "65", "84", "17", "76", "78", "28", "87", "79", "14", "37", "57", "19", "82", "11", "43", "35", "88", "92", "2", "27", "98", "47", "36", "15", "53", "34", "69", "No Label", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/446/CFSP\nof 11 August 2010\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Kosovo (1)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 10 June 1999, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1244.\n(2)\nOn 15 September 2006, the Council adopted Joint Action 2006/623/CFSP (2) on the establishment of a team to contribute to the preparations of the establishment of a possible International Civilian Office in Kosovo, including a European Union Special Representative component (ICO/EUSR Preparation Team).\n(3)\nOn 13/14 December 2007, the European Council underlined that the European Union (hereinafter \u2018the EU\u2019 or \u2018the Union\u2019) stands ready to play a leading role in strengthening stability in the region and in implementing a settlement defining Kosovo\u2019s future status. It stated the Union\u2019s readiness to assist Kosovo in the path towards sustainable stability, including by a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) mission and a contribution to an International Civilian Office as part of the international presences.\n(4)\nOn 4 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (3) and Joint Action 2008/123/CFSP (4) appointing Mr Pieter FEITH European Union Special Representative (hereinafter the EUSR) in Kosovo.\n(5)\nOn 25 February 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/118/CFSP (5) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 31 August 2010.\n(6)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 28 February 2011. However, the mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter the HR) following the entry into force of the decision establishing the European External Action Service.\n(7)\nThe Stabilisation and Association Process is the strategic framework of the Union\u2019s policy towards the western Balkans region, and its instruments apply to Kosovo, including a European partnership, political and technical dialogue under the SAP Tracking Mechanism, and related Union assistance programmes.\n(8)\nThe EUSR\u2019s mandate should be implemented in coordination with the Commission in order to ensure consistency with other relevant activities falling within Union competence.\n(9)\nThe Council foresees that the powers and authorities of the EUSR and the powers and authorities of an International Civilian Representative shall be vested in the same person.\n(10)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Pieter FEITH as the EUSR in Kosovo is hereby extended until 28 February 2011. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the HR following the entry into force of the decision establishing the European External Action Service.\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the Union in Kosovo. These include playing a leading role in strengthening stability in the region and in implementing a settlement defining Kosovo\u2019s future status, with the aim of a stable, viable, peaceful, democratic and multiethnic Kosovo, contributing to regional cooperation and stability, on the basis of good neighbourly relations; a Kosovo that is committed to the rule of law and to the protection of minorities and of cultural and religious heritage.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the policy objectives, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\noffer the Union\u2019s advice and support in the political process;\n(b)\npromote overall Union political coordination in Kosovo;\n(c)\nprovide local political guidance to the Head of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX KOSOVO), including on the political aspects of issues relating to executive responsibilities;\n(d)\nensure consistency and coherence of Union action towards the public. The EUSR spokesperson shall be the main Union point of contact for Kosovo media on Common Foreign and Security Policy/Common Security and Defence Policy (CFSP/CSDP) issues. All press and public information activities will be conducted in close and continued coordination with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) spokesperson/Council Secretariat Press Office;\n(e)\ncontribute to the development and consolidation of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Kosovo, including with regard to women and children, in accordance with EU human rights policy and EU Guidelines on Human Rights.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (hereinafter the PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 September 2010 to 28 February 2011 shall be EUR 1 230 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union. Nationals of the countries of the western Balkans region shall be allowed to tender for contracts.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. A dedicated Union staff shall be assigned to assist the EUSR to implement his mandate and to contribute to the coherence, visibility and effectiveness of Union action in Kosovo overall. Within the limits of his mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting his team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of his team.\n2. Member States and institutions of the Union may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of personnel who are seconded by a Member State or an institution of the Union to the EUSR shall be covered by the Member State or the institution of the Union concerned, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the General Secretariat of the Council may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State or Union institution and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and his staff\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of his staff shall be agreed with the host party/parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of classified information\n1. The EUSR and the members of his team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council\u2019s security regulations (6), in particular when managing EU classified information.\n2. The HR shall be authorised to release to NATO/KFOR EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018CONFIDENTIEL UE\u2019 generated for the purposes of the action, in accordance with the Council\u2019s security regulations.\n3. The HR shall be authorised to release to the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), in accordance with the operational needs of the EUSR, EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018RESTREINT UE\u2019 which are generated for the purposes of the action, in accordance with the Council\u2019s security regulations. Local arrangements shall be drawn up for this purpose.\n4. The HR shall be authorised to release to third parties associated with this Decision EU non-classified documents related to the deliberations of the Council with regard to the action covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (7).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegation and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with his mandate and the security situation in his geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under his direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the General Secretariat of the Council, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as the management of security incidents and a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of his team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the General Secretariat of the Council;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the HR, the Council and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report as necessary to Council working parties. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote overall Union political coordination. He shall help ensure that all Union instruments in the field are engaged coherently to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSRs active in the region as appropriate. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States\u2019 missions and the Union\u2019s delegations.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of Union delegations in the region and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall provide local political guidance to the Head of EULEX KOSOVO, including on the political aspects of issues relating to executive responsibilities. The EUSR and the Civilian Operation Commander will consult each other as required.\n3. The EUSR shall also liaise with relevant local bodies and other international and regional actors in the field.\n4. The EUSR, with other Union actors present in the field, shall ensure the dissemination and sharing of information among Union actors in theatre with a view to achieving a high degree of common situation awareness and assessment.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the HR, the Council and the Commission with a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["46", "94", "70", "64", "27", "55", "45", "1", "89", "44", "59", "32", "75", "29", "85", "30", "63", "71", "73", "36", "14", "21", "39", "98", "20", "95", "81", "13", "33", "37", "No Label", "3", "5", "7", "9", "11", "91", "96"], "gold": ["3", "5", "7", "9", "11", "91", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 14 December 2011\namending Decision 2006/415/EC concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5N1 in poultry in the Community\n(notified under document C(2011) 9169)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/844/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (3), and in particular Article 18 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and repealing Directive 92/40/EEC (4), and in particular Article 63(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2006/415/EC of 14 June 2006 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5N1 in poultry in the Community and repealing Decision 2006/135/EC (5) lays down certain protection measures to be applied in the event of an outbreak of that disease, including the establishment of areas A and B following a suspected or confirmed outbreak of the disease. Those areas are listed in the Annex to Decision 2006/415/EC. That Decision is to apply until 31 December 2011.\n(2)\nOutbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5N1 have last occurred in poultry in the Union in Romania in March 2010 and the virus has been detected in a wild bird in Bulgaria in April 2010. According to available information, there are currently no outbreaks of that disease in the Union. It is therefore appropriate to remove Romania from the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2006/415/EC.\n(3)\nThe measures laid down in Decision 2006/415/EC have proven to be very effective and the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the zones that the competent authority has placed under restrictions has increased transparency and trust of non-affected Member States and third countries in the measures taken.\n(4)\nIn addition, highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5N1 is still present in several third countries and continues therefore to pose a threat to animal and human health in the Union. The period of application of Decision 2006/415/EC should therefore be extended.\n(5)\nIn September 2011 an external evaluation of the Union\u2019s emergency response network has started. The evaluation aims at assessing the effectiveness of the network. That evaluation is to be completed by August 2012. The results of the evaluation will be taken into account in a possible review of the measures laid down in Decision 2006/415/EC.\n(6)\nDecision 2006/415/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2006/415/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 12, the date \u201831 December 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2013\u2019;\n2.\nin the Annex, the entries for Romania are deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2011.", "references": ["31", "95", "7", "40", "45", "2", "26", "9", "65", "94", "46", "62", "30", "76", "77", "36", "21", "93", "44", "8", "10", "20", "63", "17", "50", "16", "13", "42", "98", "88", "No Label", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 8 March 2011\non measure C 18/10 (ex NN 20/10) implemented by the French Republic for aeronautic suppliers (\u2018the Aero 2008 guarantee\u2019)\n(notified under document C(2011) 1378)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/393/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1),\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 17 October 2008, the Commission of its own motion initiated the procedure in respect of the exchange rate guarantee granted by Coface to aeronautic suppliers (\u2018the measure\u2019 or \u2018the Aero 2008 guarantee\u2019) (CP 294/08).\n(2)\nRequests for information were sent to the French Republic on 4 November 2008, 15 May 2009 and 30 September 2009. The French Republic replied on 8 December 2008, 18 June 2009 and 30 October 2009 respectively. The replies were registered on those same days.\n(3)\nA meeting between the Commission\u2019s services and the authorities of the French Republic took place on 17 December 2009. Following that meeting, the French Republic notified additional information on 22 February 2010.\n(4)\nBy letter of 20 July 2010, the Commission informed the French Republic that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the measure.\n(5)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments on the measure in question.\n(6)\nThe Commission did not receive any comments from interested parties.\n(7)\nOn 20 September 2010, the French Republic sent its observations to the Commission.\n(8)\nBy letter of 15 November 2010, the Commission asked the French Republic for additional information. The French Republic replied by letter of 15 December 2010, registered on the same day by the Commission\u2019s services.\n(9)\nThe French Republic sent additional information by letter of 31 January 2011, registered on the same day by the Commission\u2019s services.\nII. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\nII.1. Legal basis\n(10)\nThe authorities of the French Republic submitted that the legal basis of the measure was Articles L 432-1, L 432-2, R 442-1 and R442-8-4 of the Insurance Code.\nII.2. Beneficiaries\n(11)\nThe potential beneficiaries of the measure are aeronautic suppliers at Tier 2 or below (3).\n(12)\nThere is no limit on the size of the beneficiaries. Suppliers in which an aircraft manufacturer holds more than a 25 % stake are not eligible.\n(13)\nFirms in difficulty do not have access to the measure at issue.\n(14)\nSuppliers operating in France, including those that have an establishment or their headquarters in France and supply aircraft manufacturers outside France, may be eligible for the measure. On the other hand, suppliers that do not have an establishment in France and supply an aircraft manufacturer established in a country other than France are not covered.\n(15)\nAccording to information provided by France, the undertakings which have benefited from this provision to date are AD Industrie, Aerofonctions, Axon Cable and Exameca. These are aeronautic suppliers established in France to which Coface granted an exchange rate guarantee at the end of 2008.\nII.3. Economic background\n(16)\nAccording to France, aircraft manufacturers have increasingly required their suppliers to submit bids in dollars (USD). In the event of a weak dollar, medium-term or long-term supply contracts of this kind pose problems for both French and non-French suppliers who have their main cost base in the euro zone.\n(17)\nFrance has explained that some aeronautic undertakings face difficulties in obtaining a EUR/USD exchange rate guarantee which meets their needs. Although exchange rate hedging products are common on the financial markets, the specific characteristics of the guarantees offered are not always adapted to the specific needs of undertakings. In particular, according to the French authorities, more often than not the banks offer hedging against fluctuations between EUR and USD for a maximum period of 2 years.\nII.4. Description of the measure\n(18)\nThe Aero 2008 guarantee is a hedging mechanism against the risk of fluctuation in the USD-EUR exchange rate. Aeronautic suppliers which have entered into supply contracts denominated in dollars gain if the dollar is strong but suffer loss if it is weak. The guarantee enables them to insure against loss suffered as a result of a weak dollar while, to a certain extent, making gains if the dollar is strong.\n(19)\nThe measure at issue is administered by Coface. Coface is one of the principal French export credit insurance companies. It has belonged to the Natixis Group since 2002. Natixis is a subsidiary of the BPCE Group which arose from the 2009 merger of the Banque Populaire and the Caisse d\u2019Epargne.\n(20)\nThe total volume to be financed is limited to the exchange rate risk in respect of supplies totalling EUR 500 million. The amounts actually covered to date represent only a small proportion (approximately EUR 10 million) of the maximum. The undertakings concerned may apply for the guarantee until 15 December 2012.\n(21)\nAny aeronautic supplier interested in the Aero 2008 guarantee must apply for the exchange rate guarantee and prove that it relates to supplies invoiced in dollars. It will then receive an offer from Coface covering an amount of turnover in dollars and a \u2018guaranteed\u2019 exchange rate in relation to the dollar. The Commission des garanties determines those two conditions, taking into account the initial application lodged by the supplier. The amounts covered are limited to a proportion of all the dollar contracts entered into by the insured undertaking. The offer covers a maximum period of 5 years. The supplier may accept or refuse Coface\u2019s offer. The amount of turnover guaranteed cannot be amended after Coface gives its approval formalising the issue of the guarantee.\n(22)\nIf the dollar is weak in relation to the guaranteed rate, the undertakings which have taken out the guarantee will be refunded 100 % of the exchange rate loss. If the dollar is strong, the undertakings must repay a share of the gain to Coface. The insured undertaking can choose to receive 25 % or 50 % of the rise in the dollar when the rate is adjusted. The compensation which the undertaking must pay to Coface is then calculated using the adjusted rate. There are two variants of this profit-sharing payment:\n-\nVariant 1: the adjusted rate is equal to the initial guaranteed rate less the difference between that initial rate and the exchange rate on the day the payment is booked (as given by the daily reference rate fixed by the ECB) subject to the guaranteed sharing percentage.\n-\nVariant 2: as for Variant 1, but with a ceiling of 15 cents on the sharing payment (that is to say, the difference between the initial guaranteed rate and the exchange rate on the day the payment is booked),\n(23)\nThe amount which suppliers with an exchange rate guarantee have to pay will be less in the case of a strong dollar than the amount they receive if the dollar is comparably weak. Sharing the gain gives suppliers the opportunity to take advantage of a strong dollar to a certain extent. Waiving a part of the gain from a strong dollar allows in return a reduction in the cost of the premium necessary to cover them if the dollar is weak.\n(24)\nThe premiums which suppliers must pay in order to obtain the Aero 2008 guarantee are determined and invoiced upon subscription. Insured undertakings may opt for immediate payment or staggered payments. Suppliers who choose the latter option must pay 25 % of the premium when concluding the contract and the balance in respect of each year covered on 31 January of the year in question. In this case, a rate equivalent to the EURIBOR 12-month rate plus 60 base points is invoiced to cover the credit risk on the payment of the premium (4). Two of the four undertakings which took out the guarantee chose staggered payments: AD Industrie and Exameca.\n(25)\nThe suppliers must provide invoices as proof of the amounts paid in dollars.\n(26)\nAccording to the French authorities, all the transactions carried out by Coface under Aero 2008 are on behalf of the French State. For those transactions, Coface uses a special bank account of the French State. Although the French State is the holder of the account, Coface has access to it for financial transactions such as the purchase of options. The premiums paid by the beneficiaries are transferred directly to this account. This means that Coface as such does not bear any risk since it administers the measure on behalf of the French State. It is the French State which, in this case, bears the financial risk of the measure.\n(27)\nThe premiums Coface charges are calculated on a case-by-case basis. According to France, they reflect the market prices for the underlying exchange rate risk instruments. The financial instruments bought by Coface in the name and on behalf of the French State cover all of its own exchange rate risk for the whole duration of the guarantee at the time the guarantee is offered to the supplier.\n(28)\nIf the dollar is strong, the supplier must reimburse Coface the amount resulting from the difference between the guaranteed rate and the reference rate on the date of payment. If the insured undertaking defaults, Coface will be required to fulfil its contractual obligation to honour the guarantee on behalf of the State. A third party who has bought the promise of payment in the event of a strong dollar will receive a payment from the bank account of the French State, which runs the risk of not being reimbursed at all or of not being reimbursed in full by the defaulting supplier.\n(29)\nIf the suppliers stagger a part of the payment of the premium, the French State also runs the risk of suffering a loss if the outstanding amount of premiums is not paid during the year covered.\n(30)\nThe measure was launched in the autumn of 2008. Eleven undertakings applied to Coface for a formal offer, which four of them accepted; two of them then revised downwards the amount initially requested. All those offers were accepted in November and December 2008. According to the information provided by the French authorities, no offers were accepted in 2009 or 2010.\n(31)\nTwo of the four guarantees apply until the end of 2013 (that is, for 5 years), one expired in 2010 (after 2 years) and one expired in 2009 (after 1 year). The guarantees which last until 2013 relate to annual batches of deliveries. The total value of supplies concerned is close to USD 19 million. Since some suppliers chose to cover only a part of their deliveries, the guarantees relate to some USD 12 million. Three of the four suppliers obtained cover for supplies of less than USD 2,8 million each. Axon Cable retains a 25 % \u2018share\u2019 of the gain if the dollar is strong, while the other suppliers retain 50 % of the gain.\n(32)\nThe table below was made available by France at the meeting held in December 2009. It summarises the suppliers involved, the guarantees granted each year and the annual guaranteed exchange rate. AD Industrie and Axon Cable did not accept the total amount offered by Coface.\nAD Industrie\nAerofonctions\nAxon Cable\nExameca\n2009\n-\nUSD 0,264 million/[\u2026] (5)\nUSD 0,256 million/[\u2026]\n-\n2010\nUSD 2 million/[\u2026]\n-\nUSD 0,384 million/[\u2026]\nUSD 2,712 million/[\u2026]\n2011\nUSD 2 million/[\u2026]\n-\nUSD 0,205 million/[\u2026]\n-\n2012\nUSD 2 million/[\u2026]\n-\nUSD 0,511 million/[\u2026]\n-\n2013\nUSD 2 million/[\u2026]\n-\nUSD 0,511 million/[\u2026]\n-\nTOTAL\nUSD 8 million\nUSD 0,264 million\nUSD 1,866 million\nUSD 2,712 million\nMaximum amount offered by Coface\nUSD 12,7 million\nUSD 0,264 million\nUSD 3,74 million\nUSD 2,712 million\nPremiums\n2,54 %\n2,48 %\n1,35 %\n2,55 %\nInterest\n50 %\n50 %\n25 %\n50 %\nII.5. Summary of concerns which led to the opening of the formal investigation procedure\n(33)\nThe reasons for the decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU was that there was uncertainty as to whether State aid was absent and as to whether or not the aid examined was compatible with the rules on State aid.\n(34)\nFirst, the Commission had concerns as to whether the premiums paid by the beneficiary undertakings are consistent with market prices. Specifically, the Commission took the view that the French authorities had not shown that the premiums paid covered the following factors: the administrative costs of Coface for administering the guarantee, the risk of default by suppliers, the credit risk in respect of staggered payment of premiums and a profit margin. The possibility therefore remained that there was a selective economic advantage for suppliers which took out the guarantee. Given that the French State could be considered to be responsible for the Aero 2008 guarantee, it was possible that the measure may constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(35)\nSecondly, the Commission was uncertain as to whether there was market failure in respect of hedging instruments against short-term and longer-term EUR/USD exchange rate fluctuations as regards SMES and large enterprises.\n(36)\nThirdly, the Commission was uncertain as to whether the measure had an incentive effect, since the suppliers were able to obtain the exchange rate guarantee even if their application was made after the date when the contract was signed.\n(37)\nFourthly, the Commission was uncertain as regards the proportionality of the measure, which is not limited to undertakings that are known to have difficulties in obtaining exchange rate guarantees from their banks.\n(38)\nFifthly, the Commission had concerns as to whether the potential positive impact of that aid could outweigh its negative impact, so as not to distort trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.\nIII. OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED BY INTERESTED PARTIES\n(39)\nThe Commission did not receive any comments from interested parties.\nIV. COMMENTS OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC\n(40)\nFrance considers that the premiums invoiced under Aero 2008 reflect the market value of the exchange rate insurance granted and that the measure in question does not therefore constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(41)\nThe French authorities sent the Commission a detailed description of the methodology used to determine the amounts of the premiums invoiced under Aero 2008.\n(42)\nFrance submitted information proving the exact market value of the financial products required to set up the guarantee. The guarantee is subdivided into financial instruments which in combination show its payment profile: forward purchases in EUR/USD, purchases and sales of options in EUR/USD.\n(43)\nThe market value of those financial instruments is calculated on the basis of data from Bloomberg software, one of the market leaders in financial information. France provided extracts from the Bloomberg software for all of the financial instruments making up the guarantees granted to the four suppliers which took out the Aero 2008 guarantee.\n(44)\nThe market values thus established include a profit margin for the financial institutions from which Coface buys those instruments. According to information provided by France, the exchange rate risk products offered by the banks do not in general include the payment of a premium since the banking sector earns money on the guaranteed rates and the option prices. The margins in question are in incorporated by design in the prices of the financial products making up the guarantee offered to the suppliers and are therefore covered by the premiums invoiced by Coface. Moreover, the guaranteed forward rate chosen is always higher than the forward rate for the year in which the rate is fixed by Coface.\n(45)\nIn order to cover the additional administrative costs related to the handling of the measure by Coface, a margin of 40 base points is included in the amount of the premium. That margin represents between 17 % and 32 % (6) of the total value of the premiums invoiced to the four undertakings which took out the Aero 2008 guarantee.\n(46)\nThe French authorities have also given a detailed explanation of how the risk of default by the supplier is taken into account in calculating the premiums invoiced. As described in recital 28, in the event of a strong dollar, the default of the supplier may lead to financial loss for the French State.\n(47)\nThe risk of default by the supplier is determined by Coface on the basis of the Score@rating rating system of French undertakings launched by Coface in 2002 which is based on its 20 years of experience in rating businesses. With its Score@rating, Coface obtained the status of External Credit Assessment Institution (ECAI) from the Commission bancaire for its rating activities in France. That approval was granted in accordance with the Basel II rules. The following table gives the equivalences between different recognised rating systems (7).\nECAI\nCoface\nBanque de France\nFitch\nMoody\u2019s\nS & P\nRisk Weight\nBasel mapping\n1\n10 to 9\n3++ to 3+\nAAA to AA-\nAaa to Aa3\nAAA to AA-\n20 %\n2\n8\n3\nA+ to A-\nA1 to A3\nA+ to A-\n50 %\n-\n3\n7 to 6\n4+\nBBB+ to BBB-\nBaa1 to Baa3\nBBB+ to BBB-\n100 %\nEvaluation of long-term risk\n4\n5 to 4\n4 to 5+\nBB+ to BB-\nBa1 to Ba3\nBB+ to BB-\n100 %\n5\n3\n5 to 6\nB+ to B-\nB1 to B3\nB+ to B-\n150 %\n6\n2 to 1\n8 to 9\nCCC+ and below\nCaa1 and below\nCCC+ and below\n150 %\n(48)\nScore@rating is a risk rating which divides probability of default into phases. The risk analysed is default by the undertaking under the terms of the law, or a failure to pay of equivalent seriousness. Each rating, measured on a scale of 1 to 10, corresponds to an average annual default rate. The table below shows the annual default rate corresponding to different Score@rating ratings (8):\nVery high risk\nAverage risk\nLow risk\nScore@rating\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\nAnnual default rate\n25 %\n10 %\n4 %\n2 %\n1,3 %\n0,7 %\n0,4 %\n0,15 %\n0,05 %\n0 %\n(49)\nIn order to deal with the risk of default by the insured undertaking in the event of a strong dollar, Coface must be covered for the probability of default by financial instruments (9). The Bloomberg software can calculate the price of the instruments required to cover the credit risk on the day a guarantee is quoted. The premium is therefore adjusted according to the default risk determined on the basis of the Score@rating system and the cost of the instruments required to cover that risk.\n(50)\nThe factors described in recitals 40 to 49 form the basis for calculating the current premiums under the Aero 2008 guarantee. The French authorities have provided a detailed breakdown of the premiums invoiced to the four suppliers taking out the guarantee. This is illustrated in the table below:\nAxon Cable\nExameca\nAd Industrie\nAerofonction\nQuotation date\n5.12.2008\n11.12.2008\n14.11.2008\n21.10.2008\nCoface note on quotation\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nYear commencing\n2009\n2010\n2010\n2009\nYear ending\n2013\n2010\n2013\n2009\nSharing percentage\n25 %\n50 %\n50 %\n50 %\n15-cent ceiling?\nYes\nYes\nYes\nyes\nPayment period\n3 months\n2 months\n3 months\n3 months\nTotal amount USD\n1 865 000\n2 712 000\n8 000 000\n264 000\nMarket price of the guarantee\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nCredit risk\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nMargin for administrative costs\n0,40 %\n0,40 %\n0,40 %\n0,40 %\nTOTAL\n1,26 %\n2,43 %\n2,43 %\n2,29 %\nCoface premium\n1,35 %\n2,55 %\n2,54 %\n2,48 %\nDifference related to execution risk (10)\n0,09 %\n0,12 %\n0,11 %\n0,19 %\n(51)\nAccording to the French authorities, the structure of the premium as set out makes the guarantee less attractive than the products offered by the banking sector. The conditions offered under the Aero 2008 guarantee are therefore not more favourable than market conditions and the premiums clearly incorporate the market value of the financial products required to set up the guarantee, including a profit margin, Coface\u2019s administrative costs, and the value of the default risk of the supplier. France therefore argued that the measure does not involve selective economic advantage and so does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(52)\nFrance also stated that seven of the eleven undertakings which received an offer from Coface decided to reject the offer. According to information provided by the French authorities, two of the undertakings in question stated that the banks\u2019 terms were more favourable (in particular, no premium) and two others stated that the terms offered by Coface were not advantageous (in particular, unattractive guaranteed rates). One undertaking stated that its terms of payment were incompatible with the guarantee offered, another stated that it had finally managed to enter into an agreement in EUR and a third undertaking stated that the negotiations with the purchaser had broken down at the end of the validity of the guarantee commitment.\nV. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE\n(53)\nA measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if it fulfils four conditions: it must be granted by the State or through State resources, confer a selective advantage to some undertakings or economic activities, distort or threaten to distort competition, and be liable to affect trade between Member States.\n(54)\nAs stated in recital 34, the decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure was based, first, on the existence of concerns about whether the premiums paid by the beneficiary undertakings were consistent with market prices. Specifically, the Commission took the view that the French authorities did not show that the premiums paid covered the following factors: the administrative costs of Coface for administering the guarantee, the risk of default by suppliers, the credit risk in respect of staggered payment of premiums, and a profit margin. The possibility therefore remained that there was a selective economic advantage for suppliers who took out the guarantee.\n(55)\nThe Commission\u2019s services analysed the information provided by the French authorities following the opening of the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU with a view to determining whether the measure is consistent with the market economy private investor principle, that is to say, whether or not the conditions offered by Coface are consistent with the market conditions offered by private operators.\n(56)\nThe Commission notes, first, that the French authorities undertook to ensure that when Coface determines the applicable rate of the premium, it uses the same methodology for all undertakings applying for the guarantee, namely the methodology set out in Section IV (11).\n(57)\nThe Commission finds that products comparable to those offered by Coface are also available on the markets.\n(58)\nThe Commission then verified that the market price of the guarantee invoiced by Coface is consistent with the market price applied by private operators.\n(59)\nThe Commission takes the view that the price of the financial instruments required to set up the guarantee are in fact market prices, as shown by the extracts from the Bloomberg software provided by France, and that they are accurately reflected in the premiums invoiced by Coface.\n(60)\nIn addition, the market prices of those financial products include a profit margin for the financial institutions from which Coface bought the instruments in question.\n(61)\nThe French authorities also showed that an additional margin of 40 base points is invoiced in order to cover Coface\u2019s administrative costs. As set out in recital 45, that margin represents a substantial proportion of the value of the premiums invoiced. The Commission therefore considers that the premiums invoiced incorporate a profit margin and a margin to cover Coface\u2019s administrative costs, which removes the uncertainty expressed when the formal investigation procedure was initiated. The Commission observes that such an additional margin is not included by private banks, which merely receive the margin included in the Bloomberg database price. Accordingly, that margin may be considered to be consistent with the market price. The Commission takes the view that France has also succeeded in demonstrating that the default risk by the supplier (12) was reflected correctly in the calculation of the amount of the premiums invoiced. In order to deal with the risk of default by the insured undertaking, Coface must obtain cover for the probability of default by:\n-\nbuying a EUR/USD put at a strike price equal to the guaranteed forward rate for (1 - sharing %) \u00d7 the guaranteed dollar amount, or\n-\nbuying a EUR/USD put at a strike price equal to the guaranteed forward rate less 15 cents for profit-sharing \u00d7 the guaranteed dollar amount if there is a ceiling on the sharing rate.\n(62)\nThe value of the credit risk for a year\u2019s cover is therefore equal to the sum of the option price multiplied by the probability of default in respect of the year in question. That default probability is determined by an internationally recognised rating system, as described in recitals 47 and 48 and used by Coface and its clients in their commercial transactions. The Commission considers that the reason for the use by Coface of its own rather than external ratings is that it makes efficiency savings by doing so.\n(63)\nOn the basis of the additional information provided by the French authorities and the undertaking of the French authorities referred to in recital 56 of this Decision, the Commission concludes that Coface\u2019s price for the Aero 2008 guarantees is consistent with the market conditions offered by private operators.\n(64)\nThe Aero 2008 guarantee may therefore be considered to operate in accordance with the market economy investor principle. Accordingly, the suppliers who took out the guarantee did not obtain any economic advantage.\n(65)\nIt is not therefore necessary to analyse the other concerns on which the opening of the formal investigation procedure was based. Since the existence of selective economic advantage is a condition required to show that there is State aid, it may be concluded that the Aero 2008 guarantee does not constitute a State aid measure.\n(66)\nAs far as the conditions applied by Coface for staggered payment of premiums are concerned, the Commission considers, however, that the interest rate applied, that is to say, the 12-month EURIBOR rate plus 60 base points, cannot be regarded as a rate consistent with market practices. In particular, the premium of 60 base points is a fixed premium which is not adjusted in relation to the default risk of the supplier or the guarantee level. Since France has provided no specific justification, the Commission will, in order to establish the reference rate, apply the method for setting the reference and discount rates laid down in its Communication on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (13) (\u2018the Communication on reference rates\u2019). By letter of 31 January 2011, the French authorities gave an undertaking that the difference between the premiums obtained by applying Coface\u2019s interest rate and those determined on the basis of the reference rates in the Communication on reference rates would always remain under the de minimis threshold and that they would comply with all of the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (14).\n(67)\nThe Commission therefore concludes on the basis of that undertaking that the interest invoiced in respect of staggered payment does not fulfil all the conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU and does not therefore constitute a State aid measure.\nVI. CONCLUSION\n(68)\nIn the light of the all of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the Aero 2008 guarantee does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe measure implemented by the French Republic to aeronautic suppliers (\u2018the Aero 2008 guarantee\u2019) does not constitute State aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2011.", "references": ["74", "4", "35", "42", "33", "2", "8", "5", "92", "44", "40", "94", "16", "11", "18", "1", "0", "28", "76", "88", "77", "83", "19", "26", "66", "84", "90", "17", "39", "81", "No Label", "15", "20", "41", "48", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "20", "41", "48", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 754/2010\nof 23 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 August 2010.", "references": ["57", "79", "94", "86", "69", "27", "98", "29", "49", "83", "88", "26", "51", "55", "25", "91", "22", "23", "5", "56", "1", "58", "52", "60", "63", "12", "77", "36", "85", "6", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency vaccination plans against bluetongue in Austria in 2007 and 2008\n(notified under document C(2011) 8729)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2011/803/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 3(3), (4) and second indent of (6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate bluetongue as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. The second indent of Article 3(6) of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2008/655/EC (3) as modified by Decision 2009/19/EC (4) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in Austria in 2007 and 2008.\n(5)\nOn 31 March 2009, Austria submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005. The Commission\u2019s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Austria in a letter dated 28 March 2011.\n(6)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(7)\nThe Austrian authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(8)\nIn view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of bluetongue in Austria in 2007 and 2008 should now be fixed according to Article 3(2) of Decision 2008/655/EC.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating bluetongue in Austria in 2007 and 2008 is fixed at EUR 1 706 326,35. It constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Austria.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["7", "85", "87", "62", "49", "42", "39", "53", "75", "98", "13", "52", "2", "31", "29", "64", "78", "73", "77", "40", "1", "34", "57", "54", "33", "25", "30", "92", "12", "8", "No Label", "4", "10", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 60/2011\nof 25 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 January 2011.", "references": ["6", "95", "87", "49", "97", "2", "41", "57", "94", "15", "29", "8", "34", "40", "81", "69", "96", "13", "36", "28", "46", "43", "51", "7", "0", "84", "85", "27", "65", "92", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1329/2011\nof 16 December 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2011 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2011 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2012 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2012 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["85", "94", "86", "83", "54", "19", "5", "3", "81", "28", "16", "14", "40", "45", "72", "9", "8", "78", "18", "82", "95", "42", "87", "35", "63", "60", "41", "70", "80", "31", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 33/2012\nof 16 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 January 2012.", "references": ["45", "71", "19", "42", "90", "93", "58", "11", "41", "66", "99", "79", "4", "33", "15", "74", "36", "16", "92", "69", "18", "78", "17", "85", "88", "54", "80", "77", "29", "94", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1376/2011\nof 20 December 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Mongeta del Ganxet (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Mongeta del Ganxet\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["80", "77", "99", "20", "14", "98", "8", "3", "70", "39", "42", "50", "23", "33", "32", "11", "1", "86", "16", "15", "79", "43", "55", "10", "61", "26", "12", "93", "52", "53", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 51/2011\nof 20 January 2011\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural market and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(s) and listed in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 954/2010 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Part XIX of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 954/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2011.", "references": ["64", "95", "80", "86", "32", "65", "50", "88", "24", "2", "31", "3", "19", "68", "0", "13", "27", "34", "67", "92", "60", "75", "79", "53", "55", "21", "43", "63", "17", "74", "No Label", "23", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["23", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 289/2011\nof 23 March 2011\ncorrecting the Hungarian text of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(a), (aa), (c), (d), (f), (j), (k), and(l) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Hungarian text of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 (2) contains two errors which must be corrected with effect from the date of application of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(2)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n(Concerns only the Hungarian language version.)\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 March 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2011.", "references": ["12", "19", "45", "8", "71", "48", "38", "25", "59", "18", "31", "62", "80", "9", "91", "73", "50", "63", "93", "56", "67", "99", "27", "22", "84", "77", "61", "65", "2", "32", "No Label", "20", "26", "66"], "gold": ["20", "26", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 291/2012\nof 2 April 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 992/95 as regards tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and fishery products originating in Norway\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 992/95 of 10 April 1995 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and fishery products originating in Norway (1), and in particular Article 5(1)(a) and (b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAn Agreement has been concluded in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the other part, concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products reached on the basis of Article 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. The Agreement was approved on behalf of the Union by Council Decision 2011/818/EU (2).\n(2)\nThat Agreement provides further progressive liberalisation of agricultural trade on a preferential, reciprocal and mutually beneficial basis and for new annual duty free tariff quotas at import into the European Union of certain agricultural products originating in Norway.\n(3)\nIn order to implement the new tariff quotas provided for in the Agreement, it is necessary to amend Regulation (EC) No 992/95.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 992/95 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Decision 2011/818/EU the new tariff quotas are to apply from 1 January 2012. This Regulation should therefore apply from the same date.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 992/95 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 April 2012.", "references": ["2", "41", "99", "49", "14", "47", "24", "76", "81", "63", "68", "54", "82", "51", "48", "26", "11", "39", "43", "93", "3", "35", "9", "31", "79", "25", "7", "58", "8", "17", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "66", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "66", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 567/2012\nof 26 June 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, by adding a company to the list of producers from the People\u2019s Republic of China listed in Annex I\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (2) (\u2018Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011\u2019) and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Union of ceramic tiles originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018China\u2019). Given the large number of cooperating exporting producers in China in the investigation that led to the imposition of the anti-dumping duty (\u2018the original investigation\u2019), a sample of Chinese exporting producers was selected and individual duty rates ranging from 26,3 % to 36,5 % were imposed on the companies included in the sample, while other cooperating companies not included in the sample were attributed a duty rate of 30,6 %. A duty rate of 69,7 % was imposed on all other Chinese companies.\n(2)\nArticle 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 stipulates that where any new exporting producer in China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:\n-\nit did not export to the Union the products described in Article 1(1) of that Regulation during the investigation period (1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010) (\u2018the investigation period\u2019) (the first criterion),\n-\nit is not related to any of the exporters or producers in China which are subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by that Regulation (the second criterion), and\n-\nit has actually exported to the Union the products concerned after the investigation period on which the measures are based, or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union (the third criterion),\nthen Article 1(2) of that Regulation can be amended by granting the new exporting producer the duty rate applicable to the cooperating companies not included in the sample, i.e. 30,6 %.\nB. NEW EXPORTING PRODUCER REQUEST\n(3)\nA Chinese company (\u2018the applicant\u2019) has applied to be granted the same treatment as the companies cooperating in the original investigation not included in the sample (\u2018new exporting producer treatment\u2019).\n(4)\nAn examination has been carried out to determine whether the applicant fulfils the criteria for being granted new exporting producer treatment as set out in Article 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011.\n(5)\nA questionnaire was sent to the applicant who was asked to supply evidence to demonstrate that it met the three criteria mentioned above.\n(6)\nThe evidence provided by the Chinese exporting producer was considered sufficient to show that it fulfils the criteria set out in Article 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011. This exporting producer can therefore be granted the duty rate applicable to the cooperating companies not included in the sample (i.e. 30,6 %) and consequently its name can be added to the list of exporting producers in Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011.\n(7)\nThe applicant and the Union industry have been informed of the findings of the examination and were given the opportunity to submit their comments.\n(8)\nAll arguments and submissions made by interested parties were analysed and duly taken into account where warranted,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe following company shall be added to the list of producers from the People\u2019s Republic of China listed in Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011:\n\u2018Name\nTARIC additional code\nOnna Ceramic Industries (China) Co. Ltd\nB293\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 June 2012.", "references": ["27", "58", "91", "65", "4", "55", "72", "69", "35", "38", "1", "10", "76", "46", "44", "8", "41", "25", "74", "17", "52", "75", "32", "26", "9", "71", "24", "21", "19", "20", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "87", "90", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "87", "90", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 280/2011\nof 21 March 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of March 2011 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 March 2011 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 March 2011 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 28,677523 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["51", "87", "35", "68", "48", "63", "52", "29", "7", "85", "56", "79", "90", "38", "6", "18", "34", "49", "22", "55", "67", "93", "84", "59", "95", "53", "16", "5", "60", "96", "No Label", "21", "23", "24", "69", "76"], "gold": ["21", "23", "24", "69", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/20/EU\nof 2 March 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include fenoxycarb as active substance and amending Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included fenoxycarb.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of fenoxycarb.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the Netherlands, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe Netherlands evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 10 December 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on fenoxycarb to the Commission on 13 September 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for fenoxycarb.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing fenoxycarb may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include fenoxycarb in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit information confirming the risk assessment for non-target arthropods and for bee brood.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing fenoxycarb to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of fenoxycarb and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning fenoxycarb in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning fenoxycarb in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing fenoxycarb as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to fenoxycarb are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing fenoxycarb as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning fenoxycarb. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing fenoxycarb as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing fenoxycarb as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2011.", "references": ["10", "18", "21", "13", "17", "22", "89", "5", "47", "93", "12", "67", "54", "30", "83", "28", "70", "80", "74", "86", "85", "64", "78", "61", "16", "53", "58", "56", "62", "0", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "41", "65"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "41", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 314/2011\nof 30 March 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of 3 months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of 3 months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 March 2011.", "references": ["53", "86", "11", "87", "43", "9", "69", "73", "58", "91", "96", "4", "31", "70", "38", "75", "37", "33", "26", "16", "80", "71", "20", "68", "0", "93", "63", "25", "66", "59", "No Label", "21", "85"], "gold": ["21", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 290/2011\nof 23 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2011.", "references": ["92", "5", "80", "79", "74", "70", "53", "97", "76", "43", "23", "83", "16", "1", "86", "17", "12", "6", "56", "25", "3", "95", "36", "27", "10", "39", "11", "82", "98", "67", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1024/2010\nof 12 November 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Farine de ch\u00e2taigne corse/Farina castagnina corsa (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Farine de ch\u00e2taigne corse/Farina castagnina corsa\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 November 2010.", "references": ["46", "82", "19", "30", "5", "49", "85", "58", "67", "38", "99", "20", "55", "17", "86", "56", "94", "81", "22", "68", "74", "4", "64", "29", "0", "3", "76", "37", "48", "43", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 710/2010\nof 6 August 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Podkarpacki mi\u00f3d spadziowy (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Podkarpacki mi\u00f3d spadziowy\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 August 2010.", "references": ["26", "74", "40", "29", "43", "92", "31", "50", "81", "76", "75", "5", "39", "16", "11", "0", "58", "49", "48", "71", "86", "77", "17", "7", "66", "4", "70", "19", "6", "73", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 358/2010\nof 23 April 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 of 4 March 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (1) and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe restrictions on liquids, aerosols and gels carried by passengers arriving on flights from third countries and transferring at Union airports create certain operational difficulties at these airports and cause inconvenience to the passengers concerned.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 820/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (2) provides for exemptions to the application of those restrictions to be granted if certain conditions are met. After having verified that those conditions have been met at airports in certain third countries and that those countries have a good record of cooperation with the Union and its Member States, the Commission has granted such exemptions.\n(3)\nAs Regulation (EC) No 820/2008 is repealed from 29 April 2010 and thus those exemptions will also be repealed. However, the restrictions on liquids, aerosols and gels carried by passengers arriving on flights from third countries and transferring at Union airports remain in place as provided in Regulation (EU) No 297/2010 of 9 April 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 supplementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security. (3)\n(4)\nThe exemptions to the application of the restrictions on liquids, aerosols and gels carried by passengers arriving on flights from third countries should therefore be extended whilst those restrictions remain in place, provided that those third countries continue to meet the conditions under which the exemptions were granted.\n(5)\nRegulation (EU) No 185/2010 of 4 March 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (4) should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nRegulation (EU) No 297/2010 of 9 April 2010 will apply from 29 April 2010. The entry into force of this Regulation is therefore urgent as it should apply from the same date.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Civil Aviation Security set up by Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 29 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2010.", "references": ["83", "77", "82", "75", "95", "30", "81", "94", "59", "22", "64", "48", "39", "49", "25", "66", "17", "31", "87", "36", "15", "29", "70", "73", "27", "62", "23", "24", "78", "18", "No Label", "53", "54", "57", "76"], "gold": ["53", "54", "57", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 740/2010\nof 16 August 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 735/2010 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 August 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 August 2010 were fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 735/2010 (3).\n(2)\nAs the average of the import duties calculated differs by more than EUR 5/tonne from that fixed, a corresponding adjustment must be made to the import duties fixed by Regulation (EU) No 735/2010.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 735/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 735/2010 are hereby replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 17 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2010.", "references": ["76", "47", "53", "77", "79", "99", "45", "32", "15", "1", "17", "7", "37", "25", "11", "70", "93", "20", "86", "72", "73", "18", "49", "29", "59", "60", "94", "23", "44", "42", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1131/2010\nof 30 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in EU waters of IIa and IV; that part of IIIa not covered by the Skagerrak and Kattegat by vessels flying the flag of Sweden\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["30", "66", "46", "47", "38", "94", "8", "7", "72", "26", "78", "18", "0", "36", "40", "19", "74", "10", "11", "20", "16", "53", "62", "17", "82", "90", "32", "60", "52", "59", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 263/2012\nof 23 March 2012\nimplementing Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 (1), and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 August 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 753/2011.\n(2)\nOn 29 November 2011, 6 January 2012, 13 February 2012, 1 March 2012 and 16 March 2012, the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 30 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1988 (2011) updated the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 is hereby replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["44", "53", "94", "8", "0", "34", "4", "41", "40", "80", "69", "76", "62", "18", "88", "1", "86", "74", "55", "92", "25", "99", "77", "93", "15", "56", "7", "29", "37", "50", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 16 December 2010\namending Council Directive 92/34/EEC to extend the derogation relating to import conditions for fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production from third countries\n(notified under document C(2010) 9015)\n(2010/781/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/34/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants, intended for fruit production (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission is required pursuant to Article 16(1) of Directive 92/34/EEC to decide whether fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants produced in a third country and affording the same guarantees as regards obligations on the supplier, identity, characteristics, plant health, growing medium, packaging, inspection arrangements, marking and sealing are equivalent in all these respects to fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants produced in the Union and complying with the requirements and conditions of that Directive.\n(2)\nHowever, the information presently available on the conditions applying in third countries is still not sufficient to enable the Commission to adopt any such decision in respect of any third country at this stage.\n(3)\nIn order to prevent trade patterns from being disrupted, Member States importing fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants from third countries should continue to be allowed to apply conditions equivalent to those applicable to similar Union products in accordance with Article 16(2) of Directive 92/34/EEC.\n(4)\nThe period of application of the derogation provided for in Directive 92/34/EEC for such imports should consequently be extended until 29 September 2012.\n(5)\nDirective 92/34/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Propagating Material and Plants of Fruit Genera and Species,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn the first subparagraph of Article 16(2) of Directive 92/34/EEC, the date \u201831 December 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u201829 September 2012\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2010.", "references": ["40", "63", "99", "59", "38", "7", "49", "39", "0", "94", "53", "18", "91", "33", "71", "54", "52", "46", "14", "44", "82", "78", "26", "51", "74", "10", "73", "2", "50", "27", "No Label", "25", "61", "65", "66", "68"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65", "66", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 January 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Protocol extending to customs security measures the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the Principality of Andorra\n(2011/90/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 16 February 2009, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the Principality of Andorra on a Protocol extending to customs security measures the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the Principality of Andorra (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019). The Agreement was concluded on 28 June 1990.\n(2)\nThe Commission and the Principality of Andorra have completed the negotiations by initialling the Protocol.\n(3)\nThe Protocol should be signed.\n(4)\nPending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion, the Protocol should be applied on a provisional basis as from 1 January 2011, which is the date of the last stage of application of the customs security measures introduced in 2005 and 2006 respectively by the amendment of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nIn order to ensure such provisional application of the Protocol, this Decision should apply from 1 January 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Protocol extending to customs security measures the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the Principality of Andorra (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union subject to conclusion of the said Protocol.\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThe Protocol shall apply on a provisional basis as from 1 January 2011, or from a later date agreed between the Union and the Principality of Andorra, in accordance with Article 3(3) thereof.\nThe Commission is hereby authorised to agree, on behalf of the Union, on such a later date for provisional application of the Protocol.\nArticle 4\nThe position to be taken by the Union in the Joint Committee on matters relating to Title IIA of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the Principality of Andorra (3) (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) shall be adopted by the Council, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission.\nArticle 5\nIn order to ensure the effective application of Article 12i(1) of the Agreement, the Commission shall notify the Principality of Andorra of the adoption of new Union legislation which constitutes a development of the Union law on customs security measures covered by Article 12b of the Agreement.\nThe Commission is hereby authorised to take the necessary measures provided for in Article 12k of the Agreement in order to ensure the equivalence of the customs security measures of the Union and the Principality of Andorra.\nIf, on the date of implementation of the relevant Union legislation referred to in the first paragraph, the Principality of Andorra has not adopted the new provisions and the provisional application of those provisions is not possible, the application of Title IIA of the Agreement shall be suspended in accordance with Article 12k(2) thereof. The Commission shall notify the Principality of Andorra of such suspension.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["66", "51", "93", "3", "99", "75", "7", "89", "15", "63", "73", "83", "53", "65", "57", "52", "14", "94", "85", "48", "98", "24", "64", "50", "82", "47", "87", "69", "25", "32", "No Label", "4", "9", "21", "23", "91", "97"], "gold": ["4", "9", "21", "23", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1033/2011\nof 13 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for megrims in VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 October 2011.", "references": ["18", "2", "76", "0", "41", "29", "80", "23", "38", "89", "79", "48", "9", "3", "27", "78", "28", "81", "1", "42", "21", "11", "61", "46", "4", "90", "87", "77", "20", "82", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 31 March 2011\nestablishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the International Sugar Council as regards the extension of the International Sugar Agreement 1992\n(2011/223/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207, in conjunction with Article 218(9), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas the International Sugar Agreement 1992, which was concluded on behalf of the Community by the Council through Decision 92/580/EEC (1), initially remained in force until 31 December 1995. Since then, it was regularly extended for successive periods of 2 years. It was last extended by a decision of the International Sugar Council of 28 May 2009 and it shall remain in force until 31 December 2011. A further extension is in the interest of the Union. The Commission, which represents the Union within the International Sugar Council, should therefore be authorised to vote in favour of such extension,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the Union within the International Sugar Council shall be to vote in favour of the extension of the International Sugar Agreement 1992 for a further period of up to 2 years.\nThe Commission is hereby authorised to express this position within the International Sugar Council.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["96", "17", "76", "4", "83", "87", "68", "29", "82", "26", "91", "25", "20", "16", "19", "77", "22", "69", "93", "74", "43", "61", "32", "78", "60", "36", "40", "98", "64", "63", "No Label", "3", "9", "23", "71"], "gold": ["3", "9", "23", "71"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUPOL COPPS/1/2012\nof 3 July 2012\non the appointment of the Head of the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS)\n(2012/383/EU)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2005/797/CFSP of 14 November 2005 on the European Union Police Mission for Palestinian Territories (1) (EUPOL COPPS), and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 11(1) of Joint Action 2005/797/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of the EUPOL COPPS mission, including in particular the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nThe High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Mr Kenneth DEANE as Head of the EUPOL COPPS mission for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Kenneth DEANE is hereby appointed as Head of the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS), for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 3 July 2012.", "references": ["8", "16", "90", "13", "82", "50", "54", "75", "96", "62", "63", "26", "83", "23", "56", "64", "79", "0", "78", "42", "33", "21", "39", "4", "84", "88", "40", "80", "89", "97", "No Label", "5", "7", "9"], "gold": ["5", "7", "9"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 766/2010\nof 27 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 August 2010.", "references": ["73", "88", "77", "57", "72", "19", "3", "38", "95", "36", "47", "97", "43", "6", "42", "70", "66", "20", "85", "13", "16", "48", "89", "74", "93", "25", "1", "5", "52", "27", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1182/2011\nof 17 November 2011\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 November 2011.", "references": ["57", "46", "1", "47", "78", "88", "77", "42", "5", "64", "29", "54", "36", "45", "56", "9", "92", "43", "23", "39", "20", "96", "37", "53", "4", "28", "25", "27", "21", "66", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 6 June 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex VI (Social Security) and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement\n(2011/407/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 48, in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex VI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the \u2018EEA Agreement\u2019) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning social security and Protocol 37 contains a list of Committees where EEA EFTA States participate.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to include Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (2), Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and determining the content of its Annexes (3) and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (4) in the EEA Agreement. In addition, it is appropriate to include a number of decisions and recommendations of the Administrative Commission. Furthermore, Protocol 37 should be amended to include in its list of committees the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security systems, set up by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.\n(3)\nAnnex VI and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nThe position to be taken by the Union in the EEA Joint Committee on an envisaged amendment to Annex VI (Social Security) and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nDone at Brussels, 6 June 2011.", "references": ["90", "26", "54", "32", "5", "48", "18", "8", "64", "36", "68", "0", "85", "19", "22", "1", "53", "35", "42", "84", "75", "94", "63", "83", "27", "20", "41", "47", "23", "87", "No Label", "3", "9", "37", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "37", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1051/2010\nof 17 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 November 2010.", "references": ["80", "88", "23", "7", "18", "75", "44", "87", "63", "51", "25", "31", "34", "58", "0", "67", "1", "47", "91", "5", "11", "76", "52", "8", "9", "74", "92", "65", "77", "89", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUMM/1/2011\nof 1 July 2011\non the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia\n(2011/390/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP of 15 September 2008 on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 15 September 2008 the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP establishing the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (\u2018EUMM Georgia\u2019).\n(2)\nOn 12 August 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/452/CFSP (2) extending EUMM Georgia until 14 September 2011.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 10(1) of Decision 2010/452/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of EUMM Georgia, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Andrzej TYSZKIEWICZ is hereby appointed Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia for the period from 18 July 2011 to 14 September 2011.\nArticle 2\nPolitical and Security Committee Decision EUMM Georgia/1/2010 of 3 September 2010 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (3) is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2011.", "references": ["30", "2", "61", "52", "15", "95", "27", "56", "46", "78", "11", "17", "37", "36", "35", "53", "6", "79", "42", "69", "41", "4", "49", "67", "25", "86", "66", "59", "18", "34", "No Label", "3", "7", "91"], "gold": ["3", "7", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 996/2011\nof 7 October 2011\namending Regulations (EC) No 657/2008, (EC) No 1276/2008 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 as regards the notification obligations within the common organisation of agricultural markets\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 102, Article 103h, Article 170, point (c) and Article 192(2), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 of 31 August 2009 laying down detailed rules for the Member States\u2019 notification to the Commission of information and documents in implementation of the common organisation of the markets, the direct payments\u2019 regime, the promotion of agricultural products and the regimes applicable to the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean islands (2) lays down common rules for notifying information and documents by the competent authorities of the Member States to the Commission. Those rules cover in particular the obligation for the Member States to use the information systems made available by the Commission and the validation of the access rights of the authorities or individuals authorised to send notifications. In addition, that Regulation sets common principles applying to the information systems so that they guarantee the authenticity, integrity and legibility over time of the documents and provides for personal data protection.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 the obligation to use the information systems in accordance with that Regulation has to be provided for in the regulations establishing a specific notification obligation.\n(3)\nThe Commission has developed an information system that allows managing documents and procedures electronically in its own internal working procedures and in its relations with the authorities involved in the common agricultural policy.\n(4)\nIt is considered that several notification obligations can be fulfilled via that system in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009, in particular those provided for in Commission Regulations (EC) No 657/2008 of 10 July 2008 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards Community aid for supplying milk and certain milk products to pupils in educational establishments (3), (EC) No 1276/2008 of 17 December 2008 on the monitoring by physical checks of exports of agricultural products receiving refunds or other amounts (4) and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (5).\n(5)\nIn the interest of efficient administration and taking account of the experience, some notifications should be simplified and specified in those Regulations.\n(6)\nRegulations (EC) No 657/2008, (EC) No 1276/2008 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 17 of Regulation (EC) No 657/2008 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 17\nNotifications\n1. By 31 January following the end of the previous period running from 1 August to 31 July, Member States shall provide the Commission with the following information broken down by the applicant as defined in Article 6 of this Regulation:\n(a)\nnumber of applicants;\n(b)\nnumber of applicants controlled;\n(c)\ntotal number of educational establishments to which controlled applicants delivered the products eligible for Community aid and number of these educational establishments controlled on the spot;\n(d)\nnumber of checks on the composition of products;\n(e)\namount of aid claimed, paid and controlled on the spot (in euro);\n(f)\nreduction of aid after administrative check (in euro);\n(g)\nreduction of aid due to late application according to Article 11(3) (in euro);\n(h)\naid recovered following on-the-spot checks according to Article 15(9) (in euro);\n(i)\nsanctions applied in case of fraud according to Article 15(10) (in euro);\n(j)\nnumber of applicants withdrawn or suspended according to Article 10.\n2. Before 31 January each year Member States shall provide the Commission with at least the following information related to the previous period running from 1 August to 31 July:\n(a)\nthe quantities of milk and milk products broken down by categories and sub-categories on which aid has been paid;\n(b)\nthe maximum permissible quantity;\n(c)\nthe EU expenditure;\n(d)\nthe approximate number of pupils participating in the school milk scheme;\n(e)\nthe national top up.\n3. The notifications referred to in this Regulation shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (6).\nArticle 2\nIn Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1276/2008, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The notifications referred to in the first paragraph shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (7).\nArticle 3\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 97, the second sentence of point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The annual report shall contain in particular the information set out in Annex XIV and its notification shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (8);\n(2)\nin Annex XIV, part A, point 1(b) is deleted.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 October 2011.", "references": ["63", "59", "72", "7", "53", "76", "57", "48", "58", "14", "94", "60", "10", "32", "83", "29", "82", "86", "71", "65", "43", "45", "56", "5", "81", "89", "17", "66", "64", "74", "No Label", "2", "39", "40", "41", "42", "61"], "gold": ["2", "39", "40", "41", "42", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 356/2011\nof 12 April 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 opening the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f) and (j), in conjunction of Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 1 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) lays down that the skimmed milk powder entered into storage before 1 November 2009 is available for sale by tendering procedure. For sake of clarity, it is appropriate to fix the unit of measure to which the proposed price should refer to.\n(2)\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 lays down that the submission of the tenders in response to individual invitations to tender has to be made on the first and the third Tuesday of the month. The current dairy market situation allows reducing the number of individual invitations to tender to once per month.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 447/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 447/2010 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin Article 1 the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018The proposed price shall be the price per 100 kg of products.\u2019;\n(b)\nin Article 2, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The time limit for submission of tenders in response to the individual invitations to tender shall be 11.00 (Brussels time) on the third Tuesday of the month. However, in August it shall be 11.00 (Brussels time) of the fourth Tuesday and in December it shall be 11.00 (Brussels time) on the second Tuesday. If Tuesday is a public holiday the time limit shall be 11.00 (Brussels time) on the previous working day.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 April 2011.", "references": ["91", "10", "49", "97", "64", "19", "39", "32", "22", "98", "53", "33", "25", "65", "58", "14", "8", "0", "77", "87", "89", "47", "38", "71", "9", "15", "27", "7", "54", "57", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 393/2010\nof 6 May 2010\ngranting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 4 May 2010.\n(3)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 4 May 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in point (c) of Article 1 and in Article 2 respectively of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2010.", "references": ["98", "13", "48", "29", "49", "19", "61", "62", "9", "94", "42", "5", "11", "86", "50", "43", "84", "80", "45", "32", "44", "21", "93", "7", "63", "31", "8", "58", "87", "52", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 2 July 2012\nupdating the Annex to the Monetary Agreement between the European Union and the Vatican City State\n(2012/355/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Monetary Agreement of 17 December 2009 between the European Union and the Vatican City State, and in particular Article 8(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 8 of the Monetary Agreement between the European Union and the Vatican City State (hereinafter \u2018the Monetary Agreement\u2019) requires the Vatican City State to implement Union acts concerning the rules on euro banknotes and coins, prevention of money laundering, prevention of fraud and counterfeiting of cash and non-cash means of payment; medals and tokens and statistical reporting requirements. Those acts are listed in the Annex to the Monetary Agreement.\n(2)\nThe update of the Annex is made according to Article 8(3) of the Monetary Agreement which foresees that the Annex needs to be amended by the Commission every year to take into account the new relevant EU legal acts and rules and the amendments to the existing ones. Following this provision one act was repealed and two new Union acts, falling within the scope of Article 8(1) of the Monetary Agreement, have been adopted and should be included in the Annex.\n(3)\nCouncil Decision of 29 April 1999 extending Europol\u2019s mandate to deal with forgery of money and means of payment (1) is obsolete and hence deleted from the Annex. As soon as the new legal instrument allowing Europol to sign cooperation agreements with third countries has entered into force, the new instrument will be added to the Annex to the Monetary Agreement.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerns authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (2) has been adopted. It, therefore, falls within the scope of Article 8(1) of the Monetary Agreement and should also be included in the Annex.\n(5)\nDecision ECB/2010/14 of the European Central Bank of 16 September 2010 on the authenticity and fitness checking and recirculation of euro banknotes (3) was adopted. It falls within the scope of Article 8(1) of the Monetary Agreement and should also be included in the Annex.\n(6)\nThe Annex to the Monetary Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nThe Annex to the Monetary Agreement between the European Union and the Vatican City State is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 2 July 2012.", "references": ["19", "60", "23", "10", "55", "32", "18", "95", "59", "86", "92", "36", "76", "87", "63", "16", "43", "96", "83", "67", "81", "7", "6", "22", "88", "70", "73", "89", "41", "38", "No Label", "3", "12", "27", "28", "30", "91"], "gold": ["3", "12", "27", "28", "30", "91"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 February 2012\non the accession of the European Union to Regulation No 29 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants of the cab of a commercial vehicle\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/142/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 97/836/EC of 27 November 1997 with a view to accession by the European Community to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 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 (\u2018Revised 1958 Agreement\u2019) (1), and in particular Article 3(3) and the second indent of Article 4(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the assent of the European Parliament (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe standardised requirements of Regulation No 29 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) on uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants of the cab of a commercial vehicle (3) (\u2018UNECE Regulation No 29\u2019) are intended to remove technical barriers to the trade in motor vehicles between the Contracting Parties to the Revised 1958 Agreement and to ensure a high level of safety and protection for vehicle occupants.\n(2)\nAt the date of its accession to the Revised 1958 Agreement, the Union acceded to a limited number of UNECE Regulations listed in Annex II to Decision 97/836/EC; UNECE Regulation No 29 was not included in that list.\n(3)\nIn light of subsequent amendments to UNECE Regulation No 29 and of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (4), according to which the Union is to take account of UNECE Regulation No 29, that UNECE Regulation should become part of the EU type-approval system for motor vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation No 29 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants of the cab of a commercial vehicle is hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nRegulation No 29 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants of the cab of a commercial vehicle shall become part of the EU type-approval system for motor vehicles.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall be notified by the Commission to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.\nDone at Brussels, 14 February 2012.", "references": ["24", "4", "84", "82", "37", "98", "49", "77", "21", "34", "17", "93", "36", "14", "81", "91", "2", "46", "88", "44", "41", "26", "48", "92", "64", "7", "18", "28", "50", "38", "No Label", "23", "53", "54", "55", "76", "99"], "gold": ["23", "53", "54", "55", "76", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 909/2011\nof 8 September 2011\nlaying down form and content of the accounting information to be submitted to the Commission for the purpose of the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and EAFRD as well as for monitoring and forecasting purposes\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 42 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 8(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (2) provides that the form and content of the accounting information referred to in Article 7(1)(c) of that Regulation and the way it is to be forwarded to the Commission are to be established.\n(2)\nThe form and content of the accounting information to be submitted to the Commission for the purpose of the clearance of the accounts of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) as well as for monitoring and forecasting purposes are presently laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 825/2010 (3).\n(3)\nThe Annexes to Regulation (EU) No 825/2010 cannot be used for their intended purposes in the financial year 2012. Regulation (EU) No 825/2010 should therefore be repealed and replaced by a new regulation setting out the form and content of the accounting information for that financial year.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Agricultural Funds Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe form and content of the accounting information referred to in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 and the way it is to be forwarded to the Commission shall be as set out in Annexes I (X Table), II (Technical specifications for the transfer of computer files to the EAGF and EAFRD), III (Aide-m\u00e9moire) and IV (Structure of EAFRD budget codes (F109) to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 825/2010 is repealed with effect from 16 October 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 16 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 September 2011.", "references": ["6", "24", "49", "90", "0", "68", "48", "30", "12", "64", "28", "37", "86", "4", "19", "2", "93", "84", "20", "80", "58", "94", "83", "27", "9", "15", "14", "57", "8", "82", "No Label", "10", "17", "32", "47", "76"], "gold": ["10", "17", "32", "47", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 625/2012\nof 11 July 2012\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for import licences lodged from 29 June to 6 July 2012 under subquota III in the context of the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 for common wheat of a quality other than high quality\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 (3) opens an overall annual import tariff quota of 3 112 030 tonnes of common wheat of a quality other than high quality. That quota is divided into four subquotas.\n(2)\nArticle 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 divides subquota III (order number 09.4125) into four quarterly subperiods and has fixed the quantity at 594 597 tonnes for subperiod 3, for the period from 1 July to 30 September 2012.\n(3)\nBased on the notification made pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008, the applications lodged from 13.00 on 29 June 2012 to 13.00 on 6 July 2012 (Brussels time) in accordance with Article 4(1), subparagraph 2, of that Regulation, relate to quantities in excess of those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined and the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities applied for should be fixed.\n(4)\nNo further import licences should be issued under subquota III as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 for the current quota subperiod.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure for issuing import licences, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Each import licence application in respect of subquota III referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 and lodged from 13.00 on 29 June 2012 to 13.00 on 6 July 2012 (Brussels time) shall give rise to the issue of a licence for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 2,634753 %.\n2. The issue of licences for the quantities applied for from 13.00 on 6 July 2012 (Brussels time) falling within subquota III as referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 is hereby suspended for the current quota subperiod.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 July 2012.", "references": ["4", "88", "52", "36", "44", "61", "69", "59", "23", "13", "7", "15", "26", "12", "90", "66", "25", "55", "18", "91", "31", "19", "41", "92", "32", "53", "95", "77", "97", "39", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 722/2010\nof 11 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["90", "79", "19", "21", "45", "89", "56", "22", "85", "58", "97", "82", "52", "29", "30", "73", "57", "34", "32", "26", "17", "51", "98", "78", "15", "38", "6", "96", "10", "33", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 4 July 2012\nallowing Member States to extend provisional authorisations granted for the new active substances bixafen, Candida oleophila strain O, fluopyram, halosulfuron, potassium iodide, potassium thiocyanate and spirotetramat\n(notified under document C(2012) 4436)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/363/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (2), and in particular Article 80(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Directive 91/414/EEC shall continue to apply to active substances for which a decision has been adopted in accordance with Article 6(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC before 14 June 2011.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in October 2008 the United Kingdom received an application from Bayer CropScience AG for the inclusion of the active substance bixafen in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2009/700/EC (3) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in July 2006 the United Kingdom received an application from Bionext SPRL for the inclusion of the active substance Candida oleophila strain O in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2007/380/EC (4) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in June 2008 Germany received an application from Bayer CropScience AG for the inclusion of the active substance fluopyram in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2009/464/EC (5) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in May 2005 Italy received an application from Nissan Chemical Europe SARL for the inclusion of the active substance halosulfuron in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2006/586/EC (6) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in September 2004 the Netherlands received an application from Koppert Beheer BV for the inclusion of the active substance potassium iodide in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2005/751/EC (7) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in September 2004 the Netherlands received an application from Koppert Beheer BV for the inclusion of the active substance potassium thiocyanate in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Decision 2005/751/EC confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in October 2006 Austria received an application from Bayer CropScience AG for the inclusion of the active substance spirotetramat in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2007/560/EC (8) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(9)\nConfirmation of the completeness of the dossiers was necessary in order to allow them to be examined in detail and to allow Member States the possibility of granting provisional authorisations, for periods of up to three years, for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned, while complying with the conditions laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and, in particular, the conditions relating to the detailed assessment of the active substances and the plant protection products in the light of the requirements laid down by that Directive.\n(10)\nFor these active substances, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicants. The rapporteur Member States submitted the respective draft assessment reports to the Commission on 16 December 2009 (bixafen), on 5 February 2008 (Candida oleophila strain O), on 30 August 2011 (fluopyram), on 30 March 2008 (halosulfuron), on 27 July 2007 (potassium iodide and potassium thiocyanate) and on 29 April 2008 (spirotetramat).\n(11)\nFollowing submission of the draft assessment reports by the rapporteur Member States, it has been found to be necessary to request further information from the applicants and to have the rapporteur Member States examine that information and submit their assessment. Therefore, the examination of the dossiers is still ongoing and it will not be possible to complete the evaluation within the time-frame provided for in Directive 91/414/EEC, read in conjunction with Commission Decisions 2010/457/EU (9) (Candida oleophila strain O, potassium iodide and potassium thiocyanate) and 2010/671/EU (10) (spirotetramat).\n(12)\nAs the evaluation so far has not identified any reason for immediate concern, Member States should be given the possibility of prolonging provisional authorisations granted for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned for a period of 24 months in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of Directive 91/414/EEC so as to enable the examination of the dossiers to continue. It is expected that the evaluation and decision-making process with respect to a decision on a possible approval in accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 for bixafen, Candida oleophila strain O, fluopyram, halosulfuron, potassium iodide, potassium thiocyanate and spirotetramat will have been completed within 24 months.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States may extend provisional authorisations for plant protection products containing bixafen, Candida oleophila strain O, fluopyram, halosulfuron, potassium iodide, potassium thiocyanate or spirotetramat for a period ending on 31 July 2014 at the latest.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall expire on 31 July 2014.\nArticle3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["58", "56", "42", "52", "54", "10", "38", "48", "43", "15", "37", "23", "13", "67", "53", "17", "14", "18", "4", "64", "24", "50", "32", "30", "70", "95", "3", "55", "82", "94", "No Label", "25", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 800/2011\nof 9 August 2011\napproving the active substance tefluthrin, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Tefluthrin is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included tefluthrin.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (6) the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from entry into force of that Regulation. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (7) was adopted on the non-inclusion of tefluthrin.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to Germany, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nGermany evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 9 December 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on tefluthrin to the Commission on 20 August 2010 (8). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for tefluthrin.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing tefluthrin may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve tefluthrin in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that tefluthrin should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the approval.\n(11)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of the approval taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing tefluthrin. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw existing authorisations in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By way of derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(12)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (9) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(13)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (10) should be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of tefluthrin and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning tefluthrin in the Annex to that Decision. It is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance tefluthrin, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing tefluthrin as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in the Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing tefluthrin as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing tefluthrin as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing tefluthrin as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2008/934/EC\nThe line concerning tefluthrin in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 August 2011.", "references": ["96", "31", "44", "11", "48", "59", "91", "23", "66", "84", "18", "9", "2", "71", "94", "19", "56", "54", "81", "14", "15", "43", "17", "64", "77", "42", "38", "49", "99", "79", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 406/2011\nof 27 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 2380/2001 as regards the composition of the feed additive maduramicin ammonium alpha\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the possibility to modify the authorisation of a feed additive further to a request from the holder of the authorisation and an opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (the Authority).\n(2)\nThe use of maduramicin ammonium alpha belonging to the group of coccidiostats and other medicinal substances, was authorised for 10 years in accordance with Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2) as a feed additive for the use on chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (3) and for turkeys by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2380/2001 (4).\n(3)\nThe holder of the authorisation submitted an application for a modification of the authorisation as regards the composition of the carrier of the feed additive. The holder of the authorisation submitted the relevant data to support its request.\n(4)\nThe Authority concluded in its opinion of 8 December 2010 (5) that the use of this new formulation of the additive on turkeys would not be expected to raise any additional concerns for animal health, human health or the environment and is effective in controlling coccidiosis.\n(5)\nThe conditions provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 are satisfied.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 2380/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nSince the modifications to the conditions of the authorisation are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for the disposal of existing stocks of premixtures and compound feed.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2380/2001 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nPremixtures and compound feed containing maduramicin ammonium alpha produced in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2380/2001 may continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2011.", "references": ["57", "99", "16", "51", "11", "15", "52", "67", "53", "3", "49", "70", "36", "62", "60", "87", "44", "47", "0", "71", "86", "30", "41", "72", "82", "64", "31", "55", "27", "79", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1112/2010\nof 1 December 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 793/2006 laying down certain detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 of 30 January 2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions in the Union (1), and in particular Article 25 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFollowing the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 408/2009 (2) amending Regulation (EC) No 793/2006, and in particular Article 46a thereof, which specifies that reconstituted UHT milk intended for local consumption in Madeira is to incorporate at least 15 % of fresh cow\u2019s milk, it has emerged that all the fresh milk produced locally is used by the local cheese industry. To avoid any disruption to the economic balance already established and to ensure that fresh milk produced locally can be processed into high value added products, the obligation to incorporate a minimum rate should be abolished.\n(2)\nHaving regard to the amendment to Article 19(4) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 by Regulation (EU) No 641/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), which abolished, with effect from 1 January 2010, the Commission\u2019s obligation to determine an incorporation rate for fresh milk produced locally, Article 46a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 793/2006 (4) should also be repealed from that date.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 793/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 46a of Regulation (EC) No 793/2006 is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2010.", "references": ["7", "78", "87", "26", "47", "52", "77", "32", "97", "94", "65", "57", "6", "67", "40", "3", "99", "80", "84", "90", "60", "27", "66", "76", "50", "54", "83", "63", "11", "55", "No Label", "4", "8", "17", "21", "22", "61", "70"], "gold": ["4", "8", "17", "21", "22", "61", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 439/2011\nof 6 May 2011\non a derogation from Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 in respect of the definition of the concept of originating products used for the purposes of the scheme of generalised tariff preferences to take account of the special situation of Cape Verde regarding exports of certain fisheries products to the European Union\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1), and in particular Article 247 thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (2), and in particular Article 89 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 815/2008 (3) Cape Verde was granted a derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 allowing it to consider as originating in Cape Verde certain processed fishery products produced in Cape Verde from non-originating fish. That derogation expired on 31 December 2010.\n(2)\nBy Commission Regulation (EU) No 894/2010 (4) Cape Verde was granted an increase in the quantities provided for in 2010 in respect of two of the three categories of fishery products covered by Regulation (EC) No 815/2008. The quantities of the derogation were raised accordingly to 2 500 tonnes for prepared or preserved mackerel fillets and to 875 tonnes for prepared or preserved frigate tuna or frigate mackerel fillets.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 21 October 2010 Cape Verde submitted a request for a prolongation of the said derogation. By letters dated 3 and 21 December 2010, and 14 January 2011 it submitted additional information in support of this request.\n(4)\nThe request is for a prolongation for 1 year and a volume of 2 500 tonnes for prepared or preserved mackerel fillets and 875 tonnes for prepared or preserved frigate tuna or frigate mackerel.\n(5)\nBetween 2008 and 2010 the total annual quantities originally granted contributed to a significant extent to improving the situation in the fishery processing sector and, to a certain extent, to the revitalisation of Cape Verde\u2019s artisanal fleet, which is of vital importance for that country. However, fully revitalising the Cape Verdean fleet to the degree envisaged requires a further increase in available capacity to provide enough originating raw materials to Cape Verde\u2019s fish processing industries.\n(6)\nThe request demonstrates that, without the derogation, the ability of the Cape Verdean fish processing industry to continue to export to the Union would be significantly affected, which might deter further development of the Cape Verdean fleet for small pelagic fishing.\n(7)\nThe derogation serves to give Cape Verde sufficient time to prepare itself to comply with the rules for the acquisition of preferential origin. Time is needed to ensure that the efforts to revitalise the local fishing fleet continue and Cape Verde thereby improves its ability to supply the local fishery processing sector with originating fish.\n(8)\nSince the prolongation is requested for a period starting on 1 January 2011, in order to ensure continuity of imports from Cape Verde to the Union, a new derogation should be granted with retroactive effect as of 1 January 2011.\n(9)\nIn order to allow the temporary derogation to be limited to the time needed for Cape Verde to achieve compliance with the rules, the derogation should be granted for a period of 1 year in respect of 2 500 tonnes for prepared or preserved mackerel fillets and 875 tonnes for prepared or preserved frigate tuna or frigate mackerel.\n(10)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2454/93 lays down rules relating to the management of tariff quotas. In order to ensure efficient management conducted in close cooperation between the authorities of Cape Verde, the customs authorities of the Union and the Commission, those rules should apply mutatis mutandis to the quantities imported under the derogation granted by this Regulation.\n(11)\nIn order to allow more efficient monitoring of the operation of the derogation, it is necessary to lay down the obligation for the authorities of Cape Verde, in accordance with Article 89(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, to communicate regularly to the Commission details of the certificates of origin Form A which have been issued.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Articles 72, 73, 75 to 79 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, prepared or preserved mackerel, frigate tuna and frigate mackerel of CN codes 1604 15 11 and ex 1604 19 98 produced in Cape Verde from non-originating fish shall be regarded as originating in Cape Verde in accordance with the arrangements set out in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to products exported from Cape Verde and declared for free circulation in the Union, where the conditions specified in Article 74 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 are satisfied, during the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, up to the quantities listed in the Annex against each product imported.\nArticle 3\nThe quantities set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall be managed in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\nArticle 4\n1. The customs authorities of Cape Verde shall take the necessary steps to carry out quantitative checks on exports of the products referred to in Article 1.\n2. The following shall be entered in box 4 of certificate of origin Form A issued by the competent authorities of Cape Verde pursuant to this Regulation: \u2018Derogation - Regulation (EU) No 439/2011\u2019.\n3. The competent authorities of Cape Verde shall forward to the Commission every quarter a statement of the quantities in respect of which certificates of origin Form A have been issued pursuant to this Regulation and the serial numbers of those certificates.\nArticle 5\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. It shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2011.", "references": ["0", "40", "50", "19", "10", "47", "52", "87", "79", "38", "4", "60", "88", "70", "25", "15", "72", "71", "85", "66", "34", "17", "49", "97", "95", "99", "33", "77", "53", "69", "No Label", "8", "20", "22", "23", "67", "94"], "gold": ["8", "20", "22", "23", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 481/2010\nof 1 June 2010\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) as regards the 2011 list of target secondary variables on intergenerational transmission of disadvantages\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 concerning Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) (1), and in particular Article 15(2)(f) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1177/2003 established a common framework for the systematic production of Community statistics on income and living conditions, encompassing comparable and timely cross-sectional and longitudinal data on income and on the level and composition of poverty and social exclusion at national and European Union levels.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 15(2)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003, implementing measures are necessary in respect of the list of target secondary areas and variables that is to be included every year in the cross-sectional component of EU-SILC. The list of target secondary variables to be incorporated in the module on intergenerational transmission of disadvantages should be laid down for the year 2011. It should also include the variables\u2019 codes and definitions.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe list of target secondary variables, the variables\u2019 codes and the definitions for the 2011 Module on intergenerational transmission of disadvantages to be included in the cross-sectional component of Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) shall be as laid down in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2010.", "references": ["88", "41", "75", "12", "95", "36", "29", "56", "51", "50", "10", "38", "70", "53", "25", "9", "54", "37", "27", "6", "21", "63", "94", "2", "47", "13", "17", "23", "39", "69", "No Label", "18", "19"], "gold": ["18", "19"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/325/CFSP\nof 25 June 2012\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for Sudan and South Sudan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 11 August 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/450/CFSP (1) appointing Mrs Rosalind MARSDEN as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Sudan.\n(2)\nOn 1 August 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/499/CFSP (2) which modified the mandate and the title of the EUSR in view of the declaration of independence by South Sudan. The EUSR\u2019s mandate is to expire on 30 June 2012.\n(3)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended for a further period of 12 months.\n(4)\nThe EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mrs Rosalind MARSDEN as the EUSR for Sudan and South Sudan is hereby extended until 30 June 2013. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the Union in relation to Sudan and South Sudan, working with their Governments, the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN) and other national, regional and international stakeholders, to achieve a peaceful coexistence between Sudan and South Sudan based on the principle of two viable, peaceful, and prosperous States. The Union\u2019s policy objectives include actively contributing to the resolution of outstanding Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and post-CPA issues and helping the parties to implement what has been agreed; supporting efforts to stabilise the volatile north-south border area; promoting institution building and fostering stability, security and development in South Sudan; facilitating a political solution to the conflict in Darfur; promoting efforts to resolve the conflict in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states; promoting democratic governance, accountability and respect for human rights, including cooperation with the International Criminal Court; stepping up engagement in East Sudan; and improving humanitarian access throughout Sudan and South Sudan.\nIn addition, the mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the Union\u2019s policy objective to contribute to the mitigation and elimination of threats to the stability of South Sudan and the wider region posed by the Lord\u2019s Resistance Army (LRA).\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the policy objectives, the EUSR\u2019s mandate shall be to:\n(a)\nliaise with the Government of Sudan, the Government of South Sudan, Sudanese and South Sudanese political parties, the armed and rebel movements in Sudan and South Sudan, as well as civil society and non-governmental organisations, with the aim of pursuing the Union\u2019s policy objectives;\n(b)\nmaintain close cooperation with the UN, including the UN Mission in South Sudan (Unmiss), the UN Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) and the UN Special Envoy, the AU and in particular the AU High-Level Implementation Panel for Sudan (AUHIP), the AU/UN hybrid operation in Darfur (Unamid), the League of Arab States (LAS), the Inter-Governmental Agency for Development (IGAD), and other leading regional and international stakeholders;\n(c)\nrepresent the Union and promote its policy objectives and positions in international and public fora, as appropriate;\n(d)\ncontribute to furthering the coherence and effectiveness of Union policy towards Sudan and South Sudan while promoting a consistent international approach towards the two countries;\n(e)\ncontribute to international mediation efforts led by AUHIP to facilitate agreement between Sudan and South Sudan on outstanding post-CPA issues and to find an inclusive political solution to the ongoing conflict in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states;\n(f)\nsupport the implementation of issues agreed under the CPA and eventual implementation of agreements on post-CPA issues;\n(g)\npromote institution-building inside South Sudan;\n(h)\ncontribute to international efforts to facilitate a comprehensive, inclusive and durable peace agreement for Darfur and to promote the implementation of the Doha Document, working closely with the UN, the AU, the Government of Qatar and other international stakeholders, as appropriate;\n(i)\npromote respect for human rights by maintaining regular contacts with the relevant authorities in Sudan and South Sudan, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the human rights observers active in the region;\n(j)\ncontribute to the implementation of the Union\u2019s human rights policy, including the EU Guidelines on human rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on children and armed conflict as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and the Union policy regarding UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace and security, including by monitoring and reporting on developments as well as formulating recommendations in this regard;\n(k)\ncontribute to the implementation of a comprehensive Union approach to Sudan and South Sudan as agreed by the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 June 2011;\n(l)\ncontribute, in close cooperation with the European External Action Service (EEAS), to Union engagement with all relevant stakeholders to support efforts to mitigate and eliminate the threat to civilians and stability in South Sudan and the wider region posed by the LRA;\n(m)\nfollow up and report on compliance by the Sudanese and South Sudanese parties with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, in particular 1556 (2004), 1564 (2004), 1590 (2005), 1591 (2005), 1593 (2005), 1612 (2005), 1663 (2006), 1672 (2006), 1679 (2006), 1769 (2007), 1778 (2007), 1881 (2009), 1882 (2009), 1891 (2009), 1919 (2010), 1990 (2011), 1996 (2011), 2024 (2011), 2046 (2012).\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the EEAS and its relevant departments.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 shall be EUR 1 900 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of the EUSR\u2019s mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy and security issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of the team.\n2. Member States, institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, the sending institution of the Union or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and the staff of the EUSR\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s staff shall be agreed with the host country/countries, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (3).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission, the EEAS and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegations and/or the Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with the EUSR\u2019s mandate and the security situation in the geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under the EUSR\u2019s direct authority, in particular by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as the management of security incidents and including a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of the EUSR\u2019s team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the EEAS;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the progress report and the report on the implementation of the mandate.\nArticle 11\nReporting\n1. The EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report to Council working parties as necessary. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\n2. The EUSR shall regularly report to the PSC on the situation in Darfur and on the situation in Sudan and South Sudan.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall contribute to the unity, consistency and effectiveness of the Union\u2019s action and shall help ensure that all Union instruments and Member States\u2019 actions are engaged consistently, to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSRs active in the region. The EUSR shall provide Member States\u2019 missions and Union delegations in the region with regular briefings.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of Union delegations, including in Khartoum, Juba, Addis Ababa and New York and with Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make every effort to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\n3. The EUSR, in close coordination with the Head of Union delegation in Juba, shall provide local political guidance to the Head of Mission of EUAVSEC-South Sudan. The EUSR and the Civilian Operation Commander shall consult each other as required.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the Council, the HR and the Commission with a progress report by the end of December 2012 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["12", "21", "82", "91", "58", "90", "51", "37", "1", "40", "61", "68", "27", "19", "60", "57", "42", "67", "8", "77", "69", "30", "11", "25", "45", "93", "55", "34", "10", "98", "No Label", "3", "5", "7", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "7", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 3 February 2011\non certain measures to prevent the transmission of the African swine fever virus from Russia to the Union\n(notified under document C(2011) 503)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/78/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), and in particular the third indent of Article 22(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAfrican swine fever is a highly contagious virus infection of domestic pigs and wild boars, with the potential for very serious and rapid spread, irrespective of national borders.\n(2)\nSince 2007, Russia has been reporting numerous outbreaks of African swine fever in pigs and wild boars throughout the country.\n(3)\nIn January 2011 an outbreak of African swine fever was reported close to the Union border, in the region of Saint Petersburg. The presence of that disease close to the Union border constitutes a serious risk to the livestock population in the Union.\n(4)\nThe transporter should ensure that for each vehicle used for the transport of animals a register containing information on cleansing and disinfection is retained for a minimum period of 3 years according to Council Directive 64/432/EEC (2).\n(5)\nImport of pigs and pig meat products is not permitted from Russia, however the virus causing the disease persists also in a contaminated environment outside the host animal and can be introduced into the Union with vehicles which have transported pigs.\n(6)\nIt is therefore necessary to adopt certain protection measures at Union level taking into account the risk of the spread of the disease, virus survival in the environment and potential routes of its transmission. In particular, it is necessary to ensure that vehicles which have transported pigs and which enter the Union from Russia are appropriately cleansed and disinfected.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Decision, \u2018livestock vehicle\u2019 means any vehicle being used or which has been used for the transport of pigs.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall ensure that the operator or driver of a livestock vehicle on arrival from Russia at the point of entry into the territory of the Union provides information to the competent authority of the Member State showing that the vehicle has been cleansed and disinfected after the last unloading of pigs.\nThat information may be presented in the form of a declaration as set out in Annex I or in another equivalent form. If the information is presented in another form, it shall cover the items set out in that Annex. The original of the declaration shall be kept by the competent authority and its copy by the operator/driver of the livestock vehicle.\nArticle 3\nThe competent authority of the Member State of the point of entry into the Union shall check livestock vehicles entering the territory of the Union from Russia, in order to determine whether they have been satisfactorily cleansed and disinfected.\nIf cleansing and disinfection have been satisfactorily carried out, the competent authority shall issue a certificate in accordance with the model set out in Annex II. The original of the certificate shall be kept by the operator/driver of the livestock vehicle and its copy should be kept by the competent authority.\nIf cleansing and disinfection have not been satisfactorily carried out, the competent authority may:\n(a)\nrefuse the entry into the territory of the Union of the livestock vehicle; or\n(b)\nsubject the livestock vehicle to proper cleansing and disinfection at a place designated by the competent authority, as close as possible to the point of entry into the territory of the Union in the Member State concerned.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2011.", "references": ["85", "43", "86", "46", "33", "69", "31", "48", "78", "95", "54", "75", "79", "8", "10", "63", "68", "41", "30", "0", "98", "53", "71", "80", "11", "88", "73", "37", "57", "60", "No Label", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2009/030 NL/Drenthe Division 18 from the Netherlands)\n(2010/746/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nThe Netherlands submitted an application on 30 December 2009 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in two enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the NUTS II region Drenthe (NL13) and supplemented it with additional information up to 6 May 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 453 632.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Netherlands,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 453 632 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["93", "1", "54", "50", "90", "36", "30", "24", "56", "31", "59", "81", "44", "73", "76", "94", "65", "14", "64", "38", "52", "63", "40", "53", "21", "37", "22", "20", "16", "89", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/444/CFSP\nof 11 August 2010\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 17 October 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/724/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Erwan FOU\u00c9R\u00c9 European Union Special Representative (hereinafter the EUSR) in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).\n(2)\nOn 16 March 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/156/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 31 August 2010.\n(3)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 28 February 2011 or until the Council decides, on a proposal by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter the HR), that appropriate corresponding functions to those under Decision 2010/156/CFSP have been established in the European External Action Service, and terminates the mandate,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/156/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Erwan FOU\u00c9R\u00c9 as the EUSR in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is hereby extended until 28 February 2011 or until the Council decides, on a proposal by the HR, that appropriate corresponding functions to those under the current Decision have been established in the European External Action Service and terminates the mandate.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 August 2010 shall be EUR 340 000.\n2. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 September 2010 to 28 February 2011 shall be EUR 310 000.\n3. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n4. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["21", "72", "66", "71", "89", "62", "57", "27", "48", "87", "32", "25", "6", "90", "80", "14", "8", "54", "16", "94", "53", "69", "4", "10", "59", "92", "58", "15", "30", "74", "No Label", "3", "9", "11", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "11", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/004 EL/ALDI Hellas from Greece)\n(2011/771/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nGreece submitted an application on 10 May 2011 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in the enterprise ALDI Hellas Supermarket Holding EPE & Assoc. EE and one supplier - Thessaloniki Logistics SA - and supplemented it by additional information up to 22 June 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 918 500.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Greece,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 918 500 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["55", "38", "65", "81", "56", "70", "77", "4", "19", "44", "60", "78", "13", "28", "67", "64", "35", "93", "24", "37", "61", "75", "59", "11", "36", "76", "47", "88", "84", "79", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "26", "33", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "26", "33", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 314/2012\nof 12 April 2012\namending Commission Regulations (EC) No 555/2008 and (EC) No 436/2009 as regards the documents accompanying consignments of wine products and wine sector registers to be kept\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 121(k) and (m), Article 185a, Article 185c(3), and Article 192(2) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector (2) lays down under Title V and notably in Article 82 that where a Member State designates several competent bodies to check compliance with the rules governing the wine sector it shall coordinate the work of those bodies. This provision does not fully meet the coordination needs among the various control bodies within the framework of the movements of wine products subject to excise duty due to the use in the wine sector of documents established in accordance with Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty (3). In particular, the measures that the Member States shall take should be specified with respect to giving the bodies which are competent to check compliance with the rules governing the wine sector access to the information on the movements of products subject to excise duty carried out under Directive 2008/118/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 684/2009 of 24 July 2009 implementing Council Directive 2008/118/EC as regards the computerised procedures for the movement of excise goods under suspension of excise duty (4). In particular, it is appropriate that account be taken of the Excise Movement and Control System set up under Decision No 1152/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 on computerising the movement and surveillance of excisable products (5).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 555/2008 should therefore be amended by allowing for gradual implementation of new provisions, in view of the time required by the Member States\u2019 administrations to implement measures concerning the coordination of controls and access to information.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 436/2009 of 26 May 2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards the vineyard register, compulsory declarations and the gathering of information to monitor the wine market, the documents accompanying consignments of wine products and the wine sector registers to be kept (6) establishes under Title III and in particular Articles 21 to 31 the nature of the accompanying documents admissible for the consignment of wine products, the rules governing the use of these documents at national and Union level and for export and the conditions with regard to authentication of certificates of origin for wines with protected designation of origin (PDO) or protected geographic indication (PGI). These provisions are, by now, partially obsolete or do not take into account all the amendments made to Union legislation on these issues since the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 436/2009. This is notably the case for the use since 1 January 2011 of the electronic administrative document referred to in Article 21(1) of Directive 2008/118/EC, established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 684/2009, for the amendment of procedures relating to the control of the exit of products from the territory of the Union following the widespread use of electronic procedures by the Union\u2019s customs authorities and lastly for the amendment of rules governing PDO, PGI and indications on the vintage year or the wine-grape varieties as a result of the reforms in the wine sector since 1 January 2009. It is therefore necessary to amend the Articles concerned and to delete certain obsolete definitions.\n(4)\nThe amendments made in this context should enable the use of accompanying documents recognised under Regulation (EC) No 436/2009 for wine products to certify the PDO or PGI and the vintage year or wine-grape variety, including where these documents are drawn up by the consignor. In this respect, the conditions in which the accompanying documents shall be deemed authentic should be laid down.\n(5)\nThe formalities relating to the exit of products from the customs territory of the Union have been modified since the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 436/2009. They are carried out according to new conditions laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (7). Rules should therefore be laid down on the procedure for the export and the effective exit of wine products from the customs territory of the Union in accordance with these new conditions, by specifying the obligations on the consignor or the consignor\u2019s agent.\n(6)\nWith regard to the consignment of unpackaged wine products, it is appropriate, in view of the implementation by the Member States of information systems permitting the automatic exchange of information, to simplify the requirements established under Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 436/2009.\n(7)\nFor any consignment in the customs territory of the Union of wine products declared, where appropriate, as originating from a third country or originating in the Union and initially dispatched to a third country or a territory as defined in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2008/118/EC, the rules for controlling their origin are not specified. The information that the accompanying document shall include should be laid down in order to verify the origin.\n(8)\nFurthermore, in the interests of clarity and reducing the administrative burdens, the content of certain obligations provided for in Regulation (EC) No 436/2009 should be established or specified and procedures simplified in relation to the certificates required for the accompanying documents and evidence, and documents to be supplied by operators to the authorities and competent bodies of the Member States and, if necessary to third countries, notably with regard to the PDO and PGI certificates and the certification of wines and wine products marketed with the indication of the vintage year or the wine-grape variety(ies) and to take into consideration, for enhanced transparency and traceability, the references of these designations in the E-Bacchus register set up and updated by the Commission, in accordance with Article 18 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products (8).\n(9)\nFor the sake of reducing the administrative burdens, the obligation established in Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 436/2009 concerning the indication in the registers of the addition of sulphites should be waived, given that the sulphites are added at different stages in production and wine handling and that the final content does not correspond to the amount of sulphites indicated.\n(10)\nIn the interests of effective administrative management and taking into account the experience acquired through the use of information systems put in place by the Commission, the way in which certain information is managed and made available by the Commission should be simplified and improved, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 436/2009.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 436/2009 should therefore be amended, while providing for a deferred application of certain provisions, in view of the time required by the Member States to implement measures concerning the use of accompanying and certification documents established under this Regulation.\n(12)\nThe measures set out in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment of Regulation (EC) No 555/2008\nIn Chapter V of Title V of Regulation (EC) No 555/2008, the following Article 95a is added:\n\u2018Article 95a\nCoordination of controls and access to information\nWith respect to controls relating to consignments carried out under cover of the accompanying documents indicated in Article 24(1)(a)(i) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 436/2009 (9), Member States, shall, not later than 1 March 2014, adopt the measures required to give the competent bodies designated under Article 82(1) of this Regulation access to the information held in the computerised system referred to in Article 21 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (10) and on the movements of wine products circulating under the arrangements laid down in Chapter IV of that Directive.\nWith respect to controls on consignments carried out under cover of the accompanying documents indicated in Article 24(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) of Regulation (EC) No 436/2009, Member States, shall, not later than 1 March 2014, adopt the measures required to give the competent bodies designated under Article 82(1) of this Regulation access to the information held in the information systems set up to control the movements of wine products other than those referred to in the first paragraph of this Article.\nThe information held pursuant to the first and second subparagraphs may only be used, for the purposes of this Regulation, in relation to the specific controls laid down in the rules on the wine sector.\nArticle 2\nAmendment of Regulation (EC) No 436/2009\nRegulation (EC) No 436/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 21 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 21\nPurpose and scope\n1. This title lays down the detailed rules for the application of Article 185c of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, in relation to wine products, indicated in Part XII of Annex I thereto (hereinafter \u201cwine products\u201d).\n2. This title establishes the conditions required for:\n(a)\nthe drawing up and use of documents accompanying the consignment of wine products, hereinafter \u201caccompanying documents\u201d;\n(b)\nthe drawing up of the certificates of origin for wines and partially fermented grape must covered by a protected designation of origin (PDO) or a protected geographical indication (PGI) and the certification of wines and wine sector products not covered by a PDO or a PGI marketed with the indication of the vintage year or the wine-grape variety(ies);\n(c)\nrecords kept by persons who hold wine sector products in the exercise of their profession.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 22(d), (e) and (f) are deleted;\n(3)\nArticles 23 and 24 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 23\nGeneral rules\nAll natural or legal persons, all groups of persons, who have their domicile or registered place of business within the customs territory of the Union and who consign or have a wine product consigned, shall ensure that this transport operation is carried out under cover of an accompanying document.\nThe accompanying document may only be used for a single consignment.\nIt shall be possible for the accompanying document to be presented to the competent authorities and bodies throughout the transport operation.\nArticle 24\nRecognised accompanying documents\n1. The following shall be recognised as accompanying documents, in accordance with the conditions laid down in this Article and in Annex VI:\n(a)\nfor the wine products dispatched within a Member State or among Member States, without prejudice to (b) below:\n(i)\none of the documents referred to in Article 21(6) or Article 26(1)(a) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (11) for products moved under duty suspension arrangements within the Union\u2019s territory;\n(ii)\nthe simplified accompanying document referred to in Article 34(1) of Directive 2008/118/EC, drawn up and used in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3649/92 (12), for excise goods moved within the Union\u2019s territory, after release for consumption in the Member State where the transport operation began;\n(iii)\none of the following documents, drawn up under the conditions laid down by the Member State of dispatch, for wine products not subject to excise duty and for wine products subject to excise duty dispatched by small producers, pursuant to Article 40 of Directive 2008/118/EC:\n-\nwhere the Member State uses an information system, a printed copy of the electronic administrative document thus established or any other commercial document stating, in a clearly identifiable manner, the specific administrative code (\u201cMVV code\u201d) assigned by that system,\n-\nwhere the Member State does not use an information system, an administrative document or a commercial document, bearing the MVV code assigned by the competent body or by the consignor;\n(b)\nfor the wine products dispatched to a third country or territory as defined in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2008/118/EC, one of the documents referred to in paragraph 1(a)(i) or (iii) of this Article.\n2. The accompanying documents referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall include the information indicated in Part C of Annex VI, or allow the competent bodies to have access to this information.\nWhere these documents bear an administrative reference code assigned by the computerised system referred to in Article 21(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC or by an information system set up by the Member State of dispatch, the information referred to in Part C of Annex VI to this Regulation shall be held in the system used.\n3. The accompanying documents referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall include the information indicated in Part C of Annex VI.\n4. The accompanying documents referred to in paragraph 1(a)(iii) shall bear in the header, the logo of the Union, the words \u201cEuropean Union\u201d, the name of the dispatching Member State, and a sign or a logo identifying the dispatching Member of State.\nThe accompanying documents referred to in paragraph 1(a)(i) and (ii) may bear the information referred in the first subparagraph of this paragraph.\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the Member States may recognise other accompanying documents, including documents produced using a computerised procedure intended to simplify the procedure with regard to the movements of wine products carried out exclusively on their territory.\n(4)\nArticle 26 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 26\nAuthenticity of the accompanying document\nThe accompanying document shall be deemed to be authentic under the following conditions:\n(a)\nwhere one of the documents referred to in Article 21(6) of Directive 2008/118/EC and Article 24(1)(a)(iii), first indent, of this Regulation is used, provided that the relevant electronic administrative document is drawn up in accordance with the applicable rules;\n(b)\nwhere the document referred to in Article 26(1)(a) of Directive 2008/118/EC, provided that the consignor complies with the provisions of paragraph 1;\n(c)\nwhere a document produced through an information system set up by a dispatching Member State is used, in order to draw up the document referred to in Article 24(1)(a)(ii) of this Regulation, or a simplified computerised procedure under Article 24(5), provided that the corresponding electronic document is established in compliance with the applicable rules;\n(d)\notherwise, provided that the original accompanying document and a copy are validated prior to dispatch:\n(i)\nby the date, the signature of the person in charge of the competent body and the stamp affixed by this person; or\n(ii)\nby the date, the signature of the consignor and affixing by the consignor, as appropriate:\n-\nof a special stamp in accordance with the model referred to in Annex VIII,\n-\nof a stamp prescribed by the competent authorities, or\n-\nof a mark of a stamping machine approved by the competent authorities.\nThe special stamp or the prescribed stamp, referred to in point d(ii) of the first paragraph above may be pre-printed on the forms, where printing is carried out by a printer approved for that purpose.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 27 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is deleted;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Where the wine products circulate under cover of a document referred to in Article 24(1)(a)(i), proof of exit from the Union\u2019s customs territory shall be constituted by the report of export referred to in Article 25 of Directive 2008/118/EC, drawn up by the customs office of export in accordance with Article 796e of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (13).\nWhere the wine products circulate under cover of the document referred to in Article 24(1)(a)(iii), proof of exit from the Union\u2019s customs territory shall be established in accordance with Article 796e of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93. In that case, the consignor or the consignor\u2019s agent shall record the reference of the export accompanying document referred to in Article 796a of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, hereinafter the \u201cEAD\u201d, issued by the customs office of export on the accompanying document, using one of the references set out in Annex IX to this Regulation.\n(c)\nparagraph 4 is deleted;\n(6)\nArticle 28 is deleted;\n(7)\nArticles 29, 30 and 31 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 29\nConsignment of unpackaged wine products\nIn the case of the consignment of unpackaged wine products and where the computerised system or an information system referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 24(2) is not used or where this system does not allow the competent authority at the place of unloading to be informed, the consignor shall forward, at the latest on the departure of the type of transport, a copy of the accompanying document to the competent authority within whose territory the place of loading is situated, who shall inform the competent authority within whose territory the place of unloading is situated.\nParagraph 1 of this Article shall apply to the following wine products:\n(a)\nproducts originating in the Union, of a quantity of more than 60 litres:\n(i)\nwine intended for processing into wines with a PDO or PGI, a varietal or vintage year wine, or intended for packaging to be marketed as such;\n(ii)\npartially fermented grape must;\n(iii)\nconcentrated grape must, whether or not rectified;\n(iv)\nfresh grape must with fermentation arrested by the addition of alcohol;\n(v)\ngrape juice;\n(vi)\nconcentrated grape juice;\n(b)\nproducts not originating in the Union, of a quantity of more than 60 litres:\n(i)\nfresh grapes, excluding table grapes;\n(ii)\ngrape must;\n(iii)\nconcentrated grape must;\n(iv)\npartially fermented grape must;\n(v)\nconcentrated grape must, whether or not rectified;\n(vi)\nfresh grape must with fermentation arrested by the addition of alcohol;\n(vii)\ngrape juice;\n(viii)\nconcentrated grape juice;\n(ix)\nliqueur wine for the preparation of products not falling within CN code 2204;\n(c)\nproducts, irrespective of their origin and the amount transported, without prejudice to the exemptions referred to in Article 25:\n(i)\nwine lees;\n(ii)\ngrape marc intended for distillation or another form of industrial processing;\n(iii)\npiquette;\n(iv)\nwine fortified for distillation;\n(v)\nwine from grapes of varieties not listed as wine-grape varieties in the classification drawn up by the Member States under Article 120a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for the administrative unit in which they were harvested;\n(vi)\nproducts that may not be offered or supplied for direct human consumption.\nBy way of derogation from the paragraph 1 of this Article, the Member States may fix different periods with respect to the movements of wine products that take place exclusively within their territory.\nArticle 30\nConsignment of a third-country product released into free circulation\n1. For any consignment within the Union\u2019s customs territory of third-country products released into free circulation, the accompanying document shall include the following information or allow the competent bodies to access thereto:\n(a)\nthe number of the document VI 1, drawn up in accordance with Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 or the references of the equivalent document, approved by the competent authorities of the country of origin, under the conditions set out in Article 45 of the same Regulation and recognised in the framework of the bilateral relations of the Union with the country of origin, which accompanied the transport operation;\n(b)\nthe name and address of the authority of the third country which completed that document or authorised its completion by a producer;\n(c)\nthe date on which that document was completed.\n2. For any consignment within the Union\u2019s customs territory of wine products originating within the Union, initially exported to a third country or a territory as defined in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2008/118/EC, the accompanying document shall include the following information or allow the competent bodies to have access to this information:\n(a)\nthe reference to the accompanying document, referred to in Article 24(1)(b) of this Regulation, drawn up for the initial dispatch; or\n(b)\nthe references to the other supporting documentation produced by the importer evidencing the origin of the product and deemed satisfactory by the competent body when released for circulation in the Union.\n3. Where the computerised system referred to in Article 21(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC or an information system set up by the Member State of dispatch is used, the information indicated in the first and second paragraphs of this Article shall be held in the system used.\nArticle 31\nCertification of protected designation of origin, protected geographical indication, vintage year and the wine-grape variety(ies)\n1. The accompanying document shall be regarded as certifying the PDO or PGI and the vintage year or the wine-grape variety(ies), in accordance with the conditions provided for in paragraphs 2 to 6 below.\n2. In the case of wine products dispatched within a Member State or among Member States, the accompanying document shall include all the pertinent information laid down in Part A of Annex IXa or allow the competent bodies to have access to this information. To this effect, one of the entries set out in Part B of Annex IXa shall be used.\nWhere the computerised system referred to in Article 21(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC or an information system set up by the Member State of dispatch is used, the information referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall be held in the system used.\n3. In the case of wine products exported to a third country, the accompanying document shall include the pertinent information laid down in Part A of Annex IXa. To this effect, one of the entries set out in Part B of Annex IXa shall be used. It shall be possible for this document to be presented, as an attestation or certificate, whenever requested by the competent authorities and bodies of the Member States or third country of destination.\n4. In the case of wine products imported from a third country, the accompanying document shall make reference to the attestation or certificate drawn up in the country of origin. It shall be possible for the attestation or certificate to be presented whenever requested throughout the transport operation to the competent authorities and bodies of the Member States.\n5. Where Member States have made it obligatory, in respect of the wine products produced on their territory, for a PDO or PGI certificate to be drawn up by a control body designated for this purpose the accompanying document shall include a reference to this certificate, the name and, where applicable, the electronic address of the control body. This information comes after the entry used in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 above.\n6. The consignor shall certify the accuracy of the information required pursuant to paragraphs 2 to 5 above, on the basis of their records or the certified information in the documents accompanying the previous consignments of the product in question;\u2019\n(8)\nArticle 39(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (d) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\neach wine of a wine-grape variety not covered by a PDO or PGI and the products intended for processing into such a wine or packaging, with the reference of their classification pursuant to Article 120a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following point (e) is added:\n\u2018(e)\neach wine not covered by a PDO or PGI and the products intended for processing or packaging, with the indication of the vintage year.\u2019;\n(9)\nArticle 41(1)(u) is deleted;\n(10)\nthe following paragraph is added to Article 49:\n\u20184. The Member States shall communicate, before 1 January 2013, the conditions that they apply with respect to drawing up the accompanying document referred to in Article 24(1)(b).\u2019;\n(11)\na new paragraph 5 is added to Article 50:\n\u20185. Information shall be communicated and made available by the Commission to the authorities, bodies and persons affected by this Regulation and, where applicable, to the public, through the information systems put in place by the Commission.\nThe practical rules in relation to access to the information systems are set out in Annex IXb.\u2019;\n(12)\nAnnex VI is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation;\n(13)\nAnnex VII is deleted;\n(14)\nAnnexes VIII and IX are replaced by the wording in Annex II to this Regulation;\n(15)\nnew Annexes IXa and IXb, the wording of which is in Annex III to this Regulation, shall be added.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 24(1)(b) and Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 436/2009, as amended by Article 2 of this Regulation, shall apply from 1 January 2013.\nThe accompanying documents drawn up in the conditions established by the Member States before the entry into force of this Regulation may continue to be used until 1 August 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 April 2012.", "references": ["98", "83", "64", "49", "24", "30", "3", "9", "31", "52", "5", "65", "95", "11", "67", "51", "42", "86", "60", "33", "36", "99", "38", "80", "14", "84", "62", "10", "44", "17", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "25", "34", "41", "53", "54", "61", "66", "71"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "25", "34", "41", "53", "54", "61", "66", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 987/2011\nof 30 September 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Nano\u0161ki sir (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovenia\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Nano\u0161ki sir\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 September 2011.", "references": ["77", "79", "10", "86", "27", "45", "85", "12", "44", "68", "51", "46", "50", "9", "94", "43", "32", "29", "40", "92", "78", "87", "57", "26", "63", "11", "93", "38", "34", "22", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 11 April 2012\namending Decision 2008/961/EC on the use by third countries\u2019 issuers of securities of certain third country\u2019s national accounting standards and International Financial Reporting Standards to prepare their consolidated financial statements\n(notified under document C(2012) 2256)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/194/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 23(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 23 of Directive 2004/109/EC, third country issuers may be exempted from the requirement of preparing consolidated accounts according to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adopted in the Union if the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) of the third country in question lay down equivalent requirements. In order to assess the equivalence of that third country\u2019s GAAP with adopted IFRS, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1569/2007 (2) provides for the definition of equivalence and establishes a mechanism for the determination of equivalence of the GAAP of a third country.\n(2)\nIt is important to assess the efforts of those countries which have taken steps to converge their accounting standards to or adopt IFRS. Therefore, Regulation (EC) No 1569/2007 has been amended to extend the period of temporary equivalence until 31 December 2014.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2008/961/EC (3) provided that third country issuers may also prepare their consolidated accounts from 1 January 2009 in accordance with IFRS. According to that Decision prior to financial years starting on or after 1 January 2012, third country issuers are permitted to prepare their annual and half-yearly consolidated financial statements in accordance with the GAAP of the People\u2019s Republic of China, Canada, the Republic of Korea or the Republic of India.\n(4)\nIn June 2010, the Commission requested the then Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR), replaced by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (4), to provide a technical assessment and an update on developments towards IFRS in China, Canada, South Korea and India. The Commission has taken full account of the report provided by CESR in November 2010 and the updates on China and India, received from ESMA in May 2011 following an on-the-spot investigation which it undertook in January 2011.\n(5)\nIn April 2010 the Ministry of Finance of China issued a \u2018Roadmap for Continuing Convergence of the Accounting Standards for Business Enterprises (ASBE) with IFRS\u2019 which reiterated China\u2019s commitment to continue the process of convergence to IFRS. As of October 2010 all current standards and interpretations issued by International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) have been implemented in the ASBE. The level of convergence has been reported by ESMA as being satisfactory and reconciliation for the Union issuers which prepare their financial statements in accordance with IFRS is not required. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the Chinese ASBE equivalent to adopted IFRS as of 1 January 2012.\n(6)\nThe Accounting Standards Board of Canada made a public commitment in January 2006 to adopt IFRS by 31 December 2011. It has approved the incorporation of IFRS into the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants Handbook as Canadian GAAP for all publicly accountable profit-oriented enterprises starting in 2011. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the Canadian GAAP equivalent to adopted IFRS as of 1 January 2012.\n(7)\nThe Korean Financial Supervisory Commission and the Korean Accounting Institute made a public commitment in March 2007 to adopt IFRS by 31 December 2011. The Korean Accounting Standards Board has adopted IFRS as Korean IFRS (K-IFRS). K-IFRS are identical to IFRS as issued by the IASB and are required for all listed companies in South Korea since 2011. Unlisted financial institutions and state-owned companies are also required to apply K-IFRS. Other unlisted companies may choose to do so. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the South-Korean GAAP equivalent to adopted IFRS as of 1 January 2012.\n(8)\nThe Indian Government and the Indian Institute of Chartered Accountants made a public commitment in July 2007 to adopt IFRS by 31 December 2011 with the aim that Indian GAAP would be fully IFRS compliant by the end of the programme. Following an on-the-spot investigation in January 2011, ESMA observed that the Indian Accounting Standards appear to have a number of differences from IFRS. Uncertainties remain about the timetable for the implementation of an IFRS-compliant reporting system.\n(9)\nAccordingly, it is appropriate to extend the transitional period for no more than three years, until 31 December 2014, in order to allow third country issuers to prepare their annual and half-yearly financial statements in accordance with the GAAPs of India in the Union.\n(10)\nSince the transitional period for which Decision 2008/961/EC granted equivalence to Chinese, Canadian, South-Korean and Indian GAAPs ended on 31 December 2011, for the sake of legal certainty, this Decision should apply from 1 January 2012.\n(11)\nDecision 2008/961/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the European Securities Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1 of Decision 2008/961/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nthe second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018From 1 January 2012, with regard to annual consolidated financial statements and half-yearly consolidated financial statements, the following standards shall be considered as equivalent to IFRS adopted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002:\n(a)\nGenerally Accepted Accounting Principles of the People\u2019s Republic of China;\n(b)\nGenerally Accepted Accounting Principles of Canada;\n(c)\nGenerally Accepted Accounting Principles of the Republic of Korea.\u2019;\n2.\nthe following third paragraph is added:\n\u2018Third country issuers shall be permitted to prepare their annual consolidated financial statements and half-yearly consolidated financial statements in accordance with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of the Republic of India for financial years starting before 1 January 2015.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2012.", "references": ["10", "64", "98", "70", "54", "61", "27", "90", "15", "81", "51", "25", "75", "9", "55", "29", "68", "26", "28", "31", "50", "49", "41", "40", "16", "13", "21", "78", "5", "88", "No Label", "18", "30", "39", "45", "47", "93", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["18", "30", "39", "45", "47", "93", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 July 2011\ndetermining for the General Secretariat of the Council the appointing authority and the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment and repealing Decision 2006/491/EC, Euratom\n(2011/444/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union, as laid down by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), and in particular Article 2 of those Staff Regulations and Article 6 of those Conditions,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder the first subparagraph of Article 240(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the General Secretariat of the Council comes under the responsibility of a Secretary-General.\n(2)\nA new decision should be adopted, determining for the General Secretariat of the Council the appointing authority and the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment, and Decision 2006/491/EC, Euratom (2) should be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe powers conferred by the Staff Regulations of Officials on the appointing authority and by the Conditions of employment of other servants on the authority competent to conclude contracts of employment shall, as regards the General Secretariat of the Council, be exercised:\n(a)\nby the Council for the Secretary-General;\n(b)\nby the Council, on a proposal from the Secretary-General, for the application to Directors-General of Articles 1a, 30, 34, 41, 49, 50 and 51 of the Staff Regulations;\n(c)\nby the Secretary-General in other cases.\nThe Secretary-General is authorised to delegate, in whole or in part, to the Director-General of Administration any or all of his powers as regards the application of the Conditions of employment of other servants and the application of the Staff Regulations to officials in the AST function group, except for powers in respect of the appointment and termination of service of officials and the engagement of other servants.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2006/491/EC, Euratom is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision enters into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["8", "40", "80", "84", "87", "46", "14", "99", "19", "56", "27", "73", "28", "72", "61", "22", "70", "44", "51", "97", "94", "16", "57", "9", "79", "3", "45", "65", "25", "62", "No Label", "2", "7", "52"], "gold": ["2", "7", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1209/2010\nof 16 December 2010\nfixing the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the twelfth individual invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the twelfth individual invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the twelfth individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 14 December 2010, the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be EUR 207,10/100 kg.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2010.", "references": ["33", "57", "66", "44", "62", "11", "76", "91", "29", "88", "56", "90", "95", "55", "99", "27", "18", "28", "50", "19", "39", "89", "42", "63", "6", "38", "13", "43", "21", "46", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 16 May 2012\namending Decision 2008/589/EC establishing a specific control and inspection programme related to the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea\n(2012/262/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Article 95 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2008/589/EC (2) established a specific control and inspection programme applicable for a period of four years to ensure the harmonised implementation of the multiannual plan set up by Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 (3) for cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks.\n(2)\nRecent scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) suggests that significant part of the Baltic salmon fishery may be misreported, which may have serious negative impact on the status of that stock.\n(3)\nThe specific control and inspection programme is necessary for the organisation of operational cooperation between Member States concerned and to allow the Community Fisheries Control Agency to organise joint deployment plans in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 (4).\n(4)\nIn order to ensure the continued harmonised implementation of the multiannual plan set up by Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007, the specific control and inspection programme should be extended for a period of one year.\n(5)\nThe Commission has adopted a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual plan for the Baltic salmon stock and the fisheries exploiting that stock (5). Pending the entry into force of that regulation it is appropriate to address the possible misreporting reported by ICES.\n(6)\nTo address the possible misreporting in the fisheries exploiting the Baltic Sea salmon stocks, it is appropriate to include those stocks in this specific control and inspection programme.\n(7)\nDecision 2008/589/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision have been established in concert with the Member States concerned.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2008/589/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n2.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision establishes a specific control and inspection programme to ensure:\n(a)\nthe harmonised implementation of the multiannual plan set up by Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 for cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks; and\n(b)\nthe harmonised control and inspection of the fisheries exploiting the salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea.\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nScope\n1. The specific control and inspection programme shall cover control and inspection of:\n(a)\nfishing activities by vessels referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 and by fishing vessels of all length engaged or likely to be engaged in the catch of salmon;\n(b)\nall related activities including the landing, weighing, marketing, transport and storage of fishery products and the recording of landing and sales.\n2. The specific control and inspection programme shall apply for five years.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2012.", "references": ["29", "13", "8", "87", "10", "30", "35", "76", "28", "24", "16", "53", "71", "36", "95", "20", "14", "21", "82", "49", "19", "37", "0", "43", "42", "2", "32", "17", "62", "90", "No Label", "59", "67"], "gold": ["59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 November 2010\napproving certain amended programmes for the eradication and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses for the year 2010 and amending Decision 2009/883/EC as regards the financial contribution by the Union for programmes approved by that Decision\n(notified under document C(2010) 8290)\n(2010/732/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 27(5) and (6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution by the Union for programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2008/341/EC of 25 April 2008 laying down Community criteria for national programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses (2) provides that in order to be approved under the measures provided for in Article 27(1) of Decision 2009/470/EC, programmes submitted by the Member States to the Commission for the eradication, control and monitoring of the animal diseases and zoonoses listed in the Annex to that Decision must meet at least the criteria set out in the Annex to Decision 2008/341/EC.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2009/883/EC of 26 November 2009 approving annual and multi-annual programmes and the financial contribution from the Community for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses presented by the Member States for 2010 and following years (3) approves certain national programmes and sets out the rate and maximum amount of the financial contribution by the Union for each programme submitted by the Member States.\n(4)\nThe Commission has assessed the reports submitted by the Member States on the expenditures incurred for those programmes. The results of that assessment show that certain Member States will not utilise their full allocation for the year 2010 while others will spend in excess of the allocated amount.\n(5)\nRabies programmes in most Member States are now approaching the stage of achieving their objective of eradicating the risk to public and animal health from that disease. It is appropriate to provide additional financial support for those programmes by increasing the rate of financing, in order to reinforce the efforts of the Member States to eradicate that disease as soon as possible.\n(6)\nMember States have informed the Commission that the maximum limit for reimbursement per monitoring test for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in bovine animals applied during recent years is no longer realistic. Based on the results of the Commission\u2019s examination of that matter, it is appropriate to increase the maximum limit for reimbursement for those tests in order to approach the real costs incurred by the Member States for carrying them out.\n(7)\nThe financial contribution by the Union for a number of national programmes therefore needs to be adjusted. It is appropriate to reallocate funding from national programmes which will not use their full allocation to those that are expected to exceed it. The reallocation should be based on the most recent information on expenditure actually incurred by the concerned Member States.\n(8)\nIn addition, Portugal has submitted an amended programme for the eradication of bovine brucellosis, Spain, the Netherlands, Austria and Portugal have submitted amended programmes for the eradication and monitoring of bluetongue in endemic or high-risk areas and Bulgaria and Poland have submitted amended programmes for the eradication of rabies.\n(9)\nThe Commission has assessed those amended programmes from both the veterinary and the financial point of view. They were found to comply with relevant Union veterinary legislation and in particular with the criteria set out in the Annex to Decision 2008/341/EC. The amended programmes should therefore be approved.\n(10)\nDecision 2009/833/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of the amended programme for bovine brucellosis submitted by Portugal\nThe amended programme for the eradication of bovine brucellosis submitted by Portugal on 25 May 2010 is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010.\nArticle 2\nApproval of amended programmes for bluetongue in endemic or high-risk areas submitted by certain Member States\nThe following amended programmes for the monitoring and eradication of bluetongue in endemic or high-risk areas are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010:\n(a)\nthe programme submitted by Spain on 17 May 2010;\n(b)\nthe programme submitted by the Netherlands on 20 September 2010;\n(c)\nthe programme submitted by Austria on 29 March 2010;\n(d)\nthe programme submitted by Portugal on 12 May 2010.\nArticle 3\nApproval of amended programmes for rabies submitted by Bulgaria and Poland\nThe following amended programmes for the eradication of rabies are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010:\n(a)\nthe programme submitted by Bulgaria on 29 September 2010;\n(b)\nthe programme submitted by Poland on 28 September 2010.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2009/883/EC\nDecision 2009/883/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 1, paragraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (b), \u2018EUR 5 000 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 3 600 000\u2019;\n(b)\npoints (e) and (f) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nEUR 1 200 000 for Portugal;\n(f)\nEUR 1 700 000 for the United Kingdom.\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 2, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The financial contribution by the Union shall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for the costs of carrying out tuberculin and laboratory tests and the compensation to owners for the value of their animals slaughtered subject to those programmes, and shall not exceed:\n(a)\nEUR 12 500 000 for Ireland;\n(b)\nEUR 10 100 000 for Spain;\n(c)\nEUR 2 800 000 for Italy;\n(d)\nEUR 1 000 000 for Portugal;\n(e)\nEUR 27 000 000 for the United Kingdom.\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 3(2), point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nEUR 3 000 000 for Spain;\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 4, paragraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (c), \u2018EUR 1 600 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 1 650 000\u2019;\n(b)\nin point (e), \u2018EUR 16 800 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 1 700 000\u2019;\n(c)\npoints (i) and (j) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(i)\nEUR 19 000 000 for Spain;\n(j)\nEUR 33 500 000 for France;\u2019;\n(d)\npoints (l) and (m) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(l)\nEUR 20 000 for Latvia;\n(m)\nEUR 10 000 for Lithuania;\u2019;\n(e)\nin point (o), \u2018EUR 780 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 70 000\u2019;\n(f)\nin point (q), \u2018EUR 110 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 130 000\u2019;\n(g)\nin point (t), \u2018EUR 5 200 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 2 100 000\u2019;\n(h)\nin point (v), \u2018EUR 590 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 40 000\u2019;\n(i)\npoints (x) and (y) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(x)\nEUR 20 000 for Finland;\n(y)\nEUR 850 000 for Sweden.\u2019;\n5.\nin Article 5, paragraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (a), \u2018EUR 2 000 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 900 000\u2019;\n(b)\npoints (d) and (e) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nEUR 400 000 for Denmark;\n(e)\nEUR 25 000 for Estonia;\u2019;\n(c)\nin point (i), \u2018EUR 2 500 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 1 400 000\u2019;\n(d)\nin point (k), \u2018EUR 1 250 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 900 000\u2019;\n(e)\npoints (m) and (n) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(m)\nEUR 50 000 for Latvia;\n(n)\nEUR 10 000 for Lithuania;\u2019;\n(f)\npoints (t) and (u) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(t)\nEUR 4 600 000 for Poland;\n(u)\nEUR 55 000 for Portugal;\u2019;\n(g)\npoints (x) and (y) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(x)\nEUR 600 000 for Slovakia;\n(y)\nEUR 80 000 for the United Kingdom.\u2019;\n6.\nin Article 6, paragraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (a), \u2018EUR 240 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 120 000\u2019;\n(b)\nin point (f), \u2018EUR 300 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 550 000\u2019;\n(c)\nin point (i), \u2018EUR 515 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 250 000\u2019;\n7.\nin Article 7(2), \u2018EUR 450 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 250 000\u2019;\n8.\nin Article 8, paragraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (e), \u2018EUR 350 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 450 000\u2019;\n(b)\nin point (k), \u2018EUR 650 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 1 300 000\u2019;\n(c)\nin point (t), \u2018EUR 200 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 40 000\u2019;\n9.\nArticle 9 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The financial contribution by the Union shall be at the rate of 100 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for carrying out rapid tests in animals as referred to in Article 12 paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, Annex III Chapter A Parts I and II points 1 to 5 of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 and Annex VII to that Regulation, confirmatory tests and primary molecular discriminatory tests as referred to in of Annex X Chapter C point 3(2)(c)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 and at the rate of 50 % of the cost incurred by each Member State for the compensation to owners for the value of their animals culled and destroyed in accordance with their BSE and scrapie eradication programmes and at a rate of 50 % of the cost of the analysis of samples for genotyping, and shall not exceed:\n(a)\nEUR 2 340 000 for Belgium;\n(b)\nEUR 440 000 for Bulgaria;\n(c)\nEUR 1 380 000 for the Czech Republic;\n(d)\nEUR 1 420 000 for Denmark;\n(e)\nEUR 11 260 000 for Germany;\n(f)\nEUR 300 000 for Estonia;\n(g)\nEUR 4 700 000 for Ireland;\n(h)\nEUR 2 000 000 for Greece;\n(i)\nEUR 6 480 000 for Spain;\n(j)\nEUR 16 980 000 for France;\n(k)\nEUR 7 210 000 for Italy;\n(l)\nEUR 70 000 for Cyprus;\n(m)\nEUR 360 000 for Latvia;\n(n)\nEUR 700 000 for Lithuania;\n(o)\nEUR 100 000 for Luxembourg;\n(p)\nEUR 1 230 000 for Hungary;\n(q)\nEUR 30 000 for Malta;\n(r)\nEUR 3 370 000 for the Netherlands;\n(s)\nEUR 1 510 000 for Austria;\n(t)\nEUR 4 930 000 for Poland;\n(u)\nEUR 1 640 000 for Portugal;\n(v)\nEUR 1 000 000 for Romania;\n(w)\nEUR 240 000 for Slovenia;\n(x)\nEUR 650 000 for Slovakia;\n(y)\nEUR 610 000 for Finland;\n(z)\nEUR 970 000 for Sweden;\n(za)\nEUR 5 920 000 for the United Kingdom.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, in point (a), \u2018EUR 5 per test\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 8 per test\u2019;\n10.\nin Article 10, paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The financial contribution by the Union shall be at the rate of 75 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for the cost of carrying out laboratory tests for the detection of rabies antigen or antibodies, the isolation and characterisation of the rabies virus, the detection of biomarker and the titration of vaccine baits, and for the purchase and distribution of vaccine plus baits for the programmes, and shall not exceed:\n(a)\nEUR 1 870 000 for Bulgaria;\n(b)\nEUR 680 000 for Hungary;\n(c)\nEUR 7 380 000 for Poland;\n(d)\nEUR 820 000 for Romania;\n(e)\nEUR 490 000 for Slovakia.\n3. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\nfor a serological test: EUR 12 per test;\n(b)\nfor a test to detect tetracycline in bone: EUR 12 per test;\n(c)\nfor a fluorescent antibody test (FAT): EUR 18 per test.\u2019;\n11.\nin Article 11, paragraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (b), \u2018EUR 20 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 40 000\u2019;\n(b)\nin point (d), \u2018EUR 1 400 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 650 000\u2019;\n12.\nin Article 12, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The financial contribution by the Union to the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred by the concerned Member State for the cost of laboratory tests, and shall not exceed:\n(a)\nEUR 25 000 for Bulgaria;\n(b)\nEUR 300 000 for Hungary;\n(c)\nEUR 1 000 000 for Poland;\n(d)\nEUR 700 000 for Spain.\u2019;\n13.\nin Article 13, paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The financial contribution by the Union shall be at the rate of 75 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 for the cost of carrying out laboratory tests for the detection of rabies antigen or antibodies, the characterisation of the rabies virus, the detection of biomarker, age determination and the titration of vaccine baits, and for the purchase and distribution of vaccine plus baits for the programmes, and shall not exceed:\n(a)\nEUR 1 360 000 for Estonia;\n(b)\nEUR 1 400 000 for Latvia;\n(c)\nEUR 540 000 for Lithuania;\n(d)\nEUR 200 000 for Austria;\n(e)\nEUR 830 000 for Slovenia;\n(f)\nEUR 150 000 for Finland.\n4. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the programmes referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\nfor a serological test: EUR 12 per test;\n(b)\nfor a test to detect tetracycline in bone: EUR 12 per test;\n(c)\nfor a fluorescent antibody test (FAT): EUR 18 per test.\u2019;\n14.\nin Article 14(2), \u2018EUR 262 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 310 000\u2019;\n15.\nin Article 15, paragraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (a) \u2018EUR 800 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 600 000\u2019;\n(b)\nin point (c) \u2018EUR 750 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 500 000\u2019;\n16.\nin Article 16(2), in the introductory phrase, \u2018EUR 8 200 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 4 000 000\u2019.\nArticle 5\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["84", "41", "27", "28", "61", "82", "15", "24", "44", "4", "1", "23", "13", "3", "74", "70", "32", "8", "71", "21", "45", "33", "92", "47", "34", "49", "89", "85", "95", "65", "No Label", "10", "38", "46", "58", "66", "96"], "gold": ["10", "38", "46", "58", "66", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 222/2012\nof 14 March 2012\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance triclabendazole\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit (MRL) for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nTriclabendazole is currently included in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as an allowed substance, for all ruminants, applicable to muscle, fat, liver and kidney, excluding animals producing milk for human consumption.\n(4)\nIreland has submitted to the European Medicines Agency a request for an opinion for the extrapolation of the existing entry for triclabendazole applicable to all ruminants\u2019 milk.\n(5)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use has recommended the establishment of provisional MRLs for triclabendazole for all ruminants\u2019 milk and the removal of the provision \u2018Not for use in animals producing milk for human consumption\u2019.\n(6)\nThe entry for triclabendazole in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to include the recommended provisional MRL for all ruminants\u2019 milk and to remove the existing provision \u2018Not for use in animals producing milk for human consumption\u2019. The provisional MRL set out in that table for triclabendazole should expire on 1 January 2014. The CVMP recommended a two-year period to allow for the completion of scientific studies required to respond to the list of questions addressed by the CVMP to Ireland.\n(7)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period of time for the stakeholders concerned to take measures that may be required to comply with the newly set MRL.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 14 May 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 March 2012.", "references": ["89", "2", "41", "64", "74", "52", "57", "5", "77", "31", "33", "48", "78", "47", "18", "22", "27", "61", "42", "86", "96", "99", "37", "17", "0", "45", "20", "84", "13", "50", "No Label", "25", "38", "65", "69", "70", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "65", "69", "70", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 December 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement on the promotion, provision and use of Galileo and GPS satellite-based navigation systems and related applications between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the United States of America, of the other part\n(2011/901/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 171 and Article 172, first subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 218 (6) (a) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 30 September 1999, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the United States of America for the conclusion of an agreement concerning the development of a Civil Global Navigation System.\n(2)\nIn accordance with the decision of the Council of 22 June 2004, the Agreement on the promotion, provision and use of Galileo and GPS satellite based navigation systems and related applications between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the United States of America, of the other part (Agreement), was signed in Dromoland Castle, Ireland, on 26 June 2004 and has been provisionally applied since 1 November 2008, pending its entry into force.\n(3)\nMember States will be represented, as appropriate, in the working groups established by virtue of the Agreement.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement on the promotion, provision and use of Galileo and GPS satellite-based navigation systems and related applications between the the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the United States of America, of the other part, is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union deliver to the United States of America the diplomatic note provided for in Article 20(1) of the Agreement (2) and make the following notification:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d in the text of the Agreement are, where appropriate, to be read as to \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019.\nArticle 3\n1. The Union shall be represented in the working groups established under Article 13 of the Agreement by a representative of the Commission and the Member States, as appropriate, by their respective representative.\n2. The information referred to in Article 19(2) of the Agreement shall be provided jointly by the Union and the Member States. The Commission shall present the information on behalf of the Union and the Member States.\n3. The position to be taken by the Union in the groups referred to in paragraph 6 of the Annex to the Agreement shall be adopted by the Council, on a proposal from the Commission.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 December 2011.", "references": ["99", "69", "68", "36", "39", "1", "32", "91", "35", "77", "57", "14", "27", "47", "4", "46", "0", "45", "43", "74", "65", "73", "64", "53", "71", "59", "2", "51", "82", "84", "No Label", "3", "9", "40", "54", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "40", "54", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 327/2010\nof 21 April 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of a new use of 3-phytase as a feed additive for all minor avian species, other than ducks, and for ornamental birds (holder of authorisation BASF SE)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of a new use of 3-phytase, an enzyme preparation produced by Aspergillus niger (CBS 101.672), as a feed additive for minor avian species and for ornamental birds, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of that preparation was authorised for weaned piglets, pigs for fattening and chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 243/2007 (2), for laying hens and turkeys for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1142/2007 (3), for ducks by Commission Regulation (EC) No 165/2008 (4) and for sows by Commission Regulation (EC) No 505/2008 (5).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for authorisation for minor avian species and for ornamental birds. The European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 9 December 2009 (6) that 3-phytase does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that it is efficacious in improving digestibility of feed. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of 3-phytase shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised, as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018digestibility enhancer\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 April 2010.", "references": ["30", "75", "43", "80", "24", "55", "45", "99", "60", "97", "29", "8", "71", "33", "9", "93", "82", "13", "65", "31", "18", "95", "46", "76", "62", "34", "14", "59", "0", "79", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 860/2011\nof 25 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 August 2011.", "references": ["50", "26", "85", "65", "98", "83", "57", "73", "96", "15", "20", "13", "62", "47", "53", "18", "51", "33", "37", "72", "29", "41", "49", "70", "1", "0", "39", "95", "89", "36", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 152/2012\nof 21 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2012.", "references": ["77", "60", "97", "67", "32", "81", "34", "80", "99", "51", "41", "75", "85", "37", "98", "25", "54", "11", "82", "2", "9", "73", "31", "30", "86", "83", "29", "16", "64", "63", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 918/2011\nof 13 September 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for forkbeards in EU and international waters of VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of a Member State of the European Union\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2011 and 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member States referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member States referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member States referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2011.", "references": ["65", "97", "82", "58", "86", "81", "22", "38", "19", "9", "53", "48", "28", "98", "23", "46", "92", "57", "60", "80", "21", "59", "76", "44", "43", "35", "84", "3", "69", "54", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "96"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 May 2011\nadjusting the weightings applicable from 1 February, 1 March, 1 April, 1 May and 1 June 2010 to the remuneration of officials, temporary staff and contract staff of the European Union serving in third countries\n(2011/313/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 336 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the conditions of employment of other servants of the Communities laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council (1), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, the weightings to be applied from 1 July 2009 to the remuneration of officials, temporary staff and contract staff of the European Union serving in third countries payable in the currency of their country of employment were laid down by Council Regulation (EU) No 768/2010 (2).\n(2)\nSome of these weightings need to be adjusted in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, with effect from 1 February, 1 March, 1 April, 1 May and 1 June 2010, since the statistics available to the Commission show that in certain third countries the variation in the cost of living measured on the basis of the weighting and the corresponding exchange rate has exceeded 5 % (since weightings were last laid down or since they were adjusted by the Commission Decision 2010/790/EU (3)),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe weightings applied to the remuneration of officials, temporary staff and contract staff of the European Union serving in third countries, payable in the currency of the country of employment, shall be adjusted for certain countries as shown in the Annex hereto. It contains five monthly tables showing which countries are affected and the dates of application for each one (1 February 2010, 1 March 2010, 1 April 2010, 1 May 2010 and 1 June 2010).\nThe exchange rates used for the calculation of this remuneration shall be established in accordance with the detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation and correspond to the dates referred to in the first paragraph.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the first day of the month following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 26 May 2011.", "references": ["16", "36", "67", "91", "98", "75", "50", "49", "46", "11", "84", "45", "73", "6", "13", "5", "78", "72", "23", "27", "10", "76", "15", "88", "83", "39", "81", "59", "95", "0", "No Label", "2", "4", "7", "28", "52"], "gold": ["2", "4", "7", "28", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 372/2012\nof 30 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 April 2012.", "references": ["21", "92", "78", "42", "96", "49", "2", "95", "7", "50", "16", "43", "87", "5", "73", "94", "9", "76", "23", "69", "86", "70", "99", "89", "93", "33", "47", "64", "36", "97", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 8 March 2012\non the conclusion of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, on a framework agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the general principles for the participation of the Kingdom of Morocco in Union programmes\n(2012/176/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217, in conjunction with point (a)(i) of Article 218(6) and the second subparagraph of Article 218(8), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, on a framework agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the general principles for the participation of the Kingdom of Morocco in Union programmes (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019) was signed on behalf of the Union on 7 October 2010.\n(2)\nAs a result of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(3)\nThe Protocol should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, on a framework agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the general principles for the participation of the Kingdom of Morocco in Union programmes is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall give, on behalf of the Union, the notification provided for in Article 10 of the Protocol.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2012.", "references": ["26", "60", "41", "63", "51", "54", "11", "70", "59", "88", "80", "77", "25", "28", "33", "99", "38", "76", "68", "23", "67", "98", "91", "95", "57", "39", "12", "6", "69", "92", "No Label", "3", "9", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 318/2011\nof 31 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["4", "86", "7", "82", "98", "12", "67", "74", "97", "72", "16", "48", "30", "2", "1", "78", "25", "27", "80", "15", "73", "10", "77", "11", "40", "93", "29", "36", "3", "99", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 153/2011\nof 18 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 February 2011.", "references": ["40", "44", "85", "26", "89", "93", "16", "84", "8", "94", "64", "88", "30", "52", "80", "21", "58", "41", "96", "74", "51", "7", "77", "60", "45", "79", "49", "47", "78", "42", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 251/2012\nof 21 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2012.", "references": ["88", "77", "97", "15", "33", "37", "16", "28", "48", "0", "93", "43", "55", "83", "90", "10", "17", "62", "23", "89", "44", "24", "31", "58", "34", "12", "32", "87", "42", "39", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 229/2012\nof 15 March 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 March 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 March 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 March 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 March 2012.", "references": ["2", "96", "5", "97", "3", "32", "49", "84", "47", "15", "28", "55", "37", "13", "93", "72", "83", "27", "74", "66", "67", "87", "8", "0", "89", "19", "86", "58", "26", "46", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 956/2011\nof 26 September 2011\nimplementing Articles 12(1) and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 356/2010 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain natural or legal persons, entities or bodies, in view of the situation in Somalia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 356/2010 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain natural or legal persons, entities or bodies, in view of the situation in Somalia (1), and in particular Articles 12(1) and 13 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 April 2010, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 356/2010 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain natural or legal persons, entities or bodies, in view of the situation in Somalia.\n(2)\nOn 28 July 2011, the Sanctions Committee established pursuant to UNSCR 751 (1992) concerning Somalia updated the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EU) No 356/2010 shall be replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 September 2011.", "references": ["76", "49", "33", "18", "63", "86", "99", "32", "37", "12", "92", "44", "61", "9", "47", "8", "73", "36", "40", "58", "90", "1", "60", "46", "82", "42", "22", "84", "0", "81", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1206/2011\nof 22 November 2011\nlaying down requirements on aircraft identification for surveillance for the single European sky\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the interoperability of the European Air traffic Management Network (the interoperability Regulation) (1) and in particular Article 3(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has issued a mandate to Eurocontrol in accordance with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (2) to develop requirements for the performance and the interoperability of surveillance within the European air traffic management network (EATMN). This Regulation is based on the resulting mandate report of 9 July 2010.\n(2)\nIndividual aircraft identification should be established in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) procedures before air traffic services using a surveillance system are provided for the aircraft.\n(3)\nSeamless operations dependon the unambiguous and continuous identification of individual aircraft operating as general air traffic under instrument flight rules throughout the airspace of the single European sky.\n(4)\nThe current method for identifying individual aircraft uses discrete secondary surveillance radar transponder codes (\"SSR codes\" - ), assigned in accordance with ICAO procedures and the air navigation plan for the European region.\n(5)\nTraffic growth over the last decade has resulted in a routine lack of available discrete SSR codes to meet demand during peak periods, and so individual aircraft identification in European airspace cannot currently be guaranteed.\n(6)\nAn initial operational capability to use the downlinked aircraft identification feature should be deployed in a harmonised manner within a defined volume of airspace of the single European sky in order to reduce the overall demand for discrete SSR code assignments to achieve individual aircraft identification.\n(7)\nIn order to optimise the availability of discrete SSR codes, improved and harmonised capabilities for the automatic assignment of SSR codes to aircraft should be deployed by those air navigation service providers that will not have a capability to use the downlinked aircraft identification feature.\n(8)\nA capability to use the downlinked aircraft identification feature throughout the airspace of the single European sky should be deployed in order to overcome the need for discrete SSR codes to identify general air traffic operating under instrument flight rules.\n(9)\nA reduction in the requirement for discrete SSR code assignments when using the downlinked aircraft identification feature - can best be achieved by the integrated initial flight plan processing system identifying those flights that are eligible for the assignment of an agreed conspicuity code and on air navigation service providers assigning the agreed conspicuity code to those eligible flights when identification using the downlinked aircraft identification feature is successful.\n(10)\nThe downlinked aircraft identification feature can only be used to achieve individual aircraft identification where air navigation service providers deploy appropriate surveillance sensors, surveillance data processing and distribution system functionality, flight data processing system functionality, air-to-ground and ground-to-ground communications, controller display functionality, and provide for procedures and personnel training.\n(11)\nThe degree to which air navigation service providers can actually employ the capability to use the downlinked aircraft identification feature to reduce the requirement for the assignment of discrete SSR codes is dependent on the level of equipage of aircraft with the downlinked aircraft identification feature, on the extent that the routes of those aircraft are within contiguous coverage of systems providing the capability, and on the overarching requirement to ensure efficient and safe operations.\n(12)\nWarnings of the unintentional duplication of SSR code assignments to more than one aircraft should be provided to controllers in order to prevent the potential misidentification of aircraft.\n(13)\nThe uniform application of specific procedures within the airspace of the single European sky is critical for the achievement of interoperability and seamless operations.\n(14)\nAll changes to facilities and services that are made as a result of the implementation of this Regulation should be reflected by Member States in the ICAO European Air Navigation Plan through the normal procedure for amendment.\n(15)\nThis Regulation should not cover military operations and training as referred in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004.\n(16)\nWith a view to maintaining or enhancing existing safety levels of operations, Member States should be required to ensure that the parties concerned conduct a safety assessment including hazard identification, risk assessment and mitigation processes. Harmonised implementation of these processes to the systems covered by this Regulation requires the identification of specific safety requirements for all interoperability and performance requirements.\n(17)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 552/2004, implementing rules for interoperability should describe the specific conformity assessment procedures to be used to assess either the conformity or the suitability for use of constituents as well as the verification of systems.\n(18)\nIn the case of air traffic services provided primarily to aircraft flying as general air traffic under military supervision, procurement constraints could prevent compliance with this Regulation.\n(19)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down requirements for the systems contributing to the provision of surveillance information, their constituents and associated procedures in order to ensure the unambiguous and continuous individual identification of aircraft within the EATMN.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to the surveillance chain constituted of:\n(a)\nairborne constituents of surveillance systems and their associated procedures;\n(b)\nground-based surveillance systems, their constituents and associated procedures;\n(c)\nsystems and procedures for air traffic services, in particular flight data processing systems, surveillance data processing systems and human machine interface systems;\n(d)\nground-to-ground and air-to-ground communication systems, their constituents and associated procedures used for the distribution of surveillance data.\n2. This Regulation shall apply to all flights operating as general air traffic in accordance with instrument flight rules within the airspace defined in Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the definitions in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 shall apply.\nThe following definitions shall also apply:\n(1)\n\u2018aircraft identification\u2019 means a group of letters, figures or a combination thereof which is either identical to, or the coded equivalent of, the aircraft call sign to be used in air-ground communications, and which is used to identify the aircraft in ground-ground air traffic services communications;\n(2)\n\u2018SSR code\u2019 means one of the 4 096 secondary surveillance radar identity codes that can be transmitted by airborne constituents of surveillance systems;\n(3)\n\u2018discrete SSR code\u2019 means a four-digit secondary surveillance radar identity code with the last two digits not being \u201c00\u201d;\n(4)\n\u2018downlinked aircraft identification\u2019 means the aircraft identification transmitted by airborne constituents of surveillance systems via an air-to-ground surveillance system;\n(5)\n\u2018conspicuity code\u2019 means an individual SSR code designated for special purposes;\n(6)\n\u2018over-flight\u2019 means a flight that enters defined airspace from an adjacent sector, then transits across the defined airspace and exits the defined airspace into an adjacent sector outside;\n(7)\n\u2018arriving flight\u2019 means a flight that enters defined airspace from an adjacent sector, then transits across the defined airspace and lands at a destination within the defined airspace;\n(8)\n\u2018departing flight\u2019 means a flight that originates at an aerodrome within defined airspace, then transits across the defined airspace and either lands at an aerodrome within the defined airspace or exits the defined airspace into an adjacent sector outside;\n(9)\n\u2018operator\u2019 means a person, organisation or enterprise engaged in or offering to engage in an aircraft operation;\n(10)\n\u2018code allocation list\u2019 means a document specifying the overall distribution of SSR codes to Member States and air traffic service (ATS) units that has been agreed by Member States and published in the air navigation plan for the ICAO European Region;\n(11)\n\u2018co-operative surveillance chain\u2019 means a surveillance chain requiring both ground and airborne components to determine surveillance data items;\n(12)\n\u2018integrated initial flight plan processing system\u2019 means a system within the European Air Traffic Management Network through which a centralised flight planning processing and distribution service, dealing with the reception, validation and distribution of flight plans, is provided within the airspace covered by this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nPerformance requirements\n1. Member States responsible for the provision of air traffic services in the airspace defined in Annex I shall ensure that a capability is implemented to be able to establish individual aircraft identification using downlinked aircraft identification for:\n(a)\nat least 50 % of all over-flights of the defined airspace of the individual Member State and;\n(b)\nat least 50 % of the combined total number of all arriving flights and departing flights within the defined airspace of the individual Member State.\n2. Air navigation service providers shall ensure that, at the latest, by 2 January 2020, the cooperative surveillance chain has the necessary capability to allow them to establish individual aircraft identification using the downlinked aircraft identification feature.\n3. Air navigation service providers establishing individual aircraft identification using the downlinked aircraft identification feature shall ensure that they comply with the requirements laid down in Annex II.\n4. Air navigation service providers establishing individual aircraft identification using discrete SSR codes outside of the airspace defined in Annex I shall ensure that they comply with the requirements laid down in Annex III.\n5. Air navigation service providers shall ensure that:\n(a)\nsystems referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 2(1) are deployed as necessary to support the requirements laid down in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article;\n(b)\nsystems or procedures referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 2(1) are deployed as necessary to inform controllers when SSR code assignments are unintentionally duplicated.\n6. Member States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nvolumes of airspace are declared to the centralised flight planning processing and distribution service referred to in point (1) of Annex II to support the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article and point (b) of this paragraph;\n(b)\nthe integrated initial flight plan processing system communicates to all affected air navigation service providers those flights that are eligible for the use of the conspicuity code referred to in point (c);\n(c)\na single conspicuity code is agreed by all Member States and coordinated with European third countries for assignment solely to aircraft where individual aircraft identification is established by using the downlinked aircraft identification feature.\nArticle 5\nSafety requirements\n1. Member States shall ensure that any changes to the existing systems referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 2(1) or the introduction of new systems are preceded by a safety assessment, including hazard identification, risk assessment and mitigation, conducted by the parties concerned.\n2. During the assessments identified in paragraph 1, the requirements set out in Annex IV shall be taken into consideration as a minimum.\nArticle 6\nConformity or suitability for use of constituents\nBefore issuing an EC declaration of conformity or suitability for use provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 552/2004, manufacturers of constituents of the systems referred to in Article 2(1) of this Regulation or their authorised representatives established in the Union, shall assess the conformity or suitability for use of those constituents in compliance with the requirements set out in Annex V.\nHowever, certification processes complying with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), shall be considered as acceptable procedures for the conformity assessment of constituents if they include the demonstration of compliance with the applicable performance and safety requirements of this Regulation.\nArticle 7\nVerification of systems\n1. Air navigation service providers which can demonstrate or have demonstrated that they fulfil the conditions set out in Annex VI shall conduct a verification of the systems referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 2(1) in compliance with the requirements set out in Part A of Annex VII.\n2. Air navigation service providers which cannot demonstrate that they fulfil the conditions set out in Annex VI shall sub-contract to a notified body a verification of the systems referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 2(1) This verification shall be conducted in compliance with the requirements set out in Part B of Annex VII.\n3. Certification processes complying with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 shall be considered as acceptable procedures for the verification of systems if they include the demonstration of compliance with the applicable performance and safety requirements of this Regulation.\nArticle 8\nAdditional requirements for air navigation service providers\n1. Air navigation service providers shall ensure that all personnel concerned are made duly aware of the requirements laid down in this Regulation and that they are adequately trained for their job functions.\n2. Air navigation service providers shall:\n(a)\ndevelop and maintain operations manuals containing the necessary instructions and information to enable all related personnel to apply this Regulation;\n(b)\nensure that the manuals referred to in point (a) are accessible and kept up-to-date and that their update and distribution are subject to appropriate quality and documentation configuration management;\n(c)\nensure that the working methods and operating procedures comply with this Regulation.\nArticle 9\nAdditional requirements for operators\n1. Operators shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the personnel operating and maintaining surveillance equipment are made aware of the relevant provisions of this Regulation and that they are adequately trained for their job functions, and that instructions about how to use that equipment are available in the cockpit.\n2. Operators shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the downlinked aircraft identification feature is provided on aircraft when operationally required as set out in Article 4(1) and (2).\n3. Operators shall ensure that the setting of the downlinked aircraft identification feature referred to in paragraph 4 complies with item 7 \u2018aircraft identification\u2019 of the flight plan referred to in point 2 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1033/2006 (5).\n4. Operators of those aircraft having the capability to change the downlinked aircraft identification feature referred to in paragraph 2 when airborne shall ensure that the downlinked aircraft identification feature is not changed during the flight unless requested by the air navigation service provider.\nArticle 10\nAdditional requirements for Member States\nMember States shall ensure compliance with this Regulation including the publication of relevant information in the national aeronautical information publications.\nArticle 11\nExemptions\n1. For the specific case of approach areas where air traffic services are provided by military units or under military supervision and when procurement constraints prevent compliance with Article 4(2), Member States shall communicate to the Commission by 31 December 2017 at the latest, the date of compliance with downlinked aircraft identification that shall not be later than 2 January 2025.\n2. Following consultation with the Network Manager and not later than 31 December 2018, the Commission may review the exemptions communicated under paragraph 1 that could have a significant impact on the EATMN.\nArticle 12\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 9 February 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2011.", "references": ["32", "31", "34", "26", "87", "18", "39", "42", "19", "81", "50", "7", "71", "25", "85", "93", "84", "41", "97", "59", "52", "69", "12", "75", "51", "62", "98", "0", "94", "24", "No Label", "40", "53", "57"], "gold": ["40", "53", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 November 2010\napproving annual and multiannual programmes and the financial contribution from the Union for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses presented by the Member States for 2011 and following years\n(notified under document C(2010) 8125)\n(2010/712/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 27(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the Union financial contribution for programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses.\n(2)\nIn addition, Article 27(1) of Decision 2009/470/EC provides that a Union financial measure is to be introduced to reimburse the expenditure incurred by the Member States for the financing of national programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of the animal diseases and zoonoses listed in Annex 1 to that Decision.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2008/341/EC of 25 April 2008 laying down Community criteria for national programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses (2) provides that in order to be approved under the Union financial measures, programmes submitted by the Member States must meet at least the criteria set out in the Annex to that Decision.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (3) provides for annual monitoring programmes by Member States for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in bovine, ovine and caprine animals.\n(5)\nCouncil Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza (4) also provides for surveillance programmes by Member States to be carried out in respect of poultry and wild birds in order to contribute, inter alia, on the basis of regularly updated risk-assessments, to the knowledge on the threats posed by the wild birds in relation to any influenza virus of avian origin in birds. Those annual programmes, and their financing, for monitoring should also be approved.\n(6)\nCertain Member States have submitted to the Commission annual programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases, programmes of checks aimed at the prevention of zoonoses, and annual monitoring programmes for the eradication and monitoring of certain TSEs for which they wish to receive a financial contribution from the Union.\n(7)\nFor the years 2009 and 2010 certain multiannual programmes submitted by Member States for the eradication, control and monitoring of the animal diseases were approved under Commission Decisions 2008/897/EC (5) and 2009/883/EC (6).\n(8)\nThe commitment of the expenditure for those multiannual programmes was adopted in accordance with Article 76(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (7). The first budget commitment for those programmes was made after their approval. Each subsequent annual commitment should be made by the Commission in function of the execution of the programme for the previous year, on the basis of a decision to grant a contribution referred to in Article 27(5) of Decision 2009/470/EC.\n(9)\nRabies programmes in most Member States are now approaching the stage of achieving their objective of eradicating this important public health threat. It is appropriate to provide additional support to these programmes through a higher level of financial contribution by the Union, in order to reinforce the efforts of the Member States to eradicate that disease as soon as possible.\n(10)\nCertain Member States which have been successfully implementing rabies eradication programmes that have been co-financed for several years, share land borders with third countries where that disease is present. In order to finally eradicate rabies, certain vaccination activities need to be carried out in the territory of those third countries adjacent to the Union.\n(11)\nThe Commission has assessed the annual programmes submitted by the Member States, as well as the third and second years respectively of the multiannual programmes approved for 2009 and 2010, from both the veterinary and financial point of view. Those programmes comply with the relevant Union veterinary legislation and in particular with the criteria set out in Decision 2008/341/EC.\n(12)\nIn the light of the importance of the annual and multiannual programmes for the achievement of Union objectives in the field of animal and public health, as well as the obligatory application in all Member States in the case of the TSE and avian influenza programmes, it is appropriate to fix the appropriate rate of the Union financial contribution to reimburse the costs to be incurred by the Member States concerned for the measures referred to in this Decision up to a maximum amount for each programme.\n(13)\nIn the interests of better management and a more efficient use of Union funds and improved transparency, it is also necessary to fix for each programme, where appropriate, the average cost to be reimbursed to the Member States for certain measures, such as the costs of the tests used in the Member States and the compensation payable to owners for their losses due to the slaughter or culling of animals. It is also necessary to clarify which expenditure is eligible for a Union financial contribution. For that reasons, a clarification of eligible expenditure should be included.\n(14)\nUnder Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (8), programmes for the eradication and control of animal diseases are to be financed under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. For financial control purposes, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of that Regulation are to apply.\n(15)\nThe financial contribution from the Union should be granted subject to the condition that the actions planned are efficiently carried out and that the competent authorities supply all the necessary information within the time limits laid down in this Decision.\n(16)\nFor reasons of administrative efficiency all expenditure submitted for a financial contribution by the Union should be expressed in euro. In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the conversion rate for expenditure in a currency other than the euro should be the most recent exchange rate set by the European Central Bank prior to the first day of the month in which the application is submitted by the Member State concerned.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nCHAPTER I\nANNUAL PROGRAMMES\nArticle 1\nBovine brucellosis\n1. The programmes for the eradication of bovine brucellosis submitted by Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Portugal and the United Kingdom are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall include a lump sum of EUR 0,5 per domestic animal sampled;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for the cost of:\n(i)\ncarrying out laboratory tests;\n(ii)\nthe compensation to be paid to owners for the value of their animals slaughtered subject to those programmes;\n(iii)\nthe purchase of vaccine doses; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 5 600 000 for Spain;\n(ii)\nEUR 3 500 000 for Italy;\n(iii)\nEUR 80 000 for Cyprus;\n(iv)\nEUR 1 600 000 for Portugal;\n(v)\nEUR 5 000 000 for the United Kingdom.\n3. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\n:\nfor a rose bengal test\n:\nEUR 0,2 per test;\n(b)\n:\nfor a SAT test\n:\nEUR 0,2 per test;\n(c)\n:\nfor a complement fixation test\n:\nEUR 0,4 per test;\n(d)\n:\nfor an ELISA test\n:\nEUR 1 per test;\n(e)\n:\nfor animals slaughtered\n:\nEUR 375 per animal.\nArticle 2\nBovine tuberculosis\n1. The programmes for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis submitted by Ireland, Spain, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall include a lump sum of EUR 0,5 per domestic animal sampled:\n(i)\nfor a gamma-interferon test;\n(ii)\nsuspected positive in the slaughterhouse;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for:\n(i)\nthe costs of carrying out tuberculin and laboratory tests;\n(ii)\nthe compensation to be paid to owners for the value of their animals slaughtered subject to those programmes; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 16 000 000 for Ireland;\n(ii)\nEUR 15 000 000 for Spain;\n(iii)\nEUR 7 500 000 for Italy;\n(iv)\nEUR 1 200 000 for Portugal;\n(v)\nEUR 23 000 000 for the United Kingdom.\n3. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\n:\nfor a tuberculin test\n:\nEUR 2 per test;\n(b)\n:\nfor a gamma-interferon test\n:\nEUR 5 per test;\n(c)\n:\nfor animals slaughtered\n:\nEUR 375 per animal.\nArticle 3\nOvine and caprine brucellosis\n1. The programmes for the eradication of ovine and caprine brucellosis submitted by Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, and Portugal are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall include a lump sum of EUR 0,5 per domestic animal sampled;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for:\n(i)\nthe purchase of vaccines;\n(ii)\nthe cost of carrying out laboratory tests;\n(iii)\nthe compensation to be paid to owners for the value of their animals slaughtered subject to those programmes; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 160 000 for Greece;\n(ii)\nEUR 7 500 000 for Spain;\n(iii)\nEUR 3 500 000 for Italy;\n(iv)\nEUR 200 000 for Cyprus;\n(v)\nEUR 2 200 000 for Portugal.\n3. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\n:\nfor a rose bengal test\n:\nEUR 0,2 per test;\n(b)\n:\nfor a complement fixation test\n:\nEUR 0,4 per test;\n(c)\n:\nfor animals slaughtered\n:\nEUR 50 per animal.\nArticle 4\nBluetongue in endemic or high risk areas\n1. The programmes for the eradication and monitoring of bluetongue submitted by Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall include a lump sum of EUR 0,5 per domestic animal sampled;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for:\n(i)\nthe cost of carrying out the vaccination;\n(ii)\nthe cost of carrying out laboratory tests for virological, serological and entomological surveillance;\n(iii)\nthe purchase of traps and vaccines; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 390 000 for Belgium;\n(ii)\nEUR 10 000 for Bulgaria;\n(iii)\nEUR 1 500 000 for the Czech Republic;\n(iv)\nEUR 40 000 for Denmark;\n(v)\nEUR 400 000 for Germany;\n(vi)\nEUR 10 000 for Estonia;\n(vii)\nEUR 10 000 for Ireland;\n(viii)\nEUR 100 000 for Greece;\n(ix)\nEUR 7 000 000 for Spain;\n(x)\nEUR 3 000 000 for France;\n(xi)\nEUR 300 000 for Italy;\n(xii)\nEUR 50 000 for Latvia;\n(xiii)\nEUR 40 000 for Lithuania;\n(xiv)\nEUR 170 000 for Hungary;\n(xv)\nEUR 10 000 for Malta;\n(xvi)\nEUR 40 000 for the Netherlands;\n(xvii)\nEUR 360 000 for Austria;\n(xviii)\nEUR 50 000 for Poland;\n(xix)\nEUR 2 200 000 for Portugal;\n(xx)\nEUR 100 000 for Romania;\n(xxi)\nEUR 250 000 for Slovenia;\n(xxii)\nEUR 50 000 for Slovakia;\n(xxiii)\nEUR 20 000 for Finland;\n(xxiv)\nEUR 100 000 for Sweden.\n3. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\n:\nfor an ELISA test\n:\nEUR 2,5 per test;\n(b)\n:\nfor a PCR test\n:\nEUR 10 per test;\n(c)\n:\nfor the purchase of monovalent vaccines\n:\nEUR 0,3 per dose;\n(d)\n:\nfor the purchase of bivalent vaccines\n:\nEUR 0,45 per dose;\n(e)\n:\nfor the administration of vaccines to bovine animals\n:\nEUR 1,50 per bovine animal vaccinated, regardless of the number and types of doses used;\n(f)\n:\nfor the administration of vaccines to ovine or caprine animals\n:\nEUR 0,75 per ovine or caprine animal vaccinated, regardless of the number and types of doses used.\nArticle 5\nSalmonellosis (zoonotic salmonella) in breeding, laying and broiler flocks of Gallus gallus and in flocks of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo)\n1. The programmes for the control of certain zoonotic salmonella in breeding, laying and broiler flocks of Gallus gallus and in flocks of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) submitted by Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall include a lump sum of EUR 0,5 per official sample taken;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for the cost of:\n(i)\ncarrying out bacteriological and serotyping tests in the framework of official sampling;\n(ii)\ncarrying out bacteriological tests to verify the efficiency of disinfection;\n(iii)\ncarrying out tests for the detection of antimicrobials or bacterial growth inhibitory effect in tissues from birds from flocks tested for salmonella;\n(iv)\nthe purchase of vaccine doses;\n(v)\nthe compensation to be paid to owners for the value of:\n-\nthe culled breeding and laying birds of Gallus gallus,\n-\nthe culled breeding turkey birds of Meleagris gallopavo,\n-\nthe destroyed eggs as referred to in paragraph 3; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 1 200 000 for Belgium;\n(ii)\nEUR 75 000 for Bulgaria;\n(iii)\nEUR 2 500 000 for the Czech Republic;\n(iv)\nEUR 440 000 for Denmark;\n(v)\nEUR 1 000 000 for Germany;\n(vi)\nEUR 30 000 for Estonia;\n(vii)\nEUR 350 000 for Ireland;\n(viii)\nEUR 1 500 000 for Greece;\n(ix)\nEUR 1 700 000 for Spain;\n(x)\nEUR 2 000 000 for France;\n(xi)\nEUR 1 000 000 for Italy;\n(xii)\nEUR 150 000 for Cyprus;\n(xiii)\nEUR 130 000 for Latvia;\n(xiv)\nEUR 20 000 for Luxembourg;\n(xv)\nEUR 2 000 000 for Hungary;\n(xvi)\nEUR 150 000 for Malta;\n(xvii)\nEUR 3 500 000 for the Netherlands;\n(xviii)\nEUR 1 000 000 for Austria;\n(xix)\nEUR 3 000 000 for Poland;\n(xx)\nEUR 250 000 for Portugal;\n(xxi)\nEUR 500 000 for Romania;\n(xxii)\nEUR 120 000 for Slovenia;\n(xxiii)\nEUR 600 000 for Slovakia;\n(xxiv)\nEUR 75 000 for the United Kingdom.\n3. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\n:\nfor a bacteriological test (cultivation/isolation)\n:\nEUR 7 per test;\n(b)\n:\nfor the purchase of vaccine\n:\nEUR 0,05 per dose;\n(c)\n:\nfor serotyping of relevant isolates of salmonella spp.\n:\nEUR 20 per test;\n(d)\n:\nfor a bacteriological test to verify the efficiency of disinfection of poultry houses after depopulation of a salmonella-positive flock\n:\nEUR 5 per test;\n(e)\n:\nfor a test for the detection of antimicrobials or bacterial growth inhibitory effect in tissues from birds from flocks tested for salmonella\n:\nEUR 5 per test;\n(f)\n:\nfor the compensation to be paid to owners for the value of\n:\n(i)\n:\na parent breeding bird of Gallus gallus culled\n:\nEUR 4 per bird;\n(ii)\n:\na commercial laying bird of Gallus gallus culled\n:\nEUR 2,20 per bird;\n(iii)\n:\na parent breeding turkey bird of Meleagris gallopavo culled\n:\nEUR 12 per bird;\n(iv)\n:\nhatching eggs of parent breeding Gallus gallus\n:\nEUR 0,20 per hatching egg destroyed;\n(v)\n:\ntable eggs of Gallus gallus\n:\nEUR 0,04 per table egg destroyed;\n(vi)\n:\nhatching eggs of parent breeding Meleagris gallopavo\n:\nEUR 0,40 per hatching egg destroyed.\nArticle 6\nClassical swine fever and African swine fever\n1. The programmes for the control and monitoring of:\n(a)\nClassical swine fever submitted by Bulgaria, Germany, France, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011;\n(b)\nAfrican swine fever submitted by Italy is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall include a lump sum of EUR 0,5 per domestic pig sampled and of EUR 5 per wild boar sampled;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred:\n(i)\nby each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for the cost of carrying out virological, histological and serological tests of domestic pigs and wild boars;\n(ii)\nfor the programmes submitted by Bulgaria, Germany, France and Romania for the purchase and distribution of vaccines plus baits for the vaccination of wild boars; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 210 000 for Bulgaria;\n(ii)\nEUR 1 520 000 for Germany;\n(iii)\nEUR 740 000 for France;\n(iv)\nEUR 160 000 for Italy;\n(v)\nEUR 480 000 for Hungary;\n(vi)\nEUR 480 000 for Romania;\n(vii)\nEUR 30 000 for Slovenia;\n(viii)\nEUR 310 000 for Slovakia.\n3. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall on average not exceed for an ELISA test EUR 2,5 per test.\nArticle 7\nSwine vesicular disease\n1. The programme for the eradication of swine vesicular disease submitted by Italy is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall include a lump sum of 0,5 EUR per domestic pig sampled;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the cost of laboratory tests; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed EUR 730 000.\nArticle 8\nAvian influenza in poultry and wild birds\n1. The survey programmes for avian influenza in poultry and wild birds submitted by Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall include a lump sum of EUR 0,5 per poultry sampled and EUR 5 per wild bird sampled;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State for the costs of carrying out laboratory tests; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 70 000 for Belgium;\n(ii)\nEUR 40 000 for Bulgaria;\n(iii)\nEUR 60 000 for the Czech Republic;\n(iv)\nEUR 80 000 for Denmark;\n(v)\nEUR 250 000 for Germany;\n(vi)\nEUR 10 000 for Estonia;\n(vii)\nEUR 60 000 for Ireland;\n(viii)\nEUR 50 000 for Greece;\n(ix)\nEUR 110 000 for Spain;\n(x)\nEUR 200 000 for France;\n(xi)\nEUR 800 000 for Italy;\n(xii)\nEUR 20 000 for Cyprus;\n(xiii)\nEUR 50 000 for Latvia;\n(xiv)\nEUR 10 000 for Lithuania;\n(xv)\nEUR 10 000 for Luxembourg;\n(xvi)\nEUR 300 000 for Hungary;\n(xvii)\nEUR 20 000 for Malta;\n(xviii)\nEUR 300 000 for the Netherlands;\n(xix)\nEUR 50 000 for Austria;\n(xx)\nEUR 120 000 for Poland;\n(xxi)\nEUR 300 000 for Portugal;\n(xxii)\nEUR 350 000 for Romania;\n(xxiii)\nEUR 40 000 for Slovenia;\n(xxiv)\nEUR 30 000 for Slovakia;\n(xxv)\nEUR 30 000 for Finland;\n(xxvi)\nEUR 120 000 for Sweden;\n(xxvii)\nEUR 120 000 for the United Kingdom.\n3. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the tests covered by the programmes shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\n:\nELISA test\n:\nEUR 2 per test;\n(b)\n:\nagar gel immune diffusion test\n:\nEUR 1,2 per test;\n(c)\n:\nHI test for H5/H7\n:\nEUR 12 per test;\n(d)\n:\nvirus isolation test\n:\nEUR 40 per test;\n(e)\n:\nPCR test\n:\nEUR 20 per test.\nArticle 9\nTransmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE), bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and scrapie\n1. The programmes for the monitoring of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE), and for the eradication of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and of scrapie submitted by Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall include a lump sum of 0,5 EUR per domestic animal sampled;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 100 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for the carrying out of:\n(i)\nrapid tests performed to fulfil the requirements of Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, Annex III, Chapter A, Parts I and II, points 1 to 5 to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, and Annex VII to that Regulation;\n(ii)\nconfirmatory tests and primary molecular discriminatory tests as referred to in point 3(2)(c)(i) of Chapter C of Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001;\n(c)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the cost incurred by each Member State for:\n(i)\nthe compensation to be paid to owners for the value of their animals culled and destroyed in accordance with their BSE and scrapie eradication programmes;\n(ii)\nthe analysis of samples for genotyping; and\n(d)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 2 300 000 for Belgium;\n(ii)\nEUR 630 000 for Bulgaria;\n(iii)\nEUR 1 530 000 for the Czech Republic;\n(iv)\nEUR 1 570 000 for Denmark;\n(v)\nEUR 11 750 000 for Germany;\n(vi)\nEUR 330 000 for Estonia;\n(vii)\nEUR 4 250 000 for Ireland;\n(viii)\nEUR 2 500 000 for Greece;\n(ix)\nEUR 6 150 000 for Spain;\n(x)\nEUR 19 850 000 for France;\n(xi)\nEUR 7 000 000 for Italy;\n(xii)\nEUR 3 200 000 for Cyprus;\n(xiii)\nEUR 420 000 for Latvia;\n(xiv)\nEUR 720 000 for Lithuania;\n(xv)\nEUR 125 000 for Luxembourg;\n(xvi)\nEUR 1 380 000 for Hungary;\n(xvii)\nEUR 25 000 for Malta;\n(xviii)\nEUR 3 530 000 for the Netherlands;\n(xix)\nEUR 1 800 000 for Austria;\n(xx)\nEUR 5 440 000 for Poland;\n(xxi)\nEUR 1 450 000 for Portugal;\n(xxii)\nEUR 1 850 000 for Romania;\n(xxiii)\nEUR 275 000 for Slovenia;\n(xxiv)\nEUR 860 000 for Slovakia;\n(xxv)\nEUR 680 000 for Finland;\n(xxvi)\nEUR 1 050 000 for Sweden;\n(xxvii)\nEUR 6 250 000 for the United Kingdom.\n3. The financial contribution by the Union to the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall be for the tests performed and for the animals culled and destroyed and the maximum amount shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\n:\nfor tests carried out in bovine animals\n:\nEUR 8 per test;\n(b)\n:\nfor tests carried out in ovine and caprine animals\n:\nEUR 25 per test;\n(c)\n:\nfor confirmatory and primary molecular discriminatory tests\n:\nEUR 175 per test;\n(d)\n:\nfor genotyping tests\n:\nEUR 10 per test;\n(e)\n:\nfor culled bovine animals\n:\nEUR 500 per animal;\n(f)\n:\nfor culled sheep or goats\n:\nEUR 70 per animal.\nArticle 10\nRabies\n1. The programmes for the eradication of rabies submitted by Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Finland are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall include a lump sum of EUR 5 per wild animal sampled;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 75 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for the cost of:\n(i)\ncarrying out laboratory tests for the detection of rabies antigen or antibodies;\n(ii)\nthe isolation and characterisation of rabies virus;\n(iii)\nthe detection of biomarker and the titration of vaccine baits;\n(iv)\nthe purchase and distribution of oral vaccine plus baits;\n(v)\nthe purchase and administration to livestock of parenteral vaccines; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 1 800 000 for Bulgaria;\n(ii)\nEUR 620 000 for Estonia;\n(iii)\nEUR 1 450 000 for Hungary;\n(iv)\nEUR 6 500 000 for Poland;\n(v)\nEUR 5 000 000 for Romania;\n(vi)\nEUR 700 000 for Slovakia;\n(vii)\nEUR 170 000 for Finland.\n3. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\n:\nfor a serological test\n:\nEUR 12 per test;\n(b)\n:\nfor a test to detect tetracycline in bone\n:\nEUR 12 per test;\n(c)\n:\nfor a fluorescent antibody test (FAT)\n:\nEUR 18 per test;\n(d)\n:\nfor the purchase of oral vaccine plus baits\n:\nEUR 0,60 per dose;\n(e)\n:\nfor the distribution of oral vaccine plus baits\n:\nEUR 0,35 per dose;\n(f)\n:\nfor the purchase of parenteral vaccine\n:\nEUR 1 per dose;\n(g)\n:\nfor the administration of rabies vaccines to livestock animals\n:\nEUR 1,50 per animal vaccinated, regardless of the number of doses used.\n4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 2 and 3, for the part of the Slovakian programme that will be implemented outside its territory, the financial contribution by the Union shall:\n(a)\nbe granted only for the costs of the purchase and of the distribution of oral vaccine plus baits;\n(b)\nbe at the rate of 100 %; and\n(c)\nnot exceed EUR 250 000.\n5. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed for the costs referred to in paragraph 4 shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\n:\nfor the purchase of oral vaccine plus baits\n:\nEUR 0,60 per dose;\n(b)\n:\nfor the distribution of oral vaccine plus baits\n:\nEUR 0,35 per dose.\nCHAPTER II\nMULTI-ANNUAL PROGRAMMES\nArticle 11\nRabies\n1. The multiannual programme for the eradication of rabies submitted by Italy is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2012.\n2. The multiannual programme for the eradication of rabies submitted by Latvia is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2013.\n3. The second year of the multiannual programmes for the eradication of rabies submitted by Lithuania and Austria are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\n4. The fourth year of the multiannual programme for the eradication of rabies submitted by Slovenia is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\n5. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall include a lump sum of EUR 5 per wild animal sampled;\n(b)\nshall be at the rate of 75 % of the costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for the cost of:\n(i)\ncarrying out laboratory tests for the detection of rabies antigen or antibodies;\n(ii)\nthe isolation and characterisation of rabies virus;\n(iii)\nthe detection of biomarker and the titration of vaccine baits;\n(iv)\nthe purchase and distribution of oral vaccine plus baits;\n(v)\nthe purchase and administration to livestock of parenteral vaccines; and\n(c)\nshall not exceed the following for the year 2011:\n(i)\nEUR 2 250 000 for Italy;\n(ii)\nEUR 1 800 000 for Latvia;\n(iii)\nEUR 2 700 000 for Lithuania;\n(iv)\nEUR 200 000 for Austria;\n(v)\nEUR 740 000 for Slovenia.\n6. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\n:\nfor a serological test\n:\nEUR 12 per test;\n(b)\n:\nfor a test to detect tetracycline in bone\n:\nEUR 12 per test;\n(c)\n:\nfor a fluorescent antibody test (FAT)\n:\nEUR 18 per test;\n(d)\n:\nfor the purchase of oral vaccine plus baits\n:\nEUR 0,60 per dose;\n(e)\n:\nfor the distribution of oral vaccine plus baits\n:\nEUR 0,35 per dose;\n(f)\n:\nfor the purchase of parenteral vaccine\n:\nEUR 1 per dose;\n(g)\n:\nfor the administration of rabies vaccines to livestock animals\n:\nEUR 1,50 per animal vaccinated, regardless of the number of doses used.\n7. Notwithstanding paragraphs 5 and 6, for the part of the Lithuanian multiannual programme that will be implemented outside its territory, the financial contribution by the Union shall:\n(a)\nbe granted only for the costs for the purchase and the distribution of oral vaccine plus baits;\n(b)\nbe at the rate of 100 %; and\n(c)\nnot exceed EUR 1 100 000 for the year 2011.\n8. The maximum of the costs to be reimbursed for the costs referred to in paragraph 7 shall on average not exceed:\n(a)\n:\nfor the purchase of oral vaccine plus baits\n:\nEUR 0,60 per dose;\n(b)\n:\nfor the distribution of oral vaccine plus baits\n:\nEUR 0,35 per dose.\nCHAPTER III\nArticle 12\nEligible expenditure\n1. Without prejudice to the upper limits of the financial contribution by the Union provided for in Articles 1 to 11, the eligible expenditure covered by the measures referred to in those Articles shall be limited to the expenditure set out in the Annex.\n2. Only costs incurred in the carrying out of the annual or multiannual programmes referred to in Articles 1 to 11 and paid before the submission of the final report by the Member States shall be eligible for co-financing by means of a financial contribution by the Union with the exception of the costs referred to in Articles 10(4) and 11(7).\nCHAPTER IV\nGENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 13\n1. The compensation to be paid to owners for the value of the animals culled or slaughtered and of the destroyed products shall be granted within 90 days from the date of:\n(a)\nthe slaughter or culling of the animal;\n(b)\nthe destruction of the products; or\n(c)\nthe presentation of the completed claim by the owner.\n2. Article 9(1), (2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 (9) shall apply to compensation payments made after the period 90 days referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.\nArticle 14\n1. The expenditure submitted by the Member States for a financial contribution by the Union shall be expressed in euro and shall exclude value added tax and all other taxes.\n2. Where the expenditure of a Member State is in a currency other than the euro, the Member State concerned shall convert it into euro by applying the most recent exchange rate set by the European Central Bank prior to the first day of the month in which the application is submitted by the Member State.\nArticle 15\n1. The financial contribution by the Union for the annual and multiannual programmes referred to in Articles 1 to 11 (the programmes) shall be granted provided that the Member States concerned:\n(a)\nimplement the programmes in accordance with the relevant provisions of Union law, including rules on competition and on the award of public contracts;\n(b)\nbring into force by 1 January 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for implementing the programmes;\n(c)\nforward to the Commission by 31 July 2011 at the latest, the intermediate technical and financial reports for the programmes, in accordance with Article 27(7)(a) of Decision 2009/470/EC, covering the period from 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2011;\n(d)\nonly for the programmes referred to in Article 8, report to the Commission the positive and negative results of investigations detected during their surveillance of poultry and wild birds through the Commission on-line system, every six months, by submitting those results within a period of four weeks following the end of the last month covered by the report;\n(e)\nforward an annual detailed technical report to the Commission for the programmes in accordance with Article 27(7)(b) of Decision 2009/470/EC by 30 April 2012 at the latest on the technical execution of the programme concerned accompanied by justifying evidence as to the costs paid by the Member State and the results attained during the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011;\n(f)\nimplement the programmes efficiently;\n(g)\ndo not submit further requests for other contributions from the Union for those measures, and have not previously submitted such requests.\n2. Where a Member State does not comply with paragraph 1, the Commission may reduce the financial contribution by the Union having regard to the nature and gravity of the infringement, and to the financial loss for the Union.\nArticle 16\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nArticle 17\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 November 2010.", "references": ["64", "4", "83", "6", "35", "69", "32", "48", "24", "59", "50", "37", "67", "16", "85", "57", "98", "20", "71", "42", "12", "91", "84", "70", "94", "5", "95", "76", "88", "73", "No Label", "10", "38", "46", "61", "66", "96"], "gold": ["10", "38", "46", "61", "66", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 300/2011\nof 25 March 2011\non selling prices for cereals in response to the ninth individual invitations to tender within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 (2) has opened the sales of cereals by tendering procedures, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission has to fix for each cereal and per Member State a minimum selling price or to decide not to fix a minimum selling price.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the ninth individual invitations to tender, it has been decided that a minimum selling price should be fixed for certain cereals and for certain Member States and no minimum selling price should be fixed for other cereals and other Member States.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the ninth individual invitations to tender for selling of cereals within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 23 March 2011, the decisions on the selling price per cereal and Member State are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 March 2011.", "references": ["11", "98", "82", "97", "32", "31", "7", "85", "60", "21", "27", "10", "52", "81", "4", "14", "54", "42", "22", "78", "24", "17", "79", "76", "47", "67", "18", "46", "74", "16", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1186/2011\nof 15 November 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in EU and Norwegian waters of IV north of 53\u00b0 30\u2032 N by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2011.", "references": ["65", "8", "41", "68", "48", "40", "37", "15", "30", "38", "11", "82", "72", "75", "16", "9", "93", "76", "62", "39", "57", "99", "45", "6", "5", "27", "21", "46", "66", "73", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 830/2011\nof 27 July 2011\nestablishing for 2011 the \u2018Prodcom list\u2019 of industrial products provided for by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3924/91\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3924/91 of 19 December 1991 on the establishment of a Community survey of industrial production (1), and in particular Article 2(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EEC) No 3924/91 requires Member States to carry out a Community survey of industrial production.\n(2)\nThe survey of industrial production must be based on a list of products identifying the industrial production to be surveyed.\n(3)\nA list of products is necessary to permit alignment between production statistics and external trade statistics and to afford comparison with the Community product nomenclature CPA.\n(4)\nThe list of products required by Regulation (EEC) No 3924/91, referred to as the \u2018Prodcom list\u2019, is common to all Member States, and is necessary in order to compare data across Member States.\n(5)\nThe Prodcom list needs to be updated; it is therefore necessary to establish the list for 2011.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee established by Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Prodcom list for 2011 shall be as set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2011.", "references": ["95", "65", "85", "98", "76", "26", "73", "12", "84", "64", "43", "66", "99", "97", "36", "83", "5", "55", "57", "0", "16", "78", "1", "62", "2", "59", "89", "81", "20", "41", "No Label", "19", "75", "82"], "gold": ["19", "75", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 21 September 2011\ndetermining the date from which the Visa Information System (VIS) is to start operations in a first region\n(2011/636/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functionning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 48(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission should determine the date from which the VIS is to start operations when the conditions contained in points (a) (b) and (c) of Article 48(1) of the VIS Regulation are met.\n(2)\nIn accordance with point (a) of Article 48(1) and Article 45(2) of the VIS Regulation the Commission adopted three decisions necessary for the technical implementation of the central VIS, the national interfaces and the communication infrastructure between the central VIS and the national interfaces. Those decisions are Commission Decision 2009/377/EC of 5 May 2009 adopting implementing measures for the consultation mechanism and the other procedures referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation) (2), Commission Decision 2009/756/EC of 9 October 2009 laying down specifications for the resolution and use of fingerprints for biometric identification and verification in the Visa Information System (3) and Commission Decision 2009/876/EC of 30 November 2009 adopting technical implementing measures for entering the data and linking applications, for accessing the data, for amending, deleting and advance deleting of data and for keeping and accessing the records of data processing operations in the Visa Information System (4).\n(3)\nIn accordance with point (b) of Article 48(1) of the VIS Regulation, the Commission has declared the successful completion of a comprehensive test of the VIS on the date of adoption of this Decision.\n(4)\nIn accordance with point (c) of Article 48(1) of the VIS Regulation, the Member States have notified the Commission that they have made the necessary technical and legal arrangements to collect and transmit the data referred to in Article 5(1) of the VIS Regulation to the VIS for all applications in the first region, including arrangements for the collection and/or transmission of the data on behalf of another Member State.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 48(4) of the VIS Regulation, the Commission adopted Decision 2010/49/EC of 30 November 2009 determining the first regions for the start of operations of the Visa Information System (VIS) (5). According to that decision, the first region where the collection and transmission of data to the VIS for all applications should start covers Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia.\n(6)\nThe conditions laid down by Article 48(1) of the VIS Regulation thus being fulfilled, it is for the Commission to determine the date from which the VIS is to start operations in the first region.\n(7)\nIn view of the need to set the date for the start of the VIS in the very near future, this Decision should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(8)\nGiven that the VIS Regulation builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark notified the implementation of the VIS Regulation in its national law in accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community. Denmark is therefore bound under international law to implement this Decision.\n(9)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (6). The United Kingdom is therefore not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(10)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (7). Ireland is therefore not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(11)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (8), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (9) on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement.\n(12)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (10), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (11).\n(13)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (12).\n(14)\nAs regards Cyprus, this Decision constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession.\n(15)\nAs regards Bulgaria and Romania, this Decision constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Visa Information System shall start operations in the first region determined by Decision 2010/49/EC on 11 October 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall apply in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 21 September 2011.", "references": ["1", "46", "93", "9", "31", "53", "90", "6", "86", "65", "76", "12", "49", "77", "59", "29", "43", "26", "50", "80", "57", "37", "88", "78", "68", "69", "30", "28", "61", "74", "No Label", "8", "13", "40", "41", "42"], "gold": ["8", "13", "40", "41", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 15/2012\nof 10 January 2012\namending for the 162nd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 28 December 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove six entities from the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply after considering the de-listing request submitted by these entities and the Comprehensive Report of the Ombudsperson established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1904(2009). Furthermore, on 30 December 2011, the Sanctions Committee decided to remove one natural person from the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 January 2012.", "references": ["43", "31", "11", "63", "64", "39", "10", "12", "32", "38", "6", "81", "36", "40", "24", "67", "0", "94", "92", "79", "34", "56", "37", "61", "89", "96", "76", "41", "33", "54", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/149/CFSP\nof 13 March 2012\namending Decision 2010/638/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/638/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea (1).\n(2)\nOn 27 October 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/706/CFSP (2), which extended the restrictive measures laid down in Decision 2010/638/CFSP until 27 October 2012.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to amend the measures on military equipment provided for in Decision 2010/638/CFSP.\n(4)\nDecision 2010/638/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 2(1) of Decision 2010/638/CFSP, points (d) and (e) are replaced and a new point is added as follows:\n\u2018(d)\nreturn of non-combat transport helicopters, stripped of military equipment, solely for the use of the Guinean authorities, provided that the government of the Republic of Guinea has given a prior written undertaking that their use will remain under civilian control and that they will not be equipped with military equipment;\n(e)\nprovision of technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to the items referred to in (a) to (d) or to programmes and operations referred to in (a);\n(f)\nprovision of financing and financial assistance related to the items referred to in (a) to (d) or to programmes and operations referred to in (a);\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 March 2012.", "references": ["29", "61", "97", "34", "87", "82", "89", "95", "32", "13", "59", "48", "58", "2", "0", "52", "24", "65", "12", "60", "36", "7", "43", "88", "85", "19", "27", "90", "39", "41", "No Label", "3", "23", "94"], "gold": ["3", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 723/2011\nof 18 July 2011\nextending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 13 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Existing measures\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (2), (\u2018the original Regulation\u2019), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 85 % on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the PRC\u2019 or \u2018China\u2019) for all companies other than the ones mentioned in Article 1(2) and in Annex 1 to that Regulation. These measures will hereinafter be referred to as \u2018the measures in force\u2019 and the investigation that led to the measures imposed by the original Regulation will be hereinafter referred to as \u2018the original investigation\u2019.\n1.2. Ex-officio initiation\n(2)\nFollowing the original investigation, evidence at the disposal of the Commission indicated that the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the PRC (\u2018the product concerned\u2019) are being circumvented by means of transhipment via Malaysia.\n(3)\nPrima facie evidence at the Commission\u2019s disposal showed that, following the imposition of the measures in force, a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the PRC and Malaysia to the Union occurred, which seemed to be caused by the imposition of the measures in force. There was insufficient due cause or justification other than the imposition of the measures in force for such a change.\n(4)\nFurthermore, the evidence pointed to the fact that the remedial effects of the measures in force were being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. The evidence showed that these increased imports from Malaysia were made at prices below the non-injurious price established in the original investigation.\n(5)\nFinally, there was evidence that prices of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia were dumped in relation to the normal value established for the like product during the original investigation.\n(6)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation, the Commission, on an ex-officio basis, initiated an investigation by Regulation (EU) No 966/2010 (3) (\u2018the initiating Regulation\u2019). Pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission, by the initiating Regulation, also directed the customs authorities to register imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia.\n1.3. Investigation\n(7)\nThe Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC and Malaysia, the exporting producers and traders in those countries, the importers in the Union known to be concerned and the Union industry of the initiation of the investigation. Questionnaires were sent to the producers/exporters in the PRC and Malaysia known to the Commission or which made themselves known within the deadlines specified in recital 19 of the initiating Regulation. Questionnaires were also sent to importers in the Union. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time- limit set in the initiating Regulation.\n(8)\nNineteen exporting producers in Malaysia, three groups of exporting producers in China and three unrelated importers in the Union made themselves known. Several other companies contacted the Commission but claimed that they were not involved in the production or export of the product under investigation.\n(9)\nThe following companies submitted replies to the questionnaires and verification visits were subsequently carried out at their premises, with the exception of Menara Kerjaya Fasteners Sdn. Bhd, TR Formac Sdn. Bhd. and Excel Fastener Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd:\nExporting producers in Malaysia:\n-\nSofasco Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd, Penang,\n-\nTigges Fastener Technology (M) Sdn. Bhd, Ipoh,\n-\nMCP Precision Sdn. Bhd, Penang,\n-\nHBS Fasteners Sdn. Bhd, Klang,\n-\nTZ Fasteners (M) Sdn. Bhd, Klang,\n-\nMenara Kerjaya Fasteners Sdn. Bhd, Penang,\n-\nChin Well Fasteners Company Sdn. Bhd, Penang,\n-\nAcku Metal Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd, Penang,\n-\nGrand Fasteners Sdn. Bhd, Klang,\n-\nJinfast Industries Sdn. Bhd, Penang,\n-\nAndfast Malaysia Sdn. Bhd, Ipoh,\n-\nATC Metal Industrial Sdn. Bhd, Klang,\n-\nPertama Metal Industries Sdn. Bhd, Shah Alam,\n-\nExcel Fastener Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd, Ipoh,\n-\nTI Metal Forgings Sdn. Bhd, Ipoh,\n-\nTR Formac (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd, Klang,\n-\nUnited Bolt and Nut Sdn. Bhd, Seremban,\n-\nPower Steel and Electro Plating Sdn. Bhd, Klang,\n-\nKKC Fastener Industry Sdn. Bhd, Melaka.\n1.4. Investigation period\n(10)\nThe investigation period covered the period from 1 January 2008 to 30 September 2010 (the \u2018IP\u2019). Data was collected for the IP to investigate, inter alia, the alleged change in the pattern of trade. For the period 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2010 more detailed data were collected in order to examine the possible undermining of the remedial effect of the measures in force and existence of dumping.\n2. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n2.1. General considerations\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the existence of circumvention was made by analysing successively whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between third countries and the Union; if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty; if there was evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the like product; and whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product, if necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regulation.\n2.2. Product concerned and the like product\n(12)\nThe product concerned is as defined in the original investigation: Certain iron or steel fasteners, other than of stainless steel, i.e. wood screws (excluding coach screws), self-tapping screws, other screws and bolts with heads (whether or not with their nuts or washers, but excluding screws turned from bars, rods, profiles or wire, of solid section, of a shank thickness not exceeding 6 mm and excluding screws and bolts for fixing railway track construction material), and washers, originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 90, 7318 14 91, 7318 14 99, 7318 15 59, 7318 15 69, 7318 15 81, 7318 15 89, ex 7318 15 90, ex 7318 21 00 and ex 7318 22 00.\n(13)\nThe product under investigation is the same as that defined in recital 12, but consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not.\n(14)\nThe investigation showed that iron or steel fasteners, as defined above, exported to the Union from the PRC and those consigned from Malaysia to the Union have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and have the same uses, and are therefore to be considered as like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n2.3. Degree of cooperation and determination of the trade volumes\n(15)\nAs stated in recital 9, 19 exporting producers in Malaysia and three exporting producers in China cooperated by submitting questionnaire replies.\n(16)\nAfter the submission of its questionnaire reply, one Malaysian company notified the Commission that it had ceased its activities and therefore it withdrew its cooperation.\n(17)\nIn the case of several other Malaysian companies the application of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation was found to be warranted for the reasons explained below in recitals 32 to 60.\n(18)\nThe cooperating Malaysian exporting producers covered 55 % of the total Malaysian exports of the product under investigation to the Union in the IP as reported in Comext. The overall export volumes were based on Comext.\n(19)\nThere was a low level of cooperation by producers/exporters in the PRC, with only three exporters/producers submitting a questionnaire reply. Moreover, none of these companies exported the product concerned to the Union or to Malaysia. Therefore, on the basis of the information submitted by the cooperating parties no reasonable determination could be made as to export volumes of the product concerned from the PRC.\n(20)\nGiven the above, findings in respect of imports of certain iron or steel fasteners into the Union and exports of the product concerned from the PRC to Malaysia had to be made partially on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. Comext data were used to determine overall import volumes from the PRC to the Union. Chinese and Malaysian national statistics were used for the determination of the overall exports to Malaysia from the PRC. Data were also cross-checked with detailed import- and export data that were provided by the customs authorities of Malaysia.\n(21)\nThe import volume recorded in Malaysian and Chinese statistics covered a larger product group than the product concerned or the product under investigation. However, in view of Comext data and verified data regarding Chinese and Malaysian fastener producers, it could be established that a significant part of this import volume covered the product concerned. Accordingly, these data could be used to establish any change in the pattern of trade and they could be cross-checked with other data such as the data provided by the cooperating exporting producers and importers.\n2.4. Change in the pattern of trade\n(22)\nImports of the product concerned from China to the Union dropped dramatically subsequent to the imposition of the original measures in January 2009.\n(23)\nOn the other hand, total imports of the product under investigation from Malaysia to the Union increased significantly in 2009 and 2010. Both Comext data and the export data provided by the cooperating companies show that exports from Malaysia to the Union increased in those years whereas they were stable in previous years.\n(24)\nTable 1 shows import quantities of certain iron or steel fasteners from the PRC and Malaysia into the Union since the imposition of the measures in 2009:\nTable 1\nEvolution of imports of certain iron or steel fasteners to the Union since the imposition of the measures\nImport volumes given in tonnes\n2008\n2009\n1.10.2009-30.9.2010\nPRC\n432 049\n64 609\n27 000\nShare of total imports\n82,2 %\n38,0 %\n15,4 %\nMalaysia\n8 791\n31 050\n89 000\nShare of total imports\n1,7 %\n18,3 %\n50,9 %\nSource: Comext, Malaysian, Chinese statistics.\n(25)\nThe data above clearly show that since 2009 Malaysian exporters have significantly outsold and to some extent replaced the Chinese exporters on the Union market in terms of volume. Since the imposition of the measures, the decrease of Chinese imports into the Union has been significant (94 %).\n(26)\nA dramatic increase of exports of fasteners can also be observed from the PRC to Malaysia within the same period: from a relatively small amount in 2008 (8 829 tonnes) they increased to 89 471 tonnes in the IP.\nTable 2\nImport of fasteners from China into Malaysia from 2008\n2008\n2009\n1.10.2009-30.9.2010\nImport (MT)\n8 829\n61 973\n89 471\nYearly change (%)\n600 %\n45 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n700\n1 013\nSource: Malaysian customs statistics.\n(27)\nTo establish the trend of the China to Malaysia trade flow of certain iron or steel fasteners, both Malaysian and Chinese statistics were considered. Both of these data are only available at a higher product group level than the product concerned. However, in view of Comext data and verified data regarding Chinese and Malaysian fastener producers, it was established that a significant part covered the product concerned, so these data could be taken into account.\n(28)\nThe evolution of the total production volume of cooperating producers in Malaysia had remained relatively stable prior to the imposition of measures in 2009. Malaysian producers however have increased their output since then considerably.\nTable 3\nProduction of the product under investigation of the cooperating companies in Malaysia\n2008\n2009\n1.10.2009-30.9.2010\nProduction volume (MT)\n38 763\n33 758\n61 262\nSource: Information provided by the cooperating producers.\n2.5. Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade\n(29)\nThe overall decrease of Chinese exports to the Union as from 2009 and the parallel increase of exports from Malaysia and of exports from the PRC to Malaysia after the imposition of the original measures constituted a change in the pattern of trade between the above mentioned countries on the one hand and the Union on the other hand.\n2.6. Nature of the circumvention practice\n(30)\nArticle 13(1) of the basic Regulation requires that the change in the pattern of trade stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or work includes, inter alia, the consignment of the product subject to measures via third countries and the assembly of parts by an assembly operation in the Union or a third country. For this purpose the existence of assembly operations is determined in accordance with Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(31)\nThe investigation revealed that some importers in the Union had sourced Chinese origin fasteners from Malaysian exporters who had not cooperated with the present investigation. This information was cross-checked with Malaysian trade databases which showed that at least some of the fasteners exported by these non-cooperating companies were indeed produced in the PRC.\n(32)\nIn addition, as set out in detail in recitals 52 to 58 below, it was found that a number of the cooperating Malaysian producers provided misleading information, in particular regarding the relationship to Chinese manufacturers, imports of finished goods from China and the origin of exports of the product under investigation to the Union. Some of them were found to export Chinese origin iron or steel fasteners to the Union. This is also confirmed by the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of trade as described above in recital 29.\n(33)\nIn 2009 the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) started an investigation into the alleged transhipment of the same product through Malaysia. Moreover, the investigation revealed that the Malaysian authorities have carried out investigations into alleged circumvention practices at the same time and concluded that several companies, mainly traders, committed fraud by falsifying the origin of certain iron or steel fasteners imported from the PRC to Malaysia when re-exporting the product.\n(34)\nThe existence of transhipment of Chinese-origin products via Malaysia was therefore confirmed.\n(35)\nOne company inspected was not manufacturing fasteners from raw material (i.e. wire rod) but was completing fasteners from semi-finished blanks, (i.e. wire rod that had been cut and headed, but not yet threaded, heat treated or plated). However, this company did not export during the IP. Another company was manufacturing fasteners mainly from wire rod, but also some from semi-finished blanks. For this company, it was established that no circumvention took place in the light of the provisions set out in Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation, as set out in more detail in recitals 62 and 63 below.\n2.7. Insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-dumping duty\n(36)\nThe investigation did not bring to light any other due cause or economic justification for the transhipment than the avoidance of the measures in force on certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the PRC. No elements were found, other than the duty, which could be considered as a compensation for the costs of transhipment, in particular regarding transport and reloading, of the product concerned from the PRC via Malaysia.\n2.8. Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty\n(37)\nTo assess whether the imported products had, in terms of quantities and prices, undermined the remedial effects of the measures in force on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the PRC, verified data from the cooperating exporting producers and Comext data were used as the best data available concerning quantities and prices of exports by non-cooperating companies. The prices so determined were compared to the injury elimination level established for Union producers in recital 226 of the original Regulation.\n(38)\nThe increase of imports from Malaysia was considered to be significant in terms of quantities. The estimated Union consumption in the IP gives a similar indication about the significance of these imports. The comparison of the injury elimination level as established in the original Regulation and the weighted average export price showed significant underselling. It was therefore concluded that the remedial effects of the measures in force are being undermined both in terms of quantities and prices.\n2.9. Evidence of dumping\n(39)\nFinally, in accordance with Article 13(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value previously established for the like products.\n(40)\nIn the original Regulation the normal value was established on the basis of prices in India, which in that investigation was found to be an appropriate market economy analogue country for the PRC. It was considered appropriate to use the normal value as previously established in line with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(41)\nA significant part of Malaysian exports were covered by non-cooperating exporters or by cooperating exporters that had provided misleading information. For this reason, for establishing the export prices from Malaysia, it was decided to base them on facts available, i.e. on the average export price of certain iron or steel fasteners during the IP as reported in Comext.\n(42)\nFor the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance, in the form of adjustments, was made for differences which affect prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in indirect taxes, transport and insurance costs based on the average costs of the cooperating Malaysian producers/exporters in the IP.\n(43)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the weighted average normal value as established in the original Regulation and the weighted average export prices during this investigation\u2019s IP, expressed as a percentage of the cif price at the Union frontier, duty unpaid.\n(44)\nThe comparison of the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export prices so established showed dumping.\n3. MEASURES\n(45)\nGiven the above, it was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the PRC was circumvented by transhipment from Malaysia pursuant to Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(46)\nIn accordance with the first sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the measures in force on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC, should be extended to imports of the same product consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not.\n(47)\nIn particular in the light of the low level of cooperation from Chinese exporting producers, the measure to be extended should be the one established in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 for \u2018all other companies\u2019, which is a definitive anti-dumping duty of 85 % applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty.\n(48)\nIn accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provides that any extended measure should apply to imports which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties should be collected on those registered imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia.\n4. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION\n(49)\nThe 19 companies in Malaysia submitting a questionnaire reply requested an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(50)\nAs explained in recital 16, one of these companies subsequently ceased cooperation and withdrew its request for an exemption.\n(51)\nTwo companies were found not to export the product during the IP and no conclusions could be drawn as to the nature of their operations. Therefore, an exemption to these companies can not be granted at this stage. However, should it appear, after extension of the anti-dumping measures in force, that the conditions in Article 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation are fulfilled, both companies may request a review of their situation.\n(52)\nOne of these companies questioned, since there had not been a request from the Union industry for registration, whether Article 14(5),second sentence, of the basic Regulation had been respected when the registration of the imports was instructed in the initiating Regulation. However, this was an anti-circumvention investigation initiated by the Commission ex officio on the basis of Article 13(3) in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation. The second sentence of Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation is therefore not relevant for this case. Any other interpretation would remove the effet utile of the fact that Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation provides that the Commission can ex officio investigate possible circumvention.\n(53)\nThe same company also alleged that consultation of the Advisory Committee, as set out in the first sentence of Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, would not have taken place. However, in accordance with Article 13(3) and Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the initiation was instigated by the Commission after consultation of the Advisory Committee, even though this was not explicitly mentioned in the initiating Regulation.\n(54)\nSeven companies were found to have provided false or misleading information. In accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation, these companies were informed of the intention to disregard the information submitted by them and were granted a time-limit to provide further explanations.\n(55)\nFurther explanations by these companies were not such that this would lead to a change in the conclusion that these companies have misled the investigation. Therefore in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, findings with regard to these companies were based on facts available.\n(56)\nTwo of these seven companies were found to have hidden imports of finished goods from the PRC. One of these companies had also falsified invoices. Another company in Malaysia manufacturing and exporting fasteners that requested an exemption appeared to be related to this company.\n(57)\nTwo other companies were found to have hidden their relationship to a Chinese manufacturer of certain iron or steel fasteners.\n(58)\nFinally, two other companies were found to have hidden their relationship to each other, not having the production capacity to produce what they export and impeded the investigation by not providing necessary information.\n(59)\nIn view of the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of trade and transhipment practices, as set out in recitals 22 to 34 above, and taking into account the nature of the misleading information as set out in recitals 56 to 58 above, the exemptions as requested by these seven companies could, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, not be granted.\n(60)\nOne company could not show any fastener production facility and refused access to its accounts. Furthermore, evidence of transhipment practices during the IP was found. Therefore the exemption could, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, not be granted.\n(61)\nThe remaining eight Malaysian exporting producers were found not to be engaged in circumvention practices and therefore exemptions to these companies can be granted.\n(62)\nOne of these eight companies was established after the imposition of the measures in force by its Chinese parent company, which is subject to these measures. The Chinese parent company has gradually transferred part of its machinery to Malaysia for the purpose of serving the EU market through Malaysia. In the start-up phase the company produced some fasteners from semi-finished products that were shipped from its Chinese parent company for completion. At a later stage, but still in the IP, when more machinery was transferred, fasteners were mainly produced from the raw material steel wire rod, also shipped from its Chinese parent company.\n(63)\nInitially it was considered that an exemption to this company should be denied. However, in view of the comments received after disclosure, among others with regard to the value added to the product in Malaysia, it was concluded that the company was not engaged in circumvention practices. Accordingly, an exemption to this company can be granted.\n(64)\nAnother of these eight companies is also related to a company in the PRC that is subject to the original measures. However this Malaysian company was established in 1998 by its Taiwanese owners who only at a later stage, but still before the measures against the PRC came into force, established the subsidiary in the PRC. There is no evidence that this relationship was established or used to circumvent the measures in place on imports originating in the PRC in the sense of Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(65)\nIt is considered that special measures are needed in this case in order to ensure the proper application of such exemptions. These special measures are the requirement of the presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the extended anti-dumping duty.\n(66)\nOther producers which did not come forward in this proceeding and did not export the product under investigation during the IP, which intend to lodge a request for an exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation will be required to complete a questionnaire in order to enable the Commission to assess such a request. The Commission would normally also carry out an on-spot verification visit. Provided that the conditions set in Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation are met, an exemption may be warranted.\n(67)\nWhere an exemption is warranted, the Commission will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, propose the amendment of this Regulation accordingly. Subsequently, any exemption granted will be monitored to ensure compliance with the conditions set therein.\n5. DISCLOSURE\n(68)\nAll interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were invited to comment. The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered. With the exception of the comments received from a company as set out in recitals 62 and 63 above, none of the arguments presented gave rise to a modification of the definitive findings,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019 imposed by Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners, other than of stainless steel, i.e. wood screws (excluding coach screws), self-tapping screws, other screws and bolts with heads (whether or not with their nuts or washers, but excluding screws turned from bars, rods, profiles or wire, of solid section, of a shank thickness not exceeding 6 mm and excluding screws and bolts for fixing railway track construction material), and washers, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, is hereby extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners, other than of stainless steel, i.e. wood screws (excluding coach screws), self-tapping screws, other screws and bolts with heads (whether or not with their nuts or washers, but excluding screws turned from bars, rods, profiles or wire, of solid section, of a shank thickness not exceeding 6 mm and excluding screws and bolts for fixing railway track construction material), and washers, consigned from Malaysia whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 7318 12 90, ex 7318 14 91, ex 7318 14 99, ex 7318 15 59, ex 7318 15 69, ex 7318 15 81, ex 7318 15 89, ex 7318 15 90, ex 7318 21 00 and ex 7318 22 00 (TARIC codes 7318129011, 7318129091, 7318149111, 7318149191, 7318149911, 7318149991, 7318155911, 7318155961, 7318155981, 7318156911, 7318156961, 7318156981, 7318158111, 7318158161, 7318158181, 7318158911, 7318158961, 7318158981, 7318159021, 7318159071, 7318159091, 7318210031, 7318210095, 7318220031 and 7318220095), with the exception of those produced by the companies listed below:\nCompany\nTARIC additional code\nAcku Metal Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd\nB123\nChin Well Fasteners Company Sdn. Bhd\nB124\nJinfast Industries Sdn. Bhd\nB125\nPower Steel and Electroplating Sdn. Bhd\nB126\nSofasco Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd\nB127\nTigges Fastener Technology (M) Sdn. Bhd\nB128\nTI Metal Forgings Sdn. Bhd\nB129\nUnited Bolt and Nut Sdn. Bhd\nB130\n2. The application of exemptions granted to the companies specifically mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article or authorised by the Commission in accordance with Article 2(2) shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the anti-dumping duty as imposed by paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply.\n3. The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 966/2010 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, with the exception of those produced by the companies listed in paragraph 1.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1 shall be made in writing in one of the official languages of the European Union and must be signed by a person authorised to represent the entity requesting the exemption. The request must be sent to the following address:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N-105 04/92\n1049 Brussels\nBelgium\nFax +32 22956505\n2. In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, may authorise, by decision, the exemption of imports from companies which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009, from the duty extended by Article 1.\nArticle 3\nCustoms authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 966/2010.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["41", "45", "47", "24", "8", "51", "26", "49", "80", "87", "7", "28", "63", "29", "55", "37", "39", "69", "9", "53", "88", "57", "66", "43", "83", "50", "86", "89", "3", "42", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION ATALANTA/5/2010\nof 26 November 2010\non the appointment of an EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)\n(2010/753/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (Atalanta), and in particular Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Force Commander.\n(2)\nOn 19 July 2010, the PSC adopted Decision Atalanta/4/2010 (2) appointing Rear Admiral Philippe COINDREAU as EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\n(3)\nThe EU Operation Commander has recommended the appointment of Rear Admiral Juan RODR\u00cdGUEZ GARAT as the new EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\n(4)\nThe EU Military Committee supports that recommendation.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nRear Admiral Juan RODR\u00cdGUEZ GARAT is hereby appointed EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 14 December 2010.\nDone at Brussels, 26 November 2010.", "references": ["96", "59", "70", "82", "17", "83", "61", "64", "87", "32", "19", "10", "99", "15", "8", "1", "37", "35", "49", "20", "45", "74", "51", "34", "81", "30", "65", "53", "26", "88", "No Label", "5", "6", "9", "12", "52", "94"], "gold": ["5", "6", "9", "12", "52", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1379/2011\nof 20 December 2011\namending Regulations (EC) No 382/2008, (EU) No 1178/2010 and (EU) No 90/2011 as regards the CN codes and the product codes of the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds in the beef and veal, egg and poultrymeat sectors\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 134, 161(3), 170 and 192(2), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 382/2008 (2), (EU) No 1178/2010 (3) and (EU) No 90/2011 (4) lay down rules for the system of export licences in relation to export refunds in the beef and veal, egg and poultrymeat sectors respectively. Those Regulations refer to CN codes and product codes of the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds in order to indicate the products which are subject, or not subject, to the presentation of an export licence when an export refund is requested.\n(2)\nAnnex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (5) was amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 (6).\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds (7) was amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1334/2011 (8).\n(4)\nConsequently, the CN codes and product codes used in Regulations (EC) No 382/2008, (EU) No 1178/2010 and (EU) No 90/2011 need to be adapted to those used in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 and in Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1334/2011.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 382/2008 also uses CN codes in the framework of import licences. For consistency reasons, it is appropriate to amend those codes as well.\n(6)\nRegulations (EC) No 382/2008, (EU) No 1178/2010 and (EU) No 90/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 382/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2(2), \u2018CN codes 0102 90 05 to 0102 90 49\u2019 is replaced by \u2018CN codes 0102 29 10 to 0102 29 49, ex 0102 39 10 of a weight not exceeding 300 kg and ex 0102 90 91 of a weight not exceeding 300 kg\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 10 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (a) of paragraph 1, \u2018CN code 0102 10\u2019 is replaced by \u2018CN codes 0102 21, 0102 31 00 and 0102 90 20\u2019; and \u2018CN codes 0102 90 and ex 1602\u2019 is replaced by \u2018CN codes 0102 29, 0102 39 10, 0102 90 91 and ex 1602\u2019;\n(b)\nin point (a) of paragraph 2, \u2018CN code 0102 10\u2019 is replaced by \u2018CN codes 0102 21, 0102 31 00 and 0102 90 20\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, \u2018CN code 0102 10\u2019 is replaced by \u2018CN codes 0102 21, 0102 31 00 and 0102 90 20\u2019;\n(3)\nAnnex I is replaced by the text in Annex I to this Regulation;\n(4)\nin Annex V, the first group of product categories is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Product category\nCN code\n110.\n0102 29 10, ex 0102 39 10 of a weight not exceeding 80 kg and ex 0102 90 91 of a weight not exceeding 80 kg\n120.\n0102 29 21 and 0102 29 29, ex 0102 39 10 of a weight exceeding 80 kg but not exceeding 160 kg and ex 0102 90 91 of a weight exceeding 80 kg but not exceeding 160 kg\n130.\n0102 29 41 and 0102 29 49, ex 0102 39 10 of a weight exceeding 160 kg but not exceeding 300 kg and ex 0102 90 91 of a weight exceeding 160 kg but not exceeding 300 kg\n140.\n0102 29 51 to 0102 29 99, ex 0102 39 10 of a weight exceeding 300 kg and ex 0102 90 91 of a weight exceeding 300 kg\u2019;\n(5)\nin Annex VI, the first group of product categories is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Category\nProduct code\n011.\n0102 21 10 9140, 0102 21 30 9140, 0102 31 00 9100, 0102 90 20 9100, 0102 31 00 9200 and 0102 90 20 9200\n021.\n0102 21 10 9150, 0102 21 30 9150, 0102 21 90 9120, 0102 31 00 9150, 0102 31 00 9250, 0102 31 00 9300, 0102 90 20 9150, 0102 90 20 9250 and 0102 90 20 9300\n031.\n0102 29 91 9000, 0102 39 10 9350 and 0102 90 91 9350\n041.\n0102 29 41 9100, 0102 29 51 9000, 0102 29 59 9000, 0102 29 61 9000, 0102 29 69 9000, 0102 29 99 9000, 0102 39 10 9100, 0102 39 10 9150, 0102 39 10 9200, 0102 39 10 9250, 0102 39 10 9400, 0102 90 91 9100, 0102 90 91 9150, 0102 90 91 9200, 0102 90 91 9250, 0102 90 91 9300 and 0102 90 91 9400\u2019.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 1178/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, \u2018CN codes 0407 00 11 and 0407 00 19\u2019 is replaced by \u2018CN codes 0407 11 00, 0407 19 11 and 0407 19 19\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 8(1), \u2018CN codes 0407 00 11 and 0407 00 19\u2019 is replaced by \u2018CN codes 0407 11 00, 0407 19 11 and 0407 19 19\u2019;\n(3)\nAnnex I is replaced by the text in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nRegulation (EU) No 90/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, \u2018CN codes 0105 11, 0105 12 and 0105 19\u2019 is replaced by \u2018CN codes 0105 11, 0105 12 00, 0105 13 00, 0105 14 00 and 0105 15 00\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 8(1), \u2018CN codes 0105 11, 0105 12 and 0105 19\u2019is replaced by \u2018CN codes 0105 11, 0105 12 00, 0105 13 00, 0105 14 00 and 0105 15 00\u2019;\n(3)\nAnnex I is replaced by the text in Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["15", "76", "84", "79", "47", "30", "95", "64", "49", "38", "89", "26", "94", "92", "93", "6", "61", "5", "51", "73", "71", "68", "87", "1", "10", "45", "60", "72", "57", "52", "No Label", "20", "21", "62", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "21", "62", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 181/2012\nof 2 March 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Melon de Guadeloupe (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Melon de Guadeloupe\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2012.", "references": ["81", "76", "84", "4", "26", "46", "39", "73", "23", "99", "62", "63", "67", "55", "83", "22", "54", "27", "78", "65", "89", "42", "59", "87", "94", "20", "75", "8", "79", "53", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1308/2011\nof 14 December 2011\nfixing allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2011/2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1240/2011 of 30 November 2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2011/2012 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe quantities covered by certificate applications for out-of-quota sugar submitted from 4 December 2011 to 7 December 2011 and notified to the Commission exceed the limit set in Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1240/2011.\n(2)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 5 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1240/2011, it is necessary to fix an allocation coefficient, which the Member States shall apply to the quantities covered by each notified certificate application, to close the periods for submitting the applications.\n(3)\nIn order to act before the issuing of certificates applied for, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which certificates applications for out-of-quota sugar have been submitted under Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1240/2011 from 4 December 2011 to 7 December 2011 and notified to the Commission shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 21,680216 %.\nApplications for certificates submitted from 8 December 2011 to 15 December 2011 are hereby rejected.\nThe periods for submitting applications for certificates are closed as from 15 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2011.", "references": ["17", "60", "49", "39", "57", "79", "40", "66", "8", "37", "93", "83", "12", "86", "88", "32", "7", "44", "24", "43", "65", "58", "99", "27", "72", "16", "87", "35", "69", "98", "No Label", "25", "61", "62", "71", "75"], "gold": ["25", "61", "62", "71", "75"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/783/CFSP\nof 1 December 2011\namending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and in particular Article 23(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran.\n(2)\nThe Council has carried out a complete review of the list of persons and entities, as set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP, to which Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of that Decision apply. When doing so, the Council took account of observations submitted by those concerned.\n(3)\nThe Council has concluded that the persons and entities listed in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP should continue to be subject to the specific restrictive measures provided for in that Decision.\n(4)\nThe Council has also concluded that the entries concerning certain entities included in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP should be amended.\n(5)\nMoreover, in view of the continued concern over the expansion of Iran's nuclear and missiles programmes expressed by the European Council on 23 October 2011, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.\n(6)\nThe list of persons and entities referred to in Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP should be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP shall be amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2011.", "references": ["85", "38", "61", "26", "80", "40", "35", "64", "82", "66", "55", "48", "98", "99", "6", "52", "12", "2", "83", "56", "1", "94", "50", "71", "73", "88", "27", "47", "91", "69", "No Label", "3", "5", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 774/2011\nof 2 August 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2011.", "references": ["93", "16", "91", "48", "67", "57", "66", "36", "6", "35", "23", "56", "87", "47", "15", "63", "41", "46", "74", "11", "51", "68", "89", "24", "44", "30", "28", "33", "69", "86", "No Label", "21", "82", "88"], "gold": ["21", "82", "88"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 633/2010\nof 19 July 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee's (IFRIC) Interpretation 14\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards (1), and in particular Article 3(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 (2) certain international standards and interpretations that were in existence at 15 October 2008 were adopted.\n(2)\nOn 15 November 2009, the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) published amendments to IFRIC Interpretation 14 Prepayments of a Minimum Funding Requirement, hereinafter \u2018amendments to IFRIC 14\u2019. The aim of the amendments to IFRIC 14 is to remove an unintended consequence of IFRIC 14 in cases where an entity subject to a minimum funding requirement makes an early payment of contributions where under certain circumstances the entity making such a prepayment would be required to recognise an expense. In the case where a defined benefit plan is subject to a minimum funding requirement the amendment to IFRIC 14 prescribes to treat this prepayment, like any other prepayment, as an asset.\n(3)\nThe consultation with the Technical Expert Group (TEG) of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) confirms that amendments to IFRIC 14 meets the technical criteria for adoption set out in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002. In accordance with Commission Decision 2006/505/EC of 14 July 2006 setting up a Standards Advice Review Group to advise the Commission on the objectivity and neutrality of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group's (EFRAG\u2019s) opinions (3), the Standards Advice Review Group considered EFRAG's opinion on endorsement and advised the Commission that it is well-balanced and objective.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1126/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Accounting Regulatory Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee's (IFRIC) Interpretation 14 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEach company shall apply the amendments to IFRIC 14, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation, at the latest, as from the commencement date of its first financial year starting after 31 December 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2010.", "references": ["77", "87", "27", "59", "51", "86", "53", "78", "99", "39", "88", "25", "70", "57", "66", "1", "32", "23", "7", "72", "52", "24", "35", "5", "55", "97", "58", "15", "14", "43", "No Label", "18", "30", "41", "47", "76"], "gold": ["18", "30", "41", "47", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 556/2010\nof 24 June 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Common Position 2004/694/CFSP of 11 October 2004 on further measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 of 11 October 2004 imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (2) provides for the freezing of the funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned or held by, certain natural persons indicted by the ICTY, in accordance with Common Position 2004/694/CFSP.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to align Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 with recent developments in sanctions practice, on the one hand as regards the identification of competent authorities and on the other, as regards the Article on Union jurisdiction. For the sake of clarity, the Articles to which amendments need to be made should be replaced in full.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1763/2004 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1763/2004 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities in the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources or the making available of certain frozen funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources concerned are:\n(a)\nnecessary for basic expenses, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the Member State concerned has notified the other Member States and the Commission of the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted, at least two weeks before the authorisation.\n2. Member States shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities in the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nThe funds or economic resources are subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the natural person referred to in Article 2 was included in Annex I or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nThe funds or economic resources will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nThe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a natural person listed in Annex I;\n(d)\nRecognising the lien or judgment is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\n2. Member States shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 7\n1. Without prejudice to the applicable rules concerning reporting, confidentiality and professional secrecy, natural and legal persons, entities and bodies shall:\n(a)\nsupply immediately any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 2, to the competent authorities of Member States as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II for the country where they are resident or located and shall transmit such information, directly or through the competent authority as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II, to the Commission; and\n(b)\ncooperate with that competent authority in any verification of this information.\n2. Any additional information directly received by the Commission shall be made available to the Member State concerned.\n3. Any information provided or received in accordance with this Article shall be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.\u2019;\n(4)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 11a\n1. Member States shall designate the competent authorities referred to in Articles 3, 4 and 7 and identify them in the websites as listed in Annex II. Member States shall notify the Commission of any changes to the addresses of their websites listed in Annex II before such changes take effect.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of their competent authorities, including the contact details of those competent authorities, by 15 July 2010 and shall notify the Commission without delay of any subsequent amendment.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 12 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 12\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\u2019;\n(6)\nAnnex II is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 June 2010.", "references": ["54", "71", "87", "2", "1", "47", "48", "64", "15", "86", "67", "18", "27", "82", "61", "98", "28", "44", "72", "19", "91", "14", "8", "57", "23", "58", "76", "38", "35", "84", "No Label", "3", "4", "12", "36", "97", "99"], "gold": ["3", "4", "12", "36", "97", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1020/2010\nof 11 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 November 2010.", "references": ["32", "8", "38", "65", "52", "15", "54", "77", "3", "0", "6", "47", "23", "69", "46", "92", "63", "94", "26", "53", "2", "24", "75", "9", "79", "48", "10", "41", "30", "91", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 118/2011\nof 10 February 2011\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in Thailand\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 20 May 2010, the European Commission (the \u2018Commission\u2019) announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (Notice of initiation), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in Thailand (country concerned).\n(2)\nThe anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 6 April 2010 by Ring Alliance Ringbuchtechnik GmbH (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 % of the total Union production of certain ring binder mechanisms. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting there from, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers in Thailand, the representatives of the country concerned, known importers and known users of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the Notice of initiation. All interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\n(4)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to all other parties that requested so within the deadlines set out in the Notice of initiation, namely the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producer in Thailand, the representatives of the country concerned, known importers and known users. All parties who so requested within the time limit and indicated that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\n(5)\nReplies to the questionnaires and other submissions were received from one exporting producer in Thailand, the complainant Union producer, five unrelated importers and traders (including one also producing in the Union) and one user.\n(6)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nUnion producer:\n-\nRing Alliance Ringbuchtechnik GmbH, Vienna, Austria\n(b)\nexporting producer in Thailand:\n-\nThai Stationery Industry Co. Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand\n(c)\ncompanies related to the exporting producer in Thailand:\n-\nWah Hing Stationery Manufactory Limited, Hong Kong\n(d)\nimporters in the Union:\n-\nGiardini S.r.l., Settimo Milanese, Italy\n-\nRendol enterprises, Reilingen, Germany\n-\nIndustria Meccanica Lombarda srl, Offanengo, Italy (also producer in the Union)\n-\nWinter Company Spain S.A., Spain\n1.3. Investigation period and period considered\n(7)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (the \u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (the injury investigation period).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(8)\nThe product concerned is ring binder mechanisms which consist of at least two steel sheets or wires with at least four half-rings made of steel wire fixed on them and which are kept together by a steel cover, they can be opened either by pulling the half rings or with a small steel trigger mechanism fixed to the ring binder mechanism, originating in Thailand (\u2018the product concerned\u2019 or \u2018RBM\u2019) and currently falling within CN code ex 8305 10 00. Lever-arch mechanisms, falling within the same CN code, are not included in the scope of this investigation.\n(9)\nRBM are used to file different kinds of documents or papers. They are used, inter alia, by producers of ring binders, technical manuals, photo and stamp albums, catalogues and brochures.\n(10)\nA large number of different models of RBM were sold during the IP in the European Union. The models varied by size, shape and number of rings, the size of the base plate and the system to open the rings (pull open or opening trigger). Given that all of them have the same physical and technical characteristics, and that the models of RBM can, within certain ranges, replace each other, the Commission established that all RBM constitute one single product for the purpose of the present proceeding.\n2.2. Like product\n(11)\nThe product produced and sold on the domestic market of Thailand, as well as the product manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers were found to have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses. They are therefore provisionally considered as alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n3. SAMPLING\n3.1. Sampling of unrelated importers\n(12)\nIn view of the apparent high number of unrelated importers, sampling was envisaged in the Notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and if so, to select a sample, all known unrelated importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the Notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned (as defined in Section 2.1 above) during the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010.\n(13)\nAfter examination of the information submitted and given the low number of importers which indicated their willingness to co-operate, it was decided that sampling was not necessary.\n4. DUMPING\n(14)\nOne company in Thailand replied to the questionnaire for exporting producers. A company involved in the sales of the product concerned and located in Hong Kong related to this exporting producer also replied to the questionnaire. On the basis of import data reported by Eurostat, the exporting producer (together with its related company) accounted for all Thai exports to the Union.\n4.1. Normal value\n(15)\nThe investigation revealed that the exporting producer provided incomplete and incorrect information with regard to significant elements of its cost of production, such as the apparent nickel metal consumption and apparent consumption of other raw materials. Furthermore, other data reported with regard to production costs and production capacities were inconsistent and could not be reconciled. Finally, the investigation revealed that there was a related company located in the People's Republic of China, which contrary to what was originally claimed by the exporting producer, was involved in the sales and administration of the product concerned. The reported costs did not include the relevant costs of this related company and were therefore considered incomplete.\n(16)\nOn the basis of the above, it was concluded that the cost data submitted were not a sufficiently accurate basis for the determination of normal value. It was therefore considered to base findings at least partially on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.\n(17)\nThe company was informed forthwith and was given the opportunity to provide further explanations, in accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation. However, the explanations given by the company were unsatisfactory since it did not clarify the inconsistencies found. The company could also not refute the evidence showing that they had submitted incomplete, incorrect and misleading information. Moreover, the company failed to submit essential information of the above mentioned related company established in the People's Republic of China involved in the production and sales of the product concerned.\n(18)\nIn view of the above, it was considered that the normal value for the exporting producer should provisionally be determined on the basis of facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.\n(19)\nIn the absence of any other more reliable information, the normal value was provisionally calculated on the basis of the information relating to the cost of manufacturing in Thailand as provided in the complaint. In accordance with Article 18(5) of the basic Regulation, this information was cross-checked with verified information obtained during the investigation, including that relating to costs of personnel and energy in Thailand. Where considered appropriate, the information provided in the complaint was corrected by the verified information obtained during the investigation.\n(20)\nA reasonable amount for SG&A and profits, respectively 16 % and 8 % were added to the manufacturing cost as established above, on the basis of the information submitted in the complaint.\n4.2. Export price\n(21)\nThe exporting producer made export sales to the Union through its related trading company located outside the Union.\n(22)\nThe export price was established on the basis of the prices of the product when sold by the related trading company to the Union, i.e. to an independent buyer, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation on the basis of prices actually paid or payable.\n4.3. Comparison\n(23)\nThe comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis.\n(24)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments for differences in transport and insurance costs and credit costs have been made where applicable and justified.\n4.4. Dumping margin\n(25)\nPursuant to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin for the cooperating exporting producer was established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value by product type with a weighted average export price by product type as established above.\n(26)\nOn the basis of the above methodology the provisional dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:\nExporting producer\nDumping margin\nThai Stationery Industry Co. Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand\n17,2 %\n(27)\nSince the cooperating exporting producer accounted for all Thai exports to the Union of the product concerned, it was considered that the residual dumping margin should be set at the level of dumping margin found for this cooperating exporting producer, i.e. 17,2 %.\n5. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(28)\nDuring the investigation period RBM were manufactured in the EU by the following producers:\n-\nRing Alliance Ringbuchtechnik GmbH, Wien, Austria,\n-\nIndustria Meccanica Lombarda srl, Offanengo, Italy.\n(29)\nThe first producer is the applicant and cooperated in the investigation. The investigation has established that the applicant represented more than 50 % of the total Union production of RBM in the IP.\n(30)\nThe second (smaller) producer is also an importer of RBM from Thailand and opposed the proceedings. On the basis of the information provided by the company, it was found that during the overall period considered for the injury analysis the volume of its purchases of Thai products was on average comparable to the volume of its own production.\n(31)\nOn the basis of the above it is considered that, pursuant to Article 4(1)(a), the second producer should be excluded from the definition of the Union industry, and therefore only the applicant producer should constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation. It is hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\n(32)\nIt should be noted that in the past, the Union industry was originally composed of two different producers (Koloman Handler - Austria and Robert Krause - Germany) that went bankrupt and taken over by an Austrian group. These companies were subject to a significant restructuring and the current structure \u2018Ring Alliance Ringbuchtechnik GmbH\u2019 was created in 2003. The head offices are located in Austria while production takes place in Hungary.\n6. INJURY\n6.1. Union consumption\n(33)\nConsumption was established on the basis of the following figures:\n-\nthe verified total sales on the Union market reported by the Union industry and the other EU producer,\n-\nthe verified total EU export volume of the cooperating exporting producer in Thailand for the periods requested in the questionnaire (the years 2008, 2009 and IP), and Eurostat for the other years,\n-\nEurostat for imports from the other third countries.\n(34)\nOn this basis, the EU consumption of RBM developed as follows:\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nConsumption (000pces)\n100\n100\n111\n93\n95\nSource: verified questionnaire replies and Eurostat.\n(35)\nThe consumption declined by 5 % during the overall injury investigation period (3). It should however be noted that after an increase of around 10 % between 2006 and 2008, the consumption dropped by 15 % in the subsequent period.\n6.2. Imports from Thailand\n(a) Import volume and market share\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nImport volume\n100\n65\n153\n116\n119\nMarket share\n12,0 %\n7,8 %\n16,5 %\n15,0 %\n15,0 %\nSource: verified questionnaire reply and Eurostat.\n(36)\nImports from Thailand for the period 2008-IP are based on the questionnaire reply of the co-operating exporting producer - the sole known Thai exporter - and based on Eurostat data for the other years. On this basis, it was established that total import volume of RBM from Thailand increased by almost 20 % between 2006 and the IP. The level of imports however fluctuated significantly during this period, and the most important increase took place between 2007 and 2008, when imports more than doubled.\n(37)\nThe Thai market shares followed an overall increasing trend and gained 3 points between 2006 and the IP. Similarly to the sales volume, the market shares reached a peak in 2008, at a level of 16,5 %.\n(b) Price of the imports of the product concerned/undercutting\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nimport price\n100\n103\n123\n113\n113\n(38)\nImport prices first increased by more than 20 % between 2006 and 2008 and declined subsequently.\n(39)\nDespite an overall increase of 13 % during the injury investigation period, the Thai prices significantly undercut the Union producers\u2019 prices during the IP. The price comparison for corresponding models, duly adjusted where necessary, indeed showed that on average import prices were more than 30 % below the Union industry\u2019s sales price during the IP. A comparison of the average price level during the other years suggests comparable undercutting rates for the years 2006-2009.\n(40)\nThe absolute level of Thai import prices was also systematically below the price of other imports and - to a larger extent - below the price of the other Union producer.\n6.3. Economic situation of the Union industry (4)\n(a) Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nProduction\n100\n130\n131\n80\n83\nProduction capacity\n100\n110\n115\n80\n75\nCapacity utilisation\n79 %\n94 %\n90 %\n79 %\n88 %\n(41)\nDuring the overall period, both the production and the production capacity decreased respectively by almost 20 % and 25 %. The increasing capacity utilisation should only be seen as the result of a reduction of the production capacity by 25 % during the same period. This is mainly the result of lay-offs (see employment below).\n(42)\nIt should however be noted that production volume and capacity first improved until 2008, and then decreased significantly.\n(b) Stocks\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nClosing stock\n100\n137\n153\n124\n126\n(43)\nIn the injury investigation period, the Union industry's stocks increased overall by 26 %. A significant part of the RBM production consists of standard products, and the Union industry has to maintain a certain level of stock in order to be in a position to swiftly satisfy the demand of its customers. Any increase of the closing stock above the average level nevertheless indicates difficulties to sell the products.\n(c) Sales volume, market share and growth\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nEU sales volume\n100\n105\n113\n79\n77\nMarket shares\n29,6 %\n31,1 %\n30,2 %\n25,2 %\n24,0 %\n(44)\nThe Union industry\u2019s sales volume on the EU market decreased by 23 % over the period analysed, which corresponded to declining market shares from 29,6 % to 24,0 %, i.e. a drop of more than 5 points. Sales volume and market shares in fact deteriorated as from 2008.\n(45)\nThe above development overall indicates an absence of Union industry growth between 2006 and the IP.\n(d) Sales prices\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nSales price\n100\n99\n99\n110\n107\n(46)\nThe Union Industry's weighted average selling price was relatively stable until 2008. It then increased by 10 % in 2009 to decrease by 3 percentage points in the IP. This price increase is the result of a combination of two factors: a change of product mix due to the decreasing sales volume of the more standardised - and cheaper - products, and the Union industry\u2019s attempt to compensate for the losses incurred in 2008. The latter was however not successful since the Union industry continued to operate at a loss in the subsequent period (see below).\n(e) Profitability, return on investments, cash-flow\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nP&L % turnover\n100\n9\n135\n167\n146\nCash-flow\n100\n- 502\n- 685\n- 136\n- 291\nReturn on net assets\n100\n87\n104\n146\n176\n(47)\nThe Union industry was loss making during the overall injury investigation period, and the above trend shows an overall increase of the level of losses. While the situation slightly improved in 2007 (it became nearly break even), it however deteriorated as from 2008. While the decline in cash-flow could somehow be limited, it also remained negative as from 2007. The return on net assets was also negative during the overall period and constantly declined between 2006 and the IP.\n(f) Investments and ability to raise capital\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nInvestments\n100\n45\n50\n17\n26\n(48)\nInvestments followed a sharp decreasing trend, i.e. - 75 % during the overall injury investigation period.\n(49)\nAs stated above, given the weak financial situation of Union industry it can be concluded that its ability to raise capital from independent sources was seriously affected.\n(g) Employment, productivity and wages\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nEmployment\n100\n111\n118\n99\n87\nProductivity\n100\n117\n111\n81\n95\nWages\n100\n106\n113\n92\n71\n(50)\nDuring the overall period employment (full-time units) decreased by 13 % and the most important decline took place after the year 2008 when employment reached a peak. Wages mostly followed the same trend.\n(51)\nProductivity, measured in thousand of pieces produced per employee during the period, generally followed the same trend as employment, but the decline could be limited during the IP.\n(h) Magnitude of the actual margin of dumping\n(52)\nOn the basis of the best facts available, the investigation has established the existence of dumping during the IP of 17,2 %, which is substantial.\n(i) Recovery from the effect of past dumping\n(53)\nThe Union industry has been suffering from the effects of dumped imports for several years. It could nevertheless benefit from relatively effective measures until the year 2008, but the situation deteriorated again thereafter. This is further explained in the section related to Union interest below.\n6.4. Conclusion\n(54)\nThe economic situation of the Union industry clearly deteriorated between 2006 and the IP. This was especially characterised by a significant decrease of production and sale volume (respectively - 17 %, - 13 %), which also resulted in decline of market share from 29,6 % to 24 %. The financial situation of the Union Industry was also affected. The level of losses incurred by the company indeed increased, and both cash-flow and return on net assets followed the same negative trend. The attempt of the Union industry to limit the level of the losses by increasing its prices in 2009 was not successful, and the situation even worsened.\n(55)\nConsequently, the investments were reduced to their minimum level, and the company had no choice but to lay off a substantial number of people in order to face the situation.\n(56)\nIt should nevertheless be noted that during the overall injury investigation period the situation of the Union industry somewhat improved between 2006 and 2008. Indeed, during this period, production, sales volume, and employment followed and increasing trend. Those indicators however significantly dropped since 2009. The profitability indicators on the other hand remained negative during the overall period; although profitability was close to break even in 2007.\n(57)\nConsidering the above, it is provisionally concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\n7. CAUSALITY\n7.1. Introduction\n(58)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the material injury suffered by the Union industry has been caused by the dumped imports from the country concerned. Furthermore, known factors other than the dumped imports, which might have injured the Union industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n7.2. Effect of the dumped imports\n(59)\nIt is to be noted that the Union market is characterised by a relatively small number of sources of supply (two in the Union, one in India, one in Thailand and still some supply from China) and that the market is therefore quite transparent in terms of prices, through price quotations. Furthermore a significant part of the demand in the EU concerns standard types of RBM, for which price is by far a decisive factor when purchasing the product.\n(60)\nIn this context, the investigation showed that the volume of imports of RBM from Thailand increased by almost 20 % during the injury investigation period, and reached a market share of 15 % during the IP. The Union industry lost a significant volume of sales during the same period. Furthermore it was established that, during the IP, RBM from Thailand undercut the Union industry's prices by more than 30 %, which is very significant for this kind of product.\n(61)\nThe combination of the important volume of import and of the low price level led to a significant price pressure on the Union market. In the absence of dumping, Thai prices would have been - at least during the IP - almost 20 % higher than their actual level, and this could have meant an overall higher Union market price.\n(62)\nGiven their volume and the level of their prices, it is thus considered that the dumped imports undermined the attempt of the Union industry to regain profit, or at least reduce its losses, by increasing its sales quantities and/or prices to a more adequate level during the period 2009-IP. The continued pressure exercised by the low-priced dumped imports from Thailand on the Union market thus resulted in the loss in sales volume, market shares, depressed prices and consequently the loss in profitability of the Union industry.\n(63)\nIt should be recalled that in a recent expiry review investigation (5) it was concluded that the industry was still in a very precarious situation in 2008 and still extremely sensitive to any further dumped imports.\n(64)\nIn view of the above it was provisionally concluded that the dumped imports from Thailand had a negative impact on the economic situation of the Union industry.\n7.3. Effect of other factors\n7.3.1. Contraction in demand on the Union market\n(65)\nThe demand on the Union market increased by 10 % in 2008, but then significantly declined in the subsequent year, by around 15 %. This should be seen in the context of the financial crisis, and the decision of many companies to cut general costs, including for stationary items. The overall ring binder sector has suffered from this situation: Indian and Thai imports decreased in absolute volume as well as the Union industry\u2019s sales.\n(66)\nIt should however be noted that in relative terms, the Union industry suffered more than other players since its market share declined from 30,2 % to 25,2 % between 2008 and 2009. Given the fact that the ring binder industry has important fixed costs, a loss of volume of sales had a negative impact on the financial situation of the applicant. However, the decrease in consumption should be seen in conjunction with the development of the dumped imports from Thailand. Indeed, Thai imports had an important market share that represented nearly three times the quantity corresponding to the decrease in consumption.\n(67)\nFrom this point of view, it can be concluded that the decrease in consumption, which had been caused by the economic crisis, might have contributed to the material injury suffered by the Union industry. However, if there was an effect this effect had certainly been considerably reinforced by the imports subject to investigation.\n7.3.2. Imports from other third countries\n(68)\nRBM are also produced and exported from India and China. These imports developed as follows:\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndia\nimport volume\n100\n93\n102\n88\n91\nmarket shares\n47,6 %\n44,3 %\n43,5 %\n45,2 %\n45,3 %\naverage price\n100\n99\n118\n116\n113\nChina\nimport volume\n100\n91\n153\n150\n151\nmarket shares\n3,5 %\n3,1 %\n4,8 %\n5,6 %\n5,5 %\naverage price\n100\n98\n90\n85\n86\nSource: Eurostat.\n(69)\nThere is only one exporting producer of RBM in India, and its import volume decreased by almost 10 % during the injury investigation period. India nevertheless accounts for a significant portion of the Union market since it held on average 45 % of market shares during the injury investigation period. Furthermore, Indian import prices increased overall by 13 %, at a level slightly above the Thai prices. Given its prevailing position on the Union market, and in view of its competitive import price, India is a significant competitor for the Union industry. However, when looking at the trend described above, i.e. decreasing volume at increasing prices, there is no indication that India would have contributed to the deterioration of the situation of the Union industry in the IP. Finally, it should be noted that a certain portion of the Indian imports, i.e. around one third, has been directly purchased and sold on the Union market by a distributor related to the Union industry.\n(70)\nChinese imports have been subject to anti-dumping duties ranging from 51,2 % to 78,8 % since 2004. The volume of the Chinese imports increased by around 50 % between 2006 and IP, i.e. a market share gain of 2 points from 3,5 % to 5,5 %. Even if Chinese import prices followed a decreasing trend during the overall injury investigation period, their overall level however remained far above the Thai prices. And this is even without taking into account the application of the anti-dumping duties. It is thus concluded that these imports did not contribute to the deterioration of the situation of the Union industry in the IP.\n(71)\nOn the basis of the above, it is provisionally concluded that the imports from these third countries has not contributed, at least not beyond a marginal extent, to the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n7.3.3. Export performance of the Union industry\n(72)\nExport performance was also examined as one of the known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time have injured the Union industry.\n(73)\nThe exports of the Union industry represented on average around 5 % of its total sales of RBM during the injury investigation period and remained relatively stable. It is thus provisionally concluded that this could not have caused any injury to the Union industry.\n7.4. Conclusion on causation\n(74)\nThe above analysis demonstrated that imports from Thailand caused material injury to the Union industry during the IP, given their volume and the level of their prices. Imports indeed increased in absolute terms, they were found to be dumped and their price level was found to be significantly below the prices charged by the Union industry on the Union market for similar product types. In this price sensitive market, where the number of suppliers is relatively limited and the market quite transparent, an undercutting rate of more than 30 % definitively had a significant impact on market prices.\n(75)\nThe examination of the other known factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry revealed that the contraction in demand could have played a role. However, despite the negative effect of the decreasing demand on the Union market, it is provisionally concluded that this factor was not such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from Thailand and the material injury suffered by the Union industry. The contraction in demand should indeed be seen in conjunction with the effects of dumped imports which actually exacerbated the negative impact of the financial crisis.\n(76)\nBased on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports, it is provisionally concluded that the dumped imports from Thailand have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\n8. UNION INTEREST\n8.1. Preliminary remark\n(77)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether, despite the provisional conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed for concluding that it was not in the Union interest to adopt provisional anti-dumping measures in this particular case. For this purpose, and in accordance with Article 21(1) of the basic Regulation, the likely impact of possible measures on all parties involved in this proceeding and also the likely consequences of not taking measures were considered on the basis of all evidence submitted.\n(78)\nIn order to assess the likely impact of the measures, all interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known pursuant to Article 21(2) of the basic Regulation. The applicant Union producer and four unrelated importers replied to the questionnaire. The other Union producer, which is also an importer, provided some information and one user submitted a questionnaire reply.\n8.2. Description of the Union market\n(79)\nIn order to have a better understanding of all the various interests at stake, it is considered important to first describe the main characteristics of the market.\n(80)\nAnti-dumping measures were imposed for the first time against imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in China in 1997 (6). The original duty rate was increased 3 years later following an interim review. Those measures have indeed been recently extended for a second time following an expiry review establishing that dumped and injurious imports would otherwise resume (7).\n(81)\nSeveral investigations established that measures against China were circumvented, and they were thus extended to Vietnam and Lao People's Democratic Republic, respectively in 2004 and 2006, and the scope of the measures also had to be extended to certain slightly modified RBM (8). It should finally be mentioned that imports of RBM from Thailand were subject to two different anti-circumvention investigations, in 2004 and 2008, and to a new anti-dumping investigation in 2008. While these investigations did not lead to any measures the current investigation has clearly established that the Thai exporter provided false information in his questionnaire reply.\n(82)\nIt should be noted that RBM are imported into the Union market either by distributors, agents or directly by users, i.e. the companies producing binders.\n(83)\nFinally, it should be recalled that the number of producers of RBM supplying the Union market is relatively limited. Indeed, in addition to the two producers in the EU, there exist only one known producer in Thailand, one in India, and some in China, the latter being subject to anti-dumping measures as explained above. Both the exporting producer in Thailand and in India are owned by Hong Kong based companies, respectively Wah Hing Stationary, a trader of RBM having a production site in China, and World Wide Stationary, which has a supply agreement with Bensons, a distributor owned by the Union industry.\n8.3. Union industry\n(84)\nIt is recalled that some years ago the Union industry already faced serious economic difficulties, amongst other things because of unfair traded imports, and had to restructure in order to ensure its continued existence as explained below.\n(85)\nThe Union industry actually consisted of two producers when the first anti-dumping complaint was lodged in 1995: Koloman Handler GmbH, an Austrian company, and Robert Krause GmbH & Co, a German company. Those two companies were present on the EU RBM market already for a long time but their economic situation became so bad that they both had to file for bankruptcy. While Robert Krause GmbH filed for bankruptcy in 1998 and its successor company had to do the same in 2002, Koloman Hander became insolvent in 2001. Both companies were taken over by another company, SX B\u00fcrowaren Produktions- und Handels GmbH, which in turn was acquired by Ring Alliance Ringbuchtechnik GmbH, the applicant in this case.\n(86)\nSince then the activity has been restructured in order to better compete worldwide, but especially on the core market of the applicant, i.e. the EU market. This restructuring included the acquisition of Bensons, a well-established trader of RBM with companies located in the Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the USA.\n(87)\nThe efforts undertaken by the industry to improve its situation have however been undermined given that the positive effects of the measures against unfair imports have been diluted by absorption and circumvention practices, as explained above. As a consequence, despite significant improvement in particular until the year 2008, the situation of the industry remained fragile, as concluded in the investigation leading to the prolongation of the anti-dumping measures against China.\n(88)\nThe current investigation concluded that in the recent years the Union industry is again suffering material injury and that this was caused by dumped imports originating in Thailand.\n(89)\nThrough its restructuring efforts the Union industry proved it is a viable industry which is still in a position to supply an important share of the EU market. It however needs additional and efficient protection against dumped imports from all sources in order to reach a solid and healthy situation. Almost 60 jobs were lost between 2008 and the IP, and the Union industry made important losses in the last years. Without measures against Thai unfair traded imports it cannot be excluded that the applicant will be forced to cease its activity and more than 160 further jobs are at risk.\n(90)\nGiven the fact that imports from Thailand were found to cause material injury to the Union industry, that the Union industry has made all necessary restructuring efforts and is able to compete on a market where imports are fairly traded, it is concluded that it would be in the interest of the Union industry to impose provisional measures against imports of RBM from Thailand.\n8.4. Importers and traders\n(91)\nFollowing the initiation of the investigation five importers, including the second Union producer, made themselves known and provided either a questionnaire reply or other information. Those companies accounted for 75 % of the imports of RBM from Thailand during the investigation period.\n(92)\nOne of the above importers, representing around 20 % of the overall Thai imports, decided to end all its activities related to RBM after the investigation period. For a second importer, the sales volume of RBM has been divided by three during the overall injury investigation period and only represented a minor portion of its overall turnover during the IP (around 1 %). Moreover the latter ceased purchases from Thailand in 2008 and switched to an EU distributor. It is thus concluded that any imposition of measures would not affect the situation of those two importers.\n(93)\nAnother importer, representing less than 10 % of the total Thai imports, claimed that if measures were imposed against Thailand, it would have no alternative sources of supply and would be forced to end their RBM activity. In this respect, it should firstly be recalled that the objective of anti-dumping measures is however not to exclude any imports on the Union market, but rather to allow imports to continue, albeit at non-dumped prices. This importer could thus continue to import RBM from Thailand, although subject to the payment of anti-dumping duties, and could partially or totally pass-on this cost increase to its customers.\n(94)\nIt is however recognised that this could not so easily be achieved in view of the price sensitivity of the product and the competition from imports from other countries such as India. Moreover, given the structure of the Union market and the limited number of producers worldwide, it is indeed likely that this importer may face difficulties to switch to other sources of supply. It should however be noted that the portion of the RBM sales of the company as compared to its total turnover decreased during the injury investigation period, from around 40 % to 25 %, and, more importantly, the investigation revealed that the RBM activity has generated significant losses in the last years. In other words, there are doubts already today concerning the viability of the RBM business of this importer.\n(95)\nThe fourth importer also claimed that in case of imposition of measures it would have to stop trading RBM because of the lack of alternative sources of supply. Sales of RBM in this case however only accounted for a very minor portion of the total turnover of the company during the IP, with only one person dealing with the product concerned, and it is very likely that the company could relatively easily maintain its overall activity even without trading RBM, if the imposition of measures would make it unavoidable.\n(96)\nIt is thus concluded that even if the imposition of measures may indeed negatively affect the situation of the two importers above, it would however not significantly affect their overall economic activities.\n(97)\nThe situation of the last importer is less obvious because around half of its sales of RBM are of Thai products (they represent a significant proportion of the total EU imports of RBM from Thailand), the other half being produced in the EU. Moreover, even if the company is mainly selling lever arch mechanism, sales of RBM represent a non-negligible portion of the total turnover of the company (around 15 %). These sales are also considered crucial by the company because its customers often require suppliers being able to supply a full range of products.\n(98)\nA significant part of the activity of the company thus rely on imports of RBM from Thailand, and in particular the less sophisticated products which are necessary to offer a complete products range, an important condition to maintain a sufficiently wide number of customers. According to the company, any imposition of measures may result in the end of its overall activity, and the loss of around 170 jobs. It should however be noted that this is the headcount for the total company and that it is estimated that the RBM activity represents less than 30 people.\n(99)\nIn this respect it should first be underlined that this company managed to improve its situation on the RBM market in the last years - its overall market share of imported products and own production increased from 9 % to 15 % during the injury investigation period - because it benefited from cheap and dumped imports.\n(100)\nSecondly, it could be argued that this company could - at least partly - continue to import from Thailand, albeit at non-dumped prices, or even see the measures as an opportunity to increase its production, and/or production capacity, and sales of its own produced RBM. The company itself admitted this possibility, although with the nuance that it would still have to face the strong competition with Indian products, that are however imported by a variety of companies and not only by the trader related to the Union industry.\n(101)\nIt is clear that the company would indeed face a strong competition with Indian products which were on average during the IP only slightly more expensive than the Thai imports (+ 6 %). However, as long as it is not demonstrated that Indian imports are dumped, this should only be considered as the result of fair competition.\n(102)\nFinally, the negative impact of measures against Thailand could nevertheless be somewhat limited if it would be possible to reach a certain balance between an increase of its own production and the continuation a certain level of imports, although at non-dumped prices. It is also recalled that 75 % of the turnover of the company is made of sales of other products.\n(103)\nGiven, the above, it is provisionally concluded that the imposition of provisional measures could only have a significant negative impact on the situation of the last importer, i.e. the other Union producer, but the latter has largely benefited from the low priced and dumped imports from Thailand in the past, and the negative impact would essentially result from the competition with imports from India, which cannot be considered unfair competition.\n8.5. Users\n(104)\nOne user replied to the questionnaire which revealed that around three quarters of its purchases of RBM were imports from countries other than Thailand, the rest being more or less equally distributed between the Union industry and Thailand.\n(105)\nThis user claimed that in case of imposition of measures, the sources of supply would be limited and a monopolistic situation would appear. This is based on the allegation that the Union industry and its related trader Bensons, an importer of Indian products, would become the quasi unique source of supply on the Union market. Some of the importers supported the same arguments.\n(106)\nIn this respect, it should firstly be noted that the fact that the number of suppliers on the Union market is limited is not as such a reason not to impose anti-dumping measures in order to remedy unfair trade. It is indeed considered that in the absence of measures the Union industry is likely to disappear, and this producer still represents 25 % of the sales on the EU market and can deliver specialised and standard products in the EU. It would thus also be in the interest of users that this industry continues to operate on the market.\n(107)\nSecondly, despite the imposition of measures, it is not excluded that imports from Thailand, even if they may decrease in volume, will continue to be present on the Union market. Similarly, as explained above, the second producer in the Union may also likely be in a position to maintain or even expand its activity related to RBM.\n(108)\nFinally, imports from India will continue and users, including the sole co-operating user, will be able to carry on sourcing RBM from this country. Even if the Union industry's related trader has a supply contract with the Indian producers, it does not mean that it is the exclusive importer/distributor of Indian products. On the contrary. Other companies indeed also distribute Indian RBM on the Union market, and users can directly purchase RBM from India. In this context it should be underlined that about two thirds of the Indian exports to the EU are traded or purchased by companies other than Bensons, the trader related to the Union industry.\n(109)\nOn the basis of the above, it was provisionally concluded that the effect of the anti-dumping measures against imports of RBM originating in Thailand will most likely not have overall a significant negative impact on the users of the product concerned.\n8.6. Conclusion on Union interest\n(110)\nIn view of the above, it is provisionally concluded that overall, based on the information available concerning the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of provisional measures against imports of RBM originating in Thailand. Even if the imposition of measures may have negative consequences on the situation of the other Union producer (see above in the section on importers) which benefited from dumped imports in the past, it is considered that this does not overweight the need to remedy the negative effect of unfair imports on the situation of the Union industry.\n9. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n9.1. Injury elimination level\n(111)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.\n(112)\nFor the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the dumping margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Union producers.\n(113)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by producers of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the Union. It is provisionally considered that a profit margin of 5 % on turnover could be regarded as an appropriate minimum which the Union industry could have expected to obtain in the absence of injurious dumping. This is the same percentage that was used in previous proceedings concerning the same product, and there are no information indicating that circumstances had changed in this respect and that this level would not be adequate in this case. On this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union producers for the like product.\n(114)\nThe necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison, per product type, of the weighted average import price of the exporting producer in Thailand, with the non-injurious price of the product types sold by the Union producers on the Union market during the IP. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the average CIF import value of the compared types. The resulting injury margin was higher than the dumping margin.\n9.2. Provisional measures\n(115)\nIn the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that the provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed on imports originating in Thailand at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins in line with the lesser duty rule. In this case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the dumping margins found.\n(116)\nConsequently, the injury elimination margins and the dumping margins and the proposed rates of the provisional anti-dumping duty for Thailand, expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, are as follows:\nExporting producer\nProvisional AD duty rate\nThai Stationery Industry Co. Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand\n17,2 %\nAll other companies\n17,2 %\n10. FINAL PROVISION\n(117)\nIn the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the Notice of initiation may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive duty.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on ring binder mechanisms currently falling within CN code ex 8305 10 00 (TARIC codes 8305100011, 8305100013, 8305100019, 8305100021, 8305100023, 8305100029, 8305100034, 8305100035 and 8305100036) and originating in Thailand. For the purpose of this Regulation, ring binder mechanisms shall consist of at least two steel sheets or wires with at least four half-rings made of steel wire fixed on them and which are kept together by a steel cover. They can be opened either by pulling the half rings or with a small steel trigger mechanism fixed to the ring binder mechanism.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 shall be 17,2 %.\n3. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nWithout prejudice to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within 1 month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nPursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within 1 month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of 6 months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2011.", "references": ["93", "19", "76", "92", "60", "2", "40", "51", "63", "49", "42", "64", "94", "28", "35", "45", "89", "78", "1", "46", "37", "0", "77", "14", "99", "41", "66", "74", "75", "27", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 28 November 2011\nauthorising certain Member States to provide for temporary derogations from certain provisions of Council Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of seed potatoes originating in certain provinces of Canada\n(notified under document C(2011) 8633)\n(Only the Greek, Italian, Maltese, Portuguese and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(2011/778/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Directive 2000/29/EC, seed potatoes originating on the American continent are not to be introduced into the Union. However, that Directive permits derogations from that rule, provided that there is no risk of spreading harmful organisms.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2003/61/EC of 27 January 2003 authorising certain Member States to provide for temporary derogations from certain provisions of Council Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of seed potatoes originating in certain provinces of Canada (2) has been substantially amended several times. Since Portugal has asked for a further extension of those derogations and other amendments are to be made, that Decision should be replaced.\n(3)\nCanada is currently considered to be free from potato spindle tuber viroid but it is still not completely free from Clavibacter michiganensis (Smith) Davis et al. ssp. sepedonicus (Spieckermann et Kotthoff) Davis et al. (\u2018Clavibacter michiganensis\u2019).\n(4)\nInformation supplied by Canada has shown that it has developed its programme to eradicate Clavibacter michiganensis in the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and it can reasonably be assumed that the eradication programme is effective in certain areas of those provinces. It can therefore be established that there is no risk of Clavibacter michiganensis spreading, provided that certain technical conditions are complied with.\n(5)\nRecent notifications under Directive 2000/29/EC have shown the first findings of Epitrix similaris in the Union, namely in Portugal and in one region of Spain. A subsequent pest risk analysis for Epitrix spp. has demonstrated that some Epitrix species cause damage to potato tubers (Epitrix cucumeris, Epitrix similaris, Epitrix subcrinita and Epitrix tuberis). It also showed that some Epitrix species are known to occur in Canada.\n(6)\nGiven the unchanged situation with regard to potato spindle tuber viroid and Clavibacter michiganensis and in spite of the presence of Epitrix spp. in Canada, the authorisation to provide for derogations remains justified. Provisions should, however, be included concerning Epitrix species which damage potato tubers.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Malta and Portugal are authorised to provide for derogations from:\n(a)\nArticle 4(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC, as regards the prohibition referred to in point 10 of Part A of Annex III to that Directive;\n(b)\nArticle 5(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC and the third indent of Article 13(1)(i) of that Directive, as regards the special requirements referred to in points 25.2 and 25.3 of Section I of Part A of Annex IV to that Directive.\n2. The authorisation to provide for derogations referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply:\n(a)\nto seed potatoes of the varieties \u2018Atlantic\u2019, \u2018Donna\u2019, \u2018Kennebec\u2019, \u2018Russet Burbank\u2019, \u2018Sebago\u2019 and \u2018Shepody\u2019, originating in the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in Canada (\u2018the seed potatoes\u2019);\n(b)\nto seed potatoes that satisfy the conditions provided for in Articles 2 to 13 in addition to the requirements laid down in Annexes I, II and IV to Directive 2000/29/EC;\n(c)\nfor the potato-marketing seasons from 1 December to 31 March each year until 31 March 2014.\nArticle 2\n1. In the provinces of New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island, the seed potatoes shall have been produced in fields located in an area that, irrespective of whether the fields are operated by potato producers inside or outside that area, meets the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 to 9\n2. The area shall have been officially declared by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, to be free from potato spindle tuber viroid and from Clavibacter michiganensis (Smith) Davis et al. ssp. sepedonicus (Spieckermann et Kotthoff) Davis et al. (\u2018Clavibacter michiganensis\u2019).\nAs regards Epitrix cucumeris, Epitrix similaris, Epitrix subcrinita and Epitrix tuberis, seed potatoes shall have been brushed to physically remove any of those harmful organisms, if present, and render the tubers free of soil.\n3. The area shall either,\n(a)\nconsist of fields owned or rented by at least three distinct potato producers; or\n(b)\ncover a surface of at least four square kilometres, surrounded entirely by water or by fields where the harmful organisms referred to in paragraph 2 have not been found within the previous three years.\n4. All potatoes produced in the area shall be the first direct progeny of seed potatoes of the category \u2018Pre-elite\u2019, \u2018Elite I\u2019, \u2018Elite II\u2019, \u2018Elite III\u2019 or \u2018Elite IV\u2019 which were produced in establishments qualified to produce seed potatoes of the \u2018Pre-elite\u2019 or \u2018Elite I\u2019 categories and which are either official establishments or establishments officially designated and controlled for that purpose.\n5. The surface allocated for the production of seed potatoes that are not finally certified as seed potatoes shall not exceed one fifth of the total area allocated for certification.\n6. Systematic and representative annual surveys shall have been carried out by the relevant official Canadian authorities over at least the previous five years under appropriate conditions for the detection of potato spindle tuber viroid and Clavibacter michiganensis, on all potato fields located in the area and on potatoes harvested there, including appropriate laboratory testing, and have not shown any positive finding, or any other element which could militate against the declaration of the area as pest free.\n7. Immediately prior to export, during appropriate official examination, seed potatoes shall have been found free from Epitrix cucumeris, Epitrix similaris, Epitrix subcrinita and Epitrix tuberis and from any of their symptoms and from soil.\n8. Legislative, administrative or other arrangements shall have been made to ensure that:\n(a)\nno potatoes from areas of Canada other than those declared free from potato spindle tuber viroid and from Clavibacter michiganensis, or from countries where these harmful organisms are known to occur, can be introduced into the area;\n(b)\nneither potatoes originating in the area nor any containers, packaging material, vehicles and handling, grading and preparation equipment used in that area can be brought into contact with potatoes originating in areas other than those declared pest free, or containers, packaging material, vehicles and handling, grading and preparation equipment used in areas other than those declared pest free.\n9. Prior to the introduction of the seed potatoes into the Union, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency shall provide the Commission with a complete list of the areas declared as free from the harmful organisms referred to in paragraph 2, supported by a technical report, updated each year, on the phytosanitary status of seed potato production in the previous year.\nArticle 3\nThe seed potatoes shall be certified officially by the relevant Canadian authorities as seed potatoes meeting at least the conditions laid down for the \u2018Foundation\u2019 category.\nArticle 4\n1. Samples of at least 200 seed potato tubers per lot of 25 tonnes or less shall be taken officially in respect of each lot intended for export to the Union.\n2. A lot shall consist only of seed potato tubers of one single variety and class which have been produced on one single establishment and with the same reference number.\n3. The samples shall be examined by official laboratories in order to detect any presence of Clavibacter michiganensis. The examinations shall be carried out on the entire sample, using the method for the detection and diagnosis of Clavibacter michiganensis in batches of seed potato tubers as laid down in Council Directive 93/85/EEC (3).\nArticle 5\nSeed potatoes intended to be exported to the Union shall have been subject to legislative, administrative or other arrangements to ensure:\n(a)\ndirect supervision and control by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency of:\n(i)\nthe sampling process, i.e. the collection, tagging and sealing;\n(ii)\nthe labelling system through appropriate label accountability procedures, so that for each lot of seed potatoes within each consignment shipped to the Union a numbered label is used and stitched on the bags separately from the certification labels;\n(iii)\nthe relevant colour code corresponding to a specified importer in the importing Member State;\n(b)\nthat at the time of loading the vessel, two sealed bags of seed potatoes of each lot shipped to the Union are kept aside and stored under the supervision and control of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, at least until the results of the examinations referred to in Article 10 are completed;\n(c)\nthat the lots are kept isolated in all operations including transport, at least until delivery to the premises of the importers referred to in Article 7.\nArticle 6\n1. The phytosanitary certificate required shall be made out separately for each consignment and only if it has been established by the scientists involved that the examinations referred to in Article 4 did not give rise to suspicions or to the detection of the presence of Clavibacter michiganensis in the consignment and that, in particular, the IF testing was shown to be negative.\n2. The phytosanitary certificate shall contain the following information under \u2018Additional declaration\u2019:\n(a)\nconfirmation of compliance with the conditions laid down in Articles 2, 3 and 4 including, where the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) applies, express confirmation that the seed potatoes have been brushed in accordance with that provision;\n(b)\nthe name of the establishment or establishments that have produced the lots of seed potato;\n(c)\nthe relevant seed potato certification lot numbers;\n(d)\nthe name of the area referred to in Article 2;\n(e)\nthe name of the establishment referred to in Article 2(4); and\n(f)\nthe number of bags.\n3. The phytosanitary certificate shall mention, under \u2018Distinguishing marks\u2019, the colour code corresponding to a specified importer in the importing Member State, as well as the details of the numbered label used for each lot of seed potatoes within each consignment.\n4. Documents attached to the phytosanitary certificate, as an integral part of the certificate, shall relate precisely to that certificate in both description and quantity of the seed potatoes.\nArticle 7\n1. Prior to introduction into the Union, the importer shall provide advance notification of each introduction of a consignment sufficiently in advance to the responsible official bodies in the Member State concerned, as referred to in Article 2(1)(g) of Directive 2000/29/EC, giving details of the following:\n(a)\nthe variety of the seed potatoes;\n(b)\nthe quantity;\n(c)\nthe declared date of import;\n(d)\nthe names and addresses of the premises of the importers of the seed potatoes, and producers, or collective warehouses, or dispatching centres listed in accordance with Article 1 of Commission Directive 93/50/EEC (4).\nThe Member State concerned shall, without delay, convey those details and any subsequent modifications thereto to the Commission.\n2. At the time of introduction, the importer shall provide confirmation of the details contained in the advance notification referred to in paragraph 1 to the responsible official bodies in the Member State concerned.\nArticle 8\nThe seed potatoes may only be introduced into the Union via the following ports:\n(a)\nAveiro;\n(b)\nLisbon;\n(c)\nPorto;\n(d)\nGenoa;\n(e)\nLa Spezia;\n(f)\nLivorno;\n(g)\nNaples;\n(h)\nRavenna;\n(i)\nSalerno;\n(j)\nSavona;\n(k)\nLemesos;\n(l)\nLarnaca;\n(m)\nMarsaxlokk;\n(n)\nValletta;\n(o)\nSines;\n(p)\nPiraeus.\nArticle 9\nThe inspections required pursuant to the Article 13(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC shall be made by responsible official bodies.\nThe Commission shall determine to which extent the inspections referred to in the third indent of Article 21(3) of that Directive are to be integrated into the inspection programme in accordance with the fifth subparagraph of Article 21(5) of that Directive.\nThe responsible official bodies and, as appropriate, the experts referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 21(1) shall check the premises of the importers to confirm details of the quantities of seed potatoes imported from Canada, the colour coding, the numbered labels and the destinations for planting at premises listed in accordance with Article 1 of Directive 93/50/EEC.\nArticle 10\n1. The responsible official bodies of the importing Member States shall take a sample of at least 200 tubers per lot of 25 tonnes or less from each of the non-bulk lots of seed potatoes intended to be imported pursuant to this Decision for official examination in respect of Clavibacter michiganensis in accordance with the method for the detection and diagnosis of Clavibacter michiganensis as laid down in Directive 93/85/EEC.\n2. The lots of seed potatoes shall remain isolated and under official control and shall not be marketed or used until it has been established that the presence of Clavibacter michiganensis was not suspected or detected in the examinations referred to in paragraph 1. The quantities imported shall not exceed an amount which is adequate for the examinations, taking into account the facilities available for that purpose.\n3. The samples referred to in paragraph 1 shall be kept available for subsequent examination by other Member States. The responsible official bodies of a Member State making use of this derogation shall, by 15 April of each calendar year in which importation takes place, inform the Commission, with a view to organising that examination and the recording thereof.\n4. For Epitrix cucumeris, Epitrix similaris, Epitrix subcrinita and Epitrix tuberis, each consignment shall be inspected to confirm that the seed potatoes are free from those harmful organisms, from any of their symptoms and from soil.\nArticle 11\nThe seed potatoes shall be planted only at premises within the Member State of import, for which it is possible to trace the names and addresses of the premises concerned. However, this restriction shall not apply in the case of final users planting the imported seed potatoes or for users who sell only onto the local market.\nFor those premises, the potatoes grown from such seed potatoes shall be packaged and labelled accordingly and shall bear the number of the premises listed in accordance with Directive 93/50/EEC, as well as the Canadian origin of the seed potatoes used. Such potatoes may be moved within the Member States, only after approval by the responsible official bodies taking into account the results of the inspection referred to in Article 12.\nArticle 12\nIn the growing period following introduction, a suitable proportion of the plants shall be inspected by the responsible official bodies, at appropriate times, at the premises listed in accordance with Directive 93/50/EEC or the premises referred to in Article 11.\nArticle 13\nPotatoes grown from seed potatoes introduced pursuant to this Decision:\n(a)\nshall not be certified as seed potatoes; and\n(b)\nshall only be used as potatoes for consumption.\nArticle 14\nThe Member States of importation shall inform the other Member States and the Commission by means of the advance notification referred to in Article 7(1) of any use of the authorisation to provide derogations pursuant to this Decision.\nThe Member State of importation shall provide the Commission and the other Member States, before 1 June of each calendar year in which importation takes place, with information on the amounts (lots of seed potatoes/consignments) imported pursuant to this Decision and with a detailed technical report on the official examination referred to in Article 10.\nIn those cases where Member States have made official examinations on the samples referred to in Article 10, the detailed technical reports of such examinations shall be submitted to the other Member States and the Commission before 1 June of each calendar year.\nCopies of each phytosanitary certificate shall be transmitted to the Commission.\nArticle 15\nThe authorisation to provide for derogations referred to in Article 1 shall be revoked prior to 31 March 2014 if:\n(a)\nthe provisions laid down in Articles 2 to 13:\n(i)\nare shown to be insufficient to prevent the introduction into the Union of the harmful organisms referred to in Article 2 or\n(ii)\nhave not been complied with;\n(b)\nthere are elements which would militate against the proper functioning of the \u2018pest free area\u2019 concept in Canada.\nArticle 16\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Malta and the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 28 November 2011.", "references": ["5", "52", "7", "40", "94", "42", "64", "20", "57", "30", "56", "39", "13", "73", "45", "76", "33", "90", "36", "79", "85", "87", "16", "49", "32", "82", "25", "59", "12", "77", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "58", "61", "66", "68", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "58", "61", "66", "68", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 659/2011\nof 7 July 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 650/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 July 2011.", "references": ["73", "67", "44", "52", "50", "85", "61", "2", "65", "23", "87", "19", "55", "4", "59", "93", "14", "21", "5", "88", "90", "45", "49", "38", "33", "70", "71", "74", "27", "13", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 12 October 2011\namending Decision 2003/467/EC as regards the declaration of Latvia as officially tuberculosis-free Member State and the declaration of certain administrative regions in Portugal as officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free regions\n(notified under document C(2011) 7186)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/675/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), and in particular Annexes A(I)(4) and D(I)(E) thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 64/432/EEC applies to trade within the Union in bovine animals and swine. It lays down the conditions whereby a Member State or a region of a Member State may be declared officially tuberculosis-free and enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free as regards bovine herds.\n(2)\nAnnexes I and III to Commission Decision 2003/467/EC of 23 June 2003 establishing the official tuberculosis, brucellosis and enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free status of certain Member States and regions of Member States as regards bovine herds (2) list the Member States and regions thereof which are declared officially tuberculosis-free and officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free.\n(3)\nLatvia has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions for the officially tuberculosis-free status laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC for its whole territory.\n(4)\nFollowing the evaluation of the documentation submitted by Latvia, the whole territory of that Member State should be declared officially tuberculosis-free.\n(5)\nPortugal has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions for the officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free status laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC for all administrative regions (distritos) within the superior administrative units (regi\u00f5es) of Algarve and Alentejo.\n(6)\nFollowing evaluation of the documentation submitted by Portugal, the regions (distritos) concerned should be declared as officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free regions of Portugal.\n(7)\nDecision 2003/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and III to Decision 2003/467/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 October 2011.", "references": ["67", "90", "87", "35", "25", "47", "18", "58", "36", "89", "64", "37", "11", "0", "32", "98", "17", "4", "94", "50", "76", "69", "70", "7", "31", "14", "10", "3", "93", "13", "No Label", "20", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 698/2012\nof 25 July 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for under items 1 and 3 in the Annex to this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee; the Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion on item 2 of the Annex to this Regulation within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2012.", "references": ["35", "48", "67", "51", "34", "28", "3", "95", "97", "27", "46", "89", "12", "19", "24", "84", "98", "70", "32", "69", "9", "11", "38", "99", "57", "66", "63", "42", "52", "22", "No Label", "21", "40", "54"], "gold": ["21", "40", "54"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 2 December 2010\namending Decision 2007/453/EC as regards the BSE status of India, Peru, Panama and South Korea\n(notified under document C(2010) 8352)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/749/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in animals. For that purpose, the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) status of Member States or third countries or regions thereof (countries or regions) is to be determined by classification into one of three categories depending on the BSE risk involved, namely a negligible BSE risk, a controlled BSE risk and an undetermined BSE risk.\n(2)\nThe Annex to Commission Decision 2007/453/EC of 29 June 2007 establishing the BSE status of Member States or third countries or regions thereof according to their BSE risk (2) lists countries or regions according to their BSE risk status.\n(3)\nThe World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) plays a leading role in the categorisation of countries or regions according to their BSE risk. The list in the Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC takes account of Resolution No XXII - Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Status of Members - adopted by the OIE in May 2009 regarding the BSE status of Member States and third countries.\n(4)\nIn May 2010, the OIE adopted Resolution No 18 - Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Risk Status of Members. That Resolution recognised India and Peru as having a negligible BSE risk and Panama and South Korea as having a controlled BSE risk. The list in the Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC should therefore be amended to be brought into line with that Resolution as regards those third countries.\n(5)\nDecision 2007/453/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["33", "69", "15", "39", "76", "91", "90", "41", "87", "59", "79", "22", "27", "86", "50", "75", "84", "30", "43", "19", "64", "9", "72", "98", "68", "17", "28", "21", "47", "99", "No Label", "38", "66", "93", "95", "96"], "gold": ["38", "66", "93", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 December 2011\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Lithuania\n(2011/887/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 2(3) and Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2), in particular Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nLithuania has informed the General Secretariat of the Council of the national DNA analysis files to which Articles 2 to 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA apply and the conditions for automated searching as referred to in Article 3(1) of that Decision in accordance with Article 36(2) of that Decision.\n(5)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1, of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(6)\nLithuania has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on DNA data exchange.\n(7)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by Lithuania with Austria.\n(8)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in Lithuania and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the Austrian evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(9)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning DNA data exchange has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching and comparison of DNA data, Lithuania has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of that Decision as from the day of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["30", "67", "87", "39", "16", "29", "2", "10", "58", "3", "51", "89", "73", "6", "82", "71", "32", "84", "48", "47", "60", "18", "99", "25", "69", "19", "83", "45", "54", "95", "No Label", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91"], "gold": ["40", "41", "42", "43", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 48/2012\nof 19 January 2012\nfixing the export refunds on poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in poultrymeat, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely in the Union and bear the identification mark provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products should also comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1056/2011 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nIn order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the identification marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 1056/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 January 2012.", "references": ["45", "97", "62", "35", "4", "39", "82", "1", "48", "67", "58", "25", "98", "3", "95", "10", "41", "46", "32", "43", "5", "53", "85", "15", "90", "7", "68", "17", "51", "92", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1059/2011\nof 20 October 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1038/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["36", "23", "18", "4", "66", "14", "76", "63", "59", "49", "83", "51", "42", "57", "43", "9", "81", "34", "55", "97", "64", "62", "48", "73", "80", "12", "77", "28", "0", "60", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 649/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 4 July 2012\nconcerning the export and import of hazardous chemicals\n(recast)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1) and Article 207 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals (3) has been substantially amended several times. Since further amendments are to be made, Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 should be recast in the interest of clarity.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 689/2008 implements the Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade (4) (the \u2018Convention\u2019), which entered into force on 24 February 2004, and replaces Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals (5).\n(3)\nFor reasons of clarity and consistency with other relevant Union legislation, certain definitions should be introduced or clarified and terminology should be aligned with that used in Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and establishing a European Chemicals Agency (6), on the one hand, and Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (7) on the other hand. It is appropriate to ensure that this Regulation reflects the transitional provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, in order to avoid any inconsistencies between the timetable of application of that Regulation and this Regulation.\n(4)\nThe Convention allows Parties the right to take action that is more stringently protective of human health and the environment than that called for in the Convention, provided that such action is consistent with the provisions of the Convention and is in accordance with international law. It is necessary and appropriate, in order to ensure a higher level of protection of the environment and the general public of importing countries, to go further than the provisions of the Convention in certain respects.\n(5)\nAs regards the participation of the Union in the Convention, it is essential to have a single contact point for Union interaction with the Secretariat of the Convention (the \u2018Secretariat\u2019) and other Parties to the Convention as well as with other countries. The Commission should act as that contact point.\n(6)\nThere is a need to ensure the effective coordination and management of technical and administrative aspects of this Regulation at Union level. The Member States and the European Chemicals Agency established by Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (the \u2018Agency\u2019) have the competence and experience in implementing Union legislation on chemicals and international agreements on chemicals. The Member States and the Agency should, therefore, carry out tasks with regard to the administrative, technical and scientific aspects of the implementation of the Convention through this Regulation, as well as the exchange of information. In addition, the Commission, the Member States and the Agency should cooperate in order to implement the Union\u2019s international obligations under the Convention effectively.\n(7)\nGiven that certain tasks of the Commission should be transferred to the Agency, the European Database on Export and Import of Dangerous Chemicals initially established by the Commission should be further developed and maintained by the Agency.\n(8)\nExports of hazardous chemicals that are banned or severely restricted within the Union should continue to be subject to a common export notification procedure. Accordingly, hazardous chemicals, whether in the form of substances on their own or in mixtures or in articles, which have been banned or severely restricted by the Union as plant protection products, as other forms of pesticides, or as industrial chemicals for use by professional users or by the public, should be subject to export notification rules similar to those applicable to such chemicals when they are banned or severely restricted within either or both of the use categories laid down in the Convention, namely as pesticides or chemicals for industrial use. In addition, chemicals subject to the international prior informed consent (PIC) procedure (the \u2018PIC procedure\u2019) should also be subject to the same export notification rules. That common export notification procedure should apply to Union exports to all third countries, whether or not they are Parties to the Convention or participate in its procedures. Member States should be permitted to charge administrative fees, in order to cover their costs in carrying out this procedure.\n(9)\nExporters and importers should be obliged to provide information concerning the quantities of chemicals in international trade covered by this Regulation so that the impact and effectiveness of the arrangements laid down therein can be monitored and assessed.\n(10)\nNotifications to the Secretariat of Union or Member State final regulatory actions banning or severely restricting chemicals, with a view to their inclusion in the PIC procedure, should be submitted by the Commission in cases where the criteria laid down in the Convention in this regard are met. Additional information to support such notifications should be sought where necessary.\n(11)\nIn cases where Union or Member State final regulatory actions do not qualify for notification because they do not meet the criteria laid down in the Convention, information concerning the actions should nevertheless be conveyed to the Secretariat and other Parties to the Convention in the interests of exchange of information.\n(12)\nIt is also necessary to ensure that the Union takes decisions with regard to the import into the Union of chemicals that are subject to the PIC procedure. These decisions should be based on applicable Union legislation and take into account bans or severe restrictions imposed by Member States. Where justified, amendments to Union legislation should be proposed.\n(13)\nArrangements are needed to ensure that Member States and exporters are aware of the decisions of importing countries as regards chemicals that are subject to the PIC procedure, and that exporters comply with those decisions. Furthermore, in order to prevent undesired exports, no chemicals banned or severely restricted within the Union that meet the criteria for notification under the Convention or that are subject to the PIC procedure should be exported unless the explicit consent of the importing country concerned has been sought and obtained, whether or not that country is a Party to the Convention. At the same time, an exemption from this obligation is appropriate in relation to exports of certain chemicals to countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) provided that certain conditions are met. Furthermore, a procedure is needed to deal with cases in which, despite all reasonable efforts, no response is obtained from the importing country, so that exports of certain chemicals may proceed on a temporary basis under specified conditions. It is also necessary to provide for periodic review of all such cases as well as those in which explicit consent is obtained.\n(14)\nIt is also important that all chemicals exported have an adequate shelf-life so that they may be used effectively and safely. As regards pesticides, in particular those exported to developing countries, it is essential that information about appropriate storage conditions be provided and that suitable packaging and sizes of containers be used to avoid creating obsolete stocks.\n(15)\nArticles containing chemicals do not fall within the scope of the Convention. Nevertheless, it seems appropriate that articles, as defined in this Regulation, containing chemicals that could be released under certain conditions of use or disposal and that are banned or severely restricted in the Union within one or more of the use categories laid down in the Convention or are subject to the PIC procedure should also be subject to the export notification rules. Furthermore, certain chemicals and articles containing specific chemicals falling outside the scope of the Convention but giving rise to particular concern should not be exported at all.\n(16)\nIn accordance with the Convention, information on transit movements of chemicals subject to the PIC procedure should be provided to Parties to the Convention who request such information.\n(17)\nUnion rules on packaging and labelling and other safety information should apply to all chemicals when intended for export to Parties and other countries unless those provisions would conflict with any specific requirements of those countries, taking into account relevant international standards. Since Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 established new provisions on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, a reference to that Regulation should be included in this Regulation.\n(18)\nIn order to ensure effective control and enforcement, Member States should designate authorities such as customs authorities that should have the responsibility of controlling imports and exports of chemicals covered by this Regulation. The Commission, supported by the Agency, and the Member States have a key role to play and should act in a targeted and coordinated way. Member States should provide for appropriate penalties in the event of infringements.\n(19)\nIn order to facilitate customs control and to reduce the administrative burden for both exporters and authorities, a system of codes to be used in export declarations should be established. Special codes should also be used, as appropriate, for chemicals exported for the purpose of research or analysis in quantities that are unlikely to affect human health or the environment and that in any event do not exceed 10 kg from each exporter to each importing country per calendar year.\n(20)\nExchange of information, shared responsibility and cooperative efforts between the Union and the Member States and third countries should be promoted with a view to ensuring sound management of chemicals, whether or not those third countries are Parties to the Convention. In particular, technical assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition should be provided directly by the Commission and the Member States, or indirectly via support for projects by non-governmental organisations, especially assistance seeking to enable those countries to implement the Convention, thereby contributing to the prevention of harmful effects of chemicals on human health and the environment.\n(21)\nThere should be regular monitoring of the operation of the procedures if they are to be effective. To this end, Member States and the Agency should regularly submit reports in standardised form to the Commission, which should in turn regularly report to the European Parliament and the Council.\n(22)\nTechnical notes for guidance should be drawn up by the Agency to assist the designated authorities, including such authorities as customs authorities controlling exports, exporters and importers, in the application of this Regulation.\n(23)\nIn order to adapt this Regulation to technical progress, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) should be delegated to the Commission in respect of inclusion of chemicals in Part 1 or 2 of Annex I and other amendments to that Annex, inclusion of chemicals in Part 1 or 2 of Annex V and other amendments to that Annex, and amendments to Annexes II, III, IV and VI. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(24)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (8).\n(25)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely to ensure coherent and effective implementation of the Union\u2019s obligations under the Convention, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the necessity to harmonise the rules concerning imports and exports of hazardous chemicals, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(26)\nRegulation (EC) No 689/2008 should be repealed.\n(27)\nIt is appropriate to provide for the deferred application of this Regulation so as to allow the Agency sufficient time to prepare for its new role and allowing industry to familiarise itself with the new procedures,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nObjectives\n1. The objectives of this Regulation are to:\n(a)\nimplement the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (the \u2018Convention\u2019);\n(b)\npromote shared responsibility and cooperative efforts in the international movement of hazardous chemicals in order to protect human health and the environment from potential harm;\n(c)\ncontribute to the environmentally sound use of hazardous chemicals.\nThe objectives set out in the first subparagraph shall be achieved by facilitating the exchange of information concerning the characteristics of hazardous chemicals, by providing for a decision-making process within the Union on their import and export and by disseminating decisions to Parties and other countries as appropriate.\n2. In addition to the objectives set out in paragraph 1, this Regulation shall ensure that the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 relating to classification, labelling and packaging apply to all chemicals when they are exported from the Member States to other Parties or other countries, unless those provisions would conflict with any specific requirements of those Parties or other countries.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to:\n(a)\ncertain hazardous chemicals that are subject to the prior informed consent procedure under the Convention (the \u2018PIC procedure\u2019);\n(b)\ncertain hazardous chemicals that are banned or severely restricted within the Union or a Member State;\n(c)\nchemicals when exported in so far as their classification, labelling and packaging are concerned.\n2. This Regulation shall not apply to any of the following:\n(a)\nnarcotic drugs and psychotropic substances covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors (9);\n(b)\nradioactive materials and substances covered by Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation (10);\n(c)\nwastes covered by Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste (11);\n(d)\nchemical weapons covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (12);\n(e)\nfood and food additives covered by Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (13);\n(f)\nfeedingstuffs covered by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (14), including additives, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be used for oral feeding to animals;\n(g)\ngenetically modified organisms covered by Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (15);\n(h)\nsave to the extent covered by Article 3(5)(b) of this Regulation, proprietary medicinal products and veterinary medicinal products covered by Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (16) and Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (17) respectively.\n3. This Regulation shall not apply to chemicals exported for the purpose of research or analysis in quantities that are unlikely to affect human health or the environment and that in any event do not exceed 10 kg from each exporter to each importing country per calendar year.\nNotwithstanding the first subparagraph, exporters of the chemicals referred to therein shall obtain a special reference identification number using the Database referred to in Article 6(1)(a) and provide that reference identification number in their export declaration.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018chemical\u2019 means a substance, whether by itself or in a mixture, or a mixture, whether manufactured or obtained from nature, but does not include living organisms, which belongs to either of the following categories:\n(a)\npesticides, including severely hazardous pesticide formulations;\n(b)\nindustrial chemicals;\n(2)\n\u2018substance\u2019 means any chemical element and its compounds as defined in point 1 of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006;\n(3)\n\u2018mixture\u2019 means a mixture or a solution as defined in point 8 of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008;\n(4)\n\u2018article\u2019 means a finished product containing or including a chemical, the use of which has been banned or severely restricted by Union legislation in that particular product where that product does not fall under point 2 or 3;\n(5)\n\u2018pesticides\u2019 means chemicals in either of the following subcategories:\n(a)\npesticides used as plant protection products covered by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (18);\n(b)\nother pesticides, such as:\n(i)\nbiocidal products under Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (19); and\n(ii)\ndisinfectants, insecticides and parasiticides covered by Directives 2001/82/EC and 2001/83/EC;\n(6)\n\u2018industrial chemicals\u2019 means chemicals in either of the following subcategories:\n(a)\nchemicals for use by professionals;\n(b)\nchemicals for use by the public;\n(7)\n\u2018chemical subject to export notification\u2019 means any chemical that is banned or severely restricted within the Union within one or more categories or subcategories, and any chemical listed in Part 1 of Annex I that is subject to the PIC procedure;\n(8)\n\u2018chemical qualifying for PIC notification\u2019 means any chemical that is banned or severely restricted within the Union or a Member State within one or more categories. Chemicals banned or severely restricted in the Union within one or more categories are listed in Part 2 of Annex I;\n(9)\n\u2018chemical subject to the PIC procedure\u2019 means any chemical listed in Annex III to the Convention and in Part 3 of Annex I to this Regulation;\n(10)\n\u2018banned chemical\u2019 means either of the following:\n(a)\na chemical all uses of which within one or more categories or subcategories have been prohibited by final regulatory action by the Union in order to protect human health or the environment;\n(b)\na chemical that has been refused approval for first-time use or has been withdrawn by industry either from the Union market or from further consideration in a notification, registration or approval process and where there is evidence that the chemical raises concern for human health or the environment;\n(11)\n\u2018severely restricted chemical\u2019 means either of the following:\n(a)\na chemical, virtually all use of which within one or more categories or subcategories has been prohibited by final regulatory action by the Union in order to protect human health or the environment, but for which certain specific uses remain allowed;\n(b)\na chemical that has, for virtually all uses, been refused for approval or been withdrawn by industry either from the Union market or from further consideration in a notification, registration or approval process, and where there is evidence that the chemical raises concern for human health or the environment;\n(12)\n\u2018chemical banned or severely restricted by a Member State\u2019 means any chemical that is banned or severely restricted by national final regulatory action of a Member State;\n(13)\n\u2018final regulatory action\u2019 means a legally binding act the purpose of which is to ban or severely restrict a chemical;\n(14)\n\u2018severely hazardous pesticide formulation\u2019 means a chemical formulated for use as a pesticide that produces severe health or environmental effects observable within a short period of time after single or multiple exposure, under conditions of use;\n(15)\n\u2018customs territory of the Union\u2019 means the territory as determined in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (20);\n(16)\n\u2018export\u2019 means the following:\n(a)\nthe permanent or temporary export of a chemical meeting the conditions of Article 28(2) TFEU;\n(b)\nthe re-export of a chemical not meeting the conditions of Article 28(2) TFEU which is placed under a customs procedure other than the external Union transit procedure for movement of goods through the customs territory of the Union;\n(17)\n\u2018import\u2019 means the physical introduction into the customs territory of the Union of a chemical that is placed under a customs procedure other than the external Union transit procedure for movement of goods through the customs territory of the Union;\n(18)\n\u2018exporter\u2019 means any of the following persons, whether natural or legal:\n(a)\nthe person on whose behalf an export declaration is made, that is to say the person who, at the time the declaration is accepted, holds the contract with the consignee in a Party or other country and has the power to determine that the chemical be sent out of the customs territory of the Union;\n(b)\nwhere no export contract has been concluded or where the holder of the contract does not act on its own behalf, the person who has the power to determine that the chemical be sent out of the customs territory of the Union;\n(c)\nwhere the benefit of a right to dispose of the chemical belongs to a person established outside the Union pursuant to the contract on which the export is based, the contracting party established in the Union;\n(19)\n\u2018importer\u2019 means any natural or legal person who at the time of import into the customs territory of the Union is the consignee for the chemical;\n(20)\n\u2018Party to the Convention\u2019 or \u2018Party\u2019 means a State or a regional economic integration organisation that has consented to be bound by the Convention and for which the Convention is in force;\n(21)\n\u2018other country\u2019 means any country that is not a Party;\n(22)\n\u2018Agency\u2019 means the European Chemicals Agency established under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006;\n(23)\n\u2018Secretariat\u2019 means the Secretariat of the Convention, unless otherwise specified in this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nDesignated national authorities of the Member States\nEach Member State shall designate the authority or authorities (the \u2018designated national authority\u2019 or the \u2018designated national authorities\u2019) to carry out the administrative functions required by this Regulation, unless it has already done so before the entry into force of this Regulation.\nIt shall inform the Commission of such designation by 17 November 2012, unless that information has been already provided before entry into force of this Regulation, and shall also inform the Commission of any change of designated national authority.\nArticle 5\nParticipation of the Union in the Convention\n1. Participation in the Convention shall be a joint responsibility of the Commission and the Member States, in particular as regards technical assistance, the exchange of information and matters relating to dispute settlement, participation in subsidiary bodies and voting.\n2. The Commission shall act as a common designated authority for the administrative functions of the Convention with reference to the PIC procedure on behalf of and in close cooperation and consultation with all the designated national authorities of the Member States.\nThe Commission shall, in particular, be responsible for the following:\n(a)\nthe transmission of Union export notifications to Parties and other countries pursuant to Article 8;\n(b)\nthe submission to the Secretariat of notifications of relevant final regulatory actions concerning chemicals qualifying for PIC notification pursuant to Article 11;\n(c)\nthe transmission of information concerning other final regulatory actions involving chemicals not qualifying for PIC notification in accordance with Article 12;\n(d)\nthe receiving of information from the Secretariat more generally.\nThe Commission shall also provide the Secretariat with Union import responses for chemicals subject to the PIC procedure pursuant to Article 13.\nIn addition, the Commission shall coordinate the Union input on all technical issues relating to the following:\n(a)\nthe Convention;\n(b)\nthe preparation of the Conference of the Parties established by Article 18(1) of the Convention;\n(c)\nthe Chemical Review Committee established in accordance with Article 18(6) of the Convention (the \u2018Chemical Review Committee\u2019);\n(d)\nother subsidiary bodies of the Conference of the Parties.\n3. The Commission and the Member States shall take the necessary initiatives to ensure appropriate representation of the Union in the various bodies implementing the Convention.\nArticle 6\nTasks of the Agency\n1. The Agency shall, in addition to the tasks allocated to it under Articles 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 25, carry out the following tasks:\n(a)\nmaintain, further develop and regularly update a database on export and import of hazardous chemicals (the \u2018Database\u2019);\n(b)\nmake the Database publicly available on its website;\n(c)\nwhere appropriate, provide, with the agreement of the Commission and after consultations with Member States, assistance and technical and scientific guidance and tools for the industry in order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation;\n(d)\nprovide, with the agreement of the Commission, the designated national authorities of the Member States with assistance and technical and scientific guidance in order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation;\n(e)\nat the request of Member State or Commission experts of the Chemical Review Committee, and within the available resources, provide input in drafting of decision guidance documents referred to in Article 7 of the Convention and other technical documents related to the implementation of the Convention;\n(f)\nupon request, provide the Commission with technical and scientific input and assist it in order to ensure the effective implementation of this Regulation;\n(g)\nupon request, provide the Commission with technical and scientific input and assist it in exercising its role as the common designated authority of the Union.\n2. The Secretariat of the Agency shall carry out the tasks allocated to the Agency under this Regulation.\nArticle 7\nChemicals subject to export notification, chemicals qualifying for PIC notification, and chemicals subject to the PIC procedure\n1. The chemicals subject to export notification, the chemicals qualifying for PIC notification and the chemicals subject to the PIC procedure shall be as listed in Annex I.\n2. Chemicals listed in Annex I shall be assigned to one or more of three groups of chemicals, set out as Parts 1, 2 and 3 of that Annex.\nThe chemicals listed in Part 1 of Annex I shall be subject to the export notification procedure laid down in Article 8, with detailed information being given on the identity of the substance, on the use category and/or subcategory subject to restriction, the type of restriction and, where appropriate, additional information, in particular on exemptions to requirements for export notification.\nThe chemicals listed in Part 2 of Annex I shall, in addition to being subject to the export notification procedure laid down in Article 8, qualify for the PIC notification procedure set out in Article 11, with detailed information being given on the identity of the substance and on the use category.\nThe chemicals listed in Part 3 of Annex I shall be subject to the PIC procedure with the use category being given and, where appropriate, additional information, in particular on any requirements for export notification.\n3. The lists set out in Annex I shall be made publicly available by means of the Database.\nArticle 8\nExport notifications forwarded to Parties and other countries\n1. In the case of substances listed in Part 1 of Annex I or mixtures containing such substances in a concentration that triggers labelling obligations under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 irrespective of the presence of any other substances, paragraphs 2 to 8 of this Article shall apply regardless of the intended use of the chemical in the importing Party or other country.\n2. When an exporter is due to export a chemical referred to in paragraph 1 from the Union to a Party or other country for the first time on or after the date on which it becomes subject to this Regulation, the exporter shall notify the designated national authority of the Member State in which he is established (the \u2018exporter\u2019s Member State\u2019), no later than 35 days before the expected date of export. Thereafter the exporter shall notify that designated national authority of the first export of the chemical each calendar year no later than 35 days before the export takes place. The notifications shall comply with the information requirements laid down in Annex II and shall be made available to the Commission and to the Member States by means of the Database.\nThe designated national authority of the exporter\u2019s Member State shall check compliance of the information with Annex II and if the notification is complete forward it to the Agency no later than 25 days before the expected date of export.\nThe Agency shall, on behalf of the Commission, transmit the notification to the designated national authority of the importing Party or the appropriate authority of the importing other country and take the measures necessary to ensure that they receive that notification no later than 15 days before the first intended export of the chemical and thereafter no later than 15 days before the first export in any subsequent calendar year.\nThe Agency shall register each export notification and assign it a reference identification number in the Database. The Agency shall also make available to the public and the designated national authorities of the Member States, as appropriate, an updated list of the chemicals concerned and the importing Parties and other countries for each calendar year by means of the Database.\n3. If the Agency does not receive from the importing Party or other country an acknowledgement of receipt of the first export notification made after the chemical is included in Part 1 of Annex I within 30 days of the dispatch of such notification, it shall, on behalf of the Commission, submit a second notification. The Agency shall, on behalf of the Commission, make reasonable efforts to ensure that the designated national authority of the importing Party or the appropriate authority of the importing other country receives the second notification.\n4. A new export notification shall be made in accordance with paragraph 2 for exports which take place subsequent to the entry into force of amendments to Union legislation concerning the marketing, use or labelling of the substances in question or whenever the composition of the mixture in question changes so that the labelling of such mixture is altered. The new notification shall comply with the information requirements laid down in Annex II and shall indicate that it is a revision of a previous notification.\n5. Where the export of a chemical relates to an emergency situation in which any delay may endanger public health or the environment in the importing Party or other country, an exemption from the obligations set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 in whole or in part may be granted at the reasoned request of the exporter or the importing Party or other country and at the discretion of the designated national authority of the exporter\u2019s Member State, in consultation with the Commission assisted by the Agency. A decision on the request shall be considered to have been made in consultation with the Commission if there is no dissenting response from the Commission within 10 days of the designated national authority of the Member State sending it details of the request.\n6. Without prejudice to the obligations set out in Article 19(2), the obligations set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article shall cease when all of the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe chemical has become a chemical subject to the PIC procedure;\n(b)\nthe importing country is a Party to the Convention and has provided the Secretariat with a response in accordance with Article 10(2) of the Convention indicating whether or not it consents to import of the chemical; and\n(c)\nthe Commission has been informed of that response by the Secretariat and has forwarded that information to the Member States and the Agency.\nNotwithstanding the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the obligations set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article shall not cease where an importing country is a Party to the Convention and explicitly requires continued export notification by exporting Parties, for example through its import decision or otherwise.\nWithout prejudice to the obligations set out in Article 19(2), the obligations set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article shall also cease when both of the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe designated national authority of the importing Party or the appropriate authority of the importing other country has waived the requirement to be notified before the export of the chemical; and\n(b)\nthe Commission has received the information from the Secretariat or from the designated national authority of the importing Party or the appropriate authority of the importing other country and has forwarded it to the Member States and the Agency, which has made it available by means of the Database.\n7. The Commission, the relevant designated national authorities of the Member States, the Agency and the exporters shall, on request, provide importing Parties and other countries with available additional information concerning the exported chemicals.\n8. Member States may establish, in a transparent manner, systems obliging exporters to pay an administrative fee for each export notification made and for each request for explicit consent made, corresponding to the costs they incur in carrying out the procedures set out in paragraphs 2 and 4 of this Article and in Article 14(6) and (7).\nArticle 9\nExport notifications received from Parties and other countries\n1. Export notifications received by the Agency from the designated national authorities of Parties or the appropriate authorities of other countries concerning the export to the Union of a chemical the manufacture, use, handling, consumption, transport or sale of which is subject to prohibition or severe restriction under that Party\u2019s or other country\u2019s legislation shall be made available by means of the Database within 15 days of the Agency\u2019s receipt of such notification.\nThe Agency shall, on behalf of the Commission, acknowledge receipt of the first export notification received for each chemical from each Party or other country.\nThe designated national authority of the Member State receiving that import shall receive a copy of any notification received by the Agency, within 10 days of its receipt, together with all available information. Other Member States shall be entitled to receive copies on request.\n2. Where the Commission or the designated national authorities of the Member States receive any export notifications either directly or indirectly from the designated national authorities of Parties or the appropriate authorities of other countries, they shall immediately forward those notifications to the Agency together with all available information.\nArticle 10\nInformation on export and import of chemicals\n1. Each exporter of one or more of the following:\n(a)\nsubstances listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nmixtures containing such substances in a concentration that triggers labelling obligations under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 irrespective of the presence of any other substances; or\n(c)\narticles containing substances listed in Part 2 or 3 of Annex I in unreacted form or mixtures containing such substances in a concentration that triggers labelling obligations under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 irrespective of the presence of any other substances;\nshall, during the first quarter of each year, inform the designated national authority of the exporter\u2019s Member State regarding the quantity of the chemical, as a substance and as contained in mixtures or in articles, shipped to each Party or other country during the preceding year. That information shall be given together with a list of the names and addresses of each natural or legal person importing the chemical into a Party or other country to which shipment took place during the same period. That information shall list separately exports pursuant to Article 14(7).\nEach importer within the Union shall provide the equivalent information for the quantities imported into the Union.\n2. At the request of the Commission, assisted by the Agency, or the designated national authority of its Member State, the exporter or importer shall provide any additional information relating to chemicals that is necessary to implement this Regulation.\n3. Each Member State shall provide the Agency each year with aggregated information in accordance with Annex III. The Agency shall summarise that information at Union level and shall make the non-confidential information publicly available by means of the Database.\nArticle 11\nNotification of banned or severely restricted chemicals under the Convention\n1. The Commission shall notify the Secretariat in writing of the chemicals listed in Part 2 of Annex I, which qualify for PIC notification.\n2. Whenever further chemicals are added to Part 2 of Annex I pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 23(2), the Commission shall notify those chemicals to the Secretariat. That PIC notification shall be submitted as soon as possible after adoption of the relevant final regulatory action at Union level banning or severely restricting the chemical, and no later than 90 days after the date on which the final regulatory action is to be applied.\n3. The PIC notification shall provide all relevant information required in Annex IV.\n4. In determining priorities for notifications, the Commission shall take into account whether the chemical is already listed in Part 3 of Annex I, the extent to which the information requirements laid down in Annex IV can be met, and the severity of the risks presented by the chemical, in particular for developing countries.\nWhere a chemical qualifies for PIC notification, but the information is insufficient to meet the requirements of Annex IV, identified exporters or importers shall, upon request by the Commission, provide all relevant information available to them, including that from other national or international chemical control programmes, within 60 days of the request.\n5. The Commission shall notify the Secretariat in writing when a final regulatory action notified under paragraphs 1 or 2 is amended as soon as possible after adoption of the new final regulatory action, and no later than 60 days after the date on which the new final regulatory action is to be applied.\nThe Commission shall provide all relevant information that was not available at the time the initial notification was made under paragraphs 1 or 2 respectively.\n6. At the request of any Party or the Secretariat, the Commission shall provide additional information concerning the chemical or the final regulatory action, as far as practicable.\nThe Member States and the Agency shall, upon request, assist the Commission as necessary in compiling that information.\n7. The Commission shall forward immediately to the Member States and the Agency information that it receives from the Secretariat regarding chemicals notified as banned or severely restricted by other Parties.\nWhere appropriate, the Commission shall evaluate, in close cooperation with the Member States and the Agency, the need to propose measures at Union level in order to prevent any unacceptable risks to human health or the environment within the Union.\n8. Where a Member State takes national final regulatory action in accordance with the relevant Union legislation to ban or severely restrict a chemical, it shall provide the Commission with relevant information. The Commission shall make that information available to the Member States. Within four weeks of that information having been made available, Member States may send comments on a possible PIC notification, including, in particular, relevant information about their national regulatory position in respect of the chemical to the Commission and to the Member State which submitted the national final regulatory action. After consideration of the comments, the submitting Member State shall inform the Commission whether the latter has to:\n(a)\nmake a PIC notification to the Secretariat, pursuant to this Article; or\n(b)\nprovide the information to the Secretariat, pursuant to Article 12.\nArticle 12\nInformation to be transmitted to the Secretariat concerning banned or severely restricted chemicals not qualifying for PIC notification\nIn the case of chemicals listed only in Part 1 of Annex I or following receipt of information from a Member State pursuant to point (b) of Article 11(8), the Commission shall provide the Secretariat with information concerning the relevant final regulatory actions, so that the information can be disseminated to other Parties to the Convention as appropriate.\nArticle 13\nObligations in relation to import of chemicals\n1. The Commission shall immediately forward to the Member States and the Agency any decision guidance documents which it receives from the Secretariat.\nThe Commission shall, by means of an implementing act, adopt an import decision in the form of a final or interim import response on behalf of the Union concerning the future import of the chemical concerned. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 27(2). The Commission shall communicate the decision to the Secretariat as soon as possible, and no later than nine months after the date of dispatch of the decision guidance document by the Secretariat.\nWhere a chemical becomes subject to additional or amended restrictions under Union legislation, the Commission shall, by means of an implementing act, adopt a revised import decision. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 27(2). The Commission shall communicate the revised import decision to the Secretariat.\n2. In the case of a chemical banned or severely restricted by one or more Member States, the Commission shall, at the written request of the Member States concerned, take the information into account in its import decision.\n3. An import decision under paragraph 1 shall relate to the category or categories specified for the chemical in the decision guidance document.\n4. When communicating the import decision to the Secretariat, the Commission shall provide a description of the legislative or administrative measure upon which it is based.\n5. Each designated national authority of the Member States shall make the import decisions under paragraph 1 available to those concerned within its competence, in accordance with its legislative or administrative measures. The Agency shall make the import decisions under paragraph 1 publicly available by means of the Database.\n6. Where appropriate, the Commission shall evaluate, in close cooperation with the Member States and the Agency, the need to propose measures at Union level in order to prevent any unacceptable risks to human health or the environment within the Union, taking into account the information given in the decision guidance document.\nArticle 14\nObligations in relation to export of chemicals other than export notification\n1. The Commission shall immediately forward to the Member States, the Agency and European industry associations the information which it receives, whether in the form of circulars or otherwise, from the Secretariat regarding chemicals subject to the PIC procedure and the decisions of importing Parties regarding import conditions applicable to those chemicals. It shall also immediately forward to the Member States and the Agency information concerning any cases of failure to transmit a response in accordance with Article 10(2) of the Convention. The Agency shall assign each import decision a reference identification number and keep all information regarding such decisions publicly available by means of the Database, and provide anyone with that information upon request.\n2. The Commission shall assign each chemical listed in Annex I a classification in the European Union\u2019s Combined Nomenclature. Those classifications shall be revised as necessary in the light of any changes made in the World Customs Organisation\u2019s Harmonised System Nomenclature or in the European Union\u2019s Combined Nomenclature for the chemicals concerned.\n3. Each Member State shall communicate the information and decisions forwarded by the Commission under paragraph 1 to those concerned within its jurisdiction.\n4. Exporters shall comply with decisions in each import response no later than six months after the Secretariat first informs the Commission of such decisions under paragraph 1.\n5. The Commission, assisted by the Agency, and the Member States shall advise and assist importing Parties, upon request and as appropriate, in obtaining further information needed to prepare a response to the Secretariat concerning the import of a given chemical.\n6. Substances listed in Part 2 or 3 of Annex I or mixtures containing such substances in a concentration that triggers labelling obligations under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 irrespective of the presence of any other substances shall, regardless of their intended use in the importing Party or other country, not be exported unless either of the following conditions is fulfilled:\n(a)\nexplicit consent to import has been sought and received by the exporter through the designated national authority of the exporter\u2019s Member State in consultation with the Commission, assisted by the Agency, and the designated national authority of the importing Party or an appropriate authority in an importing other country;\n(b)\nin the case of chemicals listed in Part 3 of Annex I, the latest circular issued by the Secretariat pursuant to paragraph 1 indicates that the importing Party has given consent to import.\nIn the case of chemicals listed in Part 2 of Annex I that are to be exported to OECD countries, the designated national authority of the exporter\u2019s Member State may, at the request of the exporter, in consultation with the Commission and on a case-by-case basis, decide that no explicit consent is required if the chemical, at the time of importation into the OECD country concerned, is licensed, registered or authorised in that OECD country.\nWhere explicit consent has been sought pursuant to point (a) of the first subparagraph, if the Agency has not received a response to the request within 30 days, the Agency shall, on behalf of the Commission, send a reminder unless the Commission or the designated national authority of the exporter\u2019s Member State received a response and forwarded it to the Agency. Where appropriate, if there is still no response within a further 30 days, the Agency may send further reminders as necessary.\n7. In the case of chemicals listed in Part 2 or 3 of Annex I, the designated national authority of the exporter\u2019s Member State may, in consultation with the Commission assisted by the Agency, on a case-by-case basis and subject to the second subparagraph, decide that the export may proceed, if no evidence from official sources of final regulatory action to ban or severely restrict the use of the chemical taken by the importing Party or other country exists and if, after all reasonable efforts, no response to a request for explicit consent pursuant to point (a) of paragraph 6 has been received within 60 days and where one of the following conditions is met:\n(a)\nthere is evidence from official sources in the importing Party or other country that the chemical is licensed, registered or authorised; or\n(b)\nthe intended use declared in the export notification and confirmed in writing by the natural or legal person importing the chemical into a Party or other country, is not in a category for which the chemical is listed in Part 2 or 3 of Annex I, and there is evidence from official sources that the chemical has in the last five years been used in or imported into the importing Party or other country concerned.\nIn the case of chemicals listed in Part 3 of Annex I, an export based on the fulfilment of the condition under point (b) may not proceed if the chemical has been classified in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 as carcinogenic category 1A or 1B, or mutagenic category 1A or 1B, or toxic for reproduction category 1A or 1B or the chemical fulfils the criteria of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 for being persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic or very persistent and very bioaccumulative.\nWhen deciding on the export of chemicals listed in Part 3 of Annex I, the designated national authority of the exporter\u2019s Member State shall, in consultation with the Commission assisted by the Agency, consider the possible impact on human health or the environment of the use of the chemical in the importing Party or other country, and submit relevant documentation to the Agency, to be made available by means of the Database.\n8. The validity of each explicit consent obtained pursuant to point (a) of paragraph 6 or decision to proceed with export in the absence of explicit consent pursuant to paragraph 7 shall be subject to periodic review by the Commission in consultation with the Member States concerned as follows:\n(a)\nfor each explicit consent obtained pursuant to point (a) of paragraph 6 a new explicit consent shall be required by the end of the third calendar year after the consent was given, unless the terms of that consent require otherwise;\n(b)\nunless a response to a request has been received in the meantime, each decision to proceed without explicit consent pursuant to paragraph 7 shall be valid for a maximum period of 12 months, upon expiry of which explicit consent shall be required.\nIn the cases referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph, exports may, however, continue after the end of the relevant period, pending a response to a new request for explicit consent, for an additional period of 12 months.\n9. The Agency shall register all requests for explicit consent, responses obtained and decisions to proceed without explicit consent, including the documentation referred to in the third subparagraph of paragraph 7, in the Database. Each explicit consent obtained or decision to proceed without explicit consent shall be assigned a reference identification number and shall be listed with all relevant information concerning any conditions attached, such as validity dates. The non-confidential information shall be made publicly available by means of the Database.\n10. No chemical shall be exported later than six months before its expiry date, where such a date exists or can be inferred from the production date, unless the intrinsic properties of the chemical render that impracticable. In particular, in the case of pesticides, exporters shall ensure that the size and packaging of containers is optimised so as to minimise the risk of creating obsolete stocks.\n11. When exporting pesticides, exporters shall ensure that the label contains specific information about storage conditions and storage stability under the climatic conditions of the importing Party or other country. In addition, they shall ensure that the pesticides exported comply with the purity specification laid down in Union legislation.\nArticle 15\nExport of certain chemicals and articles\n1. Articles shall be subject to the export notification procedure laid down in Article 8 if they contain any of the following:\n(a)\nsubstances listed in Part 2 or 3 of Annex I in unreacted form;\n(b)\nmixtures containing such substances in a concentration that triggers labelling obligations under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 irrespective of the presence of any other substances.\n2. Chemicals and articles the use of which is prohibited in the Union for the protection of human health or the environment, as listed in Annex V, shall not be exported.\nArticle 16\nInformation on transit movements\n1. Parties to the Convention requiring information concerning transit movements of chemicals subject to the PIC procedure, together with the information requested by each Party to the Convention through the Secretariat, shall be as listed in Annex VI.\n2. Where a chemical listed in Part 3 of Annex I is transported through the territory of a Party to the Convention listed in Annex VI, the exporter shall, as far as practicable, provide the designated national authority of the exporter\u2019s Member State with the information required by the Party to the Convention in accordance with Annex VI no later than 30 days before the first transit movement takes place and no later than eight days before each subsequent transit movement.\n3. The designated national authority of the exporter\u2019s Member State shall forward to the Commission with a copy to the Agency, the information received from the exporter under paragraph 2 together with any additional information available.\n4. The Commission shall forward the information received under paragraph 3 to the designated national authorities of Parties to the Convention which requested that information, together with any additional information available, no later than 15 days before the first transit movement and prior to any subsequent transit movement.\nArticle 17\nInformation to accompany exported chemicals\n1. Chemicals that are intended for export shall be subject to the provisions on packaging and labelling established in, or pursuant to, Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Directive 98/8/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, or any other relevant Union legislation.\nThe first subparagraph shall apply unless those provisions would conflict with any specific requirements of the importing Parties or other countries.\n2. Where appropriate, the expiry date and the production date of chemicals referred to in paragraph 1 or listed in Annex I shall be indicated on the label, and if necessary such expiry dates shall be given for different climate zones.\n3. A safety data sheet in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 shall accompany chemicals referred to in paragraph 1 when exported. The exporter shall send such a safety data sheet to each natural or legal person importing the chemical into a Party or other country.\n4. The information on the label and on the safety data sheet shall as far as practicable be given in the official languages, or in one or more of the principal languages, of the country of destination or of the area of intended use.\nArticle 18\nObligations of the authorities of the Member States for controlling import and export\n1. Each Member State shall designate authorities such as customs authorities that shall have the responsibility of controlling the import and export of chemicals listed in Annex I, unless it has already done so before the entry into force of this Regulation.\nThe Commission, supported by the Agency, and the Member States shall act in a targeted and coordinated way in monitoring exporters\u2019 compliance with this Regulation.\n2. The Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement established by Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 shall be used to coordinate a network of the Member States\u2019 authorities responsible for enforcement of this Regulation.\n3. Each Member State shall, in its regular reports on the operation of procedures pursuant to Article 22(1), include details of the activities of its authorities in that regard.\nArticle 19\nFurther obligations of exporters\n1. Exporters of chemicals subject to the obligations set out in Article 8(2) and (4) shall provide the applicable reference identification numbers in their export declaration (box 44 of the Single Administrative Documents or corresponding data element in an electronic export declaration) as referred to in Article 161(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\n2. Exporters of chemicals exempted by Article 8(5) from the obligations set out in paragraphs 2 and 4 of that Article or of chemicals for which those obligations have ceased in accordance with Article 8(6) shall obtain a special reference identification number using the Database and provide that reference identification number in their export declaration.\n3. Where requested by the Agency, exporters shall use the Database for the submission of information required for the fulfilment of their obligations under this Regulation.\nArticle 20\nExchange of information\n1. The Commission, assisted by the Agency, and the Member States shall, as appropriate, facilitate the provision of scientific, technical, economic and legal information concerning chemicals subject to this Regulation, including toxicological, ecotoxicological and safety information.\nThe Commission, with the support of the Member States and the Agency as necessary, shall, as appropriate, ensure the following:\n(a)\nthe provision of publicly available information concerning regulatory actions relevant to the objectives of the Convention;\n(b)\nthe provision of information for Parties and other countries directly or through the Secretariat concerning those actions which substantially restrict one or more uses of a chemical.\n2. The Commission, the Member States and the Agency shall protect any confidential information received from a Party or other country as mutually agreed.\n3. As regards the transmission of information under this Regulation, and without prejudice to Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information (21), the following information at least shall not be regarded as confidential:\n(a)\nthe information specified in Annex II and Annex IV;\n(b)\nthe information contained in safety data sheets referred to in Article 17(3);\n(c)\nthe expiry date of a chemical;\n(d)\nthe production date of a chemical;\n(e)\ninformation concerning precautionary measures, including hazard classification, the nature of the risk and the relevant safety advice;\n(f)\nthe summary results of toxicological and ecotoxicological tests;\n(g)\ninformation concerning handling packaging after chemicals have been removed.\n4. A compilation of the information transmitted shall be prepared every two years by the Agency.\nArticle 21\nTechnical assistance\nThe Commission, the designated national authorities of the Member States and the Agency shall, taking into account in particular the needs of developing countries and countries with economies in transition, cooperate in promoting technical assistance, including training, for the development of the infrastructure, the capacity and the expertise necessary to manage chemicals properly throughout their lifecycles.\nIn particular, and with a view to enabling those countries to implement the Convention, technical assistance shall be promoted by means of the provision of technical information concerning chemicals, the promotion of the exchange of experts, support for the establishment or maintenance of designated national authorities and the provision of technical expertise for the identification of hazardous pesticide formulations and for the preparation of notifications to the Secretariat.\nThe Commission and the Member States shall actively participate in international activities in capacity-building in chemicals management, by providing information concerning the projects they are supporting or financing to improve the management of chemicals in developing countries and countries with economies in transition. The Commission and the Member States shall also consider giving support to non-governmental organisations.\nArticle 22\nMonitoring and reporting\n1. Member States and the Agency shall forward information to the Commission every three years concerning the operation of the procedures provided for in this Regulation, including customs controls, infringements, penalties and remedial action, as appropriate. The Commission shall adopt an implementing act laying down in advance a common format for reporting. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 27(2).\n2. The Commission shall compile a report every three years on the performance of the functions provided for in this Regulation for which it is responsible and shall incorporate it in a synthesis report integrating the information provided by the Member States and the Agency under paragraph 1. A summary of that report, which shall be published on the internet, shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. As regards the information supplied pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2, the Commission, the Member States and the Agency shall comply with relevant obligations to protect the confidentiality and ownership of data.\nArticle 23\nUpdating annexes\n1. The list of chemicals in Annex I shall be reviewed by the Commission at least every year, on the basis of developments in Union law and under the Convention.\n2. When determining whether a final regulatory action at Union level constitutes a ban or a severe restriction, the effect of that action shall be assessed at the level of the subcategories within the categories \u2018pesticides\u2019 and \u2018industrial chemicals\u2019. If the final regulatory action bans or severely restricts a chemical within any one of the subcategories it shall be included in Part 1 of Annex I.\nWhen determining whether a final regulatory action at Union level constitutes a ban or a severe restriction such that the chemical concerned qualifies for PIC notification under Article 11, the effect of that action shall be assessed at the level of the categories \u2018pesticides\u2019 and \u2018industrial chemicals\u2019. If the final regulatory action bans or severely restricts a chemical within either of the categories it shall also be included in Part 2 of Annex I.\n3. The decision to include chemicals in Annex I, or to modify their entry where appropriate, shall be taken without undue delay.\n4. In order to adapt this Regulation to technical progress, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 26 concerning the following measures:\n(a)\ninclusion of a chemical in Part 1 or 2 of Annex I pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article following final regulatory action at Union level, and other amendments of Annex I, including modifications to existing entries;\n(b)\ninclusion of a chemical that is subject to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants (22) in Part 1 of Annex V;\n(c)\ninclusion of a chemical already subject to an export ban at Union level in Part 2 of Annex V;\n(d)\nmodifications to existing entries in Annex V;\n(e)\namendments of Annexes II, III, IV and VI.\nArticle 24\nThe budget of the Agency\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the revenues of the Agency shall consist of:\n(a)\na subsidy from the Union, entered in the general budget of the Union (Commission Section);\n(b)\nany voluntary contribution from the Member States.\n2. Revenues and expenditure for activities under this Regulation and those relating to activities under other Regulations shall be dealt with separately, through different sections in the Agency\u2019s budget.\nThe revenues of the Agency referred to in paragraph 1 shall be used for carrying out its tasks under this Regulation.\n3. The Commission shall examine whether it is appropriate for the Agency to charge a fee for the services provided to exporters within five years of 1 March 2014 and, if necessary, submit a relevant proposal.\nArticle 25\nFormats and software for submission of information to the Agency\nThe Agency shall specify formats and software packages and make them available free of charge on its website for any submission of information to the Agency. Member States and other parties subject to this Regulation shall use those formats and packages in their submissions to the Agency pursuant to this Regulation.\nArticle 26\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 23(4) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from 1 March 2014. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension no later than three months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 23(4) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 23(4) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 27\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the committee established by Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 28\nPenalties\nMember States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure correct implementation of these provisions. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. If they have not already done so before the entry into force of this Regulation, Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission by 1 March 2014 and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.\nArticle 29\nTransitional period on the classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals\nReferences in this Regulation to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 shall be construed, where appropriate, as references to the Union legislation which applies by virtue of Article 61 of that Regulation and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.\nArticle 30\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 689/2008 shall be repealed with effect from 1 March 2014.\nReferences to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex VII.\nArticle 31\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 March 2014.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["50", "55", "76", "80", "57", "13", "40", "11", "33", "94", "59", "44", "77", "24", "89", "78", "31", "14", "20", "30", "25", "73", "90", "32", "12", "93", "6", "49", "85", "36", "No Label", "22", "38", "58", "60", "65", "83"], "gold": ["22", "38", "58", "60", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 369/2012\nof 27 April 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances blood meal, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, limestone, pepper and quartz sand\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13 (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe active substances blood meal, calcium carbide calcium carbonate, limestone, pepper and quartz sand were included in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) by Commission Directive 2008/127/EC (3) in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 24b of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 (4) of 3 December 2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC. Since the replacement of Directive 91/414/EEC by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, these substances are deemed to have been approved under that Regulation and are listed in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (5).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 25a of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004, the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, presented to the Commission the conclusions on the peer review for blood meal (6) on 26 September 2011 for calcium carbide (7) on 17 October 2011, for calcium carbonate (8) and for limestone (9) on 6 July 2011, for pepper dust extraction residue (10) on 4 July 2011, and for quartz sand (11) on 6 July 2011. The draft assessment reports and the conclusions of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 9 March 2012 in the format of the Commission review reports for blood meal, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, limestone, pepper dust extraction residue and quartz sand.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Commission invited the notifiers to submit their comments on the conclusions of the Authority. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 13(1) of that Regulation, the Commission invited the notifiers to submit comments on the draft review reports for blood meal, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, limestone, pepper dust extraction residue and quartz sand. The notifiers submitted their comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(4)\nIt is confirmed that the active substances blood meal, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, limestone, pepper and quartz sand are to be deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is necessary to amend the conditions of approval of blood meal, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, limestone, pepper and quartz sand. It is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information as regards blood meal, calcium carbonate and pepper. At the same time certain technical adaptations should be made, in particular the name of the active substance \u2018pepper\u2019 should be replaced by \u2018pepper dust extraction residue\u2018.\n(6)\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nA reasonable period of time should be allowed before the application of this Regulation in order to allow Member States, notifiers and holders of authorisations for plant protection products to meet the requirements resulting from amendment to the conditions of the approval.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2012.", "references": ["96", "80", "3", "11", "26", "46", "1", "90", "27", "24", "30", "0", "2", "10", "42", "49", "93", "50", "67", "23", "33", "89", "48", "40", "38", "82", "31", "74", "44", "19", "No Label", "25", "61", "65", "68", "79", "83"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65", "68", "79", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 August 2011\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of tris(2-chloro-1-methylethyl)phosphate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\n(2011/498/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 23 July 2010, the European Commission (the Commission) announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (the notice of initiation), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation with regard to imports into the Union of tris(2-chloro-1-methylethyl)phosphate (TCPP) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (the \u2018country concerned\u2019 or \u2018the PRC\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 9 June 2010 by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of TCPP. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of TCPP from the PRC and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant, other known Union producers, the exporting producers, importers and users known to be concerned as well as their associations, and the representatives of the exporting country, of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(4)\nIn view of the apparent high number of exporting producers and importers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping and injury, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers and importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the investigation period (1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010).\n(5)\nAfter examination of the information submitted, and given the high number of importers which indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was necessary with regard to unrelated importers. Whereas, given the limited number of exporting producers that indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was not necessary with regard to exporting producers.\n(6)\nSix unrelated importers, accounting for 25 % of imports to the Union, agreed to be included in the sample. Two importers, accounting for around 20 % of imports from the PRC and over 80 % of imports of the importers that agreed to be included in the sample, were included in the sample. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned were given the opportunity to comment on the selection of the sample. No objection was raised with regards to the selection of the sample.\n(7)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the exporting producers, sampled importers, the Union producers, to all known users in the Union, and to known analogue country producers in the United States of America (USA). Questionnaire replies were received from four exporting producers in the PRC, one analogue country producer, three Union producers, two sampled importers and 35 users in the EU. However, one of the four Chinese exporting producers supplied a highly deficient questionnaire reply, and was subsequently considered as non-cooperating.\n(8)\nIn order to allow exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the exporting producers that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. Two (groups of) companies requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation or IT pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation should the investigation establish that they did not meet the conditions for MET. One company claimed only IT.\n(9)\nThe Commission sought and verified the information deemed necessary for a determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\nExporting producers in the PRC\n-\nAlbemarle Chemicals (Nanjing), Nanjing, PRC,\n-\nJiangsu Yoke Technology Co. Ltd, Yixing, PRC;\nRelated importers in the EU\n-\nAlbemarle Europe, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium,\n-\nShekoy Chemicals Europe BV, Breda, the Netherlands;\nUnion producers\n-\nICL-IP Bitterfeld GmbH, Bitterfeld-Wolfen, Germany,\n-\nLANXESS Deutschland GmbH, Leverkusen, Germany,\n-\nPCC Rokita SA, Brzeg Dolny, Poland.\n(10)\nIn view of the need to establish a normal value for exporting producers in the PRC to which MET might not be granted and the exporting producer that requested only IT, a verification to establish normal value on the basis of data from the USA as analogue country took place at the premises of the following company:\n-\nICL-IP America Inc., St Louis, Missouri, USA.\n2.1. Investigation period and period considered\n(11)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the investigation period (period considered).\n3. Product concerned and like product\n3.1. Product concerned\n(12)\nThe product concerned is tris(2-chloro-1-methylethyl)phosphate originating in the PRC currently falling within CN code ex 2919 90 00.\nThe product has as Customs and Statistics (CUS) number 0024577-2. It is also called \u2018TCPP\u2019 and is also known under the following synonyms:\n-\n2-Propanol, 1-chloro, phosphate (3:1),\n-\ntris(monochloroisopropyl)phosphate (TMCP),\n-\ntris(2-chloroisopropyl)phosphate (TCIP),\n-\nphosphoric acid, tris(2-chloro-1-methylethyl)ester,\n-\ntris(beta-chloroisopropyl)phosphate,\n-\n1-chloro-2-propanol phosphate (3:1).\n(13)\nThe product concerned is a flame retardant mainly used in the production of polyurethane (PUR) for use in construction and furniture.\n3.2. Like product\n(14)\nThe investigation has shown that TCPP produced and sold on the domestic market of the PRC and TCPP imported into the Union from the PRC, and that produced and sold on the domestic market of the USA, which served as an analogue country, as well as the TCPP produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and uses. Therefore, these products are considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n4. Preliminary findings and subsequent procedure\n(15)\nOn 27 April 2011, the Commission disclosed to interested parties an information document setting out its preliminary findings with respect to this proceeding. Given the need to examine certain aspects of the investigation further, it was considered appropriate not to impose any provisional measures and to continue the investigation. All parties were given the opportunity to submit relevant evidence and comments on the preliminary findings. The parties which so requested were also granted the opportunity to be heard. The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its final findings.\nB. WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(16)\nBy a letter dated 16 June 2011 addressed to the Commission, the complainant formally withdrew its complaint.\n(17)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(18)\nThe Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated since the investigation had not brought to light any consideration showing that such termination would not be in the Union interest. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. However, no comments that could alter that decision were received.\n(19)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of tris(2-chloro-1-methylethyl)phosphate originating in the PRC should be terminated without the imposition of measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of tris(2-chloro-1-methylethyl)phosphate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China currently falling within CN code ex 2919 90 00 is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 9 August 2011.", "references": ["68", "98", "69", "10", "65", "34", "9", "32", "89", "47", "75", "93", "63", "20", "72", "73", "24", "25", "60", "71", "3", "8", "12", "19", "11", "27", "88", "2", "14", "78", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 April 2010\ngranting Luxembourg a partial derogation from Decision 2006/66/EC concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem \u2018rolling stock - noise\u2019 of the trans-European conventional rail system and from Decision 2006/861/EC concerning the technical specification of interoperability relating to the subsystem \u2018rolling stock - freight wagons\u2019 of the trans-European conventional rail system\n(notified under document C(2010) 2546)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(2010/234/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to the request submitted by Luxembourg on 23 September 2009,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1)(d) of Directive 2008/57/EC, on 23 September 2009 Luxembourg submitted a request for partial derogation from Commission Decision 2006/66/EC (2) (TSI Noise) and from Commission Decision 2006/861/EC (3) (TSI Freight Wagons), for wagons type NA and AFA of LOHR company.\n(2)\nThe request for derogation concerns freight wagons used to transport road trucks over rail which are manufactured according to a design that existed before the entry into force of both TSIs.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), the European Railway Agency provided its technical opinion on the request for partial derogation on 16 December 2009.\n(4)\nThe opinion indicates that the provisions of six sections of TSI Freight Wagons describing draw gear, lifting and jacking, equipment attachment, kinematic gauge, vehicle dynamic behaviour and parking brake (respectively in Sections 4.2.2.1.2.2, 4.2.2.3.2.4, 4.2.2.3.2.5, 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.4 and 4.2.4.1.2.8) cannot be applied to the wagons concerned due to their construction constraints implied by specialised kind of transported commodity. Regarding TSI Noise, the wagons in question have to use, in combination with composite brake blocks, also louder cast iron blocks in order to achieve required braking performances. Therefore until more silent technology is in place the limits for pass-by noise (Section 4.2.1.1 of the TSI) cannot be met.\n(5)\nThe overall economical impact of application of the two TSIs, and more specifically of Sections 4.2.3.1 and 4.2.3.4 of TSI Freight Wagons, to the wagons type NA and AFA of LOHR company is estimated to almost EUR 204 million. This amount together with other requirements that would need to be applied to comply with the TSIs would not only heavily compromise the economical viability of the project but also seriously delay or bring to a halt its implementation.\n(6)\nThe derogation is granted for a limited period of time that should be used by Luxembourg to accelerate the development of innovative solutions promoted by the harmonised specifications and compliant with the TSIs in question.\n(7)\nThe provisions of this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe partial derogation from TSI Noise and TSI Freight Wagons requested by Luxembourg on 23 September 2009 for LOHR wagons type NA and AFA in accordance with Article 9(1)(d) of Directive 2008/57/EC is granted with the following limitations:\n(a)\nwith regard to provisions of Section 4.2.1.1 of the TSI Noise, for as long as no technical solution to achieve compliance is available;\n(b)\nwith regard to provisions of Sections 4.2.2.1.2.2, 4.2.2.3.2.4, 4.2.2.3.2.5 (type NA only), 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.4, 4.2.4.1.2.8 of the TSI Freight Wagons, until the revised decision on TSI Freight Wagons enters into force.\nIn any case, this partial derogation is no longer valid for wagons of these two types placed into service later than 1 January 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["65", "81", "61", "71", "69", "52", "22", "7", "32", "77", "28", "75", "66", "63", "23", "79", "4", "98", "99", "92", "20", "74", "95", "1", "87", "30", "31", "90", "70", "37", "No Label", "8", "9", "54", "55", "60", "76", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "9", "54", "55", "60", "76", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2009/027 NL/Noord Brabant and Zuid Holland Division 18 from the Netherlands)\n(2010/741/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nThe Netherlands submitted an application on 30 December 2009 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in 70 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions Noord Brabant (NL41) and Zuid Holland (NL33) and supplemented it with additional information up to 11 May 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contribution as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 890 027.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Netherlands,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 890 027 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["71", "5", "18", "54", "77", "61", "50", "68", "43", "56", "57", "82", "35", "3", "23", "89", "30", "52", "78", "69", "95", "39", "22", "29", "63", "25", "13", "37", "31", "2", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/421/CFSP\nof 23 July 2012\nin support of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), in the framework of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 26(2) and 31(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 December 2003, the European Council adopted the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (\u2018the EU Strategy\u2019), Chapter III of which contains a list of measures to combat such proliferation.\n(2)\nThe Union is actively implementing the EU Strategy and is giving effect to the measures listed in its Chapter III thereof, in particular those measures related to reinforcement, implementation and universalisation of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC).\n(3)\nOn 27 February 2006, the Council adopted Joint Action 2006/184/CFSP (1) in support of the BTWC, in the framework of the EU Strategy against the proliferation of the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), which expired on 26 August 2007. Seven more States became States Parties to the BTWC since the adoption of Joint Action 2006/184/CFSP.\n(4)\nOn 20 March 2006, the Council adopted an Action Plan on biological and toxin weapons, complementary to Joint Action 2006/184/CFSP in support of the BTWC (2). The Action Plans provided for an efficient use of Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) and the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General investigation mechanism for alleged use of biological weapons.\n(5)\nOn 10 November 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/858/CFSP (3) in support of the BTWC, in the framework of the EU Strategy against the proliferation of WMD. Three more States became States Parties to the BTWC since the adoption of Joint Action 2008/858/CFSP and several States benefited from assistance provided by Union experts.\n(6)\nThe Sixth Review Conference of the BTWC decided to establish the Implementation Support Unit (ISU), with a five-year mandate (2007-2011), within the Geneva Branch of the U N Office for Disarmament Affairs (UN ODA) in order to provide administrative support to meetings agreed by the Sixth Review Conference as well as support for the comprehensive implementation and universalisation of the BTWC and the exchange of Confidence-Building Measures.\n(7)\nOn 18 July 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/429/CFSP (4) relating to the position of the European Union for the Seventh Review Conference of the BTWC.\n(8)\nThe Seventh Review Conference of the BTWC decided to renew the mandate of the Implementation Support Unit for another five-year term (2012-2016) and decided to expand its tasks to include the implementation of the decision to establish and administer the database for assistance requests and offers, and facilitating the associated exchange of information among States Parties, as well as support, as appropriate, the implementation by States Parties of the decisions and recommendations of the Seventh Review Conference.\n(9)\nThe Commission should be entrusted with the supervision of the proper implementation of the Union financial contribution,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. For the purpose of giving immediate and practical application to some elements of the EU Strategy against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the European Union shall support the BTWC, with the following objectives:\n-\npromoting the universality of the BTWC,\n-\nsupporting the implementation of the BTWC, including submission of CBMs by the States Parties,\n-\nsupporting the work of the 2012-2015 inter-sessional programme with a view to strengthening the implementation and effectiveness of the BTWC.\n2. The projects corresponding to measures of the EU Strategy, are those that aim at:\n-\npromoting awareness about implementation of the BTWC, strengthening the regional discussion of inter-sessional topics and their application, and supporting key regional actors in defining needs and requirements for national implementation,\n-\nassisting both States Parties and States non-Parties, in order to ensure that States Parties transpose their international obligations into their national legislation and administrative measures and establish functioning relationship among all national stakeholders. The assistance entails support to States Parties for establishing a national CBMs process and nomination of national contact points. For non-States Parties, the assistance would include support for acceding to or ratifying the BTWC,\n-\nsupporting the development of various enabling tools and activities that would assist States Parties in national implementation, including the submission of CBMs, allow representatives of States Parties to actively engage in the international BTWC process, and raise States Parties\u2019 awareness of available international support.\nA detailed description of these projects is set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.\n2. The technical implementation of the activities referred to in Article 1 shall be entrusted to the UN ODA. It shall perform its task under the responsibility of the HR. For this purpose, the HR shall enter into the necessary arrangements with the UN ODA.\nArticle 3\n1. The financial reference amount for the implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be EUR 1 700 000.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 1. For this purpose, it shall conclude a financing agreement with the UN ODA. The agreement shall stipulate that the UN ODA is to ensure visibility of the Union contribution.\n4. The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the agreement.\nArticle 4\nThe HR shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular reports prepared by the UN ODA. Those reports shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council. The Commission shall provide information on the financial aspects of the projects referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 5\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall expire 24 months after the date of the conclusion of the financing agreement referred to in Article 3(3) or six months after the date of its adoption if no financing agreement has been concluded within that period.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["60", "98", "51", "64", "70", "27", "89", "66", "55", "16", "92", "91", "7", "76", "42", "48", "21", "19", "35", "93", "32", "65", "50", "45", "71", "4", "73", "83", "81", "47", "No Label", "3", "5", "6"], "gold": ["3", "5", "6"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 975/2010\nof 29 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (\u015aliwka szyd\u0142owska (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018\u015aliwka szyd\u0142owska\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 October 2010.", "references": ["13", "10", "90", "41", "94", "71", "29", "46", "49", "53", "89", "17", "1", "15", "34", "28", "93", "81", "33", "86", "31", "48", "3", "23", "80", "43", "68", "30", "98", "37", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 January 2012\nconcerning the aid granted by Greece to cereal-producing farmers and cereal-collecting cooperatives\n(SA 27354 (C 36/10) (ex NN 3/10, ex CP 11/09))\n(notified under document C(2011) 9335)\n(Only the Greek text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/320/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) of the Treaty (1) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 18 November 2008, the Commission received by e-mail information regarding aid allegedly granted by the Greek State to cereal-producing farmers and to Unions of Agricultural Cooperatives that collect cereals. The alleged aid took the form of interest-free loans. By letter dated 21 November 2008, the Commission asked the Greek authorities to provide information on the aid in question.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 24 November 2008, the Commission asked the complainant to submit a complete complaint form. The Commission received the form on 8 January 2009.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of the complaint form, and as the Greek authorities had not replied to its letter of 21 November 2008, the Commission sent them a second letter on 23 January 2009 requesting information on the measure in question. The Greek authorities did not reply by the deadline set in that letter and the Commission sent them a reminder on 24 March 2009.\n(4)\nOn 14 May 2009, the Greek authorities sent the Commission a letter, providing only very limited information on the aid that was the subject of the complaint. On 11 June 2009, the Commission sent the Greek authorities a second request for information, with more detailed questions regarding the alleged State aid.\n(5)\nOn 20 July 2009, the Greek authorities asked for the deadline for providing the relevant information to be extended until 30 August 2009. By letter dated 23 July 2009, the Commission agreed to this extension. By e-mail of 1 September 2009, the Greek authorities asked for the deadline to be extended by another month. By letter dated 14 September, the Commission granted a second deadline extension, until 30 September 2009.\n(6)\nOver two months after the set deadline the Commission had still not received a reply and on 1 December 2009 it sent the Greek authorities a reminder, giving them one more month to provide the information. In the reminder, the Commission brought the Greek authorities\u2019 attention to the fact that if they did not reply within the period prescribed, the Commission would require information to be provided (an \u2018information injunction\u2019) pursuant to Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2) (3). In addition, on 26 January 2010 the case was entered in the register of non-notified aid, under number NN 3/10.\n(7)\nThe deadline set by the Commission passed without the Greek authorities having provided any information. Therefore, on 10 March 2010 the Commission adopted a decision pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 requiring the Greek authorities to provide the information required.\n(8)\nThe Greek authorities replied on 19 March 2010. In their reply, they claimed that they had replied to the Commission\u2019s letter of 1 December 2009 by letter dated 9 February 2010. By letter dated 17 May 2010, the Commission sent the Greek authorities a number of additional questions. It also asked them to provide proof that they had sent the Commission a letter on 9 February 2010. Meanwhile, the Commission received additional information from the complainant concerning the aid in question. It therefore sent another letter to the Greek authorities, dated 18 June 2010, giving them the opportunity to comment on the new information. The Greek authorities replied to the Commission\u2019s letter of 17 May 2010, but did not provide any proof that they had sent the Commission a letter on 9 February 2010. On 30 September 2010, the Greek authorities replied to the Commission\u2019s letter of 18 June 2010.\n(9)\nBy letter dated 15 December 2010, the Commission notified Greece of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty concerning the aid concerned. By letter dated 21 January 2011, the Greek authorities submitted their comments on the Commission\u2019s decision of 15 December 2010. The Commission sent the Greek authorities some additional questions in a letter dated 5 May 2011, to which they replied on 6 June 2011.\n(10)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments regarding the measure in question. The Commission received comments from one interested party, who argued that the measures in question were illegal. These comments were notified to the Greek authorities, who then submitted their comments in a letter dated 1 December 2011.\nII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\n\u0399\u0399.1. Complaint\n(11)\nOn 18 November 2008, the Commission received by e-mail information regarding aid allegedly granted by the Greek State to cereal-producing farmers and to Unions of Agricultural Cooperatives. According to this complaint, the aid took the form of the interest-free loans amounting to EUR 150 million granted to Unions of Agricultural Cooperatives in the cereals sector.\nII.2. Background\n(12)\nAccording to the information submitted by the Greek authorities, during 2008 Greek farmers sowed an additional 60 thousand hectares (600 thousand stremmata) of maize compared to the previous year. This resulted in significant over-production of maize, and subsequently a fall in prices. The same occurred with wheat. Due to this fact, and due to the economic crisis, the Greek government decided to grant support to Greek producers.\n(13)\nAccording to the Greek authorities, the support was granted to producer organisations, i.e. Unions of Agricultural Cooperatives (UACs). The UACs did not have the necessary funds to support farmers\u2019 incomes, nor had they access to financial markets in order to arrange loans, because of the financial crisis. The Greek authorities argued further that if, during the winter of 2008, the Cooperatives had sold the amounts of cereals collected, prices would have fallen significantly and producers would have suffered significant losses. Therefore, in order to prevent a drop in cereal prices, and to ensure a minimum income for farmers, the Greek government decided to grant UACs, and indirectly farmers (who had delivered their produce to the Cooperatives), aid in the form of a State-guaranteed loan with an interest-rate subsidy. According to the Greek authorities, the loan amounts granted to the UACs would then be passed on to the producers for the amounts of cereals purchased or received by UACs in 2008. Owing to the protracted crisis in the cereals market the Greek authorities extended the deadline set for the repayment of the loans until 30 September 2010.\n\u0399\u0399.3. Measure\n(14)\nThe Greek authorities adopted a number of Decisions putting the aid into effect.\n(15)\nDecision No 56700/B.3033 of 8 December 2008 of the Greek Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance stipulates, inter alia, the following:\n\u2018Article 1. Approval is hereby granted for an interest-rate subsidy for loans which have been, or will be, granted in 2008 by financial institutions to Unions of Agricultural Cooperatives (UACs) and Primary Agricultural Cooperatives in Greece, to be used to pay producers for quantities of cereals purchased or received in 2008. The loans in question shall be subsidised from the date they are granted. [\u2026]\nArticle 3. The duration of the loans in question shall be from the date of granting to the date of repayment, which shall not be later than 30 September 2009. [\u2026].\u2019\n(16)\nDecision No 2/88675/0025 of 9 December 2008 of the Greek Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance stipulates, inter alia, the following:\n\u20181.\nThe Greek State shall grant a 100 % guarantee to secure the loans to be granted by financial institutions to Unions of Agricultural Cooperatives (UACs) and Primary Agricultural Cooperatives in Greece, to be used to pay producers for quantities of cereals purchased or received in 2008, in accordance with the provisions of Law 2322/1995. The loans granted by financial institutions to UACs and Primary Agricultural Cooperatives in 2008 for the purchase of cereals shall be subject to the provisions of this Decision from the date they are granted. The total amount of loans which have been, or will be, granted shall not exceed EUR 150 million. [\u2026]\n3.\n[\u2026] In the event of failure to repay the unpaid part of the loan upon maturity, such amount shall become due and payable. In order to have their guaranteed claims reimbursed by the State, the Banks shall submit the supporting documents specified in Decision No 2/478/0025/04.01.2006 (Government Gazette, Series II, No 16, 13.1.2006) of the Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance within three months of maturity of the loan.\u2019\n(17)\nBy virtue of Decisions No 46825/B.2248 of 29 September 2009 and No 2/69591/0025 of 2 October 2009 of the Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance, the deadline for repayment of the loans was extended to 30 December 2010.\n(18)\nDecision No 8264 of 9 December 2008 of the Greek Minister for Rural Development and Food provided for the allocation of the amount of EUR 150 million to 57 Unions of Agricultural Cooperatives. It also referred to a Decision of 12 November 2008 of the Governmental Commission concerning the granting of loans amounting to EUR 150 million to the Unions of Agricultural Cooperatives and their members.\n(19)\nAccording to the letter from the Greek authorities sent on 19 March 2010, all the loans in question (except one) were granted by the Agricultural Bank of Greece (hereinafter \u2018ATE Bank\u2019). The Greek authorities added that the interest-rate subsidy and guarantee granted by the State in the cereals sector were necessary in order to deal with the fall of prices in 2008, which was caused by the overproduction of cereals in Greece. In this letter, the Greek authorities expressed the opinion that the small credit facility granted by the State could not be considered as State aid, as it did not distort or threaten to distort competition, nor did it affect trade between Member States. The Greek authorities added that the benefit from the measure in question for individual producers was minimal.\n(20)\nUnder Article 1 of the Loan Agreement between ATE Bank and the UACs (the \u2018Loan Agreement\u2019), the loan granted by ATE Bank should only be used by the borrower for the purchase or receipt of cereals produced in 2008.\n(21)\nConcerning the conditions for granting the loan, the Greek authorities indicated that the interest rate was the rate applicable to 12-month Greek treasury bonds (issued just before the date on which the interest started to run), plus 30 %. They further argued that the Loan Agreement between ATE Bank and the UACs included a condition that proves that no State aid was involved. That condition stated: \u2018The borrower hereby assumes the obligation, prior to disbursement of the loan, to sign with the Greek State, as represented by the Bank for the purposes hereof, a collateral contract over the products, by-products and other movables that the borrower will purchase with this loan, and over all the goods that are under his ownership or management, pursuant to the provisions of Law 2844/2000.\u2019 In other words, the collateral is provided by the UACs to the State (as represented by ATE Bank), and is constituted by the products purchased by the UACs using the loan.\n(22)\nDecision No 2/21304/0025 was taken by the Deputy Minister for Finance on 26 October 2010. According to this Decision:\n\u2018A.\nThe Unions of Agricultural Cooperatives (UACs) and Primary Agricultural Cooperatives in Greece that have obtained Greek State-guaranteed loans under Decision No 2/88675/0025/9.12.2008 of the Deputy Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance, as currently in force, shall have the option of restructuring loans guaranteed by the Greek State under the above Decision maturing on 30 September 2010 as follows:\nThe total duration of the restructured loan shall be five years, payable in half-yearly instalments (principal and interest), with the first instalment due on 30 March 2011 and the last on 30 September 2015.\nIn addition, each borrower shall pay to the Greek State, until maturity of the loan, a safe-harbour premium amounting to 2 % of the current unpaid part of the loan. The first premium shall be paid upon payment of the first instalment on 30 March 2011.\nThe existing collateral guarantees in the form of cereals in favour of the Greek State are hereby abolished.\nThe interest rate on the restructured loan shall be the rate used by each financial institution for the same category of loans. [\u2026]\u2019\nIII. COMMENTS MADE BY GREECE\n(23)\nIn their reply dated 21 January 2011, the Greek authorities argued that both the interest-rate subsidy and State guarantee for the loans must be viewed in the light of the Communication from the Commission concerning the temporary Community framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (5) (hereinafter \u2018temporary framework\u2019). In particular, it was argued that the loans in question were granted during the financial and economic crisis of 2008 and 2009 and were aimed at overcoming that crisis.\n(24)\nThe Greek authorities also held that, due to the large number of final beneficiaries (cooperative members), the benefit from the interest-free loan for each beneficiary was so limited that it could not be considered to be causing distortions.\n(25)\nLastly, the Greek authorities argued that each borrower\u2019s obligation to pay a 2 % insurance premium, in accordance with Ministerial Decision No 2/21304/0025/26.10.2010 proves that there was no State aid.\n(26)\nIn their letter of 1 December 2011, the Greek authorities repeated a number of the arguments presented during the procedure concerning the need to implement these measures and the reasons for this. They also argued that the issue of Ministerial Decision No 2/21304/0025/26.10.2010 and the application of an interest rate when the loans were restructured (the rate applied by each financial institution for the same category of loans) indicated that the interest-rate subsidy did not constitute aid. They added that, in the period from 2009 to 28 November 2011, the interest-rate subsidies granted by the State amounted to EUR 7 762 113.\n\u0399V. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n\u0399V.1. Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty\n(27)\nUnder Article 107(1) of the Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, is incompatible with the internal market.\n(28)\nBefore proceeding to the assessment of whether the measure in question meets the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) of the Treaty, the Commission would point out that there are two aspects of the measure that should be examined in the light of this provision: (a) the interest-rate subsidy, and (b) the State guarantee.\n\u0399V.1.1. Interest-rate subsidy\n(29)\nThe interest-rate subsidy granted by the Greek State to the cooperatives pursuant to Ministerial Decision No 56700/B.3033/8.12.2008 meets all the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) of the Treaty. The subsidy is granted by the Greek State and it confers a clear advantage, as in reality it makes the loan completely interest-free. The direct beneficiaries of the aid are the cooperatives. However, given that the intention of the State by granting the loans was to increase the income of Greek farmers by artificially increasing the price of cereals sold by producers to cooperatives, the farmers (producers) are the indirect beneficiaries of the aid. Lastly, the selectivity condition is also met, since the beneficiaries of the aid are those cooperatives only and, in the final instance, farmers who purchased or produced cereals in Greece in 2008. The interest-rate subsidy was granted until application of Ministerial Decision No 2/21304/0025/26.10.2010 and prior to the restructuring of the loans, when it was stipulated that the interest rate applicable to the restructured loan would be the rate applied by each financial institution for the same category of loans.\n(30)\nConcerning the \u2018distortion of competition\u2019 condition, in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice, the mere fact that the competitive position of an undertaking is strengthened as compared to other competing undertakings, by giving it an economic benefit which it would not otherwise have received in the normal course of its business, points to a possible distortion of competition (6). Aid to an undertaking appears to affect trade between Member States where that undertaking operates in a market open to intra-Community trade (7). Furthermore, according to the case law of the Court, there is no threshold or percentage below which trade between the Member States can be regarded as not having been affected. Even the relatively small amount of aid or the relatively small size of the undertakings does not a priori mean that trade between the Member States is not affected (8). There is substantial intra-Community trade in the cereals sector. Therefore, the present measure is liable to affect trade between Member States.\n(31)\nIn the light of the above, it appears that as regards the interest-rate subsidy all the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) are met.\n\u0399V.1.2. State guarantee\n(32)\nBy Ministerial Decision No 2/88675/0025/9.12.2008, the Greek Government decided to grant Cooperatives its guarantee for the loans contracted with ATE Bank. In general terms, the criteria laid down in Article 107(1) of the Treaty apply to guarantees. As indicated in Section 2.1 of the Commission Notice on application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (9) (hereinafter \u2018Notice on Guarantees\u2019), guarantees granted directly by the State may indeed constitute State aid. The benefit of a State guarantee is that the risk associated with the guarantee is borne by the State. This risk should normally be remunerated by an appropriate premium (Section 2.2 of the Notice on Guarantees). When the State forgoes such a premium, there is both a benefit for the undertaking to which the State guarantee is granted and a drain on the resources of the State. The guarantee in this case is therefore granted through State resources. The Notice on Guarantees further specifies that if it turns out that no payments are ever made by the State under a guarantee there may still be State aid.\n(33)\nThe benefit granted to the UACs and, in the final instance, to farmers from the guarantee is clear: the borrowers did not have to pay, at least until 30 March 2011 (see recital 22) the appropriate premium which should normally be paid to remunerate the appropriate risk. Also, compared to a situation without a guarantee, the State guarantee enables the borrowers to obtain better financial terms for loans than those normally available on the financial markets. Section 3.4 of the Notice on Guarantees provides a list of all conditions that have to be met in order for a State guarantee scheme not to be considered as State aid. It is clear that the measure under examination does not meet all the conditions in question. For example, at least two of these conditions appear not to be met in this case. The guarantee in question covers more than 80 % of the loans, and the scheme under examination appears not to be closed to borrowers in financial difficulty.\n(34)\nAs mentioned in recital 29, the direct beneficiaries of this aid are the cooperatives. However, given that the intention of the Greek State in granting the loans was to increase the income of Greek farmers by artificially increasing the price of cereals sold by producers to Cooperatives, the farmers (producers) are the indirect beneficiaries of the aid. The selectivity condition is equally fulfilled, since the beneficiaries of the aid are only those cooperatives and farmers who purchased or produced cereals in Greece in 2008.\n(35)\nThe same considerations apply to the \u2018distortion of competition\u2019 and \u2018effect on trade\u2019 conditions as those referred to in recital 30.\n(36)\nLastly, the Greek authorities argued that the collateral provided by the UACs to the State, as provided for in the Loan Agreement, indicates that there is no aid. However, as decided by the Commission in the decision on initiating the procedure, this is not the case for the following reasons: (a) First, if the cooperatives fail to pay back the loans, it will be at the discretion of the State whether to make use of the rights granted by the collateral agreements or not. (b) Second, it appears that the collateral does not secure the full amount of the loan, since the price paid by the UACs to the farmers for the purchase of cereals (which should normally be equal to the loan amounts) is higher than the market price.\n(37)\nIt should also be noted that this collateral was abolished by Ministerial Decision No 2/21304/0025/26.10.2010. As referred to in recital 22 above, this collateral was replaced by the 2 % premium as of the date of the first repayment due on 30 March 2011. In their letter of 7 June 2011, the Greek authorities held that, in accordance with the Notice on Guarantees, the provision of premium is a \u2018safe-harbour\u2019 for small and medium-sized undertakings whose repayment ability may be affected by adverse conditions. This argument is inadmissible for the reasons detailed in recitals 38, 39 and 40.\n(38)\nFirst, the provision on the 2 % safe-harbour premium was established as late as October 2010 and pertained only to the amounts due in September 2010. Even if we were to accept, quod non, that this premium removed any State aid element, the State guarantee would still constitute State aid until that time.\n(39)\nSecond, it appears from the wording of Ministerial Decision No 2/21304/0025/26.10.2010 that the UACs may make use, but are under no obligation to make use, of the relevant provision (see recital 22). The Greek authorities noted in this respect that, in fact, the borrowers had to make use of the provision in question since, as laid down in Article 13 of the Loan Agreement, unless they repaid the loan by 30 September 2009, the amount due would become payable by the State within three months, and the latter would in turn take administrative enforcement action against the borrower. This argument is also inadmissible: if the State repays the amounts due, it is not certain that it will take action against the original debtor with a view to recovering those amounts - it can always use its discretion not to do so.\n(40)\nLastly, it appears the 2 % premium is not in itself an element which, pursuant to the Notice on Guarantees, proves that there is no State aid, as argued by the Greek authorities. Even if we were to accept that all the beneficiaries under the measure were small and medium-sized undertakings, as argued by the Greek authorities, the part of the Notice on Guarantees that would apply is Section 3.5. In this Section, the Notice explains that, in order for a guarantee granted under a scheme that requires a single premium to be regarded as not constituting State aid, all the other conditions set out in points 3.4(a), (b), (c), (e), (f) and (g) have to be met. As already explained in recital 33, these conditions are not met in this case: the guarantee in question covers more than 80 % of the loans, and the scheme under examination appears not to be closed to borrowers in financial difficulty.\n(41)\nIn the light of the above, as regards the State guarantee for the loans, all the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) are met.\n\u0399V.2. Compatibility of the aid\n\u0399V.2.1. General comments\n(42)\nThe Treaty admits some exceptions to the general principle of the incompatibility of State aid with the internal market laid down in Article 107(1) of the Treaty. Some of these exceptions obviously do not apply in this case. These include those provided for in Article 107(2), which cover aid having a social character, aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters, and aid relating to German reunification.\n(43)\nThe same applies to the exceptions provided for in Article 107(3)(a), (b) and (d) of the Treaty, given that the aid in question was neither intended to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, nor was it intended to promote important projects of common European interest or to promote culture and heritage conservation.\n(44)\nTherefore, the only derogation which might apply in this case is the one provided for in Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, which provides that aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may be considered to be compatible with the internal market where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. In order to be covered by this derogation, aid must comply with the Union rules governing State aid. In the area of agriculture, these rules are set out in the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013 (10) (hereafter the \u2018agricultural guidelines\u2019).\n(45)\nAccording to the information available to the Commission, the purpose of the measure in question was to deal with the situation caused by the surplus of cereals produced in Greece in 2008. In particular, the Greek authorities admit in their letter of 19 March 2010 that one of the purposes of the measure was \u2018to ensure a minimum income for producers\u2019.\n(46)\nFurthermore, since the loans of EUR 150 million were intended for the purchase by the UACs of cereals produced by their members (Ministerial Decision No 8264 of 9 December 2008), the aid appears to have been granted on the basis of the quantities produced.\n(47)\nThe type of aid granted by Greece is not provided for in the agricultural guidelines or other Union rules on the subject, nor have the Greek authorities claimed that it is. It therefore appears to constitute operating aid which was intended to increase farmers\u2019 incomes by artificially increasing cereal prices. Such measures are strictly forbidden by Union rules on State aid.\n(48)\nIt should be recalled that, according to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, operating aid, i.e. aid aimed at relieving undertakings of costs that they would normally incur in the ordinary management of their activities, in principle distorts competition to the extent that, on the one hand, it does not facilitate the \u2018development\u2019 of any economic sector and, on the other hand, it gives the beneficiaries artificial financial support causing an ongoing distortion of competition and affecting trade in a manner contrary to the common interest.\n(49)\nIn particular, the markets for agricultural products in the European Union are thoroughly regulated through common market organisations (CMOs). One of the CMOs\u2019 tasks is to ensure fair competition between operators in the sector concerned within the European Union. Market support measures such as those introduced and financed by Greece seem to be contrary to the aims of the cereals CMO and likely to seriously disturb its operation.\n(50)\nAs the Court of Justice has repeatedly pointed out (11), any intervention by a Member State in market mechanisms, excluding those forms specifically provided for by Union rules, risks interfering with the operation of the common market organisations and giving unfair advantages to certain economic groups in the Union. In particular, in a more recent ruling (12), the Court again pointed out that in a sector covered by a common market organisation, a fortiori where that organisation is based on a common pricing system, Member States can no longer take action, through national provisions taken unilaterally, affecting the machinery of price formation at the production and marketing stages established under the common organisation.\n(51)\nIt should be noted that national price-support mechanisms such as those in question undermine the common pricing system and more generally the purpose of mechanisms established by Union rules on the common organisation of markets, even if their aim is to support farmers\u2019 incomes.\n(52)\nLastly, the Commission also considered whether the aid could be found compatible under the Communication from the Commission - Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (13). However, even if a beneficiary was at the time the aid was granted a firm in difficulty within the meaning of Section 2 of those guidelines (which is not clear), the Greek authorities have provided no indication that the numerous conditions laid down therein, which could possibly justify the granting of aid to a specific beneficiary, were met in the cases in question.\nIV.2.2. Temporary framework\n(53)\nIn order to justify the granting of the aid, the Greek authorities mention the economic crisis and the Cooperatives\u2019 lack of access to financing. In 2009, the Commission, having acknowledged the seriousness of the financial crisis, adopted the \u2018temporary framework\u2019 (14), declaring compatible with the internal market aid of up to EUR 15 000 in the case of primary agricultural producers.\n(54)\nIn their letter dated 21 January 2011, the Greek authorities argued that both the interest-rate subsidy and the State guarantee for the loans were covered by the provisions of the temporary framework. In particular, it was argued that the loans in question were granted during the financial and economic crisis of 2008 and 2009 and were aimed at overcoming that crisis. The Greek authorities added that, due to the large number of final beneficiaries (cooperative members), the benefit from the interest-free loan for each beneficiary was so limited that it could not be considered as causing distortions. Lastly, the Greek authorities held that, pursuant to Article 7 of the temporary framework, its provisions also applied in cases of non-notified State aid schemes.\n(55)\nThe Commission cannot accept the arguments presented by the Greek authorities and holds that the provisions of the temporary framework do not apply in the case in question. First, the scope of the temporary framework was extended to include primary agricultural production only on 31 October 2009 (15). Therefore, any State aid schemes approved prior to the entry into force of this extension cannot be covered by the temporary framework. In this particular case, Article 1 of Ministerial Decision No 56700/B.3033/8.12.2008 stipulated that the interest-rate subsidy applied to loans which had been, or would be, granted in 2008. Consequently, the said loans, and therefore the State aid, were granted prior to 31 October 2009.\n(56)\nSecond, the Commission would point out that the measures in question do not meet the condition laid down in the temporary framework, which states that in order for such aid to be considered compatible, it must apply to the entire agricultural sector and not just to one product sector, the cereals sector in the case in question.\nV. CONCLUSION\n(57)\nThe Commission finds that Greece has illegally implemented the aid scheme in question, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty. Given that the aid is incompatible with the internal market, Greece must put an end to the scheme and recover the aid granted from the beneficiaries.\n(58)\nIndividual aid granted under the scheme in question does not constitute aid if, at the time it was granted, it met the conditions laid down in a regulation adopted pursuant to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to certain categories of horizontal State aid (16) and that was applicable at the time the aid was granted.\n(59)\nIndividual aid granted under the scheme in question which, at the time it was granted, met the conditions laid down in a regulation adopted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 994/98 or under another approved aid scheme is compatible with the internal market up to the maximum aid intensities that apply to that type of aid,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe scheme established in favour of cereal-producing farmers and cereal-collecting agricultural cooperatives under Ministerial Decisions No 56700/\u0392.3033/8.12.2008 and No 2/88675/0025/9.2.2008 in the form of a loan guaranteed by the Greek State with an interest-rate subsidy constitutes State aid. This State aid granted by Greece illegally, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\nIndividual aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 does not constitute aid if, at the time it was granted, it met the conditions laid down in a regulation adopted pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 994/98 and that was applicable at the time the aid was granted.\nArticle 3\nIndividual aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 which, at the time it was granted, met the conditions laid down in a regulation adopted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 994/98 or under another approved aid scheme is compatible with the internal market up to the maximum aid intensities that apply to that type of aid.\nArticle 4\n1. Greece shall recover the incompatible aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiaries.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall include interest calculated from the date on which the aid was put at the disposal of the beneficiaries until the date of actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (17).\n4. Greece shall cancel all outstanding payments under the aid scheme referred to in Article 1 from the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 5\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Greece shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months of the date of its notification.\nArticle 6\n1. Within two months of notification of this Decision, Greece shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\na list of the beneficiaries who have received aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 and the total amount of aid received by each of them;\n(b)\nthe total amount (principal and interest) to be recovered from each beneficiary;\n(c)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(d)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiaries have been asked to refund the aid.\n2. Greece shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and interest already recovered from the beneficiaries.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 25 January 2012.", "references": ["95", "93", "18", "94", "2", "11", "90", "44", "0", "64", "57", "54", "31", "14", "87", "77", "79", "32", "25", "30", "7", "28", "82", "3", "45", "72", "69", "59", "71", "37", "No Label", "8", "15", "48", "61", "63", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "48", "61", "63", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 532/2011\nof 31 May 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of robenidine hydrochloride as a feed additive for rabbits for breeding and rabbits for fattening (holder of authorisation Alpharma Belgium BVBA) and amending Regulations (EC) No 2430/1999 and (EC) No 1800/2004\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).\n(2)\nRobenidine hydrochloride, CAS number 25875-50-7, was authorised for 10 years in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC as a coccidiostat for use on rabbits for breeding by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (3) and for use on turkeys, chickens for fattening and rabbits for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1800/2004 (4). The additive was subsequently entered in the Register of Feed Additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 of that Regulation, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of robenidine hydrochloride as a feed additive for rabbits for breeding and rabbits for fattening, requesting that additive to be classified in the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 7 March 2011 that, under the proposed conditions of use, robenidine hydrochloride does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that the additive is effective in controlling coccidiosis in rabbits for fattening and for breeding (5). It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the European Union Reference Laboratory for Feed Additives set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of robenidine hydrochloride shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nAs a consequence of a new authorisation being granted by this Regulation, the entry in Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 concerning robenidine hydrochloride for rabbits for breeding purposes is deleted.\n(7)\nAs a further consequence of this new authorisation, the entry for robenidine hydrochloride in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1800/2004 should be amended.\n(8)\nSince the modifications to the conditions of authorisation are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for the disposal of existing stocks of pre-mixtures and compound feed containing this preparation, as authorised by Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 for use on rabbits for breeding purposes and by Regulation (EC) No 1800/2004 for use on rabbits for fattening.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex I, belonging to the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019 is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999, the entry under registration number of additive E 758 concerning robenidine hydrochloride for rabbits for breeding purposes is deleted.\nArticle 3\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1800/2004 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nPremixtures and compound feed labelled in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC and containing robenidine hydrochloride, as authorised by Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 for use on rabbits for breeding purposes and by Regulation (EC) No 1800/2004 for use on rabbits for fattening, may continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2011.", "references": ["87", "1", "97", "23", "55", "10", "13", "54", "62", "78", "45", "93", "51", "42", "94", "68", "99", "41", "69", "60", "96", "71", "98", "17", "46", "15", "75", "39", "86", "59", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 320/2011\nof 31 March 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 April 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 April 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 April 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["56", "16", "89", "44", "58", "42", "86", "15", "34", "38", "64", "36", "74", "37", "83", "67", "65", "84", "40", "54", "17", "69", "92", "32", "8", "45", "97", "30", "39", "62", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 635/2010\nof 19 July 2010\nopening the procedure for the allocation of export licences for cheese to be exported to the United States of America in 2011 under certain GATT quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 171(1), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSection 2 of Chapter III of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (2) provides that export licences for cheese exported to the United States of America as part of the quotas under the agreements concluded during multilateral trade negotiations may be allocated according to a special procedure by which preferred importers in the USA may be designated.\n(2)\nThat procedure should be opened for exports during 2011 and the additional rules relating to it should be determined.\n(3)\nIn administering imports the competent authorities in the USA make a distinction between the additional quota granted to the European Community under the Uruguay Round and the quotas resulting from the Tokyo Round. Export licences should be allocated taking into account the eligibility of those products for the USA quota in question as described in the Harmonised Tariff Schedule of the United States of America.\n(4)\nWith a view to exporting the maximum quantity under the quotas for which there is moderate interest, applications covering the whole quota quantity should be allowed.\n(5)\nFor reasons of legal certainty and clarity, it should be laid down that the measures provided for in this Regulation cease to apply at the end of 2011.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nExport licences for products falling within CN code 0406 and listed in Annex I to this Regulation to be exported to the United States of America in 2011 under the quotas referred to in Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 shall be issued in accordance with Section 2 of Chapter III of that Regulation and with the provisions of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\n1. Applications for licences referred to in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018applications\u2019) shall be lodged with the competent authorities from 1 to 10 September 2010 at the latest.\n2. Applications shall be admissible only if they contain all the information referred to in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 and if they are accompanied by the documents referred to therein.\nWhere, for the same group of products referred to in column 2 of Annex I to this Regulation the available quantity is divided between the Uruguay Round quota and the Tokyo Round quota, licence applications may cover only one of those quotas and shall indicate the quota concerned, specifying the identification of the group and of the quota indicated in column 3 of that Annex.\nInformation referred to in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 shall be presented in accordance with the model set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\n3. As regards the quotas identified by 22-Tokyo, 22-Uruguay, 25-Tokyo and 25-Uruguay in column 3 of Annex I, applications shall cover at least 10 tonnes and shall not exceed the quantity available under the quota concerned as set out in column 4 of that Annex.\nAs regards the other quotas indicated in column 3 of Annex I, applications shall cover at least 10 tonnes and no more than 40 % of the quantity available under the quota concerned as set out in column 4 of that Annex.\n4. Applications shall be admissible only if applicants declare in writing that they have not lodged other applications for the same group of products and the same quota and undertake not to do so.\nIf an applicant lodges several applications for the same group of products and the same quota in one or more Member States, all his applications shall be deemed inadmissible.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall notify the Commission, within five working days after the end of the period for lodging applications, of the applications lodged for each of the groups of products and, where applicable, the quotas indicated in Annex I.\nAll notifications, including \u2018nil\u2019 notifications, shall be made by fax or e-mail on the model form set out in Annex III.\n2. Notification shall comprise for each group and, where applicable, for each quota:\n(a)\na list of applicants;\n(b)\nthe quantities applied for by each applicant broken down by the product code of the Combined Nomenclature and by their code in accordance with the Harmonised Tariff Schedule of the United States of America (2010);\n(c)\nthe name and address of the importer designated by the applicant.\nArticle 4\nThe Commission shall, pursuant to Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009, determine the allocation of licences without delay and shall notify the Member States thereof by 31 October 2010 at the latest.\nMember States shall notify the Commission, within five working days after publication of the allocation coefficients, for each group and, where applicable, for each quota, the quantities allocated by applicant, in accordance to Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\nThe notification shall be made by fax or e-mail on the model form set out in Annex IV to this Regulation.\nArticle 5\nThe information notified under Article 3 of this Regulation and under Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 shall be verified by the Member States before the licences are issued and by 15 December 2010 at the latest.\nWhere it is found that incorrect information has been supplied by an operator to whom a licence has been issued, the licence shall be cancelled and the security forfeited. The Member States shall communicate it to the Commission without any delay.\nArticle 6\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2010.", "references": ["43", "17", "83", "0", "26", "63", "58", "68", "47", "46", "34", "19", "32", "55", "37", "56", "75", "20", "74", "33", "71", "1", "3", "27", "69", "48", "87", "11", "30", "36", "No Label", "21", "23", "61", "70", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "23", "61", "70", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 435/2012\nof 16 May 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (\u03a6\u03b1\u03c3\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 \u0392\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03cd (Fasolia Vanilies Feneou) (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Greece\u2019s application to register the name \u2018\u03a6\u03b1\u03c3\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 \u0392\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03cd (Fasolia Vanilies Feneou)\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2012.", "references": ["85", "73", "70", "7", "9", "12", "22", "0", "6", "30", "79", "80", "10", "63", "18", "50", "46", "23", "99", "36", "51", "83", "26", "20", "34", "78", "35", "64", "67", "74", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1385/2011\nof 14 November 2011\non the allocation of the fishing opportunities under the Protocol agreed between the European Union and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau setting out fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the two parties currently in force\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 17 March 2008 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 241/2008 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Partnership Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nA new Protocol to the Partnership Agreement was initialled on 15 June 2011 (hereinafter \u2018the new Protocol\u2019). The new Protocol grants EU vessels fishing opportunities in waters in which Guinea-Bissau exercises its sovereignty or jurisdiction as regards fishing.\n(3)\nOn 14 November 2011 the Council adopted Decision 2011/885/EU (2) on the signing and provisional application of the new Protocol.\n(4)\nThe method for allocating the fishing opportunities among the Member States should be defined for the period when the new Protocol applies.\n(5)\nArticle 10(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 of 29 September 2008 concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters (3) provides that the Commission will inform the Member States concerned if it appears that the fishing opportunities allocated to the Union under the new Protocol are not fully utilised. The absence of a reply within the time limits to be set by the Council is considered as a confirmation that the vessels of the Member State concerned are not making full use of their fishing opportunities during the period concerned. Those time limits should be set.\n(6)\nGiven that the previous Protocol expired on 15 June 2011, this Regulation should enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and apply with effect from 16 June 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The fishing opportunities fixed under the Protocol attached to Decision 2011/885/EU on the signing and provisional application of that Protocol, shall be allocated between the Member States as follows:\n(a)\nshrimp fishing:\nSpain\n1 421\nGRT\nItaly\n1 776\nGRT\nGreece\n137\nGRT\nPortugal\n1 066\nGRT;\n(b)\nfin-fish/cephalopods:\nSpain\n3 143\nGRT\nItaly\n786\nGRT\nGreece\n471\nGRT;\n(c)\ntuna seiners and surface longliners:\nSpain\n10\nvessels\nFrance\n9\nvessels\nPortugal\n4\nvessels;\n(d)\npole-and-line vessels:\nSpain\n10\nvessels\nFrance\n4\nvessels.\n2. Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 shall apply without prejudice to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau.\n3. If applications for fishing authorisations from the Member States referred to in paragraph 1 do not cover all fishing opportunities set by the Protocol, the Commission shall consider applications for fishing authorisations from any other Member State pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008.\nThe time limit provided by Article 10(1) of that Regulation is set at 10 working days.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply with effect from 16 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["99", "16", "87", "90", "40", "92", "43", "24", "7", "20", "62", "59", "69", "35", "14", "74", "63", "38", "11", "76", "37", "1", "83", "51", "93", "44", "39", "42", "23", "8", "No Label", "3", "9", "56", "67", "91", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "56", "67", "91", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 506/2010\nof 14 June 2010\namending the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards ovine and caprine animals kept in zoos\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 provides that each Member State shall establish a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals in accordance with the provisions of that Regulation.\n(2)\nThe aim of Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 is to ensure individual traceability of ovine and caprine animals throughout their lifetime. In accordance with Article 4(2) and Section A of the Annex to that Regulation, these animals shall be identified by visible identifiers, such as an eartag, a mark on the pastern or a tattoo.\n(3)\nSpecific animal health requirements for exotic animals kept in zoos are provided for under Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (2). That Directive also sets out provisions on identification and record keeping, which means that most of the ovine and caprine animals that are kept in approved zoos are already subject to requirements aiming at individual identification and traceability.\n(4)\nFurthermore, the vast majority of ovine and caprine animals that are kept in zoos belong to exotic species. Visible identifiers, however, might be impracticable for the purpose of exhibiting the animals in zoos to the public as they may affect the authentic look of the animals, in particular exotic species.\n(5)\nWith a view to a reduction of administrative burdens and to the specific nature of zoo animals, i.e. the very limited number of animals concerned and their special purpose of exhibition, it would be proportionate to allow derogations from specific elements of Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 concerning identification, and more precisely the obligation to use visible or electronic identifiers.\n(6)\nIt is therefore appropriate to allow for the competent authorities of the Member States to exempt ovine and caprine animals that are kept in and moved between zoos which are approved in accordance with Article 13(2) of Directive 92/65/EEC from the obligation to use visible or electronic identifiers, in so far as the animals in question are already individually identifiable and traceable on the basis of the provisions of that Directive. However, in case the animals are moved to any holding other than an approved zoo they need to be identified in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 21/2004.\n(7)\nSection A of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 June 2010.", "references": ["91", "40", "41", "72", "51", "64", "19", "85", "70", "57", "23", "60", "81", "99", "66", "29", "2", "68", "75", "88", "9", "4", "92", "62", "58", "87", "1", "53", "25", "55", "No Label", "36", "38", "61", "65", "77"], "gold": ["36", "38", "61", "65", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 957/2010\nof 22 October 2010\non the authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children\u2019s development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 17(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on food are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as the Authority.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission of the application, and to deliver an opinion on a health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nTwo opinions referred to in this Regulation are related to applications for reduction of disease risk claims, as referred to in Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and three opinions are related to applications for health claims referring to children\u2019s development and health, as referred to in Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\n(6)\nFollowing an application from Association de la Transformation Laiti\u00e8re Fran\u00e7aise (ATLA), submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of iodine on normal growth of children (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-324) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Iodine is necessary for the growth of children\u2019.\n(7)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 20 November 2009 that a cause and effect relationship had been established between the intake of iodine and the claimed effect. Accordingly, a health claim reflecting this conclusion should be considered as complying with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and it should be included in the Union list of permitted claims.\n(8)\nFollowing an application from Association de la Transformation Laiti\u00e8re Fran\u00e7aise (ATLA), submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of iron on cognitive development of children (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-325) (3). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Iron is necessary for the cognitive development of children\u2019.\n(9)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 20 November 2009 that a cause and effect relationship had been established between the intake of iron and the claimed effect. Accordingly, a health claim reflecting this conclusion should be considered as complying with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and it should be included in the Union list of permitted claims.\n(10)\nArticle 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 provides that an opinion in favour of authorising a health claim should include certain particulars. Accordingly, those particulars should be set out in the Annex I to the present Regulation as regards the authorised claims and include, as the case may be, the revised wording of the claims, specific conditions of use of the claims, and, where applicable, conditions or restrictions of use of the food and/or an additional statement or warning, in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and in line with the opinions of the Authority.\n(11)\nOne of the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 is to ensure that health claims are truthful, clear and reliable and useful to the consumer, and that wording and presentation are taken into account in that respect. Therefore, where the wording of claims has the same meaning for consumers as that of an authorised health claim, because they demonstrate the same relationship that exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health, they should be subject to the same conditions of use, as indicated in Annex I.\n(12)\nFollowing an application from GP International Holding BV, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of OPC PremiumTM on reduction of blood cholesterol (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00454) (4). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018OPC have been shown to reduce blood cholesterol levels and may therefore reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease\u2019.\n(13)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 26 October 2009 that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the intake of OPC PremiumTM and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(14)\nFollowing an application from Valosun AS, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Uroval\u00ae on urinary tract infections (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00600) (5). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Cranberry extract and D-mannose, the main active ingredients of the food supplement Uroval\u00ae, eliminate the adhesion of harmful bacteria to the bladder wall. The adhesion of harmful bacteria to the bladder wall is the main risk factor in the development of urinary tract infections\u2019.\n(15)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 22 December 2009 that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the intake of Uroval\u00ae and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(16)\nFollowing an application from T\u00f6pfer GmbH, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of a combination of bifidobacteria (Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium breve, Bifidobacterium infantis, Bifidobacterium longum) on decreasing potentially pathogenic intestinal micro-organisms (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00224) (6). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Probiotic bifidobacteria lead to a healthy intestinal flora comparable to the composition of the intestinal flora of breast-fed infants\u2019 intestine\u2019.\n(17)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 22 December 2009 that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the intake of the combination of bifidobacteria and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(18)\nThe comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(19)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe health claims set out in Annex I to this Regulation may be made on foods on the European Union market in compliance with the conditions set out in that Annex.\nThose health claims shall be included in the Union list of permitted claims referred to in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nArticle 2\nThe health claims set out in Annex II to this Regulation shall not be included in the Union list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nHealth claims as referred to in Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and set out in Annex II to this Regulation may continue to be used for six months after the entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 October 2010.", "references": ["58", "60", "87", "0", "99", "96", "51", "50", "55", "21", "57", "94", "61", "63", "92", "76", "28", "79", "70", "35", "2", "31", "42", "53", "5", "65", "37", "15", "30", "1", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "39", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "39", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 366/2010\nof 28 April 2010\namending for the 125th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 12 April 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to amend the identifying data concerning seven natural persons from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I should therefore be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 April 2010.", "references": ["40", "80", "94", "47", "8", "38", "85", "29", "93", "52", "97", "2", "16", "81", "43", "77", "78", "25", "31", "13", "79", "92", "42", "99", "33", "51", "41", "68", "28", "96", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "23", "30", "57", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "23", "30", "57", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 807/2012\nof 11 September 2012\namending for the 178th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 12 August 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one natural person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 September 2012.", "references": ["30", "39", "41", "90", "76", "50", "38", "11", "7", "24", "94", "46", "95", "84", "72", "45", "96", "59", "77", "36", "79", "0", "92", "47", "12", "54", "20", "23", "75", "91", "No Label", "1", "3"], "gold": ["1", "3"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 29 June 2010\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment of Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms (budget lines)\n(2010/383/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 and Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nProtocol 31 to the EEA Agreement contains specific provisions on the cooperation between the European Union and the EEA EFTA States outside the four freedoms.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to continue beyond 31 December 2009 the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the Agreement in Union actions funded from the General Budget of the Union regarding the implementation, operation and development of the internal market. This concerns the following budget lines:\n12 01 04 01 Implementation and development of the internal market - Expenditure on administrative management.\n12 02 01 Implementation and development of the internal market.\n02 03 01 Operation and development of the internal market, particularly in the fields of notification, certification and sectoral approximation.\n02 01 04 01 Operation and development of the internal market, particularly in the fields of notification, certification and sectoral approximation - Expenditure on administrative management.\n(3)\nProtocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly. It is appropriate to set out the position to be taken by the Union in the EEA Joint Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nThe position to be adopted by the Union in the EEA Joint Committee on an envisaged amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms is to approve the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nDone at Luxembourg, 29 June 2010.", "references": ["44", "85", "86", "18", "5", "45", "19", "37", "14", "66", "82", "23", "34", "15", "77", "87", "26", "91", "84", "33", "93", "53", "61", "64", "36", "72", "95", "80", "54", "31", "No Label", "3", "9", "10", "20"], "gold": ["3", "9", "10", "20"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 15 December 2010\nadjusting the weightings applicable from 1 August 2009, 1 September 2009, 1 October 2009, 1 November 2009, 1 December 2009 and 1 January 2010 to the remuneration of officials, temporary staff and contract staff of the European Union serving in third countries\n(2010/790/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 336 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities laid down by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, the weightings to be applied from 1 July 2009 to the remuneration of officials, temporary staff and contract staff of the European Union serving in third countries payable in the currency of their country of employment were laid down by Council Regulation (EU) No 768/2010 (2).\n(2)\nSome of these weightings need to be adjusted in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, with effect from 1 August 2009, 1 September 2009, 1 October 2009, 1 November 2009, 1 December 2009 and 1 January 2010, since the statistics available to the Commission show that in certain third countries the variation in the cost of living measured on the basis of the weighting and the corresponding exchange rate has exceeded 5 % since weightings were last laid down,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe weightings applied to the remuneration of officials, temporary staff and contract staff of the European Union serving in third countries, payable in the currency of the country of employment, shall be adjusted for certain countries as shown in the Annex hereto. It contains six monthly tables showing which countries are affected and the applicable dates for each one (1 August 2009, 1 September 2009, 1 October 2009, 1 November 2009, 1 December 2009 and 1 January 2010).\nThe exchange rates used for the calculation of this remuneration shall be established in accordance with the detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation and correspond to the dates of application of the weightings.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the first day of the month following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["73", "86", "11", "93", "72", "92", "90", "58", "26", "24", "89", "57", "48", "20", "35", "69", "38", "49", "37", "16", "53", "81", "46", "71", "50", "98", "91", "19", "97", "41", "No Label", "2", "4", "7", "28", "52"], "gold": ["2", "4", "7", "28", "52"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION ATALANTA/4/2010\nof 19 July 2010\non the appointment of an EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)\n(2010/423/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (Atalanta), and in particular Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Force Commander.\n(2)\nOn 23 March 2010, the PSC adopted Decision Atalanta/2/2010 (2) appointing Rear Admiral (LH) Jan TH\u00d6RNQVIST as EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\n(3)\nThe EU Operation Commander has recommended the appointment of Rear Admiral Philippe COINDREAU as the new EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\n(4)\nThe EU Military Committee supports that recommendation.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nRear Admiral Philippe COINDREAU is hereby appointed EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 15 August 2010.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2010.", "references": ["44", "72", "97", "28", "74", "21", "70", "40", "14", "96", "86", "31", "53", "60", "0", "34", "47", "7", "95", "55", "43", "87", "35", "73", "8", "99", "33", "13", "62", "36", "No Label", "5", "6", "9", "12", "52", "59", "94"], "gold": ["5", "6", "9", "12", "52", "59", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1144/2010\nof 3 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for tusk in EU and international waters of V, VI and VII by vessels flying the flag of the United Kingdom\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 December 2010.", "references": ["74", "21", "41", "8", "87", "61", "25", "50", "16", "43", "70", "27", "42", "90", "5", "69", "95", "68", "65", "22", "73", "38", "93", "62", "86", "84", "23", "85", "54", "47", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 482/2012\nof 7 June 2012\napproving minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Tettnanger Hopfen (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Germany\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Tettnanger Hopfen\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 415/2010 (2).\n(2)\nThe aim of the application is to amend the specification. New trellis systems shall be authorised for economic reasons. The pruning period shall be adjusted to allow growers to better adjust to less and less favourable weather conditions. The use of herbicides with the new trellis systems shall be authorised to increase the water available to hop plants. The maximum drying temperature shall be raised to 65 \u00b0C as a result of new scientific information.\n(3)\nThe Commission has examined the amendment in question and decided that it is justified. Since the amendment is a minor one within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission can approve it without recourse to the procedure laid down in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the said Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Tettnanger Hopfen\u2019 is hereby amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAnnex II to this Regulation contains the Single Document setting out the main points of the specification.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["0", "21", "29", "56", "55", "72", "15", "39", "20", "83", "69", "60", "44", "17", "63", "6", "8", "32", "99", "45", "98", "81", "40", "66", "14", "35", "58", "28", "75", "12", "No Label", "24", "25", "64", "65", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "64", "65", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 112/2012\nof 9 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 February 2012.", "references": ["33", "9", "72", "50", "44", "27", "93", "77", "26", "28", "7", "24", "17", "84", "67", "19", "34", "96", "11", "14", "97", "94", "29", "40", "10", "30", "83", "82", "53", "5", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/53/EU\nof 20 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include dazomet as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included dazomet.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of dazomet.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Belgium, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nBelgium evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 10 December 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on dazomet to the Commission on 30 September 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for dazomet.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing dazomet may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include dazomet in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information to confirm the potential groundwater contamination by methyl isothiocyanate, the assessment of the long range atmospheric transport potential of methyl isothiocyanate and related environmental risks, the acute risk to insectivorous birds and the long term risk to birds and mammals.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing dazomet to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of dazomet and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning dazomet in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning dazomet in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing dazomet as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to dazomet are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing dazomet as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account Part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning dazomet. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing dazomet as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing dazomet as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["82", "21", "49", "79", "10", "11", "40", "47", "60", "81", "6", "28", "0", "15", "64", "57", "9", "77", "89", "44", "30", "69", "90", "76", "23", "56", "3", "48", "4", "31", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 973/2010\nof 25 October 2010\ntemporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 349 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn August and December 2007 the regional authorities of the Azores and Madeira requested, with the support of the Portuguese Government, an autonomous suspension of the Common Customs Tariff duties for a number of products in accordance with Article 299(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community. They justified their requests on the grounds that, in view of the remoteness of those islands, economic operators in the Azores and Madeira are at a severe commercial disadvantage, which has negative effects on demographic trends, employment and social and economic developments.\n(2)\nThe local economies of the Azores and Madeira are to a large extent dependant on national and international tourism, a fairly volatile economic resource, which is determined by factors on which the local authorities and the Portuguese Government have hardly any influence. As a result, the economic development of the Azores and Madeira is severely restrained. In these circumstances it is necessary to support those economic sectors which are less dependent on the tourist industries in order to compensate the fluctuations of the tourist sector and thus to stabilise local employment.\n(3)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 1657/93 of 24 June 1993 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial products intended to equip the free zones of the Azores and Madeira (3) did not have the desired effect in the last years before its expiry on 31 December 2008. This is in all likelihood due to the fact that the suspensions laid down in that Regulation were limited to the free zones of the Azores and Madeira and were therefore no longer used in the last years before their expiry. It is therefore appropriate to provide for new suspensions which are not restricted to industries located in free zones but can benefit to all types of economic operators located on the territory of those regions. The scope of commercial sectors benefiting from the suspensions should therefore cover the fishery, agricultural, industrial and service sectors.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the suspensions laid down in this Regulation have an economic impact, it is appropriate to extend the range of products benefiting from the suspensions to finished goods for agricultural, commercial or industrial use, as well as to raw materials, parts and components used for agricultural purposes, industrial transformation or maintenance.\n(5)\nIn order to give a long-term perspective to investors and enable economic operators to reach a level of industrial and commercial activity which stabilises the economic and social environment in the regions concerned, it is appropriate to suspend in full the Common Customs Tariff duties for certain goods for a period of 10 years as from 1 November 2010.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure that only economic operators located on the territory of the Azores and Madeira benefit from these tariff measures, the suspensions should be made conditional on the end use of the products in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (4) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/93 establishing the Community Customs Code (5).\n(7)\nIn order to allow efficient operation of the suspensions, the authorities of the Azores and Madeira should take the necessary implementing measures and inform the Commission thereof.\n(8)\nThe Commission should be permitted to adopt, if necessary, temporary measures designed to prevent any speculative movement of deflection of trade until a definitive solution for that movement will be adopted by the Council.\n(9)\nAmendments to the Combined Nomenclature may not give rise to any substantive changes to the nature of the suspension of duties. The Commission should therefore be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for the purpose of making necessary amendments and technical adaptations to the list of goods for which a suspension applies,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 November 2010 to 2 November 2020 the Common Customs Tariff duties applicable to imports into the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira of finished goods for agricultural, commercial or industrial use listed in Annex I shall be suspended in full.\nThese goods shall be used in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 for a period of at least 24 months after the release into free circulation by economic operators located in the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira.\nArticle 2\nFrom 1 November 2010 to 2 November 2020 the Common Customs Tariff duties applicable to imports into the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira of raw materials, parts and components listed in Annex II, and used for agricultural purposes, industrial transformation or maintenance in the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira, shall be suspended in full.\nArticle 3\nThe competent authorities of the Azores and Madeira shall take the measures necessary to ensure compliance with Articles 1 and 2.\nThose authorities shall inform the Commission of those measures before 30 April 2011.\nArticle 4\nThe suspension of duties referred to in Articles 1 and 2 shall be subject to end-use in accordance with Articles 21 and 82 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and to the controls provided for in Articles 291 to 300 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\nArticle 5\n1. Where the Commission has reason to believe that the suspension laid down in this Regulation has led to a deflection of the trade for a specific product it may, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 11(2), temporarily withdraw the suspension for a period not longer than 12 months. Import duties for products for which the suspension has been temporarily withdrawn shall be secured by a guarantee, and the release of the products concerned for free circulation in the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira shall be conditional upon the provision of such guarantee.\n2. When the Council decides, on a proposal from the Commission within the 12-month period, that the suspension should definitively be withdrawn, the amounts of duties secured by guarantees shall be definitively collected.\n3. If no definitive decision has been adopted within the 12-month period in accordance with paragraph 2, the securities shall be released.\nArticle 6\nWhen necessary the Commission may adopt by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 7 and subject to the conditions of Articles 8 and 9 such amendments and technical adaptations to Annexes I and II as are required as a consequence of amendments to the Combined Nomenclature.\nArticle 7\n1. The powers to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 6 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it to the Council.\n3. The powers to adopt delegated acts are conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 8 and 9.\nArticle 8\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 6 may be revoked by the Council.\n2. Where the Council has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of powers, it shall endeavour to inform the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 9\n1. The Council may object to the delegated act within a period of three months from the date of notification.\n2. If, on expiry of that period, the Council has not objected to the delegated act, or if, before that date, the Council informs the Commission that it has decided not to raise objections, the delegated act shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\n3. If the Council objects to the adopted delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The Council shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 10\nThe European Parliament shall be informed of the adoption of delegated acts by the Commission, of any objection formulated to them, or of the revocation of the delegation of powers by the Council.\nArticle 11\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Customs Code Committee.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 4 and 7 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (6) shall apply.\nThe period laid down in Article 4(3) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.\nArticle 12\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 November 2010, except for Articles 6 to 10, which shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 October 2010.", "references": ["24", "56", "39", "98", "32", "15", "80", "16", "47", "12", "64", "95", "90", "45", "46", "53", "75", "61", "6", "34", "87", "4", "88", "91", "30", "85", "37", "22", "9", "76", "No Label", "10", "21", "82", "92"], "gold": ["10", "21", "82", "92"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 580/2010\nof 29 June 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in Ukraine\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Measures in force\n(1)\nThe Council, by Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 (2) (the original Regulation), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in Ukraine. The measures consist of an ad valorem duty at a rate of 9,9 %.\n1.2. Request for a review\n(2)\nIn August 2008, the Commission received a request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation (the interim review). The request was completed in December 2008. The request, limited in scope to the examination of dumping, was lodged by an exporting producer from Ukraine, Eurogold Industries Ltd (\u2018the applicant\u2019 or \u2018EGI\u2019). The applicant had cooperated in the investigation which led to the findings and conclusions laid down in the original Regulation (the original investigation). The anti-dumping duty applicable to the applicant, which is the only known exporting producer of the product concerned in Ukraine, is 9,9 %.\n(3)\nIn its request, the applicant claimed that the circumstances on the basis of which measures were imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. The applicant provided prima facie evidence that the continued imposition of the measure at its current level is no longer necessary to offset dumping.\n1.3. Initiation of a review\n(4)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an interim review, the Commission decided to initiate a partial interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far as EGI is concerned. The Commission published a notice of initiation on 9 April 2009 in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) (Notice of initiation) and commenced an investigation.\n1.4. Product concerned and like product\n(5)\nThe product concerned by the interim review is the same as that in the original investigation, i.e. ironing boards, whether or not free-standing, with or without a steam soaking and/or heating top and/or blowing top, including sleeve boards, and essential parts thereof, i.e. the legs, the top and the iron rest, originating in Ukraine, currently falling within CN codes ex 3924 90 00, ex 4421 90 98, ex 7323 93 90, ex 7323 99 91, ex 7323 99 99, ex 8516 79 70 and ex 8516 90 00.\n(6)\nThe product produced and sold in Ukraine and that exported to the Union have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and uses and are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n1.5. Parties concerned\n(7)\nThe Commission officially advised the Union industry, the applicant and the authorities of the exporting country of the initiation of the interim review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard.\n(8)\nThe Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant and received a reply within the deadline set for that purpose. The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the determination of dumping, and a verification visit was carried out at the premises of the applicant:\n-\nEurogold Industries Ltd, Zhitomir, Ukraine,\n-\nand its related company Eurogold Service Zumb\u00fchl & Co., Zug in Switzerland (EGS).\n1.6. Investigation period\n(9)\nThe investigation covered the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008 (\u2018the investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019).\n2. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n2.1. Normal value\n(10)\nFor the determination of normal value, it was first established whether EGI\u2019s total volume of domestic sales of the like product to independent customers was representative in comparison with its total volume of export sales to the Union. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation domestic sales are considered to be representative when the total domestic sales volume is at least 5 % of the total volume of sales of the product concerned to the Union. It was found that the overall sales by EGI of the like product on the domestic market were representative.\n(11)\nFor each product type sold by EGI on its domestic market and found to be directly comparable with the product type sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total volume of that product type sold on the domestic market to independent customers during the IP represented at least 5 % of the total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Union.\n(12)\nIt was also examined whether the domestic sales of each product type could be regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of domestic sales to independent customers on the domestic market which were profitable for each exported type of the product concerned during the IP.\n(13)\nFor those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market of the product type were above cost and the weighted average sales price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not.\n(14)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during the IP.\n(15)\nWherever domestic prices of a particular product type sold by EGI could not be used in order to establish normal value, the normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(16)\nWhen constructing normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits have been based, pursuant to Article 2(6), chapeau, of the basic Regulation, on the actual data pertaining to the production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by EGI.\n(17)\nFollowing disclosure of the findings, EGI claimed that the percentage rate for selling, general and administrative costs, which was used when constructing normal value, did not correspond to that in respect of domestic sales made in the ordinary course of trade and that, consequently, certain constructed normal values were overstated in this respect.\n(18)\nThe claim was examined, but it was found to have no basis since the percentage rate for selling, general and administrative costs used is that reported for domestic sales and is the same irrespective of whether or not sales are made in the ordinary course of trade, since it is expressed as a percentage on turnover. The claim is therefore rejected.\n2.2. Export price\n(19)\nEGI made export sales to the Union either directly to independent customers or through its related company EGS, located in Switzerland.\n(20)\nWhere export sales to the Union were made directly to independent customers in the Union, export prices were established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n(21)\nWhere export sales to the Union were made through the related company, EGS, which performed all import functions in relation to the goods entering into free circulation in the Union, i.e. that of a related importer, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of prices at which the imported products were first resold to an independent buyer. For this purpose, adjustments were made to take account of all costs, incurred between importation and resale, and for profits accruing, so that a reliable export price could be established. For this purpose, in the absence of new information from independent importers concerning profits accruing, use was made of the same percentage profit as that used in the original investigation.\n(22)\nEGI claimed, under Article 11(10) of the basic Regulation, that, if the export price is established in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping duty paid should not be deducted as a cost, since, they argued, it is duly reflected in resale prices.\n(23)\nIn this regard, the evidence in support of the claim, which consisted of a number of selling price calculations, was examined. However, the calculations provided only concerned some of the models sold during the IP and showed that the selling price did not fully reflect the anti-dumping duty in all cases. Consequently, the evidence provided was not found to be conclusive on whether the anti-dumping duty was reflected in the resale prices. The claim was therefore rejected and, when establishing the export price for sales to the Union made through EGS in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping duty was deducted as a cost.\n(24)\nFollowing disclosure of the findings, EGI repeated their claim. However, no new evidence or arguments in support of that claim were submitted. The claim is therefore rejected.\n2.3. Comparison\n(25)\nThe normal value and the export price were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for transport costs, packing costs, credit costs, and commissions, where applicable and justified, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.\n(26)\nFollowing disclosure of the findings, a calculation error involving the incorrect currency conversion of certain allowances for packing costs was brought to light. This was corrected and the dumping margin calculation was revised accordingly.\n(27)\nAlso, following the disclosure of findings, EGI claimed that when constructing normal value, the allowances reported in respect of domestic sales which are not in the ordinary course of trade, should be disregarded and, in the absence of other sales of the product type in question, use should be made of the average allowances for sales of other product types made in the ordinary course of trade, because only the latter would reflect the costs which had been included in the selling, general and administrative costs used to construct the normal value.\n(28)\nThis claim was examined, but was not accepted since, as allowances are used for comparison purposes only and normally reflect the actual costs specific to each transaction, they are an objective element and are therefore independent of whether or not sales are finally made in the ordinary course of trade.\n(29)\nMoreover, while examining this claim, it was found that incorrect allowances had been used when constructing normal values in the case of those product types for which there were no domestic sales. This was corrected by using the overall average allowances of all domestic sales, and the calculation was amended accordingly. EGI claimed that allowances for credit costs should be granted for these product types, since credit costs were included in the selling, general and administrative costs used in constructing the normal value. This claim was rejected because the product types in question were never actually sold on the domestic market and there was therefore no evidence that their payment would be deferred. In this respect, it is noted that a credit cost allowance is not based on actual payment terms and costs, but on an opportunity cost based on the payment terms agreed at the time of sale.\n2.4. Dumping margin\n(30)\nAs provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value by type was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned. This comparison showed the existence of dumping.\n(31)\nThe dumping margin for EGI, expressed as a percentage of the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, duty unpaid, is 7 %.\n(32)\nIn accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, it was also examined whether the findings could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.\n(33)\nThe structural reorganisation of the sales channels of the applicant and its related company is now well established for the majority of its sales and can be considered long-lasting. Thus, the circumstances that led to the initiation of this interim review are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future in a manner that would affect the findings of the interim review. Furthermore, no element emerged in the course of the investigation that would suggest that the new circumstances are not lasting. Therefore, it is concluded that the changed circumstances are of a lasting nature.\n3. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(34)\nIn the original investigation EGI was found to be the sole Ukrainian exporting producer of ironing boards. The methodology used to determine the dumping margin for EGI was therefore used to establish the dumping margin for any other Ukrainian exporting producers of the product concerned.\n(35)\nConsequently in the light of the results of the review investigation, it is considered appropriate to amend the anti-dumping duty applicable to imports of the product concerned originating in Ukraine to 7 %.\n(36)\nInterested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it would be proposed to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of the product concerned originating, inter alia, in Ukraine and were given an opportunity to comment. Their comments have been taken into account where appropriate and are duly reflected in this Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entry concerning all companies in Ukraine in the table in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Ukraine\nAll companies\n7\n-\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 29 June 2010.", "references": ["36", "14", "8", "13", "3", "44", "75", "72", "70", "29", "11", "59", "99", "27", "34", "77", "43", "1", "88", "73", "55", "30", "83", "2", "62", "78", "25", "42", "85", "46", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "90", "91", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "90", "91", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/24/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 9 March 2011\non the application of patients\u2019 rights in cross-border healthcare\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 114 and 168 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 168(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), a high level of human health protection is to be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities. This implies that a high level of human health protection is to be ensured also when the Union adopts acts under other Treaty provisions.\n(2)\nArticle 114 TFEU is the appropriate legal basis since the majority of the provisions of this Directive aim to improve the functioning of the internal market and the free movement of goods, persons and services. Given that the conditions for recourse to Article 114 TFEU as a legal basis are fulfilled, Union legislation has to rely on this legal basis even when public health protection is a decisive factor in the choices made. In this respect, Article 114(3) TFEU explicitly requires that, in achieving harmonisation, a high level of protection of human health is to be guaranteed taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific facts.\n(3)\nThe health systems in the Union are a central component of the Union\u2019s high levels of social protection, and contribute to social cohesion and social justice as well as to sustainable development. They are also part of the wider framework of services of general interest.\n(4)\nNotwithstanding the possibility for patients to receive cross-border healthcare under this Directive, Member States retain responsibility for providing safe, high quality, efficient and quantitatively adequate healthcare to citizens on their territory. Furthermore, the transposition of this Directive into national legislation and its application should not result in patients being encouraged to receive treatment outside their Member State of affiliation.\n(5)\nAs recognised by the Council in its Conclusions of 1-2 June 2006 on Common values and principles in European Union Health Systems (4) (hereinafter the \u2018Council Conclusions\u2019) there is a set of operating principles that are shared by health systems throughout the Union. Those operating principles are necessary to ensure patients\u2019 trust in cross-border healthcare, which is necessary for achieving patient mobility as well as a high level of health protection. In the same statement, the Council recognised that the practical ways in which these values and principles become a reality vary significantly between Member States. In particular, decisions about the basket of healthcare to which citizens are entitled and the mechanisms used to finance and deliver that healthcare, such as the extent to which it is appropriate to rely on market mechanisms and competitive pressures to manage health systems, must be taken in the national context.\n(6)\nAs confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter the \u2018Court of Justice\u2019) on several occasions, while recognising their specific nature, all types of medical care fall within the scope of the TFEU.\n(7)\nThis Directive respects and is without prejudice to the freedom of each Member State to decide what type of healthcare it considers appropriate. No provision of this Directive should be interpreted in such a way as to undermine the fundamental ethical choices of Member States.\n(8)\nSome issues relating to cross-border healthcare, in particular reimbursement of healthcare provided in a Member State other than that in which the recipient of the care is resident, have already been addressed by the Court of Justice. This Directive is intended to achieve a more general, and also effective, application of principles developed by the Court of Justice on a case-by-case basis.\n(9)\nIn the Council Conclusions, the Council recognised the particular value of an initiative on cross-border healthcare ensuring clarity for Union citizens about their rights and entitlements when they move from one Member State to another, in order to ensure legal certainty.\n(10)\nThis Directive aims to establish rules for facilitating access to safe and high-quality cross-border healthcare in the Union and to ensure patient mobility in accordance with the principles established by the Court of Justice and to promote cooperation on healthcare between Member States, whilst fully respecting the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of social security benefits relating to health and for the organisation and delivery of healthcare and medical care and social security benefits, in particular for sickness.\n(11)\nThis Directive should apply to individual patients who decide to seek healthcare in a Member State other than the Member State of affiliation. As confirmed by the Court of Justice, neither its special nature nor the way in which it is organised or financed removes healthcare from the ambit of the fundamental principle of the freedom to provide services. However, the Member State of affiliation may choose to limit the reimbursement of cross-border healthcare for reasons relating to the quality and safety of the healthcare provided, where this can be justified by overriding reasons of general interest relating to public health. The Member State of affiliation may also take further measures on other grounds where this can be justified by such overriding reasons of general interest. Indeed, the Court of Justice has laid down that public health protection is among the overriding reasons of general interest that can justify restrictions to the freedom of movement envisaged in the Treaties.\n(12)\nThe concept of \u2018overriding reasons of general interest\u2019 to which reference is made in certain provisions of this Directive has been developed by the Court of Justice in its case-law in relation to Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and may continue to evolve. The Court of Justice has held on a number of occasions that overriding reasons of general interest are capable of justifying an obstacle to the freedom to provide services such as planning requirements relating to the aim of ensuring sufficient and permanent access to a balanced range of high-quality treatment in the Member State concerned or to the wish to control costs and avoid, as far as possible, any waste of financial, technical and human resources. The Court of Justice has likewise acknowledged that the objective of maintaining a balanced medical and hospital service open to all may also fall within one of the derogations, on grounds of public health, provided for in Article 52 TFEU, in so far as it contributes to the attainment of a high level of health protection. The Court of Justice has also held that such provision of the TFEU permits Member States to restrict the freedom to provide medical and hospital services in so far as the maintenance of treatment capacity or medical competence on national territory is essential for public health.\n(13)\nIt is clear that the obligation to reimburse costs of cross-border healthcare should be limited to healthcare to which the insured person is entitled according to the legislation of the Member State of affiliation.\n(14)\nThis Directive should not apply to services the primary purpose of which is to support people in need of assistance in carrying out routine, everyday tasks. More specifically, this Directive should not apply to those long-term care services deemed necessary in order to enable the person in need of care to live as full and self-determined a life as possible. Thus, this Directive should not apply, for example, to long-term care services provided by home care services, in assisted living facilities and in residential homes or housing (\u2018nursing homes\u2019).\n(15)\nGiven their specificity, access to and the allocation of organs for the purpose of organ transplants should fall outside the scope of this Directive.\n(16)\nFor the purpose of reimbursing the costs of cross-border healthcare, this Directive should cover not only the situation where the patient is provided with healthcare in a Member State other than the Member State of affiliation, but also the prescription, dispensation and provision of medicinal products and medical devices where these are provided in the context of a health service. The definition of cross-border healthcare should cover both the situation in which a patient purchases such medicinal products and medical devices in a Member State other than the Member State of affiliation and the situation in which the patient purchases such medicinal products and medical devices in another Member State than that in which the prescription was issued.\n(17)\nThis Directive should not affect Member States\u2019 rules concerning the sale of medicinal products and medical devices over the Internet.\n(18)\nThis Directive should not give any person an entitlement to enter, stay or reside in a Member State in order to receive healthcare in that State. Where the stay of a person on the territory of a Member State is not in accordance with the legislation of that Member State concerning the right to enter or stay on its territory, such person should not be regarded as an insured person according to the definition in this Directive. Member States should continue to be able to specify in their national legislation who is considered as an insured person for the purposes of their public healthcare scheme and social security legislation as long as the patients\u2019 rights set out in this Directive are secured.\n(19)\nWhen a patient receives cross-border healthcare, it is essential for the patient to know in advance which rules will be applicable. The rules applicable to cross-border healthcare should be those set out in the legislation of the Member State of treatment, given that, in accordance with Article 168(7) TFEU, the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care is the responsibility of the Member States. This should help the patient in making an informed choice, and should avoid misapprehension and misunderstanding. It should also establish a high level of trust between the patient and the healthcare provider.\n(20)\nIn order to help patients to make an informed choice when they seek to receive healthcare in another Member State, Member States of treatment should ensure that patients from other Member States receive on request the relevant information on safety and quality standards enforced on its territory as well as on which healthcare providers are subject to these standards. Furthermore, healthcare providers should provide patients on request with information on specific aspects of the healthcare services they offer and on the treatment options. To the extent that healthcare providers already provide patients resident in the Member State of treatment with relevant information on those specific aspects, this Directive should not oblige healthcare providers to provide more extensive information to patients from other Member States. Nothing should prevent the Member State of treatment from also obliging other actors than the healthcare providers, such as insurance providers or public authorities, to provide the information on specific aspects of the healthcare services offered, if that would be more appropriate with regard to the organisation of its healthcare system.\n(21)\nIn its Conclusions the Council recognised that there is a set of common values and principles that are shared across the Union about how health systems respond to the needs of the population and patients that they serve. The overarching values of universality, access to good quality care, equity, and solidarity have been widely acknowledged in the work of various Union institutions. Therefore, Member States should also ensure that these values are respected with regard to patients and citizens from other Member States, and that all patients are treated equitably on the basis of their healthcare needs rather than on the basis of their Member State of affiliation. In doing so, Member States should respect the principles of free movement of persons within the internal market, non-discrimination, inter alia, with regard to nationality and necessity and proportionality of any restrictions on free movement. However, nothing in this Directive should oblige healthcare providers to accept for planned treatment patients from other Member States or to prioritise them to the detriment of other patients, for instance by increasing the waiting time for treatment of other patients. Inflows of patients may create a demand exceeding the capacities existing in a Member State for a given treatment. In such exceptional cases, the Member State should retain the possibility to remedy the situation on the grounds of public health, in accordance with Articles 52 and 62 TFEU. However, this limitation should be without prejudice to Member States\u2019 obligations under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (5).\n(22)\nSystematic and continuous efforts should be made to ensure that quality and safety standards are improved in line with the Council Conclusions and taking into account advances in international medical science and generally recognised good medical practices as well as taking into account new health technologies.\n(23)\nEnsuring clear common obligations in respect of the provision of mechanisms for responding to harm arising from healthcare is essential to prevent lack of confidence in those mechanisms being an obstacle to taking up cross-border healthcare. Systems for addressing harm in the Member State of treatment should be without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to extend the coverage of their domestic systems to patients from their country seeking healthcare abroad, where this is more appropriate for the patient.\n(24)\nMember States should ensure that mechanisms for the protection of patients and for seeking remedies in the event of harm are in place for healthcare provided on their territory and that they are appropriate to the nature and extent of the risk. However, it should be for the Member State to determine the nature and modalities of such a mechanism.\n(25)\nThe right to the protection of personal data is a fundamental right recognised by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Ensuring continuity of cross-border healthcare depends on transfer of personal data concerning patients\u2019 health. These personal data should be able to flow from one Member State to another, but at the same time the fundamental rights of the individuals should be safeguarded. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (6) establishes the right for individuals to have access to their personal data concerning their health, for example the data in their medical records containing such information as diagnosis, examination results, assessments by treating physicians and any treatment or interventions provided. Those provisions should also apply in the context of cross-border healthcare covered by this Directive.\n(26)\nThe right to reimbursement of the costs of healthcare provided in another Member State by the statutory social security system of patients as insured persons has been recognised by the Court of Justice in several judgements. The Court of Justice has held that the Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services include the freedom for the recipients of healthcare, including persons in need of medical treatment, to go to another Member State in order to receive it there. The same should apply to recipients of healthcare seeking to receive healthcare provided in another Member State through other means, for example through eHealth services.\n(27)\nIn accordance with the principles established by the Court of Justice, and without endangering the financial balance of Member States\u2019 healthcare and social security systems, greater legal certainty as regards the reimbursement of healthcare costs should be provided for patients and for health professionals, healthcare providers and social security institutions.\n(28)\nThis Directive should not affect an insured person\u2019s rights in respect of the assumption of costs of healthcare which becomes necessary on medical grounds during a temporary stay in another Member State according to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. In addition, this Directive should not affect an insured person\u2019s right to be granted an authorisation for treatment in another Member State where the conditions provided for by Union regulations on the coordination of social security systems are met, in particular by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 or Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (7), which are applicable by virtue of Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality (8) and Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14 May 2003 extending the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by those provisions solely on the ground of their nationality (9).\n(29)\nIt is appropriate to require that also patients who seek healthcare in another Member State in other circumstances than those provided for in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 should be able to benefit from the principles of free movement of patients, services and goods in accordance with the TFEU and with this Directive. Patients should enjoy a guarantee of assumption of the costs of that healthcare at least at the level as would be provided for the same healthcare, had it been provided in the Member State of affiliation. This should fully respect the responsibility of the Member States to determine the extent of the sickness cover available to their citizens and prevent any significant effect on the financing of the national healthcare systems.\n(30)\nFor patients, therefore, the two systems should be coherent; either this Directive applies or the Union regulations on the coordination of social security systems apply.\n(31)\nPatients should not be deprived of the more beneficial rights guaranteed by the Union Regulations on the coordination of social security systems when the conditions are met. Therefore, any patient who requests an authorisation to receive treatment appropriate to his condition in another Member State should always be granted this authorisation under the conditions provided for in the Unions regulations when the treatment in question is among the benefits provided for by the legislation in the Member State where the patient resides and when the patient cannot be given such treatment within a time limit that is medically justifiable, taking account of his current state of health and the probable course of the condition. However, if a patient instead explicitly requests to seek treatment under the terms of this Directive, the benefits which apply to reimbursement should be limited to those which apply under this Directive. Where the patient is entitled to cross-border healthcare under both this Directive and Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, and the application of that Regulation is more advantageous to the patient, the patient\u2019s attention should be drawn to this by the Member State of affiliation.\n(32)\nPatients should, in any event, not derive a financial advantage from the healthcare provided in another Member State and the assumption of costs should be therefore limited only to the actual costs of healthcare received.\n(33)\nThis Directive does not aim to create an entitlement to reimbursement of the costs of healthcare provided in another Member State, if such healthcare is not among the benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State of affiliation of the insured person. Equally, this Directive should not prevent the Member States from extending their benefits-in-kind scheme to healthcare provided in another Member State. This Directive should recognise that Member States are free to organise their healthcare and social security systems in such a way as to determine entitlement for treatment at a regional or local level.\n(34)\nMember States of affiliation should give patients the right to receive at least the same benefits in another Member State as those provided for by the legislation of the Member State of affiliation. If the list of benefits does not specify precisely the treatment method applied but defines types of treatment, the Member State of affiliation should not refuse prior authorisation or reimbursement on the grounds that the treatment method is not available in its territory, but should assess if the cross-border treatment sought or received corresponds to benefits provided for in its legislation. The fact that the obligation to reimburse cross-border healthcare under this Directive is limited to such healthcare that is among the benefits to which the patient is entitled within its Member State of affiliation does not preclude Member States from reimbursing the cost of cross-border healthcare beyond those limits. Member States are free, for example, to reimburse extra costs, such as accommodation and travel costs, or extra costs incurred by persons with disabilities even where those costs are not reimbursed in the case of healthcare provided in their territory.\n(35)\nThis Directive should not provide either for the transfer of social security entitlements between Member States or other coordination of social security systems. The sole objective of the provisions regarding prior authorisation and reimbursement of healthcare provided in another Member State should be to enable freedom to provide healthcare for patients and to remove unjustified obstacles to that fundamental freedom within the patient\u2019s Member State of affiliation. Consequently this Directive should fully respect the differences in national healthcare systems and the Member States\u2019 responsibilities for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.\n(36)\nThis Directive should provide for the right for a patient to receive any medicinal product authorised for marketing in the Member State of treatment, even if the medicinal product is not authorised for marketing in the Member State of affiliation, as it is an indispensable part of obtaining effective treatment in another Member State. Nothing should oblige a Member State of affiliation to reimburse an insured person for a medicinal product prescribed in the Member State of treatment, where that medicinal product is not among the benefits provided to that insured person by the statutory social security system or national health system in the Member State of affiliation.\n(37)\nMember States may maintain general conditions, criteria for eligibility and regulatory and administrative formalities for receipt of healthcare and reimbursement of healthcare costs, such as the requirement to consult a general practitioner before consulting a specialist or before receiving hospital care, also in relation to patients seeking healthcare in another Member State, provided that such conditions are necessary, proportionate to the aim, not discretionary or discriminatory. This may include an assessment by a health professional or healthcare administrator providing services for the statutory social security system or national health system of the Member State of affiliation, such as the general practitioner or primary care practitioner with whom the patient is registered, if this is necessary for determining the individual patient\u2019s entitlement to healthcare. It is thus appropriate to require that these general conditions, criteria and formalities should be applied in an objective, transparent and non-discriminatory way and should be known in advance, based primarily on medical considerations, and that they should not impose any additional burden on patients seeking healthcare in another Member State in comparison with patients being treated in their Member State of affiliation, and that decisions should be made as quickly as possible. This should be without prejudice to the rights of the Member States to lay down criteria or conditions for prior authorisation in the case of patients seeking healthcare in their Member State of affiliation.\n(38)\nIn the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice, making the assumption by the statutory social security system or national health system of costs of healthcare provided in another Member State subject to prior authorisation is a restriction to the free movement of services. Therefore, as a general rule, the Member State of affiliation should not make the assumption of the costs of healthcare provided in another Member State subject to prior authorisation, where the costs of that care, if it had been provided in its territory, would have been borne by its statutory social security system or national health system.\n(39)\nPatient flows between Member States are limited and expected to remain so, as the vast majority of patients in the Union receive healthcare in their own country and prefer to do so. However, in certain circumstances patients may seek some forms of healthcare in another Member State. Examples include highly specialised care or healthcare provided in frontier areas where the nearest appropriate facility is on the other side of the border. Furthermore, some patients wish to be treated abroad in order to be close to their family members who are residing in another Member State, or in order to have access to a different method of treatment than that provided in the Member State of affiliation or because they believe that they will receive better quality healthcare in another Member State.\n(40)\nAccording to the constant case-law of the Court of Justice, Member States may make the assumption of costs by the national system of hospital care provided in another Member State subject to prior authorisation. The Court of Justice has judged that this requirement is both necessary and reasonable, since the number of hospitals, their geographical distribution, the way in which they are organised and the facilities with which they are equipped, and even the nature of the medical services which they are able to offer, are all matters for which planning, generally designed to satisfy various needs, must be possible. The Court of Justice has found that such planning seeks to ensure that there is sufficient and permanent access to a balanced range of high-quality hospital treatment in the Member State concerned. In addition, it assists in meeting a desire to control costs and to prevent, as far as possible, any wastage of financial, technical and human resources. According to the Court of Justice, such wastage would be all the more damaging because it is generally recognised that the hospital care sector generates considerable costs and must satisfy increasing needs, while the financial resources made available for healthcare are not unlimited, whatever mode of funding is applied.\n(41)\nThe same reasoning applies to healthcare not provided in a hospital but subjected to similar planning needs in the Member State of treatment. This may be healthcare which requires planning because it involves use of highly specialised and cost-intensive medical infrastructure or medical equipment. In light of technological progress, the development of new methods of treatment and the different policies of the Member States regarding the roles of hospitals in their healthcare systems, the question of whether this kind of healthcare is delivered within hospital or ambulatory care facilities is not the decisive factor for deciding whether it requires planning or not.\n(42)\nGiven that the Member States are responsible for laying down rules as regards the management, requirements, quality and safety standards and organisation and delivery of healthcare and that the planning necessities differ from one Member State to another, it should therefore be for the Member States to decide whether there is a need to introduce a system of prior authorisation, and if so, to identify the healthcare requiring prior authorisation in the context of their system in accordance with the criteria defined by this Directive and in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice. The information concerning this healthcare should be made publicly available in advance.\n(43)\nThe criteria attached to the grant of prior authorisation should be justified in the light of the overriding reasons of general interest capable of justifying obstacles to the free movement of healthcare, such as planning requirements relating to the aim of ensuring sufficient and permanent access to a balanced range of high-quality treatment in the Member State concerned or to the wish to control costs and avoid, as far as possible, any waste of financial, technical and human resources. The Court of Justice has identified several potential considerations: the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of a social security system, the objective of maintaining on grounds of public health a balanced medical and hospital service open to all and the objective of maintaining treatment capacity or medical competence on national territory, essential for the public health, and even the survival of the population. It is also important to take into consideration the general principle of ensuring the safety of the patient, in a sector well known for information asymmetry, when managing a prior authorisation system. Conversely, the refusal to grant prior authorisation may not be based on the ground that there are waiting lists on national territory intended to enable the supply of hospital care to be planned and managed on the basis of predetermined general clinical priorities, without carrying out an objective medical assessment.\n(44)\nAccording to the constant case-law of the Court of Justice, the criteria for granting or refusing prior authorisation should be limited to what is necessary and proportionate in the light of these overriding reasons in the general interest. It should be noted that the impact on national health systems caused by patient mobility might vary between Member States or between regions within a Member State, depending on factors such as geographical location, language barriers, location of hospitals in border regions or the size of the population and healthcare budget. It should therefore be for Member States to set such criteria for refusing prior authorisation that are necessary and proportionate in that specific context, also taking into account which healthcare falls within the scope of the prior authorisation system, since certain treatments of a highly specialised nature will be more easily affected even by a limited patient outflow than others. Consequently, Member States should be able to set up different criteria for different regions or other relevant administrative levels for the organisation of healthcare, or indeed for different treatments, as long as the system is transparent and easily accessible and the criteria are made public in advance.\n(45)\nWhere the patient is entitled to healthcare and that healthcare cannot be provided within a time limit which is medically justifiable, the Member State of affiliation should in principle be obliged to grant prior authorisation. However, in certain circumstances, cross-border healthcare may expose the patient or the general public to a risk which overrides the interest of the patient to receive the cross-border healthcare sought. In such instances, the Member State of affiliation should be able to refuse the request for prior authorisation, in which case the Member State of affiliation should direct the patient towards alternative solutions.\n(46)\nIn any event, if a Member State decides to establish a system of prior authorisation for assumption of costs of hospital or specialised care provided in another Member State in accordance with the provision of this Directive, the costs of such care provided in another Member State should also be reimbursed by the Member State of affiliation up to the level of costs that would have been assumed had the same healthcare been provided in the Member State of affiliation, without exceeding the actual costs of healthcare received. However, when the conditions set out in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 or Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 are fulfilled, the authorisation should be granted and the benefits provided in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 unless otherwise requested by the patient. This should apply in particular in instances where the authorisation is granted after an administrative or judicial review of the request and the person concerned has received the treatment in another Member State. In that event, Articles 7 and 8 of this Directive should not apply. This is in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice which has specified that patients who were refused prior authorisation on grounds that were subsequently held to be unfounded, are entitled to have the cost of the treatment obtained in another Member State reimbursed in full according to the provisions of the legislation in the Member State of treatment.\n(47)\nProcedures regarding cross-border healthcare established by the Member States should give patients guarantees of objectivity, non-discrimination and transparency, in such a way as to ensure that decisions by national authorities are made in a timely manner and with due care and regard for both those overall principles and the individual circumstances of each case. This should also apply to the actual reimbursement of costs of healthcare incurred in another Member State after the patient has received treatment. It is appropriate that, under normal circumstances, patients be entitled to receive decisions regarding cross-border healthcare within a reasonable period of time. However, that period should be shortened where warranted by the urgency of the treatment in question.\n(48)\nAppropriate information on all essential aspects of cross-border healthcare is necessary in order to enable patients to exercise their rights on cross-border healthcare in practice. For cross-border healthcare, one of the mechanisms for providing such information is to establish national contact points within each Member State. Information that has to be provided compulsorily to patients should be specified. However, the national contact points may provide more information voluntarily and also with the support of the Commission. Information should be provided by national contact points to patients in any of the official languages of the Member State in which the contact points are situated. Information may be provided in any other language.\n(49)\nThe Member States should decide on the form and number of their national contact points. Such national contact points may also be incorporated in, or build on, activities of existing information centres provided that it is clearly indicated that they are also national contact points for cross-border healthcare. National contact points should be established in an efficient and transparent way and they should be able to consult with patient organisations, healthcare insurers and healthcare providers. The national contact points should have appropriate facilities to provide information on the main aspects of cross-border healthcare. The Commission should work together with the Member States in order to facilitate cooperation regarding national contact points for cross-border healthcare, including making relevant information available at Union level. The existence of national contact points should not preclude Member States from establishing other linked contact points at regional or local level, reflecting the specific organisation of their healthcare system.\n(50)\nMember States should facilitate cooperation between healthcare providers, purchasers and regulators of different Member States at national, regional or local level in order to ensure safe, high-quality and efficient cross-border healthcare. This could be of particular importance in border regions, where cross-border provision of services may be the most efficient way of organising health services for the local population, but where achieving such cross-border provision on a sustained basis requires cooperation between the health systems of different Member States. Such cooperation may concern joint planning, mutual recognition or adaptation of procedures or standards, interoperability of respective national information and communication technology (hereinafter \u2018ICT\u2019) systems, practical mechanisms to ensure continuity of care or practical facilitating of cross-border provision of healthcare by health professionals on a temporary or occasional basis. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (10) stipulates that free provision of services of a temporary or occasional nature, including services provided by health professionals, in another Member State is not, subject to specific provisions of Union law, to be restricted for any reason relating to professional qualifications. This Directive should be without prejudice to Directive 2005/36/EC.\n(51)\nThe Commission should encourage cooperation between Member States in the areas set out in Chapter IV of this Directive and may, in accordance with Article 168(2) TFEU, take, in close contact with the Member States, any useful initiative to facilitate and promote such cooperation. In that context, the Commission should encourage cooperation in cross-border healthcare provision at regional and local level, particularly by identifying major obstacles to collaboration between healthcare providers in border regions, and by making recommendations and disseminating information and best practices on how to overcome such obstacles.\n(52)\nThe Member State of affiliation may need to receive confirmation that the cross-border healthcare will be, or has been, delivered by a legally practising health professional. It is therefore appropriate to ensure that information on the right to practise contained in the national or local registers of health professionals, if established in the Member State of treatment, are, upon request, made available to the authorities of the Member State of affiliation.\n(53)\nWhere medicinal products are authorised within a Member State and have been prescribed in that Member State by a member of a regulated health profession within the meaning of Directive 2005/36/EC for an individual named patient, it should, in principle, be possible for such prescriptions to be medically recognised and for the medicinal products to be dispensed in another Member State in which the medicinal products are authorised. The removal of regulatory and administrative barriers to such recognition should be without prejudice to the need for appropriate agreement of the patient\u2019s treating physician or pharmacist in every individual case, if this is warranted by protection of human health and is necessary and proportionate to that objective. The recognition of prescriptions from other Member States should not affect any professional or ethical duty that would require pharmacists to refuse to dispense the prescription. Such medical recognition should also be without prejudice to the decision of the Member State of affiliation regarding the inclusion of such medicinal products among the benefits covered by the social security system of affiliation. It should further be noted that the reimbursement of medicinal products is not affected by the rules on mutual recognition of prescriptions, but covered by the general rules on reimbursement of cross-border healthcare in Chapter III of this Directive. The implementation of the principle of recognition should be facilitated by the adoption of measures necessary for safeguarding the safety of a patient, and avoiding the misuse or confusion of medicinal products. These measures should include the adoption of a non-exhaustive list of elements to be included in prescriptions. Nothing should prevent Member States from having further elements in their prescriptions, as long as this does not prevent prescriptions from other Member States that contain the common list of elements from being recognised. The recognition of prescriptions should also apply for medical devices that are legally placed on the market in the Member State where the device will be dispensed.\n(54)\nThe Commission should support the continued development of European reference networks between healthcare providers and centres of expertise in the Member States. European reference networks can improve the access to diagnosis and the provision of high-quality healthcare to all patients who have conditions requiring a particular concentration of resources or expertise, and could also be focal points for medical training and research, information dissemination and evaluation, especially for rare diseases. This Directive should therefore give incentives to Member States to reinforce the continued development of European reference networks. European reference networks are based on the voluntary participation of their members, but the Commission should develop criteria and conditions that the networks should be required to fulfil in order to receive support from the Commission.\n(55)\nRare diseases are those that meet a prevalence threshold of not more than five affected persons per 10 000, in line with Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (11), and they are all serious, chronic and often life threatening. Some patients affected by rare diseases face difficulties in their quest for a diagnosis and treatment to improve their quality of life and to increase their life expectancy, difficulties which were also recognised by the Council Recommendation of 8 June 2009 on an action in the field of rare diseases (12).\n(56)\nTechnological developments in cross-border provision of healthcare through the use of ICTs may result in the exercise of supervisory responsibilities by Member States being unclear, and can thus hinder the free movement of healthcare and give rise to possible additional risks to health protection. Widely different and incompatible formats and standards are used for provision of healthcare using ICTs throughout the Union, creating both obstacles to this mode of cross-border healthcare provision and possible risks to health protection. It is therefore necessary for Member States to aim at interoperability of ICT systems. The deployment of health ICT systems, however, is entirely a national competence. This Directive therefore should recognise the importance of the work on interoperability and respect the division of competences by providing for the Commission and Member States to work together on developing measures which are not legally binding but provide additional tools that are available to Member States to facilitate greater interoperability of ICT systems in the healthcare field and to support patient access to eHealth applications, whenever Member States decide to introduce them.\n(57)\nThe interoperability of eHealth solutions should be achieved whilst respecting national regulations on the provision of healthcare services adopted in order to protect the patient, including legislation on Internet pharmacies, in particular national bans on mail order of prescription-only medicinal products to the extent that they are compatible with the case-law of the Court of Justice and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (13) and Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (14).\n(58)\nThe constant progress of medical science and health technologies presents both opportunities and challenges to the health systems of the Member States. Cooperation in the evaluation of new health technologies can support Member States through economies of scale and avoid duplication of effort, and provide a better evidence base for optimal use of new technologies to ensure safe, high-quality and efficient healthcare. Such cooperation requires sustained structures involving all the relevant authorities of the Member States, building on existing pilot projects and consultation of a wide range of stakeholders. This Directive should therefore provide a basis for continued Union support for such cooperation.\n(59)\nAccording to Article 291 TFEU, rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers are to be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new Regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (15) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable.\n(60)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of measures that would exclude specific categories of medicinal products or medical devices from the recognition of prescriptions, as provided for in this Directive. In order to identify the reference networks which should benefit from support by the Commission, the Commission should also be empowered to adopt delegated acts in respect of the criteria and conditions that European reference networks have to fulfil.\n(61)\nIt is of particular importance that, when empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU, the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(62)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (16), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n(63)\nThe European Data Protection Supervisor has also delivered his opinion on the proposal for this Directive (17).\n(64)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely providing rules for facilitating the access to safe and high quality cross-border healthcare in the Union, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, 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,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Directive provides rules for facilitating the access to safe and high-quality cross-border healthcare and promotes cooperation on healthcare between Member States, in full respect of national competencies in organising and delivering healthcare. This Directive also aims at clarifying its relationship with the existing framework on the coordination of social security systems, Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, with a view to application of patients\u2019 rights.\n2. This Directive shall apply to the provision of healthcare to patients, regardless of how it is organised, delivered and financed.\n3. This Directive shall not apply to:\n(a)\nservices in the field of long-term care the purpose of which is to support people in need of assistance in carrying out routine, everyday tasks;\n(b)\nallocation of and access to organs for the purpose of organ transplants;\n(c)\nwith the exception of Chapter IV, public vaccination programmes against infectious diseases which are exclusively aimed at protecting the health of the population on the territory of a Member State and which are subject to specific planning and implementation measures.\n4. This Directive shall not affect laws and regulations in Member States relating to the organisation and financing of healthcare in situations not related to cross-border healthcare. In particular, nothing in this Directive obliges a Member State to reimburse costs of healthcare provided by healthcare providers established on its own territory if those providers are not part of the social security system or public health system of that Member State.\nArticle 2\nRelationship with other Union provisions\nThis Directive shall apply without prejudice to:\n(a)\nCouncil Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (18);\n(b)\nCouncil Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices (19), Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (20) and Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (21);\n(c)\nDirective 95/46/EC and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (22);\n(d)\nDirective 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (23);\n(e)\nDirective 2000/31/EC;\n(f)\nCouncil Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (24);\n(g)\nDirective 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use (25);\n(h)\nDirective 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (26);\n(i)\nDirective 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components (27);\n(j)\nRegulation (EC) No 859/2003;\n(k)\nDirective 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (28);\n(l)\nRegulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (29);\n(m)\nRegulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (30);\n(n)\nDirective 2005/36/EC;\n(o)\nRegulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) (31);\n(p)\nRegulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work (32);\n(q)\nRegulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (33), Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (34) and other Union rules on private international law, in particular rules related to court jurisdiction and the applicable law;\n(r)\nDirective 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation (35);\n(s)\nRegulation (EU) No 1231/2010.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018healthcare\u2019 means health services provided by health professionals to patients to assess, maintain or restore their state of health, including the prescription, dispensation and provision of medicinal products and medical devices;\n(b)\n\u2018insured person\u2019 means:\n(i)\npersons, including members of their families and their survivors, who are covered by Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and who are insured persons within the meaning of Article 1(c) of that Regulation; and\n(ii)\nnationals of a third country who are covered by Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 or Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010, or who satisfy the conditions of the legislation of the Member State of affiliation for entitlement to benefits;\n(c)\n\u2018Member State of affiliation\u2019 means:\n(i)\nfor persons referred to in point (b)(i), the Member State that is competent to grant to the insured person a prior authorisation to receive appropriate treatment outside the Member State of residence according to Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009;\n(ii)\nfor persons referred to in point (b)(ii), the Member State that is competent to grant to the insured person a prior authorisation to receive appropriate treatment in another Member State according to Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 or Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010. If no Member State is competent according to those Regulations, the Member State of affiliation shall be the Member State where the person is insured or has the rights to sickness benefits according to the legislation of that Member State;\n(d)\n\u2018Member State of treatment\u2019 means the Member State on whose territory healthcare is actually provided to the patient. In the case of telemedicine, healthcare is considered to be provided in the Member State where the healthcare provider is established;\n(e)\n\u2018cross-border healthcare\u2019 means healthcare provided or prescribed in a Member State other than the Member State of affiliation;\n(f)\n\u2018health professional\u2019 means a doctor of medicine, a nurse responsible for general care, a dental practitioner, a midwife or a pharmacist within the meaning of Directive 2005/36/EC, or another professional exercising activities in the healthcare sector which are restricted to a regulated profession as defined in Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2005/36/EC, or a person considered to be a health professional according to the legislation of the Member State of treatment;\n(g)\n\u2018healthcare provider\u2019 means any natural or legal person or any other entity legally providing healthcare on the territory of a Member State;\n(h)\n\u2018patient\u2019 means any natural person who seeks to receive or receives healthcare in a Member State;\n(i)\n\u2018medicinal product\u2019 means a medicinal product as defined by Directive 2001/83/EC;\n(j)\n\u2018medical device\u2019 means a medical device as defined by Directive 90/385/EEC, Directive 93/42/EEC or Directive 98/79/EC;\n(k)\n\u2018prescription\u2019 means a prescription for a medicinal product or for a medical device issued by a member of a regulated health profession within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2005/36/EC who is legally entitled to do so in the Member State in which the prescription is issued;\n(l)\n\u2018health technology\u2019 means a medicinal product, a medical device or medical and surgical procedures as well as measures for disease prevention, diagnosis or treatment used in healthcare;\n(m)\n\u2018medical records\u2019 means all the documents containing data, assessments and information of any kind on a patient\u2019s situation and clinical development throughout the care process.\nCHAPTER II\nRESPONSIBILITIES OF MEMBER STATES WITH REGARD TO CROSS-BORDER HEALTH CARE\nArticle 4\nResponsibilities of the Member State of treatment\n1. Taking into account the principles of universality, access to good quality care, equity and solidarity, cross-border healthcare shall be provided in accordance with:\n(a)\nthe legislation of the Member State of treatment;\n(b)\nstandards and guidelines on quality and safety laid down by the Member State of treatment; and\n(c)\nUnion legislation on safety standards.\n2. The Member State of treatment shall ensure that:\n(a)\npatients receive from the national contact point referred to in Article 6, upon request, relevant information on the standards and guidelines referred to in paragraph 1(b) of this Article, including provisions on supervision and assessment of healthcare providers, information on which healthcare providers are subject to these standards and guidelines and information on the accessibility of hospitals for persons with disabilities;\n(b)\nhealthcare providers provide relevant information to help individual patients to make an informed choice, including on treatment options, on the availability, quality and safety of the healthcare they provide in the Member State of treatment and that they also provide clear invoices and clear information on prices, as well as on their authorisation or registration status, their insurance cover or other means of personal or collective protection with regard to professional liability. To the extent that healthcare providers already provide patients resident in the Member State of treatment with relevant information on these subjects, this Directive does not oblige healthcare providers to provide more extensive information to patients from other Member States;\n(c)\nthere are transparent complaints procedures and mechanisms in place for patients, in order for them to seek remedies in accordance with the legislation of the Member State of treatment if they suffer harm arising from the healthcare they receive;\n(d)\nsystems of professional liability insurance, or a guarantee or similar arrangement that is equivalent or essentially comparable as regards its purpose and which is appropriate to the nature and the extent of the risk, are in place for treatment provided on its territory;\n(e)\nthe fundamental right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data is protected in conformity with national measures implementing Union provisions on the protection of personal data, in particular Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC;\n(f)\nin order to ensure continuity of care, patients who have received treatment are entitled to a written or electronic medical record of such treatment, and access to at least a copy of this record in conformity with and subject to national measures implementing Union provisions on the protection of personal data, in particular Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC.\n3. The principle of non-discrimination with regard to nationality shall be applied to patients from other Member States.\nThis shall be without prejudice to the possibility for the Member State of treatment, where it is justified by overriding reasons of general interest, such as planning requirements relating to the aim of ensuring sufficient and permanent access to a balanced range of high-quality treatment in the Member State concerned or to the wish to control costs and avoid, as far as possible, any waste of financial, technical and human resources, to adopt measures regarding access to treatment aimed at fulfilling its fundamental responsibility to ensure sufficient and permanent access to healthcare within its territory. Such measures shall be limited to what is necessary and proportionate and may not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination and shall be made publicly available in advance.\n4. Member States shall ensure that the healthcare providers on their territory apply the same scale of fees for healthcare for patients from other Member States, as for domestic patients in a comparable medical situation, or that they charge a price calculated according to objective, non-discriminatory criteria if there is no comparable price for domestic patients.\nThis paragraph shall be without prejudice to national legislation which allows healthcare providers to set their own prices, provided that they do not discriminate against patients from other Member States.\n5. This Directive shall not affect laws and regulations in Member States on the use of languages. Member States may choose to deliver information in other languages than those which are official languages in the Member State concerned.\nArticle 5\nResponsibilities of the Member State of affiliation\nThe Member State of affiliation shall ensure that:\n(a)\nthe cost of cross-border healthcare is reimbursed in accordance with Chapter III;\n(b)\nthere are mechanisms in place to provide patients on request with information on their rights and entitlements in that Member State relating to receiving cross-border healthcare, in particular as regards the terms and conditions for reimbursement of costs in accordance with Article 7(6) and procedures for accessing and determining those entitlements and for appeal and redress if patients consider that their rights have not been respected, in accordance with Article 9. In information about cross-border healthcare, a clear distinction shall be made between the rights which patients have by virtue of this Directive and rights arising from Regulation (EC) No 883/2004;\n(c)\nwhere a patient has received cross-border healthcare and where medical follow-up proves necessary, the same medical follow-up is available as would have been if that healthcare had been provided on its territory;\n(d)\npatients who seek to receive or do receive cross-border healthcare have remote access to or have at least a copy of their medical records, in conformity with, and subject to, national measures implementing Union provisions on the protection of personal data, in particular Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC.\nArticle 6\nNational contact points for cross-border healthcare\n1. Each Member State shall designate one or more national contact points for cross-border healthcare and communicate their names and contact details to the Commission. The Commission and the Member States shall make this information publicly available. Member States shall ensure that the national contact points consult with patient organisations, healthcare providers and healthcare insurers.\n2. National contact points shall facilitate the exchange of information referred to in paragraph 3 and shall cooperate closely with each other and with the Commission. National contact points shall provide patients on request with contact details of national contact points in other Member States.\n3. In order to enable patients to make use of their rights in relation to cross-border healthcare, national contact points in the Member State of treatment shall provide them with information concerning healthcare providers, including, on request, information on a specific provider\u2019s right to provide services or any restrictions on its practice, information referred to in Article 4(2)(a), as well as information on patients\u2019 rights, complaints procedures and mechanisms for seeking remedies, according to the legislation of that Member State, as well as the legal and administrative options available to settle disputes, including in the event of harm arising from cross-border healthcare.\n4. National contact points in the Member State of affiliation shall provide patients and health professionals with the information referred to in Article 5(b).\n5. The information referred to in this Article shall be easily accessible and shall be made available by electronic means and in formats accessible to people with disabilities, as appropriate.\nCHAPTER III\nREIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS OF CROSS-BORDER HEALTHCARE\nArticle 7\nGeneral principles for reimbursement of costs\n1. Without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and subject to the provisions of Articles 8 and 9, the Member State of affiliation shall ensure the costs incurred by an insured person who receives cross-border healthcare are reimbursed, if the healthcare in question is among the benefits to which the insured person is entitled in the Member State of affiliation.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1:\n(a)\nif a Member State is listed in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and in compliance with that Regulation has recognised the rights to sickness benefits for pensioners and the members of their families, being resident in a different Member State, it shall provide them healthcare under this Directive at its own expense when they stay on its territory, in accordance with its legislation, as though the persons concerned were residents in the Member State listed in that Annex;\n(b)\nif the healthcare provided in accordance with this Directive is not subject to prior authorisation, is not provided in accordance with Chapter 1 of Title III of the Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, and is provided in the territory of the Member State that according to that Regulation and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 is, in the end, responsible for reimbursement of the costs, the costs shall be assumed by that Member State. That Member State may assume the costs of the healthcare in accordance with the terms, conditions, criteria for eligibility and regulatory and administrative formalities that it has established, provided that these are compatible with the TFEU.\n3. It is for the Member State of affiliation to determine, whether at a local, regional or national level, the healthcare for which an insured person is entitled to assumption of costs and the level of assumption of those costs, regardless of where the healthcare is provided.\n4. The costs of cross-border healthcare shall be reimbursed or paid directly by the Member State of affiliation up to the level of costs that would have been assumed by the Member State of affiliation, had this healthcare been provided in its territory without exceeding the actual costs of healthcare received.\nWhere the full cost of cross-border healthcare exceeds the level of costs that would have been assumed had the healthcare been provided in its territory the Member State of affiliation may nevertheless decide to reimburse the full cost.\nThe Member State of affiliation may decide to reimburse other related costs, such as accommodation and travel costs, or extra costs which persons with disabilities might incur due to one or more disabilities when receiving cross-border healthcare, in accordance with national legislation and on the condition that there be sufficient documentation setting out these costs.\n5. Member States may adopt provisions in accordance with the TFEU aimed at ensuring that patients enjoy the same rights when receiving cross-border healthcare as they would have enjoyed if they had received healthcare in a comparable situation in the Member State of affiliation.\n6. For the purposes of paragraph 4, Member States shall have a transparent mechanism for calculation of costs of cross-border healthcare that are to be reimbursed to the insured person by the Member State of affiliation. This mechanism shall be based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria known in advance and applied at the relevant (local, regional or national) administrative level.\n7. The Member State of affiliation may impose on an insured person seeking reimbursement of the costs of cross-border healthcare, including healthcare received through means of telemedicine, the same conditions, criteria of eligibility and regulatory and administrative formalities, whether set at a local, regional or national level, as it would impose if this healthcare were provided in its territory. This may include an assessment by a health professional or healthcare administrator providing services for the statutory social security system or national health system of the Member State of affiliation, such as the general practitioner or primary care practitioner with whom the patient is registered, if this is necessary for determining the individual patient\u2019s entitlement to healthcare. However, no conditions, criteria of eligibility and regulatory and administrative formalities imposed according to this paragraph may be discriminatory or constitute an obstacle to the free movement of patients, services or goods, unless it is objectively justified by planning requirements relating to the object of ensuring sufficient and permanent access to a balanced range of high-quality treatment in the Member State concerned or to the wish to control costs and avoid, as far as possible, any waste of financial, technical and human resources.\n8. The Member State of affiliation shall not make the reimbursement of costs of cross-border healthcare subject to prior authorisation except in the cases set out in Article 8.\n9. The Member State of affiliation may limit the application of the rules on reimbursement for cross-border healthcare based on overriding reasons of general interest, such as planning requirements relating to the aim of ensuring sufficient and permanent access to a balanced range of high-quality treatment in the Member State concerned or to the wish to control costs and avoid, as far as possible, any waste of financial, technical and human resources.\n10. Notwithstanding paragraph 9, Member States shall ensure that the cross-border healthcare for which a prior authorisation has been granted is reimbursed in accordance with the authorisation.\n11. The decision to limit the application of this Article pursuant to paragraph 9 shall be restricted to what is necessary and proportionate, and may not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or an unjustified obstacle to the free movement of goods, persons or services. Member States shall notify the Commission of any decisions to limit reimbursement on the grounds stated in paragraph 9.\nArticle 8\nHealthcare that may be subject to prior authorisation\n1. The Member State of affiliation may provide for a system of prior authorisation for reimbursement of costs of cross-border healthcare, in accordance with this Article and Article 9. The system of prior authorisation, including the criteria and the application of those criteria, and individual decisions of refusal to grant prior authorisation, shall be restricted to what is necessary and proportionate to the objective to be achieved, and may not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or an unjustified obstacle to the free movement of patients.\n2. Healthcare that may be subject to prior authorisation shall be limited to healthcare which:\n(a)\nis made subject to planning requirements relating to the object of ensuring sufficient and permanent access to a balanced range of high-quality treatment in the Member State concerned or to the wish to control costs and avoid, as far as possible, any waste of financial, technical and human resources and:\n(i)\ninvolves overnight hospital accommodation of the patient in question for at least one night; or\n(ii)\nrequires use of highly specialised and cost-intensive medical infrastructure or medical equipment;\n(b)\ninvolves treatments presenting a particular risk for the patient or the population; or\n(c)\nis provided by a healthcare provider that, on a case-by-case basis, could give rise to serious and specific concerns relating to the quality or safety of the care, with the exception of healthcare which is subject to Union legislation ensuring a minimum level of safety and quality throughout the Union.\nMember States shall notify the categories of healthcare referred to in point (a) to the Commission.\n3. With regard to requests for prior authorisation made by an insured person with a view to receiving cross-border healthcare, the Member State of affiliation shall ascertain whether the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 have been met. Where those conditions are met, the prior authorisation shall be granted pursuant to that Regulation unless the patient requests otherwise.\n4. When a patient affected, or suspected of being affected, by a rare disease applies for prior authorisation, a clinical evaluation may be carried out by experts in that field. If no experts can be found within the Member State of affiliation or if the expert\u2019s opinion is inconclusive, the Member State of affiliation may request scientific advice.\n5. Without prejudice to points (a) to (c) of paragraph 6, the Member State of affiliation may not refuse to grant prior authorisation when the patient is entitled to the healthcare in question in accordance with Article 7, and when this healthcare cannot be provided on its territory within a time limit which is medically justifiable, based on an objective medical assessment of the patient\u2019s medical condition, the history and probable course of the patient\u2019s illness, the degree of the patient\u2019s pain and/or the nature of the patient\u2019s disability at the time when the request for authorisation was made or renewed.\n6. The Member State of affiliation may refuse to grant prior authorisation for the following reasons:\n(a)\nthe patient will, according to a clinical evaluation, be exposed with reasonable certainty to a patient-safety risk that cannot be regarded as acceptable, taking into account the potential benefit for the patient of the sought cross-border healthcare;\n(b)\nthe general public will be exposed with reasonable certainty to a substantial safety hazard as a result of the cross-border healthcare in question;\n(c)\nthis healthcare is to be provided by a healthcare provider that raises serious and specific concerns relating to the respect of standards and guidelines on quality of care and patient safety, including provisions on supervision, whether these standards and guidelines are laid down by laws and regulations or through accreditation systems established by the Member State of treatment;\n(d)\nthis healthcare can be provided on its territory within a time limit which is medically justifiable, taking into account the current state of health and the probable course of the illness of each patient concerned.\n7. The Member State of affiliation shall make publicly available which healthcare is subject to prior authorisation for the purposes of this Directive, as well as all relevant information on the system of prior authorisation.\nArticle 9\nAdministrative procedures regarding cross-border healthcare\n1. The Member State of affiliation shall ensure that administrative procedures regarding the use of cross-border healthcare and reimbursement of costs of healthcare incurred in another Member State are based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria which are necessary and proportionate to the objective to be achieved.\n2. Any administrative procedure of the kind referred to in paragraph 1 shall be easily accessible and information relating to such a procedure shall be made publicly available at the appropriate level. Such a procedure shall be capable of ensuring that requests are dealt with objectively and impartially.\n3. Member States shall set out reasonable periods of time within which requests for cross-border healthcare must be dealt with and make them public in advance. When considering a request for cross-border healthcare, Member States shall take into account:\n(a)\nthe specific medical condition;\n(b)\nthe urgency and individual circumstances.\n4. Member States shall ensure that individual decisions regarding the use of cross-border healthcare and reimbursement of costs of healthcare incurred in another Member State are properly reasoned and subject, on a case-by-case basis, to review and are capable of being challenged in judicial proceedings, which include provision for interim measures.\n5. This Directive is without prejudice to Member States\u2019 right to offer patients a voluntary system of prior notification whereby, in return for such notification, the patient receives a written confirmation of the amount to be reimbursed on the basis of an estimate. This estimate shall take into account the patient\u2019s clinical case, specifying the medical procedures likely to apply.\nMember States may choose to apply the mechanisms of financial compensation between the competent institutions as provided for by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. Where a Member State of affiliation does not apply such mechanisms, it shall ensure that patients receive reimbursement without undue delay.\nCHAPTER IV\nCOOPERATION IN HEALTHCARE\nArticle 10\nMutual assistance and cooperation\n1. Member States shall render such mutual assistance as is necessary for the implementation of this Directive, including cooperation on standards and guidelines on quality and safety and the exchange of information, especially between their national contact points in accordance with Article 6, including on provisions on supervision and mutual assistance to clarify the content of invoices.\n2. Member States shall facilitate cooperation in cross-border healthcare provision at regional and local level as well as through ICT and other forms of cross-border cooperation.\n3. The Commission shall encourage Member States, particularly neighbouring countries, to conclude agreements among themselves. The Commission shall also encourage the Member States to cooperate in cross-border healthcare provision in border regions.\n4. Member States of treatment shall ensure that information on the right to practise of health professionals listed in national or local registers established on their territory is, upon request, made available to the authorities of other Member States, for the purpose of cross-border healthcare, in accordance with Chapters II and III and with national measures implementing Union provisions on the protection of personal data, in particular Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC, and the principle of presumption of innocence. The exchange of information shall take place via the Internal Market Information system established pursuant to Commission Decision 2008/49/EC of 12 December 2007 concerning the implementation of the Internal Market Information System (IMI) as regards the protection of personal data (36).\nArticle 11\nRecognition of prescriptions issued in another Member State\n1. If a medicinal product is authorised to be marketed on their territory, in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC or Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, Member States shall ensure that prescriptions issued for such a product in another Member State for a named patient can be dispensed on their territory in compliance with their national legislation in force, and that any restrictions on recognition of individual prescriptions are prohibited unless such restrictions are:\n(a)\nlimited to what is necessary and proportionate to safeguard human health, and non-discriminatory; or\n(b)\nbased on legitimate and justified doubts about the authenticity, content or comprehensibility of an individual prescription.\nThe recognition of such prescriptions shall not affect national rules governing prescribing and dispensing, if those rules are compatible with Union law, including generic or other substitution. The recognition of prescriptions shall not affect the rules on reimbursement of medicinal products. Reimbursement of costs of medicinal products is covered by Chapter III of this Directive.\nIn particular, the recognition of prescriptions shall not affect a pharmacist\u2019s right, by virtue of national rules, to refuse, for ethical reasons, to dispense a product that was prescribed in another Member State, where the pharmacist would have the right to refuse to dispense, had the prescription been issued in the Member State of affiliation.\nThe Member State of affiliation shall take all necessary measures, in addition to the recognition of the prescription, in order to ensure continuity of treatment in cases where a prescription is issued in the Member State of treatment for medicinal products or medical devices available in the Member State of affiliation and where dispensing is sought in the Member State of affiliation.\nThis paragraph shall also apply to medical devices that are legally placed on the market in the respective Member State.\n2. In order to facilitate implementation of paragraph 1, the Commission shall adopt:\n(a)\nmeasures enabling a health professional to verify the authenticity of the prescription and whether the prescription was issued in another Member State by a member of a regulated health profession who is legally entitled to do so through developing a non-exhaustive list of elements to be included in the prescriptions and which must be clearly identifiable in all prescription formats, including elements to facilitate, if needed, contact between the prescribing party and the dispensing party in order to contribute to a complete understanding of the treatment, in due respect of data protection;\n(b)\nguidelines supporting the Member States in developing the interoperability of ePrescriptions;\n(c)\nmeasures to facilitate the correct identification of medicinal products or medical devices prescribed in one Member State and dispensed in another, including measures to address patient safety concerns in relation to their substitution in cross border healthcare where the legislation of the dispensing Member State permits such substitution. The Commission shall consider, inter alia, using the International Non-proprietary Name and the dosage of medicinal products;\n(d)\nmeasures to facilitate the comprehensibility of the information to patients concerning the prescription and the instructions included on the use of the product, including an indication of active substance and dosage.\nMeasures referred in point (a) shall be adopted by the Commission no later than 25 December 2012 and measures in points (c) and (d) shall be adopted by the Commission no later than 25 October 2012.\n3. The measures and guidelines referred to in points (a) to (d) of paragraph 2 shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 16(2).\n4. In adopting measures or guidelines under paragraph 2, the Commission shall have regard to the proportionality of any costs of compliance with, as well as the likely benefits of, the measures or guidelines.\n5. For the purpose of paragraph 1, the Commission shall also adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 17 and subject to the conditions of Articles 18 and 19 and no later than 25 October 2012 measures to exclude specific categories of medicinal products or medical devices from the recognition of prescriptions provided for under this Article, where necessary in order to safeguard public health.\n6. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to medicinal products subject to special medical prescription provided for in Article 71(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC.\nArticle 12\nEuropean reference networks\n1. The Commission shall support Member States in the development of European reference networks between healthcare providers and centres of expertise in the Member States, in particular in the area of rare diseases. The networks shall be based on voluntary participation by its members, which shall participate and contribute to the networks\u2019 activities in accordance with the legislation of the Member State where the members are established and shall at all times be open to new healthcare providers which might wish to join them, provided that such healthcare providers fulfil all the required conditions and criteria referred to in paragraph 4.\n2. European reference networks shall have at least three of the following objectives:\n(a)\nto help realise the potential of European cooperation regarding highly specialised healthcare for patients and for healthcare systems by exploiting innovations in medical science and health technologies;\n(b)\nto contribute to the pooling of knowledge regarding sickness prevention;\n(c)\nto facilitate improvements in diagnosis and the delivery of high-quality, accessible and cost-effective healthcare for all patients with a medical condition requiring a particular concentration of expertise in medical domains where expertise is rare;\n(d)\nto maximise the cost-effective use of resources by concentrating them where appropriate;\n(e)\nto reinforce research, epidemiological surveillance like registries and provide training for health professionals;\n(f)\nto facilitate mobility of expertise, virtually or physically, and to develop, share and spread information, knowledge and best practice and to foster developments of the diagnosis and treatment of rare diseases, within and outside the networks;\n(g)\nto encourage the development of quality and safety benchmarks and to help develop and spread best practice within and outside the network;\n(h)\nto help Member States with an insufficient number of patients with a particular medical condition or lacking technology or expertise to provide highly specialised services of high quality.\n3. Member States are encouraged to facilitate the development of the European reference networks:\n(a)\nby connecting appropriate healthcare providers and centres of expertise throughout their national territory and ensuring the dissemination of information towards appropriate healthcare providers and centres of expertise throughout their national territory;\n(b)\nby fostering the participation of healthcare providers and centres of expertise in the European reference networks.\n4. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Commission shall:\n(a)\nadopt a list of specific criteria and conditions that the European reference networks must fulfil and the conditions and criteria required from healthcare providers wishing to join the European reference network. These criteria and conditions shall ensure, inter alia, that European reference networks:\n(i)\nhave knowledge and expertise to diagnose, follow-up and manage patients with evidence of good outcomes, as far as applicable;\n(ii)\nfollow a multi-disciplinary approach;\n(iii)\noffer a high level of expertise and have the capacity to produce good practice guidelines and to implement outcome measures and quality control;\n(iv)\nmake a contribution to research;\n(v)\norganise teaching and training activities; and\n(vi)\ncollaborate closely with other centres of expertise and networks at national and international level;\n(b)\ndevelop and publish criteria for establishing and evaluating European reference networks;\n(c)\nfacilitate the exchange of information and expertise in relation to the establishment of European reference networks and their evaluation.\n5. The Commission shall adopt the measures referred to in paragraph 4(a) by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 17 and subject to the conditions of Articles 18 and 19. The measures referred to in points (b) and (c) of paragraph 4 shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 16(2).\n6. Measures adopted pursuant to this Article shall not harmonise any laws or regulations of the Member States and shall fully respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.\nArticle 13\nRare diseases\nThe Commission shall support Member States in cooperating in the development of diagnosis and treatment capacity in particular by aiming to:\n(a)\nmake health professionals aware of the tools available to them at Union level to assist them in the correct diagnosis of rare diseases, in particular the Orphanet database, and the European reference networks;\n(b)\nmake patients, health professionals and those bodies responsible for the funding of healthcare aware of the possibilities offered by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 for referral of patients with rare diseases to other Member States even for diagnosis and treatments which are not available in the Member State of affiliation.\nArticle 14\neHealth\n1. The Union shall support and facilitate cooperation and the exchange of information among Member States working within a voluntary network connecting national authorities responsible for eHealth designated by the Member States.\n2. The objectives of the eHealth network shall be to:\n(a)\nwork towards delivering sustainable economic and social benefits of European eHealth systems and services and interoperable applications, with a view to achieving a high level of trust and security, enhancing continuity of care and ensuring access to safe and high-quality healthcare;\n(b)\ndraw up guidelines on:\n(i)\na non-exhaustive list of data that are to be included in patients\u2019 summaries and that can be shared between health professionals to enable continuity of care and patient safety across borders; and\n(ii)\neffective methods for enabling the use of medical information for public health and research;\n(c)\nsupport Member States in developing common identification and authentication measures to facilitate transferability of data in cross-border healthcare.\nThe objectives referred to in points (b) and (c) shall be pursued in due observance of the principles of data protection as set out, in particular, in Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC.\n3. The Commission shall, in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 16(2), adopt the necessary measures for the establishment, management and transparent functioning of this network.\nArticle 15\nCooperation on health technology assessment\n1. The Union shall support and facilitate cooperation and the exchange of scientific information among Member States within a voluntary network connecting national authorities or bodies responsible for health technology assessment designated by the Member States. The Member States shall communicate their names and contact details to the Commission. The members of such a health technology assessment network shall participate in, and contribute to, the network\u2019s activities in accordance with the legislation of the Member State where they are established. That network shall be based on the principle of good governance including transparency, objectivity, independence of expertise, fairness of procedure and appropriate stakeholder consultations.\n2. The objectives of the health technology assessment network shall be to:\n(a)\nsupport cooperation between national authorities or bodies;\n(b)\nsupport Member States in the provision of objective, reliable, timely, transparent, comparable and transferable information on the relative efficacy as well as on the short- and long-term effectiveness, when applicable, of health technologies and to enable an effective exchange of this information between the national authorities or bodies;\n(c)\nsupport the analysis of the nature and type of information that can be exchanged;\n(d)\navoid duplication of assessments.\n3. In order to fulfil the objectives set out in paragraph 2, the network on health technology assessment may receive Union aid. Aid may be granted in order to:\n(a)\ncontribute to the financing of administrative and technical support;\n(b)\nsupport collaboration between Member States in developing and sharing methodologies for health technology assessment including relative effectiveness assessment;\n(c)\ncontribute to the financing of the provision of transferable scientific information for use in national reporting and case studies commissioned by the network;\n(d)\nfacilitate cooperation between the network and other relevant institutions and bodies of the Union;\n(e)\nfacilitate the consultation of stakeholders on the work of the network.\n4. The Commission shall, in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 16(2), adopt the necessary measures for the establishment, management and transparent functioning of this network.\n5. Arrangements for granting the aid, the conditions to which it may be subject and the amount of the aid, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 16(2). Only those authorities and bodies in the network designated as beneficiaries by the participating Member States shall be eligible for Union aid.\n6. The appropriations required for measures provided for in this Article shall be decided each year as part of the budgetary procedure.\n7. Measures adopted pursuant to this Article shall not interfere with Member States\u2019 competences in deciding on the implementation of health technology assessment conclusions and shall not harmonise any laws or regulations of the Member States and shall fully respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.\nCHAPTER V\nIMPLEMENTING AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 16\nCommittee\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee, consisting of representatives of the Member States and chaired by the Commission representative.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\nThe period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at 3 months.\nArticle 17\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The powers to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 11(5) and 12(5) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 24 April 2011. The Commission shall make a report in respect of the delegated powers not later than 6 months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of powers shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 18.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The powers to adopt delegated acts are conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 18 and 19.\nArticle 18\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 11(5) and 12(5) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 19\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to the delegated act within a period of 2 months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council this period shall be extended by 2 months.\n2. If, on expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 20\nReports\n1. The Commission shall by 25 October 2015 and subsequently every 3 years thereafter, draw up a report on the operation of this Directive and submit it to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n2. The report shall in particular include information on patient flows, financial dimensions of patient mobility, the implementation of Article 7(9) and Article 8, and on the functioning of the European reference networks and national contact points. To this end, the Commission shall conduct an assessment of the systems and practices put in place in the Member States, in the light of the requirements of this Directive and the other Union legislation relating to patient mobility.\nThe Member States shall provide the Commission with assistance and all available information for carrying out the assessment and preparing the reports.\n3. Member States and the Commission shall have recourse to the Administrative Commission established pursuant to Article 71 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, in order to address the financial consequences of the application of this Directive on the Member States which have opted for reimbursement on the basis of fixed amounts, in cases covered by Articles 20(4) and 27(5) of that Regulation.\nThe Commission shall monitor and regularly report on the effect of Article 3(c)(i) and Article 8 of this Directive. A first report shall be presented by 25 October 2013. On the basis of these reports, the Commission shall, where appropriate, make proposals to alleviate any disproportionalities.\nArticle 21\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 25 October 2013. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 22\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 23\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 9 March 2011.", "references": ["46", "69", "1", "97", "16", "41", "64", "31", "48", "45", "50", "78", "76", "60", "53", "84", "12", "39", "5", "42", "80", "15", "66", "77", "57", "65", "28", "40", "24", "74", "No Label", "4", "13", "25", "37", "38"], "gold": ["4", "13", "25", "37", "38"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 225/2012\nof 15 March 2012\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 183/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the approval of establishments placing on the market, for feed use, products derived from vegetable oils and blended fats and as regards the specific requirements for production, storage, transport and dioxin testing of oils, fats and products derived thereof\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 183/2005 of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 January 2005 laying down requirements for feed hygiene (1), and in particular Article 27(b) and (f) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 183/2005 lays down general rules on feed hygiene, conditions and arrangements to ensure that processing conditions to minimise and control potential hazards are respected. Feed business establishments are to be registered with or approved by the competent authority. Additionally, feed business operators lower down the feed chain have the obligation to source feed only from establishments which are registered or approved.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the placing on the market and use of feed (2) requires feed placed on the market to be safe and explicitly labelled with the respective type of feed. Additionally, Commission Regulation (EU) No 575/2011 of 16 June 2011 on the Catalogue of feed materials (3) lists detailed descriptions for specific feed materials to be used for labelling purposes.\n(3)\nThe interplay of these requirements should ensure traceability and a high level of consumer protection throughout the feed and food chain.\n(4)\nOfficial controls and controls carried out by feed business operators have shown that certain oils and fats and products derived thereof not intended for feed use have been used as feed materials resulting in feed exceeding the maximum dioxin levels laid down in Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed (4). As a consequence, food derived from animals fed with contaminated feed may pose a public health risk. In addition, financial losses may result from the withdrawal of contaminated feed and food from the market.\n(5)\nTo enhance feed hygiene and without prejudice to the competence of the Member States as laid down in Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 183/2005, establishments further processing crude vegetable oils, manufacturing products derived from oils of vegetable origin and blending fats should be subject to approval in accordance with that Regulation if these products are intended for use in feed.\n(6)\nSpecific requirements for the production, labelling, storage and transport of those feed materials should be provided for to take into account the experience gained from the application of hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP)-based systems.\n(7)\nA reinforced dioxin monitoring would facilitate the detection of non-compliances and the enforcement of feed law. It is necessary to provide for an obligation for feed business operators to test fats, oils and products derived thereof for dioxin and dioxin-like PCBs in order to reduce the risk that contaminated products enter the food chain and, therefore, support the strategy to reduce the exposure to dioxin of EU citizens. The risk of dioxin contamination should be the basis for the establishment of the monitoring plan. The responsibility to place safe feed on the market is with the feed business operators. Thus the costs for the analysis should be fully borne by them. Detailed provisions on sampling and analysis not contained in this Regulation should remain within the competence of the Member States. Furthermore, Member States are encouraged to focus on the controls of feed business operators that are not under the scope of the dioxin monitoring but that obtain the products mentioned above.\n(8)\nThe mandatory risk-based monitoring system must not affect the feed business operator\u2019s duty to comply with the requirements of Union legislation on feed hygiene. It should be integrated into good hygiene practices and the HACCP-based system. This should be verified by the competent authority in the context of the approval of the feed business operator. The operator\u2019s regular review of his own risk assessment should consider the findings of the dioxin monitoring.\n(9)\nLaboratories performing dioxin analyses should be obliged to report results exceeding the maximum permitted limits provided for in Directive 2002/32/EC not only to the feed business operator but also to the competent authority in order to improve transparency; this obligation does not exempt the feed business operator from his obligation to inform the competent authority.\n(10)\nIn order to verify the effectiveness of the provisions concerning the mandatory dioxin monitoring and its integration in the feed business operators HACCP system, a review after two years should be provided for.\n(11)\nSufficient time should be allowed to give competent authorities and feed business operators the possibility to adapt to the provisions of this Regulation.\n(12)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 183/2005 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 16 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 March 2012.", "references": ["73", "48", "9", "79", "96", "51", "47", "40", "64", "24", "13", "87", "43", "45", "14", "34", "31", "88", "18", "10", "68", "8", "62", "65", "50", "90", "58", "2", "75", "53", "No Label", "26", "38", "54", "60", "61", "66", "70"], "gold": ["26", "38", "54", "60", "61", "66", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 16 June 2011\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union for the implementation of an epidemiological survey and bluetongue surveillance measures in the context of the emergency measures taken to combat this disease in the Netherlands in 2006 and 2007\n(notified under document C(2011) 4146)\n(Only the Dutch text is authentic)\n(2011/347/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 3(4) and 3(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate bluetongue as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 3(6) first indent of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2007/20/EC (3) on a financial contribution by the Community towards the eradication of bluetongue in the Netherlands in 2006 and 2007 granted a financial contribution from the Union to the Netherlands towards the costs incurred for the implementation of an epidemiological survey and bluetongue surveillance. In accordance with that Decision, a first tranche of EUR 4 675 was paid.\n(5)\nOn 29 April 2008, the Netherlands submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005. The Commission\u2019s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to the Netherlands by e-mail dated 19 October 2010.\n(6)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(7)\nThe Dutch authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(8)\nIn view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of bluetongue in the Netherlands in 2006 and 2007 should now be fixed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating bluetongue in the Netherlands in 2006 and 2007 is fixed at EUR 207 931,25. It constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe balance of the financial contribution is fixed at EUR 203 256,25.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.\nDone at Brussels, 16 June 2011.", "references": ["56", "72", "25", "30", "64", "57", "14", "76", "77", "0", "87", "95", "90", "39", "62", "11", "59", "21", "68", "43", "47", "61", "81", "5", "40", "80", "58", "17", "3", "34", "No Label", "10", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 2 May 2012\non the inclusion of vine varieties in Appendix IV of the Protocol on wine labelling as referred to in Article 8(2) of the EC-US Agreement on trade in wine\n(2012/275/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2006/232/EC of 20 December 2005 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe United States of America have requested that Appendix IV of the Protocol on wine labelling as referred to in Article 8(2) of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on Trade in Wine (2) be modified to include vine varieties that were notified by the United States to the Commission on 27 October 2011. This request was made in accordance with point 3.6(b) of the abovementioned Protocol.\n(2)\nThe notification refers to the final rule adopted by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau and published in the Federal Register of 27 October 2011 (3) amending the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau regulations by adding a number of new names to the list of grape variety names approved for the designation of American wines.\n(3)\nThe Commission has informed the United States within 60 days of the date of receipt of the notification that the vine varieties \u2018Montepulciano\u2019 and \u2018Blaufr\u00e4nkisch\u2019 can currently be used only for wines from certain Member States, pursuant to Article 62(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 (4).\n(4)\nThe Commission should therefore confirm that the Union agrees with the proposed modifications of Appendix IV to the Protocol on wine labelling, except in respect of the vine varieties \u2018Montepulciano\u2019 and \u2018Blaufr\u00e4nkisch\u2019.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not given an opinion within the time limit set by its President,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nIn accordance with Article 11(5) of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine, the Commission shall confirm that the Union agrees with the proposed modifications of Appendix IV to the Protocol on wine labelling, except in respect of the vine varieties \u2018Montepulciano\u2019 and \u2018Blaufr\u00e4nkisch\u2019.\nThe amended text of Appendix IV, as accepted by the Union, is set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThe Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development is hereby authorised to forward the written response to the United States of America.\nDone at Brussels, 2 May 2012.", "references": ["82", "15", "5", "31", "81", "21", "13", "22", "94", "16", "9", "37", "35", "83", "99", "78", "75", "11", "2", "34", "48", "20", "23", "69", "39", "58", "7", "46", "64", "65", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "71", "74", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "71", "74", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 304/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 9 March 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 (3) establishes a framework governing aquaculture practices in relation to alien and locally absent species to assess and minimise the possible impact of those species and of associated non-target species on aquatic habitats. It provides that introductions and translocations for use in closed aquaculture facilities may at a future date be exempted from the permit requirement of Chapter III of that Regulation, based on new scientific information and advice.\n(2)\nThe Community-funded concerted action, entitled \u2018Environmental impacts of alien species in aquaculture\u2019 (IMPASSE), has delivered a new operational definition of \u2018closed aquaculture facilities\u2019. For facilities according to that definition, the degree of risk associated with alien and locally absent species can be reduced to an acceptable level if the potential for escape of the organisms to be farmed and of non-target organisms is addressed during transportation and if well-defined protocols are applied at the receiving facility. Introductions and translocations for use in closed aquaculture facilities should only be exempted from the permit requirement if those conditions are met.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to amend the definition of \u2018closed aquaculture facility\u2019 in Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 by adding specific features intended to ensure the biosecurity of those facilities.\n(4)\nMember States should draw up a list of closed aquaculture facilities located in their territory. For reasons of transparency, that list should be published and regularly updated on a website set up in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 535/2008 of 13 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture (4).\n(5)\nFollowing these amendments certain other adaptations are needed to Regulation (EC) No 708/2007, in particular, to remove the references to \u2018closed aquaculture facilities\u2019 in the definition of \u2018routine movement\u2019 and from Annex I.\n(6)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in order to adapt Annexes I, II and III to technical and scientific progress, to amend Annex IV in order to add species to that Annex and to adopt specifications for the conditions necessary for adding species to Annex IV. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(7)\nThe measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted by the Commission by means of implementing acts in accordance with Article 291 TFEU.\n(8)\nThe term \u2018Community\u2019 used in the enacting terms of Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 should be changed, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 708/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 708/2007 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 2(1), in the title of Article 13, in Article 15(2) and in the title of Article 19, the noun \u2018Community\u2019, or the corresponding adjective, is replaced by the noun \u2018Union\u2019, or the corresponding adjective, and any grammatical adjustments needed as a consequence of this replacement shall be made;\n2.\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 5, the first sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. This Regulation, except for Article 3, Article 4(1) and Article 4(2)(a), shall not apply to the species listed in Annex IV.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. Chapters III to VI shall not apply to movements of alien or locally absent species to be held in closed aquaculture facilities, provided that the transport is carried out under conditions that prevent the escape of those species and of the non-target species.\nMember States shall draw up a list of closed aquaculture facilities in their territory that comply with the definition in Article 3(3) and update that list regularly. By 25 October 2011, the list shall be published on the website set up in accordance with Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 535/2008 (5) which lays down detailed rules for the implementation of this Regulation.\n3.\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183.\n\u201cClosed aquaculture facility\u201d means a land-based facility:\n(a)\nwhere:\n(i)\naquaculture is conducted in an aquatic medium which involves recirculation of water; and\n(ii)\ndischarges do not connect in any way to open waters before screening and filtering or percolation and treatment to prevent the release of solid waste into the aquatic environment and the escape from the facility of farmed species and non-target species that might survive and subsequently reproduce;\n(b)\nand which:\n(i)\nprevents losses of reared specimens or non-target species and other biological material, including pathogens, due to factors such as predators (e.g. birds) and flooding (e.g. the facility must be situated at a safe distance from open waters following a proper assessment made by the competent authorities);\n(ii)\nprevents, in a reasonable way, losses of reared specimens or non-target species and other biological material, including pathogens, due to theft and vandalism; and\n(iii)\nensures appropriate disposal of dead organisms;\u2019;\n(b)\npoint 16 is replaced by the following:\n\u201816.\n\u201croutine movement\u201d means the movement of aquatic organisms from a source which has a low risk of transferring non-target species and which, on account of the characteristics of the aquatic organisms and/or the method of aquaculture to be used, does not give rise to adverse ecological effects;\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 4, the existing paragraph is numbered as \u20181\u2019 and the following paragraph is added:\n\u20182. The competent authorities in the Member States shall monitor and supervise aquaculture activities so as to ensure that:\n(a)\nclosed aquaculture facilities comply with the requirements laid down in Article 3(3); and\n(b)\ntransport from or to closed aquaculture facilities takes place in conditions that are such as to prevent the escape of alien or non-target species.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 14 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 14\nRelease into aquaculture facilities in the case of routine introductions\nIn the case of routine introductions, the release of aquatic organisms into aquaculture facilities shall be allowed without quarantine or pilot release, unless, in exceptional cases, the competent authority decides otherwise on the basis of specific advice given by the advisory committee. Movements from a closed aquaculture facility to an open aquaculture facility shall be considered to be routine or non-routine movements in line with Articles 6 and 7.\u2019;\n6.\nArticle 24 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 24\nAmendments of Annexes and detailed rules\n1. The Commission may, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 24a and subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 24b and 24c:\n(a)\namend Annexes I, II and III to this Regulation in order to adapt them to technical and scientific progress;\n(b)\nadopt specifications for the conditions necessary for adding species to Annex IV, as provided for in paragraph 3; and\n(c)\nadd species to Annex IV where the conditions provided for in paragraph 3 and their further specifications are complied with.\n2. When adopting delegated acts as referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall act in accordance with this Regulation.\n3. In order for its species to be added to Annex IV, an aquatic organism must have been used in aquaculture in certain parts of the Union for a long time (with reference to its life cycle) with no adverse effect, and its introduction and translocation must be possible without the coincident movement of potentially harmful non-target species.\n4. Member States may request the Commission to add species to Annex IV. Member States may provide scientific data to prove coherence with relevant criteria for adding species to Annex IV. The Commission shall decide on the suitability of a request within 5 months of its receipt, excluding the time for the Member State to provide additional information if the Commission so requests.\n5. Member States concerned may, in respect of their outermost regions as referred to in Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, propose the addition of species to be included in a separate part of Annex IV.\n6. The Commission may adopt detailed rules for the implementation of paragraphs 4 and 5, and in particular the formats, the contents and the particulars of Member States\u2019 requests for the addition of species and the information to be provided in support of such requests, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\u2019;\n7.\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 24a\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 24 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 24 April 2011. The Commission shall make a report in respect of the delegated power at the latest 6 months before the end of the 5-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 24b.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 24b and 24c.\nArticle 24b\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 24 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 24c\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 2 months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council, that period shall be extended by 2 months.\n2. If, on expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to the delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\u2019;\n8.\nAnnex I is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Wherever possible, information is to be supported with references from the scientific literature, and notations to personal communications with scientific authorities and fisheries experts.\u2019;\n(b)\nSection D (Interaction with native species) is amended as follows:\n(i)\npoint 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(1)\nWhat is the potential for survival and establishment of the introduced organism if it escapes?\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(6)\nWill the introduced organisms survive and successfully reproduce in the proposed area of introduction or will annual stocking be required?\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 9 March 2011.", "references": ["23", "37", "39", "7", "76", "52", "20", "48", "53", "68", "71", "27", "77", "36", "54", "81", "28", "55", "31", "88", "43", "79", "29", "47", "16", "19", "17", "84", "78", "90", "No Label", "2", "38", "58", "59", "63", "67"], "gold": ["2", "38", "58", "59", "63", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 August 2010\namending Decision 2007/365/EC as regards the susceptible plants and the measures to be taken in cases where Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier) is detected\n(notified under document C(2010) 5640)\n(2010/467/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular the fourth sentence of Article 16(3), thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2007/365/EC (2) requires Member States to adopt measures to protect themselves against the introduction and spread of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier) (the specified organism). In addition, Member States are to conduct official annual surveys for the presence of the specified organism or evidence of infection by the specified organism on plants of the Palmae family in their territory and notify the Commission and the other Member States of the results of those surveys.\n(2)\nThe official annual surveys carried out by the Member States in 2009 show that the specified organism also infested plant species belonging to the Palmae family which are not defined as susceptible plants in Decision 2007/365/EC. Therefore, it is necessary to include the plant species belonging to Palmae in the list of susceptible plants in Decision 2007/365/EC in order to allow for the emergency measures provided for in that Decision to apply also to those species.\n(3)\nMissions carried out by the Commission in Member States, in particular in 2009, showed that the results of the application of Decision 2007/365/EC were not fully satisfactory as regards the measures to be taken in cases where the specified organism is detected. In addition to the findings of those missions, the Commission received further information on the methods of control, containment and eradication of the specified organism, in January 2010, from a group of experts formed by the Commission to assist it in this context and including experts from all Member States affected by the specified organism, and in May 2010, on the occasion of an international conference on the specified organism, which took place in Spain. Taking into account the results of those missions and the information received in 2010, it is necessary to make certain amendments to Decision 2007/365/EC.\n(4)\nThe information received in 2009 and in 2010 suggests that the risk of possible spread of the specified organism through import of susceptible plants from third countries or from areas in third countries, that are not free from the specified organism cannot, due to the cryptic biology of the specified organism, be adequately mitigated by appropriate preventive treatments. Such treatments do not sufficiently prevent spreading of the specified organism from susceptible plants which are infested but show no symptoms. It is therefore necessary to place susceptible plants imported from those third countries or from those areas in third countries in a site in the Union with complete physical protection.\n(5)\nIn cases where the specified organism appears in a Member State or in a part of a Member State, in which its presence was previously unknown, the Member State concerned should immediately, and in any case within five days, notify the Commission and the other Member States. To this aim, it should also be ensured that the responsible official body of that Member State is immediately informed. In most cases the Member State concerned should further define a demarcated area, draw up an action plan and implement that action plan. In order to facilitate an integrated approach for the eradication of the organism the action plan should set out all the measures, the reasons for those measures, describing the situation and the scientific data and the criteria on which those measures were selected.\n(6)\nHowever, in some cases it may occur that only plants belonging to one consignment were identified as infested in an area, in which the specified organism was previously not known to occur within a radius of 10 km around those infested plants, that the infestation is linked to a consignment that was moved recently into that area and that that consignment had already been infested by the specified organism prior to movement. In those cases, and only where there is no risk of spreading of the specified organism, Member States should have the possibility to decide not to establish the demarcated area and to limit the official measures to the destruction of the infested material, carrying out an intensified survey programme and the tracing of related plant material.\n(7)\nIn order to provide the Commission and the other Member States with detailed information on the spreading of the specified organism and on the official measures taken to contain and eradicate it, the Member States concerned should submit the official annual surveys to the Commission together with up-to-date action plans and, where applicable, an up-to-date list of the demarcated areas including a description and location of those areas.\n(8)\nDecision 2007/365/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2007/365/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nIn Article 1, point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\n\u201csusceptible plants\u201d means plants, other than fruit and seeds, having a diameter of the stem at the base of over 5 cm of Areca catechu, Arecastrum romanzoffianum (Cham) Becc, Arenga pinnata, Borassus flabellifer, Brahea armata, Butia capitata, Calamus merillii, Caryota maxima, Caryota cumingii, Chamaerops humilis, Cocos nucifera, Corypha gebanga, Corypha elata, Elaeis guineensis, Howea forsteriana, Jubea chilensis, Livistona australis, Livistona decipiens, Metroxylon sagu, Oreodoxa regia, Phoenix canariensis, Phoenix dactylifera, Phoenix theophrasti, Phoenix sylvestris, Sabal umbraculifera, Trachycarpus fortunei and Washingtonia spp.;\u2019\n2.\nArticle 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nSurveys and notifications\n1. Member States shall conduct official annual surveys for the presence of the specified organism or evidence of infestation by the specified organism on plants of Palmae in their territory.\nWithout prejudice to Article 16(2) of Directive 2000/29/EC, the results of those surveys shall be notified to the Commission and to the other Member States by 28 February of each year. In Member States in which the specified organism is present that notification shall be accompanied by:\n(a)\nan up-to-date version of the action plans adopted in accordance with Article 6(1);\n(b)\nan up-to-date list of the demarcated areas established in accordance with Article 6(1), including updated information on their description and location (including maps).\n2. Member States shall ensure that any suspected or actual appearance of the specified organism in an area within their territory shall immediately be notified to the responsible official body of the Member State concerned.\n3. Without prejudice to Article 16(2) of Directive 2000/29/EC, Member States shall in any case, within five days and in writing, notify the Commission and the other Member States of the actual appearance of the specified organism in an area within its territory where its presence was previously unknown.\u2019\n3.\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\nEradication measures, demarcated areas and action plans\n1. Where, from the results of the surveys referred to in Article 5(1), the notifications referred to in Article 5(2) or information from any other source, there is evidence of the presence of the specified organism in the territory of a Member State, that Member State shall without delay:\n(a)\ndefine a demarcated area in accordance with point 1 of Annex II;\n(b)\nestablish and implement an action plan in that demarcated area in accordance with point 3 of Annex II, including official measures in accordance with point 2 of Annex II.\n2. When a Member State defines a demarcated area and establishes an action plan in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall notify them to the Commission and the other Member States within one month of the notification according to Article 5, paragraph 3. This notification shall include a description of that demarcated area, a map and that action plan.\n3. Member States shall ensure that the action plan and the technical measures referred to in paragraph 1(b) are implemented by technically qualified and duly authorised public servants and/or qualified agents or operators or, at least, under direct supervision of the responsible official bodies.\n4. Member States may deviate from the obligation to define a demarcated area referred to in paragraph 1(a), in cases where the surveys referred to in Article 5(1), the notifications referred to in Article 5(2) or information from any other source has provided evidence that:\n(a)\nonly plants belonging to one consignment of susceptible plants were identified as infested in an area with a radius of 10 km around those infested plants, in which area the specified organism was previously not known to occur;\n(b)\nthat consignment was introduced into the area concerned less than 5 months ago and it had already been infested before introduction; and\n(c)\ntaking into account sound scientific principles, the biology of the specified organism, the level of infestation, the period of the year and the particular distribution of susceptible plants in the Member State concerned, no risk of spreading of the specified organism has occurred since the introduction of the infested consignment in the area.\nIn such cases, Member States shall establish an action plan in accordance with point 3 of Annex II, but may decide not to define a demarcated area and to limit the official measures referred to in point 3 of Annex II to the destruction of the infested material, carrying out an intensified survey programme in an area of at least 10 km around the infestation and the tracing of related plant material.\u2019\n4.\nThe Annexes to Decision 2007/365/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 August 2010.", "references": ["15", "14", "42", "34", "4", "8", "23", "31", "17", "9", "62", "26", "73", "83", "90", "92", "0", "13", "46", "10", "71", "25", "45", "7", "84", "77", "53", "47", "65", "57", "No Label", "58", "59", "61", "66"], "gold": ["58", "59", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1065/2011\nof 18 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for roundnose grenadier in EU and international waters of VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2011 and 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 October 2011.", "references": ["45", "27", "4", "58", "63", "47", "71", "99", "15", "88", "8", "85", "60", "95", "89", "92", "74", "14", "38", "16", "75", "80", "84", "41", "9", "11", "87", "24", "50", "64", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 536/2011\nof 1 June 2011\namending Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC and Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the entries for South Africa in the lists of third countries or parts thereof\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1) and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first paragraph of point 1 of Article 8 and point 4 of Article 8 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (2), and in particular Articles 23(1) and 24(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2007/777/EC of 29 November 2007 laying down the animal and public health conditions and model certificates for imports of certain meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption from third countries and repealing Decision 2005/432/EC (3) lays down rules on imports into the Union and the transit and storage in the Union of consignments of meat products, as defined in point 7.1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (4) and of consignments of treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, as defined in point 7.9 of that Annex.\n(2)\nDecision 2007/777/EC also lays down lists of third countries and parts thereof from which such imports and transit and storage are to be authorised and the public and animal health certificates and the treatments required for those products.\n(3)\nPart 2 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC lays down a list of third countries or parts thereof from which imports into the Union of meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines which are subject to different treatments, referred to in Part 4 of that Annex, are authorised.\n(4)\nSouth Africa is listed in Part 2 of Annex II of Decision 2007/777/EC as authorised for imports of meat products, treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption obtained from meat of farmed ratites, which undergo a non-specific treatment, for which no minimum temperature is specified (treatment A).\n(5)\nPart 3 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC lays down a list of third countries or parts thereof from which imports into the Union of biltong/jerky and pasteurised meat products, which are subject to different treatments, referred to in Part 4 of that Annex, are authorised.\n(6)\nSouth Africa is listed in Part 3 of Annex II of Decision 2007/777/EC as authorised for imports into the Union of biltong/jerky consisting of, or containing meat of poultry, farmed feathered game, ratites and wild game birds which undergo a specific treatment (treatment E).\n(7)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (5) lays down veterinary certification requirements for imports and transit through the Union of poultry, hatching eggs, day-old chicks and specified pathogen-free eggs and of meat, minced meat and mechanically separated meat of poultry, including ratites and wild game birds, eggs and egg products. That Regulation provides that the commodities covered by it are only to be imported into and transited through the Union from the third countries, territories, zones or compartments listed in the table in Part 1 of Annex I thereto.\n(8)\nSouth Africa is listed in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as authorised for imports into the Union of breeding and productive ratites and of day-old chicks, hatching eggs and meat of ratites.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 798/2008 also sets out the conditions for a third country, territorry, zone or compartment to be considered as free from highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and the requirements for the veterinary certification in that respect for commodities destined for imports into the Union.\n(10)\nSouth Africa has notified the Commission of an outbreak of HPAI of the H5N2 subtype that was confirmed on its territory on 9 April 2011.\n(11)\nDue to the confirmed outbreak of HPAI, the territory of South Africa can no longer be considered as free from that disease. As a consequence, the veterinary authorities of South Africa suspended issuing veterinary certificates for consignments of the concerned commodities with immediate effect. The entry for South Africa in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nIn addition, as a consequence of the HPAI outbreak, South Africa no longer complies with the animal health conditions for applying \u2018treatment A\u2019 to commodities consisting of, or containing meat of farmed ratites or treated stomachs, bladders and intestines of ratites for human consumption, listed in Part 2 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC and for applying \u2018treatment E\u2019 to biltong/jerky and pasteurised meat products consisting of, or containing meat of poultry, farmed feathered game, ratites and wild game birds, listed in Part 3 of that Annex. Those treatments are insufficient to eliminate animal health risks linked to those commodities. The entries for South Africa for those commodities in Parts 2 and 3 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC should therefore be amended, in order to provide for an adequate treatment thereof.\n(13)\nDecision 2007/777/EC and Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Decision 2007/777/EC is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2011.", "references": ["37", "87", "30", "84", "93", "8", "66", "17", "38", "39", "19", "27", "72", "57", "18", "42", "3", "63", "86", "31", "71", "67", "33", "89", "75", "50", "10", "52", "46", "53", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "69", "94"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "69", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 13 October 2011\nrecognising the fully operational character of the Lithuanian database for bovine animals\n(notified under document C(2011) 7164)\n(Only the Lithuanian text is authentic)\n(2011/685/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 6(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 (the Regulation) provides that a bovine animal shall be identified and issued with a passport to accompany them when they are moved.\n(2)\nArticle 6(3) of the Regulation provides that Member States, which have a computerised database which the Commission deems to be fully operational, may determine that a passport is to be issued only for animals intended for intra-Union trade and that those animals shall be accompanied by their passports only when they are moved from the territory of the Member State concerned to the territory of another Member State.\n(3)\nLithuania has presented the Commission a request for the recognition of the operational character of its bovine database. This database forms the basis of the Lithuanian system for the identification and registration of bovine animals.\n(4)\nLithuania submitted the necessary information which in particular confirms that its bovine database is compatible with Article 5 of the Regulation: (i) the delays in notification of events are highlighted in the database and thus the deadlines for notifications of animal movements set in the Regulation are respected; (ii) that passports of animals moved outside of Lithuania are subsequently surrendered to the competent authority on arrival; (iii) there is an interface between the national bovine database and the national Agriculture Payment Scheme database as well as with the national Veterinary Information Management System to facilitate reconciliation controls and the exchange of useful data; and (iv) guidelines are reinforced so that ear tags are issued and distributed in a correct manner and this information is available to the database.\n(5)\nThe Commission examined this information and considers it adequate to recognise the operational character of the database.\n(6)\nIn view of the above, it is appropriate to recognise the Lithuanian database for bovine animals as fully operational from 1 July 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Lithuanian database for bovine animals is recognised as fully operational from 1 July 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Lithuania.\nDone at Brussels, 13 October 2011.", "references": ["43", "18", "51", "64", "13", "56", "98", "4", "5", "71", "7", "72", "58", "70", "80", "39", "17", "44", "21", "54", "62", "22", "27", "11", "0", "1", "23", "76", "82", "81", "No Label", "42", "53", "61", "65", "91"], "gold": ["42", "53", "61", "65", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1136/2011\nof 9 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2011.", "references": ["92", "12", "76", "72", "93", "67", "94", "8", "10", "91", "2", "80", "38", "5", "13", "83", "66", "71", "53", "86", "26", "62", "77", "47", "79", "0", "40", "34", "48", "90", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 803/2011\nof 4 August 2011\nrepealing the countervailing duty on imports of certain broad spectrum antibiotics originating in India and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports, following review pursuant to Article 18(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 18 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Measures in force\n(1)\nIn May 2005, following a combined expiry and interim review (the combined review), the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 713/2005 (2), imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain broad spectrum antibiotics, namely amoxicillin trihydrate, ampicillin trihydrate and cefalexin not put up in measured doses or in forms or packing for retail sale (the product concerned) currently falling within CN codes ex29411000 and ex29419000 originating in India. The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty ranging from 17,3 % to 32 %. The original measures had been imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2164/98 (3).\n(2)\nFollowing a partial interim review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1176/2008 (4), amended the countervailing duty rate applicable to one Indian exporter.\n1.2. Request for an expiry review\n(3)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry (5) of the definitive measures in force, the Commission received a request for the initiation of an expiry review of Council Regulation (EC) No 713/2005 pursuant to Articles 18(2) of the basic Regulation, from two Union producers: DSM and Sandoz (the applicants), representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 % of the total Union production of certain broad spectrum antibiotics.\n(4)\nThe request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury to the Union industry.\n(5)\nPrior to the initiation of the expiry review, and in accordance with Articles 10(9) and 22(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission notified the Government of India (the GOI) that it had received a properly documented review request. The GOI was invited for consultations with the aim of clarifying the situation as regards the contents of the request and arriving at a mutually agreed solution. The GOI responded only very late to this invitation and, therefore, no such consultations have taken place.\n1.3. Initiation of an expiry review\n(6)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 12 May 2010, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (6) (the Notice of initiation), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation.\n1.4. Investigation\n1.4.1. Investigation period\n(7)\nThe investigation of continuation or recurrence of subsidisation covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the review investigation period (the period considered).\n1.4.2. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(8)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicants, other known Union producers, exporting producers, importers, up-stream suppliers, users known to be concerned, and the GOI of the initiation of the expiry review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the Notice of initiation.\n(9)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(10)\nIn view of the apparent large number of exporting producers of the product concerned in India which were named in the request, it was considered appropriate, in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation, to examine whether sampling should be used. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested, pursuant to Article 27 of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the Notice of initiation. Only three exporting producers came forward. Therefore, no sampling was applied.\n(11)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to those who made themselves known within the deadlines set in the Notice of initiation. Replies were received from three Union producers, three exporting producers and the GOI. None of the other producers replied to the questionnaire or supplied any information. None of the importers came forward during the sampling exercise and no other importers supplied the Commission with any information or made themselves known in the course of the investigation.\n(12)\nOne of the producers claimed that the assessment of the situation of the Union industry should also include data from another alleged Union producer. However, as it was found that this latter company was not a producer of the product under investigation, this claim was rejected.\n(13)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for a determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and resulting injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following interested parties:\n(a)\nUnion producers:\n-\nDSM Anti-Infectives B.V., Delft (The Netherlands), which also replied to the Commission\u2019s questionnaire on behalf of DSM Anti-Infectives Chemferm S.A., Santa Perpetua de Mogoda, (Spain). These two companies are hereafter jointly referred to as \u2018DSM\u2019,\n-\nDeretil S.A. (formerly DSM Anti-Infectives Deretil S.A.), Almeria, Spain, referred to as \u2018Deretil\u2019, and\n-\nSandoz GmbH, Kundl (Austria), which also replied to the Commission\u2019s questionnaire on behalf of Sandoz Industrial Products S.A., Barcelona (Spain). Both companies are hereafter jointly referred to as \u2018Sandoz\u2019;\n(b)\nExporting producers in India:\n-\nLupin Limited, Mumbai,\n-\nM/s Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Chandigarh and Baddi, and\n-\nRanbaxy Laboratories Limited, Gurgaon;\n(c)\nGovernment of India (GOI):\n-\nMinistry of Commerce, New Delhi.\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(14)\nThe product covered by this review is the same product as the one concerned by Council Regulation (EC) No 713/2005, namely amoxicillin trihydrate, ampicillin trihydrate and cefalexin not put up in measured doses or in forms or packing for retail sale currently falling within CN codes ex29411000 and ex29419000 originating in India (the product concerned).\n(15)\nThe investigation confirmed that, as in the previous review investigation, the product concerned and the products manufactured and sold by the exporting producers on the domestic market in India, as well as those manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers, have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same uses and are, therefore, considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the basic Regulation.\n3. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF SUBSIDISATION\n3.1. Introduction\n(16)\nAs mentioned in recital 11, three exporting producers came forward and completed a questionnaire reply. However, only two of these three exporting producers reported to have sales of the product concerned to the Union during the RIP.\n(17)\nOn the basis of the information contained in the review request and the replies to the Commission\u2019s questionnaire, the following schemes, which allegedly involve the granting of subsidies, were investigated:\nNationwide schemes:\n(a)\nAdvance Authorisation Scheme (AAS);\n(b)\nDuty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS);\n(c)\nExport Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS);\n(d)\nFocus Market Scheme (FMS);\n(e)\nDuty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA);\n(f)\nExport Oriented Units (EOU)/Export Processing Zones (EPZ)/Special Economic Zones (SEZ);\n(g)\nExport Credit Scheme (ECS); and\n(h)\nIncome Tax Exemption Scheme (ITES);\nRegional schemes:\n(i)\nPunjab Industrial Incentive Scheme; and\n(j)\nGujarat Industrial Incentive Scheme.\n(18)\nThe schemes (a) to (f) specified above are based on the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 (No 22 of 1992) which entered into force on 7 August 1992 (Foreign Trade Act). The Foreign Trade Act authorises the GOI to issue notifications regarding the export and import policy. These are summarised in Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) documents, which are issued by the Ministry of Commerce every 5 years and updated regularly. Two FTP documents are relevant to the RIP of this case, i.e. FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14. The latter entered into force in August 2009. In addition, the GOI also sets out the procedures governing FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14 in a \u2018Handbook of Procedures, Volume I\u2019 (\u2018HOP I 04-09\u2019 and \u2018HOP I 09-14\u2019 respectively). The Handbook of Procedures is also updated on a regular basis.\n(19)\nScheme (g) is based on sections 21 and 35A of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, which allow the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to direct commercial banks in the field of export credits.\n(20)\nScheme (h) is based on the Income Tax Act of 1961, which is amended by the yearly Finance Act.\n(21)\nScheme (i) is administered by the Government of Punjab and is based on the industrial policy and incentives code of the Government of Punjab.\n(22)\nScheme (j) is administered by the Government of Gujarat and is based on Gujarat\u2019s industrial incentive policy.\n3.2. Advance Authorisation Scheme (AAS)\n(a) Legal basis\n(23)\nThe detailed description of the scheme is contained in paragraphs 4.1.1 to 4.1.14 of FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14 and paragraphs 4.1 to 4,30 A of HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(24)\nThe AAS consists of six sub-schemes, as described in more detail in recital 25. Those sub-schemes differ, inter alia, in the scope of eligibility. Manufacturer-exporters and merchant-exporters \u2018tied to\u2019 supporting manufacturers are eligible for the AAS physical exports and for the AAS for annual requirement. Manufacturer-exporters supplying the ultimate exporter are eligible for AAS for intermediate supplies. Main contractors which supply to the \u2018deemed export\u2019 categories mentioned in paragraph 8.2 of FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14, such as suppliers of an export oriented unit (EOU), are eligible for AAS deemed export. Eventually, intermediate suppliers to manufacturer-exporters are eligible for \u2018deemed export\u2019 benefits under the sub-schemes Advance Release Order (ARO) and back-to-back inland letter of credit.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(25)\nAdvance authorisations can be issued for:\n(i)\nphysical exports: this is the main sub-scheme. It allows for duty free import of input materials for the production of a specific resultant export product. \u2018Physical\u2019 in this context means that the export product has to leave Indian territory. An import allowance and export obligation including the type of export product are specified in the advance authorisation;\n(ii)\nannual requirement: such an andvance authorisation is not linked to a specific export product, but to a wider product group (e.g. chemical and allied products). The advance authorisation holder can - up to a certain value threshold set by its past export performance - import duty free any input to be used in manufacturing any of the items falling under such a product group. It can choose to export any resultant product falling under the product group using such duty-exempt material;\n(iii)\nintermediate supplies: this sub-scheme covers cases where two manufacturers intend to produce a single export product and divide the production process. The manufacturer-exporter who produces the intermediate product can import duty free input materials and can obtain for this purpose an AAS for intermediate supplies. The ultimate exporter finalises the production and is obliged to export the finished product;\n(iv)\ndeemed exports: this sub-scheme allows a main contractor to import inputs free of duty which are required in manufacturing goods to be sold as \u2018deemed exports\u2019 to the categories of customers mentioned in paragraph 8.2(b) to (f), (g), (i) and (j) of FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14. According to the GOI, deemed exports refer to those transactions in which the goods supplied do not leave the country. A number of categories of supply is regarded as deemed exports provided the goods are manufactured in India, e.g. supply of goods to an EOU or to a company situated in a SEZ;\n(v)\nARO: the advance authorisation holder intending to source the inputs from indigenous sources, in lieu of direct import, has the option to source them against AROs. In such cases, the advance authorisations are validated as AROs and are endorsed to the indigenous supplier upon delivery of the items specified therein. The endorsement of the ARO entitles the indigenous supplier to the benefits of deemed exports as set out in paragraph 8.3 of FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty). The ARO mechanism refunds taxes and duties to the supplier instead of refunding the same to the ultimate exporter in the form of drawback/refund of duties. The refund of taxes/duties is available both for indigenous inputs as well as imported inputs;\n(vi)\nback-to-back inland letter of credit: this sub-scheme again covers indigenous supplies to an Advance Authorisation holder. The advance authorisation holder can approach a bank for opening an inland letter of credit in favour of an indigenous supplier. The advance authorisation will be invalidated by the bank for direct import only in respect of the value and volume of items being sourced indigenously instead of importation. The indigenous supplier will be entitled to the forecast export benefits as set out in paragraph 8.3 of FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty).\n(26)\nDuring the RIP, one of the two cooperating exporters obtained concessions under AAS. The subschemes that this company used was (i) physical exports. It is therefore not necessary to establish the countervailability of the remaining unused sub-schemes.\n(27)\nImported input materials are not transferable and have to be used to produce the resulting export product. The export obligation must be fulfilled within a prescribed time-frame after issuance of the advance authorisation. Since the combined review, it has been extended to 36 months (24 months with two extensions of 6 months each).\n(28)\nFor verification purposes by the Indian authorities, an Advance Authorisation holder is legally obliged to maintain an actual consumption register (true and proper account) of duty free imported/domestically procured goods against each advance authorisation, as per prescribed format (paragraphs 4.26, 4.30 and Appendix 23 HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14). This register has to be verified by an external chartered accountant/cost and works accountant who issues a certificate stating that the prescribed registers and relevant records have been examined and the information furnished under Appendix 23 is true and correct in all respects.\n(29)\nWith regard to the use of AAS for physical exports during the RIP, both the import allowance and the export obligation are fixed in volume and value by the GOI and are documented on the advance authorisation. In addition, at the time of import and of export, the corresponding transactions are to be documented by government officials on the advance authorisation. The volume of imports allowed under this scheme is determined by the GOI on the basis of standard input-output norms (SIONs). SIONs exist for most products including the product concerned and are issued by the GOI. Since the combined review, the SIONs have been revised downwards and during the RIP they were, for the main raw material input and depending on the product and route, 2,3 % to 16,1 % lower than during the combined review.\n(30)\nIn spite of this lowering of the SIONs, it was found that for one of the product types concerned, the actual consumption was still below the SIONs. Furthermore, it was found that, although mandatory, the company did not keep the consumption register referred to in recital 28 (Appendix 23), verifiable by an external accountant. In spite of the breach of this requirement, the company did avail the benefits under AAS which were moreover, in view of the found overestimation of the SIONs, in excess of the legal provisions therefore.\n(d) Disclosure comments\n(31)\nThe GOI and one exporting producer submitted comments on AAS.\n(32)\nThe GOI claimed that AAS operates as a permitted drawback or substitution drawback system with a verification system in conformity with the provisions of Annexes I, II and III to the basic Regulation in place to monitor the nexus between duty free imported inputs and the resultant export products. The GOI further contended that, according to the basic Regulation, only the remission or drawback of import charges in excess of those levied on imported inputs that are consumed in the production of exported products can be countervailed. With regard to a verification system, they insisted that an adequate verification system was in place. In this context they referred to a number of verification elements which were available to the GOI for such verification, including SIONs, quantity information on import and export documents and redemption verification after fulfilment of importation and exportation. The GOI also recalled that the scheme prescribes that, if there is any unutilised material, full duty is to be paid along with interest.\n(33)\nThe exporting producer which had used AAS for its Union sales had no comments on the findings as concerns description and practical implementation, as summarised under sections (a) to (c), but it contested a number of figures in the calculation of the subsidy amount. Whilst the calculation was checked and no corrections needed to be made, these issues were clarified to the company concerned.\n(e) Conclusion\n(34)\nThe exemption from import duties is a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. a financial contribution of the GOI which conferred a benefit upon the investigated exporter.\n(35)\nIn addition, AAS for physical exports is clearly contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation. Without an export commitment a company cannot obtain benefits under this scheme.\n(36)\nThis expiry review has, therefore, confirmed that the main sub-scheme used in the present case cannot be considered as permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the rules laid down in Annexes I (item (i)), II (definition and rules for drawback) and III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) to the basic Regulation. Although a verification system or procedure to confirm whether and in what amounts inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) to the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) to the basic Regulation) does exist, the GOI did not effectively apply it. The SIONs themselves cannot be considered a verification system of actual consumption, since they have been found to be overgenerous and it was established that benefits received in excess are not reclaimed by the GOI. Indeed, an effective control done by the GOI based on a correctly kept actual consumption register did not take place. In addition, the GOI did not carry out a further examination based on actual inputs involved, although this would normally need to be carried out in the absence of an effectively applied verification system (Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) to the basic Regulation). Finally, it has been confirmed that, although mandatory by law, the involvement of chartered accountants in the verification process is, in practice, not guaranteed.\n(37)\nAAS for physical exports is therefore countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(38)\nIn the absence of permitted duty drawback system or substitution drawback system, the countervailable benefit is the remission of total import duties normally due upon importation of inputs. In this respect and as to the claim of the GOI in recital 32, it is noted that the basic Regulation does not only provide for the countervailing of an \u2018excess\u2019 remission of duties. According to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Annex I(i) to the basic Regulation only an excess remission of duties can be countervailed, provided the conditions of Annexes II and III to the basic Regulation are met. However, these conditions were not fulfilled in the present case. Thus, if an absence of an adequate monitoring process is established, the above exception for drawback schemes is not applicable and the normal rule for countervailing the amount of (revenue forgone) unpaid duties, rather than any purported excess remission, applies. As set out in Annexes II(II) and III(II) to the basic Regulation the burden is not upon the investigating authority to calculate such excess remission. To the contrary, according to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation it only has to establish sufficient evidence to refute the appropriateness of an alleged verification system.\n(39)\nThe subsidy amount for the exporter which used the AAS was calculated on the basis of import duties forgone (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) on the material imported under the sub-scheme used for the product concerned during the RIP (nominator). In accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the subsidy amount where justified claims were made. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount has been allocated over the export turnover generated by the product concerned during the RIP as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(40)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme during the RIP for the sole cooperating producer using it amounts to 12,3 %.\n3.3. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS)\n(a) Legal Basis\n(41)\nThe detailed description of the DEPBS is contained in paragraphs 4.3 of FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14 as well as in Chapter 4 of HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(42)\nAny manufacturer-exporter or merchant-exporter is eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(43)\nAn eligible exporter can apply for DEPBS credits which are calculated as a percentage of the value of products exported under this scheme. Such DEPBS rates have been established by the Indian authorities for most products, including the product concerned. They are determined on the basis of SIONs (see recital 29) and the customs duty incidence on the presumed import content, regardless of whether import duties have actually been paid or not. The DEPBS rates for the product concerned during the RIP of the current investigation were 8 % for amoxicillin trihydrate and 7 % for ampicillin trihydrate and cefalexin, and therefore in all cases higher than during the combined review.\n(44)\nTo be eligible for benefits under this scheme, a company must export. At the point in time of the export transaction, a declaration must be made by the exporter to the authorities in India indicating that the export is taking place under the DEPBS. In order for the goods to be exported, the Indian customs authorities issue, during the dispatch procedure, an export shipping bill. This document shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction. At this point in time, the exporter knows the benefit it will receive. Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill, the GOI has no discretion over the granting of a DEPBS credit. The relevant DEPBS rate to calculate the benefit is that which applied at the time the export declaration was made. Therefore, there is no possibility for a retroactive amendment to the level of the benefit.\n(45)\nIt was found that in accordance with Indian accounting standards, DEPBS credits can be booked on an accrual basis as income in the commercial accounts, upon fulfilment of the export obligation. Such credits can be used for payment of customs duties on subsequent imports of any goods unrestrictedly importable, except capital goods. Goods imported against such credits can be sold on the domestic market (subject to sales tax) or used otherwise. DEPBS credits are freely transferable and valid for a period of 24 months from the date of issue.\n(46)\nApplications for DEPBS credits are electronically filed and can cover an unlimited amount of export transactions. De facto, no strict deadlines to apply for DEPBS credits exist. The electronic system used to manage DEPBS does not automatically exclude export transactions exceeding the deadline submission periods mentioned in paragraph 4.47 of HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14. Furthermore, as clearly provided in paragraph 9.3 of the HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14, applications received after the expiry of submission deadlines can always be considered with the imposition of a minor penalty fee (i.e. 10 % of the entitlement).\n(47)\nIt was found that one cooperating Indian exporting producer used this scheme during the RIP.\n(d) Disclosure comments\n(48)\nThe GOI submitted that \u2018benefit to the recipient\u2019 can be measured and the countervailability of the subsidy can be determined only when DEPBS licenses are sold in the market as they would only confer a benefit if and when they are sold on the market. In other words, DEPBS credits would not be countervailable when they are used for payment of customs duty on the imported goods which are used as inputs for the production of exported goods.\n(e) Conclusions on DEPBS\n(49)\nThe DEPBS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. A DEPBS credit is a financial contribution by the GOI, since the credit will eventually be used to offset import duties, thus decreasing the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, the DEPBS credit confers a benefit upon the exporter, because it improves its liquidity not only if a license is sold on the market, as was claimed by the GOI, but also if it is used for payment of customs duty on imported goods.\n(50)\nFurthermore, the DEPBS is contingent in law upon export performance, and is therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation.\n(51)\nThis scheme cannot be considered as permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) to the basic Regulation. An exporter is under no obligation to actually consume the goods imported free of duty in the production process and the amount of credit is not calculated in relation to actual inputs used. Moreover, there is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production process of the exported product or whether an excess payment of import duties occurred within the meaning of item (i) of Annex I and Annexes II and III to the basic Regulation. Lastly, an exporter is eligible for the DEPBS benefits regardless of whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported. Thus, even exporters which procure all of their inputs locally and do not import any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled to benefit from the DEPBS.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(52)\nIn accordance with Articles 3(2) and 5 of the basic Regulation, the amount of countervailable subsidies was calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to exist during the review investigation period. In this regard, it was considered that the benefit is conferred on the recipient at the point in time when an export transaction is made under this scheme. At this moment, the GOI is liable to forego the customs duties, which constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation.\n(53)\nIn light of the above, it is considered appropriate to assess the benefit under the DEPBS as being the sum of the credits earned on all export transactions made under this scheme during the RIP.\n(54)\nWhere justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the credits so established to arrive at the subsidy amounts as numerator, pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(55)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation these subsidy amounts have been allocated over the total export turnover during the review investigation period as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(56)\nBased on the above, the subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the cooperating exporting producer using it during the RIP amounts to 6,9 %.\n3.4. Export Promotion Capital Goods scheme (EPCGS)\n(a) Legal basis\n(57)\nThe detailed description of EPCGS is contained in Chapter 5 of FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14 as well as in Chapter 5 of HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(58)\nManufacturer-exporters, merchant-exporters \u2018tied to\u2019 supporting manufacturers and service providers are eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(59)\nUnder the condition of an export obligation, a company is allowed to import capital goods (new and second-hand capital goods up to 10 years old) at a reduced rate of duty. To this end, the GOI issues, upon application and payment of a fee, an EPCGS licence. The scheme provides for a reduced import duty rate of 5 % applicable to all capital goods imported under the scheme. In order to meet the export obligation, the imported capital goods must be used to produce a certain amount of export goods during a certain period. Under FTP 09-14 the capital goods can be imported with 0 % duty rate under EPCGS but in such case the time period for fulfilment of the export obligation is shorter.\n(60)\nThe EPCGS licence holder can also source the capital goods indigenously. In such case, the indigenous manufacturer of capital goods may avail himself of the benefit for duty free import of components required to manufacture such capital goods. Alternatively, the indigenous manufacturer can claim the benefit of deemed export in respect of supply of capital goods to an EPCGS licence holder.\n(61)\nIt was found that both cooperating exporting producers used this scheme during the RIP.\n(d) Disclosure comments\n(62)\nUpon disclosure the GOI contested the countervailability of EPCGS. In particular, it claimed that EPCGS subsidies with regard to the purchase of capital goods where the export obligation was already fulfilled before the RIP, should not anymore be treated as contingent upon export performance. One exporting producer which was found to have received EPCGS subsidies claimed that these subsidies should not have been taken into account as they would not have been used for purchasing capital goods used for the production of the product concerned.\n(e) Conclusion on EPCGS\n(63)\nThe EPCGS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. The duty reduction constitutes a financial contribution by the GOI, since this concession decreases the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, the duty reduction confers a benefit upon the exporter, because the duties saved upon importation improve the company\u2019s liquidity.\n(64)\nThe claim that EPCGS subsidies with regard to the purchase of capital goods where the export obligation was already fulfilled before the RIP would not anymore be contingent upon export performance has to be rejected. Indeed, it is not contested that EPCGS is contingent in law upon export performance, since such EPCGS licences cannot be obtained without a commitment to export. Therefore it is deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation. The moment in time where the export obligation would actually be fulfilled is irrelevant in that respect. As concerns the issue as to whether or not the capital goods are used for the production of the product concerned, according to Chapter 5.2 of FTP 09-14, the EPCGS allows imports of capital goods for pre production, production and post production (including complete knock-down (CKD)/semi knock-down (SKD) thereof as well as computer software systems). It is therefore clear that also goods not used for the production of the product concerned can benefit from EPCGS. In addition, it was established that the export obligation under EPCGS was fulfilled using exports of the product concerned. The claim is therefore rejected.\n(65)\nEPCGS cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Capital goods are not covered by the scope of such permissible systems, as set out in Annex I, item (i), of the basic Regulation, because they are not consumed in the production of the exported products.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(66)\nThe subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods spread across a period which reflects the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in the industry concerned. Interests were added to this amount in order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. The commercial interest rate for local currency loans during the review investigation period in India was considered appropriate for this purpose.\n(67)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the export turnover during the RIP as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance.\n(68)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the cooperating exporting producers during the RIP amounts to 0,1 % - 0,5 %.\n3.5. Focus Market Scheme (FMS)\n(a) Legal basis\n(69)\nThe detailed description of FMS is contained in paragraphs 3.9.1 to 3.9.2.2 of FTP 04-09 and paragraphs 3.14.1 to 3.14.3 of FTP 09-14 and in paragraphs 3.20 to 3.20.3 of HOP I 04-09 and paragraphs 3.8 to 3.8.2 of HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(70)\nAny manufacturer-exporter or merchant-exporter is eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(71)\nUnder this scheme exports of all products to countries notified under Appendix 37(C) of HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14 are entitled to duty credit equivalent to 2,5 % of the FOB value of products exported under this scheme. Certain type of export activities are excluded from the scheme, e.g. exports of imported goods or transhipped goods, deemed exports, service exports and export turnover of units operating under special economic zones/export operating units. Also excluded from the scheme are certain types of products, e.g. diamonds, precious metals, ores, cereals, sugar and petroleum products.\n(72)\nThe duty credits under FMS are freely transferable and valid for a period of 24 months from the date of issue of the relevant credit entitlement certificate. They can be used for payment of custom duties on subsequent imports of any inputs or goods including capital goods.\n(73)\nThe credit entitlement certificate is issued from the port from which the exports have been made and after realisation of exports or shipment of goods. As long as the applicant provides to the authorities copies of all relevant export documentation (e.g. export order, invoices, shipping bills, bank realisation certificates), the GOI has no discretion over the granting of the duty credits.\n(d) Disclosure comments\n(74)\nAfter disclosure the GOI submitted that until the credit entitlement certificate is sold on the market, it would confer no benefit whatsoever to the recipient and, therefore, it would not be countervailable. It was claimed that FMS duty credits would not be countervailable when they are used for payment of customs duty on the imported goods which are used as inputs for the production of exported goods. The cooperating exporting producer which had availed benefits under FMS argued that the scheme is geographically related to other countries and, therefore, cannot be countervailed by the Union.\n(e) Conclusion on FMS\n(75)\nThe FMS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. A FMS duty credit is a financial contribution by the GOI, since the credit will eventually be used to offset import duties, thus decreasing the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, regardless as to whether the credit entitlement certificate is used for offsetting import duties or sold on the market, the FMS duty credit confers a benefit upon the exporter, because it improves its liquidity.\n(76)\nFurthermore, FMS is contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation. The fact that Union countries are not covered under FMS does not contradict either the practical implementations of the scheme nor the way the FMS benefit is used, as stated under recitals 72 to 74. Therefore, this claim had to be rejected.\n(77)\nThis scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex I, point (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) to the basic Regulation. An exporter is under no obligation to actually consume the goods imported free of duty in the production process and the amount of credit is not calculated in relation to actual inputs used. There is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production process of the exported product or whether an excess payment of import duties occurred within the meaning of Annex I, point (i), and Annexes II and III to the basic Regulation. An exporter is eligible for FMS benefits regardless of whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported. Thus, even exporters which procure all of their inputs locally and do not import any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled to benefit from FMS. Moreover, an exporter can use FMS duty credits in order to import capital goods although capital goods are not covered by the scope of permissible duty drawback systems, as set out in Annex I, point (i), to the basic Regulation, because they are not consumed in the production of the exported products.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(78)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidies was calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to exist during the RIP as booked by the cooperating exporting producer using the scheme on an accrual basis as income at the stage of export transaction. In accordance with Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount (nominator) has been allocated over the export turnover during the RIP as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(79)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the RIP for the cooperating exporting producer using the scheme amounts to < 0,1 %.\n3.6. Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA)\n(80)\nIn the course of the investigation it was found that the cooperating Indian producers did not obtain any benefits under DFIA during the RIP. It was therefore not necessary to further analyse this scheme in this investigation.\n3.7. Export Oriented Units (EOU)/Export Processing Zones (EPZ)/Special Economic Zones (SEZ)\n(81)\nIn the course of the investigation it was found that the cooperating Indian producers did not obtain any benefits under EOU/EPZ/SEZ during the RIP. It was therefore not necessary to further analyse these schemes in this investigation.\n3.8. Export Credit Scheme (ECS)\n(a) Legal basis\n(82)\nThe details of the scheme are set by in Master Circular on Rupee/Foreign Currency Export Credit & Customer Services to Exporters DBOD No DIR.(Exp). BC 07/04.02.02/2009-10 of the RBI, which is addressed to all commercial banks in India.\n(b) Eligibility\n(83)\nManufacturing exporters and merchant exporters are eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(84)\nUnder this scheme, the RBI mandatorily sets maximum ceiling interest rates applicable to export credits, both in Indian rupees or in foreign currency, which commercial banks can charge an exporter. The ECS consists of two sub-schemes, the Pre-Shipment Export Credit Scheme (packing credit), which covers credits provided to an exporter for financing the purchase, processing, manufacturing, packing and/or shipping of goods prior to export, and the Post-Shipment Export Credit Scheme, which provides for working capital loans with the purpose of financing export receivables. The RBI also directs the banks to provide a certain amount of their net bank credit towards export finance.\n(85)\nAs a result of the RBI Master Circular, exporters can obtain export credits at preferential interest rates compared with the interest rates for ordinary commercial credits (cash credits), which are set purely under market conditions. The difference in rates might decrease for companies with good credit ratings. In fact, high rating companies might be in a position to obtain export credits and cash credits at the same conditions.\n(d) Conclusion on ECS\n(86)\nThe preferential interest rates of an ECS credit set by the RBI Master Circular mentioned in recital 85 can decrease interest costs of an exporter as compared with credit costs purely set by market conditions and confer in this case a benefit in the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation on such exporter. Export financing is not per se more secure than domestic financing. In fact, it is usually perceived as being more risky and the extent of security required for a certain credit, regardless of the finance object, is a purely commercial decision of a given commercial bank. Rate differences with regard to different banks are the result of the methodology of the RBI to set maximum lending rates for each commercial bank individually. In addition, commercial banks would not be obliged to pass through to borrowers of export financing any more advantageous interest rates for export credits in foreign currency.\n(87)\nDespite the fact that the preferential credits under the ECS are granted by commercial banks, this benefit is a financial contribution by a government within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation. In this context, it should be noted that neither Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation nor the ASCM require a charge on the public accounts, e.g. reimbursement of the commercial banks by the GOI, to establish a subsidy, but only government direction to carry out functions illustrated in points (i), (ii) or (iii) of Article 3(1)(a) of the basic Regulation. The RBI is a public body and falls therefore under the definition of a \u2018government\u2019 as set out in Article 2(b) of the basic Regulation. It is 100 % government-owned, pursues public policy objectives, e.g. monetary policy, and its management is appointed by the GOI. The RBI directs private bodies, within the meaning of the second indent of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation, since the commercial banks are bound by the conditions it imposes, inter alia, with regard to the maximum ceilings for interest rates on export credits mandated in the RBI Master Circular and the RBI provisions that commercial banks have to provide a certain amount of their net bank credit towards export finance. This direction obliges commercial banks to carry out functions mentioned in Article 3(1)(a)(i) of the basic Regulation, in this case loans in the form of preferential export financing. Such direct transfer of funds in the form of loans under certain conditions would normally be vested in the government, and the practice, in no real sense, differs from practices normally followed by governments, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation. This subsidy is deemed to be specific and countervailable since the preferential interest rates are only available in relation to the financing of export transactions and are therefore contingent upon export performance, pursuant to Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(88)\nThe subsidy amount has been calculated on the basis of the difference between the interest paid for export credits used during the RIP and the interest rate that would have been payable for ordinary commercial credits used by the sole cooperating exporting producer using the scheme. This subsidy amount (nominator) has been allocated over the total export turnover during the RIP as appropriate denominator in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(89)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme for the RIP for the cooperating exporting producer using the scheme was negligible.\n3.9. Income Tax Exemption Scheme (ITES)\n(90)\nIn the course of the investigation it was found that the cooperating Indian producers did not obtain any benefits under ITES during the RIP. It was therefore not necessary to further analyse this scheme in this investigation.\n3.10. Punjab Industrial Incentive Scheme\n(91)\nIn the course of the investigation it was found that the cooperating Indian producers did not obtain any benefits under the Punjab Industrial Incentive Scheme during the RIP. It was therefore not necessary to further analyse this scheme in this investigation.\n3.11. Gujarat Industrial Incentive Scheme\n(92)\nIn the course of the investigation it was found that the cooperating Indian producers did not obtain any benefits under the Gujarat Industrial Incentive Scheme during the RIP. It was therefore not necessary to further analyse this scheme in this investigation.\n3.12. Amount of countervailable subsidies\n(93)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidies determined in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the investigated exporting producers range between 7,5 % and 12,4 %. These amounts of subsidisation exceed the de minimis threshold mentioned under Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(94)\nIt is therefore considered that, pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, subsidisation continued during the RIP.\n3.13. Conclusions on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidisation\n(95)\nIn accordance with Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the measures in force would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of subsidisation.\n(96)\nIn this respect, it is recalled that only two known exporting producers of the product concerned cooperated. From the available Indian and Union statistical information the share of these exporters in the total Union sales of Indian exporting producers of the product concerned cannot be established. However, those statistical data would suggest that there are other producers which could sell the product concerned to the Union.\n(97)\nIt was established that during the RIP, the cooperating exporting producers continued to benefit from countervailable subsidisation by the Indian government. The subsidy schemes analysed above give recurring benefits and there are no indications that these programmes would be phased out or modified in the foreseeable future or that the cooperating exporting producers would stop obtaining benefits under these schemes.\n(98)\nThere is no information available which would indicate that the other exporting producers would not continue to benefit from the subsidy schemes analysed above. It is therefore concluded that the subsidisation at the country-wide level continued.\n(99)\nIn view of the findings described above it is concluded that subsidisation continued during the RIP and would be likely to continue in the future.\n4. UNION PRODUCTION\n(100)\nDuring the review investigation period, the like product was manufactured in the Union by the following Union producers: Sandoz, DSM, Deretil, ACS Dobfar SpA and Antibioticos S.A.. The applicants requested an expiry review of the anti-subsidy measures in force. All available information concerning Union producers, including information provided in the request and data collected from Union producers before and after the initiation of the review investigation, was used in order to establish the total Union production. On that basis, the estimated total Union production during the RIP was 7 093 tonnes.\n(101)\nThe Union producers accounting for the total Union production constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation and are hereafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019. Since the like product produced by the three Union producers who submitted a questionnaire response during the RIP represented up to 95 % of the total Union production of the like product, these producers\u2019 data are considered to be representative of the entire Union industry.\n5. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n5.1. Preliminary remark\n(102)\nTo analyse the import volumes and price trends, the Eurostat import statistics for TARIC codes 2941101010, 2941102010 and 2941900030 for the years 2007 and 2008 and TARIC codes 2941100010 and 2941900030 for the year 2009 and onwards, as applicable during the period considered, were used.\n(103)\nTaking into account the number of Union producers and the fact that one Union producer was producing the like product under a tolling agreement with another one, the information concerning the Union industry, where necessary, has been shown in indices or in ranges only, in order to protect confidentiality of data.\n5.2. Consumption in the Union market\n(104)\nThe like product is sold by the Union industry to unrelated customers and sold/transferred to related companies for further downstream processing.\n(105)\nSales to unrelated entities were considered to form the \u2018free market\u2019. Sales/transfers to related entities were considered as \u2018captive use\u2019.\n(106)\nIn calculating the apparent Union consumption of the product concerned and the like product, the Commission added:\n-\nthe volume of total imports of the product under investigation into the Union as reported by Eurostat,\n-\nthe volume of sales of the like product in the Union produced by the Union industry,\n-\nthe volume of captive use of the like product by the Union industry, and\n-\nthe estimated sales of the like product in the Union by other known Union producers.\n(107)\nIt should be noted that, in order to avoid double-counting of sales volumes, the sales made under a tolling agreement between two Union producers were excluded from the above calculation.\n(108)\nOn the above basis, the Union consumption of the product concerned and the like product gradually increased by 28 % during the period considered:\nConsumption (in tonnes)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProduct concerned and like product\n6 601\n7 021\n7 783\n8 423\nIndex\n100\n106\n118\n128\n5.3. Imports from India\n5.3.1. Volume, market share and prices of imports from India\nImports (in tonnes)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProduct concerned imports for free circulation\n32,6\n16,1\n1,9\n1,4\nIndex\n100\n49\n6\n4\nProduct concerned imports under inward processing regime\n45,5\n3,7\n15,5\n14,5\nIndex\n100\n8\n34\n32\n(109)\nAccording to Eurostat data, the volume of imports of the product concerned from India for free circulation has decreased by 96 % during the period considered. A considerable drop by 51 percentage points has been observed in 2008 then followed by a further decrease by 43 percentage points in 2009 and two percentage points in the RIP.\n(110)\nA slightly different trend could be observed for imports under inward processing regime which are free from countervailing and custom duties. After an initial fall in imports by 92 % between 2007 and 2008, imports increased in 2009 and remained relatively stable in the RIP.\nAverage import price (EUR/tonne)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProduct concerned imports for free circulation\n25 863\n28 934\n34 758\n19 200\nIndex\n100\n112\n134\n74\nProduct concerned imports under inward processing regime\n35 616\n37 443\n30 894\n30 044\nIndex\n100\n105\n87\n84\n(111)\nThe average import price of the product concerned from India for free circulation increased by 34 % between 2007 and 2009, then sharply dropped in the RIP, to reach a level 26 % lower than in 2007. Also prices of imports under inward processing regime followed a downward trend and decreased by 16 % over the period considered. The different price trends between the two import regimes can be explained by the different type of the product concerned that was mainly imported, i.e. cefalexin, which is comparatively more expensive than other types.\nMarket share of imports from India\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProduct concerned, imports for free circulation\n0,5 %\n0,2 %\n0,0 %\n0,0 %\nIndex\n100\n46\n5\n3\nProduct concerned imports under inward processing regime\n0,7 %\n0,1 %\n0,2 %\n0,2 %\nIndex\n100\n8\n29\n25\n(112)\nThe market share of imports from India for free circulation or made under inward processing regime was very low over the period considered and decreased in both cases.\n(113)\nOne Union producer indicated that Indian imports, which were based on Eurostat data, had been wrongly estimated as Indian export statistics show higher export volumes than those stated by Eurostat. In this regard, it should be noted that it is the Commission\u2019s standard practice to use Eurostat as a basis for import statistics. It is further noted that Indian export statistics do not indicate the final destination of the exports and whether they will actually enter the Union. This claim had therefore to be rejected.\n5.3.2. Price undercutting\n(114)\nIn view of the extremely low quantity of imports from India that entered the Union market for free circulation, no meaningful conclusion could be drawn in regard to price undercutting. In regard to the imports under the inward processing regime, the undercutting margin found was negative. However, these imports amounted to less than 10 tonnes and concerned only one product type (cefalexin), which is also the most expensive and less represented product type on the market. Therefore, it was concluded that the transaction data concerning imports under the inward processing regime were not representative for the purpose of a meaningful undercutting calculation and not suitable for further analysis.\n(115)\nOne Union producer indicated that a segregated analysis of the two categories of imports, i.e. for free circulation and under the inward processing regime, was not in line with the approach of the previous review proceeding and was also contrary to consistent Commission practice.\n(116)\nIn this regard, it should be noted that as concluded in recital 115, quantities imported either under the inward processing regime or for free circulation were not sufficient to allow meaningful conclusions to be drawn. Considering the low level of the aggregated volume, this conclusion equally applies to that volume.\n5.4. Imports from other third countries\nThird country imports\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nVolume (tonnes)\nSingapore\n1 557,7\n1 448,2\n2 030,5\n2 425,3\nIndex\n100\n93\n130\n156\nChina\n487,6\n622,5\n1 176,9\n1 234,7\nIndex\n100\n128\n241\n253\nOman\n373,4\n438,5\n301,7\n287,9\nIndex\n100\n117\n81\n77\nOther third countries\n67,8\n327,5\n74,2\n73,2\nIndex\n100\n483\n109\n108\nTotal\n2 486,5\n2 836,7\n3 583,3\n4 021,1\nIndex\n100\n114\n144\n162\n(117)\nImports of the product under review from countries other than India increased by 62 % during the period considered, with market share surging by more than 10 percentage points from 37,6 % to 47,7 %, which coincided with the increased consumption on the Union market. Among exporting countries, Singapore, China and Oman have been the major suppliers on the Union market.\nAverage import price per tonne (EUR)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nSingapore\n44 218\n36 590\n27 007\n22 485\nIndex\n100\n83\n61\n51\nChina\n29 515\n26 622\n21 224\n20 683\nIndex\n100\n90\n72\n70\nOman\n29 875\n27 665\n23 440\n22 597\nIndex\n100\n93\n78\n76\nOther third countries\n38 324\n35 987\n45 628\n46 938\nIndex\n100\n94\n119\n122\nTotal\n39 020\n32 953\n25 193\n22 385\nIndex\n100\n84\n65\n57\n(118)\nAverage import prices from third countries have decreased significantly by 43 % over the period considered. Although the prices of the main exporting countries (Singapore, China and Oman) undercut the Union prices by around 20 % in the RIP on a product per product basis and the import volumes can be regarded as significant, such low priced imports did apparently not affect the profitability of the Union industry.\n(119)\nOne Union producer claimed that the analysis of the average import price trends should have taken account of the various product types. In this regard, it should be noted that, in line with standard practice, the analysis of, inter alia, price trends has to be made on the basis of the product concerned regardless of the share of each product type. It is further noted that, in this case, no conclusion was drawn from the trend in import prices from third countries over the period considered. The above claim therefore had to be rejected.\n(120)\nAll Union producers claimed that imports from, inter alia, China and Oman are mainly of amoxicillin trihydrate for veterinary use and this should have been taken into account in the analysis of the above prices. In this regard, it is noted that the product under review covers antibiotics for both human and veterinary consumption. Furthermore, the information provided in support of this allegation was not substantiated. Therefore, the above claim had to be rejected.\n(121)\nOne Union producer questioned the basis on which price comparisons for amoxicillin trihydrate and ampicillin trihydrate were made in the RIP given the fact that Eurostat data does not distinguish between these two product types. In this regard, as it was found that the Union industry\u2019s prices of these two product types were similar, it was not unreasonable to make an aggregate price comparison.\n(122)\nAs far as imports from Singapore are concerned, all Union producers claimed that they were made at transfer price between related parties. In these circumstances, to include these imports would distort the average prices from other third countries. It is noted that, if these imports were to be excluded from the price comparison, the above mentioned finding with regard to the undercutting margin would not change significantly and the conclusion that the low priced imports did not affect the profitability of the Union industry would remain valid.\n5.5. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(123)\nFor the following economic indicators relating to the Union industry, it was found that a meaningful analysis and evaluation had to focus on the situation prevailing on the free market: sales volume and sales prices on the Union market, market share and profitability. Where possible and justified, these findings were subsequently compared with the data for the captive market, in order to provide a full picture of the situation of the Union industry.\n(124)\nAs regards other economic indicators, however, it was found on the basis of the investigation, that they could reasonably be examined only by referring to the whole activity. Indeed, production (for both the captive and the free market), capacity, capacity utilisation, inventories, investments, stocks, employment, productivity, wages, growth, ability to raise capital depend upon the whole activity, whether the production is captive or sold on the free market.\n(125)\nFollowing comments received from one Union producer on the final disclosure of the facts and considerations on the basis of which it was proposed to terminate the proceeding, some of the economic indicators in the following recitals have been corrected. These changes were not of a nature to change the conclusion with regard to the situation of the Union industry.\n5.5.1. Production, capacity and capacity utilisation\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex capacity\n100\n100\n104\n107\nIndex production\n100\n95\n96\n98\nIndex capacity utilisation\n100\n95\n92\n91\n(126)\nThe Union industry\u2019s production capacity was stable between 2007 and 2008 before increasing by 4 % from 2008 to 2009 and by a further 3 percentage points in the RIP.\n(127)\nHowever, the production volume did not follow this increase due to unforeseen technical difficulties of one Union producer in 2008, when production volume dropped by 5 % and recovered gradually until the RIP.\n(128)\nAs a result of the increase in production capacity combined with a small fall in production, the capacity utilisation rate continually dropped in the period considered and reached a level in the RIP that was 9 % below that in 2007.\n5.5.2. Sales volume, sales price, market share\n5.5.2.1.\nSales to unrelated parties in the Union\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex volume\n100\n97\n93\n99\nIndex average sales price\n100\n121\n104\n104\nIndex market share\n100\n90\n79\n78\n(129)\nThe Union industry\u2019s sales volume to unrelated parties in the RIP was slightly below the level of 2007, dropping by 7 % in 2009 and then increasing by six percentage points during the RIP.\n(130)\nThe average sales price of the Union industry on the Union market increased by 4 % over the period considered. Prices first increased sharply by 21 % in 2008 before dropping by 17 percentage points in 2009 and remaining stable in the RIP.\n(131)\nOne Union producer claimed that the price impact of imports from India on the Union industry was not correctly assessed. In this regard, it is first of all noted that no undercutting was found as mentioned in recital 115. Additionally, as indicated in the preceding recital, Union industry prices increased by 4 % over the period considered. In these circumstances it is considered that imports from India did not have any negative effect on the situation of the Union industry.\n(132)\nDecreasing sales on the Union market to unrelated parties were reflected in the development of the market share which dropped by 22 percentage points in the RIP compared to 2007.\n5.5.2.2.\nCaptive market in the Union\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex volume\n100\n115\n122\n128\nIndex average sales price of captive sales\n100\n100\n111\n110\nIndex market share\n100\n109\n104\n100\n(133)\nWhile Union industry\u2019s sales volume to unrelated parties was decreasing despite increasing demand during the period considered, captive sales increased by 28 %.\n(134)\nThe market share of the captive market of the Union industry increased by 9 percentage points in 2008 before decreasing progressively to the 2007 level.\n5.5.2.3.\nSales to unrelated parties, captive sales and captive use\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex volume\n100\n107\n108\n114\nIndex market share\n100\n100\n92\n90\n(135)\nMarket share of the Union industry as a whole was measured by adding free and captive market volumes in the Union. Although this volume increased over the period considered by 14 %, the market share of the Union industry decreased by 10 percentage points as market consumption increased by 28 % over the same period. This indicates that the Union industry did not benefit from the growth in consumption.\n5.5.3. Inventories\nStocks\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex volume\n100\n74\n63\n46\n(136)\nThe stock level dropped by 54 % from 2007 to the end of the RIP, which is mainly explained by the increased captive demand.\n5.5.4. Profitability\n5.5.4.1.\nProfitability on the free market\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n447\n218\n253\n(137)\nThe profitability of Union industry\u2019s sales to unrelated parties on the Union market improved significantly by 153 percentage points during the RIP. This development can be explained by an average increase in prices of 2 % and a decrease in production cost. As compared to the profit margin achieved in the review investigation period of the last expiry investigation, the profit has increased by more than 400 percentage points.\n(138)\nIt should be noted that, with the exception of year 2007, Union industry profit level was above the target profit margin established in the previous expiry review investigation; i.e. 10 % (target profit), over the period considered.\n(139)\nTwo Union producers claimed that profitability had not been assessed properly as the profit achieved by related upstream suppliers were deducted from their costs. In this regard, it is consistent practice to deduct the profits achieved by related parties involved in the production of raw materials. In these circumstances, this argument had to be rejected.\n5.5.4.2.\nProfitability of captive sales\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n55\n153\n151\n(140)\nThe profitability of Union industry\u2019s captive sales on the Union market improved by 51 % during the RIP. This development is largely explained by an average increase in prices of 10 %. However, since this price trend is based on transfer prices, no meaningful conclusion should be drawn from the above.\n5.5.5. Investments, return on investment, cash flow and the ability to raise capital\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex investments\n100\n246\n342\n129\nIndex return on investment\n100\n233\n52\n62\nIndex cash flow\n100\n236\n83\n107\n(141)\nInvestments increased during the period considered. The investments related to increases in production capacity with the aim to deliver both the captive and the free markets.\n(142)\nThe investigation also showed that the return on investments, i.e. pre-tax net profit of the product expressed as a percentage of the net book value of fixed assets allocated to the product, decreased during the period considered.\n(143)\nCash flow increased by 7 % over the period considered as the decrease in profitability could be compensated by a decrease in inventory in the second half of the period considered.\n5.5.6. Employment, productivity and wages\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex employment\n100\n106\n111\n109\nIndex productivity\n100\n89\n87\n89\nIndex wages\n100\n104\n106\n106\n(144)\nEmployment increased by 9 % during the period considered in line with the investments in production capacity, while average wages increased by only 6 %. Productivity decreased by 11 % overall following the unexpected technical difficulties faced by one Union producer.\n5.5.7. Magnitude of the amount of countervailable subsidies and recovery from past subsidisation\n(145)\nGiven the volume of the subsidised imports from India, the impact of the actual amount of subsidisation cannot be considered to be significant.\n(146)\nThe situation of the Union industry improved significantly since the last review investigation and in the period considered. It can therefore be assessed that the Union industry managed to recover fully from past subsidisation.\n5.6. Conclusion on the economic situation of the Union industry\n(147)\nBetween 2007 and the review investigation period, the volume of subsidised imports of the product concerned was negligible. With the exception of certain injury indicators such as market share, production volume and return on investment, most injury indicators including profitability (+ 153 %), sales price (+ 4 %), sales volume (+ 14 %), employment (+ 10 %) and investments (+ 29 %) developed positively during the period considered. The profit levels achieved in the Union market were, with the exception of year 2007, above the target profit margin established in the previous expiry review investigation; i.e. 10 %. The positive trend shown by the vast majority of indicators is mainly due to the reliability of the Union industry and the long standing customer relationship that it has developed over the past years, but also to the price level that it managed to achieve on the market.\n(148)\nOne Union producer claimed that the analysis of the price and profit trends should take account of the shortages in raw materials in 2007 and 2008. It was claimed that these shortages led to exceptional increases in prices and profits in 2008 and to a limited extent in 2009. In this regard, as can be seen in Tables 5.5.2.1 and 5.5.4.1, the exceptional price and profit levels only pertain to 2008. The profit levels achieved in 2009 and the RIP appear no longer to be affected by the raw material shortages. The conclusion in recital 139, that profits throughout the period considered were above the target profit, remain valid.\n(149)\nRegarding captive sales, the option for the Union industry to sell part of its production on the captive market ensured high levels of capacity utilisation and enabled the Union industry to dilute fixed costs and to remain cost competitive.\n(150)\nIn conclusion, in view of the positive development of the indicators pertaining to the Union industry, it is considered that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the period considered.\n5.7. Effect of subsidised imports\n(151)\nGiven the low volumes of the product concerned that were imported in the Union over the period considered, the subsidised imports did not adversely affect the performance of the Union industry. Indeed, as stated above, it is considered that the industry did not suffer material injury during the period considered.\n6. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY\n(152)\nIt is recalled that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the period considered as most injury indicators showed positive trends over this period. In accordance with Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation, it was therefore examined whether the expiry of the measures in force would be likely to result in a recurrence of injury.\n6.1. Spare capacity in the country concerned\n(153)\nThe investigation showed that the capacity utilisation of the three cooperating Indian producers had reached very high levels in the RIP. On that basis, spare capacities, which could be directed to the Union market in the absence of measures, would appear to be limited.\n(154)\nAfter disclosure it was claimed by several Union producers that the spare capacities in India were high and that the capacity utilisation rate of the cooperating Indian exporting producers was not representative for the Indian sector as a whole. One Union producer even claimed that the spare capacities of seven leading Indian exporters would represent volumes largely above the Union free market consumption.\n(155)\nIn this respect it should first be underlined that the capacity utilisation rate of the three cooperating exporting producers was a weighted average calculation based on verified data and specifically relating to the product concerned. Moreover, the three cooperating exporting producers concerned were large producers and among the seven Indian exporters referred to, by the claimant, as \u2018leading\u2019. On the contrary, the data presented by the Union producers on these seven Indian producers\u2019 spare capacity were mainly based on \u2018market knowledge\u2019 and, although this was specifically requested, they could not be substantiated by solid factual evidence. Therefore, that information had to be disregarded and it was confirmed that, based on the verified data on the file, Indian spare capacities appear to be limited.\n6.2. Export behaviour of the Indian exporting producers\n(156)\nOn the basis of data from Indian official statistics, it was established that the prices of export sales to India\u2019s ten main export markets were around 20 % on average lower than the prices of the Union industry sales on the Union market in the RIP. These Indian export prices were in line with the prices of the other main players on the Union market as set out in recital 119. It was found that low priced imports during the period considered from these other countries did not have a negative effect on the performance of the Union industry. In these circumstances, it is considered that, should measures be allowed to lapse, Indian export prices would likely not be harmful to the Union industry as it is already facing competition from other exporting countries with the same pricing behaviour without suffering any material injury.\n(157)\nTwo Union producers also submitted that, if measures were to lapse, Indian producers would redirect exports currently sold on other markets to the Union on account of the attractiveness of the Union market in terms of prices. First of all it is noted that, if Indian producers were to re-direct their exports to the Union, they would enter in competition with other third countries that are already exporting significant quantities to the Union. Furthermore, as mentioned in recital 119, it has been concluded that imports from third countries, at prices similar to Indian export prices to other markets, have not affected the performance of the Union industry. On this basis, it is considered that if Indian export quantities to the Union increase at prices similar to those on other export markets, the Union industry would not suffer any material injury.\n(158)\nTwo Union producers also claimed that the fact that there were import bans in place in the US against certain antibiotic production plants in India would lead to the re-direction of additional quantities to the Union market. However, in this regard, the conclusions in the preceding recital on the possible re-direction of exports remain valid.\n6.3. Captive market\n(159)\nWhile the captive market accounted for 50 to 60 % of the free and captive markets of the Union industry in the period considered, consumption in the Union industry captive market increased by more than 20 % over the same period. Considering the characteristics and size of this market, it is believed that, should measures be allowed to lapse, the captive market would not be affected by the likely increase in Indian exports and would therefore continue to ensure high capacity utilisation rates and economies of scale for the Union industry.\n6.4. Conclusion on the likelihood of recurrence of injury\n(160)\nOn the basis of the above, it was concluded that, should measures be allowed to lapse, subsidised imports from India are not likely to cause material injury to the Union industry as most injury indicators developed positively over the period considered in spite of significant and increasing imports from other countries that were priced similarly to Indian exports to other countries. It was therefore concluded that material injury was not likely to recur, should measures be allowed to lapse.\n7. UNION INTEREST\n(161)\nOne Union producer claimed that a Union interest test analysis should have been carried out. In this regard, as it has been concluded that there is no likelihood of recurrence of injury, a Union interest test serves no purpose. In these circumstances, this claim was rejected.\n8. SPECIAL MONITORING\n(162)\nIn view of the finding on the likelihood of continuation of subsidisation as mentioned in recital 100 and the impact it might have on future trade flows, the Commission will monitor the import volumes of the product concerned. Should there be a significant change in these quantities, the Commission will give consideration to what action, if any, is to be taken.\n(163)\nThe monitoring will be limited to a period of 2 years after the publication of this Regulation.\n9. TERMINATION\n(164)\nIn the light of the results of this review investigation, it is considered appropriate to repeal the countervailing duty on imports of certain broad spectrum antibiotics originating in India.\n(165)\nInterested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was proposed to terminate the investigation and were given the opportunity to comment. The comments received were addressed under the relevant sections above and were not of a nature to change the above conclusions.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe expiry review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain broad spectrum antibiotics, currently falling within CN codes ex29411000 and ex29419000 originating in India, initiated pursuant to Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, is hereby terminated and the measures in force on imports originating in India are repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 August 2011.", "references": ["55", "36", "16", "14", "79", "59", "74", "6", "20", "27", "71", "53", "37", "45", "8", "56", "26", "28", "86", "42", "10", "18", "65", "49", "0", "35", "54", "52", "82", "81", "No Label", "22", "23", "38", "48", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "38", "48", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 202/2012\nof 8 March 2012\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance pegylated bovine granulocyte colony stimulating factor\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit (\"MRL\") for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nAn application for the establishment of maximum residue limits for pegylated bovine granulocyte colony stimulating factor in bovine species has been submitted to the European Medicines Agency.\n(4)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use has recommended that there is no need to establish an MRL for pegylated bovine granulocyte colony stimulating factor in bovine species.\n(5)\nTable 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to include the substance pegylated bovine granulocyte colony stimulating factor in bovine species.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2012.", "references": ["22", "52", "15", "77", "98", "16", "99", "23", "67", "74", "17", "28", "44", "6", "63", "32", "97", "18", "93", "19", "39", "0", "94", "90", "85", "78", "49", "36", "48", "46", "No Label", "25", "38", "65", "69", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "65", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 895/2010\nof 8 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Halberst\u00e4dter W\u00fcrstchen (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany's application to register the name \u2018Halberst\u00e4dter W\u00fcrstchen\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["41", "26", "61", "35", "47", "90", "69", "60", "19", "92", "51", "31", "21", "84", "74", "39", "34", "70", "36", "95", "12", "80", "86", "98", "14", "94", "22", "1", "53", "2", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 414/2012\nof 15 May 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 554/2008 as regards the minimum content and the minimum recommended dose of an enzyme preparation of 6-phytase as a feed additive in feed for turkeys for fattening\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAn enzyme preparation of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26), belonging to the additive category of \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019, was authorised for 10 years as a feed additive for use for chickens for fattening, laying hens, ducks for fattening, turkeys for fattening and weaned piglets by Commission Regulation (EC) No 554/2008 (2).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, the holder of the authorisation has proposed changing the terms of authorisation of the preparation concerned by reducing its minimum content and the minimum recommended dose from 1 000 FTU/kg to 500 FTU/kg complete feedingstuff, as regards use for turkeys for fattening. That application was accompanied by the relevant supporting data.\n(3)\nThe European Food Safety Authority concluded in its opinion of 13 November 2011 that the preparation concerned has the potential to improve phosphorus utilisation in turkeys for fattening at the requested minimum dose of 500 FTU/kg (3) complete feedingstuff.\n(4)\nThe conditions provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 are satisfied.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 554/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 554/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 May 2012.", "references": ["3", "84", "60", "11", "33", "34", "29", "18", "82", "5", "90", "63", "21", "83", "38", "70", "91", "14", "54", "15", "46", "95", "77", "78", "6", "26", "35", "97", "89", "40", "No Label", "25", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 553/2012\nof 19 June 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 June 2012.", "references": ["19", "68", "47", "9", "64", "58", "7", "22", "74", "14", "45", "79", "15", "31", "55", "67", "5", "94", "39", "99", "85", "17", "35", "80", "63", "46", "28", "97", "8", "75", "No Label", "21", "82"], "gold": ["21", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1119/2011\nof 31 October 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Brovada (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy's application to register the name \u2027Brovada\u2027 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["62", "5", "80", "22", "70", "65", "64", "12", "78", "90", "69", "88", "33", "2", "9", "55", "59", "4", "83", "31", "48", "14", "44", "84", "46", "56", "99", "43", "89", "45", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 15 October 2010\nappointing one Romanian member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015\n(2010/632/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 300(2) and Article 302 thereof, in conjunction with Article 7 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,\nHaving regard to the proposal made by Romania,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe term of office of the members of the European Economic and Social Committee expired on 20 September 2010.\n(2)\nOn 13 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1), except for one Romanian member, whom the Romanian authorities reserved the right to nominate at a later stage.\n(3)\nBy a letter which reached the Council on 28 September 2010, the Romanian authorities proposed to the Council a candidate for appointment as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee during the abovementioned period, in order to complete the list of members allocated to Romania by the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Eugen LUCAN is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee, for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 15 October 2010.", "references": ["15", "99", "3", "27", "72", "23", "56", "82", "39", "85", "2", "12", "86", "40", "13", "60", "50", "44", "90", "53", "0", "52", "62", "77", "65", "54", "8", "9", "94", "25", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 848/2011\nof 19 August 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for blue whiting in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 August 2011.", "references": ["48", "71", "9", "6", "87", "53", "14", "19", "89", "40", "65", "22", "15", "95", "57", "37", "58", "59", "93", "86", "74", "26", "33", "77", "99", "66", "12", "7", "25", "83", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 February 2011\namending Decision 2008/589/EC establishing a specific control and inspection programme related to the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea\n(notified under document C(2011) 938)\n(2011/114/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Article 95 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2008/589/EC (2) establishes a specific control and inspection programme applicable for a period of 3 years to ensure the harmonised implementation of the multiannual plan set up by Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 (3) for cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks.\n(2)\nThe specific control and inspection programme is necessary for the organisation of operational cooperation between Member States concerned and to allow the Community Fisheries Control Agency to organise joint deployment plans in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 (4).\n(3)\nIn order to ensure the continued harmonised implementation of the multiannual plan set up by Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007, the specific control and inspection programme should be extended for a period of 1 year.\n(4)\nDecision 2008/589/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 2 of Decision 2008/589/EC, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The specific control and inspection programme shall apply for 4 years.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 February 2011.", "references": ["97", "78", "17", "52", "85", "55", "76", "68", "41", "87", "75", "16", "18", "58", "31", "13", "7", "21", "49", "65", "30", "45", "93", "91", "24", "80", "38", "50", "19", "22", "No Label", "59", "67"], "gold": ["59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 215/2011\nof 1 March 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pecorino Sardo (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and having regard to Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Pecorino Sardo\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1263/96 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2011.", "references": ["19", "66", "16", "44", "28", "18", "78", "92", "34", "1", "55", "42", "13", "63", "73", "43", "41", "81", "95", "45", "5", "3", "99", "64", "80", "8", "37", "2", "17", "22", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/45/EU\nof 13 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include diclofop as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included diclofop.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of diclofop.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter the applicant) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to France, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nFrance evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter the Authority) and to the Commission on 11 August 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on diclofop (considered variant diclofop-methyl) to the Commission on 1 September 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for diclofop.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing diclofop may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include diclofop in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information confirming the results of the risk assessment on the basis of most recent scientific knowledge as regards a metabolism study on cereals. Moreover, it is appropriate to require the submission of confirmatory information on the possible environmental impact of the preferential degradation/conversion of the isomers.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing diclofop to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of diclofop-methyl and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning diclofop-methyl in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning diclofop-methyl in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing diclofop as an active substance by 30 November 2011. By that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to diclofop are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing diclofop as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account Part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning diclofop. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing diclofop as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing diclofop as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 April 2011.", "references": ["56", "32", "94", "47", "27", "0", "53", "59", "41", "39", "81", "86", "34", "93", "50", "57", "7", "44", "71", "29", "46", "54", "64", "70", "58", "60", "24", "90", "19", "85", "No Label", "2", "20", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "20", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/297/CFSP\nof 23 May 2011\namending Joint Action 2001/555/CFSP on the establishment of a European Union Satellite Centre\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 28 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFollowing the termination of the Modified Brussels Treaty of 1954 establishing the Western European Union (\u2018WEU\u2019), it is necessary to ensure, on behalf of the ten Member States participating in the WEU, the continuation of certain residual administrative tasks of the WEU after its closure on 30 June 2011, in particular the administration of WEU staff pensions and the WEU Social Plan, as well as the settlement of any disputes between the WEU and former staff.\n(2)\nFor this purpose, the necessary administrative tasks should be assumed by the European Union Satellite Centre, established by Council Joint Action 2001/555/CFSP (1).\n(3)\nAll expenditure related to the above-mentioned tasks should be met by contributions from the ten Member States parties to the Modified Brussels Treaty of 1954 establishing the WEU.\n(4)\nJoint Action 2001/555/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nCouncil Joint Action 2001/555/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1)\nThe following paragraph is added to Article 2:\n\u20185. As from 1 July 2011, following the dissolution of the Western European Union (\u201cWEU\u201d), the Centre shall perform the administrative tasks set out in Article 23a.\u2019\n2)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 23a\nAdministrative tasks following the dissolution of the WEU\n1. From 1 July 2011, the Centre shall, on behalf of Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and the United Kingdom (hereinafter \u201cthe Ten Member States\u201d), perform the following residual administrative tasks of the WEU:\n(a)\nthe administration of the pensions of former staff of the WEU;\n(b)\nthe administration of the WEU Social Plan;\n(c)\nthe administration of any disputes between the WEU and any member of its former staff and the implementation of the decisions of the competent Appeals Board;\n(d)\nassistance to the Ten Member States in relation to the liquidation of the WEU's assets.\n2. The administration of the pensions of former staff of the WEU shall:\n(a)\ntake place in accordance with the pension rules of the WEU, as in force on 30 June 2011. If necessary, these rules may be amended by the Board referred to in paragraph 6, within the framework of the pension rules of the Coordinated Organisations;\n(b)\nbe managed by the Joint Pensions Administrative Section within the Coordinated Organisations (hereinafter \u201cJPAS/SCAP\u201d). To this effect, the Centre shall, on behalf of the Ten Member States, conclude a memorandum of agreement by 30 June 2011. The WEU may also be a party to this memorandum of agreement. This memorandum of agreement shall be approved by the Board referred to in paragraph 6, and shall be signed by its chairperson.\nAny disputes relating to these pensions and involving former staff of the WEU shall be settled in accordance with paragraph 3.\n3. Any disputes between the WEU and any of its former staff members shall be subject to the dispute settlement rules of the WEU as in force on 30 June 2011.\nThe dispute settlement rules shall be updated by the Board referred to in paragraph 6 with a view to their implementation as from 1 July 2011 in the framework of the Centre.\nThe status of former WEU staff shall be governed by the WEU staff rules as in force on 30 June 2011, any applicable contracts, any other applicable WEU decision, and the WEU Social Plan.\n4. The administration of the WEU Social Plan shall take place in accordance with the Social Plan adopted by the WEU on 22 October 2010. It shall also be in accordance with any subsequent binding decision by the competent Appeals Board and with any decisions taken by the WEU or the Board referred to in paragraph 6, to implement such a decision.\n5. Assistance in the process of liquidation of the WEU's assets shall include the administration of any legal or financial issue arising from the closure of the WEU, performed under the guidance by the Board referred to in paragraph 6.\n6. Any decisions in relation to the tasks set out in this Article, including decisions by the Board referred to in this Article, shall be adopted unanimously by the Board composed of representatives of the Ten Member States. This configuration of the Board shall decide on how it is to be chaired by one of its members. The Director of the Centre or its representative may attend Board meetings in this configuration. The Board shall be convened by the Chairperson at least once a year or at the request of at least three of its members. Ad-hoc meetings of the Board may be convened at expert level in order to deal with specific subjects or issues. Decisions of the Board may be taken by written procedure.\n7. The Centre shall recruit the staff necessary to perform the tasks mentioned in paragraph 1. If any of the Ten Member State offers to second a person for this purpose, that person shall be recruited. If that is not the case, or if secondment does not allow to fill all the required posts, the necessary staff shall be contracted. The Centre's staff regulations shall be applicable, subject to the provisions of this Article.\n8. All items of expenditure resulting from and revenue related to the implementation of this Article shall be part of a separate budget of the Centre. This budget shall be drawn up for each financial year, which shall correspond to the calendar year, and shall be adopted by the Board referred to in paragraph 6, acting upon a proposal by its chairperson, by 1 September of each year. The revenue and expenditure shown in this budget shall be in balance. The budget shall include a list of the staff recruited to perform the tasks referred to in paragraph 7. The revenue shall consist of contributions from the Ten Member States, determined in accordance with the rules applicable to their contributions to the WEU as in force on 30 June 2011, and of miscellaneous revenue. With a view to building up a start-up fund of EUR 5,3 million, initial contributions amounting to 20 % of this sum shall be paid by 30 June 2011. The Board referred to in paragraph 6 shall adopt the necessary financial rules, drawing as much as possible on the financial rules of the Centre, and rules regarding control of the budget and discharge. Pending the adoption of such rules, the WEU rules shall apply.\n9. The Centre will conclude an agreement or administrative arrangement by 30 June 2011 with the WEU regarding the implementation of this Article, which shall be approved by the Board referred to in paragraph 6, and shall be signed by its chairperson.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["31", "81", "92", "16", "10", "51", "52", "27", "84", "6", "73", "41", "57", "62", "29", "36", "78", "98", "49", "68", "79", "77", "34", "82", "99", "30", "5", "17", "96", "38", "No Label", "3", "4", "7", "9", "40"], "gold": ["3", "4", "7", "9", "40"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 370/2011\nof 11 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 215/2008 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the 10th European Development Fund, as regards the European External Action Service\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1) as last amended in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, on 22 June 2010 (2),\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the financing of Community aid under the multiannual financial framework for the period 2008 to 2013 in accordance with the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement and on the allocation of financial assistance for the Overseas Countries and Territories to which Part Four of the EC Treaty applies (3) (\u2018the Internal Agreement\u2019) and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Court of Auditors (4),\nHaving consulted the European Investment Bank,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 215/2008 (5), lays down the rules for the establishment and financial implementation of the resources of the 10th European Development Fund (hereinafter \u2018EDF\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Treaty of Lisbon establishes a European External Action Service (hereinafter \u2018EEAS\u2019). In order to take into account the establishment of the EEAS, Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (6) (hereinafter the \u2018Financial Regulation\u2019) has been amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1081/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7). In order to provide for a stable legal framework for the implementation of the EDF and to take into account the establishment of the EEAS and amendments to the Financial Regulation, it is necessary to amend Regulation (EC) No 215/2008.\n(3)\nAccording to Council Decision 2010/427/EU of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (8), the EEAS is a service of a sui generis nature and should be treated as an institution for the purposes of the Financial Regulation.\n(4)\nThe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that Commission Delegations will become part of the EEAS as Union Delegations. It is necessary to ensure the continuity of the functioning of Union Delegations and in particular the continuity and efficiency in the management of EDF resources by the Delegations. Therefore the Commission should be authorised to sub-delegate its powers of implementation of EDF resources to Heads of Union Delegations belonging to EEAS as a separate institution. The authorising officers by delegation should continue to be responsible for the definition of internal management and control systems, while the Heads of Union Delegations should be responsible for the adequate setting up and functioning of internal management and control systems and for the management of the funds and the operations carried out within their Delegations. They should report twice a year to that effect. It is appropriate to provide for withdrawal of such delegation in accordance with the rules applicable to the Commission.\n(5)\nIn order to comply with the principle of sound financial management, Heads of Union Delegations, when acting as authorising officers by sub-delegation, should apply the Commission rules and should be subject to the same duties, obligations and accountability as any other authorising officers by sub-delegation. For those purposes, they should also refer to the Commission as their institution.\n(6)\nIn the context of discharge, given that the EEAS should be treated as an institution for the purposes of the Financial Regulation, the EEAS should be fully subject to the procedures provided for in Articles 142, 143 and 144 of Regulation (EC) No 215/2008. The EEAS should fully cooperate with institutions involved in the discharge procedure and provide, as appropriate, any additional necessary information, including through attendance at meetings of the relevant bodies. The Commission should remain responsible, in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 215/2008, for the implementation of EDF resources, including for EDF resources implemented by Heads of Union Delegations who are authorising officers by sub-delegation. In order to allow the Commission to fulfil its responsibilities, the Heads of Union Delegations should provide the necessary information. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter the \u2018High Representative\u2019) should be informed at the same time and should facilitate the cooperation between Union Delegations and Commission departments. Given the novelty of this structure, high standard provisions on transparency and financial accountability need to be applied.\n(7)\nThe accounting officer of the Commission should remain responsible for the entire implementation of EDF resources, including accounting operations relating to EDF resources sub-delegated to Heads of Union Delegations.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure coherence and equality of treatment between authorising officers by sub-delegation who are EEAS staff and those who are Commission staff, and to ensure that the Commission is properly informed, the special financial irregularities panel of the Commission should also be responsible for handling irregularities within the EEAS where the Commission has sub-delegated implementation powers to Heads of Union Delegations. Nevertheless, in order to maintain the link between financial management responsibility and disciplinary action, the Commission should be entitled to request the High Representative to initiate proceedings if the panel finds irregularities concerning those competencies of the Commission sub-delegated to the Heads of Union Delegations. In such a case the High Representative should take the appropriate action in accordance with the Staff Regulations.\n(9)\nIn order to ensure effective and efficient internal control Heads of Union Delegations should be subject to the verifying powers of the internal auditor of the Commission for the financial management sub-delegated to them.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure democratic scrutiny of the implementation of the EDF resources, Heads of Union Delegations should provide an assurance, together with a report including information on the efficiency and effectiveness of internal management and control systems in their delegation, as well as on the management of operations sub-delegated to them. The Heads of Union Delegations\u2019 reports should be annexed to the annual activity report of the responsible authorising officer by delegation and made available to the European Parliament and the Council.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 215/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 215/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 14(3), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Commission shall make available, in an appropriate manner, information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the EDF held by it when EDF resources are implemented on a centralised basis and directly by its departments or by Union Delegations in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 17, and information on the beneficiaries of funds as provided by the entities to which financial implementation tasks are delegated under other modes of management.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 17, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u2018However, the Commission may delegate its powers to implement EDF resources to the Heads of Union Delegations. It shall, at the same time, inform the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (High Representative) thereof. When Heads of Union Delegations act as authorising officers by sub-delegation, they shall apply the Commission rules for the implementation of EDF resources and shall be submitted to the same duties, obligations and accountability as any other authorising officer by sub-delegation.\nThe Commission may withdraw that delegation in accordance with its own rules.\nFor the purposes of the second paragraph, the High Representative shall take the measures necessary to facilitate the cooperation between Union Delegations and Commission departments.\nDetailed arrangements may be agreed between the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) in order to facilitate the implementation by Union Delegations of the resources foreseen for support expenditure linked to the EDF under Article 6 of the Internal Agreement. Those arrangements shall not contain any derogation from the provisions of this Regulation.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 25(1), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Where the Commission implements EDF resources on a centralised basis, implementation tasks shall be performed either directly, by its departments or by Union Delegations in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 17, or indirectly, in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article and with Articles 26 to 29.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 32, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. Where Heads of Union Delegations act as authorising officers by sub-delegation in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 17, they shall be subject to the Commission as the institution responsible for the definition, exercise, control and appraisal of their duties and responsibilities as authorising officers by sub-delegation. The Commission shall, at the same time, inform the High Representative thereof.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 38, second paragraph, the following sentence is added:\n\u2018The annual activity reports of the authorising officers by delegation shall also be made available to the European Parliament and the Council.\u2019;\n(6)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 38a\n1. Where Heads of Union Delegations act as authorising officers by sub-delegation in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 17, they shall cooperate closely with the Commission for the proper implementation of the funds, in order to ensure, in particular, the legality and regularity of financial transactions, the respect of the principle of sound financial management in the management of the funds and the effective protection of the financial interests of the Union.\nTo this effect, they shall take the measures necessary to prevent any situation susceptible to put at stake the responsibility of the Commission for the implementation of EDF resources sub-delegated to them as well as any conflict of priorities which is likely to have an impact on the implementation of the financial management tasks sub-delegated to them.\nWhere a situation or conflict of the type referred to in the second subparagraph arises, the Heads of Union Delegations shall inform the responsible Directors-General of the Commission and of the EEAS thereof without delay. Those Directors-General shall take appropriate steps to remedy the situation.\n2. If Heads of Union Delegations find themselves in a situation referred to in Article 37(4), they shall refer the matter to the specialised financial irregularities panel set up pursuant to Article 54(3). In the event of any illegal activity, fraud or corruption which may harm the interests of the Union, they shall inform the authorities and bodies designated by the applicable legislation.\n3. Heads of Union Delegations acting as authorising officers by sub-delegation in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 17 shall report to their authorising officer by delegation so that the latter can integrate their reports in his annual activity report referred to in Article 38. The reports of the Heads of Union Delegations shall include information on the efficiency and effectiveness of internal management and control systems put in place in their Delegation, as well as on the management of operations sub-delegated to them, and provide the assurance pursuant to Article 54(2a). These reports shall be annexed to the annual activity report of the authorising officer by delegation, and shall be made available to the European Parliament and the Council taking into account, where appropriate, their confidentiality.\nThe Heads of Union Delegations shall fully cooperate with institutions involved in the discharge procedure and provide, as appropriate, any additional necessary information. In this context, they may be requested to attend meetings of the relevant bodies and assist the responsible authorising officer by delegation.\n4. Heads of Union Delegations acting as authorising officers by sub-delegation in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 17 shall reply to any request by the authorising officer by delegation at its own request or, in the context of discharge, at the request of the European Parliament.\n5. The Commission shall ensure that sub-delegating powers are not detrimental to the discharge procedure, in accordance with Articles 142, 143 and 144.\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 39(1) the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018The accounting officer of the Commission shall remain responsible for the entire implementation of EDF resources, including accounting operations relating to EDF resources sub-delegated to Heads of Union Delegations.\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 54 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20182a. In the event of sub-delegation to the Heads of Union Delegations, the authorising officer by delegation shall be responsible for the definition of the internal management and control systems put in place, their efficiency and effectiveness. The Heads of Union Delegations shall be responsible for the adequate setting up and functioning of those systems, in accordance with the instructions of the authorising officer by delegation, and for the management of the funds and the operations they carry out within the Union Delegation under their responsibility. Before taking up their duties, they must complete specific training courses on the tasks and responsibilities of authorising officers and the implementation of EDF resources, in accordance with Article 37(3).\nHeads of Union Delegations shall report on their responsibilities pursuant to the first subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with Article 38a(3).\nEach year, Heads of Union Delegations provide to the authorising officer by delegation the assurance on the internal management and control systems put in place in their Delegation, as well as on the management of operations sub-delegated to them and the results thereof, in order to allow the authorising officer to establish his statement of assurance, as provided for in Article 38.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. Where Heads of Union Delegations act as authorising officers by sub-delegation in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 17, the specialised financial irregularities panel set up by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article shall be competent for cases referred to in that paragraph 3.\nIf the panel detects systemic problems, it shall send a report with recommendations to the authorising officer, the High Representative and to the authorising officer by delegation, provided the latter is not the person involved, as well as to the internal auditor.\nOn the basis of the opinion of the panel, the Commission may request the High Representative to initiate, in the High Representative\u2019s capacity as appointing authority, proceedings entailing liability to disciplinary action or to payment of compensation against authorising officers by sub-delegation if irregularities concern the competencies of the Commission sub-delegated to them. In such a case the High Representative will take appropriate action in accordance with the Staff Regulations in order to enforce decisions on disciplinary action and/or the payment of compensation, as recommended by the Commission.\nThe Member States shall fully support the Union in the enforcement of any liability under Article 22 of the Staff Regulations of temporary staff to whom Article 2, point (e), of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the Communities applies.\u2019;\n(9)\nin Article 89, the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018For the purposes of the internal auditing of the EEAS, Heads of Union Delegations, acting as authorising officers by sub-delegation in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 17 shall be subject to the verifying powers of the internal auditor of the Commission for the financial management sub-delegated to them.\u2019;\n(10)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 144a\nThe EEAS shall be fully subject to the procedures provided for in Articles 142, 143 and 144. The EEAS shall fully cooperate with the institutions involved in the discharge procedure and provide, as appropriate, any additional necessary information, including through attendance at meetings of the relevant bodies.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["29", "36", "19", "5", "48", "81", "27", "96", "85", "55", "59", "18", "98", "95", "43", "68", "41", "42", "39", "54", "64", "75", "69", "2", "80", "44", "79", "24", "23", "53", "No Label", "4", "7", "32", "33", "46"], "gold": ["4", "7", "32", "33", "46"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 717/2012\nof 6 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 August 2012.", "references": ["13", "42", "83", "47", "75", "44", "10", "17", "46", "97", "38", "27", "28", "64", "21", "16", "26", "32", "96", "25", "73", "86", "55", "9", "70", "6", "4", "0", "48", "60", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1054/2011\nof 20 October 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of October 2011 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 October 2011 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 October 2011 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 0,446549 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["82", "78", "85", "34", "62", "36", "58", "46", "0", "84", "64", "30", "55", "83", "28", "72", "13", "26", "14", "90", "33", "67", "50", "17", "52", "11", "88", "66", "80", "95", "No Label", "21", "22", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 8 July 2010\non emergency measures applicable to consignments of aquaculture products imported from India and intended for human consumption\n(notified under document C(2010) 4563)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/381/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1)(b)(ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 178/2002 lays down the general principles governing food and feed in general, and food and feed safety in particular, at Union and national level. It provides for emergency measures where it is evident that food or feed imported from a third country is likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment, and that such risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member State(s) concerned.\n(2)\nCouncil Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products (2) provides that the production process of animals and primary products of animal origin is to be monitored for the purpose of detecting the presence of certain residues and substances in live animals, their excrements and body fluids and in tissue, animal products, animal feed and drinking water.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2002/657/EC of 12 August 2002 implementing Council Directive 96/23/EC concerning the performance of analytical methods and the interpretation of results (3) provides rules for the analytical methods to be used in the testing of official samples taken pursuant to Directive 96/23/EC and specifies common criteria for the interpretation of analytical results of official control laboratories for such samples.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin (4) lays down rules and procedures for the classification of pharmacologically active substances and for establishing the maximum concentration of residues of such substances which may be permitted in food of animal origin.\n(5)\nIn addition, Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 lays down rules and procedures in order to establish the level of residues of a pharmacologically active substance for control reasons in the case of certain substances for which a maximum residue limit has not been laid down in accordance with that Regulation.\n(6)\nThe results of a Commission inspection to India in September 2009 have revealed shortcomings as regards the residue control system in aquaculture products and a lack of appropriate laboratory capacity for detecting certain pharmacologically active substances in such products, as required by Directive 96/23/EC and by Decision 2002/657/EC.\n(7)\nFollowing that inspection, India has submitted an action plan and guarantees addressing the recommendations in the inspection report. Pending the full implementation of that plan and of those guarantees, the risk remains that aquaculture products originating from India contain residues of certain pharmacologically active substances. Further measures are therefore required at Union level to minimise that risk.\n(8)\nCommission Decision 2009/727/EC of 30 September 2009 on emergency measures applicable to crustaceans imported from India and intended for human consumption or animal feed (5) already provides that consignments of crustaceans of aquaculture origin introduced from India and intended for human consumption or animal feed are to be tested for the presence of nitrofurans or their metabolites before they are imported into the Union. In addition, in aquaculture products other than crustaceans, chloramphenicol and tetracyclines are also known to be used in India.\n(9)\nSince the adoption of Decision 2009/727/EC, the number of positive findings of nitrofurans or their metabolites in crustaceans reported by the Member States has decreased. Therefore, it is appropriate to adopt measures similar to those laid down in that Decision in respect of all aquaculture products imported from India and intended for human consumption.\n(10)\nIn addition a significant proportion of the aquaculture products imported from India should undergo mandatory testing by the Member States for the detection of pharmacology active substances as defined in Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 before those products are placed on the market. The results of that mandatory testing should provide more accurate information on the actual contamination of aquaculture products originating from India with those residues. The testing should also deter producers in India from misusing those substances.\n(11)\nIt is appropriate that Member States notify the Commission of the results of the tests performed, where the presence of the concerned pharmacologically active substances not authorised for use in food producing animals, or exceeding the maximum residue limits laid down in Union law, is revealed. Member States should also regularly submit reports on all the tests carried out by them.\n(12)\nThe scope of this Decision also includes crustaceans of aquaculture origin currently covered by Decision 2009/727/EC. Accordingly, in the interest of clarity and consistency of Union legislation, that Decision should be repealed.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThis Decision shall apply to the importation of consignments of aquaculture products from India intended for human consumption (\u2018consignments\u2019).\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall authorise the importation into the Union of consignments provided that they are accompanied by the results of an analytical test carried out at the place of origin to ensure that they do not present a danger to human health.\nThe analytical test must have been carried out on an official sample, in particular with a view to detecting the presence of chloramphenicol, tetracycline, oxytetracycline and chlortetracycline and of metabolites of nitrofurans.\nThose samples must have been analysed using analytical methods in conformity with Articles 3 and 4 of Decision 2002/657/EC.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States shall authorise the importation of consignments that are not accompanied by the results of an analytical test provided that the importing Member State ensures that each consignment undergoes such analytical tests for the detection of chloramphenicol, tetracycline, oxytetracycline, chlortetracycline and of metabolites of nitrofurans on arrival.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall, by using appropriate sampling plans, ensure that official samples are taken from at least 20 % of consignments presented for import at border inspection posts on their territory.\n2. The official samples taken pursuant to paragraph 1 shall undergo analytical tests for the detection of residues of pharmacologically active substances as defined in Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009, and in particular of chloramphenicol, tetracycline, oxytetracycline, chlortetracycline and of metabolites of nitrofurans.\nArticle 4\nThe consignments from which official samples have been taken pursuant to Articles 2(2) and 3(1) shall be kept under official detention by the competent authority of the Member State concerned, until the analytical tests have been completed.\nThose consignments may be placed on the market only if the results of the analytical tests confirm that they comply with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\nArticle 5\n1. Member States shall immediately inform the Commission of the results of the analytical tests if those tests reveal the presence of residues of any pharmacologically active substance:\n(a)\nclassified in accordance with Article 14(2)(a), (b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 at a level exceeding the maximum residue limit established pursuant to that Regulation; or\n(b)\nnot classified in accordance with Article 14(2)(a), (b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009; however, the Member State concerned is not required to immediately inform the Commission of the results of such tests where the level of residues is lower than:\n(i)\nthe reference point for action established for that substance pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009; or\n(ii)\nthe minimum required performance limit established for that substance pursuant to Decision 2002/657/EC.\nThe results of those analytical tests shall be notified to the Commission under the rapid alert system established pursuant to Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.\n2. Every three months Member States shall submit to the Commission a report on all the results of the analytical tests carried out on the consignments in the previous three months.\nThe first report shall be submitted to the Commission by 1 October 2010.\nArticle 6\nAll expenditure incurred in the application of this Decision shall be charged to the consignor, the consignee or the agent of either the consignor or the consignee.\nArticle 7\nDecision 2009/727/EC is repealed.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 July 2010.", "references": ["36", "0", "57", "14", "48", "55", "92", "73", "26", "11", "37", "90", "94", "97", "75", "4", "40", "35", "15", "74", "70", "10", "54", "64", "24", "80", "31", "16", "85", "41", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "38", "66", "67", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "38", "66", "67", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 629/2011\nof 28 June 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 625/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2011.", "references": ["62", "45", "73", "87", "5", "23", "38", "36", "7", "21", "16", "18", "85", "14", "65", "78", "74", "48", "28", "64", "53", "15", "50", "47", "76", "88", "52", "77", "44", "57", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 May 2011\non State aid to certain Greek casinos C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by the Hellenic Republic\n(notified under document C(2011) 3504)\n(Only the Greek text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/716/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of the Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular to the Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called upon interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 8 July 2009 the Consortium Loutraki SA - Club Hotel Loutraki SA (2) (the \u2018complainant\u2019 or \u2018Loutraki\u2019) lodged with the European Commission (the \u2018Commission\u2019) a complaint concerning Greek legislation on a system of levies on admissions to casinos, alleging that such system provided State aid to three operators, namely Regency Casino de Mont Parn\u00e8s, Corfu Casino and Casino Thessaloniki (3). By e-mail message of 7 October 2009 the complainant stated that it did not object to the disclosure of its identity. On 14 October 2009 the Commission services met representatives of the complainant. By letter of 26 October 2009 the complainant provided further elements in support of its complaint.\n(2)\nOn 21 October 2009 the Commission communicated the complaint to Greece and invited Greece to clarify the issues it brought forward. By letter dated 17 November 2009 Greece requested further time to respond, which was granted by the Commission by e-mail message of 18 November 2009. On 27 November 2009 Greece replied to the Commission.\n(3)\nOn 15 December 2009 the Commission forwarded the reply of Greece to the complainant. The complainant replied on 29 December 2009 with observations on the reply of Greece.\n(4)\nOn 25 February, 4 and 23 March and 13 April 2010, the Commission requested further information from Greece, to which Greece replied on 10 March, 1 and 21 April 2010.\n(5)\nBy decision of 6 July 2010 (hereinafter the \u2018Opening Decision\u2019), the Commission informed Greece that it initiated the formal investigation procedure set forth in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in regard of the measure implemented by Greece, specifically the charging of lower tax on admissions in certain casinos. The Opening Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), inviting interested parties to submit their comments.\n(6)\nBy letter of 9 August 2010 Greece requested an extension of the deadline to respond, which was granted by the Commission by letter of 18 August 2010. By letter of 6 October 2010 the Commission received comments from Greece on the Opening Decision. On 12 October 2010 the Greek authorities submitted additional information regarding the contested measure.\n(7)\nFollowing the opening of the procedure, the Commission received observations from two interested parties: the representatives of the beneficiary casino of Mont Parn\u00e8s, reacted to the opening by letter of 4 August 2010; the representatives of the private Loutraki casino reacted to the opening by letters of 8 and 25 October 2010.\n(8)\nBy letter of 29 October 2010, the Commission forwarded the abovementioned observations to the Greek authorities, in order to give them with the opportunity to react. By letter of 6 December 2010 the Greek authorities presented their comments to third parties\u2019 observations, in order to clarify, inter alia, certain aspects of the application of the subject-scheme and the interpretation of the Greek legislation relevant to the analysis of the case.\nII. THE MEASURE CONCERNED\nII.1. The measure\n(9)\nThe measure under assessment is the fiscal discrimination that the Greek authorities have put into place in favour of certain casinos through the implementation of several simultaneous partially mandatory legal provisions (5) concerning:\n-\nthe fixing of a uniform 80 % levy on the price of admission tickets, and\n-\nthe setting of two unequal regulated prices of admission tickets at EUR 6 and EUR 15 respectively for publicly and privately owned casinos,\nthereby placing the latter at a competitive disadvantage.\n(10)\nThe measure under assessment concerns public casinos and one private casino (Thessaloniki), which was exceptionally allowed to benefit from the treatment of public casinos, as further described herein below.\nII.2. The beneficiaries\n(11)\nThe beneficiaries of the measure under analysis are the following Greek casinos: Mont Parn\u00e8s (6), Thessaloniki (7), Corfu (8) and Rhodes (9).\n(12)\nAt the time of the Opening Decision, the lower regulated price of admission tickets of EUR 6 only applied to three Greek casinos: Mont Parn\u00e8s Casino (casino privatised by 49 %, whereas 51 % of shares are still held by the State), Thessaloniki Casino (private casino, but assimilated to public casinos) and Corfu Casino (public casino). The Commission notes that the Rhodes Casino and the Corfu Casino ceased benefiting from the measure in April 1999 (10) and August 2010 (11) respectively, since they stopped charging the lower price for admission tickets at that respective moment in time when they were fully privatised.\nII.3. The relevant national provisions\n(13)\nBefore the opening of the market in 1994, only three casinos operated in Greece, namely the casinos of Mont Parn\u00e8s, Corfu, and Rhodes. At that time, these casinos were public undertakings and operated as State-owned service-clubs of the Greek Tourism Office (EOT) (12). The price of admission tickets in these casinos was set by way of decisions of the General Secretary of the EOT (13), as follows:\n-\nMont Parn\u00e8s - in 1991 EOT set the price of admission tickets at 2 000 drachmas (approximately EUR 6 (14));\n-\nCorfu - in 1992 EOT set the price of admission tickets at 1 500 drachmas and it 1997 it adjusted it to 2 000 drachmas;\n-\nRhodes - in 1992 EOT set the price of admission tickets at 1 500 drachmas.\n(14)\nThe market was opened in 1994, when 6 newly created private casinos joined the existing State owned casinos based on the Law 2206/1994 (15). The Law of 1994 provided for the granting of a total of 14 licenses aimed at the existing 3 State owned casinos of Rhodes, Mont Parn\u00e8s and Corfu, and 11 newly created private casinos (16). However only 6 of the 11 new private casinos were licensed and began operating, namely the casinos in Chalcidice, Loutraki, Thessaloniki, Achaia (Rio), Xanthi (Thrace) and Syros (during 1995-96), and the remaining 5 licenses were abolished.\n(15)\nLaw 2206/1994 (Article 2(10)) provided that the price of admission tickets to the casinos in certain areas would be set by Ministerial Decision, and that the same Decision would determine the percentage of the price that would represent revenue to the Greek State. Indeed on 16.11.1995 a Ministerial Decision (17) of the Minister for Finance established that, from 15 December 1995 all operators of casinos under Law 2206/1994 (18) must charge a price for admission tickets of 5 000 drachmas (19) (approximately EUR 15 (20)). According to this Ministerial Decision, these casino enterprises are further subject to a legal obligation to pay 80 % of the face value of each ticket as public levy to the State, while the remaining 20 %, including the appropriate VAT, constitute revenue for the casino (21). The Ministerial Decision provides that casinos may grant free entrance (22). Nevertheless in all cases, all casinos are under the obligation to pay the respective 80 % of the regulated price to the State, regardless of what they actually charge consumers (23). According to the Ministerial Decision, the payments of \u2018public fees\u2019 are performed by each casino on a monthly basis (24). The Ministerial Decision also provides for specified discounts for tickets valid for 15 or 30 days (25).\n(16)\nAll the new private casinos created (since 1995) under the Law 2206/1994 implemented the Ministerial Decision of 1995 and applied- in principle, as described in the previous paragraph - the EUR 15 price for admission tickets, with the only exception of the Thessaloniki Casino (as further described below).\n(17)\nHowever, the State owned casinos of Mont Parn\u00e8s, Corfu and Rhodes continued to operate as service clubs of EOT (26) and did not implemented the acts of 1994-95 until the later granting of the licence provided by the Law 2206/1994.\n(18)\nAccording to the various observations and descriptions of the national provisions presented by the Greek authorities, the Commission understands that the system worked in practice as follows:\n(19)\nThe Greek authorities explained that the operation of casinos in Greece is governed, generally, by Law 2206/1994. The special provisions applicable to the public casinos which existed prior to this Law are considered exceptions from the application of the general provisions of the Law 2206/1994 (and the implementing Ministerial Decision of 1995), pending the privatisation of these public casinos and the issuance of the licenses envisaged in the Law.\n(20)\nConsequently, the Ministerial Decision of 1995 was not deemed to apply to the public casinos until the date they were licensed under Law 2206/1994 - either as concerns the standard admission price of EUR 15, or as concerns the requirement to remit to the State 80 % of that price. The public casinos began paying the relevant 80 % only upon the later granting of the license under the Law 2206/1994 (as described below - paragraphs 23 and following). However, since for the public casinos the price of admission tickets exceptionally remained at the level of EUR 6, as the already in force decisions of the EOT (setting the prices at EUR 6) were considered special derogatory provisions (pre-existing lex specialis) which were unaffected by the general provisions of the Law 2206/1994 and the Ministerial Decision of 1995, they only paid 80 % of EUR 6. The EOT decisions were only deemed inapplicable when the casinos were no longer fully owned by the State, after their respective privatisation. It is only further to that that the casinos then passed to the standard price of admission tickets of EUR 15 and the obligation to pay 80 % of EUR 15 as levy to the State.\n(21)\nAn exception to what appears that it should have been the rule is the partial privatisation of the Mont Parn\u00e8s casino, confirmed by the Law 3139/2003 (which also provided for the later foreseen privatisation of Corfu) that explicitly stipulated that the price of admission tickets in Mont Parn\u00e8s casino would remain at EUR 6.\n(22)\nIn 2000 EOT was succeeded in the operation of the casinos of Mont Parn\u00e8s and Corfu by the Hellenic Tourism Company (ETA), fully owned by the Greek State, and from the end of 2000 and until their licensing under Law 2206/1994 in 2003, ETA started (27), voluntarily in the beginning and later by virtue of Article 24 of Law 2919/2001, to adapt gradually to the obligations set for casinos by Law 2206/1994, in order to prepare both these formerly State owned casino clubs to be fully licensed as casinos and be privatised. During this transition period ETA, inter alia, remitted to the State 80 % of the EUR 6 price of admission tickets in Mont Parn\u00e8s and Corfu.\n(23)\nIn particular, in 2003 the State owned casino of Mont Parn\u00e8s was converted into a limited company and 49 % of its capital disposed to the private sector (28). The license for the Casino Mont Parn\u00e8s provided for in Law 2206/1994 was finally granted in 2003 under Law 3139/2003 (Article 1(1)). The same law kept the admission price in Mont Parn\u00e8s at EUR 6 (Article 1(1)(vii)).\n(24)\nIn the case of Corfu casino, the license provided for in Law 2206/1994 was initially granted to ETA in 2003 under Law 3139/2003 (Article 1(3)) in order for ETA to contribute it upon its later privatisation. The same provision stated that the admission price to the casino of Corfu would be set by a new ministerial decision, implying in other words that the Ministerial Decision of 1995 was not applicable. According to the Commission\u2019s information, no new ministerial decision has been issued and the casino of Corfu continued to charge EUR 6 until its privatisation in August 2010 (29), when it started applying the EUR 15 price of admission tickets.\n(25)\nIn the case of Rhodes casino, the license under Law 2206/1994 was issued in 1996 by virtue of ministerial decision \u03a4/633/29.5.1996. However the casino continued to apply the reduced price of admission tickets until 1999, passing to EUR 15 only after the privatisation which took place in April 1999 (as until its privatisation it operated under the control of EOT - and thus applied the EOT decision of 1992 (30) which set the price of admission tickets to the Rhodes Casinos at 1 500 drachmas).\n(26)\nThe privately owned Thessaloniki casino was incorporated and licensed in 1995 under Law 2206/1994 (31). Until the present date, it has been applying the reduced EUR 6 price of admission tickets applied by the State-owned casinos (in Mont Parn\u00e8s and Corfu) by virtue of the Law 2687/1953 (32) providing that enterprises constituted with foreign investment enjoy treatment at least as favourable as the one applicable to other similar enterprises in the country (33). Even later on, when the issue was further raised, the management of the Casino (i.e. Hyatt Regency) asked the price of admission tickets in Thessaloniki casino to be set at the same level as that of the Casino Mont Parn\u00e8s, i.e. at EUR 6. This request was accepted, following an opinion from the Greek Legal Council of State (Opinion 631/1997/EC). The requirement to remit to the State 80 % of the face value of admission tickets was applicable to the casino of Thessaloniki since the issuance of its license in 1995 (34).\nIII. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE\n(27)\nThe Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) expressing significant doubts about the discriminatory fiscal treatment in favour of several specifically identified casinos in Greece that benefit from a more advantageous taxation than the one to which the rest of the casinos in the country are subject.\n(28)\nThe Commission considered that the contested measure departed from the general Greek legal provisions establishing the normal level of levies on admissions in casinos and therefore improved the competitive position of the beneficiaries.\n(29)\nThe Commission observed that the contested measure appeared to constitute a loss of State resources for the Greek State, and it provided an advantage to the lower priced casinos. In response to the argument by the Greek authorities that the direct beneficiary of a lower price of admission tickets is the customer, the Commission observed that subsidies to consumers can constitute State aid to enterprises when the subsidy is conditional on the use of a particular good or service from a particular undertaking (35).\n(30)\nThe Commission also observed that the level of taxation did not appear to be set according to the circumstances of each individual casino (36), and it provisionally concluded that the measure is selective (37).\n(31)\nThe Commission found the contested measure was liable to distort competition between casinos in Greece, as well as in the market of European business acquisition. The Commission noted that it fully respects the right of Member States to regulate gambling on their territory subject to EU law, but cannot accept that these arguments deprive the measure at issue of any effect of distortion of competition or on trade between Member States. The operators in the sector are often international hotel groups, whose decision to invest could be affected by the measure, and in fact casinos may act as an attraction to tourists to visit Greece. The Commission therefore concluded that the measure is capable of distorting competition and affecting trade between Member States (38).\n(32)\nThe Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that the measure constitutes unlawful aid, since it had been implemented by the Greek authorities without the prior approval of the Commission, and therefore subject to the application of Article 15 of the Procedural Regulation as regards recovery (39).\n(33)\nThe Commission did not identify any grounds for considering the contested measure compatible with the internal market since it was considered to represent undue operating aid to the beneficiary casinos (40).\n(34)\nThe Commission finally observed that if its doubts that the measure contains incompatible State aid are confirmed, then pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Procedural Regulation it would be obliged to order its recovery by Greece from the beneficiaries, unless this would be contrary to a general principle of law (41).\nIV. COMMENTS FROM THE GREEK AUTHORITIES AND THE INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES\n(35)\nDuring the formal investigation procedure, the Commission received comments from Greece, from the representative of the company \u2018Elliniko Kazino Parnithas A.E.\u2019 (\u2018Mont Parn\u00e8s\u2019), and from the representatives of the private Loutraki casino (\u2018Loutraki\u2019).\nIV.1. Comments from Greece and from Mont Parn\u00e8s\n(36)\nAs the comments received from the representative of the beneficiary casino of Mont Parn\u00e8s are essentially identical with the comments received from the Greek authorities, their summary has been presented together under this Section.\nIV.1.1. On the presence of aid\n(37)\nBoth the Greek authorities and Mont Parn\u00e8s contest the existence of State aid. They both argue on the grounds that the State does not forgo any revenue (or that if it does, then the casinos do not gain any advantage).\n(38)\nThe Greek authorities argue that the price differentiation is only a price regulation issue, since the tax raised is a uniform proportion of the respective value of the price of admission tickets issued.\n(39)\nAccording to the Greek authorities, the objective of the setting of a price of admission tickets and the payment to the State is not to raise revenue for the State but to discourage persons of low income from gambling. The fact that the practice of admission tickets also results in public revenues does not alter its nature as a control measure. Thus, the imposition of a price of admission tickets on casino customers entering the gaming area of casinos is regarded by the Greek authorities as constituting an onerous administrative control measure, which however lacks the character of a tax and cannot be regarded as a tax burden according to Judgement No 4027/1998 of the Council of State (the supreme administrative court of Greece) (42).\n(40)\nAs for the differences between the prices of different casinos, Greece argues that the economic and social circumstances of the various casinos are different and not comparable. The Greek authorities contend that the distinction between charges is justified on public policy grounds, including that \u2018the conditions applying to each casino, justify and are fully in line with the practice of setting a different ticket price for casinos located near large urban centres \u2026 and for casinos in the countryside \u2026 which is mainly inhabited by rural populations who - in their majority - have lower incomes and educational levels and are more in need of being discouraged from playing games of chance than the inhabitants of urban areas\u2019.\n(41)\nOn the observation of the complainant (Loutraki) that the price of admission tickets for the casino of Corfu changed from EUR 6 to EUR 15 when it was privatised in 2010, which rather contradicts the public policy arguments, the Greek authorities respond that the remote geographical location of the island of Corfu makes it uncompetitive compared to all other Greek casinos (therefore it does not distort competition). The authorities further argue that it is imperative to make the price of admission tickets dissuasive for the sake of protecting the inhabitants of Corfu, because the change in the operating conditions of the casino following privatisation will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in its operating hours, its activities in general and its attractiveness.\n(42)\nThe Greek authorities and Mont Parn\u00e8s contend that should there be an advantage to lower priced casinos (because they attract more customers) then by the same token there is no loss of State resources. Furthermore, it is not certain that with a higher ticket price these alleged beneficiaries would generate more revenue for the State, and the alleged loss of revenues is therefore hypothetical. The Greek authorities and Mont Parn\u00e8s also point out that the benefit of the lower price of admission tickets is received by the customer, and that the proportion of the price kept by the casino is a higher amount in the casinos with a EUR 15 admission, which is therefore a benefit to them.\n(43)\nThe Greek authorities and Mont Parn\u00e8s also maintain that there is no effect on competition/trade on the basis that each casino serves a local market. They dispute the possibility of competition with other forms of gambling cited in the Opening Decision, noting that Internet gambling is currently illegal in Greece.\n(44)\nThe authorities and Mont Parn\u00e8s also contend that even if the view were taken that the reduced price of admission tickets of EUR 6 might have influenced or may influence the decision of a foreign company to invest in a casino business in Greece, the foreign company could always avail itself of Law 2687/1953, as did the company Hyatt Regency Hotels and Tourism (Thessaloniki) S.A. in the case of the Thessaloniki casino.\n(45)\nAs regards the allegations of complainant that the beneficiaries are able to grant admission gratuitously, while the 80 % contribution still has to be paid and which therefore illustrates most clearly the aid character of the measure, the Greek authorities claim that the practice is \u2018exceptional\u2019, as casinos allegedly make use of this exception to offer free admission (as a courtesy) mainly to VIPs or famous customers and as this practice is contrary to tax law (Law 2238/1994), since the expenditure from paying 80 % of the ticket price to the State from own resources is not recognised as productive expenditure and cannot be deducted from the company\u2019s revenues (which would expose the company applying this practice to substantial tax burdens).\n(46)\nThe authorities and Mont Parn\u00e8s further draw the attention of the Commission to other differences between casinos in terms of various fiscal/regulatory measures. Thus, these differences which allegedly favour Loutraki (the complainant) would counter-balance the advantages that the beneficiaries enjoy due to the lower price of admission tickets. The main measure invoked is that each casino pays a proportion of annual gross profits to the State but under the law the proportion is lower for Loutraki than for others. On this point however, the Commission firstly observes that these other measures invoked by the Greek authorities and Mont Parn\u00e8s, in case of existence, might constitute a separate aid measure in favour of Loutraki, if all conditions provided by the applicable EU State aid law are met. In any event these measures are distinct from the measure under assessment and therefore they are not covered by the present Decision.\n(47)\nFinally, Greece has indicated that it is examining a potential change of the pricing policy of casinos, in order to eliminate discriminations between casinos. However, it has not yet informed the Commission of the implementation of any such change.\n(48)\nThe Greek authorities and Mont Parn\u00e8s did not submit any observations concerning the compatibility and the legality of the aid.\nIV.1.2. On the quantification and recovery of the aid\n(49)\nThe Greek Authorities and Mont Parn\u00e8s contend by way of subsidiary argument that even if it were found that the measure under assessment is unlawful and incompatible State aid, any recovery of that aid would run counter to:\n-\nThe principle of reasonable confidence of the subject of administration: the issue of the price of admission tickets to the casinos, and particularly the extent to which this price of admission tickets is a financial burden on the casinos, was brought before the Council of State approximately 15 years ago (43). The Council of State ruled, under national law, that the price of admission tickets did not have a fiscal nature, which indirectly shows that it was not a financial burden on the casinos. Therefore, the beneficiary casinos could reasonably base their conduct on the assumption that there could be no question of State aid arising from differentiation in these prices, which are not considered a financial burden under national law.\n-\nThe principle that a right should not be exercised abusively: the Greek authorities and Mont Parn\u00e8s contend that because Loutraki only lodged a complaint with the Commission 15 years after the adoption of the measure in dispute (in 1995), it is an abusive exercise of its right to have recourse to the Commission to seek the defence of its interests (and rights) arising from the provisions on State aid in the TFEU.\n(50)\nOn the calculation of the amount to be recovered, the Greek authorities and Mont Parn\u00e8s contest the calculation proposed by Loutraki (difference in tax levied per customer between the higher priced and lower priced casinos, multiplied by the number of customers entering the beneficiary casinos). Such calculation would be flawed and arbitrary as it is not certain that with a higher ticket price the alleged beneficiary casinos of Mont Parn\u00e8s, Thessaloniki and Corfu (44) would have the same amount of clientele.\nIV.2. Comments from Loutraki\n(51)\nLoutraki argues that the measures provided by national legal provisions constitute a fiscal discrimination in favour of certain casinos insofar as the requirement to remit to the State the uniform 80 % levy on admission in casinos applies to a different tax basis - the two different admission prices set by the State. As the admission price for the beneficiary casinos is significantly inferior to that of the other casinos (EUR 6 instead of EUR 15), this constitutes a loss of revenues for the State and thus amounts to State aid, in light of the distortion of competition it creates.\n(52)\nLoutraki further argues that the measure is not objectively justified, as the imposition of a lower price of admission tickets in the beneficiary casinos is actually contrary to the social objective and the justification and characteristics of the setting of a price of admission tickets to casinos as described by the Judgement No 4027/1998 of the Greek Council of State. Loutraki contends that it cannot be reasonably argued that administrative control and social protection could be achieved by different prices of admission tickets - in casino Mont Parn\u00e8s, only ca. 20 km from Athens city centre, by a ticket of EUR 6 while in casino Loutraki, ca. 85 km from Athens city centre, by a ticket of EUR 15, or respectively, in casino Thessaloniki, only ca. 8 km from Thessaloniki city centre (also at EUR 6), as opposed to casino Chalcidice, ca. 120 km from Thessaloniki city centre (at EUR 15).\n(53)\nLoutraki observes that, although Greece had previously argued that the reduced price of admission tickets of EUR 6 is justified in consideration of special circumstances applicable to each beneficiary casino, mainly related to the geographical situation of each casino (which determines certain economic, social, demographic and other specificities), nevertheless, in August 2010, the Corfu Casino passed to EUR 15 upon its privatisation, without any explanation as to why the abovementioned special circumstances no longer applied.\n(54)\nOn the quantification of the amount to be recovered, Loutraki maintains that this amount is the difference in tax levied per customer multiplied by the number of customers entering the beneficiary casinos.\n(55)\nAs concerns the separate measures invoked by Greece and Mont Parn\u00e8s, which would allegedly favour Loutraki (mainly that Loutraki would pay a lower proportion of annual gross profits to the State as compared to other casinos), Loutraki sustains that in practice it has paid the same amount as its competitors under a separate agreement with the authorities.\nV. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE\n(56)\nThe measure under assessment is the fiscal discrimination that the Greek authorities have put into place in favour of certain casinos through the implementation of simultaneous legal provisions (45) concerning both the fixing of a uniform 80 % levy on the price of admission tickets in casinos, and the setting of two unequal regulated prices of admission tickets at EUR 6 and EUR 15 respectively for publicly and privately owned casinos, thereby placing the latter at a competitive disadvantage (46).\nV.1. Presence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU\n(57)\nIn order to ascertain whether a measure constitutes a State aid caught by the provisions of the TFEU, the Commission has to assess whether it fulfils the conditions of its Article 107(1). This Article states that \u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(58)\nThe Commission will assess hereunder whether the contested measure fulfils the four cumulative conditions to constitute a State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\nV.1.1. Presence of advantage\n(59)\nIn order to constitute State aid, a measure must confer on beneficiaries an advantage which relieves them of charges that are normally borne from their budgets.\n(60)\nRegarding this, the Greek authorities argued, firstly, that, as the level of the contribution that all casinos operating in Greece must pay to the State is uniform (i.e. 80 % of the value of each admission ticket), whereas the element of difference in treatment comes from the pricing policy set in 1994-95 by legal provisions (setting the level of the price of admission tickets at EUR 15 for casinos to be licensed under the provisions of Law 2206/1994), such measure may not be covered by State aid rules.\n(61)\nThe Greek authorities also contended that the admission charge constitutes only a measure of administrative control, without having a fiscal character since, as, according to the Decision of the Greek Council of State 4025/1998 (the supreme administrative court), the setting of a price of admission tickets in casinos has a social character and does not constitute a tax measure.\n(62)\nIt should however be noted first that the setting of prices by the Law 2206/1994 may not be easily qualified as a typical pricing policy, since all casinos appear to be free to charge consumers a lower price of admission tickets, or even grant free admission, though in all cases they remain subject to the obligation to pay to the State 80 % of the respective value of the admission tickets issued, regardless of what was actually charged to the consumers.\n(63)\nAnyway, in applying the EU rules on State aid, it is irrelevant whether the measure under assessment is of a pricing or tax nature, since Article 107 of the TFEU applies to aid measures \u2018in any form whatsoever\u2019 that provide an advantage. The fact that its primary aim was not to generate fiscal revenues is not in itself sufficient to allow such a measure to escape the qualification of State aid.\n(64)\nEven admitting that the setting of a price of admission tickets in casinos may have a social objective, the question of whether it constitutes an advantage amounting to State aid must be assessed in terms of effects, at the level of individual companies with a view to determining whether some companies contribute less to public revenues. The fact that the exemption from the application of the general price of admission tickets of EUR 15 was granted individually to specific casinos, and in particular the fact that the levy of 80 % is to be paid to the State on the basis of the lower price which those casinos must - in principle (see above) ask, shows that an advantage is granted to those casinos.\n(65)\nThe Commission recognises the right of Member States to define under national law the qualification of a measure as being of a tax nature or otherwise. The Commission\u2019s assessment is not in any way directed at interpreting national law. However, the measure has the effect of enabling a regular continuous payment to the State of 80 % of the correspondent price of all the admission tickets issued by each casino. Additionally, the Commission observes that according to national law (in particular the Law 2206/1994 and the Ministerial Decision of 1995), the respective amounts are deposited with the competent income tax office (47). In consideration of the above, and without it affecting in any way the qualification of the measure under national law, the Commission observes that the measure under assessment has effects similar to those of a fiscal measure. Therefore, for the sole purposes of this Decision and insofar as its assessment under EU State aid law is concerned, the Commission shall refer to the measure as a \u2018fiscal measure\u2019 or a \u2018tax\u2019 in the current Decision.\n(66)\nThe measure under assessment, namely the fiscal discrimination produced by the joint effect of a uniform admission tax applied to unequal regulated prices of admission tickets, is placing the casinos owned by the State in Greece at an advantage over those privately owned. The joint effect of the two State actions makes that, while the privately owned casinos must pay to the State an admission tax of EUR 12 (80 % \u00d7 15) per person, the casinos owned by the State only pay EUR 4,8 (80 % \u00d7 6) (48).\n(67)\nBy this measure the Greek State relieves the public casinos from a burden that otherwise they should bear if a non-discriminatory and competitive-neutral taxation were enforced. This non-discriminatory and competitive neutral taxation was, in principle, established in Greece by Law 2206/1994 on the creation, organisation, functioning and control of casinos which set at EUR 15 the price of admission tickets and at 80 % of that level the admission tax burden due to the State. However, by not enforcing this non-discriminatory and competitive neutral taxation in respect of the public casinos (and the assimilated private casino of Thessaloniki) and instead allowing them to pay only EUR 4,8 as admission tax, the Greek State has favoured these undertakings. These casinos have effectively paid a lower fiscal burden per person out of their respective total income. The Commission notes that this total income includes not only their admissions revenue (revenues made solely from the price of admission tickets), but also that from their other sources of income, such as gambling, accommodation, bar and restaurant services, shows etc. (total revenues).\n(68)\nIt is settled case-law that the concept of aid includes not only positive benefits, but also measures which, in various forms, mitigate the charges normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which, therefore, without being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in nature and have the same effect (49). The advantage may be provided through a reduction in the undertaking\u2019s tax burden in various ways, including a reduction in the tax base.\n(69)\nIn this case, the casinos Corfu, Mont Parn\u00e8s and Thessaloniki (as well as Rhodes casino, until 1999 (50)), benefit from an advantage similar to a reduction in the tax base, since, as previously explained, ad hoc provisions specific to these casinos set the tax which they must pay per admission at a lower level compared to that imposed on other casinos.\n(70)\nThe Greek authorities observed that the direct beneficiary of a lower tax burden is the customer. However, even if it could be argued that the customer is also a beneficiary of a reduced tax burden per admission, since he pays a total lower price, this fact does not preclude the measure from providing an advantage to the relevant undertakings, in this case the beneficiary casinos, since they have to pay a lower amount of fiscal charges per customer received.\n(71)\nIn fact, as shown in fiscal cases, derogations from taxes nominally paid by the consumer but collected by the supplier may potentially constitute State aid, as may other incentives to consumers to purchase particular products and services (51).\n(72)\nIn line with past practice (52), the Commission believes that reductions in taxes on consumers can constitute State aid to undertakings when the reduction is conditional on the use of a particular good or service from a particular undertaking. The argument that the direct beneficiary is the customer is not therefore an obstacle to a finding of State aid.\n(73)\nFurthermore, given the customary commercial practice followed by casinos in Greece to waive the price of the admission tickets while paying to the State the admission tax (80 % of the face value of the admission tickets), the advantageous effect of the fiscal discrimination in favour of the public casinos is further reinforced, since the cost of the admission is notably higher for the private casinos with a higher admission tax of EUR 12 than for the public ones that only have to finance EUR 4,8 out of total revenue of their business.\n(74)\nThe Greek authorities claimed that the practice of the beneficiary casinos of granting free admission on certain week days is exceptional. It remains the case that it is specifically provided for in the national law (Ministerial Decree of 1995). The Commission has evidence that, contrary to the argument made by Greece that such a practice is reserved for VIPs or famous customers, according to publicly available information (for example, leaflets offering free access distributed in newspapers and on the Internet), free admission is granted to any and all customers, on certain days a week, every week, as a customary practice (e.g. Thessaloniki Casino, advertises on its Internet page that it grants continuous free admission from Sunday to Thursday (53)). The practice of free admission does not appear to be exceptional among the beneficiary casinos.\n(75)\nAs concerns the argument made by Greece that this practice is contrary to national tax law, the Commission reminds that the permission to grant free entrance is expressly provided for in the national law concerning casinos, and it manifestly is applied by the beneficiary casinos.\n(76)\nAs to the argument that the expenditure from paying 80 % of the ticket price to the State from own resources is not recognised as productive expenditure and cannot be deducted from the company\u2019s revenues under Greek tax law, thus exposing the company applying this practice to substantial tax burdens, the Commission observes that this argument actually favours the arguments made by the complainant, as to the fact that because of the significant tax burden resulting from the payment of the tax out of own revenues, a private casino cannot in practice afford to grant free admission, and thus reinforces the argument that this constitutes an advantage to the lower priced casinos.\n(77)\nGreece also contended that because casinos keep 20 % of the unequal admission price, the advantage is for casinos with a higher price that cash in a net revenue of EUR 3, compared to the EUR 1,2 for the public casinos. This contention is however in fact misleading, since it ignores two key facts to understand in full the true anti-competitive effects of the measure. On the one hand, the setting by regulation of the prices of tickets, including the admission tax, at a lower level for certain casinos, makes them more attractive for customers, thus (i) deviating demand from the pattern that would prevail if casinos would compete only on their own merits based on the individual scope and quality of the services offered and (ii) all other things equal, increasing artificially their level of admissions. On the other hand, as previously explained, the revenues from admissions are only a limited proportion of the total revenues that a customer attracted by a casino generates for the undertaking and out of which the casinos have to pay the admission tax.\n(78)\nFinally, it is to be noted that the existence of advantage in the fiscal discrimination is even recognised by the relevant national provisions themselves. As described by the Greek authorities, the subjection of the casino of Thessaloniki to the regime of lower priced admission tickets and (lower) tax is made on the basis of a Law of 1953 which grants to undertakings established with foreign capital the most favourable treatment granted to national undertakings. It can be observed that although the Greek authorities maintain that the said regime is not advantageous, this Law is nevertheless applied by the Greek authorities to the Thessaloniki casino on grounds that it is the most favourable treatment to national undertakings, by contrast with the more onerous one applied to other private casinos.\n(79)\nAs concerns the subsidiary remark made by the Greek authorities and Mont Parn\u00e8s regarding other differences between casinos in terms of various fiscal/regulatory measures, differences which allegedly favour Loutraki (the complainant) and would thus counter-balance the advantages that the beneficiaries enjoy due to the lower price of admission tickets (54), the Commission observes that the \u2018offsetting\u2019 of one measure (differences in general taxation) against another (differences in prices for admission tickets and their specific taxation) cannot be accepted as an argument that the measure under assessment does not constitute aid. In any case, as already mentioned, these aspects are separate and are not subject to the present Decision (see also paragraph 46 herein above).\n(80)\nIn regard of all the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the measure under assessment, namely the fiscal discrimination produced by the joint effect of a uniform admission tax applied to unequal regulated prices, provides an advantage to the lowered priced casinos.\nV.1.2. Presence of State resources and imputability to the State\n(81)\nThe advantage referred to above is imputable to the State and is financed by State resources.\n(82)\nAs previously explained, the fiscal discrimination is the result of a series of administrative acts, decrees and regulations adopted by the Greek State, among which in particular: the Law 2206/1994; the Ministerial Decision of 1995; the Law 3139/30.4.2003, the Law 2687/1953; the decisions of the General Secretary of EOT (managing the public casinos) issued in accordance with Law 1624/1951 and Decree 4109/1960: EOT decision 535633/21.11.1991, setting the price of admission tickets to the Mont Parn\u00e8s Casino at 2 000 drachmas; EOT decision 508049/24.3.1992 setting the price of admission tickets to the Corfu and Rhodes Casinos at 1 500 drachmas (later adjusted for the Corfu Casino to 2 000 drachmas by decision 532691/24.11.1997); the licenses granted to each casino under national law and confirming the respective price of admission tickets and the obligation to pay 80 % thereof as applicable to each casino.\n(83)\nFurthermore the fiscal discrimination under assessment is financed by State resources. If the State forgoes revenues which it would otherwise have to collect from an undertaking in normal circumstances, the relevant measure is financed by State resources.\n(84)\nIn fiscal terms the fiscal advantage in this case results from the artificial reduction for the public casinos of the tax base on which the 80 % admission tax rate sits, from the general EUR 15 to the EUR 6 face value of the admission ticket in the public casinos.\n(85)\nIn line with the Court\u2019s case-law (55), this discriminatory reduction in tax base leads to a loss of tax revenue for the State, which is equivalent to consumption of State resources in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. Thus, in general terms, in the case under assessment the Greek State forgoes fiscal revenue from the public casinos in the amount of EUR 7,20 per admission, which corresponds to the difference between the tax of EUR 12 per admission remitted to the State by the private casinos and the tax of EUR 4,80 per admission remitted to the State by the public casinos. However, some adjustments may be taken into account when evaluating the advantage received by each beneficiary casino (as further described in Section V.4 \u2018Quantification and recovery\u2019 herein below - more particularly, it would appear that until 2000 Mont Parn\u00e8s and Corfu have not paid at all any admission tax to the State, therefore the advantage in that case is at the level of the tax of EUR 12 per admission remitted to the State by the private casinos).\n(86)\nGreece argued that, as the casinos with a lower price may thereby attract more customers, there is no certainty that the State forgoes revenue. Greece maintains that therefore the measure would not constitute State aid.\n(87)\nAs already mentioned in the Opening Decision, the Commission does not accept this argument. In line with its previous practice (56), the Commission considers that the fact that a tax reduction in respect of certain tax payers can generate as a result an increase in the overall level of revenues collected under the relevant tax does not necessarily mean that the measure is not financed from State resources.\n(88)\nIn fact the contention by the Greek authorities is erroneous in that the benchmark against which the Greek authorities test the effects of the fiscal discrimination on the State budget is biased by the advantage built in the measure. The Greek authorities introduce in their reasoning the dynamic effect of a reduction in price that might increase the demand and eventually the tax collected, since the latter is proportionate to the number of admissions. This comparison is however inaccurate, considering that it is the inequality itself created by the advantage, namely the fact that there is a lower price and the corresponding lower tax burden per admission, which makes the demand increase.\n(89)\nAnyway the Greek authorities have not provided any proof that the overall tax revenue of the admission tax on casinos is maximised with that pattern of unequal prices. In fact if the Commission were to follow the reasoning that a lowering of the admission price to EUR 6 produces an increase in tax collection, the tax revenue maximisation would take place at a level where all admission tickets are priced at EUR 6 for all casinos both private and public, contradicting the Greek contention that this point is reached with the fiscal discrimination resulting from the unequal prices.\n(90)\nAccordingly, the contested advantage is financed through State resources.\nV.1.3. Selectivity\n(91)\nAccording to Article 107(1) of the TFEU, in order to constitute State aid, the measure must be specific or selective in that it favours \u2018certain undertakings or the production of certain goods\u2019.\n(92)\nAccording to the case-law of the Court of Justice (57), \u2018as regards the assessment of the condition of selectivity, which is a constituent factor in the concept of State aid, it is clear from settled case-law that Article 87(1) EC [now Article 107(1) of the TFEU] requires assessment of whether, under a particular statutory scheme, a State measure is such as to \u201cfavour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods\u201d in comparison with other undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the system in question\u2019 (58). The Court has also held on numerous occasions that Article 107(1) of the TFEU does not distinguish between the causes or the objectives of State aid, but defines them in relation to their effects (59). According to the Commission\u2019s practice and the EU case-law concerning fiscal cases, the selective advantage involved may derive from an exception to the tax provisions of a legislative, regulatory or administrative nature or from a discretionary practice on the part of the tax authorities. However, the selective nature of a measure may be justified by \u2018the nature or general scheme of the system\u2019 (60), in which case the measure may be considered not to constitute State aid.\n(93)\nFirstly, the Commission observes that in the case under review the general tax system is constituted by the regime applicable (in principle) to all casinos, as established by the Law 2206/1994 and the implementing Ministerial Decision of 1995 (as also confirmed by the Greek authorities - see paragraph 19 herein above).\n(94)\nSecondly, the Commission notes that the measure at issue constitutes a departure from the application of the general tax system. As confirmed by the Greek authorities, the special provisions applicable to the public casinos (and the assimilated private casino of Thessaloniki) are considered exceptions from the application of the general provisions of the Law 2206/1994 and the implementing Ministerial Decision of 1995 (see also paragraph 19 and the following herein above).\n(95)\nThe Commission observes that the requirement to remit 80 % of the price of admission tickets did not apply to the casinos of Mont Parn\u00e8s and Corfu until 2003. As noted above, as concerns the casinos of Thessaloniki and Rhodes, this requirement became applicable upon issuance of their license under the Law 2206/1994, namely since 1995 in the case of Thessaloniki, and since 1996 in the case of Rhodes. As concerns the price of admission tickets, it has remained at EUR 6 in the case of Mont Parn\u00e8s and Thessaloniki until present, for Corfu until its privatisation in August 2010, and for Rhodes until its privatisation in 1999. However, both the requirement to remit 80 % and the price of admission tickets of EUR 15 applied to other casinos as of 1995 and have been in practice applied as such.\n(96)\nIn consideration of all the above, the Commission considers that the measure is selective.\n(97)\nThirdly, the Commission observes, however, that the selective nature of a measure may be justified by \u2018the nature or general scheme of the system\u2019, that is to say, whether the exceptions to the system or differentiations within that system derive directly from the basic or guiding principles of the tax system in the Member State concerned (third step of the selectivity analysis). If so, the Commission considers that, under the settled case-law of the Court (61) the measures introducing a differentiation between undertakings when that differentiation arises from the nature and overall structure of the system of charges of which they form part do not constitute State aid. This justification based on the nature or overall structure of the tax system reflects the consistency of a specific tax measure with the internal logic of the tax system in general. However, the Commission\u2019s practice and the Court\u2019s case-law have adopted a very restrictive approach for these justifications. Only reasons inherent in the tax system can be invoked.\n(98)\nThe Greek authorities stated that the individual circumstances of each casino are different, and that the prices of admission tickets are set in function of those circumstances, taking account of the objective of setting such a price which is to discourage persons of low income from gambling.\n(99)\nThe Commission cannot accept these arguments. The argument that the level of the price is set according to and justified by the circumstances of each individual casino, taking account of the objective of discouraging persons of low income from gambling, cannot be reconciled with the fact that the casinos of Mont Parn\u00e8s and Thessaloniki, which apply the price of EUR 6, are both close to major centres of population in Greece. Nor can it be reconciled with the explicit possibility to admit customers without payment provided that 80 % of the price is nonetheless remitted to the State.\n(100)\nFurthermore, the Commission also observes that it is not apparent why this lower price is necessary as concerns these casinos specifically and not in the case of other casinos, nor have the Greek authorities explained the economic calculation for setting the lower price of admission tickets at the specific level of EUR 6 and not another intermediary level, and if individual circumstances are concerned, which according to Greece mainly consist in the geographical situation of each casino, why all the beneficiary casinos are (in principle, see above) obliged to charge the same price of admission tickets and not a \u2018personalised\u2019 one, adapted to their individual situation. As an example, should the lower price of admission tickets be justified by the specificities of the individual geographical situation of each of the casinos, than such reasoning in any case would not apply to the casino of Thessaloniki who seems to enjoy this treatment not in consideration of its geographical situation, but in consideration of a national provision granting to undertakings established with foreign capital the most advantageous treatment applicable to national undertakings. Thus, the geographical situation of the casino of Thessaloniki does not appear to have been taken into consideration at any time in setting the price of its admission tickets. As a further example, in August 2010, the Corfu Casino passed to EUR 15 upon its privatisation. However, the Greek authorities have not satisfactorily explained why at that time the abovementioned special circumstances no longer applied and thus why the lower price of admission tickets was no longer necessary in consideration thereof.\n(101)\nIn light of all the above, the Commission concludes that the selective character of the measure in review is not justified by the nature of the general system. Therefore, the contested measure is considered to include a discriminating element, in the form of a reduction in the tax base resulting in a fiscal advantage benefiting to individually determined casinos, discrimination which is not justified by the logic of the Greek general relevant tax system.\n(102)\nAccordingly, the Commission therefore concludes that the criterion of selectivity in the sense of Article 107(1) of the TFEU is met in the present case.\nV.1.4. Distortion of competition and effect on trade\n(103)\nIn order to constitute State aid the measure must affect competition and trade between Member States. This criterion supposes that the beneficiary of the measure exercises an economic activity, regardless of the beneficiary\u2019s legal status or means of financing.\n(104)\nAccording to the Court\u2019s case-law (62), \u2018for the purpose of categorising a national measure as prohibited State aid, it is necessary, not to establish that the aid has a real effect on trade between Member States and that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether that aid is liable to affect such trade and distort competition. In particular, when aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid. [\u2026] In addition, it not necessary that the beneficiary undertaking itself be involved in intra-Community trade. Aid granted by a Member State to an undertaking may help to maintain or increase domestic activity, with the result that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of penetrating the market of the Member State concerned.\u2019 Moreover, under settled case-law of the Court (63), for a measure to distort competition and affect trade between Member States it is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition in the internal market (64). The Commission considers that the conditions set out in the case-law are fulfilled for the following reasons.\n(105)\nThe contested measure alleviates the taxes that the beneficiaries have to pay with respect to the rest of casinos in Greece, thereby strengthening their comparative financial position and increasing the profitability of their investments as opposed to a situation where their profitability would be exclusively based on their own merits.\n(106)\nAs above mentioned, under settled case-law, the criterion of trade being affected is met if the recipient firm carries on an economic activity involving trade between Member States. The mere fact that the aid strengthens the firm\u2019s position compared with that of other firms which are competitors in intra-European trade is enough to allow the conclusion to be drawn that intra-European trade is affected. Neither the fact that aid is relatively small in amount, nor the fact that the recipient is moderate in size or its share of the European market very small, nor indeed the fact that the recipient does not carry out exports or exports virtually all its production outside the European market do anything to alter this conclusion (65).\n(107)\nGreece argued that the situation of the casinos and the distances between them mean that each serves a local market and therefore that the measure cannot distort competition or affect trade between Member States. However, pursuant to case-law (66), there is no threshold in order to determine the actual or potential effect on competition and on trade between Member States, and therefore, this condition for applying Article 107(1) of the TFEU may be completed independently of the local or regional provision of the services concerned or the importance of the field of activity concerned.\n(108)\nGreece also argued that the gambling market is not harmonised between Member States, who are therefore free to regulate it at national level. Greece invoked the jurisprudence of the Court which allows restrictions to the single market for gambling services in the name of protection of consumers from fraud and criminality (67).\n(109)\nThe Commission fully respects the right of Member States to set the objectives of their policy in the area of gambling provided that any restrictions on the freedom to provide services are suitable for achieving the objectives pursued, do not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives and are applied in a non-discriminatory manner. However the Commission cannot accept that these arguments deprive the measure at issue of any effect of distortion of competition or on trade between Member States.\n(110)\nThe operators in the sector are often international hotel groups (68) that compete which each other, whose decision whether to invest or divest in casinos or other hotel facilities are affected by the measure, since it impacts the comparative profitability of these groups and their investments. Casinos are often sited in tourist destinations, which would indicate that the presence of a casino may act as an attraction to tourists to visit Greece. Indeed casinos fell under the responsibility of the Ministry of Tourism in Greece. In addition, the Commission notes that there is a certain cross-border mobility of customers; moreover, casino services are themselves operated in a cross-border environment - for instance, casinos operate such services on cruise ships linking Greece to Italy and other destinations. More widely, some persons wishing to gamble may be able to choose between gambling in a casino and doing so on line. On line gambling is an international business and gamblers in Greece may be able to access such services provided by operators in other Member States. The case referred to by Greece (see paragraph 108) in fact concerned Internet gambling. The Greek authorities disputed the possibility of competition with other forms of gambling cited in the Opening Decision, noting that Internet gambling is currently illegal in Greece. However, and despite the current legal situation in Greece, the Greek authorities have recognised themselves that Internet gambling has in fact grown \u2018to uncontrollable proportions\u2019 (69). In this context reference should also be made to the judgement of the Court of Justice in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece (70) in which the Court held that Law 3037/2002 which aimed at banning Internet gambling in Greece amounted to an unjustified barrier to the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.\n(111)\nFurthermore, the overall economic crisis affects consumer habits and disposable income for entertainment purposes such as using casino services. In this particular context a differentiation in prices of admission tickets has an even more significant distortive impact on the choices made by consumers and thus is liable even more so to distort competition on the casino market.\n(112)\nAs concerns the argument proposed by the authorities and Mont Parn\u00e8s that even if the view were taken that the reduced price of admission tickets of EUR 6 might have influenced or may influence the decision of a foreign company to invest in a casino business in Greece, the foreign company could always avail itself of Law 2687/1953, the Commission observes that the application of the Law of 1953 is not automatic and would in fact allow the further granting of the more advantageous treatment granted to the beneficiary casinos (i.e. the lower price of admission tickets of EUR 6) to other undertakings. This measure would thus be liable to further propagate the fiscal discrimination under assessment. Furthermore, the Commission notes that although the Law 2687/1953 could have been invoked by other casinos, if they had brought in capital from abroad and had submitted the application in good time, its application is subject to certain specific arbitrary rules that make it a selective measure. In fact, the only one other example of potential application of this Law that has been brought to the attention of the Commission - namely concerning the casino on Syros, who submitted an application under this law - was refused because the application was submitted after the importing of the foreign capital (and not ahead of this).\n(113)\nThe Commission notes, further, that when the casino of Mont Parn\u00e8s was privatised, the possibility of a licence for a second casino with the same region was specifically provided for in the sale. Clearly the likelihood of investment in such an operation would depend on the conditions of competition with the existing operator. Since it can not be ruled out that casinos are competing with similar companies in another Member State, this requirement pursuant to Article 107(1) of the TFEU must be regarded as fulfilled.\n(114)\nTherefore the Commission concludes that the contested measure is liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States by potentially improving the operating conditions of the beneficiaries being directly engaged in economic activities, which are liable to pay this tax on admissions in casinos in Greece.\nV.1.5. Conclusion\n(115)\nGiven all the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the criteria for the existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the TFEU are met and that the measure constitutes State aid in favour of the casinos with a lower price of admission tickets. These casinos are Mont Parn\u00e8s, Corfu, Thessaloniki and Rhodes. In the case of Rhodes, the Commission understands that the casino is no longer a beneficiary (as it stopped practicing the lower price of admission tickets upon its privatisation in April 1999). The Commission considers that neither the Greek authorities nor Mont Parn\u00e8s have advanced any argumentation which would be sufficiently articulated to alter this conclusion.\nV.2. Compatibility of the aid\n(116)\nAs stated in the Opening Decision, the Commission considers that the measure in question does not qualify for any of the derogations laid down in Article 106 or 107 of the TFEU.\n(117)\nGreece has so far argued that there is no State aid involved and has not offered any arguments as to why any aid would be compatible.\n(118)\nThe Commission recognises, as noted above, the right of Member States to regulate gambling on their territory subject to EU law, and that such regulation in order to control and discourage gambling is a legitimate objective of public policy. However the Commission does not believe that this brings the aid, even if this is its objective, within the remit of Article 106(2) of the TFEU. In any event, as noted above, the argument that the measure has the objective of discouraging gambling cannot be reconciled with the fact that the casinos which apply the price of EUR 6 include those closest to the major centres of population in Greece. Nor can it be reconciled with the explicit possibility to admit customers without payment provided that 80 % of the price is nonetheless remitted to the State.\n(119)\nThe derogations in Article 107(2) of the TFEU, concerning aid of a social character granted to individual consumers, aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and aid granted to certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany, do not apply in this case.\n(120)\nNor does the derogation provided for in Article 107(3)(a) apply, which authorises aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment because the measure is not conditional on realising any type of activity in specific regions (71).\n(121)\nIn the same way, the contested measure cannot be regarded as promoting the execution of a project of common European interest or remedying a serious disturbance in the economy of Greece, as provided for in Article 107(3)(b). Nor does it have as its object the promotion of culture and heritage conservation as provided for in Article 107(3)(d).\n(122)\nFinally, the contested measure shall be examined in the light of Article 107(3)(c), which provides for the authorisation of aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such an aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent that is contrary to the common interest. In this respect, however, it is noted that the contested measure does not fall under any of the applications of this subparagraph which the Commission has promulgated, or under any of the frameworks or guidelines, which define the conditions to consider certain types of aid compatible with the internal market.\n(123)\nThe contested measure constitutes operating aid that artificially reinforces the competitive position of certain undertakings over other similar undertakings and is not conditional upon the realisation by the beneficiaries of any specific action aiming at the achievement of policy objectives of common interest.\n(124)\nIn particular, the Commission notes that the advantage granted under the contested measure is not related to investment, job creation or specific projects. It simply relieves the undertakings concerned of charges normally borne by similar undertakings and must therefore be considered as operating aid. As a general rule, operating aid does not fall within the scope of Article 107(3)(c) since it distorts competition in the sectors in which it is granted and is at the same time incapable, by its very nature, of achieving any of the objectives laid down in that provision (72). Although exceptionally such aid may be granted in regions eligible under the derogation in Article 107(3)(a) of the TFEU and although certain regions of Greece are so eligible, the Commission has severe doubts whether the conditions for compatibility of such operating aid are met in the current case. In line with the standard practice of the Commission, such aid cannot not be considered compatible with the internal market, as it does neither facilitate the development of any activities or economic areas nor it is limited in time, digressive or proportionate to what is necessary to remedy to a specific economic handicap of the areas concerned.\n(125)\nIn light of the above, it must be concluded that the measure under review is incompatible with the internal market.\nV.3. Legality of the aid\n(126)\nAs stated in the Opening Decision, in view of the fact that the first acts producing the fiscal discrimination between casinos date from 1994 and 1995, the Commission has considered whether the measure in its entirety represents existing aid in the sense of Article 108(1) of the TFEU.\n(127)\nThe fiscal discrimination was introduced in 1995 illegally- that is, from the perspective of EU State aid law - by the choice made by the Greek authorities to allow in favour of certain casinos derogations from the general rule deriving from the Law 2206/1994 and the Ministerial Decision of 1995. In particular, the Greek authorities allowed the public casinos of Mont Parn\u00e8s, Corfu and Rhodes to continue to apply a lower price of admission tickets of EUR 6 instead of the standard price of EUR 15, and furthermore, also specifically granted this more advantageous treatment to the casino of Thessaloniki in 1995, based on the Law of 1953 (concerning foreign capital). Meanwhile, this standard level of EUR 15 was imposed and effectively respected by the 5 other private casinos which were established and licensed (under the Law 2206/1994) since 1995. Furthermore, by virtue of the Law 3139/2003 the lower price of EUR 6 for admission tickets was specifically maintained for the casinos of Mont Parn\u00e8s and Corfu, with the effect of illegally prolonging and confirming the fiscal discrimination. As concerns the casino of Thessaloniki, it is noted that it benefits from the fiscal discrimination by assimilation with the casinos of Mont Parn\u00e8s and Corfu as confirmed in the Presidential decree 290/1995, based on the Law of 1953, as described herein above. The regime applicable to Thessaloniki is intimately linked to the regime applicable to Mont Parn\u00e8s and Corfu. As described by the Greek authorities (73), when the issue of the price of admission tickets was raised after 1995, the management of the Thessaloniki casino asked that it be set at the same level as that of the Casino Mont Parn\u00e8s, i.e. at EUR 6, and this request was accepted, following an opinion from the Legal Council of State (Opinion 631/1997/EC). Therefore it can be assumed that, had the treatment of Mont Parn\u00e8s and Corfu changed in 2003 and had the two casinos passed to EUR 15 at that time, then the treatment of casino Thessaloniki would also have changed. However, this was not the case, and the fiscal discrimination was maintained by virtue of national provisions.\n(128)\nNone of the measures described above, benefiting the beneficiary casinos, were ever notified to nor approved by the Commission, certainly not under the EU State aid rules.\n(129)\nThe Commission recalls that pursuant to Article 15 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules of application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (74), the powers of the Commission to recover aid shall be subject to a limitation period of 10 years. The limitation period shall begin on the day on which the unlawful aid is awarded to the beneficiary either as individual aid or as aid under an aid scheme. Any action taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission, with regard to the unlawful aid shall interrupt the limitation period. Each interruption shall start time running afresh. The limitation period shall be suspended for as long as the decision of the Commission is the subject of proceedings pending before the Court of Justice. Any aid with regard to which the limitation period has expired, shall be deemed to be existing aid. However, pursuant to Article 1(c) of the same regulation, alterations to existing aid constitute new aid.\n(130)\nThe Commission observes that according to the case-law of the EU Courts \u2018the limitation period provided for in Article 15 of the Regulation on State aid procedure, which does not in any way express a general principle whereby new aid is transformed into existing aid but merely precludes recovery of aid established more then 10 years before the Commission first intervened\u2019 (75).\n(131)\nIn the current case, the Commission did not take action, nor did Greece act at the request of the Commission, before 2009. The Commission took such an action on 21 October 2009 when it communicated the complaint to Greece and requested information in this regard.\n(132)\nTherefore, any aid awarded under this measure as of 21 October 1999 (10 years before the day on which the Commission forwarded the complaint to the Greek State and requested information) is new and unlawful aid, which has been put into effect without prior notification or decision of the Commission, subject to the application of Article 15 of the Procedural Regulation as regards recovery (as further described herein below).\nV.4. Quantification and recovery\n(133)\nThe contested measure was implemented without having been notified in advance to the Commission in accordance with Article 108(3) of the TFEU. Therefore, the measure constitutes unlawful aid.\n(134)\nWhere unlawfully granted State aid is found to be incompatible with the internal market, the consequence of such a finding is that the aid should be recovered from the recipients, unless this would be contrary to a general principle of law, pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. Through recovery of the aid, the competitive position that existed before it was granted is restored as far as this is possible. No arguments raised by the Greek authorities or by Mont Parn\u00e8s justified a general departure from this basic principle.\n(135)\nThe Commission observes that Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 provides that \u2018the Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of community law\u2019. The case-law of the Court of Justice and the Commission\u2019s own decision-making practice have, amongst others, established that where, as a result of the Commission\u2019s actions, legitimate expectations exist on the part of the beneficiary of a measure that the aid has been granted in accordance with EU law, then an order to recover the aid would infringe a general principle of EU law (76).\n(136)\nIn its judgement in Forum 187 (77), the Court stated that \u2018the right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any person in a situation where a Community authority has caused him to entertain expectations which are justified. However, a person may not plead infringement of the principle unless he has been given precise assurances by the administration. Similarly, if a prudent and alert economic operator could have foreseen the adoption of a Community measure likely to affect his interests, he cannot plead that principle if the measure is adopted\u2019.\n(137)\nIn this respect, as concerns arguments made by the Greek Authorities and Mont Parn\u00e8s alleging that any recovery of that aid would run counter to the principle of reasonable confidence of the subject of administration, in this case, based on a ruling of the Greek Council of State under national law, the Commission observes that this is a national act taken by a national authority and not an EU authority in the sense of the above cited case-law. Furthermore this act was based solely on national law and did not in any way discuss any State aid issue or qualification. In consideration of the above, the Commission cannot waive recovery based on these arguments.\n(138)\nAs concerns the arguments made by Greece and Mont Parn\u00e8s regarding the delayed action undertaken by Loutraki in lodging a complaint with the Commission, in connection with a principle that a right should not be exercised abusively, the Commission observes that delayed action by a complainant cannot in any case preclude from recovering unlawful aid, otherwise as deriving from the 10 years limitation period set forth pursuant to Article 15 of the Procedural Regulation.\n(139)\nTherefore the Commission cannot follow the arguments proposed by the Greek authorities and Mont Parn\u00e8s in order to exceptionally waive recovery.\n(140)\nAs described in the present Decision, the Commission observes that it was first through the national acts of 1994 and 1995 that both the requirement to remit 80 % of the value of admissions and the standard price of EUR 15 for the admission tickets for all casinos were set. However, both the requirement to remit 80 % and the standard level of the price of EUR 15 did not apply to the beneficiary casinos although they did apply to other casinos as of 1995 and have been in practice applied as such (all private casinos were licensed during 1995-96 and began implementing the measure, with the only exception of Thessaloniki casino). Thus, considering that de facto the fiscal discrimination resulting from the differentiation in prices of admission tickets and the related 80 % payments to the State started as of 1995, the period of implementation of the aid can be considered to begin in 1995.\n(141)\nIn line with the conclusion under Section V.3 herein above (Legality of the aid), the Commission therefore considers that the limitation period of 10 years, provided for in Article 15 of the Procedural Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, applies to any aid awarded before 21 October 1999.\n(142)\nIn the calculation of the amount to be recovered account must be taken that as described in the present Decision (see also paragraph 85 herein above), the Greek State forgoes fiscal revenue from the public casinos in the amount of EUR 7,20 per admission, which corresponds to the difference between the tax of EUR 12 per admission remitted to the State by the private casinos and the tax of EUR 4,80 per admission remitted to the State by the public casinos.\n(143)\nHowever, certain aspects relating to the individual situation of each casino may be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the amount of the recovery from each casino, as described below:\n-\nAs described in this Decision, the requirement under the 1995 Ministerial Decision to remit to the State 80 % of the price of admission tickets was applicable to the casinos of Corfu and Mont Parn\u00e8s as of the date they were licensed under Law 2206/1994, i.e. in 2003, following Law 3139/2003. However, from the end of 2000 and until their licensing in 2003, ETA started, on a voluntary basis, to remit to the State 80 % of the price of admission tickets (at the level of EUR 6) (78). From this information given by the Greek authorities, and subject to further observations that the Greek authorities may wish to make (confirming or infirming the above) it can be assumed that until 2000 no payment of the admission tax was made, not even of the reduced tax (of 80 % of EUR 6). Therefore during that period (21 October 1999-end of 2000) the amount of the recovery should be calculated using the level of EUR 12 (i.e. the full tax paid by the other private casinos, while the public casinos did not pay any tax at all) and multiplying this by the number of tickets issued during that period.\n-\nThe Thessaloniki casino was licensed in 1995 under Law 2206/1994 (79). The requirement to remit to the State 80 % of the price of admission tickets was applicable to the casino of Thessaloniki since the issuance of its license in 1995. Until the present date, it has been applying the reduced EUR 6 price of admission tickets applied by the casinos in Mont Parn\u00e8s and Corfu. Therefore the amount of the recovery for this casino should be calculated by multiplying the number of tickets issued (since 21 October 1999) by EUR 7,20.\n-\nRhodes Casino was licensed under the Law 2206/1994 in 1996. At that time it began applying the EUR 6 price of admission tickets, however, it passed at EUR 15 upon its privatisation in April 1999. Further to observations submitted during the formal investigation procedure, the Commission understands that the casino of Rhodes ceased to be a beneficiary on its privatisation in April 1999, and therefore the recovery from this casino is covered by the limitation period pursuant to Article 15 of the Procedural Regulation.\n(144)\nAs concerns the calculation of the amount of aid to be recovered, the Commission is not in possession of sufficient data in order to provide an accurate estimation of the amounts to be recovered from each beneficiary casino. However, no provision of EU law requires the Commission, when ordering the recovery of aid declared incompatible with the internal market, to fix the exact amount of the aid to be recovered. It is sufficient for the Commission\u2019s decision to include information enabling the Member State concerned and the relevant recipient undertaking to work out themselves, without overmuch difficulty, that amount. The Commission is therefore able legitimately to confine itself to declaring that there is an obligation to repay the aid in question and leave it to the national authorities to calculate the exact amounts to be repaid on the basis of the guidance given by the Commission in its decision.\n(145)\nBased on the information submitted by the Member State, the Commission provides herein below the necessary guidance for the recovery.\n(146)\nThe Table below presents a general overview of the number of tickets issued by each casino each year (however, as indicated in the Table, the information presented is not complete), and a preliminary estimate of the amounts to be recovered from each casino, subject to further observations that Greece may wish to submit following its calculations as concerns recovery.\nEstimated number of tickets issued by each casino\nYEAR\nCASINO\nMont Parn\u00e8s\nCorfu\nThessaloniki\nRhodes\n1999\n(22.10.1999 - 31.12.1999)\nMissing information\n[\u2026] (80)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026] (81)\n2000\nMissing information\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2001\nMissing information\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2002\nMissing information\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2003\nMissing information until 1 May 2003\nAs of 1 May 2003:\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2004\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2005\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2006\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2007\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2008\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2009 (until 22.10.2009):\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTotal until 22.10.2009\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTickets issued after 22.10.2009\nMissing information\nMissing information\nMissing information\nMissing information\nPreliminary estimate of the amount to be recovered per casino\n(million EUR in rounded numbers)\nMont Parn\u00e8s\nCorfu\nThessaloniki\nRhodes\nAlgorithm and calculation\nFor 22.10.1999-2000 (82):\nnumber of tickets\n(x1) \u00d7 12 = A1\nFor 22.10.1999-2000:\nnumber of tickets\n([\u2026] tickets) \u00d7 12 = A2 ([\u2026] EUR)\nFor the period 22.10.1999-22.10.2009:\nnumber of tickets\n([\u2026] tickets) \u00d7 7,20 = AB3 ([\u2026] EUR)\nN/A\nFor 2000-22.10.2009:\nnumber of tickets\n(y1) \u00d7 7,20 = B1\nFor 2000-22.10.2009:\nnumber of tickets\n([\u2026] tickets) \u00d7 7,20 = B2 ([\u2026] EUR)\nFor 22.10.2009-present:\nnumber of tickets\n(z1) \u00d7 7,20 = C1\nFor 22.10.2009-present:\nnumber of tickets\n(z2) \u00d7 7,20 = C2\nFor 22.10.2009-30.8.2010 (83):\nnumber of tickets\n(z3) \u00d7 7,20 = C3\nTotal amount of recovery\nA1 + B1 + C1 =\nTo be calculated\nA2 + B2 + C2\nTo be calculated\nAB3 + C3\nTo be calculated\nN/A\nTotal amount to be recovered\nTo be calculated\n(147)\nThe Commission further observes that Article 108(3) of the TFEU has suspensory effect. However, the Commission has not received information on whether the contested measure was suspended further to the Opening Decision. Consequently, it must be assumed that the measure has continuously been implemented by the Greek authorities until present (84). Any aid granted until the adoption of the present Decision should be recovered by Greece from the respective beneficiaries. In this regard, as concerns the Corfu casino, the Commission notes that it has stopped applying the EUR 6 price of admission ticket and passed to EUR 15 as of its privatisation of August 2010, therefore in the calculation of the amount of the recovery only the period until August 2010 should be taken into account.\n(148)\nIn consideration of all the above arguments, the Commission therefore orders recovery by Greece of the incompatible State aid illegally granted to the beneficiaries. The Commission recalls that Greece must cancel all outstanding fiscal advantage provided under the measure under assessment with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.\n(149)\nIn this regard, the Commission notes that as concerns the future, Greece has indicated that it is examining a potential change of the pricing policy of casinos, in order to eliminate discriminations between casinos. The Commission notes that according to Greece, this new legislation will put an end to the measure under assessment. However, Greece has not informed the Commission of the follow up and possible implementation of such change. The Commission believes that the adoption of such new legislation is critical to the resolution of issues of discrimination between casinos in Greece and encourages Greece to take the necessary steps without delay.\nVI. CONCLUSION\n(150)\nThe Commission considers that, in the light of the abovementioned considerations, of the relevant case-law and of the specificities of the case, the contested measure, consisting of the fiscal discrimination that the Greek authorities have put into place in favour of certain casinos through the implementation of several simultaneous legal provisions concerning:\n-\nthe fixing of a uniform 80 % levy on the price of admission tickets, and\n-\nthe setting of two unequal regulated prices of admission tickets at EUR 6 and EUR 15 respectively for publicly and privately owned casinos,\nconstitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. The Commission also finds that the contested measure having been implemented in breach of Article 108(3) of the TFEU constitutes an unlawful aid.\n(151)\nThe Commission observes that pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, all unlawful aid may be recovered from the recipient and orders recovery by the Hellenic Republic of the unlawful aid from each of the beneficiary casinos. The Commission notes that the limitation period of 10 years, provided for in Article 15 of the abovementioned Procedural Regulation applies to any aid awarded before 21 October 1999. The Hellenic Republic shall cancel all outstanding fiscal advantage provided under the measure subject to the present Decision, with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid implemented by the Hellenic Republic and consisting of the fiscal discrimination put into place in favour of certain casinos through the implementation of several simultaneous, partially mandatory, legal provisions concerning\n-\nthe fixing of a uniform 80 % levy on the price of admission tickets, and\n-\nthe setting of two unequal regulated prices of admission tickets at EUR 6 and EUR 15 respectively for publicly and privately owned casinos,\nhas been unlawfully put into effect by the Hellenic Republic in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and is incompatible with the internal market since it has placed the following beneficiary casinos: Regency Casino Mont Parn\u00e8s, Regency Casino Thessaloniki and Corfu Casino (on the understanding that Rhodes Casino has stopped being a beneficiary in April 1999) at an undue competitive advantage.\nArticle 2\n1. The Hellenic Republic shall recover from the beneficiary casinos the incompatible aid referred to in Article 1 which was granted since 21 October 1999.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (85).\n4. The Hellenic Republic shall cancel all outstanding fiscal discrimination provided under the aid referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 3\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. The Hellenic Republic shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within 4 months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. Within 2 months following notification of this Decision, the Hellenic Republic shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe list of beneficiaries that have received aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 and the total amount of aid received by each of them under the contested measure, calculated in accordance with the guidance contained in this Decision;\n(b)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from each beneficiary;\n(c)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(d)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. The Hellenic Republic shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to The Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 24 May 2011.", "references": ["40", "74", "71", "67", "46", "95", "51", "81", "80", "47", "89", "73", "0", "30", "87", "26", "94", "62", "93", "99", "33", "49", "9", "32", "6", "63", "72", "66", "84", "64", "No Label", "8", "14", "15", "34", "35", "36", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "14", "15", "34", "35", "36", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 713/2011\nof 20 July 2011\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to milk and milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(p) and listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nIn the case of certain milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, there is a danger that, if high refund rates are fixed in advance, the commitments entered into in relation to those refunds may be jeopardised. In order to avert that danger, it is therefore necessary to take appropriate precautionary measures, but without precluding the conclusion of long-term contracts. The fixing of specific refund rates for the advance fixing of refunds in respect of those products should enable those two objectives to be met.\n(6)\nArticle 15(2) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 provides that, when the rate of the refund is being fixed, account is to be taken, where appropriate, of aids or other measures having equivalent effect applicable in all Member States in accordance with the Regulation on the common organisation of the agricultural markets to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 or to assimilated products.\n(7)\nArticle 100(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides for the payment of aid for Union-produced skimmed milk processed into casein if such milk and the casein manufactured from it fulfil certain conditions.\n(8)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 402/2011 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Part XVI of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 402/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["28", "21", "43", "19", "50", "63", "87", "24", "60", "4", "49", "77", "11", "12", "94", "18", "69", "14", "17", "13", "74", "9", "53", "72", "27", "78", "10", "5", "82", "75", "No Label", "20", "22", "70"], "gold": ["20", "22", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 922/2011\nof 15 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 September 2011.", "references": ["86", "41", "80", "58", "51", "66", "55", "5", "71", "87", "36", "84", "44", "27", "18", "77", "56", "23", "59", "73", "62", "88", "24", "1", "37", "39", "42", "54", "6", "90", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 184/2011\nof 25 February 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (DSM 15544) as a feed additive for chickens reared for laying, turkeys, minor avian species and other ornamental and game birds (holder of authorisation Calpis Co. Ltd Japan, represented by Calpis Co. Ltd Europe Representative Office)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of a new use of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (DSM 15544) as a feed additive for chickens reared for laying, turkeys and minor avian species, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (DSM 15544) has been authorised for 10 years for chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1444/2006 (2) and for weaned piglets by Commission Regulation (EU) No 333/2010 (3).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for the authorisation of the preparation for chickens reared for laying, turkeys and minor avian species. The European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 5 October 2010 (4) that Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (DSM 15544), under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use can improve the weight gain of the target species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (DSM 15544) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018gut flora stabilisers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 February 2011.", "references": ["4", "67", "96", "93", "39", "63", "76", "85", "65", "57", "62", "51", "73", "89", "0", "75", "70", "36", "95", "64", "99", "48", "84", "12", "83", "97", "26", "11", "90", "44", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 38/2011\nof 18 January 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9(4) and Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (Commission) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Previous investigations and existing anti-dumping measures\n(1)\nIn August 2001, by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India. The measures consisted of an ad valorem anti-dumping duty ranging between 0 % and 62,6 % imposed on imports from individually named exporting producers, with a residual duty rate of 53,3 % on imports from all other companies.\n(2)\nIn March 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 (3), the Council amended the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001. The anti-dumping duty imposed ranged between 0 % and 18 %, taking into account the findings of the expiry review of the definitive countervailing duties (Council Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 (4)).\n(3)\nIn August 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1288/2006 (5), the Council, following an interim review concerning the subsidisation of an Indian PET film producer, Garware Polyester Limited, amended the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on that company by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001.\n(4)\nIn September 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1424/2006 (6), the Council, following a new exporting producer request, amended Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 in respect of one Indian exporter. The amended Regulation established a dumping margin of 15,5 % and a anti-dumping duty rate of 3,5 % for the company concerned taking into account the company\u2019s export subsidy margin as ascertained in the anti-subsidy investigation which led to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006. Since the company did not have an individual countervailing duty, the rate established for all other companies was applied.\n(5)\nIn November 2007, by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 (7), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. By the same Regulation a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of one Indian exporting producer, was terminated.\n(6)\nIn January 2009, by Regulation (EC) No 15/2009 (8), the Council, following a partial interim review initiated by the Commission on its own initiative concerning the subsidisation of five Indian PET film producers, amended the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 and the definitive countervailing duties imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1292/2007 also maintained the extension of the measures to Brazil and Israel with certain companies being exempted. The last amendment to Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 in this regard was made by Council Regulation (EC) No 806/2010 (9).\n(8)\nApplicant of this interim review - Garware Polyester Limited is currently subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty of 14,7 %.\n2. Existing countervailing measures\n(9)\nIt should also be noted that Garware Polyester Limited is subject to a countervailing duty of 5,4 % on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 15/2009.\n3. Request for a partial interim review\n(10)\nIn August 2009, the Commission received a request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. The request, limited in scope to the examination of dumping, was lodged by Garware Polyester Limited, an exporting producer from India (\u2018Garware\u2019 or \u2018the applicant\u2019). In its request, the applicant claimed that the circumstances on the basis of which measures were imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. The applicant provided prima facie evidence that the continued imposition of the measure at its current level is no longer necessary to offset dumping.\n4. Initiation of a review\n(11)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced by a \u2018Notice of Initiation\u2019 published on 1 December 2009 in the Official Journal of the European Union (10) the initiation of a partial interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of the applicant.\n(12)\nThe partial interim review investigation was also to assess the need, depending on the review findings, to amend the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the product concerned from exporting producers in the country concerned not individually mentioned in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007, i.e. the anti-dumping duty rate as applying to \u2018all other companies\u2019 in India.\n5. Investigation\n(13)\nThe investigation of the level of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2009 (\u2018review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019).\n(14)\nThe Commission officially informed the applicant, the authorities of the exporting country, and the Union industry, of the initiation of the partial interim review investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard.\n(15)\nIn order to obtain the information necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant and received a reply within the deadline set for that purpose.\n(16)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the determination of dumping. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of the applicant.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(17)\nThe product concerned by this review is the same as that defined in Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 imposing the measures in force, namely polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, originating in India, currently falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90.\n2. Like product\n(18)\nAs in previous investigations, this investigation has shown that PET film produced in India and exported to the Union and the PET film produced and sold domestically on the Indian market, as well as the PET film produced and sold in the EU by the Union producers, have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same basic uses.\n(19)\nThese products are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n(a) Normal value\n(20)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined whether the applicant\u2019s domestic sales of the like product to independent customers were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was equal to at least 5 % of the total volume of the corresponding export sales to the Union.\n(21)\nThe Commission subsequently identified those types of the like product sold domestically by the company that were identical or directly comparable to the types sold for export to the Union.\n(22)\nIt was further examined whether the domestic sales of the applicant were representative for each product type, i.e. whether domestic sales of each product type constituted at least 5 % of the sales volume of the same product type to the Union. For the product types sold in representative quantities it was then examined whether such sales were made in the ordinary course of trade, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(23)\nThe examination as to whether the domestic sales of each product type, sold domestically in representative quantities, could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade was made by establishing the proportion of the profitable sales to independent customers of the type in question. In all cases where the domestic sales of the particular product type were made in sufficient quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of all the domestic sales of that type made during the RIP.\n(24)\nFor the remaining product types where domestic sales were not representative or not sold in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. Normal value was constructed by adding to the manufacturing costs of the exported types, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable percentage for selling, general and administrative expenses and a reasonable margin for profit, on the basis of actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer under investigation in accordance with the first sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.\n(b) Export price\n(25)\nSince all export sales of the cooperating Indian exporting producer to the Union were made directly to independent customers, the export price was established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n(c) Comparison\n(26)\nThe comparison between the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price was made on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and the export price, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which were demonstrated to affect prices and price comparability. For this purpose, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, commissions, financial costs and packing costs paid by the applicant where applicable and justified.\n(d) Dumping margin\n(27)\nAs provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value by type was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned. This comparison did not show the existence of dumping.\nD. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES\n(28)\nIn accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, it was also examined whether the changed circumstances could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.\n(29)\nIn this regard the investigation showed that after the previous investigation, i.e. the expiry review referred to in recital 5, Garware has made significant changes in its production process and technology. The company has shifted from dimethyl terephthalate (DMT) to purified terephthalic acid (PTA) as the main raw material. During the investigation period of that expiry review Garware was the only Indian exporting producer which was still using the old technology based on DMT. This change of technology as well as the investment in a new plant for manufacturing chips has resulted in a significant reduction of costs of manufacturing between the previous expiry review and the current review. This cost reduction has a direct impact on the dumping margin. This change in circumstances can therefore be considered to be of a lasting nature.\n(30)\nIt should be also noted that an indicative dumping margin calculated for export sales of the applicant to third countries in the RIP was negative. In terms of volume these sales were several times higher than the export sales to the Union.\n(31)\nIt was therefore considered that the circumstances that led to the initiation of this interim review are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future in a manner that would affect the findings of the interim review. Therefore it was concluded that the changed circumstances are of a lasting nature and that the application of the measure at its current level is no longer justified.\nE. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(32)\nIn the light of the results of this review investigation, it is considered appropriate to amend the anti-dumping duty applicable to imports of the product concerned from Garware to 0 %.\n(33)\nPursuant to 14(1) of the basic Regulation and Article 24(1), second subparagraph of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (11), no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with one and the same situation arising from dumping or from export subsidisation. As mentioned in recital 9 above, the applicant is subject to a countervailing duty. Since the anti-dumping duty established for the applicant is 0 % with regard to the product concerned, this situation does not arise in the present case.\n(34)\nInterested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose to amend the duty rate applicable to the applicant and were given opportunity to comment. No comments were received,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entry concerning Garware Polyester Limited, in the table in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007, shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Garware Polyester Limited, Garware House, 50-A, Swami Nityanand Marg, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400 057, India\n0,0\nA028\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["87", "70", "81", "66", "34", "24", "80", "60", "64", "62", "71", "31", "97", "36", "4", "82", "18", "21", "25", "46", "91", "40", "39", "69", "76", "51", "26", "41", "58", "86", "No Label", "22", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 384/2010\nof 5 May 2010\non the authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children\u2019s development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 17(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on food are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as the Authority.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission of the application, and to deliver an opinion on a health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nAll the opinions referred to in this Regulation are related to applications for reduction of disease risk claims, as referred to in Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\n(6)\nFollowing an application from Danone France, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Danacol\u00ae on blood cholesterol (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-779) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Danacol\u00ae reduces LDL-cholesterol by 10 % in 3 weeks, and the reduction is maintained with daily consumption. High blood cholesterol is one of the main risk factors in the development of (coronary) heart disease\u2019.\n(7)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission on 3 August 2009 that a cause and effect relationship had been established between the daily consumption of 1,6 g of phytosterols and the claimed effect. Accordingly, a health claim reflecting this conclusion should be considered as complying with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and it should be included in the Community list of permitted claims.\n(8)\nOn 3 August 2009, the Commission and the Member States received also the scientific opinion from the Authority, based on the request of the Commission and a similar request from France, following the conclusions of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health and in accordance with Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, regarding the possibility to indicate a quantitative effect in health claims related to the effects of plant sterols/plant stanols esters and lowering of blood cholesterol (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00530 and Q-2009-00718) (3). The Authority concluded that for a daily intake of 1,5-2,4 g plant sterols/stanols added to foods such as yellow fat spreads, dairy products, mayonnaise and salad dressings an average reduction of between 7 and 10,5 % can be expected and that such reduction is of biological significance. In addition, the Authority indicated that the blood LDL cholesterol lowering effect is usually established within the 2-3 weeks and can be sustained by a continued consumption of plant sterols/stanols.\n(9)\nAccordingly, taking into account the scientific opinion from the Authority and in order to ensure that such health claims referring to the magnitude of the claimed effect are authorised in a way that would not mislead the consumer, and that their conditions of use are set in a coherent way, it is necessary to set different conditions of use than those proposed by the applicant.\n(10)\nArticle 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 provides that an opinion in favour of authorising a health claim should include certain particulars. Accordingly, those particulars should be set out in the Annex I to the present Regulation as regards the authorised claim and include, as the case may be, the revised wording of the claim, specific conditions of use of the claim, and, where applicable, conditions or restrictions of use of the food and/or an additional statement or warning, in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and in line with the opinions of the Authority.\n(11)\nOne of the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 is to ensure that health claims are truthful, clear and reliable and useful to the consumer, and that wording and presentation are taken into account in that respect. Therefore, where the wording of claims has the same meaning for consumers as that of an authorised health claim, because they demonstrate the same relationship that exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health, they should be subject to the same conditions of use, as indicated in Annex I.\n(12)\nFollowing an application from Cambridge Theranostics Ltd., submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Lycopene-whey complex on risk of atherosclerotic plaques (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-703) (4). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Lycopene-whey complex prevents oxidative damage of plasma lipoproteins, which reduces the build up of arterial plaques and reduces the risk of heart disease, stroke and other clinical complications of atherosclerosis\u2019.\n(13)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission on 3 August 2009 that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the intake of Lycopene-whey complex and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(14)\nFollowing an application from Clasado Ltd., submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of BimunoTM (BGOS) Prebiotic on reduction of the bad bacteria that can cause travellers\u2019 diarrhoea (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-232) (5). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Regular consumption of BimunoTM (BGOS) Prebiotic helps to protect against the bad bacteria than can cause the travellers\u2019 diarrhoea\u2019.\n(15)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission 7 July 2009 that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the intake of BimunoTM (BGOS) Prebiotic and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(16)\nThe comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(17)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe health claim set out in Annex I to this Regulation may be made on foods on the European Union market in compliance with the conditions set out in that Annex.\nThat health claim shall be included in the Community list of permitted claims referred to in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nArticle 2\nThe health claims set out in the Annex II to this Regulation shall not be included in the Community list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 May 2010.", "references": ["0", "93", "53", "37", "98", "2", "70", "9", "40", "10", "91", "17", "44", "60", "57", "16", "23", "15", "82", "45", "69", "31", "11", "33", "56", "80", "96", "64", "27", "79", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "39", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "39", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 16 May 2011\namending Decision 2009/146/EC as regards the replacement of members of the Scientific Committees by members from the Pool of scientific advisors set up by Decision 2008/721/EC\n(2011/281/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Commission Decision 2008/721/EC of 5 September 2008 setting up an advisory structure of Scientific Committees and experts in the field of consumer safety, public health and the environment and repealing Decision 2004/210/EC (1), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision 2008/721/EC the Commission has set up three Scientific Committees, on Consumer Safety (SCCS), on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) and on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) and a Pool of Scientific Advisors on Risk Assessment (hereinafter the Pool), in the field of consumer safety, public health and the environment.\n(2)\nBy Decision 2009/146/EC (2) the Commission has appointed the members for SCCS, SCHER and SCENIHR and the scientific advisors in the Pool.\n(3)\nThe Scientific Committees have in accordance to Article 12 of Decision 2008/721/EC adopted common rules of procedures establishing, inter alia, the participation criteria for the members of the Scientific Committees and the conditions under which membership of the Committee shall expire as stated in Annex II 4(a) of the Decision.\n(4)\nArticle 5(2) of Decision 2008/721/EC states that when a member of a Scientific Committee does not comply with the participation criteria laid down in the rules of procedures or wishes to resign, the Commission may terminate the member\u2019s membership and appoint a replacement from the Pool.\n(5)\nTwo members of SCHER, one member of SCCS and one member of SCENIHR have resigned, while two members of SCCS have not met the participation criteria and their membership should be terminated. It is necessary to appoint new members in order to ensure the availability in the respective Committees of the needed type of expertise.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Decision 2008/721/EC, the experts from the Pool to replace those members of the Scientific Committees who have resigned or whose membership has been terminated, have been selected on the basis of their expertise and consistent with this a geographical distribution that reflects the diversity of scientific problems and approaches, notably in Europe.\n(7)\nThe members who have resigned or whose membership is terminated, should be appointed as advisors on risk assessment to the Pool,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe membership of the experts listed in point 1 of the Annex to this Decision is terminated.\nThese experts are appointed as scientific advisors on risk assessment to the Pool.\nThe experts listed in point 2 of the Annex to this Decision are appointed as members of the Scientific Committees set up by Decision 2008/721/EC as indicated in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2009/146/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2011.", "references": ["74", "17", "95", "70", "69", "73", "2", "65", "93", "75", "94", "44", "54", "96", "43", "62", "26", "48", "37", "41", "81", "80", "23", "38", "14", "20", "16", "57", "61", "68", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 944/2010\nof 20 October 2010\ncorrecting Regulation (EU) No 902/2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO Regulation\u2019) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2) , and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA check has revealed an error in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 902/2010 (3).\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 902/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nApplication of the corrected standard import value must be requested by the party concerned so that they are not placed retroactively at a disadvantage,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 902/2010 shall be amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAt the request of the party concerned, the customs office where the import was recorded shall refund part of the customs duties for the products originating in the third country concerned and released for free circulation during the period between 9 and 11 October 2010.\nRefund applications must be lodged no later than the last day of the third month following that in which this Regulation enters into force and must be accompanied by the declaration of release for free circulation for the import concerned.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["38", "94", "83", "78", "79", "92", "70", "56", "45", "46", "90", "2", "77", "58", "23", "98", "75", "47", "93", "31", "84", "12", "63", "9", "3", "67", "87", "85", "64", "74", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 376/2010\nof 3 May 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 983/2009 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\u2019s development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 17(3) thereof,\nHaving consulted the European Food Safety Authority,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, an opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as the Authority, in favour of authorising a health claim should include certain particulars. Accordingly, those particulars should be set out in the Annex of authorised claims to the Regulations authorising and/or refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods and include, as the case may be, the revised wording of the claim, specific conditions of use of the claim, and, where applicable, conditions or restrictions of use of the food and/or an additional statement or warning, in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and in line with the opinions of the Authority.\n(2)\nFollowing two opinions of the Authority on plant stanols and plant sterols and lowering/reducing blood LDL-cholesterol (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-085 and Question No EFSA-Q-2008-118) (2), the Commission authorised the health claims stating that plant sterols/plant stanol esters \u2018have been shown to lower/reduce blood cholesterol. High cholesterol is a risk factor in the development of coronary heart disease\u2019 in Regulation (EC) No 983/2009 (3) with the specific conditions of use of \u2018Information to the consumer that the beneficial effect is obtained with a daily intake of at least 2 g of plant sterols/plant stanols\u2019.\n(3)\nIn the context of the procedure for the authorisation of health claims under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, at its meeting of 20 February 2009, concluded that, regarding the indication of a quantitative effect in health claims there was a need for scientific advice from the Authority to ensure that such health claims are authorised in a way which will not mislead the consumer, and that conditions of use are set in a coherent way. To that end, the Commission submitted a request for advice to the Authority, in accordance with Article 19(2) of that Regulation.\n(4)\nOn 3 August 2009 the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00530 and EFSA-Q-2009-00718) (4) which concluded that for a daily intake of 1,5-2,4 g plant sterols/stanols added to foods such as yellow fat spreads, dairy products, mayonnaise and salad dressings an average reduction of between 7 and 10,5 % can be expected and that such reduction is of biological significance. In addition, the Authority indicated that the blood LDL cholesterol lowering effect is usually established within the 2-3 weeks and can be sustained by a continued consumption of plant sterols/stanols.\n(5)\nTherefore, taking into account the scientific opinion from the Authority and in order to ensure that such health claims referring to the magnitude of the claimed effect are authorised in a way that would not mislead the consumer, and that their conditions of use are set in a coherent way, it is necessary to amend the conditions of use set for the two authorised health claims related to the effects of plant sterols and plant stanol esters on the lowering of the blood cholesterol.\n(6)\nFollowing the opinion of the Authority on essential fatty acids and in particular \u03b1-linolenic acid (ALA) and linoleic acid (LA) and normal growth and development of children (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-079) (5), the Commission, authorised the health claim \u2018Essential fatty acids are needed for normal growth and development of children\u2019 in Regulation (EC) No 983/2009 with the specific conditions of use of \u2018Information to the consumer that the beneficial effect is obtained with a daily intake of 1 % of total energy for linoleic acid and 0,2 % of total energy for \u03b1-linolenic acid\u2019.\n(7)\nIn the context of the procedure for the authorisation of health claims under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, at its meeting of 20 February 2009, concluded that the Authority should be asked to give general advice on reference values for the purpose of labelling for fatty acids to enable the review of the conditions of use for the relevant authorised health claim, in accordance with Article 19(2) of that Regulation. On 3 August 2009 the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00548) (6) which concluded that the proposed labelling reference value of 2 g for the n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) ALA is consistent with the recommended intakes for individuals in the general population in European countries. In addition, the Authority proposed 10 g as labelling reference intake value for n-6 PUFA LA.\n(8)\nTherefore, taking into account the scientific opinion from the Authority and in order to set appropriate conditions of use for the health claims related to the effects of fatty acids, it is necessary to amend the conditions of use set for the authorised health claim related to the effects of essential fatty acids on normal growth and development of children.\n(9)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 983/2009, the table is amended as follows:\n1.\nthe text of the first entry, fifth column (Conditions of use of the claim), is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Information to the consumer that the beneficial effect is obtained with a daily intake of 1,5-2,4 g plant sterols. Reference to the magnitude of the effect may only be made for foods within the following categories: yellow fat spreads, dairy products, mayonnaise and salad dressings. When referring to the magnitude of the effect, the entire range \u201c7 to 10 %\u201d and the duration to obtain the effect \u201cin 2 to 3 weeks\u201d must be communicated to the consumer.\u2019;\n2.\nthe text of the second entry, fifth column (Conditions of use of the claim), is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Information to the consumer that the beneficial effect is obtained with a daily intake of 1,5-2,4 g plant stanols. Reference to the magnitude of the effect may only be made for foods within the following categories: yellow fat spreads, dairy products, mayonnaise and salad dressings. When referring to the magnitude of the effect, the entire range \u201c7 to 10 %\u201d and the duration to obtain the effect \u201cin 2 to 3 weeks\u201d must be communicated to the consumer.\u2019;\n3.\nthe text of the third entry, fifth column (Conditions of use of the claim), is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Information to the consumer that the beneficial effect is obtained with a daily intake of 2 g of \u03b1-linolenic acid (ALA) and a daily intake of 10 g of linoleic acid (LA)\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 May 2010.", "references": ["68", "78", "39", "65", "95", "71", "29", "57", "92", "81", "66", "76", "8", "52", "15", "60", "87", "42", "27", "37", "41", "6", "14", "47", "1", "59", "12", "19", "85", "98", "No Label", "24", "25", "36", "38", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "36", "38", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 338/2011\nof 7 April 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Magiun de prune Topoloveni (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Romania\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Magiun de prune Topoloveni\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 April 2011.", "references": ["51", "66", "77", "76", "85", "62", "99", "82", "68", "56", "8", "4", "58", "0", "73", "44", "21", "74", "13", "46", "60", "33", "94", "5", "78", "18", "48", "20", "36", "7", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 May 2011\ngranting mutual assistance for Romania\n(2011/289/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission made after consulting the Economic and Financial Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRomania has implemented a substantial reform programme since 2009. Public finances have been brought back onto a more sustainable path and the government\u2019s access to market-based financing has improved markedly. As the fiscal adjustment continues and the exchange rate of Romania\u2019s national currency (RON) with the currencies of major trading partners has become more stable and as parent institutions of foreign-owned banks have kept their exposure to Romania, the banking sector has remained stable and well capitalised, and Romania\u2019s external deficit has been contained.\n(2)\nContinued fiscal consolidation needs to be pursued in order to further stabilise the debt to GDP ratio and to ensure the long-run sustainability of public finances in a rapidly ageing society. Romania has begun to build a yield curve, but for the time being the financing of the budget deficit as well as of the refinancing of maturing debt remain expensive, and Romania continues to rely on debt instruments with predominantly short maturities. While the stability of the banking sector has been maintained, the increase in impaired assets may continue putting strain on the system.\n(3)\nAgainst this background, it is crucial that the Romanian authorities pursue sound and credible macroeconomic policies to avoid any resurgence of major financial market stress. A cornerstone of the economic programme remains the reduction of the fiscal deficit in line with the Council recommendations to Romania adopted under the excessive deficit procedure. In order to render the achievement of lower budgetary deficits sustainable, Romania needs to continue the reform of its public financial management and control environment.\n(4)\nThe Council is reviewing on a regular basis the economic policies implemented by Romania, in particular in the context of the annual reviews of Romania\u2019s update of the convergence programme and implementation of the national reform programme and the regular review of progress made by Romania in the context of the convergence report.\n(5)\nWhile in the baseline scenario of the economic programme, total gross financing needs until the first quarter of 2013 are fully covered, and the government continues to consolidate its access to market-based financing, the unfinished reform agenda and substantial risks surrounding the baseline scenario support Romania\u2019s request for a financial assistance of a precautionary nature as a follow up to the assistance granted under Council Decision 2009/458/EC of 6 May 2009 granting mutual assistance for Romania (1).\n(6)\nThe Romanian authorities have requested financial assistance from the Union and other international financial institutions to support balance of payments sustainability and to ensure that international currency reserves can be kept at a prudent level even in the case of adverse economic developments.\n(7)\nRomania remains seriously threatened with difficulties as regards its balance of payments, a threat which continues to justify the granting of mutual assistance by the Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Union shall continue to grant mutual assistance to Romania, thereby continuing the assistance which has been provided pursuant to Decision 2009/458/EC.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2011.", "references": ["80", "3", "60", "8", "65", "21", "37", "51", "74", "78", "72", "25", "63", "55", "19", "15", "57", "54", "87", "41", "61", "29", "84", "79", "13", "90", "7", "35", "18", "28", "No Label", "9", "10", "27", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "10", "27", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 537/2010\nof 18 June 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of June 2010 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of June 2010 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2010 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2010 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2010.", "references": ["30", "56", "91", "35", "76", "96", "58", "82", "70", "11", "42", "41", "18", "83", "72", "43", "55", "49", "78", "8", "99", "23", "66", "80", "84", "54", "26", "68", "79", "77", "No Label", "21", "69"], "gold": ["21", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 217/2012\nof 13 March 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Cinta Senese (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Cinta Senese\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 March 2012.", "references": ["16", "99", "71", "27", "64", "45", "53", "47", "62", "8", "36", "15", "94", "52", "77", "2", "12", "42", "0", "51", "72", "32", "31", "54", "19", "98", "61", "50", "18", "78", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2010/75/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\non industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)\n(Recast)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA number of substantial changes are to be made to Council Directive 78/176/EEC of 20 February 1978 on waste from the titanium dioxide industry (4), Council Directive 82/883/EEC of 3 December 1982 on procedures for the surveillance and monitoring of environments concerned by waste from the titanium dioxide industry (5), Council Directive 92/112/EEC of 15 December 1992 on procedures for harmonising the programmes for the reduction and eventual elimination of pollution caused by waste from the titanium dioxide industry (6), Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations (7), Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (8), Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (9) and Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (10). In the interests of clarity, those Directives should be recast.\n(2)\nIn order to prevent, reduce and as far as possible eliminate pollution arising from industrial activities in compliance with the \u2018polluter pays\u2019 principle and the principle of pollution prevention, it is necessary to establish a general framework for the control of the main industrial activities, giving priority to intervention at source, ensuring prudent management of natural resources and taking into account, when necessary, the economic situation and specific local characteristics of the place in which the industrial activity is taking place.\n(3)\nDifferent approaches to controlling emissions into air, water or soil separately may encourage the shifting of pollution from one environmental medium to another rather than protecting the environment as a whole. It is, therefore, appropriate to provide for an integrated approach to prevention and control of emissions into air, water and soil, to waste management, to energy efficiency and to accident prevention. Such an approach will also contribute to the achievement of a level playing field in the Union by aligning environmental performance requirements for industrial installations.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to revise the legislation relating to industrial installations in order to simplify and clarify the existing provisions, reduce unnecessary administrative burden and implement the conclusions of the Commission Communications of 21 September 2005 on the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution (hereinafter the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution), of 22 September 2006 on the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection and of 21 December 2005 on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste adopted as a follow-up to Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme (11). Those Communications set objectives to protect human health and the environment which cannot be met without further reductions in emissions arising from industrial activities.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure the prevention and control of pollution, each installation should operate only if it holds a permit or, in the case of certain installations and activities using organic solvents, only if it holds a permit or is registered.\n(6)\nIt is for Member States to determine the approach for assigning responsibilities to operators of installations provided that compliance with this Directive is ensured. Member States may choose to grant a permit to one responsible operator for each installation or to specify the responsibility amongst several operators of different parts of an installation. Where its current legal system provides for only one responsible operator for each installation, a Member State may decide to retain this system.\n(7)\nIn order to facilitate the granting of permits, Member States should be able to set requirements for certain categories of installations in general binding rules.\n(8)\nIt is important to prevent accidents and incidents and limit their consequences. Liability regarding the environmental consequences of accidents and incidents is a matter for relevant national law and, where applicable, other relevant Union law.\n(9)\nIn order to avoid duplication of regulation, the permit for an installation covered by Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (12) should not include an emission limit value for direct emissions of the greenhouse gases specified in Annex I to that Directive except where it is necessary to ensure that no significant local pollution is caused or where an installation is excluded from that scheme.\n(10)\nIn accordance with Article 193 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), this Directive does not prevent Member States from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective measures, for example greenhouse gas emission requirements, provided that such measures are compatible with the Treaties and the Commission has been notified.\n(11)\nOperators should submit permit applications containing the information necessary for the competent authority to set permit conditions. Operators should be able to use information resulting from the application of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (13) and of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (14) when submitting permit applications.\n(12)\nThe permit should include all the measures necessary to achieve a high level of protection of the environment as a whole and to ensure that the installation is operated in accordance with the general principles governing the basic obligations of the operator. The permit should also include emission limit values for polluting substances, or equivalent parameters or technical measures, appropriate requirements to protect the soil and groundwater and monitoring requirements. Permit conditions should be set on the basis of best available techniques.\n(13)\nIn order to determine best available techniques and to limit imbalances in the Union as regards the level of emissions from industrial activities, reference documents for best available techniques (hereinafter BAT reference documents\u2019) should be drawn up, reviewed and, where necessary, updated through an exchange of information with stakeholders and the key elements of BAT reference documents (hereinafter BAT conclusions\u2019) adopted through committee procedure. In this respect, the Commission should, through committee procedure, establish guidance on the collection of data, on the elaboration of BAT reference documents and on their quality assurance. BAT conclusions should be the reference for setting permit conditions. They can be supplemented by other sources. The Commission should aim to update BAT reference documents not later than 8 years after the publication of the previous version.\n(14)\nIn order to ensure an effective and active exchange of information resulting in high-quality BAT reference documents, the Commission should establish a forum that functions in a transparent manner. Practical arrangements for the exchange of information and the accessibility of BAT reference documents should be laid down, in particular to ensure that Member States and stakeholders provide data of sufficient quality and quantity based on established guidance to enable the determination of best available techniques and emerging techniques.\n(15)\nIt is important to provide sufficient flexibility to competent authorities to set emission limit values that ensure that, under normal operating conditions, emissions do not exceed the emission levels associated with the best available techniques. To this end, the competent authority may set emission limits that differ from the emission levels associated with the best available techniques in terms of the values, periods of time and reference conditions applied, so long as it can be demonstrated, through the results of emission monitoring, that emissions have not exceeded the emission levels associated with the best available techniques. Compliance with the emission limit values that are set in permits results in emissions below those emission limit values.\n(16)\nIn order to take into account certain specific circumstances where the application of emission levels associated with the best available techniques would lead to disproportionately high costs compared to the environmental benefits, competent authorities should be able to set emission limit values deviating from those levels. Such deviations should be based on an assessment taking into account well-defined criteria. The emission limit values set out in this Directive should not be exceeded. In any event, no significant pollution should be caused and a high level of protection of the environment taken as a whole should be achieved.\n(17)\nIn order to enable operators to test emerging techniques which could provide for a higher general level of environmental protection, or at least the same level of environmental protection and higher cost savings than existing best available techniques, the competent authority should be able to grant temporary derogations from emission levels associated with the best available techniques.\n(18)\nChanges to an installation may give rise to higher levels of pollution. Operators should notify the competent authority of any planned change which might affect the environment. Substantial changes to installations which may have significant negative effects on human health or the environment should not be made without a permit granted in accordance with this Directive.\n(19)\nThe spreading of manure contributes significantly to emissions of pollutants into air and water. With a view to meeting the objectives set out in the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and Union law on water protection, it is necessary for the Commission to review the need to establish the most suitable controls of these emissions through the application of best available techniques.\n(20)\nThe intensive rearing of poultry and cattle contributes significantly to emissions of pollutants into air and water. With a view to meeting the objectives set out in the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and in Union law on water protection, it is necessary for the Commission to review the need to establish differentiated capacity thresholds for different poultry species in order to define the scope of this Directive and to review the need to establish the most suitable controls on emissions from cattle rearing installations.\n(21)\nIn order to take account of developments in best available techniques or other changes to an installation, permit conditions should be reconsidered regularly and, where necessary, updated, in particular where new or updated BAT conclusions are adopted.\n(22)\nIn specific cases where permit reconsideration and updating identifies that a longer period than 4 years after the publication of a decision on BAT conclusions might be needed to introduce new best available techniques, competent authorities may set a longer time period in permit conditions where this is justified on the basis of the criteria laid down in this Directive.\n(23)\nIt is necessary to ensure that the operation of an installation does not lead to a deterioration of the quality of soil and groundwater. Permit conditions should, therefore, include appropriate measures to prevent emissions to soil and groundwater and regular surveillance of those measures to avoid leaks, spills, incidents or accidents occurring during the use of equipment and during storage. In order to detect possible soil and groundwater pollution at an early stage and, therefore, to take appropriate corrective measures before the pollution spreads, the monitoring of soil and groundwater for relevant hazardous substances is also necessary. When determining the frequency of monitoring, the type of prevention measures and the extent and occurrence of their surveillance may be considered.\n(24)\nIn order to ensure that the operation of an installation does not deteriorate the quality of soil and groundwater, it is necessary to establish, through a baseline report, the state of soil and groundwater contamination. The baseline report should be a practical tool that permits, as far as possible, a quantified comparison between the state of the site described in that report and the state of the site upon definitive cessation of activities, in order to ascertain whether a significant increase in pollution of soil or groundwater has taken place. The baseline report should, therefore, contain information making use of existing data on soil and groundwater measurements and historical data related to past uses of the site.\n(25)\nIn accordance with the polluter pays principle, when assessing the level of significance of the pollution of soil and groundwater caused by the operator which would trigger the obligation to return the site to the state described in the baseline report, Member States should take into account the permit conditions that have applied over the lifetime of the activity concerned, the pollution prevention measures adopted for the installation, and the relative increase in pollution compared to the contamination load identified in the baseline report. Liability regarding pollution not caused by the operator is a matter for relevant national law and, where applicable, other relevant Union law.\n(26)\nIn order to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of this Directive, operators should regularly report to the competent authority on compliance with permit conditions. Member States should ensure that the operator and the competent authority each take necessary measures in the event of non-compliance with this Directive and provide for a system of environmental inspections. Member States should ensure that sufficient staff are available with the skills and qualifications needed to carry out those inspections effectively.\n(27)\nIn accordance with the \u00c5rhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (15), effective public participation in decision-making is necessary to enable the public to express, and the decision-maker to take account of, opinions and concerns which may be relevant to those decisions, thereby increasing the accountability and transparency of the decision-making process and contributing to public awareness of environmental issues and support for the decisions taken. Members of the public concerned should have access to justice in order to contribute to the protection of the right to live in an environment which is adequate for personal health and well-being.\n(28)\nThe combustion of fuel in installations with a total rated thermal input below 50 MW contributes significantly to emissions of pollutants into the air. With a view to meeting the objectives set out in the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution, it is necessary for the Commission to review the need to establish the most suitable controls on emissions from such installations. That review should take into account the specificities of combustion plants used in healthcare facilities, in particular with regard to their exceptional use in the case of emergencies.\n(29)\nLarge combustion plants contribute greatly to emissions of polluting substances into the air resulting in a significant impact on human health and the environment. In order to reduce that impact and to work towards meeting the requirements of Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (16) and the objectives set out in the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution, it is necessary to set more stringent emission limit values at Union level for certain categories of combustion plants and pollutants.\n(30)\nThe Commission should review the need to establish Union-wide emission limit values and to amend the emission limit values set out in Annex V for certain large combustion plants, taking into account the review and update of the relevant BAT reference documents. In this context, the Commission should consider the specificity of the energy systems of refineries.\n(31)\nDue to the characteristics of certain indigenous solid fuels, it is appropriate to apply minimum desulphurisation rates rather than emission limit values for sulphur dioxide for combustion plants firing such fuels. Moreover, as the specific characteristics of oil shale may not allow the application of the same sulphur abatement techniques or the achievement of the same desulphurisation efficiency as for other fuels, a slightly lower minimum desulphurisation rate for plants using this fuel is appropriate.\n(32)\nIn the case of a sudden interruption in the supply of low-sulphur fuel or gas resulting from a serious shortage, the competent authority should be able to grant temporary derogations to allow emissions of the combustion plants concerned to exceed the emission limit values set out in this Directive.\n(33)\nThe operator concerned should not operate a combustion plant for more than 24 hours after malfunctioning or breakdown of abatement equipment and unabated operation should not exceed 120 hours in a 12-month period in order to limit the negative effects of pollution on the environment. However, where there is an overriding need for energy supplies or it is necessary to avoid an overall increase of emissions resulting from the operation of another combustion plant, competent authorities should be able to grant a derogation from those time limits.\n(34)\nIn order to ensure a high level of environmental and human health protection and to avoid transboundary movements of waste to plants operating at lower environmental standards, it is necessary to set and maintain stringent operating conditions, technical requirements and emission limit values for plants incinerating or co-incinerating waste within the Union.\n(35)\nThe use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations gives rise to emissions of organic compounds into the air which contribute to the local and transboundary formation of photochemical oxidants which causes damage to natural resources and has harmful effects on human health. It is, therefore, necessary to take preventive action against the use of organic solvents and to establish a requirement to comply with emission limit values for organic compounds and appropriate operating conditions. Operators should be allowed to comply with the requirements of a reduction scheme instead of complying with the emission limit values set out in this Directive where other measures, such as the use of low-solvent or solvent-free products or techniques, provide alternative means of achieving equivalent emission reduction.\n(36)\nInstallations producing titanium dioxide can give rise to significant pollution into air and water. In order to reduce these impacts, it is necessary to set at Union level more stringent emission limit values for certain polluting substances.\n(37)\nWith regard to the inclusion in the scope of national laws, regulations and administrative provisions brought into force in order to comply with this Directive of installations for the manufacturing of ceramic products by firings, on the basis of the characteristics of the national industrial sector, and in order to grant clear interpretation of the scope, Member States should decide whether to apply both the criteria, production capacity and kiln capacity, or just one of the two criteria.\n(38)\nIn order to simplify reporting and reduce unnecessary administrative burden, the Commission should identify methods to streamline the way in which data are made available pursuant to this Directive with the other requirements of Union law, and in particular Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (17).\n(39)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for implementation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt guidance on the collection of data, on the drawing up of BAT reference documents and on their quality assurance, including the suitability of their content and format, to adopt decisions on BAT conclusions, to establish detailed rules on the determination of start-up and shut-down periods and for transitional national plans for large combustion plants, and to establish the type, format and frequency of information that Member States are to make available to the Commission. In accordance with Article 291 TFEU, rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers are to be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (18) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable.\n(40)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of the setting of the date from which continuous measurements of emissions into the air of heavy metals and dioxins and furans are to be carried out, and the adaptation of certain parts of Annexes V, VI and VII to scientific and technical progress. In the case of waste incineration plants and waste co-incineration plants, this may include, inter alia, the establishment of criteria to allow derogations from continuous monitoring of total dust emissions. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(41)\nIn order to address significant environmental pollution, for example from heavy metals and dioxins and furans, the Commission should, based on an assessment of the implementation of the best available techniques by certain activities or of the impact of those activities on the environment as a whole, present proposals for Union-wide minimum requirements for emission limit values and for rules on monitoring and compliance.\n(42)\nMember States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n(43)\nIn order to provide existing installations with sufficient time to adapt technically to the new requirements of this Directive, some of the new requirements should apply to those installations after a fixed period from the date of application of this Directive. Combustion plants need sufficient time to install the necessary abatement measures to meet the emission limit values set out in Annex V.\n(44)\nSince the objectives of this Directive, namely to ensure a high level of environmental protection and the improvement of environmental quality, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States and can, therefore, by reason of the transboundary nature of pollution from industrial activities, 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 those objectives.\n(45)\nThis Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Directive seeks to promote the application of Article 37 of that Charter.\n(46)\nThe obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive change as compared with the earlier Directives. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under the earlier Directives.\n(47)\nIn accordance with paragraph 34 of the Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making (19), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables, which will as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make those tables public.\n(48)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law and application of the Directives set out in Annex IX, Part B,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER I\nCOMMON PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Directive lays down rules on integrated prevention and control of pollution arising from industrial activities.\nIt also lays down rules designed to prevent or, where that is not practicable, to reduce emissions into air, water and land and to prevent the generation of waste, in order to achieve a high level of protection of the environment taken as a whole.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Directive shall apply to the industrial activities giving rise to pollution referred to in Chapters II to VI.\n2. This Directive shall not apply to research activities, development activities or the testing of new products and processes.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018substance\u2019 means any chemical element and its compounds, with the exception of the following substances:\n(a)\nradioactive substances as defined in Article 1 of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (20);\n(b)\ngenetically modified micro-organisms as defined in Article 2(b) of Directive 2009/41/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 May 2009 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (21);\n(c)\ngenetically modified organisms as defined in point 2 of Article 2 of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (22);\n(2)\n\u2018pollution\u2019 means the direct or indirect introduction, as a result of human activity, of substances, vibrations, heat or noise into air, water or land which may be harmful to human health or the quality of the environment, result in damage to material property, or impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment;\n(3)\n\u2018installation\u2019 means a stationary technical unit within which one or more activities listed in Annex I or in Part 1 of Annex VII are carried out, and any other directly associated activities on the same site which have a technical connection with the activities listed in those Annexes and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution;\n(4)\n\u2018emission\u2019 means the direct or indirect release of substances, vibrations, heat or noise from individual or diffuse sources in the installation into air, water or land;\n(5)\n\u2018emission limit value\u2019 means the mass, expressed in terms of certain specific parameters, concentration and/or level of an emission, which may not be exceeded during one or more periods of time;\n(6)\n\u2018environmental quality standard\u2019 means the set of requirements which must be fulfilled at a given time by a given environment or particular part thereof, as set out in Union law;\n(7)\n\u2018permit\u2019 means a written authorisation to operate all or part of an installation or combustion plant, waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant;\n(8)\n\u2018general binding rules\u2019 means emission limit values or other conditions, at least at sector level, that are adopted with the intention of being used directly to set permit conditions;\n(9)\n\u2018substantial change\u2019 means a change in the nature or functioning, or an extension, of an installation or combustion plant, waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant which may have significant negative effects on human health or the environment;\n(10)\n\u2018best available techniques\u2019 means the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation which indicates the practical suitability of particular techniques for providing the basis for emission limit values and other permit conditions designed to prevent and, where that is not practicable, to reduce emissions and the impact on the environment as a whole:\n(a)\n\u2018techniques\u2019 includes both the technology used and the way in which the installation is designed, built, maintained, operated and decommissioned;\n(b)\n\u2018available techniques\u2019 means those developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages, whether or not the techniques are used or produced inside the Member State in question, as long as they are reasonably accessible to the operator;\n(c)\n\u2018best\u2019 means most effective in achieving a high general level of protection of the environment as a whole;\n(11)\n\u2018BAT reference document\u2019 means a document, resulting from the exchange of information organised pursuant to Article 13, drawn up for defined activities and describing, in particular, applied techniques, present emissions and consumption levels, techniques considered for the determination of best available techniques as well as BAT conclusions and any emerging techniques, giving special consideration to the criteria listed in Annex III;\n(12)\n\u2018BAT conclusions\u2019 means a document containing the parts of a BAT reference document laying down the conclusions on best available techniques, their description, information to assess their applicability, the emission levels associated with the best available techniques, associated monitoring, associated consumption levels and, where appropriate, relevant site remediation measures;\n(13)\n\u2018emission levels associated with the best available techniques\u2019 means the range of emission levels obtained under normal operating conditions using a best available technique or a combination of best available techniques, as described in BAT conclusions, expressed as an average over a given period of time, under specified reference conditions;\n(14)\n\u2018emerging technique\u2019 means a novel technique for an industrial activity that, if commercially developed, could provide either a higher general level of protection of the environment or at least the same level of protection of the environment and higher cost savings than existing best available techniques;\n(15)\n\u2018operator\u2019 means any natural or legal person who operates or controls in whole or in part the installation or combustion plant, waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant or, where this is provided for in national law, to whom decisive economic power over the technical functioning of the installation or plant has been delegated;\n(16)\n\u2018the public\u2019 means one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national law or practice, their associations, organisations or groups;\n(17)\n\u2018the public concerned\u2019 means the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the taking of a decision on the granting or the updating of a permit or of permit conditions; for the purposes of this definition, non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law shall be deemed to have an interest;\n(18)\n\u2018hazardous substances\u2019 means substances or mixtures as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (23);\n(19)\n\u2018baseline report\u2019 means information on the state of soil and groundwater contamination by relevant hazardous substances;\n(20)\n\u2018groundwater\u2019 means groundwater as defined in point 2 of Article 2 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (24);\n(21)\n\u2018soil\u2019 means the top layer of the Earth\u2019s crust situated between the bedrock and the surface. The soil is composed of mineral particles, organic matter, water, air and living organisms;\n(22)\n\u2018environmental inspection\u2019 means all actions, including site visits, monitoring of emissions and checks of internal reports and follow-up documents, verification of self-monitoring, checking of the techniques used and adequacy of the environment management of the installation, undertaken by or on behalf of the competent authority to check and promote compliance of installations with their permit conditions and, where necessary, to monitor their environmental impact;\n(23)\n\u2018poultry\u2019 means poultry as defined in point 1 of Article 2 of Council Directive 90/539/EEC of 15 October 1990 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (25);\n(24)\n\u2018fuel\u2019 means any solid, liquid or gaseous combustible material;\n(25)\n\u2018combustion plant\u2019 means any technical apparatus in which fuels are oxidised in order to use the heat thus generated;\n(26)\n\u2018stack\u2019 means a structure containing one or more flues providing a passage for waste gases in order to discharge them into the air;\n(27)\n\u2018operating hours\u2019 means the time, expressed in hours, during which a combustion plant, in whole or in part, is operating and discharging emissions into the air, excluding start-up and shut-down periods;\n(28)\n\u2018rate of desulphurisation\u2019 means the ratio over a given period of time of the quantity of sulphur which is not emitted into air by a combustion plant to the quantity of sulphur contained in the solid fuel which is introduced into the combustion plant facilities and which is used in the plant over the same period of time;\n(29)\n\u2018indigenous solid fuel\u2019 means a naturally occurring solid fuel fired in a combustion plant specifically designed for that fuel and extracted locally;\n(30)\n\u2018determinative fuel\u2019 means the fuel which, amongst all fuels used in a multi-fuel firing combustion plant using the distillation and conversion residues from the refining of crude-oil for own consumption, alone or with other fuels, has the highest emission limit value as set out in Part 1 of Annex V, or, in the case of several fuels having the same emission limit value, the fuel having the highest thermal input amongst those fuels;\n(31)\n\u2018biomass\u2019 means any of the following:\n(a)\nproducts consisting of any vegetable matter from agriculture or forestry which can be used as a fuel for the purpose of recovering its energy content;\n(b)\nthe following waste:\n(i)\nvegetable waste from agriculture and forestry;\n(ii)\nvegetable waste from the food processing industry, if the heat generated is recovered;\n(iii)\nfibrous vegetable waste from virgin pulp production and from production of paper from pulp, if it is co-incinerated at the place of production and the heat generated is recovered;\n(iv)\ncork waste;\n(v)\nwood waste with the exception of wood waste which may contain halogenated organic compounds or heavy metals as a result of treatment with wood preservatives or coating and which includes, in particular, such wood waste originating from construction and demolition waste;\n(32)\n\u2018multi-fuel firing combustion plant\u2019 means any combustion plant which may be fired simultaneously or alternately by two or more types of fuel;\n(33)\n\u2018gas turbine\u2019 means any rotating machine which converts thermal energy into mechanical work, consisting mainly of a compressor, a thermal device in which fuel is oxidised in order to heat the working fluid, and a turbine;\n(34)\n\u2018gas engine\u2019 means an internal combustion engine which operates according to the Otto cycle and uses spark ignition or, in case of dual fuel engines, compression ignition to burn fuel;\n(35)\n\u2018diesel engine\u2019 means an internal combustion engine which operates according to the diesel cycle and uses compression ignition to burn fuel;\n(36)\n\u2018small isolated system\u2019 means a small isolated system as defined in point 26 of Article 2 of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (26);\n(37)\n\u2018waste\u2019 means waste as defined in point 1 of Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste (27);\n(38)\n\u2018hazardous waste\u2019 means hazardous waste as defined in point 2 of Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC;\n(39)\n\u2018mixed municipal waste\u2019 means waste from households as well as commercial, industrial and institutional waste which, because of its nature and composition, is similar to waste from households, but excluding fractions indicated under heading 20 01 of the Annex to Decision 2000/532/EC (28) that are collected separately at source and excluding the other waste indicated under heading 20 02 of that Annex;\n(40)\n\u2018waste incineration plant\u2019 means any stationary or mobile technical unit and equipment dedicated to the thermal treatment of waste, with or without recovery of the combustion heat generated, through the incineration by oxidation of waste as well as other thermal treatment processes, such as pyrolysis, gasification or plasma process, if the substances resulting from the treatment are subsequently incinerated;\n(41)\n\u2018waste co-incineration plant\u2019 means any stationary or mobile technical unit whose main purpose is the generation of energy or production of material products and which uses waste as a regular or additional fuel or in which waste is thermally treated for the purpose of disposal through the incineration by oxidation of waste as well as other thermal treatment processes, such as pyrolysis, gasification or plasma process, if the substances resulting from the treatment are subsequently incinerated;\n(42)\n\u2018nominal capacity\u2019 means the sum of the incineration capacities of the furnaces of which a waste incineration plant or a waste co-incineration plant is composed, as specified by the constructor and confirmed by the operator, with due account being taken of the calorific value of the waste, expressed as the quantity of waste incinerated per hour;\n(43)\n\u2018dioxins and furans\u2019 means all polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans listed in Part 2 of Annex VI;\n(44)\n\u2018organic compound\u2019 means any compound containing at least the element carbon and one or more of hydrogen, halogens, oxygen, sulphur, phosphorus, silicon or nitrogen, with the exception of carbon oxides and inorganic carbonates and bicarbonates;\n(45)\n\u2018volatile organic compound\u2019 means any organic compound as well as the fraction of creosote, having at 293,15 K a vapour pressure of 0,01 kPa or more, or having a corresponding volatility under the particular conditions of use;\n(46)\n\u2018organic solvent\u2019 means any volatile organic compound which is used for any of the following:\n(a)\nalone or in combination with other agents, and without undergoing a chemical change, to dissolve raw materials, products or waste materials;\n(b)\nas a cleaning agent to dissolve contaminants;\n(c)\nas a dissolver;\n(d)\nas a dispersion medium;\n(e)\nas a viscosity adjuster;\n(f)\nas a surface tension adjuster;\n(g)\nas a plasticiser;\n(h)\nas a preservative;\n(47)\n\u2018coating\u2019 means coating as defined in point 8 of Article 2 of Directive 2004/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products (29).\nArticle 4\nObligation to hold a permit\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that no installation or combustion plant, waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant is operated without a permit.\nBy way of derogation from the first subparagraph, Member States may set a procedure for the registration of installations covered only by Chapter V.\nThe procedure for registration shall be specified in a binding act and include at least a notification to the competent authority by the operator of the intention to operate an installation.\n2. Member States may opt to provide that a permit cover two or more installations or parts of installations operated by the same operator on the same site.\nWhere a permit covers two or more installations, it shall contain conditions to ensure that each installation complies with the requirements of this Directive.\n3. Member States may opt to provide that a permit cover several parts of an installation operated by different operators. In such cases, the permit shall specify the responsibilities of each operator.\nArticle 5\nGranting of a permit\n1. Without prejudice to other requirements laid down in national or Union law, the competent authority shall grant a permit if the installation complies with the requirements of this Directive.\n2. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the conditions of, and the procedures for the granting of, the permit are fully coordinated where more than one competent authority or more than one operator is involved or more than one permit is granted, in order to guarantee an effective integrated approach by all authorities competent for this procedure.\n3. In the case of a new installation or a substantial change where Article 4 of Directive 85/337/EEC applies, any relevant information obtained or conclusion arrived at pursuant to Articles 5, 6, 7 and 9 of that Directive shall be examined and used for the purposes of granting the permit.\nArticle 6\nGeneral binding rules\nWithout prejudice to the obligation to hold a permit, Member States may include requirements for certain categories of installations, combustion plants, waste incineration plants or waste co-incineration plants in general binding rules.\nWhere general binding rules are adopted, the permit may simply include a reference to such rules.\nArticle 7\nIncidents and accidents\nWithout prejudice to Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (30), in the event of any incident or accident significantly affecting the environment, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that:\n(a)\nthe operator informs the competent authority immediately;\n(b)\nthe operator immediately takes the measures to limit the environmental consequences and to prevent further possible incidents or accidents;\n(c)\nthe competent authority requires the operator to take any appropriate complementary measures that the competent authority considers necessary to limit the environmental consequences and to prevent further possible incidents or accidents.\nArticle 8\nNon-compliance\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the permit conditions are complied with.\n2. In the event of a breach of the permit conditions, Member States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nthe operator immediately informs the competent authority;\n(b)\nthe operator immediately takes the measures necessary to ensure that compliance is restored within the shortest possible time;\n(c)\nthe competent authority requires the operator to take any appropriate complementary measures that the competent authority considers necessary to restore compliance.\nWhere the breach of the permit conditions poses an immediate danger to human health or threatens to cause an immediate significant adverse effect upon the environment, and until compliance is restored in accordance with points (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph, the operation of the installation, combustion plant, waste incineration plant, waste co-incineration plant or relevant part thereof shall be suspended.\nArticle 9\nEmission of greenhouse gases\n1. Where emissions of a greenhouse gas from an installation are specified in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC in relation to an activity carried out in that installation, the permit shall not include an emission limit value for direct emissions of that gas, unless necessary to ensure that no significant local pollution is caused.\n2. For activities listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC, Member States may choose not to impose requirements relating to energy efficiency in respect of combustion units or other units emitting carbon dioxide on the site.\n3. Where necessary, the competent authorities shall amend the permit as appropriate.\n4. Paragraphs 1 to 3 shall not apply to installations which are temporarily excluded from the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union in accordance with Article 27 of Directive 2003/87/EC.\nCHAPTER II\nPROVISIONS FOR ACTIVITIES LISTED IN ANNEX I\nArticle 10\nScope\nThis Chapter shall apply to the activities set out in Annex I and, where applicable, reaching the capacity thresholds set out in that Annex.\nArticle 11\nGeneral principles governing the basic obligations of the operator\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to provide that installations are operated in accordance with the following principles:\n(a)\nall the appropriate preventive measures are taken against pollution;\n(b)\nthe best available techniques are applied;\n(c)\nno significant pollution is caused;\n(d)\nthe generation of waste is prevented in accordance with Directive 2008/98/EC;\n(e)\nwhere waste is generated, it is, in order of priority and in accordance with Directive 2008/98/EC, prepared for re-use, recycled, recovered or, where that is technically and economically impossible, it is disposed of while avoiding or reducing any impact on the environment;\n(f)\nenergy is used efficiently;\n(g)\nthe necessary measures are taken to prevent accidents and limit their consequences;\n(h)\nthe necessary measures are taken upon definitive cessation of activities to avoid any risk of pollution and return the site of operation to the satisfactory state defined in accordance with Article 22.\nArticle 12\nApplications for permits\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that an application for a permit includes a description of the following:\n(a)\nthe installation and its activities;\n(b)\nthe raw and auxiliary materials, other substances and the energy used in or generated by the installation;\n(c)\nthe sources of emissions from the installation;\n(d)\nthe conditions of the site of the installation;\n(e)\nwhere applicable, a baseline report in accordance with Article 22(2);\n(f)\nthe nature and quantities of foreseeable emissions from the installation into each medium as well as identification of significant effects of the emissions on the environment;\n(g)\nthe proposed technology and other techniques for preventing or, where this is not possible, reducing emissions from the installation;\n(h)\nmeasures for the prevention, preparation for re-use, recycling and recovery of waste generated by the installation;\n(i)\nfurther measures planned to comply with the general principles of the basic obligations of the operator as provided for in Article 11;\n(j)\nmeasures planned to monitor emissions into the environment;\n(k)\nthe main alternatives to the proposed technology, techniques and measures studied by the applicant in outline.\nAn application for a permit shall also include a non-technical summary of the details referred to in the first subparagraph.\n2. Where information supplied in accordance with the requirements provided for in Directive 85/337/EEC or a safety report prepared in accordance with Directive 96/82/EC or other information produced in response to other legislation fulfils any of the requirements of paragraph 1, that information may be included in, or attached to, the application.\nArticle 13\nBAT reference documents and exchange of information\n1. In order to draw up, review and, where necessary, update BAT reference documents, the Commission shall organise an exchange of information between Member States, the industries concerned, non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and the Commission.\n2. The exchange of information shall, in particular, address the following:\n(a)\nthe performance of installations and techniques in terms of emissions, expressed as short- and long-term averages, where appropriate, and the associated reference conditions, consumption and nature of raw materials, water consumption, use of energy and generation of waste;\n(b)\nthe techniques used, associated monitoring, cross-media effects, economic and technical viability and developments therein;\n(c)\nbest available techniques and emerging techniques identified after considering the issues mentioned in points (a) and (b).\n3. The Commission shall establish and regularly convene a forum composed of representatives of Member States, the industries concerned and non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection.\nThe Commission shall obtain the opinion of the forum on the practical arrangements for the exchange of information and, in particular, on the following:\n(a)\nthe rules of procedure of the forum;\n(b)\nthe work programme for the exchange of information;\n(c)\nguidance on the collection of data;\n(d)\nguidance on the drawing up of BAT reference documents and on their quality assurance including the suitability of their content and format.\nThe guidance referred to in points (c) and (d) of the second subparagraph shall take account of the opinion of the forum and shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 75(2).\n4. The Commission shall obtain and make publicly available the opinion of the forum on the proposed content of the BAT reference documents and shall take into account this opinion for the procedures laid down in paragraph 5.\n5. Decisions on the BAT conclusions shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 75(2).\n6. After the adoption of a decision in accordance with paragraph 5, the Commission shall without delay make the BAT reference document publicly available and ensure that BAT conclusions are made available in all the official languages of the Union.\n7. Pending the adoption of a relevant decision in accordance with paragraph 5, the conclusions on best available techniques from BAT reference documents adopted by the Commission prior to the date referred to in Article 83 shall apply as BAT conclusions for the purposes of this Chapter except for Article 15(3) and (4).\nArticle 14\nPermit conditions\n1. Member States shall ensure that the permit includes all measures necessary for compliance with the requirements of Articles 11 and 18.\nThose measures shall include at least the following:\n(a)\nemission limit values for polluting substances listed in Annex II, and for other polluting substances, which are likely to be emitted from the installation concerned in significant quantities, having regard to their nature and their potential to transfer pollution from one medium to another;\n(b)\nappropriate requirements ensuring protection of the soil and groundwater and measures concerning the monitoring and management of waste generated by the installation;\n(c)\nsuitable emission monitoring requirements specifying:\n(i)\nmeasurement methodology, frequency and evaluation procedure; and\n(ii)\nwhere Article 15(3)(b) is applied, that results of emission monitoring are available for the same periods of time and reference conditions as for the emission levels associated with the best available techniques;\n(d)\nan obligation to supply the competent authority regularly, and at least annually, with:\n(i)\ninformation on the basis of results of emission monitoring referred to in point (c) and other required data that enables the competent authority to verify compliance with the permit conditions; and\n(ii)\nwhere Article 15(3)(b) is applied, a summary of the results of emission monitoring which allows a comparison with the emission levels associated with the best available techniques;\n(e)\nappropriate requirements for the regular maintenance and surveillance of measures taken to prevent emissions to soil and groundwater pursuant to point (b) and appropriate requirements concerning the periodic monitoring of soil and groundwater in relation to relevant hazardous substances likely to be found on site and having regard to the possibility of soil and groundwater contamination at the site of the installation;\n(f)\nmeasures relating to conditions other than normal operating conditions such as start-up and shut-down operations, leaks, malfunctions, momentary stoppages and definitive cessation of operations;\n(g)\nprovisions on the minimisation of long-distance or transboundary pollution;\n(h)\nconditions for assessing compliance with the emission limit values or a reference to the applicable requirements specified elsewhere.\n2. For the purpose of paragraph 1(a), emission limit values may be supplemented or replaced by equivalent parameters or technical measures ensuring an equivalent level of environmental protection.\n3. BAT conclusions shall be the reference for setting the permit conditions.\n4. Without prejudice to Article 18, the competent authority may set stricter permit conditions than those achievable by the use of the best available techniques as described in the BAT conclusions. Member States may establish rules under which the competent authority may set such stricter conditions.\n5. Where the competent authority sets permit conditions on the basis of a best available technique not described in any of the relevant BAT conclusions, it shall ensure that:\n(a)\nthat technique is determined by giving special consideration to the criteria listed in Annex III; and\n(b)\nthe requirements of Article 15 are complied with.\nWhere the BAT conclusions referred to in the first subparagraph do not contain emission levels associated with the best available techniques, the competent authority shall ensure that the technique referred to in the first subparagraph ensures a level of environmental protection equivalent to the best available techniques described in the BAT conclusions.\n6. Where an activity or a type of production process carried out within an installation is not covered by any of the BAT conclusions or where those conclusions do not address all the potential environmental effects of the activity or process, the competent authority shall, after prior consultations with the operator, set the permit conditions on the basis of the best available techniques that it has determined for the activities or processes concerned, by giving special consideration to the criteria listed in Annex III.\n7. For installations referred to in point 6.6 of Annex I, paragraphs 1 to 6 of this Article shall apply without prejudice to the legislation relating to animal welfare.\nArticle 15\nEmission limit values, equivalent parameters and technical measures\n1. The emission limit values for polluting substances shall apply at the point where the emissions leave the installation, and any dilution prior to that point shall be disregarded when determining those values.\nWith regard to indirect releases of polluting substances into water, the effect of a water treatment plant may be taken into account when determining the emission limit values of the installation concerned, provided that an equivalent level of protection of the environment as a whole is guaranteed and provided this does not lead to higher levels of pollution in the environment.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 18, the emission limit values and the equivalent parameters and technical measures referred to in Article 14(1) and (2) shall be based on the best available techniques, without prescribing the use of any technique or specific technology.\n3. The competent authority shall set emission limit values that ensure that, under normal operating conditions, emissions do not exceed the emission levels associated with the best available techniques as laid down in the decisions on BAT conclusions referred to in Article 13(5) through either of the following:\n(a)\nsetting emission limit values that do not exceed the emission levels associated with the best available techniques. Those emission limit values shall be expressed for the same or shorter periods of time and under the same reference conditions as those emission levels associated with the best available techniques; or\n(b)\nsetting different emission limit values than those referred to under point (a) in terms of values, periods of time and reference conditions.\nWhere point (b) is applied, the competent authority shall, at least annually, assess the results of emission monitoring in order to ensure that emissions under normal operating conditions have not exceeded the emission levels associated with the best available techniques.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, and without prejudice to Article 18, the competent authority may, in specific cases, set less strict emission limit values. Such a derogation may apply only where an assessment shows that the achievement of emission levels associated with the best available techniques as described in BAT conclusions would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental benefits due to:\n(a)\nthe geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned; or\n(b)\nthe technical characteristics of the installation concerned.\nThe competent authority shall document in an annex to the permit conditions the reasons for the application of the first subparagraph including the result of the assessment and the justification for the conditions imposed.\nThe emission limit values set in accordance with the first subparagraph shall, however, not exceed the emission limit values set out in the Annexes to this Directive, where applicable.\nThe competent authority shall in any case ensure that no significant pollution is caused and that a high level of protection of the environment as a whole is achieved.\nOn the basis of information provided by Member States in accordance with Article 72(1), in particular concerning the application of this paragraph, the Commission may, where necessary, assess and further clarify, through guidance, the criteria to be taken into account for the application of this paragraph.\nThe competent authority shall re-assess the application of the first subparagraph as part of each reconsideration of the permit conditions pursuant to Article 21.\n5. The competent authority may grant temporary derogations from the requirements of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article and from Article 11(a) and (b) for the testing and use of emerging techniques for a total period of time not exceeding 9 months, provided that after the period specified, either the technique is stopped or the activity achieves at least the emission levels associated with the best available techniques.\nArticle 16\nMonitoring requirements\n1. The monitoring requirements referred to in Article 14(1)(c) shall, where applicable, be based on the conclusions on monitoring as described in the BAT conclusions.\n2. The frequency of the periodic monitoring referred to in Article 14(1)(e) shall be determined by the competent authority in a permit for each individual installation or in general binding rules.\nWithout prejudice to the first subparagraph, periodic monitoring shall be carried out at least once every 5 years for groundwater and 10 years for soil, unless such monitoring is based on a systematic appraisal of the risk of contamination.\nArticle 17\nGeneral binding rules for activities listed in Annex I\n1. When adopting general binding rules, Member States shall ensure an integrated approach and a high level of environmental protection equivalent to that achievable with individual permit conditions.\n2. General binding rules shall be based on the best available techniques, without prescribing the use of any technique or specific technology in order to ensure compliance with Articles 14 and 15.\n3. Member States shall ensure that general binding rules are updated to take into account developments in best available techniques and in order to ensure compliance with Article 21.\n4. General binding rules adopted in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 3 shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication.\nArticle 18\nEnvironmental quality standards\nWhere an environmental quality standard requires stricter conditions than those achievable by the use of the best available techniques, additional measures shall be included in the permit, without prejudice to other measures which may be taken to comply with environmental quality standards.\nArticle 19\nDevelopments in best available techniques\nMember States shall ensure that the competent authority follows or is informed of developments in best available techniques and of the publication of any new or updated BAT conclusions and shall make that information available to the public concerned.\nArticle 20\nChanges by operators to installations\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the operator informs the competent authority of any planned change in the nature or functioning, or an extension of the installation which may have consequences for the environment. Where appropriate, the competent authority shall update the permit.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that no substantial change planned by the operator is made without a permit granted in accordance with this Directive.\nThe application for a permit and the decision by the competent authority shall cover those parts of the installation and those details listed in Article 12 which may be affected by the substantial change.\n3. Any change in the nature or functioning or an extension of an installation shall be deemed to be substantial if the change or extension in itself reaches the capacity thresholds set out in Annex I.\nArticle 21\nReconsideration and updating of permit conditions by the competent authority\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authority periodically reconsiders in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 5 all permit conditions and, where necessary to ensure compliance with this Directive, updates those conditions.\n2. At the request of the competent authority, the operator shall submit all the information necessary for the purpose of reconsidering the permit conditions, including, in particular, results of emission monitoring and other data, that enables a comparison of the operation of the installation with the best available techniques described in the applicable BAT conclusions and with the emission levels associated with the best available techniques.\nWhen reconsidering permit conditions, the competent authority shall use any information resulting from monitoring or inspections.\n3. Within 4 years of publication of decisions on BAT conclusions in accordance with Article 13(5) relating to the main activity of an installation, the competent authority shall ensure that:\n(a)\nall the permit conditions for the installation concerned are reconsidered and, if necessary, updated to ensure compliance with this Directive, in particular, with Article 15(3) and (4), where applicable;\n(b)\nthe installation complies with those permit conditions.\nThe reconsideration shall take into account all the new or updated BAT conclusions applicable to the installation and adopted in accordance with Article 13(5) since the permit was granted or last reconsidered.\n4. Where an installation is not covered by any of the BAT conclusions, the permit conditions shall be reconsidered and, if necessary, updated where developments in the best available techniques allow for the significant reduction of emissions.\n5. The permit conditions shall be reconsidered and, where necessary, updated at least in the following cases:\n(a)\nthe pollution caused by the installation is of such significance that the existing emission limit values of the permit need to be revised or new such values need to be included in the permit;\n(b)\nthe operational safety requires other techniques to be used;\n(c)\nwhere it is necessary to comply with a new or revised environmental quality standard in accordance with Article 18.\nArticle 22\nSite closure\n1. Without prejudice to Directive 2000/60/EC, Directive 2004/35/EC, Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (31) and to relevant Union law on soil protection, the competent authority shall set permit conditions to ensure compliance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article upon definitive cessation of activities.\n2. Where the activity involves the use, production or release of relevant hazardous substances and having regard to the possibility of soil and groundwater contamination at the site of the installation, the operator shall prepare and submit to the competent authority a baseline report before starting operation of an installation or before a permit for an installation is updated for the first time after 7 January 2013.\nThe baseline report shall contain the information necessary to determine the state of soil and groundwater contamination so as to make a quantified comparison with the state upon definitive cessation of activities provided for under paragraph 3.\nThe baseline report shall contain at least the following information:\n(a)\ninformation on the present use and, where available, on past uses of the site;\n(b)\nwhere available, existing information on soil and groundwater measurements that reflect the state at the time the report is drawn up or, alternatively, new soil and groundwater measurements having regard to the possibility of soil and groundwater contamination by those hazardous substances to be used, produced or released by the installation concerned.\nWhere information produced pursuant to other national or Union law fulfils the requirements of this paragraph that information may be included in, or attached to, the submitted baseline report.\nThe Commission shall establish guidance on the content of the baseline report.\n3. Upon definitive cessation of the activities, the operator shall assess the state of soil and groundwater contamination by relevant hazardous substances used, produced or released by the installation. Where the installation has caused significant pollution of soil or groundwater by relevant hazardous substances compared to the state established in the baseline report referred to in paragraph 2, the operator shall take the necessary measures to address that pollution so as to return the site to that state. For that purpose, the technical feasibility of such measures may be taken into account.\nWithout prejudice to the first subparagraph, upon definitive cessation of the activities, and where the contamination of soil and groundwater at the site poses a significant risk to human health or the environment as a result of the permitted activities carried out by the operator before the permit for the installation is updated for the first time after 7 January 2013 and taking into account the conditions of the site of the installation established in accordance with Article 12(1)(d), the operator shall take the necessary actions aimed at the removal, control, containment or reduction of relevant hazardous substances, so that the site, taking into account its current or approved future use, ceases to pose such a risk.\n4. Where the operator is not required to prepare a baseline report referred to in paragraph 2, the operator shall, upon definitive cessation of the activities, take the necessary actions aimed at the removal, control, containment or reduction of relevant hazardous substances, so that the site, taking into account its current or approved future use, ceases to pose any significant risk to human health or the environment due to the contamination of soil and groundwater as a result of the permitted activities and taking into account the conditions of the site of the installation established in accordance with Article 12(1)(d).\nArticle 23\nEnvironmental inspections\n1. Member States shall set up a system of environmental inspections of installations addressing the examination of the full range of relevant environmental effects from the installations concerned.\nMember States shall ensure that operators afford the competent authorities all necessary assistance to enable those authorities to carry out any site visits, to take samples and to gather any information necessary for the performance of their duties for the purposes of this Directive.\n2. Member States shall ensure that all installations are covered by an environmental inspection plan at national, regional or local level and shall ensure that this plan is regularly reviewed and, where appropriate, updated.\n3. Each environmental inspection plan shall include the following:\n(a)\na general assessment of relevant significant environmental issues;\n(b)\nthe geographical area covered by the inspection plan;\n(c)\na register of the installations covered by the plan;\n(d)\nprocedures for drawing up programmes for routine environmental inspections pursuant to paragraph 4;\n(e)\nprocedures for non-routine environmental inspections pursuant to paragraph 5;\n(f)\nwhere necessary, provisions on the cooperation between different inspection authorities.\n4. Based on the inspection plans, the competent authority shall regularly draw up programmes for routine environmental inspections, including the frequency of site visits for different types of installations.\nThe period between two site visits shall be based on a systematic appraisal of the environmental risks of the installations concerned and shall not exceed 1 year for installations posing the highest risks and 3 years for installations posing the lowest risks.\nIf an inspection has identified an important case of non-compliance with the permit conditions, an additional site visit shall be carried out within 6 months of that inspection.\nThe systematic appraisal of the environmental risks shall be based on at least the following criteria:\n(a)\nthe potential and actual impacts of the installations concerned on human health and the environment taking into account the levels and types of emissions, the sensitivity of the local environment and the risk of accidents;\n(b)\nthe record of compliance with permit conditions;\n(c)\nthe participation of the operator in the Union eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 (32).\nThe Commission may adopt guidance on the criteria for the appraisal of environmental risks.\n5. Non-routine environmental inspections shall be carried out to investigate serious environmental complaints, serious environmental accidents, incidents and occurrences of non-compliance as soon as possible and, where appropriate, before the granting, reconsideration or update of a permit.\n6. Following each site visit, the competent authority shall prepare a report describing the relevant findings regarding compliance of the installation with the permit conditions and conclusions on whether any further action is necessary.\nThe report shall be notified to the operator concerned within 2 months of the site visit taking place. The report shall be made publicly available by the competent authority in accordance with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information (33) within 4 months of the site visit taking place.\nWithout prejudice to Article 8(2), the competent authority shall ensure that the operator takes all the necessary actions identified in the report within a reasonable period.\nArticle 24\nAccess to information and public participation in the permit procedure\n1. Member States shall ensure that the public concerned are given early and effective opportunities to participate in the following procedures:\n(a)\nthe granting of a permit for new installations;\n(b)\nthe granting of a permit for any substantial change;\n(c)\nthe granting or updating of a permit for an installation where the application of Article 15(4) is proposed;\n(d)\nthe updating of a permit or permit conditions for an installation in accordance with Article 21(5)(a).\nThe procedure set out in Annex IV shall apply to such participation.\n2. When a decision on granting, reconsideration or updating of a permit has been taken, the competent authority shall make available to the public, including via the Internet in relation to points (a), (b) and (f), the following information:\n(a)\nthe content of the decision, including a copy of the permit and any subsequent updates;\n(b)\nthe reasons on which the decision is based;\n(c)\nthe results of the consultations held before the decision was taken and an explanation of how they were taken into account in that decision;\n(d)\nthe title of the BAT reference documents relevant to the installation or activity concerned;\n(e)\nhow the permit conditions referred to in Article 14, including the emission limit values, have been determined in relation to the best available techniques and emission levels associated with the best available techniques;\n(f)\nwhere a derogation is granted in accordance with Article 15(4), the specific reasons for that derogation based on the criteria laid down in that paragraph and the conditions imposed.\n3. The competent authority shall also make available to the public, including via the Internet at least in relation to point (a):\n(a)\nrelevant information on the measures taken by the operator upon definitive cessation of activities in accordance with Article 22;\n(b)\nthe results of emission monitoring as required under the permit conditions and held by the competent authority.\n4. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article shall apply subject to the restrictions laid down in Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/4/EC.\nArticle 25\nAccess to justice\n1. Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with the relevant national legal system, members of the public concerned have access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, acts or omissions subject to Article 24 when one of the following conditions is met:\n(a)\nthey have a sufficient interest;\n(b)\nthey maintain the impairment of a right, where administrative procedural law of a Member State requires this as a precondition.\n2. Member States shall determine at what stage the decisions, acts or omissions may be challenged.\n3. What constitutes a sufficient interest and impairment of a right shall be determined by Member States, consistently with the objective of giving the public concerned wide access to justice.\nTo this end, the interest of any non-governmental organisation promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose of paragraph 1(a).\nSuch organisations shall also be deemed to have rights capable of being impaired for the purpose of paragraph 1(b).\n4. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not exclude the possibility of a preliminary review procedure before an administrative authority and shall not affect the requirement of exhaustion of administrative review procedures prior to recourse to judicial review procedures, where such a requirement exists under national law.\nAny such procedure shall be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.\n5. Member States shall ensure that practical information is made available to the public on access to administrative and judicial review procedures.\nArticle 26\nTransboundary effects\n1. Where a Member State is aware that the operation of an installation is likely to have significant negative effects on the environment of another Member State, or where a Member State which is likely to be significantly affected so requests, the Member State in whose territory the application for a permit pursuant to Article 4 or Article 20(2) was submitted shall forward to the other Member State any information required to be given or made available pursuant to Annex IV at the same time as it makes it available to the public.\nSuch information shall serve as a basis for any consultations necessary in the framework of the bilateral relations between the two Member States on a reciprocal and equivalent basis.\n2. Within the framework of their bilateral relations, Member States shall ensure that in the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the applications are also made available for an appropriate period of time to the public of the Member State likely to be affected so that it will have the right to comment on them before the competent authority reaches its decision.\n3. The results of any consultations pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be taken into consideration when the competent authority reaches a decision on the application.\n4. The competent authority shall inform any Member State which has been consulted pursuant to paragraph 1 of the decision reached on the application and shall forward to it the information referred to in Article 24(2). That Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that that information is made available in an appropriate manner to the public concerned in its own territory.\nArticle 27\nEmerging techniques\n1. Member States shall, where appropriate, encourage the development and application of emerging techniques, in particular for those emerging techniques identified in BAT reference documents.\n2. The Commission shall establish guidance to assist Member States in encouraging the development and application of emerging techniques as referred to in paragraph 1.\nCHAPTER III\nSPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR COMBUSTION PLANTS\nArticle 28\nScope\nThis Chapter shall apply to combustion plants, the total rated thermal input of which is equal to or greater than 50 MW, irrespective of the type of fuel used.\nThis Chapter shall not apply to the following combustion plants:\n(a)\nplants in which the products of combustion are used for the direct heating, drying, or any other treatment of objects or materials;\n(b)\npost-combustion plants designed to purify the waste gases by combustion which are not operated as independent combustion plants;\n(c)\nfacilities for the regeneration of catalytic cracking catalysts;\n(d)\nfacilities for the conversion of hydrogen sulphide into sulphur;\n(e)\nreactors used in the chemical industry;\n(f)\ncoke battery furnaces;\n(g)\ncowpers;\n(h)\nany technical apparatus used in the propulsion of a vehicle, ship or aircraft;\n(i)\ngas turbines and gas engines used on offshore platforms;\n(j)\nplants which use any solid or liquid waste as a fuel other than waste referred to in point (b) of point 31 of Article 3.\nArticle 29\nAggregation rules\n1. Where the waste gases of two or more separate combustion plants are discharged through a common stack, the combination formed by such plants shall be considered as a single combustion plant and their capacities added for the purpose of calculating the total rated thermal input.\n2. Where two or more separate combustion plants which have been granted a permit for the first time on or after 1 July 1987, or the operators of which have submitted a complete application for a permit on or after that date, are installed in such a way that, taking technical and economic factors into account, their waste gases could in the judgement of the competent authority, be discharged through a common stack, the combination formed by such plants shall be considered as a single combustion plant and their capacities added for the purpose of calculating the total rated thermal input.\n3. For the purpose of calculating the total rated thermal input of a combination of combustion plants referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, individual combustion plants with a rated thermal input below 15 MW shall not be considered.\nArticle 30\nEmission limit values\n1. Waste gases from combustion plants shall be discharged in a controlled way by means of a stack, containing one or more flues, the height of which is calculated in such a way as to safeguard human health and the environment.\n2. All permits for installations containing combustion plants which have been granted a permit before 7 January 2013, or the operators of which have submitted a complete application for a permit before that date, provided that such plants are put into operation no later than 7 January 2014, shall include conditions ensuring that emissions into air from these plants do not exceed the emission limit values set out in Part 1 of Annex V.\nAll permits for installations containing combustion plants which had been granted an exemption as referred to in Article 4(4) of Directive 2001/80/EC and which are in operation after 1 January 2016, shall include conditions ensuring that emissions into the air from these plants do not exceed the emission limit values set out in Part 2 of Annex V.\n3. All permits for installations containing combustion plants not covered by paragraph 2 shall include conditions ensuring that emissions into the air from these plants do not exceed the emission limit values set out in Part 2 of Annex V.\n4. The emission limit values set out in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex V as well as the minimum rates of desulphurisation set out in Part 5 of that Annex shall apply to the emissions of each common stack in relation to the total rated thermal input of the entire combustion plant. Where Annex V provides that emission limit values may be applied for a part of a combustion plant with a limited number of operating hours, those limit values shall apply to the emissions of that part of the plant, but shall be set in relation to the total rated thermal input of the entire combustion plant.\n5. The competent authority may grant a derogation for a maximum of 6 months from the obligation to comply with the emission limit values provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 for sulphur dioxide in respect of a combustion plant which to this end normally uses low-sulphur fuel, in cases where the operator is unable to comply with those limit values because of an interruption in the supply of low-sulphur fuel resulting from a serious shortage.\nMember States shall immediately inform the Commission of any derogation granted under the first subparagraph.\n6. The competent authority may grant a derogation from the obligation to comply with the emission limit values provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 in cases where a combustion plant using only gaseous fuel has to resort exceptionally to the use of other fuels because of a sudden interruption in the supply of gas and for this reason would need to be equipped with a waste gas purification facility. The period for which such a derogation is granted shall not exceed 10 days except where there is an overriding need to maintain energy supplies.\nThe operator shall immediately inform the competent authority of each specific case referred to in the first subparagraph.\nMember States shall inform the Commission immediately of any derogation granted under the first subparagraph.\n7. Where a combustion plant is extended, the emission limit values set out in Part 2 of Annex V shall apply to the extended part of the plant affected by the change and shall be set in relation to the total rated thermal input of the entire combustion plant. In the case of a change to a combustion plant, which may have consequences for the environment and which affects a part of the plant with a rated thermal input of 50 MW or more, the emission limit values as set out in Part 2 of Annex V shall apply to the part of the plant which has changed in relation to the total rated thermal input of the entire combustion plant.\n8. The emission limit values set out in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex V shall not apply to the following combustion plants:\n(a)\ndiesel engines;\n(b)\nrecovery boilers within installations for the production of pulp.\n9. For the following combustion plants, on the basis of the best available techniques, the Commission shall review the need to establish Union-wide emission limit values and to amend the emission limit values set out in Annex V:\n(a)\nthe combustion plants referred to in paragraph 8;\n(b)\ncombustion plants within refineries firing the distillation and conversion residues from the refining of crude-oil for own consumption, alone or with other fuels, taking into account the specificity of the energy systems of refineries;\n(c)\ncombustion plants firing gases other than natural gas;\n(d)\ncombustion plants in chemical installations using liquid production residues as non-commercial fuel for own consumption.\nThe Commission shall, by 31 December 2013, report the results of this review to the European Parliament and to the Council accompanied, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal.\nArticle 31\nDesulphurisation rate\n1. For combustion plants firing indigenous solid fuel, which cannot comply with the emission limit values for sulphur dioxide referred to in Article 30(2) and (3) due to the characteristics of this fuel, Member States may apply instead the minimum rates of desulphurisation set out in Part 5 of Annex V, in accordance with the compliance rules set out in Part 6 of that Annex and with prior validation by the competent authority of the technical report referred to in Article 72(4)(a).\n2. For combustion plants firing indigenous solid fuel, which co-incinerate waste, and which cannot comply with the Cproc values for sulphur dioxide set out in points 3.1 or 3.2 of Part 4 of Annex VI due to the characteristics of the indigenous solid fuel, Member States may apply instead the minimum rates of desulphurisation set out in Part 5 of Annex V, in accordance with the compliance rules set out in Part 6 of that Annex. If Member States choose to apply this paragraph, Cwaste as referred to in point 1 of Part 4 of Annex VI shall be equal to 0 mg/Nm3.\n3. The Commission shall, by 31 December 2019, review the possibility of applying minimum rates of desulphurisation set out in Part 5 of Annex V, taking into account, in particular, the best available techniques and benefits obtained from reduced sulphur dioxide emissions.\nArticle 32\nTransitional National Plan\n1. During the period from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2020, Member States may draw up and implement a transitional national plan covering combustion plants which were granted the first permit before 27 November 2002 or the operators of which had submitted a complete application for a permit before that date, provided that the plant was put into operation no later than 27 November 2003. For each of the combustion plants covered by the plan, the plan shall cover emissions of one or more of the following pollutants: nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and dust. For gas turbines, only nitrogen oxides emissions shall be covered by the plan.\nThe transitional national plan shall not include any of the following combustion plants:\n(a)\nthose to which Article 33(1) applies;\n(b)\nthose within refineries firing low calorific gases from the gasification of refinery residues or the distillation and conversion residues from the refining of crude oil for own consumption, alone or with other fuels;\n(c)\nthose to which Article 35 applies;\n(d)\nthose which are granted an exemption as referred to in Article 4(4) of Directive 2001/80/EC.\n2. Combustion plants covered by the plan may be exempted from compliance with the emission limit values referred to in Article 30(2) for the pollutants which are subject to the plan or, where applicable, with the rates of desulphurisation referred to in Article 31.\nThe emission limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust set out in the permit for the combustion plant applicable on 31 December 2015, pursuant in particular to the requirements of Directives 2001/80/EC and 2008/1/EC, shall at least be maintained.\nCombustion plants with a total rated thermal input of more than 500 MW firing solid fuels, which were granted the first permit after 1 July 1987, shall comply with the emission limit values for nitrogen oxides set out in Part 1 of Annex V.\n3. For each of the pollutants it covers, the transitional national plan shall set a ceiling defining the maximum total annual emissions for all of the plants covered by the plan on the basis of each plant\u2019s total rated thermal input on 31 December 2010, its actual annual operating hours and its fuel use, averaged over the last 10 years of operation up to and including 2010.\nThe ceiling for the year 2016 shall be calculated on the basis of the relevant emission limit values set out in Annexes III to VII to Directive 2001/80/EC or, where applicable, on the basis of the rates of desulphurisation set out in Annex III to Directive 2001/80/EC. In the case of gas turbines, the emission limit values for nitrogen oxides set out for such plants in Part B of Annex VI to Directive 2001/80/EC shall be used. The ceilings for the years 2019 and 2020 shall be calculated on the basis of the relevant emission limit values set out in Part 1 of Annex V to this Directive or, where applicable, the relevant rates of desulphurisation set out in Part 5 of Annex V to this Directive. The ceilings for the years 2017 and 2018 shall be set providing a linear decrease of the ceilings between 2016 and 2019.\nWhere a plant included in the transitional national plan is closed or no longer falls within the scope of Chapter III, this shall not result in an increase in total annual emissions from the remaining plants covered by the plan.\n4. The transitional national plan shall also contain provisions on monitoring and reporting that comply with the implementing rules established in accordance with Article 41(b), as well as the measures foreseen for each of the plants in order to ensure timely compliance with the emission limit values that will apply from 1 July 2020.\n5. Not later than 1 January 2013, Member States shall communicate their transitional national plans to the Commission.\nThe Commission shall evaluate the plans and, where the Commission has raised no objections within 12 months of receipt of a plan, the Member State concerned shall consider its plan to be accepted.\nWhen the Commission considers a plan not to be in accordance with the implementing rules established in accordance with Article 41(b), it shall inform the Member State concerned that its plan cannot be accepted. In relation to the evaluation of a new version of a plan which a Member State communicates to the Commission, the time period referred to in the second subparagraph shall be 6 months.\n6. Member States shall inform the Commission of any subsequent changes to the plan.\nArticle 33\nLimited life time derogation\n1. During the period from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2023, combustion plants may be exempted from compliance with the emission limit values referred to in Article 30(2) and with the rates of desulphurisation referred to in Article 31, where applicable, and from their inclusion in the transitional national plan referred to in Article 32 provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe operator of the combustion plant undertakes, in a written declaration submitted by 1 January 2014 at the latest to the competent authority, not to operate the plant for more than 17 500 operating hours, starting from 1 January 2016 and ending no later than 31 December 2023;\n(b)\nthe operator is required to submit each year to the competent authority a record of the number of operating hours since 1 January 2016;\n(c)\nthe emission limit values for sulphur dioxides, nitrogen oxides and dust set out in the permit for the combustion plant applicable on 31 December 2015, pursuant in particular to the requirements of Directives 2001/80/EC and 2008/1/EC, shall at least be maintained during the remaining operational life of the combustion plant. Combustion plants with a total rated thermal input of more than 500 MW firing solid fuels, which were granted the first permit after 1 July 1987, shall comply with the emission limit values for nitrogen oxides set out in Part 1 of Annex V; and\n(d)\nthe combustion plant has not been granted an exemption as referred to in Article 4(4) of Directive 2001/80/EC.\n2. At the latest on 1 January 2016, each Member State shall communicate to the Commission a list of any combustion plants to which paragraph 1 applies, including their total rated thermal input, the fuel types used and the applicable emission limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust. For plants subject to paragraph 1, Member States shall communicate annually to the Commission a record of the number of operating hours since 1 January 2016.\n3. In case of a combustion plant being, on 6 January 2011, part of a small isolated system and accounting at that date for at least 35 % of the electricity supply within that system, which is unable, due to its technical characteristics, to comply with the emission limit values referred to in Article 30(2), the number of operating hours referred to in paragraph 1(a) of this Article shall be 18 000, starting from 1 January 2020 and ending no later than 31 December 2023, and the date referred to in paragraph 1(b) and paragraph 2 of this Article shall be 1 January 2020.\n4. In case of a combustion plant with a total rated thermal input of more than 1 500 MW which started operating before 31 December 1986 and fires indigenous solid fuel with a net calorific value of less than 5 800 kJ/kg, a moisture content greater than 45 % by weight, a combined moisture and ash content greater than 60 % by weight and a calcium oxide content in ash greater than 10 %, the number of operating hours referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be 32 000.\nArticle 34\nSmall isolated systems\n1. Until 31 December 2019, combustion plants being, on 6 January 2011, part of a small isolated system may be exempted from compliance with the emission limit values referred to in Article 30(2) and the rates of desulphurisation referred to in Article 31, where applicable. Until 31 December 2019, the emission limit values set out in the permits of these combustion plants, pursuant in particular to the requirements of Directives 2001/80/EC and 2008/1/EC, shall at least be maintained.\n2. Combustion plants with a total rated thermal input of more than 500 MW firing solid fuels, which were granted the first permit after 1 July 1987, shall comply with the emission limit values for nitrogen oxides set out in Part 1 of Annex V.\n3. Where there are, on the territory of a Member State combustion plants covered by this Chapter that are part of a small isolated system, that Member State shall report to the Commission before 7 January 2013 a list of those combustion plants, the total annual energy consumption of the small isolated system and the amount of energy obtained through interconnection with other systems.\nArticle 35\nDistrict heating plants\n1. Until 31 December 2022, a combustion plant may be exempted from compliance with the emission limit values referred to in Article 30(2) and the rates of desulphurisation referred to in Article 31 provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe total rated thermal input of the combustion plant does not exceed 200 MW;\n(b)\nthe plant was granted a first permit before 27 November 2002 or the operator of that plant had submitted a complete application for a permit before that date, provided that it was put into operation no later than 27 November 2003;\n(c)\nat least 50 % of the useful heat production of the plant, as a rolling average over a period of 5 years, is delivered in the form of steam or hot water to a public network for district heating; and\n(d)\nthe emission limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust set out in its permit applicable on 31 December 2015, pursuant in particular to the requirements of Directives 2001/80/EC and 2008/1/EC, are at least maintained until 31 December 2022.\n2. At the latest on 1 January 2016, each Member State shall communicate to the Commission a list of any combustion plants to which paragraph 1 applies, including their total rated thermal input, the fuel types used and the applicable emission limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust. In addition, Member States shall, for any combustion plants to which paragraph 1 applies and during the period mentioned in that paragraph, inform the Commission annually of the proportion of useful heat production of each plant which was delivered in the form of steam or hot water to a public network for district heating, expressed as a rolling average over the preceding 5 years.\nArticle 36\nGeological storage of carbon dioxide\n1. Member States shall ensure that operators of all combustion plants with a rated electrical output of 300 megawatts or more for which the original construction licence or, in the absence of such a procedure, the original operating licence is granted after the entry into force of Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide (34), have assessed whether the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nsuitable storage sites are available,\n(b)\ntransport facilities are technically and economically feasible,\n(c)\nit is technically and economically feasible to retrofit for carbon dioxide capture.\n2. If the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are met, the competent authority shall ensure that suitable space on the installation site for the equipment necessary to capture and compress carbon dioxide is set aside. The competent authority shall determine whether the conditions are met on the basis of the assessment referred to in paragraph 1 and other available information, particularly concerning the protection of the environment and human health.\nArticle 37\nMalfunction or breakdown of the abatement equipment\n1. Member States shall ensure that provision is made in the permits for procedures relating to malfunction or breakdown of the abatement equipment.\n2. In the case of a breakdown, the competent authority shall require the operator to reduce or close down operations if a return to normal operation is not achieved within 24 hours, or to operate the plant using low polluting fuels.\nThe operator shall notify the competent authority within 48 hours after the malfunction or breakdown of the abatement equipment.\nThe cumulative duration of unabated operation shall not exceed 120 hours in any 12-month period.\nThe competent authority may grant a derogation from the time limits set out in the first and third subparagraphs in one of the following cases:\n(a)\nthere is an overriding need to maintain energy supplies;\n(b)\nthe combustion plant with the breakdown would be replaced for a limited period by another plant which would cause an overall increase in emissions.\nArticle 38\nMonitoring of emissions into air\n1. Member States shall ensure that the monitoring of air polluting substances is carried out in accordance with Part 3 of Annex V.\n2. The installation and functioning of the automated monitoring equipment shall be subject to control and to annual surveillance tests as set out in Part 3 of Annex V.\n3. The competent authority shall determine the location of the sampling or measurement points to be used for the monitoring of emissions.\n4. All monitoring results shall be recorded, processed and presented in such a way as to enable the competent authority to verify compliance with the operating conditions and emission limit values which are included in the permit.\nArticle 39\nCompliance with emission limit values\nThe emission limit values for air shall be regarded as being complied with if the conditions set out in Part 4 of Annex V are fulfilled.\nArticle 40\nMulti-fuel firing combustion plants\n1. In the case of a multi-fuel firing combustion plant involving the simultaneous use of two or more fuels, the competent authority shall set the emission limit values in accordance with the following steps:\n(a)\ntaking the emission limit value relevant for each individual fuel and pollutant corresponding to the total rated thermal input of the entire combustion plant as set out in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex V;\n(b)\ndetermining fuel-weighted emission limit values, which are obtained by multiplying the individual emission limit value referred to in point (a) by the thermal input delivered by each fuel, and dividing the product of multiplication by the sum of the thermal inputs delivered by all fuels,\n(c)\naggregating the fuel-weighted emission limit values.\n2. In the case of multi-fuel firing combustion plants covered by Article 30(2), which use the distillation and conversion residues from the refining of crude-oil for own consumption, alone or with other fuels, the following emission limit values may be applied instead of the emission limit values set according to paragraph 1:\n(a)\nwhere, during the operation of the combustion plant, the proportion contributed by the determinative fuel to the sum of the thermal inputs delivered by all fuels is 50 % or more, the emission limit value set in Part 1 of Annex V for the determinative fuel;\n(b)\nwhere the proportion contributed by the determinative fuel to the sum of the thermal inputs delivered by all fuels is less than 50 %, the emission limit value determined in accordance with the following steps:\n(i)\ntaking the emission limit values set out in Part 1 of Annex V for each of the fuels used, corresponding to the total rated thermal input of the combustion plant;\n(ii)\ncalculating the emission limit value of the determinative fuel by multiplying the emission limit value, determined for that fuel according to point (i), by a factor of two, and subtracting from this product the emission limit value of the fuel used with the lowest emission limit value as set out in Part 1 of Annex V, corresponding to the total rated thermal input of the combustion plant;\n(iii)\ndetermining the fuel-weighted emission limit value for each fuel used by multiplying the emission limit value determined under points (i) and (ii) by the thermal input of the fuel concerned and by dividing the product of this multiplication by the sum of the thermal inputs delivered by all fuels;\n(iv)\naggregating the fuel-weighted emission limit values determined under point (iii).\n3. In the case of multi-fuel firing combustion plants covered by Article 30(2), which use the distillation and conversion residues from the refining of crude-oil for own consumption, alone or with other fuels, the average emission limit values for sulphur dioxide set out in Part 7 of Annex V may be applied instead of the emission limit values set according to paragraphs 1 or 2 of this Article.\nArticle 41\nImplementing rules\nImplementing rules shall be established concerning:\n(a)\nthe determination of the start-up and shut-down periods referred to in point 27 of Article 3 and in point 1 of Part 4 of Annex V; and\n(b)\nthe transitional national plans referred to in Article 32 and, in particular, the setting of emission ceilings and related monitoring and reporting.\nThose implementing rules shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 75(2). The Commission shall make appropriate proposals not later than 7 July 2011.\nCHAPTER IV\nSPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR WASTE INCINERATION PLANTS AND WASTE CO-INCINERATION PLANTS\nArticle 42\nScope\n1. This Chapter shall apply to waste incineration plants and waste co-incineration plants which incinerate or co-incinerate solid or liquid waste.\nThis Chapter shall not apply to gasification or pyrolysis plants, if the gases resulting from this thermal treatment of waste are purified to such an extent that they are no longer a waste prior to their incineration and they can cause emissions no higher than those resulting from the burning of natural gas.\nFor the purposes of this Chapter, waste incineration plants and waste co-incineration plants shall include all incineration lines or co-incineration lines, waste reception, storage, on site pretreatment facilities, waste-, fuel- and air-supply systems, boilers, facilities for the treatment of waste gases, on-site facilities for treatment or storage of residues and waste water, stacks, devices and systems for controlling incineration or co-incineration operations, recording and monitoring incineration or co-incineration conditions.\nIf processes other than oxidation, such as pyrolysis, gasification or plasma process, are applied for the thermal treatment of waste, the waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant shall include both the thermal treatment process and the subsequent incineration process.\nIf waste co-incineration takes place in such a way that the main purpose of the plant is not the generation of energy or production of material products but rather the thermal treatment of waste, the plant shall be regarded as a waste incineration plant.\n2. This Chapter shall not apply to the following plants:\n(a)\nplants treating only the following wastes:\n(i)\nwaste listed in point (b) of point 31 of Article 3;\n(ii)\nradioactive waste;\n(iii)\nanimal carcasses as regulated by Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (35);\n(iv)\nwaste resulting from the exploration for, and the exploitation of, oil and gas resources from off-shore installations and incinerated on board the installations;\n(b)\nexperimental plants used for research, development and testing in order to improve the incineration process and which treat less than 50 tonnes of waste per year.\nArticle 43\nDefinition of residue\nFor the purposes of this Chapter, \u2018residue\u2019 shall mean any liquid or solid waste which is generated by a waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant.\nArticle 44\nApplications for permits\nAn application for a permit for a waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant shall include a description of the measures which are envisaged to guarantee that the following requirements are met:\n(a)\nthe plant is designed, equipped and will be maintained and operated in such a manner that the requirements of this Chapter are met taking into account the categories of waste to be incinerated or co-incinerated;\n(b)\nthe heat generated during the incineration and co-incineration process is recovered as far as practicable through the generation of heat, steam or power;\n(c)\nthe residues will be minimised in their amount and harmfulness and recycled where appropriate;\n(d)\nthe disposal of the residues which cannot be prevented, reduced or recycled will be carried out in conformity with national and Union law.\nArticle 45\nPermit conditions\n1. The permit shall include the following:\n(a)\na list of all types of waste which may be treated using at least the types of waste set out in the European Waste List established by Decision 2000/532/EC, if possible, and containing information on the quantity of each type of waste, where appropriate;\n(b)\nthe total waste incinerating or co-incinerating capacity of the plant;\n(c)\nthe limit values for emissions into air and water;\n(d)\nthe requirements for the pH, temperature and flow of waste water discharges;\n(e)\nthe sampling and measurement procedures and frequencies to be used to comply with the conditions set for emission monitoring;\n(f)\nthe maximum permissible period of any technically unavoidable stoppages, disturbances, or failures of the purification devices or the measurement devices, during which the emissions into the air and the discharges of waste water may exceed the prescribed emission limit values.\n2. In addition to the requirements set out in paragraph 1, the permit granted to a waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant using hazardous waste shall include the following:\n(a)\na list of the quantities of the different categories of hazardous waste which may be treated;\n(b)\nthe minimum and maximum mass flows of those hazardous wastes, their lowest and maximum calorific values and their maximum contents of polychlorinated biphenyls, pentachlorophenol, chlorine, fluorine, sulphur, heavy metals and other polluting substances.\n3. Member States may list the categories of waste to be included in the permit which can be co-incinerated in certain categories of waste co-incineration plants.\n4. The competent authority shall periodically reconsider and, where necessary, update permit conditions.\nArticle 46\nControl of emissions\n1. Waste gases from waste incineration plants and waste co-incineration plants shall be discharged in a controlled way by means of a stack the height of which is calculated in such a way as to safeguard human health and the environment.\n2. Emissions into air from waste incineration plants and waste co-incineration plants shall not exceed the emission limit values set out in parts 3 and 4 of Annex VI or determined in accordance with Part 4 of that Annex.\nIf in a waste co-incineration plant more than 40 % of the resulting heat release comes from hazardous waste, or the plant co-incinerates untreated mixed municipal waste, the emission limit values set out in Part 3 of Annex VI shall apply.\n3. Discharges to the aquatic environment of waste water resulting from the cleaning of waste gases shall be limited as far as practicable and the concentrations of polluting substances shall not exceed the emission limit values set out in Part 5 of Annex VI.\n4. The emission limit values shall apply at the point where waste waters from the cleaning of waste gases are discharged from the waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant.\nWhen waste waters from the cleaning of waste gases are treated outside the waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant at a treatment plant intended only for the treatment of this sort of waste water, the emission limit values set out in Part 5 of Annex VI shall be applied at the point where the waste waters leave the treatment plant. Where the waste water from the cleaning of waste gases is treated collectively with other sources of waste water, either on site or off site, the operator shall make the appropriate mass balance calculations, using the results of the measurements set out in point 2 of Part 6 of Annex VI in order to determine the emission levels in the final waste water discharge that can be attributed to the waste water arising from the cleaning of waste gases.\nUnder no circumstances shall dilution of waste water take place for the purpose of complying with the emission limit values set out in Part 5 of Annex VI.\n5. Waste incineration plant sites and waste co-incineration plant sites, including associated storage areas for waste, shall be designed and operated in such a way as to prevent the unauthorised and accidental release of any polluting substances into soil, surface water and groundwater.\nStorage capacity shall be provided for contaminated rainwater run-off from the waste incineration plant site or waste co-incineration plant site or for contaminated water arising from spillage or fire-fighting operations. The storage capacity shall be adequate to ensure that such waters can be tested and treated before discharge where necessary.\n6. Without prejudice to Article 50(4)(c), the waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant or individual furnaces being part of a waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant shall under no circumstances continue to incinerate waste for a period of more than 4 hours uninterrupted where emission limit values are exceeded.\nThe cumulative duration of operation in such conditions over 1 year shall not exceed 60 hours.\nThe time limit set out in the second subparagraph shall apply to those furnaces which are linked to one single waste gas cleaning device.\nArticle 47\nBreakdown\nIn the case of a breakdown, the operator shall reduce or close down operations as soon as practicable until normal operations can be restored.\nArticle 48\nMonitoring of emissions\n1. Member States shall ensure that the monitoring of emissions is carried out in accordance with Parts 6 and 7 of Annex VI.\n2. The installation and functioning of the automated measuring systems shall be subject to control and to annual surveillance tests as set out in point 1 of Part 6 of Annex VI.\n3. The competent authority shall determine the location of the sampling or measurement points to be used for monitoring of emissions.\n4. All monitoring results shall be recorded, processed and presented in such a way as to enable the competent authority to verify compliance with the operating conditions and emission limit values which are included in the permit.\n5. As soon as appropriate measurement techniques are available within the Union, the Commission shall, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 76 and subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 77 and 78, set the date from which continuous measurements of emissions into the air of heavy metals and dioxins and furans are to be carried out.\nArticle 49\nCompliance with emission limit values\nThe emission limit values for air and water shall be regarded as being complied with if the conditions described in Part 8 of Annex VI are fulfilled.\nArticle 50\nOperating conditions\n1. Waste incineration plants shall be operated in such a way as to achieve a level of incineration such that the total organic carbon content of slag and bottom ashes is less than 3 % or their loss on ignition is less than 5 % of the dry weight of the material. If necessary, waste pre-treatment techniques shall be used.\n2. Waste incineration plants shall be designed, equipped, built and operated in such a way that the gas resulting from the incineration of waste is raised, after the last injection of combustion air, in a controlled and homogeneous fashion and even under the most unfavourable conditions, to a temperature of at least 850 \u00b0C for at least two seconds.\nWaste co-incineration plants shall be designed, equipped, built and operated in such a way that the gas resulting from the co-incineration of waste is raised in a controlled and homogeneous fashion and even under the most unfavourable conditions, to a temperature of at least 850 \u00b0C for at least two seconds.\nIf hazardous waste with a content of more than 1 % of halogenated organic substances, expressed as chlorine, is incinerated or co-incinerated, the temperature required to comply with the first and second subparagraphs shall be at least 1 100 \u00b0C.\nIn waste incineration plants, the temperatures set out in the first and third subparagraphs shall be measured near the inner wall of the combustion chamber. The competent authority may authorise the measurements at another representative point of the combustion chamber.\n3. Each combustion chamber of a waste incineration plant shall be equipped with at least one auxiliary burner. This burner shall be switched on automatically when the temperature of the combustion gases after the last injection of combustion air falls below the temperatures set out in paragraph 2. It shall also be used during plant start-up and shut-down operations in order to ensure that those temperatures are maintained at all times during these operations and as long as unburned waste is in the combustion chamber.\nThe auxiliary burner shall not be fed with fuels which can cause higher emissions than those resulting from the burning of gas oil as defined in Article 2(2) of Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels (36), liquefied gas or natural gas.\n4. Waste incineration plants and waste co-incineration plants shall operate an automatic system to prevent waste feed in the following situations:\n(a)\nat start-up, until the temperature set out in paragraph 2 of this Article or the temperature specified in accordance with Article 51(1) has been reached;\n(b)\nwhenever the temperature set out in paragraph 2 of this Article or the temperature specified in accordance with Article 51(1) is not maintained;\n(c)\nwhenever the continuous measurements show that any emission limit value is exceeded due to disturbances or failures of the waste gas cleaning devices.\n5. Any heat generated by waste incineration plants or waste co-incineration plants shall be recovered as far as practicable.\n6. Infectious clinical waste shall be placed straight in the furnace, without first being mixed with other categories of waste and without direct handling.\n7. Member States shall ensure that the waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant is operated and controlled by a natural person who is competent to manage the plant.\nArticle 51\nAuthorisation to change operating conditions\n1. Conditions different from those laid down in Article 50(1), (2) and (3) and, as regards the temperature, paragraph 4 of that Article and specified in the permit for certain categories of waste or for certain thermal processes, may be authorised by the competent authority provided the other requirements of this Chapter are met. Member States may lay down rules governing these authorisations.\n2. For waste incineration plants, the change of the operating conditions shall not cause more residues or residues with a higher content of organic polluting substances compared to those residues which could be expected under the conditions laid down in Article 50(1), (2) and (3).\n3. Emissions of total organic carbon and carbon monoxide from waste co-incineration plants, authorised to change operating conditions according to paragraph 1 shall also comply with the emission limit values set out in Part 3 of Annex VI.\nEmissions of total organic carbon from bark boilers within the pulp and paper industry co-incinerating waste at the place of its production which were in operation and had a permit before 28 December 2002 and which are authorised to change operating conditions according to paragraph 1 shall also comply with the emission limit values set out in Part 3 of Annex VI.\n4. Member States shall communicate to the Commission all operating conditions authorised under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 and the results of verifications made as part of the information provided in accordance with the reporting requirements under Article 72.\nArticle 52\nDelivery and reception of waste\n1. The operator of the waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant shall take all necessary precautions concerning the delivery and reception of waste in order to prevent or to limit as far as practicable the pollution of air, soil, surface water and groundwater as well as other negative effects on the environment, odours and noise, and direct risks to human health.\n2. The operator shall determine the mass of each type of waste, if possible according to the European Waste List established by Decision 2000/532/EC, prior to accepting the waste at the waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant.\n3. Prior to accepting hazardous waste at the waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant, the operator shall collect available information about the waste for the purpose of verifying compliance with the permit requirements specified in Article 45(2).\nThat information shall cover the following:\n(a)\nall the administrative information on the generating process contained in the documents mentioned in paragraph 4(a);\n(b)\nthe physical, and as far as practicable, chemical composition of the waste and all other information necessary to evaluate its suitability for the intended incineration process;\n(c)\nthe hazardous characteristics of the waste, the substances with which it cannot be mixed, and the precautions to be taken in handling the waste.\n4. Prior to accepting hazardous waste at the waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant, at least the following procedures shall be carried out by the operator:\n(a)\nthe checking of the documents required by Directive 2008/98/EC and, where applicable, those required by Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (37) and by legislation on transport of dangerous goods;\n(b)\nthe taking of representative samples, unless inappropriate as far as possible before unloading, to verify conformity with the information provided for in paragraph 3 by carrying out controls and to enable the competent authorities to identify the nature of the wastes treated.\nThe samples referred to in point (b) shall be kept for at least 1 month after the incineration or co-incineration of the waste concerned.\n5. The competent authority may grant exemptions from paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 to waste incineration plants or waste co-incineration plants which are a part of an installation covered by Chapter II and only incinerate or co-incinerate waste generated within that installation.\nArticle 53\nResidues\n1. Residues shall be minimised in their amount and harmfulness. Residues shall be recycled, where appropriate, directly in the plant or outside.\n2. Transport and intermediate storage of dry residues in the form of dust shall take place in such a way as to prevent dispersal of those residues in the environment.\n3. Prior to determining the routes for the disposal or recycling of the residues, appropriate tests shall be carried out to establish the physical and chemical characteristics and the polluting potential of the residues. Those tests shall concern the total soluble fraction and heavy metals soluble fraction.\nArticle 54\nSubstantial change\nA change of operation of a waste incineration plant or a waste co-incineration plant treating only non-hazardous waste in an installation covered by Chapter II which involves the incineration or co-incineration of hazardous waste shall be regarded as a substantial change.\nArticle 55\nReporting and public information on waste incineration plants and waste co-incineration plants\n1. Applications for new permits for waste incineration plants and waste co-incineration plants shall be made available to the public at one or more locations for an appropriate period to enable the public to comment on the applications before the competent authority reaches a decision. That decision, including at least a copy of the permit, and any subsequent updates, shall also be made available to the public.\n2. For waste incineration plants or waste co-incineration plants with a nominal capacity of 2 tonnes or more per hour, the report referred to in Article 72 shall include information on the functioning and monitoring of the plant and give account of the running of the incineration or co-incineration process and the level of emissions into air and water in comparison with the emission limit values. That information shall be made available to the public.\n3. A list of waste incineration plants or waste co-incineration plants with a nominal capacity of less than 2 tonnes per hour shall be drawn up by the competent authority and shall be made available to the public.\nCHAPTER V\nSPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ACTIVITIES USING ORGANIC SOLVENTS\nArticle 56\nScope\nThis chapter shall apply to activities listed in Part 1 of Annex VII and, where applicable, reaching the consumption thresholds set out in Part 2 of that Annex.\nArticle 57\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018existing installation\u2019 means an installation in operation on 29 March 1999 or which was granted a permit or registered before 1 April 2001 or the operator of which submitted a complete application for a permit before 1 April 2001, provided that that installation was put in operation no later than 1 April 2002;\n(2)\n\u2018waste gases\u2019 means the final gaseous discharge containing volatile organic compounds or other pollutants from a stack or abatement equipment into air;\n(3)\n\u2018fugitive emissions\u2019 means any emissions not in waste gases of volatile organic compounds into air, soil and water as well as solvents contained in any products, unless otherwise stated in Part 2 of Annex VII;\n(4)\n\u2018total emissions\u2019 means the sum of fugitive emissions and emissions in waste gases;\n(5)\n\u2018mixture\u2019 means mixture as defined in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and establishing a European Chemicals Agency (38),\n(6)\n\u2018adhesive\u2019 means any mixture, including all the organic solvents or mixtures containing organic solvents necessary for its proper application, which is used to adhere separate parts of a product;\n(7)\n\u2018ink\u2019 means a mixture, including all the organic solvents or mixtures containing organic solvents necessary for its proper application, which is used in a printing activity to impress text or images on to a surface;\n(8)\n\u2018varnish\u2019 means a transparent coating;\n(9)\n\u2018consumption\u2019 means the total input of organic solvents into an installation per calendar year, or any other 12-month period, less any volatile organic compounds that are recovered for re-use;\n(10)\n\u2018input\u2019 means the quantity of organic solvents and their quantity in mixtures used when carrying out an activity, including the solvents recycled inside and outside the installation, and which are counted every time they are used to carry out the activity;\n(11)\n\u2018re-use\u2019 means the use of organic solvents recovered from an installation for any technical or commercial purpose and including use as a fuel but excluding the final disposal of such recovered organic solvent as waste;\n(12)\n\u2018contained conditions\u2019 means conditions under which an installation is operated so that the volatile organic compounds released from the activity are collected and discharged in a controlled way either via a stack or abatement equipment and are, therefore, not entirely fugitive;\n(13)\n\u2018start-up and shut-down operations\u2019 means operations excluding regularly oscillating activity phases whilst bringing an activity, an equipment item or a tank into or out of service or into or out of an idling state.\nArticle 58\nSubstitution of hazardous substances\nSubstances or mixtures which, because of their content of volatile organic compounds classified as carcinogens, mutagens, or toxic to reproduction under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, are assigned or need to carry the hazard statements H340, H350, H350i, H360D or H360F, shall be replaced, as far as possible by less harmful substances or mixtures within the shortest possible time.\nArticle 59\nControl of emissions\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that each installation complies with either of the following:\n(a)\nthe emission of volatile organic compounds from installations shall not exceed the emission limit values in waste gases and the fugitive emission limit values, or the total emission limit values, and other requirements laid down in Parts 2 and 3 of Annex VII are complied with;\n(b)\nthe requirements of the reduction scheme set out in Part 5 of Annex VII provided that an equivalent emission reduction is achieved compared to that achieved through the application of the emission limit values referred to in point (a).\nMember States shall report to the Commission in accordance with Article 72(1) on the progress in achieving the equivalent emission reduction referred to in point (b).\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1(a), where the operator demonstrates to the competent authority that for an individual installation the emission limit value for fugitive emissions is not technically and economically feasible, the competent authority may allow emissions to exceed that emission limit value provided that significant risks to human health or the environment are not to be expected and that the operator demonstrates to the competent authority that the best available techniques are being used.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for coating activities covered by item 8 of the table in Part 2 of Annex VII which cannot be carried out under contained conditions, the competent authority may allow the emissions of the installation not to comply with the requirements set out in that paragraph if the operator demonstrates to the competent authority that such compliance is not technically and economically feasible and that the best available techniques are being used.\n4. Member States shall report to the Commission on the derogations referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article in accordance with Article 72(2).\n5. The emissions of either volatile organic compounds which are assigned or need to carry the hazard statements H340, H350, H350i, H360D or H360F or halogenated volatile organic compounds which are assigned or need to carry the hazard statements H341 or H351, shall be controlled under contained conditions as far as technically and economically feasible to safeguard public health and the environment and shall not exceed the relevant emission limit values set out in Part 4 of Annex VII.\n6. Installations where two or more activities are carried out, each of which exceeds the thresholds in Part 2 of Annex VII shall:\n(a)\nas regards the substances specified in paragraph 5, meet the requirements of that paragraph for each activity individually;\n(b)\nas regards all other substances, either:\n(i)\nmeet the requirements of paragraph 1 for each activity individually; or\n(ii)\nhave total emissions of volatile organic compounds not exceeding those which would have resulted had point (i) been applied.\n7. All appropriate precautions shall be taken to minimise emissions of volatile organic compounds during start-up and shut-down operations.\nArticle 60\nMonitoring of emissions\nMember States shall, either by specification in the permit conditions or by general binding rules, ensure that measurements of emissions are carried out in accordance with Part 6 of Annex VII.\nArticle 61\nCompliance with emission limit values\nThe emission limit values in waste gases shall be regarded as being complied with if the conditions set out in Part 8 of Annex VII are fulfilled.\nArticle 62\nReporting on compliance\nThe operator shall supply the competent authority, on request, with data enabling the competent authority to verify compliance with either of the following:\n(a)\nemission limit values in waste gases, fugitive emission limit values and total emission limit values;\n(b)\nthe requirements of the reduction scheme under Part 5 of Annex VII;\n(c)\nthe derogations granted in accordance with Article 59(2) and (3).\nThis may include a solvent management plan prepared in accordance with Part 7 of Annex VII.\nArticle 63\nSubstantial change to existing installations\n1. A change of the maximum mass input of organic solvents by an existing installation averaged over 1 day, where the installation is operated at its design output under conditions other than start-up and shut-down operations and maintenance of equipment, shall be considered as substantial if it leads to an increase of emissions of volatile organic compounds of more than:\n(a)\n25 % for an installation carrying out either activities which fall within the lower threshold band of items 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 16 or 17 of the table in Part 2 of Annex VII or, activities which fall under one of the other items of Part 2 of Annex VII, and with a solvent consumption of less than 10 tonnes per year;\n(b)\n10 % for all other installations.\n2. Where an existing installation undergoes a substantial change, or falls within the scope of this Directive for the first time following a substantial change, that part of the installation which undergoes the substantial change shall be treated either as a new installation or as an existing installation, provided that the total emissions of the whole installation do not exceed those that would have resulted had the substantially changed part been treated as a new installation.\n3. In case of a substantial change, the competent authority shall check compliance of the installation with the requirements of this Directive.\nArticle 64\nExchange of information on substitution of organic solvents\nThe Commission shall organise an exchange of information with the Member States, the industry concerned and non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection on the use of organic solvents and their potential substitutes and techniques which have the least potential effects on air, water, soil, ecosystems and human health.\nThe exchange of information shall be organised on all of the following:\n(a)\nfitness for use;\n(b)\npotential effects on human health and occupational exposure in particular;\n(c)\npotential effects on the environment;\n(d)\nthe economic consequences, in particular the costs and benefits of the options available.\nArticle 65\nAccess to information\n1. The decision of the competent authority, including at least a copy of the permit, and any subsequent updates, shall be made available to the public.\nThe general binding rules applicable for installations and the list of installations subject to permitting and registration shall be made available to the public.\n2. The results of the monitoring of emissions as required under Article 60 and held by the competent authority shall be made available to the public.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall apply, subject to the restrictions laid down in Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/4/EC.\nCHAPTER VI\nSPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR INSTALLATIONS PRODUCING TITANIUM DIOXIDE\nArticle 66\nScope\nThis Chapter shall apply to installations producing titanium dioxide.\nArticle 67\nProhibition of the disposal of waste\nMember States shall prohibit the disposal of the following waste into any water body, sea or ocean:\n(a)\nsolid waste;\n(b)\nthe mother liquors arising from the filtration phase following hydrolysis of the titanyl sulphate solution from installations applying the sulphate process; including the acid waste associated with such liquors, containing overall more than 0,5 % free sulphuric acid and various heavy metals and including such mother liquors which have been diluted until they contain 0,5 % or less free sulphuric acid;\n(c)\nwaste from installations applying the chloride process containing more than 0,5 % free hydrochloric acid and various heavy metals, including such waste which has been diluted until it contains 0,5 % or less free hydrochloric acid;\n(d)\nfiltration salts, sludges and liquid waste arising from the treatment (concentration or neutralisation) of the waste mentioned under points (b) and (c) and containing various heavy metals, but not including neutralised and filtered or decanted waste containing only traces of heavy metals and which, before any dilution, has a pH value above 5,5.\nArticle 68\nControl of emissions into water\nEmissions from installations into water shall not exceed the emission limit values set out in Part 1 of Annex VIII.\nArticle 69\nPrevention and control of emissions into air\n1. The emission of acid droplets from installations shall be prevented.\n2. Emissions into air from installations shall not exceed the emission limit values set out in Part 2 of Annex VIII.\nArticle 70\nMonitoring of emissions\n1. Member States shall ensure the monitoring of emissions into water in order to enable the competent authority to verify compliance with the permit conditions and Article 68.\n2. Member States shall ensure the monitoring of emissions into air in order to enable the competent authority to verify compliance with the permit conditions and Article 69. Such monitoring shall include at least monitoring of emissions as set out in Part 3 of Annex VIII.\n3. Monitoring shall be carried out in accordance with CEN standards or, if CEN standards are not available, ISO, national or other international standards which ensure the provision of data of an equivalent scientific quality.\nCHAPTER VII\nCOMMITTEE, TRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 71\nCompetent authorities\nMember States shall designate the competent authorities responsible for carrying out the obligations arising from this Directive.\nArticle 72\nReporting by Member States\n1. Member States shall ensure that information is made available to the Commission on the implementation of this Directive, on representative data on emissions and other forms of pollution, on emission limit values, on the application of best available techniques in accordance with Articles 14 and 15, in particular on the granting of exemptions in accordance with Article 15(4), and on progress made concerning the development and application of emerging techniques in accordance with Article 27. Member States shall make the information available in an electronic format.\n2. The type, format and frequency of information to be made available pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be established in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 75(2). This shall include the determination of the specific activities and pollutants for which data referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made available.\n3. For all combustion plants covered by Chapter III of this Directive, Member States shall, from 1 January 2016, establish an annual inventory of the sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust emissions and energy input.\nTaking into account the aggregation rules set out in Article 29, the competent authority shall obtain the following data for each combustion plant:\n(a)\nthe total rated thermal input (MW) of the combustion plant;\n(b)\nthe type of combustion plant: boiler, gas turbine, gas engine, diesel engine, other (specifying the type);\n(c)\nthe date of the start of operation of the combustion plant;\n(d)\nthe total annual emissions (tonnes per year) of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust (as total suspended particles);\n(e)\nthe number of operating hours of the combustion plant;\n(f)\nthe total annual amount of energy input, related to the net calorific value (TJ per year), broken down in terms of the following categories of fuel: coal, lignite, biomass, peat, other solid fuels (specifying the type), liquid fuels, natural gas, other gases (specifying the type).\nThe annual plant-by-plant data contained in these inventories shall be made available to the Commission upon request.\nA summary of the inventories shall be made available to the Commission every 3 years within 12 months from the end of the three-year period considered. This summary shall show separately the data for combustion plants within refineries.\nThe Commission shall make available to the Member States and to the public a summary of the comparison and evaluation of those inventories in accordance with Directive 2003/4/EC within 24 months from the end of the three-year period considered.\n4. Member States shall, from 1 January 2016, report the following data annually to the Commission:\n(a)\nfor combustion plants to which Article 31 applies, the sulphur content of the indigenous solid fuel used and the rate of desulphurisation achieved, averaged over each month. For the first year where Article 31 is applied, the technical justification of the non-feasibility of complying with the emission limit values referred to in Article 30(2) and (3) shall also be reported; and\n(b)\nfor combustion plants which do not operate more than 1 500 operating hours per year as a rolling average over a period of 5 years, the number of operating hours per year.\nArticle 73\nReview\n1. By 7 January 2016, and every 3 years thereafter, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report reviewing the implementation of this Directive on the basis of the information referred to in Article 72.\nThat report shall include an assessment of the need for Union action through the establishment or updating of Union-wide minimum requirements for emission limit values and for rules on monitoring and compliance for activities within the scope of the BAT conclusions adopted during the previous three-year period, on the basis of the following criteria:\n(a)\nthe impact of the activities concerned on the environment as a whole; and\n(b)\nthe state of implementation of best available techniques for the activities concerned.\nThat assessment shall consider the opinion of the forum referred to in Article 13(4).\nChapter III and Annex V of this Directive shall be considered to represent the Union-wide minimum requirements in the case of large combustion plants.\nThe report shall be accompanied by a legislative proposal where appropriate. Where the assessment referred to in the second subparagraph identifies such a need, the legislative proposal shall include provisions establishing or updating Union-wide minimum requirements for emission limit values and for rules on monitoring and compliance assessment for the activities concerned.\n2. The Commission shall, by 31 December 2012, review the need to control emissions from:\n(a)\nthe combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input below 50 MW;\n(b)\nthe intensive rearing of cattle; and\n(c)\nthe spreading of manure.\nThe Commission shall report the results of that review to the European Parliament and to the Council accompanied by a legislative proposal where appropriate.\n3. The Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council, by 31 December 2011, on the establishment in Annex I of:\n(a)\ndifferentiated capacity thresholds for the rearing of different poultry species, including the specific case of quail;\n(b)\ncapacity thresholds for the simultaneous rearing of different types of animals within the same installation.\nThe Commission shall report the results of that review to the European Parliament and to the Council accompanied by a legislative proposal where appropriate.\nArticle 74\nAmendments of Annexes\nIn order to allow the provisions of this Directive to be adapted to scientific and technical progress on the basis of best available techniques, the Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 76 and subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 77 and 78 as regards the adaptation of Parts 3 and 4 of Annex V, Parts 2, 6, 7 and 8 of Annex VI and Parts 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Annex VII to such scientific and technical progress.\nArticle 75\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\nThe period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at 3 months.\nArticle 76\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 48(5) and Article 74 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 6 January 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated power at the latest 6 months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 77.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 77 and 78.\nArticle 77\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 48(5) and Article 74 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke a delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or on a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 78\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 2 months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 2 months.\n2. If, on expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to the delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 79\nPenalties\nMember States shall determine penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive. The penalties thus provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission by 7 January 2013 and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.\nArticle 80\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 2, points (8), (11) to (15), (18) to (23), (26) to (30), (34) to (38) and (41) of Article 3, Article 4(2) and (3), Article 7, Articles 8 and 10, Article 11(e) and (h), Article 12(1)(e) and (h), Article 13(7), point (ii) of Article 14(1)(c), points (d), (e), (f) and (h) of Article 14(1), Article 14(2) to (7), Article 15(2) to (5), Articles 16, 17 and 19, Article 21(2) to (5), Articles 22, 23, 24, 27, 28 and 29, Article 30(1), (2), (3), (4), (7) and (8), Articles 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 and 39, Article 40(2) and (3), Articles 42 and 43, Article 45(1), Article 58, Article 59(5), Article 63, Article 65(3), Articles 69, 70, 71, 72 and 79, and with the first subparagraph and points 1.1, 1.4, 2.5(b), 3.1, 4, 5, 6.1(c), 6.4(b), 6.10 and 6.11 of Annex I, Annex II, point 12 of Annex III, Annex V, point (b) of Part 1, points 2.2, 2.4, 3.1 and 3.2 of Part 4, points 2.5 and 2.6 of Part 6 and point 1.1(d) of Part 8 of Annex VI, point 2 of Part 4, point 1 of Part 5, point 3 of Part 7 of Annex VII, points 1 and 2(c) of Part 1, points 2 and 3 of Part 2 and Part 3 of Annex VIII by 7 January 2013.\nThey shall apply those measures from that same date.\nWhen Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 81\nRepeal\n1. Directives 78/176/EEC, 82/883/EEC, 92/112/EEC, 1999/13/EC, 2000/76/EC and 2008/1/EC, as amended by the acts listed in Annex IX, Part A are repealed with effect from 7 January 2014, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law and application of the Directives set out in Annex IX, Part B.\n2. Directive 2001/80/EC as amended by the acts listed in Annex IX, Part A is repealed with effect from 1 January 2016, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law and application of the Directives set out in Annex IX, Part B.\n3. References to the repealed Directives shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex X.\nArticle 82\nTransitional provisions\n1. In relation to installations carrying out activities referred to in Annex I, point 1.1 for activities with a total rated thermal input exceeding 50 MW, points 1.2 and 1.3, point 1.4(a), points 2.1 to 2.6, points 3.1 to 3.5, points 4.1 to 4.6 for activities concerning production by chemical processing, points 5.1 and 5.2 for activities covered by Directive 2008/1/EC, point 5.3 (a)(i) and (ii), point 5.4, point 6.1(a) and (b), points 6.2 and 6.3, point 6.4(a), point 6.4(b) for activities covered by Directive 2008/1/EC, point 6.4(c) and points 6.5 to 6.9 which are in operation and hold a permit before 7 January 2013 or the operators of which have submitted a complete application for a permit before that date, provided that those installations are put into operation no later than 7 January 2014, Member States shall apply the laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted in accordance with Article 80(1) from 7 January 2014 with the exception of Chapter III and Annex V.\n2. In relation to installations carrying out activities referred to in Annex I, point 1.1 for activities with a total rated thermal input of 50 MW, point 1.4(b), points 4.1 to 4.6 for activities concerning production by biological processing, points 5.1 and 5.2 for activities not covered by Directive 2008/1/EC, point 5.3(a)(iii) to (v), point 5.3(b), points 5.5 and 5.6, point 6.1(c), point 6.4(b) for activities not covered by Directive 2008/1/EC and points 6.10 and 6.11 which are in operation before 7 January 2013, Member States shall apply the laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted in accordance with this Directive from 7 July 2015 with the exception of Chapters III and IV and Annexes V and VI.\n3. In relation to combustion plants referred to in Article 30(2), Member States shall, from 1 January 2016, apply the laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted in accordance with Article 80(1) to comply with Chapter III and Annex V.\n4. In relation to combustion plants referred to in Article 30(3), Member States shall no longer apply Directive 2001/80/EC from 7 January 2013.\n5. In relation to combustion plants which co-incinerate waste, point 3.1 of Part 4 of Annex VI shall apply until:\n(a)\n31 December 2015, for combustion plants referred to in Article 30(2);\n(b)\n7 January 2013, for combustion plants referred to in Article 30(3).\n6. Point 3.2 of Part 4 of Annex VI shall apply in relation to combustion plants which co-incinerate waste, as from:\n(a)\n1 January 2016, for combustion plants referred to in Article 30(2)\n(b)\n7 January 2013, for combustion plants referred to in Article 30(3).\n7. Article 58 shall apply from 1 June 2015. Until that date, substances or mixtures which, because of their content of volatile organic compounds classified as carcinogens, mutagens, or toxic to reproduction under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, are assigned or need to carry the hazard statements H340, H350, H350i, H360D or H360F or the risk phrases R45, R46, R49, R60 or R61, shall be replaced, as far as possible, by less harmful substances or mixtures within the shortest possible time.\n8. Article 59(5) shall apply from 1 June 2015. Until that date, the emissions of either volatile organic compounds which are assigned or need to carry the hazard statements H340, H350, H350i, H360D or H360F or the risk phrases R45, R46, R49, R60 or R61 or halogenated volatile organic compounds which are assigned or need to carry the hazard statements H341 or H351 or the risk phrases R40 or R68, shall be controlled under contained conditions, as far as technically and economically feasible, to safeguard public health and the environment and shall not exceed the relevant emission limit values set out in Part 4 of Annex VII.\n9. Point 2 of Part 4 of Annex VII shall apply from 1 June 2015. Until that date, for emissions of halogenated volatile organic compounds which are assigned or need to carry the hazard statements H341 or H351 or the risk phrases R40 or R68, where the mass flow of the sum of the compounds causing the hazard statements H341 or H351 or the labelling R40 or R68 is greater than, or equal to, 100 g/h, an emission limit value of 20 mg/Nm3 shall be complied with. The emission limit value refers to the mass sum of the individual compounds.\nArticle 83\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 84\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["64", "27", "8", "67", "34", "98", "4", "93", "80", "56", "41", "85", "95", "68", "61", "89", "96", "54", "33", "10", "42", "5", "36", "88", "26", "1", "46", "35", "3", "30", "No Label", "58", "60"], "gold": ["58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 December 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11xMIR604 (SYN-BT\u00d811-1xSYN-IR6\u00d84-5) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 9535)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/893/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Article 7(3) and Article 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 31 October 2007, Syngenta Seeds SAS submitted to the competent authority of the United Kingdom an application, in accordance with Article 5 and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from Bt11xMIR604 maize (\u2018the application\u2019).\n(2)\nThe application also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of Bt11xMIR604 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with Article 5(5) and Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.\n(3)\nOn 18 May 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (\u2018EFSA\u2019) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Article 6 and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It considered that maize Bt11xMIR604 is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment. Therefore it concluded that it is unlikely that the placing on the market of the products containing, consisting of, or produced from Bt11xMIR604 maize as described in the application (\u2018the products\u2019) will have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment in the context of their intended uses (3).\n(4)\nIn its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Article 6(4) and Article 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(5)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.\n(6)\nTaking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products.\n(7)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).\n(8)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from Bt11xMIR604 maize. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (5), lays down labelling requirements in Article 4(6) for products containing or consisting of GMOs. Traceability requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs are laid down in paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article 4 and for food and feed produced from GMOs are laid down in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(10)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). The EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in point (e) of Article 6(5) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(11)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(12)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing-House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).\n(13)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(14)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time-limit laid down by its Chair and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures.\n(15)\nSince, at its meeting on 15 December 2011, the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal and the Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded, these measures are to be adopted by the Commission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) Bt11xMIR604, as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier SYN-BT\u00d811-1xSYN-IR6\u00d84-5, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Article 4(2) and Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from SYN-BT\u00d811-1xSYN-IR6\u00d84-5 maize;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from SYN-BT\u00d811-1xSYN-IR6\u00d84-5 maize;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of SYN-BT\u00d811-1xSYN-IR6\u00d84-5 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018maize\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of SYN-BT\u00d811-1xSYN-IR6\u00d84-5 maize referred to in Article 2(b) and (c).\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nCommunity register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Syngenta Seeds SAS France, representing Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Switzerland.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Syngenta Seeds SAS, Chemin de l\u2019Hobit 12, BP 27, 31790 Saint-Sauveur, France.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2011.", "references": ["50", "92", "4", "84", "56", "6", "91", "86", "31", "65", "2", "34", "96", "78", "62", "20", "69", "36", "19", "93", "74", "45", "28", "72", "8", "30", "49", "24", "88", "85", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 July 2010\nexempting the production and wholesale of electricity in Italy\u2019s Macro-zone North and the retail of electricity to end customers connected to the medium, high and very high voltage grid in Italy, from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors\n(notified under document C(2010) 4740)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/403/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1), and in particular Article 30(5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the request submitted by the Compagnia Valdostana delle Acque SpA - Compagnie vald\u00f4taine des eaux SpA (hereinafter \u2018CVA\u2019) by e-mail of 15 February 2010,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee for Public Contracts,\nWhereas:\nI. FACTS\n(1)\nOn 15 February 2010, CVA transmitted a request pursuant to Article 30(5) of Directive 2004/17/EC to the Commission by e-mail. The Commission requested additional information of the Italian Authorities by e-mail of 15 April 2010, and of CVA by e-mail of 15 April 2010. Additional information was transmitted by the Italian authorities by e-mail of 10 May 2010 and of 20 May 2010 and, following a prolongation of the initial deadline, by CVA on 7 May 2010.\n(2)\nThe request submitted by CVA, a public undertaking within the meaning of Directive 2004/17/EC, concerns the following activities, as described in the request:\n(a)\nproduction and wholesale of electricity, in the entire territory of the Italian Republic;\n(b)\nin the alternative, the production and wholesale of electricity in the territory of the Northern Geographical Zone (hereinafter \u2018Macro-zone North\u2019 (2)); and\n(c)\nretail sale of electricity to the final customers on the free electricity market in the entire territory of the Italian Republic.\nII. LEGAL FRAMEWORK\n(3)\nArticle 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC provides that contracts intended to enable the performance of one of the activities to which the Directive applies shall not be subject to the Directive if, in the Member State in which it is carried out, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted. Direct exposure to competition is assessed on the basis of objective criteria, taking account of the specific characteristics of the sector concerned. Access is deemed to be unrestricted if the Member State has implemented and applied the relevant Community legislation opening a given sector or a part of it. This legislation is listed in Annex XI of Directive 2004/17/EC, which, for the electricity sector, refers to Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (3). Directive 96/92/EC has been superseded by Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (4).\n(4)\nItaly has implemented and applied not only Directive 96/92/EC but also Directive 2003/54/EC, opting for legal and functional unbundling for transmission and distribution networks except for the smallest companies, which are exempted from the requirements of functional unbundling. Consequently, and in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 30(3), access to the market should be deemed not to be restricted on the entire territory of the Italian Republic.\n(5)\nDirect exposure to competition should be evaluated on the basis of various indicators, none of which are, per se, decisive. In respect of the markets concerned by this decision, the market share of the main players on a given market constitutes one criterion which should be taken into account. Another criterion is the degree of concentration on those markets. Given the characteristics of the markets concerned, further criteria should also be taken into account such as the functioning of the balancing market, price competition and the degree of customer switching.\n(6)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to the application of the rules on competition.\nIII. ASSESSMENT\n(7)\nBased on Commission precedents (5), the following relevant product markets could be distinguished in the electricity sector: (i) generation and wholesale supply; (ii) transmission; (iii) distribution and (iv) retail supply. Consequently, CVA\u2019s request should be analysed independently in respect of production and wholesale supply on the one hand and retail on the other.\n(8)\nAs recalled in recital 2 above, the request submitted by CVA concerns production and wholesale of electricity, in the entire territory of the Italian Republic, or alternatively in the Macro-zone North.\n(9)\nAccording to the available information (6), the national territory of Italy should, due to congestions on links between different zones whose prices are almost perfectly correlated, be considered to be constituted by four regional geographical markets as far as the production and wholesale supply of electricity is concerned: Macro-zone North, Macro-zone Centre South (7), Macro-zone Sicily (8) and Sardinia. The Italian Authorities have confirmed that the delimitation of Macro-zone North remains valid as a relevant market; adding, however, that changes are ongoing so that the delimitation between the remainder of the macro-zones is not clear for the time being, pending extensive inquiries, a definitive evaluation of the state of competition on these geographical markets is therefore currently not possible. On the basis of the above, and considering also that, incidentally, the power plants of CVA are all located in the Macro-zone North, the present Decision will, for the purposes of evaluating the conditions laid down in Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC, limit itself to an examination of the competitive situation existing within the territory of Macro-zone North in respect of production and wholesale supply of electricity. Although Macro-zone North forms a relevant market on its own, it can, however, not be seen as being completely isolated from the surrounding countries and the other regions.\n(10)\nAs it results from a constant practice (9) in respect of Commission Decisions pursuant to Article 30, the Commission considered that, in respect of electricity generation, \u2018one indicator for the degree of competition on national markets is the total market share of the biggest three producers\u2019. According to the Italian Authorities, for 2009, the share of the three largest generators in Macro-zone North is indicated as 49,7 %. This level of concentration, encompassing the total market share of the largest three generators, is lower than the level (52,2 %) referred to in Decision 2008/585/EC in respect of Austria, as well as being lower than the level (58 % of gross production) referred to in Decision 2008/741/EC in the case of Poland, and much lower than the respective levels referred to in Decisions 2006/422/EC and 2007/706/EC concerning, respectively Finland (73,6 %) and Sweden (86,7 %). It is however noted that the level is higher than the corresponding percentage, 39, to which Decisions 2006/211/EC and 2007/141/EC refer to for the UK. Nevertheless this level is considered satisfactorily low, and therefore could be taken as an indication of a certain degree of direct exposure to competition as regards production and wholesale supply of electricity in the Macro-zone North.\n(11)\nMoreover, Italy has also substantial imports of electricity, in 2008 of the order of more than 42 997 GWh. Italy is a net importer and imported electricity accounting for approximately 13,43 % of its total needs (10). As confirmed by the Italian Authorities (11), the imports have a pro-competitive effect, notably in the Macro-zone North. Although this effect is conditioned by the technical limitation of the interconnection with other countries, it is expected that, in view of the new legislation in place (12), the situation would improve further. There is therefore a certain degree of constraint on the pricing behaviour of the leading producers in Macro-zone North through imports of electricity from outside the Italian territory. These factors should therefore be taken as an indication of a certain degree of direct exposure to competition from other EU Member States, as regards production and wholesale supply of electricity in Macro-zone North.\n(12)\nThe Commission Communication of 11 March 2010\u2018Report on progress in creating the internal gas and electricity market\u2019 (13) revealed that the three biggest generators still control more than 75 % of the generation capacity in 14 Member States. However, the report places the Italian electricity market in the category of \u2018moderately concentrated\u2019 markets (14), whereby the Herfindahl-Hirchman Index (HHI) has lower values compared to the other categories. Given that the competition pressure is felt even more in the Macro-zone North than in the rest of the zones, the degree of concentration can be considered as an indication of direct exposure to competition of electricity production and wholesale in the Macro-zone North.\n(13)\nFurthermore, even though they represent a small part of the total amount of electricity produced and/or consumed in a Member State, the functioning of the balancing mechanisms should also be considered as an additional indicator. According to the available information, the workings of the balancing mechanism - in particular the markets based pricing and the well-developed intra-day market - are such that it does not constitute an obstacle to electricity production being subject to direct exposure to competition.\n(14)\nAs regards retail supply, a further distinction of the relevant product market could be made between: (A) retail supply to industrial customers connected to the medium, high and very high voltage grid and (B) retail supply to smaller industrial, commercial and domestic customers connected to the low-voltage grid. These markets shall be analysed further separately.\n(15)\nAs confirmed by the Italian Authorities, the market for retail supply of electricity to end customers connected to the medium, high and very high voltage grid is national in scope.\n(16)\nAccording to the available information (15), the aggregate market shares of the three largest retailers of electricity to end customers connected to the medium, high and very high voltage grid amounts to 43,89 %, which is a satisfactorily low level (16) and it should be taken as an indication of direct exposure to competition.\n(17)\nGiven the characteristics of the product concerned (electricity) and the scarcity or unavailability of suitable substitutable products or services, price competition and price formation assume greater importance when assessing the competitive state of the electricity markets. The number of customers switching supplier may therefore serve as an indicator of price competition and, thus, indirectly, \u2018a natural indicator of the effectiveness of competition. If few customers are switching, there is likely to be a problem with the functioning of the market, even if the benefits from the possibility of renegotiating with the historical supplier should not be ignored\u2019 (17).\n(18)\nAccording to the latest available information (18), switching rates by eligible point in 2008 amount to 32,50 % for large industrial customers and to 32,80 % for medium sized industry in Italy. While lower than the degree of switching in e.g. Austria, where the degree of switching for large and very large industrial customers amounted to 41,5 % (19), the degree of switching in Italy is still considerable, involving nearly one third of the large and medium sized industrial customers. Furthermore, the retail market to end customers connected to the medium, high and very high voltage grid is not subject to regulated prices. The situation in Italy is therefore satisfactory as far as switching and end-user price control are concerned and should be taken as an indicator of direct exposure to competition.\n(19)\nAs regards the relevant geographical market for retail supply, this has traditionally been considered to be national in scope. In its application, CVA uses the national market as relevant market for retail supply of electricity.\n(20)\nBased on the assumption that the geographical market is national in scope, and on the information currently available (20), it appears that the level of market concentration for the retail supply of electricity on the Italian market is very high. The cumulated market shares of the biggest three retailers to customers connected to the low voltage grid is of 79,44 %, of which the largest company holds a share of 71,11 % on its own. A constant jurisprudence should also be recalled in this context (21), according to which \u2018very large market shares are in themselves, save in exceptional circumstances, evidence of the existence of a dominant position. That is the situation when there is a market share of 50 %\u2019.\n(21)\nMoreover, the retail market in Italy is subdivided into three subcategories, out of which the first two are subject to regulated prices:\n(a)\nan enhanced protection service for domestic customers and small companies (with less than 50 employees and a turnover of no more than EUR 10 million) connected to the low voltage grid, and that have not signed a contract for purchases in the free market. Operation of these service is reserved for the company Acquirente Unico SpA (hereinafter the \u2018Single buyer\u2019);\n(b)\na safeguarded service for all customers not eligible for the enhanced protection service and that have no contract for purchases on the free market. This service is delivered by providers selected by the Single buyer through a competitive tender; and\n(c)\nthe free market, namely the remainder of the retail market.\n(22)\nThese markets should, however, not be considered as independent, relevant markets, for the purpose of the present decision since customers may switch from one subcategory to another and since the prices within all three subcategories are market-based (22). However, according to the 2009 Annual Report of AEEG, the so-called \u2018captive market\u2019 which includes the \u2018enhanced protection service\u2019 and the \u2018safeguarded service\u2019, accounts for about 36 % of the entire retail market. Moreover, according to the same report, the enhanced protection service is characterised by a very strong presence (84,3 %) of one specific supplier, who is also active in the free market. According to the Italian authorities, the costs of switching are perceived by customers to be high and the perceived benefits of switching are seen as low. This, combined with low prices under the enhanced protection service renders it very difficult for new operators to obtain a sufficient customer-base within this subcategory. This basically results in a competitive advantage for operators under the enhanced protection service which operate also on the free market, given that customers who wish to switch from an enhanced protection service to the free market or vice versa often do so without changing supplier.\n(23)\nHowever, based on the information received from the relevant Italian authorities (23), it can be concluded for the purposes of the present Decision that the geographical market for retail sale of electricity in Italy is not national in scope, as traditionally considered and as assumed by the applicant, but is local in scope, with a territory most often not exceeding the municipal level.\n(24)\nIn the absence of information on the degree of competition on each of the thus defined local markets for retail supply of electricity to end users connected to the low voltage grid and considering the above-mentioned doubts about the degree of competition in the retail market to customers connected to low voltage grid, seen globally at national level, as discussed in recitals 19 to 22, it is not possible to conclude that the conditions for granting an exemption under Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC to retail supply of electricity to end customers connected to the low voltage grid in Italy, are met.\n(25)\nDirective 2004/17/EC therefore continues to apply when contracting entities award contracts intended to enable the retail supply of electricity to end customers connected to low voltage grid to be carried out in Italy and when they organise design contests for the pursuit of such an activity in Italy.\nIV. CONCLUSIONS\n(26)\nIn respect of production and wholesale of electricity in the Macro-zone North, the situation can thus be summarised as follows: the aggregate market shares of the three biggest generators is moderately low, and the substantial amount of electricity imported is having a pro-competitive effect on this zone. As set out in recital 13, the functioning of the balancing mechanism does not constitute an obstacle to direct exposure to competition of the electricity generation market. Consequently it can be considered that all the above factors are indications of direct exposure to competition on the Macro-zone North.\n(27)\nIn view of the factors examined in recitals 8 to 13, the condition of direct exposure to competition laid down in Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC should be considered to be met in respect of production and wholesale supply of electricity in the Macro-zone North.\n(28)\nFurthermore, since the condition of unrestricted access to the market is deemed to be met, Directive 2004/17/EC should not apply when contracting entities award contracts intended to enable electricity production and wholesale supply to be carried out in Macro-zone North nor when they organise design contests for the pursuit of such an activity in that geographical area.\n(29)\nIn respect of retail sale of electricity to end customers connected to the medium, high and very high voltage grid, in Italy, the situation can thus be summarised as follows: the aggregate market shares of the three biggest retail companies is low, and the degree of switching by withdrawal point is satisfactory and there is no end-user price control. These conclusions are also in line with the opinion of the relevant Italian Authorities whereby this market has been exposed to competition for several years and the resulting degree of competition is satisfactory.\n(30)\nIn view of the factors examined in recitals 15 to 18, the condition of direct exposure to competition laid down in Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC should be considered to be met in respect of retail supply of electricity to end customers connected to the medium, high and very high voltage grid on the entire territory of the Italian Republic.\n(31)\nFurthermore, since the condition of unrestricted access to the market is deemed to be met, Directive 2004/17/EC should not apply when contracting entities award contracts intended to enable retail supply of electricity to end customers connected to the medium, high and very high voltage grid in Italy nor when they organise design contests for the pursuit of such an activity in that geographical area.\n(32)\nIn view of the factors examined in recitals 19 to 25 and given the doubts about the existence of sufficient competition at the national level in respect of retail supply to end customers connected to the low voltage grid and moreover in the absence of detailed information on each and every relevant local market, as defined by the Italian authorities, it is not possible to conclude that the conditions for granting an exemption under Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC for the retail supply of electricity to end customers connected to low voltage grid in Italy, are met. Consequently, Directive 2004/17/EC continues to apply when contracting entities award contracts intended to enable the retail supply of electricity to end customers connected to low voltage grid, to be carried out in Italy and when they organise design contests for the pursuit of such an activity in Italy. As the statistical obligations pursuant to Article 67 will continue to apply, it may be necessary to ensure that the contracting entities concerned take appropriate measures such as managerial and/or accounting separation so as to be able to report correctly on procurement made for the pursuit of the relevant activities which have not been exempted pursuant to the present Decision.\n(33)\nAlso, it is recalled that contracts covering several activities shall be treated in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2004/17/EC. In the present context this means that when a contracting entity is engaged in \u2018mixed\u2019 procurement, that is procurement used to support the performance of both activities exempted from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC and activities not exempted, regard shall be had to the activities for which the contract is principally intended. In the event of such mixed procurement, where the purpose is principally to support the retail of electricity to end customers connected to the low voltage grid, the provision of Directive 2004/17/EC shall apply. If it is objectively impossible to determine for which activity the contract is principally intended, the contract shall be awarded in accordance with the rules referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 9.\n(34)\nThis Decision is based on the legal and factual situation as of February to May 2010 as it appears from the information submitted by the Italian Republic, CVA, the 2005 and 2010 Communications and their Technical annexes and the 2007 Staff Document, the Final Report and the 2009 Annual Report of AEEG. It may be revised, should significant changes in the legal or factual situation mean that the conditions for the applicability of Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC for wholesale supply of electricity in the Macro-zone North and retail supply to end customers connected to medium, high and very high voltage grid are no longer met,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2004/17/EC shall not apply to contracts awarded by contracting entities and intended to enable the following activities to be carried out:\n(a)\nproduction and wholesale supply of electricity in the Macro-zone North;\n(b)\nretail supply of electricity to end customers connected to the medium, high and very high voltage grid in the entire territory of the Italian Republic.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 14 July 2010.", "references": ["32", "17", "35", "71", "30", "55", "88", "2", "13", "6", "98", "50", "60", "73", "16", "36", "12", "95", "22", "46", "41", "57", "29", "66", "1", "43", "18", "21", "61", "76", "No Label", "8", "20", "78", "81", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "20", "78", "81", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 776/2010\nof 2 September 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (G\u00e9nisse Fleur d\u2019Aubrac (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France\u2019s application to register the name \u2018G\u00e9nisse Fleur d\u2019Aubrac\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no objections within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 were received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2010.", "references": ["81", "54", "98", "30", "87", "36", "65", "0", "3", "16", "9", "50", "66", "69", "26", "52", "21", "37", "93", "38", "17", "10", "7", "79", "46", "45", "68", "1", "43", "14", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1229/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\nrepealing certain obsolete Council acts in the field of the common agricultural policy\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 42 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the 1979 Act of Accession, and in particular Article 60, Article 61(5) and Article 72(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the 1985 Act of Accession, and in particular Article 234(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and the requirement for unanimity in the Council provided for in Article 234(3) of the 1985 Act of Accession (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImproving the transparency of Union law is an essential element of the better lawmaking strategy that the institutions of the Union are implementing. In that context it is appropriate to remove from the legislation in force those acts which no longer have real effect.\n(2)\nA number of regulations relating to the common agricultural policy have become obsolete, even though formally they are still in force.\n(3)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2052/69 of the Council of 17 October 1969 on the Community financing of expenditure arising from the implementation of the Food Aid Convention (3) has exhausted its effects since its content has been taken up by successive acts.\n(4)\nRegulation (EEC) No 1467/70 of the Council of 20 July 1970 fixing certain general rules governing intervention on the market in raw tobacco (4) has exhausted its effects as a result of successive reforms of the tobacco sector since 1992.\n(5)\nRegulation (EEC) No 3279/75 of the Council of 16 December 1975 on the standardization of the treatment applied by the individual Member States to imports from non-member countries of live trees and other plants, bulbs, roots and the like, cut flowers and ornamental foliage (5) has exhausted its effects since its content has been taken up by successive acts.\n(6)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977 introducing a system of premiums for the non-marketing of milk and milk products and for the conversion of dairy herds (6) introduced measures applicable until 1981 and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(7)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 1853/78 of 25 July 1978 adopting general rules in connection with special measures for castor seeds (7) introduced measures for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2874/77 of 19 December 1977 laying down special measures in respect of castor seeds (8) whose validity ended on 30 September 1984, and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(8)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 2580/78 of 31 October 1978 extending the 1977/78 marketing year for olive oil, providing for special measures for this sector, and amending Regulation (EEC) No 878/77 as regards the exchange rates to be applied in agriculture (9) covered only the 1977/78 and 1978/79 marketing years and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(9)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 1/81 of 1 January 1981 laying down general rules for the system of accession compensatory amounts for cereals (10) was intended for application in the transitional period following the accession of Greece to the European Communities and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(10)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 1946/81 of 30 June 1981 restricting investment aids for milk production (11) has exhausted its effects since its content has been taken up by successive acts.\n(11)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 2989/82 of 9 November 1982 on the granting of aid for the consumption of butter in Denmark, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg (12) introduced only temporary measures and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(12)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 3033/83 of 26 October 1983 abolishing the \u2018accession\u2019 compensatory amount applicable to liqueur wines (13) was intended for application in the transitional period following the accession of Greece to the European Communities and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(13)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 564/84 of 1 March 1984 on suspension of aids for investments in the field of milk production (14) covered only the year 1984 and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(14)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 2997/87 of 22 September 1987 laying down, in respect of hops, the amount of aid to producers for the 1986 harvest and providing for special measures for certain regions of production (15) introduced a special measure applicable until the year 1995 and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(15)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 1441/88 of 24 May 1988 amending Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 on the common organization of the market in wine (16) gave the Council power to adjust certain transitory provisions resulting from the accession of Portugal to the European Communities and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(16)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 1720/91 of 13 June 1991 amending Regulation (EC) No 136/66/EEC on the establishment of a common organization of the market in oils and fats (17) introduced several exceptional measures in the common organisation of the market in oils and fats, which were applicable until 30 June 1992 at the latest, and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(17)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 740/93 of 17 March 1993 setting Community compensation for definitive discontinuation of milk production in Portugal (18) introduced a special measure to be implemented until 1996 and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(18)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 741/93 of 17 March 1993 on application of the common intervention price for olive oil in Portugal (19) was intended for application in the transitional period following the accession of Portugal to the European Communities and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(19)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 744/93 of 17 March 1993 laying down general rules for applying the supplementary trade mechanism to deliveries in Portugal of products other than fruit and vegetables (20) concerned the applicability to Portugal of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3817/92 of 28 December 1992 laying down general rules for applying the supplementary trade mechanism to imports into Spain of products other than fruit and vegetables (21), which was subsequently repealed, and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(20)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2443/96 of 17 December 1996 providing for additional measures for direct support of producers\u2019 incomes or for the beef and veal sector (22) covered only the year 1997 and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(21)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2200/97 of 30 October 1997 on the improvement of the Community production of apples, pears, peaches and nectarines (23) was intended to introduce a special premium for the 1997/1998 marketing year and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(22)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2330/98 of 22 October 1998 providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily restricted in carrying out their trade (24) covered only a special temporary measure and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(23)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2800/98 of 15 December 1998 on transitional measures to be applied under the common agricultural policy with a view to the introduction of the euro (25) was meant to provide only for transitional measures and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(24)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 of 17 December 1998 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (26) was intended to provide for a single, one-off measure and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(25)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 660/1999 of 22 March 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 and fixing the premiums and guarantee thresholds for leaf tobacco by variety group and Member State for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 harvests (27) covered only the 1999, 2000 and 2001 harvests and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(26)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 546/2002 of 25 March 2002 fixing the premiums and guarantee thresholds for leaf tobacco by variety group and Member State for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 harvests and amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 (28) covered only the 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 harvests and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(27)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 527/2003 of 17 March 2003 authorising the offer and delivery for direct human consumption of certain wines imported from Argentina which may have undergone oenological processes not provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (29) was intended to introduce a derogation applicable only until 31 December 2008 and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(28)\nFor reasons of legal certainty and clarity, those obsolete Regulations should be repealed,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Regulations (EEC) No 2052/69, (EEC) No 1467/70, (EEC) No 3279/75, (EEC) No 1078/77, (EEC) No 1853/78, (EEC) No 2580/78, (EEC) No 1/81, (EEC) No 1946/81, (EEC) No 2989/82, (EEC) No 3033/83, (EEC) No 564/84, (EEC) No 2997/87, (EEC) No 1441/88, (EEC) No 1720/91, (EEC) No 740/93, (EEC) No 741/93, (EEC) No 744/93, (EC) No 2443/96, (EC) No 2200/97, (EC) No 2330/98, (EC) No 2800/98, (EC) No 2802/98, (EC) No 660/1999, (EC) No 546/2002 and (EC) No 527/2003 are repealed.\n2. The repeal of the acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to:\n(a)\nthe maintenance in force of Union acts adopted on the basis of the acts referred to in paragraph 1; and\n(b)\nthe continuing validity of amendments made by the acts referred to in paragraph 1 to other Union acts that are not repealed by this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["24", "98", "57", "71", "4", "94", "60", "46", "42", "29", "54", "89", "41", "95", "2", "78", "10", "30", "32", "56", "68", "65", "18", "35", "44", "31", "79", "13", "33", "63", "No Label", "8", "61"], "gold": ["8", "61"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 964/2010\nof 25 October 2010\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium road wheels originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Article 9 and 14(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROVISIONAL MEASURES\n(1)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 404/2010 (2) (\u2018the provisional Regulation\u2019) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 30 June 2009 by the Association of European Wheel Manufacturers (EUWA) (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 % of the total Union production of certain aluminium wheels. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n2. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE\n(3)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional measures (\u2018provisional disclosure\u2019), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard.\n(4)\nThe Commission continued to seek information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.\n(5)\nIt is recalled that, as set out in recital (18) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (\u2018the investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (\u2018the period considered\u2019).\n(6)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.\n(7)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.\n2.1. Scope of investigation. Inclusion of imports from Turkey\n(8)\nOne party, representing the interests of exporting producers, claimed that imports of the product concerned from Turkey should be included in the scope of the present investigation.\n(9)\nConcerning the non-inclusion in the complaint of imports originating in Turkey, it should be noted that at initiation stage, there was no sufficient evidence of dumping, injury and causal link from this country to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding on such imports.\n(10)\nTo the contrary, the complainants submitted information that imports from Turkey of the product concerned were at non-dumped prices (see non-confidential version of the complaint, page 13, point 5, and annex 5.1.a.).\n3. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND THE LIKE PRODUCT\n(11)\nFollowing provisional measures some parties reiterated their arguments concerning differences between the Original Equipment Manufacturer (\u2018OEM\u2019) and aftermarket (\u2018AM\u2019) wheels, claiming that the two segments should be treated as two different products. Those parties claimed that OEM wheels should be excluded from the scope of the present investigation because the OEM and AM wheels are produced in accordance with different production processes, have different technical and physical characteristics, different channels of distribution and even different uses.\n(12)\nIt is recalled that, as stated in recital (21) of the provisional Regulation, both AM and OEM wheels can be produced by means of all production processes, in all diameters and weights, with all different types of finishing. OEM and AM wheels share the same physical and technical characteristics and are interchangeable.\n(13)\nSome parties claimed that the ultimate consumer of OEM and AM wheels is different: for OEM it would be the car manufacturer and for AM it would be the car owner. Such an understanding is misguided. Although indeed the OEM wheels are sourced by car makers the use of both OEM and AM wheels is the same: they are fitted on cars and similar vehicles. Hence they have the same ultimate user - the driver.\n(14)\nThe most common argument put forward was that the requirements for OEM wheels differ from those for AM wheels. According to that argument measures should not be imposed on OEM wheels because they are not interchangeable with AM wheels (they are purchased to meet the needs of different product markets and differ in terms of design, quality requirements, investment, production process, prices, and import penetration).\n(15)\nAnother argument was that OEM wheels are produced according to car makers\u2019 specifications while AM wheels are designed and manufactured according to specifications chosen by the wheel manufacturer without taking into account the requirements of a specific car model. Although the AM wheels are not nominally produced according to the specifications provided by the car makers, they will be fitted on different car models. In fact, eventually, they will be fitted on exactly the same car models for which the OEM wheels had been originally produced. The fact that specifications come from different sources cannot be considered as such as a proof of differences in physical and technical characteristics.\n(16)\nAdditional information was received from the Union producers and car makers. It confirmed that the same production processes (casting, flow forming, rolling, forging, 2-3 parts wheels) are used for both AM and OEM wheels. They are both produced in all weights and diameters. Inserts, the use of certain types of finishing and heat treatment are applicable to OEM and AM wheels alike.\n(17)\nSome parties claimed that technical differences between the OEM and AM wheels were reflected in the fact that OEM wheels use primary aluminium whereas in the production of AM wheels aluminium would be often extracted from scrap. The Commission thoroughly analysed those comments. Also, additional information was received from car makers and EU producers. In particular those EU producers which manufacture both OEM and AM wheels attested that both primary aluminium and - although to a limited extent - aluminium extracted from scrap is used in the production of both types of wheels. Additional information collected in the investigation confirmed that the main criterion used to distinguish the type and quality of aluminium used is the percentage of silicium (7 % or 11 %). Both alloys are used for OEM and AM wheels alike.\n(18)\nDifferences in testing requirements are also not as such conclusive that OEM and AM wheels are two different products. It has to be noted that there is no general homogeneous set of requirements for aluminium wheels. Standards change according to producer and country. In the end it is not possible to establish a coherent dividing line between AM and OEM wheels on the basis of standards or requirements. According to the information on file, both OEM and AM wheels are subject to various tests (x-ray tests, chemical tests, leakage test, stress tests, anti-corrosion tests, wheel balancing tests, impact tests, radial endurance tests, bending tests, salt spray tests, CASS-tests (Copper-Accelerated Acetic Salt Spray test). Further, it appears that differences in testing as well as differences in standards are an indication of a dividing line between different Member States rather than between OEM and AM wheels as two different products.\n(19)\nAccording to the information on file, quality requirements imposed by the car industry lead to a highly standardized product which is easily interchangeable between all producers worldwide. In the AM segment quality requirements can also be laid down by the customers and those wheels also have to meet international and national requirements. Consequently, more stringent requirements or specifications may apply to certain wheels in both segments, meaning that some AM wheels might comply with more stringent standards than OEM wheels.\n(20)\nThe fact that AM wheels are customarily not installed on new cars and that car makers use wheels produced by selected manufacturers under their brand name is a sourcing decision which has no bearing on the conclusion on the interchangeability of OEM and AM wheels. Physically an AM wheel, i.e. a wheel bearing a brand name of a wheel manufacturer, could be installed on a new car.\n(21)\nThese conclusions are confirmed by the fact that car makers also source and sell aftermarket wheels. Some of these are sold under the car maker brand name (Original Equipment Supplier, OES), some under the brand name of the wheel manufacturer.\n(22)\nMany comments concerned the requirements imposed by car manufacturers on suppliers of wheels (e.g. evidence of a fully-functioning ISO certified quality management system, assessment of quality performance based on experience from previous projects and delivery and field quality, product specific and project specific risk assessment). However, aluminium road wheels share the same physical, technical and chemical characteristics and uses regardless of imposed requirements which are not pertinent to those characteristics.\n(23)\nIt should finally also be recalled that many wheel manufacturers produce for both segments and OEM and AM wheels are produced on the same production lines. Producers active in one segment can enter the other segment.\n(24)\nFinally, some parties argued that OEM and AM wheels should be considered as two different products because they fall under different customs subheadings.\n(25)\nThe current anti-dumping proceeding concerns aluminium road wheels (\u2018ARWs\u2019) currently falling within CN codes ex 8708 70 10 and ex 8708 70 50. CN code 8708 70 10 concerns road wheels and parts and accessories thereof for industrial assembly. This means that the application of the lower duty rate foreseen therein is subject to the so-called end-use control. The two CN codes are split to indicate the difference in duty rate and to allow for the application of a lower rate for road wheels for industrial assembly. This however does not have any impact on the definition of the product concerned.\n(26)\nIn reply to parties comments it has to be noted first that the definition of the product concerned in an anti-dumping proceeding does not refer to product classifications under different customs headings. Hence, a product concerned in an anti-dumping proceeding might encompass different CN codes. In fact such a situation is rather common.\n(27)\nSecondly, wheels falling under both CN codes are the same. The only difference is the way they are channelled after importation.\n(28)\nThirdly, it has to be also noted that the volumes of imports under the CN code linked to industrial assembly are less than volumes of OEM imports declared by the cooperating car makers. This appears to imply that OEM wheels have been customs cleared under both CN codes. Given that it therefore seems that car makers import under both CN codes, formal differentiation based on end use would be extremely difficult.\n(29)\nConsequently, the arguments put forward by interested parties are rejected and the conclusions of the provisional Regulation confirmed. OEM and AM wheels are considered to form one single product concerned.\n3.1. Motorcycle and trailer wheels\n(30)\nThe product concerned by the present investigation are \u2018aluminium road wheels of the motor vehicles of CN headings 8701 to 8705, whether or not with their accessories and whether or not fitted with tyres, currently falling within CN codes ex 8708 70 10 and ex 8708 70 50 (TARIC codes 8708701010 and 8708705010)\u2019. This definition conforms to the Notice of initiation published on 13 August 2009 and to the complaint at the origin of the case.\n(31)\nParties raised questions as to whether the investigation would also cover motorcycle and trailer wheels. The above mentioned definition implicitly excludes aluminium road wheels for motorcycles of heading 8711 and for trailers of heading 8716 which are in principle classified respectively under headings 8711 and 8716.\n(32)\nRegarding trailer wheels, during the investigation, it was argued that, apart from the CN codes indicated in the Notice of initiation of the proceeding, another code which covers, inter alia, wheels for trailers (CN code 8716 90 90) could be used for imports into the Union to circumvent measures on the product concerned (although it appears that the code is not currently used for that purpose in practice).\n(33)\nIt was proposed that the present investigation should also cover aluminium wheels falling under CN code 8716 90 90.\n(34)\nThe Commission services informed all parties concerned by means of a note put in the file open for consultation by interested parties advising of the possible inclusion of the other CN code in the proceeding.\n(35)\nHowever, as stated above, aluminium wheels which genuinely are intended for trailers and therefore are covered by CN code 8716 90 90, were not covered by the Notice of Initiation. It can therefore not be excluded that certain operators that produce and or trade in such wheels did not come forward in this investigation since they expected that such imports would not be covered, and thus were not aware of the abovementioned note. Under those circumstances, it is not appropriate to include such wheels in the proceeding. On the other hand, since there appears to be an especially high risk of circumvention with the use of the aforementioned CN code, it is appropriate to introduce a TARIC code with which the development of the level of imports of wheels under that code can be precisely monitored. On the basis of Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation, a provision to this effect is included in the operative part of this Regulation.\n4. MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT (MET), INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT (IT) AND ANALOGUE COUNTRY\n4.1. Market Economy Treatment (MET)\n(36)\nAll sampled exporting producers contested the provisional findings as set out in recitals (26) to (53) of the Provisional Regulation.\n(37)\nFirst, it has to be underlined that in the PRC, primary aluminium accounts for more than 50 % of the cost of production of an aluminium wheel. Three of the four sampled companies have claimed that the decision to deny MET should be individual and company specific whereas in the present case the Commission, by stating that there is State interference in decisions concerning the acquisition of the main raw material (aluminium) as indicated in recitals (30) to (37) of the provisional Regulation, has denied MET on a general country-wide basis. This argument cannot be accepted; indeed the analysis made by the Commission has been made individually for each sampled producer. It is true the Commission has reached the same conclusion for the four of them but this is due to the fact that there is State interference in the decision making process of each of them as explained in recitals (30) to (37) of the provisional Regulation. The Commission would have not arrived to the same conclusion for any company operating in the PRC showing that it acquires the vast majority of the aluminium alloy it consumes at London Metal Exchange (LME) prices with the usual mechanisms used by any company in the sector established in the rest of the world. If this were to be the case, it would have been possible for this company to be granted MET even if established in the PRC in case of fulfilment of the other Criteria.\n(38)\nHaving regard to the above, the conclusions drawn in the said recitals and in recital (48) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(39)\nConcerning State interference in other business decisions, none of the three groups referred to in recital (38) of the provisional Regulation has provided additional evidence that could allow arriving to different conclusions. In particular, it has been argued that that the judgement of the General Court in case Zheijiang Xinan v Council (3) provides that \u2018the concept of\u2019 significant State interference \u2018cannot be assimilated to just any influence on the activities of an undertaking or to just any involvement in its decision-making process, but must be understood as meaning action by the State which is such as to render the undertaking\u2019s decisions incompatible with market economy conditions\u2019. Having regard to this judgement, exporters claim that the European Institutions should apply it and analyze in detail whether the actions taken by the State when running the company are incompatible with market economy conditions. In this respect, it has to be pointed out that the said judgement is presently under appeal. Therefore, the said judgement of the General Court shall take effect only as from the date of decision on the appeal. Consequently, the Institutions are in a position to maintain that State interference found in the present case is sufficient to conclude that Criterion 1 is not fulfilled. Having regard to the above, the conclusions of recital (38) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(40)\nNone of the two groups which, according to the conclusions reached at provisional stage, did not comply with the requirements of Criterion 2 has contested these provisional conclusions. It is therefore confirmed, as indicated in recitals (39) and (49) of the provisional Regulation that two of the sampled groups do not have their respective accounts prepared and audited in line with International Accounting Standards.\n(41)\nIt has been claimed by Baoding Lizhong group that Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation explicitly requires that the distortions are caused by the former non-market economy system; the group claimed that since it would have allegedly always operated as privately-held group, distortions cannot be the result of the \u2018former\u2019 non-market economy system as the group never operated as State-owned companies. The argument cannot be accepted. As established in the present case, production costs and financial situation of companies can be subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system regardless if a company has operated as a Sate-owned company or not.\n(42)\nIn addition, Baoding Lizhong group, YHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co. Ltd and CITIC Dicastal reiterated the arguments already put forward before the adoption of the provisional Regulation and insisted on the fact that the advantages enjoyed by the companies are not significant. However, as explained in recital (50) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation revealed that distortions on the financial situation of the groups were significant.\n(43)\nFurthermore, YHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co. Ltd has put forward that tax exemptions granted to foreign companies do not represent a specific subsidy and, according to the WTO case law concerning countervailing measures the burden of proof of specificity is with the investigating authorities (4). In its submission, YHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co. Ltd also refers to Article 4(5) of the Anti-Subsidy basic Regulation (5) which states that \u2018any determination of specificity (\u2026) shall be clearly substantiated on the basis of positive evidence\u2019. The company mentions as well Article 4.2(b) of the Anti-Subsidy basic Regulation (objective criteria or conditions governing the eligibility of a subsidy implicating the specificity does not exist) and Article 10 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures defining a countervailing duty as \u2018a duty levied for the purpose of offsetting any subsidy bestowed directly or indirectly upon the manufacture, production or export of a merchandise\u2019. Finally, YHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co. Ltd suggests that \u2018if the Commission Services want to offset subsidies provided by the by the Chinese government, the proper process to do so is through an anti-subsidy investigation\u2019.\n(44)\nConcerning this interpretation of the anti-dumping legislation, it must be said that it is not correct since the criteria of the Anti-Subsidy basic Regulation cannot be applied in the context of a MET analysis. The basic Anti-dumping Regulation provides for the examination of whether the production costs and financial situation of firms are not subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system and, as stated above, actions that imply the involvement of the State in shaping the business environment through measures that are typical of a non-market economy should be considered as a State influence carried over from the former non-market economy system.\n(45)\nHaving regard to the above, the conclusions of recitals (40) to (44) and (50) to (52) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(46)\nExporters have reiterated their claims addressed in recitals (46) - (47) of the provisional Regulation that, pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, determination whether the producers meet the criteria to be granted MET shall be made within three months of the initiation of the investigation whereas, in the present case, this determination was made beyond this three months deadline. To support their argument exporters quoted the judgement of the General Court in Case T-299/05 (6). In particular, exporters have put forward that, by the time of the sending of the disclosure on MET, the Commission had received all the answers to the anti-dumping questionnaires sent to exporters as well as the answers to the questionnaires sent to the companies established in the analogue country, therefore, being in possession of the data contained in the answers to these questionnaires, the Commission services had all the information necessary to calculate the dumping margin under the regular methodology and under the analogue country methodology. The exporters arrive then to the conclusion that, as such, the Commission was in a position to know what the effect of its MET decision would be in terms of the calculation of the dumping margin. Having regard to the above, exporters do not exclude that the MET decision was taken on the basis of the effects on dumping.\n(47)\nThis argument cannot be accepted. First, contrary to what it has been stated, by the time of the sending of the disclosure on MET, the Commission did not have all the information necessary to calculate the dumping margin. Indeed, in the circumstances of the present case, the information contained in the answers to the anti-dumping questionnaires and in the questionnaires sent to the companies established in the analogue country was neither complete nor correct and therefore the Commission was not in a position to calculate the dumping margins at that moment. Indeed, verification visits had to be carried out to gather information and data which were necessary to make an accurate calculation of the dumping margins. These visits only started to take place more than two weeks after the sending of the disclosure on MET. Therefore, in the absence of data obtained during the verification visits, it was materially impossible for the Commission to make dumping calculations before the sending of the disclosure on MET and take MET decision on the basis of the effects on dumping.\n(48)\nSecond, the exporters have not presented any evidence to demonstrate that the decision with regard to MET would have been different had it been adopted within the three moths period.\n4.2. Conclusion\n(49)\nThe finding that all companies that had requested MET should be denied MET, as established in recital (53) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n4.3. Individual treatment (IT)\n(50)\nBoth sampled groups which were provisionally denied IT due to state interference which was found to be such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates contested the provisional finding as set out in recital (55) of the provisional Regulation. Baoding Lizhong claims that there is no State interference and it also puts forward that from the wording of Article 9(5)(c) and (e) it does not suffice that there is some State interference for IT to be refused and that the explicit wording of Article 9(5) allows that there is some State interference and still to grant IT provided that there is still sufficient independence from the State and that the State interference is not such as to permit circumvention. This would only be the case if State officials were holding a majority of key functions and could interfere with daily business decisions.\n(51)\nThe second group claimed that the majority of its shares belongs to private persons and the risk of circumvention is non-existing because the group supplies exclusively car makers in the OEM market and for each wheel model the contract with a car-maker stipulates specifically the production site which is audited prior to, as well as in the course of the life of the contract.\n(52)\nRegarding the claims made by Baoding Lizhong, the risk of circumvention has been re-examined. Indeed, the State interference is not such as to permit circumvention. Accordingly, IT can be granted to Baoding Lizhong.\n(53)\nAs regards CITIC Dicastal, it is a State-owned company directly controlled by the State (the majority of its shares belong to the State). The State interference is such that it permits circumvention of measures if it obtains a different rate of duty. In other words, production of other State-controlled companies could be re-directed through CITIC Dicastal. Concerning the other argument put forward by CITIC Dicastal, the fact that it supplies exclusively car makers in the OEM market does not prevent it from supplying to other clients in the future. It can therefore be concluded that CITIC Dicastal should be denied IT.\n4.4. Analogue country\n(54)\nA number of interested parties have contested the choice of Turkey as analogue country. Their arguments cannot be accepted: first, because comments arrived well beyond the legal deadline to submit comments on the choice of the analogue country (the deadline expired on 24 August 2009) and second, because they cannot be taken into consideration from a substantial point of view.\n(55)\nThe arguments can be summarized as follows:\n1.\nOne of the cooperating companies in Turkey (Hayes Lemmerz) is related to an EU producer and both cooperating companies are members of EUWA (the association representing European producers which has submitted the complaint). This cannot be accepted. Indeed, the fact that one of the companies in the Analogue country is related to an EU company and that both companies are members of the same association as the complainants cannot be considered a relevant criteria to exclude Turkey as analogue country given that the criteria to be taken into account when analysing the appropriateness of an analogue country have to be based exclusively on facts such as the degree of competition in the domestic market of the analogue country and the non-existence of significant differences in the production process between producers in the analogue country and the Non-Market-Economy exporter.\n2.\nIt has also been argued that the production process in China is not comparable to Turkey because Chinese companies have access to cheaper raw material. This claim cannot be taken into account. On the one hand, access to cheaper aluminium is due to a distortion on prices caused by State interference. As explained above, the PRC benefits from a unique world position in terms of access to the cheapest possible prices for raw materials and no comparable situation can be found in other countries. On the other hand, the investigation has shown that the production process is practically identical in China and in Turkey.\n3.\nFinally, it has been claimed that there is insufficient competition at domestic level because domestic production is mainly used for exports and there are entry barriers to imports from outside the EU. These claims cannot be taken into consideration. Indeed, the EU market is much more than six times larger than the Turkish market and there are no barriers to entry; it is therefore reasonable that Turkey sends to the EU a significant part of its production. Moreover, there is sufficient competition in the domestic Turkish market because there are at least five domestic producers and there are not barriers to imports from the EU.\n(56)\nHaving regard to the above, the provisional conclusion that Turkey is an appropriate and reasonable analogue country, as set out in recital (63) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n4.5. Dumping\n4.5.1. Calculation\n(57)\nTwo exporting producers have contested the provisional findings as set out in recitals (57) to (77) of the provisional Regulation. It has been claimed that, according to Article 2(11) of the basic Anti-dumping regulation, dumping calculations should be based on \u2018all export transactions to the Community\u2019; in other words, they consider that 100 % of the transactions should be taken into consideration when calculating dumping margins. It has been also argued that the most expensive transactions, in particular for one of the companies investigated, have not been taken into account when calculating dumping margins.\n(58)\nIn relation to the argument regarding the number of transactions to be taken into account, it has to be pointed out that Article 2(11) of the basic Anti-dumping Regulation establishes that dumping calculations should be based on \u2018all export transactions to the Community\u2019 but they should be \u2018Subject to the relevant provisions governing fair comparison\u2019. This means that, if it is impossible to reach a reasonable matching for 100 % of the products, it will not be possible to take into account 100 % of the export transactions. This is considered reasonable provided the calculations are based on a sufficiently large percentage of total export transactions. In the present case, around 85 % of the transactions were taken into account.\n(59)\nConcerning the claim that the most expensive transactions have not taken into account, a new dumping calculation has been made in order to take them into consideration. An additional number of product types have been added to the ones used for the calculation made at provisional level. This has allowed to include in the calculations as many transactions as possible, also ensuring that the weighted average unit price of all export transactions per exporting company is as close as possible to the weighted average unit price of export transactions (of this company) which has been used to calculate the dumping margin. In this way, the value of all export transactions, even the most expensive ones, has been considered. Normal values for these additional product types have been calculated following the methodology explained in recital (70) of the provisional Regulation. With this new calculation dumping margins have decreased in particular for YHI.\n(60)\nThe methodology followed for the determination of Normal Value, Export Price and Comparison is the same as the one described in recitals (64) to (75) of the provisional Regulation. The only changes for the new calculations concern the increase of the number of transactions taken into account and the consideration that the average price of the export transactions used for the calculation of dumping for any given company should not be substantially different from the average export price of all transactions of this company.\n(61)\nIt has been claimed that the analysis of the Commission does not take into consideration the evolution of exchange rates, in particular the appreciation of the American Dollar over the Euro, and of costs of primary aluminium and international freight. This allegation is not grounded, as the Commission services, according to their practices, have included all types of verifiable costs in their analysis of the market of the product concerned during the IP.\n(62)\nThe Chinese producer YHI claimed that the computation of allowances in its individual dumping calculation was inaccurate. The Commission accepted this claim and performed a new calculation, which gave a dumping margin result of 23,81 %, i.e. 2,14 % less than what previously calculated.\n4.5.2. Definitive dumping margins\nCompany\nDefinitive dumping margin\nYHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co. Ltd\n23,81 %\nZhejiang Wanfeng Auto Wheel Co. Ltd\n60,29 %\nBaoding Lizhong\n67,66 %\nOther cooperating companies\n44,23 %\nAll other companies\n67,66 %\n5. INJURY\n(63)\nThe Commission received comments on the provisional findings concerning injury. Some of those comments were a repetition of comments already addressed in the provisional Regulation.\n(64)\nArguments already addressed in the provisional Regulation are not repeated in this Regulation.\n5.1. Imports from the PRC\n(65)\nParties claimed that the methodology of calculating imports has not been sufficiently explained. Those criticisms, however, have not been substantiated.\n(66)\nIt is recalled that at the provisional stage the methodology was based on the complaint but cross-checked with other sources (data provided by cooperating producers, users, exporters). In view of parties\u2019 comments these data have been analyzed once again and the provisional conclusions are hereby confirmed.\n(67)\nIt is recalled that three notes providing detailed information on methods of calculation of production, imports and sales were included in the file open for consultation by interested parties on the day of publication of provisional Regulation.\n(68)\nBecause the CN codes covered by the present investigation contain also other products than the product concerned, most of the comments concerned the methodology used by the Commission to exclude product non-concerned from the volumes reported.\n(69)\nCN code 8708 70 50 covers aluminium wheels and parts and accessories thereof, of aluminium. Corresponding data were extracted in tonnes from Comext without any further adjustment at this stage, assuming, as suggested in the complaint, that parts and accessories are of minor importance.\n(70)\nCN code 8708 70 10 covers, inter alia, aluminium wheels and parts and accessories thereof, of aluminium. Here also, corresponding data extracted in tonnes from Comext were duly adjusted in accordance with the methodology described in the complaint.\n(71)\nComments submitted by parties were in great part critical of this approach without however suggesting a more suitable or reliable alternative. The criticisms related mainly to the fact that parties, unaware of which method the Commission was about to apply could not comment. It is recalled that the non-confidential version of the complaint, setting out in a detailed manner the exclusion methodology, was available in the non-confidential file as from the initiation of the proceeding. The Commission cross checked the data provided in the complaint and could not establish anything that would undermine the reasonableness of the method chosen. Further, in view of the fact that parties did not propose an alternative method of exclusion, their comments were considered as unsubstantiated.\n(72)\nA second set of comments related to the method of conversion of volumes initially expressed in tonnes into units for the two CN codes. Here again the Commission followed the method suggested in the complaint and subsequently corroborated by the questionnaire replies of Chinese exporters. Such methodology suggests that the average weight per unit imported from China is around 9 kg per wheel. The unit weight of products imported from other third countries has been estimated at around 10 kg per unit in accordance with the complaint but cross checked with available information received during the present investigation from different parties.\n(73)\nIn their post-provisional submissions parties claimed that 10 instead of 9 kg should be used as an average weight as this would be the average weight of imported OEM wheels. As specified in the provisional Regulation, the average weight of 9 kg has been based on data provided by the sampled exporting producers. Therefore it is concluded that it is the most reasonable method of conversion reflecting the average weight of Chinese imports. In any case, conversion based on 10 kg for OEM wheels showed that there would be no impact on final conclusions.\n(74)\nThe conclusions in recitals (86) to (88) in the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.1.1. Volume and prices of imports from the PRC\n(75)\nThe conclusions drawn from, i.a., Eurostat data reported in recitals (86) and (89) of the provisional Regulation have been confirmed by the questionnaire replies of the exporting producers. Given that the data emanates from different sources, naturally the trends may differ slightly depending on the segment and company. In any event, they confirmed low price levels which combined with the high undercutting levels and steep increase in volumes of imports from the PRC, stresses the accuracy of the overall conclusion in this case.\n(76)\nData and trends have also been checked for OEM and AM segments considered separately. The provisional regulation mistakenly stated in recital (89) that prices for years 2006 to 2008 had to be based on Eurostat because the exporters\u2019 questionnaires did not provide relevant data. The statement should have related to a split between OEM and AM transactions. The split can only be established on the basis of transaction-by-transaction listings provided by exporters.\n(77)\nAs for AM unit prices data shows a more or less flat levels with a slight increase at the end of the period. They ranged from 25 to 34 EUR in 2006, from 24 to 32 EUR in 2007, from 25 to 29 EUR in 2008 and from 26 to 36 EUR in the IP. For confidentiality reasons those ranges have been modified upwards or downwards by 15 % at maximum.\nPrice range for China AM imports (based on sample of exporters)\n+/- 15 %\n+/- 15 %\n2006\n25\n34\n2007\n24\n32\n2008\n25\n29\nIP\n26\n36\n(78)\nOEM unit prices of imports from the PRC show a decrease of more than 15 % over the period considered. Further details cannot be disclosed due to confidentiality reasons as explained in the section on the calculation of the injury elimination level below.\n(79)\nOne party claimed that the Chinese import prices increased between 2008 and the IP when most of the injury indicators suffered from a significant decline. Indeed there has been a nominal increase of Chinese import prices (although by only 1,6 %) (7). It has to be stressed however that over the entirety of the period considered they decreased by 8 %.\n(80)\nOverall, low price levels have been confirmed for both segments, which combined with high undercutting and steep increase of imports from the PRC confirms the conclusions in this case.\n5.2. Separate injury analysis for OEM and AM segments\n(81)\nOne of the main comments received after the imposition of provisional measures was that a separate analysis of all injury indicators for OEM and AM segments should have been conducted.\n(82)\nOne party referred in that regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1888/2006 (8) as well as Council Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 (9) concerning imports of sweetcorn originating in Thailand, claiming that such segment-specific analysis was conducted there. That party further claimed that by not following the sweetcorn case the Commission was in breach of WTO requirements.\n(83)\nIn the sweetcorn case a reference was made to the relevant WTO provisions that pursuant to the Appellate Body \u2018where investigating authorities undertake an examination of one part of a domestic industry, they should, in principle, examine, in like manner, all of the other parts that make up that industry, as well as examine the industry as a whole\u2019 (10). This case demonstrates clearly that the approach followed in the present case is in line with the Institution\u2019s practice hitherto and compliant with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (11). Segmental analysis is possible but it has to be accompanied by an analysis of the whole industry.\n(84)\nIt is recalled that in the current proceeding at the provisional stage the two segments have been considered together, however, some indicators have been analysed separately for OEM and AM wheels (undercutting, consumption, market shares). In view of comments submitted by parties the Commission conducted further analysis and some additional indicators have been analysed at the segment level (see below). As shown below, this analysis confirms that the trends for the product concerned considered as a whole in general correspond to those for OEM and AM segments considered separately.\n5.2.1. Consumption\n(85)\nThe table below demonstrates the development of the Union consumption of aluminium road wheels in the OEM and AM segment, considered separately. More detailed information on split between OEM and AM imports has been provided above in the section on imports. Data on the split was based on various sources of information provided by cooperating EU producers, users and exporting producers in the country concerned.\nUnits (in 000)\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nTotal Union Consumption\n58 607\n62 442\n58 313\n49 508\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n107\n99\n84\nConsumption OEM\n43 573\n44 009\n42 076\n34 915\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n101\n97\n80\nConsumption AM\n15 033\n18 432\n16 237\n14 592\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n123\n108\n97\n(86)\nTotal Union consumption decreased by 16 % over the period considered from 58,6 million units to 49,5 million units. The same trend could be observed in both segments. The consumption of OEM wheels decreased by 20 % from 43,5 million units to 34,9 million units, whereas the consumption of AM wheels decreased by 3 % from 15 to 14,5 million units.\n5.2.2. Imports from the PRC and market shares for OEM and AM segments\n(87)\nMany comments referred to the Commission\u2019s conclusions with regard to the size of OEM and AM segments on the EU aluminium wheel market, in particular to the market share of imports. In particular parties argued that the Commission miscalculated the market share of OEM imports. Following these comments further investigation was conducted with regard to market share of imported OEM and AM wheels. It is recalled that the provisional Regulation specified market shares of OEM and AM imports from the PRC. These market shares have been specified on the basis of information on file at the provisional stage, based on data provided by the EU producers, exporters as well as car makers. On that basis it was established that the market share of OEM imports would account for around 3 % (conservative calculation) but it could reach up to 6 %.\n(88)\nIn view of criticisms expressed by the interested parties all data was re-verified and this verification confirmed the provisional findings. A detailed explanation of all investigative steps and all sources of information used to establish the share of both segments in imports not only from the country concerned but also from other third countries has been included in a note to the file open for consultation by interested parties. This note demonstrates the variety of sources used in order to obtain relevant information.\n(89)\nIn addition, in reply to parties\u2019 comments that the market share of 3 % was small, it has to be stressed that a market share of even 3 % cannot be considered small on a price sensitive market like the one in the case at hand. This is particularly true in view of the price depression described below in recital (116). Moreover, there has been also a significant increase in volumes and market share of imports from the PRC.\nImport volumes in 000 units OEM\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nPRC\n455\n476\n508\n1 183\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n105\n112\n260\nMarket share (%)\n1 %\n1 %\n1 %\n3 %\nImport volumes in 000 units AM\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nPRC\n3 247\n4 667\n5 301\n4 954\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n144\n163\n153\nMarket share (%)\n22 %\n25 %\n33 %\n34 %\n5.3. Price undercutting\n(90)\nIt is recalled that at the provisional stage undercutting was calculated for the product concerned considered as a whole as well as for both segments separately. The split has been based on the transaction-by-transaction listings provided by the sampled EU producers and exporters by identifying sales to car manufacturers.\n(91)\nThe ranges of undercutting disclosed in recitals (95) and (98) of the provisional Regulation were recalculated due to most notably changes in the dumping calculations (see above). They were also refined with regard to the customs tariff applied. Namely, at the provisional stage a uniform 4,5 % customs duty rate was applied. This approach has been followed at the definitive stage in the calculation of the general undercutting (for both segments). This was due to the fact that not all of the OEM imports have been declared under the CN code linked with a lower 3 % duty rate.\n(92)\nSome parties reiterated their comments that the level of undercutting should be calculated by reference to the value added component of the price only (excluding aluminium cost). As stated in recital (96) of the provisional Regulation using such methodology would indeed increase the level of undercutting. Since the level of undercutting established with reference to the full price (as percentage) was already substantial this method was not further explored.\n(93)\nUndercutting calculated for the product concerned as a whole ranges from 20 % to 38 %. Undercutting remains substantial for both segments (between 15 % and 29 % for OEM and 49 % and 63 % for AM).\n6. SITUATION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n6.1. Definition of the Union industry and macro and micro injury indicators\n(94)\nOne party claimed that the Commission applied an incorrect definition of the Union industry and Union production and that the injury assessment had to be based on information related solely to the complainants and supporters of the complaint and not on the basis of the total Union production.\n(95)\nThe Union industry was defined as provided for in Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation. The assessment of the situation of the entire Union production complies with the basic Regulation. The argument that the injury assessment was based on an incorrect definition of the Union industry must thus be rejected. Consequently, all arguments concerning the development of trends of injury indicators where data of sampled and cooperating producers was used as a basis of analysis had to be rejected.\n(96)\nAnother more general comment was that non-confidential versions of producers\u2019 questionnaires and mini-questionnaires were deficient. The Commission examined those comments in detail and requested improved non-confidential versions, where warranted. Those were included in the file open for consultation by interested parties, thereby fully allowing proper defence of rights.\n(97)\nSome parties claimed that some EU producers should have been excluded due to the fact that they did not provide full information about their activities. The parties further claimed that this exclusion would have had an impact on standing. However, these claims are not supported by the facts since the EU producers in question have indeed provided all relevant information. Therefore, they have to be rejected.\n(98)\nOne importer also claimed that it should have been classified as EU producer due to the fact it had outsourced the manufacturing process to the country concerned while many other activities were conducted in the EU (e.g. design). This company outsourced the manufacturing process while retaining in the Union some activities e.g. testing of wheels. Given however, that manufacturing process takes place in the country concerned, this importer cannot be considered as EU producer in the anti-dumping proceeding. In the light of the above, this claim had to be rejected.\n(99)\nSome parties conducted analysis of injury indicators on a company basis. Such an approach must be rejected as injury analysis is conducted for the EU industry as a whole.\n6.2. Macroeconomic indicators\n6.2.1. Sales and market share\n(100)\nSubsequent to the publication of the provisional Regulation, parties requested data with a split between OEM and AM segments. Table below demonstrates the sales and market share data with a split between OEM and AM segments:\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nSales volume entire Union industry OEM in 000 units\n36 820\n36 240\n34 932\n28 719\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n98\n95\n78\nSales volume entire Union industry AM in 000 units\n8 626\n10 443\n7 962\n7 075\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n121\n92\n82\nMarket share OEM (%) (EU producers\u2019 share of total OEM consumption)\n84,5 %\n82,3 %\n83 %\n82,3 %\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n97\n98\n97\nMarket share AM (%) (EU producers\u2019 share of total AM consumption)\n57,4 %\n56,7 %\n49 %\n48,5 %\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n99\n85\n84\n(101)\nDifferent sources of information were used to establish the split, most notably data provided by EU producers during the investigation, data from the complaint as well as data collected at pre-initiation stage.\n(102)\nThe above table demonstrates a downward trend with regard to sales and market shares for both OEM and AM segment.\n6.2.2. Contractual landscape\n(103)\nAs specified in recital (112) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission continued to look into the tenders awarded during the IP which however would be executed thereafter. Data already on file has been supplemented by new information received from the EU wheel manufacturers and car makers. This data confirmed the orders of magnitude of purchases and trends with regard to market shares of European and Chinese suppliers. It is reinforced by arguments submitted by car makers according to which the share of Chinese imports increased because of enhanced competitiveness and quality and improved capabilities of production processes.\n6.3. Microeconomic indicators\n6.3.1. Cost of production\n(104)\nOne party claimed that the data on profitability reported in recital (117) of the provisional Regulation did not match with those on sales and cost of production in recitals (89) and (122) of the provisional Regulation. This was due to a clerical mistake in calculating the cost of production leading to the use of a wrong set of data. This error has been corrected and the cost of production figures are shown in the table below.\nIn Euro\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nAverage cost of production (per unit)\n48,1\n49,4\n48,7\n49,1\n(105)\nThe correction did not affect the trend established at the provisional stage. The average cost of production remained stable over the period considered.\n6.3.2. Profitability\n(106)\nIn reply to parties\u2019 requests to provide data with a split between OEM and AM, the profitability has been calculated separately for the OEM and AM segments. The trends and orders of magnitude have been confirmed.\nIn %\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProfitability total\n3,2\n0,7\n-1,5\n-5,4\nProfitability OEM\n3,1\n0,4\n-1,4\n-5,7\nProfitability AM\n5,2\n5,7\n-3,3\n-2,4\n(107)\nAs demonstrated in the table above the profitability has been affected in both OEM and AM segments. It fell by 8,8 percentage points over the period considered in the OEM and by 7,6 percentage points in the AM segment. Consequently the orders of magnitude and trends for OEM and AM segments considered separately coincide with those for the product concerned considered as a whole (a drop by 8,7 percentage points).\n6.3.3. Return on investment\n(108)\nParties pointed out possible inaccuracies in the calculation of return on investment. The figures reported take into consideration all items making up the return of investment, including depreciation. The claims have to be thus rejected.\n6.4. Conclusion on injury\n(109)\nThe conclusions on injury as set out in recitals (80) - (123) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. The Union industry suffered material injury, which was reflected most notably in decreasing profitability. Some injury indicators have been analysed separately for OEM and AM segments. The trends and orders of magnitude of developments of these indicators correspond to those established for the whole product concerned.\n7. CAUSATION\n7.1. Impact of the imports from the PRC\n(110)\nSome parties claimed that the decline in Union industry\u2019s production and sales was a result of decreasing consumption (which allegedly also triggered decrease in capacity). The provisional Regulation indeed did not contest that the consumption on the Union market has been shrinking. Although it is possible that factors other than dumped imports from the PRC (economic crisis and imports from Turkey) might have contributed to the injury suffered by the EU industry, the impact of those other factors is not such as to break the causal link as stated in recitals (136) - (152) of the provisional Regulation. In any case, as outlined in recitals (126) et seq of the provisional Regulation there is an evident link between the significant increase in Chinese import volumes at low prices and the injury observed with the Union industry. Furthermore, as outlined in recital (103) of the provisional Regulation and contrary to parties\u2019 claims capacity remained stable over the period considered (most notably between 2006 and 2008, with a decrease of 4 % between 2008 and the IP).\n(111)\nSome parties referred to statements published by Union producers on their Internet sites and to the fact that dumped imports from the PRC were not mentioned among causes of injury. Irrespective of any public statements by the Union producers (which in any case do not exclude Chinese imports as possible cause of injury) the data on file demonstrates clearly that there is a causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from the PRC.\n(112)\nSome parties claimed that the loss in profitability was due to the decreasing production volumes. Hence, producers were unable to amortize their fixed costs over the smaller number of wheels produced. However, the drop in production was due to loss in market share which was due to import penetration by Chinese imports.\n(113)\nSome parties claimed that the imports from the PRC could not have been the cause of injury suffered by the Union industry because year 2007 saw a drop in profitability despite stable prices and sales. It is recalled that between 2006 and 2007 there has been an increase in market share of imports from the PRC and a 40 % increase in terms of volumes. On those grounds the claim had to be rejected.\n(114)\nThe conclusions set out in recitals (126) - (130) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n7.2. Effects of other factors\n7.2.1. Segmental split\n(115)\nParties reiterated their claims that the injury to the Union industry which channels most of its sales to the OEM segment could not have been caused by Chinese imports which concentrate predominantly on the AM segment and have limited OEM presence. It is recalled that these comments have been addressed in the provisional Regulation,in recitals (131) - (135).\n(116)\nAfter imposition of the provisional measures some parties referred to recital (133) of the provisional Regulation which stated that \u2018there are indications that car makers use Chinese prices to force down the EU industry prices\u2019. Those parties claimed that the Institutions cannot base their findings on indications but on positive evidence only. Parties further pointed out that no information on the file open for consultation by interested parties was made available in order to evidence such claims.\n(117)\nThe high commercial sensitivity of this type of information has to be underlined at the outset. On top of the information at Commission\u2019s disposal, further information was provided by the parties. This additional information confirmed conclusions based on evidence at Commission\u2019s disposal at the provisional stage showing a pattern of clear downward price pressure. The Commission has further build up the file with regard to price pressure aspect. A detailed submission has been provided by the Union producers. It provided the Commission with a further insight into the details of the bidding process and confirmed the conclusions with regard to the downward price pressure and the use of Chinese offers as benchmark to exercise such pressure. Indeed in some cases the target price set out by the car makers (which constitutes the starting point of negotiations) was already set below the Union producers\u2019 costs and was thus unsustainable from the outset. In some cases even offers below that level have been unsuccessful.\n(118)\nAccording to the information at the Commission\u2019s disposal some car makers just indicate to their bidders that they should lower prices in line with Chinese offers; some other are using quotes from companies which were not participating in the tenders; some others finally do not even restrict their tenders and anybody can bid (even those that would never meet the requirements).\n(119)\nCar manufacturers claimed that the price is not a determining factor in their sourcing decisions. Indeed the information on file demonstrates that there can be other considerations, however price plays a predominant role.\n(120)\nThe conclusions set out in recitals (131) - (135) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n7.2.2. Impact of imports from Turkey\n(121)\nParties claimed that the Commission underestimated the impact of Turkish imports as a cause of injury suffered by the Union industry. It is recalled that the provisional Regulation in recitals (136) - (137) recognized that the lower prices of Turkish imports might have had some negative impact on the situation of the Union industry but not such as to break, on its own, the causal link between dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(122)\nThe impact of imports from Turkey has also been considered per segment. It has been established that \u00be of the Turkish imports were OEM. It was confirmed that the trends and orders of magnitude established for OEM and AM segments considered together corresponded to those for both segments considered separately. According to the information on file (provided by different cooperating parties) the AM prices of Turkish imports decreased over the period considered. As for prices of Turkish OEM imports those remained relatively stable.\n(123)\nParties pointed out that prices of imports from Turkey decreased significantly between 2008 and the IP. However, as noted in recital (137) of the provisional Regulation the price differential has been still considerably lower that that between Chinese import prices and the EU producers\u2019 prices.\n(124)\nIn view of comments of one party that Turkey should have been included in the complaint (see recital (9) et seq above), it has to be noted that the non-inclusion of Turkey does not break the causal link between the Chinese exports of the product concerned and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(125)\nOn these grounds therefore, claims put forward by the parties have to be rejected. In the light of the foregoing, and in absence of any other comments, recitals (136) - (137) of the provisional Regulation are herby confirmed.\n7.2.3. Impact of imports from other countries\n(126)\nSome parties claimed that the market share of imports from third countries other than the PRC increased between 2006 and 2008. It has to be noted that the share of imports from third countries remained stable with small variations in the range of 1 %. Therefore, this claim had to be rejected.\n(127)\nSome countries mentioned imports from South Africa as contributing to the injury suffered by the Union industry because of their volume and/or prices. As outlined in recital (99) of the provisional Regulation the market share of the South African imports, even if they increased in terms of volumes, has been stable since 2007 (at the level of 1,4 % with an increase of 0,6 % between 2006 and 2007). The Commission received information that the majority of those imports were intended for the OEM market. As far as the prices of South African OEM imports are concerned the Commission received contradictory information. On the basis of Eurostat data it can be concluded that they increased from 43 to 51 EUR. These data would be also in line with information provided by one EU producer. Therefore, the claim with regard to impact of South African imports has to be rejected.\n(128)\nThe conclusions of provisional Regulation in recitals (136) - (138) with regard to imports from third countries taken together or in isolation are therefore confirmed.\n7.2.4. Impact of economic crisis\n(129)\nParties reiterated their arguments on the impact of financial crisis. Those comments, most notably the drop in car production, have been addressed in the provisional Regulation.\n(130)\nAs stated in recital (142) of the provisional Regulation the downward trend started well before the economic crisis and coincided in time with the market penetration by the imports from the PRC.\n(131)\nThe conclusions set out in recitals (139) - (144) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n7.2.5. Competition between Union producers and concentration on the EU market\n(132)\nParties claimed that the structure of the Union industry contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry. However, as specified in recitals (146) and (147) of the provisional Regulation data collected during the investigation demonstrates that larger and smaller companies have been similarly affected.\n7.2.6. Management decisions by Union producers\n(133)\nSome parties claimed that the causes of injury lied in wrong management decisions by the Union producers. Those comments referred to the producers mentioned in recital (124) of the provisional Regulation which have either closed or gone under insolvency proceedings. It is recalled that the provisional Regulation mentioned 30 companies whereas the comments of parties refer to only 4. In general those comments have not been substantiated. In any case the data on file demonstrates clearly the causal link between injury suffered by the Union industry and imports from the PRC. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that despite closures the market share of remaining companies did not go up.\n7.2.7. Imports from third countries by the EU industry\n(134)\nSome parties claimed that one EU producer offered cheaper wheels from third countries thereby contributing to the injury suffered by the EU industry. These allegations however have not been confirmed by evidence. Above all it was not clear whether such imports would have affected any significant quantities. Therefore the claim had to be rejected.\n7.2.8. Aluminium prices and supply contracts of the Union industry\n(135)\nIt was claimed that the average cost of production remained stable despite the changes in the aluminium prices. Parties claimed that the losses suffered by the Union producers were due to the fact that they entered into long-term contracts for supply of aluminium which did not allow for price adjustment in line with the decreasing LME prices. The information on file submitted by cooperating Union producers contradicted such claims. They had to be therefore rejected.\n7.2.9. Exchange rate fluctuations\n(136)\nIt has also been argued that the injury to the Union producers is likely to decrease as a result of the appreciation of the RMB to the EUR. The fluctuation in currency would push up the prices of the dumped imports that are traded in EUR so as to close the price gap between the dumped imports and Union producer prices.\n(137)\nIn this context it should be noted that the investigation has to establish whether the dumped imports (in terms of prices and volume) have caused (or are likely to cause) material injury to the Union industry or whether such material injury was due to other factors. In this respect, Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation states that it is necessary to show that the price level of the dumped imports cause injury. It therefore merely refers to a difference between price levels, and there is thus no requirement to analyse the factors affecting the level of those prices.\n(138)\nThe likely effect of the dumped imports on the Union industry\u2019s prices is essentially examined by establishing price undercutting, price depression and price suppression. For this purpose, the dumped export prices and the Union industry\u2019s sales prices are compared, and export prices used for the injury calculations may sometimes need to be converted into another currency in order to have a comparable basis. Consequently, the use of exchange rates in this context only ensures that the price difference is established on a comparable basis. From this, it becomes obvious that the exchange rate can in principle not be another factor of the injury.\n(139)\nThe above is also confirmed by the wording of Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, which refers to known factors other than dumped imports. The list of the other known factors in this Article does not make reference to any factor affecting the price level of the dumped imports.\n(140)\nHowever, even in the event that this factor was taken into account, given the likely pressure on consumer prices in a context of a market downturn, it is unlikely that importers buying from the country concerned would be able to increase prices to retail as a result of the appreciation of the RMB. Furthermore, exchange rates as such are very difficult to predict. Finally, an appreciation of the RMB against the EUR has been seen post IP. All these elements make it impossible to conclude that the currency fluctuations will have an upward effect on prices of dumped imports from the country concerned.\n(141)\nIn view of the foregoing it cannot be concluded that the development of exchange rate could be another factor causing injury.\n7.2.10. Increasing demand for steel wheels\n(142)\nSome parties claimed that the injury suffered by the Union industry was due to the fact that in times of economic crisis consumers turned to less expensive steel wheels, or to smaller cars which would allegedly more frequently be equipped with steel wheels. This argument was alleged to be reinforced by the fact that aid schemes introduced by different European countries incentivised sales of smaller cars. On the other hand, other parties claimed that although aid schemes indeed might have incentivised sales of smaller cars those cars were better equipped and fitted with aluminium wheels.\n(143)\nAdditional analysis has been conducted on the basis of data available, since there are no general statistics concerning steel wheels. Data on the level of consumption of steel wheels could be retrieved by comparing data on car production in the EU (recital (141) of the provisional Regulation) and consumption of OEM wheels (see recital (85) above).\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProduction of cars in the EU (in 000 units)\n16 198\n17 103\n15 947\n13 443\nAmount of wheels used in car production (production*4.5 wheel)\n72 891\n76 963\n71 761\n60 493\nConsumption of OEM aluminium wheels in the EU (in 000 units)\n43 573\n44 009\n42 076\n34 915\nConsumption of steel wheels in the EU (in 000 units)\n29 318\n32 954\n29 685\n25 578\nShare of OEM aluminium wheels\n59 %\n57 %\n58 %\n57 %\nShare of steel wheels\n40 %\n42 %\n41 %\n42 %\n(144)\nThe table demonstrates that the consumption of steel wheels decreased by 12 % between 2008 and the IP. The share of aluminium wheels in production of new cars decreased by 1 percentage points between 2008 and the IP (period affected by the economic crisis). The share of steel wheels in the production of new cars in the EU increased by 1 percentage points over the same period.\n(145)\nIt can be concluded that the share of aluminium and steel wheels in the production of new cars remained stable. Besides, trends of consumption and production of aluminium wheels also do not support the above argument. Therefore, it had to be rejected.\n7.3. Conclusion on causation\n(146)\nNone of the arguments submitted by the interested parties demonstrates that the impact of factors other than dumped imports from the PRC is such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury found. The conclusions on causation in the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n8. UNION INTEREST\n(147)\nIn view of parties\u2019 comments the Commission conducted further analysis of all arguments pertaining to the Union interest. All issues have been examined and the conclusions of the provisional Regulation confirmed.\n8.1. Interest of importers\n(148)\nAs announced in recital (160) of the provisional Regulation the Commission further investigated the impact of duties on companies that import and resell their own branded ARWs, the production of which they have outsourced to the PRC. It has been established that although the impact of duties on such a company would most probably be more than impact on other types of importers as defined in recitals (159) - (160) of the provisional Regulation, it would still not be disproportionate in view of global effects on the whole Union industry.\n(149)\nBased on price data provided for the IP by one cooperating importer (outsourcer) it was established that the profit margins achieved by such company would be sufficient to shoulder the effects of the duties. The margins achieved by that company were higher than the proposed duties.\n8.2. Interest of users\n(150)\nAfter imposition of provisional measures parties reiterated general comments on high cost impact of measures without providing evidence substantiating such claims. It is recalled that the cost impact analysis was based on data provided by the cooperating car manufacturers. Only three companies provided such data before imposition of provisional measures and only this data could form the basis of the Commission\u2019s conclusions.\n(151)\nAs stated in recital (165) of the provisional Regulation, the cost impact of measures is limited,with a maximum cost impact of 0,223 % (if accepting that all price levels would go up by 22,3 %). However even this maximum cost impact appears limited in view of the turnover achieved by car makers.\n(152)\nSome parties claimed that the cost increase due to measures would force them to delocalize their production. However, in view of the limited cost impact a decision to delocalize car production mentioned by some car makers would seem disproportionate to the cost impact established. The claims had to be therefore rejected.\n(153)\nIt has to be also noted that the arguments on high cost impact contradict with comments of some car manufacturers that they rely on Chinese supplies to a very limited extent.\n(154)\nThe conclusions on cost impact of measures in the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n8.3. Variety of sources of supply\n(155)\nThe complainant submitted that imposition of measures would be in the interest of car industry. By ensuring that the Union industry would remain operational it would ensure a variety of sources of supply.\n(156)\nOther parties, most notably users, reiterated their arguments with regard to the competition on the EU market. They also claimed that imports from the PRC were essential to cover the demand on the EU market with EU producers being unable to provide sufficient capacities. Whereas the capacity utilisation rate remained at the level of 92 % in the years 2006 and 2007, there has been a dramatic drop to 84 % in 2008 and 73 % in the IP. These data clearly demonstrates that there are, especially currently, sufficient free capacities which could be used for increased production. Further, the argument of insufficient capacities on the part of the Union industry contradicts with other claims by the car industry namely those of substantially reduced demand for OEM wheels. The claims therefore had to be rejected.\n(157)\nOne party also claimed that the Chinese producers were not producing the same product types as the European ARW manufacturers. These claims had to be rejected in view of the level of PCN matching found in this case (depending on the calculation performed, as explained in recital (93), the matching ratio would be 92 % for the undercutting calculation for the product concerned considered as a whole and 77 % for OEM and AM segments considered separately).\n(158)\nThe conclusions in recital (166) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n8.4. South Korea\n(159)\nParties reiterated their comments with regard to the negative impact of the duties in the present case when combined with other factors, like the competitive advantage given to South Korean car manufacturers on the basis of the Free Trade Agreement. These comments have not been substantiated by any new evidence. It should be noted that there is no evidence that FTA would result in injury to the car industry and that in any event a safeguard instruments is available under the FTA in question as a remedy. The conclusions in recitals (167) and (168) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n8.5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(160)\nThe conclusions in recitals (153) - (171) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n9. PROVISIONAL MEASURES\n9.1. Injury elimination level\n(161)\nMost of the comments received concerned the calculation of the injury elimination level. Parties questioned the methodology of this calculation as such and complained about insufficient disclosure.\n9.1.1. Disclosure\n(162)\nIt is recalled that the methodology for calculation of the injury elimination level has been explained in detail in the note included in the file open for consultation by interested parties on the date of publication of provisional measures. All interested parties also received this note together with the disclosure letter sent on the same day.\n(163)\nA second note has been included in the file open for consultation by interested parties in reply to comments submitted after the imposition of provisional measures.\n(164)\nIt is recalled that PCNs used for the calculation per car maker were clearly identified in the above mentioned note. However, precise data on price and volume items could not be disclosed due to confidentiality reasons.\n(165)\nAs regards imports from China, data on quantities exported, on CIF Union border value and weighted average unit sales prices could not be disclosed as they were based on transactions made by two exporters. The disclosure hence would breach the confidentiality requirements as contained in the basic Regulation.\n(166)\nAs regards transactions made by the Union producers on the EU market, providing more detailed information would only be meaningful if given individually for each of the producers. This is however not possible since it would be in breach of the abovementioned confidentiality requirements.\n(167)\nOn these grounds, it is therefore considered that the detailed information on the methodology applied in calculating the duty (including among others the PCNs used and split by car maker) has provided the parties with sufficient information to allow them to fully exercise their rights of defence, while respecting the confidentiality requirements provided for in the basic Regulation.\n9.1.2. Methodology\n(168)\nIt is recalled that underselling was computed on the basis of data relating to ARW purchases made by car makers. For the reasons set out in particular in recitals (174) - (177) of the provisional Regulation, this approach encompasses only ARWs destined for the OEM segment. Car makers which cooperate with the investigation confirmed that they purchase ARWs pursuant to tender proceedings. Given the nature of tender proceedings, models that are \u2018dual-sourced\u2019 have to be the same in all respects, whether purchased from the PRC or the EU. In order to ensure the highest possible level of comparison between imported Chinese and EU products, comparison has been made PCN per PCN separately for each large car maker identified in the data supplied by both EU sampled producers and cooperating Chinese exporters. Contrary to claims by some parties this level of duties is not an outcome of any kind of adjustment but it recognizes that the duty has to be set at a level appropriate to remedy the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n9.1.2.1. Information used as the basis for the calculation\n(169)\nParties claimed that the injury elimination level calculation was conducted on the basis of tenders although information on tenders was neither requested in the investigation nor made available in the file open for consultation by interested parties.\n(170)\nAlthough tenders were mentioned in the description of the methodology applied to calculate the duty level, this reference was only a reference to the type of sourcing procedure applied by car makers which guaranteed that dual-sourced wheels would be the same and that a higher level of comparability could be achieved. It was not a reference to documentation or sources of information on the basis of which calculations were conducted.\n(171)\nTo the contrary, the calculations were conducted in accordance with the usual practice on the basis of the transaction-by-transaction listings provided by the sampled exporting producers and EU manufacturers. The PCN matching was conducted at the level of car maker, i.e. within a group of transactions identified as exporters\u2019 and EU producers\u2019 sales to this specific car maker. These data were fully verified.\n9.1.2.2. Adjustments\n(172)\nParties\u2019 comments further related to adjustments made in the calculation. The Commission accepted some of those comments.\n(173)\nIt is recalled that the CIF prices of Chinese exporters were adjusted upwards by adding 7,6 %: 4,5 % customs duty plus 3,1 % other importation cost. In order to construct a target price on the basis of the actual EU manufacturers\u2019 sales price, two additions had to be made:\n1.\nadd 5,4 % on a turnover basis to reach the level of cost of production (note that this is the weighted average loss for EU wheel producers found for the IP),\n2.\nadd 3,2 % on a turnover basis to cost of production (computed under (1)) to cater for a reasonable profit and to arrive at a target price. The 3,2 % correspond to the profit achieved by the Union industry in 2006, the first year of the period considered, when the financial results of Union producers were not yet affected by injurious dumping.\n(174)\nAs regards customs duties, at the provisional stage import prices have been adjusted upwards by 4,5 %. This duty corresponds to the customs duty applied to CN code 8708 70 50. However, it is CN code 8708 70 10 which in principle concerns aluminium road wheels for the industrial assembly (i.e., OEM), and not CN code 8708 70 50. A duty of 3 % is applicable to imports under this code. Given the methodology used to determine the injury elimination level, which is based on the OEM segment, and in view of comments by parties after the imposition of provisional measures, it is appropriate, in order to ensure consistency in the approach, to use a duty rate of 3 %.\n(175)\nWith regard to target profit parties claimed that this profit margin has been calculated for both OEM and AM producers and might thus inflate the calculation based on OEM transactions only. In view of parties\u2019 comments, the Commission adjusted these calculations by applying rates of loss and profit calculated for OEM wheels only (-5,7 % and 3,1 % respectively, see recital (106) et seq. above).\n(176)\nOn the other hand parties argued that the level of profit should be adjusted downwards in order to reflect the impact of the crisis. However, it is a consistent practice to apply the profit margin which the industry would have achieved in the absence of dumping practices. Other causes of injury, even if contributing, are not singled out in the calculation of target profit.\n(177)\nCertain parties claimed that the methodology used to calculate the injury elimination level was in breach of the methodology prescribed by the basic Regulation. However, the basic Regulation does not prescribe any particular method to establish the injury elimination level. The method to establish such a level must be examined in terms of the specific facts of the case. As explained in the provisional Regulation and elsewhere in this Regulation, the facts of the case support the use of the methodology applied by the Institutions. Further, it has to be noted that the undercutting levels disclosed in the provisional Regulation and above in recital (93) are an indication that the underselling levels using the approach suggested by certain parties would be much higher.\n(178)\nTaking into account these changes the duty rate amounts to 22,3 %.\n9.1.2.3. Applicability of \u2018OEM duty\u2019 to AM sales\n(179)\nOne party claimed that it was inappropriate that the calculation of the injury elimination level was based only on OEM sales while the duty was also applicable to AM wheels. However, as explained above (and also in points (174) - (177) of the provisional Regulation), this approach is appropriate in this case, in particular since 85 % of Union producers\u2019 sales relate to the OEM segment.\n(180)\nThe approach applied by the Commission whereby the calculation of the injury elimination element has been limited only to the OEM was the most appropriate. A different approach did not seem appropriate because it would lead to a situation where a set of export data geared more to AM would be compared to that of the EU industry selling predominantly to the OEM segment.\n(181)\nThe approach applied is justified and reasonable given that the aim of the measure is to eliminate injury of the EU industry. It ensures that the duty was not set at a level higher than what is necessary to eliminate injury.\n9.1.2.4. Impracticability and the obligation to establish an individual duty for those operators having been granted IT\n(182)\nOne party caimed that unlike the first paragraph of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, the second paragraph does not provide for the possibility not to specify the individual duty. Consequently, it argued that the exception linked to impracticability could not be applied in the present case and that the obligation to establish an individual duty rate for those exporters having been granted IT remains.\n(183)\nCertain parties further claimed that impracticability was only due to the methodology applied; hence it was \u2018self-induced\u2019 by the Commission. The parties alleged that the Commission had at its disposal all data submitted by the AM exporting producers enabling it to include AM sales in the calculation of the injury elimination level.\n(184)\nFinally, certain parties claimed that since the Commission was able to calculate undercutting separately for OEM and AM segments it must have been able to calculate underselling. A final argument was that AM prices could be compared with OEM prices since the PCN construction did not make any distinction between the two segments.\n(185)\nRegarding the first argument, it is true that Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation is based on the presumption that if an operator is granted IT, it will be possible to specify an individual duty for it. However, in this particular case, doing so would be impracticable and/or inappropriate. That is because, as explained above, for determining the injury elimination level it is necessary to focus on OEM sales. Moreover, regarding all producers having been granted IT, a duty also based on their AM-sales would be inappropriately high, i.e. in excess of what would be warranted in the circumstances of this particular case in order to eliminate injury. That is because, as explained above, an injury elimination level of 22,3 % is sufficient to protect Union producers on their primary market (OEM). A duty which would also be based on those producers\u2019 AM-sales - which, in all three cases of producers granted IT, would be higher - would therefore be unduly high.\n(186)\nIt also has to be mentioned that the reference to lack of reliable data in recital (182) of the provisional Regulation did not relate to the quality of data provided but to the type of data used for the calculation (PCN matching per car maker, i.e. comparing the models sourced from the PRC and EU by a specific car maker). The type of procedure used to source wheels on the OEM segment gave the opportunity to achieve a greater level of comparability. The same type of data, due to the fact that different procedures are used, could not be provided for the AM-sales.\n(187)\nThe exercise of establishing injury on the basis of Article 3 of the basic Regulation is legally separate from setting the level of the duty. The latter exercise is conducted once injury has been established with a view to setting a level of duty which would be sufficient to remedy injury. Consequently, the Commission conducted this calculation in accordance with the chosen methodology. Also the fact that the PCN structure did not include the criterion of sales channels is not linked to the methodology applied when establishing the injury elimination level.\n(188)\nParties\u2019 arguments related to the application of impracticability exception as well as to the unconditional character of the obligation to establish an individual duty rate have to be rejected.\n9.1.2.5. Representativity of transactions used\n(189)\nParties\u2019 criticisms related also to the fact that the injury elimination level calculation was arbitrary because it selected only few unrepresentative transactions.\n(190)\nFirst and foremost, parties claimed that the calculation was based on an unrepresentative volume of import transactions from the PRC. Such an approach allegedly contradicts the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (12) as it cannot be considered as based on positive evidence. Complainant argued that the fact that most of the EU industry sales were OEM was of no importance since the purpose of the underselling calculation is to determine the average amount by which the price of dumped imports should be raised in order not to cause injury. The underselling calculation must be representative for the dumped imports and not for the sales of EU industry. Another party claimed that such an approach contradicted Institutions\u2019 own practice as normally the individual undercutting and underselling is weighted per PCN on the basis of share of undercutting and underselling quantities of exports rather than quantities sold by EU industry.\n(191)\nIt is recalled that the injury elimination margin reflects (based on the sample) the situation of around 85 % of the EU industry sales, which are directed to the OEM segment. It was the choice of methodology, and not the technicalities of the calculation as such, that was driven by the specific situation on the EU market where the majority of sales are directed to the OEM segment. This choice led the Commission to compare prices at the level of car maker, achieving a greater level of comparability and at the same time ensuring that the injury elimination level is not overstated.\n(192)\nIt is further recalled with regard to representativity that the matching ratio of export transactions used in proportion with all exports by sampled Chinese exporters into the OEM segment was found to be more than 55 %. Such a ratio was considered representative given the methodology used in calculating the injury elimination level.\n9.1.2.6. Duty based on undercutting\n(193)\nOne party claimed that the injury margin should have been based on undercutting pursuant to the practice established in the Council Regulation (EC) No 1531/2002 (13) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Thailand. Indeed in this case the duty was based on price undercutting taking account of the fact that factors other than the dumped imports appeared to have contributed to the injury to the Union industry and secondly that on a worldwide basis this industry had for a number of years realised no or extremely low profits (14).\n(194)\nIt should be noted that the factors that led to the decision to set the level of duties at the level of price undercutting are not applicable to the present case. Unlike in colour television receivers case (15) the product concerned is not characterised by low levels of profitability. The profitability decreased substantially as a result of low priced imports from the country concerned. Also the imports from other third countries remained stable over the period considered.\n9.2. Conclusion on injury elimination level\n(195)\nThe approach in the provisional Regulation with regard to the methodology used is hereby confirmed. Taking into account parties\u2019 comments on adjustments the re-calculated level of the duty amounts to 22,3 %.\n10. ALLEGATION OF CIRCUMVENTION\n(196)\nParties alleged that measures can possibly be circumvented, pointing to notably recent increase of imports of ARWs from countries without known local production. Competent authorities have been alerted about those developments and possibilities and the issue will be closely monitored.\n11. UNDERTAKING\n(197)\nOne unrelated importer expressed an interest to offer a price undertaking. Although no formal price undertaking was offered, it is noted that Article 8 of the basic Regulation limits the possibility to offer price undertakings exclusively to exporters. The Commission\u2019s practice not to accept undertaking offers from importers was also accepted by the European Court of Justice (16), arguing, inter alia, that the acceptance of an undertaking offered by an importer would have the effect of encouraging him to continue to obtain supplies at dumped prices.\n(198)\nTwo cooperating Chinese exporting producers offered a price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. However, the product concerned exists in a multitude of product types, for which prices vary significantly (for one company even up to 300 %), thus posing a very high risk of cross-compensation. In addition, the product types will evolve in design and finishing. It was therefore considered that the product is not suitable for a price undertaking. In addition, one of the companies did receive neither Market Economy Status nor Individual Treatment, whereas for the other company, major accounting problems were identified and its structure and product range (production of OEM/AM) was considered too complex. The undertaking offers therefore were rejected.\n12. CUSTOMS DECLARATION\n(199)\nStatistics of aluminium wheels are frequently expressed in number of pieces. However, there is no such supplementary unit for aluminium wheels specified in the Combined Nomenclature laid down in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (17). It is therefore necessary to provide that not only the weight in kg or tonnes but also the number of pieces of the product concerned and of certain products of CN code ex 8716 90 90 for imports is entered in the declaration for release for free circulation.\n13. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTY\n(200)\nIn view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation be definitively collected,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of aluminium road wheels of the motor vehicles of CN headings 8701 to 8705, whether or not with their accessories and whether or not fitted with tyres, currently falling within CN codes ex 8708 70 10 and ex 8708 70 50 (TARIC codes 8708701010 and 8708705010) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 shall be 22,3 %.\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nAmounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant Regulation (EU) No 404/2010 on imports of certain aluminium road wheels, currently falling within CN codes ex 8708 70 10 and ex 8708 70 50 (TARIC codes 8708701010 and 8708705010), and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, shall be definitively collected.\nArticle 3\nWhere a declaration for release for free circulation is presented in respect of imports of aluminium road wheels of vehicles of CN heading 8716, whether or not with their accessories and whether or not fitted with tyres, and currently falling within CN code ex 8716 90 90, TARIC code 8716909010 shall be entered in the relevant field of that declaration.\nMember States shall, on a monthly basis, inform the Commission of the number of pieces imported under this code, and of their origin.\nArticle 4\nWhere a declaration for release for free circulation is presented in respect of the products mentioned under Articles 1 and 3, the number of pieces of the products imported shall be entered in the relevant field of that declaration.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 October 2010.", "references": ["65", "64", "70", "85", "68", "59", "3", "92", "87", "89", "66", "42", "80", "28", "17", "36", "55", "50", "13", "12", "82", "11", "2", "58", "39", "73", "91", "74", "51", "40", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1074/2010\nof 22 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["80", "24", "12", "45", "19", "18", "22", "59", "71", "5", "75", "72", "17", "32", "95", "88", "43", "37", "11", "94", "97", "40", "77", "6", "13", "36", "56", "51", "29", "63", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 September 2011\non the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil on civil aviation safety\n(2011/694/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) and Article 218(7) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the European Union, an Agreement on civil aviation safety with the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil in accordance with the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations.\n(2)\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil on civil aviation safety (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) was signed on 14 July 2010, subject to its conclusion in accordance with Council Decision 2010/489/EU (1).\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be approved.\n(4)\nIt is necessary to lay down procedural arrangements for the participation of the Union in the joint bodies established by the Agreement, as well as for the adoption of certain decisions concerning, in particular, the amendment of the Agreement and its Annexes, the addition of new annexes, the termination of individual annexes, consultations and dispute resolution and the adoption of safeguard measures.\n(5)\nThe Member States should take the necessary measures in order to ensure that their bilateral agreements with Brazil on the same subject are terminated as of the date of the entry into force of the Agreement,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil on civil aviation safety (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\n2. The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to make the notification provided in Article 16(1) of the Agreement.\nArticle 3\n1. The Union shall be represented in the Joint Committee of the Parties established in Article 9 of the Agreement by the European Commission assisted by the European Aviation Safety Agency and accompanied by the Aviation Authorities as representatives of the Member States.\n2. The Union shall be represented in the Joint Sectorial Committee on Certification provided for in paragraph 2.1.1 of Annex A to the Agreement and in the Joint Sectorial Committee on Maintenance provided in paragraph 4.1.1 of Annex B to the Agreement by the European Aviation Safety Agency assisted by the Aviation authorities directly concerned by the agenda of each meeting.\nArticle 4\n1. The Commission, after consultation with the special committee appointed by the Council, shall determine the position to be taken by the Union in the Joint Committee of the Parties with respect to the following matters:\n-\nthe adoption or amendment of the rules of procedure of the Joint Committee of the Parties provided for in Article 9 of the Agreement.\n2. The Commission, after consultation with the special committee referred to in paragraph 1 and taking full account of its opinion, may take the following action:\n-\nadopt safeguard measures in accordance with Article 6 of the Agreement,\n-\nrequest consultations in accordance with Article 15 of the Agreement,\n-\ntake measures for suspension in accordance with Article 10 of the Agreement,\n-\nprovided that the Commission has submitted a thorough factual analysis of the effects and feasibility of the intended modifications, amend annexes to the Agreement in accordance with Article 16(5) of the Agreement in so far as such amendments are consistent with, and do not entail any modification of, relevant Union legal acts,\n-\nremove individual annexes in accordance with Article 16(3) and (5) of the Agreement,\n-\nany other action to be taken by a Party as provided for in the Agreement, subject to paragraph 3 of this Article and EU law.\n3. The Council shall decide, acting by qualified majority, on a proposal from the Commission and in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, with respect to any other amendments to the Agreement not falling within the scope of paragraph 2 of this Article.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 26 September 2011.", "references": ["62", "7", "36", "85", "45", "71", "20", "26", "14", "70", "67", "54", "38", "56", "86", "78", "63", "46", "81", "21", "66", "69", "34", "80", "99", "61", "29", "8", "98", "43", "No Label", "3", "4", "9", "53", "57", "76", "93"], "gold": ["3", "4", "9", "53", "57", "76", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 809/2011\nof 11 August 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 as regards documentation accompanying imports of frozen fishery products directly from a freezer vessel\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (1), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (2), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 16 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 provides inter alia that food business operators importing products of animal origin from third countries are to ensure that import only takes place if the requirements of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 are satisfied.\n(2)\nArticle 14 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 provides that a document meeting certain requirements is to accompany consignments of products of animal origin when they are imported into the Union. However, Article 15(3) of that Regulation provides that when fishery products inter alia are imported directly from a freezer vessel, that document may be replaced by a document signed by the captain.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down implementing measures for certain products under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and for the organisation of official controls under Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, derogating from Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations (EC) No 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004 (3) set outs model health certificates, including one for imports of fishery products, in Annex VI thereto.\n(4)\nMember States and stakeholder organisations have requested the Commission to establish a model document to be signed by the captain in order to harmonise the information requested and procedures applied when frozen fishery products are imported into the Union directly from a freezer vessel.\n(5)\nThe model document to be signed by the captain should specifically refer to the provisions relevant for handling of fishery products as laid down in Section VIII of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 on board freezer vessels. The model document should also fit into the electronic system for exchange of health certificates and import documents between the National Competent Authorities for health issues in relation to live animals and products of animal origin (TRACES).\n(6)\nIt is therefore appropriate to establish a harmonised model document to be signed by the captain when fishery products are imported into the Union directly from a freezer vessel. Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 should be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 2074/2005 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2027Article 6\nModel health certificates and documents for imports of certain products of animal origin for the purpose of Regulations (EC) Nos 853/2004 and 854/2004\n1. The models of the health certificates and documents, as referred to in Article 6(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, to be used when importing products of animal origin listed in Annex VI to this Regulation are set out in that Annex.\n2. The model of the document to be signed by the captain, that may replace the document required under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 when fishery products are imported directly from a freezer vessel, as provided for in Article 15(3) of that Regulation, is set out in Annex VI to this Regulation.\u2027\n(2)\nAnnex VI is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2011.", "references": ["57", "42", "91", "27", "44", "94", "96", "6", "12", "90", "87", "97", "36", "26", "52", "50", "29", "61", "83", "7", "10", "81", "85", "68", "13", "79", "56", "73", "32", "76", "No Label", "21", "22", "67", "69", "72"], "gold": ["21", "22", "67", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 441/2011\nof 6 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2011.", "references": ["73", "9", "89", "57", "96", "36", "29", "12", "18", "51", "20", "44", "47", "86", "67", "62", "24", "84", "15", "0", "8", "52", "50", "76", "45", "59", "32", "28", "85", "43", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 13 August 2012\non the approval by the Commission of sampling plans for the weighing of fisheries products in accordance with Article 60(1) and 60(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and of control plans for the weighing of fisheries products in accordance with Article 61(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009\n(notified under document C(2012) 5568)\n(Only the Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, German, Lithuanian, Polish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2012/474/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Article 60(1) and (3) and Article 61(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the submission of sampling plans and control plans by Member States,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 60(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 a Member State should ensure that all fisheries products are weighed on landing prior to the fisheries products being held in storage, transported or sold, on systems approved by the control authorities unless it has adopted a sampling plan approved by the Commission and based on the risk-based methodology established in Article 76(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (2) in conjunction with Annex XIX to the same Regulation.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 60(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 Member States may permit fisheries products to be weighed on board the fishing vessel, by way of derogation from the general weighing obligation established in Article 60(1), and provided the Member State has adopted a sampling plan as referred to in Article 60(1), approved by the Commission and based on the risk-based methodology established in Article 76(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 in conjunction with Annex XX to the same Regulation.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 61(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 Member States may permit fisheries products to be weighed after transport from the place of landing provided that they are transported to a destination on the territory of the Member State concerned and that this Member State has adopted a control plan approved by the Commission and based on the risk-based methodology established in Article 77(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 in conjunction with Annex XXI to the same Regulation.\n(4)\nSampling plans of Germany (14.11.2011), Ireland (7.11.2011), Lithuania (11.1.2012), the Netherlands (18.1.2012), Poland (5.3.2012), Finland (7.11.2011) and the United Kingdom (15.12.2011) and control plans of Germany (14.11.2011), Estonia (15.12.2011), Ireland (7.11.2011), Poland (5.3.2012), Finland (7.11.2011) and the United Kingdom (15.12.2011) have been submitted to the Commission for approval. They are in line with the relevant risk-based methodologies. They should therefore be approved.\n(5)\nThis Decision constitutes the approval decision within the meaning of Article 60(1) and (3) and Article 61(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\n(6)\nThe Commission needs to monitor the application of the sampling plans and control plans both with respect to their effective operation as well as to their regular review by the Member State concerned. For that reason Member States should report to the Commission on the application of these plans,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The sampling plans according to Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Finland and the United Kingdom for the weighing of fisheries products are approved.\n2. The sampling plans according to Article 60(3) in conjunction with Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom for the weighing of fisheries products on board the fishing vessel are approved.\n3. The control plans according to Article 61(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Poland, Finland and the United Kingdom for the weighing of fisheries products after transport to a destination on the territory of the Member State concerned are approved.\nArticle 2\nThe Member States referred to in Article 1 shall transmit a report to the Commission on the application of the sampling plans and control plans referred to in Article 1 before 1 April 2014.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Republic of Lithuania, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 13 August 2012.", "references": ["66", "18", "60", "73", "3", "93", "70", "22", "16", "86", "0", "35", "52", "7", "36", "78", "62", "88", "24", "45", "50", "95", "63", "40", "4", "51", "13", "72", "82", "15", "No Label", "19", "67", "76", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["19", "67", "76", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 327/2012\nof 17 April 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 1291/2009 as regards the threshold for the economic size and the number of returning holdings in Slovakia\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 of 30 November 2009 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Community (1), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 2 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1291/2009 of 18 December 2009 concerning the selection of returning holdings for the purpose of determining incomes of agricultural holdings (2) sets the thresholds for the economic size of agricultural holdings for the accounting year 2010 and subsequent accounting years.\n(2)\nOngoing structural change and a better understanding of the farming structure in Slovakia have led to the conclusion that adjustments should be made to the selection plan of Slovakia in order for the field of survey to cover the most relevant part of the agricultural activity. In order to achieve this, the threshold for the economic size of agricultural holdings for Slovakia should be increased from EUR 15 000 to EUR 25 000.\n(3)\nIn the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1291/2009 the total number of returning holdings for Slovakia has been fixed at 523. In order to guarantee a better representativeness of the Slovak sample, the number of returning holdings for Slovakia should be increased by 39 and fixed at 562 returning holdings.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 1291/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 1291/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2, the indent concerning Slovakia is replaced by the following:\n\u2018- Slovakia: EUR 25 000\u2019;\n(2)\nthe Annex is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the 2013 accounting year.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 April 2012.", "references": ["40", "2", "68", "30", "24", "50", "45", "84", "89", "33", "6", "15", "49", "51", "92", "58", "0", "73", "48", "38", "80", "77", "66", "37", "79", "69", "95", "61", "35", "11", "No Label", "18", "19", "63", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["18", "19", "63", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 706/2012\nof 1 August 2012\namending for the 175th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 20 July 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one natural person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply after considering the de-listing requests submitted by this person and the Comprehensive Report of the Ombudsperson established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1904(2009). It also decided to amend two entries on the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 August 2012.", "references": ["5", "76", "21", "45", "92", "35", "71", "24", "7", "53", "98", "86", "46", "27", "58", "91", "74", "90", "62", "43", "20", "81", "13", "32", "72", "34", "70", "22", "83", "54", "No Label", "1", "3"], "gold": ["1", "3"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 496/2010\nof 7 June 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 488/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2010.", "references": ["57", "92", "4", "67", "36", "44", "70", "68", "77", "58", "96", "9", "52", "53", "15", "87", "37", "43", "97", "17", "0", "91", "93", "24", "61", "60", "81", "13", "65", "27", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 665/2011\nof 11 July 2011\non the authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 17(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on foods are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Authority\u2019.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission thereof, and to deliver an opinion on the health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nThe three opinions referred to in this Regulation are related to applications for reduction of disease risk claims, as referred to in Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\n(6)\nFollowing an application from Wrigley GmbH, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of sugar-free chewing gum and reduction of tooth demineralisation (Question No EFSA-Q-2010-00119) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Chewing of sugar-free chewing gum remineralises tooth enamel which reduces the risk of dental caries\u2019.\n(7)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 1 October 2010 that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the consumption of sugar-free chewing gum and the claimed effect. Accordingly, a health claim reflecting this conclusion should be considered as complying with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and it should be included in the Union list of permitted claims.\n(8)\nFollowing an application from Wrigley GmbH, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of sugar-free chewing gum and neutralisation of plaque acids which reduces the risk of dental caries (Question No EFSA-Q-2010-00120) (3). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Chewing of sugar-free chewing gum neutralises plaque acids which reduces the risk of dental caries\u2019.\n(9)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 1 October 2010 that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the consumption of sugar-free chewing gum and the claimed effect. Accordingly, a health claim reflecting this conclusion should be considered as complying with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and it should be included in the Union list of permitted claims.\n(10)\nArticle 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 provides that an opinion in favour of authorising a health claim should include certain particulars. Accordingly, those particulars should be set out in Annex I to this Regulation as regards the authorised claims and include, as the case may be, the revised wording of the claims, specific conditions of use of the claims, and, where applicable, conditions or restrictions of use of the food and/or an additional statement or warning, in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and in line with the opinions of the Authority.\n(11)\nOne of the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 is to ensure that health claims are truthful, clear and reliable and useful to the consumer, and that wording and presentation are taken into account in that respect. Therefore, where the wording of claims has the same meaning for consumers as that of an authorised health claim, because they demonstrate the same relationship that exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health, they should be subject to the same conditions of use, as indicated in Annex I.\n(12)\nFollowing an application from GP International Holding BV, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of OPC Plus on the reduction of the risk of chronic venous insufficiency (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00751) (4). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018OPC Plus has been shown to increase the microcirculation and may therefore reduce the risk of chronic venous insufficiency\u2019.\n(13)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 7 September 2010 that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of OPC Plus and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(14)\nThe comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(15)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The health claims listed in Annex I to this Regulation may be made on foods on the European Union market in compliance with the conditions laid down in that Annex.\n2. The health claims referred to in paragraph 1 shall be included in the Union list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nArticle 2\nThe health claim listed in Annex II to this Regulation shall not be included in the Union list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 July 2011.", "references": ["73", "69", "52", "88", "98", "37", "6", "9", "83", "54", "93", "12", "22", "66", "80", "92", "65", "60", "39", "17", "71", "48", "10", "31", "78", "67", "3", "45", "59", "56", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 967/2011\nof 28 September 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 959/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 September 2011.", "references": ["40", "67", "56", "73", "5", "63", "25", "12", "2", "82", "77", "20", "7", "74", "64", "76", "14", "89", "3", "17", "66", "6", "43", "44", "32", "38", "23", "39", "99", "92", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 648/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 4 July 2012\non OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAt the request of the Commission, a report was published on 25 February 2009 by a High-Level Group chaired by Jacques de Larosi\u00e8re and concluded that the supervisory framework of the financial sector of the Union needed to be strengthened to reduce the risk and severity of future financial crises and recommended far-reaching reforms to the structure of supervision of that sector, including the creation of a European System of Financial Supervisors, comprising three European supervisory authorities, one each for the banking, the insurance and occupational pensions and the securities and markets sectors, and the creation of a European Systemic Risk Council.\n(2)\nThe Commission Communication of 4 March 2009, entitled \u2018Driving European Recovery\u2019, proposed to strengthen the Union\u2019s regulatory framework for financial services. In its Communication of 3 July 2009 entitled \u2018Ensuring efficient, safe and sound derivatives markets\u2019, the Commission assessed the role of derivatives in the financial crisis, and in its Communication of 20 October 2009 entitled \u2018Ensuring efficient, safe and sound derivative markets: Future policy actions\u2019, the Commission outlined the actions it intends to take to reduce the risks associated with derivatives.\n(3)\nOn 23 September 2009, the Commission adopted proposals for three regulations establishing the European System of Financial Supervision, including the creation of three European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) to contribute to a consistent application of Union legislation and to the establishment of high-quality common regulatory and supervisory standards and practices. The ESAs comprise the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (EBA) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) (EIOPA) established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (ESMA) established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). The ESAs have a crucial role to play in safeguarding the stability of the financial sector. It is therefore essential to ensure continuously that the development of their work is a matter of high political priority and that they are adequately resourced.\n(4)\nOver-the-counter derivatives (\u2018OTC derivative contracts\u2019) lack transparency as they are privately negotiated contracts and any information concerning them is usually only available to the contracting parties. They create a complex web of interdependence which can make it difficult to identify the nature and level of risks involved. The financial crisis has demonstrated that such characteristics increase uncertainty in times of market stress and, accordingly, pose risks to financial stability. This Regulation lays down conditions for mitigating those risks and improving the transparency of derivative contracts.\n(5)\nAt the 26 September 2009 summit in Pittsburgh, G20 leaders agreed that all standardised OTC derivative contracts should be cleared through a central counterparty (CCP) by the end of 2012 and that OTC derivative contracts should be reported to trade repositories. In June 2010, G20 leaders in Toronto reaffirmed their commitment and also committed to accelerate the implementation of strong measures to improve transparency and regulatory oversight of OTC derivative contracts in an internationally consistent and non-discriminatory way.\n(6)\nThe Commission will monitor and endeavour to ensure that those commitments are implemented in a similar way by the Union\u2019s international partners. The Commission should cooperate with third-country authorities in order to explore mutually supportive solutions to ensure consistency between this Regulation and the requirements established by third countries and thus avoid any possible overlapping in this respect. With the assistance of ESMA, the Commission should monitor and prepare reports to the European Parliament and the Council on the international application of principles laid down in this Regulation. In order to avoid potential duplicate or conflicting requirements, the Commission might adopt decisions on equivalence of the legal, supervisory and enforcement framework in third countries, if a number of conditions are met. The assessment which forms the basis of such decisions should not prejudice the right of a CCP established in a third country and recognised by ESMA to provide clearing services to clearing members or trading venues established in the Union, as the recognition decision should be independent of this assessment. Similarly, neither an equivalence decision nor the assessment should prejudice the right of a trade repository established in a third country and recognised by ESMA to provide services to entities established in the Union.\n(7)\nWith regard to the recognition of third-country CCPs, and in accordance with the Union\u2019s international obligations under the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, including the General Agreement on Trade in Services, decisions determining third-country legal regimes as equivalent to the legal regime of the Union should be adopted only if the legal regime of the third country provides for an effective equivalent system for the recognition of CCPs authorised under foreign legal regimes in accordance with the general regulatory goals and standards set out by the G20 in September 2009 of improving transparency in the derivatives markets, mitigating systemic risk, and protecting against market abuse. Such a system should be considered equivalent if it ensures that the substantial result of the applicable regulatory regime is similar to Union requirements and should be considered effective if those rules are being applied in a consistent manner.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate and necessary in this context, taking account of the characteristics of derivative markets and the functioning of CCPs, to verify the effective equivalence of foreign regulatory systems in meeting G20 goals and standards in order to improve transparency in derivatives markets, mitigate systemic risk and protect against market abuse. The very special situation of CCPs requires that the provisions relating to third countries are organised and function in accordance with arrangements that are specific to these market structure entities. Therefore this approach does not constitute a precedent for other legislation.\n(9)\nThe European Council, in its Conclusions of 2 December 2009, agreed that there was a need to substantially improve the mitigation of counterparty credit risk and that it was important to improve transparency, efficiency and integrity for derivative transactions. The European Parliament resolution of 15 June 2010 on \u2018Derivatives markets: future policy actions\u2019 called for mandatory clearing and reporting of OTC derivative contracts.\n(10)\nESMA should act within the scope of this Regulation by safeguarding the stability of financial markets in emergency situations, ensuring the consistent application of Union rules by national supervisory authorities and settling disagreements between them. It is also entrusted with developing draft regulatory and implementing technical standards and has a central role in the authorisation and monitoring of CCPs and trade repositories.\n(11)\nOne of the basic tasks to be carried out through the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) is to promote the smooth operation of payment systems. In this respect, the members of the ESCB execute oversight by ensuring efficient and sound clearing and payment systems, including CCPs. The members of the ESCB are thus closely involved in the authorisation and monitoring of CCPs, recognition of third-country CCPs and the approval of interoperability arrangements. In addition, they are closely involved in respect of the setting of regulatory technical standards as well as guidelines and recommendations. This Regulation is without prejudice to the responsibilities of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks (NCBs) to ensure efficient and sound clearing and payment systems within the Union and with other countries. Consequently, and in order to prevent the possible creation of parallel sets of rules, ESMA and the ESCB should cooperate closely when preparing the relevant draft technical standards. Further, the access to information by the ECB and the NCBs is crucial when fulfilling their tasks relating to the oversight of clearing and payment systems as well as to the functions of a central bank of issue.\n(12)\nUniform rules are required for derivative contracts set out in Annex I, Section C, points (4) to (10) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (7).\n(13)\nIncentives to promote the use of CCPs have not proven to be sufficient to ensure that standardised OTC derivative contracts are in fact cleared centrally. Mandatory CCP clearing requirements for those OTC derivative contracts that can be cleared centrally are therefore necessary.\n(14)\nIt is likely that Member States will adopt divergent national measures which could create obstacles to the smooth functioning of the internal market and be to the detriment of market participants and financial stability. A uniform application of the clearing obligation in the Union is also necessary to ensure a high level of investor protection and to create a level playing field between market participants.\n(15)\nEnsuring that the clearing obligation reduces systemic risk requires a process of identification of classes of derivatives that should be subject to that obligation. That process should take into account the fact that not all CCP-cleared OTC derivative contracts can be considered suitable for mandatory CCP clearing.\n(16)\nThis Regulation sets out the criteria for determining whether or not different classes of OTC derivative contracts should be subject to a clearing obligation. On the basis of draft regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA, the Commission should decide whether a class of OTC derivative contract is to be subject to a clearing obligation, and from when the clearing obligation takes effect including, where appropriate, phased-in implementation and the minimum remaining maturity of contracts entered into or novated before the date on which the clearing obligation takes effect, in accordance with this Regulation. A phased-in implementation of the clearing obligation could be in terms of the types of market participants that must comply with the clearing obligation. In determining which classes of OTC derivative contracts are to be subject to the clearing obligation, ESMA should take into account the specific nature of OTC derivative contracts which are concluded with covered bond issuers or with cover pools for covered bonds.\n(17)\nWhen determining which classes of OTC derivative contracts are to be subject to the clearing obligation, ESMA should also pay due regard to other relevant considerations, most importantly the interconnectedness between counterparties using the relevant classes of OTC derivative contracts and the impact on the levels of counterparty credit risk as well as promote equal conditions of competition within the internal market as referred to in Article 1(5)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n(18)\nWhere ESMA has identified that an OTC derivative product is standardised and suitable for clearing but no CCP is willing to clear that product, ESMA should investigate the reason for this.\n(19)\nIn determining which classes of OTC derivative contracts are to be subject to the clearing obligation, due account should be taken of the specific nature of the relevant classes of OTC derivative contracts. The predominant risk for transactions in some classes of OTC derivative contracts may relate to settlement risk, which is addressed through separate infrastructure arrangements, and may distinguish certain classes of OTC derivative contracts (such as foreign exchange) from other classes. CCP clearing specifically addresses counterparty credit risk, and may not be the optimal solution for dealing with settlement risk. The regime for such contracts should rely, in particular, on preliminary international convergence and mutual recognition of the relevant infrastructure.\n(20)\nIn order to ensure a uniform and coherent application of this Regulation and a level playing field for market participants when a class of OTC derivative contract is declared subject to the clearing obligation, this obligation should also apply to all contracts pertaining to that class of OTC derivative contract entered into on or after the date of notification of a CCP authorisation for the purpose of the clearing obligation received by ESMA but before the date from which the clearing obligation takes effect, provided that those contracts have a remaining maturity above the minimum determined by the Commission.\n(21)\nIn determining whether a class of OTC derivative contract is to be subject to clearing requirements, ESMA should aim for a reduction in systemic risk. This includes taking into account in the assessment factors such as the level of contractual and operational standardisation of contracts, the volume and the liquidity of the relevant class of OTC derivative contract as well as the availability of fair, reliable and generally accepted pricing information in the relevant class of OTC derivative contract.\n(22)\nFor an OTC derivative contract to be cleared, both parties to that contract must be subject to a clearing obligation or must consent. Exemptions to the clearing obligation should be narrowly tailored as they would reduce the effectiveness of the obligation and the benefits of CCP clearing and may lead to regulatory arbitrage between groups of market participants.\n(23)\nIn order to foster financial stability within the Union, it might be necessary also to subject the transactions entered into by entities established in third countries to the clearing and risk-mitigation techniques obligations, provided that the transactions concerned have a direct, substantial and foreseeable effect within the Union or where such obligations are necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provisions of this Regulation.\n(24)\nOTC derivative contracts that are not considered suitable for CCP clearing entail counterparty credit and operational risk and therefore, rules should be established to manage that risk. To mitigate counterparty credit risk, market participants that are subject to the clearing obligation should have risk-management procedures that require the timely, accurate and appropriately segregated exchange of collateral. When preparing draft regulatory technical standards specifying those risk-management procedures, ESMA should take into account the proposals of the international standard setting bodies on margining requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives. When developing draft regulatory technical standards to specify the arrangements required for the accurate and appropriate exchange of collateral to manage risks associated with uncleared trades, ESMA should take due account of impediments faced by covered bond issuers or cover pools in providing collateral in a number of Union jurisdictions. ESMA should also take into account the fact that preferential claims given to covered bond issuers counterparties on the covered bond issuer\u2019s assets provides equivalent protection against counterparty credit risk.\n(25)\nRules on clearing OTC derivative contracts, reporting on derivative transactions and risk-mitigation techniques for OTC derivative contracts not cleared by a CCP should apply to financial counterparties, namely investment firms as authorised in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC, credit institutions as authorised in accordance with Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (8), insurance undertakings as authorised in accordance with First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, Regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life insurance (9), assurance undertakings as authorised in accordance with Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (10), reinsurance undertakings as authorised in accordance with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance (11), undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS) and, where relevant, their management companies, as authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (12), institutions for occupational retirement provision as defined in Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (13) and alternative investment funds managed by alternative investment fund managers (AIFM) as authorised or registered in accordance with Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (14).\n(26)\nEntities operating pension scheme arrangements, the primary purpose of which is to provide benefits upon retirement, usually in the form of payments for life, but also as payments made for a temporary period or as a lump sum, typically minimise their allocation to cash in order to maximise the efficiency and the return for their policy holders. Hence, requiring such entities to clear OTC derivative contracts centrally would lead to divesting a significant proportion of their assets for cash in order for them to meet the ongoing margin requirements of CCPs. To avoid a likely negative impact of such a requirement on the retirement income of future pensioners, the clearing obligation should not apply to pension schemes until a suitable technical solution for the transfer of non-cash collateral as variation margins is developed by CCPs to address this problem. Such a technical solution should take into account the special role of pension scheme arrangements and avoid materially adverse effects on pensioners. During a transitional period, OTC derivative contracts entered into with a view to decreasing investment risks directly relating to the financial solvency of pension scheme arrangements should be subject not only to the reporting obligation, but also to bilateral collateralisation requirements. The ultimate aim, however, is central clearing as soon as this is tenable.\n(27)\nIt is important to ensure that only appropriate entities and arrangements receive special treatment as well as to take into account the diversity of pension systems across the Union, while also to provide for a level playing field for all pension scheme arrangements. Therefore, the temporary derogation should apply to institutions for occupational retirement provision registered in accordance with Directive 2003/41/EC, including any authorised entity responsible for managing such an institution and acting on its behalf as referred to in Article 2(1) of that Directive as well as any legal entity set up for the purpose of investment by such institutions, acting solely and exclusively in their interest, and to occupational retirement provision businesses of institutions referred to in Article 3 of Directive 2003/41/EC.\n(28)\nThe temporary derogation should also apply to occupational retirement provision businesses of life insurance undertakings provided that all corresponding assets and liabilities are ring-fenced, managed and organised separately, without any possibility of transfer. It should also apply to any other authorised and supervised entities operating on a national basis only or arrangements that are provided mainly in the territory of one Member State, only if both of them are recognised by national law and their primary purpose is to provide benefits upon retirement. The entities and arrangements referred to in this recital should be subject to the decision of the relevant competent authority and in order to ensure consistency, remove possible misalignments and avoid any abuse, the opinion of ESMA, after consulting EIOPA. This could include entities and arrangements that are not necessarily linked to an employer pension programme but still have the primary purpose of providing income at retirement, either on a compulsory or on a voluntary basis. Examples could include legal entities operating pension schemes on a funded basis under national law, provided that they invest in accordance with the \u2018prudent person\u2019 principle, and pension arrangements taken up by individuals directly, which may also be provided by life insurers. The exemption in the case of pension arrangements taken up by individuals directly should not cover OTC derivative contracts relating to other life insurance products of the insurer which do not have the primary purpose of providing an income at retirement.\nFurther examples might be retirement provision businesses of insurance undertakings covered by Directive 2002/83/EC, provided that all assets corresponding to the businesses are included in a special register in accordance with the Annex to Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings (15) as well as occupational retirement provision arrangements of insurance undertakings based on collective bargaining agreements. Institutions established for the purpose of providing compensation to members of pension scheme arrangements in the case of a default should also be treated as a pension scheme for the purpose of this Regulation.\n(29)\nWhere appropriate, rules applicable to financial counterparties, should also apply to non-financial counterparties. It is recognised that non-financial counterparties use OTC derivative contracts in order to cover themselves against commercial risks directly linked to their commercial or treasury financing activities. Consequently, in determining whether a non-financial counterparty should be subject to the clearing obligation, consideration should be given to the purpose for which that non-financial counterparty uses OTC derivative contracts and to the size of the exposures that it has in those instruments. In order to ensure that non-financial institutions have the opportunity to state their views on the clearing thresholds, ESMA should, when preparing the relevant regulatory technical standards, conduct an open public consultation ensuring the participation of non-financial institutions. ESMA should also consult all relevant authorities, for example the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, in order to ensure that the particularities of those sectors are fully taken into account. Moreover, by 17 August 2015, the Commission should assess the systemic importance of the transactions of non-financial firms in OTC derivative contracts in different sectors, including in the energy sector.\n(30)\nIn determining whether an OTC derivative contract reduces risks directly relating to the commercial activities and treasury activities of a non-financial counterparty, due account should be taken of that non-financial counterparty\u2019s overall hedging and risk-mitigation strategies. In particular, consideration should be given to whether an OTC derivative contract is economically appropriate for the reduction of risks in the conduct and management of a non-financial counterparty, where the risks relate to fluctuations in interest rates, foreign exchange rates, inflation rates or commodity prices.\n(31)\nThe clearing threshold is a very important figure for all non-financial counterparties. When the clearing threshold is set, the systemic relevance of the sum of net positions and exposures per counterparty and per class of OTC derivative contract should be taken into account. In that connection, appropriate efforts should be made to recognise the methods of risk mitigation used by non-financial counterparties in the context of their normal business activity.\n(32)\nMembers of the ESCB and other Member States\u2019 bodies performing similar functions, other Union public bodies charged with or intervening in the management of the public debt, and the Bank for International Settlements should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation in order to avoid limiting their power to perform their tasks of common interest.\n(33)\nAs not all market participants that are subject to the clearing obligation are able to become clearing members of the CCP, they should have the possibility to access CCPs as clients or indirect clients subject to certain conditions.\n(34)\nThe introduction of a clearing obligation along with a process to establish which CCPs can be used for the purpose of this obligation may lead to unintended competitive distortions of the OTC derivatives market. For example, a CCP could refuse to clear transactions executed on certain trading venues because the CCP is owned by a competing trading venue. In order to avoid such discriminatory practices, CCPs should agree to clear transactions executed in different trading venues, to the extent that those trading venues comply with the operational and technical requirements established by the CCP, without reference to the contractual documents on the basis of which the parties concluded the relevant OTC derivative transaction, provided that those documents are consistent with market standards. Trading venues should provide the CCPs with trade feeds on a transparent and non-discriminatory basis. The right of access of a CCP to a trading venue should allow for arrangements whereby multiple CCPs use trade feeds of the same trading venue. However, this should not lead to interoperability for derivatives clearing or create liquidity fragmentation.\n(35)\nThis Regulation should not block fair and open access between trading venues and CCPs in the internal market, subject to the conditions laid down in this Regulation and in the regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA and adopted by the Commission. The Commission should continue to monitor closely the evolution of the OTC derivatives market and should, where necessary, intervene in order to prevent competitive distortions from occurring in the internal market with the aim of ensuring a level playing field in the financial markets.\n(36)\nIn certain areas within financial services and trading of derivative contracts, commercial and intellectual property rights may also exist. In instances where such property rights relate to products or services which have become, or impact upon, industry standards, licences should be available on proportionate, fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.\n(37)\nIn order to identify the relevant classes of OTC derivative contracts that should be subject to the clearing obligation, the thresholds and systemically relevant non-financial counterparties, reliable data is needed. Therefore, for regulatory purposes, it is important that a uniform derivatives data reporting requirement is established at Union level. Moreover, a retrospective reporting obligation is needed, to the largest possible extent, for both financial counterparties and non-financial counterparties, in order to provide comparative data, including to ESMA and the relevant competent authorities.\n(38)\nAn intragroup transaction is a transaction between two undertakings which are included in the same consolidation on a full basis and are subject to appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures. They are part of the same institutional protection scheme as referred to in Article 80(8) of Directive 2006/48/EC or, in the case of credit institutions affiliated to the same central body, as referred to in Article 3(1) of that Directive, both are credit institutions or one is a credit institution and the other is a central body. OTC derivative contracts may be recognised within non-financial or financial groups, as well as within groups composed of both financial and non-financial undertakings, and if such a contract is considered an intragroup transaction in respect of one counterparty, then it should also be considered an intragroup transaction in respect of the other counterparty to that contract. It is recognised that intragroup transactions may be necessary for aggregating risks within a group structure and that intragroup risks are therefore specific. Since the submission of those transactions to the clearing obligation may limit the efficiency of those intragroup risk-management processes, an exemption of intragroup transactions from the clearing obligation may be beneficial, provided that this exemption does not increase systemic risk. As a result, adequate exchange of collateral should be substituted to the CCP clearing those transactions, where that is appropriate to mitigate intragroup counterparty risks.\n(39)\nHowever, some intragroup transactions could be exempted, in some cases on the basis of the decision of the competent authorities, from the collateralisation requirement provided that their risk-management procedures are adequately sound, robust and consistent with the level of complexity of the transaction and there is no impediment to the prompt transfer of own funds or repayment of liabilities between the counterparties. Those criteria as well as the procedures for the counterparties and the relevant competent authorities to be followed while applying exemptions should be specified in regulatory technical standards adopted in accordance with the relevant regulations establishing the ESAs. Before developing such draft regulatory technical standards, the ESAs should prepare an impact assessment of their potential impact on the internal market as well as on financial market participants and in particular on the operations and the structure of groups concerned. All the technical standards applicable to the collateral exchanged in intragroup transactions, including criteria for the exemption, should take into account the prevailing specificities of those transactions and existing differences between non-financial and financial counterparties as well as their purpose and methods of using derivatives.\n(40)\nCounterparties should be considered to be included in the same consolidation at least where they are both included in a consolidation in accordance with Council Directive 83/349/EEC (16) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adopted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (17) or, in relation to a group the parent undertaking of which has its head office in a third country, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles of a third country determined to be equivalent to IFRS in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1569/2007 (18) (or accounting standards of a third country the use of which is permitted in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1569/2007), or where they are both covered by the same consolidated supervision in accordance with Directive 2006/48/EC or with Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (19) or, in relation to a group the parent undertaking of which has its head office in a third country, the same consolidated supervision by a third country competent authority verified as equivalent to that governed by the principles laid down in Article 143 of Directive 2006/48/EC or in Article 2 of Directive 2006/49/EC.\n(41)\nIt is important that market participants report all details regarding derivative contracts they have entered into to trade repositories. As a result, information on the risks inherent in derivatives markets will be centrally stored and easily accessible, inter alia, to ESMA, the relevant competent authorities, the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) and the relevant central banks of the ESCB.\n(42)\nThe provision of trade repository services is characterised by economies of scale, which may hamper competition in this particular field. At the same time, the imposition of a comprehensive reporting requirement on market participants may increase the value of the information maintained by trade repositories also for third parties providing ancillary services such as trade confirmation, trade matching, credit event servicing, portfolio reconciliation or portfolio compression. It is appropriate to ensure that a level playing field in the post-trade sector more generally is not compromised by a possible natural monopoly in the provision of trade repository services. Therefore, trade repositories should be required to provide access to the information held in the repository on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, subject to necessary precautions on data protection.\n(43)\nIn order to allow for a comprehensive overview of the market and for assessing systemic risk, both CCP-cleared and non-CCP-cleared derivative contracts should be reported to trade repositories.\n(44)\nThe ESAs should be provided with adequate resources in order to perform the tasks they are given in this Regulation effectively.\n(45)\nCounterparties and CCPs that conclude, modify, or terminate a derivative contract should ensure that the details of that contract are reported to a trade repository. They should be able to delegate the reporting of the contract to another entity. An entity or its employees that report the details of a derivative contract to a trade repository on behalf of a counterparty, in accordance with this Regulation, should not be in breach of any restriction on disclosure. When preparing the draft regulatory technical standards regarding reporting, ESMA should take into account the progress made in the development of a unique contract identifier and the list of required reporting data in Annex I, Table 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006 (20) implementing Directive 2004/39/EC and consult other relevant authorities such as the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators.\n(46)\nTaking into consideration the principles set out in the Commission\u2019s Communication on reinforcing sanctioning regimes in the financial services sector and legal acts of the Union adopted as a follow-up to that Communication, Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation. Member States should enforce those penalties in a manner that does not reduce the effectiveness of those rules. Those penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. They should be based on guidelines adopted by ESMA to promote convergence and cross-sector consistency of penalty regimes in the financial sector. Member States should ensure that the penalties imposed are publicly disclosed, where appropriate, and that assessment reports on the effectiveness of existing rules are published at regular intervals.\n(47)\nA CCP might be established in accordance with this Regulation in any Member State. No Member State or group of Member States should be discriminated against, directly or indirectly, as a venue for clearing services. Nothing in this Regulation should attempt to restrict or impede a CCP in one jurisdiction from clearing a product denominated in the currency of another Member State or in the currency of a third country.\n(48)\nAuthorisation of a CCP should be conditional on a minimum amount of initial capital. Capital, including retained earnings and reserves of a CCP, should be proportionate to the risk stemming from the activities of the CCP at all times in order to ensure that it is adequately capitalised against credit, counterparty, market, operational, legal and business risks which are not already covered by specific financial resources and that it is able to conduct an orderly winding-up or restructuring of its operations if necessary.\n(49)\nAs this Regulation introduces a legal obligation to clear through specific CCPs for regulatory purposes, it is essential to ensure that those CCPs are safe and sound and comply at all times with the stringent organisational, business conduct, and prudential requirements established by this Regulation. In order to ensure uniform application of this Regulation, those requirements should apply to the clearing of all financial instruments in which the CCPs deal.\n(50)\nIt is therefore necessary, for regulatory and harmonisation purposes, to ensure that counterparties only use CCPs which comply with the requirements laid down in this Regulation. Those requirements should not prevent Member States from adopting or continuing to apply additional requirements in respect of CCPs established in their territory including certain authorisation requirements under Directive 2006/48/EC. However, imposing such additional requirements should not influence the right of CCPs authorised in other Member States or recognised, in accordance with this Regulation, to provide clearing services to clearing members and their clients established in the Member State introducing additional requirements, since those CCPs are not subject to those additional requirements and do not need to comply with them. By 30 September 2014, ESMA should draft a report on the impact of the application of additional requirements by Member States.\n(51)\nDirect rules regarding the authorisation and supervision of CCPs are an essential corollary to the obligation to clear OTC derivative contracts. It is appropriate that competent authorities retain responsibility for all aspects of the authorisation and the supervision of CCPs, including the responsibility for verifying that the applicant CCP complies with this Regulation and with Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems (21), in view of the fact that those national competent authorities remain best placed to examine how the CCPs operate on a daily basis, to carry out regular reviews and to take appropriate action, where necessary.\n(52)\nWhere a CCP risks insolvency, fiscal responsibility may lie predominantly with the Member State in which that CCP is established. It follows that authorisation and supervision of that CCP should be exercised by the relevant competent authority of that Member State. However, since a CCP\u2019s clearing members may be established in different Member States and they will be the first to be impacted by the CCP\u2019s default, it is imperative that all relevant competent authorities and ESMA be involved in the authorisation and supervisory process. This will avoid divergent national measures or practices and obstacles to the proper functioning of the internal market. Furthermore, no proposal or policy of any member of a college of supervisors should, directly or indirectly, discriminate against any Member State or group of Member States as a venue for clearing services in any currency. ESMA should be a participant in every college in order to ensure the consistent and correct application of this Regulation. ESMA should involve other competent authorities in the Member States concerned in the work of preparing recommendations and decisions.\n(53)\nIn light of the role assigned to colleges, it is important that all the relevant competent authorities as well as members of the ESCB are involved in performing their tasks. The college should consist not only of the competent authorities supervising the CCP but also of the supervisors of the entities on which the operations of that CCP might have an impact, namely selected clearing members, trading venues, interoperable CCPs and central securities depositories. Members of the ESCB that are responsible for the oversight of the CCP and interoperable CCPs as well as those responsible for the issue of the currencies of the financial instruments cleared by the CCP, should be able to participate in the college. As the supervised or overseen entities would be established in a limited range of Member States in which the CCP operates, a single competent authority or member of the ESCB could be responsible for supervision or oversight of a number of those entities. In order to ensure smooth cooperation between all the members of the college, appropriate procedures and mechanisms should be put in place.\n(54)\nSince the establishment and functioning of the college is assumed to be based on a written agreement between all of its members, it is appropriate to confer upon them the power to determine the college\u2019s decision-making procedures, given the sensitivity of the issue. Therefore, detailed rules on voting procedures should be laid down in a written agreement between the members of the college. However, in order to balance the interests of all the relevant market participants and Member States appropriately, the college should vote in accordance with the general principle whereby each member has one vote, irrespective of the number of functions it performs in accordance with this Regulation. For colleges with up to and including 12 members, a maximum of two college members belonging to the same Member State should have a vote and each voting member should have one vote. For colleges with more than 12 members, a maximum of three college members belonging to the same Member State should have a vote and each voting member should have one vote.\n(55)\nThe very particular situation of CCPs requires that colleges are organised and function in accordance with arrangements that are specific to the supervision of CCPs.\n(56)\nThe arrangements provided for in this Regulation do not constitute a precedent for other legislation on the supervision and oversight of financial market infrastructures, in particular with regard to the voting modalities for referrals to ESMA.\n(57)\nA CCP should not be authorised where all the members of the college, excluding the competent authorities of the Member State where the CCP is established, reach a joint opinion by mutual agreement that the CCP should not be authorised. If, however, a sufficient majority of the college has expressed a negative opinion and any of the competent authorities concerned, based on that majority of two-thirds of the college, has referred the matter to ESMA, the competent authority of the Member State where the CCP is established should defer its decision on the authorisation and await any decision that ESMA may take regarding conformity with Union law. The competent authority of the Member State where the CCP is established should take its decision in accordance with such a decision by ESMA. Where all the members of the college, excluding the authorities of the Member State where the CCP is established, reach a joint opinion to the effect that they consider that the requirements are not met and that the CCP should not receive authorisation, the competent authority of the Member State where the CCP is established should be able to refer the matter to ESMA to decide on conformity with Union law.\n(58)\nIt is necessary to reinforce provisions on exchange of information between competent authorities, ESMA and other relevant authorities and to strengthen the duties of assistance and cooperation between them. Due to increasing cross-border activity, those authorities should provide each other with the relevant information for the exercise of their functions so as to ensure the effective enforcement of this Regulation, including in situations where infringements or suspected infringements may be of concern to authorities in two or more Member States. For the exchange of information, strict professional secrecy is needed. It is essential, due to the wide impact of OTC derivative contracts, that other relevant authorities, such as tax authorities and energy regulators, have access to information necessary to the exercise of their functions.\n(59)\nIn view of the global nature of financial markets, ESMA should be directly responsible for recognising CCPs established in third countries and thus allowing them to provide clearing services within the Union, provided that the Commission has recognised the legal and supervisory framework of that third country as equivalent to the Union framework and that certain other conditions are met. Therefore, a CCP established in a third country, providing clearing services to clearing members or trading venues established in the Union should be recognised by ESMA. However, in order not to hamper the further development of cross-border investment management business in the Union, a third-country CCP providing services to clients established in the Union through a clearing member established in a third country should not have to be recognised by ESMA. In this context, agreements with the Union\u2019s major international partners will be of particular importance in order to ensure a global level playing field and financial stability.\n(60)\nOn 16 September 2010, the European Council agreed on the need for the Union to promote its interest and values more assertively and, in a spirit of reciprocity and mutual benefit, in the context of the Union\u2019s external relations and to take steps, inter alia, to secure greater market access for European business and deepen regulatory cooperation with major trade partners.\n(61)\nA CCP should have robust governance arrangements, senior management of good repute and independent members on its board, irrespective of its ownership structure. At least one-third, and no less than two, members of its board should be independent. However, different governance arrangements and ownership structures may influence a CCP\u2019s willingness or ability to clear certain products. It is thus appropriate that the independent members of the board and the risk committee to be established by the CCP address any potential conflict of interests within a CCP. Clearing members and clients need to be adequately represented as decisions taken by the CCP may have an impact on them.\n(62)\nA CCP may outsource functions. The CCP\u2019s risk committee should advise on such outsourcing. Major activities linked to risk management should not be outsourced unless this is approved by the competent authority.\n(63)\nThe participation requirements for a CCP should be transparent, proportionate, and non-discriminatory and should allow for remote access to the extent that this does not expose the CCP to additional risks.\n(64)\nClients of clearing members that clear their OTC derivative contracts with CCPs should be granted a high level of protection. The actual level of protection depends on the level of segregation that those clients choose. Intermediaries should segregate their assets from those of their clients. For this reason, CCPs should keep updated and easily identifiable records, in order to facilitate the transfer of the positions and assets of a defaulting clearing member\u2019s clients to a solvent clearing member or, as the case may be, the orderly liquidation of the clients\u2019 positions and the return of excess collateral to the clients. The requirements laid down in this Regulation on the segregation and portability of clients\u2019 positions and assets should therefore prevail over any conflicting laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States that prevent the parties from fulfilling them.\n(65)\nA CCP should have a sound risk-management framework to manage credit risks, liquidity risks, operational and other risks, including the risks that it bears or poses to other entities as a result of interdependencies. A CCP should have adequate procedures and mechanisms in place to deal with the default of a clearing member. In order to minimise the contagion risk of such a default, the CCP should have in place stringent participation requirements, collect appropriate initial margins, maintain a default fund and other financial resources to cover potential losses. In order to ensure that it benefits from sufficient resources on an ongoing basis, the CCP should establish a minimum amount below which the size of the default fund is not generally to fall. This should not, however, limit the CCP\u2019s ability to use the entirety of the default fund to cover the losses caused by a clearing member\u2019s default.\n(66)\nWhen defining a sound risk-management framework, a CCP should take into account its potential risk and economic impact on the clearing members and their clients. Although the development of a highly robust risk management should remain its primary objective, a CCP may adapt its features to the specific activities and risk profiles of the clients of the clearing members, and if deemed appropriate on the basis of the criteria specified in the regulatory technical standards to be developed by ESMA, may include in the scope of the highly liquid assets accepted as collateral, at least cash, government bonds, covered bonds in accordance with Directive 2006/48/EC subject to adequate haircuts, guarantees callable on first demand granted by a member of the ESCB, commercial bank guarantees under strict conditions, in particular relating to the creditworthiness of the guarantor, and the guarantor\u2019s capital links with CCP\u2019s clearing members. Where appropriate, ESMA may also consider gold as an asset acceptable as collateral. CCPs should be able to accept, under strict risk-management conditions, commercial bank guarantees from non-financial counterparties acting as clearing members.\n(67)\nCCPs\u2019 risk-management strategies should be sufficiently sound so as to avoid risks for the taxpayer.\n(68)\nMargin calls and haircuts on collateral may have procyclical effects. CCPs, competent authorities and ESMA should therefore adopt measures to prevent and control possible procyclical effects in risk-management practices adopted by CCPs, to the extent that a CCP\u2019s soundness and financial security is not negatively affected.\n(69)\nExposure management is an essential part of the clearing process. Access to, and use of, the relevant pricing sources should be granted to provide clearing services in general. Such pricing sources should include those relating to indices that are used as references to derivatives or other financial instruments.\n(70)\nMargins are the primary line of defence for a CCP. Although CCPs should invest the margins received in a safe and prudent manner, they should make particular efforts to ensure adequate protection of margins to guarantee that they are returned in a timely manner to the non-defaulting clearing members or to an interoperable CCP where the CCP collecting these margins defaults.\n(71)\nAccess to adequate liquidity resources is essential for a CCP. It is possible for such liquidity to derive from access to central bank liquidity, creditworthy and reliable commercial bank liquidity, or a combination of both. Access to liquidity could result from an authorisation granted in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2006/48/EC or other appropriate arrangements. In assessing the adequacy of liquidity resources, especially in stress situations, a CCP should take into consideration the risks of obtaining the liquidity by only relying on commercial banks credit lines.\n(72)\nThe \u2018European Code of Conduct for Clearing and Settlement\u2019 of 7 November 2006 established a voluntary framework for establishing links between CCPs. However, the post-trade sector remains fragmented along national lines, making cross-border trades more costly and hindering harmonisation. It is therefore necessary to lay down the conditions for the establishment of interoperability arrangements between CCPs to the extent these do not expose the relevant CCPs to risks that are not appropriately managed.\n(73)\nInteroperability arrangements are important for greater integration of the post-trading market within the Union and regulation should be provided for. However, as interoperability arrangements may expose CCPs to additional risks, CCPs should have been, for three years, authorised to clear or recognised in accordance with this Regulation, or authorised under a pre-existing national authorisation regime, before competent authorities grant approval of such interoperability arrangements. In addition, given the additional complexities involved in an interoperability arrangement between CCPs clearing OTC derivative contracts, it is appropriate at this stage to restrict the scope of interoperability arrangements to transferable securities and money-market instruments. However, by 30 September 2014, ESMA should submit a report to the Commission on whether an extension of that scope to other financial instruments would be appropriate.\n(74)\nTrade repositories collect data for regulatory purposes that are relevant to authorities in all Member States. ESMA should assume responsibility for the registration, withdrawal of registration and supervision of trade repositories.\n(75)\nGiven that regulators, CCPs and other market participants rely on the data maintained by trade repositories, it is necessary to ensure that those trade repositories are subject to strict operational, record-keeping and data-management requirements.\n(76)\nTransparency of prices, fees and risk-management models associated with the services provided by CCPs, their members and trade repositories is necessary to enable market participants to make an informed choice.\n(77)\nIn order to carry out its duties effectively, ESMA should be able to require, by simple request or by decision, all necessary information from trade repositories, related third parties and third parties to which the trade repositories have outsourced operational functions or activities. If ESMA requires such information by simple request, the addressee is not obliged to provide the information but, in the event that it does so voluntarily, the information provided should not be incorrect or misleading. Such information should be made available without delay.\n(78)\nWithout prejudice to cases covered by criminal or tax law, the competent authorities, ESMA, bodies or natural or legal persons other than the competent authorities, which receive confidential information should use it only in the performance of their duties and for the exercise of their functions. However, this should not prevent the exercise, in accordance with national law, of the functions of national bodies responsible for the prevention, investigation or correction of cases of maladministration.\n(79)\nIn order to exercise its supervisory powers effectively, ESMA should be able to conduct investigations and on-site inspections.\n(80)\nESMA should be able to delegate specific supervisory tasks to the competent authority of a Member State, for instance where a supervisory task requires knowledge and experience with respect to local conditions, which are more easily available at national level. ESMA should be able to delegate the carrying out of specific investigatory tasks and on-site inspections. Prior to the delegation of tasks, ESMA should consult the relevant competent authority about the detailed conditions relating to such delegation of tasks, including the scope of the task to be delegated, the timetable for the performance of the task, and the transmission of necessary information by and to ESMA. ESMA should compensate the competent authorities for carrying out a delegated task in accordance with a regulation on fees to be adopted by the Commission by means of a delegated act. ESMA should not be able to delegate the power to adopt decisions on registration.\n(81)\nIt is necessary to ensure that competent authorities are able to request that ESMA examine whether the conditions for the withdrawal of a trade repository\u2019s registration are met. ESMA should assess such requests and take any appropriate measures.\n(82)\nESMA should be able to impose periodic penalty payments to compel trade repositories to put an end to an infringement, to supply complete and correct information required by ESMA or to submit to an investigation or an on-site inspection.\n(83)\nESMA should also be able to impose fines on trade repositories where it finds that they have committed, intentionally or negligently, an infringement of this Regulation. Fines should be imposed according to the level of seriousness of the infringement. Infringements should be divided into different groups for which specific fines should be allocated. In order to calculate the fine relating to a particular infringement, ESMA should use a two-step methodology consisting of setting a basic amount and adjusting that basic amount, if necessary, by certain coefficients. The basic amount should be established by taking into account the annual turnover of the trade repository concerned and the adjustments should be made by increasing or decreasing the basic amount through the application of the relevant coefficients in accordance with this Regulation.\n(84)\nThis Regulation should establish coefficients linked to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in order to give the necessary tools to ESMA to decide on a fine which is proportionate to the seriousness of the infringement committed by a trade repository, taking into account the circumstances under which that infringement has been committed.\n(85)\nBefore taking a decision to impose fines or periodic penalty payments, ESMA should give the persons subject to the proceedings the opportunity to be heard in order to respect their rights of defence.\n(86)\nESMA should refrain from imposing fines or periodic penalty payments where a prior acquittal or conviction arising from identical facts, or from facts which are substantially the same, has acquired the force of res judicata as a result of criminal proceedings under national law.\n(87)\nESMA\u2019s decisions imposing fines and periodic penalty payments should be enforceable and their enforcement should be subject to the rules of civil procedure which are in force in the State in the territory of which it is carried out. Rules of civil procedure should not include criminal procedural rules but could include administrative procedural rules.\n(88)\nIn the case of an infringement committed by a trade repository, ESMA should be empowered to take a range of supervisory measures, including requiring the trade repository to bring the infringement to an end, and, as a last resort, withdrawing the registration where the trade repository has seriously or repeatedly infringed this Regulation. The supervisory measures should be applied by ESMA taking into account the nature and seriousness of the infringement and should respect the principle of proportionality. Before taking a decision on supervisory measures, ESMA should give the persons subject to the proceedings an opportunity to be heard in order to comply with their rights of defence.\n(89)\nIt is essential that Member States and ESMA protect the right to privacy of natural persons when processing personal data, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (22) and with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and of the free movement of such data (23).\n(90)\nIt is important to ensure international convergence of requirements for CCPs and trade repositories. This Regulation follows the existing recommendations developed by the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems (CPSS) and International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) noting that the CPSS-IOSCO principles for financial market infrastructure, including CCPs, were established on 16 April 2012. It creates a Union framework in which CCPs can operate safely. ESMA should consider these existing standards and their future developments when drawing up or proposing to revise the regulatory technical standards as well as the guidelines and recommendations foreseen in this Regulation.\n(91)\nThe power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amendments to the list of entities exempt from this Regulation, further rules of procedure relating to the imposition of fines or periodic penalty payments, including provisions on the rights of the defence, time limits, the collection of fines or periodic penalty payments and the limitation periods for the imposition and enforcement of penalty payments or fines; measures to amend Annex II in order to take account of developments in the financial markets; the further specification of the type of fees, the matters for which fees are due, the amount of the fees and the manner in which they are to be paid. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(92)\nIn order to ensure consistent harmonisation, power should be delegated to the Commission to adopt the ESAs\u2019 draft regulatory technical standards in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010, (EU) No 1094/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 for the application, for the purposes of this Regulation, of points (4) to (10) of Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC and in order to specify: the OTC derivative contracts that are considered to have a direct, substantial and foreseeable effect within the Union or the cases where it is necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provision of this Regulation; the types of indirect contractual arrangements that meet the conditions set out in this Regulation; the classes of OTC derivative contracts that should be subject to the clearing obligation, the date or dates from which the clearing obligation is to take effect, including any phase-in, the categories of counterparties to which the clearing obligation applies, and the minimum remaining maturity of the OTC derivative contracts entered into or novated before the date on which the clearing obligation takes effect; the details to be included in a competent authority\u2019s notification to ESMA of its authorisation of a CCP to clear a class of OTC derivative contract; particular classes of OTC derivative contracts, the degree of standardisation of the contractual terms and operational processes, the volume and the liquidity, and the availability of fair, reliable and generally accepted pricing information; the details to be included in ESMA\u2019s register of classes of OTC derivative contracts subject to the clearing obligation; the details and type of the reports for the different classes of derivatives; criteria to determine which OTC derivative contracts are objectively measurable as reducing risks directly relating to the commercial activity or treasury financing activity and values of the clearing thresholds, the procedures and the arrangements in regard to risk-mitigation techniques for OTC derivative contracts not cleared by a CCP; the risk-management procedures, including the required levels and type of collateral and segregation arrangements and the required level of capital; the notion of liquidity fragmentation; requirements regarding the capital, retained earnings and reserves of CCPs; the minimum content of the rules and governance arrangements for CCPs; the details of the records and information to be retained by CCPs; the minimum content and requirements for CCPs\u2019 business continuity policies and disaster recovery plans; the appropriate percentage and time horizons for the liquidation period and the calculation of historical volatility to be considered for the different classes of financial instruments taking into account the objective to limit pro-cyclicality and the conditions under which portfolio margining practices can be implemented; the framework for defining extreme but plausible market conditions which should be used when defining the size of the default fund and the resources of CCPs; the methodology for calculating and maintaining the amount of CCPs\u2019 own resources; the type of collateral that could be considered highly liquid, such as cash, gold, government and high-quality corporate bonds, covered bonds and the haircuts and the conditions under which commercial bank guarantees can be accepted as collateral; the financial instruments that can be considered highly liquid, bearing minimal credit and market risk, highly secured arrangements and concentration limits; the type of stress tests to be undertaken by CCPs for different classes of financial instruments and portfolios, the involvement of clearing members or other parties in the tests, the frequency and timing of the tests and the key information that the CCP is to disclose on its risk-management model and assumptions adopted to perform the stress tests; the details of the application by trade repositories for registration with ESMA; the frequency and the detail in which trade repositories are to disclose information relating to aggregate positions by class of OTC derivative contract; and the operational standards required in order to aggregate and compare data across repositories.\n(93)\nAny obligation imposed by this Regulation which is to be further developed by means of delegated or implementing acts adopted under Article 290 or 291 TFEU should be understood as applying only from the date on which those acts take effect.\n(94)\nAs a part of its development of technical guidelines and regulatory technical standards, and in particular when setting the clearing threshold for non-financial counterparties under this Regulation, ESMA should organise public hearings of market participants.\n(95)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (24).\n(96)\nThe Commission should monitor and assess the need for any appropriate measures to ensure the consistent and effective application and development of regulations, standards and practices falling within the scope of this Regulation, taking into consideration the outcome of the work performed by relevant international forums.\n(97)\nIn view of the rules regarding interoperable systems, it was deemed appropriate to amend Directive 98/26/EC to protect the rights of a system operator that provides collateral security to a receiving system operator in the event of insolvency proceedings against that receiving system operator.\n(98)\nIn order to facilitate efficient clearing, recording, settlement and payment, CCPs and trade repositories should accommodate in their communication procedures with participants and with the market infrastructures they interface with, the relevant international communication procedures and standards for messaging and reference data.\n(99)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely to lay down uniform requirements for OTC derivative contracts and for the performance of activities of CCPs and trade repositories, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale of the 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. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nTITLE I\nSUBJECT MATTER, SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation lays down clearing and bilateral risk-management requirements for over-the-counter (\u2018OTC\u2019) derivative contracts, reporting requirements for derivative contracts and uniform requirements for the performance of activities of central counterparties (\u2018CCPs\u2019) and trade repositories.\n2. This Regulation shall apply to CCPs and their clearing members, to financial counterparties and to trade repositories. It shall apply to non-financial counterparties and trading venues where so provided.\n3. Title V of this Regulation shall apply only to transferable securities and money-market instruments, as defined in point (18)(a) and (b) and point (19) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC.\n4. This Regulation shall not apply to:\n(a)\nthe members of the ESCB and other Member States\u2019 bodies performing similar functions and other Union public bodies charged with or intervening in the management of the public debt;\n(b)\nthe Bank for International Settlements.\n5. With the exception of the reporting obligation under Article 9, this Regulation shall not apply to the following entities:\n(a)\nmultilateral development banks, as listed under Section 4.2 of Part 1 of Annex VI to Directive 2006/48/EC;\n(b)\npublic sector entities within the meaning of point (18) of Article 4 of Directive 2006/48/EC where they are owned by central governments and have explicit guarantee arrangements provided by central governments;\n(c)\nthe European Financial Stability Facility and the European Stability Mechanism.\n6. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 82 to amend the list set out in paragraph 4 of this Article.\nTo that end, by 17 November 2012 the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and the Council a report assessing the international treatment of public bodies charged with or intervening in the management of the public debt and central banks.\nThe report shall include a comparative analysis of the treatment of those bodies and of central banks within the legal framework of a significant number of third countries, including at least the three most important jurisdictions as regards volumes of contracts traded, and the risk-management standards applicable to the derivative transactions entered into by those bodies and by central banks in those jurisdictions. If the report concludes, in particular in regard to the comparative analysis, that the exemption of the monetary responsibilities of those third-country central banks from the clearing and reporting obligation is necessary, the Commission shall add them to the list set out in paragraph 4.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018CCP\u2019 means a legal person that interposes itself between the counterparties to the contracts traded on one or more financial markets, becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer;\n(2)\n\u2018trade repository\u2019 means a legal person that centrally collects and maintains the records of derivatives;\n(3)\n\u2018clearing\u2019 means the process of establishing positions, including the calculation of net obligations, and ensuring that financial instruments, cash, or both, are available to secure the exposures arising from those positions;\n(4)\n\u2018trading venue\u2019 means a system operated by an investment firm or a market operator within the meaning of Article 4(1)(1) and 4(1)(13) of Directive 2004/39/EC other than a systematic internaliser within the meaning of Article 4(1)(7) thereof, which brings together buying or selling interests in financial instruments in the system, in a way that results in a contract in accordance with Title II or III of that Directive;\n(5)\n\u2018derivative\u2019 or \u2018derivative contract\u2019 means a financial instrument as set out in points (4) to (10) of Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC as implemented by Article 38 and 39 of Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006;\n(6)\n\u2018class of derivatives\u2019 means a subset of derivatives sharing common and essential characteristics including at least the relationship with the underlying asset, the type of underlying asset, and currency of notional amount. Derivatives belonging to the same class may have different maturities;\n(7)\n\u2018OTC derivative\u2019 or \u2018OTC derivative contract\u2019 means a derivative contract the execution of which does not take place on a regulated market as within the meaning of Article 4(1)(14) of Directive 2004/39/EC or on a third-country market considered as equivalent to a regulated market in accordance with Article 19(6) of Directive 2004/39/EC;\n(8)\n\u2018financial counterparty\u2019 means an investment firm authorised in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC, a credit institution authorised in accordance with Directive 2006/48/EC, an insurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 73/239/EEC, an assurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2002/83/EC, a reinsurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2005/68/EC, a UCITS and, where relevant, its management company, authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/65/EC, an institution for occupational retirement provision within the meaning of Article 6(a) of Directive 2003/41/EC and an alternative investment fund managed by AIFMs authorised or registered in accordance with Directive 2011/61/EU;\n(9)\n\u2018non-financial counterparty\u2019 means an undertaking established in the Union other than the entities referred to in points (1) and (8);\n(10)\n\u2018pension scheme arrangement\u2019 means:\n(a)\ninstitutions for occupational retirement provision within the meaning of Article 6(a) of Directive 2003/41/EC, including any authorised entity responsible for managing such an institution and acting on its behalf as referred to in Article 2(1) of that Directive as well as any legal entity set up for the purpose of investment of such institutions, acting solely and exclusively in their interest;\n(b)\noccupational retirement provision businesses of institutions referred to in Article 3 of Directive 2003/41/EC;\n(c)\noccupational retirement provision businesses of life insurance undertakings covered by Directive 2002/83/EC, provided that all assets and liabilities corresponding to the business are ring-fenced, managed and organised separately from the other activities of the insurance undertaking, without any possibility of transfer;\n(d)\nany other authorised and supervised entities, or arrangements, operating on a national basis, provided that:\n(i)\nthey are recognised under national law; and\n(ii)\ntheir primary purpose is to provide retirement benefits;\n(11)\n\u2018counterparty credit risk\u2019 means the risk that the counterparty to a transaction defaults before the final settlement of the transaction\u2019s cash flows;\n(12)\n\u2018interoperability arrangement\u2019 means an arrangement between two or more CCPs that involves a cross-system execution of transactions;\n(13)\n\u2018competent authority\u2019 means the competent authority referred to in the legislation referred to in point (8) of this Article, the competent authority referred to in Article 10(5) or the authority designated by each Member State in accordance with Article 22;\n(14)\n\u2018clearing member\u2019 means an undertaking which participates in a CCP and which is responsible for discharging the financial obligations arising from that participation;\n(15)\n\u2018client\u2019 means an undertaking with a contractual relationship with a clearing member of a CCP which enables that undertaking to clear its transactions with that CCP;\n(16)\n\u2018group\u2019 means the group of undertakings consisting of a parent undertaking and its subsidiaries within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 83/349/EEC or the group of undertakings referred to in Article 3(1) and Article 80(7) and (8) of Directive 2006/48/EC;\n(17)\n\u2018financial institution\u2019 means an undertaking other than a credit institution, the principal activity of which is to acquire holdings or to carry on one or more of the activities listed in points (2) to (12) of Annex I to Directive 2006/48/EC;\n(18)\n\u2018financial holding company\u2019 means a financial institution, the subsidiary undertakings of which are either exclusively or mainly credit institutions or financial institutions, at least one of such subsidiary undertakings being a credit institution, and which is not a mixed financial holding company within the meaning of Article 2(15) of Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate (25);\n(19)\n\u2018ancillary services undertaking\u2019 means an undertaking the principal activity of which consists in owning or managing property, managing data-processing services, or a similar activity which is ancillary to the principal activity of one or more credit institution;\n(20)\n\u2018qualifying holding\u2019 means any direct or indirect holding in a CCP or trade repository which represents at least 10 % of the capital or of the voting rights, as set out in Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (26), taking into account the conditions regarding aggregation thereof laid down in Article 12(4) and (5) of that Directive, or which makes it possible to exercise a significant influence over the management of the CCP or trade repository in which that holding subsists;\n(21)\n\u2018parent undertaking\u2019 means a parent undertaking as described in Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 83/349/EEC;\n(22)\n\u2018subsidiary\u2019 means a subsidiary undertaking as described in Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 83/349/EEC, including a subsidiary of a subsidiary undertaking of an ultimate parent undertaking;\n(23)\n\u2018control\u2019 means the relationship between a parent undertaking and a subsidiary, as described in Article 1 of Directive 83/349/EEC;\n(24)\n\u2018close links\u2019 means a situation in which two or more natural or legal persons are linked by:\n(a)\nparticipation, by way of direct ownership or control, of 20 % or more of the voting rights or capital of an undertaking; or\n(b)\ncontrol or a similar relationship between any natural or legal person and an undertaking or a subsidiary of a subsidiary also being considered a subsidiary of the parent undertaking which is at the head of those undertakings.\nA situation in which two or more natural or legal persons are permanently linked to one and the same person by a control relationship shall also be regarded as constituting a close link between such persons.\n(25)\n\u2018capital\u2019 means subscribed capital within the meaning of Article 22 of Council Directive 86/635/EEC of 8 December 1986 on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions (27) in so far it has been paid up, plus the related share premium accounts, it fully absorbs losses in going concern situations, and, in the event of bankruptcy or liquidation, it ranks after all other claims;\n(26)\n\u2018reserves\u2019 means reserves as set out in Article 9 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (28) and profits and losses brought forward as a result of the application of the final profit or loss;\n(27)\n\u2018board\u2019 means administrative or supervisory board, or both, in accordance with national company law;\n(28)\n\u2018independent member\u2019 of the board means a member of the board who has no business, family or other relationship that raises a conflict of interests regarding the CCP concerned or its controlling shareholders, its management or its clearing members, and who has had no such relationship during the five years preceding his membership of the board;\n(29)\n\u2018senior management\u2019 means the person or persons who effectively direct the business of the CCP or the trade repository, and the executive member or members of the board.\nArticle 3\nIntragroup transactions\n1. In relation to a non-financial counterparty, an intragroup transaction is an OTC derivative contract entered into with another counterparty which is part of the same group provided that both counterparties are included in the same consolidation on a full basis and they are subject to an appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures and that counterparty is established in the Union or, if it is established in a third country, the Commission has adopted an implementing act under Article 13(2) in respect of that third country.\n2. In relation to a financial counterparty, an intragroup transaction is any of the following:\n(a)\nan OTC derivative contract entered into with another counterparty which is part of the same group, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(i)\nthe financial counterparty is established in the Union or, if it is established in a third country, the Commission has adopted an implementing act under Article 13(2) in respect of that third country;\n(ii)\nthe other counterparty is a financial counterparty, a financial holding company, a financial institution or an ancillary services undertaking subject to appropriate prudential requirements;\n(iii)\nboth counterparties are included in the same consolidation on a full basis; and\n(iv)\nboth counterparties are subject to appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures;\n(b)\nan OTC derivative contract entered into with another counterparty where both counterparties are part of the same institutional protection scheme, referred to in Article 80(8) of Directive 2006/48/EC, provided that the condition set out in point (a)(ii) of this paragraph is met;\n(c)\nan OTC derivative contract entered into between credit institutions affiliated to the same central body or between such credit institution and the central body, as referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 2006/48/EC; or\n(d)\nan OTC derivative contract entered into with a non-financial counterparty which is part of the same group provided that both counterparties are included in the same consolidation on a full basis and they are subject to an appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures and that counterparty is established in the Union or in a third-country jurisdiction for which the Commission has adopted an implementing act as referred to in Article 13(2) in respect of that third country.\n3. For the purposes of this Article, counterparties shall be considered to be included in the same consolidation when they are both either:\n(a)\nincluded in a consolidation in accordance with Directive 83/349/EEC or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adopted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 or, in relation to a group the parent undertaking of which has its head office in a third country, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles of a third country determined to be equivalent to IFRS in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1569/2007 (or accounting standards of a third country the use of which is permitted in accordance with Article 4 of that Regulation); or\n(b)\ncovered by the same consolidated supervision in accordance with Directive 2006/48/EC or Directive 2006/49/EC or, in relation to a group the parent undertaking of which has its head office in a third country, the same consolidated supervision by a third-country competent authority verified as equivalent to that governed by the principles laid down in Article 143 of Directive 2006/48/EC or in Article 2 of Directive 2006/49/EC.\nTITLE II\nCLEARING, REPORTING AND RISK MITIGATION OF OTC DERIVATIVES\nArticle 4\nClearing obligation\n1. Counterparties shall clear all OTC derivative contracts pertaining to a class of OTC derivatives that has been declared subject to the clearing obligation in accordance with Article 5(2), if those contracts fulfil both of the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey have been concluded in one of the following ways:\n(i)\nbetween two financial counterparties;\n(ii)\nbetween a financial counterparty and a non-financial counterparty that meets the conditions referred to in Article 10(1)(b);\n(iii)\nbetween two non-financial counterparties that meet the conditions referred to in Article 10(1)(b);\n(iv)\nbetween a financial counterparty or a non-financial counterparty meeting the conditions referred to in Article 10(1)(b) and an entity established in a third country that would be subject to the clearing obligation if it were established in the Union; or\n(v)\nbetween two entities established in one or more third countries that would be subject to the clearing obligation if they were established in the Union, provided that the contract has a direct, substantial and foreseeable effect within the Union or where such an obligation is necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provisions of this Regulation; and\n(b)\nthey are entered into or novated either:\n(i)\non or after the date from which the clearing obligation takes effect; or\n(ii)\non or after notification as referred to in Article 5(1) but before the date from which the clearing obligation takes effect if the contracts have a remaining maturity higher than the minimum remaining maturity determined by the Commission in accordance with Article 5(2)(c).\n2. Without prejudice to risk-mitigation techniques under Article 11, OTC derivative contracts that are intragroup transactions as described in Article 3 shall not be subject to the clearing obligation.\nThe exemption set out in the first subparagraph shall apply only:\n(a)\nwhere two counterparties established in the Union belonging to the same group have first notified their respective competent authorities in writing that they intend to make use of the exemption for the OTC derivative contracts concluded between each other. The notification shall be made not less than 30 calendar days before the use of the exemption. Within 30 calendar days after receipt of that notification, the competent authorities may object to the use of this exemption if the transactions between the counterparties do not meet the conditions laid down in Article 3, without prejudice to the right of the competent authorities to object after that period of 30 calendar days has expired where those conditions are no longer met. If there is disagreement between the competent authorities, ESMA may assist those authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with its powers under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010;\n(b)\nto OTC derivative contracts between two counterparties belonging to the same group which are established in a Member State and in a third country, where the counterparty established in the Union has been authorised to apply the exemption by its competent authority within 30 calendar days after it has been notified by the counterparty established in the Union, provided that the conditions laid down in Article 3 are met. The competent authority shall notify ESMA of that decision.\n3. The OTC derivative contracts that are subject to the clearing obligation pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be cleared in a CCP authorised under Article 14 or recognised under Article 25 to clear that class of OTC derivatives and listed in the register in accordance with Article 6(2)(b).\nFor that purpose a counterparty shall become a clearing member, a client, or shall establish indirect clearing arrangements with a clearing member, provided that those arrangements do not increase counterparty risk and ensure that the assets and positions of the counterparty benefit from protection with equivalent effect to that referred to in Articles 39 and 48.\n4. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the contracts that are considered to have a direct, substantial and foreseeable effect within the Union or the cases where it is necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provision of this Regulation as referred to in paragraph 1(a)(v), and the types of indirect contractual arrangements that meet the conditions referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 5\nClearing obligation procedure\n1. Where a competent authority authorises a CCP to clear a class of OTC derivatives under Article 14 or 15, it shall immediately notify ESMA of that authorisation.\nIn order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details to be included in the notifications referred to in the first subparagraph.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the second subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n2. Within six months of receiving notification in accordance with paragraph 1 or accomplishing a procedure for recognition set out in Article 25, ESMA shall, after conducting a public consultation and after consulting the ESRB and, where appropriate, the competent authorities of third countries, develop and submit to the Commission for endorsement draft regulatory technical standards specifying the following:\n(a)\nthe class of OTC derivatives that should be subject to the clearing obligation referred to in Article 4;\n(b)\nthe date or dates from which the clearing obligation takes effect, including any phase in and the categories of counterparties to which the obligation applies; and\n(c)\nthe minimum remaining maturity of the OTC derivative contracts referred to in Article 4(1)(b)(ii).\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n3. ESMA shall, on its own initiative, after conducting a public consultation and after consulting the ESRB and, where appropriate, the competent authorities of third countries, identify, in accordance with the criteria set out in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 4 and notify to the Commission the classes of derivatives that should be subject to the clearing obligation provided in Article 4, but for which no CCP has yet received authorisation.\nFollowing the notification, ESMA shall publish a call for a development of proposals for the clearing of those classes of derivatives.\n4. With the overarching aim of reducing systemic risk, the draft regulatory technical standards for the part referred to in paragraph 2(a) shall take into consideration the following criteria:\n(a)\nthe degree of standardisation of the contractual terms and operational processes of the relevant class of OTC derivatives;\n(b)\nthe volume and liquidity of the relevant class of OTC derivatives;\n(c)\nthe availability of fair, reliable and generally accepted pricing information in the relevant class of OTC derivatives.\nIn preparing those draft regulatory technical standards, ESMA may take into consideration the interconnectedness between counterparties using the relevant classes of OTC derivatives, the anticipated impact on the levels of counterparty credit risk between counterparties as well as the impact on competition across the Union.\nIn order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards further specifying the criteria referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt regulatory technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n5. The draft regulatory technical standards for the part referred to in paragraph 2(b) shall take into consideration the following criteria:\n(a)\nthe expected volume of the relevant class of OTC derivatives;\n(b)\nwhether more than one CCP already clear the same class of OTC derivatives;\n(c)\nthe ability of the relevant CCPs to handle the expected volume and to manage the risk arising from the clearing of the relevant class of OTC derivatives;\n(d)\nthe type and number of counterparties active, and expected to be active within the market for the relevant class of OTC derivatives;\n(e)\nthe period of time a counterparty subject to the clearing obligation needs in order to put in place arrangements to clear its OTC derivative contracts through a CCP;\n(f)\nthe risk management and the legal and operational capacity of the range of counterparties that are active in the market for the relevant class of OTC derivatives and that would be captured by the clearing obligation pursuant to Article 4(1).\n6. If a class of OTC derivative contracts no longer has a CCP which is authorised or recognised to clear those contracts under this Regulation, it shall cease to be subject to the clearing obligation referred to in Article 4, and paragraph 3 of this Article shall apply.\nArticle 6\nPublic register\n1. ESMA shall establish, maintain and keep up to date a public register in order to identify the classes of OTC derivatives subject to the clearing obligation correctly and unequivocally. The public register shall be available on ESMA\u2019s website.\n2. The register shall include:\n(a)\nthe classes of OTC derivatives that are subject to the clearing obligation pursuant to Article 4;\n(b)\nthe CCPs that are authorised or recognised for the purpose of the clearing obligation;\n(c)\nthe dates from which the clearing obligation takes effect, including any phased-in implementation;\n(d)\nthe classes of OTC derivatives identified by ESMA in accordance with Article 5(3);\n(e)\nthe minimum remaining maturity of the derivative contracts referred to in Article 4(1)(b)(ii);\n(f)\nthe CCPs that have been notified to ESMA by the competent authority for the purpose of the clearing obligation and the date of notification of each of them.\n3. Where a CCP is no longer authorised or recognised in accordance with this Regulation to clear a given class of derivatives, ESMA shall immediately remove it from the public register in relation to that class of OTC derivatives.\n4. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details to be included in the public register referred to in paragraph 1.\nESMA shall submit any such draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 7\nAccess to a CCP\n1. A CCP that has been authorised to clear OTC derivative contracts shall accept clearing such contracts on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis, regardless of the trading venue.\nA CCP may require that a trading venue comply with the operational and technical requirements established by the CCP, including the risk-management requirements.\n2. A CCP shall accede to or refuse a formal request for access by a trading venue within three months of such a request.\n3. Where a CCP refuses access under paragraph 2, it shall provide the trading venue with full reasons for such refusal.\n4. Save where the competent authority of the trading venue and that of the CCP refuse access, the CCP shall, subject to the second subparagraph, grant access within three months of a decision acceding to the trading venue\u2019s formal request in accordance with paragraph 2.\nThe competent authority of the trading venue and that of the CCP may refuse access to the CCP following a formal request by the trading venue only where such access would threaten the smooth and orderly functioning of the markets or would adversely affect systemic risk.\n5. ESMA shall settle any dispute arising from a disagreement between competent authorities in accordance with its powers under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 8\nAccess to a trading venue\n1. A trading venue shall provide trade feeds on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis to any CCP that has been authorised to clear OTC derivative contracts traded on that trading venue upon request by the CCP.\n2. Where a request to access a trading venue has been formally submitted to a trading venue by a CCP, the trading venue shall respond to the CCP within three months.\n3. Where access is refused by a trading venue, it shall notify the CCP accordingly, providing full reasons.\n4. Without prejudice to the decision by competent authorities of the trading venue and of the CCP, access shall be made possible by the trading venue within three months of a positive response to a request for access.\nAccess of the CCP to the trading venue shall be granted only where such access would not require interoperability or threaten the smooth and orderly functioning of markets in particular due to liquidity fragmentation and the trading venue has put in place adequate mechanisms to prevent such fragmentation.\n5. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the notion of liquidity fragmentation.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 9\nReporting obligation\n1. Counterparties and CCPs shall ensure that the details of any derivative contract they have concluded and of any modification or termination of the contract are reported to a trade repository registered in accordance with Article 55 or recognised in accordance with Article 77. The details shall be reported no later than the working day following the conclusion, modification or termination of the contract.\nThe reporting obligation shall apply to derivative contracts which:\n(a)\nwere entered into before 16 August 2012 and remain outstanding on that date;\n(b)\nare entered into on or after 16 August 2012.\nA counterparty or a CCP which is subject to the reporting obligation may delegate the reporting of the details of the derivative contract.\nCounterparties and CCPs shall ensure that the details of their derivative contracts are reported without duplication.\n2. Counterparties shall keep a record of any derivative contract they have concluded and any modification for at least five years following the termination of the contract.\n3. Where a trade repository is not available to record the details of a derivative contract, counterparties and CCPs shall ensure that such details are reported to ESMA.\nIn this case ESMA shall ensure that all the relevant entities referred to in Article 81(3) have access to all the details of derivative contracts they need to fulfil their respective responsibilities and mandates.\n4. A counterparty or a CCP that reports the details of a derivative contract to a trade repository or to ESMA, or an entity that reports such details on behalf of a counterparty or a CCP shall not be considered in breach of any restriction on disclosure of information imposed by that contract or by any legislative, regulatory or administrative provision.\nNo liability resulting from that disclosure shall lie with the reporting entity or its directors or employees.\n5. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details and type of the reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 for the different classes of derivatives.\nThe reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 shall specify at least:\n(a)\nthe parties to the derivative contract and, where different, the beneficiary of the rights and obligations arising from it;\n(b)\nthe main characteristics of the derivative contracts, including their type, underlying maturity, notional value, price, and settlement date.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n6. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraphs 1 and 3, ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards specifying:\n(a)\nthe format and frequency of the reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 for the different classes of derivatives;\n(b)\nthe date by which derivative contracts are to be reported, including any phase-in for contracts entered into before the reporting obligation applies.\nESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 10\nNon-financial counterparties\n1. Where a non-financial counterparty takes positions in OTC derivative contracts and those positions exceed the clearing threshold as specified under paragraph 3, that non-financial counterparty shall:\n(a)\nimmediately notify ESMA and the competent authority referred to in paragraph 5 thereof;\n(b)\nbecome subject to the clearing obligation for future contracts in accordance with Article 4 if the rolling average position over 30 working days exceeds the threshold; and\n(c)\nclear all relevant future contracts within four months of becoming subject to the clearing obligation.\n2. A non-financial counterparty that has become subject to the clearing obligation in accordance with paragraph 1(b) and that subsequently demonstrates to the authority designated in accordance with paragraph 5 that its rolling average position over 30 working days does not exceed the clearing threshold, shall no longer be subject to the clearing obligation set out in Article 4.\n3. In calculating the positions referred to in paragraph 1, the non-financial counterparty shall include all the OTC derivative contracts entered into by the non-financial counterparty or by other non-financial entities within the group to which the non-financial counterparty belongs, which are not objectively measurable as reducing risks directly relating to the commercial activity or treasury financing activity of the non-financial counterparty or of that group.\n4. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards, after consulting the ESRB and other relevant authorities, specifying:\n(a)\ncriteria for establishing which OTC derivative contracts are objectively measurable as reducing risks directly relating to the commercial activity or treasury financing activity referred to in paragraph 3; and\n(b)\nvalues of the clearing thresholds, which are determined taking into account the systemic relevance of the sum of net positions and exposures per counterparty and per class of OTC derivatives.\nAfter conducting an open public consultation, ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nAfter consulting the ESRB and other relevant authorities, ESMA shall periodically review the thresholds and, where necessary, propose regulatory technical standards to amend them.\n5. Each Member State shall designate an authority responsible for ensuring that the obligation under paragraph 1 is met.\nArticle 11\nRisk-mitigation techniques for OTC derivative contracts not cleared by a CCP\n1. Financial counterparties and non-financial counterparties that enter into an OTC derivative contract not cleared by a CCP, shall ensure, exercising due diligence, that appropriate procedures and arrangements are in place to measure, monitor and mitigate operational risk and counterparty credit risk, including at least:\n(a)\nthe timely confirmation, where available, by electronic means, of the terms of the relevant OTC derivative contract;\n(b)\nformalised processes which are robust, resilient and auditable in order to reconcile portfolios, to manage the associated risk and to identify disputes between parties early and resolve them, and to monitor the value of outstanding contracts.\n2. Financial counterparties and non-financial counterparties referred to in Article 10 shall mark-to-market on a daily basis the value of outstanding contracts. Where market conditions prevent marking-to-market, reliable and prudent marking-to-model shall be used.\n3. Financial counterparties shall have risk-management procedures that require the timely, accurate and appropriately segregated exchange of collateral with respect to OTC derivative contracts that are entered into on or after 16 August 2012. Non-financial counterparties referred to in Article 10 shall have risk-management procedures that require the timely, accurate and appropriately segregated exchange of collateral with respect to OTC derivative contracts that are entered into on or after the clearing threshold is exceeded.\n4. Financial counterparties shall hold an appropriate and proportionate amount of capital to manage the risk not covered by appropriate exchange of collateral.\n5. The requirement laid down in paragraph 3 of this Article shall not apply to an intragroup transaction referred to in Article 3 that is entered into by counterparties which are established in the same Member State provided that there is no current or foreseen practical or legal impediment to the prompt transfer of own funds or repayment of liabilities between counterparties.\n6. An intragroup transaction referred to in Article 3(2)(a), (b) or (c) that is entered into by counterparties which are established in different Member States shall be exempt totally or partially from the requirement laid down in paragraph 3 of this Article, on the basis of a positive decision of both the relevant competent authorities, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe risk-management procedures of the counterparties are adequately sound, robust and consistent with the level of complexity of the derivative transaction;\n(b)\nthere is no current or foreseen practical or legal impediment to the prompt transfer of own funds or repayment of liabilities between the counterparties.\nIf the competent authorities fail to reach a positive decision within 30 calendar days of receipt of the application for exemption, ESMA may assist those authorities in reaching agreement in accordance with its powers under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n7. An intragroup transaction referred to in Article 3(1) that is entered into by non-financial counterparties which are established in different Member States shall be exempt from the requirement laid down in paragraph 3 of this Article, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe risk-management procedures of the counterparties are adequately sound, robust and consistent with the level of complexity of the derivative transaction;\n(b)\nthere is no current or foreseen practical or legal impediment to the prompt transfer of own funds or repayment of liabilities between the counterparties.\nThe non-financial counterparties shall notify their intention to apply the exemption to the competent authorities referred to in Article 10(5). The exemption shall be valid unless either of the notified competent authorities does not agree upon fulfilment of the conditions referred to in point (a) or (b) of the first subparagraph within three months of the date of the notification.\n8. An intragroup transaction referred to in Article 3(2)(a) to (d) that is entered into by a counterparty which is established in the Union and a counterparty which is established in a third-country jurisdiction shall be exempt totally or partially from the requirement laid down in paragraph 3 of this Article, on the basis of a positive decision of the relevant competent authority responsible for supervision of the counterparty which is established in the Union, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe risk-management procedures of the counterparties are adequately sound, robust and consistent with the level of complexity of the derivative transaction;\n(b)\nthere is no current or foreseen practical or legal impediment to the prompt transfer of own funds or repayment of liabilities between the counterparties.\n9. An intragroup transaction referred to in Article 3(1) that is entered into by a non-financial counterparty which is established in the Union and a counterparty which is established in a third-country jurisdiction shall be exempt from the requirement laid down in paragraph 3 of this Article, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe risk-management procedures of the counterparties are adequately sound, robust and consistent with the level of complexity of the derivative transaction;\n(b)\nthere is no current or foreseen practical or legal impediment to the prompt transfer of own funds or repayment of liabilities between the counterparties.\nThe non-financial counterparty shall notify its intention to apply the exemption to the competent authority referred to in Article 10(5). The exemption shall be valid unless the notified competent authority does not agree upon fulfilment of the conditions referred to in point (a) or (b) of the first subparagraph within three months of the date of notification.\n10. An intragroup transaction referred to in Article 3(1) that is entered into by a non-financial counterparty and a financial counterparty which are established in different Member States shall be exempt totally or partially from the requirement laid down in paragraph 3 of this Article, on the basis of a positive decision of the relevant competent authority responsible for supervision of the financial counterparty, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe risk-management procedures of the counterparties are adequately sound, robust and consistent with the level of complexity of the derivative transaction;\n(b)\nthere is no current or foreseen practical or legal impediment to the prompt transfer of own funds or repayment of liabilities between the counterparties.\nThe relevant competent authority responsible for supervision of the financial counterparty shall notify any such decision to the competent authority referred to in Article 10(5). The exemption is valid unless the notified competent authority does not agree upon fulfilment of the conditions referred to in point (a) or (b) of the first subparagraph. If there is disagreement between the competent authorities, ESMA may assist those authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with its powers under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n11. The counterparty of an intragroup transaction which has been exempted from the requirement laid down in paragraph 3 shall publicly disclose information on the exemption.\nA competent authority shall notify ESMA of any decision adopted pursuant to paragraph 6, 8 or 10, or any notification received pursuant to paragraph 7, 9 or 10, and shall provide ESMA with the details of the intragroup transaction concerned.\n12. The obligations set out in paragraphs 1 to 11 shall apply to OTC derivative contracts entered into between third country entities that would be subject to those obligations if they were established in the Union, provided that those contracts have a direct, substantial and foreseeable effect within the Union or where such obligation is necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provision of this Regulation.\n13. ESMA shall regularly monitor the activity in derivatives not eligible for clearing in order to identify cases where a particular class of derivatives may pose systemic risk and to prevent regulatory arbitrage between cleared and non-cleared derivative transactions. In particular, ESMA shall, after consulting the ESRB, take action in accordance with Article 5(3) or review the regulatory technical standards on margin requirements laid down in paragraph 14 of this Article and in Article 41.\n14. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall draft regulatory technical standards specifying:\n(a)\nthe procedures and arrangements referred to in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe market conditions that prevent marking-to-market and the criteria for using marking-to-model referred to in paragraph 2;\n(c)\nthe details of the exempted intragroup transactions to be included in the notification referred to in paragraphs 7, 9 and 10;\n(d)\nthe details of the information on exempted intragroup transactions referred to in paragraph 11;\n(e)\nthe contracts that are considered to have a direct, substantial and foreseeable effect within the Union or the cases where it is necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provision of this Regulation as referred to in paragraph 12;\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n15. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, the ESAs shall develop common draft regulatory technical standards specifying:\n(a)\nthe risk-management procedures, including the levels and type of collateral and segregation arrangements, required for compliance with paragraph 3;\n(b)\nthe level of capital required for compliance with paragraph 4;\n(c)\nthe procedures for the counterparties and the relevant competent authorities to be followed when applying exemptions under paragraphs 6 to 10;\n(d)\nthe applicable criteria referred to in paragraphs 5 to 10 including in particular what should be considered as practical or legal impediment to the prompt transfer of own funds and repayment of liabilities between the counterparties.\nThe ESAs shall submit those common draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nDepending on the legal nature of the counterparty, power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with either Articles 10 to 14 of Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010, (EU) No 1094/2010 or (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 12\nPenalties\n1. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the rules under this Title and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties shall include at least administrative fines. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities responsible for the supervision of financial, and, where appropriate, non-financial counterparties disclose every penalty that has been imposed for infringements of Articles 4, 5 and 7 to 11 to the public, unless such disclosure would seriously jeopardise the financial markets or cause disproportionate damage to the parties involved. Member States shall, at regular intervals, publish assessment reports on the effectiveness of the penalty rules being applied. Such disclosure and publication shall not contain personal data within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC.\nBy 17 February 2013, the Member States shall notify the rules referred to in paragraph 1 to the Commission. They shall notify the Commission of any subsequent amendment thereto without delay.\n3. An infringement of the rules under this Title shall not affect the validity of an OTC derivative contract or the possibility for the parties to enforce the provisions of an OTC derivative contract. An infringement of the rules under this Title shall not give rise to any right to compensation from a party to an OTC derivative contract.\nArticle 13\nMechanism to avoid duplicative or conflicting rules\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by ESMA in monitoring and preparing reports to the European Parliament and to the Council on the international application of principles laid down in Articles 4, 9, 10 and 11, in particular with regard to potential duplicative or conflicting requirements on market participants, and recommend possible action.\n2. The Commission may adopt implementing acts declaring that the legal, supervisory and enforcement arrangements of a third country:\n(a)\nare equivalent to the requirements laid down in this Regulation under Articles 4, 9, 10 and 11;\n(b)\nensure protection of professional secrecy that is equivalent to that set out in this Regulation; and\n(c)\nare being effectively applied and enforced in an equitable and non-distortive manner so as to ensure effective supervision and enforcement in that third country.\nThose implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 86(2).\n3. An implementing act on equivalence as referred to in paragraph 2 shall imply that counterparties entering into a transaction subject to this Regulation shall be deemed to have fulfilled the obligations contained in Articles 4, 9, 10 and 11 where at least one of the counterparties is established in that third country.\n4. The Commission shall, in cooperation with ESMA, monitor the effective implementation by third countries, for which an implementing act on equivalence has been adopted, of the requirements equivalent to those laid down in Articles 4, 9, 10 and 11 and regularly report, at least on an annual basis, to the European Parliament and the Council. Where the report reveals an insufficient or inconsistent application of the equivalent requirements by third country authorities, the Commission shall, within 30 calendar days of the presentation of the report, withdraw the recognition as equivalent of the third country legal framework in question. Where an implementing act on equivalence is withdrawn, counterparties shall automatically be subject again to all requirements laid down in this Regulation.\nTITLE III\nAUTHORISATION AND SUPERVISION OF CCPs\nCHAPTER 1\nConditions and procedures for the authorisation of a CCP\nArticle 14\nAuthorisation of a CCP\n1. Where a legal person established in the Union intends to provide clearing services as a CCP, it shall apply for authorisation to the competent authority of the Member State where it is established (the CCP\u2019s competent authority), in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 17.\n2. Once authorisation has been granted in accordance with Article 17, it shall be effective for the entire territory of the Union.\n3. Authorisation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted only for activities linked to clearing and shall specify the services or activities which the CCP is authorised to provide or perform including the classes of financial instruments covered by such authorisation.\n4. A CCP shall comply at all times with the conditions necessary for authorisation.\nA CCP shall, without undue delay, notify the competent authority of any material changes affecting the conditions for authorisation.\n5. Authorisation referred to in paragraph 1 shall not prevent Member States from adopting or continuing to apply, in respect of CCPs established in their territory, additional requirements including certain requirements for authorisation under Directive 2006/48/EC.\nArticle 15\nExtension of activities and services\n1. A CCP wishing to extend its business to additional services or activities not covered by the initial authorisation shall submit a request for extension to the CCP\u2019s competent authority. The offering of clearing services for which the CCP has not already been authorised shall be considered to be an extension of that authorisation.\nThe extension of authorisation shall be made in accordance with the procedure set out under Article 17.\n2. Where a CCP wishes to extend its business into a Member State other than that where it is established, the CCP\u2019s competent authority shall immediately notify the competent authority of that other Member State.\nArticle 16\nCapital requirements\n1. A CCP shall have a permanent and available initial capital of at least EUR 7,5 million to be authorised pursuant to Article 14.\n2. A CCP\u2019s capital, including retained earnings and reserves, shall be proportionate to the risk stemming from the activities of the CCP. It shall at all times be sufficient to ensure an orderly winding-down or restructuring of the activities over an appropriate time span and an adequate protection of the CCP against credit, counterparty, market, operational, legal and business risks which are not already covered by specific financial resources as referred to in Articles 41 to 44.\n3. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, EBA shall, in close cooperation with the ESCB and after consulting ESMA, develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying requirements regarding the capital, retained earnings and reserves of a CCP referred to in paragraph 2.\nEBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\nArticle 17\nProcedure for granting and refusing authorisation\n1. The applicant CCP shall submit an application for authorisation to the competent authority of the Member State where it is established.\n2. The applicant CCP shall provide all information necessary to satisfy the competent authority that the applicant CCP has established, at the time of authorisation, all the necessary arrangements to meet the requirements laid down in this Regulation. The competent authority shall immediately transmit all the information received from the applicant CCP to ESMA and the college referred to in Article 18(1).\n3. Within 30 working days of receipt of the application, the competent authority shall assess whether the application is complete. If the application is not complete, the competent authority shall set a deadline by which the applicant CCP has to provide additional information. After assessing that an application is complete, the competent authority shall notify the applicant CCP and the members of the college established in accordance with Article 18(1) and ESMA accordingly.\n4. The competent authority shall grant authorisation only where it is fully satisfied that the applicant CCP complies with all the requirements laid down in this Regulation and that the CCP is notified as a system pursuant to Directive 98/26/EC.\nThe competent authority shall duly consider the opinion of the college reached in accordance with Article 19. Where the CCP\u2019s competent authority does not agree with a positive opinion of the college, its decision shall contain full reasons and an explanation of any significant deviation from that positive opinion.\nThe CCP shall not be authorised where all the members of the college, excluding the authorities of the Member State where the CCP is established, reach a joint opinion by mutual agreement, pursuant to Article 19(1), that the CCP not be authorised. That opinion shall state in writing the full and detailed reasons why the college consider that the requirements laid down in this Regulation or other Union law are not met.\nWhere a joint opinion by mutual agreement as referred to in the third subparagraph has not been reached and a majority of two-thirds of the college have expressed a negative opinion, any of the competent authorities concerned, based on that majority of two-thirds of the college, may, within 30 calendar days of the adoption of that negative opinion, refer the matter to ESMA in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nThe referral decision shall state in writing the full and detailed reasons why the relevant members of the college consider that the requirements laid down in this Regulation or other parts of Union law are not met. In that case the CCP\u2019s competent authority shall defer its decision on authorisation and await any decision on authorisation that ESMA may take in accordance with Article 19(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, The competent authority shall take its decision in conformity with ESMA\u2019s decision. The matter shall not be referred to ESMA after the end of the 30-day period referred to in the fourth subparagraph.\nWhere all the members of the college, excluding the authorities of the Member State where the CCP is established, reach a joint opinion by mutual agreement, pursuant to Article 19(1), that the CCP not be authorised, the CCP\u2019s competent authority may refer the matter to ESMA in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nThe competent authority of the Member State where the CCP is established shall transmit the decision to the other competent authorities concerned.\n5. ESMA shall act in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 in the event that the CCP\u2019s competent authority has not applied the provisions of this Regulation, or has applied them in a way which appears to be in breach of Union law.\nESMA may investigate an alleged breach or non-application of Union law upon request from any member of the college or on its own initiative, after having informed the competent authority.\n6. While performing their duties, any action taken by any member of the college shall not, directly or indirectly, discriminate against any Member State or group of Member States as a venue for clearing services in any currency.\n7. Within six months of the submission of a complete application, the competent authority shall inform the applicant CCP in writing, with a fully reasoned explanation, whether authorisation has been granted or refused.\nArticle 18\nCollege\n1. Within 30 calendar days of the submission of a complete application in accordance with Article 17, the CCP\u2019s competent authority shall establish, manage and chair a college to facilitate the exercise of the tasks referred to in Articles 15, 17, 49, 51 and 54.\n2. The college shall consist of:\n(a)\nESMA;\n(b)\nthe CCP\u2019s competent authority;\n(c)\nthe competent authorities responsible for the supervision of the clearing members of the CCP that are established in the three Member States with the largest contributions to the default fund of the CCP referred to in Article 42 on an aggregate basis over a one-year period;\n(d)\nthe competent authorities responsible for the supervision of trading venues served by the CCP;\n(e)\nthe competent authorities supervising CCPs with which interoperability arrangements have been established;\n(f)\nthe competent authorities supervising central securities depositories to which the CCP is linked;\n(g)\nthe relevant members of the ESCB responsible for the oversight of the CCP and the relevant members of the ESCB responsible for the oversight of the CCPs with which interoperability arrangements have been established;\n(h)\nthe central banks of issue of the most relevant Union currencies of the financial instruments cleared.\n3. The competent authority of a Member State which is not a member of the college may request from the college any information relevant for the performance of its supervisory duties.\n4. The college shall, without prejudice to the responsibilities of competent authorities under this Regulation, ensure:\n(a)\nthe preparation of the opinion referred to in Article 19;\n(b)\nthe exchange of information, including requests for information pursuant to Article 84;\n(c)\nagreement on the voluntary entrustment of tasks among its members;\n(d)\nthe coordination of supervisory examination programmes based on a risk assessment of the CCP; and\n(e)\nthe determination of procedures and contingency plans to address emergency situations, as referred to in Article 24.\n5. The establishment and functioning of the college shall be based on a written agreement between all its members.\nThat agreement shall determine the practical arrangements for the functioning of the college, including detailed rules on voting procedures as referred to in Article 19(3), and may determine tasks to be entrusted to the CCP\u2019s competent authority or another member of the college.\n6. In order to ensure the consistent and coherent functioning of colleges across the Union, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the conditions under which the Union currencies referred to in paragraph 2(h) are to be considered as the most relevant and the details of the practical arrangements referred to in paragraph 5.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 19\nOpinion of the college\n1. Within four months of the submission of a complete application by the CCP in accordance with Article 17, the CCP\u2019s competent authority shall conduct a risk assessment of the CCP and submit a report to the college.\nWithin 30 calendar days of receipt, and on the basis of the findings in, that report, the college shall reach a joint opinion determining whether the applicant CCP complies with all the requirements laid down in this Regulation.\nWithout prejudice to the fourth subparagraph of Article 17(4) and if no joint opinion is reached in accordance with the second subparagraph, the college shall adopt a majority opinion within the same period.\n2. ESMA shall facilitate the adoption of the joint opinion in accordance with its general coordination function under Article 31 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n3. A majority opinion of the college shall be adopted on the basis of a simple majority of its members. For colleges up to and including 12 members, a maximum of two college members belonging to the same Member State shall have a vote and each voting member shall have one vote. For colleges with more than 12 members, a maximum of three members belonging to the same Member State shall have a vote and each voting member shall have one vote. ESMA shall have no voting rights on the opinions of the college.\nArticle 20\nWithdrawal of authorisation\n1. Without prejudice to Article 22(3), the CCP\u2019s competent authority shall withdraw authorisation where the CCP:\n(a)\nhas not made use of the authorisation within 12 months, expressly renounces the authorisation or has provided no services or performed no activity for the preceding six months;\n(b)\nhas obtained authorisation by making false statements or by any other irregular means;\n(c)\nis no longer in compliance with the conditions under which authorisation was granted and has not taken the remedial action requested by the CCP\u2019s competent authority within a set time frame;\n(d)\nhas seriously and systematically infringed any of the requirements laid down in this Regulation.\n2. Where the CCP\u2019s competent authority considers that one of the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1 applies, it shall, within five working days, notify ESMA and the members of college accordingly.\n3. The CCP\u2019s competent authority shall consult the members of the college on the necessity to withdraw the authorisation of the CCP, except where a decision is required urgently.\n4. Any member of the college may, at any time, request that the CCP\u2019s competent authority examine whether the CCP remains in compliance with the conditions under which authorisation was granted.\n5. The CCP\u2019s competent authority may limit the withdrawal to a particular service, activity, or class of financial instruments.\n6. The CCP\u2019s competent authority shall send ESMA and the members of the college its fully reasoned decision, which shall take into account the reservations of the members of the college.\n7. The decision on the withdrawal of authorisation shall take effect throughout the Union.\nArticle 21\nReview and evaluation\n1. Without prejudice to the role of the college, the competent authorities referred to in Article 22 shall review the arrangements, strategies, processes and mechanisms implemented by CCPs to comply with this Regulation and evaluate the risks to which CCPs are, or might be, exposed.\n2. The review and evaluation referred to in paragraph 1 shall cover all the requirements on CCPs laid down in this Regulation.\n3. The competent authorities shall establish the frequency and depth of the review and evaluation referred to in paragraph 1 having regard to the size, systemic importance, nature, scale and complexity of the activities of the CCPs concerned. The review and evaluation shall be updated at least on an annual basis.\nThe CCPs shall be subject to on-site inspections.\n4. The competent authorities shall regularly, and at least annually, inform the college of the results of the review and evaluation as referred to in paragraph 1, including any remedial action taken or penalty imposed.\n5. The competent authorities shall require any CCP that does not meet the requirements laid down in this Regulation to take the necessary action or steps at an early stage to address the situation.\n6. ESMA shall fulfil a coordination role between competent authorities and across colleges with a view to building a common supervisory culture and consistent supervisory practices, ensuring uniform procedures and consistent approaches, and strengthening consistency in supervisory outcomes.\nFor the purposes of the first subparagraph, ESMA shall, at least annually:\n(a)\nconduct a peer review analysis of the supervisory activities of all competent authorities in relation to the authorisation and the supervision of CCPs in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010; and\n(b)\ninitiate and coordinate Union-wide assessments of the resilience of CCPs to adverse market developments in accordance with Article 32(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nWhere an assessment referred to in point (b) of the second subparagraph exposes shortcomings in the resilience of one or more CCPs, ESMA shall issue the necessary recommendations pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nCHAPTER 2\nSupervision and oversight of CCPs\nArticle 22\nCompetent authority\n1. Each Member State shall designate the competent authority responsible for carrying out the duties resulting from this Regulation for the authorisation and supervision of CCPs established in its territory and shall inform the Commission and ESMA thereof.\nWhere a Member State designates more than one competent authority, it shall clearly determine the respective roles and shall designate a single authority to be responsible for coordinating cooperation and the exchange of information with the Commission, ESMA, other Member States\u2019 competent authorities, EBA and the relevant members of the ESCB, in accordance with Articles 23, 24, 83 and 84.\n2. Each Member State shall ensure that the competent authority has the supervisory and investigatory powers necessary for the exercise of its functions.\n3. Each Member State shall ensure that appropriate administrative measures, in conformity with national law, can be taken or imposed against the natural or legal persons responsible for non-compliance with this Regulation.\nThose measures shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and may include requests for remedial action within a set time frame.\n4. ESMA shall publish on its website a list of the competent authorities designated in accordance with paragraph 1.\nCHAPTER 3\nCooperation\nArticle 23\nCooperation between authorities\n1. Competent authorities shall cooperate closely with each other, with ESMA and, if necessary, with the ESCB.\n2. Competent authorities shall, in the exercise of their general duties, duly consider the potential impact of their decisions on the stability of the financial system in all other Member States concerned, in particular the emergency situations referred to in Article 24, based on the available information at the time.\nArticle 24\nEmergency situations\nThe CCP\u2019s competent authority or any other authority shall inform ESMA, the college, the relevant members of the ESCB and other relevant authorities without undue delay of any emergency situation relating to a CCP, including developments in financial markets, which may have an adverse effect on market liquidity and the stability of the financial system in any of the Member States where the CCP or one of its clearing members are established.\nCHAPTER 4\nRelations with third countries\nArticle 25\nRecognition of a third-country CCP\n1. A CCP established in a third country may provide clearing services to clearing members or trading venues established in the Union only where that CCP is recognised by ESMA.\n2. ESMA, after consulting the authorities referred to in paragraph 3, may recognise a CCP established in a third country that has applied for recognition to provide certain clearing services or activities where:\n(a)\nthe Commission has adopted an implementing act in accordance with paragraph 6;\n(b)\nthe CCP is authorised in the relevant third country, and is subject to effective supervision and enforcement ensuring full compliance with the prudential requirements applicable in that third country;\n(c)\ncooperation arrangements have been established pursuant to paragraph 7;\n(d)\nthe CCP is established or authorised in a third country that is considered as having equivalent systems for anti-money-laundering and combating the financing of terrorism to those of the Union in accordance with the criteria set out in the common understanding between Member States on third-country equivalence under Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (29).\n3. When assessing whether the conditions referred to in paragraph 2 are met, ESMA shall consult:\n(a)\nthe competent authority of a Member State in which the CCP provides or intends to provide clearing services and which has been selected by the CCP;\n(b)\nthe competent authorities responsible for the supervision of the clearing members of the CCP that are established in the three Member States which make or are anticipated by the CCP to make the largest contributions to the default fund of the CCP referred to in Article 42 on an aggregate basis over a one-year period;\n(c)\nthe competent authorities responsible for the supervision of trading venues located in the Union, served or to be served by the CCP;\n(d)\nthe competent authorities supervising CCPs established in the Union with which interoperability arrangements have been established;\n(e)\nthe relevant members of the ESCB of the Member States in which the CCP provides or intends to provide clearing services and the relevant members of the ESCB responsible for the oversight of the CCPs with which interoperability arrangements have been established;\n(f)\nthe central banks of issue of the most relevant Union currencies of the financial instruments cleared or to be cleared.\n4. The CCP referred to in paragraph 1 shall submit its application to ESMA.\nThe applicant CCP shall provide ESMA with all information necessary for its recognition. Within 30 working days of receipt, ESMA shall assess whether the application is complete. If the application is not complete, ESMA shall set a deadline by which the applicant CCP has to provide additional information.\nThe recognition decision shall be based on the conditions set out in paragraph 2 and shall be independent of any assessment as the basis for the equivalence decision as referred to in Article 13(3).\nESMA shall consult the authorities and entities referred to in paragraph 3 prior to taking its decision.\nWithin 180 working days of the submission of a complete application, ESMA shall inform the applicant CCP in writing, with a fully reasoned explanation, whether the recognition has been granted or refused.\nESMA shall publish on its website a list of the CCPs recognised in accordance with this Regulation.\n5. ESMA shall, after consulting the authorities and entities referred to in paragraph 3, review the recognition of the CCP established in a third country where that CCP has extended the range of its activities and services in the Union. That review shall be conducted in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. ESMA may withdraw the recognition of that CCP where the conditions set out in paragraph 2 are no longer met and in the same circumstances as those described in Article 20.\n6. The Commission may adopt an implementing act under Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, determining that the legal and supervisory arrangements of a third country ensure that CCPs authorised in that third country comply with legally binding requirements which are equivalent to the requirements laid down in Title IV of this Regulation, that those CCPs are subject to effective supervision and enforcement in that third country on an ongoing basis and that the legal framework of that third country provides for an effective equivalent system for the recognition of CCPs authorised under third-country legal regimes.\n7. ESMA shall establish cooperation arrangements with the relevant competent authorities of third countries whose legal and supervisory frameworks have been recognised as equivalent to this Regulation in accordance with paragraph 6. Such arrangements shall specify at least:\n(a)\nthe mechanism for the exchange of information between ESMA and the competent authorities of the third countries concerned, including access to all information requested by ESMA regarding CCPs authorised in third countries;\n(b)\nthe mechanism for prompt notification to ESMA where a third-country competent authority deems a CCP it is supervising to be in breach of the conditions of its authorisation or of other law to which it is subject;\n(c)\nthe mechanism for prompt notification to ESMA by a third-country competent authority where a CCP it is supervising has been granted the right to provide clearing services to clearing members or clients established in the Union;\n(d)\nthe procedures concerning the coordination of supervisory activities including, where appropriate, on-site inspections.\n8. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the information that the applicant CCP shall provide ESMA in its application for recognition.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nTITLE IV\nREQUIREMENTS FOR CCPs\nCHAPTER 1\nOrganisational requirements\nArticle 26\nGeneral provisions\n1. A CCP shall have robust governance arrangements, which include a clear organisational structure with well-defined, transparent and consistent lines of responsibility, effective processes to identify, manage, monitor and report the risks to which it is or might be exposed, and adequate internal control mechanisms, including sound administrative and accounting procedures.\n2. A CCP shall adopt policies and procedures which are sufficiently effective so as to ensure compliance with this Regulation, including compliance of its managers and employees with all the provisions of this Regulation.\n3. A CCP shall maintain and operate an organisational structure that ensures continuity and orderly functioning in the performance of its services and activities. It shall employ appropriate and proportionate systems, resources and procedures.\n4. A CCP shall maintain a clear separation between the reporting lines for risk management and those for the other operations of the CCP.\n5. A CCP shall adopt, implement and maintain a remuneration policy which promotes sound and effective risk management and which does not create incentives to relax risk standards.\n6. A CCP shall maintain information technology systems adequate to deal with the complexity, variety and type of services and activities performed so as to ensure high standards of security and the integrity and confidentiality of the information maintained.\n7. A CCP shall make its governance arrangements, the rules governing the CCP, and its admission criteria for clearing membership, available publicly free of charge.\n8. The CCP shall be subject to frequent and independent audits. The results of those audits shall be communicated to the board and shall be made available to the competent authority.\n9. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA, after consulting the members of the ESCB, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the minimum content of the rules and governance arrangements referred to in paragraphs 1 to 8.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 27\nSenior management and the board\n1. The senior management of a CCP shall be of sufficiently good repute and shall have sufficient experience so as to ensure the sound and prudent management of the CCP.\n2. A CCP shall have a board. At least one third, but no less than two, of the members of that board shall be independent. Representatives of the clients of clearing members shall be invited to board meetings for matters relevant to Articles 38 and 39. The compensation of the independent and other non-executive members of the board shall not be linked to the business performance of the CCP.\nThe members of a CCP\u2019s board, including its independent members, shall be of sufficiently good repute and shall have adequate expertise in financial services, risk management and clearing services.\n3. A CCP shall clearly determine the roles and responsibilities of the board and shall make the minutes of the board meetings available to the competent authority and auditors.\nArticle 28\nRisk committee\n1. A CCP shall establish a risk committee, which shall be composed of representatives of its clearing members, independent members of the board and representatives of its clients. The risk committee may invite employees of the CCP and external independent experts to attend risk-committee meetings in a non-voting capacity. Competent authorities may request to attend risk-committee meetings in a non-voting capacity and to be duly informed of the activities and decisions of the risk committee. The advice of the risk committee shall be independent of any direct influence by the management of the CCP. None of the groups of representatives shall have a majority in the risk committee.\n2. A CCP shall clearly determine the mandate, the governance arrangements to ensure its independence, the operational procedures, the admission criteria and the election mechanism for risk-committee members. The governance arrangements shall be publicly available and shall, at least, determine that the risk committee is chaired by an independent member of the board, reports directly to the board and holds regular meetings.\n3. The risk committee shall advise the board on any arrangements that may impact the risk management of the CCP, such as a significant change in its risk model, the default procedures, the criteria for accepting clearing members, the clearing of new classes of instruments, or the outsourcing of functions. The advice of the risk committee is not required for the daily operations of the CCP. Reasonable efforts shall be made to consult the risk committee on developments impacting the risk management of the CCP in emergency situations.\n4. Without prejudice to the right of competent authorities to be duly informed, the members of the risk committee shall be bound by confidentiality. Where the chairman of the risk committee determines that a member has an actual or potential conflict of interest on a particular matter, that member shall not be allowed to vote on that matter.\n5. A CCP shall promptly inform the competent authority of any decision in which the board decides not to follow the advice of the risk committee.\nArticle 29\nRecord keeping\n1. A CCP shall maintain, for a period of at least 10 years, all the records on the services and activity provided so as to enable the competent authority to monitor the CCP\u2019s compliance with this Regulation.\n2. A CCP shall maintain, for a period of at least 10 years following the termination of a contract, all information on all contracts it has processed. That information shall at least enable the identification of the original terms of a transaction before clearing by that CCP.\n3. A CCP shall make the records and information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 and all information on the positions of cleared contracts, irrespective of the venue where the transactions were executed, available upon request to the competent authority, to ESMA and to the relevant members of the ESCB.\n4. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details of the records and information to be retained as referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n5. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraphs 1 and 2, ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards specifying the format of the records and information to be retained.\nESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 30\nShareholders and members with qualifying holdings\n1. The competent authority shall not authorise a CCP unless it has been informed of the identities of the shareholders or members, whether direct or indirect, natural or legal persons, that have qualifying holdings and of the amounts of those holdings.\n2. The competent authority shall refuse to authorise a CCP where it is not satisfied as to the suitability of the shareholders or members that have qualifying holdings in the CCP, taking into account the need to ensure the sound and prudent management of a CCP.\n3. Where close links exist between the CCP and other natural or legal persons, the competent authority shall grant authorisation only where those links do not prevent the effective exercise of the supervisory functions of the competent authority.\n4. Where the persons referred to in paragraph 1 exercise an influence which is likely to be prejudicial to the sound and prudent management of the CCP, the competent authority shall take appropriate measures to terminate that situation, which may include the withdrawal of the authorisation of the CCP.\n5. The competent authority shall refuse authorisation where the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of a third country governing one or more natural or legal persons with which the CCP has close links, or difficulties involved in their enforcement, prevent the effective exercise of the supervisory functions of the competent authority.\nArticle 31\nInformation to competent authorities\n1. A CCP shall notify its competent authority of any changes to its management, and shall provide the competent authority with all the information necessary to assess compliance with Article 27(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 27(2).\nWhere the conduct of a member of the board is likely to be prejudicial to the sound and prudent management of the CCP, the competent authority shall take appropriate measures, which may include removing that member from the board.\n2. Any natural or legal person or such persons acting in concert (the \u2018proposed acquirer\u2019), who have taken a decision either to acquire, directly or indirectly, a qualifying holding in a CCP or to further increase, directly or indirectly, such a qualifying holding in a CCP as a result of which the proportion of the voting rights or of the capital held would reach or exceed 10 %, 20 %, 30 % or 50 % or so that the CCP would become its subsidiary (the \u2018proposed acquisition\u2019), shall first notify in writing the competent authority of the CCP in which they are seeking to acquire or increase a qualifying holding, indicating the size of the intended holding and relevant information, as referred to in Article 32(4).\nAny natural or legal person who has taken a decision to dispose, directly or indirectly, of a qualifying holding in a CCP (the \u2018proposed vendor\u2019) shall first notify the competent authority in writing thereof, indicating the size of such holding. Such a person shall likewise notify the competent authority where it has taken a decision to reduce a qualifying holding so that the proportion of the voting rights or of the capital held would fall below 10 %, 20 %, 30 % or 50 % or so that the CCP would cease to be that person\u2019s subsidiary.\nThe competent authority shall, promptly and in any event within two working days of receipt of the notification referred to in this paragraph and of the information referred to in paragraph 3, acknowledge receipt in writing thereof to the proposed acquirer or vendor.\nThe competent authority shall have a maximum of 60 working days as from the date of the written acknowledgement of receipt of the notification and all documents required to be attached to the notification on the basis of the list referred to in Article 32(4) (the assessment period), to carry out the assessment provided for in Article 32(1) (the assessment).\nThe competent authority shall inform the proposed acquirer or vendor of the date of the expiry of the assessment period at the time of acknowledging receipt.\n3. The competent authority may, during the assessment period, where necessary, but no later than on the 50th working day of the assessment period, request any further information that is necessary to complete the assessment. Such request shall be made in writing and shall specify the additional information needed.\nThe assessment period shall be interrupted for the period between the date of request for information by the competent authority and the receipt of a response thereto by the proposed acquirer. The interruption shall not exceed 20 working days. Any further requests by the competent authority for completion or clarification of the information shall be at its discretion but may not result in an interruption of the assessment period.\n4. The competent authority may extend the interruption referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3 up to 30 working days where the proposed acquirer or vendor is either:\n(a)\nsituated or regulated outside the Union;\n(b)\na natural or legal person not subject to supervision under this Regulation or Directive 73/239/EEC, Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance (30) or Directives 2002/83/EC, 2003/41/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC, 2006/48/EC, 2009/65/EC or 2011/61/EU.\n5. Where the competent authority, upon completion of the assessment, decides to oppose the proposed acquisition, it shall, within two working days, and not exceeding the assessment period, inform the proposed acquirer in writing and provide the reasons for that decision. The competent authority shall notify the college referred to in Article 18 accordingly. Subject to national law, an appropriate statement of the reasons for the decision may be made accessible to the public at the request of the proposed acquirer. However, Member States may allow a competent authority to make such disclosure in the absence of a request by the proposed acquirer.\n6. Where the competent authority does not oppose the proposed acquisition within the assessment period, it shall be deemed to be approved.\n7. The competent authority may fix a maximum period for concluding the proposed acquisition and extend it where appropriate.\n8. Member States shall not impose requirements for notification to, and approval by, the competent authority of direct or indirect acquisitions of voting rights or capital that are more stringent than those set out in this Regulation.\nArticle 32\nAssessment\n1. Where assessing the notification provided for in Article 31(2) and the information referred to in Article 31(3), the competent authority shall, in order to ensure the sound and prudent management of the CCP in which an acquisition is proposed, and having regard to the likely influence of the proposed acquirer on the CCP, appraise the suitability of the proposed acquirer and the financial soundness of the proposed acquisition against all of the following:\n(a)\nthe reputation and financial soundness of the proposed acquirer;\n(b)\nthe reputation and experience of any person who will direct the business of the CCP as a result of the proposed acquisition;\n(c)\nwhether the CCP will be able to comply and continue to comply with this Regulation;\n(d)\nwhether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that, in connection with the proposed acquisition, money laundering or terrorist financing within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 2005/60/EC is being or has been committed or attempted, or that the proposed acquisition could increase the risk thereof.\nWhere assessing the financial soundness of the proposed acquirer, the competent authority shall pay particular attention to the type of business pursued and envisaged in the CCP in which the acquisition is proposed.\nWhere assessing the CCP\u2019s ability to comply with this Regulation, the competent authority shall pay particular attention to whether the group of which it will become a part has a structure that makes it possible to exercise effective supervision, to effectively exchange information among the competent authorities and to determine the allocation of responsibilities among the competent authorities.\n2. The competent authorities may oppose the proposed acquisition only where there are reasonable grounds for doing so on the basis of the criteria set out in paragraph 1 or where the information provided by the proposed acquirer is incomplete.\n3. Member States shall neither impose any prior conditions in respect of the level of holding that shall be acquired nor allow their competent authorities to examine the proposed acquisition in terms of the economic needs of the market.\n4. Member States shall make publicly available a list specifying the information that is necessary to carry out the assessment and that shall be provided to the competent authorities at the time of notification referred to in Article 31(2). The information required shall be proportionate and shall be adapted to the nature of the proposed acquirer and the proposed acquisition. Member States shall not require information that is not relevant for a prudential assessment.\n5. Notwithstanding Article 31(2), (3) and (4), where two or more proposals to acquire or increase qualifying holdings in the same CCP have been notified to the competent authority, the latter shall treat the proposed acquirers in a non-discriminatory manner.\n6. The relevant competent authorities shall cooperate closely with each other when carrying out the assessment where the proposed acquirer is one of the following:\n(a)\nanother CCP, a credit institution, assurance undertaking, insurance undertaking, reinsurance undertaking, investment firm, market operator, an operator of a securities settlement system, a UCITS management company or an AIFM authorised in another Member State;\n(b)\nthe parent undertaking of another CCP, a credit institution, assurance undertaking, insurance undertaking, reinsurance undertaking, investment firm, market operator, an operator of a securities settlement system, a UCITS management company or an AIFM authorised in another Member State;\n(c)\na natural or legal person controlling another CCP, a credit institution, assurance undertaking, insurance undertaking, reinsurance undertaking, investment firm, market operator, an operator of a securities settlement system, a UCITS management company or an AIFM authorised in another Member State.\n7. The competent authorities shall, without undue delay, provide each other with any information which is essential or relevant for the assessment. The competent authorities shall, upon request, communicate all relevant information to each other and shall communicate all essential information at their own initiative. A decision by the competent authority that has authorised the CCP in which the acquisition is proposed shall indicate any views or reservations expressed by the competent authority responsible for the proposed acquirer.\nArticle 33\nConflicts of interest\n1. A CCP shall maintain and operate effective written organisational and administrative arrangements to identify and manage any potential conflicts of interest between itself, including its managers, employees, or any person with direct or indirect control or close links, and its clearing members or their clients known to the CCP. It shall maintain and implement adequate procedures aiming at resolving possible conflicts of interest.\n2. Where the organisational or administrative arrangements of a CCP to manage conflicts of interest are not sufficient to ensure, with reasonable confidence, that risks of damage to the interests of a clearing member or client are prevented, it shall clearly disclose the general nature or sources of conflicts of interest to the clearing member before accepting new transactions from that clearing member. Where the client is known to the CCP, the CCP shall inform the client and the clearing member whose client is concerned.\n3. Where the CCP is a parent undertaking or a subsidiary, the written arrangements shall also take into account any circumstances, of which the CCP is or should be aware, which may give rise to a conflict of interest arising as a result of the structure and business activities of other undertakings with which it has a parent undertaking or a subsidiary relationship.\n4. The written arrangements established in accordance with paragraph 1 shall include the following:\n(a)\nthe circumstances which constitute or may give rise to a conflict of interest entailing a material risk of damage to the interests of one or more clearing members or clients;\n(b)\nprocedures to be followed and measures to be adopted in order to manage such conflict.\n5. A CCP shall take all reasonable steps to prevent any misuse of the information held in its systems and shall prevent the use of that information for other business activities. A natural person who has a close link to a CCP or a legal person that has a parent undertaking or a subsidiary relationship with a CCP shall not use confidential information recorded in that CCP for any commercial purposes without the prior written consent of the client to whom such confidential information belongs.\nArticle 34\nBusiness continuity\n1. A CCP shall establish, implement and maintain an adequate business continuity policy and disaster recovery plan aiming at ensuring the preservation of its functions, the timely recovery of operations and the fulfilment of the CCP\u2019s obligations. Such a plan shall at least allow for the recovery of all transactions at the time of disruption to allow the CCP to continue to operate with certainty and to complete settlement on the scheduled date.\n2. A CCP shall establish, implement and maintain an adequate procedure ensuring the timely and orderly settlement or transfer of the assets and positions of clients and clearing members in the event of a withdrawal of authorisation pursuant to a decision under Article 20.\n3. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall, after consulting the members of the ESCB, develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the minimum content and requirements of the business continuity policy and of the disaster recovery plan.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 35\nOutsourcing\n1. Where a CCP outsources operational functions, services or activities, it shall remain fully responsible for discharging all of its obligations under this Regulation and shall ensure at all times that:\n(a)\noutsourcing does not result in the delegation of its responsibility;\n(b)\nthe relationship and obligations of the CCP towards its clearing members or, where relevant, towards their clients are not altered;\n(c)\nthe conditions for authorisation of the CCP do not effectively change;\n(d)\noutsourcing does not prevent the exercise of supervisory and oversight functions, including on-site access to acquire any relevant information needed to fulfil those mandates;\n(e)\noutsourcing does not result in depriving the CCP from the necessary systems and controls to manage the risks it faces;\n(f)\nthe service provider implements equivalent business continuity requirements to those that the CCP must fulfil under this Regulation;\n(g)\nthe CCP retains the necessary expertise and resources to evaluate the quality of the services provided and the organisational and capital adequacy of the service provider, and to supervise the outsourced functions effectively and manage the risks associated with the outsourcing and supervises those functions and manages those risks on an ongoing basis;\n(h)\nthe CCP has direct access to the relevant information of the outsourced functions;\n(i)\nthe service provider cooperates with the competent authority in connection with the outsourced activities;\n(j)\nthe service provider protects any confidential information relating to the CCP and its clearing members and clients or, where that service provider is established in a third country, ensures that the data protection standards of that third country, or those set out in the agreement between the parties concerned, are comparable to the data protection standards in effect in the Union.\nA CCP shall not outsource major activities linked to risk management unless such outsourcing is approved by the competent authority.\n2. The competent authority shall require the CCP to allocate and set out its rights and obligations, and those of the service provider, clearly in a written agreement.\n3. A CCP shall make all information necessary to enable the competent authority to assess the compliance of the performance of the outsourced activities with this Regulation available on request.\nCHAPTER 2\nConduct of business rules\nArticle 36\nGeneral provisions\n1. When providing services to its clearing members, and where relevant, to their clients, a CCP shall act fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of such clearing members and clients and sound risk management.\n2. A CCP shall have accessible, transparent and fair rules for the prompt handling of complaints.\nArticle 37\nParticipation requirements\n1. A CCP shall establish, where relevant per type of product cleared, the categories of admissible clearing members and the admission criteria, upon the advice of the risk committee pursuant to Article 28(3). Such criteria shall be non-discriminatory, transparent and objective so as to ensure fair and open access to the CCP and shall ensure that clearing members have sufficient financial resources and operational capacity to meet the obligations arising from participation in a CCP. Criteria that restrict access shall be permitted only to the extent that their objective is to control the risk for the CCP.\n2. A CCP shall ensure that the application of the criteria referred to in paragraph 1 is met on an ongoing basis and shall have timely access to the information relevant for such assessment. A CCP shall conduct, at least once a year, a comprehensive review of compliance with this Article by its clearing members.\n3. Clearing members that clear transactions on behalf of their clients shall have the necessary additional financial resources and operational capacity to perform this activity. The CCP\u2019s rules for clearing members shall allow it to gather relevant basic information to identify, monitor and manage relevant concentrations of risk relating to the provision of services to clients. Clearing members shall, upon request, inform the CCP about the criteria and arrangements they adopt to allow their clients to access the services of the CCP. Responsibility for ensuring that clients comply with their obligations shall remain with clearing members.\n4. A CCP shall have objective and transparent procedures for the suspension and orderly exit of clearing members that no longer meet the criteria referred to in paragraph 1.\n5. A CCP may only deny access to clearing members meeting the criteria referred to in paragraph 1 where duly justified in writing and based on a comprehensive risk analysis.\n6. A CCP may impose specific additional obligations on clearing members, such as the participation in auctions of a defaulting clearing member\u2019s position. Such additional obligations shall be proportional to the risk brought by the clearing member and shall not restrict participation to certain categories of clearing members.\nArticle 38\nTransparency\n1. A CCP and its clearing members shall publicly disclose the prices and fees associated with the services provided. They shall disclose the prices and fees of each service provided separately, including discounts and rebates and the conditions to benefit from those reductions. A CCP shall allow its clearing members and, where relevant, their clients separate access to the specific services provided.\nA CCP shall account separately for costs and revenues of the services provided and shall disclose that information to the competent authority.\n2. A CCP shall disclose to clearing members and clients the risks associated with the services provided.\n3. A CCP shall disclose to its clearing members and to its competent authority the price information used to calculate its end-of-day exposures to its clearing members.\nA CCP shall publicly disclose the volumes of the cleared transactions for each class of instruments cleared by the CCP on an aggregated basis.\n4. A CCP shall publicly disclose the operational and technical requirements relating to the communication protocols covering content and message formats it uses to interact with third parties, including the operational and technical requirements referred to in Article 7.\n5. A CCP shall publicly disclose any breaches by clearing members of the criteria referred to in Article 37(1) and the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article, except where the competent authority, after consulting ESMA, considers that such disclosure would constitute a threat to financial stability or to market confidence or would seriously jeopardise the financial markets or cause disproportionate damage to the parties involved.\nArticle 39\nSegregation and portability\n1. A CCP shall keep separate records and accounts that shall enable it, at any time and without delay, to distinguish in accounts with the CCP the assets and positions held for the account of one clearing member from the assets and positions held for the account of any other clearing member and from its own assets.\n2. A CCP shall offer to keep separate records and accounts enabling each clearing member to distinguish in accounts with the CCP the assets and positions of that clearing member from those held for the accounts of its clients (\u2018omnibus client segregation\u2019).\n3. A CCP shall offer to keep separate records and accounts enabling each clearing member to distinguish in accounts with the CCP the assets and positions held for the account of a client from those held for the account of other clients (\u2018individual client segregation\u2019). Upon request, the CCP shall offer clearing members the possibility to open more accounts in their own name or for the account of their clients.\n4. A clearing member shall keep separate records and accounts that enable it to distinguish both in accounts held with the CCP and in its own accounts its assets and positions from the assets and positions held for the account of its clients at the CCP.\n5. A clearing member shall offer its clients, at least, the choice between omnibus client segregation and individual client segregation and inform them of the costs and level of protection referred to in paragraph 7 associated with each option. The client shall confirm its choice in writing.\n6. When a client opts for individual client segregation, any margin in excess of the client\u2019s requirement shall also be posted to the CCP and distinguished from the margins of other clients or clearing members and shall not be exposed to losses connected to positions recorded in another account.\n7. CCPs and clearing members shall publicly disclose the levels of protection and the costs associated with the different levels of segregation that they provide and shall offer those services on reasonable commercial terms. Details of the different levels of segregation shall include a description of the main legal implications of the respective levels of segregation offered including information on the insolvency law applicable in the relevant jurisdictions.\n8. A CCP shall have a right of use relating to the margins or default fund contributions collected via a security financial collateral arrangement, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements (31) provided that the use of such arrangements is provided for in its operating rules. The clearing member shall confirm its acceptance of the operating rules in writing. The CCP shall publicly disclose that right of use, which shall be exercised in accordance with Article 47.\n9. The requirement to distinguish assets and positions with the CCP in accounts is satisfied where:\n(a)\nthe assets and positions are recorded in separate accounts;\n(b)\nthe netting of positions recorded on different accounts is prevented;\n(c)\nthe assets covering the positions recorded in an account are not exposed to losses connected to positions recorded in another account.\n10. Assets refer to collateral held to cover positions and include the right to the transfer of assets equivalent to that collateral or the proceeds of the realisation of any collateral, but does not include default fund contributions.\nCHAPTER 3\nPrudential requirements\nArticle 40\nExposure management\nA CCP shall measure and assess its liquidity and credit exposures to each clearing member and, where relevant, to another CCP with which it has concluded an interoperability arrangement, on a near to real-time basis. A CCP shall have access in a timely manner and on a non-discriminatory basis to the relevant pricing sources to effectively measure its exposures. This shall be done on a reasonable cost basis.\nArticle 41\nMargin requirements\n1. A CCP shall impose, call and collect margins to limit its credit exposures from its clearing members and, where relevant, from CCPs with which it has interoperability arrangements. Such margins shall be sufficient to cover potential exposures that the CCP estimates will occur until the liquidation of the relevant positions. They shall also be sufficient to cover losses that result from at least 99 % of the exposures movements over an appropriate time horizon and they shall ensure that a CCP fully collateralises its exposures with all its clearing members, and, where relevant, with CCPs with which it has interoperability arrangements, at least on a daily basis. A CCP shall regularly monitor and, if necessary, revise the level of its margins to reflect current market conditions taking into account any potentially procyclical effects of such revisions.\n2. A CCP shall adopt models and parameters in setting its margin requirements that capture the risk characteristics of the products cleared and take into account the interval between margin collections, market liquidity and the possibility of changes over the duration of the transaction. The models and parameters shall be validated by the competent authority and subject to an opinion in accordance with Article 19.\n3. A CCP shall call and collect margins on an intraday basis, at least when predefined thresholds are exceeded.\n4. A CCP shall call and collect margins that are adequate to cover the risk stemming from the positions registered in each account kept in accordance with Article 39 with respect to specific financial instruments. A CCP may calculate margins with respect to a portfolio of financial instruments provided that the methodology used is prudent and robust.\n5. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall, after consulting EBA and the ESCB, develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the appropriate percentage and time horizons for the liquidation period and the calculation of historical volatility, as referred to in paragraph 1, to be considered for the different classes of financial instruments, taking into account the objective to limit procyclicality, and the conditions under which portfolio margining practices referred to in paragraph 4 can be implemented.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 42\nDefault fund\n1. To limit its credit exposures to its clearing members further, a CCP shall maintain a pre-funded default fund to cover losses that exceed the losses to be covered by margin requirements laid down in Article 41, arising from the default, including the opening of an insolvency procedure, of one or more clearing members.\nThe CCP shall establish a minimum amount below which the size of the default fund is not to fall under any circumstances.\n2. A CCP shall establish the minimum size of contributions to the default fund and the criteria to calculate the contributions of the single clearing members. The contributions shall be proportional to the exposures of each clearing member.\n3. The default fund shall at least enable the CCP to withstand, under extreme but plausible market conditions, the default of the clearing member to which it has the largest exposures or of the second and third largest clearing members, if the sum of their exposures is larger. A CCP shall develop scenarios of extreme but plausible market conditions. The scenarios shall include the most volatile periods that have been experienced by the markets for which the CCP provides its services and a range of potential future scenarios. They shall take into account sudden sales of financial resources and rapid reductions in market liquidity.\n4. A CCP may establish more than one default fund for the different classes of instrument that it clears.\n5. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall, in close cooperation with the ESCB and after consulting EBA, develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the framework for defining extreme but plausible market conditions referred to in paragraph 3, that should be used when defining the size of the default fund and the other financial resources referred to in Article 43.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 43\nOther financial resources\n1. A CCP shall maintain sufficient pre-funded available financial resources to cover potential losses that exceed the losses to be covered by margin requirements laid down in Article 41 and the default fund as referred to in Article 42. Such pre-funded financial resources shall include dedicated resources of the CCP, shall be freely available to the CCP and shall not be used to meet the capital required under Article 16.\n2. The default fund referred to in Article 42 and the other financial resources referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall at all times enable the CCP to withstand the default of at least the two clearing members to which it has the largest exposures under extreme but plausible market conditions.\n3. A CCP may require non-defaulting clearing members to provide additional funds in the event of a default of another clearing member. The clearing members of a CCP shall have limited exposures toward the CCP.\nArticle 44\nLiquidity risk controls\n1. A CCP shall at all times have access to adequate liquidity to perform its services and activities. To that end, it shall obtain the necessary credit lines or similar arrangements to cover its liquidity needs in case the financial resources at its disposal are not immediately available. A clearing member, parent undertaking or subsidiary of that clearing member together shall not provide more than 25 % of the credit lines needed by the CCP.\nA CCP shall measure, on a daily basis, its potential liquidity needs. It shall take into account the liquidity risk generated by the default of at least the two clearing members to which it has the largest exposures.\n2. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall, after consulting the relevant authorities and the members of the ESCB, develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the framework for managing the liquidity risk that CCPs are to withstand in accordance with paragraph 1.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 45\nDefault waterfall\n1. A CCP shall use the margins posted by a defaulting clearing member prior to other financial resources in covering losses.\n2. Where the margins posted by the defaulting clearing member are not sufficient to cover the losses incurred by the CCP, the CCP shall use the default fund contribution of the defaulting member to cover those losses.\n3. A CCP shall use contributions to the default fund of the non-defaulting clearing members and any other financial resources referred to in Article 43(1) only after having exhausted the contributions of the defaulting clearing member.\n4. A CCP shall use dedicated own resources before using the default fund contributions of non-defaulting clearing members. A CCP shall not use the margins posted by non-defaulting clearing members to cover the losses resulting from the default of another clearing member.\n5. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA, shall, after consulting the relevant competent authorities and the members of the ESCB, develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the methodology for calculation and maintenance of the amount of the CCP\u2019s own resources to be used in accordance with paragraph 4.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 46\nCollateral requirements\n1. A CCP shall accept highly liquid collateral with minimal credit and market risk to cover its initial and ongoing exposure to its clearing members. For non-financial counterparties, a CCP may accept bank guarantees, taking such guarantees into account when calculating its exposure to a bank that is a clearing member. It shall apply adequate haircuts to asset values that reflect the potential for their value to decline over the interval between their last revaluation and the time by which they can reasonably be assumed to be liquidated. It shall take into account the liquidity risk following the default of a market participant and the concentration risk on certain assets that may result in establishing the acceptable collateral and the relevant haircuts.\n2. A CCP may accept, where appropriate and sufficiently prudent, the underlying of the derivative contract or the financial instrument that originates the CCP exposure as collateral to cover its margin requirements.\n3. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall, after consulting EBA, the ESRB and the ESCB, develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying:\n(a)\nthe type of collateral that could be considered highly liquid, such as cash, gold, government and high-quality corporate bonds and covered bonds;\n(b)\nthe haircuts referred to in paragraph 1; and\n(c)\nthe conditions under which commercial bank guarantees may be accepted as collateral under paragraph 1.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 47\nInvestment policy\n1. A CCP shall invest its financial resources only in cash or in highly liquid financial instruments with minimal market and credit risk. A CCP\u2019s investments shall be capable of being liquidated rapidly with minimal adverse price effect.\n2. The amount of capital, including retained earnings and reserves of a CCP which are not invested in accordance with paragraph 1, shall not be taken into account for the purposes of Article 16(2) or Article 45(4).\n3. Financial instruments posted as margins or as default fund contributions shall, where available, be deposited with operators of securities settlement systems that ensure the full protection of those financial instruments. Alternatively, other highly secure arrangements with authorised financial institutions may be used.\n4. Cash deposits of a CCP shall be performed through highly secure arrangements with authorised financial institutions or, alternatively, through the use of the standing deposit facilities of central banks or other comparable means provided for by central banks.\n5. Where a CCP deposits assets with a third party, it shall ensure that the assets belonging to the clearing members are identifiable separately from the assets belonging to the CCP and from assets belonging to that third party by means of differently titled accounts on the books of the third party or any other equivalent measures that achieve the same level of protection. A CCP shall have prompt access to the financial instruments when required.\n6. A CCP shall not invest its capital or the sums arising from the requirements laid down in Article 41, 42, 43 or 44 in its own securities or those of its parent undertaking or its subsidiary.\n7. A CCP shall take into account its overall credit risk exposures to individual obligors in making its investment decisions and shall ensure that its overall risk exposure to any individual obligor remains within acceptable concentration limits.\n8. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall, after consulting EBA and the ESCB, develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the financial instruments that can be considered highly liquid, bearing minimal credit and market risk as referred to in paragraph 1, the highly secured arrangements referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 and the concentration limits referred to in paragraph 7.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 48\nDefault procedures\n1. A CCP shall have detailed procedures in place to be followed where a clearing member does not comply with the participation requirements of the CCP laid down in Article 37 within the time limit and in accordance with the procedures established by the CCP. The CCP shall set out in detail the procedures to be followed in the event the default of a clearing member is not declared by the CCP. Those procedures shall be reviewed annually.\n2. A CCP shall take prompt action to contain losses and liquidity pressures resulting from defaults and shall ensure that the closing out of any clearing member\u2019s positions does not disrupt its operations or expose the non-defaulting clearing members to losses that they cannot anticipate or control.\n3. Where a CCP considers that the clearing member will not be able to meet its future obligations, it shall promptly inform the competent authority before the default procedure is declared or triggered. The competent authority shall promptly communicate that information to ESMA, to the relevant members of the ESCB and to the authority responsible for the supervision of the defaulting clearing member.\n4. A CCP shall verify that its default procedures are enforceable. It shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that it has the legal powers to liquidate the proprietary positions of the defaulting clearing member and to transfer or liquidate the clients\u2019 positions of the defaulting clearing member.\n5. Where assets and positions are recorded in the records and accounts of a CCP as being held for the account of a defaulting clearing member\u2019s clients in accordance with Article 39(2), the CCP shall, at least, contractually commit itself to trigger the procedures for the transfer of the assets and positions held by the defaulting clearing member for the account of its clients to another clearing member designated by all of those clients, on their request and without the consent of the defaulting clearing member. That other clearing member shall be obliged to accept those assets and positions only where it has previously entered into a contractual relationship with the clients by which it has committed itself to do so. If the transfer to that other clearing member has not taken place for any reason within a predefined transfer period specified in its operating rules, the CCP may take all steps permitted by its rules to actively manage its risks in relation to those positions, including liquidating the assets and positions held by the defaulting clearing member for the account of its clients.\n6. Where assets and positions are recorded in the records and accounts of a CCP as being held for the account of a defaulting clearing member\u2019s client in accordance with Article 39(3), the CCP shall, at least, contractually commit itself to trigger the procedures for the transfer of the assets and positions held by the defaulting clearing member for the account of the client to another clearing member designated by the client, on the client\u2019s request and without the consent of the defaulting clearing member. That other clearing member shall be obliged to accept these assets and positions only where it has previously entered into a contractual relationship with the client by which it has committed itself to do so. If the transfer to that other clearing member has not taken place for any reason within a predefined transfer period specified in its operating rules, the CCP may take all steps permitted by its rules to actively manage its risks in relation to those positions, including liquidating the assets and positions held by the defaulting clearing member for the account of the client.\n7. Clients\u2019 collateral distinguished in accordance with Article 39(2) and (3) shall be used exclusively to cover the positions held for their account. Any balance owed by the CCP after the completion of the clearing member\u2019s default management process by the CCP shall be readily returned to those clients when they are known to the CCP or, if they are not, to the clearing member for the account of its clients.\nArticle 49\nReview of models, stress testing and back testing\n1. A CCP shall regularly review the models and parameters adopted to calculate its margin requirements, default fund contributions, collateral requirements and other risk control mechanisms. It shall subject the models to rigorous and frequent stress tests to assess their resilience in extreme but plausible market conditions and shall perform back tests to assess the reliability of the methodology adopted. The CCP shall obtain independent validation, shall inform its competent authority and ESMA of the results of the tests performed and shall obtain their validation before adopting any significant change to the models and parameters.\nThe adopted models and parameters, including any significant change thereto, shall be subject to an opinion of the college pursuant to Article 19.\nESMA shall ensure that information on the results of the stress tests is passed on to the ESAs to enable them to assess the exposure of financial undertakings to the default of CCPs.\n2. A CCP shall regularly test the key aspects of its default procedures and take all reasonable steps to ensure that all clearing members understand them and have appropriate arrangements in place to respond to a default event.\n3. A CCP shall publicly disclose key information on its risk-management model and assumptions adopted to perform the stress tests referred to in paragraph 1.\n4. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall, after consulting EBA, other relevant competent authorities and the members of the ESCB, develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying:\n(a)\nthe type of tests to be undertaken for different classes of financial instruments and portfolios;\n(b)\nthe involvement of clearing members or other parties in the tests;\n(c)\nthe frequency of the tests;\n(d)\nthe time horizons of the tests;\n(e)\nthe key information referred to in paragraph 3.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 50\nSettlement\n1. A CCP shall, where practical and available, use central bank money to settle its transactions. Where central bank money is not used, steps shall be taken to strictly limit cash settlement risks.\n2. A CCP shall clearly state its obligations with respect to deliveries of financial instruments, including whether it has an obligation to make or receive delivery of a financial instrument or whether it indemnifies participants for losses incurred in the delivery process.\n3. Where a CCP has an obligation to make or receive deliveries of financial instruments, it shall eliminate principal risk through the use of delivery-versus-payment mechanisms to the extent possible.\nTITLE V\nINTEROPERABILITY ARRANGEMENTS\nArticle 51\nInteroperability arrangements\n1. A CCP may enter into an interoperability arrangement with another CCP where the requirements laid down in Articles 52, 53 and 54 are fulfilled.\n2. When establishing an interoperability arrangement with another CCP for the purpose of providing services to a particular trading venue, the CCP shall have non-discriminatory access, both to the data that it needs for the performance of its functions from that particular trading venue, to the extent that the CCP complies with the operational and technical requirements established by the trading venue, and to the relevant settlement system.\n3. Entering into an interoperability arrangement or accessing a data feed or a settlement system referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be rejected or restricted, directly or indirectly, only in order to control any risk arising from that arrangement or access.\nArticle 52\nRisk management\n1. CCPs that enter into an interoperability arrangement shall:\n(a)\nput in place adequate policies, procedures and systems to effectively identify, monitor and manage the risks arising from the arrangement so that they can meet their obligations in a timely manner;\n(b)\nagree on their respective rights and obligations, including the applicable law governing their relationships;\n(c)\nidentify, monitor and effectively manage credit and liquidity risks so that a default of a clearing member of one CCP does not affect an interoperable CCP;\n(d)\nidentify, monitor and address potential interdependences and correlations that arise from an interoperability arrangement that may affect credit and liquidity risks relating to clearing member concentrations, and pooled financial resources.\nFor the purposes of point (b) of the first subparagraph, CCPs shall use the same rules concerning the moment of entry of transfer orders into their respective systems and the moment of irrevocability as set out in Directive 98/26/EC, where relevant.\nFor the purposes of point (c) of the first subparagraph, the terms of the arrangement shall outline the process for managing the consequences of the default where one of the CCPs with which an interoperability arrangement has been concluded is in default.\nFor the purposes of point (d) of the first subparagraph, CCPs shall have robust controls over the re-use of clearing members\u2019 collateral under the arrangement, if permitted by their competent authorities. The arrangement shall outline how those risks have been addressed taking into account sufficient coverage and need to limit contagion.\n2. Where the risk-management models used by the CCPs to cover their exposure to their clearing members or their reciprocal exposures are different, the CCPs shall identify those differences, assess risks that may arise therefrom and take measures, including securing additional financial resources, that limit their impact on the interoperability arrangement as well as their potential consequences in terms of contagion risks and ensure that these differences do not affect each CCP\u2019s ability to manage the consequences of the default of a clearing member.\n3. Any associated costs that arise from paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be borne by the CCP requesting interoperability or access, unless otherwise agreed between the parties.\nArticle 53\nProvision of margins among CCPs\n1. A CCP shall distinguish in accounts the assets and positions held for the account of CCPs with whom it has entered into an interoperability arrangement.\n2. If a CCP that enters into an interoperability arrangement with another CCP only provides initial margins to that CCP under a security financial collateral arrangement, the receiving CCP shall have no right of use over the margins provided by the other CCP.\n3. Collateral received in the form of financial instruments shall be deposited with operators of securities settlement systems notified under Directive 98/26/EC.\n4. The assets referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be available to the receiving CCP only in case of default of the CCP which has provided the collateral in the context of an interoperability arrangement.\n5. In case of default of the CCP which has received the collateral in the context of an interoperability arrangement, the collateral referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be readily returned to the providing CCP.\nArticle 54\nApproval of interoperability arrangements\n1. An interoperability arrangement shall be subject to the prior approval of the competent authorities of the CCPs involved. The procedure under Article 17 shall apply.\n2. The competent authorities shall grant approval of the interoperability arrangement only where the CCPs involved have been authorised to clear under Article 17 or recognised under Article 25 or authorised under a pre-existing national authorisation regime for a period of at least three years, the requirements laid down in Article 52 are met and the technical conditions for clearing transactions under the terms of the arrangement allow for a smooth and orderly functioning of financial markets and the arrangement does not undermine the effectiveness of supervision.\n3. Where a competent authority considers that the requirements laid down in paragraph 2 are not met, it shall provide explanations in writing regarding its risk considerations to the other competent authorities and the CCPs involved. It shall also notify ESMA, which shall issue an opinion on the effective validity of the risk considerations as grounds for denial of the interoperability arrangement. ESMA\u2019s opinion shall be made available to all the CCPs involved. Where ESMA\u2019s opinion differs from the assessment of the relevant competent authority, that competent authority shall reconsider its position, taking into account ESMA\u2019s opinion.\n4. By 31 December 2012, ESMA shall issue guidelines or recommendations with a view to establishing consistent, efficient and effective assessments of interoperability arrangements, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nESMA shall develop drafts of those guidelines or recommendations after consulting the members of the ESCB.\nTITLE VI\nREGISTRATION AND SUPERVISION OF TRADE REPOSITORIES\nCHAPTER 1\nConditions and procedures for registration of a trade repository\nArticle 55\nRegistration of a trade repository\n1. A trade repository shall register with ESMA for the purposes of Article 9.\n2. To be eligible to be registered under this Article, a trade repository shall be a legal person established in the Union and meet the requirements laid down in Title VII.\n3. The registration of a trade repository shall be effective for the entire territory of the Union.\n4. A registered trade repository shall comply at all times with the conditions for registration. A trade repository shall, without undue delay, notify ESMA of any material changes to the conditions for registration.\nArticle 56\nApplication for registration\n1. A trade repository shall submit an application for registration to ESMA.\n2. ESMA shall assess whether the application is complete within 20 working days of receipt of the application.\nWhere the application is not complete, ESMA shall set a deadline by which the trade repository is to provide additional information.\nAfter assessing an application as complete, ESMA shall notify the trade repository accordingly.\n3. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details of the application for registration referred to in paragraph 1.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n4. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraph 1, ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards specifying the format of the application for registration to ESMA.\nESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 57\nNotification of and consultation with competent authorities prior to registration\n1. If a trade repository which is applying for registration is an entity which is authorised or registered by a competent authority in the Member State where it is established, ESMA shall, without undue delay, notify and consult that competent authority prior to the registration of the trade repository.\n2. ESMA and the relevant competent authority shall exchange all information that is necessary for the registration of the trade repository as well as for the supervision of the entity\u2019s compliance with the conditions of its registration or authorisation in the Member State where it is established.\nArticle 58\nExamination of the application\n1. ESMA shall, within 40 working days from the notification referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 56(2), examine the application for registration based on the compliance of the trade repository with Articles 78 to 81 and shall adopt a fully reasoned registration decision or decision refusing registration.\n2. A decision issued by ESMA pursuant to paragraph 1 shall take effect on the fifth working day following its adoption.\nArticle 59\nNotification of ESMA decisions relating to registration\n1. Where ESMA adopts a registration decision or a decision refusing or withdrawing registration, it shall notify the trade repository within five working days with a fully reasoned explanation of its decision.\nESMA shall, without undue delay, notify the relevant competent authority referred to in Article 57(1) of its decision.\n2. ESMA shall communicate any decision taken in accordance with paragraph 1 to the Commission.\n3. ESMA shall publish on its website a list of trade repositories registered in accordance with this Regulation. That list shall be updated within five working days following the adoption of a decision under paragraph 1.\nArticle 60\nExercise of the powers referred to in Articles 61 to 63\nThe powers conferred on ESMA or any official of or other person authorised by ESMA by Articles 61 to 63 shall not be used to require the disclosure of information or documents which are subject to legal privilege.\nArticle 61\nRequest for information\n1. ESMA may by simple request or by decision require trade repositories and related third parties to whom the trade repositories have outsourced operational functions or activities to provide all information that is necessary in order to carry out its duties under this Regulation.\n2. When sending a simple request for information under paragraph 1, ESMA shall:\n(a)\nrefer to this Article as the legal basis of the request;\n(b)\nstate the purpose of the request;\n(c)\nspecify what information is required;\n(d)\nset a time limit within which the information is to be provided;\n(e)\ninform the person from whom the information is requested that he is not obliged to provide the information but that in case of a voluntary reply to the request the information provided must not be incorrect and misleading; and\n(f)\nindicate the fine provided for in Article 65 in conjunction with point (a) of Section IV of Annex I where the answers to questions asked are incorrect or misleading.\n3. When requiring to supply information under paragraph 1 by decision, ESMA shall:\n(a)\nrefer to this Article as the legal basis of the request;\n(b)\nstate the purpose of the request;\n(c)\nspecify what information is required;\n(d)\nset a time limit within which the information is to be provided;\n(e)\nindicate the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 66 where the production of the required information is incomplete;\n(f)\nindicate the fine provided for in Article 65 in conjunction with point (a) of Section IV of Annex I, where the answers to questions asked are incorrect or misleading; and\n(g)\nindicate the right to appeal the decision before ESMA\u2019s Board of Appeal and to have the decision reviewed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (\u2018Court of Justice\u2019) in accordance with Articles 60 and 61 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n4. The persons referred to in paragraph 1 or their representatives and, in the case of legal persons or associations having no legal personality, the persons authorised to represent them by law or by their constitution shall supply the information requested. Lawyers duly authorised to act may supply the information on behalf of their clients. The latter shall remain fully responsible if the information supplied is incomplete, incorrect or misleading.\n5. ESMA shall, without delay, send a copy of the simple request or of its decision to the competent authority of the Member State where the persons referred to in paragraph 1 concerned by the request for information are domiciled or established.\nArticle 62\nGeneral investigations\n1. In order to carry out its duties under this Regulation, ESMA may conduct necessary investigations of persons referred to in Article 61(1). To that end, the officials and other persons authorised by ESMA shall be empowered to:\n(a)\nexamine any records, data, procedures and any other material relevant to the execution of its tasks irrespective of the medium on which they are stored;\n(b)\ntake or obtain certified copies of or extracts from such records, data, procedures and other material;\n(c)\nsummon and ask any person referred to in Article 61(1) or their representatives or staff for oral or written explanations on facts or documents relating to the subject matter and purpose of the inspection and to record the answers;\n(d)\ninterview any other natural or legal person who consents to be interviewed for the purpose of collecting information relating to the subject matter of an investigation;\n(e)\nrequest records of telephone and data traffic.\n2. The officials and other persons authorised by ESMA for the purposes of the investigations referred to in paragraph 1 shall exercise their powers upon production of a written authorisation specifying the subject matter and purpose of the investigation. That authorisation shall also indicate the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 66 where the production of the required records, data, procedures or any other material, or the answers to questions asked to persons referred to in Article 61(1) are not provided or are incomplete, and the fines provided for in Article 65 in conjunction with point (b) of Section IV of Annex I, where the answers to questions asked to persons referred to in Article 61(1) are incorrect or misleading.\n3. The persons referred to in Article 61(1) are required to submit to investigations launched on the basis of a decision of ESMA. The decision shall specify the subject matter and purpose of the investigation, the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 66, the legal remedies available under Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 and the right to have the decision reviewed by the Court of Justice.\n4. In good time before the investigation, ESMA shall inform the competent authority of the Member State where the investigation is to be carried out of the investigation and of the identity of the authorised persons. Officials of the competent authority concerned shall, upon the request of ESMA, assist those authorised persons in carrying out their duties. Officials of the competent authority concerned may also attend the investigations upon request.\n5. If a request for records of telephone or data traffic referred to in point (e) of paragraph 1 requires authorisation from a judicial authority according to national rules, such authorisation shall be applied for. Such authorisation may also be applied for as a precautionary measure.\n6. Where authorisation as referred to in paragraph 5 is applied for, the national judicial authority shall control that the decision of ESMA is authentic and that the coercive measures envisaged are neither arbitrary nor excessive having regard to the subject matter of the investigations. In its control of the proportionality of the coercive measures, the national judicial authority may ask ESMA for detailed explanations, in particular relating to the grounds ESMA has for suspecting that an infringement of this Regulation has taken place and the seriousness of the suspected infringement and the nature of the involvement of the person subject to the coercive measures. However, the national judicial authority shall not review the necessity for the investigation or demand that it be provided with the information on ESMA\u2019s file. The lawfulness of ESMA\u2019s decision shall be subject to review only by the Court of Justice following the procedure set out in Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 63\nOn-site inspections\n1. In order to carry out its duties under this Regulation, ESMA may conduct all necessary on-site inspections at any business premises or land of the legal persons referred to in Article 61(1). Where the proper conduct and efficiency of the inspection so require, ESMA may carry out the on-site inspection without prior announcement.\n2. The officials and other persons authorised by ESMA to conduct an on-site inspection may enter any business premises or land of the legal persons subject to an investigation decision adopted by ESMA and shall have all the powers stipulated in Article 62(1). They shall also have the power to seal any business premises and books or records for the period of, and to the extent necessary for, the inspection.\n3. The officials and other persons authorised by ESMA to conduct an on-site inspection shall exercise their powers upon production of a written authorisation specifying the subject matter and purpose of the inspection and the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 66 where the persons concerned do not submit to the inspection. In good time before the inspection, ESMA shall give notice of the inspection to the competent authority of the Member State where the inspection is to be conducted.\n4. The persons referred to in Article 61(1) shall submit to on-site inspections ordered by decision of ESMA. The decision shall specify the subject matter and purpose of the inspection, appoint the date on which it is to begin and indicate the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 66, the legal remedies available under Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 as well as the right to have the decision reviewed by the Court of Justice. ESMA shall take such decisions after consulting the competent authority of the Member State where the inspection is to be conducted.\n5. Officials of, as well as those authorised or appointed by, the competent authority of the Member State where the inspection is to be conducted shall, at the request of ESMA, actively assist the officials and other persons authorised by ESMA. To that end, they shall enjoy the powers set out in paragraph 2. Officials of the competent authority of the Member State concerned may also attend the on-site inspections on request.\n6. ESMA may also require competent authorities to carry out specific investigatory tasks and on-site inspections as provided for in this Article and in Article 62(1) on its behalf. To that end, competent authorities shall enjoy the same powers as ESMA as set out in this Article and in Article 62(1).\n7. Where the officials and other accompanying persons authorised by ESMA find that a person opposes an inspection ordered pursuant to this Article, the competent authority of the Member State concerned shall afford them the necessary assistance, requesting, where appropriate, the assistance of the police or of an equivalent enforcement authority, so as to enable them to conduct their on-site inspection.\n8. If the on-site inspection provided for in paragraph 1 or the assistance provided for in paragraph 7 requires authorisation by a judicial authority according to national law, such authorisation shall be applied for. Such authorisation may also be applied for as a precautionary measure.\n9. Where authorisation as referred to in paragraph 8 is applied for, the national judicial authority shall verify that ESMA\u2019s decision is authentic and that the coercive measures envisaged are neither arbitrary nor excessive having regard to the subject matter of the inspection. In its control of the proportionality of the coercive measures, the national judicial authority may ask ESMA for detailed explanations. Such a request for detailed explanations may in particular relate to the grounds ESMA has for suspecting that an infringement of this Regulation has taken place, as well as to the seriousness of the suspected infringement and the nature of the involvement of the person who is subjected to the coercive measures. However, the national judicial authority may not review the necessity for the inspection or demand to be provided with the information on ESMA\u2019s file. The lawfulness of ESMA\u2019s decision shall be subject to review only by the Court of Justice following the procedure set out in Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 64\nProcedural rules for taking supervisory measures and imposing fines\n1. Where, in carrying out its duties under this Regulation, ESMA finds that there are serious indications of the possible existence of facts liable to constitute one or more of the infringements listed in Annex I, ESMA shall appoint an independent investigation officer within ESMA to investigate the matter. The appointed officer shall not be involved or have been directly or indirectly involved in the supervision or the registration process of the trade repository concerned and shall perform his functions independently from ESMA.\n2. The investigation officer shall investigate the alleged infringements, taking into account any comments submitted by the persons who are subject to the investigations, and shall submit a complete file with his findings to ESMA.\nIn order to carry out his tasks, the investigation officer may exercise the power to request information in accordance with Article 61 and to conduct investigations and on-site inspections in accordance with Articles 62 and 63. When using those powers, the investigation officer shall comply with Article 60.\nWhere carrying out his tasks, the investigation officer shall have access to all documents and information gathered by ESMA in its supervisory activities.\n3. Upon completion of his investigation and before submitting the file with his findings to ESMA, the investigation officer shall give the persons subject to the investigations the opportunity to be heard on the matters being investigated. The investigation officer shall base his findings only on facts on which the persons concerned have had the opportunity to comment.\nThe rights of the defence of the persons concerned shall be fully respected during investigations under this Article.\n4. When submitting the file with his findings to ESMA, the investigation officer shall notify that fact to the persons who are subject to the investigations. The persons subject to the investigations shall be entitled to have access to the file, subject to the legitimate interest of other persons in the protection of their business secrets. The right of access to the file shall not extend to confidential information affecting third parties.\n5. On the basis of the file containing the investigation officer\u2019s findings and, when requested by the persons concerned, after having heard the persons subject to the investigations in accordance with Article 67, ESMA shall decide if one or more of the infringements listed in Annex I has been committed by the persons who have been subject to the investigations and, in such a case, shall take a supervisory measure in accordance with Article 73 and impose a fine in accordance with Article 65.\n6. The investigation officer shall not participate in ESMA\u2019s deliberations or in any other way intervene in ESMA\u2019s decision-making process.\n7. The Commission shall adopt further rules of procedure for the exercise of the power to impose fines or periodic penalty payments, including provisions on the rights of the defence, temporal provisions, and the collection of fines or periodic penalty payments, and shall adopt detailed rules on the limitation periods for the imposition and enforcement of penalties.\nThe rules referred to in the first subparagraph shall be adopted by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 82.\n8. ESMA shall refer matters for criminal prosecution to the relevant national authorities where, in carrying out its duties under this Regulation, it finds that there are serious indications of the possible existence of facts liable to constitute criminal offences. In addition, ESMA shall refrain from imposing fines or periodic penalty payments where a prior acquittal or conviction arising from identical fact or facts which are substantially the same has already acquired the force of res judicata as the result of criminal proceedings under national law.\nArticle 65\nFines\n1. Where, in accordance with Article 64(5), ESMA finds that a trade repository has, intentionally or negligently, committed one of the infringements listed in Annex I, it shall adopt a decision imposing a fine in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.\nAn infringement by a trade repository shall be considered to have been committed intentionally if ESMA finds objective factors which demonstrate that the trade repository or its senior management acted deliberately to commit the infringement.\n2. The basic amounts of the fines referred to in paragraph 1 shall be included within the following limits:\n(a)\nfor the infringements referred to in point (c) of Section I of Annex I and in points (c) to (g) of Section II of Annex I, and in points (a) and (b) of Section III of Annex I the amounts of the fines shall be at least EUR 10 000 and shall not exceed EUR 20 000;\n(b)\nfor the infringements referred to in points (a), (b) and (d) to (h) of Section I of Annex I, and in points (a), (b) and (h) of Section II of Annex I, the amounts of the fines shall be at least EUR 5 000 and shall not exceed EUR 10 000.\nIn order to decide whether the basic amount of the fines should be at the lower, the middle or the higher end of the limits set out in the first subparagraph, ESMA shall have regard to the annual turnover of the preceding business year of the trade repository concerned. The basic amount shall be at the lower end of the limit for trade repositories whose annual turnover is below EUR 1 million, the middle of the limit for the trade repository whose turnover is between EUR 1 and 5 million and the higher end of the limit for the trade repository whose annual turnover is higher than EUR 5 million.\n3. The basic amounts set out in paragraph 2 shall be adjusted, if need be, by taking into account aggravating or mitigating factors in accordance with the relevant coefficients set out in Annex II.\nThe relevant aggravating coefficients shall be applied one by one to the basic amount. If more than one aggravating coefficient is applicable, the difference between the basic amount and the amount resulting from the application of each individual aggravating coefficient shall be added to the basic amount.\nThe relevant mitigating coefficients shall be applied one by one to the basic amount. If more than one mitigating coefficient is applicable, the difference between the basic amount and the amount resulting from the application of each individual mitigating coefficient shall be subtracted from the basic amount.\n4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 2 and 3, the amount of the fine shall not exceed 20 % of the annual turnover of the trade repository concerned in the preceding business year but, where the trade repository has directly or indirectly benefited financially from the infringement, the amount of the fine shall be at least equal to that benefit.\nWhere an act or omission of a trade repository constitutes more than one infringement listed in Annex I, only the higher fine calculated in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 and relating to one of those infringements shall apply.\nArticle 66\nPeriodic penalty payments\n1. ESMA shall, by decision, impose periodic penalty payments in order to compel:\n(a)\na trade repository to put an end to an infringement in accordance with a decision taken pursuant to Article 73(1)(a); or\n(b)\na person referred to in Article 61(1):\n(i)\nto supply complete information which has been requested by a decision pursuant to Article 61;\n(ii)\nto submit to an investigation and in particular to produce complete records, data, procedures or any other material required and to complete and correct other information provided in an investigation launched by a decision pursuant to Article 62; or\n(iii)\nto submit to an on-site inspection ordered by a decision taken pursuant to Article 63.\n2. A periodic penalty payment shall be effective and proportionate. The periodic penalty payment shall be imposed for each day of delay.\n3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, the amount of the periodic penalty payments shall be 3 % of the average daily turnover in the preceding business year, or, in the case of natural persons, 2 % of the average daily income in the preceding calendar year. It shall be calculated from the date stipulated in the decision imposing the periodic penalty payment.\n4. A periodic penalty payment shall be imposed for a maximum period of six months following the notification of ESMA\u2019s decision. Following the end of the period, ESMA shall review the measure.\nArticle 67\nHearing of the persons concerned\n1. Before taking any decision on a fine or periodic penalty payment under Articles 65 and 66, ESMA shall give the persons subject to the proceedings the opportunity to be heard on its findings. ESMA shall base its decisions only on findings on which the persons subject to the proceedings have had an opportunity to comment.\n2. The rights of the defence of the persons subject to the proceedings shall be fully respected in the proceedings. They shall be entitled to have access to ESMA\u2019s file, subject to the legitimate interest of other persons in the protection of their business secrets. The right of access to the file shall not extend to confidential information or ESMA\u2019s internal preparatory documents.\nArticle 68\nDisclosure, nature, enforcement and allocation of fines and periodic penalty payments\n1. ESMA shall disclose to the public every fine and periodic penalty payment that has been imposed pursuant to Articles 65 and 66 unless such disclosure to the public would seriously jeopardise the financial markets or cause disproportionate damage to the parties involved. Such disclosure shall not contain personal data within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\n2. Fines and periodic penalty payments imposed pursuant to Articles 65 and 66 shall be of an administrative nature.\n3. Where ESMA decides to impose no fines or penalty payments, it shall inform the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, and the competent authorities of the Member State concerned accordingly and shall set out the reasons for its decision.\n4. Fines and periodic penalty payments imposed pursuant to Articles 65 and 66 shall be enforceable.\nEnforcement shall be governed by the rules of civil procedure in force in the State in the territory of which it is carried out. The order for its enforcement shall be appended to the decision without other formality than verification of the authenticity of the decision by the authority which the government of each Member State shall designate for that purpose and shall make known to ESMA and to the Court of Justice.\nWhen those formalities have been completed on application by the party concerned, the latter may proceed to enforcement in accordance with the national law, by bringing the matter directly before the competent body.\nEnforcement may be suspended only by a decision of the Court of Justice. However, the courts of the Member State concerned shall have jurisdiction over complaints that enforcement is being carried out in an irregular manner.\n5. The amounts of the fines and periodic penalty payments shall be allocated to the general budget of the European Union.\nArticle 69\nReview by the Court of Justice\nThe Court of Justice shall have unlimited jurisdiction to review decisions whereby ESMA has imposed a fine or a periodic penalty payment. It may annul, reduce or increase the fine or periodic penalty payment imposed.\nArticle 70\nAmendments to Annex II\nIn order to take account of developments on financial markets the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 82 concerning measures to amend Annex II.\nArticle 71\nWithdrawal of registration\n1. Without prejudice to Article 73, ESMA shall withdraw the registration of a trade repository where the trade repository:\n(a)\nexpressly renounces the registration or has provided no services for the preceding six months;\n(b)\nobtained the registration by making false statements or by any other irregular means;\n(c)\nno longer meets the conditions under which it was registered.\n2. ESMA shall, without undue delay, notify the relevant competent authority referred to in Article 57(1) of a decision to withdraw the registration of a trade repository.\n3. The competent authority of a Member State in which the trade repository performs its services and activities and which considers that one of the conditions referred to in paragraph 1 has been met, may request ESMA to examine whether the conditions for the withdrawal of registration of the trade repository concerned are met. Where ESMA decides not to withdraw the registration of the trade repository concerned, it shall provide full reasons.\n4. The competent authority referred to in paragraph 3 shall be the authority designated under Article 22.\nArticle 72\nSupervisory fees\n1. ESMA shall charge fees to the trade repositories in accordance with this Regulation and in accordance with the delegated acts adopted pursuant to paragraph 3. Those fees shall fully cover ESMA\u2019s necessary expenditure relating to the registration and supervision of trade repositories and the reimbursement of any costs that the competent authorities may incur carrying out work pursuant to this Regulation in particular as a result of any delegation of tasks in accordance with Article 74.\n2. The amount of a fee charged to a trade repository shall cover all administrative costs incurred by ESMA for its registration and supervision activities and be proportionate to the turnover of the trade repository concerned.\n3. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 82 to specify further the type of fees, the matters for which fees are due, the amount of the fees and the manner in which they are to be paid.\nArticle 73\nSupervisory measures by ESMA\n1. Where, in accordance with Article 64(5), ESMA finds that a trade repository has committed one of the infringements listed in Annex I, it shall take one or more of the following decisions:\n(a)\nrequiring the trade repository to bring the infringement to an end;\n(b)\nimposing fines under Article 65;\n(c)\nissuing public notices;\n(d)\nas a last resort, withdrawing the registration of the trade repository.\n2. When taking the decisions referred to in paragraph 1, ESMA shall take into account the nature and seriousness of the infringement, having regard to the following criteria:\n(a)\nthe duration and frequency of the infringement;\n(b)\nwhether the infringement has revealed serious or systemic weaknesses in the undertaking\u2019s procedures or in its management systems or internal controls;\n(c)\nwhether financial crime has been occasioned, facilitated or otherwise attributable to the infringement;\n(d)\nwhether the infringement has been committed intentionally or negligently.\n3. Without undue delay, ESMA shall notify any decision adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 to the trade repository concerned, and shall communicate it to the competent authorities of the Member States and to the Commission. It shall publicly disclose any such decision on its website within 10 working days from the date when it was adopted.\nWhen making public its decision as referred to in the first subparagraph, ESMA shall also make public the right of the trade repository concerned to appeal the decision, the fact, where relevant, that such an appeal has been lodged, specifying that such an appeal does not have suspensive effect, and the fact that it is possible for ESMA\u2019s Board of Appeal to suspend the application of the contested decision in accordance with Article 60(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 74\nDelegation of tasks by ESMA to competent authorities\n1. Where necessary for the proper performance of a supervisory task, ESMA may delegate specific supervisory tasks to the competent authority of a Member State in accordance with the guidelines issued by ESMA pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. Such specific supervisory tasks may, in particular, include the power to carry out requests for information in accordance with Article 61 and to conduct investigations and on-site inspections in accordance with Article 62 and Article 63(6).\n2. Prior to delegation of a task, ESMA shall consult the relevant competent authority. Such consultation shall concern:\n(a)\nthe scope of the task to be delegated;\n(b)\nthe timetable for the performance of the task; and\n(c)\nthe transmission of necessary information by and to ESMA.\n3. In accordance with the regulation on fees adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 72(3), ESMA shall reimburse a competent authority for costs incurred as a result of carrying out delegated tasks.\n4. ESMA shall review the decision referred to in paragraph 1 at appropriate intervals. A delegation may be revoked at any time.\n5. A delegation of tasks shall not affect the responsibility of ESMA and shall not limit ESMA\u2019s ability to conduct and oversee the delegated activity. Supervisory responsibilities under this Regulation, including registration decisions, final assessments and follow-up decisions concerning infringements, shall not be delegated.\nCHAPTER 2\nRelations with third countries\nArticle 75\nEquivalence and international agreements\n1. The Commission may adopt an implementing act determining that the legal and supervisory arrangements of a third country ensure that:\n(a)\ntrade repositories authorised in that third country comply with legally binding requirements which are equivalent to those laid down in this Regulation;\n(b)\neffective supervision and enforcement of trade repositories takes place in that third country on an ongoing basis; and\n(c)\nguarantees of professional secrecy exist, including the protection of business secrets shared with third parties by the authorities, and they are at least equivalent to those set out in this Regulation.\nThat implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 86(2).\n2. Where appropriate, and in any case after adopting an implementing act as referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall submit recommendations to the Council for the negotiation of international agreements with the relevant third countries regarding mutual access to, and exchange of information on, derivative contracts held in trade repositories which are established in that third country, in a way that ensures that Union authorities, including ESMA, have immediate and continuous access to all the information needed for the exercise of their duties.\n3. After conclusion of the agreements referred to in paragraph 2, and in accordance with them, ESMA shall establish cooperation arrangements with the competent authorities of the relevant third countries. Those arrangements shall specify at least:\n(a)\na mechanism for the exchange of information between ESMA and any other Union authorities that exercise responsibilities in accordance with this Regulation on the one hand and the relevant competent authorities of third countries concerned on the other; and\n(b)\nprocedures concerning the coordination of supervisory activities.\n4. ESMA shall apply Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 with regard to the transfer of personal data to a third country.\nArticle 76\nCooperation arrangements\nRelevant authorities of third countries that do not have any trade repository established in their jurisdiction may contact ESMA with a view to establishing cooperation arrangements to access information on derivatives contracts held in Union trade repositories.\nESMA may establish cooperation arrangements with those relevant authorities regarding access to information on derivatives contracts held in Union trade repositories that these authorities need to fulfil their respective responsibilities and mandates, provided that guarantees of professional secrecy exist, including the protection of business secrets shared by the authorities with third parties.\nArticle 77\nRecognition of trade repositories\n1. A trade repository established in a third country may provide its services and activities to entities established in the Union for the purposes of Article 9 only after its recognition by ESMA in accordance with paragraph 2.\n2. A trade repository referred to in paragraph 1 shall submit to ESMA its application for recognition together with all necessary information, including at least the information necessary to verify that the trade repository is authorised and subject to effective supervision in a third country which:\n(a)\nhas been recognised by the Commission, by means of an implementing act pursuant to Article 75(1), as having an equivalent and enforceable regulatory and supervisory framework;\n(b)\nhas entered into an international agreement with the Union pursuant to Article 75(2); and\n(c)\nhas entered into cooperation arrangements pursuant to Article 75(3) to ensure that Union authorities, including ESMA, have immediate and continuous access to all the necessary information.\nWithin 30 working days of receipt of the application, ESMA shall assess whether the application is complete. If the application is not complete, ESMA shall set a deadline by which the applicant trade repository has to provide additional information.\nWithin 180 working days of the submission of a complete application, ESMA shall inform the applicant trade repository in writing with a fully reasoned explanation whether the recognition has been granted or refused.\nESMA shall publish on its website a list of the trade repositories recognised in accordance with this Regulation.\nTITLE VII\nREQUIREMENTS FOR TRADE REPOSITORIES\nArticle 78\nGeneral requirements\n1. A trade repository shall have robust governance arrangements, which include a clear organisational structure with well defined, transparent and consistent lines of responsibility and adequate internal control mechanisms, including sound administrative and accounting procedures, which prevent any disclosure of confidential information.\n2. A trade repository shall maintain and operate effective written organisational and administrative arrangements to identify and manage any potential conflicts of interest concerning its managers, employees, or any person directly or indirectly linked to them by close links.\n3. A trade repository shall establish adequate policies and procedures sufficient to ensure its compliance, including of its managers and employees, with all the provisions of this Regulation.\n4. A trade repository shall maintain and operate an adequate organisational structure to ensure continuity and orderly functioning of the trade repository in the performance of its services and activities. It shall employ appropriate and proportionate systems, resources and procedures.\n5. Where a trade repository offers ancillary services such as trade confirmation, trade matching, credit event servicing, portfolio reconciliation or portfolio compression services, the trade repository shall maintain those ancillary services operationally separate from the trade repository\u2019s function of centrally collecting and maintaining records of derivatives.\n6. The senior management and members of the board of a trade repository shall be of sufficiently good repute and experience so as to ensure the sound and prudent management of the trade repository.\n7. A trade repository shall have objective, non-discriminatory and publicly disclosed requirements for access by undertakings subject to the reporting obligation under Article 9. A trade repository shall grant service providers non-discriminatory access to information maintained by the trade repository, on condition that the relevant counterparties have provided their consent. Criteria that restrict access shall only be permitted to the extent that their objective is to control the risk to the data maintained by a trade repository.\n8. A trade repository shall publicly disclose the prices and fees associated with services provided under this Regulation. It shall disclose the prices and fees of each service provided separately, including discounts and rebates and the conditions to benefit from those reductions. It shall allow reporting entities to access specific services separately. The prices and fees charged by a trade repository shall be cost-related.\nArticle 79\nOperational reliability\n1. A trade repository shall identify sources of operational risk and minimise them through the development of appropriate systems, controls and procedures. Such systems shall be reliable and secure and have adequate capacity to handle the information received.\n2. A trade repository shall establish, implement and maintain an adequate business continuity policy and disaster recovery plan aiming at ensuring the maintenance of its functions, the timely recovery of operations and the fulfilment of the trade repository\u2019s obligations. Such a plan shall at least provide for the establishment of backup facilities.\n3. A trade repository from which registration has been withdrawn shall ensure orderly substitution including the transfer of data to other trade repositories and the redirection of reporting flows to other trade repositories.\nArticle 80\nSafeguarding and recording\n1. A trade repository shall ensure the confidentiality, integrity and protection of the information received under Article 9.\n2. A trade repository may only use the data it receives under this Regulation for commercial purposes if the relevant counterparties have provided their consent.\n3. A trade repository shall promptly record the information received under Article 9 and shall maintain it for at least 10 years following the termination of the relevant contracts. It shall employ timely and efficient record keeping procedures to document changes to recorded information.\n4. A trade repository shall calculate the positions by class of derivatives and by reporting entity based on the details of the derivative contracts reported in accordance with Article 9.\n5. A trade repository shall allow the parties to a contract to access and correct the information on that contract in a timely manner.\n6. A trade repository shall take all reasonable steps to prevent any misuse of the information maintained in its systems.\nA natural person who has a close link with a trade repository or a legal person that has a parent undertaking or a subsidiary relationship with the trade repository shall not use confidential information recorded in a trade repository for commercial purposes.\nArticle 81\nTransparency and data availability\n1. A trade repository shall regularly, and in an easily accessible way, publish aggregate positions by class of derivatives on the contracts reported to it.\n2. A trade repository shall collect and maintain data and shall ensure that the entities referred to in paragraph 3 have direct and immediate access to the details of derivatives contracts they need to fulfil their respective responsibilities and mandates.\n3. A trade repository shall make the necessary information available to the following entities to enable them to fulfil their respective responsibilities and mandates:\n(a)\nESMA;\n(b)\nthe ESRB;\n(c)\nthe competent authority supervising CCPs accessing the trade repository;\n(d)\nthe competent authority supervising the trading venues of the reported contracts;\n(e)\nthe relevant members of the ESCB;\n(f)\nthe relevant authorities of a third country that has entered into an international agreement with the Union as referred to in Article 75;\n(g)\nsupervisory authorities appointed under Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids (32);\n(h)\nthe relevant Union securities and market authorities;\n(i)\nthe relevant authorities of a third country that have entered into a cooperation arrangement with ESMA as referred to in Article 76;\n(j)\nthe Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators.\n4. ESMA shall share the information necessary for the exercise of their duties with other relevant Union authorities.\n5. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall, after consulting the members of the ESCB, develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the frequency and the details of the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 as well as operational standards required in order to aggregate and compare data across repositories and for the entities referred to in paragraph 3 to have access to information as necessary. Those draft regulatory technical standards shall aim to ensure that the information published under paragraph 1 is not capable of identifying a party to any contract.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 82\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred to the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The delegation of power referred to in Article 1(6), Article 64(7), Article 70, Article 72(3) and Article 85(2) shall be conferred to the Commission for an indeterminate period of time.\n3. Before adopting a delegated act, the Commission shall endeavour to consult ESMA.\n4. A delegation of power referred to in Article 1(6), Article 64(7), Article 70, Article 72(3) and Article 85(2) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of power specified in that decision. The decision to revoke shall take effect on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union or on a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n5. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n6. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 1(6), Article 64(7), Article 70, Article 72(3) and Article 85(2) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed by either the European Parliament or the Council within a period of three months of notification of the act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament or the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by three months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nTITLE VIII\nCOMMON PROVISIONS\nArticle 83\nProfessional secrecy\n1. The obligation of professional secrecy shall apply to all persons who work or have worked for the competent authorities designated in accordance with Article 22 and the authorities referred to in Article 81(3), for ESMA, or for auditors and experts instructed by the competent authorities or ESMA. No confidential information that those persons receive in the course of their duties shall be divulged to any person or authority, except in summary or aggregate form such that an individual CCP, trade repository or any other person cannot be identified, without prejudice to cases covered by criminal or tax law or to this Regulation.\n2. Where a CCP has been declared bankrupt or is being compulsorily wound up, confidential information which does not concern third parties may be divulged in civil or commercial proceedings where necessary for carrying out the proceeding.\n3. Without prejudice to cases covered by criminal or tax law, the competent authorities, ESMA, bodies or natural or legal persons other than competent authorities which receive confidential information pursuant to this Regulation may use it only in the performance of their duties and for the exercise of their functions, in the case of the competent authorities, within the scope of this Regulation or, in the case of other authorities, bodies or natural or legal persons, for the purpose for which such information was provided to them or in the context of administrative or judicial proceedings specifically relating to the exercise of those functions, or both. Where ESMA, the competent authority or another authority, body or person communicating information consents thereto, the authority receiving the information may use it for other non-commercial purposes.\n4. Any confidential information received, exchanged or transmitted pursuant to this Regulation shall be subject to the conditions of professional secrecy laid down in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. However, those conditions shall not prevent ESMA, the competent authorities or the relevant central banks from exchanging or transmitting confidential information in accordance with this Regulation and with other legislation applicable to investment firms, credit institutions, pension funds, UCITS, AIFMs, insurance and reinsurance intermediaries, insurance undertakings, regulated markets or market operators or otherwise with the consent of the competent authority or other authority or body or natural or legal person that communicated the information.\n5. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not prevent the competent authorities from exchanging or transmitting confidential information, in accordance with national law, that has not been received from a competent authority of another Member State.\nArticle 84\nExchange of information\n1. Competent authorities, ESMA, and other relevant authorities shall, without undue delay, provide one another with the information required for the purposes of carrying out their duties.\n2. Competent authorities, ESMA, other relevant authorities and other bodies or natural and legal persons receiving confidential information in the exercise of their duties under this Regulation shall use it only in the course of their duties.\n3. Competent authorities shall communicate information to the relevant members of the ESCB where such information is relevant for the exercise of their duties.\nTITLE IX\nTRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 85\nReports and review\n1. By 17 August 2015, the Commission shall review and prepare a general report on this Regulation. The Commission shall submit the report to the European Parliament and the Council, together with any appropriate proposals.\nThe Commission shall in particular:\n(a)\nassess, in cooperation with the members of the ESCB, the need for any measure to facilitate the access of CCPs to central bank liquidity facilities;\n(b)\nassess, in coordination with ESMA and the relevant sectoral authorities, the systemic importance of the transactions of non-financial firms in OTC derivatives and, in particular, the impact of this Regulation on the use of OTC derivatives by non-financial firms;\n(c)\nassess, in the light of experience, the functioning of the supervisory framework for CCPs, including the effectiveness of supervisory colleges, the respective voting modalities laid down in Article 19(3), and the role of ESMA, in particular during the authorisation process for CCPs;\n(d)\nassess, in cooperation with ESMA and ESRB, the efficiency of margining requirements to limit procyclicality and the need to define additional intervention capacity in this area;\n(e)\nassess in cooperation with ESMA the evolution of CCP\u2019s policies on collateral margining and securing requirements and their adaptation to the specific activities and risk profiles of their users.\nThe assessment referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph shall take into account any result of ongoing work between central banks at Union and international level. The assessment shall also take into account the principle of independence of central banks and their right to provide access to liquidity facilities at their own discretion as well as the potential unintended effect on the behaviour of the CCPs or the internal market. Any accompanying proposals shall not, either directly or indirectly, discriminate against any Member State or group of Member States as a venue for clearing services.\n2. By 17 August 2014, the Commission shall prepare a report, after consulting ESMA and EIOPA, assessing the progress and effort made by CCPs in developing technical solutions for the transfer by pension scheme arrangements of non-cash collateral as variation margins, as well as the need for any measures to facilitate such solution. If the Commission considers that the necessary effort to develop appropriate technical solutions has not been made and that the adverse effect of centrally clearing derivative contracts on the retirement benefits of future pensioners remain unchanged, it shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 82 to extend the three-year period referred to in Article 89(1) once by two years and once by one year.\n3. ESMA shall submit to the Commission reports:\n(a)\non the application of the clearing obligation under Title II and in particular the absence of clearing obligation for OTC derivative contracts entered into before the date of entry into force of this Regulation;\n(b)\non the application of the identification procedure under Article 5(3);\n(c)\non the application of the segregation requirements laid down in Article 39;\n(d)\non the extension of the scope of interoperability arrangements under Title V to transactions in classes of financial instruments other than transferable securities and money-market instruments;\n(e)\non the access of CCPs to trading venues, the effects on competitiveness of certain practices, and the impact on liquidity fragmentation;\n(f)\non ESMA\u2019s staffing and resources needs arising from the assumption of its powers and duties in accordance with this Regulation;\n(g)\non the impact of the application of additional requirements by Member States pursuant to Article 14(5).\nThose reports shall be communicated to the Commission by 30 September 2014 for the purposes of paragraph 1. They shall also be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council.\n4. The Commission shall, in cooperation with the Member States and ESMA, and after requesting the assessment of the ESRB, draw up an annual report assessing any possible systemic risk and cost implications of interoperability arrangements.\nThe report shall focus at least on the number and complexity of such arrangements, and the adequacy of risk-management systems and models. The Commission shall submit the report to the European Parliament and the Council, together with any appropriate proposals.\nThe ESRB shall provide the Commission with its assessment of any possible systemic risk implications of interoperability arrangements.\n5. ESMA shall present an annual report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the penalties imposed by competent authorities, including supervisory measures, fines and periodic penalty payments.\nArticle 86\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the European Securities Committee established by Commission Decision 2001/528/EC (33). That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 87\nAmendment to Directive 98/26/EC\n1. In Article 9(1) of Directive 98/26/EC, the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Where a system operator has provided collateral security to another system operator in connection with an interoperable system, the rights of the providing system operator to that collateral security shall not be affected by insolvency proceedings against the receiving system operator.\u2019.\n2. Member States shall adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with point (1) by 17 August 2014. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nWhen Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to Directive 98/26/EC or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.\nArticle 88\nWebsites\n1. ESMA shall maintain a website which provides details of the following:\n(a)\ncontracts eligible for the clearing obligation under Article 5;\n(b)\npenalties imposed for breaches of Articles 4, 5 and 7 to 11;\n(c)\nCCPs authorised to offer services or activities in the Union that are established in the Union, and the services or activities which they are authorised to provide or perform, including the classes of financial instruments covered by their authorisation;\n(d)\npenalties imposed for breaches of Titles IV and V;\n(e)\nCCPs authorised to offer services or activities in the Union established in a third country, and the services or activities which they are authorised to provide or perform, including the classes of financial instruments covered by their authorisation;\n(f)\ntrade repositories authorised to offer services or activities in the Union;\n(g)\nfines and periodic penalty payments imposed in accordance with Articles 65 and 66;\n(h)\nthe public register referred to in Article 6.\n2. For the purposes of points (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 1, competent authorities shall maintain websites, which shall be linked to the ESMA website.\n3. All websites referred to in this Article shall be publicly accessible and regularly updated, and shall provide information in a clear format.\nArticle 89\nTransitional provisions\n1. For three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the clearing obligation set out in Article 4 shall not apply to OTC derivative contracts that are objectively measurable as reducing investment risks directly relating to the financial solvency of pension scheme arrangements as defined in Article 2(10). The transitional period shall also apply to entities established for the purpose of providing compensation to members of pension scheme arrangements in case of a default.\nThe OTC derivative contracts, which would otherwise be subject to the clearing obligation under Article 4, entered into by those entities during this period shall be subject to the requirements laid down in Article 11.\n2. In relation to pension scheme arrangements referred to in Article 2(10)(c) and (d) the exemption referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be granted by the relevant competent authority for types of entities or types of arrangements. After receiving the request, the competent authority shall notify ESMA and EIOPA. Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the notification ESMA, after consulting EIOPA, shall issue an opinion assessing compliance of the type of entities or the type of arrangements with Article 2(10)(c) or (d) as well as the reasons why an exemption is justified due to difficulties in meeting the variation margin requirements. The competent authority shall only grant an exemption where it is fully satisfied that the type of entities or the type of arrangements complies with Article 2(10)(c) or (d) and that they encounter difficulties in meeting the variation margin requirements. The competent authority shall adopt a decision within ten working days of receipt of ESMA\u2019s opinion, taking due account of that opinion. If the competent authority does not agree with ESMA\u2019s opinion, it shall give full reasons in its decision and shall explain any significant deviation therefrom.\nESMA shall publish on its website a list of types of entities and types of arrangements referred to in Article 2(10)(c) and (d) which has been granted an exemption in accordance with the first subparagraph. To further strengthen consistency in supervisory outcomes, ESMA shall conduct a peer review of the entities included on the list every year in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n3. A CCP that has been authorised in its Member State of establishment to provide clearing services in accordance with the national law of that Member State before all the regulatory technical standards under Articles 4, 5, 8 to 11, 16, 18, 25, 26, 29, 34, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 56 and 81 are adopted by the Commission, shall apply for authorisation under Article 14 for the purposes of this Regulation within six months of the date of entry into force of all the regulatory technical standards under Articles 16, 25, 26, 29, 34, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47 and 49.\nA CCP established in a third country, which has been recognised to provide clearing services in a Member State in accordance with the national law of that Member State before all the regulatory technical standards under Articles 16, 26, 29, 34, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47 and 49 are adopted by the Commission, shall apply for recognition under Article 25 for the purposes of this Regulation within six months of the date of entry into force of all the regulatory technical standards under Articles 16, 26, 29, 34, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47 and 49.\n4. Until a decision is made under this Regulation on the authorisation or recognition of a CCP, the respective national rules on authorisation and recognition of CCPs shall continue to apply and the CCP shall continue to be supervised by the competent authority of its Member State of establishment or recognition.\n5. Where a competent authority authorised a CCP to clear a given class of derivatives in accordance with the national law of its Member State before all the regulatory technical standards under Articles 16, 26, 29, 34, 41, 42, 45, 47 and 49 are adopted by the Commission, the competent authority of that Member State shall notify ESMA of that authorisation within one month of the date of entry into force of the regulatory technical standards under Article 5(1).\nWhere a competent authority recognised a CCP established in a third country to provide clearing services in accordance with the national law of its Member State before all the regulatory technical standards under Articles 16, 26, 29, 34, 41, 42, 45, 47 and 49 are adopted by the Commission, the competent authority of that Member State shall notify ESMA of that recognition within one month of the date of entry into force of the regulatory technical standards under Article 5(1).\n6. A trade repository that has been authorised or registered in its Member State of establishment to collect and maintain the records of derivatives in accordance with the national law of that Member State before all the regulatory and implementing technical standards under Articles 9, 56 and 81 are adopted by the Commission, shall apply for registration under Article 55 within six months of the date of entry into force of those regulatory and implementing technical standards.\nA trade repository established in a third country, which is allowed to collect and maintain the records of derivatives in a Member State in accordance with the national law of that Member State before all the regulatory and implementing technical standards under Articles 9, 56 and 81 are adopted by the Commission, shall apply for recognition under Article 77 within six months of the date of entry into force of those regulatory and implementing technical standards.\n7. Until a decision is made under this Regulation on the registration or recognition of a trade repository, the respective national rules on authorisation, registration and recognition of trade repositories shall continue to apply and the trade repository shall continue to be supervised by the competent authority of its Member State of establishment or recognition.\n8. A trade repository that has been authorised or registered in its Member State of establishment to collect and maintain the records of derivatives in accordance with the national law of that Member State before the regulatory and implementing technical standards under Articles 56 and 81 are adopted by the Commission, can be used to meet the reporting requirement under Article 9 until the time a decision is made on the registration of the trade repository under this Regulation.\nA trade repository established in a third country which has been allowed to collect and maintain the records of derivatives in accordance with the national law of a Member State before all the regulatory and implementing technical standards under Articles 56 and 81 are adopted by the Commission, can be used to meet the reporting requirement under Article 9 until the time a decision is made on the recognition of the trade repository under this Regulation.\n9. Notwithstanding Article 81(3)(f), where no international agreement is in place between a third country and the Union as referred to in Article 75, a trade repository may make the necessary information available to the relevant authorities of that third country until 17 August 2013 provided that it notifies ESMA.\nArticle 90\nStaff and resources of ESMA\nBy 31 December 2012, ESMA shall assess the staffing and resources needs arising from the assumption of its powers and duties in accordance with this Regulation and submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.\nArticle 91\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["54", "79", "14", "51", "74", "92", "78", "1", "94", "86", "59", "65", "98", "46", "25", "34", "82", "42", "55", "68", "69", "6", "45", "41", "87", "31", "56", "21", "4", "71", "No Label", "2", "11", "30"], "gold": ["2", "11", "30"]}
-{"input": "Contents\nII Non-legislative acts\npage\nREGULATIONS\n*\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 554/2010 of 24 June 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 2488/2000 maintaining a freeze of funds in relation to Mr Milosevic and those persons associated with him\n1\n*\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 555/2010 of 24 June 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1412/2006 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Lebanon\n5\n*\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 556/2010 of 24 June 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)\n9\n*\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 557/2010 of 24 June 2010 amending Regulations (EC) No 1518/2003, (EC) No 596/2004, (EC) No 633/2004, (EC) No 1345/2005, (EC) No 2014/2005, (EC) No 239/2007, (EC) No 1299/2007, (EC) No 543/2008, (EC) No 589/2008, (EC) No 617/2008 and (EC) No 826/2008 as regards the notification obligations within the common organisation of agricultural markets\n13\n*\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 558/2010 of 24 June 2010 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin ( 1 )\n18\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 559/2010 of 24 June 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\n22\nCorrigenda\n*\nCorrigendum to the Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2009 - Amending Budget No 2 ( OJ L 18, 22.1.2010 )\n24\n(1) Text with EEA relevance\nEN\nActs whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.\nThe titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.\nII Non-legislative acts\nREGULATIONS\n25.6.2010\nEN\nOfficial Journal of the European Union\nL 159/1\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 554/2010\nof 24 June 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 2488/2000 maintaining a freeze of funds in relation to Mr Milosevic and those persons associated with him\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Common Position 2000/599/CFSP of 9 October 2000 on support to a democratic FRY and the immediate lifting of certain restrictive measures (1), and to Council Common Position 2000/696/CFSP of 10 November 2000 on the maintenance of specific restrictive measures directed against Mr Milosevic and persons associated with him (2),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2488/2000 of 10 November 2000 maintaining a freeze of funds in relation to Mr Milosevic and those persons associated with him (3) confirmed certain restrictive measures in accordance with Common Positions 2000/599/CFSP and 2000/696/CFSP.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to align Regulation (EC) No 2488/2000 with recent developments in sanctions practice, on the one hand as regards the identification of competent authorities and on the other, as regards the Article on Union jurisdiction.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 2488/2000 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 2488/2000 is amended as follows:\n1.\nParagraph 2 of Article 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Any information that the provisions of this Regulation are being, or have been circumvented shall be notified to the competent authorities as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II and/or to the Commission.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\n1. Without prejudice to the applicable rules concerning reporting, confidentiality and professional secrecy, natural and legal persons, entities and bodies shall:\n(a)\nsupply immediately any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 1, to the competent authorities of Member States as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II for the country where they are resident or located and shall transmit such information, directly or through the competent authority as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II, to the Commission; and\n(b)\ncooperate with that competent authority in any verification of this information.\n2. Any additional information directly received by the Commission shall be made available to the Member State concerned.\n3. Any information provided or received in accordance with this Article shall be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.\u2019;\n3.\nParagraphs 2 and 3 of Article 4 are replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The Commission shall be empowered:\n(a)\nto amend Annex I, taking into account decisions implementing Common Position 2000/696/CFSP,\n(b)\non an exceptional basis, to grant exemptions to Article 1 for strictly humanitarian purposes,\n(c)\nto amend Annex II on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\n3. Any request by a person for an exemption referred to in paragraph 2(b) or for an amendment of Annex I shall be made through the competent authorities as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II.\nThe competent authorities of the Member States shall verify, to the fullest extent possible, the information provided by the persons making a request.\u2019;\n4.\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 8a\n1. Member States shall designate the competent authorities referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 4 and identify them in the websites as listed in Annex II. Member States shall notify the Commission of any changes to the addresses of their websites listed in Annex II before such changes take effect.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of their competent authorities, including the contact details of those competent authorities, by 15 July 2010 and shall notify the Commission without delay of any subsequent amendment.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 10 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 10\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\u2019;\n6.\nAnnex II is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 June 2010.", "references": ["25", "54", "48", "34", "2", "15", "32", "63", "99", "23", "60", "16", "31", "51", "95", "5", "27", "35", "88", "94", "49", "93", "42", "77", "45", "71", "70", "91", "18", "21", "No Label", "39", "41", "61"], "gold": ["39", "41", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 490/2012\nof 8 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 June 2012.", "references": ["21", "71", "38", "91", "96", "69", "52", "93", "40", "27", "25", "99", "64", "51", "56", "4", "57", "80", "54", "75", "11", "79", "43", "90", "32", "15", "65", "94", "14", "37", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 622/2011\nof 24 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 June 2011.", "references": ["40", "1", "49", "57", "91", "59", "62", "67", "44", "23", "16", "98", "33", "45", "86", "80", "34", "48", "20", "56", "72", "21", "88", "41", "43", "4", "27", "47", "2", "18", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 612/2012\nof 9 July 2012\namending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the international road haulage market\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (1), and in particular Articles 4(4) and 5(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe colour of the Community licence model is defined as \u2018Colour Pantone light blue\u2019 at the beginning of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009.\n(2)\nThe colour of the Driver attestation model is defined as \u2018Colour Pantone pink\u2019 at the beginning of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009.\n(3)\nThere is a need to specify the colours more precisely in order to encourage homogeneity and uniform interpretation and application of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1072/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Annex II, in the fourth line, the sentence \u2018Colour Pantone light blue, format DIN A4 cellulose paper 100 g/m2 or more\u2019 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Colour Pantone light blue 290, or as close as possible to this colour, format DIN A4 cellulose paper 100 g/m2 or more\u2019;\n(2)\nin Annex III, in the fourth line, the sentence \u2018Colour Pantone pink, format DIN A4 cellulose paper 100 g/m2 or more\u2019 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Colour Pantone pink 182, or as close as possible to this colour, format DIN A4 cellulose paper 100 g/m2 or more\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 July 2012.", "references": ["77", "31", "51", "10", "92", "58", "96", "80", "17", "4", "3", "41", "18", "81", "28", "30", "5", "16", "49", "97", "93", "95", "60", "12", "0", "94", "91", "90", "23", "15", "No Label", "20", "53", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["20", "53", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 831/2010\nof 20 September 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of September 2010 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of September 2010 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2010 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2010 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2010.", "references": ["64", "36", "68", "78", "84", "54", "86", "61", "33", "35", "39", "81", "63", "94", "2", "44", "92", "87", "50", "24", "76", "1", "34", "6", "70", "75", "18", "28", "27", "99", "No Label", "21", "69"], "gold": ["21", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 September 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the amended Constitution and Rules of Procedure of the International Rubber Study Group\n(2011/664/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(3) and (4) in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFurther to several rounds of negotiation, on 14 July 2011 the Heads of Delegation of the International Rubber Study Group (\u2018the Group\u2019) agreed on the text of the amendments to the Group\u2019s Constitution and Rules of Procedure.\n(2)\nThe Union is a member of the Group.\n(3)\nThose Member States of the Union that were members of the Group have served formal notices of withdrawal and have withdrawn from the Group as from 1 July 2011.\n(4)\nThe adoption of the Group\u2019s amended Constitution and Rules of Procedure is indispensable for confirming the Group\u2019s new Headquarters and for making explicit provisions regarding the status of the Union within the Group, as well as for realigning the organisational structure, budget contributions and decision-making procedures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the amended Constitution and Rules of Procedure of the International Rubber Study Group (\u2018the Group\u2019), as agreed by the Heads of Delegation at the meeting on 14 July 2011 in Singapore, is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to their conclusion.\nArticle 2\nThe amended Constitution and Rules of Procedure shall be applied on a provisional basis (1), pending the completion of the procedures for their conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall be implemented by the Commission in the form of a letter to be sent to the Group confirming the agreement of the Union to the texts of the amended Constitution and Rules of Procedure and indicating the provisional application of the amended Constitution and Rules of Procedure by the Union pending completion of its procedure for their conclusion.\nThe Commission is also empowered to deposit the declaration of competence attached to this Decision with the Secretary-General of the Group in accordance with Article XVI, paragraph 2, of the amended Constitution.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2011.", "references": ["77", "47", "7", "65", "15", "41", "87", "69", "72", "78", "16", "57", "51", "11", "46", "86", "75", "82", "43", "98", "61", "40", "20", "50", "12", "80", "52", "94", "29", "66", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "83"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2012/144/CFSP\nof 8 March 2012\nimplementing Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 6(1) and (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\n(2)\nOn the basis of a review of the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2010/656/CFSP apply, the Council considers that there are no longer grounds for keeping certain persons on that list.\n(3)\nFurthermore, the information relating to a person on the list in Annex I and to the persons on the list in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP should be updated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex I to Decision 2010/656/CFSP, the entry for the following person:\nD\u00e9sir\u00e9 Tagro\nshall be replaced by the entry set out in Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nAnnex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP shall be replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2012.", "references": ["55", "77", "34", "99", "90", "21", "28", "81", "25", "19", "43", "10", "82", "91", "8", "79", "75", "36", "49", "0", "95", "33", "83", "37", "13", "15", "96", "67", "98", "1", "No Label", "3", "12", "94"], "gold": ["3", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 389/2012\nof 2 May 2012\non administrative cooperation in the field of excise duties and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2073/2004\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 113 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national Parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2073/2004 of 16 November 2004 on administrative cooperation in the field of excise duties (3) provides for a common system whereby, in order to ensure the correct application of legislation on excise duties and to combat the evasion of excise duties and the ensuing distortions in the internal market, Member States assist each other and cooperate with the Commission. A number of changes need to be made to that Regulation in view of experience gathered and in view of recent developments. Given the number of changes thus necessary, the Regulation should be replaced for reasons of clarity.\n(2)\nThe completion of the internal market continues to require a system of administrative cooperation in the field of excise duties encompassing all aspects of legislation concerning the application of excise duties to the goods referred to in Article 1 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty (4).\n(3)\nIn the interests of effectiveness and speed and on grounds of cost, it is essential that the role of electronic means in the exchange of information be enhanced. In view of the repetitive nature of certain requests and the linguistic diversity within the Union, it is important to ensure that standard formats be more widely used in the exchange of information, so that information requests can be more rapidly processed. These requirements can best be met through the more systematic use of the computerised system established under Decision No 1152/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 on computerising the movement and surveillance of excisable products (5). That system now offers broader possibilities than at the time Regulation (EC) No 2073/2004 entered into force, and it will continue to be developed. Member States should thus be required to make use of it whenever possible.\n(4)\nExchange of information in excise matters is necessary to a very wide extent in order to establish a true picture of the excise affairs of certain persons but, at the same time, Member States are not at liberty to engage in \u2018fishing expeditions\u2019 or to request information that is unlikely to be relevant to the excise affairs of a given person or ascertainable group or category of persons.\n(5)\nFor the purposes of a proper coordination of information flows, it is necessary to maintain the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2004 as regards a single point of contact in each Member State. Since more direct contacts between the authorities and officials of the Member States might be necessary for reasons of efficiency, the provisions on delegation and the designation of competent officials should also be maintained.\n(6)\nIn order for the necessary information to be available in a timely manner, the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2004 requiring the requested authority to act as quickly as possible and at the latest within a given time limit should be maintained. However, the time limit for the provision of information already available to the requested Member State should be shorter than the standard time limit.\n(7)\nFor the effective monitoring of excise procedures in cross-border movement, it is necessary to continue to provide for the possibility of simultaneous controls by Member States and for the presence of officials of one Member State in the territory of another Member State, within the framework of administrative cooperation.\n(8)\nDifficulties linked to the notification of administrative decisions and measures across borders should continue to be addressed by maintaining the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2004 in the matter.\n(9)\nIn order to fight fraud effectively, the provisions on the exchange of information without prior request should be maintained. To facilitate such exchange, the categories of information to be exchanged on a mandatory basis should be specified.\n(10)\nMember States should continue to be able to exchange, on an optional basis, information necessary for the correct application of the legislation on excise duties, where that information falls outside the categories of information to be automatically exchanged.\n(11)\nFeedback is an appropriate means to ensure continual improvement of the quality of the information exchanged. A framework for the provision of feedback should therefore be put in place.\n(12)\nThe electronic storage by Member States of certain specified data regarding the authorisation of economic operators and tax warehouses is indispensable for the proper functioning of the excise duties system and the fight against fraud. It allows for rapid exchange of those data between Member States and automated access to information. This can be achieved by making use of the information already contained in the national computerised systems for excise, through the development of risk analysis which enhances the information held nationally on excise economic operators and their movements of excise goods within the Union, and through the inclusion of a range of information regarding taxable persons and their transactions. Since the procedures for establishing or recovering excise duties, and the periods of limitation and other time limits, differ in the various Member States, it is necessary, in order to ensure effective mutual assistance for the application of the legislation on excise duties in cross-border situations, to provide for a minimum period during which each Member State should store that information.\n(13)\nIn order for the information stored in the electronic databases to be reliable, provision should be made for them to be updated regularly.\n(14)\nEconomic operators should be able to speedily operate the verifications necessary for movements of excise goods. They should be provided with the possibility to have the validity of excise numbers confirmed electronically through a central register operated by the Commission and fed by the information contained in national databases.\n(15)\nNational rules on banking secrecy could hamper the efficiency of the mechanisms provided for in this Regulation. Member States should therefore not be entitled to refuse the provision of information solely on the basis of such rules.\n(16)\nThis Regulation should not affect other measures adopted at the level of the Union, which contribute to combating excise irregularities and fraud, but should rather complement them.\n(17)\nFor reasons of clarity, it is useful to confirm in this Regulation that where information or documents are obtained with the authorisation or on the request of a judicial authority, the communication of the information or documents to the competent authority of another Member State is subject to authorisation by the judicial authority if such authorisation is required under the law of the communicating Member State.\n(18)\nDirective 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (6) governs the processing of personal data carried out by Member States within the framework of this Regulation. Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (7) governs the processing of personal data carried out by the Commission pursuant to this Regulation.\n(19)\nThe exchange of information with third countries has proven beneficial for the correct application of legislation on excise duties and should therefore be maintained. Directive 95/46/EC sets out specific conditions for the communication of information to third countries, with which Member States must comply.\n(20)\nFor the purposes of the effective application of this Regulation, it might be necessary to limit the scope of certain rights and obligations laid down by Directive 95/46/EC, specifically the rights defined in Article 10, Article 11(1) and Articles 12 and 21 thereof, in order to safeguard important economic and financial interests of the Member States, bearing in mind the potential loss of revenue for Member States and the crucial importance of information covered by this Regulation for the effectiveness of the fight against fraud. Given the need to preserve evidence in cases of suspected fiscal irregularities or fraud, and to prevent interference with the correct assessment of compliance with legislation on excise duties, it might be necessary to restrict the obligations of the data controller and the rights of the data subject relating to the provision of information, access to data and publicising of processing operations, in the course of the exchange of personal data under this Regulation. Member States should be obliged to apply such limitations, to the extent they are necessary and proportionate.\n(21)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of certain Articles of this Regulation, and to describe the main categories of data that can be exchanged by Member States under this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (8).\n(22)\nThe examination procedure should be used for the adoption of those implementing acts given that those acts are measures of general scope within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n(23)\nIt is necessary to monitor and evaluate the functioning of this Regulation. Provision should thus be made for the collection of statistics and other information by Member States and for the preparation of regular reports by the Commission.\n(24)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely the simplification and the strengthening of administrative cooperation between Member States, which requires a harmonised approach, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States alone, and can, by reason of the uniformity and effectiveness required, be better achieved at the level of the Union, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.\n(25)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles which are recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to the protection of personal data (Article 8). In view of the limits set by the present Regulation, the processing of such data carried out within the framework of this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary and proportionate for the purposes of protecting the legitimate fiscal interests of the Member States.\n(26)\nRegulation (EC) No 2073/2004 should be repealed.\n(27)\nThe European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted and adopted an opinion (9),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation lays down the conditions under which the competent authorities in the Member States for the application of the legislation on excise duties are to cooperate with each other, and with the Commission, in order to ensure compliance with that legislation. To that end, it lays down rules and procedures to enable the competent authorities of the Member States to cooperate and to exchange, by electronic means or otherwise, information that is necessary to ensure the correct application of legislation on excise duties.\n2. This Regulation shall not affect the application in the Member States of the rules on mutual assistance in criminal matters.\n3. It shall not affect the fulfilment of any wider obligation in relation to mutual assistance ensuing from other legal instruments, including bilateral or multilateral agreements.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation:\n(1)\n\u2018competent authority\u2019 means the authority designated in accordance with Article 3(1);\n(2)\n\u2018requesting authority\u2019 means the central excise liaison office or any liaison department or competent official of a Member State who makes a request for assistance on behalf of the competent authority;\n(3)\n\u2018requested authority\u2019 means the central excise liaison office or any liaison department or competent official of a Member State who receives a request for assistance on behalf of the competent authority;\n(4)\n\u2018excise office\u2019 means any office at which formalities laid down by excise rules may be completed;\n(5)\n\u2018event driven automatic exchange\u2019 means the systematic communication, without prior request, of information with a predefined structure concerning an event of interest as and when that information becomes available, other than the exchange of information provided for in Article 21 of Directive 2008/118/EC;\n(6)\n\u2018regular automatic exchange\u2019 means the systematic communication, without prior request, of information with a predefined structure at pre-established regular intervals;\n(7)\n\u2018spontaneous exchange\u2019 means the communication of information without prior request to another Member State, not covered by points (5) or (6) or by Article 21 of Directive 2008/118/EC;\n(8)\n\u2018computerised system\u2019 means the computerised system for the movement and surveillance of excise goods established by Decision No 1152/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 on computerising the movement and surveillance of excisable products (10);\n(9)\n\u2018person\u2019 means a natural person, a legal person, any association of persons which is not a legal person but which is recognised under the law of the Union or national law as having the capacity to perform legal acts and any other legal arrangement of whatever nature and form, regardless of whether it has legal personality;\n(10)\n\u2018economic operator\u2019 means a person who, in the course of his business, is involved in activities covered by legislation on excise duties, whether authorised to do so or not;\n(11)\n\u2018by electronic means\u2019 means using electronic equipment of any kind capable of processing, including transmission and compression, and storage of data, and includes the computerised system defined in point (8);\n(12)\n\u2018excise number\u2019 means the identification number assigned by Member States for excise purposes to records of the economic operators and premises referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 19(1);\n(13)\n\u2018a movement of excise goods within the Union\u2019 means the movement between two or more Member States of excise goods under suspension of excise duty within the meaning of Chapter IV of Directive 2008/118/EC or of excise goods after release for consumption within the meaning of Chapter V, Section 2, of Directive 2008/118/EC;\n(14)\n\u2018administrative enquiry\u2019 means any control, check or other action taken by the authorities competent for the application of the legislation on excise duties in the performance of their duties with a view to ensuring the correct application of that legislation;\n(15)\n\u2018CCN/CSI network\u2019 means the common platform based on the common communication network (CCN) and common system interface (CSI), developed by the Union to ensure all transmissions by electronic means between the competent authorities in the area of customs and taxation;\n(16)\n\u2018excise duties\u2019 mean the duties referred to in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/118/EC;\n(17)\n\u2018mutual administrative assistance document\u2019 means a document established within the computerised system and used for the exchange of information under Article 8, 15 or 16 and used for follow-up under Article 8 or 16;\n(18)\n\u2018fall-back mutual administrative assistance document\u2019 means a document in a paper form used for the exchange of information under Article 8 or 15, in the event that the computerised system is not available;\n(19)\n\u2018simultaneous control\u2019 means coordinated checks in regard to legislation on excise duties on the situation of an economic operator or related persons, organised by two or more participating Member States with common or complementary interests.\nArticle 3\nCompetent authorities\n1. Each Member State shall designate the competent authority in whose name this Regulation is to be applied. It shall inform the Commission about that designation and about any subsequent change thereof without delay.\n2. The Commission shall make available a list of the competent authorities and publish this information in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nCentral excise liaison offices and liaison departments\n1. The competent authority of each Member State shall designate a central excise liaison office to which principal responsibility shall be delegated for contacts with other Member States in the field of administrative cooperation with respect to legislation on excise duties. It shall inform the Commission and the competent authorities of the other Member States thereof.\nThe central excise liaison office may also be designated as responsible for contacts with the Commission for the purposes of this Regulation.\n2. The competent authority of each Member State may designate liaison departments, other than the central excise liaison office, with the competence assigned according to its national legislation or policy to exchange directly information under this Regulation.\nThe central excise liaison office shall ensure that the list of these departments is kept up to date and made available to the central excise liaison offices of the other Member States concerned.\nArticle 5\nCompetent officials\n1. The competent authority of each Member State may designate, under the conditions laid down by the Member State, competent officials who may exchange information directly under this Regulation.\nThe competent authority may limit the scope of such designation.\nThe central excise liaison office shall be responsible for keeping the list of competent officials up to date and making it available to the central excise liaison offices of the other Member States concerned.\n2. The officials exchanging information under Articles 12 and 13 shall be deemed to be competent officials for the purpose of those Articles, in accordance with the conditions laid down by the competent authorities.\nArticle 6\nObligations of the central excise liaison office, liaison departments and competent officials\n1. The central excise liaison office shall have principal responsibility for exchanges of information on movements of excise goods between Member States and in particular, it shall have principal responsibility for ensuring:\n(a)\nthe exchange of information under Article 8;\n(b)\nthe forwarding of notifications of administrative decisions and measures requested by Member States under Article 14;\n(c)\nmandatory exchanges of information under Article 15;\n(d)\noptional spontaneous exchanges of information under Article 16;\n(e)\nprovision of feedback on the follow-up actions under Article 8(5) and Article 16(2);\n(f)\nthe exchange of information stored in the electronic database provided for in Article 19;\n(g)\nthe provision of statistical and other information under Article 34.\n2. Where liaison departments or competent officials send or receive requests for assistance, or responses to such requests for assistance, they shall inform the central excise liaison office of their Member State under the conditions laid down by the latter.\n3. Where a liaison department or a competent official receives a request for assistance requiring action outside its territorial or operational area, it shall immediately forward it to the central excise liaison office of its Member State and to the competent official of the liaison department in charge and inform the requesting authority thereof. In such a case, the periods laid down in Article 11 shall begin on the day following that on which the request for assistance was forwarded to the central excise liaison office and to the competent official of the liaison department in charge, but no later than one week following the reception of the request as referred to in the first sentence of this paragraph.\nArticle 7\nInformation or documents obtained with the authorisation or at the request of the judicial authority\n1. The communication to the competent authority of another Member State of information or documents obtained by a competent authority with the authorisation or on request of a judicial authority shall be subject to the prior authorisation of the judicial authority if such authorisation is requested under national law.\n2. Where, in the case of a request for information, the judicial authority refuses such authorisation to the requested authority, the latter shall inform the requesting authority thereof in accordance with Article 25(5).\nCHAPTER II\nCOOPERATION ON REQUEST\nArticle 8\nGeneral duties of the requested authority\n1. At the request of the requesting authority, the requested authority shall communicate the information necessary to ensure the correct application of legislation on excise duties, including any information relating to a specific case or specific cases, in particular concerning movements of excise goods within the Union.\n2. For the purposes of communicating the information referred to in paragraph 1, the requested authority shall arrange for the conduct of any administrative enquiries necessary to obtain such information.\n3. The request referred to in paragraph 1 may include a reasoned request for a specific administrative enquiry. If the requested authority decides that no administrative enquiry is necessary, it shall immediately inform the requesting authority of the reasons for its decision.\n4. In order to obtain the information requested or to conduct the administrative enquiry requested, the requested authority or any administrative authority to which it has recourse shall proceed as though acting on its own account or at the request of another authority in its own Member State.\n5. The requested authority may request the requesting authority to provide feedback on the follow-up action taken by the requesting Member State on the basis of the provided information. Where such a request is made, the requesting authority shall, without prejudice to the rules on secrecy and data protection applicable in its Member State, send such feedback as soon as possible, provided that doing so does not impose a disproportionate burden on it.\nArticle 9\nForm of the request and the reply\n1. Requests for information and for administrative enquiries pursuant to Article 8 and replies to such requests shall be exchanged using a mutual administrative assistance document, subject to paragraph 4 of this Article.\nWhere the computerised system is unavailable, a fall-back mutual administrative assistance document shall be used instead of the mutual administrative assistance document.\n2. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts to determine:\n(a)\nthe structure and content of the mutual administrative assistance documents;\n(b)\nthe rules and procedures relating to the exchanges of mutual administrative assistance documents;\n(c)\nthe model, form and content of the fall-back mutual administrative assistance document;\n(d)\nthe rules and procedures relating to the use of the fall-back mutual administrative assistance document.\nThe Commission may also adopt implementing acts to determine the structure and content of the feedback referred to in Article 8(5).\nThose implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 35(2).\n3. Each Member State shall determine the situations in which the computerised system may be considered unavailable.\n4. Where the use of the mutual administrative assistance document is impractical, the exchange of messages may, exceptionally, be carried out in whole or in part by other means. In such cases the message shall be accompanied by an explanation of why the use of the mutual administrative assistance document was impractical.\nArticle 10\nProvision of documents\n1. Documents, of whatever content, to be provided under Article 8 shall be attached to the mutual administrative assistance document referred to in Article 9(1).\nHowever, in the event that this is impossible or impractical, the documents shall be provided by electronic means or otherwise.\n2. The requested authority shall be obliged to provide original documents only where such documents are necessary for the purpose pursued by the requesting authority and where providing them is not contrary to the provisions applicable in the Member State of the requested authority.\nArticle 11\nTime limits\n1. The requested authority shall provide the information referred to in Article 8 as quickly as possible, and no later than three months following the date of receipt of the request.\nHowever, where the requested authority is already in possession of that information, the time limit shall be one month.\n2. In certain special categories of cases, time limits different from those provided for in paragraph 1 may be agreed between the requested and the requesting authorities.\n3. Where the requested authority is unable to respond to the request within the time limit provided for in paragraph 1, it shall, within one month, inform the requesting authority using a mutual administrative assistance document of the reasons for its failure to do so and indicate when it expects to be able to respond.\nArticle 12\nParticipation of officials from other Member States in administrative enquiries\n1. By agreement between the requesting authority and the requested authority and in accordance with the arrangements laid down by the latter, officials authorised by the requesting authority may be present in the offices of the administrative authorities of the requested Member State, or any other place where those authorities carry out their duties, with a view to exchanging the information necessary to ensure the correct application of legislation on excise duties.\nWhere the requested information is contained in documentation to which the officials of the requested authority have access, the officials of the requesting authority shall be given copies thereof.\n2. By agreement between the requesting authority and the requested authority and in accordance with the arrangements laid down by the latter, officials designated by the requesting authority may be present during the administrative enquiries carried out in the territory of the requested Member State with a view to exchanging the information necessary to ensure the correct application of legislation on excise duties.\nWhere such agreement is reached, the officials of the requesting authority may have access to the same premises and documents as the officials of the requested authority, through the intermediary of those officials and for the sole purpose of carrying out the administrative enquiry. Officials of the requesting authority shall conduct enquiries or ask questions only with the agreement and under the supervision of officials of the requested authority. They shall not exercise the powers of inspection conferred on officials of the requested authority.\n3. The officials of the requesting authority present in another Member State in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall at all times be able to produce a written authority indicating their identity and their official capacity.\nArticle 13\nSimultaneous controls\n1. With a view to exchanging the information necessary to ensure the correct application of legislation on excise duties, two or more Member States may agree, on the basis of a risk analysis, to conduct simultaneous controls, in their own territory, of the excise duty situation of one or more economic operators or other persons, that are of common or complementary interest, whenever they consider that such controls would be more effective than controls carried out by one Member State only.\n2. In order to initiate a simultaneous control in accordance with paragraph 1, the competent authority of a Member State shall submit a proposal to the competent authorities of the other Member States concerned.\nThe proposal shall:\n(a)\nspecify the case or cases proposed for simultaneous controls;\n(b)\nindividually identify each person with regard to whom such control is intended to be carried out;\n(c)\ngive reasons justifying the necessity of a common control;\n(d)\nspecify the period of time during which such controls are intended to be carried out.\n3. The competent authorities which receive a proposal referred to in paragraph 2 shall confirm their agreement to participate in the simultaneous control or shall communicate their reasoned refusal to the proposing competent authority as soon as possible but no later than one month after receipt of the proposal.\n4. Each competent authority which participates in a simultaneous control shall appoint a representative responsible for supervising and coordinating the simultaneous control operation.\n5. After having carried out a simultaneous control, the competent authorities shall inform the central excise liaison offices of the other Member States without delay of any methods or practices discovered during the simultaneous control that were used or suspected of having been used to contravene legislation on excise duties, where such information may be of particular interest to other Member States.\nArticle 14\nRequest for notification of administrative decisions and measures\n1. At the request of the requesting authority, the requested authority shall, in accordance with the rules governing similar notifications applicable in its Member State, notify the addressee of all decisions and measures taken by the administrative authorities of the requesting Member State concerning the application of legislation on excise duties.\n2. The requests for notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall mention the subject of the decision or measure to be notified and shall indicate the name, address and any other relevant information for identifying the addressee.\n3. The requested authority shall, without delay, inform the requesting authority of its action on the request for notification referred to in paragraph 1 and notify it of the date of transmission of the decision or measure to the addressee.\n4. Where the requested authority is unable to act on the request for notification referred to in paragraph 1, it shall inform the requesting authority thereof in writing within one month of receipt of the request.\nThe requested authority shall not refuse to act on such request on account of the content of the decision or measure to be notified.\n5. The requesting authority shall make a request for notification pursuant to this Article only when it is unable to notify the addressee in accordance with the rules governing the notification of the instruments concerned in the requesting Member State, or where such notification would give rise to disproportionate difficulties.\n6. This Article shall not apply to the documents referred to in Article 8 of Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures (11).\nCHAPTER III\nEXCHANGE OF INFORMATION WITHOUT PRIOR REQUEST\nArticle 15\nMandatory exchange of information\n1. The competent authority of each Member State shall forward to the competent authorities of all other Member States concerned, without prior request and by means of regular or event-driven automatic exchange, the information necessary to ensure the correct application of legislation on excise duties, in the following cases:\n(a)\nwhere an irregularity or an infringement of legislation on excise duties has occurred, or is suspected to have occurred, in another Member State;\n(b)\nwhere an irregularity or an infringement of legislation on excise duties which has occurred, or is suspected to have occurred, in the territory of one Member State may have repercussions in another Member State;\n(c)\nwhere there is a risk of fraud or a loss of excise duty in another Member State;\n(d)\nwhere the total destruction or irretrievable loss of excise goods under a duty suspension arrangement has occurred;\n(e)\nwhere an exceptional event has occurred during a movement of excise goods within the Union, which is not provided for in Directive 2008/118/EC, and which may affect the calculation of liability to excise duty of an economic operator.\n2. An authority which has forwarded information to another authority under paragraph 1 may request that other authority to provide feedback on the follow-up action taken by it on the basis of the information provided. If such a request is made, the other authority shall, without prejudice to rules on secrecy and data protection applicable in its Member State, send such feedback as soon as possible, unless that would impose a disproportionate administrative burden on it.\n3. Where the information referred to in paragraph 1 relates to a movement of excise goods within the Union, the information shall be forwarded using a mutual administrative assistance document, subject to paragraph 4.\nHowever, where the use of that document is impractical, the exchange of information may, exceptionally, be carried out in whole or in part by other means. In such cases, the message shall be accompanied by an explanation of why the use of the mutual administrative assistance document was impractical.\n4. Where the computerised system is unavailable, the fall-back mutual administrative document shall be used instead of the document referred to in paragraph 3.\n5. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts to determine:\n(a)\nthe exact categories of information that shall be exchanged under paragraph 1, which shall, in respect of natural persons, include data such as their name, surname, street name, street number, postcode, city, member state, tax or other identifier number, product code or description and other connected personal data, when available;\n(b)\nthe frequency of regular exchange and the time limits for event-driven exchange under paragraph 1 for each category of information;\n(c)\nthe structure and content of the mutual administrative assistance documents;\n(d)\nthe form and content of the fall-back mutual administrative assistance document;\n(e)\nthe rules and procedures relating to the exchanges of the documents referred to in points (c) and (d).\nThe Commission may also adopt implementing acts to determine the situations where the competent authorities may consider the computerised system unavailable for the purposes of paragraph 4 of this Article.\nThose implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 35(2).\nArticle 16\nOptional exchange of information\n1. The competent authorities of the Member States may forward to each other, without prior request, by means of spontaneous exchange, any information necessary to ensure the correct application of legislation on excise duties of which they are aware and which exchange is not covered by Article 15.\nTo that end, they may use the computerised system where the system is capable of processing such information.\n2. An authority which has forwarded information to another authority under paragraph 1 may request that other authority to provide feedback on the follow-up action taken by it on the basis of the information provided. If such a request is made, the other authority shall, without prejudice to the rules on secrecy and data protection applicable in its Member State, send such feedback as soon as possible, unless doing so would impose a disproportionate administrative burden on it.\n3. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts to determine:\n(a)\nthe structure and content of the mutual administrative assistance documents to cover the most common types of information referred to in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe rules and procedures relating to the exchanges of the mutual administrative document.\nThe Commission may also adopt implementing acts to determine the structure and content of the feedback referred to in paragraph 2.\nThose implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 35(2).\nArticle 17\nObligation of Member States to facilitate exchanges of information without prior request\nMember States shall take the necessary administrative and organisational measures to facilitate the exchanges provided for in this Chapter.\nArticle 18\nLimitation of obligations\nMember States shall neither be obliged to impose, for the purposes of implementing this Chapter, any new obligations on persons in respect of the collection of information, nor to bear any disproportionate administrative burden.\nCHAPTER IV\nSTORAGE AND EXCHANGE OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION ON ECONOMIC OPERATORS\nArticle 19\nStorage and exchange of information on authorisations of economic operators and tax warehouses\n1. Each Member State shall maintain an electronic database containing the following registers:\n(a)\na register of economic operators belonging to one of the following categories:\n(i)\nauthorised warehousekeepers within the meaning of point (1) of Article 4 of Directive 2008/118/EC;\n(ii)\nregistered consignees within the meaning of point (9) of Article 4 of Directive 2008/118/EC;\n(iii)\nregistered consignors within the meaning of point (10) of Article 4 of Directive 2008/118/EC;\n(b)\na register of premises authorised as tax warehouses within the meaning of point (11) of Article 4 of Directive 2008/118/EC.\n2. The registers referred to in paragraph 1 shall contain the following information:\n(a)\nthe unique excise number issued by the competent authority in respect of an economic operator or premises;\n(b)\nthe name and address of the economic operator or premises;\n(c)\nthe excise product category (CAT) and/or the excise product code (EPC) of the products covered by the authorisation referred to in Annex II, code list 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 684/2009 of 24 July 2009 implementing Council Directive 2008/118/EC as regards the computerised procedures for the movement of excise goods under suspension of excise duty (12);\n(d)\nthe identification of the central excise liaison office or the excise office from which further information may be obtained;\n(e)\nthe date as of which the authorisation is valid, is amended and, where applicable, ceases to be valid;\n(f)\nfor authorised warehousekeepers, the tax warehouse or the list of tax warehouses to which his authorisation applies and, if applicable under national legislation, an indication that he is authorised to omit the details of the consignee at the time of dispatch, that he is authorised to split a movement in accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2008/118/EC, or that he is authorised to have excise goods moved to a place of direct delivery in accordance with Article 17(2) of that Directive;\n(g)\nfor registered consignees, if applicable under national legislation, an indication that he is authorised to have excise goods moved to a place of direct delivery in accordance with Article 17(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC;\n(h)\nfor registered consignees referred to in Article 19(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC other than those referred to point (i) of this paragraph, the content of the authorisation regarding the quantity of excise goods, the identity of the consignor in the Member State of dispatch and the period of time for which the authorisation is valid;\n(i)\nfor registered consignees referred to in Article 19(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC that have an authorisation to receive wine from consignors who benefit from the derogation provided in Article 40 of Directive 2008/118/EC, the content of the authorisation regarding the quantity of excise goods and the period of time for which the authorisation is valid. An indication of the derogation under Article 40 of 2008/118/EC shall be included in the record;\n(j)\nfor tax warehouses, the authorised warehousekeeper or list of authorised warehousekeepers for whose use the tax warehouse is authorised.\n3. The central excise liaison office or a liaison department of each Member State shall ensure that the information contained in the national registers is complete, accurate and up to date.\n4. The information contained in the respective national registers as referred to in paragraph 2 concerning economic operators engaged in moving excise goods under duty suspension arrangements between Member States, shall be automatically exchanged via a central register.\nThe Commission shall operate the register as a part of the computerised system in a manner that ensures at all times a correct up-to-date view of all national registry data provided by all Member States.\nThe central excise liaison offices or liaison departments of Member States shall communicate the content of the national register as well as any modification thereto to the Commission in a timely manner.\nArticle 20\nAccess to and correction of information\n1. The Commission shall ensure that persons involved in the movement of excise goods under duty suspension arrangements between the Member States can obtain confirmation by electronic means of the validity of excise numbers held in the central register referred to in Article 19(4). The Commission shall forward any requests from an economic operator for correction of that information to the central excise liaison office or liaison department that is responsible for the authorisation of that economic operator.\n2. The central excise liaison offices or liaison departments of Member States shall ensure that economic operators can obtain confirmation of the information about them held under Article 19(2) and can obtain the correction of any inaccuracies therein.\n3. The competent authority of a Member State may, under conditions fixed by that Member State, allow the Central Excise Liaison Office or designated Liaison Departments to communicate a confirmation of the information held under Article 19(2).\nArticle 21\nData retention\n1. Each Member State shall keep the information concerning movements of excise goods within the Union and the records contained in the national registers referred to in Article 19 for at least five years from the end of the calendar year in which the movement began, in order that such information can be used for the procedures provided for in this Regulation. That period may be limited to three years with respect to information entered into the national registers before 1 July 2012.\n2. Information collected through the computerised system shall be kept in that system in a way that makes it possible to retrieve and to further process that information within the system in response to a request for information referred to in Article 8.\nArticle 22\nImplementation\nThe Commission shall adopt implementing acts:\n(a)\nto specify the technical details concerning the automated update of the databases referred to in Article 19(1) and of the central register referred to in Article 19(4);\n(b)\nto specify the rules and procedures concerning the access to and correction of information under Article 20(1).\nThose implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 35(2).\nCHAPTER V\nCOMMON CONDITIONS GOVERNING ASSISTANCE\nArticle 23\nLanguage regime\nRequests for assistance, including requests for notifications, and attached documents may be made in any language agreed between the requested and requesting authority. An accompanying translation into the official language or one of the official languages of the Member State in which the requested authority is established, shall be required only if the requested authority provides a justification explaining the need for translation.\nArticle 24\nQuality of service\n1. The Commission and the Member States shall ensure that the parts of the computerised system necessary for the exchange of information described in this Regulation are operational, appropriately maintained and further developed.\n2. The Commission and the Member States shall conclude a service level agreement and agree a security policy for the computerised system. The service level agreement shall define the technical quality and quantity of the services to be delivered by the Commission and the Member States in order to ensure the secure functioning of all parts of the computerised system and of the electronic communication and the allocation of responsibilities for the further development of that system.\nArticle 25\nGeneral limits to the obligations of the requested authority\n1. The requested authority shall provide the requesting authority with the information requested in accordance with this Regulation, provided that:\n(a)\nthe requesting authority has exhausted the usual sources of information which it could have used in the circumstances to obtain the information requested, without running the risk of jeopardising the achievement of the desired end; and\n(b)\nthe number and the nature of the requests for information made by the requesting authority within a specific period do not impose a disproportionate administrative burden on that requested authority.\n2. This Regulation shall impose no obligation on the competent authority of a Member State to carry out enquiries or to provide information if the laws or administrative practices of that Member State do not authorise its authorities to carry out such enquiries or to collect or use such information for that Member State\u2019s own purposes.\n3. The competent authority of a Member State may refuse to provide information if the requesting Member State is unable, for legal reasons, to provide similar information.\n4. The provision of information may be refused where it would lead to the disclosure of a commercial, industrial or professional secret or of a commercial process, or where its disclosure would be contrary to public policy.\n5. The requested authority shall inform the requesting authority of the grounds for refusing a request for assistance. For statistical purposes, competent authorities shall, on an annual basis, inform the Commission of the categories of grounds for refusals.\n6. In no case shall paragraphs 2, 3 or 4 be construed as permitting a requested authority to decline to supply information solely because that information is held by a bank, other financial institution, nominee or person acting in an agency or a fiduciary capacity or because it relates to ownership interests in a person.\nArticle 26\nExpenses\nMember States shall waive mutually all claims for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in applying this Regulation, with the exception of claims in respect of fees paid to experts.\nArticle 27\nMinimum amount\n1. A request for assistance may be subject to a minimum threshold based upon the excise duty that is potentially due.\n2. The Commission may adopt implementing acts to specify the threshold referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.\nThose implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 35(2).\nArticle 28\nOfficial secrecy, data protection and use of the information communicated under this Regulation\n1. Information communicated or collected by Member States pursuant to this Regulation or any information to which an official or other employee, or a contractor has had access in the course of his duties shall be covered by the obligation of official secrecy and shall enjoy the protection granted to similar information under the law of the Member State receiving that information.\n2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 may be used for the following purposes:\n(a)\nestablishing the assessment base for excise duties;\n(b)\nthe collection or administrative control of excise duties;\n(c)\nthe monitoring of movements of excise goods;\n(d)\nrisk analysis in the field of excise duties;\n(e)\nenquiries in the field of excise duties;\n(f)\nestablishing other taxes, duties and charges covered by Article 2 of Directive 2010/24/EU.\nHowever, the competent authority of the Member State providing the information shall permit its use for other purposes in the Member State of the requesting authority, if the legislation of the Member State of the requested authority allows the information to be used for similar purposes in that Member State.\nTo the extent allowed by national law, and without prejudice to Article 1(2), the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article may be used in connection with judicial or administrative proceedings that can involve penalties initiated as a result of infringements of tax law, without prejudice to the rules governing the rights of the defendants and witnesses in such proceedings.\n3. Where the requesting authority considers that information it has received from the requested authority may be useful to the competent authority of another Member State, it may forward it to that authority. It shall inform the requested authority thereof.\nThe requested authority may make the communication of information to another Member State subject to its prior consent.\n4. All processing of personal data by Member States referred to in this Regulation shall be subject to the national provisions implementing Directive 95/46/EC.\nMember States shall, for the purpose of the correct application of this Regulation, restrict the scope of the obligations and rights provided for in Article 10, Article 11(1) and Articles 12 and 21 of Directive 95/46/EC to the extent necessary to safeguard the interests referred to in point (e) of Article 13(1) of that Directive. Such restrictions shall be proportionate to the interest in question.\nArticle 29\nAccess to information under Commission authorisation\nPersons duly authorised by the Commission may be provided with access to the information referred to in Article 28(4) only to the extent necessary for the care, maintenance and development of the CCN/CSI network and the operation of the central register.\nSuch persons shall be subject to the obligation of official secrecy. The information accessed shall be protected as personal data under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\nArticle 30\nEvidential value of information obtained\nReports, statements, and any other documents or certified true copies or extracts thereof communicated by the competent authority of a Member State to the competent authority of another Member State in accordance with this Regulation may be invoked as evidence by the competent bodies of the other Member State on the same basis as similar documents provided by another authority of that other Member State.\nArticle 31\nObligation to cooperate\n1. For the purposes of applying this Regulation, a Member State shall take all necessary measures to:\n(a)\nensure effective internal coordination between the authorities referred to in Articles 3 to 5;\n(b)\nestablish direct cooperation between the authorities authorised for the purposes of coordination referred to in point (a) of this paragraph;\n(c)\nensure the smooth operation of the information exchange system provided for in this Regulation.\n2. The Commission shall communicate without delay to the competent authority of each Member State any information necessary to ensure the correct application of legislation on excise duties, which it receives and which it is able to provide.\nArticle 32\nRelations with third countries\n1. A competent authority of a Member State which receives information from a third country may pass that information on to the competent authorities of any Member State which might be interested in it and, in particular, to the competent authorities which request it, in so far as permitted by assistance arrangements with that particular third country. Such information may also be passed on to the Commission whenever it is in the interest of the Union for the purposes of this Regulation.\n2. Where the third country concerned has given a legal undertaking to provide the assistance required to gather evidence of the irregular nature of transactions which appear to contravene legislation on excise duties, information obtained under this Regulation may be communicated by the competent authority of a Member State to that third country, in accordance with that Member State\u2019s national law regarding transfers of personal data to third countries, for the purposes of the correct application of excise duties or similar taxes, duties and charges applicable in the third country with the consent of the competent authorities which supplied the information, in accordance with their national law.\nArticle 33\nAssistance to economic operators\n1. The authorities of a Member State in which a consignor of excise goods is established may grant assistance to that consignor where the latter fails to receive a report of receipt referred to in Article 24(4) of Directive 2008/118/EC, a report of export referred to in Article 25(3) of that Directive or, in the situations referred to in Article 33(1) of that Directive, a copy of the accompanying document referred to in Article 34 thereof.\nGranting of such assistance shall be without prejudice to the tax obligations of the assisted consignor.\n2. Where a Member State grants assistance pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and considers it necessary to obtain information from another Member State, it shall request such information in accordance with Article 8. The other Member State may refuse to obtain the information requested if the consignor has not exhausted all the means available to him to obtain proof that the movement of excise goods between Member States has ended.\nCHAPTER VI\nEVALUATION AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 34\nEvaluation of arrangements, collection of operational statistics and reporting\n1. The Member States and the Commission shall examine and evaluate the application of this Regulation. To that end, the Commission shall summarise regularly the experience of the Member States with the aim of improving the operation of the system established by this Regulation.\n2. The Member States shall communicate to the Commission the following:\n(a)\nany available information relevant to their experience with the application of this Regulation, including any statistical data needed for its evaluation;\n(b)\nany available information on actual or suspected methods or practices used to contravene legislation on excise duties where those methods or practices reveal shortcomings or gaps in the operation of procedures defined in this Regulation.\nWith a view to evaluating the effectiveness of this system of administrative cooperation in enforcing the application of the legislation on excise duties and combating evasion and fraud concerning excise duties, Member States may communicate to the Commission any available information other than the information referred to in the first subparagraph.\nThe Commission shall forward the information communicated by Member States to the other Member States concerned.\nThe obligation to communicate information and statistical data shall not involve any unjustified increase of the administrative burden.\n3. The Commission may extract directly information from messages generated by the computerised system for diagnostic and statistical purposes, subject to Article 28.\n4. The information communicated by the Member States or extracted by the Commission for the purposes of paragraphs 1 to 3 shall not contain individual or personal data.\n5. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts to determine, for the purpose of implementing this Article, the relevant statistical data communicated by the Member States, the information to be extracted by the Commission and the statistical reports to be prepared by the Commission and by the Member States.\nThose implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 35(2).\nArticle 35\nCommittee on Excise Duty\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee on Excise Duty established by Article 43(1) of Directive 2008/118/EC. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 36\nRepeal of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2004\nRegulation (EC) No 2073/2004 is hereby repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation in accordance with the correlation table set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 37\nReporting to European Parliament and Council\nEvery five years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation and on the basis, in particular, of the information provided by the Member States, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Regulation.\nArticle 38\nBilateral Arrangements\nWhere the competent authorities conclude arrangements on bilateral matters covered by this Regulation other than to deal with individual cases, they shall inform the Commission without delay. The Commission shall in turn inform the competent authorities of the other Member States.\nArticle 39\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 May 2012.", "references": ["8", "29", "91", "60", "17", "53", "23", "86", "80", "68", "71", "13", "14", "59", "77", "18", "84", "90", "73", "24", "82", "51", "87", "94", "65", "47", "76", "97", "25", "43", "No Label", "2", "12", "34", "39", "41", "42"], "gold": ["2", "12", "34", "39", "41", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 822/2011\nof 16 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2011.", "references": ["50", "52", "94", "99", "76", "18", "93", "20", "2", "57", "3", "5", "80", "31", "54", "26", "39", "29", "95", "64", "86", "33", "71", "87", "96", "56", "43", "8", "14", "75", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 January 2012\nMeasures C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG\n(notified under document C(2012) 184)\n(Only the German version is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/636/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) (1) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision(s) cited above (2) and having regard to their comments,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\nI.1. State aid Procedures\nI.1.1. 1999 Opening Decision and 2002 Decision\n(1)\nIn 1994 United Parcel Service (hereafter UPS) filed a complaint concerning the granting of unlawful State aid to Deutsche Bundespost POSTDIENST (hereafter POSTDIENST).\n(2)\nFollowing the opening of proceedings on 23 October 1999 (hereafter 1999 Opening Decision), Germany submitted comments on 16 September 1999. Following publication, the Commission received comments from 14 interested parties, which were duly transmitted to the German Government by letter dated 15 December 1999 providing it with an opportunity to make its own observations concerning these comments. The German authorities responded by letter dated 1 February 2000, which was registered as received on 2 February 2000.\n(3)\nThe Commission adopted a final negative decision on 19 June 2002 (3) (hereafter 2002 Decision) finding that POSTDIENST and its successor Deutsche Post AG (hereafter DPAG, while POSTDIENST and DPAG will be hereafter jointly referred to as Deutsche Post) priced door-to-door parcels below incremental costs and that its aggressive pricing policy did not to fall within Deutsche Post's universal service obligation. The resulting losses of EUR 572 million were ultimately financed, in contravention of Articles 106 and 107 TFEU, by the State resources which were granted to Deutsche Post in various forms (e.g. public transfers from sister company Deutsche Bundespost TELEKOM (hereafter TELEKOM), public guarantees for loans, and public subsidies to finance the civil servants' pensions).\n(4)\nFollowing the Commission's order, Germany recovered the incompatible State aid of EUR 572 million from DPAG. Deutsche Post challenged the decision in the Union Courts.\n(5)\nIn its 2008 judgment (4), the General Court annulled the 2002 Commission Decision because the Commission failed to carry out a comprehensive analysis of all universal service revenues and costs to determine whether Deutsche Post had been under- or over-compensated.\n(6)\nGermany subsequently paid back the recovered State aid of EUR 572 million plus accrued interest to Deutsche Post.\n(7)\nOn 2 September 2010, the Court of Justice dismissed the Commission's appeal against the General Court's judgment (5).\nI.1.2. Further complaints after 2002 Decision\n(8)\nOn 13 May 2004, UPS lodged a further complaint concerning unlawful State aid granted to Deutsche Post following the 2002 Decision. UPS argued that the 2002 Decision failed to examine all measures listed in the original 1994 complaint, and that Deutsche Post enjoyed significantly higher financial benefits than the incompatible aid of EUR 572 million. In addition, UPS is of the opinion that Deutsche Post used State resources to expand its parcel operations (e.g. for the purchase of other companies) and to sell services at excessively low transfer prices to its subsidiaries Postbank AG and Deutsche Post euro Express GmbH & Co. OHG (hereafter DPEED), which have been active respectively in banking services and marketing of business parcels under the brand name DHL.\n(9)\nThe Commission services sent information requests to Germany on 9 November 2004 and 1 April 2005. Germany submitted its answers on 2 December 2004 and 3 June 2005 respectively.\n(10)\nOn 16 July 2004, TNT Post AG & Co KG (hereafter TNT) filed a complaint also alleging that Deutsche Post sold services at excessively low transfer prices to Postbank AG. It claimed that, whereas Postbank AG only paid variable costs for the provided services, Deutsche Post financed the common fixed costs of the distribution network entirely out of the revenues of its letter monopoly.\n(11)\nThe Commission services sent information requests to Germany on 11 November 2004 and 25 April 2005. Germany submitted its answers on 17 December 2004 and 23 June 2005 respectively.\nI.1.3. 2007 Extension decision\n(12)\nFollowing the further complaints, the Commission informed Germany by letter of 12 September 2007 (6) (hereafter 2007 Extension decision) of its decision to extend the proceedings that had originally been initiated in 1999. The objective of the 2007 Extension decision was to include the newly submitted information and to comprehensively address all potential distortions of competition which resulted from the public measures that were granted to Deutsche Post (see Section I.1.14 for more details on the public transfers, the public guarantees, the pension subsidies, and the exclusive right for the provision of letter services).\n(13)\nThe Commission considered it necessary to reconstruct in detail Deutsche Post's accounts for the period from 1990 to 2007 to gain clarity on the impact of the public measures on the revenues and costs of the different services provided by Deutsche Post.\nI.1.4. Comments by Germany on 2007 Extension decision\n(14)\nGermany submitted its comments on 14 December 2007 and Deutsche Post challenged the validity of the 2007 Extension decision (see also Section I.3.1).\nI.1.5. Comments by third parties to the 2007 Extension decision and comments by Germany on third party comments\n(15)\nOn 16 November 2007 UPS and TNT submitted their comments.\n(16)\nAfter an initial request for a delay extension on 20 December 2007, Germany eventually submitted on 12 March 2008 its comments on TNT's and UPS' observations.\nI.1.6. Procurement of external expert\n(17)\nOn 23 January 2008, the Commission published an invitation to tender for an expert study to assist the Commission in determining whether Deutsche Post was overcompensated for its universal service obligations for the period 1990-2007 (7).\n(18)\nOn 18 June 2008, the Commission concluded a contract with WIK Consult GmbH, an accounting expert for the postal sector.\nI.1.7. Comments by Germany on appropriate length of investigation period\n(19)\nBy letters of 10 June 2008 and 18 June 2008, Germany signalled its disagreement with the envisaged length of the investigation period (1990-2007) and maintained that it would be sufficient to limit the investigation to the period of 1990 until 1994 when the public transfers were granted because the losses in that period were higher than the public transfers so that Deutsche Post did not benefit from any overcompensation. Furthermore, the provision of accounting information for the period after 1994 would be disproportionate as the Community framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (hereafter 2005 Framework) (8) would limit the period for the calculation of overcompensation to a maximum of four years.\n(20)\nOn 27 June 2008, Germany submitted an expert opinion on the obligation of the Commission to investigate separately the public transfers, the public guarantees, and the pension subsidy (9). Furthermore, it claimed that an investigation of accounting data would be unnecessary for the assessment of the public guarantee and of the pension subsidy.\n(21)\nThe German authorities affirmed the same position in the meeting with the Commission services on 29 May 2008 and 15 July 2008.\nI.1.8. Information request of 17 July 2008\n(22)\nThe Commission sent an information request to Germany on 17 July 2008 on all public measures under investigation including a questionnaire on revenues and costs of Deutsche Post for the period 1990-2007. The information request was prepared in cooperation with WIK Consult. On 5 August 2008, Germany asked for an undefined deadline extension because the availability of certain data would have to be checked in advance.\nI.1.9. Reminder for information of 12 August 2008 and 22 August 2008\n(23)\nOn 12 August 2008, the Commission explained why the investigation on the costs and revenues of Deutsche Post should be effected within the period 1990-2007 and insisted on the submission of the requested information.\n(24)\nIn its submission of 14 August 2008, Germany maintained that there was no reason for examining the revenues and losses of Deutsche Post for the period after 1994. On 22 August 2008, the Commission reserved the right to adopt an information injunction pursuant to Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (10) if Germany did not provide the requested information.\n(25)\nWith the submission of 29 September 2008, Germany presented the results of a further expert opinion - which was eventually submitted on 2 October 2008 - to support the position that an accounting analysis after 1994 was not necessary and therefore the appropriate investigation period should be 1990-1994 (11).\n(26)\nOn 28 October 2008, Germany submitted information on the public guarantee and the pension subsidy.\nI.1.10. Information injunction of 30 October 2008\n(27)\nThe Commission did not accept Germany's arguments and insisted that an analysis until 2007 was necessary to fully appreciate the competitive effects of the granted public measures. Following the two reminders for information of 12 August 2008 and 22 August 2008, the Commission issued an information injunction on 30 October 2008 to enjoin Germany to deliver all necessary accounting information for the whole period 1990-2007.\n(28)\nGermany and Deutsche Post challenged the validity of the information injunction (see Section I.3.2).\n(29)\nOn 27 November 2008, Germany submitted the requested accounting information for the period 1990-1994. On 5 and 16 December 2008, Germany updated the accounting information which had been submitted on 27 November 2008.\nI.1.11. Submission of accounting information for the period 1990-2007\n(30)\nAfter a meeting between Mr Pfaffenbach, German Secretary of State, Mr Appel, CEO of DPAG, and the Commissioner with responsibility for Competition Policy on 6 February 2009, Germany and Deutsche Post agreed to provide accounting information for the period after 1994.\n(31)\nOn 3 March 2009, Germany submitted a first set of accounting information for the whole investigation period 1990-2007.\n(32)\nMeetings between Deutsche Post and the Commission services took place on 3 March 2009 in Brussels as well as on 12 March 2009, 2 April 2009, 28 May 2009, 23 June 2009, and 18 September 2009 in Bonn. Germany submitted the respective presentations by Deutsche Post on 26 March 2009, 7 May 2009, and 22 June 2009.\n(33)\nFollowing those meetings and two lists of questions which the Commission services submitted to Deutsche Post on 4 June 2009 and 30 July 2009, Germany provided updated accounting information and further clarifications on 9 July 2009, 31 July 2009, 17 August 2009, 8 September 2009, 10 September 2009 and 15 October 2009.\n(34)\nOn 16 and 24 September 2009, the Commission services submitted further questions to which Germany provided the answers by 14 October 2009.\nI.1.12. Submission of WIK Study\n(35)\nDue to the delay in the provision of the accounting data, the contract with WIK Consult had to be prolonged several times. WIK Consult finally submitted the expert study (hereafter WIK study) on 9 November 2009.\n(36)\nOn 14 and 21 January 2010, Germany submitted comments on the WIK study. On 11 February 2010, Germany submitted an expert study by KPMG (hereafter KPMG study) on the legal nature of the Ablieferungen (hand-over payments) (12) that Deutsche Post had to pay to the public budget until 1995 and an expert study by Deloitte (13) (hereafter Deloitte-I study) on the profit benchmark used in the WIK study.\n(37)\nOn 23 April 2010, Germany submitted a further study by Deloitte (hereafter Deloitte-II study) that provided its views on the level of reasonable profit to be used for Deutsche Post's universal services.\n(38)\nOn 9 August 2010, Germany submitted further comments on the calculation of overcompensation and the application of the market investor principle to the assessment of the public transfers.\nI.1.13. Comments following annulment of 2002 Decision\n(39)\nOn 5 November 2010, Germany submitted a further expert opinion that analysed the significance of the judgment in Case C-399/08 Commission v Deutsche Post (see Section I.3.5) for the current investigation (14).\nI.1.14. 2011 Extension decision\n(40)\nBy letter dated 10 May 2011, the Commission notified Germany of its decision to extend the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU that had originally been initiated in 1999 and extended in 2007, in order to conduct an in-depth investigation with regard to the pension subsidies that Deutsche Post has received since 1995 (hereafter 2011 Extension decision).\n(41)\nAfter an initial request for a deadline extension on 23 May 2011, Germany submitted its comments on 29 July 2011, together with further expert studies on the necessity of a calculation of overcompensation to prove the alleged cross-subsidisation (15), on the comparison between social costs paid by Deutsche Post and market-average social costs (16), as well as on the amount of excess social costs borne by Deutsche Post (17).\n(42)\nOn 4 October 2011, UPS submitted its comments. They were followed by comments submitted by Free and Fair Postal Postal Initiative (hereafter referred to as FFIP) on 5 October 2011 and comments submitted by Bundesverband Internationaler Express und Kurierdienste (hereafter referred to as BIEK) on 7 October 2011. On 13 October 2011, the Commission communicated the comments by interested parties to Germany.\n(43)\nOn 14 November 2011, Germany submitted its comments on the third parties' observations.\n(44)\nOn 18 November 2011, the Commission sent a further information request concerning details of the pension financing for the period after 2007. On 2 January 2012 and 19 January 2012, Germany submitted replies. On 16 December 2011, the Commission submitted to Germany an expert study by Charles River Associates concerning profit benchmarking (18) (hereinafter CRA study) for comments to which Germany replied on 16 January 2012.\nI.2. Antitrust Procedures\n(45)\nBased on UPS' 1994 complaint, the Commission found that Deutsche Post infringed Article 102 TFEU by predatory pricing for Business-to-Consumer parcels in the period 1990-1995. A fine of EUR 24 million was imposed on Deutsche Post (19).\n(46)\nOn 22 April 2004, UPS lodged a further complaint regarding Deutsche Post's abuse of dominant position under Article 102 TFEU. UPS claimed that Deutsche Post had charged excessive stamp prices for its regulated letter services.\n(47)\nDuring its investigations, the Commission received on 5 November 2004 documents relating to the decision by the German postal regulatory agency (hereafter Postal regulator) on the price cap for Deutsche Post's regulated letter services for the period starting 1 January 2003 (hereafter 2002 Price cap decision). By letter of 13 June 2007, Germany agreed that those documents could also be used in the State aid procedure.\n(48)\nOn 25 March 2008, the Commission decided to close the antitrust investigation because of the limited likelihood of establishing such an infringement under Article 102 TFEU (20).\nI.3. Court Procedures\nI.3.1. Case T-421/07 Deutsche Post AG v Commission\n(49)\nDeutsche Post challenged the validity of the 2007 Extension decision, claiming that the 2002 Decision created legitimate expectations that the Commission would not resume its investigations.\n(50)\nOn 8 December 2011, the General Court rejected that challenge as inadmissible (21).\nI.3.2. Case T-570/08 Deutsche Post AG v Commission and Case T-571/08 Germany v Commission\n(51)\nGermany as well as Deutsche Post challenged the validity of the Commission's information injunction of 30 October 2008 because they considered that the information injunction requested irrelevant information and put a disproportionate burden on Deutsche Post.\n(52)\nOn 16 July 2010, the General Court declared both actions as inadmissible because neither Deutsche Post's nor Germany's procedural rights could have been infringed by the issuance of the information injunction.\nI.3.3. Case C-463/10 P Deutsche Post AG v Commission and Case C-475/10 P Germany v Commission\n(53)\nOn 27 September 2010, Deutsche Post and Germany appealed the GC's judgment and maintained that the information injunction infringed their rights. On 13 October 2011, the Court of Justice overruled the General Court's judgment of 16 July 2010 (22). Consequently, the case was sent back to the GC and is currently pending.\nI.3.4. Case T-344/10 UPS v Commission\n(54)\nOn 20 August 2010, UPS lodged an application with the General Court claiming an unlawful failure to act by the Commission in respect of the 2007 State aid investigation. Given that a period of almost three years had lapsed since the 2007 Extension decision, UPS believed that the Commission had had ample opportunity to investigate the abovementioned measures and to assess the circumstances of facts and law in order to adopt a final decision and close the investigation procedure. That case is still pending.\nI.3.5. Case T-388/11 Deutsche Post AG v Commission\n(55)\nOn 22 July 2011, Deutsche Post challenged the validity of the 2011 Extension decision because it considers that the Commission has manifestly erred in its preliminary assessment of the pension subsidy as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and as a new aid measure in the meaning of Article 108(1) TFEU. That case is still pending.\nII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC MEASURES\n(56)\nDeutsche Post has been granted public support in form of several different measures since 1989:\n-\nPension subsidy based on:\n-\nPostpersonalrechtsgesetz 1994 (23) (hereafter PostPersRG 1994)\n-\nPublic transfers and guarantees based on:\n-\nPostverfassungsgesetz 1989 (24) (hereafter PostVerfG 1989)\n-\nPostumwandlungsgesetz 1994 (25) (hereafter PostUmwG 1994)\n-\nExclusive right and price regulation based on:\n-\nGesetz \u00fcber das Postwesen 1989 (26) (hereafter PostG 1989)\n-\nPostgesetz 1997 (hereafter PostG 1997)\nII.1. Pension subsidy in the context of social benefits and contribution schemes for civil servants and private employees\n(57)\nThe pension subsidy has financed since 1995 a major share of the pensions for Deutsche Post's retired civil servants. To fully apprehend the effects of the pension subsidy in the later assessment, the following sections will describe in more detail the civil servants' social benefits and contributions in comparison to the compulsory social insurances for employees under private law contracts (hereafter: private employees).\nII.1.1. Social benefits for civil servants\n(58)\nCivil servants are entitled to old age pensions, health care and nursing care. The benefits for Deutsche Post's civil servants are equal to the benefits which are granted to all other civil servants:\n-\nThe level of the pension is pre-defined, pursuant to Article 14 BeamtVG (27), at a certain percentage of the last salary that the civil servant earns. Thus, for example, a civil servant who retired in 2010 and had worked the required number of years will receive a pension that is equal to 71,75 % of his last salary.\n-\nCivil servants are entitled to reimbursement of 50 % to 70 % of health and nursing care expenses, while they have to assume the remaining expenses themselves. The exact breakdown of health care costs depends on several criteria such as the number of children. The civil servant can choose either to insure himself with a voluntary complementary insurance or to pay his share of the health care expenses out of his own pocket.\nII.1.2. Financing of civil servants' social benefits in the period 1989-1994 at POSTDIENST\n(59)\nAfter the first postal reform of 1989, pursuant to Article 54(2) PostVerfG 1989, POSTDIENST, TELEKOM and POSTBANK had to fully finance the pension payments and health expenses of the retired civil servants who were allocated to the respective sections on basis of their former activities. That provision lays down that whereas the claim of the civil servant continues to be directed against the State, the State has the right to claim the entire amount from POSTDIENST, TELEKOM and POSTBANK respectively.\nII.1.3. Financing of social benefits for DPAG's civil servants since 1995\n(60)\nWith the second postal reform of 1994, civil servants who had worked for POSTDIENST were, pursuant to Article 2(1) PostPersRG 1994, transferred to DPAG. Thereby, the civil servants kept, pursuant to Article 2(3) PostPersRG 1994, their existing legal status. DPAG took over, pursuant to Article 1(1) PostPersRG 1994, all employer's rights and obligations from the federal State and assumed, pursuant to Article 2(3) PostPersRG 1994, all the civil servants' proprietary claims.\n(61)\nPursuant to Article 15 PostPersRG 1994, the payment of pension and health expenses to retired civil servants was taken over by a newly created pension fund for Deutsche Post's civil servants. On 1 July 2001, the pension funds for Deutsche Post, Deutsche Telekom AG, and Postbank AG were merged into the \u2018Postbeamtenversorgungskasse\u2019 (hereafter jointly referred to as Pension fund for the whole period since 1 January 1995).\n(62)\nPursuant to Article 16(1) PostPersRG 1994, Deutsche Post had to pay a yearly contribution of EUR 2 045 million to the Pension fund for the period 1995-1999 which totals EUR 10 225 million. From 2000 onwards and based on Article 16(2) PostPersRG 1994, Deutsche Post has had to pay a yearly contribution of 33 % of the sum of the incurred civil servant wages to the Pension fund (e.g. from EUR 735 million in 2000 to EUR 540 million in 2010).\n(63)\nThe pension subsidy has covered, pursuant to Article 16(2) PostPersRG 1994, the remaining deficit (e.g. the difference between the pensions for the retired civil servants' pensions and the contribution by Deutsche Post to the Pension fund). The pension subsidy increased from EUR 151 million in 1995 to EUR 3 203 million in 2010 and totalled EUR 37 121 million for the period 1995-2010.\nFigure 1\nFinancing of Pension fund (million EUR)\nII.1.4. Statutory social insurances for private employees and supplementary pension insurance for Deutsche Post's private employees\n(64)\nPrivate employees are compulsory members of four social insurances: pension, unemployment, health and nursing care insurance (28). Compared to the civil servant's regime, the statutory social insurance schemes offer a different coverage for the pension and health insurances:\n-\nThe level of the pension is not defined in percentage of the last monthly salary but of an average life-time salary.\n-\nThe expenses for health and nursing care are fully covered.\n(65)\nThere also exist important differences in the financing of the social benefits compared to those of civil servants: The statutory social insurances are financed by joint contributions from the employee and the employer during the employee's working life (hereafter referred to as compulsory social contributions). The total social contribution rate is formally divided into an employee's and employer's share which both covers about half of the total contribution rate. However, the employer has the formal obligation to pay the total contribution rate to the social insurances.\nFigure 2\nCompulsory social contribution rates in percentage of private employee's gross wage (see also the Annex)\n(66)\nFigure 2 shows that the compulsory social contribution rates have since 1995 ranged from 38 % to 42 % of the gross wage (= net wage + employee's share). The employer's and employee's shares of the social contribution rate have been in the range of 19 % to 21 % of the gross wage (see the Annex for a more detailed time series).\n(67)\nDeutsche Post's private employees have not only benefited from the statutory social insurances but also from supplementary pension insurance. Private employees who started before 1997 were offered a supplementary pension insurance cover that would allow them to receive a similar level of pension as civil servants. Thus the supplementary pension insurance covered the difference between the private employees' statutory social insurance pension - which is equal to a certain percentage of the average life-time salary - and the civil servant's pension that equals to a certain percentage of the last salary. The detailed rules are laid down in the Charter of the Versorgungsanstalt der Deutschen Bundespost (hereinafter VAP) (29).\n(68)\nDeutsche Post financed the supplementary pension benefits for the retired private employees up to 1997 by a contribution that amounted to approximately [5 to 10 %] (30) of the active private employees' gross wage. Since 1997, Deutsche Post has built up a provision for the outstanding obligations to the VAP (see also description of burden #4 in Section II.3.1.3).\n(69)\nSince 1997, newly hired private employees were offered a significantly reduced supplementary pension insurance for which Deutsche Post, in the period 1997-2007, paid a contribution between [0 and 5 %] of the gross wage.\nII.2. Public transfers and guarantee in the context of Deutsche Post's exclusive right and universal postal service obligations\nII.2.1. Exclusive right until 2007\n(70)\nBefore 1998, Article 2 PostG 1989 granted Deutsche Post the exclusive right to establish and maintain facilities for the carriage of letter items. Other postal services - like parcels, newspapers or periodicals - were not reserved to Deutsche Post but open to competition. Pursuant to Article 37 PostVerfG 1989, the profits accruing from those reserved letter services were to be used to finance the losses of those universal services that were offered in markets open to competition. Pursuant to Article 4 PTRegG 1994 (31), the Minister for Post and Telecommunication was the competent authority to approve the prices for the reserved letter services.\n(71)\nBeginning with the entry into force of the PostG 1997 in 1998, the scope of the reserved services started to be progressively reduced for Deutsche Post. Pursuant to Article 51 PostG 1997, the exclusive right extended to the transport of letters and addressed catalogues below 200 grams in 1997 but afterwards the limit was successively reduced, reaching 50 grams in 2006. The exclusive right finally expired on 31 December 2007.\nII.2.2. Universal postal service obligation until 2007\n(72)\nThe universal service obligations for Deutsche Post were set out in two formal entrustment acts:\n-\nThe 1994 Postdienst Mandatory Service Regulation (32) (hereafter 1994 Mandatory service regulation) appointed Deutsche Post as the universal postal service provider for letters and parcels not exceeding 20 kg, charging it with the provision of those services throughout Germany at uniform tariffs.\n-\nThe 1997 PostG and the accompanying 1999 Implementing Regulation (33) (hereafter 1999 Universal service regulation) continued the entrustment for DPAG.\n(73)\nArticle 11 PostG 1997 defined the universal service as a basic set of postal services that are rendered nationwide at affordable tariffs. Those services include the transport of letters, addressed parcels weighing no more than 20 kg, or books, catalogues, newspapers and magazines (hereafter universal services).\n(74)\nThe 1999 Universal service regulation set out the minimum quality requirements of the universal service:\n-\nThere must be at least 12 000 post offices located throughout Germany.\n-\nAn annual average of 80 percent of letters and parcel must be delivered within certain time targets (one working day for letters and two working days for parcels) and deliveries must be made at least once daily on weekdays.\n-\nWhile the general requirement for prices of universal services is affordability, DPAG had to charge uniform prices in respect of letter services performed under the exclusive license that eventually expired in 2007. However, DPAG has some degree of pricing flexibility for the reserved services because it could conclude individual price agreements with customers mailing at least 50 items per transaction.\n(75)\nArticle 52 PostG 1997 maintained the entrustment of DPAG with the provision of universal services until 31 December 2007, which is the date of the abolishment of DPAG's exclusive right for the provision of letter services. Since the expiry of the exclusive right, no postal operator in Germany has been legally entrusted with the universal service obligation, which means that all postal service providers are assumed to ensure the provision of universal postal services (\u2018market forces\u2019). Where a universal service is not being appropriately or adequately provided or where there is reason to believe that such will be the case, PostG 1997 provides for legislative instruments to safeguard the provision of those services.\n(76)\nAs shown by the WIK study (see Figure 3), the universal services accounted for about 88 % of total revenue over the period from 1990 to 2007: The majority of the universal letter services were subject to price regulation because of Deutsche Post's dominant position on those markets (see Section II.2.1). Apart from those price-regulated services that made up about 62 % of total revenue, Deutsche Post has provided in competition with other operators the universal parcel services (about 15 % of total revenue) and further non-price regulated universal letter services (about 11 % of total revenue).\n(77)\nMoreover, Deutsche Post has also offered commercial services (e.g. retail banking services for Postbank, sales services for Telekom, delivery of unaddressed mail items, etc.). In total, the commercial services amounted to 12 % of Deutsche Post's revenue for the period 1990-2007.\nII.2.3. Public transfers\n(78)\nSince its creation in 1950, Deutsche Bundespost had been a Sonderverm\u00f6gen of the Federal Government. Under German administrative law, a Sonderverm\u00f6gen does not have a legal personality that is independent from the State, but does have its own budget and is not liable for the general debts of the State.\n(79)\nThe first postal reform in 1989 foresaw that the Sonderverm\u00f6gen would have three different sub-sections, - POSTDIENST, POSTBANK, and TELEKOM - which were qualified as \u2018public undertakings\u2019 but still did not enjoy independent legal personality from the State.\n(80)\nPursuant to Article 37(2)(3) PostVerfG 1989, although each service of the three entities should be able to finance its costs out of its own revenues, a cross-financing between the three entities was permissible to the extent that losses resulted from universal service obligations. On that basis, in the period 1990-1993 POSTDIENST received transfers of EUR 2 844 million from TELEKOM to cover its losses.\n(81)\nIn the course of the second postal reform, the three sub-sections of the Sonderverm\u00f6gen were transformed as of 1 January 1995 into public limited companies: POSTDIENST became DPAG, POSTBANK became Postbank AG, and TELEKOM became Telekom AG. Pursuant to Article 2(2) PostUmwG 1994, Telekom AG assumed all liabilities arising from loans which were attributable to the Sonderverm\u00f6gen as a whole but retained the right to reclaim funds from DPAG and Postbank AG to the extent that those loan commitments could be attributed to their legal predecessors.\n(82)\nHowever, Article 7 PostUmwG 1994 waived the right of Telekom AG (arising from Paragraph 2(2) PostUmwG 1994) to bring claims against DPAG up to the amount of losses accrued by POSTDIENST until 31 December 1994. It resulted in a transfer of assets in the value of EUR 2 822 million from Telekom AG to DPAG. According to Germany, that transfer from Telekom AG was - as with the previous transfers based on Article 37(3) PostVerfG 1989 - indispensable for DPAG to discharge its universal service obligations.\n(83)\nIn total, POSTDIENST received EUR 5 666 million in the period 1990-1995 as compensation for its universal service obligation.\nII.2.4. Public guarantee for debt obligations issued before 1995\n(84)\nSince 1953, \u00a7 22 (4) PostVwG 1953 (34) provided that debt obligations issued by Deutsche Bundespost had the same legal value as debt obligations issued by the Federal Republic of Germany. When the PostVwG 1953 was repealed by the PostVerfG 1989, the same provision was taken over in \u00a7 40 PostVerfG 1989.\n(85)\nAfter the creation of the three sub-sections in 1989, POSTDIENST itself did not issue the debt obligations autonomously but POSTBANK administered those transactions for all entities of Deutsche Bundespost. The debt obligations were then allocated to POSTDIENST, TELEKOM and POSTBANK according to their financial requirements.\n(86)\nAfter 1995, pursuant to Article 2(4) PostUmwG 1994, Germany remained liable for all debt obligations entered into prior to 1995 by Deutsche Bundespost and subsequently allocated to POSTDIENST, TELEKOM and POSTBANK. However, Germany did not bear any liability for debt obligations issued by DPAG thereafter.\nII.3. Revenues from regulated prices as additional compensation for pension costs and universal services' net costs\n(87)\nThe PostG 1997 also established the Bundesnetzagentur (hereafter referred to as Postal regulator) for the supervision of the reserved and liberalised letter markets. Pursuant to Article 19 PostG 1997, the Postal regulator is competent to regulate Deutsche Post's pricing in the letter markets in which Deutsche Post enjoys a dominant position. Deutsche Post has had a dominant position not only with the reserved services - pursuant to Article 51 PostG 1997 - but also with almost all other letter services which have had been opened up to competition. Price regulation can take the form either of an ex ante price cap or of an ex post price control.\n(88)\nAccording to the market studies by the Postal regulator, Deutsche Post has held average market share of 90 % to 97 % on the price-regulated letter markets. In his latest report, the Postal regulator deplores that the gradual market opening since 1997 has not achieved a functioning competition on the German letter market (35).\n(89)\nThe price-regulated letter services account for the majority of Deutsche Post's total revenues (e.g. about 62 % of Deutsche Post's total revenue for the period 1990-2007 (see Figure 3); in the period 2008-2010, the price-regulated services accounted for about 56 % of Deutsche Post's total revenue).\n(90)\nAll other universal and commercial services, which do not fall under price regulation pursuant to Articles 19 to 27 PostG 1997 (36) will be hereafter termed as non-price regulated services.\n(91)\nFor the price regulated letter services, Article 20(1) and (2) PostG 1997 provide that the prices shall reflect the costs of the efficient service provision. However, if factually justified, the Postal regulator should, inter alia, appropriately account for:\n-\nCosts arising from the universal provision of postal services, and\n-\nCosts arising from the financing of pension and health care benefits for employees who were taken over from POSTDIENST.\n(92)\nArticle 57 PostG 1997 and a ministerial decree of 27 March 2000 maintained the regulated prices at the level of 1997 until 31 December 2002.\nII.3.1. 2002 Price cap decision\n(93)\nIt was only in 2002 that the Postal regulator took its first decision concerning the price cap for the period starting on 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2007 (hereafter 2002 price cap decision). Price cap regulation means a system of regulating the prices of a bundle of services under which the individual price for each service is not controlled but there is a ceiling on the weighted average of all the prices in the bundle. Pursuant to Article 19 PostG 1997 ex ante price cap regulation covered all postal services for which Deutsche Post held a dominant position.\n(94)\nFor the 2002 price cap decision, Deutsche Post submitted accounts to the Postal regulator (hereafter 2002 regulatory accounts) for the first time that covered the period 1998-2006. The regulatory accounts were based on realised results up to 2001 and on projections for the later years.\n(95)\nDeutsche Post claimed in 2002 so-called \u2018burdens\u2019 for the provision of universal service as well as for the employment of civil servants and private employees who had been taken over from POSTDIENST. Those burdens show the alleged costs that Deutsche Post would not have assumed without the universal service obligation and without the take-over of the POSTDIENST personnel and infrastructure (see Table 1 for a detailed list).\nTable 1\nBurdens as approved by 2002 Price cap decision (million EUR, nominal values)\n#\nBurdens from 2002 Price cap decision\nAverage burden (1998-2006) million EUR\n%\n1\nExcess wage costs\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2\nExcess social costs\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n3\nInfrastructural burden post shops\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n4\nSupplementary pension insurance for employees (VAP)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n5\nInfrastructural burden freight\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n6\nSocial and health cost (BAnstPT)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n7\nPersonnel restructuring\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n8\nDeficit coverage for civil servants' health insurance\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTotal average burden\n[\u2026]\n100 %\n(96)\nThe Postal regulator eventually accepted Deutsche Post's reasoning that it would not have incurred those burdens, had it not been subject to the universal service obligation (for burdens #3 and 5 on universal service costs) respectively to the obligation to take over the civil servants and private employees from POSTDIENST (burdens #1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8). The Postal regulator approved increased regulated letter prices to finance the claimed average annual burdens of EUR [\u2026] million for the period 2002-2006 out of the revenues of the regulated letter services. Under the 2002 price cap decision, 100 % of the burdens are imputed to the prices which are subject to the ex ante price cap.\nII.3.1.1. Excess wages (burden #1)\n(97)\nBurden #1 shows the claimed excess of the wage costs for postal workers over the industry average. Deutsche Post used as a \u2018competitive\u2019 wage benchmark the wages that had been stipulated in a collective labour agreement (\u2018Entgelttarifvertrag\u2019) with the trade unions for newly hired personnel after 2002 (hereafter ETV wages). For the calculation of burden #1, that benchmark is, however, applied for all personnel. It is also retroactively applied in the submitted accounts back to 1998.\nII.3.1.2. Excess social contributions (burden #2)\n(98)\nThe Postal regulator also approved Deutsche Post's claim that it had to bear higher social contributions for its private employees and civil servants than private competitors would normally have to assume for their private employees.\n(99)\nDeutsche Post starts its calculations from a social contribution rate that it deems as \u2018competitive\u2019 (hereafter \u2018regulatory contribution rate\u2019) for both civil servants and private employees. That regulatory rate is defined as the sum of\n-\nEmployer\u2019s share of social contributions for a private employee (about 19 % to 21 % which equals roughly half of the total social contribution rate as shown in Figure 2),\n-\nContribution to the accident insurance (in the range of [0 to 5 %]; Deutsche Post has added that contribution to the regulatory contribution rate since 2001),\n-\nContribution to supplementary pension (in the range of [0 to 5 %]; Deutsche Post has added that contribution to the regulatory contribution rate since 1997 because a contribution to the supplementary pension insurance of that magnitude is considered as \u2018competitive\u2019. The rate is based on the supplementary pension insurance that Deutsche Post has offered since 1997 to newly hired private employees).\n(100)\nThe regulated revenues finance all social contributions that are in excess of the regulatory contribution rate (hereafter \u2018excess social contributions\u2019). Taking e.g. the calculations of the excess social contributions in 2001 for civil servants, Table 2 shows that the incurred social contributions for civil servants are almost double those of the allegedly \u2018competitive\u2019 social contributions based on the regulatory contribution rate.\nTable 2\nCalculation of excess social costs for civil servants in 2001 according to 2002 regulatory accounts (million EUR)\n% of incurred wages\n(1)\nContribution rate for pension fund\n33 %\n(2)\nCivil servants' wage sum\n[\u2026]\n(3)\n=(1)*(2)\nContribution to pension fund\n[\u2026]\n(4)\nHealth care expenses\n[\u2026]\n(5)\n=(3)+(4)\nIncurred social contributions\n[\u2026]\n[40 to 45 %]\n(6)\nEmployer's share of social contributions\n20,43 %\n(7)\nAccident insurance\n[\u2026]\n(8)\nSupplementary pension insurance\n[\u2026]\n(9)\n=(6)+(7)+(8)\nRegulatory contribution rate\n[\u2026]\n(10)\n=(2)*(9)\nRegulatory benchmark social cost\n[\u2026]\n[20 to 25 %]\n(11)\n=(5)-(10)\nExcess social contributions\n[\u2026]\n[15 to 20 %]\n(101)\nThe incurred social contributions include Deutsche Post's payment of 33 % of the incurred civil servant wages to the pension fund (respectively an annual lump-sum payment of EUR 2 045 million in the period 1995-1999) as well as the contributions to the civil servants' health care expenses. In total, the incurred social contributions amount to [40 to 45 %] of the incurred civil servants' wages in 2001.\n(102)\nAlthough the social contribution rate is defined in percentage of the private employee's gross wage (net wage + employee's share of social contribution), Deutsche Post multiplies the regulatory contribution rate of [20 to 25 %] by the incurred civil servant wage to calculate the regulatory benchmark.\nII.3.1.3. Supplementary pension insurance for private employees (burden #4)\n(103)\nBurden #4 is to compensate for the build-up of the provision for the pre-1997 liabilities from the supplementary pension insurance scheme VAP for Deutsche Post's private employee.\n(104)\nAs explained in Section II.1.4, Deutsche Post's private employees - who had been hired before 1997 - were offered supplementary pension insurance to guarantee them a pension similar to civil servants. However, POSTDIENST did not build up a corresponding provision for the future pension payments. It was only after the incorporation of DPAG that provisions of EUR 8 153 million were made in the balance sheet.\nII.3.1.4. Miscellaneous excess social costs (burdens #6, 7, 8)\n(105)\nBurden #6 contains the contribution of Deutsche Post to the Bundesanstalt f\u00fcr Post und Telekommunikation (BAnstPT) that provides certain social benefits (e.g. social housing) to civil servants and private employees who were taken over from POSTDIENST. Burden #7 includes the contributions by Deutsche Post to the deficit of the civil servant's health insurance. Burden #8 on personnel restructuring concerns both civil servants and private employees.\nII.3.1.5. Universal service burdens (#3 and 5)\n(106)\nThose burdens shall show the cost savings that Deutsche Post could have achieved if it had been able to design its shop and parcel network only based on commercial considerations. The cost savings are calculated based on e.g. the counterfactual number of post shops that Deutsche Post would run without the universal service obligation.\nII.3.2. 2007 and 2011 Price cap decisions\n(107)\nOn 7 November 2007, the Postal regulator approved the price cap for the period from 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 2007 Price cap decision). On 14 November 2011, the Postal regulator approved the price cap for the period from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 2011 Price cap decision).\n(108)\nSince the 2007 Price cap decision, the prices for the posting of more than 50 letters are no longer controlled ex ante but are subject to an ex post price control pursuant to Article 25 PostG 1997 (37). The prices for all other postal services for which Deutsche Post holds a dominant position continue to be approved ex ante in line with Article 19 PostG 1997.\n(109)\nThe Commission will refer throughout this Decision to \u2018price-regulated services\u2019 when dealing with those services for which Deutsche Post holds a dominant position and which are subject to either ex-ante price control pursuant to Article 19 PostG 1997 or ex-post price control pursuant to Article 25 PostG 1997. All other services for which Deutsche Post does not hold a dominant position and which are not subject to price control will be referred to as \u2018non-price regulated services\u2019.\n(110)\nDeutsche Post continued to claim the burdens for excess wages and social costs from the takeover of personnel from POSTDIENST (e.g. average burden #2 on excess social costs of EUR [\u2026] million from 2008 onwards) as well burdens from the universal service obligation. As with the 2002 Price cap decision, the Postal regulator approved the financing of those burdens out of the price-regulated revenues and set the price cap at an accordingly higher level. The Postal regulator's recognition of those burdens in the 2002, 2007, and 2009 Price cap decisions has therefore remained unchanged with regard to the non-price regulated services.\nII.4. Financial results of DPAG\n(111)\nThe financial results of DPAG for the years 1995 to 2006 are shown in Figure 2 of the 2007 Extension Decision. Whereas they were mixed, some years with losses and some with profits, in the years 1995 to 1999, DPAG constantly made profits of between EUR 1 and 2 billion before taxes for the years 2000 until 2006.\n(112)\nFor the years 2007 until 2010, DPAG has realised the following net profits: EUR 1,8 billion (2007); - EUR 2,0 billion (2008); EUR 0,7 billion (2009); EUR 2,6 billion (2010).\n(113)\nThe published accounts of DPAG do not allow for an allocation of the profits to the different services. Therefore, it is not possible on the basis of the published accounts to see whether the price-regulated universal services were loss- or profit-making overall.\nIII. GROUNDS FOR INITIATION OF PROCEDURE\n(114)\nAs the General Court confirmed in its ruling in Case T-421/07 (38), all measures under investigation have been part of the proceedings since the 1999 Opening decision, which has been continued by the 2007 Extension decision.\nIII.1. Pension subsidy\n(115)\nThe 2011 Extension decision considered that the pension subsidy constituted a new aid measure because Deutsche Post had, before the 1995 pension reform, been fully liable to finance the pensions costs out of own resources. Furthermore, the 2011 Extension decision rejected Germany's claim based on the Combus judgment (39) that the pension subsidy did not constitute aid.\n(116)\nFor the compatibility assessment of the pension subsidy as compensation for \u2018legacy\u2019 pension costs (e.g. following the Commission decision on French La Poste (hereafter La Poste decision) (40), the 2011 Extension decision took into account that the claimed excess social costs have not only been compensated by the pension subsidy but also from the price-regulated revenues (e.g. burden #2 on excess social contributions).\n(117)\nWhen taking into account both sources of compensation, the 2011 Extension decision's calculations showed that Deutsche Post has effectively benefited from social contribution rates that have been 10 to 14 percentage points below the total compulsory social contribution rates (including employer's and employee's share) that private competitors have had to carry.\n(118)\nThe 2011 Extension decision therefore expressed doubts about the compatibility of the pension subsidy as compensation for \u2018legacy\u2019 pension costs pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\nIII.2. Universal service compensation\n(119)\nGermany has evoked Article 106(2) TFEU as a justification for the compatibility of the public transfers and the public guarantee as compensation for the universal service obligation.\n(120)\nBased on the Altmark judgment (41), the Commission considered in the 2007 Extension decision that the public transfers and guarantee constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(121)\nThe Commission expressed doubts in the 2007 Extension decision whether the public transfers and guarantee were necessary for the fulfilment of the universal service obligations, and proportional to that end. In particular, the Commission considered it necessary to review, in line with the principles codified in the 2005 Framework, the cost allocation between the universal and commercial services. It also raised doubts with regards to the determination of a reasonable profit, taking into account the average profitability of the sector and Deutsche Post's risk position.\nIV. WIK STUDY\n(122)\nThe WIK study was commissioned to assist the Commission in the review of Deutsche Post's accounts for the period 1990-2007 with a view to establish whether Deutsche Post had been overcompensated for its universal service obligations. More specifically, WIK was assigned the following tasks:\n-\nBenchmarking of reasonable profit;\n-\nReview of internal cost allocation and transfer pricing arrangements; and\n-\nCalculation of overcompensation for the net costs of the universal service obligation.\nIV.1. Description of the 2009 regulatory accounts\n(123)\nAs sought by the Commission in the information injunction of 30 October 2008, Germany eventually submitted in 2009 a complete set of regulatory accounts for the period 1990-2007 (hereafter 2009 regulatory accounts).\nIV.1.1. The revenues\n(124)\nDeutsche Post's revenues can be classified in three broad categories:\n-\nPrice-regulated universal letter services (62 % of total revenue in the period 1990-2007)\nThe price-regulated letter services include all universal services that are provided on markets on which Deutsche Post has enjoyed a dominant market position, including those services that benefited from the grant of the exclusive right. Those services earned 62 % of Deutsche Post's total revenues in the period 1990-2007 (42).\n-\nNon-price regulated universal services (26 % of total revenue in the period 1990-2007)\nThe universal parcel services have always been provided on markets open to competition, in which Deutsche Post has only held an average market share of 30 %. In the period 1990-2007, the universal parcel services raised 15 % of Deutsche Post's total revenue.\nThe non-price regulated universal letter services (e.g. catalogues, cross-border mail) achieved about 11 % of Deutsche Post's total revenue.\n-\nNon-price regulated commercial services (12 % of total revenue in the period 1990-2007)\nDeutsche Post has used its post shop network not only for the distribution of postal services but also to sell products and services for Postbank AG and - to a lesser degree - for Deutsche Telekom. Those commercial sales services achieved about 6 % of Deutsche Post's total revenues.\nThe commercial parcel and letter services (e.g. addressed publications) account for about 4 % of Deutsche Post's total revenues.\nFinally, Deutsche Post provided a number of miscellaneous services, e.g. in its function as holding for international subsidiaries active in other businesses (e.g. DANZAS, DHL). Those other commercial services achieved about 2 % of Deutsche Post's total revenues.\nFigure 3\nAverage revenue shares in the period 1990-2007 (based on nominal values)\n(125)\nThe WIK study only covers commercial services that were provided together with universal services by the legal entity DPAG and its predecessor POSTDIENST. Commercial services (e.g. the worldwide express operations of DHL) - which were provided by different legal entities within Deutsche Post World Net (hereafter referred to as DPWN) - were not investigated.\nIV.1.2. The calculation of burdens in the 2009 regulatory accounts\n(126)\nUnlike the regulatory accounts that Deutsche Post submitted to the regulator for the 2002, 2007 and 2011 Price cap decisions, the 2009 regulatory accounts - which have never been submitted to the Postal regulator - contain a significantly higher amount of burdens that Deutsche Post allocates to the price-regulated services.\n(127)\nDeutsche Post claims, based on the 2009 regulatory accounts, an average burden of EUR [\u2026] million for the period 1990-2006 compared to EUR [\u2026] million based on the 2002 regulatory accounts.\nFigure 4\nClaimed universal service burdens with 2009 regulatory accounts compared to approved burdens with 2002 Price cap decision (annual average, million EUR nominal value)\n[\u2026]\n(128)\nWhile burden #2 on excess social costs and burden #4 on supplementary pension insurance do not differ significantly between the 2002 and 2009 regulatory accounts, burden #1 on excess wages has almost [\u2026]. Unlike the 2002 regulatory accounts, Deutsche Post no longer uses the ETV wages as \u2018competitive\u2019 wage benchmark. Instead it used the minimum wage for the postal sector based on a regulation issued by the Federal Ministry for Labour in 2007 (hereafter referred to as 2007 minimum wage). However, it has to be noted that that regulation was finally declared illegal by the Federal Administrative Court and never became legally effective.\n(129)\nFurthermore, Deutsche Post claims with the 2009 regulatory accounts a new \u2018infrastructure mail\u2019 burden that shows the incremental costs of the sixth delivery day (e.g. on average EUR [\u2026] million per year). The calculation is based on the counterfactual scenario that, without the universal service obligation, Deutsche Post would since 1990 have delivered mail on only five instead of six days.\n(130)\nThe infrastructure burden #3 on the post shop network is calculated differently compared with the calculation in the 2002 regulatory accounts. The burden now shows the alleged cost savings that could have been achieved if all post offices had been run as agencies since 1990. It is calculated based on the remuneration that Deutsche Post paid to third-party agents for sales services in 2007.\nIV.1.3. The profit margins in the 2009 regulatory accounts\n(131)\nThe allocation of the burdens to the price-regulated universal letter services provides a significant relief for the non-price regulated services from costs that were incurred for them (e.g. wage and social costs). That reallocation leads to significantly positive profit margins of [15 to 25 %] on sales for the commercial services and losses of almost [0 to 10 %] on sales for the price-regulated letter services.\n(132)\nWhile Deutsche Post shows in its annual accounts very high profits for its letter division (see also Section V.3), those profits are more than eaten up by the burdens that have been shifted from the non-price regulated to the price regulated services.\nFigure 5\nAverage returns on sales based on 2009 regulatory accounts\n[\u2026]\nIV.2. Profit benchmarking\nIV.2.1. Deutsche Post's value chain: low-tech operations and low level of business risk\n(133)\nAn analysis of the value chain and the assumed business risks is indispensable to prepare the profit benchmarking and the evaluation of the cost allocation. Only if the function and risk characteristics are known is it possible to search for a set of \u2018comparable\u2019 companies and to calculate a benchmark for the reasonable profit which Deutsche Post shall earn.\nIV.2.1.1. The value chain of a low-tech business\n(134)\nDeutsche Post's value chain can be divided into two main functions:\n-\nNationwide delivery network for the distribution of letters and parcels,\n-\nNationwide network of post shops.\n(135)\nThe logistics of a parcel and letter network is a low-tech business that does not involve large research or development efforts. Thus all other operators in the industry work in a similar and standardised way. Such activities are therefore often labelled as \u2018routine\u2019 functions. The high degree of outsourcing that Deutsche Post undertakes to third parties also proves their routine nature. The same goes for the sales services that are performed through the nationwide shop network and have also increasingly been outsourced.\n(136)\nApart from those routine functions, the main intangibles of Deutsche Post are the customer base, the brand name and the strong market position, especially in the letter markets. However, the WIK study considers that those intangibles are essentially not due to own efforts or investments by Deutsche Post but much more due to the historic exclusive rights. Deutsche Post did not have to invest heavily into marketing functions. Instead, it could rely on its legally guaranteed market position until 2007. Therefore, Deutsche Post should not be allowed any remuneration for those intangibles.\nIV.2.1.2. Low risk due to public measures\n(137)\nDeutsche Post was exposed to fewer risks both for regulated as well as non-regulated services than competitors for several reasons.\n(138)\nFirstly, Deutsche Post was protected by a legal monopoly until 2007 for its letter services. Furthermore, within the scope of regulated letter services, Deutsche Post benefited from a market share of 90 % and a non-existing or low level of competition. The regulated services accounted for almost two-thirds of Deutsche Post's revenues.\n(139)\nSecondly, the Postal regulator approved a price cap for regulated letter services. That cap was set above the cost of an efficient undertaking, to allow, inter alia, for the compensation of allegedly excessive costs linked of non-price regulated services. None of the competitors of DPAG enjoyed an exclusive right or a dominant position, which would have allowed him to cross-finance social costs. Therefore, the exclusive right respectively the dominant position not only led to a significant reduction of the business risks for the regulated services, but also for the non-price regulated universal and commercial services.\n(140)\nThirdly, other public measures also significantly reduced the risk for both universal and commercial services: e.g. the public transfers hedged the losses of the early 1990s and the public guarantee allowed Deutsche Post to borrow at the rate of the Sovereign until 1995 despite its difficult financial situation in the early 1990s.\n(141)\nTaken together, Deutsche Post faced significantly lower market and cost risks than competitors because it did not have to build up its own customer base and could pass on cost increases through higher regulated prices. Based on that reasoning, the WIK study concludes that the preferred comparable competitors would be postal companies who only exercise routine functions (e.g. do not invest heavily in marketing and brand name) and are not exposed to a high degree of risk (e.g. can rely on long-term contracts).\nIV.2.2. Quantification of profit benchmarks\n(142)\nBased on the results of the function and risk analysis, the WIK study performs a financial-database analysis (e.g. using ORBIS database covering about 10 million companies worldwide) to search for comparable postal companies. A mixture of controlled quantitative and qualitative selection steps identifies the set of comparable companies that provide postal services on competitive markets.\n(143)\nThe WIK study chooses a comparator group of 26 postal companies that mainly provide parcel services and perform the typical routine activities of postal operators. All comparable competitors come from the industry sector of \u2018Post and courier activities\u2019 based on the NACE (43) code 641.\n(144)\nIt is important to note that the number of comparable competitors is limited because private companies have rarely provided letter services in larger scale due to the postal incumbents' exclusive right that covered a significant share of the letter services. Furthermore, the WIK study excludes postal incumbents from other countries as comparators because they have - as Deutsche Post - been protected by exclusive rights and are not primarily active on competitive markets.\n(145)\nTo measure the reasonable profit, the WIK study uses the return-on-sales margin (ROS) that is the accounting profit (e.g. Earnings before interest and tax (EBIT)) divided by revenues. Furthermore, the WIK study calculates the return-on-asset margin (ROA), e.g. EBIT as percentage of assets, as a capital-based profit benchmark.\nTable 3\nBenchmark ROS and ROA from WIK study\nReturn on Sales\n(ROS)\nReturn on Assets\n(ROA)\nMedian\n3,48 %\n7,33 %\nUpper bound (75th percentile)\n6,77 %\n13,41 %\n(146)\nFrom the chosen sample, it results that the median ROS in the competitive part of the postal sector amounts to 3,48 % for the period 1998-2007. However, the WIK study not only presents the median return but also an upper bound for the reasonable profit, e.g. the third quartile of the comparable competitors' profit which amounts to a ROS of 6,77 %. Put another way, 75 % of the comparable competitors show a profit that is lower than a ROS of 6,77 % (44).\n(147)\nConcerning the return on assets, the WIK study shows a median ROA of 7,33 % and an upper bound of 13,41 %.\n(148)\nAs Deutsche Post is exposed to considerably less risk than the comparables who operate on highly competitive markets (e.g. express parcels), the WIK study considers that the median ROS of 3,48 % is a prudent and conservative profit benchmark for Deutsche Post. It does not recommend using a higher rate in the range up to the third-quartile ROS of 6,77 %. On the contrary, a lower benchmark could be also defendable because the median ROS of 3,48 % translates into a ROA of 7,33 % that would still be significantly above the risk-free interest rate.\nIV.3. Review of cost allocation\n(149)\nThe WIK study rejects the allocation of burdens in the 2009 regulatory accounts because the commercial services' ROS margins between [15 to 25 %] are significantly above the industry average (45). As private competitors are viable despite significantly lower profit margins, the WIK study concludes that a higher share of costs should be allocated to Deutsche Post's commercial services and accordingly reduces the burdens for the price-regulated services.\n(150)\nAs final outcome of the WIK study, all commercial services carry costs to such an extent they still show a profit in line with the median ROS of 3,48 % of competitors. The price-regulated services' average annual burden is accordingly reduced by EUR [\u2026] million for the period 1990-2007.\n(151)\nAs a large share of the commercial sales services has been provided to the related parties Postbank and Telekom, the WIK study also investigates whether the final prices charged to them can be considered as at arm's length and therefore as appropriate benchmark for the costs that the commercial sales services should carry. Based on the available evidence, the WIK study considers that the contracts between Deutsche Post and those related parties reflect the conditions that independent third parties would also have agreed on. As neither POSTBANK nor TELEKOM had in the years immediately after 1990 real outside-options to use other distribution networks, they accepted to share the incurred costs. However, subsequently, as Postbank and Telekom could more easily find other distribution networks and the costs of the universal service network went down, the contract was changed to a revenue-based commission fee that was more in line with a typical sales-service contract (46).\nIV.4. Adjustment of 2009 regulatory accounts\n(152)\nThe WIK study undertakes several adjustments to the 2009 regulatory accounts based on the following scheme:\nTable 4\nCalculation scheme for annual excess result with 2009 regulatory accounts and WIK study\nRevenues of universal services\n-\nCosts of universal services\n-\nReasonable profit\n+\nPublic transfer\nExcess result\nIV.4.1. Adjustment of universal service revenues\n(153)\nDeutsche Post sold a considerable amount of real estate (e.g. real estate which has become redundant during the restructuring of the postal operations). Those revenues should be shown with the universal services that were the primary user of those assets and have rented them to the commercial services.\n(154)\nThe corresponding adjustment results in an average annual increase of EUR [\u2026] million of the universal service revenues over the whole period 1990-2007.\nIV.4.2. Adjustment of universal service costs\nIV.4.2.1. Dissolution of accounts\n(155)\nThe 2009 regulatory accounts do not correctly dissolve the internal transactions: The universal services do not show the total profit which they earn because profits which originate from certain functions (e.g. post shops) are not divided between universal and commercial services (e.g. according to costs incurred for each services) but lumped together and reported as commercial profits. Deutsche Post has therefore not been able to provide correctly separated accounts in line with the requirements of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (47).\n(156)\nWhile Deutsche Post provided an approximate dissolution of internal accounting for the years up to 1997, the WIK study has to adjust the accounts for the years after 1997 and shift wrongly \u2018parked\u2019 costs from the universal to the commercial service accounts.\n(157)\nThe corresponding adjustment results in a decrease of the universal service costs by EUR [\u2026] million over the period 1998-2007.\nIV.4.2.2. Adjustment of burdens between price-regulated and non-price regulated services\n(158)\nAs previously explained, the WIK study does not adjust separately each burden. Instead, it bases its recalculation on the commercial services' final prices that were judged as robust benchmarks for the industry average costs. Consequently, all excess profits from the commercial services (48) are used to finance the initially claimed burdens. The average annual decrease in the burdens amounts to EUR [\u2026] million over the whole period 1990-2007.\nIV.4.2.3. Off-balance costs with supplementary pension insurance (burden #4)\n(159)\nWith burden #4 on supplementary pension insurance, Deutsche Post added costs that are not shown in its annual accounts. As the ROS-benchmark is calculated on the basis of the comparable competitors' statutory accounts, only costs that are also admitted according to national accounting standards or the international accounting standard (IAS) can be included. Therefore, any additional costs - which are normally not included in IAS accounts - cannot be accepted as cost items but must be financed out of the benchmarked profit margin.\n(160)\nThe corresponding adjustment results in an average annual reduction by EUR [\u2026] million for burden #4 on supplementary pension insurance over the whole period 1990-2007.\nIV.4.3. Adjustment of capital costs to reasonable profit\n(161)\nDeutsche Post imputed capital costs to the 2009 regulatory accounts that had not initially been included in the statutory accounts: e.g. [\u2026] costs and [\u2026] costs. The WIK study eliminates both the [\u2026] costs as well as the [\u2026], and substitutes them with the benchmark for the reasonable profit.\nIV.4.3.1. Period 1996 to 2007\n(162)\nThe reasonable profit is calculated on the basis of the adjusted revenues of the universal services and the ROS benchmark of 3,48 % that result in annual average reasonable profit of EUR [\u2026] million. The average annual capital costs of EUR [\u2026] million (interest costs of EUR [\u2026] million and increased regulatory depreciation of EUR [\u2026] million) are eliminated from the 2009 regulatory accounts.\n(163)\nIt is important to note that, compared to the 2009 regulatory accounts, the benchmark ROS of 3,48 % yields in absolute terms a reasonable profit that is higher than Deutsche Post's claimed capital costs (e.g. interest costs based on an internal rate-of-return of about [\u2026] on capital employed and increased depreciation on market value).\nIV.4.3.2. Period 1990 to 1995\n(164)\nPursuant to Article 63(1) PostVerfG, Deutsche Post had until 1995 to pay the so-called Ablieferungen (49) of EUR 5 838 million to the federal government that amounted to about 8 % of sales. As counterpart to that obligation, Article 63(4) PostVerfG relieved Deutsche Post, however, from the obligation to pay any further dividends beyond the Ablieferungen.\n(165)\nThe WIK study refuses therefore to add a \u2018reasonable profit\u2019 for the period up to 1995 because the Ablieferungen has already fully covered Deutsche Post's equity costs. Consequently, the Deutsche Post's average annual capital costs of EUR [\u2026] million (interest costs of EUR [\u2026] million and increased regulatory depreciation of EUR [\u2026] million) are eliminated from the 2009 regulatory accounts and the universal service costs are decreased in consequence.\nIV.4.4. Conclusions\n(166)\nThe 2009 regulatory accounts as well as the WIK study agree that the revenues universal services were insufficient to cover their costs up to 1996. However, while Deutsche Post is left with a cumulated deficit for the whole period to 2007, even after taking account of the public transfers in the 2009 regulatory accounts, the WIK study comes to the conclusion that the public transfers were sufficient to allow Deutsche Post break even in 1997.\n(167)\nThe 2009 regulatory accounts show hardly an improvement in the profitability of the universal services up to 1999. It has only been since 2000 that universal service revenues on average cover the costs. On the contrary, the WIK study shows since 2000 significant excess profits for the universal services above the median ROS of 3,48 % despite the fact that the universal parcel services have only shown a below-average return of [\u2026] on sales (see Figure 6)\nFigure 6\nComparison of annual excess results of universal services for the period 1990-2007 (million EUR, nominal annual values)\nV. COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES\n(168)\nInterested parties submitted comments on the 1999 Opening Decision, the 2007 Extension Decision and the 2011 Extension Decision. The most important comments on all three decisions are summarised in this section.\nV.1. Right to use official German stamps\n(169)\nTNT questions whether Deutsche Post paid a fee for the exclusive right to use official German stamps. According to \u00a7 43 PostG 1997, the authorisation to distribute stamps with the inscription \u2018Germany\u2019 has been reserved to the Federal Ministry of Finance. A postal operator who files an application to use those stamps is required to pay a fee and to cover incidental costs. Pursuant to \u00a7 54 PostG, Deutsche Post had the exclusive right to use German stamps until 31 December 2007.\n(170)\nTNT considers that, if Deutsche Post effectively used the stamps issued by the Federal Ministry of Finance free of charge, the non-payment of the application fee would constitute illegal State aid.\n(171)\nThe Commission observes that this measure has not been addressed in the 1999 Opening Decision, the 2007 Extension Decision or the 2011 Extension Decision. It falls therefore outside the scope of the present Decision.\nV.2. Pension subsidy\n(172)\nAccording to UPS, Deutsche Post has benefited from an advantage as it has been partially released from the payment obligation it had to bear before 1995. Since normal operators have to bear their own pension costs, Deutsche Post was put into an advantageous position compared to its competitors. Furthermore, UPS agrees with the Commission's reasoning that the aid cannot be regarded as existing aid given the fundamental changes in the position of Deutsche Post and the introduction of new legislation to remove part of Deutsche Post's obligations to incur the costs of the civil servants pensions. According to UPS, those major amendments of the system do not qualify as simple modifications of a purely formal or administrative nature.\n(173)\nUPS supports the Commission's preliminary conclusion that the pension subsidy cannot be considered compatible aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. Given the level of sustained profitability as well as Deutsche Post's exclusive rights, the necessity of any relief for alleged legacy costs can surely be doubted. Furthermore, the subsidy granted is not proportional to the objective of common interest as brought forward by Germany, especially as the legacy costs are compensated by both increased letter prices and the pension subsidy. UPS points out that the burden of proof of the proportionality of the measure lies with Germany. However, Germany has not given precise indications of the proportionality of the benefits derived by Deutsche Post from the measure.\n(174)\nAccording to UPS, the aid received by Deutsche Post has enabled it to acquire an advantageous position not only in Germany but also in other European markets in which it competes with other postal industry players such as UPS. As the pension subsidies have allowed Deutsche Post to strengthen its position in the commercial sector at the disadvantage of other players, competitors of Deutsche Post have suffered from a distortion of competition.\n(175)\nUPS requests the Commission to additionally apply the assessment of the necessity and proportionality of any pension subsidies as set out in the 2011 Extension decision for the period 2007-11 and to scrutinise whether Deutsche Post still benefits from unlawful State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(176)\nFinally, UPS requests the Commission to provide more information as to how it has come to the conclusion that Deutsche Post benefited from an incompatible aid. In particular, UPS requests a copy of the WIK study to receive clarification as to the extent to which the results of the WIK study have been used for the assessment of the pension subsidy with the 2011 Extension Decision.\nV.3. Universal service compensation\n(177)\nUPS fully supports the Commission's investigation and fully subscribes to the contents of the 2007 Extension decision concerning the assessment of the universal service compensation. Additionally, UPS provided an update (50) of the NERA study of October 2006 (51) that the Commission referred to at recital 58 of the 2007 Extension decision.\n(178)\nWhile the 2006 NERA study estimated an average return on capital employed above 20 % for the letter division of DPWN for the period after 1999 (52), the updated study emphasises that the return on capital employed would have remained even above 50 % in the period 2000-2005. Over the period from 2003 to 2005 the return on capital employed would have even been estimated at more than 100 %. UPS concludes that the profits of the extremely profitable regulated letter services would have been more than sufficient to cover the losses of the universal services.\n(179)\nFurthermore, UPS considers that Deutsche Post's own cost accounting data would not provide a good basis for an analysis and understanding of the profitability and burdens in the reserved sector. Therefore, a thorough analysis of the cost allocation between regulated, universal and commercial services should be undertaken. All benefits that Deutsche Post received to cover its burdens of the past, such as capital endowments granted to Deutsche Post by Germany in 1995 as well as assets in the form of real estate and infrastructure, should be included in the determination of the aid amount and the amount of overcompensation.\n(180)\nRegarding the internal transfer pricing arrangements with related parties, UPS claimed that the arm's length principle should be maintained in line with the Chronopost judgment (53). Therefore, the Commission should review the terms of the contract governing the relationship between Deutsche Post and DPEED, in particular the pricing arrangements agreed between the parties.\nV.4. Excessive letter prices\n(181)\nFFPI fully supports the 2011 Extension decision: FFPI states that legislative and administrative changes resulting in higher pension costs constitute normal business risk that may impact the business' profitability. As undertakings operating under normal market conditions have to bear such additional costs out of their own resources, Deutsche Post should also not receive pension subsidies granted by Germany.\n(182)\nFurthermore, FFPI points out that Deutsche Post stressed the importance of the pension reform in its 2000 Annual Report, thereby claiming that lower contributions to the Pension fund for civil servants constitute the main reason for an increase in EBITA by 98,6 % in the mail corporate division. Consequently, the pension reform should not be considered to be of minor importance or primarily administrative in nature.\n(183)\nAccording to a study conducted by FFPI from 2001 to 2008, stamp prices applied in Germany in 2009 for 20g standard letters, sent via first class stamped mail, were among the highest. With reference to 500g parcel sent first class, the prices in Germany were instead in the cheap area, indicating the existence of cross-subsidisation.\n(184)\nFFPI is convinced that the aid to Deutsche Post was not aimed at stimulating growth of the German postal market or of certain postal services. During the years under investigation, Deutsche Post was a profitable company. It managed to strengthen its leadership in the German market, increased its performance and expanded its business. Therefore, the pension subsidies should not be considered compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\nV.5. Profit margins\n(185)\nBIEK is of the opinion that other postal operators have suffered from Deutsche Post's practice of using its dominant position on certain letter markets to cross-finance costs of letter and parcel services that have been offered on more competitive markets. In particular, as Deutsche Post can increase its prices on the markets where it used to have an exclusive license and still holds a market share of more than 90 %, Deutsche Post is able to cross-finance the cost of services in more competitive markets.\n(186)\nFurthermore, BIEK claims that, despite the alleged legacy costs, Deutsche Post is significantly more profitable than its peers in other European countries, as shown by a ROS margin of 10 % to 20 % for its domestic mail division. That profit margin may even be distorted downwards because it must be taken into account that the domestic mail division also includes domestic parcel services that earn on average lower margins than letter services.\n(187)\nConcerning Deutsche Post's claimed burden from increased wage costs, BIEK points out that Deutsche Post uses average wages in the transport sector as a benchmark to calculate the differences in wage costs borne by Deutsche Post as compared to its competitors. While the Commission seems to adopt those numbers in the 2011 Extension decision as benchmarks for its calculations, BIEK claims that wages paid by the competitors of Deutsche Post are at least 15 % above those average wages. Consequently, the allegedly excessive wages borne by Deutsche Post are significantly smaller than claimed by Deutsche Post. BIEK argues that the remaining difference in wage costs does not result from legacy costs but is caused by Deutsche Post's size and dominant position in the market.\n(188)\nFinally, BIEK considers that Deutsche Post's legacy costs, including pension costs, have been more than compensated by the increased regulated letter prices. The aid measures, which the Commission is assessing, have led to the situation that competition has effectively not emerged for letter services and has been severely distorted for parcel services.\nVI. COMMENTS BY GERMANY\nVI.1. Comments on pension subsidy\nVI.1.1. No financial advantage from compensation of excess social costs\n(189)\nBased on the Combus judgment (54), Germany is of the opinion that, in the course of the privatisation of formerly State-owned universal service providers, the public compensation of pension costs - which goes beyond the level normally assumed by private competitors - does not constitute aid.\n(190)\nGermany agrees therefore with the Commission that a comparison should be undertaken between the social costs paid by Deutsche Post and competitors' social costs. However, that comparison should already be made under Article 107(1) TFEU and not subsequently at the stage of the compatibility assessment under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\nVI.1.2. No financial advantage compared to pre-1995 situation\n(191)\nGermany is of the opinion that the pension subsidy has not relieved Deutsche Post from a cost that it would normally have had to bear out of its own resources. Thus, Deutsche Post has not benefited from an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. According to Germany, Deutsche Post was not legally liable or economically capable to pay the pensions to the civil servants before and after 1995.\n(192)\nFirst of all, Germany claims that, pursuant to Article 46 PostVerfG 1989, the civil servants, who were taken over by Deutsche Post in 1989, remained in the service of the federal government. Also after the second postal reform in 1995, pursuant to Article 2(3) PostPersRG 1994 and the newly inserted Article 143b of the Constitution, Deutsche Post's civil servants continued to stay in the federal government's service.\n(193)\nTherefore, as the federal government has always remained the sole debtor for the civil servants' pension liabilities, Deutsche Post has never been under a legal obligation to use its own resources.\n(194)\nEven though Deutsche Post was obliged pursuant to Article 54(2) PostVerfG 1989 to finance civil servants' pension costs, Germany maintains that the provision was only an internal arrangement to raise funds for the public budget (e.g. as the obligation to pay Ablieferungen pursuant to Article 63 PostVerfG 1989). It did not establish any liability by Deutsche Post towards the civil servants.\n(195)\nAfter the second postal reform in 1995, pursuant to Article 2(3) PostPersRG 1994 and Articles 14 to 16 PostPersRG 1994, the federal government further remained the sole debtor towards the civil servants. The obligations, which Articles 16(1) PostPersRG imposed on Deutsche Post to contribute to the Pension fund, constitute therefore, as with the obligations under Article 54(2) PostVerfG 1989, only a relief for the public budget. They do not change the federal government's sole liability with respect to the civil servants' pensions.\n(196)\nFurthermore, under private law, it would also not have been possible for the federal government to discharge its liability for the civil servants' pension rights to the newly set-up DPAG in 1995. According to general principles of private law, if existing liabilities were transferred to a legally independent subsidiary the parent company would nevertheless remain liable for those liabilities towards third parties.\n(197)\nSecondly, Germany claims that Deutsche Post has never had enough own resources to effectively finance the pension costs. On the one hand, before 1995, POSTDIENST had incurred only losses that in turn had to be financed from the public transfers of EUR 5,6 billion. On the other hand, when POSTDIENST was transformed into DPAG in 1995, the accrued civil servants' pension liabilities amounted to approximately EUR [\u2026] billion. It would not have been possible to set up DPAG as a private-law company with those liabilities on its balance sheet because the federal government had not provided sufficient assets to make DPAG viable.\nVI.1.3. Pension subsidy as existing aid pursuant to Article 108(1)\n(198)\nGermany is of the opinion that if the pension subsidy were to be considered as State aid it would have to be qualified as existing aid pursuant to Article 1(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 because the State has been the sole debtor and the party liable to finance the civil servants' pensions since the entry into force of the relevant provision in the German Basic Law in 1953. Germany maintains that neither the first postal reform in 1989 nor the second postal reform in 1995 has changed the State's liability towards the civil servants. According to Germany, Deutsche Post has neither before nor after 1995 been legally liable or economic capable to pay the civil servants' pensions.\n(199)\nFurthermore, Germany refers to a statement by the Commission before the General Court in Case T-266/02. According to Germany, it becomes clear from paragraph 54 of the judgment that the Commission \u2018had taken the view, for the purpose of the contested decision, that only the transfer payments made by DB-Telekom had conferred an advantage on it.\u2019 (55)\n(200)\nGermany concludes from that statement that the Commission had already declared the pension subsidy as not providing any financial advantage to Deutsche Post. It therefore had effectively taken a \u2018decision not to raise objections\u2019 within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 1(b)(ii) Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, such a positive decision would mean that the pension subsidy must subsequently be qualified as existing aid.\nVI.1.4. Pension subsidy as compatible compensation for legacy costs pursuant to Article 107(3) TFEU\n(201)\nIn light of the Commission's reasoning in the La-Poste decision, Germany is of the opinion that the pension subsidy is compatible aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU:\n-\nGermany points out that Deutsche Post has consistently paid a higher level of social costs than the employer's contribution to pension, health and nursing care.\n-\nGermany objects to the Commission's calculations of the comparative advantage insofar as it is considered that the price-regulated services cover the claimed burden #2 on excess social contributions. Germany points out that La Poste - as any other postal incumbent - has also refinanced social costs through increased regulated letter prices but that the Commission did not take that fact into account in its La Poste decision.\n-\nAlthough Germany agrees in principle that the price-regulated revenues should cover the claimed burdens, the Commission has neither proven that the regulator effectively approved Deutsche Post's claim to finance the excess social costs out of the regulated revenues nor that the regulated revenues were effectively sufficiently high to finance those excess social costs.\n(202)\nFurthermore, Germany points out that the Commission in its 2007 Opening decision on Royal Mail (56) emphasised the need to assess pension costs of former public undertakings according to consistent criteria, which should lead to consistent decisions. Consequently, the Commission should take into account its La Poste decision and its preliminary assessment in Royal Mail. In the latter, the Commission did not object to the compensation of pension deficits even though the Hopper-Report 2008 shows that Royal Mail's pension costs had partly been covered by increased regulated letter prices.\nVI.1.4.1. Benchmark to be based on \u2018competitive\u2019 social costs\n(203)\nGermany argues, based on the expert study by Professor Ehlermann of 19 July 2011 (57), that the Commission made two mistakes in the calculation of the benchmark for Deutsche Post's social costs.\n(204)\nThe employee's share should not be included in the benchmark because a private employer would not be legally liable for the payment of the employee's share. It would only be for administrative reasons that the employer executes the payment of the total social contribution but it does not make him legally liable to carry the total burden of the social contributions. Furthermore, the inclusion of the employee's share in the benchmark would also contradict previous decisional practice, as in the La Poste decision.\n(205)\nThe calculation of the benchmark social costs should be based on the \u2018competitive\u2019 wage benchmark (58) because the civil servants' wages have significantly been higher than the market average.\nVI.1.4.2. Insufficient level of price-regulated revenues to cover excess social costs\n(206)\nFirst of all, Germany emphasises that the consideration of a full coverage of burden #2 by the price regulated revenues would only be hypothetical because it would not be possible to establish whether the regulated prices were effectively increased to compensate the excess social costs. On the one hand, it is not retrievable from the 2002 Price cap decision whether and to which extent the Postal regulator had taken the claimed burdens for excess social costs into account. On the other hand, until 2002, the prices were kept at the approved 1997 level and it is not possible to establish whether those prices included a compensation for the non-regulated services' excess social costs.\n(207)\nAccording to Germany, it would not be sufficient to show that the non-price regulated services have benefited from lower social contributions than competitors. It must also be established whether the price-regulated services have effectively been able to finance the claimed burdens of excess social costs out of their revenues.\n(208)\nA financial advantage for Deutsche Post from the compensation of its excess social costs would only exist if the granted compensation was higher than the total excess social costs that Deutsche Post has had incurred for the civil servants.\n(209)\nConsequently, Germany deplores the lack of a comprehensive calculation to establish whether Deutsche Post was in total over- or under-compensated for the civil servants' excess social costs. It emphasises the necessity of such a calculation in order to establish a financial advantage with the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(a) Under-compensation of excess social costs based on expert study\n(210)\nTo remove that defect, Germany submitted the expert study by Professor Weber (59) to establish Deutsche Post's financial advantage in social cost from the employment of civil servants. First, the expert study establishes by how much Deutsche Post's incurred social costs for civil servants exceed those that a private competitor has to carry for a private employee (hereinafter referred to as excess social costs). Second, the expert study compares those excess social costs to the compensation under burden #2.\n(211)\nAs shown in Table 5, the expert study includes in the incurred social costs due to the employment of civil servants: Deutsche Post's contribution to the Pension fund and other social costs as Deutsche Post's contribution to the health expenses, accident insurance, further miscellaneous insurance payments.\n(212)\nThe expert study defines as social costs from the employment of a private employee: the employer's share of the contribution rate for the statutory pension, unemployment, health and nursing insurance multiplied by allegedly \u2018competitive\u2019 wages (e.g. the 2007 minimum for the majority of the civil servants).the\n(213)\nThe excess social costs are the result of the excess of Deutsche Post's incurred social costs for civil servants over the defined benchmark of social costs based on the employer's share of social contributions for a private employee.\nTable 5\nCalculation of net result following Germany's expert study\n-\nContribution to Pension fund\n-\nother social costs\n+\n\u2018Competitive\u2019 social cost benchmark (based on employer's share of social contribution rate and \u2018competitive\u2019 wage (e.g. 2007 minimum wage))\nExcess social costs\n+\nCompensation from regulated revenues (burden #2 on excess social contributions)\nNet result (under- or over-compensation)\n(214)\nFor the period 1995-2007, the calculations arrive at the conclusion that burden #2 was insufficient to cover the excess social costs. In fact, the expert claims that Deutsche Post has been under-compensated by EUR [\u2026] million. The expert concludes that, even if it was considered that the price-regulated revenues include burden #2, Deutsche Post would remain under-compensated for its excess social costs.\n(b) 2009 regulatory accounts confirm insufficiency of price-regulated revenues to cover excess social costs\n(215)\nGermany argues that in any case, as long as the price-regulated services incur losses that are higher than the excess social costs, it cannot be established that the regulated revenues effectively compensated the excess social costs. In that context, Germany submitted an expert study by CTcon based on the 2009 regulatory accounts (60) to show that the losses of the price-regulated services have consistently been higher than the excess social costs.\n(216)\nThe calculations are based on the 2009 regulatory accounts and assume that the price-regulated services should earn a reasonable profit of ROS of 7 % (based on the Deloitte-II study that is discussed in more detail in Section VI.3.2). After deduction of the reasonable profit, the price-regulated services show a loss of EUR [\u2026] million that is higher than the claimed excess social cost for the period 1995-2007. The price-regulated revenues have therefore been insufficient to cover the claimed excess social costs.\nVI.2. Comments on universal service compensation\nVI.2.1. Public transfers\n(217)\nGermany argues that the public transfers have not provided any economic advantage to Deutsche Post because the public transfers of EUR 5 666 million only compensated for the Ablieferungen of EUR 5 838 million that Deutsche Post had to pay until 1995.\n(218)\nAs explained in the 2007 Extension decision, the Ablieferungen had their origins with the former postal administration that was obliged to transfer about 10 % of the annual operating revenue to the public budget. In the period 1989-1995, the Ablieferungen were phased out pursuant to Article 63(1) PostVerfG 1989. Up to 1993, Deutsche Post had to pay 10 % of its operational revenue. As of 1993, the Ablieferungen were successively reduced to 10 % of the operational revenue minus EUR 153 million in 1993. For 1994, the Ablieferungen amounted to 70 % of the 1993 Ablieferungen. In 1995, Deutsche Post paid 50 % of the 1993 amount. In total, Deutsche Post paid EUR 5 838 million from 1990 to 1995.\n(219)\nArticle 63(4) PostVerfG 1989 provided that any dividends paid were to be subtracted from the Ablieferungen. Based on that provision and the exemption from any direct or indirect taxes, the Commission contended in the 2007 Extension decision that the Ablieferungen were to be considered as a substitute for indirect and direct taxes as well as to provide a remuneration to the State as shareholder for the provided capital.\n(220)\nIn response to that contention, Germany submitted the KPMG study that comes to the conclusion that the Ablieferungen could neither be considered as a substitute for taxes nor for dividends for a number of reasons.\n(221)\nFirst, the Ablieferungen would not qualify as a corporate tax because the Ablieferungen had been calculated as a percentage of the realised revenues since 1931. As a result, they had to be paid even in years where Deutsche Post incurred a loss. In contrast, corporate tax is based on the realised annual profit. A qualification of the Ablieferungen as a corporate tax would also contradict the legal practice of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, according to which a corporate tax must be based on the economic performance (\u2018Leistungsf\u00e4higkeit\u2019) of a company.\n(222)\nFurthermore, the Ablieferungen would also not qualify as a value-added tax. Since there was no possibility to deduct the value-added tax paid on the inputs from the Ablieferungen, the calculation of the Ablieferungen differed substantially from the usual calculation of the value-added tax liabilities.\n(223)\nSecond, Germany argues that the Ablieferungen could not be qualified as a dividend. The distribution of dividends usually requires that profits were earned in the corresponding financial year or the years before. However, Deutsche Post did not earn any profits between 1990 and 1995 but nevertheless paid the Ablieferungen. As a result, the Ablieferungen could not be qualified as dividends.\n(224)\nThe KPMG study concludes that the Ablieferungen could not be qualified as tax or dividend payment but should be viewed as a levy sui generis that only Deutsche Bundespost and its successors was liable to pay.\n(225)\nBased on the KPMG study, Germany rejects the Commission's contention that the Ablieferungen should be considered as a substitute for tax and dividend payments. It maintains that the Ablieferungen constituted a burden for Deutsche Post that could not be justified on factual or economic terms. As the public transfers only relieved Deutsche Post of the Ablieferungen, they did not provide any economic advantage and therefore did not constitute aid.\n(226)\nIn the alternative, Germany puts forward two further justifications why the public transfers would not constitute aid. First, the public transfers would fulfil the market-economy-investor principle in light of the substantial return on investment in later years and the high proceeds realised in the stock-market flotation of Deutsche Post. Second, the public transfers would also not constitute aid because both the 2009 regulatory accounts as well as the WIK study show that the cumulated universal service losses from 1990 to 1994 were higher than the public transfers. Deutsche Post was therefore under-compensated for its universal service obligation.\nVI.2.2. Public guarantee\n(227)\nGermany argues that the continued public guarantee pursuant to Article 2(4) PostUmwG 1994 for debt obligations that were issued prior to 1995 did not provide any selective advantage to Deutsche Post after 1995 because of several reasons.\n(228)\nFirstly, any private company, hiving off a subsidiary, would continue to be liable for debt obligations entered into by that subsidiary. A private company would remain liable for its outstanding debts even after selling those debts to a third party. Furthermore, it must be noted that the initial public guarantee for the debt obligations was only a consequence of the non-existence of a separate legal personality of POSTDIENST. Article 40 PostVerfG 1989, which provided that debt obligations issued by Deutsche Bundespost had the same legal value as debt obligations issued by Germany, had therefore only declaratory character.\n(229)\nSecondly, DPAG would not have benefited from the take-over of the POSTDIENST debt obligations because DPAG could have refinanced itself in 1995 at lower interest rates. The stock of POSTDIENST debt obligations as of 1 January 1995 amounted to EUR 931 million at an average interest rate of 7,17 % with a remaining duration of 8,8 years. As the short-term interest rate amounted to about 5 % to 5,5 % at 1 January 1995, DPAG suffered a cost disadvantage of 1,7 % which amounted to higher annual interest costs of about EUR 15,3 million.\n(230)\nThirdly, by comparing the average market interest rates for debt obligations issued by private companies and the interest rates for POSTDIENST debt obligations with reference to date when the obligations were initially issued, Germany estimates that POSTDIENST borrowed on average at interest rates above the market average. Germany did not carry out a comprehensive investigation but only compared the interest rates of certain POSTDIENST debt obligation with an aggregated market average.\n(231)\nAlternatively, Germany argues that the public guarantees constitute existing aid according to Article 1(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. As Deutsche Bundespost was part of the public administration until the end of 1994, the debt obligations were equal to debts of the State since its creation in 1950. If the public guarantee had provided any advantages to Deutsche Post regarding interest rates they would have to be considered as existing aid. Germany also refers to the Commission decision on EDF (61) where a similar guarantee was considered as existing aid.\nVI.2.3. Exclusive right\n(232)\nGermany argues that the regulated letter revenues are not State resources in light of the Preussen-Elektra judgment (62).\n(233)\nConsequently, as the regulated letter revenues would not constitute State resources, any allegations of excessive pricing could only be the subject of proceedings pursuant to Article 102 TFEU.\nVI.3. Comments on WIK study\nVI.3.1. WIK study confirms the necessity of public transfers as compensation for net costs of universal service obligations up to 1995\n(234)\nRegardless of all methodological objections, Germany considers that the WIK study confirms Germany's point of view that the public transfers were necessary as compensation for Deutsche Post's losses with its universal services in the period 1990-1995.\n(235)\nAny excess profits after 1995 must not be taken into account because the public transfers were depleted by the net costs of the universal service obligations that Deutsche Post had incurred up to 1995. The Court's annulment of the 2002 Decision also confirms that what had been \u2018consumed\u2019 once could not be \u2018consumed\u2019 again. Given that the public transfers had been eaten up by the universal service losses up to 1995, it would not be possible for the public transfers to finance later excess profit.\nVI.3.2. Defective profit benchmarking\n(236)\nBased on the Deloitte studies, Germany's main objection is that the WIK study includes too many small companies. The set of comparable companies should focus much more on large parcel and logistics companies that are comparable in size and complexity of their network to Deutsche Post (63).\n(237)\nThe Deloitte-II study considers that companies in the parcel and postal sector that operate a complex, large collection and delivery networks are reasonable comparators to Deutsche Post. The importance of economies of scale, scope and density prevalent in postal networks implies that large businesses would be more relevant comparators than small mail businesses. Freight transport and logistics companies are also - to a limited degree - suitable comparable undertakings because they employ similar assets.\n(238)\nConsequently, the Deloitte-II study admits only companies with annual revenue higher than EUR 100 million. It leaves a comparator set with 6 postal companies, e.g. the big multinational express parcel operators (UPS, FedEx, and TNT Express) and some other postal operators mostly from the United States and the United Kingdom.\n(239)\nThat comparator set shows a median ROS of 7,4 % for the period 1998-2007 and a third-quartile ROS of 12 % as upper bound for reasonable profit. A larger comparable set, which includes 18 logistic and 19 freight companies yield a median ROS between 4,6 % and 5,7 %, but the Deloitte-II-study expresses some doubts on their comparability to Deutsche Post.\n(240)\nBased on the data of both comparable sets, the Deloitte-II study recommends a range from a lower bound ROS of 6,1 % up to an upper bound ROS of 11,7 % as benchmark for a reasonable profit.\n(241)\nConcerning the determination of the appropriate profit range from the comparator set, the Deloitte-II study notes that a simple multi-year ROS as reasonable profit benchmark underestimates reasonable profit because (i) there would be significant and systematic dispersion from one year to the other and (ii) there would be also a significant dispersion between the companies' profitability within the sector. Using an inappropriately low reasonable profit benchmark would incur the risk of deterring efficient investment.\n(242)\nMoreover, as emphasised by the Deloitte-I study, the use of the comparable firms' median profit as a benchmark by the WIK study entirely ignores the efficiency gains that Deutsche Post achieved to an extraordinarily large extent from 1990 onwards. In line with margin numbers 14 and 18 of the 2005 Framework, the reasonable profit should, however, take into account appropriate incentives for productivity and quality.\n(243)\nAccordingly, the appropriate profit benchmark should be based on an annual range. Profits at the top-end or even in excess of that reasonable-profit range may reflect out-performance of the average company due to superior operating or commercial performance. As such, such profits should be permitted by regulatory authorities in order to preserve incentives for efficiency.\n(244)\nFinally, Germany points out that the level of the reasonable profit should be in line with previous Commission decisions that have approved ROS in the range between 7 % and 8 % for railways and bus companies (64).\nVI.3.3. Inappropriate cost allocation and valuation\n(245)\nFirstly, Germany maintains that any reallocation of universal service burdens to the commercial services would be factually and legally ill-founded. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Postal Directive (65), any net costs caused by the universal service obligations are to be funded by the revenues of the letter monopoly and not by the commercial services.\n(246)\nSecondly, Germany considers that the WIK study underestimates certain of Deutsche Post's costs:\n-\nThe Ablieferungen - which Deutsche Post had to pay until 1995 - should have been deducted as costs and not been used as a proxy for the capital costs or reasonable profit. Based on the KPMG study, Germany rejects the WIK study's contention that the Ablieferungen should be considered as a substitute for tax and dividend payments. It maintains that the Ablieferungen constituted a burden for Deutsche Post that could not be justified on factual or economic terms. The Ablieferungen should therefore have been deducted as universal service costs in addition to a reasonable profit as remuneration for the employed capital.\n-\nThe depreciation charges should have been based on the realistic market values of the fixed assets as reported in the tax accounts and not on the lower book values in the annual accounts.\n-\nThe costs for private employees' supplementary pension commitments should have fully been taken into account.\nVI.4. Comments on interested parties' comments\nVI.4.1. Pension subsidy\n(247)\nGermany recalls that Deutsche Post was not legally liable or economically capable to take over civil servants' pension liabilities in 1995. Consequently, pension costs constitute a debt incurred by the State in line with the Commission's decision in Poste Italiane (66). Thus, the pension subsidies have not granted a financial advantage to Deutsche Post.\n(248)\nWhile UPS emphasises that a normal operator has to bear its own pension costs, Germany argues that civil servants' pension costs are abnormal costs which cannot be compared to social contributions paid by the competitors of Deutsche Post for their private employees. The latter only pay the employer's share to the social contribution scheme without facing legacy costs relating to pension claims.\n(249)\nGermany emphasises the necessity of an overcompensation calculation, as the comments submitted by UPS and FFIP are based on the assumption that the Commission conducted such a calculation to prove that Deutsche Post was overcompensated.\nVI.4.2. Universal service compensation\n(250)\nReferring to the 2006 NERA study, Germany highlights that the Commission itself considered in the context of Case COMP/37.821 that the returns on capital employed - which the 2006 NERA Study estimated for DPWN's mail division - were insufficient to prove the existence of excessive pricing for the purposes of Article 102 TFEU.\n(251)\nOn a more general level, Germany considers that the return on capital employed is not the appropriate measure for determining excessive profits. It explains that with low capital intensity, a high return on capital employed could be linked to a low return on sales. As most risks are related to revenue and costs, the return on sales is the appropriate measure to determine the excessiveness of profits, especially for companies with low capital intensity. To the extent that the NERA studies use in the alternative the return on sales as profit measure, it shows that Deutsche Post had a higher return on sales as Royal Mail but a significantly lower return on sales than TNT. The returns on sales for DPWN's mail division - which the NERA studies had estimated - therefore remain significantly below the benchmark for excessive profits.\n(252)\nGermany considers therefore that the 2006 NERA Study and its update are neither of relevance for the State aid investigation nor could they provide sufficient evidence for excessive profits.\n(253)\nRegarding UPS' allegation that Deutsche Post's own accounting data would not be a good basis for analysing the revenues and burdens of the universal services, Germany retorts that the accounts would have been checked and approved by a certified accountant as well as by the Postal regulator. It adds that they are in line with the requirements of the Postal Directive.\n(254)\nRegarding the transfer pricing arrangements between Deutsche Post and DPEED, Germany emphasises that those arrangements follow the requirements of the 2001 Antitrust Decision. Deutsche Post sent reports on their fulfilment to the Commission on a regular basis. There have been no objections by the Commission so far.\n(255)\nFinally, Germany objects to the inclusion of the capital endowments granted to Deutsche Post by Germany in 1995 (e.g. assets in the form of real estate and infrastructure) into the calculation of overcompensation. Germany argues that it already submitted pertaining information with its comments to the 1999 Opening Decision. As the Commission neither objected to those measures in the 2002 State aid decision nor mentioned them in the 2007 Opening, the capital endowments could not be subject of the current investigation.\nVI.4.3. Wage level\n(256)\nGermany agrees that market-average wages should be used as benchmark to calculate social contribution rates paid by competitors of Deutsche Post. However, according to Germany, such a benchmarking is in contradiction to the 2011 Extension decision, as the Commission uses adjusted gross wages of civil servants instead of market-average wages in order to calculate the amount of social contributions paid by competitors of Deutsche Post. Following the expert study by Prof. Weber, market-average wages only amount to approximately [\u2026] % of civil servants' gross wage. As such, it is not reasonable to use adjusted civil servants' gross wage as a benchmark to calculate social contribution rates.\n(257)\nAccording to Germany, BIEK's assumption that Deutsche Post uses agreed wages in the transport sector as a benchmark to calculate the differences in wage costs borne by Deutsche Post as compared to its competitors is ill-founded. The expert study by Prof. Weber shows that Deutsche Post calculates market-average wages on basis of actual wages paid by its competitors.\nVII. AID ASSESSMENT OF PENSION SUBSIDY\nVII.1. Assessment of existence of aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU\n(258)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU provides that \u2018any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019. In determining whether a measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Commission has to apply the following criteria: the measure must be imputed to the State and use State resources, it must confer an advantage on certain undertakings or certain sectors which distorts competition and it must affect trade between Member States.\n(259)\nAs the pension subsidy is based on the Article 16 PostPersG 1994 and financed out of the public budget, it is imputable to the State and it is granted through State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. Moreover, as the pension subsidy has only been granted to the Pension fund to relieve Deutsche Post from the civil servants' pension costs and therefore ultimately benefits Deutsche Post, it is selective.\nVII.1.1. Financial advantage from 1995 pension reform\n(260)\nOn the basis of the Combus judgment, Germany claims that the pension subsidy would not provide any financial advantage because it relieved Deutsche Post from excess social costs.\n(261)\nIn order to ascertain whether the pension subsidy has provided a selective financial advantage, it needs to be determined whether it allowed Deutsche Post to avoid costs that would normally have had to be borne by the company and have thus prevented market forces from producing their normal effect (67).\n(262)\nThe Commission cannot accept Germany's claim based on the Combus case-law: It must be borne in mind that the Combus ruling has not been confirmed by the Court of Justice. Several of the Court of Justice's rulings contradict the theory that compensation for a structural disadvantage exempts a measure from being qualified as aid. In that regard, the Court of Justice has constantly held that the existence of aid is to be assessed in relation to the effects and not in relation to the causes or objectives of state intervention (68). The Court has also held that the concept of aid includes advantages granted by public authorities which, in various forms, reduce the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking (69). The Court of Justice has also clearly stated that the costs linked to remuneration of employees naturally place a burden on the budgets of undertakings, irrespective of whether or not those costs stem from legal obligations or collective agreements (70). In that context, the Court of Justice has considered that the fact that State measures aim to compensate for additional costs cannot constitute grounds for disqualifying them from the definition of aid (71).\n(263)\nThe Commission takes the view that the liabilities a company bears under employment legislation or collective agreements with trade unions, such as pension costs, are part of the normal costs of a business which a firm has to meet from its own resources (72). Those costs are inherent to the economic activity of the undertaking (73). It does not matter in that regard whether the undertaking bears the pension costs by directly financing the pensions of its former staff (as is the case for the civil servants employed by Deutsche Post) or by paying a contribution to the private employees' pension insurance, which in turn uses the collected contributions to finance the pensions of all private employees. The decisive element is that, in one way or another, undertakings bear the full costs for pensions.\n(264)\nIn addition, the Commission notes that since its establishment in 1950, Deutsche Bundespost had the legal form of a Sondervermoegen. A Sondervermoegen, while not enjoying independent legal personality, has to establish its own budget and its own accounting system (\u00a7 3 PostVwG 1953 and \u00a7 48 HGrG (74)). According to the legal rules applicable to the budgets of public entities, the budget has to contain the costs for personnel, which include the costs for pensions of retired civil servants formerly employed by the public entity (\u00a7 10 HGrG). In consequence, since 1950, Deutsche Post has financed those costs from its revenues. \u00a7 15 PostVwG 1953 explicitly prohibits any subsidy from the federal budget to Deutsche Bundespost. That rule has been taken over in \u00a7 37(1) PostVerfG 1989.\n(265)\nThe PostVerfG 1989 restates that obligation in its chapter on personnel. Deutsche Post was required, pursuant to Article 54(2) PostVerfG 1989, to finance out of its own resources all costs, including the pensions of its civil servants.\n(266)\nAfter the second postal reform in 1995, Deutsche Post continued to assume the responsibility to finance all pecuniary claims of civil servants under the terms of Article 2(3) PostPersRG 1994 but was partly relieved from the payment of the civil servants' pension costs. Pursuant to Article 16(1) PostPersRG 1994, Deutsche Post paid for the years 1995 to 1999 a yearly lump sum of EUR 2 045 million to the Pension fund. Pursuant to Article 16(2) PostPersRG 1994, the annual lump-sum payments were replaced as of 2000 by a contribution which is calculated as 33 % of the salary mass of the civil servants. Article 16(2) PostPersRG 1994 furthermore sets out that the remainder of the pension costs was to be borne by the Federal Budget from 1995 onwards. Figure 1 shows the annual payments from the Federal Budget for each year since 1995, starting with EUR 151 million in 1995.\n(267)\nIt follows that the arguments raised by Germany aiming at demonstrating that DPAG supported pension costs higher than those of its private competitors are irrelevant for the purpose of finding whether the pension subsidy constitutes a State aid, but will be assessed in the context of the analysis of the compatibility of that measure.\n(268)\nIn particular, Germany has argued that in order to identify an advantage in favour of Deutsche Post deriving from the pension subsidy, the contribution made by Deutsche Post to the pension fund should be compared to private employers' share of the pension contributions excluding the employees' share. That argument relates to the compatibility of the measure, but for the sake of completeness the Commission will note, on the one hand, that the employer has the obligation to pay the total contribution rate to the social insurances on behalf of the employee and out of the employee's gross salary. On the other hand, and more fundamentally, when a Member State relieves the employees of a certain undertaking from a burden otherwise due, it translates into an advantage for the employer, because such a measure will reduce the difference between the gross salary and the net salary. It will make it possible for the employer to hire or retain employees by paying a lower gross salary. Therefore, the advantages concerning the employee's share of the social contribution also constitute an advantage for the employer.\n(269)\nGermany has also argued that a financial advantage for Deutsche Post from the compensation of its excess social costs would only exist if the granted compensation was higher than the total excess social costs that Deutsche Post has had to incur for the civil servants working in the price regulated and in the non-price regulated sector. The Commission recalls that the compensatory nature of a measure does not rule out its qualification as State aid and further makes reference to recitals 262.\n(270)\nMoreover, Germany maintains that the civil servants' pension rights have always been a genuine liability of the federal government. Consequently, as the 1995 pension reform did not change the federal government's liability towards the civil servants, the pension subsidy does not provide any financial advantage to Deutsche Post.\n(271)\nIt is not disputed that the federal government was the ultimate guarantor of civil servants' pensions before and after 1995, even if the Commission observes in that regard that \u00a7 3 PostVwG 1953 and \u00a7 2 PostVerfG 1989 clearly state that the only the Sondervermoegen, and not the Federal State, are liable for the debts of the Sondervermoegen. However, until 1995, pursuant to the applicable postal and general legislation, the pension payments were included in the budget of the Sondervermoegen Deutsche Bundespost. Those payments had to be covered in their entirety by the revenues realised by the Sondervermoegen. For the State aid assessment, who is the ultimate guarantor of the civil servants' pensions is not decisive. The key question is who had, pursuant to the applicable legislation, the obligation to finance them in the ordinary course of events. In that regard, the PostVwG 1953, the HGrG and the PostVerfG 1989 establish clearly that the obligation lies in its entirety with Deutsche Post.\n(272)\nFurthermore, the financing of pension costs is a normal operating cost for any undertaking, public or private, be it incorporated or not. Both between Member States and within Member States, a broad variety of financing mechanisms for pensions has developed. Often, different systems apply depending on when a person has been hired. Therefore, Deutsche Post has to carry pension costs for the people it employs, including its civil servants, in the same way as any other undertaking. The fact that the way of financing the pensions of civil servants is different from the way of financing the pensions of private employees has no impact on the obligation of Deutsche Post to include the financing of their pension costs in its normal operating expenditures. Accepting the argument of Germany would be tantamount to saying that the State could relieve public undertakings from a major cost item linked to their ordinary operations.\n(273)\nFinally, when Germany puts forward that Deutsche Post never has had enough own resources to finance the civil servants' pension liabilities, that argument overlooks the fact that the assessment of a financial advantage is independent of the economic capabilities of an undertaking.\n(274)\nAs the 1995 pension reform relieved Deutsche Post partially from the obligation to finance the pension costs of its civil servants, the pension subsidy has provided a financial advantage to Deutsche Post.\nVII.1.2. Distortion of competition and affectation of trade\n(275)\nWhen aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Union trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid. In accordance with settled case-law (75), for a measure to distort competition and affect trade between Member States it is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition.\n(276)\nIn Germany, the markets for parcels, newspapers and periodicals have never been closed to competition. On those markets, POSTDIENST has always been in competition with other companies, including undertakings from other Member States (such as UPS, FedEx, TNT Express, GLS, or DPD). From 1998 to 2007, DPAG gradually lost its exclusive right for letters. As the market opened up for competition, competitors also entered that market. Therefore, the aid affects trade between Member States and is liable to distort competition.\n(277)\nFurthermore, the Commission observes in that regard that Deutsche Post and its holding company DPWN started in 1997 acquiring parcel operators in European and international markets: In 1999, DPWN was already market leader in the European express and parcel markets with annual revenues of about EUR 4,600 million. With the acquisition of DHL in 1998, DPWN entered into the Asian and North-American markets. Further acquisition of logistic companies (e.g. Danzas, Nedlloyd, ASG, Air Express International) turned DPWN into one of the world's major providers of air cargo, sea freight, and global logistic services. Furthermore, DPWN became also active in mail markets outside Germany (e.g. acquisition of Unipost in Spain and Williams Lee in the United Kingdom). Between 1998 and 2007, DPWN acquired, in total, companies worth about EUR 21 000 million (76).\n(278)\nThe Commission finds therefore that the pension subsidy constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nVII.2. Assessment of existing aid pursuant to Article 108(1) TFEU\n(279)\nGermany is of the opinion that if the pension subsidy was to be considered as State aid it should be qualified as existing aid pursuant to Article 1(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. It argues that the State has been the ultimate debtor and the party liable to finance the civil servants' pensions since the entry into force of the relevant provisions of German Basic Law in 1953. It maintains that the creation of the Pension fund did not change that obligation.\n(280)\nAccording to Article 1(d)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the concept of new aid includes all aid which existed prior to the entry into force of the Treaty in the respective Member States, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which were put into effect before, and are still applicable after, the entry into force of the Treaty.\n(281)\nUntil 1995, pursuant to the applicable postal and general legislation, pension payments were included in the budget of the Sondervermoegen Deutsche Bundespost and had to be covered in their entirety by the revenues realised by the Sondervermoegen (see detailed assessment of that legislation above in recitals 262 and 263). Before the second postal reform in 1995, Deutsche Post was therefore required to finance out of its own resources the pensions of its civil servants and did not receive any aid that had the objective to relieve Deutsche Post from pension costs.\n(282)\nThe creation of DPAG and the Postal pension fund in 1995 led to a complete overhaul of pension funding for civil servants. After that second postal reform in 1995, Deutsche Post took over the principal obligation to finance all pecuniary claims of civil servants under the terms of Article 2(3) PostPersRG 1994 but was partly relieved from the payment of the civil servants' pension costs. Pursuant to Article 16(1) and (2) PostPersRG 1994, Deutsche Post was no longer liable to finance the pension costs beyond the lump sum payments (period 1995-1999) or the defined contributions (as of 2000). The remaining deficit has been further on covered by the pension subsidy.\n(283)\nTherefore, the pension subsidy constitutes new aid because it was set up in 1995.\n(284)\nWith regard to Germany's reference to the Commission statement in Case T-266/02, the Commission first of all points out that in paragraph 54 of the judgment the General Court reports the position of Germany (and not, as alleged by Germany, of the Commission). Paragraph 54 of the judgment illustrates, that even in the view of Germany, the 2002 Decision did not assess the pension subsidies. Further on, paragraph 61 of the judgment reports the position of the Commission:\nAn erster Stelle entgegnet die Kommission, dass sie nur den Transferzahlungen der DB-Telekom Bedeutung f\u00fcr die angefochtene Entscheidung beigemessen habe.\n(285)\nThe judgment does therefore not support the view of Germany that the declaration of the Commission\u2019s agent would have implicitly authorised the pension subsidy. In any event, it is obvious that such a declaration could not have that effect.\n(286)\nMoreover, in Case T-421/07 (77) the General Court found that the 1999 Opening decision concerned the pension subsidy as well and that the procedure concerning that measure was not closed with the 2002 Decision.\n(287)\nIn conclusion, since the Commission has never taken a decision declaring that the pension subsidy was not an aid or was a compatible aid, the Commission concludes that the pension subsidy constitutes a new aid measure.\nVII.3. Assessment of compatibility pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU\n(288)\nThe derogations provided for in Articles 107(2) TFEU and 107(3)(a)(b) TFEU do clearly not apply.\n(289)\nIn the 2007 Extension decision, the Commission envisaged the possibility that the pension subsidy might be at least partly compatible with the internal market as public service compensation on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU. Germany, in its reply to the 2007 extension decision, insisted that the pension subsidy, if it was aid, had to be assessed on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, and not on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU. In the 2011 extension decision, the Commission further described a method for assessing the compatibility of the pension subsidy on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and Germany provided comments in that respect.\n(290)\nAccording to the case-law of the Court (78), it is up to the Member State to invoke possible grounds of compatibility and to demonstrate that the conditions for such compatibility are met. It follows a fortiori from that case-law that the Commission is under no obligation to assess the compatibility of the pension subsidy under Article 106(2) TFEU in the present case, where the Member State and the beneficiary explicitly reject a possible compatibility assessment under that provision.\n(291)\nThe Commission therefore will assess whether the pension subsidy is a compatible aid pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. Pursuant to that provision, aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may be declared compatible with the internal market where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.\n(292)\nAccording to the case-law, the Commission may declare State aid compatible with the internal market if the aid contributes to the attainment of an objective of common interest (79), is necessary for the attainment of that objective (80), and does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest (proportionality).\nVII.3.1. Market opening of the postal sector as an objective of common interest\n(293)\nPostal services contribute to social, economic and territorial cohesion in the Union. The opening of postal services to competition, which has started at EU level in 1998, has brought about increased quality, more efficiency and better responsiveness to users (81). Market opening has allowed the establishment of an internal market for postal services. It therefore contributes to the objective of the establishment of the internal market set out in Article 3(3) TEU.\n(294)\nDeutsche Post has not recruited any civil servants since its incorporation as a joint stock company in 1995. The liabilities for social benefits for civil servants therefore have their origin in the period prior to the opening of the postal market to competition. They are comparable to so-called stranded costs. Such costs come from commitments entered into prior to the beginning of market opening which can no longer be honoured under the same conditions in a competitive market environment because the historic operator is no longer able to pass on the corresponding costs to consumers. If Deutsche Post had not at least partially been relieved from those \u2018legacy\u2019 costs, it would have had to exit the market.\n(295)\nThe Commission has recognised that the gradual transition from a situation of largely restricted competition to one of genuine competition at Union level must take place under acceptable economic conditions (82). Therefore, it has accepted in a number of decisions that Member States grant State aid to relief the historic operator of a part of its \u2018legacy\u2019 pension liabilities (83).\nVII.3.2. Necessity and proportionality of the pension subsidy\n(296)\nThe Commission has considered in its decisional practice that pension relief has to be limited to what is necessary to equalise the rate of social contributions that the historic operator bears as a cost with the rate of social contributions born by its competitors (84).\n(297)\nIn the present case, the Commission recognises that in the absence of any State intervention to relieve Deutsche Post of part of the pension liability for its civil servants, Deutsche Post would not be able to compete on its merits with its competitors. The social charges inherited from the past which are not supported by its competitors would have forced it out of the competitive parts of the market for postal service.\n(298)\nIn the La Poste Decision, the Commission for the first time assessed the necessity and proportionality of an aid measure that provided relief from pension costs for civil servants which were hired before market opening. In that decision, the Commission assessed whether the pension subsidy equalises the level of compulsory social contributions between the historic operator and other undertakings in the mail/parcel sector (85).\n(299)\nThe Commission will apply that same approach in this Decision. The Commission will carry out its analysis in three steps:\n1.\nIn a first step, the Commission establishes the level of wage-based social security contributions of other undertakings in the mail/parcel sector.\n2.\nThen it has to establish the level of wage-based social security contributions which Deutsche Post bears for its civil servants.\n3.\nFinally, it has to verify whether or not the two levels are equal.\nVII.3.2.1. Level of wage-based social security contributions of other undertakings in the mail/parcel sector\n(300)\nThe level of wage-based social security contributions is determined by two factors: the rate and the wage base to which it is applied.\n(a) Calculation of the benchmark rate\n(301)\nPrivate competitors have to compulsorily finance both the employer's share as well as the employee's share out of their revenues. As shown in Figure 2, that the total contribution rate has since 1995 been in the range of 38 % to 42 % of the private employee's gross wage (= net wage + employee's share). The employer's and employee's shares of the social contribution rate have been each in the range of 19 % to 21 % of the gross wage (see the Annex for a more detailed time series).\n(302)\nUnlike private employees' share of the social contributions, the civil servants' share only includes 30 % to 50 % of their health care expenses but not any further contributions to their pension, health and nursing care expenses. Deutsche Post's contribution goes therefore beyond the private employer's share and includes the entire pension cost as well as the remaining health and nursing care expenses.\n(303)\nTo determine an equivalent benchmark rate for Deutsche Post, account therefore has to be taken of the fact the civil servants' contribution is below the private employees' contribution.\n(304)\nThe civil servants' contribution of 30 % to 50 % to their health and nursing care expenses can be assumed to largely corresponds in its economic effect to the private employees' contribution to the statutory health and nursing care insurances (which is e.g. in 2006 equal to 8,50 % of the private employees' gross wage).\n(305)\nAs civil servants do not pay any contributions to statutory pension and unemployment insurances, Deutsche Post has to assume their equivalent, in order to effectively bear a level of social contributions equivalent to the compulsory social contributions that a private undertaking has to finance out of its revenues.\n(306)\nThe benchmark rate for Deutsche Post's wage-based social contributions (hereinafter benchmark rate) has therefore to include the total contribution rates (= employer's + employee's share) for the pension and unemployment insurances and the employer's share of the health and nursing insurances, as illustrated in Table:\nFigure 7\nDetermination of benchmark rate for DP's social contribution\n(307)\nAs shown in Figure 8, the benchmark rate has been between 30 % and 34,1 % of the private employees' gross wage in the period 2003-2010 (86).\n(308)\nGermany objects that any benchmark above the employer's share of the social contribution rate would put Deutsche Post at a disadvantage compared to competitors who are only liable to pay the employer's share. However, as the following simplified example shows (based on 2006 contribution rates), Deutsche Post would clearly be advantaged compared to private competitors if the benchmark rate were only equal to the employer's share of social contributions:\n1.\nDeutsche Post and a private competitor pay the same net wage of EUR 79,5 to a civil servant and a private employee respectively.\n2.\nThe employer's and employee's share of the social contribution rate both amount to 20,5 % of the private employee's gross wage. Adding the net wage of EUR 79,5 to the employee's share of EUR 20,5 gives the gross wage of EUR 100. The total social contributions are therefore equal to EUR 41 (= 41 % of private employee's gross wage).\n3.\nBy contrast, Germany considers that Deutsche Post should only assume the employer's share of the social contributions in addition to the civil servant's contribution to the health care expenses (assumed to be equal to the private employee's contribution of EUR 7,5 to the health and nursing insurances).\n4.\nGermany calculates the employer's share based on the incurred civil servant wage of EUR 87 (e.g. the sum of the net wage of EUR 79,5 and the civil servant's contribution to health care expenses of EUR 7,5). The social costs are therefore the sum of EUR 17,8 (employer's share of 20,5 % of incurred civil servant wage of EUR 87) and the civil servants' contribution to health care expenses of EUR 7,5.\n5.\nBased on Germany's calculations, the civil servant's social costs would amount to only EUR 25,3 compared to EUR 41 for the private employee.\n(309)\nAlthough Deutsche Post and the private competitor pay the same net wage, Deutsche Post would have to bear social costs that are only about 62 % of the compulsory social contributions for a private employee if the employee's share of the social contributions is included in the benchmark.\n(310)\nFurthermore, it must be noted that since 1999 the employer's share of the social contribution rate (which has been in the range of 19 % to 21 % since 1995) has also been significantly below the contribution rate of 33 % of the incurred civil servant wages that the 1995 Pension law defined as the benchmark for Deutsche Post's contribution to the Pension fund. The German legislator did therefore not intend that Deutsche Post should only finance the employer's share but required Deutsche Post to pay a significantly higher contribution to the civil servants' pension costs and to assume as well all remaining social cost (e.g. contribution to civil servants' health care expenses).\n(311)\nThe Commission rejects therefore the use of the employer's share of the social contribution rate as benchmark rate because civil servants - unlike private employees - are not obliged to contribute to the pension and unemployment insurances. Therefore, those contributions must necessarily be included into the benchmark rate to ensure that both Deutsche Post and private competitors bear, directly or indirectly, equivalent levels of contributions.\n(b) Calculation of the wage base\n(312)\nAs the level of social contributions that Deutsche Post has to bear for its civil servants should be aligned to the level of compulsory social contributions that private competitors have to carry, it is important that Deutsche Post is not only subject to an equivalent rate but also that the rate is applied to an equivalent wage base. As shown in the example above, calculating the employer's share of 20,5 % based on the incurred civil servant wages leads to a contribution of EUR 17,8 while the private competitor has to assume EUR 20,5 (e.g. 20,5 % based on the gross wage of EUR 100).\n(313)\nIt is therefore necessary to construct a gross wage for the civil servant (hereinafter referred to as civil servants' gross wage) that provides an equivalent wage base to the private employees' gross wage. It is assumed that the civil servants' contribution to health expenses equals the private employees' contribution to the health and nursing insurances. Therefore, the remaining difference between gross and incurred wage amounts to the employee's share of the contributions to the pension and unemployment insurances. The following formula converts the incurred wage into a gross wage that is equivalent to the private employees' gross wage:\nTable 6\nCalculation of civil servants' gross wage (based on 2006 contribution rates)\nCivil servants' gross wage =\n(314)\nTaking e.g. the 2006 contribution rates, the civil servants' gross wage is 15 % higher than the incurred civil servant wage. That percentage quantifies therefore the error that would be made if the incurred wage were used instead of the gross wage as a base to calculate Deutsche Post's social contributions compared to private competitors' compulsory social contributions. The example given at recital 308 illustrates that point as the employer's share of EUR 20,5, which is correctly based on the gross wage, is 15 % higher than an employer's share of EUR 17,8 which would result on the incorrect basis of the incurred wage.\n(315)\nTo conclude, the Commission finds that the benchmark rate for Deutsche Post's social contributions must be based on the employers' and the employees' contribution to pension insurance and unemployment insurance and the employers' contribution to health and nursing care. The benchmark rate has to be applied to the civil servants' gross wage (as defined in Table 6).\nVII.3.2.2. Establishment of the wage-based social security contributions borne by Deutsche Post for its civil servants\n(316)\nPursuant to Article 16(1) PostPersRG 1994, Deutsche Post had to pay a yearly contribution of EUR 2 045 million to the Pension fund for the period 1995-1999 which totals EUR 10 225 million. Pursuant to \u00a7 16(2) PostPersRG 1994, Deutsche Post pays as of the year 2000 a rate of 33 %. That rate is applied to the incurred wage for civil servants.\n(317)\nHowever, the assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the aid also has to take into consideration the fact that from an economic point of view Deutsche Post does not have to bear the entire contribution of EUR 2 045 million corresponding to 33 % of the incurred wages to the Pension Fund. In that regard, the Commission considers that it is necessary to distinguish between the period from 1995 to 2002 and from 2003 until today.\n(a) Deutsche Post's contribution in the period 1995-2002\n(318)\nGermany claims that, notably with regard to the annual lump-sum payments to the Pension fund of EUR 2 045 million in the period 1995 to 1999, Deutsche Post paid social contributions above the compulsory social contributions that competitors had to pay. Therefore, for the period up to 1999 but also over the entire period of the investigation, Deutsche Post would have then paid at least the same if not higher contributions than those private companies had to face. Accordingly, it would not be possible to maintain that the pension subsidy has placed Deutsche Post in a more favourable position than its competitors. The Commission has to reject argument because it does not take into account the specific regulatory arrangements decided by the German authorities with respect to the coverage of costs of non-price regulated services.\n(319)\nThe Commission finds in this decision that Deutsche Post has been placed at an advantageous positions vis-\u00e0-vis competitors in the non-price regulated markets because a share of the incurred social costs for the civil servants working in those services has not been borne by those services themselves. Instead, that share of the incurred social costs has been put on the account of the price-regulated services whose revenues have been maintained at a sufficiently high level to allow the financing of those costs in addition to the incurred costs for the price-regulated services.\n(320)\nIn fact, Deutsche Post's management accounts show since 1995 that Deutsche Post has allocated to the non-price regulated services only an amount of social contributions based on the regulatory contribution rate. Furthermore, the 2002 and subsequent regulatory accounts confirm that practice. Therefore, the economic advantage for the non-price regulated services has thus existed before and after 1999 because those services have been unambiguously relieved from incurred costs.\n(321)\nTo the contrary, Germany's claim that Deutsche Post has suffered from a comparative disadvantage in the price-regulated markets because it had to finance higher social costs due to the lump-sum payments in the period 1995 to 1999 is not supported by the facts. First, Deutsche Post still benefited from the exclusive right for most of its regulated services. Second, and more importantly, the prices for the services subject to the exclusive right were set at a sufficiently high level to cover those costs from the captive consumers.\n(322)\nFor the period until 1995, price regulation based on the Postdienstverordnung (87) of 24 June 1991 was applicable. It set out that prices for the monopoly were to be balanced. In the administrative practice, this included pension costs. For the period 1995-1997, price regulation was based on the Gesetz \u00fcber die Regulierung der Telekommunikation und des Postwesens of 14. September 1994 (BGBl. I S. 2325, 2371). Article 4 in conjunction with Article 2 and Article 7 thereof allowed the price-regulated revenues to cover not only the costs incurred by the regulated services, including the contributions to the pension fund, but also to finance costs of non-price regulated services.\n(323)\nAs Deutsche Post's annual accounts show, at the time of the 1995 pension reform, the level of the regulated prices was kept at the pre-existing level which had been in place when Deutsche Post had still to assume the total pension costs. While the pension costs were later either capped (for the period 1995-1999) at the level of the lump sum or fixed (as of 2000) at 33 % of the salary mass of the civil servants, which decreased year by year, the regulated prices were not correspondingly decreased to cover only social contributions in line with the compulsory social contributions that competitors pay. As the defined contributions to the Pension fund until 1999 (EUR 2 045 million per year) remained about equal to the pension costs in 1994, the economic situation did not change for Deutsche Post with regard to the coverage of pension costs from the price-regulated services. Both the level of Deutsche Post's revenues as well as its contribution to the Pension fund remained in balance.\n(324)\nThe PostG 1997 clearly set out that the regulated prices should not only cover the \u2018efficient\u2019 costs but also burdens from e.g. civil servants' social costs. The PostG 1997 recognised therefore explicitly that the price-regulated revenues had to be set such that the coverage of the entire lump-sum payments was ensured. As the German legislator appeared to consider that the current level of regulated prices fulfilled the requirements of PostG 1997, he decided that the prices were to be kept at the existing level of 1997 until 1999. The Minister of Economics and Technology later decided as well on 27 March 2000 that the prices which were approved on 1 September 1997 should remain in force until 31 December 2002.\n(325)\nThe regulated prices were therefore kept at the historically high level and were not reduced to a level such that Deutsche Post would have suffered from a comparative disadvantage.\n(326)\nIn fact, Deutsche Post has been placed in an even better position compared to its competitors since 2000, because the defined contributions to the Pension fund were reduced to 33 % of the incurred civil servant wages. That level gives in absolute terms a reduction in costs, which fell from EUR 2 045 million to EUR 735 million (even further in the subsequent years, as the number of civil servants was shrinking and that phenomenon was only off-set in part by the increase in wages). As the regulated prices were kept at the historically high level, Deutsche Post was allowed to earn since 2000 significantly positive profits from the price-regulated services.\n(327)\nReviewing Deutsche Post's profitability from the price-regulated services over the whole period 1995-2002, the WIK study comes to the conclusion that Deutsche Post has e.g. until 1999 not suffered from losses from the price-regulated services despite the lump-sum payments to the Pension fund. Since 2000, the WIK study even shows significantly positive returns.\n(328)\nThe Commission has therefore to reject Germany's claim that Deutsche Post was placed in a worse position than competitors with regard to the coverage of social contributions in the price-regulated services, and that the pension subsidy was necessary and proportionate before 2002.\n(329)\nNotwithstanding the above, the Commission has to admit that in this case there is insufficient evidence for it to quantify exactly the level of wage-based social security contributions that Deutsche Post paid in the years 1995 to 2002. It considers that such a quantification could not properly based on ex-post de facto findings that a certain proportion of social costs from non-price regulated services was shifted to be financed out of price regulated revenues and that Deutsche Post was not disadvantaged in overall terms under the pension fund arrangements because the price regulated revenues were de facto set at a level which was sufficient to cover its contributions to the pension fund including the shifted burdens. It is also not possible to devise a method as to how the Member State could calculate such a level for that period. The Commission finds, after an assessment of legal basis for the regulated prices in force during the period 1995-2002, that it cannot be inferred with certainty from the legislative provisions how the competent authorities decided the composition of the regulated prices on an ex-ante basis. In particular, it cannot be proven in this case with certainty that when the competent authorities fixed the regulated prices at such a level that ultimately covered the shifted costs de facto, they unequivocally earmarked in their decisions a share of the regulated price to precisely cover the amount of claimed burdens from the non-price regulated services.\n(330)\nUnlike the 2002, 2007 and 2011 price cap decisions where those burdens are explicitly acknowledged and approved by the Postal regulator, that earlier de facto coverage could have been due to considerations of the competent pricing authorities as regards the evolution of other cost components or the development of other business variables. That earlier de facto coverage is therefore in this case not sufficient to quantify exactly and with certainty to which extent the competent authorities have increased the regulated price to take account of the claimed burdens for the non-price regulated services.\n(331)\nBy contrast, for the period since 1 January 2003, it can be clearly established from the 2002, 2007 and 2011 Price cap decisions how the Postal regulator set the composition of the regulated prices. It is certain that they were unambiguously set at a higher level to cover the burdens of the non-price regulated services out of the price-regulated revenues.\n(b) Deutsche Post's contribution since 2003\n(332)\nThe PostG 1997 allows Deutsche Post to request that, when the regulator is setting the allowed level of revenues from the exclusive right and the regulated services, the regulator includes into the costs to be recovered from consumers, inter alia, the \u2018excess social burden\u2019 as well as the costs for the efficient provision of the universal service. That method was applied by the Postal regulator for the first time in the 2002 price cap decision The Postal regulator also approved the burden on excess social contribution in the 2007 and 2011 Price cap decisions. The fact that only a share of the price-regulated services is subject to ex-ante price control does not alter the Commission's assessment. Deutsche Post was still authorised to recover the entire burden by making use of its dominant position. In that regard, it does not make a difference whether the regulator exercises control ex ante or ex post.\n(333)\nThe Postal regulator has consistently approved Deutsche Post's claim that the burden #2 on incurred social costs in excess of the regulatory contribution rate should be refinanced by the price-regulated revenues. Thus for 2001, to determine the excess social costs (burden #2), the incurred social contributions of Deutsche Post for its civil servants of [40 to 45 %] of the incurred wages (88) were compared to the regulatory benchmark. That benchmark consists of the employers' share of social contribution, accident insurance and supplementary pension insurance, which together total [20 to 25 %] of the incurred wages.\n(334)\nThat difference between the two rates of [15 to 20 %] of the incurred civil servant wage was included in burden #2 and covered by the price-regulated revenues (see Table 2).\n(335)\nFrom an economic point of view, Deutsche Post therefore does not bear a rate of 33 % of the incurred wages as wage-based social security contributions, but only a rate of [20 to 25 %]. Since 2003, the remainder has been borne by captive consumers, who pay tariffs calculated to cover Deutsche Post's social costs for the services for which Deutsche Post had an exclusive right until 2007, respectively for the universal services for which Deutsche Post enjoys a dominant position.\n(336)\nIn order to compare the rate applied to the incurred wages to the level of social security contributions of a competitor, it is then still necessary to convert the incurred wage into the gross wage of the civil servants.\n(337)\nThe incurred wage corresponds to between [85 % and 90 %] of the civil servants' gross wage (89). On that basis, [20 to 25 %] of incurred wages corresponds to [17,5 to 22,5 %] of the gross wage.\n(338)\nAs a result of the limitation of Deutsche Post's contribution to the Pension Fund at 33 % and the approval, by the Postal regulator, of burden #2, Deutsche Post thus pays a level of wage-based social security contributions of [17,5 to 22,5 %] of the gross wage of the civil servants.\nVII.3.2.3. Comparison\n(a) The period 1995-2002\n(339)\nIn the period 1995-2002 the revenues from the tariffs applied by Deutsche Post in the reserved sector considerably reduced the actual economic burden of the contribution made by it to cover its social costs. However, in the absence of an earmarked element of the tariff, the Commission can only establish that the level of Deutsche Post's contribution remained below the benchmark rate. The Commission is unable to calculate the exact difference between those two levels, nor to devise a method that would enable the Member State to do so.\n(b) The period since 2003\n(340)\nIn order to compare the regulatory contribution rate to the benchmark rate, it must be noted that the regulatory contribution rate is based on the incurred civil servants' wages that are a too low wage base compared to the private employees' gross wage. The regulatory contribution rate needs therefore to be recalculated as a percentage of civil servants' gross wage.\n(341)\nCarrying out the comparison for 2006, the non-price regulated services have effectively carried social contributions of [17,5 to 22,5 %] of the civil servants' gross wage (respectively [20 to 25 %] of the incurred civil servants' wage) compared to the benchmark rate of 33,5 %. In terms of social contribution rates, Deutsche Post has therefore benefited from a comparative advantage of [10 to 15 %] of the civil servants' gross wages in 2006.\nTable 7\nComparison of the regulatory contribution rate and the benchmark rate for DP's social contribution in 2006\nSocial contribution rate\nRegulatory contribution rate\nBenchmark rate for DP's social contribution charge\nin percentage of\nPrivate employee's gross wage\nCivil servant's gross wage\nCivil servant's gross wage\nEmployer's share\n20,50 %\n17,84 %\n20,50 %\nHealth insurance\n6,65 %\n5,79 %\n6,65 %\nNursing insurance\n0,85 %\n0,74 %\n0,85 %\nUnemployment insurance\n3,25 %\n2,83 %\n3,25 %\nPension insurance\n9,75 %\n8,48 %\n9,75 %\nEmployee's share\n20,50 %\nHealth insurance\n6,65 %\nNursing insurance\n0,85 %\nUnemployment insurance\n3,25 %\n3,25 %\nPension insurance\n9,75 %\n9,75 %\nSupplementary pension insurance\n[0 to 5 %]\nAccident insurance\n[0 to 5 %]\nContribution rate\n[17,5 to 22,5 %]\n33,50 %\n(342)\nTable 7 shows that the benchmark level for Deutsche Post amounts to 33,5 % of the civil servants' gross wage and is [10 to 15] percentage points higher than the level which Deutsche Post has de facto borne.\n(343)\nThe difference of [10 to 15] percentage points for 2006 goes beyond the nominal difference of [8 to 13]% between the benchmark rate of 33,5 % and the regulatory contribution rate of [20 to 25]%. The difference includes a top-up of [2 to 3] percentage points that accounts for fact that the nominal regulatory contribution rate of [20 to 25]% has been inappropriately based on the incurred civil servants' wage and not on the civil servants' gross wage that is equivalent to the private employees' gross wage.\nVII.3.2.4. Preliminary conclusion on necessity and proportionality\n(344)\nThe pension subsidy, which covers the funding need of the Pension fund that goes beyond the contribution of 33 % of incurred wages of Deutsche Post's civil servants, is neither necessary nor proportionate, for the following reasons:\n1.\nBetween 1995 and 2002 Deutsche Post actually bore costs below the benchmark level, but the exact difference cannot be determined.\n2.\nSince 2003 Deutsche Post has on average only borne costs of about [17,5 to 22,5]% of the civil servants' gross compared to the average benchmark rate of 32 % of the civil servants' gross wage; the remainder has been born by the consumer, because the revenues authorised under the price cap include the burden on excess social costs which cover the remaining [10 to 15 %] of civil servants' gross wage.\n(345)\nThe difference in the rates since 2003 comes from two effects:\n1.\nThe level of wage-based social security charges which is borne by undertakings in the mail/parcel sector is 41 % of gross wages. In order to compare it to the level that Deutsche Post pays for its civil servants, it is necessary to make a correction taking into account the fact that the civil servants bear 30 % to 50 % of their health and nursing care expenditures. That contribution by the civil servants is equivalent to the employees' share of health and nursing care expenditures of 7,5 % of gross wages.\n2.\nThe contribution of Deutsche Post is calculated based on the incurred wage, not on the gross wage of the civil servants. The benchmark rate for Deutsche Post's civil servants is therefore 33,5 % of gross wages. The relief that goes beyond that level is in principle neither necessary nor proportionate.\n(346)\nFor the period 1995-2002 it is impossible to determine the exact part of the relief that goes beyond what can be accepted as necessary and proportionate. Since 2003 that part corresponds to [10 to 15 %] of gross wages.\nVII.3.2.5. Impact of the particular competitive and regulatory environment on necessity and proportionality\n(347)\nThe assessment of the necessity and the proportionality of the pension subsidy has, however, to take into consideration the particular competitive and regulatory environment.\n(348)\nAs explained in Section II.2.1, Deutsche Post enjoyed until 31 December 2007 an exclusive right for certain letter services. It was entrusted by \u00a7 52 PostG 1997 until that date with the universal service obligation foreseen in Chapter 2 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (90) and \u00a7 11 PostG 1997. It has since 1 January 2008 continued to assume the universal service obligation on a voluntary basis.\n(349)\nAs long as and to the extent that Deutsche Post enjoyed an exclusive right for certain letter services, its competitors could not compete for that part of the postal market. Therefore, the fact that for the civil servants who were in charge of the services falling under the exclusive right the Postal regulator allowed Deutsche Post to fully refinance all incurred social costs beyond the level of wage-based social security contributions of its competitors through increased regulated prices was unlikely to affect trade to an extent contrary to the common interest.\n(350)\nThe rationale for the universal service obligation is that in a competitive market, postal operators will not offer certain services in rural and remote areas, or only at prices that are not affordable. Therefore, Article 4 of Directive 97/67/EC obliges Member States to ensure that users enjoy the right to a universal service involving the permanent provision of a postal service of specified quality at all points in their territory at affordable prices for all users.\n(351)\nThe German national legislation places in that regard a particular burden on any postal operator which enjoys a dominant position on a market which falls within the remit of the universal services. Pursuant to \u00a7 2 PDLV (91), such an operator has to offer its services on the same conditions to all users. Up to now, only Deutsche Post has enjoyed such a dominant position and has been subject to that obligation.\n(352)\nSince its incorporation, Deutsche Post has not received any State aid as compensation for universal service obligations. For the services for which it enjoys a dominant position, the Postal regulator has, however, approved increased regulated prices to finance the costs of ensuring the universal service. When assessing the proportionality and necessity of the pension subsidy, the Commission considers it appropriate to take that fact into account.\n(353)\nThe Commission concludes therefore that for the civil servants' social costs that have been incurred for the provision of the price-regulated services, which fall under the universal service obligation and for which Deutsche Post has enjoyed a dominant position, the fact that the Postal regulator has approved a full pass-on of those social costs through higher regulated prices - even if those social costs go beyond the level that is normally assumed by competitors - does not affect trade to an extent contrary to the common interest. That conclusion is based on the particular competitive and regulatory environment in which those services are performed. Therefore, it cannot be extended to cover other sectors.\nVII.3.3. Conclusion\n(354)\nIt can therefore be concluded that, from 2003 onwards, Deutsche Post has assumed for the civil servants working for its non-price regulated services a level of wage-based social security contributions that has been 11 to 14 percentage points below the level that competitors have paid.\nFigure 8\nComparative advantage in social contribution rate with non-price regulated services (contribution rates in percentage of civil servants' gross wage)\n[\u2026]\n(355)\nThat lower level of contributions is neither necessary nor proportionate to attain the objective of a gradual market opening in postal services. On the markets concerned, Deutsche Post is in fierce competition with other undertakings. The Commission therefore considers that the lower level of contributions affects trade to an extent contrary to the common interest and cannot be declared compatible with the internal market.\n(356)\nThe incompatible share of the pension subsidy for the period since 1 January 2003 is calculated as the difference between the benchmark rate and regulatory contribution rate based on the civil servants' gross wage sum in the non-price regulated services according to the formula below:\nTable 8\nCalculation formula for incompatible aid for period since 1 January 2003\nIncompatible aid =\n=\n(Benchmark rate - regulatory contribution rate)\n\u00d7\nCivil servants' gross wage sum in non-price regulated services\n(357)\nBased on the available data, the calculations estimate a cumulated comparative advantage of EUR [500 to 1 000] million for the period 2003-2010 (see annex). The annual amount of the incompatible aid has decreased over time from EUR [\u2026] million in 2003 to EUR [\u2026] million in 2010 due to the shrinking workforce of civil servants.\nVII.3.4. Response to the arguments presented by Germany\n(358)\nThe 2011 Extension decision expressed doubts about the necessity and proportionality of the pension subsidy because the non-price regulated services benefited from a level of wage-based social security contributions that has effectively been 11 to 14 percentage points lower than the level that private competitors have had to carry. The 2011 Extension decision quantified the resulting annual advantage to be in the range of EUR 100 to 200 million.\n(359)\nIn reply to the 2011 Extension decision, Germany raises two main objections:\n1.\nGermany insists that the benchmark rate can only be based on the employer's share of social contributions, because private undertakings have no legal obligation to pay the employees' contribution. Furthermore, the benchmark rate should take into account the fact that Deutsche Post has always paid higher than \u2018competitive\u2019 wages.\n2.\nGermany claims that the Commission has failed to establish that the revenues from the price-regulated universal services were sufficient to finance the claimed burdens of excess social costs.\nVII.3.4.1. The Commission is right to include the employees' contribution into the benchmark rate and not to adjust the wage level to a \u2018competitive wage\u2019\n(360)\nGermany argues that any benchmark above the employer's share of the social contribution rate would put Deutsche Post at a disadvantage compared to competitors who are only liable to pay the employer's share.\n(361)\nWith regard to that first argument, the Commission observes that civil servants - unlike private employees - are not obliged to contribute to the pension and unemployment insurances. Therefore, those contributions must necessarily be included in the benchmark rate to ensure that both Deutsche Post and private competitors carry, directly or indirectly, equivalent levels of contributions.\n(362)\nGermany furthermore maintains that the benchmark rate is applied neither to the gross wage of the civil servants nor to the incurred wage of the civil servants, but to \u2018competitive\u2019 wages. In the 2002, 2007 and 2011 regulatory accounts, Deutsche Post considers that the \u2018competitive wage\u2019 should be based on the ETV wage or on collective wage agreements for the postal sector from 2003.\n(363)\nIn the 2009 regulatory accounts, the \u2018competitive\u2019 wage is defined as the 2007 minimum wage, which is even lower than the ETV wage.\n(364)\nGermany claims that the calculation based on those \u2018competitive\u2019 wages is necessary to place the social costs of Deutsche Post at the same level as those of its competitors.\n(365)\nThe Commission cannot accept that argument because the aid must be limited to the minimum necessary to ensure that the gradual transition from a situation of largely restricted competition to one of genuine competition at Union level takes place under acceptable economic conditions.\n(366)\nIt would be disproportionate to increase the aid to such an extent that since 1995 Deutsche Post would have to finance only social costs based on \u2018competitive\u2019 wages that do not reflect labour market conditions in earlier years. Differences in wage levels for personnel hired at different points in time between incumbents and new entrants are a normal fact of economic life.\n(367)\nIn the France Telecom case (92), the Commission also rejected the argument presented by France that the level of wage-based social security contributions should also take into account the fact that civil servants are paid higher wages than the personnel employed by competitors. The Commission pointed out in that context that thanks to civil servants, at the time of the market opening the historic operator had well-qualified and competent personnel, without which it would not have been able to maintain its market position. In any event, it would be entirely artificial to single out specific disadvantages of the postal incumbent and to disregard its considerable advantages e.g. in terms of market share, brand recognition and customer base.\n(368)\nFinally, Deutsche Post's calculations cannot credibly establish that, without the obligation to employ civil servants, Deutsche Post would have achieved the calculated savings in wage costs. Even assuming that the civil servants would in 1995 have effectively changed to a private employee status, it is neither established how many civil servants would have been replaced in 1995 and later years by private employees nor at which wage level. Just the sheer number of Deutsche Post's civil servants in 1995 (93) renders implausible the assumption that it would have legally and economically possible to replace since 1995 all civil servants by equally productive private employees at a lower wage.\n(369)\nThe Commission therefore rejects those two claims made by Germany with regards to the benchmark rate and the wage.\nVII.3.4.2. On Germany's claim that price-regulated revenues have not been sufficient to finance the claimed burdens\n(370)\nGermany claims that the Commission only assessed the level of wage-based social security contributions for the non-price regulated services but did not verify whether the profits from price-regulated universal services were sufficient to finance the claimed burdens.\n(371)\nGermany presents two lines of reasoning. First of all, it claims that the Commission did not prove that the national regulator effectively approved the burdens which Deutsche Post has claimed. Secondly, Germany argues that, even if the regulator had approved those burdens, the profits from price-regulated universal services were insufficient to finance them. Germany submitted two expert studies by Professor Weber and CTcon to show that the price-regulated services have not been sufficient to cover the claimed burdens on excess social costs and, consequently, Deutsche Post has been under-compensated for its excess social costs.\n(a) The 2002, 2007 and 2011 price cap decisions are based on the regulatory accounts submitted by Deutsche Post and approve all burdens that have been claimed\n(372)\nSince the 2002 Price cap decision, it has also been clearly documented that the Postal regulator approved the burdens that Deutsche Post had and set the regulated prices accordingly to cover them. The 2007 and 2011 Price cap decisions also confirm that the Postal regulator accepted Deutsche Post's claims and approved the fact that the claimed excess social costs were financed by the price-regulated revenues.\n(b) The study by Professor Weber does not support the claim that the profits from the regulated universal services were insufficient to cover the burdens that Deutsche Post had claimed\n(373)\nThe study by Professor Weber covers the period 1995-2010 and recognises that Deutsche Post has not only benefited from the pension subsidy but also from a full coverage of burden #2 by the price-regulated revenues (see Section VI.1.4.2(a) for a detailed description of the study).\n(374)\nTo assess the expert study, it is useful to first recall the price setting rule of Article 20(2) PostG 1997. It requires that the price cap covers the efficient costs of the price-regulated services plus the burdens from social excess costs and net costs from the universal service obligation:\nTable 9\nPrice-setting rule according to Article 20(2) PostG 1997\nPrice cap for regulated services =\n=\nEfficient costs for regulated services + burdens =\n=\nTotal costs for regulated services + burden for non-regulated services\n(375)\nThe Postal regulator has to set the regulated prices such that the revenue covers the price-regulated services' own \u2018efficient\u2019 costs and the approved burdens. Expressed in a slightly different way, the regulated prices fully finance the total costs of the regulated services - irrespective of whether they are earmarked as \u2018burden\u2019 or \u2018efficient\u2019 cost - as well as the share of the burden that comes from the non-price regulated services. Article 20(2) PostG 1997 ensures therefore that the approved burdens are fully covered by the price-regulated revenues. Contrary to Germany's claim, it is therefore excluded by law that the price-regulated services suffer from under-compensation due to the take-over of excess social costs from the non-price regulated services.\n(376)\nThe expert study defines in a first step the excess social costs for civil servants as the difference between all social costs incurred by Deutsche Post for its civil servants (contribution to the Pension fund, health expenses, accident insurance, further miscellaneous insurance payment) and the employers' contribution for pension, health and nursing care based on the 2007 minimum wage. In a second step, it compares that difference to burden #2.\n(377)\nThe expert study by Professor Weber suffers from two main defects: First, it exaggerates the level of the excess social costs. Second, it overlooks that as a result of the exaggeration, the excess social costs include cost items for which Deutsche Post receives compensation not under burden #2, but under different headings. In detail, the Commission would point to the following defects:\n(378)\nFirst, the expert study calculates the excess social costs based on the employer's share of the social contribution rate. However, the burden #2 is calculated based on the regulatory contribution rate. As the latter is higher than the employer's share of the social contribution rate, the expert study's excess social costs are higher than burden #2. Thus, the expert study includes excess social costs that the Postal regulator has considered as \u2018efficient\u2019 costs.\n(379)\nSecond, the expert study omits that burden #1 on excess wages also covers a share of the excess social costs (e.g. due to the difference between incurred wages and the \u2018competitive\u2019 wage benchmark) and that they are subsequently financed through burden #1. Further social costs that the expert study includes are covered by separate burdens (e.g. the payments to BAnstPT by burden #6) and consequently compensated. Thus, while the total sum of incurred social costs is shown for civil servants, it is omitted that also other burdens than burden #2 cover excess social costs.\n(380)\nThird, it must be taken into account that the burden #2 contains excess social costs for both civil servants and private employees: The private employees' incurred social contributions were higher than the regulatory benchmark before 2003 because interest expenses of about EUR [\u2026] million for the private employee's supplementary pension insurance were included in those costs. Since 2003, those interest costs have been allocated to the financial costs and the incurred social costs for private employees have been below the regulatory benchmark since then.\n(381)\nAs the expert study includes the total of burden #2 as compensation for the civil servants' excess social costs, the burden #2 provided excessive relief before 2003 and insufficient relief since 2003 for the civil servants' social costs. To calculate the appropriate compensation that burden #2 has provided for civil servants' social excess costs, the burden #2 needs to be accordingly split between civil servants and private employees.\n(382)\nConsequently, the result of under-compensation is erroneous because the expert study overlooks that the claimed excess social costs are not only covered by burden #2 but and that the Postal regulator has considered a higher share of social costs as \u2018efficient\u2019 cost. An appropriate correction of the expert study's mistakes on the compensation side puts the burdens exactly in balance with the excess social costs as required by Article 20(2) PostG 1997.\n(383)\nGermany's objection that the Commission erred in the 2011 Extension decision to only calculate the comparative advantage for the non-price regulated services must therefore be rejected because, pursuant to Article 20(2) PostG 1997, the Postal regulator has to set the price cap so that the price-regulated revenues cover the efficient costs of the price-regulated services and the approved burdens.\n(c) No proof of under-compensation of excess social costs based on WIK study\n(384)\nReferring to the 2009 regulatory accounts, Germany maintains that Deutsche Post has actually suffered significant losses with its price regulated services since 1990 because the regulated revenues have been eaten up by the costs for the price-regulated services as well as the net costs from the universal service obligations (94) Thus, for that reason as well, Germany denies that the profits from price-regulated services would have been sufficient to finance any excess social costs from the non-price regulated services.\n(385)\nThe Commission observes in that regard first that, since 2003, it is obvious from the Postal regulator's decisions that he has earmarked a share of the price-regulated revenues as compensation for burden #2. The existence of the contribution from the price-regulated revenue is therefore unambiguously established by the regulator's decisions.\n(386)\nSecond, the WIK study shows, in contrast to the 2009 regulatory accounts, that the price-regulated services have since 2000 achieved significantly positive profit margins of more than [6,5 to 8,5]% on sales.\nFigure 9\nCalculation of ROS for price-regulated services based on WIK Study\n[\u2026]\nNote:\nThe calculations are based on the WIK study's adjustments to the 2009 regulatory accounts. Furthermore, it is assumed that the price-regulated services cover all losses of the non-price regulated universal services. The lower profit in 2007 is mainly due to an extraordinary depreciation charge for the real estate portfolio.\n(387)\nThe higher profits since 2000 are directly linked to the reduction in the defined pension contributions according to the 1995 Pension law: While Deutsche Post had assumed annual lump-sum payments of EUR 2 045 million up 1999, the pension contribution went down in 2000 to about EUR 735 million (according to 33 % of incurred civil servant wages). As the Postal regulator did not adjust in 2000 the regulated prices downwards in line with the decreased pension contribution, Deutsche Post's profit increased significantly. The realised profit has also remained after the 2002 price cap decision on a high level because the regulated prices were not sufficiently decreased to be in line with the price-regulated services' costs.\n(388)\nWith regard to Germany's criticism of the WIK study, the Commission finds that the WIK study provides a more appropriate description of Deutsche Post's economic situation in general and of the profits from the price-regulated services in particular compared to the 2009 regulatory accounts. The reasons are the following:\n(i) More appropriate allocation of costs to commercial services\n(389)\nAccording to the Chronopost judgment, commercial services should bear their direct costs as well as provide an appropriate contribution to the common costs. The appropriate allocation of costs between different services can be proven either by external benchmarks (e.g. market prices) or by internal cost data (95).\n(390)\nThe 2009 regulatory accounts are based on the principle of Article 20(2) PostG 1997 that mandates that the non-price regulated services should only be allocated \u2018efficient\u2019 costs while all burdens (e.g. excess costs from the employment of POSTDIENST staff and net costs from the universal service obligation) should be financed by the price-regulated revenues. However, the WIK study finds in its review of the 2009 regulatory accounts that Deutsche Post allocates too high burdens to the price-regulated services and too few costs to the commercial services based on a comparison to the profitability of private competitors.\n(391)\nThe results of the WIK study are confirmed by the assessment of the allegedly \u2018competitive\u2019 benchmarks that Deutsche Post has used accounts to calculate the individual burdens: It has already been shown that the regulatory contribution rate for the calculation of burden #2 on excess social costs is a too low benchmark compared to the compulsory social contributions that private competitors have to pay. Furthermore, considering e.g. the infrastructure burden on the post shop network, it is a purely hypothetical and unprovable benchmark that Deutsche Post would not have run any own post office since 1990 without the universal obligation. Similarly it cannot be proven whether Deutsche Post could have since 1990 operated only with personnel for whom it just has to pay wages at the level of the 2007 minimum wage.\n(392)\nThe Commission finds therefore that the results of the WIK study provide a more appropriate calculation of the costs to be allocated to the commercial service.\n(393)\nFurthermore, the cost valuation must be in line with general accounting principles, in line with Directive 97/67/EC and Directive 2006/111/EC. Neither the increased depreciation charges nor the upward valuation of the supplementary pension costs are contained in the annual accounts of Deutsche Post. Such costs are normally financed out of the accounting profit that a company earns, which holds true for Deutsche Post as well as for its competitors. An upward re-evaluation would therefore favour Deutsche Post compared to competitors.\n(ii) Profit benchmarking in consideration of Deutsche Post's risk position\n(394)\nDeutsche Post's realised profits have since 2000 been significantly above the median ROS of 3,48 % of the WIK-study as well as the lower bound ROS of 6,1 % of the Deloitte-II study. Germany's claim that Deutsche Post has suffered from such high losses that it has not been able to cover the burdens from the price-regulated revenues can therefore not be accepted.\n(395)\nFurthermore, the Deloitte-II study, which builds on a small comparator set of mainly multinational express parcel operators (e.g. UPS, FedEx, TNT Express), needs to be critically reviewed. The Deloitte-II study's recommendation of a reasonable-profit range starting at a ROS of 6,1 % and a median ROS of 7,4 % neglects the fact that Deutsche Post runs a considerably less capital-intensive and less risky business:\n1.\nDeutsche Post itself does not operate international express parcel services, which are operated only by its DHL subsidiaries.\n2.\nLetter operations, which make up to 75 % of Deutsche Post's revenues, need significantly fewer capital investments compared to the multinational parcel operators because the main costs of letter delivery are the labour costs of postmen. Express parcel operators must invest much more heavily in capital-intensive equipment (96).\n3.\nDeutsche Post's dominant position on the letter market was created and guaranteed by the exclusive right that conferred a captive customer base to Deutsche Post without having had to undertake any major investments into marketing and brand name. By contrast, the multinational parcel operators had to build up their positions in each national market from scratch and have established some of the best known consumer brands (97) at their own risk and expense.\n4.\nFinally, the market and cost risks of Deutsche Post have been hedged through the granted public measures (98)). In particular, price regulation has provided for coverage of all burdens from the non-price regulated services (99).\n(396)\nThe WIK study is therefore right to apply a profit benchmark below the Deloitte-II range to take proper account of the lower capital intensity and lower business risks of Deutsche Post compared to multinational express parcel operators. However, it is not necessary to determine precisely the level of the benchmark profit because the realised average ROS margins of 8,3 % are already higher than the Deloitte-II study's lower bound estimate of a ROS of 6,1 %. Even based on Germany's own expert study, it could not be established that Deutsche Post would have been under-compensated since 2000.\n(397)\nIn any case, Germany's criticism of the WIK study is hard to understand because the median ROS of 3,48 % does not go beyond the level of profit that the regulator and Deutsche Post have themselves considered as reasonable. On the one hand, as explained in Section IV.4.3, the benchmark ROS of 3,48 % yields in absolute numbers a higher profit than the capital costs (e.g. [\u2026] and [\u2026]) claimed by Deutsche Post in its regulatory accounts and approved by the regulator. On the other hand, WIK's median ROA of 7,66 % is similar to the return on capital that Deutsche Post [\u2026].\n(398)\nThe conclusions on profit benchmarking are not affected by Germany's reference to reasonable profit rates of 7 % to 8 % on sales in the railways and bus transport sectors. Those sectors are more capital-intensive and therefore require a higher return on sales to cover capital cost. On the contrary, those figures confirm that the Deloitte-II study's profit benchmark is more in line with the average ROS of a capital- rather than of a labour-intensive industry.\n(c) Conclusions\n(399)\nThe Commission has to reject Germany's claim that the price-regulated revenues have not been sufficient to cover the burdens on excess social costs. Neither the submitted expert study nor the 2009 regulatory accounts support Germany's claim.\n(400)\nOn the contrary, it is clearly documented by the Price cap decision from 2002, 2007 and 2011 that the Postal regulator has consistently approved the compensation of the claimed burdens out of the price-regulated revenues.\nVII.3.5. Elimination of incompatible aid for the period from 1 January 2003\n(401)\nAccording to the Court's established case-law, the Commission is competent to decide that the Member State concerned must abolish or alter aid (100) when it has found that that aid is incompatible with the internal market. As the Court has consistently held, that obligation is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation (101). In that context, the Court has established that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored.\n(402)\nIn line with that case-law, Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 lays down that: \u2018where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary [\u2026]. The Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law.\u2019\n(403)\nThe Commission further observes that the 2007 and the 2011 Extension decisions focussed on the period 1990-2007. However, the pension subsidy is a continuous aid scheme that did not stop in 2007. Likewise the compensation of the burdens from the price-regulated revenues did not cease in 2007. Indeed, in its submission of 2 January 2012, Germany provided data on the pension subsidy and the price-regulated revenues including 2010. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the recovery of the incompatible share of the pension subsidy should not stop in 2007 but should continue until go until the date of notification of this Decision.\n(404)\nFor the calculation of the aid element which has already been put at the disposal of Deutsche Post, it should be pointed out that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, no provision of Union law requires the Commission, when ordering the recovery of aid declared incompatible with the internal market, to fix the exact amount of the aid to be recovered. It is sufficient for the Commission's decision to include information enabling the Member State to work out itself, without overmuch difficulty, that amount (102).\n(405)\nThe incompatible aid has to be calculated according to the formula in Table 8 based on the regulatory contribution rate and the benchmark rate, as defined in the annex and shown in Table 7, and the civil servants' gross wage as defined in Table 6. The amount of incompatible aid granted each year should bear interest until recovery. Interest should be established pursuant to Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (103).\n(406)\nThe calculations in the annex, which estimate the incompatible aid for the period from 2003 to 2010, excluding interest, are based on the assumption that civil servants work in the same proportion for price-regulated and non-price regulated services. The available data does not provide information on the exact number of civil servants who have worked for the price-regulated and non-price regulated services. It is therefore assumed that the revenue shares of the price-regulated and non-price regulated services provide a reliable first approximation for the split of the incurred wage costs.\n(407)\nMore detailed data may therefore lead to a more precise calculation and change the results. Germany has recently submitted new information on the civil servants' wage sum in the non-price regulated services for the period from 1995 to 2007. That information suggests that the civil servants' wage sum should be estimated by means of a split based on personnel costs in accordance with the regulatory accounting of Deutsche Post. Such an approach might result in a lower civil servants' wage sum than estimated by the split based on revenue shares. Germany submitted comments on 2 and 19 January 2012 which suggest that, at least with regard to the 2011 Price cap decision, the relative sharing of burdens within the price-regulated services and also between price-regulated and non-price regulated services has been changed. That information seems to indicate that from 2008 onwards a share of burdens has been allocated to non-price regulated services. In the execution of this decision, the precise amount of the incompatible aid will be calculated in cooperation with Germany, taking those considerations into account.\n(408)\nDespite all its efforts, the Commission has been unable to arrive at a reliable assessment of the amount of incompatible aid for the period 1995 to 2002. Equally, it does not seem possible to incorporate in this Decision calculation parameters which are sufficiently precise to enable the Member State (whether alone or in cooperation with the Commission) to carry out the final calculation during the Decision's implementing phase. In those particular circumstances, respect for the Member State's rights of defence and the principle of legal certainty constitute obstacles to recovery pursuant to Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, according to which \u2018the Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law\u2019.\n(409)\nThe recovery should therefore start at 1 January 2003 and continue until the comparative advantage for the non-price regulated services has ceased to exist.\n(410)\nFor the time period from the date of notification of this decision, it must be ensured that the level of wage-based social security contributions that Deutsche Post pays for its civil servants is not lower than the level paid by its competitors for private employees. That comparison must take into account any compensation Deutsche Post receives on the basis of price regulation under \u00a7 20 PostG.\nVIII. AID ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC TRANSFERS\nVIII.1. Assessment of existence of aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU\n(411)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU provides that \u2018any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019. In determining whether a measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Commission has to apply the following criteria: the measure must be imputed to the State and use State resources, it must confer an advantage on certain undertakings or certain sectors which distorts competition and it must affect trade between Member States.\n(412)\nThe public transfers constitute State resources, because they were based on Articles 37, 40 PostVerfG 1989 and Article 2 PostUmwG 1994, and were financed from public resources, because they came from the resources of the publicly-owned TELEKOM.\nVIII.1.1. Financial advantage granted by public transfers\nVIII.1.1.1. Germany's claim of Ablieferungen as special charge\n(413)\nGermany claims that the public transfers would only have compensated the Ablieferungen that were costs that private competitors would not have normally had to finance. It views the Ablieferungen as a levy \u2018sui generis\u2019 which could be qualified neither as a tax nor a dividend.\n(414)\nDeutsche Post had to pay the Ablieferungen, which ranged between 6,6 % and 10 % of the earned revenues, from 1924 until 1995. According to the KPMG report, the Bundesverfassungsgericht in its judgment of 22 March 1984 did not define the exact legal nature of the Ablieferungen but characterised them as income for the public budget (\u2018Erwerbseink\u00fcnfte\u2019). Furthermore, the Ablieferungen were identified as costs (\u2018Kosten der Leistung\u2019) that Deutsche Post had to pay for the provision of its services.\n(415)\nAlthough the Bundesverfassungsgericht did not define exactly to which extent the Ablieferungen should be considered as a substitute for taxes or dividends, it is clear that the Ablieferungen generated revenue for the public budget:\n(416)\nFirstly, many Member States used the revenues of the postal and telecommunication monopolies as an income source for the public budget in the past. As BUNDESPOST and their predecessors were up to 1995 exempted from general taxes because of their public-law status, an imposition of a sui-generis levy was used to generate income for the public budget from those sectors. Furthermore, it was sensible from an economic point of view to impose levies on those monopolies. Consumers were ready to accept price increases without greatly reducing their consumption so that a high level of revenue could be generated for the public budget.\n(417)\nSecondly, unlike private undertakings, Deutsche Post was neither liable to pay direct and indirect taxes nor liable to pay any dividends on the provided equity. As a result, the Ablieferungen were the only means for the federal government - whether in its role of tax authority or shareholder - to receive income from Deutsche Post. In that respect, it does not matter whether the Ablieferungen fully correspond to the definitions of certain tax or dividend regimes. In any case, the Ablieferungen were payments that Deutsche Post had to pay since 1924 that generated revenue for the public budget.\n(418)\nTo conclude, the imposition of the Ablieferungen was in line with the public objective to generate revenues for the public budget - whether in the form of taxes or dividends - from a State monopoly. The Ablieferungen constituted therefore a normal cost that Deutsche Post was liable to finance out of its own resources.\nVIII.1.1.2. Germany's claim of public transfers in accordance with private-investor behaviour\n(419)\nGermany claims that it acted partly as a private investor when granting the public transfers because the public transfers financed profitable investments into Deutsche Post's network.\n(420)\nHowever, as the public transfers were granted based on accrued losses as opposed to on investment plans, it is evident that a private investor would have never adopted such an investment strategy.\n(421)\nConsequently, the public transfers provided a financial advantage to Deutsche Post.\nVIII.1.1.3. Germany's claim of compensation of net costs from universal service obligation\n(422)\nGermany claims that the public transfers would not constitute aid because they compensated the net costs of the universal service obligation.\n(423)\nThe Court ruled in the Altmark judgment (104) that public service compensation does not constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107 TFEU provided that four cumulative criteria are met: First, the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge, and the obligations must be clearly defined. Second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner. Third, the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit. Finally, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations, in a specific case, is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport, would have incurred.\n(424)\nAs Deutsche Post was not selected by means of a public tender and as Germany has not proven that Deutsche Post was a well-run undertaking, the fourth condition of the Altmark judgment is not fulfilled.\nVIII.1.2. Conclusions on existence of aid\n(425)\nThe public transfers were granted from State resources and relieved Deutsche Post from costs that are normally assumed by private undertakings. Germany has not been able to prove that the public transfers fulfilled the Altmark criteria to escape the classification of aid.\n(426)\nFor the reasons set out above in Section VII.1.2, the public transfers are liable to distort competition and affect trade.\n(427)\nThe Commission finds therefore that the public transfers constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nVIII.2. Assessment of existing aid pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU\n(428)\nThe public transfers were introduced by Article 37(2)(3) PostVerfG 1989 and constitute therefore a new aid measure.\nVIII.3. Assessment of compatibility pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU\n(429)\nArticle 106(2) TFEU provides that undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest, or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly are subject to the rules contained in the Treaty, in particular to the rules on competition. However, it foresees an exception from the rules contained in the Treaty, providing that a number of criteria are met: Firstly, there must be an act of entrustment, whereby the State confers responsibility for the execution of a certain task to an undertaking. Secondly, the entrustment must relate to a service of general economic interest. Thirdly, the exception has to be necessary for the performance of the tasks assigned and proportional to that end. Finally, the development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.\n(430)\nThe Commission has - in the 1996 and 2001 Communications (105), (106) as well as in the 2005 Framework on services of general economic interest - explained the application of the necessity and proportionality requirements for the exception under Article 106(2) TFEU. Section 2.4 of the 2005 Framework is the latest codification of the meaning and extent of those requirements that have consistently been applied in the past by the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Commission.\n(431)\nAccording to Section 2.4 of the 2005 Framework, the necessity and proportionality of the granted compensation must be in line with the following principles:\n1.\nThe amount of compensation may not exceed what is necessary to cover the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and reasonable profit for discharging those obligations.\n2.\nThe amount of compensation includes all advantages granted by the State or through State resources in any form whatsoever - irrespective of their classification for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n3.\nThe amount of compensation must be actually used for the operation of the service of general economic interest concerned. Public service compensation used to operate on other markets is not justified, and consequently constitutes incompatible State aid.\n(432)\nIn the Commission's decisional practice, public compensation for universal service costs has been considered as compatible aid (or even no aid) as long as the public compensation is lower than the incurred net costs of the universal service (107).\nVIII.3.1. Entrustment with a service of general economic interest\n(433)\nThe successive Postal Directives as well as Court jurisprudence (108) have always recognised the universal provision of postal services as a service of general economic interest.\n(434)\nDeutsche Post was entrusted until 31 December 2007 with the provision of universal postal services by the successive postal laws.\nVIII.3.2. Necessity and proportionality of public transfers\n(435)\nGermany maintains that the public transfers were a proportional compensation measure because they were, according to the 2009 regulatory accounts, significantly below the incurred net costs of the universal service obligations from 1990 to 1995. The 2009 regulatory accounts show in 1995 that, despite the public transfers, Deutsche Post would have suffered from an under-compensation of EUR [\u2026] million (actualised value in 1995) of the cumulated net costs deriving from the universal service obligations for the period 1990-1995.\n(436)\nAfter the adjustments of the cost allocation and valuation in the 2009 regulatory accounts, the WIK study comes to the conclusion that the public transfers compensated the cumulated net costs from the universal service obligation for the period 1990-1995.\n(437)\nThe WIK calculations show that the compensation exceeded the cumulated net costs by EUR [0 to 20] million in 1995. However, the Commission acknowledges that the quality of the accounting data for those years is poor. Furthermore, WIK has only accepted the Ablieferungen as a capital cost, and not allowed any further reasonable profit.\n(438)\nFor those two reasons, the Commission finds that the WIK study cannot be used as a base to refute Germany's claim that the public transfers constituted a proportional compensation of Deutsche Post's universal service costs.\nTable 10\nCalculation of cumulated net costs from universal service obligation and public transfers (actualised 1995 values)\n2009 regulatory accounts\nWIK study\nCumulated net costs\n- EUR [\u2026] million\n- EUR [\u2026] million\nPublic transfers\n+ EUR 6 707 million\n+ EUR 6 707 million\nOver-/under-compensation\n- EUR [\u2026] million\n+ EUR [0 to 20] million\n(439)\nThe public transfers are therefore compatible aid pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU because they did not exceed the net costs that Deutsche Post had incurred because of its universal service obligations.\nIX. THE PUBLIC GUARANTEE FOR DEBT OBLIGATIONS ISSUED BEFORE 1995 CONSTITUTES EXISTING AID PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 108(3) TFEU\n(440)\nThe Commission observes that the rules on the public guarantee for debt obligations were introduced in 1953 by \u00a7 22 (4) PostVwG 1953. When the PostVwG 1953 was repealed by the PostVerfG 1989, the same provision was taken over in \u00a7 40 PostVerfG 1989 without any modification.\n(441)\nAs the public guarantee for debt obligations was introduced in 1953, and therefore prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Rome in 1958, it constitutes existing aid according to Article 1(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.\n(442)\n\u00a7 2(4) PostUmwG 1995 put an end to that existing aid. The fact that the State remained guarantor for the debt obligations issued prior to the incorporation of Deutsche Post does not constitute new aid, as the advantage for Deutsche Post has been granted at the point in time at which the debt obligation was issued.\nX. CONCLUSIONS\n(443)\nThe Commission finds that the pension subsidy and the public transfers constitute aid measures within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because they have relieved Deutsche Post AG of costs that are normally assumed by undertakings.\n(444)\nThe Commission finds that Germany has unlawfully implemented the pension subsidy and the public transfers in breach of Article 108(2) TFEU. The public guarantee for debt obligations issued by Deutsche Post prior to its incorporation constitutes existing aid, which was abolished in 1995.\n(445)\nThe pension subsidy is incompatible with the internal market, in light of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, to the extent that it provided a comparative advantage for the non-price regulated services whose financing from the price-regulated revenues in light of the burdens was approved by the Postal regulator. Germany has disproportionally relieved Deutsche Post AG from social contributions, since under the pension relief arrangements it not only granted the pension subsidy but also in addition allowed Deutsche Post AG to pass on to consumers of the price-regulated services a share of the non-price regulated services' social costs that should have been borne by itself in order to be in line with private competitors.\n(446)\nAs a result, the pension relief arrangements have placed Deutsche Post AG at an advantageous position with respect to private competitors, since Deutsche Post AG has borne for its non-price regulated services fewer social contribution charges compared to those that private competitors have to compulsorily bear as costs.\n(447)\nAccordingly, the incompatible aid should be calculated as the difference between the benchmark rate, which aligns Deutsche Post AG's social contribution charges for the non-price regulated services to those of competitors, and the regulatory contribution rate, effectively borne by Deutsche Post AG for its non-price regulated services, multiplied by the civil servants' gross wage sum in the non-price regulated services. In particular, the incompatible aid should be calculated according to the formula in Table 8 based on the definitions of the regulatory contribution rate and the benchmark rate as in Table 7 and in the Annex and the civil servants' gross wage as defined in Table 6.\n(448)\nThe incompatible aid, which has been put at the disposal of Deutsche Post since 1 January 2003, should be recovered from that date until the comparative advantage will have ceased to exist. Furthermore, Germany should take the necessary steps to amend the pension cost relief based on the pension subsidy and the price regulation with a view to abolish the comparative advantage.\n(449)\nThe Commission finds that the public transfers are a compatible aid measure pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU because they compensated the Deutsche Post's cumulated net costs from the universal service obligation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The pension subsidy to Deutsche Post AG constitutes State aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU and has unlawfully been granted by Germany in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU.\n2. The pension subsidy is incompatible with the internal market in so far as Germany has disproportionally contributed to the financing of Deutsche Post AG's retired civil servants' pensions.\nArticle 2\nThe public transfers that constitute aid to Deutsche Post AG pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU and were unlawfully granted by Germany in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU are compatible with the internal market.\nArticle 3\nThe public guarantee constitutes existing aid to Deutsche Post AG pursuant to Articles 107(1) and 108(3) TFEU.\nArticle 4\n1. Germany shall recover from Deutsche Post AG the incompatible aid referred to in Article 1, which has been put at the disposal of Deutsche Post AG for the period from 1 January 2003 until the comparative advantage has been brought to an end.\n2. The sums to be recovered pursuant to paragraph 1 shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 and to Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 (109) amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\n4. From the date of notification of this Decision, Germany shall ensure that Deutsche Post AG will no longer benefit from a comparative advantage for the non-price regulated services in light of the financing from the price-regulated revenues of the burdens approved by the Postal regulator.\nArticle 5\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1, as foreseen in Article 4, shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Germany shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 6\n1. Within two months following notification of this Decision, Germany shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nTotal amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from Deutsche Post AG;\n(b)\nDetailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\nDocuments demonstrating that Deutsche Post AG has been ordered to repay the incompatible aid.\n2. Germany shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the incompatible State aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from Deutsche Post AG.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 25 January 2012.", "references": ["34", "6", "12", "1", "75", "71", "99", "80", "41", "79", "57", "42", "33", "76", "94", "55", "64", "7", "88", "60", "53", "43", "61", "23", "46", "65", "38", "98", "54", "49", "No Label", "8", "15", "24", "37", "40", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "24", "37", "40", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 388/2010/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 7 July 2010\nproviding macrofinancial assistance to Ukraine\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 212 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRelations between Ukraine and the European Union are developing within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy. In 2005, the Community and Ukraine agreed on a European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan identifying medium-term priorities in EU-Ukraine relations. That Action Plan was replaced by the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda of November 2009. Since 2007, the Community and Ukraine have been negotiating an Association Agreement that is expected to replace the existing Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. The framework of EU-Ukraine relations is further enhanced by the newly launched Eastern Partnership.\n(2)\nThe Ukrainian economy has been increasingly affected by the international financial crisis, with dramatically declining output, a deteriorating fiscal position and rising external financing needs.\n(3)\nUkraine\u2019s economic stabilisation and recovery is supported by financial assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF Stand-By Arrangement (SBA) for Ukraine was approved in November 2008.\n(4)\nFollowing a further deterioration of Ukraine\u2019s fiscal position, a large part of the second tranche under the IMF\u2019s SBA and the full amount of the third tranche were channelled to Ukraine\u2019s State budget.\n(5)\nUkraine has requested Union macrofinancial assistance in view of the deteriorating economic situation and outlook.\n(6)\nGiven that a residual financing gap in 2009-2010 remains in Ukraine\u2019s balance of payments, macrofinancial assistance is considered an appropriate response to Ukraine\u2019s request to support economic stabilisation in conjunction with the current IMF programme. This macrofinancial assistance is also expected to contribute to alleviating the external financing needs of the State budget.\n(7)\nUnion macrofinancial assistance can only contribute to economic stabilisation if the main political forces in Ukraine ensure political stability and establish a broad consensus on a rigorous implementation of the necessary structural reforms.\n(8)\nUnion macrofinancial assistance should be provided to Ukraine in addition to the loan facility granted under Council Decision 2002/639/EC of 12 July 2002 providing supplementary macrofinancial assistance to Ukraine (2).\n(9)\nThe Union macrofinancial assistance should not merely supplement programmes and resources from the IMF and the World Bank, but should ensure the added value of Union involvement.\n(10)\nThe Commission should ensure that the Union macrofinancial assistance is legally and substantially in line with the measures taken within the different areas of external action and other relevant Union policies.\n(11)\nThe specific objectives of the Union macrofinancial assistance should strengthen efficiency, transparency and accountability. These objectives should be regularly monitored by the Commission.\n(12)\nThe conditions underlying the provision of the Union macrofinancial assistance should reflect the key principles and objectives of the Union\u2019s policy towards Ukraine.\n(13)\nIn order to ensure efficient protection of the Union\u2019s financial interests linked to this macrofinancial assistance, it is necessary that Ukraine adopt appropriate measures relating to the prevention of, and the fight against, fraud, corruption and any other irregularities linked to this assistance. It is also necessary that the Commission provide for appropriate controls and that the Court of Auditors provides for appropriate audits.\n(14)\nThe release of the Union macrofinancial assistance is without prejudice to the powers of the budgetary authority.\n(15)\nThis macrofinancial assistance should be managed by the Commission. In order to ensure that the European Parliament and the Economic and Financial Committee are able to follow the implementation of this Decision, the Commission should regularly inform them of developments relating to the assistance and provide them with relevant documents.\n(16)\nAccording to Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers shall be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (3) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Union shall make available to Ukraine macrofinancial assistance in the form of a loan facility with a maximum principal amount of EUR 500 million and a maximum average maturity of 15 years with a view to supporting Ukraine\u2019s economic stabilisation and alleviating its balance of payments and budgetary needs, as identified in the current IMF programme.\n2. To this end, the Commission shall be empowered to borrow the necessary resources on behalf of the Union.\n3. The release of the Union macrofinancial assistance shall be managed by the Commission in a manner consistent with the agreements or understandings reached between the IMF and Ukraine and with the key principles and objectives of economic reform set out in the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda. The Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament and the Economic and Financial Committee of developments in the management of the assistance and provide them with relevant documents.\n4. The Union macrofinancial assistance shall be made available for two years and six months starting from the first day after the entry into force of the Memorandum of Understanding referred to in Article 2(1).\nArticle 2\n1. The Commission, acting in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 6(2), shall be empowered to agree with the Ukrainian authorities on the economic policy conditions attached to the Union macrofinancial assistance, to be laid down in a Memorandum of Understanding which shall include a timeframe for their fulfilment (hereinafter the \u2018Memorandum of Understanding\u2019). The conditions shall be consistent with the agreements or understandings reached between the IMF and Ukraine and with the key principles and objectives of economic reform set out in the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda. These principles and objectives aim at strengthening the efficiency, transparency and accountability of the assistance, including in particular public finance management systems in Ukraine. Progress in attaining these objectives shall be regularly monitored by the Commission. The detailed financial terms of the assistance shall be laid down in a Loan Agreement to be agreed between the Commission and the Ukrainian authorities.\n2. During the implementation of the Union macrofinancial assistance, the Commission shall monitor the soundness of Ukraine\u2019s financial arrangements, administrative procedures, internal and external control mechanisms which are relevant to such assistance and the adherence to the agreed timeframe.\n3. The Commission shall verify at regular intervals that Ukraine\u2019s economic policies are in accordance with the objectives of the Union macrofinancial assistance and that the agreed economic policy conditions are being satisfactorily fulfilled. In doing so, the Commission shall coordinate closely with the IMF and the World Bank, and, when required, with the Economic and Financial Committee.\nArticle 3\n1. Subject to the conditions of paragraph 2, the Union macrofinancial assistance to Ukraine shall be made available by the Commission in two loan instalments. The size of each instalment shall be laid down in the Memorandum of Understanding.\n2. The Commission shall decide on the release of the instalments subject to satisfactory implementation of the economic policy conditions agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding. The disbursement of the second instalment shall not take place earlier than three months after the release of the first instalment.\n3. The Union funds shall be paid to the National Bank of Ukraine. Subject to provisions to be agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding, including a confirmation of residual budgetary financing needs, the Union funds may be transferred to the Treasury of Ukraine as the final beneficiary.\nArticle 4\n1. The borrowing and the lending operations referred to in this Decision shall be carried out in euro using the same value date and shall not involve the Union in the transformation of maturities, in any exchange or interest rate risks or in any other commercial risk.\n2. The Commission shall take the necessary steps, if Ukraine so requests, to ensure that an early repayment clause is included in the loan\u2019s terms and conditions and that it is matched by a corresponding clause in the terms and conditions of the borrowing operations.\n3. At the request of Ukraine, and where circumstances permit an improvement of the interest rate of the loan, the Commission may refinance all or part of its initial borrowings or restructure the corresponding financial conditions. Refinancing or restructuring operations shall be carried out in accordance with the conditions set out in paragraph 1 and shall not have the effect of extending the average maturity of the borrowing concerned or increasing the amount of capital outstanding at the date of the refinancing or restructuring.\n4. All costs incurred by the Union which are related to the borrowing and lending operations under this Decision shall be borne by Ukraine.\n5. The European Parliament and the Economic and Financial Committee shall be kept informed of developments in the operations referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3.\nArticle 5\nThe Union macrofinancial assistance shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4) and its implementing rules (5). In particular, the Memorandum of Understanding and the Loan Agreement to be agreed with the Ukrainian authorities shall provide for specific measures to be implemented by Ukraine in relation to the prevention of, and the fight against, fraud, corruption and other irregularities affecting the assistance. In order to ensure greater transparency in the management and disbursement of funds, the Memorandum of Understanding and the Loan Agreement shall also provide for controls, including on-the-spot checks and inspections, to be carried out by the Commission, including the European Anti-Fraud Office. They shall in addition provide for audits, including where appropriate on-the-spot audits, by the Court of Auditors.\nArticle 6\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 3 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\nArticle 7\nBy 31 August of each year, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation of this Decision in the preceding year, including an evaluation thereof. The report shall indicate the connection between the policy conditions as laid down in the Memorandum of Understanding, Ukraine\u2019s on-going economic and fiscal performance and the Commission\u2019s decisions to release the instalments of the assistance.\nNo later than two years after the expiry of the availability period referred to in Article 1(4), the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council an ex post evaluation report.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 7 July 2010.", "references": ["70", "0", "40", "48", "92", "20", "49", "75", "68", "64", "81", "8", "98", "85", "86", "5", "11", "59", "78", "71", "73", "88", "43", "39", "27", "3", "99", "42", "29", "26", "No Label", "4", "9", "15", "16", "19", "91", "97"], "gold": ["4", "9", "15", "16", "19", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 11 April 2011\nappointing one Italian member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/243/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Italian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nOne member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Riccardo VENTRE,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby reappointed to the Committee of the Regions as a member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr Riccardo VENTRE, Assessore del Comune di Piana di Monte Verna (change of mandate).\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["56", "19", "85", "88", "23", "51", "3", "65", "12", "43", "9", "78", "21", "60", "54", "93", "31", "4", "83", "14", "27", "38", "42", "61", "48", "2", "89", "73", "20", "75", "No Label", "7", "52", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "52", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 2 March 2011\namending Decision 2008/456/EC laying down rules for the implementation of Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the External Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme \u2018Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows\u2019 as regards Member States\u2019 management and control systems, the rules for administrative and financial management and the eligibility of expenditure on projects co-financed by the Fund\n(notified under document C(2011) 1160)\n(Only the Bulgarian, Czech, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2011/148/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing the External Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme \u2018Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows\u2019 (1), and in particular Article 25 and Article 37(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn the light of the experience gained since the launch of the External Borders Fund, it is appropriate to clarify the obligations in Commission Decision 2008/456/EC (2) relating to transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination when implementing projects.\n(2)\nMember States are required to report on the implementation of the annual programmes. It is therefore appropriate to clarify which information Member States have to provide.\n(3)\nIn order to reduce the administrative burden on the Member States and to provide greater legal certainty the rules on the eligibility of expenditure of actions co-financed by the External Borders Fund should be simplified and clarified.\n(4)\nMost of the changes introduced by this Decision should apply immediately. However, since the 2009 and 2010 annual programmes are ongoing, the revised rules on the eligibility of expenditure of actions co-financed by the External Borders Fund should apply from the 2011 annual programme. Member States should nonetheless be given the possibility to apply those rules earlier under certain conditions.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark has implemented Decision No 574/2007/EC in its national law and is therefore bound by this Decision.\n(6)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (3) and the subsequent Council Decision 2004/926/EC of 22 December 2004 on the putting into effect of parts of the Schengen acquis by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (4). The United Kingdom is therefore not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(7)\nThis 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 of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (5). Ireland is therefore not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(8)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, Decision No 574/2007/EC constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the association of those two States with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (6), which fall within the areas referred to in Article 1, points A and B of Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the association of those two States with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (7).\n(9)\nAs regards Switzerland, Decision No 574/2007/EC constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen aquis within the meaning of the Agreement signed by the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the latter\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis which fall within the areas referred to in Article 4(1) of the Council decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Community, and on the provisional application of certain provisions of this Agreement.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the common Committee \u2018Solidarity and management of Migration Flows\u2019 established by Decision No 574/2007/EC.\n(11)\nDecision 2008/456/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2008/456/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 9(1), the second sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Any substantial change to the content of the calls for proposals shall also be published under the same conditions.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\nImplementation contracts\nWhen awarding contracts for the implementation of the projects, the State, regional or local authorities, bodies governed by public law, associations formed by one or several of such authorities or several of such bodies governed by public law shall act in accordance with the applicable Union and national public procurement law and principles.\nEntities other than those referred to in the first paragraph shall award contracts for the implementation of the projects following appropriate publicity in order to ensure compliance with the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment. Contracts with a value of less than EUR 100 000 may be awarded provided the concerned entity requests at least three offers. Without prejudice to national rules, contracts with a value of less than EUR 5 000 shall not be subject to any procedural obligations.\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 21, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The responsible authority shall notify the Commission by formal letter of any substantial change in the management and control system and shall send a revised description of the management and control system to the Commission as soon as possible and at the latest at the time any such change takes effect.\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 24, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The financial tables linked to the progress reports and final reports shall present a breakdown of the amounts both by priority and by specific priority, as defined in the strategic guidelines.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 25 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1 the following sentences are added:\n\u2018Any changes to the audit strategy submitted in respect of Article 32(1)(c) of the basic act and accepted by the Commission shall be sent to the Commission as soon as possible. The revised audit strategy shall be established in accordance with the model in Annex VI, marking the revisions introduced.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Except when each of the last two annual programmes adopted by the Commission corresponds to an annual Community contribution of less than EUR 1 million, the audit authority shall submit an annual audit plan before 15 February each year, as from 2010. The audit plan shall be established in accordance with the model in Annex VI. Member States are not required to resubmit the audit strategy when submitting the annual audit plans. In the case of a combined audit strategy, as provided for in Article 32(2) of the basic act, a combined annual audit plan may be submitted.\u2019;\n6.\nArticle 26 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 26\nDocuments established by the certifying authority\n1. The certification relating to the request for a second pre-financing payment referred to in Article 41(4) of the basic act shall be drawn up by the certifying authority and transmitted by the responsible authority to the Commission in the format in Annex VIII.\n2. The certification relating to the request for a final payment referred to in Article 42(1)(a) of the basic act shall be drawn up by the certifying authority and transmitted by the responsible authority to the Commission in the format in Annex IX.\u2019;\n7.\nArticle 37 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 37\nElectronic exchange of documents\nIn addition to the duly signed paper versions of the documents referred to in Chapter 3, the information shall also be sent by electronic means.\u2019;\n8.\nArticle 40(3)(b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nfor all other additional costs, until 30 June of the year N (8) +2.\n9.\nthe Annexes are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\n1. Points 1 to 8 of Article 1 and points 1 to 5 of the Annex shall apply from the date of adoption of this Decision.\n2. Point 6 of the Annex shall apply from the implementation of the 2011 annual programmes at the latest.\n3. Member States may decide to apply point 6 of the Annex in respect of ongoing or future projects as from the 2009 and 2010 annual programmes in full respect of the principles of equal treatment, transparency and non-discrimination. In that case Member States shall apply the new rules in their entirety to the project concerned and, where necessary, shall amend the grant agreement. In respect of technical assistance expenditure only, Member States may decide to apply point 6 of the Annex as from the 2008 annual programme.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2011.", "references": ["78", "28", "66", "70", "90", "49", "94", "7", "22", "86", "21", "77", "29", "60", "81", "12", "74", "23", "5", "32", "53", "67", "30", "35", "34", "68", "26", "55", "99", "97", "No Label", "1", "9", "10", "13", "31", "41", "46"], "gold": ["1", "9", "10", "13", "31", "41", "46"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 899/2010\nof 8 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Mogette de Vend\u00e9e (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Mogette de Vend\u00e9e\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["9", "47", "57", "48", "6", "71", "30", "21", "61", "2", "17", "59", "49", "78", "36", "98", "43", "95", "67", "19", "60", "33", "38", "31", "69", "37", "16", "65", "46", "35", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 January 2012\nextending the validity of Decision 2006/502/EC requiring Member States to take measures to ensure that only lighters which are child-resistant are placed on the market and to prohibit the placing on the market of novelty lighters\n(notified under document C(2012) 370)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/53/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2006/502/EC (2) requires Member States to take measures to ensure that only lighters which are child-resistant are placed on the market and to prohibit the placing on the market of novelty lighters.\n(2)\nDecision 2006/502/EC was adopted in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of Directive 2001/95/EC, which restricts the validity of the Decision to a period not exceeding 1 year, but allows it to be confirmed for additional periods none of which shall exceed 1 year.\n(3)\nThe validity of Decision 2006/502/EC was extended by 1-year periods, firstly by Commission Decision 2007/231/EC (3) until 11 May 2008, secondly by Commission Decision 2008/322/EC (4) until 11 May 2009, thirdly by Commission Decision 2009/298/EC (5) until 11 May 2010, fourthly by Commission Decision 2010/157/EU (6) until 11 May 2011, and fifthly by Commission Decision 2011/176/EU (7) until 11 May 2012.\n(4)\nIn the absence of other satisfactory measures addressing the child safety of lighters, it is necessary to extend the validity of Decision 2006/502/EC for a further 12 months.\n(5)\nTherefore, Decision 2006/502/EC should be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Directive 2001/95/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 6 of Decision 2006/502/EC, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. This Decision shall apply until 11 May 2013.\u2019\nArticle 2\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to comply with this Decision by 11 May 2012 at the latest and shall publish those measures. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 January 2012.", "references": ["98", "8", "87", "94", "57", "50", "41", "34", "62", "70", "88", "95", "21", "20", "31", "7", "42", "51", "2", "72", "30", "74", "22", "5", "27", "77", "56", "66", "83", "18", "No Label", "24", "25", "76"], "gold": ["24", "25", "76"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUTM SOMALIA/2/2011\nof 6 December 2011\non the establishment of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia)\n(2011/814/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/96/CFSP of 15 February 2010 on a European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (1) (EUTM Somalia), and in particular Article 8(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 8(5) of Council Decision 2010/96/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take relevant decisions on the establishment of a Committee of Contributors (CoC) for EUTM Somalia.\n(2)\nThe European Council Conclusions of Nice of 7, 8 and 9 December 2000 and those of Brussels of 24 and 25 October 2002 laid down the arrangements for the participation of third States in crisis management operations and the setting-up of a CoC.\n(3)\nThe CoC will play a key role in the day-to-day management of EUTM Somalia. It will be the main forum where contributing States collectively address questions relating to the employment of their forces in the mission. The PSC, which exercises the political control and strategic direction of the mission, will take account of the views expressed by the CoC.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications. Denmark does not, therefore, participate in the implementation of this Decision and in the financing of EUTM Somalia,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEstablishment and terms of reference\nA Committee of Contributors (CoC) for the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia) is hereby established. Its terms of reference are laid down in the European Council Conclusions of Nice of 7, 8 and 9 December 2000 and those of Brussels of 24 and 25 October 2002.\nArticle 2\nComposition\n1. The CoC members shall be the following:\n-\nrepresentatives of all Member States, and\n-\nrepresentatives of third States participating in the mission and providing significant military contributions, as referred to in the Annex.\n2. The EU Mission Commander, or his or her representative, the Director-General of the European Union Military Staff, or his or her representative, and representatives of the Commission shall attend the CoC meetings.\n3. Third persons may be invited for relevant parts of the discussion, as appropriate.\nArticle 3\nChair\nThe CoC shall be chaired by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or by his or her representative in close consultation with the Chairman of the European Union Military Committee (CEUMC) or his or her representative.\nArticle 4\nMeetings\n1. The CoC shall be convened by the Chair on a regular basis. Where circumstances require, emergency meetings may be convened on the Chair\u2019s initiative, or at the request of a member.\n2. The Chair shall circulate in advance a provisional agenda and documents relating to the meeting. A summary of the meeting shall be circulated after each meeting.\nArticle 5\nProcedure\n1. Without prejudice to paragraph 3 and to the competencies of the PSC and the responsibilities of the EU Mission Commander,\n-\nunanimity of the representatives of States contributing to the mission shall be required for the CoC to take decisions on the day-to-day management of the mission,\n-\nunanimity of the CoC members shall be required for the CoC to make recommendations on possible adjustments to operational planning, including possible adjustments to objectives.\nThe abstention of a CoC member shall not preclude unanimity.\n2. The Chair shall establish that the majority of the representatives of States entitled to take part in the deliberations is present.\n3. All procedural questions shall be settled by the simple majority of the CoC members present at the meeting.\n4. Denmark shall not take part in any decision of the CoC.\nArticle 6\nConfidentiality\n1. In accordance with Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2), the Council\u2019s security rules shall apply to the meetings and proceedings of the CoC. In particular, representatives in the CoC shall possess adequate security clearance.\n2. The deliberations of the CoC shall be covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, except in so far as the CoC unanimously decides otherwise.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 6 December 2011.", "references": ["93", "20", "33", "78", "31", "71", "87", "61", "77", "63", "25", "76", "51", "64", "28", "85", "82", "90", "5", "27", "41", "43", "58", "12", "59", "56", "73", "24", "66", "47", "No Label", "4", "6", "9", "91", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "6", "9", "91", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 129/2011\nof 11 February 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 117/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 February 2011.", "references": ["87", "28", "5", "63", "67", "56", "36", "20", "34", "38", "86", "14", "48", "80", "95", "88", "99", "98", "41", "29", "96", "13", "27", "32", "25", "85", "58", "66", "0", "15", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 June 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Protocol 31 (on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms) and Protocol 37 (containing the list provided for in Article 101) to the EEA Agreement\n(2012/319/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 172, in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nProtocol 31 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019), contains provisions and arrangements concerning cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms,\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement to include Regulation (EU) No 912/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 setting up the European GNSS Agency (3).\n(3)\nProtocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to take place. As regards the participation of Norway, account should also be taken in this regard of the Cooperation Agreement on Satellite Navigation between the European Union and its Member States and the Kingdom of Norway (4), and in particular its Article 6 on security. Due to economic constraints, the participation of Iceland in the GNSS programmes should be suspended temporarily.\n(4)\nFor the EEA Agreement to function well, Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement should be extended to include the Security Accreditation Board for European GNSS systems and the Administrative Board set up by Regulation (EU) No 912/2010, and Protocol 31 should be amended in order to specify the procedures for participation,\n(5)\nThe position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendments to Protocol 31 and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["37", "35", "26", "77", "33", "66", "13", "27", "85", "93", "12", "79", "65", "62", "42", "53", "34", "43", "58", "59", "90", "47", "80", "44", "23", "75", "55", "5", "78", "61", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "40", "54"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "40", "54"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1282/2011\nof 28 November 2011\namending and correcting Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC (1), and in particular points (a) and (e) of Article 5(1), Article 11(3) and Article 12(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 of 14 January 2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food (2) establishes a Union list of monomers, other starting substances and additives which may be used in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles. Recently the European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) issued a favourable scientific evaluation for additional substances which should now be added to the current list.\n(2)\nFor certain other substances, the restrictions and/or specifications already established at the EU level should be amended on the basis of a new favourable scientific evaluation by the Authority.\n(3)\nThe restrictions and specifications for the use of the substance with FCM substance number 239 with the name 2,4,6-triamino-1,3,5-triazine (Melamine) should be amended following the scientific opinion published on 13 April 2010 by the Authority. That opinion laid down a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 0,2 mg/kg body weight (b.w.) for this substance. In its opinion the Authority also concluded that exposure in children due to migration from food contact materials would be in the range of the TDI. Taking into account the TDI and the exposure from all other sources the migration limit for the substance 239 should be reduced. The proposed migration limit of 2,5 mg/kg food is in line with the maximum level of melamine contamination allowed in food laid down in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1135/2009 of 25 November 2009 imposing special conditions governing the import of products originating in or consigned from China, and repealing Commission Decision 2008/798/EC (3).\n(4)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe substance with FCM substance number 438 and the name bis(2,6-diisopropylphenyl) carbodiimide is authorised to be used as an additive in plastics according to Table 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 10/2011. The Authority reassessed the safety of the authorised substance. The Opinion delivered by the Authority (4) clarified that the substance is to be used as a monomer instead of an additive in plastics. For this reason it is appropriate to correct the use and to update the reference number accordingly in the Annex I.\n(6)\nThe substance with FCM substance number 376 and the name N-methylpyrrolidone is authorised to be used as an additive in plastics in Table 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 without a specific migration limit. The Opinion delivered by the Authority (5) established a TDI of 1 mg/kg b.w. resulting in an SML of 60 mg/kg food. This limit coincides with the generic specific migration limit established in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) No 10/2011, however if the SML of 60 mg/kg is derived from a toxicological threshold such as the TDI the SML should be specifically mentioned in the Annex I.\n(7)\nThe substance with FCM substance number 797 and the name polyester of adipic acid with 1,3-butanediol, 1,2-propanediol and 2-ethyl-1-hexanol is authorised to be used as an additive in plastics in Table 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 and listed with the CAS No 0007328-26-5. According to the Opinion delivered by the Authority (6) this CAS No should read 0073018-26-5. Therefore the CAS No for this substance needs to be corrected in the Annex I.\n(8)\nIn order to limit the administrative burden to business operators, plastic materials and articles which have been lawfully placed on the market based on the requirements set out in Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 and which do not comply with this Regulation should be able to be placed on the market until 1 January 2013. They should be able to remain on the market until exhaustion of stocks.\n(9)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nPlastic materials and articles which have been lawfully placed on the market before 1 January 2012 and which do not comply with this Regulation may continue to be placed on the market until 1 January 2013. Those plastic materials and articles may remain on the market until the exhaustion of stocks.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 28 November 2011.", "references": ["96", "40", "61", "19", "68", "93", "13", "15", "6", "81", "39", "42", "95", "11", "89", "5", "87", "53", "22", "76", "33", "97", "98", "26", "92", "20", "75", "29", "32", "64", "No Label", "25", "38", "60", "72", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "60", "72", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 80/2011\nof 31 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2011.", "references": ["98", "97", "50", "49", "53", "18", "37", "23", "87", "93", "96", "20", "57", "74", "88", "29", "38", "28", "64", "55", "14", "6", "67", "85", "99", "40", "11", "62", "30", "91", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 949/2011\nof 22 September 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 11a(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 April 2005, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\n(2)\nIn view of the developments in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 should be amended.\n(3)\nIn view of the urgency, and in order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately upon its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe natural persons listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2011.", "references": ["34", "24", "20", "93", "45", "63", "28", "47", "91", "66", "82", "99", "59", "51", "78", "92", "77", "26", "69", "6", "60", "37", "4", "35", "11", "53", "96", "67", "55", "0", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/357/CFSP\nof 20 June 2011\namending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (1).\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus, additional restrictive measures should be imposed.\n(3)\nMoreover, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex IIIA to Decision 2010/639/CFSP.\n(4)\nDecision 2010/639/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/639/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nThe title of Decision 2010/639/CFSP is replaced by the following:\n2.\nThe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 3a\n1. The sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related material of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, as well as equipment which might be used for internal repression, to Belarus by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States or using their flag vessels or aircraft, shall be prohibited whether originating or not in their territories.\n2. It shall be prohibited to:\n(a)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance, brokering services or other services related to the items referred to in paragraph 1 or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of such items, to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Belarus;\n(b)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the items referred to in paragraph 1, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for the provision of related technical assistance, brokering services or other services to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Belarus;\n(c)\nparticipate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities, the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) or (b).\nArticle 3b\n1. Article 3a shall not apply to the:\n(a)\nsale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal military equipment or of equipment which might be used for internal repression, intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, or for institution building programmes of the United Nations (UN) and the Union, or for EU and UN crisis management operations;\n(b)\nsale, supply, transfer or export of non-combat vehicles which have been manufactured or fitted with materials to provide ballistic protection, intended solely for protective use of personnel of the Union and its Member States in Belarus;\n(c)\nprovision of technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to such equipment or to such programmes and operations;\n(d)\nprovision of financing and financial assistance related to such equipment or to such programmes and operations,\non condition that such exports and assistance have been approved in advance by the relevant competent authority.\n2. Article 3a shall not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to Belarus by UN personnel, personnel of the Union or its Member States, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex IIIA to Decision 2010/639/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["9", "6", "31", "5", "35", "54", "52", "22", "14", "34", "80", "40", "90", "87", "48", "64", "79", "72", "38", "0", "96", "36", "29", "63", "71", "24", "60", "84", "88", "99", "No Label", "3", "23", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "23", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 507/2010\nof 11 June 2010\namending for the 129th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Articles 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 4 June 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one natural person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 June 2010.", "references": ["28", "75", "21", "61", "73", "5", "49", "42", "85", "59", "64", "47", "65", "41", "87", "37", "93", "0", "98", "32", "43", "76", "8", "19", "17", "81", "79", "84", "67", "46", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1052/2011\nof 20 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["82", "70", "71", "80", "51", "47", "2", "44", "83", "9", "98", "3", "84", "39", "0", "13", "67", "91", "85", "49", "59", "5", "43", "28", "36", "25", "45", "14", "46", "6", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1038/2011\nof 17 October 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1004/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 October 2011.", "references": ["56", "83", "94", "42", "57", "48", "53", "28", "78", "71", "76", "17", "54", "51", "15", "97", "98", "55", "19", "39", "58", "2", "61", "73", "16", "18", "99", "40", "74", "25", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 October 2010\nadjusting the Union-wide quantity of allowances to be issued under the Union Scheme for 2013 and repealing Decision 2010/384/EU\n(notified under document C(2010) 7180)\n(2010/634/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Article 9 and Article 9a(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 9a of Directive 2003/87/EC, the Union-wide quantity of allowances should be adjusted to reflect allowances issued in respect of installations that were included in the EU Emission Trading Scheme during the period from 2008 to 2012 pursuant to Article 24(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC. The Union-wide quantity of allowances should also be adjusted in respect of installations that carry out activities listed in Annex I to the Directive and that are only included in the Union scheme from 2013 onwards.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2003/87/EC, Commission Decision 2010/384/EU of 9 July 2010 on the Community-wide quantity of allowances to be issued under the EU Emission Trading Scheme for 2013 (2) based the absolute Union-wide quantity of allowances for 2013 on the total quantities of allowances issued or to be issued by the Member States in accordance with the Commission decisions on their national allocation plans for the period from 2008 to 2012. As additional information has become available since the adoption of that Decision, it should be repealed and replaced.\n(3)\nFurther to applications by Member States for the unilateral inclusion of additional activities and gases in the Union scheme under Article 24(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, activities previously not included in the Union scheme were included in the scheme by Commission Decisions C(2008) 7867, C(2009) 3032 and C(2009) 9849. For the purpose of this Decision, applications pursuant to Article 24(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC should be taken into account where the Commission has approved their inclusion before 31 August 2010. It will remain possible to reflect in future adjustments to the Union-wide quantity of allowances for 2013 inclusions approved by the Commission after this date. Pursuant to Article 9a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, the Union-wide quantity of allowances is to be adjusted by the linear factor referred to in Article 9 of the Directive from 2010 onwards.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 2(1) of Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community (3) Member States have brought into force national law, regulations and administrative provisions to ensure that the operators of installations carrying out activities listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC that are only included in the Union scheme from 2013 onwards, were able to submit to the relevant competent authority duly substantiated and independently verified emissions data. Such data is necessary, if it is to be taken into account for the adjustment of the Union-wide quantity of allowances. Member States were required to notify duly substantiated emission data to the Commission by 30 June 2010.\n(5)\nTo provide a level playing field for all installations, emissions data notified by Member States to the Commission should be adjusted to take into account the emission reduction effort that would have been expected from installations only included in the Union scheme as from 2013, had they been included in the Union scheme as from 2005. The Union-wide quantity of allowances is also to be adjusted pursuant to Article 9a(2) of the Directive by the linear factor referred to in Article 9 of the Directive from 2010 onwards. In the event that new Member States join the Union, it will remain possible to reflect additional information in future adjustments to the Union-wide quantity of allowances.\n(6)\nWhere Member States notified emissions from installations producing ammonia or soda ash, which will only be included in the Union scheme as from 2013, emissions serving as the basis for the calculation of the adjustment of the Union-wide quantity of allowances determined in this Decision, were taken into account assuming that these emissions represent emissions in the sense of Article 3(b) of Directive 2003/87/EC. To guarantee consistency between the total quantity of allowances in the Union scheme, and the emissions for which allowances have to be surrendered, it will remain possible to revise the Union-wide quantity of allowances, if the Regulation to be adopted pursuant to Article 14(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC deviates from this approach.\n(7)\nTo avoid double counting, only notified emissions with respect to activities listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC included in the scope of the Union scheme as from 2013, should be taken into account for the adjustment of the Union-wide quantity of allowances.\n(8)\nPursuant to Article 27 of Directive 2003/87/EC, Member States may exclude certain installations from the Union-wide scheme, if they notify the Commission of each of those installations by not later than 30 September 2011 and the Commission does not object. To date, the Commission has not received notifications from Member States in this respect. It will remain possible to reflect such exclusions in future adjustments to the Union-wide quantity of allowances for 2013.\n(9)\nIt may be necessary to take into account additional information concerning the Union-wide quantity of allowances pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 2003/87/EC, as determined by Decision 2010/384/EU when it becomes available. It will remain possible to reflect such additional information in future adjustments to the Union-wide quantity of allowances for 2013.\n(10)\nOn the basis of information available since the adoption of Decision 2010/384/EU, the average annual total quantity of allowances issued by Member States in accordance with the Commission decisions on their national allocation plans for the period from 2008 to 2012, which is taken into account for the calculation of the Union-wide quantity of allowances pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 2003/87/EC amounts to 2 037 227 209.\n(11)\nFor 2013, the absolute Union-wide quantity of allowances referred to in Article 9 of Directive 2003/87/EC amounts to 1 930 883 949.\n(12)\nFor 2013, the quantity of allowances issued in respect of installations that were included in the Union scheme during the period from 2008 to 2012 pursuant to Article 24(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC and adjusted by the linear factor referred to in Article 9 of this Directive amounts to 1 328 218.\n(13)\nFor 2013, the quantity of allowances issued in respect of installations that are included in the Union scheme from 2013 onwards and adjusted by the linear factor referred to in Article 9 of this Directive amounts to 106 940 715.\n(14)\nOn the basis of Article 9 and Article 9a, the total quantity of allowances to be issued from 2013 onwards is to annually decrease by a linear factor of 1,74 %, amounting to 37 435 387 allowances,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor 2013, the total absolute Union-wide quantity of allowances referred to in Article 9 and Article 9a(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/87/EC amounts to 2 039 152 882.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2010/384/EU is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 October 2010.", "references": ["70", "92", "44", "13", "75", "10", "27", "17", "85", "12", "68", "43", "86", "88", "71", "47", "14", "50", "8", "34", "22", "80", "4", "67", "72", "96", "31", "16", "7", "52", "No Label", "58", "60"], "gold": ["58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 140/2012\nof 17 February 2012\nconcerning the authorisation of monensin sodium as a feed additive for chickens reared for laying (holder of authorisation Huvepharma NV Belgium)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of monensin sodium. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of monensin sodium as a feed additive for chickens reared for laying, to be classified in the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of monensin sodium was authorised for 10 years as a feed additive for use in chickens for fattening and turkeys up to 16 weeks by Commission Regulation (EC) No 109/2007 (2).\n(5)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 15 November 2011 (3) that, under the proposed conditions of use, monensin sodium does not have an adverse effect on human health, animal health or the environment, and that its use is efficacious in controlling eimeria infections. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of monensin sodium shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2012.", "references": ["94", "84", "14", "67", "22", "29", "13", "35", "44", "2", "15", "75", "47", "91", "1", "49", "87", "4", "17", "97", "39", "48", "99", "19", "73", "76", "37", "21", "30", "64", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/38/EU\nof 18 June 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include sulfuryl fluoride as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the United Kingdom received on 29 July 2002 an application from Dow AgroScience for the inclusion of the active substance sulfuryl fluoride in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2004/131/EC (2) confirmed that the dossier was \u2018complete\u2019 in the sense that it could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annexes II and III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(2)\nFor that active substance, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicant. The rapporteur Member State submitted a draft assessment report on 29 October 2004.\n(3)\nThe assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and presented to the Commission on 17 December 2009 (3). The draft review report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and was finalised on 12 March 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for sulfuryl fluoride.\n(4)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing sulfuryl fluoride may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) and Article 5(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include sulfuryl fluoride in Annex I to that Directive, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance may be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(5)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that the inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. It is appropriate, as regards sulfuryl fluoride, to require that the notifier submit further information on milling processing conditions necessary to ensure that residues of fluoride ion in cereals do not exceed the natural background levels, on tropospheric concentrations of sulfuryl fluoride and on estimates of sulfuryl fluoride atmospheric lifetime.\n(6)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing provisional authorisations of plant protection products containing sulfuryl fluoride to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should transform existing provisional authorisations into full authorisations, amend them or withdraw them in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(7)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 28 February 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 March 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing sulfuryl fluoride as active substance by 28 February 2011. By that date, they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to sulfuryl fluoride are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning the active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(2) of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing sulfuryl fluoride as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 August 2010 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning sulfuryl fluoride. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing sulfuryl fluoride as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 29 February 2012 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing sulfuryl fluoride as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 29 February 2012 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 September 2010.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2010.", "references": ["36", "87", "58", "35", "82", "88", "6", "29", "41", "0", "45", "19", "90", "76", "71", "26", "67", "74", "8", "94", "46", "5", "51", "14", "43", "40", "10", "49", "24", "64", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65", "83", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 385/2012\nof 30 April 2012\non the farm return to be used for determining the incomes of agricultural holdings and analysing the business operation of such holdings\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 of 30 November 2009 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Community (1), and in particular Articles 7(2), 8(3), 12 and 13(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe type, definition and presentation of the accountancy data referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 and collected by means of the farm return drawn up for the purpose of reliably determining the incomes of agricultural holdings must be identical, irrespective of the returning holdings surveyed. For reasons of simplification and data readability, provision should also be made for that individual return to include additional particulars and details meeting the specific requirements of an analysis of the business operation of the agricultural holdings selected under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 868/2008 of 3 September 2008 on the farm return to be used for determining the incomes of agricultural holdings and analysing the business operation of such holdings (2) lays down rules on the collection of accountancy data.\n(3)\nThe data collected by means of the farm return should take account of the experience acquired since the network was set up and of developments in the common agricultural policy (CAP) and should comply with the definitions laid down in the relevant Regulations, and in particular Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (3), Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (4), Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (5), Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (6) as regards areas eligible for aid under the Structural Funds, and Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (7).\n(4)\nThe data collected by means of the farm return should further take account of changing economic environment and policy challenges and in particular those as outlined in the strategy \u2018Europe 2020\u2019 (8) and in the Communication \u2018The CAP towards 2020\u2019 (9).\n(5)\nAs a consequence, the increasing importance of environmental aspects in the CAP calls for a stronger emphasis on environment-related elements in the farm return. Selected variables which facilitate measuring the environmental impacts of farm activity should therefore be introduced.\n(6)\nEffective monitoring of the farm sector can be improved by simplifying data collection and, in particular as far as data on assets are concerned and to the extent applicable, by adhering to International Accounting Standards (IAS) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as adopted by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 of 3 November 2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10). Where appropriate, definitions and methodologies should take into account the classification used by the farm structure survey as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1166/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on farm structure surveys and the survey on agricultural production methods and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/88 (11) to further simplify and harmonise data collection.\n(7)\nIn order to improve data accuracy, it is necessary to better distinguish data entries related to agricultural activities from other gainful activities directly related to the holding.\n(8)\nWith a view to simplifying the administrative management and to widening the possibilities of data aggregation for the environmental analyses, the often changing commune codes should be replaced by geo-reference.\n(9)\nIt is appropriate to revise the classification of data into groups and categories under Regulation (EC) No 868/2008 in order to reflect changes in agriculture and the use of the data in policy analysis.\n(10)\nAs the preparation for data collection on quantities of certain substances in fertilisers may be time-consuming, Member States should be allowed to defer the transmission of those data.\n(11)\nDuly completed farm returns should be sent to the Commission by the liaison agency appointed by each Member State in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009. Provision should be made for the liaison agency to send the information concerned directly to the Commission via the computerised system set up by the Commission for the purposes of that Regulation and for that system to allow the required information to be exchanged electronically on the basis of the models made available to the liaison agency via that system. Provision should also be made for the Commission to inform Member States of the general conditions for implementing the computerised system via the Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network.\n(12)\nHaving regard to the extent of the developments relating to the CAP and the type of information required for analysing data since Regulation (EC) No 868/2008 was adopted, that Regulation should be replaced by a new act for reasons of clarity. Regulation (EC) No 868/2008 should therefore be repealed with effect from 1 January 2014, but it should continue to apply to accounting operations concerning accounting years preceding the 2014 accounting year.\n(13)\nThe Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFarm returns and accountancy data\nThe nature and form of presentation of the accountancy data to be given in the farm return required for the annual determination of the incomes of holdings and analysis of their business operation in accordance with Chapters II and III of Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 as well as definitions and instructions related thereto are laid down in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nTransmission to the Commission\n1. The farm returns and data referred to in Article 1 shall be transmitted to the Commission by the liaison agency referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 via the computerised system set up by the Commission for the purposes of that Regulation, allowing the required information to be exchanged electronically on the basis of the models made available to the liaison agency via that system.\n2. Member States shall be informed of the general conditions for implementing the computerised system referred to in paragraph 1 via the Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network.\nArticle 3\nDeferred transmission of certain data\nBy way of derogation from the second paragraph of Article 5, when a Member State needs more time to prepare the annual gathering and transmission of the data on quantities of certain substances in fertilisers used, as referred to in codes 3031, 3032, 3033 of Table H \u2018Inputs\u2019 in Section III of the Annex, it may start the transmission of those data as from the accounting year 2017.\nIn that case, that Member State shall notify the Commission of the deferred transmission and the reasons therefore by 31 October 2013. It shall also draw up a plan concerning its preparation for the gathering and transmission of those data and submit that plan to the Commission and to the Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network by 31 March 2014. The Member State shall annually inform the Commission and the Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network about the implementation of that plan.\nArticle 4\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 868/2008 is repealed with effect from 1 January 2014.\nHowever, it shall continue to apply to accounting operations relating to accounting years preceding the 2014 accounting year.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the 2014 accounting year.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 April 2012.", "references": ["99", "58", "3", "28", "94", "47", "89", "10", "96", "23", "75", "71", "81", "67", "43", "45", "64", "73", "40", "66", "90", "65", "85", "72", "4", "69", "6", "24", "44", "25", "No Label", "18", "19", "42", "63"], "gold": ["18", "19", "42", "63"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 323/2012\nof 16 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 April 2012.", "references": ["2", "59", "84", "66", "54", "47", "86", "65", "50", "83", "14", "36", "67", "64", "25", "12", "30", "24", "4", "57", "82", "93", "75", "69", "9", "40", "97", "96", "53", "13", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 820/2012\nof 12 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for tusk in EU and international waters of V, VI and VII by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non- EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2012.", "references": ["9", "76", "37", "81", "6", "32", "65", "71", "2", "72", "89", "66", "35", "57", "90", "92", "5", "30", "74", "1", "40", "46", "28", "75", "11", "41", "78", "84", "51", "8", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 22 June 2012\non excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)\n(notified under document C(2012) 3838)\n(only the Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, French, German, Greek, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovenian and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(2012/336/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving consulted the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999, and Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the Commission is to carry out the necessary verifications, communicate to the Member States the results of these verifications, take note of the comments of the Member States, initiate a bilateral discussion so that an agreement may be reached with the Member States in question, and formally communicate its conclusions to them.\n(2)\nThe Member States have had an opportunity to request the launch of a conciliation procedure. That opportunity has been used in some cases and the reports issued on the outcome have been examined by the Commission.\n(3)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 and Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, only agricultural expenditure which has been incurred in a way that has not infringed European Union rules may be financed.\n(4)\nIn the light of the verifications carried out, the outcome of the bilateral discussions and the conciliation procedures, part of the expenditure declared by the Member States does not fulfil this requirement and cannot, therefore, be financed under the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the EAGF and the EAFRD.\n(5)\nThe amounts that are not recognised as being chargeable to the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the EAGF and the EAFRD should be indicated. Those amounts do not relate to expenditure incurred more than 24 months before the Commission\u2019s written notification of the results of the verifications to the Member States.\n(6)\nAs regards the cases covered by this decision, the assessment of the amounts to be excluded on grounds of non-compliance with European Union rules was notified by the Commission to the Member States in a summary report on the subject.\n(7)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to any financial conclusions that the Commission may draw from the judgments of the Court of Justice in cases pending on 1 February 2012 and relating to its content,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe expenditure itemised in the Annex hereto that has been incurred by the Member States\u2019 accredited paying agencies and declared under the EAGGF Guarantee Section, under the EAGF or under the EAFRD shall be excluded from European Union financing because it does not comply with European Union rules.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2012.", "references": ["7", "88", "86", "59", "23", "83", "26", "35", "51", "84", "54", "60", "87", "19", "68", "71", "67", "21", "65", "15", "27", "45", "94", "37", "5", "85", "31", "43", "36", "82", "No Label", "4", "8", "10", "17", "61", "96"], "gold": ["4", "8", "10", "17", "61", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1041/2011\nof 17 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in EU waters of VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 October 2011.", "references": ["69", "42", "87", "29", "2", "14", "6", "52", "50", "62", "77", "35", "78", "49", "27", "43", "84", "63", "18", "24", "81", "88", "5", "25", "22", "47", "57", "4", "30", "79", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 200/2012\nof 8 March 2012\nconcerning a Union target for the reduction of Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium in flocks of broilers, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the control of salmonella and other specified food-borne zoonotic agents (1) and, in particular the second subparagraph of Article 4(1), the second subparagraph of Article 8(1) and the second paragraph of Article 13 thereof;\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 2160/2003 aims to ensure that appropriate and effective measures are taken to detect and control, amongst others, salmonella at all relevant stages and in particular at the level of primary production, i.e. in flocks, in order to reduce the prevalence of food-borne zoonotic pathogens and thus the risk they pose to public health.\n(2)\nArticle 4 (5) of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 provides for Union targets to be established for the reduction of the prevalence of all Salmonella serotypes with public health significance in broilers. That reduction is key to ensuring that the criteria for salmonella in fresh meat of broilers set out in Part E of Annex II to that Regulation and in Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs (2) can be met.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 2160/2003 provides that the Union target is to include a numerical expression of the maximum percentage of epidemiological units remaining positive and/or the minimum percentage of reduction in the number of epidemiological units remaining positive, the maximum time limit within which the target must be achieved and the definition of the testing schemes necessary to verify achievement of the target. It is also to include a definition, where relevant, of serotypes with public health significance.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 2160/2003 provides that experience gained under existing national measures and information forwarded to the Commission or to the European Food Safety Authority (\u2027EFSA\u2027) under existing Union requirements, in particular in the framework of information provided for in Directive 2003/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic agents, amending Council Decision 90/424/EEC and repealing Council Directive 92/117/EEC (3), and in particular Article 5 thereof, is to be taken into account when setting the Union target.\n(5)\nArticle 1 paragraph 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 646/2007 of 12 June 2007 implementing Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a Community target for the reduction of the prevalence of Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium in broilers and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1091/2005 (4) sets the target for the reduction of the maximum percentage of flocks of broilers remaining positive for those two Salmonella serotypes to 1 % or less by 31 December 2011.\n(6)\nThe European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food-borne Outbreaks in 2009 (5) showed that Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium are the serovars most frequently associated with human illness. Human cases caused by Salmonella enteritidis decreased markedly in 2009, while an increase in Salmonella typhimurium cases was observed.\n(7)\nIn July 2011, the EFSA adopted a Scientific Opinion on a quantitative estimation of the public health impact of setting a new target for the reduction of Salmonella in broilers (6). It concluded that Salmonella enteritidis is the most successfully transmitted zoonotic Salmonella serotype from parent to offspring in poultry. EFSA also observed that Union control measures in broilers have contributed to a considerable reduction in the number of broiler-associated human salmonellosis cases compared to the situation in 2006. The target should therefore be confirmed.\n(8)\nMonophasic strains of Salmonella typhimurium have developed to be among the most frequently detected Salmonella serotypes in several species of animals and in clinical isolates from humans in recent years. EFSA's 2010 Scientific Opinion on monitoring and assessment of the public health risk of \"Salmonella typhimurium-like strains\" adopted on 22 September 2010 (7) also stated that monophasic Salmonella typhimurium strains with the antigenic formula 1,4,[5],12:i:-, which includes strains with and without the O5 antigen, have to be considered to be variants of Salmonella typhimurium and to pose a public health risk comparable to that of other Salmonella typhimurium strains. Salmonella typhimurium strains with the antigenic formula 1,4,[5],12:i:- should therefore be included in the target.\n(9)\nTo verify whether the Union target has been met, it is necessary to sample flocks of broilers repeatedly. To evaluate and compare the results, it is necessary to describe a common testing scheme to verify whether the Union target has been met.\n(10)\nNational control programmes for the achievement of the Union target for 2012 for flocks of broilers of Gallus gallus have been submitted for Union co-financing in accordance with Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (8). The technical amendments introduced in the Annex to this Regulation are directly applicable. As a result the Commission does not need to re-approve national control programmes implementing this Regulation. A transitional period is therefore not needed.\n(11)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nUnion target\n1. The Union target, as referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003, for the reduction of the prevalence of Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium in broilers (\u2018Union target\u2019) shall be a reduction of the maximum annual percentage of flocks of broilers remaining positive for Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium equal to 1% or less.\nAs regards monophasic Salmonella typhimurium, serotypes with the antigenic formula 1,4,[5],12:i:- shall be included in the Union target.\n2. The testing scheme necessary to verify progress in the achievement of the Union target is set out in the Annex (\u2027testing scheme\u2027).\nArticle 2\nReview of the Union target\nThe Union target shall be reviewed by the Commission taking into account the information collected in accordance with the testing scheme and the criteria laid down in Article 4(6)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003.\nArticle 3\nRepeal of Regulation (EC) No 646/2007\nRegulation (EC) No 646/2007 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2012.", "references": ["90", "27", "68", "63", "26", "96", "5", "4", "99", "2", "19", "40", "3", "7", "95", "17", "25", "34", "74", "1", "79", "35", "9", "46", "0", "73", "18", "23", "76", "62", "No Label", "38", "61", "66"], "gold": ["38", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 150/2012\nof 20 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 February 2012.", "references": ["13", "74", "12", "71", "90", "55", "36", "17", "32", "42", "84", "20", "6", "57", "18", "11", "53", "77", "89", "79", "47", "43", "26", "45", "98", "34", "95", "75", "7", "50", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 757/2010\nof 24 August 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on persistent organic pollutants as regards Annexes I and III\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 850/2004 implements in the law of the Union the commitments set out in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (hereinafter \u2018the Convention\u2019) approved by Council Decision 2006/507/EC of 14 October 2004 concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2) and in the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019) approved by Council Decision 2004/259/EC of 19 February 2004 concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants (3).\n(2)\nFollowing nominations of substances received from the European Union and its Member States, Norway and Mexico, the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee established under the Convention has concluded its work on the nine proposed substances, which have been found to meet the criteria of the Convention. At the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on 4-8 May 2009 (hereinafter \u2018COP4\u2019) it was agreed to add all nine substances to the Annexes to the Convention.\n(3)\nIn view of the decisions taken at COP4 it is necessary to update Annexes I and III to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 should be amended to take into account that substances can be listed only in the Convention.\n(4)\nThe COP4 decided to list eight of the substances in Annex A (elimination) to the Convention. The ninth substance, Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its derivatives (hereinafter PFOS) is still widely used worldwide and COP4 decided to list it in Annex B (restriction) with a range of exemptions. Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 has a similar structure with Annex I (prohibition) and Annex II (restriction). The Convention contains obligations to prohibit or restrict production, use, import and export of the substances listed in its Annexes A and B. By listing the substance covered by the COP4 decisions in Regulation (EC) No 850/2004, the scope of the restriction is brought in conformity with the COP4 decision as Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 includes conditions for production, use and waste management in addition to restricting placing on the market.\n(5)\nPlacing on the market and use of PFOS has been restricted in the Union by virtue of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (4). The existing restriction on PFOS in the Union contains only few exemptions compared to those included in the COP4 decision. PFOS was also listed in Annex I to the revised Protocol adopted on 18 December 2009. Therefore PFOS should be listed together with the other eight substances in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004. Derogations that were applicable for PFOS when listed in Annex XVII are carried over and listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 with only few amendments. The derogations should be subject to the use of best available technique where applicable. The specific derogation to use PFOS as wetting agents for use in controlled electroplating systems is time limited in accordance with the COP4 decision. If technically justified the deadline can be prolonged, subject to approval by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention. Member States must report every four years on the use of the allowed derogations. The European Union as a Party to the Convention should report to it based on the Member State reports. The Commission should continue to review the remaining derogations and the availability of safer alternative substances or technologies.\n(6)\nThe provisions in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 regarding substances occurring as an unintentional trace contaminant should be defined for PFOS to ensure a harmonised enforcement and control of that Regulation, while at the same time guaranteeing conformity with the Convention. By virtue of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 PFOS was allowed to be used in quantities below certain thresholds. Until further information becomes available, the thresholds in Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 for PFOS in articles correspond to a level below which PFOS can not be meaningfully used while enabling control and enforcement through existing methods. These thresholds should therefore limit the use of PFOS to a level corresponding to unintentional trace contaminants. For PFOS as substances or in preparations, this Regulation should establish a threshold corresponding to a similar level. To rule out intentional use, this level should be lower than the level applied in Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(7)\nPlacing on the market and use of pentabromodiphenyl ether and octabromodiphenyl ether have been restricted in the Union by virtue of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 with a maximum concentration limit of 0,1 % by weight below which it is not considered restricted. The COP4 decided to list congeners present in the commercial forms of pentabromodiphenyl ethers and octabromodiphenyl ethers having POPs characteristics. For reasons of coherence the listing in Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 should follow the approach of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 for those derivatives identified by COP4 as having POP characteristics; therefore hexabromodiphenyl ether, heptabromodiphenyl ether, tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether derivatives should be listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004.\n(8)\nThe provisions in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 regarding substances occurring as an unintentional trace contaminant should be defined for polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) to ensure a harmonised enforcement and control of that Regulation, while at the same time guaranteeing conformity with the Convention. This Regulation should establish a fixed threshold for considering unintentional trace contaminants regarding PBDEs in substances, preparations and articles. Subject to further information that becomes available and a review by the Commission, in line with the objectives of this Regulation, the thresholds in Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 for PBDEs in articles produced from recycled materials should limit the use of PBDEs to unintentional trace contaminants in that they are considered to correspond to a level below which PBDEs can not be meaningfully used while enabling control and enforcement through existing methods. For PBDEs as substances, in preparations or in articles, this Regulation should establish a threshold corresponding to a similar level.\n(9)\nIt is necessary to clarify that the prohibition in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 does not apply to articles containing PBDEs and PFOS already in use on the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n(10)\nDDT and Hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCH), including lindane, should be listed without derogations. Part A of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 allows Member States to maintain existing production and use of DDT for the production of dicofol. No Member State is currently using the derogation. In addition, dicofol was denied for inclusion in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (5) as well as in Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (6). That derogation should therefore be deleted. HCH, including lindane, is listed in Part B of Annex I Regulation (EC) No 850/2004, with two specific derogations for certain specific uses. The derogations expired on 1 September 2006 and on 31 December 2007 and should therefore be deleted.\n(11)\nIn conformity with the COP4 decisions pentachlorobenzene should be added to Annexes I and III to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 so that it becomes subject to a general prohibition as well as the release reduction provisions in that Regulation. Chlordecone and hexabromobiphenyl should be moved to Annex I, Part A as they are now listed to both international instruments.\n(12)\nIn accordance with Article 22 of the Convention, amendments to Annexes A, B and C thereto enter into force one year from the date of communication by the depositary of an amendment, which will fall on 26 August 2010. Consequently and for reasons of coherence this Regulation should apply from the same date. This Regulation should therefore enter into force as a matter of urgency.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Directive 67/548/EEC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and III to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 26 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 August 2010.", "references": ["3", "75", "28", "54", "37", "32", "46", "16", "39", "52", "67", "8", "24", "22", "13", "14", "20", "7", "71", "72", "62", "65", "93", "63", "66", "80", "40", "18", "64", "91", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "60", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "60", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 April 2012\non State aid SA.25051 (C 19/10) (ex NN 23/10) granted by Germany to the Zweckverband Tierk\u00f6rperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg\n(notified under document C(2012) 2557)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/485/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the Article cited above (2) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. THE PROCEDURE\n(1)\nIn a complaint submitted by Saria Bio-Industries AG & Co KG (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on 23 February 2008, the Commission was informed that Germany grants annual contributions to the Zweckverband Tierk\u00f6rperbeseitigung (special-purpose association for animal carcase disposal) in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg (\u2018the ZT\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Commission informed Germany by letter of 20 July 2010 of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the measure (\u2018opening decision\u2019). On publishing the opening decision in the Official Journal of the European Union on 26 October 2010, the Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure (3).\n(3)\nThe Commission received comments from the complainant on 25 November 2010. In line with the approved requests for extension of the deadline on 20 August 2010 and 18 November 2011, Germany submitted its comments on the opening decision and on the complainant\u2019s comments in several parts on 3 March 2011, 1 April 2011, 4 April 2011, 16 May 2011, 15 July 2011, and 18 November 2011.\n(4)\nThe ZT sent written comments to the Commission on 4 April 2011. Under Article 20(1) in conjunction with Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (4), the parties concerned have to submit their comments not later than one month after the date of publication in the Official Journal, but the ZT did not submit its comments until after four months. Only in justified individual cases can the Commission take account of comments that are submitted late by parties to proceedings (5). The Commission can see no such justification in the ZT\u2019s letter or in any other circumstances. The Commission therefore informed the ZT in a letter of 18 April 2011 that to take its comments into account in the formal examination procedure would be contrary to the procedural rules and would lead to unjustifiable unequal treatment of the parties to the proceedings. Nevertheless it took all the information contained in the comments as a basis for the present decision.\n(5)\nParallel to the Commission\u2019s formal examination procedure, the complainant had pursued national legal proceedings in Germany and had brought an action against the ZT before the Verwaltungsgericht Trier (Trier Administrative Court). On 2 December 2008 the court held that the annual contributions constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. As regards repayment of the unlawful aid, the court decided that the ZT did not have to repay the amount received between 2005 and 2008 since there were special circumstances that made repayment appear disproportionate.\n(6)\nBoth the complainant and the ZT appealed against the judgment of the Verwaltungsgericht Trier to the Oberverwaltungsgericht Koblenz (Koblenz Higher Administrative Court). On 24 November 2009 the Oberverwaltungsgericht upheld the judgment of the Verwaltungsgericht Trier.\n(7)\nThe complainant and the ZT then appealed to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (\u2018the BVerwG\u2019 - Federal Administrative Court) against the ruling given by the Oberverwaltungsgericht Koblenz. In a judgment of 16 December 2010 (6) the Bundesverwaltungsgericht rejected the complainant\u2019s appeal, amended the decision of the Oberverwaltungsgericht Koblenz, and rejected the applications as a whole, taking the view that the complaint was inadmissible in respect of the years 2005 to 2009 and that the annual contribution for 2010 did not represent aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n2.1. Legal background\n2.1.1. European legislation\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (7) laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 governs the collection, transport, storage, treatment, processing and use or disposal of animal by-products so that these products do not pose a risk to human and animal health. The legislation is intended, inter alia, to prevent outbreaks of transmissible spongiform encephalitis (TSE) and other transmissible animal diseases such as classical swine fever (CSF) or foot-and-mouth disease (FMD).\n(9)\nSection 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 makes a distinction between three different categories of animal by-products according to the specific risks to animal and human health:\n(a)\nCategory 1 material poses substantial risks associated in particular with TSE and the existence of certain prohibited substances and environmental contaminants. Material in this category consists, amongst other things, of body parts of animals suspected of being infected by TSE or animals in which the presence of TSE has been confirmed, and mixtures of category 1 material with category 2 or category 3 material. Such materials must be disposed of through incineration or processing and must not be incorporated in feed for farmed animals or in technical products.\n(b)\nCategory 2 material also poses considerable risks as it consists of fallen stock and other materials that contain certain prohibited substances or contaminants. This category of material must be disposed of through incineration or processing and must not be incorporated in feed for farmed animals. In some cases, however, it may be used as fertiliser or for technical purposes.\n(c)\nCategory 3 material comprises, amongst other things, parts of slaughtered animals which, although rejected as unfit for human consumption, are not affected by any signs of diseases communicable to humans or animals and also materials originating from animals that are fit for human consumption but which for economic reasons are used for other purposes, such as feeding stuff for farmed animals.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 is essentially equivalent to its predecessor, Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8), and includes provisions prohibiting the import and export of category 1 and 2 material and requiring disposal plants to be approved by the competent authorities that are to apply the provisions of the Regulation. Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, then, lays down specific provisions controlling the disposal of category 1 and 2 material. Beyond that, however, there are no requirements under the Regulation as regards the way in which the disposal of category 1 and 2 material should be organised in economic terms. So Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 does not require disposal in a particular area to be performed by a single undertaking alone, as is the case in Germany.\n2.1.2. National legislation\n(11)\nUnder \u00a7 3 of the German legislation implementing the Community provisions on the processing and disposal of animal by-products not intended for human consumption (9) (\u2018the TierNebG\u2019 - Animal By-Products Act), rural districts (Landkreise) and urban districts (kreisfreie St\u00e4dte) are obliged to carry out the disposal and processing of category 1 and category 2 material - referred to as \u2018controlled goods\u2019. They can perform this task themselves or contract third parties to do it.\n(12)\nThe disposal of category 3 material - known as \u2018uncontrolled goods\u2019 - can be carried out by any processing undertaking provided that the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 are complied with.\n2.2. Zweckverband Tierk\u00f6rperbeseitigung\n(13)\nThe ZT is a public-law entity established in 1979 under \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 of the Rhineland-Palatinate Landesgesetz zur Ausf\u00fchrung des TierNebG (10) (\u2018the TierNebGAG RP\u2019 - Rhineland-Palatinate State law implementing the Animal By-Products Act). In the meantime all rural districts and larger urban districts in Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland and two rural districts in Hessen - Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg - have become members of the ZT (see \u00a7 1 of the ZT\u2019s Verbandsordnung (articles of association)).\n(14)\nUnder \u00a7 2 of its Verbandsordnung, the ZT is authorised by its members to assume all the rights and obligations incumbent on rural districts and urban districts in their capacity as bodies responsible for disposal under \u00a7 3 of the TierNebG in conjunction with the laws of the individual German states.\n(15)\nUnder German law a special-purpose association cannot be the subject of insolvency proceedings because of its legal nature as a public-law entity. Its members can, however, decide to dissolve it.\n2.3. Disposal of fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste\n2.3.1. The ZT\u2019s activities\n(16)\nThe ZT performs not only the task assigned to it under its articles of association, namely to dispose of category 1 and 2 material from the area that it covers (\u2018internal material\u2019), it also disposes of category 1 and category 2 material from the neighbouring German states of Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg and Hessen (see the detailed description in paragraphs 20 ff.) plus uncontrolled category 3 material (together referred to as \u2018external material\u2019).\n(17)\nAs can be seen from the table below, the ZT has processed large quantities of external material in the past. On average almost half the quantity processed in recent years consisted of external material.\nTable 1\nQuantities processed by the ZT in the years 1998-2009\nInternal material\nExternal material\nBaden-W\u00fcrttemberg\nNorthern and Central Hessen\nCategory 1 and 2 controlled goods\nCategory 3 uncontrolled goods\nCategory 1 and 2 controlled goods\nCategory 1 and 2 controlled goods\nTotal\n1998\nTonnes\n38 055\n[\u2026] (11)\n0\n0\n[\u2026]\n%\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n0 %\n0 %\n100 %\n1999\nTonnes\n41 081\n[\u2026]\n0\n0\n[\u2026]\n%\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n0 %\n0 %\n100 %\n2000\nTonnes\n44 929\n[\u2026]\n1 114\n0\n[\u2026]\n%\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n0 %\n100 %\n2001\nTonnes\n57 110\n[\u2026]\n14 079\n0\n[\u2026]\n%\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n0 %\n100 %\n2002\nTonnes\n58 316\n[\u2026]\n14 803\n0\n[\u2026]\n%\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n0 %\n100 %\n2003\nTonnes\n54 325\n[\u2026]\n16 067\n0\n[\u2026]\n%\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n0 %\n100 %\n2004\nTonnes\n52 562\n[\u2026]\n13 228\n0\n[\u2026]\n%\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n0 %\n100 %\n2005\nTonnes\n48 944\n[\u2026]\n11 658\n0\n[\u2026]\n%\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n0 %\n100 %\n2006\nTonnes\n45 988\n[\u2026]\n11 389\n0\n[\u2026]\n%\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n0 %\n100 %\n2007\nTonnes\n44 544\n[\u2026]\n6 797\n0\n[\u2026]\n%\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n0 %\n100 %\n2008\nTonnes\n41 838\n[\u2026]\n7 046\n0\n[\u2026]\n%\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n0 %\n100 %\n2009\nTonnes\n36 863\n[\u2026]\n8 569\n23 312\n[\u2026]\n%\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n100 %\nAverage\nTonnes\n47 046\n[\u2026]\n8 729\n1 943\n[\u2026]\nfrom 1998 to 2009\n%\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n100 %\n(18)\nInternal material consists of fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste. The ZT carries out both collection and processing (hereafter jointly referred to as \u2018disposal\u2019). In order to cover the costs involved, the ZT applies charges. Different scales of charges are applied to fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste.\n(19)\nAs category 3 material is traded on the free market, the ZT agrees the charges for disposal under private law. While most private disposal plants dispose of category 3 material separately in order to achieve higher sales revenue by processing it - for example into pet food - the ZT processes category 3 material jointly with controlled goods, as it does not have a separate plant. Consequently only lower-value end products - such as oil and fats - can be obtained from processed controlled goods.\n(20)\nSince 2000 the ZT has also been processing category 1 and category 2-slaughterhouse waste from Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg. To this end a special-purpose agreement under public law was concluded between the ZT and the Zweckverband Neckar-Franken. Under the agreement collection was carried out locally by the Zweckverband Neckar-Franken and the material was then delivered to the ZT for processing.\n(21)\nIn 2007 the ZT also bid to dispose of controlled goods in the rural districts of North and Central Hessen under an invitation to tender and was awarded the contract. Before ZT took over the task of disposal on 1 April 2009, disposal was carried out by one of the complainant\u2019s group companies.\n(22)\nZT thus sought to maximise utilisation of its plant capacity not only by processing internal material, but also by engaging quite heavily, beyond its formal task, in processing both category 3 material, which is freely tradable, and category 1 and 2 material from outside the area covered by the association. Between 2002 and 2008 only 54 % to 58 % of the quantities processed by the ZT were internal material. In 2009 - partly owing to the inclusion of material from North and Central Hessen - this proportion fell considerably to just 39 %, accounting for not even half the total quantity processed by the ZT.\n2.3.2. The ZT\u2019s plant capacity\n(23)\nThe ZT has two disposal plants, in Rivenich and Sandersm\u00fchle. In normal operation both plants run an average of two shifts on five weekdays (5-day 2-shift operation). A maximum of 2 160 tonnes per week can be processed in this time. This normal operating capacity was, on average, sufficient to process the 88 000 tonnes arising annually in recent years, which amounts to 1 700 tonnes per week.\n(24)\nLike other disposal companies, the ZT has operational spare capacity in the shape of the unused shifts that occur in the course of normal operation during the week and at weekends. This spare operational capacity can be used to process the additional carcases in the event of an epidemic.\n2.3.2.1. Short-term spare operational capacity\n(25)\nAccording to the information supplied by the ZT, the plants can be operated in three shifts on all seven days of the week (7-day 3-shift operation) for a short period of 6 to 12 weeks. This means that a weekly capacity of up to 4 536 tonnes is available for short periods. Continuous three-shift operation on seven days cannot, however, be maintained due to wear and tear and staff fatigue.\n(26)\nSo in the short term - over a period of up to 12 weeks - the ZT has spare operational capacity, over and above the normal figure, of 2 376 tonnes a week available for processing in the event of an epidemic (see also Table 3 in section 9.3.1).\n2.3.2.2. Long-term spare operational capacity\n(27)\nOver the longer term the plants could, however, be used for a maximum of three shifts on five days a week (5-day 3-shift operation) to process additional material arising from an epidemic, since weekends would be required for maintenance work in the event of higher utilisation for a fairly long period. In this case up to 3 240 tonnes could be processed per week.\n(28)\nSo in the longer term - over a period of more than 12 weeks - the ZT has spare operational capacity of 1 080 tonnes a week, over and above the normal figure, for processing in the event of an epidemic (see also Table 3 in section 9.3.1).\n2.4. Annual contribution and public task\n(29)\nThe annual contributions that the ZT receives from its members (rural and urban districts) have their legal basis in the ZT\u2019s Verbandsordnung. The purpose of the annual contributions is to offset the costs that are not covered by revenue (see \u00a7 9(1) of the Verbandsordnung).\n(30)\nThe amount of the annual contributions is fixed on the basis of the annual budget statute, which first has to be approved by the general meeting of the members. As soon as the budget statute has been adopted, the ZT is entitled to claim payment of the annual contribution by way of an administrative act.\n(31)\nIn February 2010 the ZT\u2019s Verbandsordnung was amended with retroactive effect from 1 January 2009. Until then the Verbandsordnung contained no rules regarding the use and calculation of annual contributions beyond the provisions of \u00a7 9(1), but in February 2010 the following new provisions were introduced.\n(32)\nUnder \u00a7 9(2) of the Verbandsordnung the annual contribution now has to be fixed in advance. The rules also state that the annual contribution may only be levied as compensation for costs that arise from the assigned obligation to dispose of category 1 and 2 material and to keep capacity in reserve to cope with epidemics.\n(33)\nUnder \u00a7 10(2) of the Verbandsordnung the reserve capacity for epidemics that had to be provided for each of the years 2009 and 2010 was set at 7 110 tonnes, which had to be processed within a period of six weeks (equivalent to six times 1 185 tonnes per week). When fixing the size of the epidemic reserve, account was taken of the fact that, besides the ZT\u2019s own capacity, a further 5 000 tonnes of alternative disposal capacity were available per annum in the event of an epidemic. The costs of the epidemic reserve must be laid down in advance in the relevant business plan, and the only costs that can be taken into account are the appropriate proportion of fixed costs (depreciation, taxes, insurance, interest on borrowings), the cost of outside maintenance contracts, and the proportion of staff costs required to maintain constant operational readiness. The costs of the epidemic reserve must be recorded in specific accounts, separately from the undertaking\u2019s other costs and are allocated in proportion to the relevant share of capacity.\n(34)\nFrom its founding in 1979 up to 2011 the ZT received annual contributions totalling EUR 66 493 680. The annual figures since 1998 were as follows:\n1998\n:\nEUR 2 114 192 (DM 4 135 000)\n1999\n:\nEUR 2 432 216 (DM 4 575 000)\n2000 and 2001\n:\nEUR 2 249 684 (DM 4 400 000) annually\n2002 to 2008\n:\nEUR 2 250 000 annually\n2009\n:\nEUR 1 961 515\n2010\n:\nEUR 2 212 392\n2011\n:\nEUR 1 962 515\n(35)\nThe annual contributions from 1998 to 2011 amounted to a total of EUR 30 932 198.\n(36)\nAccording to the profit and loss accounts presented, the ZT made an aggregate loss of EUR 4 562 795 between 1998 and 2009 after the annual contributions are included. Leaving out the contributions, which totalled EUR 26 757 292, the aggregate loss for 1998 to 2009 comes to EUR 31 320 678. The annual contributions were therefore not sufficient to offset the overall losses in full.\n2.5. Approved State aid in connection with TSE tests, fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste\n(37)\nThe polluter pays principle under Article 191(2) TFEU applies in general to the disposal of animal by-products. It is thus primarily the responsibility of producers to see to the disposal of fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste and to bear the costs involved (12).\n(38)\nHowever, because of the TSE crisis, there was a need to ensure the proper treatment of fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste consisting of category 1 and 2 materials and to support farmers through State aid. The European Commission set up corresponding arrangements in the Community guidelines for State aid concerning TSE tests, fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste of 24 December 2002 (13) (\u2018the Community TSE guidelines\u2019). These arrangements were incorporated and tightened in section V.B.4 of the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013 (14) (\u2018the agricultural aid guidelines 2007-2013\u2019).\n(39)\nUnder the Community TSE guidelines and the agricultural aid guidelines 2007-2013, the polluter must in principle bear the cost of disposing of animal by-products (15). In certain very limited circumstances, however, aid is permitted for TSE tests and the disposal of fallen stock (16). No aid at all may be granted for the disposal of slaughterhouse waste (17). Moreover aid is compatible with the internal market only if it can be demonstrated that the aid goes solely to farmers and not to production enterprises further downstream (such as slaughterhouses or animal disposal plants) (18).\n2.5.1. Commission Decision of 29 January 2004 in aid case NN 33/03\n(40)\nIn 2004 the Commission approved a State aid scheme to counter the threat of TSE in Rhineland-Palatinate that was notified by Germany under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, the Community TSE guidelines, and the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector of 12 August 2000 (19). The aim of the scheme was to prevent the spread of BSE, inter alia, by reimbursing farmers for the additional costs they had incurred for the proper disposal of risk material owing to the introduction of the ban on feeding cattle with meat and bone meal.\n(41)\nAlongside other measures, the Commission approved a one-off aid of 100 % for the disposal costs of specified risky slaughterhouse waste that had accumulated from October 2000 to September 2001 as a result of the ban on feeding meat and bone meal. However, the beneficiaries of the aid were considered to be the slaughterhouses and not the ZT.\n2.5.2. Commission Decision of 6 July 2004 in aid case N 15/04\n(42)\nUnder the second aid scheme also authorised in 2004, farmers in Rhineland-Palatinate were to receive compensation for the costs of collecting and processing fallen stock for which they had paid contributions to the Tierseuchenkasse (20) (animal sickness fund). The charges applied by the ZT for collecting and processing internal fallen stock are borne in equal parts by the German states (Rhineland-Palatinate, Hessen, Saarland), the members of the association, and the Tierseuchenkasse of the respective states. However, in the case of the processing costs, the owners of farmed animals have to make a contribution of 25 per cent.\n(43)\nThe aid, paid direct to the ZT, was approved for the period from 1 January 1999 until 31 December 2013. It was subject to the condition that it went exclusively to farmers and was not cumulated with other aid.\n(44)\nAs the aid compensated for a proportion of the charges fixed in advance (100 % for collection and 75 % for processing), the Commission concluded that it went exclusively to farmers and did not create any economic advantage for the ZT.\n2.5.3. Relationship between the approved aid schemes NN 33/03 and N 15/04 and the annual contributions\n(45)\nBoth aid schemes (\u2018the agricultural aid\u2019) are entered as income in the ZT\u2019s books. Consequently the losses shown in recial 36 not including the annual contributions already take into account the fact that the ZT received agricultural aid as income.\n(46)\nIn other words, the ZT received the annual contributions as well as the agricultural aid to finance its outstanding losses.\n3. REASONS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE\n(47)\nThe complainant maintains that the ZT could not survive economically if its members did not cover the annual losses arising from the disposal of internal and external material by paying annual contributions. The ZT, with a monopoly for the disposal of internal material and thus no competition, offered below-market prices on the open markets for external material. The ZT\u2019s price policy was only oriented towards maximising utilisation at its plants, which have high spare capacity.\n(48)\nThe complainant sees many kinds of distortion of competition that arise through the annual contribution payments. In particular it criticised the ZT\u2019s pricing for category 3 material and in the invitation to tender for the disposal contract in Northern and Central Hessen:\n(a)\nThe ZT offered to dispose of slaughterhouse waste at charges which were not dependent on the quantity processed but at a fixed price per animal. This makes it attractive for smaller slaughterhouses to dispense with separation, as separating controlled and uncontrolled goods involves higher costs than for larger and better equipped slaughterhouses, and to hand over category 3 material to the ZT together with category 1 and 2 slaughterhouse waste. The ZT thus offers to dispose of slaughterhouse waste at prices that do not cover its costs because it does not include in its charges the additional costs arising from processing category 3 material at the same time.\n(b)\nIn the tendering procedure for the disposal of controlled goods in Northern and Central Hessen, the ZT was able to win the contract only because its fixed costs for maintaining reserve capacity were already covered by the annual contribution and it was therefore able to offer lower rates of charges.\n(49)\nGermany contends, on the other hand, that the annual contribution was necessary to cover ZT\u2019s costs arising from its obligation to provide reserve capacity to cope with epidemics. In support, Germany submitted an expert study from the Fraunhofer Institute of March 2007 (21) (\u2018the Fraunhofer study\u2019) to show that the cost of the epidemic reserve amounted to 50 % of the total capacity costs. It was also argued that the annual contribution was necessary to cover the clean-up costs for contaminated sites.\n(50)\nIn its provisional examination the Commission initially found that the annual contributions provide an economic advantage for the ZT, as they reduce its current expenditure, and that the other criteria for the existence of aid were met.\n(51)\nThe Commission pointed out that such aid is generally prohibited. It went on to spell out its doubts as to whether the annual contribution could be justified as compensation for maintaining an epidemic reserve. The Commission based its argument on the four criteria laid down in the Altmark judgment (22):\n(a)\nThe recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge, and those obligations must be clearly defined.\n(b)\nThe parameters on the basis of which compensation is calculated should be drawn up objectively and transparently in advance.\n(c)\nThe compensation should not exceed what is necessary to cover, wholly or partially, the costs of fulfilling public service obligations taking account of the income obtained and an appropriate profit from the fulfilment of these obligations.\n(d)\nWhere the undertaking that is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement procedure that would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical, well run undertaking would have incurred in discharging those obligations.\n(52)\nOn the question of the existence of a service of general economic interest, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether there is a public interest in the provision of an epidemic reserve since, under the polluter pays principle, farmers are under an obligation to dispose of fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste and are supported by the abovementioned aid approved by the Commission under the TSE Community guidelines. It is also questionable whether the annual contribution is necessary since the practice of other German states shows that the plants of private operators have sufficient spare capacity to cope with animal epidemics without receiving additional compensation for providing it.\n(53)\nThe Commission also doubted whether the Verbandsordnung governing the ZT fulfils the requirements of a transparent entrustment act since, before 2010, the provision of an epidemic reserve was not defined as a public interest obligation to be provided by the ZT and because it did not set out the necessary parameters for calculating the cost.\n(54)\nRegarding the need for a compensation payment, the Commission raised the question as to whether the annual contributions do not, in fact, finance the losses arising from unprofitable spare capacity. It is questionable whether an additional annual contribution is necessary if in other German states all the costs are covered by the charges paid by polluters.\n(55)\nSince the ZT was not selected through a public invitation to tender, it is doubtful whether the ZT is a typical well run undertaking.\n(56)\nConsequently the Commission came to the provisional conclusion that a detailed examination was needed to ascertain whether the annual contribution to the ZT is actually necessary to ensure that there is an epidemic reserve or whether the market itself would not provide sufficient free plant capacity in the event of an epidemic.\n(57)\nFinally doubts were cast on Germany\u2019s argument that the annual contributions could be justified as compensation for the clean-up costs of contaminated sites. Under paragraph 132 of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection of 1 April 2008 (23) (\u2018the environmental aid guidelines\u2019), such aid can only be deemed compatible with the internal market if the beneficiary cannot be made liable under national law, which apparently is not the case in this instance.\n4. NATIONAL COURT PROCEEDINGS\n(58)\nIn its judgment of 16 December 2010 the highest German administrative court, the BVerwG held that the 2010 contributions were not state aid under the terms of Article 107(1) TFEU, since the Altmark criteria were met. The BVerwG did not make any pronouncement on earlier contributions because it took the view that the appeal was not admissible with respect to the contributions paid prior to 2010.\n4.1. First Altmark criterion\n(59)\nThe BVerwG held that the disposal of animal by-products under the animal by-products Regulation and \u00a7 3(1) of the TierNebG constitutes a service of general economic interest and includes the provision of reserve capacity in the event of epidemics.\n(60)\nThe BVerwG distinguished between capacity that is used for normal operations, including spare operational capacity, and idle capacity that is normally unused. If the annual contributions covered the costs of normal capacity, including an essential epidemic reserve, the BVerwG would agree that the annual contributions were state aid because of the polluter pays principle.\n(61)\nHowever, if the annual contributions only covered the costs of the spare capacity that is held solely for the outbreak of an epidemic, they would not constitute state aid. It is of no significance that the spare capacity may be higher than dictated by operational requirements because, by its very nature, it is not normally being used. Only if there were indications that the spare capacity had also been used for normal operations (e.g. for the disposal of category 3 material) would a different conclusion follow. However, as this did not seem to be the case, the annual contributions were only compensating the costs arising from the public service obligation to provide an epidemic reserve.\n4.2. Second Altmark criterion\n(62)\nAs to the transparency requirement, the BVerwG noted that the Verbandsordnung had been modified on 2 February 2010, immediately before the 2010 contributions were fixed. The BVerwG held that \u00a7 9 of the 2010 Verbandsordnung made it clear that the annual contributions only compensated for the cost of providing reserve capacity in the event of epidemics.\n4.3. Third Altmark criterion\n(63)\nThe modified \u00a7 9 of the Verbandsordnung ensured that the annual contributions only compensated for the cost of providing of providing the epidemic reserve.\n(64)\nMoreover, the BVerwG noted that the decision on the size of the reserve was not a business decision that had to be taken on the basis of its economic cost-effectiveness. By its very nature, keeping reserve capacity for the outbreak of an epidemic is uneconomic because the cost of this reserve is disproportionate to the likelihood of large-scale outbreaks of animal disease.\n4.4. Fourth Altmark-criterion\n(65)\nThe BVerwG held that it was not possible to apply the fourth Altmark-criterion in this case because the disposal of category 1 and category 2 material is performed separately from the disposal of category 3 material. There is no overlap between the public and the commercial services provided by the ZT while, in the Altmark-case, a private bus company was subject to a large number of public service requirements (e.g. concerning number of stops and timetable) that substantially changed the way in which the underlying transport service was performed. The annual contributions to the ZT therefore served to compensate it for the cost of providing a public service outside the market.\n(66)\nThe BVerwG also held that a public body is entitled to carry out its public-interest tasks by itself without being obliged to have recourse to private service providers. As regards the case-law of the Court of Justice on public procurement, the BVerwG stated that a public body was free to decide whether to carry out a service in-house or to procure it from the market (24).\n5. COMMENTS FROM THE COMPLAINANT\n5.1. First Altmark criterion\n(67)\nThe complainant argues that the provision of an epidemic reserve is not a service of general economic interest (SGEI) within the meaning of Article 106(2) TFEU because of the polluter pays principle.\n(68)\nFarmers and slaughterhouses can easily be identified as the polluters. Farmers benefit from the effective handling of animal epidemics, as these can pose a threat to their flocks and hence to their assets. And swift and effective handling of epidemics enables the slaughterhouses to continue their business at the normal level.\n(69)\nThe polluter pays principle is also recognised in the relevant German legislation, where farmers and slaughterhouses are regularly referred to as polluters who must bear the disposal costs (25).\n5.2. Second Altmark criterion\n(70)\nThe complainant maintains that the ZT only began to claim that it had always been entrusted with the task of providing reserve capacity after the national and Commission investigations got under way. Until the Verbandsordnung was modified in 2010 there had been no explicit entrustment act concerning the provision of reserve capacity by the ZT nor had the parameters for the calculation of the compensation been set in advance.\n5.3. Third Altmark Criterion\n(71)\nThe complainant maintains that the requirement to maintain an epidemic reserve does not entail any net costs for animal disposal plants.\n5.3.1. Epidemic reserve covered out of operational spare capacity\n(72)\nGerman animal disposal plants are generally run in two shifts on five or six weekdays, with fluctuations of +/- 5 % in terms of operating hours. Seasonal fluctuations in demand are dealt with by operating three shifts in times of strong demand or scaling back to five-day two-shift operations when demand is weak. The B\u00f6ckenhoff study (26) confirmed that the third shift during the week and further shifts at weekends provide a sufficient epidemic reserve to cope with the increased amount of material in the event of epidemics.\n(73)\nThus the necessary epidemic reserve can be covered by the operational spare capacity available in the course of normal operation of disposal plants. The complainant stresses that it has never had to make additional investments in order to provide a sufficient level of epidemic reserve.\n(74)\nThe complainant also maintains that the capacities of the neighbouring L\u00e4nder should be taken into account when planning the capacity of a disposal plant. In the event of a massive outbreak of disease, the capacities of other L\u00e4nder can be used to cope with a short-term increase in demand for capacity. There are no legal provisions prohibiting the transport of category 1 and 2 materials. On the contrary, the relevant German legislation (27) regards recourse to neighbouring regions\u2019 capacities as an obvious way to deal with bottlenecks in processing capacity in the event of an epidemic.\n5.3.2. Total costs financed out of normal fee revenue\n(75)\nAccording to the complainant, all capacity costs would normally be financed out of the revenue that the undertaking entrusted with the task of disposing of category 1 and 2 material earned by charging for its normal operations. As the costs of operational spare capacity are an integral part of the plant\u2019s fixed costs, they can be included in the calculation of the fee charged to users. Among other things, the complainant cited a BVerwG judgment (28) that made it clear that the cost of objectively justified capacity reserves could be included when calculating charges.\n(76)\nIn 10 out of the 16 L\u00e4nder, only private undertakings are entrusted with the disposal of category 1 and 2 materials (Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, and Thuringia). In some of these L\u00e4nder there are regions with especially large numbers of livestock, such as Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia and Schleswig-Holstein. In Bavaria and Hessen, animal disposal is partly provided by private undertakings.\n(77)\nIn those L\u00e4nder where the complainant or affiliated undertakings are entrusted with the disposal of animal by-products, i.e. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia, the public authority and the entrusted undertaking agree on the maximum annual capacity that the disposal plant is to provide. Those capacities are deemed sufficient to cope with increased demand in the event of an epidemic. The complainant knows that in some public procurement procedures in North Rhine-Westphalia the level of reserve capacity is already set. The example cited was Kreis-Steinfurt, where the reserve was set at 5 % of the previous year\u2019s livestock head count. The disposal charges are calculated such that the entire fixed costs of the disposal plants are fully refinanced from the disposal fees charged to farmers and slaughterhouses.\n(78)\nConsequently, the practice in the other L\u00e4nder shows that the total costs of a disposal plant - including any costs for an epidemic reserve - could be fully financed by revenue from the fees it charged and that additional compensation from the public purse was not necessary.\n5.3.3. The ZT\u2019s actual use of the annual contributions\n(79)\nThe complainant argues that the ZT uses the annual contributions to finance losses not only from normal operations but also from maintaining overcapacity that would later be used for external purposes.\n5.3.3.1. Use of the alleged epidemic reserve for the purposes of the public task entrusted to it in North and Central Hessen\n(80)\nA comparison between the amount of spare capacity that the ZT indicated in its bid for the public procurement procedure in Northern Hessen 2009 and the amount of spare capacity described in the Fraunhofer study (29) points to a substantial decrease in the ZT\u2019s spare capacity over time. While spare capacity, and thus the epidemic reserve allegedly necessary, still amounted to around 50 % of total capacity in 2005 according to the Fraunhofer study, by 2009 it had shrunk to only 35 %, as shown by the ZT\u2019s bid in the Northern Hessen public procurement procedure.\n(81)\nAssuming that the ZT was in fact entrusted with the task of maintaining an epidemic reserve and that 50 % of the ZT\u2019s average capacity was an adequate reserve (as concluded in the Fraunhofer study), the ZT would not have been able to participate in the public procurement procedure in Northern Hessen or to take on further disposal obligations in Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg.\n(82)\nHowever, as the ZT did actually win the contract under the public procurement procedure in Northern Hessen and took on the provision of additional disposal services, it must necessarily have used part of the allegedly required epidemic reserve for normal operations. It is thus evident that the annual contributions financed the costs of overcapacity that was not needed as an epidemic reserve.\n5.3.3.2. Financing of unnecessary spare capacity\n(83)\nThe complainant compared the level of the ZT\u2019s epidemic reserve with the available spare capacity in other L\u00e4nder and came to the conclusion that the ZT\u2019s epidemic reserve was four to five times higher than the spare capacity available as an epidemic reserve in other L\u00e4nder, taking into account the differences in livestock numbers. The annual contributions were thus financing overcapacity substantially in excess of the necessary epidemic reserve when compared with practice in other L\u00e4nder. This overcapacity was then available to be used later for commercial purposes - such as taking part in the tendering procedure in Northern and Central Hessen.\n5.4. Fourth Altmark-Criterion\n(84)\nThe complainant points out that the ZT was not awarded the contract through a public procurement procedure, whereas in the majority of the other L\u00e4nder a public tendering procedure is used to select the most efficient provider. Moreover, no cost analysis was undertaken comparing the ZT\u2019s costs with those of a typical well run undertaking.\n(85)\nIn the complainant\u2019s view, there were no legal obstacles to prevent a public tendering procedure in Rhineland-Palatinate.\n5.5. Distortion of competition on outside markets\n5.5.1. Below-cost bid by the ZT in the public tendering procedure in Northern and Central Hessen\n(86)\nThe complainant claims that the distorting effect of the annual contributions payments can be illustrated by the way that the public tender proceeded in Northern Hessen.\n(87)\nPrior to the tendering procedure Tierbeseitigungsanlage Sch\u00e4fer GmbH (\u2018TBA Sch\u00e4fer\u2019), an affiliate of the complainant, was entrusted with the disposal of category 1 and 2 materials. However, TBA Sch\u00e4fer was unable to successfully compete with the ZT in the 2009 tendering procedure. While TBA Sch\u00e4fer\u2019s bid had to be based on full costs, the ZT could offer below-cost charges because part of its fixed costs had already been financed by the annual contributions.\n(88)\nFurther evidence that the ZT bid below cost in the tender for Northern Hessen comes from a comparison with the charges that the ZT applies in its own territory. There the charge is EUR 328 per tonne, whereas the ZT\u2019s bid in the tender for Northern Hessen was only EUR 208 per tonne. As there are no significant differences in the collection costs between the two regions, it is not comprehensible why the ZT could put in a bid charging about a third less in Northern Hessen than in its own territory for exactly the same service.\n(89)\nAs TBA Sch\u00e4fer\u2019s cost base was public knowledge from earlier tenders, it was easy for the ZT to put in a bid of EUR 208 per tonne, just EUR 4 below TBA\u2019s bid of EUR 212 per tonne, and so to win the contract.\n5.5.2. Below-cost fees charged by the ZT for disposal of category 3 material\n(90)\nThe complainant stresses that the incentive for slaughterhouses to separate category 3 material from category 1 and 2 material is distorted in Rhineland-Palatinate due to the ZT\u2019s lump-sum pricing policy. As a consequence, a substantial quantity of category 3 material that could otherwise be further processed into pet food is disposed of together with the inferior category 1 and 2 material (30).\n(91)\nMoreover, the amount of category 3 material taken off the market because of the ZT\u2019s pricing policy was larger than assumed by the Commission in its preliminary market assessment. Paragraph 33 of the decision opening the procedure stated that category 3 materials were separated out in 72 % of all slaughters in Rhineland-Palatinate. However, this figure is based solely on the number of slaughters. If account were taken of the fact that the slaughter of a cow produces a much higher amount of category 3 material than the slaughter of a pig, the result would be that only 45 % of category 3 material was separated out. Consequently, the market distortion due to the ZT\u2019s pricing policy would be far greater than previously assumed.\n6. COMMENTS BY THE ZT\n(92)\nThe ZT\u2019s comments coincide in the relevant points with those made by Germany, which are described in the following section. The ZT\u2019s comments are therefore not set out separately in order to avoid unnecessary repetition.\n7. COMMENTS BY GERMANY\n(93)\nGermany denied that the annual contribution imposed under the ZT\u2019s Verbandsordnung constitutes illegal aid since the Altmark criteria are met. Germany also argued that the aid was compatible with the internal market because the annual contribution did not exceed the cost of maintaining the epidemic reserve and the clean-up costs for former sites.\n7.1. First Altmark criterion\n(94)\nFirstly Germany contends that the provision of an epidemic reserve is a service of general economic interest, arguing that the disposal of category 1 and 2 material is a statutory obligation on local authorities.\n(95)\nThe local authorities had entrusted performance of this statutory duty to the ZT, as a public-law entity with legal capacity. The general economic interest consists in the fact that the proper disposal of category 1 and 2 material serves to protect human health. This applies above all in the event of an epidemic.\n(96)\nIt had to be borne in mind that the fact that financing is also possible under the Community TSE guidelines and the agricultural aid guidelines 2007-2013 could not be held against the ZT. The guidelines only regulate the financing of costs of disposing of animal carcases (fallen stock), but not specifically the costs of maintaining an epidemic reserve. The annual contribution was therefore not cumulated with the approved TSE aid.\n(97)\nIn addition, when it comes to the disposal of fallen stock, farmers can be identified as the polluters, whereas in the case of the costs of the epidemic reserve, the polluters cannot easily be identified.\n7.2. Second Altmark criterion\n(98)\nThe ZT had been entrusted with the task of disposing of animal by-products by the TierNebGAG RP since 1979.\n(99)\nThe size of the necessary epidemic reserve and the parameters for calculating the net costs were laid down in the ZT\u2019s amended Verbandsordnung of 1 February 2010. These were based on the Fraunhofer study.\n(100)\nGermany stressed that even before the Verbandsordnung was amended in 2010, the annual contributions levied by the ZT on its members were fixed in an objective and transparent manner. In particular the business plan for each year was adopted by the ZT\u2019s general assembly in a public procedure, approved by the supervisory authority, and published in the official gazettes of Rhineland-Palatinate, Hessen, and the Saarland.\n7.3. Third Altmark criterion\n(101)\nIn the opinion of Germany the reserve maintained to cope with epidemics is necessary in order to protect human health in the event of an epidemic.\n7.3.1. Study on the level of the epidemic reserve\n(102)\nAccording to Germany the size of the epidemic reserve laid down in the amended Verbandsordnung of 2 February 2010 was based on the Fraunhofer study. Following initiation of the procedure Germany had a further study (31) carried out by the Institut f\u00fcr Strukturforschung und Planung in agrarischen Intensivgebieten (\u2018the ISPA-RP study\u2019).\n(103)\nThe Fraunhofer study estimated the anticipated amount of material in various scenarios, taking account of their probability. The ISPA-RP study follows a methodically detailed approach to model the various epidemic scenarios in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) or classical swine fever (CSF).\n(104)\nBoth studies came to the conclusion that the ZT\u2019s total available capacity was sufficient to process the quantities arising from short-term as well as longer-lasting epidemics in addition to the normal quantities of internal and external material, which amount to some 1 700 tonnes per week.\n7.3.1.1. Short-term epidemics\n(105)\nThe ISPA study shows that in the event of short-term epidemics, and assuming that they involve additional material of up to around 200 tonnes a day within 2 to 5 days, the extra material can easily be processed together with the normal quantity using the available weekly spare capacity of up to 1 523 tonnes in three-shift operation on 5 days, without having to resort to the additional shifts at the weekend.\n(106)\nEven in the case of epidemics affecting fairly large parts of the area covered by the association, the additional quantities of between 1 300 and 1 800 tonnes arising over 8 weeks could be processed if weekend shifts were worked so that short-term spare capacity of up to 2 819 tonnes per week was available (see Table 3 in section 9.3.1).\n7.3.1.2. Long-term epidemics\n(107)\nThis scenario assumed an outbreak of FMD across the area covered by the association with a culling rate of 10 per cent, as occurred in Britain in 2001. In that case the estimated throughput would be approximately 1 300 tonnes per week over a period of 18 weeks. The ISPA-RP study showed that with 3-shift operation on 5 days, ZT\u2019s plants could even process these quantities in addition to the normal quantity (see Table 3 in section 9.3.1).\n7.3.1.3. Conclusions arising from the studies submitted\n(108)\nThe studies submitted show that the total available capacity with 5-day 3-shift operation is sufficient to process the additional quantities arising from short-term epidemics and even longer-lasting epidemics as well as the normal quantities. In most of the scenarios there would not even be any need to resort to the additional shifts available at weekends under full-capacity operation for 6 to 12 weeks.\n(109)\nThe studies draw the conclusion that the ZT has sufficient total capacity with 3-shift operation on 5 days to process the normal quantities arising and the material anticipated from longer-lasting epidemics. The total capacity currently available is therefore considered adequate for requirements rather than excessive.\n7.3.2. Cost of the epidemic reserve\n(110)\nThe calculations submitted by Germany for the cost of the epidemic reserve follow the approach of the Fraunhofer study. The breakdown of the capacity costs between normal operations and the epidemic reserve was determined on the basis of the average utilisation of the total capacity available in 5-day 3-shift operation. On average it emerged that the ZT uses around 50 % of the total capacity available in 3-shift operation on 5 days.\n(111)\nBased on this level of utilisation, roughly 50 % of the capacity costs were allocated to each of normal operation and the epidemic reserve for both collection and processing (32). The resulting cost of the epidemic reserve is as follows:\nTable 2\nCost of the epidemic reserve according to Germany for the period 2000-2009\n(in EUR)\nCosts of the epidemic reserve\n2000\n2 250 106\n2001\n2 608 383\n2002\n3 163 429\n2003\n3 121 934\n2004\n3 133 539\n2005\n2 986 695\n2006\n2 793 466\n2007\n2 606 508\n2008\n2 507 167\n2009\n1 961 515\nAverage\n2 784 282\n(112)\nIt should be noted that only about 45 % of the capacity costs were allocated to the epidemic reserve in 2000 and 2001, and in 2009 inclusion of the contract from Northern and Central Hessen reduced the epidemic reserve by approximately a fifth. No calculation of the cost of the epidemic reserve is available for 1998 and 1999.\n7.3.3. Financing the cost of the epidemic reserve through annual contributions\n(113)\nIn the years shown, apart from 2009, the annual contributions paid to the ZT by its members were below the costs of the epidemic reserve shown in Table 2. In 2009 the final annual contribution was as high as the costs of the reserve.\n(114)\nGermany stated that the cost of providing the epidemic reserve was not included in the calculation of the usage charge because this was not legally possible. Although local authorities can levy usage charges in return for the use of public facilities and plants in order to cover the costs under \u00a7 7 of the Kommunalabgabengesetz Rhineland-Palatinate (KAG RP: Rhineland-Palatinate Local Authority Charges Act), there must not be an obvious disparity between the output of the facility or plant and the charge. Under \u00a7 8 of the KAG RP the costs on which usage charges are based must be determined following the business principles of cost accounting. According to Germany, however, only the disposal of category 1 and 2 material forms the basis for charges, not the provision of capacity for epidemics. The latter is not provided as a service for individual taxpayers, but to counter future dangers to the general public.\n7.3.4. Financing in other German states\n(115)\nAt the Commission\u2019s request Germany carried out a nationwide survey on the practices followed when determining and financing the epidemic reserve.\n(116)\nIn all the German states - except the area covered by the ZT - the epidemic reserve is covered by the operational spare capacity available during the week and at weekends. On the basis of the B\u00f6ckenhoff study on combating epidemics, there is not normally any additional investment in capacity. The spare capacity available in the shape of the third shift during the week and the weekend shifts are sufficient for the epidemic reserve. In the meantime alternative calculation methods are being applied following expert studies, such as the ISPA study for Lower Saxony (33) (\u2018the ISPA-NS study\u2019), or through agreement with the interest groups concerned. However, the fundamental conclusion of the B\u00f6ckenhoff study still stands, namely that extra investment in spare capacity is unnecessary.\n(117)\nThe cost of operational spare capacity is financed through dues or charges (depending on the legal form of the operator). There are different arrangements, according to the pattern under which the cost of operational spare capacity is divided between disposal of fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste.\n(118)\nAs regards aid to farmers for the disposal of fallen stock under the TSE guidelines and the agricultural aid guidelines 2007-2013, the assistance granted by the State in most of the other L\u00e4nder is between 67 % and 75 % of the charges for the disposal of fallen stock:\n(a)\nBaden-W\u00fcrttemberg and North Rhine-Westphalia: The animal owners pay 25 % of the processing costs, while 100 % of the collection costs and the remaining 75 % of the processing costs are financed by the public purse (rural districts and L\u00e4nder).\n(b)\nSaxony-Anhalt, Thuringia and Brandenburg: The animal owners pay 25 % of the collection costs and 33 % of the processing costs. The remainder of the collection and processing costs (75 % or 67 %) is borne by the public purse.\n(c)\nBavaria, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland: A third of the collection costs are paid by the state, the Tierseuchenkasse, and the Land, while 66 % of the processing costs are financed by the public purse, 25 % by the animal owners, and 8 % by the Tierseuchenkasse.\n(d)\nIn Saxony 25 % of the collection and processing costs are financed by the animal owners, 8 % by the Tierseuchenkasse, and 66 % by the public purse.\n(e)\nIn Lower Saxony 60 % of the collection and processing costs are financed by the Tierseuchenkasse and 40 % by the public purse. The Tierseuchenkasse then charges 25 % of the processing costs to the animal owners.\n(f)\nIn Schleswig-Holstein 100 % of the collection and processing costs are borne by the Tierseuchenkasse.\n(g)\nIn Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 100 % of the collection and processing costs are borne by the animal owners.\n(119)\nIn Germany\u2019s view, this overview shows that it is relatively unimportant whether the cost of the epidemic reserve is included in the calculation of dues and charges or whether they are financed through an annual contribution as in Rhineland-Palatinate. What matters is who actually bears the costs. Ultimately, a large proportion of the spare capacity is also publicly financed through aid under the Community TSE guidelines or the agricultural aid guidelines 2007-2013.\n7.4. Fourth Altmark criterion\n(120)\nGermany holds the view that there is no requirement under European law to open up a market for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material by means of procurement procedures. This has also been confirmed by the European Court of Justice (34).\n7.5. No distortion to competition in external markets\n(121)\nGermany holds that there is no distortion of competition in the external markets in this case.\n7.5.1. Disposal of uncontrolled goods by the ZT without cross-subsidisation\n(122)\nGermany contends that there have been no distortions of competition in the case of category 3 material as a result of the annual contribution levied by the ZT, as there is no cross-subsidisation.\n(a)\nThe annual accounts clearly demonstrate that the ZT has been achieving considerable contribution margins for years in processing separated category 3 material, which rules out cross-subsidisation.\n(b)\nIf category 3 material is delivered jointly with the controlled material, the mixtures (by weight) have already been included in the calculation of the charges for the disposal of category 1 and 2 raw material. This means that the level of charges in the charge schedule already includes the quantities of mixed material in that category which are calculated in advance.\n(123)\nThere is no foundation to the complainant\u2019s claim that because of the ZT\u2019s pricing policy, only 45 % of the category 3 material is separated. Such high quantities of category 3 material have never been processed by the ZT, as a glance at the relevant statistics would confirm. The separation rate of 72 % for 2009 cited by the Commission in the decision to initiate the procedure can be confirmed.\n(124)\nIt should also be pointed out that in the area covered by the association 85 % of slaughters are carried out in 6 plants where separation in its broadest sense is carried out. The complainant is active in these plants and obtains separated category 3 material from them. The complainant therefore has access to the category 3 markets and also has a very considerable share of these markets.\n7.5.2. Invitation to tender in Northern and Central Hessen\n(125)\nThe fact that the ZT applies different charges in Northern and Central Hessen from those in the area covered by the association does not prove the existence of any distortion of competition. The financing differences are due to differing legal requirements as regards their calculation. Under Section 3(1) of the TierNebG, the disposal of category 1 and 2 animal by-products in Germany is the responsibility of the regional and local authorities competent under state law. Consequently the financing may be regulated differently under the relevant provisions at Land and local level.\n(126)\nIf the disposal of animal by-products is not carried out by those responsible for disposal themselves and the task is entrusted to third parties - as in Northern and Central Hessen - the calculation rules are governed not by the Local Authority Charges Act in question, but by the Leits\u00e4tze f\u00fcr die Preisermittlung aufgrund von Selbstkosten [LSP - Guidelines for determining cost prices] (35).\n(127)\nThere are big differences between the KAG RP and the LSP, especially as regards the amount of interest costs that can be included in the charges/fees, and these differences are significant for the ZT, since it financed its investments to a considerable extent through loans and paid a substantial amount of interest on them each year.\n(128)\nWhile the ZT could include these interest costs in the calculation of charges under \u00a7 8 KAG RP, the LSP only allowed the charges in Northern and Central Hessen to be based on calculated interest relative to the average necessary operating capital. It was thus impossible to pass on the full cost of the actual interest payments.\n(129)\nThe claim made by the complainant that TBA Sch\u00e4fer was failed to win in the selection procedure in Northern and Central Hessen because of the cross-subsidisation through the annual contribution is also without any basis. The higher offer made by TBA Sch\u00e4fer was due to the fact that TBA Sch\u00e4fer\u2019s estimate of production income was too low and that it also had to pay higher administration costs and group contributions. On the other hand the ZT had estimated production revenue correctly and, since it was not part of a group, did not have to make any group contributions.\n7.6. Clean-up of contaminated sites\n(130)\nGermany contends that part of the annual contribution levied by the ZT serves to finance the clean-up costs for two contaminated sites, Sohrschied and Sprendlingen-Gensingen.\n(131)\nSoil and ground water contamination had built up at both contaminated sites through the use of hydrocarbons by former owners or operators. Both properties came into the ZT\u2019s ownership when it was founded in 1979.\n(132)\nUnder the Koblenz district government\u2019s clean-up decisions of 21 April 1997 and 31 March 1998, the ZT was obliged to remove the contamination. Further conditions were imposed as regards cleaning up the Sprendlingen-Gensingen site in a supplementary decision of 13 July 2001. The clean-up costs for the relevant period from 1998 to 2010 amounted to a total of EUR 2 413 049,36 for the two sites.\n7.6.1. Sprendling-Gensingen site\n(133)\nGermany acknowledges that the ZT is liable for the clean-up costs at the Sprendlingen-Gensingen site under the clean-up decision of 31 March 1998. However, it considers that from the point of view of aid law it is unjust for the ZT to be fully responsible for the clean-up costs, since unlimited liability would lead to unequal treatment compared with private undertakings under more recent German case-law.\n(134)\nFollowing the decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court] of 16 December 2000 (36), a private undertaking would be liable under national law only up to the limit of what is reasonable. According to the Bundesverfassungsgericht this threshold could be reached if the liability exceeded the value of the property. Beyond that limit, liability could no longer be regarded as a proportionate substantive and limiting provision for the purposes of the protection of property guaranteed in the second sentence of Article 14(2) of the German Grundgesetz [Basic Law]. However, because the ZT, as a legal person under public law, cannot invoke the rights accorded to private persons under the German Basic Law, this limitation of liability does not apply to the ZT.\n(135)\nAccording to Germany, the Sprendlingen-Gensingen site has a negative market value because the estimated book value on the balance sheet at 31 December 2009 was EUR 128 500,00, whereas the clean-up costs have since risen to a total of EUR 1 542 315,85. This is beyond limit on liability described above.\n(136)\nFinancing the clean-up costs beyond the liability limit through the annual contribution should be regarded as compatible aid under paragraph 132 of the environmental aid guidelines, since private individuals would only have to bear clean-up costs up to the market value of the property.\n7.6.2. Sohrschied site\n(137)\nAlthough the ZT was held liable as the polluter under the clean-up decision of 21 April 1997, Germany doubts whether the ZT was actually obliged under German law to bear the clean-up costs for the damage caused by the earlier owner or operator. But since the facts lie more than 30 years back, the question of liability can no longer be clearly clarified.\n(138)\nGermany considers that the annual contribution, insofar as it contributes towards the clean-up costs for the Sohrschied site, represents compatible aid under the environmental aid guidelines since the ZT should not have been under an obligation to carry out the clean-up.\n(139)\nGermany argues further that the market value of the Sohrschied site is also negative and that the liability limit has been breached in this case too.\n8. ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF AID UNDER ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU (WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE ALTMARK CRITERIA)\n(140)\nUnder Article 107(1) TFEU any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with the internal market in so far as it affects or threatens to affect trade between Member States.\n8.1. Annual contribution financed from State resources\n(141)\nGermany does not dispute that the annual contributions from the members of the Zweckverband are State resources. The ZT\u2019s members are rural and urban districts in Rhineland-Palatinate, the Saarland, and Hessen. As the ZT has been levying an annual contribution from its members by means of an administrative act, the measure involves a direct transfer of State resources. And as administrative acts are involved, the annual contributions can be attributed to the State.\n8.2. Economic advantage for the ZT\n(142)\nFirstly the beneficiary must be an undertaking. The notion of an undertaking comprises any entity carrying on an economic activity irrespective of its legal status and the way in which it is financed. This applies not only to private, but also to public undertakings (37). Any activity which involves offering goods or services on a specific market is an economic activity (38). Since the ZT offers services for the disposal of certain animal by-products in return for a consideration, the ZT is an undertaking.\n(143)\nEssentially the annual contributions give the ZT an economic advantage since they reduce its current expenditure and are not matched by any appropriate performance in return. However, Germany contends that the contributions only compensated the ZT for the costs that it had to bear because of the obligation to maintain an epidemic reserve and that therefore it did not gain any economic advantage.\n(144)\nIn its judgment in the Altmark case the European Court of Justice held that a compensation for the performance of a public service obligation is not State aid, i.e. does not provide the beneficiary with an advantage, provided certain criteria are cumulatively fulfilled (39).\n(145)\nBecause of the significance of the Altmark judgment for the present case, Germany\u2019s contention that the Altmark criteria are satisfied will be examined in detail separately in section 9.\n8.3. Distortion of competition and impairment of trade between the Member States\n(146)\nGermany takes the view that the market for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material from the area covered by the association is not open to competition and that therefore both distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States can be ruled out.\n(147)\nTo begin with, the Commission notes that there are regional monopolies for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material. However, most of the competent regional and local authorities grant these monopolies via procurement procedures. There is thus competition on the market. In the present case this is confirmed by the procurement procedure for Northern and Central Hessen.\n(148)\nIn line with its decision of 23 February 2011 on Germany\u2019s State aid C58/06 (ex NN 98/05) for Bahnen der Stadt Monheim (BSM) and Rheinische Bahngesellschaft (RBM) im Verkehrsverband Rhein-Ruhr (40), the Commission therefore considers that the market for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material is open to competition. Both Union and national law leave the regional and local authorities entrusted with the disposal of category 1 and 2 material free to choose either to find a supplier on the market and entrust it with the task via a procurement procedure or to carry out disposal themselves through an in-house solution (41). Despite Germany\u2019s claim that the ZT complies with the criteria for an in-house award (42), the annual contributions strengthen the ZT\u2019s financial position vis-\u00e0-vis other potential suppliers. Since suppliers from all the Member States can take part in procurement procedures, the contribution is also liable to affect trade between the Member States.\n(149)\nThe economic advantages from the annual contributions are also liable to strengthen ZT\u2019s position on markets where it is in direct competition with other suppliers (disposal of category 3 material, procurement procedure for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material in Northern and Central Hessen).\n8.4. Provisional conclusion on the existence of aid\n(150)\nThe annual contributions satisfy the conditions for the existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The following section will examine in detail Germany\u2019s claim that the four conditions of the Altmark judgment are met.\n9. ASSESSMENT OF THE ALTMARK CRITERIA IN THE CONTEXT OF ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU\n9.1. First Altmark criterion\n(151)\nThe first Altmark criterion states that the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge, and the obligations must be clearly defined.\n(152)\nFirst it should be noted that a distinction has to be made between the period from 1979 to 2008 and the period from 2009 to 2011.\n(153)\nBefore the Verbandsordnung was amended on 2 February 2010 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2009 the ZT was only generally entrusted with the disposal of category 1 and 2 material. The old Verbandsordnung did not specify any obligation to maintain an epidemic reserve. There was thus no clearly defined obligation to maintain an epidemic reserve within the meaning of the first Altmark criterion.\n(154)\nWith the amended Verbandsordnung there is now besides the obligation to dispose of category 1 and 2 material also an explicit obligation for the ZT to maintain an epidemic reserve.\n(155)\nThe Commission show in what follows that neither the ZT\u2019s obligation to dispose of category 1 and 2 material nor its obligation to maintain an epidemic reserve can justify the annual contributions as State compensation payments within the meaning of the first Altmark criterion.\n9.1.1. Obligation to dispose of category 1 and 2 material\n9.1.1.1. Not a service of general economic interest\n(156)\nThe BVerwG held that under Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and \u00a7 3(1) TierNebG the disposal of category 1 and 2 material is a public service obligation and hence a service of general economic interest. The BVerwG attached particular importance to the fact that under German law the disposal of the material is an obligatory public task, and proceeded from the assumption that to that extent the ZT is exercising public powers. The BVerwG held that the public service obligation also included the provision of an epidemic reserve (43).\n(157)\nGermany shares this view and also argues that the disposal of category 1 and 2 material and providing the epidemic reserve serve to protect human health.\n(158)\nAs the disposal of category 1 and 2 material is a public service obligation, the BVerwG and Germany considered the annual contributions justified as they represented State compensation for the costs that the ZT incurred as a result of the obligation.\n(159)\nAs explained in paragraph 13 of the Union guidelines on State aid that is granted as compensation for performing public services (44) (\u2018Union SGEI guidelines\u2019), the Court of Justice has consistently held that Member States have a wide margin of discretion regarding the nature of services that can be classified as services of general economic interest, except in sectors where there are specific Union rules governing this.\n(160)\nThe Court of Justice has emphasised that an activity is of general economic interest only if it exhibits special characteristics as compared with the general economic interest of other economic activities (45).\n(161)\nIn GEMO the Court of Justice then had to deal with the question of whether farmers and slaughterhouses should bear the full disposal costs of fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste or whether the State could bear the costs on the grounds that this was a service of general economic interest. In its ruling the Court held that farmers and slaughterhouses should bear the entire costs (46).\n(162)\nThe Court of Justice found that the financial burden entailed by the disposal of fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste is a cost item that is inevitably bound up with the economic activity of farmers and slaughterhouses. Their activities generate products and residues that are unusable and above all harmful for the environment, and disposal is incumbent on the polluters.\n(163)\nIntervention by State bodies with the aim of releasing farmers and slaughterhouses from this burden creates an economic advantage that is liable to distort competition. Even if the State were pursuing a health policy objective by taking over responsibility for the disposal costs, that would not change the fact that it constituted an economic advantage for farmers and slaughterhouses, as it is established case-law that Article 107(1) TFEU does not make distinctions according to the reasons for and goals of State intervention measures but defines them by their effects (47).\n(164)\nThe Community guidelines for State aid concerning TSE-Tests, fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste (2002/C324/02) (until 2006), paragraphs 27 and 37, and the Community guidelines on State aid in the agricultural and forestry sector 2007-2013 (2006/C319/01), section V.B.4, also confirm that it is the owners or producers of animal by-products who are responsible for the proper disposal and therefore have to bear the costs under the polluter-pays principle. Under these guidelines State aid is an exception to the rule that is permissible only in special situations (especially for fallen stock).\n(165)\nThe fact that the polluter-pays principle applies generally is also confirmed by Rhineland-Palatinate law, where \u00a7 4(1) of the TierNebGAG states that the costs of disposal and related processes can be imposed on the owners.\n(166)\nFor the case at issue the following conclusions flow from the case-law of the Court, Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, the TSE guidelines and the agricultural aid guidelines 2007-20013:\n(167)\nFirstly for there to be a service of general economic interest it is not decisive whether the Member State defines the service in question as a communal obligation. The definition of a service as a communal obligation is equivalent to granting an exclusive right. Were the BVerwG to be correct in its view, a Member State could declare any service to be a communal obligation, so making it a service of general economic interest. However, this interpretation would deprive Article 106 TFEU of all effectiveness: its purpose is precisely to ensure that compensation payments may only be granted where a service of general economic interest warrants it.\n(168)\nThe Commission takes the view that a distinction must be made between granting an exclusive right and classing a service as a service of general economic interest.\n(169)\nGranting an exclusive right for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material may constitute a restriction of the freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU. Under Article 52 in conjunction with Article 62 TFEU may be justified on the grounds of protecting public health. When Germany and Rhineland-Palatinate lay down that only one undertaking is responsible for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material in a certain region, they are seeking to ensure that the undertaking is subject to very intensive supervision, so guaranteeing the protection of public health.\n(170)\nHowever, a measure aimed at protecting public health does not automatically constitute a service of general public interest - contrary to the view taken by Germany and the BVerwG.\n(171)\nThe Commission therefore does not question that the disposal of category 1 and 2 material involves the disposal of waste which, by its nature, poses a particular threat to health. That is why Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 provides for a strict system of controls for establishments disposing of such waste. These provisions certainly entail extra costs for the disposal undertakings, but those costs have to be included in the fees and charges.\n(172)\nIn this respect the disposal of category 1 and 2 material is no different from the disposal of other waste that, by its nature, poses a particular threat to health. The cost of disposing of such waste normally has to be borne by whoever caused it and not by the public.\n(173)\nIn the present case the service comprises the disposal of category 1 and 2 material. The Commission must therefore examine whether this service is especially different in essence from other economic activities so that it is in the general interest, and not only in the interest of the economic operators that profit from it.\n(174)\nIn the Commission\u2019s view the disposal of category 1 and 2 material is not fundamentally different in terms of content from other economic activities. For this reason it cannot be classed as a service of general economic interest.\n(175)\nContrary to the view of the BVerwG, the strict control prescribed by Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 does not mean that the disposal of category 1 and 2 material has to be regarded as a service of general economic interest.\n(176)\nFurthermore, the sector in question is regulated by provisions of Union law. In particular, those provisions require that the polluter bears cost for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material. It follows that there is no scope for the public purse to take on part of the cost, as the Court of Justice found in GEMO (48). Because of these specific provisions of Union law there is no longer any room for national provisions seeking classify the disposal of category 1 and 2 material as a service of general economic interest, depart from Union law. Classing it as a service of general economic interest is therefore ruled out.\n(177)\nLastly as regards Germany\u2019s claim that the disposal of category 1 and 2 material serves to protect human health, the Commission would refer to the GEMO judgment, where the Court of Justice held that Article 107(1) TFEU does not distinguish between measures of State intervention by reference to their causes or aims but defines them in relation to their effects.\n(178)\nIt follows that in principle an economic operator must bear the costs entailed by regulatory provisions governing the performance of his activity, such as the strict rules on the disposal of category 1 and 2 material in the present case. The objective of protecting human health is taken into account for justifying granting an exclusive right with respect to the freedom to provide services and at the level of the compatibility of aid for farmers with the internal market.\n(179)\nFor these reasons the Commission considers that the disposal of category 1 and 2 material cannot be classed by Germany as a service of general economic interest.\n9.1.1.2. In the alternative: compensation payments are not a requirement in any case\n(180)\nAlternatively the Commission would point out that the first Altmark criterion also implies assessing whether the compensation payments are necessary for a service of general economic interest. Thus even if the disposal of category 1 and 2 material were to constitute a service of general economic interest, the necessity of the compensation payment has to be examined.\n(181)\nThe arguments of Germany and the BVerwG overlook the fact that in the GEMO judgment the Court of Justice held that the obligations which enterprises entrusted with the disposal of category 1 and 2 material have accepted do not justify State compensation for the costs entailed by those obligations. All the costs of the disposal of category 1 and 2 material must be borne by those responsible for producing them, as they are inherent costs of the economic activities of farmers and slaughterhouses.\n(182)\nThe Court of Justice held that State compensation for the costs arising from this obligation is not justified, as the costs have to be borne by those responsible.\n(183)\nContrary to the view of the BVerwG, the strict control prescribed by Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 does not imply that the cost of disposal of category 1 and 2 material can be met by State compensation payments.\n(184)\nIn other words the mere existence of a public service obligation does not necessarily imply that State compensation for the costs arising from that obligation is justified.\n(185)\nIn the Commission\u2019s view Germany cannot justify the annual contributions as State compensation for the cost to the ZT arising from the obligation to dispose of category 1 and 2 material, since under the polluter pays principle the entire cost must be covered by the fees that the ZT charges those responsible for producing that material.\n9.1.2. Maintaining an epidemic reserve\n(186)\nAs regards the question whether the reserve capacity, viewed in isolation, can be classed as a service of general economic interest, the following points should be made. Under German law, an undertaking that has a regional monopoly for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material must ensure that it can cope with an increased quantity of material in the event of an outbreak of disease. As the comparison of the 16 L\u00e4nder submitted by Germany shows, everywhere except in the ZT\u2019s area the undertakings that run their plants in three shifts achieve this by running them at the weekend too and, if necessary, by transferring material to other L\u00e4nder. In other words, the obligation to maintain an epidemic reserve does not give rise to any extra costs, as the epidemic reserve can be covered by the operationally available spare capacity.\n(187)\nEven if extra costs were to arise, they would have to be passed on to farmers and slaughterhouses. Coping with increased use of material in an epidemic is part of the cost that is inherent in the operation of a plant for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material.\n(188)\nThe fact that the owners, i.e. the regional and local authorities, oblige the undertakings that they own to maintain an epidemic reserve by an official act is irrelevant. Maintaining the epidemic reserve cannot be deemed to be a service of general economic interest for two reasons.\n(189)\nIf the spare capacity that is operationally available - without extra cost - is not sufficient to cover the prescribed epidemic reserve so that the obligation to maintain the epidemic reserve gives rise to additional investment costs, the polluter pays principle requires that those costs must be covered by the fees charged. This is no different to the arguments relating to the disposal of other waste (see recitals 156 to 185 above for detail).\n(190)\nIf the spare capacity maintained is higher than actually required in the event of an epidemic, there is no public interest in maintaining that excess spare capacity.\n(191)\nIn this connection the BVerwG held that for the purposes of classifying the provision of reserve capacity it was irrelevant whether the ZT maintained quite unnecessary excess capacity. It was for the regional and local authorities alone to decide whether to finance overcapacity or insist that it be reduced. This was a question of the political responsibility of the regional and local authorities, not a question of aid law (49). This argument cannot be accepted, since quite unnecessary capacity is unlikely to serve the public interest.\n(192)\nAs examined more fully in section 9.3, in the case of the ZT the prescribed epidemic reserve can be covered by the operationally available spare capacity and compensation payments cannot be justified in any way.\n(193)\nFor these reasons the Commission considers that the obligation to maintain an epidemic reserve cannot be deemed a service of general economic interest. Alternatively the Commission considers that it does not provide any justification for the annual contributions as State compensation.\n9.1.3. Disposal of category 3 material\n(194)\nAs the ZT is not entrusted not with the disposal of category 3 material, it cannot be classed as a service of general economic interest for that reason alone. In any case it cannot be classed as such for the reasons set out in section 9.1.1.\n9.1.4. Summary\n(195)\nThe first Altmark criterion is therefore not met in the present case.\n(196)\nThe following considerations regarding the second to fourth Altmark criteria are therefore merely set out in the alternative.\n9.2. Second Altmark criterion\n(197)\nThe second Altmark criterion requires that the parameters on the basis of which compensation is calculated should be drawn up objectively and transparently in advance. Therefore if a Member State compensates an undertaking for losses without the parameters having been laid down in advance, this constitutes an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU,\n(198)\nIn the present case a distinction must be made between the period from 1979 to 2008 and the period from 2009 to 2012.\n9.2.1. Period from 1979 to 2008\n(199)\nThe Verbandsordnung adopted on 28 October 1994 allowed the ZT to cover all losses incurred in the course of the financial year by the annual contribution. However, as Germany has stated, the annual contributions were intended to finance the costs that the ZT incurred by maintaining the epidemic reserve.\n(200)\nIn the 1994 Verbandsordnung, however, there are no indications as to the size of the epidemic reserve that the ZT was to maintain or as to the parameters for calculating the costs of the reserve. The loss incurred is not an objective indicator of the cost of the epidemic reserve, as the size of the loss depends on a large number of factors that have nothing to do with the cost of the epidemic reserve.\n(201)\nThus no objective and transparent method was laid down in advance that might have made it possible to calculate the cost of the epidemic reserve. The second Altmark criterion is therefore not met for the period from 1979 to 2008.\n9.2.2. Period from 2009 to 2012\n(202)\nThe Verbandsordnung was amended on 2 February 2010 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2009. In \u00a7 10(2) the size of the epidemic reserve to be maintained is laid down explicitly. Under \u00a7 9(2) and \u00a7 10(4) the costs of the epidemic reserve and hence the size of the annual contribution has to be set before the beginning of the financial year through the budget statute.\n(203)\nIn \u00a7 10(5) of the new Verbandsordnung rules were introduced for calculating the cost of the epidemic reserve. In line with the Fraunhofer study, a proportion of the total capacity costs are allocated to the prescribed epidemic reserve. The Verbandsordnung and the annual budget statutes set out the parameters needed to calculate the costs. The Commission has checked that the parameters are objective and reasonable and the calculation method is set out unequivocally and transparently. For the years from 2010 the annual contributions are therefore determined in advance on the basis of objective and transparent parameters.\n(204)\nThe transparency requirement of the second Altmark criterion is thus met for the years 2010 to 2012. At the same time, however, it must be pointed out that although the Commission accepts that the calculations are made in advance and in a transparent manner, it considers that the calculation formula used is not capable of preventing overcompensation within the meaning of the third Altmark criterion.\n(205)\nFor the year 2009, on the other hand, the rules for calculating the cost, the budget statute and the size of the annual contribution were fixed retroactively and not in advance. The second Altmark criterion is therefore not met for the year 2009.\n9.3. Third Altmark criterion\n(206)\nThe third Altmark criterion requires that the compensation should not exceed what is necessary to cover, wholly or partially, the costs of fulfilling public service obligations taking account of the income obtained and an appropriate profit from the fulfilment of these obligations.\n(207)\nIn calculating the cost of fulfilling the public service obligation, the Commission applies the net-avoided-cost method (50). The net costs that are necessary or ought to be necessary to fulfil the obligation to provide public services are calculated as the difference between the net costs of the service provider arising from fulfilment of the public service obligation and the service provider\u2019s net costs without that obligation. Particular care has to be taken to ensure that the costs or revenue that the service provider would not bear or earn if there were no public service obligation are correctly evaluated. In calculating the net costs, the advantage to the provider of the service of general economic interest should be examined, if possible including immaterial advantages (51).\n(208)\nUnder \u00a7 10(2) of the Verbandsordnung of 2 February 2010 the size of the epidemic reserve to be maintained from 2009 is set at 7 110 tonnes, which are to be processed within a period of six weeks. In terms of tonnes per week, the ZT therefore has to take steps to ensure that in the event of an epidemic 1 185 tonnes a week over and above the normal quantities can be processed over a period of six weeks (52).\n(209)\nGermany argues that the annual contributions compensate for the net costs that the ZT incurs by maintaining the epidemic reserve. Although the Verbandsordnung only contained an explicit obligation to maintain an epidemic reserve since it was amended on 2 February 2010, the ZT kept an epidemic reserve before that and had to bear the costs that this entailed. In particular, under the rules on charges in Rhineland-Palatinate the ZT was not able to include these costs in the charges for the disposal of category 1 and 2 material.\n(210)\nRelying on the Fraunhofer study, Germany calculates the costs of the epidemic reserve as roughly half of the entire costs of the facilities, since the utilisation rate of the technically possible capacity of the facilities during the week - i.e. in 5-day 3-shift operation - is less than 50 %.\n(211)\nThe Commission will show in the following paragraphs that contrary to Germany\u2019s calculations, the ZT did not incur any net costs as a result of maintaining an epidemic reserve of the prescribed size. The costs cited by Germany comprise the cost of the operationally available spare capacity, which have to be covered by charges, and the cost of spare capacity resulting from the under-utilisation of the plants.\n9.3.1. Coverage of the prescribed epidemic reserve by the ZT\u2019s unused operational capacity\n(212)\nThe 1991 B\u00f6ckenhoff report examined for the first time whether a larger disposal plant needed to be built in order to ensure sufficient capacity in the event of an epidemic. It came to the opposite conclusion, since in normal operation the disposal plant runs in 5-day 2-shift operation and the operational spare capacity of the third shift was considered to be an adequate epidemic reserve.\n(213)\nIn the course of time many disposal undertakings have gone over to partial use of the third shift, even in normal operation, or to running one or two shifts on Saturdays at times when there are peaks in the quantities for disposal. This means that there is better capacity utilisation in normal operation and greater use will have to be made of the available spare capacity at the weekend in the event of an epidemic.\n(214)\nHowever, detailed calculations for various scenarios in more recent technical literature (53) have confirmed the basic findings of the B\u00f6ckenhoff report that no additional investment in spare capacity is necessary to combat epidemics, but rather that the available spare capacity in the shape of the third shift during the week and shifts at the weekend are sufficient for the disposal of the extra animal carcases resulting from an epidemic. Account is taken here of the higher utilisation of capacity in normal operation. The epidemic events considered are mostly locally limited and short-term outbreaks of classic swine fever (CSF) or foot-and-mouth disease (FMD).\n(215)\nThe epidemic reserve laid down in the Verbandsordnung of 2 February 2010, amounting to 1 185 tonnes a week, which the ZT has to make available over a period of six weeks in the event of an epidemic is geared to locally limited outbreaks of CSF and FMD. The size of the epidemic reserve is based on the ISPA-RP study, which shows that the extra quantities of animal carcases to be expected in the event of short-term epidemics in the area covered by the association lie in this order of magnitude.\n(216)\nThe specified epidemic reserve of 1 185 t/week stands alongside unused capacity of 2 819 t/week available for the required period of six weeks. The unused capacity actually available is considerably more than twice as high as that required. As the table below shows, the ZT can cover the prescribed epidemic reserve with the operational spare capacity available in the short term at nights and at weekends - as in the other L\u00e4nder. The operational spare capacity of 2 376 tonnes a week available in 3-shift 7-day operation for a duration of six weeks is roughly double the prescribed epidemic reserve of 1 185 tonnes a week.\n(217)\nEven assuming that plant capacity is not fully utilised in 3-shift 7-day operation or is not used continuously for 7 days, sufficient operational spare capacity is available to ensure the required epidemic reserve. As the comparison of the prescribed epidemic reserve of 1 185 tonnes a week with the spare capacity available in the ZT\u2019s plant according to the ISPA-RP-study (54), the ZT has sufficient operational spare capacity in the night and at the weekend:\nTable 3\nThe ZT\u2019s available spare capacity compared with the prescribed epidemic reserve (based on average capacity utilisation from 1998 to 2009)\nType of operation\nTotal capacity\nAvailable spare capacity\nEpidemic reserve under the Verbandsordnung\nSpare capacity after deducting the epidemic reserve\nDue to level of utilisation\nDue to operational factors\nTotal\nTotal\n2 shifts on 5 days maximum capacity\n2 160\n443\n443\n3 shifts on 5 days maximum capacity\n3 240\n443\n1 080\n1 523\n1 185\n338\n3 shifts on 7 days normal capacity\n3 864\n443\n1 704\n2 147\n962\n3 shifts on 7 days maximum capacity\n4 536\n443\n2 376\n2 819\n1 634\n(218)\nThis, then, confirms that the ZT - like undertakings in the other L\u00e4nder - has sufficient operational spare capacity for the epidemic reserve. Consequently the ZT never needed to construct additional capacity in order to provide an epidemic reserve. The ZT therefore did not incur any net costs from the obligation.\n(219)\nHowever, Germany goes on to argue that under the law the ZT is not allowed to include in the disposal charges the costs of spare capacity that is used only in the event of an epidemic, since that epidemic reserve would be of public benefit.\n(220)\nThe results of the L\u00e4nder survey and complainant\u2019s contracts that have been submitted show, however, that irrespective of the legal form of the disposal undertaking or the calculation rule to be applied, all capacity costs are financed by operating revenue without exception. This is also clearly apparent in \u00a7 8 KAG RP, which states that \u2018the costs underlying the usage charges and recurring contributions are to be determined in accordance with the business principles of cost accounting\u2019. In other words the cost of the operational spare capacity has to be included in the charges on a proportional basis, as there is a causal connection with the disposal of internal and external material in normal operation.\n(221)\nThe BVerwG also rightly found in its judgment that the cost of operational spare capacity must be financed by income from the disposal of internal and external material (55). Consequently if - as in the case of the ZT - the prescribed epidemic reserve can be provided from the operational spare capacity, there is no need for an annual contribution.\n(222)\nFinally Germany argues in justification of the annual contribution that all operational spare capacity costs in the third shift during the week are the result of the obligation to maintain the epidemic reserve. Without that obligation the ZT would be able to make full use of its technical maximum capacity in 5-day 3-shift operation.\n(223)\nHowever, Germany has produced no evidence to show that there would no longer be any operational spare capacity during the week if there were no obligation to maintain the epidemic reserve. Rather it appears - for example from ISPA-NS study - that even undertakings which only dispose of category 3 material and are therefore under no obligation whatsoever to maintain an epidemic reserve, have considerable spare capacity and finance their entire capacity costs through their charges.\n9.3.2. Available spare capacity exceeds the prescribed epidemic reserve\n(224)\nAs Table 3 shows, the ZT has far greater spare capacity than necessary to provide the prescribed epidemic reserve. The spare capacity available in the short term is more than twice what is needed in the event of an outbreak of disease. Figure 2 shows that in some years up to 25 % of just the normal capacity remained unused in 5-day 2-shift operation. The cost of spare capacity that is not needed at all for the prescribed epidemic reserve cannot be included in the net costs. The calculations of net costs submitted by Germany therefore have to be rejected, as they incorrectly attribute the cost of all spare capacity to the epidemic reserve.\n(225)\nThe ISPA-RP and the Fraunhofer study show that the ZT\u2019s available spare capacity was even sufficient to cope with an FMD outbreak throughout the Land within three months. Yet the ZT has never been required to maintain the epidemic reserve for a period longer than six weeks. In other words the association\u2019s members never obliged the ZT to make a longer-term epidemic reserve available beyond six weeks in order for the ZT alone to be able to cope with a lengthy outbreak of disease throughout the Land. The comparison with the capacity needed to cope with an FMD outbreak across the whole Land is irrelevant (56).\n(226)\nThe fact that the ZT\u2019s plant capacity is substantially higher than required by the Verbandsordnung is borne out by the following: the ZT is obliged by the Verbandsordnung to process internal Category 1 and 2 material amounting, on average, to some 900 tonnes a week (57). If the prescribed epidemic reserve of 1 185 tonnes a week is added in, the ZT would require a plant with a capacity of 2 085 tonnes a week in 3-shift 7-day operation in order to meet its obligations under the Verbandsordnung.\n(227)\nIn actual fact, however, the ZT\u2019s plants have a maximum capacity of 4 536 tonnes a week. The ZT, then, operates plant with twice the capacity required for the tasks laid down in the Verbandsordnung. As the ZT has far greater capacity than is required to fulfil its public tasks, it cannot have incurred any net costs because of the obligation to maintain the epidemic reserve.\n9.3.3. Summary\n(228)\nIn conclusion it can be said that Germany has not been able to show that the ZT incurred net costs from the obligation to maintain the epidemic reserve. Examination has shown that the annual contributions finance the cost of spare capacity that is operationally available in normal operation (and should therefore be financed by the fees and charges for these services) or that is available because insufficient use of made of capacity at the ZT\u2019s plants.\n9.4. Altmark criterion 4\n(229)\nThe fourth Altmark criterion states that, where the undertaking that is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement procedure that would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical, well run undertaking would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.\n(230)\nThe four Altmark criteria set out the conditions for allowing any exception to the principle that compensation payments constitute an advantage. It is therefore for the Member State to prove that the conditions are met.\n(231)\nThe ZT was not selected via a procurement procedure, nor has Germany produced any evidence that the ZT is a typical well run undertaking. Germany has therefore failed to show that the fourth Altmark criterion is met. The high charges for disposing of animal carcases in Rhineland-Palatinate and the need for financing through an annual contribution that does not exist in any other Land, also suggest that the ZT is not a typical, well run undertaking.\n(232)\nThe fourth Altmark criterion is therefore not met.\n(233)\nThe BVerwG held that the fourth Altmark criterion did not apply to the ZT because the annual contribution was not to compensate it for the extra costs entailed by taking on a public service obligation within the context of an otherwise commercial activity, but to finance the official performance of a public task outside the market. The official nature of performance of this task derived, in the view of the BVerwG, from the political decision of the regional and local authorities that are the members of the association to award the disposal of category 1 and 2 material in-house. The BVerwG based its interpretation on the Court of Justice ruling in Stadtreinigung Hamburg (58).\n(234)\nIn the BVerwG\u2019s view the fourth Altmark criterion presupposes that the public service obligation is to be performed by a private undertaking. Since this is not the case where the award is in-house, the fourth Altmark criterion is not applicable to undertakings entrusted through in-house award (59).\n(235)\nThe Commission does not share the view taken by the BVerwG. Firstly, there is nothing in the fourth Altmark criterion to suggest that it is not applicable in the case of in-house award. On the contrary: by giving two alternatives (either a procurement procedure or analysis of the costs that a typically well run undertaking would bear) the Court of Justice showed that the fourth Altmark criterion is applicable even if no procurement procedure was carried out, and hence especially in the case of in-house award.\n(236)\nThe ruling in Stadtreinigung Hamburg only concerned when an obligation to award exists, and when not. Absolutely no conclusion can be drawn as regards the law on aid. Quite the contrary: the second alternative of the fourth Altmark criterion concerns precisely the case where there is no obligation to hold a procurement procedure.\n(237)\nMoreover, the BVerwG proceeds from the assumption that the ZT\u2019s regional monopoly meant that it was not in competition with other undertakings and that there might be no distortion of competition. Distortion of competition, however, is a separate constituent element of the concept of aid that is distinct from the element of economic advantage (the context in which the four Altmark criteria were developed). The constituent element of distortion of competition is met in the present case (see section 8.3). The Commission also explicitly pointed out in paragraph 37 of its communication on the application of the aid rules of the European Union to compensation for the performance of services of general economic interest (the SGEI communication) (60) that an in-house award does not rule out distortion of competition.\n(238)\nFinally, the emphasis placed by the BVerwG on the official nature of the ZT\u2019s activity raises the question of whether the BVerwG rejected the applicability of the fourth Altmark criterion because it assumed that the ZT was not carrying out an economic activity. This, too, is incorrect: the ZT offers a service in return for payment, and is therefore performing an economic activity (see section 8.2). The Commission also explicitly confirmed this in paragraph 13 of the SGEI communication.\n9.5. Conclusion as regards the existence of economic advantages for the ZT\n(239)\nContrary to the BVerwG ruling and Germany\u2019s argument, the criteria of the Altmark ruling are not met. Firstly, the annual contributions cannot be justified in essence as State compensation payments for the obligations taken on by the ZT, since all the costs associated with those obligations have to be covered by income from charges. Secondly, it has been shown that, contrary to what Germany claims, the ZT did not incur any net costs as a result of obligation to maintain an epidemic reserve. The costs cited by Germany relate either to the operational spare capacity, which have to be met from revenue from charge and from profits, or to spare capacity in excess of the prescribed epidemic reserve. Thirdly, until 2010 the parameters for calculating the annual contributions were not fixed in advance and with the necessary transparency. Fourthly, Germany has not been able to show that the ZT is a typical well-run undertaking.\n(240)\nThe annual contributions therefore gave the ZT an economic advantage.\n(241)\nIf the cost of the epidemic reserve, incorrectly calculated by Germany, is allocated correctly by purpose to the various services provided - disposal of internal category 1 and 2 material, disposal of category 1 and 2 material from Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg and Hessen, and disposal of category 3 material - the specific economic advantages that the ZT gained on the various markets thanks to the annual contributions become visible.\n(242)\nSections 9.5.1 to 9.5.3 below will show that the annual contributions did in fact offset losses that were due to the following factors:\n(a)\npoor quality processing of category 3 material;\n(b)\nunder-utilised capacity;\n(c)\nbelow-cost charges for disposal in Northern and Central Hessen;\n(d)\nbelow-cost charges for the disposal of internal material.\n9.5.1. Losses from the disposal of internal and external material when the incorrectly calculated epidemic reserve costs are allocated by purpose\n(243)\nOn the basis of the ZT\u2019s profit and loss accounts that were submitted for the years 2002 to 2009, all the alleged costs of the epidemic reserve have been allocated by purpose in accordance with operation of the plant on a 5-day 2-shift basis.\n(244)\nFirst of all, it must be noted that a major reason for the high spare capacity costs is the under-utilisation of the ZT\u2019s plant. These spare capacity costs due to under-utilisation in normal operation must therefore first be taken out.\n(245)\nAs the utilisation statistics in Table 3 show (column \u2018spare capacity due to utilisation rate\u2019), the ZT has never fully used it available technical capacity in 5-day 2-shift operation. Especially since 2002 the utilisation rate has fallen sharply as a result of the steep drop in internal material. The yardstick used for the level of under-utilisation is the spare capacity in 5-day 2-shift operation. The benchmark taken for calculating under-utilisation was the highest level of utilisation achieved in 5-day 2-shift operation, which was 101 855 tonnes in 2002. On average this in under-utilisation of 13 per cent.\n(246)\nAs can be seen from the column \u2018spare capacity due to utilisation rate\u2019 in Table 4, the average cost of under-utilisation in normal operation amounts to EUR 434 304. The ZT has to bear the commercial responsibility for this cost, as it is the result o operating a plant that is not fully utilised in normal operation.\n(247)\nThe operational spare capacity costs are broken down in proportion to use in 5-day 2-shift operation. The operational spare capacity costs are thus divided proportionally between the internal and the external services. At the same time a distinction is made in Table 4 between the operational spare capacity costs of collection and of processing.\n(248)\nOn average over the period from 2002 to 2009 the ZT was not able to cover the operational spare capacity costs from turnover on either its internal or its external services. The column \u2018contribution margin II\u2019 shows an average annual loss of EUR 1 198 257 on external services and of EUR 1 140 898 on internal services.\nTable 4\nProfit and loss statement\n(in EUR)\nFallen stock\nSlaughter waste\nInternal material\nCol. 1 + 2\nCategory 3 material\nBW and Hessen\nUnder-utilisation\nExternal material\nCol. 4 + 5 + 6\nTotal\nCol 3 + 7\n(1)\nTurnover\n3 624 234\n5 130 693\n8 754 926\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(2)\nCosts given by ZT\n3 624 234\n3 877 155\n7 501 388\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(3)\nTurnover\n3 624 234\n5 130 693\n8 754 926\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(4)\n-\nCorrected costs\n3 624 234\n5 077 019\n8 701 252\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(5)\nCovering contribution I\n53 674\n53 674\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(6)\n-\nSpare capacity (SC) due to utilisation rate\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(7)\n-\nOperational SC collection\n70 077\n236 780\n306 857\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(8)\n-\nOperational SC processing\n201 993\n685 722\n887 715\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(9)\nCovering contribution II\n- 272 071\n- 868 828\n-1 140 898\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(10)\n-\nUnallocated fixed costs\n[\u2026]\n(11)\nCovering contribution III\n[\u2026]\n(12)\n+\nAnnual contribution\n[\u2026]\n(13)\nProfit or loss\n[\u2026]\nRows 1 and 2: Information supplied by the ZT\nThe ZT does not record the income from the disposal of category 3 material separately in its cost accounts; instead, as with other product income (e.g. for fats and oils) it deducts them from the total costs, which are then allocated between internal slaughterhouse waste, category 3 material and material from Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg and Hessen. However, since a separate account is created for category 3 material in what follows, the income from the disposal of category 3 material has to be taken out of the total costs.\nRows 3 to 5: Calculation of contribution margin I\nTo obtain the corrected cost, the income from processing category 3 material that is deducted from the costs is allocated proportionally between the cost of internal slaughterhouse waste, category 3 material and material from Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg and Hessen. The difference in total costs between row (2) and row (4) thus corresponds to income from the disposal of category 3 material in row (3).\nBecause data were unavailable, the Commission was not able to verify whether the ZT allocated the total costs in rows (2) and (3) correctly between the various services. In particular it should be noted that the disposal of animal carcases accounts for an excessively large proportion of the capacity costs. Covering contribution I for internal slaughterhouse waste, category 3 material and material from Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg and Hessen might therefore be set too high.\nRows 6 to 9: Calculation of contribution margin II\nFirst from the cost of the epidemic reserve the under-utilisation in 5-day 2-shift operation is calculated out (= spare capacity due to utilisation rate). The other costs of the epidemic reserve are then divided up in proportion to the quantities involved and the calculated under-utilisation. Since there is no collection for Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg, the collection and processing costs are treated separately. As direct spare capacity costs were already added in 2009 for the task in Northern and Central Hessen, no further costs are added.\n9.5.2. Annual contributions finance losses from the disposal of external material\n(249)\nIn the external markets the ZT has competitors who have to finance their total plant costs entirely from their own turnover. Neither a business competing with the ZT for category 3 material nor the previous operator in Northern and Central Hessen can rely on additional State refinancing of spare capacity due to operational factors or under-utilisation due to the level of demand.\n9.5.2.1. Losses on the disposal of category 3 material\n(250)\nLike all other undertakings that dispose of category 3 material without having been entrusted with a public task, the ZT must bear all the associated costs and risks itself.\n(251)\nThe ZT disposes of category 3 material together with category 1 and 2 material and therefore cannot achieve the product income that it would if category 3 material were disposed of separately from category 1 and 2 material. Because of the increased demand for pure category 3 material, the prices that the ZT could obtain from slaughterhouses collapsed. As the complainant has explained, disposal undertakings even pay premiums to slaughterhouses for some category 3 materials.\n(252)\nThe trend is very evident in the yield per tonne of category 3 material processed: whereas the ZT still obtained EUR [\u2026] per tonne in 2002, after a steady decline the yield in 2009 was only EUR [\u2026]. This is a drop in the yield per tonne of almost 70 % in seven years.\nFigure 1\nContribution margins for category 3 material from 2000 to 2009 (EUR)\n[\u2026]\n(253)\nIn the last few years processing category 3 material has therefore become increasingly unprofitable for the ZT. Whereas the ZT was still able to cover its direct costs up until 2004, the disposal of category 3 material in the subsequent years no longer made a positive contribution to covering the costs of spare capacity.\n(254)\nThe calculation put forward by Germany, showing that the income which the ZT can obtain from the disposal of category 3 material is greater than the direct costs, is incorrect. Germany bases its calculation on costs from which the income has already been deducted (see row (2) of Table 4) rather than using the actual costs incurred, which would be correct (see corrected costs in row (4) of Table 4).\n(255)\nThe ZT is apparently prepared to tolerate the constant losses due to the low quality disposal of category 3 material in order to sustain utilisation of its plants.\n9.5.2.2. Losses from under-utilisation\n(256)\nAnother major reason for the ZT\u2019s losses is that the plant was poorly utilised in most years. In some years the under-utilisation in 5-day 2-shift operation rose to over 25 % compared with the best utilisation rate in 2001. Only in 2001 and 2002 was a better utilisation rate achieved thanks to the TSE crisis, although even in then it did not have to resort to the operational spare capacity at night or weekends.\nFigure 2\nUnder-utilisation of the ZT\u2019s normal capacity in 5-day 2-shift operation from 1998 to 2009\n(257)\nThe reason for the marked under-utilisation after 2002 was the decline in animal stocks and hence in the quantity of internal material, which fell by more than 35 per cent between 2002 and 2009. The ZT sought to utilise the capacity that was freed up taking in greater amounts of external material. However, it was not until its successful bid in the tendering procedure in Northern and Central Hessen that it was able to bring the utilisation rate back up to roughly the level of 2002/2003.\n9.5.2.3. Losses from the tendering procedure in Northern and Central Hessen\n(258)\nBecause the ZT has only been performing disposal in Northern and Central Hessen since 2009, there are very few data on the results from this activity. The 2009 cost accounts that were submitted appear to show that the new entrustment has resulted in a positive contribution margin after deducting the operational spare capacity costs of roughly EUR 200 000.\n(259)\nHowever, the tender documents suggest that the ZT submitted a bid that was below its actual costs. As Germany itself has stated, the interest that the ZT pays on its bank loans is higher than the calculated interest that the ZT fixed under the calculation rules for the tendering procedure. In other words the ZT does not expect to be able to cover its full interest costs on the loans it has taken out or to obtain a reasonable return on its own capital.\n(260)\nThe ZT\u2019s total interest on borrowed capital amounts to EUR 1,07 million a year. Assuming that about a quarter of the cost of borrowings can be attributed to its activity in Northern and Central Hessen, based on the proportion of total capacity that is accounted for by the quantity for disposal coming from Northern and Central Hessen, the share of the costs is EUR 0,26 million compared with the EUR 0,16 million that the ZT set out in its calculation of the charges for Northern and Central Hessen. Besides the EUR 0,10 million in interest on loans that is not covered annually, there is also the interest on capital that is not covered.\n(261)\nA business acting rationally would not have submitted a bid that did not cover the anticipated capital costs. Germany\u2019s repeated reference to the alleged requirements of rules on the calculation of charges, which did not permit the full cost to be passed on, in no way alters this fact. No private business operator can be forced or would be prepared to offer services at prices that do not allow him to cover his costs and make a reasonable profit.\n(262)\nEven if one proceeds from the cost accounts submitted for 2009, which give a positive contribution margin of some EUR 200 000, the anticipated contribution margins over the 10-year lifetime of the contract cannot offset the losses due to under-utilisation, which on average amounted to some EUR 700 000 annually in the years from 2002 onwards. An undertaking operating under market conditions would not have maintained underused capacity over such a lengthy period.\n(263)\nIn the case of external material it is evident that thanks to the annual contributions the ZT was marketing capacity at below-cost prices and was maintaining underused capacity for years without being able to offset the losses due to under-utilisation in the preceding years through future earnings. It is thus clear that the ZT kept capacity on the market that a rational disposal undertaking could not have afforded.\n9.5.3. Annual contributions finance losses from the disposal of internal material\n(264)\nThe operational spare capacity costs entailed by the disposal of internal material have to be covered by charges. The ZT, like all other undertakings entrusted with the disposal of controlled material, have to ensure on their own responsibility that they perform this task economically by conducting their business in an appropriate manner. An additional compensation payment would release it from this economic responsibility.\n(265)\nThe spare capacity costs due to operational factors must therefore be allocated between the disposal of fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste. There are various approaches in the L\u00e4nder for allocating the cost of operational spare capacity between the disposal of slaughterhouse waste and animal carcases. In some L\u00e4nder fallen stock are allocated a higher proportion of spare capacity costs than slaughterhouse waste. Since neither the rules on charges nor the Verbandsordnung lay down a scale for allocation, the spare capacity costs will be allocated proportionally.\n9.5.3.1. Below-cost prices for the disposal of slaughterhouse waste\n(266)\nAs Germany has stated itself, the ZT is in competition with other disposal undertakings for the disposal of slaughterhouse waste. The size of the charges for the disposal of internal slaughterhouse waste affects the slaughterhouses\u2019 separation quota and hence how much separated category 3 material is available for other disposal undertakings.\n(267)\nWhereas on average the proceeds barely cover the direct cost, over the course of time the same kind of picture emerges as with the contribution margins for category 3 material: Until 2004 the proceeds exceed the direct costs. But with the new scale of charges from 2005, which led to a drop in the average proceeds per tonne from EUR 160 to EUR 116 - in other words a fall of 27,5 per cent - not even the direct costs could be covered in the following years and hence no contribution could be achieved to meet the operational spare capacity costs. Not until 2009 was there a return to a positive contribution margin I (see Table 4).\n(268)\nWithout the annual contribution the ZT obviously could not have maintained this pricing policy. Just as with category 3 slaughterhouse waste, from 2005 the ZT accepted prices that did not even cover its direct costs in order to continue to utilise its plant capacity. Overall for internal materials there is a clear negative contribution margin II - after deducting the operational spare capacity costs - totalling about 13 per cent of turnover (see Table 4).\n9.5.3.2. Monopoly position in the area covered by the association consolidated by direct annual contributions\n(269)\nGermany takes the view that the ZT gained no economic advantage from the annual contributions, as it is irrelevant whether the State grants compensation for maintaining the epidemic reserve directly to the disposal undertaking or finances it indirectly through TSE aid to those producing the material. In the latter case the cost of the epidemic reserve would be included in the charges, but at the same time those responsible for producing the material would obtain relief through correspondingly higher aid. In both cases the public purse would in fact be bearing a large part of the burden, which is what the review in the light of competition law is primarily concerned with.\n(270)\nFirstly it should be noted once more (see section 2.5.3) that the ZT receives the annual contribution in addition to the TSE aid that goes to farmers. Moreover the ZT receives a higher level of assistance from the TSE aid in Rhineland-Palatinate than in Northern and Central Hessen, since the price per tonne (EUR 212) - and hence the basis for the TSE aid - is appreciably lower than the price per tonne in Rhineland-Palatinate (EUR 390). It is clearly not the case that farmers in the area covered by the association benefit from lower charges thanks to the annual contributions.\n(271)\nSecondly the Community TSE guidelines explicitly require evidence that aid does not benefit production enterprises further downstream (61). But as sections 9.5.2 and 9.5.3 show, the ZT actually uses the annual contribution to finance losses due to its pricing policy, underused capacity, or other inefficiencies in its business operations.\n(272)\nGermany is therefore clearly unable to demonstrate that the annual contribution benefits the farmers as compensation for the cost of disposing of fallen stock. On the contrary, the question is whether farmers would not benefit from lower prices without the annual contribution, because the ZT would then have been subject at an earlier stage to greater economic pressure to adjust its capacity and its business practices to the market conditions.\n9.5.4. Summary\n(273)\nGermany has not been able to demonstrate that the annual contributions to the ZT are justified as State compensation for the obligations arising from the Verbandsordnung. The Altmark criteria are not met.\n(274)\nA detailed review of the income and cost accounts of the ZT shows instead that the annual contributions give the ZT economic advantages in relation to the disposal of internal and external material.\n(275)\nDie annual contributions therefore constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n10. ASSESSMENT OF ILLEGALITY UNDER ARTICLE 108(3) TFEU\n(276)\nThe annual contributions that the ZT has received since 1979 were not notified to the Commission under Article 108(3) TFEU. The annual contributions therefore constitute unlawful State aid under Article 108(3) TFEU.\n(277)\nThere can be no exemption from the obligation to give notification under Commission Decision 2005/842/EC of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (62) (\u2018SGEI Decision 2005\u2019) and Commission Decision 2012/21/EU of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (63) (\u2018SGEI Decision 2011\u2019), because, as shown in section 9, the ZT is not entrusted with a service of general economic interest. The disposal of the category 1 and 2 material, the provision of an epidemic reserve, and the disposal of category 3 material are not services of general economic interest. Besides this, the second Altmark criterion is not met for the period 1979 to 2010, and the third Altmark criterion is not met for the entire period from 1979 onwards. Consequently the requirements of Articles 4 and 5 of the SGEI decisions 2005 and 2012, by virtue of which the annual contributions could be exempted from the notification obligation, are not met.\n11. ASSESSMENT OF COMPATIBILITY UNDER ARTICLE 106(2) TFEU\n(278)\nUnder Article 106(2) TFEU, the provisions of the TFEU apply to undertakings that are entrusted with services of general economic interest or that have the character of a revenue-producing monopoly. However, Article 106(2) TFEU provides for an exception to the rules of the TFEU if the application of the competition rules obstructs the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. This exemption provision can only be applied if the development of trade is not affected to an extent contrary to the interests of the Union.\n(279)\nUnder paragraph 69 of the Union SGEI guidelines, the Commission applies the principles of the Union guidelines to all unlawful aid that it decides on after 31 January 2012, even if the aid was granted before that date. Since the annual contributions constitute unlawful State aid, the Union SGEI guidelines must be applied.\n(280)\nAs set out in 8.1, the ZT is not entrusted with a service of general economic interest, as the disposal of category 1 and 2 material, maintaining an epidemic reserve, and the disposal of category 3 material do not constitute services of general economic interest. For this reason alone, the annual contributions are not compatible under Article 106(2) TFEU and the Union SGEI guidelines.\n(281)\nIn line with the second and third Altmark criteria, aid under the Union SGEI guidelines can be regarded as compatible with Article 106(2) TFEU only if there is an act of entrustment setting out the methods for calculating the compensation (section 2.3) and if the size of the aid does not exceed the net costs of the public service obligation (section 2.8).\n(282)\nAs demonstrated in section 9.2, the second Altmark criterion is not met for the period 1979 to 2009, and the third Altmark criterion is not met for the entire period. Consequently section 2.3 of the Union SGEI guidelines (for the period 1979 to 2009) and section 2.8 (for the entire period) are not met.\n(283)\nThe annual contribution cannot therefore be justified under Article 106(2) TFEU and the Union SGEI guidelines as aid for maintaining the epidemic reserve in the area covered by the association.\n12. ASSESSMENT OF COMPATIBILITY AS AID TO FINANCE THE DISPOSAL COSTS OF FALLEN STOCK AND SLAUGHTERHOUSE WASTE UNDER ARTICLE 107(3)(c) TFEU\n(284)\nThe annual contributions constitute operating aid, which is generally prohibited (64). The burden of proof for the compatibility of such aid therefore rests with the Member State.\n(285)\nThe Community TSE guidelines and the agricultural aid guidelines 2007-2013 prohibit all aid for the disposal costs of slaughterhouse waste and allow aid for the disposal costs of fallen stock provided that they benefit only farmers. Enterprises further downstream - such as slaughterhouses or disposal undertakings - may not benefit from aid in any circumstances (65).\n(286)\nFor the purposes of administrative simplification, aid for the disposal costs of fallen stock may be paid direct to the disposal undertakings, but it must be demonstrated that the entire aid goes to farmers (66).\n(287)\nAs demonstrated in section 9, the annual contributions give the ZT an economic advantage and definitely do not benefit farmers in the area covered by the association, since they even have to pay higher prices for the disposal of fallen stock than in Northern and Central Hessen, for example. Germany has also not been able to demonstrate that the annual contributions are passed on to farmers in full.\n(288)\nFurthermore the Commission\u2019s Decision N 15/04 of 6 July 2004 approving the aid scheme to compensate farmers in the area covered by the ZT for the costs of disposing of fallen stock for the period from 1998 to 2013 specified that the approved agricultural aid must not be cumulated with other aid.\n(289)\nFor unlawful aid granted before 1 January 2003, section VI of the Community TSE guidelines provide for exceptions:\n(a)\nAid of up to 100 % can be approved for the cost of disposing of fallen stock, even if granted at production, processing and marketing level.\n(b)\nFurthermore, in exceptional cases aid for the disposal of slaughterhouse waste may be compatible with the internal market if account is taken of the short duration and the need to ensure that the polluter pays principle is observed in the long term.\n(290)\nThese exceptional provisions do not apply: the annual contributions are not limited to the disposal costs for fallen stock, which were in any case financed for the most part under the agricultural aid arrangements, nor are they a short-term measure of limited duration in respect of slaughterhouse waste.\n(291)\nLastly it should also be stressed that Germany itself has not put forward any arguments to bear out the compatibility of the annual contributions under the Community TSE guidelines and the agricultural aid guidelines 2007-2013.\n(292)\nAs the annual contributions benefit the ZT, they cannot be deemed aid that is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of the Community TSE guidelines and the agricultural aid guidelines 2007-2013 under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\n13. ASSESSMENT OF THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION AS ENVIRONMENTAL AID UNDER ARTICLE 107(3)(c) TFEU\n(293)\nThe annual contributions constitute operating aid, which is generally prohibited (67). The burden of proof for the compatibility of such aid therefore rests with the Member State. Germany has claimed that the annual contributions are environmental aid.\n(294)\nUnder paragraph 132 of the environmental aid guidelines, investment aid to undertakings repairing environmental damage by remediating contaminated sites are regarded as compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU provided that it leads to an improvement of environmental protection. However, the polluter pays principle laid down in Article 191(2) TFEU and in the environmental aid guidelines must be observed. Under paragraph 132 of the environmental aid guidelines the polluter must finance the remediation without State aid. The person who is to be regarded as the polluter is determined by who is liable under national law.\n(295)\nThe relevant moment in time for assessing the situation under national liability law is determined on the of the law at the time when the official decision was issued.\n(296)\nGermany does not deny that under the clean-up orders of 21 April 1997 for the Sohrschied site and of 31 March 1998 for the Sprendlingen-Gensingen site the ZT was placed under a full obligation as the polluter to clean up both sites under the national law applicable at the time. The ZT is thus liable under German law as the polluter for the cost of remediating the soil contamination at both sites. Germany argues that under a ruling by the Bundesverfassungsgericht delivered on 16 February 2000 (68), financing the clean-up costs beyond the liability threshold by means of the annual contributions should be regarded as compatible aid, since the liability of private persons was limited by this ruling to the market values of the land.\n(297)\nHowever, Germany\u2019s argument misses the point. First, the decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht applies only \u2018inter partes\u2019, in other words between the parties to the proceedings. Above all, however, a change in the case-law of the highest court does not change the legal situation and is therefore not a ground for revision within the meaning of Article 51(1)(1) of the Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (Administrative Procedure Act) in respect of administrative acts that have become binding.\n(298)\nUnder German jurisprudence, the ruling by the Bundesverfassungsgericht does not alter the fact that at the time of the clean-up order all the polluters were liable for the full clean-up costs. Consequently, after the Bundesverfassungsgericht ruling of 16 February 2000 none of the polluters could have avoided full liability as a polluter under an earlier order that had become binding.\n(299)\nThe ZT is therefore liable even taking into account the Bundesverfassungsgericht ruling of 16 February 2000 in the case of the Sprendlingen-Gensingen and Sohrschied sites that was cited by Germany.\n(300)\nSince the ZT did not appeal against the clean-up orders, they have gained binding effect and are final. For Germany now, after the event, to deny in essence the ZT\u2019s liability for the Sohrschied site is an argument that cannot be accepted. It was up to the ZT to appeal against the clean-up order of 21 April 1997 and not to allow it to become binding. It is not the Commission\u2019s job to review a binding decision by a national authority as regards the national situation in terms of liability in the light of the polluter pays principle.\n(301)\nFurthermore Germany itself acknowledges that the Bundesverfassungsgericht decision of 16 February 2000 applies only to private individuals, and not to legal persons under public law. This is because the legal basis for limiting liability is the law of property, which legal persons under public law cannot invoke. Therefore it cannot be contested that under national law the ZT is fully liable for the contaminated sites.\n(302)\nPotential unequal treatment between legal persons under private law and legal persons under public law in the legal system of the Member State cannot be invoked under the environmental aid guidelines. On the question of liability for contaminated sites, they state that only national law applies.\n(303)\nBecause the ZT is liable under German law for the full clean-up costs at both sites, the annual contribution cannot be deemed compatible with the internal market within the meaning of the guidelines on State aid for environmental protection under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\n14. CONCLUSIONS\n(304)\nThe annual contributions granted to the ZT since 1979 constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. Germany granted the annual contributions in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU.\n(305)\nThey cannot be declared compatible with the internal market under either Article 106(2) TFEU or Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU.\n(306)\nUnder Article 1(b)(iv) in conjunction with Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, aid for which the recovery time limit has run out is deemed to be existing aid. Under Article 15 of the Regulation the Commission\u2019s power to recover aid applies for a period of 10 years. The recovery time limit begins to run on the day when the unlawful aid is granted to the recipient and is interrupted by every measure that the Commission takes in respect of the unlawful aid. The time limit begins to run afresh after each interruption.\n(307)\nThe Courts of the Union have held not only that the time limit for recovery can be interrupted by a formal procedure but also that a request for information also constitutes an act that can interrupt the time limit (69).\n(308)\nThe complainant challenged the annual contribution for the ZT in January 2008 and on 26 May 2008 Germany was sent a request for information. This request for information interrupted the recovery time limit. Consequently all the annual contributions that the ZT received before 26 May 1998 are deemed existing aid. On the other hand all the annual contributions that the ZT received after 26 May 1998 constitute new aid.\n(309)\nUnder Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the Commission cannot require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Union law. In the present case, the question arises as to whether the judgment of the BVerwG of 16 December 2010 may have created legitimate expectations for the beneficiary that the measure under assessment does not constitute State aid.\n(310)\nIn this regard, the Commission first of all observes that the judgment only concerns payments made for the year 2010. If at all, it could therefore only have created legitimate expectations for that year (and the following years, provided the mechanism remained unchanged).\n(311)\nBut even for the year 2010 (and subsequent years), the judgment is not capable of creating legitimate expectations. According to established case-law, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations applies to any individual in a situation where an institution of the European Union, by giving that person precise assurances, has led him to entertain well-founded expectations (70). Such assurances, in whatever form they are given, constitute precise, unconditional and consistent information (71).\n(312)\nIn the present case, the Commission has not given to ZT any such precise assurances; on the contrary, it opened the formal investigation procedure on 20 July 2010.\n(313)\nThe BVerwG is not an institution of the European Union. It is established case-law that the national courts and the Commission fulfil complementary and separate roles as regards supervision of Member States\u2019 compliance with their obligations under Articles 107 EC and 108 EC (72). Whilst assessment of the compatibility of aid measures with the internal market falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission and is thus subject to review by the Union Courts, it is for the national courts to ensure that the rights of individuals are safeguarded where the obligation to give prior notification of State aid to the Commission pursuant to Article 108(3) of the Treaty is infringed (73).\n(314)\nIn the present case, the BVerwG gave judgment on a measure in respect of which the Commission had already opened the formal investigation procedure. The Court has consistently held that the opening decision must lead the Member State to suspend payment (74). Furthermore, the BVerwG gave its judgment, justifying it, inter alia, with the alleged non-applicability of the fourth Altmark criterion, without referring the case to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.\n(315)\nUnder these circumstances, the Commission considers that the judgment by the BVerwG also does not constitute precise, unconditional and consistent information.\n(316)\nRecovery of the annual contributions is therefore not contrary to any general principle of Union law concerning the protection of legitimate expectations,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe annual contributions granted by Germany to the Zweckverband Tierk\u00f6rperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg (\u2018the beneficiary\u2019) since 1 January 1979 in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union constitute State aid and are incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\n1. Germany shall immediately recover from the beneficiary the aid referred to in Article 1 that has been paid since 26 May 1998.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which the aid payments referred to in paragraph 1 were made available to the beneficiary until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (75).\n4. Germany shall halt all outstanding payments of aid referred to in paragraph 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nGermany shall ensure that the aid referred to in Article 2(1) is paid back within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. Germany shall give the Commission the following information within two months following notification of this Decision:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken or planned in order to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments showing that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Germany shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2(1) has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken or planned in order to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 25 April 2012.", "references": ["99", "63", "73", "94", "98", "38", "59", "83", "74", "47", "65", "22", "49", "5", "36", "90", "27", "1", "40", "82", "51", "88", "2", "52", "75", "71", "92", "55", "41", "78", "No Label", "8", "15", "48", "58", "60", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "48", "58", "60", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 580/2012\nof 29 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2012.", "references": ["73", "34", "7", "28", "45", "71", "52", "31", "76", "70", "81", "16", "72", "3", "44", "32", "20", "42", "5", "26", "15", "18", "17", "83", "93", "77", "86", "96", "91", "9", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 823/2011\nof 16 August 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 815/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2011.", "references": ["76", "56", "99", "45", "91", "80", "64", "79", "7", "43", "39", "31", "44", "48", "14", "0", "37", "15", "95", "8", "58", "23", "38", "18", "32", "86", "9", "84", "73", "20", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 250/2012\nof 21 March 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1)(b)(ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 provides for the possibility to adopt appropriate Union emergency measures for food and feed imported from a third country in order to protect public health, animal health or the environment, where the risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member States individually.\n(2)\nFollowing the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station on 11 March 2011, the Commission was informed that radionuclide levels in certain food products originating in Japan exceeded the action levels in food applicable in Japan. Such contamination may constitute a threat to public and animal health in the Union and therefore Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 (2) was adopted.\n(3)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 provides that consignments of products covered by that Regulation are to be accompanied by a declaration signed by an authorised representative of the competent authority of Japan and attesting, inter alia, where the consignment originates in and where it is consigned from. The content of that declaration further differs depending on whether the products originate in or are consigned from a prefecture close to the Fukushima nuclear power station or not.\n(4)\nFor consignments originating in the Fukushima prefecture and in the 10 prefectures close to it, the Japanese authorities are required to certify that they do not contain levels of radionuclides caesium-134 and caesium-137 above the maximum levels set out in Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011. In addition, the competent authorities of the border inspection post or designated point of entry into the Union are to carry out identity and physical checks, including laboratory analysis on the presence of caesium-134 and caesium-137, on at least 10 % of such consignments.\n(5)\nFor consignments consigned from the Fukushima prefecture and from the 10 prefectures close to it, the Japanese authorities are required to certify that they had not been exposed to radioactivity during transit. In such cases, as well as in cases where the consignments originate and are consigned from other prefectures in Japan than Fukushima and its surrounding 10 prefectures, the competent authorities of the border inspection post or designated point of entry into the Union are to carry out identity and physical checks, including laboratory analysis on the presence of caesium-134 and caesium-137, on at least 20 % of such consignments.\n(6)\nThe results of the checks, including laboratory analysis, carried out pursuant to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 by the competent authorities of the border inspection post or designated point of entry into the Union indicate that the control measures on feed and food intended for export to the Union are correctly and efficiently applied by the Japanese authorities. It is therefore appropriate to reduce the frequency of checks carried out on such consignments by the competent authorities of the border inspection post or designated point of entry into the Union.\n(7)\nIn addition, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 is to apply until 31 March 2012. The Japanese competent authorities continue to monitor the presence of radioactivity in feed and food. The results of that monitoring show that certain feed and food in prefectures close to the Fukushima nuclear power station continue to contain levels of radioactivity above the action levels. It is therefore appropriate to extend the date of application of the measures laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011.\n(8)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmending provisions\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 5(1), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nidentity and physical checks, including laboratory analysis on the presence of caesium-134 and caesium-137, on at least:\n-\n5 % of the consignments of products referred to in Article 2(3)(d), and\n-\n10 % of the consignments of products referred to in Article 2(3)(b) and (c).\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 10, the second paragraph, the date \u201831 March 2012\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 October 2012\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2012.", "references": ["49", "75", "18", "44", "53", "90", "94", "42", "32", "8", "7", "2", "37", "88", "12", "27", "36", "51", "23", "55", "73", "82", "0", "34", "31", "19", "59", "52", "47", "91", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "38", "60", "66", "72", "81", "95", "96"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "38", "60", "66", "72", "81", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 July 2012\namending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of Banka Slovenije\n(2012/444/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular to Article 27.1 thereof,\nHaving regard to Recommendation ECB/2012/9 of the European Central Bank of 1 June 2012 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Banka Slovenije (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are to be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the Governing Council of the ECB and approved by the Council of the European Union.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the current external auditors of Banka Slovenije ends after the audit for the financial year of 2011. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2012.\n(3)\nBanka Slovenije has selected Deloitte revizija d.o.o. as its external auditor for the financial years 2012 to 2014.\n(4)\nThe Governing Council of the ECB recommended that Deloitte revizija d.o.o. be appointed as the external auditor of Banka Slovenije for the financial years 2012 to 2014.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to follow the recommendation of the Governing Council of the ECB and to amend Decision 1999/70/EC (2) accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1(13) of Decision 1999/70/EC shall be replaced by the following:\n\u201813. Deloitte revizija d.o.o is hereby approved as the external auditor of Banka Slovenije for the financial years 2012 to 2014.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the European Central Bank.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["50", "1", "52", "15", "4", "75", "88", "18", "45", "98", "6", "42", "74", "89", "24", "92", "71", "84", "61", "56", "58", "36", "57", "70", "64", "69", "72", "29", "7", "63", "No Label", "28", "47", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["28", "47", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1206/2010\nof 16 December 2010\nfixing the export refunds on beef and veal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XV of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in beef and veal, export refunds should therefore be set in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167, 168 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007 of 21 November 2007 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals (5) provides for a reduction of the special refund if the quantity of cuts of boned meat to be exported amounts to less than 95 %, but not less than 85 %, of the total weight of cuts produced by boning.\n(6)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 840/2010 (6). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004, and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nIn the case referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007, the rate of the refund on products falling within product code 0201 30 00 9100 shall be reduced by EUR 3,5/100 kg.\nArticle 3\nRegulation (EU) No 840/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2010.", "references": ["60", "56", "93", "39", "92", "21", "13", "17", "59", "88", "72", "16", "83", "4", "15", "90", "81", "1", "36", "98", "50", "40", "73", "85", "71", "95", "53", "87", "97", "45", "No Label", "20", "25", "38", "69"], "gold": ["20", "25", "38", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 660/2012\nof 19 July 2012\non certain market support measures in the sector of poultrymeat in Italy\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 44 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBecause of an outbreak of avian influenza in certain production regions in Italy between December 1999 and April 2000, between August and October 2000 and between October 2002 and September 2003, veterinary and trade restrictions were adopted by the Italian authorities under, in particular, Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992 introducing Community measures for the control of avian influenza (2). As a result, the transport and marketing of hatching eggs and day old chicks were temporarily restricted within Italy or within the areas directly affected by the outbreak.\n(2)\nThe restrictions on the free movement of hatching eggs and day old chicks resulting from the application of the veterinary measures threatened severe disruption of the market in hatching eggs and day old chicks in Italy.\n(3)\nOn 9 December 2004 the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 2102/2004 of 9 December 2004 on certain exceptional market support measures for eggs in Italy (3) pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market of eggs (4). The Commission did not adopt a similar Regulation pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (5) to provide for comparable exceptional market support measures in respect of day old chicks.\n(4)\nOn 19 April 2007 Italy instituted proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (6) seeking the annulment of the decision as set out in a letter of 7 February 2007 of the Director General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture of the Commission, by which the request of the Italian authorities to adopt exceptional measures to support the Italian market in poultrymeat within the meaning of Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 was rejected, so far as concerns the chicks destroyed in areas affected by avian influenza and subject to veterinary measures restricting circulation in the period from December 1999 to September 2003 inclusive. (7)\n(5)\nOn 17 January 2012, the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in its judgment in case T-135/2007 (8) annulled the decision of 7 February 2007 rejecting the request of the Italian authorities to adopt exceptional measures to support the Italian market in poultrymeat within the meaning of Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75. The Commission did not appeal against the judgment of the General Court.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 266 of the Treaty, an institution whose act has been declared void is required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In accordance with Article 254 of the Treaty, that Article also applies to judgments of the General Court.\n(7)\nIt follows from the judgment of the General Court that the Commission should have adopted a Regulation under Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 to adopt exceptional measures to support the Italian market in poultrymeat so far as concerns the chicks slaughtered and disposed off in areas affected by avian influenza and subject to veterinary measures restricting circulation and prohibiting the placing of day old chicks, in the period from December 1999 to September 2003 inclusive. Given that Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 is no longer in force, in order to comply with the judgment of the General Court the Commission should adopt a Regulation under Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, for exceptional measures referred to in Article 44 thereof, the Union shall provide part-financing equivalent to 50 % of the expenditure borne by the Member State.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The slaughter and disposal of chicks falling within the CN codes 0105 11 19 and 0105 12, between 17 December 1999 and 14 April 2000, between 14 August and 16 October 2000 and between 11 October 2002 and 30 September 2003 in Italy following the application of the national veterinary measures under, in particular, Directive 92/40/EEC, shall be regarded as an exceptional market support measure falling within Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n2. The Union shall provide part-financing equivalent to 50 % of the expenditure borne by Italy in respect of the measure referred to in paragraph 1. The amount of Union part-financing shall be as follows:\n-\nEUR 0,1344 per males and females for industrial production (different weight gain) day old chicks of Gallus domesticus falling within CN code 0105 11 19 shall be granted for a maximum total number of 3 647 277 day old chicks,\n-\nEUR 0,1548 per mixed (both males and females for rural production) day old chick of Gallus domesticus falling within CN code 0105 11 19 shall be granted for a maximum total number of 3 768 800 day old chicks,\n-\nEUR 0,5064 per mixed (both males and females) day old chicks of Meleagridis gallopavo falling within CN code 0105 12 shall be granted for a maximum total number of 680 730 day old chicks,\n-\nEUR 0,744 per sexed male day old chicks of Meleagridis gallopavo falling within CN code 0105 12 shall be granted for a maximum total number of 193 140 day old chicks,\n-\nEUR 0,2688 per sexed female day old chicks of Meleagridis gallopavo falling within CN code 0105 12 shall be granted for a maximum total number of 535 960 day old chicks.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2012.", "references": ["94", "67", "21", "82", "42", "71", "8", "78", "4", "9", "48", "27", "92", "79", "11", "16", "58", "28", "59", "51", "30", "26", "83", "47", "5", "80", "70", "88", "43", "7", "No Label", "10", "61", "66", "69", "74", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "61", "66", "69", "74", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 July 2012\non state aid that France plans to grant to FagorBrandt (SA.23839 (C 44/2007))\n(notified under document C(2012) 5043)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2013/283/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the above Articles (2) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter dated 6 August 2007, France notified the Commission of restructuring aid for the FagorBrandt group.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 10 October 2007, the Commission informed France that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (\u2018TFEU\u2019) in respect of the aid.\n(3)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision to initiate the procedure (\u2018the opening decision\u2019) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments on the measure.\n(4)\nThe Commission received comments from three interested parties, namely two competitors and the aid recipient. Electrolux submitted comments by letter dated 14 December 2007. Following a meeting with the Commission\u2019s departments on 20 February 2008, Electrolux submitted additional comments by letters dated 26 February and 12 March 2008. A competitor who wishes to remain anonymous submitted comments by letter dated 17 December 2007 (4). FagorBrandt submitted comments by letter dated 17 December 2007. By letters dated 15 January and 13 March 2008, the Commission forwarded these comments to France, inviting it to comment on them, which it did by letter dated 15 February 2008 and in a document presented at a meeting on 18 March 2008 (see paragraph 5).\n(5)\nFrance submitted its comments on the opening decision to the Commission by letter dated 13 November 2007. On 18 March 2008, a meeting was held between the Commission\u2019s departments, the French authorities and FagorBrandt. Following that meeting, the French authorities submitted information by letters dated 24 April and 7 May 2008. A second meeting was held between the same parties on 12 June 2008. Following that meeting, the French authorities submitted information by letter dated 9 July 2008. On 15 July 2008, the Commission requested additional information, which the French authorities provided on 16 July 2008.\n(6)\nOn 21 October 2008 the Commission adopted a decision finding that the restructuring aid of EUR 31 million to be granted to FagorBrandt was compatible with the common market, subject to conditions (\u2018the decision of 21 October 2008\u2019) (5).\n(7)\nOn 14 February 2012, in Electrolux and Whirlpool Europe v Commission, that decision was annulled by the General Court, on the ground that it contained two manifest errors of assessment: it took account of an invalid compensatory measure, and it failed to analyse the cumulative effect on competition of the aid it approved together with aid previously granted by the Italian authorities which had been held incompatible and had not yet been recovered (\u2018the Italian aid\u2019) (6).\n(8)\nThe Commission must therefore adopt a final decision afresh. In order to do so, as the General Court has held (7), the Commission must take account only of the information that was available to it at the relevant time, that is to say on 21 October 2008 (see section 6.2.2, \u2018The relevant period for purposes of the assessment\u2019).\n2. DESCRIPTION\n(9)\nThe aid at issue is restructuring aid. It amounts to EUR 31 million. It is to be provided by the French Ministry of Economic Affairs, Finance and Employment. The aid recipient is FagorBrandt SA, which has several subsidiaries that conduct its production and marketing business.\n(10)\nThe French authorities indicate that given the resources available FagorBrandt would not be able to overcome its difficulties without state aid. According to France, the direct grant of EUR 31 million will enable FagorBrandt to finance half the cost of its restructuring (8).\n(11)\nThe group (\u2018FagorBrandt\u2019) belongs indirectly to Fagor Electrodom\u00e9sticos S Coop (\u2018Fagor\u2019), a cooperative incorporated under Spanish law. The cooperative\u2019s capital is divided among approximately 3 500 members (worker-cooperators), none of whom may hold more than 25 %.\n(12)\nFagor in turn forms part of a grouping of cooperatives called Mondrag\u00f3n Corporaci\u00f3n Cooperativa (\u2018MCC\u2019), within which each cooperative retains its legal and financial autonomy. Fagor belongs to the \u2018Household\u2019 division of MCC\u2019s \u2018Industry\u2019 sectoral group.\n(13)\nIn 2007 FagorBrandt had a turnover of EUR 903 million. It is present in all segments of the large household appliances market, which can be broken down into three main product groups: washing appliances (dishwashers, washing machines, tumble driers, washer-driers), refrigeration appliances (refrigerators, chest and upright freezers) and cooking appliances (conventional ovens, microwave ovens, cookers, hobs, extractor hoods).\n3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE\n(14)\nIn the opening decision the Commission expressed doubts for the following five reasons: a risk of circumvention of the prohibition on restructuring aid to newly created firms; a risk of circumvention of the obligation to reimburse incompatible aid; doubt about the restoration of the firm\u2019s long-term viability; inadequacy of the compensatory measures; and doubt about whether the aid was limited to the necessary minimum, and in particular about the aid recipient\u2019s contribution.\n3.1. Risk of circumvention of the prohibition on restructuring aid to newly created firms\n(15)\nFagorBrandt was established in January 2002: accordingly, for the purposes of point 12 of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (\u2018the restructuring aid guidelines\u2019) (9), it was a \u2018newly created firm\u2019 until January 2005, that is, three years after it was set up. This means that, both at the time when the company benefited from the tax exemption provided for in Article 44 septies of the French General Tax Code (\u2018the Article 44 septies aid\u2019) and at the time when, in December 2003, the Commission declared that that aid was incompatible and ordered its recovery (10), FagorBrandt was a newly created firm. Pursuant to point 12 of the restructuring aid guidelines, therefore, it was ineligible for restructuring aid. Consequently, the delay by France in recovering the aid declared incompatible in December 2003 until the time when the company no longer constituted a newly created firm, and became eligible for restructuring aid, might constitute a circumvention of the prohibition in point 12 of the restructuring aid guidelines\n3.2. Risk of circumvention of the obligation to reimburse incompatible aid\n(16)\nObserving that the notified aid seemed to serve largely to finance the reimbursement of the Article 44 septies aid, the Commission expressed concerns that it might constitute a circumvention of the obligation to reimburse that incompatible aid, rendering its recovery meaningless and redundant.\n3.3. Doubts about the company\u2019s long-term viability\n(17)\nAs regards the restoration of the company\u2019s long-term viability, the Commission expressed two concerns. First, observing that the turnover forecast for 2007 was approximately 20 % up on the previous year, it wondered what factors that forecast was based on. Secondly, it noted that the restructuring plan did not indicate how FagorBrandt intended to reimburse the incompatible aid received by its Italian subsidiary.\n3.4. Inadequacy of the compensatory measures\n(18)\nThe Commission doubted whether the absence of compensatory measures additional to those already taken as part of the restructuring plan was acceptable. It drew attention to the following:\n(i)\nthe restructuring aid guidelines (points 38 to 41) obliged aid recipients fulfilling the \u2018large enterprise\u2019 criterion to take compensatory measures;\n(ii)\nwithout aid, FagorBrandt would be forced out of the market, but on the other hand FagorBrandt\u2019s competitors were for the most part European; the disappearance of FagorBrandt would accordingly enable its European competitors to increase their sales and output significantly;\n(iii)\nit would appear, in the light of point 40 of the restructuring aid guidelines, that not all the measures already taken could be counted as compensatory measures; and\n(iv)\nthe guidelines applicable when the Bull (11) and Euromoteurs (12) cases cited by France were examined did not require companies to take compensatory measures. There were also other major differences between those cases and the present one.\n3.5. Doubts about the aid recipient\u2019s contribution\n(19)\nFinally, the Commission expressed doubts about whether the requirements of points 43 and 44 of the restructuring aid guidelines were met. Firstly, the French authorities had not included the reimbursement of the Article 44 septies aid in the costs of restructuring, and secondly they had not explained where certain amounts classed as \u2018recipient\u2019s own share\u2019 came from.\n4. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n4.1. Comments from Electrolux\n(20)\nElectrolux states that, in order to meet the challenges of global competition, it has implemented major and very costly restructuring plans. To remain competitive, the company has had to take drastic measures such as closing eight plants in western Europe, the output of which has been mainly relocated to other existing plants in Europe and to new plants in Poland and Hungary. Most companies in the large electrical household appliances sector have carried out similar restructuring operations. Consequently, Electrolux is unhappy at the possibility of FagorBrandt receiving a subsidy to help it cope with a situation which the rest of the sector is having to manage without similar assistance. The aid will distort competition at other companies\u2019 expense.\n4.2. Comments from the second competitor\n(21)\nFirst of all, this competitor, which wishes to remain anonymous, considers that the planned aid will not enable the recipient to restore its long-term viability. It is of the opinion that substantial industrial reorganisation is needed if the company is to survive. It believes FagorBrandt will have insufficient means with which to finance the necessary investment. Nor will the aid enable FagorBrandt to attain the size needed to improve its position in negotiations with the major distributors, which prefer suppliers with a larger presence in the European Union.\n(22)\nSecondly, it considers that the aid is not limited to the necessary minimum, inasmuch as FagorBrandt could obtain the financing needed for its restructuring from its shareholder and from the cooperative to which its shareholder belongs (MCC, of which the bank Caja Laboral forms part).\n(23)\nThirdly, it considers that the aid is likely to affect competition and trade between Member States. Most companies in the sector have their manufacturing base in Europe and can therefore be considered European. Asian and Turkish competitors have a significant presence only in certain product areas. FagorBrandt is the fifth largest operator at European level, with a strong position in the French, Spanish and Polish markets. The competitor considers, therefore, that in the absence of compensatory measures the Commission cannot declare the aid compatible.\n(24)\nFourthly, the granting of unlawful aid by France and Italy in the past leads to two conclusions: firstly, FagorBrandt\u2019s difficulties are recurring, raising the question of its viability; and secondly, the notified aid will probably be used to reimburse unlawful aid, thereby circumventing the reimbursement obligation.\n4.3. Comments from FagorBrandt\n(25)\nFagorBrandt\u2019s comments are similar to those of the French authorities, which are summarised below.\n5. COMMENTS FROM FRANCE\n5.1. Comments from France on the opening decision\n(26)\nRegarding a possible circumvention of the prohibition on restructuring aid to newly created firms, the French authorities do not contest that, in accordance with point 12 of the restructuring aid guidelines, FagorBrandt was to be considered \u2018a newly created firm\u2019 during the three years following its formation. They point out, however, that the question of the possibility of restructuring aid to FagorBrandt started to be posed only in 2006, following the difficulties first encountered in 2004 and the company\u2019s worsening financial situation in 2005, that is to say during the fifth year of its existence. In other words, the company had no reason to seek restructuring aid before being in a situation calling for such aid, a situation which came about in 2006. The question of a possible circumvention of the \u2018three year\u2019 rule therefore simply does not arise.\n(27)\nRegarding the possibility that the notified aid deprives the reimbursement obligation of its effectiveness, France states that the company\u2019s difficulties are not caused only by the reimbursement of the aid. The financial difficulties began in 2004 and the situation grew much worse in 2005 and 2006. As the Commission concluded in the opening decision, the company is indeed \u2018in difficulty\u2019 within the meaning of the restructuring aid guidelines. France concludes from this that the company is eligible on this score for restructuring aid if the other conditions for such aid are otherwise met. The question whether the company might survive beyond 2007 or 2008 if it did not have to reimburse the aid is irrelevant, as the reimbursement of the aid is obligatory and has been so since the Commission\u2019s negative decision on the Article 44 septies scheme in 2003. It is therefore in point of fact the accumulation of financial difficulties that justifies the request for aid, these difficulties being the result of the restructuring costs already borne by the company, the ongoing state of the restructuring process and all the other costs the company has to take into account, among which is the aid reimbursement.\n(28)\nRegarding the restoration of long-term viability and the two corresponding doubts raised in the opening decision, the French authorities make a number of comments. The forecast 20 % growth in turnover in 2007 compared with 2006 is due primarily to the change in scope of FagorBrandt\u2019s activities in 2006. As for the failure to take into account the reimbursement of the unlawful aid received by the Italian subsidiary (against the background of the takeover by Brandt Italia of the electrical household appliance business of Ocean SpA), this reimbursement should not affect the company\u2019s viability, given that the amount ultimately borne by Brandt Italia should be less than EUR 200 000, the balance being borne by the vendor of the business in question.\n(29)\nRegarding the absence of compensatory measures, France points out that in 2004 the company sold Brandt Components (Nevers plant). The company has also reduced its production capacity by ceasing manufacture of chest freezers and freestanding microwave ovens. France maintains that the aid has caused very little distortion and that this reduces the need for compensatory measures. FagorBrandt has a [0-5] % (13) share of the European market, which is very little compared with its main competitors. The French authorities consider, moreover, that the company\u2019s presence in the market helps to prevent oligopoly situations from arising. During the formal investigation procedure, the French authorities offered to take additional compensatory measures.\n(30)\nRegarding the Commission\u2019s doubts about the limitation of the aid to the minimum and the recipient\u2019s own contribution, the French authorities make the following comments. On the failure to take the reimbursement of the aid into account in the costs of restructuring, they point out that the reimbursement of incompatible aid cannot, prima facie, be counted as a restructuring cost. As for the \u2018recipient\u2019s own share\u2019, as it is called in the notification (effort propre du b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaire), the French authorities explain that this consists of bank loans.\n5.2. Comments from France on the interested parties\u2019 comments\n(31)\nIn response to Electrolux\u2019s comments, France states that the restructuring measures taken by Electrolux and other competitors were aimed not at remedying a difficult economic situation but at bolstering positions in the large electrical household appliance market. France accordingly considers that there is no comparison between the situations of FagorBrandt and its competitors, which in any case have far greater financial resources at their disposal owing to their much bigger size.\n(32)\nIn response to the comments concerning FagorBrandt\u2019s long-term viability put forward by the company requesting anonymity, the French authorities state, firstly, that FagorBrandt has taken measures aimed initially at stemming losses and strengthening margins so as to be able ultimately to attain a better position in the market, notably by developing [\u2026].\n(33)\nConcerning, secondly, the assertion that the aid is not limited to the minimum, inasmuch as FagorBrandt could obtain financing from its shareholders, the French authorities point out that MCC is a cooperative movement, not a holding company. In this cooperative movement, each cooperative, including Fagor and the bank Caja Laboral, is autonomous, and depends on the decisions of its own worker-cooperators, who are its owners. FagorBrandt can therefore count on the financial support only of Fagor, to the extent of the latter\u2019s existing capabilities. The acquisition of FagorBrandt has reduced the amount of cash available to Fagor, and Fagor cannot now provide any financing above a certain threshold.\n(34)\nThirdly, in answer to the supposed negative impact on competition, the French authorities point to contradictions in the comments from the interested party requesting anonymity. On the one hand, that party asserts that the aid would affect competition in the European market, while on the other it states that FagorBrandt is too small compared with the majors and that this threatens its viability. Moreover, as regards the absence of compensatory measures, the French authorities indicate that they have already taken meaningful compensatory measures and that they propose to take further such measures.\n(35)\nFourthly, in answer to the statements based on the earlier award of unlawful aid by France and Italy, France points out that those unlawful aid measures were directed, not at a restructuring programme for the company, but at a scheme to promote the maintenance of employment in France. It stresses, moreover, that, on the basis of the information FagorBrandt provided to the Commission on 17 December 2007, there is no actual relationship between the amount of aid granted (approximately EUR 20 million net after tax) and the amount of incompatible aid (approximately EUR 27,3 million including interest). Furthermore, the restructuring costs are estimated at EUR 62,5 million and hence are significantly higher than the amount of restructuring aid sought. Finally, France points to the fungible nature of the expenditure.\n(36)\nAs regards the comments submitted to the Commission by FagorBrandt, the French authorities state that they cannot but agree with these clarifications, all the more so since they complement their own observations.\n6. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n6.1. Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU\n(37)\nThe Commission considers that the measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. It takes the form of a grant given by the French Government, and is consequently financed out of state resources and is imputable to the State. It is aimed solely at FagorBrandt, and is thus a selective measure. The grant favours FagorBrandt by providing it with additional resources and preventing it from having to cease trading. It therefore threatens to distort competition between manufacturers of large electrical household appliances. In the market for large electrical household appliances there is extensive trade between Member States. The Commission concludes that the notified measure constitutes state aid. France does not dispute that conclusion.\n6.2. Legal basis of the assessment\n6.2.1. Legal basis for a finding of compatibility\n(38)\nArticle 107(1) of the TFEU imposes a general ban on state aid, and Article 107(2) and (3) provide for exceptions. The exceptions in Article 107(2) of the Treaty are clearly not applicable here.\n(39)\nAs for the exceptions in Article 107(3), the Commission would point out that the objective of the aid is not regional, and the exception in point (b) is clearly not applicable, so that only the exception in point (c) can apply. This provides for the authorisation of state aid granted to facilitate the development of certain economic activities, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. It is common ground that the aid at issue was granted with a view to restoring the long-term viability of a firm in difficulty. How the Commission assesses the compatibility of such aid is explained in the restructuring aid guidelines. It is therefore those guidelines that will serve as the legal basis for the assessment. The Commission considers that no other Community rules could apply in the present case. France has, moreover, invoked no other exception provided for in the TFEU. Nor has any of the interested parties criticised this choice of legal basis, which was already announced in the opening decision.\n6.2.2. The relevant period for purposes of the assessment\n(40)\nThe General Court has held that when one of its decisions is annulled the Commission is required to base its new analysis solely on information which was available to it at the time it adopted the decision (14), which in this case is 21 October 2008.\n(41)\nNo account is to be taken of events that may have taken place after 21 October 2008. Changes that may have taken place in the market or in the situation of the recipient of the aid must be excluded from the analysis. Nor will the Commission consider the period of implementation of the restructuring plan from October 2008 onward (15).\n(42)\nIn the same way, the Commission is not under an obligation to start the investigation of the case afresh or even to supplement it by resorting to new technical expertise (16). The annulment of an act concluding an administrative proceeding which comprises several stages does not necessarily entail the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of the contested act. In cases, such as the present one, where, in spite of the fact that investigation measures have been taken allowing an exhaustive analysis to be made of the compatibility of the aid, the analysis carried out by the Commission is incomplete, thus making the decision unlawful, the procedure for replacing that decision can be resumed at that point by means of a fresh analysis of the investigation measures taken previously (17).\n(43)\nSince the Commission is required to base its new analysis solely on information which was available to it in October 2008, information in respect of which both the French authorities and FagorBrandt have already defined their position, it is unnecessary to consult them afresh (18). Finally, the right of interested parties to submit their comments was ensured when the opening decision was published in the Official Journal (19), and there is no provision in Regulation No 659/1999 requiring that that opportunity be made available to them again where the original plan has been amended during the investigation procedure (20).\n(44)\nThe present decision is accordingly based solely on the information available on 21 October 2008.\n6.3. Eligibility of the company for restructuring aid\n(45)\nIn order to be eligible for restructuring aid, the company must first qualify as a firm in difficulty as defined in section 2.1 of the restructuring aid guidelines.\n(46)\nIn paragraph 24 of the opening decision, the Commission indicated that the company appeared to be in difficulty within the meaning of point 11 of the restructuring aid guidelines. In paragraph 27 of the opening decision, the Commission also indicated that, in line with the scenario in point 13 of the restructuring aid guidelines, the company\u2019s difficulties had become too serious to be dealt with by its Spanish shareholder. Disagreeing with this preliminary assessment, the competitor requesting anonymity took the view that FagorBrandt could obtain from Fagor and MCC whatever financial support it needed to overcome its difficulties. It must therefore be considered whether the preliminary assessment contained in the opening decision needs to be modified. The Commission would observe that the competitor bases its assertion on a press article (21) which seems to indicate that Fagor can easily raise funds on the financial markets. It should be noted, however, that the article in question dates from April 2005 and that Fagor\u2019s financial situation deteriorated markedly thereafter. The French authorities point out in this connection that Fagor\u2019s financial debts (not including those of FagorBrandt) trebled in 2005, following the acquisition of all of FagorBrandt\u2019s shares and heavy industrial investment by Fagor. Moreover, Fagor injected EUR 26,9 million of capital into FagorBrandt in 2006. All of this almost exhausted the debt-servicing capacity of the cooperative, the indebtedness ratios of which greatly exceeded the generally permitted limits.\n(47)\nThe French authorities have also explained that the FagorBrandt group\u2019s sole shareholder, Fagor, is a cooperative society incorporated under Spanish law. Fagor\u2019s capital is divided among approximately 3 500 members, all of them worker-cooperators; no member may hold more than 25 % of the capital.\n(48)\nAs a result of this legal form Fagor is unable to launch increases in capital open to outside subscribers. In order to increase its capital it would have to rely on its own members, whose financial capacity is limited to their own personal savings. To finance its development the only courses open to it are to borrow from banks or to issue bonds.\n(49)\nMCC is a grouping of cooperatives of which Fagor forms part. Each cooperative in the grouping retains its legal and financial autonomy. In other words, there are no capital links between Fagor and MCC. MCC is a cooperative movement, not a holding company. In this grouping each cooperative, including Fagor and the bank Caja Laboral, is autonomous, and depends on the decisions of its own worker-cooperators, who are its owners. The relations between MCC and its members are not those of a conventional capital-based group.\n(50)\nAs a result of its legal form, MCC could not raise funds as a public limited company might, and cannot be considered a parent company for purposes of point 13 of the restructuring aid guidelines. FagorBrandt could therefore count on the support only of its parent association Fagor, to the extent that its capacity to contribute permitted.\n(51)\nThe Commission considers, therefore, that there is no need to revise the assessment contained in the opening decision as regards the company\u2019s eligibility under points 11 and 13 of the restructuring aid guidelines.\n(52)\nRegarding the company\u2019s eligibility under the conditions set out in section 2.1 of the restructuring aid guidelines, the opening decision raises only one concern, namely the possible circumvention of the prohibition on restructuring aid to newly created firms (see section 3 above, \u2018Grounds for initiating the procedure\u2019).\n(53)\nThe Commission has analysed the company\u2019s financial situation, which is illustrated by Table 1 below. Clearly, during the first three years of its existence, the company - even if it had reimbursed the Article 44 septies aid - did not satisfy the tests of points 10 and 11 of the restructuring aid guidelines for being considered in difficulty As regards point 10 of the restructuring aid guidelines, even if the company had reimbursed the EUR 22,5 million of aid in 2004 (that is to say, in the months following the Commission\u2019s final negative decision), it would still not have lost half of its capital in 2004. As regards point 11 of the restructuring aid guidelines, even if the company had reimbursed the EUR 22,5 million of aid in 2004, it would have posted only one loss-making year (2004), which is insufficient for it to be considered in difficulty under that point. It was from 2005 onwards that the financial difficulties of the FagorBrandt group increased, with the result that the company might be considered a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the restructuring aid guidelines (that is to say, a firm which is unable to stem losses \u2018which, without outside intervention by the public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to going out of business in the short or medium term\u2019), starting possibly from the following year (bearing in mind the obligation to reimburse the Article 44 septies aid), but definitely from 2007.\nTable 1\n(EUR million)\n2002\n2003\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\nTurnover\n847,1\n857,6\n813,2\n743,6\n779,7\n903,0\nGross margin\n205,2\n215,1\n207,0\n180,6\n171,6\n190,4\nProfit or loss\n15,5\n13,8\n(3,6)\n(13,4)\n(18,2)\n(5,7)\nCapital and reserves\n69,8\n83,4\n79,8\n70,6\n79,4\n73,6\n(54)\nThe Commission also notes that in the first quarter of 2005 the Fagor group decided to buy 90 % of the company\u2019s shares at a cost of EUR [150-200] million. This would indicate that the market did not consider the company to be in difficulty within the meaning of the restructuring aid guidelines, that is to say to be a company which, without outside intervention by the public authorities, was almost certainly condemned to go out of business in the short or medium term.\n(55)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission considers that the company, which was established in January 2002, could not be deemed to be in difficulty during its first three years of existence even if it had reimbursed the Article 44 septies aid immediately. Consequently, it considers that the fact that France had not yet recovered the Article 44 septies aid in January 2005 - three years after the creation of FagorBrandt - did not have the effect of artificially keeping afloat a company which would otherwise have exited the market. It also considers that, during that period, the company had no reason to seek restructuring aid. The Commission accordingly takes the view that the fact that in January 2005 France had not yet recovered the Article 44 septies aid does not constitute a circumvention of the prohibition on restructuring aid in favour of newly created firms within the meaning of point 12 of the restructuring aid guidelines.\n(56)\nIn conclusion, the doubts about the company\u2019s eligibility have been removed and the Commission considers that the conditions laid down in section 2.1 of the restructuring aid guidelines are fulfilled.\n6.4. Previsions concerning previous unlawful and incompatible aid\n6.4.1. The aid granted by France\n(57)\nOn the basis of point 23 of the restructuring aid guidelines and the fact that the notified aid was prima facie aimed mainly at financing the reimbursement of the Article 44 septies aid, the Commission stated in paragraph 30 of the opening decision that it had misgivings about whether the notified aid constituted a circumvention of the reimbursement obligation and rendered that obligation meaningless and redundant.\n(58)\nIn assessing this question, the Commission has taken into account the following factors.\n(59)\nFirstly, according to settled case-law, the reimbursement of incompatible aid with interest makes it possible to re-establish the situation which existed before the aid was granted and hence to eliminate the resulting distortion of competition. Consequently, in the present case, the reimbursement of the Article 44 septies aid with interest - which is a precondition for the payment of the new aid - is intended to re-establish the situation which existed before the aid was granted.\n(60)\nSecondly, the company is eligible for restructuring aid. First of all, its financial difficulties do not stem primarily from the reimbursement of the incompatible aid. They stem from other sources, which are at the root of the losses incurred since 2004 (see Table 1 above). The future reimbursement of the incompatible aid will merely worsen these difficulties to a point where the company can no longer face up to them without state aid. Secondly, a business restructuring plan costing EUR 62,5 million has been implemented. This shows that the operational restructuring needed to re-establish business profitability is engendering very substantial costs - more substantial than the reimbursement of the Article 44 septies aid, which comes to EUR 22,5 million, not including interest. These elements indicate that FagorBrandt is a firm in difficulty whose existence is in danger. It can, therefore, like any company in such a situation, receive restructuring aid if it satisfies the other conditions laid down in the restructuring aid guidelines.\n(61)\nThirdly, in its 1991 decision in the Deggendorf case, the Commission, observing that \u2018The cumulative effect of the illegal aid which Deggendorf has been refusing to repay since 1986 and the present new \u2026 aid would give it an excessive and undue advantage which would adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest\u2019, considered the new aid compatible on condition that \u2018The \u2026 authorities \u2026 suspend payment to Deggendorf of the aid \u2026 until such time as they have recovered the incompatible aids\u2019 (22). In a judgment delivered on 15 May 1997 the Court of Justice endorsed the Commission\u2019s approach (23). Since then, the Commission has adopted several decisions in which it follows the same line, finding a new aid measure to be compatible while at the same time requiring that its payment be suspended pending reimbursement of unlawful aid (24). The Commission would point out that, in the present case, once the new aid fulfils the conditions laid down by the restructuring aid guidelines, nothing seems to stand in the way of applying the Deggendorf approach, i.e. finding the new aid compatible provided its payment is suspended pending recovery of the Article 44 septies aid.\n(62)\nIn the light of the above considerations, the Commission\u2019s concerns have been allayed.\n(63)\nIn this context, the Commission would point out the following. Point 23 of the restructuring aid guidelines requires the Commission, when assessing restructuring aid, to \u2018take into account, first, the cumulative effect of the old aid and of the new aid and, secondly, the fact that the old aid has not been repaid.\u2019 As indicated in footnote 2 to point 23 of the restructuring aid guidelines, this provision is based on the rule in Deggendorf (25). In the present case, France has undertaken to recover the Article 44 septies aid before paying the new aid. In this Decision the Commission is required, on the basis of the findings in Deggendorf, to transform that commitment into a condition precedent to the compatibility of the notified aid. It will thus ensure that there is no combination of the old aid with the new aid and that the old aid is reimbursed.\n6.4.2. The unlawful Italian aid\n(64)\nOn 21 October 2008 Brandt Italia, the Italian subsidiary of FagorBrandt, remained liable for the repayment of part of the aid granted by the Italian authorities. The Commission declared this aid incompatible in a Decision adopted on 30 March 2004 (26).\n(65)\nIn such a case, as has been explained in paragraph 61, the findings in Deggendorf confirm that the Commission does not exceed the limits of its discretion where it requires recovery of the previous aid as a condition precedent to the payment of fresh aid (27). If the Commission makes the grant of the planned aid subject to the prior recovery of earlier aid, it is not obliged to examine the cumulative effect of the aid on competition: the imposition of such a condition prevents the advantage conferred by the planned aid from combining with that conferred by the earlier aid (28).\n(66)\nIn its decision-making practice, therefore, rather than applying point 23 of the restructuring aid guidelines, which would allow it to examine the cumulative effect of the unlawful aid and the new aid, the Commission has preferred to require the recovery of the incompatible aid before the fresh aid is paid (29).\n(67)\nIn view of the particular circumstances of this case, however, the Commission will apply point 23 of the restructuring aid guidelines. The Commission here has to adopt a fresh Decision following the annulment by the General Court of the Commission\u2019s Decision of 21 October 2008. The Commission cannot consider information that was not in its possession at the time of the first Decision. It consequently cannot take account of fresh commitments that may have been given by the Member State or of the manner of any recovery of unlawful aid that may have taken place since that date.\n(68)\nIn line with the judgment of the General Court in Electrolux and Whirlpool, therefore, the Commission must examine the cumulative effect of the Italian aid and the restructuring aid notified (30).\n(69)\nIt must first be determined what is the amount of the Italian aid that needed to be considered on 21 October 2008.\n(70)\nFagorBrandt takes the view that the amount of the Italian aid to be repaid by Brandt Italia will probably be less than EUR 200 000.\n(71)\nIn 2003 FagorBrandt, through its subsidiary Brandt Italia, bought the Verolanuova works and its assets from Ocean, which was in court-supervised administration. The price Brandt Italia offered for the assets was EUR 10 million.\n(72)\nOcean\u2019s court-appointed administrators considered this sum to be insufficient, and the Italian authorities then sought to extend to takeover operations of this kind certain provisions of two schemes considered compatible with European law, the laid-off workers\u2019 mobility scheme (mobilit\u00e0) and the lay-off fund (cassa integrazione). Those provisions allowed firms recruiting unemployed workers to enjoy an exemption from social security contributions. The purpose of extending these measures was that the benefit to the purchaser would increase the value of the assets proportionally.\n(73)\nThe Italian authorities therefore enacted a decree-law, dated 14 February 2003, which provided that the purchaser of any company in special administration (amministrazione straordinaria) that employed more than 1 000 people would qualify for a reduction in social security contributions and an additional grant for every employee transferred. The acquisition by Brandt Italia of Ocean\u2019s electrical household appliances business, which took place on 7 March 2003, was eligible for the scheme set up by this legislation. The value of the exemptions, estimated at EUR 8,5 million, was consequently added to the purchase price offered by Brandt Italia, which now increased to EUR 18,5 million.\n(74)\nOn 30 March 2004 the Commission adopted a Decision finding that the Decree-law of 14 February 2003, converted into statute by an Act of 17 April 2003, was a state aid measure that was unlawful and incompatible with the internal market (31). When Brandt Italia learned of the Commission Decision, it obtained an order from the Ordinary Court (Tribunale) of Brescia, dated 5 July 2004, seizing the last instalment of the purchase price (EUR 5,7 million), and approached the supervisors of the Ocean proceedings with a view to recovering the amount paid in excess. Brandt Italia took the view that the Italian State was required to recover the unlawful aid from the real beneficiary.\n(75)\nAlthough the recipient of the aid granted under the scheme that the Commission had held unlawful was Brandt Italia, FagorBrandt considered that the ultimate benefit of the aid had been transferred almost entirely to the creditors recognised by the court-appointed administrators of Ocean, via an increase of EUR 8,5 million in the purchase price of the assets, compared with EUR 8 624 283 in benefits actually granted. The French authorities took the view that the balance for which Brandt Italia/FagorBrandt was still liable was consequently EUR 124 283 plus interest.\n(76)\nThe Italian authorities have provided the Commission with information that invalidates this reasoning.\n(77)\nOn 13 May 2008 the Italian authorities sent the Commission two judgments delivered by courts in Brescia. They concerned a dispute between the National Social Security Institute (INPS) and Brandt Italia over aid Brandt Italia had received in the form of exemptions from social security contributions.\n(78)\nThe first judgment, dated 1 February 2008, suspended a recovery order issued against Brandt Italia by the INPS on 18 December 2007. The INPS appealed against that judgment. On 29 April 2008 the appeal court annulled the suspension of the recovery order.\n(79)\nA third judgment dates from 8 July 2008, and was sent to the Commission on 20 October 2008: it finds in favour of the INPS, on the substance, and upholds the order to Brandt Italia to repay the aid in full. Brandt Italia was notified of that judgment on 15 September 2008.\n(80)\nIn the light of this information the Commission must determine the amount of aid to be repaid by Brandt Italia/FagorBrandt that could reasonably have been estimated on 21 October 2008. The Commission observes that the judgment of the Ordinary Court of Brescia of 8 July 2008 ordered Brandt Italia to repay EUR 8 890 878,02.\n(81)\nThe Commission considers, however, that the sum seized, EUR 5,7 million, must be deducted from that figure. That sum was provisionally frozen by the judgment of the Ordinary Court of Brescia of 5 July 2004, and was not available to Brandt Italia thereafter. The order to freeze it was made by reason of the Commission\u2019s Decision of 30 March 2004: thus the sum was frozen as a precaution against the need to recover it. On 21 October 2008, therefore, it could reasonably be supposed that the sum would serve to repay part of the aid. This conclusion is supported by the following:\n-\nIn paragraph 18 of its Decision of 30 March 2004, the Commission said that the aid scheme it held incompatible might benefit the purchaser of a firm in difficulty or the firm in difficulty itself. It was reasonable to suppose, in other words, that Ocean would be liable for at least part of the sum to be recovered.\n-\nThe judgment of the Ordinary Court of Brescia of 8 July 2008 refers to the fact that this sum is being held in a frozen account, and considers it \u2018evident\u2019 that the sum may serve to repay the INPS in part.\n(82)\nIn the light of the circumstances set out in paragraphs 76 to 81, the Commission considers that the final amount of the Italian aid to be taken into account for purposes of the present analysis is EUR 3 190 878,02, plus interest running to 21 October 2008.\n(83)\nThe Commission takes the view that the date to be considered in order to determine the amount of interest is not the date of the actual recovery of the aid but the date of the decision that was annulled, because the Commission is here assessing the compatibility of the French aid on 21 October 2008. On 21 October 2008 the French aid was combined with the Italian aid including the interest running to that date. The Commission must take account of the cumulative effect of those two aid measures, but must not add interest running to the date of the actual recovery.\n(84)\nThe advantage conferred by the interest running from 21 October 2008 to the date of recovery will be removed by the recovery itself, in which that interest will of course have to be included.\n(85)\nFagorBrandt consequently had at its disposal a sum of EUR 3 190 878,02, plus interest, in addition to the EUR 31 million in aid it was granted by the French authorities. This advantage had an impact on competition: FagorBrandt had additional liquidity that it would not have had under normal market conditions (i.e. in the absence of the incompatible Italian aid).\n(86)\nIn line with point 23 of the restructuring aid guidelines and with the judgment in Electrolux and Whirlpool, the Commission proposes as part of its assessment of the compatibility of the restructuring aid to examine the cumulative effect of the restructuring aid and the Italian aid.\n(87)\nThis examination of the cumulative effect requires the Commission to verify two things. First, the Commission must check that the compensatory measures (see paragraphs 89 ff. and especially paragraphs 118 ff.) do offset the damage to competition caused by the additional liquidity available to FagorBrandt. Second, the Commission will also seek to ensure that the recipient\u2019s own contribution is free of any aid component (see paragraphs 154 ff.). This is because it is not impossible that the contribution envisaged by the firm may incorporate the sum in question.\n(88)\nWhen it verifies these aspects the Commission may impose new conditions on the Member State, irrespective of any proposals the Member State has made (and in the present case the Commission cannot take account of any such proposals made after 21 October 2008). This is confirmed by point 46 of the restructuring aid guidelines: \u2018the Commission may impose any conditions and obligations it considers necessary in order to ensure that the aid does not distort competition to an extent contrary to the common interest, in the event that the Member State concerned has not given a commitment that it will adopt such provisions\u2019.\n6.5. No undue distortion of competition\n6.5.1. The need for compensatory measures\n(89)\nPoint 38 of the restructuring aid guidelines provides that, in order for restructuring aid to be authorised by the Commission, compensatory measures must be taken to lessen the adverse effects of the aid on trading conditions. Otherwise, the aid will be regarded as \u2018contrary to the common interest\u2019 and declared incompatible with the common market. This condition often takes the form of a limitation on the presence which the company can maintain in its market or markets after the end of the restructuring period.\n(90)\nIn its notification, France asserted that compensatory measures did not appear necessary in this case, inter alia because the aid would not have any excessive distortive effects. In paragraphs 37, 38 and 40 of the opening decision, the Commission explained briefly why it rejected this assertion.\n(91)\nIn the paragraphs that follow, the Commission explains in greater detail why it considers that the aid causes distortion and why, contrary to what the French authorities assert, compensatory measures are needed.\n(92)\nAs already indicated, FagorBrandt manufactures large electrical household appliances and markets them to distributors (it does not distribute or sell to private individuals). The Commission has in the past considered that the geographic market for large electrical household appliances is at least Community-wide, owing, among other things, to the absence of entry barriers, technical harmonisation, and relatively low transport costs (32). The data provided by FagorBrandt and by the two competitors that submitted comments confirm that the market is Community-wide in scale.\n(93)\nThe Commission considers that restructuring aid automatically distorts competition, because it prevents the recipient from being forced out of the market, and thus hinders the development of competing firms. Such aid therefore obstructs the exit of the least efficient firms, which is, in the words of point 4 of the restructuring aid guidelines, \u2018a normal part of the operation of the market\u2019. The notified aid to FagorBrandt therefore gives rise to distortion of competition of this kind. The Commission would observe, however, that the following factors tend to limit the scale of this distortion of competition. First, in the European market for large electrical appliances, FagorBrandt has a market share of at most [0-5] % (33). Second, there are four competitors in the market - Indesit, Whirlpool, BSH and Electrolux - with market shares of 10 % or more (34). The competitor requesting anonymity acknowledges that FagorBrandt is a relatively small player in the European market whose market share is diminishing (see above the doubts expressed by this competitor concerning the company\u2019s return to viability, which are related to its small size) (35). Third, the amount of the aid is small by comparison with FagorBrandt\u2019s European turnover (at less than 4 % of turnover in 2007), and smaller again by comparison with the turnovers of the four main market operators, which are larger than that of FagorBrandt (36).\n(94)\nThe previous paragraph analyses the distortion of competition brought about by the aid; it is also necessary, as indicated in point 38 of the restructuring aid guidelines, which in turn reflects Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU, to analyse the scale of the \u2018adverse effects on trading conditions\u2019 between Member States. As observed in paragraph 38 of the opening decision, the aid distorts the location of economic activities, and hence trade, between Member States. The bulk of FagorBrandt\u2019s production activities and employees are located in France ([80-100] % of the volumes produced by the company are produced there). Without aid from the French State, FagorBrandt would soon exit the market. However, the products manufactured at FagorBrandt\u2019s production plants are in competition mainly with products manufactured by competitors in other Member States (37). Consequently, the disappearance of FagorBrandt would enable those European competitors appreciably to increase their sales and hence their production. The aid has the effect of maintaining production activities in France which would otherwise have moved partly to other Member States. It therefore has an adverse effect on trading conditions in that it reduces the opportunities for competitors based in other Member States to export to France (38). The aid also reduces the opportunities for selling to those countries where FagorBrandt is going to continue to export its products. In view of the scale of FagorBrandt\u2019s sales and the corresponding number of jobs, these adverse effects on trading conditions are not negligible.\n(95)\nOn the basis of the above analysis, the Commission considers that compensatory measures should be taken which are real (i.e. non-negligible) but nevertheless limited in scope.\n6.5.2. Analysis of the measures already implemented\n(96)\nIn paragraph 39 of the opening decision, the Commission expressed doubts about whether the measures notified by the French authorities were acceptable as compensatory measures inasmuch as point 40 of the restructuring aid guidelines states that \u2018Write-offs and closure of loss-making activities which would at any rate be necessary to restore viability will not be considered reduction of capacity or market presence for the purpose of the assessment of the compensatory measures.\u2019 It appeared that all of the measures described by the French authorities fell under that exclusion. During the course of the formal investigation procedure, France repeated that it considered that the cessation of the manufacture of chest freezers and freestanding microwave ovens, together with the sale of Brandt Components, constituted three meaningful compensatory measures. The Commission accordingly conducted a detailed analysis of these measures and drew the following conclusions.\n(97)\nRegarding the closure of the chest freezer manufacturing plant (at Lesquin) in 2005, France indicated in its notification of 6 August 2007 that this plant, \u2018which made chest freezers and wine cellars for the whole FagorBrandt group, had fallen to a size \u2026 which no longer enabled it to cover either its variable costs or its fixed costs and had generated an operating loss of EUR 5,8 million in 2004\u2019. There can therefore be no doubt that what is involved here is a closure of a loss-making business rendered necessary in order to restore viability (39) and that, in accordance with point 40 of the restructuring aid guidelines, it cannot be taken into account as a compensatory measure.\n(98)\nThe cessation of production of freestanding microwave ovens at the Aizenay plant also involved a closure of a loss-making activity which was needed in order to re-establish viability - something which the French authorities explicitly acknowledged in their submissions (40). The unprofitability of that activity is not surprising given that freestanding microwave ovens are one of the market segments that products from low-cost countries have penetrated the most (41). Moreover, the Aizenay plant had lost important contracts under which it produced microwave ovens for other groups (42). In conclusion, on the basis of point 40 of the restructuring aid guidelines, this measure cannot be taken into account as a compensatory measure.\n(99)\nBy contrast, in March 2004 the company divested its subsidiary Brandt Components (Nevers plant) to the Austrian group ATB for EUR 3 million. What was involved here, therefore, was neither a write-off (43) nor a closure of an activity. This measure is therefore not excluded by the said provision in point 40 of the restructuring aid guidelines. The business divested in March 2004 (44) had in 2003 a turnover of EUR 35,4 million - equivalent to 4 % of the company\u2019s 2003 turnover - and 306 employees - equivalent to 6 % of the company\u2019s workforce. It was active in the design, development, manufacture and marketing of electric motors for washing machines. The divestment has accordingly led to a reduction in the company\u2019s presence in the washing machine component market.\n(100)\nBut this measure cannot be regarded as a valid compensatory measure. Brandt Components was sold about three and a half years before the notification of the aid under scrutiny. The measure does not reduce FagorBrandt\u2019s presence in the large electrical household appliance market (45), the main market in which FagorBrandt will remain present. Thus the measure did not have as its object - and could not have as its effect - a lessening of the distortion of competition generated by the planned aid.\n6.5.3. Additional compensatory measures proposed by the French authorities\n(101)\nTo meet the concerns raised in the opening decision regarding the adequacy of the notified compensatory measures, the French authorities propose the cessation of the marketing of Vedette refrigeration appliances and cooking appliances for a period of five years. Moreover, they propose either the cessation of the marketing of Vedette dishwashers or the divestment of the [\u2026] brand.\n(102)\nAs indicated above, FagorBrandt achieves [50-80] % of its sales in the French market, where in 2006 the company had a market share of [10-20] % in terms of value and [10-20] % in terms of volume. This means that if FagorBrandt had ceased trading, it is mainly its competitors in the French market that would have benefited, in the form of increased sales. It is therefore those companies that are the most affected by the continued existence of FagorBrandt due to the aid. Conversely, FagorBrandt\u2019s sales in the Italian market are very limited. As a compensatory measure, therefore, the Commission would give preference to cessation of the marketing of dishwashers under the Vedette brand as opposed to divestment of the [\u2026] brand, products of the Vedette brand being sold exclusively in the French market whereas products [\u2026] are sold primarily [\u2026] (46).\n(103)\nThe scale of these additional compensatory measures must therefore be analysed to establish their adequacy.\n(104)\nSales of refrigeration products (refrigerators and freezers) of the Vedette brand were worth, in 2007, EUR [10-20] million, equivalent to [0-5] % of the FagorBrandt group\u2019s turnover.\n(105)\nCessation of the marketing of these refrigeration products for a period of five years will enable competitors in the French market to strengthen their position in the refrigeration segment. According to the 2007 GfK study, FagorBrandt\u2019s main competitors in the refrigerator market in France - where FagorBrandt had a market share based on value of [\u2026] % - were Whirlpool ([\u2026] %), Indesit ([\u2026] %) and Electrolux ([\u2026] %). In the freezer market, the main competitors of FagorBrandt (which had [\u2026] %) were Whirlpool ([\u2026] %), Liebherr ([\u2026] %) and Electrolux ([\u2026] %).\n(106)\nSales of cooking products of the Vedette brand were worth, in 2007, EUR [5-10] million, equivalent to [0-5] % of the FagorBrandt group\u2019s turnover.\n(107)\nCessation of the marketing of cooking products for a period of five years will therefore enable competitors to strengthen their position in the cooker market. According to the 2007 GfK study, FagorBrandt\u2019s main competitors in the cooking products market in France - where FagorBrandt had a market share based on value of [\u2026] % - were Indesit ([\u2026] %), Electrolux ([\u2026] %) and Candy ([\u2026] %).\n(108)\nSales of dishwashers of the Vedette brand were worth, in 2007, EUR [5-10] million, equivalent to [0-5] % of the FagorBrandt group\u2019s turnover.\n(109)\nAccording to the 2007 GfK study, FagorBrandt\u2019s main competitors in the dishwashers market in France - where FagorBrandt had a market share based on value of [\u2026] % - were BSH ([\u2026] %), Whirlpool ([\u2026] %) and Electrolux ([\u2026] %). Consequently, cessation of the marketing of dishwashers under the Vedette brand will enable competitors to expand their presence in the market.\n(110)\nTo sum up, the Vedette products the marketing of which will be stopped account for [0-5] % of the group\u2019s turnover (47). The French authorities indicate that this will necessitate significant adjustments within the company [\u2026].\n6.5.4. Conclusion regarding the compensatory measures proposed by the French authorities; imposition by the Commission of an additional compensatory measure\n(111)\nThe compensatory measures proposed are the cessation of the marketing for a period of five years of certain products of the Vedette brand (cooking, refrigeration and dishwashing) (48) and the divestment of Brandt Components. The result is a real (i.e. non-negligible) reduction in market presence, the size of which is, however, limited.\n(112)\nHowever, the Commission considers that the only valid compensatory measure proposed by the French authorities is the measure relating to the Vedette brand, and that it is not sufficient. The Commission will therefore impose, as a condition of compatibility, the extension of the cessation of the marketing of products of the Vedette brand for a further three years. The ban proposed has a duration of five years; this will be extended by three years, making a total of eight.\n(113)\nAccording to the information in the Commission\u2019s possession on 21 October 2008, the impact of this compensatory measure (\u2018CM\u2019) in terms of loss of turnover can be evaluated in two ways, shown in Table 2 (49):\nTable 2\nEUR million\n2009\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\n2016\nFagorBrandt turnover\n[900-1 200]\n[900-1 200]\n[900-1 200]\n[900-1 200]\n[900-1 200]\n[900-1 200]\n[900-1 200]\n[900-1 200]\nImpact CM, higher estimate\n- [40-60]\n- [40-60]\n- [40-60]\n- [40-60]\n- [40-60]\n- [40-60]\n- [40-60]\n- [40-60]\nImpact CM, lower estimate\n- [55-75]\n- [55-75]\n- [55-75]\n- [55-75]\n- [55-75]\n- [55-75]\n- [55-75]\n- [55-75]\n(114)\nThe figures shown in Table 2 for the years 2009 to 2012 are the figures supplied by the French authorities and FagorBrandt for the impact of the compensatory measure they propose (for the scale of the impact see also paragraphs 143 ff.).\n(115)\nThe first way to calculate the impact of the additional compensatory measure imposed by the Commission is to multiply by 3 the loss of turnover for the last year evaluated by the French authorities, namely 2012. In an optimistic scenario for the company, the impact estimated in this fashion is therefore 3 \u00d7 EUR [40-60] million, or EUR [120-180] million.\n(116)\nThe second way to estimate the impact of the additional compensatory measure is to extrapolate figures for 2013 to 2016 by applying a linear increase of [1,5-3] % to the figures for 2012, in continuation of the estimated [1,5-3] % growth in the company\u2019s turnover from 2009 to 2012. This estimate of growth in turnover is considered reasonable, in the light of group strategy and market prospects, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 125 ff. In an optimistic scenario for the company, following this approach, the compensatory measure will deprive FagorBrandt of turnover of EUR [120-180] million.\n(117)\nThe compensatory measure proposed therefore appears to be adequate, and is enough by itself to bring about a proportionate reduction in the adverse effects of the grant of the aid: in an optimistic scenario, it deprives the company of turnover of between [120-180] million over the period 2014-2016. The turnover lost will allow competitors to increase their sales. It will also be more difficult for the company to reintroduce the Vedette products concerned after eight years of absence as a result of the measure (the only Vedette products currently marketed are washing machines). Even if the brand does not disappear entirely, the cost of a return will be proportional to the years of absence from the market. The longer the brand has been absent from the market, the less it will be recognised.\n(118)\nIt has to be considered whether this additional compensatory measure will also offset the competitive advantage conferred by the cumulative effect of the Italian aid and the restructuring aid. On 21 October 2008 FagorBrandt had at its disposal a sum of EUR 3 190 878,02, or about EUR 4 million including interest, which it ought not to have received. This advantage had an impact on competition: the company had additional liquidity. But the additional compensatory measure offsets the damage done to competition.\n(119)\nTable 3 shows the net loss (or negative free cash flow) resulting from the compensatory measure. The figures for the years 2009-2012 are the figures notified to the Commission by the French authorities. The figures for the years 2013-2016 are an extrapolation obtained by increasing the 2012 figures by [1,5-3] % each year (50).\nTable 3\nEUR million\n2009\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\n2016\nFinal profit or loss without CM\n[0-5]\n[5-10]\n[10-15]\n[10-15]\n[15-20]\n[15-20]\n[15-20]\n[15-20]\nImpact CM, higher estimate\n- [10-15]\n- [5-10]\n- [5-10]\n- [5-10]\n- [5-10]\n- [5-10]\n- [5-10]\n- [5-10]\nImpact CM, lower estimate\n- [15-20]\n- [5-10]\n- [5-10]\n- [5-10]\n- [5-10]\n- [5-10]\n- [5-10]\n- [5-10]\n(120)\nIn an optimistic scenario for the company, three additional years deprive FagorBrandt of liquidity amounting to EUR [10-20] million (if we multiply the 2012 figure by 3) or EUR [10-20] million (if we add the extrapolated figures). In other words, the imposition of this new compensatory measure very amply offsets the advantage conferred by liquidity of about EUR 4 million.\n(121)\nThe fact that the compensatory measures extend beyond the period of restructuring (which is to end on 31 December 2012) does not mean that they are inappropriate. The compensatory measures arise out of the granting of restructuring aid, but they are not part of the restructuring process itself: they are intended to compensate the assisted firm\u2019s competitors for the damage to competition they may suffer. The fact that the measures extend beyond the period of restructuring does not in any way deprive them of their purpose, given that they were put in place by reason of a restructuring operation facilitated by state aid, and that their object and effect is to compensate for the damage to competition that results from that aid.\n(122)\nConsequently, the Commission considers that these measures can avert the risk of excessive distortion of competition within the meaning of points 38 to 40 of the restructuring aid guidelines.\n6.6. Restoration of the company\u2019s viability\n6.6.1. Restructuring plan, market prospects and credibility of the forecasts in the plan\n(123)\nFagorBrandt\u2019s restructuring plan is already under way; essentially it provides for:\n-\na refocusing and development targeted on [\u2026];\n-\na rationalisation of purchasing policy and [\u2026];\n-\nplant closures and disposals (51);\n-\nworkforce reductions (52);\n-\nmeasures to help ensure the continuation of the business (53).\n(124)\nHaving examined the plan the Commission confirms what it suggested in the opening decision, namely that it believes the plan complies with the requirements of points 35 to 37 of the restructuring aid guidelines. In other words, the restructuring plan can be expected to restore the company\u2019s long-term viability.\n(125)\nThe Commission wishes to explain its analysis and conclusions regarding the prospects for the market and the credibility of the forecasts in the restructuring plan.\n(126)\nThe Commission has evaluated the forecasts in the restructuring plan, notably in terms of growth prospects. The Commission would point out once again that this Decision takes account only of information available in October 2008.\n(127)\nAccording to CECED (54), the volume trend in the European market between 2005 and 2007 shows moderate growth in western Europe (approximately 2 % a year) and sustained growth in eastern Europe (approximately 7 % a year). However, the growth rate in eastern Europe is anything but a foregone conclusion, as it is subject to the fluctuations of the economy, with double-digit expansion and double-digit contraction readily alternating.\n(128)\nAlthough in the long run a convergence in purchasing behaviour between eastern Europe and western Europe is possible, weak purchasing power in eastern European countries currently means that demand is concentrated on essential goods (washing machines and refrigerators) and entry-level appliances. It is these product markets, however, that Turkish and Asian competitors are entering.\n(129)\nThe markets showing potential as far as FagorBrandt is concerned are therefore those of western Europe, as they are larger in both value and volume and less dependent on low-end products where FagorBrandt can no longer be competitive and whereon the strong growth in eastern Europe is based.\n(130)\nMore particularly, FagorBrandt\u2019s reference market is the French market, where the group achieves [50-80] % of its sales, produces [80-100] % of its volumes and employs [80-100] % of the group\u2019s workforce. According to GIFAM (55), in 2007 the French market for large electrical household appliances grew by 1 % compared with 2006, in both volume and value terms. More specifically, the market for [\u2026] appliances, on which FagorBrandt wishes to concentrate, grew by [\u2026] % compared with 2006, whereas in the case of [\u2026] appliances sales fell by [\u2026] %.\n(131)\nThe trends by type of product show that the high-growth markets developing in Europe and particularly in France are essentially those for [\u2026] products. Growth in [\u2026] products is significant, whereas the market for refrigeration products is virtually at a standstill, as can be seen from the following table taken from the GIFAM study:\nTable 4\n(132)\nConsequently, FagorBrandt\u2019s decision to refocus in particular on [\u2026] and to develop [\u2026] seems consistent with the trend in the various segments and products.\n(133)\nHaving analysed the other basic components of the restructuring plan aimed at justifying the relevance of the forecasts relating to FagorBrandt\u2019s long-term operational profitability, the Commission considers that those forecasts are realistic.\nTable 5\nEUR million\n2009\n2010\n2011\n2012\nFagorBrandt turnover\n[900-1 200]\n[900-1 200]\n[900-1 200]\n[900-1 200]\nFinal profit or loss\n[0-5]\n[5-10]\n[10-15]\n[10-15]\n(134)\nThe remainder of this analysis will be limited, therefore, to the two specific concerns regarding the realistic nature and adequacy of the restructuring plan raised in the opening decision.\n(135)\nFirst of all, the Commission sought explanations for the expected 20 % increase in turnover in 2007. The French authorities explained that FagorBrandt\u2019s area of activity changed in 2006 owing to the transfer by Fagor to FagorBrandt of responsibility for distributing the Fagor brand in the British and French markets, followed by the transfer of Fagor\u2019s entire French business (56). That business\u2019s turnover was put at EUR [50-100] million for 2007 and was included in FagorBrandt\u2019s 2007 turnover. Taking an unchanged area of activity as a basis, the forecast increase in turnover would come to only [5-10] %. Since then, France has communicated to the Commission the turnover actually achieved in 2007. It came to EUR 903 million, compared with EUR 779,7 million in 2006 - a year-on-year increase of approximately 16 %.\n(136)\nSecondly, the Commission noted that the restructuring plan did not indicate how FagorBrandt intended to reimburse the incompatible aid received by its Italian subsidiary, which might place the restoration of the company\u2019s viability in doubt. The French authorities state that the amount of the Italian aid to be repaid by Brandt Italia will probably be less than EUR 200 000 (see paragraphs 70 ff.). As the Commission has already stated, however (see paragraphs 76 ff.), the final amount of the Italian aid that should be taken into account for purposes of the present Decision is EUR 3 190 878,02, plus interest to 21 October 2008. But the Commission believes that the repayment of this sum will not jeopardise the company\u2019s return to viability if Fagor Brandt is required to increase its own contribution by a sum equal to EUR 3 190 878,02 plus interest (see paragraphs 149 ff.).\n(137)\nOn the basis of the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the doubts about the restoration of viability raised in the opening decision have been allayed.\n6.6.2. Doubts about the restoration of viability raised by an interested party\n(138)\nAs indicated above, the competitor requesting anonymity challenges the claim that the restructuring operation can restore the company\u2019s long-term viability. First of all, it considers that the company should have transferred part of its production to low-cost production areas where it could benefit from economies of scale. Secondly, the company will be unable to afford the investment needed to improve its products in an industry which each year requires significant investment in plant, design and R&D. Thirdly, the company is still too small compared with its rivals In the paragraphs that follow, the Commission will seek to ascertain whether these comments by the competitor requesting anonymity call into question the Commission\u2019s conclusions concerning the restoration of viability\n(139)\nOn the need to transfer part of production to lower-cost countries, the Commission would observe that the French authorities have in fact answered this point. The French authorities stress that the development targeted by FagorBrandt (high-value-added and innovative products), like that of some of its strictly European competitors, is incompatible with the systematic transfer of production to low-cost countries. [\u2026] For the majors, the establishment of production units in low-cost countries also reflects a wish to expand sales there.\n(140)\nOn the assertions by the competitor requesting anonymity regarding FagorBrandt\u2019s inability to afford the significant investment needed in order to remain competitive and regarding the company\u2019s excessive smallness compared with the majors, the Commission would observe that it itself pointed out in paragraph 8 of the opening decision that these factors had contributed to the company\u2019s difficulties. However, the restructuring plan seems to respond to the challenges. The company intends to concentrate on [\u2026]. The Commission would also observe that, despite their small size compared with the majors and their focus on production in the countries of western Europe, some companies in the sector manage to remain competitive by concentrating on certain products and segments (these are \u2018niche\u2019 players such as Miele, Smeg, Liebherr or Teka, or small manufacturers with only a national dimension, such as Candy or Gorenje). The ever closer integration of FagorBrandt into the Fagor group is also helping to resolve these size-related problems. To sum up, the Commission recognises that the points raised by the competitor represent challenges for FagorBrandt, but it considers that the restructuring plan is up to meeting those challenges and makes it sufficiently probable that viability will be restored.\n(141)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission considers that the comments from the competitor requesting anonymity do not call into question its assessment that the restructuring plan permits the restoration of FagorBrandt\u2019s long-term viability.\n6.6.3. Effect of the compensatory measures on the restoration of viability\n(142)\nFinally, still on the subject of the restoration of long-term viability, the Commission must, as is provided for in the last sentence of point 38 of the restructuring aid guidelines, verify whether the planned compensatory measures endanger the company\u2019s viability. As has been explained, the French authorities have proposed compensatory measures that were not included in the financial forecasts attached to the notification. The Commission considers these additional measures to be necessary, and they will consequently have to be implemented. Inasmuch as these measures - cessation of the marketing of refrigeration, cooking and dishwashing products under the Vedette brand for a period of five years - will bring about a worsening of the company\u2019s financial results, it must be examined whether they can be borne by the company.\n(143)\nAccording to the French authorities, Tables 6 and 7 show the company\u2019s financial results after factoring in the implementation of the compensatory measures that the French authorities propose. Table 6 depicts an optimistic scenario, Table 7 a pessimistic one.\nTable 6\nCessation of the marketing of refrigeration, cooking and dishwashing products under the Vedette brand\nBest case\n2007\n2008\n2009\n2010\n2011\n2012\nTurnover\n903,0\n[900-1 000]\n[900-1 000]\n[900-1 000]\n[900-1 000]\n[900-1 000]\nGross margin\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nOperating profit before non-recurrent items\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nOperating profit (EBIT)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nPre-tax profit\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nProfit or loss\n- [5-10]\n- [5-10]\n- [5-10]\n[0-5]\n[5-10]\n[5-10]\nFree cash flow\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nAccumulated free cash flow\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTable 7\nCessation of the marketing of refrigeration, cooking and dishwashing products under the Vedette brand\nWorst case\n2007\n2008\n2009\n2010\n2011\n2012\nTurnover\n903,0\n[900-1 000]\n[900-1 000]\n[900-1 000]\n[900-1 000]\n[900-1 000]\nGross margin\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nOperating profit before non-recurrent items\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nOperating profit (EBIT)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nPre-tax profit\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nProfit or loss\n- [5-10]\n- [5-10]\n- [10-15]\n[0-5]\n[0-5]\n[5-10]\nFree cash flow\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nAccumulated free cash flow\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(144)\nThe withdrawal of several product families marketed under the Vedette brand will cause losses of turnover; the losses shown in the tables are based on the following hypotheses. The withdrawal may lead to:\na)\na reduction in sales in the particular family of products of the Vedette brand the marketing of which is being suspended;\nb)\na reduction in sales in the other families of products marketed under the Vedette brand (negative range effect on products of the Vedette brand) (57);\nc)\na reduction in sales of other brands (negative portfolio effect on all brands of the FagorBrandt group).\n(145)\nThe optimistic scenario takes account only of the effects mentioned at (a) and (b) in paragraph 144: the loss related to the cessation of the marketing of a product is taken to be equivalent to a loss of [70-90] % of the turnover from the ceased product line (the remaining [10-30] % being recovered by FagorBrandt via the increase in sales of identical products sold under brands other than Vedette) and the loss of turnover from the other products marketed under the Vedette brand is taken to be [20-30] %. The pessimistic scenario takes account of the factor mentioned at (c) in paragraph 144: it presupposes a loss rate of [110-130] % for the ceased product line (as well as the loss of 100 % of turnover in the product line that has been dropped, there may be losses on other products and brands too), and a loss rate of [20-40] % for the other products sold under the Vedette brand. The French authorities explain that such a pessimistic hypothesis corresponds to the company\u2019s actual experience: it decided in 2003 to abandon the marketing of microwave ovens under the Vedette brand in France in order to concentrate on the Brandt brand, which had its own specific sales force. This had a highly negative knock-on effect, as not only was the entire turnover achieved under the Vedette brand lost, but the loss also affected the Brandt brand (total loss on these two brands of [\u2026] appliances over two years compared with initial sales of [\u2026] units, including [\u2026] under the Vedette brand, being equivalent to a loss of [120-140] % of the abandoned volumes (58).\n(146)\nOn the basis of the analysis of the data in the two tables above and of the other data provided by the French authorities, the Commission would observe that the compensatory measures adopted will weaken the company, as they will lead to a worsening of its profits starting in 2009, the year of their implementation. However, the company will once more achieve a net positive result in 2010, increasing in subsequent years. The Commission considers therefore that, despite weakening the company, the compensatory measures will not prevent a restoration of viability.\n(147)\nThis conclusion is not called into question by the Commission\u2019s imposition of an additional compensatory measure, namely a three-year extension of the ban on marketing products under the Vedette brand.\n(148)\nThe impact of the additional compensatory measure on the company\u2019s final profits is shown in Table 3: it will be seen that profits remain positive over the years 2014 to 2016, growing by an estimated [1,5-3] % a year. The conclusion with regard to the compensatory measure imposed by the Commission is therefore the same: it will weaken the company, but it will not prevent it from returning to viability.\n6.7. Aid limited to the minimum: real contribution, free of aid\n(149)\nIn order for aid to be authorised, the amount and intensity of the aid must, pursuant to points 43 to 45 of the restructuring aid guidelines, be limited to the strict minimum necessary to enable restructuring to be undertaken in the light of the existing financial resources of the company, its shareholders or the business group to which it belongs. Aid recipients must make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources, including the sale of assets that are not essential to the firm\u2019s survival, or from external financing on market conditions.\n(150)\nAs indicated in paragraph 43 of the opening decision, the restructuring costs, as described in the French authorities\u2019 notification, come to EUR 62,5 million. The company expects to contribute EUR 31,5 million, and to receive aid amounting to EUR 31 million.\nEUR million\n%\nRestructuring costs\n62,5\n100 %\nFinanced by:\nAid recipient\u2019s own share\n4,6\n7,4 %\nShareholder contribution\n26,9\n43 %\nState aid\n31\n49,6 %\n(151)\nIn paragraph 44 of the opening decision, the Commission raised two points regarding these data. Firstly, it asked the French authorities to explain why they had not included the repayment of the Article 44 septies aid in the restructuring costs. Secondly, it asked for an explanation as to the nature of the recipient\u2019s own share.\n(152)\nThe French authorities answered the second point by stating that the recipient\u2019s own share consisted of bank loans raised by FagorBrandt on the market. Specifically, the company had contracted bank loans amounting to EUR [20-40] million in 2006, increased to EUR [20-40] million in 2007 (59). The bank loans had been secured by [\u2026]. The Commission considers that this amounts to \u2018external financing at market conditions\u2019 as referred to in point 43 of the restructuring aid guidelines and hence constitutes a valid contribution.\n(153)\nIn reply to the Commission\u2019s first point, the French authorities stated that the reimbursement of incompatible aid could not, on the face of it, be classed as a restructuring cost (or as a contribution by the recipient firm within the meaning of points 43 and 44 of the restructuring aid guidelines). It was for that reason that they had not counted the Article 44 septies aid among the restructuring costs. However, the reimbursement - estimated at approximately EUR [25-30] million (including interest) - was, of course, included in the business plan attached to the notification just like any other normal financial expenditure. The Commission considers it essential that the reimbursement be allowed for in the business plan, as is the case here (60).\n(154)\nBut the fact remains that on 21 October 2008 the Italian aid that had been received by Brandt Italia amounted to EUR 3 190 878,02, to which interest must be added. It cannot be ruled out, therefore, that the contribution envisaged by the firm may incorporate the sum in question. The recipient\u2019s own contribution would then fall below the 50 % threshold required by point 44 of the restructuring aid guidelines.\n(155)\nIn order to be sure that the recipient\u2019s own contribution is indeed free of aid and amounts to at least 50 % of the cost of restructuring, the Commission will make it a condition of this positive decision that the company\u2019s own contribution be increased by the amount of the Italian aid, namely EUR 3 190 878,02, to which must be added interest running to 21 October 2008.\n(156)\nSpecifically, the contribution to the cost of restructuring proposed by FagorBrandt must be increased by this amount (by borrowing, by a contribution from the shareholders or otherwise) before the end of the restructuring period, which has been set at 31 December 2012. The French authorities must produce evidence of this increase within two months after 31 December 2012.\n(157)\nTurning to the assertion made by the competitor requesting anonymity that the aid is not limited to the minimum, the Commission confirms that, as well as ascertaining that the formal requirement of a contribution of at least 50 % has been met, it has also examined whether the aid is limited to the strict minimum in the light in particular of the tests in point 45 of the restructuring aid guidelines. The Commission considers that that is indeed the case, and that the amount of the aid does not provide the company with \u2018surplus cash which could be used for aggressive, market-distorting activities not linked to the restructuring process.\u2019\n(158)\nThe Commission would observe in particular that after the aid has been granted, at the end of the restructuring period, the group will still be heavily indebted, with a debt-equity ratio still above 1. FagorBrandt will therefore have to use the cash generated to reduce its level of indebtedness.\n6.8. \u2018One time, last time\u2019 principle\n(159)\nPoints 72 ff. of the restructuring aid guidelines state that restructuring aid is to be granted only once in any period of ten years.\n(160)\nIn this case the Italian and French aid that FagorBrandt received earlier cannot be described as aid for rescue and restructuring. When that aid was granted, in 2002 and 2003 respectively, FagorBrandt was not in difficulty, as has been shown in paragraphs 45 to 56.\n(161)\nThe \u2018one time, last time\u2019 principle laid down in the restructuring aid guidelines has consequently been complied with.\n6.9. Full implementation of the plan\n(162)\nFagorBrandt\u2019s restructuring plan, including all of France\u2019s commitments, must be implemented in full (61). The Commission asks to be kept informed of progress with the implementation of the plan and of the related commitments.\n7. CONCLUSION\n(163)\nThe aid may be declared compatible with the internal market provided all the conditions imposed are met,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe aid amounting to EUR 31 million which France plans to grant to FagorBrandt is compatible with the internal market subject to the conditions laid down in Article 2.\nArticle 2\n1. The French authorities shall suspend payment to FagorBrandt of the aid referred to in Article 1 of this Decision until such time as the recovery from FagorBrandt of the incompatible aid referred to in Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 (62) has become effective.\n2. FagorBrandt\u2019s restructuring plan, as communicated to the Commission by France on 6 August 2007, must be implemented in full.\n3. FagorBrandt\u2019s own contribution to the cost of restructuring, which FagorBrandt proposes should be EUR 31,5 million, must be increased by EUR 3 190 878,02 plus the interest on that sum running from the date on which the Italian aid was put at FagorBrandt\u2019s disposal until 21 October 2008. The increase must take place before the end of the period of restructuring of the undertaking, which has been set at 31 December 2012. The French authorities must produce evidence of this increase within two months after 31 December 2012.\n4. FagorBrandt shall cease marketing refrigeration, cooking and dishwashing products of the Vedette brand for a period of eight years.\n5. In order to ensure that the conditions laid down in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article are observed, France shall inform the Commission, by means of annual reports, of progress with the restructuring of FagorBrandt, the recovery of the incompatible aid described in paragraph 1, the payment of the compatible aid, and the implementation of the compensatory measures.\nArticle 3\nFrance shall inform the Commission within two months of the date of notification of this Decision of the measures it has taken to comply with it.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2012.", "references": ["60", "13", "1", "93", "37", "64", "71", "56", "31", "65", "34", "40", "41", "54", "24", "5", "89", "69", "32", "67", "38", "46", "43", "70", "25", "68", "47", "45", "11", "19", "No Label", "8", "15", "44", "48", "86", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "44", "48", "86", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 21 May 2012\namending Decision 2002/840/EC adopting the list of approved facilities in third countries for the irradiation of foods\n(notified under document C(2012) 3179)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/277/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 1999/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 February 1999 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Directive 1999/2/EC, a foodstuff treated with ionising radiation may not be imported from a third country unless it has been treated in an irradiation facility approved by the European Union.\n(2)\nA list of approved facilities in third countries has been established by Commission Decision 2002/840/EC (2).\n(3)\nThe Thai authorities have informed the Commission that the name of one of the approved irradiation facilities located in Thailand has changed.\n(4)\nDecision 2002/840/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2002/840/EC is amended in accordance with the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2012.", "references": ["29", "55", "89", "61", "57", "16", "11", "20", "92", "64", "9", "10", "34", "3", "7", "0", "37", "85", "93", "69", "26", "66", "56", "86", "75", "47", "71", "58", "90", "54", "No Label", "22", "38", "43", "72", "74", "77", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "38", "43", "72", "74", "77", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 615/2011\nof 23 June 2011\nfixing the export refunds on poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2) and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in poultrymeat, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely in the Union and bear the identification mark provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products should also comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 266/2011 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements under Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the identification marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 266/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 June 2011.", "references": ["93", "7", "0", "68", "19", "5", "41", "55", "27", "48", "12", "11", "88", "56", "96", "24", "92", "46", "21", "65", "87", "84", "44", "76", "82", "31", "2", "89", "79", "91", "No Label", "20", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 January 2011\nadopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region\n(notified under document C(2010) 9667)\n(2011/84/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Boreal biogeographical region referred to in Article 1(c)(iii) of Directive 92/43/EEC comprises parts of the territories of Finland and Sweden and the territories of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as specified in the biogeographical map approved on 25 April 2005 by the Committee set up by Article 20 of that Directive, hereinafter the Habitats Committee.\n(2)\nIt is necessary in the context of a process which was initiated in 1995 to make further progress in the actual establishment of the Natura 2000 network, which is an essential element of the protection of biodiversity in the Union.\n(3)\nThe initial list and the first three updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region, within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC, were adopted by Commission Decisions 2005/101/EC (2), 2008/24/EC (3), 2009/94/EC (4) and 2010/46/EU (5). On the basis of Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Member State concerned shall designate the sites included in the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region as special areas of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most, establishing conservation priorities and the necessary conservation measures.\n(4)\nIn the context of a dynamic adaptation of the Natura 2000 network, the lists of sites of Community importance are reviewed. A fourth update of the Boreal list is therefore necessary.\n(5)\nOn the one hand, the fourth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region is necessary in order to include additional sites that have been proposed since 2008 by the Member States as sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC. The obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC are applicable as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region.\n(6)\nOn the other hand, the fourth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region is necessary in order to reflect any changes in site related information submitted by the Member States following the adoption of the initial and the first three updated Community lists. In that sense, the fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region constitutes a consolidated version of the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region. However, it should be stressed that the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC are applicable as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the initial or the first three updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region, depending on which list a site of Community importance was included as such for the first time.\n(7)\nFor the Boreal biogeographical region, lists of sites proposed as sites of Community importance within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC have been transmitted to the Commission between January 2003 and November 2009 by the Member States concerned in accordance with Article 4(1) of that Directive.\n(8)\nThe lists of proposed sites were accompanied by information on each site, supplied in the format established by Commission Decision 97/266/EC of 18 December 1996 concerning a site information format for proposed Natura 2000 sites (6).\n(9)\nThat information includes the most recent and definitive map of the site transmitted by the Member States concerned, name, location and extent of the site, and the data yielded by application of the criteria specified in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(10)\nOn the basis of the draft list drawn up by the Commission in agreement with each of the Member States concerned, which also identifies sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, a fourth updated list of sites selected as sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region should be adopted.\n(11)\nKnowledge of the existence and distribution of the natural habitat types and species is constantly evolving, as a result of the surveillance in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, the evaluation and selection of sites at Community level was done using the best available information at present\n(12)\nCertain Member States have not proposed sufficient sites to meet the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC for certain habitat types and species. For those habitat types and species it can therefore not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is complete. Taking into account the delay in receiving the information and reaching agreement with the Member States, it is necessary to adopt a fourth updated list of sites, which will need to be revised in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(13)\nGiven that knowledge on the existence and distribution of some of the natural habitat types of Annex I and species of Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC remains incomplete, it should not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is either complete or incomplete. The list should be revised, if necessary, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(14)\nIn the interests of clarity and transparency Decision 2010/46/EU should be repealed.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Habitats Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2010/46/EU is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 January 2011.", "references": ["62", "16", "52", "27", "59", "28", "15", "34", "73", "82", "18", "51", "8", "12", "22", "57", "80", "3", "76", "37", "17", "50", "25", "66", "40", "21", "94", "98", "47", "49", "No Label", "39", "58", "91"], "gold": ["39", "58", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 681/2011\nof 14 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 July 2011.", "references": ["33", "17", "27", "46", "11", "90", "75", "91", "2", "81", "57", "80", "48", "34", "43", "93", "95", "3", "71", "82", "28", "4", "7", "44", "77", "79", "5", "51", "30", "26", "No Label", "22", "35", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 1 December 2011\non the approval of the volume of coin issuance in 2012\n(ECB/2011/21)\n(2011/816/EU)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 128(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Central Bank (ECB) has the exclusive right from 1 January 1999 to approve the volume of coins issued by the Member States whose currency is the euro.\n(2)\nThe Member States whose currency is the euro have submitted to the ECB for approval their estimates of the volume of euro coins to be issued in 2012, supplemented by explanatory notes on the forecasting methodology,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of the volume of euro coins to be issued in 2012\nThe ECB hereby approves the volume of euro coins to be issued by the Member States whose currency is the euro in 2012 as described in the following table:\n(EUR million)\nIssuance of coins intended for circulation and issuance of collector coins\n(not intended for circulation) in 2012\nBelgium\n196,0\nGermany\n668,0\nEstonia\n12,7\nIreland\n31,2\nGreece\n25,4\nSpain\n250,0\nFrance\n310,0\nItaly\n128,4\nCyprus\n13,1\nLuxembourg\n35,0\nMalta\n10,5\nNetherlands\n63,8\nAustria\n264,0\nPortugal\n28,5\nSlovenia\n26,0\nSlovakia\n32,2\nFinland\n60,0\nArticle 2\nFinal provision\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States whose currency is the euro.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 1 December 2011.", "references": ["79", "6", "4", "64", "58", "41", "31", "21", "34", "8", "43", "9", "85", "46", "62", "80", "86", "51", "5", "1", "60", "54", "53", "22", "96", "32", "56", "87", "30", "67", "No Label", "27", "28"], "gold": ["27", "28"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 397/2010\nof 7 May 2010\nfixing the quantitative limit for exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2010/2011 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 61, first paragraph, point (d), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the sugar or isoglucose produced in excess of the quota referred to in Article 56 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed.\n(2)\nDetailed implementing rules for out-of-quota exports, in particular concerning the issue of export licences are laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 (2). However, the quantitative limit should be fixed per marketing year in view of the possible opportunities on the export markets.\n(3)\nFor certain EU producers of sugar and isoglucose, exports from the Union represent an important part of their economic activities and they have established traditional markets outside the Union. Exports of sugar and isoglucose to those markets could be economically viable also without granting export refunds. To that end it is necessary to fix a quantitative limit for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose exports so that the EU producers concerned may continue to supply their traditional markets.\n(4)\nFor the 2010/2011 marketing year it is estimated that fixing the quantitative limit initially at 650 000 tonnes, in white sugar equivalent, for out-of-quota sugar exports and 50 000 tonnes, in dry matter, for out-of-quota isoglucose would correspond to the market demand.\n(5)\nExports of sugar from the Union to certain close destinations and to third countries granting EU products a preferential import treatment are currently in a particular favorable competitive position. In view of the absence of appropriate instruments of mutual assistance to fight against irregularities and in order to minimize the risk of fraud and to prevent any abuse associated with the re-import or reintroduction into the Union of out-of-quota sugar certain close destinations should be excluded from the eligible destinations.\n(6)\nIn view of the estimated lower risks for eventual frauds regarding isoglucose due to the nature of the product it is not necessary to restrict the eligible destinations for the export of out-of-quota isoglucose.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFixing the quantitative limit for out-of-quota sugar exports\n1. For the 2010/2011 marketing year, running from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011, the quantitative limit referred to in Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be 650 000 tonnes for exports without refund of out-of-quota white sugar falling within CN code 1701 99.\n2. Exports within the quantitative limit fixed in paragraph 1 shall be allowed for all destinations excluding:\n(a)\nthird countries: Andorra, Liechtenstein, the Holy Seat (Vatican City State), San Marino, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia (3), Montenegro, Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;\n(b)\nterritories of Member States not forming part of the customs territory of the Community: the Faeroe Islands, Greenland, Heligoland, Ceuta, Melilla, the communes of Livigno and Campione d\u2019Italia, and the areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control;\n(c)\nEuropean territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible, not forming part of the customs territory of the Community: Gibraltar.\nArticle 2\nFixing the quantitative limit for out-of-quota isoglucose exports\n1. For the 2010/2011 marketing year, running from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011, the quantitative limit referred to in Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be 50 000 tonnes, in dry matter, for exports without refund of out-of-quota isoglucose falling within CN codes 1702 40 10, 1702 60 10 and 1702 90 30.\n2. Exports of the products referred to in paragraph 1 shall only be allowed where they comply with the conditions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2010.\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2010.", "references": ["52", "5", "7", "50", "0", "67", "94", "95", "42", "86", "19", "79", "32", "85", "97", "60", "63", "40", "16", "70", "88", "13", "39", "12", "6", "31", "56", "89", "45", "68", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "25", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "25", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1074/2011\nof 24 October 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC R-625 as a feed additive for weaned piglets (holder of the authorisation Integro Gida SAN. ve TIC. A.S. represented by RM Associates Ltd)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC R-625. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex as a feed additive for weaned piglets, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 11 May 2011 (2) that Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC R-625, under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that this additive has the potential to improve the growth performance in weaned piglets. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC R-625 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018gut flora stabilisers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 October 2011.", "references": ["54", "2", "85", "23", "28", "20", "45", "47", "14", "82", "60", "33", "78", "86", "89", "17", "51", "11", "63", "32", "37", "84", "9", "41", "71", "73", "22", "29", "1", "94", "No Label", "25", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 September 2010\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates and releasing the amounts secured by way of the provisional duties imposed\n(2010/577/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Provisional measures\n(1)\nOn 3 September 2009, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (the countries concerned). On 1 June 2010, the Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 472/2010 (3) (the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran and the United Arab Emirates.\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 20 July 2009 by the Polyethylene Terephthalate Committee of Plastics Europe (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain polyethylene terephthalate.\n(3)\nAs set out in recital 11 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (\u2018the investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (period considered).\n(4)\nIn the parallel anti-subsidy proceeding, the Commission by Regulation (EU) No 473/2010 (4) imposed a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran and the United Arab Emirates.\n2. Subsequent procedure\n(5)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were also granted the opportunity to be heard.\n(6)\nThe Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties following the provisional disclosure were considered and, where appropriate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly.\n(7)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the termination of the proceeding and the release of amounts secured by way of provisional duties imposed (final disclosure). They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.\n(8)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and, where appropriate, the findings were modified accordingly.\n3. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(9)\nSome interested parties claimed that the sample of EU producers was not representative and inconsistent and that therefore the injury analysis was deficient. In particular, it was claimed that sampling was not necessary since the number of producers was not large. In addition, it was claimed that by \u2018artificially\u2019 splitting company groups into individual legal entities, the sample would not contain some of the market leaders (Artenius, M&G Polimeri) and that the methodology for the selection of the sample is inconsistent since the sample also included two groups of companies. It was also claimed that the sample was not representative since it did not contain any producer that is selling to a related PET processor in sufficient quantities. As a result, the institutions allegedly could not assess the real supply capability of the Union industry and did not take into account the Union industry\u2019s conflict of interest. Moreover, as one company did not provide all necessary information and was excluded from the sample, the representativity allegedly dropped to 28 % of EU production. The same parties claimed that the selected sample was not statistically valid.\n(10)\nWith regard to the argument that sampling was not necessary since the number of producers was not large, it is reiterated that in the sampling exercise 14 Union producers belonging to eight groups of companies came forward. Given the objectively high number of EU producers that cooperated, i.e. 14, sampling was applied in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the largest representative volume of sales that could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sample selected consisted of five individual companies (with six producing locations).\n(11)\nWith regard to the first claim concerning the representativity of the sample, it should be noted that the institutions can include individual companies which are part of a company group within the sample as long as they are representative and have separate financial accounts. Otherwise, investigating all 14 EU producers belonging to the eight groups of companies would have prevented the timely completion of the investigation. However, the fact that two company groups have been included in the sample is not inconsistent with the sampling methodology applied in this case, i.e. the largest representative volumes of sales to EU clients.\n(12)\nAs regards Indorama, this group had two different production plants in the IP - one in the Netherlands and the other one in UK. Including this group in the sample is in line with the sampling methodology applied since those plants formed one entity from the legal and financial perspective. As regards Equipolymers, which had two separate entities producing PET in the IP (one in Italy and another one in Germany), the company reported consolidated figures for both locations. Given that the verification of these consolidated figures was possible during one visit at the company\u2019s headquarters, it was decided to accept this consolidated reporting and to treat Equipolymers PET producing companies as one entity for the purpose of this proceeding. With regard to the claim that Artenius and M&G Polimeri had to be included in the sample because they were the market leaders, it is noted that none of their individual entities belonged to the companies with the highest volumes of sales to EU clients.\n(13)\nAs regards the claim that the sample was not representative because it did not include one producer who produces mainly for internal consumption, it should be noted that the capability to supply can be examined in the framework of the Union interest analysis if such a claim is made and for that purpose the captive consumption can be deducted from the production volume. Thus, there is no need to have such a producer in the sample for the examination of certain injury factors. Secondly, any double interest resulting from the position of a company as EU producer and processor at the same time can also be assessed in the Union interest analysis. The position of a company as EU producer and processor is not linked with the performance of the Union industry where sales to unrelated customers in the EU are taken as a benchmark. The claim is thus rejected.\n(14)\nWith regard to the claim concerning the overall representativity of the sample, it is reiterated that the reduction of the sample to four companies lowered the representativity from 65 % to 47 % of the sales by all cooperating producers. The same four companies accounted for 52 % of the Union production. This is considered to be a representative sample of the EU producers in terms of sales to independent customers in the EU.\n(15)\nAs regards the claim that the sample selected was not statistically valid, it is noted that Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation clearly allows for a sample to be based on the largest representative volume of the sales that can reasonably be investigated in the time available, as an alternative for a \u2018statistically valid\u2019 sample.\n(16)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the findings, recitals 3 to 10 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(17)\nIt is recalled that, in recital 12 of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned was defined as polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, originating in the countries concerned and currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20.\n(18)\nMoreover, in recital 14 of the provisional Regulation, it was stated that the investigation showed that PET produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry, and the PET produced and sold on the domestic markets of the countries concerned, and exported to the Union were like products.\n(19)\nSince the product under investigation was considered a homogeneous product, it was not further subdivided into different product types for calculating the dumping and the injury margins.\n(20)\nOne exporting producer claimed that PET should be subdivided into different product types according to their different viscosity numbers since the viscosity number is essential to determine the different applications for the PET types produced. It was considered that the claim should be accepted and the methodology for calculating the dumping and injury margins was adapted accordingly.\nC. DUMPING\n(21)\nAs explained in recital 20, the methodology for the calculation of the dumping margin was adapted and the dumping margin for each country concerned is now calculated for each product type separately.\n1. Iran\n1.1. Normal value\n(22)\nIn the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recitals 16 to 18 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.\n1.2. Export price\n(23)\nIn the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recital 19 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.\n1.3. Comparison\n(24)\nIn recital 23 of the provisional Regulation it was stated that the Iranian exporter was not able to quantify the alleged impact of the sanctions against Iran in a way that could be supported by any evidence. In its comments to the provisional Regulation, the company claimed that it would be upon the investigating authority to ensure a fair comparison, not the exporter. However, in accordance with Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation, an adjustment may be made for differences in other factors if it is demonstrated that they affect the price comparability, in particular that customers consistently pay different prices on the domestic market because of the differences in such factors. As it is for the exporting producer to demonstrate the existence of any other factor, the claim is rejected and the methodology explained in recitals 20 to 23 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.\n1.4. Dumping margin\n(25)\nIn the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recitals 24 to 25 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.\n(26)\nThe definitive dumping margin for Iran, expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 26,8 %.\n2. Pakistan\n2.1. Normal value\n(27)\nIn the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recitals 27 to 29 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.\n2.2. Export price\n(28)\nIn the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recital 30 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.\n2.3. Comparison\n(29)\nIn the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recitals 31 to 32 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.\n2.4. Dumping margin\n(30)\nIn the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recital 33 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.\n(31)\nThe definitive dumping margin for the sole Pakistani exporting producer, Novatex Limited, expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 0,6 %, i.e. below de minimis in the sense of Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(32)\nSince there are no other producers of the product concerned in Pakistan, no definitive measures should be imposed.\n3. United Arab Emirates\n3.1. Normal value\n(33)\nFollowing the change in methodology explained in recitals 20 and 21, the results of the ordinary course of trade test as described in recitals 37 and 38 of the provisional Regulation changed with regard to some product types. Thus, where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of that type only.\n(34)\nWhere there were no profitable sales of a certain product type, it was considered that this product type was sold in insufficient quantities for the domestic price to provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of the normal value.\n(35)\nWherever domestic prices of a particular product type sold by the exporting producers could not be used in order to establish normal value, the normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(36)\nWhen constructing normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits have been based, pursuant to Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, on the actual data pertaining to the production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer under investigation.\n3.2. Export price\n(37)\nIn the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recital 39 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.\n3.3. Comparison\n(38)\nIn the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recitals 40 to 41 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.\n3.4. Dumping margin\n(39)\nIn the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recital 42 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.\n(40)\nThe definitive dumping margin for the sole UAE exporting producer, JBF RAK LLC, expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 0,6 %, i.e. below de minimis in the sense of Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(41)\nSince there are no other producers of the product concerned in the UAE, no definitive measures should be imposed.\nD. INJURY\n1. Union production, Union industry and Union consumption\n(42)\nNo comments have been received with regard to Union production, Union industry and Union consumption. Consequently, the recitals 45 to 50 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Imports from the countries concerned\n2.1. Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned\n(43)\nIt is reiterated that in recital 52 of the provisional Regulation, it was considered that as the dumping margin found for Pakistan was de minimis, the effect of those imports could not be assessed together with imports provisionally found to be dumped from Iran and the UAE.\n(44)\nGiven that the further investigation showed that the dumping margin for the UAE is also de minimis, it is considered that the effect of those imports cannot be assessed together with dumped imports from Iran. Consequently, no cumulative assessment of the imports is made.\n2.2. Volume of the imports concerned\n(45)\nThe volume of dumped imports of the product concerned into the EU started from a relatively low level in 2006, but increased gradually until the IP, reaching 55 500 tonnes in the IP. More specifically, imports from Iran more than doubled between 2006 and 2007, before further increasing by over 100 percentage points in 2008 compared to 2007 and almost another 130 percentage points between 2008 and the IP.\nTable 1\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolume of dumped imports from Iran (tonnes)\n11 752\n26 624\n40 101\n55 500\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n227\n341\n472\nMarket share of dumped imports from Iran\n0,4 %\n0,9 %\n1,4 %\n1,9 %\nSource: Eurostat.\n2.3. Market share of the imports concerned\n(46)\nThe market share held by dumped imports from Iran stood at 0,4 % during 2006 and increased steadily by 1,5 percentage points throughout the period considered. More specifically, it rose by 0,5 percentage points between 2006 and 2007, by further 0,5 percentage points between 2007 and 2008 and by 0,5 percentage points between 2008 and the IP. In the IP, the market share of dumped imports from Iran was 1,9 %.\n2.4. Prices\n(i) Price evolution\n(47)\nThe average import price decreased by 11 % in the period considered with the sharpest decline between 2008 and the IP. More specifically, the average price remained stable in 2007 and decreased by 2 percentage points in 2008, before dropping by further 9 percentage points in the IP.\nTable 2\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nPrice of imports from the Iran (EUR/tonne)\n1 033\n1 034\n1 008\n920\nIndex\n100\n100\n98\n89\nSource: Eurostat.\n(ii) Price undercutting\n(48)\nFollowing the provisional disclosure, the Iranian exporter commented that its injury margin was overstated since the weighted average unit sales price established was understated, incorrectly calculating the amount of level of trade adjustment; however, no alternative quantification of the level of trade adjustment was proposed. Indeed, the basis for the level of trade used for the provisional calculation was a fixed amount per tonne that is a commission charged by the cooperating importing agent and represent around 1 % of the average cif price. No other information is available for such adjustment and the claim is thus rejected. The same party also claimed that the 2 % rate taken for post-importation costs appeared to be understated. It is reiterated in this regard that no importer cooperated in this investigation and it was not possible to verify the actual post-importation cost. Thus, in absence of any other information available, the rate used in previous proceedings was applied.\n(49)\nGiven the above, it is definitively confirmed that the dumped products originating in Iran sold in the Union undercut the prices of the Union industry by 3,2 %.\n3. Situation of the Union industry\n(50)\nSome interested parties claimed that injury did not exist as given the alleged wrong sample no results could be extrapolated for the total Union industry. As an example it was claimed that since one company (not in the sample) had indicated that it was using over 100 % of its capacity it would be a clear sign of no injury. It is noted that the information submitted is an extract of this company\u2019s submission to the stock exchange authorities and not verified. This information does not square with the information on the file. Moreover, and in any event, the capacity utilisation of one EU producer alone cannot alter the findings of injury concerning almost all other injury indicators for the sampled EU producers and the other EU producers.\n(51)\nIn the absence of any other claims or comments, recitals 63 to 82 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4. Conclusion on injury\n(52)\nIn the absence of any specific comments, the conclusion on injury laid down in recitals 83 to 85 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\nE. CAUSATION\n1. Effect of the dumped imports\n(53)\nThe increase in the volume of the dumped imports from Iran by almost five times between 2006 and the IP, and of its corresponding share of the Union market, i.e. by 1,5 percentage points, as well as the undercutting found (3,2 % during the IP) generally coincided with the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry. Therefore, it can be concluded that dumped imports from Iran had an impact on the injury found to the Union industry.\n(54)\nIt is important to stress that in the parallel anti-subsidy proceeding, the cumulated subsidised imports from Pakistan, the UAE and Iran were found to cause material injury to the Union industry.\n(55)\nOn the other hand, given the considerable volumes and the low prices of imports from Korea and Pakistan, it is also confirmed, as stated in recitals 94 and 96 of the provisional Regulation, that those imports contributed to a certain extent to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(56)\nAdditionally, in this proceeding, considerable imports from the UAE (around 150 000 t) were also undercutting the Union industry prices.\n(57)\nAt the same time, the market share of the Iranian imports was below 1 % in 2006 and in 2007 and in the IP it was only close to 2 %, corresponding to 55 000 t.\n(58)\nIt also has to be noted that the undercutting established for the Iranian producer was lower than in the case of non-dumped imports from the UAE.\n2. Conclusion on causation\n(59)\nIn conclusion, while the above analysis showed that dumped imports originating in Iran have had some negative impact on the situation of the Union industry, this impact, taken in isolation, did not exist to a degree that could be considered material as required by Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\nF. TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(60)\nThe investigation has shown that imports of the product concerned from Pakistan and from the UAE were not sold at dumped prices. Consequently the proceeding with regard to Pakistan and the UAE shall be terminated without the imposition of measures.\n(61)\nThe investigation has shown that imports of the product concerned from Iran were made at dumped prices and contributed to some extent to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(62)\nHowever, as indicated in recital 59, it was established that the negative impact of the Iranian imports on the situation of the Union industry did not exist to a degree that would enable it to be classified as material.\n(63)\nIn light of the above, considering the lack of material injury caused by the dumped imports originating in Iran, it is concluded that the proceeding should be terminated without the imposition of measures also with regard to Iran.\n(64)\nThe amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 472/2010 should be released,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISON:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 472/2010 is hereby repealed. The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 472/2010 on imports of polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in Iran and the United Arab Emirates shall be released.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 28 September 2010.", "references": ["1", "90", "5", "88", "20", "78", "50", "82", "8", "27", "40", "67", "3", "63", "86", "7", "99", "18", "26", "60", "35", "46", "64", "17", "10", "43", "24", "14", "36", "58", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/150/CFSP\nof 13 March 2012\namending Decision 2011/872/CFSP updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 December 2001, the Council adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (1).\n(2)\nOn 22 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/872/CFSP updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (2).\n(3)\nThe Council has determined that there are no longer grounds for keeping certain persons on the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply.\n(4)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be removed from the list of persons, groups and entities set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/872/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 13 March 2012.", "references": ["73", "74", "60", "96", "80", "62", "17", "64", "33", "78", "31", "58", "19", "76", "68", "43", "21", "47", "23", "12", "88", "89", "53", "91", "82", "87", "32", "54", "75", "85", "No Label", "1", "3"], "gold": ["1", "3"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1088/2011\nof 27 October 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of an enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MULC 49755) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MULC 49754) as a feed additive for weaned piglets (holder of authorisation Aveve NV)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MULC 49755) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MULC 49754). The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MULC 49755) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MULC 49754) as a feed additive for weaned piglets, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of that preparation was authorised for 10 years for chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1091/2009 (2).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for the authorisation of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MULC 49755) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MULC 49754) for weaned piglets. The European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 16 June 2011 (3) that, under the proposed conditions of use, the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MULC 49755) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MULC 49754) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that the use of that preparation can significantly increase the body weight gain and can improve feed to gain ratio in weaned piglets. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MULC 49755) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MULC 49754) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018digestibility enhancers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["80", "75", "79", "12", "68", "18", "72", "20", "42", "0", "91", "94", "98", "30", "35", "21", "67", "64", "57", "11", "89", "28", "60", "2", "81", "1", "31", "40", "51", "71", "No Label", "25", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 3 June 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and on provisional application of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Solomon Islands\n(2010/397/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union has negotiated with Solomon Islands a Fisheries Partnership Agreement providing Union vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which Solomon Islands has sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries.\n(2)\nAs a result of those negotiations, a new Fisheries Partnership Agreement was initialled on 26 September 2009.\n(3)\nThe Partnership Agreement between the European Community and Solomon Islands on fishing off Solomon Islands (1) is to be repealed and replaced by the new Fisheries Partnership Agreement.\n(4)\nThe new Fisheries Partnership Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Union.\n(5)\nIn order to guarantee the continuation of fishing activities by Union vessels, it is essential that the new Fisheries Partnership Agreement be applied as quickly as possible. Both parties have therefore initialled an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters providing for the provisional application of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement as from 9 October 2009 pending its entry into force.\n(6)\nIt is in the Union\u2019s interest to approve the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters on the provisional application of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Solomon Islands is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters on the provisional application of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Solomon Islands is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the said Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters on the provisional application of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["50", "73", "99", "56", "98", "11", "21", "52", "47", "72", "49", "25", "40", "24", "1", "20", "68", "64", "96", "35", "94", "18", "46", "90", "80", "42", "79", "13", "66", "2", "No Label", "3", "67", "95"], "gold": ["3", "67", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 92/2012\nof 2 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 February 2012.", "references": ["69", "41", "24", "48", "62", "59", "42", "23", "21", "55", "87", "56", "31", "95", "30", "4", "36", "74", "44", "51", "13", "25", "57", "73", "97", "2", "54", "66", "83", "5", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 2 February 2012\non the recognition of the Polski Rejestr Statk\u00f3w S.A. (Polish Register of Shipping) as a classification society for inland waterway vessels\n(notified under document C(2012) 431)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/66/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2006/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels and repealing Council Directive 82/714/EEC (1), and in particular Article 10(1), and Part II of Annex VII, thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee referred to in Article 7 of Council Directive 91/672/EEC of 16 December 1991 on the reciprocal recognition of national boat masters\u2019 certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter of 3 July 2008, Poland has submitted an application to the Commission for recognition of the Polski Rejestr Statk\u00f3w S.A. (hereinafter \u2018PRS\u2019) as a classification society within the meaning of the Directive. PRS has its headquarters in Poland.\n(2)\nWith the application Poland has submitted the information and documentation needed to verify that the criteria for recognition are met.\n(3)\nA hearing was organised in the joint meeting of experts from the Member States of the European Union and the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine (hereinafter \u2018CCNR\u2019) on technical requirements for inland waterway vessels in April 2009, where the Poland authority and PRS gave presentations.\n(4)\nThe secretariat of the CCNR has been consulted as referred to in Part II, paragraph 4, of Annex VII to Directive 2006/87/EC.\n(5)\nThe Commission has assessed the compliance of PRS with the criteria of Part I of Annex VII to Directive 2006/87/EC and has concluded that PRS meets them,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe classification society PRS shall be recognised pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 2006/87/EC.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member State(s) which have inland waterways as referred to in Article 1(1) of Directive 2006/87/EC and to the Polski Rejestr Statk\u00f3w (Polish Register of Shipping), al. gen. J. Hallera 126, 80-416 Gda\u0144sk, POLAND.\nDone at Brussels, 2 February 2012.", "references": ["2", "77", "92", "25", "19", "60", "39", "81", "73", "3", "87", "90", "21", "40", "33", "10", "4", "94", "31", "16", "88", "55", "98", "28", "45", "74", "1", "84", "83", "41", "No Label", "53", "56", "76", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["53", "56", "76", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1118/2011\nof 31 October 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Coppa di Parma (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Coppa di Parma\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["19", "82", "37", "92", "7", "77", "32", "86", "68", "81", "23", "65", "89", "48", "30", "78", "46", "3", "99", "88", "56", "42", "73", "9", "51", "54", "60", "71", "36", "74", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 922/2010\nof 13 October 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 908/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 October 2010.", "references": ["28", "98", "96", "5", "6", "19", "44", "46", "94", "97", "27", "83", "88", "76", "57", "14", "82", "0", "51", "30", "7", "85", "32", "25", "29", "60", "41", "87", "1", "77", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1099/2010\nof 26 November 2010\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 15(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (2) lays down rules concerning the increased level of official controls to be carried out on imports of feed and food of non-animal origin listed in Annex I thereto, at the points of entry into the territories referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\n(2)\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 provides that the list in Annex I thereto is to be reviewed on a regular basis, and at least quarterly, taking into account at least the sources of information referred to in that Article.\n(3)\nOccurrence and relevance of food incidents notified through the Rapid Alert System for Feed and Food (RASFF), findings of the various missions to third countries carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office, as well as the quarterly reports which the Member States have submitted to the Commission in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 indicate that there is a need to review the list in Annex I to that Regulation.\n(4)\nIn particular, Annex I thereto must be reviewed by decreasing the control frequency of those commodities for which the above information sources show an overall improvement of compliance with the relevant Union legislation and for which the current level of official control is no longer justified, and by increasing the control frequency of other commodities for which the same sources show a higher degree of non-compliance with the relevant Union legislation that warrants the increase of the level of official controls.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 669/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 November 2010.", "references": ["51", "26", "31", "74", "30", "32", "40", "64", "71", "55", "65", "89", "95", "34", "54", "18", "23", "81", "25", "9", "2", "12", "93", "39", "10", "56", "15", "50", "36", "42", "No Label", "7", "8", "24", "38", "58", "66", "72"], "gold": ["7", "8", "24", "38", "58", "66", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 476/2011\nof 17 May 2011\namending Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 as regards catch limits for the fisheries on sandeel in EU waters of ICES zones IIa, IIIa and IV\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (1), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCatch limits for sandeel in EU waters of ICES zones IIa, IIIa and IV are laid down in Annex IA of Regulation (EU) 57/2011.\n(2)\nPursuant to point 4 of Annex IID to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011, the Commission is to revise the total allowable catches (TAC) and quotas for 2011 for sandeel in those zones based on advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).\n(3)\nICES delivered its advice on 21 February 2011 for each of the seven management areas defined in Annex IID of Regulation 57/2011. The ICES advice was reviewed by the STECF, which delivered its conclusions to the Commission on 24 February 2011. In accordance with that advice, the catch limit for management area 1 should be increased to 320 000 tonnes and the catch limit for management area 2 decreased to 34 000 tonnes. The STECF also considered it appropriate to establish catch limits of 10 000 tonnes and 420 tonnes respectively in management areas 4 and 6\n(4)\nThe STECF considered that the catch limits for management areas 3 and 7 should be zero. However in supplementary advice delivered on 17 March 2011, the STECF considered that a catch limit of 10 000 tonnes could be allowed in management area 3 in order to conduct a monitoring fishery in that area.\n(5)\nAnnex IA to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IA to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 May 2011.", "references": ["44", "72", "41", "90", "3", "6", "96", "85", "63", "33", "50", "61", "83", "52", "60", "82", "51", "21", "65", "78", "45", "59", "11", "49", "0", "1", "10", "19", "18", "93", "No Label", "13", "15", "58", "67"], "gold": ["13", "15", "58", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 257/2012\nof 22 March 2012\nfixing the export refunds on beef and veal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XV of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in beef and veal, export refunds should therefore be set in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167, 168 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007 of 21 November 2007 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals (5) provides for a reduction of the special refund if the quantity of cuts of boned meat to be exported amounts to less than 95 %, but not less than 85 %, of the total weight of cuts produced by boning.\n(6)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1318/2011 (6). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(7)\nIn order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004, and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nIn the case referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007, the rate of the refund on products falling within product code 0201 30 00 9100 shall be reduced by EUR 3,5/100 kg.\nArticle 3\nRegulation (EU) No 1318/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 March 2012.", "references": ["37", "68", "29", "14", "18", "56", "64", "40", "82", "81", "59", "38", "17", "61", "96", "2", "58", "36", "73", "74", "19", "35", "57", "24", "93", "78", "28", "50", "70", "8", "No Label", "20", "22", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1284/2011\nof 5 December 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for other species in Norwegian waters of IV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular, it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 December 2011.", "references": ["75", "66", "24", "1", "54", "32", "71", "37", "76", "18", "82", "47", "2", "22", "26", "58", "65", "63", "20", "77", "40", "89", "28", "52", "21", "72", "46", "44", "74", "95", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 566/2010\nof 29 June 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt is in the interest of the Union to suspend totally the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on a number of new products not listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 (1).\n(2)\nThe CN and TARIC codes 1518009910, 3907202091, 7410110010, 7410210060 and 9031908530 for four products which are currently listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 should be deleted because it is no longer in the interest of the Union to maintain the suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for those products.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to modify the description of twelve suspensions in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 in order to take account of technical product developments and economic trends on the market. Those suspensions should be deleted from the list in that Annex and reinserted as new suspensions using new descriptions. In the interest of clarity, those suspensions should be marked with an asterisk in the first column of Annex I and of Annex II to this Regulation.\n(4)\nExperience has shown that is is necessary to provide for an expiry date to the suspensions listed in Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 to ensure that account is taken of technological and economic changes. This should not exclude the premature termination of certain measures or their continuation beyond that period, if justified by economic reasons, in accordance with the principles laid down in the Commission communication of 1998 concerning autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas (2).\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1255/96 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nSince the suspensions laid down in this Regulation should take effect from 1 July 2010, this Regulation should apply from the same date and enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nthe rows for the products listed in Annex I to this Regulation are inserted;\n2.\nthe rows for the products for which the CN and TARIC codes are set out in Annex II to this Regulation are deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 29 June 2010.", "references": ["56", "17", "61", "47", "8", "31", "98", "55", "73", "49", "67", "6", "84", "62", "0", "85", "7", "36", "95", "64", "24", "29", "92", "41", "97", "37", "87", "80", "77", "34", "No Label", "10", "21", "66", "75", "82"], "gold": ["10", "21", "66", "75", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 718/2010\nof 10 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2010.", "references": ["6", "84", "88", "90", "65", "97", "21", "16", "78", "33", "20", "3", "41", "79", "8", "72", "31", "63", "36", "12", "27", "96", "83", "99", "95", "34", "25", "43", "37", "64", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 707/2011\nof 20 July 2011\non setting the final amount of aid for dried fodder for the 2010/2011 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 90(c), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 88(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 sets the amount for aid to be paid to processors for dried fodder up to the maximum guaranteed quantity laid down in Article 89 of that Regulation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 33(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 382/2005 of 7 March 2005 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1786/2003 on the common organisation of the market in dried fodder (2), the Member States have notified the Commission of the quantities of dried fodder in respect of which entitlements to aid have been recognised for the 2010/2011 marketing year. These notifications indicate that the maximum guaranteed quantity for dried fodder has not been exceeded.\n(3)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 88(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the amount of the aid for dried fodder is EUR 33 per tonne.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe final amount of the aid for dried fodder for the 2010/2011 marketing year shall be EUR 33 per tonne.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["46", "2", "1", "94", "70", "26", "17", "13", "53", "56", "89", "44", "64", "36", "87", "14", "67", "43", "74", "27", "83", "82", "4", "60", "10", "11", "99", "92", "7", "23", "No Label", "15", "25", "61", "66", "73"], "gold": ["15", "25", "61", "66", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1173/2010\nof 6 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for tusk in EU and international waters of V, VI and VII by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 December 2010.", "references": ["63", "72", "8", "30", "11", "27", "38", "22", "87", "95", "44", "29", "34", "61", "10", "66", "49", "62", "0", "28", "77", "18", "24", "75", "68", "25", "51", "7", "79", "53", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 190/2011\nof 25 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 February 2011.", "references": ["7", "64", "21", "5", "55", "8", "95", "11", "82", "22", "39", "78", "23", "6", "37", "60", "88", "70", "40", "38", "65", "73", "16", "49", "93", "80", "34", "33", "25", "72", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1077/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 25 October 2011\nestablishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 74, Article 77(2)(a) and (b), Article 78(2)(e), Article 79(2)(c), Article 82(1)(d), Article 85(1), Article 87(2)(a) and Article 88(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) was established by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (2) and by Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (3). Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Decision 2007/533/JHA provide that the Commission is to be responsible, during a transitional period, for the operational management of Central SIS II. After that transitional period, a Management Authority is to be responsible for the operational management of Central SIS II and certain aspects of the communication infrastructure.\n(2)\nThe Visa Information System (VIS) was established by Council Decision 2004/512/EC of 8 June 2004 establishing the Visa Information System (VIS) (4). Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation) (5) provides that the Commission is to be responsible, during a transitional period, for the operational management of the VIS. After that transitional period, a Management Authority is to be responsible for the operational management of the Central VIS and of the national interfaces and for certain aspects of the communication infrastructure.\n(3)\nEurodac was established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of \u2018Eurodac\u2019 for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention (6). Council Regulation (EC) No 407/2002 (7) lays down necessary implementing rules.\n(4)\nIt is necessary to establish a Management Authority in order to ensure the operational management of SIS II, VIS and Eurodac and of certain aspects of the communication infrastructure after the transitional period, and potentially that of other large-scale information technology (IT) systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, subject to the adoption of separate legislative instruments.\n(5)\nWith a view to achieving synergies, it is necessary to provide for the operational management of those large-scale IT systems in a single entity, benefiting from economies of scale, creating critical mass and ensuring the highest possible utilisation rate of capital and human resources.\n(6)\nIn the joint statements accompanying the SIS II and VIS legislative instruments, the European Parliament and the Council invited the Commission to present, following an impact assessment, the necessary legislative proposals entrusting an agency with the long-term operational management of Central SIS II and of certain aspects of the communication infrastructure, and of the VIS.\n(7)\nSince the Management Authority should have legal, administrative and financial autonomy it should be established in the form of a regulatory agency (Agency) having legal personality. As was agreed, the seat of the Agency should be in Tallinn (Estonia). However, since the tasks relating to technical development and the preparation for the operational management of SIS II and VIS are carried out in Strasbourg (France) and a backup site for those IT systems has been installed in Sankt Johann im Pongau (Austria), this should continue to be the case. Those two sites should also be the locations, respectively, where the tasks relating to technical development and operational management of Eurodac should be carried out and where a backup site for Eurodac should be established. Those two sites should also be the locations, respectively, for the technical development and operational management of other large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, and, if so provided in the relevant legislative instrument, for a backup site capable of ensuring the operation of a large-scale IT system in the event of failure of that system.\n(8)\nConsequently, the tasks of the Management Authority set out in Regulations (EC) No 1987/2006 and (EC) No 767/2008 should be exercised by the Agency. Those tasks include further technical development.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Regulations (EC) No 2725/2000 and (EC) No 407/2002, a central Unit has been established within the Commission which is responsible for the operation of the central database of Eurodac and other tasks relating to it. In order to exploit synergies, the Agency should take over the Commission\u2019s tasks relating to the operational management of Eurodac including certain tasks relating to the communication infrastructure as from the date on which the Agency takes up its responsibilities.\n(10)\nThe core function of the Agency should be to fulfil the operational management tasks for SIS II, VIS and Eurodac and, if so decided, other large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice. The Agency should also be responsible for technical measures required by the tasks entrusted to it, which are not of a normative nature. Those responsibilities should be without prejudice to the normative tasks reserved to the Commission alone or to the Commission assisted by a Committee in the respective legislative instruments governing the systems operationally managed by the Agency.\n(11)\nIn addition, the Agency should perfom tasks relating to training on the technical use of SIS II, VIS and Eurodac and other large-scale IT systems which might be entrusted to it in the future.\n(12)\nFurthermore, the Agency could also be made responsible for the preparation, development and operational management of additional large-scale IT systems in application of Articles 67 to 89 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Agency should be entrusted with such tasks only by means of subsequent and separate legislative instruments, preceded by an impact assessment.\n(13)\nThe Agency should be responsible for monitoring research and for carrying out pilot schemes, in accordance with Article 49(6)(a) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (8), for large-scale IT systems in application of Articles 67 to 89 TFEU, at the specific and precise request of the Commission. When tasked with carrying out a pilot scheme, the Agency should pay particular attention to the European Union Information Management Strategy.\n(14)\nEntrusting the Agency with the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice should not affect the specific rules applicable to those systems. In particular, the specific rules governing the purpose, access rights, security measures and further data protection requirements for each large-scale IT system the operational management of which the Agency is entrusted with, are fully applicable.\n(15)\nThe Member States and the Commission should be represented on a Management Board, in order to control the functions of the Agency effectively. The Management Board should be entrusted with the necessary functions, in particular to adopt the annual work programme, carry out its functions relating to the Agency\u2019s budget, adopt the financial rules applicable to the Agency, appoint an Executive Director and establish procedures for taking decisions relating to the operational tasks of the Agency by the Executive Director.\n(16)\nAs regards SIS II, the European Police Office (Europol) and the European Judicial Cooperation Unit (Eurojust), both having the right to access and search directly data entered into SIS II in application of Decision 2007/533/JHA, should have observer status at the meetings of the Management Board when a question in relation to the application of Decision 2007/533/JHA is on the agenda. Europol and Eurojust should each be able to appoint a representative to the SIS II Advisory Group established under this Regulation.\n(17)\nAs regards VIS, Europol should have observer status at the meetings of the Management Board, when a question in relation to the application of Council Decision 2008/633/JHA of 23 June 2008 concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences (9) is on the agenda. Europol should be able to appoint a representative to the VIS Advisory Group established under this Regulation.\n(18)\nMember States should have voting rights on the Management Board of the Agency concerning a large-scale IT system, if they are bound under Union law by any legislative instrument governing the development, establishment, operation and use of that particular system. Denmark should also have voting rights concerning a large-scale IT system, if it decides under Article 4 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the TFEU, (Protocol on the position of Denmark) to implement the legislative instrument governing the development, establishment, operation and use of that particular system in its national law.\n(19)\nMember States should appoint a Member to the Advisory Group concerning a large-scale IT system, if they are bound under Union law by any legislative instrument governing the development, establishment, operation and use of that particular system. Denmark should, in addition, appoint a Member to the Advisory Group concerning a large-scale IT system, if it decides under Article 4 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark to implement the legislative instrument governing the development, establishment, operation and use of that particular system in its national law.\n(20)\nIn order to guarantee its full autonomy and independence, the Agency should be granted an autonomous budget with revenue from the general budget of the European Union. The financing of the Agency should be subject to an agreement by the budgetary authority as set out in point 47 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (10). The Union budgetary and discharge procedures should be applicable. The auditing of accounts and of the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions should be undertaken by the Court of Auditors.\n(21)\nWithin the framework of their respective competences, the Agency should cooperate with other agencies of the Union, in particular those established in the area of freedom, security and justice, and, in particular, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. It should also consult and follow up the recommendations of the European Network and Information Security Agency regarding network security, where appropriate.\n(22)\nWhen ensuring the development and the operational management of large-scale IT systems, the Agency should follow European and international standards taking into account the highest professional requirements, in particular the European Union Information Management Strategy.\n(23)\nRegulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (11) should apply to the processing of personal data by the Agency. The European Data Protection Supervisor should be able to obtain from the Agency access to all information necessary for his or her enquiries. In accordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, the Commission consulted the European Data Protection Supervisor, who delivered his opinion on 7 December 2009.\n(24)\nIn order to ensure the transparent operation of the Agency, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (12) should apply to the Agency. The activities of the Agency should be subject to the scrutiny of the European Ombudsman in accordance with Article 228 TFEU.\n(25)\nRegulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (13) should apply to the Agency, which should accede to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities concerning internal investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (14).\n(26)\nThe Agency\u2019s host Member States should provide the best possible conditions to ensure the proper functioning of the Agency, for example including multilingual, European-oriented schooling and appropriate transport connections.\n(27)\nIn order to ensure open and transparent employment conditions and equal treatment of staff, the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (Staff Regulations of Officials) and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (Conditions of Employment), laid down in Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (15) (together referred to as the \u2018Staff Regulations\u2019), should apply to the staff and to the Executive Director of the Agency, including the rules of professional secrecy or other equivalent duties of confidentiality.\n(28)\nThe Agency is a body set up by the Union in the sense of Article 185(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 and should adopt its financial rules accordingly.\n(29)\nCommission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 (16) on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 should apply to the Agency.\n(30)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely the establishment of an Agency at Union level responsible for the operational management and where appropriate the development of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the 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 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.\n(31)\nThis Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in accordance with Article 6(1) TEU.\n(32)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the Position of Denmark, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Regulation, insofar as it relates to SIS II and VIS, builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of 6 months of the date of adoption of this Regulation whether it will implement it in its national law. In accordance with Article 3 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in Denmark or any other Member State of the European Union and \u2018Eurodac\u2019 for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention (17), Denmark is to notify the Commission whether it will implement the contents of this Regulation, insofar as it relates to Eurodac.\n(33)\nInsofar as its provisions relate to SIS II as governed by Decision 2007/533/JHA, the United Kingdom is taking part in this Regulation, in accordance with Article 5(1) of Protocol (No 19) on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU (Protocol on the Schengen acquis), and Article 8(2) of Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (18).\nInsofar as its provisions relate to SIS II as governed by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and to VIS, which constitute developments of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part in accordance with Decision 2000/365/EC, the United Kingdom requested, by letter of 5 October 2010 to the President of the Council, to be authorised to take part in the adoption of this Regulation, in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol on the Schengen acquis. By virtue of Article 1 of Council Decision 2010/779/EU of 14 December 2010 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the establishment of a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (19), the United Kingdom has been authorised to take part in this Regulation.\nFurthermore, insofar as its provisions relate to Eurodac, the United Kingdom has notified, by letter of 23 September 2009 to the President of the Council, its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation, in accordance with Article 3 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU (Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland). The United Kingdom therefore takes part in the adoption of this Regulation, is bound by it and subject to its application.\n(34)\nInsofar as its provisions relate to SIS II as governed by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and to VIS, this Regulation constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (20).\nIreland has not requested to take part in the adoption of this Regulation, in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol on the Schengen acquis. Ireland is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application to the extent that its measures develop provisions of the Schengen acquis as they relate to SIS II as governed by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and to VIS.\nInsofar as its provisions relate to Eurodac, in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Since it is not possible, under these circumstances, to ensure the applicability of this Regulation to Ireland in its entirety, as required by Article 288 TFEU, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application, without prejudice to its rights under the aforementioned Protocols.\n(35)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes, insofar as it relates to SIS II and VIS, a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (21) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points A, B and G of Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement (22). As regards Eurodac, this Regulation constitutes a new measure related to Eurodac within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway (23). Consequently, subject to their decision to implement it in their internal legal order, delegations of the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway should participate in the Management Board of the Agency. In order to determine further detailed rules, for example voting rights, allowing for the participation of the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway in the activities of the Agency, a further arrangement should be concluded between the Union and these States.\n(36)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes, insofar as it relates to SIS II and VIS, a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (24) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points A, B and G of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (25). As regards Eurodac, this Regulation constitutes a new measure related to Eurodac within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland (26). Consequently, subject to its decision to implement it in their internal legal order, the delegation of the Swiss Confederation should participate in the Management Board of the Agency. In order to determine further detailed rules, for example voting rights, allowing for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the activities of the Agency, a further arrangement should be concluded between the Union and the Swiss Confederation.\n(37)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes, insofar as it relates to SIS II and VIS, a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (27) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points A, B and G of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (28). As regards Eurodac, this Regulation constitutes a new measure related to Eurodac within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland (29). Consequently, the delegation of the Principality of Liechtenstein should participate in the Management Board of the Agency. In order to determine further detailed rules, for example voting rights, allowing for the participation of the Principality of Liechtenstein in the activities of the Agency, a further arrangement should be concluded between the Union and the Principality of Liechtenstein,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT MATTER\nArticle 1\nEstablishment of the Agency\n1. A European agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (the Agency) is hereby established.\n2. The Agency shall be responsible for the operational management of the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS) and Eurodac.\n3. The Agency may also be made responsible for the preparation, development and operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice other than those referred to in paragraph 2, only if so provided by relevant legislative instruments, based on Articles 67 to 89 TFEU, taking into account, where appropriate, the developments in research referred to in Article 8 of this Regulation and the results of pilot schemes referred to in Article 9 of this Regulation.\n4. Operational management shall consist of all the tasks necessary to keep large-scale IT systems functioning in accordance with the specific provisions applicable to each of them, including responsibility for the communication infrastructure used by them. Those large-scale IT systems shall not exchange data or enable sharing of information or knowledge, unless so provided in a specific legal basis.\nArticle 2\nObjectives\nWithout prejudice to the respective responsibilities of the Commission and of the Member States under the legislative instruments governing large-scale IT systems, the Agency shall ensure:\n(a)\neffective, secure and continuous operation of large-scale IT systems;\n(b)\nthe efficient and financially accountable management of large-scale IT systems;\n(c)\nan adequately high quality of service for users of large-scale IT systems;\n(d)\ncontinuity and uninterrupted service;\n(e)\na high level of data protection, in accordance with the applicable rules, including specific provisions for each large-scale IT system;\n(f)\nan appropriate level of data and physical security, in accordance with the applicable rules, including specific provisions for each large-scale IT system; and\n(g)\nthe use of an adequate project management structure for efficiently developing large-scale IT systems.\nCHAPTER II\nTASKS\nArticle 3\nTasks relating to SIS II\nIn relation to SIS II, the Agency shall perform:\n(a)\nthe tasks conferred on the Management Authority by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Decision 2007/533/JHA; and\n(b)\ntasks relating to training on the technical use of SIS II, in particular for SIRENE-staff (SIRENE - Supplementary Information Request at the National Entries) and training of experts on the technical aspects of SIS II in the framework of Schengen evaluation.\nArticle 4\nTasks relating to VIS\nIn relation to VIS, the Agency shall perform:\n(a)\nthe tasks conferred on the Management Authority by Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 and Decision 2008/633/JHA; and\n(b)\ntasks relating to training on the technical use of VIS.\nArticle 5\nTasks relating to Eurodac\nIn relation to Eurodac, the Agency shall perform:\n(a)\nthe tasks conferred on the Commission as the authority responsible for the operational management of Eurodac in accordance with Regulations (EC) No 2725/2000 and (EC) No 407/2002;\n(b)\ntasks relating to the communication infrastructure, namely: supervision, security and coordination of relations between the Member States and the provider; and\n(c)\ntasks relating to training on the technical use of Eurodac.\nArticle 6\nTasks relating to the preparation, development and operational management of other large-scale IT systems\nWhen entrusted with the preparation, development and operational management of other large-scale IT systems referred to in Article 1(3), the Agency shall perform tasks relating to training on the technical use of those systems, as appropriate.\nArticle 7\nTasks relating to the communication infrastructure\n1. The Agency shall carry out the tasks relating to the communication infrastructure conferred on the Management Authority by the legislative instruments governing the development, establishment, operation and use of large-scale IT systems referred to in Article 1(2).\n2. According to the legislative instruments referred to in paragraph 1, the tasks regarding the communication infrastructure (including the operational management and security) are divided between the Agency and the Commission. In order to ensure coherence between the exercise of their respective responsibilities, operational working arrangements shall be made between the Agency and the Commission and reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding.\n3. The communication infrastructure shall be adequately managed and controlled in order to protect it from threats, and to ensure its security and that of large-scale IT systems, including that of data exchanged through the communication infrastructure.\n4. Appropriate measures including security plans shall be adopted, inter alia, to prevent the unauthorised reading, copying, modification or deletion of personal data during transfers of personal data or transport of data media, in particular by means of appropriate encryption techniques. No system-related operational information shall circulate in the communication infrastructure without encryption.\n5. Tasks relating to the operational management of the communication infrastructure may be entrusted to external private-sector entities or bodies in accordance with Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002. In such a case, the network provider shall be bound by the security measures referred to in paragraph 4 and shall have no access to SIS II, VIS or Eurodac operational data, or to the SIS II-related SIRENE exchange, by any means.\n6. Without prejudice to the existing contracts on the network of SIS II, VIS and Eurodac, the management of the encryption keys shall remain within the competence of the Agency and shall not be outsourced to any external private-sector entity.\nArticle 8\nMonitoring of research\n1. The Agency shall monitor the developments in research relevant for the operational management of SIS II, VIS, Eurodac and other large-scale IT systems.\n2. The Agency shall on a regular basis keep the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, and, where data protection issues are concerned, the European Data Protection Supervisor, informed of the developments referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 9\nPilot schemes\n1. Only upon the specific and precise request of the Commission, which shall have informed the European Parliament and the Council at least 3 months in advance, and after a decision by the Management Board, the Agency may, in accordance with Article 12(1)(l), carry out pilot schemes as referred to in Article 49(6)(a) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, for the development or the operational management of large-scale IT systems, in the application of Articles 67 to 89 TFEU.\nThe Agency shall on a regular basis keep the European Parliament, the Council and, where data protection issues are concerned, the European Data Protection Supervisor, informed of the evolution of the pilot schemes referred to in the first subparagraph.\n2. Financial appropriations for pilot schemes as requested by the Commission shall be entered in the budget for no more than two successive financial years.\nCHAPTER III\nSTRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION\nArticle 10\nLegal status\n1. The Agency shall be a Union body and shall have legal personality.\n2. In each of the Member States, the Agency shall enjoy the most extensive legal capacity accorded to legal persons under national law. It may, in particular, acquire or dispose of movable and immovable property and may be a party to legal proceedings. It may also conclude agreements concerning the seat of the Agency and the sites set up in accordance with paragraph 4 with the Member States on whose territories the seat and the technical and backup sites are situated (host Member States).\n3. The Agency shall be represented by its Executive Director.\n4. The seat of the Agency shall be Tallinn, Estonia.\nThe tasks relating to development and operational management referred to in Article 1(3) and Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 shall be carried out in Strasbourg, France.\nA backup site capable of ensuring the operation of a large-scale IT system in the event of a failure of such a system shall be installed in Sankt Johann im Pongau, Austria, if a backup site is provided for in the legislative instrument governing its development, establishment, operation and use.\nArticle 11\nStructure\n1. The Agency\u2019s administrative and management structure shall comprise:\n(a)\na Management Board;\n(b)\nan Executive Director;\n(c)\nAdvisory Groups.\n2. The Agency\u2019s structure shall also include:\n(a)\na Data Protection Officer;\n(b)\na Security Officer;\n(c)\nan Accounting Officer.\nArticle 12\nFunctions of the Management Board\n1. In order to ensure that the Agency carry out its tasks, the Management Board shall:\n(a)\nappoint, and if appropriate dismiss, the Executive Director, in accordance with Article 18;\n(b)\nexercise disciplinary authority over the Executive Director and oversee his performance including the implementation of the Management Board\u2019s decisions;\n(c)\nestablish the Agency\u2019s organisational structure after consulting the Commission;\n(d)\nestablish the rules of procedure of the Agency after consulting the Commission;\n(e)\napprove, following a proposal by the Executive Director, the Headquarters Agreement concerning the seat of the Agency and Agreements concerning the technical and backup sites set up in accordance with Article 10(4) to be signed by the Executive Director with the host Member States;\n(f)\nin agreement with the Commission, adopt the necessary implementing measures referred to in Article 110 of the Staff Regulations of Officials;\n(g)\nadopt the necessary implementing measures on the secondment of national experts to the Agency;\n(h)\nadopt a multi-annual work programme based on the tasks referred to in Chapter II on the basis of a draft submitted by the Executive Director as referred to in Article 17, after consulting the Advisory Groups referred to in Article 19, and following receipt of the Commission\u2019s opinion. The multi-annual work programme shall, without prejudice to the annual budgetary procedure, include a multi-annual budget estimate and ex ante evaluations in order to structure the objectives and the different stages of the multi-annual planning;\n(i)\nadopt a multi-annual staff policy plan and a draft annual work programme and submit them by 31 March each year to the Commission and the budgetary authority;\n(j)\nby 30 September each year, and after receiving the opinion of the Commission, adopt by a two-thirds majority of its members with the right to vote, and in accordance with the annual budgetary procedure and the Union legislative programme in areas under Articles 67 to 89 TFEU, the Agency\u2019s annual work programme for the following year; and ensure that the adopted work programme is transmitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission and published;\n(k)\nby 31 March each year, adopt the Agency\u2019s annual activity report for the previous year comparing, in particular, the results achieved with the objectives of the annual work programme and transmit it by 15 June of the same year to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors; the annual activity report shall be published;\n(l)\ncarry out its functions relating to the Agency\u2019s budget, including the implementation of pilot schemes as referred to in Article 9, pursuant to Article 32, Article 33(6) and Article 34;\n(m)\nadopt the financial rules applicable to the Agency in accordance with Article 34;\n(n)\nappoint an Accounting Officer who shall be functionally independent in the performance of his duties;\n(o)\nensure adequate follow-up to the findings and recommendations stemming from the various internal or external audit reports and evaluations;\n(p)\nadopt the necessary security measures, including a security plan and a business continuity and disaster recovery plan, taking into account the possible recommendations of the security experts present in the Advisory Groups;\n(q)\nappoint a Security Officer;\n(r)\nappoint a Data Protection Officer in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001;\n(s)\nadopt, by 22 May 2012, the practical arrangements for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;\n(t)\nadopt the reports on the technical functioning of SIS II pursuant to Article 50(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Article 66(4) of Decision 2007/533/JHA respectively and of VIS pursuant to Article 50(3) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 and Article 17(3) of Decision 2008/633/JHA;\n(u)\nadopt the annual report on the activities of the Central Unit of Eurodac pursuant to Article 24(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000;\n(v)\nmake comments on the European Data Protection Supervisor\u2019s reports on the audits pursuant to Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 and ensure appropriate follow-up of the audits;\n(w)\npublish statistics related to SIS II pursuant to Article 50(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Article 66(3) of Decision 2007/533/JHA respectively;\n(x)\ncompile statistics on the work of the Central Unit of Eurodac pursuant to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000;\n(y)\nensure annual publication of the list of competent authorities authorised to search directly the data contained in SIS II pursuant to Article 31(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Article 46(8) of Decision 2007/533/JHA, together with the list of Offices of the national systems of SIS II (N.SIS II) and SIRENE Bureaux as referred to in Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Article 7(3) of Decision 2007/533/JHA respectively;\n(z)\nensure annual publication of the list of authorities designated pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000;\n(aa)\nperform any other tasks conferred on it in accordance with this Regulation.\n2. The Management Board may advise the Executive Director on any matter strictly related to the development or operational management of large-scale IT systems.\nArticle 13\nComposition of the Management Board\n1. The Management Board shall be composed of one representative of each Member State and two representatives of the Commission.\n2. Each Member State and the Commission shall appoint the members of the Management Board as well as alternate members, by 22 January 2012. After the expiry of that period, the Commission shall convene the Management Board. In their absence, members shall be represented by their alternates.\n3. The members of the Management Board shall be appointed on the basis of the high level of their relevant experience and expertise in the field of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, and knowledge in data protection.\n4. The term of office of the members shall be 4 years. It may be renewed once. Upon expiry of their term of office or in the event of their resignation, members shall remain in office until their appointments are renewed or until they are replaced.\n5. Countries associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis and Eurodac-related measures shall participate in the activities of the Agency. They shall each appoint one representative and an alternate to the Management Board.\nArticle 14\nChairmanship of the Management Board\n1. The Management Board shall elect a Chairperson and a deputy Chairperson from among its members.\n2. The term of office of the Chairperson and the deputy Chairperson shall be 2 years. Their term of office may be renewed once. If, however, their membership of the Management Board ends at any time during their term of office, their term of office shall automatically expire on that date also.\n3. The Chairperson and the deputy Chairperson shall be elected only from among those members of the Management Board who are appointed by Member States which are fully bound under Union law by the legislative instruments governing the development, establishment, operation and use of all large-scale IT systems managed by the Agency.\nArticle 15\nMeetings of the Management Board\n1. The meetings of the Management Board shall be convened at the request of any of the following:\n(a)\nits Chairperson;\n(b)\nat least a third of its members;\n(c)\nthe Commission;\n(d)\nthe Executive Director.\nThe Management Board shall hold at least one ordinary meeting every 6 months.\n2. The Executive Director shall participate in the meetings of the Management Board.\n3. The members of the Management Board may be assisted by experts who are members of the Advisory Groups.\n4. Europol and Eurojust may attend the meetings of the Management Board as observers when a question concerning SIS II in relation to the application of Decision 2007/533/JHA is on the agenda. Europol may also attend the meetings of the Management Board as an observer when a question concerning VIS, in relation to the application of Decision 2008/633/JHA, is on the agenda.\n5. The Management Board may invite any other person whose opinion may be of interest, to attend its meetings as an observer.\n6. The Agency shall provide the Management Board with a secretariat.\nArticle 16\nVoting\n1. Without prejudice to paragraph 5 of this Article, and to Article 12(1)(j) and Article 18(1) and (7), decisions of the Management Board shall be taken by a majority of all its members with a right to vote.\n2. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, each member in the Management Board shall have one vote.\n3. Each member appointed by a Member State which is bound under Union law by any legislative instrument governing the development, establishment, operation and use of a large-scale IT system managed by the Agency may vote on a question which concerns that large-scale IT system.\nIn addition, as regards Denmark, it may vote on a question which concerns such a large-scale IT system, if it decides under Article 4 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark to implement the legislative instrument governing the development, establishment, operation and use of such a large-scale IT system in its national law.\n4. Regarding countries associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis and Eurodac-related measures, Article 37 shall apply.\n5. In the case of a disagreement among members about whether a specific large-scale IT system is affected by a vote, any decision that it is not so affected shall be taken by a two-thirds majority.\n6. The Executive Director shall not vote.\n7. More detailed voting arrangements shall be established in the rules of procedure of the Agency, in particular the conditions under which a member may act on behalf of another member as well as any quorum requirements, where appropriate.\nArticle 17\nFunctions and powers of the Executive Director\n1. The Agency shall be managed and represented by its Executive Director.\n2. The Executive Director shall be independent in the performance of his duties. Without prejudice to the respective competences of the Commission and the Management Board, the Executive Director shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or other body.\n3. Without prejudice to Article 12, the Executive Director shall assume full responsibility for the tasks entrusted to the Agency and shall be subject to the procedure for annual discharge by the European Parliament for the implementation of the budget.\n4. The European Parliament or the Council may invite the Executive Director to report on the implementation of his tasks.\n5. The Executive Director shall:\n(a)\nensure the Agency\u2019s day-to-day administration;\n(b)\nensure the Agency\u2019s operation in accordance with this Regulation;\n(c)\nprepare and implement the procedures, decisions, strategies, programmes and activities adopted by the Management Board, within the limits specified by this Regulation, its implementing rules and the applicable law;\n(d)\nestablish and implement an effective system enabling regular monitoring and evaluations of:\n(i)\nlarge-scale IT systems, including statistics; and\n(ii)\nthe Agency, including the effective and efficient achievement of its objectives;\n(e)\nparticipate, without the right to vote, in the meetings of the Management Board;\n(f)\nexercise with respect to the Agency\u2019s staff the powers laid down in Article 20(3) and manage staff matters;\n(g)\nwithout prejudice to Article 17 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, establish confidentiality requirements in order to comply with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006, Article 17 of Decision 2007/533/JHA and Article 26(9) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 respectively and in order to apply appropriate rules of professional secrecy or other equivalent duties of confidentiality to the Agency\u2019s staff required to work with Eurodac data;\n(h)\nnegotiate and, after approval by the Management Board, sign a Headquarters Agreement concerning the seat of the Agency and Agreements concerning technical and backup sites with the Governments of the host Member States.\n6. The Executive Director shall submit to the Management Board for adoption, in particular, the drafts of the following:\n(a)\nthe Agency\u2019s annual work programme and its annual activity report, after prior consultation of the Advisory Groups;\n(b)\nthe financial rules applicable to the Agency;\n(c)\nthe multi-annual work programme;\n(d)\nthe budget for the coming year, established on the basis of activity-based budgeting;\n(e)\nthe multi-annual Staff Policy Plan;\n(f)\nthe terms of reference for the evaluation referred to in Article 31;\n(g)\nthe practical arrangements for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;\n(h)\nthe necessary security measures including a security plan, and a business continuity and disaster recovery plan;\n(i)\nreports on the technical functioning of each large-scale IT system referred to in Article 12(1)(t) and the annual report on the activities of the Central Unit of Eurodac referred to in Article 12(1)(u), on the basis of the results of monitoring and evaluation;\n(j)\nthe annual list, for publication, of competent authorities authorised to search directly the data contained in SIS II, including the list of N.SIS II Offices and SIRENE Bureaux, referred to in Article 12(1)(y) and the list of authorities referred to in Article 12(1)(z).\n7. The Executive Director shall perform any other tasks in accordance with this Regulation.\nArticle 18\nAppointment of the Executive Director\n1. The Management Board shall appoint the Executive Director for a term of office of 5 years from a list of eligible candidates identified in an open competition organised by the Commission. The selection procedure shall provide for publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and elsewhere of a call for expressions of interest. The Management Board may require a repeated procedure if it is not satisfied with the suitability of any of the candidates retained in the list. The Management Board shall appoint the Executive Director on the basis of personal merit, experience in the field of large-scale IT systems and administrative, financial and management skills as well as knowledge in data protection. The Management Board shall take its decision to appoint the Executive Director by a two-thirds majority of all its members with a right to vote.\n2. Before appointment, the candidate selected by the Management Board shall be invited to make a statement before the competent committee(s) of the European Parliament and answer questions from the committee members. After such a statement, the European Parliament shall adopt an opinion setting out its view of the selected candidate. The Management Board shall inform the European Parliament of the manner in which that opinion has been taken into account. The opinion shall be treated as personal and confidential until the appointment of the candidate.\n3. In the course of the 9 months preceding the end of the five-year term of office, the Management Board, in close consultation with the Commission, shall undertake an evaluation in which it shall assess, in particular, the results achieved during the Executive Director\u2019s first term of office and how they were achieved.\n4. The Management Board, taking into account the evaluation report, and only in those cases where it can be justified by the objectives and tasks of the Agency, may extend the term of office of the Executive Director once for up to 3 years.\n5. The Management Board shall inform the European Parliament about its intention to extend the Executive Director\u2019s term of office. Within the month before any such extension, the Executive Director shall be invited to make a statement before the competent committee(s) of the European Parliament and answer questions from the committee members.\n6. The Executive Director shall be accountable to the Management Board.\n7. The Management Board may dismiss the Executive Director. The Management Board shall take such a decision by a two-thirds majority of all its members with a right to vote.\nArticle 19\nAdvisory Groups\n1. The following Advisory Groups shall provide the Management Board with expertise relating to large-scale IT systems and, in particular, in the context of the preparation of the annual work program and the annual activity report:\n(a)\nSIS II Advisory Group;\n(b)\nVIS Advisory Group;\n(c)\nEurodac Advisory Group;\n(d)\nany other Advisory Group relating to a large-scale IT system when so provided in the relevant legislative instrument governing the development, establishment, operation and use of that large-scale IT system.\n2. Each Member State which is bound under Union law by any legislative instrument governing the development, establishment, operation and use of a particular large-scale IT system, as well as the Commission, shall appoint one member to the Advisory Group relating to that large-scale IT system, for a three-year term, which may be renewed.\nAs regards Denmark, it shall also appoint a member to an Advisory Group relating to a large-scale IT system, if it decides under Article 4 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark to implement the legislative instrument governing the development, establishment, operation and use of that particular large-scale IT system in its national law.\nEach country associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, Eurodac-related measures and the measures related to other large-scale IT systems which participates in a particular large-scale IT system shall appoint a member to the Advisory Group relating to that large-scale IT system.\n3. Europol and Eurojust may each appoint a representative to the SIS II Advisory Group. Europol may also appoint a representative to the VIS Advisory Group.\n4. Members of the Management Board shall not be members of any of the Advisory Groups. The Executive Director or the Executive Director\u2019s representative shall be entitled to attend all the meetings of the Advisory Groups as observers.\n5. The procedures for the operation and cooperation of the Advisory Groups shall be laid down in the Agency\u2019s rules of procedure.\n6. When preparing an opinion, the members of each Advisory Group shall do their best to reach a consensus. If such a consensus is not reached, the opinion shall consist of the reasoned position of the majority of members. The minority reasoned position(s) shall also be recorded. Article 16(3) and (4) shall apply accordingly. The members representing the countries associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis and Eurodac-related measures shall be allowed to express opinions on issues on which they are not entitled to vote.\n7. Each Member State and each country associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis and Eurodac-related measures shall facilitate the activities of the Advisory Groups.\n8. For the chairmanship of the Advisory Groups, Article 14 shall apply mutatis mutandis.\nCHAPTER IV\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 20\nStaff\n1. The Staff Regulations and the rules adopted jointly by the Union institutions for the purpose of applying the Staff Regulations shall apply to the staff of the Agency and to the Executive Director.\n2. For the purpose of implementing the Staff Regulations, the Agency shall be considered an agency within the meaning of Article 1a(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials.\n3. The powers conferred on the Appointing Authority by the Staff Regulations of Officials and on the authority entitled to conclude contracts by the Conditions of Employment shall be exercised by the Agency in respect of its own staff.\n4. The staff of the Agency shall consist of officials, temporary staff or contract staff. The Management Board shall give its consent on an annual basis where the contracts that the Executive Director plans to renew would become indefinite pursuant to the Conditions of Employment.\n5. The Agency shall not recruit interim staff to perform what are deemed to be sensitive financial duties.\n6. The Commission and the Member States may second officials or national experts to the Agency on a temporary basis. The Management Board shall, taking into account the multi-annual staff policy plan, adopt the necessary implementing measures for that purpose.\n7. Without prejudice to Article 17 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, the Agency shall apply appropriate rules of professional secrecy or other equivalent duties of confidentiality.\n8. The Management Board shall, in agreement with the Commission, adopt the necessary implementing measures referred to in Article 110 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.\nArticle 21\nPublic interest\nThe members of the Management Board, the Executive Director and the members of the Advisory Groups shall undertake to act in the public interest. For that purpose they shall issue an annual, written, public statement of commitment.\nThe list of members of the Management Board shall be published on the Agency\u2019s Internet site.\nArticle 22\nHeadquarters Agreement and Agreements concerning the technical and backup sites\nThe necessary arrangements concerning the accommodation to be provided for the Agency in the host Member States and the facilities to be made available by those Member States and the specific rules applicable in the host Member States to the Executive Director, the members of the Management Board, staff of the Agency and members of their families shall be laid down in a Headquarters Agreement concerning the seat of the Agency and in Agreements concerning the technical and backup sites, concluded between the Agency and the host Member States after obtaining the approval of the Management Board.\nArticle 23\nPrivileges and immunities\nThe Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union shall apply to the Agency.\nArticle 24\nLiability\n1. The contractual liability of the Agency shall be governed by the law applicable to the contract in question.\n2. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give judgment pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by the Agency.\n3. In the case of non-contractual liability, the Agency shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its departments or by its servants in the performance of their duties.\n4. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction in disputes relating to compensation for the damage referred to in paragraph 3.\n5. The personal liability of the Agency\u2019s staff towards the Agency shall be governed by the provisions laid down in the Staff Regulations.\nArticle 25\nLinguistic regime\n1. Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (30) shall apply to the Agency.\n2. Without prejudice to decisions taken pursuant to Article 342 TFEU, the annual work programme and the annual activity report referred to in Article 12(1)(j) and (k), shall be produced in all official languages of the institutions of the Union.\n3. The translation services necessary for the activities of the Agency shall be provided by the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union.\nArticle 26\nAccess to documents\n1. On the basis of a proposal by the Executive Director, and not later than 6 months after 1 December 2012, the Management Board shall adopt rules concerning access to the Agency\u2019s documents, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.\n2. Decisions taken by the Agency pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 may give rise to the lodging of a complaint to the European Ombudsman or form the subject of an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union, under the conditions laid down in Articles 228 and 263 TFEU respectively.\nArticle 27\nInformation and communication\n1. The Agency shall communicate in accordance with the legislative instruments governing the development, establishment, operation and use of large-scale IT-systems and on its own initiative in the fields within its tasks. It shall ensure in particular that in addition to the publication specified in Article 12(1)(j), (k), (w) and (y) and Article 33(8), the public and any interested party are rapidly given objective, reliable and easily understandable information with regard to its work.\n2. The Management Board shall lay down the practical arrangements for the application of paragraph 1.\nArticle 28\nData protection\n1. Without prejudice to the provisions on data protection laid down in the legislative instruments governing the development, establishment, operation and use of large-scale IT systems, the information processed by the Agency in accordance with this Regulation shall be subject to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\n2. The Management Board shall establish measures for the application of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 by the Agency, and in particular Section 8 concerning the Data Protection Officer.\nArticle 29\nSecurity rules on the protection of classified information and non-classified sensitive information\n1. The Agency shall apply the security principles laid down in Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending its internal Rules of Procedure (31), including the provisions for the exchange, processing and storage of classified information, and measures on physical security.\n2. The Agency shall also apply the security principles relating to the processing of non-classified sensitive information as adopted and implemented by the Commission.\n3. The Management Board shall, pursuant to Article 2 and Article 12(1)(p), decide on the Agency\u2019s internal structure necessary to fulfil the appropriate security principles.\nArticle 30\nSecurity of the Agency\n1. The Agency shall be responsible for the security and the maintenance of order within the buildings, premises and land used by it. The Agency shall apply the security principles and relevant provisions of the legislative instruments governing the development, establishment, operation and use of large-scale IT systems.\n2. The host Member States shall take all effective and adequate measures to maintain order and security in the immediate vicinity of the buildings, premises and land used by the Agency and shall provide to the Agency the appropriate protection, in accordance with the relevant Headquarters Agreement concerning the seat of the Agency and the Agreements concerning the technical and backup sites, whilst guaranteeing free access to these buildings, premises and land to persons authorised by the Agency.\nArticle 31\nEvaluation\n1. Within 3 years from 1 December 2012, and every 4 years thereafter, the Commission, in close consultation with the Management Board, shall perform an evaluation of the action of the Agency. The evaluation shall examine the way and extent to which the Agency effectively contributes to the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice and fulfils its tasks laid down in this Regulation. The evaluation shall also assess the role of the Agency in the context of a Union strategy aimed at a coordinated, cost-effective and coherent IT environment at Union level that is to be established in the coming years.\n2. On the basis of the evaluation referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission, after consulting the Management Board, shall issue recommendations regarding changes to this Regulation, also in order to bring it further in line with the Union strategy referred to in paragraph 1. The Commission shall forward those recommendations, together with the opinion of the Management Board, as well as appropriate proposals to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Data Protection Supervisor.\nCHAPTER V\nFINANCIAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 32\nBudget\n1. The revenue of the Agency shall consist, without prejudice to other types of income, of:\n(a)\na subsidy from the Union entered in the general budget of the European Union (Commission section);\n(b)\na contribution from the countries associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis and Eurodac-related measures;\n(c)\nany financial contribution from the Member States.\n2. The expenditure of the Agency shall include, inter alia, staff remuneration, administrative and infrastructure expenses, operating costs and expenditure relating to contracts or agreements concluded by the Agency. Each year the Executive Director shall draw up, taking into account the activities carried out by the Agency, a draft statement of estimates of the Agency\u2019s revenue and expenditure for the following financial year, together with the establishment plan, and shall transmit it to the Management Board.\n3. Revenue and expenditure of the Agency shall be in balance.\n4. The Management Board, on the basis of a draft drawn up by the Executive Director, shall adopt a draft statement of estimates of the revenue and expenditure of the Agency for the following financial year.\n5. The draft statement of estimates of the Agency\u2019s revenue and expenditure and the general guidelines underlying that estimate, shall be transmitted by the Management Board to the Commission and to the countries associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis and Eurodac-related measures by 10 February each year and the final statement of estimates by 31 March each year.\n6. By 31 March each year, the Management Board shall submit to the Commission and to the budgetary authority:\n(a)\nits draft annual work programme;\n(b)\nits updated multi-annual Staff Policy Plan, established in line with the guidelines set by the Commission;\n(c)\ninformation on the number of officials, temporary and contract staff as defined in the Staff Regulations for the years n-1 and n as well as an estimate for the year n+1;\n(d)\ninformation on contributions in kind granted by the host Member States to the Agency;\n(e)\nan estimate of the balance of the outturn account for the year n-1.\n7. The statement of estimates shall be forwarded by the Commission to the budgetary authority together with the draft general budget of the European Union.\n8. On the basis of the statement of estimates, the Commission shall enter in the draft general budget of the European Union the estimates it deems necessary for the establishment plan and the amount of the subsidy to be charged to the general budget, which it shall place before the budgetary authority in accordance with Article 314 TFEU.\n9. The budgetary authority shall authorise the appropriations for the subsidy to the Agency. The budgetary authority shall adopt the establishment plan for the Agency.\n10. The Agency\u2019s budget shall be adopted by the Management Board. It shall become final following the final adoption of the general budget of the European Union. Where appropriate, it shall be adjusted accordingly.\n11. Any modification to the budget, including the establishment plan, shall follow the same procedure.\n12. The Management Board shall, as soon as possible, notify the budgetary authority of its intention to implement any project, which may have significant financial implications for the funding of its budget, in particular any projects relating to property such as the rental or purchase of buildings. It shall inform the Commission thereof as well as the countries associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis and Eurodac-related measures. If either branch of the budgetary authority intends to issue an opinion, it shall, within 2 weeks after receipt of the information on the project, notify the Management Board of its intention to issue such an opinion. In the absence of a reply, the Agency may proceed with the planned operation.\nArticle 33\nImplementation of the budget\n1. The Agency\u2019s budget shall be implemented by its Executive Director.\n2. The Executive Director shall forward annually to the budgetary authority any information relevant to the outcome of the evaluation procedures.\n3. The Agency\u2019s Accounting Officer shall send to the Commission\u2019s Accounting Officer and the Court of Auditors by 1 March of the following year the Agency\u2019s provisional accounts, together with the report on budgetary and financial management during the year. The Commission\u2019s Accounting Officer shall consolidate the provisional accounts of the institutions and decentralised bodies in accordance with Article 128 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.\n4. The Agency\u2019s Accounting Officer shall also send to the budgetary authority, by 31 March of the following year, the report on budgetary and financial management.\n5. On receipt of the Court of Auditors\u2019 observations on the Agency\u2019s provisional accounts, pursuant to Article 129 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, the Executive Director shall draw up the Agency\u2019s final accounts under his own responsibility and forward them to the Management Board for an opinion.\n6. The Management Board shall deliver an opinion on the Agency\u2019s final accounts.\n7. By 1 July of the following year, the Executive Director shall send the final accounts, together with the opinion of the Management Board, to the budgetary authority, the Commission\u2019s Accounting Officer, the Court of Auditors as well as the countries associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis and Eurodac-related measures.\n8. The final accounts shall be published.\n9. The Executive Director shall send the Court of Auditors a reply to its observations by 30 September. The Executive Director shall also send that reply to the Management Board.\n10. Upon the request of the European Parliament, the Executive Director shall submit the information necessary for the smooth application of the discharge procedure for the financial year in question, as laid down in Article 146(3) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.\n11. The European Parliament, on a recommendation from the Council acting by a qualified majority, shall, before 15 May of year n + 2, give a discharge to the Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the budget for year n.\nArticle 34\nFinancial rules\nThe financial rules applicable to the Agency shall be adopted by the Management Board after consultation of the Commission. They shall not depart from Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 unless such departure is specifically required for the Agency\u2019s operation and the Commission has given its prior consent.\nArticle 35\nCombating fraud\n1. In order to combat fraud, corruption and other unlawful activities, Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 shall apply.\n2. The Agency shall accede to the Interinstitutional Agreement concerning internal investigations by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) and shall issue, without delay, the appropriate provisions applicable to all the employees of the Agency.\n3. The decisions concerning funding and the implementing agreements and instruments resulting from them shall explicitly stipulate that the Court of Auditors and OLAF may carry out, if necessary, on-the-spot checks among the recipients of the Agency\u2019s funding and the agents responsible for allocating it.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 36\nPreparatory actions\n1. The Commission shall be responsible for the establishment and initial operation of the Agency until the latter has the operational capacity to implement its own budget.\n2. For that purpose, until such time as the Executive Director takes up his duties following his appointment by the Management Board in accordance with Article 18, the Commission may assign a limited number of officials including one to fulfil the functions of the Executive Director, on an interim basis. The interim Executive Director may be assigned only once the Management Board is convened, in accordance with Article 13(2).\nIf the interim Executive Director does not comply with the obligations laid down in this Regulation, the Management Board may ask the Commission to assign a new interim Executive Director.\n3. The interim Executive Director may authorise all payments covered by credits provided in the budget of the Agency, once approved by the Management Board and may conclude contracts, including staff contracts following the adoption of the Agency\u2019s establishment plan. If justified, the Management Board may impose restrictions on the interim Executive Director\u2019s powers.\nArticle 37\nParticipation by countries associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis and Eurodac-related measures\nUnder the relevant provisions of their association agreements, arrangements shall be made in order to specify, inter alia, the nature and extent of, and the detailed rules for, the participation by countries associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis and Eurodac-related measures in the work of the Agency, including provisions on financial contributions, staff and voting rights.\nArticle 38\nEntry into force and applicability\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThe Agency shall take up its responsibilities set out in Articles 3 to 9 from 1 December 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["29", "58", "39", "63", "14", "11", "32", "92", "1", "77", "40", "88", "65", "38", "83", "34", "10", "81", "25", "35", "31", "33", "71", "84", "94", "2", "56", "75", "30", "60", "No Label", "7", "9", "13", "41", "42"], "gold": ["7", "9", "13", "41", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 220/2011\nof 3 March 2011\nfixing the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 17th individual invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the 17th individual invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 17th individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 1 March 2011, the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be EUR 252,10/100 kg.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 March 2011.", "references": ["24", "51", "60", "88", "16", "62", "52", "12", "86", "27", "9", "65", "54", "71", "84", "66", "34", "31", "29", "4", "21", "44", "8", "38", "77", "68", "10", "14", "96", "5", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/390/CFSP\nof 16 July 2012\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative to the African Union\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 20 October 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/697/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Gary QUINCE as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) to the African Union (AU). The EUSR's mandate is to expire on 30 June 2012.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended for a further period of 12 months.\n(3)\nThe EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Gary QUINCE as the EUSR to the AU is hereby extended until 30 June 2013. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the Union's comprehensive policy objectives in support of African efforts to build a peaceful, democratic and prosperous future as set out in the Joint Africa-EU Strategy. These objectives include:\n(a)\nenhancing the Union's political dialogue and broader relationship with the AU;\n(b)\nstrengthening the Union-AU partnership in all areas outlined in the Joint Africa-EU Strategy, contributing to the development and implementation of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy in partnership with the AU, respecting the principle of African ownership and working more closely with African representatives in multilateral fora in coordination with multilateral partners;\n(c)\nworking with, and providing support to the AU by supporting institutional development and strengthening the relationship between Union and AU institutions, including through development assistance, to promote:\n-\npeace and security: predict, prevent, manage, mediate and resolve conflict, support efforts to promote peace and stability, support post-conflict reconstruction,\n-\nhuman rights and governance: promote and protect human rights; promote fundamental freedoms and respect for the rule of law; support, through political dialogue and financial and technical assistance, African efforts to monitor and improve governance; support growth of participatory democracy and accountability; support the fight against corruption and organised crime and further promote efforts to address the issue of children and armed conflict in all its aspects,\n-\nsustainable growth, regional integration and trade: support efforts towards interconnectivity and facilitate people's access to water and sanitation, energy and information technology; promote a stable, efficient and harmonised legal business framework; assist to integrate Africa into the world trade system, assist African countries to comply with Union rules and standards; support Africa in countering the effects of climate change,\n-\ninvestment in people: support efforts in the fields of gender, health, food security and education, promote exchange programmes, networks of universities and centres of excellence, address the root causes of migration.\nFurthermore, the EUSR will play a key role in implementing the Joint Africa-EU Strategy intended to further develop and consolidate the strategic partnership between Africa and the Union.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)/Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) aspects of the objectives referred to in Article 2, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\nstrengthen the overall Union influence in, and coordination of, the Addis Ababa-based dialogue with the AU and its Commission, on the whole range of CFSP/ESDP issues covered by the Union-AU relationship, in particular the Peace and Security Partnership and support to the operationalisation of the African Peace and Security Architecture;\n(b)\nensure an appropriate level of political representation, reflecting the importance of the Union as a political, financial and institutional partner of the AU, and the step change in that partnership necessitated by the growing political profile of the AU on the world stage;\n(c)\nrepresent, should the Council so decide, Union positions and policies, when the AU plays a major role in a crisis situation for which no EUSR has been appointed;\n(d)\nhelp achieve better coherence, consistency and coordination of Union policies and actions towards the AU, and contribute to enhance coordination of the broader partner group and its relation with the AU;\n(e)\ncontribute to the implementation of the Union's human rights policy relevant to the AU, including the EU Guidelines on human rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and the Union policy on Women, Peace and Security and the EU Action Plan to follow up on the decisions of the International Criminal Court;\n(f)\nfollow closely, and report on, all relevant developments at AU level;\n(g)\nmaintain close contact with the AU Commission, other AU organs, missions of African Sub-regional organisations to the AU and the missions of the AU Member States to the AU;\n(h)\nfacilitate the relations and cooperation between the AU and African Sub-regional organisations, especially in those areas where the Union is providing support;\n(i)\noffer advice and provide support to the AU upon request in the areas outlined in the Joint Africa-EU Strategy;\n(j)\noffer advice and provide support upon request to the building up of the AU's crisis management capabilities;\n(k)\non the basis of a clear division of tasks, coordinate with, and support, the actions of EUSRs with mandates in AU Member States/Regions; and\n(l)\nmaintain close contacts and promote coordination with key international partners of the AU present in Addis Ababa, especially the United Nations, but also with non-State actors on the whole range of the CFSP/CSDP issues covered by the Union-AU partnership.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR's primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (EEAS) and its relevant departments.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 shall be EUR 680 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of the EUSR's mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of the team.\n2. Member States, institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the EU Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, the sending institution of the Union or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and the staff of the EUSR\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of the EUSR's staff shall be agreed with the host party/parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of his team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union's delegations and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union's policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with the EUSR's mandate and on the basis of the security situation in the geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under the EUSR's direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, providing for mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, and the management of security incidents, and providing for a contingency plan and a mission evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of his team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the EEAS;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the Council, the Commission and the HR with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the progress and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report to Council working parties as necessary. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall contribute to the unity, consistency and effectiveness of the Union's action and shall help ensure that all Union instruments and Member States' actions are engaged consistently, to attain the Union's policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSRs active in the region, as appropriate. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States' missions and the Union's delegations.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegations and Member States' Heads of Mission. They shall make every effort to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the HR, the Council and the Commission with a progress report by the end of December 2012 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["10", "61", "33", "63", "81", "66", "22", "25", "54", "24", "37", "70", "32", "86", "39", "75", "89", "35", "40", "44", "30", "0", "2", "21", "83", "85", "45", "90", "47", "60", "No Label", "3", "7"], "gold": ["3", "7"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 31 May 2012\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part\n(2012/735/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91, Article 100(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 19 January 2009, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a multiparty trade agreement on behalf of the European Union and its Member States with the Member countries of the Andean Community which shared the aim of reaching an ambitious, comprehensive and balanced trade agreement.\n(2)\nThose negotiations have been concluded and the Trade Agreement between the European Union its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was initialled on 23 March 2011.\n(3)\nArticle 330(3) of the Agreement provides for its provisional application.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Union and applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.\n(5)\nThe Agreement does not affect the rights of investors of the Member States to benefit from any more favourable treatment provided for in any agreement relating to investment to which a Member State and a signatory Andean country are Parties.\n(6)\nThe provisional application provided for in this Decision does not prejudge the allocation of competences between the Union and its Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 218(7) of the Treaty, it is appropriate for the Council to authorise the Commission to approve certain limited modifications of the Agreement concerning geographical indications to be adopted by the Trade Committee, as proposed by the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property pursuant to Article 209(2) of the Agreement.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate to set out the relevant procedures for the protection of those geographical indications which are given protection pursuant to the Agreement.\n(9)\nThe Agreement should not be construed as conferring rights or imposing obligations which can be directly invoked before Union or Member State courts and tribunals,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\n1. The Agreement, with the exception of Articles 2, 202(1), 291 and 292 thereof, shall be applied on a provisional basis by the Union as provided for in Article 330(3) thereof, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.\n2. In order to determine the date of provisional application of the Agreement, the Council shall fix the date by which the notification referred to in Article 330(3) thereof is to be sent to Colombia and Peru. That notification shall include references to those provisions which are not to be provisionally applied.\n3. The date from which the Agreement will be provisionally applied shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.\nArticle 4\nFor the purposes of Article 209(2) of the Agreement, modifications of the Agreement concerning geographical indications to be adopted by the Trade Committee, as proposed by the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, shall be approved by the Commission on behalf of the Union. Where interested parties cannot reach agreement following objections relating to a geographical indication, the Commission shall adopt such a position on the basis of the procedure laid down in Article 15(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1).\nArticle 5\n1. A name protected under Appendix 1 of Annex XIII (Lists of geographical indications) to the Agreement may be used by any operator marketing agricultural products, foodstuffs, wines, aromatised wines or spirits which comply with the corresponding specification.\n2. The Member States and the institutions of the Union shall enforce the protection provided for in Article 210 of the Agreement, including at the request of an interested party.\nArticle 6\nThe applicable provision for the purposes of adopting the necessary implementing rules for the application of the rules contained in Appendix 2A and Appendix 5 of Annex II concerning the Definition of the concept of \u2018originating products\u2019 and methods of administrative cooperation, and Appendix 1 of Annex I concerning the Elimination of customs duties of the Agreement is Article 247a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\nArticle 7\nThe Agreement shall not be construed as conferring rights or imposing obligations which can be directly invoked before Union or Member State courts and tribunals.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2012.", "references": ["85", "46", "15", "27", "84", "60", "83", "95", "79", "40", "57", "20", "21", "53", "41", "88", "29", "39", "98", "62", "72", "18", "22", "33", "45", "30", "5", "92", "65", "47", "No Label", "3", "9", "23", "93"], "gold": ["3", "9", "23", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2012/1/EU\nof 6 January 2012\namending Annex I to Council Directive 66/402/EEC as regards the conditions to be satisfied by the crop Oryza sativa\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 66/402/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of cereal seed (1), and in particular Article 21a thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRecent information and studies from Member States have shown the need to introduce a threshold for the presence of plants infected by Fusarium fujikuroi in fields where seed of Oryza sativa is produced, since Fusarium fujikuroi causes damage to rice and is not susceptible to efficient treatment with the available plant protection products. Those studies have also shown the need to reduce the presence of wild or red-grain plants in fields where seed of Oryza sativa is produced, since under the current threshold the yield and quality of rice seed are significantly decreased.\n(2)\nIn view of that, a threshold for the presence of plants infected by Fusarium fujikuroi, in fields where seed of Oryza sativa is produced, should be introduced and the threshold for the presence of wild or red-grain plants, in fields where seed of Oryza sativa is produced, should be reduced for the production of the category of certified seed. Those thresholds should be set on the basis of the studies carried out by Members States.\n(3)\nDirective 66/402/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Directive 66/402/EEC\nIn Annex I to Directive 66/402/EEC, point 3.A. is replaced by the following:\n\u2018A.\nOryza sativa:\nThe number of plants which are recognisable as obviously being infected by Fusarium fujikuroi shall not exceed:\n-\n2 per 200 m2 for the production of basic seed,\n-\n4 per 200 m2 for the production of certified seed, first generation,\n-\n8 per 200m2 for the production of certified seed, second generation.\nThe number of plants which are recognisable as obviously being wild or red-grain plants shall not exceed:\n-\n0 for the production of basic seed,\n-\n1 per 100 m2 for the production of certified seed, first and second generation,\u2019\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 May 2012 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the texts of the main provisions of national law, which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 January 2012.", "references": ["59", "23", "55", "92", "10", "90", "73", "86", "21", "85", "58", "91", "74", "67", "17", "20", "24", "56", "95", "38", "31", "80", "12", "84", "41", "49", "78", "77", "40", "97", "No Label", "61", "63", "65", "66", "68"], "gold": ["61", "63", "65", "66", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 42/2011\nof 19 January 2011\nsuspending submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 1 to 7 January 2011 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, are equal to the quantity available under order numbers 09.4317 and 09.4318.\n(2)\nSubmission of further applications for licences for order numbers 09.4317 and 09.4318 should be suspended until the end of the marketing year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubmission of further applications for licences, which correspond to the order numbers indicated in the Annex, shall be suspended until the end of the marketing year 2010/11.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 January 2011.", "references": ["92", "32", "70", "28", "63", "50", "4", "24", "17", "62", "15", "20", "37", "47", "42", "73", "7", "23", "89", "1", "93", "9", "76", "52", "40", "21", "84", "64", "96", "29", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 300/2012\nof 2 April 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 April 2012.", "references": ["8", "41", "70", "57", "36", "54", "93", "94", "62", "28", "46", "1", "96", "6", "45", "69", "67", "63", "7", "35", "0", "88", "86", "3", "61", "4", "66", "5", "78", "29", "No Label", "21", "82", "83"], "gold": ["21", "82", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1023/2010\nof 12 November 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Jambon de l\u2019Ard\u00e8che (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Jambon de l\u2019Ard\u00e8che\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 November 2010.", "references": ["1", "37", "88", "35", "20", "49", "76", "82", "23", "84", "54", "42", "0", "81", "31", "32", "92", "86", "73", "43", "94", "33", "78", "58", "69", "12", "98", "89", "56", "30", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/76/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 27 September 2011\namending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe promotion of sustainable transport is a key element of the common transport policy. To this end, the contribution of the transport sector to climate change and its negative impacts should be reduced, in particular congestion, which impedes mobility, and air and noise pollution, which create health and environmental damage. Moreover environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Union policies, including the common transport policy.\n(2)\nThe objective of reducing the negative impacts of transport should be achieved in such a way as to avoid disproportionate obstacles to the freedom of movement in the interest of sound economic growth, the proper functioning of the internal market and territorial cohesion.\n(3)\nTo optimise the transport system accordingly, the common transport policy should use a variety of instruments to improve transport infrastructure and the use of technologies and to enable the more efficient management of transport demand through, in particular, the promotion of the renewal of the fleet, a more efficient use of infrastructures and co-modality. This calls for further recourse to the \u2018user pays\u2019 principle and the development and the implementation of the \u2018polluter pays\u2019 principle in the transport sector in all modes of transport.\n(4)\nDirective 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) called on the Commission to present a model for the assessment of all external costs arising from use of the transport infrastructure to serve as the basis for future calculations of infrastructure charges. That model was to be accompanied by an impact analysis of the internalisation of external costs for all modes of transport and a strategy for a stepwise implementation of the model and, if appropriate, by proposals for further revision of that Directive.\n(5)\nIn order to move towards a sustainable transport policy, transport prices should better reflect the costs related to traffic-based air and noise pollution, climate change, and congestion caused by the actual use of all modes of transport, as a means of optimising the use of infrastructure, reducing local pollution, managing congestion and combating climate change at the least cost for the economy. This calls for a stepwise approach in all transport modes, taking into account their particular characteristics.\n(6)\nTransport modes have already started to internalise external costs and the relevant Union legislation either phases in such internalisation or at least does not prevent it. However, this process needs to be monitored and encouraged further for all modes of transport applying common principles while taking into account the specificity of each mode.\n(7)\nIn the road transport sector, tolls calculated as distance-based charges for the use of infrastructure constitute a fair and efficient economic instrument to achieve a sustainable transport policy, since they relate directly to the use of infrastructure, the environmental performance of vehicles and the place and time of use of vehicles and can therefore be set at a level which reflects the cost of pollution and congestion caused by the actual use of vehicles. Moreover, tolls do not create any distortion of competition within the internal market since they are payable by all operators irrespective of their Member State of origin or establishment and in proportion to the intensity of use of the road network.\n(8)\nThe impact analysis shows that applying tolls calculated on the basis of the cost of pollution, and, on congested roads, on the basis of the higher variation of toll rates during peak periods could have a positive effect on the transport system and contribute to the Union strategy on climate change. It could reduce congestion and local pollution by encouraging the use of cleaner vehicle technologies, optimising logistic behaviour and reducing empty returns. It could indirectly play an important role in reducing fuel consumption and contributing to combating climate change.\n(9)\nThis Directive does not prevent Member States from applying national rules for charging other road users outside the scope of this Directive.\n(10)\nThe costs of traffic-based air and noise pollution, such as health costs, including medical care, crop losses and other loss of production, and welfare costs, are borne within the territory of the Member State in which the transport takes place. The polluter pays principle will be implemented through the external-cost charging which will contribute to the reduction of external costs.\n(11)\nFor the purpose of this Directive, the model devised by the Commission for calculating traffic-based air and noise pollution external costs provides reliable methods and a range of unit values which may already serve as a basis for the calculation of external-cost charges.\n(12)\nThere are still uncertainties about the costs and benefits of the systems required to enforce differentiated charges on roads with low traffic. Until such uncertainties are dealt with, a flexible approach at Union level appears most appropriate. This flexible approach should leave Member States the option to decide whether and on which roads to introduce external-cost charges on the basis of the local and national characteristics of the network.\n(13)\nTime-based user charges constitute a useful system for already applying the \u2018user pays\u2019 principle when a charging system based on distance travelled, which better reflects the actual use of infrastructure, is currently not implemented. Time-based user charges levied on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis should not discriminate against occasional users, since a high proportion of such users are likely to be non-national hauliers. A more detailed ratio between daily, weekly, monthly and annual rates should therefore be fixed for heavy goods vehicles.\n(14)\nIn order to ensure that European hauliers receive clear price signals, which act as an incentive to optimise behaviour, efforts should be made in the medium term to bring about convergence in the methods which the Member States use to calculate external costs.\n(15)\nA clear and transparent implementation of the charging schemes could lead to a better functioning of the internal market. Therefore, inconsistent charging schemes should be avoided in order not to distort competition in international goods transport on the trans-European road network or on certain sections of that network, and on any additional sections of those interlinked networks or motorways which are not part of the trans-European road network. The same charging principles should, in particular, be applied to any section of the motorway network of a Member State.\n(16)\nMember States should have the option of charging the maximum level of the infrastructure costs and external costs permitted by this Directive through tolls, but should be able to choose to charge one or both of those costs at a lower level or not to charge them at all.\n(17)\nWhen determining the network on which to apply an external-cost charge, Member States should be able to choose not to levy external-cost charges on certain roads in order to improve access to, and the competitiveness of, peripheral, landlocked and island regions.\n(18)\nIt should be possible to add to an infrastructure charge an external-cost element based on the cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution. The external-cost element included in tolls should be permitted to be added to the cost of use of infrastructure, provided that certain conditions are respected in the calculation of costs so as to avoid undue charging.\n(19)\nTo better reflect the cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution, the external-cost charge should vary according to the type of roads, type of vehicles and, for noise, the time periods involved.\n(20)\nCongestion has a negative impact, in that for the road users in general, it means a loss of time and a waste of fuel. Differentiation of infrastructure charges offers a tool to manage congestion, provided that the differentiated tolls give a clear and meaningful price signal to road users to modify their behaviour and to avoid congested road sections during peak periods.\n(21)\nWhen a variation for the purpose of reducing congestion is applied on a certain road section, the variation should be devised and applied in a revenue-neutral way which grants significant financial advantages to hauliers who use the road section concerned during off-peak periods over those who use it during peak hours.\n(22)\nDirective 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (5) already provides a basis for developing and completing the set of Union measures concerning noise emitted by road vehicles and infrastructure by requiring competent authorities to draw up strategic noise maps for major roads and to draw up action plans to reduce noise where exposure levels can induce harmful effects on human health.\n(23)\nThe smooth functioning of the internal market requires a Union framework in order to ensure that road charges set on the basis of the local cost of traffic-based air and noise pollution and on the basis of congestion are transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. That framework should include common charging principles, calculation methods, maximum levels and unit values of external costs based on acknowledged scientific methods, as well as procedures for notifying and reporting tolling schemes to the Commission.\n(24)\nIf an authority is designated by a Member State to set the external-cost charge, it should have no vested interest in setting the amount at an undue level and should therefore be independent from the body which collects and manages toll revenue.\n(25)\nThe corridor on which a mark-up is allowed can include parallel and directly competing mountainous road sections within a reasonable distance to which the traffic may be diverted as a result of the introduction of the mark-up. In cross-border projects, the application of this provision should be agreed upon by the Member States concerned and by the Commission.\n(26)\nIn order to give precedence to the construction of the priority projects of European interest identified in Annex III to Decision No 661/2010/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (6), Member States which have the possibility of applying a mark-up should use that option before levying an external-cost charge. To avoid an undue charging of users, an external-cost charge should not be combined with a mark-up unless the external costs exceed the amount of the mark-up already levied. In such a case, it is thus appropriate that the amount of the mark-up should be deducted from the external-cost charge.\n(27)\nDiscounts or reductions of the external-cost charge should not be permitted, as there would be a significant risk that they would unduly discriminate against certain categories of users.\n(28)\nSubject to the relevant provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on State Aid, incentive measures should be permitted for trips involving expensive modal transfers, such as road-sea-road, in the interest of territorial cohesion and the accessibility and competitiveness of peripheral, landlocked and island regions.\n(29)\nIt should be possible to permit discounts or reductions of the infrastructure charge under certain circumstances for any category of users, such as frequent users or users of electronic toll systems.\n(30)\nCharging external costs through tolls will be more effective in influencing user decisions if they are aware of such costs. Therefore, those costs should be identified separately on a statement, on a bill or on an equivalent document provided by the toll operator. Furthermore, such a document would facilitate hauliers in passing on the cost of the external-cost charge to the shipper or to any other clients.\n(31)\nThe use of electronic toll systems is desirable to avoid disruption of the free flow of traffic and to prevent adverse effects on the local environment caused by queues at toll barriers. It is therefore desirable to levy an external-cost charge by means of such systems, in compliance with Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (7). With a view to facilitating the proper functioning of the internal market, the Commission should monitor progress made in the framework of Directive 2004/52/EC to implement within the agreed dates a genuine European Electronic Toll Service which limits the number of electronic toll devices in a given vehicle to one unit which is fully compatible with the electronic fee collection systems of all the Member States.\n(32)\nWhile decisions on national public expenditure, including the use of revenues generated under this Directive, are, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, a matter for Member States, the additional revenue generated from external-cost charges, or the equivalent in financial value of these revenues, in accordance with the transport policy objectives of this Directive, should be used to benefit the transport sector and to promote sustainable mobility in general. Such projects should therefore relate to, inter alia, facilitating efficient pricing, reducing road transport pollution at source, mitigating its effects, improving the CO2 and energy performance of vehicles, developing alternative infrastructure for transport users, optimising logistics or improving road safety.\n(33)\nIn order to promote the interoperability of tolling arrangements, and subject to compliance with certain conditions, two or more Member States should be permitted to cooperate in introducing common systems of tolls.\n(34)\nThe Commission should send in due time to the European Parliament and to the Council a comprehensive assessment of the experience acquired in the Member States which apply an external-cost charge and/or an infrastructure charge in accordance with this Directive.\n(35)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund (8) provides that the revenue generated by charges borne directly by users must be considered in the determination of the funding-gap in the case of a revenue-generating project. However, revenue generated by external-cost charges should not be considered in calculation of the funding-gap, since this revenue should be spent on projects aimed at reducing road transport pollution at the source, mitigating its effects, improving the CO2 and energy performance of vehicles, and developing alternative infrastructure for transport users.\n(36)\nWhen implementing alternative scientific methods for calculating external-cost charges, Member States should be able to take into account the methods for calculating the values of monetary costs of externalities that are provided by the study \u2018Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector\u2019 (9), which gives an overview of the state of the art in the theory and practice of estimating external costs.\n(37)\nIn mountain areas as described in the study \u2018Mountain areas in Europe: analysis of mountain areas in EU Member States, acceding and other European countries\u2019 commissioned by the European Commission in 2004, higher external-cost charges should be permitted to the extent that objective scientific data prove that air and noise pollution cause greater damage in those mountain areas due to geographic circumstances and physical phenomena such as the gradient of roads, temperature inversions and the amphitheatre effect of valleys.\n(38)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (10).\n(39)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of certain adaptations of the Annexes. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(40)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (11), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n(41)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely to encourage differentiated charging based on external costs as a means towards sustainable transport, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States alone, and can therefore, by reason of the importance of the cross-border dimension of transport, 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,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nDirective 1999/62/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following point is inserted:\n\u2018(ad)\n\u201cmotorway\u201d means a road specially designed and built for motor traffic, which does not serve properties bordering on it, and which:\n(i)\nis provided, except at special points or temporarily, with separate carriageways for the two directions of traffic, separated from each other either by a dividing strip not intended for traffic or, exceptionally, by other means;\n(ii)\ndoes not cross at grade with any road, railway or tramway track, bicycle path or footpath; and\n(iii)\nis specifically designated as a motorway;\u2019;\n(b)\npoints (b) and (ba) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\n\u201ctoll\u201d means a specified amount payable for a vehicle based on the distance travelled on a given infrastructure and on the type of the vehicle comprising an infrastructure charge and/or an external-cost charge;\n(ba)\n\u201cinfrastructure charge\u201d means a charge levied for the purpose of recovering the construction, the maintenance, the operation and the development costs related to infrastructure incurred in a Member State;\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following points are inserted:\n\u2018(bb)\n\u201cexternal-cost charge\u201d means a charge levied for the purpose of recovering the costs incurred in a Member State related to traffic-based air pollution and/or traffic-based noise pollution;\n(bc)\n\u201ccost of traffic-based air pollution\u201d means the cost of the damage caused by the release of particulate matter and of ozone precursors, such as nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds, in the course of the operation of a vehicle;\n(bd)\n\u201ccost of traffic-based noise pollution\u201d means the cost of the damage caused by the noise emitted by the vehicles or created by their interaction with the road surface;\n(be)\n\u201cweighted average infrastructure charge\u201d means the total revenue of an infrastructure charge over a given period divided by the number of vehicle kilometres travelled on the road sections subject to the charge during that period;\n(bf)\n\u201cweighted average external-cost charge\u201d means the total revenue of an external-cost charge over a given period divided by the number of vehicle kilometres travelled on the road sections subject to the charge during that period;\u2019;\n(d)\npoint (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\n\u201cvehicle\u201d means a motor vehicle or articulated vehicle combination intended or used for the carriage by road of goods and having a maximum permissible laden weight of over 3,5 tonnes;\u2019;\n(2)\nArticles 7, 7a and 7b are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 7\n1. Without prejudice to Article 9 paragraph 1a, Member States may maintain or introduce tolls and/or user charges on the trans-European road network or on certain sections of that network, and on any other additional sections of their network of motorways which are not part of the trans-European road network under the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this Article and in Articles 7a to 7k. This shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States, in compliance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to apply tolls and/or user charges on other roads, provided that the imposition of tolls and/or user charges on such other roads does not discriminate against international traffic and does not result in the distortion of competition between operators.\n2. Member States shall not impose both tolls and user charges on any given category of vehicle for the use of a single road section. However, a Member State which imposes a user charge on its network may also impose tolls for the use of bridges, tunnels and mountain passes.\n3. Tolls and user charges shall not discriminate, directly or indirectly, on the grounds of the nationality of the haulier, the Member State or the third country of establishment of the haulier or of registration of the vehicle, or the origin or destination of the transport operation.\n4. Member States may provide for reduced toll rates or user charges, or exemptions from the obligation to pay tolls or user charges for vehicles exempted from the requirement to install and use recording equipment under Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording in road transport (12), and in cases covered by, and subject to the conditions set out in, Article 6(2)(a) and (b) of this Directive.\n5. A Member State may choose to apply tolls and/or user charges only to vehicles having a maximum permissible laden weight of not less than 12 tonnes if it considers that an extension to vehicles of less than 12 tonnes would, amongst others:\n(a)\ncreate significant adverse effects on the free flow of traffic, the environment, noise levels, congestion, health, or road safety due to traffic diversion;\n(b)\ninvolve administrative costs of more than 30 % of the additional revenue which would have been generated by that extension.\nMember States choosing to apply tolls and/or user charges only to vehicles having a maximum permissible laden weight of not less than 12 tonnes shall inform the Commission of their decision and on the reasons therefor.\nArticle 7a\n1. User charges shall be proportionate to the duration of the use made of the infrastructure, not exceeding the values stipulated in Annex II, and shall be valid for a day, a week, a month or a year. The monthly rate shall be no more than 10 % of the annual rate, the weekly rate shall be no more than 5 % of the annual rate and the daily rate shall be no more than 2 % of the annual rate.\nA Member State may apply only annual rates for vehicles registered in that Member State.\n2. Member States shall set user charges, including administrative costs, for all vehicle categories, at a level which is no higher than the maximum rates laid down in Annex II.\nArticle 7b\n1. The infrastructure charge shall be based on the principle of the recovery of infrastructure costs. The weighted average infrastructure charge shall be related to the construction costs and the costs of operating, maintaining and developing the infrastructure network concerned. The weighted average infrastructure charge may also include a return on capital and/or a profit margin based on market conditions.\n2. The costs taken into account shall relate to the network or the part of the network on which infrastructure charges are levied and to the vehicles that are subject thereto. Member States may choose to recover only a percentage of those costs.\nArticle 7c\n1. The external-cost charge may be related to the cost of traffic-based air pollution. On road sections crossing areas with a population exposed to road traffic-based noise pollution, the external-cost charge may include the cost of traffic-based noise pollution.\nThe external-cost charge shall vary and be set in accordance with the minimum requirements and the methods as specified in Annex IIIa and shall respect the maximum values set out in Annex IIIb.\n2. The costs taken into account shall relate to the network or the part of the network on which external-cost charges are levied and to the vehicles that are subject thereto. Member States may choose to recover only a percentage of those costs.\n3. The external-cost charge related to traffic-based air pollution shall not apply to vehicles which comply with the most stringent EURO emission standards until four years after the dates of application laid down in the rules which introduced those standards.\n4. The amount of the external-cost charge shall be set by the Member State concerned. If a Member State designates an authority for this purpose, the authority shall be legally and financially independent from the organisation in charge of managing or collecting part or all of the charge.\nArticle 7d\nBy one year after the adoption of future and more stringent EURO emission standards, the European Parliament and the Council shall, in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, determine the corresponding maximum values in Annex IIIb.\nArticle 7e\n1. Member States shall calculate the maximum level of infrastructure charge using a methodology based on the core calculation principles set out in Annex III.\n2. For concession tolls, the maximum level of the infrastructure charge shall be equivalent to, or less than, the level that would have resulted from the use of a methodology based on the core calculation principles set out in Annex III. The assessment of such equivalence shall be made on the basis of a reasonably long reference period appropriate to the nature of the concession contract.\n3. Tolling arrangements which were already in place on 10 June 2008 or for which tenders or responses to invitations to negotiate under the negotiated procedure were received pursuant to a public procurement process before 10 June 2008 shall not be subject to the obligations set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 for as long as those arrangements remain in force and provided that they are not substantially amended.\nArticle 7f\n1. In exceptional cases concerning infrastructure in mountainous regions, and after informing the Commission, a mark-up may be added to the infrastructure charge levied on specific road sections which are subject to acute congestion, or the use of which by vehicles is the cause of significant environmental damage, on condition that:\n(a)\nthe revenue generated from the mark-up is invested in financing the construction of priority projects of European interest, identified in Annex III to Decision No 661/2010/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (13), which contribute directly to the alleviation of the congestion or environmental damage and which are located in the same corridor as the road section on which the mark-up is applied;\n(b)\nthe mark-up does not exceed 15 % of the weighted average infrastructure charge calculated in accordance with Article 7b(1) and Article 7e, except where the revenue generated is invested in cross-border sections of priority projects of European interest involving infrastructure in mountainous regions, in which case the mark-up may not exceed 25 %;\n(c)\nthe application of the mark-up does not result in unfair treatment of commercial traffic compared to other road users;\n(d)\na description of the exact location of the mark-up and proof of a decision to finance the construction of priority projects referred to in point (a) are submitted to the Commission in advance of the application of the mark-up; and\n(e)\nthe period for which the mark-up is to apply is defined and limited in advance and is consistent, in terms of the expected revenue to be raised, with the financial plans and cost-benefit analysis for the projects co-financed with the revenue from the mark-up.\nThe first subparagraph shall apply to new cross-border projects subject to the agreement of all Member States involved in that project.\n2. A mark-up may be applied to an infrastructure charge which has been varied in accordance with Article 7g.\n3. After receiving the required information from a Member State intending to apply a mark-up, the Commission shall make this information available to the members of the Committee referred to in Article 9c. If the Commission considers that the planned mark-up does not meet the conditions set out in paragraph 1, or if it considers that the planned mark-up will have significant adverse effects on the economic development of peripheral regions, it may reject or request amendment of the plans for charges submitted by the Member State concerned. These implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 9c(2).\n4. On road sections where the criteria for applying a mark-up pursuant to paragraph 1 are met, the Member States may not levy an external-cost charge unless a mark-up is applied.\n5. The amount of the mark-up shall be deducted from the amount of the external-cost charge calculated in accordance with Article 7c, except for vehicles of EURO emission classes 0, I and II from 15 October 2011, and III from 2015 onwards. All these revenues generated by the simultaneous application of the mark-up and the external cost charges shall be invested in financing the construction of priority projects of European interest identified in Annex III to Decision No 661/2010/EU.\nArticle 7g\n1. Member States shall vary the infrastructure charge according to the EURO emission class of the vehicle in such a way that no infrastructure charge is more than 100 % above the same charge for equivalent vehicles meeting the strictest emission standards. Existing concession contracts are exempted from this requirement until the contract is renewed.\nA Member State may nevertheless derogate from the requirement of varying the infrastructure charge if:\n(i)\nthis would seriously undermine the coherence of the tolling systems in its territory;\n(ii)\nit would not be technically practicable to introduce such differentiation in the tolling system concerned;\n(iii)\nthis would lead to diversion of the most polluting vehicles with negative impacts on road safety and public health; or\n(iv)\nthe toll includes an external-cost charge.\nAny such derogations or exemptions shall be notified to the Commission.\n2. Where, in the event of a check, a driver or, if appropriate, the haulier, is unable to produce the vehicle documents necessary to ascertain the EURO emission class of the vehicle, Member States may apply tolls up to the highest level chargeable.\n3. The infrastructure charge may also be varied for the purpose of reducing congestion, minimising infrastructure damage and optimising the use of the infrastructure concerned or promoting road safety, on condition that:\n(a)\nthe variation is transparent, made public and available to all users on equal terms;\n(b)\nthe variation is applied according to the time of day, type of day or season;\n(c)\nno infrastructure charge is more than 175 % above the maximum level of the weighted average infrastructure charge as referred to in Article 7b;\n(d)\nthe peak periods during which the higher infrastructure charges are levied for the purpose of reducing congestion do not exceed five hours per day;\n(e)\nthe variation is devised and applied in a transparent and revenue neutral way on a road section affected by congestion by offering reduced toll rates for hauliers who travel during off-peak periods and increased toll rates for hauliers who travel during peak hours on the same road section; and\n(f)\na Member State wishing to introduce such variation or changing an existing one informs the Commission thereof and provides it with the information necessary to ensure that the conditions are fulfilled. Based on the information provided, the Commission shall make public and regularly update a list containing the periods and corresponding rates during which the variation is applied.\n4. The variations referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 are not designed to generate additional toll revenue. Any unintended increase in revenue shall be counterbalanced by changes to the structure of the variation which must be implemented within two years from the end of the accounting year in which the additional revenue is generated.\nArticle 7h\n1. At least six months before the implementation of a new infrastructure charge tolling arrangement, Member States shall send to the Commission:\n(a)\nfor tolling arrangements other than those involving concession tolls:\n-\nthe unit values and other parameters used in calculating the various infrastructure cost elements, and\n-\nclear information on the vehicles covered by the tolling arrangements, the geographic extent of the network, or part of the network, used for each cost calculation, and the percentage of costs that are intended to be recovered;\n(b)\nfor tolling arrangements involving concession tolls:\n-\nthe concession contracts or significant changes to such contracts,\n-\nthe base case on which the grantor has founded the notice of concession, as referred to in Annex VII B to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (14); this base case shall include the estimated costs as defined in Article 7b(1) envisaged under the concession, the forecast traffic, broken down by type of vehicle, the levels of toll envisaged and the geographic extent of the network covered by the concession contract.\n2. Within six months of receiving all the necessary information in accordance with paragraph 1, the Commission shall give an opinion as to whether the obligations of Article 7e are complied with. The opinions of the Commission shall be made available to the Committee referred to in Article 9c.\n3. Before the implementation of a new external-cost charge tolling arrangement, Member States shall send the Commission:\n(a)\nprecise information locating the road sections where the external-cost charge is to be levied and describing the class of vehicles, type of roads and the exact time periods according to which the external-cost charge will vary;\n(b)\nthe envisaged weighted average external-cost charge and the envisaged total revenue;\n(c)\nif appropriate, the name of the authority designated in accordance with Article 7c(4) to set the amount of the charge, and of its representative;\n(d)\nthe parameters, data and information necessary to demonstrate how the calculation method set out in Annex IIIa will be applied.\n4. The Commission shall take a decision as to whether the obligations of Articles 7b, 7c, 7j or 9(2) are complied with by:\n(a)\nsix months after the submission of the file referred to in paragraph 3; or\n(b)\nwhere applicable, an additional three months after receipt of additional information pursuant to paragraph 3 requested by the Commission.\nThe Member State concerned shall adapt the proposed external-cost charge in order to be in conformity with the decision. The decision of the Commission shall be made available to the Committee referred to in Article 9c, to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nArticle 7i\n1. Member States shall not provide for discounts or reductions for any users in relation to the external-cost charge element of a toll.\n2. Member States may provide for discounts or reductions to the infrastructure charge on condition that:\n(a)\nthe resulting charging structure is proportionate, made public and available to users on equal terms and does not lead to additional costs being passed on to other users in the form of higher tolls;\n(b)\nsuch discounts or reductions lead to actual savings in administrative costs; and\n(c)\ndo not exceed 13 % of the infrastructure charge paid by equivalent vehicles not eligible for the discount or reduction.\n3. Subject to the conditions provided for in Article 7g(3)(b) and in Article 7g(4), toll rates may, in exceptional cases, namely for specific projects of high European interest identified in Annex III to Decision No 661/2010/EU, be subject to other forms of variation in order to secure the commercial viability of such projects where they are exposed to direct competition with other modes of vehicle transport. The resulting charging structure shall be linear, proportionate, made public, and available to all users on equal terms and shall not lead to additional costs being passed on to other users in the form of higher tolls. The Commission shall verify compliance with those conditions prior to the implementation of the charging structure in question.\nArticle 7j\n1. Tolls and user charges shall be applied and collected and their payment monitored in such a way as to cause as little hindrance as possible to the free flow of traffic and to avoid any mandatory controls or checks at the Union\u2019s internal borders. To this end, Member States shall cooperate in establishing methods for enabling hauliers to pay tolls and user charges 24 hours a day, at least at major sales outlets, using common means of payment, inside and outside the Member States in which they are applied. Member States shall provide adequate facilities at the points of payment for tolls and user charges so as to maintain normal road safety standards.\n2. The arrangements for collecting tolls and user charges shall not, financially or otherwise, place non-regular users of the road network at an unjustified disadvantage. In particular, where a Member State collects tolls or user charges exclusively by means of a system that requires the use of a vehicle on-board unit, it shall ensure that appropriate on-board units compliant with the requirements of Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (15) can be obtained by all users under reasonable administrative and economic arrangements.\n3. If a Member State levies a toll on a vehicle, the total amount of the toll, the amount of the infrastructure charge and/or the amount of the external-cost charge shall be indicated in a receipt provided to the haulier, as far as possible by electronic means.\n4. Where economically feasible, Member States shall levy and collect external-cost charges by means of an electronic system which complies with the requirements of Article 2(1) of Directive 2004/52/EC. The Commission shall promote cooperation between Member States that may prove necessary to ensure the interoperability of electronic toll collection systems at European level.\nArticle 7k\nWithout prejudice to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, this Directive does not affect the freedom of Member States which introduce a system of tolls and/or user charges for infrastructure to provide appropriate compensation for those charges.\n(3)\nAfter Article 8a, the following Article is added:\n\u2018Article 8b\n1. Two or more Member States may cooperate in introducing a common system for tolls applicable to their combined territories as a whole. In such a case, those Member States shall ensure that the Commission is informed about such cooperation and the system\u2019s subsequent operation and possible amendment.\n2. The common toll system shall be subject to the conditions set out in Articles 7 to 7k. Other Member States may join the common system.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 9, paragraphs 1a and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181a. This Directive shall not prevent the non-discriminatory application by Member States of regulatory charges specifically designed to reduce traffic congestion or combat environmental impacts, including poor air quality, on any roads located in an urban area, including trans-European network roads crossing urban areas.\n2. Member States shall determine the use of revenues generated by this Directive. To enable the transport network to be developed as a whole, revenues generated from infrastructure and external costs charges, or the equivalent in financial value of these revenues, should be used to benefit the transport sector, and optimise the entire transport system. In particular, revenues generated from external cost charges, or the equivalent in financial value of these revenues, should be used to make transport more sustainable, including one or more of the following:\n(a)\nfacilitating efficient pricing;\n(b)\nreducing road transport pollution at source;\n(c)\nmitigating the effects of road transport pollution at source;\n(d)\nimproving the CO2 and energy performance of vehicles;\n(e)\ndeveloping alternative infrastructure for transport users and/or expanding current capacity;\n(f)\nsupporting the trans-European transport network;\n(g)\noptimising logistics;\n(h)\nimproving road safety; and\n(i)\nproviding secure parking places.\nThis paragraph shall be deemed to be applied by Member States, if they have in place and implement fiscal and financial support policies which leverage financial support to the trans-European network and which have an equivalent value of at least 15 % of the revenues generated from infrastructure and external cost charges in each Member State.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticles 9b and 9c are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 9b\nThe Commission shall facilitate dialogue and the exchange of technical know-how between Member States in relation to the implementation of this Directive and in particular the Annexes.\nArticle 9c\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (16).\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 9d\nThe Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as regards:\n-\nthe adaptation of Annex 0 to the Union acquis,\n-\nthe adaptation of the formulas of sections 4.1 and 4.2 of Annex IIIa to scientific and technical progress.\nThe procedures set out in Articles 9e, 9f and 9g shall apply to the delegated acts referred to in this Article.\nArticle 9e\n1. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 9d shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 9f and 9g.\nArticle 9f\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 9d may be revoked by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision and shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 9g\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of two months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council this period shall be extended by two months.\n2. If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force at the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\n(6)\nin Article 10(1), the words \u2018European Communities\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018European Union\u2019;\n(7)\nafter Article 10, the following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 10a\n1. The amounts in euro as laid down in Annex II and the amounts in cent as laid down in Tables 1 and 2 in Annex IIIb shall be reviewed every two years starting on 1 January 2013, in order to take account of changes in the EU-wide Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices excluding energy and unprocessed food (as published by the Commission (Eurostat)).\nThe amounts shall be adapted automatically, by increasing the base amount in euro or cent by the percentage change in that index. The resulting amounts shall be rounded up to the nearest euro with regard to Annex II, rounded up to the nearest tenth of a cent with regard to Table 1 in Annex IIIb and rounded up to the nearest hundredth of a cent with regard to Table 2 in Annex IIIb.\n2. The Commission shall publish in the Official Journal of the European Union the adapted amounts referred to in paragraph 1. Those adapted amounts shall enter into force on the first day of the month following publication.\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\n1. By 16 October 2014, and every four years thereafter, Member States which levy an external-cost charge and/or an infrastructure charge shall draw up a report on tolls, including concession tolls, levied on their territory and shall forward it to the Commission which shall make it available to the other Member States. That report may exclude tolling arrangements that were already in place on 10 June 2008 and which do not include external-cost charges, as long as those arrangements remain in force and provided that they are not substantially amended. That report shall comprise information on:\n(a)\nthe weighted average external-cost charge and the specific amounts levied for each combination of class of vehicle, type of road and period of time;\n(b)\nthe variation of infrastructure charges according to the type of vehicles and time;\n(c)\nthe weighted average infrastructure cost charge and total revenue raised through the infrastructure charge;\n(d)\nthe total revenue raised through external cost charges; and\n(e)\nthe actions taken pursuant to Article 9(2).\n2. By 16 October 2015, the Commission, assisted by the Committee referred to in Article 9c, shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and effects of this Directive, in particular as regards the effectiveness of the provisions on the recovery of the costs related to traffic-based pollution, and on the inclusion of vehicles of more than 3,5 and less than 12 tonnes. The report shall also analyse, based on continuous monitoring, and assess, amongst others:\n(a)\nthe effectiveness of the measures foreseen in this Directive in order to tackle negative impacts caused by road transport taking also into account, in particular, the impact on geographically isolated and peripheral Member States;\n(b)\nthe effect of the implementation of this Directive to direct users toward the most environmentally friendly and efficient transport solutions and shall include information on the introduction of distance-based charges;\n(c)\nthe implementation and effect of the variation of infrastructure charges as referred to in Article 7g on the reduction of local air pollution and congestion. The report shall also evaluate whether the maximum variation and peak period as referred to in Article 7g are sufficient to enable a proper functioning of the variation mechanism;\n(d)\nscientific progress in estimating external costs of transport for the purpose of internalising them; and\n(e)\nprogress towards applying charges to road users and ways of gradually harmonising the charging systems that are applied to commercial vehicles.\nThe report shall also evaluate the use of electronic systems to levy and collect infrastructure and external-cost charges and their degree of interoperability pursuant to Directive 2004/52/EC.\n3. The report shall be accompanied, if appropriate, by a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council for further revision of this Directive.\n4. By 16 October 2012, the Commission shall present a report that summarises the other measures, such as regulatory policies, taken to internalise or reduce the external costs related to environment, noise and health from all transport modes, including the legal basis and maximum values used.\nIn order to ensure fair intermodal competition while gradually charging the external costs of all transport modes, it shall include a timetable of the measures which remain to be taken to address other modes or vehicles and/or the external-cost elements not taken into account yet, taking into account progress in revising Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (17).\n(9)\nAnnex III is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018This Annex stipulates the core principles for the calculation of weighted average infrastructure charge to reflect Article 7b(1). The obligation to relate infrastructure charges to costs shall be without prejudice to the freedom of Member States to choose, in accordance with Article 7b(2), not to recover the costs in full through infrastructure charges revenue, or to the freedom, in accordance with Article 7f, to vary the amounts of specific infrastructure charges away from the average.\u2019;\n(b)\nin the second paragraph, the word \u2018Community\u2019 is replaced by the word \u2018Union\u2019;\n(c)\nin point (1), second indent, the words \u2018Article 7a(1)\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018Article 7b(2)\u2019;\n(10)\nafter Annex III, the text set out in the Annex to this Directive is inserted.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 16 October 2013. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nThe obligations for transposition and implementation of this Directive shall not apply to Member States as long as neither tolls nor user charges are implemented within their territory.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 27 September 2011.", "references": ["51", "64", "66", "46", "24", "37", "11", "23", "91", "54", "61", "6", "14", "69", "44", "10", "56", "57", "4", "31", "18", "49", "76", "88", "74", "36", "34", "0", "97", "95", "No Label", "53", "55", "58", "60"], "gold": ["53", "55", "58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 November 2010\nextending the period of validity of Decision 2005/359/EC providing for a derogation from certain provisions of Council Directive 2000/29/EC as regards oak (Quercus L.) logs with bark attached, originating in the United States of America\n(notified under document C(2010) 8229)\n(2010/723/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Directive 2000/29/EC, oak (Quercus L.) logs with bark attached (hereinafter: \u2018the logs\u2019), originating in the United States, may, in principle, not be introduced into the Union because of the risk of introducing Ceratocystis fagacearum (Bretz) Hunt, the cause of oak wilt.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2005/359/EC (2) authorises Member States to provide for derogations from Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC and from the third indent of Article 13(1)(i) of that Directive with regard to Annex IV(A)(I)(3) to that Directive in respect of logs originating in the United States subject to specific conditions. That Decision will expire on 31 December 2010.\n(3)\nSince the circumstances justifying that authorisation still apply and there is no new information giving cause for revision of the specific conditions, the authorisation should be extended.\n(4)\nBased on the experience gained with the application of Decision 2005/359/EC, it is appropriate to extend the authorisation for 10 years.\n(5)\nMember States making use of the derogation should report to the Commission and the other Member States on its operation on an annual basis, thus allowing the Standing Committee on Plant Health to review the correct implementation of this Decision.\n(6)\nDecision 2005/359/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Decision 2005/359/EC, Articles 10 and 11 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 10\nMember States which have made use of the derogation provided for in Article 1 shall report to the Commission and the other Member States on its operation by 30 June of each year for the preceding period between 1 May and 30 April.\nThe report shall include details of quantities imported.\nArticle 11\nThe Decision shall expire on 31 December 2020.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 November 2010.", "references": ["4", "11", "14", "2", "44", "94", "40", "42", "63", "21", "65", "35", "85", "60", "69", "29", "68", "6", "32", "43", "18", "89", "23", "87", "19", "24", "92", "48", "0", "62", "No Label", "8", "20", "22", "61", "64", "66", "88", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "20", "22", "61", "64", "66", "88", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 December 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service\n(2012/381/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 2 December 2010, the Council adopted a Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations on behalf of the Union with Australia for the transfer and use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data to prevent and combat terrorism and other serious transnational crime.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2012/380/EU (1), the Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (the \u2018Agreement\u2019) has been signed, subject to its conclusion at a later date.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be concluded.\n(4)\nThe Agreement respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the \u2018Charter\u2019), notably the right to respect for private and family life, recognised in Article 7 of the Charter, the right to the protection of personal data, recognised in Article 8 of the Charter and the right to effective remedy and fair trial recognised in Article 47 of the Charter. The Agreement should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, those Member States have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the Position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by the Agreement or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (the \u2018Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to the exchange of the instruments of approval provided for in Article 29 of the Agreement, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the Agreement (2).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["19", "11", "12", "33", "61", "60", "53", "16", "77", "15", "65", "23", "79", "67", "94", "78", "44", "43", "66", "34", "64", "51", "38", "28", "32", "92", "46", "74", "8", "89", "No Label", "9", "13", "21", "36", "40", "42", "57", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "13", "21", "36", "40", "42", "57", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 46/2011\nof 20 January 2011\nfixing the export refunds on pigmeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVII of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in pigmeat, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 949/2010 (5). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the condition provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 949/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2011.", "references": ["50", "43", "79", "64", "40", "17", "68", "90", "72", "97", "42", "63", "52", "16", "91", "2", "61", "36", "39", "86", "21", "27", "75", "95", "76", "28", "65", "31", "38", "67", "No Label", "20", "22", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 3/2012\nof 4 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 January 2012.", "references": ["27", "60", "52", "18", "76", "3", "66", "83", "91", "10", "84", "21", "7", "16", "0", "78", "54", "5", "36", "8", "15", "65", "13", "29", "14", "77", "89", "4", "37", "44", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 December 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation relating to the preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement\n(2012/107/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91 and Article 100(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn view of the economic importance for the Union of the access of European service providers to the market of the Russian Federation, the Commission has negotiated with the Russian Federation extensive commitments by the latter with regard to trade in services.\n(2)\nThese commitments, which are to be included in the Protocol of Accession of the Russian Federation to the World Trade Organization (WTO), do not provide for the equivalent level of market access as defined in the existing commitments of the Russian Federation to the Union under the Agreement on partnership and cooperation establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of one part, and the Russian Federation, of the other part, of 24 June 1994 (\u2018the PCA\u2019).\n(3)\nIn order to preserve the commitments under the PCA, it is necessary to capture them in a binding agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the European Union.\n(4)\nIn the context of the negotiations regarding the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, the Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the European Union, an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation relating to the preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be signed.\n(6)\nIn view of the need to ensure that the commitments of the Russian Federation under the PCA will continue to apply as from the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, the Agreement should be applied on a provisional basis from that date, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation relating to the preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nIn accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, it shall be applied on a provisional basis as from the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, pending the completion of the procedures for the conclusion of the Agreement (1).\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Geneva, on 14 December 2011.", "references": ["75", "36", "80", "78", "24", "33", "47", "12", "72", "58", "52", "86", "87", "54", "59", "49", "15", "68", "40", "65", "67", "95", "85", "79", "31", "56", "37", "74", "27", "92", "No Label", "3", "9", "25", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "25", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 March 2011\non the allocation of quantities of controlled substances allowed to be imported or produced for laboratory and analytical uses in the Union in 2011 under Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer\n(notified under document C(2011) 1819)\n(Only the Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2011/184/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union has already phased out the production and consumption of controlled substances for most uses. The Commission is required to determine the quantities of controlled substances other than hydrochlorofluorocarbons that may be used for essential laboratory and analytical uses, and the companies that may use them.\n(2)\nThe Commission has published a notice to undertakings intending to import or export controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer to or from the European Union in 2011 and undertakings intending to request for 2011 a quota for these substances intended for laboratory and analytical uses (2) and has received declarations on intended laboratory and analytical uses of controlled substances for 2011.\n(3)\nThe determination of the allocated quota shall ensure that the quantitative limits set out in Article 10(6) are respected. As those quantitative limits include quantities of hydrochlorofluorocarbons licensed for laboratory and analytical uses, the production and import of hydrochlorofluorocarbons for those uses should also be covered by this Decision.\n(4)\nThe quantity resulting from the deduction of the quantities allocated to undertakings which produced or imported under licence in the years 2007 to 2009 from the maximum quantity of 110 ODP tons should be allocated to undertakings for which no production or import licences were issued in the reference period 2007 to 2009. The allocation mechanism should ensure that all undertakings requesting a new quota receive an appropriate share of the quantities to be allocated.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe quotas for importing and producing controlled substances for laboratory and analytical uses in the year 2011 shall be allocated to the undertakings listed in Annex I.\nThe maximum quantities that may be produced or imported in 2011 for laboratory and analytical uses allocated to these undertakings are set out in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2011 and shall expire on 31 December 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the following undertakings:\nABCR Dr Braunagel GmbH & Co.\nIm Schlehert 10\n76187 Karlsruhe\nGermany\nAcros Organics BVBA\nJanssen Pharmaceuticalaan 3a\n2440 Geel\nBelgium\nAirbus Operations SAS\nRoute de Bayonne 316\n31300 Toulouse\nFrance\nArkema France SA\n420, rue d\u2019Estienne D\u2019Orves\n92705 Colombes Cedex\nFrance\nBayer CropScience AG (DEU)\nGeb\u00e4ude A729\n41538 Dormagen\nGermany\nEras Labo (FRA)\n222 D1090\n38330 Saint-Nazaire-les-Eymes\nFrance\nHarp International Ltd\nGellihirion Industrial Estate\nRhondda, Cynon Taff\nPontypridd CF37 5SX\nUnited Kingdom\nHoneywell Fluorine Products Europe BV\nLaarderhoogtweg 18\n1101 EA Amsterdam\nNetherlands\nHoneywell Specialty Chemicals GmbH\nWunstorfer Strasse 40\nPostfach 100262\n30918 Seelze\nGermany\nLGC Standards GmbH\nMercatorstr. 51\n46485 Wesel\nGermany\nMallinckrod Baker BV\nTeugseweg 20\n7418 AM Deventer\nNetherlands\nMebrom NV\nAssenedestraat 4\n9940 Rieme Ertvelde\nBelgium\nMerck KGaA\nFrankfurter Strasse 250\n64271 Darmstadt\nGermany\nMexichem UK Ltd (ex Ineos Fluor)\nPO Box 13\nThe Heath, Runcorn Cheshire WA7 4QX\nUnited Kingdom\nMinistry of Defence\nDefence Fuel Lubricants and Chemicals\nPO Box 10.000\n1780 CA Den Helder\nNetherlands\nPanreac Quimica SA\nPol. Ind. Pla de la Bruguera, C/Garraf 2\n08211 Castellar del Vall\u00e8s-Barcelona\nSpain\nSicor Spa\nVia Terazzano 77\n20017 Rho\nItaly\nSigma Aldrich Chimie SARL\n80, rue de Luzais\nL\u2019Isle d\u2019Abeau Chesnes\n38297 St Quentin Fallavier\nFrance\nSigma Aldrich Company Ltd\nThe Old Brickyard, New Road\nGillingham SP8 4XT\nUnited Kingdom\nSigma Aldrich Laborchemikalien GmbH\nWunstorfer Strasse 40\nPostfach 100262\n30918 Seelze\nGermany\nSigma Aldrich Logistik GmbH\nRiedstrasse 2\n89555 Steinheim\nGermany\nSolvay Fluor GmbH\nHannover Hans-Boeckler-Allee 20\n30173 Hannover\nGermany\nStockholm University\nDepartment of Applied Environmental Science (ITM)\n10691 Stockholm\nSweden\nTazzetti Fluids SRL\nCorso Europa n. 600/a\nVolpiano (TO)\nItaly\nVWR International SAS\n201 rue Carnot\n94126 Fontenay-sous-Bois\nFrance\nDone at Brussels, 24 March 2011.", "references": ["63", "66", "20", "35", "11", "19", "6", "70", "95", "18", "37", "52", "7", "12", "82", "24", "42", "41", "71", "92", "36", "15", "4", "73", "33", "80", "68", "48", "76", "53", "No Label", "58", "60", "77", "83"], "gold": ["58", "60", "77", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 131/2011\nof 14 February 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/100/CFSP amending Common Position 2003/495/CFSP on Iraq (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn line with United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1483 (2003), Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 of 7 July 2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq (2) made specific arrangements as regards payments for petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas exported from Iraq, whereas Article 10 of that Regulation made specific arrangements concerning immunity from legal proceedings of certain Iraqi assets. Those specific arrangements were applied until 31 December 2010.\n(2)\nUNSC Resolution 1956 (2010) provided that those specific arrangements should be extended until 30 June 2011 and that they should no longer apply after that date. In accordance with Council Decision 2011/100/CFSP, Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 should now be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003, paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Articles 2 and 10 shall apply until 30 June 2011.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 February 2011.", "references": ["73", "53", "54", "40", "78", "63", "65", "36", "12", "14", "33", "13", "55", "60", "23", "39", "81", "89", "19", "77", "18", "96", "93", "0", "52", "68", "16", "59", "27", "84", "No Label", "3", "9", "22", "80", "95"], "gold": ["3", "9", "22", "80", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1103/2010\nof 29 November 2010\nestablishing, pursuant to Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, rules as regards capacity labelling of portable secondary (rechargeable) and automotive batteries and accumulators\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (1), and in particular Article 21(2) and 21(7) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA reduction in waste quantities could be obtained by increasing the average life span of secondary (rechargeable) batteries. Choosing the appropriate battery for an appliance would reduce the amount of waste batteries and accumulators.\n(2)\nIt is essential that capacity labelling information be provided through harmonised, controllable and repeatable methods in order to ensure fair competition and consistent quality values for manufacturers.\n(3)\nDirective 2006/66/EC requires that all portable and automotive batteries and accumulators be provided with a capacity label. The capacity label aims at providing useful, easily understandable and comparable information for end-users when purchasing portable and automotive batteries and accumulators.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 21(7) of Directive 2006/66/EC exemptions may be granted from the capacity labelling requirements.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to grant such exemptions for batteries and accumulators which are sold incorporated in appliances and are not intended to be removed by end-users for safety, performance, medical or data integrity reasons and continuity of power supply. These batteries and accumulators are not accessible to end-users and therefore the end-users do not have to make a purchasing decision for them.\n(6)\nIt is desirable to base information on existing International and European Standards so as to provide a sound scientific and technical basis for the accuracy of the information provided to end-users.\n(7)\nThe existing capacity labelling rules for portable secondary (rechargeable) and automotive batteries and accumulators need to be harmonised. Possible harmonisation of capacity labelling rules for portable primary (non-rechargeable) batteries should also be assessed.\n(8)\nProducers of batteries and accumulators need at least 18 months to adapt their technological processes to the new capacity labelling requirements.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 18 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to portable secondary (rechargeable) and automotive batteries and accumulators placed on the market for the first time 18 months after the date referred to in Article 5.\n2. This Regulation shall not apply to portable secondary (rechargeable) batteries and accumulators as listed in Annex I.\nArticle 2\nDetermination of capacity\n1. The electric charge that a battery or an accumulator can deliver under a specific set of conditions shall be considered as the capacity of the battery or the accumulator.\n2. The capacity of portable secondary (rechargeable) batteries and accumulators shall be determined on the basis of IEC/EN 61951-1, IEC/EN 61951-2, IEC/EN 60622, IEC/EN 61960 and IEC/EN 61056-1 standards depending on chemical substances contained therein as specified in Annex II, Part A.\n3. The capacity of automotive batteries and accumulators shall be determined on the basis of standard IEC 60095-1/EN 50342-1 depending on chemical substances contained therein as specified in Annex II, Part B.\nArticle 3\nUnit of capacity measurement\n1. The capacity of portable secondary (rechargeable) batteries and accumulators shall be expressed in \u2018milliampere-hour(s)\u2019 or \u2018ampere-hour(s)\u2019, using the abbreviations mAh or Ah respectively.\n2. The capacity of automotive batteries and accumulators shall be expressed in \u2018ampere-hour(s)\u2019 (Ah) and \u2018Cold Cranking Amperes\u2019 (A), using both these abbreviations.\nArticle 4\nCapacity label design\n1. Portable secondary (rechargeable) batteries and accumulators shall be marked with a label containing the information set out in Annex III, Part A. The minimum size of the label shall be determined according to the type of the battery and accumulator as specified in Annex IV, Part A.\n2. All automotive batteries and accumulators shall be marked with a label containing the information set out in Annex III, Part B. The minimum size of the label shall be determined according to the type of the battery and accumulator as specified in Annex IV, Part B.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2010.", "references": ["75", "84", "23", "27", "87", "1", "2", "92", "96", "59", "24", "74", "32", "57", "93", "11", "98", "31", "6", "55", "12", "40", "76", "49", "10", "20", "13", "85", "38", "30", "No Label", "7", "8", "25", "48", "58"], "gold": ["7", "8", "25", "48", "58"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 170/2011\nof 23 February 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 as a feed additive for piglets (weaned) and amending Regulation (EC) No 1200/2005 (holder of authorisation Prosol SpA)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).\n(2)\nThe preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 was authorised in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC as a feed additive without a time limit for use on piglets (weaned) by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1200/2005 (3), for cattle for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 492/2006 (4). The additive was subsequently entered in the Community Register of feed additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 was also authorised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 as a feed additive for 10 years for use in sows by Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2009 (5) and for dairy cows and horses by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1119/2010 (6).\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 of that Regulation, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 as a feed additive for piglets (weaned) requesting that additive to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 6 October 2010 (7) that, under the proposed conditions of use, Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or on the environment, and that it has the potential to improve the zootechnical performance of the target species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nAs a consequence of a new authorisation being granted by this Regulation, the entry for Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 in Regulation (EC) No 1200/2005 should be deleted.\n(8)\nSince the modifications to the conditions of the authorisation are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for the disposal of existing stocks of pre-mixtures and compound feed containing this preparation.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018gut flora stabilisers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1200/2005, the entry E 1710, additive: Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885, is deleted.\nArticle 3\nPre-mixtures and compound feed containing Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 labelled in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC may continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2011.", "references": ["95", "45", "63", "93", "6", "21", "8", "54", "9", "17", "33", "55", "87", "31", "97", "50", "92", "37", "69", "43", "7", "91", "52", "62", "76", "46", "4", "30", "57", "18", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 489/2012\nof 8 June 2012\nestablishing implementing rules for the application of Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (1), and in particular Article 16 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 establishes that the Commission shall submit, by 1 July 2013, a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the effects of implementing that Regulation. With regard to this, the Member States shall provide the necessary relevant information to the Commission.\n(2)\nThe necessary relevant information to be provided by the Member States should relate to the evolution of the market in foods to which vitamins and minerals have been added, including data demonstrating trends in the market since harmonisation at Union level of the addition of vitamins and minerals to foods.\n(3)\nSuch information should include consumption patterns of foods to which vitamins and minerals have been added and information on intake of vitamins and minerals by the population and by specific population groups if appropriate. This should include information that demonstrates changes in dietary habits since harmonisation of the addition of vitamins and minerals to foods.\n(4)\nThe relevant information to be provided by the Member States should also relate to the addition of substances other than vitamins or minerals to foods, including food supplements, as defined by Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (2). Such information should include information on the consumption of such foods and the amounts of the substances added, and on any national measures whether legislative or not, that have been taken so as to restrict or prohibit the use of certain other substances in foods.\n(5)\nIt is necessary by way of these implementing rules to establish a list of the relevant information that Member States should collect and provide to the Commission, and to set a common format for presenting this information.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation establishes implementing rules for the application of Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 and in particular on the provision of the necessary relevant information by the Member States to the Commission for the purpose of evaluating the effects of implementation of the Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006.\nArticle 2\nRelevant information\n1. Member States shall by 1 July 2012 provide to the Commission the necessary relevant information in particular concerning the following:\n(a)\nevolution of the national market in foods to which vitamins and minerals have been added since the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006;\n(b)\nconsumption patterns of foods to which vitamins and minerals have been added;\n(c)\nintake levels of vitamins and minerals by the population;\n(d)\nthe addition of substances other than vitamins or minerals to foods, including food supplements as defined in point (a) of Article 2 of Directive 2002/46/EC and the information on the consumption patterns of such foods as well as the amounts of these substances added to foods and food supplements.\n2. The necessary relevant information to be provided by the Member States to the Commission referred to in paragraph 1 shall include at least the information specified in Annex I to this Regulation.\nThe necessary relevant information and details thereof shall be submitted to the Commission in the format laid down in Annex II to this Regulation.\n3. A Member State shall inform the Commission if any of the information specified in Annex I is not available or cannot for any other reason be provided to the Commission by 1 July 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 June 2012.", "references": ["62", "79", "17", "96", "74", "25", "32", "52", "11", "59", "60", "0", "16", "45", "50", "8", "18", "48", "82", "40", "33", "49", "64", "92", "47", "88", "2", "29", "56", "5", "No Label", "24", "38", "41", "42", "72", "83"], "gold": ["24", "38", "41", "42", "72", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 440/2011\nof 6 May 2011\non the authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on foods and referring to children\u2019s development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 17(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on foods are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Authority\u2019.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission of the application, and to deliver an opinion on a health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority. Any decision to amend the lists of permitted health claims shall include the particulars referred to in Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 including, inter alia, and as the case may be, specific conditions of use.\n(5)\nThe eight opinions referred to in this Regulation are related to applications for health claims referring to the effects of essential fatty acids on children\u2019s development and health, as referred to in Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\n(6)\nFollowing three applications from Mead Johnson & Company, submitted on 19 January 2008 pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and requesting the protection of proprietary data for nineteen studies, the Authority was required to deliver three opinions on health claims related to the effects of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA) on visual development (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-211 (2), EFSA-Q-2008-688 (3) and EFSA-Q-2008-689 (4)). The claims proposed by the applicant were worded, respectively, as follows: \u2018DHA and ARA contribute to the optimal visual development of infants and young children\u2019, \u2018Lipil\u00ae contributes to optimal visual development of infants and young children\u2019 and \u2018Enfamil\u00ae Premium contributes to optimal visual development of infants\u2019. Lipil\u00ae and Enfamil\u00ae Premium, as stated by the applicant, contain DHA and ARA at specific levels and ratio.\n(7)\nOn the basis of the data submitted, the Authority concluded in its opinions received by the Commission on 13 February and 23 March 2009 respectively that a cause and effect relationship had been established between the intake of infant and follow-on formulae supplemented with DHA and the visual development in infants either breastfed until weaning or having received a DHA-enriched formula containing 0,3 % of fatty acids as DHA from birth until weaning. The Authority noted that it could not have reached this conclusion without considering seven studies claimed by the applicant as proprietary. Further, the Authority concluded that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the intake of ARA and the claimed effect.\n(8)\nIn the Authority\u2019s responses of 3 September 2009 to comments received pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and of 3 December 2009 to the request of the Commission for advice relating, inter alia, to the applications referred to in Question No EFSA-Q-2008-211, EFSA-Q-2008-688 and EFSA-Q-2008-689, it was concluded that the claimed effect could be extended to foods intended to infants while they are being weaned, as defined in Commission Directive 2006/125/EC (5). Accordingly and without prejudice to Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) and specific Directives applicable to certain groups of foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses, a health claim reflecting this conclusion and accompanied by specific conditions of use should be considered as complying with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and it should be included in the Union list of permitted claims.\n(9)\nFollowing the receipt of the Authority\u2019s opinions in relation to the applications referred to in Question No EFSA-Q-2008-211, EFSA-Q-2008-688 and EFSA-Q-2008-689, the Commission went back to the applicant for further clarification on the justification provided regarding the seven studies claimed as proprietary and in particular regarding the \u2018exclusive right of reference\u2019 as referred to in Article 21(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. All the justifiable information provided by the applicant has been assessed. As all seven studies had been published prior to the submission of the applications for authorisation of the health claims and in the light of the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 among which is the protection of the investment made by innovators in gathering the information and data supporting an application under that Regulation, their protection is not justified and accordingly it should not be granted.\n(10)\nFollowing an application from Merck Selbstmedikation GmbH, submitted on 16 January 2008 pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of DHA on visual development of the unborn child and breastfed infant (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-675) (7). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018DHA is important for early development of the eyes in the foetus (unborn child) and infant. Maternal DHA supply contributes to the child\u2019s visual development\u2019.\n(11)\nOn the basis of the data submitted, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission on 23 April 2009 that there was insufficient evidence to establish a cause and effect relationship between the consumption of supplementary DHA during pregnancy and lactation and visual development in unborn children or breastfed infants.\n(12)\nFollowing an application from Merck Selbstmedikation GmbH, submitted on 16 January 2008 pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of DHA on cognitive development (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-773) (8). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018DHA is important for early development of the brain in the foetus (unborn child) and infant. Maternal DHA supply contributes to the child\u2019s cognitive development\u2019.\n(13)\nOn the basis of the data submitted, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission on 23 April 2009 that there was insufficient evidence to establish a cause and effect relationship between the consumption of supplementary DHA during pregnancy and lactation and cognitive development in unborn children or breastfed infants.\n(14)\nHowever, in the Authority\u2019s responses of 4 August 2009 to comments received pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and of 3 December 2009 to a request from the Commission for advice related, inter alia, to the applications referred to in Question No EFSA-Q-2008-675 and EFSA-Q-2008-773, it was concluded that as DHA is a major structural and functional long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid, it can contribute to the normal brain development and to the normal development of the eye of the foetus and breastfed infants. Further, it was clarified that most DHA is provided to breastfed infants via breast milk in which the DHA concentration is dependent both on maternal DHA dietary intake and on maternal DHA stores. Accordingly, health claims reflecting these conclusions and accompanied by specific conditions of use should be considered as complying with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and they should be included in the Union list of permitted claims.\n(15)\nArticle 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 provides that an opinion in favour of authorising a health claim should include certain particulars. Accordingly, those particulars should be set out in the Annex to the present Regulation as regards the authorised claim and include, as the case may be, the revised wording of the claim, specific conditions of use of the claim, and, where applicable, conditions or restrictions of use of the food and/or an additional statement or warning, in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and in line with the opinions of the Authority.\n(16)\nOne of the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 is to ensure that health claims are truthful, clear and reliable and useful to the consumer, and that wording and presentation are taken into account in that respect. Therefore, where the wording of claims has the same meaning for consumers as that of an authorised health claim, because they demonstrate the same relationship that exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health, they should be subject to the same conditions of use indicated in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(17)\nFollowing three applications from Mead Johnson & Company, submitted on 19 January 2008 pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver three opinions on health claims related to the effects of DHA and ARA on brain development (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-212 (9), EFSA-Q-2008-690 (10) and EFSA-Q-2008-691 (11)). The claims proposed by the applicant were worded, respectively, as follows: \u2018DHA and ARA contribute to the optimal brain development of infants and young children\u2019, \u2018Lipil\u00ae contributes to optimal brain development of infants and young children\u2019 and \u2018Enfamil\u00ae Premium contributes to optimal brain development of infants and young children\u2019. Lipil\u00ae and Enfamil\u00ae Premium as stated by the applicant contain DHA and ARA at specific levels and ratio.\n(18)\nOn the basis of the data submitted, the Authority concluded in its opinions received by the Commission on 23 March 2009 that there was insufficient evidence to establish a cause and effect relationship between the consumption of DHA and ARA, Lipil\u00ae and Enfamil\u00ae Premium, respectively, and the claimed effect.\n(19)\nIn the Authority\u2019s responses of 3 September 2009 to comments received pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and of 3 December 2009 to the request of the Commission for advice relating, inter alia, to the applications referred to in Question No EFSA-Q-2008-690, EFSA-Q-2008-691 and EFSA-Q-2008-212, it was concluded that as DHA is a major structural and functional long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid, it can contribute to the normal brain development of the foetus, infants and young children. Therefore, the Commission and the Member States considered whether a health claim reflecting this conclusion should be authorised. However, on the basis of the data submitted in the three applications and of the current scientific knowledge, the Authority could not provide specific advice on the appropriate conditions of use that should accompany this health claim. Accordingly, as risk managers could not establish specific conditions of use in accordance with Article 16(4) of the Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and given that the lack of such specific conditions of use means that the beneficial effect of the product could not be assured, which amounts to misleading the consumer, this health claim should not be included in the lists of permitted health claims.\n(20)\nThe comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation. The Commission took also into account all relevant advice from the Authority, including opinions on labelling reference intake values for n-3 and n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00548 (12)) and on dietary reference values for fat including saturated fatty acids, polyunsaturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids, trans-fatty acids, and cholesterol (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-466 (13)).\n(21)\nIn accordance with Article 28(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, health claims referred to in its Article 14(1)(b) and not authorised by a decision pursuant to Article 17(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 may continue to be used for 6 months after the adoption of this Regulation, provided an application was made before 19 January 2008. Accordingly, the transition period laid down in that Article is applicable to health claims listed in Annex II to this Regulation.\n(22)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The health claims listed in Annex I to this Regulation may be made on foods on the European Union market in compliance with the conditions laid down in that Annex.\n2. The health claims referred to in paragraph 1 shall be included in the Union list of permitted claims referred to in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nArticle 2\n1. The health claims listed in Annex II to this Regulation shall not be included in the Union list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\n2. However, they may continue to be used for 6 months after the entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2011.", "references": ["96", "9", "10", "45", "52", "33", "57", "90", "36", "58", "23", "5", "16", "89", "67", "76", "18", "19", "12", "97", "32", "53", "70", "25", "13", "43", "55", "17", "85", "65", "No Label", "20", "38", "72", "73"], "gold": ["20", "38", "72", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 453/2012\nof 29 May 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 443/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 May 2012.", "references": ["23", "4", "86", "70", "11", "99", "1", "13", "50", "40", "12", "36", "95", "75", "62", "33", "41", "18", "94", "20", "27", "82", "87", "44", "28", "48", "80", "96", "17", "84", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 71/2012\nof 27 January 2012\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals (1), and in particular Article 22(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 689/2008 implements the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade, signed on 11 September 1998 and approved, on behalf of the Community, by Council Decision 2003/106/EC (2).\n(2)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 should be amended to take into account regulatory action in respect of certain chemicals taken pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (3), Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (4) and Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (5).\n(3)\nThe substances dichlobenil, dicloran, ethoxyquin and propisochlor have not been included as active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (6), with the effect that those substances are banned for pesticide use and thus should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008. The addition of dichlobenil, dicloran, ethoxyquin and propisochlor to Annex I was suspended due to a new application for inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC submitted pursuant to Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (7). That new application resulted again in the decision not to include the substances dichlobenil, dicloran, ethoxyquin and propisochlor as active substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC with the effect that dichlobenil, dicloran, ethoxyquin and propisochlor remain banned for pesticide use and that the reason for suspending the addition to Annex I disappeared. Therefore, the substances dichlobenil, dicloran, ethoxyquin and propisochlor should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(4)\nThe substance methyl bromide has not been included as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and methyl bromide has not been included as an active substance in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC, with the effect that methyl bromide is banned for pesticide use and thus should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008. The addition of methyl bromide to Annex I was suspended due to a new application for inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC submitted pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008. That new application resulted again in the decision not to include the substance methyl bromide as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC with the effect that methyl bromide remains banned for pesticide use and that the reason for suspending the addition to Annex I disappeared. Therefore, the substance methyl bromide should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(5)\nThe substance cyanamide has not been included as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, with the effect that cyanamide is severely restricted for pesticide use and thus should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 because virtually all use is prohibited despite the fact that cyanamide has been identified and notified for evaluation under Directive 98/8/EC and may thus continue to be authorised by Member States until a decision under that Directive is taken. The addition of cyanamide to Annex I was suspended due to a new application for inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC submitted pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008. That new application has been withdrawn by the applicant with the effect that the reason for suspending the addition to Annex I disappeared. Therefore, the substance cyanamide should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(6)\nThe substance flurprimidol has not been included as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, with the effect that flurprimidol is banned for pesticide use and thus should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008. The addition of flurprimidol to Part 2 of Annex I was suspended due to a new application for inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC submitted pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008. That new application resulted again in the decision not to include the substance flurprimidol as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC with the effect that flurprimidol remains banned for pesticide use and that the reason for suspending the addition to Part 2 of Annex I disappeared. Therefore, the substance flurprimidol should be added to the list of chemicals contained in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(7)\nThe substance triflumuron has been included as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, with the effect that triflumuron is no longer banned for pesticide use. Consequently the active substance triflumuron should be deleted from Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(8)\nThe substance triazoxide has been approved as an active substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, with the effect that triazoxide is no longer banned for pesticide use. Consequently the active substance triazoxide should be deleted from Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 January 2012.", "references": ["57", "30", "8", "67", "51", "13", "49", "62", "72", "15", "84", "70", "98", "68", "23", "76", "79", "1", "35", "29", "75", "96", "21", "6", "60", "17", "27", "34", "50", "69", "No Label", "22", "25", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["22", "25", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 649/2011\nof 4 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 July 2011.", "references": ["13", "21", "10", "54", "70", "62", "2", "16", "23", "82", "51", "38", "32", "5", "3", "64", "47", "68", "28", "91", "76", "48", "0", "88", "52", "55", "15", "20", "75", "63", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 1 July 2011\namending Decision 2009/821/EC as regards the list of border inspection posts and veterinary units in Traces\n(notified under document C(2011) 4594)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/394/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 20(1) and (3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (2), and in particular the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (3), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/821/EC of 28 September 2009 drawing up a list of approved border inspection posts, laying down certain rules on the inspections carried out by Commission veterinary experts and laying down the veterinary units in TRACES (4) lays down a list of border inspection posts approved in accordance with Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC. That list is set out in Annex I to that Decision.\n(2)\nGermany has communicated that the border inspection post at the port of Rostock has been closed on 31 March 2011. The entry for that border inspection post should therefore be deleted from the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(3)\nFollowing communication from Spain, the current suspension of approval of the border inspection post at the airport of Almer\u00eda should no longer apply. The entry for that border inspection post should therefore be amended accordingly. In addition, Spain has communicated that, at the border inspection post at the port of Vigo, the Inspection centre \u2018Pantal\u00e1n 3\u2019 should be deleted and the name of the Inspection centre \u2018Vieirasa\u2019 should be changed to \u2018Puerto Vieira\u2019 in the entries for that border inspection post set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(4)\nFollowing communication from France, certain categories of products of animal origin that can currently be checked at the border inspection post at the port of Brest should be added in the entries for that border inspection post set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(5)\nFollowing communication from Italy, the border inspection posts at the port and airport of Reggio Calabria, at the port of Olbia and at the airports of Rimini and Palermo should be deleted. In addition, Italy has communicated that only a limited number of species of live animals are permitted at the border inspection post at the airport of Bologna-Borgo Panigale. The list of border inspection posts for Italy should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nFollowing communication from Hungary, the name of the border inspection post at the airport of Budapest should be changed into \u2018Budapest-Liszt Ferenc Nemzetk\u00f6zi Rep\u00fcl\u0151t\u00e9r\u2019.\n(7)\nThe Netherlands has communicated that only zoo animals are permitted at the Inspection centre \u2018MHS Live\u2019 at the border inspection post of Maastricht Airport. The entry for that border inspection post should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nFollowing communication from Austria, the border inspection post of Linz Airport should be approved for all ungulates.\n(9)\nFollowing communication from Portugal, the entries for the border inspection posts at the ports of Peniche and Set\u00fabal should be deleted in the list of entries for that Member State as set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(10)\nAnnex II to Decision 2009/821/EC lays down the list of central units, regional units and local units in the integrated computerised veterinary system (Traces).\n(11)\nFollowing communications from Germany, Ireland, France and Austria, certain changes should be brought to the list of central, regional and local units in Traces for those Member States laid down in Annex II to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(12)\nDecision 2009/821/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2009/821/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2011.", "references": ["93", "53", "92", "27", "90", "84", "11", "91", "36", "76", "12", "80", "30", "33", "68", "86", "45", "29", "6", "15", "57", "77", "31", "49", "51", "89", "56", "28", "7", "43", "No Label", "1", "4", "13", "22", "38", "41", "54", "61", "69"], "gold": ["1", "4", "13", "22", "38", "41", "54", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 424/2011\nof 29 April 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 418/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 April 2011.", "references": ["2", "89", "55", "58", "96", "45", "76", "98", "16", "66", "83", "67", "56", "26", "75", "32", "51", "92", "69", "65", "59", "64", "23", "36", "17", "7", "37", "1", "74", "29", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 February 2012\nconcerning the non-inclusion of flufenoxuron for product type 18 in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market\n(notified under document C(2012) 621)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/77/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes flufenoxuron.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, flufenoxuron (CAS No 101463-69-8; EC No 417-680-3) has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nFrance was designated as rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 17 March 2009 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 22 September 2011, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nThe assessment of risks to the environmental compartments of concern, carried out using a realistic approach, has demonstrated unacceptable effects for the aquatic compartment. Furthermore, the characteristics of flufenoxuron render it persistent, liable to bioaccumulate and toxic, as well as very persistent and very liable to bioaccumulate, in accordance with the criteria laid down in Annex XIII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). It is therefore not appropriate to include flufenoxuron for use in product type 18 in Annexes I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.\n(6)\nThe date as of which date biocidal products of product type 18 containing flufenoxuron should no longer be placed on the market should be reasonable with regard to the outcome of the risk assessment as well as the date of entry into force of this Decision..\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFlufenoxuron (CAS No 101463-69-8; EC No 417-680-3) shall not be included in Annexes I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC for product type 18.\nArticle 2\nFor the purposes of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, biocidal products of product type 18 containing flufenoxuron shall no longer be placed on the market with effect from 1 August 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 February 2012.", "references": ["92", "0", "13", "22", "10", "43", "1", "2", "35", "74", "95", "50", "17", "55", "15", "36", "59", "84", "49", "26", "98", "72", "12", "48", "29", "62", "14", "33", "27", "70", "No Label", "25", "58", "60", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "58", "60", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 273/2011\nof 21 March 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Bayerisches Rindfleisch/Rindfleisch aus Bayern (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Bayerisches Rindfleisch/Rindfleisch aus Bayern\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["14", "15", "7", "54", "46", "48", "64", "19", "56", "52", "99", "65", "0", "39", "58", "78", "44", "9", "34", "11", "29", "26", "70", "67", "20", "89", "61", "60", "43", "32", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 25/2011\nof 14 January 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d'Ivoire (1), as amended by Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 (2),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2010/656/CFSP, as amended, provides for the adoption of restrictive measures against certain persons who, while not designated by the United Nations (UN) Security Council or the Sanctions Committee, are obstructing the process of peace and national reconciliation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire and in particular those who are jeopardising the proper outcome of the electoral process, as well as against legal persons, entities or bodies owned or controlled by such persons and persons, entities or bodies acting on their behalf or at their direction.\n(2)\nThese measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, notably with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement them.\n(3)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the right to the protection of personal data. This Regulation should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles. This Regulation also fully respects the obligations of Member States under the Charter of the United Nations and the legally binding nature of the UN Security Council Resolutions.\n(4)\nThe power to amend the lists in Annexes I and IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 should be exercised by the Council, in view of the specific threat to international peace and security posed by the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, and to ensure consistency with the process for amending and reviewing Annexes I and II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\n(5)\nThe procedure for amending the lists in Annexes I and IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 should include providing designated natural or legal persons, entities or bodies with the grounds for listing, so as to give them an opportunity to submit observations. Where observations are submitted, or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in light of those observations and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n(6)\nFor the implementation of this Regulation, and in order to create maximum legal certainty within the Union, the names and other relevant data concerning natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen in accordance with this Regulation, should be made public. Any processing of personal data should respect Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (4).\n(7)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 560/2005 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex I or in Annex IA shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I or in Annex IA.\n3. The participation, knowing and intentional, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited.\n4. Annex I shall consist of the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies referred to in Article 5(1)(a) of Decision 2010/656/CFSP as amended.\n5. Annex IA shall consist of the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies referred to in Article 5(1)(b) of Decision 2010/656/CFSP as amended.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 2a\n1. Annexes I and IA shall include the grounds for listing of listed persons, entities and bodies, as provided by the UN Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee for Annex I.\n2. Annexes I and IA shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies concerned, as provided by the UN Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee for Annex I. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names, including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, entities and bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. Annex I shall also include the date of designation by the UN Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticles 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are:\n(a)\nnecessary for basic expenses, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources.\nIf it concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex I, Member States shall notify their intention to authorise access to such funds and economic resources to the Sanctions Committee. They shall not authorise such access if they have received a negative decision by the Sanctions Committee within two working days of such notification.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 2 and provided it concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex I, the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are necessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that Member States have notified that determination to the Sanctions Committee and that the determination has been approved by that Committee, under the conditions envisaged by paragraph 14(e) of UN Security Council Resolution 1572 (2004).\n3. By way of derogation from Article 2 and provided it concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex IA, the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are necessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the Member State has notified the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted to all other Member States and to the Commission at least two weeks prior to authorisation.\nArticle 4\nBy way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources in question are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the person, entity or body referred to in Article 2 became subject to this Regulation, or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources in question will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a person, entity or body listed in Annex I or in Annex IA;\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgment is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned; and\n(e)\nif it concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex I, Member States have notified the lien or judgment to the Sanctions Committee.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 7\nArticle 2(2) shall not prevent financial or credit institutions in the Union from crediting frozen accounts where they receive funds transferred to the account of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, provided that any additions to such accounts will also be frozen. The financial or credit institution shall inform the relevant competent authority about any such transaction without delay.\u2019;\n(5)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 9a\nThe prohibition set out in Article 2(2) shall not give rise to any liability of any kind on the part of the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies which made funds or economic resources available if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe the prohibition in question.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\nThe Commission shall be empowered to amend Annex II on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\u2019;\n(7)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 11a\n1. Where the UN Security Council or the Sanctions Committee lists a natural or legal person, entity or body, the Council shall include such natural or legal person, entity or body in Annex I.\n2. Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to the measures referred to in Article 2(1), it shall amend Annex IA accordingly.\n3. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\n4. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the natural or legal person, entity or body accordingly.\n5. Where the United Nations decides to delist a natural or legal person, entity or body, or to amend the identifying data of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, the Council shall amend Annex I accordingly.\n6. The list in Annex IA shall be reviewed in regular intervals and at least every 12 months.\u2019;\n(8)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 12a\nWhere there is, in this Regulation, a requirement to notify, inform or otherwise communicate with the Commission, the address and other contact details to be used for such communication shall be those indicated in Annex II.\u2019;\n(9)\nArticle 13 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 13\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\u2019;\n(10)\nthe text set out in Annex I is inserted into Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 as Annex IA;\n(11)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 is replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 January 2011.", "references": ["67", "72", "25", "65", "47", "58", "91", "26", "77", "75", "44", "92", "89", "14", "95", "64", "68", "76", "27", "41", "19", "7", "73", "57", "43", "51", "59", "39", "74", "85", "No Label", "3", "30", "94"], "gold": ["3", "30", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 52/2012\nof 20 January 2012\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the entry for the United States in the list of third countries and territories\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 lays down the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and the rules applicable to checks on such movements. It applies to non-commercial movements between Member States or from third countries of pet animals of the species listed in Annex I thereto.\n(2)\nPart C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 lists the third countries and territories which are free of rabies and the third countries and territories, including the United States, in respect of which the risk of rabies spreading to the Union, as a result of non-commercial movements of pet animals from them, has been found to be no higher than the risk associated with such movements between Member States.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 18/2006 (2), includes Guam in the entry for the United States in the list set out in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003.\n(4)\nThe United States has informed the Commission that it also applies national movement conditions to animals of the species listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 when those animals are moved for non-commercial purposes between the United States and American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands.\n(5)\nIt is therefore appropriate to include those additional territories in the entry for the United States in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, the entry for the United States of America is replaced by the following:\n\u2018US\nUnited States of America (including AS - American Samoa, GU - Guam, MP - Northern Mariana Islands, PR - Puerto Rico and VI - US Virgin Islands)\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2012.", "references": ["52", "85", "91", "39", "25", "57", "37", "6", "47", "64", "2", "45", "40", "99", "28", "98", "72", "5", "30", "90", "20", "24", "50", "26", "58", "4", "84", "63", "7", "74", "No Label", "22", "38", "66", "93", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "38", "66", "93", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 807/2010\nof 14 September 2010\nlaying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Union\n(codification)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 43 (g) and (h), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 of 29 October 1992 on laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.\n(2)\nThe procedure and rules for establishing the annual distribution plan for products from intervention stocks drawn up by the Commission on the basis of information provided by the Member States should be simple and the timetable should be adapted taking into account the requirements of distribution to the recipients and the need for financial management of public intervention stocks.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure more standardised implementation in the Member States participating in this scheme, the concepts of \u2018beneficiaries\u2019 and \u2018final recipients\u2019 of the measure need to be clarified. In order to facilitate the management and control of the implementation of the annual plan, the charitable organisations designated by the competent national authorities can be deemed final recipients if they are actually engaged in the local distribution of the foodstuffs (in various forms) where the most deprived persons live.\n(4)\nThe supply of agricultural products and foodstuffs to the most deprived persons in the Union normally involves products processed or packaged from products withdrawn from Union intervention stores. However, the objective may also be achieved by the supply of agricultural products and foodstuffs belonging to the same category of products placed on the Union market. In such cases supply is reimbursed in the form of a withdrawal and transfer of products from the intervention stores.\n(5)\nIn order to deal with situations in which certain basic products are temporarily unavailable in intervention stocks at the time of adoption of an annual plan or during its implementation, Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the products concerned may be mobilized on the Union market, although only under conditions which do not conflict with the principle of supply from intervention stocks. The rules for such mobilization must be fixed.\n(6)\nIn order to comply with the principle that priority should be given to intervention stocks when mobilizing products to supply to the most deprived persons in the Union, optimum distribution of existing public stocks among the Member States participating in the scheme should be ensured when the plan is adopted and intra-Union transfer operations made necessary by the non-availability of the products requested in one or more Member States should be coordinated. For the purposes of applying Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, a minimum quantity threshold should also be set beneath which, for reasons of good economic management, intra-Union transfers should not be implemented.\n(7)\nIn order to allow judicious management of the scheme and to organize the implementation of the annual Union plan, it is appropriate, firstly, to determine, when that plan is being adopted, for which products temporary non-availability justifies mobilization on the market of the same product or a product in the same category, and secondly to set the financial allocation to be made available to the Member State for this purpose. To meet the abovementioned objectives, that allocation should be made on the basis of the applications submitted by the Member State for the annual plan, the quantities of the products unavailable in the intervention stocks and the allocations made during previous financial years and their effective use.\n(8)\nWith the same objective of giving priority to the use of intervention stocks, it should be laid down that supplies using products to be withdrawn from those stocks must be allocated before operations to mobilize products of the same category on the Union market are undertaken.\n(9)\nThe best conditions should be obtained for carrying out the different types of supply and it should be specified that invitations to tender must be published to ensure that all operators established in the Union have equal access.\n(10)\nIt should be explicitly stated that these invitations must include all the necessary provisions on the delivery of the supplies and provision should be made to adjust payment for them based on compliance or otherwise with the requirements laid down.\n(11)\nThe products to be withdrawn from intervention stocks under the annual plan may be supplied unprocessed or processed for the manufacture of food, or withdrawn in payment for the supply or manufacture of food mobilised on the Union market. In the latter case, the products in intervention stocks which may be withdrawn in payment for the manufacture of cereal, rice and milk products should be specified.\n(12)\nTo respond more effectively to the needs of charitable organisations and expand the range of food products supplied, it should be laid down that products from intervention stocks may, under certain conditions, be incorporated into other products for the purposes of manufacturing food.\n(13)\nThe terms for reimbursing charitable organisations for costs incurred by the transport of products and also, if appropriate, administrative costs should be determined, within the limits of available funds. The rules for entering in the accounts the value of products withdrawn from intervention stores for the purposes of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund EAGF expenditure should also be laid down, along with the rules to be applied in the event that stocks are transferred from one Member State to another.\n(14)\nThe transport costs must be reimbursed on the basis of the duly justified real costs established on the basis of an invitation to tender procedure. It should be specified, however, that reimbursement of the transport costs between the storage depots of the charitable organisation and the place of final distribution is effected on the basis of supporting evidence.\n(15)\nIn order to ensure improved utilization of the available resources, it should be specified that in no circumstance may product carriage costs give rise to payments in the form of products.\n(16)\nThe most appropriate types of check of the implementation of the annual plan should be specified and in particular the rate of checks to be made by the competent authorities. The annual reports of plan implementation should include information allowing both the outcome of the checks and the plan\u2019s implementation to be assessed.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Member States wishing to apply the measures laid down in Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on behalf of the most deprived persons in the Union shall inform the Commission each year no later than 1 February preceding the period of implementation of the annual plan referred to in Article 2 of this Regulation.\n2. By 31 May at the latest, the Member States concerned shall notify the Commission of:\n(a)\nthe quantities of each type of product (expressed in tonnes) required to implement the plan on their territory for the year in question;\n(b)\nthe form in which the products are to be distributed to the recipients;\n(c)\nthe eligibility criteria to be met by recipients;\n(d)\nthe rate of charges, if any, which may be imposed on the recipients pursuant to Article 27(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n3. For the purposes of this Regulation, \u2018the most deprived persons\u2019 means physical persons, whether individuals, families or groups composed of such persons, whose social and financial dependence is recorded or recognised on the basis of eligibility criteria adopted by the competent authorities, or is judged to be so on the basis of the criteria used by charitable organisations and which are approved by the competent authorities.\nArticle 2\n1. Before 1 October each year the Commission shall adopt an annual plan for the distribution of food for the benefit of the most deprived persons, broken down by Member State concerned, hereinafter the \u2018plan\u2019. For the purposes of allocating the resources among Member States, the Commission shall take account of the best estimates of the number of most deprived persons in the Member States concerned. It shall also take account of how operations were carried out and the uses to which resources were put in previous financial years, on the basis in particular of the reports provided for in Article 11.\n2. Before drawing up the plan, the Commission shall consult the major organisations familiar with the problems of the most deprived persons in the Union.\n3. The plan shall include in particular:\n(a)\nFor each of the Member States applying the measure, the following:\n(i)\nthe maximum financial resources available to carry out its part of the plan;\n(ii)\nthe quantity of each type of product to be withdrawn from the stocks held by the paying agencies or intervention agencies, hereinafter collectively referred to as \u2018intervention agencies\u2019;\n(iii)\nthe grant made available for each product for purchase on the Union market where the product concerned is found to be temporarily unavailable among the stocks held by the intervention agencies when the plan is adopted.\nThis grant shall be determined for each product taking account firstly of the quantity indicated in the Member State notification referred to in Article 1(2), secondly of the quantities not available in intervention stocks and thirdly of the products applied for and allocated during previous financial years and the actual use made of them.\nThis grant shall be expressed in euro using the accounting value of the products not available among intervention stocks determined in accordance with Article 5(1);\n(iv)\nwhere appropriate, a grant for purchase on the Union market of one or more products, not available from the Member State where they are required, where the intra- Union transfer necessary to carry out the plan in that Member State would be in respect of a quantity of 60 tonnes or less of each product not available.\nThis grant shall be expressed in euro using the accounting value of the products concerned determined in accordance with Article 5(1).\n(b)\nThe appropriations needed to cover the intra-Union transfer costs of the intervention products held by an intervention agency in a Member State other than that where the product is required.\n4. The Commission shall publish the plan as quickly as possible.\nArticle 3\n1. The plan implementation period shall begin on 1 October and finish on 31 December of the following year.\n2. Withdrawal of the products from intervention stocks shall take place from 1 October to 31 August of the following year on a regular basis and in accordance with the requirements for implementing the plan.\n70 % of the quantities referred to in Article 2(3)(a)(ii) must be withdrawn from stock before 1 July in the year of plan implementation. However, this requirement shall not apply to allocations of 500 tonnes or less. Any quantities that have not been withdrawn from intervention stocks by 30 September in the year of plan implementation shall no longer be allocated to the Member State to which they were assigned under the plan in question.\nHowever, in the case of butter and skimmed-milk powder, 70 % of the products must be withdrawn from intervention storage before 1 February in the year of implementation. This requirement shall not, however, apply to allocations of 500 tonnes or less.\nIf the time limits provided for in the first, second and third subparagraphs are exceeded, the costs of storing the intervention products shall no longer be covered by the Union. This provision shall not apply to products which have not been withdrawn from intervention stocks on 30 September of the year of implementation of the plan.\nThe products to be withdrawn must be removed from intervention stocks within sixty days of the date on which the successful tenderer to whom the supply is assigned signs the contract or, in the case of transfers, within sixty days from the notification by the Member State of destination to the competent authority of the supplier Member State.\n3. Payment operations for products to be supplied by the operator must, in the case of products to be mobilised on the market under Article 2(3)(a)(iii) and (iv), be closed before 1 September of the year of implementation of the plan.\n4. During the implementation period the Member States shall notify to the Commission any changes that they make to the implementation of the plan on their territory within the strict limits of the financing available to them. The notification shall be accompanied by all appropriate information. Where substantiated changes concern 5 % or more of the quantities or values entered per product in the Union plan, the plan shall be revised.\n5. The Member States shall inform the Commission immediately of foreseeable reductions in expenditure on applying the plan. The Commission may allocate the available resources to other Member States on the basis of their applications and their actual use of products made available and allocations made during previous financial years.\nArticle 4\n1. Implementation of the plan shall comprise:\n(a)\nthe supply of products withdrawn from intervention stocks;\n(b)\nthe supply of products mobilised on the Union market under Article 2(3)(a)(iii) and (iv);\n(c)\nthe supply of processed agricultural products or foodstuffs available or obtainable on the market by supplying for payment products from intervention stocks.\n2. Those products referred to in paragraph 1(b) which are mobilised on the market must belong to the same product group as the product temporarily unavailable in the intervention stocks.\nHowever, where no rice is available in the intervention stocks, the Commission may authorise the removal of cereals from intervention stocks as payment for the supply of rice or rice products mobilised on the market.\nSimilarly, where no cereals are available in the intervention stocks, the Commission may authorise the removal of rice from intervention stocks as payment for the supply of cereals or cereal products mobilised on the market.\nA given product may be mobilised on the market only if all the quantities of product in the same group to be withdrawn from intervention stocks for supply purposes in application of Article 2(3)(a)(ii), including quantities to be transferred in application of Article 8, have already been allocated. The competent national authority shall inform the Commission of the opening of mobilisation procedures on the market.\n3. Where the supply concerns products withdrawn from intervention stocks, the competent national authority shall issue or arrange to have issued an invitation to tender to determine the most advantageous conditions of supply. The invitation to tender shall specify precisely the nature and characteristics of the product to be supplied. The product to be supplied shall be either the product withdrawn from intervention stocks in unprocessed form or after packaging and/or processing, or a product mobilised on the market by withdrawing a product from intervention stocks in payment for the supply.\nThe invitation to tender shall concern:\n(a)\nthe charges for processing and/or packaging of the products coming from intervention stocks;\n(b)\nor the quantity of processed or, where appropriate, packaged agricultural products or of foodstuffs which may be obtained by the use of products from intervention stocks supplied in payment for such products;\n(c)\nor the quantity of processed agricultural products or foodstuffs available or obtainable on the market by supplying for payment products from intervention stocks; these foodstuffs must contain an ingredient belonging to the same group of products as the intervention product supplied as payment.\nIn the case referred to in point (c) of the second subparagraph, where supply involves cereals or cereal products, the invitation to tender shall specify that the product to be withdrawn is a specific cereal held by an intervention agency. Where the supply involves milk products, the invitation to tender shall specify which product, butter or milk powder, must be withdrawn from the stocks held by an intervention agency depending on the stocks held by that agency.\nIn the case referred to in point (c) of the second subparagraph, where supply involves rice or rice products in exchange for cereals withdrawn from intervention stocks, the invitation to tender shall specify that the product to be withdrawn is a specific cereal held by an intervention agency. Similarly, where supply involves cereals or cereal products in exchange for rice withdrawn from intervention stocks, the invitation to tender shall specify that the product to be withdrawn is a specific rice held by an intervention agency.\nWhere the supply involves the processing and/or packaging of the product, the invitation to tender shall refer to the obligation of the successful bidder to lodge a security, before taking over the products, for the intervention agency in accordance with Title III of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 (4), for an amount equal to the intervention price applicable on the day fixed for taking over the product plus 10 % of that price. For the purposes of Title V of that Regulation, the primary requirement shall be to supply the product at the stipulated destination. In the event of delivery after the end of the implementation period of the plan specified in Article 3(1) of this Regulation, the security forfeited shall be 15 % of the secured amount. The remainder of the security shall also be forfeited at an additional 2 % per day of delay. This subparagraph shall not apply where the product withdrawn from the intervention stocks is made available to the supply contractor as payment for supply already carried out.\n4. Where the supply concerns agricultural products or foodstuffs to be mobilized on the Union market, the competent national authority shall issue an invitation to tender to determine the most advantageous conditions of supply. The invitation to tender shall specify precisely the nature and characteristics of the product or foodstuff to be mobilized, specifications concerning packaging and marking and other obligations associated with the supply. The supply contract is awarded to the selected tenderer subject to the latter depositing a security equivalent to 110 % of the amount of his tender and established in the name of the intervention agency, in accordance with Title III of Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85.\nThe invitation to tender shall concern all the supply charges and shall call for the submission of tenders concerning, according to case:\n(a)\nthe maximum quantity of the agricultural product or foodstuff to be mobilized on the market for a monetary amount fixed in the notice;\n(b)\nor the monetary amount needed to mobilize on the market a quantity fixed in the notice.\n5. Products from intervention or mobilised on the market under Article 2(3)(a)(iii) and (iv) or point c of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article may be incorporated into or added to other products mobilised on the market for the manufacture of food to be supplied for the purposes of implementing the plan.\n6. The transport costs shall by determined by an invitation to tender.\nMember States may specify that supply must also include the transport of products to the depots of the charitable organisation. In such cases transport shall be the subject of a specific provision in the invitation to tender and shall constitute a particular item in the tender submitted.\nTenders concerning transport shall be submitted in monetary values.\nThe payment of transport costs may in no case be made in products.\n7. Invitations to tender shall guarantee equal access to all operators established in the Union. To this end they shall be the subject of notices published in official administrative publications as well as being made available in complete form on request from interested operators.\n8. The invitations to tender shall include the necessary provisions on the supply operation, especially as regards the products\u2019 quality, packaging and marking. They shall also include a provision to the effect that if the quality, packaging or marking of the products noted at the time fixed for their supply does not correspond exactly to what was stipulated, but does not prevent the goods from being accepted for their intended use, the competent authorities can apply reductions when calculating the amount payable.\nArticle 5\n1. For the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) accounting purposes, and notwithstanding Annex VIII to Commission Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 (5), the accounting value of the products made available from intervention under this Regulation shall be the intervention price applicable on 1 October of each year.\nFor the Member States which have not adopted the euro, the accounting value of intervention products shall be converted into national currency at the exchange rate applicable on 1 October.\n2. Where intervention products are transferred from one Member State to another, the supplier Member State shall record the product delivered as a zero entry in the accounts and the Member State of destination shall record it as a receipt in the month of dispatch, using the price calculated in accordance with paragraph 1.\nArticle 6\nWith a view to distributing foodstuffs to the most deprived persons and to performing checks, the charitable organisations directly looking after the beneficiaries shall be deemed to be the final recipients of this distribution if they are the ones actually distributing the foodstuffs. Foodstuffs which, without any other intervention, are locally delivered direct to the beneficiaries as food packages or appropriate meals, depending on the circumstances, either daily or weekly, shall be deemed to have been distributed.\nArticle 7\n1. On duly substantiated application to the competent authority in each Member State, the charitable organisations designated to distribute the products shall be reimbursed for transport costs on the territory of the Member State between the storage depots of the charitable organisations and the points of distribution to the beneficiaries.\n2. Administrative costs generated by the supplies provided for in this Regulation shall, on duly substantiated application to the competent authority in each Member State, be reimbursed to the charitable organisations subject to a limit of 1 % of the value of the products made available to them, calculated in accordance with Article 5(1).\n3. The costs referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be reimbursed to the Member States within the limits of the financial resources available to implement the plan in each Member State.\nThe costs referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 may not be the subject of a payment in the form of products.\nArticle 8\n1. When products included in the plan are not available from intervention in the Member State where such products are required, the Commission shall authorise, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the transfer of the product in question from a Member State in which it is present in intervention stocks to the Member State where it will be used to implement the plan.\nThe Member State receiving the products shall publish or have published an invitation to tender to establish the most favourable conditions of supply. The costs of intra- Union transport shall be the subject of a tender submitted in monetary value and may not be paid for in products. Article 4(7) of this Regulation shall apply in the context of this invitation to tender.\n2. The intra-Union transport costs shall be borne by the Union and repaid to the Member State. The application for reimbursement shall include all necessary supporting documents, particularly those concerning the transport. The expenditure shall be set off against the appropriations referred to in Article 2(3)(b). Where the appropriations have been fully allocated, any additional Union financing to cover intra-Union transport costs shall be provided in accordance with Article 7(3).\n3. The call for tenders shall mention the option whereby an operator may submit a bid for placement on the Union market of the agricultural products or foodstuffs to be supplied and for takeover of the products from the supplying intervention agency, without transfer to the applicant Member State. In these circumstances, no intra- Union transport costs shall be paid to the person awarded the supply contract.\nThe applicant Member State shall provide the supplier Member State with the name of the person contracted to supply the products.\n4. Before the goods are removed, the contractor undertaking the supply operation shall lodge a security equal to the intervention buying-in price applicable on the day fixed for taking over the products, plus 10 %.\nThe security shall be lodged in accordance with Title III of Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85.\nFor the purposes of Title V of that Regulation, the primary requirement shall be completion of the supply operation in the Member State of destination.\nPresentation of a takeover document issued by the intervention agency of destination shall constitute proof of supply of the products.\n5. In the case of transfer, the Member State of destination shall provide the supplier Member State with the name of the person contracted to carry out the operation.\nThe intervention agency of the Member State supplying the products shall make them available to the person contracted to carry out the supply or his/her duly authorised agent, on presentation of a removal order issued by the intervention agency of the Member State of destination.\nThe competent authority shall ensure that the goods have been insured appropriately.\nDispatch declarations issued by the intervention agency of the supplier Member State shall include one of the entries given in Annex I.\nThe intervention agency of the supplier Member State shall, as soon as possible, notify the competent authority of the Member State of destination of the date on which the withdrawal operation is to end.\nIntra- Union transport costs shall be paid by the Member State of destination of the products concerned for the quantities actually taken over.\n6. The calculation of any losses shall be entered in the accounts in accordance with Annex X (c) of Regulation (EC) No 884/2006.\nArticle 9\nRequests for payment shall be submitted to the competent authorities of each Member State within a period of four months following the completion of the operation in question. A 20 % reduction shall be made in the case of requests submitted beyond the time limit, except in the case of force majeure. Requests made more than ten months after the completion of the operation shall not be accepted.\nThe competent authorities shall make the payment within a period of two months following receipt of the payment request.\nHowever, in the event of serious flaws in the supporting documents, the time limit provided for in the second paragraph may be suspended by notification in writing to the operator or the organisation designated to distribute products. The time limit shall continue to run from the date of receipt of the documents requested, which must be forwarded within 30 calendar days. If these documents are not sent within this period, the reduction specified in the first paragraph shall apply.\nExcept in cases of force majeure and taking account of the option of suspension provided for in the third paragraph, failure to comply with the time limit of two months stipulated in the second paragraph shall result in a reduction in the amount to be reimbursed to the Member State in accordance with Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 (6).\nArticle 10\n1. The Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that:\n(a)\nthe intervention products and, where appropriate, grants for mobilising foodstuffs on the market, are put to the use and serve the purposes laid down in Article 27(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(b)\nthe words \u2018EU aid\u2019, accompanied by the European Union flag following the instructions given in Annex II, shall be clearly visible on the packaging of goods which are not delivered in bulk to the beneficiaries;\n(c)\nthe designated charitable organisations for implementing the measures maintain appropriate accounts and supporting documents and allow the competent authorities access to them to carry out whatever checks they deem necessary;\n(d)\nthe invitations to tender are in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 and the supplies are implemented in accordance with this Regulation; in particular, the Member States shall establish the applicable penalties if the products have not been withdrawn in the period laid down in Article 3(2).\n2. Checks by the competent authorities shall be carried out when the products are taken over on their release from intervention storage or, where appropriate, as from the mobilisation of the products on the market under Article 2(3)(a)(iii) and (iv) or Article 4(1)(c) at all stages of implementation of the plan and at all levels of the distribution chain. The checks shall be performed throughout the plan implementation period, at all stages including the local level.\nThe checks shall cover at least 5 % of the quantity of each type of product referred to in Article 2(3)(a)(ii). This checking rate shall apply to each implementation stage, except for the stage of actual distribution to the most deprived, with account being taken of the risk criteria.\nThe purpose of the check is to verify the entry and exit of the products and their transfer to successive actors. Checks shall include a comparison of the stocks as shown in the accounts and the actual stocks of products chosen for inspection.\n3. The Member States shall take all the measures needed to ensure that the plan is properly implemented and to anticipate and penalise irregularities. To this end they may, in particular, suspend the participation of operators in the competitive tendering procedure or organisations designated for distribution in the plans, depending on the nature and seriousness of the shortcomings or irregularities found.\nArticle 11\nNo later than 30 June each year, the Member States shall send the Commission a report on the implementation of the plan on their territory during the previous year. The progress report shall include:\n(a)\nthe amounts of the various products withdrawn from intervention stocks;\n(b)\nthe type, quantity and value of goods distributed to the recipients, specifying separately unprocessed goods, processed goods and goods obtained by substitution together with the processing coefficients;\n(c)\nthe transport and transfer costs;\n(d)\nadministrative costs;\n(e)\nthe number of recipients over the course of the year.\nThe report shall specify the verification measures that have been applied to ensure that the goods have achieved their intended objective and have reached the final recipients. This report shall mention in particular the type and the number of checks carried out, the results obtained and any cases where the penalties referred to in Article 10(3) are imposed. The report shall be taken into account as a decisive factor when drawing up subsequent plans.\nArticle 12\nThis Regulation shall apply without prejudice to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1130/2009 (7).\nArticle 13\nRegulation (EEC) No 3149/92 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex IV.\nArticle 14\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 September 2010.", "references": ["79", "4", "57", "41", "89", "85", "26", "75", "81", "95", "27", "67", "17", "40", "65", "99", "73", "12", "25", "8", "29", "9", "3", "38", "21", "96", "33", "10", "7", "60", "No Label", "15", "20", "36", "37", "72"], "gold": ["15", "20", "36", "37", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 15 December 2011\nextending the derogation period for Romania to raise objections to shipments of certain waste to Romania for recovery under Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste\n(notified under document C(2011) 9191)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/854/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (1), and in particular the third and the fifth subparagraphs of Article 63(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 63(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 Romania may raise objections to shipments of certain wastes for recovery for a period of time ending on 31 December 2011.\n(2)\nBy letter of 1 June 2011 Romania requested to extend that period until 31 December 2015.\n(3)\nThere is a need to ensure that environmental protection remains at high levels across the Union, in particular where the country of destination has no, or insufficient recovery capacity for certain types of waste. Romania should retain the possibility to object to certain undesired planned waste shipments destined for recovery onto its territory. The derogation regime applicable to Romania should be therefore extended until 31 December 2015.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 39(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, the period during which the Romanian competent authorities may raise objections to shipments to Romania for recovery of the wastes listed in the second and the fourth subparagraphs of Article 63(5) of that Regulation in conformity with the grounds for objection laid down in Article 11 of that Regulation, shall be extended until 31 December 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2011.", "references": ["26", "29", "13", "1", "19", "67", "35", "44", "89", "46", "71", "66", "69", "61", "75", "9", "73", "7", "86", "28", "77", "51", "24", "83", "90", "76", "45", "39", "23", "56", "No Label", "20", "58", "60", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "58", "60", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 714/2012\nof 30 July 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 July 2012.", "references": ["8", "39", "93", "30", "60", "13", "92", "68", "80", "22", "15", "56", "70", "36", "82", "53", "6", "69", "89", "59", "52", "5", "84", "10", "23", "48", "99", "50", "58", "57", "No Label", "21", "40"], "gold": ["21", "40"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 86/2011\nof 1 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 February 2011.", "references": ["34", "81", "25", "4", "79", "57", "75", "0", "85", "18", "20", "19", "10", "27", "70", "3", "43", "16", "7", "13", "29", "56", "73", "30", "66", "90", "44", "55", "31", "14", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 January 2011\nadopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region\n(notified under document C(2010) 9663)\n(2011/62/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Alpine biogeographical region referred to in Article 1(c)(iii) of Directive 92/43/EEC comprises the Union territories of the Alps (Austria, Italy, Germany, France and Slovenia), the Pyrenees (France and Spain), the Apennine mountains (Italy), the northern Fennoscandian mountains (Sweden and Finland), the Carpathian mountains (Poland, Slovakia and Romania) and the Balkan, Rila, Pirin, Rhodope and the Sashtinska Sredna Gora mountains (Bulgaria) as specified in the biogeographical map approved on 25 April 2005 by the Committee set up by Article 20 of that Directive, hereinafter the \u2018Habitats Committee\u2019.\n(2)\nIt is necessary in the context of a process which was initiated in 1995 to make further progress in the actual establishment of the Natura 2000 network, which is an essential element of the protection of biodiversity in the Union.\n(3)\nThe initial list and the first three updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region, within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC, were adopted by Commission Decisions 2004/69/EC (2), 2008/218/EC (3), 2009/91/EC (4) and 2010/42/EU (5). On the basis of Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Member State concerned shall designate the sites included in the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region as special areas of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most, establishing conservation priorities and the necessary conservation measures.\n(4)\nIn the context of a dynamic adaptation of the Natura 2000 network, the lists of sites of Community importance are reviewed. A fourth update of the Alpine list is therefore necessary.\n(5)\nOn the one hand, the fourth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region is necessary in order to include additional sites that have been proposed since 2008 by the Member States as sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC. The obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC are applicable as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region.\n(6)\nOn the other hand, the fourth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region is necessary in order to reflect any changes in site related information submitted by the Member States following the adoption of the initial and the first three updated Community lists. In that sense, the fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region constitutes a consolidated version of the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region. However, it should be stressed that the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC are applicable as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the initial or the first three updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region, depending on which list a site of Community importance was included as such for the first time.\n(7)\nFor the Alpine biogeographical region, lists of sites proposed as sites of Community importance within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC have been transmitted to the Commission between March 2002 and November 2009 by the Member States concerned in accordance with Article 4(1) of that Directive.\n(8)\nThe lists of proposed sites were accompanied by information on each site, supplied in the format established by Commission Decision 97/266/EC of 18 December 1996 concerning a site information format for proposed Natura 2000 sites (6).\n(9)\nThat information includes the most recent and definitive map of the site transmitted by the Member States concerned, name, location and extent of the site, and the data yielded by application of the criteria specified in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(10)\nOn the basis of the draft list drawn up by the Commission in agreement with each of the Member States concerned, which also identifies sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, a fourth updated list of sites selected as sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region should be adopted.\n(11)\nKnowledge of the existence and distribution of the natural habitat types and species is constantly evolving, as a result of the surveillance in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, the evaluation and selection of sites at Community level was done using the best available information at present.\n(12)\nCertain Member States have not proposed sufficient sites to meet the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC for certain habitat types and species. For those habitat types and species it can therefore not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is complete. Taking into account the delay in receiving the information and reaching agreement with the Member States, it is necessary to adopt a fourth updated list of sites, which will need to be revised in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(13)\nGiven that knowledge on the existence and distribution of some of the natural habitat types of Annex I and species of Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC remains incomplete, it should not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is either complete or incomplete. The list should be revised, if necessary, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(14)\nIn the interests of clarity and transparency Decision 2010/42/EU should be repealed.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Habitats Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2010/42/EU is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 January 2011.", "references": ["56", "74", "46", "12", "44", "63", "48", "76", "57", "38", "15", "35", "72", "32", "42", "60", "40", "70", "9", "6", "11", "50", "25", "69", "79", "31", "29", "36", "37", "26", "No Label", "17", "39", "58", "96"], "gold": ["17", "39", "58", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/78/EU\nof 20 September 2011\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Serotype H14, Strain AM65-52 as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Serotype H14.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, Strain AM65-52 of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Serotype H14, has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to that Directive. Strain SA3A of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Serotype H14 is still under evaluation for use in that product-type.\n(3)\nItaly was designated as Rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 11 July 2008 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 6 May 2011, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods and containing Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Serotype H14, Strain AM65-52, may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Serotype H14, Strain AM65-52 in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at Union level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to human populations and to environmental compartments that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nIn the light of the potential risks identified for professional use without personal protective equipment, it is appropriate to require that product authorisations for professional use are granted only for use with appropriate personal protective equipment, unless it can be demonstrated in the application for product authorisation that risks to professional users can be reduced to an acceptable level by others means.\n(8)\nIn the light of the possible indirect human exposure via consumption of food as a result of those uses represented in the assessment, it is appropriate to require, where relevant, verification of the need to set new or to amend existing maximum residue levels according to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) or Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4). Measures should be adopted ensuring that the applicable maximum residue levels are not exceeded.\n(9)\nThe provisions of this Directive should be applied at the same time in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment on the Union market of biocidal products containing the active substance Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Serotype H14, Strain AM65-52 and also to facilitate the proper operation of the market for biocidal products in general.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC, in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(11)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(12)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 September 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 October 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2011.", "references": ["30", "14", "59", "32", "97", "10", "36", "37", "43", "55", "39", "73", "46", "63", "95", "51", "96", "83", "29", "15", "44", "79", "69", "85", "94", "49", "18", "92", "2", "82", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 985/2011\nof 30 September 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Vinagre de Jerez (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Vinagre de Jerez\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 September 2011.", "references": ["44", "8", "67", "5", "63", "43", "75", "51", "46", "64", "95", "37", "42", "6", "49", "1", "18", "94", "93", "32", "57", "38", "2", "55", "73", "84", "56", "36", "34", "7", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 July 2010\nin accordance with Article 140(2) of the Treaty on the adoption by Estonia of the euro on 1 January 2011\n(2010/416/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Treaty), and in particular Article 140(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the report from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the report from the European Central Bank,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,\nHaving regard to the discussion of the European Council,\nHaving regard to the recommendation of the members of the Council representing Member States whose currency is the euro,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe third stage of economic and monetary union (EMU) started on 1 January 1999. By Decision 98/317/EC (1) the Council, meeting in Brussels on 3 May 1998 in the composition of Heads of State or Government, decided that Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and Finland fulfilled the necessary conditions for adopting the single currency on 1 January 1999.\n(2)\nBy Decision 2000/427/EC (2) the Council decided that Greece fulfilled the necessary conditions for adopting the single currency on 1 January 2001. By Decision 2006/495/EC (3) the Council decided that Slovenia fulfilled the necessary conditions for adopting the single currency on 1 January 2007. By Decisions 2007/503/EC (4) and 2007/504/EC (5) Council decided that Cyprus and Malta respectively fulfilled the necessary conditions for adopting the single currency on 1 January 2008. By Decision 2008/608/EC (6) the Council decided that Slovakia fulfilled the necessary conditions for adopting the single currency on 1 January 2009.\n(3)\nIn accordance with paragraph 1 of the Protocol on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community, the United Kingdom notified the Council that it did not intend to move to the third stage of EMU on 1 January 1999. This notification has not been changed since then. In accordance with paragraph 1 of the Protocol on certain provisions relating to Denmark annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Decision taken by the Heads of State or Government in Edinburgh in December 1992, Denmark notified the Council that it will not participate in the third stage of EMU. Denmark has not requested that the procedure referred to in Article 140(2) of the Treaty be initiated.\n(4)\nBy virtue of Decision 98/317/EC Sweden has a derogation as defined in Article 139(1) of the Treaty. In accordance with Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary and Poland have a derogation as defined in Article 139(1) of the Treaty. In accordance with Article 5 of the 2005 Act of Accession, Bulgaria and Romania have a derogation as defined in Article 139(1) of the Treaty.\n(5)\nThe European Central Bank (ECB) was established on 1 July 1998. The European Monetary System has been replaced by an exchange rate mechanism, the setting-up of which was agreed by a resolution of the European Council on the establishment of an exchange-rate mechanism in the third stage of economic and monetary union of 16 June 1997 (7). The procedures for an exchange-rate mechanism in stage three of economic and monetary union (ERM II) were laid down in the Agreement of 16 March 2006 between the European Central Bank and the national central banks of the Member States outside the euro area laying down the operating procedures for an exchange rate mechanism in stage three of economic and monetary union (8).\n(6)\nArticle 140(2) of the Treaty lays down the procedures for abrogation of the derogation of the Member States concerned. At least once every two years, or at the request of a Member State with a derogation, the Commission and the ECB shall report to the Council in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 140(1) of the Treaty. The latest Commission and ECB regular Convergence Reports were adopted in May 2010.\n(7)\nNational legislation in the Member States including the statutes of national central banks is to be adapted as necessary with a view to ensuring compatibility with Articles 130 and 131 of the Treaty and the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB). The reports of the Commission and the ECB provide a detailed assessment of the compatibility of the legislation of Estonia with Articles 130 and 131 of the Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 1 of Protocol No 13 on the convergence criteria (the Protocol) the criterion on price stability referred to in the first indent of Article 140(1) of the Treaty means that a Member State has a price performance that is sustainable and an average rate of inflation, observed over a period of one year before the examination, that does not exceed by more than one and a half percentage points that of, at most, the three best performing Member States in terms of price stability. For the purpose of the criterion on price stability, inflation is measured by the harmonised indices of consumer prices (HICPs) defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 of 23 October 1995 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices (9). In order to assess the price stability criterion a Member State\u2019s inflation has been measured by the percentage change in the arithmetic average of 12 monthly indices relative to the arithmetic average of 12 monthly indices of the previous period. A reference value calculated as the simple arithmetic average of the inflation rates of the three best-performing Member States in terms of price stability plus 1,5 percentage points was considered in the reports of the Commission and the ECB.\nIn the one-year period ending in March 2010, the inflation reference value was calculated to be 1 percent, with Portugal, Estonia and Belgium as the three best-performing Member States in terms of price stability, with inflation rates of, respectively - 0,8 percent, - 0,7 percent and - 0,1 percent. In the current economic circumstances characterised by a large common adverse shock, where a significant number of countries face episodes of negative inflation rates, it seems warranted to exclude from the best performers those countries whose average inflation rate is distant from the euro area average inflation (0,3 % in March 2010) by a wide margin - in line with the precedent of the 2004 Convergence Report -, as these outliers cannot reasonably be judged as being best performers in terms of price stability and including them would severely affect the reference value and thus the fairness of the criterion. In March 2010, this leads to the exclusion of Ireland, the only country whose 12-month average inflation rate (at - 2,3 % in March 2010) deviated by a wide margin from that of the euro area and other Member States, mainly reflecting the severe economic downturn.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of the Protocol the criterion on the government budgetary position referred to in the second indent of Article 140(1) of the Treaty means that at the time of the examination the Member State is not the subject of a Council Decision under Article 126(6) of the Treaty that an excessive deficit exists.\n(10)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol, the criterion on participation in the exchange-rate mechanism of the European Monetary System referred to in the third indent of Article 140(1) of the Treaty means that a Member State has respected the normal fluctuation margins provided for by the exchange-rate mechanism of the European Monetary System without severe tensions for at least the last two years before the examination. In particular, the Member State must not have devalued its currency\u2019s bilateral central rate against the euro on its own initiative for the same period. Since 1 January 1999 the ERM II provides the framework for assessing the fulfilment of the exchange rate criterion. In assessing the fulfilment of this criterion in their reports, the Commission and the ECB have examined the two-year period ending on 23 April 2010.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol, the criterion on the convergence of interest rates referred to in the fourth indent of Article 140(1) of the Treaty means that, observed over a period of one year before the examination, a Member State has had an average nominal long-term interest rate that does not exceed by more than two percentage points that of, at most, the three best performing Member States in terms of price stability. For the purpose of the criteria on the convergence of interest rates, comparable interest rates on 10-year benchmark government bonds were used. Estonia, which was one of the best performing Member States in terms of price stability in March 2010, does not have a harmonised benchmark long-term government bond or a comparable security that could be used for the calculation of the reference value. Therefore, in line with the wording of the Protocol (referring to \u2018at most the three best performing Member States\u2019), in order to assess the fulfilment of the interest-rate criterion a reference value calculated as the simple arithmetic average of the nominal long-term interest rates of the two other best performing Member States in terms of price stability plus two percentage points was considered in the reports of the Commission and the ECB. On this basis, the reference value in the one year period ending in March 2010 was 6,0 percent, the average of interest rate in Portugal (4,2 %) and Belgium (3,8 %) plus two percentage points.\n(12)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol the data used in the current assessment of the fulfilment of the convergence criteria have to be provided by the Commission. For the preparation of this Decision the Commission provided data. Budgetary data were provided by the Commission after reporting by the Member States by 1 April 2010 in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 of 25 May 2009 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (10).\n(13)\nOn the basis of reports presented by the Commission and the ECB on the progress made in the fulfilment by Estonia of its obligations regarding the achievement of the EMU, the Commission concluded that:\n(a)\nin Estonia, national legislation, including the Statute of the national central bank, is compatible with Articles 130 and 131 of the Treaty and with the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB;\n(b)\nregarding the fulfilment by Estonia of the convergence criteria mentioned in the four indents of Article 140(1) of the Treaty:\n-\nthe average inflation rate in Estonia in the year ending March 2010 stood at - 0,7 percent, which is well below the reference value, and it is likely to remain below the reference value in the months ahead,\n-\nEstonia is not the subject of a Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit, with a budget deficit of 1,7 % of GDP in 2009,\n-\nEstonia has been a member of the ERM II since 28 June 2004; in the two-year period ending 23 April 2010, the Estonian kroon has not been subject to severe tensions and there has been no deviation from the ERM II central rate since the kroon\u2019s participation,\n-\nas a result of Estonia\u2019s very low level of gross public debt, no benchmark long-term government bonds or other appropriate securities are available to assess the durability of convergence as reflected in long-term interest rates. While financial market risk perceptions vis-\u00e0-vis Estonia increased at the height of the crisis, their development during the reference period, as well as a broader assessment on the durability of convergence, including Estonia\u2019s fiscal policy track record and comparatively flexible economy, would support a positive assessment of Estonia\u2019s fulfilment of the long-term interest rate criterion;\n(c)\nin the light of the assessment on legal compatibility and on the fulfilment of the convergence criteria as well as the additional factors, Estonia fulfils the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEstonia fulfils the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro. The derogation in favour of Estonia referred to in Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession is abrogated with effect from 1 January 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2010.", "references": ["42", "40", "4", "56", "9", "3", "96", "66", "2", "26", "93", "97", "31", "34", "20", "37", "22", "59", "84", "75", "78", "89", "69", "80", "60", "63", "33", "48", "71", "0", "No Label", "27", "28", "91"], "gold": ["27", "28", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 482/2010\nof 1 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2010.", "references": ["78", "46", "69", "43", "2", "48", "31", "39", "77", "27", "22", "0", "75", "72", "89", "19", "50", "60", "62", "92", "94", "84", "49", "73", "9", "97", "44", "83", "37", "5", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 June 2010\non mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management\n(2010/339/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nIreland submitted an application on 7 August 2009 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Waterford Crystal and in three of its suppliers or downstream producers, and supplemented it by additional information until 3 November 2009. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 570 853.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Ireland,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 570 853 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 June 2010.", "references": ["36", "43", "85", "34", "92", "37", "77", "46", "20", "71", "31", "57", "51", "39", "47", "73", "10", "40", "0", "27", "76", "72", "21", "95", "30", "89", "41", "18", "32", "5", "No Label", "15", "49", "83", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "49", "83", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 4 July 2012\nconcerning a financial contribution by the Union to certain Member States to support voluntary surveillance studies on honeybee colony losses\n(notified under document C(2012) 4396)\n(Only the Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2012/362/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 23 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on honeybee health (2) gives an overview of the Commission\u2019s actions already undertaken and ongoing as regards honeybee health in the EU. The main subject issue of the Communication is the increased mortality of bees observed worldwide.\n(2)\nIn 2009 the EFSA project \u2018Bee mortality and bee surveillance in Europe\u2019 concluded that the surveillance systems in the EU are, in general, weak and that there is a lack of data at Member States level and a lack of comparable data at EU level.\n(3)\nIn order to improve the availability of data on bee mortality it is appropriate to assist and support certain surveillance studies in Member States on honeybee losses.\n(4)\nCommission Implementing Decision 2011/881/EU of 21 December 2011 concerning the adoption of a financing decision to support voluntary surveillance studies on honeybee colony losses (3) set aside EUR 3 750 000 as contribution of the European Union for the implementation of the surveillance studies on honeybee colony losses.\n(5)\nThe EU reference laboratory (EURL) for bee health presented the document \u2018Basis for a pilot surveillance project on honey bee colony losses\u2019 (available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/bees/bee_health_en.htm) providing guidance to Member States to elaborate their surveillance studies.\n(6)\nMember States were invited to send to the Commission their programmes for surveillance studies based on the technical document of the EURL for bee health. Twenty Member States have sent their proposals for the surveillance studies. These proposals have been technically and financially evaluated to assess their conformity with the technical document \u2018Basis for a pilot surveillance project on honey bee colony losses\u2019.\n(7)\nBelgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom have drawn up surveillance study programmes on honeybee colony losses in line with the technical document \u2018Basis for a pilot surveillance project on honey bee colony losses\u2019 and have requested EU financial support.\n(8)\nA financial contribution should be granted as from 1 April 2012 to the voluntary surveillance study programmes on honeybee colony losses implemented by Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.\n(9)\nUnder Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (4), veterinary measures are to be financed under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. For financial control purposes, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of that Regulation are to apply.\n(10)\nThe payment of the financial contribution should be subject to the condition that the surveillance study programmes planned have actually been carried out and that the authorities supply all the necessary information to the Commission and to the EU reference laboratory for bee health.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Union shall grant Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom financial assistance for their surveillance study programmes on honeybee colony losses.\n2. The financial contribution by the Union:\n(a)\nshall be at the rate of 70 % of the eligible costs to be incurred by each Member State referred to in paragraph 1 for the surveillance study programmes on honeybee colony losses and specified in Annex I for the period from 1 April 2012 to 30 June 2013;\n(b)\nshall not exceed the following:\n1.\nEUR 62 876 for Belgium;\n2.\nEUR 192 688 for Denmark;\n3.\nEUR 294 230 for Germany;\n4.\nEUR 66 637 for Estonia;\n5.\nEUR 109 931 for Greece;\n6.\nEUR 205 050 for Spain;\n7.\nEUR 529 615 for France;\n8.\nEUR 521 590 for Italy;\n9.\nEUR 147 375 for Latvia;\n10.\nEUR 92 123 for Lithuania;\n11.\nEUR 98 893 for Hungary;\n12.\nEUR 254 108 for Poland;\n13.\nEUR 28 020 for Portugal;\n14.\nEUR 183 337 for Slovakia;\n15.\nEUR 213 986 for Finland;\n16.\nEUR 39 862 for Sweden;\n17.\nEUR 267 482 for the United Kingdom.\n(c)\nshall not exceed EUR 595 per visit of an apiary.\nArticle 2\n1. The maximum overall contribution authorised by this Decision for the costs incurred for the programmes referred to in Article 1 is set at EUR 3 307 803 to be financed from the general budget of the European Union.\n2. Expenditure relating to staff costs for performing laboratory tests, sampling, monitoring, consumables and overheads dedicated to the surveillance studies shall be eligible in accordance with the rules set out in Annex III.\n3. The Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be paid following presentation and approval of the reports and supporting documents referred to Article 3(2) and (3).\nArticle 3\n1. The programmes shall be carried out in accordance with the technical document \u2018Basis for a pilot surveillance project on honey bee colony losses\u2019 (available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/bees/bee_health_en.htm) and in accordance with the surveillance study programmes on honeybee colony losses presented by the Member States.\n2. Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom shall submit to the Commission:\n-\nno later than 1 March 2013 an intermediate technical report on the first visit provided for in the surveillance study programme, and\n-\nno later than 31 October 2013 a final technical report on the second and third visits provided for in the surveillance study programme,\n-\nthe technical report should be in conformity to a model to be established by the Commission in cooperation with the EU reference laboratory for bee health.\n3. Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom shall submit to the Commission:\n-\nno later than 31 December 2013 a paper version and an electronic version of their financial report drawn up in accordance with Annex II. The supporting documents, evidencing all the expenditure referred to in the application for reimbursement, shall be sent to the Commission on request.\n4. The outcome of the studies shall be made available to the Commission and the EU reference laboratory for bee health.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["94", "13", "28", "15", "86", "43", "67", "53", "51", "59", "49", "39", "50", "97", "9", "75", "60", "44", "96", "76", "55", "27", "93", "70", "58", "29", "12", "80", "38", "72", "No Label", "4", "10", "61", "66", "77"], "gold": ["4", "10", "61", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 June 2010\non the implementation by Member States of surveillance programmes for avian influenza in poultry and wild birds\n(notified under document C(2010) 4190)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/367/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and repealing Directive 92/40/EEC (2) and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAvian influenza is an infectious viral disease in birds, including poultry. Infections with avian influenza viruses in domestic poultry cause two main forms of that disease that are distinguished by their virulence. The low pathogenic form generally only causes mild symptoms, while the highly pathogenic form results in very high mortality rates in most poultry species. That disease may have a severe impact on the profitability of poultry farming.\n(2)\nDirective 2005/94/EC sets out measures for the control of outbreaks, in poultry and other captive birds, of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and low pathogenic avian influenza caused by avian influenza viruses of the H5 and H7 subtypes (LPAI), as defined in that Directive. Directive 2005/94/EC also provides for certain preventive measures relating to the surveillance and the early detection of avian influenza viruses.\n(3)\nDirective 2005/94/EC provides that compulsory surveillance programmes are to be implemented by the Member States. Those surveillance programmes aim at identifying the circulation of LPAI viruses in poultry, in particular in waterfowl poultry species, before they become widespread in the poultry population, so that control measures can be taken to possibly prevent a mutation into a HPAI virus which might have devastating consequences.\n(4)\nDirective 2005/94/EC also provides for surveillance programmes to be carried out in wild birds in order to contribute, on the basis of a regularly updated risk assessment, to the current knowledge on the threats posed by wild birds in relation to any influenza virus of avian origin in birds.\n(5)\nCommission Decision 2007/268/EC of 13 April 2007 on the implementation of surveillance programmes for avian influenza in poultry and wild birds to be carried out in the Member States and amending Decision 2004/450/EC (3) was adopted in order to lay down guidelines for the implementation of such surveillance programmes.\n(6)\nSince the date of adoption of that Decision, the experience gained in the Member States in carrying out surveillance programmes and advances in scientific knowledge and research conclusions, indicate that certain poultry species and poultry production categories are at a higher risk of becoming infected with avian influenza viruses than others, also taking into account the location of the holding and other risk factors.\n(7)\nThe threat of the introduction of the HPAI virus of the H5N1 subtype from South East Asia to Europe by its westward spread during 2005 has prompted the adoption of additional measures for preparedness and early detection of that virus type in poultry and wild birds.\n(8)\nCommission Decision 2005/731/EC of 17 October 2005 laying down additional requirements for the surveillance of avian influenza in wild birds (4) requires that Member States arrange for the notification to the competent authorities of any abnormal mortality or significant disease outbreaks occurring in wild birds and in particular wild water birds. Sampling and laboratory testing for avian influenza virus must also be carried out.\n(9)\nIt is appropriate to include the requirements laid down in Decision 2005/731/EC in the present Decision.\n(10)\nFrom 2006 to 2009, more than 350 000 wild birds have been sampled and tested for avian influenza. On average, surveillance in Member States was carried out by sampling 75 % of live birds and 25 % of sick or dead birds.\n(11)\nMore than 1 000 birds found dead or sick have tested positive for HPAI of the H5N1 subtype, while only about five birds sampled as healthy live birds tested positive for that virus during that 4-year period. LPAI subtypes were almost exclusively isolated from samples taken from live birds.\n(12)\nThe conclusions drawn up in the annual reports on avian influenza surveillance (5) in the Union compiled by the EU Reference Laboratory (EURL) for avian influenza, the scientific opinions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (6), (7), (8) and the work of the recently established Task Force on Animal Disease Surveillance (TFADS) have highlighted that certain amendments to the current surveillance strategy in poultry and wild birds should be introduced to further foster a risk-based approach which is deemed the most suitable surveillance strategy to inform competent authorities for disease prevention and control purposes aimed at protecting poultry and other captive bird holdings.\n(13)\nRisk-based surveillance should complement early detection systems for avian influenza infection in poultry, such as those already provided for in Article 2 of Commission Decision 2005/734/EC of 19 October 2005 laying down biosecurity measures to reduce the risk of transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza caused by Influenza virus A subtype H5N1 from birds living in the wild to poultry and other captive birds and providing for an early detection system in areas at particular risk (9) and in Chapter II(2) of the Annex to Commission Decision 2006/437/EC of 4 August 2006 approving a Diagnostic Manual for avian influenza as provided for in Council Directive 2005/94/EC (10).\n(14)\nThe guidelines for surveillance for avian influenza in poultry and wild birds laid down in Decision 2007/268/EC should therefore be reviewed in the light of experience and scientific insight gained and replaced by the guidelines laid down in this Decision.\n(15)\nIn the interests of consistency of Union legislation, sampling and laboratory testing should be carried out in accordance with the procedures laid down in Decision 2006/437/EC, unless stated otherwise.\n(16)\nIn the interests of consistency of Union legislation, when implementing surveillance programmes in wild birds, full regard should be paid to the requirements of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (11) in particular as regards the surveillance design and sampling procedures described in Sections 2 and 3 of Part 1 of Annex II to this Decision.\n(17)\nDecisions 2005/731/EC and 2007/268/EC should be repealed.\n(18)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities make appropriate arrangements with wild bird observation and ringing organisations, hunting and other relevant organisations in order to ensure that those organisations are required to notify the competent authorities without delay of any abnormal mortality or significant disease outbreaks occurring in wild birds and in particular wild water birds.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall ensure that immediately following receipt by the competent authority of any notification, as provided for in Article 1, and whenever no clear cause of disease other than avian influenza is identified, the competent authority shall arrange for:\n(a)\nappropriate samples to be collected from dead birds and if possible from other birds which have been in contact with the dead birds;\n(b)\nthose samples must be subjected to laboratory tests for the detection of the avian influenza virus.\n2. Sampling and testing procedures shall be carried out in accordance with Chapters II to VIII of the Diagnostic Manual for avian influenza approved by Decision 2006/437/EC.\n3. Member States shall inform the Commission without delay in the event of the laboratory tests provided for in paragraph 1(b) showing positive results for highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAI).\nArticle 3\nThe surveillance programmes for avian influenza in poultry and wild birds to be carried out by Member States, in accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 2005/94/EC, shall comply with the guidelines set out in Annexes I and II to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nWithout prejudice to the requirements provided for in Union legislation, the competent authority shall ensure that all positive and negative results of both serological and virological investigations for avian influenza obtained under the surveillance programmes for poultry and wild birds are reported every 6 months to the Commission. They shall be submitted via the Commission\u2019s online system each year by 31 July for the preceding 6 months (1 January to 30 June) and by 31 January for the preceding 6 months (1 July to 31 December).\nArticle 5\nDecisions 2005/731/EC and 2007/268/EC are repealed.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 June 2010.", "references": ["80", "67", "29", "34", "88", "84", "36", "82", "3", "41", "95", "93", "7", "0", "35", "26", "73", "44", "52", "96", "23", "63", "69", "62", "85", "81", "72", "14", "90", "47", "No Label", "9", "38", "59", "61", "66"], "gold": ["9", "38", "59", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 March 2011\nappointing four Hungarian members and six Hungarian alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/165/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Hungarian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nFour members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Ferenc BENK\u0150, Mr Attila J\u00d3SZAI, Mr Gy\u00f6gy IPKOVICH and Mr Andr\u00e1s SZALAY. Four alternate members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr L\u00e1szl\u00f3 B\u00c1KONYI, Ms K\u00e1rolyn\u00e9 KOCSIS, Mr Zolt\u00e1n NAGY and Mr J\u00f3zsef PAIZS. Two alternate members\u2019 seats will become vacant following the appointment of Mr Istv\u00e1n B\u00d3KA and Mr Attila KISS as members of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMr Istv\u00e1n B\u00d3KA, Balatonf\u00fcred v\u00e1ros polg\u00e1rmestere,\n-\nMr Attila KISS, Hajd\u00fab\u00f6sz\u00f6rm\u00e9ny v\u00e1ros polg\u00e1rmestere,\n-\nMr S\u00e1ndor KOV\u00c1CS, J\u00e1sz-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei K\u00f6zgy\u0171l\u00e9s eln\u00f6ke,\n-\nMr Jen\u0151 MANNINGER, Zala Megyei K\u00f6zgy\u0171l\u00e9s eln\u00f6ke.\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMr Zolt\u00e1n HORV\u00c1TH, Baranya Megyei K\u00f6zgy\u0171l\u00e9s aleln\u00f6ke,\n-\nMr Ferenc KOV\u00c1CS, Vas Megyei K\u00f6zgy\u0171l\u00e9s eln\u00f6ke,\n-\nMr Ferenc TEMERINI, Soltvadkert, \u00f6nkorm\u00e1nyzati k\u00e9pvisel\u0151,\n-\nMr Attila TILKI, Feh\u00e9rgyarmat v\u00e1ros polg\u00e1rmestere,\n-\nMr Botond V\u00c1NTSA, Szigetszentmikl\u00f3s, \u00f6nkorm\u00e1nyzati k\u00e9pvisel\u0151,\n-\nMr Tam\u00e1s VARGHA, Fej\u00e9r Megyei K\u00f6zgy\u0171l\u00e9s eln\u00f6ke.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 March 2011.", "references": ["15", "89", "74", "12", "66", "24", "73", "43", "71", "99", "19", "86", "57", "3", "78", "46", "34", "1", "81", "35", "72", "5", "75", "8", "98", "21", "42", "94", "40", "26", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 707/2010\nof 5 August 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 148 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part (2) entered into force on 1 April 2009. Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (3) should refer to this Stabilisation and Association Agreement.\n(2)\nAn Interim Agreement on trade and trade related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part (4), entered into force on 1 February 2010. Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 should refer to this new trade arrangement.\n(3)\nArticle 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 provides that import licence applications shall be submitted during the first seven days of each of the 12 sub-periods, provided for in Article 3(2) of that Regulation. In order to facilitate trade, operators should be allowed to import from the day on which the tariff quota is opened. Consequently they should be allowed to apply for import licences in the month preceding the first sub-period. Therefore, it is necessary to establish the time periods for the application, notification and issuing of import licences for the first sub-period.\n(4)\nArticle 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 provides penalties if imported sugar, which is not intended for refining, is refined. However, these penalties should not apply if justified and exceptional technical reasons are approved by Member States.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 891/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 891/2009 is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 1, point (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nArticle 27(2) of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part;\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 1, the following point (g) is added to the first paragraph:\n\u2018(g)\nArticle 11(4) of the Interim agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part (5).\n3.\nin Article 2, point (b), the words \u2018points (b) to (f)\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018points (b) to (g)\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 5(1), a second subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Without prejudice to the first subparagraph, licence applications for the first sub-period referred to in Article 3(2) may be submitted from the eighth to the 14th day of the month preceding that sub-period.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8\nIssuance and validity of import licences\n1. Import licences applied for in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) shall be issued from the 23rd day until the last day of the month during which an application was made.\n2. Import licences applied for in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) shall be issued from the first day until the eighth day of the month following the month during which an application was made.\n3. The licences shall be valid until the end of the third month following that in which they were issued but no longer than 30 September. In case of exceptional import sugar and industrial import sugar, the licences shall be valid until the end of the marketing year for which they were issued.\u2019;\n6.\nin Article 9, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall notify the Commission of the total quantities covered by import licence applications:\n(a)\nno later than on the 14th day of the month during which the applications are submitted, in case of applications referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 5(1);\n(b)\nno later than on the 21st day of the month during which the applications are submitted, in case of applications referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 5(1).\u2019;\n7.\nin Article 15(2), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Producers shall pay, before 1 June following the marketing year concerned, an amount equal to EUR 500 per tonne for the quantities of sugar referred to in point (c) of the first subparagraph, for which they cannot provide a proof, acceptable to a Member State, that refining took place for justified and exceptional technical reasons.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2010.", "references": ["43", "48", "37", "12", "45", "49", "6", "75", "16", "33", "31", "65", "76", "81", "29", "83", "68", "36", "56", "87", "62", "55", "18", "53", "28", "74", "94", "52", "0", "66", "No Label", "21", "71", "72"], "gold": ["21", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 192/2012\nof 7 March 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 179/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2012.", "references": ["41", "84", "40", "32", "45", "63", "21", "53", "25", "67", "62", "19", "75", "99", "36", "0", "47", "77", "20", "43", "79", "89", "27", "65", "2", "4", "76", "26", "39", "90", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 5 April 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/013 PL/Podkarpackie - manufacture of machinery)\n(2011/249/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nPoland submitted an application on 27 April 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in three enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 28 (\u2018Manufacture of machinery and equipment\u2019) in the NUTS II region of Podkarpackie (PL32) and supplemented it with additional information up to 4 August 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 453 570.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Poland,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 453 570 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 5 April 2011.", "references": ["60", "1", "75", "29", "48", "74", "59", "76", "32", "11", "64", "27", "37", "9", "34", "58", "86", "87", "53", "38", "78", "36", "14", "8", "82", "56", "63", "2", "85", "28", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/521/CFSP\nof 1 September 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nWhereas in view of the developments in Libya, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe entries for the entities set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 1 September 2011.", "references": ["53", "73", "27", "93", "62", "91", "9", "34", "88", "11", "22", "45", "37", "61", "40", "60", "13", "63", "85", "82", "68", "78", "5", "56", "33", "99", "65", "35", "18", "8", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 19 January 2011\nterminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of purified terephthalic acid and its salts originating in Thailand\n(2011/31/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 14 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009, the European Commission (the \u2018Commission\u2019) announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (\u2018Notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports into the Union of purified terephthalic acid and its salts (\u2018PTA\u2019) originating in Thailand (\u2018the country concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe anti-subsidy proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 13 November 2009 by BP Aromatics Limited NV and CEPSA Quimica S.A. (\u2018the complainants\u2019) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of PTA. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of subsidisation of the product concerned originating in the country concerned and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the opening of a proceeding.\n(3)\nOn the same day, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of PTA originating in Thailand. This investigation has been terminated by means of Commission Decision 2011/32/EU (4).\n(4)\nPrior to the initiation of the proceeding and in accordance with Article 10(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission notified the Government of Thailand that it had received a properly documented complaint alleging that subsidised imports of PTA originating in Thailand were causing material injury to the Union industry. The Government of Thailand was invited for consultations with the aim of clarifying the situation as regards the contents of the complaint and arriving at a mutually agreed solution. The Government of Thailand accepted the offer of consultations and consultations were subsequently held. During the consultations, no mutually agreed solution could be arrived at. However, due note was taken of comments made by the authorities of Thailand in regard to the allegations contained in the complaint regarding the lack of countervailability of the schemes. During the consultations, submissions were received from the Government of Thailand.\n1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(5)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainants, other known producers in the Union, the known exporting producers in Thailand, the representatives of the exporting country concerned and known importers and users of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the Notice of initiation. All interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\n(6)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the authorities of the exporting country, the complainants, other known producers in the Union, the known exporting producers in Thailand and to the known importers and users of product concerned and to all other parties that requested a questionnaire within the deadlines set out in the Notice of initiation.\n(7)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from the authorities of Thailand, from the three known Thai exporting producers, from three Union producers, from one Union importer, and from five Union users.\n(8)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the determination of subsidisation, resulting injury and Union interest.\n(9)\nVerification visits were carried out at the premises of the following State authorities:\nOffice of Board of Investment, Bangkok, Thailand.\n(10)\nVerification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nUnion producers:\n-\nBP Aromatics Limited NV, Geel, Belgium,\n-\nCEPSA Qu\u00edmica, S.A., Madrid, Spain,\n-\nLotte Chemical UK Ltd (formerly Artenius), Wilton, Redcar, United Kingdom;\n(b)\nUnion importers:\n-\nMitsui & Co. Benelux NV, Brussels, Belgium;\n(c)\nUnion users:\n-\nDSM Powder Coating Resins B.V., Zwolle, Netherlands,\n-\nM&G Polimeri Italia SPA, Patrica (Frosinone), Italy,\n-\nNOVAPET S.A., Barbastro (Huesca), Spain,\n-\nUAB NEO Group, Klaipeda, Lithuania;\n(d)\nExporting producers in Thailand:\n-\nTPT Petrochemicals Public Company Ltd, Bangkok, Thailand (hereinafter \u2018TPT\u2019),\n-\nTPT Petrochemicals Public Company Ltd, Rayong, Thailand (hereinafter \u2018TPT\u2019),\n-\nIndorama Petrochem Ltd, Rayong, Thailand (hereinafter \u2018Indorama\u2019),\n-\nSiam Mitsui PTA Company Ltd, Rayong, Thailand (hereinafter \u2018SMPC\u2019).\n(11)\nGiven that both TPT and Indorama are owned by the same holding company, they will be referred to in this document as the \u2018Indorama group\u2019.\n1.3. Investigation period and period considered\n(12)\nThe investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 December 2008 to 30 November 2009 (the \u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the investigation period (\u2018the period considered\u2019).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(13)\nThe product concerned is terephthalic acid and its salts of a purity by weight of 99,5 % or more, currently falling within CN code ex 2917 36 00 (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n(14)\nPTA is obtained by the purification of crude terephthalic acid, which is a result of making paraxylene (PX) react with a solvent and a catalyst solution.\n2.2. Like product\n(15)\nThe product concerned and the PTA produced and sold on the domestic market of Thailand, as well as the PTA produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry were found to have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and uses. They are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the basic Regulation.\n3. SUBSIDISATION\n3.1. Introduction\n(16)\nOn the basis of the information contained in the complaint and the replies to the Commission\u2019s questionnaire, the following schemes, which allegedly involved the granting of subsidies by a Governmental authority, were investigated:\n-\nexemption or reduction on duties on imports of machinery,\n-\nexemption from corporate income tax,\n-\nexemption of import duties on raw and essential materials used in the manufacturing of export products,\n-\ndouble deduction from taxable income of transportation, electricity and water costs for 10 years from the date of first revenue derived from the promoted activity,\n-\ndeduction from net profit of 25 % of the project\u2019s infrastructure installation or construction costs in addition to normal depreciation,\n-\ntax and duty compensation of the exported goods produced in Thailand.\n3.2. General\n(17)\nInvestment Promotion Act B.E. 2544 (\u2018IPA\u2019) provides incentives to promote development of the Thai economy. The IPA, which is administered by the Board of Investment of Thailand (\u2018BOI\u2019), grants the benefits resulting from the schemes mentioned in section 3.1. above with respect to the qualifying projects. In order to receive IPA benefits, each company makes an application to the BOI for a \u2018Certificate of promotion\u2019, which specifies the goods to be produced and benefits granted.\n(18)\nTax and Duty Compensation of Exported Goods Produced in the Kingdom Act B.E.2524 (1981) prescribes the criteria and conditions for the participation in tax and duty compensation of exported merchandise scheme. This scheme is administered by the Thai Ministry of Finance.\n(19)\nThe sum of all calculated subsidies for each individual company is under the de minimis threshold, i.e. less than 2 % ad valorem. Therefore, in accordance with Article 14(3) and 14(5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, even if all the subsidies in question were countervailable, no anti-subsidy duties could be imposed on the Thai exporters. Because of the de minimis subsidisation the specificity of the subsidy schemes mentioned in recital 16 was not examined.\n(20)\nHowever, for the purpose of clarity, details of the schemes and the corresponding subsidy rates for individual companies are set out below, without prejudice to whether or not the subsidies are considered to be countervailable.\n3.3. Individual Schemes\n3.3.1. Exemption or reduction on duties on imports of machinery\n(a) Legal Basis\n(21)\nArticle 28 of the IPA provides the legal basis for an exemption from duties on machinery imports. Under this scheme companies are entitled to the full exemption from payment of import duty on machinery as approved by the BOI, providing that no such machinery comparable in quality is being produced or assembled within Thailand. Article 29 of IPA provides the legal basis for the 50 % reduction on import duties on imported machinery.\n(b) Practical implementation\n(22)\nIn order to benefit from this scheme, the company must posses a Certificate of promotion which specifies that it is entitled to an exemption or reduction on duties on imports of machinery pursuant to Articles 28 and 29 of the IPA. The Customs Department will receive a copy of the licence and the so-called \u2018Master list of Machinery\u2019, previously approved by the BOI, and will, on importation of the machinery, release this machinery without import duty being paid.\n(c) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(23)\nThe benefit to the exporters was calculated on the basis of the amount of unpaid customs duty due on imported capital goods, by spreading this amount across a period which reflects the normal depreciation of such capital goods in the industry of the product concerned. This period has been established to be 15 years, which is in line with the depreciation periods used by the majority of the companies producing product concerned, both in Thailand and in the EU. The amount so calculated which is attributable to the investigation period has been adjusted by adding interest during the investigation period, in order to establish the full benefit to the recipient under this scheme, the commercial interest rate in Thailand during the investigation period being considered appropriate. This amount has then been allocated over total sales during the investigation period.\n(d) Conclusion\n(24)\nIndorama Group received a benefit of 0,3 %, and Siam Mitsui PTA Co., Ltd received a benefit of 0,19 %.\n3.3.2. Exemption from corporate income tax\n(a) Legal Basis\n(25)\nArticle 31 of the IPA provides the legal basis for corporate income tax exemption. Normal corporate income tax in Thailand is 30 %.\n(b) Conclusion\n(26)\nNone of the investigated companies benefited from this scheme during the investigation period. All of the Thai exporting producers offset the profits generated during the investigation period against losses they were carrying forward from previous accounting periods. This practice is allowed by the Thai Revenue Code for all companies, both promoted by BOI and non-promoted by BOI, and does not constitute a subsidy. Due to this fact investigated companies did not use the corporate income tax exemption scheme.\n3.3.3. Double deduction from taxable income of transportation, electricity and water costs for 10 years from the date of first revenue derived from the promoted activity\n(a) Legal Basis\n(27)\nArticle 35(2) of the IPA provides the legal basis for the double deduction from taxable income of transportation, electricity and water costs for 10 years from the date of first revenue derived from the promoted activity.\n(b) Practical implementation\n(28)\nIn order to benefit from this scheme, the company must posses a Certificate of promotion which specifies that it is entitled to double deduction from taxable income of transportation, electricity, and water costs pursuant to Article 35(2) of the IPA. In addition to the usual deduction of the abovementioned costs, the BOI-promoted companies are allowed to deduct the same amount a second time from their profit on the tax return certificate. The company must fill out a special column in its annual tax return designated for the promoted activity. Consequently the taxable net profit is decreased by this amount; or the net loss is increased by this amount.\n(c) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(29)\nThe benefit of this scheme should be calculated on the basis of the amount deducted a second time from the net profit as recorded on the tax return in the special column for promoted activities. For non-promoted activities this amount would be part of the net profit liable for corporate income tax, therefore 30 % of this amount (normal corporate tax rate in Thailand) forms the benefit for the companies. This amount has then been allocated over total sales during the investigation period.\n(d) Conclusion\n(30)\nIndorama Group received a benefit of 0,55 %, and Siam Mitsui PTA Co., Ltd received a benefit of 0,57 %.\n3.3.4. Deduction from net profit of 25 % of the project\u2019s infrastructure, installation or construction costs in addition to normal depreciation\n(a) Legal Basis\n(31)\nArticle 35(3) of the IPA provides the legal basis for this scheme. The scheme involves a permission to deduct from the net profit, in addition to normal depreciation, an amount not exceeding 25 % of the project\u2019s cost of installation or construction of facilities used in the promoted activity. The beneficiary should avail himself of the benefit within 10 years from the date the income is derived from the promoted activity.\n(b) Conclusion\n(32)\nNone of the investigated companies benefited from this scheme during the investigation period. In the periods before the investigation period all of the exporting producers either did not benefit from the income tax exemption scheme (since they were netting of profits against cumulated losses from the past) or were making losses. For theses reasons they could not obtain benefits from this scheme.\n3.3.5. Exemption of import duties on raw and essential materials used in the manufacturing of export products\n(a) Legal Basis\n(33)\nArticle 36(1) of the IPA provides the legal basis for this scheme. Under this scheme the BOI is authorised to grant the exemption of import duties on raw materials and essential materials used in the manufacture of goods for export. Companies in any zone are eligible for this scheme provided that they are promoted.\n(b) Conclusion\n(34)\nNone of the investigated companies benefited from this scheme during the investigation period. The import duty on the main raw materials used in production of PTA is zero. Therefore there was no benefit from this scheme for the investigated Thai exporters.\n3.3.6. Tax and duty compensation of the exported goods produced in Thailand\n(a) Legal Basis\n(35)\n\u2018Notification of the Compensation of Tax of Export Merchandise Produced in the Kingdom 1/2547 - Rate of Compensation\u2019 provides for the benefit from this scheme.\n(b) Practical implementation\n(36)\nCompanies receive refund in the value of 0,38 % of the FOB value of exported goods. The benefit is calculated per export transaction, but companies usually submit several applications for refund at the same time. The companies submit applications for refunds to the relevant authority and receive the refund.\n(c) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(37)\nThe benefit for this scheme is the actual amount received as a refund and consequently recorded in companies\u2019 accounts as income. This amount has then been allocated over export sales during the investigation period.\n(d) Conclusion\n(38)\nIndorama Group received a benefit of 0,36 % and Siam Mitsui PTA Co., Ltd also received a benefit of 0,36 %.\n3.4. Amount of subsidies\n(39)\nThe provisional amounts of subsidies in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the Thai exporting producers are:\n- Indorama Petrochem Limited: 1,3 %,\n- TPT Petrochemical Public Company Limited: 1 %,\n- Siam Mitsui PTA Co., Ltd: 1,1 %.\n(40)\nDue to the fact that Indorama Petrochem Limited and TPT Petrochemical Public Company Limited are part of the same group, a common anti-subsidy duty rate was established for them. The final rate for Indorama/TPT group is 1,2 %.\nSummary table\nImport duty exemption or reduction on machinery Scheme\nDouble deduction from taxable income Scheme\nExport Tax compensation Scheme\nTotal subsidy margin\nSiam Mitsui\n0,19 %\n0,57 %\n0,36 %\n1,1 %\nIndorama\n0,18 %\n0,78 %\n0,35 %\n1,3 %\nTPT\n0,47 %\n0,23 %\n0,36 %\n1 %\nIndorama/TPT Group\n0,3 %\n0,55 %\n0,36 %\n1,2 %\n(41)\nIn view of the de minimis amounts of countervailable subsidies for the Thai exporting producers, provisional measures on imports of PTA originating in Thailand should not be imposed.\n4. INJURY, CAUSATION AND UNION INTEREST\n(42)\nIn view of the above findings with respect to subsidies it is not considered necessary to present any analysis on injury, causation and Union interest.\n5. TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(43)\nThe proceeding should therefore be terminated as the amounts of countervailable subsidies for the Thai exporting producers are less than 2 % ad valorem. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment.\n(44)\nWith respect to subsidy aspects comments were received from the Government of Thailand (\u2018GOT\u2019) and one of the complainants.\n(45)\nThe GOT argued that the schemes investigated cannot be considered as specific subsidy schemes since they form part of the country\u2019s decentralisation policy, they are not export contingent and do not limit access to certain business sectors or regions. In this respect it is noted that the investigation has established clearly that the investigated schemes that the exporting producers used during the IP (import duty exemption on machinery, double deduction from taxable income, and export tax compensation) are countervailable subsidies in line with the provisions of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. Therefore, the claims of the GOT have to be rejected.\n(46)\nOne of the complainants argued that some subsidies, in particular the income tax exemption scheme, should have been spread on a shorter period. This had to be rejected because none of the exporting producers benefited from this scheme during the IP.\n(47)\nAs far as injury aspects are concerned no representations were submitted by any interested party.\n(48)\nIn conclusion, no comments from any interested party undermine the findings that protective measures are unnecessary.\n(49)\nIn light of all the above, the Commission therefore concludes that the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports into the Union of purified terephthalic acid and its salts originating in Thailand should be terminated without the imposition of anti-subsidy measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nThe anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of terephthalic acid and its salts of a purity by weight of 99,5 % or more, currently falling within CN code ex 2917 36 00, originating in Thailand, is hereby terminated.\nDone at Brussels, 19 January 2011.", "references": ["39", "13", "54", "46", "52", "86", "18", "48", "82", "1", "71", "44", "60", "75", "63", "91", "99", "64", "90", "78", "15", "67", "70", "89", "45", "68", "22", "85", "72", "41", "No Label", "4", "20", "21", "23", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["4", "20", "21", "23", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 72/2012\nof 27 January 2012\namending and derogating from Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 103h(b) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishes a common organisation of agricultural markets which includes the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors. Article 103e(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that in regions of the Member States where the degree of organisation of producers in the fruit and vegetable sector is particularly low, Member States may be authorised by the Commission, on a duly substantiated request, to pay producer organisations national financial assistance equal to a maximum of 80% of the financial contributions referred to in Article 103b(1)(a) of that Regulation.\n(2)\nArticle 91(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 (2) provides that for the purposes of Article 103e(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the degree of organisation of producers in a region of a Member State is to be calculated as the value of fruit and vegetable production that was obtained in the region and marketed by producer organisations, associations of producer organisations and producer groups divided by the total value of the fruit and vegetable production that was obtained in that region. In order to ensure the correct use of the national assistance, it is appropriate to clarify the rules on the calculation of the degree of organisation.\n(3)\nPursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 91(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 a region is to be considered as a distinct part of the territory of a Member State, as a result of its administrative, geographical or economic characteristics. For the purposes of consistency and verifiability, it is appropriate to clarify the definition of a region and to lay down a minimum period of time during which changes to the definition of a region are not allowed, unless objectively justified.\n(4)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe first subparagraph of Article 92(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 provides that requests to the Commission for the authorisation to grant national financial assistance for operational programmes to be implemented in any given calendar year are to be submitted by 31 January of that year. In order to allow the amended Article 91 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 to be applied in 2012, it is appropriate to provide for a derogation from the deadline provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 92(1) of that Implementing Regulation. Furthermore, a correction of requests sent before the entry into force of this Regulation should be provided for.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure that requests for authorisation to grant national financial assistance for operational programmes to be implemented in 2012 can be submitted in accordance with the new rules, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication. However, Article 95(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 also requires a request for Union reimbursement to be accompanied by evidence showing the degree of organisation of producers in the region concerned. This Regulation should therefore be without prejudice to requests for Union reimbursement in accordance with Article 95(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of national financial assistance authorised by the Commission before the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011\nArticle 91 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 is replaced by the following:\n\"Article 91\nDegree of organisation of producers and definition of a region\n1. For the purposes of Article 103e(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the degree of organisation of producers in a region of a Member State shall be calculated as the value of fruit and vegetable production that was obtained in the region concerned and marketed by producer organisations, associations of producer organisations and producer groups, divided by the total value of the fruit and vegetable production that was obtained in that region.\nThe value of fruit and vegetable production that was obtained in the region concerned and marketed by producer organisations, associations of producer organisations and producer groups referred to in the first subparagraph shall only include the products for which those producer organisations, associations of producer organisations and producer groups are recognised. Articles 42 and 50 shall apply mutatis mutandis. Only the production of producer organisations, associations of producer organisations, producer groups and their members obtained in the region concerned which has been marketed by producer organisations, associations of producer organisations and producer groups shall be included in the calculation of that value.\nFor the calculation of the total value of the fruit and vegetable production that was obtained in that region, the methodology set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 138/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis.\n2. The degree of organisation of producers in a region of a Member State shall be considered as particularly low where the average of the degrees, calculated as provided for in paragraph 1 for the last three years for which the data are available, is less than 20 %.\n3. Only fruit and vegetable production generated in the region referred to in this Article may benefit from national financial assistance.\n4. For the purposes of this Chapter, Member States shall define the regions as a distinct part of their territory in accordance with objective and non-discriminatory criteria such as their agronomic and economic characteristics and their regional agricultural/fruit and vegetable potential, or their institutional or administrative structure and for which data are available in order to calculate the degree of organisation in accordance with paragraph 1.\nThe regions defined by a Member State for the purposes of this Chapter shall not be altered for at least 5 years unless such alteration is objectively justified by substantive reasons unconnected with the calculation of the degree of organisation of producers in the region or regions concerned.\nArticle 2\nDerogation from Article 92(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011\nBy way of derogation from the first subparagraph of Article 92(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, Member States shall submit their request for authorisation to grant national financial assistance pursuant to Article 103e(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for operational programmes to be implemented in 2012 by 29 February 2012.\nMember States shall identify the regions, including their geographic delimitation as provided for in Article 91(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 as amended by this Regulation, in their first request for authorisation submitted after the date of entry into force of this Regulation. Where appropriate, Member States shall correct requests for authorisation for 2012 sent to the Commission before the date of entry into force of this Regulation by 29 February 2012.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall be without prejudice to requests for Union reimbursement in accordance with Article 95(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of national financial assistance authorised by the Commission before the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 January 2012.", "references": ["21", "59", "72", "90", "18", "27", "5", "74", "77", "66", "97", "64", "58", "89", "78", "20", "73", "10", "56", "85", "28", "98", "75", "95", "22", "11", "46", "55", "60", "87", "No Label", "2", "4", "8", "15", "17", "62", "63", "68"], "gold": ["2", "4", "8", "15", "17", "62", "63", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 837/2011\nof 19 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 August 2011.", "references": ["3", "66", "28", "39", "94", "37", "38", "32", "97", "92", "88", "26", "47", "4", "55", "86", "19", "44", "83", "36", "41", "14", "96", "5", "65", "0", "56", "34", "59", "95", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 881/2010\nof 6 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 October 2010.", "references": ["91", "25", "73", "58", "87", "83", "52", "69", "18", "60", "22", "38", "29", "86", "49", "56", "4", "23", "46", "75", "13", "21", "88", "67", "43", "17", "89", "6", "99", "19", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 22 June 2012\namending Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU on granting Union financial assistance to Ireland\n(2012/375/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUpon a request by Ireland, the Council granted, by means of Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU (2), financial assistance to it in support of a strong economic and financial reform programme (\u2018the Programme\u2019) aiming at restoring confidence, enabling the return of the economy to sustainable growth, and safeguarding financial stability in Ireland, the euro area and the Union.\n(2)\nIn line with Article 3(9) of Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU, the Commission, together with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and in liaison with the European Central Bank (ECB), has conducted the sixth review of the Irish authorities\u2019 progress on the implementation of the agreed measures as well as of the effectiveness and economic and social impact of those measures.\n(3)\nThe Irish authorities presented to Parliament legislation to enhance the long-term sustainability of the public finances in September 2011, as envisaged under the Programme. Some elements of the envisaged reform were not adopted by Parliament by the end of the abovementioned sixth quarterly review, in particular, as regards pension entitlements for new entrants to the public service, including a review of accelerated retirement for certain categories of public servants and an indexation of pensions to consumer prices, and the linking of pension benefits to career average earnings and of retirement age to state pension retirement age. The authorities have committed themselves to securing the approval of these provisions by end 2012.\n(4)\nIn light of the postponement of the EU-wide stress test exercise carried out under the auspices of the European Banking Authority to 2013, it is considered appropriate that the next stress test of the domestically-owned Irish banks be postponed to 2013. In the meantime, the authorities have identified key preparatory work-streams, which will be completed in 2012.\n(5)\nThe Irish authorities have identified additional measures that they will undertake in 2012 to reduce unemployment and underpin the attainment of the programme objectives. In particular, they will take steps to increase the effectiveness of their labour market activation and training policies and reduce any potential for social payments to provide disincentives for people able to take up work while protecting the most vulnerable.\n(6)\nIn light of these developments and considerations, Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 3 of Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin paragraph 7, point (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nthe adoption of legislation to increase the state pension age to 66 years in 2014, 67 in 2021, and 68 in 2028, with a view to enhancing the long-term sustainability of the public finances.\u2019;\n(2)\nin paragraph 8, the following points are added:\n\u2018(f)\nthe completion of the following work-streams in the domestically-owned Irish banks, on whose results the Irish authorities will report to the Commission, the ECB and the IMF: (i) an independent asset quality review to assess the quality of aggregate and individual loan portfolios and the processes employed for establishing and monitoring asset quality; (ii) a distressed credit operations review to assess the operational capability and effectiveness of distressed loan portfolio management in the banks including arrears management and workout practices in curing non-performing loans (NPLs) and reducing loan losses; (iii) a data integrity validation exercise to assess the reliability of banks\u2019 data; and (iv) an income recognition and re-ageing project to review existing practices against international financial reporting standards (IFRS) and relevant regulatory guidance;\n(g)\nthe assessment of banks\u2019 progress with the work-out of their non-performing portfolios;\n(h)\nthe provision to the Commission, the ECB and the IMF of an evaluation of the actions taken in respect of jobseekers payments recipients who do not attend employment activation interviews;\n(i)\nthe completion of a cross-departmental report to explore the scope for attenuating any adverse employment incentives arising from the structure of social payments;\n(j)\nthe adoption of legislation reforming pension entitlements for new entrants to the public service. This shall include a review of accelerated retirement for certain categories of public servants and an indexation of pensions to consumer prices. Pensions shall be based on career average earnings. New entrants\u2019 retirement age shall be linked to the state pension retirement age.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u201810. Ireland shall, in 2013 and in line with specifications in the Memorandum of Understanding, complete stress tests of the banks that were included in the PCAR 2011. The stress test will be aligned to the European Banking Authority (EBA) exercise, and build on the outcomes from PCAR 2011 and the Financial Measures Programme 2012. The stress test will be rigorous and continue to be based on robust loan-loss forecasts and a high level of transparency. The publication of the results will coincide with the next EBA exercise.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to Ireland.\nDone at Luxembourg, 22 June 2012.", "references": ["12", "86", "65", "69", "20", "80", "74", "46", "71", "18", "85", "88", "41", "59", "43", "42", "99", "37", "87", "25", "50", "7", "3", "81", "38", "26", "67", "90", "24", "31", "No Label", "4", "8", "10", "15", "16", "19", "29", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "8", "10", "15", "16", "19", "29", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 April 2011\non the measures implemented by Denmark (C 2/03) for TV2/Danmark\n(notified under document C(2011) 2612)\n(Only the Danish text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/839/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (2) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter of 5 April 2000, the Commission received a complaint from the Danish commercial television company SBS Broadcasting SA/TVDanmark (hereinafter \u2018SBS/TVDanmark\u2019) regarding the State financing of the Danish public service television broadcaster TV2/Danmark (hereinafter \u2018TV2\u2019 (3). A meeting took place with the complainant on 3 May 2000. By letters of 28 February 2001, 3 May 2001 and 11 December 2001, the complainant submitted additional information.\n(2)\nBy letter of 5 June 2002, the Commission requested information from the Danish authorities, who replied by letter of 10 July 2002. Two meetings with the Danish authorities were held on 25 October 2002 and on 19 November 2002. Additional information was received by letters of 19 November 2002 and 3 December 2002.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 24 January 2003 (4), the Commission informed Denmark that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in respect of the State financing of Danish public service broadcaster TV2.\n(4)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 14 March 2003 (5). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures.\n(5)\nThe Commission received observations from the Danish authorities by letter of 24 March 2003. The Commission also received comments from several interested parties. TVDanmark submitted comments by letter of 14 April 2003. The Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT) sent comments in a letter dated 14 April 2003. The commercial television stations Antena 3 TV and Gestevisi\u00f3n Telecinco submitted comments on 16 April 2003. The commercial station TV3 submitted comments in a letter of 14 April 2003. The Commission forwarded these comments to Denmark, which responded by letter of 12 September 2003.\n(6)\nThe Commission received further information from the complainant by letters dated 15 December 2003 and 6 January 2004. A meeting was held between the complainant and the Commission\u2019s services on 17 December 2003 in order to clarify the information submitted in the complainant\u2019s letter of 15 December 2003. The Commission forwarded the information to the Danish Government, which responded by letter dated 15 March 2004. A meeting between the Danish authorities and the Commission\u2019s services took place on 9 February 2004.\n(7)\nOn 19 May 2004, the Commission adopted a decision on the public funding granted to TV2 between 1995 and 2002 in the form of licence fee resources and other measures (6). The decision concluded that the aid was compatible with the common market, with the exception of DKK 628,2 million (about EUR 84,3 million), which had to be recovered together with interest (the \u2018recovery decision\u2019).\n(8)\nLegal actions against the Commission\u2019s recovery decision were subsequently brought before the Court of Justice by TV2 and the Danish authorities, and by the private broadcasters Viasat and SBS/TVDanmark.\n(9)\nThe Danish authorities implemented the Commission\u2019s recovery decision. In fact, TV2 repaid DKK 1 050 million (7).\n(10)\nThat repayment led to a financial crisis in TV2. Consequently in 2004 Denmark notified a recapitalisation of TV2.\n(11)\nBy decision of 6 October 2004 (8), the Commission approved the Danish government\u2019s decision to recapitalise TV2 by increasing its capital by DKK 440 million and converting a State loan of DKK 394 million into capital (the \u2018recapitalisation measures\u2019). Both SBS and Viasat took court action against that decision.\n(12)\nOn 22 October 2008 (9), while confirming the scope of TV2\u2019s public service mission, the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) annulled the Commission\u2019s recovery decision (the \u2018judgment\u2019). No appeal was lodged.\n(13)\nFollowing the Court\u2019s judgment, the Commission now has to adopt a new decision since it had to reopen the formal investigation procedure concerning the period 1995-2002.\n(14)\nIn addition the Court issued an order (10) (the \u2018order\u2019) in the recapitalisation case, stating that there was no need to take a decision. In paragraph 35 of the grounds, the Court found there was a close link between the recovery and the recapitalisation decisions. The Court held that the annulment of the recovery decision rendered the recapitalisation decision devoid of any substance and meaning. It stated that \u2018[a]lthough the specific circumstances of the present case prompted the Commission to adopt two decisions, it is apparent that those decisions constitute two aspects of the same legal issue relating to the classification as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC and, if so, to the determination of their compatibility with the common market, of the measures implemented by the Kingdom of Denmark for TV2 and subsequently TV2 A/S\u2019 (11). The annulment of the recovery decision therefore called for a \u2018fresh examination of all the measures implemented by the Kingdom of Denmark for TV2\u2019. The order was not appealed.\n(15)\nIn line with the Court\u2019s order, the Commission has to take into account in its assessment in the present decision the measures implemented by the Danish authorities in 2004 as a result of the recovery ordered by the annulled recovery decision.\n(16)\nIt follows from recitals 13, 14 and 15 that the present decision covers only the measures taken by the State in favour of TV2 for the years 1995-2000 but, in accordance with the Court\u2019s order, the Commission will also take into account in its assessment in the present decision the recapitalisation measures taken in 2004, which resulted from the recovery ordered by the annulled recovery decision.\n(17)\nBy a letter dated 20 March 2009, the Commission asked the Danish authorities to give their analysis of the implications of the judgment for the case.\n(18)\nAfter requesting several extensions of the time limit, the Danish authorities sent their observations on 26 June 2009. As an annex to their letter, the Danish authorities also submitted comments from TV2.\n(19)\nA number of meetings were held with the Danish authorities and/or TV2, inter alia, on 25 August 2009, 7 February 2011 and 4 March 2011.\n(20)\nThe Commission sent additional requests for information, inter alia, on 22 September 2010, 28 October 2010, 19 November 2010, 14 January 2011, to which the Danish authorities replied on 17 November 2010, 30 November 2010, 3 February 2011, 24 February 2011 and 7 March 2011. The Danish authorities also submitted various items of information in March and April 2011.\n(21)\nThe Commission also received comments from third parties, in particular from SBS/TVDanmark on 7 February 2011.\n(22)\nOn 4 August 2008 the Commission adopted a decision raising no objection to the rescue aid to be granted to TV2 in the form of a credit facility for DKK 1 000 million (12). An appeal against the decision was lodged by TV2\u2019s competitor MTG/Viasat. The General Court decided to stay the proceedings until the Commission\u2019s decision in the restructuring case (13).\n(23)\nOn 4 February 2009 Denmark notified the Commission, pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU, of a restructuring plan regarding TV2 Danmark A/S (hereinafter, the \u2018restructuring case\u2019). By letter dated 2 July 2009, the Commission informed Denmark that it had opened proceedings in respect of the restructuring case (14).\n(24)\nThe Commission\u2019s investigation in the restructuring case has taken place in parallel with its assessment in the present case and its decision in the restructuring case will be adopted in parallel and simultaneously with the present decision.\nII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION\nII.1. NATIONAL BACKGROUND\nII.1.1. THE DANISH BROADCASTING MARKET DURING THE PERIOD 1995-2002\n(25)\nIn the years 1995-2002, two public service television broadcasters operated in Denmark, namely Danmarks Radio (\u2018DR\u2019) and TV2. DR was almost entirely financed through the licence fee. TV2 was funded partly through the licence fee, but also through advertising revenue.\n(26)\nTV2 was founded in 1986 (15) as an independent autonomous institution financed by government loans. The company started national broadcasting on 1 October 1988. It broadcast the terrestrial channel TV2 and also started broadcasting the satellite channel TV2 Zulu in 2000. At the end of 2002, TV2 Zulu changed from a public service channel into a commercial pay-TV channel. In addition, the government approved eight stations as regional TV2 stations. TV2 was required to carry broadcasts from the regional TV2 stations on its national terrestrial channel.\n(27)\nBetween 1995 and 2002 two commercial broadcasters, TVDanmark and TV3/3+, were active on the Danish nationwide television broadcasting market, in addition to the public broadcasters. The commercial broadcasters competed with TV2 on the nationwide television advertising market. TVDanmark is part of SBS Broadcasting SA and broadcast two channels in Denmark. From 1997 it broadcast TVDanmark2 through a network of 10 local commercial television stations and from 2000 onwards it broadcast a UK licensed satellite channel, TVDanmark1. The satellite channels TV3 and 3 + began broadcasting in 1992. They are part of the Modern Times Group (MTG).\nII.1.2. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS DURING THE PERIOD 1995-2002\n(28)\nThe legal provisions governing the public service remit during the period of the investigation from 1995-2002 are laid down in successive versions of the Radio and Television Broadcasting Act (hereinafter \u2018the Broadcasting Act\u2019) (16).\n(29)\nTV2\u2019s mission is to provide and distribute national and regional television programmes. Distribution may be by means of radio equipment, including satellite or cable systems. The Minister of Culture issues the rules governing TV2\u2019s obligations.\n(30)\nTV2 has a public service obligation. Under the Broadcasting Act (1994 - the version in force during the period concerned) (17), TV2 is an independent institution whose object is to provide and distribute national and regional television programmes through independent programme activities. The range of the programmes provided must focus principally on quality, versatility and diversity. Priority must also be given to regional relevance in planning programmes for the regional TV2 stations.\n(31)\nAs noted in the Court\u2019s judgment (18), the precise definition of TV2\u2019s public service mission has changed over time, but all the definitions at different points during the period under investigation require \u2018quality, versatility and diversity\u2019, which are the essential qualitative requirements of the public service activity entrusted to TV2.\n(32)\nA further definition of the public service mission can be found in TV2\u2019s Statutes. For example, these specify TV2\u2019s broadcasting obligations as regards art and culture, Danish film production, programmes for children, young people, and ethnic minorities. TV2 is also obliged to broadcast emergency warnings to the population.\n(33)\nTV2\u2019s public service activities are financed through its share of television licence fees, through advertising income, and through other income. Under the terms of the Broadcasting Act in force in 1994 (19) TV2\u2019s overall activities are financed by resources transferred from the TV2 Fund in accordance with the framework budgets established by the Minister of Culture, by income from the sale of programmes, and through other contributions, subsidies, etc. It should be noted that for the years 1995 and 1996, TV2 received its share of the licence fees and the advertising revenue from a special fund (the TV2 Fund) (20).\n(34)\nThe provisions on broadcasting by commercial television stations beyond a single local area are laid down in chapter 5 of the Broadcasting Act. Chapter 6 deals with local radio and television services. The main requirement is to obtain a broadcasting licence. The programming requirements for licence holders are laid down in Executive Orders No 874 on European content and No 1349 concerning local radio and television (21). Under those orders, network stations that obtain a local television broadcasting licence must transmit local programmes for at least 1 hour a day and produce a significant share of their programming in Danish or for a Danish audience. As TV3, 3 + and TVDanmark\u2019s first channel are broadcast under a British licence, these rules only apply to TVDanmark2.\nII.1.3. TV2\u2019s COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES\n(35)\nBetween 1995 and 2002, TV2 engaged in a number of commercial activities, having been given a separate legal basis for this purpose as from 1 January 1997 (22) allowing it, among other things, to exploit its technical equipment, establish new companies or make capital investments in existing companies. Between 1995 and 2002, these activities included such things as advertising, the sale of programmes, letting out of masts, merchandising, Internet activities, re-sale of sports rights, etc.\n(36)\nFrom January 2001, TV2 was obliged to keep separate accounts for its public service operations and \u2018any other operations\u2019 if the latter exceeded 5 % of turnover and DKK 3 million per year. Full cost accounting had to be applied, non-public services/products had to be priced according to market value, and transfers of capital between the public service and other undertakings had to take place in accordance with the market economy investor principle and could not involve licence fee resources (23).\nII.2. THE MEASURES\n(37)\nBetween 1995 and 2002, TV2 received licence fee revenue.\n(38)\nThe Minister for Culture sets the amount of the licence fee payable by the owners of radio receivers and television sets, for one or more years at a time (24). The television licence fee is collected by DR and the revenue is then distributed between DR and TV2 as determined by the Minister of Culture under a media agreement with the Danish Parliament.\n(39)\nThe Minister for Culture lays down the rules on when the obligation to pay licence fees comes into effect and when it ceases, on time limits for payment and enforced collection, and on reminder fees etc. Interest is charged on late payments in accordance with the law on interest. Collection of unpaid fees and charges can be enforced by the Hypotekenbank (Danish Mortgage Bank). Unpaid sums can, for example, be deducted from the salary of the person concerned in accordance with the rules on collection of personal taxes as laid down in the Deduction of Taxes at Source Act.\n(40)\nUntil 1997, TV2 received its funding (advertising and licence fee revenue) through the TV2 Fund. Since 1997, TV2 has received its share of licence fee revenue directly from DR.\n(41)\nIn 1995 and 1996, TV2 received advertising revenue from the TV2 Fund (25).\n(42)\nTV2 also received DKK 58 million from the Radio Fund for increased commitment to Danish film production.\n(43)\nIn addition, when the TV2 Fund was wound up in 1997, TV2 received DKK 167 million from the Fund for investment in digitisation of its production systems and DKK 50 million to cover operational costs.\n(44)\nTV2 has, moreover, been exempted from paying corporation tax under the Company Act. The resulting benefit to TV2 over the period under investigation amounts to DKK 159,4 million. In January 2001, the Danish State introduced a mechanism to neutralise the effect of the tax exemption on TV2\u2019s commercial activities. TV2 has had to transfer 30 % of the annual surplus from its non-public service to its public service activities. That rate corresponds to the standard corporate tax rate that Denmark introduced in 2000.\n(45)\nGovernment loans financed the start-up costs and operating deficit of TV2 during its initial period of operation. Under the initial loan agreements, TV2 was to pay interest on the principal and was to repay the loans in full. However, during the entire period of the investigation, TV2 was exempted from interest payments and enjoyed a moratorium on repayments. The advantage resulting from the interest- and repayment-free start-up and operating loans for the period under investigation was DKK 341,8 million.\n(46)\nUntil the end of 1996 the Government issued guarantees for loans taken out by the TV2 Fund in order to finance the operation of TV2. The amount of the guaranteed loans was transferred to TV2 when the Fund was wound up. The advantage for TV2 resulting from this guarantee is DKK 9,8 million.\n(47)\nDuring the period under investigation, Denmark had access to three nationwide terrestrial transmission frequencies that were reserved for the public broadcasters. One frequency was reserved for TV2, a second for DR, and a third for digital television.\n(48)\nTV2 paid a fee for the use of the reserved nationwide broadcasting frequency to the National IT and Telecom Agency, a State body under the Ministry for Research, Technology and Development (26). The amount of the fee was laid down in the Danish Finance Act. During the period under investigation, TV2 paid between DKK 2 and 4 million annually in frequency fees.\n(49)\nDenmark also has frequencies for regional coverage only. In 1997, the Government introduced the possibility of linking up regional frequencies to achieve wider coverage (networking). Between 1998 and 2001, local commercial television stations licensed to broadcast in a networked configuration had to pay an annual fee to the State (27). TV2\u2019s regional services were not liable for payment of the fee as those services broadcast in \u2018windows\u2019 on TV2\u2019s national frequency. The commercial television station TVDanmark was the only operator that paid this fee, for its second channel. The total fees that it paid amounted to DKK 85,0 million.\n(50)\nOwners of communal aerial installations have an obligation to relay the public service programmes of TV2 through their installations (must-carry).\nIII. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES AND FROM DENMARK\n(51)\nFirstly, the Commission received various comments from interested parties following its decision to open the formal investigation procedure. The main points are summarised below.\n(52)\nTVDanmark considered that the provision by the State of a nationwide transmission frequency constituted State aid, as the State foregoes income on this scarce asset. Competitors had only 77 % coverage at most. TVDanmark argued that because the networking charge was levied only on TVDanmark2 and not on TV2\u2019s local stations, even though they were economically and commercially in the same situation, it constituted State aid to TV2\u2019s local stations. According to ACT, Antena 3 TV and Telecinco, the EC principle of neutrality regarding means of retransmission required that the fee should have been imposed on any kind of network.\n(53)\nRegarding the exemption from corporation tax, ACT, Antena 3 TV and Telecinco commented that TV2\u2019s obligation to transfer 30 % of the profit from its commercial activities to its public activities could not be regarded as equivalent to paying corporation tax to the State, as it distorted competition within the broadcasting market.\n(54)\nSeveral third parties held that the definition of TV2\u2019s public service remit was not legitimate. They disputed that the conditions regarding the transfer of tasks and the proportionality conditions had been met. In particular, TVDanmark argued that the Commission\u2019s calculation of overcompensation should take into account the benefit to TV2 of its exemption from corporation tax, its interest- and repayment-free start-up loans, the State guarantee for operating loans, and the free use of a transmission frequency. TVDanmark submitted that in general the market fluctuations in television advertising income were limited and did not justify TV2\u2019s build-up of capital.\n(55)\nConcerning the advertising market, TVDanmark submitted that TV2\u2019s pricing practices did not allow commercial operators to recover stand-alone costs. TVDanmark had to price its TRP around 30-40 % below TV2 in order to gain market acceptance (TV2\u2019s TRP and GRP are more valuable because its coverage is better) (28). Thanks to TV2\u2019s unique position in terms of coverage and programming budget, an advertiser would always place a certain part of his budget with TV2 to obtain a maximum impact in terms of the number of contacts, reach, and/or frequency with a given budget. TVDanmark supplied figures illustrating that its operations made a loss between 1997 and 2002, alleging that TV2\u2019s unfair competition prevented TVDanmark from generating sufficient revenue. TVDanmark also submitted an analysis of pricing for television advertising on the Danish market prepared by Copenhagen Economics. The analysis compared average and marginal prices on the market and concluded that there was competition only for the residual demand and that any comparison should therefore be based on marginal prices. Moreover, TVDanmark submitted information comparing TV2\u2019s advertising prices with those for other types of media and with prices in other countries.\n(56)\nTV3 stated that it had to grant very high discounts for its advertising slots in order to get market acceptance, as TV2 offered extra marginal discounts on the remainder of advertiser\u2019s television advertising budgets if they also placed it with TV2.\n(57)\nSecondly, the Commission also received comments from the Danish authorities following its decision to open the formal investigation procedure. The main points are summarised below.\n(58)\nThe Danish authorities considered that the transmission frequencies for TV2 could not be considered an advantage as local television stations also had transmission frequencies reserved for them. Therefore, TV2 had not received special treatment. TV2 had, like other stations, paid a charge for using the frequency.\n(59)\nOn the corporation tax exemption, the Danish authorities observed that the profit on commercial activities was quite limited and that the method chosen to neutralise the effect of TV2\u2019s exemption from corporation tax on its commercial activities meant that it did not derive any financial benefit from the exemption.\n(60)\nOn the proportionality issue, the Danish authorities stated that the transfer of DKK 167 million from the TV2 Fund was allocated to digitising the broadcasting network. Therefore, it could not be described as free capital.\n(61)\nThe Danish authorities also stated that surplus for the years 1995-2002 reflected a reasonable rate of return in relation to TV2\u2019s turnover. Moreover, the capital was needed as a buffer in the case of sudden drops in advertising revenue and under the law TV2 was not allowed to take out loans exceeding 4 % of annual turnover. In addition, according to the Danish authorities, the State was acting in accordance with the \u2018market economy investor principle\u2019, as TV2\u2019s own capital did not exceed what a normal market investor would have injected. Such capital was not contrary to the Treaty, provided it was not used to cross-subsidise TV2\u2019s commercial activities.\n(62)\nRegarding TV2\u2019s behaviour in the advertising market, the Danish authorities pointed out that TV2 had consistently set its prices so as to maximise revenue. Prices were set purely according to supply and demand. They were set annually on the basis of estimates by TV2\u2019s advertising division of the commercial audience share (21-50 years old), the programme schedule, economic developments and the competitive situation on the market. TV2\u2019s operating costs were not a factor in the estimate, nor was the amount of licence fee revenue. TV2\u2019s prices were the highest on the Danish market and therefore there was no question of undercutting prices, with an increased need for State funding as a result.\n(63)\nThe Danish authorities submitted a report prepared by RBB Economics on competition on the Danish television advertising market. The report concluded that the average net prices charged by TV2 were in fact higher than the prices charged by its competitors and that the differences in advertising rates charged by TV2 and TVDanmark were explained by differences in their relative strength in terms of programming and the ability to attract audiences.\n(64)\nThirdly, following the Court\u2019s judgment, the Commission asked the Danish authorities to give their analysis of its implications for the case.\n(65)\nThe Danish authorities sent their observations and also submitted comments from TV2. The main points are summarised below.\n(66)\nConcerning advertising revenue for 1995 and 1996, the Danish authorities and TV2 argued that the Danish State had no control over the amounts and therefore it should not be considered as State resources. The Danish authorities did not confirm the figures put forward by the Commission, but explained that the calculation of advertising revenue for 1995 and 1996 had to take into account the fact that part of the money from the TV2 Fund was used to finance the TV2 regions, and that this part could only be financed from licence fee resources. However, the Danish authorities conceded that advertising revenue should in any case be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the net cost of the public service remit and that it constituted income generated by public service activities.\n(67)\nThe Danish authorities and TV2 also pointed to the Court\u2019s judgment as proof that the conditions of the Altmark judgment of 24 July 2003 (29) were met. They recalled that, like the BUPA case (30), the TV2 case concerned circumstances already in existence prior to the date of the Altmark judgment. They contended that when applying the Altmark criteria, the spirit and the purpose of the criteria had to be observed so that the facts of the particular case were taken into account. In their view, it followed from the judgment that the only requirement the Court had imposed on the Danish State was that it should, \u2018in essence\u2019, comply with the Altmark conditions.\n(68)\nMore specifically, the Danish authorities and TV2 held that the procedure used to set the licence fee was transparent and complied with the requirements of the second Altmark criterion, at least in essence, and in their view this was sufficient in the light of the Court\u2019s judgment. They considered that the third criterion was also met in so far as TV2 was allowed to keep a reasonable profit. Concerning the fourth Altmark condition, they highlighted the extensive controls which applied to TV2 and argued that the BUPA case and the Court\u2019s judgment supported their claim that in this particular instance the test should be relaxed somewhat or should only be met in essence. Citing the Chronopost case (31), they also pointed out that in practice it was not possible to compare TV2 with a typical well-run undertaking. In addition, the Danish authorities reiterated their view that under the market economy investor test, the compensation should be approved.\n(69)\nThe Danish authorities and TV2 argued further that the State aid should be declared compatible. They explained the process that led to the build-up of capital in TV2 and highlighted the different reasons why this capital was necessary for TV2 to fulfil its public service tasks.\n(70)\nSome third parties also submitted comments following the Court\u2019s judgment. In essence, they argued that the Altmark conditions should not be found to be met, in particular, because the economic reports referred to by the Court were not sufficient to demonstrate that the second and fourth criteria were satisfied. They also contended that the Commission should maintain its conclusion in the annulled recovery decision, i.e. that the aid was not compatible.\nIV. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES\nIV.1. STATE AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU\n(71)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU provides that \u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(72)\nThe Commission has to assess whether the measures described above constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nIV.1.1. STATE RESOURCES AND ATTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITY\n(73)\nThe Commission has to assess whether the measures in question involve State resources.\n(74)\nConcerning the licence fee, the Commission takes note of the Court\u2019s findings in its judgment (32). In particular, the amount is determined by the Danish authorities; the obligation to pay the licence fee does not arise from a contractual relationship between TV2 and the person liable to pay but simply from the fact of owning a television or radio receiver; where necessary, the licence fee is collected in accordance with the rules on the collection of personal taxes; and, lastly, it is the Danish authorities that determine TV2\u2019s share of the income from licence fees. The Court concluded that licence fee resources are available to and under the control of the Danish authorities and that they therefore constitute State resources.\n(75)\nConcerning the advertising revenue for 1995 and 1996, the Court pointed out in its judgment that the licence fee and advertising revenue are different in nature (33).\n(76)\nIn its judgment, the Court held (34) that the Commission had not stated sufficient reasons why the 1995 and 1996 advertising revenue should be considered State resources.\n(77)\nIn light of the PreussenElektra ruling (35), the Commission has to demonstrate whether the advertising revenue for the years 1995 and 1996 can be classed as State resources. For this purpose, it has to assess whether this revenue was under the control of the Danish State.\n(78)\nIn this respect, the Commission takes note of the following factors relevant for deciding whether the 1995 to 1996 advertising revenue constituted State resources.\n(79)\nIn 1995 and 1996, TV2 received the advertising revenue from the TV2 Fund, which itself received the advertising revenue from TV2 Reklame A/S.\n(80)\nTV2 Reklame was a separate State-owned vehicle independent from TV2. The company was set up to act as an agent for the sale of advertisements on TV2 on a commercial basis (36). TV2 Reklame had a contractual relationship with its advertising customers.\n(81)\nThere was no obligation to transfer revenue from TV2 Reklame to the TV2 Fund. The transfer was instead decided by the Danish State (37). The Minister of Culture decided what part of TV2 Reklame\u2019s profits was to be transferred to the TV2 Fund. The decision was taken for one or more years at a time with the approval of the Danish Parliament (the Finance Committee). The Minister of Culture could decide that non-transferred profit should be used for repayment of the State guarantee issued previously for TV2 Reklame or for cultural purposes.\n(82)\nIn practice, in 1995 and 1996, the full amount of TV2 Reklame\u2019s profits was transferred to the TV2 Fund.\n(83)\nThe TV2 Fund was set up with the aim of providing TV2 with income from the licence fee resources and advertising revenue. The TV2 Fund belonged to the TV2 group. It was administered by TV2\u2019s board of directors.\n(84)\nThere was no obligation to transfer money from the TV2 Fund to TV2 every year. Rather, the transfer to TV2 was decided by the Danish State. For under the law the TV2 Fund was obliged to transfer funds to TV2 in accordance with the framework budgets laid down by the Minister of Culture (38).\n(85)\nIn practice, TV2 did not receive all the advertising revenue from the TV2 Fund in 1995 and 1996.\n(86)\nIn addition, no distinction was made in the TV2 Fund accounts between advertising revenue and licence fee resources. Revenue that was not transferred to TV2 accumulated in the TV2 Fund. It was transferred to TV2 when the TV2 Fund was wound up.\n(87)\nAccording to TV2 and the Danish authorities, the advertising revenue belonged to TV2 and TV2 was legally entitled to it. They referred to a letter from the Minister of Justice dated 22 November 2003, which stated that TV2 Fund\u2019s resources could only be used to cover TV2\u2019s activities. According to TV2 and the Danish authorities, there was therefore a legal obligation to transfer the advertising revenue from the TV2 Fund to TV2 eventually. However, as indicated above, there was no obligation under the law to transfer all the advertising revenue to TV2 and it was for the Minister to take a specific decision on whether money was to be transferred to TV2, and if so how much.\n(88)\nConcerning TV2, it should be added that the broadcaster had no contractual relationship with advertisers and no influence on advertising activities (39). The Danish government confirmed that the anticipated advertising revenue for the coming year was determined independently of TV2.\n(89)\nOn the basis of the above information, the Commission considers that the Minister had control over the funds in TV2 Reklame and the TV2 Fund. In particular, it is noted that (i) it was the Danish State that decided whether part or all of the advertising revenue was to be transferred to the TV2 Fund and to TV2; (ii) in 1995 and 1996 TV2 did not receive all the advertising revenue; and (iii) the advertising revenue that was not transferred accumulated in the TV2 Fund, where it was, in practice, merged with the licence fees.\n(90)\nFor these reasons, the Commission considers that, in this specific case, the advertising revenue for the years 1995 and 1996 that was transferred to TV2 via TV2 Reklame and the TV2 Fund constitutes State resources.\n(91)\nBut even if the advertising revenue were not classed as State resources (quod non), it would make no difference to the amount of State aid that could be considered compatible. In line with the Commission\u2019s constant practice and the 2001 Broadcasting Communication (40), income derived from public service activity, such as advertising revenue, must be taken into account when calculating the net costs of the public service, which means that such revenue, even if not regarded as State resources, reduces the need for public financing. The Danish authorities share this view (41).\n(92)\nThe ad-hoc transfer of resources to TV2 from the Radio Fund involved licence fee revenue that was made available to TV2 after a decision by the State. The same is true of the ad-hoc transfer from the TV2 Fund when it was wound up, since quite apart from the fact that the Danish State exercised control over the TV2 Fund, as mentioned earlier, the resources from the TV2 Fund were made available to TV2 by decision of the State. As those resources remained under public control, they have to be regarded as State resources. And since the advertising revenue is regarded as State resources and the transfer to TV2 at the time of the winding-up was in any event decided by the State, the Danish authorities\u2019 claim that the lump sum transferred to TV2 when the TV2 Fund was wound up derived exclusively from advertising revenue does not alter this conclusion.\n(93)\nConcerning the other State measures, the Commission considers that the corporate tax exemption constitutes use of public resources, since foregoing tax revenue is equivalent to the consumption of State resources in the form of fiscal expenditure (42).\n(94)\nThe interest- and repayment-free loans granted to TV2 are directly provided by the State and allocated from the State budget. By foregoing the interest and repayments on these loans, the Danish State foregoes income and therefore these funds constitute State resources. Furthermore, it is the Danish State that guarantees the operating loans. The benefit of a State guarantee is that the risk associated with the guarantee is carried by the State. The fact that the State carries the risk should normally be remunerated by an appropriate premium. Where the State foregoes such a premium, there is both an advantage for TV2 and a drain on the resources of the State (43).\n(95)\nMoreover, the State has reserved a nationwide transmission frequency for TV2, for which TV2 pays a frequency fee to a State body. The annual fee that TV2 paid varied between DKK 2 million and DKK 4 million during the period under investigation.\n(96)\nIn the absence of a basis of comparison for the fee paid for the nationwide frequency, it can only be compared with the fee paid for the permit to reach a larger share of the population through a network configuration. The frequency fee paid by TV2 for nationwide coverage is significantly lower than the networking fee that was imposed on TVDanmark, which varied between DKK 5 million in 1997 and DKK 30 million in 2001 even though the network of TVDanmark\u2019s regional frequencies only attains a 77 % coverage. Thus, TV2 has been able to reach a larger share of the Danish population at a lower price.\n(97)\nThe Commission therefore considers that the frequency fee does not reflect market conditions and that by not asking for the market rate for the asset, the State has foregone revenue that should have gone to the State budget.\n(98)\nIn contrast, since TV2 does not broadcast using a configuration of local frequencies in order to create a national network, it is not liable to pay the networking fee. As the State was not entitled to collect this fee from TV2, it did not forego revenue and hence State resources are not involved here.\n(99)\nSimilarly, the Commission cannot discern any element of State resources in the legal obligation on owners of common aerial installations to relay public service programmes through those installations (must-carry) as the State is neither forgoing any income nor actively transferring funds to such operators. This access rule does not confer on TV2 any financial advantage from State resources (44).\n(100)\nAll the abovementioned measures are attributable to the Danish State because, as described above, they involved a decision by the Danish State in one way or another.\nIV.1.2. SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE AND DISTORTION OF COMPETITION\n(101)\nThe Commission considers that the licence fee revenue, the transfers from the TV2 Fund (including advertising revenue for 1995 and 1996) and the Radio Fund, the exemption from corporate tax, the interest- and repayment-free loans, and the State guarantee for operating loans, together with access to a nationwide frequency on favourable terms, gave TV2 an economic and financial advantage, relieving it of operating costs that it would normally have had to bear through its budget. Furthermore, TV2\u2019s competitors did not receive the same funds.\n(102)\nHowever, State measures compensating the net additional costs of a service of general economic interest (SGEI) do not qualify as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU when the four conditions set out by the Court of Justice in the Altmark case (45) are fulfilled:\n-\nfirst, the recipient undertaking must actually be required to discharge public service obligations and those obligations must be clearly defined,\n-\nsecond, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner,\n-\nthird, the compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations,\n-\nfourth, where the undertaking that is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of production so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.\n(103)\nAs will be described more fully in the section of the present decision dealing with the compatibility of the measures (recitals 160 ff. of the present decision), it follows from the Court\u2019s judgment that the first Altmark condition is met.\n(104)\nAs regards the second Altmark criterion, whereby the parameters used to calculate the compensation must be established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner, the Commission has to assess the legal and economic conditions under which the licence fee revenue payable to TV2 was determined during the period under investigation. In that connection the Commission notes that the procedure was as follows.\n(105)\nAccording to points 29 and 30 of the Danish authorities\u2019 letter of 24 March 2003, the Radio and Television Broadcasting Act applicable during the period under investigation (46) laid down how the TV2 station as a whole was to be financed (licence fee resources, advertising revenue, and other sources of income) and assigned responsibility for determining TV2\u2019s and DR\u2019s share of the licence fee and therefore the amount of compensation to be granted to TV2 to the Minister for Culture. It should be noted that for the years 1995 and 1996, TV2 received its share of the licence fee from the TV2 Fund.\n(106)\nIn accordance with established practice, the size of the compensation was determined by the Minister in consultation with the Finance Committee of the Danish Parliament within the framework of a media agreement concluded with a majority of the political parties in the Parliament. At the time in question, there were 3 media agreements: the media agreement for 1994 to 1997, concluded on 16 September 1993, the media agreement for 1997 to 2000, concluded on 10 May 1996, and the media agreement for 2001 to 2004, concluded on 28 March 2000.\n(107)\nThe licence fee revenue was thus fixed for a fairly long time. During the period under investigation, the compensation granted to TV2 was not subject to any subsequent review, even when TV2\u2019s revenue was falling. For example, although TV2\u2019s advertising income suffered a major decline in 1999, the compensation was not adjusted to reflect this fact.\n(108)\nAccording to the Danish authorities, the compensation was determined through price and wage indexing of TV2\u2019s budget and accounts, and through economic analyses.\n(109)\nIn-depth economic analyses were carried out in 1995 and in 1999 by KPMG, a firm of auditors. For the 1999 report KPMG was assisted by a follow-up group consisting of representatives of the leading players in the market, including TV2\u2019s competitors. Particular attention was paid to information on potential income from sources other than the licence fee, such as advertising revenue.\n(110)\nIn points 164 and 165 of their letter of 24 March 2003, the Danish authorities stated that the KPMG consultancy studies, which were meant to forecast the likely trend of advertising turnover in the Danish advertising market and TV2\u2019s sources of income, and to identify the uncertainties associated with those estimates, were drawn up in order to give the Danish Government and Parliament a better basis for determining and allocating licence fee revenue in the negotiations on media policy.\n(111)\nAccording to the Danish authorities, the documents used to determine the compensation were publicly available. The media agreements were published in press releases and the Official Record of Parliamentary Proceedings (Folketingstidende). The legislation that was to implement the media agreements was published in the Danish Official Gazette (Lovtidende). TV2\u2019s accounts were also published, together with the abovementioned economic analyses.\n(112)\nIn light of the Court\u2019s judgment, the Commission has to assess whether, given the procedure described above, it can be concluded that the second Altmark criterion is met.\n(113)\nOn the one hand, the Commission takes note that in its judgment (47), the Court stated that \u2018(\u2026) conceivably, the above procedure for determining the amount of licence fee income payable to TV2 was objective and transparent given, in particular, that it involved the Danish Parliament, that it was based on economic analyses prepared by a firm of auditors assisted by a follow-up group of experts in which TV2\u2019s competitors participated, and that those analyses were published, as were TV2\u2019s annual accounts. Accordingly, it cannot be ruled out that a serious analysis of that procedure might lead to the conclusion that, even before the Altmark conditions were laid down by the Court of Justice, the Kingdom of Denmark had, in essence, complied with the second of those conditions\u2019. The Court also held that \u2018the amount of the licence fee income payable to TV2 was calculated on the basis of the specific assumption that TV2 would continue to benefit from those other State measures\u2019 (48) (i.e. tax exemption, etc.).\n(114)\nThe Commission considers that the involvement of the Danish Parliament in the process for setting the licence fee ensured a certain degree of transparency and objectivity. Moreover, the media agreements setting the amount of licence fee resources to be allocated to TV2 were decided in advance for several years, and thereafter TV2\u2019s compensation was never adjusted during the period under investigation.\n(115)\nHowever, the economic reports prepared by KPMG only gave estimates of the amount of advertising revenue accruing to TV2 (i.e. the income side). They said nothing about the cost side of the compensation calculation, and it seems to the Commission that the media agreements were based solely on indexation of TV2\u2019s costs in the previous years. Indeed, the Danish authorities stated that the compensation was determined on the basis of price and wage indexing of TV2\u2019s budgets and accounts and on the basis of the economic analyses, which only assessed the income side and did not deal with the period covered by the media agreement concluded on 16 September 1993.\n(116)\nIn addition, there was no indication of the parameters to be used to calculate the compensation. The amount of the compensation was set in advance, but the second Altmark criterion requires that the parameters used to calculate the compensation must themselves be established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner.\n(117)\nIn the light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the second Altmark criterion is not met. In any event, the Altmark criteria are cumulative and the Commission finds that the fourth criterion is not met (see below).\n(118)\nThe fourth Altmark criterion requires that \u2018[the] public service provider should be chosen according to a public procurement procedure or the level of compensation needed [should be] determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of production so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations\u2019.\n(119)\nIn the present case, the public service provider TV2 was not chosen following a public procurement procedure. The Commission therefore has to assess whether the level of compensation was determined on the basis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of production, would have incurred in discharging the public service obligations.\n(120)\nThe economic and legal conditions in which the compensation to TV2 was set have been described above. In the light of the Court\u2019s judgment and taking account of its finding that the procedure used by the Kingdom of Denmark to determine the amount of licence fee revenue payable to TV2 between 1995 and 2002 involved, inter alia, economic analyses drawn up with the help of TV2\u2019s competitors, the Commission must take particular account of the 1995 and 1999 KPMG reports in assessing whether TV2\u2019s costs were compared with those of a typical well run operator.\n(121)\nThe KPMG reports consider various scenarios of how the advertising market might develop over the respective licence fee periods. The reports contain no information on TV2 as such (e.g. on its financial situation or its operating costs); they illustrate how advertising revenue might develop and how much of the general advertising market might result in revenue for TV2. By estimating how advertising turnover in the Danish advertising market was most likely to develop and identifying the uncertainties associated with these estimates, the reports were part of the procedure used by the Danish authorities to determine the licence fee to be granted to TV2.\n(122)\nThe KPMG reports do not assess any of TV2\u2019s costs or the costs of other operators, limiting themselves to considering the development of the advertising market and TV2\u2019s share of advertising revenue. It should also be noted that the reports do not cover the first years of the period under investigation, which was covered by the 1993 media agreement.\n(123)\nTo a certain extent, competitors were involved in drawing up these reports. The 1995 report states that \u2018many stakeholders\u2019 were involved, but it is not clear from the report who they were. The 1999 KPMG report mentions a follow-up group of experts that did indeed involve competitors of TV2. However, the fact that these economic reports were to some extent drawn up with the help of TV2\u2019s competitors does not prove by itself that an analysis of the competitor\u2019s costs was carried out.\n(124)\nIn other words the reports include no analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of production, would have incurred in discharging public service obligations, but instead dealt with the more general issue of the outlook for the advertising market as well as the amount of TV2\u2019s future advertising revenue. It should also be added that prices on the advertising market are determined by a variety of factors, such as audience shares, and not only on the basis of costs.\n(125)\nThe Danish authorities and TV2 also put forward legal and factual arguments in relation to the fourth Altmark condition.\n(126)\nFirstly, Denmark cited the BUPA case, arguing that the fourth Altmark condition did not necessarily apply, or at least that the Commission, in light of the Court\u2019s judgment, should only assess whether it was met in essence. The Commission takes the view that the situation in the BUPA case was rather special in that the scheme in question, which concerned the provision of health services, was not cost-related but was based on customers\u2019 risk profiles, unlike in other public service sectors. In that instance there was thus no possibility for the operator to improve efficiency by way of its costs. However, for public service broadcasters, it is possible to calculate the compensation on the basis of costs and revenue.\n(127)\nSecondly, with reference to the Chronopost (49) case, Denmark argued that a public service provider like TV2 could not be compared to a private operator. However, the Commission takes the view that unlike the issue at stake in the Chronopost case, which was cost allocation in the context of a compatibility assessment, the essence of the fourth Altmark criterion is precisely that, in the absence of a tender, the costs of the public service provided should be compared with those of a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of production.\n(128)\nIn addition, Denmark argued that the National Audit Office (Rigsrevision) carried out financial and management audits of TV2\u2019s accounts as part of its routine appraisals of TV2 and that routine checks were made, including on efficiency. However, the Commission does not consider that the fact that TV2\u2019s accounts were submitted for approval by the Ministry of Culture is sufficient proof that TV2\u2019s costs were those of a typical well-run undertaking. In addition, it is doubtful whether ex post controls can be relevant for fulfilment of the fourth criterion if no analysis of the costs was made before compensation was set.\n(129)\nThe Danish authorities pointed in particular to the 2000 report from the Danish National Audit Office, in which the change in TV2\u2019s productivity was to some extent compared with that of DR and certain foreign public service broadcasters (British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Sveriges Television \u2018SVT\u2019 and Norsk Riksringkastning \u2018NRK\u2019). In the report, the National Audit Office found that both DR and TV2 improved productivity between 1990 and 1999. DR reduced its hourly costs for first broadcasts by more than TV2, but in 1999 those costs were still 53 % higher than TV2\u2019s. DR\u2019s overall hourly broadcasting costs in 1999 were approximately 29 % higher than TV2\u2019s. The National Audit Office also found that DR\u2019s and TV2\u2019s productivity improvements were better than or equal to the productivity increase of the other three public service broadcasters.\n(130)\nHowever, that report is not sufficient proof that the fourth condition was fulfilled.\n(131)\nIndeed, the report was produced after the media agreements that set the amount of compensation and therefore did not show that the compensation was determined on the basis of the costs that a typical undertaking would have incurred in fulfilling its public service mission.\n(132)\nFurthermore, the report made a comparison with other public service broadcasters and therefore did not deal with the costs of a \u2018typical\u2019 broadcaster. For example, it did not establish that the costs of DR, which is not allowed to generate income through advertising and whose level of compensation was determined under the same media agreement as TV2, were those of a typical undertaking. For the purposes of the fourth Altmark criterion, it is therefore impossible to draw any conclusions from the comparison with DR\u2019s costs.\n(133)\nAs regards the comparison with foreign public service broadcasters, the report only compared the development of TV2\u2019s productivity with one of the other public service broadcasters, but was silent on the level of efficiency as such, and hence on the costs themselves. In particular, a lower productivity increase could be due to many factors, for instance because efficiency was higher at the beginning of the period or because the broadcaster was not able to increase its broadcasting time. For example, paragraph 51 of the report states that \u2018During the period in question, the BBC and SVT saw an almost identical rise in costs, an increase of approximately 50 % in real terms, while NRK\u2019s costs increased by approximately 60 % in real terms. As mentioned above, DR\u2019s costs increased by 23 % in real terms, and TV2\u2019s by 63 %. Since, as already stated, SVT\u2019s and the BBC\u2019s broadcasting time did not grow as much as that of the other broadcasters, this cost increase meant that SVT and the BBC did not improve their productivity in the same manner as the other three public service broadcasters\u2019.\n(134)\nThe Commission also notes that paragraph 50 of the report states that \u2018As the National Audit Office has not examined the foreign public service broadcasters\u2019 accounts in any greater detail, there may be differences between those broadcasters\u2019 activities and between the calculation methods used for individual accounting items. What this means is that the costs used, and the unit costs derived from these, do not necessarily pertain to identical activities and that they have not necessarily been calculated according to identical accounting principles. As a result, unit cost levels do not lend themselves to ready comparison. Because the purpose of including the foreign broadcasters is to compare productivity \u201cdevelopment\u201d, rather than the level of productivity as such, the National Audit Office has taken the view that the data pertaining to the foreign television broadcasters may nevertheless, in its current form, serve as a reasonable indicator of development\u2019. Paragraph 53 of the report also points out that \u2018The National Audit Office has not examined the causes of the above developments in any greater detail because, as stated above, the development of the stated unit costs is dependent on the content of the broadcasters\u2019 programme offering and because the analysis presupposes, at any rate, that the quality has remained unchanged. As this presents an immediate difficulty in terms of drawing comparisons between the public service broadcasters concerned, the findings of the analysis should be interpreted with some caution. In this respect, the Ministry of Culture has stated that it agrees with the described unit cost developments and that the comparison of DR\u2019s, TV2\u2019s and the foreign public service broadcasters\u2019 unit costs should be interpreted with some caution\u2019.\n(135)\nFor the above reasons, the Commission takes the view that the report does not show that TV2\u2019s costs were those which a typical well-run undertaking would have incurred in performing the public service missions.\n(136)\nTo conclude, in view of the foregoing the Commission considers that the fourth Altmark criterion is not met, and because these criteria are cumulative, the compensation granted to TV2 does not satisfy the conditions set by the Court in the Altmark judgment. In any event, as will be shown below, the Commission considers that the compensation can be considered as compatible with the internal market.\n(137)\nThe Commission also has to assess whether the measures at issue could meet the \u2018market economy investor test\u2019 (\u2018MEIP test\u2019). The Danish authorities and TV2 argued that the measures do not qualify as State aid because the conditions of the MEIP test are fulfilled. In particular, they held that it was perfectly justified under the MEIP test to leave the surplus in TV2 so as to build up capital.\n(138)\nIn this respect, it should first be noted that the question of whether the measures were justified under the MEIP test is not the same as the question of whether they could be considered necessary in order to fulfil public service tasks (see the compatibility assessment below), since the fact that TV2 necessarily had to have a certain level of reserves and capital to perform its public service tasks does not mean that a private investor would have put money into the company and not have sought a return.\n(139)\nThe Commission, in accordance with settled case-law, must determine whether, in similar circumstances, a private investor of a size comparable to bodies managing the public sector could be expected to be willing to make capital injections of the same order of magnitude (50). Although the behaviour of a private investor that is being compared with the public investor\u2019s behaviour need not be the conduct of an ordinary investor laying out capital with a view to realising a profit in the relatively short term, it must at least be the behaviour of a private holding company or a private group of undertakings pursuing a structural policy and guided by prospects of profitability in the longer term.\n(140)\nFurthermore, according to settled case-law, the MEIP test must be applied at the moment the decision is taken and not ex post (51).\n(141)\nIn the present case, as Denmark is the only stakeholder in TV2, it is both the first and the last creditor to be reimbursed in the event of the company\u2019s failure. So, from the point of an investor, the Danish State could seek a return on its investment either by asking for remuneration in the form of interest on a loan or a return on a capital stake.\n(142)\nThe Commission notes that during the period in question, Denmark waived its claim to interest on the loans and allowed a moratorium on repayments. Moreover, the Danish State did not ask for any remuneration on the capital that was built up in TV2. Therefore, the Danish State did not ask for a normal return on its investment as any creditor or owner of a company normally would.\n(143)\nFurthermore, the Danish authorities have not advanced any valid arguments to justify why it would make sense strategically to reinvest the surplus in TV2 instead of asking for remuneration in the form of interest or dividends. Such a decision would normally be taken by an investor only if he thought that reinvestment would increase the value of his initial investment.\n(144)\nIn the present instance, it has not been established that there was a business plan or a clear overall business strategy suggesting that this was the case. Nor have there been any other indications that TV2 was planning to develop its activities to produce such added value. In saying this, the Commission is not trying to use formalistic arguments in order to refute the Danish authorities\u2019 argument on the MEIP test but is merely attempting to assesses whether a market economy investor would have decided to leave the funds in TV2 on the basis of the information available to him at the time when he took the decision. However, taking into account the information available at the time when the funds were left in TV2 (52) and leaving aside any considerations regarding TV2\u2019s public service tasks, which a private investor would not have been taken into account, the Commission considers that there was no business plan and no investment project or any other element on the basis of which a rational private investor would have thought that the reinvestment would increase the value of his initial investment and would therefore have decided to leave the money in TV2 instead of asking for some sort of remuneration.\n(145)\nIn addition, the Danish authorities have used the return on turnover as a benchmark in order to show that they acted as a private investor when reinvesting money into TV2. However, in the present case, it has to be emphasised that the Danish Government already acts as a financer of TV2, in that it provides it with significant funds to cover part of its operating costs. The amount of these funds has a direct effect on the results that TV2 is able to generate. In practice, this ratio can be boosted simply by increasing the amount of State funding. However, as excess funding normally also leads to inefficiencies, resulting in a larger drain on State resources, it is far from certain that increased funding produces a corresponding improvement in results.\n(146)\nThus the Danish authorities cannot be held to have acted as a market economy investor. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that the compensation can be considered compatible, as will be explained in detail below. As already mentioned, the MEIP test is a different issue from the question of whether it was justified for the Danish State to allow TV2 to keep the surplus so as to build up the capital necessary for its public service tasks.\n(147)\nIn conclusion, the Commission takes the view that, during the period under investigation, TV2 benefited by the measures. In the television broadcasting market, TV2 competes with other broadcasters who did not receive the same advantages. Therefore, the measures have to be regarded as selective and as distorting competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nIV.1.3. EFFECT ON TRADE\n(148)\nState measures are caught by Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as they affect trade between Member States. This is the case whenever the activities concerned are an object of intra-Community trade.\n(149)\nThe Court of Justice has developed a wide interpretation of this notion. It is established case-law that when aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade, those undertakings must be regarded as affected by that aid (53). The fact that the undertaking in question does not engage in exports does not rule out the possibility that trade might be affected. When a Member State grants aid to an undertaking, its domestic activities may be supported or even boosted thanks to the aid, which in turn reduces the scope for other undertakings to establish themselves on the market. The aid consequently allows the recipient to maintain a market share that might otherwise have been captured by competitors from other Member States (54).\n(150)\nIn paragraph 18 of the Broadcasting Communication, the Commission, referring to the Court\u2019s case-law, stated that the \u2018State financing of public service broadcasters can generally be considered to affect trade between Member States. This is clearly the position as regards the acquisition and sale of programme rights, which often takes place at an international level. Advertising, too, in the case of public broadcasters who are allowed to sell advertising space, has a cross-border effect, especially for homogenous linguistic areas across national boundaries. Moreover, the ownership structure of commercial broadcasters may extend to more than one Member State.\u2019\n(151)\nIn this case, the Commission notes that TV2 is active on the international market and exchanges television programmes (55). It is in direct competition with commercial broadcasters that are active on the international broadcasting market and that have an international ownership structure. The financial resources made available to TV2 gave it a competitive advantage as regards the purchase of television rights and investment in programmes that could subsequently be sold. Moreover, the aid measures placed TV2 in a favourable position compared with its competitors in the European Union by reducing their scope for establishing themselves in Denmark.\n(152)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the measures granted to TV2 had an effect on trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nIV.1.4. CONCLUSION\n(153)\nSince all the conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU are fulfilled, the Commission concludes that the measures described above in favour of TV2 qualify as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(154)\nAs TV2 started broadcasting in 1989, all the measures for TV2 were taken after Denmark\u2019s accession to the European Union. Consequently, the measures, including the licence fee resources, constitute new State aid (rather than existing aid within the meaning of Article 108(1) TFEU).\nIV.2. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET\n(155)\nThe Commission considers that Article 107(2) and Article 107(3)(a), 107(3)(b), 107(3)(c) and 107(3)(d) TFEU are manifestly not applicable and neither the Danish authorities nor TV2 have put forward any arguments to this effect.\n(156)\nThe Commission will therefore assess whether Article 106(2) TFEU might apply.\n(157)\nArticle 106(2) TFEU reads: \u2018Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.\u2019\n(158)\nFor a measure to benefit from this derogation, all the following conditions must be fulfilled:\n-\nthe service in question must be a service of general economic interest (\u2018SGEI\u2019) and clearly defined as such by the Member State (\u2018definition\u2019),\n-\nthe undertaking in question must be explicitly entrusted by the Member State with the provision of that service (\u2018entrustment\u2019),\n-\nthe application of the competition rules of the Treaty must obstruct the performance of the particular tasks assigned to the undertaking and the exemption from such rules must not affect the development of trade to an extent that would be contrary to the interests of the Union (\u2018proportionality\u2019).\n(159)\nThe 2001 Broadcasting Communication (56) sets out the principles and methods which the Commission intends to apply to ensure compliance with the conditions referred to above.\nIV.2.1. DEFINITION\n(160)\nUnder the Broadcasting Act (1994) (57), TV2 is an independent institution whose object is to produce and disseminate national and regional television programmes through independent programme activities. The range of the programmes provided must principally focus on quality, versatility and diversity. Regional relevance must also be given priority in the planning of programmes for the regional TV2 stations. The public service mission is specified in more detail in TV2\u2019s Statutes, which state that TV2 has to provide programmes comprising news coverage, information, entertainment, art and culture to the entire Danish population (58).\n(161)\nThe Commission takes note that the Court discussed the public service that TV2 is obliged by law to provide in its judgment (59).\n(162)\nFirst, the Court recalled that Member States enjoy broad discretion when defining what they regard as services of general economic interest. Thus the definition of such services by a Member State can be queried by the Commission only in the event of manifest error (60).\n(163)\nFurthermore, as stated in paragraph 33 of the Broadcasting Communication, it is for the Member States to define the public service remit of a public broadcaster.\n(164)\nMore specifically, as regards SGEIs in the field of broadcasting, the case-law of the Court has recognised that Member States could legitimately define an SGEI so as to cover the broadcasting of full-spectrum programming (61).\n(165)\nWhen the Member States stated in the Amsterdam Protocol (62) that \u2018the system of public broadcasting in the Member States is directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism\u2019, they were making a direct reference to the public service broadcasting systems they had introduced and the organisations entrusted with broadcasting full-spectrum television programmes for the benefit of the entire population of those States.\n(166)\nIn its judgment, the Court ruled that the Member States\u2019 power to define broadcasting SGEIs in broad qualitative terms, so as to cover the broadcasting of a wide range of programmes, cannot be disputed, nor can the Member States\u2019 freedom to use advertising revenue to finance such SGEIs (63).\n(167)\nThe possibility open to Member States to define broadcasting SGEIs broadly so as to cover the broadcasting of full-spectrum programming cannot be called into question by the fact that the public service broadcaster also engages in commercial activities, in particular the sale of advertising space. Indeed, the question of the definition of the public service remit must not be confused with the question of the financing mechanism chosen to provide that service (64).\n(168)\nFurthermore, the Court made it clear that the Commission does not have to compare TV2\u2019s programming with that of the commercial stations. To make the definition of the public service mission dependent on the range of programming offered by the commercial broadcasters - through a comparative analysis of programming - would deprive the Member States of their power to define the public service. In the final analysis, the definition would depend on the commercial operators and their decisions as to whether or not to broadcast certain programmes.\n(169)\nThe Court (65) also confirmed that the obligations imposed on commercial broadcasters are not comparable with the public service obligations imposed on TV2. The aim of those public service obligations is to provide the entire Danish population with varied programming that satisfies the requirements of quality, versatility and diversity. Those public service obligations determine all of TV2\u2019s broadcasting activities and do so more inflexibly than the minimal obligations prescribed by Danish law for the granting of a broadcasting licence.\n(170)\nThe Court therefore concluded (66) that \u2018the definition chosen by the Danish authorities is broad since, being essentially qualitative, it leaves the broadcaster free to establish its own range of programmes. None the less, it cannot be called imprecise. On the contrary, TV2\u2019s mandate is perfectly clear and precise: to offer the entire Danish population varied television programming which aims to provide quality, versatility and diversity\u2019.\n(171)\nIn view of the foregoing, and given the specific nature of the broadcasting sector, the Commission considers that a \u2018broad\u2019 definition entrusting a broadcaster with the task of providing balanced and varied programming in accordance with its remit, is legitimate under Article 106(2) TFEU in the light of the interpretative provisions of the Protocol. Such a definition would be consistent with the objective of fulfilling the democratic, social and cultural needs of a particular society and guaranteeing pluralism, including cultural and linguistic diversity.\n(172)\nTherefore, on the basis of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the definition of the public service provided by TV2 can be accepted.\n(173)\nIt should be added that, during the period under consideration, TV2 operated an Internet site as part of its public service mission. The Internet site informs users about TV2\u2019s public service television programmes. The Commission can accept that the Internet site that is limited to informing users about TV2\u2019s public service television programmes falls within TV2\u2019s public service broadcasting tasks. Therefore, treating the operation of this site as part of the public service remit cannot be termed a manifest error. In addition, TV2 operated a commercial Internet site with games etc. This commercial Internet service should be regarded as a purely commercial activity, as it offers interactive products on individual demand, such as games or \u2018chat rooms\u2019, which do not differ from similar commercial products. These latter activities therefore fall outside the scope of TV2\u2019s public service mission.\nIV.2.2. ENTRUSTMENT\n(174)\nIn order to benefit from the exemption under Article 106(2) TFEU, TV2 should be assigned its public service remit by means of an official legal act. The Commission notes that the Broadcasting Act (67) formally assigns a public service television broadcasting mission to TV2. The Commission also takes note of the Court\u2019s judgment, in which it held that \u2018[i]t is obvious that TV2 was entrusted with such a [public service] remit\u2019 (68).\n(175)\nHowever, as the definition in the law does not make it sufficiently clear which kinds of other services are allowed as public services, a formal remit must be given prior to any additional activity that TV2 wants to embark on as a public service. The Commission notes that TV2 did not offer any other services beyond its public service broadcasting mission in the period under investigation. The Internet site offering other services such as games was operated as a commercial activity, while the Internet site that simply informed users about TV2\u2019s public service television programmes can be considered part of its public service broadcasting remit, as it cannot be separated from the broadcasting service. The Commission therefore concludes that the public service broadcasting remit was legitimately entrusted to TV2 during the period under investigation.\n(176)\nHowever, as stated in paragraphs 41 to 43 of the 2001 Broadcasting Communication, not only should the public service be formally entrusted to the broadcaster, it must also be delivered as prescribed in the act by which it is entrusted. Since it is not for the Commission to judge whether any quality standards have been met, it is desirable that an appropriate monitoring authority should exist, and it is for the Member State to choose the mechanism to ensure effective supervision, provided that the authority is independent from the undertaking entrusted with the service.\n(177)\nIn this connection, the Commission notes that in 2000 the National Audit Office carried out a specific investigation into the substance and nature of TV2\u2019s public service obligations and how they were met in practice. The investigation found no failure on the part of TV2 to comply with its public service obligations. Moreover, between 2001 and 2002, a Public Service Council existed to ensure that TV2 complied with its public service obligations, although that body never published any reports on this question during its short lifetime. Nor has the Commission found any indication that TV2 failed to comply with its obligations or that its performance was such that its activities could no longer be considered an SGEI under Article 106(2) TFEU.\n(178)\nAs regards financial control of the public broadcasting service, the Commission notes that the National Audit Office audited TV2\u2019s accounts throughout the entire period under investigation. The audits included both financial audits and management audits, although the National Audit Office had no power to prevent overcompensation of TV2\u2019s public service costs.\n(179)\nThe Commission does, however, have the power assess the proportionality of the State aid. The Commission notes that the Transparency Directive has been transposed in Denmark. It has also received data from the Danish authorities enabling it to assess whether or not the State funding is proportionate.\nIV.2.3. PROPORTIONALITY\n(180)\nIn light of the Court\u2019s judgment and the 2001 Broadcasting Communication, the proportionality assessment that the Commission must carry out is twofold.\n(181)\nFirst, the Commission has to calculate the net cost of the public service mission entrusted to TV2 and verify whether or not this cost has been overcompensated compared with TV2\u2019s needs in order to fulfil its public service tasks.\n(182)\nSecond, the Commission has to analyse TV2\u2019s behaviour in the advertising market. The 2001 Broadcasting Communication points out that, if a drop in revenue were covered by State aid, a public service broadcaster might be tempted to depress its prices for advertising or other commercial activities on the market so as to reduce competitors\u2019 revenue. The Commission therefore considers that whenever a public service broadcaster undercuts prices in its non-public service activities below what is necessary to recover the stand-alone costs that an efficient commercial operator in a similar situation would normally have to recover, this indicates that overcompensation of the public service obligations has occurred.\n1. Amount of State aid and assessment of overcompensation\n(183)\nUnder the Transparency Directive (69), Member States are required to maintain separate accounts for public service and non-public service activities. Costs and revenue must be correctly allocated on the basis of clearly established, objective cost accounting principles.\n(184)\nThe Commission has taken the view that separation of accounts in the broadcasting sector may not be straightforward or even feasible on the costs side, as different activities share the same inputs. In this sector, Member States may consider a broadcaster\u2019s entire programming to be covered by the public service remit while at the same time allowing for its commercial exploitation (70).\n(185)\nIn the present decision, the Commission first needs to determine the cost of the SGEI fulfilled by TV2.\n(186)\nAs TV2 also carries out commercial activities, it needs to keep separate accounts for its different activities. Since 2001, TV2 has been legally obliged to keep separate accounts for its public service and commercial activities.\n(187)\nWhen calculating the net costs, the Commission has to deduct from the gross public service costs all the net benefits from the commercial exploitation of the public service activity. The Danish authorities have supplied figures showing the performance of TV2\u2019s commercial and public service activities in accordance with the method set out in paragraph 56 of the Broadcasting Communication. The figures show that most of TV2\u2019s commercial activities shared the same inputs as its public service activities. As a consequence, no meaningful allocation of costs to these commercial activities could be made. When this is the case, the Commission deducts net revenue from commercial operations in order to calculate the net public service costs. The commercial Internet activities are the only operations that can be regarded as separable from the public service activities. The losses that TV2 has made on its commercial Internet activities since they began in 1997 amount to DKK [\u2026] (71) million.\n(188)\nThe Commission then deducted the revenue generated from public service activities (advertising income and other commercial revenue) from the gross public service cost to arrive at the net public service cost. The cash financing from the State was then deducted from the net public service cost. The calculation is shown in the table below.\n(189)\nIt should be noted that despite numerous requests from the Commission to provide the exact amount of advertising revenue in 1995 and 1996, the Danish authorities and TV2 were not able to provide clear, unambiguous figures.\n(190)\nIn their reply of 26 June 2009, the Danish authorities stated that they were unable to confirm that the advertising revenue which TV2 received from the TV2 Fund amounted to DKK 400,1 million in 1995 and DKK 337,7 million in 1996.\n(191)\nIn its reply, TV2 indicated that in 1995 and 1996 (i) the TV2 Fund received advertising revenue from TV2 Reklame (DKK 824 and DKK 904,5 million) and licence fees from the State (DKK 330,3 and DKK 356,3 million), and (ii) the TV2 Fund transferred DKK 730,4 and DKK 694 million to TV2, and DKK 269,6 and DKK 275 million to the TV2 regions. The purpose of the amounts transferred to the TV2 Fund was to cover the funding needs of TV2 and its regional stations.\n(192)\nIn their replies of 26 June 2009, 17 November 2010 and of 30 November 2010, the Danish authorities confirmed TV2\u2019s argument that, with no other commercial income, TV2\u2019s regional stations were de facto financed entirely through licence fees and that any sums transferred annually to TV2\u2019s regional stations could therefore originate only from licence-fee revenue transferred to the TV2 Fund. This implies that the licence-fee revenue transferred to TV2 can be considered equivalent to the maximum amount of licence-fee revenue that was transferred to the TV2 Fund in all the years in question minus any amounts transferred to TV2\u2019s regional stations. The Danish authorities and TV2 claim that this means that the vast bulk of the funding transferred from the TV2 Fund to TV2 in 1995 and 1996 consisted of net advertising income. According to the Danish authorities this line of reasoning would imply that TV2 received DKK 60,7 million in licence fees (net after deducting transfers to the regions) and DKK 669,7 million in advertising revenue (net) in 1995, and DKK 81,3 million in licence fees and DKK 612,7 million in advertising revenue in 1996.\n(193)\nThe Commission is not convinced by TV2\u2019s and the Danish authorities\u2019 reasoning on the amount of the advertising revenue for the years 1995-1996. In particular, the Commission notes that the TV2 Fund kept no separate accounts for advertising revenue and licence fees, and therefore all these revenues were mixed together. The Commission regrets that the Danish authorities have not provided clear and unambiguous figures for the amount of advertising revenue in 1995 and 1996. However, in this specific case it considers that there is no need to investigate the issue further as it does not pose a major problem since the Commission, as already stated, considers that the advertising revenue for the years 1995-1996 constitutes State resources which must in any event be deducted from the gross public service cost. In the table below, the advertising revenue transferred from the TV2 Fund for the years 1995 and 1996 is therefore shown in the same column as the licence fees.\n(194)\nIt should also be noted that for the years 1997 to 2002 the Commission has included the licence fees that were transferred to the TV2 regions via TV2. The Commission considers that because these sums were received by TV2 and then transferred to the regions, they should be included in the calculations as both revenue and expenditure, which in practice means that they do no affect the Commission\u2019s calculation below.\n(195)\nConcerning the capital injection transferred to TV2 for digitisation, it is shown in 1997 as income. The corresponding reductions have been taken into account as costs when the investments were implemented. The costs for digitisation are public service costs. So as not to count the same costs twice, the depreciation corresponding to the investments made have been deducted from the gross public service cost. Despite TV2\u2019s criticisms on this point, the Commission is of the opinion that, in line with its constant practice when calculating State compensation, revenue from the State or from a public fund must be taken into account in the year when they are granted and not in the year when they are spent or used.\nTable 1\nPublic service cost and compensation measures 1995-2002 on the basis of the accounts\n(million DKK)\nYear\n1995\n1996\n1997\n1998\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\nTotal\nGross public service cost\n- 755,8\n- 856,2\n-1 415,2\n-1 475,3\n-1 439,1\n-1 531,6\n-1 518,5\n-1 604,1\n-10 595,8\nInvestment in digitisation\n0\n0\n0\n0\n-10,3\n-4\n-56,7\n-23,9\n-94,9\nNet advertising revenue directly received by TV2\n0\n0\n1 091,9\n1 118,4\n1 014,4\n1 089,9\n1 006,8\n1 028,3\n6 349,7\nOther revenue\n83,2\n121,6\n97,3\n76,3\n50,9\n65,4\n58\n73,8\n626,5\nNet public service cost\n- 672,6\n- 734,6\n- 226,0\n- 280,6\n- 384,1\n- 380,3\n- 510,4\n- 525,9\n-3 714,5\nLicence fee and net advertising revenue received in 1995-1996 from the TV2 Fund\n730,4\n694\n328,5\n357,5\n414,6\n449,2\n537,3\n556,2\n4 067,7\nTransfer when Radio Fund was wound up\n0\n0\n8\n10\n15\n25\n0\n0\n58\nTransfer when TV2 Fund was wound up\n0\n0\n217\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n217\nTotal of (i) the licence fees and revenue from the TV2 and Radio Funds indicated above, and (ii) the net public service cost\n57,8\n-40,6\n327,5\n86,9\n45,5\n93,9\n26,9\n30,3\n628,2\nSource: TV2\u2019s yearly profit-and-loss accounts.\n(196)\nAs can be seen from the table above, the financing exceeds the costs by DKK 628,2 (EUR 84,4) million.\n(197)\nThe Commission takes note of the fact that TVDanmark considers that the other measures that benefited TV2, such as its exemption from interest payments and tax as well as access to a nationwide transmission frequency on favourable terms, should be taken into account for the assessment of the overcompensation. These benefits are summarised in the table below:\nTable 2\nEstimated benefits from corporate tax exemption, interest waiver, and transmission frequency\n(million DKK)\n1995\n1996\n1997\n1998\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\nTotal\nCorporation tax exemption\n19,7\n-13,8\n54,6\n30,1\n16,7\n29,7\n18,5\n3,9\n159,4\nAccrued interest on establishment loan\n44,5\n39,2\n36,9\n41,3\n37,5\n45,1\n51,7\n45,6\n341,8\nState guarantee operating loans\n2,4\n2,1\n1,7\n1,4\n1,0\n0,7\n0,4\n0,1\n9,8\nTransmission frequency fee (72)\n2,3\n7,9\n12,6\n21,4\n26,0\n70,2\nTotal\n66,6\n27,5\n95,5\n80,7\n67,8\n96,9\n96,6\n49,6\n581,2\n(198)\nThe Commission agrees that these measures must be considered in the present investigation. However, when calculating the overcompensation, it is not appropriate to include them in the calculation in Table 1. In line with the Commission\u2019s position in the RAI case (73), these additional benefits can be considered as compensating costs that would otherwise have had to be financed. Thus, in assessing the proportionality of the State funding of the public service costs, these additional advantages should not be included, since having to pay the costs in question would have resulted in a corresponding increase in the initial costs of the public service entrusted to TV2. In terms of the net result, it would make no difference. However, it has to be ensured that these advantages only benefit the public service tasks and do not spill over to the commercial activities. This point is addressed in recitals 234-237 below.\n(199)\nThe Danish authorities and TV2 advanced various arguments to justify the excess funding calculated in recital 196. In particular, in light of the Court\u2019s judgment, the Commission has to assess whether the excess funding was in fact necessary for TV2 to be able to fulfil its public service mission.\n(200)\nIn this connection, it should first be noted that the Amsterdam Protocol (74) emphasised the specificities of the broadcasting sector compared with other SGEI, because \u2018the system of public broadcasting in the Member States is directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism\u2019. These special features should be taken into account in the Commission\u2019s compatibility assessment in the present decision.\n(201)\nMoreover, in previous decisions the Commission has accepted that a certain capital base was justified to secure the provision of a public service by broadcasters. For example, in the Austrian broadcasting case (75), the Commission stated that \u2018Under Article 86(2) EC, as interpreted by the Amsterdam Protocol, Member States may in principle provide as much public financing to public service broadcasters as needed to safeguard the performance of the public service. This not only concerns the running cost of performing the SGEI but also equity capital\u2019.\n(202)\nAs the Court held in its judgment (76), \u2018the Commission cannot base its decision to order the recovery of all the sums which, according to the Kingdom of Denmark, constituted a reserve which it was necessary to set aside for public service needs, on an alleged failure to carry out adequate checks, since it was perfectly possible, given the information available to the Commission, to examine seriously all the legal and economic conditions that governed the build-up of those reserves during the period under investigation and impossible, without such an examination, to take a valid decision as to whether those reserves were in fact necessary - as a whole or even only in part - to provide the public service\u2019.\n(203)\nThe Court added (77) that purely formal requirements such as an obligation for the reserves to be specific and transparent could not justify a recovery order, and the fact that TV2 did not in practice have to draw on its reserves did not support the inference that those reserves had to be regarded as disproportionate to the funding needs of providing the public service (78).\n(204)\nTherefore, the Commission has to assess all the factors taken into account by the Danish authorities when setting the compensation granted to TV2 for the years 1995-2002 and deciding to build up reserves. With regard to this issue, the Commission would refer to its earlier assessment of the procedure used to set the licence fee, in recital 105.\n(205)\nAs regards the considerations that led the Danish authorities to build up a reserve for the fulfilment of the public service mission of TV2, the following factors cited by the Danish authorities should be considered.\n(206)\nWhen TV2 was established in 1988, no capital was injected. Its operations were financed solely by a start-up loan of DKK 510,8 million, which enabled TV2 to purchase its production equipment, buildings etc. TV2 was therefore thinly capitalised because it was capitalised with abnormally large loans and abnormally low capital. As a result, TV2 quickly faced financial difficulties.\n(207)\nThe National Audit Office, an independent institution under the Danish Parliament, has the task of carrying out both accounting and management audits. It concluded in 1995 that a substantial proportion of TV2\u2019s financial problems could be attributed to the station having been established without an injection of capital (79). The main recommendation made by the National Audit Office was that the State should inject approximately DKK 530 million of capital into TV2 by converting the start-up loans. This would give TV2 capital of approximately DKK 350 million and a solvency ratio of around 50 %. The recommended solvency ratio of approximately 50 % was equivalent to that of privately owned undertakings such as TV2 Norge (Norway) and TV4 (Sweden).\n(208)\nFollowing this report, the State auditors - the members of the Danish Parliament appointed to be responsible for a critical audit of, among other things, the accounts of State-owned undertakings - asked the Ministry of Finance for its opinion on the question of whether TV2 should build up capital. In August 1995, in response to the National Audit Office proposal that TV2 should be given a capital injection, the Ministry of Finance stated that \u2018[b]oth when establishing new undertakings and when converting existing state-owned undertakings, the undertaking must have the necessary capital base. But at the same time the State must not make too large an injection of capital, firstly because this would signify an unnecessary expense for the State and secondly because it could give the undertaking an unfair competitive advantage. The undertaking must be neither under- nor over-capitalised\u2019. On this basis the Danish State considered that capital should be built up in TV2. However, it was decided that the State would not contribute the capital all at once. TV2 would instead itself build up the necessary capital through ongoing surpluses.\n(209)\nThe requirement for a capital base was included in TV2\u2019s Statutes in 1997. Since then, TV2\u2019s statutes have clearly specified that, from 2001 onwards, TV2\u2019s free capital must amount to at least DKK 200 million and that it should be used to offset the broadcaster\u2019s operating loss (80). The executive order of 18 August 1997 stipulated that to finance any possible operating loss, the free capital - i.e. capital minus reserves and other tied resources - for nationwide activities should amount to at least DKK 200 million by the end of 2000. The free capital was to be built up so that it would total at least DKK 50 million by the end of 1998 and at least DKK 100 million by the end of 1999. From 2001, the free capital at any one time was to be at least DKK 200 million, based on the latest accounts. If capital was expected to fall below these figures, the matter was to be put before the Minister of Culture. In special cases the Minister of Culture can, after consulting the National Audit Office, approve a lower amount of capital, to which he may attach specific conditions.\n(210)\nThe 1997 executive order issued by the Minister setting the minimum free capital was published in the Danish Official Gazette (Lovtidende). In addition, from 1998 onwards, the build-up of capital in accordance with the requirements of the Statutes was specifically mentioned in TV2\u2019s published annual accounts.\n(211)\nAccording to the Danish authorities, failure to observe with the minimum capital requirement of DKK 200 million under its Statutes would be expected to result in TV2 being placed under State administration.\n(212)\nThe Commission considers that the crucial issue is to determine if and to what extent the capital base attained through the compensation was indeed necessary for the performance of TV2\u2019s public service mission.\n(213)\nHaving regard to the above description of the procedure and the reasons that led to the build-up of TV2\u2019s reserves in the form of a capital base, and in the light of the Court\u2019s judgment, the Commission considers that the build-up of a reserve was indeed necessary for TV2 to fulfil its public service mission.\n(214)\nHowever, the Commission wonders whether the entire amount of the reserves was really justified and necessary, i.e. whether the full amount of the capital base built up by the end of 2002 was really necessary for the performance of TV2\u2019s public service mission.\n(215)\nIn the Commission\u2019s view, the size of the capital base that could be considered proportionate and necessary to guarantee the provision of the public service depends on the facts and the legal framework of each individual case.\n(216)\nThe figures available to the Commission regarding TV2\u2019s capital base are shown in the table below:\n(million DKK)\n1995\n1996\n1997\n1998\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\nEarmarked capital (digitisation)\n167,0\n167,0\n156,7\n152,6\n96,6\n72\nFree capital\n-97,8\n- 138,4\n22,1\n110,7\n173,3\n270,3\n418,7\n478,5\nTotal capital\n-97,8\n- 138,4\n189,1\n277,7\n330,0\n422,9\n515,3\n550,5\nTotal liabilities\n770,3\n746,9\n1 244,7\n1 363,3\n1 311,8\n1 423,0\n1 409,5\n1 409,1\nSolvency ratio (81)\n-13\n-19\n2\n8\n13\n19\n30\n34\n(217)\nOn 31 December 2002, TV2 had built up capital of DKK 550,5 million, including DKK 72 million of earmarked capital (digitisation), which corresponds to a solvency ratio of 34 %. The amount of free capital at the end of 2002 was DKK 478,5 million.\n(218)\nFirst the Commission notes that part of the capital was not free capital. Indeed, according to TV2\u2019s annual accounts for 1997 (82), the Media Committee had decided that TV2 should digitise its production equipment before the end of 2000. DKK 300 million was earmarked for the digitisation of both TV2 and the regional stations. In 1997, DKK 167 million was transferred to TV2 for this purpose. The Commission therefore considers that this amount was necessary for TV2\u2019s public service needs. The fact that the funds that had not been invested in digitisation by 1 January 2003 (a balance of DKK 72 million) were ultimately released does not alter this conclusion because, during the period under investigation, these sums were clearly entered in TV2\u2019s accounts as earmarked capital that could only be used for the purpose of digitisation and, as the Court stated in its judgment, the fact that TV2 did not in practice have to draw on a reserve does not support the inference that this reserve had to be regarded as disproportionate to the funding needs of providing the public service (83).\n(219)\nIt should also be noted that at 31 December 1994 (at the start of the period covered by the present decision) TV2\u2019s capital was negative (minus almost DKK 156 million) and that in 1995 and 1996, TV2 had a negative solvency ratio and negative capital, which explains why the total capital at the end of 2002 was lower than the compensation received. It was only at the end of 2000 that TV2\u2019s free capital rose above the required minimum threshold of DKK 200 million.\n(220)\nIn order to demonstrate that the level of capital in TV2 was justified, the Danish authorities submitted an opinion prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers dated 18 November 2002. That opinion stated that TV2\u2019s solvency ratio at the end of the period of investigation was lower than that of other Scandinavian broadcasters comparable to TV2 in terms of size, activities, structure and the markets in which they operated. For instance, TV2\u2019s solvency ratio was lower than that of TV2 Norge (36 %) and considerably lower than that of TV4 (Sweden), whose solvency ratio was 65 %, almost twice that of TV2. According to the opinion, TV2\u2019s solvency ratio was below that of its peers and therefore could not be considered excessive. The opinion also pointed out that there was no reason to believe that the capital structure of those comparable broadcasters was not optimised. PricewaterhouseCoopers also indicated that a solvency ratio of less than 30 % over time would be unusual and would render the company vulnerable to income fluctuations.\n(221)\nThe comparison with other operators should be interpreted with caution since they do not perform the same public service tasks as TV2, are not financed in the same way, and do not have the same legal status. Nevertheless, the opinion gives some indication and can be taken into account alongside other elements.\n(222)\nIn this connection the Commission notes that the Danish authorities submitted information showing that, during the last part of the period under investigation, they planned to convert TV2 into a public limited company and privatise it. As part of the conversion process, an analysis was also made of how the licence fee funding could be phased out, as the Danish authorities intended to abolish funding via licence fees after TV2\u2019s privatisation.\n(223)\nTo this end, in June 2002 the Danish government entered into an agreement with a majority in Parliament on a thorough liberalisation of Danish media policy. Under the agreement, TV2 was to be converted with a view to privatisation as soon as possible. An analysis was made of the financial basis for converting TV2 into a limited company. The Minister of Culture appointed a steering group in the summer of 2002 with representatives from the Culture Ministry, the Finance Ministry and the Attorney General (Kammeradvokat) in order to clarify the economic basis for privatising TV2 and converting it into a limited company. To support its work, the steering group engaged an auditing firm and a financial advisor in order, for example, to calculate the level of capital needed by TV2. The auditing firm concluded that TV2\u2019s capital should be set at DKK 640 million.\n(224)\nThe Danish Parliament\u2019s Finance Committee approved the conversion of TV2 into a limited company and the setting of its capital. TV2\u2019s conversion into a limited company took place with retroactive effect from 1 January 2003. In the wake of TV2\u2019s change of legal status and its conversion into a company, a number of measures in favour of TV2 were abolished, such as the interest- and repayment-free loans and the tax exemption. In 2005, privatisation was postponed but TV2 no longer received licence fees after 2004.\n(225)\nIn view of the foregoing, the Commission considers that one of the factors it must take into account in assessing the compatibility of the reserves is the fact that during the last part of the period under investigation the Danish authorities already planned to change TV2\u2019s legal status, which implies the need for a capital base.\n(226)\nIn its decisions, the Commission\u2019s practice is to look favourably in principle on schemes to convert State entities that compete with commercial enterprises into limited company form, since doing so may reduce distortions of competition by replacing unlimited State advantages with a limited amount of capital and by creating a clear distinction between the role of the State as a public authority and its role as an entrepreneur seeking a return on its investment.\n(227)\nIn addition, among the other factors to be taken into account, the Commission considers that the level of TV2\u2019s reserves should be viewed in the light of fluctuations in revenue from the advertising market.\n(228)\nTV2 was indeed vulnerable to the revenue fluctuations that are an inevitable aspect of the advertising market. For example, in one year (1998 to 1999) TV2 experienced a drop in advertising revenue of approximately DKK 104 million. According to the Danish authorities, the only way for TV2 to be able to cope with falls of this size was by having a very considerable amount of free capital, as licence fee revenue was fixed in advance for several years. Even though TV2 was less dependent on advertising revenue than TV2 Norge and TV4, which do not receive licence fees, funding via advertising nevertheless constituted an important source of financing for TV2\u2019s operations during the period in question.\n(229)\nIn this respect, the Commission takes note that the Court made it clear in its judgment (84) that \u2018[t]he fact that TV2 did not have to draw on its reserves in 1999 does not support the inference that those reserves had to be regarded as disproportionate to the funding needs of providing the public service. It is in the very nature of a reserve which is built up to deal with an uncertainty that it does not necessarily have to be used.\u2019\n(230)\nThe Commission agrees with the Danish authorities that in assessing TV2\u2019s needs it must also take account of the fact that TV2 experiences substantial fluctuations in liquidity both in the course of a single year and from one year to the next, since major sports events such as the Olympic Games only take place at intervals of several years and programme rights are typically offered under multi-year contracts. For example, it can be seen from the annual report for 1995 (85) that the surplus for 1995 was carried forward to 1996 to cover the expected deficit for that year, when there was particularly high expenditure in connection with the Olympics and the European Football Championships.\n(231)\nIn addition, it should also be noted that during the period under investigation, TV2 was precluded from using ordinary loan financing. Investment loans were permitted for up to 4 % of revenue, based on the most recent accounts. TV2 was prohibited from taking out any other forms of loans, guarantees, or finance lease obligations, apart from general operating credit. TV2\u2019s limited opportunities for loan financing meant that in principle its liquidity needs had to be covered by liquidity from operations.\n(232)\nFinally, the level of capital is shown in the published accounts. During the period in question, the National Audit Office audited TV2\u2019s accounts. The audits included both financial and management audits, although the National Audit Office had no power to prevent overcompensation of the public service costs of TV2. As the Court held in its judgment (86), the fact that this auditing body did not have any power to prevent overcompensation does not permit the conclusion that the Danish authorities did not carry out checks. On the contrary, the Danish authorities indicated that, had the National Audit Office drawn the conclusion that the capital base was too large, this might, for example, have resulted in licence-fee resources payable to TV2 being reduced in the next media agreement.\n(233)\nIn view of all the foregoing considerations taken as a whole, the Commission considers, as regards the first part of the proportionality assessment, that in this specific case, having regard to the Amsterdam Protocol and the Court\u2019s judgment, the amount of capital accumulated at the end of 2002 (i.e. DKK 550 million) was necessary for TV2 to fulfil its public service mission. The sum of DKK 628 million received for that purpose therefore satisfied the criteria of proportionality and necessity under Article 106(2) TFEU.\n(234)\nAlthough the present decision does not assess possible State aid granted to TV2 in 2003 and 2004 other than the recapitalisation measures, the Commission also notes that the Danish authorities submitted information documenting the fact that in 2004, TV2\u2019s capital amounted to DKK 640 million. A sum of DKK 96 million was invested in commercial activities and it cannot be determined whether this was financed through capital or outside funding. Assuming that only capital was used, this would imply that DKK 544 million of capital was available for TV2 to carry out its public service broadcasting activities.\n(235)\nWith regard to what was stated in recital 198 above, it should be noted that TV2 also performs a number of commercial activities. These are fairly marginal compared with TV2\u2019s overall activities. The costs for these commercial activities have been allocated based on the method presented in the 2001 Broadcasting Communication (87), under which, contrary to the approach generally adopted in other utilities sectors, costs that are entirely attributable to public service activities while also benefiting commercial activities need not be apportioned between the two and can be entirely allocated to those public service activities. The 2001 Broadcasting Communication considered there was a risk that a strict breakdown of such costs between the two activities would be arbitrary and not meaningful. As for the advantage that TV2 receives from its access to the transmission frequency, the Commission notes that this is inseparably linked to the public service mission. The Commission also considers that in line with the Broadcasting Communication, the financing costs (interest advantages) can be fully attributed to the public service activities.\n(236)\nTo neutralise the effect of the tax exemption that the public service activities enjoy, 30 % of the profits from commercial activities are transferred to the public service side. This has only been done since 2001. The Commission therefore recognises that there may have been a distortion on the broadcasting market in that TV2 did not have to take the corporate tax rate into account in setting its commercial prices. However, in future the advantage should no longer exist, given that the share of the transfer corresponds to the actual taxation rate thanks to this \u2018neutralisation\u2019 mechanism. As for the past, this does not pose a problem when it comes to establishing the amount of overcompensation, since the total income from commercial activities was used to reduce the net cost of the public service activities.\n(237)\nTV2 engaged in loss-making commercial Internet activities. As these activities fall outside the public service broadcasting mission, no State funding is possible. Moreover, as no other activities were operated on a \u2018stand-alone\u2019 basis, there is no surplus from commercial activities to cover the losses on Internet activities.\n2. Assessment of TV2\u2019s behaviour in the advertising market\n(238)\nParagraph 58 of the Broadcasting Communication states that \u2018a public service broadcaster, in so far as lower revenues are covered by the State aid, might be tempted to depress the prices of advertising or other non-public service activities on the market, so as to reduce the revenue of competitors (\u2026). Whenever a public service broadcaster undercuts prices in non-public service activities below what is necessary to recover the stand-alone costs that an efficient commercial operator in a similar situation would normally have to recover, such practice would indicate the presence of overcompensation of public service obligations (\u2026)\u2019.\n(239)\nTVDanmark submitted information showing that it could not cover the stand-alone costs of its television operations with the advertising prices that TV2 charges. TVDanmark compared its costs with the TRP 21-50 advertising prices that TV2 was charging.\n(240)\nFor this comparison to be valid, the Commission must, as a first step, establish whether or not TVDanmark can be considered to be in a similar situation to TV2 and whether or not it is an efficient operator.\n(241)\nFirst, the Commission has to assess whether TVDanmark is in a similar situation to TV2. The Commission notes the following. For the period under investigation, TV2\u2019s audience share was in the region of 35 % whereas the corresponding figure for TVDanmark was approximately 15 %. Their shares of the advertising market also differed significantly. TV2\u2019s market share was in the range of 60 %, whereas TVDanmark\u2019s was around 8 %. TV2\u2019s advertising turnover was approximately five times that of TVDanmark. Moreover, TV2 is the only station that reaches 100 % of the population, whereas TVDanmark2 has a coverage of 77 % and TVDanmark1 even less. In view of the above, the Commission considers that TVDanmark cannot be directly compared to TV2.\n(242)\nSecondly, the Commission has to establish whether or not TVDanmark is an efficient market operator. An efficient operator can be determined by analysing commonly used accounting ratios and by comparing the operator\u2019s results with average results in the Member State. The analysis has to take into account the different size of the undertakings and their specific cost structures. However, as stated earlier, operators on the Danish market cannot be said to be in a comparable situation so as to enable a direct comparison of performance ratios. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that an analysis of such ratios on the Danish market is not appropriate in the present case.\n(243)\nInstead, the Commission has analysed data on the financial performance of TVDanmark and SBS Broadcasting. As a result of its analysis, the Commission cannot establish with certainty whether the losses incurred stem from the fact that TVDanmark had high initial start-up costs which it has not yet been able to recover or whether it is in fact not performing efficiently. Despite several requests, the Commission was not able to obtain data on the financial performance of the third operator, TV3, to allow a comparison with the third operator on the market. Consequently the Commission cannot conclude with certainty whether TVDanmark\u2019s losses are a result of TV2\u2019s pricing behaviour or whether they are due to other factors over which TVDanmark itself had some control.\n(244)\nSince it cannot be established with certainty whether or not TVDanmark is an efficient operator and since a direct comparison of the two operators is not possible, the Commission is of the opinion that any such assessment is inconclusive in the present case.\n(245)\nThe Commission therefore decided to undertake a more detailed analysis of TV2\u2019s pricing policies and of the data available concerning the advertising market in order to assess whether or not TV2 acted with a view to maximising its advertising revenue during the period under investigation.\n(246)\nFirst, the Commission compared the prices of the two operators and analysed the pricing policies of TV2. The analysis focused on the years 1998-2002, the period during which the complainant alleged that TV2 started applying \u2018dumping\u2019 prices on the advertising market. Second, it analysed Danish advertising spending in the EU context and in comparison with the other Scandinavian countries in particular. Third, a comparison of contact prices was made across all the Scandinavian countries and media types.\n(247)\nThe Commission notes that TV2\u2019s behaviour in the advertising market was investigated by the Danish competition authorities. On 21 December 2005, the Danish Competition Council held that TV2 had infringed Article 102 TFEU and the corresponding national legislation by applying loyalty rebates on the advertising market. This decision was quashed by the Competition Appeals Tribunal on 1 November 2006 but then upheld on appeal to the Eastern High Court on 22 June 2009. That ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, which confirmed the High Court\u2019s ruling on 18 March 2011. This followed a decision by the Competition Council on 29 November 2000 in which it had found that TV2\u2019s rebates for the year 2000 constituted abuse of a dominant position. In this connection, the Commission notes that the Danish competition authorities\u2019 investigation covered the years 2000-2005, in other words only the last years of the period covered by the present decision. Most notably, a loyalty rebate does not necessarily imply the existence of cross-subsidies within the meaning of the 2001 Broadcasting Communication (\u2018Whenever a public service broadcaster undercuts prices in non-public service activities below what is necessary to recover the stand-alone costs that an efficient commercial operator in a similar situation would normally have to recover, such practice would indicate the presence of overcompensation of public service obligations\u2019). In fact, as explained below, on average, TV2 charged significantly higher prices than its competitors. Moreover, the loyalty rebates imply that customers placed a larger part of their annual advertising budgets with TV2 than they would have done under other circumstances. The allegation therefore implies that TV2 increased its advertising revenue by way of the rebate scheme, which would actually have reduced need for licence fee funding. In any event, the Commission is not bound by the decisions of the Danish competition authorities.\n(248)\nAudience shares and composition, programming content, the rules on advertising time, and the funding mechanism of stations are all factors that affect the nature of competition in the advertising market. As a result, prices vary between different broadcasters. Stations also sell a range of differentiated \u2018products\u2019 that fetch different prices (88).\n(249)\nThe prices charged by the stations include significant discounts. It is therefore not relevant to compare listed prices in television advertising. Most television advertising (approximately 90 % of all nationwide advertising) is governed by annual agreements under which television channels grant annual rebates. In addition, there are a number of other discounts (for new advertisers, less attractive advertising slots, additional volume rebates etc.). The agreements are negotiated and facilitated by so-called media agencies.\n(250)\nTo allow the different stations to be compared, an average of the different prices charged has to be determined. The table below shows the average prices for the target group TRP 21-50. The average prices were obtained by dividing the relevant stations\u2019 turnover from national spots by the number of national TRP 21-50 delivered (89):\n1998\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\nTVDanmark\nEUR 283\nEUR 270\nEUR 252\nEUR 251\nEUR 211\nTV2\nEUR 480\nEUR 409\nEUR 364\nEUR 381\nEUR 325\nDifference\nEUR 197\nEUR 139\nEUR 112\nEUR 130\nEUR 114\nTVDanmark CPP as share of TV2 CPP (90)\n58,9 %\n66,0 %\n69,3 %\n65,9 %\n64,9 %\nTV2 average CPP for TRP 21-50 weighted for coverage (by 0,7)\nEUR 336\nEUR 286\nEUR 255\nEUR 267\nEUR 228\nTVDanmark CPP as share of TV2 weighted CPP\n84,2 %\n94,3 %\n99,0 %\n94,1 %\n92,7 %\n(251)\nFrom the figures above it can be seen that TVDanmark\u2019s TRP 21-50 price was around 30-40 % lower than TV2\u2019s price. As the Commission held in its decision on State aid for France 2 and France 3, there is a positive relationship between the average number of contacts and the average net price per contact in the television advertising market (91). Thus any price difference between broadcasters could be explained by the relative strength of the stations in terms of their ability to attract viewers. In such a situation, it is relevant to establish whether or not the actual price difference reflects conditions on the market.\n(252)\nIn contrast to the situation in France, in the present case observations can only be analysed for two operators. The slope of the linear regression line would therefore have to be calculated on the basis of those two operators\u2019 prices and would be of little statistical relevance. Thus it would not be possible to draw any conclusion on whether or not the slope of the line is \u2018appropriate\u2019.\n(253)\nIn order to verify whether or not the actual price difference between the two operators could be said to reflect market conditions, a correction factor was therefore applied in an attempt to neutralise TV2\u2019s stronger position in the market. The weighting factor was obtained from calculations made by media agencies and reflects the difference in coverage of the desired target group that can be attained by purchasing 100 TRP 21-50 from TVDanmark and from TV2. On average TVDanmark\u2019s coverage is just under 70 % of TV2\u2019s (on purchasing 100 TRP 21-50). When this factor is applied, the prices are more closely convergent, although TV2\u2019s price is still slightly higher than TVDanmark\u2019s. The price difference therefore seems to reflect market conditions. However, this result must be treated with caution, as it has to be borne in mind that a correction factor of this kind cannot possibly take account of all the differences between the stations.\n(254)\nThe Commission also notes that the complainant maintains that competition in the television advertising market is actually played out neither through the listed prices nor through the average GRP or TRP prices as presented above. Instead, TVDanmark argues that the operators compete on so-called marginal prices. These marginal prices, it is claimed, derived from TV2\u2019s stronger position in the market. For advertisers to achieve their campaign goals, they have to buy a certain quota of rating points exclusively from TV2. As there was no competition for these so-called infra-marginal units, TV2 was able to make excess profits on them. As a result, the operators competed on the residual rating points and thus on marginal prices. TVDanmark claims that these prices were even lower than the average prices shown in the table above.\n(255)\nLeaving aside the question of whether this claim is correct, the Commission considers that such behaviour would be possible given TV2\u2019s strong position on the market. However, the present investigation has to establish whether or not TV2, through its behaviour on the advertising market, attempted to maximise its revenue. On this question, the possibility cannot be ruled out that TV2 kept its prices low in order to maintain a high market share, but that does not mean that it did not attempt to maximise income.\n(256)\nThe foregoing shows that TV2\u2019s prices were higher than TVDanmark\u2019s during the period under investigation. It is also clear that, despite increases in listed prices, the actual price level was declining during that time. TV2 raised its discounts substantially.\n(257)\nHowever it is not possible to establish from an analysis of prices whether or not the price trend actually contributed to reducing the total income from advertising, thereby increasing the need for state funding. To address this issue, the Commission has analysed TV2\u2019s pricing behaviour and the impact this had on its overall level of advertising income.\n(258)\nAs the following recitals show, TV2 applied a number of price increases and price reductions (by granting higher discounts) during the period under investigation. The table below gives an overview of the trend in TV2\u2019s overall level of advertising income (million DKK) from 1998 to 2002, the period during which the complainant alleges that TV2 was forcing down prices on the Danish market:\n1998\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\nNational advertising income\n1 008\n884\n(- 11,3 %)\n959\n(+ 8,5 %)\n879\n(- 8,3 %)\n884\n(- 0,6 %)\n(259)\nIn 1997, TV2 took the strategic decision not to expand capacity utilisation but to increase its prices in 1998. Another price increase was made in 1999. The Danish authorities contend that by 1999 the competitive situation had become so intense that TV2 suffered as a result of the price increase and its advertising revenue fell by around 10 % from the previous year.\n(260)\nIn 2000, TV2 expected competition to intensify and did not raise its prices. Actual prices did indeed fall because of the new rebate scheme introduced by TV2. As a result, TV2 expanded its capacity utilisation by 33 % over the previous year. However, the pricing measures led to an 8,4 % increase in its nationwide advertising turnover. In 2001, TV2 again raised its prices. Despite the price increase, its advertising revenue and capacity utilisation dropped back to the 1999 level. In 2002, TV2 cut prices yet again and experienced a slight drop in total turnover. However, overall turnover in the advertising market shrank even more.\n(261)\nFrom the above it can be concluded that the use of extensive rebates brought about a reduction in the actual price level. TV2 was able to offset the fall in prices by expanding its capacity utilisation. As its competitors did not have the same capacity reserve, they did not have that option. In order to gain market acceptance, they had to follow TV2\u2019s lead. During years when TV2 increased prices, its total advertising turnover fell. By contrast, when TV2 reduced prices, it was able to increase its total turnover. The Commission therefore concludes that TV2\u2019s price cuts actually resulted in higher overall income. Consequently, TV2\u2019s pricing behaviour cannot be said to suggest that it did not seek to maximise revenue.\n(262)\nComparing prices between the Danish operators and analysing TV2\u2019s pricing gives no indication of whether or not overall prices on the Danish television advertising market were too low. A depressed level of prices could stem from TV2 having used its stronger position to bring down the overall level of spending on television advertising below what it would have been under normal competition.\n(263)\nTo address this issue, the Commission has analysed economic data on the advertising market in all EU countries and compared them with Denmark. As Danish television advertising is most closely comparable with other Nordic countries, the Commission also compared the data for Denmark and the other Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden and Norway) (92). The key figures on television advertising spending that were analysed were: (1) television advertising expenditure as a percentage of total advertising expenditure; (2) television advertising expenditure per capita; (3) television advertising expenditure as a proportion of GDP. The table below gives an overview of these key figures:\nKey figures on television advertising spending in Denmark, the EU and other Nordic countries\n1995\n1996\n1997\n1998\n1999\n2000\n2001\nTV advertising spending as % of total advertising spending\nDK\n27 %\n29 %\n29 %\n30 %\n28 %\n27 %\n27 %\nEU\n35 %\n37 %\n37 %\n37 %\n37 %\n37 %\n37 %\nNordic\n24 %\n25 %\n26 %\n27 %\n27 %\n27 %\n26 %\nTV advertising spending per capita (million EUR)\nDK\n39\n44\n48\n51\n46\n47\n44\nEU\n37\n40\n45\n49\n53\n60\n58\nNordic\n32\n36\n41\n44\n45\n54\n49\nTV advertising spending as \u2030 of GDP\nDK\n1,49 \u2030\n1,61 \u2030\n1,70 \u2030\n1,77 \u2030\n1,51 \u2030\n1,45 \u2030\n1,34 \u2030\nEU\n2,20 \u2030\n2,34 \u2030\n2,46 \u2030\n2,58 \u2030\n2,70 \u2030\n2,88 \u2030\n2,71 \u2030\nNordic\n1,45 \u2030\n1,51 \u2030\n1,62 \u2030\n1,72 \u2030\n1,66 \u2030\n1,73 \u2030\n1,55 \u2030\nSource: European Audiovisual Observatory, Eurostat.\n(264)\nThe table above shows that television advertising accounted for a smaller proportion of total advertising expenditure in Denmark (27 %) than the EU average (37 %). However, the figures show that there is a general north-south divide in Europe (93). In the southern Member States, spending on television advertising is considerably higher than in the northern Member States (94). The same pattern can be seen for television advertising spending as a proportion of GDP (95). Television advertising expenditure per capita also shows a marked difference between the Member States (96). Looking at the Nordic figures, the Danish spending pattern is in line with the other Nordic countries.\n(265)\nIn view of the above, the Commission concludes that there is no clear, unequivocal evidence that the Danish television advertising market was systematically and consistently depressed as a result of TV2\u2019s pricing behaviour.\n(266)\nThe complainant also submitted comparative data on contact prices (expressed in CPM (97)) across borders for one media type and across all media types in one particular country. The data submitted by the complainant compares the cost for contacting 1 000 individuals by an advertisement either in print or on television in Denmark, Norway and Sweden (98).\n(267)\nThe data shows that television advertising is less expensive in Denmark than it is in Sweden and Norway (99), whereas the opposite is true for print media (100).\n(268)\nHowever, the Commission cannot verify the reliability of the data provided and no such data are publicly available. Since the information is rather limited and does not take possible cultural differences into account, the Commission cannot draw any valid conclusions on the level of contact prices for the different media in the Scandinavian countries.\n(269)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that TV2 had the highest price on the Danish market during the period under investigation, being able to price its product 15-40 % higher than its competitors depending on the reach in the relevant target group. Compared with Sweden and Norway, prices are approximately 20 % lower in Denmark.\n(270)\nIn the light of the above analyses, the Commission concludes that, from a State aid perspective, there is no clear evidence that TV2 did not attempt to maximise its advertising revenue or that its behaviour in the advertising market led to an increased need for State funding.\nV. CONCLUSION\nThe Commission finds that Denmark unlawfully implemented the aid in question in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nHowever, in the light of the Court\u2019s judgment and on the basis of the considerations set out above, the Commission considers that the aid is compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nIn the light of the Court\u2019s order, the question has to be examined whether the above finding might result in overcompensation of TV2, since the DKK 628 million reclaimed from TV2 by the Danish State with interest in 2004 is now deemed compatible with the internal market and might be repaid to TV2 by the State. Repayment of that sum could conceivably result in overcompensation in view of the recapitalisation measures that were actually implemented in 2004 (case N 313/2004) because of TV2\u2019s financial needs following recovery. As paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Court order indicate, the recovery obligation was indeed a necessary prerequisite for the 2004 recapitalisation measures, given that the Danish authorities chose not to allow TV2 to go into bankruptcy. As the Court stated in paragraph 43 of its order, \u2018[a]lthough the specific circumstances of the present case prompted the Commission to adopt two decisions [the annulled recovery and recapitalisation decisions], it is apparent that those decisions constitute two aspects of the same legal issue relating to the classification as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC and, if so, to the determination of their compatibility with the common market, of the measures implemented by the Kingdom of Denmark for TV2 and subsequently TV2 A/S. The annulment of Decision 2006/217/EC therefore entails for the Commission a fresh examination of all the measures implemented by the Kingdom of Denmark for TV2 and subsequently TV2 A/S\u2019. Because of their close link due to the recovery issue, the 2004 recapitalisation measures in favour of TV2 should be seen in conjunction with the State aid granted between 1995 and 2002 so as to ensure that there is no risk of TV2 receiving overcompensation.\nIn this connection, the Commission notes the following. After the recovery decision, the Danish authorities actually recovered DKK 1 050 million (i.e. more than the DKK 628 million plus interest). As indicated in the Court order, following the Court\u2019s annulment of the recovery decision, the reason for recovering the DKK 628 million plus interest ceased to exist. However, the Danish authorities submitted a declaration undertaking not to repay the sum recovered to TV2, or if certain cumulative conditions were met, to repay TV2 a sum equivalent at most to the difference between the amount (including interest) that was actually recovered from TV2 in respect of the period 1995-2002 and the amount of the recapitalisation measures. In line with the Court Order, given the above commitment, there is no risk of TV2 being overcompensated in terms of the State aid for the years 1995-2002 seen in conjunction with the 2004 recapitalisation measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe measures implemented by Denmark in favour of TV2/Danmark between 1995 and 2002 in the form of the licence fee resources and other measures discussed in this Decision are compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["26", "21", "79", "77", "35", "89", "65", "31", "69", "12", "50", "71", "88", "33", "87", "4", "41", "53", "52", "16", "47", "82", "8", "54", "32", "72", "56", "29", "28", "67", "No Label", "2", "15", "40", "45", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "15", "40", "45", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 387/2011\nof 18 April 2011\non the issue of licences for the import of garlic in the subperiod from 1 June 2011 to 31 August 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 (3) opens and provides for the administration of tariff quotas and introduces a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and other agricultural products imported from third countries.\n(2)\nThe quantities for which \u2018A\u2019 licence applications have been lodged by traditional importers and by new importers during the first seven working days of April 2011, pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 exceed the quantities available for products originating in China, and all third countries other than China and Argentina.\n(3)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, it is now necessary to establish the extent to which the \u2018A\u2019 licence applications sent to the Commission by 14 April 2011 can be met in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApplications for \u2018A\u2019 import licences lodged pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 during the first seven working days of April 2011 and sent to the Commission by 14 April 2011 shall be met at a percentage rate of the quantities applied for as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2011.", "references": ["95", "80", "92", "20", "35", "15", "52", "42", "33", "8", "57", "81", "59", "39", "7", "34", "64", "18", "94", "78", "29", "28", "55", "11", "5", "58", "86", "74", "31", "67", "No Label", "4", "21", "23", "68"], "gold": ["4", "21", "23", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 April 2010\nappointing one Austrian member of the European Economic and Social Committee\n(2010/305/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2006/524/EC, Euratom (1),\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Austrian Government,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Commission,\nWhereas a member\u2019s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Heinz PETER,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Alfred GAJDOSIK, Mitglied im Pr\u00e4sidium der Fraktion Christlicher Gewerkschafter im \u00d6sterreichischen Gewerkschaftsbund, Vorsitzender der Fraktion Christlicher Gewerkschafter in der Gewerkschaft vida und Mitglied im Pr\u00e4sidium der vida (Gruppe III - Vertreter der \u00fcbrigen wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Interessen) is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2010.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["44", "64", "53", "25", "49", "8", "0", "20", "69", "54", "32", "80", "14", "77", "65", "37", "15", "85", "86", "81", "51", "84", "63", "47", "43", "96", "18", "21", "29", "13", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 20 September 2011\namending Annex D to Council Directive 88/407/EEC as regards trade within the Union in semen of domestic animals of the bovine species dispatched from the semen collection and storage centres\n(notified under document C(2011) 6425)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/629/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 88/407/EEC of 14 June 1988 laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species (1), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 17 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 88/407/EEC lays down the animal health conditions applicable to, inter alia, trade within the Union of semen of domestic animals of bovine species and establishes the model animal health certificates for such trade in that commodity.\n(2)\nDirective 88/407/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 2008/73/EC (2), introduces a simplified procedure for the listing of semen collection and storage centres in the Member States.\n(3)\nIn addition, Directive 88/407/EEC provides that Member States are to make the admission of semen conditional upon submission of an animal health certificate drawn up by an official veterinarian of the Member State of collection in accordance with Annex D. That Annex sets out three different model animal health certificates, D1, D2 and D3, for trade within the Union in semen of domestic animal of the bovine species.\n(4)\nAnnex D to Directive 88/407/EEC should therefore be amended to take account of the simplified procedure for the listing of semen collection and storage centres in the Member States.\n(5)\nCommission Decision 2010/470/EU (3) lays down model health certificates for trade within the Union in semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine, ovine and caprine species and in ova and embryos of animals of the porcine species. That Decision aimed to ensure full traceability of the commodities concerned collected in a semen collection centre and dispatched from a semen storage centre, whether or not the latter constitute part of a semen collection centre approved under a different approval number.\n(6)\nIn the interests of consistency of Union legislation, the structure of model health certificates set out in Decision 2010/470/EU should be taken into account in the model animal health certificates for trade within the Union in semen of domestic animals of bovine species.\n(7)\nIn particular, the model animal health certificate in Annex D3 concerns trade within the Union in semen and stocks of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species dispatched from the semen collection and storage centres.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure full traceability of the semen, the model animal health certificate in Annex D3 should be supplemented by additional certification requirements and only used for trade in semen collected in a semen collection centre and dispatched from a semen storage centre, whether or not the latter constitute part of a semen collection centre approved under a different approval number.\n(9)\nIt is also necessary to adapt the dates in the titles of certificates in Annexes D2 and D3 related to the stocks of semen collected, processed and stored before 31 December 2004 to reflect the provisions of Article 2(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2003/43/EC of 26 May 2003 amending Directive 88/407/EEC laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species (4).\n(10)\nIn addition, the model animal health certificates in Annexes D1 and D2 should be adapted to the structure of model health certificates set out in Decision 2010/470/EU.\n(11)\nAnnex D to Directive 88/407/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nTo avoid any disruption of trade, the use of animal health certificates issued in accordance with Annex D to Directive 88/407/EEC, applying until 31 October 2011, should be authorised during a transitional period subject to certain conditions.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex D to Directive 88/407/EEC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nFor a transitional period until 31 December 2011, Member States may authorise trade in semen and stocks of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species accompanied by an animal health certificate issued not later than 31 October 2011 in accordance with the models set out in Annex D to Directive 88/407/EEC, applying until 31 October 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 November 2011.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2011.", "references": ["1", "12", "48", "94", "31", "51", "59", "79", "88", "69", "22", "17", "3", "56", "30", "45", "37", "75", "93", "26", "86", "9", "57", "99", "38", "0", "7", "71", "4", "16", "No Label", "20", "21", "65", "66", "77"], "gold": ["20", "21", "65", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 268/2012\nof 25 January 2012\namending Annex I of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the citizens\u2019 initiative\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens\u2019 initiative (1), and in particular Article 7(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 provides that, in at least one quarter of Member States, the minimum number of signatories of a citizens\u2019 initiative should correspond to the number of the Members of the European Parliament elected in each Member State, multiplied by 750. Those minimum numbers are set out in Annex I of the Regulation.\n(2)\nThe composition of the European Parliament has been modified by the Protocol amending the Protocol on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (2), which entered into force on 1 December 2011.\n(3)\nAnnex I of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 should be amended accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 January 2012.", "references": ["62", "51", "87", "22", "44", "64", "24", "97", "75", "23", "34", "45", "12", "47", "48", "98", "19", "57", "54", "63", "95", "65", "61", "66", "50", "28", "1", "85", "70", "10", "No Label", "0", "9"], "gold": ["0", "9"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2012/23/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 12 September 2012\namending Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) as regards the date for its transposition and the date of its application, and the date of repeal of certain Directives\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 53(1) and Article 62 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (2) provides a modern, risk-based system for the regulation and supervision of insurance and reinsurance undertakings of the Union. That system is essential in order to ensure a safe and solid insurance sector that can provide sustainable insurance products and support the real economy by encouraging long-term investments and additional stability.\n(2)\nDirective 2009/138/EC sets 31 October 2012 as the date for transposition and 1 November 2012 as the date of application. Furthermore, that Directive sets 1 November 2012 as the date of repeal of the existing insurance and reinsurance Directives (3) (collectively referred to as \u2018Solvency I\u2019).\n(3)\nOn 19 January 2011 the Commission adopted a proposal (the \u2018Omnibus II proposal\u2019) to amend, inter alia, Directive 2009/138/EC in order to take into account the new supervisory architecture for insurance, namely the setting-up of the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority). The Omnibus II proposal also includes provisions to postpone the date for transposition and the date of application of Directive 2009/138/EC, and the date of repeal of Solvency I.\n(4)\nGiven the complexity of the Omnibus II proposal, there is a risk that it will not have entered into force before the date for transposition and the date of application of Directive 2009/138/EC. Leaving those dates unchanged would result in Directive 2009/138/EC being implemented before the entry into force of the transitional rules and relevant adaptations provided for by the Omnibus II proposal.\n(5)\nIn order to avoid overly burdensome legislative obligations for Member States under Directive 2009/138/EC and later under the new architecture envisaged by the Omnibus II proposal, it is therefore appropriate to postpone the date for transposition of Directive 2009/138/EC.\n(6)\nIn order to allow for supervisors and insurance and reinsurance undertakings to prepare for the application of the new supervisory architecture, it is also appropriate to provide for a later date of application of Directive 2009/138/EC.\n(7)\nFor reasons of legal certainty, the date of repeal of Solvency I should be postponed accordingly.\n(8)\nGiven the short period of time before the dates laid down in Directive 2009/138/EC, this Directive should enter into force without delay,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2009/138/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 309(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the first subparagraph, the date \u201831 October 2012\u2019 is replaced by that of \u201830 June 2013\u2019;\n(b)\nafter the first subparagraph, the following subparagraph is inserted:\n\u2018The laws, regulations and administrative provisions referred to in the first subparagraph shall apply from 1 January 2014.\u2019;\n2.\nin the first paragraph of Article 310, the date \u20181 November 2012\u2019 is replaced by that of \u20181 January 2014\u2019;\n3.\nin the second paragraph of Article 311, the date \u20181 November 2012\u2019 is replaced by that of \u20181 January 2014\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 12 September 2012.", "references": ["12", "88", "14", "30", "27", "13", "73", "55", "21", "15", "58", "78", "32", "63", "99", "40", "10", "54", "68", "25", "66", "70", "95", "85", "5", "57", "97", "49", "56", "83", "No Label", "8", "11", "20"], "gold": ["8", "11", "20"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1335/2011\nof 19 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["90", "0", "93", "3", "59", "37", "56", "10", "92", "9", "81", "12", "31", "58", "36", "8", "17", "32", "23", "41", "87", "14", "33", "30", "67", "57", "15", "7", "52", "64", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 488/2011\nof 19 May 2011\nwithdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSubmission of applications for import licences concerning order number 09.4320 were suspended as from 22 March 2011 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 279/2011 of 21 March 2011 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 March 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences (3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009.\n(2)\nFollowing notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for that order number. The suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe suspension laid down by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 279/2011 of submission of applications for import licences for order number 09.4320 as from 22 March 2011 is withdrawn.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 May 2011.", "references": ["92", "82", "28", "27", "2", "78", "81", "14", "40", "94", "19", "34", "84", "23", "58", "16", "56", "98", "41", "8", "53", "31", "46", "74", "66", "45", "13", "64", "48", "89", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 347/2010\nof 21 April 2010\namending Commission Regulation (EC) No 245/2009 as regards the ecodesign requirements for fluorescent lamps without integrated ballast, for high intensity discharge lamps, and for ballasts and luminaires able to operate such lamps\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Ecodesign Consultation Forum,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAfter the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 245/2009 of 18 March 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for fluorescent lamps without integrated ballast, for high intensity discharge lamps, and for ballasts and luminaires able to operate such lamps, and repealing Directive 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), it appeared that certain provisions of that Regulation should be amended in order to avoid unintended impacts on the availability and performance of the products covered by that Regulation.\n(2)\nIn addition, it is necessary to improve coherence, as regards the requirements on product information, between on the one hand Regulation (EC) No 245/2009 and on the other hand Commission Regulation (EC) No 244/2009 of 18 March 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for non-directional household lamps (3).\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 19(1) of Directive 2009/125/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 245/2009\nAnnexes I, II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 245/2009 are amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the first day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 13 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 April 2010.", "references": ["24", "1", "58", "60", "69", "23", "19", "32", "28", "35", "75", "3", "36", "5", "7", "61", "87", "54", "39", "34", "27", "2", "38", "65", "47", "89", "96", "8", "88", "49", "No Label", "25", "78", "86"], "gold": ["25", "78", "86"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 843/2011\nof 23 August 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 442/2011.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria and in accordance with Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (2), additional persons and entities should be added to the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 August 2011.", "references": ["15", "58", "55", "77", "64", "49", "53", "31", "22", "27", "19", "61", "75", "16", "60", "36", "11", "91", "28", "33", "50", "82", "8", "86", "71", "24", "44", "1", "14", "96", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUPOL RD CONGO/1/2011\nof 16 September 2011\nextending the mandate of the Head of Mission of EUPOL RD Congo\n(2011/623/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/576/CFSP of 23 September 2010 on the European Union police mission undertaken in the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo) (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 10(1) of Decision 2010/576/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (\u2018PSC\u2019) is authorised, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of EUPOL RD Congo. This authorisation includes in particular the power to appoint a Head of Mission, upon a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (\u2018High Representative\u2019).\n(2)\nOn 8 October 2010, following a proposal by the High Representative, the PSC, pursuant to Decision EUPOL RD CONGO/1/2010 (2), appointed Chief Superintendent Jean-Paul RIKIR as Head of Mission of EUPOL RD Congo with effect from 1 October 2010.\n(3)\nOn 12 September 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/537/CFSP (3) extending the duration of EUPOL RD Congo until 30 September 2012.\n(4)\nOn 31 August 2011, the High Representative proposed the extension of the mandate of Chief Superintendent Jean-Paul RIKIR as Head of Mission of EUPOL RD Congo until 30 September 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Chief Superintendent Jean-Paul RIKIR as Head of Mission of the European Union police mission undertaken in the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo) is hereby extended until 30 September 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 September 2011.", "references": ["69", "89", "17", "78", "15", "30", "71", "5", "79", "28", "14", "7", "61", "42", "96", "43", "21", "63", "85", "66", "99", "60", "6", "95", "46", "64", "65", "13", "67", "55", "No Label", "9", "94"], "gold": ["9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2012/454/CFSP\nof 1 August 2012\nimplementing Decision 2011/486/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/486/CFSP of 1 August 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 August 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/486/CFSP.\n(2)\nOn 19 July 2012, the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 30 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1988 (2011) deleted two persons from the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(3)\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/486/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe entries for the persons appearing in the Annex to this Decision are deleted from the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/486/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 1 August 2012.", "references": ["76", "14", "89", "59", "47", "33", "64", "26", "75", "61", "99", "74", "86", "38", "17", "83", "79", "66", "73", "52", "93", "41", "21", "85", "31", "81", "63", "60", "44", "45", "No Label", "3", "12", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "12", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/279/CFSP\nof 18 May 2010\non the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 30 May 2007 the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP (1) establishing the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN). That Joint Action expires on 30 May 2010.\n(2)\nOn 8 March 2010, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) recommended to extend EUPOL AFGHANISTAN for three years.\n(3)\nThe command and control structure of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN should be without prejudice to the contractual responsibilities of the Head of Mission towards the European Commission for implementing the budget.\n(4)\nThe watch-keeping capability should be activated for EUPOL AFGHANISTAN.\n(5)\nEUPOL AFGHANISTAN will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the common foreign and security policy as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMission\n1. The European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (\u2018EUPOL AFGHANISTAN\u2019 or the \u2018Mission\u2019), established by Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP, shall be extended as from 31 May 2010 until 31 May 2013.\n2. EUPOL AFGHANISTAN shall operate in accordance with the objectives set out in Article 2 and carry out the tasks as set out in Article 3.\nArticle 2\nObjectives\nEUPOL AFGHANISTAN shall significantly contribute to the establishment under Afghan ownership of sustainable and effective civilian policing arrangements, which will ensure appropriate interaction with the wider criminal justice system, in keeping with the policy advice and institution-building work of the Union, Member States and other international actors. Furthermore, the Mission will support the reform process towards a trusted and efficient police service, which works in accordance with international standards, within the framework of the rule of law and respect for human rights.\nArticle 3\nTasks\n1. In order to fulfil the objectives set out in Article 2, EUPOL AFGHANISTAN shall:\n(a)\nassist the Government of Afghanistan in coherently implementing its strategy towards sustainable and effective civilian policing arrangements, especially with regard to the Afghan Uniform (Civilian) Police and the Afghan Anti-Crime Police, as stipulated in the National Police Strategy;\n(b)\nimprove cohesion and coordination among international actors;\n(c)\nwork on strategy development, while placing an emphasis on work towards a joint overall strategy of the international community in police reform and enhance cooperation with key partners in police reform and training, including with NATO-led mission ISAF and the NATO Training Mission and other contributors;\n(d)\nsupport linkages between the police and the wider rule of law.\nThese tasks will be further developed in the Operational Plan (OPLAN). The Mission shall carry out its tasks through, amongst other means, monitoring, mentoring, advising and training.\n2. EUPOL AFGHANISTAN shall be a non-executive Mission.\n3. EUPOL AFGHANISTAN shall have a Project Cell for identifying and implementing projects. EUPOL AFGHANISTAN shall, as appropriate, coordinate, facilitate and provide advice on projects implemented by Member States and third States under their responsibility, in areas related to the Mission and in support of its objectives.\nArticle 4\nStructure of the Mission\n1. The Mission will have its Headquarters (HQ) in Kabul. The Mission shall comprise:\n(i)\nthe Head of Mission and his office including a Senior Mission Security Officer;\n(ii)\na Police component;\n(iii)\na Rule of Law component;\n(iv)\ntraining capacity;\n(v)\nMission Support;\n(vi)\nfield offices outside Kabul;\n(vii)\na support element in Brussels.\n2. Mission staff shall be deployed at the central, regional and provincial levels and may work, as necessary, with the district level for the implementation of the mandate in light of the security assessment and when enabling factors, such as appropriate logistical and security support, are in place. Technical arrangements will be sought with ISAF and Regional Command/Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) Lead Nations for information exchange, medical, security and logistical support including accommodation by Regional Commands and PRTs.\n3. In addition, a number of Mission staff shall be deployed to improve strategic coordination in police reform in Afghanistan, as appropriate, and in particular with the International Police Coordination Board (IPCB) Secretariat in Kabul. The IPCB Secretariat shall be located, as appropriate, at the EUPOL AFGHANISTAN HQ.\nArticle 5\nCivilian Operation Commander\n1. The Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) Director shall be the Civilian Operation Commander for EUPOL AFGHANISTAN.\n2. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the PSC and the overall authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), shall exercise command and control of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN at the strategic level.\n3. The Civilian Operation Commander shall ensure proper and effective implementation of the Council\u2019s decisions as well as the PSC\u2019s decisions, including by issuing instructions at strategic level as required to the Head of Mission.\n4. All seconded staff shall remain under the full command of the national authorities of the sending State or EU institution. National authorities shall transfer Operational Control (OPCON) of their personnel, teams and units to the Civilian Operation Commander.\n5. The Civilian Operation Commander has overall responsibility for ensuring that the Union\u2019s duty of care is properly discharged.\n6. The Civilian Operation Commander and the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) shall consult each other as required.\nArticle 6\nHead of Mission\n1. The Head of Mission shall assume responsibility and exercise command and control of the Mission at theatre level.\n2. The Head of Mission shall exercise command and control over personnel, teams and units from contributing States as assigned by the Civilian Operation Commander together with administrative and logistic responsibility including over assets, resources and information put at the disposal of the Mission.\n3. The Head of Mission shall issue instructions to all Mission staff, including in this case the support element in Brussels, for the effective conduct of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN in theatre, assuming its coordination and day-to-day management, following the instructions at strategic level of the Civilian Operation Commander.\n4. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the implementation of the Mission\u2019s budget. For this purpose, the Head of Mission shall sign a contract with the Commission.\n5. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for disciplinary control over the staff. For seconded staff, disciplinary action shall be exercised by the national or Union authority concerned.\n6. The Head of Mission shall represent EUPOL AFGHANISTAN in the operations area and shall ensure appropriate visibility of the Mission.\n7. The Head of Mission shall coordinate, as appropriate, with other EU actors on the ground. The Head of Mission shall, without prejudice to the chain of command, receive local political guidance from the EUSR.\n8. The Head of Mission shall ensure that EUPOL AFGHANISTAN works closely, coordinates and cooperates with the Government of Afghanistan and relevant international actors, as appropriate, including NATO-led mission ISAF and the NATO Training Mission, PRT Lead Nations, United Nations Assistance Mission Afghanistan (UNAMA), and third States currently involved in police reform in Afghanistan.\nArticle 7\nStaff\n1. The numbers and competence of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN staff shall be consistent with the objectives set out in Article 2, the tasks set out in Article 3 and the structure of the Mission set out in Article 4.\n2. EUPOL AFGHANISTAN shall consist primarily of staff seconded by Member States or EU institutions.\n3. Each Member State or EU institution shall bear the costs related to any of the staff seconded by it, including travel expenses to and from the place of deployment, salaries, medical coverage, and allowances, other than applicable per diems as well as hardship and risk allowances.\n4. International civilian staff and local staff may also be recruited by EUPOL AFGHANISTAN, as required, on a contractual basis, if the functions required are not provided by personnel seconded by Member States. Exceptionally, in duly justified cases, where no qualified applications from Member States are available, nationals from participating third States may be recruited on a contractual basis, as appropriate.\n5. All staff shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the Mission. All staff shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council\u2019s security regulations (2).\nArticle 8\nStatus of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN staff\n1. The status of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN staff in Afghanistan, including, where appropriate the privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN shall be laid down in an agreement to be concluded in accordance with Article 37 of the Treaty.\n2. The State or EU institution having seconded a member of staff shall be responsible for answering any claims linked to the secondment, from or concerning the member of staff. The State or EU institution in question shall be responsible for bringing any action against the person seconded.\n3. The conditions of employment and the rights and obligations of international and local civilian staff shall be laid down in contracts between the Head of Mission and the members of staff.\nArticle 9\nChain of Command\n1. EUPOL AFGHANISTAN shall have a unified chain of command, as a crisis management operation.\n2. Under the responsibility of the Council and of the HR, the PSC shall exercise political control and strategic direction of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN.\n3. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the PSC and the overall authority of the HR, is the commander of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN at strategic level and, as such, shall issue instructions to the Head of Mission and provide him with advice and technical support.\n4. The Civilian Operation Commander shall report to the Council through the HR.\n5. The Head of Mission shall exercise command and control of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN at theatre level and shall be directly responsible to the Civilian Operation Commander.\nArticle 10\nPolitical control and strategic direction\n1. The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and of the HR, political control and strategic direction of the Mission. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions for this purpose in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty. This authorisation shall include the powers to appoint a Head of Mission, upon a proposal of the HR, and to amend the CONOPS and the OPLAN. The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of the Mission shall remain vested in the Council.\n2. The PSC shall report to the Council at regular intervals.\n3. The PSC shall receive on a regular basis and as required reports by the Civilian Operation Commander and the Head of Mission on issues within their areas of responsibility.\nArticle 11\nSecurity\n1. The Civilian Operation Commander shall direct the Head of Mission\u2019s planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation for EUPOL AFGHANISTAN in accordance with Articles 5 and 9, in coordination with the Council Security Office.\n2. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the security of the operation and for ensuring compliance with minimum security requirements applicable to the operation, in line with the policy of the Union on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, and its supporting documents.\n3. The Head of Mission shall be assisted by a Senior Mission Security Officer (SMSO), who will report to the Head of Mission and also maintain a close relationship with the Council Security Office.\n4. The Head of Mission will appoint Security Officers in the provincial and regional Mission locations, who, under the authority of the SMSO shall be responsible for the day-to-day management of all security aspects of the respective Mission elements.\n5. EUPOL AFGHANISTAN staff shall undergo mandatory security training before their entry into function, in accordance with the OPLAN. They shall also receive regular in-theatre refresher training organised by the SMSO.\nArticle 12\nParticipation of third States\n1. Without prejudice to the Union\u2019s decision-making autonomy and its single institutional framework, candidate and other third States may be invited to contribute to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN on the basis that they bear the costs of sending the police experts and/or the civilian staff seconded by them, including salaries, allowances, medical coverage, high risk insurance and travel expenses to and from Afghanistan, and contribute to the running costs of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN as appropriate.\n2. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions.\n3. Third States making contributions to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN shall have the same rights and obligations in terms of day-to-day management of the operation as Member States taking part in the operation.\n4. The PSC shall take appropriate action with regard to participation arrangements and shall, if required, submit a proposal to the Council, including on possible financial participation or contributions in-kind from third States.\n5. Detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States shall be the subject of agreements pursuant to Article 37 of the Treaty and additional technical arrangements as necessary. Where the Union and a third State have concluded an agreement establishing a framework for the participation of this third State in the EU crisis management operations, the provisions of such agreement shall apply in the context of this operation.\nArticle 13\nFinancial arrangements\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN until 31 May 2011 shall be EUR 54 600 000.\n2. The financial reference amount for the subsequent periods for EUPOL AFGHANISTAN shall be decided by the Council.\n3. All expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\n4. The Head of Mission shall report fully to, and be supervised by, the Commission on the activities undertaken in the framework of his contract.\n5. Nationals of third States shall be allowed to tender for contracts. Subject to the Commission\u2019s approval, the Head of Mission may conclude technical arrangements with Regional Command/PRT lead nations and international actors deployed in Afghanistan regarding the provision of equipment, services and premises to the Mission, notably where security conditions so require.\n6. The financial arrangements shall respect the operational requirements of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN, including compatibility of equipment and interoperability of its teams, and shall take into consideration the deployment of staff in Regional Commands and PRTs.\n7. The expenditure shall be eligible as from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 14\nRelease of classified information\n1. The HR shall be authorised to release to NATO/ISAF EU classified information and documents generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with the Council\u2019s security regulations. Local technical arrangements shall be drawn up to facilitate this.\n2. The HR shall be authorised to release to third States associated with this Decision, as appropriate and in accordance with the needs of the Mission, EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018CONFIDENTIEL UE\u2019 generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with the Council\u2019s security regulations.\n3. The HR shall be authorised to release to UNAMA, as appropriate and in accordance with the operational needs of the Mission, EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018RESTREINT UE\u2019 generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with the Council\u2019s security regulations. Local arrangements shall be drawn up for this purpose.\n4. In the event of a specific and immediate operational need, the HR shall also be authorised to release to the host State EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018RESTREINT UE\u2019 generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with the Council\u2019s security regulations. In all other cases, such information and documents shall be released to the host State in accordance with procedures for cooperation by the host State with the Union.\n5. The HR shall be authorised to release to third states associated with this Decision, EU non-classified documents related to the deliberations of the Council with regard to the Mission covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council Rules of Procedure (3).\nArticle 15\nWatch-Keeping\nThe Watch-Keeping Capability shall be activated for EUPOL AFGHANISTAN.\nArticle 16\nReview\n1. This Decision shall be reviewed every six months in order to adjust the Mission size and scope as necessary.\n2. This Decision shall be reviewed, no later than three months before its expiry, in order to determine whether the Mission should be continued.\nArticle 17\nEntry into force and duration\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 31 May 2010 until 31 May 2013.\nDone at Brussels, 18 May 2010.", "references": ["18", "42", "88", "39", "71", "47", "94", "3", "85", "60", "64", "96", "17", "79", "38", "63", "12", "87", "14", "66", "43", "53", "91", "55", "57", "68", "45", "98", "0", "77", "No Label", "4", "9", "95"], "gold": ["4", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 538/2011\nof 1 June 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 on the common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular points (k), (l) and (m) of the first paragraph of Article 121 and Article 203b, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 18 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 (2) lays down that the \u2018Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications\u2019 (hereinafter \u2018the Register\u2019) maintained by the Commission as provided for in Article 118n of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 is included in the electronic database \u2018E-Bacchus\u2019.\n(2)\nFor the sake of simplification, the list of representative trade organisations and their members provided in Annex XI to Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 should be published on the Internet. Therefore, Article 30(2) should be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nIn order to avoid any discrimination between wines originating in the Union and those imported from third countries, it should be clarified that terms traditionally used in third countries may obtain recognition and protection as traditional terms in the Union also where they are used in conjunction with geographical indications or names of origin regulated by those third countries.\n(4)\nFor the sake of clarity, protected traditional terms listed in Annex XII should be transferred to the electronic database \u2018E-Bacchus\u2019 thus gathering protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and protected traditional terms in a single IT tool, easily available for consultation purposes.\n(5)\nIn order to provide up-to-date information relating to traditional terms, the information indicated in Annex XII to Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 should be transferred to the electronic database \u2018E-Bacchus\u2019 and new information related to the protection of traditional terms should exclusively be included in that database.\n(6)\nIn order to clarify the relationship between protected traditional terms and trademarks, it is necessary to specify on what legal basis an application for a trademark containing or consisting of a protected traditional term should be assessed in accordance with Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (3) or Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (4).\n(7)\nIn order to improve the transparency of the rules concerning traditional terms, in particular due to the fact that they are moved to the electronic database \u2018E-Bacchus\u2019, any modification relating to traditional terms shall follow a formally defined procedure.\n(8)\nRules should be provided for the indication of the alcoholic strength by volume of certain specific grapevine products in order to provide the public with accurate information.\n(9)\nIn order to facilitate less burdensome labelling, certain information related to the name and the address of the bottler may in some circumstances not be required.\n(10)\nIn order to improve controls of certain grapevine products, Member States should be allowed to regulate the use of particulars referring to producer and processor.\n(11)\nFor the sake of clarity, Articles 42(1) and 56(3) should be amended.\n(12)\nThe use of a specific type of bottle and closure for sparkling wines, quality sparkling wines and quality aromatic sparkling wines as provided for in Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 should be obligatory exclusively for the marketing and the export of such wines produced in the European Union.\n(13)\nAs regards the transmission of technical files of existing protected wine names referred to in Article 118s of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 the requirement to identify the applicant of an existing wine name as referred to in point (b) of Article 118c(1) of that Regulation may raise difficulty for some Member States since these existing protected wine names are regulated at a national level without any reference to a particular applicant. In order to facilitate the transition from the arrangements provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (5) to those established by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, transitional measures should be provided to comply with national legislations of those Member States.\n(14)\nIt is necessary to amend Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 as regards the prior rights which may be claimed in case of an opposition against an application for protection of a traditional term.\n(15)\nRegulation (EC) No 607/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment of Regulation (EC) No 607/2009\nRegulation (EC) No 607/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 30, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. In case of an application filed by a representative professional organisation established in a third country, the details of the representative professional organisation shall also be communicated. The Commission shall publish on the Internet the list of third countries concerned, the names of the representative professional organisations and the members of these representative professional organisations.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 32 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 32\nRules on traditional terms of third countries\n1. The definition of traditional terms provided for in Article 118u(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall apply mutatis mutandis to terms traditionally used in third countries for wine products covered by geographical indications or names of origin under the legislation of those third countries.\n2. Wines originating in third countries whose labels bear traditional indications other than the traditional terms listed in the electronic database \u201cE-Bacchus\u201d may use these traditional indications on wine labels in accordance with the rules applicable in the third countries concerned, including those emanating from representative professional organisations.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 40 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 40\nGeneral protection\n1. If an application for the protection of a traditional term satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 118u(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and in Articles 31 and 35 of this Regulation and is not rejected under Articles 36, 38 and 39 of this Regulation, the traditional term shall be included in the electronic database \u201cE-Bacchus\u201d with an indication of:\n(a)\nthe language as referred to in Article 31;\n(b)\nan indication of the grapevine product category or categories concerned by the protection;\n(c)\na reference to the national legislation of the Member State in which the traditional term is defined and regulated, or rules applicable to wine producers in third countries, including those emanating from representative professional organisations; and\n(d)\na summary of the definition or conditions of use.\n2. The traditional terms listed in the electronic database \u201cE-Bacchus\u201d, are protected only in the language and for the categories of grape vine products claimed in the application, against:\n(a)\nany misuse even if the protected term is accompanied by an expression such as \u201cstyle\u201d, \u201ctype\u201d, \u201cmethod\u201d, \u201cas produced in\u201d, \u201cimitation\u201d, \u201cflavour\u201d, \u201clike\u201d or similar;\n(b)\nany other false or misleading indication as to the nature, characteristics or essential qualities of the product, on the inner or outer packaging, advertising material or documents relating to it;\n(c)\nany other practice liable to mislead the consumer, in particular to give the impression that the wine qualifies for the protected traditional term.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 41, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Where a traditional term is protected under this Regulation, the registration of a trademark, the use of which would contravene Article 40(2), shall be assessed in accordance with Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) or Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (7).\nTrademarks registered in breach of the first subparagraph shall be declared invalid upon request in accordance with the applicable procedures as specified by Directive 2008/95/EC or Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.\n(5)\nin Article 42, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. A term, for which an application is lodged and which is wholly or partially homonymous with that of a traditional term already protected under this Chapter shall be protected with due regard to local and traditional usage and the risk of confusion.\nA homonymous term which misleads consumers as to the nature, quality or the true origin of the products shall not be registered even if the term is accurate.\nThe use of a protected homonymous term shall be subject to there being a sufficient distinction in practice between the homonym protected subsequently and the traditional term already listed in the electronic database \u201cE-Bacchus\u201d, having regard to the need to treat the producers concerned in an equitable manner and not to mislead the consumer.\u2019;\n(6)\na new Article 42a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 42a\nModification\nAn applicant as referred to in Article 29 may apply for an approval of a modification of a traditional term, the language indicated, the wine or wines concerned or of the summary of the definition or conditions of use of the traditional term concerned.\nArticles 33 to 39 apply mutatis mutandis to applications for modification.\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 47, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. When a cancellation takes effect, the Commission shall remove the name concerned from the list set out in the electronic database \u201cE-Bacchus\u201d.\u2019;\n(8)\nin Article 54, a new paragraph 3 is added:\n\u20183. In case of partially fermented grape must or new wine still in fermentation, the actual and/or total alcoholic strength by volume shall appear on the label. When the total alcoholic strength by volume appears on the label, the figures shall be followed by \u201c% vol\u201d and may be preceded by words \u201ctotal alcoholic strength\u201d or \u201ctotal alcohol\u201d.\u2019;\n(9)\nArticle 56 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the third subparagraph of paragraph 2, the following second sentence is added:\n\u2018These requirements do not apply where bottling is carried out in a place of immediate proximity to that of the bottler.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The name and address of the producer or vendor shall be supplemented by the terms \u201cproducer\u201d or \u201cproduced by\u201d and \u201cvendor\u201d or \u201csold by\u201d, or equivalent.\nMember States may decide to:\n(a)\nmake compulsory the indication of the producer;\n(b)\nallow the replacement of the terms \u201cproducer\u201d or \u201cproduced by\u201d by \u201cprocessor\u201d respectively \u201cprocessed by\u201d.\u2019;\n(10)\nArticle 69 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 69\nRules on presentation for certain products\n1. Sparkling wine, quality sparkling wine and quality aromatic sparkling wine produced in the European Union shall be marketed or exported in \u201csparkling wine\u201d-type glass bottles closed with:\n(a)\nfor bottles with a nominal volume more than 0,20 litres: a mushroom-shaped stopper made of cork or other material permitted to come into contact with foodstuffs, held in place by a fastening, covered, if necessary, by a cap and sheathed in foil completely covering the stopper and all or part of the neck of the bottle;\n(b)\nfor bottles with a nominal volume content not exceeding 0,20 litres: any other suitable closure.\nOther products produced in the Union shall not be marketed or exported in either \u201csparkling wine\u201d-type glass bottles or with a closure as described in point (a) of the first subparagraph.\n2. By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, Member States may decide that the following products may be marketed or exported in \u201csparkling wine\u201d-type glass bottles and/or with a closure as described in point (a) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1:\n(a)\nproducts traditionally bottled in such bottles and which:\n(i)\nare listed in Article 113d(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(ii)\nare listed in points 7, 8 and 9 of Annex XIb to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(iii)\nare listed in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/1991 (8); or\n(iv)\nhave an actual alcoholic strength by volume no greater than 1,2 % vol;\n(b)\nproducts other than those referred to in point (a) provided that they do not mislead consumers with regard to the real nature of the product.\n(11)\nin Article 71 a new paragraph 3 is added:\n\u20183. By way of derogation from Article 2(2) of this Regulation, in respect of the transmission of the technical files as referred to in point (a) of Article 118s(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 the authorities of the Member States may be considered as applicants for the purpose of the application of point (b) of Article 118c(1) of that Regulation.\u2019;\n(12)\nAnnex II is replaced by Annex I to this Regulation;\n(13)\nAnnex VIII is replaced by Annex II to this Regulation;\n(14)\nAnnexes XI and XII are deleted.\nArticle 2\nTransitional provisions\n1. Prior to the deletion of Annexes XI and XII to Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 by point (14) of Article 1 of this Regulation, the Commission shall replicate and:\n(a)\npublish on the Internet the content of Annex XI; and\n(b)\nenter in the electronic database \u2018E-Bacchus\u2019 the traditional terms listed in Annex XII.\n2. Any modification related to a traditional term which has been recognised by a Member State or a third country and notified to the Commission by the date of entry into force of this Regulation and which has not been included in Annex XII to Regulation (EC) No 607/2009, shall not be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 42a as introduced by point (6) of Article 1 of this Regulation. The Commission shall enter that modification in the electronic database \u2018E-Bacchus\u2019.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2011.", "references": ["35", "50", "31", "43", "83", "10", "33", "89", "91", "13", "64", "84", "22", "79", "85", "4", "67", "57", "58", "7", "76", "41", "47", "45", "23", "70", "66", "92", "40", "96", "No Label", "25", "71", "77"], "gold": ["25", "71", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/51/EU\nof 11 August 2010\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (hereinafter \u2018DEET\u2019).\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, DEET has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 19, repellents and attractants, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nSweden was designated as Rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 30 November 2007 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 11 March 2010, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the examinations made that biocidal products used as repellents or attractants and containing DEET may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include DEET in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nIn the light of the findings of the assessment report, it is appropriate to require that risk mitigation measures are applied at product authorisation level to products containing DEET and used as repellents or attractants. Products intended for direct application to human skin should be labelled with instructions for use including amount and frequency of application in order to minimize primary exposure of humans. Concerns were identified during the risk assessment for human health, especially for children. Therefore, unless data is submitted to demonstrate that the product will meet the requirements of Article 5 and Annex VI when used on children, products containing DEET should not be used on children less than two years old, and use should be restricted for children between two and twelve years old, except where motivated by the risk for human health through e.g. outbreaks of insect-borne diseases. Furthermore, products should contain deterrents for ingestion.\n(7)\nIt is important that the provisions of this Directive be applied simultaneously in all the Member States in order to ensure equal treatment of biocidal products on the market containing the active substance DEET and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(9)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(10)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 July 2011 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 August 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["40", "85", "59", "29", "99", "42", "66", "57", "16", "82", "44", "97", "63", "30", "47", "12", "24", "51", "7", "11", "48", "98", "64", "18", "22", "34", "46", "77", "1", "8", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 11 June 2012\nauthorising laboratories in Croatia and in Mexico to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines\n(notified under document C(2012) 3761)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/304/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2000/258/EC of 20 March 2000 designating a specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2000/258/EC designates the Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (ANSES) in Nancy, France (previously known as the Agence fran\u00e7aise de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire des aliments, AFSSA), as the specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines.\n(2)\nThat Decision also provides that the ANSES is to document the appraisal of laboratories in third countries that have applied to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines.\n(3)\nThe competent authority of Croatia has submitted an application for approval of the laboratory for rabies and general virology of the Veterinary Institute in that third country to perform such serological tests. That application is supported by a favourable report by the ANSES dated 20 September 2011 of the appraisal of that laboratory.\n(4)\nThe competent authority of Mexico has submitted an application for approval of the laboratory in the Centro Nacional de Servicios de Diagn\u00f3stico en Salud Animal in that third country to perform such serological tests. That application is supported by a favourable report by the ANSES dated 20 September 2011 of the appraisal of that laboratory.\n(5)\nThose laboratories should therefore be authorised to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines in dogs, cats and ferrets.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Decision 2000/258/EC, the following laboratories are authorised to perform the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines in dogs, cats and ferrets:\n(a)\nCroatian Veterinary Institute\nLaboratory for rabies and general virology\nSavska cesta 143\nZagreb 10000\nCroatia;\n(b)\nCentro Nacional de Servicios de Diagn\u00f3stico en Salud Animal\nKm 37.5 Carretera Federal M\u00e9xico - Pachuca\n55740 Tec\u00e1mac\nM\u00e9xico.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 June 2012.", "references": ["68", "87", "12", "25", "73", "24", "76", "19", "86", "65", "48", "6", "9", "92", "58", "51", "57", "54", "70", "75", "53", "10", "14", "13", "78", "5", "1", "41", "46", "17", "No Label", "38", "61", "66", "77", "91", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "61", "66", "77", "91", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 121/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 February 2012\namending Council Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the Union\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 42 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 of 10 December 1987 laying down the general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks to designated organisations for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community (4), which was subsequently repealed and integrated into Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (5), has provided a reliable scheme for the distribution of food products to the most deprived persons of the Union (food distribution scheme) for more than two decades and has positively contributed to the social cohesion of the Union by reducing economic and social disparities.\n(2)\nThe objectives of the common agricultural policy (CAP) as defined in Article 39(1) of the Treaty include stabilising markets and ensuring that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices. Over the years, the food distribution scheme has underpinned the fulfilment of both objectives and, by reducing the food insecurity of the most deprived persons in the Union, has proved to be an essential tool contributing to guaranteeing the broad availability of food within the Union while reducing intervention stocks.\n(3)\nThe European Parliament, in its resolution of 7 July 2011, called on the Commission and the Council to develop a transitional solution for the remaining years of the current multiannual financial framework, so as to avoid a sharp cutback in food aid as a result of the reduction in funding from EUR 500 million to EUR 113 million and so as to ensure that people who are dependent on food aid do not suffer from food poverty.\n(4)\nThe current food distribution scheme relies on the distribution of products from Union intervention stocks, supplemented, on a temporary basis, by purchases on the market. However, successive reforms of the CAP and favourable developments in producer prices have resulted in a progressive reduction in intervention stocks and in the range of products available. The current version of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 only allows market purchases in the case of temporary unavailability of products. In the light of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-576/08 (6), purchases of food on the Union market cannot replace the reduced intervention stocks on a regular basis. In these circumstances, it appears appropriate to end the food distribution scheme. In order to give charity organisations in Member States that are using the current food distribution scheme sufficient time to adapt to the new situation, the food distribution scheme should be amended to provide for a phasing-out period, during which market purchases should become a regular source of supply for the food distribution scheme, in order to complement intervention stocks where suitable intervention stocks are not available. The phasing-out period should end on the completion of the 2013 annual plan.\n(5)\nThe Union\u2019s food distribution scheme should apply without prejudice to any national food distribution schemes.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure sound budgetary management, it is necessary to lay down a fixed ceiling for Union aid. The food distribution scheme should be added to the list of expenditure in Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (7) to be financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF).\n(7)\nExperience has shown that certain improvements in the management of the food distribution scheme are necessary. The Commission should therefore establish annual plans for the implementation of the food distribution scheme in 2012 and 2013, based on requests by Member States that have been communicated to the Commission and on other information considered to be relevant. Member States should base their requests for food products on national food distribution programmes setting out their objectives and priorities for food distribution to the most deprived persons, which should include nutritional considerations. In this context, it is appropriate that Member States have the option of giving preference to products of Union origin. Finally, in order to secure a proper coverage of costs linked to the implementation of the annual plans, it is necessary for Member States to be given the option to reimburse, within the resources made available through the annual plans, certain costs incurred by designated organisations in relation to administration, transport and storage.\n(8)\nMember States should undertake adequate administrative and physical controls and provide penalties in the case of irregularities in order to ensure that the annual plans are implemented in accordance with the applicable rules.\n(9)\nIn order to ensure the continuing operation of the current food distribution scheme, enabling it to be phased out in an efficient manner, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2012 until the completion of the 2013 annual plan.\n(10)\nRegulations (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 1234/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the following point is added:\n\u2018(g)\nthe scheme for the distribution of food to the most deprived persons in the Union provided for in Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 1234/2007 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 27 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 27\nScheme for the distribution of food to the most deprived persons in the Union\n1. A scheme is established for 2012 and 2013 whereby food products may be distributed to the most deprived persons in the Union through organisations, which shall not be commercial undertakings, designated by Member States. For the purpose of this food distribution scheme, products in intervention stocks shall be made available or, where there are no intervention stocks suitable for the food distribution scheme, food products shall be purchased on the market.\nFor the purposes of the food distribution scheme provided for in the first subparagraph \u201cmost deprived persons\u201d means physical persons, including families or groups composed of such persons, who are recorded or recognised on the basis of eligibility criteria adopted by the national competent authorities to be socially and financially dependent, or who are judged to be so on the basis of the criteria used by the designated organisations and approved by those national competent authorities.\n2. Member States wishing to participate in the food distribution scheme provided for in paragraph 1 shall submit, to the Commission, food distribution programmes containing the following:\n(a)\ndetails of the main characteristics and objectives of such programmes;\n(b)\nthe organisations designated;\n(c)\nthe requests for quantities of food products to be distributed each year and other relevant information.\nMember States shall choose the food products on the basis of objective criteria including nutritional values and suitability for distribution. For that purpose, Member States may give preference to food products of Union origin.\n3. The Commission shall adopt annual plans based on the requests and other relevant information referred to in point (c) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 and submitted by Member States as part of their food distribution programmes.\nEach annual plan shall set out annual financial allocations by the Union per Member State.\nWhen food products included in the annual plan are not available in intervention stocks in the Member State where such products are required, the Commission shall make provision in the annual plan for the transfer of those products to that Member State from Member States where they are available in intervention stocks.\nThe Commission may revise an annual plan in the light of any relevant developments affecting its execution.\n4. The food products shall be released to designated organisations free of charge.\nThe distribution of the food products to the most deprived persons shall be:\n(a)\nfree of charge; or\n(b)\nat a price which is in no case greater than that justified by the costs incurred by the designated organisations in their distribution and that are not eligible costs under points (a) and (b) of the second subparagraph of paragraph 7.\n5. Member States participating in the food distribution scheme provided for in paragraph 1 shall:\n(a)\nsubmit to the Commission an annual report on implementation of the food distribution programmes;\n(b)\nkeep the Commission informed in a timely manner on developments affecting the implementation of the food distribution programmes.\n6. The Union shall finance the eligible costs under the scheme. This financing shall not exceed EUR 500 million per budget year.\n7. The eligible costs under the scheme shall be:\n(a)\nthe cost of food products released from intervention stocks;\n(b)\nthe cost of food products purchased on the market; and\n(c)\nthe costs of transporting food products in intervention stocks between Member States.\nWithin the financial resources available to implement the annual plans in each Member State, the national competent authorities may consider to be eligible the following costs:\n(a)\ncosts of transport of food products to the storage depots of the designated organisations;\n(b)\nthe following costs incurred by the designated organisations, to the extent that they are directly linked with the implementation of the annual plans:\n(i)\nadministrative costs;\n(ii)\ntransport costs between the storage depots of the designated organisations and the points of final distribution; and\n(iii)\nstorage costs.\n8. Member States shall carry out administrative and physical controls to ensure that the annual plans are implemented in compliance with the applicable rules and shall establish the penalties applicable in cases of irregularities.\n9. The words \u201cEuropean Union aid\u201d accompanied by the emblem of the European Union shall be clearly marked on the packing of food distributed through the annual plans as well as at the distribution points.\n10. The food distribution scheme provided for in paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to any national schemes, whereby food products are distributed to most deprived persons, that are in conformity with Union law.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 204, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20186. Article 27 shall apply from 1 January 2012 until the completion of the annual plan for 2013.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall apply from 1 January 2012 until the completion of the annual plan for 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 February 2012.", "references": ["99", "72", "26", "49", "33", "3", "17", "58", "78", "84", "68", "25", "80", "0", "22", "86", "1", "53", "10", "30", "13", "43", "56", "44", "66", "61", "62", "79", "64", "57", "No Label", "4", "9", "20", "31", "37", "38", "75"], "gold": ["4", "9", "20", "31", "37", "38", "75"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 442/2011\nof 9 May 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2011/273/CFSP provides for an arms embargo, a ban on internal repression equipment, and restrictions on the admission to the Union, and the freezing of funds and economic resources, of certain persons and entities responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria. Those persons, entities and bodies are listed in the Annex to that Decision.\n(2)\nSome of those measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(3)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, in particular, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the right to the protection of personal data. This Regulation should be applied in accordance with those rights.\n(4)\nThe power to amend the list in Annex II to this Regulation should be exercised by the Council, in view of the serious political situation in Syria, and to ensure consistency with the process for amending and reviewing the Annex to Decision 2011/273/CFSP.\n(5)\nThe procedure for amending the lists in Annex II to this Regulation should include providing designated natural or legal persons, entities or bodies with the grounds for listing, so as to give them an opportunity to submit observations. Where observations are submitted, or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in light of those observations and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n(6)\nFor the implementation of this Regulation, and in order to create maximum legal certainty within the Union, the names and other relevant data concerning natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources must be frozen in accordance with this Regulation, must be made public.Any processing of personal data should comply with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (2) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (3).\n(7)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018funds\u2019 means financial assets and benefits of every kind, including but not limited to:\n(i)\ncash, cheques, claims on money, drafts, money orders and other payment instruments;\n(ii)\ndeposits with financial institutions or other entities, balances on accounts, debts and debt obligations;\n(iii)\npublicly- and privately-traded securities and debt instruments, including stocks and shares, certificates representing securities, bonds, notes, warrants, debentures and derivatives contracts;\n(iv)\ninterest, dividends or other income on or value accruing from or generated by assets;\n(v)\ncredit, right of set-off, guarantees, performance bonds or other financial commitments;\n(vi)\nletters of credit, bills of lading, bills of sale;\n(vii)\ndocuments evidencing an interest in funds or financial resources;\n(b)\n\u2018freezing of funds\u2019 means preventing any move, transfer, alteration, use of, access to, or dealing with funds in any way that would result in any change in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination or other change that would enable the funds to be used, including portfolio management;\n(c)\n\u2018economic resources\u2019 means assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which are not funds but may be used to obtain funds, goods or services;\n(d)\n\u2018freezing of economic resources\u2019 means preventing their use to obtain funds, goods or services in any way, including, but not limited to, by selling, hiring or mortgaging them;\n(e)\n\u2018technical assistance\u2019 means any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance, or any other technical service, and may take forms such as instruction, advice, training, the transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services; including verbal forms of assistance;\n(f)\n\u2018territory of the Union\u2019 means the territories of the Member States to which the Treaty is applicable, under the conditions laid down in the Treaty, including their airspace.\nArticle 2\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex I, whether or not originating in the Union, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(b)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in point (a).\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and helmets, temporarily exported to Syria by United Nations (UN) personnel, personnel of the Union or its Member States, representatives of the media or humanitarian and development workers and associated persons exclusively for their personal use.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities in the Member States as listed in Annex III may authorise the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment which might be used for internal repression, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, if they determine that such equipment is intended solely for humanitarian or protective use.\nArticle 3\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List of the European Union (4) (Common Military List), or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of goods included in that list, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex I, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(c)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List or in Annex I, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for any provision of related technical assistance to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(d)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) to (c).\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the prohibitions refered to therein shall not apply to the provision of technical assistance, financing and financial assistance related to:\n-\ntechnical assistance intended solely for the support of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF);\n-\nnon-lethal military equipment, or equipment which might be used for internal repression, intended solely for humanitarian purposes or protective use or for institution building programmes of the UN and the Union, or for Union or UN crisis management operations; or\n-\nnon-combat vehicles fitted with materials to provide ballistic protection, intended solely for the protective use of personnel of the Union and its Member States in Syria;\nprovided that such provision shall first have been approved by the competent authority of a Member State, as identified on the websites listed in Annex III.\nArticle 4\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex II shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex II.\n3. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited.\nArticle 5\n1. Annex II shall consist of a list of natural or legal persons, entities and bodies who, in accordance with Article 4(1) of Decision 2011/273/CFSP, have been identified by the Council as being persons and entities responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, and natural or legal persons and entities associated with them.\n2. Annex II shall include the grounds for the listing of listed persons, entities and bodies concerned.\n3. Annex II shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies concerned. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, entities and bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\nArticle 6\nBy way of derogation from Article 4, the competent authorities in the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex III, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of persons listed in Annex II and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees or the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the relevant competent authority has notified to the competent authorities of the other Member States and to the Commission at least two weeks before the authorisation the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted.\nThe Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this Article.\nArticle 7\nBy way of derogation from Article 4, the competent authorities in the Member States, as listed in Annex III, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources in question are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the person, entity or body referred to in Article 4 was included in Annex II, or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources in question will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a person, entity or body listed in Annex II; and\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgment is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\nThe relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this Article.\nArticle 8\n1. Article 4(2) shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which the account became subject to this Regulation,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments are frozen in accordance with Article 4(1).\n2. Article 4(2) shall not prevent financial or credit institutions in the Union from crediting frozen accounts where they receive funds transferred to the account of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, provided that any additions to such accounts will also be frozen. The financial or credit institution shall inform the relevant competent authority about any such transaction without delay.\nArticle 9\nBy way of derogation from Article 4, and provided that a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex II is due under a contract or agreement that was concluded by, or an obligation that arose for the person, entity or body concerned before the date on which that person, entity or body had been designated, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex III, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in Article 4.\nArticle 10\n1. The freezing of funds and economic resources or the refusal to make funds or economic resources available, carried out in good faith on the basis that such action is in accordance with this Regulation, shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal person or entity or body implementing it, or its directors or employees, unless it is proved that the funds and economic resources were frozen or withheld as a result of negligence.\n2. The prohibition set out in Article 4(2) shall not give rise to any liability of any kind on the part of the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies who made funds or economic resources available if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe the prohibition in question.\nArticle 11\n1. Without prejudice to the applicable rules concerning reporting, confidentiality and professional secrecy, natural and legal persons, entities and bodies shall:\n(a)\nsupply immediately any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 4, to the competent authority in the Member State where they are resident or located, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex III, and shall transmit such information, either directly or through the Member States, to the Commission; and\n(b)\ncooperate with that competent authority in any verification of this information.\n2. Any information provided or received in accordance with this Article shall be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.\nArticle 12\nMember States and the Commission shall immediately inform each other of the measures taken under this Regulation and shall supply each other with any other relevant information at their disposal in connection with this Regulation, in particular information in respect of violation and enforcement problems and judgments handed down by national courts.\nArticle 13\nThe Commission shall be empowered to amend Annex III on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\nArticle 14\n1. Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to the measures referred to in Article 4(1), it shall amend Annex II accordingly.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 1, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the natural or legal person, entity or body accordingly.\n4. The list in Annex II shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months.\nArticle 15\n1. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules without delay after the entry into force of this Regulation and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment.\nArticle 16\nWhere there is, in this Regulation, a requirement to notify, inform or otherwise communicate with the Commission, the address and other contact details to be used for such communication shall be those indicated in Annex III.\nArticle 17\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\nArticle 18\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 May 2011.", "references": ["96", "35", "41", "27", "67", "60", "1", "56", "45", "51", "82", "90", "26", "55", "12", "50", "70", "7", "10", "14", "29", "36", "88", "81", "74", "0", "93", "59", "17", "72", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "30", "76", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "30", "76", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 15 July 2010\non the conclusion of a Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency concerning the EURDEP (EUropean Radiological Data Exchange Platform)\n(2010/398/Euratom)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 199, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community Article 35 Member States are obliged to establish facilities to carry out continuous monitoring of the radioactivity in the environment on their territory, and the Commission has the right of access to such facilities.\n(2)\nThe European Commission has, in this context, developed a common data format called EURDEP (EUropean Radiological Data Exchange Platform) as well as an appropriate Internet based network in order to facilitate continuous and seamless exchange of data provided by the national automatic dose rate monitoring networks and the environment radiation surveillance programmes, that have been in use in the European Atomic Energy Community for several years and are now considered mature enough for expansion.\n(3)\nThe European Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have expressed a mutual determination to significantly reinforce the quality and intensity of their cooperation in a Joint Statement signed in 2008.\n(4)\nRadiation protection, including making worldwide real time radiation monitoring data available, has been identified as one of the specific priority areas of cooperation.\n(5)\nUsing the proven technology developed by the European Commission for EURDEP is an excellent way to facilitate automatic exchange of data, and represents an important contribution to the global development of environmental radioactivity monitoring.\n(6)\nMaking EURDEP technology available to the IAEA is in the European Atomic Energy Community\u2019s interest, since through the IAEA contribution the European network participants will have access to the environmental radioactivity monitoring data from all over the world.\n(7)\nIn this context, the present Memorandum of Understanding has been developed, in the context of the relations between Euratom and the IAEA, to cover the technical aspects of the cooperation between the IAEA and Euratom on EURDEP.\n(8)\nNo financial implications or legal obligations are incurred on the basis of the present Memorandum of Understanding,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nThe Memorandum of Understanding in annex between the European Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency concerning the EURDEP (EUropean Radiological Data Exchange Platform) is approved.\nArticle 2\nThe Commissioner for Energy G\u00fcnther Oettinger signs the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency concerning the EURDEP (EUropean Radiological Data Exchange Platform) on behalf of the Commission.\nDone at Brussels, 15 July 2010.", "references": ["61", "23", "40", "99", "95", "65", "72", "79", "2", "31", "71", "6", "38", "47", "37", "46", "33", "42", "26", "15", "41", "89", "13", "43", "52", "92", "98", "90", "10", "75", "No Label", "58", "81"], "gold": ["58", "81"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/464/CFSP\nof 6 August 2010\non the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Uganda on the Status of the European Union-led Mission in Uganda\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union (hereinafter referred to as \u2018TEU\u2019), in particular Article 37 thereof, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as \u2018TFEU\u2019), in particular Article 218(5) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter referred to as \u2018HR\u2019),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 15 February 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/96/CFSP on a European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (1) (EUTM Somalia).\n(2)\nArticle 9 of that Decision provides that the status of the EU-led units and personnel, including the privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the fulfilment and smooth functioning of their mission, may be the subject of an agreement concluded pursuant to Article 37 of the TEU and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218(3) of the TFEU.\n(3)\nFollowing authorisation by the Council on 11 March 2010, the HR, assisted by the General Secretariat of the Council, negotiated an Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Uganda on the Status of the European Union-led Mission in Uganda (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Uganda on the Status of the European Union-led Mission in Uganda is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 6 August 2010.", "references": ["34", "50", "26", "59", "85", "74", "27", "51", "67", "10", "11", "98", "75", "61", "31", "69", "17", "73", "35", "97", "54", "43", "15", "21", "65", "2", "58", "81", "79", "92", "No Label", "1", "3", "4", "5", "6", "9", "94"], "gold": ["1", "3", "4", "5", "6", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 373/2011\nof 15 April 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of the preparation of Clostridium butyricum FERM-BP 2789 as a feed additive for minor avian species except laying birds, weaned piglets and minor porcine species (weaned) and amending Regulation (EC) No 903/2009 (holder of authorisation Miyarisan Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, represented by Miyarisan Pharmaceutical Europe S.L.U.)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) and Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition, for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation, and for the possibility to modify the authorisation of a feed additive further to a request from the holder of the authorisation and an opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (the Authority).\n(2)\nThe preparation of Clostridium butyricum MIYAIRI 588 (FERM-P 1467) has been authorised as a feed additive for 10 years for use in chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 903/2009 (2).\n(3)\nThe applicant requested a modification of the strain designation from Clostridium butyricum MIYAIRI 588 (FERM-P 1467) to Clostridium butyricum FERM-BP 2789, and of the name of the representative of the holder of the authorisation from Mitsui & Co. Deutschland GmbH to Miyarisan Pharmaceutical Europe S.L.U. and, in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for a new use of this additive for minor avian species (except laying hens), weaned piglets and minor weaned porcine species, requesting that the additive be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, and by the relevant data to support its request.\n(5)\nThe Authority concluded in its opinion of 8 December 2010 (3) that the preparation of Clostridium butyricum FERM-BP 2789 set out in the Annex, under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that this additive has the potential to improve weight gain and the efficiency of feed conversion in the target species. The Authority also concluded that the previous strain designation was not suitable for an unambiguous identification of the production strain and consequently supports the applicant\u2019s wish to change it to Clostridium butyricum FERM-BP 2789. The Authority concluded that the compatibility has been demonstrated for two additional coccidiostats. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the European Union Reference Laboratory for Feed Additives set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe proposed change of the terms of the authorisation related to the name of the representative of the holder of the authorisation is purely administrative in nature and does not entail a fresh assessment of the additives concerned. The Authority was informed of the application.\n(7)\nThe assessment of the preparation shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 903/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nSince the modifications on the conditions of the authorisation are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for the disposal of existing stocks of the premixtures and compound feed.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018gut flora stabilisers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nIn Regulation (EC) No 903/2009 the words \u2018Clostridium butyricum MIYAIRI 588 (FERM-P 1467)\u2019 and the words \u2018Mitsui & Co. Deutschland GmbH\u2019 are replaced respectively by the words \u2018Clostridium butyricum FERM-BP 2789\u2019 and by the words \u2018Miyarisan Pharmaceutical Europe S.L.U\u2019.\nIn point 2 of the \u2018Other provisions\u2019 column of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 903/2009 the words \u2018monensin sodium or lasalocid\u2019 are added.\nArticle 3\nFeed containing Clostridium butyricum MIYAIRI 588 (FERM-P 1467) labelled in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 903/2009 may continue to be placed on the market and used until stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 April 2011.", "references": ["45", "94", "49", "79", "27", "21", "2", "1", "24", "82", "16", "10", "50", "42", "87", "71", "31", "64", "81", "28", "43", "46", "88", "26", "17", "70", "41", "32", "9", "62", "No Label", "25", "38", "59", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "59", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 753/2012\nof 14 August 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Bov\u0161ki sir (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovenia\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Bov\u0161ki sir\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 August 2012.", "references": ["0", "23", "86", "28", "39", "41", "64", "11", "26", "12", "20", "17", "57", "3", "5", "74", "7", "35", "55", "32", "87", "18", "9", "52", "42", "58", "38", "69", "65", "75", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 286/2012\nof 27 January 2012\namending, in order to include a new textile fibre name, Annex I, and, for the purposes of their adaptation to technical progress, Annexes VIII and IX to Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products and repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC and Directives 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 21 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 1007/2011 lays down rules governing the labelling or marking of products as regards their textile fibre content, in order to ensure that consumer interests are protected. Textile products may be made available on the market within the Union only if they comply with the provisions of that Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EU) No 1007/2011 requires labelling to indicate the fibre composition of textile products, with checks being carried out by analysis on the conformity of those products with indications given on the label.\n(3)\nIt is necessary, for the purposes of adapting Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 to technical progress, to add the fibre polypropylene/polyamide bicomponent to the lists of textile fibre names set out in Annexes I and IX to that Regulation.\n(4)\nUniform methods for quantitative analysis of binary textile fibre mixtures are provided for in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011.\n(5)\nIt is therefore necessary to define uniform test methods for polypropylene/polyamide bicomponent.\n(6)\nDirective 96/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), as amended by Commission Directive 2011/74/EU (3), and Directive 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), as amended by Commission Directive 2011/73/EU (5), include the textile fibre name polypropylene/polyamide bicomponent. As Directives 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC are repealed by Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 with effect from 8 May 2012, it is necessary to include that textile fibre name in Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 with effect from that date.\n(7)\nRegulation (EU) No 1007/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I, VIII and IX to Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 are amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 8 May 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 January 2012.", "references": ["42", "22", "81", "99", "10", "96", "39", "3", "94", "86", "74", "65", "2", "27", "93", "54", "49", "26", "4", "13", "46", "41", "7", "21", "59", "24", "72", "32", "23", "58", "No Label", "25", "43", "77", "83", "89"], "gold": ["25", "43", "77", "83", "89"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 483/2011\nof 18 May 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Fagiolo Cuneo (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Fagiolo Cuneo\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 May 2011.", "references": ["2", "35", "67", "32", "51", "21", "7", "60", "12", "49", "10", "69", "33", "68", "16", "13", "73", "52", "79", "22", "62", "5", "39", "43", "34", "42", "36", "8", "45", "18", "No Label", "24", "25", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 856/2010\nof 27 September 2010\nterminating the partial interim review of Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 8, 9(4) and 11(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 2022/1995 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate (\u2018AN\u2019) originating in Russia, falling within CN codes 3102 30 90 and 3102 40 90. Pursuant to a further investigation in accordance with Article 12 of the basic Regulation, which established that the duty was being absorbed, the measures were amended by Regulation (EC) No 663/1998 (3). Following a request for an expiry and an interim review pursuant to Articles 11(2) and 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 (4), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of EUR 47,07 per tonne on imports of ammonium nitrate falling within CN codes 3102 30 90 and 3102 40 90 and originating in Russia. Finally, a product scope interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation was carried out and, by Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 (5), a definitive anti-dumping duty ranging between EUR 41,42 per tonne and EUR 47,07 per tonne was imposed on imports of solid fertilisers originating in Russia with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, falling within CN codes 3102 30 90, 3102 40 90, ex 3102 29 00, ex 3102 60 00, ex 3102 90 00, ex 3105 10 00, ex 3105 20 10, ex 3105 51 00, ex 3105 59 00 and ex 3105 90 91.\n(2)\nFollowing a request for an expiry and an interim review (\u2018the last expiry review\u2019) pursuant to Articles 11(2) and 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 (6), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty ranging between EUR 28,88 per tonne and EUR 47,07 per tonne for a further five years.\n(3)\nFollowing the decision of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities to partially annul Regulation (EC) No 945/2005, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 989/2009 (7), amended the definitive anti-dumping duty in so far as it concerned JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat.\n(4)\nBy Decision 2008/577/EC of 4 July 2008 (8), the Commission accepted undertaking offers submitted by several exporting producers, including the related Russian exporting producers Joint Stock Company Acron and Joint Stock Company Dorogobuzh (\u2018Acron\u2019 Holding Company), in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Ukraine.\nB. PRESENT PROCEDURE\n1. Request for a review\n(5)\nA request for a partial interim review (\u2018the present review\u2019) pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation was lodged by JSC Acron, JSC Dorogobuzh and their related trading company Agronova International Inc., members of \u2018Acron\u2019 Holding Company (\u2018the applicant\u2019). The request was limited in scope to the examination of the form of the measure and in particular to the inclusion of Agronova International Inc. into the price undertaking of JSC Acron and JSC Dorogobuzh.\n(6)\nThe applicant alleged that the circumstances under which the price undertaking was granted changed, in particular that Agronova International Inc., a newly established trader in the USA, was incorporated into the \u2018Acron\u2019 Holding Company. The applicant further alleged that these changes were of a lasting nature.\n2. Initiation of a review\n(7)\nThe Commission examined the prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant and considered it sufficient to justify the initiation of a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. After consulting the Advisory Committee, the Commission initiated (9) a review of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 (\u2018measures in force\u2019) limited in scope to the examination of the form of the measures, in particular the potential effect of the inclusion of Agronova International Inc. into the price undertaking of JSC Acron and JSC Dorogobuzh.\n3. Product concerned\n(8)\nThe product concerned by the present review is the same as in the last expiry review, i.e. solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, originating in Russia (\u2018the product concerned\u2019), currently falling within CN codes 3102 30 90, 3102 40 90, ex 3102 29 00, ex 3102 60 00, ex 3102 90 00, ex 3105 10 00, ex 3105 20 10, ex 3105 51 00, ex 3105 59 00 and ex 3105 90 91.\n4. Parties concerned\n(9)\nThe Commission officially informed the applicant, the representatives of the exporting country and the association of Union producers of the initiation of the review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. All interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(10)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the applicant and received replies within the deadlines set for that purpose. The Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary. The Commission carried out a verification visit at the premises of Agronova International Inc., Hallandale, USA (\u2018Agronova\u2019).\n5. Review investigation period\n(11)\nThe review investigation period covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (\u2018RIP\u2019).\nC. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n(12)\nThe investigation confirmed that Agronova was a newly established trading company belonging to \u2018Acron\u2019 Holding company.\n1. Workability of the undertaking\n(13)\nThe main considerations as to the inclusion of a trading company in the current undertaking were the practicability of the undertaking, i.e. the effectiveness of its monitoring and in particular assessing the risks of cross-compensation and circumvention through different sales channels and/or through the pricing of different products sold to potentially the same customers.\n1.1. High risk of cross-compensation through an undisclosed trading company\n(14)\nThe investigation revealed that Agronova had strong interpersonal and operational links to at least one other undisclosed company active in the trading and marketing of fertiliser products. It was found that the same and only persons operating Agronova were in fact also involved in the activities of this trading company. In particular, the evidence available showed that both companies shared a common manager and a common officer during most of the RIP, while a third person (who was at the same time found to be the President of the trading company in question), although not formally employed by Agronova, was in fact carrying out its daily trading business including the conduct during the verification visit on behalf of Agronova where he was presented as an advisor of Agronova. In addition to the strong interpersonal links, it was found that both companies were operating from the same office, employing the same secretary and using the same computers and office equipment during almost the entirety of the RIP. Agronova did not reveal the existence and operations of this other trading company neither in its response to the questionnaire nor at the time of the verification visit. The Commission\u2019s request for additional information in order to clarify the situation was only partly satisfied by the applicant since it did not, inter alia, disclose the precise ownership of the trading company nor its detailed activities. The information provided was therefore considered insufficient.\n(15)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission considered that the trading company referred to above was related to Agronova within the meaning of Article 143 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (\u2018IPCCC\u2019) (10) and should have been reported in the applicant\u2019s reply to the questionnaire. The Commission notified the applicant in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation of its intention to base these findings on facts available and invited the applicant to comment thereon in accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(16)\nThe applicant contested that Agronova is related to the above trading company or any other company. Furthermore, on the Commission\u2019s further enquiry request, it did not provide any detailed and verifiable information on the ownership and activities of the trading company in question within the deadline set.\n(17)\nUpon disclosure of the Commission\u2019s proposal to base findings on Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the applicant further denied any relationship between Agronova and the trading company in the sense of Article 143 of the IPCCC. As far as the precise roles of the persons involved in both companies, the applicant contested that both companies shared directors or officers. The applicant even withdrew information given before, claiming that it was wrong or imprecise. The new information given was, however, not sufficiently supported by evidence. Overall, the information and evidence provided in this regard was unclear and in some instances contradictory and therefore in general cast doubts on the reliability of the information provided.\n(18)\nBy way of example, while the applicant originally stated that the president of Agronova was also the manager of the trading company in question, this statement was later qualified by explaining that the tasks carried out in the trading company by the president of Agronova did not include any control and decision-making functions. Likewise, while the evidence provided (annual accounts) showed that another person was an \u2018officer\u2019 in both companies, it was later claimed that the real functions of this person were those of a legal secretary.\n(19)\nIn conclusion, the applicant did not submit any sufficiently reliable information or evidence which could show that the roles and responsibilities of each actor were defined and exercised in a way which would have excluded the existence of a relationship.\n(20)\nThe applicant also contested that the trading company in question should be considered as a trading company since it was mainly involved in marketing rather than the sale of fertiliser products. However, besides the fact that this statement was not supported by any evidence, the company also claimed at several instances to be indeed involved in the sale of fertiliser as a trader, but only for small quantities destined to markets other than Europe. The company had therefore to be considered as a trader and this argument had to be rejected.\n(21)\nThe Commission considered that the applicant impeded the investigation in the sense of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation by having provided relevant information only gradually upon request, and the information provided in most cases was subsequently corrected, modified or contradicted. In this regard, given Agronova\u2019s unsatisfactory cooperation, a relationship of trust between the Commission and the company, which, as a general policy, is a necessary precondition for the acceptance of an undertaking, could not be established.\n(22)\nIt is reminded that in the analysis of the risk of cross-compensation, the knowledge of different sales channels and the flow of products through these channels is indispensable information. Given the very close interpersonal and operational links between Agronova and the other trading company, it was concluded that the risk of cross-compensation and circumvention through different sales channels was too high and that therefore Agronova should not be included in the current undertaking.\n(23)\nSubsequent to disclosure, the applicant claimed that there would be a risk of cross compensation only where companies are related by shares. First, it should be noted that the risk of cross-compensation is not limited to situations where companies are related by shares, since there are various different ways of cross-compensation. Thus, in this particular case and for reasons explained in the above recital, it was considered that there is a high risk of cross-compensation even if the applicant and Agronova are not related by shares. In addition, the applicant did not outline any legal or factual basis or present evidence to support its claim. This argument had therefore to be rejected.\n1.2. Considerable risk of cross-compensation through the pricing of different products\n(24)\nThe current undertaking not only covers ammonium nitrate but it also imposes a price regime for other products traded by the group in order to avoid the risk of cross-compensation. The applicant stated in its questionnaire reply that it intended to sell through Agronova, inter alia, products that are not included in this price regime and even fertiliser products produced by other producers, located in Russia as well as in other countries. Therefore, a risk of cross-compensation through exports of different products to the same customers was considered as high.\n(25)\nSome of the products that Agronova intended to sell do not have a quoted market price that could serve as a benchmark for monitoring purposes. For this reason the monitoring of the undertaking would also be impracticable.\n(26)\nFollowing disclosure, the applicant claimed that the Commission disregarded the applicant\u2019s offer to drop its business plans related to blending and other products in case the Commission found it necessary. In this respect it is noted that the Commission received those amended offers only later during the proceeding. The Commission considered that the applicant\u2019s continuous changing of its business plan to fit whatever it considered as the Commission\u2019s expectations cast doubts on the credibility of the applicant\u2019s offer. In this regard, the Commission also considered the insufficient level of cooperation by Agronova in this investigation as an impediment to establishing a relationship of trust between the Commission and Agronova. Therefore, the Commission was not satisfied that such commitment would indeed be respected.\n(27)\nIt was therefore concluded that the inclusion of Agronova in the sales channels of \u2018Acron\u2019 Holding Company would seriously increase the risks of cross-compensation and circumvention and affect the workability and the effective monitoring of the undertaking.\n2. Lasting nature of the changed circumstances\n(28)\nDuring the investigation, the \u2018Acron\u2019 Holding Company established another trading company, namely Agronova Europe AG (\u2018Agronova Europe\u2019) which it claimed would take over most of the trading with European clients and thereby gradually replace Agronova. At a certain stage of the proceeding, the applicant requested that this new trader also be included in the current review with a view to having the two traders included in the existing price undertaking or, alternatively, that a new review be initiated to include this new trader also in the sales channel of the undertaking. This shows that the changed circumstances on the basis of which the present review was requested are not of a lasting nature.\n(29)\nFollowing disclosure, the applicant claimed that an analysis whether the changed circumstances on the basis of which the present review was initiated were of a lasting nature, would not be relevant in the context of the present interim review limited in scope to the form of measures. The applicant claimed that such analysis would only be required in case dumping and/or injury would be assessed.\n(30)\nThe applicant also claimed that it would no longer intend to channel sales of ammonium nitrate through Agronova Europe.\n(31)\nWith regard to the applicant\u2019s argument that an analysis as to whether the changed circumstances were of a lasting nature would be irrelevant in the present review, the applicant did not provide any legal reasoning that would have supported this view. In the present review it was considered that the stability of the sales channel(s) was an important factor in deciding to accept the inclusion of a newly established trader in an undertaking given that with every new trader included in a price undertaking the risk of cross-compensation and circumvention increases. This also needs to be addressed through adequate monitoring activities. Therefore, it was concluded that the lasting nature of the changed circumstances was indeed a relevant factor and the argument of the applicant had to be rejected.\n(32)\nAs regards the applicant\u2019s claim that Agronova Europe would not be used for sales of ammonium nitrate to the European Union market, this was provided at a very late stage of the investigation (after final disclosure) and contradicted the information submitted previously. The applicant could furthermore not give sufficient assurances as to the respect of this commitment. The Commission again considered that the applicant\u2019s continuous changing of its business plan to fit whatever it considered as the Commission\u2019s expectations cast doubts on the credibility of the applicant\u2019s offer. As outlined in recital 26, the Commission also considered Agronova\u2019s behaviour in impeding the investigation as an impediment to the establishment of a relationship of trust between the parties to the undertaking. The applicant\u2019s argument had therefore to be rejected.\nD. TERMINATION OF THE REVIEW\n(33)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regards to the workability of the undertaking and the lasting nature of the changed circumstances, the investigation should be terminated without changing the existing undertaking of the applicant.\nE. DISCLOSURE\n(34)\nThe applicant and interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to terminate the investigation. All parties were given an opportunity to comment.\n(35)\nThe applicant stated that its rights of defence and to a fair hearing have been impaired in the proceeding. The applicant was given and has indeed used numerous occasions to introduce submissions and was given sufficient time to provide information and evidence during the proceeding. The applicant was also given the possibility to request a hearing on several occasions. Therefore its claims in this respect are unwarranted,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe partial interim review concerning imports of solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, currently falling within CN codes 3102 30 90, 3102 40 90, ex 3102 29 00, ex 3102 60 00, ex 3102 90 00, ex 3105 10 00, ex 3105 20 10, ex 3105 51 00, ex 3105 59 00 and ex 3105 90 91 and originating in Russia produced by Joint Stock Company Acron and Joint Stock Company Dorogobuzh is hereby terminated without changing the form of the measure.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["47", "32", "94", "45", "84", "89", "35", "76", "68", "14", "41", "62", "30", "57", "5", "4", "72", "21", "52", "18", "87", "59", "6", "80", "70", "25", "37", "26", "7", "92", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "65", "83", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "65", "83", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 289/2012\nof 30 March 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 April 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 April 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 April 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 March 2012.", "references": ["50", "44", "54", "11", "42", "65", "14", "28", "74", "26", "85", "4", "59", "41", "8", "46", "29", "89", "72", "86", "73", "87", "48", "24", "95", "40", "94", "88", "93", "79", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 July 2012\nauthorising methods for grading pig carcasses in Belgium\n(notified under document C(2012) 4933)\n(Only the Dutch and French texts are authentic)\n(2012/416/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(m), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPoint 1 of Section B.IV of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that, for the classification of pig carcasses, the lean-meat content has to be assessed by means of grading methods authorised by the Commission, which methods may only be statistically proven assessment methods based on the physical measurement of one or more anatomical parts of the pig carcass. The authorisation of grading methods is subject to compliance with a maximum tolerance for statistical error in assessment. That tolerance is defined in Article 23(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/2008 of 10 December 2008 laying down detailed rules on the implementation of the Community scales for the classification of beef, pig and sheep carcasses and the reporting of prices thereof (2).\n(2)\nBy Decision 97/107/EC (3), the Commission authorised the use of five methods for grading pig carcasses in Belgium.\n(3)\nDue to changes in the pig population, the formulae used with these methods are currently underestimating the lean meat content. It is therefore necessary to update the formula of the authorised methods and to obtain and use three new grading methods.\n(4)\nBelgium has requested the Commission to authorise eight methods for grading pig carcasses on its territory and has presented a detailed description of the dissection trial, indicating the principles on which those methods are based, the results of its dissection trial and the equations used for assessing the percentage of lean meat in the protocol provided for in Article 23(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/2008.\n(5)\nExamination of that request has revealed that the conditions for authorising those grading methods are fulfilled. Those grading methods should therefore be authorised in Belgium.\n(6)\nModifications of the apparatus or grading methods should not be allowed, unless they are explicitly authorised by Commission Implementing Decision.\n(7)\nFor reasons of clarity and legal certainty, Decision 97/107/EC should be repealed.\n(8)\nIn view of the technical circumstances while introducing new devices and new equations, the methods for grading pig carcasses authorised under Decision 97/107/EC should continue to apply up to 30 September 2012.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe use of the following methods is authorised for grading pig carcasses pursuant to point 1 of Section B.IV of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in Belgium:\n(a)\nthe \u2018Capteur Gras/Maigre - Sydel (CGM)\u2019 apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 1 of the Annex;\n(b)\nthe \u2018Giralda Choirometer Pork Grader (PG 200)\u2019 apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 2 of the Annex;\n(c)\nthe \u2018Hennessy Grading Probe (HGP 4)\u2019 apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 3 of the Annex;\n(d)\nthe \u2018Fat-O-Meat\u2019er (FOM II)\u2019 apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 4 of the Annex;\n(e)\nthe \u2018OptiScan TP\u2019 apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 5 of the Annex;\n(f)\nthe \u2018CSB Image-Meater\u2019 apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 6 of the Annex;\n(g)\nthe \u2018VCS 2000\u2019 apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 7 of the Annex;\n(h)\nthe \u2018AutoFOM III\u2019 apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 8 of the Annex.\nArticle 2\nModifications of the authorised apparatus or assessment methods shall not be allowed, unless those modifications are explicitly authorised by Commission Implementing Decision.\nArticle 3\nDecision 97/107/EC is repealed.\nHowever, up to 30 September 2012, Belgium may continue to apply the methods for grading pig carcasses authorised under Decision 97/107/EC.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2012.", "references": ["32", "20", "53", "27", "4", "37", "17", "93", "12", "40", "85", "58", "21", "89", "47", "46", "28", "13", "81", "11", "60", "72", "56", "73", "52", "84", "74", "44", "49", "78", "No Label", "39", "69", "76", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["39", "69", "76", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 14 November 2011\namending Decision 2008/855/EC as regards animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in France\n(notified under document C(2011) 8095)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/743/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2008/855/EC of 3 November 2008 concerning animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in certain Member States (3) lays down certain control measures in relation to classical swine fever in the Member States or regions thereof listed in the Annex thereto. That list includes parts of the territory of the Departments of Bas-Rhin and Moselle in France.\n(2)\nFrance has informed the Commission about recent developments with regard to that disease in feral pigs in the territory of the region of the Northern Vosgues and in particular in the part of the Departments of Bas-Rhin and Moselle located west of the Rhine.\n(3)\nThat information indicates that classical swine fever in feral pigs has been eradicated in the Departments of Bas-Rhin and Moselle. Accordingly, the measures provided for in Decision 2008/855/EC should no longer apply to those Departments and the entry for France in the list set out in the Annex thereto should be deleted. That Annex should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nDecision 2008/855/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn the Annex to Decision 2008/855/EC, point 2 of Part I is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["95", "67", "60", "3", "94", "25", "93", "57", "55", "19", "69", "47", "1", "82", "20", "33", "21", "44", "58", "83", "7", "27", "79", "22", "48", "84", "23", "34", "36", "72", "No Label", "38", "59", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "59", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 936/2011\nof 20 September 2011\nfixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 September 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (3), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 1 to 7 September 2011 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, exceed the quantity available under order number 09.4380.\n(2)\nIn these circumstances, an allocation coefficient for licences to be issued regarding order number 09.4380 should be fixed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006. Submission of further applications for licences for that order number should be suspended until the end of the marketing year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 from 1 to 7 September 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. Submission of further applications for licences, which correspond to the order numbers indicated in the Annex, shall be suspended until the end of the marketing year 2010/11.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2011.", "references": ["62", "45", "37", "0", "68", "38", "88", "87", "70", "28", "11", "57", "14", "25", "2", "56", "76", "12", "34", "96", "3", "64", "91", "46", "41", "82", "52", "33", "20", "13", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 96/2012\nof 6 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 February 2012.", "references": ["41", "86", "69", "80", "38", "20", "0", "39", "98", "89", "93", "29", "19", "70", "54", "26", "2", "28", "11", "92", "53", "4", "30", "60", "50", "84", "97", "56", "55", "27", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 1 July 2011\nconcerning the non-inclusion of certain substances in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market\n(notified under document C(2011) 4596)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/391/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.\n(2)\nFor a number of substance/product type combinations included in that list, either all participants have discontinued their participation in the review programme, or no complete dossier was received within the time period specified in Articles 9 and 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 by the Member State designated as rapporteur for the evaluation.\n(3)\nConsequently, and pursuant to Articles 11(2), 12(1) and 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the Commission informed the Member States accordingly. That information was also made public by electronic means.\n(4)\nWithin the period of 3 months from those publications, a number of companies indicated an interest in taking over the role of participant for the substances and product-types concerned. However, those companies subsequently failed to submit a complete dossier.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 12(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the substances and product types concerned should therefore not be included in Annexes I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.\n(6)\nIn the interest of legal certainty, the date should be specified after which biocidal products containing active substances for the product-types indicated in the Annex to this Decision should no longer be placed on the market.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe substances indicated in the Annex to this Decision shall not be included for the product-types concerned in Annexes I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.\nArticle 2\nFor the purposes of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, biocidal products containing active substances for the product-types indicated in the Annex to this Decision shall no longer be placed on the market with effect from 1 July 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2011.", "references": ["94", "56", "11", "10", "66", "84", "15", "39", "3", "99", "17", "34", "44", "41", "32", "30", "53", "16", "82", "35", "91", "42", "98", "60", "48", "19", "29", "28", "59", "45", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 450/2012\nof 29 May 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on tomatoes, apricots, lemons, plums, peaches, including nectarines, pears and table grapes\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2) provides for the surveillance of the imports of the products listed in Annex XVIII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2009, 2010 and 2011, the trigger levels for additional duties on tomatoes, apricots, lemons, plums, peaches, including nectarines, pears and table grapes should be amended with effect from 1 June 2012.\n(3)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVIII to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 May 2012.", "references": ["83", "18", "30", "33", "41", "7", "24", "26", "82", "57", "28", "73", "36", "96", "31", "58", "76", "88", "27", "62", "81", "55", "93", "54", "35", "11", "52", "63", "94", "21", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 2 February 2012\non the recognition of the RINA SpA (Italian Register of Shipping) as a classification society for inland waterway vessels\n(notified under document C(2012) 402)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/64/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2006/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels and repealing Council Directive 82/714/EEC (1), and in particular Article 10(1) and Part II of Annex VII thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee referred to in Article 7 of Council Directive 91/672/EEC of 16 December 1991 on the reciprocal recognition of national boat masters\u2019 certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter of 22 July 2008 Italy submitted an application to the Commission for recognition of the RINA SpA (hereafter RINA) as a classification society within the meaning of the Directive. RINA has its headquarters in Italy.\n(2)\nWith the application Italy has submitted the information and documentation needed to verify that the criteria for recognition are met.\n(3)\nA hearing was organised in the joint meeting of experts from the Member States of the European Union and the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine (hereinafter \u2018CCNR\u2019) on technical requirements for inland waterway vessels in April 2009, where the Italian authority and RINA gave presentations.\n(4)\nThe secretariat of the CCNR has been consulted as referred to in Part II paragraph 4 of Annex VII to Directive 2006/87/EC.\n(5)\nThe Commission has assessed the compliance of RINA with the criteria of Part I of Annex VII to Directive 2006/87/EC and has concluded that RINA meets them,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe classification society RINA shall be recognised pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 2006/87/EC.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member State(s) which have inland waterways as referred to in Article 1(1) of Directive 2006/87/EC and to the Italian Register of Shipping, Via Corsica 12, 16128 Genova, Italy.\nDone at Brussels, 2 February 2012.", "references": ["17", "20", "69", "34", "41", "19", "58", "42", "50", "13", "68", "72", "25", "39", "66", "47", "70", "61", "71", "18", "26", "55", "35", "23", "21", "3", "92", "99", "65", "2", "No Label", "53", "56", "76", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["53", "56", "76", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 184/2012\nof 6 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 March 2012.", "references": ["32", "78", "70", "71", "30", "82", "16", "55", "97", "77", "34", "28", "18", "12", "42", "65", "10", "37", "76", "94", "49", "2", "14", "98", "92", "84", "83", "56", "74", "15", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 July 2012\non State aid case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) - Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland\n(notified under document C(2012) 5037)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2013/199/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions (1) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nIn 2009, the Commission received a State aid complaint from an airline operator (hereafter \"complainant\") regarding several aspects of the air travel tax implemented by Ireland including the differentiated tax rates applicable to flights with destinations located no more than 300 km from Dublin airport, which allegedly favoured Aer Arann.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 13 July 2011, the Commission informed Ireland that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty in respect of the differentiated tax rates applied under the Irish air travel tax. The Commission asked the Irish authorities to forward a copy of the decision to the beneficiaries.\n(3)\nOn 9 August 2011 and 5 September 2011, the airline operator Ryanair Ltd. (hereafter \"Ryanair\") submitted letters regarding the Commission's decision to initiate the proceedings. The Commission responded to those letters on 5 October 2011. On 17 October 2011, Ryanair submitted another letter.\n(4)\nFollowing an extension of the deadline to reply, the Irish authorities submitted their observations on the Commission's decision on 15 September 2011.\n(5)\nOn 18 October 2011, the Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their observations on the measure.\n(6)\nOn 17 November 2011, Ryanair submitted its response to that invitation. By letter of 28 November 2011, the Commission asked Ryanair whether any information in Ryanair's submission was confidential and could not be disclosed to the Irish authorities. By letter of 30 November 2011, Ryanair confirmed that the submission of 17 November 2011 could be forwarded to the Irish authorities.\n(7)\nBy letter of 12 December 2011, the Commission forwarded Ryanair's comments to the Irish authorities, which provided their comments thereon on 13 January 2012.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n(8)\nAs of 30 March 2009, the Irish authorities introduced an excise duty on air passenger transport. The national legal basis for the tax is section 55 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2008, which introduces an excise duty referred to as the \"air travel tax\" which the airline operators are liable to pay in respect of \"every departure of a passenger on an aircraft from an airport\" located in Ireland (3). The tax becomes due at the time a passenger departs from an airport on an aircraft capable of carrying more than 20 passengers and not used for State or military purposes. While the tax in fine is intended to be passed on to the passengers via the ticket price, it is the airline operators that are accountable for it and liable to pay it (4).\n(9)\nAt the time of its introduction, the tax was levied on the basis of the distance between the airport where the flight began and the airport where the flight ended, at the rate of (i) EUR 2 in the case of a flight from an airport to a destination located no more than 300 km from Dublin airport and (ii) EUR 10 in any other case.\n(10)\nFollowing an investigation by the Commission regarding a possible infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (5) and Article 56 of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services, the rates were changed as of 1 March 2011 so that a single tax rate of EUR 3 is applicable to all departures, regardless of the distance travelled (6).\n3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(11)\nThe Commission initiated the formal procedure regarding the lower tax rate, which was applicable for certain routes during the period 30 March 2009 until 1 March 2011, because it considered that it appeared to constitute State aid and had doubts regarding its compatibility with the internal market.\n(12)\nIn its assessment of whether the measure was selective, in line with established case-law (7), the Commission first identified the relevant tax system of reference, and thereafter analysed whether the measure constituted a derogation from that system and, if so, whether Ireland had demonstrated that the derogation was in the nature and logic of the tax system.\n(13)\nIt concluded that, in the case at hand, the system of reference is the taxation of air passengers departing from an airport situated in Ireland.\n(14)\nThe Commission noted that the air travel tax system provided for one general or normal rate applicable to nearly all flights and a reduced rate for flights to a destination located no more than 300 km from Dublin airport. It found that the normal rate constituted the reference system, while the reduced rate, that was applicable to a well delimited category of flights, appeared to be an exception from the reference system.\n(15)\nThe Commission had doubts whether the reduced rate was justified on the basis of the distance between the starting point and the final destination of the journey.\n(16)\nFirst, it was not applicable on the basis of the actual length of the journey, but on the basis of the distance between Dublin airport and the destination.\n(17)\nSecond, the structure and objective nature of the tax did not seem to relate to the distance of the flight, but to the fact of departing from an Irish airport. The connection with the fiscal authority, the taxable event (the departure from an Irish airport) and the negative externalities for the Irish society (noise and air pollution) were precisely the same for all passengers departing from an Irish airport regardless of the destination of the flight and the distance travelled. The concerned airline operators were in the same as each other legal and factual situation with regard to that objective.\n(18)\nThird, the tax system was not characterised by an articulated differentiation in the tax level in relation to the flights' distance, but it fixed only two rates: one for very short distance flights and the other for all other flights. That criterion seemed to favour flights within Ireland and to certain western parts of the United Kingdom and, consequently, discriminated between national and intra-Union flights. In the case at hand, the Irish authorities argued that a higher charge on the destinations for which the lower rate applied would be disproportional in relation to the price. The Commission found that the price of tickets for domestic destinations is not necessarily lower than that of flights to other destinations in the Union. The lower tax rate did thus not appear to be justified by the nature and logic of the air travel tax system and therefore seemed to be a selective measure.\n(19)\nSince all other criteria in Article 107(1) of the Treaty also seemed to be fulfilled, the measure appeared to constitute State aid to the airline operators that had operated the routes benefitting from the reduced rate.\n(20)\nThe aid did not appear to fall within the scope of any guidelines for compatibility of State aid issued by the Commission. As it appeared to constitute an operating aid that discriminated between flights within the Union, it could not be considered to be compatible directly under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty. Furthermore, the aid did not fall within any other exemption specified in Article 107(2) or (3) of the Treaty.\n(21)\nConsequently, the Commission had doubts as to the compatibility of the aid measure with the internal market and, in accordance with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (8), it decided to open the formal investigation procedure, thereby inviting Ireland and other interested parties to submit their comments.\n4. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(22)\nIn response to the notice in the Official Journal (9), the Commission received comments from the Irish authorities and from Ryanair.\n4.1. Comments from the Irish authorities\n4.1.1. The tax is a tax on consumers\n(23)\nThe Irish authorities state that the nature of the air travel tax is essentially a customer tax. For ease of application, the Irish authorities obliged each airline to pay to the Revenue service the relevant amount per passenger departing from an Irish airport and carried by that airline. The airline operators are, however, allowed to pass on the tax and collect it from their passengers.\n(24)\nMoreover, the air travel tax is normally listed in the ticket price and/or in the general terms and conditions of operators as a tax or levy, in conjunction with other charges and taxes. Accordingly, the tax does not confer a benefit on any airline operators since it is merely another levy, tax or charge which is effectively charged to the consumer.\n4.1.2. Absence of benefit to particular operators\n(25)\nThe Irish authorities state that the conferring of a benefit on particular operators is a prerequisite for the air travel tax to fall within the definition of Article 107(1) of the Treaty. According to the Irish authorities in a situation where the air travel tax is essentially a consumer tax, whether applied at EUR 10 or EUR 2, it might be difficult to see how the tax confers a benefit on particular operators.\n(26)\nThere is no dispute that all operators, whether they are obliged to charge the EUR 10 or the EUR 2 tax rate, are placed on an equal footing. The question that arises is whether an advantage is conferred on the airline operators who only have to charge the EUR 2 tax rate collectively. According to the Irish authorities, the only realistic scenario in which the air travel tax could constitute aid is if the airlines operating routes to destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin airport were obliged to collect the air travel tax at EUR 10, but were allowed to retain the difference between the EUR 10 rate and the EUR 2 rate. It was, however, not the case. In that regard, it is important to point out that the Irish authorities, in designing the tax in question, did not have in mind any particular operator or business model.\n4.1.3. There is no advantage to Irish airline operators\n(27)\nFirst, it should be noted that Ireland no longer has national air carriers per se, given that the State divested its interest in Aer Lingus, which was originally the national State airline operator, into a minority shareholding.\n(28)\nIf the tax had any effect on Irish airline operators, that effect would have been very different for each of those airline operators. The Irish authorities point out that the intra-Union routes that were subject to the higher rate of EUR 10 were operated by predominantly the same Irish airlines. In the relevant period, the three airline operators held about [93-97] (10) % of the market for flights to which the lower rate applied, but they also predominated in the intra-Union air travel market, holding [82-87] (10) % of all such intra-Union flights.\n(29)\nIn particular, the Irish authorities argue that any disadvantage claimed by Ryanair is clearly unsustainable, since Ryanair accounts for approximately [56-63] (10) % of the passengers carried on the routes to which the lower rate was applicable (see Table 1).\nTable 1\nMarket shares of Irish airline operators on routes departing from Irish airports\nMarket shares\nNo more than 300 km\nMore than 300 km (11)\nRyanair\n[56-63] (*) %\n[42-47] (*) %\nAer Lingus\n[16-23] (*) %\n[35-40] (*) %\nAer Arann\n[10-17] (*) %\n[0,5-2,5] (*) %\nTOTAL\n[93-97] (*) %\n[82-85] (*) %\nSource:\nInformation provided by Ireland based on figures provided by the three Irish airline operators and data extracted from the Central Statistics Office.\n(30)\nTable 1 shows that the only operator which might conceivably be classified as a national operator by virtue of the State's minority interest (Aer Lingus) had a much greater share of flights to which the higher rate applied ([35-40] (*) %) than of flights to which the lower rate applied ([16-23] (*) %). Therefore, if the lower tax rate had had any effect on airlines, Aer Lingus would have been significantly disadvantaged.\n(31)\nAs for Aer Arann, which the complainant also claims benefits from the alleged aid, the Irish authorities note that, between 2007 and 2010, it experienced a significant reduction in both turnover and passenger numbers. Following the introduction of the tax, Aer Arann reported losses of EUR 18 million. It therefore appears that the airline was at its most profitable before the introduction of the tax. The Irish authorities also point out that there was only one domestic route on which the complainant and Aer Arann competed and that, on that route, close to [37-42] (*) % of the flights were operated by the complainant. For flights to destinations abroad benefiting from the lower rate (western United Kingdom), the complainant operated more than [37-42] (*) % of the scheduled flights, while Aer Arann and Aer Lingus had smaller shares.\n(32)\nMoreover, non-Irish airline operators have always been free to operate flights to which the lower tax rate applied. There was no discretion for the State in this context. The Irish authorities argue that, if there was an advantage in operating flights to which the lower tax rate applied, foreign (non-Irish) operators would have chosen to operate such flights. The absence of foreign airlines operating such flights suggests that there was no advantage stemming from the lower rate.\n4.1.4. The lower rate was introduced in order to avoid applying a tax rate which was disproportionate in relation to the ticket price\n(33)\nThe Irish authorities stress that the purpose of the differentiation in rates was to introduce an element of proportionality in the level of the tax relating to distance, since prices are normally lower for closer destinations. While it is accepted that there is not a perfect correlation between distance and price, it was felt that the correlation was sufficient to justify splitting the tax into two tiers. The Irish authorities consider that a mechanism providing a more precise differentiation on the basis of distance would have rendered the system extraordinarily complicated and administratively burdensome.\n4.1.5. No distortion of competition\n(34)\nThe Irish authorities argue that the lower tax rate did not result in any distortion of competition and had no effect on trade. First, since the tax was a consumer tax in nature, it had no perceptible effect on airline operators. Second, the differentiated tax rates did not distinguish the Irish market from that of other Member States. Of the flights to which the lower rate applied, the vast majority were non-domestic (68 % compared to 32 % for purely domestic flights). Third, the airline operators are active on a market which is open for competition, which means that the market was open for new entrants to which the lower tax rate applied on the same conditions as for other airline operators. If the lower tax rate had conferred a benefit on certain operators, non-Irish airlines would presumably have chosen to operate routes to which the lower rate applied. The absence of new entrants indicates that the lower rate did not confer an advantage on certain airline operators.\n4.1.6. Any aid would be de minimis aid or have a negligible effect on the airline operators involved\n(35)\nThe Irish authorities claim that, even if the lower tax rate was to be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, it should be declared to be compatible with the internal market, since it would either be de minimis aid or would anyway have a negligible effect on the airline operators involved.\n4.2. Comments from third parties\n4.2.1. Ryanair\n(36)\nWith respect to the State aid nature of the lower tax rate, Ryanair agrees with the preliminary view which the Commission expressed in its decision of 13 May 2011 that the lower tax rate conferred an advantage on certain airline operators and constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty. However, Ryanair disagrees with the Commission's view that (i) the higher rate of EUR 10 is to be considered as the \"normal\" rate, and that (ii) Ryanair obtained an advantage through the measure.\n(37)\nWith respect to the establishment of the \"normal\" or \"standard\" rate under the tax system, Ryanair claims that the Commission's view that the higher rate of EUR 10 is the normal rate and that all operators to which the lower rate of EUR 2 applied obtained an advantage, is arbitrary. According to Ryanair, there is no reason why the higher rate, and not the lower, should be seen as the normal rate. Moreover, since the two-tier rate has been replaced by a single rate, the new rate is likely to be a blend between the initial rates. Therefore, the new rate would be the reasonable benchmark to assess any potential harm or benefits arising from the two-tier system.\n(38)\nRyanair further claims that the two-tier air travel tax did not confer an advantage on Ryanair. When examining a measure that may constitute State aid, the Commission must take into consideration its overall effects on the potential beneficiary and, in particular, deduct any specific charges that burden the advantage conferred by the alleged aid. During the period when the two-tier tax system applied, Ryanair paid the taxes specified in Table 2.\nTable 2\nPassengers carried and tax paid during the period 30 March 2009 until 1 March 2011\nDestination category from Dublin airport\nPassengers subject to tax\nTax paid\nShare\nNo more than 300 km within the State (EUR 2 rate)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[0,5-2,5] (*) %\nNo more than 300 km outside the State (EUR 2 rate)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[1,5-4,5] (*) %\nMore than 300 km within the EU\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[93-98] (*) %\nMore than 300 km outside the EU\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[0,3-2,5] (*) %\nTOTAL\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n100 %\n(39)\nSince Ryanair considers that the new single rate of EUR 3 should be considered as the normal rate, Ryanair should, during the period from 30 March 2009 until 1 March 2011, have been liable to pay an amount of EUR [\u2026] (*) (12) in air travel tax. This is EUR [\u2026] (*) less than the amount actually paid (see Table 2). Ryanair thus argues that it did not enjoy any benefit from the lower tax, but rather suffered a disadvantage.\n4.3. Observations by Ireland on the third party comments\n(40)\nOn 13 January 2012, the Irish authorities provided their views on Ryanair's comments: First, they disagree with Ryanair's description of the tax, since the tax in their view is a consumer tax in essence and the lower tax rate did not confer an advantage on the airlines. Second, they fail to see how Ryanair could be the party most directly and negatively affected by the lower rate, in particular since it accounts for [56-63] (*) % of the passengers carried on flights subject to the lower rate. Third, there is no basis for the claim that the lower tax rate was designed to support Aer Arann. The Irish authorities did not have any particular operator in mind when designing the air travel tax. Fourth, there is no logic in Ryanair's argument that the higher rate of EUR 10 is not to be considered as the normal rate of the air travel tax. Under the two-tier tax system, the higher rate applied to between 85 and 90 % of all departures. The Irish authorities reiterated that they had allowed for a derogation from the standard rate of EUR 10 in order to introduce an element of proportionality in the level of the tax relating to the distance.\n5. ASSESSMENT\n5.1. Existence of State aid under Article 107(1) of the Treaty\n(41)\nBy virtue of Article 107(1) of the Treaty \u201cany aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\u201d\n(42)\nIn order to be caught by Article 107(1) of the Treaty, a measure must thus be selective (13). In establishing whether a measure is selective, the Commission needs to assess whether the measure favours \u2018certain undertakings or the production of certain goods\u2019 in comparison with others which, in the light of the objective pursued by that regime, are in a comparable factual and legal situation (14). According to established case-law (15), a fiscal measure is prima facie selective if it constitutes a departure from the normal application of the general tax framework.\n(43)\nFirst, the Commission therefore has to identify the relevant tax system of reference. As regards taxation, the Commission notes that, in principle, the definition of the system of taxation falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States. In designing their taxation system, the Irish authorities chose to define the taxable event of the air travel tax as the departure of a passenger on an aircraft from an airport situated in Ireland. The system of reference is therefore the taxation of air passengers departing on an aircraft from an airport in Ireland. The objective of that system is to raise revenue for the State budget. The conclusion that the system of reference is the taxation of air passengers departing from an airport situated in Ireland was confirmed by the Irish authorities in their reply to the observations of the third party.\n(44)\nSecond, in line with established case-law (16), the Commission has to determine whether the tax measure in question constitutes a derogation from the identified reference system.\n(45)\nRyanair argues that the lower rate of EUR 2, or alternatively the single rate of EUR 3 which was introduced on 1 March 2011, should be regarded as the normal rate of the air travel tax system. However, apart from certain destinations in the western United Kingdom, the lower rate only applied to domestic destinations and, according to the Irish authorities, only to some 10-15 % of all flights which were subject to the tax. It can thus not be regarded as the normal tax rate. As for the rate of EUR 3, it was not in force at the time to which this Decision relates and can therefore not be regarded as the normal rate of the air travel tax system at that time. Therefore, the Commission finds that the higher rate of EUR 10 was the normal rate of the reference system, while the reduced rate of EUR 2, which was applicable to a well delimited category of flights, was an exception from the reference system.\n(46)\nThird, the Commission must examine whether such exceptions are justified by \"the nature or general scheme of the system\" (17) in the Member State. If that is the case, the measure is not considered to confer a selective advantage and does thus not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty. In that context, it should be noted that, according to case-law (18), it is the basic and guiding principles of the reference system which are relevant, not those of the particular measure in question.\n(47)\nAccording to the Irish authorities the lower rate was introduced in order to add an element of proportionality in the level of the tax relating to the distance of the flight. The Commission finds that reasoning is not related to the basic and guiding principles of the tax system itself, but rather to those of the derogation itself. The structure and objective nature of the tax was not related to the distance of the flight, but to the fact of departing from an Irish airport. The connection with the fiscal authority, the taxable event (departure from an Irish airport) and the negative externalities for the Irish society of passengers departing from an Irish airport (for example, noise and pollution) was precisely the same regardless of the destination of the flight and the distance travelled. The concerned airline operators were therefore in the same as each other legal and factual situation with regard to that objective.\n(48)\nFurthermore, the tax system is not characterised by an articulated differentiation in the tax level in relation to the actual length of the flights. First, the tax rate was not applicable on the basis of the actual length of the flight, but on the basis of the distance between Dublin airport and the destination, regardless of where the actual departure took place. Second, the tax system fixes only two rates: one for very short distance flights from Dublin airport and the other for all other flights.\n(49)\nMoreover, even if the reason for the derogation was in the nature and logic of the principles of the air travel tax system, the Court has stated that a benefit must be consistent not only with the inherent characteristics of the tax system in question but also as regards the manner in which it is implemented (19). As mentioned in recital 47, the tax system did not de facto ensure proportionate rates in relation to the actual length of the flights, since the applicable rate was fixed on the basis of the distance between Dublin airport and the destination, regardless of where the actual departure took place and since only two rates were applicable: one for very short distance flights from Dublin airport and the other for all other flights. The price of tickets to domestic destinations is not necessarily lower than that of flights to other destinations in the Union. The measure could thus not achieve its objective of ensuring proportionality of taxation in relation to the flight distance. In this case, neither the Irish authorities nor any third party has argued that the effect of the derogation was that the tax level de facto was proportional to distance. On the contrary, the Irish authorities recognise that there was no perfect correlation between distance and rate of the tax.\n(50)\nTherefore, the Commission sees no reason for changing its preliminary view that the lower rate was not in the logic and general scheme of the air travel tax system. Accordingly the Commission considers that the measure is selective and not justified by the nature and the logic of the system.\n(51)\nExpenditure for taxes constitutes costs which are normally borne by an undertaking.\n(52)\nThe application of the air travel tax can affect the revenues of the airlines which have to pay that tax, by increasing the prices of the tickets they are capable of offering to their customers or reducing the margin on each ticket they sell, where the airlines decide not to pass the tax on to the customers. In this respect, the Court has stated that \"since airport taxes directly and automatically influence the price of the journey, differences in the taxes to be paid by passengers will automatically be reflected in the transport costs, and thus, [\u2026], access to domestic flights will be favoured over access to intra-Community flights\" (20).\n(53)\nA reduced rate for a certain type of flights therefore has a smaller effect than the normal rate on the airline operators offering that type of flights. Those airline operators are relieved from a cost they would normally have to bear, and therefore have a smaller cost to pass on to their customers or to assume themselves.\n(54)\nAccordingly, the Commission finds that the lower tax rate provided an advantage to airline operators serving the routes to which that rate applied. The lower cost that they had to pass on to their customers or to assume directly represented financial resources that those airline operators could economise and therefore improved their economic situation vis-\u00e0-vis other airline operators competing in the air transport market. The advantage corresponds to the difference between the lower rate of EUR 2 and the normal tax rate of EUR 10 during the period between 30 March 2009 and 1 March 2011. The Commission notes that the flights to which the lower rate applied were mainly operated by airline operators with a strong connection with Ireland (Aer Lingus, Aer Arann and Ryanair were set up in Ireland and still have their headquarters there). Therefore, de facto the reduced rate provided an advantage to Irish airline operators compared to other Union operators.\n(55)\nThe Commission cannot accept Ryanair's argument that the advantage was limited to the difference between the lower rate and the rate of EUR 3 which was introduced on 1 March 2011. Such a rate did not apply at the same time as the lower rate and if an advantage is defined in a system with one lower tax rate and one high, applying a benchmark that is set somewhere in between those rates does not catch the entire advantage which has been granted.\n(56)\nRyanair furthermore argues that it has benefitted less from the lower tax rate than, for example, Aer Arann, since the majority of its flights are for destinations to which the higher rate applied. However, the advantage stemming from the application of the lower tax rate of EUR 2 is the difference between that rate and the standard rate of EUR 10. In applying the lower rate to certain flights, Ryanair has, like all other airlines operating flights to which that rate applied, enjoyed an advantage corresponding to the difference between the two rates.\n(57)\nThe Irish authorities argue that the tax was intended to be passed on to the passengers and, therefore, no advantage existed at the level of the airline operators. In that context, the Commission notes that a reduction from the normal rate of a given tax can confer a selective advantage on the airline operator which is liable to pay the reduced rate even in situations where there is a legal requirement to pass the tax in question on to the customers (21) The Commission further notes that, in the case at hand, there was no mechanism which ensured that the tax was actually passed on, but it was left to the airline operator to decide on whether and how the tax would be passed on to the passengers. In its complaint, the complainant actually argued the contrary, namely that it could not pass the cost of the tax on to its customers since doing that would have had a disproportionate effect on its ticket prices. The Commission therefore does not agree with the Irish authorities that there was no advantage at the level of the airline operators: those which could use the lower tax rate for certain flights had a lower cost to pass on to their customers than others. It is also in line with the Commission's practice with respect to aid measures stemming from an excise duty (22), according to which reliefs from such duties have been found to provide an advantage to the airline operator which is obliged to pay the tax, regardless of the fact that that entity may choose to pass the cost on to its customers.\n(58)\nAccordingly, the Commission finds that the lower tax rate provided an advantage to certain airline operators. The advantage corresponds to the difference between the lower rate of EUR 2 and the normal tax rate of EUR 10 during the period between 30 March 2009 and 1 March 2011. The flights to which the lower rate applied were mainly operated by airlines with a strong connection with Ireland (Aer Lingus, Aer Arann and Ryanair). Therefore, the reduced rate provided an advantage to Irish airline operators compared to other Union operators.\n(59)\nThe fact that the Irish authorities allowed a lower tax rate than the normal one to be applied resulted in a loss of tax revenue for the State and was thus financed from State resources. Since the lower rate had been decided upon by the national authorities, the measure is imputable to the State.\n(60)\nIn comparison with their competitors, the airline operators benefiting from the lower rate were relieved from costs which they should otherwise have borne or passed on to their customers. Therefore, the lower rate of the air travel tax improved their economic situation vis-\u00e0-vis other undertakings competing in the air transport market thereby distorting or risking to distort competition.\n(61)\nWhen aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Union trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid (23). It is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition (24). The air transport sector is characterised by intense competition between operators from different Member States, in particular since the entry into force of the third stage of liberalisation of air transport (\"third package\") on 1 January 1993, namely Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers (25), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (26) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services (27). The reduced rate was therefore capable of affecting trade between Member States since it strengthened the position of some airline operators competing in a market which is fully liberalised at Union level.\n(62)\nSince all the criteria in Article 107(1) of the Treaty are fulfilled, the measure constitutes State aid to all airline operators that operated flights benefitting from the reduced rate.\n5.2. Legality\n(63)\nBy failing to notify the measure before its implementation, the Irish authorities did not fulfil their obligations under Article 108(3) of the Treaty. The aid measure thus constitutes unlawful State aid.\n5.3. Compatibility of the aid with the Treaty\n(64)\nAccording to Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, aid may be considered to be compatible with the internal market if it aims at facilitating the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. As the aid constituted operating aid, reducing certain airline operators' current expenditure, it is, according to the case-law of the Court, in principle incompatible with the internal market (28). The aid does not fall within the scope of any guidelines for compatibility of State aid issued by the Commission in this context. In particular, it is not covered by the Community guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports (29), since it is not linked to the start-up of certain routes. The Irish authorities have not argued or provided any information to show that the aid could be considered to be compatible pursuant to the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (30). On the contrary, they have made clear that the objective of the tax is to raise revenue and not to protect the environment. The fact that the tax in question lacks any clear or proportional link to the reduction of energy use, of pollution or gas emissions, of noise levels, etc., supports that reasoning. Therefore, the Commission does not find the aid compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.\n(65)\nThe aid in question does not fall within any other exemption specified in Article 107(2) or (3) of the Treaty.\n(66)\nFurthermore, even if the aid was compatible with any of the exceptions specified in under Article 107(2) or (3) of the Treaty, which is not the case, the Court has stated that the procedure under Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty must never produce a result which is contrary to specific provisions of the Treaty. The Court has also held that those aspects of aid which contravene specific provisions of the Treaty other than Articles 107 and 108 may be so indissolubly linked to the object of the aid that it is impossible to evaluate them separately (31). In this particular case, as described in recital 10, the differentiated rates were subject to an investigation by the Commission, which found that they were in breach of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 and Article 56 of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services, since the differentiation imposed more onerous conditions on the operation of intra-Union air services than those imposed on domestic services. The Court has explicitly stated in cases concerning airport taxes that the Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services are also applicable to the transport sector (32). In this case, the State aid stems from the differentiation in tax rates itself. As the tax and the aid constitute two elements of the one and same fiscal measure, they are inseparable (33) and therefore the State aid cannot be granted without being in breach of the principle of the freedom to provide services. Consequently, the aid cannot be declared compatible with the Treaty in any case because it would inevitably infringe the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 and Article 56 of the Treaty.\n(67)\nConsequently, the Commission concludes that the aid cannot be considered as compatible with the Treaty.\n6. CONCLUSION\n(68)\nThe Commission finds that the lower rate of the air travel tax for flights to a destination located no more than 300 km from Dublin airport provided for by Section 55(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, and in particular Article 2(b) thereof, for the period from 30 March 2009 until 1 March 2011 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty. Ireland unlawfully implemented that State aid in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty.\n(69)\nThe State aid is not in compliance with any derogation as provided for by Article 107(2) and (3) of the Treaty. Since no other reasons for compatibility can be envisaged for the measure at hand, it is incompatible with the internal market.\n(70)\nThe State aid amounts to the difference between the lower rate of the air travel tax and the standard rate of EUR 10 (that is to say, EUR 8 per passenger) levied on each passenger. This concerns all flights operated by aircraft capable of carrying more than 20 passengers and not used for State or military purposes, departing from an airport with more than 10 000 passengers per year to a destination located no more than 300 km from Dublin airport. The beneficiaries are Ryanair, Aer Lingus, Aer Arann and other air carriers to be identified by Ireland.\n(71)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission must require that the Member State concerned to take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiaries. Ireland should therefore be required to recover the incompatible aid,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid in the form of a lower air travel tax rate applicable to all flights operated by aircraft capable of carrying more than 20 passengers and not used for State or military purposes, departing from an airport with more than 10 000 passengers per year to a destination located no more than 300 km from Dublin airport between 30 March 2009 and 1 March 2011, in application of section 55 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2008, unlawfully put into effect by Ireland in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty, is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\nIndividual aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 does not constitute aid if it fulfils the conditions laid down by a regulation adopted pursuant to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 (34).\nArticle 3\nIndividual aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 which, at the time it is granted, fulfils the conditions laid down by a Regulation adopted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 994/98 or by a Commission decision approving an aid scheme is compatible with the internal market, up to the maximum aid intensities applicable to that type of aid.\nArticle 4\n1. Ireland shall recover the incompatible aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiaries.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiaries until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (35).\nArticle 5\n1. Recovery of the aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Ireland shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 6\n1. Within two months following the notification of this Decision, Ireland shall submit the following information:\n(a)\nthe list of beneficiaries that have received aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 and the total amount of aid received by each of them under the scheme;\n(b)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from each beneficiary;\n(c)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(d)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiaries have been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Ireland shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiaries.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2012.", "references": ["92", "51", "40", "45", "36", "61", "6", "33", "56", "83", "46", "19", "74", "0", "76", "44", "89", "20", "71", "41", "8", "10", "79", "29", "18", "63", "72", "38", "94", "60", "No Label", "15", "34", "35", "48", "53", "54", "57", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "34", "35", "48", "53", "54", "57", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 376/2012\nof 2 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 May 2012.", "references": ["32", "43", "0", "93", "4", "91", "40", "37", "34", "53", "76", "81", "19", "23", "83", "3", "41", "67", "52", "24", "72", "31", "73", "36", "9", "7", "88", "11", "78", "2", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION BiH/16/2010\nof 15 June 2010\non the appointment of the Head of the EU Command Element at Naples for the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina\n(2010/344/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2004/570/CFSP of 12 July 2004 on the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Exchange of Letters between the Secretary-General/High Representative and the NATO Secretary-General on 28 September 2004 and on 8 October 2004 respectively, the North Atlantic Council has agreed to make available the Chief of Staff of the Joint Force Command Headquarters Naples as Head of the EU Command Element at Naples.\n(2)\nThe EU Operation Commander has recommended to appoint Lieutenant General Leandro DE VICENTI, Chief of Staff of the Joint Force Command Headquarters at Naples, as Head of the EU Command Element at Naples for the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n(3)\nThe EU Military Committee has supported the recommendation.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Joint Action 2004/570/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee to exercise the political and strategic direction of the EU military operation.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the European Union which have defence implications.\n(6)\nThe Copenhagen European Council of 12 and 13 December 2002 adopted a Declaration stating that the \u2018Berlin plus\u2019 arrangements and the implementation thereof will apply only to those EU Member States which are also either NATO members or parties to the \u2018Partnership for Peace\u2019 and which have consequently concluded bilateral security agreements with NATO,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nLieutenant General Leandro DE VICENTI is hereby appointed Head of the EU Command Element at Naples for the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 15 June 2010.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2010.", "references": ["77", "63", "87", "71", "70", "45", "65", "28", "36", "46", "78", "39", "26", "81", "80", "60", "54", "0", "1", "25", "84", "14", "94", "35", "50", "82", "99", "40", "17", "18", "No Label", "6", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["6", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 732/2010\nof 11 August 2010\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3 of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, pursuant to Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column 2 of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months pursuant to Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["3", "50", "2", "37", "58", "18", "16", "76", "22", "51", "8", "5", "89", "40", "24", "4", "14", "80", "68", "83", "62", "30", "41", "92", "49", "53", "36", "35", "34", "47", "No Label", "21", "84"], "gold": ["21", "84"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 279/2012\nof 28 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 March 2012.", "references": ["97", "38", "76", "32", "91", "3", "77", "88", "89", "48", "69", "95", "6", "33", "52", "21", "73", "87", "19", "39", "62", "79", "27", "64", "17", "12", "13", "10", "92", "58", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 14 July 2011\namending Decision 2005/7/EC authorising a method for grading pig carcasses in Cyprus\n(notified under document C(2011) 4996)\n(Only the Greek text is authentic)\n(2011/418/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(m), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Decision 2005/7/EC (2), the use of one method for grading pig carcasses in Cyprus was authorised.\n(2)\nDue to the fact that there is a need for updating the formula of the method after nearly 5 years of use since its approval, Cyprus has decided to run a new trial with two instruments, the HGP 4 and the Ultra FOM 300.\n(3)\nCyprus has requested the Commission to authorise the replacement of the formula used in the \u2018Hennessy Grading Probe (HGP 4)\u2019, method of grading pig carcasses as well as to authorise one new non-invasive up-to-date method (Ultra FOM 300) for grading pig carcasses on its territory and has presented a detailed description of the dissection trial, indicating the principles on which that method is based, the results of its dissection trial and the equations used for assessing the percentage of lean meat in the protocol provided for in Article 23(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/2008 of 10 December 2008 laying down detailed rules on the implementation of the Community scales for the classification of beef, pig and sheep carcasses and the reporting of prices thereof (3).\n(4)\nExamination of that request has revealed that the conditions for authorising those grading methods are fulfilled. Those grading methods should therefore be authorised in Cyprus.\n(5)\nDecision 2005/7/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nModifications of the apparatus or grading methods should not be allowed, unless they are explicitly authorised by Commission Decision.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2005/7/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThe use of the following methods is authorised for grading pig carcasses pursuant to point 1 of Section B.IV of Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (4) in Cyprus:\n-\nthe \u201cHennessy Grading Probe (HGP 4)\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part I of the Annex,\n-\nthe \u201cUltra FOM 300\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part II of the Annex.\nAs regards the apparatus \u201cUltra FOM 300\u201d, referred to in the second indent of the first subparagraph, after the end of the measurement procedure it must be possible to verify on the carcass that the apparatus measured the values of measurements X1 and X2 on the site provided for in the Annex, Part II, point 3. The corresponding marking of the measurement site must be made at the same time as the measurement procedure.\n2.\nthe Annex is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 5 September 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Cyprus.\nDone at Brussels, 14 July 2011.", "references": ["5", "30", "51", "11", "81", "60", "74", "86", "71", "25", "40", "28", "14", "79", "53", "59", "99", "63", "22", "92", "94", "10", "17", "90", "46", "2", "8", "31", "76", "43", "No Label", "39", "69", "77", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["39", "69", "77", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 942/2011\nof 22 September 2011\nconcerning the non-approval of the active substance flufenoxuron, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply, with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval, to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (3). Flufenoxuron is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish lists of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. These lists included flufenoxuron.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (6) the notifier withdrew its support for the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (7) was adopted on the non-inclusion of flufenoxuron.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2027the applicant\u2027) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to France which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nFrance evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2027the Authority\u2027) and to the Commission on 8 March 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on the risk assessment of flufenoxuron to the Commission on 23 February 2011 (8). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 15 July 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for flufenoxuron.\n(7)\nDuring the evaluation of this active substance, concerns were identified. Those concerns were, in particular, the following. It was not possible to finalise the consumer risk assessment because consumer exposure could not be assessed reliably, in particular, with respect to magnitude and toxicological relevance of different metabolites. Furthermore, flufenoxuron has a high potential for bioaccumulation in the food chain. In addition, a high risk to aquatic organisms was identified.\n(8)\nThe Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion of the Authority. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) to Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the applicant to submit comments on the draft review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(9)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns referred to in recital 7 could not be eliminated. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing flufenoxuron satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nFlufenoxuron should therefore not be approved pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(11)\nFor plant protection products containing flufenoxuron, where Member States grant any period of grace in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, this period should expire on 31 December 2012 at the latest as laid down in the second paragraph of Article 3 of Decision 2008/934/EC.\n(12)\nThis Regulation does not prejudice the submission of a further application for flufenoxuron pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(13)\nIn the interest of clarity, the entry for flufenoxuron in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC should be deleted.\n(14)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nNon-approval of active substance\nThe active substance flufenoxuron is not approved.\nArticle 2\nTransitional measures\nMember States shall ensure that authorisations for plant protection products containing flufenoxuron are withdrawn by 31 December 2011.\nArticle 3\nPeriod of grace\nAny period of grace granted by Member States in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 shall be as short as possible and shall expire on 31 December 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2008/934/EC\nIn the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC, the entry for \u2018flufenoxuron\u2019 is deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2011.", "references": ["10", "89", "78", "53", "84", "46", "5", "33", "57", "92", "47", "35", "17", "6", "56", "82", "31", "52", "44", "80", "71", "22", "74", "96", "69", "51", "73", "16", "93", "9", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 436/2010\nof 20 May 2010\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Community,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2010.", "references": ["28", "20", "78", "66", "92", "53", "18", "24", "94", "0", "97", "11", "58", "62", "67", "40", "80", "71", "39", "74", "26", "8", "4", "46", "60", "64", "15", "21", "17", "87", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/33/EU\nof 21 May 2010\ncorrecting the Spanish version of Council Directive 2001/112/EC relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2001/112/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFollowing the adoption, on 14 August 2009, of Commission Directive 2009/106/EC (2) which amended Council Directive 2001/112/EC, Annex V of the latter Directive now contains an error in the Spanish language version, which needs to be corrected. The other language versions are not affected.\n(2)\nDirective 2001/112/EC should therefore be corrected accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nConcerns only the Spanish version.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive, by 1 January 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2010.", "references": ["46", "41", "85", "62", "23", "5", "14", "10", "90", "2", "97", "35", "88", "30", "98", "43", "44", "68", "76", "16", "42", "67", "79", "89", "8", "96", "3", "25", "33", "15", "No Label", "24", "38", "71", "74"], "gold": ["24", "38", "71", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 665/2012\nof 20 July 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 454/2011 on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem \u2027telematics applications for passenger services\u2027 of the trans-European rail system\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 454/2011 of 5 May 2011 on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem \u2027telematics applications for passenger services\u2027 of the trans-European rail system (2), the European Railway Agency has implemented a change management process for the technical documents referred to in Annex III to that Regulation. As a result, the European Railway Agency submitted on 20 December 2011 a recommendation for Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 454/2011 to be updated in order to refer to the technical documents that have been amended in accordance with the change management process.\n(2)\nRegulation (EU) No 454/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Commission Regulation (EU) No 454/2011 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2012.", "references": ["6", "71", "73", "3", "74", "43", "31", "26", "97", "95", "98", "32", "20", "19", "79", "89", "23", "69", "2", "77", "13", "17", "83", "39", "88", "24", "65", "72", "33", "92", "No Label", "9", "36", "41", "42", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["9", "36", "41", "42", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 18 November 2011\nadopting a fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region\n(notified under document C(2011) 8172)\n(2012/9/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Mediterranean biogeographical region referred to in Article 1(c)(iii) of Directive 92/43/EEC comprises the Union territories of Greece, Cyprus and Malta in accordance with Article 1 of Protocol No 10 of the 2003 Act of Accession, and parts of the Union territories of Spain, France, Italy and Portugal and in accordance with Article 355(3) of the Treaty the territory of Gibraltar, for which the United Kingdom is responsible for external relations as specified in the biogeographical map approved on 20 April 2005 by the Committee set up by Article 20 of that Directive, hereinafter \u2018the Habitats Committee\u2019.\n(2)\nIt is necessary in the context of a process which was initiated in 1995 to make further progress in the actual establishment of the Natura 2000 network, which is an essential element of the protection of biodiversity in the Union.\n(3)\nThe initial list and the first four updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region, within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC, were adopted by Commission Decisions 2006/613/EC (2), 2008/335/EC (3), 2009/95/EC (4), 2010/45/EU (5) and 2011/85/EU (6). On the basis of Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Member State concerned shall designate the sites included in the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region as special areas of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most, establishing conservation priorities and the necessary conservation measures.\n(4)\nIn the context of a dynamic adaptation of the Natura 2000 network, the lists of sites of Community importance are reviewed. A fifth update of the Mediterranean list is therefore necessary.\n(5)\nOn the one hand, the fifth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region is necessary in order to include additional sites that have been proposed since 2009 by the Member States as sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC. For these additional sites, the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC should apply as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.\n(6)\nOn the other hand, the fifth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region is necessary in order to reflect any changes in site related information submitted by the Member States following the adoption of the initial and the first four updated Union lists. In that sense, the fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region constitutes a consolidated version of the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region. It should be stressed that, for any site included in the fifth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region, the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC should apply as soon as possible and within six years at most following the adoption of the list of sites of Community importance in which the site was included for the first time.\n(7)\nFor the Mediterranean biogeographical region, lists of sites proposed as sites of Community importance within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC have been transmitted to the Commission between January 2003 and October 2010 by the Member States concerned in accordance with Article 4(1) of that Directive.\n(8)\nThe lists of proposed sites were accompanied by information on each site, supplied in the format established by Commission Decision 97/266/EC of 18 December 1996 concerning a site information format for proposed Natura 2000 sites (7).\n(9)\nThat information includes the map of the site transmitted by the Member States concerned, name, location and extent of the site, and the data yielded by application of the criteria specified in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(10)\nOn the basis of the draft list drawn up by the Commission in agreement with each of the Member States concerned, which also identifies sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, a fifth updated list of sites selected as sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region should be adopted.\n(11)\nKnowledge of the existence and distribution of the natural habitat types and species is constantly evolving as a result of the surveillance in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, the evaluation and selection of sites at EU level was done using the best available information at present.\n(12)\nCertain Member States have not proposed sufficient sites to meet the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC for certain habitat types and species. For those habitat types and species it can therefore not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is complete. Taking into account the delay in receiving the information and reaching agreement with the Member States, it is necessary to adopt a fifth updated list of sites, which will need to be reviewed in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(13)\nGiven that knowledge on the existence and distribution of some of the natural habitat types of Annex I and species of Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC remains incomplete, it should not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is either complete or incomplete. The list should be reviewed, if necessary, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(14)\nIn the interests of clarity and transparency Decision 2011/85/EU should be repealed.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Habitats Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2011/85/EU is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["74", "60", "82", "75", "77", "94", "34", "37", "10", "4", "88", "85", "49", "31", "52", "64", "3", "98", "95", "0", "56", "71", "97", "7", "53", "27", "69", "29", "32", "15", "No Label", "17", "58", "59"], "gold": ["17", "58", "59"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 535/2010\nof 18 June 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of June 2010 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 of 14 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the poultrymeat sector (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 533/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of June 2010 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2010 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2010 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2010.", "references": ["14", "13", "44", "86", "66", "80", "16", "62", "88", "47", "8", "85", "37", "87", "56", "54", "3", "18", "93", "92", "11", "55", "5", "79", "39", "50", "12", "94", "2", "67", "No Label", "21", "69"], "gold": ["21", "69"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2012/13/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 22 May 2012\non the right to information in criminal proceedings\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 82(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice. According to the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council in Tampere of 15 and 16 October 1999, and in particular point 33 thereof, the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and other decisions of judicial authorities should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters within the Union because enhanced mutual recognition and the necessary approximation of legislation would facilitate cooperation between competent authorities and the judicial protection of individual rights.\n(2)\nOn 29 November 2000, the Council, in accordance with the Tampere conclusions, adopted a programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters (3). The introduction to the programme states that mutual recognition is \u2018designed to strengthen cooperation between Member States but also to enhance the protection of individual rights\u2019.\n(3)\nThe implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters presupposes that Member States trust in each other\u2019s criminal justice systems. The extent of mutual recognition is very much dependent on a number of parameters, which include mechanisms for safeguarding the rights of suspects or accused persons and common minimum standards necessary to facilitate the application of the principle of mutual recognition.\n(4)\nMutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters can operate effectively only in a spirit of trust in which not only judicial authorities but all actors in the criminal process consider decisions of the judicial authorities of other Member States as equivalent to their own, implying not only trust in the adequacy of other Member States\u2019 rules, but also trust that those rules are correctly applied.\n(5)\nArticle 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter \u2018the Charter\u2019) and Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter \u2018the ECHR\u2019) enshrine the right to a fair trial. Article 48(2) of the Charter guarantees respect for the rights of the defence.\n(6)\nArticle 6 of the Charter and Article 5 ECHR enshrine the right to liberty and security of person. Any restrictions on that right must not exceed those permitted in accordance with Article 5 ECHR and inferred from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.\n(7)\nAlthough all the Member States are party to the ECHR, experience has shown that that alone does not always provide a sufficient degree of trust in the criminal justice systems of other Member States.\n(8)\nStrengthening mutual trust requires detailed rules on the protection of the procedural rights and guarantees arising from the Charter and from the ECHR.\n(9)\nArticle 82(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for the establishment of minimum rules applicable in the Member States so as to facilitate mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters having a cross-border dimension. That Article refers to \u2018the rights of individuals in criminal procedure\u2019 as one of the areas in which minimum rules may be established.\n(10)\nCommon minimum rules should lead to increased confidence in the criminal justice systems of all Member States, which, in turn, should lead to more efficient judicial cooperation in a climate of mutual trust. Such common minimum rules should be established in the field of information in criminal proceedings.\n(11)\nOn 30 November 2009, the Council adopted a resolution on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings (4) (hereinafter \u2018the Roadmap\u2019). Taking a step-by-step approach, the Roadmap called for the adoption of measures regarding the right to translation and interpretation (measure A), the right to information on rights and information about the charges (measure B), the right to legal advice and legal aid (measure C), the right to communication with relatives, employers and consular authorities (measure D), and special safeguards for suspects or accused persons who are vulnerable (measure E). The Roadmap emphasises that the order of the rights is only indicative and thus implies that it may be changed in accordance with priorities. The Roadmap is designed to operate as a whole; only when all its component parts have been implemented will its benefits be felt in full.\n(12)\nOn 11 December 2009, the European Council welcomed the Roadmap and made it part of the Stockholm Programme - An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens (5) (point 2.4). The European Council underlined the non-exhaustive character of the Roadmap, by inviting the Commission to examine further elements of minimum procedural rights for suspects and accused persons, and to assess whether other issues, for instance the presumption of innocence, need to be addressed, in order to promote better cooperation in that area.\n(13)\nThe first measure adopted pursuant to the Roadmap, measure A, was Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (6).\n(14)\nThis Directive relates to measure B of the Roadmap. It lays down common minimum standards to be applied in the field of information about rights and about the accusation to be given to persons suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence, with a view to enhancing mutual trust among Member States. This Directive builds on the rights laid down in the Charter, and in particular Articles 6, 47 and 48 thereof, by building upon Articles 5 and 6 ECHR as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. In this Directive, the term \u2018accusation\u2019 is used to describe the same concept as the term \u2018charge\u2019 used in Article 6(1) ECHR.\n(15)\nIn its Communication of 20 April 2010 entitled \u2018Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe\u2019s citizens - Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme\u2019, the Commission announced that it would present a proposal on the right to information on rights and information about charges in 2010.\n(16)\nThis Directive should apply to suspects and accused persons regardless of their legal status, citizenship or nationality.\n(17)\nIn some Member States an authority other than a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters has competence for imposing sanctions in relation to relatively minor offences. That may be the case, for example, in relation to traffic offences which are committed on a large scale and which might be established following a traffic control. In such situations, it would be unreasonable to require that the competent authority ensure all the rights under this Directive. Where the law of a Member State provides for the imposition of a sanction regarding minor offences by such an authority and there is either a right of appeal or the possibility for the case to be otherwise referred to a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters, this Directive should therefore apply only to the proceedings before that court following such an appeal or referral.\n(18)\nThe right to information about procedural rights, which is inferred from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, should be explicitly established by this Directive.\n(19)\nThe competent authorities should inform suspects or accused persons promptly of those rights, as they apply under national law, which are essential to safeguarding the fairness of the proceedings, either orally or in writing, as provided for by this Directive. In order to allow the practical and effective exercise of those rights, the information should be provided promptly in the course of the proceedings and at the latest before the first official interview of the suspect or accused person by the police or by another competent authority.\n(20)\nThis Directive lays down minimum rules with respect to the information on rights of suspects or accused persons. This is without prejudice to information to be given on other procedural rights arising out of the Charter, the ECHR, national law and applicable Union law as interpreted by the relevant courts and tribunals. Once the information about a particular right has been provided, the competent authorities should not be required to reiterate it, unless the specific circumstances of the case or the specific rules laid down in national law so require.\n(21)\nReferences in this Directive to suspects or accused persons who are arrested or detained should be understood to refer to any situation where, in the course of criminal proceedings, suspects or accused persons are deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c) ECHR, as interpreted by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.\n(22)\nWhere suspects or accused persons are arrested or detained, information about applicable procedural rights should be given by means of a written Letter of Rights drafted in an easily comprehensible manner so as to assist those persons in understanding their rights. Such a Letter of Rights should be provided promptly to each arrested person when deprived of liberty by the intervention of law enforcement authorities in the context of criminal proceedings. It should include basic information concerning any possibility to challenge the lawfulness of the arrest, obtaining a review of the detention, or requesting provisional release where, and to the extent that, such a right exists in national law. To help Member States draw up such a Letter of Rights, a model is provided in Annex I. That model is indicative and may be subject to review in the context of the Commission\u2019s report on the implementation of this Directive and also once all the Roadmap measures have entered into force. The Letter of Rights may include other relevant procedural rights that apply in Member States.\n(23)\nSpecific conditions and rules relating to the right of suspects or accused persons to have another person informed about their arrest or detention are to be determined by the Member States in their national law. As set out in the Roadmap, the exercise of that right should not prejudice the due course of the criminal proceedings.\n(24)\nThis Directive is without prejudice to the provisions of national law concerning safety of persons remaining in detention facilities.\n(25)\nMember States should ensure that, when providing information in accordance with this Directive, suspects or accused persons are provided, where necessary, with translations or interpretation into a language that they understand, in accordance with the standards set out in Directive 2010/64/EU.\n(26)\nWhen providing suspects or accused persons with information in accordance with this Directive, competent authorities should pay particular attention to persons who cannot understand the content or meaning of the information, for example because of their youth or their mental or physical condition.\n(27)\nPersons accused of having committed a criminal offence should be given all the information on the accusation necessary to enable them to prepare their defence and to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.\n(28)\nThe information provided to suspects or accused persons about the criminal act they are suspected or accused of having committed should be given promptly, and at the latest before their first official interview by the police or another competent authority, and without prejudicing the course of ongoing investigations. A description of the facts, including, where known, time and place, relating to the criminal act that the persons are suspected or accused of having committed and the possible legal classification of the alleged offence should be given in sufficient detail, taking into account the stage of the criminal proceedings when such a description is given, to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings and allow for an effective exercise of the rights of the defence.\n(29)\nWhere, in the course of the criminal proceedings, the details of the accusation change to the extent that the position of suspects or accused persons is substantially affected, this should be communicated to them where necessary to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings and in due time to allow for an effective exercise of the rights of the defence.\n(30)\nDocuments and, where appropriate, photographs, audio and video recordings, which are essential to challenging effectively the lawfulness of an arrest or detention of suspects or accused persons in accordance with national law, should be made available to suspects or accused persons or to their lawyers at the latest before a competent judicial authority is called to decide upon the lawfulness of the arrest or detention in accordance with Article 5(4) ECHR, and in due time to allow the effective exercise of the right to challenge the lawfulness of the arrest or detention.\n(31)\nFor the purpose of this Directive, access to the material evidence, as defined in national law, whether for or against the suspect or accused person, which is in the possession of the competent authorities in relation to the specific criminal case, should include access to materials such as documents, and where appropriate photographs and audio and video recordings. Such materials may be contained in a case file or otherwise held by competent authorities in any appropriate way in accordance with national law.\n(32)\nAccess to the material evidence in the possession of the competent authorities, whether for or against the suspect or accused person, as provided for under this Directive, may be refused, in accordance with national law, where such access may lead to a serious threat to the life or fundamental rights of another person or where refusal of such access is strictly necessary to safeguard an important public interest. Any refusal of such access must be weighed against the rights of the defence of the suspect or accused person, taking into account the different stages of the criminal proceedings. Restrictions on such access should be interpreted strictly and in accordance with the principle of the right to a fair trial under the ECHR and as interpreted by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.\n(33)\nThe right of access to the materials of a case should be without prejudice to the provisions of national law on the protection of personal data and the whereabouts of protected witnesses.\n(34)\nAccess to the materials of the case, as provided for by this Directive, should be provided free of charge, without prejudice to provisions of national law providing for fees to be paid for documents to be copied from the case file or for sending materials to the persons concerned or to their lawyer.\n(35)\nWhere information is provided in accordance with this Directive, the competent authorities should take note of this in accordance with existing recording procedures under national law and should not be subject to any additional obligation to introduce new mechanisms or to any additional administrative burden.\n(36)\nSuspects or accused persons or their lawyers should have the right to challenge, in accordance with national law, the possible failure or refusal of the competent authorities to provide information or to disclose certain materials of the case in accordance with this Directive. That right does not entail the obligation for Member States to provide for a specific appeal procedure, a separate mechanism, or a complaint procedure in which such failure or refusal may be challenged.\n(37)\nWithout prejudice to judicial independence and to differences in the organisation of the judiciary across the Union, Member States should provide or encourage the provision of adequate training with respect to the objectives of this Directive to the relevant officials in Member States.\n(38)\nMember States should undertake all the necessary action to comply with this Directive. A practical and effective implementation of some of the provisions such as the obligation to provide suspects or accused persons with information about their rights in simple and accessible language could be achieved by different means including non-legislative measures such as appropriate training for the competent authorities or by a Letter of Rights drafted in simple and non-technical language so as to be easily understood by a lay person without any knowledge of criminal procedural law.\n(39)\nThe right to written information about rights on arrest provided for in this Directive should also apply, mutatis mutandis, to persons arrested for the purpose of the execution of a European Arrest Warrant under Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (7). To help Member States draw up a Letter of Rights for such persons, a model is provided in Annex II. That model is indicative and may be subject to review in the context of the Commission\u2019s report on implementation of this Directive and also once all the Roadmap measures have come into force.\n(40)\nThis Directive sets minimum rules. Member States may extend the rights set out in this Directive in order to provide a higher level of protection also in situations not explicitly dealt with in this Directive. The level of protection should never fall below the standards provided by the ECHR as interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.\n(41)\nThis Directive respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter. In particular, this Directive seeks to promote the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defence. It should be implemented accordingly.\n(42)\nThe provisions of this Directive that correspond to rights guaranteed by the ECHR should be interpreted and implemented consistently with those rights, as interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.\n(43)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely establishing common minimum standards relating to the right to information in criminal proceedings, cannot be achieved by Member States acting unilaterally, at national, regional or local level, and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, 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.\n(44)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, those Member States have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Directive.\n(45)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Directive lays down rules concerning the right to information of suspects or accused persons, relating to their rights in criminal proceedings and to the accusation against them. It also lays down rules concerning the right to information of persons subject to a European Arrest Warrant relating to their rights.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Directive applies from the time persons are made aware by the competent authorities of a Member State that they are suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence until the conclusion of the proceedings, which is understood to mean the final determination of the question whether the suspect or accused person has committed the criminal offence, including, where applicable, sentencing and the resolution of any appeal.\n2. Where the law of a Member State provides for the imposition of a sanction regarding minor offences by an authority other than a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters, and the imposition of such a sanction may be appealed to such a court, this Directive shall apply only to the proceedings before that court, following such an appeal.\nArticle 3\nRight to information about rights\n1. Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons are provided promptly with information concerning at least the following procedural rights, as they apply under national law, in order to allow for those rights to be exercised effectively:\n(a)\nthe right of access to a lawyer;\n(b)\nany entitlement to free legal advice and the conditions for obtaining such advice;\n(c)\nthe right to be informed of the accusation, in accordance with Article 6;\n(d)\nthe right to interpretation and translation;\n(e)\nthe right to remain silent.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the information provided for under paragraph 1 shall be given orally or in writing, in simple and accessible language, taking into account any particular needs of vulnerable suspects or vulnerable accused persons.\nArticle 4\nLetter of Rights on arrest\n1. Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons who are arrested or detained are provided promptly with a written Letter of Rights. They shall be given an opportunity to read the Letter of Rights and shall be allowed to keep it in their possession throughout the time that they are deprived of liberty.\n2. In addition to the information set out in Article 3, the Letter of Rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall contain information about the following rights as they apply under national law:\n(a)\nthe right of access to the materials of the case;\n(b)\nthe right to have consular authorities and one person informed;\n(c)\nthe right of access to urgent medical assistance; and\n(d)\nthe maximum number of hours or days suspects or accused persons may be deprived of liberty before being brought before a judicial authority.\n3. The Letter of Rights shall also contain basic information about any possibility, under national law, of challenging the lawfulness of the arrest; obtaining a review of the detention; or making a request for provisional release.\n4. The Letter of Rights shall be drafted in simple and accessible language. An indicative model Letter of Rights is set out in Annex I.\n5. Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons receive the Letter of Rights written in a language that they understand. Where a Letter of Rights is not available in the appropriate language, suspects or accused persons shall be informed of their rights orally in a language that they understand. A Letter of Rights in a language that they understand shall then be given to them without undue delay.\nArticle 5\nLetter of Rights in European Arrest Warrant proceedings\n1. Member States shall ensure that persons who are arrested for the purpose of the execution of a European Arrest Warrant are provided promptly with an appropriate Letter of Rights containing information on their rights according to the law implementing Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA in the executing Member State.\n2. The Letter of Rights shall be drafted in simple and accessible language. An indicative model Letter of Rights is set out in Annex II.\nArticle 6\nRight to information about the accusation\n1. Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons are provided with information about the criminal act they are suspected or accused of having committed. That information shall be provided promptly and in such detail as is necessary to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings and the effective exercise of the rights of the defence.\n2. Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons who are arrested or detained are informed of the reasons for their arrest or detention, including the criminal act they are suspected or accused of having committed.\n3. Member States shall ensure that, at the latest on submission of the merits of the accusation to a court, detailed information is provided on the accusation, including the nature and legal classification of the criminal offence, as well as the nature of participation by the accused person.\n4. Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons are informed promptly of any changes in the information given in accordance with this Article where this is necessary to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.\nArticle 7\nRight of access to the materials of the case\n1. Where a person is arrested and detained at any stage of the criminal proceedings, Member States shall ensure that documents related to the specific case in the possession of the competent authorities which are essential to challenging effectively, in accordance with national law, the lawfulness of the arrest or detention, are made available to arrested persons or to their lawyers.\n2. Member States shall ensure that access is granted at least to all material evidence in the possession of the competent authorities, whether for or against suspects or accused persons, to those persons or their lawyers in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings and to prepare the defence.\n3. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, access to the materials referred to in paragraph 2 shall be granted in due time to allow the effective exercise of the rights of the defence and at the latest upon submission of the merits of the accusation to the judgment of a court. Where further material evidence comes into the possession of the competent authorities, access shall be granted to it in due time to allow for it to be considered.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraphs 2 and 3, provided that this does not prejudice the right to a fair trial, access to certain materials may be refused if such access may lead to a serious threat to the life or the fundamental rights of another person or if such refusal is strictly necessary to safeguard an important public interest, such as in cases where access could prejudice an ongoing investigation or seriously harm the national security of the Member State in which the criminal proceedings are instituted. Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with procedures in national law, a decision to refuse access to certain materials in accordance with this paragraph is taken by a judicial authority or is at least subject to judicial review.\n5. Access, as referred to in this Article, shall be provided free of charge.\nArticle 8\nVerification and remedies\n1. Member States shall ensure that when information is provided to suspects or accused persons in accordance with Articles 3 to 6 this is noted using the recording procedure specified in the law of the Member State concerned.\n2. Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons or their lawyers have the right to challenge, in accordance with procedures in national law, the possible failure or refusal of the competent authorities to provide information in accordance with this Directive.\nArticle 9\nTraining\nWithout prejudice to judicial independence and differences in the organisation of the judiciary across the Union, Member States shall request those responsible for the training of judges, prosecutors, police and judicial staff involved in criminal proceedings to provide appropriate training with respect to the objectives of this Directive.\nArticle 10\nNon-regression\nNothing in this Directive shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the rights or procedural safeguards that are ensured under the Charter, the ECHR, other relevant provisions of international law or the law of any Member State which provides a higher level of protection.\nArticle 11\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 2 June 2014.\n2. Member States shall transmit the text of those measures to the Commission.\n3. When Member States adopt those measures they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States.\nArticle 12\nReport\nThe Commission shall, by 2 June 2015, submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with this Directive, accompanied, if necessary, by legislative proposals.\nArticle 13\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 14\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 22 May 2012.", "references": ["39", "76", "97", "72", "5", "95", "89", "50", "13", "47", "99", "16", "65", "11", "93", "58", "61", "23", "44", "49", "60", "8", "67", "29", "52", "86", "26", "0", "64", "4", "No Label", "9", "14"], "gold": ["9", "14"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/39/CFSP\nof 25 January 2012\nappointing the European Union Special Representative in Kosovo (1)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 5 December 2011, the Council reaffirmed its unequivocal commitment to the European perspective of the Western Balkans, which remains essential for the stability, reconciliation and future of the region. It also reaffirmed the Union policy towards Kosovo as recalled in previous Council Conclusions.\n(2)\nOn 5 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/270/CFSP (2) appointing Mr Fernando GENTILINI as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Kosovo, whose mandate expires on 31 January 2012.\n(3)\nMr Samuel \u017dBOGAR should be appointed as EUSR in Kosovo from 1 February 2012 to 30 June 2013.\n(4)\nThe Stabilisation and Association Process is the strategic framework of the Union\u2019s policy towards the Western Balkan region, and its instruments apply to Kosovo, including a European partnership, political and technical dialogue under the Stabilisation and Association Process dialogue, and related Union assistance programmes.\n(5)\nThe mandate of the EUSR will be implemented in coordination with the Commission in order to ensure consistency with other relevant activities falling within Union competence.\n(6)\nThe Council envisages that the powers and authorities of the EUSR and the powers and authorities of the Head of the European Union Office in Pristina shall be vested in the same person.\n(7)\nThe EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nMr Samuel \u017dBOGAR is hereby appointed as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Kosovo from 1 February 2012 to 30 June 2013. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the Union in Kosovo. These include playing a leading role in promoting a stable, viable, peaceful, democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo; strengthening stability in the region and contributing to regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations in the Western Balkans; promoting a Kosovo that is committed to the rule of law and to the protection of minorities and of cultural and religious heritage; supporting Kosovo\u2019s progress towards the Union in accordance with the European perspective of the region and in line with the relevant Council Conclusions.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the policy objectives, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\noffer the Union\u2019s advice and support in the political process;\n(b)\npromote overall Union political coordination in Kosovo;\n(c)\nstrengthen the presence of the Union in Kosovo and ensure its coherence and effectiveness;\n(d)\nprovide local political guidance to the Head of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX KOSOVO), including on the political aspects of issues relating to executive responsibilities;\n(e)\nensure consistency and coherence of Union action in Kosovo;\n(f)\nsupport Kosovo\u2019s progress towards the Union, in accordance with the European perspective of the region, through targeted public communication and Union outreach activities designed to ensure a broader understanding and support from the Kosovo public on issues related to the Union;\n(g)\nmonitor, assist and facilitate progress on political, economic and European priorities, in line with respective institutional competencies and responsibilities;\n(h)\ncontribute to the development and consolidation of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Kosovo, including with regard to women and children, in accordance with the Union\u2019s human rights policy and Union Guidelines on Human Rights;\n(i)\nassist in the implementation of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue facilitated by the Union.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (EEAS).\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 February 2012 to 30 June 2013 shall be EUR 2 410 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union. Nationals of the countries of the Western Balkans region shall be allowed to tender for contracts.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. A dedicated staff shall be assigned to assist the EUSR to implement his mandate and to contribute to the coherence, visibility and effectiveness of Union action in Kosovo overall. Within the limits of his mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting his team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of his team.\n2. Member States, institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to work with the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, institution of the Union or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and his staff\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of his staff shall be agreed with the host party/parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\n1. The EUSR and the members of his team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (3).\n2. The HR shall be authorised to release to NATO/KFOR EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL\u2019 generated for the purposes of the action, in accordance with the security rules for protecting EU classified information.\n3. The HR shall be authorised to release to the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), in accordance with the operational needs of the EUSR, EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED\u2019 which are generated for the purposes of the action, in accordance with the security rules for protecting EU classified information. Local arrangements shall be drawn up for this purpose.\n4. The HR shall be authorised to release to third parties associated with this Decision EU non-classified documents related to the deliberations of the Council with regard to the action covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (4).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegation and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with his mandate and the security situation in his geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under his direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as the management of security incidents and including a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of his team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the EEAS;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report, as necessary, to Council working parties. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR shall provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote overall Union political coordination. He shall help ensure that all Union instruments in the field are engaged coherently to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSRs active in the region, as appropriate. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States\u2019 missions and Union delegations.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of Union delegations in the region and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make every effort to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall provide local political guidance to the Head of the EULEX KOSOVO, including on the political aspects of issues relating to executive responsibilities. The EUSR and the Civilian Operation Commander will consult each other as required.\n3. The EUSR shall also liaise with relevant local bodies and other international and regional actors in the field.\n4. The EUSR, with other Union actors present in the field, shall ensure the dissemination and sharing of information among Union actors in theatre with a view to achieving a high degree of common situation awareness and assessment.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the Council, the HR and the Commission with a progress report by the end of November 2012 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the EUSR\u2019s mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 February 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 25 January 2012.", "references": ["83", "14", "52", "55", "89", "18", "42", "78", "67", "97", "95", "19", "4", "20", "69", "12", "66", "70", "46", "57", "31", "36", "53", "74", "93", "28", "60", "34", "8", "15", "No Label", "3", "5", "7", "91", "96"], "gold": ["3", "5", "7", "91", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 847/2011\nof 19 August 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in VIa; EU and international waters of Vb east of 12\u00b0 00\u2032 W by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 August 2011.", "references": ["87", "38", "66", "6", "86", "18", "22", "42", "10", "48", "90", "82", "0", "20", "59", "39", "76", "77", "3", "33", "65", "17", "8", "49", "95", "55", "79", "27", "29", "72", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 555/2010\nof 24 June 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1412/2006 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Lebanon\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Common Position 2006/625/CFSP of 15 September 2006 concerning a prohibition on the sale or supply of arms and related mat\u00e9riel and on the provision of related services to entities or individuals in Lebanon in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1701 (2006) (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1412/2006 of 25 September 2006 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Lebanon (2) prohibits the provision of certain technical assistance, financing and financial assistance to anyone in Lebanon or for use in Lebanon, in accordance with Common Position 2006/625/CFSP.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to align Regulation (EC) No 1412/2006 with recent developments in sanctions practice, on the one hand as regards the identification of competent authorities and on the other, as regards the Article on Union jurisdiction. For the sake of clarity, the Articles to which amendments need to be made should be replaced in full.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1412/2006 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1412/2006 is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities in the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in the Annex, may authorise, after prior written notification by the Member State concerned to the Government of Lebanon and UNIFIL, and under such conditions as they deem appropriate:\n(a)\nthe provision to any natural or legal person, entity or body in Lebanon other than the armed forces of the Lebanese Republic or UNIFIL, of technical assistance, financing and financial assistance related to arms or related mat\u00e9riel which are either in or for use in Lebanon, provided that:\n(i)\nthe services shall not be provided, directly or indirectly, to any militia for whose disarmament the UN Security Council has called in its Resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006),\n(ii)\nthe authorisations are granted on a case-by-case basis, and\n(iii)\nthe Government of Lebanon or UNIFIL authorised in each case the provision to the person, entity or body concerned of the services concerned. If the Government of Lebanon or UNIFIL authorises a specific supply or transfer to a person, entity or body of specific arms or related mat\u00e9riel, that authorisation may be construed as authorising the provision to that person, entity or body of technical assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of the goods concerned;\n(b)\nthe provision to the armed forces of the Lebanese Republic of technical assistance related to military activities and to arms or related mat\u00e9riel, and of financing and financial assistance related to military activities, unless the Government of Lebanon raises any objection within 14 days after the receipt of a notification.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities in the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in the Annex, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate:\n(a)\nthe provision of technical assistance related to military activities and to arms or related mat\u00e9riel, provided that:\n(i)\nthe goods to which the assistance relates are in use or will be used by UNIFIL in the performance of its mission, and\n(ii)\nthe services are provided to armed forces that are or will be part of UNIFIL;\n(b)\nthe provision of financing and financial assistance related to military activities and to arms or related mat\u00e9riel, provided that:\n(i)\nthe financing or financial assistance is provided to UNIFIL, to the armed forces of a State that provides troops to UNIFIL, or to a public authority in charge of procurement for the armed forces of such a State, and\n(ii)\nthe arms or related mat\u00e9riel are procured for the purpose of use by UNIFIL or by the armed forces of the State concerned assigned to UNIFIL.\n3. The competent authorities in the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in the Annex, may only grant the authorisations referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 prior to the activity for which they are requested.\n4. The relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraphs 1 and 2.\u2019;\n2.\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 6a\n1. Member States shall designate the competent authorities referred to in Article 3 and identify them in the websites as listed in the Annex. Member States shall notify the Commission of any changes to the addresses of their websites listed in the Annex before such changes take effect.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of their competent authorities, including the contact details of those competent authorities, by 15 July 2010 and shall notify the Commission without delay of any subsequent amendment.\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 7\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\u2019;\n4.\nThe Annex is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 June 2010.", "references": ["26", "38", "74", "16", "56", "0", "17", "19", "35", "42", "49", "28", "22", "61", "41", "2", "96", "8", "84", "68", "33", "14", "44", "62", "10", "29", "67", "30", "21", "86", "No Label", "3", "4", "6", "31", "95"], "gold": ["3", "4", "6", "31", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 123/2012\nof 13 February 2012\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance monepantel\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit (MRL) for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nMonepantel is currently included in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as an allowed substance, for ovine and caprine species, applicable to muscle, fat, liver, and kidney, excluding animals producing milk for human consumption. The provisional maximum residue limits for that substance set out for caprine species expired on 1 January 2012.\n(4)\nAdditional data were provided and assessed leading the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use to recommend that the provisional MRLs for monepantel for caprine species should be set as definitive.\n(5)\nThe entry for monepantel in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 February 2012.", "references": ["54", "11", "8", "59", "27", "88", "26", "96", "32", "44", "4", "78", "81", "41", "20", "3", "48", "12", "61", "63", "50", "40", "28", "60", "34", "58", "73", "51", "74", "33", "No Label", "25", "38", "65", "69", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "65", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1157/2010\nof 9 December 2010\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC), as regards the 2012 list of target secondary variables on housing conditions\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 concerning Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) (1), and in particular Article 15(2) (f) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1177/2003 established a common framework for the systematic production of European statistics on income and living conditions, encompassing comparable and timely cross-sectional and longitudinal data on income and on the level and composition of poverty and social exclusion at national and European Union levels.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 15(2)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003, implementing measures are necessary in respect of the list of target secondary areas and variables that is to be included every year in the cross-sectional component of EU-SILC. The list of target secondary variables to be incorporated in the module on housing conditions should be laid down for the year 2012. It should also include the variables\u2019 codes and definitions.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe list of target secondary variables, the variables\u2019 codes and the definitions for the 2012 module on housing conditions to be included in the cross-sectional component of European statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) shall be as laid down in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2010.", "references": ["50", "14", "99", "37", "85", "30", "60", "53", "31", "51", "93", "90", "55", "29", "83", "2", "74", "64", "81", "26", "12", "34", "23", "75", "70", "7", "0", "17", "40", "79", "No Label", "18", "19"], "gold": ["18", "19"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 27 September 2010\nconcerning the conclusion of consultations with the Republic of Niger under Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement\n(2010/588/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1) and revised in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (2) (\u2018the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement\u2019), and in particular Article 96 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe essential elements referred to in Article 9 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement have been violated.\n(2)\nOn 8 December 2009 and 26 May 2010, pursuant to Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, consultations were held with the Republic of Niger in the presence of representatives of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States. At the last round of consultations, the representatives of the transitional government of Niger put forward satisfactory proposals and undertakings,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nConsultations with the Republic of Niger under Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement are hereby concluded.\nArticle 2\nThe measures set out in the annexed letter are hereby adopted as appropriate measures under Article 96(2)(c) of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall remain in force for a period of 12 months. It shall be reviewed at least every six months on the basis of a follow-up mission of the Union.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["97", "52", "70", "59", "2", "81", "84", "18", "62", "57", "68", "6", "73", "26", "17", "40", "7", "61", "23", "77", "32", "35", "48", "87", "60", "11", "65", "63", "79", "38", "No Label", "3", "9", "15", "94", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "15", "94", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 June 2011\non establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for personal computers\n(notified under document C(2011) 3737)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/337/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Union Eco-labelling Board,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, the EU Ecolabel may be awarded to those products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire lifecycle.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 66/2010 provides that specific EU Ecolabel criteria are to be established according to product groups.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2001/686/EC (2) has established ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements for personal computers. Following the review of the criteria set out in that Decision, Commission Decision 2005/341/EC (3) has established revised criteria which are valid until 30 June 2011.\n(4)\nThose criteria have been further reviewed in the light of technological developments. In addition, in 2006, the agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the European Community (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019), approved by Council Decision 2006/1005/EC (4), as amended by Decision 2010/C 186/1 of 12 August 2009 of the Management entities under the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the European Community on the coordination of energy-efficiency labelling programmes for office equipment on the revision of the computer specifications in Annex C, part VIII, to the Agreement (hereinafter \u2018Energy Star v5.0\u2019) (5) was concluded setting out the criteria for Energy Star.\n(5)\nThose new criteria, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, should be valid for three years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\n(6)\nDecision 2005/341/EC should be replaced for reasons of clarity.\n(7)\nA transitional period should be allowed for producers whose products have been awarded the Ecolabel for personal computers on the basis of the criteria set out in Decision 2005/341/EC, so that they have sufficient time to adapt their products to comply with the revised criteria and requirements. Producers should also be allowed to submit applications based on the criteria set out in Decision 2005/341/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision until the lapse of validity of that Decision.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe product group \u2018personal computers\u2019 shall comprise: desktop computers, integrated desktop computers, thin clients, displays and keyboards (as a stand alone item) as defined in Article 2.\nNotebook computers, small-scale servers, workstations, gaming consoles and digital picture frames shall not be considered personal computers for the purpose of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nFor the purpose of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018computer\u2019 means a device which performs logical operations and processes data, is capable of using input devices and computer displays, and includes a central processing unit (CPU) to perform operations. For the purpose of this Decision, computers shall only include stationary units, including desktop computers, integrated desktop computers and thin clients.\nIf a computer, on shipment, includes a monitor, a key board or any other input device these must also comply with the criteria. Keyboards and displays can also apply as a stand alone item;\n(2)\n\u2018computer display\u2019 means a display screen and its associated electronics encased in a single housing, or within the computer housing (e.g. integrated desktop computer), that is capable of displaying output information from a computer via one or more inputs, such as a VGA, DVI, display port, and/or IEEE 1394. Examples of computer display technologies are the cathode-ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD);\n(3)\n\u2018keyboard\u2019 means a data input device which uses an arrangement of push-buttons, which can be used to insert discrete data into a computer;\n(4)\n\u2018external power supply\u2019 means a component contained in a separate physical enclosure external to the computer casing and designed to convert line voltage AC input from the mains to lower DC voltage(s) for the purpose of powering the computer. An external power supply must connect to the computer via a removable or hard-wired male/female electrical connection, cable, cord or other wiring;\n(5)\n\u2018internal power supply\u2019 means a component internal to the computer casing and designed to convert AC voltage from the mains to DC voltage(s) for the purpose of powering the computer components. For the purposes of this definition, an internal power supply must be contained within the computer casing but shall be separate from the main computer board. The power supply must connect to the mains through a single cable with no intermediate circuitry between the power supply and the mains power. In addition, all power connections from the power supply to the computer components, with the exception of a DC connection to a computer display in an integrated desktop computer, must be internal to the computer casing (i.e. no external cables running from the power supply to the computer or individual components). Internal DC-to-DC converters used to convert a single DC voltage from an external power supply into multiple voltages for use by the computer are not considered internal power supplies;\n(6)\n\u2018desktop computer\u2019 means a computer where the main unit is intended to be located in a permanent location, often on a desk or on the floor. Desktops are not designed for portability and utilise an external computer display, keyboard, and mouse. Desktops are designed for a broad range of home and office applications;\n(7)\n\u2018integrated desktop computer\u2019 means a desktop system in which the computer and computer display function as a single unit which receives its AC power through a single cable. Integrated desktop computers come in one of two possible forms: (1) a system where the computer display and computer are physically combined into a single unit; or (2) a system packaged as a single system where the computer display is separate but is connected to the main chassis by a DC power cord and both the computer and computer display are powered from a single power supply. As a subset of desktop computers, integrated desktop computers are typically designed to provide similar functionality as desktop systems;\n(8)\n\u2018thin client\u2019 means an independently powered computer that relies on a connection to remote computing resources to obtain primary functionality. Main computing (e.g. programme execution, data storage, interaction with other Internet resources, etc.) takes place using the remote computing resources. Thin clients covered by this definition are limited to devices with no rotational storage media integral to the computer. The main unit of a thin client covered by this definition must be intended for location in a permanent location (e.g. on a desk) and not for portability;\n(9)\n\u2018discrete graphics processing unit (GPU)\u2019 means a graphics processor with a local memory controller interface and a local, graphics-specific memory.\nArticle 3\nIn order to be awarded the EU Ecolabel under Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, an item must fall within the product group \u2018personal computers\u2019 as defined in Article 1 of this Decision and must comply with the ecological criteria as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThe criteria for the product group \u2018personal computers\u2019 as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid for three years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 5\nFor administrative purposes the code number assigned to the product group \u2018personal computers\u2019 shall be \u2018013\u2019.\nArticle 6\nDecision 2005/341/EC is repealed.\nArticle 7\n1. By derogation from Article 6, applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018personal computers\u2019 submitted before the date of adoption of this Decision shall be evaluated in accordance with the conditions laid down in Decision 2005/341/EC.\n2. Applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018personal computers\u2019 submitted from the date of adoption of this Decision but by 30 June 2011 at the latest may be based either on the criteria set out in Decision 2005/341/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision.\nThose applications shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria on which they are based.\n3. Where the Ecolabel is awarded on the basis of an application evaluated in accordance with the criteria set out in Decision 2005/341/EC, that Ecolabel may be used for 12 months from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 June 2011.", "references": ["45", "31", "60", "99", "26", "8", "12", "94", "81", "14", "78", "61", "49", "30", "20", "86", "13", "33", "82", "38", "51", "85", "27", "62", "88", "72", "19", "32", "41", "84", "No Label", "24", "25", "42", "58"], "gold": ["24", "25", "42", "58"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 225/2011\nof 7 March 2011\namending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1277/2005 laying down implementing rules for Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on drug precursors and for Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors (1), and in particular Article 11(1) and the third subparagraph of Article 12(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1277/2005 (2) determines whether specific monitoring measures upon export of drug precursors from the European Union are required. Annex IV to that Regulation lists for each of the scheduled substances of categories 2 and 3 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 111/2005, the countries for which a pre-export notification is required. The lists involve third countries which have requested to receive pre-export notifications in accordance with Article 12(10) of the United Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances of 1988.\n(2)\nThe United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs has, at its second meeting, on 8 March 2010, decided to include phenylacetic acid in Table I of the United Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances of 1988. Article 12(10) of that Convention sets out that each Party from whose territory a substance in Table I is to be exported shall ensure that, prior to such export, information on the export consignment is supplied by its competent authorities to the competent authorities of the importing country.\n(3)\nFollowing the decision to include phenylacetic acid in Table I of the United Nations Convention, it is necessary to amend Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1277/2005 to ensure that pre-export notifications are sent for all exports of phenylacetic acid from the European Union.\n(4)\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1277/2005 does not list all third countries which have requested to receive pre-export notifications for certain scheduled substances of categories 2 and 3 since the entry into force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 297/2009 (3). Afghanistan, Australia and Ghana have made such requests and should therefore be added.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1277/2005 should be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 111/2005,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1277/2005 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["16", "27", "31", "96", "11", "88", "28", "53", "87", "89", "84", "41", "22", "72", "19", "74", "48", "52", "78", "39", "10", "9", "64", "79", "43", "15", "18", "71", "51", "49", "No Label", "4", "12", "20", "38", "42"], "gold": ["4", "12", "20", "38", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1323/2011\nof 16 December 2011\nlaying down rules for the management and distribution of textile quotas established for the year 2012 under Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94 of 7 March 1994 on common rules for imports of textile products from certain third countries not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other specific Community import rules (1), and in particular Article 17(3) and (6) and Article 21(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 517/94 established quantitative restrictions on imports of certain textile products originating in certain third countries to be allocated on a first come, first served basis.\n(2)\nUnder that Regulation it is possible, in certain circumstances, to use other allocation methods, to divide quotas into tranches, or to reserve a proportion of a specific quantitative limit exclusively for applications which are supported by evidence of the results of past import performance.\n(3)\nRules for management of the quotas established for 2012 should be adopted before the quota year begins so that the continuity of trade flows is not affected unduly.\n(4)\nThe measures adopted in previous years, such as those in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1159/2010 of 9 December 2010 laying down rules for the management and distribution of textile quotas established for the year 2011 under Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94 (2), proved to be satisfactory and it is therefore appropriate to adopt similar rules for 2012.\n(5)\nIn order to satisfy the greatest possible number of operators it is appropriate to make the \u2018first come, first served\u2019 allocation method more flexible by placing a ceiling on the quantities which can be allocated to each operator by that method.\n(6)\nTo guarantee a degree of continuity in trade and efficient quota administration, operators should be allowed to make their initial import authorisation application for 2012 equivalent to the quantity which they imported in 2011.\n(7)\nTo achieve optimum use of the quantities, an operator who has used up at least one half of the amount already authorised should be permitted to apply for a further amount, provided that quantities are available in the quotas.\n(8)\nTo secure a sound administration, import authorisations should be valid for 9 months from the date of issue but only until the end of the year at the latest. Member States should issue licences only after being notified by the Commission that quantities are available and only if an operator can prove the existence of a contract and can certify, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, that he has not already been allocated a Community import authorisation under this Regulation for the categories and countries concerned. The competent national authorities should, however, be authorised, in response to importers\u2019 applications, to extend by 3 months and up to 31 March 2013 licences of which at least one half has been used by the application date.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Textile Committee established by Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 517/94,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe purpose of this Regulation is to lay down rules on the management of quantitative quotas for imports of certain textile products set out in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 517/94 for the year 2012.\nArticle 2\nThe quotas referred to in Article 1 shall be allocated according to the chronological order of receipt by the Commission of Member States\u2019 notifications of applications from individual operators, for amounts not exceeding the maximum quantities per operator set out in Annex I.\nThe maximum quantities shall not, however, apply to operators able to prove to the competent national authorities, when making their first application for 2012, that, in respect of given categories and given third countries, they imported more than the maximum quantities specified for each category pursuant to import licences granted to them for 2011.\nIn the case of such operators, the competent authorities may authorise imports not exceeding the quantities imported in 2011 from given third countries and in given categories, provided that enough quota capacity is available.\nArticle 3\nAny importer who has already used up 50 percent or more of the amount allocated to him under this Regulation may make a further application, in respect of the same category and country of origin, for amounts not exceeding the maximum quantities laid down in Annex I.\nArticle 4\n1. The competent national authorities listed in Annex II may, from 10 o\u2019clock a.m. on 9 January 2012, notify the Commission of the amounts covered by requests for import authorisations.\nThe time fixed in the first subparagraph shall be understood as Brussels time.\n2. The competent national authorities shall issue authorisations only after being notified by the Commission pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 517/94 that quantities are available for importation.\nThey shall issue authorisations only if an operator:\n(a)\nproves the existence of a contract relating to the provision of the goods; and\n(b)\ncertifies in writing that, in respect of the categories and countries concerned:\n(i)\nthe operator has not already been allocated an authorisation under this Regulation; or\n(ii)\nthe operator has been allocated an authorisation under this Regulation but has used up at least 50 percent of it.\n3. Import authorisations shall be valid for 9 months from the date of issue, but until 31 December 2012 at the latest.\nThe competent national authorities may, however, at the importer\u2019s request, grant a three-month extension for authorisations which are at least 50 percent used up at the time of the request. Such extension shall in no circumstances expire later than 31 March 2013.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["43", "66", "0", "99", "95", "20", "93", "56", "37", "14", "86", "52", "62", "36", "98", "51", "41", "85", "91", "24", "25", "3", "4", "32", "35", "33", "83", "96", "74", "50", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "89"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "89"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 426/2010\nof 19 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 May 2010.", "references": ["42", "71", "94", "16", "1", "38", "9", "73", "47", "18", "46", "76", "65", "52", "19", "55", "45", "98", "8", "59", "27", "40", "80", "11", "32", "20", "41", "79", "83", "74", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1250/2010\nof 22 December 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 lists the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under the Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 1 December 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council added 4 individuals to the list of persons, entities and bodies to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply and amended the data in some entries. Annex I should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2010.", "references": ["81", "64", "13", "28", "1", "63", "16", "70", "97", "7", "22", "20", "25", "67", "36", "80", "58", "71", "47", "50", "59", "33", "14", "57", "87", "95", "53", "2", "45", "66", "No Label", "3", "6", "11", "12", "94"], "gold": ["3", "6", "11", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1253/2011\nof 1 December 2011\namending Regulations (EC) No 2305/2003, (EC) No 969/2006, (EC) No 1067/2008 and (EC) No 1064/2009 opening and providing for the administration of EU tariff quotas for cereal imports from third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 of 29 December 2003 opening and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for imports of barley from third countries (2) opened an annual tariff quota of 306 215 tonnes for imports of barley falling under CN code 1003 00.\n(2)\nArticle 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 of 29 June 2006 opening and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for imports of maize from third countries (3) opened an annual tariff quota of 242 074 tonnes for maize falling under CN codes 1005 10 90 and 1005 90 00.\n(3)\nArticle 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 of 30 October 2008 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for common wheat of a quality other than high quality from third countries and derogating from Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (4) opened an annual tariff quota of 2 989 240 tonnes for common wheat falling under CN code 1001 90 99 of a quality other than high quality.\n(4)\nArticle 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1064/2009 of 4 November 2009 opening and providing for the administration of a Community import tariff quota for malting barley from third countries (5) opened an annual tariff quota of 50 000 tonnes for imports of malting barley falling under CN code 1003 00 intended to be used for producing beer aged in vats containing beechwood.\n(5)\nThe agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Argentine Republic pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the amendment of concessions in the schedules of commitments of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the context of their accession to the European Union (6) (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019), approved by Council Decision 2011/769/EU (7), provides, inter alia, for the addition of 122 790 tonnes of common wheat (of average and low quality), 890 tonnes of barley, 890 tonnes of malting barley and 35 914 tonnes of maize to the respective EU tariff quotas.\n(6)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (8) provides, with effect from 1 January 2012, amendments to the CN codes for cereals.\n(7)\nRegulations (EC) No 2305/2003, (EC) No 969/2006, (EC) No 1067/2008 and (EC) No 1064/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure the efficient administrative management of the quotas, this Regulation should become applicable as from 1 January 2012.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. A tariff quota is hereby opened for the import of 307 105 tonnes of barley falling under CN code 1003 (order number 09.4126).\u2019.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 969/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. A tariff quota is hereby opened for the import of 277 988 tonnes of maize falling under CN codes 1005 10 90 and 1005 90 00 (order number 09.4131).\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 2(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The quota shall be divided into two six-monthly subperiods of 138 994 tonnes, covering the following dates:\n(a)\nsubperiod No 1: from 1 January to 30 June;\n(b)\nsubperiod No 2: from 1 July to 31 December.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nRegulation (EC) No 1067/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018By way of derogation from Article 135 and Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the import duty for common wheat falling under CN code 1001 99 00, of a quality other than high quality as defined in Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2010 (9), shall be fixed in the framework of the quota opened by this Regulation.\n(2)\nArticle 2(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. A tariff quota for the import of 3 112 030 tonnes of common wheat falling under CN code 1001 99 00 of a quality other than high quality is hereby opened on 1 January of every year.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 3(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The overall import tariff quota shall be divided into four subquotas:\n-\nsubquota I (order number 09.4123): 572 000 tonnes for the United States of America,\n-\nsubquota II (order number 09.4124): 38 853 tonnes for Canada,\n-\nsubquota III (order number 09.4125): 2 378 387 tonnes for other third countries,\n-\nsubquota IV (order number 09.4133): 122 790 tonnes for all third countries.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 4(2), the first indent is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nfor subquotas I, II and IV the total quantity opened for the year for the subquota concerned,\u2019.\nArticle 4\nArticle 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1064/2009 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. This Regulation opens an import tariff quota of 50 890 tonnes for malting barley falling under CN code 1003 intended to be used for producing beer aged in vats containing beechwood. The order number for the quota shall be 09.0076.\u2019.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2011.", "references": ["78", "17", "99", "44", "93", "43", "30", "8", "66", "89", "28", "52", "6", "79", "74", "33", "16", "62", "37", "80", "25", "49", "70", "0", "95", "2", "50", "82", "36", "14", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "68", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "68", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 409/2011\nof 27 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 161(3), Article 164(2)(b) and Article 170 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 (2) has opened a standing invitation to tender for export refunds for natural butter in blocks falling under product code ex ex 0405 10 19 9700, butteroil in containers falling under product code ex ex 0405 90 10 9000 and skimmed milk powder falling under product code ex ex 0402 10 19 9000 and lays down rules for the procedure. In particular, it provides for tendering periods during which tenders may be lodged.\n(2)\nIn order to respond better to the deterioration of the dairy market that occurred at the beginning of 2009, Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 was amended in order to provide for two tendering periods per month. The substantial improvement of the market situation since then allows to set the number of tendering periods again at one per month.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 619/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, the introductory words of the third subparagraph are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Each tendering period shall end at 13.00 (Brussels time) on the third Tuesday of the month with the following exceptions:\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2011.", "references": ["97", "60", "10", "63", "9", "48", "1", "7", "69", "6", "86", "53", "99", "78", "17", "92", "23", "94", "24", "42", "47", "85", "76", "16", "13", "58", "37", "93", "75", "64", "No Label", "20", "21", "70"], "gold": ["20", "21", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1007/2010\nof 8 November 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 989/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["88", "25", "17", "8", "73", "68", "91", "27", "51", "75", "42", "77", "53", "18", "93", "50", "41", "40", "32", "89", "20", "69", "87", "38", "66", "86", "45", "12", "19", "62", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 375/2012\nof 2 May 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and EAFRD\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 42 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 Member States\u2019 accredited paying agencies are to ensure that documents in respect to payments made by them are accessible and kept in a manner which ensures their completeness, validity and legibility over time. In order to reflect the evolution in information and communication technology which makes it possible to store aid claim supporting documents in electronic form, in a secure and cost-effective way, Member States should be allowed to store aid claim support documents electronically rather than in paper form. Member State should be able to use that option where national law permits the use of electronic documents as evidence of the underlying transactions in national court proceedings. Electronic documents should be protected in line with international information security standards in the same way as other information held by the paying agency in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (2), in order to ensure that they are available to Commission scrutiny as required, in a form which exactly reflects the original paper documents.\n(2)\nAccording to Article 31(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 if expenditure has been incurred in a way that has infringed Union rules, the Commission is to decide what amounts are to be excluded from Union financing. In the interest of the effectiveness and efficiency of the conformity clearance procedure, it should be possible for the Commission not to pursue cases where the findings of its inquiry lead to conclude that the presumed maximum amounts concerned would not exceed EUR 50 000 and 10 % of the relevant expenditure.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure that the procedure for executing decisions taken pursuant to Articles 30 and 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, in the area of EAFRD, is effective and transparent, it is necessary to ensure that the Member State concerned is in a position to take the financial effects of such decisions into account when submitting its declaration of expenditure referred to in Article 27 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nHaving regard to the possibility that a Member State may experience severe financial difficulties caused by a serious deterioration in the international economic environment, the Commission should have the possibility to defer deductions from Union financing of expenditure which have been incurred in a way that has infringed Union rules, if the Member State concerned so requests. Deferral of deductions for a period not exceeding 18 months should also be granted to those Member States which so request while being subject to financial assistance in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States\u2019 balances of payments (3), Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (4), the European Financial Stability Facility Framework Agreement signed on 7 June 2010 and the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism signed on 11 July 2011. The Member State benefiting from a deferral decision shall ensure that the deficiencies which have been the reasons for the deductions and which still persist at the time of the decision are being remedied on the basis of an action plan, established in consultation with the Commission, with clear progress indicators. If a Member State benefiting from such a deferral fails to remedy the deficiencies in accordance with the action plan and, thus, exposes the Union budget to additional financial risks, the Commission should revoke its decision deferring the date for the execution of the deductions while respecting the principle of proportionality.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 885/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe Committee on the Agricultural Funds has not given an opinion within the time limit set by its President,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 885/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 9, the following paragraph 5 is added:\n\u20185. The supporting documents referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 shall be kept at the disposal of the Commission either in paper form, in electronic form and/or in both forms.\nDocuments may only be kept exclusively in electronic form if the national law of the Member State concerned permits the use of electronic documents as evidence of the underlying transactions in national court proceedings.\nIf the documents are kept in electronic form only, the system for doing so shall comply with point 3(B) of Annex I.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 10(2), the second sentence of the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Commission shall deduct that amount from or add it to the first payment for which the declaration of expenditure is submitted by the Member State after the decision pursuant to Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 has been adopted.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 11 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 3, the following fourth subparagraph is added:\n\u2018The Commission may, at any stage, terminate the procedure, without financial consequences for the Member State concerned, if it expects that the possible financial effects of non-compliance identified as a result of an inquiry referred to in paragraph 1 would not exceed EUR 50 000 and 10 % of the relevant expenditure or the amounts to be recovered.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 4, the second and the third subparagraphs are replaced by the following:\n\u2018As regards the EAFRD, the deductions from Union financing shall be made by the Commission from the payment for which the declaration of expenditure is submitted by the Member State after the decision pursuant to Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 has been adopted.\nHowever, at the Member State\u2019s request and after consultation of the Committee on the Agricultural Funds, the Commission may adopt a decision:\n(a)\nsetting a different date for the deductions or authorising their reimbursement in one or more instalments where this is warranted by the materiality of the deductions included in an implementing act adopted on the basis of Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005; or\n(b)\ndeferring, until the end of a period of maximum 18 months from the date of its adoption, the execution of all deductions to be executed during this period and at the same time authorising their execution after the end of the deferral in a maximum of three equal annual instalments, for those Member States which are subject to financial assistance under Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 (5), Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 (6), the European Financial Stability Facility Framework Agreement signed on 7 June 2010 or the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism.\nThe time period of deferral referred to in point (b) of the third subparagraph cannot be prolonged and no further decision authorising a deferral can be adopted in relation to the same Member State. The Member State benefiting from a deferral decision shall ensure that the deficiencies which have been the reasons for the deductions and which still persist at the time of the adoption of the deferral decision are being remedied on the basis of an action plan, established in consultation with the Commission, with clear progress indicators. If the Member State fails to take the necessary actions to remedy those deficiencies as foreseen in the action plan, if the progress of the remedial actions is not sufficient according to the progress indicators or if the outcome of the action is not satisfactory the Commission shall revoke its decision deferring the date for the execution of the deductions while respecting the principle of proportionality.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 May 2012.", "references": ["96", "50", "84", "25", "81", "70", "46", "2", "77", "86", "60", "14", "5", "44", "45", "83", "88", "21", "74", "95", "76", "7", "90", "13", "78", "64", "91", "11", "97", "68", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "17", "39", "61"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "17", "39", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 332/2011\nof 6 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 April 2011.", "references": ["83", "28", "73", "55", "74", "6", "24", "17", "62", "38", "95", "41", "43", "49", "27", "40", "65", "69", "4", "48", "14", "67", "1", "23", "84", "75", "5", "12", "33", "52", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1262/2011\nof 5 December 2011\namending Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 as regards the quantitative limits of certain steel products from the Russian Federation\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 of 22 October 2007 on administering certain restrictions on imports of certain steel products from the Russian Federation (1), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Community and the Russian Federation signed an agreement on trade in certain steel products on 26 October 2007 (2) (the Agreement).\n(2)\nArticle 3(3) of the Agreement provides that unused quantities for a given year may be carried over to the following year up to a maximum of 7 % of the relevant quantitative limit set out in Annex II to the Agreement.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 3(4) of the Agreement transfers between product groups may be made up to 7 % of the quantitative limit of a given product group.\n(4)\nRussia has notified the European Union of its intent to make use of the provisions in Article 3(3) and (4) within the time limits set by the Agreement. It is appropriate to make the necessary adjustments to the quantitative limits for the year 2011 resulting from Russia\u2019s request.\n(5)\nArticle 10 of the Agreement stipulates that with each yearly renewal, quantities in every product group shall be increased by 2,5 %.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 1342/2007 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex V to Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 December 2011.", "references": ["50", "46", "34", "38", "52", "2", "87", "72", "88", "8", "70", "99", "77", "39", "93", "58", "86", "40", "25", "56", "20", "33", "11", "55", "0", "81", "74", "1", "41", "32", "No Label", "22", "23", "84", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "84", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 7/2012\nof 5 January 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 lists the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under the Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 12 October and 28 November 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council approved updates to the list of individuals and entities subject to the freezing of assets. Annex I should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 January 2012.", "references": ["45", "8", "80", "50", "41", "36", "51", "55", "28", "39", "2", "91", "46", "74", "98", "67", "23", "63", "75", "95", "83", "71", "89", "70", "84", "33", "62", "59", "92", "25", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 631/2012\nof 12 July 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1295/2008 on the importation of hops from third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 192(2) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1295/2008 (2) lists the agencies in third countries which are authorised to issue the attestations accompanying hop products imported from those countries. Those attestations are recognised as equivalent to the certificate provided for in Article 117 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(2)\nArgentina has communicated, for the first time, two competent agencies authorised to issue equivalent attestations. These agencies must, therefore, be added to the list in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1295/2008.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1295/2008 should be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1295/2008 is hereby replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2012.", "references": ["81", "49", "19", "42", "43", "82", "2", "72", "77", "51", "47", "33", "78", "44", "87", "38", "59", "73", "6", "0", "34", "7", "70", "29", "62", "27", "37", "35", "14", "83", "No Label", "21", "22", "68", "91", "93", "94", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68", "91", "93", "94", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1107/2011\nof 28 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for northern prawn in NAFO 3L by vessels flying the flag of Latvia\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 October 2011.", "references": ["38", "88", "34", "57", "61", "71", "74", "62", "47", "86", "2", "60", "79", "77", "65", "27", "58", "17", "82", "85", "6", "80", "53", "14", "23", "40", "26", "21", "8", "76", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 898/2011\nof 7 September 2011\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on tomatoes\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2) provides for the surveillance of the imports of the products listed in Annex XVIII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of applying Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded as part of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2008, 2009 and 2010, the trigger levels for additional duties on tomatoes should be amended.\n(3)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVIII to Regulation (EC) No 543/2011 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 September 2011.", "references": ["55", "77", "42", "80", "97", "23", "47", "14", "87", "72", "82", "96", "45", "33", "13", "70", "3", "18", "61", "81", "12", "57", "48", "5", "2", "84", "76", "89", "4", "27", "No Label", "10", "20", "21", "68"], "gold": ["10", "20", "21", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 183/2012\nof 5 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 March 2012.", "references": ["13", "71", "27", "81", "24", "2", "34", "8", "58", "46", "51", "19", "9", "43", "56", "80", "77", "10", "0", "15", "38", "28", "18", "92", "21", "41", "33", "59", "72", "5", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 15 November 2010\ngranting the Czech Republic a derogation from the application of Decision 2006/679/EC concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system to the line Stran\u010dice-\u010cesk\u00e9 Bud\u011bjovice\n(notified under document C(2010) 7789)\n(Only the Czech text is authentic)\n(2010/691/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Commission Decision 2006/679/EC of 28 March 2006 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system (1), in particular the Annex, Section 7.1.3, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/561/EC (2) which amended Decision 2006/679/EC, established the implementing rules of the technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Section 7.1.3 of the technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system, the fitting of ERTMS/ETCS is mandatory in the case of an upgrade or new installation of the train protection part of a CCS assembly for railway infrastructure projects receiving financial support from European Regional Development Funds and/or Cohesion Funds.\n(3)\nWhen signalling is renewed on short (less than 150 km) and discontinuous sections of a line, the Commission may grant temporary derogation to this rule, provided the Member State concerned forwards a file to the Commission. This file shall contain an economical analysis showing that there is a substantial economical and/or technical advantage in putting ERTMS into service at a later date for equipment rather than during the course of the EU-funded project.\n(4)\nThe Commission shall analyse the file submitted and the measures proposed by the Member State and shall inform the committee referred to in Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) of the result of its analysis. When a derogation is granted, the Member State shall ensure that ERTMS is installed at the latest 5 years after the end of the project and as soon as the section of the line is connected to another ERTMS equipped line.\n(5)\nThe line Stran\u010dice-\u010cesk\u00e9 Bud\u011bjovice will be gradually upgraded until 2016, whereby some sections are or will be receiving financial support from European Regional Development Funds and/or Cohesion Funds.\n(6)\nThe line Stran\u010dice-\u010cesk\u00e9 Bud\u011bjovice is shorter than 150 km and is not connected to an already ERTMS equipped line. On 24 January 2010, the Czech authorities sent a request for derogation to the Commission together with a file showing that there is a substantial economical and technical advantage in putting ERTMS into service by the end of 2018 rather than during the course of the EU-funded project.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), the European Railway Agency provided its technical opinion on the request for derogation on 20 May 2010.\n(8)\nThis technical opinion indicated that the file submitted contains the elements required for a derogation but suggested to obtain confirmation that the tender would contain an option for the ERTMS equipment of the line.\n(9)\nThe Czech authorities confirmed on 7 June 2010 that the tender for the last subsection will contain a clear option for the ERTMS equipment of the line.\n(10)\nThe Commission informed the Committee set up by Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC of the result of its analysis,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe derogation from the obligation to implement the TSI control command and signalling of the trans-European conventional rail for the line Stran\u010dice-\u010cesk\u00e9 Bud\u011bjovice requested by the Czech Republic is hereby granted.\nThis derogation is granted until 31 December 2018.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Czech Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["0", "67", "13", "14", "95", "96", "30", "34", "35", "51", "32", "18", "65", "36", "38", "63", "75", "20", "73", "1", "92", "87", "56", "12", "99", "94", "89", "16", "33", "98", "No Label", "9", "53", "55", "76"], "gold": ["9", "53", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 16 December 2011\non the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Declaration on the granting of fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of French Guiana\n(2012/19/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3), in conjunction with point (b) of Article 218(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter consulting the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSubject to their compliance with the applicable legally binding Union acts on the conservation and management of fishery resources, fishing vessels flying the flag of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter \u2018Venezuela\u2019) have operated in EU waters in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of French Guiana for many decades.\n(2)\nThe processing industry based in French Guiana depends on the landings from those fishing vessels and therefore the continuity of those operations should be ensured.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure such continuity it is necessary that the Union make a declaration addressed to Venezuela confirming its readiness to issue fishing authorisations to a limited number of fishing vessels flying the flag of Venezuela on the condition that they comply with the applicable legally binding Union acts,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Declaration addressed to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on the granting of fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of French Guiana (hereinafter \u2018the Declaration\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.\nThe text of the Declaration is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to notify the Declaration to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["61", "32", "11", "42", "7", "57", "36", "4", "24", "85", "43", "87", "47", "16", "44", "64", "71", "22", "26", "10", "23", "5", "25", "35", "73", "33", "53", "62", "92", "89", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "93"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 760/2012\nof 21 August 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 as regards the intensity of controls carried out by Member States in the framework of the milk quota system\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 85 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 22 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (2), provides for the intensity of controls which are to be performed by Member States on milk delivered under the quota system. If the total adjusted deliveries have been less than 95 % of the deliveries part of the national quota in each of the three preceding 12-month periods, the control intensity on deliveries may be reduced from 2 % to 1 % of the producers and from 40 % to 20 % of the quantity of milk declared after adjustment.\n(2)\nThe administrative complexity of those controls is relatively high and should be simplified.\n(3)\nMember States have gained years of experience with those controls and use a general control plan on the basis of risk analyses.\n(4)\nThe results of the audits of the Commission in the Member States show that in almost all cases no corrections were required.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the milk quota system ends in 2015.\n(6)\nIt is therefore appropriate to fix the intensity of the controls on deliveries in all Member States at 1 % of the producers and at 20 % of the quantity of milk delivered declared after adjustment and to double the number of controls only in case of significant irregularities or discrepancies.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 595/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nAs the proposed amendments intend to decrease the intensity of the controls and thus to alleviate the administrative burden for Member States, they should apply in respect of the current 12-month period which has started on 1 April 2012. It is therefore necessary that this Regulation apply as from that date.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 595/2004 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 19(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Controls shall be deemed to be completed once an inspection report of the controls is available.\nAll inspection reports shall be completed no later than 18 months after the end of the 12-month period concerned.\nHowever, where the controls provided for in Article 20 are combined with other controls, the time limits laid down for other controls and the establishment of the respective inspection reports shall be respected.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 22 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The controls referred to in Article 21(1) shall cover at least:\n(a)\n1 % of the producers for each 12-month period;\n(b)\n20 % of the quantity of milk declared after adjustment for the period concerned; and\n(c)\na representative sample of transport of milk between selected producers and purchasers.\nThe transport controls referred to in point (c) shall be carried out in particular at unloading at the dairies.\u2019\n(b)\nA new paragraph 4 is added:\n\u20184. If a control reveals significant irregularities or discrepancies in a region or part of a region, the competent authority shall double the number of controls during the 12-month period concerned and the following 12-month period in that region or part of that region.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 August 2012.", "references": ["28", "70", "25", "76", "80", "61", "94", "37", "58", "36", "88", "10", "21", "17", "99", "85", "27", "63", "44", "96", "47", "84", "77", "81", "97", "3", "26", "51", "55", "33", "No Label", "2", "62"], "gold": ["2", "62"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 452/2012\nof 29 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 May 2012.", "references": ["28", "62", "16", "60", "83", "42", "88", "85", "53", "87", "27", "92", "19", "69", "3", "23", "96", "44", "72", "5", "94", "65", "74", "7", "2", "6", "91", "99", "97", "46", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 September 2010\nauthorising the Republic of Latvia to apply a measure derogating from Article 287 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(2010/584/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 291(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) (\u2018the VAT Directive\u2019), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter registered with the Secretariat General of the Commission on 17 February 2010, Latvia requested authorisation for a measure derogating from Article 287(10) of the VAT Directive in order to exempt taxable persons whose annual turnover is no higher than EUR 50 000 (\u2018the measure\u2019). The measure would release those taxable persons from certain or all of the value added tax (\u2018VAT\u2019) obligations referred to in Chapters 2 to 6 of Title XI of the VAT Directive.\n(2)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 395(2) of the VAT Directive, the Commission informed the other Member States by letter dated 4 May 2010 of the request made by Latvia. By letter dated 7 May 2010, the Commission notified Latvia that it had all the information necessary to consider the request.\n(3)\nA special scheme for small enterprises is an option which is already available to Member States under Title XII of the VAT Directive. The measure derogates from Title XII of the VAT Directive only insofar as the taxable person\u2019s annual turnover threshold for the special scheme is higher than that currently allowed for Latvia under Article 287(10) of the VAT Directive, which is EUR 17 200.\n(4)\nA higher threshold for the special scheme may significantly reduce the VAT obligations of the smallest businesses, whilst that special scheme is optional for taxable persons and allows businesses to opt for the normal VAT arrangements.\n(5)\nIn its proposal for a Directive simplifying value added tax obligations of 29 October 2004 (2), the Commission included provisions aimed at allowing Member States to set the annual turnover ceiling for the VAT exemption scheme at up to EUR 100 000 or the equivalent in national currency, with the possibility of updating this amount each year. The request submitted by Latvia is in line with this proposal.\n(6)\nThe derogation will have no impact on the Union\u2019s own resources accruing from value added tax,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 287(10) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Republic of Latvia is authorised to exempt from VAT taxable persons whose annual turnover is no higher than the equivalent in national currency of EUR 50 000 at the conversion rate on the day of its accession to the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nIt shall expire on either the date of entry into force of a Directive amending the amounts of the annual turnover ceilings below which taxable persons may qualify for VAT exemption or on 31 December 2013, whichever date is earlier.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Latvia.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["68", "61", "14", "47", "77", "16", "89", "17", "64", "95", "3", "59", "72", "2", "37", "1", "75", "48", "36", "27", "32", "50", "24", "66", "86", "9", "63", "90", "15", "85", "No Label", "8", "34", "45", "91"], "gold": ["8", "34", "45", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 165/2012\nof 24 February 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Alf\u00f6ldi kamillavir\u00e1gzat (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 7(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, an application from Hungary received on 21 December 2005 to register the name \u2018Alf\u00f6ldi kamillavir\u00e1gzat\u2019 as a protected designation of origin was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nGermany lodged an objection to such registration under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. The objections were deemed admissible under point (c) of Article 7(3) thereof. By letter dated 17 February 2011, the Commission asked the Parties concerned to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with their internal procedures.\n(3)\nAn agreement was reached between Hungary and Germany, which resulted in deleting the following text under point 4.2 of the summary (as published in the OJ on 16 July 2010): \u2018This dried product the Chamomillae anthodium - commonly known as Wild Camomile - is listed as an official medicine in the up-to-date version of the Hungarian Pharmacop\u0153ia and the European Pharmacop\u0153ia, and it is used as precious basic material in the sachets and bagged infusion prepared from the camomile flower.\u2019\n(4)\nUnder this agreement, the opponent has withdrawn the opposition.\n(5)\nAccording to Article 16(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 (3), an amendment to be regarded as minor, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 7(5) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, cannot:\n(a)\nrelate to the essential characteristics of the product;\n(b)\nalter the link;\n(c)\ninclude a change to the name, or to any part of the name, of the product;\n(d)\naffect the defined geographical area;\n(e)\nrepresent an increase in restrictions on trade in the product or its raw materials.\n(6)\nIn the light of the above, the name \u2018Alf\u00f6ldi kamillavir\u00e1gzat\u2019 should be entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications and the summary should be updated accordingly and published,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe designation contained in Annex I to this Regulation shall be entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThe updated summary is contained in Annex II of this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2012.", "references": ["27", "92", "44", "98", "51", "84", "53", "74", "57", "82", "77", "50", "19", "33", "55", "13", "60", "80", "39", "43", "95", "18", "1", "87", "28", "14", "94", "26", "30", "0", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "66", "68", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "66", "68", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 228/2011\nof 7 March 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the wet grip testing method for C1 tyres\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters (1), and in particular Article 11(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Annex I, part B to Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009, the wet grip index of C1 tyres shall be determined as specified in UNECE Regulation No 117 and its subsequent amendments. However, representatives of the industry have developed a revised wet grip testing method on the basis of Annex 5 to UNECE Regulation No 117 that significantly improves the accuracy of the testing results.\n(2)\nAccuracy of testing results is a key factor for determining wet grip classes of tyres. It ensures a fair comparison between tyres from different suppliers. In addition, accurate testing prevents that a tyre may be classified into more than one class and reduces the risks that different testing results will be obtained by market surveillance authorities in comparison to the testing results declared by the suppliers only because of the uncertainty of the testing method.\n(3)\nTherefore, it is necessary to update the wet grip testing method in order to improve accuracy of the tyre testing results.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1222/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009\nRegulation (EC) No 1222/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Annex I, part B, the first sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The wet grip class of C1 tyres must be determined on the basis of the wet grip index (G) according to the \u201cA\u201d to \u201cG\u201d scale specified in the table below and measured in accordance with Annex V.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe text set out in the Annex to this Regulation is added as Annex V.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["46", "47", "69", "48", "37", "6", "1", "94", "28", "73", "68", "82", "96", "80", "12", "59", "18", "79", "49", "89", "32", "19", "21", "85", "43", "56", "29", "35", "42", "93", "No Label", "25", "53", "76", "83"], "gold": ["25", "53", "76", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 151/2011\nof 18 February 2011\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards farmed game\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 17(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 lays down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption.\n(2)\nChapter VII of Section IV of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 sets out the specific requirements for official controls concerning farmed game and farmed game meat. One of those requirements is that the farmed game or the farmed game meat inspected is to be accompanied by a certificate conforming to one of the specimens set out in Chapter X of that Section.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2) provides that food business operators may slaughter farmed ratites and certain farmed ungulates at the place of origin with the authorisation of the competent authority, subject to certain conditions. In particular, those conditions include that the slaughtered animals are to be accompanied to the slaughterhouse by a declaration by the food business operator who reared the animals and by a certificate issued and signed by the official or approved veterinarian. The certificate issued and signed by the official or approved veterinarian is to attest, inter alia, to correct slaughter and bleeding of the animal and the time and date of slaughter.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 150/2011 (3) permits that in certain cases, the attestation of the correct slaughter and bleeding of the animal and of the hour and date of slaughter be included in the declaration by the food business operator.\n(5)\nIn such cases, it is appropriate to provide that the official or approved veterinarian carry out regular checks on the performance of the persons carrying out the slaughter and bleeding of the animals. Chapter VII of Section IV of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nIn addition, the specimen health certificate for animals slaughtered at the holding is set out in Part B of Chapter X of Section IV of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004. That specimen health certificate also includes entries certifying that slaughter and bleeding were carried out correctly. For cases where such certification is made in the declaration by the food business operator a new specimen health certificate should be provided.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 February 2011.", "references": ["67", "18", "53", "58", "43", "39", "40", "8", "27", "51", "14", "44", "34", "82", "60", "46", "75", "49", "41", "76", "47", "92", "89", "26", "23", "84", "70", "35", "36", "64", "No Label", "21", "38", "66", "69", "72", "73"], "gold": ["21", "38", "66", "69", "72", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1052/2010\nof 17 November 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of November 2010 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 November 2010 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 November 2010 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 97,748351 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 November 2010.", "references": ["85", "60", "65", "2", "79", "4", "10", "53", "35", "19", "12", "80", "78", "22", "59", "96", "8", "71", "25", "90", "40", "84", "11", "9", "20", "16", "75", "83", "92", "17", "No Label", "21", "23", "24", "69", "76"], "gold": ["21", "23", "24", "69", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 474/2011\nof 3 May 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating, inter alia, in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 13(3), 14(3) and 14(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Existing measures\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 (2) (\u2018the original Regulation\u2019), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports into the Union of certain plastic sacks and bags, originating, inter alia, in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019). Given the large number of cooperating Chinese exporting producers, a sample of exporting producers was selected and individual duty rates ranging from 4,8 % to 12,8 % were imposed on companies included in the sample, while on other cooperating companies not included in the sample and listed in Annex I to the original Regulation was imposed a duty rate of 8,4 %. A duty rate of 28,8 % (\u2018residual duty rate\u2019) was imposed on Chinese companies which either did not make themselves known or did not cooperate with the investigation of dumping which covered the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 (\u2018the original investigation\u2019).\n(2)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 189/2009 (3), amending the original Regulation, and in accordance with Article 2 of the original Regulation, three Chinese companies were added to the list of producers from the PRC listed in Annex I.\n1.2. Ex officio initiation\n(3)\nPrima facie evidence at the disposal of the Commission indicated that, following the imposition of measures, a change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the PRC to the Union took place for which there was insufficient due cause or justification other than the imposition of the duties in force. This change in the pattern of trade appeared to stem from exports to the Union of the product concerned produced by Chinese exporting producers subject to the residual duty rate through a Chinese exporting producer benefiting from a lower duty rate, namely the company Xiamen Xingxia Polymers Co., Ltd (\u2018Xiamen\u2019) listed in Annex I to the original Regulation.\n(4)\nFurthermore, the evidence pointed to the fact that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned were being undermined in terms of prices. There was sufficient prima facie evidence that the imports of the product concerned were at prices well below the non-injurious price established in the original investigation that led to the existing measures.\n(5)\nFinally, the Commission had sufficient prima facie evidence at its disposal that the prices of the product concerned are dumped in relation to the normal value previously established.\n(6)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation, the Commission adopted Regulation (EU) No 748/2010 (4) initiating an investigation of the alleged circumvention of the anti-dumping measures (\u2018the initiating Regulation\u2019). Pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission, by the initiating Regulation, also directed the customs authorities to register imports of the product concerned declared as having been manufactured by Xiamen under the specific TARIC additional code A981 attributed to them in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied retroactively from the date of registration of such imports.\n1.3. Investigation\n(7)\nThe Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC, Xiamen, as well as the companies allegedly having their products exported through Xiamen (\u2018the other exporting producers\u2019) of the initiation of the investigation and sent questionnaires. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation. Interested parties were also informed that non-cooperation might lead to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and to findings being made on the basis of the facts available.\n(8)\nNo replies were received from the other exporting producers and an incomplete reply was received from Xiamen.\n1.4. Investigation period\n(9)\nThe investigation period (\u2018IP\u2019) was the period from 1 January 2009 to 30 June 2010. Data was collected for the period from January 2006 up to the end of the IP to investigate the alleged change in the pattern of trade and the other aspects set out in Article 13 of the basic Regulation.\n2. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n2.1. General considerations/degree of cooperation/methodology\n(10)\nXiamen submitted an incomplete and partial reply to the questionnaire. The Commission services sent a letter to Xiamen, identifying the deficiencies of its questionnaire reply and requesting complete and coherent information, to which Xiamen did not react. In addition, Xiamen refused a proposed verification of the data at its premises.\n(11)\nConsequently Xiamen was informed that, under these circumstances, the Commission considers the company as non-cooperating, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, and that findings would be based on the facts available. Xiamen was also made aware that the result of the investigation might be less favourable than if it had fully cooperated. Xiamen did not react to this letter.\n(12)\nIn view of the above and given that no statistical data were available to determine export volumes and prices at company level during the IP, findings in respect of the alleged circumvention had to be made on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, namely those based on the evidence received from Member States\u2019 customs authorities and on the non-verified partial reply, submitted by Xiamen, to the questionnaire.\n2.2. Product concerned\n(13)\nThe product concerned is plastic sacks and bags, containing at least 20 % by weight of polyethylene and of sheeting of a thickness not exceeding 100 micrometers (\u03bcm), originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 3923 21 00, ex 3923 29 10 and ex 3923 29 90 (TARIC codes 3923210020, 3923291020, and 3923299020).\n2.3. Change in the pattern of trade\n(14)\nIn accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the existence of circumvention was carried out by analysing whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between individual companies in the PRC and the Union, which stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty, and where there is evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty are being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the product concerned, and where there is evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product.\n(15)\nGiven that Eurostat data cannot be used to determine export volumes and prices at company level since only aggregated countrywide data are provided and no other statistical data at company level are available, export volumes and prices reported by Xiamen in its partial questionnaire reply were used.\n(16)\nAccording to the information received from Xiamen, sales to the Union increased significantly after the imposition of measures in September 2006. For some periods, the exports doubled, compared to the sampling period used in the original investigation and prices reported were below the average EU target price established during the original investigation.\n2.4. Insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of anti-dumping duties\n(17)\nIn addition to the increase in sales volume, it was noted that according to the information submitted in the original investigation for the sampling exercise, Xiamen declared that it had no related companies and no production outside its main factory. In its partial reply to the anti-circumvention questionnaire, Xiamen reported that during the IP it outsourced certain production steps, such as colour printing or bagging, and that sometimes it sells raw materials to the contracting companies.\n(18)\nThe partial questionnaire reply confirmed that the contracting companies mentioned by Xiamen are the other exporters which were, according to the prima facie evidence, allegedly channelling exports to the Union. However, the reply also revealed that it is not a matter of an outsourcing arrangement where the ownership of the raw material and the finished goods stay with the company giving the outsourcing order, but goes beyond for the reasons stated below.\n(19)\nIn all cases of sales reported as \u2018partly processed\u2019, payment by the European clients was reported as being made not to Xiamen but to the bank accounts of the two companies allegedly involved in channelling. These sales account for more than 20 % of all EU sales in 2009. Moreover, the list of sales transactions submitted by Xiamen reveals diverse invoicing methodologies which differ in alphanumeric structure and length. With regard to sales reported as \u2018partly processed\u2019 via one of the two companies, representing the majority of those sales, it appears that the invoice number includes two letters referring to the company name of the company allegedly channelling. Moreover, the two companies are located around 1 000 km away from Xiamen, which puts into question the economic justification of such an arrangement.\n(20)\nIn addition, it cannot be excluded that more sales than those identified in the detailed list of sales transactions submitted by Xiamen are affected by the alleged channelling as, according to production and capacity statistics also submitted by Xiamen, more than 40 % of its production in 2007, 2008 and 2009 were declared as outsourced.\n(21)\nIt was also noted that sales reported as \u2018partly processed\u2019 stopped in October 2009, i.e. after the customs authorities of certain Member States refused to apply the individual anti-dumping duty rate of Xiamen to certain imports apparently produced by the other exporting producers.\n(22)\nThe above leads, therefore, to the conclusion that a change in the pattern of trade has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned for which there is no due cause or economic justification other than the avoidance of the residual anti-dumping duty rate in force.\n2.4.1. Undermining the anti-dumping duty\u2019s remedial effect on injury\n(23)\nThe increase of imports declared under the name of Xiamen was significant in terms of quantities. According to its questionnaire reply, Xiamen nearly doubled its sales to the EU in 2007 and 2008, compared to the sales reported during the period of the original investigation, which was mainly due to the involvement of the other exporting producers. The comparison of the average EU target price established during the original investigation and the weighted average export price reported during the IP shows underselling.\n(24)\nThe conclusion is therefore that the practice described above undermines the measures\u2019 remedial effects on injury, both in terms of quantities and prices.\n2.4.2. Evidence of dumping\n(25)\nFinally, in accordance with Article 13(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value previously established.\n(26)\nThe comparison of the weighted average normal value as established during the original investigation (where normal value was established on the basis of an analogue country, Malaysia) and the weighted average export price during the current IP as reported by Xiamen in its partial questionnaire reply shows a dumping margin exceeding the dumping margin established during the original investigation for non-sampled companies.\n3. MEASURES\n(27)\nGiven the above, and in application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation, it was concluded that a change in the pattern of trade has taken place, in accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. By virtue of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the residual anti-dumping duty rate on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC should therefore be extended to imports of the same product declared as having been manufactured by Xiamen. In practical terms, TARIC additional code A999 should be declared for those imports from the entry into force of this Regulation.\n(28)\nFurthermore, in order to enable a more detailed monitoring, henceforth, of the trade flows concerning the non-sampled companies, a TARIC additional code will be attributed to each non-sampled company listed in Annex I to the original Regulation.\n(29)\nIn accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provide that any extended measure is to apply to imports which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties should be collected on those registered imports consigned from Xiamen.\n4. DISCLOSURE\n(30)\nInterested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Council intended to extend the residual anti-dumping duty rate in force to Xiamen and were given the opportunity to comment and to be heard. No comments which were of a nature to change the above conclusions were received,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The definitive anti-dumping duty of 28,8 % applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019 imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China is hereby extended to imports declared as having been manufactured by XIAMEN XINGXIA POLYMERS CO., LTD.\n2. The table in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 is hereby replaced by the following table:\n\u2018Country\nCompany\nAD duty rate (%)\nTARIC additional code\nThe People\u2019s Republic of China\nCedo (Shanghai) Limited and Cedo (Shanghai) Household Wrappings, Shanghai\n7,4\nA757\nJinguan (Longhai) Plastics Packing Co., Ltd, Longhai\n5,1\nA758\nSunway Kordis (Shanghai) Ltd and Shanghai Sunway Polysell Ltd, Shanghai\n4,8\nA760\nSuzhou Guoxin Group Co., Ltd, Suzhou Guoxin Group Taicang Yihe Import & Export Co., Ltd, Taicang Dongyuan Plastic Co., Ltd and Suzhou Guoxin Group Taicang Giant Packaging Co., Ltd, Taicang\n7,8\nA761\nWuxi Jiayihe Packaging Co., Ltd and Wuxi Bestpac Packaging Co., Ltd, Wuxi\n12,8\nA763\nZhong Shan Qi Yu Plastic Products Co. Ltd, Zhongshan\n5,7\nA764\nHuizhou Jun Yang Plastics Co., Ltd, Huizhou\n4,8\nA765\nXinhui Alida Polythene Limited, Xinhui\n4,3\nA854\nCompanies listed in Annex I\n8,4\nSee Annex I\nAll other companies\n28,8\nA999\nThailand\nKing Pac Industrial Co., Ltd, Chonburi and Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd, Bangkok\n14,3\nA767\nMultibax Public Co., Ltd, Chonburi\n5,1\nA768\nNaraipak Co. Ltd and Narai Packaging (Thailand) Ltd, Bangkok\n10,4\nA769\nSahachit Watana Plastic Industry Co., Ltd, Bangkok\n6,8\nA770\nThai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd, Nakornpathorn\n5,8\nA771\nCompanies listed in Annex II\n7,9\nA772\nAll other companies\n14,3\nA999\u2019\n3. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 is hereby replaced by the text as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\n1. The duty extended by Article 1 shall be collected on imports registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 748/2010.\n2. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 3\nCustoms authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 748/2010.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. However, Article 2 shall apply from the day of entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 748/2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 May 2011.", "references": ["18", "15", "11", "72", "89", "79", "80", "78", "24", "59", "57", "68", "87", "98", "8", "46", "49", "12", "33", "45", "39", "92", "81", "21", "37", "64", "3", "40", "34", "77", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1068/2010\nof 19 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 November 2010.", "references": ["75", "14", "36", "85", "39", "59", "80", "56", "58", "53", "20", "4", "52", "15", "13", "86", "27", "93", "29", "44", "72", "46", "0", "65", "74", "8", "95", "31", "26", "21", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 674/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 23 July 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 63/2002 (ECB/2001/18) concerning statistics on interest rates applied by monetary financial institutions to deposits and loans vis-\u00e0-vis households and non-financial corporations\n(ECB/2010/7)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the collection of statistical information by the European Central Bank (1), and in particular to Articles 5(1) and 6(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe quality of the minimum national sample size determined by the defined criteria has to be further assessed and therefore an extension of the relevant transitional period is needed to study this matter.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 63/2002 of the European Central Bank of 20 December 2001 concerning statistics on interest rates applied by monetary financial institutions to deposits and loans vis-\u00e0-vis households and non-financial corporations (ECB/2001/18) (2) should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe introductory sentence of the first paragraph of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 63/2002 (ECB/2001/18) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Until and including the reference month of December 2013, paragraph 10 of Annex I reads as follows:\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 23 July 2010.", "references": ["4", "66", "83", "14", "91", "16", "58", "46", "28", "54", "45", "21", "24", "37", "25", "84", "6", "34", "56", "82", "11", "50", "89", "99", "76", "27", "60", "23", "80", "10", "No Label", "7", "19", "29", "42"], "gold": ["7", "19", "29", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 16 March 2011\nproviding for the temporary marketing of certain seed of the species Triticum aestivum not satisfying the requirements of Council Directive 66/402/EEC\n(notified under document C(2011) 1634)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/164/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 66/402/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of cereal seed (1), and in particular Article 17(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn the Netherlands the quantity of available seed of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) of the category \u2018certified seed\u2019 belonging to the varieties Baldus, Granny, KWS Aurum, Lavett, Minaret, Pasteur, Taifun, Thasos, Trappe, Tybalt and Zirrus which is suitable for the national environmental conditions and which satisfies the requirements of Directive 66/402/EEC related to field inspections is insufficient and is therefore not adequate to meet the needs of that Member State.\n(2)\nThe demand for such seed cannot be satisfied by seed from other Member States or from third countries fulfilling all the requirements laid down in Directive 66/402/EEC.\n(3)\nConsequently, the Netherlands should be authorised to permit the marketing of seed of those varieties subject to less stringent requirements than apply to certified seed, for a period expiring on 30 April 2011 and up to a maximum quantity of 330 tonnes.\n(4)\nIn addition, other Member States which are in a position to supply the Netherlands with seed of those varieties, irrespective of whether it was harvested in a Member State or in a third country, should be authorised to permit the marketing of such seed.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate that the Netherlands act as a coordinator in order to ensure that the total amount of seed authorised pursuant to this Decision does not exceed the maximum quantity covered by this Decision.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The marketing in the Union of seed of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) of the category \u2018certified seed\u2019 belonging to the varieties Baldus, Granny, KWS Aurum, Lavett, Minaret, Pasteur, Taifun, Thasos, Trappe, Tybalt and Zirrus which does not satisfy the requirements of point 7 of Annex I to Directive 66/402/EEC in respect of field inspections shall be permitted.\nThis permission shall be granted for a total quantity of up to 330 tonnes and for a period ending on 30 April 2011.\n2. In addition to fulfilling the labelling requirements of Directive 66/402/EEC, the official label shall state that the seed does not satisfy the requirements of point 7 of Annex I to that Directive in respect of field inspections.\nArticle 2\n1. Any supplier wishing to place on the market seed, as referred to in Article 1, shall apply for authorisation to the Member State in which it is established or importing. The application shall specify the quantity of seed that the supplier wishes to place on the market.\n2. The Member State concerned shall authorise the supplier, in accordance with Article 1, to place on the market the seed unless:\n(a)\nthere is sufficient evidence to doubt whether the supplier is able to place on the market the amount of the seed for which he has applied for authorisation; or\n(b)\nhaving regard to the information provided by the coordinating Member State, as referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 3, granting the authorisation would result in the total maximum quantity of seed referred to in Article 1(1) being exceeded.\nAs regard point (b), in case the total maximum quantity would only allow for authorisation of part of the quantity specified in the application, the Member State concerned may authorise the supplier to place that lesser quantity on the market.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall assist each other administratively in the application of this Decision.\nThe Netherlands shall act as coordinating Member State in order to ensure that the quantity of seed authorised for marketing in the Union by the Member States pursuant to this Decision does not exceed the total maximum quantity of seed referred to in Article 1(1).\nAny Member State receiving an application under Article 2 shall immediately notify the coordinating Member State of the amount covered by the application. The coordinating Member State shall immediately inform that Member State as to whether authorisation would result in the maximum quantity being exceeded.\nArticle 4\nMember States shall immediately notify to the Commission and the other Member States the quantities in respect of which they have granted marketing authorisation pursuant to this Decision.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall expire on 30 April 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 March 2011.", "references": ["31", "15", "21", "39", "50", "13", "71", "33", "37", "40", "1", "92", "36", "17", "43", "72", "18", "11", "78", "0", "95", "87", "41", "27", "56", "66", "46", "22", "53", "38", "No Label", "25", "65", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "65", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 307/2011\nof 29 March 2011\namending Annex IV and Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006 and (EC) No 378/2007, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular its Articles 8(2)(a) and 40 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishes for each Member State the maximum value of all payment entitlements that can be allocated during a calendar year. In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 40(1), Annex VIII should be adapted to take into account the notifications of the Member States in accordance with Article 188a(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (2) with regard to wine.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 188a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and the second subparagraph of Article 40(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal and Slovenia notified the Commission the areas grubbed up and the regional average of the value of the entitlements referred to in point B of Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.\n(3)\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishes for each Member State the ceilings which may not be exceeded by the total amounts of the direct payments, net of modulation, which may be granted in respect of a calendar year in the Member State concerned.\n(4)\nFollowing the notifications of the Member States in accordance with Article 188a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and the second subparagraph of Article 40(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the total maximum amounts of direct payments that may be granted shall be increased. Therefore, in accordance with Article 8(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, Annex IV to that Regulation shall be reviewed.\n(5)\nAnnexes IV and VIII to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 is replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAnnex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 is replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 March 2011.", "references": ["50", "74", "99", "69", "21", "56", "83", "88", "16", "22", "18", "87", "27", "67", "30", "98", "41", "80", "52", "89", "28", "24", "85", "38", "5", "77", "42", "29", "3", "86", "No Label", "4", "58", "61"], "gold": ["4", "58", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 66/2012\nof 25 January 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 laying down the animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Community and the quarantine conditions thereof\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), and in particular Article 17(3)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 (2) lays down the animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union. It provides that the birds covered by it are to be imported into the Union only if they originate from third countries or parts thereof referred to in Annex I thereto.\n(2)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 refers to the third countries or parts thereof which are listed in columns 1 and 3 of the table in Part 1 of Annex I to Commission Decision 2006/696/EC (3) and from which imports of breeding or productive poultry other than ratites is permitted.\n(3)\nDecision 2006/696/EC was repealed and replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (4). The references to that Decision in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 should therefore be replaced by references to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008.\n(4)\nIn addition, Argentina has requested the Commission to authorise imports into the Union of certain captive bred birds pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 318/2007. An inspection carried out by the Commission\u2019s Food and Veterinary Office in Argentina including the follow-up actions undertaken by that third country demonstrated that Argentina provides appropriate guarantees as regards compliance with Union rules required for imports into the Union of such birds.\n(5)\nArgentina is currently listed in the table set out in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008. However, imports of breeding or productive poultry other than ratites from that third country are not permitted. Argentina should therefore be included as a separate entry in the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 318/2007.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 January 2012.", "references": ["8", "43", "80", "48", "74", "55", "65", "40", "88", "5", "60", "15", "29", "95", "62", "85", "76", "96", "91", "3", "87", "77", "0", "7", "4", "28", "98", "67", "45", "10", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "66", "93"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "66", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 169/2011\nof 23 February 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of diclazuril as a feed additive for guinea fowls (holder of authorisation Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V.)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 an application was submitted for the authorisation of diclazuril. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of a new use of diclazuril as a feed additive for guinea fowls, to be classified in the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of diclazuril was authorised for 10 years in accordance with Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2) as a feed additive for use in chickens reared for laying up to 16 weeks and turkeys up to 12 weeks by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (3). The use for chickens for fattening was authorised for 10 years by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1118/2010 (4).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for the authorisation of diclazuril for guinea fowls. The European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 5 October 2010 (5) that, under the proposed conditions of use, diclazuril does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment and that its use controls coccidiosis in guinea fowls. It considers that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring to control the possible development of bacterial and/or Eimeria spp resistances. The Authority also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of diclazuril shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2011.", "references": ["41", "57", "96", "42", "12", "37", "80", "39", "63", "20", "28", "52", "14", "75", "4", "78", "90", "83", "59", "62", "7", "21", "49", "47", "17", "16", "19", "11", "69", "65", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "66"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1026/2011\nof 14 October 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 October 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 October 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 October 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2011.", "references": ["85", "60", "26", "20", "62", "77", "39", "38", "61", "6", "43", "71", "14", "8", "12", "16", "52", "56", "15", "78", "83", "2", "34", "87", "89", "48", "21", "55", "49", "95", "No Label", "10", "22", "53", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "53", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION No 895/2011/EU\nof 19 December 2011\namending Decision 2002/546/EC as regards its period of application\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 349 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Decision 2002/546/EC (2) authorises Spain, up to 31 December 2011, to apply exemptions from or reductions in the tax known as \u2018Arbitrio sobre las Importaciones y Entregas de Mercanc\u00edas en las islas Canarias\u2019 (hereinafter \u2018the AIEM tax\u2019) to certain products produced locally in the Canary Islands. The Annex to that Decision contains a list of products to which exemptions and reductions from the AIEM tax may be applied. The difference between the taxation of locally produced products and the taxation of other products may not exceed 5, 15 or 25 %, depending on the product.\n(2)\nIt is justified to extend the period of application of Decision 2002/546/EC for two years, since the basic elements justifying the authorisation provided under that Decision have remained unchanged. In this regard, the report from the Commission to the Council of 28 August 2008 on the application of the special arrangements concerning the AIEM tax applicable in the Canary Islands confirmed that the AIEM tax was functioning in a satisfactory manner and without the need for any amendments to Decision 2002/546/EC.\n(3)\nMoreover, the report received by the Commission from the Spanish authorities confirms that the handicaps that justified the authorisation of total exemptions and partial reductions of the AIEM tax to a list of products produced locally in the Canary Islands are still valid.\n(4)\nDecision 2002/546/EC should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn the first sentence of Article 1(1) of Decision 2002/546/EC, the date \u201831 December 2011\u2019 is replaced by that of \u201831 December 2013\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["62", "54", "3", "71", "56", "46", "48", "1", "99", "67", "11", "89", "4", "10", "66", "24", "52", "41", "32", "42", "22", "8", "16", "30", "49", "25", "6", "21", "13", "75", "No Label", "34", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["34", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 8/2011\nof 6 January 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 6/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 January 2011.", "references": ["57", "9", "27", "30", "60", "21", "5", "51", "43", "8", "83", "54", "19", "76", "63", "32", "45", "98", "47", "74", "97", "96", "91", "20", "29", "3", "68", "0", "50", "89", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 October 2011\nappointing a German member of the European Economic and Social Committee\n(2011/673/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the German Government,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Thomas ILKA,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDr Sabine HEPPERLE, Leiterin der Vertretung des DIHK bei der EU is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 10 October 2011.", "references": ["73", "35", "70", "57", "20", "72", "19", "25", "85", "54", "33", "4", "26", "53", "15", "31", "0", "17", "38", "58", "76", "80", "1", "77", "5", "21", "49", "13", "23", "87", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUMM GEORGIA/2/2011\nof 14 September 2011\nextending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia\n(2011/539/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP of 15 September 2008 on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 15 September 2008 the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP establishing the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (\u2018EUMM Georgia\u2019).\n(2)\nOn 1 July 2011, upon a proposal from High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Political and Security Committee (\u2018PSC\u2019) adopted Decision EUMM/1/2011 (2) appointing Mr Andrzej TYSZKIEWICZ as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia until 14 September 2011.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 10(1) of Council Decision 2010/452/CFSP (3), the PSC is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of EUMM Georgia, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Mr Andrzej TYSZKIEWICZ as Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia is hereby extended until 14 September 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 September 2011.", "references": ["41", "15", "11", "43", "17", "62", "48", "90", "94", "58", "49", "92", "88", "46", "12", "5", "99", "89", "79", "31", "36", "82", "73", "56", "32", "61", "45", "29", "77", "22", "No Label", "3", "52", "91"], "gold": ["3", "52", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 621/2012\nof 10 July 2012\nrecognising a traditional term provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 [Classic - TDT-US-N0016]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 118u(2) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nTwo representative professional organisations established in the United States of America, Wine America and California Export Association, submitted to the Commission an application, received on 22 June 2010, for protection of the traditional term \"Classic\" in relation to grapevine products of category \"1. Wine\" provided for in Annex XIb to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 bearing a name of origin listed in Annex V to the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine, approved by Council Decision 2006/232/EC (2).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 33 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products (3), the application was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4). No objection was submitted within two months from the date of publication.\n(3)\nThe application for the protection of the traditional term \"Classic\" which relates to American wines satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 118u(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and in Articles 31 and 35 of Regulation (EC) No 607/2009. The application for protection should be accepted and the traditional term \"Classic\" should therefore be entered into the electronic database \"E-Bacchus\" for wines produced by the members of the two representative professional organisations that submitted the application.\n(4)\nArticle 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 requires the Commission to make public the information regarding the representative trade organisation and its members. That information should be made public in the electronic database \"E-Bacchus\".\n(5)\nThe measure provided for in this Regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe application for protection of the traditional term \"Classic\" is hereby accepted for American grapevine products of category \"1. Wine\" provided for in Annex XIb to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. The term \"Classic\" shall be entered into the electronic database \"E-Bacchus\" as indicated in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["38", "8", "80", "99", "46", "86", "78", "52", "2", "81", "5", "39", "10", "26", "59", "13", "0", "53", "73", "98", "31", "61", "4", "30", "76", "56", "19", "41", "22", "68", "No Label", "23", "24", "25", "71", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "24", "25", "71", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1002/2010\nof 5 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 November 2010.", "references": ["12", "46", "27", "48", "32", "77", "47", "93", "89", "23", "92", "43", "19", "14", "75", "63", "15", "67", "5", "71", "49", "1", "83", "74", "53", "97", "80", "57", "45", "16", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 191/2011\nof 25 February 2011\non selling prices for cereals in response to the seventh individual invitations to tender within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 (2) has opened the sales of cereals by tendering procedures, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission has to fix for each cereal and per Member State a minimum selling price or to decide not to fix a minimum selling price.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the seventh individual invitations to tender, it has been decided that a minimum selling price should be fixed for the cereals and for the Member States.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the seventh individual invitations to tender for selling of cereals within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 23 February 2011, the decisions on the selling price per cereal and Member State are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 February 2011.", "references": ["52", "37", "98", "62", "44", "74", "38", "95", "13", "33", "1", "61", "45", "83", "48", "10", "47", "49", "97", "90", "35", "65", "85", "82", "89", "78", "28", "91", "24", "46", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1217/2010\nof 14 December 2010\non the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of research and development agreements\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EEC) No 2821/71 of the Council of 20 December 1971 on application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices (1),\nHaving published a draft of this Regulation,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2821/71 empowers the Commission to apply Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (*1) by regulation to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices falling within the scope of Article 101(1) of the Treaty which have as their object the research and development of products, technologies or processes up to the stage of industrial application, and exploitation of the results, including provisions regarding intellectual property rights.\n(2)\nArticle 179(2) of the Treaty calls upon the Union to encourage undertakings, including small and medium-sized undertakings, in their research and technological development activities of high quality, and to support their efforts to cooperate with one another. This Regulation is intended to facilitate research and development while at the same time effectively protecting competition.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2659/2000 of 29 November 2000 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of research and development agreements (2) defines categories of research and development agreements which the Commission regarded as normally satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 101(3) of the Treaty. In view of the overall positive experience with the application of that Regulation, which expires on 31 December 2010, and taking into account further experience acquired since its adoption, it is appropriate to adopt a new block exemption regulation.\n(4)\nThis Regulation should meet the two requirements of ensuring effective protection of competition and providing adequate legal security for undertakings. The pursuit of those objectives should take account of the need to simplify administrative supervision and the legislative framework to as great an extent as possible. Below a certain level of market power it can in general be presumed, for the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty, that the positive effects of research and development agreements will outweigh any negative effects on competition.\n(5)\nFor the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty by regulation, it is not necessary to define those agreements which are capable of falling within Article 101(1) of the Treaty. In the individual assessment of agreements under Article 101(1) of the Treaty, account has to be taken of several factors, and in particular the market structure on the relevant market.\n(6)\nAgreements on the joint execution of research work or the joint development of the results of the research, up to but not including the stage of industrial application, generally do not fall within the scope of Article 101(1) of the Treaty. In certain circumstances, however, such as where the parties agree not to carry out other research and development in the same field, thereby forgoing the opportunity of gaining competitive advantages over the other parties, such agreements may fall within Article 101(1) of the Treaty and should therefore be included within the scope of this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe benefit of the exemption established by this Regulation should be limited to those agreements for which it can be assumed with sufficient certainty that they satisfy the conditions of Article 101(3) of the Treaty.\n(8)\nCooperation in research and development and in the exploitation of the results is most likely to promote technical and economic progress if the parties contribute complementary skills, assets or activities to the cooperation. This also includes scenarios where one party merely finances the research and development activities of another party.\n(9)\nThe joint exploitation of results can be considered as the natural consequence of joint research and development. It can take different forms such as manufacture, the exploitation of intellectual property rights that substantially contribute to technical or economic progress, or the marketing of new products.\n(10)\nConsumers can generally be expected to benefit from the increased volume and effectiveness of research and development through the introduction of new or improved products or services, a quicker launch of those products or services, or the reduction of prices brought about by new or improved technologies or processes.\n(11)\nIn order to justify the exemption, the joint exploitation should relate to products, technologies or processes for which the use of the results of the research and development is decisive. Moreover, all the parties should agree in the research and development agreement that they will all have full access to the final results of the joint research and development, including any arising intellectual property rights and know-how, for the purposes of further research and development and exploitation, as soon as the final results become available. Access to the results should generally not be limited as regards the use of the results for the purposes of further research and development. However, where the parties, in accordance with this Regulation, limit their rights of exploitation, in particular where they specialise in the context of exploitation, access to the results for the purposes of exploitation may be limited accordingly. Moreover, where academic bodies, research institutes or undertakings which supply research and development as a commercial service without normally being active in the exploitation of results participate in research and development, they may agree to use the results of research and development solely for the purpose of further research. Depending on their capabilities and commercial needs, the parties may make unequal contributions to their research and development cooperation. Therefore, in order to reflect, and to make up for, the differences in the value or the nature of the parties\u2019 contributions, a research and development agreement benefiting from this Regulation may provide that one party is to compensate another for obtaining access to the results for the purposes of further research or exploitation. However, the compensation should not be so high as to effectively impede such access.\n(12)\nSimilarly, where the research and development agreement does not provide for any joint exploitation of the results, the parties should agree in the research and development agreement to grant each other access to their respective pre-existing know-how, as long as this know-how is indispensable for the purposes of the exploitation of the results by the other parties. The rates of any licence fee charged should not be so high as to effectively impede access to the know-how by the other parties.\n(13)\nThe exemption established by this Regulation should be limited to research and development agreements which do not afford the undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products, services or technologies in question. It is necessary to exclude from the block exemption agreements between competitors whose combined share of the market for products, services or technologies capable of being improved or replaced by the results of the research and development exceeds a certain level at the time the agreement is entered into. However, there is no presumption that research and development agreements are either caught by Article 101(1) of the Treaty or that they fail to satisfy the conditions of Article 101(3) of the Treaty once the market share threshold set out in this Regulation is exceeded or other conditions of this Regulation are not met. In such cases, an individual assessment of the research and development agreement needs to be conducted under Article 101 of the Treaty.\n(14)\nIn order to ensure the maintenance of effective competition during joint exploitation of the results, provision should be made for the block exemption to cease to apply if the parties\u2019 combined share of the market for the products, services or technologies arising out of the joint research and development becomes too great. The exemption should continue to apply, irrespective of the parties\u2019 market shares, for a certain period after the commencement of joint exploitation, so as to await stabilisation of their market shares, particularly after the introduction of an entirely new product, and to guarantee a minimum period of return on the investments involved.\n(15)\nThis Regulation should not exempt agreements containing restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of the positive effects generated by a research and development agreement. In principle, agreements containing certain types of severe restrictions of competition such as limitations on the freedom of parties to carry out research and development in a field unconnected to the agreement, the fixing of prices charged to third parties, limitations on output or sales, and limitations on effecting passive sales for the contract products or contract technologies in territories or to customers reserved for other parties should be excluded from the benefit of the exemption established by this Regulation irrespective of the market share of the parties. In this context, field of use restrictions do not constitute limitations of output or sales, and also do not constitute territorial or customer restrictions.\n(16)\nThe market share limitation, the non-exemption of certain agreements and the conditions provided for in this Regulation normally ensure that the agreements to which the block exemption applies do not enable the parties to eliminate competition in respect of a substantial part of the products or services in question.\n(17)\nThe possibility cannot be ruled out that anti-competitive foreclosure effects may arise where one party finances several research and development projects carried out by competitors with regard to the same contract products or contract technologies, in particular where it obtains the exclusive right to exploit the results vis-\u00e0-vis third parties. Therefore the benefit of this Regulation should be conferred on such paid-for research and development agreements only if the combined market share of all the parties involved in the connected agreements, that is to say, the financing party and all the parties carrying out the research and development, does not exceed 25 %.\n(18)\nAgreements between undertakings which are not competing manufacturers of products, technologies or processes capable of being improved, substituted or replaced by the results of the research and development will only eliminate effective competition in research and development in exceptional circumstances. It is therefore appropriate to enable such agreements to benefit from the exemption established by this Regulation irrespective of market share and to address any exceptional cases by way of withdrawal of its benefit.\n(19)\nThe Commission may withdraw the benefit of this Regulation, pursuant to Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (3), where it finds in a particular case that an agreement to which the exemption provided for in this Regulation applies nevertheless has effects which are incompatible with Article 101(3) of the Treaty.\n(20)\nThe competition authority of a Member State may withdraw the benefit of this Regulation pursuant to Article 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in respect of the territory of that Member State, or a part thereof where, in a particular case, an agreement to which the exemption established by this Regulation applies nevertheless has effects which are incompatible with Article 101(3) of the Treaty in the territory of that Member State, or in a part thereof, and where such territory has all the characteristics of a distinct geographic market.\n(21)\nThe benefit of this Regulation could be withdrawn pursuant to Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, for example, where the existence of a research and development agreement substantially restricts the scope for third parties to carry out research and development in the relevant field because of the limited research capacity available elsewhere, where because of the particular structure of supply, the existence of the research and development agreement substantially restricts the access of third parties to the market for the contract products or contract technologies, where without any objectively valid reason, the parties do not exploit the results of the joint research and development vis-\u00e0-vis third parties, where the contract products or contract technologies are not subject in the whole or a substantial part of the internal market to effective competition from products, technologies or processes considered by users as equivalent in view of their characteristics, price and intended use, or where the existence of the research and development agreement would restrict competition in innovation or eliminate effective competition in research and development on a particular market.\n(22)\nAs research and development agreements are often of a long-term nature, especially where the cooperation extends to the exploitation of the results, the period of validity of this Regulation should be fixed at 12 years,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018research and development agreement\u2019 means an agreement entered into between two or more parties which relate to the conditions under which those parties pursue:\n(i)\njoint research and development of contract products or contract technologies and joint exploitation of the results of that research and development;\n(ii)\njoint exploitation of the results of research and development of contract products or contract technologies jointly carried out pursuant to a prior agreement between the same parties;\n(iii)\njoint research and development of contract products or contract technologies excluding joint exploitation of the results;\n(iv)\npaid-for research and development of contract products or contract technologies and joint exploitation of the results of that research and development;\n(v)\njoint exploitation of the results of paid-for research and development of contract products or contract technologies pursuant to a prior agreement between the same parties; or\n(vi)\npaid-for research and development of contract products or contract technologies excluding joint exploitation of the results;\n(b)\n\u2018agreement\u2019 means an agreement, a decision by an association of undertakings or a concerted practice;\n(c)\n\u2018research and development\u2019 means the acquisition of know-how relating to products, technologies or processes and the carrying out of theoretical analysis, systematic study or experimentation, including experimental production, technical testing of products or processes, the establishment of the necessary facilities and the obtaining of intellectual property rights for the results;\n(d)\n\u2018product\u2019 means a good or a service, including both intermediary goods or services and final goods or services;\n(e)\n\u2018contract technology\u2019 means a technology or process arising out of the joint research and development;\n(f)\n\u2018contract product\u2019 means a product arising out of the joint research and development or manufactured or provided applying the contract technologies;\n(g)\n\u2018exploitation of the results\u2019 means the production or distribution of the contract products or the application of the contract technologies or the assignment or licensing of intellectual property rights or the communication of know-how required for such manufacture or application;\n(h)\n\u2018intellectual property rights\u2019 means intellectual property rights, including industrial property rights, copyright and neighbouring rights;\n(i)\n\u2018know-how\u2019 means a package of non-patented practical information, resulting from experience and testing, which is secret, substantial and identified;\n(j)\n\u2018secret\u2019, in the context of know-how, means that the know-how is not generally known or easily accessible;\n(k)\n\u2018substantial\u2019, in the context of know-how, means that the know-how is significant and useful for the manufacture of the contract products or the application of the contract technologies;\n(l)\n\u2018identified\u2019, in the context of know-how, means that the know-how is described in a sufficiently comprehensive manner so as to make it possible to verify that it fulfils the criteria of secrecy and substantiality;\n(m)\n\u2018joint\u2019, in the context of activities carried out under a research and development agreement, means activities where the work involved is:\n(i)\ncarried out by a joint team, organisation or undertaking;\n(ii)\njointly entrusted to a third party; or\n(iii)\nallocated between the parties by way of specialisation in the context of research and development or exploitation;\n(n)\n\u2018specialisation in the context of research and development\u2019 means that each of the parties is involved in the research and development activities covered by the research and development agreement and they divide the research and development work between them in any way that they consider most appropriate; this does not include paid-for research and development;\n(o)\n\u2018specialisation in the context of exploitation\u2019 means that the parties allocate between them individual tasks such as production or distribution, or impose restrictions upon each other regarding the exploitation of the results such as restrictions in relation to certain territories, customers or fields of use; this includes a scenario where only one party produces and distributes the contract products on the basis of an exclusive licence granted by the other parties;\n(p)\n\u2018paid-for research and development\u2019 means research and development that is carried out by one party and financed by a financing party;\n(q)\n\u2018financing party\u2019 means a party financing paid-for research and development while not carrying out any of the research and development activities itself;\n(r)\n\u2018competing undertaking\u2019 means an actual or potential competitor;\n(s)\n\u2018actual competitor\u2019 means an undertaking that is supplying a product, technology or process capable of being improved, substituted or replaced by the contract product or the contract technology on the relevant geographic market;\n(t)\n\u2018potential competitor\u2019 means an undertaking that, in the absence of the research and development agreement, would, on realistic grounds and not just as a mere theoretical possibility, in case of a small but permanent increase in relative prices be likely to undertake, within not more than 3 years, the necessary additional investments or other necessary switching costs to supply a product, technology or process capable of being improved, substituted or replaced by the contract product or contract technology on the relevant geographic market;\n(u)\n\u2018relevant product market\u2019 means the relevant market for the products capable of being improved, substituted or replaced by the contract products;\n(v)\n\u2018relevant technology market\u2019 means the relevant market for the technologies or processes capable of being improved, substituted or replaced by the contract technologies.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation, the terms \u2018undertaking\u2019 and \u2018party\u2019 shall include their respective connected undertakings.\n\u2018Connected undertakings\u2019 means:\n(a)\nundertakings in which a party to the research and development agreement, directly or indirectly:\n(i)\nhas the power to exercise more than half the voting rights;\n(ii)\nhas the power to appoint more than half the members of the supervisory board, board of management or bodies legally representing the undertaking; or\n(iii)\nhas the right to manage the undertaking\u2019s affairs;\n(b)\nundertakings which directly or indirectly have, over a party to the research and development agreement, the rights or powers listed in point (a);\n(c)\nundertakings in which an undertaking referred to in point (b) has, directly or indirectly, the rights or powers listed in point (a);\n(d)\nundertakings in which a party to the research and development agreement together with one or more of the undertakings referred to in points (a), (b) or (c), or in which two or more of the latter undertakings, jointly have the rights or powers listed in point (a);\n(e)\nundertakings in which the rights or the powers listed in point (a) are jointly held by:\n(i)\nparties to the research and development agreement or their respective connected undertakings referred to in points (a) to (d); or\n(ii)\none or more of the parties to the research and development agreement or one or more of their connected undertakings referred to in points (a) to (d) and one or more third parties.\nArticle 2\nExemption\n1. Pursuant to Article 101(3) of the Treaty and subject to the provisions of this Regulation, it is hereby declared that Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply to research and development agreements.\nThis exemption shall apply to the extent that such agreements contain restrictions of competition falling within the scope of Article 101(1) of the Treaty.\n2. The exemption provided for in paragraph 1 shall apply to research and development agreements containing provisions which relate to the assignment or licensing of intellectual property rights to one or more of the parties or to an entity the parties establish to carry out the joint research and development, paid-for research and development or joint exploitation, provided that those provisions do not constitute the primary object of such agreements, but are directly related to and necessary for their implementation.\nArticle 3\nConditions for exemption\n1. The exemption provided for in Article 2 shall apply subject to the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 to 5.\n2. The research and development agreement must stipulate that all the parties have full access to the final results of the joint research and development or paid-for research and development, including any resulting intellectual property rights and know-how, for the purposes of further research and development and exploitation, as soon as they become available. Where the parties limit their rights of exploitation in accordance with this Regulation, in particular where they specialise in the context of exploitation, access to the results for the purposes of exploitation may be limited accordingly. Moreover, research institutes, academic bodies, or undertakings which supply research and development as a commercial service without normally being active in the exploitation of results may agree to confine their use of the results for the purposes of further research. The research and development agreement may foresee that the parties compensate each other for giving access to the results for the purposes of further research or exploitation, but the compensation must not be so high as to effectively impede such access.\n3. Without prejudice to paragraph 2, where the research and development agreement provides only for joint research and development or paid-for research and development, the research and development agreement must stipulate that each party must be granted access to any pre-existing know-how of the other parties, if this know-how is indispensable for the purposes of its exploitation of the results. The research and development agreement may foresee that the parties compensate each other for giving access to their pre-existing know-how, but the compensation must not be so high as to effectively impede such access.\n4. Any joint exploitation may only pertain to results which are protected by intellectual property rights or constitute know-how and which are indispensable for the manufacture of the contract products or the application of the contract technologies.\n5. Parties charged with the manufacture of the contract products by way of specialisation in the context of exploitation must be required to fulfil orders for supplies of the contract products from the other parties, except where the research and development agreement also provides for joint distribution within the meaning of point (m)(i) or (ii) of Article 1(1) or where the parties have agreed that only the party manufacturing the contract products may distribute them.\nArticle 4\nMarket share threshold and duration of exemption\n1. Where the parties are not competing undertakings, the exemption provided for in Article 2 shall apply for the duration of the research and development. Where the results are jointly exploited, the exemption shall continue to apply for 7 years from the time the contract products or contract technologies are first put on the market within the internal market.\n2. Where two or more of the parties are competing undertakings, the exemption provided for in Article 2 shall apply for the period referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article only if, at the time the research and development agreement is entered into:\n(a)\nin the case of research and development agreements referred to in point (a)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Article 1(1), the combined market share of the parties to a research and development agreement does not exceed 25 % on the relevant product and technology markets; or\n(b)\nin the case of research and agreements referred to in point (a)(iv), (v) or (vi) of Article 1(1), the combined market share of the financing party and all the parties with which the financing party has entered into research and development agreements with regard to the same contract products or contract technologies, does not exceed 25 % on the relevant product and technology markets.\n3. After the end of the period referred to in paragraph 1, the exemption shall continue to apply as long as the combined market share of the parties does not exceed 25 % on the relevant product and technology markets.\nArticle 5\nHardcore restrictions\nThe exemption provided for in Article 2 shall not apply to research and development agreements which, directly or indirectly, in isolation or in combination with other factors under the control of the parties, have as their object any of the following:\n(a)\nthe restriction of the freedom of the parties to carry out research and development independently or in cooperation with third parties in a field unconnected with that to which the research and development agreement relates or, after the completion of the joint research and development or the paid-for research and development, in the field to which it relates or in a connected field;\n(b)\nthe limitation of output or sales, with the exception of:\n(i)\nthe setting of production targets where the joint exploitation of the results includes the joint production of the contract products;\n(ii)\nthe setting of sales targets where the joint exploitation of the results includes the joint distribution of the contract products or the joint licensing of the contract technologies within the meaning of point (m)(i) or (ii) of Article 1(1);\n(iii)\npractices constituting specialisation in the context of exploitation; and\n(iv)\nthe restriction of the freedom of the parties to manufacture, sell, assign or license products, technologies or processes which compete with the contract products or contract technologies during the period for which the parties have agreed to jointly exploit the results;\n(c)\nthe fixing of prices when selling the contract product or licensing the contract technologies to third parties, with the exception of the fixing of prices charged to immediate customers or the fixing of licence fees charged to immediate licensees where the joint exploitation of the results includes the joint distribution of the contract products or the joint licensing of the contract technologies within the meaning of point (m)(i) or (ii) of Article 1(1);\n(d)\nthe restriction of the territory in which, or of the customers to whom, the parties may passively sell the contract products or license the contract technologies, with the exception of the requirement to exclusively license the results to another party;\n(e)\nthe requirement not to make any, or to limit, active sales of the contract products or contract technologies in territories or to customers which have not been exclusively allocated to one of the parties by way of specialisation in the context of exploitation;\n(f)\nthe requirement to refuse to meet demand from customers in the parties\u2019 respective territories, or from customers otherwise allocated between the parties by way of specialisation in the context of exploitation, who would market the contract products in other territories within the internal market;\n(g)\nthe requirement to make it difficult for users or resellers to obtain the contract products from other resellers within the internal market.\nArticle 6\nExcluded restrictions\nThe exemption provided for in Article 2 shall not apply to the following obligations contained in research and development agreements:\n(a)\nthe obligation not to challenge after completion of the research and development the validity of intellectual property rights which the parties hold in the internal market and which are relevant to the research and development or, after the expiry of the research and development agreement, the validity of intellectual property rights which the parties hold in the internal market and which protect the results of the research and development, without prejudice to the possibility to provide for termination of the research and development agreement in the event of one of the parties challenging the validity of such intellectual property rights;\n(b)\nthe obligation not to grant licences to third parties to manufacture the contract products or to apply the contract technologies unless the agreement provides for the exploitation of the results of the joint research and development or paid-for research and development by at least one of the parties and such exploitation takes place in the internal market vis-\u00e0-vis third parties.\nArticle 7\nApplication of the market share threshold\nFor the purposes of applying the market share threshold provided for in Article 4 the following rules shall apply:\n(a)\nthe market share shall be calculated on the basis of the market sales value; if market sales value data are not available, estimates based on other reliable market information, including market sales volumes, may be used to establish the market share of the parties;\n(b)\nthe market share shall be calculated on the basis of data relating to the preceding calendar year;\n(c)\nthe market share held by the undertakings referred to in point (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(2) shall be apportioned equally to each undertaking having the rights or the powers listed in point (a) of that subparagraph;\n(d)\nif the market share referred to in Article 4(3) is initially not more than 25 % but subsequently rises above that level without exceeding 30 %, the exemption provided for in Article 2 shall continue to apply for a period of two consecutive calendar years following the year in which the 25 % threshold was first exceeded;\n(e)\nif the market share referred to in Article 4(3) is initially not more than 25 % but subsequently rises above 30 %, the exemption provided for in Article 2 shall continue to apply for a period of one calendar year following the year in which the level of 30 % was first exceeded;\n(f)\nthe benefit of points (d) and (e) may not be combined so as to exceed a period of two calendar years.\nArticle 8\nTransitional period\nThe prohibition laid down in Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply during the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2012 in respect of agreements already in force on 31 December 2010 which do not satisfy the conditions for exemption provided for in this Regulation but which satisfy the conditions for exemption provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2659/2000.\nArticle 9\nPeriod of validity\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2022.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["41", "99", "13", "37", "56", "94", "70", "72", "10", "73", "14", "61", "8", "47", "83", "24", "16", "86", "57", "58", "20", "15", "71", "46", "11", "42", "91", "33", "90", "21", "No Label", "4", "9", "34", "44", "48", "77"], "gold": ["4", "9", "34", "44", "48", "77"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 20 October 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein amending the Additional Agreement between the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein extending to the Principality of Liechtenstein the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products\n(2011/739/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(4), first subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (2) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Agricultural Agreement\u2019) entered into force on 1 June 2002.\n(2)\nAn Additional Agreement between the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein extending to the Principality of Liechtenstein the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (3) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Additional Agreement\u2019) entered into force on 13 October 2007.\n(3)\nThe Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the European Union, an Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs, which amends the Agricultural Agreement by inserting a new Annex 12.\n(4)\nThe European Union, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Swiss Confederation have agreed that the Additional Agreement should also be amended in order to take into account the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications.\n(5)\nThe Agreement between the European Union, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein amending the Additional Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Agreement\u2019) should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein amending the Additional Agreement between the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein extending to the Principality of Liechtenstein the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, with the deposit of the instrument of approval provided for in Article 3 of the Agreement in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["62", "27", "43", "95", "19", "16", "63", "54", "69", "11", "47", "8", "64", "90", "59", "51", "89", "61", "6", "13", "45", "48", "52", "35", "98", "21", "93", "40", "33", "10", "No Label", "3", "9", "25", "66", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "25", "66", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 25 November 2010\non the allocation of monetary income of the national central banks of Member States whose currency is the euro\n(recast)\n(ECB/2010/23)\n(2011/66/EU)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the \u2018Statute of the ESCB\u2019), and in particular Article 32 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision ECB/2001/16 of 6 December 2001 on the allocation of monetary income of the national central banks of participating Member States from the financial year 2002 (1) has been substantially amended several times (2). Since further amendments are to be made, it should be recast in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 32.1 of the Statute of the ESCB, monetary income is the income accruing to the NCBs in the performance of the monetary policy function. Pursuant to Article 32.2 of the Statute of the ESCB, the amount of each NCB\u2019s monetary income is equal to its annual income derived from its assets held against notes in circulation and deposit liabilities to credit institutions. These assets are to be earmarked by NCBs in accordance with the guidelines of the Governing Council. NCBs should earmark the assets ensuing from the performance of the monetary policy function as assets held against the notes in circulation and deposit liabilities to credit institutions. Pursuant to Article 32.4 of the Statute of the ESCB, the amount of each NCB\u2019s monetary income is reduced by an amount equivalent to any interest paid by that NCB on its deposit liabilities to credit institutions in accordance with Article 19.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 32.5 of the Statute of the ESCB, the sum of the monetary income of the NCBs is allocated to them in proportion to their paid-up shares in the capital of the European Central Bank (ECB).\n(4)\nPursuant to Articles 32.6 and 32.7 of the Statute of the ESCB, the Governing Council is empowered to establish guidelines for the clearing and settlement by the ECB of the balances arising from the allocation of monetary income and to take all other measures necessary for the application of Article 32.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (3), the ECB and the NCBs put euro banknotes into circulation. Article 15 of this Regulation provides that banknotes denominated in national currency units remain legal tender within their territorial limits until 6 months from the respective cash changeover date at the latest. The cash changeover year should thus be regarded as a special year, since banknotes in circulation denominated in national currency units may still account for a considerable proportion of the banknotes in circulation.\n(6)\nArticle 15(1) of Guideline ECB/2006/9 of 14 July 2006 on certain preparations for the euro cash changeover and on frontloading and sub-frontloading of euro banknotes and coins outside the euro area (4) provides that euro banknotes frontloaded to eligible counterparties are debited in those counterparties\u2019 accounts with their NCB at their face value, in accordance with the following \u2018linear debiting model\u2019: the total amount of frontloaded euro banknotes are debited in three equal instalments, on the settlement date of the first, fourth and fifth Eurosystem main refinancing operations following the cash changeover date. The calculation of monetary income for the cash changeover year needs to take account of this \u2018linear debiting model\u2019.\n(7)\nThis Decision is related to Decision ECB/2010/29 of 13 December 2010 on the issue of euro banknotes (5), which provides that the ECB and the NCBs issue euro banknotes. Decision ECB/2010/29 establishes the allocation of euro banknotes in circulation to the NCBs in proportion to their paid-up shares in the capital of the ECB. It also allocates to the ECB 8 % of the total value of euro banknotes in circulation. The allocation of euro banknotes among Eurosystem members gives rise to intra-Eurosystem balances. The remuneration of these intra-Eurosystem balances on euro banknotes in circulation has a direct effect on the income of each Eurosystem member, and therefore it should be regulated under this Decision. The income accruing to the ECB on the remuneration of its intra-Eurosystem claims on NCBs related to its share of euro banknotes in circulation should in principle be distributed to the NCBs in accordance with Decision ECB/2010/24 of 25 November 2010 on the interim distribution of the income of the European Central Bank on euro banknotes in circulation and arising from securities purchased under the securities markets programme (6) in proportion to their shares in the subscribed capital key in the same financial year it accrues.\n(8)\nThe net balance of the intra-Eurosystem claims and liabilities on euro banknotes in circulation should be remunerated by applying an objective criterion defining the cost of money. In this context, the main refinancing operations rate used by the Eurosystem in its tenders for main refinancing operations is regarded as appropriate.\n(9)\nThe net intra-Eurosystem liabilities on euro banknotes in circulation should be included in the liability base for the purposes of the calculation of the NCBs\u2019 monetary income pursuant to Article 32.2 of the Statute of the ESCB as they are equivalent to banknotes in circulation. The settlement of interest on intra-Eurosystem balances on euro banknotes in circulation will therefore result in the distribution of a substantial amount of the Eurosystem\u2019s monetary income among NCBs in proportion to their paid-up shares in the capital of the ECB. These intra-Eurosystem balances should be adjusted to allow for a gradual adaptation of the NCBs\u2019 balance sheets and profit and loss accounts. The adjustments should be based on the value of banknotes in circulation of each NCB during a period prior to the introduction of euro banknotes. These adjustments should apply on a yearly basis in accordance with a fixed formula for no more than 5 years thereafter.\n(10)\nThe adjustments to the intra-Eurosystem balances on euro banknotes in circulation have been calculated in order to compensate for any significant changes in the NCBs\u2019 income positions as a consequence of the introduction of euro banknotes and the subsequent allocation of monetary income.\n(11)\nThe general rules laid down in Article 32 of the Statute of the ESCB also apply to the income resulting from the write-off of euro banknotes that have been withdrawn from circulation.\n(12)\nArticle 32.5 of the Statute of the ESCB specifies that the sum of the NCBs\u2019 monetary income is allocated to the NCBs in proportion to their paid up shares in the ECB\u2019s capital. Pursuant to Article 32.7 of the Statute of the ESCB, the Governing Council is competent to take all other measures necessary for the application of Article 32. This includes the competence to take account of other factors when deciding on the allocation of income resulting from the write-off of euro banknotes that have been withdrawn from circulation. In this context, the principles of equal treatment and fairness require that account be taken of the time period during which the withdrawn euro banknotes were issued. The allocation key for this specific income must therefore reflect both the relevant share in the ECB\u2019s capital and the length of the issue phase.\n(13)\nThe withdrawal of euro banknotes needs to be regulated by separate decisions to be taken pursuant to Article 5 of Decision ECB/2003/4 of 20 March 2003 on the denominations, specifications, reproduction, exchange and withdrawal of euro banknotes (7),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision:\n(a)\n\u2018NCB\u2019 means a national central bank of a Member State whose currency is the euro;\n(b)\n\u2018liability base\u2019 means the amount of qualifying liabilities, within the balance sheet of each NCB, specified in accordance with Annex I to this Decision;\n(c)\n\u2018earmarkable assets\u2019 means the amount of assets held against the liability base, within the balance sheet of each NCB, specified in accordance with Annex II to this Decision;\n(d)\n\u2018intra-Eurosystem balances on euro banknotes in circulation\u2019 means the claims and liabilities arising between an NCB and the ECB and between an NCB and the other NCBs as a result of the application of Article 4 of Decision ECB/2010/29;\n(e)\n\u2018subscribed capital key\u2019 means the NCBs\u2019 shares, expressed as percentages, in the ECB\u2019s subscribed capital that result from applying to the NCBs the weightings in the key referred to in Article 29.1 of the Statute of the ESCB and as applicable for the relevant financial year;\n(f)\n\u2018credit institution\u2019 means either: (a) a credit institution within the meaning of Article 2 and Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (8), as implemented in national law, that is subject to supervision by a competent authority; or (b) another credit institution within the meaning of Article 123(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that is subject to scrutiny of a standard comparable to supervision by a competent authority;\n(g)\n\u2018HBS\u2019 means the harmonised balance sheet as set out in Annex VIII to the Guideline ECB/2010/20 of 11 November 2010 on the legal framework for accounting and financial reporting in the European System of Central Banks (9);\n(h)\n\u2018reference rate\u2019 means the latest available marginal interest rate used by the Eurosystem in its tenders for main refinancing operations under paragraph 3.1.2 of Annex I to Guideline ECB/2000/7 of 31 August 2000 on monetary policy instruments and procedures of the Eurosystem (10). Where more than one main refinancing operation is conducted for settlement on the same day, a simple average of the marginal rates of the operations conducted in parallel is used;\n(i)\n\u2018cash changeover date\u2019 means the date on which euro banknotes and coins acquire the status of legal tender in a Member State whose currency is the euro;\n(j)\n\u2018reference period\u2019 means a period of 24 months starting 30 months before the cash changeover date;\n(k)\n\u2018cash changeover year\u2019 means a period of 12 months starting on the cash changeover date;\n(l)\n\u2018daily foreign exchange reference rate\u2019 means the daily foreign exchange reference rate that is based on the regular daily concertation procedure between central banks within and outside the European System of Central Banks, which normally takes place at 14.15 Central European Time;\n(m)\n\u2018withdrawn euro banknotes\u2019 means any euro banknote type or series that has been withdrawn from circulation by a decision of the Governing Council taken pursuant to Article 5 of Decision ECB/2003/4;\n(n)\n\u2018issue key\u2019 means the average subscribed capital key during the issue phase of a type or series of withdrawn euro banknotes;\n(o)\n\u2018issue phase\u2019, in relation to a euro banknote type or series, means the period starting on the date on which the first issue of a euro banknote of this type or series is recorded in the liability base and ending on the date on which the last issue of a euro banknote of this type or series is recorded in the liability base;\n(p)\n\u2018to write off\u2019 means to eliminate withdrawn euro banknotes from the balance sheet item \u2018banknotes in circulation\u2019.\nArticle 2\nIntra-Eurosystem balances on euro banknotes in circulation\n1. The intra-Eurosystem balances on euro banknotes in circulation shall be calculated on a monthly basis and shall be recorded in the books of the ECB and the NCBs on the first business day of the month with a value date of the last business day of the preceding month.\nWhere a Member State adopts the euro, the calculation of the intra-Eurosystem balances on euro banknotes in circulation under the first subparagraph shall be recorded in the books of the ECB and the NCBs with a value date of the cash changeover date.\nThe intra-Eurosystem balances on euro banknotes in circulation shall, for the period from 1 to 31 January of the first year with effect from which each quinquennial adjustment pursuant to Article 29.3 of the Statute of the ESCB applies, be calculated on the basis of the adjusted subscribed capital key applied to balances on the total euro banknotes in circulation on 31 December of the previous year.\n2. The intra-Eurosystem balances on euro banknotes in circulation, including those resulting from the application of Article 4 of this Decision, shall be remunerated at the reference rate.\n3. The remuneration referred to in paragraph 2 shall be settled by TARGET2 payments on a quarterly basis.\nArticle 3\nMethod for measuring monetary income\n1. The amount of each NCB\u2019s monetary income shall be determined by measuring the actual income that derives from the earmarkable assets recorded in its books. As exceptions thereto, gold shall not be considered to generate income, and securities held for monetary policy purposes under Decision ECB/2009/16 of 2 July 2009 on the implementation of the covered bond purchase programme (11) shall be considered to generate income at the reference rate.\n2. Where the value of an NCB\u2019s earmarkable assets exceeds or falls short of the value of its liability base, the difference shall be offset by applying the reference rate to the value of the difference.\nArticle 4\nAdjustments to intra-Eurosystem balances\n1. For the purposes of monetary income calculation, each NCB\u2019s intra-Eurosystem balances on euro banknotes in circulation shall be adjusted by a compensatory amount determined in accordance with the following formula:\nC = (K - A) \u00d7 S\nwhere:\nC\nis the compensatory amount,\nK\nis the euro amount for each NCB that results from the application of the subscribed capital key to the average value of banknotes in circulation during the reference period, whereby the amount of banknotes in circulation denominated in the national currency of a Member State that adopts the euro shall be translated into euro at the daily foreign exchange reference rate during the reference period,\nA\nis the average euro value for each NCB of banknotes in circulation during the reference period, translated into euro at the daily foreign exchange reference rate during the reference period,\nS\nis the following coefficient for each financial year, starting with the cash changeover date:\nFinancial year\nCoefficient\nCash changeover year\n1\nCash changeover year plus 1 year\n0,8606735\nCash changeover year plus 2 years\n0,7013472\nCash changeover year plus 3 years\n0,5334835\nCash changeover year plus 4 years\n0,3598237\nCash changeover year plus 5 years\n0,1817225\n2. The sum of the compensatory amounts of the NCBs shall be zero.\n3. Compensatory amounts shall be calculated each time a Member State adopts the euro or when the ECB\u2019s subscribed capital key changes.\n4. When an NCB joins the Eurosystem, its compensatory amount shall be allocated to the other NCBs in proportion to the respective shares of the other NCBs in the subscribed capital key, with the sign (+/-) reversed, and shall be in addition to any compensatory amounts already in force for the other NCBs.\n5. The compensatory amounts and the accounting entries to balance those compensatory amounts shall be recorded on separate intra-Eurosystem accounts in the books of each NCB with a value date of the cash changeover date and the same value date of each following year of the adjustment period. The accounting entries to balance the compensatory amounts shall not be remunerated.\n6. By derogation from paragraph 1, on the occurrence of specific events relating to changes in patterns of banknote circulation, as set out in Annex III to this Decision, each NCB\u2019s intra-Eurosystem balances on euro banknotes in circulation shall be adjusted in accordance with the provisions set out in that Annex.\n7. The adjustments to intra-Eurosystem balances provided for in this Article shall cease to apply from the first day of the sixth year following the relevant cash changeover year.\nArticle 5\nCalculation and allocation of monetary income\n1. The calculation of each NCB\u2019s monetary income shall be effected by the ECB on a daily basis. The calculation shall be based on accounting data reported by NCBs to the ECB. The ECB shall inform the NCBs of the cumulative amounts on a quarterly basis.\n2. The amount of each NCB\u2019s monetary income shall be reduced by an amount equivalent to any interest accrued or paid on liabilities included within the liability base, and in accordance with any decision of the Governing Council under the second subparagraph of Article 32.4 of the Statute of the ESCB.\n3. The allocation of the sum of each NCB\u2019s monetary income in proportion to the subscribed capital key shall take place at the end of each financial year.\nArticle 6\nCalculation and allocation of income resulting from the write-off of euro banknotes\n1. Withdrawn euro banknotes shall remain part of the liability base until they are exchanged or written off, whichever event occurs first.\n2. The Governing Council may decide to write off withdrawn euro banknotes, in which case it shall specify the write-off date and the total amount of the provision to be made for those withdrawn euro banknotes that are still expected to be exchanged.\n3. Withdrawn euro banknotes shall be written off as follows:\n(a)\nOn the write-off date, the ECB\u2019s and the NCBs\u2019 balance sheet items \u2018Banknotes in circulation\u2019 shall be reduced by the total amount of withdrawn euro banknotes still in circulation. For this purpose, the actual amounts of withdrawn euro banknotes that were put into circulation shall be adjusted to their pro-rata amounts calculated in accordance with the issue key, and the differences shall be settled among the ECB and the NCBs.\n(b)\nThe adjusted amount of withdrawn euro banknotes shall be written off from the balance sheet item \u2018Banknotes in circulation\u2019 to the NCBs\u2019 profit and loss accounts.\n(c)\nEach NCB shall establish a provision for withdrawn euro banknotes that are still expected to be exchanged. The provision shall be equivalent to the relevant NCB\u2019s share in the total amount of the provision calculated using the issue key.\n4. Withdrawn euro banknotes that are exchanged after the write-off date shall be recorded in the books of the NCB that has accepted them. The inflow of withdrawn euro banknotes shall be redistributed among NCBs at least once a year by applying the issue key, and the differences shall be settled between them. Each NCB shall set off the pro-rata amount against its provision or, in the event that the inflow exceeds the provision, record a corresponding expense in its profit and loss account.\n5. The Governing Council shall review the total amount of the provision on an annual basis.\nArticle 7\nRepeal\nDecision ECB/2001/16 is hereby repealed. References to the repealed Decision shall be construed as references to this Decision and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex V.\nArticle 8\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 31 December 2010.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 25 November 2010.", "references": ["39", "86", "8", "64", "46", "36", "37", "65", "18", "81", "33", "11", "16", "20", "19", "84", "87", "75", "3", "44", "61", "79", "32", "93", "71", "99", "34", "4", "90", "43", "No Label", "7", "10", "27", "28"], "gold": ["7", "10", "27", "28"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 9 June 2011\non the application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System in the Principality of Liechtenstein\n(2011/352/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (the Protocol) (1), which was signed on 28 February 2008 (2) and entered into force on 7 April 2011, and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 10(1) of the Protocol provides that the provisions of the Schengen acquis shall be put into effect by the Principality of Liechtenstein only pursuant to a Council decision to that effect after verification that the necessary conditions for the implementation of that acquis have been fulfilled by the Principality of Liechtenstein.\n(2)\nThe Council has verified that the Principality of Liechtenstein ensures satisfactory levels of data protection by taking the following steps: a full questionnaire was forwarded to the Principality of Liechtenstein, whose replies were recorded, and verification and evaluation visits were made to the Principality of Liechtenstein, in accordance with the applicable Schengen evaluation procedures as set out in the Decision of the Executive Committee of 16 September 1998 setting up a Standing Committee on the evaluation and implementation of Schengen (SCH/Com-ex (98) 26 def.) (3) (the Decision of the Executive Committee of 16 September 1998), in the area of Data Protection.\n(3)\nOn 9 June 2011, the Council concluded that the Principality of Liechtenstein had fulfilled the conditions in the area of Data Protection. It is therefore possible to set a date from which the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System (SIS) may apply to the Principality of Liechtenstein.\n(4)\nThe entry into force of this Decision should allow for real SIS data to be transferred to the Principality of Liechtenstein. The concrete use of these data should allow the Council, through the applicable Schengen evaluation procedures as set out in the Decision of the Executive Committee of 16 September 1998, to verify the correct application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the SIS in the Principality of Liechtenstein. Once those evaluations have been carried out, the Council should decide on the lifting of checks at internal borders with the Principality of Liechtenstein.\n(5)\nThe Agreement between the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis and concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in Liechtenstein, Iceland or Norway stipulates that it shall be put into effect in respect of the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis on the same date as the Protocol is put into effect.\n(6)\nA separate Council Decision should be adopted setting a date for the lifting of checks at internal borders. Until the date set out in that Decision, certain restrictions on the use of the SIS should be imposed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. From 19 July 2011, the provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the SIS, as referred to in Annex I, shall apply to the Principality of Liechtenstein in its relations with the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.\n2. The provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the SIS, as referred to in Annex II, shall apply from the date laid down in those provisions to the Principality of Liechtenstein in its relations with the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.\n3. From 9 June 2011, real SIS data may be transferred to the Principality of Liechtenstein.\nFrom 19 July 2011, the Principality of Liechtenstein shall be allowed to enter data into the SIS and use SIS data, subject to paragraph 4.\n4. Until the date of the lifting of checks at internal borders with the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Principality of Liechtenstein:\n(a)\nshall not be obliged to refuse entry to its territory to or to expel third country nationals for whom an SIS alert has been issued by a Member State for the purpose of refusing entry;\n(b)\nshall refrain from entering the data covered by Article 96 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (4) (the Schengen Convention).\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 9 June 2011.", "references": ["75", "48", "57", "70", "50", "86", "73", "76", "40", "51", "60", "20", "27", "77", "26", "31", "3", "53", "17", "94", "79", "24", "67", "29", "84", "95", "36", "0", "46", "55", "No Label", "13", "41", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "41", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/437/CFSP\nof 30 July 2010\namending Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 10 November 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1).\n(2)\nOn 8 December 2009, the Council adopted Decision 2009/907/CFSP amending the abovementioned Joint Action (2).\n(3)\nWith piracy being more and more effectively prevented in the Gulf of Aden and other areas near to the Somali coast, pirates are increasingly extending their activities into maritime areas more than 500 nautical miles off the coast of Somalia and neighbouring countries.\n(4)\nJoint Action 2008/851/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nJoint Action 2008/851/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The forces deployed to that end shall operate off the coast of Somalia and neighbouring countries in the maritime areas within the region of the Indian Ocean, in accordance with the political objective of an EU maritime operation, as defined in the crisis management concept approved by the Council on 5 August 2008.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 6(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Under the responsibility of the Council and of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter referred to as the \u201cHR\u201d), the Political and Security Committee (hereinafter referred to as the \u201cPSC\u201d) shall exercise the political control and strategic direction of the EU military operation. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty. This authorisation shall include the powers to amend the planning documents, including the Operation Plan, the Chain of Command and the Rules of Engagement. It shall also include the powers to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Operation Commander and/or EU Force Commander. The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of the EU military operation shall remain vested in the Council, assisted by the HR.\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8\nCoherence of EU response\nThe HR, the EU Operation Commander and the EU Force Commander shall closely coordinate their respective activities regarding the implementation of this Joint Action.\u2019;\n4.\nArticle 9(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The HR shall act as the primary point of contact with the United Nations, the Somali authorities, the authorities of neighbouring countries, and other relevant actors. Within the context of his contact with the African Union, the HR shall be assisted by the EU Special Representative (EUSR) to the African Union.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 10(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Detailed modalities for the participation by third States shall be the subject of agreements concluded in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 37 of the Treaty. Where the EU and a third State have concluded an agreement establishing a framework for the latter\u2019s participation in EU crisis management operations, the provisions of such an agreement shall apply in the context of this operation.\u2019;\n6.\nArticle 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\nStatus of EU-led forces\nThe status of the EU-led forces and their personnel, including the privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the fulfilment and smooth functioning of their mission, who:\n-\nare stationed on the land territory of third States,\n-\noperate in the territorial or internal waters of third States,\nshall be agreed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 37 of the Treaty.\u2019;\n7.\nArticle 15 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 15\nRelease of information to the United Nations and other third parties\n1. The HR is hereby authorised to release to the United Nations and to other third parties associated with this Joint Action, classified EU information and documents generated for the purposes of the EU military operation up to the level of classification appropriate for each of them and in accordance with the Council\u2019s security regulations (3).\n2. The HR is hereby authorised to release to the United Nations and to other third parties associated with this Joint Action, unclassified EU documents relating to Council deliberations on the operation which are covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (4).\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 30 July 2010.", "references": ["29", "25", "67", "69", "10", "61", "48", "23", "86", "50", "43", "19", "21", "53", "89", "14", "9", "15", "55", "8", "44", "18", "77", "66", "32", "76", "92", "91", "7", "93", "No Label", "1", "5", "6", "12", "41", "56", "59", "94"], "gold": ["1", "5", "6", "12", "41", "56", "59", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/706/CFSP\nof 27 October 2011\namending Decision 2010/638/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/638/CFSP (1), renewing the restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea until 27 October 2011 and repealing Common Position 2009/788/CFSP (2).\n(2)\nOn 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/169/CFSP (3), amending Decision 2010/638/CFSP in the light of the political situation and of the Report of the International Commission of Inquiry mandated to establish the facts and circumstances of the events of 28 September 2009 in Guinea.\n(3)\nOn the basis of a review of Decision 2010/638/CFSP, those restrictive measures should be extended until 27 October 2012.\n(4)\nFurthermore, it is necessary to amend the measures provided for in Decision 2010/638/CFSP regarding military equipment and equipment which might be used for internal repression.\n(5)\nDecision 2010/638/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/638/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Article 1 shall not apply to the:\n(a)\nsale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal military equipment or of equipment which might be used for internal repression, intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, or for institution building programmes of the United Nations (UN) and of the Union, or for Union and UN crisis management operations;\n(b)\nsale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal military equipment or of non-lethal equipment which might be used for internal repression, intended solely to enable the police and gendarmerie of the Republic of Guinea to use only appropriate and proportionate force while maintaining public order;\n(c)\nsale, supply, transfer or export of non-combat vehicles which have been manufactured or fitted with materials to provide ballistic protection, intended solely for the protective use of the personnel of the Union and its Member States in the Republic of Guinea;\n(d)\nprovision of technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to the items referred to in (a) to (c) or to the programmes and operations referred to in (a);\n(e)\nprovision of financing and financial assistance related to the items referred to in (a) to (c) or to the programmes and operations referred to in (a);\non condition that such exports and assistance have been approved in advance by the relevant competent authority.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 8(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. This Decision shall apply until 27 October 2012. It shall be kept under constant review. It may be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["75", "34", "92", "54", "96", "89", "33", "22", "4", "76", "51", "71", "98", "42", "11", "14", "93", "12", "50", "52", "64", "29", "9", "84", "36", "78", "8", "68", "70", "46", "No Label", "3", "6", "23", "94"], "gold": ["3", "6", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 149/2011\nof 18 February 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards Improvements to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards (1), and in particular Article 3(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 of 3 November 2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) certain international standards and interpretations that were in existence at 15 October 2008 were adopted.\n(2)\nOn 10 May 2010, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) published Improvements to International Financial Reporting Standards, hereinafter \u2018the Improvements\u2019, in the framework of its annual improvement process which aims at streamlining and clarifying the international accounting standards. The majority of the amendments are clarifications or corrections of existing International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) or amendments consequential to changes previously made to IFRS. Three amendments (two amendments to IFRS 1 and one amendment to IAS 34) involve changes to the existing requirements or additional guidance on the implementation of those requirements.\n(3)\nThe consultation with the Technical Expert Group (TEG) of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) confirms that the Improvements meet the technical criteria for adoption set out in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002. In accordance with Commission Decision 2006/505/EC of 14 July 2006 setting up a Standards Advice Review Group to advise the Commission on the objectivity and neutrality of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group's (EFRAG's) opinions (3), the Standards Advice Review Group considered EFRAG's opinion on endorsement and advised the Commission that it is well-balanced and objective.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1126/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Accounting Regulatory Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 is amended as follows:\n1.\nInternational Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 1 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;\n2.\nIFRS 7 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;\n3.\nIFRS 3 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;\n4.\nInternational Accounting Standard (IAS) 1 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;\n5.\nIAS 34 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;\n6.\nInternational Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee's (IFRIC) Interpretation 13 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;\n7.\nIFRS 7, IAS 32 and IAS 39 are amended in accordance with the amendments to IFRS 3 as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;\n8.\nIAS 21, IAS 28 and IAS 31 are amended in accordance with IAS 27as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEach company shall apply the amendments referred to in points (3), (7) and (8) of Article 1, at the latest, as from the commencement date of its first financial year starting after 30 June 2010.\nEach company shall apply the amendments referred to in points (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) of Article 1, at the latest, as from the commencement date of its first financial year starting after 31 December 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 February 2011.", "references": ["2", "28", "32", "87", "33", "43", "72", "53", "25", "91", "73", "31", "44", "89", "81", "92", "7", "20", "56", "5", "11", "29", "40", "95", "96", "21", "34", "80", "39", "59", "No Label", "18", "30", "41", "47", "76"], "gold": ["18", "30", "41", "47", "76"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/004 PL/Wielkopolskie Automotive from Poland)\n(2010/805/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nPoland submitted an application on 5 February 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in two enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 29 (manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers) in the NUTS II region of Wielkopolskie (PL41) and supplemented it with additional information up to 6 July 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 633 077.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Poland,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 633 077 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["55", "66", "75", "21", "87", "4", "61", "73", "43", "81", "70", "41", "28", "93", "65", "8", "63", "64", "11", "26", "18", "39", "25", "92", "53", "99", "2", "6", "27", "80", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 95/2012\nof 6 February 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 1125/2010 as regards the intervention centres for cereals in Germany\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 41 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1125/2010 of 3 December 2010 determining the intervention centres for cereals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1173/2009 (2) designates the intervention centres for cereals.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 55(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3), Germany has communicated to the Commission the amended list of its intervention centres for cereals and the list of storage premises attached to those centres which have been approved as fulfilling the minimum standards required by EU legislation (4).\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 1125/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly, and the list of storage premises attached thereto should be published on the Internet, together with all the information required by the operators concerned by the public intervention.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1125/2010 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 February 2012.", "references": ["42", "29", "41", "19", "7", "60", "62", "57", "10", "72", "28", "35", "16", "48", "65", "99", "22", "26", "14", "49", "50", "5", "55", "2", "92", "24", "84", "98", "77", "88", "No Label", "20", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 274/2011\nof 21 March 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Traditional Cumberland Sausage (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Traditional Cumberland Sausage\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["71", "59", "8", "10", "3", "68", "56", "78", "92", "30", "67", "44", "50", "61", "48", "35", "28", "4", "17", "83", "77", "38", "12", "9", "21", "65", "98", "84", "99", "29", "No Label", "23", "24", "25", "69", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "24", "25", "69", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 714/2010\nof 9 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 August 2010.", "references": ["80", "78", "27", "22", "40", "73", "92", "12", "14", "50", "63", "96", "36", "72", "10", "79", "67", "57", "43", "24", "84", "15", "25", "41", "49", "0", "4", "1", "77", "7", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 716/2011\nof 19 July 2011\nestablishing the fishing opportunities for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay for the 2011/2012 fishing season\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt 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\u2019s fishing activities for all stocks or groups of stocks and having due regard to the objectives of the common fisheries policy established by Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of suitable stock management and simplification, it is appropriate that a TAC and Member State quotas for the stock of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay (ICES subarea VIII) are set for an annual management season running from 1 July to 30 June of the following year, rather than a calendar year management period.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 57/2011 (2) establishes the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks in 2011, excluding anchovy in the Bay of Biscay.\n(4)\nThe Bay of Biscay anchovy TAC for the 2011/2012 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.\n(5)\nIn order to provide for a multiannual plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay covering the fishing season and establishing the harvest control rule applying for the fixing of fishing opportunities, on 29 July 2009 the Commission presented a proposal for a Regulation establishing a long-term plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay and the fisheries exploiting that stock. Having regard to that Commission proposal and considering that the impact assessment underlying that proposal provided for the most recent assessment of the impact of decisions on the fishing opportunities for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay, it is appropriate to fix a TAC for that stock accordingly. The advice issued by STECF on 15 July 2011 estimated the stock biomass to be approximately 98 450 tonnes. Consequently, the TAC for the fishing season running from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 should be established at 29 700 tonnes.\n(6)\nIn view of the specific scope and time of application of the fishing opportunities for anchovy, it is appropriate to establish those fishing opportunities by way of a separate Regulation. The fishery should nevertheless remain subject to the general provisions of Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 concerning the conditions for the use of quotas.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (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.\n(8)\nIn view of the start of the 2011/2012 fishing season and for the purpose of the annual reporting of catches, this Regulation should enter into force immediately and apply from 1 July 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFishing opportunities for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay\n1. The total allowable catch (TAC) and its allocation between Member States for the fishing season running from 1 July 2011 until 30 June 2012 for the stock of anchovy in ICES Subarea VIII, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 218/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), shall be as follows (in tonnes live weight):\nSpecies\n:\nAnchovy\nEngraulis encrasicolus\nICES Zone\n:\nVIII\n(ANE/08.)\nSpain\n26 730\nAnalytical TAC\nFrance\n2 970\nEU\n29 700\nTAC\n29 700\n2. The allocation of the fishing opportunities as set out in paragraph 1 and the use thereof shall be subject to the conditions set out in Articles 9, 12 and 14 of Regulation (EU) No 57/2011.\n3. The stock referred to in paragraph 1 shall be considered subject to an analytical TAC for the purpose of Regulation (EC) No 847/96. Article 3(2) and (3) and Article 4 of that Regulation shall apply.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["12", "72", "45", "2", "88", "39", "20", "15", "8", "27", "89", "32", "1", "53", "62", "57", "55", "16", "94", "42", "82", "50", "71", "48", "63", "78", "98", "31", "9", "65", "No Label", "13", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 168/2011\nof 23 February 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 107/2010 as regards the use of the feed additive Bacillus subtilis ATCC PTA-6737 in feed containing maduramycin ammonium, monensin sodium, narasin, or robenidine hydrochloride\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the possibility to modify the authorisation of a feed additive further to a request from the holder of the authorisation and an opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (the Authority).\n(3)\nThe use of the micro-organism preparation of Bacillus subtilis ATCC PTA-6737 was authorised for 10 years for chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EU) No 107/2010 (2).\n(4)\nThe holder of the authorisation applied for a modification of the authorisation of Bacillus subtilis ATCC PTA-6737 to allow its use in feed containing the coccidiostats maduramycin ammonium, monensin sodium, narasin, or robenidine hydrochloride for chickens for fattening. The holder of the authorisation submitted the relevant data to support this request.\n(5)\nThe Authority concluded in its opinion of 7 October 2010 that the additive Bacillus subtilis ATCC PTA-6737 is compatible with maduramycin ammonium, monensin sodium, narasin, or robenidine hydrochloride (3).\n(6)\nThe conditions provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 are satisfied.\n(7)\nRegulation (EU) No 107/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 107/2010 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2011.", "references": ["68", "89", "46", "16", "28", "90", "14", "98", "5", "76", "83", "40", "19", "92", "0", "96", "62", "47", "61", "17", "45", "21", "73", "4", "67", "85", "23", "1", "41", "25", "No Label", "38", "43", "66", "74"], "gold": ["38", "43", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 June 2012\non the position to be taken, on behalf of the European Union, in the EU-EFTA Joint Committee concerning the adoption of a Decision amending the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure\n(2012/431/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(9), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 15a of the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure (1) (the \u2018Convention\u2019) allows for a third country to become a Contracting Party to the Convention following a decision of the Joint Committee set up by the Convention to invite the country.\n(2)\nArticle 15 of the Convention empowers the Joint Committee to recommend and adopt, by decisions, amendments to the Convention and the Appendices thereto.\n(3)\nCroatia formally expressed its wish to join the common transit system and has been invited following a decision by the Joint Committee on 19 January 2012.\n(4)\nHaving satisfied the essential legal, structural and information technology requirements, which are preconditions for accession and following the formal procedure for accession, Croatia will accede the Convention.\n(5)\nThe enlargement of the common transit system will require certain amendments to the Convention. These concern new linguistic references in Croatian and the appropriate adaptations to guarantee documents.\n(6)\nThe proposed amendment was presented to and discussed within the EU-EFTA Working Group and the text received preliminary approval.\n(7)\nTherefore, the position of the European Union concerning the proposed amendment should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the EU-EFTA Joint Committee on common transit concerning the adoption of Decision No XXX by that Committee amending the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure shall be based on the draft Decision attached to this Decision.\nMinor changes to the draft Decision may be agreed to by the representatives of the Union in the EU-EFTA Joint Committee after having duly informed the Council.\nArticle 2\nThe Commission shall publish the Decision of the EU-EFTA Joint Committee on common transit, once adopted, in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 June 2012.", "references": ["2", "81", "79", "32", "38", "94", "46", "53", "22", "11", "25", "27", "66", "87", "20", "47", "68", "76", "67", "61", "34", "0", "82", "8", "73", "74", "35", "52", "7", "33", "No Label", "3", "21", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "21", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 604/2012\nof 3 July 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for saithe in VI; EU and international waters of Vb, XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 July 2012.", "references": ["27", "14", "45", "24", "6", "36", "22", "49", "78", "81", "84", "79", "98", "30", "62", "70", "29", "69", "76", "53", "47", "21", "10", "93", "42", "68", "43", "12", "46", "86", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 998/2011\nof 7 October 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 995/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 October 2011.", "references": ["9", "34", "68", "99", "38", "43", "87", "1", "82", "2", "52", "50", "66", "97", "92", "3", "61", "91", "46", "5", "28", "73", "33", "14", "24", "29", "84", "15", "4", "89", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1200/2011\nof 18 November 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["1", "80", "54", "56", "45", "40", "26", "90", "34", "5", "65", "84", "73", "3", "38", "25", "87", "67", "13", "31", "32", "69", "86", "49", "46", "18", "94", "79", "19", "59", "No Label", "21", "85"], "gold": ["21", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 968/2010\nof 27 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2010.", "references": ["27", "52", "63", "34", "42", "19", "48", "84", "44", "98", "77", "39", "30", "51", "90", "85", "60", "74", "0", "40", "37", "56", "14", "49", "76", "54", "86", "50", "20", "82", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 6 December 2010\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the Joint Committee established under the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons as regards the replacement of Annex II to that Agreement on the coordination of social security schemes\n(2011/505/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(2)(b), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council, and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven agreements with the Swiss Confederation (1), and in particular Article 2 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons (2) (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) entered into force on 1 June 2002.\n(2)\nArticle 18 of the Agreement provides that the Joint Committee may, by decision, adopt amendments to the Agreement, inter alia, to Annex II to the Agreement, dealing with the coordination of social security schemes.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure the coherent and correct application of legal acts of the Union and to avoid administrative and possibly legal difficulties, Annex II to the Agreement needs to be amended to integrate new legal acts of the Union to which the Agreement does not currently refer.\n(4)\nIn the interests of clarity and rationality, Annex II to the Agreement and the Protocol to that Annex should be codified.\n(5)\nThe Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union applies to this Decision. The Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union also applies to this Decision.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of the said Protocol, these Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound by it or subject to its application. In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(7)\nThe undertakings contained in the Agreement that fall within the scope of Part Three, Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are not binding on Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom as obligations under Union law but continue to apply as obligations arising from an undertaking between those Member States and the Swiss Confederation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the Union in the Joint Committee established under Article 14 of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the Free Movement of Persons shall be based on the draft Decision of the Joint Committee set out in Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Declaration set out in Annex II to this Decision is hereby approved and shall be made on behalf of the Union in the Joint Committee when the Joint Committee adopts its Decision referred to in Article 1.\nDone at Brussels, 6 December 2010.", "references": ["43", "26", "69", "91", "25", "97", "79", "47", "18", "65", "84", "15", "78", "35", "74", "40", "2", "61", "64", "89", "3", "71", "23", "76", "42", "98", "41", "36", "81", "0", "No Label", "7", "13", "37"], "gold": ["7", "13", "37"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/69/EU\nof 1 July 2011\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include imidacloprid as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes imidacloprid.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, imidacloprid has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nGermany was designated as rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 15 September 2008 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 16 December 2010, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods and containing imidacloprid may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include imidacloprid in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at Union level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to human populations and to environmental compartments that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nIn view of the risks identified for the aquatic compartment, it is appropriate to require that products are not authorised for uses in animal housings where emission to a sewage treatment plant or direct emission to surface water cannot be prevented, unless data is submitted demonstrating that the product will meet the requirements of both Article 5 of and Annex VI to Directive 98/8/EC, if necessary by the application of appropriate risk mitigation measures.\n(8)\nIn the light of the findings of the assessment report, it is appropriate to require that risk mitigation measures are applied at product authorisation level. In particular, in the light of the possible risk for non-professionals, appropriate risk mitigation measures should be taken to minimise the potential exposure of infants and children.\n(9)\nIn the light of the findings relating to possible indirect human exposure via consumption of food, it is appropriate to require, where relevant, verification of the need to set new or amended existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) according to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) or Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4). Measures should be adopted ensuring that the applicable MRLs are not exceeded.\n(10)\nIt is important that the provisions of this Directive be applied simultaneously in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment of biocidal products on the market containing the active substance imidacloprid and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(11)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(12)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(13)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 June 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 July 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2011.", "references": ["75", "8", "9", "65", "78", "79", "20", "59", "97", "39", "40", "34", "5", "49", "6", "10", "28", "95", "24", "73", "90", "70", "41", "93", "31", "64", "84", "77", "26", "27", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "60", "61"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "60", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 15 December 2010\namending Decision 2006/944/EC determining the respective emission levels allocated to the Community and each of its Member States under the Kyoto Protocol pursuant to Council Decision 2002/358/EC\n(notified under document C(2010) 9009)\n(2010/778/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2002/358/EC of 25 April 2002 concerning the approval, on behalf of the European Community, of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the joint fulfilment of commitments thereunder (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2006/944/EC (2) determines emission levels for the Union and its Member States for the 5-year period of the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.\n(2)\nThe emission levels set out in Decision 2006/944/EC were based on provisional data, as the definitive base-year emission figures were not established by 31 December 2006.\n(3)\nFollowing the completion of the reviews conducted pursuant to Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the final respective emission levels allocated to the Union and to each Member State should now be established pursuant to the methodology set out in Decision 2006/944/EC.\n(4)\nDenmark has consistently expressed concerns regarding its base-year emissions as a result of the exceptionally low base-year emissions provided in its report submitted pursuant to Article 23 of Commission Decision 2005/166/EC (3). In order to fully account for Denmark\u2019s special and unique situation, which was recognised by the Council in 2002 in the process leading to the adoption of Decision 2002/358/EC, resulting from its unusually low base-year emissions and its having one of the highest quantified emission reduction obligations pursuant to Annex II to that Decision, the Union should transfer five million assigned amount units to Denmark for the sole purpose of compliance with the commitments in the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Commission has taken due consideration of Denmark\u2019s commitment to cancel any allowances remaining from this transfer at the end of the first commitment period.\n(5)\nDecision 2006/944/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2006/944/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe difference of 19 357 532 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent between the emission levels of the Union and the sum of the emission levels of the Member States listed in Annex II to Decision 2002/358/EC shall be issued as assigned amount units by the Union.\u2019.\n2.\nThe Annex is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Central Administrator of the Union registry shall transfer five million (5 000 000) of these assigned amount units to the Party to the Kyoto Protocol holding account in the registry of Denmark.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["15", "24", "81", "76", "94", "41", "4", "74", "88", "52", "54", "7", "26", "1", "62", "99", "29", "10", "12", "80", "27", "95", "37", "45", "0", "98", "55", "28", "11", "69", "No Label", "3", "58", "60"], "gold": ["3", "58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/752/CFSP\nof 24 November 2011\namending Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (1), EULEX KOSOVO\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 4 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP (2).\n(2)\nOn 9 June 2009, the Council adopted Joint Action 2009/445/CFSP (3), which amended Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP by increasing the financial reference amount to cover the expenditure of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (\u2018EULEX KOSOVO\u2019) until the expiry of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP.\n(3)\nOn 8 June 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/322/CFSP (4), which amended Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP and extended it for a period of 2 years until 14 June 2012.\n(4)\nThe current financial reference amount covers the period until 14 December 2011. Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP should be amended to provide a new financial reference amount for the period from 15 December 2011 until 14 June 2012.\n(5)\nEULEX KOSOVO will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the common foreign and security policy as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 16(1) of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure of EULEX KOSOVO until 14 October 2010 shall be EUR 265 000 000.\nThe financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure of EULEX KOSOVO from 15 October 2010 until 14 December 2011 shall be EUR 165 000 000.\nThe financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure of EULEX KOSOVO from 15 December 2011 until 14 June 2012 shall be EUR 72 800 000.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 November 2011.", "references": ["42", "54", "46", "79", "65", "49", "67", "55", "77", "60", "99", "40", "93", "64", "52", "27", "45", "66", "62", "11", "35", "89", "56", "51", "21", "41", "81", "8", "80", "4", "No Label", "0", "3", "9", "32", "91", "96"], "gold": ["0", "3", "9", "32", "91", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 633/2012\nof 12 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2012.", "references": ["51", "29", "1", "82", "2", "95", "47", "10", "99", "74", "83", "3", "60", "50", "80", "7", "44", "62", "59", "13", "40", "33", "94", "5", "53", "70", "67", "57", "72", "26", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 285/2012\nof 29 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 March 2012.", "references": ["10", "77", "47", "99", "76", "50", "79", "65", "8", "34", "38", "94", "17", "2", "85", "75", "30", "86", "4", "62", "84", "21", "54", "19", "5", "46", "29", "44", "71", "91", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 171/2011\nof 23 February 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 14223 as a feed additive for poultry and for porcine species and amending Regulation (EC) No 255/2005 (holder of authorisation DSM Nutritional Products Ltd represented by DSM Nutritional products Sp. z o.o)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).\n(2)\n6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 14223 was authorised in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC as a feed additive without a time limit for chickens for fattening, laying hens, turkeys for fattening, piglets, pigs for fattening and sows by Commission Regulation (EC) No 255/2005 (3). That additive was subsequently entered in the Community Register of feed additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThat feed additive was also authorised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 for 10 years for ducks by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1500/2007 of 18 December 2007 concerning the authorisation of a new use of 6-phytase EC 3.1.3.26 (Ronozyme) as a feed additive (4).\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 of that Regulation, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 14223 as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, laying hens, turkeys for fattening, piglets, pigs for fattening and sows and, in accordance with Article 7 of that Regulation, for a new use on poultry species and porcine species, not covered previously, requesting that additive to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nNew data were submitted to support the application. The European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 6 October 2010 (5) that, under the proposed conditions of use, 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 14223 does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use can improve the digestibility of phosphorus. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 14223 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nAs a consequence of a new authorisation being granted by this Regulation, the entry for 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 14223 in Regulation (EC) No 255/2005 should be deleted.\n(8)\nIn the interest of clarity, Regulation (EC) No 1500/2007 should be repealed.\n(9)\nSince the modifications to the conditions of the authorisation are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for the disposal of existing stocks of pre-mixtures and compound feed.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018digestibility enhancers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 255/2005, the entry EC No: 1614(i), additive: 6-phytase EC 3.1.3.26, is deleted.\nArticle 3\nRegulation (EC) No 1500/2007 is repealed.\nArticle 4\nPre-mixtures and compound feed containing 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 14223 which are labelled in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 255/2005 may continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are exhausted.\nPre-mixtures and compound feed containing 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 14223 which are labelled in accordance with Regulations (EC) No 1831/2003 and (EC) No 1500/2007 may continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2011.", "references": ["43", "42", "76", "75", "64", "85", "99", "80", "84", "90", "58", "11", "56", "10", "6", "7", "36", "37", "8", "70", "34", "98", "12", "46", "15", "22", "3", "96", "77", "16", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/255/CFSP\nof 14 May 2012\namending Decision 2011/427/CFSP extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 March 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/168/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Vygaudas USACKAS as European Union Special Representative (\u2018EUSR\u2019) in Afghanistan.\n(2)\nOn 18 July 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/427/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 30 June 2012. The financial reference amount provided for to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR until that date was set at EUR 3 560 000. The financial reference amount should be increased in order to allow for additional operational needs of the EUSR.\n(3)\nDecision 2011/427/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 5(1) of Decision 2011/427/CFSP shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 September 2011 to 30 June 2012 shall be EUR 3 860 000.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 May 2012.", "references": ["1", "6", "85", "96", "32", "44", "54", "7", "62", "30", "24", "90", "65", "51", "53", "15", "67", "77", "76", "73", "19", "91", "25", "61", "69", "48", "97", "68", "84", "31", "No Label", "3", "10", "95"], "gold": ["3", "10", "95"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION ATALANTA/5/2011\nof 16 December 2011\namending Political and Security Committee Decision ATALANTA/2/2009 on the acceptance of third States\u2019 contributions to the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta) and Political and Security Committee Decision ATALANTA/3/2009 on the setting up of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)\n(2011/846/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,\nHaving regard to Political and Security Committee Decision Atalanta/2/2009 (2) and to Political and Security Committee Decision Atalanta/3/2009 (3), and the addendum thereto (4),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe EU Operation Commander held a Force Generation Conference on 16 December 2008.\n(2)\nFollowing the offer by Serbia to contribute to operation Atalanta, the recommendation by the EU Operation Commander and the advice by the European Union Military Committee (EUMC), the contribution from Serbia should be accepted.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1 of Political and Security Committee Decision Atalanta/2/2009 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThird States\u2019 contributions\nFollowing the Force Generation and Manning Conferences and the recommendations by the EU Operation Commander and the European Union Military Committee, the contributions from Norway, Croatia, Montenegro, Ukraine and Serbia shall be accepted for the EU military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta).\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe Annex to Political and Security Committee Decision Atalanta/3/2009 is replaced by the text appearing in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["86", "6", "28", "51", "17", "1", "89", "79", "50", "19", "8", "36", "54", "78", "64", "37", "24", "67", "41", "47", "75", "34", "98", "74", "46", "45", "69", "65", "38", "85", "No Label", "4", "9", "12", "91", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "9", "12", "91", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2012/171/CFSP\nof 23 March 2012\nimplementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Decision 2010/639/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/639/CFSP.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex V to Decision 2010/639/CFSP.\n(3)\nThe information relating to one person on the list in Annex V to Decision 2010/639/CFSP should be updated.\n(4)\nAnnex V to Decision 2010/639/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex V to Decision 2010/639/CFSP shall be amended as set out in Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe persons and entities listed in Annex II to this Decision shall be added to Annex V to Decision 2010/639/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["43", "17", "64", "23", "35", "33", "95", "92", "69", "50", "14", "67", "54", "38", "73", "13", "47", "85", "93", "71", "5", "41", "21", "79", "62", "26", "11", "98", "83", "46", "No Label", "3", "12", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "12", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 753/2011\nof 1 August 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/486/CFSP of 1 August 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan (1), adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 17 June 2011, the United Nations Security Council (\u2018UNSC\u2019), acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, adopted Resolution 1988 (2011) concerning the situation in Afghanistan which still constitutes a threat to international peace and security.\n(2)\nOn 1 August 2011, the Council of the European Union adopted Decision 2011/486/CFSP which provides for the freezing of funds and economic resources of, restrictions on the admission to the Union of, prohibition on the direct and indirect supply, sale or transfer, of weapons and military equipment to, and prohibition on the provision of related assistance and services to, individuals, groups, undertakings and entities listed either by the Committee established by UNSC Resolution 1988 (2011), or prior to the adoption of that Resolution, by the Committee established by UNSC Resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000).\n(3)\nSome of those measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(4)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the right to the protection of personal data. This Regulation should be applied in accordance with those rights.\n(5)\nThis Regulation also fully respects the obligations of Member States under the Charter of the United Nations and the legally binding nature of the UNSC Resolutions.\n(6)\nThe power to amend the list in Annex I to this Regulation should be exercised by the Council, in view of the specific threat to international peace and security posed by the situation in Afghanistan, and to ensure consistency with the process for amending and reviewing the Annex to Decision 2011/486/CFSP.\n(7)\nThe procedure for amending the list in Annex I to this Regulation should include providing designated natural or legal persons, groups, undertakings and entities with the grounds for listing, so as to give them an opportunity to submit observations. Where observations are submitted by any designated person, group, undertaking or entity, or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in the light of those observations and inform the person, group, undertaking or entity concerned accordingly.\n(8)\nFor the implementation of this Regulation, and in order to create maximum legal certainty within the Union, the names and other relevant data concerning natural and legal persons, groups, undertakings and entities whose funds and economic resources should be frozen in accordance with this Regulation, must be made public. Any processing of personal data should respect Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (2) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (3).\n(9)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018funds\u2019 means financial assets and benefits of every kind, including but not limited to:\n(i)\ncash, cheques, claims on money, drafts, money orders and other payment instruments;\n(ii)\ndeposits with financial institutions or other entities, balances on accounts, debts and debt obligations;\n(iii)\npublicly- and privately-traded securities and debt instruments, including stocks and shares, certificates representing securities, bonds, notes, warrants, debentures and derivatives contracts;\n(iv)\ninterest, dividends or other income on or value accruing from or generated by assets;\n(v)\ncredit, right of set-off, guarantees, performance bonds or other financial commitments;\n(vi)\nletters of credit, bills of lading, bills of sale;\n(vii)\ndocuments evidencing an interest in funds or financial resources;\n(b)\n\u2018freezing of funds\u2019 means preventing any move, transfer, alteration, use of, access to, or dealing with funds in any way that would result in any change in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination or other change that would enable the funds to be used, including portfolio management;\n(c)\n\u2018economic resources\u2019 means assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which are not funds but may be used to obtain funds, goods or services;\n(d)\n\u2018freezing of economic resources\u2019 means preventing their use to obtain funds, goods or services in any way, including, but not limited to, by selling, hiring or mortgaging them;\n(e)\n\u2018technical assistance\u2019 means any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance, or any other technical service, and may take forms such as instruction, advice, training, transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services; including verbal forms of assistance;\n(f)\n\u2018Sanctions Committee\u2019 means the Committee of the UNSC which was established pursuant to paragraph 30 of UNSC Resolution 1988 (2011);\n(g)\n\u20181267 Committee\u2019 means the Committee of the UNSC which was established pursuant to UNSC Resolutions 1267(1999) and 1333(2000).\n(h)\n\u2018grounds for listing\u2019 means the publicly releasable portion of the statement of case as provided by the Sanctions Committee and/or, where applicable, the narrative summary of reasons for listing as provided by the Sanctions Committee; or in the case of a person, group, undertaking or entity listed in Annex I to this Regulation, who was previously listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (4), the statement of case and/or narrative summary of reasons provided by the 1267 Committee.\n(i)\n\u2018territory of the Union\u2019 means the territories of the Member States to which the TFEU is applicable, under the conditions laid down in the TFEU, including their airspace.\nArticle 2\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List of the European Union (5) (\u2018Common Military List\u2019), or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of goods included in that list, to any person, group, undertaking or entity listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibition in point (a).\nArticle 3\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by a natural or legal person, group, undertaking or entity listed in Annex I shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of a natural or legal person, group, undertaking or entity listed in Annex I.\n3. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited.\nArticle 4\n1. Annex I shall consist of a list of natural or legal persons, groups, undertakings and entities who:\n(a)\nwere listed, immediately prior to the date of adoption of UNSC Resolution 1988 (2011), as the Taliban, and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them, in section A (\u2018Individuals associated with the Taliban\u2019) and section B (\u2018entities and other groups and undertaking associated with the Taliban\u2019) of the Consolidated List of the 1267 Committee; or\n(b)\nhave been designated by the Sanctions Committee as being individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with the Taliban in constituting a threat to the peace, stability and security of Afghanistan.\n2. Annex I shall include the grounds for listing of listed natural or legal persons, groups, undertakings and entities, as provided by the UNSC or by the Sanctions Committee.\n3. Annex I shall also include, where available, the information necessary to identify the natural or legal persons, groups, undertakings and entities concerned, as provided by the UNSC or by the Sanctions Committee. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and identity card numbers, gender, address, if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, groups, undertakings and entities, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. Annex I shall also include the date of designation by the UNSC or by the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 5\n1. By way of derogation from Article 3, the competent authorities of the Member States as identified on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are:\n(a)\nnecessary for the basic expenses of persons listed in Annex I and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgages, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources;\nprovided that the Member State concerned has notified the Sanctions Committee of such determination and its intention to grant the authorisation, and the Sanctions Committee has not objected to that course of action within three working days of notification.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 3, the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, after having determined that the frozen funds or economic resources are necessary for extraordinary expenses provided that the Sanctions Committee has been notified of that determination by the Member State concerned and the determination has been approved by the Sanctions Committee.\n3. Any person, group, undertaking or entity wishing to benefit from the exemptions referred to in paragraphs 1 or 2 shall address its request to the relevant competent authority of the Member State as listed in Annex II.\nThe competent authority listed in Annex II shall promptly notify both the person, group, undertaking or entity that made the request, and any other person, group, undertaking or entity known to be directly concerned, in writing, of whether the request has been granted.\nThe relevant Member State shall also inform other Member States and the Commission whether the request for such an exemption has been granted.\n4. Funds released and transferred within the Union in order to meet expenses or recognised by virtue of this Article shall not be subject to further restrictive measures pursuant to Article 3.\n5. In the case of persons, groups, undertakings or entities listed in Annex I to this Regulation who were previously listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, authorisations granted previously by the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex II, in relation to the categories of derogation described in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, shall continue to apply.\nArticle 6\n1. Article 3(2) shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which the account became subject to this Regulation, or, in the case of persons, groups, undertakings or entities listed in Annex I to this Regulation who were previously listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, the date on which they were first subject to Regulation (EC) No 337/2000 (6), Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 (7), or Regulation (EC) No 881/2002.\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments are frozen in accordance with Article 3(1).\n2. Article 3(2) shall not prevent financial or credit institutions in the Union from crediting frozen accounts where they receive funds transferred to the account of a listed natural or legal person, group, undertaking or entity, provided that any additions to such accounts will also be frozen. The financial or credit institution shall inform the relevant competent authority about any such transaction without delay.\nArticle 7\n1. The freezing of funds and economic resources or the refusal to make funds or economic resources available, carried out in good faith on the basis that such action is in accordance with this Regulation, shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal person or entity or body implementing it, or its directors or employees, unless it is proved that the funds and economic resources were frozen or withheld as a result of negligence.\n2. The prohibition set out in Article 3(2) shall not give rise to any liability of any kind on the part of the natural and legal persons, entities or bodies who made funds or economic resources available if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe the prohibition in question.\nArticle 8\n1. Without prejudice to the applicable rules concerning reporting, confidentiality and professional secrecy, natural and legal persons, entities and bodies shall:\n(a)\nsupply immediately any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 3, to the competent authority in the Member State where they are resident or located, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II, and shall transmit such information, either directly or through the Member States, to the Commission; and\n(b)\ncooperate with that competent authority in any verification of that information.\n2. Any information provided or received in accordance with this Article shall be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.\nArticle 9\nThe Member States and the Commission shall immediately inform each other of the measures taken under this Regulation and shall supply each other with any other relevant information at their disposal in connection with this Regulation, in particular information in respect of violation and enforcement problems and judgments handed down by national courts.\nArticle 10\nThe Commission shall be empowered to amend Annex II on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\nArticle 11\n1. Where the UNSC or the Sanctions Committee lists a natural or legal person, group, undertaking or entity the Council shall include such natural or legal person, group, undertaking or entity on the list in Annex I.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the natural or legal person, group, undertaking or entity referred to in paragraph 1, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, group, undertaking or entity with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the natural or legal person, group, undertaking or entity accordingly.\n4. Where the United Nations decides to delist a natural or legal person, group, undertaking or entity, or to amend the identifying data of a listed natural or legal person, group, undertaking or entity, the Council shall amend Annex I accordingly.\n5. Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall also apply to a natural or legal person, group, undertaking or entity listed in Annex I to this Regulation, who was previously listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002.\nArticle 12\n1. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules without delay after the entry into force of this Regulation and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment.\nArticle 13\nWhere there is, in this Regulation, a requirement to notify, inform or otherwise communicate with the Commission, the address and other contact details to be used for such communication shall be those indicated in Annex II.\nArticle 14\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, group, undertaking or entity which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, group, undertaking or entity in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\nArticle 15\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 August 2011.", "references": ["52", "38", "49", "85", "40", "18", "55", "89", "7", "73", "51", "82", "8", "83", "88", "30", "54", "29", "34", "80", "68", "74", "70", "25", "2", "75", "33", "57", "21", "46", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 14 October 2011\non excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)\n(notified under document C(2011) 7105)\n(Only the Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, German, Greek, Italian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2011/689/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving consulted the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999, and Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the Commission is to carry out the necessary verifications, communicate to the Member States the results of these verifications, take note of the comments of the Member States, initiate a bilateral discussion so that an agreement may be reached with the Member States in question, and formally communicate its conclusions to them.\n(2)\nThe Member States have had an opportunity to request the launch of a conciliation procedure. That opportunity has been used in some cases and the reports issued on the outcome have been examined by the Commission.\n(3)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 and Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, only agricultural expenditure which has been incurred in a way that has not infringed European Union rules may be financed.\n(4)\nIn the light of the verifications carried out, the outcome of the bilateral discussions and the conciliation procedures, part of the expenditure declared by the Member States does not fulfil this requirement and cannot, therefore, be financed under the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the EAGF and the EAFRD.\n(5)\nThe amounts that are not recognised as being chargeable to the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the EAGF and the EAFRD should be indicated. Those amounts do not relate to expenditure incurred more than 24 months before the Commission\u2019s written notification of the results of the verifications to the Member States.\n(6)\nAs regards the cases covered by this decision, the assessment of the amounts to be excluded on grounds of non-compliance with European Union rules was notified by the Commission to the Member States in a summary report on the subject.\n(7)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to any financial conclusions that the Commission may draw from the judgments of the Court of Justice in cases pending on 30 April 2011 and relating to its content,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe expenditure itemised in the Annex hereto that has been incurred by the Member States\u2019 accredited paying agencies and declared under the EAGGF Guarantee Section, under the EAGF or under the EAFRD shall be excluded from European Union financing because it does not comply with European Union rules.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2011.", "references": ["53", "29", "51", "76", "68", "37", "55", "22", "11", "75", "94", "72", "77", "42", "92", "0", "89", "67", "40", "14", "35", "19", "25", "18", "43", "59", "34", "24", "88", "1", "No Label", "4", "8", "10", "61"], "gold": ["4", "8", "10", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1082/2010\nof 24 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["26", "19", "12", "50", "65", "95", "1", "5", "30", "28", "71", "92", "64", "93", "48", "87", "77", "63", "94", "42", "20", "32", "85", "43", "36", "75", "83", "31", "84", "33", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 845/2010\nof 23 September 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for bluefin tuna in Atlantic Ocean, east of 45\u00b0 W, and Mediterranean by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2010.", "references": ["34", "82", "43", "1", "45", "73", "57", "84", "95", "50", "10", "0", "33", "58", "76", "27", "22", "55", "81", "89", "24", "98", "23", "99", "54", "29", "15", "46", "6", "3", "No Label", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 285/2011\nof 22 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 March 2011.", "references": ["40", "84", "69", "34", "27", "49", "55", "74", "31", "66", "71", "47", "70", "87", "96", "64", "11", "60", "76", "0", "22", "57", "89", "93", "2", "24", "92", "14", "37", "17", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1214/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\non the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 133 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe introduction of the euro has considerably increased the need for cross-border transport of cash by road. Within the euro area, banks, the large retail sector and other professional cash handlers should be able to contract with the cash-in-transit (CIT) company that offers the best price and/or service and to take advantage of the cash services of the nearest national central bank (NCB) branch or CIT cash centre, even if it is located in another Member State. Furthermore, a large number of Member States whose currency is the euro (hereinafter \u2018participating Member States\u2019) have arranged, or may want to arrange for, euro banknotes and coins to be produced abroad. The very principle of a single currency implies the freedom to move cash between participating Member States.\n(2)\nDue to the marked differences between Member States\u2019 national law, it is generally very difficult to carry out the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between participating Member States. This situation is in contradiction to the principle of the free circulation of the euro and is to the detriment of the principle of freedom to provide services, which are among the fundamental principles of the European Union.\n(3)\nThis Regulation is the response to the possible presentation of harmonisation instruments for the transport of cash, as expressed in Article 38(b) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (3).\n(4)\nWith a view to improving CIT security for both the CIT security staff involved and the public, use of the intelligent banknote neutralisation system (IBNS) should be encouraged and, after a thorough analysis of the potential impacts by the Commission, should be capable of being developed in a manner entailing harmonisation of IBNS among the participating Member States, without prejudice to the rules set out in this Regulation on applicable transport arrangements.\n(5)\nIn view of the particular dangers to the health and life of both CIT security staff and the general public that are associated with the activity of transporting cash, it is appropriate that the cross-border transport of euro cash be subject to holding a specific cross-border CIT-licence. Such a licence should be held in addition to the national CIT licence that is required in most participating Member States, the form of which this Regulation does not harmonise. It is, moreover, appropriate that CIT companies established in those participating Member States which do not have a specific approval procedure for CIT-companies in addition to their general rules for the security or transport sectors, demonstrate a minimum experience of 24 months of regularly transporting cash in the Member State of establishment without infringing national law before they are granted a cross-border CIT licence by that Member State. Such an approach would increase mutual confidence between Member States.\n(6)\nIn order to avoid the duplication of obligations and the introduction of an unnecessarily burdensome procedure, it is furthermore appropriate to provide that the holder of a cross-border CIT licence is not required also to hold a Community licence for the international carriage of goods by road, as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (4).\n(7)\nThe professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between participating Member States should fully comply with this Regulation or with the law of the Member State of origin, the host Member State and, if applicable, the Member State of transit.\n(8)\nThis Regulation is designed to allow the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between participating Member States under conditions that guarantee the security of the transaction, the safety of the CIT security staff involved and of the public and the free movement of euro cash. In accordance with normal market practice, it is also appropriate to allow a limited value of non-euro cash to be transported in the same CIT vehicle.\n(9)\nIn view of the specific requirements facing cross-border CIT workers, it is appropriate that they follow a specific cross-border training module as detailed in Annex VI. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication, the cross-border training module should not include the elements already covered by compulsory training required for carrying out the domestic CIT activity.\n(10)\nDue to the specific conditions in the CIT sector, it is difficult to organise safe multi-day euro cash deliveries. It is therefore appropriate that a CIT vehicle carrying out the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road return to its Member State of origin on the same day.\n(11)\nThe Commission should put forward a proposal to amend the definition of \u2018daytime\u2019 and/or of the minimum required length of ad-hoc initial training laid down in this Regulation in the event that the social partners at Union level agree that another definition is more appropriate.\n(12)\nAccording to Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009, the number of operations that may be carried out in the host Member State following the international carriage from another Member State is limited to three cabotage operations within 7 days. However, due to the specific characteristics of the CIT sector, it is normal practice for a CIT vehicle to carry out a much larger number of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups per day. It is therefore appropriate to derogate from Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 by not imposing any limit upon the number of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups that a CIT vehicle may carry out in a host Member State during a single day.\n(13)\nNational rules governing the behaviour of CIT security staff outside a CIT vehicle and governing the security of euro cash delivery/pick-up locations should not cover the possible use of banknote neutralisation systems in combination with the transport of banknotes in a fully-armoured CIT vehicle not equipped with IBNS.\n(14)\nArticle 1(3)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (5) covers posting situations where an undertaking provides transnational services on its own account and under its direction under a contract concluded between the undertaking and the party for whom the services are intended.\n(15)\nConsidering the specific nature of CIT transport services, there is a need to provide for the analogous application of Directive 96/71/EC to all cross-border euro cash transport services in order to provide legal certainty for operators and ensure the practical applicability of the Directive in that sector.\n(16)\nDue to the specificity of the transport activities concerned and the occasional character of some of those activities, the analogous application of the minimum protection rules laid down in Directive 96/71/EC should be limited to the minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates, as referred to in Article 3(1)(c) of that Directive and these should be guaranteed for the duration of the whole working day in order not to impose an unnecessary administrative burden on the operators. As referred to in Directive 96/71/EC, and within the limits of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the concept of minimum rates of pay is defined by the national law or practice of the Member State where the worker is posted. Where, as a result of contracts, regulations, administrative provisions or practical arrangements, a CIT worker carries out cross-border transport for more than 100 working days in a calendar year in another Member State, it is appropriate that the minimum protection rules laid down in Directive 96/71/EC apply to such a worker mutatis mutandis.\n(17)\nThe application of minimum protection rules in the host Member State should be without prejudice to the application of terms and conditions of employment which are more favourable to the worker under the law, collective agreement or employment contract in the worker\u2019s Member State of origin.\n(18)\nFor the purpose of establishing the relevant minimum protection rules, it is appropriate that the provisions on information cooperation in Article 4 of Directive 96/71/EC apply mutatis mutandis. In this respect, Member States should be able to avail themselves of the administrative cooperation and exchange of information provided for in Directive 96/71/EC.\n(19)\nThis Regulation is without prejudice to the application of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (6).\n(20)\nIn order to take into account technological progress and possible new European standards, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the amendment of the technical rules on standards in regard to the IBNS, the armouring of CIT vehicles, bulletproof vests and weapons strong-boxes. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level and of the social partners. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(21)\nIn accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve its objective, namely to facilitate the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nSECTION 1\nCOMMON RULES GOVERNING ALL CROSS-BORDER TRANSPORT OF EURO CASH BY ROAD\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018participating Member States\u2019 means those Member States whose currency is the euro;\n(b)\n\u2018cross-border transport of euro cash by road\u2019 means the professional transport, either for remuneration on behalf of third parties or carried out within a cash-in-transit (hereinafter \u2018CIT\u2019) company, by a CIT vehicle by road of euro banknotes or coins from a participating Member State, for supplying euro banknotes or coins to, or collecting them from, one or more locations in one or more other participating Member States, and in the Member State of origin - without prejudice to the transport of a maximum of 20 % of non-euro cash in relation to the total value of cash transported in the same CIT vehicle - where the majority of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups made by a CIT vehicle during the same day is carried out on the territory of the host Member State, or, in the case of point-to-point transport, where the transport takes place between two different participating Member States;\n(c)\n\u2018cross-border CIT licence\u2019 means a licence delivered by the granting authority of the Member State of origin which authorises the holder to carry out the cross-border transport of euro cash by road between participating Member States in accordance with the conditions laid down in this Regulation;\n(d)\n\u2018granting authority\u2019 means the authority in the Member State of origin in charge of issuing the cross-border CIT licence;\n(e)\n\u2018Member State of origin\u2019 means the participating Member State in whose territory the CIT company is established. The CIT company is considered to be established if it is actually pursuing an economic activity, in accordance with Article 49 TFEU, for an indefinite period, through a stable infrastructure from where the business of providing services is actually carried out;\n(f)\n\u2018host Member State\u2019 means one or more participating Member States in which a CIT company provides the service of delivering/picking up euro cash other than its Member State of origin;\n(g)\n\u2018Member State of transit\u2019 means one or more participating Member States other than the Member State of origin which the CIT vehicle crosses in order either to reach the host Member State or to return to the Member State of origin;\n(h)\n\u2018daytime\u2019, when referring to transport, means transport carried out between 06.00 and 22.00;\n(i)\n\u2018CIT security staff\u2019 means the employees instructed to drive the CIT vehicle in which the euro cash is being carried or to protect its contents;\n(j)\n\u2018CIT vehicle\u2019 means a vehicle used for the professional transport of euro cash by road;\n(k)\n\u2018vehicle of ordinary appearance\u2019 means a CIT vehicle which has a normal appearance and does not bear any distinctive signs indicating that it belongs to a CIT company or that it is used for the purposes of transporting euro cash;\n(l)\n\u2018point-to-point transport\u2019 means transport from one secure location to another, without any intermediate stops;\n(m)\n\u2018secured area\u2019 means a delivery/pick-up point for euro cash located within a building and secured against unauthorised access in terms of equipment (anti-intrusion systems) and access procedures for persons;\n(n)\n\u2018secure location\u2019 means a location within a secured area, which is accessible to CIT vehicles and in which CIT vehicles can be loaded and unloaded in a secure manner;\n(o)\nto \u2018neutralise\u2019 a banknote means to mutilate or damage it by staining or by other means as specified in Annex II;\n(p)\n\u2018intelligent banknote neutralisation system\u2019 or \u2018IBNS\u2019 means a system that meets the following conditions:\n(i)\nthe banknote container continuously protects the banknotes by means of a euro cash neutralisation system, from a secured area to the euro cash delivery point or from the euro cash pick-up point to a secured area;\n(ii)\nthe CIT security staff is not able to open the container outside the pre-programmed time periods and/or locations or to change the pre-programmed time periods and/or locations where the container can be opened once the euro cash transport operation has been initiated;\n(iii)\nthe container is equipped with a mechanism for permanently neutralising the banknotes if any unauthorised attempt is made to open the container; and\n(iv)\nthe requirements laid down in Annex II are complied with;\n(q)\n\u2018end-to-end IBNS\u2019 means IBNS that is equipped for end-to-end use, namely the banknotes remain inaccessible to CIT security staff at all times and are under continuous protection by the IBNS from secured area to secured area or, for cassettes for Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) or other types of cash dispensers, from a secured area to the interior of the ATMs or the other types of cash dispensers;\n(r)\n\u2018A1\u2019 and \u2018B1\u2019, when referring to the level of language skills, mean the levels established by the Council of Europe\u2019s Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, as referred to in Annex VII;\n(s)\n\u2018EU official languages\u2019 means the languages referred to in Article 1 of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (7).\nArticle 2\nExclusions\n1. The transport of euro banknotes and coins shall be excluded from the scope of this Regulation where it is:\n(a)\ncarried out on the account of, and between, NCBs, or between banknote printing works and/or mints of participating Member States and the relevant NCBs; and\n(b)\nescorted by the military or the police.\n2. The exclusive transport of euro coins shall be excluded from the scope of this Regulation where it is:\n(a)\ncarried out on the account of, and between, NCBs, or between mints of participating Member States and the relevant NCBs; and\n(b)\nescorted by the military or the police or by private security staff in separate vehicles.\nArticle 3\nPlace of departure, maximum duration and number of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups\n1. Cross-border transport of euro cash provided in accordance with this Regulation shall be carried out during the daytime.\n2. A CIT vehicle carrying out cross-border transport of euro cash shall start its journey from its Member State of origin and shall return to it on the same day.\n3. By derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, point-to-point transport may be carried out within a time-slot of 24 hours, provided that night-time transport of euro cash is allowed under national rules of the Member State of origin, of the Member State of transit and of the host Member State.\n4. By way of derogation from Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009, there shall be no limit to the number of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups that a CIT vehicle may carry out in a host Member State during the same day.\nArticle 4\nCross-border CIT licence\n1. A company wishing to undertake cross-border transport of euro cash by road shall apply for a cross-border CIT licence from the granting authority in its Member State of origin.\n2. The cross-border CIT licence shall be granted for a period of 5 years by the national granting authority, provided that the applicant company meets the following conditions:\n(a)\nit is approved to carry out CIT transport within its Member State of origin or, if the Member State has no specific approval procedure for CIT companies in addition to its general rules for the security or transport sector, it is able to provide evidence that it has had regular business transporting cash for at least 24 months within its Member State of origin prior to the application with no infringements of that Member State\u2019s national law governing such activities;\n(b)\nits managers and the members of its board do not have a relevant entry in a criminal record and are of good repute and integrity, according to, for instance, relevant police records;\n(c)\nit has a valid civil liability insurance to cover at least third-party damage to life and property, regardless of whether the cash transported is insured thereunder;\n(d)\nthe applicant company, its CIT security staff, vehicles and security procedures employed in or applied for the purposes of cross-border transport of euro cash comply with this Regulation or, where expressly referred to in this Regulation, with national law specifically relating to the transport of cash.\n3. The cross-border CIT licence shall be drawn up in accordance with the model and the physical characteristics defined in Annex I. CIT security staff in CIT vehicles engaged in the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road shall, at all times, be able to show the inspection authorities the original or a certified copy of a valid cross-border CIT licence.\n4. The cross-border CIT licence shall allow the company to carry out cross-border transport of euro cash under the terms of this Regulation. By way of derogation from Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009, the holder of such a licence shall not be required to possess a Community licence for the international carriage of goods by road.\nArticle 5\nCIT security staff\n1. All members of the CIT security staff shall satisfy the following requirements:\n(a)\nthey do not have a relevant entry in a criminal record and are of good repute and integrity according to, for instance, relevant police records;\n(b)\nthey have a medical certificate certifying that their physical and mental health is adequate for the task to be performed;\n(c)\nthey have successfully followed at least 200 hours of ad hoc initial training, not including any training on the use of firearms.\nThe minimum requirements for the ad hoc initial training referred to in point (c) are set out in Annex VI. CIT security staff shall follow further training activities in the areas set out in point 3 of Annex VI, at least every 3 years.\n2. At least one member of the CIT security staff in the CIT vehicle shall have at least A1-level language skills in the languages used by the local authorities and the population in the relevant areas of the Member State of transit and of the host Member State. The CIT vehicle shall, furthermore, be in constant radio contact, via the CIT company\u2019s control centre, with someone who has at least B1-level language skills in the languages used by the local authorities and the population in the relevant areas of the Member State of transit and of the host Member State, so as to ensure that effective communication with the national authorities is possible at all times.\nArticle 6\nCarrying of weapons\n1. CIT security staff shall comply with the law of the Member State of origin, of the Member State of transit and of the host Member State as regards the carrying of weapons and the maximum permitted calibre.\n2. When entering the territory of a Member State the law of which does not allow CIT security staff to be armed, any weapons in the possession of the CIT security staff shall be placed in an on-board weapons strong-box which meets the European standard EN 1143-1. Such weapons shall remain inaccessible to the CIT security staff throughout the journey across that Member State\u2019s territory. They may be removed from the weapons strong-box when entering the territory of a Member State whose law allows CIT security staff to be armed and shall be removed from it when entering the territory of a Member State whose law requires CIT security staff to be armed. Opening the weapons strong-box shall require remote intervention by the CIT vehicle\u2019s control centre and shall be conditional upon verification by the control centre of the vehicle\u2019s exact geographical location.\nThe requirements set out in the first subparagraph shall also apply if the type or the calibre of the weapon is not allowed under the law of the Member State of transit or of the host Member State.\n3. Where a CIT vehicle whose Member State of origin does not allow CIT security staff to carry arms, enters the territory of a Member State whose law requires CIT security staff to carry arms, the CIT company shall ensure that the CIT security staff on board is provided with the required weapons and that they fulfil the minimum training requirements of the host Member State.\n4. CIT security staff who are armed or who travel in a CIT vehicle with arms on board shall have a professional weapons licence or authorisation issued by the national authorities of the Member State of transit and/or the host Member State, where those Member States allow CIT security staff to be armed, and fulfil all the national requirements for that professional weapons licence or authorisation. For that purpose, Member States may recognise the professional weapons licence or authorisation of the other Member State.\n5. Member States shall establish a single central national contact point to which CIT companies established in other Member States may submit applications for a professional weapons licence or authorisation for their CIT security staff. Federal Member States may establish contact points at State level. Member States shall inform the applicant of the outcome of the application within 3 months from the submission of a complete application file.\n6. In order to make it easier for CIT security staff who are employed by a company established in another Member State to fulfil the national requirements for obtaining a professional weapons licence or authorisation, Member States shall provide for validation of equivalent professional weapons training followed in the Member State where the applicant\u2019s employer is established. If this is not possible, Member States shall ensure that the necessary professional weapons training is provided on their own territory in an EU official language which is an official language of the Member State where the applicant\u2019s employer is established.\nArticle 7\nCIT vehicle equipment\n1. CIT vehicles shall be equipped with a global navigation system. The CIT company\u2019s control centre shall be able continuously and accurately to locate its vehicles.\n2. CIT vehicles shall be equipped with appropriate communication tools to allow contact to be made at any time with the control centre of the CIT company operating the vehicles and with the competent national authorities. The emergency numbers to contact the police authorities in the Member State of transit or in the host Member State shall be available in the vehicles.\n3. CIT vehicles shall be equipped in a manner that allows the registration of the time and location of all euro cash deliveries/pick-ups in order to make it possible for the proportion of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups referred to in Article 1(b) to be checked at any time.\n4. Where CIT vehicles are equipped with IBNS, the IBNS used shall comply with Annex II and shall have been homologated in a participating Member State. In reply to a request for verification made by the authorities of the Member State of origin, the host Member State or the Member State of transit, undertakings carrying out cross-border transport of euro cash in CIT vehicles using IBNS shall supply written evidence of approval of the IBNS model used within 48 hours.\nArticle 8\nRole of the national police forces\nThis Regulation is without prejudice to the application of national rules that require:\n(a)\ncash-transport operations to be notified to the police in advance;\n(b)\nCIT vehicles to be equipped with a device that allows them to be tracked at a remote distance by the police;\n(c)\nhigh-value point-to-point transport to be escorted by the police.\nArticle 9\nRules to ensure the security of the cash delivery/pick-up locations in the host Member State\nThis Regulation is without prejudice to the application of national rules governing the behaviour of CIT security staff outside a CIT vehicle and the security of the locations where cash is delivered/picked up in the Member State concerned.\nArticle 10\nRemoval of neutralised banknotes from circulation\nCIT companies operating under this Regulation shall remove from circulation all banknotes that may have been neutralised that they encounter while carrying out their activities. They shall hand over those banknotes to the appropriate NCB branch of their Member State of origin and provide a written statement on the cause and nature of the neutralisation. If those banknotes are collected in a host Member State, the NCB of the host Member State shall be informed by the NCB of the Member State of origin.\nArticle 11\nMutual information\n1. Member States shall submit to the Commission the rules referred to in Articles 8 and 9 as well as information on which IBNS have been homologated by them and shall immediately inform the Commission of any change affecting those rules and homologations. The Commission shall ensure that those rules as well as a list of homologated IBNS are published in all the EU official languages which are the official languages of the relevant participating Member States through the appropriate channels, with a view to informing swiftly all the actors involved in a CIT cross-border activity.\n2. Member States shall keep a register of all the companies to which they have delivered a cross-border CIT licence and shall inform the Commission about its content. They shall update the register, including in relation to any decision to suspend or withdraw a licence pursuant to Article 22 and shall immediately inform the Commission of such update. To facilitate information-sharing, the Commission shall set up a central secured database containing data on licences issued, suspended or withdrawn, which shall be accessible to the relevant authorities of the participating Member States.\n3. In implementing Article 5(1)(a), the Member State of origin shall take due account of information concerning the criminal record, repute and integrity of CIT security staff that is communicated to it by the host Member State.\n4. Member States shall inform the Commission about their specific training requirements for CIT security staff for the purpose of the ad-hoc initial training referred to in Article 5(1)(c). The Commission shall ensure that that information is published in all the EU official languages which are the official languages of the relevant participating Member States through the appropriate channels, with a view to informing all the actors involved in a CIT cross-border activity.\n5. Member States shall inform the Commission of the addresses and other contact details of the national contact points referred to in Article 6(5) and of relevant national law. The Commission shall ensure that this information is published through the appropriate channels, with a view to informing all the actors involved in a CIT cross-border activity.\n6. Where a Member State withdraws the professional weapons licence or authorisation that it has delivered to a member of the CIT security staff of a company established in another Member State, it shall inform the granting authority of the Member State of origin thereof.\n7. Member States shall inform the Commission of the addresses and other contact details of the relevant authorities referred to in Article 12(2). The Commission shall ensure that this information is published through the appropriate channels, with a view to informing all the actors involved in a CIT cross-border activity.\nArticle 12\nInformation prior to the start of cross-border transport\n1. A company holding or having submitted an application for a cross-border CIT licence shall inform the granting authority at least 2 months before it begins its cross-border activity of the Member States in which it will carry out CIT transport. The Member State of origin shall subsequently immediately notify the Member States concerned that the cross-border activity is to start.\n2. A company that intends to carry out cross-border cash transport shall provide in advance the relevant authority or authorities indicated by the host Member State with information on the type or types of transport it will use, the names of the persons who may carry out such transport and the type of any weapons carried.\nSECTION 2\nSPECIFIC RULES FOR EACH TYPE OF TRANSPORT\nArticle 13\nApplicable transport arrangements\n1. With respect to the cross-border transport of euro banknotes by road carried out on its territory, each Member State shall allow:\n(a)\nat least one of the options laid down in Article 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18; and\n(b)\nthose options laid down in Articles 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 that are comparable to the transport arrangements allowed for domestic CIT transport.\nArticle 17 shall apply to all Member States as regards point-to-point transport.\n2. With respect to the cross-border transport of euro coins by road carried out on its territory, each Member State shall allow:\n(a)\nat least one of the options laid down in Article 19 or 20; and\n(b)\nthose options laid down in Articles 19 and 20 that are comparable to the transport arrangements allowed for domestic CIT transport.\n3. Transport which includes both euro banknotes and coins shall be covered by the transport arrangements for the cross-border transport of euro banknotes.\n4. As regards the application of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 18, a Member State may decide that only end-to-end IBNS may be used on its territory for the servicing of off-premises ATMs or other types of off-premises cash dispensers, provided that the same rules apply for domestic CIT transport.\n5. Participating Member States shall notify the Commission of the transport arrangements which are applicable in accordance with this Article. The Commission shall publish a corresponding information notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. The applicable transport arrangements shall take effect 1 month after publication of the information notice. Participating Member States shall use the same procedure when new transport arrangements become applicable pursuant to this Article.\n6. If a host Member State or a Member State of transit finds that an IBNS displays serious deficiencies as regards the technical characteristics normally required, namely that the cash can be accessed without triggering the neutralisation mechanism or the IBNS has been modified after homologation in such a way that it no longer fulfils the homologation criteria, it shall inform the Commission and the Member State that granted the homologation and may ask that new tests be carried out on that IBNS. Pending the results of those new tests, Member States may provisionally prohibit the use of that IBNS on their territory. They shall, without delay, inform the Commission and the other participating Member States thereof.\nArticle 14\nTransport of banknotes in an unarmoured CIT vehicle of ordinary appearance equipped with IBNS\nCompanies holding a cross-border CIT licence may carry out cross-border transport of euro banknotes by road using an unarmoured CIT vehicle equipped with IBNS, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe vehicle is of ordinary appearance;\n(b)\nthere are at least two CIT security staff per vehicle;\n(c)\nnone of the CIT security staff wears a uniform.\nArticle 15\nTransport of banknotes in an unarmoured CIT vehicle with a clear marking indicating that it is equipped with IBNS\nCompanies holding a cross-border CIT licence may carry out cross-border transport of euro banknotes by road using an unarmoured CIT vehicle equipped with IBNS, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe vehicle and banknote containers bear very clear markings indicating that they are equipped with IBNS and those markings correspond to the pictograms depicted in Annex III;\n(b)\nthere are at least two CIT security staff per vehicle.\nArticle 16\nTransport of banknotes in a cabin-armoured CIT vehicle equipped with IBNS\nCompanies holding a cross-border CIT licence may carry out cross-border transport of euro banknotes by road using a cabin-armoured CIT vehicle equipped with IBNS, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe cabin of the vehicle is armoured to withstand at least gunfire from firearms in accordance with the specifications set out in Annex V;\n(b)\nthe vehicle and banknote containers bear very clear markings indicating that they are equipped with IBNS and those markings correspond to the pictograms depicted in Annex III;\n(c)\nthe cabin of the vehicle is equipped with a bulletproof vest for each member of the CIT security staff on board, at least respecting the norm VPAM class 5, NIJ IIIA or an equivalent standard;\n(d)\nthere are at least two CIT security staff per vehicle.\nThe CIT security staff may wear the bulletproof vests referred to in point (c) during the transport and shall wear them where required by the law of the Member State where they are situated.\nArticle 17\nTransport of banknotes in a fully-armoured CIT vehicle not equipped with IBNS\nCompanies holding a cross-border CIT licence may carry out cross-border transport of euro banknotes by road using a fully-armoured CIT vehicle not equipped with IBNS, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe parts of the vehicle in which the CIT security staff are present are armoured to withstand at least gunfire from firearms in accordance with the specifications set out in Annex V;\n(b)\nthe cabin of the vehicle is equipped with a bulletproof vest for each member of the CIT security staff on board, at least respecting the norm VPAM class 5, NIJ IIIA or an equivalent standard;\n(c)\nthere are at least three CIT security staff per vehicle.\nThe CIT security staff may wear the vests referred to in point (b) during the transport and shall wear them where required by the law of the Member State where they are situated.\nArticle 18\nTransport of banknotes in a fully-armoured CIT vehicle equipped with IBNS\nCompanies holding a cross-border CIT licence may carry out cross-border transport of euro banknotes by road using a fully-armoured CIT vehicle equipped with IBNS, in accordance with Article 16(b) and Article 17(a) and (b).\nThere shall be at least two CIT security staff per vehicle.\nArticle 19\nTransport of coins in an unarmoured CIT vehicle\nCompanies holding a cross-border CIT licence may carry out cross-border transport of euro coins by road using an unarmoured CIT vehicle carrying only coins, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe vehicle is of ordinary appearance;\n(b)\nthere are at least two CIT security staff per vehicle;\n(c)\nnone of the CIT security staff wears a uniform.\nArticle 20\nTransport of coins in a cabin-armoured CIT vehicle\nCompanies holding a cross-border CIT licence may carry out cross-border transport of euro coins by road using a cabin-armoured CIT vehicle carrying only coins, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe cabin of the vehicle is armoured to withstand at least gunfire from firearms in accordance with the specifications set out in Annex V;\n(b)\nthe vehicle bears very clear markings indicating that it is carrying only coins and those markings correspond to the pictogram depicted in Annex IV;\n(c)\nthe cabin of the vehicle is equipped with a bulletproof vest for each member of the CIT security staff on board, at least respecting the norm VPAM class 5, NIJ IIIA or an equivalent standard;\n(d)\nthere are at least two CIT security staff per vehicle.\nThe CIT security staff may wear the bulletproof vests referred to in point (c) during the transport and shall wear them where required by the law of the Member State where they are situated.\nSECTION 3\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 21\nCompliance\nDuring the period of validity of a cross-border CIT licence, Member States of origin shall ensure that the rules laid down in this Regulation are complied with, including via random inspections without prior notification to the company. Such inspections may also be carried out by host Member States.\nArticle 22\nPenalties\n1. Where the competent national authorities find that there has been an infringement of one of the terms under which the cross-border CIT licence was granted, the granting authority may send a warning to the company concerned, impose a fine, suspend the licence for a period ranging from 2 weeks to 2 months or withdraw the licence completely, depending on the nature or severity of the infringement. The granting authority may also prohibit the company concerned from applying for a new licence for a period of up to 5 years.\n2. The Member State of transit or the host Member State shall communicate any infringement of this Regulation - including infringements of the national rules referred to in Articles 8 and 9 - to the competent national authorities of the Member State of origin, which shall decide on an appropriate penalty. The Member State of transit or the host Member State may furthermore impose a fine in case of infringement of the national rules referred to in Articles 8 and 9 or of the applicable transport arrangements referred to in Article 13. It may prohibit CIT security staff that have committed such infringements from carrying out cross-border cash transport on its territory if the infringement can be imputed to them.\n3. The Member State of transit or the host Member State may suspend the right of a CIT company to transport euro cash by road on its territory for a maximum period of 2 months, pending a decision by the granting authority of the Member State of origin which shall be taken within that same period, where the CIT company:\n(a)\nhas not complied with the provisions of this Regulation relating to the minimum number of CIT security staff per CIT vehicle or relating to weapons;\n(b)\ncarries out its transport activity in a way that constitutes a danger to public order; or\n(c)\nhas committed repeated infringements of this Regulation.\n4. The Member State that issued the professional weapons licence or authorisation may impose penalties on the CIT security staff in accordance with its national rules in case of infringement of its national weapons law.\n5. The penalties shall be proportionate to the severity of the infringement.\nArticle 23\nEmergency security measures\n1. A Member State may decide to introduce temporary security measures going beyond those provided for in this Regulation in the event of an urgent problem affecting significantly the security of CIT operations. Such temporary measures shall affect all CIT transport in all or part of the national territory, shall apply for a maximum period of 4 weeks and shall be notified immediately to the Commission. The Commission shall ensure their swift publication through the appropriate channels.\n2. The prolongation of the temporary measures provided for in paragraph 1 beyond a period of 4 weeks shall be subject to prior authorisation by the Commission. The Commission shall decide whether to grant such prior authorisation within 72 hours of receipt of a request.\nArticle 24\nRemuneration of CIT security staff carrying out cross-border transport\nCIT security staff carrying out cross-border transport in accordance with this Regulation shall be guaranteed the relevant minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates, in the host Member State in accordance with Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC. If the relevant minimum rates of pay in the host Member State are higher than the wage paid to the employee in the Member State of origin, the relevant minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates, of the host Member State shall apply for the whole working day. If transport is carried out in more than one host Member State during the same day and more than one of those Member States have higher relevant minimum rates of pay than the wage applied in the Member State of origin, the highest of those minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates, shall apply for the whole working day.\nHowever, where, as a result of contracts, regulations, administrative provisions or practical arrangements, a CIT worker carries out cross-border transport for more than 100 working days, wholly or partially spent in a calendar year in another Member State, the terms and conditions of employment referred to in Directive 96/71/EC shall be applied fully for all the working days spent wholly or partially in that host Member State in that calendar year.\nFor the purpose of establishing the relevant terms and conditions of employment, Article 4 of Directive 96/71/EC shall apply mutatis mutandis.\nArticle 25\nCommittee on the cross-border transport of euro cash\n1. A Committee on the cross-border transport of euro cash shall be established. It shall be chaired by the Commission and gather two representatives per participating Member State, together with two representatives of the European Central Bank.\n2. The Committee shall meet at least once a year to exchange views on the implementation of this Regulation. For this purpose, it shall consult the stakeholders in the sector, including the social partners, and take their views into account as appropriate. It shall be consulted on the preparation of the review referred to in Article 26.\nArticle 26\nReview\nBy 1 December 2016 and every 5 years thereafter, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of this Regulation. For that purpose, it shall consult the stakeholders in the sector including the social partners followed by the Member States. The report shall, in particular, examine the possibility of establishing common training requirements for the carrying of arms by CIT -security staff and of amending Article 24 in the light of Directive 96/71/EC, take due account of technological progress in the area of IBNS, consider the potential added value of granting Union CIT licences on a group basis and assess whether this Regulation needs to be revised accordingly.\nArticle 27\nAmendment of technical rules\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 28 concerning amendments to Annex II and to the technical rules on the standards applicable to the armouring of CIT vehicles and to bulletproof vests referred to in Articles 16, 17, 18 and 20, and to weapons strong-boxes referred to in Article 6(2), with a view to taking into account technological progress and possible new European standards.\nArticle 28\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 27 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from 30 November 2012.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 27 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified therein. It shall take effect on the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or on a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 27 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or by the Council within a period of 3 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 3 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 29\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force 12 months after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["33", "24", "11", "38", "94", "51", "74", "1", "82", "64", "35", "84", "69", "16", "89", "10", "80", "21", "45", "58", "29", "48", "46", "77", "43", "31", "9", "17", "0", "47", "No Label", "22", "27", "49", "53", "54", "55"], "gold": ["22", "27", "49", "53", "54", "55"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1003/2010\nof 8 November 2010\nconcerning type-approval requirements for the space for mounting and the fixing of rear registration plates on motor vehicles and their trailers and implementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (1), and in particular Article 14 (1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 is a separate Regulation for the purposes of the type-approval procedure provided for by Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 repeals Council Directive 70/222/EEC of 20 March 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the space for mounting and the fixing of rear registration plates on motor vehicles and their trailers (3). The requirements set out in that Directive should be carried over to this Regulation and, where necessary, amended in order to adapt them to the development of scientific and technical knowledge.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 lays down fundamental provisions on requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers with regard to the space for mounting and the fixing of rear registration plates. Therefore, it is necessary to also set out the specific procedures, tests and requirements for such type-approval.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018vehicle type with regard to the space for mounting and the fixing of rear registration plates\u2019 means vehicles which do not differ in such essential respects as:\n-\nthe dimensions of the space for mounting and fixing of the rear registration plate;\n-\nthe location of the space for mounting and fixing of the rear registration plate;\n-\nthe shape of the surface for mounting and fixing of the rear registration plate.\n(2)\n\u2018virtually flat surface\u2019 means a surface of solid material, which may also consist of patterned mesh or grille, with a radius of curvature of at least 5 000 mm.\n(3)\n\u2018surface of patterned mesh\u2019 means a surface consisting of an evenly spread pattern of shapes such as round, oval, diamond, rectangular or square holes spread evenly at intervals not exceeding 15 mm.\n(4)\n\u2018surface of grille\u2019 means a surface consisting of parallel bars which are spread evenly and have a mutual distance of not exceeding 15 mm.\n(5)\n\u2018nominal surface\u2019 means the theoretical geometrically perfect surface without taking into account surface irregularities such as protrusions or indentations.\n(6)\n\u2018longitudinal median plane of the vehicle\u2019 means the plane of symmetry of the vehicle or, if the vehicle is not symmetrical, the vertical longitudinal plane passing through the middle of the vehicle axles.\n(7)\n\u2018inclination\u2019 means the degree of the angular deviation in relation to a vertical plane;\nArticle 2\nProvisions for EC type-approval of a motor vehicle or a trailer with regard to the space for mounting and the fixing of rear registration plates\n1. The manufacturer or his representative shall submit to the type-approval authority the application for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to the space for mounting and the fixing of rear registration plates on motor vehicles and their trailers.\n2. The application shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Part 1 of Annex I.\n3. If the relevant requirements set out in Annex II to this Regulation are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC type-approval and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nA Member State may not assign the same number to another vehicle type.\n4. For the purposes of paragraph 3, the type-approval authority shall deliver an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 3\nValidity and extension of approvals granted under Directive 70/222/EEC\nNational authorities shall permit the sale and entry into service of vehicles type-approved before the date referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 and continue to grant extension of approvals to those vehicles under the terms of Directive 70/222/EEC.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["45", "68", "17", "2", "56", "69", "94", "79", "11", "63", "82", "59", "58", "97", "84", "43", "50", "34", "99", "98", "48", "60", "19", "9", "24", "66", "65", "70", "13", "90", "No Label", "8", "53", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["8", "53", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 560/2011\nof 10 June 2011\nclosing the sales provided for by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 opening the sale on the internal market of cereals held by the intervention agencies of the Member States\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 (2) opened standing invitations to tender for the resale on the internal market of cereals held by the intervention agencies of the Member States. After the resale through the tenders held since 24 November 2010, a quantity of cereals remained unsold.\n(2)\nAs regards the plan for the distribution of food to the most deprived persons for 2012, the overall quantities of cereals required by the Member States in accordance with Article 1(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 of 14 September 2010 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Union (3) exceed the amount currently available. It is therefore appropriate to reserve all the remaining cereal intervention stocks.\n(3)\nIt is therefore appropriate to close the sales of cereals by a tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 and to repeal that Regulation. Offers received by the intervention agencies of the Member States at or after 11:00 (Brussels time) on 25 May 2011 are hereafter null and void.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe sales of cereals by a tendering procedure, opened by Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, are closed.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 1017/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 June 2011.", "references": ["75", "85", "90", "63", "8", "55", "92", "46", "42", "98", "17", "29", "33", "31", "24", "58", "32", "4", "83", "1", "7", "50", "41", "70", "73", "66", "16", "77", "91", "0", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 8 December 2011\namending Decision 2010/221/EU as regards national measures for preventing the introduction of certain aquatic animal diseases into parts of Ireland, Finland and Sweden\n(notified under document C(2011) 9002)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/825/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (1), and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2010/221/EU of 15 April 2010 approving national measures for limiting the impact of certain diseases in aquaculture animals and wild aquatic animals in accordance with Article 43 of Council Directive 2006/88/EC (2) allows certain Member States to apply restrictions on consignments of those animals in order to prevent the introduction of certain diseases into their territory, provided that they have either demonstrated that their territory, or certain demarcated areas of their territory, are free of such diseases or that they have established an eradication or surveillance programme to obtain such freedom.\n(2)\nThe continental parts of the territories of Finland and Sweden are listed in Annex II to Decision 2010/221/EU as territories with an approved eradication programme as regards bacterial kidney disease (BKD).\n(3)\nThe coastal parts of the territory of Sweden are listed in Annex II to Decision 2010/221/EU as having an approved eradication programme as regards infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPN).\n(4)\nAccordingly, Decision 2010/221/EU approves certain national measures by Finland and Sweden on consignments of aquaculture animals of susceptible species into those areas. However, to allow for a re-evaluation of the appropriateness of those national measures, the authorisation to apply those measures is limited in time until 31 December 2011.\n(5)\nFinland has submitted reports to the Commission on the functioning of its national eradication programme for BKD, in which it is stated that the eradication of BKD has not yet been successful. While progress has been made in several areas, some areas still remain infected with BKD. Finland has therefore requested that the geographical demarcation of the programme be limited to two continuous zones covering 19 water catchment areas. In those two zones, only four farms are under BKD-related restrictions and they are all undergoing the process of destroying infected fish, and the cleaning and disinfection of the facilities.\n(6)\nSweden has submitted a report to the Commission on the functioning of its national eradication programmes for BKD and IPN. The number of reported cases has been reduced significantly and both diseases are close to being eradicated from the programme areas. The continental parts of Sweden are already free of IPN and the national eradication programme in the coastal waters therefore also functions as a buffer to protect the already declared free areas.\n(7)\nOn the basis of the information provided by Finland and Sweden, it is appropriate to continue those national measures. However, taking into account that eradication has not yet been achieved despite years of applying national eradication programmes, the appropriateness and necessity of the national measures needs to be re-evaluated in due time. Therefore, the authorisation to apply those national measures should be limited to two more years until 31 December 2013.\n(8)\nAnnex III to Decision 2010/221/EU currently lists nine compartments in the territory of Ireland with an approved surveillance programme as regards ostreid herpesvirus 1 \u03bc\u03bdar (OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar).\n(9)\nIreland has notified to the Commission the detection of OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar in two of those compartments, namely in Gweendore Bay within compartment 1 and Ballinakill Bay within compartment 4. Consequently, the geographical demarcation of those two compartments in Annex III to Decision 2010/221/EU should be amended.\n(10)\nDecision 2010/221/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/221/EU is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 3(2), the date \u201831 December 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2013\u2019;\n(2)\nAnnexes II and III are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2011.", "references": ["16", "29", "80", "26", "9", "79", "12", "1", "24", "35", "60", "68", "71", "15", "93", "45", "6", "4", "51", "2", "36", "85", "40", "49", "25", "67", "75", "20", "33", "89", "No Label", "23", "38", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "38", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 861/2010\nof 5 October 2010\namending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Articles 9 and 12 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 established a goods nomenclature, hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Combined Nomenclature\u2019, to meet, at one and the same time, the requirements of the Common Customs Tariff, the external trade statistics of the Community, and other Community policies concerning the importation or exportation of goods.\n(2)\nIn the interests of legislative simplification, it is appropriate to modernise the Combined Nomenclature and to adapt its structure.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to amend the Combined Nomenclature, in order to take account of the following: changes in requirements relating to statistics and to commercial policy, changes made in order to fulfil international commitments, technological and commercial developments, and the need to align or clarify texts.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, Annex I to that Regulation should be replaced, with effect from 1 January 2011, by a complete version of the Combined Nomenclature, together with the autonomous and conventional rates of duty resulting from measures adopted by the Council or by the Commission.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 October 2010.", "references": ["54", "71", "13", "29", "33", "15", "23", "94", "46", "78", "1", "99", "53", "72", "56", "3", "81", "74", "28", "39", "64", "65", "91", "38", "96", "35", "73", "43", "51", "34", "No Label", "21"], "gold": ["21"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 437/2011\nof 5 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 May 2011.", "references": ["24", "9", "97", "83", "23", "21", "22", "69", "92", "50", "47", "85", "60", "96", "42", "14", "73", "5", "11", "88", "49", "56", "19", "89", "86", "31", "41", "0", "27", "36", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 817/2012\nof 12 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for hake in areas VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2012.", "references": ["32", "76", "73", "33", "0", "81", "20", "27", "98", "49", "36", "78", "24", "39", "64", "41", "9", "85", "75", "2", "83", "44", "88", "30", "34", "55", "31", "63", "62", "37", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 917/2010\nof 12 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Fourme de Montbrison (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Fourme de Montbrison\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 October 2010.", "references": ["22", "56", "46", "74", "86", "36", "76", "92", "20", "2", "0", "48", "85", "30", "15", "41", "77", "88", "93", "68", "50", "28", "5", "9", "59", "6", "1", "35", "44", "49", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 November 2011\non criteria for the recognition of training centres involved in the training of train drivers, on criteria for the recognition of examiners of train drivers and on criteria for the organisation of examinations in accordance with Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 7966)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/765/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community (1), and in particular Articles 23(3)(b) and 25(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nTo achieve an appropriate and comparable level of quality of training and examinations of train drivers and train candidate drivers with a view to their certification in all Member States, it is necessary to establish common criteria at Union level in regard to both the procedures for recognition of training centres and for examiners of train drivers.\n(2)\nTraining and examinations should be performed in an appropriate manner and at a reasonable and comparable quality level in all Member States, to enable mutual acceptance of examinations.\n(3)\nTraining centres should be competent in regard to the training they carry out. In particular the training centres should have technical and operational competence and suitability to organise training courses and should be adequately staffed and equipped.\n(4)\nParticular provisions should be laid down for training centres that belong to railway undertakings or infrastructure managers applying for safety certificates or safety authorisations. In order to reduce the administrative burden, a Member State should be enabled to provide the possibility to combine the recognition of such training centres with the process of granting safety certificates or safety authorisations.\n(5)\nExaminers of train drivers should be skilled and competent in regard to the subject matter of examinations they want to conduct. Requirements for the competence of an examiner should refer to aspects such as examination methods, skills and pedagogical aptitude. The competent authority should check on an individual basis whether the competence of a person or entity applying for recognition as an examiner of train drivers is appropriate for the purpose of performing examinations in the respective areas of competences.\n(6)\nExaminers of train drivers should perform examinations in an independent and impartial manner. To that end, the persons or entities applying for the recognition procedure should prove to the competent authority that they respect those requirements.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2007/59/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nCHAPTER 1\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\nThis Decision lays down the criteria for the recognition of training centres providing professional training to train drivers and train drivers candidates for the recognition of examiners of train drivers and train drivers candidates and for the organisation of examinations in accordance with Directive 2007/59/EC.\nIt applies to:\n(a)\ntraining centres providing training courses for train drivers and train candidate drivers on training tasks specified in Article 23 of Directive 2007/59/EC;\n(b)\nthe examiners of train drivers authorised to check the competence of candidate train drivers or train drivers to be certified in accordance with Article 25 of Directive 2007/59/EC.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nThe following definitions shall apply for the purpose of this Decision:\n(a)\n\u2018applicant\u2019 means an entity or a single person having established a company that applies for recognition to provide training courses relating to training tasks referred to in Article 23(5) and (6) of Directive 2007/59/EC, including a single person applying for recognition as examiner referred to in Article 25(1) and (2) of Directive 2007/59/EC;\n(b)\n\u2018trainer\u2019 means a person with relevant skills and competence to prepare, organise and conduct training courses;\n(c)\n\u2018examiner\u2019 means a person having relevant skills and competence, recognised to conduct and score examinations for the purposes of Directive 2007/59/EC;\n(d)\n\u2018examination\u2019 means a process to check a train driver\u2019s or candidate train driver\u2019s competence in accordance with Directive 2007/59/EC by one or more means such as written, oral and practical;\n(e)\n\u2018examination centre\u2019 means an entity established to provide examinations for train drivers in accordance with Article 25 of Directive 2007/59/EC;\n(f)\n\u2018recognition\u2019 means a formal statement on the competence of a person or an entity to perform training tasks or examinations, issued by an authority appointed for this purpose by the Member State;\n(g)\n\u2018competent authority\u2019 means the competent authority as defined in Article 3 of Directive 2007/59/EC or any other body appointed by the Member State or entrusted with the task of recognition of training centres and of examiners by the competent authority through delegation.\nCHAPTER 2\nTRAINING CENTRES\nArticle 3\nIndependence and impartiality\nTraining centres shall deliver training courses in an impartial manner regarding all participants.\nIn particular where a training centre provides training to persons employed by the company owning the training centre as well as to other persons, the training shall be performed independently from the interests of the company owning the training centre and shall be impartial for all participants. Training centres shall apply the same rules to persons employed by the company owning the training centre and to other persons. Member States shall ensure that measures are taken to safeguard this principle.\nArticle 4\nCompetence requirements\n1. An applicant shall demonstrate technical and operational competence and suitability to organise training courses appropriate to the training tasks. It shall be adequately staffed and equipped and operate in an environment suitable for training aiming to prepare train drivers for the examinations to obtain or maintain licences and certificates in accordance with Directive 2007/59/EC.\n2. In particular, applicants shall:\n(a)\nhave an effective management structure which ensures that trainers have adequate qualifications and experience to provide training according to the requirements set out in Directive 2007/59/EC;\n(b)\nhave the necessary staff, facilities, equipment and accommodation appropriate for the training offered and the estimated number of trainees;\n(c)\nensure that practical training is performed by trainers who are holders of both a valid train driver licence and a valid certificate covering the subject of training or a similar type of line/rolling stock, and who have professional practice in driving of minimum 3 years\u2019 duration. When the trainer does not hold a valid certificate for the relevant infrastructure/rolling stock, a driver holding the certificate for that infrastructure/rolling stock shall be present to the training, in accordance with Article 4(2)(e) of Directive 2007/59/EC;\n(d)\nprovide the methodology they intend to use to ensure the content, organisation and duration of training courses, training plans and competence schemes;\n(e)\nprovide systems to record the training activities including information on participants, trainers and the number and purpose of the courses;\n(f)\nhave a quality management system or equivalent procedures in place to monitor compliance with, and the adequacy of, the systems and procedures which ensure that the training provided satisfy the requirements set out in Directive 2007/59/EC;\n(g)\nprovide competence management, ongoing training and measures to keep professional skills updated for trainers;\n(h)\ndemonstrate procedures to keep training methods, tools and equipments updated, including training literature, training software, documents provided by the infrastructure manager such as rulebooks on operational rules, signals or safety systems.\n3. A Member State may establish additional requirements for the training related to infrastructure of its own territory.\n4. Applicants for training on specific communication and terminology for rail operation and safety procedures, shall submit their application to the competent authority of the Member State where the infrastructure is located, to which the communication and terminology refer.\nArticle 5\nTraining centres belonging to a railway undertaking or an infrastructure manager\n1. A Member State may permit that an applicant which belongs to a railway undertaking or to an infrastructure manager, exclusively provides training to staff of the company it belongs to, and which fulfils all requirements provided for in Article 4 of this Decision, is recognised in combination with the safety certification or safety authorisation process in accordance with Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).\n2. In this case, the statement of recognition may be displayed on the relevant safety certificate or safety authorisation.\n3. Work organisation and management of the applicant referred to in paragraph 1 shall be organised and structured to prevent any conflict of interest.\nArticle 6\nNew or newly equipped line and newly introduced rolling stock\nIn regard to new or newly equipped lines or newly introduced rolling stock a Member State may specify conditions under which a recognised training centre may organise practical training in derogation to Article 4(2)(c).\nThe use of this derogation shall be strictly limited to the case in which no trainer holding a certificate already covering the new or newly equipped line or the new rolling stock is yet available.\nThe trainer shall fulfil all other requirements of Article 4(2)(c) in regard to the licence and to the certificate as provided in Articles 14 and 15 of Directive 2007/59/EC, and to the required period of professional practice.\nCHAPTER 3\nEXAMINERS\nArticle 7\nIndependence and impartiality\nApplicants shall confirm that they will conduct examinations in an impartial and non-discriminatory manner, free of any pressure and incentive which could affect the judgement or the results of the examination and the way the examination is carried out.\nFor this purpose the competent authority shall develop a statement incorporated in an application form to be signed by the applicant.\nArticle 8\nCompetence requirements\n1. Applicants shall be competent and experienced regarding the subject of examination they want to conduct.\nThe experience requested shall be gathered during professional practice of minimum 4 years\u2019 duration within a period of not more than 5 years before the application date.\nThe requested period of professional experience may include periods of experience as a manager of train drivers who holds a valid train driver licence and complimentary certificate or as a trainer for training tasks relevant to the application submitted.\n2. In regard to practical examinations on board trains the applicant must be the holder of both a valid train driver licence and a valid certificate covering the subject of examination or a similar type of line/rolling stock. When the examiner does not hold a valid certificate for the infrastructure/rolling stock of the examination, a driver holding the certificate for that infrastructure/rolling stock shall be present to the examination in accordance with Article 4(2)(e) of Directive 2007/59/EC.\nThe applicant shall have professional practice in driving of minimum 4 years\u2019 duration and gathered within a period of not more than 5 years before the application date. The applicant\u2019s knowledge must be up-to-date at the time of the application.\n3. In addition, applicants shall meet the following minimum criteria:\n(a)\nthey shall be competent in listening and spoken interaction at minimum level B2 of the European Framework for Language Competence (EFLC) established by the Council of Europe (3), in the language of examination;\n(b)\nthey shall have the skills and the pedagogical aptitude required for the purpose of conducting examinations, and have thorough knowledge of the relevant examination methods and examination documents;\n(c)\nthey shall demonstrate how they will keep their professional competences regarding the subjects they examine updated;\n(d)\nthey shall be familiar with the certification scheme for train drivers.\n4. A Member State may establish additional requirements for examiners performing examinations related to its own infrastructure.\nCHAPTER 4\nORGANISATION OF EXAMINATIONS\nArticle 9\nCommon criteria for the organisation of examinations\nExaminations organised to assess train drivers\u2019 competence in accordance with Article 25 of Directive 2007/59/EC shall meet the following criteria:\n(a)\nin case of examinations conducted by two or more persons, at least the person who is leading the examination shall be a recognised examiner in accordance with the provisions of this Decision;\n(b)\nwhere the examination concerns the practical part of train driving competences, the examiner shall be licensed as train driver and hold a complementary certificate authorising the use of infrastructure and the driving of rolling stock that is subject to the examination, or a similar type of line/rolling stock; when the examiner does not hold a valid certificate for the infrastructure/rolling stock of the examination, a driver holding the certificate for that infrastructure/rolling stock shall be present to the examination in accordance with Article 4(2)(e) of Directive 2007/59/EC;\n(c)\nexaminations shall be performed in a transparent manner and shall have adequate duration in order to prove with sufficient documented evidence that all the relevant subjects of the Annexes to Directive 2007/59/EC are covered;\n(d)\nin cases where the examiner participating to the examination provided the training on the subject of examination to the train driver or candidate train driver, a second examiner, who was not involved in preparation training, will conduct the examination;\n(e)\nan examination shall be prepared with particular care in regard to the confidentiality of the questions foreseen during the examination.\nArticle 10\nNew or newly equipped line and newly introduced rolling stock\nIn regard to new or newly equipped lines or newly introduced rolling stock a Member State may specify conditions under which a recognised examiner may perform examinations in derogation to Article 9.\nThe use of this derogation shall be strictly limited to the case in which no examiner holding a certificate already covering the new or newly equipped line or the new rolling stock is yet available.\nThe examiner shall fulfil all other requirements of Article 4(2)(c) in regard to the licence and to the certificate as provided in Articles 14 and 15 of Directive 2007/59/EC, and to the required period of professional practice.\nCHAPTER 5\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 11\nTransitional period\nIf a railway undertaking or an infrastructure manager has already selected examiners for the purpose of conducting examinations for their own staff, in conformity with national provisions and requirements applicable before the entry into force of this Decision, a Member State may decide that those selected examiners are allowed to continue conducting examinations in accordance with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe railway undertaking or infrastructure manager has selected the examiner within the framework of a safety certificate or safety authorisation issued in accordance with Directive 2004/49/EC and within the limits of the scope issued by the competent authority and until the expiry of this safety certificate or safety authorisation;\n(b)\nthe railway undertaking or infrastructure manager checks the fulfilment of the requirements laid down in this Decision in regard to examiners they have selected; if an examiner fails to meet a requirement, the railway undertaking or infrastructure manager shall take appropriate measures to achieve the fulfilment of the requirements for examiners.\nArticle 12\nApplication\nThis Decision shall apply from 15 May 2012.\nFor training centres already providing training services at the date of application of this Decision, this Decision shall apply as of 1 July 2013.\nArticle 13\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2011.", "references": ["18", "40", "65", "11", "17", "57", "0", "32", "28", "60", "70", "76", "73", "63", "10", "21", "27", "89", "38", "81", "42", "78", "92", "48", "52", "87", "80", "14", "20", "39", "No Label", "49", "50", "54", "55"], "gold": ["49", "50", "54", "55"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 44/2011\nof 20 January 2011\nfixing the export refunds on milk and milk products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in milk and milk products, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that export refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that comply with the requirements of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (2).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 948/2010 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nExport refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation, subject to the conditions provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 948/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2011.", "references": ["72", "95", "61", "81", "77", "55", "62", "14", "9", "38", "99", "29", "39", "83", "92", "56", "66", "19", "4", "2", "59", "1", "27", "16", "90", "15", "91", "87", "89", "31", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 942/2010\nof 20 October 2010\nsuspending submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 1 to 7 October 2010 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, are equal to the quantity available under order number 09.4321.\n(2)\nSubmission of further applications for licences for order number 09.4321 should be suspended until the end of the marketing year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubmission of further applications for licences, which correspond to the order numbers indicated in the Annex, shall be suspended until the end of the marketing year 2010/11.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["47", "37", "18", "14", "84", "64", "68", "31", "83", "2", "19", "93", "46", "70", "73", "12", "87", "6", "52", "53", "63", "91", "80", "56", "38", "27", "36", "79", "88", "89", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 209/2011\nof 2 March 2011\nterminating the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of wireless wide area networking (WWAN) modems originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and terminating the registration of such imports imposed by Regulations (EU) No 570/2010 and (EU) No 811/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (\u2018basic Regulation\u2019) (1), and in particular Articles 9 and 14 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 of on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (2), and in particular Article 14 and 24 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. The anti-dumping proceeding and registration of imports\n(1)\nOn 3 June 2010, the Commission received a complaint concerning alleged injurious dumping into the Union by imports of wireless wide area networking (WWAN) modems originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the PRC\u2019). The said complaint also contained a request for the registration of imports pursuant to Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.\n(2)\nThe complaint was lodged by Option NV (\u2018the complainant\u2019), the sole known producer of WWAN modems in the Union, representing 100 % of the total Union production.\n(3)\nThe complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding.\n(4)\nThe Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), accordingly initiated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of WWAN modems originating in the PRC and currently falling within CN codes ex 8471 80 00 and ex 8517 62 00.\n(5)\nOn 1 July 2010, the Commission made imports of the same product originating in the PRC subject to registration under Commission Regulation (EU) No 570/2010 (4).\n(6)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant, exporting producers in the PRC, importers and users known to be concerned, associations of importers or users known to be concerned, raw material suppliers and service providers, and the representatives of the PRC of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(7)\nIn accordance with the provisions of Article 16 of the basic Regulation the Commission performed some of the verification visits normally required. As far as dumping is concerned and in particular for the purposes of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation the Commission focused on issues mentioned in Article 2(7)(c) and in particular on distortions related to decision making, corporate governance, loans, financing of companies and export credits. Although some initial indications hinting at distortions were revealed, the termination of this anti-dumping proceeding meant that this issue was not pursued.\n2. The anti-subsidy proceeding and registration of imports\n(8)\nOn 2 August 2010, the Commission received a complaint concerning the alleged injurious subsidisation into the Union of imports of WWAN modems originating in the PRC. The said complaint also contained a request for the registration of imports pursuant to Article 24(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.\n(9)\nThe complaint was lodged by Option NV (\u2018the complainant\u2019), the sole known producer of WWAN modems in the Union, representing 100 % of the total Union production.\n(10)\nThe complaint contained prima facie evidence of the existence of subsidisation and of material injury resulting therefrom which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding.\n(11)\nThe Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5), accordingly initiated an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports into the Union of WWAN modems originating in the PRC and currently falling within CN codes ex 8471 80 00 and ex 8517 62 00.\n(12)\nOn 17 September 2010, the Commission made imports of the same product originating in the PRC subject to registration under Commission Regulation (EU) No 811/2010 (6).\n(13)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant, exporting producers in the PRC, importers and users known to be concerned, associations of importers or users known to be concerned, raw material suppliers and service providers, and the representatives of the PRC of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\nB. WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINTS AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS\n(14)\nBy two letters of 26 October 2010 to the Commission, Option NV withdrew its anti-dumping and anti-subsidy complaints concerning imports of WWAN modems originating in the PRC. The reason for the withdrawal of the complaints was that Option NV had entered into a cooperation agreement with an exporting producer in the PRC.\n(15)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, when the complainant withdraws its complaint the proceeding may be terminated unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(16)\nThe Commission considered that the present proceedings should be terminated since the respective anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations had not brought to light any considerations showing that such termination would not be in the Union interest. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given an opportunity to comment.\n(17)\nSubsequent to the withdrawal of the complaints, one company contacted the Commission claiming that it was a Union producer of WWAN modems. The company subsequently argued that the proceedings should be continued in spite of the withdrawal of the complaints. It should be noted that the company came forward for the first time after the procedural deadlines in both proceedings provided to interested parties to come forward and make their views known as a Union producer and, as a consequence, failed to support the complaints lodged by Option before the latter were withdrawn.\n(18)\nIt should also be noted that the allegations and information put forward by this company were not such as to lead the Commission to conclude that it would be in the Union interest to pursue the present proceedings initiated further to Option\u2019s complaints following the withdrawal of the latter. In this context, due account needed to be taken - in respect of the company\u2019s claimed operations in relation to WWAN modems in the Union - concerning the company\u2019s ability in practice to (i) play a role in the Union market for WWAN modems and moreover; (ii) provide for a possible shortage in supply, were measures to be imposed. Based on the information provided in this regard within the context of the present proceedings, it was concluded that it would be disproportionate to continue with the investigation and impose measures following the withdrawal of the complaints.\n(19)\nNo other comments were received indicating that termination of the present proceedings would not be in the Union interest.\n(20)\nIn the circumstances, the Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping and the anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports into the Union of WWAN modems originating in the PRC should be terminated without the imposition of measures.\n(21)\nThe registration of imports of WWAN modems originating in the PRC and declared under CN codes ex 8471 80 00 and ex 8517 62 00 in application of Regulations (EU) No 570/2010 and (EU) No 811/2010 should therefore be discontinued and the said Regulations repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping and the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports into the Union of wireless wide area networking (WWAN) modems originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and currently falling under CN codes ex 8471 80 00 and ex 8517 62 00 are hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nCustoms authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports established in application of Article 1 of Regulations (EU) No 570/2010 and (EU) No 811/2010.\nArticle 3\nRegulations (EU) No 570/2010 and (EU) No 811/2010 are hereby repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2011.", "references": ["94", "46", "59", "45", "15", "7", "44", "39", "83", "1", "62", "97", "25", "5", "8", "82", "75", "70", "16", "66", "14", "3", "27", "41", "93", "56", "91", "92", "18", "64", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "23", "40", "48", "95", "96"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "23", "40", "48", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 247/2011\nof 11 March 2011\non selling prices for cereals in response to the eighth individual invitations to tender within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 (2) has opened the sales of cereals by tendering procedures, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission has to fix for each cereal and per Member State a minimum selling price or to decide not to fix a minimum selling price.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the eighth individual invitations to tender, it has been decided that a minimum selling price should be fixed for the cereals and for the Member States.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the eighth individual invitations to tender for selling of cereals within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 9 March 2011, the decisions on the selling price per cereal and Member State are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 March 2011.", "references": ["28", "65", "3", "14", "88", "4", "81", "85", "32", "79", "34", "84", "87", "61", "18", "45", "37", "38", "33", "73", "15", "41", "75", "76", "93", "55", "52", "26", "89", "46", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 371/2011\nof 15 April 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of dimethylglycine sodium salt as feed additive for chickens for fattening (holder of the authorisation Taminco N.V.)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of dimethylglycine sodium salt. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of dimethylglycine sodium salt as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 7 December 2010 (2) that dimethylglycine sodium salt, under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer health or the environment, and that this additive has the potential to significantly improve body weight gain and feed to gain ratio in chickens for fattening. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the European Union Reference Laboratory for Feed Additives set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of dimethylglycine sodium salt shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018other zootechnical additives\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 April 2011.", "references": ["78", "12", "3", "70", "68", "64", "90", "15", "10", "1", "95", "94", "22", "86", "43", "34", "71", "97", "87", "36", "51", "7", "31", "53", "35", "16", "39", "44", "89", "28", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 866/2011\nof 29 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 August 2011.", "references": ["60", "96", "63", "9", "2", "42", "52", "20", "67", "18", "76", "82", "90", "65", "14", "74", "38", "44", "80", "95", "37", "34", "1", "33", "86", "97", "4", "39", "87", "26", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 970/2011\nof 29 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 September 2011.", "references": ["11", "44", "54", "7", "58", "74", "38", "63", "29", "13", "69", "95", "17", "55", "36", "57", "60", "86", "45", "78", "72", "92", "99", "79", "84", "21", "31", "64", "98", "66", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 6 July 2011\non mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management\n(2011/535/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the \u2018Fund\u2019) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.\n(2)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.\n(4)\nSlovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic submitted their application to mobilise the Fund, concerning disaster caused by heavy flooding,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 19 546 647 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 6 July 2011.", "references": ["2", "47", "46", "38", "39", "48", "49", "31", "18", "65", "28", "54", "78", "95", "15", "76", "44", "72", "92", "41", "55", "33", "61", "5", "77", "94", "59", "98", "67", "51", "No Label", "4", "10", "60", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "60", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 3 February 2012\namending Decision 2008/911/EC establishing a list of herbal substances, preparations and combinations thereof for use in traditional herbal medicinal products\n(notified under document C(2012) 516)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/68/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1), and in particular Article 16f thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency, formulated on 15 July 2010 by the Committee for Herbal Medicinal Products,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nVitis vinifera L. can be considered as a herbal substance, a herbal preparation or a combination thereof within the meaning of Directive 2001/83/EC and it complies with the requirements set out in that Directive.\n(2)\nIt is therefore appropriate to include Vitis vinifera L. in the list of herbal substances, preparations and combinations thereof for use in traditional herbal medicinal products established by Commission Decision 2008/911/EC (2).\n(3)\nDecision 2008/911/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2008/911/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2012.", "references": ["91", "37", "28", "76", "5", "58", "53", "63", "74", "67", "17", "57", "45", "40", "69", "92", "22", "85", "80", "64", "35", "23", "87", "97", "16", "70", "82", "48", "89", "77", "No Label", "38", "66", "68"], "gold": ["38", "66", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 364/2011\nof 13 April 2011\namending Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 and amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2008 as regards a control programme for Salmonella in certain poultry and eggs in Croatia in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and correcting Commission Regulations (EU) No 925/2010 and (EU) No 955/2010\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 9(2)(b) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the control of Salmonella and other specified food-borne zoonotic agents (2), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (3), and in particular Articles 23(1) and 26(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (4) lays down the veterinary certification requirements for imports into and transit through the Union of those commodities. It provides that the commodities covered by that Regulation are only to be imported into and transit through the Union from the third countries, territories, zones or compartments listed in columns 1 and 3 of the table in Part 1 of Annex I thereto.\n(2)\nThe definition of eggs set out in point 5.1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (5) does not include cooked eggs while the definition of egg products set out in point 7.3 of Annex I to that Regulation covers cooked eggs. Therefore, the appropriate Harmonised System (HS) code of the World Customs Organisation for cooked eggs, namely 04.07, should also be referred to in the model veterinary certificate for egg products set out in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008.\n(3)\nWhere egg products covered by HS code 04.07 originating from an area under animal health restrictions are imported into the Union, it is necessary that those products have been subjected to an appropriate treatment for the inactivation of disease agents. For that purpose, certain treatments for egg products recommended in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) as standards for international trade should be taken into account and be included in the Animal health attestation in Part II of the model veterinary certificate for egg products.\n(4)\nThe model veterinary certificate for egg products set out in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 2160/2003 lays down rules for the control of Salmonella in different poultry populations in the Union. It provides that admission to or retention on the lists of third countries provided for in Union legislation, for the relevant species or category, from which Member States are authorised to import those animals or hatching eggs covered by that Regulation is subject to the submission to the Commission by the third country concerned of a control programme for Salmonella with equivalent guarantees to those contained in the national control programmes for Salmonella in the Member States.\n(6)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2008 of 18 December 2008 concerning the approval of control programmes for Salmonella in certain third countries in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and listing of avian influenza surveillance programmes in certain third countries and amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 (6) approves the control programmes submitted by Croatia on 11 March 2008 as regards Salmonella in breeding poultry of Gallus gallus, hatching eggs thereof, laying hens of Gallus gallus, table eggs thereof and day-old chicks of Gallus gallus intended for breeding or laying.\n(7)\nThe control programmes submitted by Croatia on 11 March 2008 also provides the guarantees required by Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 for Salmonella control in all other flocks of Gallus gallus. These programmes should therefore also be approved. Regulation (EC) No 1291/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe entry for Croatia in the list in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should be amended to take account of the approval of the control programmes for Salmonella for all flocks of Gallus gallus.\n(9)\nCommission Decision 2007/843/EC of 11 December 2007 concerning approval of Salmonella control programmes in breeding flocks of Gallus gallus in certain third countries in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Decision 2006/696/EC, as regards certain public health requirements at import of poultry and hatching eggs (7) approves the control programme submitted by Tunisia for Salmonella in flocks of breeding hens, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003. In that Decision, as amended by Commission Decision 2011/238/EU (8), the programme submitted by Tunisia has been deleted since that third country has stopped the programme. The entry for Tunisia in the list in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should be amended to take account of that deletion.\n(10)\nRegulations (EC) No 798/2008 and (EC) No 1291/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 925/2010 of 15 October 2010 amending Decision 2007/777/EC and Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards transit through the Union of poultry meat and poultry meat products from Russia (9) contains an obvious error in the entry for Israel (IL-2), in column 7 of the table set out in Annex II to that Regulation, which should be corrected. The corrected Regulation should be applicable as of the date of entry into force of that Regulation.\n(12)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 955/2010 of 22 October 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the use of vaccines against Newcastle disease (10) contains an error in the veterinary model certificate for meat of poultry (POU) set out in the Annex to that Regulation. The error concerns the entry \u2018Treatment type\u2019, which was erroneously, introduced in Part I (Details of dispatched consignment) in box I.28 of that certificate. The entry \u2018Treatment type\u2019 is not applicable for meat of poultry and should therefore be deleted from the model certificate. That error should be corrected.\n(13)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a transitional period to permit Member States and the industry to take the necessary measures to comply with the applicable veterinary certification requirements following the correction to Regulation (EU) No 955/2010.\n(14)\nRegulations (EU) No 925/2010 and (EU) No 955/2010 should therefore be corrected accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 1291/2008\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2008 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThe control programmes submitted by Croatia to the Commission on 11 March 2008 in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 are approved as regards Salmonella in all flocks of Gallus gallus.\u2019\nArticle 3\nCorrection to Regulation (EU) No 925/2010\nIn Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 925/2010, in the entry for Israel (IL-2), column 7 is corrected as follows:\n(a)\nin the line for veterinary certificate models \u2018BPR, BPP, DOC, DOR, HEP, HER, SRP\u2019, the date \u20181.5.2010\u2019 is replaced by the letter \u2018A\u2019;\n(b)\nin the line for veterinary certificate model \u2018WGM\u2019, \u2018A\u2019 is deleted.\nArticle 4\nCorrection to Regulation (EU) No 955/2010\nIn the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 955/2010, in point (a), in box I.28 of Part I of the model veterinary certificate for meat of poultry (POU), the words \u2018Treatment type\u2019 are deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and applicability\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 May 2011.\nHowever, Article 3 shall apply from 5 November 2010 and Article 4 shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 April 2011.", "references": ["21", "40", "57", "60", "17", "84", "35", "11", "43", "45", "74", "79", "47", "78", "25", "54", "4", "94", "67", "95", "6", "92", "76", "70", "63", "88", "16", "72", "81", "0", "No Label", "38", "61", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "61", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 939/2010\nof 20 October 2010\namending Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 on permitted tolerances for the compositional labelling of feed materials or compound feed as referred to in Article 11(5)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the placing on the market and use of feed, amending European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 and repealing Council Directive 79/373/EEC, Commission Directive 80/511/EEC, Council Directives 82/471/EEC, 83/228/EEC, 93/74/EEC, 93/113/EC and 96/25/EC and Commission Decision 2004/217/EC (1), and in particular Article 27(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 767/2009 provides for a set of EU rules concerning the marketing conditions of feed materials and compound feed. Annex IV of this Regulation includes permitted tolerances for the compositional labelling of feed materials and compound feed.\n(2)\nStatistical control data from the competent authorities in the Member States on deviations in feed samples have revealed that substantial changes need to be made to the parameters set out in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 in order to consider the scientific and technological developments in sampling and analytical methods. The Commission has now completed the evaluation of that data and consequently the structure and the parameters of Annex IV should be modified.\n(3)\nThe amended tolerances for the moisture content should take into account certain feed materials with a moisture content greater than 50 % as for these feed materials new labelling provisions have been introduced by Articles 15 and 16 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2009.\n(4)\nIn the absence of methods to determine the energy value and the protein value at Union level, Member States should be allowed to maintain their national tolerances for these parameters.\n(5)\nFor the newly introduced tolerances for feed additives in feed it should be clarified that these only apply to the technical deviations, as the analytical tolerance is already determined in line with the official method of detection for the respective feed additive. The tolerances should apply to declared values in the list of feed additives and the list of analytical constituents.\n(6)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 is replaced in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall apply from 1 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["59", "44", "9", "39", "17", "22", "13", "58", "65", "78", "34", "61", "4", "90", "35", "73", "81", "37", "70", "52", "40", "87", "55", "31", "98", "20", "42", "14", "21", "67", "No Label", "23", "25", "38", "66", "77"], "gold": ["23", "25", "38", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 381/2010\nof 4 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2010.", "references": ["87", "99", "8", "60", "94", "65", "70", "14", "56", "31", "18", "32", "64", "13", "43", "69", "24", "33", "91", "54", "83", "53", "2", "58", "85", "38", "55", "20", "59", "30", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 578/2012\nof 29 June 2012\nconcerning the non approval of the active substance diphenylamine, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply, with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval, to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (3). Diphenylamine is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included diphenylamine. By Commission Decision 2009/859/EC (6) it was decided not to include diphenylamine in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nIn agreement with the original notifier, another person (hereinafter \u2027the applicant\u2027) submitted a new application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Ireland, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2009/859/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nIreland evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 3 December 2010.\n(6)\nThe Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on the risk assessment of diphenylamine to the Commission on 5 December 2011 (7). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 1 June 2012 in the format of the Commission review report for diphenylamine.\n(7)\nThe additional data and information provided by the applicant did not permit to eliminate the specific concerns that led to the non-inclusion. In particular, it was not possible to perform a reliable consumer exposure assessment because information concerning residues in raw and processed apples was missing and because the presence of nitrosamines in apples could not be excluded. Specifically, three metabolites could not be identified and, consequently, their toxicological properties could not be assessed. Furthermore, the processing study submitted by the applicant was not representative of the standard hydrolytic conditions and did not allow to identify breakdown and reaction products including the three unknown metabolites. Finally, the additional evidence submitted on nitrosamines was inconclusive as the analytical method was not validated and had an insufficient resolution and a lack of selectivity.\n(8)\nThe Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion of the Authority. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the applicant to submit comments on the draft review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(9)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns referred to in recital 7 could not be eliminated. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing diphenylamine satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nDiphenylamine should therefore not be approved pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(11)\nIn the interest of clarity, Decision 2009/859/EC should be repealed.\n(12)\nThis Regulation does not prejudice the submission of a further application for diphenylamine pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nNon approval of active substance\nThe active substance diphenylamine is not approved.\nArticle 2\nRepeal\nDecision 2009/859/EC is repealed.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2012.", "references": ["19", "23", "66", "29", "10", "70", "16", "14", "56", "7", "82", "46", "34", "9", "89", "81", "95", "42", "13", "50", "96", "64", "72", "44", "75", "51", "32", "45", "28", "0", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1010/2011\nof 12 October 2011\nfixing an acceptance percentage for the issuing of export licences, rejecting export licence applications and suspending the lodging of export licence applications for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 7e in conjunction with Article 9(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 61, first subparagraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 the sugar produced during the marketing year in excess of the quota referred to in Article 56 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit fixed by the Commission.\n(2)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011 of 15 April 2011 fixing the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2011/2012 marketing year (3) sets the above mentioned limits. This Regulation will apply only from 1 January 2012 and therefore the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2011/2012 marketing year will only be available from this date.\n(3)\nFor the 2011/2012 marketing year an acceptance percentage should therefore be set at zero for quantities applied from 3 October 2011 to 7 October 2011 and the lodging of export licence applications for sugar and isoglucose should be suspended. For the 2011/2012 marketing year all export licence applications for sugar and isoglucose submitted on 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 October 2011 should accordingly be rejected,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. For 2011/2012 marketing year export licences for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose for which applications were lodged from 3 October 2011 to 7 October 2011, shall be issued for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an acceptance percentage of 0 %.\n2. For 2011/2012 marketing year applications for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose export licences submitted on 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 October 2011 are hereby rejected.\n3. For 2011/2012 marketing year the lodging of applications for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose export licences shall be suspended for the period 17 October 2011 to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 October 2011.", "references": ["32", "89", "93", "74", "70", "33", "40", "35", "60", "5", "75", "1", "79", "83", "13", "91", "38", "84", "46", "58", "31", "68", "14", "42", "8", "30", "9", "63", "95", "86", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 564/2011\nof 14 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 June 2011.", "references": ["91", "54", "20", "96", "19", "25", "88", "1", "33", "80", "47", "5", "87", "70", "46", "90", "22", "65", "85", "78", "82", "76", "83", "30", "56", "17", "31", "28", "10", "51", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 84/2011\nof 31 January 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (1) as amended by Council Decision 2011/69/CFSP of 31 January 2011 (2),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Decision 2010/639/CFSP as amended provides for the freezing of funds and economic resources of, inter alia, the persons who are responsible for the violations of international electoral standards in the presidential elections in Belarus on 19 December 2010, and the crackdown on civil society and democratic opposition, as well as of those natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them.\n(2)\nThese measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, notably with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement them.\n(3)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the right to the protection of personal data. This Regulation should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(4)\nThe power to amend the lists in Annexes I and IA to this Regulation should be exercised by the Council, in view of the specific threat to international peace and security posed by the situation in Belarus, and to ensure consistency with the process for amending and reviewing the Annex to Decision 2011/69/CFSP.\n(5)\nThe procedure for amending the lists in Annexes I and IA to this Regulation should include providing designated natural or legal persons, entities or bodies with the grounds for their being listed, so as to give them an opportunity to submit observations. Where observations are submitted, or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in light of those observations and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n(6)\nFor the implementation of this Regulation, and in order to create maximum legal certainty within the Union, the names and other relevant data concerning natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen in accordance with this Regulation, should be made public. Any processing of personal data should respect Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (4).\n(7)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 765/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex I or in Annex IA shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I or in Annex IA.\n3. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited.\n4. Annex I shall consist of the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies referred to in Article 2(1)(a) of Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP as amended.\n5. Annex IA shall consist of the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies referred to in Article 2(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP as amended.\u2019.\n(2)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 2b\n1. Annexes I and IA shall include the grounds for the listing of listed persons, entities and bodies.\n2. Annexes I and IA shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies concerned. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, entities and bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\u2019.\n(3)\nArticle 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities in the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of persons listed in Annex I or in Annex IA and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services; or\n(c)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities in the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are necessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the Member State concerned has notified the other Member States and the Commission of the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted, at least 2 weeks before the authorisation.\n3. Member States shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraph 1 or 2.\u2019.\n(4)\nArticle 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8\nThe Commission shall be empowered toamend Annex II on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\u2019.\n(5)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 8a\n1. Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to the measures referred to in Article 2(1), it shall amend Annexes I or IA accordingly.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for the listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 1, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the natural or legal person, entity or body accordingly.\n4. The lists in Annexes I and IA shall be reviewed in regular intervals and at least every 12 months.\u2019.\n(6)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 9b\nWhere there is, in this Regulation, a requirement to notify, inform or otherwise communicate with the Commission, the address and other contact details to be used for such communication shall be those indicated in Annex II.\u2019.\n(7)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 is replaced by the text set out in Annex I.\n(8)\nThe text set out in Annex II is inserted into Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 as Annex IA.\n(9)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 is amended as set out in Annex III.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2011.", "references": ["8", "94", "87", "9", "72", "98", "73", "96", "61", "50", "68", "83", "14", "18", "90", "35", "49", "75", "79", "5", "33", "36", "81", "1", "43", "80", "37", "62", "4", "20", "No Label", "0", "3", "11", "91", "97"], "gold": ["0", "3", "11", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 60/2012\nof 16 January 2012\nterminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Measures in force\n(1)\nThe Council, by Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 (2) (\u2018the original Regulation\u2019), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia. The measures consist of an ad valorem duty at a rate ranging from 17,8 % to 22,7 %. The investigation which led to this Regulation will be referred to below as \u2018the original investigation\u2019.\n1.2. Request for a review\n(2)\nOn 30 November 2009, the European Commission (\u2018Commission\u2019) received a request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation (\u2018the interim review\u2019). The request, lodged by an exporting producer from Russia, Joint Stock Company (JSC) Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant and its related company Joint Stock Company (JSC) Kuznetsk Ferroalloy Works (hereinafter referred to jointly as \u2018the applicant\u2019),was limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far as the applicant is concerned. The anti-dumping duty rate applicable to the applicant is 22,7 %, based on the applicant\u2019s dumping margin.\n(3)\nIn its request, the applicant claimed that, as far as the applicant is concerned, the circumstances on the basis of which the existing measures were imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature.\n(4)\nThe applicant provided prima facie evidence showing that, as far as the applicant is concerned, the continued imposition of the measure at its current level is no longer necessary to offset dumping. According to the information submitted in the request, the comparison of the applicant\u2019s domestic prices and its export prices to the Union indicated that the dumping margin appeared to be substantially lower than the current level of the measure.\n1.3. Initiation of a review\n(5)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an interim review, the Commission decided to initiate a partial interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far as the applicant is concerned. The Commission published a notice of initiation on 27 October 2010 in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) (\u2018Notice of initiation\u2019) and commenced an investigation.\n1.4. Product concerned and like product\n(6)\nThe product concerned by the interim review is the same as that in the original investigation, i.e. ferro-silicon, originating in Russia, currently falling within CN codes 7202 21 00, 7202 29 10 and 7202 29 90.\n(7)\nThe product produced and sold in Russia and that exported to the Union have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and uses and are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n1.5. Parties concerned\n(8)\nThe Commission officially informed the Union industry, the applicant and the authorities of the exporting country of the initiation of the interim review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard.\n(9)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the applicant and received a reply within the deadline set for that purpose. The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the determination of dumping, and verification visits were carried out at the following locations:\n-\nJoint Stock Company JSC Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant (\u2018CHEM\u2019), Chelyabinsk, Russia,\n-\nJoint Stock Company JSC Kuznetsk Ferroalloy Works (\u2018KF\u2019), Kuznetsk, Russia,\nand\n-\nRFA International LP (\u2018RFAI\u2019) in Mishawaka, USA & Nieuwdorp Zld, The Netherlands.\n1.6. Investigation period\n(10)\nThe investigation covered the period from 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2010 (the review investigation period or \u2018RIP\u2019).\n2. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES\n2.1. Introduction\n(11)\nAs a starting point, it is recalled that, according to the case-law of the EU courts (4), when assessing the need to continue existing measures in a review based on Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Institutions have a wide discretion, which includes the option of carrying out a prospective assessment of the pricing policy of the exporters concerned. It is in this context that the Institutions must examine the applicant\u2019s arguments as to why the circumstances of its situation have changed in a lasting manner, allegedly justifying a reduction or even removal of the duty.\n(12)\nThe applicant claimed that changed circumstances could be reasonably said to be of a lasting nature and thus the level of measures should be reduced or the measures should be repealed altogether as far as the applicant is concerned, as it was unlikely that in the foreseeable future there would be a recurrence of dumped imports at all or at levels similar to those established in the original investigation.\n2.2. Regarding the question whether the applicant was still dumping on the EU market during the RIP (5)\n(13)\nBefore replying to the various arguments of the applicant on the (allegedly) lasting nature of the (allegedly) changed circumstances, it is useful to first describe the Institutions\u2019 considerations regarding the question whether the applicant may still have been dumping on the EU market during the RIP.\n2.2.1. Normal value\n(14)\nFor the determination of normal value, it was first established whether the company\u2019s total volume of domestic sales of the like product to independent customers was representative in comparison with its total volume of export sales to the Union. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales are considered to be representative when the total domestic sales volume is at least 5 % of the total volume of sales of the product concerned to the Union. It was found that the overall sales, by the company, of the like product on the domestic market were representative.\n(15)\nFor each product type sold by the company on its domestic market and found to be directly comparable with the product type sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total volume of that product type sold on the domestic market to independent customers during the RIP represented at least 5 % of the total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Union.\n(16)\nIt was also examined whether the domestic sales of each product type could be regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of domestic sales to independent customers on the domestic market which were profitable for each exported type of the product concerned during each of the periods.\n(17)\nFor those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market of the product type were above cost and the weighted average sales price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not.\n(18)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during each of the periods.\n(19)\nWherever domestic prices of a particular product type sold by the company could not be used in order to establish normal value, the normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(20)\nWhen constructing normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits have been based, pursuant to the introductory phrase of Article 2(6), of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the actual data pertaining to the production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the company.\n2.2.2. Export price\n(21)\nThe company\u2019s export sales to the Union are made through the Swiss branch of its related company RFAI which during the RIP performed all import functions in relation to the goods entering into free circulation in the Union, i.e. that of a related importer.\n(22)\nThe export price was thus established in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of prices at which the imported products were first resold to an independent buyer, adjusted for all costs, incurred between importation and resale, as well as a reasonable margin for SG&A and for profits. For this purpose, in the absence of new information from independent importers concerning profits accruing, use was made of the profit rate applied in the original investigation, namely 6 %.\n(23)\nThe applicant claimed that RFAI should be treated as part of the same single economic entity (SEE) and that consequently when determining the export prices no deduction should be made for SG&A and profit of RFAI.\n(24)\nThis claim can not be accepted for the following reasons:\n-\nthe two exporting producers have their own export sales department,\n-\nRFAI is strongly involved in the international activity of the Group (customer assistance, logistics and schedule of the deliveries, purchasing of capital goods and key raw materials, etc.),\n-\nthe Swiss branch of RFAI is performing all the functions normally performed by a related importer in the EU,\n-\nRFAI sells ferro-silicon in its own name and for its own account to unrelated customers in the EU and elsewhere,\n-\nRFAI has a purchase-sales relationship with the two related Russian producers KF and CHEM,\n-\neach company drafts its own financial report and no consolidated financial report exists, and\n-\neach company files its own tax return with the respective authorities.\nAccordingly, the claim that no deduction should be made for SG&A and profit in the construction of the export price had to be rejected. The applicant\u2019s comments on this point in reply to the final disclosure will be discussed below (point 2.3).\n(25)\nThe applicant also claimed that no deduction of the anti-dumping duty should be made in the calculation of the export price in accordance with the Article 11(10) of the basic Regulation, since the duty is duly reflected in resale prices and the subsequent selling prices in the Union. With respect to this claim, the investigation has established that the weighted average resale prices of ferro-silicon in the Union have increased in comparison with the prices in the original investigation and the current resale export prices are largely more than 22,7 % higher than such prices in the original investigation. Therefore, it can be concluded that the anti-dumping duty is duly reflected in the applicant\u2019s resale prices. As a result, this claim of the applicant could be accepted and, in the calculation of the constructed export prices in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, no deduction of the anti-dumping duties has been carried out.\n2.2.3. Comparison\n(26)\nThe normal value and the export price were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for transport costs, insurance costs, terminal and handling costs, credit costs, and commissions, where applicable and justified, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.\n2.2.4. Dumping margin\n(27)\nAs provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value by type was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned. The outcome showed the existence of dumping.\n(28)\nIn order to calculate the dumping margin, the Institutions, as in the original investigation, noted that CHEM and KF are closely related. As in the original investigation, and in line with the Institutions\u2019 standard practice, a single dumping margin was calculated for the whole Group. In the method used for doing so in the final disclosure, the amount of dumping was calculated for each individual exporting producer before determining a weighted average rate of dumping for the group as a whole. It should be noted that this methodology was different from the methodology applied in the original investigation, where the dumping calculation was done by collapsing all relevant data with regard to domestic sales, cost of production, profitability and sales in the Union of the producing entities. The applicant claimed that applying this methodology would be contrary to Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation. This issue, too, will be returned to below (point 2.3).\n2.3. Analysis of the reactions to final disclosure relating to the dumping margin during the RIP.\n(29)\nThe applicant submitted several comments on certain aspects of the calculations such as cost of production, SG&A, profit margin, normal value and allowances. All these comments were considered and, where appropriate, clerical errors were corrected. Accordingly, the definitive findings have been modified.\n(30)\nIn addition, the applicant requested the Commission to express the dumping amount on the basis of a cif value that they constructed themselves for the purposes of this investigation, therefore making reference to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. The claim was based on the grounds that the price declared to customs authorities is a transfer price which would perhaps be the correct price for customs purposes, but not a price that should be used when calculating dumping in anti-dumping proceedings. This claim has to be rejected because the difference between the export price and the normal value, i.e. the dumping amount, should be expressed on the same basis as the one which is subsequently used by customs authorities to determine any duty to be collected. This is in fact the cif value declared by the applicant to customs authorities. Consequently, the latter was used in the calculations.\n(31)\nWith regards to the calculation of the cost of production, the applicant contested the Commission approach to use the average purchase price of a main cost item from an unrelated supplier in place of the actual price paid to a related supplier of the same cost item in the construction of the normal value. This claim has to be rejected because the price charged by the related supplier was significantly lower than the price paid for the same raw material to an independent supplier. This price, therefore, cannot be considered as an arm\u2019s length price. Consequently, this cost element needed to be adjusted.\n(32)\nFollowing disclosure, the applicant claimed that packing costs were not treated consistently when comparing export prices with normal values. This issue was investigated and, where applicable, clerical errors were corrected.\n(33)\nThe applicant commented also on the exclusion of the export transactions of a particular product type. The sales of this product type in the Union represented less than 5 % of the applicant\u2019s sales in the Union of the product concerned during the RIP. This point has to be rejected given that no sales of this product type were made on the domestic market neither specific cost of production had been provided. As this product type had been exported to the EU in low volumes during the RIP, it was therefore considered not appropriate to resort to constructing the normal value on the basis of manufacturing costs of other product types, thereby making adjustments for product differences.\n(34)\nIn addition and as explained above, in particular regarding two important points of the dumping margin calculation, namely: (i) the question whether CHEM, KF and RFAI form a single economic entity (6) and (ii) the calculation of an individual amount of dumping for CHEM on the one hand, and KF on the other hand (7), the applicant made detailed comments in its reaction to the definitive disclosure.\n(35)\nRegarding the first claim, and in particular on the points put forward by the applicant in its reaction to the definitive disclosure, the following is observed.\n(36)\nThe applicant reiterated its position that the two exporting producers and the related trader RFAI are ultimately owned and controlled by the same beneficiaries and that it, therefore, would have no autonomy and simply follow the instructions of the owners of the applicant. It acknowledged all the elements listed in recital 24 above, but it disagreed to the Institutions\u2019 appreciation thereof as they would have no bearing on whether CHEM, KF and RFAI are all parts of an SEE.\n(37)\nThe Institutions reject the applicant\u2019s comments. The criteria already listed above, are, especially if all taken together, well-grounded to justify the rejection of the applicant\u2019s claim. All the elements listed in recital 24 above point at a group structure where all the companies are distinctive legal entities in which KF and CHEM performed the complete function of an exporting producers (production and export function) while RFAI operates mainly as a related trader/importer in the EU.\n(38)\nRegarding the second claim, it is not necessary to take a final position on this matter in the context of this review investigation. This results from the combination of two reasons. First, even if this claim were accepted (in addition to the acceptance, where appropriate, of the claims referred to in recital 29 above), the applicant would still have been found dumping on the EU market, during the RIP, at a dumping margin of approximately 13 %. Second, as explained below, in any case there is currently insufficient evidence to consider the dumping margin during the RIP as a lasting one.\n(39)\nIn its reaction to definitive disclosure, the Union industry argued that, as a result of the review investigation, the duty on the applicant\u2019s products should be increased, because, assuming that all of the applicant\u2019s claims would be refused, the dumping margin found during the RIP was higher than the applicable duty. However, since, as explained below, there is insufficient evidence of a lasting change in circumstances, there is no justification for modifying the duty, neither upward nor downward.\n2.4. Analysis of the question whether there is a lasting change in circumstances justifying a reduction or removal of the duty\n(40)\nNevertheless, in spite of the acceptance of certain of the applicant\u2019s claims as described above, it is still found to have been dumping on the EU market, during the RIP, at a dumping margin of at least 13 %. Moreover, as will be explained below, in any case there is insufficient evidence to consider the dumping margin during the RIP as a lasting one.\n(41)\nThe applicant based its reasoning why there is a lasting change of circumstances on the following points:\n(42)\n(i)\nFirstly, the applicant referred to the changes in the export sales structure of the group, which, coupled with the exploration of new growing markets, would have contributed to higher export prices of ferro-silicon to all export markets, including in the EU, in comparison to the prices during the original investigation. However, the applicant did not provide any substantiated evidence in order to show the link between the new corporate structure, exploration of new growing markets and higher prices on the EU market. Nor did the findings of the investigation indicate such a link. On the contrary, while export prices were clearly higher in the RIP as compared to the prices observed during the investigation period of the original investigation, they have nevertheless been extremely volatile. As an example, within the RIP, the difference between the lowest and highest transaction price per tonne of the most sold model on the EU market was more than 100 %. A similar volatility could be observed on the domestic market, but the price trend on the EU market was not comparable to the price trend on the domestic market. This is also true for the 12-month period preceding the RIP which was closely looked at in the framework of a parallel refund investigation. Indeed, the export sales prices appear to have simply followed the global market prices.\n(43)\nFollowing disclosure, similar arguments were used by the applicant. However, again insufficient evidence was provided. It is therefore concluded that there is insufficient evidence, at this point in time, that these higher export prices by the applicant are anything other than a consequence of the prevailing market prices (in particular those on the EU market) during the RIP. In other words, there is insufficient evidence that the changes by the applicant in its corporate export structure were the cause of these higher prices, and that therefore these prices can be expected to remain at similar (or higher) levels in the future. In particular, contrary to what the applicant implies, even assuming that the new structure has made the group more efficient, this does not mean that in the future its export prices to the EU will be high and not result in dumping.\n(44)\n(ii)\nSecondly, the applicant declared that its export prices to other markets were in line with or even higher than its sales prices to the Union. Significant investments had been made to better supply other markets. Thus, a reduction or removal of the antidumping measures in relation to the applicant would not create an incentive to increase exports to the EU and/or reduce prices thereof.\n(45)\nHowever, this claim cannot lead to a removal or decrease of the measures in force. It is recalled that, even according to the applicant itself, during the RIP it was still dumping. Moreover, the applicant itself highlighted that the EU remains one of its traditional markets. This is corroborated by the fact that the volumes sold by the applicant in the EU are still very significant; if one compares the sales volumes with the EU consumption during the IP of the original investigation (8), they would represent a significant market share (between 5 and 20 %, the precise figures cannot be disclose for reasons of confidentiality).\n(46)\nAfter disclosure the applicant reiterated its position that the new market opportunities would be in other markets (India, Asia and United States) rather in the EU. However, the applicant did not provide any substantial evidence to support its market strategies. The still existing dumping margin during the RIP, the lack of data on other markets and the volatility of the export sales price in the international market are all elements that do not support this claim which, therefore, has to be rejected.\n(47)\n(iii)\nThirdly, in the applicant\u2019s view, the Russian domestic market, with significant steel production, remains one of its most important markets and the demand for the like product in Russia is expected to grow. Domestic and export prices of ferro-silicon would also grow much faster than cost of production. The applicant would thus be likely to increase its sales on the domestic market further, also because, according to the applicant, the sole other Russian producer of ferro-silicon would since a recent change of ownership produce predominantly for captive consumption.\n(48)\nEven if all these allegations are assumed to be true, it nevertheless remains the case that during the RIP, the applicant was dumping at a considerable margin, and at volatile prices. Moreover, as explained above, the volumes sold by the applicant to the EU during the RIP do not suggest that it has shifted away from that market or that it intends to do so in the near future.\n(49)\nIn its comments to the disclosure, the applicant asserted that the only reasoning presented in the disclosure by the Commission to deny the relevance of the increasing demand on the domestic market would be the significance of the dumping margin found. Furthermore, the applicant sustained that the Commission, although it acknowledged many of the key points relating to the Russian market, fails to draw the adequate conclusion from these arguments.\n(50)\nThese assertions have to be rejected. Firstly, not only the dumping findings but also the volumes findings speak against this argument. Secondly, the Institutions note that no acknowledgment was made by the Commission and no conclusive independent data was provided to support the claim that the demand for the product concerned is expected to grow in Russia and that export prices of the group would grow much faster than cost of production.\n(51)\n(iv)\nFourthly, the applicant pointed out that its Russian production sites of ferro-silicon had been working at full capacity for years, that it had no plans to increase its overall production capacity of ferro-silicon in the foreseeable future and that there were no indications to the contrary.\n(52)\nHowever, a significant recovery of capacities after the financial crisis of 2009 was noted and the applicant reported an expansion of capacities by 10 %-20 % (range provided for reasons of confidentiality) as compared to the period prior to the 2009 financial crisis.\n(53)\nFollowing disclosure, the applicant submitted that a comparison of the post-RIP production capacity with that during the reference period was not appropriate as the applicant would have anticipated the 2009 financial crisis and, therefore, already reduced the production capacity. This argument cannot be accepted; an expansion of reported capacities by 10 %-20 % can be observed as compared to 2007 - not 2009 when capacities were at their lowest levels. Moreover, the 2009 financial crisis cannot yet have impacted the 2007 production capacity of the applicant.\n2.5. Conclusion: insufficient evidence of lasting nature of changed circumstances\n(54)\nThe analysis of the applicant\u2019s claims with regard to the lasting nature of the changed circumstances, as summarised above, lead to the conclusion that there is currently insufficient evidence that any changed circumstances are of a lasting nature. The applicant\u2019s export prices, and therefore its dumping margin, appear likely to continue to fluctuate, following, in particular, the development of world market prices. To the extent that the applicant has shown certain changed circumstances they can, therefore, not be considered to show that the pricing behaviour of the applicant during the RIP is of a lasting nature. It is therefore concluded that it would be premature and therefore unjustified to lower the duty at this point in time.\n3. UNDERTAKINGS\n(55)\nThe applicant together with its related importer offered a price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(56)\nThe investigation confirmed that the price of the product is highly volatile. As already mentioned in recital 42 above, it was established that the applicant\u2019s sales prices in the Union during the RIP varied very significantly. The product is therefore not suited for a fixed price undertaking. Although an indexation mechanism was proposed by the exporter, it was not possible to establish a correlation between the price volatility of the finished product and the indexation source proposed, in particular as it also related to the finished product and referred to prices which were influenced by dumped imports. Therefore, the proposed indexation was considered not appropriate.\n(57)\nAs regards company specific risks, it was established that due to the complexity of the company structure, the risk of cross-compensation is very high: other products than the product concerned could be sold via a trader outside the Union to another related third country branch and then be re-sold to the Union.\n(58)\nFinally, as the product itself exists in different qualities and is mainly imported in bulk form, it would not be possible for customs authorities to distinguish the chemical specification (potentially subject to different Minimum Import Prices) without individual analysis of each transaction, thus rendering the monitoring very burdensome, if not impracticable.\n(59)\nThe undertaking offer was therefore rejected.\n4. TERMINATION OF THE REVIEW\n(60)\nIn view of the findings of dumping as well as the absence of a proven lasting nature of the changed circumstances, it is concluded that JSC Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant and its related company JSC Kuznetsk Ferroalloy Works should continue to be subject to the duty level specified in the original Regulation, i.e. 22,7 %,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia, initiated pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 is hereby terminated without amending the level of the anti-dumping measure in force.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 January 2012.", "references": ["47", "27", "76", "46", "74", "93", "92", "67", "64", "86", "90", "61", "8", "39", "49", "58", "65", "30", "32", "68", "60", "81", "87", "2", "24", "98", "75", "52", "13", "26", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 6 June 2011\non establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for notebook computers\n(notified under document C(2011) 3736)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/330/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Union Eco-labelling Board,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, the EU Ecolabel may be awarded to those products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 66/2010 provides that specific EU Ecolabel criteria are to be established according to product groups.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2001/687/EC (2) has established the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements for portable computers. Following the review of the criteria set out in that Decision, Commission Decision 2005/343/EC (3) has established revised criteria which are valid until 30 June 2011.\n(4)\nThose criteria have been further reviewed in the light of technological developments. In addition, in 2006, the agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the European Community (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019), approved by Council Decision 2006/1005/EC (4), as amended by Decision 2010/C 186/1 of 12 August 2009 of the Management entities under the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the European Community on the coordination of energy-efficiency labelling programmes for office equipment on the revision of the computer specifications in Annex C, part VIII, to the Agreement (hereinafter \u2018ENERGY STAR v5.0\u2019) (5) was concluded setting out the criteria for Energy Star.\n(5)\nThose new criteria, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, should be valid for 3 years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\n(6)\nDecision 2005/343/EC should be replaced for reasons of clarity.\n(7)\nA transitional period should be allowed for producers whose products have been awarded the Ecolabel for portable computers on the basis of the criteria set out in Decision 2005/343/EC, so that they have sufficient time to adapt their products to comply with the revised criteria and requirements. Producers should also be allowed to submit applications based on the criteria set out in Decision 2005/343/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision until the lapse of validity of that Decision.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The product group \u2018notebook computers\u2019 shall comprise devices which have the following characteristics:\n(a)\nthey perform logical operations and process data and are designed specifically for portability and to be operated for extended periods of time either with or without a direct connection to an AC power source;\n(b)\nthey utilise an integrated computer display and are capable of operation off an integrated battery or other portable power source. If a notebook computer is delivered with an external power supply this power supply is considered part of the notebook computer.\n2. For the purpose of this Decision, tablet personal computers, which may use touch-sensitive screens along with or instead of other input devices shall be considered notebook computers.\n3. Digital picture frames shall not be considered notebook computers for the purpose of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nIn order to be awarded the EU Ecolabel under Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, an item must fall within the product group \u2018notebook computers\u2019 as defined in Article 1 of this Decision and must comply with the ecological criteria as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThe criteria for the product group \u2018notebook computers\u2019 as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid for 3 years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 4\nFor administrative purposes the code number assigned to the product group \u2018notebook computers\u2019 shall be \u2018018\u2019.\nArticle 5\nDecision 2005/343/EC is repealed.\nArticle 6\n1. By derogation from Article 5, applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018portable computers\u2019 as defined in Decision 2005/343/EC submitted before the date of adoption of this Decision shall be evaluated in accordance with the conditions laid down in Decision 2005/343/EC.\n2. Applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018notebook computers\u2019 submitted from the date of adoption of this Decision but by 30 June 2011 at the latest may be based either on the criteria set out in Decision 2005/343/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision.\nThose applications shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria on which they are based.\n3. Where the Ecolabel is awarded on the basis of an application evaluated in accordance with the criteria set out in Decision 2005/343/EC, that Ecolabel may be used for 12 months from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 June 2011.", "references": ["53", "93", "12", "44", "67", "48", "84", "96", "92", "64", "34", "22", "16", "76", "43", "62", "54", "70", "60", "49", "56", "19", "33", "83", "99", "89", "80", "90", "57", "46", "No Label", "24", "25", "42", "58"], "gold": ["24", "25", "42", "58"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1018/2011\nof 12 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for blue whiting in EU and international waters of I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId, VIIIe, XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 October 2011.", "references": ["22", "64", "20", "89", "76", "9", "10", "86", "94", "66", "44", "79", "8", "77", "21", "51", "16", "5", "71", "47", "93", "34", "65", "60", "99", "45", "29", "33", "74", "38", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 114/2011\nof 8 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 February 2011.", "references": ["94", "31", "63", "74", "85", "42", "14", "65", "84", "32", "28", "88", "73", "64", "59", "11", "8", "19", "16", "93", "96", "45", "75", "22", "21", "95", "83", "34", "9", "12", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 826/2010\nof 20 September 2010\nderogating from Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 as regards buying-in and sales of butter and skimmed milk powder\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f) and (j) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 4(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) of intervention measures in the form of public storage operations and the accounting of public storage operations by the paying agencies of the Member States (2), the EAGF finances expenditure on the physical operations referred to in Annex V to that Regulation on the basis of standard amounts, provided the corresponding expenditure has not been fixed under the applicable sectoral agricultural legislation.\n(2)\nThe standard amounts set and notified to the Member States for 2010 were calculated on the basis of the rules applicable before 1 March 2010. On that date the rules regarding the buying-in and the sales of products for and from intervention, including the costs to be borne by intervention agencies and operators, laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3) became applicable for the dairy sector.\n(3)\nIn order to take account of this situation regarding sales, Commission Regulation (EU) No 569/2010 (4) introduced a derogation from Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 on the relevant rules for the sales by tender of butter and skimmed milk powder for tenders submitted until 21 September 2010 at 11:00 (Brussels time).\n(4)\nIn order to ensure a harmonised calculation of the standard amounts, it is necessary to provide the time Member States need to determine the costs related to unloading/loading and to communicate them to the Commission. Furthermore, the uniform application of the rules regarding the costs to be borne by the intervention agencies and operators regarding the buying-in and the sales of butter and skimmed milk powder for and from intervention should be further examined and finalised. Due to the time limits and the procedural requirements these additional elements will not be available on time in order to be taken into account in the decision for fixing the standard amounts for the accounting year 2011. Therefore, the derogation from Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 should be provided for until the end of the accounting year 2011.\n(5)\nIn order to react swiftly and to apply without interruption the derogation from Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 until the end of the accounting year 2011, this Regulation should enter into force on the date of its publication.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. By way of derogation from the third subparagraph of Article 28(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, the cost incurred in unloading the butter and the skimmed milk powder at the loading bay of the storage place shall be borne by the paying agency.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 42(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, the price in euro shall be tendered for the product, supplied on pallets at the loading bay for the place of storage or, if necessary, supplied on pallets loaded onto the means of transport, where this concerns a lorry or a railway wagon.\n3. By way of derogation from Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, the product shall be made available to operators on pallets at the loading bay for the place of storage or, if necessary, supplied on pallets loaded onto the means of transport, where this concerns a lorry or a railway wagon.\n4. By way of derogation from Article 52(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, the costs, depending on the case, for the movement of the products to the loading bay or onto the means of transport shall be borne by the paying agency and any stowage or depalettising charges shall be borne by the purchaser.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nParagraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 1 shall apply to special invitations to tender for butter and skimmed milk powder opened in accordance with Article 40 of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, for tenders submitted from 21 September 2010 at 11:00 (Brussels time) until 20 September 2011 at 11:00 (Brussels time).\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2010.", "references": ["19", "3", "47", "48", "89", "44", "83", "77", "46", "9", "75", "6", "64", "54", "87", "99", "34", "11", "69", "39", "13", "72", "4", "22", "97", "82", "59", "15", "76", "60", "No Label", "20", "26", "70"], "gold": ["20", "26", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 536/2010\nof 18 June 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of June 2010 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for certain products in the egg sector and for egg albumin\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 of 15 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the egg sector and for egg albumin (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 539/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of egg products and egg albumin.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of June 2010 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2010 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2010 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2010.", "references": ["42", "40", "58", "22", "32", "47", "16", "1", "79", "62", "27", "50", "20", "34", "55", "74", "11", "15", "73", "0", "89", "63", "12", "77", "5", "75", "94", "43", "95", "35", "No Label", "21", "69", "72"], "gold": ["21", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 15 February 2012\non a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Germany, Italy and the Netherlands in 2011\n(notified under document C(2012) 776)\n(Only the Dutch, German and Italian texts are authentic)\n(2012/132/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAvian influenza is an infectious viral disease of poultry and other captive birds with a severe impact on the profitability of poultry farming causing disturbance to trade within the Union and export to third countries.\n(2)\nIn the event of an outbreak of avian influenza, there is a risk that the disease agent spreads to other poultry holdings within that Member State, but also to other Member States and to third countries through trade in live poultry or their products.\n(3)\nCouncil Directive 2005/94/EC (2) introducing Community measures for the control of avian influenza sets out measures which in the event of an outbreak have to be immediately implemented by Member States as a matter of urgency to prevent further spread of the virus.\n(4)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. Pursuant to Article 4(2) of that Decision, Member States shall obtain a financial contribution towards the costs of certain measures to eradicate avian influenza.\n(5)\nArticle 4(3) first and second indents of Decision 2009/470/EC lays down rules on the percentage of the costs incurred by the Member State that may be covered by the financial contribution from the Union.\n(6)\nThe payment of a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to eradicate avian influenza is subject to the rules laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (3).\n(7)\nOutbreaks of avian influenza occurred in Germany, Italy and the Netherlands in 2011. Germany, Italy and the Netherlands took measures in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC to combat those outbreaks.\n(8)\nThe authorities of Germany, Italy and the Netherlands were able to demonstrate through reports provided in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and continuous submission of information on the development of the disease situation that they have efficiently implemented the control measures provided for in Directive 2005/94/EC.\n(9)\nThe authorities of Germany, Italy and the Netherlands have therefore fulfilled their technical and administrative obligations with regard to the measures provided for in Article 4(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(10)\nAt this stage, the exact amount of the financial contribution from the Union cannot be determined as the information on the cost of compensation and on operational expenditure provided are estimates.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFinancial contribution from the Union to Germany, Italy and the Netherlands\n1. A financial contribution from the Union shall be granted to Germany, Italy and the Netherlands towards the costs incurred by these Member States in taking measures pursuant to Article 4(2) and (3) of Decision 2009/470/EC, to combat avian influenza in Germany, Italy and the Netherlands in 2011.\n2. The amount of the financial contribution mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be fixed in a subsequent decision to be adopted in accordance with the procedure established in Article 40(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC.\nArticle 2\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2012.", "references": ["2", "6", "87", "75", "3", "57", "22", "64", "73", "99", "98", "27", "16", "88", "58", "18", "11", "12", "5", "65", "34", "79", "54", "37", "32", "59", "46", "89", "45", "53", "No Label", "10", "38", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "38", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/344/CFSP\nof 23 March 2012\non the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Albania establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic of Albania in European Union crisis management operations\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 37 thereof, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 218(5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nConditions regarding the participation of third States in European Union crisis management operations should be laid down in an agreement establishing a framework for such possible future participation, rather than defining those conditions on a case-by-case basis for each operation concerned.\n(2)\nFollowing the adoption of a Decision by the Council on 26 April 2010 authorising the opening of negotiations, the HR negotiated an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Albania establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic of Albania in European Union crisis management operations (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Albania establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic of Albania in the European Union crisis management operations (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 16(1) of the Agreement.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["67", "41", "25", "58", "69", "73", "83", "22", "77", "28", "8", "43", "29", "74", "49", "61", "54", "90", "21", "37", "76", "47", "56", "19", "46", "2", "45", "10", "70", "4", "No Label", "3", "5", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "5", "9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 31 March 2011\nestablishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the International Grains Council with respect to the extension of the Grains Trade Convention 1995\n(2011/224/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas the Grains Trade Convention 1995, which was concluded on behalf of the Community by the Council through Decision 96/88/EC (1), was regularly extended for successive periods of 2 years. This Convention was last extended by a decision of the International Grains Council of 8 June 2009 and it shall remain in force until 30 June 2011. A further extension is in the interest of the Union. The Commission, which represents the Union within the International Grains Council, should therefore be authorised to vote in favour of such extension,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the Union within the International Grains Council shall be to vote in favour of the extension of the Grains Trade Convention 1995 for a further period of up to 2 years.\nThe Commission is hereby authorised to express this position within the International Grains Council.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["10", "54", "13", "97", "20", "94", "22", "85", "25", "4", "31", "84", "81", "62", "92", "36", "46", "60", "57", "56", "18", "98", "38", "28", "6", "40", "87", "71", "1", "0", "No Label", "3", "9", "23", "68"], "gold": ["3", "9", "23", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 10/2012\nof 6 January 2012\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for import licences for olive oil lodged from 2 to 3 January 2012 under the Tunisian tariff quota and suspending the issue of import licences for the month of January 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(1) and (2) of Protocol No 1 (3) to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part (4), opens a tariff quota at a zero rate of duty for imports of untreated olive oil falling within CN codes 1509 10 10 and 1509 10 90, wholly obtained in Tunisia and transported direct from that country to the European Union, up to the limit laid down for each year.\n(2)\nArticle 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 of 20 December 2006 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quota for olive oil originating in Tunisia (5) lays down monthly quantitative limits for the issue of import licences.\n(3)\nImport licence applications have been submitted to the competent authorities under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 in respect of a total quantity exceeding the limit laid down for the month of January in Article 2(2) of that Regulation.\n(4)\nIn these circumstances, the Commission must set an allocation coefficient allowing import licences to be issued in proportion to the quantity available.\n(5)\nSince the limit for the month of January has been reached, no more import licences can be issued for that month,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications were lodged for 2 and 3 January 2012 under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 91,091273 %.\nThe issue of import licences in respect of amounts applied for as from 9 January 2012 shall be suspended for January 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 January 2012.", "references": ["90", "44", "49", "43", "14", "36", "72", "9", "63", "41", "26", "42", "55", "64", "86", "5", "52", "13", "15", "28", "83", "11", "80", "71", "10", "35", "60", "84", "77", "78", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "70", "94"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "70", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 814/2010\nof 15 September 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 September 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 September 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 September 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 September 2010.", "references": ["94", "19", "54", "26", "78", "99", "62", "59", "32", "21", "46", "27", "31", "12", "51", "16", "89", "34", "15", "84", "4", "56", "85", "28", "39", "91", "70", "52", "30", "79", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency vaccination plans against bluetongue in France in 2007 and 2008\n(notified under document C(2011) 8727)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(2011/801/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 3(3), (4) and second indent of (6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate bluetongue as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. The second indent of Article 3(6) of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2008/655/EC (3) as modified by Decision 2009/19/EC (4) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in France in 2007 and 2008.\n(5)\nOn 31 March 2009, France submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(6)\nAn FVO inspection was carried out in France from 24 to 28 November 2008, which has noted some technical shortcomings. Nevertheless these shortcomings had not compromised the overall implementation of the programme nor caused additional expenditures for the Union budget.\n(7)\nA financial control was carried out in France from 1 to 4 December 2009 which has concluded that the expenditures presented by France were eligible.\n(8)\nThe Commission's observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to France in a letter dated 14 July 2011.\n(9)\nIn view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of bluetongue in France in 2007 and 2008 should now be fixed according to Article 3(2) of Decision 2008/655/EC.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union for the expenditure associated with eradicating bluetongue in France in 2007 and 2008 is fixed at EUR 23 162 004,20. It constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe balance of the financial contribution is fixed at EUR 2 041 295,20.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["18", "28", "84", "1", "89", "13", "83", "24", "60", "67", "70", "77", "44", "37", "43", "59", "47", "7", "35", "82", "54", "57", "87", "12", "63", "85", "75", "21", "90", "51", "No Label", "4", "10", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 June 2010\nallowing Member States to extend provisional authorisations granted for the new active substance profoxydim\n(notified under document C(2010) 4225)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/356/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in March 1998 Spain received an application from BASF SE for the inclusion of the active substance profoxydim in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 1999/43/EC (2) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(2)\nConfirmation of the completeness of the dossier was necessary in order to allow it to be examined in detail and to allow Member States the possibility of granting provisional authorisations, for periods of up to 3 years, for plant protection products containing the active substance concerned, while complying with the conditions laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and, in particular, the condition relating to the detailed assessment of the active substance and the plant protection products in the light of the requirements laid down by that Directive.\n(3)\nFor this active substance, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicant. The rapporteur Member State submitted the draft assessment report to the Commission on 28 March 2001.\n(4)\nFollowing submission of the draft assessment report by the rapporteur Member State, it has been found to be necessary to request further information from the applicant and to have the rapporteur Member State examine that information and submit its assessment. Therefore, the examination of the dossier is still ongoing and it will not be possible to complete the evaluation within the timeframe provided for in Directive 91/414/EEC, read in conjunction with Commission Decision 2008/564/EC (3).\n(5)\nAs the evaluation so far has not identified any reason for immediate concern, Member States should be given the possibility of prolonging provisional authorisations granted for plant protection products containing the active substance concerned for a period of 24 months in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of Directive 91/414/EEC so as to enable the examination of the dossier to continue. It is expected that the evaluation and decision-making process with respect to a decision on a possible inclusion in Annex I to that Directive for profoxydim will have been completed within 24 months.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States may extend provisional authorisations for plant protection products containing profoxydim for a period ending on 30 June 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall expire on 30 June 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 June 2010.", "references": ["59", "16", "73", "58", "2", "53", "75", "98", "80", "52", "66", "45", "57", "99", "70", "46", "82", "30", "81", "50", "6", "77", "26", "27", "92", "17", "91", "84", "38", "62", "No Label", "25", "60", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "60", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 819/2010\nof 16 September 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 815/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 September 2010.", "references": ["30", "16", "45", "94", "48", "98", "92", "5", "60", "79", "84", "8", "95", "21", "15", "54", "28", "75", "86", "55", "85", "26", "51", "11", "90", "81", "24", "3", "80", "38", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 22 November 2010\non the conclusion of a Second Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union\n(2010/726/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) and Article 218(8), thereof,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Act of Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the assent of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Second Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part, was signed on behalf of the European Community and its Member States on 24 July 2007.\n(2)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(3)\nThe Second Additional Protocol should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Second Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (2), is hereby approved on behalf of the Union and its Member States.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union and its Member States, give the notification provided for in Article 10 of the Second Additional Protocol.\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, make the following notification:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d in the text of the Protocol are, where appropriate, to be read as \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["26", "17", "56", "8", "48", "80", "54", "40", "85", "57", "62", "81", "44", "41", "1", "19", "64", "16", "69", "15", "24", "78", "30", "72", "46", "28", "52", "95", "76", "13", "No Label", "3", "9", "93"], "gold": ["3", "9", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1164/2010\nof 9 December 2010\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pomodoro S. Marzano dell\u2019Agro Sarnese-Nocerino (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and in accordance with Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Pomodoro S. Marzano dell\u2019Agro Sarnese-Nocerino\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1263/96 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2010.", "references": ["56", "11", "43", "14", "58", "8", "50", "40", "63", "45", "22", "19", "57", "17", "33", "79", "86", "6", "16", "20", "85", "99", "37", "80", "52", "36", "0", "9", "10", "60", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "66", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "66", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 628/2010\nof 15 July 2010\nconcerning tenders lodged under the invitation to tender for the import of maize issued in Regulation (EU) No 462/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single \u2018CMO Regulation\u2019) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAn invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries was opened by Commission Regulation (EU) No 462/2010 (2).\n(2)\nUnder Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 of 18 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of tariff quotas for imports of maize and sorghum into Spain and imports of maize into Portugal (3) the Commission, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, may decide to make no award.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nNo award shall be made for the tenders lodged from 25 June to 15 July 2010 under the invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on imported maize issued in Regulation (EU) No 462/2010.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 July 2010.", "references": ["34", "24", "13", "50", "85", "58", "94", "17", "1", "5", "29", "90", "57", "43", "79", "64", "35", "41", "2", "3", "76", "77", "31", "69", "71", "28", "14", "30", "99", "48", "No Label", "4", "20", "21", "22", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "20", "21", "22", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 21 April 2010\nauthorising the placing on the market of puree and concentrate of the fruits of Morinda citrifolia as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 2397)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(2010/228/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 20 April 2006 Tahitian Noni International Inc. made a request to the competent authorities of Belgium to place puree and concentrate of the fruits of Morinda citrifolia on the market as a novel food ingredient.\n(2)\nOn 28 February 2007 the competent food assessment body of Belgium issued its initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that the use of the puree and concentrate of the fruits of Morinda citrifolia as a food ingredient was acceptable.\n(3)\nThe Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to all Member States on 28 March 2007.\n(4)\nWithin the 60-day period laid down in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 reasoned objections to the marketing of the product were raised in accordance with that provision.\n(5)\nTherefore the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was consulted on 7 November 2007.\n(6)\nOn 13 March 2009, EFSA in the \u2018Scientific opinion of the Panel on Dietetic Products Nutrition and Allergies\u2019 on a request from the European Commission on the safety of \u2018Morinda citrifolia (Noni) fruit puree and concentrate\u2019 as a novel food ingredient came to the conclusion that the Noni fruit puree and concentrate was safe for the general population.\n(7)\nOn the basis of the scientific assessment, it is established that the fruit puree and concentrate from Morinda citrifolia (Noni) complies with the criteria laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMorinda citrifolia (Noni) fruit puree and concentrate as specified in Annex I may be placed on the market in the Union as a novel food ingredient for the uses listed in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThe designation of the Morinda citrifolia fruit puree authorised by this Decision on the labelling of the foodstuff containing it shall be \u2018Morinda citrifolia fruit puree\u2019 or \u2018Noni fruit puree\u2019.\nThe designation of the Morinda citrifolia fruit concentrate authorised by this Decision on the labelling of the foodstuff containing it shall be \u2018Morinda citrifolia fruit concentrate\u2019 or \u2018Noni fruit concentrate\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Tahitian Noni International Inc., 333 West River Park Drive, Provo, Utah 84604, USA.\nDone at Brussels, 21 April 2010.", "references": ["35", "61", "15", "67", "98", "31", "48", "2", "8", "66", "64", "63", "42", "68", "21", "79", "40", "75", "69", "51", "37", "78", "9", "95", "39", "76", "55", "60", "44", "18", "No Label", "24", "25", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1257/2010\nof 20 December 2010\nextending the temporary derogation measures from Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community and Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Atomic Energy Community introduced by Regulation (EC) No 920/2005\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 342 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 of 13 June 2005 amending Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community and Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Atomic Energy Community and introducing temporary derogation measures from those Regulations (1) accorded Irish the status of official language and working language of the institutions of the European Union.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 920/2005 provides that, for practical reasons and on a transitional basis, the institutions of the Union are not to be bound by the obligation to draft and translate all acts, including judgments of the Court of Justice, in the Irish language, with the exception of Regulations adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council. It is for the Council to determine, not later than 4 years from the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 and at 5-yearly intervals thereafter, whether to put an end to this derogation.\n(3)\nThe institutions of the Union will continue to take steps to improve public access to information in Irish on the activities of the Union. Nevertheless, there are still difficulties in recruiting a sufficient number of Irish-language translators, legal/linguistic experts, interpreters and assistants. It is therefore necessary to extend the derogation provided for in the first paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 for a period of 5 years from 1 January 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe derogation provided for in the first paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 is hereby extended for a period of 5 years from 1 January 2012.\nThis Article shall not apply to Regulations adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["43", "59", "87", "25", "48", "28", "68", "3", "23", "51", "20", "12", "24", "34", "65", "2", "30", "53", "69", "96", "88", "82", "86", "77", "42", "73", "44", "61", "90", "99", "No Label", "1", "8"], "gold": ["1", "8"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 862/2011\nof 25 August 2011\non the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the third partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2010/2011 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011, the Commission is to decide, in the light of the tenders received in response to a partial invitation to tender, either to fix a minimum customs duty or not to fix a minimum customs duty per eight digit CN code.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the third partial invitation to tender, a minimum customs duty should be fixed for certain eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701 and no minimum customs duty should be fixed for the other eight digit codes for sugar falling within that CN code.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the third partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 24 August 2011, a minimum customs duty has been fixed, or has not been fixed, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation for the eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 August 2011.", "references": ["6", "88", "34", "65", "5", "48", "94", "14", "87", "51", "84", "53", "92", "24", "50", "30", "79", "36", "15", "81", "25", "99", "33", "46", "77", "12", "10", "78", "11", "43", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "71"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/39/EU\nof 11 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include fenazaquin as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included fenazaquin.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of fenazaquin.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Greece, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nGreece evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 28 January 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on fenazaquin to the Commission on 28 October 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for fenazaquin.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing fenazaquin may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include fenazaquin in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(8)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing fenazaquin to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(9)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(10)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(11)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of fenazaquin and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning fenazaquin in the Annex to that Decision.\n(12)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning fenazaquin in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing fenazaquin as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to fenazaquin are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing fenazaquin as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning fenazaquin. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing fenazaquin as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing fenazaquin as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["95", "64", "23", "62", "58", "55", "90", "11", "29", "79", "63", "66", "74", "73", "15", "47", "99", "67", "30", "26", "46", "19", "12", "76", "43", "57", "13", "22", "36", "27", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EU BAM RAFAH/1/2012\nof 3 July 2012\non the appointment of the Head of European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah)\n(2012/382/EU)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP of 12 December 2005 on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 10(1) of Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of the EU BAM Rafah mission, including in particular the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nThe High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Mr Davide PALMIGIANI as Head of the EU BAM Rafah mission, ad interim, for the period from 1 July 2012 to 31 July 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Davide PALMIGIANI is hereby appointed as Head of the European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah), ad interim, for the period from 1 July 2012 to 31 July 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 3 July 2012.", "references": ["64", "86", "66", "85", "27", "4", "89", "70", "24", "29", "81", "23", "3", "45", "76", "49", "35", "59", "12", "15", "77", "62", "44", "39", "79", "22", "14", "6", "68", "28", "No Label", "1", "5", "9", "52"], "gold": ["1", "5", "9", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 174/2012\nof 29 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 February 2012.", "references": ["1", "20", "0", "27", "80", "79", "14", "24", "55", "81", "64", "9", "78", "90", "85", "77", "7", "47", "40", "12", "46", "58", "83", "51", "42", "67", "89", "16", "88", "72", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 54/2011\nof 21 January 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 opening the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, as regards the date of entry into storage of intervention skimmed milk powder\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f) and (j), in conjunction of Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 1 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 of 21 May 2010 (2) lays down that intervention skimmed milk powder placed on sale should have entered into storage before 1 May 2009.\n(2)\nGiven the current situation on the skimmed milk powder market in terms of demand and prices and the level of intervention stocks, it is appropriate that skimmed milk powder entered into storage before 1 November 2009 is made available for sale.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 447/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to make the skimmed milk powder available for sale without delay, this regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nScope\nSales by a tendering procedure of skimmed milk powder entered into storage before 1 November 2009 are open, under the conditions provided for in Title III of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 January 2011.", "references": ["99", "97", "80", "71", "41", "30", "48", "4", "86", "26", "24", "63", "34", "66", "22", "38", "17", "90", "19", "96", "53", "79", "40", "57", "73", "50", "61", "68", "77", "5", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 457/2011\nof 10 May 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of melamine originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (Commission) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Provisional measures\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EU) No 1035/2010 (2) (the provisional Regulation) the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of melamine originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC). The provisional anti-dumping duties ranged from 44,9 % to 65,2 %.\n(2)\nThe proceedings were initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 4 January 2010 by EU producers Borealis Agrolinz Melamine GmbH, DSM Melamine BV and Zak\u0142ady Azotowe Pu\u0142awy (the complainant), representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of melamine.\n(3)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (period considered).\n2. Subsequent procedure\n(4)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard.\n(5)\nThe Commission sought and verifed all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. To this end a verification visit was carried out at the premises of the following user company in order to assess the possible impact of the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures:\n-\nCoveright Surfaces Spain, Martorelles (Barcelona), Spain.\n(6)\nSubsequently all parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of melamine originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (final disclosure). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure.\n(7)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.\n3. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(8)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the parties concerned by the proceeding, recitals 4 to 10 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(9)\nIt is recalled that in recital 12 of the provisional Regulation the product concerned is defined as melamine, currently falling within CN code 2933 61 00 and originating in the PRC.\n(10)\nMelamine is a white crystalline powder obtained from urea. It is used mainly in laminates, moulding powders, wood-based panels and coating resins.\n2. Like product\n(11)\nOne exporting producer reiterated the claim made in recital 65 of the provisional Regulation that the melamine produced and exported from the PRC was in general of a slightly lower quality compared to the melamine produced by the Union industry and could not be used for certain surface applications. The argument of difference in quality was also brought forward by several users located in the Union.\n(12)\nThe investigation has shown that although melamine may vary slightly in colour, it is not sold on the basis of different quality standards, either on the domestic market or on export markets. No evidence was provided which would point to the fact that possible slight variations in melamine would lead to different basic physical and chemical characteristics and end uses. The issue was not raised by the other exporting producers. Moreover, the investigation has also shown that the exporting producer in question was using a similar production process as the Union industry.\n(13)\nBased on the above, the claim is rejected and it is hereby confirmed that melamine produced and sold by the Union industry in the Union, melamine produced and sold on the domestic market of the PRC and melamine imported into the Union from the PRC, as well as that produced and sold in Indonesia, which served as the analogue country, are considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(14)\nIn the absence of any other comments regarding the like product, recitals 12 to 15 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\nC. DUMPING\n1. Market economy treatment\n(15)\nMarket economy treatment (MET) was initially refused to all exporting producers that requested it on the grounds that the costs of the major inputs did not substantially reflect market values as required under Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. As set out in recitals 20 to 24 of the provisional Regulation, the MET investigation determined that this was due to State interference in both the natural gas market and the urea market in the PRC. In addition to this general situation, there were also company-specific reasons for refusing MET as set out in recitals 25 to 28 of the provisional Regulation.\n(16)\nOne exporting producer argued that the urea price in the PRC was in line with the prices in other parts of the world, such as Indonesia and the Middle East, therefore the conclusion that the costs of major inputs were distorted was not correct.\n(17)\nHowever, the initial conclusion that the urea market in the PRC was subject to significant State interference, as set out in recitals 23 and 24 of the provisional Regulation, was not questioned. This element is already sufficient to conclude that criterion 1 of point (c) of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation is not fulfilled. This conclusion is not affected by the fact that at a certain point in time urea prices in the PRC and in some other parts of the world prices might have been roughly at the same level.\n(18)\nOne exporting group disagreed with the refusal of MET and individual treatment (IT) based on the fact that the Commission did not receive full MET claim forms for all related companies. In its comments on the disclosure, this group offered full cooperation but did not question the fact that one of its related companies did not provide a MET claim form at the same time as the rest of the group. Therefore this claim is rejected.\n(19)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning MET, recitals 16 to 32 are hereby confirmed.\n2. Individual treatment\n(20)\nIt was provisionally established that three of the five exporting producer companies or groups in the PRC met all the requirements for IT.\n(21)\nThe Union industry questioned the decision to grant IT to three groups of companies by arguing that one exporting producer was owned by the Chinese State and another exporting producer had various links at management level to companies that were ultimately controlled by the State. In addition, the extent of State interference was such that it would allow circumvention of the measures with respect to all three exporting producers.\n(22)\nThe investigation has shown that none of the exporting producers initially granted IT were State-owned. In addition, the claim that the management of one exporting producer had links to State-controlled companies was not substantiated. With regard to the possible risk of circumvention, it should be noted that the investigation showed that export prices, quantities, conditions and terms of sale were freely negotiated and determined and that the exporting producers were neither State-owned nor otherwise subject to dominant State influence at management level. Hence it may be concluded that State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures.\n(23)\nIn view of the above, the claims of the Union industry are rejected. The initial conclusion that three of the five exporting producers meet all requirements for IT is therefore confirmed.\n3. Normal value\n(a) Choice of the analogue country\n(24)\nIndonesia was chosen as the analogue country. The data submitted in the cooperating Indonesian producer\u2019s reply were verified in situ and found to be reliable and a suitable basis for the normal value.\n(25)\nOne exporting producer questioned the choice of Indonesia as analogue country on the grounds that interested parties had not had the opportunity to comment on this choice. However, since May 2010 the file open for inspection had contained a note explaining why Indonesia had been chosen as analogue country. Thus, as parties had had ample opportunity to comment on this choice, their procedural rights had been respected in full. No further comments were received on the choice of the analogue country.\n(26)\nIt is therefore confirmed that Indonesia is an appropriate and reasonable analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.\n(b) Determination of normal value\n(27)\nIt is recalled that normal value was constructed using the cost of manufacturing of the Indonesian producer plus a reasonable amount for SG & A and for profit on the domestic market.\n(28)\nOne exporting producer questioned the level of the constructed normal value, in particular the SG & A and profit that were based on those of the Union industry. However, this method is in line with point (c) of Article 2(6) and considered appropriate. No other data were available that could be used as a basis for SG & A and profit as there were no other exporters or producers subject to investigation in the analogue country and the producer subject to the investigation did not sell any other category of products in the IP.\n(29)\nTherefore this claim is rejected. Recitals 35 to 45 with regard to the determination of the normal value are hereby confirmed.\n(c) Export prices for the exporting producers granted IT\n(30)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the determination of the export price, recital 46 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n(d) Comparison\n(31)\nOne exporting producer questioned the comparison of the normal value and the export price with regard to the issue of VAT. However, as normal value and export price were compared at the same level of indirect taxation, i.e. VAT included, in line with point (c) of Article 2(10), no change to this method is needed. Therefore recitals 47 and 48 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4. Dumping margins\n(a) For the cooperating exporting producers granted IT\n(32)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the dumping margins, recital 49 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n(33)\nOn that basis the definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:\nCompany\nDefinitive dumping margin\nSichuan Jade Elephant Melamine S&T Co. Ltd\n44,9 %\nShandong Liaherd Chemical Industry Co. Ltd\n47,6 %\nHenan Junhua Development Company Ltd\n49,0 %\n(b) For all other exporting producers\n(34)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the dumping margins recitals 51 to 52 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\nOn this basis the country-wide level of dumping is definitely established at 65,6 % of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, and recital 53 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\nD. INJURY\n1. Injury\n1.1. Union production and Union industry\n(35)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the Union production and the Union industry, recitals 54 to 56 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n1.2. Union consumption\n(36)\nSome parties claimed that Eurostat figures concerning imports of melamine from the PRC were not reliable in terms of quantity. A verification of Eurostat data led to minor changes in the import figures and consequently in the Union consumption as shown in the tables below. These changes are not such as to affect the analysis of the Union consumption in recitals 57 to 59 of the provisional Regulation which can thus be confirmed.\nTable 1\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolume (tonnes)\n368 873\n392 691\n326 409\n267 226\nIndexed\n100\n106\n88\n72\nSource: Updated Eurostat data and questionnaire replies.\n1.3. Imports into the European Union from the country concerned\n1.3.1. Volume, price and market share of imports from the PRC\nTable 2\nImports from the PRC\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolume (tonnes)\n26 962\n46 874\n37 366\n18 482\nIndexed\n100\n174\n139\n69\nSource: Updated Eurostat data.\n(37)\nThe above changes in the import volumes of the countries concerned are not as such as to affect the findings in recitals 61 and 62 of the provisional Regulation which can thus be confirmed.\n(38)\nSeveral users claimed that they did not import melamine from the PRC in 2009 and 2010 because the Chinese prices were too high compared to the prices prevailing in the EU. They were therefore questioning the undercutting by Chinese exporters found during the IP.\n(39)\nAs mentioned in recitals 63 and 64 of the provisional Regulation, cooperation from Chinese exporters was low. Hence, the information verified on the spot with the cooperating Chinese companies was used to establish undercutting. As mentioned in recitals 66 and 67 of the provisional Regulation the imports of the cooperating exporting producers were undercutting the Union industry prices during the IP by 10,3 %. Given that no new evidence is provided compared to that available at the time of the imposition of the provisional measures, this claim is rejected.\n1.3.2. Price undercutting\n(40)\nSome users claimed that an allowance should be made for extra work involved with the handling of imported melamine from the PRC. They alleged that the purchase price of Chinese melamine did not include this type of cost.\n(41)\nThe examination of this claim showed that there was no reliable basis to establish under what conditions melamine from the PRC was imported and the possible amount of costs which may have been incurred in addition to the purchase price. In addition, no evidence was provided de by the above parties, hence, the claim is rejected.\n(42)\nAs was the case at the time of imposition of provisional measures, some parties claimed that the undercutting calculation should be based on Eurostat data instead of the data verified from only 30 % of cooperating Chinese companies.\n(43)\nAs mentioned in recital 66 of the provisional Regulation, the data of cooperating exporters was used for the undercutting calculation. This data has been verified and is therefore considered to be more reliable than data retrieved from Eurostat. This claim is therefore rejected.\n(44)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning price undercutting, the methodology described in recitals 66 and 67 of the provisional Regulation to establish price undercutting is hereby confirmed.\n1.4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(45)\nIn the absence of any comments regarding the economic situation of the Union industry, recitals 68 to 82 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n1.5. Conclusion on injury\n(46)\nIn the absence of any comments regarding the conclusion on injury, recitals 83 to 86 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Causality\n2.1. Preliminary remark\n(47)\nAs mentioned in recital 87 of the provisional Regulation it was examined whether the dumped imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC caused injury to the Union industry to a degree that can be considered as material. In addition, known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time be injuring the Union industry, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n2.2. Effect of the dumped imports\n(48)\nBased on the revised import data shown in table 2 above, the comments made in recitals 88 to 95 of the provisional Regulation remain valid. Overall, imports from the PRC decreased significantly by 31 % during the period considered following the decrease in Union consumption (- 28 %). With regard to prices, the export price verified at the premises of the cooperating Chinese producers was lower than the average import price reported in Eurostat. The verified cooperating Chinese exporters, representing about 30 % of total imports from the PRC, were found to be undercutting the Union industry price during the IP by 10,3 %.\n(49)\nThe investigation revealed that in certain months of the IP the Chinese exporters were selling their surplus of melamine on the Union market when prices were attractive for them, and withdrawing when prices started to fall. This policy of targeted pricing continued to have negative effects on the Union market during the whole IP given that prices may be fixed for a period of three to six months. Thus it is confirmed that the presence of low-priced dumped imports on the Union market played a role in further exacerbating the negative trend in sales prices on the market in the medium term after they withdrew. The low level of sales prices contributed to the dramatic level of losses incurred by the Union industry and was identified as a major factor in the material injury found.\n(50)\nOn this basis, the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry can be confirmed.\n2.3. Effect of other factors\n(51)\nOn this point, interested parties basically reiterated most of the comments made at the provisional stage. As far as the effect of dumped imports are concerned, some parties claimed again that Eurostat figures should prevail over the data verified at the premises of the cooperating exporting producers. Such a claim would render the on-spot investigations meaningless and could therefore not be accepted. No evidence was provided to show that the data used in this investigation were unreliable. This claim is therefore rejected.\n(52)\nSome parties claimed that the injury suffered by the Union industry is not caused by the imports from the PRC, but by the global economic crisis. However, there was no evidence submitted by these parties showing that the data used in this investigation was unreliable. In addition, the dumped imports have intensified the effect of the economic crisis and consequently further exacerbated the situation of the Union industry. This claim is therefore rejected.\n(53)\nThe comments received and the evidence provided regarding other factors were not such as to change the conclusion made in recitals 108 to 110 of the provisional Regulation that none of these factors could break the link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry. The provisional conclusion that dumped imports caused material injury to the Union industry is therefore confirmed.\n3. Union interest\n3.1. Interest of the Union industry\n(54)\nIt is recalled that the Union industry is composed of three producers located in different Member States, employing directly over 600 people in activities related to melamine.\n(55)\nSome users claimed that the employment figures of the complainants were overstated. No evidence was provided to show that the verified data used in this investigation was unreliable and therefore the claim is rejected.\n(56)\nOne user claimed that the Union industry closed production sites due to technical problems, and not as a result of allegedly dumped imports.\n(57)\nSome plants of the Union industry indeed incurred some technical difficulties, but this was mainly after the IP. Following the imposition of provisional measures, the Union industry has submitted evidence that factories that had been idle due to the dumped imports have recently been reopened. This shows that measures have already had a positive impact on the Union industry.\n(58)\nIt is expected that the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties against imports originating in the PRC would have a further positive impact on the economic situation of the Union industry and would enable it to regain at least part of its lost profitability.\n(59)\nIn the absence of any other comments with regard to the interest of the Union industry, recitals 112 to 115 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.2. Interest of importers\n(60)\nIn the absence of comments on the interest of importers, it was concluded that the imposition of definitive measures on imports of melamine originating in the PRC would not be against the interests of importers.\n3.3. Interest of users\n(61)\nAt the provisional stage cooperation by the users was relatively low. Of the 44 questionnaires sent, only seven replies which could be considered meaningful were received. Imports by the cooperating users represented around 10 % of Union consumption. It was concluded at that stage that the impact of the proposed measures would be relatively limited.\n(62)\nAfter provisional measures were imposed a verification visit was made to the premises of the main cooperating user in the Union. The investigation showed that the share of melamine in its cost of production is between 8 % and 15 %, depending on the activity. The possible impact of measures may therefore be relatively significant depending on the share of melamine in the costs and the level of profitability, which was relatively low.\n(63)\nIn submissions received from a number of users it was alleged that after the imposition of provisional measures, a shortage of melamine in the Union market occurred and that this led to significant and continuous price increases. Whilst the sales price of melamine was around EUR 900 per tonne during the IP, post IP prices vary between EUR 1 200 and EUR 1 500 per tonne.\n(64)\nThe verification visit carried out at the premises of the cooperating user confirmed that the provisional measures have had an impact on its activities, combined with the price increase which the Union industry has applied to its melamine. Indeed, the Union industry holds a market share of around 85 % in the Union market and thus basically all users are sourcing large part of their melamine from Union producers.\n(65)\nThe information gathered during the investigation also suggests that prices are still expected to increase in the period following the IP. Hence, it would appear to be justified, in the Union interest, to change the form of the provisional measures to limit any further price increase of melamine which would seriously affect the overall users\u2019 business.\n(66)\nSome users claim that in 2010 a melamine shortage developed on the market and that EU producers were not able to meet demand on the Union market and that the imposition of provisional measures increased this shortage.\n(67)\nAnalysis of the available data showed that the melamine market was indeed short for a certain period, but that this was not caused by the provisional duties, but was due to the worldwide evolution of the market.\n(68)\nSome users claim that the EU producers failed to supply the required quantities of melamine to maintain their production.\n(69)\nAnalysis of the available data showed that the shortage only appeared on the \u2018spot-market\u2019, but that contractual agreed quantities were supplied.\n(70)\nMoreover, additional production capacity has been put online by the EU producers and by producers in third countries, ensuring a stable supply of melamine to Union users.\n(71)\nOne user claimed that it stopped building a new production plant because it realised that they would no longer be competitive on their main export markets with the level of the provisional measures imposed.\n(72)\nSome users claimed that if provisional measures are confirmed, the downstream products in the Union will no longer be competitive compared to imports of the same downstream products from the PRC. Hence, these users will either close down or move their production facilities outside the Union.\n(73)\nOne association of users claimed that only the sector of wood-based panel producers generates thousands of jobs so a much higher number compared to the EU melamine producers. Hence the imposition of definitive measures were therefore not in the interest of the Union.\n(74)\nThe parties above did not provide convincing evidence to support their claims, recitals 116 to 121 of the provisional Regulation are therefore hereby confirmed.\n3.4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(75)\nBased on the above, it was concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties against imports of melamine originating in the PRC.\n(76)\nHowever, based on the above, it appears to be in the Union interest to change the form of the proposed measures to limit any possible serious impact on the overall users\u2019 business which is heavily dependent on melamine supply.\n4. Definitive anti-dumping measures\n4.1. Injury elimination level\n(77)\nIn the absence of any substantiated comments that would alter the conclusion regarding the injury elimination level, recitals 123 to 127 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4.2. Definitive measures\n(78)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is concluded to change the form of the measures by imposing definitive measures in the form of a minimum import price (MIP) for the cooperating exporters who are granted IT and a fixed duty of EUR 415 per tonne net product weight for all the others. Imports from the cooperating exporters who are granted IT would be subject to a MIP of EUR 1 153 per tonne net product weight.\n(79)\nThat MIP is based on the normal value established in the analogue country, increased to a CIF Union border price level using export data from the cooperating Chinese exporters and then expressed in EUR/tonne net product weight.\n(80)\nWhere imports are undertaken at a CIF Union border price equal to or above the minimum import price established, no duty would be payable. If imports are undertaken at a lower price, the difference between the actual price and the minimum import price established would become payable.\n(81)\nNon-cooperating exporters and exporters not granted IT would be subject to the residual duty of EUR 415 per tonne net product weight (based the difference between the non-injurious price as mentioned in recital 126 of the provisional Regulation and the most injurious transaction of a cooperating exporter during the IP) regardless of the import price.\n(82)\nThat form of measures would allow EU producers to recover from the effects of injurious dumping and should also prevent any undue price increases which could have a significant negative impact on the users\u2019 business.\n(83)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties. They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations following this disclosure. The Union industry subsequently contested the allegations made by the users concerning the shortage of the product concerned as well as the evolution of prices after the IP on the Union market. With regard to the shortage, the Union industry argued that their industry was cyclical and that there were other sources of supply such as Trinidad and Qatar. As to the trend in prices, they contended that the increase had started well before the imposition of provisional measures. However, it cannot be denied that prices have continued to increase since the imposition of the provisional measures and that the imports from other sources are not significant. The comments submitted by other parties were duly considered but were not such as to change the conclusions.\n(84)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation are solely applicable to imports of the product concerned produced by these companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imports of the product concerned manufactured by any other company not specifically mentioned in Article 1 with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(85)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (3) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for instance, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, this Regulation will then be amended accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual anti-dumping duty rates.\n(86)\nIn order to minimise the risks of circumvention, it is considered that special measures are needed in this case to ensure the proper application of the anti-dumping duties. These special measures include the following: The presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all other exporters.\n(87)\nShould the exports by one of the companies benefiting from the MIP increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances, and provided the conditions are met, an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of the MIP and the consequent imposition of a duty.\n(88)\nIf market conditions change significantly after the imposition of definitive measures, the Commission may, on its own initiative, review the form of the measures in order to assess whether the measures are achieving the intended results in removing the injury and whether a change in the form of the measures is warranted.\n4.3. Definitive collection of provisional anti-dumping duties\n(89)\nIn view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation, should be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the definitive duties imposed. Where the definitive duties are lower than the provisional duties, amounts provisionally secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released. Where the definitive duties are higher than the provisional duties, only the amounts secured at the level of the provisional duties shall be definitively collected,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of melamine, currently falling within CN code 2933 61 00 and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the product described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nMinimum import price\n(EUR/tonne net product weight)\nDuty\n(EUR/tonne net product weight)\nTARIC additional code\nSichuan Jade Elephant Melamine S&T Co. Ltd\n1 153\n-\nA986\nShandong Liaherd Chemical Industry Co. Ltd\n1 153\n-\nA987\nHenan Junhua Development Company Ltd\n1 153\n-\nA988\nAll other companies\n-\n415\nA999\nFor the individually named producers, the amount of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the product described in paragraph 1 shall be the difference between the minimum import price and the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, in all cases where the latter is less than the minimum import price. For these individually named producers, no duty shall be collected where the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, is equal to or higher than the corresponding minimum import price.\nThe application of the minimum import price specified for the companies mentioned in this paragraph shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall apply.\n3. For the individually named producers and in cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (4), the minimum import price set out above shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable. The duty payable will then be equal to the difference between the reduced minimum import price and the reduced net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before customs clearance.\nFor all other companies and in cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, the amount of the anti-dumping duty, calculated on the basis of paragraph 2 above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThe amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1035/2010 shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rates of the anti-dumping duty shall be released. Where the definitive duties are higher than the provisional duties, only the amounts secured at the level of the provisional duties shall be definitively collected.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2011.", "references": ["31", "2", "81", "3", "60", "49", "85", "55", "18", "99", "89", "74", "17", "67", "41", "37", "92", "28", "84", "44", "86", "94", "14", "29", "88", "43", "64", "46", "40", "61", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 265/2011\nof 17 March 2011\nfixing the export refunds on beef and veal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XV of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in beef and veal, export refunds should therefore be set in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167, 168 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007 of 21 November 2007 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals (5) provides for a reduction of the special refund if the quantity of cuts of boned meat to be exported amounts to less than 95 %, but not less than 85 %, of the total weight of cuts produced by boning.\n(6)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1206/2010 (6). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004, and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nIn the case referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007, the rate of the refund on products falling within product code 0201 30 00 9100 shall be reduced by EUR 3,5/100 kg.\nArticle 3\nRegulation (EU) No 1206/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 March 2011.", "references": ["89", "33", "24", "31", "39", "34", "3", "77", "59", "32", "88", "75", "19", "97", "22", "76", "93", "7", "99", "86", "79", "63", "2", "11", "84", "98", "16", "96", "66", "78", "No Label", "20", "25", "38", "69"], "gold": ["20", "25", "38", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 21 February 2011\nsetting the European Union-wide performance targets and alert thresholds for the provision of air navigation services for the years 2012 to 2014\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/121/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services (2) provides for the adoption by the Commission of European Union-wide performance targets.\n(2)\nThe Commission held on 27 May 2010 a consultation on the approach and processes for setting European Union-wide performance targets, associating all stakeholders listed in Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004.\n(3)\nA Performance Review Body was designated on 29 July 2010 by the Commission further to Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 to assist it in the implementation of the performance scheme.\n(4)\nThe Performance Review Body prepared European Union-wide performance targets proposals in collaboration with EASA, which were submitted on 2 August 2010 for stakeholder consultation as required by Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010.\n(5)\nThe Performance Review Body\u2019s proposed EU-wide performance targets for environment, capacity and cost-efficiency have been checked with EASA for consistency with the overriding safety objectives.\n(6)\nThe Performance Review Body delivered on 27 September 2010 to the Commission its recommendations for European Union-wide performance targets for the period 2012-2014 in a report substantiating each of the recommendations with a description of the assumptions and rationale used for setting up the targets and containing in annexes a consultation document summarising the consultation process as well as a comments response document outlining how comments were taken into account in the preparation of the recommendations to the Commission.\n(7)\nThe European Union-wide performance targets are based on the information available to the Commission and the Performance Review Body up to 24 November 2010. According to the forecasts provided by Member States to the Commission and Eurocontrol under the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 (3) the average European Union-wide determined unit rate for en route air navigation services would be 55,91 EUR in 2014 (expressed in real terms, EUR 2009), with intermediate annual values of 58,38 EUR in 2012 and 56,95 EUR in 2013. These values take into account the latest planned costs of the Eurocontrol Agency, including for the EU Member States a one-off reduction of 0,69 EUR per en route service unit in 2011. The Commission, taking into account the report of the Performance Review Body and the efficiency improvements that can be expected from the gradual and coordinated implementation of all elements of the second Single European Sky package, is of the opinion that the EU-wide cost efficiency target can be set at a level that is lower than the latest consolidated Member States\u2019 plans.\n(8)\nThe European Air Traffic Management Master Plan, a living document which constitutes the commonly agreed roadmap covering both the development and the deployment of SESAR, has been endorsed by the Council on 30 March 2009 (4). It contains the political vision and high-level goal of the Commission for the Single European Sky and its technological pillar in the key performance areas of safety, environment, capacity and cost-efficiency, and the setting of the European Union-wide performance targets should be considered part of a process aiming at achieving these goals.\n(9)\nDuring the first reference period for the performance scheme the Commission, advised by EASA, should assess and validate the safety key performance indicators, with a view to ensuring that the safety risk is adequately identified, mitigated and managed. Member States should monitor and publish these key performance indicators and may set corresponding targets.\n(10)\nIn application of recital 18, Articles 10 and 13, Annex II, point 1.2 and Annex III, point 1 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010, the national or functional airspace block performance targets need not necessarily be equal to the European Union-wide performance targets; they should be consistent with these European Union-wide performance targets. The national or functional airspace block performance plans should reflect this consistency.\n(11)\nThe assessment made by the Commission of the national or functional airspace block performance plans and targets should be global, weighting each target against the others in a balanced way, considering justified trade-offs between different performance areas, having regard to the overriding safety objectives. It should take into account local context, in particular for States with low unit rates or under the \u2018European Support Mechanism\u2019, such as cost containment measures already undertaken, planned costs for specific programmes to gain performance improvements in dedicated performance fields, and specificities including achievements as well as failures. In application of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010, it should take appropriate account of the evolution of the context that may have occurred between the date of adoption of the European Union-wide targets and the date of the assessment. The assessment should also take into account the progress already made by Member States since the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) in the various key performance areas and in particular the cost-efficiency area.\n(12)\nIn application of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006, Member States should be allowed to carry-over the profits or losses that they have incurred up to the year 2011 included.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union-wide performance targets\nFor the performance reference period starting on 1 January 2012 and ending on 31 December 2014, the European Union-wide performance targets shall be as follows:\n(a) environment target: an improvement by 0,75 of a percentage point of the average horizontal en route flight efficiency indicator in 2014 as compared to the situation in 2009;\n(b) capacity target: an improvement of the average en route Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) delay so as to reach a maximum of 0,5 minute per flight in 2014;\n(c) cost-efficiency target: a reduction of the average European Union-wide determined unit rate for en route air navigation services from 59,97 EUR in 2011 to 53,92 EUR in 2014 (expressed in real terms, EUR 2009), with intermediate annual values of 57,88 EUR in 2012 and 55,87 EUR in 2013.\nArticle 2\nAlert thresholds\n(1) For all key performance indicators applicable to the performance reference period, the alert threshold beyond which the alert mechanism referred to in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 may be activated shall be a deviation over a calendar year by at least 10 % of the actual traffic recorded by the Performance Review Body versus the traffic forecasts referred to in Article 3.\n(2) For the cost-efficiency indicator, the costs evolution alert threshold beyond which the alert mechanism referred to in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 may be activated shall be a deviation over a calendar year by at least 10 % of the actual costs at European Union-wide level recorded by the Performance Review Body versus the reference determined costs referred to in Article 3.\nArticle 3\nAssumptions\nArticles 1 and 2 of this Decision are based on the following assumptions:\n(1)\ntraffic forecasted at European Union-wide level, expressed in en route service units: 108 776 000 in 2012, 111 605 000 in 2013 and 114 610 000 in 2014;\n(2)\nreference determined costs forecasted at European Union-wide level (expressed in real terms, EUR 2009): 6 296 000 000 in 2012, 6 234 000 000 in 2013 and 6 179 000 000 in 2014.\nArticle 4\nRevision of the European Union-wide targets\nIn accordance with Article 16(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010, the Commission shall decide to revise the EU-wide targets set out in Article 1 if, before the beginning of the reference period, it has substantial evidence that the initial data, assumptions and/or rationales used for setting the initial EU-wide targets are no longer valid.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. National or functional airspace blocks performance plans adopted after 1 January 2012 shall apply retroactively as from the first day of the reference period.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2011.", "references": ["79", "6", "62", "39", "99", "46", "80", "97", "27", "34", "37", "92", "61", "59", "68", "0", "88", "86", "24", "22", "58", "3", "78", "77", "50", "4", "23", "15", "93", "8", "No Label", "25", "53", "54", "57"], "gold": ["25", "53", "54", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1324/2011\nof 16 December 2011\nderogating, for 2012, from Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for common wheat of a quality other than high quality from third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 of 30 October 2008 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for common wheat of a quality other than high quality from third countries and derogating from Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (2), subquota III for other third countries is divided into four quarterly subperiods, including subperiod 1 extending from 1 January to 31 March and covering a quantity of 594 597 tonnes and subperiod 2 extending from 1 April to 30 June and covering a quantity of 594 597 tonnes.\n(2)\nIn view of the situation of the market, in order to promote a fluid supply of the EU market in cereals under subquota III for 2012, subperiod 1 and subperiod 2 should be merged into a single subperiod, covering the cumulative quantity for subperiods 1 and 2, namely 1 189 194 tonnes.\n(3)\nA derogation should therefore be made from Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 for 2012.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure effective management of the procedure for issuing import certificates from 1 January 2012, this Regulation must enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 3(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008, for 2012, subperiod 1 shall extend from 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2012, covering a quantity of 1 189 194 tonnes.\nBy way of derogation from Article 3(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008, subperiod 2 shall be eliminated for 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply until 30 June 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["3", "66", "62", "70", "50", "43", "52", "49", "6", "19", "20", "15", "11", "38", "78", "0", "40", "8", "41", "13", "18", "55", "45", "36", "47", "76", "32", "44", "54", "81", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 January 2011\non State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany - Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel)\n(notified under document C(2011) 275)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/527/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (2),\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letters dated 5 August 2009 and 30 September 2009 the Commission asked Germany for information about \u00a78c Corporate Income Tax Act (K\u00f6rperschaftsteuergesetz, hereinafter: KStG). The German authorities replied to these requests by letters dated 20 August 2009 and 5 November 2009. By decision of 24 February 2010, the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure in respect of the aid laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).\n(2)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). The Commission invited interested parties to submit comments.\n(3)\nThe German authorities submitted their reply by letter dated 9 April 2010.\n(4)\nTwo meetings with the German authorities were held in Brussels on 9 April 2010 and 3 June 2010. Germany submitted further information on 2 July 2010. The Commission did not receive any comments from interested parties.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n2.1. Background\n(5)\nCorporate taxation in Germany is based mainly on the Income Tax Act (Einkommensteuergesetz, hereinafter: EStG) and the KStG. \u00a710d(2) EStG allows losses incurred in a tax year to be carried forward, i.e. according to the ability-to-pay principle, taxable income in future tax years may be reduced by setting off the losses up to a maximum of EUR 1 million each year. Under \u00a78(1) KStG, this possibility to carry forward losses also applies to entities subject to corporate income tax.\n(6)\nThe possibility of carry-forward of losses resulted in trade in empty-shell companies (Mantelgesellschaften), which had long ceased any economic activity but still retained losses that had been carried forward.\n(7)\nTo counteract the trade in empty-shell companies, in 1997 the German legislator restricted the possibility of carrying forward losses by introducing in \u00a78(4) KStG the shell acquisition rule (Mantelkaufregelung). The rule restricted loss carry-forward to those corporate entities that were legally and economically identical to the entity that incurred the losses. The rule does not contain a definition of \u2018economically identical\u2019, but gives one negative and two positive examples:\n(a)\na corporate entity is not economically identical if more than half of its shares are transferred and if the entity then continues its economic activity or starts it again with predominantly new assets;\n(b)\na corporate entity is economically identical, however, if the injection of new assets is solely for the purpose of restructuring the loss-making entity and if the activity which gave rise to the unrelieved loss carry-forward continues on a comparable scale for the following five years;\n(c)\na corporate entity is also economically identical if, rather than injecting new assets, the acquiring entity covers the losses that have accrued at the loss-making entity.\n(8)\nThe last two examples were commonly referred to as the \u2018Sanierungsklausel\u2019 (clause allowing for restructuring of companies in difficulty).\n(9)\n\u00a78(4) KStG was repealed with effect from 1 January 2008 by the Business Taxation Reform Act 2008 (Unternehmensteuerreformgesetz).\n(10)\nThe same act introduced the new \u00a78c(1) KStG, which imposes much tighter restrictions than \u00a78(4) KStG on loss carry-forward in the case of changes in the shareholding of a corporate entity. Under the new rule:\n(a)\nunused losses are forfeited entirely if more than 50 % of the share capital, membership rights, ownership rights or voting rights is transferred to an acquirer;\n(b)\nif, within a period of five years, more than 25 % but not more than 50 % of the share capital, membership rights, ownership rights or voting rights is transferred, unused losses are forfeited on a pro rata basis.\n(11)\nInitially the new rule did not provide any exception for companies in the process of restructuring and at the same time subject to a significant change in ownership.\n(12)\nAccording to the explanatory memorandum adopted by the German Parliament with the Business Taxation Reform Act 2008, the purpose of replacing \u00a78(4) KStG by the new \u00a78c(1) KStG was to simplify the rules (the explanatory memorandum states that the practical application of \u00a78(4) KStG had raised many difficult legal questions) and to better target abuse (4). The legislator was aware that the change meant that, in the case of a restructuring of an undertaking in difficulty which implied a change in ownership, carry-forward of losses would no longer be possible. This was regarded as acceptable, however, since the tax authorities could waive tax debts in such a situation based on considerations of equity, even without explicit legislative provision (5).\n2.2. The measure\n(13)\nIn June 2009 an amendment to \u00a78c KStG introduced \u00a78c(1a) KStG, under which loss carry-forward is still possible where a company in difficulty is acquired for the purpose of restructuring. This amendment formed part of the Citizens\u2019 Relief Act - Health Insurance Fund (B\u00fcrgerentlastungsgesetz Krankenversicherung) (6). The new provision is again referred to as Sanierungsklausel or new Sanierungsklausel in order to distinguish it from its predecessor \u00a78(4) KStG. It creates an exception to the limitation of tax loss carry-forward introduced with effect from 1 January 2008 by \u00a78c(1) KStG.\n(14)\nUnder \u00a78c(1a) KStG, a corporate entity can carry forward losses despite a change in its shareholding that is caught by \u00a78c(1) KStG provided the following requirements are met:\n(a)\nthe acquisition serves the purpose of restructuring the corporate entity (7);\n(b)\nthe company is, or is likely to be, insolvent or over-indebted at the time of the acquisition (8);\n(c)\nthe company\u2019s fundamental business structures are preserved, which requires:\n-\nthe corporate entity to honour an agreement between management and works council (Betriebsvereinbarung) on the preservation of jobs, or\n-\npreservation of 80 % of the jobs (in terms of the average annual wage bill) for the first five years following the acquisition, or\n-\ninjections of significant business assets or write-off of debts which still have an economic value within 12 months; business assets are significant if they represent at least 25 % of the assets of the previous financial year; any transfer back to the acquiring entity within the first three years are deducted;\n(d)\nthe company does not change sector of activity during the five years following the acquisition;\n(e)\nthe company had not ceased operation at the time of the acquisition.\n(15)\n\u00a78c(1a) KStG entered into force on 10 July 2009 and applies retroactively from 1 January 2008.\n(16)\nInitially, \u00a78c(1a) KStG was introduced only for a limited time, until 31 December 2009. However, on 22 December 2009, as part of the Economic Growth Acceleration Act 2009 (Wachstumsbeschleunigungsgesetz) (9), the German Parliament adopted a provision that deleted the corresponding sunset clause from the KStG.\n(17)\nIt should be noted that the losses carried forward can be offset only against the profits of the company that is being restructured. The acquiring company cannot offset the losses against its own profits.\n(18)\nThis holds true even if the acquiring company consolidates its tax liabilities at group level since \u00a715, first sentence, number 1 KStG prohibits loss carry-forward if a controlled subsidiary company (Organgesellschaft) forms part of an integrated group (Organschaft) (10).\n(19)\nHowever, under German corporate tax law such losses are not forfeited; they are merely \u2018frozen\u2019 at the level of the entity and may be used only once the company is no longer consolidated. There is no time limit for the carry-forward of these \u2018frozen\u2019 losses.\n(20)\nThe acquiring company benefits indirectly from \u00a78c(1a) KStG because, once the restructuring process has been successfully completed, the tax burden of the restructured entity is reduced. Furthermore, the acquiring company may of course merge part or all of its activities into the acquired company and hence use the losses carried forward.\n2.3. Comparison between \u00a78c(1a) KStG and \u00a78(4) KStG\n(21)\nThe new rule in \u00a78c(1a) KStG differs from the preceding rule, the repealed \u00a78(4) KStG, in one important aspect which is crucial for the assessment for State aid purposes.\n(22)\nUnder \u00a78c(1) KStG, a company forfeits its loss carry-forward where more than half of the shares are transferred, unless the Sanierungsklausel is applicable. Thus, the general rule is the forfeiture of loss carry-forwards on significant changes in ownership. The existing Sanierungsklausel therefore is the exception to the general rule.\n(23)\nUnder the earlier \u00a78(4) KStG, the general rule was continuation of loss carry-forwards in the case of significant changes in ownership, provided that the company was economically identical. This exception was intended to prevent abuse, for example in the form of trading in shell companies.\n3. THE OPENING DECISION\n(24)\nBy letter dated 24 February 2010 the Commission informed Germany that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of this measure.\n(25)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission took the view that \u00a78c(1a) KStG differentiates between financially sound loss-making companies and companies that are (potentially) insolvent or over-indebted, by benefiting only the latter. \u00a78c(1a) KStG thus seemed to depart from the system of reference, according to which both types of companies would not be eligible for loss carry-forward. The Commission therefore reached the preliminary conclusion that the measure is selective and constitutes State aid, since the preconditions of Article 107(1) TFEU appeared to be fulfilled. Finally, the Commission expressed its doubts about the compatibility of the measure with Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, as interpreted by the Temporary Framework (11), and with Article 107(3)(c), as interpreted by the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (12) and the Regional Aid Guidelines (13).\n(26)\nThe decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (14). The Commission invited Germany and interested parties to submit comments.\n(27)\nAfter the opening of the formal investigation procedure, the German Federal Ministry for Finance instructed the tax authorities responsible for tax collection to cease applying \u00a78c(1a) KStG until the Commission had adopted a final decision in the case and to inform the entities concerned that in the event of a negative final decision by the Commission, State aid would have to be recovered (15).\n4. COMMENTS BY GERMANY\n(28)\nGermany takes the view that \u00a78c(1a) KStG does not constitute State aid, for three reasons:\n(a)\nit complies with the private market creditor principle (see 4.1);\n(b)\nit is not selective (see 4.2);\n(c)\nit is justified by the nature and the overall structure of the German tax system (see 4.3).\n(29)\nGermany further argues that the new Sanierungsklausel in \u00a78c(1a) KStG corresponds in essence to the old Sanierungsklausel in \u00a78(4) KStG, which had never been criticised by the Commission (see 4.4) and that a number of other Member States had similar tax rules in place (see 4.5).\n4.1. Compliance with the private market creditor principle\n(30)\nThis argument was put forward by the German authorities for the first time in their letter dated 2 July 2010. Germany claims that the private creditor principle may be also invoked with respect to tax debts or quasi-tax debts (16). The relationship of the German State towards its taxpayers is argued to be comparable with the relationship between a private creditor and a debtor, which are linked by a long-term contract, such as a rent contract or an employment contract. In the view of the German authorities, a private creditor party to a long-term contract would forego part of their future claims, if that enabled another undertaking to take over the debtor, thus ensuring the continuation of the long-term contract.\n4.2. Absence of selectivity\n(31)\nGermany takes the view that \u00a78c(1a) KStG is a general measure, since it may be used by all undertakings, regardless of their region, sector and size. Germany points out that any undertaking could potentially find itself in financial difficulties outside its control and be a candidate for application of the rule.\n(32)\nThe German authorities note that the Commission itself had taken the view, in its 1998 Notice on business taxation, that, \u2018provided that they apply without distinction to all firms and to the production of all goods\u2019, tax measures of a purely technical nature, such as rules on loss carry-overs, were not selective, and that \u2018the fact that some firms or some sectors benefit more than others from some of these tax measures does not necessarily mean that they are caught by the competition rules governing State aid\u2019 (17).\n(33)\nGermany takes the view that these considerations were of particular importance for tax incentives for research and development, but also for environmental protection, training and employment. In the view of the German authorities, tax rules that favour undertakings making particular efforts in these areas are not selective, since they are open to all undertakings, even if de facto they are of greater benefit to undertakings active in certain sectors than others. In Germany\u2019s view, the same reasoning should also apply to tax rules that favour undertakings in difficulty which are acquired in order to be restructured.\n(34)\nGermany argues that the Court and the General Court had accepted that a measure benefiting exclusively undertakings in difficulty may, in principle, constitute a general measure, which is not selective. In this context Germany cites in the first instance DMT, where the Court held with regard to a Belgian payment facility for undertakings in difficulties that (18):\n\u2018The French Government argues that payment facilities in relation to social security contributions do not constitute State aid if they are granted in identical circumstances to any undertaking experiencing financial difficulties. That would seem to be the case under the regime established by the Belgian legislation. The Commission, however, claims that the ONSS has a discretionary power in regard to the grant of payment facilities.\nIt follows from the wording of Article 92(1) of the Treaty that general measures which do not favour only certain undertakings or the production of only certain goods do not fall within that provision. By contrast, where the body granting financial assistance enjoys a degree of latitude which enables it to choose the beneficiaries or the conditions under which the financial assistance is provided, that assistance cannot be considered to be general in nature (see, to that effect, Case C-241/94 France v Commission [1996] ECR I-4551, paragraphs 23 and 24).\nIt is for the national court in the main proceedings to determine whether the ONSS\u2019s power to grant payment facilities is discretionary or not and, if it is not, to establish whether the payment facilities granted by the ONSS are general in nature or whether they favour certain undertakings.\u2019\n(35)\nGermany also cites HAMSA, where the Spanish authorities had argued that a measure is not selective because it applies to all undertakings in difficulty. On that point, the General Court held that (19):\n\u2018In the present case, the argument relied on by the applicant and the Kingdom of Spain to the effect that the Spanish law of 26 July 1922 concerning suspension of payments institutes a general procedure, applicable to all companies in difficulty, cannot be accepted. Whilst it is true that the law does not have authority to apply selectively in favour of certain categories of undertakings or sectors of activity, it must be remembered that the debt remissions criticised by the Commission do not flow automatically from the application of the law, but from the discretionary decisions made by the public bodies in question. It is, moreover, settled case-law that where the body granting financial assistance enjoys a degree of latitude which enables it to choose the beneficiaries or the conditions under which the financial assistance is provided, that assistance cannot be considered to be general in nature (Case C-256/97 DM Transport [1999] ECR I-3913, paragraph 27).\u2019\n(36)\nThe German authorities argue that, unlike the measures in DMT and HAMSA, \u00a78c(1a) KStG does not provide for discretionary decisions by public bodies, but that its application flows automatically from the law. Therefore, applying the a contrario argument, \u00a78c(1a) KStG is not selective.\n(37)\nGermany also takes the view that \u00a78c(1a) KStG forms part of the body of rules under German insolvency law. In particular, the eligibility of an undertaking is based on the notions of insolvency, risk of insolvency and over-indebtedness, which are defined in the InsO and which provide grounds for the opening of insolvency procedures.\n(38)\nOn the question of selectivity, Germany concludes that the Commission\u2019s view would mean that any tax reduction constituted State aid, even if it were generally applicable, and that such a position was in breach of the TFEU.\n4.3. Justification by the nature or overall structure of the tax system\n(39)\nGermany asserts that the exemption created by \u00a78c(1a) KStG is justified by the nature and overall structure of the German corporate tax system. It claims that there is an objective difference between undertakings in difficulty which are in need of restructuring and other undertakings, and that this objective difference justifies different treatment of undertakings in difficulty which are acquired in view of restructuring. The German authorities base their argument on three considerations.\n(40)\nFirstly, whereas financially sound undertakings have a choice between seeking finance on the capital markets and looking for an undertaking to acquire them, undertakings in difficulty only have the latter option, as they will not be able to raise debt on the capital market or obtain a bank loan. As a result, undertakings in difficulty will systematically forfeit the possibility of carrying forward their losses, whereas healthy undertakings always have the choice between debt financing and looking for a buyer.\n(41)\nSecondly, the ratio legis of \u00a78c(1) KStG, i.e. preventing trade in empty-shell companies with accumulated losses, does not require the exclusion of loss carry-forward in situations where the acquisition is for the purpose of restructuring rather than simply tax optimisation. Without the restriction of \u00a78c(1a) KStG to acquisitions of undertakings in financial difficulty in view of restructuring, i.e. if other acquisitions were also included, the ratio legis could no longer be maintained.\n(42)\nThirdly, the purpose of \u00a78c(1) KStG is to ensure that the sale price of stakes in undertakings is based solely on the economic value of the undertaking and that the value of accumulated losses for tax optimisation does not affect the sale price. In the case of the acquisition of an undertaking in difficulty in view of restructuring, however, the possible value of accumulated losses plays no particular role. To substantiate this argument, Germany points out that accountants do not attach any value, in commercial group accounts, to potential carried-forward losses of an ailing undertaking.\n(43)\nFor these three reasons taken together, Germany considers that, even if \u00a78c(1a) KStG were prima facie selective, it is in any event justified by the nature and overall structure of the German corporate tax system.\n4.4. Link between new and old Sanierungsklausel\n(44)\nGermany observes that, with effect from 1 January 2008, \u00a78c KStG replaced a similar rule that was repealed at the same time, namely \u00a78(4) KStG. Both rules pursue the same objective, i.e. the prevention of trade in empty-shell companies with accumulated losses.\n(45)\nGermany notes that the Commission had never expressed any concerns with regard to \u00a78(4) KStG, and that it therefore appears that this rule did not constitute State aid.\n(46)\nGermany therefore regards the Commission\u2019s position in this regard as incoherent.\n4.5. Similar rules in other tax systems\n(47)\nGermany has pointed out that many other Member States have comparable rules to \u00a78c(1a) KStG. Examples are Austria, Belgium, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. It notes that the Commission has not taken any action under the State aid rules against these Member States, despite the great similarities between the systems.\n(48)\nIn relation to paragraph 34 of the opening decision, which sets out the action the Commission has taken with respect to the French system, Germany stresses that the German system differs from the French system, which is limited to certain sectors of the economy and provides a complete exemption from corporate income tax.\n5. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE\n(49)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU lays down that any aid granted by a Member State through State resources in any form whatsoever, which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods and affects trade among Members States, is incompatible with the internal market.\n5.1. State resources and imputability\n(50)\nA measure must be financed through State resources, and the use of State resources must be imputable to the State. A loss of tax revenue is equivalent to consumption of State resources in the form of fiscal expenditure. By allowing companies to reduce their corporate tax burden through loss carry-forward, Germany is foregoing revenue, which constitutes State aid. Germany has informed the Commission that implementation of the measure could lead to a tax revenue shortfall of EUR 900 million every year. Since the measure implies a loss of State resources, it is therefore granted through State resources. The aid is granted by a law, and is therefore imputable to the State.\n5.2. Selective advantage\n(51)\nIn addition, the measure must confer a selective advantage on the beneficiary. It is settled case-law that the concept of aid covers not only positive benefits, but also action which, in various forms, mitigates the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking (20).\n(52)\nPursuant to \u00a78c(1) KStG, certain changes in the ownership structure of an undertaking mean the partial or complete forfeiture of the possibility of carrying forward past losses for tax purposes.\n(53)\n\u00a78c(1a) KStG creates an exception to that rule where the change in ownership concerns an undertaking in difficulty and takes place for the purpose of restructuring.\n(54)\n\u00a78c(1a) KStG could therefore grant a selective advantage to companies fulfilling those conditions, since it enables them to set off past losses against future profits for the purpose of calculating their taxable income.\n(55)\nAs explained in recital 28, Germany argues that \u00a78c(1a) KStG does not constitute such a selective advantage, for three reasons:\n(a)\n\u00a78c(1a) KStG complies with the private market creditor principle (5.2.1);\n(b)\n\u00a78c(1a) KStG is not prima facie selective (5.2.2);\n(c)\n\u00a78c(1a) KStG is justified by the nature and the overall structure of the German tax system (5.2.3).\n(56)\nGermany also points out the similarities between \u00a78c(1a) KStG and its predecessor, \u00a78(4) KStG (see 5.2.4) and that other Member States have similar rules (see 5.2.5).\n5.2.1. Possible application of the private market creditor principle\n(57)\nGermany argues that \u00a78c(1a) KStG complies with the private market creditor principle, because it corresponds to the behaviour of a private market creditor engaged in a long-term contract with a debtor.\n(58)\nThe Commission considers that this claim is ill-founded, for several reasons. According to the case-law of the Court and the General Court, the private market creditor principle is applicable only if the State acts like an economic operator, but not when it exercises its prerogatives as a public authority (21). In this case, the State exercises its monopoly of taxation in its capacity as a public authority.\n(59)\nThe Commission takes the view that the case-law cited by Germany does not alter this assessment. \u00a78c(1a) KStG concerns the establishment of a tax debt, whereas the facts that gave rise to the judgments of the Court in Spain v Commission (22) and DMT (23) concerned situations where the administration had the possibility to waive existing tax debts. Therefore, the private market creditor principle is not applicable in this case.\n(60)\nSecondly, even if it were applicable, which the Commission disputes, the Commission notes that the tax advantage is granted automatically, without a prior assessment of the total losses (which determine the maximum amount of the future tax reductions), the prospects of the beneficiary returning to viability, or whether the debtor has strategic importance. A private market creditor would not provide, in their general terms and conditions, such an automatic waiver of future debts, without knowing in advance the possible amount of the waiver, the debtor\u2019s financial prospects and its strategic importance.\n(61)\nThirdly, the Commission notes that, contrary to a long-term contractual relationship, \u00a78c(1a) KStG does not concern a waiver for existing debts, but a reduction of possible future debts, which might arise once the debtor\u2019s financial health has been restored. In other words, when the State allows the loss carry-forward, there are no outstanding debts.\n(62)\nFourthly, the Commission observes that usually, in the event of insolvency, the debtor\u2019s business is taken over by another company. Since the State has a monopoly on taxation, it will be able to collect taxes from the other company. Therefore, a debtor that exits the market will be replaced by another debtor. Contrary to a private market creditor, the concept of an existing customer\u2019s loyalty has no bearing on the decision of the State.\n(63)\nThe Commission concludes that the private market creditor principle is not applicable in this case because the State has acted using its prerogatives in the public policy remit, and not as an economic operator. Even if the private market creditor principle were applicable in this case, the Commission has shown that a private creditor in a long-term contractual relationship, placed in the same position as the State, would not have adopted a measure comparable to \u00a78c(1a) KStG.\n5.2.2. Prima facie selectivity\n(64)\nAccording to the case-law of the ECJ concerning the selectivity of a tax measure, Article 107(1) TFEU requires assessment of whether, under a particular statutory scheme, a national measure is such as to favour \u2018certain undertakings or the production of certain goods\u2019 in comparison with others which, in the light of the objective pursued by the scheme, are in a comparable factual and legal situation (24).\n(65)\nConsequently, when assessing the selectivity of a tax provision, the Commission must first determine the general or \u2018usual\u2019 rules applicable to the field of taxation concerned under the existing tax system (\u2018system of reference\u2019). It must then determine whether the measure is an exception to the system of reference by differentiating between economic operators who, in the light of the objective pursued by the tax system of the Member State concerned, are in a comparable factual and legal situation.\n5.2.2.1. System of reference\n(66)\nThe Commission is of the opinion that the system of reference is the German corporate income tax system in its present form, and in particular the rules on tax loss carry-forward for companies subject to change in their shareholding, which are laid down in \u00a78c(1) KStG. As described above in recital 10, under this rule unused losses are forfeited entirely if more than 50 % of the ownership rights are transferred to an acquirer; they are forfeited pro rata if, within a period of five years, more than 25 % but less than 50 % of the ownership rights is transferred. The Commission therefore concludes that forfeiture of losses is the general rule, i.e. the system of reference, in the case of a change of ownership of a company.\n(67)\nThe Commission notes that it had already used \u00a78c(1) KStG as a system of reference in a previous case (25). There, the Commission declared incompatible with the internal market an exception to \u00a78c(1) KStG allowing companies acquired by venture capital companies to carry forward losses despite the change in ownership. The reasoning developed in that decision also applies to this case.\n5.2.2.2. Differentiation between companies in a comparable factual and legal situation in the light of the objective of the tax system\n(68)\nBy way of departure from the reference scenario, \u00a78c(1a) KStG enables companies that are, or are at risk of being, insolvent or over-indebted at the time of their acquisition for the purpose of restructuring to carry forward their losses, provided that certain conditions are met (see recital 14).\n(69)\nGermany argues that the objective of \u00a78c(1a) KStG is to remove a tax obstacle to the restructuring of undertakings in difficulty. In the light of the objective of the tax system, only undertakings in difficulty are in a comparable factual and legal situation. Since \u00a78c(1a) KStG applies to all undertakings in difficulty, it is not selective.\n(70)\nGermany takes the view that the judgments in DMT (26) and HAMSA (27) support this position. Germany contends that the Court and the General Court concluded that the measures in these cases were selective because they required discretionary decisions by the public authorities. It follows a contrario from these judgments that a measure applicable to all undertakings in difficulty, and which does not leave any discretion to the public authorities, is not selective.\n(71)\nThe Commission would point out first that the objective of the tax system must be established at the level of the system of reference rather than at the level of the exception (28). The objective of the corporate income tax system is to generate revenue for the budget. The question arises whether this objective is taken into account where companies unduly reduce their tax base by using loss carry-forwards from shell companies. \u00a78c(1) KStG is intended to prevent companies which change ownership from carrying forward their losses. This is clear from the explanatory memorandum to the law which introduced \u00a78c(1) KStG and repealed \u00a78(4) KStG (29). Therefore, all companies which change ownership are, in the light of the objective of the tax system, in a comparable factual and legal situation.\n(72)\nThe Commission points out that only companies in difficulty are eligible for the exception provided for by \u00a78c(1a) KStG. However, companies which are not insolvent or over-indebted, or at risk thereof at the time of acquisition, might also be loss-making, but are not eligible for loss carry-forward.\n(73)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that \u00a78c(1a) KStG differentiates between loss-making companies that are otherwise healthy and those that are insolvent or over-indebted, or at risk thereof, by benefiting the latter. \u00a78c(1a) KStG thus differentiates between companies that are, with regard to the objective of the tax system, in a comparable factual and legal situation.\n(74)\nSecondly, the Commission stresses that, contrary to the German view, the case-law of the Court and the General Court has never regarded a measure applicable to all undertakings in difficulty and which does not leave any discretion to the public authorities as, by definition, not selective.\n(75)\nWith regard to DMT, it should be noted that, in response to the observation by the French government, which corresponds to the view held by Germany in this case, the Court concludes in recital 28 that even if the national authorities enjoyed no discretion, it was still for the national court to determine whether the national measure in question was general in nature or selective. Thus, the Court recognises implicitly that a national measures open to all undertakings in difficulty, and which does not leave any discretion to the public authorities, may still be selective.\n(76)\nWith regard to HAMSA, the Commission observes that the obiter dictum in paragraph 157 refers to the general Spanish insolvency legislation. The measure at issue in HAMSA, however, was not a measure under insolvency law, but a debt waiver granted by the Spanish authorities on a voluntary basis, without there being any legal obligation, and which was much higher than the debt waivers agreed by private investors. The case is therefore not relevant to the assessment of the measure in question.\n(77)\nAdvocate General Fennelly, in his opinion in Ecotrade, confirms that rules which are applicable to all undertakings in difficulty may be selective and constitute State aid (30).\n(78)\nTherefore, contrary to the position of Germany, the Commission\u2019s analysis of the measure in question is in line with the case-law of the Court and the General Court.\n(79)\nThe Commission therefore considers \u00a78c (1a) KStG to be prima facie selective.\n5.2.3. Justification on the basis of the nature or the general scheme of the tax system of which it is part\n(80)\nAccording to the case-law of the Court, a measure which, although conferring an advantage on its recipient, is justified by the nature or general scheme of the system of which it is part, does not fulfil that condition of selectivity (31).\n(81)\nTherefore, where, as in the present case, the Commission comes to the conclusion that the measure in question prima facie appears to be selective, it must assess whether the differentiation is justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system of which it forms part.\n(82)\nThe Commission notes that it is settled case-law of the Court that it is for the Member State to provide such justification (32).\n(83)\nThe Court has further clarified that a distinction must be made between, on the one hand, the objectives attributed to a particular tax scheme which are extrinsic to it and, on the other, the mechanisms inherent in the tax system itself which are necessary to achieve such objectives. Only the second mechanisms qualify for a justification by the nature or the general scheme of the tax system of which it is part.\n(84)\nThe Commission considers that it is necessary in this case to distinguish between the objective of \u00a78c(1) KStG and the objective of \u00a78c(1a) KStG.\n(85)\nAs Germany recognises in its submissions, the objective of \u00a78c(1) KStG is to prevent abuse of the loss carry-forward allowed by the German tax system in the form of purchases of empty shell companies.\n(86)\nThe Commission notes in this respect that \u00a78c(1) KStG has a much broader scope than its predecessor, \u00a78(4) KStG. Whereas the latter ruled out the carrying forward of losses only when two cumulative conditions were met, namely acquisition by another corporate entity and new economic activity, the new provision does not contain the second condition. Acquisition by another corporate entity is therefore enough to forfeit the possibility of loss carry-forward. The legislator was aware of this difference in scope since the explicit purpose of the change in legislation was to finance a reduction in the corporate income tax rate from 25 % to 15 % (33).\n(87)\n\u00a78c(1a) KStG, on the contrary, is not intended to prevent abuse. That is clear from the explanatory memorandum with the introduction of the new Sanierungsklausel published by the German Parliament. The explanatory memorandum states that \u00a78c(1a) KStG was introduced to tackle the global financial and economic crisis (34). During the crisis, the restrictions on loss carry-forward were perceived to be a particular obstacle to the restructuring of companies.\n(88)\nThe Commission notes that Germany, in its comments on the opening decision, stresses the fact that \u00a78c(1a) KStG does not constitute an anti-abuse measure, but was introduced to support ailing companies during the financial and economic crisis.\n(89)\nThe Commission concludes that the objective pursued by this specific tax measure is extrinsic to the tax system. According to the case-law of the Court, the pursuit of such an extrinsic objective cannot be relied upon to justify a measure by the nature and overall structure of the tax system (35). It can be analysed only in the compatibility assessment.\n(90)\nThe three arguments presented by Germany cannot alter this assessment.\n(91)\nWith regards to Germany\u2019s argument that a company in difficulty has no choice for but to obtain finance through an investor, whereas a healthy company, which is temporarily loss-making, has the choice between obtaining finance on the capital market and acquisition by an investor with subsequent refinancing, the Commission is of the opinion that the way a company finances its business is irrelevant in the light of the objective of the tax system. A corporate tax system is based on the taxation of profits and the declaration of losses. As could be observed during the financial and economic crisis, financially sound companies also reported losses temporarily. But these financially sound companies are not eligible for the loss carry-forward in application of the Sanierungsklausel and are thus at disadvantage compared with ailing loss-making companies in the event of a change of ownership and subsequent refinancing by the new shareholders. Furthermore, the Commission also notes that during the financial and economic crisis healthy companies, which temporarily recorded losses, had great difficulties accessing the capital markets. Therefore, even the factual assumptions underlying the first argument are inaccurate. The Commission therefore rejects Germany\u2019s first argument.\n(92)\nWith regard to Germany\u2019s second argument, that the exception provided in \u00a78c(1a) KStG to the general prohibition on loss carry-forward in the event of a change of ownership laid down by \u00a78c(1) KStG was justified by the ratio legis of \u00a78c(1) KStG, because there was no risk of abuse in the case of the restructuring of a company in difficulty, the Commission observes that this argument does not justify the restriction of \u00a78c(1a) KStG to companies in difficulty. The Commission points out that there is no risk of abuse either when a financially sound company is acquired. The risk of abuse exists only in relation to empty-shell companies. As pointed out above, the ratio legis of \u00a78c(1) KStG goes further than combating abuse. Its objective is also to increase the German corporate tax base and to offset the reduction in the corporate income tax rate from 25 % to 15 %. This explains why \u00a78c(1) KStG also includes a number of acquisitions of interests where there is no risk of abuse. The Commission therefore rejects Germany\u2019s argument that the exception introduced by \u00a78c(1a) KStG corresponds to the ratio legis of \u00a78c(1) KStG.\n(93)\nWith regard to Germany\u2019s third argument, that losses of ailing companies are usually not attributed any value by auditors when calculating deferred tax for consolidated financial statements, and therefore the possibility of carrying forward losses has no impact on the sale price of the ailing company, the Commission notes first that this is based on accounting criteria and is therefore irrelevant for tax considerations. Secondly, the Commission notes that this argument contradicts Germany\u2019s statement that the inability to carry forward losses constitutes an obstacle to restructuring. This is true only if the acquiring company attributes a certain monetary value to the possibility of carrying forward losses. Therefore, the Commission also rejects Germany\u2019s third argument.\n(94)\nMoreover, Germany claims that other Member States also provide tax relief for the restructuring of companies, such as the French aid scheme for the takeover of firms in difficulty. The Commission cannot accept Germany\u2019s argument, which is based on a comparison. Firstly, in order to justify a measure, the Member States may refer only to principles inherent to their tax system, as the system of reference by which to assess whether an undertaking obtains an advantage with the meaning of the State aid rules. The fact that comparable tax measures might exist in the other Member States is of no consequence since any such measures could themselves be caught by the provisions in the Treaty. Secondly, the conditions imposed on measures under the French scheme differ from \u00a78c(1a) KStG. The French scheme provides for a tax exemption for newly created companies which take over a firm in difficulty. After the scheme was declared incompatible within the common market by the Commission in 2004, (36) France changed it to comply with the State aid rules. The benefits provided are now partly de minimis. The other part of the aid is compatible as regional aid or SME aid. (37)\n(95)\nThe Commission therefore concludes from the above that the measure in question does not derive directly from the basic principles of the tax system and is not justified by the nature and general scheme of the tax system.\n5.2.4. The link between the old and new Sanierungsklausel\n(96)\nGermany argues that \u00a78c(1a) KStG essentially corresponds to the old \u00a78(4) KStG and that the Commission had never considered \u00a78(4) KStG to be State aid.\n(97)\nThe Commission points out that Germany never notified \u00a78(4) KStG. The Commission has therefore not yet taken a view on whether it involved State aid.\n(98)\nThis procedure concerns only \u00a78c(1a) KStG, since the opening of the formal investigation procedure was limited to this provision. Germany cannot rely on the argument that the Commission has never formally objected to \u00a78(4) KStG in order to justify \u00a78c(1a) KStG because the German authorities have never notified \u00a78(4) KStG.\n(99)\nThe Commission reserves the right to analyse \u00a78(4) KStG under the State aid rules, should it transpire that this provision may have provided undertakings with a selective advantage.\n5.2.5. Similar tax schemes in other Member States\n(100)\nThe fact that other Member States have similar or identical tax schemes in operation, which they have not notified to the Commission, has no bearing on the analysis of the question whether a given measure constitutes State aid.\n(101)\nThe Commission will analyse the information submitted by Germany pursuant to Article 10 of the Procedural Regulation (38).\n5.2.6. Conclusion on the existence of a selective advantage\n(102)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that \u00a78c(1a) KStG provides a selective advantage to the companies to which it applies.\n5.3. Effect on intra-Union trade\n(103)\nThe measure must be liable to affect intra-Union trade and distort or threaten to distort competition. \u00a78c(1a) KStG is not sector-specific, i.e. all sectors can benefit from it. Virtually all sectors of the German economy are active on markets open to competition and intra-Union trade. Hence, the measure is liable to affect intra-Union trade and to distort or threaten to distort competition.\n(104)\nThe Commission observes that, according to the information provided by Germany, all undertakings eligible for the measure are eligible for insolvency proceedings under German insolvency law (see recital 14 and footnote 7). Therefore, all potential beneficiaries of the measure are undertakings in difficulty within the meaning of point 10(c) of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (hereinafter: the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines). As a consequence, none of the beneficiaries is eligible for de minimis aid pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (39), as Article 1(h) of that Regulation excludes undertakings in difficulty from its scope.\n5.4. Conclusion\n(105)\nTherefore, as all the requirements laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are met, the Commission takes the view that the scheme on the tax carry-forward of losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty constitutes State aid within the meaning of that article.\n6. ASSESSMENT OF THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE MEASURE\n(106)\nThe Commission may declare State aid compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3) TFEU. According to the settled case-law of the Court, the burden of proof for demonstrating that a measure is compatible lies with the Member State (40). The Commission notes in this respect that Germany, despite the explicit invitation by the Commission in the opening decision, has not submitted any information regarding the matter to the Commission. For that reason alone, the Commission cannot declare the aid measure compatible with the internal market.\n(107)\nThe Commission has nevertheless examined whether the measure could be declared compatible with the internal market. The Commission has wide discretion in aid cases falling under Article 107(3) TFEU (41). Exercising this discretion, it has issued guidelines and notices setting forth criteria for declaring certain types of aid compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3) TFEU. It is settled case-law that the Commission is bound by the guidelines and notices that it issues in the area of supervision of State aid inasmuch as they do not depart from the rules in the Treaty and are accepted by the Member States (42).\n(108)\nIt is therefore necessary to assess first whether the notified aid falls under the scope of one or more guidelines or notices, and can be declared compatible with the internal market because it fulfils the conditions for compatibility set out therein.\n6.1. Possible compatibility on the basis of the Temporary Framework (43)\n(109)\nSince \u00a78c(1a) KStG was introduced in order to tackle the problems resulting from the financial and economic crisis, the Commission examined whether it could be declared compatible under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, as interpreted by the Temporary Framework.\n(110)\nIn the light of the current financial and economic crisis and its impact on the overall economy of the Member States, the Commission considers that certain categories of State aid are justified, for a limited period, to remedy this crisis and they can be declared compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. The Temporary Framework sets out the conditions under which the Commission will declare such aid schemes compatible.\n(111)\nHowever, \u00a78c(1a) KStG does not fall under any of the measures set out in the Temporary Framework because it concerns tax breaks for companies in difficulty. However, the Temporary Framework does not provide for State aid in the form of tax breaks.\n(112)\nThe Commission therefore takes the view that \u00a78c(1a) KStG does not meet the requirements for being declared compatible under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, as interpreted by the Temporary Framework.\n(113)\nThe Commission notes, however, that a limited amount of aid to certain beneficiaries may be declared compatible with the internal market pursuant to section 4.2 of the Temporary Framework provided that it meets all the conditions of a German aid scheme which the Commission has approved on this legal basis. In order to be eligible for this type of aid, the beneficiary must demonstrate in particular that it was not an undertaking in difficulty on 1 July 2008 within the meaning of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (for large undertakings) or within the meaning of Article 1(7) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation - GBER) (44) (for SME) and that the gross grant equivalent of the aid is not higher than EUR 500 000. Furthermore, the other conditions in section 4.2.2 of the Temporary Framework and of the decision authorising the German aid scheme must be met.\n6.2. Possible compatibility on the basis of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (45)\n(114)\nSince \u00a78c(1a) KStG concerns tax advantages for ailing companies, the Commission examined its compatibility under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines. Under these Guidelines, only companies in difficulty are eligible for aid. Whereas an insolvent or over-indebted company can be considered as being in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines, paragraph 13 of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines provides that a firm belonging to or being taken over by a larger business group is not normally eligible for rescue or restructuring aid. One of the requirements of \u00a78c(1a) KStG is a change in shareholding. After such a change, the target company might belong to a group. In this case, it would normally be for the group to assist the target company in difficulty, which would then not be eligible for aid under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines.\n(115)\nIn addition, even for the beneficiaries eligible for aid under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines, other requirements of these Guidelines are not met.\n(116)\nUnder paragraph 25(a) of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines, rescue aid can only take the form of loans or loan guarantees. Hence, the tax advantage in question cannot be considered to be rescue aid.\n(117)\nIn the case of restructuring aid, the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines require the submission of a realistic restructuring plan to restore the viability of the company. The aid must be limited to the minimum necessary. In this context, the beneficiary has to make a contribution to the restructuring costs. Finally, to avoid undue distortions of competition, the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines provide for compensatory measures.\n(118)\nNot all of these conditions are fulfilled by \u00a78c(1a) KStG. While the explanatory memorandum indicates that the target company has to provide a reorganisation plan with a positive business outlook, there is no indication that such a plan would meet the requirements of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines, nor that the amount of the aid is limited to the minimum necessary. The amount of aid depends on the losses that a company incurred in the past. Moreover, \u00a78c(1a) KStG does not provide for a contribution by the beneficiary or compensatory measures.\n(119)\nFinally, rescue and restructuring aid to large enterprises must be notified individually. It cannot be granted as part of a scheme. \u00a78c(1a) KStG does not distinguish between large companies and SMEs.\n(120)\nEven for SMEs, where rescue and restructuring aid can in principle take the form of a scheme, the Commission notes that the particular requirements for such a scheme set out in paragraph 82 of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines are not met, for the same reasons set out above in recital 117.\n(121)\nTherefore, the Commission takes the view that \u00a78c(1a) KStG is not compatible with the internal market as restructuring aid.\n6.3. Possible compatibility on the basis of the Regional Aid Guidelines (46)\n(122)\n\u00a78c(1a) KStG must also be examined in the light of the Regional Aid Guidelines.\n(123)\nPotential beneficiaries of regional aid must be located in a German region eligible for regional aid. Under \u00a78c(1a) KStG, this is not necessarily the case, because the provision applies to companies located throughout Germany.\n(124)\nFurthermore, the Regional Aid Guidelines exclude from their scope undertakings in difficulty within the meaning of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (see paragraph 9). Therefore, even aid for undertakings located in eligible regions cannot be declared compatible on the basis of the Regional Aid Guidelines.\n(125)\nThe Commission therefore takes the view that the measure is not compatible with the internal market as regional aid.\n6.4. Possible compatibility on the basis of the Environmental Aid Guidelines (47)\n(126)\nFinally, \u00a78c(1a) KStG must be examined in the light of the Environmental Aid Guidelines.\n(127)\nThe primary objective of the Environmental Aid Guidelines is to ensure that State aid measures will result in a higher level of environmental protection than would occur without the aid and to ensure that the positive effects of the aid outweigh its negative effects in terms of distortions of competition, taking account of the polluter pays principle (hereafter \u2018PPP\u2019) established by Article 191 TFEU.\n(128)\nThis objective is not fulfilled by \u00a78c(1a) KStG. The explanatory memorandum does not refer to any objective within the meaning of the Environmental Aid Guidelines.\n(129)\nAs paragraph 20 of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines states, a firm in difficulty, given that its very existence is in danger, cannot be considered an appropriate vehicle for promoting other public policy objectives until such time as its viability is assured. Since all potential beneficiaries of \u00a78c(1a) KStG are companies in difficulty within the meaning of paragraph 10(c) of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines, the Commission is of the opinion that \u00a78c(1a) KStG is not compatible as environmental aid.\n6.5. Possible compatibility on the basis of Article 107(3) TFEU\n(130)\nThe Commission notes that the notified measure falls within the scope of both the Temporary Framework and the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines. Therefore, when exercising its discretion under Article 107(3)(b) and (c) TFEU, it is bound by these two texts, for the reasons set out above in recital 109 et seq.\n(131)\nHowever, if the Commission is presented with compelling arguments for so doing, it can exercise its discretion again provided that it acts within the limits set out by the TFEU and the general principles of law, in particular the principle of equal treatment, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court (48). In this context, according to the Court\u2019s case-law, the Commission may declare State aid compatible with the internal market if the aid is to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State (Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) or pursues an objective of common interest (Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) (49), is necessary to reach this objective (50), and does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.\n(132)\nIn this case, Germany has not presented any arguments that the aid is compatible with the internal market directly under Article 107(3)(b) or (c) TFEU.\n(133)\nThe Commission notes that, due to the design of the aid measure, the amount of aid depends on the losses which the beneficiary has recorded in the past. Therefore, there is no link between the amount of aid received by an undertaking and the objective pursued by the aid scheme, i.e. the removal of barriers to restructuring and support for undertakings in difficulty during the economic and financial crisis. The Commission therefore concludes that the aid scheme is not limited to what is necessary to achieve its objective. As a consequence, it distorts competition in the internal market to an extent contrary to the common interest.\n(134)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the measure cannot be declared compatible based directly on Article 107(3)(b) or (c) TFEU.\n7. RECOVERY\n(135)\nSince the aid scheme has not been notified, it is unlawful aid.\n(136)\nBy virtue of the Commission\u2019s established decision-making practice under Article 107 of the Treaty must be recovered from the beneficiaries. This practice has been confirmed by Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (51): \u2018where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary\u2019.\n(137)\nGiven that the measure in question constitutes unlawful and incompatible aid, it must be recovered in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market before the aid was granted. Recovery is, therefore, to be effected from the date when the advantage accrued to the beneficiary, i.e. when the aid was made available to the beneficiary, and is to bear recovery interest until effective recovery.\n(138)\nThe Commission is of the opinion that the annual date for payment of corporate tax must be considered as the relevant date for determining the date when the aid was made available to the beneficiary.\n(139)\nGermany must take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiaries. In order to establish the number of cases in which recovery must be effected, Germany must draw up a list of enterprises which have benefited from the measure in question since 1 January 2008. In this context the Commission notes that Germany ceased application of the measure on 30 April 2010. The German Federal Ministry of Finance ordered the tax authorities responsible for tax collection to cease applying the Sanierungsklausel until the Commission adopted a final decision in the case (52).\n(140)\nThe State aid to be recovered is to be calculated on the basis of the tax declarations of the companies concerned, i.e. the beneficiaries of \u00a78c(1a) KStG. The aid amount is to be calculated as the difference between the tax which would have to be paid without the application of \u00a78c(1a) KStG and the tax that was actually paid after application of \u00a78c(1a) KStG.\n(141)\nThis is without prejudice to the possibility that, where the total amount of aid thus granted does not exceed a gross grant equivalent of EUR 500 000, and where all other conditions set out in section 4.2.2 of the Temporary Framework and of a Commission decision authorising a German aid scheme on that legal basis are met, in particular with regard to the company not being in difficulty on 1 July 2008, the aid may be deemed compatible on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, as interpreted by the Temporary Framework, and the authorised German aid scheme. Where the total amount exceeds EUR 500 000, the excess must be recovered.\n(142)\nThe Commission draws the attention of Germany to the fact that the aid cannot be deemed compatible under de minimis rules (53), or under a block-exempted (54) aid scheme, or under any aid scheme approved on the basis of the Regional Aid Guidelines or the Research, Development, and Innovation Guidelines (55), because all these texts exclude the granting of State aid to undertakings in difficulty (56). For all other approved aid schemes, Germany must verify whether the decision approving the aid scheme excludes undertakings in difficulty from the scope. If not, the aid could be deemed compatible under these schemes, provided that Germany demonstrates that all the conditions of the relevant schemes were fulfilled when the aid was granted.\n8. CONCLUSIONS\n(143)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses (\u00a78c(1a) KStG, \u2018Sanierungsklausel\u2019) constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU which has been unlawfully implemented in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU. The scheme is incompatible with the internal market.\n(144)\nThe Commission is of the opinion that Germany must take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiaries of the Sanierungsklausel,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid granted on the basis of \u00a78c(1a) of the Corporate Income Tax Act (K\u00f6rperschaftsteuergesetz), unlawfully put into effect by Germany in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU, is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\nIndividual aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b), as interpreted by the Temporary Framework, provided that the aid amount does not exceed EUR 500 000, the beneficiary was not an undertaking in difficulty on 1 July 2008 and all the other conditions set out in section 4.2.2 of the Temporary Framework are met.\nArticle 3\nIndividual aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 which, at the time it is granted, fulfils the conditions laid down by any aid scheme approved by the Commission on a legal basis other than the General Block Exemption Regulation, the Regional Aid Guidelines, the Research, Development and Innovation Guidelines, and which does not exclude undertakings in difficulty as potential beneficiaries, is compatible with the internal market, up to the maximum aid intensities applicable to that type of aid.\nArticle 4\n1. Germany shall withdraw the scheme referred to in Article 1.\n2. Germany shall recover the incompatible aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiaries.\n3. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were made available to the beneficiaries until their actual recovery.\n4. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (57).\n5. Germany shall cancel all outstanding payments of aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 5\n1. Recovery of the aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Germany shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months of the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 6\n1. Within two months of notification of this Decision, Germany shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nThe list of beneficiaries that have received aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 and the total amount of aid received by each of them under the scheme;\n(b)\nThe total amount (principal and interest) to be recovered from each beneficiary;\n(c)\nA detailed description of the measures already taken or planned to comply with this Decision;\n(d)\nDocumentary evidence that the beneficiaries have been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Germany shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until the recovery of the aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 has been completed. Upon request by the Commission, Germany shall immediately submit information on the measures already taken or planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiaries.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 26 January 2011.", "references": ["85", "54", "86", "30", "64", "68", "94", "87", "28", "55", "1", "84", "92", "82", "31", "56", "71", "90", "49", "40", "80", "16", "39", "20", "37", "14", "93", "12", "65", "6", "No Label", "15", "34", "44", "47", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "34", "44", "47", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 April 2010\non financing the 2010 work programme on training in the field of food and feed safety, animal health and animal welfare in the framework of the \u2018Better Training for Safer Food Programme\u2019\n(2010/230/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Financial Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 75 thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Implementing Rules\u2019), and in particular Article 90 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (3), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (4), and in particular Article 66(1)(b) and (c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 882/2004 lays down general rules for the performance of official controls to verify compliance with rules aiming, in particular, at preventing, eliminating or reducing to acceptable levels risks to humans and animals and guaranteeing fair practices in feed and food trade and protecting consumer interests. Article 51 of that Regulation provides that the Commission may organise training courses for the staff of the competent authorities of Member States responsible for the official controls referred to in that Regulation, which may be opened to participants from third countries, in particular developing countries. Those courses may include in particular training on Union feed and food law and animal health and animal welfare rules.\n(2)\nThe \u2018Better Training for Safer Food Programme\u2019 has been established by the Commission in order to achieve the aims set out in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. The Commission Communication COM(2006) 519 final (5) explores options for future organisation of training.\n(3)\nThe 2010 work programme for the implementation of \u2018Better Training for Safer Food Programme\u2019 should therefore be adopted.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2004/858/EC of 15 December 2004 setting up an executive agency, the \u2018Executive Agency for the Public Health Programme\u2019, for the management of Community action in the field of public health - pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 (6) has established the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (\u2018the Agency\u2019).\n(5)\nIn addition, Commission Decision C(2008) 4943 of 9 September 2008 delegated to the Agency certain management and programme implementation tasks pertaining to the food safety training measures performed pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. An operating subsidy should therefore be granted to the Agency for 2010 for financing activities related to the \u2018Better Training for Safer Food Programme\u2019.\n(6)\nThe 2010 work programme being a sufficiently detailed framework, the present Decision constitutes a financing decision within the meaning of Article 90 of the Implementing Rules.\n(7)\nFor the application of this Decision, it is appropriate to define the term \u2018substantial change\u2019, within the meaning of Article 90(4) of the Implementing Rules.\n(8)\nPursuant to Article 83 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, the validation, authorisation and payment of expenditure must be completed within the time limits laid down in the Implementing Rules. Those rules are also to specify the circumstances in which creditors paid late are entitled to receive default interest charged to the line from which the principal was paid.\n(9)\nThis Decision should therefore provide rules on the payment of default interest due for late payments related to actions included in the 2010 work programme,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe work programme for the implementation in 2010 of the \u2018Better Training for Safer Food Programme\u2019 as set out in the Annex is hereby adopted. It constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 2\n1. The total amount of the financial contribution from the Commission for the implementation of the work programme shall be EUR 15 370 000, to be financed from the following budget lines of the General Budget of the European Union for 2010:\n(a)\n:\nbudget line no 17 04 07 01\n:\nEUR 14 000 000;\n(b)\n:\nbudget line no 17 01 04 05\n:\nEUR 260 000;\n(c)\n:\nbudget line no 17 01 04 31\n:\nEUR 1 110 000.\n2. The amount provided for in paragraph 1(c) shall be paid to the Agency and shall constitute an operating subsidy.\n3. Default interest due for late payment may also be paid from the same budget lines, in accordance with Article 83 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.\nArticle 3\nCumulated changes of the allocations to the specific actions covered by the work programme not exceeding 20 % of the maximum financial contribution provided for in Article 2(1) shall not be considered to be substantial within the meaning of Article 90(4) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, provided that they do not significantly affect the nature and objective of the work programme.\nThe authorising officer may adopt such changes in accordance with the principles of sound financial management and of proportionality.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2010.", "references": ["26", "24", "80", "65", "42", "12", "71", "76", "58", "11", "60", "15", "32", "31", "21", "68", "0", "36", "55", "27", "17", "50", "43", "88", "85", "23", "90", "29", "45", "78", "No Label", "9", "10", "38", "49", "66"], "gold": ["9", "10", "38", "49", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 May 2011\nproviding precautionary EU medium-term financial assistance for Romania\n(2011/288/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States\u2019 balances of payments (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission made after consulting the Economic and Financial Committee (EFC),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision 2011/289/EU (2), the Council has decided to continue to grant mutual assistance to Romania.\n(2)\nA precautionary medium-term financial assistance for Romania under the balance of payments facility for Member States appears to be appropriate under the current circumstances of still reduced capital inflows and remaining elevated fiscal and external imbalances. While under present market conditions Romania does not intend to request the disbursement of any instalment, the precautionary assistance will facilitate a continued orderly adjustment of the fiscal and the external deficits by strengthening credibility of the government\u2019s economic programme, including the continued fiscal adjustment, the consolidation of financial market reform, and an increased focus on product and labour market reforms and the increased absorption of Union structural funds. These measures should enhance Romania\u2019s growth potential, underpin monetary and financial stability, as well as confidence in Romania\u2019s currency (RON), and reduce the likelihood of negative balance sheet effects in the corporate and household sectors.\n(3)\nIf negative risks attached to the current baseline scenario of the Government\u2019s economic programme materialise, Romania would not be able to cover its external financing needs from available funding resources, largely due to decreased inflows of foreign direct investment and lower rollover rates for amortising debt, notably from banks. In such a stress scenario, the residual financing needs would have to be covered from activating the precautionary Union financial assistance. The stress scenario has been developed in close collaboration with International Monetery Fund (IMF) staff and underpins the additional financing needs of around EUR 5 billion to be covered from international financial assistance.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide Union support to Romania of up to EUR 1,4 billion on a precautionary basis under the facility providing Union medium-term financial assistance for Member States\u2019 balance of payments established in by Regulation (EC) No 332/2002. This assistance should be provided in conjunction with financial support from the IMF of SDR 3,09 billion (around EUR 3,6 billion) under a precautionary stand-by arrangement approved on 25 March 2011. The World Bank will continue support of EUR 400 million committed earlier under its development loan programme (DPL3) and will provide up to EUR 750 million of results-based financing for social assistance and health reforms.\n(5)\nThe assistance should be managed by the Commission who will agree with the authorities of Romania, after consulting the EFC, the specific economic policy conditions attached to the precautionary financial assistance. Those conditions should be laid down in a memorandum of understanding (MoU).\n(6)\nIn view of the precautionary nature of the assistance, Romania will not request the disbursement of any instalment under the Union loan, unless Romania is in difficulty as regards its balance of current payments or capital movements. In the case that Romania makes a request for funding to the Commission, the latter will decide, after having consulted the EFC, on the activation of the programme and on the amount and timing for making available any such instalment. The detailed financial terms related to possible disbursements will be laid down in a framework loan agreement (FLA).\n(7)\nThe precautionary financial assistance shall be provided with a view to contributing to the successful implementation of the Government\u2019s economic policy programme, and, in this way, shall support the sustainability of Romania\u2019s balance of payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Union shall make available to Romania a precautionary medium-term financial assistance amounting to a maximum of EUR 1,4 billion. In case the facility is activated and disbursements are provided, the assistance shall be provided in the form of a loan with a maximum average maturity of seven years.\n2. The precautionary Union financial assistance shall be available for activation, and disbursements may be requested, until 31 March 2013.\nArticle 2\n1. The assistance will be managed by the Commission in a manner consistent with Romania\u2019s undertakings and the recommendations by the Council, in particular in the context of the implementation of the national reform programme (NRP) as well as of the annual update of Romania\u2019s convergence programme (CP).\n2. The Commission shall agree with the Romanian authorities, after consulting the EFC, the specific economic policy conditions attached to the precautionary financial assistance as listed under Article 3(3). Those conditions shall be laid down in an MoU consistent with the undertakings and recommendations referred to in paragraph 1. The detailed financial terms shall be laid down by the Commission in an FLA.\n3. The Commission shall verify at regular intervals in collaboration with the EFC that the economic policy conditions attached to the assistance are fulfilled.\nArticle 3\n1. The activation of the precautionary Union financial assistance shall be examined by the Commission, following a written request by Romania to the Commission. The Commission, after consulting the EFC, shall decide if the activation of the programme and the subsequent request for disbursements under the assistance is justified, and shall decide on the amount and timing of such disbursements. In case the financial assistance is being activated, the funds may be made available in not more than three instalments, the amount and timing of which shall be laid down in an addendum to the MoU. Each instalment may be disbursed in one or more tranches.\n2. Upon an activation of the assistance, any disbursement of the loan, or parts thereof, shall be subject to the entry into force of the addendum to the MoU referred to in paragraph 1. The Commission shall decide on the disbursement of the Union loan, or parts thereof, after having obtained the opinion of the EFC.\n3. Any disbursement shall be made on the basis of a satisfactory implementation of the economic programme of the Romanian Government to be included in both the CP and the NRP; more particularly, the specific economic policy conditions laid down in the MoU, shall include, inter alia:\n(a)\nthe adoption of budgets and the implementation of policies in line with clear fiscal targets for the fiscal years 2011 to 2013 that underpin the continued fiscal consolidation with a view to stabilising the government debt to GDP ratio and put an end to the excessive deficit in line with the Council recommendations under the excessive deficit procedure;\n(b)\nthe requirement to attain progressively more restrictive benchmarks for the reduction in government payment arrears both at central government and local government levels;\n(c)\nthe introduction of an enhanced reporting system for the State-owned enterprises which are already part of the European system of accounts definition of the general government, and also for those which will likely be reclassified into the general government sector by Eurostat in 2011 and 2012, with a view to enabling the government to assess on a continuous basis the likely impact on the general government deficit and the evolution of arrears, subsidies and transfers, and losses linked to these enterprises;\n(d)\nthe continued monitoring of the public sector wage bill such that it respects the relevant limits set in the medium-term fiscal strategy;\n(e)\nthe introduction of a means-tested co-payment system for medical services, as well as an adequate system of checks and controls against the accumulation of arrears in the health system;\n(f)\nthe implementation of measures to improve the management of the public investment budget in line with the fiscal strategy 2012-2014 and with a focus on shifting from entirely domestically financed investment to Union co-financed investment;\n(g)\nthe review, update and publication of a multiannual debt management strategy on an annual basis;\n(h)\nthe implementation of policy measures aimed at rationalising the wage-setting system with a view to allowing wage developments to better reflect productivity and reforms increasing the flexibility of labour contracts and working time arrangements within an integrated flexicurity approach;\n(i)\nthe adoption of measures aiming at improving the market functioning in energy and transport, in line, where applicable, with Union legislation;\n(j)\nthe implementation of measures to facilitate the business environment in services in line with the service Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (3);\n(k)\nmeasures to further strengthen the prudential framework for credit institutions and to prepare the introduction of International Financial Reporting Standard as of 2012;\n(l)\nlegislatives amendments to ensure the mutual consistency between the law on the winding-up of insurance undertakings, the general law on insolvency and the law on insurance business and insurance supervision;\n(m)\nto improve the absorption of Union structural and cohesion funds and specific targets to be met for the cumulative aggregate level of certified expenditure under these funds.\n4. If required in order to finance the loan, the prudent use of interest rate swaps with counterparties of highest credit quality shall be permitted. The EFC shall be kept informed by the Commission of possible refinancing of the borrowings or restructuring of the financial conditions.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to Romania.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2011.", "references": ["88", "29", "58", "6", "2", "62", "43", "42", "50", "98", "86", "83", "20", "71", "54", "60", "81", "78", "67", "37", "44", "25", "23", "21", "57", "68", "92", "47", "19", "82", "No Label", "9", "10", "27", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "10", "27", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 425/2012\nof 21 May 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 371/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2012.", "references": ["25", "64", "16", "28", "8", "55", "60", "58", "87", "88", "26", "84", "50", "1", "69", "76", "59", "42", "67", "57", "17", "95", "54", "75", "3", "77", "7", "44", "41", "6", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1044/2010\nof 15 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for alfonsinos in Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (2) lays down quotas for 2009 and 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["37", "68", "98", "20", "15", "54", "6", "35", "63", "12", "88", "22", "57", "55", "87", "73", "72", "70", "8", "2", "50", "86", "38", "24", "18", "43", "49", "21", "92", "36", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 April 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms\n(2012/271/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 196 and 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nProtocol 31 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement to activities outside the four freedoms.\n(3)\nIn order to allow for such extended cooperation, Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should be amended by including within its scope Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection (3).\n(4)\nThe position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should therefore be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms, shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["80", "72", "27", "28", "47", "37", "0", "16", "60", "68", "74", "40", "32", "23", "4", "46", "75", "56", "12", "79", "67", "49", "62", "6", "42", "51", "54", "95", "73", "93", "No Label", "1", "3", "5", "9", "15", "82"], "gold": ["1", "3", "5", "9", "15", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 688/2011\nof 18 July 2011\nderogating, for 2011, from Regulation (EC) No 501/2008 by establishing an additional timetable for presenting and selecting information and promotion programmes for fresh fruit and vegetables on the internal market and in third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 of 17 December 2007 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries (1), and in particular Article 15 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 specifies that the sectors or products which may be the subject of information provision and promotion measures financed in full or in part from the budget of the European Union are to be determined bearing in mind in particular the need to tackle specific or short-term difficulties in individual sectors.\n(2)\nArticle 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 specifies that the products that may be the subject of information provision and promotion measures financed in full or in part from the budget of the European Union and to be carried out in third countries are specifically those for which export opportunities or potential new market outlets exist, especially where export refunds will not be required.\n(3)\nThe fresh fruit and vegetable sector is being adversely affected by an unprecedented crisis on account of an epidemic caused by the Escherichia coli bacteria. This epidemic has led to a crisis of confidence among consumers which has led to a substantial drop in consumption. Consumer confidence in fresh fruit and vegetable products produced in the EU should therefore be strengthened.\n(4)\nThis crisis of confidence has also led to acute economic difficulties, such that the economic survival of a significant number of farms in the EU fresh fruit and vegetable sector is in jeopardy. The opportunities for exporting fresh fruit and vegetable products produced in the EU to third countries should therefore be increased.\n(5)\nIn this context it is appropriate to offer trade organisations representing the fresh fruit and vegetable sector the opportunity to benefit from EU part-financing under Regulation (EC) No 3/2008, and to that end they should be allowed to submit information and promotion programmes to the competent national authorities within the next few weeks, with a view to their selection and possible adoption by the Commission before the end of this year. These programmes may be submitted independently of the annual timing for adopting programmes and the usual timetable laid down in Articles 8 and 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 501/2008 of 5 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries (2).\n(6)\nThere is therefore reason to derogate, for 2011, for information and promotion programmes for fresh fruit and vegetables on the internal market and in third countries, from Regulation (EC) No 501/2008.\n(7)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor 2011 and notwithstanding the usual annual timetable provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 8(1) and in Article 11(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 501/2008, the following additional timetable shall be applied for information and promotion programmes for fresh fruit and vegetables on the internal market and in third countries:\n(a)\nthe trade and inter-branch organisations representing the fresh fruit and vegetable sector may submit their programmes to the Member States by 16 August 2011;\n(b)\nMember States shall notify the Commission of the provisional list of the programmes selected by 15 September 2011;\n(c)\nthe Commission shall decide which programmes it can part-finance by 15 November 2011 at the latest.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["87", "69", "50", "44", "89", "26", "75", "66", "58", "48", "16", "23", "86", "37", "94", "57", "82", "96", "39", "32", "40", "95", "90", "62", "7", "97", "81", "71", "73", "18", "No Label", "4", "10", "20", "24", "25", "38", "46", "68"], "gold": ["4", "10", "20", "24", "25", "38", "46", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1131/2011\nof 11 November 2011\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to steviol glycosides\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Article 10 and Article 30(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1333/2008 lays down a Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and their conditions of use.\n(2)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Authority\u2019) evaluated the safety of steviol glycosides, extracted from the leaves of the Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni plant, as sweetener and expressed its opinion on 10 March 2010 (2). The Authority established an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for steviol glycosides, expressed as steviol equivalents, of 4 mg/kg bodyweight/day. Conservative estimates of steviol glycosides exposure, both in adults and in children, suggest that it is likely that the ADI would be exceeded at the maximum proposed use levels.\n(3)\nTaking into account the conclusion of the Authority, the applicants submitted, in September 2010, revised uses and the Authority was requested to consider those uses. A statement on a new exposure assessment was published in January 2011 (3). Despite the revised uses, the conclusion was very similar, namely that both in adults and children the ADI can be exceeded for high-level consumers. The main contributors to the total anticipated exposure to steviol glycosides are non-alcoholic flavoured drinks (soft drinks).\n(4)\nWhile considering the need for new products which are energy-reduced to be placed on the market, the use of steviol glycosides as sweetener should be authorised at appropriate maximum use levels. Taking into account the potential significant contribution of soft drinks to the intake of steviol glycosides, a reduction in the use level for flavoured drinks, compared to the previously proposed use levels considered by the Authority, should be established.\n(5)\nThe Commission will request from producers and users of steviol glycosides information about the actual use of the food additive after its authorisation. The Commission will make such information available to the Member States. When necessary, the Commission will ask the Authority to perform a new refined exposure assessment, taking into account the real uses of steviol glycosides in the different subcategories of foodstuffs and the consumption of normal versus energy-reduced foodstuffs.\n(6)\nThe Authority expressed in its opinion the ADI for steviol glycosides as steviol equivalents. The dietary exposure to the steviol glycosides was also expressed as steviol equivalents. It is therefore appropriate that the maximum permitted use levels should also be expressed as steviol equivalents. Maximum levels of steviol glycosides are expressed as the sum of all named steviol glycosides mentioned in the specifications and can be converted to steviol equivalents using the conversion factors mentioned in the specifications.\n(7)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nTransitional provision\nBy way of derogation to Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1129/2011 of 11 November 2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing a Union list of food additives (4), the entries in Parts B and E of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 concerning steviol glycosides (E 960) shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 November 2011.", "references": ["99", "55", "27", "82", "34", "39", "19", "89", "37", "61", "48", "86", "24", "6", "60", "57", "45", "62", "10", "56", "7", "51", "81", "35", "59", "67", "17", "87", "49", "22", "No Label", "25", "38", "71", "72", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "71", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 12 July 2012\namending Decision 2009/11/EC authorising methods for grading pig carcasses in Spain\n(notified under document C(2012) 4711)\n(Only the Spanish text is authentic)\n(2012/384/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(m), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Decision 2009/11/EC (2), the use of four methods for grading pig carcasses in Spain was authorised.\n(2)\nSpain has stated that due to new technological developments and the development of new versions of two devices authorised in Spain it is necessary to calibrate those new devices in order to obtain new formulas for their use in Spain.\n(3)\nIn a significant group of slaughterhouses in Spain the number of slaughters does not exceed 500 pigs per week on yearly average basis. A method for pig carcass classification appropriate to their slaughter capacity is therefore needed.\n(4)\nSpain has requested the Commission to authorise three new methods for grading pig carcasses on its territory and has presented a detailed description of the dissection trial, indicating the principles on which those methods are based, the results of its dissection trial and the equations used for assessing the percentage of lean meat in the protocol provided for in Article 23(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/2008 of 10 December 2008 laying down detailed rules on the implementation of the Community scales for the classification of beef, pig and sheep carcasses and the reporting of prices thereof (3).\n(5)\nExamination of that request has revealed that the conditions for authorising those grading methods are fulfilled. Those grading methods should therefore be authorised in Spain.\n(6)\nDecision 2009/11/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nModifications of the apparatus or grading methods should not be allowed, unless they are explicitly authorised by Commission Implementing Decision.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2009/11/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThe use of the following methods is authorised for grading pig carcasses pursuant to point 1 of Section B.IV of Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (4) in Spain:\n(a)\nthe \u201cFat-O-Meat\u2019er (FOM)\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 1 of the Annex;\n(b)\nthe \u201cFully automatic ultrasonic carcase grading (Autofom)\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 2 of the Annex;\n(c)\nthe \u201cUltrafom 300\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 3 of the Annex;\n(d)\nthe \u201cAutomatic vision system (VCS2000)\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 4 of the Annex;\n(e)\nthe \u201cFat-O-Meat\u2019er II (FOM II)\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 5 of the Annex;\n(f)\nthe \u201cAutoFOM III\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 6 of the Annex;\n(g)\nthe \u201cmanual method (ZP)\u201d with a ruler and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 7 of the Annex.\nThe manual method ZP with a ruler, referred to in point (g) of the first paragraph, shall only be authorised for abattoirs:\n(a)\nwhere the number of slaughters does not exceed 500 pigs per week on yearly average basis; and\n(b)\nhaving a slaughter line with a capacity to process no more than 40 pigs per hour.\n(2)\nthe Annex is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2012.", "references": ["3", "31", "18", "4", "36", "54", "42", "20", "12", "41", "48", "72", "89", "85", "5", "37", "0", "66", "73", "35", "71", "76", "67", "94", "64", "83", "1", "60", "49", "33", "No Label", "39", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["39", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/92/EU\nof 21 December 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include bromuconazole as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included bromuconazole. By Commission Decision 2008/832/EC (4) it was decided not to include bromuconazole in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier, hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019, submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(3)\nThe application was submitted to Belgium, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as those that were the subject of Decision 2008/832/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008. Belgium evaluated the new information and data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 8 October 2010.\n(4)\nThe Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the additional report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority. The Authority then presented its conclusion on bromuconazole to the Commission on 29 July 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 23 November 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for bromuconazole.\n(5)\nThe additional report by the rapporteur Member State and the new conclusion by the Authority concentrate on the concerns that lead to the non-inclusion. Those concerns were, in particular, the high risk to aquatic organisms and the lack of information available to assess the potential contamination of surface water and groundwater.\n(6)\nThe new information submitted by the applicant allowed to assess the potential contamination of surface water and groundwater. The information currently available indicates that the risk of groundwater contamination is low and that the risk to aquatic organisms is acceptable.\n(7)\nConsequently, the additional data and information provided by the applicant permit to eliminate the specific concerns that led to the non-inclusion. No other open scientific questions have arisen.\n(8)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing bromuconazole may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include bromuconazole in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance may be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain confirmatory information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that the inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information on residues of triazole derivative metabolites (TDMs) in primary crops, rotational crops and products of animal origin, in addition to information regarding the long-term risk to herbivorous mammals. To further refine the assessment of potential endocrine disrupting properties, it is appropriate to require that bromuconazole be subjected to further testing as soon as OECD test guidelines on endocrine disruption, or, alternatively, Community agreed test guidelines exist.\n(10)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 June 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 February 2011.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2010.", "references": ["54", "94", "82", "16", "39", "13", "26", "95", "68", "47", "70", "36", "42", "44", "0", "81", "59", "89", "43", "85", "21", "87", "24", "14", "17", "72", "92", "71", "20", "27", "No Label", "2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 8 February 2012\non State aid SA.28809 (C 29/10) (ex NN 42/10 and ex CP 194/09) implemented by Sweden in favour of Hammar Nordic Plugg AB\n(notified under document C(2012) 546)\n(Only the Swedish text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/293/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1), and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter dated 26 May 2009, registered on 16 June 2009, the Commission received a complaint concerning the alleged grant of State aid to Hammar Nordic Plugg AB through the sale of public property below market price by the Municipality of V\u00e4nersborg.\n(2)\nOn 27 October 2009, the Commission forwarded a non-confidential version of the complaint to the national authorities. Sweden replied by letter of 30 November 2009, registered on the same day.\n(3)\nOn 9 March 2010, the Commission requested further information and Sweden replied by letter dated 20 April 2010.\n(4)\nOn 11 May 2010, the Commission received information submitted by Chips AB.\n(5)\nBy means of the letter dated 27 October 2010, the Commission notified Sweden that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2) (TFEU) in respect of the aid. The Commission decision to initiate the procedure (\u2018the opening decision\u2019) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.\n(6)\nBy letter dated 23 November 2010, Sweden asked for an extension of the deadline to submit comments on the opening decision.\n(7)\nBy letters dated 15 and 17 December 2010, the Swedish authorities submitted their comments to the Commission. Hammar Nordic Plugg AB submitted its comments to the Commission by letter of 22 January 2011.\n(8)\nOn 1 February 2011, the Commission sent the observations of Hammar Nordic Plugg AB to the Swedish authorities for comments.\n(9)\nOn 1 June 2011, the Commission sent a further request for information, to which Sweden replied by letter of 29 June 2011 and sent further clarifications by emails of 12 September 2011 and 30 September 2011.\n(10)\nOn 6 June 2011, the Commission sent a questionnaire to Chips AB, to which the company did not reply directly. Some information was provided, however, by Chips AB to the Swedish authorities, which incorporated this information into their abovementioned comments of 12 September 2011.\n(11)\nOn 19 October 2011, a meeting took place between the Commission services and representatives of Hammar Nordic Plugg AB.\n(12)\nBy e-mail of 3 November 2011, Hammar Nordic Plugg AB submitted additional information to the Commission. The Commission forwarded that information to the Swedish authorities for comments on 4 November 2011. Sweden confirmed on 28 November 2011 that the authorities had no comments.\n2. DESCRIPTION\n2.1 The beneficiary and the parties involved\n(13)\nThe beneficiary of the measure is Hammar Nordic Plugg AB (\u2018Hammar\u2019). It is a limited company whose business consists of property rental and real estate management. The company is based in Trollh\u00e4ttan, in the province of V\u00e4stra G\u00f6taland (Sweden). Hammar is 100 % owned by its parent company Hammar Nordic Fastigheter AB, which in turn is wholly owned by a private individual, Anders Hammar (4).\n(14)\nThe Municipality of V\u00e4nersborg (\u2018the Municipality\u2019) is situated in the province of V\u00e4stra G\u00f6taland in Sweden, close to Norway. According to the Swedish Regional Aid map 2007-2013, the Municipality is not located in an assisted area.\n(15)\nFastighets AB V\u00e4nersborg (\u2018FABV\u2019) is a real estate company wholly owned by the Municipality.\n(16)\nTopp Livsmedel (\u2018Topp\u2019) belonged to Chips AB (5), a division of the international business group Orkla ASA (\u2018Orkla\u2019).\n(17)\nThe property subject to the measure (\u2018the Facility\u2019) comprises two plots of land, a production site, movable property and intellectual property rights (e.g. trademarks). It is located in Br\u00e5landa, a small community in the Municipality. Until 2007, Topp produced frozen vegetables in the Facility with about 30 employees.\n2.2 Overview of the measure\n(18)\nBy letter dated 26 May 2009, the Commission received a complaint concerning an alleged grant of State aid through the sale of public property (the Facility) below market price.\n(19)\nThe facts are as follows. At the end of 2007, Chips AB announced that it would shut down production at Topp and started the process of selling the Facility.\n(20)\nOn 13 February 2008, the Municipality - through FABV - bought the Facility from Chips AB for SEK 17 million (EUR 1,7 million) (6).\n(21)\nAlso on 13 February 2008, FABV entered into two agreements with Hammar. The first agreement was a tenancy agreement by which FABV let the whole Facility to Hammar (7). The second agreement consisted of an option allowing Hammar to buy the Facility from FABV for the set price of SEK 8 million (EUR 0,8 million) at any time between 1 March 2008 and 28 February 2010. Hammar exercised its option and acquired the Facility from FABV for the set price on 11 August 2008.\n(22)\nBy agreement of 1 March 2008, Hammar sub-let most of the Facility to local entrepreneurs at a rent (8) higher than the rent agreed between FABV and Hammar. In addition, as a condition for signing the tenancy agreement, the local entrepreneurs demanded an option to purchase the Facility in the future, should Hammar become owner of the Facility. The option agreement was signed on that same date, giving the local entrepreneurs the right to acquire the Facility for SEK 40 million (EUR 4 million).\n(23)\nOn 2 September 2008, a contract was concluded between Hammar and the local entrepreneurs selling the Facility to the latter for the agreed price of SEK 40 million.\n3. THE OPENING DECISION\n(24)\nThe Commission had reasons to believe that the FABV\u2019s sale of the Facility to Hammar involved State aid. On 27 October 2010, therefore, the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure on that transaction (9).\n(25)\nSweden and Hammar have provided comments to the opening of the formal investigation procedure.\n(26)\nSweden is of the view that FABV\u2019s sale of the Facility to Hammar does not constitute State aid. It maintains that the sole objective of the Municipality when buying the Facility through FABV was to secure continued production and jobs. As it had no intention of running operations itself, the Municipality opted for the solution proposed by Hammar, i.e. a lease with an option to buy. Sweden also notes that the option granted to Hammar required a capital injection of SEK 9 million (EUR 0,9 million) from the Municipality\u2019s budget to FABV, to provision for the loss that would arise if Hammar exercised the option.\n(27)\nHammar argues that FABV\u2019s purchase of the Facility from Chips AB was undertaken at an excessively high price which could entail State aid to Orkla. In addition, Hammar argues that its purchase of the Facility from FABV was carried out on market terms and that the sale neither affected trade between Member States nor distorted competition.\n(28)\nIn order to support its allegations, Hammar provided an ex post assessment of the value of the Facility dated 20 January 2011, prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (\u2018the PwC report\u2019). That report maintains that the degree of uncertainty when estimating the market price of this type of property is so great that the price could be said to have been close to market terms each time the Facility was sold (i.e. FABV\u2019s purchase from Chips AB, the subsequent sale to Hammar and finally Hammar\u2019s sale to the local entrepreneurs). In particular, in relation to FABV\u2019s sale to Hammar and to the subsequent sale to local entrepreneurs, the PwC report considers that the prices paid were market-conform, given the financial conditions in the two tenancy agreements (i.e. between FABV and Hammar on the one hand and between Hammar and the local entrepreneurs on the other).\n(29)\nAt the meeting with the Commission services on 19 October 2011 and in its submission to the Commission of additional information of 3 November 2011, Hammar argued that, at the time the Municipality and Hammar agreed to give the latter an option to acquire the Facility for SEK 8 million, there were no other bids for the Facility and thus this price should be considered the market price, irrespective of any valuations which are necessarily hypothetical.\n(30)\nOn 3 November 2011, Hammar submitted a report to the Commission prepared by Copenhagen Economics A/S (10) (\u2018Copenhagen Economics\u2019) concerning the possible effect on trade between Member States of both FABV\u2019s purchase of the Facility from Chips AB and the subsequent sale of the Facility to Hammar. The report concludes that the first transaction had the potential to affect intra-Union trade, because the seller Chips AB is an international company - the Finnish subsidiary of the Norwegian group Orkla - that competes internationally. By contrast, the report argues that FABV\u2019s sale of the Facility to Hammar had no or an insignificant effect on intra-Union trade, as Hammar operates only at local level and does not encounter international competitors on the relevant market(s).\n4. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE\n4.1. Existence of State aid\n(31)\nIn order to assess whether FABV\u2019s sale of the Facility to Hammar entailed State aid, it needs to be assessed in the light of Article 107(1) TFEU, which provides that \u2018any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(32)\nThe Commission notes that the beneficiary of the measure, i.e. Hammar, qualifies as an undertaking since it pursues economic activities, offering real estate and real-estate-related services on the market.\n(33)\nThe transaction was concluded by the Municipality through FABV. FABV is wholly owned by the Municipality, which covers FAVB\u2019s potential losses from its normal budget. FABV\u2019s board is made up of members taken from the Municipality\u2019s ruling body. Thus, the decisions of FABV are imputable to the State and, to the extent that they have financial implications, they imply the use of State resources. Moreover, the Municipality was clearly involved in this operation, as the option granted to Hammar required a capital injection of SEK 9 million from the Municipality to FABV to provision for the loss that would arise if Hammar exercised the option. In this respect, the Commission concludes that the sale of the Facility to Hammar involved State resources.\n(34)\nSince the transaction benefited a specific undertaking (i.e. Hammar), it has to be considered a selective measure.\n(35)\nThe measure distorts or has the potential to distort competition and affect trade within the Union and the European Economic Area (\u2018EEA trade\u2019) within the meaning of the State aid case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In order to maintain that the selective advantage entailed in the sale of the Facility to Hammar had no or an insignificant effect on trade, the report prepared by Copenhagen Economics (see recital 30) argues that the real estate market in which Hammar is active is purely local. However, the potential effect on trade does not depend on whether a particular aid recipient happens to be active internationally or only nationally, but on whether the goods or services in which he trades are or could be subject to intra-Union trade (11). That criterion is met in this case, given that real estate and real-estate-related services are subject to intra-Union trade and investment, a fact which, in the present case, is substantiated by the fact that the previous owner of the Facility (Chips AB) is the Finnish-based subsidiary of Orkla, a group with international operations. This constitutes evidence of cross-border interest in the asset in question, i.e. the Facility, which, moreover, is not an empty plot of land but an operational production facility for frozen foodstuffs.\n(36)\nTherefore, the Commission is of the view that, even if Hammar operates exclusively at local level, the company is active in a market where an effect on intra-Union and EEA trade and competition cannot be ruled out. The arguments put forward by Hammar thus give the Commission no reason to depart from the preliminary findings of the opening decision on this criterion.\n(37)\nThe sole criterion of the State aid definition under discussion, therefore, is whether FABV\u2019s sale of the Facility conferred an advantage on Hammar. On the basis of the information available, the Commission is of the view that FABV sold the Facility to Hammar at a price below its market value, which a private market investor is unlikely to do, thereby granting an advantage to Hammar.\n(38)\nThe present case concerns the sale of certain assets in public ownership to a private undertaking. Some of those assets are real estate (land and buildings) and to assess the presence of aid in those cases the Commission applies the Commission Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (12) (\u2018the Communication\u2019). When the sale concerns other types of assets, the Commission applies the test of the private operator in a market economy, i.e. it assesses whether the public seller behaved as a private investor operating in a market economy. However, since the Communication is based on the same private investor test, for ease of presentation, the Commission will refer to that Communication to assess the whole transaction (13).\n(39)\nIn particular, in accordance with point II.1 of the Communication, the existence of State aid in favour of the buyer is automatically ruled out when the sale follows \u2018a sufficiently well-publicised, open and unconditional bidding procedure, comparable to an auction, accepting the best or only bid\u2019. According to the information gathered by the Commission, it appears that no bidding procedure was organised by FABV for the sale of the Facility. Therefore, the presence of State aid cannot be automatically ruled out on that ground.\n(40)\nHammar argues that the price of SEK 8 million reflects the market value of the Facility because at the time the option was agreed there were no other bids. The Commission notes, however, that the Municipality\u2019s sale of the Facility was not transparent and open to other bidders. Consequently, the price at which it was sold does not allow the Commission to draw any conclusion as to its genuine market value (14). In addition, the Commission notes that FABV purchased the Facility for SEK 17 million on 13 February 2008, and on the same date agreed to provide a purchase option to Hammar for the much lower price of SEK 8 million.\n(41)\nPoint II.2(a) of the Communication further provides that, if the sale takes place without an unconditional bidding procedure, \u2018an independent evaluation should be carried out by one or more independent asset valuers prior to the sale negotiations in order to establish the market value on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards\u2019. The Commission notes that FABV did not request any independent evaluation of the Facility prior to the sale negotiations.\n(42)\nHowever, notwithstanding the absence of an open and unconditional bidding procedure and of an independent evaluation prior to the sale negotiations, the market value of the Facility as it was sold by FABV to Hammar can be inferred from other information available.\n(43)\nIndeed, when the Facility was put up for sale in late 2007, Chips AB commissioned Colliers International (15) to draw up a memorandum of sale for the Facility. Colliers International indicated a sale price of SEK 27 million (EUR 2,7 million) for the real estate alone, i.e. not including movable property and intellectual property rights. As noted in the opening decision, the Commission believes this to constitute a reasonable estimate of the market price because (i) the estimate was obtained prior to the sale negotiations; (ii) it was commissioned by Chips AB in relation to the sale of the Facility, i.e. in a context where Chips AB could reasonably have had no other interest than to obtain an accurate estimate of the market value; (iii) the study was performed by a third party independent of both seller and buyer; and (iv) Colliers International has wide experience in the real estate sector. However, Hammar contests the Commission\u2019s preliminary view that this evaluation was independent, as it was commissioned by the seller. Hammar also considers that the assumptions used by Colliers International were not realistic (inter alia as it assumed only a 10 % vacancy rate), in view of the situation of the Facility at the time of the transaction.\n(44)\nAnother possible indicator of the market price of the Facility is contained in the valuation carried out by Swedbank Kommersiella Fastigheter (16) (\u2018Swedbank\u2019) in June 2008. This valuation was done on behalf of the local entrepreneurs who subsequently bought the Facility and was intended for the purposes of a loan for the acquisition of the Facility. Swedbank estimated the market value of the Facility at SEK 30 million (EUR 3 million), even though the premises valued were smaller than the total size of the Facility (17). The vacancy rate assumption used by Swedbank was 35 %, while all other assumptions were comparable to those used by Colliers International.\n(45)\nThe PwC report provides a series of market value estimates for the Facility depending on the moment at which it was sold. For instance, the report concludes that the value of the Facility at the time of the sale from Chips AB to FABV was approximately SEK 9 million, while it was approximately SEK 5,5 million (EUR 0,55 million) when rented by Hammar from FABV on the same date (13 February 2008). The PwC report provides a third estimate of the market value of the Facility at the time when Hammar rented it to the local entrepreneurs (1 March 2008) of approximately SEK 21 million (EUR 2,1 million).\n(46)\nThe Commission first notes that the PwC report provides diverging figures for the market value of the Facility over a short period of time. Given that the market value of real estate tends to remain relatively constant in the short term, except in the occurrence of exceptional circumstances, the Commission has strong doubts as to some of the valuations provided in the PwC report, in particular in view of the fact that all transactions took place within a very short timeframe.\n(47)\nIn relation to the first two valuations of the Facility contained in the PwC report (SEK 9 million and SEK 5,5 million, respectively), the Commission comes to the conclusion that, when compared to the contemporaneous estimates of Colliers International and Swedbank, these two valuations appear unrealistic. On the one hand, in relation to the estimate of SEK 5,5 million, the Commission notes that PricewaterhouseCoopers (\u2018PwC\u2019) bases its valuation on the cash flows derived from the rents paid by Hammar to FABV for the rental of the Facility, rents which PwC itself acknowledges to be very low compared to the normal return on a comparable industrial facility. This is particularly striking when compared to the rents charged by Hammar to the local entrepreneurs only a few days later, which were approximately seven times higher (see footnotes 7 and 8). In view of this, the Commission concludes that the rents charged to Hammar were below market price. The Commission thus considers that the valuation of SEK 5,5 million, which rests on an assumed level of rental income which is below market level, does not reflect the true market value of the Facility. On the other hand, the estimate of SEK 9 million rests on an assumed vacancy rate of 100 % in the two first years of ownership, which then falls to 75 % in year 3 and 50 % in year 4 and levels out at 60 % for the remainder of the period covered by the valuation. However, the assumed vacancy rate disregards the fact that, at the time of the sale, it was known that the local entrepreneurs were prepared to rent the Facility, and that consequently the value to assess is that of the Facility with a tenant.\n(48)\nThe third estimate of the PwC report places the market value of the Facility at the time when Hammar sold it to the local entrepreneurs at approximately SEK 21 million, even if the premises covered by that estimate are somewhat smaller than the total size of the Facility (see footnote 17). That estimate is based on essentially the same methodology as the estimates by Colliers International and Swedbank, and uses as its main assumption the terms of the tenancy agreement between Hammar and the local entrepreneurs, i.e. the terms of the actual lease that applied at the time of the sale. It must also be noted that the terms of the lease presumably were market conform, in particular since they were agreed between two private market operators arguably having only economically rational motives. The Commission thus considers that the third estimate of the market value of the Facility contained in the PwC report is plausible.\n(49)\nTherefore, irrespective of which estimate of the Facility\u2019s market value one chooses (the Colliers International one, the Swedbank one, or the third estimate in the PwC report), it is clear that the price of SEK 8 million at which FABV sold the Facility to Hammar was well below market price, and consequently that it granted an advantage to Hammar.\n(50)\nSince all the necessary criteria of Article 107(1) TFEU are met, the Commission concludes that the measure under assessment constitutes State aid. Moreover, since this State aid measure was provided to the beneficiary without prior Commission authorisation, it constitutes unlawful aid.\n(51)\nThe advantage for the beneficiary will correspond to the difference between the price paid by Hammar, i.e. SEK 8 million, and the market price of the Facility.\n(52)\nIn establishing the market price of the Facility, the Commission will examine the possible alternatives and estimates available, namely: (i) the SEK 17 million effectively paid by FABV to Chips AB on 18 February 2008; (ii) the SEK 40 million effectively paid by the local entrepreneurs to Hammar; (iii) the SEK 27 million estimated by Colliers International before the sale; (iv) the SEK 30 million estimated by Swedbank in June 2008; and (v) the SEK 21 million valuation contained in the PwC report.\n(53)\nThe Commission considers that the price of SEK 17 million paid by FABV to Chips AB at the time of its purchase of the Facility does not constitute compelling evidence of the market value. The Commission has already explained in the opening decision that Chips AB accepted a price lower than the estimated market value of the Facility because it wanted to avoid damage to its corporate reputation deriving from the closure of the Facility and the job losses that would have followed, It also wished to avail itself of the opportunity of a quick sale to close the book on its Topp operations. A private market operator not having these constraints (which are specific to Chips AB) would have requested a higher price. For those reasons, the Commission does not deem it necessary to reply to the argument of Hammar (summarised in recital 27 of the present Decision), which moreover concerns a point which is not part of the formal investigation.\n(54)\nOn the basis of the information received in the course of the formal investigation procedure, the Commission has also found that the amount of SEK 40 million agreed with the local entrepreneurs does not seem a good proxy for the market price of the Facility, because the entrepreneurs financed this agreed amount partly through a bank loan and partly through a loan from Hammar itself. The large proportion of funding provided by the seller (who is the same time creditor of the transaction) and the corresponding credit risk borne by him do not directly support the argument that the nominal price of SEK 40 million represents the actual financial value of the Facility. The nominal price paid in this transaction is thus not compelling evidence of the price that would have been paid for the Facility in a sale on market terms, but it is certainly a further indication that the price of SEK 8 million does not reflect the market value of the Facility. Indeed, the two options were set within a period of less than three weeks, and such a considerable price difference over a short period of time confirms that this amount was not a market price.\n(55)\nRegarding the estimates of Colliers International and Swedbank, the Commission sees in principle no reason to doubt that they are independent and produced according to generally accepted standards. However, the Commission acknowledges that those estimates are not immediately comparable, since some of the assumptions underlying the assessments diverge. On the basis of the information available, the Commission cannot be entirely certain as to whether those estimates provide the most reliable reflection of the true market value of the Facility, as they rely on assumptions and comparisons with other deals in the market rather than with transactions involving the Facility itself.\n(56)\nOn balance, the Commission considers it appropriate to use the market value from the third estimate in the PwC report. As noted in recital 48, the Commission acknowledges that that estimate - despite it being posterior to the transactions - is based on cash flow figures from a tenancy agreement that actually existed (the one between Hammar and the local entrepreneurs) and is thus based on actual market observations. In this respect, the estimate of SEK 21 million constitutes a plausible, albeit conservative, estimate of the market value of the Facility, when compared to the estimates of Colliers International and Swedbank. Moreover, the Commission observes that Hammar entered into an option agreement on 13 February 2008 to buy the Facility for SEK 8 million, and exercised that option on 11 August 2008. On 1 March 2008, Hammar entered into an option agreement with local entrepreneurs to sell the Facility for SEK 40 million and the contract of sale was concluded, in execution of the option, on 2 September 2008. The date which the PwC report uses as its basis for the estimated value of SEK 21 million for the Facility is 1 March 2008. Given the proximity in time between all these transactions, there is no reason to believe that the market value of the Facility could have been substantially different from SEK 21 million at the time when Hammar bought it or entered into the option agreement.\n(57)\nOn this basis, the advantage to Hammar amounts to SEK 13 million (EUR 1,3 million). The advantage is calculated as the difference between the market value of SEK 21 million and the actual price of SEK 8 million paid by Hammar for the Facility.\n4.2. Compatibility of the aid\n(58)\nNeither Sweden nor Hammar have put forward arguments on the compatibility of the aid. The only objectives indicated by the Swedish authorities with respect to the measure at stake were the political intentions of the Municipality to preserve the business as a going concern and at the same time to safeguard employment in the V\u00e4nersborg area.\n(59)\nGiven that the Municipality is not located in an assisted area (see recital 14), it is not eligible for regional aid. The types of objective for the measure put forward by Sweden could be taken into consideration in the light of the Communication from the Commission - Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (18). However, there are no indications that the conditions laid down in these Guidelines would be met in this case. In particular, nothing indicates that Hammar was a firm in difficulty at the time of its purchase of the Facility.\n(60)\nIn any event, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated so far that the measure was necessary and proportionate to attain any objectives of common interest. Therefore, the Commission has not identified any grounds to declare the aid compatible with the internal market in the light of Article 107(3) TFEU.\n(61)\nNo other grounds for compatibility seem to apply. The Commission therefore concludes that the sale of the Facility to Hammar by the Municipality constitutes State aid that is unlawful and incompatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n4.3. The tenancy agreement and the price of the option\n(62)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission also raised doubts as to the compliance with market conditions of the tenancy agreement concluded between FABV and Hammar on 13 February 2008 and the price of the option granted to Hammar to purchase the Facility (see paragraph 38 of the opening decision).\n(63)\nRegarding the tenancy agreement, the Commission considers that it entails State aid, given that the necessary requirements of Article 107(1) TFEU are met for the same reasons set out in section 4.1 above: (i) the beneficiary of the measure, i.e. Hammar, qualifies as an undertaking; (ii) the decisions of FABV are imputable to the State, and to the extent that they have financial implications, they imply the use of State resources; (iii) the measure is selective, since it benefited a specific undertaking; (iv) as explained in recital 47, and as recognised by the PwC report submitted by Hammar itself, the Commission considers that the rents charged by FABV to Hammar are below market price and therefore entail an advantage to Hammar; and (v) even if Hammar operates exclusively at local level, it is active in a market where an effect on intra-Union and EEA trade and competition cannot be ruled out.\n(64)\nIn order to determine the advantage enjoyed by Hammar, a comparison should be made between the rent agreed between FABV and Hammar on 13 February 2008 - SEK 0,5 million for the first year - and the rent agreed on 1 March 2008 between Hammar and the local entrepreneurs - SEK 3,5 million for the first year. The Commission considers that the terms of this latter agreement represent the market value for letting the Facility, given that it was agreed between two private parties with economically rational motives. It must also be noted in this respect that the PwC report uses the latter amount to calculate the value of the Facility. Given that Hammar paid rent to the Municipality only between 1 March 2008 and 11 August 2008, the date on which it exercised its option, i.e. for approximately six months, a pro rata calculation of the SEK 3 million advantage, being the difference between the rent agreed between FABV and Hammar and the rent agreed between Hammar and the local entrepreneurs, would lead to a figure of SEK 1,5 million (EUR 0,15 million).\n(65)\nGiven that no compatibility grounds apply or have been invoked (see Section 4.2), the Commission concludes that the tenancy agreement concluded between FABV and Hammar on 13 February 2008 entails State aid that is unlawful and incompatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(66)\nIn relation to the price of the option granted to Hammar to purchase the Facility, the Commission notes that this option does not seem to be enforceable as, under Swedish law, commitments to buy or sell real estate at a point in the future are in principle not binding (19). The advantage that Hammar could have derived from such an option is thus very uncertain, if not inexistent, and in any event may well have been outweighed by the rent paid or the sale price. It can thus not be firmly established that Hammar derived an advantage from that option separate from the advantage it received through the tenancy agreement and subsequent sale of the Facility.\n5. RECOVERY\n(67)\nArticle 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (20) lays down that \u2018where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary\u2019.\n(68)\nGiven that the measure at hand constitutes unlawful and incompatible aid, the amount of aid must be recovered in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid. Recovery shall therefore be effected from the time when the advantage occurred to the beneficiary, i.e. when the aid was put at the disposal of the beneficiary, and shall bear recovery interest until effective recovery.\n(69)\nThe incompatible aid element of the measures should be calculated as SEK 14,5 million, consisting of the difference between the market price of the Facility (SEK 21 million) and the price paid by Hammar (SEK 8 million), which amounts to SEK 13 million, plus the amount that should be recovered under the lease agreement (SEK 1,5 million).\n(70)\nRecovery interest should be paid on that recovery amount. For the incompatible aid element of SEK 13 million, recovery interest should be calculated as from the date on which Hammar exercised its option and acquired the Facility from FABV, i.e. 11 August 2008. For the incompatible aid element of SEK 1,5 million, recovery interest should be calculated as from the date on which the rent was due, i.e. 1 March 2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid amounting to SEK 14,5 million, unlawfully granted by Sweden, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of Hammar Nordic Plugg AB in the form of selling and renting of public property in Br\u00e5landa, in the Municipality of V\u00e4nersborg, below its market value is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\n1. Sweden shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1 from Hammar Nordic Plugg AB.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of Hammar Nordic Plugg AB until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (21).\nArticle 3\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Sweden shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. Within two months following the date of notification of this Decision, Sweden shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Sweden shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Sweden.\nDone at Brussels, 8 February 2012.", "references": ["13", "1", "71", "80", "34", "53", "3", "67", "88", "39", "73", "69", "35", "90", "83", "85", "58", "33", "54", "92", "44", "99", "21", "59", "76", "56", "50", "36", "22", "70", "No Label", "8", "11", "15", "25", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "11", "15", "25", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 394/2010\nof 6 May 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 374/2010 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 May 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 May 2010 were fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 374/2010 (3).\n(2)\nAs the average of the import duties calculated differs by more than EUR 5/tonne from that fixed, a corresponding adjustment must be made to the import duties fixed by Regulation (EU) No 374/2010.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 374/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 374/2010 are hereby replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 7 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2010.", "references": ["49", "72", "40", "81", "93", "15", "7", "74", "76", "48", "91", "82", "21", "77", "87", "63", "11", "31", "62", "53", "75", "54", "96", "51", "19", "5", "83", "66", "44", "42", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1362/2011\nof 19 December 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Ptujski l\u00fck (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovenia\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Ptujski l\u00fck\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["33", "89", "87", "34", "66", "9", "31", "3", "94", "39", "78", "86", "43", "74", "27", "70", "28", "72", "90", "71", "14", "57", "42", "60", "48", "26", "38", "40", "17", "62", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1170/2011\nof 16 November 2011\nrefusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 17(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on foods are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as \u2027the Authority\u2027.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission thereof, and to deliver an opinion on the health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nFollowing an application from Prof. Dr. Moritz Hagenmeyer and Prof. Dr. Andreas Hahn, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of water and reduction of the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-05014) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2027Regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance\u2027.\n(6)\nArticle 2(2)(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 defines reduction of disease risk claims as \u2027any health claim that states, suggests or implies that the consumption of a food category, a food or one of its constituents significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease\u2027. Upon request for clarification, the applicant proposed water loss in tissues or reduced water content in tissues as risk factors of dehydration. On the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 16 February 2011 that the proposed risk factors are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of the disease. Accordingly, as a risk factor in the development of a disease is not shown to be reduced, the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and it should not be authorised.\n(7)\nFollowing an application from FrieslandCampina, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of acidic calcium-containing fruit juices on reduction of tooth demineralisation (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00501) (3). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded, inter alia, as follows: \u2027Reduced risk for dental erosion\u2027.\n(8)\nArticle 2(2)(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 defines reduction of disease risk claims as \u2027any health claim that states, suggests or implies that the consumption of a food category, a food or one of its constituents significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease\u2027. Upon request for clarification, the applicant proposed tooth demineralisation as a risk factor for tooth erosion. On the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 18 February 2011 that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of acidic calcium-containing fruit juices in replacement of fruit juice without added calcium and the reduction of tooth demineralisation. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(9)\nThe comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(10)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe health claims listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall not be included in the Union list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["27", "56", "68", "54", "19", "31", "30", "35", "29", "99", "70", "58", "41", "66", "96", "74", "9", "52", "13", "23", "36", "21", "11", "3", "47", "79", "72", "42", "12", "22", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "39", "71", "84"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "39", "71", "84"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 30/2011\nof 14 January 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 24/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 January 2011.", "references": ["57", "34", "42", "17", "41", "29", "52", "28", "94", "90", "45", "61", "2", "60", "80", "0", "76", "96", "73", "53", "20", "92", "84", "33", "26", "8", "12", "38", "88", "98", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1128/2011\nof 7 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 November 2011.", "references": ["16", "2", "90", "34", "41", "46", "3", "76", "54", "23", "47", "14", "48", "82", "9", "0", "36", "8", "29", "71", "99", "70", "77", "80", "32", "60", "57", "53", "87", "65", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 18 November 2011\nadopting a fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region\n(notified under document C(2011) 8195)\n(2012/11/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Boreal biogeographical region referred to in Article 1(c)(iii) of Directive 92/43/EEC comprises parts of the Union territories of Finland and Sweden and the Union territories of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as specified in the biogeographical map approved on 20 April 2005 by the Committee set up by Article 20 of that Directive, hereinafter the \u2018Habitats Committee\u2019.\n(2)\nIt is necessary in the context of a process which was initiated in 1995 to make further progress in the actual establishment of the Natura 2000 network, which is an essential element of the protection of biodiversity in the Union.\n(3)\nThe initial list and the first four updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region, within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC, were adopted by Commission Decisions 2005/101/EC (2), 2008/24/EC (3), 2009/94/EC (4), 2010/46/EU (5) and 2011/84/EU (6). On the basis of Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Member State concerned shall designate the sites included in the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region as special areas of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most, establishing conservation priorities and the necessary conservation measures.\n(4)\nIn the context of a dynamic adaptation of the Natura 2000 network, the lists of sites of Community importance are reviewed. A fifth update of the Boreal list is therefore necessary.\n(5)\nOn the one hand, the fifth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region is necessary in order to include additional sites that have been proposed since 2009 by the Member States as sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC. For these additional sites, the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC should apply as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region.\n(6)\nOn the other hand, the fifth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region is necessary in order to reflect any changes in site related information submitted by the Member States following the adoption of the initial and the first four updated Union lists. In that sense, the fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region constitutes a consolidated version of the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region. It should be stressed that, for any site included in the fifth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region, the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC should apply as soon as possible and within six years at most following the adoption of the list of sites of Community importance in which the site was included for the first time.\n(7)\nFor the Boreal biogeographical region, lists of sites proposed as sites of Community importance within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC have been transmitted to the Commission between January 2003 and October 2010 by the Member States concerned in accordance with Article 4(1) of that Directive.\n(8)\nThe lists of proposed sites were accompanied by information on each site, supplied in the format established by Commission Decision 97/266/EC of 18 December 1996 concerning a site information format for proposed Natura 2000 sites (7).\n(9)\nThat information includes the map of the site transmitted by the Member States concerned, name, location and extent of the site, and the data yielded by application of the criteria specified in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(10)\nOn the basis of the draft list drawn up by the Commission in agreement with each of the Member States concerned, which also identifies sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, a fifth updated list of sites selected as sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region should be adopted.\n(11)\nKnowledge of the existence and distribution of the natural habitat types and species is constantly evolving as a result of the surveillance in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, the evaluation and selection of sites at EU level was done using the best available information at present\n(12)\nCertain Member States have not proposed sufficient sites to meet the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC for certain habitat types and species. For those habitat types and species it can therefore not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is complete. Taking into account the delay in receiving the information and reaching agreement with the Member States, it is necessary to adopt a fifth updated list of sites, which will need to be reviewed in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(13)\nGiven that knowledge on the existence and distribution of some of the natural habitat types of Annex I and species of Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC remains incomplete, it should not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is either complete or incomplete. The list should be reviewed, if necessary, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(14)\nIn the interests of clarity and transparency Decision 2011/84/EU should be repealed.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Habitats Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2011/84/EU is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["50", "14", "80", "57", "93", "33", "42", "25", "47", "30", "16", "39", "77", "31", "95", "85", "3", "68", "24", "45", "6", "60", "55", "19", "12", "7", "43", "74", "36", "76", "No Label", "58", "59", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["58", "59", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 733/2011\nof 22 July 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ko\u0142ocz \u015bl\u0105ski/ko\u0142acz \u015bl\u0105ski (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Ko\u0142ocz \u015bl\u0105ski/ko\u0142acz \u015bl\u0105ski\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2011.", "references": ["99", "17", "78", "0", "82", "22", "61", "55", "35", "38", "87", "59", "79", "11", "37", "45", "89", "95", "71", "44", "5", "23", "57", "43", "3", "56", "73", "1", "10", "83", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 5/2012\nof 19 December 2011\nfixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 43(3) of the Treaty provides that the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, is to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy (1) requires that measures governing access to waters and resources and the sustainable pursuit of fishing activities be established taking into account available scientific advice and, in particular, the report drawn up by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).\n(3)\nIt is incumbent upon the Council to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities by fishery or group of fisheries, including certain conditions functionally linked thereto, as appropriate. Fishing opportunities should be distributed among Member States in such a way as to assure each Member State relative stability of fishing activities for each stock or fishery and having due regard to the objectives of the common fisheries policy established in Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\n(4)\nThe total allowable catches (TACs) should be established on the basis of available scientific advice, taking into account biological and socioeconomic aspects whilst ensuring fair treatment between fishing sectors, as well as in the light of the opinions expressed during the consultation of stakeholders.\n(5)\nThe use of fishing opportunities set out in this Regulation should be subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (2) and in particular to Articles 33 and 34 thereof concerning respectively the recording of catches and fishing effort and the notification of data on the exhaustion of fishing opportunities. It is therefore necessary to specify the codes to be used by the Member States when sending data to the Commission relating to landings of stocks subject to this Regulation.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (3), the stocks that are subject to the various measures referred to therein must be identified.\n(7)\nIn order to avoid interruption of fishing activities and to ensure the livelihood of Union fishermen, it is important to open those fisheries on 1 January 2012. For reasons of urgency, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation fixes fishing opportunities for 2012 for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks in the Black Sea.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to EU vessels operating in the Black Sea.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018GFCM\u2019 means General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean;\n(b)\n\u2018Black Sea\u2019 means the GFCM geographical sub-area as defined in resolution GFCM/33/2009/2;\n(c)\n\u2018EU vessel\u2019 means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State and registered in the Union;\n(d)\n\u2018total allowable catch\u2019 (TAC) means the quantity that can be taken from each stock each year;\n(e)\n\u2018quota\u2019 means a proportion of the TAC allocated to the Union, a Member State or a third country.\nCHAPTER II\nFISHING OPPORTUNITIES\nArticle 4\nTACs and allocations\nThe TACs, the allocation of such TACs among Member States, and conditions functionally linked thereto, where appropriate, are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 5\nSpecial provisions on allocations\nThe allocation of fishing opportunities among Member States as set out in this Regulation shall be without prejudice to:\n(a)\nexchanges made pursuant to Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;\n(b)\nreallocations made pursuant to Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009;\n(c)\nadditional landings allowed pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(d)\nquantities withheld in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(e)\ndeductions made pursuant to Articles 37, 105 and 107 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\nArticle 6\nConditions for landing catches and by-catches\nFish from stocks for which TACs are established shall be retained on board or landed only if:\n(a)\nthe catches have been taken by vessels of a Member State having a quota and that quota is not exhausted; or\n(b)\nthe catches consist of a share in a Union quota which has not been allocated by quota among Member States, and that Union quota has not been exhausted.\nCHAPTER III\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 7\nData transmission\nWhen, pursuant to Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Member States send the Commission data relating to landings of quantities of stocks caught, they shall use the stock codes set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 8\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["87", "62", "77", "72", "75", "61", "26", "45", "64", "49", "74", "24", "25", "27", "73", "82", "39", "58", "51", "35", "66", "16", "95", "70", "38", "90", "6", "2", "30", "99", "No Label", "59", "67"], "gold": ["59", "67"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 25 October 2011\non mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/017 DK/Midtjylland Machinery from Denmark)\n(2011/725/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nDenmark submitted an application on 11 May 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in six enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 28 (\u2018Manufacture of machinery and equipment\u2019) in the NUTS II region of Midtjylland (DK04) and supplemented it by additional information up to 21 March 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 3 944 606.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Denmark,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 3 944 606 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["99", "55", "72", "30", "5", "48", "46", "78", "79", "9", "93", "59", "68", "41", "31", "63", "12", "84", "3", "35", "52", "61", "11", "27", "47", "65", "94", "28", "29", "13", "No Label", "15", "16", "40", "49", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "16", "40", "49", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 28 February 2012\nestablishing the best available techniques (BAT) conclusions under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions for the manufacture of glass\n(notified under document C(2012) 865)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/134/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (1) and in particular Article 13(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 13(1) of Directive 2010/75/EU requires the Commission to organise an exchange of information on industrial emissions between it and Member States, the industries concerned and non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection in order to facilitate the drawing up of best available techniques (BAT) reference documents as defined in Article 3(11) of that Directive.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Directive 2010/75/EU, the exchange of information is to address the performance of installations and techniques in terms of emissions, expressed as short- and long-term averages, where appropriate, and the associated reference conditions, consumption and nature of raw materials, water consumption, use of energy and generation of waste and the techniques used, associated monitoring, cross-media effects, economic and technical viability and developments therein and best available techniques and emerging techniques identified after considering the issues mentioned in points (a) and (b) of Article 13(2) of that Directive.\n(3)\n\u2018BAT conclusions\u2019 as defined in Article 3(12) of Directive 2010/75/EU are the key element of BAT reference documents and lay down the conclusions on best available techniques, their description, information to assess their applicability, the emission levels associated with the best available techniques, associated monitoring, associated consumption levels and, where appropriate, relevant site remediation measures.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 14(3) of Directive 2010/75/EU, BAT conclusions are to be the reference for setting permit conditions for installations covered by Chapter 2 of that Directive.\n(5)\nArticle 15(3) of Directive 2010/75/EU requires the competent authority to set emission limit values that ensure that, under normal operating conditions, emissions do not exceed the emission levels associated with the best available techniques as laid down in the decisions on BAT conclusions referred to in Article 13(5) of Directive 2010/75/EU.\n(6)\nArticle 15(4) of Directive 2010/75/EU provides for derogations from the requirement laid down in Article 15(3) only where the costs associated with the achievement of emissions levels disproportionately outweigh the environmental benefits due to the geographical location, the local environmental conditions or the technical characteristics of the installation concerned.\n(7)\nArticle 16(1) of Directive 2010/75/EU provides that the monitoring requirements in the permit referred to in point (c) of Article 14(1) of the Directive are to be based on the conclusions on monitoring as described in the BAT conclusions.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 21(3) of Directive 2010/75/EU, within 4 years of publication of decisions on BAT conclusions, the competent authority is to reconsider and, if necessary, update all the permit conditions and ensure that the installation complies with those permit conditions.\n(9)\nCommission Decision of 16 May 2011 establishing a forum for the exchange of information pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (2) established a forum composed of representatives of Member States, the industries concerned and non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection.\n(10)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Directive 2010/75/EU, the Commission obtained the opinion (3) of that forum on the proposed content of the BAT reference document for the manufacture of glass on 13 September 2011 and made it publicly available.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 75(1) of Directive 2010/75/EU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe BAT conclusions for the manufacture of glass are set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2012.", "references": ["36", "35", "9", "15", "86", "81", "11", "84", "46", "13", "88", "34", "93", "54", "21", "90", "22", "80", "71", "45", "44", "89", "64", "4", "75", "77", "97", "17", "7", "68", "No Label", "41", "58", "60", "76", "83"], "gold": ["41", "58", "60", "76", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 132/2012\nof 15 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2012.", "references": ["79", "88", "13", "76", "32", "39", "45", "11", "6", "55", "83", "57", "48", "95", "33", "26", "73", "85", "81", "74", "96", "4", "43", "78", "21", "90", "34", "47", "54", "72", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1350/2011\nof 20 December 2011\ntemporarily suspending customs duties on imports of certain cereals for the 2011/2012 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to promote the supply of cereals on the Community market during the first few months of the 2011/2012 marketing year, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 633/2011 (2) suspended customs duties for the import tariff quotas for common wheat of low and medium quality and feed barley opened by Commission Regulations (EC) No 1067/2008 (3) and (EC) No 2305/2003 (4) respectively, until 31 December 2011.\n(2)\nThe outlook for the cereals market of the European Union for the end of the 2011/2012 marketing year would suggest that prices will remain buoyant, given the low stock levels and the Commission\u2019s current estimates regarding the quantities which will actually be available from the 2011 harvest. In order to make it easier to maintain a flow of imports conducive to EU market equilibrium, there is a need to ensure continuity in cereal imports policy by keeping the temporary suspension of customs duties on imports during the 2011/2012 marketing year until 30 June 2012 for the import tariff quotas to which this measure currently applies.\n(3)\nMoreover, traders should not be penalised in cases where cereals are en route for importation into the EU. Therefore, the time required for transport should be taken into account and traders allowed to release cereals for free circulation under the customs-duty suspension regime provided for in this Regulation, for all products whose direct transport to the EU has started at the latest on 30 June 2012. The evidence to be provided to prove direct transport to the EU and the date on which the transport commenced should also be established.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure effective management of the procedure for issuing import certificates from 1 January 2012, this Regulation must enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The application of customs duties on imports of products falling within CN code 1001 99 00, of a quality other than high quality as defined in Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/1010 (5), and CN code 1003 is suspended for the 2011/2012 marketing year for all imports under the reduced-duty tariff quotas opened by Regulations (EC) No 1067/2008 and (EC) No 2305/2003.\n2. Where the cereals referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article are transported directly to the EU and such transport began at the latest on 30 June 2012, the suspension of customs duties under this Regulation shall continue to apply for the purposes of the release into free circulation of the products concerned.\nProof of direct transport to the EU and of the date on which the transport commenced shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities, by the original transport document.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["28", "45", "86", "93", "8", "66", "37", "29", "91", "90", "72", "79", "31", "87", "58", "73", "0", "85", "6", "78", "2", "48", "70", "80", "1", "30", "43", "84", "62", "14", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 335/2011\nof 7 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1091/2009 as regards the minimum content of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49755) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49754) as a feed additive in feed for chickens for fattening\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe use of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49755) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49754) was authorised for 10 years for chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1091/2009 of 13 November 2009 concerning the authorisation of an enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49755) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49754) as a feed additive for chickens for fattening (holder of authorisation Aveve NV) (2).\n(2)\nThe holder of the authorisation submitted an application for changing the terms of the authorisation of this feed additive when used in chickens for fattening by reducing the minimum recommended dose of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49755) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49754) from 4 000 XU (3)/kg and 900 BGU (4)/kg to 2 000 XU/kg and 450 BGU/kg. That application was accompanied by the relevant data supporting the request for the change.\n(3)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 10 November 2010 that the data provided from three trials in chickens for fattening do not support the reduction of the minimum recommended dose from 4 000 XU and 900 BGU/kg feed to 2 000 XU and 450 BGU/kg feed because analyses of the feeds showed that the intended doses were considerably exceeded. However, the data showed that the product is efficacious at a lower dose than the one currently authorised. According to the Authority the data indicates, as an approximation, that 3 000 XU and 600 BGU/kg feed has the potential to improve growth rate and feed to gain ratio in chickens for fattening (5).\n(4)\nThe conditions provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 are satisfied.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1091/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1091/2009 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 April 2011.", "references": ["48", "33", "94", "71", "12", "31", "23", "90", "14", "5", "51", "24", "28", "55", "43", "54", "97", "72", "7", "10", "39", "1", "81", "6", "49", "20", "40", "61", "80", "8", "No Label", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/225/CFSP\nof 26 April 2012\namending Decision 2010/232/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 April 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/232/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nThe Union has followed with respect and appreciation the historic changes in Burma/Myanmar over the past year and has encouraged the wide-ranging reforms to continue in a developing partnership with political and civil society actors. The Union has welcomed the concrete steps taken towards these ends.\n(3)\nIn view of these developments and as a means to welcome and encourage the reform process, restrictive measures should be suspended with the exception of the arms embargo and the embargo on equipment which might be used for internal repression which should be retained.\n(4)\nDecision 2010/232/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 15 of Decision 2010/232/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 15\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall apply until 30 April 2013.\n3. The measures referred to in Articles 3 to 13a shall be suspended until 30 April 2013.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe persons listed in the Annex shall be removed from the list of persons in part J of Annex II to Decision 2010/232/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2012.", "references": ["13", "27", "6", "36", "5", "19", "59", "32", "39", "50", "74", "89", "56", "69", "54", "26", "33", "76", "29", "83", "46", "49", "92", "37", "2", "80", "94", "86", "71", "28", "No Label", "3", "12", "23", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "12", "23", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 676/2010\nof 28 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2010.", "references": ["73", "65", "58", "10", "98", "87", "67", "15", "84", "14", "2", "33", "21", "34", "45", "70", "0", "19", "3", "86", "23", "99", "42", "64", "51", "80", "49", "52", "27", "93", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 37/2011\nof 18 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["23", "60", "18", "17", "46", "75", "30", "69", "48", "15", "54", "98", "32", "84", "3", "19", "13", "72", "1", "44", "33", "90", "91", "89", "73", "55", "78", "63", "96", "14", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1138/2011\nof 8 November 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Provisional measures\n(1)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 446/2011 (2) (the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends (FOH) originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (the countries concerned).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated by notice of initiation (NOI) published on 13 August 2010 (3) following a complaint lodged on 30 June 2010 by two Union producers, Cognis GmbH (Cognis) and Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH (Sasol), (together referred to as \u2018the complainants\u2019). These two companies represent a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of total Union production of the product investigated.\n(3)\nAs set out in recital 9 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 (\u2018the investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the IP (period considered).\n2. Subsequent procedure\n(4)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard.\n(5)\nThe Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.\n(6)\nSubsequently, all parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (final disclosure). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on this final disclosure.\n(7)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(8)\nThe product concerned is, as set out in recitals 10 and 11 of the provisional Regulation, saturated fatty alcohols with a carbon chain length of C8, C10, C12, C14, C16 or C18 (not including branched isomers) including single saturated fatty alcohols (also referred to as \u2018single cuts\u2019) and blends predominantly containing a combination of carbon chain lengths C6-C8, C6-C10, C8-C10, C10-C12 (commonly categorised as C8-C10), blends predominantly containing a combination of carbon chain lengths C12-C14, C12-C16, C12-C18, C14-C16 (commonly categorised as C12-C14) and blends predominantly containing a combination of carbon chain lengths C16-C18, originating in India, Indonesia, and Malaysia, currently falling within CN codes ex 2905 16 85, 2905 17 00, ex 2905 19 00 and ex 3823 70 00.\n(9)\nAfter the imposition of provisional measures certain parties complained about the ambiguity of the definition of the product concerned. They claimed that according to the NOI, only linear FOH is included in the product scope, thus excluding FOH containing branched isomers, or branched FOH. Other parties claimed that it does not make sense to exclude FOH containing branched isomers produced from the oxo process because they have the same use and compete with linear FOH in the market.\n(10)\nIt has been established that all types of FOH covered by this investigation, as described in recital 8, despite possible differences in terms of raw material used for the production, or variances in the production process, have the same or very similar basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and are used for the same purposes. The possible variations in the product concerned do not alter its basic definition, its characteristics or the perception that various parties have of it.\n(11)\nHence, the provisional decision to exclude FOH containing branched isomers from the product scope as mentioned in the NOI and to exclude these companies\u2019 production of branched FOH from the definition of the Union production (including those companies producing FOH from the oxo process) should be maintained. In the absence of any other comments regarding the product concerned, recitals 10 and 11 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Like product\n(12)\nIt is recalled that it was provisionally determined in recital 13 of the provisional Regulation that linear FOH and branched FOH are not like products and thus the data pertaining to producers producing FOH made of branched isomers should be excluded from the injury analysis.\n(13)\nIn the absence of any other comments regarding the like product, recitals 12 and 13 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\nC. DUMPING\n1. India\n1.1. Normal value\n(14)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the determination of normal value, the provisional findings in recitals 14 to 18 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n1.2. Export price\n(15)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the determination of export price, the provisional findings in recital 19 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n1.3. Comparison\n(16)\nFollowing provisional and definitive disclosures, both Indian exporting producers reiterated their claim that their sales made to one of the original complainants in the Union during the IP should be ignored when calculating the dumping margin (see recital 22 of the provisional Regulation). The companies based their claim on the fact that Article 9.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement provides for the amount of the duty to be imposed to be the full margin of dumping or less. The Indian exporting producers also referred to Article 2.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement pursuant to which a fair comparison shall be made between the export price and the normal value. On this basis, they alleged that the complainant had negotiated with them the purchase of very large quantities at very low prices at the same moment when it was preparing the complaint, and that therefore the prices of these transactions had not been set fairly, and for this reason such transactions should not be included in the dumping calculations.\n(17)\nFirst of all, it should be noted that the fact that the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement allows for the possibility to impose a duty below the full dumping margin does not create an obligation to do so. Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation merely imposes an obligation to limit the anti-dumping duty to a level sufficient to remove the injury. Moreover, there was no evidence that the prices had not been freely negotiated between the parties. An examination of the overall purchases made by the complainant in question also showed that the prices negotiated by the two Indian exporting producers were in line with the prices agreed for purchases of comparable products by the complainant in question from other suppliers. Furthermore, it was established that the complainant was importing from the Indian exporting producers the product concerned for a number of years and not only during the IP. Moreover, one exporting producer stated in an oral hearing chaired by the hearing officer that their prices to the complainant in question were structurally lower than those charged to other customers. In conclusion, there is no evidence that the prices had not been set in a fair way only because of the fact that the sales were made to a complainant and it is confirmed that the claim is rejected.\n(18)\nFollowing provisional and definitive disclosures, both Indian exporting producers reiterated their claim for an adjustment for currency conversion pursuant to Article 2(10)(j) of the basic Regulation arguing that there was a sustained appreciation of the Indian Rupee against the euro as from November 2009 which would have a distorting effect on the dumping calculations (see recital 23 of the provisional Regulation). Both exporting producers acknowledged that their sale prices in the second half of the IP were higher than those in the first half of the IP but they claimed that this trend was due exclusively to an increase in the costs of raw materials and to the general improvement in the market conditions following the end of the economic crisis, and did not reflect the appreciation of the Indian Rupee against the euro. Moreover, the companies claimed that even if they were able to adjust their prices regularly and at short intervals, they would never be able to predict exactly the developments in the exchange rates for a future period.\n(19)\nThe investigation has shown that even though the Indian Rupee appreciated progressively against the euro during the second half of the IP, for each Indian exporting producer its prices for sales of the main products to several main customers actually changed on a month-to-month basis, in particular during the second half of the IP. Therefore, there is no indication that prices for sales to the Union could not have been modified at the same time to reflect also changes in currency exchange rates within 60 days as provided for in Article 2(10)(j) of the basic Regulation and Article 2.4.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. Since, in several cases, prices were changed frequently, any change in exchange rates could also have been reflected. Moreover, this showed that FOH market in general is open to accept frequent changes in prices. Therefore, even in cases where prices were changed less frequently, there is no evidence that this was not because of the business choice made by the parties. The fact that prices can be adapted quickly to reflect modified market situations (in this case, allegedly changes in currency exchange rates) gave the Indian exporting producers the possibility to reflect such changes in their selling prices if they had so wished and apparently done in a number of cases. In view of the above, an adjustment for currency conversions is not warranted and the claim is rejected.\n(20)\nFollowing provisional disclosure, one Indian exporting producer claimed that an allowance granted under Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation for differences in indirect taxes, which had been made in respect of certain product types, should also have been made in respect of products and blends with chain lengths of C12 and C14 because the duty paid on raw materials used for these products was refunded upon export of the product. However, no information which could be verified on spot was submitted during the investigation, proving that indeed such duties had been subsequently refunded. Following definitive disclosure, the company claimed that its comments had been misunderstood and that all the raw materials used for the production of products and blends with chain lengths of C12 and C14 had been imported duty free. Since an indirect tax needs to be paid if these raw materials are consequently incorporated into products sold on the domestic market, the company claims an adjustment of the normal value for these specific product types. However, the evidence submitted during the verification shows that the specific raw materials that are needed for the production of the product types with chain lengths C12 and C14 and that were imported duty free during the IP, were sufficient to manufacture only a fraction of the company\u2019s export sales of this product during the IP. It is therefore certain that at least two thirds of the exported product with chain lengths C12 and C14 have been manufactured by using raw materials for which import duties had been paid. Since the company has never submitted any evidence showing that any of these raw materials imported duty free was used for export sales to the Union and not for export sales to third countries, the claim is rejected.\n(21)\nIn the absence of any other comments in respect of comparison, the content of recitals 20 and 23 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n1.4. Dumping margin\n(22)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the dumping margin calculation, the content of recitals 24 to 26 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n(23)\nThe amount of dumping finally determined, expressed as a percentage of the cif net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, is as follows:\nCompany\nDefinitive dumping margin\nGodrej Industries Limited\n9,3 %\nVVF Limited\n4,8 %\nAll other companies\n9,3 %\n2. Indonesia\n2.1. Normal value\n(24)\nFollowing provisional and definitive disclosures, one Indonesian exporting producer claimed that in testing the profitability of transactions, the selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, should not have been allocated to individual transactions on the basis of turnover, and that this had led to a number of transactions being found to be unprofitable. The claim was examined, but it was found that matching SG&A expenses to individual transactions on the basis of turnover is more appropriate given the nature of such expenses, which are more value-related rather than volume-related. It should be noted that the total amount of SG&A expenses allocated to each product type remains the same irrespective of which of the two methods is used for matching SG&A expenses to individual transactions. Finally, the transactions for which the exporting producer queried the outcome of the profitability test were re-examined and it was confirmed that the transactions were unprofitable. The claim is therefore rejected.\n(25)\nThe same Indonesian exporting producer also claimed that, in determining the profit level used when constructing normal value, the profit of sales identified as not being in the ordinary course of trade at product type level should not be excluded, since more than 80 % of the overall domestic sales were profitable. With regard to this claim, it is recalled that the determination of which sales are in the ordinary course of trade is made at the level of product types, as explained in recitals 29 to 32 of the provisional Regulation, since this is the most appropriate way to accurately match sales prices with the relating costs of production. Furthermore, Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation does not exclude the division of the product investigated into product types where appropriate. Therefore, sales not found to be in the ordinary course of trade are excluded at product type level from the calculation of the profit to be used in constructing the normal value. The claim is therefore rejected.\n(26)\nThe same Indonesian exporting producer also claimed that when constructing normal value for certain product types, no deduction for allowances had been made in order to bring the normal values back to an ex-works level. The claim was accepted and the calculation amended accordingly.\n(27)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the determination of normal value, the provisional findings in recitals 27 to 33 of the provisional Regulation - corrected as indicated in recital 26 of this Regulation - are hereby confirmed.\n2.2. Export price\n(28)\nFollowing provisional disclosure, one Indonesian exporting producer claimed that no justification had been given for considering the price to its related importer company in the Union as unreliable, and for the construction of the export price, in respect of such sales, under Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. In this regard, it should be noted that transfer prices between related parties are not considered to be reliable because they could be artificially set at different levels depending on what would be more advantageous for the related companies concerned. For this reason, the construction of the export price under Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, using a reasonable profit margin independent of the actual profit resulting from transfer prices, avoids any distorting effects that may arise from the transfer prices. The claim is therefore rejected.\n(29)\nFor export sales to the Union through related importers located in the Union, following provisional disclosure, both Indonesian exporters claimed that the profit margin used for the construction of the export price pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation was inappropriate. They both argued that the profit which had been used at the provisional stage referred to only one partially cooperating importer and had not been verified, and was therefore not reliable. Accordingly, they suggested using a profit of 5 % as it was done in other investigations. In consideration of the low level of cooperation by independent importers in this investigation, the claim is accepted and a profit level of 5 % was applied, which is in line with profits levels used in previous investigations for the same sector.\n(30)\nIn the absence of any other comments in respect of comparison, the content of recitals 34 to 36 of the provisional Regulation - adjusted as explained in recital 29 of this Regulation - is hereby confirmed.\n2.3. Comparison\n(31)\nFollowing provisional disclosure both Indonesian exporters pointed out that no adjustment should have been made for differences in commissions pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) for sales via the respective related traders in a third country. Both companies argued that their production companies in Indonesia and the respective related traders in Singapore form a single economic entity and that the traders in the third country act as the export department of their related Indonesian companies. However, in both cases domestic sales, as well as some export sales to third countries, are invoiced directly by the manufacturer in Indonesia, and the traders in Singapore receive a specific commission. For one of the Indonesian companies this commission is mentioned in a contract covering only export sales. Moreover, the traders in the third country also sell products manufactured by other producers, in one case also from unrelated producers. Both related traders in Singapore therefore clearly have functions which are similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis. The claim is therefore rejected.\n(32)\nFollowing definitive disclosure, the Indonesian government and one Indonesian exporting producer reiterated the claim of single economic entity referred to in the previous recital. They argued that in Matsushita v Council (4) the Court had previously held that the fact that the producer performs certain sales functions does not mean that a manufacturing company and a trading company cannot constitute a single economic entity. Furthermore, they also claimed that sales to third countries that are carried out by the exporter directly without involving the trader in Singapore only represent a small percentage of export sales and that in the Interpipe judgement (5) the Court of First Instance held that small volumes of direct sales by the producer did not support the claim that there was no single economic entity. Finally, they brought forward that in Canon v Council (6) the fact that a sales subsidiary also acted as a distributor of products from other companies did not affect the finding of a single economic entity.\n(33)\nEven though in Matsushita v Council the Court held that the institutions were in that case entitled to find that a manufacturer, together with one or more distribution companies which it controls, forms an economic entity even though it performs certain sales functions itself, it does not necessarily follow that there is an obligation to always consider a producer and its related sales companies as a single economic entity. Furthermore, unlike the Indonesian exporting producer, the manufacturer in Matsushita v Council did not make any direct sales itself. Secondly in the Interpipe judgement, the fact that direct sales by the exporting producer represented only a limited percentage of the total sales volume to the Union was only one element analysed by the Court of First Instance. More importantly, the Court stressed the fact that these direct sales were made to the new Member States for a transitional period only. In contrast, in this case, the available evidence indicates that the sales directly by the producer to certain third countries are not temporary but - at least in principle - structural, i.e. permanent. Moreover, for each producer concerned, those sales represent a considerable percentage of its domestic sales. Finally, in Canon v Council the sales of the sales subsidiary of the exporting producer on the domestic market included other products that were only sold under a different brand name but had nevertheless all been produced by the exporting producer itself. The claim is therefore again rejected.\n(34)\nOne Indonesian company further claimed that, even if the concept of the single economic entity were not to be accepted, the Commission had imposed a \u2018double margin\u2019 by deducting from the export price to independent customers in the Union both a profit for the related importer in the Union as well as a commission for the related trader in the third country. However, the two items were taken into account for different purposes and were deducted separately. As explained in recital 28, for export sales through related importers in the Union, the export price is constructed pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the price at which the imported products are first resold to an independent buyer. In these cases an adjustment for the profit accruing shall be made so as to establish a reliable export price at the Union frontier level. On the contrary, the commission for the related trader in the third country was deducted pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, the claim is rejected.\n(35)\nThe company further claimed that, in case the export price were to be adjusted for the commission of the related trader in the third country pursuant to Article 2(10)(i), an identical adjustment to the normal value should be made, since this trader would also coordinate domestic sales. However, the written contract between the trader and the producer in Indonesia only covers export sales. Moreover, domestic sales are invoiced by the company in Indonesia. The claim is therefore rejected.\n(36)\nIn respect of the adjustment pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation, it is considered appropriate to use a reasonable profit margin independent of the actual profit resulting from transfer prices in order to avoid any distorting effects that may arise from the transfer prices. Therefore, the actual profit margins of the traders in the third country which were used at the provisional stage were replaced by a profit of 5 % which is considered a reasonable profit for the activities carried out by trading companies in the chemical sector, as was done in previous cases (7).\n(37)\nAnother Indonesian company claimed that the Commission had deducted twice commission expenses for sales via its related importer in the Union. The company argued that an adjustment for both the related importer\u2019s SG&A expenses as well as commission expenses as a direct selling expense was made when constructing the export price pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. Since the commission expenses are already included in the SG&A expenses, this resulted in a double deduction for commission expenses. This claim was found to be justified and the calculation was amended accordingly.\n(38)\nOne company reiterated its claim for an adjustment for differences in physical characteristics on the basis that it exports the product concerned in both liquid and solid form to the Union whilst it only sells it in solid form on the domestic market and that the prices for the liquid form are lower than those for the solid form of the product investigated (see recital 39 of the provisional Regulation). To support the claim the company submitted the copy of two invoices for sales to other export markets. However, this evidence could not be verified at this late stage of the proceeding, nor could it be ascertained that the difference shown was applicable to all cases where the above differences in physical characteristics existed. The claim is therefore rejected.\n(39)\nFollowing provisional disclosure, one Indonesian exporter claimed that the interest rate used for the calculation of credit costs of its related importer in the Union in the provisional Regulation was disproportionate and suggested to use an interest rate based on figures published for the IP by Deutsche Bundesbank. Since the interest rate figure used for the calculation of credit costs for this company in the provisional Regulation was based on information submitted by other parties and therefore reflects their specific financial situation which is not necessarily applicable to the related importer in question, the claim was accepted and the calculation was amended accordingly.\n(40)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the comparison, the provisional findings in recitals 37 to 40 of the provisional Regulation - adjusted as explained in recitals 36, 37 and 39 of this Regulation - are hereby confirmed.\n2.4. Dumping margin\n(41)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the dumping margin calculation, the content of recitals 41 and 42 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n(42)\nThe amount of dumping finally determined, expressed as a percentage of the cif net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, is as follows:\nCompany\nProvisional dumping margin\nP.T. Ecogreen Oleochemicals\n7,3 %\nP.T. Musim Mas\n5,4 %\nAll other companies\n7,3 %\n3. Malaysia\n3.1. Normal value\n(43)\nFollowing the provisional disclosure, one of the Malaysian exporting producers claimed that the profitability test in the ordinary course of trade assessment (see recital 46 of the provisional Regulation) should not have been based on the weighted average annual cost of production but that, given the daily price fluctuations of the main raw material, individual cost of each domestic transaction should have been used. With regard to this claim it should be underlined that it is the Commission's consistent practice to use weighted average cost of production as a benchmark for the profitability test. This format was followed by the company in its reply to the questionnaire and constituted the basis for the on-spot verification visit which reconciled the data reported by the company with the company\u2019s accounts. The claim to use a transaction-based cost of production, which would constitute a significant departure from the normal practice of the Commission, was raised for the first time in the company\u2019s comments to the provisional disclosure document and corresponding figures could therefore not be verified on spot. It should also be noted that the individual transaction cost sheets submitted by the company in support of their claim are to a large extent based on estimations and therefore fail to represent more accurate and representative costs data than the ones initially reported by the company and verified on spot. Lastly, it should be noted that the structure of the new cost sheet provided does not allow reconciliation with this part of management reports which were verified on spot. Therefore, the claim is rejected.\n(44)\nThe Malaysian exporter with no domestic sales (see recital 51 of the provisional Regulation) claimed that the amounts for SG&A costs and for profits used for the calculation of the normal value should not be based on the weighted average of the actual amounts determined for the two other exporting producers selling the like product in the Malaysian market. The company claimed that these figures are not representative, as the company is using different manufacturing methods involving different basic raw material. With regard to this claim it should be recalled that in the calculation of the normal value the company\u2019s own manufacturing costs were used. Only the amounts concerning SG&A costs were based on the figures obtained from the two other Malaysian exporting producers. As regards the amount for profit, it was determined as explained in recital 45 of this Regulation. Secondly, the company failed to explain the alleged effect of the production method used on SG&A costs. Furthermore, it is noted that only a limited part of the production of the company is based on the allegedly different production method while substantial part of the production is manufactured with the same production process and with use of the same basic raw materials as in the case of the other two Malaysian producers. Therefore, it is concluded that the company failed to demonstrate that the figures used were not representative and the claim in this regard is rejected.\n(45)\nThe same Malaysian exporter further claimed that, should the Commission nevertheless use the data from the two other exporters for the purpose of establishing SG&A, such data should be based on the weighted average figures relating to all the domestic transactions of those exporting producers and not only relating to the profitable transactions. In principle this claim was accepted. Thus, as regards SG&A, it is confirmed that the average SG&A costs for all domestic transactions of the two Malaysian exporting producers were used in constructing the normal value. The figures used for this calculation were verified during verification visits in the respective Malaysian companies. As regards the determination of profit, it should be noted that it was not possible to determine an amount for profit on the basis of the amounts incurred and realised by the two other exporting producers. Indeed, such computation results in an overall loss amount. No profit data could therefore be established on that basis. In that respect, the claim by the Malaysian exporter that a negative amount can be used as a profit amount for the construction of normal value is rejected. Indeed, the concept of profit necessarily implies the existence of a positive amount. It was also considered whether the amount for profit could be established on the basis of the profitable sales of the exporting producer in Malaysia but that approach was rejected as it would have been in contradiction with the WTO findings in the case on Imports of Cotton Type Bed Linen from India (8). Therefore, pursuant to Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation, the calculation of the profit has to be based on any other reasonable method and, in the absence of any other available data, the long-term commercial interest rate in Malaysia was considered as the most appropriate basis for establishing profit. This method was considered conservative, reasonable and the most appropriate within the meaning of Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation. It is noted that the profit margin so established does not exceed the profit realised by other exporting producers on sales of products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin.\n(46)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the determination of normal value, the provisional findings in recitals 44 to 51 of the provisional Regulation, but for the amendment as explained in the recital 45 of this Regulation, are hereby confirmed.\n3.2. Export price\n(47)\nFor export sales to the Union through related importers located in the Union, following provisional disclosure, the two Malaysian exporters claimed that the profit margin used for the construction of the export price pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation was inappropriate. One of the companies supported its claims by the IP profitability figures of some of their European unrelated traders. In this regard, it should be noted that these figures cannot be considered representative, as the traders indicated trade in a wide range of chemical products, and in one case the trader is also a producer. Therefore, they are rejected as a reliable benchmark. The second company claimed that its related importer in the Union should not be treated as a distributor but as a related agent and therefore the SG&A cost and profit adjustment in the construction of the export price should not exceed the percentage of commission normally granted to independent agents trading in the sector. The company submitted its agreements with independent agents as a benchmark. The claim was further developed after the definitive disclosure by arguing that in the tungsten electrodes case (9) the profit of a related importer was considered reliable and accepted in the construction of the export price. In reply to this claim it should be noted that Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation does not provide for different treatment between related importers allegedly acting as distributors and importers allegedly acting as agents.\nArticle 2(9) requires adjustments for all costs incurred between importation and resale and for profits accruing. Furthermore, it should be noted the investigation showed that the related company is located in the Union. It handles, inter alia, the customer orders and the invoicing of the product concerned produced by its related exporter as well as is responsible for arranging the Union customs clearance. The fact that certain activities are performed by the related exporter prior to importation does not mean that the export price may not be reconstructed on the basis of the resale price to the first independent customer with the necessary allowances being made pursuant to Article 2(9). Differences in functions claimed by the company as compared to other related importers are normally reflected in the SG&A expenses where the Commission used actual data of the company. Therefore, this claim can not be accepted. It should be further noted that in the abovementioned tungsten electrodes case the related importer was further integrated into the downstream product produced by the related group and was also performing other activities than those of a trading company. Therefore, for such complex structure, the profit of unrelated importers was found not to be representative enough. The situation in that case is not comparable with the situation of the Malaysian related importer in question, which only performs trading functions. Nevertheless, for the reasons explained in recital 29, the profit margin in question is adjusted to 5 %. In the absence of any other comments concerning the determination of export price, the provisional findings in recitals 52 to 54 of the provisional Regulation, but for the amendment as explained above, are hereby confirmed.\n3.3. Comparison\n(48)\nFollowing the provisional disclosure one Malaysian exporter reiterated its claim (see also recital 57 of the provisional Regulation) that its related importer in the Union is, in fact, the export department of the manufacturer and that there would be excessive deductions in establishing the ex-works export price if full adjustments for SG&A costs and profits, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, were made. The company claimed that, alternatively, a similar adjustment should be made when calculating the normal value. The claim was reiterated again in the submission after definitive disclosure. However, no new argument was presented which would lead to a change in the conclusions in this regard. In particular, it is recalled that invoices were issued by the related company to customers in the Union and that payments were received by the related company from customers in the Union. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the sales made by the related company included a mark-up. Also, the financial accounts of the related company showed that it bore normal SG&A costs incurred between importation and resale. Therefore, the related company indeed performs the typical functions of an importer. Finally, it should be noted that the producer in Malaysia also performed direct sales to independent clients in the Union and other countries. On the latter issue, the company referred to the Interpipe judgement with arguments similar to those raised by the Indonesian exporting producers. For the reasons already explained in recital 33 of this Regulation, the circumstances of this case are different from the circumstances discussed in the Interpipe judgement. Furthermore, the claim of the Malaysian exporter that the company\u2019s independent sales were negotiated by its related importer in the Union acting in the capacity of the export sales department of the Malaysian company contradicts the explanations provided during the verification visit where the key role played by the mother company in Japan was instead underlined in this context. The above findings lead to the conclusion that the adjustment for SG&A and profit should be maintained and no similar adjustment for the calculation of normal value is justified.\n(49)\nThe same company also claimed that the deduction of certain selling expenses of its related importer had been made twice in reconstructing the export price. The calculations were checked and, since the claim was found to be justified, were adjusted accordingly.\n(50)\nOne of the Malaysian exporters claimed that the comparison between normal value and export price should not be based on product types as identified by product control numbers (PCN) but on the basis of the companies\u2019 own product codes. According to this company, the PCNs used in the investigation would not capture in sufficient detail the specificities of the production process and differences in the costs and prices. In support of this claim the company referred to some of its products which were manufactured by using different production processes and different basic raw materials, which resulted in higher unit costs of production. It should be noted that this claim was neither raised at the provisional stage of the investigation nor during the on-the-spot verification visit. Furthermore, the use of the company\u2019s own product codes in the calculation would not solve the problem of different production methods since the same company\u2019s production codes were also used for products manufactured under different production processes. Therefore, the claim is rejected.\n(51)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the comparison, the provisional findings in recitals 55 to 58 of the provisional Regulation, but for the amendment as explained in recital 49 of this Regulation, are hereby confirmed.\n3.4. Dumping margin\n(52)\nFollowing the provisional disclosure, a Malaysian producer which did not export to the Union commented on recital 60 of the provisional Regulation claiming that there are other producers of the product concerned in Malaysia. In this regard it is noted that the presence of an additional producer in Malaysia, which is not an exporter to the Union, does not change the finding with regard to the level of cooperation in Malaysia as no evidence was presented that the investigated companies did not account for all the exports of the product concerned to the Union in the IP. Furthermore, the same Malaysian producer criticised the fact that producers, like him, which did not export to the Union in the IP would be subject to the residual duty rate. In this regard it has to be noted that companies which have not exported to the Union during the IP cannot have an individual duty rate. However, as soon as these companies start to export, or enter into an irrevocable obligation to sell to the Union, they may apply for a newcomer review in accordance with Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation which may result in an individual duty margin, if the conditions set up in that Article are fulfilled.\n(53)\nOne of the Malaysian producers claimed that the cif value used as a basis for calculating the dumping margin percentage should not be based on the price declared to the customs, but should be calculated back from the resale price, netted of all the post importation costs in the Union. However, since the cif price was used as the basis of the custom value declarations at Union frontier, and does not appear to have been incorrectly declared, this same price is to be used as the basis for the dumping margin percentage calculation. The company claimed that a time gap exists between related deliveries from Malaysia and custom clearance for the purpose of resales in the Union. However, even if the invoices for custom clearance are issued at a later stage, with prices following the FIFO stock valuation method, it is still the transfer price and not the resale price which is the basis for the calculation of the custom value. Therefore the claim is rejected.\n(54)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the dumping margin calculation, the content of recitals 59 and 60 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n(55)\nThe amount of dumping finally determined, expressed as a percentage of the cif net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, is as follows:\nCompany\nDefinitive dumping margin\nKL-Kepong Oleomas Sdn. Bhd.\n3,3 %\nEmery Oleochemicals (M) Sdn. Bhd.\n5,3 %\nFatty Chemicals Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.\n5,7 %\nAll other companies\n5,7 %\nD. INJURY\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(56)\nAfter the publication of the provisional Regulation, it was found that minor corrections had to be made to the consumption figures due to a clerical error. This led to minor changes in sales volume, market share of the Union industry and the market share of the countries concerned. These corrections however, have no significant impact on the trends and the conclusions reached with regard to consumption, sales volume, market share of the Union industry and market share of the countries concerned during the period considered in the Union market.\n2. Union production and Union industry\n(57)\nAs mentioned in recital 62 of the provisional Regulation, it was found that the like product was manufactured by the two complainants and by small producers in the Union. As mentioned in recitals 11 and 12 of this Regulation, producers producing FOH containing branched isomers were excluded from the definition of the Union production of FOH. Despite the fact explained in recital 58 of this Regulation, the Union industry as defined in recitals 62 and 63 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.\n(58)\nOne of the two complainants was taken over by a company which is participating in the current proceeding as a user. This complainant took a neutral position after the publication of the provisional Regulation.\n(59)\nHence, some parties questioned the level of support or standing for the investigation claiming that support for the investigation must hold during the entire investigation.\n(60)\nAnalysis of this claim showed that the remaining complainant represents over 40 % of the total Union production, thus more than 25 % of total Union production and 100 % of the Union producers of FOH expressing their support for or opposition to the complaint. Hence, the 25 % and the 50 % thresholds required by Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation are fully met and standing can be confirmed.\n(61)\nSome parties claimed that, since both complainants had imported the product concerned during the IP, they should not be considered part of the Union industry. It was however verified that the percentage of product imported by these companies from the countries concerned was not substantial in comparison with their production of the like product. Furthermore, these imports were mainly of a temporary nature. It can therefore be confirmed that the core activity of these companies is production and sales of the like product. Therefore recitals 62 to 63 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. Union consumption\n(62)\nIn the absence of comments concerning the Union consumption, recitals 64 to 66 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4. Imports into the Union from the countries concerned and price undercutting\n4.1. Cumulation\n(63)\nA number of parties argued against the fact that a cumulative assessment was made for the three countries concerned in the provisional Regulation. In their opinion the conditions for cumulation laid down in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were not met. Specifically, they argued that the negative undercutting found for one of the countries precluded cumulation. In addition, they submitted that the trends in sales volumes for the three exporting countries differed during the period considered, that access to raw materials and the raw materials used in the three exporting countries were also different. Finally, it was mentioned that export sales from one of the countries concerned were channelled through related companies. In their view, different conditions of competition existed between the countries concerned in the Union market. Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation says that where imports of a product from more than one country are simultaneously subject to anti-dumping investigations, the effects of such imports shall be cumulatively assessed only if it is determined that: (a) the margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than de minimis as defined in Article 9(3) of that Regulation and that the volume of imports from each country is not negligible; and (b) a cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition between imported products and the conditions of competition between the imported products and the like Union product.\n(a)\nAs explained in paragraph 4.3.2 of the provisional Regulation, the volume of dumped imports for each country concerned was not negligible, and the presence of dumped imports remained significant during the period considered.\n(b)\nIt was found that the conditions of competition and the pricing of the countries concerned were similar between the imported products and the like product, in particular during the IP. As explained in recital 127 of the provisional Regulation, the injury elimination levels established for the countries concerned were significantly above the de minimis threshold of 2 %. Hence, the price undercutting is not exactly reflecting the situation which would occur in a market with effective price competition. Furthermore, the sales channels and the price trends for each of the countries concerned were analysed and found to be similar as shown in the table below. The import prices of the countries concerned followed a declining trend and were particularly low during the IP compared to the average Union industry\u2019s prices.\nImports based on Eurostat (as adjusted to cover only the product concerned)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nAverage price in EUR/tonnes Malaysia\n911\n944\n799\n857\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n104\n88\n94\nAnnual \u0394 %\n3,6\n-15,4\n7,3\nAverage price in EUR/tonnes Indonesia\n996\n1 169\n899\n912\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n117\n90\n92\nAnnual \u0394 %\n17,3\n-23,1\n1,4\nAverage price in EUR/tonnes India\n997\n1 141\n897\n915\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n114\n90\n92\nAnnual \u0394 %\n14,4\n-21,4\n2,1\n(64)\nConsequently, recitals 67 to 70 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4.2. Volume, price and market share of dumped imports from the countries concerned\n(65)\nIn the absence of comments concerning volume, price and market share of dumped imports from the countries concerned, recitals 71 to 73 of the provisional Regulation, are hereby confirmed.\n4.3. Price undercutting\n(66)\nParties claimed that there are differences in raw material prices between FOH produced from natural oils and fats and synthetic sources such as crude or mineral oil and that an additional product control number (PCN) criterion should have been introduced in order to consider the differences in cost of production arising from the different production processes. However, PCNs are established on the basis of the individual characteristics of each sub-category of items falling within the definition of the product concerned and not on the basis of the price of each of those items. Moreover, it was found that there is no substantial difference in terms of the basic characteristics of FOH produced from natural oils and fats and FOH made of crude or mineral oil, nor the cost of production difference is such as to warrant a differentiation in terms of PCN. This claim is therefore rejected.\n(67)\nCertain parties claimed that the figure used to reflect the post-importation costs, which are around 3 % of the import price, used to establish the level of undercutting by the countries concerned was unclear and did not seem to be appropriate in this case. However, the information verified during the investigation showed that importing parties such as importers and users had to pay such amount of post importation costs in order to release the product concerned for free circulation into the Union market. In addition, the parties did not provide any evidence which would indicate that the post-importation costs were not correctly established in this case. Hence, this claim was dismissed. The methodology used to calculate the price undercutting as explained in recitals 74 and 75 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n5. Economic situation of the Union industry\n5.1. Preliminary remarks\n(68)\nDespite the change in ownership mentioned in recital 58, it was considered that the data provided by and verified at the premises of the complainant who withdrew, should not automatically be excluded from the injury analysis since its production remains part of the Union production.\n(69)\nSome parties argued that some data provided by the Union industry, in particular regarding their purchases of the product concerned originating in India, Malaysia and Indonesia, should be excluded from the injury analysis and the injury margin calculation because any alleged injury relating to these purchases would be self-inflicted. However, as stated in recital 63 of the provisional Regulation, these purchases were mainly due to the temporary closure of one of the production sites of one producer. Moreover, these purchases were not substantial in comparison with the total production of the complainants. There were therefore no compelling reasons for excluding the purchases of the said producers from the injury analysis or the injury elimination level calculation.\n(70)\nThe preliminary remarks as mentioned in recital 76 of the provisional Regulations are hereby confirmed.\n5.2. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation, sales and market share\n(71)\nIn the absence of comments concerning production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales and market share of the Union industry, recitals 77 to 81 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.3. Average unit prices of the Union industry\n(72)\nAfter the publication of the provisional Regulation, it was found that corrections had to be made to the average unit prices of the Union industry due to a clerical error. The table below shows the modified trend in unit price of the Union industry during the period considered.\nUnit price, sales in the Union to unrelated\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n123\n102\n96\nAnnual \u0394 %\n22,6 %\n-16,9 %\n-5,3 %\nSource: questionnaire replies.\n(73)\nContrary to what is mentioned in recital 84 of the provisional Regulation, prices of the Union industry decreased by 4 % during the period considered. The decrease was significant from 2008 to 2009 with a further decrease in the IP. Over this period the sales price decreased by 22 %. The above change has no impact on the conclusion of the economic situation of the Union industry, in the absence of comments regarding the average unit prices of the Union industry, recitals 82 and 83 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.4. Stocks, employment, wages and productivity, profitability, cash flow, investments return on investment and ability to raise capital, growth, magnitude of the actual dumping margin\n(74)\nSome parties claimed that it was not possible that the Union industry suffered injury since companies that are part of the Union industry are vertically integrated and imported the product concerned from third countries. Therefore they could use the imported product for their downstream production and sell their production which is not profitable.\n(75)\nIt should be noted that in certain anti-dumping investigations, producers such as steel producers and chemical products manufacturers, included in the definition of the Union industry in these cases, have a downstream activity and that a share of their production of the product concerned is destined for captive use. Nevertheless, in such a situation, the possible existence of material injury to the Union industry is investigated exclusively for the production and sales of the product concerned. In the present case, material injury has been found in the business of the product concerned as explained in recitals 77 to 93 of the provisional Regulation. The parties did not provide any evidence which would show that the findings in these recitals are not correct and that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the IP. Therefore this claim is rejected.\n(76)\nSome parties claimed that the closure of certain production capacity by the complainants showed a misleading picture of the alleged injury they suffered. They argued that there were other producers in the Union that contributed to the capacity in the Union and that the capacity of the Union industry increased with investments in new capacity. This is hardly indicative of an injured industry. Other parties claimed that the reduction of investment does not mean injury, but means relocation of production out of the Union.\n(77)\nThe investigation established in recital 78 of the provisional Regulation that the production capacity of the Union industry increased by 9 % in 2008 but that it then decreased by 10 % during the IP. This was the result of decisions undertaken in order to face the competition from the countries concerned, and the subsequent temporary closures were also due to the pressure exerted by the dumped imports. With regard to investments, it was established in recital 89 of the provisional Regulation that investments made by the Union industry in the Union decreased by 35 % during the period considered. This is one of several injury factors which allowed concluding in recitals 92 and 93 of the provisional Regulation that the Union industry suffered material injury during the IP.\n(78)\nIn the absence of other comments concerning stocks, employment, wages and productivity, profitability, cash flow, investments return on investments and ability to raise capital, growth and magnitude of the actual dumping margin, recitals 85 to 91 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.5. Post IP developments\n(79)\nSome parties argued that there was no evidence of material injury suffered by the Union industry and the fact that one of the two original complainants had withdrawn its support to the investigation showed that it was not suffering injury. It was also argued that the injury indicators for the remaining complainant did not show a picture of injury.\n(80)\nIt should be noted that the company in question did not oppose to the investigation but took a neutral position. Therefore, as explained in recital 57, it was still considered appropriate to keep both Union producers as part of the Union industry.\n(81)\nIt was claimed that there has been a marked increase of prices in the post-IP period, and that these price developments in that period will immediately translate into profits for the complainants who themselves announced better results in their public statements for the period 2010-2011.\n(82)\nSome parties insisted that there was a significant improvement in the situation of the Union industry in the post-IP period pointing out that some companies were planning to build new facilities in the Union. It was also claimed that in view of the recent increase in import prices, measures should be suspended or imposed in the form of a minimum import price (MIP).\n(83)\nEvents that occurred after the IP shall normally not be taken into account in an anti-dumping investigation. In addition, no evidence that suggests that the mentioned post-IP events are manifest, undisputed and lasting was provided. Concerning any suspension of the definitive measures, this should be seen in the light of post-IP developments which would be of a lasting nature.\n(84)\nAs to the imposition of an MIP, as explained in recitals 123 to 126 it is considered that the circumstances are not such as to warrant it. Therefore all the above claims are dismissed.\n6. Conclusion on injury\n(85)\nThe Investigation confirmed that most of the injury indicators pertaining to the Union industry showed a declining trend during the period considered. Based on the above, the conclusion reached in recitals 92 and 93 of the provisional Regulation that the Union industry suffered material injury during the IP is confirmed.\nE. CAUSATION\n1. Effect of the dumped imports\n(86)\nOne party observed that the analysis in recital 108 of the provisional Regulation is flawed, because it seems to link an overall and continuous decrease in consumption to the increase in imports, whereas, according to this party, imports from the countries concerned developed in line with consumption.\n(87)\nIt should be clarified indeed that, as mentioned in recitals 64 to 66 of the provisional Regulation, consumption overall increased by 2 % during the period considered. However, this does not undermine the fact that there was an important overall increase in volume and market share of the low-priced dumped imports from the countries concerned during the period considered (see recital 96 of the provisional Regulation), whereas the market size remained nearly unchanged, and while the Union industry lost an important market share, in particular between 2009 and the IP.\n(88)\nSome parties made the argument that the trends of imports from the countries concerned are not linked to the deterioration of economic situation of the Union industry, in particular sales volume, sales values and profitability. They argue that there was an improvement in profitability of the Union industry when the imports increased in 2008, and then it fell significantly when imports remained stable.\n(89)\nContrary to the above allegation, the investigation pointed to an overall correlation between the low-priced dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry during the whole period considered (see recitals 95 to 98 of the provisional Regulation). The investigation also showed that the Union industry could not recover in the period considered due to the increased presence of low-priced dumped imports on the Union market. Hence, the claim should be rejected.\n(90)\nIt was also claimed that differences in trends in imports existed depending on the types of alcohol produced by some exporting producers, and that therefore, a separate injury analysis for these alcohols should be performed. However, the different types included in the product scope share the same basic characteristics. The investigation did not reveal any substantial difference between FOH produced from different raw materials. Therefore there are no reasons in this case to establish a separate analysis of the trends per type of alcohol.\n(91)\nIt was also argued that injury could not be attributed to India because its imports did not increase during the period considered, in particular when purchases by the Complainants are not taken into account. However, it was found that the imports from India were made at dumped prices in the Union market and that the injury margin was largely above the de minimis level of 2 %. Moreover, as explained in recitals 63 to 65, the conditions for a cumulative assessment for the countries concerned were met. This claim should thus be rejected.\n(92)\nIt was also argued that injury could not be attributed to the companies whose individual undercutting margin was negative, or because of this reason, to imports from Indonesia as a whole.\n(93)\nAs explained in recitals 63 to 65, all the conditions of a cumulative assessment of the imports concerned were met. Accordingly, the effects the low-priced dumped imports originating in the countries concerned had on the Union industry were assessed jointly for the purpose of the injury analysis and the cause of the injury. Furthermore, the absence of undercutting does not exclude the existence of material injury to the Union industry. Indeed, as explained in recitals 124 to 127 of the provisional Regulation it was found that the price charged by the Union industry was not sufficient to cover all production costs and achieve the reasonable margin of profit it could have achieved in the absence of dumped imports during the IP. This claim is therefore rejected.\n(94)\nIn the absence of any other comments regarding effects of the dumped imports, recitals 95 to 98 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Effects of other factors\n(95)\nSeveral parties have argued that the real cause of injury suffered by the Union industry should be attributed to the financial crisis, as the main harm to that industry occurred when imports from the countries concerned stabilised. It was also mentioned that the deterioration of the profitability of the Union industry was similar to that observed for other companies operating in the chemical sector.\n(96)\nThe crisis played a role in the performance of the Union industry. Trends in injury factors such as capacity utilisation and sales volume show that the situation of the Union industry worsened with the crisis and somewhat improved with the recovery in the market. However, the investigation showed that the improvement did not allow the recovery of the Union industry which was far from its economic situation that prevailed at the beginning of the period considered. Furthermore, as mentioned in recital 89, 2008, just before the financial crisis started, was the year with the highest increase in dumped imports from the countries concerned and the sharpest decrease in sales volume of the Union industry. After that year the Union industry did not recover and the dumped imports continued to be massively present in the Union market. For these reasons it is clear that, regardless of other factors, dumped imports largely contributed to the material injury suffered by the Union industry during the IP. This claim is therefore rejected.\n(97)\nSeveral parties also claimed that the real cause of the alleged injury of the Union industry was the imports from other third countries, the decrease in demand, the increased raw material prices and the lack of proper access to these raw materials, wrong strategic decisions taken by the Union industry, the competitive pressure in their downstream market, the decrease in the production of the product concerned destined for captive use, the general change in market conditions and the competitive situation in the Union market.\n(98)\nIt is worth mentioning that the above parties were not able to substantiate their claims and to demonstrate that factors other than the low-priced dumped imports from the countries concerned were breaking the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports.\n(99)\nSome parties claimed that the Commission did not analyse the possible impact the sales of branched FOH had on the sales of the product concerned made by the Union industry and the effects it had on its economic situation. The investigation focused on the product as defined in recitals 8 to 12 and no party provided reliable data which would have allowed to assess the possible negative impact the branched FOH had on the economic situation of the Union industry. Hence this claim is rejected.\n(100)\nIn the absence of any comments regarding effects of other factors, recitals 99 to 106 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. Conclusion on causation\n(101)\nThe investigation did not point to the fact that there were factors other than the low-priced dumped imports from the countries concerned which were breaking the causal link between the material injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports.\n(102)\nIn the absence of any comments regarding conclusion on causation, recitals 107 to 110 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n1. Union industry\n(103)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the interest of the Union industry, recitals 112 and 113 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Importers\n(104)\nIn the absence of comments on the interest of importers, recitals 115 and 116 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. Users\n(105)\nIt is recalled that in order to assess the possible impact of the anti-dumping measures on the Union users the investigation concentrated mainly on the aggregated data provided by five large user companies visited at provisional stage.\n(106)\nOn that basis it was provisionally found that the share of the cost of the product concerned in the total cost of production for this group was significant and ranged between 10 % and 20 % depending on the final product. However, the data available was revised and according to new calculations and the correction of some figures, this range is found to be between 15 % and 25 %. Similarly, the average profit margin in the business using the product concerned was found to be around 6 % for the group of the five visited companies; the new calculations show a higher average profit margin, which is about 7,5 %. Finally, the average share of business using the product concerned out of the total business was also corrected. This was provisionally found to be about 22 %, whereas according to new calculations, a percentage of 25 % was found.\n(107)\nAfter the publication of the provisional Regulation, a number of users reacted and made comments with regard to the final disclosure. They contested the selection of the five user companies mentioned in recital 118 of the provisional Regulation arguing that the data used to assess the possible impact of the measures on the user industry was not transparent, not based on representative parties and on a low number of parties. It was argued that the analysis should take into consideration the data provided by all cooperating users in the investigation.\n(108)\nHowever, as mentioned in recitals 117 and 118 of the provisional Regulation the 21 cooperating companies represent together around 25 % of total Union purchases of the product concerned during the IP, whilst the five companies used to assess the interest of users represented about 18 % of these purchases, and 72 % of the cooperating users\u2019 purchases of the product concerned. Besides being representative in terms of volume of purchase of the product concerned, theses five users constituted a very good representation of the different business sectors of the users industry. Indeed, the five visited companies are a heterogeneous group that includes not only the first-use producers, i.e. the surfactants producers, but also the users of the surfactants and further downstream users.\n(109)\nNevertheless, a wider analysis taking into account all information submitted by the cooperating users was carried out. In particular, a specific assessment of the possible impact of anti-dumping duties on the surfactants producers as a separate group was performed since this group could potentially be most affected by the imposition of measures. Another separate analysis has been performed for a second group of users, consisting of all other user companies that cooperated in the investigation.\n(110)\nA simulation assessing the possible effect of an average duty of 5 % on imports of FOH on all cooperating users first and then on the two separate groups was performed. The outcome of the simulation showed that the final impact of this average duty on the total cost of production for the business using the product concerned would be of about 0,09 % for all users, while the impact of the same duty on the downstream product using the product concerned, for the surfactants\u2019 group would be of about 0,05 % and on the second group of companies it would be about 0,29 %.\n(111)\nThe analysis showed as well that the surfactants producers achieved lower profit margins in the sectors using the product under investigation; however, this group imported from the countries concerned only about 2,6 % of their total purchases of the product under investigation during the IP. Furthermore, the percentage of the surfactants business using FOH in comparison to their total turnover is about 24 %. Hence, even with the application of an average dumping duty of 5 %, the final impact on the cost of production of products including the product investigated is very limited and even negligible on their total profitability.\n(112)\nSome surfactant producers nevertheless argued that the anti-dumping duties will prevent them from freely buying their raw materials, thus creating a distortion in their market segment.\n(113)\nAs stated in recital 120 of the provisional Regulation, the level of anti-dumping duties and the possible impact on the user industry and on the downstream market, do not create serious barriers to imports of the product concerned. The investigation confirmed that the definitive anti-dumping duties could not create a distortion on the downstream market. At the same time, it should not be difficult for surfactant producers to pass on this rather low increase in cost in the final price of their products. Therefore, the claims that the anti-dumping duties would create distortions in the downstream market are rejected.\n(114)\nAfter disclosure of definitive findings some users insisted that the Union producers had refused to supply goods to them, and that there were few alternatives of supply. However, as stated in recital 120 of the provisional Regulation, the relatively low level of proposed measures should not preclude the possibility to import the product concerned. Furthermore, the Union producers did not produce at full capacity during the period considered. In addition, imports are also possible from other third countries which are not subject to measures and the Eurostat figures for imports of FOH from the rest of the world after the IP show that these imports are growing, indicating that the alleged risk of lack of supply is unsubstantiated. Therefore, this claim was rejected.\n(115)\nSome users\u2019 associations which failed to make themselves known in the deadline foreseen under point 5.3 of the notice of initiation claimed that their views, especially on the possible impact of the measures on small and medium enterprises and on specific sectors, had not been reflected in the assessment of the Union interest. However, it should be noted that all the comments raised by these associations have been taken into consideration in this investigation. Furthermore, as stated in recital 109, the assessment of the Union interest has taken into account all information submitted by the cooperating users. Therefore, this claim has been rejected.\n(116)\nSeveral parties claimed that the duration of the measures, were these to be imposed, should be limited to a maximum period of 2 years. According to the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping measure shall normally be imposed for the duration of 5 years. Since none of the parties demonstrated that a period of 2 years would be sufficient to counteract the dumping causing injury as demanded in Article 11(1) of the basic Regulation, there seems to be no valid reason to deviate form the standard duration of the length of the measures. Therefore, this claim has been rejected.\n(117)\nIn the absence of any other comments on the interest of users, it is confirmed that the imposition of definitive measures on imports of the product concerned would not be against the Union interest, recitals 117 to 121 of the provisional Regulation are thus confirmed.\n4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(118)\nBased on the above the conclusion reached in recital 122 of the provisional Regulation can be confirmed. There are no compelling reasons against the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of FOH from the countries concerned.\nG. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n1. Injury elimination level\n(119)\nIt is recalled that the profit margin used to calculate the target profit at provisional stage was 7,7 %. The complainants have argued that a target profit of 15 % would be more appropriate. In this respect, it should be noted that they failed to submit verifiable evidence to support the claim that the target profit was too low. Therefore, it is proposed to confirm the provisional target profit of 7,7 % which is based on the profit margin achieved for the whole alcohol business of the one complainant in its last profitable year before the surge of low-priced dumped imports.\n(120)\nCertain parties claimed that 7,7 % was not realistic and was too high. They suggested using a lower profit margin between 3 and 5 % to establish the injury elimination level. This claim however was not substantiated by any evidence showing that the profit proposed was the one that could be achieved by the Union industry in the absence of dumped imports in the Union market and was thus not accepted.\n(121)\nCertain parties have claimed that the Commission erroneously established the injury elimination level on the basis of the underselling margin, whereas it should have used the undercutting margin. In the present case, it was not considered that the undercutting margin was an appropriate basis to establish the injury elimination level for the Union industry as it would not reflect the level of price that could be obtained in the absence of dumped imports in the Union market. The claim was thus rejected.\n(122)\nOn this basis, the provisional injury margins expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid as indicated in recital 127 of the provisional Regulation can be confirmed.\n2. Definitive measures\n2.1. Form of the definitive measures\n(123)\nAs mentioned in recitals 79 to 84, some parties claimed, inter alia, that the current measures should be suspended because post-IP events concerning the price increase of the product concerned in the Union market were manifest, undisputed and lasting. They also argued that any definitive measures should not take the form of an ad valorem duty but rather imposed in the form of an MIP.\n(124)\nIt is considered however that in this particular case the circumstances are not such as to warrant the imposition of a minimum import price. This form of the measure could easily be circumvented given the nature of the product concerned and the complex corporate structures of the exporters in question.\n(125)\nHowever, it is admitted that there is certain price sensitivity in the market for the product at issue and thus it would be reasonable to minimise the impact of the definitive measures on Union users in the event of possible significant price increases of the product concerned. Hence, it is considered appropriate to change the form of the definitive measures from ad valorem duties to specific duties.\n(126)\nThis form of measures is expected to limit to a certain extent any possible undue negative impact on the users in the case prices would increase significantly and rapidly. If, on the other hand, prices would decrease, the specific duties would still ensure sufficient protection to the Union producers. The specific duties are based on the cif values of the cooperating companies\u2019 Union exports in the IP, converted to euro using monthly exchange rates, multiplied by the lower of the dumping and the injury margins in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(127)\nIn this respect, two exporting producers claimed that the yearly average exchange rate should be used instead of the monthly. However, it is noted that in accordance with the standard practice, any conversion of currencies in anti-dumping investigations is made using the monthly exchange rates. This was the cases also for this investigation. The claim was therefore rejected.\n(128)\nThe complainant claimed that when establishing the specific duties, current FOH prices and not cif values during the IP should have been used. It should be noted that specific duties are established based on the dumping and injury calculations for the IP. No substantiated arguments have been put forward for basing the calculations of the specific duties in this case on a period after the IP. Therefore this claim has been rejected.\n2.2. Imposition of the definitive measures\n(129)\nAfter the publication of provisional measures a potential exporting producer came forward and claimed that the residual duty rate should be set at the level of the highest duty imposed and not of the highest dumping margin found for Indonesia. However, the residual duty is set at the residual dumping or the residual injury margin by applying the lesser duty rule. The claim was therefore rejected.\n(130)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed in respect of imports of the product concerned at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(131)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to final disclosure. The comments submitted by the parties were duly considered, and, where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly.\n(132)\nThe proposed definitive anti-dumping duties are the following:\nCountry\nCompany\nDefinitive specific anti-dumping duty (EUR per tonne net)\nIndia\nVVF Limited\n46,98\nAll other companies\n86,99\nIndonesia\nP.T. Musim Mas\n45,63\nAll other companies\n80,34\nMalaysia\nKL-Kepong Oleomas Sdn. Bhd.\n35,19\nEmery Oleochemicals (M) Sdn. Bhd.\n61,01\nFatty Chemical Malaysia Sdn. Bhd\n51,07\nAll other companies\n61,01\n(133)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation are solely applicable to imports of the product concerned produced by these companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imports of the product concerned manufactured by any other company not specifically mentioned in this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and should be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(134)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (10) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for instance, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, this Regulation should then be amended accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual anti-dumping duty rates.\n3. Undertakings\n(135)\nOne Indian as well as one Malaysian exporting producer, together with its related importer, offered a price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. Both undertaking offers contained a high number of product groups (determined by the chemical specification), each group subject to a different minimum import price (MIP), with price differences between the groups up to 25 % for the Malaysian exporter and up to 100 % for the Indian exporter. In addition, prices varied up to 20 % within the individual groups, thus posing a very high risk of cross-compensation. It was also noted that the offer of the Indian exporter did not address the volatility of prices of the product concerned. Additional cross-compensation risks were identified with regards to the Malaysian exporter and its related importer in the Union who did not only source the product concerned from the Malaysian exporter but also from other suppliers. Finally, it would be difficult for customs to determine the chemical specification of the product without individual analysis, thus rendering the monitoring very burdensome, if not impracticable. The undertaking offers were therefore rejected. Following the proposal to change the form of the measures, one exporting producer amended its undertaking offer suggesting an average MIP for all product groups and claiming that there will be no risk of cross-compensation any longer. The other exporting producer simply upheld its offer. However, given the number of product types and the price variation between them, an MIP could completely compromise the effectiveness of the measures. Furthermore, the structure of the companies and of their offers as outlined above still constitutes an obstacle towards accepting an undertaking. The reporting and price regime suggested by one exporter does not address those concerns and in any case would render the monitoring very burdensome, if not impracticable. Consequently, the undertaking offers cannot be accepted.\n4. Definitive collection of provisional anti-dumping duties\n(136)\nIn view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by the provisional Regulation should be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the definitive duties imposed by this Regulation. Where the definitive duties are lower than the provisional duties, amounts provisionally secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties should be released,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of saturated fatty alcohols with a carbon chain length of C8, C10, C12, C14, C16 or C18 (not including branched isomers) including single saturated fatty alcohols (also referred to as \u2018single cuts\u2019) and blends predominantly containing a combination of carbon chain lengths C6-C8, C6-C10, C8-C10, C10-C12 (commonly categorised as C8-C10), blends predominantly containing a combination of carbon chain lengths C12-C14, C12-C16, C12-C18, C14-C16 (commonly categorised as C12-C14) and blends predominantly containing a combination of carbon chain lengths C16-C18, currently falling within CN codes ex 2905 16 85, 2905 17 00, ex 2905 19 00 and ex 3823 70 00 (TARIC codes 2905168510, 2905190060, 3823700011 and 3823700091) and originating in India, Indonesia, and Malaysia.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty of the products described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies below shall be as follows:\nCountry\nCompany\nDefinitive anti-dumping duty (EUR per tonne net)\nTARIC Additional Code\nIndia\nVVF Ltd, Taloja, Maharashtra\n46,98\nB110\nAll other companies\n86,99\nB999\nIndonesia\nP.T. Musim Mas, Tanjung Mulia, Medan, Sumatera Utara\n45,63\nB112\nAll other companies\n80,34\nB999\nMalaysia\nKL-Kepong Oleomas Sdn Bhd., Pelabuhan Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan\n35,19\nB113\nEmery Oleochemicals (M) Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Langat, Selangor\n61,01\nB114\nFatty Chemical Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. Prai, Penang\n51,07\nB117\nAll other companies\n61,01\nB999\n3. In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (11), the amount of anti-dumping duty, calculated on the amounts set above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThe amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 446/2011 shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of the rates of the definitive anti-dumping duty shall be released.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2011.", "references": ["46", "52", "50", "69", "51", "74", "78", "15", "36", "54", "88", "3", "47", "8", "97", "86", "12", "73", "93", "13", "77", "58", "24", "80", "39", "79", "30", "21", "45", "7", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 February 2011\nauthorising France, pursuant to Council Directive 92/66/EEC, to transport day-old chicks and ready-to-lay pullets outside the protection zone established due to an outbreak of Newcastle disease in the department of C\u00f4tes d\u2019Armor\n(notified under document C(2011) 869)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(2011/111/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/66/EEC of 14 July 1992 introducing Community measures for the control of Newcastle disease (1), and in particular Article 9(2)(f)(ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 92/66/EEC defines the Union control measures to be applied in the event of an outbreak of Newcastle disease in poultry or in racing pigeons and other birds kept in captivity. Pursuant to that Directive, once the diagnosis of Newcastle disease has been officially confirmed in poultry, the Member State concerned is to ensure that the competent authority establishes around the infected holding a protection zone based on a minimum radius of 3 kilometres, itself contained in a surveillance zone based on a minimum radius of 10 kilometres.\n(2)\nThe measures applied in the protection zone are to include a prohibition on removing poultry and hatching eggs from the holding on which they are kept, unless the competent authority has authorised the transport under certain conditions.\n(3)\nIn particular, the competent authority may authorise the transport of day-old chicks or ready-to-lay pullets only to a holding within the surveillance zone at which there are no other poultry. However, Member States in which the transport of such chicks and pullets to a holding situated within the surveillance zone is not possible are to be authorised, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Directive 92/66/EEC, to have the chicks and pullets transported to a holding outside the surveillance zone.\n(4)\nOn 3 January 2011 France confirmed an outbreak of Newcastle disease in a holding of meat pigeons in the municipality of Langoat, in the department C\u00f4tes d\u2019Armor. A protection and a surveillance zone had already been established around that holding on 30 December 2010.\n(5)\nOn 4 January 2011 France informed the Commission about the confirmation of the outbreak and the control measures adopted, including the prohibition of the movement and transport of poultry outside the established protection and surveillance zones, as provided for in Directive 92/66/EEC.\n(6)\nThe protection zone established by France comprises holdings with a considerable output of day-old chicks and ready-to-lay pullets and the holdings situated in the surveillance zone do not have sufficient capacity to receive that output. France has therefore informed the Commission that the transport of day-old chicks or ready-to-lay pullets to a holding situated within the surveillance zone is not possible.\n(7)\nAs a consequence, France has requested an authorisation to transport such chicks and pullets to holdings located outside the surveillance zone. Day-old chicks and ready-to-lay pullets originating from the holdings situated in the protection zone would remain in France.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate to provide for the requested authorisation subject to the condition that France takes strict control and precaution measures in accordance with Directive 92/66/EEC, that guarantee that there is no risk of spread of Newcastle disease.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFrance may authorise the transport of day-old chicks and ready-to-lay pullets originating from holdings located in the protection zone established on 30 December 2010 around a holding of meat pigeons located in the municipality of Langoat, in the department of C\u00f4tes d\u2019Armor, to other poultry holdings located on its territory, subject to the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe dispatch of day-old chicks or ready-to-lay pullets must be notified at least 24 hours in advance by the competent authority responsible for the holding of origin to the competent authority of the holding of destination;\n(b)\nvehicles transporting the day-old chicks or ready-to-lay pullets must be sealed by the competent authority before departure;\n(c)\nat the time of sealing of the vehicles as referred to in point (b), the competent authority must record the registration number of the vehicle and the number of the day-old chicks or ready-to-lay pullets transported;\n(d)\non arrival to the holding of destination, the competent authority must:\n(i)\ninspect and remove the seal on the vehicle;\n(ii)\nbe present at the unloading of the day-old chicks or ready-to-lay pullets;\n(iii)\nrecord the registration number of the vehicle and the number of day-old chicks or ready-to-lay pullets transported;\n(e)\nany vehicle carrying day-old chicks or ready-to-lay pullets must undergo, immediately following unloading, cleaning and disinfection under official control and in accordance with the instructions of the competent authority;\n(f)\nthe holding of destination must be placed under official control for at least 21 days.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 18 February 2011.", "references": ["83", "3", "52", "85", "9", "63", "32", "60", "35", "28", "65", "42", "87", "37", "92", "21", "4", "47", "5", "14", "98", "59", "12", "7", "31", "41", "84", "74", "49", "0", "No Label", "38", "54", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "54", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 941/2010\nof 20 October 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of October 2010 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 October 2010 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 October 2010 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 86,932641 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["74", "96", "49", "46", "26", "62", "63", "8", "7", "78", "50", "60", "44", "6", "51", "79", "22", "31", "27", "94", "12", "17", "1", "90", "14", "35", "82", "93", "28", "84", "No Label", "21", "23", "24", "69", "76"], "gold": ["21", "23", "24", "69", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1047/2011\nof 19 October 2011\non the issue of licences for the import of garlic in the subperiod from 1 December 2011 to 29 February 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 (3) opens and provides for the administration of tariff quotas and introduces a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and other agricultural products imported from third countries.\n(2)\nThe quantities for which \u2018A\u2019 licence applications have been lodged by traditional importers and by new importers during the first seven working days of October 2011, pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 exceed the quantities available for products originating in China, and all third countries other than China and Argentina.\n(3)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, it is now necessary to establish the extent to which the \u2018A\u2019 licence applications sent to the Commission by 14 October 2011 can be met in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApplications for \u2018A\u2019 import licences lodged pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 during the first seven working days of October 2011 and sent to the Commission by 14 October 2011 shall be met at a percentage rate of the quantities applied for as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 October 2011.", "references": ["65", "48", "23", "73", "80", "26", "92", "44", "52", "40", "69", "71", "24", "89", "1", "2", "84", "31", "32", "45", "87", "62", "66", "43", "7", "13", "82", "55", "91", "28", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/47/EU\nof 5 July 2010\nadapting to technical progress Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community (1), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 8 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn the interests of road safety, environmental protection and fair competition it is important to ensure that commercial vehicles in operation are properly maintained and inspected, in order to maintain their safe traffic performance when circulating within the European Union.\n(2)\nStandards and methods laid down in Directive 2000/30/EC should be adapted in accordance with technical progress, resulting in improved technical roadside inspections in the European Union.\n(3)\nWith a view to minimising the costs and delays for drivers and operators, inspections should not exceed a reasonable length of time.\n(4)\nTo ensure the correlation between test results, defects and the specific characteristics of each vehicle inspected, a more detailed standardised inspection report as referred to in Article 5(1) should be issued.\n(5)\nThe technical requirements differ between vehicle categories as defined in the type-approval legislation (2). The inspection report should accordingly be amended to reflect these vehicle categories.\n(6)\nIn order to make vehicle identification more reliable, the inspection report should contain, in addition to the vehicle registration number, the vehicle identification number (VIN).\n(7)\nIn order to facilitate the recording of identified deficiencies by the inspectors, the inspection report should contain a complete list of items on its reverse side.\n(8)\nIn order to further improve roadside technical inspections in light of technical progress, inspection methods should be introduced in relation to each of the items listed in Annex II.\n(9)\nIn addition to the items related to safety, security and environmental protection, the inspection also needs to cover identification of the vehicle in order to ensure that the correct inspections and standards are applied, to enable the results of the inspection to be recorded and to enable enforcement of other legal requirements.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the committee on the adaptation to technical progress of the Directive on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers instituted by Article 7 of Directive 2009/40/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I and Annex II to Directive 2000/30/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 January 2012 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the texts of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2010.", "references": ["32", "38", "98", "67", "8", "39", "61", "76", "26", "58", "46", "17", "83", "9", "50", "85", "94", "13", "66", "70", "11", "68", "22", "18", "69", "1", "80", "79", "90", "30", "No Label", "53", "54", "55"], "gold": ["53", "54", "55"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 471/2011\nof 16 May 2011\non the division between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 of national milk quotas fixed for 2010/2011 in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 69(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 67(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that producers may have one or two individual quotas, one for deliveries and the other for direct sales and quantities may be converted from one quota to the other only by the competent authority of the Member State, at the duly justified request of the producer.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 445/2010 of 21 May 2010 on the division between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 of national milk quotas fixed for 2009/2010 in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (2) sets out the division between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 for the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 for all Member States.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 25(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (3), Member States have notified the quantities which have been definitively converted at the request of the producers between individual quotas for deliveries and for direct sales.\n(4)\nThe total national quotas for all Member States fixed in point 1 of Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 72/2009 (4) were increased with 1 %, effective from 1 April 2010, except for Italy whose quota was already increased with 5 %, effective from 1 April 2009. Member States, except Italy and Malta which has no direct sales part of its national quota, have notified the Commission of the division between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 of the additional quota.\n(5)\nIt is therefore appropriate to establish the division between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 of the national quotas applicable for the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 fixed in Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(6)\nGiven the fact that the division between direct sales and deliveries is used as a reference basis for controls pursuant to Articles 19 to 21 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 and for the establishment of the annual questionnaire set out in Annex I to that Regulation, it is appropriate to determine a date of expiry of this Regulation after the last possible date for these controls.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe division, applicable for the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011, between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 of the national quotas fixed in Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 is set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2011.", "references": ["54", "81", "26", "39", "51", "29", "77", "76", "32", "99", "14", "47", "85", "71", "84", "43", "21", "78", "63", "75", "9", "59", "1", "0", "67", "25", "40", "82", "18", "41", "No Label", "61", "62", "70", "96"], "gold": ["61", "62", "70", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 156/2012\nof 22 February 2012\namending Annexes I to IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1), and in particular Article 74(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 lists the rules of national jurisdiction referred to in Articles 3(2) and 4(2) of the Regulation. Annex II contains the lists of courts or competent authorities that have jurisdiction in the Member States to deal with applications for a declaration of enforceability. Annex III lists the courts with which appeals may be lodged against decisions on a declaration of enforceability, and Annex IV enumerates the final appeal procedures against such decisions.\n(2)\nAnnexes I, II and III to Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 have been amended on several occasions, most recently by Commission Regulation (EU) No 416/2010 (2) so as to update the rules of national jurisdiction and the lists of courts or competent authorities.\n(3)\nMember States have notified the Commission of additional amendments to the lists set out in Annexes I, II and IV. Furthermore, the entry referring to Iceland in Annexes III and IV should be deleted, since Iceland is not a Member State. It is therefore appropriate to publish consolidated versions of the lists contained in those Annexes.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 2 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (3), this Regulation should, under international law, apply to the relations between the European Union and Denmark.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 2(2)(g)-(j) of that Agreement, the entries referring to Denmark should be reproduced in Annexes I to IV.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 44/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I to IV to Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 22 February 2012.", "references": ["40", "77", "16", "52", "58", "60", "61", "32", "89", "87", "95", "62", "73", "44", "90", "71", "41", "19", "55", "21", "12", "24", "54", "18", "9", "33", "68", "86", "53", "34", "No Label", "11", "20", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["11", "20", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 21 May 2010\nrepealing Decision 2002/627/EC establishing the European Regulators Group for Electronic Communications Networks and Services\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/299/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFollowing the establishment in 2002 of the regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services in accordance with European Parliament and Council Directives 2002/21/EC of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1), 2002/19/EC of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (2), 2002/20/EC of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (3) and 2002/22/EC of 7 March 2002 on the universal services and users\u2019 rights related to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (4), the Commission adopted Decision 2002/627/EC (5) establishing an advisory group of the independent national regulatory authorities on electronic communications networks and services, called the European Regulators Group for Electronic Communications Networks and Services (the ERG).\n(2)\nThe ERG has made a positive contribution towards consistent regulatory practice by facilitating cooperation between national regulatory authorities (NRAs) and between NRAs and the Commission and by providing an interface for advising and assisting the Commission in the electronic communications field.\n(3)\nThe 2002 regulatory framework for electronic communications has been amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), and by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) and has been supplemented by Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Office (8).\n(4)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 the role previously performed by the ERG is strengthened and given greater recognition in the revised framework, through the establishment of BEREC itself and its enhanced participation in the development of regulatory policy as well as in the mechanisms provided for ensuring consistent application of rules across the Member States. In particular according to that Regulation, BEREC is to replace the ERG and act as an exclusive forum for cooperation among NRAs and between the NRAs and the Commission, in the exercise of the full range of their responsibilities under the EU regulatory framework.\n(5)\nDecision 2002/627/EC should therefore be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nDecision 2002/627/EC is hereby repealed as from 1 June 2010.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2010.", "references": ["69", "57", "45", "11", "83", "90", "72", "73", "5", "26", "37", "65", "99", "41", "14", "17", "86", "54", "15", "98", "87", "63", "2", "88", "46", "8", "42", "30", "82", "64", "No Label", "7", "24", "40"], "gold": ["7", "24", "40"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 January 2012\nestablishing whether effective action has been taken by Hungary in response to the Council recommendation of 7 July 2009\n(2012/139/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 126(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 126(1) of the Treaty, Member States are to avoid excessive government deficits.\n(2)\nThe Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation. The Stability and Growth Pact includes Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1), which was adopted in order to further the prompt correction of excessive general government deficits.\n(3)\nBy Decision 2004/918/EC (2) taken on 5 July 2004 the Council, upon a recommendation from the Commission, decided, in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), that an excessive deficit existed in Hungary (3).\n(4)\nOn 5 July 2004 the Council, upon a recommendation from the Commission, recommended in accordance with Article 104(7) TEC that the Hungarian authorities take action in a medium-term framework in order to bring the deficit below 3 % of GDP by 2008. By Decision 2005/348/EC (4) taken on 18 January 2005 the Council, in accordance with Article 104(8) TEC, established that Hungary had not taken effective action in response to the Council recommendation.\n(5)\nOn 8 March 2005, upon a recommendation from the Commission, the Council adopted a second recommendation in accordance with Article 104(7) TEC, confirming the 2008 deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit. After a substantial deterioration of the budgetary outlook in Hungary, by Decision 2005/843/EC (5) taken on 8 November 2005 the Council, in accordance with Article 104(8) TEC, established that Hungary had for the second time failed to take effective action in response to the Council recommendations.\n(6)\nAccordingly, on 10 October 2006, upon a recommendation from the Commission, the Council adopted a third recommendation in accordance with Article 104(7) TEC to Hungary, postponing the deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit until 2009. On 7 July 2009, the Council in its recommendation adopted in accordance with Article 104(7) TEC concluded that the Hungarian authorities could be considered to have taken effective action in response to the recommendations from October 2006. With respect to the background of the severe downturn in the context of the economic and financial crisis, in the same recommendation the Council issued a revised version of the third recommendation pursuant to Article 104(7) TEC.\n(7)\nThe Council recommendation of 7 July 2009 called on the Hungarian authorities to put an end to the excessive deficit situation by 2011 at the latest. Inter alia, Hungary was recommended: (i) to limit the deterioration of the fiscal position in 2009 by ensuring a rigorous implementation of the adopted and announced corrective measures to respect the target of 3,9 % of GDP; (ii) starting from 2010, to implement rigorously the necessary consolidation measures to ensure a continued reduction of the structural deficit and a renewed decline of the headline deficit, with an increased reliance on structural measures, in view of warranting a lasting improvement of public finances; (iii) to spell out and adopt in a timely manner the consolidation measures necessary to achieve the correction of the excessive deficit by 2011; (iv) to ensure a cumulative 0,5 % of GDP fiscal effort over 2010 and 2011; and (v) to ensure that the government gross debt ratio was brought onto a firm downward trajectory.\n(8)\nOn 27 January 2010 the Commission adopted a Communication to the Council (6) concluding that, based on information available at the time, Hungary had taken effective action in response to the Council recommendation of 7 July 2009. The Commission arrived at its conclusion by taking into account, in particular, consolidation measures of 1,5 % of GDP to meet the 2009 deficit target of 3,9 % of GDP, structural reforms in the pension and the social benefit system supporting the achievement of the 2010 deficit target of 3,8 % of GDP, and progress regarding the implementation of the new fiscal framework, but at the same time, the Commission gave an alert about considerable risks.\n(9)\nOn 15 December 2011 Hungary submitted its Report on the measures taken in response to Council Recommendation of 7 July, 2009 under Article 126(7) of the Treaty, December 2011 (\u2018December 2011 EDP progress report\u2019) to the Commission and the Council. On the basis of, inter alia, that progress report, an updated assessment of the action taken by Hungary to correct the excessive deficit by 2011 in response to the Council recommendation of 7 July 2009 leads to the following conclusions:\n(a)\nin 2010 the actual budget deficit exceeded the target by 0,4 % of GDP while economic growth was stronger in 2010 than foreseen by the Commission services\u2019 2009 spring forecast, which had served as the basis for the Council recommendations of 7 July 2009. In 2011, the general government balance is expected (both by the government and the Commission services\u2019 2011 autumn forecast - \u20182011 autumn forecast\u2019) to turn into surplus, but only thanks to one-off revenues of 9,75 % of GDP linked to the transfer of the pension assets from the private pension schemes to the state pillar and of 0,9 % of GDP from sectoral levies (on telecom, energy, retail and financial sectors). Without one-off measures the deficit would have reached around 6 % of GDP and by far surpassed the 3 % of GDP reference value set in Article 1 of Protocol (No 12) on the excessive deficit procedure attached to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty. In their 2011 autumn EDP notification, the Hungarian authorities projected a surplus of 3,9 % of GDP. The 2011 autumn forecast projected a somewhat lower surplus (notably 3,6 % of GDP), since it included the assumption of part of the debt of public transport companies (0,2 % of GDP). Based on recent information on one-offs received after the cut-off date of the 2011 autumn forecast, the surplus may even be lower. As to the structural deficit, it deteriorated by 1,5 % in 2010 and by 1,25 % in 2011, a cumulative 2,75 % of GDP, contrary to the Council recommendation of 7 July 2009 that recommended to ensure, at least, a cumulative 0,5 % of GDP fiscal effort over these 2 years as needed to correct the deficit by the 2011 deadline in a sustainable manner. This structural deterioration is a reflection of the fact that tax cuts amounting to over 2 % of GDP were not sufficiently compensated by structural measures;\n(b)\nregarding 2012, the draft budget targets a deficit of 2,5 % of GDP in line with the 2011 update of the Convergence Programme. In order to achieve this, the budget proposal contains several measures, altogether amounting to close to 4 % of GDP according to the authorities, while setting aside 0,7 % of GDP as an extraordinary reserve buffer. In contrast, the 2011 autumn forecast projects the 2012 general government deficit to reach 2,8 % of GDP and the structural deficit to improve by 2,4 % of GDP. Compared to the draft budget, these higher deficit numbers reflect, among other factors, a lower economic growth projection for 2012 by 1 percentage point as well as a more prudent assessment of revenue and expenditure developments. At the same time, the draft budget assumes in line with the relevant legislation that the extraordinary reserve is not expected to be spent. Nevertheless, the 3 % GDP deficit threshold is only respected on the back of a close to 0,9 % of GDP one-off revenue stemming from the abovementioned extraordinary sectoral levies;\n(c)\naccording to the 2011 autumn forecast, and based on the usual no-policy-change assumption, the budget deficit was projected to deteriorate again to 3,7 % in 2013. This is chiefly due to the fact that the phasing out of the extraordinary levies of around 0,9 % of GDP is not expected to be counterbalanced by the additional savings from the structural reform programme for that year;\n(d)\nbased on budgetary developments since the publication of the 2011 autumn forecast, the 2012 projection of general government deficit of 2,8 % of GDP still appears to be plausible (without taking into account the recent deterioration in the macroeconomic environment). This is explained by the fact that the deficit-decreasing impact of the new consolidation package of 0,4 % of GDP adopted by the government on 15 December 2011 is broadly counterbalanced by the deficit-increasing amendments adopted to the draft budget as well as by the net budgetary costs of the agreement with the banking sector concluded on 15 December 2011 which are not yet appropriately offset by additional consolidation measures;\n(e)\nfor 2013, taking into account some further specifications of the structural reform programme (related government and Parliamentary decisions are detailed in Hungary\u2019s December 2011 EDP progress report), the positive base effect from 2012 and the net cost stemming from the agreement with the banking sector, the 2013 deficit projection contained in the 2011 autumn forecast could be lowered from 3,7 % of GDP to 3,25 % of GDP, which is, nevertheless, still clearly above the 3 % GDP deficit threshold. The difference between the present updated assessment and the official target (2,2 % of GDP) laid down in the April 2011 Convergence Programme of Hungary notably stems from the fact that, in the absence of specific steps, about half of the structural reform programme could not be taken into account. The remainder of the difference compared to the official target is related to a higher expenditure forecast, notably in the area of state-owned transport enterprises and the maintenance of roads and also incorporates some difference in growth assumptions. Further structural reforms are planned, that could reduce the deficit forecast, but are not yet sufficiently specified;\n(f)\nthe risks to these updated medium-term projections are tilted to the downside. There is some positive risk, notably stemming from the continuation of better-than-expected revenue inflows into 2012 and 2013. However, negative risks are expected to be higher than the offsetting positive risks. In particular, interest rates for all maturities have increased, the exchange rate has weakened, and the medium-term economic outlook seems to have worsened since the 2011 autumn forecast was published on 10 November 2011. Overall, if these factors were taken into account, the deficit projections in both 2012 and 2013 would be further increased by 0,5 % of GDP, leading to deficits of just above 3 % of GDP and 3,75 % of GDP, respectively;\n(g)\naccording to the 2011 autumn forecast, gross public debt, given both the forecast deficit numbers and the exchange rate assumptions, is expected to increase again to nearly 77 % of GDP by 2013, following a temporary drop in 2011 due to the takeover of the private pension assets. If the medium-term budgetary projections were updated only on the basis of new measures adopted after the cut-off date of the forecast, the projected 2012 debt ratio would be largely unchanged and improve only slightly in 2013. However, further possible revisions in the budgetary projections, taking into account most notably the increased yields, the end-2011 HUF/EUR exchange rate of 311 (which is around 12 % weaker than the technical assumption used in the 2011 autumn forecast), as well as the weaker macroeconomic environment, would lead to a debt ratio of around 80 % in 2011, after which it would stabilise at around 78,5 % in both 2012 and 2013, whereas the Council recommended that the gross debt ratio should be brought onto a firm downward trajectory.\n(10)\nThe overall conclusion is while Hungary formally respects the 3 % of GDP reference value by 2011 this is not based on a structural and sustainable correction. The budget surplus in 2011 hinges upon substantial one-off revenues of over 10 % of GDP and is accompanied by a cumulative structural deterioration in 2010 and 2011 of 2,75 % of GDP compared to a recommended cumulative fiscal improvement of 0,5 % of GDP. Moreover, the authorities are implementing substantial structural measures in 2012 reducing the structural deficit to 2,6 % of GDP; the 3 % of GDP reference value is again only respected thanks to one-off measures of close to 1 % of GDP. Finally, in 2013, the deficit (at 3,25 % of GDP) is expected to surpass the 3 % GDP deficit threshold again even after taking into account additional measures announced since the 2011 autumn forecast. The higher deficit in 2013 is mainly linked to the fact that temporary one-off revenues are being phased out as planned, while not all planned structural reforms are sufficiently specified. Overall, this supports the conclusion that the response by the Hungarian authorities to the Council recommendation of 7 July 2009 adopted in accordance with Article 104(7) TEC has been insufficient,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nHungary has not taken effective action in response to the Council recommendation of 7 July 2009 in accordance with Article 104(7) TEC within the period laid down in that recommendation.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to Hungary.\nDone at Brussels, 24 January 2012.", "references": ["76", "46", "92", "1", "23", "58", "7", "59", "55", "37", "20", "41", "11", "85", "54", "24", "30", "38", "66", "65", "73", "64", "40", "99", "70", "52", "94", "87", "74", "39", "No Label", "8", "15", "28", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "28", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 831/2011\nof 16 August 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of barium carbonate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Articles 9(4) and 11(2), (5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018Commission\u2019), after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1175/2005 (2) the Council, imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of barium carbonate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019). The rate of the definitive specific duty ranged from EUR 6,3 to EUR 56,4 per tonne.\n2. Request for an expiry review\n(2)\nFollowing the publication, in March 2010, of a notice of impending expiry of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of barium carbonate originating in the PRC (3), the Commission received on 19 April 2010 a request for an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(3)\nThe expiry review request was lodged by Solvay & CPC Barium Strontium GmbH & Co. KG (\u2018the applicant\u2019), the sole producer of barium carbonate in the European Union, representing 100 % of the total Union production of barium carbonate. The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation of dumping and continuation of injury to the Union industry.\n(4)\nHaving determined, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission published a notice of initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) (\u2018notice of initiation\u2019).\n3. Investigation\n3.1. Review investigation period and period considered\n(5)\nThe investigation regarding the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 (\u2018Review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019).\n(6)\nThe examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of a likelihood of a continuation of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 up to the end of the RIP (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n3.2. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(7)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicant, the exporting producers in the PRC, importers/traders, users in the Union known to be concerned and their associations, producers in the analogue country as well as the authorities of the PRC of the initiation of the review.\n(8)\nThe Commission also gave interested parties the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(9)\nIn view of the apparently large number of Chinese exporting producers listed in the request, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping and the likelihood of continuation of dumping, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(10)\nIn order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010.\n(11)\nThe Commission received replies from only three companies or company groups in the PRC and therefore it was decided that sampling was not necessary in respect of Chinese exporting producers.\n(12)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to those who requested a questionnaire within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(13)\nReplies to the questionnaire were received from the applicant and its related agent, nine users, four importers, two exporting producers in the PRC and two producers in possible analogue countries. One of the Chinese exporting producers that replied to the sampling exercise decided not to cooperate further in the proceeding.\n(14)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of the determination of the likelihood of continuation of dumping and injury and for the determination of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nApplicant\n-\nSolvay & CPC Barium Strontium GmbH & Co. KG, Hannover and its related company Solvay Bario e Derivati SpA, Massa\n(b)\nExporting producers in the PRC\n-\nZaozhuang Yongli Chemical Co., Ltd, Shangdong Province\n-\nGuizhou Red Star Developing Import & Export Co., Ltd, Guizhou Province\n(c)\nProducer in the analogue country (India)\n-\nSolvay Vishnu Barium Private Limited, Hyderabad\n(d)\nImporters\n-\nNorkem Limited, Knutsford, United Kingdom\n-\nL\u2019Aprochimide Srl, Muggio, Italy\n(e)\nUsers\n-\nTechnische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, Ilmenau, Germany\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(15)\nThe product concerned is the same as that in the previous investigation and is defined as follows: barium carbonate with a strontium content of more than 0,07 % by weight and a sulphur content of more than 0,0015 % by weight, whether in powder, pressed granular or calcined granular form, originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN code ex 2836 60 00.\n(16)\nBarium carbonate is used primarily in the brick and tile industry, the ceramics sector and in the production of ferrite. It was previously used in the production of cathode ray television tubes (CRT) but this application has disappeared in the Union following their replacement by LCD- and plasma-screens.\n2. Like product\n(17)\nAs in the original investigation, this procedure has shown that barium carbonate produced in the PRC and exported to the Union, as well as the barium carbonate produced and sold on the domestic market of the analogue country (India) and that manufactured and sold in the Union by the applicant have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same basic uses.\n(18)\nTherefore these products are considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n(19)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation of dumping.\n1. General\n(20)\nOf the 16 known Chinese exporting producers contacted at the initiation of the expiry review, three replied to the sampling exercise but only two fully cooperated with the Commission by replying to a full questionnaire.\n2. Analogue country\n(21)\nSince the PRC is an economy in transition and in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for exporting producers not granted market economy treatment (\u2018MET\u2019) has to be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in an appropriate market economy third country (\u2018analogue country\u2019).\n(22)\nThe USA was used as analogue country in the original investigation and proposed in the present investigation for the purposes of establishing normal value. However, it was considered necessary to verify if this country was still appropriate for the present expiry review. Letters were sent to all known producers of barium carbonate worldwide, i.e. in Brazil, India, Japan and the USA. Two replies were received, one from a producer in the USA and another from a producer in India.\n(23)\nAfter a careful analysis of criteria such as total production, number of producers, competition in the market, total imports, anti-dumping duties and customs duties in both the American and the Indian domestic markets it was decided to select India as analogue country. The choice of India, in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, was considered to be more appropriate than USA due to its bigger market size, the larger volumes of imports and the stronger competition in its domestic market for this product. No comments or objections were received from any interested party in that respect. As a result, the normal value for exporting producers not granted MET was based on the data provided by the producer in India.\n3. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n3.1. Normal value\n(24)\nFor the company granted MET in the original investigation, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the domestic sales of barium carbonate to independent customers were representative during the RIP, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of their export sales of the product concerned to the Union. The investigation showed that these sales were not representative and therefore the normal value had to be constructed. The established normal value was based on the total cost of manufacturing plus the company\u2019s selling, general and administrative costs (\u2018SGA costs\u2019) and profit achieved on domestic sales made in the ordinary course of trade of the like product.\n(25)\nFor the company that was not granted MET in the original investigation, pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value was established on the basis of the information received from the cooperating producer in the analogue country.\n(26)\nIt was first established whether the total domestic sales of the like product to independent customers were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. whether they accounted for 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the product concerned exported to the Union. The domestic sales of the cooperating producer in India were considered sufficiently representative during the RIP.\n(27)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of the like product could be regarded as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for the like product sold on the Indian market the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers during the RIP. Since there were no profitable sales of the like product during the RIP, the normal value had to be constructed. The normal value was based on the total cost of manufacturing of the producer concerned plus a reasonable amount for SGA costs and a reasonable amount of profit in accordance with Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation. The SGA costs and the profit added to the manufacturing costs of the like product used were in line with those used in the original investigation and amounted to 10,6 % for SGA costs and 7,2 % for profit. No information was provided showing that these amounts would not be reasonable nor that the profit level used would exceed the profit normally realised by other exporters or producers on sales of products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin.\n3.2. Export price\n(28)\nAll export sales to the Union of the cooperating exporting producers concerned were made directly to independent customers in the Union and therefore, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable.\n3.3. Comparison\n(29)\nThe comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis.\n(30)\nFor the purposes of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, and in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made with regard to certain differences in transport and commissions, which affected prices and price comparability.\n3.4. Dumping margin\n(31)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export prices at the same level of trade.\n(32)\nFor the company that was granted MET in the original investigation this comparison showed that the company continued dumping at an even higher level.\n(33)\nFor the company that was not granted MET in the original investigation the comparison conducted in accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation showed significant dumping. This company represents 98 % of exports subject to the residual duty, the remaining 2 % of exporting producers that did not cooperate in the proceeding cannot influence the dumping margin found. In addition in view of their non-cooperation it is considered that they cannot dump at a lower level than the cooperating company.\nD. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF DUMPING\n(34)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether it was likely that dumping would continue should measures be repealed.\n(35)\nWith regard to the likelihood of continuation of dumping the development of production and production capacity in the PRC was examined as well as the likely development of export sales to the Union and to other third country markets.\n(36)\nAccording to the complaint, the PRC is by far the biggest producer worldwide of barium carbonate. In addition the PRC is also the biggest producer of Barite which is the main raw material for the production of the product concerned. The two cooperating companies alone have a production capacity of 331 000 tonnes per year which is around three times the Union\u2019s consumption in the RIP. In addition these two companies have a total spare capacity of 34 000 tonnes which is enough to supply half of the Union\u2019s consumption.\n(37)\nThree of the major worldwide producers of barium carbonate (the USA, India and Brazil) currently have anti-dumping measures on Chinese imports of the product concerned. It can be concluded that given the significant spare production capacity in PRC and the dumping practices in several markets, should the measures be repealed, additional volumes would be directed to the Union market.\n(38)\nThe fact that, despite the existence of anti-dumping measures on Chinese imports, the Chinese exporting producers have managed to export significant quantities to the Union in the RIP (at an average price of EUR 251 per tonne) and to increase their market share in the Union, shows the continued interest of the Chinese exporters in the Union market.\n(39)\nIt is even more clear on the basis of the Chinese export statistics that the Union is an attractive market for the Chinese exporting producers since they achieved some of their highest export prices (albeit dumped) when exporting to the Union. According to the Chinese export statistics the average selling price to the Union during the RIP was 269 USD FOB while the average export price to India was 220 USD.\n(40)\nThe Chinese export statistics showed that despite the end of the main application for barium carbonate (CRT\u2019s production) Chinese exports have increased worldwide from 130 000 tonnes in 2009 to 158 000 tonnes in 2010.\n(41)\nShould measures be repealed, it is expected that, in view of the huge spare production capacity in PRC, Chinese exports will very likely be directed to the Union. The fact that major markets around the world like the USA, India and Brazil are protected by high anti-dumping duties supports this conclusion.\n(42)\nThe prices of these imports would likely continue to be at dumped prices as there is no indication that the exporters would change their pricing behaviour if measures were to be repealed.\n(43)\nIt is therefore concluded that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping.\nE. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(44)\nThe sole cooperating Union producer accounted for 100 % of the Union production of barium carbonate during the RIP. It is therefore deemed to constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation.\nF. SITUATION OF THE UNION MARKET\n1. Union consumption\nTable 1\nUnion consumption\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nConsumption (in tonnes)\n123 354\n104 037\n62 637\n76 560\nIndex\n100\n84\n51\n62\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry and Eurostat statistics.\n(45)\nUnion consumption was based on the combined volume of sales by the Union industry in the Union and the volume of imports from third countries, based on Eurostat data.\n(46)\nOn this basis and as shown in Table 1 above, Union consumption decreased significantly during the period considered, i.e. by 38 % which is mainly explained by the disappearance of the CRT manufacturing activity in the Union.\n2. Volume, market share and prices of imports from the PRC\nTable 2\nImports from the PRC in volume, market share and import price\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nImport volume (tonne)\n76 306\n64 573\n37 341\n48 720\nIndex\n100\n85\n49\n64\nMarket share\n61,9 %\n62,1 %\n59,6 %\n63,6 %\nIndex\n100\n100\n96\n103\nCIF import price EUR per tonne\n230\n257\n239\n251\nIndex\n100\n112\n104\n109\nSource: Eurostat statistics.\n(47)\nDuring the period considered the import volumes from the PRC decreased by 36 % while consumption in the Union decreased by 38 %. Despite the anti-dumping measures in place, and against the background of decreasing consumption, the Chinese market share increased by three percentage points over the period considered.\n(48)\nAverage import prices from the PRC increased by 9 % over the period considered. The highest increase in prices occurred between 2007 and 2008 as prices dropped in 2009 before increasing again in the RIP.\n(49)\nThe Union industry\u2019s average ex-works price was compared with the Chinese CIF average import prices at the Union frontier. These prices were derived from Eurostat figures and included post-importation costs, customs and anti-dumping duties. The comparison showed that Chinese import prices undercut the Union industry\u2019s sales price by 37,9 % during the RIP. Based on the above it was found that if measures had not been in place Chinese import prices would have undercut those of the Union industry by 44,1 %.\n3. Volume and market share of imports from other third countries\n(50)\nTotal import volumes of barium carbonate from third countries other than the PRC were insignificant and represented less than 1 % of the Union consumption over the period considered.\n(51)\nIt should be noted that import prices from other third countries did not undercut Union prices in the RIP.\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n4.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(52)\nIt should be noted that since the Union industry consists in only one producer, data pertaining to production, capacity and utilisation had to be reported in the form of indexes.\nTable 3\nUnion production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\nIndex\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProduction\n100\n79\n36\n47\nProduction capacity\n100\n100\n100\n100\nCapacity utilisation\n100\n79\n36\n47\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(53)\nThe Union industry\u2019s production decreased by 53 % over the period considered. It should be noted that the Union industry has adapted its production model since 2003 in order to adequately meet the new market situation and the disappearance of the CRT-screen activity in the Union. As a consequence, production capacity was reduced by more than 50 % as the product under review is now produced in alternating campaigns on the same equipment as strontium carbonate.\n(54)\nThe production capacity of the Union industry remained unchanged over the period considered. Capacity utilisation thus developed similarly to production volumes.\n4.2. Inventories\nTable 4\nInventories\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n97\n41\n41\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(55)\nStocks decreased by 59 % during the period considered. This decrease is due to reduced demand and the ability for the Union industry to adapt to the new market situation.\n4.3. Sales volume and prices\nTable 5\nSales volumes, values and unit selling price\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nSales in volume (index)\n100\n84\n53\n59\nSales in value (index)\n100\n92\n66\n73\nUnit selling price (index)\n100\n109\n124\n123\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(56)\nThe Union industry sales volume decreased by 41 % over the period considered. The major decrease took place in 2009 due to the general economic downturn. Thus the Union industry sales volume decreased proportionally more than the Union consumption in the same period. Sales value decreased less significantly than volume as the Union industry managed to increase its price levels over the period considered where unit selling prices increased by 23 %.\n4.4. Market share and growth\nTable 6\nUnion industry\u2019s market share\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n100\n105\n95\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry, adjusted Eurostat statistics.\n(57)\nThe Union industry\u2019s market share increased by 5 % in 2009 before dropping significantly by 10 % in the RIP. This indicates that in the absence of growth on the market, the Union industry could not maintain its market share.\n4.5. Employment, wages and productivity\nTable 7\nEmployment, wages and productivity\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nEmployment (index)\n100\n87\n55\n57\nWages (EUR/employee; index)\n100\n108\n106\n113\nProductivity (index)\n100\n91\n65\n82\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(58)\nEmployment decreased significantly over the period considered as a consequence of the economic downturn and the new market situation. Average wages increased by 13 % as a consequence of high inflation rate which directly impacted salary indexation. Productivity decreased by 18 % during the same period as a result of the decrease in production volume which could not be compensated by the headcount reduction.\n4.6. Profitability\nTable 8\nProfitability\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex\n- 100\n-192\n-351\n-206\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(59)\nThe profitability of the Union industry decreased by more than 106 % over the period considered as a consequence of the economic downturn and the disappearance of the CRT-screen application which both affected sales volumes and costs of production. The industry was continually loss-making throughout the period considered.\n4.7. Investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital\nTable 9\nInvestments and return on investments\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nInvestment (index)\n100\n82\n90\n97\nReturn on investment (index)\n-100\n-251\n-506\n-176\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(60)\nInvestments remained stable during the period considered. Investments made by the Union industry were expensed in the year when they were made. Return on investment (profit expressed as a percentage of investments per year) developed negatively over the period considered in line with profitability.\n(61)\nThe investigation did not bring to light any evidence that the Union industry had any major problems in raising capital. It should however be noted that the investments made in the period considered were not significant.\n4.8. Cash flow\nTable 10\nCash flow\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex\n-100\n-83\n25\n32\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(62)\nCash flow improved significantly over the period considered as a consequence of the reduction in inventory volumes.\n4.9. Magnitude of the dumping margin\n(63)\nDuring the RIP, despite the measures in force substantial dumping continued at even higher levels than those established in the original investigation, based both on the data obtained from the cooperating exporting producers and Eurostat.\n4.10. Recovery from the effects of past dumping\n(64)\nThe Union industry, in a negative economic context explained by the general economic downturn and the disappearance of one important application, did not recover from past dumping, in particular in terms of sales volume, sales price and profitability. It was found moreover that dumping continued in the RIP.\n4.11. Export activity of the Union industry\nTable 11\nExport volume of the Union industry\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n86\n45\n66\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(65)\nUnion industry exports of barium carbonate decreased by 34 % over the period considered. The Union industry could only export limited volumes given the severe competition from Chinese exports on non-Union markets. The decrease in export volumes over the period considered is also explained by the economic downturn.\n4.12. Conclusion on the situation of the Union industry\n(66)\nWhile all main injury indicators, such as sales volume, profitability, production, employment and productivity showed negative developments during the period considered, the anti-dumping measures had a softening impact on the situation of the Union industry.\n(67)\nAs far as the market share of the Union industry is concerned, the slight decreasing trend shows that, despite existing measures and while market consumption decreased, Chinese imports not only excluded other countries from the market but also gained market share at the expense of the Union industry.\n(68)\nIn conclusion, in view of the negative development of the indicators pertaining to the Union industry, it is considered that the Union industry continued to suffer material injury during the period concerned. It was therefore examined whether there was a likelihood of continuation of injury should measures be allowed to lapse.\nG. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF INJURY\n1. Summary of the analysis of the likelihood of the continuation of dumping and the recurrence of injurious dumping\n(69)\nIt is recalled that consumption on the Union market decreased significantly since the original investigation due to the disappearance of the CRT and to the economic downturn. In these circumstances, the market share of Chinese imports has increased by more than 15 % while the market share of the Union industry and third country imports decreased significantly. This demonstrates that, despite the measures in force and the decreasing Union consumption, the Chinese exporting producers showed a continuous interest in the Union market and were able to exclude third countries from the Union market.\n(70)\nIt is also recalled that the exporting producers in the PRC continued to dump and undercut Union industry prices at very significant levels in the RIP. Based on this, there is no reason to believe that the Chinese exporting producers will not continue to dump and undercut Union industry prices in the future.\n(71)\nThe investigation showed that the Chinese exporting producers had significant spare capacities during the RIP, i.e. around 280 000 tonnes. This represents more than three times the size of the Union market in the RIP. Despite the expected increase in demand in the PRC, overcapacity is expected to persist and remain very significant in the coming years.\n(72)\nThe Union market is the main export destination for the PRC. Other major export markets such as the USA and India, have high (5) anti-dumping measures in place against barium carbonate originating in the PRC. These markets are therefore practically inaccessible to Chinese exports. In view of the Chinese exporting producers\u2019 interest in the Union market, it is expected that, if measures were repealed, a significant volume of exports would flood into the Union market, with a strong overall depressing effect on prices.\n2. Conclusion on likelihood of continuation of injury\n(73)\nOn the basis of the above, it is considered that if measures were repealed, there would be a likelihood of a significant increase in dumped imports from the PRC to the Union, with downward pressure on prices. Such a situation would likely lead to the disappearance of the Union industry in the medium term as, on the one hand, the reduced sales volumes would not allow the Union industry to dilute fixed costs sufficiently and, on the other hand, it would not be able to reach sufficient price levels. The continuation of injury was magnified in the period considered by the economic downturn and by the disappearance of an important application.\n3. Post RIP developments\n(74)\nAlthough PRC import prices increased by 17,8 % from the end of the RIP to February 2011 while Union industry selling prices increased by only around 7 % in the same period, PRC imports were still undercutting Union prices by more than 15 % after the RIP.\nH. UNION INTEREST\n1. Preliminary remark\n(75)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation it was examined whether the continuation of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of Union interest was based on an assessment of the various interests involved, i.e. those of the Union industry, importers and users of the product concerned.\n(76)\nAs the present investigation is an expiry review, it requires analysis of a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place and the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.\n(77)\nOn this basis it was examined whether there were compelling reasons which would lead to the conclusion that it was not in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case, despite the above conclusions on the likelihood of continuation of dumping and the likelihood of continuation of injury.\n2. Interests of the Union industry\n(78)\nThe investigation revealed that the Union industry was operating very cost-efficiently. Indeed, it reduced headcount and changed production models in order to adapt to the new market situation and ensure the sustainability of the plant where, as indicated in recital 53, barium carbonate and strontium carbonate are produced in alternating campaigns. Although the measures did not contribute to the recovery of the financial situation of the Union industry, they had a softening effect on its financial situation. Indeed, without the measures in place, it is likely that the Union market would have been flooded by low-priced imports originating in PRC and the Union industry would have had to close down.\n(79)\nAs mentioned above, the production model of the Union industry is based on two products that are interdependent; i.e. sufficient sales volumes for both products are necessary in order to dilute fixed costs. Should measures be allowed to lapse, the expected increased volume of dumped imports will lead to a substantial reduction of the barium carbonate activity, which, itself, will make the strontium carbonate activity less profitable, leading eventually to the dismantlement of the whole plant.\n(80)\nOn the basis of the above, it was concluded that it is in the interest of the Union industry that measures against the dumped imports from the PRC be maintained.\n3. Interests of unrelated importers\n(81)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all known unrelated importers. Replies were received from four unrelated importers. Two of these importers were active in the production of slurry, a solution composed of barium carbonate, additives and water, destined for the brick industry.\n(82)\nImporters indicated that the imposition of anti-dumping duties had pushed prices upward at the time of imposition. In this regard, it should be noted that such difference was no longer noticeable as export prices to the Union when compared to average prices to all non-Union markets were found to be at similar levels as during the RIP (6).\n(83)\nImporters also indicated that there was no shortage of barium carbonate on the Union market even though they were facing increasing difficulties to source barium carbonate from the PRC due to increased domestic demand. Import statistics do however not show any decrease in volume of exports of the product concerned to the Union during or after the RIP. This is also confirmed by the findings concerning overcapacity in recital 71.\n(84)\nIt was also found that the measures in force did not have any negative effects on the financial situation of the importers.\n(85)\nOn the basis of the above, it was concluded that the current measures in force had no substantial negative effect on their financial situation and that the continuation of the measures would not unduly affect the importers.\n4. Interests of users\n(86)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all known users. Replies were received from nine users of the product concerned. As indicated in recital 16, the main industrial users of barium carbonate in the Union are active in the brick and tile industry, the ceramics sector and in the production of ferrite.\n(87)\nOne user has submitted that the existence or continuation of the measures would not be in the interest of users, however it did not substantiate its claim. None of the other users replying to the questionnaire indicated that the measures had a significant impact on their businesses and that they should be lifted.\n5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(88)\nGiven the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the prolongation of the anti-dumping measures in force.\nI. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(89)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to submit comments and claims subsequent to disclosure. No comments were received following disclosure.\n(90)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for under Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of barium carbonate originating in PRC, imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1175/2005 should be maintained,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of barium carbonate with a strontium content of more than 0,07 % by weight and a sulphur content of more than 0,0015 % by weight, whether in powder, pressed granular or calcined granular form, currently falling within CN code ex 2836 60 00 (TARIC code 2836600010), originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The amount of the definitive anti-dumping duty shall be equal to a fixed amount as specified below for products produced by the following manufacturers:\nCompany\nRate of duty\n(EUR/t)\nTARIC additional code\nHubei Jingshan Chutian Barium Salt Corp. Ltd, 62, Qinglong Road, Songhe Town, Jingshan County, Hubei Province, PRC\n6,3\nA606\nZaozhuang Yongli Chemical Co. Ltd, South Zhuzibukuang Qichun, Zaozhuang City Center District, Shandong Province, PRC\n8,1\nA607\nAll other companies\n56,4\nA999\n3. In cases where the goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (7), the amount of the anti-dumping duty, calculated on the basis of the fixed amounts set above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall be in force for a period of 5 years.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2011.", "references": ["0", "52", "60", "85", "91", "42", "57", "12", "80", "7", "81", "26", "98", "68", "93", "11", "16", "38", "62", "5", "21", "31", "89", "58", "27", "45", "15", "56", "88", "47", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 January 2011\nadopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region\n(notified under document C(2010) 9676)\n(2011/85/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Mediterranean biogeographical region referred to in Article 1(c)(iii) of Directive 92/43/EEC comprises the territories of Greece, Malta and Cyprus in accordance with Article 1 of Protocol No 10 of the 2003 Act of Accession, and parts of the territories of France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and in accordance with Article 299(4) of the Treaty the territory of Gibraltar, for which the United Kingdom is responsible for external relations as specified in the biogeographical map approved on 25 April 2005 by the Committee set up by Article 20 of that Directive, hereinafter the Habitats Committee.\n(2)\nIt is necessary in the context of a process which was initiated in 1995 to make further progress in the actual establishment of the Natura 2000 network, which is an essential element of the protection of biodiversity in the Union.\n(3)\nThe initial list and the first three updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region, within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC, were adopted by Commission Decisions 2006/613/EC (2), 2008/335/EC (3), 2009/95/EC (4) and 2010/45/EU (5). On the basis of Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Member State concerned shall designate the sites included in the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region as special areas of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most, establishing conservation priorities and the necessary conservation measures.\n(4)\nIn the context of a dynamic adaptation of the Natura 2000 network, the lists of sites of Community importance are reviewed. A fourth update of the Mediterranean list is therefore necessary.\n(5)\nOn the one hand, the fourth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region is necessary in order to include additional sites that have been proposed since 2008 by the Member States as sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC. The obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC are applicable as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.\n(6)\nOn the other hand, the fourth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region is necessary in order to reflect any changes in site related information submitted by the Member States following the adoption of the initial and the first three updated Community lists. In that sense, the fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region constitutes a consolidated version of the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region. However, it should be stressed that the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC are applicable as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the initial or the first three updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region, depending on which list a site of Community importance was included as such for the first time.\n(7)\nFor the Mediterranean biogeographical region, lists of sites proposed as sites of Community importance within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC have been transmitted to the Commission between January 2003 and November 2009 by the Member States concerned in accordance with Article 4(1) of that Directive.\n(8)\nThe lists of proposed sites were accompanied by information on each site, supplied in the format established by Commission Decision 97/266/EC of 18 December 1996 concerning a site information format for proposed Natura 2000 sites (6).\n(9)\nThat information includes the most recent and definitive map of the site transmitted by the Member States concerned, name, location and extent of the site, and the data yielded by application of the criteria specified in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(10)\nOn the basis of the draft list drawn up by the Commission in agreement with each of the Member States concerned, which also identifies sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, a fourth updated list of sites selected as sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region should be adopted.\n(11)\nKnowledge of the existence and distribution of the natural habitat types and species is constantly evolving, as a result of the surveillance in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, the evaluation and selection of sites at Community level was done using the best available information at present.\n(12)\nCertain Member States have not proposed sufficient sites to meet the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC for certain habitat types and species. For those habitat types and species it can therefore not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is complete. Taking into account the delay in receiving the information and reaching agreement with the Member States, it is necessary to adopt a fourth updated list of sites, which will need to be revised in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(13)\nGiven that knowledge on the existence and distribution of some of the natural habitat types of Annex I and species of Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC remains incomplete, it should not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is either complete or incomplete. The list should be revised, if necessary, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(14)\nIn the interests of clarity and transparency Decision 2010/45/EU should be repealed.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Habitats Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2010/45/EU is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 January 2011.", "references": ["8", "37", "15", "99", "36", "86", "51", "65", "26", "44", "19", "57", "14", "7", "49", "87", "16", "12", "69", "62", "68", "79", "35", "61", "13", "81", "30", "34", "97", "11", "No Label", "17", "39", "58", "96"], "gold": ["17", "39", "58", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 900/2010\nof 8 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Estepa (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain's application to register the name \u2018Estepa\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["43", "80", "32", "98", "1", "79", "17", "46", "73", "87", "68", "59", "12", "9", "28", "44", "34", "89", "22", "90", "33", "31", "61", "55", "56", "63", "10", "37", "93", "66", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 951/2011\nof 23 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2011.", "references": ["9", "34", "5", "1", "29", "67", "24", "55", "43", "64", "19", "28", "85", "84", "49", "48", "72", "15", "16", "47", "76", "41", "75", "88", "62", "78", "53", "23", "91", "81", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU, EURATOM) No 699/2011\nof 18 July 2011\nadjusting the correction coefficients applicable to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the Union, laid down in Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), and in particular Articles 64, 65(2) of the Staff Regulations and Annexes VII, XI and XIII thereto, and the first paragraph of Article 20, Articles 64 and 92 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\nThere was a substantial increase in the cost of living in Estonia in the period from June to December 2010, the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration of officials and other servants of the Union should therefore be adjusted,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nWith effect from 1 January 2011, the correction coefficients applicable, under Article 64 of the Staff Regulations, to the remuneration of officials and other servants employed in the country listed below shall be as follows:\nEstonia: 78,5.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["38", "92", "95", "51", "36", "19", "94", "27", "88", "37", "46", "78", "47", "61", "89", "60", "1", "30", "81", "25", "12", "0", "83", "97", "79", "84", "42", "9", "39", "40", "No Label", "7", "16", "52", "91"], "gold": ["7", "16", "52", "91"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 May 2010\nappointing one German member of the European Economic and Social Committee\n(2010/278/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,\nHaving regard to Decision 2006/524/EC, Euratom (1),\nHaving regard to the proposal of the German Government,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Commission,\nWhereas a member\u2019s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Wilfried WOLLER,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nMr Egbert BIERMANN, Hauptvorstand IG BCE (Main Executive Board of the Industrial Union of Mining, Chemical and Energy Workers), is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2010.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2010.", "references": ["55", "14", "47", "76", "48", "86", "91", "64", "37", "43", "85", "4", "2", "31", "34", "62", "38", "20", "73", "74", "77", "60", "94", "15", "8", "13", "0", "82", "97", "3", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 368/2010\nof 28 April 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 325/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 April 2010.", "references": ["14", "37", "67", "28", "45", "53", "2", "82", "5", "18", "12", "75", "23", "91", "98", "70", "51", "89", "31", "85", "68", "17", "26", "7", "19", "8", "88", "44", "81", "9", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in the Czech Republic\n(2011/434/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2), in particular Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1 of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(5)\nThe Czech Republic has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on dactyloscopic data exchange.\n(6)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by the Czech Republic with Slovakia and Austria.\n(7)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in the Czech Republic and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the Slovakian/Austrian evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(8)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning dactyloscopic data exchange has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching of dactyloscopic data, the Czech Republic has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Article 9 of that Decision as from the date of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["69", "20", "6", "21", "95", "19", "80", "34", "53", "84", "42", "72", "22", "86", "65", "31", "57", "23", "98", "68", "14", "30", "18", "43", "4", "7", "82", "94", "9", "37", "No Label", "1", "36", "40", "41", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["1", "36", "40", "41", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 August 2010\namending Annex XI to Council Directive 2003/85/EC as regards the list of laboratories authorised to handle live foot-and-mouth disease virus\n(notified under document C(2010) 5420)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/435/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC and Decisions 89/531/EEC and 91/665/EEC and amending Directive 92/46/EEC (1), and in particular Article 67 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2003/85/EC sets out minimum control measures to be applied in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and certain preventive measures aimed at increasing the awareness and preparedness of the competent authorities and the farming community concerning that disease.\n(2)\nThose preventive measures include an obligation on Member States to ensure that the handling of live foot-and-mouth disease virus for research and diagnosis is carried out only in the approved laboratories listed in Part A and the manufacturing of either inactivated antigens for the production of vaccines or vaccines and related research is carried out only in the approved establishments and laboratories listed in Part B of Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC.\n(3)\nBulgaria has officially informed the Commission that following the checks carried out in accordance with Article 66 of Directive 2003/85/EC, their national reference laboratory is no longer considered to meet the bio-security standards provided for in Article 65(d) of Directive 2003/85/EC.\n(4)\nThe Netherlands have officially informed the Commission of certain changes relating to the name of a laboratory listed in Part B of Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC situated in the Netherlands.\n(5)\nFor security reasons, it is important to keep the list of laboratories set out in Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC updated.\n(6)\nAccordingly, it is necessary to delete the entry for Bulgaria in the list of laboratories set out in Part A and to replace the entry for the Netherlands in the list of laboratories set out in Part B of Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC. Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Part A, the entry for Bulgaria is deleted;\n2.\nin Part B, the entry for the Netherlands is replaced by the following:\n\u2018NL\nNetherlands\nMerial S.A.S., Lelystad Laboratory, Lelystad\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 August 2010.", "references": ["64", "49", "44", "40", "78", "36", "24", "67", "99", "18", "39", "86", "21", "79", "68", "58", "5", "95", "8", "27", "73", "19", "23", "3", "72", "12", "47", "26", "80", "1", "No Label", "38", "61", "66", "77", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "61", "66", "77", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 999/2010\nof 5 November 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae (DSM 17594) as a feed additive for sows (holder of authorisation DSM Nutritional Products Ltd)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of a new use of the enzyme preparation 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae (DSM 17594) as a feed additive for sows, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae (DSM 17594) has been authorised for weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, poultry for fattening and poultry for laying by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1088/2009 (2).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted to support the application. The European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 25 May 2010 (3) that 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae (DSM 17594), under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use can improve the digestibility of phosphorus. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae (DSM 17594) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018digestibility enhancers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 November 2010.", "references": ["93", "58", "88", "50", "92", "17", "4", "16", "57", "46", "8", "55", "41", "83", "39", "67", "71", "2", "31", "62", "33", "90", "81", "75", "68", "89", "44", "22", "36", "32", "No Label", "25", "38", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 505/2011\nof 23 May 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (1), and in particular Article 8a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 May 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus and in accordance with Council Implementing Decision 2011/301/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (2), additional persons should be included in the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["64", "58", "66", "25", "5", "26", "38", "89", "44", "96", "56", "42", "55", "74", "11", "83", "92", "61", "90", "98", "27", "12", "46", "40", "57", "36", "72", "4", "9", "34", "No Label", "2", "3", "14", "91", "97"], "gold": ["2", "3", "14", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 412/2012\nof 15 May 2012\namending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Article 68(1) and Article 131 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides that, if a Member State considers that the manufacture, placing on the market or use of a substance on its own, in a mixture or in an article poses a risk to human health or the environment that is not adequately controlled and needs to be addressed, it shall prepare a dossier after notifying that intention to the European Chemicals Agency (the Agency).\n(2)\nFrance has prepared a dossier concerning the substance dimethylfumarate (DMF) which demonstrates that DMF contained in articles or parts thereof, in concentrations greater than 0,1 mg/kg, poses a risk to human health and that action on a Union-wide basis, beyond any measures already in place, is necessary. That dossier was submitted to the Agency in order to initiate the restriction process.\n(3)\nFurniture and footwear available on the market in several Member States have been identified as the cause of damage to the health of consumers in France, Poland, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.\n(4)\nIt was recognised that the health damage was caused by DMF, which is a biocide that prevents moulds that may deteriorate leather furniture or footwear during storage or transport in a humid climate. DMF was most often contained in little pouches fixed inside the furniture or added to the footwear boxes. It evaporated and impregnated the product, protecting it from moulds. However, it also affected consumers who were in contact with those products. DMF came into contact with consumers\u2019 skin where it caused a number of cases of sensitisation (contact dermatitis), resulting in a painful condition. In some cases, acute respiratory troubles were also reported. Dermatitis is particularly difficult to treat and the sensitisation is irreversible. Because of its potential for sensitisation, exposure to DMF can elicit adverse reactions at very low concentrations in sensitised subjects.\n(5)\nThe marketing and use of DMF in biocidal products is not permitted in the Union, according to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) and to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (3). Therefore, articles produced in the Union may not be treated with DMF. However, Directive 98/8/EC does not foresee restricting the import into the Union of articles treated with biocides.\n(6)\nOn the basis of Article 13 of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (4), the Commission has adopted Decision 2009/251/EC of 17 March 2009 requiring Member States to ensure that products containing the biocide dimethylfumarate are not placed or made available on the market (5), which restricts the placing on the market of products containing DMF, as an emergency measure until the situation of DMF could be evaluated under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(7)\nThe prohibition provided by Decision 2009/251/EC was subsequently prolonged by Commission Decision 2010/153/EU (6), Commission Decision 2011/135/EU (7) and Commission Implementing Decision 2012/48/EU (8) and is applicable until the entry into force of this Regulation or 15 March 2013, whichever is the earlier.\n(8)\nIn its opinion of 8 March 2011, the Committee for Risk Assessment of the Agency considers that prohibiting the use of DMF in articles or parts thereof at a concentration higher than 0,1 mg/kg, and the placing on the market of articles or parts thereof containing DMF at a concentration greater than 0,1 mg/kg, is the most appropriate Union-wide measure to address the identified risks in terms of the effectiveness in reducing the risks.\n(9)\nIn its opinion of 14 June 2011, the Committee for Socioeconomic Analysis considers that the proposed measure regarding DMF is the most appropriate Union-wide measure to address the identified risks in terms of the proportionality of its socioeconomic benefits to its socioeconomic costs.\n(10)\nThe Agency has submitted to the Commission the opinions of the Committees for Risk Assessment and Socioeconomic Analysis.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 May 2012.", "references": ["62", "32", "21", "73", "75", "7", "15", "85", "92", "18", "41", "43", "5", "65", "30", "36", "90", "13", "29", "16", "27", "78", "22", "68", "89", "42", "84", "37", "76", "2", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "60", "83"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "60", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 808/2011\nof 10 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2011.", "references": ["24", "23", "16", "74", "53", "64", "82", "54", "88", "32", "83", "46", "34", "12", "89", "71", "51", "93", "92", "40", "63", "18", "94", "39", "20", "70", "48", "9", "6", "28", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 884/2010\nof 7 October 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1464/2004 as regards the withdrawal time of the additive \u2018Monteban\u2019, belonging to the group of coccidiostats and other medicinal substances\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the possibility to modify the authorisation of a feed additive further to a request from the holder of the authorisation and an opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019).\n(3)\nThe use of narasin (Monteban) was authorised for 10 years for chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1464/2004 of 17 August 2004 concerning the authorisation for 10 years of the additive \u2018Monteban\u2019 in feedingstuffs, belonging to the group of coccidiostats and other medicinal substances (2).\n(4)\nThe holder of the authorisation submitted an application for a modification of the authorisation of this additive to reduce the withdrawal time before slaughtering from one day to zero days. The holder of the authorisation submitted the relevant data to support its request.\n(5)\nThe Authority concluded in its opinion of 10 March 2010 that the use of Monteban in chickens for fattening at the maximum dose proposed, and without applying a withdrawal period, is safe for the consumer and that, therefore, the request for reducing the withdrawal time from one day to zero days can be accepted (3).\n(6)\nThe conditions provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 are satisfied.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1464/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn the ninth column, \u2018Other provisions\u2019, of the table in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1464/2004, the sentence \u2018Use prohibited at least one day before slaughter.\u2019 is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 October 2010.", "references": ["58", "91", "99", "9", "17", "4", "40", "42", "48", "29", "50", "70", "7", "37", "83", "89", "8", "65", "59", "92", "6", "43", "10", "23", "98", "45", "34", "62", "3", "39", "No Label", "38", "61", "74"], "gold": ["38", "61", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 851/2011\nof 23 August 2011\nwithdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSubmission of applications for import licences concerning order number 09.4380 were suspended as from 20 July 2011 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 698/2011 of 19 July 2011 suspending submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas (3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009.\n(2)\nFollowing notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for that order number. The suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe suspension laid down by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 698/2011 of submission of applications for import licences for order number 09.4380 as from 20 July 2011 is withdrawn.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 August 2011.", "references": ["99", "9", "58", "65", "0", "84", "75", "47", "64", "35", "4", "41", "36", "87", "12", "85", "8", "45", "63", "69", "53", "37", "6", "91", "94", "44", "19", "29", "28", "2", "No Label", "21", "22", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/46/EU\nof 14 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include hexythiazox as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included hexythiazox.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of hexythiazox.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Finland, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nFinland evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 20 October 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on hexythiazox to the Commission on 7 September 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for hexythiazox.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing hexythiazox may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include hexythiazox in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit information confirming the risk assessment for the toxicological relevance and the potential occurrence of the metabolite PT-1-3 (7) in processed commodities, the potential adverse effects of hexythiazox on bee brood and the possible impact of the preferential degradation and/or conversion of the mixture of isomers on the worker risk assessment, the consumer risk assessment and the environment.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing hexythiazox to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (8) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of hexythiazox and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning hexythiazox in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning hexythiazox in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing hexythiazox as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to hexythiazox are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing hexythiazox as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning hexythiazox. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing hexythiazox as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing hexythiazox as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 April 2011.", "references": ["59", "85", "95", "67", "56", "94", "58", "62", "93", "9", "77", "74", "30", "55", "53", "40", "89", "82", "73", "29", "28", "15", "37", "14", "70", "81", "42", "32", "7", "52", "No Label", "2", "20", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "20", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 645/2012\nof 16 July 2012\nderogating from Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 and Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 as regards the reduction of the amounts of the aid for late submission of single applications in relation to Mainland Portugal and Madeira for 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1), and in particular Article 91 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (2), and in particular Article 142(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (3) provides, in its Article 23(1), for reductions to be applied in the case of late submission of an aid application as well as documents, contracts or declarations which are constitutive for the eligibility for the aid.\n(2)\nAccording to Article 8 (3) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (4), Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 apply mutatis mutandis to payment claims under Title I of Part II of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011.\n(3)\nPortugal has implemented a system of single aid application which covers, pursuant to Article 19(3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, several support schemes. In particular, applications for single payment scheme under Title III of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, applications for ewe and goat premiums under Article 35 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the support schemes for farmers provided for in Titles IV and V thereof (5) and certain applications for aid granted under Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 form part of the single application.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 and Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, Portugal has fixed 15 May 2012 as the latest day until which single applications for 2012 can be submitted. As regards single applications including an application for the ewe and goat premium, Portugal has, in accordance with Article 35(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009, fixed 30 April of the application year as the latest day until which applications for the ewe and goat premium for 2012 can be submitted.\n(5)\nArticle 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 requires Member States to ensure that agricultural parcels are reliably identified and requires the single application to be accompanied by documents identifying the parcels in order to enable the implementation of the control system.\n(6)\nIn response to deficiencies related to the identification of agricultural parcels, which were regularly detected in the past, Portugal implemented an \"Action Plan\" in liaison with the Commission. This commitment includes in particular the update of the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) in Portugal.\n(7)\nPortugal has experienced exceptional circumstances in its administration of the single applications for 2012 as far as Mainland Portugal and Madeira are concerned. In a second phase of the \"Action Plan\" Portugal should have reviewed approximately 1 600 000 parcels. The work is complex and quality controls led to new analysis of some of the parcels which causes delays. Also, as the part of the work carried out by external contractors has been delayed, the LPIS could not be updated in line with the envisaged timetable. Consequently farmers were provided with the updated information about the parcels later than foreseen.\n(8)\nGiven the existing technical capacity in Portugal, which had already been enlarged in anticipation of the implementation of the \"Action Plan\", this situation has affected the ability of applicants to submit single aid applications for Mainland Portugal and Madeira within the time limits provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 and Article 35(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009.\n(9)\nThese difficulties are reinforced by the fact that the application procedure in Portugal is particularly time-consuming given the corrections of reference parcels boundaries which need to be carefully checked by farmers following the update of the LPIS. Abiding by the deadlines of 15 May 2012 and 30 April 2012 respectively is therefore not possible, given the overall context of the \"Action Plan\" and the engagements taken by Portugal to improve its integrated administration and control system.\n(10)\nFurthermore, the implementation of additional measures due to exceptional drought led to a more intensive use of the informatics system. Since those measures were administered by the same informatics system as the \"Action Plan\", capacity for administering the \u201cAction Plan\u201d was further reduced.\n(11)\nDue to the difficulties mentioned above, the application process in 2012 could only start later than the date on which the process started in 2011 and in the previous years. For the same reasons, applications were submitted at a slower rhythm than in 2011. The information submitted by the Portuguese authorities to the Commission on the capacity of the IT system shows that a derogation of 25 days is necessary to enable all farmers and beneficiaries concerned to submit their applications.\n(12)\nIt is therefore appropriate not to apply the reductions provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 on grounds of late submission of single applications in respect of those farmers who submitted their single applications for Mainland Portugal and Madeira at the latest 25 calendar days after 15 May 2012 or, in the case of the ewe and goat premium at the latest 25 calendar days after 30 April 2012.\n(13)\nSimilarly, by way of derogation from Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 and in respect of payment claims in relation to Mainland Portugal and Madeira under Title I of Part II of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, it is appropriate not to apply reductions on grounds of late submission of single applications which were submitted at the latest 25 calendar days after 15 May 2012.\n(14)\nIn accordance with Article 3(4) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits (6), where the last day of a period expressed otherwise than in hours is a public holiday, Sunday or Saturday, the period shall end with the expiry of the last hour of the following working day. Given that 11 June 2012 is the first working day following 9 June 2012, it is appropriate not to apply any reductions on grounds of late submission of single applications in respect of those farmers who submitted their single applications for Mainland Portugal and Madeira at the latest by 11 June 2012 or, in the case of the ewe and goat premium at the latest by 25 May 2012.\n(15)\nSince the proposed derogations should cover the single applications submitted for aid year 2012, it is appropriate that this Regulation applies retroactively.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Rural Development Committee and the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. By way of derogation from Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, in respect of the application year 2012, no reductions shall apply on grounds of late submission of single applications in respect of those farmers who submitted their single applications for Mainland Portugal and Madeira at the latest by 11 June 2012.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, where single applications for 2012 include an application for ewe and goat premium, no reductions on grounds of late submission of single applications shall apply in relation to that premium in respect of those farmers who submitted their single applications for Mainland Portugal and Madeira at the latest by 25 May 2012.\nArticle 2\nBy way of derogation from Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, in respect of the application year 2012, no reductions provided for in Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 shall apply in respect of payment claims in relation to Mainland Portugal and Madeira under Title I of Part II of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 on grounds of late submission of single applications if those applications were submitted at the latest by 11 June 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply as from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["68", "53", "33", "30", "42", "39", "99", "51", "11", "5", "9", "79", "3", "41", "18", "74", "52", "54", "85", "46", "98", "75", "45", "12", "31", "19", "94", "40", "6", "83", "No Label", "4", "8", "61", "65", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "8", "61", "65", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1259/2011\nof 2 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels for dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (2) sets maximum levels for dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in a range of foodstuffs.\n(2)\nDioxins belong to a group of 75 polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (PCDD) congeners and 135 polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDF) congeners, of which 17 are of toxicological concern. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a group of 209 different congeners which can be divided into two groups according to their toxicological properties: 12 congeners exhibit toxicological properties similar to dioxins and are therefore often referred to as \u2018dioxin-like PCBs\u2019 (DL-PCB). The other PCBs do not exhibit dioxin-like toxicity but have a different toxicological profile and are referred to as \u2018non dioxin-like PCB\u2019 (NDL-PCB).\n(3)\nEach congener of dioxins or DL-PCBs exhibits a different level of toxicity. In order to be able to sum up the toxicity of these different congeners, the concept of toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) was introduced to facilitate risk assessment and regulatory control. As a result the analytical results relating to all the individual dioxin and dioxin-like PCB congeners of toxicological concern are expressed in terms of a quantifiable unit, namely the TCDD toxic equivalent (TEQ).\n(4)\nThe World Health Organisation (WHO) held an expert workshop on 28 to 30 June 2005 concerning the TEF values, agreed by WHO in 1998. A number of TEF values were changed, notably for PCBs, octachlorinated congeners and pentachlorinated furans. The data on the effect of the new TEF values and the recent occurrence are compiled in the European Food Safety Authority\u2019s (EFSA) scientific report \u2018Results of the monitoring of dioxin levels in food and feed\u2019 (3). Therefore, it is appropriate to review the maximum levels of PCBs taking into account these new data.\n(5)\nThe Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain of the EFSA on a request from the Commission has adopted an opinion on the presence of NDL-PCBs in feed and food (4).\n(6)\nThe sum of the six marker or indicator PCBs (PCB 28, 52, 101, 138, 153 and 180) comprises about half of the amount of total NDL-PCB present in feed and food. That sum is considered as an appropriate marker for occurrence and human exposure to NDL-PCB and therefore should be set as a maximum level.\n(7)\nMaximum levels have been established taking into account recent occurrence data compiled in the EFSA scientific report \u2018Results of the monitoring of non dioxin-like PCBs in food and feed\u2019 (5). Although it is possible to achieve lower limits of quantification (LOQ), it can be observed that a considerable number of laboratories apply an LOQ of 1 \u03bcg/kg fat or even 2 \u03bcg/kg fat. Expressing the analytical result as an upperbound level would result in some cases in a level close to the maximum level if very strict maximum levels would be established, even if no PCBs have been quantified. It was also acknowledged that for certain food categories the data were not very extensive. Therefore, it would be appropriate to review the maximum levels in 3 years time, based upon a more extensive database obtained with a method of analysis with sufficient sensitivity for quantifying low levels.\n(8)\nDerogations have been granted to Finland and Sweden to place on the market fish originating in the Baltic region and intended for consumption in their territory with dioxin levels higher than the maximum levels established for dioxins and the sum of dioxins and DL-PCBs in fish. Those Member States have fulfilled the conditions as regards the provision of information to consumers on dietary recommendations. Every year they communicate to the Commission the results of their monitoring of the levels of dioxins in fish from the Baltic region and the measures to reduce human exposure to dioxins from the Baltic region.\n(9)\nOn the basis of the results of monitoring of levels of dioxins and DL-PCBs carried out by Finland and Sweden, the derogation granted could be limited to certain fish species. Given the persistent presence of dioxins and PCBs in the environment and consequently in fish it is appropriate to grant this derogation without a time limit.\n(10)\nAs regards wild caught salmon, Latvia has requested a similar derogation as that granted to Finland and Sweden. To that end, Latvia has demonstrated that human exposure to dioxins and DL-PCBs in its territory is not higher than the highest average level in any of the Member States and that it has a system in place to ensure that consumers are fully informed of dietary recommendations with regard to restrictions on the consumption of fish from the Baltic region by identified vulnerable sections of the population in order to avoid potential health risks. Furthermore, monitoring of the levels of dioxins and DL-PCBs in fish from the Baltic region should be carried out and the results and measures that have been taken to reduce human exposure to dioxins and DL-PCBs from fish from the Baltic region should be reported to the Commission. The necessary measures have been put in place ensuring that fish and fish products not complying with EU maximum levels for PCBs are not marketed in other Member States.\n(11)\nGiven that the contamination pattern of NDL-PCBs in fish from the Baltic region show similarities with the contamination of dioxins and DL-PCBs and given that also NDL-PCBs are very persistent in the environment, it is appropriate to grant a similar derogation as regards the presence of NDL-PCBs as for dioxins and DL-PCBs in fish from the Baltic region.\n(12)\nEFSA has been requested to provide scientific opinion as regards the presence of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in sheep and deer liver and the appropriateness to establish maximum levels for dioxins and PCBs in liver and derived products on product basis rather than on a fat basis, as is currently the case. Therefore, the provisions on liver and derived products should be reviewed in particular the provisions as regards sheep and deer liver once the EFSA opinion is available. In the meantime it is appropriate to set the maximum level for dioxins and PCBs on a fat basis.\n(13)\nFoods with less than 1 % fat were until now excluded from the maximum level for dioxins and DL-PCBs, given that those foods are generally minor contributors to the human exposure. However, there have been cases with food containing less than 1 % fat but with very high levels of dioxins and DL-PCBs in the fat. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply the maximum level to such foods, but on a product basis. Taking into account that a maximum level is established on product basis for certain low fat containing foods, it is appropriate to apply a maximum level on product basis for foods containing less than 2 % fat.\n(14)\nIn the light of the monitoring data for dioxins and DL-PCBs in foods for infants and young children it is appropriate to set specific lower maximum levels for dioxins and DL-PCBs in foods for infants and young children. The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment from Germany has addressed to EFSA a specific request to assess the risk for infants and young children of the presence of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in foods for infants and young children. Therefore, the provisions on foods for infants and young children should be reviewed once the EFSA opinion is available.\n(15)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1881/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 7 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nThe title \u2018Temporary derogations\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Derogations\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. By way of derogation from Article 1, Finland, Sweden and Latvia may authorise the placing on their market of wild caught salmon (Salmo salar) and products thereof originating in the Baltic region and intended for consumption in their territory with levels of dioxins and/or dioxin-like PCBs and/or non-dioxin-like PCBs higher than those set out in point 5.3 of the Annex, provided that a system is in place to ensure that consumers are fully informed of the dietary recommendations with regard to the restrictions on the consumption of wild caught salmon from the Baltic region and products thereof by identified vulnerable sections of the population in order to avoid potential health risks.\nFinland, Sweden and Latvia shall continue to apply the necessary measures to ensure that wild caught salmon and products thereof not complying with point 5.3 of the Annex are not marketed in other Member States.\nFinland, Sweden and Latvia will report yearly to the Commission the measures they have taken to effectively inform the identified vulnerable sections of the population of the dietary recommendations and to ensure that wild caught salmon and products thereof not compliant with the maximum levels is not marketed in other Member States. They shall furthermore provide evidence of the effectiveness of these measures.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraph 5 is added:\n\u20185. By way of derogation from Article 1, Finland and Sweden may authorise the placing on their market of wild caught herring larger than 17 cm (Clupea harengus), wild caught char (Salvelinus spp.), wild caught river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) and wild caught trout (Salmo trutta) and products thereof originating in the Baltic region and intended for consumption in their territory with levels of dioxins and/or dioxin-like PCBs and/or non dioxin-like PCBs higher than those set out in point 5.3 of the Annex, provided that a system is in place to ensure that consumers are fully informed of the dietary recommendations with regard to the restrictions on the consumption of wild caught herring larger than 17 cm, wild caught char, wild caught river lamprey and wild caught trout from the Baltic region and products thereof by identified vulnerable sections of the population in order to avoid potential health risks.\nFinland and Sweden shall continue to apply the necessary measures to ensure that wild caught herring larger than 17 cm, wild caught char, wild caught river lamprey and wild caught trout and products thereof not complying with point 5.3 of the Annex are not marketed in other Member States.\nFinland and Sweden will report yearly to the Commission the measures they have taken to effectively inform the identified vulnerable sections of the population of the dietary recommendations and to ensure that fish and products thereof not compliant with the maximum levels is not marketed in other Member States. They shall furthermore provide evidence of the effectiveness of these measures.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe Annex is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2011.", "references": ["78", "0", "81", "37", "40", "75", "76", "29", "84", "53", "85", "92", "5", "26", "11", "2", "64", "44", "80", "57", "12", "56", "58", "15", "34", "23", "35", "54", "17", "21", "No Label", "8", "25", "38", "60", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "25", "38", "60", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 510/2012\nof 15 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 as regards the application fee payable to the Community Plant Variety Office\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (1), and in particular Article 113 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Administrative Council of the Community Plant Variety Office,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards the fees payable to the Community Plant Variety Office (2), sets out the fees payable to the Community Plant Variety Office (\u2018the Office\u2019), and the levels of those fees.\n(2)\nThe reserve of the Office has exceeded the level necessary to maintain a balanced budget and to safeguard the continuity of its operations. For this reason the application fee should be reduced.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1238/95 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Community Plant Variety Rights,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1238/95, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The applicant for a Community plant variety right (the applicant) shall pay an application fee of EUR 650 for the processing of the application as referred to in Article 113(2)(a) of the Basic Regulation.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2012.", "references": ["31", "94", "22", "89", "29", "35", "41", "53", "39", "70", "12", "95", "88", "40", "4", "93", "3", "68", "59", "54", "96", "63", "33", "51", "23", "50", "91", "28", "82", "19", "No Label", "7", "32", "47", "66", "77"], "gold": ["7", "32", "47", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 701/2012\nof 30 July 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 103h, 127(c) and 143 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishes a common organisation of agricultural markets which includes the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors. Pursuant to Article 103c of that Regulation, operational programmes in the fruit and vegetables sector may include crisis prevention and management measures, aimed at avoiding and dealing with crises on the fruit and vegetable markets.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 79(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 (2), Annex XI to that Implementing Regulation sets out the maximum amounts of support for market withdrawals for the products listed therein. Those amounts should be fixed so as to avoid that withdrawals become a permanent alternative outlet for products compared to placing them on the market and to ensure, at the same time, that withdrawals remain an effective instrument for crisis prevention and management.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure that withdrawals remain an effective instrument for crisis prevention and management, the maximum amounts of support for market withdrawals should be increased for those fruit and vegetables where current support levels are particularly low compared to the average producer prices in the Union. This is the case for tomatoes, grapes, apricots, pears, aubergines and melons. In addition, in order to avoid overcompensation of withdrawals of lower-priced tomatoes intended for processing, a differentiated amount should be introduced for tomatoes produced from 1 June to 31 October, which is the period in which tomatoes intended for processing may be withdrawn.\n(4)\nIn order to encourage the free distribution of withdrawn fruit and vegetables within the meaning of Article 103d(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and any other equivalent destinations approved by the Member States, a higher maximum amount of aid should be fixed than for other destinations, if the difference between the average producer price in the Union and the current maximum support levels allows this without creating an alternative outlet for the products compared to placing them on the market. This is the case for cauliflowers, tomatoes, apples, grapes, apricots, pears, aubergines, melons, watermelons, clementines and lemons.\n(5)\nIn order to facilitiate the distribution of withdrawn products by charitable organisations and institutions, those organisations and institutions should only be obliged to keep financial accounts for the operation in question if they have requested and obtained the authorisation from the competent authorities of the Member State to ask a symbolic financial contribution from the final recipients. The possibility to request such a contribution should also be extended to fresh products.\n(6)\nIn order to take past experiences in applying crisis prevention and management measures into account, it is appropriate to clarify the definitions of green harvesting and non-harvesting and the situations in which green harvesting and non-harvesting measures may be undertaken. In addition, so as to align the various crisis prevention and management measures and to increase their effectiveness, it is appropriate to delete the specific obligation provided for in Article 85(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 to include a compulsory market analysis in the first notification of each intended green harvesting operation.\n(7)\nIn order to react to a sudden crisis situation, green harvesting and non-harvesting should be possible for fruit and vegetables with a longer harvesting period, although the normal harvest has already begun or commercial production has already been taken from the area in question, subject to restrictions to be decided by Member States. In such cases, only the production to be harvested in the six weeks following the operation should be compensated. As plants bearing fruit and vegetables with a longer harvesting period often bear both ripe and unripe products at the same time, it is appropriate to derogate from the general rule opposing the application of green harvesting and non-harvesting measures for the same product and the same given area in any given year.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure that the obligation to demonstrate that each lot was disposed of in accordance with the relevant conditions is fulfilled and to allow for effective customs controls based on risk analysis, detailed rules should be set out as regards the obligation to make available to the customs authorities certain documents relevant for the controls to be undertaken.\n(9)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nIt is appropriate to apply the new amounts of support for market withdrawals retroactively as from 1 July 2012 when the summer marketing season starts. In order to give time to importers to adapt to the new rules concerning the entry price system, those rules should apply from 1 September 2012.\n(11)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 80(2), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Upon request, Member States may authorise the charitable organisations and institutions referred to in Article 103d(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 to ask a symbolic contribution from the final recipients of products withdrawn from the market. When the charitable organisations and institutions concerned have obtained the authorisation, they shall, in addition to the obligations under Article 83(1) of this Regulation, keep financial accounts for the operation in question.\u2019\n(2)\nIn Article 83(1), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nkeep separate stock records for the operations in question;\u2019\n(3)\nIn Article 84(1), points (a) and (b) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\n\u201cgreen harvesting\u201d means the total harvesting of unripe non-marketable products on a given area. The products concerned shall not have been damaged prior to the green harvesting, whether due to climatic reasons or disease or otherwise;\n(b)\n\u201cnon-harvesting\u201d means the termination of the current production cycle from the area concerned where the product is well developed and is of sound, fair and marketable quality. Destruction of products due to a climatic event or disease shall not be considered as non-harvesting.\u2019\n(4)\nArticle 85 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, the second subparagraph is deleted;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Green harvesting measures shall not be undertaken in respect of fruit and vegetables of which the normal harvest has already begun, and non-harvesting measures shall not be undertaken where commercial production has been taken from the area concerned during the normal production cycle.\nHowever, the first subparagraph shall not apply where fruit and vegetable plants have a harvesting period exceeding one month. In such cases, the amounts referred to in paragraph 4 shall only compensate for the production to be harvested in the six weeks following the green harvesting and non-harvesting operation. Those fruit and vegetable plants shall not be used for further production purposes after the operation has taken place.\nFor the purposes of the second subparagraph, Member States may prohibit the application of green harvesting and non-harvesting measures if, in the case of green harvesting, a significant part of the normal harvest has been carried out and, in the case of non-harvesting, a significant part of the commercial production has already been taken. A Member State intending to apply this provision shall lay down in its national strategy the part it deems to be significant.\nGreen harvesting and non-harvesting shall not both be applied for the same product and the same given area in any given year, except for the purposes of the second subparagraph where both operations may be applied simultaneously.\u2019\n(c)\nin paragraph 4, point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nat a level to cover not more than 90 % of the maximum support level for market withdrawals applicable to withdrawals for destinations other than free distribution as referred to in Article 103d(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\u2019\n(5)\nIn Article 109(5), point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\na sample check on the stock records to be kept by recipients and on the financial accounts of the charitable organisations and institutions concerned where the second subparagraph of Article 80(2) applies;\u2019\n(6)\nArticle 110 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the second subparagraph is deleted;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the following third subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Where the second subparagraph of Article 85(3) applies, the requirement provided for in the first subparagraph of this paragraph that no partial harvest has taken place shall not apply.\u2019\n(c)\nthe following paragraph 2a is inserted:\n\u20182a. Where the second subparagraph of Article 85(3) applies, Member States shall ensure that the fruit and vegetable plants on which non-harvesting and green harvesting measures have been undertaken shall not be used for further production purposes.\u2019\n(7)\nArticle 121 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, point (a) is deleted;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Point (b) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall not apply where the second subparagraph of Article 85(3) applies.\u2019\n(8)\nIn Article 137(4), the following fourth and fifth subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018In order to prove that the lot was disposed of under the conditions set out in the first subparagraph, the importer shall make available, in addition to the invoice, all documents needed for the carrying out of the relevant customs controls in relation to the sale and disposal of each product of the lot in question. This shall include documents relating to the transport, insurance, handling and storage of the lot.\nWhere the marketing standards referred to in Article 3 require the product variety or the commercial type of the fruit and vegetables to be indicated on the packaging, the product variety or the commercial type of the fruit and vegetables that form part of the lot shall be indicated on documents related to transport, invoices and the delivery order.\u2019\n(9)\nAnnex XI is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nHowever, point (8) of Article 1 shall apply from 1 September 2012 and point (9) of Article 1 shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 July 2012.", "references": ["14", "24", "72", "34", "25", "81", "75", "33", "30", "71", "67", "92", "21", "31", "51", "10", "50", "90", "63", "3", "49", "65", "87", "15", "83", "41", "12", "1", "84", "13", "No Label", "4", "20", "36", "61", "64", "68", "73"], "gold": ["4", "20", "36", "61", "64", "68", "73"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 April 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin\n(2013/93/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin, hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Convention\u2019, aims at replacing the protocols on rules of origin currently in force among the countries of the pan-Euro-Mediterranean area.\n(2)\nThe participants in the Stabilisation and Association Process have been included in the pan-Euro-Mediterranean system of cumulation of origin through the Convention.\n(3)\nOn 26 November 2009 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the EFTA States, the participants in the Barcelona Process, the participants in the Stabilisation and Association Process and the Faroe Islands on the Convention.\n(4)\nOn 9 December 2009 the text of the Convention was endorsed by the Euromed Trade Ministers at their Conference held in Brussels.\n(5)\nThe Convention should be signed and the attached Declaration be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Convention (1).\nArticle 2\nThe Declaration set out in the Annex to this Decision is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Convention on behalf of the European Union subject to its conclusion and to make the Declaration set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 14 April 2011.", "references": ["44", "83", "59", "82", "18", "47", "86", "37", "72", "54", "15", "74", "29", "11", "31", "6", "7", "58", "12", "46", "48", "27", "98", "36", "41", "45", "19", "26", "40", "38", "No Label", "3", "9", "23", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "23", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2009/024 NL/Noord Holland and Zuid Holland Division 58 from the Netherlands)\n(2010/740/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nThe Netherlands submitted an application on 30 December 2009 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in eight enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 58 (publishing activities) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions Noord Holland (NL32) and Zuid Holland (NL33) and supplemented it with additional information up to 31 May 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 326 459.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Netherlands,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 326 459 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["40", "87", "18", "31", "90", "75", "78", "98", "26", "1", "69", "56", "52", "88", "14", "72", "70", "59", "17", "4", "33", "24", "38", "47", "42", "83", "71", "61", "21", "55", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 391/2011\nof 19 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2011.", "references": ["21", "41", "43", "48", "93", "56", "38", "30", "10", "0", "1", "69", "4", "34", "18", "99", "65", "81", "78", "6", "98", "39", "74", "17", "82", "71", "60", "7", "19", "67", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 723/2012\nof 8 August 2012\nrecognising a traditional term provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (Cream - TDT-US-N0017)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 118u(2) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nTwo representative professional organisations established in the United States of America, WineAmerica and California Export Association, submitted to the Commission an application, received on 22 June 2010, for protection of the traditional term \u2018Cream\u2019 in relation to grapevine products of category \u20183. Liqueur wine\u2019 provided for in Annex XIb to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 bearing a name of origin listed in Annex V to the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine, approved by Council Decision 2006/232/EC (2).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 33 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products (3), the application was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4). No objection was submitted within two months from the date of publication.\n(3)\nThe application for the protection of the traditional term \u2018Cream\u2019 which relates to American wines satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 118u(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and in Articles 31 and 35 of Regulation (EC) No 607/2009. The application for protection should be accepted and the traditional term \u2018Cream\u2019 should therefore be entered into the electronic database \u2018E-Bacchus\u2019 for wines produced by the members of the two representative professional organisations that submitted the application.\n(4)\nArticle 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 requires the Commission to make public the information regarding the representative trade organisation and its members. That information should be made public in the electronic database \u2018E-Bacchus\u2019.\n(5)\nThe measure provided for in this Regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe application for protection of the traditional term \u2018Cream\u2019 is hereby accepted for American grapevine products of category \u20183. Liqueur wine\u2019 provided for in Annex XIb to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. The term \u2018Cream\u2019 shall be entered into the electronic database \u2018E-Bacchus\u2019 as indicated in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 August 2012.", "references": ["34", "40", "75", "52", "92", "37", "61", "18", "82", "2", "42", "15", "48", "21", "25", "91", "74", "81", "33", "9", "87", "76", "31", "1", "85", "36", "3", "53", "70", "41", "No Label", "23", "24", "71", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "24", "71", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 119/2011\nof 10 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2011.", "references": ["83", "24", "96", "34", "33", "53", "18", "63", "84", "32", "87", "21", "95", "93", "39", "38", "73", "62", "12", "65", "10", "47", "74", "88", "48", "22", "30", "46", "94", "81", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 July 2010\non the existence of an excessive deficit in Bulgaria\n(2010/422/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 126(6) in conjunction with Article 126(13) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the observations made by Bulgaria,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 126(1) of the Treaty, Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits.\n(2)\nThe Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.\n(3)\nThe excessive deficit procedure (EDP) under Article 126 of the Treaty, as clarified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1) (which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact), provides for a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit. The Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the EDP. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provision of the said Protocol.\n(4)\nThe 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the EDP. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.\n(5)\nArticle 126(5) of the Treaty requires the Commission to address an opinion to the Council if the Commission considers that an excessive deficit in a Member State exists or may occur. Having taken into account its report in accordance with Article 126(3) and having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee in accordance with Article 126(4), the Commission concluded that an excessive deficit exists in Bulgaria. The Commission therefore addressed such an opinion to the Council in respect of Bulgaria on 6 July 2010 (3).\n(6)\nArticle 126(6) of the Treaty states that the Council should consider any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make before deciding, after an overall assessment, whether an excessive deficit exists. In the case of Bulgaria, this overall assessment leads to the following conclusions.\n(7)\nAccording to the data notified by the Bulgarian authorities in April 2010, the general government deficit in Bulgaria reached 3,9 % of GDP in 2009, thus exceeding the 3 % of GDP reference value. The deficit was not close to the 3 % of GDP reference value but the excess over the reference value can be qualified as exceptional within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. In particular, it results from a severe economic downturn in the sense of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact, as the global economic and financial crisis hit hard the economy of Bulgaria and the negative annual GDP volume growth reached 5 % in 2009. According to the Commission services\u2019 spring 2010 forecast, the general government deficit would fall below the reference value already in 2010 with the stabilisation of the economy and as a result of the fiscal consolidation measures undertaken by the government. However, on the basis of the revised deficit target for 2010 (3,8 % of GDP according to the notification of 22 June 2010 by the Bulgarian authorities), significantly above the Commission services\u2019 spring forecast of 2,8 % of GDP, the breach of the reference value may not remain temporary. The deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.\n(8)\nAccording to the data notified by the Bulgarian authorities in April 2010, the general government gross debt remains well below the 60 % of GDP reference value and stood at 14,8 % of GDP in 2009. The Commission services\u2019 spring 2010 forecast projects the debt ratio to increase over the 2010-2011 period, but to remain below 19 % of GDP. In a notification submitted on 22 June 2010, the Bulgarian authorities further revised the planned debt for 2010 to 15,3 % of GDP. The debt criterion in the Treaty is fulfilled.\n(9)\nAccording to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, \u2018relevant factors\u2019 can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) if the double condition - that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary - is fully met. In the case of Bulgaria, this double condition is not met. Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFrom an overall assessment it follows that an excessive deficit exists in Bulgaria.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2010.", "references": ["65", "41", "84", "47", "20", "49", "40", "89", "71", "48", "66", "9", "39", "5", "83", "78", "45", "74", "61", "62", "44", "90", "0", "46", "34", "88", "7", "56", "42", "1", "No Label", "16", "28", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["16", "28", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 830/2010\nof 20 September 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of September 2010 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for certain products in the egg sector and for egg albumin\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 of 15 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the egg sector and for egg albumin (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 539/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of egg products and egg albumin.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of September 2010 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2010 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2010 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2010.", "references": ["14", "84", "60", "95", "63", "11", "45", "43", "17", "66", "56", "7", "26", "30", "13", "6", "10", "23", "85", "87", "38", "0", "18", "36", "1", "57", "42", "67", "75", "81", "No Label", "21", "69", "72"], "gold": ["21", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/565/CFSP\nof 21 September 2010\non the European Union mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUSEC RD Congo)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn the basis of Joint Action 2005/355/CFSP (1), the European Union (EU) has been conducting, since 2 May 2005, a mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (EUSEC RD Congo). The current mandate of the mission is set out in Joint Action 2009/709/CFSP (2) and expires on 30 September 2010.\n(2)\nThe Secretary-General/High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy sent a letter to the President of the DRC dated 27 July 2009 stating the EU's renewed commitment. Following that letter, the mission statement was adapted as from 1 October 2009. The Congolese authorities transposed that letter into an action programme which was signed, on 21 January 2010, by the Minister for Defence and War Veterans and the Head of the EUSEC RD Congo mission.\n(3)\nFollowing the ratification in 2005 of the Constitution of the Third Republic of the Congo, the elections held in the DRC in 2006 marked the end of the transition process and enabled a government to be formed in 2007, which has adopted a programme providing in particular for comprehensive reform of the security sector, the drawing up of a national plan, and priority reforms in the police, armed forces and judicial sectors. The Congolese authorities have demonstrated their interest in implementing the security sector reform (SSR) process in the DRC at operational level by developing a plan to reform the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC) in three stages between 2009 and 2025, a plan which was approved by the President of the Republic at the end of May 2009 and presented to the representatives of the international community on 26 January 2010, and by taking over the role of coordinator of the work of the various actors supporting SSR in the DRC.\n(4)\nThe United Nations has reaffirmed its support for the transition process and SSR by means of several Security Council resolutions, and is conducting the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO), which is focusing on peacekeeping in the east of the country and on peace consolidation throughout the country. On 28 May 2010, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1925 (2010) extending MONUC's mandate until 30 June 2010 and renaming it the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO) as from 1 July 2010 and allowing it to support, in close cooperation with other international partners, the efforts of the Congolese authorities to strengthen and reform security and judicial institutions.\n(5)\nThe EU has consistently supported SSR in the DRC, as one of the elements of a more general EU commitment to supporting development and democracy in the African Great Lakes Region, while taking care to promote policies compatible with human rights and international humanitarian law, democratic standards and the principles of good governance, transparency and respect for the rule of law.\n(6)\nOn 14 June 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/329/CFSP amending and extending for an additional period of three months Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP on the European Union police mission undertaken in the framework of SSR and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo) (3).\n(7)\nIn order to increase the coordination, consistency and complementarity of the EU's activities in the DRC, making maximum use of the new European institutional framework, there should be enhanced coordination of EU action between the two missions, between the European players in the DRC and between Brussels and Kinshasa.\n(8)\nOn 11 August 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/440/CFSP (4) extending the mandate of Mr Roeland VAN DE GEER as the EU Special Representative (EUSR) for the African Great Lakes Region.\n(9)\nOn 29 July 2010, the Council approved the crisis management concept for the commitment of common security and defence policy missions in support of security sector reform in the DRC.\n(10)\nThird States should participate in the project in accordance with the general guidelines defined by the European Council.\n(11)\nThe current security situation in the DRC may deteriorate, with potentially serious repercussions for the process of strengthening democracy, the rule of law and international and regional security. A continued commitment of EU political effort and resources will help to embed stability in the region,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMission\n1. The European Union (EU) is conducting a mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform (SSR) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), hereinafter referred to as \u2018EUSEC RD Congo\u2019 or \u2018the mission\u2019, with the aim of assisting the Congolese authorities in setting up a defence apparatus capable of guaranteeing the security of the Congolese people, while respecting democratic standards, human rights and the rule of law, as well as the principles of good governance and transparency.\n2. The mission shall operate in accordance with the mission statement set out in Article 2.\nArticle 2\nMission statement\n1. The mission shall aim, in close cooperation and coordination with the other actors in the international community, in particular the United Nations and MONUSCO, and in pursuit of the objectives laid down in Article 1, to provide practical support in the field of SSR, creating conditions to facilitate the implementation in the short and medium term of activities and projects based on the guidelines adopted by the Congolese authorities in the plan for reform of the FARDC as set out in the mission action programme, including:\n(a)\nmaintaining support at strategic level;\n(b)\nsupporting the consolidation of the administration and the introduction of a human resources management system based on the work in progress;\n(c)\nsupporting the modernisation of logistics;\n(d)\nsupporting a relaunch of the training system, particularly for executive staff, mainly through support for the School of Administration and Military Academy project in Kananga and for studies for the School of Logistics in Kinshasa;\n(e)\npursuing activities relating to the campaign against impunity in the areas of respect for human rights, including sexual violence.\n2. The mission shall advise the Member States and shall coordinate and facilitate, under their responsibility, the implementation of their projects in fields which are of interest to the mission and in furtherance of its objectives.\nArticle 3\nStructure of the mission and deployment zone\n1. The mission shall have headquarters in Kinshasa consisting of:\n(a)\na leadership;\n(b)\nan administrative support and logistics department;\n(c)\na department of defence experts responsible for assisting and supporting the Congolese in carrying out specific actions in the areas of administration, human resources, logistics and training;\n(d)\nan advice and assistance department, including advisers deployed in the east of the DRC and responsible for contributing to work on SSR carried out by the Congolese administration; and\n(e)\na planning cell.\n2. The main deployment zone shall be Kinshasa. Seconded advisers might also be deployed in the military regions in the east of the DRC. Movements of experts and their temporary presence in the military regions might also prove necessary, on the instructions of the Head of Mission.\nArticle 4\nPlanning\nThe Head of Mission shall draw up an implementation plan (OPLAN) for the mission, to be submitted for approval by the Council. He shall be assisted in this task by the departments under the authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\nArticle 5\nHead of Mission\n1. The Head of Mission shall assume day-to-day management of the mission and shall be responsible for staff and disciplinary matters.\n2. All seconded staff shall remain under the full command of the national authorities of the sending State or the EU institution concerned. National authorities shall transfer operational control (OPCON) of their personnel to the Head of Mission.\n3. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for disciplinary matters relating to staff. In the case of seconded staff, disciplinary action shall be exercised by the national authorities or EU institution concerned.\n4. In the context of the mission statement as set out in Article 2, the Head of Mission shall be authorised to have recourse to financial contributions from the Member States to implement projects identified as supplementing in a consistent manner the mission's other actions, in two specific cases: either the project is provided for in the financial statement relating to this Decision or it is incorporated in the course of the mission by amending the financial statement at the request of the Head of Mission.\nThe Head of Mission shall conclude an arrangement with the Member States concerned. This arrangement shall in particular cover the specific procedures for dealing with any complaint from third parties concerning damage caused as a result of acts or omissions by the Head of Mission in the use of the funds provided by the contributing Member States.\nUnder no circumstances may the EU or the HR be held liable by contributing Member States as a result of acts or omissions by the Head of Mission in the use of funds from those States.\n5. The Head of Mission shall sign a contract with the Commission to execute the budget for the mission.\n6. The Head of Mission shall collaborate closely, in his area of competence, with the Head of the EU Delegation, the heads of Member States' missions in Kinshasa and the EU Special Representative (EUSR).\nArticle 6\nStaff\n1. Mission experts shall be seconded by Member States and by the EU institutions. Except for the Head of Mission, each Member State or institution shall bear the costs relating to the experts seconded, including travel expenses to and from the DRC, salaries, medical coverage and allowances other than daily allowances.\n2. International civilian staff and local staff shall be recruited on a contractual basis by the mission as required.\n3. All mission experts shall remain under the authority of the appropriate Member State or EU institution, and shall fulfil their duties and act in the interest of the mission. Both during and after the mission, mission experts shall exercise the greatest discretion with regard to all facts and information relating to the mission.\nArticle 7\nChain of command\n1. The mission shall have a unified chain of command.\n2. The Head of Mission shall lead the mission and assume its day-to-day management.\n3. The Head of Mission shall report to the HR.\nArticle 8\nPolitical control and strategic direction\n1. Under the responsibility of the Council and the HR, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall exercise the political control and strategic direction of the mission. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions in accordance with Article 38(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). This authorisation shall include the power to amend the implementation plan. It shall also include powers necessary to take decisions regarding the appointment of the Head of Mission. The power of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of the mission shall remain vested in the Council, assisted by the HR.\n2. The PSC shall report to the Council at regular intervals.\n3. The PSC shall receive reports by the Head of Mission at regular intervals, through the HR. The PSC may invite the Head of Mission to its meetings as appropriate.\nArticle 9\nFinancial provisions\n1. The financial reference amount to cover expenditure relating to the mission shall be EUR 12 600 000 for the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011.\n2. As regards expenditure financed out of the amount stipulated in paragraph 1, the following shall apply:\n(a)\nexpenditure shall be managed in accordance with the EU rules and procedures applicable to the budget. Nationals of third States shall be allowed to tender for contracts;\n(b)\nthe Head of Mission shall report fully to, and be supervised by, the Commission regarding the activities undertaken in the framework of his contract.\n3. The financial arrangements shall respect the operational requirements of the mission, including compatibility of equipment.\n4. The expenditure connected with the mission shall be eligible as from the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 10\nParticipation by third States\n1. Without prejudice to the decision-making autonomy of the EU and the single institutional framework, the Council authorises the PSC to invite third States to propose to contribute to the mission, provided that they bear the cost of the staff seconded by them, including salaries, all risks insurance cover, daily allowances and travel expenses to and from the DRC, and that they contribute to the running costs of the mission, as appropriate.\n2. Third States contributing to the mission shall have the same rights and obligations in terms of day-to-day management of the mission as Member States.\n3. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the contributions proposed and to establish a Committee of Contributors.\n4. Detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States shall be covered by agreements concluded pursuant to Article 37 of the TEU and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and additional technical arrangements if necessary. Where the EU and a third State have concluded an agreement establishing a framework for the third State's participation in EU crisis-management operations, the provisions of that agreement shall apply in the context of the mission.\nArticle 11\nImplementation and consistency of the EU's response\n1. The HR shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision and shall also ensure that it is consistent with the EU's external action as a whole, including the EU's development programmes.\n2. The Head of Mission shall assist the HR in implementing this Decision.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. Arrangements for the coordination of the EU's activities in the DRC shall be established in Kinshasa as well as in Brussels.\n2. Without prejudice to the chain of command, the Head of the EUSEC RD Congo mission and the Head of the EUPOL RD Congo mission shall coordinate their activities closely and shall seek synergies between the two missions, particularly as regards the horizontal aspects of SSR in the DRC, and as regards the sharing of functions between the two missions, particularly in relation to crosscutting areas.\n3. The Head of Mission shall ensure that EUSEC RD Congo closely coordinates its activities in support of the reform of the FARDC with the Government of the DRC, the United Nations, via the MONUSCO mission, and the third States involved in the defence area of the SSR process in the DRC.\n4. The Head of the EU delegation in Kinshasa shall provide local political guidelines for the EUSEC RD Congo mission within the general framework defined by the planning documents, without prejudice to the EUSR's brief.\n5. The Head of the EU delegation and the Head of the EUSEC RD Congo mission shall establish the appropriate arrangements for information/consultation, particularly as regards the political aspects which may have an impact on the conduct of the mission. Likewise, the Head of the EUSEC RD Congo mission shall inform the Head of the EU delegation of all contacts at his level which may have a political impact.\n6. The Head of the EUSEC RD Congo mission (or his representative) shall also act as defence adviser to the Head of the delegation, without prejudice to each player's existing chains of command. In that context, there shall be constant contact between the mission and the EU delegation.\n7. As part of his brief, the EUSR shall, where necessary, provide the EUSEC RD Congo mission with political advice on the regional dimension, particularly as regards the Nairobi, Goma and Juba processes.\nArticle 13\nRelease of classified information\n1. The HR shall be authorised to release to third States associated with this Decision EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018CONFIDENTIEL UE\u2019 generated for the purposes of the operation, in accordance with the Council's security regulations (5).\n2. The HR shall be authorised to release to the United Nations, in accordance with the operational needs of the mission, EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018RESTREINT UE\u2019 generated for the purposes of the operation, in accordance with the Council's security regulations. Local arrangements shall be established for this purpose.\n3. In the event of a specific and immediate operational need, the HR shall also be authorised to release to the host State EU classified information and documents up to the level \u2018RESTREINT UE\u2019 generated for the purposes of the operation, in accordance with the Council's security regulations. In all other cases, such information and documents shall be released to the host State in accordance with procedures appropriate to the host State's level of cooperation with the EU.\n4. The HR shall be authorised to release to third States associated with this Decision EU non-classified documents relating to the deliberations of the Council with regard to the operation and covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council's Rules of Procedure (6).\nArticle 14\nStatus of the mission and of its staff\n1. The status of mission staff, including where appropriate the privileges, immunities and any further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission, shall be agreed pursuant to Article 37 of the TEU and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218(3) of the TFEU.\n2. The State or EU institution having seconded a staff member shall be responsible for dealing with any complaints linked to the secondment, from or concerning the staff member. The State or EU institution in question shall be responsible for bringing any action against the person seconded.\n3. The conditions of employment and the rights and obligations of international and local civilian personnel shall be set out in a contract concluded between the Head of Mission and the staff member.\nArticle 15\nSecurity\n1. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the security of the EUSEC RD Congo mission.\n2. The Head of Mission shall exercise this responsibility in accordance with EU directives on the security of staff deployed outside EU territory in an operational mission decided on pursuant to Title V, Chapter 2, of the TEU and related documents.\n3. The Head of Mission shall be assisted by a Mission Security Officer (MSO) who shall report to him and shall also have a functional link with the Council Security Office.\n4. Appropriate training in security measures shall be provided for all staff, in accordance with the OPLAN. A reminder of security instructions shall be given regularly by the MSO.\nArticle 16\nReview of the mission\nOn the basis of an evaluation report drafted by the departments under the authority of the HR halfway through the mission and presented in June 2011 at the latest, the PSC shall approve recommendations to the Council with a view to reviewing the progress of the reform of the FARDC and evaluating the impact of the mission on the implementation of specific measures to support the plan for reform of the FARDC. The evaluation shall be based, inter alia, on progress indicators and on specific operational indicators detailed in the OPLAN.\nArticle 17\nEntry into force and duration\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 1 October 2010.\nIt shall apply until 30 September 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 21 September 2010.", "references": ["28", "72", "52", "78", "15", "88", "89", "33", "76", "13", "80", "62", "24", "99", "81", "37", "12", "70", "84", "60", "53", "74", "22", "85", "2", "83", "45", "69", "67", "63", "No Label", "1", "4", "6", "7", "9", "94"], "gold": ["1", "4", "6", "7", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 113/2012\nof 10 February 2012\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 11a(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 April 2005, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\n(2)\nIn view of the developments in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe natural persons listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["6", "7", "87", "75", "57", "17", "46", "89", "34", "48", "35", "77", "25", "56", "5", "67", "10", "84", "55", "61", "27", "23", "58", "11", "99", "74", "68", "88", "1", "20", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 December 2011\nappointing a Danish member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/2/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Danish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. On 25 May 2010, Mr Jan BOYE was appointed as member until 25 January 2015 by Council Decision 2010/303/EU (3), following the resignation of Mr Jens J\u00f8rgen NYGAARD.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the death of Mr Jan BOYE,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed as a member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr S\u00f8ren Pape POULSEN, borgmester, Viborg Kommune.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["92", "38", "25", "6", "72", "75", "80", "41", "22", "3", "89", "78", "82", "40", "42", "33", "71", "84", "11", "59", "50", "31", "64", "85", "76", "95", "46", "13", "16", "68", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 December 2010\namending Decision 2005/1/EC authorising methods for grading pig carcases in the Czech Republic as regards the presentation of such carcases\n(notified under document C(2010) 9187)\n(Only the Czech text is authentic)\n(2010/793/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(m), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Decision 2005/1/EC (2), the use of six methods for grading pig carcases was authorised in the Czech Republic.\n(2)\nOn 23 February 2010, the Czech Republic requested the Commission to be authorised to provide for a presentation of pig carcases different from the standard presentation defined in the first paragraph of point B.III of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with the second paragraph of point B.III of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Member States may be authorised to provide for a presentation of pig carcases different from the standard presentation defined in the first paragraph of that point, where normal commercial practice in their territory differs from that standard presentation. In its request, the Czech Republic specified that in its territory it is commercial practice that carcases can be presented without the flare fat being removed. This presentation that differs from the standard presentation should therefore be authorised in the Czech Republic.\n(4)\nIn order to establish quotations for pig carcases on a comparable basis, this different presentation should be taken into account by adjusting the weight recorded in such cases in relation to the weight for standard presentation.\n(5)\nDecision 2005/1/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Decision 2005/1/EC the following Article 1a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 1a\nNotwithstanding the standard presentation laid down in the first paragraph of point B.III of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, pig carcases in the Czech Republic may be presented without the flare fat having been removed before being weighed and graded. In the case of such presentation the recorded hot carcase weight shall be adjusted in accordance with the following formula:\nhot carcase weight = 1,65651 + 0,96139 \u00d7 weight of the hot carcase with the flare fat.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Czech Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["13", "31", "79", "1", "54", "0", "22", "51", "67", "78", "85", "11", "82", "70", "33", "74", "96", "60", "80", "20", "53", "46", "27", "86", "55", "93", "90", "4", "30", "37", "No Label", "19", "65", "69", "73", "92"], "gold": ["19", "65", "69", "73", "92"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 13 March 2012\nsuspending commitments from the Cohesion Fund for Hungary with effect from 1 January 2013\n(2012/156/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 establishing a Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) calls for the Union to develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic, social and territorial cohesion in order to promote its overall harmonious development.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 175 TFEU, Member States are to conduct their economic policies and coordinate them in such a way as to attain the objectives set out in Article 174 TFEU. The formulation and implementation of the Union\u2019s policies and actions and the implementation of the internal market also have to take into account the objectives set out in Article 174 TFEU and contribute to their achievement.\n(3)\nArticle 121(3) TFEU calls upon the Council to monitor economic developments in each of the Member States and in the Union in order to ensure closer coordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of the economic performances of Member States and to ensure consistency of economic policies with the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 126 TFEU, Member States are to avoid excessive government deficits.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 177 TFEU, the European Parliament and the Council are to define the tasks, priority objectives and the organisation of the Cohesion Fund which provides a financial contribution to projects in the fields of environment and trans-European networks in the area of transport infrastructure.\n(6)\nIn the Protocol (No 28) on economic, social and territorial cohesion, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the TFEU, the Member States agreed that the Cohesion Fund will provide Union financial contributions to projects in the fields of environment and trans-European networks in Member States with a per capita GNP of less than 90 % of the Union average which have a programme leading to the fulfilment of the conditions of economic convergence as set out in Article 126 TFEU.\n(7)\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 sets out conditions applicable to Cohesion Fund assistance and makes access to financial assistance from the Cohesion Fund conditional on the avoidance of an excessive government deficit as set out in Article 126 TFEU (2). Under Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 the Council may decide, on a proposal from the Commission, to suspend either the totality or part of the commitments from the Cohesion Fund for a beneficiary Member State if: (i) the Council has decided in accordance with Article 126(6) TFEU (3) that excessive government deficit exists in the Member State concerned; and (ii) the Council has established in accordance with Article 126(8) TFEU (4) that the Member State concerned has not taken effective action in response to a Council recommendation under Article 126(7) TFEU (5) to correct the excessive government deficit by the established deadline. Such suspension of commitments should be effective from 1 January of the year following the decision to suspend.\n(8)\nOn 5 July 2004, by Decision 2004/918/EC (6) the Council decided in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) that an excessive deficit existed in Hungary. The Council adopted a first recommendation on 5 July 2004, a second recommendation on 8 March 2005 and a third recommendation on 10 October 2006 addressed to Hungary in accordance with Article 104(7) TEC. On 7 July 2009 the Council adopted its fourth recommendation to Hungary in accordance with Article 104(7) TEC (\u2018Council Recommendation of 7 July 2009\u2019) with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive government deficit by 2011 at the latest. Specifically, Hungary was recommended: (i) to limit the deterioration of the fiscal position in 2009 by ensuring a rigorous implementation of the adopted and announced corrective measures to respect the target of 3,9 % of GDP; (ii) starting from 2010, to implement rigorously the necessary consolidation measures to ensure a continued reduction of the structural deficit and a renewed decline of the headline deficit, with an increased reliance on structural measures, in order to guarantee a lasting improvement of public finances; (iii) to spell out and adopt in a timely manner the consolidation measures necessary to achieve the correction of the excessive deficit by 2011; (iv) to ensure a cumulative 0,5 % of GDP fiscal effort over 2010 and 2011; and (v) to ensure that the government gross debt ratio was brought onto a firm downward trajectory.\n(9)\nOn 24 January 2012 the Council adopted Decision 2012/139/EU (7) in accordance with Article 126(8) TFEU establishing that Hungary had not taken effective action in response to the Council Recommendation of 7 July 2009. The Decision noted that while Hungary formally respected the 3 % of GDP reference value by 2011, this was not based on a structural and sustainable correction. The budget surplus in 2011 hinged upon substantial one-off revenues of over 10 % of GDP and was accompanied by a cumulative structural deterioration in 2010 and 2011 of 2,75 % of GDP compared to a recommended cumulative fiscal improvement of 0,5 % of GDP. Moreover, while the authorities intend to implement substantial structural measures in 2012 reducing the structural deficit to 2,6 % of GDP, the 3 % of GDP reference value would again be respected only thanks to one-off measures of close to 1 % of GDP. Finally, in 2013, the deficit (at 3,25 % of GDP) was expected to exceed the reference value in the TFEU once more even after taking into account additional measures announced since the Commission services\u2019 2011 autumn forecast. The higher deficit in 2013 would mainly be linked to the fact that temporary one-off revenues were being phased out as planned, while not all planned structural reforms had been sufficiently specified. Overall, the Council concluded that the response by the Hungarian authorities to the Council Recommendation of 7 July 2009 pursuant to Article 126(7) TFEU had been insufficient.\n(10)\nTherefore, in the case of Hungary, the two conditions set out in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 have been fulfilled. The Council, on a proposal of the Commission, may thus suspend either the totality or part of the commitments from the Cohesion Fund with effect from 1 January 2013. The decision on the amount of commitments to be suspended should ensure that the suspension is both effective and proportionate, whilst taking into account the current overall economic situation in the European Union and the relative importance of the Cohesion Fund for the economy of the Member State concerned. Accordingly, it is appropriate, in case of a first application of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 to a given Member State, to set the amount at 50 % of the allocation of cohesion funds for 2013, without exceeding a maximum level of 0,5 % of the nominal GDP of the Member State concerned as forecast by the Commission services.\n(11)\nSince the suspension concerns only commitments, the implementation of transport and environment projects or commitments already made at the time of suspension will not be compromised if the necessary corrective actions are promptly implemented. By suspending commitments taking effect as of the following year, the ongoing project implementation will not be affected for an extended period, giving the authorities the necessary time to adopt measures that would restore macroeconomic and fiscal conditions conductive to sustainable growth and employment.\n(12)\nIn accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006, if by 22 June 2012, or at a later date, the Council establishes that Hungary has taken the necessary corrective action, it will decide, without delay, to lift the suspension of the commitments concerned,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe amount of EUR 495 184 000 (in current prices) of commitments from the Cohesion Fund for Hungary shall be suspended with effect from 1 January 2013.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Hungary.\nDone at Brussels, 13 March 2012.", "references": ["50", "12", "9", "53", "14", "65", "83", "90", "24", "41", "20", "30", "67", "57", "3", "87", "56", "11", "42", "77", "22", "15", "68", "86", "78", "6", "81", "59", "37", "29", "No Label", "4", "8", "10", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "8", "10", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/18/CFSP\nof 14 January 2011\namending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d'Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d'Ivoire (1).\n(2)\nOn 13 December 2010, the Council emphasised the importance of the Presidential election held on 31 October and 28 November 2010 for the return of peace and stability in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire and declared it to be imperative that the sovereign wish expressed by the Ivorian people be respected.\n(3)\nOn 17 December 2010, the European Council called on all Ivorian leaders, both civilian and military, who have not yet done so, to place themselves under the authority of the democratically elected President, Mr Alassan Ouattara.\n(4)\nOn 22 December 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/801/CFSP (2) amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP in order to impose travel restrictions against those who are obstructing the process of peace and national reconciliation, and in particular those who are jeopardising the proper outcome of the electoral process.\n(5)\nOn 14 January 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/17/CFSP (3) amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP in order to include additional persons in the list of persons subject to travel restrictions.\n(6)\nIn view of the seriousness of the situation in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire, additional restrictive measures should be imposed against those persons.\n(7)\nMoreover, the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP should be amended and the information relating to certain persons on the list should be updated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/656/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\n1. All funds and economic resources owned or controlled directly or indirectly by:\n(a)\nthe persons referred to in Annex I designated by the Sanctions Committee and referred to in Article 4(1)(a), or held by entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by them or by any persons acting on their behalf or at their direction, as designated by the Sanctions Committee;\n(b)\nthe persons or entities referred to in Annex II who are not included in the list in Annex I and who are obstructing the process of peace and national reconciliation, and in particular who are jeopardising the proper outcome of the electoral process, or held by entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by them or by any persons acting on their behalf or at their direction,\nshall be frozen.\n2. No funds, financial assets or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of persons or entities referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. Member States may allow for exemptions from the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 in respect of funds and economic resources which are:\n(a)\nnecessary for basic expenses, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges, in accordance with national laws, for the routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds and economic resources;\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses;\n(e)\nthe subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien or judgment, in which case the funds and economic resources may be used to satisfy that lien or judgment provided that the lien or judgment was entered before designation by the Sanctions Committee or by the Council of the person or entity concerned, and is not for the benefit of a person or entity referred to in this Article.\nWith regard to persons and entities listed in Annex I:\n-\nthe exemptions referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph may be made by the Member State concerned after notification to the Sanctions Committee of its intention to authorise, where appropriate and in the absence of a negative decision by the Sanctions Committee within two working days of such notification, access to such funds and economic resources;\n-\nthe exemption referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph may be made by the Member State concerned after notification to the Sanctions Committee and approval by the latter;\n-\nthe exemption referred to in point (e) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph may be made by the Member State concerned after notification to the Sanctions Committee.\n4. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which those accounts became subject to restrictive measures under Common Position 2004/852/CFSP or this Decision,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to paragraph 1.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 10 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 10\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\n2. It shall be reviewed, amended or repealed as appropriate, in accordance with relevant decisions of the United Nations Security Council.\n3. The measures referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and 5(1)(b) shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months. They shall cease to apply to the persons or entities concerned if the Council establishes, in accordance with the procedure in Article 6(2), that the conditions necessary for their application are no longer met.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAnnex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 January 2011.", "references": ["21", "7", "17", "6", "22", "58", "45", "26", "68", "43", "78", "77", "90", "91", "40", "20", "39", "97", "74", "34", "35", "14", "18", "61", "8", "27", "56", "87", "50", "95", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "79", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "79", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 559/2010\nof 24 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 June 2010.", "references": ["46", "87", "29", "65", "56", "76", "86", "54", "59", "36", "74", "33", "97", "7", "32", "20", "49", "12", "99", "40", "82", "23", "64", "15", "42", "92", "30", "75", "98", "63", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 April 2012\non a revision of the Statutes of the Economic and Financial Committee\n(2012/245/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 242 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 114(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, an Economic and Financial Committee (\u2018Committee\u2019) was set up on 1 January 1999.\n(2)\nOn 21 December 1998, the Council adopted Decision 98/743/EC on the detailed provisions concerning the composition of the Economic and Financial Committee (1).\n(3)\nOn 31 December 1998, the Council adopted Decision 1999/8/EC adopting the Statutes of the Economic and Financial Committee (2); these Statutes were revised by Council Decision 2003/476/EC of 18 June 2003 (3) in order to ensure the continued effective functioning of the Committee after the accession of ten Member States on 1 May 2004.\n(4)\nThe Heads of State or Government of the Member States whose currency is the euro stated on 26 October 2011 that the preparatory body referred to in Article 1 of Protocol (No 14) on the euro Group, composed of representatives of the Ministers with responsibility for finance of the Member States whose currency is the euro and of the Commission (\u2018the Eurogroup Working Group\u2019), would be chaired by a full-time President. As a consequence, the person nominated to this post will cease to be an official in a national administration and will be employed by the EU Institutions.\n(5)\nOn the same day, the Heads of State or Government of the Member States whose currency is the euro stated that the existing administrative structures providing assistance to the Council and to the Committee, namely, the General Secretariat of the Council and the Secretariat of the Economic and Financial Committee, would provide adequate support to the euro Summit President and the President of the Eurogroup, under the guidance of the President of the Committee/Eurogroup Working Group.\n(6)\nThe Committee should be able to choose its President from among the most qualified candidates, including the President of the Eurogroup Working Group.\n(7)\nThe Statutes of the Committee should therefore be revised,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Statutes of the Economic and Financial Committee, as set out in the Annex to Decision 1999/8/EC, as amended by Decision 2003/476/EC, shall be replaced by the text set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2012.", "references": ["22", "60", "34", "56", "82", "73", "48", "72", "10", "18", "45", "27", "99", "51", "83", "63", "43", "58", "37", "67", "6", "42", "39", "91", "49", "61", "85", "23", "96", "2", "No Label", "7", "8", "11", "16", "30"], "gold": ["7", "8", "11", "16", "30"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 520/2011\nof 25 May 2011\namending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for benalaxyl, boscalid, buprofezin, carbofuran, carbosulfan, cypermethrin, fluopicolide, hexythiazox, indoxacarb, metaflumizone, methoxyfenozide, paraquat, prochloraz, spirodiclofen, prothioconazole and zoxamide in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor benalaxyl, carbofuran, carbosulfan, cypermethrin, indoxacarb, methoxyfenozide, paraquat, prochloraz, and zoxamide maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Annex II and Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For boscalid, buprofezin, fluopicolide, hexythiazox, metaflumizone, prothioconazole and spirodiclofen, MRLs were set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 an application was made for boscalid in a wide range of crops for modification of the existing MRLs. The authorised use of boscalid in NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) countries lead to higher residues than the MRLs in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. To avoid trade barriers for the importation of cherries, onions, spring onions, tomatoes, aubergines, cucumbers, melons, broccoli, head cabbage, basil, dry beans, dry peas, sunflower seed and rape seed, higher MRLs are necessary.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, this application was evaluated by the Member State concerned and the evaluation report was forwarded to the Commission.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, assessed the application and the evaluation report, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave a reasoned opinion on the proposed MRLs (2). It forwarded this opinion to the Commission and the Member States and made it available to the public.\n(5)\nThe Authority concluded in its reasoned opinion that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs as recommended by the Authority were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime exposure to these substances via consumption of all food products that may contain these substances, nor the short term exposure due to extreme consumption of the relevant crops showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference dose (ARfD) is exceeded.\n(6)\nOn 9 July 2010 the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) adopted Codex limits (CXLs) for benalaxyl, boscalid, buprofezin, carbofuran, carbosulfan, cypermethrin, fluopicolide, hexythiazox, indoxacarb, metaflumizone, methoxyfenozide, paraquat, prochloraz, spirodiclofen, prothioconazole and zoxamide. These CXLs should be included in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as MRLs, with the exception of those CXLs which are not safe for a European consumer group and for which the Union presented a reservation to the CAC (3) based on a scientific report of the Authority.\n(7)\nBased on the reasoned opinion of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2)(a)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(8)\nAnnex II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2011.", "references": ["73", "30", "7", "4", "97", "3", "68", "20", "36", "70", "0", "63", "53", "26", "60", "2", "50", "15", "92", "71", "48", "51", "96", "93", "59", "67", "87", "21", "46", "88", "No Label", "38", "61", "65", "66", "69", "72", "76"], "gold": ["38", "61", "65", "66", "69", "72", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1264/2011\nof 5 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 December 2011.", "references": ["32", "87", "14", "97", "88", "80", "40", "2", "74", "67", "44", "53", "24", "55", "10", "48", "91", "29", "60", "41", "37", "1", "62", "4", "81", "95", "28", "59", "0", "19", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1048/2010\nof 15 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for ling in IIIa; EU waters of IIIb, IIIc and IIId by vessels flying the flag of Denmark\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["36", "12", "81", "59", "21", "54", "62", "73", "69", "64", "1", "30", "34", "18", "47", "88", "5", "22", "71", "99", "51", "37", "94", "31", "40", "26", "85", "49", "45", "39", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1188/2011\nof 15 November 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in IV; EU waters of IIa; that part of IIIa not covered by the Skagerrak and Kattegat by vessels flying the flag of Sweden\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2011.", "references": ["23", "42", "62", "72", "88", "57", "52", "63", "93", "32", "77", "92", "20", "26", "87", "71", "3", "7", "31", "43", "29", "33", "25", "41", "36", "44", "11", "51", "54", "4", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/212/CFSP\nof 23 April 2012\namending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/639/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nIt is necessary to include a derogation to the asset freeze in Decision 2010/639/CFSP in order to ensure that funds or economic resources can be released or be made available for the official purposes of diplomatic missions or consular posts or international organisations enjoying immunities in accordance with international law.\n(3)\nDecision 2010/639/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 3(1) of Decision 2010/639/CFSP, the following point is added:\n\"(e)\nto be paid into or from an account of a diplomatic mission or consular post or an international organisation enjoying immunities in accordance with international law, in so far as such payments are intended to be used for official purposes of the diplomatic mission or consular post or international organisation.\".\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 23 April 2012.", "references": ["20", "62", "71", "58", "39", "66", "80", "75", "87", "89", "68", "84", "46", "29", "95", "49", "94", "41", "14", "24", "86", "37", "33", "70", "26", "22", "32", "77", "2", "99", "No Label", "3", "8", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "8", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1255/2010\nof 22 December 2010\nlaying down detailed rules for the application of the import tariff quotas for \u2018baby beef\u2019 products originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) and Article 148, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part, approved by Council and Commission Decision 2005/40/EC, Euratom (2), the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part, approved by Council and Commission Decision 2004/239/EC, Euratom (3), the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro of the other part, approved by Council and Commission Decision 2010/224/EU, Euratom (4), the Interim Agreement with Bosnia and Herzegovina, approved by Council Decision 2008/474/EC of 16 June 2008 concerning the signing and conclusion of an Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part (5), and the Interim Agreement with the Republic of Serbia, approved by Council Decision 2010/36/EC of 29 April 2008 concerning the signing and conclusion of an Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part (6), lay down annual preferential tariff quotas for \u2018baby beef\u2019 of 9 400 tonnes, 1 650 tonnes, 800 tonnes, 1 500 tonnes and 8 700 tonnes respectively.\n(2)\nArticle 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2248/2001 of 19 November 2001 on certain procedures for applying the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part and for applying the Interim Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Croatia (7) and Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 153/2002 of 21 January 2002 on certain procedures for applying the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part, and for applying the Interim Agreement between the European Community and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (8) provide that detailed rules for the implementation of concessions on \u2018baby beef\u2019 should be laid down.\n(3)\nIn order to verify the compliance with the quota conditions, imports under the quotas of \u2018baby beef\u2019 should be subject to the presentation of a certificate of authenticity attesting that the goods originate from the issuing country and that they correspond exactly to the definition established in the respective agreement. A model should also be established for the certificates of authenticity and detailed rules laid down for their use.\n(4)\nThe quotas concerned should be managed through the use of import licences. To this end, Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (9) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 of 21 April 2008 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector (10) should be applicable subject to this Regulation.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (11) lays down in particular detailed provisions on applications for import licences, the status of applicants, the issue of licences and the notifications by the Member States to the Commission. That Regulation limits the period of validity of licences to the last day of the import tariff quota period. The provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 should apply to import licences issued pursuant to this Regulation, without prejudice to additional conditions or derogations laid down in this Regulation.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure proper management of imports of the products concerned, import licences should be issued subject to verification, in particular of entries on certificates of authenticity.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The following tariff quotas are hereby opened yearly for the period from 1 January to 31 December:\n(a)\n9 400 tonnes of \u2018baby beef\u2019, expressed in carcase weight, originating in Croatia;\n(b)\n1 500 tonnes of \u2018baby beef\u2019, expressed in carcase weight, originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina;\n(c)\n1 650 tonnes of \u2018baby beef\u2019, expressed in carcase weight, originating in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;\n(d)\n8 700 tonnes of \u2018baby beef\u2019, expressed in carcase weight, originating in Serbia;\n(e)\n800 tonnes of \u2018baby beef\u2019, expressed in carcase weight, originating in Montenegro.\nThe quotas referred to in the first subparagraph shall bear the order Nos 09.4503, 09.4504, 09.4505, 09.4198 and 09.4199 respectively.\nFor the purposes of attributing those quotas, 100 kilograms live weight shall be equivalent to 50 kilograms carcase weight.\n2. The customs duty applicable under the quotas referred to in paragraph 1 shall be 20 % of the ad valorem duty and 20 % of the specific duty as laid down in the Common Customs Tariff.\n3. Importation under the quotas referred to in paragraph 1 shall be reserved for certain live animals and certain meat falling within the following CN codes, referred to in Annex III to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement concluded with Croatia, in Annex III to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement concluded with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in Annex II to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement concluded with Montenegro, in Annex II to the Interim Agreement with Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Annex II to the Interim Agreement with Serbia:\n-\nex 0102 90 51, ex 0102 90 59, ex 0102 90 71 and ex 0102 90 79,\n-\nex 0201 10 00 and ex 0201 20 20,\n-\nex 0201 20 30,\n-\nex 0201 20 50.\nArticle 2\nChapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 and Regulations (EC) No 376/2008 and (EC) No 382/2008 shall apply, save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.\nArticle 3\n1. Section 8 of import licence applications and import licences shall show the country of origin and the mention \u2018yes\u2019 shall be marked by a cross. Licences shall be subject to the obligation to import from the country indicated.\nSection 20 of import licence applications and licences shall show one of the entries listed in Annex I.\n2. The original of the certificate of authenticity drawn up in accordance with Article 4 plus a copy thereof shall be presented to the competent authority together with the application for the first import licence relating to the certificate of authenticity.\nCertificates of authenticity may be used for the issue of more than one import licence for quantities not exceeding that shown on the certificate. Where more than one licence is issued in respect of a certificate, the competent authority shall:\n(a)\nendorse the certificate of authenticity to show the quantity attributed;\n(b)\nensure that the import licences delivered in respect of that certificate are issued on the same day.\n3. The competent authorities may issue import licences only after they are satisfied that all the information on the certificate of authenticity corresponds to that received each week from the Commission for the imports concerned. The licences shall be issued immediately thereafter.\nArticle 4\n1. All applications for imports licences under the quotas referred to in Article 1 shall be accompanied by a certificate of authenticity issued by the authorities of the exporting country listed in Annex II to this Regulation attesting that the goods originate in that country and that they correspond to the definition given, as the case may be, in Annex III to the Stabilisation and Association Agreements with Croatia, Annex III to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Annex II to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Montenegro, Annex II to the Interim Agreement with Bosnia and Herzegovina or Annex II to the Interim Agreement with Serbia.\n2. Certificates of authenticity shall be made out in one original and two copies, to be printed and completed in one of the official languages of the Union, in accordance with the relevant model in Annexes III to VII for the exporting countries concerned. They may also be printed and completed in the official language or one of the official languages of the exporting country.\nThe competent authorities of the Member State in which the import licence application is submitted may require a translation of the certificate to be provided.\n3. The original and copies of the certificate of authenticity may be typed or handwritten. In the latter case, they shall be completed in black ink and in block capitals.\nThe certificate forms shall measure 210 \u00d7 297 mm. The paper used shall weigh not less than 40 g/m2. The original shall be white, the first copy pink and the second copy yellow.\n4. Each certificate shall have its own individual serial number followed by the name of the issuing country.\nThe copies shall bear the same serial number and the same name as the original.\n5. Certificates shall be valid only if they are duly endorsed by an issuing authority listed in Annex II.\n6. Certificates shall be deemed to have been duly endorsed if they state the date and place of issue and if they bear the stamp of the issuing authority and the signature of the person or persons empowered to sign them.\nArticle 5\n1. The issuing authorities listed in Annex II shall:\n(a)\nbe recognised as such by the exporting country concerned;\n(b)\nundertake to verify entries on the certificates;\n(c)\nundertake to forward to the Commission at least once a week any information enabling the entries on the certificates of authenticity to be verified, in particular with regard to the number of the certificate, the exporter, the consignee, the country of destination, the product (live animals/meat), the net weight and the date of signature.\n2. The list in Annex II shall be revised by the Commission where the requirement referred to in paragraph 1(a) is no longer met, where an issuing authority fails to fulfil one or more of the obligations incumbent on it or where a new issuing authority is designated.\nArticle 6\nCertificates of authenticity and import licences shall be valid for 3 months from their respective dates of issue.\nArticle 7\nThe exporting country concerned shall provide to the Commission specimens of the stamp imprints used by their issuing authorities and the names and signatures of the persons empowered to sign certificates of authenticity. The Commission shall communicate that information to the competent authorities of the Member States.\nArticle 8\n1. By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, Member States shall notify to the Commission:\n(a)\nno later than 28 February of the following year, the quantities of products, including nil returns, for which import licences were issued in the previous import tariff quota period;\n(b)\nno later than 30 April of the following year, the quantities of products, including nil returns, covered by unused or partly used import licences and corresponding to the difference between the quantities entered on the back of the import licences and the quantities for which they were issued.\n2. No later than 30 April of the following year, Member States shall notify the Commission the quantities of products, which were actually released for free circulation during the preceding import tariff quota period.\n3. The notifications referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall be made as indicated in Annexes VIII, IX and X to this Regulation and the product categories indicated in Annex V of Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 shall be used.\nArticle 9\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2010.", "references": ["64", "63", "33", "2", "82", "13", "93", "57", "94", "80", "59", "50", "17", "72", "32", "45", "88", "66", "31", "78", "60", "18", "26", "19", "49", "11", "12", "92", "7", "39", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 May 2011\namending Annexes I and II to Decision 2009/861/EC on transitional measures under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the processing of non-compliant raw milk in certain milk processing establishments in Bulgaria\n(notified under document C(2011) 3647)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/322/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (1), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 9 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business operators. Those rules include hygiene requirements for raw milk and dairy products.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2009/861/EC (2) provides for certain derogations from the requirements set out in subchapters II and III of Chapter I of Section IX of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 for the milk processing establishments in Bulgaria listed in that Decision. That Decision is to apply from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011.\n(3)\nAccordingly, certain milk processing establishments listed in Annex I to Decision 2009/861/EC may, by way of derogation from the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, process compliant and non-compliant milk provided that the processing of compliant and non-compliant milk is carried out on separate production lines. In addition, certain milk processing establishments listed in Annex II to that Decision may process non-compliant milk without separate production lines.\n(4)\nBulgaria sent the Commission a revised and updated list of those milk processing establishments on 24 November 2010.\n(5)\nIn the new list, establishment number 7 of Annex I to Decision 2009/861/EC (BG 0812009 \u2018Serdika - 90\u2019 AD) has been removed from the list and authorised to place dairy products on the intra-Community market because in compliance with the requirements laid down in Chapter I of Section IX of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\n(6)\nMoreover, establishments number 14 of Annex II to Decision 2009/861/EC (BG 1312002 \u2018Milk Grup\u2019 EOOD), number 25 (BG 1612020 ET \u2018Bor -Chvor\u2019) number 70 (BG 2412041 \u2018Mlechen svyat 2003\u2019 OOD) and number 92 (2212023 \u2018EL BI Bulgarikum\u2019) have been removed from the list and authorised to place dairy products on the intra-Community market because of compliance with the requirements laid down in Chapter I of Section IX of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\n(7)\nTherefore, Decision 2009/861/EC should be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2009/861/EC are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 March 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2011.", "references": ["89", "29", "19", "47", "62", "18", "5", "1", "22", "36", "64", "4", "66", "32", "13", "31", "17", "93", "65", "87", "23", "53", "33", "27", "99", "60", "10", "7", "28", "30", "No Label", "38", "70", "73", "76", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "70", "73", "76", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 11 November 2011\namending Decisions 2010/2/EU and 2011/278/EU as regards the sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage\n(notified under document C(2011) 8017)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/745/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Article 10a(1) and (13) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2010/2/EU (2) determines, pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2011/278/EU (3) determines transitional Union-wide rules for the harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n(3)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 10a(13) of Directive 2003/87/EC, the Commission may, every year add a sector or subsector to the list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage. It has to be demonstrated, in an analytical report, that the sector or subsector satisfies the criteria set out in paragraphs 14 to 17 of Article 10a of that Directive, following a change that has a substantial impact on the sector\u2019s or subsector\u2019s activities.\n(4)\nIn order to determine the sectors or subsectors deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage, the Commission has to assess, at Union level, the extent to which it is possible for the sector or subsector concerned, at the relevant level of disaggregation, to pass on the direct cost of the required allowances and the indirect costs from higher electricity prices resulting from the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC into product prices without significant loss of market share to less carbon efficient installations outside the Union. Those assessments are to be based on an average carbon price according to the Commission\u2019s impact assessment accompanying the package of implementation measures for the Union\u2019s objectives on climate change and renewable energy for 2020 and, if available, trade, production and value added data from the three most recent years for each sector or subsector.\n(5)\nSome sectors and subsectors, such as the manufacture of bricks and roof tiles that had not been completely analysed due to time constraints and limited data quality and availability, were not added to the list published in the Annex to Decision 2010/2/EU.\n(6)\nThe sector of \u2018Manufacture of bricks, tiles and constructions products, in baked clay\u2019 (NACE code 2640) has been reassessed in 2010. That qualitative assessment demonstrated challenging market characteristics, such as growing trade, in particular increasing trend in imports from low cost manufacturing countries, increased international competitive pressure, a significant share of production in the Union served by small and medium sized enterprises, and only modest profit margins for the years evaluated compared to the additional CO2 cost, which limit the capacity of installations to invest and reduce emissions. Based on the combined impact of those factors, the sector should be deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage.\n(7)\nFurthermore, it has been demonstrated that the sector of \u2018Production of salt\u2019 (NACE code 1440) satisfies the quantitative criteria set out in Article 10a(14) to (17) of Directive 2003/87/EC following an identification of additional installations from the sector in the Community Independent Transaction Log (CITL) which was used as the main source to calculate the direct cost of the allowances. That sector should therefore be added to the list of sector or subsectors deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage. The identification of installations in the CITL as belonging to that sector has no impact on the status in terms of a significant risk of carbon leakage of other sectors and subsectors.\n(8)\nSome sectors not found to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage at the NACE 4-level in Decision 2010/2/EU were disaggregated and a number of corresponding subsectors, for which certain specific distinguishing characteristics led to a significantly different impact from the rest of the sector, were assessed. Where this assessment leads to the conclusion that sectors or subsectors could be clearly distinguished from other sectors and subsectors on the basis of specific characteristics and satisfy the quantitative criteria set out in Article 10a(15) or (16) of Directive 2003/87/EC, they can be added to the list of products deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage. The sectors \u2018Cocoa paste (excluding containing added sugar or other sweetening matter)\u2019, \u2018Cocoa butter, fat and oil\u2019 and \u2018Cocoa powder, not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter\u2019 should therefore be added to the list.\n(9)\nThe further analysis called for by the second paragraph of Article 1 of Decision 2010/2/EU having been conducted, that paragraph should be deleted. The Commission found no evidence of the necessary intensity of trade that would justify inclusion of the concerned sectors to the list of sectors and subsectors deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage.\n(10)\nDecisions 2010/2/EU and 2011/278/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Decision 2010/2/EU\nDecision 2010/2/EU is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, the second paragraph is deleted;\n(2)\nthe Annex to Decision 2010/2/EU is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nAmendments to Annex I to Decision 2011/278/EU\nAnnex I to Decision 2011/278/EU is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 November 2011.", "references": ["76", "97", "75", "18", "42", "30", "47", "26", "39", "63", "9", "54", "8", "20", "37", "81", "48", "46", "83", "51", "35", "52", "82", "85", "17", "77", "0", "16", "64", "44", "No Label", "58", "60", "68", "70", "79", "87"], "gold": ["58", "60", "68", "70", "79", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1085/2010\nof 25 November 2010\nopening and providing for the administration of certain annual tariff quotas for importing sweet potatoes, manioc, manioc starch and other products falling within CN codes 0714 90 11 and 0714 90 19 and amending Regulation (EU) No 1000/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) and Article 148 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAs a result of the agreements reached in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) multilateral trade negotiations, the Commission has drawn up a \u2018CXL-European Communities\u2019 schedule (hereinafter the \u2018CXL schedule\u2019), listing the concessions granted. The schedule requires the Union to open certain annual tariff quotas for the products falling within CN codes 0714 10 91, ex 0714 10 98, 0714 90 11 and 0714 90 19 originating in Indonesia, the People\u2019s Republic of China (China), other contracting parties to the WTO excluding Thailand and certain third countries that are not members of the WTO. Under those quotas the customs duty is limited to 6 % ad valorem. The quotas are to be opened on a multiannual basis and administered by the Commission.\n(2)\nThe CXL schedule also requires the Union to open two duty-free tariff quotas for sweet potatoes falling within CN code 0714 20 90 in favour of China and other third countries respectively, as well as two tariff quotas for manioc starch falling within CN code 1108 14 00 in favour of other third countries.\n(3)\nThe agreement in the form of an exchange of letters on the consultations between the European Community and the Kingdom of Thailand under GATT Article XXIII (2) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the agreement with Thailand\u2019), approved by Council Decision 96/317/EC of 13 May 1996 concerning the conclusion of the results of consultations with Thailand under GATT Article XXIII (3), provides for the opening of an additional autonomous annual tariff quota of 10 500 tonnes of manioc starch, 10 000 tonnes of which are reserved for Thailand. The applicable duty is the most favoured nation duty (MFN duty) in force, less EUR 100 per tonne.\n(4)\nThe detailed rules for the application of the management of all these import tariff quotas, hereinafter referred to as \u2018the quotas\u2019 are currently laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2402/96 of 17 December 1996 opening and setting administrative rules for certain annual tariff quotas for sweet potatoes and manioc starch (4) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 27/2008 of 15 January 2008 opening and providing for the administration of certain annual tariff quotas for products covered by CN codes 0714 10 91, ex 0714 10 98, 0714 90 11 and 0714 90 19 originating in certain third countries other than Thailand (5).\n(5)\nThe use of the first come, first served principle has proved positive in other agricultural sectors, and in the interest of administrative simplification, those quotas should henceforth be administered in accordance with the method indicated in Article 144(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. This should be done in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (6).\n(6)\nHaving regard to the particularities involved in the transfer from one management system to another, Article 308c(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 2454/93 should not apply to the tariff period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\n(7)\nIn the case of sweet potatoes, it is important to differentiate those intended for human consumption from other products; the presentation and packaging of sweet potatoes falling within CN code 0714 20 10 (for human consumption) should therefore be specified and products not meeting those presentation and packaging specifications should be considered to fall within CN code 0714 20 90.\n(8)\nIt is necessary to maintain a system of administration which ensures that only products originating in Indonesia, China and Thailand can be imported under the quotas allocated to those countries. It should be clarified which kind of proof certifying the origin of products has to be provided to benefit from these tariff quotas under the first come, first served system.\n(9)\nRegulations (EC) No 2402/96 and (EC) No 27/2008 should therefore be repealed and replaced by a new Regulation. However, those Regulations should continue to apply to import licences issued for import quota periods prior to those covered by this Regulation.\n(10)\nThe provisions laid down in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1000/2010 of 3 November 2010 derogating from Regulations (EC) No 2402/96, (EC) No 2058/96, (EC) No 2305/2003, (EC) No 969/2006, (EC) No 1918/2006, (EC) No 1964/2006, (EC) No 27/2008, (EC) No 1067/2008 and (EC) No 828/2009 as regards the dates for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences in 2011 under tariff quotas for sweet potatoes, manioc starch, manioc, cereals, rice, sugar and olive oil and derogating from Regulations (EC) No 382/2008, (EC) No 1518/2003, (EC) No 596/2004, (EC) No 633/2004 and (EC) No 951/2006 as regards the dates for issuing export licences in 2011 in the beef and veal, pigmeat, eggs, poultrymeat and out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose sectors (7) are no longer relevant, given the transfer of management of those quotas to the first come, first served system referred to in Article 144(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. They should therefore be deleted.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation opens the import tariff quotas set out in the Annex hereto. These quotas shall be administered on a calendar year basis, starting 1 January 2011.\nArticle 2\nThe quotas set out in the Annex shall be administered in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93. Article 308c(2) and (3) of that Regulation shall not apply to the tariff period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 3\nEntitlement to the tariff quotas bearing order numbers 09.0125, 09.0126 or 09.0124 or 09.0127 as set out in the Annex for products originating in Thailand, Indonesia and the People\u2019s Republic of China respectively shall be conditional on presentation of a certificate of origin issued by the competent authorities in accordance with Articles 55 to 65 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\nArticle 4\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, sweet potatoes shall be deemed to be for human consumption within the meaning of CN code 0714 20 10 if they are fresh, whole and put up in immediate packings at the time of the customs formalities for release for free circulation.\n2. This Regulation shall apply only to sweet potatoes that are not intended for human consumption as defined in paragraph 1.\n3. For the purposes of the application of this Regulation, the products falling within CN code ex 0714 10 98 are products other than pellets obtained from flours and meals falling within CN code 0714 10 98.\nArticle 5\nRegulations (EC) No 2402/96 and (EC) No 27/2008 are hereby repealed. However, they shall continue to apply to import licences issued before 1 January 2011 up to the time they expire.\nArticle 6\nIn Regulation (EU) No 1000/2010, Articles 1, 2 and 3 are deleted.\nArticle 7\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 November 2010.", "references": ["2", "28", "69", "30", "0", "34", "87", "76", "89", "21", "67", "19", "92", "43", "66", "32", "81", "11", "95", "38", "93", "44", "50", "74", "24", "16", "42", "52", "59", "86", "No Label", "20", "35", "61", "63"], "gold": ["20", "35", "61", "63"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1027/2011\nof 13 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for white marlin in the Atlantic Ocean by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 October 2011.", "references": ["90", "69", "78", "11", "93", "4", "6", "26", "52", "0", "65", "20", "35", "36", "16", "5", "18", "61", "64", "3", "30", "60", "70", "72", "54", "50", "32", "57", "23", "39", "No Label", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 794/2011\nof 8 August 2011\napproving amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Parmigiano Reggiano (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application for approval of amendments to the specification for the name \u2018Parmigiano Reggiano\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nBelgium, Denmark and the Association des Importateurs de fromage registered in Basel, Switzerland, objected to the registration pursuant to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. The objections by Belgium and Denmark were deemed admissible under points (a) and (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 7(3) of that Regulation. The objection by the Association des Importateurs de fromage was deemed inadmissible on the grounds of its having been submitted after the deadline.\n(3)\nBy letters dated 30 October 2009 the Commission invited the interested parties to hold appropriate consultations.\n(4)\nDenmark\u2019s objection concerned the lack of justification for the obligation henceforth for cheese bearing the name \u2018Parmigiano Reggiano\u2019 to be portioned, grated and packaged within the defined geographical area. Following clarifications provided by Italy in the said consultations, Denmark withdrew its objection.\n(5)\nBelgium\u2019s objection also concerned the lack of justification of such an obligation to portion, grate and package cheese bearing the name \u2018Parmigiano Reggiano\u2019 within the defined geographical area.\n(6)\nGiven that no agreement was reached between Belgium and Italy within a time limit of 6 months, the Commission must adopt a decision in accordance with the procedure laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 7(5) and in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(7)\nIn point 3.6 of the single document, Italy states that the said obligation \u2018is required because the marks identifying \u201cParmigiano Reggiano\u201d on the whole cheese are lost or not visible on the grated or portioned product, making it necessary to guarantee the origin of the pre-packaged product. It is also required because of the need to guarantee that the cheese is packaged quickly after portioning using appropriate methods to prevent the cheese being dehydrated, oxidised or losing its original \u201cParmigiano Reggiano\u201d organoleptic characteristics. Cutting into the cheese wheel deprives the cheese of the natural protection provided by the crust which, being itself highly dehydrated, insulates the cheese very well against the ambient air.\u2019\n(8)\nIn the Commission\u2019s view, such a reason, designed to ensure the origin of the product in question, ensure optimum control thereof and preserve the product\u2019s physical and organoleptic quality is not vitiated by any manifest error of judgement on the part of the Italian authorities.\n(9)\nBelgium, furthermore, in its objection cited Article 7(3)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. Pursuant to that Article, statements of objection are admissible if they \u2018show that the registration of the name proposed would jeopardise [\u2026] the existence of products which have been legally on the market for at least 5 years preceding the date of the publication provided for in Article 6(2).\u2019\n(10)\nBelgium failed to provide concrete evidence of potential damage arising to Belgian undertakings from the entry into force of the amendments to the specification.\n(11)\nIt is, nonetheless, public knowledge that there are actually companies outside the defined geographical area engaged in portioning and/or packaging cheese bearing the name \u2018Parmigiano Reggiano\u2019. Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 in this connection permits a transitional period of up to 5 years where a statement of objection has been declared admissible on the grounds that registration of the proposed name would jeopardise the existence of products which have been legally on the market for at least 5 years preceding the date of the publication provided for in Article 6(2) of that Regulation. Having regard in particular to ongoing contractual obligations and the need to adapt the market progressively following the amendments to the specification for the name \u2018Parmigiano Reggiano\u2019, operators not established in the geographical area defined in the specification should be allowed a transitional period of 1 year in so far as they were legally engaged in portioning and packaging \u2018Parmigiano Reggiano\u2019 outside the defined geographical area for at least 5 years prior to 16 April 2009. The duration of that transitional period is the same as that granted by Italy to operators engaged in portioning and packaging operations on its territory but outside the defined geographical area.\n(12)\nIn the light of the above, the amendments should be approved and a transitional period of 1 year introduced.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Protected Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 April 2009 regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nA transitional period of 1 year is introduced for operators not established within the geographical area defined in the specification for the name \u2018Parmigiano Reggiano\u2019 and who were legally engaged in the portioning and packaging of cheese bearing the name \u2018Parmigiano Reggiano\u2019 outside the said defined geographical area for at least 5 years prior to 16 April 2009.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 August 2011.", "references": ["12", "65", "5", "28", "71", "38", "36", "37", "22", "7", "30", "92", "21", "74", "53", "54", "48", "18", "49", "14", "0", "9", "8", "68", "79", "41", "69", "90", "4", "23", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 February 2011\nrecognising in principle the completeness of the dossier submitted for detailed examination in view of the possible inclusion of ethametsulfuron in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC\n(notified under document C(2011) 991)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/124/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 91/414/EEC provides for the development of a European Union list of active substances authorised for incorporation in plant protection products.\n(2)\nThe dossier for the active substance ethametsulfuron was submitted by DuPont de Nemours GmbH to the authorities of the United Kingdom on 29 June 2010 with the application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nThe authorities of the United Kingdom have indicated to the Commission that, on preliminary examination, the dossier for the active substance concerned appears to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC. The dossier submitted appears also to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substance concerned. In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, the dossier was subsequently forwarded by the applicant to the Commission and other Member States, and was referred to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.\n(4)\nBy this Decision it should be formally confirmed at European Union level that the dossier is considered as satisfying in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II and, for at least one plant protection product containing the active substance concerned, the requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe dossier concerning the active substance identified in the Annex to this Decision, which was submitted to the Commission and the Member States with a view to obtaining the inclusion of that substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, satisfies in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to that Directive.\nThe dossier also satisfies the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substance, taking into account the uses proposed.\nArticle 2\nThe rapporteur Member State shall pursue the detailed examination for the dossier referred to in Article 1 and shall communicate to the Commission the conclusions of its examination accompanied by any recommendations on the inclusion or non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substance referred to in Article 1 and any conditions for that inclusion as soon as possible and by 28 February 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2011.", "references": ["98", "67", "36", "34", "40", "96", "4", "78", "72", "42", "27", "88", "91", "11", "90", "54", "99", "7", "82", "47", "9", "0", "13", "33", "12", "1", "74", "24", "22", "60", "No Label", "2", "38", "41", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "38", "41", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 June 2011\namending Decision 2006/197/EC as regards the renewal of the authorisation to place on the market existing feed produced from genetically modified maize line 1507 (DAS-\u00d815\u00d87-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 4159)\n(Only the Dutch, English and French texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/365/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 7(3) and 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2006/197/EC of 3 March 2006 authorising the placing on the market of food containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize line 1507 (DAS-\u00d815\u00d87-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) does not cover the placing on the market of feed produced from maize line 1507 (DAS-\u00d815\u00d87-1) (hereafter \u2018maize line 1507\u2019).\n(2)\nFeed produced from maize line 1507 has been placed on the market before the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and notified in accordance with Article 20(1)(b) of that Regulation.\n(3)\nOn 12 April 2007 Pioneer Overseas Corporation on behalf of Pioneer Hi-bred International and Dow AgroSciences on behalf of Mycogen Seeds jointly submitted to the Commission an application, in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for renewal of the authorisation for continued marketing of existing feed produced from maize line 1507.\n(4)\nOn 11 June 2009, the European Food Safety Authority (\u2018EFSA\u2019) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and concluded that the new information provided in the application and the review of the scientific literature that has been published since the previous scientific opinions of the EFSA GMO Panel on maize line 1507 (3) do not require changes of the previous scientific opinions on maize line 1507. Furthermore, EFSA reiterated the previous conclusions that 1507 maize is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment in the context of its proposed uses. This includes the use of feed produced from maize line 1507 (4).\n(5)\nIn its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Article 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(6)\nBy letter of 21 January 2010, the applicant confirmed that he is aware of the fact that renewing the authorisation of existing feed produced from maize line 1507 by extending the scope of Decision 2006/197/EC so as to include such product, would imply this category of products to be subject to the legal provisions of that Decision.\n(7)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 appear to be necessary for feed produced from maize line 1507.\n(8)\nThe EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the feed, as provided for in point (e) of Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(9)\nFor the sake of transparency, the applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(10)\nTaking into account these considerations, renewal of the authorisation to place on the market existing feed produced from maize line 1507 should be granted.\n(11)\nSince it is general practice to authorise the placing on the market of food and feed in the same decision, the renewal of the authorisation to place on the market feed produced from maize line 1507 should be included in Decision 2006/197/EC. Decision 2006/197/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chair and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures. Since, at its meeting on 17 March 2011, the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal and the Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded, these measures are to be adopted by the Commission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments\nDecision 2006/197/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n(2)\nArticles 1, 2 and 3 of Decision 2006/197/EC are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nProducts\nThis Decision covers foods and food ingredients containing and consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) line 1507 and feed produced from such maize (the products).\nGenetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) line 1507 as further specified in the Annex to this Decision is assigned the unique identifier DAS-\u00d815\u00d87-1, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nPlacing on the market\nThe placing on the market of the products, according to the conditions specified in this Decision and its Annex, is authorised for the purposes of Articles 4(2) and 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\nFor the purposes of the specific labelling requirements provided for in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, the \u201cname of the organism\u201d shall be \u201cmaize\u201d.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe Annex is amended as follows:\n(a)\nSection (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nDesignation and specification of the products:\n(i)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from DAS-\u00d815\u00d87-1 maize;\n(ii)\nfeed produced from DAS-\u00d815\u00d87-1 maize.\nThe genetically modified DAS-\u00d815\u00d87-1 maize, as described in the application, is resistant to the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) and certain other lepidopteran pests and is tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium. The genetically modified DAS-\u00d815\u00d87-1 maize contains the following DNA sequences in two cassettes:\n- cassette 1: A synthetic version of the truncated cry1F gene from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. aizawai, which confers resistance to the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) and certain other lepidopteran pests, under the regulation of the ubiquitin promoter ubiZM1(2) from Zea mays L. and the ORF25PolyA terminator from Agrobacterium tumefaciens pTi15955,\n- cassette 2: A synthetic version of the pat gene from Streptomyces viridochromogenes strain T\u00fc494, which confers tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium, under the regulation of the 35S promoter and terminator sequences from Cauliflower Mosaic Virus.\u2019;\n(b)\nSection (c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c) Labelling:\nNo specific requirements other than those provided for in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nFor the purpose of Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, the \u201cname of organism\u201d shall be \u201cmaize\u201d.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to:\n(a)\nPioneer Overseas Corporation, Avenue des Arts 44, 1040 Brussels, Belgium; and\n(b)\nDow AgroSciences Europe, European Development Centre, 3 Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN, United Kingdom.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2011.", "references": ["6", "89", "53", "21", "37", "11", "42", "85", "59", "34", "22", "78", "33", "77", "12", "47", "58", "17", "71", "31", "40", "54", "30", "51", "79", "62", "83", "91", "52", "1", "No Label", "25", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 21 September 2011\nestablishing a questionnaire to be used for reporting on the implementation of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the incineration of waste\n(notified under document C(2011) 6504)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/632/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (1), and in particular Article 15 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Directive 2000/76/EC, Member States are required to report on the implementation of that Directive every 3 years on the basis of a questionnaire established by the Commission.\n(2)\nTwo questionnaires were established by the Commission. The second one, established by Commission Decision 2010/731/EU (2), covered the years 2009, 2010 and 2011.\n(3)\nSince the questionnaire established by Decision 2010/731/EU is to be used for reporting until 31 December 2011, a new questionnaire should be established for the next three-year reporting period, taking into account the experience gained in the implementation of Directive 2000/76/EC and in the use of the previous questionnaires. However, given that Directive 2000/76/EC will be repealed from 7 January 2014 and will be replaced by Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (3), the new questionnaire should cover only 2 years, namely 2012 and 2013. For the sake of clarity, Decision 2010/731/EU should be replaced.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 6 of Council Directive 91/692/EEC (4).\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Member States shall use the questionnaire set out in the Annex for reporting on the implementation of Directive 2000/76/EC.\n2. The reports to be submitted shall cover the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2010/731/EU is repealed from 1 January 2013.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 September 2011.", "references": ["48", "46", "30", "34", "31", "15", "29", "84", "20", "65", "14", "69", "86", "60", "78", "88", "72", "55", "83", "33", "43", "47", "54", "53", "0", "18", "6", "81", "62", "67", "No Label", "8", "42", "58"], "gold": ["8", "42", "58"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 653/2011\nof 6 July 2011\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1439/95, Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 748/2008 and Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 810/2008 as regards the authority empowered to issue documents and certificates in Argentina\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/96 of 18 June 1996 on the implementation of the concessions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in the wake of the conclusion of the GATT XXIV.6 negotiations (1),\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (2),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1439/95 of 26 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 as regards the import and export of products in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector (3), and in particular Article 12(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 748/2008 of 30 July 2008 on the opening and administration of an import tariff quota for frozen thin skirt of bovine animals falling within CN code 0206 29 91 (4), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 810/2008 of 11 August 2008 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat (5), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1439/95 lays down the list of the authorities of the third countries empowered to issue documents of origin.\n(2)\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 748/2008 lays down the authorities in Argentina empowered to issue the certificates of authenticity.\n(3)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 810/2008 lays down the list of the authorities in exporting countries empowered to issue certificates of authenticity.\n(4)\nArgentina has notified the Commission that from 1 July 2011 the new authority empowered to issue the documents of origin and the certificates of authenticity for beef, sheepmeat and goatmeat originating in Argentina is the Ministry of Economy and Finance.\n(5)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1439/95, Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 748/2008 and Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 810/2008 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1439/95, the entry No 1. is replaced by the following:\n\u20181.\nArgentina: Ministerio de Econom\u00eda y Finanzas P\u00fablicas\u2019\nArticle 2\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 748/2008 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018ANNEX III\nList of authorities in Argentina empowered to issue certificates of authenticity\nArgentina: Ministerio de Econom\u00eda y Finanzas P\u00fablicas:\nfor thin skirt originating in Argentina as specified in Article 1(3)(a).\u2019\nArticle 3\nIn Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 810/2008, the first indent is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nMINISTERIO DE ECONOM\u00cdA Y FINANZAS P\u00daBLICAS:\nfor meat originating in Argentina and meeting the definition in Article 2(a).\u2019\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2011.", "references": ["58", "31", "4", "33", "65", "53", "17", "64", "55", "60", "0", "66", "54", "24", "79", "91", "80", "40", "48", "10", "1", "37", "67", "14", "13", "47", "94", "82", "57", "26", "No Label", "21", "23", "39", "72", "93"], "gold": ["21", "23", "39", "72", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 550/2010\nof 23 June 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 1\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards (1), and in particular Article 3(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 (2) certain international accounting standards and interpretations that were in existence at 15 October 2008 were adopted.\n(2)\nOn 23 July 2009, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) published Amendments to International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 1 First-time adoption of international financial reporting standards, hereinafter \u2018amendments to IFRS 1\u2019. According to the amendments to IFRS 1 entities with oil and gas activities transitioning to IFRSs are allowed to use carrying amounts for oil and gas assets determined under their previous accounting rules. Those entities that decide to use that exemption should be required to measure decommissioning, restoration and similar liabilities relating to oil and gas assets in accordance with IAS 37 Provisions, contingent liabilities and contingent assets and to recognise the liability against retained earnings. The amendments to IFRS 1 also concern reassessment of lease determination.\n(3)\nThe consultation with the Technical Expert Group (TEG) of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) confirms that the amendments to IFRS 1 meet the technical criteria for adoption set out in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002. In accordance with Commission Decision 2006/505/EC of 14 July 2006 setting up a Standards Advice Review Group to advise the Commission on the objectivity and neutrality of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group's (EFRAG\u2019s) opinions (3), the Standards Advice Review Group considered EFRAG's opinion on endorsement and advised the Commission that it is well-balanced and objective.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1126/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Accounting Regulatory Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008, International Financial Reporting Standard 1 First-time adoption of international financial reporting standards is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEach company shall apply the amendments to IFRS 1, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation, at the latest, as from the commencement date of its first financial year starting after 31 December 2009.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 June 2010.", "references": ["3", "89", "23", "29", "72", "83", "28", "20", "32", "98", "86", "58", "21", "6", "80", "31", "41", "33", "9", "12", "53", "90", "45", "17", "8", "10", "36", "60", "66", "22", "No Label", "30", "47", "76"], "gold": ["30", "47", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1242/2010\nof 20 December 2010\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9(4) and Article 11(2) and (5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1312/98 of 24 June 1998 (2), the Council, following an anti-dumping investigation (\u2018the original investigation\u2019) imposed definitive anti-dumping duties (\u2018the original measures\u2019) on imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India. The duty levels imposed were 53 % for one Indian exporting producer and 82 % for all other imports originating in India (\u2018the country concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nFollowing an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation (\u2018the previous expiry review\u2019), the Council maintained these measures by Regulation (EC) No 1736/2004 of 4 October 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India (3).\n2. Request for a review\n(3)\nA request for an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation was lodged on 4 May 2009 by the Liaison Committee of the EU Twine, Cordage and Netting Industries (Eurocord) (\u2018the applicant\u2019) on behalf of Union producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the Union production of synthetic fibre ropes.\n(4)\nThe request was based on the grounds that expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.\n(5)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of a review, the Commission announced on 7 October 2009, by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) (\u2018the notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n3. Investigation\n3.1. Investigation period\n(6)\nThe investigation concerning the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period between 1 October 2008 and 30 September 2009 (the \u2018review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period between 1 January 2006 and the end of the RIP (the \u2018period considered\u2019).\n3.2. Parties concerned by this investigation\n(7)\nThe Commission officially advised the known Union producers, the exporters and exporting producers in the country concerned, the representatives of the country concerned, importers as well as an association of users which were known to be concerned, of the initiation of the expiry review.\n(8)\nInterested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limits set in the notice of initiation. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n4. Sampling\n(9)\nIn view of the apparent high number of Union producers and exporting producers in India, it was considered appropriate, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to examine whether sampling should be used. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation.\n(10)\nA total of five Indian producers, two of which belonging to the same group, came forward and provided the requested information within the given deadline and expressed a wish to be included in the sample. Four of these five companies produced and exported the product concerned to the Union market during the RIP. The fifth company did not export the product concerned to the Union market during the RIP. All five companies were regarded as cooperating companies and were considered for sampling. The level of cooperation from India, i.e. the percentage of exports to the Union by the Indian cooperating companies as compared to all Indian exports to the Union could not be calculated as the total exports to the Union during the RIP reported by the five cooperating companies was significantly higher than the volume registered by Eurostat for all exports from India, for the reasons detailed in recitals 21 to 23.\n(11)\nThe sample was selected in agreement with the Indian authorities and included those four companies which reported export sales to the Union. Two of the four sampled companies were related. It is recalled that in the original investigation only one exporting producer cooperated and it is at present subject to an individual anti-dumping duty. It is also recalled that in the previous expiry review none of the Indian exporting producers cooperated and therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, the findings were based on the facts available.\n(12)\nEighteen Union producers (all fifteen complainants and three further producers, altogether representing 78 % of the total Union production) provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. On the basis of the information received from the cooperating Union producers, the Commission selected a sample of five Union producers representing approximately 40 % of the Union industry, as defined in recital 40, and about half of the sales by all cooperating Union producers to unrelated customers in the Union. The sample was selected on the basis of the largest representative sales volume and geographical coverage of producers within the Union that could reasonably be investigated within the time available. One of the five sampled Union producers started operating during the period considered, therefore their data were not used in the analysis of the trends of injury indicators, in order to avoid distortions in those trends. Nonetheless the figures of the other four sampled Union producers used for the analysis of those trends remained representative.\n(13)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the five sampled Union producers as well as to the four sampled Indian exporting producers.\n(14)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from all five sampled Union producers. Out of the four sampled Indian exporting producers, one ceased cooperating while the other three (two of which related) replied to the questionnaire within the given deadlines. For this reason, in the end, the sample of Indian exporting producers consisted of those three Indian companies that replied to the questionnaire.\n5. Verification of information received\n(15)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary to determine the continuation or likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n5.1. Exporting producers in India\n-\nAxiom Imex International Ltd., Boisar,\n-\nTufropes Private Limited, Silvassa,\n-\nIndia Nets, Indore;\n5.2. Union producers\n-\nCordoaria Oliveira S\u00c1 (Portugal),\n-\nEurorope SA (Greece),\n-\nLanex A.S. (Czech Republic),\n-\nLankhorst Euronete Ropes (Portugal),\n-\nTeufelberger Ges.m.b.H. (Austria).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(16)\nThe product concerned is the same as in the original investigation and is defined as follows: twine, cordage, ropes and cables, whether or not plaited or braided and whether or not impregnated, coated, covered or sheathed with rubber or plastics, of polyethylene or polypropylene, other than binder and baler twine, measuring more than 50 000 decitex (5 g/m), as well as of other synthetic fibres of nylon or other polyamides or of polyesters, measuring more than 50 000 decitex (5 g/m). It is currently falling within CN codes 5607 49 11, 5607 49 19, 5607 50 11. and 5607 50 19. The product concerned is used for a wide variety of marine and industrial applications, in particular for shipping (especially for mooring purposes), and the fishing industry.\n(17)\nOne interested party claimed that the mooring ropes referred to above are not falling within the definition of the product concerned as, due to the splices attached to these ropes, such products should be declared as \u2018articles of ropes\u2019 which belong to another CN code (see also in recital 23). It should be noted however, that the reference to mooring ropes is made only in the context of applications of different types of the product concerned which are all defined as synthetic fibre ropes as set out in recital 16.\n2. Like product\n(18)\nAs shown in the original investigation, and as confirmed in the present investigation, the product concerned and the synthetic fibre ropes produced and sold by the Indian exporting producers on their domestic market, as well as those produced and sold by the Union producers in the Union, are in all respects identical and share the same basic physical and chemical characteristics. Therefore, they are considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(19)\nOne interested party has claimed that the product manufactured by the Union industry is not comparable with the product concerned given that the Union producers had started using a new type of raw material called Dyneema, which is much more expensive than other raw materials as products based on it have much better resistance. Indeed the sampled Indian producers are not using this type of raw material. However, it should firstly be noted that the products in question represent only a small part of the products sold by Union producers. Indeed, albeit it is correct that this type of fibre is increasingly used by some Union producers, Dyneema ropes account for only a minor fraction of Union production. Therefore, while the significant difference in the cost of raw material (potentially around 25-30 times more expensive) can have some impact notably on the injury indicator concerning the average sales price of the Union industry, the impact of Dyneema ropes on the overall assessment remains limited due to the overwhelming quantity of \u2018standard\u2019 ropes produced in the Union. Secondly, all calculations of this expiry review were based on the comparison of corresponding product types, which takes account of different raw materials. Therefore the calculations cannot be distorted by a difference in the product mix. In any event, the product which uses the raw materials such as Dyneema, still has the same basic physical and chemical characteristics as the product concerned. The claim was therefore rejected.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n(20)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether dumping was likely to continue or recur upon a possible expiry of the measures in force against India.\n1. Volume of imports\n(21)\nOn the basis of Eurostat data, the volume of imports of the product concerned from India was insignificant throughout the period considered. During the RIP, the volume of imports from India was 31 tonnes i.e. less than 0,1 % of Union consumption during the RIP:\n(tonnes)\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nIndia\n3\n4\n19\n31\nImports of the product concerned from India, source - Comext\n(22)\nHowever, according to verified data, the three companies included in the sample shipped significantly higher volumes of the product concerned to the Union during the RIP than the volumes reported in Eurostat. In this respect it is recalled that in the original investigation, importers provided information showing that some quantities of the product concerned purchased from India had not been released into free circulation on the Union market but were put into bonded warehouses and sold to ocean-going ships or offshore platforms. One complaining producer reiterated this argument in the present investigation. Due to lack of cooperation of port traders in the investigation, this claim could not be verified. However, on the basis of the customer list submitted by the sampled exporting producers, it was apparent that most of the customers were indeed shipping, maritime and offshore suppliers in the Union ports. On the basis of the above, it appears that the difference between the statistical data and the reported figures is due to such sales.\n(23)\nIt should also be mentioned that the request for expiry review contained allegations of circumvention practices. In this respect, the applicant claimed that certain volumes of synthetic fibre ropes from India entered into the Union under CN heading 5609 (Articles of [\u2026] twine, cordage, ropes or cables) which is not subject to measures. However, no information was found in the present investigation to support this view.\n(24)\nOn the basis of the above, it is considered that 31 tonnes of the product concerned were actually imported from India into the customs territory of the Union in the RIP. As concerns the verified export sales to the Union ports, which had not been released into free circulation on the Union market by the three sampled Indian producers, these sales are considered as part of Indian exports to other third countries.\n(25)\nGiven the absence of significant import volumes from India into the Union, these did not form a basis for a representative analysis for the likelihood of a continuation of dumping or injury. Indeed in view of such limited actual import volumes it cannot be concluded that injurious dumping from India existed during the RIP. Therefore, the analysis focused on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury should the measures be allowed to expire.\n2. Likely development of imports should measures be repealed\n2.1. Production capacity\n(26)\nIt has been examined whether there is unused production capacity in the country concerned which would create a potential for the resumption of dumped exports in case the measures were repealed.\n(27)\nIt has been found that the production capacity of the three sampled exporting producers sharply increased between 2007 and the RIP while capacity utilisation decreased at the same time. The spare capacities of the three companies were around 75 % of Union consumption in the RIP. This points to a likely increase in export volumes to the Union should the measures be allowed to expire.\n(28)\nConcerning the other producers of synthetic fibre ropes in India, it is known that Garware, the company which stopped cooperation after the sampling phase, is an important producer and, according to its official website, it has a significant production capacity. In addition, the request for expiry review lists four other large Indian producers. There are also several medium and small sized Indian producers which had mainly domestic sales. In the absence of cooperation from these Indian producers, their production capacity is not known, but it can be assumed that the trend of the cooperating companies is comparable and thus these producers have further spare capacity.\n(29)\nFollowing the disclosure of the findings, all sampled Indian producers challenged the data relating to their aggregate spare capacity. However, all those data were actually reported by the companies themselves and were verified by way of on-spot investigations at each of them. Therefore these claims were rejected.\n2.2. Volume of sales to Union ports and to other export markets\n(30)\nThe volume of export sales of the three sampled exporting producers to other third countries, including Union port sales which do not enter the customs territory of the Union, are significant and increased by around 80 % during the period considered, representing almost half of the total sales of the exporting producers during the RIP.\n(31)\nActual imports to the Union have practically stopped after the imposition of the original measures. However, it must be noted that the sampled producers\u2019 volume of export sales to Union ports considerably increased in the period considered, from 61 to 785 tonnes. Given that actual import sales to the Union are made in part via the same sales channels as the products sold at Union ports, this increasing presence at the doorstep of the Union market may indicate that, in the absence of measures, the sampled Indian producers - and maybe others as well - could start selling substantial quantities of the product concerned on the Union market within a short period of time.\n(32)\nIn view of the above-mentioned export orientation of the Indian producers as well as their growing presence in Union ports, it can be concluded that it is highly probable that if the measures were allowed to expire, then Indian export quantities to the Union would significantly increase.\n(33)\nFollowing the disclosure of the findings of the review, an Indian producer pointed out that Indian exports are well diversified around the world, among markets with growth potential, thus exports to the Union would not resume in substantial quantities in the absence of measures. It is acknowledged that some Indian producers may have diversified export sales to different markets; however, this cannot be considered as sufficient to alter the conclusions drawn on the basis of the above mentioned findings.\n2.3. Relationship between export prices to third countries and normal value\n(34)\nAn indicative dumping calculation was made on the basis of the verified sales to Union ports of the three sampled exporting producers, which, though considered as part of export sales to other third countries, provide a good indication for potential prices of Indian synthetic fibre ropes in the absence of duties. The normal values were based on the domestic prices on the Indian market. Based on these figures, dumping was established for two of the three sampled Indian producers. The dumping margins were found to be on average 10 % which can be considered as significant even though much lower than those established in the original investigation.\n(35)\nA comparison of prices achieved by the three sampled exporting producers on other third country markets (excluding Union port sales) with their domestic prices showed a similar result although the dumping margins established on this basis were lower.\n(36)\nFollowing the disclosure of the findings of this investigation, one Indian producer claimed that no dumping was found in respect of Indian imports to the Union. However, there were almost no actual imports either. In addition, dumping was established for both sales to Union ports and sales to other third countries. Therefore this claim was dismissed.\n(37)\nAnother interested party claimed that the dumping margins established by this review cannot be considered significant when compared to the existing duty levels, given the significant difference in labour costs between the Union and Asia. It should be noted however, that labour costs in the Union are irrelevant for the calculation of the dumping margin.\n3. Conclusion on the likelihood of a recurrence of dumping\n(38)\nOn the basis of the above analysis, it is concluded that the exporting producers have vast production potential to restart exporting to the Union if the measures were allowed to expire. Concerning prices, two sampled producers were found to be selling at dumped prices to other third countries. In addition, also considering Garware which stopped cooperating, there are five other large exporting producers listed in the complaint which, on the basis of the information available, can be assumed to follow the trend of the companies found selling at dumped prices to other third countries.\n(39)\nThe indication that Indian exporting producers keep a strategic interest in the Union market, demonstrated by their increasing volumes of export sales to Union ports, together with a huge spare capacity available, make it likely that they would resume exports to the Union in significant quantities should the measures lapse. Taking into account the pricing behaviour of the Indian exporters on third-country markets, it is highly probable that a resumption of exports would take place at dumped prices. It is therefore concluded that the expiry of measures is likely to lead to a recurrence of dumping.\nD. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(40)\nThe Union producers accounting for the total Union production constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation. The number of Union producers can be estimated at around forty.\n(41)\nThe fifteen Union producers on whose behalf the request for the expiry review was lodged by the complainant association, and three other Union producers submitted information for the selection of the sample requested in the notice of initiation. As mentioned in recital 12, a sample of five producers, representing approximately 40 % of the Union industry, was investigated in detail. The sample consisted of the following companies:\n-\nCordoaria Oliveira S\u00c1 (Portugal),\n-\nEurorope SA (Greece),\n-\nLanex A.S. (Czech Republic),\n-\nLankhorst Euronete Ropes (Portugal),\n-\nTeufelberger Ges.m.b.H. (Austria).\n(42)\nAs already stated in recital 12, the eighteen cooperating Union producers represented 78 % of total Union production during the RIP.\nE. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Consumption in the Union market\n(43)\nUnion consumption of synthetic fibre ropes was established on the basis of sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market (including the sales of non-cooperating Union producers as estimated by the complainant association) plus all imports into the Union, as based on Eurostat.\n(44)\nOn the above basis it can be established that during the period considered, the Union consumption has decreased by 7 %. In particular, after having increased by 16 % between 2006 and 2007, the consumption dropped by 20 % between 2007 and the RIP.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nTotal Union consumption (tonnes)\n34 318\n39 816\n36 777\n31 944\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n116\n107\n93\nSource: Investigation (sampled Union producers), Complainant (non-sampled Union producers), Eurostat (imports)\n2. Imports from India\n(45)\nAs mentioned in recital 21, actual Indian imports to the Union were negligible throughout the period considered due to the effective anti-dumping measures in force.\n(46)\nHowever, as explained in recital 22, there is an increasing presence of Indian producers at the doorstep of the Union market, by way of export sales to the Union ports not being subject to customs clearance and thus free of the said anti-dumping duties.\n3. Prices and volume of Indian exports to other third countries\n(47)\nSince actual Indian imports to the Union were negligible, a price comparison was made between prices of Indian exports to other third countries (including the exports sold to Union ports not subject to the anti-dumping duties) and prices of Union sales made by the sampled Union industry producers.\n(48)\nOn this basis it was established that Indian exports to other third countries were made at sales prices significantly lower than those of the Union industry. The price difference thus established reached the level of 46 % and on average amounted to 18 %.\n(49)\nThe value of Indian export sales to other third countries increased by more than 30 % during the period considered. Such sales represented close to half of the total turnover of the sampled Indian exporting producers during the RIP.\n4. Imports from other countries\n(50)\nDespite the drop in consumption by 7 % on the Union market, the volume of imports from other third countries increased during the period considered by 18 %. Thereby the market share of these imports increased from 17 % to 22 %.\n(51)\nIt should be noted that imports from the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019) increased by 46 % during the period considered, reaching a market share of 8,6 % (up from 5,5 % in 2006). Although a precise comparison cannot be carried out due to the general nature of Eurostat data which are not detailed by product type, it appears that the average price of Chinese imports to the Union is substantially higher than the average price of Indian export sales. In addition, the average price of Chinese imports seems to be in line with the prices of the Union industry.\n(52)\nImports from the Republic of Korea (\u2018Korea\u2019) to the Union had a market share constantly remaining around the level of 3 % during the period considered. Also, the volume of these imports has decreased by 6 % in line with shrinking consumption.\n(53)\nImports from any other third country represented less than 2 % of market share on the Union market of synthetic fibre ropes during the RIP.\n5. Economic situation of the Union industry\n5.1. Preliminary remarks\n(54)\nAll injury indicators listed in Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation have been analysed. As concerns the indicators on the sales volume and the market share of Union producers, these have been analysed on the basis of data collected for all Union producers i.e. the Union industry. As regards all other injury indicators, their examination was based on the information submitted by the sampled Union producers as verified at the premises of each company, as mentioned in recital 15. As already stated in recital 12, one of the Union producers started operating during the period considered, therefore their data were not used in the analysis of the trends of injury indicators, in order to avoid distortions in those trends.\n5.2. Sales volume of the Union industry\n(55)\nSales of the Union industry have decreased substantially by 12 % over the period considered. As already stated in recital 44, Union consumption has decreased by 7 % over the period considered, with a particularly sharp drop starting from the year 2007. It should be highlighted that the sales volume of the Union industry on the Union market has decreased at a faster pace than the fall in consumption:\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nUnion sales volume of the Union industry (tonnes)\n28 393\n32 161\n28 911\n24 955\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n113\n102\n88\nSource: Investigation (sampled Union producers), Complainant (non-sampled Union producers)\n5.3. Market share of the Union industry\n(56)\nThe developments outl ined in the preceding recital and the above table have resulted in a loss of market share of the Union industry between 2006 and the RIP. The reduction of the Union industry market share was continuous, with the loss amounting to 4,6 percentage points:\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nMarket share of the Union industry (%)\n82,7 %\n80,8 %\n78,6 %\n78,1 %\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n98\n95\n94\nSource: Investigation (sampled Union producers), Complainant (non-sampled Union producers)\n(57)\nIt should be noted that the above loss of market share of the Union industry was in a large part due to the increased market share of Chinese imports (see recital 50).\n5.4. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(58)\nIn line with the development of sales volumes, the production volume of the sampled Union producers has fallen at a comparable rate - by 17 % during the period considered. The production capacity increased by 5 % over the same period. This lead to a drop of 20 % in capacity utilisation between 2008 and the RIP:\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProduction (tonnes)\n11 229\n12 286\n12 150\n9 372\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n109\n108\n83\nProduction capacity (tonnes)\n21 510\n23 467\n23 278\n22 480\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n109\n108\n105\nCapacity utilisation (%)\n52,2 %\n52,4 %\n52,2 %\n41,7 %\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n100\n100\n80\nSource: Investigation (sampled Union producers)\n5.5. Stocks\n(59)\nRegarding stocks, in general producers of synthetic fibre ropes keep the levels of their stocks at a rather low level as most of the production is made upon demand. It could be observed that during the period considered, average stocks showed a decrease, notably in the RIP, which was largely due to the reductions in the manufacturing of synthetic fibre ropes.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nClosing stock (tonnes)\n1 073\n982\n1 156\n905\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n92\n108\n84\nSource: Investigation (sampled Union producers)\n5.6. Sales prices\n(60)\nAverage prices of the like product sold in the Union by the sampled Union producers have increased to some extent throughout the period considered, in particular between 2007 and the RIP:\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nAverage unit sales price of the Union industry (EUR/tonne)\n5 268\n5 229\n5 670\n5 766\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n99\n108\n109\nSource: Investigation (sampled Union producers)\n(61)\nIt should be noted, however, that the above average sales price is calculated on the basis of all product types including synthetic fibre ropes of the highest value, for example synthetic fibre ropes based on the raw material called Dyneema. The price variation among these different product types is indeed huge (see recital 19). In recent years, the Union industry has increased the manufacturing of higher value products. Thus such synthetic fibre ropes represent a growing share within their product mix. Such recent changes in the product mix are one of the reasons for the increase of the average unit sales prices of the Union industry.\n5.7. Profitability\n(62)\nThanks in part to the effective measures in force and in part to the diversification of its product mix, the sampled Union producers were able to maintain a stable and healthy level of profitability throughout the period considered:\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProfitability of the Union industry (%)\n9,7 %\n11,1 %\n10,0 %\n12,4 %\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n115\n104\n128\nSource: Investigation (sampled Union producers)\n5.8. Investments and ability to raise capital\n(63)\nInvestments were at relatively high levels in 2006 and 2007, after which they fell to half of the previous amount. During the RIP, virtually no investments were made.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nNet investments (EUR)\n3 574 130\n3 886 212\n1 941 222\n168 877\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n109\n54\n5\nSource: Investigation (sampled Union producers)\n5.9. Return on investments\n(64)\nIn line with the stable profitability trend, the return on investments also increased throughout the period considered.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nReturn on investments (%)\n21,4 %\n25,5 %\n26,1 %\n28,4 %\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n119\n122\n132\nSource: Investigation (sampled Union producers)\n5.10. Cash flow\n(65)\nThe cash flow of the sampled Union producers remained at relatively stable levels during the period considered:\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nCash flow (EUR)\n6 033 496\n7 973 188\n7 790 847\n6 911 360\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n132\n129\n115\nSource: Investigation (sampled Union producers)\n5.11. Employment, productivity and labour costs\n(66)\nThe employment situation of the sampled Union producers was developing positively between 2006 and 2008. However, from 2008 to the RIP there was a decline in employment due to the decreasing demand on the market. The fall in demand, resulting in reduced production, also lead to a drop in productivity between 2008 and the RIP. As concerns the annual labour costs per employee, this increased until 2008, followed by a slight decrease during the RIP.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nEmployment (persons)\n638\n665\n685\n623\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n104\n107\n98\nAnnual labour costs per employee (EUR)\n12 851\n13 688\n14 589\n14 120\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n107\n114\n110\nProductivity (tonnes per employee)\n17,6\n18,4\n17,7\n15,0\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n105\n101\n85\nSource: Investigation (sampled Union producers)\n5.12. Growth\n(67)\nBetween 2006 and the RIP, whilst the Union consumption decreased by 7 % (see recital 44), the volume of sales by the Union industry on the Union market decreased by 12 %, and the Union industry\u2019s market share decreased by 6 percentage points (see recitals 55 and 56). On the other hand, while the volume of actual Indian imports remained negligible due to the measures in force, the volume of imports from other countries grew by 18 % (mostly due to imports from the PRC), gaining an additional 5 percentage points of market share (see recital 50). It is thus concluded that the Union industry was more affected by the drop in consumption and thus experienced a more substantial loss in sales volume than other players on the market.\n5.13. Magnitude of the dumping margin\n(68)\nDue to the fact that imports of the product concerned from India during the RIP were negligible, no dumping margin could be established for actual Indian imports. It should be noted, however, that Indian exports to the Union ports, not subject to customs clearance, have substantially increased and part of these sales were found to be made at dumped prices.\n5.14. Recovery from past dumping\n(69)\nIt was analysed whether the Union industry is still in the process of recovering from the effects of past dumping. It was concluded that the Union industry had already managed to recover to a large extent from such effects given that the effective anti-dumping measures had been in place for a long period of time.\n5.15. Conclusion on the situation of the Union industry\n(70)\nThanks to the fact that effective anti-dumping duties have been in place concerning imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India, the Union industry appears to have managed to recover to a large extent from the effects of past injurious dumping.\n(71)\nNevertheless it cannot be concluded that the situation of the Union industry is secure. Although certain injury indicators relating to the financial performance of the Union producers - notably profitability, return on investments and cash-flow - appear to show a relatively stable picture, other injury indicators - in particular sales volume and market share, production and capacity utilisation as well as investments - clearly indicate that the Union industry was still in a rather fragile situation at the end of the RIP. Following the disclosure of the findings of this investigation, one Indian producer alleged that the Union industry did not suffer injury during the RIP. In this respect, it should be noted that it has not been stated that the Union industry was suffering material injury during the RIP. Instead, the conclusion drawn on the basis of the findings of the review was that some of the indicators showed a stable picture whilst there were signs of injury in respect of other indicators.\n(72)\nSome parties claimed that the negative trends of some injury indicators are not caused by Indian imports but are due to the global economic crisis and the increased market share of Chinese imports. In this regard, it should be noted that the negative development of certain indicators was not attributed to the almost non-existent Indian imports. In addition, the increase of Chinese imports was examined and it did not have an impact on the analysis of the likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping.\n(73)\nWith regard to the viability of the Union industry in general, it must be noted that the gradual introduction of various high value products on the market - both within the Union and on markets of third countries - appears to put the long-term competitiveness of the Union industry in a positive perspective, given that the number of producers manufacturing such high quality synthetic fibre ropes is at present limited on the global market.\nF. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY\n(74)\nAs mentioned in recital 25, given the negligible volume of imports of the product concerned from India during the RIP, the analysis focused on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury.\n(75)\nAs already detailed in recitals 26 to 28, huge spare capacities are available at the Indian exporting producers. In addition, as explained in recitals 30 to 32, the Indian producers have a strong orientation and an incentive to sell their products in large volumes on export markets. Moreover, as mentioned in recital 31, the Indian producers are strongly and increasingly present at the Union ports. For these reasons, it can be concluded that imports from India to the Union are highly likely to reach significant quantities in a short period of time should measures be allowed to expire.\n(76)\nAs stated in recitals 34 and 35, in the absence of measures, Indian imports are likely to resume at dumped prices. In addition, as stated in recitals 47 and 48 above, it was also found that the fact that the sales price of Indian producers are on average 18 % lower than those of the Union industry (and such price difference may reach the level of 46 %) appears to indicate that, in the absence of measures, Indian producers are likely to export the product concerned to the Union market at prices considerably lower than those of the Union industry i.e. they are likely to undercut the sales prices of the Union producers.\n(77)\nIn the light of the above, it can be concluded that in the absence of measures, it is highly probable that Indian imports of the product concerned would resume in substantial quantities and at prices considerably undercutting those of the Union industry.\n(78)\nGiven the relatively fragile situation of the Union industry as explained in recitals 71 and 72, a potentially massive recurrence of dumped Indian imports at prices undercutting those in the Union is likely to have an injurious impact on the state of the Union industry. Notably, a sizeable resumption of dumped imports is likely to result in further losses of market share and sales volume of the Union industry, leading to reductions in the manufacturing and a drop in employment. This, along with a substantial price pressure due to imports undercutting the sales prices of the Union producers, would lead to a rapid and serious deterioration of the financial situation of the Union industry.\n(79)\nOn the basis of the above, it is concluded that in case the measures are allowed to expire, there is a likelihood of a recurrence of injury from renewed dumped imports of the product concerned from India.\nG. UNION INTEREST\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(80)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole.\n(81)\nThe determination of Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, i.e. those of the Union industry, importers, traders, wholesalers and industrial users of the product concerned.\n(82)\nIt should be recalled that, in the previous investigations, the imposition of measures was not considered to be against the Union interest. Furthermore, the present investigation is an expiry review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures are in place.\n(83)\nOn this basis it was examined whether, despite the conclusion on the likelihood of a recurrence of dumping and the likelihood of recurrence of injury, compelling reasons exist which would lead to the conclusion, in this particular case, that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures.\n2. Interests of the Union industry\n(84)\nAs already mentioned in recitals 56 and 73, the Union industry was able to maintain a substantial albeit shrinking market share while diversifying its product mix by introducing more high-end synthetic fibre ropes. Therefore it can be considered that the Union industry has remained structurally viable.\n(85)\nIn view of the conclusions on the situation of the Union industry set out at recitals 70 to 72, and pursuant to the arguments relating to the analysis on the likelihood of recurrence of injury as explained in recitals 74 to 79, it can also be considered that the Union industry would be likely to experience a serious deterioration of its financial situation in case the anti-dumping duties were allowed to expire, and this would lead to the recurrence of material injury.\n(86)\nIndeed considering the expected volumes and prices of imports of the product concerned from India, the Union industry would be put at serious risk. As explained in recital 78, such imports would lead to a further decline in its market share, sales volume and employment, and would also depress its prices which would eventually result in a deterioration of its profitability, similar to the negative levels found in the original investigation.\n(87)\nIn view of the above, and in the absence of any contrary indications, it is concluded that the maintenance of the existing measures would not be against the interest of the Union industry.\n3. Interest of unrelated importers/traders\n(88)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to ten unrelated importers/traders. Only one of these companies replied, expressing its objection to the case. However, as the company is related to an Indian producer of synthetic fibre ropes, it cannot be considered as an unrelated importer. As the company is a related importer, its interest is intrinsically linked to the interest of its related Indian producer.\n(89)\nIn these circumstances, it is concluded that no compelling reasons appear to exist that would indicate that the continuation of measures would negatively affect to a large extent the unrelated importers/traders concerned.\n4. Interest of users\n(90)\nThe Commission sent a letter to one industrial association of users of the product concerned. No user submitted a complete questionnaire reply, and no written submissions were received from the association.\n(91)\nGiven the absence of cooperation by users, and the fact that the impact of anti-dumping measures is likely to be negligible compared to other costs incurred by main users\u2019 industries such as shipbuilding, mechanical engineering and operating offshore platforms, it is concluded that the continuation of measures will not have a substantially negative impact on such users.\n5. Conclusion\n(92)\nThe continuation of measures can be expected to ensure that the Indian dumped imports do not resume on the Union market in substantial quantities over a short period of time. Thereby the Union industry will continue to benefit from the competitive conditions on the Union market and the reduction of the threat of closures and a drop in employment. The beneficial effects are also expected to warrant the conditions for the Union industry to develop innovative products of higher technology for new and specialised applications.\n(93)\nIt should also be noted that, following the consideration of the interest of importers/traders as well as users in the Union, no compelling reasons appear to exist to indicate that the continuation of measures would have a largely negative impact.\n(94)\nGiven the above conclusions on the impact of the continuation of the measures on the different players on the Union market, it is concluded that the continuation of measures is not against the Union interest.\nH. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(95)\nIn view of the above, i.e. inter alia the huge spare capacities of the Indian producers, their strong export orientation and growing presence at the doorstep of the Union market, the prices of their export sales to other third-country markets which were found to be below the normal value and also well below the prices of the Union industry during the RIP, as well as the relatively fragile situation of the Union industry, it is likely that injurious dumping would recur from India should the measures be allowed to lapse.\n(96)\nAll parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend the maintenance of existing measures in their present form. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure, but none made representations which would have justified altering the above findings. The claims relating to the disclosure of findings have been addressed in the respective recitals of this Regulation.\n(97)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1736/2004 should be maintained.\n(98)\nNevertheless, and without ignoring that the likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping has been established, the present proceeding is characterised by particular circumstances, notably the long duration of the measures in force which have already been extended once, and the very limited quantities of actual imports from India as referred to in recitals 21 to 24. These facts should also be adequately reflected in the duration of the further extended anti-dumping measures, which should be three years. Following disclosure, the applicant stated that the measures should be extended for five years and that the reasoning set out above for a shorter extension would not be justified.\n(99)\nNormally, the extension of measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation applies for a period of five years. The investigation has concluded that the Union industry was still in a fragile situation at the end of the RIP; it has been in financial difficulties for a long period of time as established in the original investigation. Consequently, full recovery from the injurious dumping has not been achieved yet. However, a number of injury indicators showed that the imposition of measures has already allowed for some substantial improvements. From the analysis of this complex situation it is concluded that a full and solid recovery from any past effect of the injurious dumping is likely to take place within a shorter period of time than the normal five years. It was assessed that, considering the overall injury analysis and the likely market developments with the measures in place, a period of three years should be enough to the Union industry to complete its economic and financial recovery. For these reasons it does not appear necessary to maintain the measures for a longer period.\n(100)\nTherefore, it is considered that an extension of the measures for the full five-year period is not fully supported by the facts established by the investigation, and that the duration of the measures should as a consequence be limited to three years.\n(101)\nThe individual anti-dumping duty rate specified in Article1 was established on the basis of the findings of the original investigation. Therefore, it reflects the situation found during that investigation with respect to the company concerned. This duty rate (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) is thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in India and produced by the company concerned and thus by the specific legal entity mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned inArticle 1, including entities related to the one specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from this rate and shall be subject to the country-wide duty.\n(102)\nAny claim requesting the application of an individual company anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, this Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duties,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of twine, cordage, ropes and cables, whether or not plaited or braided and whether or not impregnated, coated, covered or sheathed with rubber or plastics, of polyethylene or polypropylene, other than binder and baler twine, measuring more than 50 000 decitex (5 g/m), as well as of other synthetic fibres of nylon or other polyamides or of polyesters, measuring more than 50 000 decitex (5 g/m), currently falling within CN codes 5607 49 11, 5607 49 19, 5607 50 11and 5607 50 19 and originating in India.\n2. The rate of the anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union frontier price, before duty, for the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nDuty rate\nTARIC additional code\nGarware Wall Ropes Ltd\n53,0 %\n8755\nAll other companies\n82,0 %\n8900\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply for a period of three years.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["70", "38", "0", "67", "41", "63", "51", "74", "21", "20", "73", "75", "46", "13", "60", "43", "25", "59", "98", "97", "45", "54", "42", "56", "26", "87", "23", "79", "12", "69", "No Label", "48", "89", "95", "96"], "gold": ["48", "89", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/698/CFSP\nof 20 October 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/486/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/486/CFSP of 1 August 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 August 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/486/CFSP.\n(2)\nOn 4 October 2011, the United Nations Security Council Committee, established pursuant to paragraph 30 of Security Council Resolution 1988 (2011), approved the addition of three persons to the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(3)\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/486/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/486/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["12", "50", "97", "38", "98", "29", "48", "59", "10", "68", "42", "62", "4", "55", "32", "20", "47", "22", "45", "49", "92", "66", "21", "78", "77", "80", "72", "70", "8", "88", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 872/2010\nof 4 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 October 2010.", "references": ["47", "95", "82", "18", "99", "7", "20", "51", "96", "14", "19", "26", "79", "76", "50", "45", "8", "55", "38", "15", "27", "21", "65", "48", "56", "90", "23", "6", "85", "16", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 623/2010\nof 15 July 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Farro di Monteleone di Spoleto (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Farro di Monteleone di Spoleto\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 July 2010.", "references": ["10", "82", "55", "44", "53", "23", "38", "22", "12", "13", "52", "28", "81", "21", "29", "35", "36", "64", "90", "70", "87", "83", "92", "84", "49", "80", "72", "73", "45", "40", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "65", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "65", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1244/2011\nof 1 December 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria and in accordance with Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (2), additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2011.", "references": ["15", "78", "8", "5", "61", "43", "23", "12", "2", "14", "94", "73", "67", "84", "77", "18", "26", "70", "49", "36", "92", "13", "39", "57", "66", "41", "74", "29", "80", "24", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 669/2011\nof 12 July 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 134 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor the purposes of the management of imports and exports, the Commission has been given the power to determine the products for which import and/or export will be subject to presentation of a licence. When assessing the need for a licence system, the Commission should take account of the appropriate instruments for the management of the markets and in particular for monitoring the imports.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 (2) introduced a licence obligation for imports of fresh apples falling within CN code 0808 10 80 after apple producers in the European Union found themselves in a difficult situation, due, amongst others, to a significant increase in imports of apples from certain third countries of the Southern hemisphere.\n(3)\nCurrently, effective import monitoring can be carried out through other means. In the interest of simplification and for the purpose of alleviating the administrative burden for Member States and operators, the requirement of import licences for apples should be abolished at the end of the current trigger period referred to in Annex XVIII to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (3).\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 376/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nFor sake of clarity it is appropriate to lay down the rules concerning the import licences issued for fresh apples falling within CN code 0808 10 80, and still valid on the date of application of this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPoint G in Part I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018G. Fruit and vegetables (Part IX of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007)\nCN code\nDescription\nAmount of the security\nPeriod of validity\nNet quantities (4)\n0703 20 00\nGarlic, fresh or chilled, including products imported under tariff quotas as referred to in Article 1(2)(a)(iii)\n50 EUR/t\n3 months from the day of issue in accordance with Article 22(1)\n(-)\nex 0703 90 00\nOther alliaceous vegetables, fresh or chilled, including products imported under tariff quotas as referred to in Article 1(2)(a)(iii)\n50 EUR/t\n3 months from the day of issue in accordance with Article 22(1)\n(-)\n(-)\nLicence or certificate are required for any quantities.\u2019\nArticle 2\nAt the request of the interested parties, the securities lodged for the issuing of import licences for fresh apples falling within CN code 0808 10 80, shall be released, when the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe validity of the licences has not expired on the date of application of this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe licences have been used only partially or not at all on the date of application of this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["20", "10", "89", "56", "72", "17", "46", "43", "67", "75", "63", "50", "36", "65", "71", "96", "12", "11", "64", "32", "58", "25", "74", "77", "22", "26", "4", "27", "69", "13", "No Label", "21", "68"], "gold": ["21", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1037/2010\nof 15 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["54", "34", "30", "7", "38", "33", "62", "14", "90", "36", "3", "16", "42", "4", "66", "26", "78", "19", "12", "45", "40", "89", "60", "28", "32", "39", "43", "52", "49", "27", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 January 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning the setting-up of a Joint Working Group to monitor the implementation of Chapter IIa of Protocol 10 to the EEA Agreement on simplification of inspections and formalities in respect of carriage of goods and defining its rules of procedure\n(2012/41/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 and Articles 207(2) and 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nProtocol 10 to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 76/2009 of 30 June 2009 (2), with a view to inserting a new Chapter IIa on customs security measures.\n(2)\nArticle 9b of Protocol 10 provides that, in bilateral trade between the Contracting Parties, the application of customs security measures shall be waived, provided that there is an equivalent level of customs security on their respective territories.\n(3)\nArticle 9f of Protocol 10 also provides that the EEA Joint Committee shall define the rules allowing the Contracting Parties to ensure the monitoring of the implementation of Chapter IIa of that Protocol and to verify whether the provisions of Chapter IIa of and Annexes I and II to that Protocol are complied with,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the setting-up of a Joint Working Group to monitor the implementation of Chapter IIa of Protocol 10 to the EEA Agreement on simplification of inspections and formalities in respect of carriage of goods and defining its rules of procedure shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["71", "19", "60", "46", "70", "51", "11", "29", "98", "35", "63", "62", "12", "38", "74", "93", "65", "41", "99", "3", "96", "76", "26", "69", "84", "5", "33", "66", "18", "28", "No Label", "1", "9", "21", "54"], "gold": ["1", "9", "21", "54"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/36/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 5 April 2011\non preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 82(2) and Article 83(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nTrafficking in human beings is a serious crime, often committed within the framework of organised crime, a gross violation of fundamental rights and explicitly prohibited by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Preventing and combating trafficking in human beings is a priority for the Union and the Member States.\n(2)\nThis Directive is part of global action against trafficking in human beings, which includes action involving third countries as stated in the \u2018Action-oriented Paper on strengthening the Union external dimension on action against trafficking in human beings; Towards global EU action against trafficking in human beings\u2019 approved by the Council on 30 November 2009. In this context, action should be pursued in third countries of origin and transfer of victims, with a view to raising awareness, reducing vulnerability, supporting and assisting victims, fighting the root causes of trafficking and supporting those third countries in developing appropriate anti-trafficking legislation.\n(3)\nThis Directive recognises the gender-specific phenomenon of trafficking and that women and men are often trafficked for different purposes. For this reason, assistance and support measures should also be gender-specific where appropriate. The \u2018push\u2019 and \u2018pull\u2019 factors may be different depending on the sectors concerned, such as trafficking in human beings into the sex industry or for labour exploitation in, for example, construction work, the agricultural sector or domestic servitude.\n(4)\nThe Union is committed to the prevention of and fight against trafficking in human beings, and to the protection of the rights of trafficked persons. For this purpose, Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA of 19 July 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings (3), and an EU Plan on best practices, standards and procedures for combating and preventing trafficking in human beings (4) were adopted. Moreover, the Stockholm Programme - An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens (5), adopted by the European Council, gives a clear priority to the fight against trafficking in human beings. Other measures should be envisaged, such as support for the development of general common indicators of the Union for the identification of victims of trafficking, through the exchange of best practices between all the relevant actors, particularly public and private social services.\n(5)\nThe law enforcement authorities of the Member States should continue to cooperate in order to strengthen the fight against trafficking in human beings. In this regard, close cross-border cooperation, including the sharing of information and the sharing of best practices, as well as a continued open dialogue between the police, judicial and financial authorities of the Member States, is essential. The coordination of investigations and prosecutions of cases of trafficking in human beings should be facilitated by enhanced cooperation with Europol and Eurojust, the setting-up of joint investigation teams, as well as by the implementation of Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA of 30 November 2009 on prevention and settlement of conflict of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings (6).\n(6)\nMember States should encourage and work closely with civil society organisations, including recognised and active non-governmental organisations in this field working with trafficked persons, in particular in policy-making initiatives, information and awareness-raising campaigns, research and education programmes and in training, as well as in monitoring and evaluating the impact of anti-trafficking measures.\n(7)\nThis Directive adopts an integrated, holistic, and human rights approach to the fight against trafficking in human beings and when implementing it, Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (7) and Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals (8) should be taken into consideration. More rigorous prevention, prosecution and protection of victims\u2019 rights, are major objectives of this Directive. This Directive also adopts contextual understandings of the different forms of trafficking and aims at ensuring that each form is tackled by means of the most efficient measures.\n(8)\nChildren are more vulnerable than adults and therefore at greater risk of becoming victims of trafficking in human beings. In the application of this Directive, the child\u2019s best interests must be a primary consideration, in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.\n(9)\nThe 2000 United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings are crucial steps in the process of enhancing international cooperation against trafficking in human beings. It should be noted that the Council of Europe Convention contains an evaluation mechanism, composed of the Group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings (GRETA) and the Committee of the Parties. Coordination between international organisations with competence with regard to action against trafficking in human beings should be supported in order to avoid duplication of effort.\n(10)\nThis Directive is without prejudice to the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva Convention), and is in accordance with Article 4 and Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.\n(11)\nIn order to tackle recent developments in the phenomenon of trafficking in human beings, this Directive adopts a broader concept of what should be considered trafficking in human beings than under Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA and therefore includes additional forms of exploitation. Within the context of this Directive, forced begging should be understood as a form of forced labour or services as defined in the 1930 ILO Convention No 29 concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour. Therefore, the exploitation of begging, including the use of a trafficked dependent person for begging, falls within the scope of the definition of trafficking in human beings only when all the elements of forced labour or services occur. In the light of the relevant case-law, the validity of any possible consent to perform such labour or services should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, when a child is concerned, no possible consent should ever be considered valid. The expression \u2018exploitation of criminal activities\u2019 should be understood as the exploitation of a person to commit, inter alia, pick-pocketing, shop-lifting, drug trafficking and other similar activities which are subject to penalties and imply financial gain. The definition also covers trafficking in human beings for the purpose of the removal of organs, which constitutes a serious violation of human dignity and physical integrity, as well as, for instance, other behaviour such as illegal adoption or forced marriage in so far as they fulfil the constitutive elements of trafficking in human beings.\n(12)\nThe levels of penalties in this Directive reflect the growing concern among Member States regarding the development of the phenomenon of trafficking in human beings. For this reason this Directive uses as a basis levels 3 and 4 of the Council conclusions of 24-25 April 2002 on the approach to apply regarding approximation of penalties. When the offence is committed in certain circumstances, for example against a particularly vulnerable victim, the penalty should be more severe. In the context of this Directive, particularly vulnerable persons should include at least all children. Other factors that could be taken into account when assessing the vulnerability of a victim include, for example, gender, pregnancy, state of health and disability. When the offence is particularly grave, for example when the life of the victim has been endangered or the offence has involved serious violence such as torture, forced drug/medication usage, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, or has otherwise caused particularly serious harm to the victim, this should also be reflected in a more severe penalty. When, under this Directive, a reference is made to surrender, such reference should be interpreted in accordance with Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (9). The gravity of the offence committed could be taken into account within the framework of the execution of the sentence.\n(13)\nIn combating trafficking in human beings, full use should be made of existing instruments on the seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime, such as the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and the Protocols thereto, the 1990 Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime, Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA of 26 June 2001 on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime (10), and Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (11). The use of seized and confiscated instrumentalities and the proceeds from the offences referred to in this Directive to support victims\u2019 assistance and protection, including compensation of victims and Union trans-border law enforcement counter-trafficking activities, should be encouraged.\n(14)\nVictims of trafficking in human beings should, in accordance with the basic principles of the legal systems of the relevant Member States, be protected from prosecution or punishment for criminal activities such as the use of false documents, or offences under legislation on prostitution or immigration, that they have been compelled to commit as a direct consequence of being subject to trafficking. The aim of such protection is to safeguard the human rights of victims, to avoid further victimisation and to encourage them to act as witnesses in criminal proceedings against the perpetrators. This safeguard should not exclude prosecution or punishment for offences that a person has voluntarily committed or participated in.\n(15)\nTo ensure the success of investigations and prosecutions of human trafficking offences, their initiation should not depend, in principle, on reporting or accusation by the victim. Where the nature of the act calls for it, prosecution should be allowed for a sufficient period of time after the victim has reached the age of majority. The length of the sufficient period of time for prosecution should be determined in accordance with respective national law. Law enforcement officials and prosecutors should be adequately trained, in particular with a view to enhancing international law enforcement and judicial cooperation. Those responsible for investigating and prosecuting such offences should also have access to the investigative tools used in organised crime or other serious crime cases. Such tools could include the interception of communications, covert surveillance including electronic surveillance, the monitoring of bank accounts and other financial investigations.\n(16)\nIn order to ensure effective prosecution of international criminal groups whose centre of activity is in a Member State and which carry out trafficking in human beings in third countries, jurisdiction should be established over the offence of trafficking in human beings where the offender is a national of that Member State, and the offence is committed outside the territory of that Member State. Similarly, jurisdiction could also be established where the offender is an habitual resident of a Member State, the victim is a national or an habitual resident of a Member State, or the offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in the territory of a Member State, and the offence is committed outside the territory of that Member State.\n(17)\nWhile Directive 2004/81/EC provides for the issue of a residence permit to victims of trafficking in human beings who are third-country nationals, and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the rights of the citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (12) regulates the exercise of the right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States by citizens of the Union and their families, including protection from expulsion, this Directive establishes specific protective measures for any victim of trafficking in human beings. Consequently, this Directive does not deal with the conditions of the residence of the victims of trafficking in human beings in the territory of the Member States.\n(18)\nIt is necessary for victims of trafficking in human beings to be able to exercise their rights effectively. Therefore assistance and support should be available to them before, during and for an appropriate time after criminal proceedings. Member States should provide for resources to support victim assistance, support and protection. The assistance and support provided should include at least a minimum set of measures that are necessary to enable the victim to recover and escape from their traffickers. The practical implementation of such measures should, on the basis of an individual assessment carried out in accordance with national procedures, take into account the circumstances, cultural context and needs of the person concerned. A person should be provided with assistance and support as soon as there is a reasonable-grounds indication for believing that he or she might have been trafficked and irrespective of his or her willingness to act as a witness. In cases where the victim does not reside lawfully in the Member State concerned, assistance and support should be provided unconditionally at least during the reflection period. If, after completion of the identification process or expiry of the reflection period, the victim is not considered eligible for a residence permit or does not otherwise have lawful residence in that Member State, or if the victim has left the territory of that Member State, the Member State concerned is not obliged to continue providing assistance and support to that person on the basis of this Directive. Where necessary, assistance and support should continue for an appropriate period after the criminal proceedings have ended, for example if medical treatment is ongoing due to the severe physical or psychological consequences of the crime, or if the victim\u2019s safety is at risk due to the victim\u2019 s statements in those criminal proceedings.\n(19)\nCouncil Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (13) establishes a set of victims\u2019 rights in criminal proceedings, including the right to protection and compensation. In addition, victims of trafficking in human beings should be given access without delay to legal counselling and, in accordance with the role of victims in the relevant justice systems, to legal representation, including for the purpose of claiming compensation. Such legal counselling and representation could also be provided by the competent authorities for the purpose of claiming compensation from the State. The purpose of legal counselling is to enable victims to be informed and receive advice about the various possibilities open to them. Legal counselling should be provided by a person having received appropriate legal training without necessarily being a lawyer. Legal counselling and, in accordance with the role of victims in the relevant justice systems, legal representation should be provided free of charge, at least when the victim does not have sufficient financial resources, in a manner consistent with the internal procedures of Member States. As child victims in particular are unlikely to have such resources, legal counselling and legal representation would in practice be free of charge for them. Furthermore, on the basis of an individual risk assessment carried out in accordance with national procedures, victims should be protected from retaliation, from intimidation, and from the risk of being re-trafficked.\n(20)\nVictims of trafficking who have already suffered the abuse and degrading treatment which trafficking commonly entails, such as sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, rape, slavery-like practices or the removal of organs, should be protected from secondary victimisation and further trauma during the criminal proceedings. Unnecessary repetition of interviews during investigation, prosecution and trial should be avoided, for instance, where appropriate, through the production, as soon as possible in the proceedings, of video recordings of those interviews. To this end victims of trafficking should during criminal investigations and proceedings receive treatment that is appropriate to their individual needs. The assessment of their individual needs should take into consideration circumstances such as their age, whether they are pregnant, their health, a disability they may have and other personal circumstances, as well as the physical and psychological consequences of the criminal activity to which the victim was subjected. Whether and how the treatment is applied is to be decided in accordance with grounds defined by national law, rules of judicial discretion, practice and guidance, on a case-by-case basis.\n(21)\nAssistance and support measures should be provided to victims on a consensual and informed basis. Victims should therefore be informed of the important aspects of those measures and they should not be imposed on the victims. A victim\u2019s refusal of assistance or support measures should not entail obligations for the competent authorities of the Member State concerned to provide the victim with alternative measures.\n(22)\nIn addition to measures available to all victims of trafficking in human beings, Member States should ensure that specific assistance, support and protective measures are available to child victims. Those measures should be provided in the best interests of the child and in accordance with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Where the age of a person subject to trafficking is uncertain, and there are reasons to believe it is less than 18 years, that person should be presumed to be a child and receive immediate assistance, support and protection. Assistance and support measures for child victims should focus on their physical and psycho-social recovery and on a durable solution for the person in question. Access to education would help children to be reintegrated into society. Given that child victims of trafficking are particularly vulnerable, additional protective measures should be available to protect them during interviews forming part of criminal investigations and proceedings.\n(23)\nParticular attention should be paid to unaccompanied child victims of trafficking in human beings, as they need specific assistance and support due to their situation of particular vulnerability. From the moment an unaccompanied child victim of trafficking in human beings is identified and until a durable solution is found, Member States should apply reception measures appropriate to the needs of the child and should ensure that relevant procedural safeguards apply. The necessary measures should be taken to ensure that, where appropriate, a guardian and/or a representative are appointed in order to safeguard the minor\u2019s best interests. A decision on the future of each unaccompanied child victim should be taken within the shortest possible period of time with a view to finding durable solutions based on an individual assessment of the best interests of the child, which should be a primary consideration. A durable solution could be return and reintegration into the country of origin or the country of return, integration into the host society, granting of international protection status or granting of other status in accordance with national law of the Member States.\n(24)\nWhen, in accordance with this Directive, a guardian and/or a representative are to be appointed for a child, those roles may be performed by the same person or by a legal person, an institution or an authority.\n(25)\nMember States should establish and/or strengthen policies to prevent trafficking in human beings, including measures to discourage and reduce the demand that fosters all forms of exploitation, and measures to reduce the risk of people becoming victims of trafficking in human beings, by means of research, including research into new forms of trafficking in human beings, information, awareness-raising, and education. In such initiatives, Member States should adopt a gender perspective and a child-rights approach. Officials likely to come into contact with victims or potential victims of trafficking in human beings should be adequately trained to identify and deal with such victims. That training obligation should be promoted for members of the following categories when they are likely to come into contact with victims: police officers, border guards, immigration officials, public prosecutors, lawyers, members of the judiciary and court officials, labour inspectors, social, child and health care personnel and consular staff, but could, depending on local circumstances, also involve other groups of public officials who are likely to encounter trafficking victims in their work.\n(26)\nDirective 2009/52/EC provides for sanctions for employers of illegally staying third-country nationals who, while not having been charged with or convicted of trafficking in human beings, use work or services exacted from a person with the knowledge that that person is a victim of such trafficking. In addition, Member States should take into consideration the possibility of imposing sanctions on the users of any service exacted from a victim, with the knowledge that the person has been trafficked. Such further criminalisation could cover the behaviour of employers of legally staying third-country nationals and Union citizens, as well as buyers of sexual services from any trafficked person, irrespective of their nationality.\n(27)\nNational monitoring systems such as national rapporteurs or equivalent mechanisms should be established by Member States, in the way in which they consider appropriate according to their internal organisation, and taking into account the need for a minimum structure with identified tasks, in order to carry out assessments of trends in trafficking in human beings, gather statistics, measure the results of anti-trafficking actions, and regularly report. Such national rapporteurs or equivalent mechanisms are already constituted in an informal Union Network established by the Council Conclusions on establishing an informal EU Network of National Rapporteurs or Equivalent Mechanisms on Trafficking in Human Beings of 4 June 2009. An anti-trafficking coordinator would take part in the work of that Network, which provides the Union and the Member States with objective, reliable, comparable and up-to-date strategic information in the field of trafficking in human beings and exchanges experience and best practices in the field of preventing and combating trafficking in human beings at Union level. The European Parliament should be entitled to participate in the joint activities of the national rapporteurs or equivalent mechanisms.\n(28)\nIn order to evaluate the results of anti-trafficking action, the Union should continue to develop its work on methodologies and data collection methods to produce comparable statistics.\n(29)\nIn the light of the Stockholm Programme and with a view to developing a consolidated Union strategy against trafficking in human beings aimed at further strengthening the commitment of, and efforts made, by the Union and the Member States to prevent and combat such trafficking, Member States should facilitate the tasks of an anti-trafficking coordinator, which may include for example improving coordination and coherence, avoiding duplication of effort, between Union institutions and agencies as well as between Member States and international actors, contributing to the development of existing or new Union policies and strategies relevant to the fight against trafficking in human beings or reporting to the Union institutions.\n(30)\nThis Directive aims to amend and expand the provisions of Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA. Since the amendments to be made are of substantial number and nature, the Framework Decision should in the interests of clarity be replaced in its entirety in relation to Member States participating in the adoption of this Directive.\n(31)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (14), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Union, their own tables which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n(32)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely to fight against trafficking in human beings, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the 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. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.\n(33)\nThis Directive respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably human dignity, the prohibition of slavery, forced labour and trafficking in human beings, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the rights of the child, the right to liberty and security, freedom of expression and information, the protection of personal data, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the principles of the legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties. In particular, this Directive seeks to ensure full respect for those rights and principles and must be implemented accordingly.\n(34)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Ireland has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Directive.\n(35)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, the United Kingdom is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(36)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Directive establishes minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of trafficking in human beings. It also introduces common provisions, taking into account the gender perspective, to strengthen the prevention of this crime and the protection of the victims thereof.\nArticle 2\nOffences concerning trafficking in human beings\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the following intentional acts are punishable:\nThe recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or reception of persons, including the exchange or transfer of control over those persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.\n2. A position of vulnerability means a situation in which the person concerned has no real or acceptable alternative but to submit to the abuse involved.\n3. Exploitation shall include, as a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, including begging, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the exploitation of criminal activities, or the removal of organs.\n4. The consent of a victim of trafficking in human beings to the exploitation, whether intended or actual, shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in paragraph 1 has been used.\n5. When the conduct referred to in paragraph 1 involves a child, it shall be a punishable offence of trafficking in human beings even if none of the means set forth in paragraph 1 has been used.\n6. For the purpose of this Directive, \u2018child\u2019 shall mean any person below 18 years of age.\nArticle 3\nIncitement, aiding and abetting, and attempt\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that inciting, aiding and abetting or attempting to commit an offence referred to in Article 2 is punishable.\nArticle 4\nPenalties\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that an offence referred to in Article 2 is punishable by a maximum penalty of at least five years of imprisonment.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that an offence referred to in Article 2 is punishable by a maximum penalty of at least 10 years of imprisonment where that offence:\n(a)\nwas committed against a victim who was particularly vulnerable, which, in the context of this Directive, shall include at least child victims;\n(b)\nwas committed within the framework of a criminal organisation within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime (15);\n(c)\ndeliberately or by gross negligence endangered the life of the victim; or\n(d)\nwas committed by use of serious violence or has caused particularly serious harm to the victim.\n3. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the fact that an offence referred to in Article 2 was committed by public officials in the performance of their duties is regarded as an aggravating circumstance.\n4. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that an offence referred to in Article 3 is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, which may entail surrender.\nArticle 5\nLiability of legal persons\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that legal persons can be held liable for the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3 committed for their benefit by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, who has a leading position within the legal person, based on:\n(a)\na power of representation of the legal person;\n(b)\nan authority to take decisions on behalf of the legal person; or\n(c)\nan authority to exercise control within the legal person.\n2. Member States shall also ensure that a legal person can be held liable where the lack of supervision or control, by a person referred to in paragraph 1, has made possible the commission of the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3 for the benefit of that legal person by a person under its authority.\n3. Liability of a legal person under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not exclude criminal proceedings against natural persons who are perpetrators, inciters or accessories in the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3.\n4. For the purpose of this Directive, \u2018legal person\u2019 shall mean any entity having legal personality under the applicable law, except for States or public bodies in the exercise of State authority and for public international organisations.\nArticle 6\nSanctions on legal persons\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held liable pursuant to Article 5(1) or (2) is subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which shall include criminal or non-criminal fines and may include other sanctions, such as:\n(a)\nexclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid;\n(b)\ntemporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of commercial activities;\n(c)\nplacing under judicial supervision;\n(d)\njudicial winding-up;\n(e)\ntemporary or permanent closure of establishments which have been used for committing the offence.\nArticle 7\nSeizure and confiscation\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that their competent authorities are entitled to seize and confiscate instrumentalities and proceeds from the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3.\nArticle 8\nNon-prosecution or non-application of penalties to the victim\nMember States shall, in accordance with the basic principles of their legal systems, take the necessary measures to ensure that competent national authorities are entitled not to prosecute or impose penalties on victims of trafficking in human beings for their involvement in criminal activities which they have been compelled to commit as a direct consequence of being subjected to any of the acts referred to in Article 2.\nArticle 9\nInvestigation and prosecution\n1. Member States shall ensure that investigation into or prosecution of offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3 is not dependent on reporting or accusation by a victim and that criminal proceedings may continue even if the victim has withdrawn his or her statement.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to enable, where the nature of the act calls for it, the prosecution of an offence referred to in Articles 2 and 3 for a sufficient period of time after the victim has reached the age of majority.\n3. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that persons, units or services responsible for investigating or prosecuting the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3 are trained accordingly.\n4. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that effective investigative tools, such as those which are used in organised crime or other serious crime cases are available to persons, units or services responsible for investigating or prosecuting the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3.\nArticle 10\nJurisdiction\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to establish their jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3 where:\n(a)\nthe offence is committed in whole or in part within their territory; or\n(b)\nthe offender is one of their nationals.\n2. A Member State shall inform the Commission where it decides to establish further jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3 committed outside its territory, inter alia, where:\n(a)\nthe offence is committed against one of its nationals or a person who is an habitual resident in its territory;\n(b)\nthe offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in its territory; or\n(c)\nthe offender is an habitual resident in its territory.\n3. For the prosecution of the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3 committed outside the territory of the Member State concerned, each Member State shall, in those cases referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1, and may, in those cases referred to in paragraph 2, take the necessary measures to ensure that its jurisdiction is not subject to either of the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe acts are a criminal offence at the place where they were performed; or\n(b)\nthe prosecution can be initiated only following a report made by the victim in the place where the offence was committed, or a denunciation from the State of the place where the offence was committed.\nArticle 11\nAssistance and support for victims of trafficking in human beings\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that assistance and support are provided to victims before, during and for an appropriate period of time after the conclusion of criminal proceedings in order to enable them to exercise the rights set out in Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, and in this Directive.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a person is provided with assistance and support as soon as the competent authorities have a reasonable-grounds indication for believing that the person might have been subjected to any of the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3.\n3. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that assistance and support for a victim are not made conditional on the victim\u2019s willingness to cooperate in the criminal investigation, prosecution or trial, without prejudice to Directive 2004/81/EC or similar national rules.\n4. Member States shall take the necessary measures to establish appropriate mechanisms aimed at the early identification of, assistance to and support for victims, in cooperation with relevant support organisations.\n5. The assistance and support measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be provided on a consensual and informed basis, and shall include at least standards of living capable of ensuring victims\u2019 subsistence through measures such as the provision of appropriate and safe accommodation and material assistance, as well as necessary medical treatment including psychological assistance, counselling and information, and translation and interpretation services where appropriate.\n6. The information referred to in paragraph 5 shall cover, where relevant, information on a reflection and recovery period pursuant to Directive 2004/81/EC, and information on the possibility of granting international protection pursuant to Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (16) and Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (17) or pursuant to other international instruments or other similar national rules.\n7. Member States shall attend to victims with special needs, where those needs derive, in particular, from whether they are pregnant, their health, a disability, a mental or psychological disorder they have, or a serious form of psychological, physical or sexual violence they have suffered.\nArticle 12\nProtection of victims of trafficking in human beings in criminal investigation and proceedings\n1. The protection measures referred to in this Article shall apply in addition to the rights set out in Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA.\n2. Member States shall ensure that victims of trafficking in human beings have access without delay to legal counselling, and, in accordance with the role of victims in the relevant justice system, to legal representation, including for the purpose of claiming compensation. Legal counselling and legal representation shall be free of charge where the victim does not have sufficient financial resources.\n3. Member States shall ensure that victims of trafficking in human beings receive appropriate protection on the basis of an individual risk assessment, inter alia, by having access to witness protection programmes or other similar measures, if appropriate and in accordance with the grounds defined by national law or procedures.\n4. Without prejudice to the rights of the defence, and according to an individual assessment by the competent authorities of the personal circumstances of the victim, Member States shall ensure that victims of trafficking in human beings receive specific treatment aimed at preventing secondary victimisation by avoiding, as far as possible and in accordance with the grounds defined by national law as well as with rules of judicial discretion, practice or guidance, the following:\n(a)\nunnecessary repetition of interviews during investigation, prosecution or trial;\n(b)\nvisual contact between victims and defendants including during the giving of evidence such as interviews and cross-examination, by appropriate means including the use of appropriate communication technologies;\n(c)\nthe giving of evidence in open court; and\n(d)\nunnecessary questioning concerning the victim\u2019s private life.\nArticle 13\nGeneral provisions on assistance, support and protection measures for child victims of trafficking in human beings\n1. Child victims of trafficking in human beings shall be provided with assistance, support and protection. In the application of this Directive the child\u2019s best interests shall be a primary consideration.\n2. Member States shall ensure that, where the age of a person subject to trafficking in human beings is uncertain and there are reasons to believe that the person is a child, that person is presumed to be a child in order to receive immediate access to assistance, support and protection in accordance with Articles 14 and 15.\nArticle 14\nAssistance and support to child victims\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the specific actions to assist and support child victims of trafficking in human beings, in the short and long term, in their physical and psycho-social recovery, are undertaken following an individual assessment of the special circumstances of each particular child victim, taking due account of the child\u2019s views, needs and concerns with a view to finding a durable solution for the child. Within a reasonable time, Member States shall provide access to education for child victims and the children of victims who are given assistance and support in accordance with Article 11, in accordance with their national law.\n2. Members States shall appoint a guardian or a representative for a child victim of trafficking in human beings from the moment the child is identified by the authorities where, by national law, the holders of parental responsibility are, as a result of a conflict of interest between them and the child victim, precluded from ensuring the child\u2019s best interest and/or from representing the child.\n3. Member States shall take measures, where appropriate and possible, to provide assistance and support to the family of a child victim of trafficking in human beings when the family is in the territory of the Member States. In particular, Member States shall, where appropriate and possible, apply Article 4 of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA to the family.\n4. This Article shall apply without prejudice to Article 11.\nArticle 15\nProtection of child victims of trafficking in human beings in criminal investigations and proceedings\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in criminal investigations and proceedings, in accordance with the role of victims in the relevant justice system, competent authorities appoint a representative for a child victim of trafficking in human beings where, by national law, the holders of parental responsibility are precluded from representing the child as a result of a conflict of interest between them and the child victim.\n2. Member States shall, in accordance with the role of victims in the relevant justice system, ensure that child victims have access without delay to free legal counselling and to free legal representation, including for the purpose of claiming compensation, unless they have sufficient financial resources.\n3. Without prejudice to the rights of the defence, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in criminal investigations and proceedings in respect of any of the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3:\n(a)\ninterviews with the child victim take place without unjustified delay after the facts have been reported to the competent authorities;\n(b)\ninterviews with the child victim take place, where necessary, in premises designed or adapted for that purpose;\n(c)\ninterviews with the child victim are carried out, where necessary, by or through professionals trained for that purpose;\n(d)\nthe same persons, if possible and where appropriate, conduct all the interviews with the child victim;\n(e)\nthe number of interviews is as limited as possible and interviews are carried out only where strictly necessary for the purposes of criminal investigations and proceedings;\n(f)\nthe child victim may be accompanied by a representative or, where appropriate, an adult of the child\u2019s choice, unless a reasoned decision has been made to the contrary in respect of that person.\n4. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in criminal investigations of any of the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3 all interviews with a child victim or, where appropriate, with a child witness, may be video recorded and that such video recorded interviews may be used as evidence in criminal court proceedings, in accordance with the rules under their national law.\n5. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in criminal court proceedings relating to any of the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3, it may be ordered that:\n(a)\nthe hearing take place without the presence of the public; and\n(b)\nthe child victim be heard in the courtroom without being present, in particular, through the use of appropriate communication technologies.\n6. This Article shall apply without prejudice to Article 12.\nArticle 16\nAssistance, support and protection for unaccompanied child victims of trafficking in human beings\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the specific actions to assist and support child victims of trafficking in human beings, as referred to in Article 14(1), take due account of the personal and special circumstances of the unaccompanied child victim.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary measures with a view to finding a durable solution based on an individual assessment of the best interests of the child.\n3. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, where appropriate, a guardian is appointed to unaccompanied child victims of trafficking in human beings.\n4. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, in criminal investigations and proceedings, in accordance with the role of victims in the relevant justice system, competent authorities appoint a representative where the child is unaccompanied or separated from its family.\n5. This Article shall apply without prejudice to Articles 14 and 15.\nArticle 17\nCompensation to victims\nMember States shall ensure that victims of trafficking in human beings have access to existing schemes of compensation to victims of violent crimes of intent.\nArticle 18\nPrevention\n1. Member States shall take appropriate measures, such as education and training, to discourage and reduce the demand that fosters all forms of exploitation related to trafficking in human beings.\n2. Member States shall take appropriate action, including through the Internet, such as information and awareness-raising campaigns, research and education programmes, where appropriate in cooperation with relevant civil society organisations and other stakeholders, aimed at raising awareness and reducing the risk of people, especially children, becoming victims of trafficking in human beings.\n3. Member States shall promote regular training for officials likely to come into contact with victims or potential victims of trafficking in human beings, including front-line police officers, aimed at enabling them to identify and deal with victims and potential victims of trafficking in human beings.\n4. In order to make the preventing and combating of trafficking in human beings more effective by discouraging demand, Member States shall consider taking measures to establish as a criminal offence the use of services which are the objects of exploitation as referred to in Article 2, with the knowledge that the person is a victim of an offence referred to in Article 2.\nArticle 19\nNational rapporteurs or equivalent mechanisms\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to establish national rapporteurs or equivalent mechanisms. The tasks of such mechanisms shall include the carrying out of assessments of trends in trafficking in human beings, the measuring of results of anti-trafficking actions, including the gathering of statistics in close cooperation with relevant civil society organisations active in this field, and reporting.\nArticle 20\nCoordination of the Union strategy against trafficking in human beings\nIn order to contribute to a coordinated and consolidated Union strategy against trafficking in human beings, Member States shall facilitate the tasks of an anti-trafficking coordinator (ATC). In particular, Member States shall transmit to the ATC the information referred to in Article 19, on the basis of which the ATC shall contribute to reporting carried out by the Commission every two years on the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings.\nArticle 21\nReplacement of Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA\nFramework Decision 2002/629/JHA on combating trafficking in human beings is hereby replaced in relation to Member States participating in the adoption of this Directive, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limit for transposition of the Framework Decision into national law.\nIn relation to Member States participating in the adoption of this Directive, references to the Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA shall be construed as references to this Directive.\nArticle 22\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 6 April 2013.\n2. Member States shall transmit to the Commission the text of the provisions transposing into their national law the obligations imposed on them under this Directive.\n3. When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States.\nArticle 23\nReporting\n1. The Commission shall, by 6 April 2015, submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with this Directive, including a description of action taken under Article 18(4), accompanied, if necessary, by legislative proposals.\n2. The Commission shall, by 6 April 2016, submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council, assessing the impact of existing national law, establishing as a criminal offence the use of services which are the objects of exploitation of trafficking in human beings, on the prevention of trafficking in human beings, accompanied, if necessary, by adequate proposals.\nArticle 24\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 25\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 5 April 2011.", "references": ["13", "98", "51", "27", "69", "56", "15", "31", "1", "43", "21", "35", "62", "30", "17", "10", "91", "16", "79", "97", "7", "20", "45", "78", "89", "39", "88", "87", "2", "38", "No Label", "12", "14", "36"], "gold": ["12", "14", "36"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/169/CFSP\nof 23 March 2012\namending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nOn 12 April 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/235/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran (2).\n(3)\nThe measures set out in Decision 2010/413/CFSP reflect the Council\u2019s concerns over the nature of Iran\u2019s nuclear programme, whereas the measures set out in Decision 2011/235/CFSP reflect the Council\u2019s concerns about the deterioration of the human rights situation in Iran.\n(4)\nIn consideration of its objectives, the prohibition on the supply, sale or transfer of equipment which might be used for internal repression will be included in Decision 2011/235/CFSP. That Decision will therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nAt the same time, Decision 2010/413/CFSP should no longer include the prohibition on the supply, sale or transfer of equipment which might be used for internal repression and should be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nFurthermore, it should be specified that the restrictions on admission and the freezing of funds and economic resources apply to persons acting on behalf of IRGC or IRISL,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/413/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 1(1), point (c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\narms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for such arms and related materiel. This prohibition shall not apply to non-combat vehicles which have been manufactured or fitted with materials to provide ballistic protection, intended solely for protective use of personnel of the EU and its Member States in Iran;\u2019.\n(2)\nIn Article 19(1), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nother persons not covered by Annex I that are engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support for Iran\u2019s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, including through the involvement in procurement of the prohibited items, goods, equipment, materials and technology, or persons acting on their behalf or at their direction, or persons that have assisted designated persons or entities in evading or violating the provisions of UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) and UNSCR 1929 (2010) or this Decision, as well as other members of the IRGC and persons acting on behalf of IRGC or IRISL, as listed in Annex II.\u2019.\n(3)\nIn Article 20(1), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\npersons and entities not covered by Annex I that are engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support for, Iran\u2019s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, including through the involvement in procurement of the prohibited items, goods, equipment, materials and technology, or persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them, including through illicit means, or persons and entities that have assisted designated persons or entities in evading or violating the provisions of UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) and UNSCR 1929 (2010) or this Decision, as well as other members and entities of IRGC and IRISL and entities owned or controlled by them or persons and entities acting on their behalf, as listed in Annex II.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["21", "56", "81", "27", "25", "29", "31", "43", "80", "51", "61", "69", "73", "14", "54", "89", "76", "98", "96", "19", "34", "72", "7", "85", "39", "20", "68", "12", "60", "94", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/016 ES/Arag\u00f3n Retail trade from Spain)\n(2010/810/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nSpain submitted an application on 6 May 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 593 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 47 (Retail trade, except for motor vehicles and motorcycles) in the NUTS II region of Arag\u00f3n (ES24) and supplemented it with additional information up to 1 July 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 560 000.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Spain,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 560 000 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["93", "48", "40", "38", "27", "66", "73", "55", "84", "5", "11", "67", "21", "51", "99", "70", "86", "60", "61", "75", "29", "88", "37", "6", "2", "42", "28", "23", "41", "52", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION ATALANTA/3/2010\nof 28 May 2010\non the appointment of an EU Operation Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)\n(2010/317/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (Atalanta), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6(1) of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Operation Commander.\n(2)\nThe United Kingdom has proposed that Major-General Buster HOWE replace Rear-Admiral Peter HUDSON as EU Operation Commander.\n(3)\nThe EU Military Committee supports that recommendation.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMajor-General Buster HOWE is hereby appointed EU Operation Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 14 June 2010.\nDone at Brussels, 28 May 2010.", "references": ["29", "66", "40", "84", "27", "65", "24", "97", "57", "48", "3", "95", "81", "58", "62", "99", "34", "93", "2", "4", "11", "32", "88", "28", "90", "69", "47", "70", "30", "31", "No Label", "1", "9", "12", "52", "56", "94"], "gold": ["1", "9", "12", "52", "56", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 108/2012\nof 8 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 February 2012.", "references": ["31", "20", "48", "78", "80", "17", "74", "90", "3", "98", "59", "52", "63", "58", "54", "87", "1", "53", "75", "4", "67", "51", "28", "30", "71", "57", "16", "8", "89", "91", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/121/CFSP\nof 27 February 2012\nin support of activities to promote EU-China-Africa dialogue and cooperation on conventional arms controls\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 26(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAt its meeting held on 15 and 16 December 2005, the European Council adopted the EU Strategy to combat the illicit accumulation and trafficking of small arms and light weapons (hereinafter \u2018SALW\u2019) and their ammunition (hereinafter \u2018EU SALW Strategy\u2019). The Strategy identifies the African continent as one of the regions most affected by the illegal trade and excessive accumulation of SALW.\n(2)\nThe EU SALW Strategy defines several tasks to be fulfilled by the Union, including the research of consensus within exporting countries with a view to supplying small arms to governments only, in accordance with restrictive and appropriate regional and international criteria on arms exports.\n(3)\nThe EU SALW Strategy also recommends the inclusion of SALW as a topic to be addressed in the political dialogue with third countries and international, regional or sub-regional organisations, paying special attention to the coordination of actions with the Union's main partners and major SALW exporters, including China.\n(4)\nThe Council of the European Union adopted in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2010 Council Conclusions in support of the negotiation of an Arms Trade Treaty, a legally binding international instrument establishing common international standards for transfers of conventional weapons. It underlined the importance of cooperation in this process with other States and regional organisations.\n(5)\nSince its establishment in 2005, the EU-China Strategic Dialogue includes provisions for dialogue on non-proliferation and conventional arms exports. China and the Union agreed at their 2006 Summit to create a new dialogue on Africa's peace, stability, and sustainable development, in order to foster understanding between partners, to discuss activities and priorities, and to provide an opportunity for integrating China into international efforts to improve and coordinate cooperation activities. The 2007-2013 EU-China Strategy Paper defines the fundamental approach of the Union to China as one of engagement and partnership and singles out cooperation to prevent the illicit trade in SALW as a priority.\n(6)\nIn December 2004 China and the Union signed a Joint Declaration on non-proliferation and disarmament, covering also cooperation in the field of conventional weapons. In the Joint Declaration, the Union and China noted that \u2018positive and active efforts must also be made to strengthen controls over exports of conventional weapons. The arms control regimes concerning certain conventional weapons need to be strengthened. Efforts to prevent illicit trade of small arms and light weapons and flows of those weapons that would impair regional peace and stability, should be enhanced.\u2019\n(7)\nThe 2007 Joint Africa-EU Strategic Partnership defines the prevention of the illicit trade in and excessive accumulation of SALW as an area for action through enhancing capacity, networking, cooperation and exchange of information. China was invited and participated as an observer in the 2010 EU-Africa Summit,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Union shall pursue the development of cooperation between civil society, industry, and government representatives of China, the Union, and the African States, including through dialogue between respective civil societies and industries, to develop common approaches to address the threats posed by the illicit trade and excessive accumulation of SALW and the lack of regulation at international level of trade in conventional arms. Development of such cooperation should also be reflected in increased support for and implementation of a strong and robust Arms Trade Treaty.\n2. The Union shall pursue the objective referred to in paragraph 1 through the following projects and measures:\n-\nthe establishment and development of a joint African-EU-Chinese Expert Working Group on conventional arms and a joint African-EU-Chinese Research Centre on conventional arms. The objective of the Expert Working Group and the Research Centre shall be to increase among the policy community in China, Africa, and the Union responsible for conventional arms issues and export controls thereof, awareness of, and engagement on, problems related to the illegal trade and excessive accumulation of SALW, and the lack of regulation at international level of legal trade in conventional weapons. Increased awareness of, and engagement on those issues, will contribute to the successful negotiation and implementation of, a strong and robust Arms Trade Treaty,\n-\nconducting advocacy and research activities aimed at identifying opportunities for EU-China cooperation to support African States in preventing the illegal trade in and excessive accumulation of SALW.\nA detailed description of the projects and measures referred to in this paragraph is set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter \u2018HR\u2019) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.\n2. The technical implementation of the projects and measures referred to in Article 1(2) shall be carried out by the non-governmental organisation \u2018Saferworld\u2019.\n3. Saferworld shall perform its tasks under the responsibility of the HR. For this purpose, the HR shall enter into the necessary arrangements with Saferworld.\nArticle 3\n1. The financial reference amount for the implementation of the projects and measures referred to in Article 1(2) shall be EUR 830 000.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 2. For this purpose, it shall conclude a financing agreement with Saferworld. The agreement shall stipulate that Saferworld is to ensure the visibility of the EU contribution, appropriate to its size.\n4. The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the financing agreement.\nArticle 4\nThe HR shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular quarterly reports prepared by Saferworld. Those reports shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council. The Commission shall report on the financial aspects of the implementation of the projects and measures referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 5\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall expire 24 months after the date of conclusion of the financing agreement referred to in Article 3(3). However, it shall expire six months after the date of its entry into force if that financing agreement has not been concluded by that time.\nDone at Brussels, 27 February 2012.", "references": ["75", "81", "49", "43", "80", "17", "48", "30", "46", "87", "37", "77", "27", "14", "22", "13", "10", "39", "15", "68", "91", "11", "44", "1", "72", "76", "21", "99", "0", "62", "No Label", "4", "5", "6", "20", "94", "95", "96"], "gold": ["4", "5", "6", "20", "94", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 January 2012\nappointing three members of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board\n(2012/59/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 235/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 16 March 2009, the Council adopted Decision 2009/250/EC (2) appointing three members of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (\u2018the Board\u2019) for a period of 3 years from 23 March 2009.\n(2)\nIt is therefore necessary to appoint three new members to take office upon expiry of the terms of office which began on 23 March 2009.\n(3)\nAccording to Article 3(2) in Decision No 235/2008/EC, the members of the Board are to be selected from among experts possessing outstanding competence in the field of statistics,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed as the members representing the Council in the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board, for a period of 3 years from 23 March 2012:\nMr G\u00fcnter KOPSCH,\nMs Pilar MART\u00cdN-GUZM\u00c1N,\nMr Edvard OUTRATA.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 24 January 2012.", "references": ["20", "96", "66", "36", "6", "72", "18", "23", "56", "90", "59", "80", "44", "0", "84", "64", "2", "61", "38", "15", "94", "14", "76", "32", "47", "4", "1", "41", "10", "97", "No Label", "7", "19"], "gold": ["7", "19"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 April 2010\non the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2009 financial year\n(notified under document C(2010) 2854)\n(2010/263/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 33 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Fund Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the Commission, on the basis of the annual accounts submitted by the Member States, accompanied by the information required for the clearance of accounts and a certificate regarding the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts and the reports established by the certification bodies, clears the accounts of the paying agencies referred to in Article 6 of the said Regulation.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the keeping of accounts by the paying agencies, declarations of expenditure and revenue and the conditions for reimbursing expenditure under the EAGF and the EAFRD (2), the financial year for the EAGF accounts begins on 16 October of year N-1 and ends on 15 October of year N. In the framework of clearing the accounts, for the purpose of aligning the reference period for EAFRD expenditure with that of the EAGF, account should be taken for the 2009 financial year of expenditure incurred by the Member States between 16 October 2008 and 15 October 2009.\n(3)\nThe Commission has checked the information submitted by the Member States and it has communicated to the Member States before 31 March 2010 the results of its verifications, along with the necessary amendments.\n(4)\nThe annual accounts and the accompanying documents permit the Commission to take, for certain paying agencies, a decision on the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts submitted. Annex I lists the amounts cleared by Member States and the amounts to be recovered from or paid to the Member States.\n(5)\nThe information submitted by certain other paying agencies requires additional inquiries and their accounts cannot be cleared in this Decision. Annex II lists the paying agencies concerned.\n(6)\nPursuant to Article 33(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities shall be borne by the Member State concerned if the recovery of those irregularities has not taken place prior to the closure of a rural development programme within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within eight years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, or on the closure of the programme if those deadlines expire prior such closure. Article 33(4) of the said Regulation obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, together with the annual accounts, a summary report on the recovery procedures undertaken in response to irregularities. Detailed rules on the application of the Member States\u2019 reporting obligation of the amounts to be recovered are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (3). Annex III to the said Regulation provides the table that had to be provided in 2010 by the Member States. On the basis of the tables completed by the Member States, the Commission should decide on the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities older than four or eight years respectively. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 33(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 33(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, after closure of a rural development programme Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. Such a decision may only be taken if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered or if the recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. If that decision has been taken within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within eight years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, 100 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery should be borne by the Community budget. In the summary report referred to in Article 33(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 the amounts for which the Member State decided not to pursue recovery and the grounds for the decision are shown. These amounts are not charged to the Member States concerned and are consequently to be borne by the Community budget. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 33(5) of the said Regulation.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision, does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from European Union financing expenditure not effected in accordance with European Union rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nWith the exception of the paying agencies referred to in Article 2, the accounts of the paying agencies of the Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in respect of the 2009 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State under each rural development programme pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 33(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 2\nFor the 2009 financial year, the accounts of the Member States\u2019 paying agencies in respect of expenditure per rural development programme financed by the EAFRD, set out in Annex II, are disjoined from this Decision and shall be the subject of a future clearance of accounts decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 April 2010.", "references": ["13", "80", "70", "18", "43", "89", "54", "40", "42", "71", "97", "96", "49", "91", "95", "69", "58", "94", "76", "15", "92", "12", "84", "19", "53", "75", "25", "72", "88", "26", "No Label", "10", "17", "47", "61"], "gold": ["10", "17", "47", "61"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1233/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\non the application of certain guidelines in the field of officially supported export credits and repealing Council Decisions 2001/76/EC and 2001/77/EC\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nExport Credit Agencies (\u2018ECAs\u2019) contribute to the development of world trade by supporting export and investments by companies in a manner that complements the provision of private sector finance and insurance. The Union is party to the Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits (\u2018the Arrangement\u2019) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (\u2018OECD\u2019). The Arrangement, as concluded by the Participants thereof, regulates the financial terms and conditions that ECAs may offer in order to foster a level playing field for officially supported export credits.\n(2)\nBy virtue of Council Decision 2001/76/EC of 22 December 2000 replacing the Decision of 4 April 1978 on the application of certain guidelines in the field of officially supported export credits (2) and Council Decision 2001/77/EC of 22 December 2000 on the application of principles of a framework agreement on project finance in the field of officially supported export credits (3), the guidelines contained in the Arrangement and the specific rules for project finance apply in the Union.\n(3)\nThe Arrangement indirectly contributes, through the activity of the ECAs, to free and fair trade and investment by companies which would otherwise have less access to credit facilities provided by the private sector.\n(4)\nThe Member States should comply with the Union's general provisions on external action, such as consolidating democracy, respect for human rights and policy coherence for development, and the fight against climate change, when establishing, developing and implementing their national export credit systems and when carrying out their supervision of officially supported export credit activities.\n(5)\nThe Participants to the Arrangement are involved in a continuous process intended to minimise market distortion and to establish a level playing field in which the premiums charged by the ECAs are risk based and should be adequate to cover long-term operating costs and losses and in accordance with World Trade Organization obligations. In order to achieve this goal, the export credit systems operate in a transparent way and agencies report accordingly to the OECD.\n(6)\nWell-targeted export credits provided by ECAs can contribute to market access opportunities for Union companies, including for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).\n(7)\nThe Participants to the Arrangement and the Member States of the Union agreed to disclose certain information on export credits according to the transparency rules of the OECD and of the Union in order to facilitate a level playing field for the Participants to the Arrangement and Member States.\n(8)\nThe Union applies transparency and reporting measures as set out in Annex I.\n(9)\nIn view of the intensified competitive situation on world markets and in order to avoid competitive disadvantages for Union companies, the Commission, with regard to the negotiating authorisation from the Member States, should support the efforts by the OECD in reaching out to non-Participants to the Arrangement. The Commission should use bilateral and multilateral negotiations in order to establish global standards for officially supported export credits. Global standards in this field are a prerequisite for a level playing field in world trade.\n(10)\nAlthough OECD countries are guided by the Arrangement, non-OECD countries are not Participants to the Arrangement and this could lead to a competitive advantage for exporters of the latter countries. Those countries, therefore, are being encouraged to apply the Arrangement in order to ensure a level playing field also at the global level.\n(11)\nIn view of the Union's Better Regulation policy, aimed at simplifying and improving existing regulation, the Commission and Member States, in future reviews of the Arrangement, will focus, where appropriate, on reducing administrative burdens on businesses and national administrations, including ECAs.\n(12)\nThe Participants to the Arrangement decided to amend and rationalise the Arrangement. Changes agreed upon by them cover enhanced user-friendliness, improving consistency among the relevant international obligations and the achievement of greater transparency, in particular with regard to non-Participants to the Arrangement. Moreover, the Participants to the Arrangement also agreed to incorporate in the text of the Arrangement the rules on project finance which were introduced by Decision 2001/77/EC, and the rules for export credits for ships, which were introduced by Council Decision 2002/634/EC (4) amending Decision 2001/76/EC.\n(13)\nDecision 2001/76/EC, as amended, should be repealed and replaced by this Regulation and the consolidated and revised text of the Arrangement annexed thereto, and Decision 2001/77/EC should be repealed.\n(14)\nIn order to smoothly and promptly incorporate into Union legislation the amendments to the guidelines set out in the Arrangement as agreed upon by the Participants to the Arrangement, the Commission should adopt delegated acts to amend Annex II where this is necessary. Therefore the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amendments to the guidelines as agreed upon by the Participants to the Arrangement. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApplication of the Arrangement\nThe guidelines contained in the Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits (\u2018the Arrangement\u2019) shall apply in the Union. The text of the Arrangement is annexed to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nDelegation of power\nThe Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 3 to amend Annex II as a result of amendments to the guidelines agreed upon by the Participants to the Arrangement.\nWhere, in the case of amendments to Annex II as a result of amendments to the guidelines agreed upon by the Participants to the Arrangement, imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 4 shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this Article.\nArticle 3\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 2 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from 9 December 2011.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 2 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 2 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or by the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 4\nUrgency procedure\n1. Delegated acts adopted pursuant to this Article shall enter into force without delay and shall apply as long as no objection is expressed in accordance with paragraph 2. The notification of a delegated act to the European Parliament and to the Council shall state the reasons for the use of the urgency procedure.\n2. Either the European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 3(5). In such a case, the Commission shall repeal the act without delay following the notification of the decision to object by the European Parliament or by the Council.\nArticle 5\nTransparency and reporting\nThe transparency and reporting measures to be applied in the Union are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 6\nRepeal\nDecisions 2001/76/EC and 2001/77/EC are hereby repealed.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["7", "65", "88", "72", "11", "44", "4", "64", "14", "76", "80", "26", "62", "93", "77", "96", "74", "89", "91", "68", "1", "22", "98", "9", "54", "56", "52", "2", "90", "83", "No Label", "3", "15", "20"], "gold": ["3", "15", "20"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 521/2012\nof 19 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 as regards export licences for cheese to be exported to the United States of America under certain GATT quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 170 and Article 171(1), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSection 2 of Chapter III of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (2) contains the conditions for the applicants to apply for export licences and the procedure of allocation of those licences for exports under the quota to the United States.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 789/2011 of 5 August 2011 opening the procedure for the allocation of export licences for cheese to be exported to the United States of America in 2012 under certain GATT quotas (3), was adopted for 2012 quota year.\n(3)\nFor sake of administrative simplification, it is appropriate to integrate into Section 2 of Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 a permanent mechanism as regards the opening of a yearly procedure for the allocation of export licences, instead of adopting a separate Regulation each year.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1187/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1187/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Chapter III, Section 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018SECTION 2\nExports to the United States\nArticle 21\nProducts falling within CN code 0406 shall be subject to presentation of an export licence in accordance with this Section when they are exported to the United States under following quotas:\n(a)\nthe additional quota under the Agriculture Agreement;\n(b)\nthe tariff quotas originally resulting from the Tokyo Round and granted to Austria, Finland and Sweden by the United States in Uruguay Round list XX;\n(c)\nthe tariff quotas originally resulting from the Uruguay Round and granted to the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia by the United States in Uruguay Round list XX.\nArticle 22\n1. Applications for licences shall be lodged with the competent authorities from 1 to 10 September of the year preceding the quota year for which export licences are allocated. All applications shall be lodged at the same time with the competent authority of a single Member State.\nThe quotas referred to in Article 21 are opened on an annual basis for the period from 1 January to 31 December.\nSection 16 of licence applications and licences shall show the eight-digit product code of the Combined Nomenclature. However, the licences shall also be valid for any other code falling under CN code 0406.\nThe licence application and licence shall contain in Section 20 the following entry:\n\u201cFor export to the United States of America:\nQuota for \u2026 (year) - Section 2 of Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\nQuota identification: \u2026\u201d\n2. For each quota identified in column (3) of Annex IIa, each applicant may lodge one or more licence applications provided that the total quantity applied for per quota does not exceed the maximum quantity limits fixed in Article 22a.\nFor this purpose, where, for the same group of products referred to in column (2) of Annex IIa the available quantity in column (4) is divided between the Uruguay Round quota and the Tokyo Round quota, both quotas have to be considered as two separate quotas.\n3. The applications are subject to the lodging of a security in accordance with Article 9.\n4. Applicants for export licences shall provide evidence that they have exported the products of the quota in question to the United States in at least one of the preceding three calendar years and that their designated importer is a subsidiary of the applicant.\nThe proof of trade as referred to in the first subparagraph shall be furnished in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 (4).\n5. Applicants for export licences shall indicate in the applications:\n(a)\nthe designation of the product group covered by the United States quota in accordance with Additional Notes 16 to 23 and 25 in Chapter 4 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States;\n(b)\nthe product names in accordance with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States;\n(c)\nthe name and address of the importer in the United States designated by the applicant.\n6. Applications for export licences shall be accompanied by a declaration from the designated importer stating that he is eligible under the rules in force in the United States on the issue of import licences for the products referred to in Article 21.\n7. Applications shall be admissible only if they respect the maximum quantity limits, contain all the information and are accompanied by the documents referred to in this Article.\n8. Information referred to in this Article shall be presented in accordance with the model set out in Annex IIb.\nArticle 22a\nAs regards the quotas identified as 22-Tokyo, 22-Uruguay, 25-Tokyo and 25-Uruguay in column (3) of Annex IIa, the total quantity applied for per applicant per quota shall cover at least 10 tonnes and shall not exceed the quantity available under the quota concerned as set out in column (4) of that Annex.\nAs regards the other quotas identified in column (3) of Annex IIa, the total quantity applied for per applicant per quota shall cover at least 10 tonnes and no more than 40 % of the quantity available under the quota concerned as set out in column (4) of that Annex.\nArticle 22b\n1. By 18 September, Member States shall notify the Commission of the applications lodged for each of the quotas identified in Annex IIa, or that no applications have been lodged.\n2. For each quota, the notification shall comprise:\n(a)\na list of applicants, their name, address and reference number;\n(b)\nthe quantities applied for by each applicant broken down by the product code of the Combined Nomenclature and by their code in accordance with the Harmonised Tariff Schedule of the United States of America;\n(c)\nthe name, address and reference number of the importer designated by the applicant.\nArticle 23\n1. Where applications for export licences for a quota referred to in Article 21 exceed the quantity available for the year concerned, the Commission shall fix an allocation coefficient by 31 October.\nThe amount resulting from the application of the coefficient shall be rounded down to the nearest kg.\nSecurities shall be released in whole or in part for rejected applications or for quantities in excess of those allocated.\n2. Where the result of applying the allocation coefficient would be to allocate quantities for less than 10 tonnes per quota per applicant, the corresponding quantities available shall be awarded by the Member State concerned by drawing lots by quota. The Member State shall draw lots for 10 tonnes each amongst the applicants who would have been allocated less than 10 tonnes per quota as a result of applying the allocation coefficient.\nQuantities of less than 10 tonnes remaining when establishing the lots shall be equally distributed over the 10 tonnes lots before the lots are drawn.\nWhere the result of applying the allocation coefficient would be to leave a quantity of less than 10 tonnes per quota, that quantity shall be considered as a single lot.\nThe security for applications which are not successful in the allocation by drawing lots shall be released immediately.\n3. Member States concerned by drawing lots shall notify the Commission, within five working days after publication of the allocation coefficients, for each quota, of the quantities allocated by applicant, the product code, the applicant reference number and the designated importer reference number.\nQuantities allocated by drawing lots shall be distributed among the individual CN codes in proportion to the quantities of product by CN code applied for.\n4. Where applications for export licences for quotas referred to in Article 21 not exceed the quantity available for the year concerned, the Commission shall allocate the remaining quantities to applicants in proportion to the quantities applied for, by fixing an allocation coefficient. The amount resulting from the application of the coefficient shall be rounded down to the nearest kg.\nIn that case, the operators shall inform the competent authority of the Member States concerned of the supplementary quantity they accept, within a week from the publication of the allocation coefficient. The security lodged shall be increased accordingly.\nArticle 24\n1. The names of the designated importers referred to in Article 22(5)(c) and the quantities allocated shall be communicated by the Commission to the competent authorities of the United States.\n2. In case an import licence for the quantities concerned is not allocated to the designated importer, in circumstances which do not cast doubt on the good faith of the operator submitting the declaration referred to in Article 22(6), the operator may be authorised by the Member State to designate another importer, provided that the latter appears on the list communicated to the competent authorities of the United States in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article.\n3. The Member State shall notify the Commission as soon as possible of the change of the designated importer and the Commission shall notify the change to the competent authorities of the United States.\nArticle 25\n1. Export licences shall be issued by 15 December of the year preceding the quota year for the quantities for which the licences are allocated.\nThe licences shall be valid from 1 January to 31 December of the quota year.\nSection 20 of the licences shall contain the following entry:\n\u201cvalid from 1 January to 31 December \u2026 (year).\u201d\n2. Securities for export licences shall be released on presentation of the proof referred to in Article 32(2) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 together with the transport document referred to in Article 17(3) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 mentioning as destination the United States.\n3. Licences issued under this Article shall be valid only for the exports of products under quotas referred to in Article 21.\nArticle 26\nChapter II, with the exception of Articles 7 and 10, shall apply.\n(2)\nAnnexes IIa and IIb, the text of which is set out in the Annex to this Regulation, are inserted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply to export licences applied for as from 1 September 2012 for products to be exported in the 2013 quota year.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 June 2012.", "references": ["31", "59", "85", "53", "37", "46", "86", "83", "14", "52", "98", "91", "42", "3", "57", "2", "94", "65", "81", "64", "41", "56", "84", "10", "29", "99", "92", "44", "71", "95", "No Label", "21", "22", "70", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "70", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 May 2011\non the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of a Protocol between the European Union and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part\n(2011/398/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with point (a)(v) of Article 218(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 24 February 2006 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with partners in the Mediterranean region in order to establish a dispute settlement mechanism related to trade provisions.\n(2)\nNegotiations have been conducted by the Commission in consultation with the committee appointed under Article 207 of the Treaty and within the framework of the negotiating directives issued by the Council.\n(3)\nThese negotiations have been concluded and an Agreement in the form of a Protocol (the Protocol) between the European Union and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part (1) was initialled on 9 December 2009.\n(4)\nThe Protocol was signed on behalf of the Union on 11 February 2011.\n(5)\nThe Protocol should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement in the form of a Protocol between the European Union and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part (the Protocol) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall give, on behalf of the Union, the notification provided for in Article 23 of the Protocol (2).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 May 2011.", "references": ["33", "63", "98", "62", "67", "50", "44", "90", "13", "28", "86", "65", "20", "39", "88", "75", "89", "47", "30", "94", "23", "38", "64", "70", "10", "46", "26", "21", "76", "54", "No Label", "3", "5", "9", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 16 April 2012\namending Decision 2009/821/EC as regards the lists of border inspection posts and veterinary units in Traces\n(notified under document C(2012) 2377)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/197/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 20(1) and (3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (2), and in particular the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (3), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/821/EC of 28 September 2009 drawing up a list of approved border inspection posts, laying down certain rules on the inspections carried out by Commission veterinary experts and laying down the veterinary units in Traces (4) lays down a list of border inspection posts approved in accordance with Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC. That list is set out in Annex I to that Decision.\n(2)\nNote (15) of the special remarks in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC refers to the validity of the provisional approval for the border inspection post at the port of Marseille Port until the conclusion of the works to upgrade those facilities to fully comply with the requirements laid down in Union legislation. That provisional approval was valid until 31 July 2011. France has informed the Commission that due to a number of delays the upgrade of the facilities will only be concluded by 1 July 2012. It is therefore appropriate to extend the provisional approval for the border inspection post at the port of Marseille Port until that date. Note (15) of the special remarks in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC should therefore be amended accordingly. For the sake of legal certainty, that amendment should apply retroactively.\n(3)\nFollowing communication from Belgium, the inspection centre \u2018Kaai 650\u2019 in the border inspection post at the port of Antwerp should be deleted from the list of entries for that Member State as set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(4)\nThe Commission inspection service (Food and Veterinary Office, FVO) carried out an audit in Bulgaria, following which it made a number of recommendations to that Member State. Bulgaria has communicated that the approval of the border inspection post at the road of Kapitan Andreevo should be amended to take account of those recommendations. The entry for that border inspection post should therefore be amended accordingly in the list of entries for that Member State as set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(5)\nFVO carried out an audit in Greece, following which it made a number of recommendations to that Member State. Greece has communicated that the approval for the category \u2018equidae\u2019 at the border inspection post at the road of Peplos should be temporarily suspended to take account of those recommendations. The entry for that border inspection post should therefore be amended accordingly in the list of entries for that Member State as set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(6)\nFollowing communication from Spain, the approval for the categories \u2018equidae\u2019 and \u2018ungulates\u2019 at the inspection centre \u2018Flightcare\u2019 in the border inspection post at the airport of Madrid should be deleted. The entry for that border inspection post should therefore be amended accordingly in the list of entries for that Member State as set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(7)\nItaly has communicated that the border inspection post of the airport of Brescia Montichiari should be deleted from the list of entries for that Member State and that the name of one inspection centre at the border inspection post at the airport of Roma-Fiumicino should be changed. In addition, Italy requested the temporary suspension of six border inspection posts and the temporary suspension of the approval for the categories \u2018equidae\u2019 and \u2018ungulates\u2019 at the border inspection post of the port at La Spezia. Italy has also requested the temporary suspension of the authorisation for all products of animal origin intended for human consumption, packed, and for products of animal origin not intended for human consumption, packed, frozen and chilled, together with the deletion of the approval for the category \u2018other animals (including zoo animals)\u2019 at the border inspection post of the airport of Milano-Linate. The list of entries for that Member State as set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe Netherlands has communicated that the name of one inspection centre within the border inspection post of Rotterdam has changed. The entry for that border inspection post should therefore be amended accordingly in the list of entries for that Member State as set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(9)\nFollowing communication from Romania, the approval for the category \u2018live animals\u2019 at one inspection centre at the border inspection post of Bucharest Henri Coand\u0103 Airport should be temporarily suspended. The entry for that border inspection post should therefore be amended accordingly in the list of entries for that Member State as set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(10)\nAnnex II to Decision 2009/821/EC lays down the list of central units, regional units and local units in the integrated computerised veterinary system (Traces).\n(11)\nFollowing communications from Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Hungary and Austria, certain changes should be brought to the list of central, regional and local units in Traces for those Member States, laid down in Annex II to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(12)\nDecision 2009/821/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2009/821/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe amendment set out in point (1)(a) of the Annex shall apply from 1 August 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 April 2012.", "references": ["43", "10", "98", "5", "52", "93", "40", "57", "14", "86", "25", "58", "85", "17", "35", "48", "24", "72", "70", "53", "26", "64", "71", "20", "27", "44", "39", "77", "88", "23", "No Label", "8", "21", "61", "69"], "gold": ["8", "21", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 897/2010\nof 8 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Suska sechlo\u0144ska (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Suska sechlo\u0144ska\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["67", "84", "38", "29", "59", "22", "32", "89", "92", "47", "57", "40", "78", "27", "93", "50", "88", "10", "21", "95", "26", "74", "37", "39", "15", "11", "20", "42", "19", "41", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 609/2012\nof 6 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2012.", "references": ["84", "55", "81", "19", "73", "13", "93", "38", "70", "64", "53", "36", "11", "65", "94", "45", "56", "9", "67", "90", "15", "33", "51", "26", "66", "16", "10", "14", "92", "80", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 764/2012\nof 22 August 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 759/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 August 2012.", "references": ["25", "27", "20", "88", "76", "46", "91", "92", "54", "32", "73", "43", "85", "94", "83", "55", "79", "29", "87", "97", "39", "48", "11", "84", "53", "24", "89", "17", "66", "14", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 April 2012\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, amending the Annexes to Protocols 1 and 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part\n(2012/338/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 20 November 1995, the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement\u2019) was signed.\n(2)\nOn 14 November 2005, the Council authorised the Commission to conduct negotiations in order to achieve greater liberalisation of trade in agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products with certain Mediterranean countries. The negotiations with Israel were successfully concluded on 18 July 2008. The results of those negotiations are contained in an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the State of Israel concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols 1 and 2 and their Annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part (2) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the 2010 Agreement\u2019), which entered into force on 1 January 2010.\n(3)\nAfter the entry into force of the 2010 Agreement, the European Commission and Israel held a number of technical meetings relating to its implementation. Those meetings showed that some technical adjustments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement were necessary in order to comply with the commitments of the previous agreements between the European Communities and the State of Israel, which entered into force in 2000 and 2006. On 19 September 2011, the Commission and Israel concluded the negotiation of the necessary technical adjustments, which are contained in a new Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, amending the Annexes to Protocols 1 and 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion at a later date,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, amending the Annexes to Protocols 1 and 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (3).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 23 April 2012.", "references": ["93", "0", "50", "53", "8", "31", "79", "54", "33", "18", "97", "39", "35", "22", "90", "51", "38", "72", "34", "10", "65", "15", "48", "75", "78", "5", "26", "85", "27", "61", "No Label", "3", "4", "9", "23", "66", "67", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "4", "9", "23", "66", "67", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 January 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation\n(2011/118/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(3), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2010/687/EU (1), the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was signed, on behalf of the European Union, on 17 June 2010, subject to its conclusion at a later date.\n(2)\nThe Agreement should be approved.\n(3)\nThe Agreement establishes a Joint Readmission Committee which may adopt its rules of procedure. It is appropriate to provide for a simplified procedure for the establishment of the Union position in this case.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to the notification provided for in Article 23(2) of the Agreement, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the Agreement (2).\nArticle 3\nThe Commission, assisted by experts from Member States, shall represent the Union in the Joint Readmission Committee established by Article 18 of the Agreement.\nArticle 4\nThe position of the Union within the Joint Readmission Committee with regard to the adoption of its rules of procedure as required pursuant to Article 18(5) of the Agreement shall be taken by the Commission after consultation with a special committee designated by the Council.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["96", "83", "74", "16", "90", "0", "32", "38", "82", "30", "23", "4", "53", "93", "61", "66", "26", "5", "15", "41", "24", "20", "19", "57", "75", "7", "64", "65", "12", "98", "No Label", "3", "9", "13", "91"], "gold": ["3", "9", "13", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 20 April 2012\namending Implementing Decision 2011/861/EU on a temporary derogation from rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Kenya with regard to tuna loins\n(notified under document C(2012) 2463)\n(2012/208/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements (1), and in particular Article 36(4) of Annex II thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 19 December 2011 the Commission adopted Implementing Decision 2011/861/EU (2), granting a temporary derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Kenya with regard to tuna loins.\n(2)\nOn 1 December 2011, in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007, Kenya requested a new derogation from the rules of origin set out in that Annex. On 16 January 2012 Kenya submitted additional information to its request. According to the information provided by Kenya, catches of raw originating tuna are unusually low even compared to the normal seasonal variations which has led to a decrease in production of tuna loins. Kenya has pointed out the risk involved due to piracy during the supply of raw tuna. This abnormal situation still makes it impossible for Kenya to comply with the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 during a certain period. A new derogation should be granted with effect from 1 January 2012.\n(3)\nImplementing Decision 2011/861/EU applied until 31 December 2011. It is necessary to ensure continuity of importations from the ACP countries to the Union as well as a smooth transition to the Interim Economic Partnership Agreement between the East African Community on the one part and the European Community and its Member States on the other part (\u2018EAC-EU Interim Economic Partnership Agreement\u2019). Implementing Decision 2011/861/EU should therefore be extended from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013.\n(4)\nIt would be inappropriate to grant derogations in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 which exceed the annual quota granted to the territory of the East African Community under the EAC-EU Interim Economic Partnership Agreement. The quota amounts for 2012 and 2013 should therefore be set at 2 000 tonnes of tuna loins yearly.\n(5)\nIn the interest of clarity, it is appropriate to set out explicitly that the only non-originating materials to be used for the manufacture of tuna loins of CN code 1604 14 16 should be tuna of HS Headings 0302 or 0303, in order for the tuna loins to benefit from the derogation.\n(6)\nImplementing Decision 2011/861/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nImplementing Decision 2011/861/EU is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nBy way of derogation from Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 and in accordance with Article 36(1)(a) of that Annex, tuna loins of CN code 1604 14 16 manufactured from non-originating tuna of HS Headings 0302 or 0303 shall be regarded as originating in Kenya in accordance with the terms set out in Articles 2 to 5 of this Decision.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to the products and the quantities set out in the Annex which are declared for release for free circulation in the Union from Kenya during the period from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2013.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2013.\u2019;\n(4)\nThe Annex is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2012.", "references": ["84", "71", "98", "2", "26", "13", "44", "28", "48", "58", "7", "40", "18", "90", "62", "43", "85", "49", "78", "41", "32", "96", "52", "75", "33", "64", "9", "1", "47", "3", "No Label", "8", "22", "23", "67", "94"], "gold": ["8", "22", "23", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 216/2012\nof 13 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 March 2012.", "references": ["17", "8", "48", "72", "37", "71", "74", "54", "16", "7", "46", "90", "14", "53", "82", "26", "21", "25", "3", "80", "12", "40", "86", "6", "36", "41", "20", "51", "32", "11", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 822/2010\nof 17 September 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 198/2006 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1552/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council on statistics relating to vocational training in enterprises, as regards the data to be collected, the sampling, precision and quality requirements\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1552/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on statistics relating to vocational training in enterprises (1), and in particular Articles 7(3), 8(2) and 9(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1552/2005 establishes a common framework for the production of European statistics on vocational training in enterprises.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 198/2006 of 3 February 2006 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1552/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council on statistics relating to vocational training in enterprises (2) defines the specific data to be collected with respect to the training and non-training enterprises and to the different forms of vocational training, the sampling and precision requirements, the quality requirements for the data to be collected, the structure of the quality reports.\n(3)\nFollowing the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the statistical classification of economic activities NACE Revision 2 (3), detailed NACE Rev.2 and size categories into which the results can be broken down should be adopted.\n(4)\nThe Commission should define the specific data to be collected with respect to the training and non-training enterprises and to the different forms of vocational training.\n(5)\nImplementing measures concerning the quality requirements for the data to be collected and transmitted for European statistics on vocational training in enterprises, the structure of the quality reports and any measures necessary for assessing or improving the quality of the data should be adopted.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 452/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 concerning the production and development of statistics on education and lifelong learning (4) defines a new statistical instrument on the participation of adults in lifelong learning.\n(7)\nIn light of the information to be made available through Regulation (EC) No 452/2008 as well as of the need to improve the quality of the results on vocational training in enterprises and lower the statistical burden on enterprises, it is appropriate to modify the codification scheme, sampling, precision and quality requirements.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 198/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I, II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 198/2006 are replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 September 2010.", "references": ["23", "84", "30", "22", "37", "29", "44", "69", "71", "66", "96", "97", "76", "46", "0", "95", "55", "90", "32", "7", "74", "59", "99", "35", "11", "68", "57", "79", "91", "2", "No Label", "19", "40", "45", "49", "50"], "gold": ["19", "40", "45", "49", "50"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 803/2012\nof 7 September 2012\namending for the 177th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 28 August 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove two natural persons from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 September 2012.", "references": ["91", "62", "18", "31", "67", "60", "0", "88", "47", "53", "27", "43", "29", "19", "6", "78", "68", "73", "17", "83", "16", "20", "28", "89", "32", "55", "46", "76", "9", "52", "No Label", "1", "3"], "gold": ["1", "3"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2012/172/CFSP\nof 23 March 2012\nimplementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1) and in particular Article 21(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\n(3)\nThe entries concerning certain persons and an entity included in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in Annex I to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP, the entries for the persons and an entity listed in Annex II to this Decision shall be replaced by the entries as set out in Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["67", "76", "43", "52", "37", "0", "31", "98", "2", "14", "7", "50", "54", "48", "89", "53", "1", "77", "20", "21", "29", "87", "47", "58", "62", "13", "74", "51", "36", "61", "No Label", "3", "12", "95"], "gold": ["3", "12", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 449/2012\nof 21 March 2012\nsupplementing Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on information for registration and certification of credit rating agencies\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies (1), and in particular points (a) and (b) of Article 21(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the general objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, in particular the contribution to the quality of credit ratings issued in the Union, financial stability, consumer and investor protection, this Regulation should ensure that the information to be submitted to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) during the registration and certification processes, is provided following uniform rules, so that ESMA is able to make an informed decision on the registration or certification of a credit rating agency.\n(2)\nThe longer-term benefits of the additional information are expected to outweigh any potential additional short-term costs of registration, in terms of investor protection and financial stability.\n(3)\nThis Regulation should set out the information that ESMA is to receive as part of an application for registration by a credit rating agency. Certain information requested in this Regulation might not be applicable to a newly established credit rating agency because it might have applied for an exemption, lack previous experience in the credit rating business, or other reasons. This Regulation should not create a barrier of entry to newly established credit rating agencies willing to enter the market. Nevertheless, an applicant should provide a clear explanation for not submitting any specific information contained in that application.\n(4)\nAny information submitted to ESMA should be provided in a durable medium which enables its storage for future use. In order to facilitate the identification of the information submitted by a credit rating agency, all documents should be identified by a reference number.\n(5)\nIn order for ESMA to assess if any conflicts of interest arising from the activities and business interests of the owners of a credit rating agency might affect the independence of a credit rating agency, a credit rating agency should be required to give information regarding its owners activities and the ownership of its parent undertaking.\n(6)\nA credit rating agency should provide information on the composition, functioning and independence of its governing bodies in order for ESMA to be able to assess whether the corporate governance structure ensures the independence of the credit rating agency and the avoidance of conflicts of interest.\n(7)\nIn order to allow ESMA to assess the good repute as well as the experience and skills of the senior management, a credit rating agency should provide the curriculum vitae, recent criminal record and self-declarations on the good repute of its senior management.\n(8)\nFor the purposes of assessing how conflicts of interest are eliminated or managed and disclosed, a credit rating agency should provide ESMA with an up-to-date inventory of existing and potential conflicts of interest covering at least the conflicts arising from the carrying out of ancillary services, the outsourcing of rating activities and the interaction with related third parties. When identifying the conflicts of interest for the inventory, a credit rating agency should consider conflicts of interest which might arise from entities which belong to the global group of undertakings to which it belongs. Therefore, intra-group arrangements concerning allocation of tasks and the provision of ancillary services by different entities within the group of undertakings should be taken into consideration.\n(9)\nAlthough the branches of a credit rating agency established in the Union are not legal persons, those agencies should provide separate information as regards their branches so as to enable ESMA to clearly identify the position of the branches in the organisational structure, assess the fitness and appropriateness of the senior management of the branches and evaluate whether the control mechanisms, compliance and other functions in place, are considered to be robust enough to identify, evaluate and manage the branches\u2019 risks in an appropriate manner.\n(10)\nThe information requested regarding possible conflicts of interests with ancillary services should refer to all businesses of the credit rating agency which are not part of the rating activities.\n(11)\nIn order to enable ESMA to assess whether a third-country regulatory framework for CRAs may be considered \u2018as stringent as\u2019 the Union regime in place, a credit rating agency intending to endorse ratings issued in that third country should provide ESMA with detailed information on the third-country regulatory framework and how it compares to the Union regime in place. Where such information is already available to ESMA, from other applications for endorsement, and ESMA takes the view that the third-country regulatory framework may be considered to be as stringent as the Union regime in place, the applicant credit rating agencies should be exempted from submitting this information. In any case, the applicant credit rating agencies shall demonstrate that the conduct of credit rating activities by the third-country credit rating agency resulting in the issuing of the credit rating to be endorsed fulfils the requirements under the third-country regime and that there are procedures to monitor the conduct of credit rating activities by the third-country credit rating agency.\n(12)\nThis Regulation should set out the information that a credit rating agency must provide in its application for certification and for the assessment of its systemic importance to the financial stability or integrity of financial markets referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. The systemic importance of the credit rating agency and its rating activities to the stability of one or more Member States should be measured in this Regulation in terms of the size of its rating activities and interconnectedness of the users of its credit ratings in the Union.\n(13)\nThis Regulation is based on the draft regulatory technical standards submitted by ESMA to the Commission pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).\n(14)\nESMA has conducted open public consultations on the draft regulatory technical standards on which this Regulation is based, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the opinion of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group established under Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER 1\nSUBJECT MATTER\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down the rules which determine the information to be provided to ESMA by a credit rating agency in its application for:\n(a)\nregistration, as set out in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009; or\n(b)\ncertification and for the assessment of its systemic importance to the financial stability or integrity of financial markets referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nCHAPTER 2\nREGISTRATION\nSECTION 1\nGeneral\nArticle 2\nFormat of the application\n1. An application for registration shall be provided in an instrument which stores information in a way accessible for future reference and which allows the unchanged reproduction of the information stored.\n2. A credit rating agency shall give a unique reference number to each document it submits. It shall ensure that the information it submits clearly identifies to which specific requirement of this Regulation it refers and in which document that information is provided. The credit rating agency shall submit the table set out in Annex I as part of its application to clearly identify the document in which information required under this Regulation is provided.\n3. If a requirement of this Regulation does not apply to a credit rating agency\u2019s application, it shall state this in the table set out in Annex I and provide an explanation.\n4. Where a group of credit rating agencies applies for registration, the application shall clearly identify each credit rating agency to which the information applies. When the same information applies to more than one credit rating agency within the group of credit rating agencies, for the purpose of filling in the table of Annex I, the same reference number shall be given for the common information.\nArticle 3\nAttestation of the accuracy and completeness of the application\nAny information submitted to ESMA during the registration or certification process shall be accompanied by a letter signed by a member of the credit rating agency\u2019s senior management or a representative authorised by the senior management, attesting that the submitted information is accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge, as of the date of that submission.\nArticle 4\nNumber of employees\nAny information regarding the number of employees shall be provided on a full time equivalent basis calculated as the total hours worked divided by the maximum number of hours subject to compensation within a working year as defined by the relevant national law.\nArticle 5\nClass of credit ratings\nAny information regarding the class of credit ratings shall use the following ratings classes:\n(a)\nsovereign and public finance ratings;\n(b)\nstructured finance ratings;\n(c)\ncorporate ratings:\n(i)\nfinancial institution including credit institutions and investment firms;\n(ii)\ninsurance undertaking;\n(iii)\ncorporate issuer that is not considered a financial institution or an insurance undertaking.\nArticle 6\nPolicies and procedures\n1. Policies and procedures provided in an application shall contain or be accompanied by:\n(a)\nan indication of who is responsible for the approval and maintenance of the policies and procedures;\n(b)\na description of how compliance with the policies and procedures will be enforced and monitored and who is responsible for this;\n(c)\na description of the measures undertaken in the event of a breach of the policies;\n(d)\nan indication of the procedure for reporting to ESMA a material breach of the policy or procedure which may result in a breach of the conditions for initial registration or certification.\n2. A credit rating agency may fulfil the obligation to provide information regarding its policies and procedures under this Regulation by submitting a copy of the relevant policies and procedures.\nArticle 7\nIdentification, legal status and class of credit ratings\nA credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with:\n(a)\nthe information listed in Annex II to this Regulation;\n(b)\nan excerpt from the relevant commercial or court register, or other form of evidence of the place of incorporation and scope of business activity of the credit rating agency, as of the application date.\nSECTION 2\nOwnership structure\nArticle 8\nOwners and parent undertaking of a credit rating agency\n1. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with:\n(a)\na list of each person who directly or indirectly holds 5 % or more of the credit rating agency\u2019s capital or of voting rights or whose holding makes it possible to exercise a significant influence over the management of the credit rating agency;\n(b)\nthe information set out in points 1 and 2 of Annex III in relation to each such person.\n2. A credit rating agency shall also provide the following information to ESMA:\n(a)\na list of any undertakings in which a person referred to in paragraph 1 holds 5 % or more of the capital or voting rights or over whose management that person exercises a significant influence;\n(b)\nan identification of their business activity referred to in point 3 of Annex III.\n3. Where a credit rating agency has a parent undertaking, it shall:\n(a)\nidentify the country where the parent undertaking is established;\n(b)\nindicate whether the parent undertaking is authorised or registered and subject to supervision.\nArticle 9\nOwnership chart\nA credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with a chart showing the ownership links between any parent undertaking, subsidiaries and any other associated entities established in the Union and their branches. The undertakings shown in the chart shall be identified by their full name, legal status and address of the registered office and head office.\nSECTION 3\nOrganisational structure and corporate governance\nArticle 10\nOrganisational chart\nA credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with an organisational chart detailing its organisational structure, including a clear identification of significant roles and the identity of the person responsible for each significant role. Significant roles shall include at least senior management, persons who direct the activities of the branches and senior rating analysts. Where the credit rating agency conducts ancillary services, the organisational chart shall also detail its organisational structure in respect of those services.\nArticle 11\nOrganisational structure\n1. A credit rating agency shall provide to ESMA information regarding its policies and procedures in relation to its compliance function as set out in point 5 of Section A of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, review function as set out in point 9 of Section A of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 and information regarding its policies and procedures established to meet the requirements set out in points 4 and 10 of Section A of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nThe information provided under this paragraph shall include the information set out in Annex IV points 1, 3 and 4.\n2. Where the policies and procedures referred to in paragraph 1 are carried out at group of undertakings level, a credit rating agency shall also provide ESMA with the information set out in Annex IV point 2.\n3. A credit rating agency shall also provide ESMA with the information set out in Annex X.\nArticle 12\nCorporate governance\n1. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with information regarding its internal corporate governance policies and the procedures and terms of reference which govern its senior management, including the administrative or supervisory board, its independent members and, where established, committees.\n2. Where a credit rating agency adheres to a recognised corporate governance code of conduct, it shall identify the code and provide an explanation for any situations where it deviates from the code.\n3. A credit rating agency shall provide the information set out in points 1 and 2 of Annex V on the members of its administrative or supervisory board.\n4. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with a copy of the documents referred to in point 3 of Annex V.\nSECTION 4\nFinancial resources for the performance of credit rating activities\nArticle 13\nFinancial reports\n1. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with a copy of its annual financial reports, including individual and consolidated financial statements where applicable, for the three financial years preceding the date of the submission of its application to the extent available. Where the financial statements of the credit rating agency are subject to statutory audit within the meaning given in Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts (3), the financial reports shall include the audit report on the annual and consolidated financial statement.\n2. Where the financial reports referred to in paragraph 1 are not available for the requested period of time, a credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with an interim financial report.\n3. Where the credit rating agency is a subsidiary of a group of undertakings, it shall provide the annual financial reports of the parent undertaking for the three financial years preceding the date of the submission of its application.\n4. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with a description of the measures it has adopted to ensure sound accounting procedure.\nSECTION 5\nStaffing and compensation\nArticle 14\nStaffing policies and procedures\n1. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with information regarding the following policies and procedures:\n(a)\nreporting to the compliance officer of any situations where one of the persons referred to in point 1 of Section C of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 considers that any other such person has engaged in conduct that he or she considers illegal, pursuant to the provisions of point 5 of Section C of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009;\n(b)\nthe rotation of lead rating analysts, rating analysts and persons approving credit rating;\n(c)\nthe compensation and performance evaluation practices for rating analysts, persons approving credit ratings, senior management and the compliance officer;\n(d)\nthe training and development relevant to the rating process, including any examination or other type of formal assessment required for the conduct of rating activities.\n2. A credit rating agency shall also provide ESMA with:\n(a)\na description of the measures in place to mitigate the risk of over-reliance on individual employees;\n(b)\nfor each class of credit ratings, information on the size and experience of the quantitative teams responsible for developing and reviewing methodologies and models;\n(c)\nthe name and function of any employee of the credit rating agency who has obligations, either individually or on behalf of the credit rating agency, to any other entity within the group of credit rating agencies;\n(d)\nthe average annual fixed and variable remuneration of the rating analysts, lead analysts and the compliance officer for each of the preceding three financial years.\n3. A credit rating agency shall describe the arrangements in place to ensure that it is informed when a rating analyst terminates his or her employment and joins a rated entity as set out in point 6 of Section C of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. A credit rating agency shall describe the arrangements in place to ensure that the persons referred in point 1 of Section C of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 are aware of the prohibition established as set out in point 7 of Section C of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nArticle 15\nFitness and appropriateness\n1. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with the curriculum vitae, including employment history with relevant dates, identification of positions held and a description of the functions occupied, for each of the following:\n(a)\nmembers of senior management;\n(b)\npersons appointed to direct the business of the branches;\n(c)\nofficers responsible for internal audit, internal control, compliance function, risk assessment and review function.\n2. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with the following information in respect of each member of its senior management:\n(a)\na recent criminal-record file from the country of origin of the relevant person, unless the relevant national authorities do not issue such a file;\n(b)\na self-declaration of their good repute including at least the statements set out in Annex VI and signed by the individual.\nSECTION 6\nIssuance and review of credit ratings\nArticle 16\nDevelopment, validation, review and disclosure of rating methodologies\n1. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA, for each class of credit rating, with a high-level description of the range of core models and methodologies used to determine credit ratings.\n2. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with the following information regarding its policies and procedures:\n(a)\ninformation regarding the development, validation and review of its rating methodologies, including at least the information set out in point 1 of Annex VII;\n(b)\ninformation regarding the disclosure of the credit methodologies and descriptions of models and key rating assumptions used in its credit rating activities as set out in point 5 of Part I of Section E of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nArticle 17\nIssuance of credit ratings\n1. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with the following information:\n(a)\nthe rating nomenclatures used for each class of credit rating;\n(b)\nthe definition of any rating action and statuses used by the credit rating agency;\n(c)\nits policies and procedures regarding the issuance of credit ratings, including at least the information set out in point 2 of Annex VII;\n(d)\nthe terms of reference of any rating committees;\n(e)\na description of the arrangements in place for disclosing a rating decision, including at least the information set out in point 3 of Annex VII;\n(f)\na description of the procedures in place to ensure that a methodology is applied and implemented consistently across classes of credit rating, offices and regions.\n2. A credit rating agency shall identify any differences between the treatment of unsolicited and solicited ratings in the policies and procedures provided under points (c) and (e) of paragraph 1.\n3. Where the rating process is regularly audited by an independent third party, a credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with the last audit report.\n4. A credit rating agency shall also provide ESMA with the following information:\n(a)\ndetails and criteria for the selection of data providers;\n(b)\ndetails on the reliability of internal and external data input into rating models;\n(c)\ndetails of the data sources used.\nArticle 18\nMonitoring of credit ratings\nA credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with information regarding its policies and procedures concerning:\n(a)\nthe monitoring of ratings, identifying any differences between solicited and unsolicited ratings, and including at least the information set out in point 4 of Annex VII;\n(b)\nthe disclosure of the decision to review or change a rating;\n(c)\nthe monitoring of the impact of changes in macroeconomic or financial market conditions on credit ratings as described in Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nSECTION 7\nDescription of issue and review procedures and methodologies\nArticle 19\nCredit rating presentation requirements\nA credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with information regarding the following items:\n(a)\npolicies and procedures with respect to the credit rating disclosure requirements laid down in the following provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009:\n(i)\nparagraphs 1, 2 and 5 of Article 10;\n(ii)\nPart I of Section D of Annex 1;\n(b)\nwhere the credit rating agency rates structured instruments, policies and procedures with respect to the following provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009:\n(i)\nArticle 10(3);\n(ii)\npoint 4 of Section B of Annex I;\n(iii)\nPart II of Section D of Annex I;\n(c)\nsamples of typical credit rating reports or other documents demonstrating how the credit rating agency meets or intends to meet these disclosure requirements; and\n(d)\nsamples of typical rating letters for each class of credit rating produced by the credit rating agency.\nSECTION 8\nConflicts of interest\nArticle 20\nIndependence and avoidance of conflicts of interest\n1. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with information regarding its policies and procedures with respect to the identification, management and disclosure of conflicts of interest and the rules on rating analysts and other persons directly involved in credit rating activities covering at least the requirements set out in Annex VIII.\n2. A credit rating agency shall describe the process used to ensure that the relevant persons are aware of the policies and procedures referred to in paragraph 1. A credit rating agency shall describe the arrangements in place to ensure that the review function responsible for reviewing the methodologies set out in point 9 of Section A of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 is independent of the business lines which are responsible for credit rating activities.\n3. A credit rating agency shall describe the controls put in place, including the controls implemented through information systems, in order to comply with the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on the negotiation of fees and the rules on persons involved in rating activities.\n4. A credit rating agency shall describe any other measures and controls put in place to ensure the independence of its rating analysts.\nArticle 21\nInventory of conflicts of interest\n1. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with an up-to-date inventory of existing and potential conflicts of interest relevant to it. Where a credit rating agency is part of a group of undertakings, it shall include in the inventory any conflicts of interest arising from other entities which belong to its group of undertakings.\n2. The inventory of existing and potential conflicts of interest shall identify the following potential conflicts of interest:\n(a)\nany potential conflicts of interest with related third parties;\n(b)\nany potential conflicts of interest arising from the carrying out of ancillary services and the outsourced rating activities;\n3. The inventory referred to in paragraph 1 shall explain how the potential conflicts of interest are to be eliminated or managed and disclosed.\nArticle 22\nConflicts of interest with respect to ancillary services\n1. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with a description of the resources, both human and technical, shared by the rating and ancillary services of the credit rating agency or shared with the group of undertakings to which it belongs.\n2. A credit rating agency shall describe the arrangements in place to prevent, disclose and mitigate any existing or potential conflicts of interest between the rating business and ancillary services.\n3. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with a copy of the results of any internal assessment performed to identify any existing or potential conflict of interest between the rating business and ancillary services.\nSECTION 9\nProgramme of operations\nArticle 23\nInformation regarding the programme of operations\nA credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with the annual information described in Annex IX covering a period of three years following the date of registration.\nSECTION 10\nUse of endorsement\nArticle 24\nExpected use of endorsement\nWhere a credit rating agency intends to endorse credit ratings issued in third countries as set out in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, it shall provide ESMA with the information set out in Annex XI.\nSECTION 11\nOutsourcing\nArticle 25\nOutsourcing requirements\n1. Where a credit rating agency outsources any important operational functions, it shall provide ESMA with the following information:\n(a)\nits policies with respect to outsourcing;\n(b)\nan explanation on how it intends to identify, manage and monitor the risks posed by the outsourcing of important operational functions;\n(c)\na copy of the outsourcing agreements between the credit rating agency and the entity to which the activities are outsourced;\n(d)\na copy of any internal or external report on the outsourced activities issued in the past five years.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, important operational functions shall comprise rating review, lead analyst, rating methodology development and review, rating approval, internal quality control, data storage, IT systems, IT support and accounting.\nCHAPTER 3\nCERTIFICATION\nSECTION 1\nApplication for certification\nArticle 26\nInformation for application for certification\n1. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with the following information:\n(a)\nthe general information requested in points 1 to 10 of Annex II;\n(b)\nthe information regarding its owners referred to in Article 8;\n(c)\nthe organisational chart referred to in Article 10;\n(d)\ndetails on the arrangements in place to prevent, disclose and mitigate any existing or potential conflicts of interest between the rating business and ancillary services;\n(e)\nthe information referred to in Article 13 regarding the credit rating agency\u2019s financial resources.\n2. A credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with the following information regarding its business activities:\n(a)\nfor the preceding three years, the number of employees contracted and involved in the rating and ancillary services both permanent and temporary;\n(b)\nif the applicant has a branch, the number of employees involved in the rating and ancillary business in each branch;\n(c)\nthe number of rating analysts contracted to the applicant including, if the credit rating agency has a branch, the number of rating analysts contracted in each branch;\n(d)\nif a credit rating agency is planning to establish a new branch, a description of the type of business activities the new branch is expected to conduct, its full name and address and the timeframe for its establishment;\n(e)\nif a credit rating agency is planning to conduct any new ancillary services, a description of the new services and the timeframe for their commencement;\n(f)\nthe revenue generated over the past three years by the credit rating agency from rating and ancillary services as a proportion of total revenue, presented on a financial year basis;\n(g)\nif the credit rating agency has one or more branches, the revenue generated over the past three years by each branch as a proportion of total revenue, presented on a financial year basis.\n3. A credit rating agency shall also provide ESMA with the following information regarding the credit ratings it issues or proposes to issue:\n(a)\nthe class of credit ratings;\n(b)\nthe rating nomenclatures used for each class of credit rating;\n(c)\nthe definition of any rating action and statuses used by the credit rating agency;\n(d)\ndetails of whether the credit rating agency produces solicited or unsolicited ratings or both;\n(e)\nfor each class of credit rating, the number of years of experience it has in producing these ratings;\n(f)\nfor each class of credit rating, the current or expected proportion of public ratings and private ratings.\n4. The credit rating agency shall indicate whether it currently holds, or expects to apply for, External Credit Assessment Institution (ECAI) status in one or more Member States and, if so, it shall identify the relevant Member State.\nArticle 27\nGeneral requirements for the application for certification\nA credit rating agency shall ensure that its application complies with Articles 2 to 6 regarding the format of its application, the attestation of its accuracy, the class of credit ratings, number of employees and the policies and procedures provided to ESMA.\nSECTION 2\nSystemic importance\nArticle 28\nSystemic importance\nA credit rating agency shall provide ESMA with the information set out in Annex XII regarding the systemic importance of its credit ratings and credit rating activities to the financial stability or integrity of the financial markets of one or more Member States.\nCHAPTER 4\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 29\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2012.", "references": ["89", "9", "14", "76", "77", "5", "95", "37", "28", "30", "71", "49", "21", "86", "58", "23", "85", "26", "50", "11", "33", "17", "53", "97", "31", "66", "55", "4", "73", "6", "No Label", "7", "41", "44", "45", "46"], "gold": ["7", "41", "44", "45", "46"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1048/2011\nof 20 October 2011\nrepealing Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/603/CFSP of 7 October 2010 on further measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 (2) gives effect to Decision 2010/603/CFSP by freezing the assets of certain individuals, in support of the ICTY mandate.\n(2)\nDecision 2010/603/CFSP expired on 10 October 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore appropriate to repeal Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 with immediate effect,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1763/2004 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["32", "5", "85", "31", "29", "11", "61", "48", "0", "98", "38", "74", "41", "73", "34", "79", "86", "64", "82", "19", "57", "43", "13", "93", "58", "95", "83", "10", "23", "47", "No Label", "3", "14", "97", "99"], "gold": ["3", "14", "97", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 696/2011\nof 19 July 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of July 2011 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 July 2011 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 July 2011 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 0,55512 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["82", "3", "85", "37", "16", "25", "70", "19", "24", "1", "97", "79", "34", "38", "5", "86", "26", "74", "35", "59", "36", "66", "96", "81", "62", "23", "76", "65", "27", "55", "No Label", "21", "22", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 166/2012\nof 24 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2012.", "references": ["67", "4", "83", "71", "98", "57", "25", "91", "28", "65", "73", "29", "3", "45", "21", "26", "82", "74", "18", "12", "19", "46", "90", "30", "49", "37", "55", "23", "48", "31", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/736/CFSP\nof 14 November 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1).\n(2)\nOn 23 October 2011, the European Council stated that the EU would impose further measures against the Syrian regime as long as the repression of the civilian population continued.\n(3)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, the Council considers it necessary to impose additional restrictive measures.\n(4)\nAdditional persons should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/273/CFSP.\n(5)\nDecision 2011/273/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/273/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["0", "22", "94", "80", "31", "36", "41", "84", "7", "45", "49", "18", "48", "24", "52", "32", "47", "34", "51", "15", "90", "68", "82", "88", "8", "59", "62", "1", "74", "37", "No Label", "3", "12", "95"], "gold": ["3", "12", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 13 January 2012\non the compliance of standard EN 60065:2002/A12:2011 \u2018Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus - Safety requirements\u2019 and of standard EN 60950-1:2006/A12:2011 \u2018Information technology equipment - Safety - Part 1: General requirements\u2019 with the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and on the publication of the references of those standards in the Official Journal of the European Union\n(notified under document C(2012) 55)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/29/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee set up in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(1) of Directive 2001/95/EC requires producers to place only safe products on the market.\n(2)\nUnder the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC, a product shall be presumed safe, as far as the risks and risk categories covered by the relevant national standards are concerned, when it conforms to voluntary national standards transposing European standards, the references of which have been published by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Union, in accordance with Article 4(2) of that Directive.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 4(1) of the Directive 2001/95/EC, European standards are established by European standardisation bodies under mandates drawn up by the Commission.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC, the Commission is to publish the references of such standards.\n(5)\nOn 28 September 2009, the Commission issued Mandate M/452 to the European standardisation bodies for the drafting of a European safety standard to provide requirements for protection against excessive sound pressure from personal music players and mobile phones with a music playing function.\n(6)\nThe European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (Cenelec) adopted on 24 January 2011 standard EN 60065:2002/A12:2011 \u2018Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus - Safety requirements\u2019 and standard EN 60950-1:2006/A12:2011 \u2018Information technology equipment - Safety - Part 1: General requirements\u2019 in response to the Commission\u2019s mandate.\n(7)\nStandards EN 60065:2002/A12:2011 and EN 60950-1:2006/A12:2011 fulfil Mandate M/452 and comply with the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC. Their references should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up under Directive 2001/95/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nStandard EN 60065:2002/A12:2011 \u2018Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus - Safety requirements\u2019 and standard EN 60950-1:2006/A12:2011 \u2018Information technology equipment - Safety - Part 1: General requirements\u2019 meet the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC for the risks they cover.\nArticle 2\nThe references of standards EN 60065:2002/A12:2011 and EN 60950-1:2006/A12:2011 shall be published in part C of the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 January 2012.", "references": ["45", "57", "43", "15", "9", "74", "30", "31", "59", "79", "92", "1", "56", "77", "19", "44", "29", "69", "95", "84", "91", "23", "55", "28", "8", "97", "21", "67", "81", "78", "No Label", "24", "40", "42", "76"], "gold": ["24", "40", "42", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 93/2012\nof 3 February 2012\nconcerning the authorisation of Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 8862 and DSM 8866) as a feed additive for all animal species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 8862 and DSM 8866). That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 8862 and DSM 8866) as a feed additive for pigs, bovines, sheep, goats and horses, to be classified in the additive category \u2018technological additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 11 October 2011 (2) that Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 8862 and DSM 8866), under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that this preparation has the potential to improve the production of silage from all forages by reducing the pH and increasing the preservation of dry matter. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additives in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 8862 and DSM 8866) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nTo assure consistency it is appropriate to extend the approval of this additive from pigs, bovines, sheep, goats and horses to all animal species, in line with the previous authorisation for the similar additives.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018technological additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018silage additives\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2012.", "references": ["99", "84", "56", "22", "90", "55", "8", "12", "52", "18", "29", "7", "27", "19", "58", "5", "92", "94", "93", "95", "31", "6", "39", "97", "15", "53", "2", "43", "65", "64", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 530/2010\nof 18 June 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Gyulai kolb\u00e1sz/Gyulai p\u00e1roskolb\u00e1sz (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Hungary\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Gyulai kolb\u00e1sz\u2019 or \u2018Gyulai p\u00e1roskolb\u00e1sz\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2010.", "references": ["68", "38", "76", "53", "73", "21", "55", "10", "3", "40", "71", "46", "93", "1", "86", "88", "34", "33", "13", "63", "60", "52", "14", "61", "26", "77", "54", "42", "84", "57", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 367/2012\nof 27 April 2012\nlaying down necessary measures as regards the release of additional quantities of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2011/2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Article 64(2) and Article 186, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPrices on the world sugar markets based on the London futures market have stabilized since the beginning of the 2011/2012 marketing year at a historically rather high level. Prices at the London futures exchange moved in the range of 600 - 650 USD per tonne, or 460 - 500 EUR per tonne.\n(2)\nAt the same time the prices on the Union sugar markets, as indicated by the price monitoring system set up by Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards the management of the Community market in sugar and the quota system (2), have continued to increase; moreover the price increase accelerated as from October 2011 when the average Union sugar price raised by over 10% within a month.\n(3)\nIn order to improve the supply situation on the Union sugar market, exceptional measures have been taken in November 2011 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 of 30 November 2011 opening a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/2012 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty (3) and by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1240/2011 of 30 November 2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2011/2012 (4). Despite those measures the present upwards trend of the Union sugar prices has continued and the average price reached 701 EUR per tonne in February 2012, representing an increase of over 20 % between September 2011 and February 2012, or close to 40 % between February 2011 and February 2012.\n(4)\nThe continued upwards trend of the Union sugar prices indicates that the availability of supply on the Union sugar market has improved only moderately at this stage. This analysis was confirmed by a large majority of Member States in the Management Committee of 8 March 2012 who considered that there were still supply problems which could even become worse in the course of the marketing year. This could concern especially small and medium enterprises and customers with fixed quantities in long term contracts.\n(5)\nOn the other hand, good harvest in several parts of the Union led to the production of sugar in excess of the quota set out in Article 56 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 5.3 million tonnes. Taking into account the estimated demand for industrial sugar in accordance with Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the 2011/2012 export commitments for out-of-quota sugar fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011 of 15 April 2011 fixing the quantitative limit for exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2011/2012 marketing year (5), as well as the quantities of out-of-quota sugar released on the Union market in accordance with Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1240/2011, substantial quantities of out-of-quota sugar will still be available. Part of this sugar could be made available immediately to the sugar market of the Union in order to partially satisfy the demand and therefore contribute to constrain the upwards trend of the Union sugar prices currently disturbing the market.\n(6)\nArticle 186 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 empowers the Commission to take the necessary measures for the sector if prices on the Union markets of sugar increase to such an extent that the situation disrupts or threatens to disrupt the markets.\n(7)\nArticle 64(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 empowers the Commission to fix the surplus levy on sugar and isoglucose produced in excess of the quota at a sufficiently high level in order to avoid the accumulation of surplus quantities. Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards sugar production in excess of the quota (6) has fixed that levy at EUR 500 per tonne.\n(8)\nThe Commission has estimated that the continuing low supply of sugar on the internal market, as clearly indicated by the observed considerable increase of the average price on the Union sugar markets in the 2011/2012 marketing year, may make necessary the release of additional quantities of out-of-quota sugar on the internal market. Increasing supply should improve the fluidity of the sugar market. In order to avoid any risk of accumulation of quantities, it is appropriate, toallow the release on the Union market of a limited quantity. Taking into account the estimated shortage and the alternative sources of supply, the limited quantity should be fixed at 250 000 tonnes. The reduced suplus levy for that limited quantity of sugar produced in excess of the quota should be fixed at a level per tonne representing the difference between the most recent publicly available average Union price and the world market price.\n(9)\nAs Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 fixes quotas for both sugar and isoglucose, a similar measure should apply for an appropriate quantity of isoglucose produced in excess of the quota because the latter product is, to some extent, a commercial substitute for sugar.\n(10)\nFor that reason and with the view to increasing the supply, sugar and isoglucose producers should apply to the competent authorities of the Member States for certificates allowing them to sell certain quantities, produced above the quota limit, on the Union market with a reduced surplus levy.\n(11)\nThe validity of the certificates should be limited in time to encourage a fast improvement of the supply situation.\n(12)\nFixing upper limits of the quantities for which each producer can apply in one application period and restricting the certificates to products of the applicant's own production, should prevent speculative actions within the system created by this Regulation.\n(13)\nWith their application, sugar producers should commit themselves to pay the minimum price for sugar beet used to produce the quantity of sugar for which they apply. The minimum eligibility requirements for applications should be specified.\n(14)\nThe competent authorities of the Member States should notify the Commission of the applications received. In order to simplify and standardise those notifications, models should be made available.\n(15)\nThe Commission should ensure that certificates are granted only within the quantitative limits fixed in this Regulation. Therefore, if necessary, the Commission should be able to fix an allocation coefficient applicable to the applications received.\n(16)\nMember States should immediately inform the applicants whether the quantity applied for was fully or partially granted.\n(17)\nThe reduced surplus levy should be paid after the application is admitted and before the certificate is issued.\n(18)\nThe competent authorities should notify the Commission of the quantities for which certificates with a reduction of the surplus levy have been issued. For this purpose, models should be made available by the Commission.\n(19)\nSugar quantities released on the Union market of quantities in excess of the certificates issued under this Regulation should be subject the surplus levy set out in Article 64(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. It is therefore appropriate to provide that any applicant not fulfilling his commitment to release on the Union market the quantity covered by a certificate delivered to him, should also pay an amount of EUR 500 per tonne. This consistent approach is aimed at preventing abuse of the mechanism introduced by this Regulation.\n(20)\nFor the purpose of establishing average prices for quota and out-of-quota sugar on the Union market in accordance with Article 13(1) ofRegulation (EC) No 952/2006, sugar covered by a certificate issued pursuant to this Regulation should be considered as quota sugar.\n(21)\nArticle 2(1)(a) of Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities' own resources (7) lays down that contributions and other duties provided for within the framework of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector are to constitute own resources. It is therefore necessary to set the date of establishment of the amounts in question within the meaning of Articles 2(2) and 6(3)(a) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (8).\n(22)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nTemporary reduction of the surplus levy\nBy way of derogation from Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006, the amount of the surplus levy for an additional maximum quantity of 250 000 tonnes of sugar in white sugar equivalent and 13 000 tonnes of isoglucose in dry matter, produced in excess of the quota fixed in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and released on the Union market in the marketing year 2011/2012, shall be fixed at EUR 211 per tonne. The reduced surplus levy shall be paid after the application, referred to in Article 2, is admitted and before the certificate, referred to in Article 6, is issued.\nArticle 2\nApplication for certificates\n1. In order to benefit from the conditions specified in Article 1, sugar and isoglucose producers shall apply for a certificate.\n2. Applicants may be only undertakings producing beet and cane sugar or isoglucose, which are approved in accordance with Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and have been allocated a production quota for the 2011/2012 marketing year, in accordance with Article 56 of that Regulation.\n3. Each applicant may submit not more than one application for sugar and one for isoglucose per application period.\n4. Applications for certificates shall be submitted by fax or electronic mail to the competent authority in the Member State in which the undertaking was approved. The competent authorities of the Member States may require that electronic applications be accompanied by an advance electronic signature within the meaning of Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (9).\n5. To be admissible, the applications shall fulfil the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe applications shall indicate:\n(i)\nthe name, address and VAT number of the applicant; and\n(ii)\nthe quantities applied for, expressed in tonnes of white sugar equivalent and tonnes of isoglucose in dry matter, rounded to no decimal places;\n(b)\nthe quantities applied for in this application period, expressed in tonnes of white sugar equivalent and tonnes of isoglucose in dry matter, shall not exceed 50 000 tonnes in the case of sugar and 2 500 tonnes in the case of isoglucose;\n(c)\nif the application concerns sugar, the applicant shall commit himself to pay the minimum beet price, set out in Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, for the quantity of sugar covered by certificates issued in accordance with Article 6 of this Regulation;\n(d)\nthe application shall be written in the official language or one of the official languages of the Member State in which the application is lodged;\n(e)\nthe application shall indicate a reference to this Regulation and the expiry date for the submission of the applications for the application period in question, as set out in Article 3.\n6. An application may not be withdrawn or amended after its submission, even if the quantity applied for is granted only partially.\nArticle 3\nSubmission of applications\n1. The first period during which applications may be submitted shall end on 2 May 2012 at 12 noon, Brussels time.\n2. The periods during which applications may be submitted for the second and subsequent application periods shall begin on the first working day following the end of the preceding period. They shall end at 12 noon, Brussels time, on 23 May 2012, 6 June 2012 and 20 June 2012.\n3. The Commission may suspend the submission of applications for one or several application periods.\nArticle 4\nTransmission of applications by the Member States\n1. The competent authorities of the Member States shall decide on the admissibility of applications on the basis of the conditions set out in Article 2. Where the competent authorities decide that an application is inadmissible, they shall inform the applicant without delay.\n2. The competent authority shall notify the Commission on Friday at the latest, by fax or electronic mail, of the admissible applications submitted during the preceding application period. That notification shall not contain the data referred to in Article 2(5)(a)(i). Member States that received no applications but have sugar or isoglucose quota allocated to them in marketing year 2011/2012, shall also send their nil returns notifications to the Commission within the same time limit.\n3. The form and content of the notifications shall be defined on the basis of models made available by the Commission to the Member States.\nArticle 5\nExceeded limits\nWhen the information notified by the competent authorities of the Member States pursuant to Article 4(2) indicates that the quantities applied for exceed the limits set out in Article 1, the Commission shall:\n(a)\nfix an allocation coefficient, which the Member States shall apply to the quantities covered by each notified certificate application;\n(b)\nreject applications not yet notified;\n(c)\nclose the period for submitting the applications.\nArticle 6\nIssue of certificates\n1. Without prejudice to Article 5, on the tenth working day following a week where an application period ended, the competent authority shall issue certificates for the applications notified to the Commission, in accordance with Article 4(2), for that application period.\n2. Each Monday Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantities of sugar and/or isoglucose for which they issued certificates in the preceding week.\n3. A template of the certificate is set out in the Annex.\nArticle 7\nValidity of certificates\nCertificates shall be valid until the end of the second month following the month of issue.\nArticle 8\nTransferability of certificates\nNeither the rights nor the obligations deriving from the certificates shall be transferable.\nArticle 9\nPrice reporting\nFor the purpose of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 952/2006, the quantity of sugar sold which is covered by a certificate issued pursuant to this Regulation shall be considered as quota sugar.\nArticle 10\nMonitoring\n1. Applicants shall add to their monthly notifications provided for in Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 the quantities for which they received certificates in accordance with Article 6 of this Regulation.\n2. Before 31 October 2012, each holder of a certificate under this regulation shall submit to the competent authorities of the Member States proof that all quantities covered by his certificates were released on the Union market. Each tonne covered by a certificate but not released on the Union market for reasons other than force majeure, shall be subject to payment of an amount of EUR 289 per tonne.\n3. Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantities not released on the Union market.\n4. Member States shall calculate and notify the Commission of the difference between the total quantity of sugar and isoglucose produced by each producer in excess of the quota and the quantities which have been disposed by the producers in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1240/2011. If the remaining quantities of out-of-quota sugar or isoglucose of a producer are less than the quantities issued for that producer under this Regulation, the producer shall pay an amount of EUR 500 per tonne on that difference.\nArticle 11\nDate of establishment\nFor the purposes of Article 2(2) and Article 6(3)(a) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000, the date of establishment of the Union's entitlement shall be the date on which the surplus levy is paid by the applicants in accordance with Article 1.\nArticle 12\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2012.", "references": ["65", "15", "72", "87", "96", "4", "67", "99", "77", "84", "70", "22", "69", "58", "21", "6", "1", "35", "41", "0", "53", "83", "48", "24", "28", "86", "39", "98", "40", "23", "No Label", "25", "61", "62", "71", "75"], "gold": ["25", "61", "62", "71", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/66/EU\nof 1 July 2011\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include 4,5-Dichloro-2-octyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes 4,5-Dichloro-2-octyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, 4,5-Dichloro-2-octyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 8, wood preservatives, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nNorway was designated as Rapporteur and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 8 September 2008 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 16 December 2010, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as wood preservatives and containing 4,5-Dichloro-2-octyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include 4,5-Dichloro-2-octyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at Union level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to human populations and to environmental compartments that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nIn view of the risks identified for human health, it is appropriate to require that safe operational procedures are established for products authorised for industrial or professional use, and that those products are used with appropriate personal protective equipment unless it can be demonstrated in the application for product authorisation that risks to industrial or professional users can be reduced to an acceptable level by other means.\n(8)\nIn view of the risks identified for the aquatic and terrestrial compartments, it is appropriate to require that freshly treated timber is stored after treatment under shelter or on impermeable hard standing, or both, and that any losses from the application of products used as wood preservatives and containing 4,5-Dichloro-2-octyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one are collected for reuse or disposal.\n(9)\nUnacceptable risks for the environment were identified in various scenarios for in-service use of treated wood not covered and not in contact with the ground, which is either continually exposed to the weather or protected from the weather but subject to frequent wetting (use class 3 as defined by OECD (3)) and wood in contact with fresh water (use class 4b as defined by OECD (4)). It is therefore appropriate to require that products are not authorised for the treatment of wood intended for those uses, unless data is submitted demonstrating that the product will meet the requirements of both Article 5 of and Annex VI to Directive 98/8/EC, if necessary by the application of appropriate risk mitigation measures.\n(10)\nIt is important that the provisions of this Directive be applied simultaneously in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment of biocidal products on the market containing the active substance 4,5-Dichloro-2-octyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(11)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(12)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(13)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 June 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 July 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2011.", "references": ["51", "44", "81", "36", "50", "67", "55", "33", "2", "13", "28", "87", "72", "12", "42", "8", "74", "78", "18", "60", "16", "34", "69", "77", "48", "96", "21", "94", "3", "47", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "61", "83", "88"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "61", "83", "88"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 761/2011\nof 29 July 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2011.", "references": ["87", "16", "60", "3", "73", "66", "48", "47", "46", "74", "38", "6", "58", "82", "75", "77", "17", "53", "89", "95", "93", "23", "27", "80", "78", "99", "94", "81", "44", "10", "No Label", "21", "83", "85"], "gold": ["21", "83", "85"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 July 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia amending the Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia\n(2011/456/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia (1) (the Agreement on mutual recognition) entered into force on 1 January 1999 (2).\n(2)\nOn 8 July 2002, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with Australia with a view to amending the Agreement on mutual recognition. The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia amending the Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia (the Agreement) in Brussels on 23 June 2009.\n(3)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia amending the Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia (the Agreement) is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (3).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["50", "79", "63", "27", "28", "98", "14", "47", "56", "26", "30", "12", "32", "24", "68", "71", "43", "17", "70", "90", "92", "52", "34", "23", "53", "60", "64", "83", "75", "31", "No Label", "3", "8", "9", "25", "76", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "8", "9", "25", "76", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 98/2011\nof 3 February 2011\namending for the 144th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Articles 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 17 January 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to amend the identifying data concerning one natural person on its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. On 22 January 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove two natural persons from that list.\n(3)\nAnnex I should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2011.", "references": ["46", "2", "94", "87", "58", "4", "81", "63", "80", "8", "56", "22", "29", "32", "78", "10", "73", "27", "53", "6", "57", "69", "12", "70", "92", "43", "71", "60", "61", "82", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 905/2010\nof 11 October 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on cucumbers, artichokes, clementines, mandarins and oranges\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2) provides for surveillance of imports of the products listed in Annex XVII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2007, 2008 and 2009, the trigger levels for additional duties on cucumbers, artichokes, clementines, mandarins and oranges should be adjusted.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 October 2010.", "references": ["34", "80", "1", "36", "18", "47", "51", "99", "78", "0", "82", "11", "7", "83", "24", "59", "35", "81", "14", "12", "2", "48", "37", "93", "26", "96", "94", "58", "90", "6", "No Label", "4", "10", "21", "25", "62", "68"], "gold": ["4", "10", "21", "25", "62", "68"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EURATOM) No 647/2010 OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 July 2010\non financial assistance of the Union with respect to the decommissioning of Units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant in Bulgaria (Kozloduy Programme)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 203 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Bulgarian request for further funding,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDuring the accession negotiations in 2005, Bulgaria agreed to the closure of Units 1 and 2 and Units 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant by 31 December 2002 and 31 December 2006, respectively and to the subsequent decommissioning of those units. The European Union expressed its willingness to continue to provide financial assistance up to 2009 as an extension of the pre-accession aid planned under the Phare programme in support of Bulgaria\u2019s decommissioning efforts.\n(2)\nIn view of Bulgaria\u2019s commitment to close Units 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant, Article 30 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania (hereinafter referred to as the \u20182005 Act of Accession\u2019) established an assistance programme (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Kozloduy Programme\u2019) with a budget of EUR 210 million for the period 2007 to 2009. That programme included assistance to cover the capacity loss as a consequence of the closure of Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant.\n(3)\nInternational decommissioning funds managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) have been in place for a number of years. The Union is the main contributor to those funds.\n(4)\nThe Union recognises the effort made and the good progress achieved by Bulgaria in the decommissioning preparation stage of the Kozloduy Programme utilising the Union funds put in place until 2009, and the need for further financial support beyond 2009 in order to continue the progress with the actual dismantling operations in accordance with the 2005 Act of Accession, whilst applying the highest safety standards.\n(5)\nIn addition, it is important to use the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant\u2019s own resources, as this contributes to the availability of the necessary expertise, enhances know-how and skills, and at the same time mitigates the social and economic impact of the early closure by continuously employing the staff from the closed nuclear power plant. The continued financial support is therefore important to maintain the required safety, health and environmental standards.\n(6)\nThe Union also recognises the need for financial support in order to progress further with mitigating measures in the energy sector given the extent of the capacity loss by the closure of the nuclear units and its impact on the security of supply in the region.\n(7)\nThe Union recognises the need to mitigate the effect of increased environmental damage and emissions due to the replacement capacity coming mostly from increased use of lignite plants.\n(8)\nConsequently, provision should be made for a sum of EUR 300 million from the general budget of the Union to fund the decommissioning of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant over the period from 2010 to 2013.\n(9)\nThe appropriations of the general budget of the Union for decommissioning should not lead to distortions of competition in relation to power supply companies on the energy market in the Union. These appropriations should also be used to finance energy efficiency and savings measures in line with the acquis and the rules of the functioning of the common European energy market.\n(10)\nThe financial assistance should continue to be made available as a Union contribution to the Kozloduy International Decommissioning Support Fund managed by the EBRD.\n(11)\nThe tasks of the EBRD include managing the public funds allocated to the programmes for decommissioning those nuclear power units that were subject to accession-linked closure agreements. The EBRD is monitoring the financial management of these programmes so as to optimise the use of public money. In addition, the EBRD carries out the budget tasks entrusted to it by the Commission in line with the requirements of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2) (the Financial Regulation).\n(12)\nIn order to ensure the highest possible efficiency and to minimise possible environmental consequences, the decommissioning of Units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant should be carried out with recourse to the best available technical expertise, and with due regard to the nature and technological specifications of the units to be shut down.\n(13)\nThe decommissioning of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant will be carried out in line with the legislation on the environment, particularly Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (3).\n(14)\nPrinciples of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in respect of the allocated funds should be ensured through evaluation and performance audits of the previously financed programmes.\n(15)\nA financial reference amount, within the meaning of point 38 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (4), should be included in this Regulation for the entire duration of the Kozloduy Programme, without thereby affecting the powers of the budgetary authority as set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(16)\nFor the adoption of measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation, the Commission should be assisted by the Committee established by Council Regulation (Euratom) No 549/2007 (5),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation establishes a programme (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Kozloduy Programme\u2019) laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the Union\u2019s financial contribution to address the further process of the decommissioning of Units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant in Bulgaria and the consequences of their early closure, with regard to the environment, the economy and the security of supply in the region.\nArticle 2\nThe Union contribution to the Kozloduy programme shall be granted for the purpose of providing financial support for:\n-\nmeasures connected with the decommissioning of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant,\n-\nmeasures for environmental upgrading in line with the acquis and for modernising conventional production capacity to replace the production capacity of the four reactors at the Plant, and\n-\nother measures which stem from the decision to close and decommission the Plant and which contribute to the necessary restructuring, upgrading of the environment and modernisation of the energy production, transmission and distribution sectors in Bulgaria as well as to enhancing security of supply and energy efficiency in Bulgaria.\nArticle 3\n1. The financial reference amount for the implementation of the Kozloduy Programme for the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2013 shall be EUR 300 million.\n2. The annual appropriations shall be authorised by the budgetary authority within the limits of the financial framework.\n3. The amount of the appropriations allocated to the Kozloduy Programme may be reviewed in the course of the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2013 to take account of the progress made with the implementation of the Programme and to ensure that the programming and allocation of the resources are based on actual payment needs and absorption capacity.\nArticle 4\nIn prolongation of what has been specified in the 2005 Act of Accession, the contribution for certain measures may amount to up to 100 % of the total expenditure. Every effort shall be made to continue the co-financing practice established under the pre-accession assistance and the assistance given over the period 2007-2009 for Bulgaria\u2019s decommissioning effort as well as to attract co-financing from other sources, as appropriate.\nArticle 5\n1. Financial assistance for measures under the Kozloduy Programme shall be made available as a Union contribution to the Kozloduy International Decommissioning Support Fund, managed by the EBRD, in line with Article 53d of the Financial Regulation.\n2. Measures under the Kozloduy Programme shall be adopted in accordance with Article 8(2).\nArticle 6\n1. The Commission may cause an audit of the use made of the assistance to be carried out, either directly by its own staff or by any other qualified outside body of its choice. Such audits may be carried out throughout the duration of the agreement between the Union and the EBRD on making Union funds available to the Kozloduy International Decommissioning Support Fund and for a period of 5 years from the date of payment of the balance. Where appropriate, the audit findings may lead to recovery decisions by the Commission.\n2. Commission staff and outside personnel authorised by the Commission shall have appropriate right of access, particularly to the beneficiary\u2019s offices and to all the information, including information in electronic format, needed in order to conduct such audits. The audits shall also cover the stage reached in the issuing of permits for decommissioning.\nThe Court of Auditors and the European Parliament shall enjoy the same rights, especially of access, as the Commission.\nFurthermore, in order to protect the financial interests of the Union against fraud and other irregularities, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) may carry out on-the-spot checks and inspections under the Kozloduy Programme in accordance with Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities\u2019 financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (6).\n3. For the Union action financed under this Regulation, the term \u2018irregularity\u2019 in Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (7) shall mean any infringement of a provision of the law of the Union or any breach of a contractual obligation resulting from an act or omission by an economic operator which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Union or budgets managed by it by an unjustified item of expenditure or budgets managed by other international organisations on behalf of the Union or the Community.\n4. The agreements between the Union and the EBRD on making Union funds available to the Kozloduy International Decommissioning Support Fund shall provide for appropriate measures to protect the financial interests of the Union against fraud, corruption and other irregularities and to enable the Commission, OLAF and the Court of Auditors to carry out on-the-spot checks.\nArticle 7\nThe Commission shall ensure the implementation of this Regulation and shall report at regular intervals to the European Parliament and the Council. It shall carry out a review, as provided for in Article 3(3).\nArticle 8\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee established by Article 8(1) of Regulation (Euratom) No 549/2007.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, the procedure provided for in Article 8(2) of Regulation (Euratom) No 549/2007 shall apply.\nArticle 9\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2010.", "references": ["54", "43", "30", "60", "16", "49", "2", "52", "62", "6", "19", "79", "71", "58", "76", "26", "85", "55", "83", "46", "24", "70", "87", "90", "66", "95", "57", "41", "8", "36", "No Label", "10", "15", "38", "78", "81", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "38", "78", "81", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 782/2010\nof 2 September 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 767/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 3 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2010.", "references": ["89", "24", "79", "17", "34", "48", "92", "65", "63", "12", "58", "7", "5", "74", "84", "91", "55", "31", "2", "8", "36", "51", "67", "46", "52", "54", "16", "61", "25", "11", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 393/2012\nof 7 May 2012\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the entry for Thailand in the lists of third countries or parts thereof from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Union\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first subparagraph of point 1 of Article 8 and point 4 of Article 8 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (2) provides that the commodities covered by it are only to be imported into and transit through the Union from the third countries, territories, zones or compartments listed in Part 1 of Annex I thereto.\n(2)\nThailand is currently listed in the table in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as authorised for imports into the Union of specified pathogen-free eggs and egg products. Due to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in 2004, imports into the Union of meat of poultry, farmed ratites and wild game-birds and eggs were prohibited as indicated by the entries in columns 6 and 6A of the table in Part 1 of Annex I to that Regulation.\n(3)\nIn addition, Commission Decision 2005/692/EC of 6 October 2005 concerning certain protection measures in relation to avian influenza in several third countries (3) provides that Member States are to suspend the importation from Thailand of certain products including meat of poultry, farmed ratites and wild game-birds, and eggs.\n(4)\nThe animal health situation in Thailand has since improved, in particular as regards the control of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry. Commission experts have carried out several inspection missions in Thailand to assess the animal health situation and the disease control systems in place in that third country. The conclusion drawn from the last mission carried out in Thailand is that the overall system gives sufficient guarantees that the concerned products fulfil the relevant Union requirements.\n(5)\nIn light of this, Decision 2005/692/EC as amended by Commission Implementing Decision 2012/248/EU of 7 May 2012 amending Decisions 2005/692/EC, 2005/734/EC, 2007/25/EC and 2009/494/EC as regards avian influenza (4) no longer suspends imports from Thailand into the Union of the products covered by Decision 2005/692/EC including meat of poultry, farmed ratites and wild game-birds, and eggs.\n(6)\nAs a result, the entry for Thailand in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should be amended in order to reflect that imports of meat of poultry, farmed ratites and wild game-birds and eggs into, and transit through, the Union from Thailand are no longer prohibited.\n(7)\nHowever, the imports of eggs from Thailand should be subject to the submission by that third country of a Salmonella control programme.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2012.", "references": ["45", "26", "63", "57", "19", "79", "83", "41", "40", "37", "77", "23", "5", "89", "55", "92", "87", "15", "39", "2", "12", "85", "82", "61", "90", "17", "9", "91", "29", "1", "No Label", "21", "22", "38", "66", "69", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "38", "66", "69", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUJUST LEX-IRAQ/2/2011\nof 30 September 2011\nconcerning the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-Iraq\n(2011/659/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/330/CFSP of 14 June 2010 on the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-Iraq (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Decision 2010/330/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST LEX-Iraq), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nThe High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Brigadier General L\u00e1szl\u00f3 HUSZ\u00c1R as Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-Iraq as from 1 October 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBrigadier General L\u00e1szl\u00f3 HUSZ\u00c1R is hereby appointed as Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-Iraq as from 1 October 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 30 September 2011.", "references": ["26", "78", "61", "4", "25", "21", "81", "39", "42", "69", "16", "68", "85", "41", "83", "66", "54", "59", "62", "75", "18", "47", "6", "20", "51", "77", "14", "12", "53", "57", "No Label", "0", "3", "7", "9", "95"], "gold": ["0", "3", "7", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 691/2012\nof 27 July 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 677/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2012.", "references": ["79", "94", "21", "56", "17", "53", "58", "86", "96", "80", "2", "75", "59", "32", "77", "12", "20", "92", "73", "46", "0", "50", "38", "84", "48", "33", "29", "9", "62", "60", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 23 April 2012\non a temporary derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Swaziland with regard to peaches, pears and pineapples\n(notified under document C(2012) 2511)\n(2012/213/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements (1), and in particular Article 36(4) of Annex II thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 October 2011 Swaziland requested, in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007, a derogation from the rules of origin set out in that Annex for the year 2012. On 11 January 2012 Swaziland submitted additional information relating to its request. The request covers a total quantity of 800 tonnes of peach and/or pear in fruit jelly of CN codes ex 2007 99 97 and mixtures of peach and/or pear and/or pineapple in fruit juice of CN code ex 2008 97 98.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received from Swaziland, it is unable to satisfy the rules on cumulation of origin laid down in Article 6 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007. Because it has no production of peaches and pears, Swaziland sources non-originating diced peaches in juice not containing sugar of CN codes ex 2008 70 92 and 2008 70 98, and diced pears in juice not containing sugar of CN code ex 2008 40 90 in neighbouring South Africa for manufacture. However, in accordance with Article 6(7) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007, the final products are excluded from cumulation with South Africa. A temporary derogation should therefore be granted. In order to allow Swaziland to make full use of the quantities granted, the temporary derogation should have retroactive effect from 1 January 2012.\n(3)\nA temporary derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 would not cause serious injury to an established Union industry, provided that certain conditions relating to quantities, surveillance and duration are respected.\n(4)\nIt is therefore justified to grant a temporary derogation under Article 36(1)(b) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007.\n(5)\nAccordingly a derogation should be granted to Swaziland in respect of 800 tonnes of peach and/or pear in fruit jelly of CN codes ex 2007 99 97 and mixtures of peach and/or pear and/or pineapple in fruit juice of CN code ex 2008 97 98 for one year.\n(6)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (2) lays down rules relating to the management of tariff quotas. In order to ensure efficient management carried out in close cooperation between the authorities of Swaziland, the customs authorities of the Member States and the Commission, those rules should apply to the quantities imported under the derogation granted by this Decision.\n(7)\nIn order to allow efficient monitoring of the operation of the derogation, the authorities of Swaziland should communicate regularly to the Commission details of the EUR.1 movement certificates issued.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 and in accordance with Article 36(1)(b) of that Annex, peach and/or pear in fruit jelly of CN codes ex 2007 99 97 and mixtures of peach and/or pear and/or pineapple in fruit juice of CN code ex 2008 97 98 in the manufacture of which non-originating diced peaches in juice not containing sugar of CN codes ex 2008 70 92 and ex 2008 70 98, and diced pears in juice not containing sugar of CN code ex 2008 40 90 are used, shall be regarded as originating in Swaziland in accordance with the terms set out in Articles 2 to 5 of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to the products and the quantities set out in the Annex which are declared for release for free circulation into the Union from Swaziland during the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\nArticle 3\nThe quantities set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be managed in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\nArticle 4\nThe customs authorities of Swaziland shall take the necessary measures to carry out quantitative checks on exports of the products referred to in Article 1.\nAll the EUR.1 movement certificates they issue in relation to the products referred to in Article 1 shall bear a reference to this Decision.\nBefore the end of the month following each quarter, the competent authorities of Swaziland shall forward to the Commission a quarterly statement of the quantities in respect of which EUR.1 movement certificates have been issued pursuant to this Decision and the serial numbers of those certificates.\nArticle 5\nBox 7 of EUR.1 movement certificates issued under this Decision shall contain the following:\n\u2018Derogation - Implementing Decision 2012/213/EU\u2019.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2012.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2012.", "references": ["77", "42", "0", "92", "16", "20", "90", "87", "86", "74", "15", "82", "79", "41", "95", "35", "19", "12", "9", "32", "84", "38", "36", "85", "2", "11", "34", "6", "65", "45", "No Label", "8", "21", "22", "23", "68", "71", "72", "94"], "gold": ["8", "21", "22", "23", "68", "71", "72", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 20 February 2012\non the clearance of the accounts of certain paying agencies in Germany concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2008 financial year\n(notified under document C(2012) 907)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2012/104/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 33 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Fund Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decisions 2009/373/EC (2), 2010/59/EU (3), 2010/721/EU (4) and 2011/103/EU (5) cleared, for the 2008 financial year, the accounts of all the paying agencies except for the German paying agency \u2018Bayern\u2019 and the Greek paying agency \u2018OPEKEPE\u2019.\n(2)\nFollowing the transmission of new information and after additional checks, the Commission can now take a decision concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the German paying agency \u2018Bayern\u2019.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from EU financing expenditure not effected in accordance with EU rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accounts of the German paying agency \u2018Bayern\u2019 concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in respect of the 2008 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State under each rural development programme pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 33(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 20 February 2012.", "references": ["49", "73", "57", "22", "94", "98", "79", "30", "41", "60", "65", "39", "99", "75", "14", "43", "2", "54", "23", "19", "32", "63", "27", "35", "74", "15", "45", "29", "9", "53", "No Label", "10", "17", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "17", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 353/2011\nof 11 April 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 347/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["93", "45", "79", "7", "62", "83", "65", "28", "98", "17", "85", "55", "96", "26", "3", "21", "29", "24", "4", "73", "33", "95", "20", "46", "6", "53", "44", "30", "81", "76", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 20 February 2012\non the clearance of the accounts of certain paying agencies in Germany concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2010 financial year\n(notified under document C(2012) 899)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2012/103/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 33 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Fund Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Decision 2011/271/EU (2) cleared for the 2010 financial year, the accounts of all the paying agencies except for the Belgian paying agency \u2018R\u00e9gion Wallonne\u2019, the German paying agencies \u2018Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg\u2019, \u2018Bayern\u2019, \u2018Helaba\u2019 and \u2018Rheinland-Pfalz\u2019, the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019, the Luxembourg paying agency \u2018Minist\u00e8re de l\u2019agriculture, de la Viticulture et du D\u00e9veloppement rural\u2019 and the Slovakian paying agency \u2018APA\u2019.\n(2)\nFollowing the transmission of new information and after additional checks, the Commission can now take a decision concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the German paying agencies \u2018Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg\u2019, \u2018Bayern\u2019, \u2018Helaba\u2019 and \u2018Rheinland-Pfalz\u2019.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from EU financing expenditure not effected in accordance with EU rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accounts of the German paying agencies \u2018Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg\u2019, \u2018Bayern\u2019, \u2018Helaba\u2019 and \u2018Rheinland-Pfalz\u2019 concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in respect of the 2010 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State under each rural development programme pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 33(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 20 February 2012.", "references": ["16", "42", "78", "33", "41", "94", "80", "92", "29", "22", "43", "38", "45", "68", "26", "54", "24", "90", "51", "59", "70", "31", "46", "39", "4", "50", "87", "13", "64", "27", "No Label", "10", "17", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "17", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 January 2011\nin application of Article 7 of Council Directive 89/686/EEC as regards a prohibition measure adopted by the UK authorities in respect of protective clothing for fencers\n(notified under document C(2011) 268)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/49/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 7(1) of Directive 89/686/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (PPE) provides that where a Member State ascertains that personal protective equipment bearing the CE marking and used in accordance with its intended purpose could compromise the safety of persons, domestic animals or property, it shall take all necessary measures to remove such personal protective equipment from the market and to prohibit the placing on the market or free movement thereof.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 7(2) of the Directive, the Commission is required, after consulting the parties concerned, to declare whether it finds such a measure justified or not. If the measure is found justified, the Commission shall inform the Member States so that they can take all appropriate measures with respect to the equipment concerned, in accordance with their obligations pursuant to Article 2(1).\n(3)\nOn 25 August 2008, the UK authorities notified the European Commission a measure prohibiting the placing on the market of the protective clothing for fencers, types Jiang 350N Stretch Jacket and Breeches, manufactured by Wuxi Husheng Sports Goods Plant DongHu Industrial District, Donghutang, WuXi 214196, China and imported by Liam Patterson Associates LLP t/a Jiang-UK, 9 Spencer Road, Buxton, Derbyshire, United Kingdom.\n(4)\nAccording to the documents submitted to the European Commission, this protective clothing for fencing was subject to a \u2018Certificate of Conformity\u2019 dated October 2005, certificate No C0508M29HS11 issued by Ente Certificazione Macchine (Notified Body number 1282).\n(5)\nThe UK authorities indicated that their decision was based on the fact that the products concerned failed to comply with the basic health and safety requirements (BHSR) referred to in Article 3 of Directive 89/686/EEC due to the incorrect application of the standards referred to in Article 5 of the Directive. In particular, the UK authorities indicated that the protective clothing for fencers did not have the level of penetration resistance required by standard EN 13567:2002 - Protective clothing - Hand, arm, chest, abdomen, leg, genital and face protectors for fencers - Requirements and test methods. The UK decision was supported by a test report.\n(6)\nOn 17 July 2009, the Commission wrote to the importer inviting him to communicate his observations regarding the measure taken by the UK authorities. To date, no reply has been received.\n(7)\nOn 17 July 2009, the Commission also wrote to Ente Certificazione Macchine inviting this Body to communicate its observations regarding the measure taken by the UK authorities and, in particular, to clarify whether it had issued the certificate No C0508M29HS11 for the products in question. To date, no reply has been received.\n(8)\nThe Commission recalls that protective clothing for fencers must comply with the BHSR set out in Section 3.1.1 of Annex II to Directive 89/686/EEC relating to protection against penetrating objects. This requirement is supported by the specifications of clauses 4.6 to 4.8 of the relevant harmonised standard EN 13567 and by the specifications for penetration testing set out in clause 5.10 of the standard.\nThe Commission also recalls that protective clothing for fencers is subject to the conformity assessment procedure set out in Article 10 of Directive 89/686/EEC (EC type-examination by a Notified Body). The Commission notes that Ente Certificazione Macchine is a Notified Body (identification number 1282) for Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery (2) and not for the PPE Directive. Consequently, that Body does not have the right to carry out the EC type-examination procedure for PPE. Reference by Ente Certificazione Macchine to the identification number attributed by the Commission on a \u2018conformity certificate\u2019 for PPE is therefore misleading.\n(9)\nOn 8 April 2010, the Commission contacted the Italian Authorities in order to clarify why Ente Certificazione Macchine had issued the certificate in question and requested the Italian Authorities to take the necessary measures to put an end to misuse of the identification number attributed to Ente Certificazione Macchine by the Commission.\n(10)\nIn their reply on 23 June 2010, the Italian Authorities confirmed that Ente Certificazione Macchine had misused its identification number and informed the Commission that the Body had been required to cease issuing such certificates and to inform the authority of any similar certificates issued.\n(11)\nIn light of the documentation available and the comments of the parties concerned, the Commission considers that the UK Authorities have demonstrated that the protective clothing for fencers, types Jiang 350N Stretch Jacket and Breeches, fails to comply with the applicable BHSR of Directive 89/686/EEC and that this non-conformity gives rise to a serious risk for users,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe prohibition measure taken by the UK authorities against the protective clothing for fencers, types Jiang 350N Stretch Jacket and Breeches, manufactured by Wuxi Husheng Sports Goods Plant, is justified.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 January 2011.", "references": ["86", "53", "67", "82", "92", "30", "16", "59", "44", "17", "43", "15", "3", "18", "99", "26", "25", "1", "69", "88", "34", "45", "40", "0", "93", "12", "32", "33", "77", "54", "No Label", "36", "48", "51", "76", "89", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["36", "48", "51", "76", "89", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 29 June 2011\namending Decision 2011/44/EU concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria\n(notified under document C(2011) 4573)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/388/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA case of foot-and-mouth disease in wild boar and a number of outbreaks of that disease in livestock were confirmed in Bulgaria in January 2011. As a consequence, Bulgaria has taken measures in the framework of Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (3).\n(2)\nIn addition, Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (4) was adopted, as it was necessary to reinforce the control measures taken by Bulgaria. That Decision is to apply until 30 June 2011.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Decision 2011/44/EU lists the areas in Bulgaria where cases of foot-and-mouth disease have been confirmed. The areas surrounding those areas are listed in Annex II to that Decision. The protection measures laid down in Decision 2011/44/EU differ depending on whether an area is listed in Annex I or in Annex II to that Decision.\n(4)\nAnnex I to Decision 2011/44/EU currently lists the region of Burgas and Annex II to that Decision lists the regions of Kardjali, Haskovo, Yambol, Sliven, Shumen and Varna.\n(5)\nAs no new outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have been reported in Bulgaria since 7 April 2011 and surveillance carried out in the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II has not revealed foot-and-mouth disease infection in domestic animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease, it is appropriate to reduce the areas under restriction listed in Annexes I and II to Decision 2011/44/EU, respectively.\n(6)\nHowever, surveillance in accordance with point 4(g) of Part B of Annex XVIII to Directive 2003/85/EC to rule out infection of wildlife with the foot-and-mouth disease virus cannot be completed until at least maternal antibodies have vanished in susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease wild animals born in that area after the first case of that disease was reported in January 2011.\n(7)\nIt is therefore necessary to prolong the application of the measures laid down in Decision 2011/44/EU until 30 September 2011.\n(8)\nDecision 2011/44/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2011/44/EU is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 16, the date \u201830 June 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201830 September 2011\u2019;\n(2)\nAnnexes I and II are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2011.", "references": ["87", "50", "19", "54", "86", "93", "37", "94", "88", "99", "39", "42", "98", "13", "69", "73", "43", "92", "7", "15", "4", "26", "68", "5", "95", "10", "60", "35", "63", "48", "No Label", "38", "59", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "59", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 572/2010\nof 29 June 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 563/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2010.", "references": ["8", "96", "3", "43", "59", "27", "42", "44", "64", "4", "51", "52", "14", "21", "29", "5", "87", "67", "31", "78", "61", "1", "76", "7", "68", "34", "38", "83", "80", "9", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 208/2012\nof 9 March 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 562/2011 adopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 2012 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the European Union and derogating from certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular points (f) and (g) of Article 43, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro (2), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 121/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) has established a scheme whereby food products may be distributed to the most deprived persons in the Union. For that purpose, products in intervention stocks may be made available or, where intervention stocks suitable for the food distribution scheme are not available, food products may be purchased on the market. For 2012 and 2013, that scheme is included in the list of measures eligible for financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (4), within an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 the Commission has to adopt annual plans. The annual distribution plan for 2012 was adopted on 10 June 2011 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 562/2011 (5) solely on the basis of products available in intervention stocks. The additional resources made available on the 2012 budget year for the distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the Union, as a result of the amendment of Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 by Regulation (EU) No 121/2012, should be allocated to the Member States.\n(3)\nIn order to enforce the annual budgetary ceiling, the intra-Union transfer costs, where relevant, should be included into the total financial allocation made available for each Member State to implement the 2012 distribution plan. Moreover, the deadlines fixed by Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 of 14 September 2010 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Union (6) for the requests for payment and the execution of payments by the competent authorities should be adjusted, in order to ensure that the resources allocated within the 2012 distribution plan are only eligible for Union support if those payments are made in the 2012 budget year.\n(4)\nTaking into account the shortened time-frame left to the Member States for the implementation of the 2012 distribution plan as a consequence of the date of entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 121/2012, it is appropriate to grant an extension of the deadlines provided for in Article 3(1) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 as regards the implementation period of the annual plan and the completion of the payment operations for products mobilised on the market.\n(5)\nThat revision of the distribution plan for 2012 being made at a time when national administrative arrangements for the implementation of the plan should be approaching completion, the quantities of products available in intervention stocks which are reallocated following the decision of Finland to renounce to a part of its allocation of skimmed milk powder or to reassessment of the exact quantities in intervention storage should not be taken into account for calculating whether Member States have respected the obligation laid down in the second and third subparagraphs of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 to have withdrawn 70 % of cereals and skimmed milk powder by the deadlines fixed in that Article.\n(6)\nIn view of the fact that the implementation period of the 2012 distribution plan is already advanced and to allow Member States as much time as possible to proceed to the actions needed for the implementation of the amended plan, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(7)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 562/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 562/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticles 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\n1. In 2012, the distribution of food to the most deprived persons in the Union under Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be implemented in accordance with the annual distribution plan set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nFinancial resources available to implement the 2012 plan can be used by Member States within the limits set out in point (a) of Annex I.\nThe quantities of each type of product to be withdrawn from intervention stocks are set out in point (b) of that Annex.\nIndicative allocations to Member States for the purchase of food products on the Union market are set out in point (c) of that Annex.\n2. The use of cereals as payment for mobilising rice products on the market is authorised, as referred to in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010.\nArticle 2\nThe intra-Union transfer of products listed in Annex II to this Regulation shall be authorised, subject to the conditions laid down in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010. Indicative allocations to Member States for the reimbursement of the cost of intra-Union transfers, as required under the annual distribution plan referred to in Article 1, are set out in point (d) of Annex I.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following Articles 2a to 2d are inserted:\n\u2018Article 2a\nBy way of derogation from Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, the implementation period of the 2012 distribution plan shall end on 28 February 2013.\nArticle 2b\nBy way of derogation from Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, for the 2012 distribution plan, payment operations for products to be supplied by the operator shall, in case of products to be mobilised on the market under Article 2(3)(a)(iii) and (iv) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, be effected before 15 October 2012.\nArticle 2c\nFor the 2012 distribution plan, the first sentence of the second subparagraph and the third subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, where relevant, shall not apply to the following quantities of intervention stocks:\n(a)\n5,46 tonnes of cereals stored in the United Kingdom and allocated to Bulgaria;\n(b)\n0,651 tonne of cereals stored in Finland and allocated to Bulgaria;\n(c)\n249,04 tonnes of cereals stored in France and allocated to France;\n(d)\n635,325 tonnes of skimmed milk powder stored in Estonia and allocated to Estonia.\nArticle 2d\nBy way of derogation from Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, for the 2012 distribution plan, requests for payment shall be submitted to the competent authorities of each Member State by 30 September 2012. Except in cases of force majeure, requests submitted after that date shall not be accepted.\nExpenditure, within the limits set out in point (a) of Annex I, shall only be eligible for Union financing if it has been paid by the Member State to the beneficiary by 15 October 2012 at the latest.\u2019;\n(3)\nAnnexes I and II are replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2012.", "references": ["67", "12", "26", "48", "41", "61", "23", "52", "95", "69", "64", "46", "94", "82", "44", "18", "22", "42", "83", "49", "13", "36", "7", "5", "71", "85", "66", "54", "84", "14", "No Label", "4", "10", "20", "37", "38", "68", "70"], "gold": ["4", "10", "20", "37", "38", "68", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 July 2010\non the State aid scheme C 38/09 (ex NN 58/09) which Spain is planning to implement for Corporaci\u00f3n de Radio y Televisi\u00f3n Espa\u00f1ola (RTVE)\n(notified under document C(2010) 4925)\n(Only the Spanish text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/1/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to Protocol No 29 on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (2) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 22 June 2009, the Commission received a complaint drawing attention to plans of the Spanish government to amend the system of financing of the national radio and television broadcaster Corporaci\u00f3n de Radio y Televisi\u00f3n Espa\u00f1ola (RTVE). On 5 August 2009 the Commission requested information from Spain concerning this amendment, in particular on the relationship between the new levies and the funding of RTVE. On 1 September 2009 the new Law 8/2009 of 28 August 2009 on financing Corporaci\u00f3n de Radio y Televisi\u00f3n Espa\u00f1ola (3), amending Law 17/2006 of 5 June 2006 on state-owned radio and television (4), entered into force. On 21 September, 22 and 26 October 2009 Spain submitted the requested information on the scheme to the Commission.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 2 December 2009, the Commission informed Spain that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in respect of the measure. The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid measure.\n(3)\nSpain responded to the decision to open the procedure by letter of 21 December 2009. The Commission received comments from interested parties. It forwarded them to Spain, which was given the opportunity to react; its comments were received by letter dated 23 March 2010.\n(4)\nThe Commission asked additional questions by letters of 19 February and 19 May 2010, to which the Spanish authorities responded by letters of 22 March and 31 May 2010.\n(5)\nOn 18 March 2010, by a letter of formal notice pursuant to Article 258 TFEU, the Commission opened infringement proceedings on the grounds that the tax on electronic communications was contrary to Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (6), which lays down precise rules relating to the administrative charges that Member States can levy on companies providing a telecommunications service or network. The State aid investigation is without prejudice to the infringement procedure.\nII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n(6)\nThe current system of financing public broadcasting in Spain by RTVE, as established by Law 17/2006, was approved by the Commission in decisions in 2005 and 2007 (7). Law 17/2006 entrusts the RTVE with a public service mission. Section I of that law (in particular Articles 2 and 3) defines the public service mission of RTVE and specifies that the mission for television and radio services respectively would be performed by the companies RTVE (Radio Televisi\u00f3n Espa\u00f1ola) and RNE (Radio Nacional de Espa\u00f1a). Section II, Chapter IV, regulates the financial and economic framework conditions under which RTVE will operate its public service tasks. In particular, Article 33 stipulates that RTVE will receive annual budgetary payments as compensation for the fulfilment of its public service tasks. This compensation shall not exceed the net cost of the public service provided by RTVE and RNE respectively. Section II, Chapter VI regulates external control by the Parliament, the audiovisual authority and the Court of Auditors.\n(7)\nThe annual budgeted expenses for running RTVE were EUR 1 177 million in 2007, EUR 1 222 million in 2008, and EUR 1 146 million in 2009. During these last years RTVE received a public service compensation of around EUR 500 million per year (2006: EUR 575 million; 2007: EUR 433 million; 2008: EUR 500 million; 2009, however, with already reduced advertising revenues: EUR 726 million).\n(8)\nLaw 8/2009 amends Law 17/2006 with regard to the definition of the public service mission and the possible commercial activities of RTVE. It adds further elements to the public service mission which were approved by the Commission in 2005. In particular, it limits the acquisition of broadcasting rights for sports events of general interest or great interest for society, except for the Olympics and Paralympics, to 10 % of the total annual budget for external supplies, purchases and services (Article 9(1)(i)). It states obligations with regard to programmes for children (Article 9(1)(d)) and limits the broadcasting of films produced by the major international producers for first release at peak times to 52 films per year (Article 9(1)(m)).\n(9)\nThe new law provides in particular that the use of advertising, teleshopping, sponsorship and pay-per-view services as sources of revenue will be discontinued by the end of 2009. These commercial revenues shall be replaced by funds generated by existing or new charges on commercial broadcasters and telecommunication operators. Spain expects that the measure will relieve pressure from commercial operators, increase their revenues from advertising and eliminate a potential source of market distortion. RTVE will retain as sources of commercial income the provision of services to third parties and the sale of its own productions (altogether around EUR 25 million).\n(10)\nSo far, annual advertising revenues accounted for around EUR 600 million (2007: EUR 667 million; 2008: EUR 565 million). With the disappearance of this commercial income, the net costs for RTVE\u2019s public service broadcasting mission will be nearly identical to the annual budgeted expenses of operating the broadcaster. Accordingly, Spain intends to compensate for the abolition of these revenues by raising its own contribution from public funds up to the annual budgeted expenses of operating RTVE, reduced only by the minor remaining commercial revenues of EUR 25 million mentioned in the previous paragraph.\n(11)\nAs overall annual income of RTVE, Article 3(2) of the new law provides, for the years 2010 and 2011, for a maximum amount of EUR 1 200 million, for the years 2012-2014 a maximum increase in this amount of 1 % and for the subsequent years an increase based on the annual consumer price index. When determining these amounts, Spain estimated, in comparison with the annual budgeted expenses of RTVE in previous years, additional annual expenditure of EUR 104 million to fill the air time previously reserved for advertising with other audiovisual productions.\n(12)\nAccording to Spain\u2019s budgetary planning, this overall amount of annual income will be composed of allocations from the general state budget, according to the scheme provided for in Law 17/2006, of about EUR 500 million, which is in line with the amount contributed in previous years, and through new income generated from three fiscal measures introduced or modified by Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the new law:\n(a)\nA tax of 3 % of the revenues of free-to-air TV broadcasters and of 1,5 % of revenues of pay-TV broadcasters. These contributions must not exceed 15 % (for free TV) and 20 % (for pay-TV) of the total annual support for RTVE. Any surplus tax revenue beyond these percentages will go to the general state budget. The tax applies only to entities established in Spain. Services imported from another Member State are not subject to this tax.\n(b)\nA tax of 0,9 % on gross operating revenues (excluding those obtained in the wholesale reference market) of telecommunications services operators registered with the register of operators of the Spanish telecoms regulator, Comisi\u00f3n del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones, in any of the following services: fixed telephony, mobile telephony and Internet access provision. Operators subject to the tax must be operating nationwide or in more than one Autonomous Community and must provide audiovisual services or another service that includes advertising. This contribution must not exceed 25 % of the total annual support for RTVE. Any surplus tax revenue beyond this percentage will go to the general state budget. The tax applies only to entities established in Spain. Services imported from another Member State are not subject to this tax.\n(c)\nA share of 80 %, up to a maximum amount of EUR 330 million, of the already existing levy on radio spectrum use as established by Law 32/2003 of 3 November 2003. The remainder will be attributed to the general budget. This percentage can be modified in accordance with the General State Budget laws.\n(13)\nArticles 5 and 6 of Law 17/2006 expressly state that the taxes on commercial TV and telecommunications operators are collected \u2018for the purpose of contributing to the financing of RTVE\u2019. Furthermore, the preamble expressly establishes this link between the new taxes and the financial compensation for withdrawing RTVE from the advertising market.\n(14)\nShould the revenue from these three tax sources not be sufficient to cover the gap of EUR 700 million between the traditional public service compensation (EUR 500 million) and the overall costs of running RTVE, which have so far been covered by commercial revenues, Article 2(2) of Law 8/2009 establishes that the missing funds would be contributed from the general state budget, in accordance with Article 33 of Law 17/2006 which obliges the government to cover the net costs of the public service obligations of RTVE. This means that the financing of the net costs of the public services provided by RTVE, up to a maximum amount of EUR 1 200 million, will be assured, independently of the revenue generated by the taxes.\n(15)\nSpain confirmed that the contribution from the taxes on TV broadcasters and telecommunications operators should not necessarily be used only to fund RTVE. Spain has established the maximum amounts which may be contributed by the taxes. Any surplus revenue will be attributed to the general state budget and may thereby be used to cover other expenses. Furthermore, up to these maximum amounts, Spain may decide what amount from the tax it actually intends to allocate for RTVE. The budgetary planning for 2010, for example, provides for less than half the possible maximum contribution to be allocated to RTVE.\n(16)\nIn order to avoid overcompensation, Article 8 of the new law provides for a reserve fund into which is paid the part of the revenues allocated by the government which exceeds the actual net costs of the public service obligation. This reserve is limited to 10 % of the annual budgeted expenses of RTVE. Any revenues in excess of these 10 % will go back to the Treasury. The reserve will be used to cover possible losses incurred in previous years. If it has not been spent within 4 years, it will be recovered by reducing the public service compensation for the following year accordingly.\n(17)\nFurthermore, in accordance with Articles 37 and 39 to 41 of Law 17/2006, external control by auditors, the Government Audit Office, the Parliament, the audiovisual authority and the Court of Auditors will ensure that RTVE receives no compensation exceeding the actual net costs plus the 10 % reserve. Any revenue from the few remaining commercial activities will reduce the public service compensation (Article 7(1) of Law 8/2009).\n(18)\nThe issues analysed in this decision are those elements of the changes to the existing RTVE financing system concerning which the Commission expressed doubts in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure.\n(19)\nAs the Commission stated, the main feature of the changes in the financing of RTVE and the almost complete discontinuation of commercial activities of RTVE is that the part of RTVE\u2019s revenues hitherto generated by these commercial activities will be replaced with revenues originating from taxes specifically introduced or amended for that very purpose. The clear references in Law 8/2009 indicate that the amount of the taxes has been set with a view to contributing a certain predetermined part to the financing of RTVE. This link between the financing and the proceeds from the new taxes suggests that the taxes are hypothecated to the aid granted to RTVE, in the sense that the revenue from the taxes is necessarily allocated for the financing of this aid to RTVE and has a direct impact on the amount of the aid.\n(20)\nThe Court has repeatedly held that where the method of financing forms an integral part of the measure, the Commission must necessarily also take into account that method in its consideration of the aid measure (8). Where a charge specifically intended to finance aid proves to be contrary to other provisions of the Treaty, the Commission cannot declare the aid scheme of which the charge forms part to be compatible with the internal market. Consequently, the method by which an aid measure is financed may render the entire aid scheme incompatible with the internal market.\n(21)\nThe Commission therefore expressed doubts as to whether the new taxes formed an integral part of the measure. If so, their compatibility with the Treaty would have to be assessed by the Commission and would impact on the general legality of the aid scheme. This concern seemed justified, in particular in view of the fact that the Commission has doubts as to the compatibility of the new taxes imposed on undertakings providing fixed telephony, mobile telephony and Internet access services with Directive 2002/20/EC (9).\n(22)\nAnother issue about which the Commission had doubts was whether, following the reform of the financing system, Spain had established sufficient safeguards against a possible overcompensation. The abolition of advertising may impact on the costs of the broadcaster by making its programming less dependent on commercial considerations.\n(23)\nMoreover, the system of financing RTVE should provide for an adequate procedure for assessing beforehand whether the new services of the public broadcaster RTVE comply with the material conditions of the Amsterdam Protocol (10). The information submitted by Spain did not allow the Commission to examine whether Spain already had such a mechanism.\nIII. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(24)\nComments from 15 interested parties were received. They came from commercial broadcasters (TF1 and ACT - Association of Commercial TV in Europe), pay TV operators (DTS, Canal Sat\u00e9lite), telephone and Internet service providers (redtel, ONO, AETIC) cable operators (Cable Europe) and advertisers. Some of them asked for their identity to be kept confidential.\n(25)\nMost complainants were arguing against the lawfulness of the new taxes, which in their view would distort competition between public and private TV, between free TV and pay TV, or between operators who only offer telecommunications services and other operators of telecommunications services who also offer audiovisual services. They also raised doubts concerning the compatibility of the tax on electronic communications with Article 12 of the Authorisation Directive 2002/20/EC (11).\n(26)\nBroadcasters and Internet service providers also questioned the compatibility of the definition of the public service remit of RTVE. It would not be precise enough and would be too generous regarding the acquisition of broadcasting rights for special sport events or films produced by major international producers. TF1 in particular argued that no ex ante test was in place for the introduction of significant new public services of RTVE.\n(27)\nRegarding the possible hypothecation of the tax to the aid, TV broadcasters and Internet service providers argued that the revenue from the new taxes would have a direct impact on the aid. They were in particular concerned that raising tax revenues could lead to a compensation of RTVE beyond the level of the net costs of providing the public service.\n(28)\nRegarding the proportionality of aid, various TV and Internet operators saw a risk of overcompensation. The budgetary planning for RTVE of EUR 1 200 million, as determined by Law 8/2009, would not be based on a proper calculation of the net costs of the public service. The current annual budgeted costs of RTVE would be an arbitrary basis. It would not differentiate between commercial and public service activities. In particular, the planning would not take into account the cost savings that would be achieved by abolishing advertising, since the programmes would no longer need to attract large audiences. Production, as in the case of arts programmes, for example, would thus be less costly. Others, however, expressed the fear that RTVE would spend more on high-value programmes.\n(29)\nA possible overcompensation was also seen in the fact that RTVE\u2019s losses of advertising income would be fully covered by State funds. This compensation would be calculated on the basis of previous years while the economic crisis would have led to lower commercial revenues in 2010 and thus to lower overall revenues for RTVE. It would not be fair if, with the abolition of dual financing, RTVE were to obtain a guaranteed income, independent from the varying commercial income.\n(30)\nBroadcasters also questioned the existence of an effective system of budgetary control to ensure that only the net costs of the public service provision are covered by public funds.\nIV. COMMENTS FROM SPAIN\n(31)\nAs a preliminary point, Spain contests the fact that in the current procedure the Commission assesses the issues of proportionality and of the ex ante test for significant new services. They would be part of the existing scheme of financing RTVE as approved by the Commission in 2005 and 2007. The opening decision in the present procedure, however, is based on the definition of the reform of the financing system as new aid in the sense of Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (12). The \u2018new aid\u2019 element would be limited to the financing reform by introducing new taxes and would not alter or affect the other elements of the existing scheme. These other elements would therefore still be existing aid and should not be assessed by the Commission in this procedure.\n(32)\nRegarding the issue of hypothecation of the tax, Spain argues that the new taxes would not form an integral part of the aid and would not have a direct impact on the amount of the aid. Spain emphasised that according to Article 2(2) of Law 8/2009, read in conjunction with Article 33 of Law 17/2006, the only factor for determining the amount of public financing of RTVE is the net costs of the public service, no matter how much revenue is generated by the taxes. The planned costs of the public service do not take into account the revenue generated by the taxes, but are based on the costs of this service in the previous years.\n(33)\nSpain confirmed that the contribution from the taxes on TV broadcasters and telecommunication operators is not just channelled to RTVE. Instead, the revenues from the taxes will be transferred to the general State budget (State Treasury), from where all the payments to RTVE will be made. Spain has established maximum amounts for the contribution from taxes. Any surplus revenue will be attributed to the general state budget and may thus be earmarked for other purposes. Furthermore, below these maximum amounts, Spain may decide what percentage of the tax it actually intends to allocate for RTVE. The budgetary planning for 2010 provides for example for less than half the maximum possible contribution to be allocated to RTVE.\n(34)\nSpain maintains that higher- or lower-than expected revenues from the new taxes would not lead to changes in the planned amounts for the public service compensation. Should the revenue from the new tax sources not be sufficient to cover the financing gap left by abolishing advertising, the missing funds would be contributed from the general state budget, in accordance with Article 33 of Law 17/2006. Any surplus revenue will be attributed to the general budget. Finally, any excess in income beyond the EUR 1 200 million ceiling set by Article 3(2) of Law 8/2009 would be transferred to the Public Treasury. Therefore the planned overall funding of RTVE\u2019s public service mission would not depend on the amount of the specific tax revenues but would in any case be assured by the general state budget.\n(35)\nRegarding the proportionality of the aid, Spain argued that the principle of net cost coverage would be assured. According to Article 33(1) of Law 17/2006, as amended by Law 8/2009, net costs are the only parameter determining the effective amount of the aid. According to Articles 2(2) and 8(2) of Law 8/2009, the general state budget compensates any insufficient tax revenues and any excess revenue is allocated to it, except for the possible overcompensation of 10 % of the annual budgeted costs provided for in Article 8(1) and (2).\n(36)\nWith regard to the appropriateness of an annual budgetary planning of EUR 1 200 million for the coming years, Spain does not consider that it has acted arbitrarily. This amount is based on the annual budgeted costs incurred by RTVE in fulfilling its public service obligation. These obligations were not altered in a way that would lead us to expect lower expenses; on the contrary, complainants overlook the fact that RTVE has to invest EUR 104 million in additional productions to fill the air time freed by the disappearance of commercials.\n(37)\nIt would furthermore not be right to assume that, following the disappearance of advertising, RTVE would no longer need to attract large audiences and could therefore reduce production costs and offer less attractive transmissions. According to its public service mission, RTVE would be obliged to maintain a distinguished and substantial presence and audience reach among the TV channels, in order to fulfil its mission effectively.\n(38)\nFinally, under Article 37 of Law 17/2006, effective ex post budgetary control would be assured by internal auditing, a review by the Government Audit Office and external auditing by a private auditing firm (KPMG). Furthermore, pursuant to Articles 39 and 40 of this law, the Parliament and the audiovisual authority supervise the fulfilment of the public service mission by RTVE and its annual accounts. Finally, RTVE is subject to review by the Court of Auditors.\n(39)\nRegarding the existence of ex ante control for the introduction of significant new services, Spain advised that Article 41(3) of General Law 7/2010 of 31 March 2010 on Audiovisual Communications (13) established such a procedure. The independent Spanish supervisory and regulatory authority for public broadcasting, the Consejo Estatal de Medios Audiovisuales, has been entrusted with this ex ante control, consisting of a public consultation of stakeholders, publication of the results of the consultation, and the evaluation of the overall impact of each new service on the market. Spain furthermore indicated that it intends to sign a programme contract (contrato-programa) with RTVE by 1 November 2010 which will define what constitutes a significant new service. According to the draft of this programme contract, a significant new service will be taken to mean a new service offer clearly differentiated from the services already in place, which can be classified as the reference product market, with the ability to have an effect on the market, in particular in terms of the impact on demand.\nV. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID MEASURE\n(40)\nAccording to Article 107(1) of the TFEU, concerning aid granted by Member States, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\n(41)\nThe financial resources included in the Spanish system of financing RTVE flow to and are subsequently released from the general state budget. They constitute a direct transfer of State resources to a specific undertaking which are not available to its competitors. RTVE thereby enjoys a selective advantage.\n(42)\nNevertheless, in its comments submitted before the opening of the procedure Spain claimed that the reform did not affect trade between Member States, since RTVE did not operate outside Spain. But when State financial aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Union trade, this trade must be regarded as affected by that aid, even if the beneficiary undertaking itself is not involved in exporting (14). Similarly, where a Member State grants aid to undertakings operating in the service and distribution industries, it is not necessary for the recipient undertakings themselves to carry on their business outside the Member State for the aid to have an effect on trade in the Union (15).\n(43)\nIn the light of this principle, the Commission Communications on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting of 2001 and 2009 explain that \u2018State financing of public service broadcasters can also be generally considered to affect trade between Member States \u2026. This is clearly the position as regards the acquisition and sale of programme rights, which often takes place at an international level \u2026. Moreover, the ownership structure of commercial broadcasters may extend to more than one Member State\u2019 (16).\n(44)\nRTVE is itself active on the international markets (sale of programmes and acquisition of broadcasting rights). Through the European Broadcasting Union it exchanges television programmes and participates in the Eurovision system (17). Furthermore, in the acquisition and sale of broadcasting rights, RTVE is in direct competition with commercial broadcasters that are active in the national and international broadcasting market and that have an international ownership structure. Therefore even without the commercial activities RTVE carried out until August 2009, competition on the Spanish market risks being distorted by the aid granted to RVTE in a way which may affect trade between Member States. The Commission has already stated this in decisions E 8/2005 and NN 8/07.\n(45)\nThe Commission also considered the possibility that the financing measures could be regarded merely as compensation for public service obligations which would not confer a financial advantage on RTVE, within the meaning of the Altmark decision of the Court of Justice (18). RTVE is an undertaking entrusted with the provision of a service of general economic interest (SGEI), public service broadcasting. State measures compensating the net additional costs of a SGEI do not qualify as State aid if all the conditions set out by that judgement are fulfilled. First, the recipient undertaking must effectively discharge public service obligations and those obligations must be clearly defined; second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner; third, the compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant revenue and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations; fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement procedure allowing for the selection of the offer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of the compensation must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with the necessary means to be able to meet the public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations.\n(46)\nWhere public subsidies granted to undertakings expressly required to discharge public service obligations in order to compensate for the costs incurred in discharging those obligations do not comply with all these conditions, such subsidies fall within Article 107(1) of the TFEU and must be regarded as State aid within the meaning of that provision (19).\n(47)\nThe public entity RTVE was entrusted with the provision of the public service broadcasting as defined by Laws 17/2006 and 8/2009. However, it was appointed as the public service broadcaster by law and not by means of a public tender. Moreover, the Spanish authorities did not determine the level of compensation needed on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and equipped, would have incurred in discharging those obligations. The level is determined annually on the basis of the current net costs, without using the benchmark of a well-run undertaking. The parameters on the basis of which the compensation would be calculated were not established in advance in an objective and transparent manner. Therefore, not all the conditions set out by the Court are met and the measures under assessment qualify as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU (20).\n(48)\nSpain has not notified the new aid measure. It contends that the measure would not constitute a substantive alteration of the existing aid scheme as amended pursuant to the Commission decision in case E 8/2005 within the meaning of Article 108(3) of the TFEU and would therefore not constitute new aid requiring notification.\n(49)\nAccording to Article 1(c) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, \u2018new aid\u2019 is taken to mean all aid which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid. According to Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation (EC) No 794/2004, neither modifications of existing aid of a purely formal or administrative nature which cannot affect the evaluation of the compatibility of the aid measure with the internal market nor an increase in the original budget of an existing aid scheme by up to 20 % shall be considered an alteration to existing aid.\n(50)\nIn order for an alteration to an existing scheme to qualify as \u2018new aid\u2019, the alteration to the system must be substantial, i.e. the basic features of the system must be altered as would be the case if, for example, there had been changes in the aim pursued, the basis on which the levy was made, the persons and bodies affected or, generally, the source of its finances (21). In the present case the sources of RTVE\u2019s finances have been substantially changed. The new sources of financing also mean that the financing linked to advertising (which was not aid) is now given by the State (and is aid). This sharp increase in the amount of aid and the switch from a dual funding to single funding system give a clear indication that there is new aid.\n(51)\nFurthermore, if Article 1(c) of the procedural regulation states that alterations to existing aid are to be regarded as new aid, this provision means that \u2018it is not altered existing aid that must be regarded as new aid, but only the alteration as such that is liable to be classified as new aid\u2019, as the Court of First Instance emphasised in the Gibraltar case (22). It continued that \u2018it is only where the alteration affects the actual substance of the original scheme that the latter is transformed into a new aid scheme. There can be no question of such a substantive alteration where the new element is clearly severable from the initial scheme\u2019 (23).\n(52)\nIt follows from this case law and legislation that adjustments which do not affect the evaluation of the compatibility of the aid measure cannot affect the substance of the aid either, and therefore do not change the classification of the measure as existing aid. On the other hand, if an alteration affects the substance of a scheme, but not to an extent which requires a new assessment of its other elements, this alteration can be assessed on a stand-alone basis, without reference to the other elements of the scheme. In this case it is only the alteration which is subject to the obligation for notification and review by the Commission.\n(53)\nThe three fiscal measures which are introduced or amended by Articles 4, 5 and 6 of Law 8/2009 are severable from the existing scheme for funding RTVE. Although the new sources of financing may affect the legality of the scheme as such, they do not affect the evaluation of the other elements of the aid to RTVE or the effect the aid may have on the market.\n(54)\nThe new elements of the aid, namely the new taxes, may create new aid in that they do not fall within any of the situations contemplated by Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. They are in fact set up by laws approved after the entry into force of the Treaty, they are not an individual aid measure granted in the context of an authorised aid scheme, they were not authorised on the basis of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, they were not granted 10 years before the Commission\u2019s first action and, finally, they apply to sectors that were open to competition when they came into force. Second, even if we admit, as a hypothesis, Spain\u2019s argument that they must be regarded as a modification to the existing funding scheme, it appears that the way the additional funding of RTVE is financed constitutes a substantial alteration of the existing funding scheme with regard to the source of its finances. The existing scheme did not contain the specific levies to be collected for the benefit of RTVE, the legality of which may impact on the compatibility of the entire aid.\n(55)\nAs was set out in the opening decision, the changes in the financing of RTVE raised doubts on the part of the Commission as to their effect on the overall compatibility of the financing of RTVE with the Treaty and required an additional assessment by the Commission. Therefore these changes needed to be formally notified to the Commission. As set out above, the classification as new aid applies only to the alteration as such. Therefore, the procedure has been opened by the Commission only in order to assess the quality of these changes and their consequences for the compatibility of the aid.\n(56)\nThe Commission assesses aid to public broadcasters in the form of compensation for the fulfilment of a public service mandate under Article 106(2) of the TFEU, on the basis of the criteria set out in the 2001 Communication on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (the 2001 Broadcasting Communication) (24). In accordance with the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid and with paragraph 100 of the 2009 Broadcasting Communication, the latter applies in the case of non-notified new aid only if the new aid was granted after its publication on 27 October 2009. In the present case, however, the new aid system was introduced with the entry into force of the law on 1 September 2009. Hence, the new financing scheme will be assessed on the basis of the 2001 Communication and of the Commission\u2019s subsequent case practice (25).\n(57)\nIn order for a measure to benefit from the derogation in Article 106(2), it is necessary that all the following conditions be fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe service in question must be a service of general economic interest and clearly defined as such by the Member State (definition);\n(b)\nthe undertaking in question must be explicitly entrusted by the Member State with the provision of that service (entrustment);\n(c)\nthe application of the competition rules of the Treaty (in this case, the ban on State aid) must prevent the performance of the particular tasks entrusted to the undertaking and the exemption from these rules must not affect the development of trade to an extent that would be contrary to the interests of the Union (proportionality) (26).\n(58)\nIn the specific case of public broadcasting, the above approach has to be adapted in the light of the interpretative provisions of the Amsterdam Protocol, which refers to the \u2018public service remit as conferred, defined and organised by each Member State\u2019 (definition and entrustment) and provides for a derogation from the Treaty rules in the case of the funding of public service broadcasting \u2018in so far as such funding is granted to broadcasting organisations for the fulfilment of the public service remit \u2026 and \u2026 does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent which would be contrary to the common interest, while the realisation of the remit of that public service shall be taken into account\u2019 (proportionality) (27).\n(59)\nThe definition of the public service remit by Law 17/2006 has been deemed compatible with Article 106(2) of the TFEU by the Commission in its decision on the financing of RVTE in cases E 8/2005 and NN 8/07. Article 9 of Law 8/2009 affects this definition in so far as it adds further obligations and restrictions on the content of the broadcasting of RTVE. The criterion of an appropriate definition of the public service mandate is therefore still fulfilled. Furthermore, withdrawing RTVE from the TV advertising market may contribute to strengthening the public service mission by making programming less dependent on commercial considerations and the fluctuations of the commercial revenues.\n(60)\nFor this reason, the Commission did not express doubts in the opening decision with regard to these aspects of the financing of RTVE.\n(61)\nA central feature of the changes in the financing of RTVE is the almost complete discontinuation of its commercial activities, the change from a \u2018dual funding\u2019 system, combining support by public funds and revenues from commercial activities, to \u2018single funding\u2019, where broadcasting is financed exclusively, or almost exclusively, through public funds, in line with the distinction drawn in paragraph 45 of the 2001 Broadcasting Communication. Member States are free to choose whether and how to combine different sources of financing. However, the part of RTVE\u2019s income which hitherto originated from commercial activities will not simply be replaced by funding from Spain\u2019s general state budget, in line with Article 33 of Law 17/2006. This replacement will also be accompanied by the introduction or amendment of certain taxes for the very purpose of generating the necessary revenues.\n(62)\nThe link established between the financing and the revenue from new taxes suggests that the revenue from the taxes appears to be allocated for the financing of the aid to RTVE and to have a direct impact on the amount of the aid. Where a charge specifically intended to finance aid proves to be contrary to other provisions of the Treaty, the Commission cannot declare the aid scheme of which the charge forms part to be compatible with the internal market. Consequently, the method by which an aid measure is financed may render the entire aid scheme incompatible with the internal market. Therefore, as set out in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 above, it has to be assessed whether the new financing system is in fact hypothecating the aid to the taxes and whether the Commission should therefore include the effects of the new taxes in the State aid analysis.\n(63)\nHowever, for a tax to be regarded forming an integral part of an aid measure, it must be hypothecated for the financing of the aid, in the sense that the revenue from the tax is necessarily allocated for the financing of the aid and has a direct impact on the amount of the aid (28).\n(64)\nThese conditions are not fulfilled in the case at hand. As confirmed by Spain, the amount of aid for RTVE is set with regard only to the financing needs of RTVE and the estimated net costs of providing the public broadcasting service. The financing received by RTVE is, in fact and in law, independent from the revenue generated by the taxes, since such financing will depend only on the net costs of the public service obligation. On the one hand, the revenue generated by the taxes which will be allocated to the financing of RTVE cannot exceed the net costs of the public service obligation (any excess going beyond the net cost of public service will be paid back to the general state budget). On the other hand, when the net costs of the public service obligation exceed the revenue generated by the taxes in question, the gap will be filled by contributions from the general state budget. Higher- or lower-than expected revenues from the new taxes will not lead to changes in the projected amounts. Should the revenue from the new tax sources be insufficient to cover the financing gap left by abolishing advertising, the missing funds would be contributed from the general state budget, in accordance with Article 33 of Law 17/2006. Any surplus revenue will be attributed to the general state budget. Therefore the planned overall funding of RTVE\u2019s public service mission will not depend on the amount of the specific tax revenues but will in any case be assured by the general State budget.\n(65)\nThe fact that the link between the taxes and the purpose for which they are introduced is mentioned in the explanatory memorandum and in the law itself does not alter this conclusion. The wording in the law (\u2018for the purpose of contributing to the financing of RTVE\u2019) does not define the quality of the link between the taxes and the aid.\n(66)\nAccordingly, the Commission concludes that the three tax measures described in paragraph 14 are not an integral part of the aid. Their legality has no bearing on the compatibility of the aid to RTVE. Nor are the observations made by interested parties on their legality of relevance for the State aid assessment. Therefore the infringement proceeding currently open in relation to the tax on electronic communications for an alleged breach of Article 12 of the Authorisation Directive 2002/20/EC does not affect this decision.\n(67)\nAs concerns the proportionality of the compensation so that it covers no more than the net costs of discharging RTVE\u2019s public service obligations, the new law provides that any revenue of RTVE in excess of the net costs of the public service plus an additional 10 % reserve would flow back into the general state budget. A 10 % surplus may be kept in a reserve fund, in order to cover a possible undercompensation in previous years or exceptional costs, for up to 4 years. This mechanism to avoid undue overcompensation is in line with the Commission\u2019s case practice (29).\n(68)\nTo ensure that the aid is proportionate, Member States must also install an appropriate mechanism to ensure a regular and effective control of the use of public funding for the public service remit (30) and a guarantee that the annual State financing is limited to the net cost of the public service obligation (31). Spain retains in place its system of external control introduced by Law 17/2006, as described above and as approved by the Commission in decision E 8/2005, which allows the net costs of public service broadcasting to be determined.\n(69)\nHowever, given that the abolition of advertising may impact on the costs of the broadcaster by making its programming less dependent on commercial considerations, in order to rule out the possibility of overcompensation the Commission, in the opening decision, invited Spain and other interested parties to comment on the financing mechanism.\n(70)\nInterested parties expressed concerns that an overcompensation of RTVE would be likely. The budgetary planning for RTVE of EUR 1 200 million per year would not be based on a proper calculation of the net costs of the public service. It would not differentiate between commercial and public service activities and would not consider cost savings through abolishing advertising because programmes no longer need to attract a large audience and may be produced more cheaply. Furthermore, the full compensation for the loss of advertising income would be calculated on the basis of previous years while the economic crisis would have led to lower commercial revenues in 2010 and consequently to lower overall revenues for RTVE. It would not be fair if, with the abolition of dual financing, RTVE were to obtain a guaranteed income, independent from the varying commercial income. They also expressed a concern regarding budgetary control.\n(71)\nHowever, Spain demonstrated that the budgetary planning remains in line with RTVE\u2019s annual budgeted costs in previous years and that there is no reason to assume that any considerable cost savings could be made now or in the near future merely through the abolition of advertising. RTVE will continue to be required to attract a large audience, and the abolition of commercials will create a need for additional productions which will have to be financed. Compared to the figures of previous years (EUR 1 177 million in 2007, EUR 1 222 million in 2008 and EUR 1 146 million in 2009) and taking into account the additional cost of the productions (EUR 104 million) needed to replace the advertising air time the remaining commercial income (estimated as only EUR 25 million), a ceiling of EUR 1 200 million for the budgetary cost planning seems a cautious and reasonable amount for the annual budgeted costs of the public service compensation. Furthermore, the principle of compensating the effective net costs of a public broadcaster necessarily entails protecting it from the variations in the revenues in the advertising market.\n(72)\nRegarding budgetary control, Spain pointed to the existing control mechanisms already established by Law 17/2006, as described in paragraph 38 above. To assure that the State aid does not exceed the net costs of the public service mission, an effective budgetary ex post control is assured, according to Article 37 of Law 17/2006, by internal auditing, a public review by the Government Audit Office and external auditing by a private auditing firm. Furthermore, pursuant to Articles 39 and 40 of this Law, the Parliament and the audiovisual authority supervise the fulfilment of the public service mission by RTVE and its annual accounts. Finally, RTVE is subject to review by the Court of Auditors. The comments received from interested parties do not give any reason to suppose that this system is not being properly applied.\n(73)\nThe Commission considers that there is no indication that the estimated annual compensation for RTVE\u2019s public service obligation will exceed what can reasonably be expected to be the costs of this service or that the compensation would eventually go beyond the net costs of the public service.\n(74)\nMoreover, in the opening decision the Commission asked Spain whether it had an adequate procedural framework for assessing ex ante whether the new audiovisual services of the public broadcaster RTVE comply with the material conditions of the Amsterdam Protocol (the so called ex ante control) (32). The information submitted by Spain so far did not allow the Commission to examine whether Spain already has such a mechanism. The Commission agrees with Spain\u2019s contention that in principle this element of the financing of RTVE was the subject of the decisions of 2005 and 2007, which concerned the entire system of financing RTVE. The Commission furthermore agrees that the system has not been affected by the introduction of the new levies which gave rise to the present proceeding.\n(75)\nNevertheless, according to the information submitted by Spain, Article 41(3) of Law 7/2010 (33) established such a procedure and entrusted the independent Spanish supervisory and regulatory authority for public broadcasting, the Consejo Estatal de Medios Audiovisuales, with the execution of this control, consisting of a public consultation of stakeholders, publication of the results of the consultation, and the evaluation of the overall impact of each new service on the market. However, this law does not contain a definition of what constitutes a significant new service. Member States should establish the relevant criteria (34). But Spain indicated that it intends to sign a programme contract (contrato-programa) with RTVE by 1 November 2010 at the latest which will contain such a definition. According to the draft of this programme contract, a significant new service will be taken to mean a new service offer clearly differentiated from the services already in place, which can be classified as the relevant product market, with the ability to have an effect on the market, in particular in terms of the impact on demand.\n(76)\nSpain has therefore fulfilled its obligation to introduce ex ante control, and the Commission takes note that by November 2010 it also intends to introduce a binding definition of what constitutes a significant new service. The Commission also notes that this mechanism had not been established before 2010.\nVI. CONCLUSION\n(77)\nThe Commission finds that Spain has unlawfully implemented the reform of the financing of the public broadcaster RVTE in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. However, the Commission concludes that the taxes collected are not hypothecated for the financing of the aid for RTVE and do not have an impact on the compatibility of the aid with the Treaty. Furthermore, Spain has in place safeguards to avoid an overcompensation of RTVE. Finally, the Commission notes that Spain has introduced a procedure for an ex ante control for the introduction of significant new services within the public service remit. Therefore the aid to the public service broadcaster RTVE remains compatible with the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financing of the public service broadcaster Corporaci\u00f3n de Radio y Televisi\u00f3n Espa\u00f1ola (RVTE), modified by Spain by Law 8/2009 on the financing of RTVE, is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2010.", "references": ["98", "29", "33", "85", "30", "65", "95", "26", "8", "52", "73", "1", "9", "84", "42", "39", "13", "77", "19", "0", "93", "4", "41", "70", "3", "71", "24", "44", "72", "94", "No Label", "2", "15", "31", "34", "40", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "15", "31", "34", "40", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/57/EU\nof 26 August 2010\namending Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC to renew the inclusion of imazalil as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe inclusion of imazalil in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC expires on 31 December 2011. A notification was submitted in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 of 27 June 2007 on laying down the procedure of the renewal of the inclusion of a first group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and establishing the list of those substances (2) for the renewal of the inclusion of imazalil as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within the time period provided for in that Article.\n(2)\nThat notification was found to be admissible by Commission Decision 2008/656/EC of 28 July 2008 on the admissibility of the notifications concerning the renewal of the inclusion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances azimsulfuron, azoxystrobin, fluroxypyr, imazalil, kresoxim-methyl, prohexadion-calcium and spiroxamin, and establishing the list of the notifiers concerned (3).\n(3)\nWithin the time period provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007, the notifier submitted the data required in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 together with an explanation as regards the relevance of each new study submitted.\n(4)\nThe rapporteur Member State prepared an assessment report in consultation with the co-rapporteur Member State and submitted it to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and the Commission on 9 June 2009. In addition to the assessment of the substance, that report includes a list of the studies the rapporteur Member State relied on for its assessment.\n(5)\nThe Authority communicated the assessment report to the notifier and to all the Member States and forwarded the comments received to the Commission. The Authority also makes available the assessment report available for the public.\n(6)\nAt the request of the Commission, the assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority, the Authority presented its conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of imazalil (4) to the Commission on 4 March 2010. The assessment report and the conclusion from the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 9 July 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for imazalil.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing imazalil may be expected to continue to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to renew the inclusion of imazalil in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, in order to ensure that plant protection products containing this active substance may continue to be authorised where they comply with that Directive.\n(8)\nBased on the review report which supports a lower level of purity compared to the level of inclusion of imazalil in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account that no toxicologically or ecotoxicologically significant impurities are present, the purity level should be modified.\n(9)\nIt is necessary to include specific provisions requiring Member States, when authorising plant protection products containing imazalil, to pay particular attention to certain points or to ensure that appropriate risk mitigation measures are taken. In particular, the Member States should ensure that: the test materials used in the toxicity dossiers will be compared and verified against the specification of the technical material as commercially manufactured; the acute dietary exposure situation will pose no risk to the consumers, when reviewing maximum residue levels.\n(10)\nFrom the new data submitted, it appears that imazalil and its degradation products in soil and surface water systems may cause risks for soil micro-organisms and aquatic organisms; negligible groundwater exposure needs to be confirmed; further investigation is needed on the nature of residues in processed commodities. Without prejudice to the conclusion that the inclusion of imazalil is to be renewed, it is therefore appropriate to obtain further information on those specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that the inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore it is appropriate to require that the notifier submit further information as regards the route of degradation of imazalil in soil and surface water systems, environmental data to ensure that groundwater exposure is negligible and a hydrolysis study to investigate the nature of residues in processed commodities.\n(11)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is renewed in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the renewal.\n(12)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of renewing the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I thereof, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after renewal to review authorisations of plant protection products containing imazalil to make sure that the requirements laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13, and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I to that Directive, continue to be satisfied. As appropriate, Member States should renew, where appropriate with modifications, or refuse to renew authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31 January 2012 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 February 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing imazalil as an active substance by 31 January 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to imazalil are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing imazalil as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances, all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 July 2011 at the latest, Member States shall, where necessary, re-evaluate the products, to take into account developments occurred in the scientific and technical knowledge and in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning imazalil. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product still satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC. Following that determination Member States shall, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 July 2015.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, for each authorised plant protection product containing imazalil as one of several active substances, all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 July 2011 at the latest, and at least one of which was included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC between 1 January 2009 and 31 July 2011, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning imazalil. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 July 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 August 2011.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 August 2010.", "references": ["70", "52", "15", "12", "67", "3", "94", "68", "45", "27", "71", "87", "47", "37", "53", "97", "16", "55", "91", "72", "78", "43", "69", "29", "85", "42", "46", "6", "8", "84", "No Label", "2", "25", "41", "60", "61", "65"], "gold": ["2", "25", "41", "60", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 July 2010\non the Community-wide quantity of allowances to be issued under the EU Emission Trading Scheme for 2013\n(notified under document C(2010) 4658)\n(2010/384/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 9 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2003/87/EC, the Commission is to base the absolute Community-wide quantity of allowances for 2013 on the total quantities of allowances issued or to be issued by the Member States in accordance with the Commission decisions on their national allocation plans for the period from 2008 to 2012.\n(2)\nThe Community Independent Transaction Log provides the relevant information on the quantities of allowances issued or to be issued in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2003/87/EC. Supplementary information with respect to the quantities of allowances to be auctioned in the period from 2008 to 2012 is provided by the National Allocation Plan tables referred to in Article 44 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 of 21 December 2004 for a standardised and secured system of registries pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).\n(3)\nAllowances issued or to be issued to installations in the EU Emission Trading Scheme including new entrants and allowances according to the National Allocation Plan tables and allowances to be issued for auctioning, as indicated in the National Allocation Plan table should be considered to represent allowances in the sense of Article 9 of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n(4)\nThese allowances represent allowances in the sense of Article 9 of Directive 2003/87/EC, as they represent the quantity of allowances for initial issuance, as indicated in the relevant National Allocation Plan table of Member States for the period from 2008 to 2012 and in accordance with Article 45 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004.\n(5)\nFor the purpose of this Decision, allowances reserved for new entrants that have not been allocated to a new entrant before 30 April 2010, should only be considered to represent allowances in the sense of Article 9 of Directive 2003/87/EC, if they will be allocated to new entrants or alternatively sold or auctioned before the end of the period from 2008 to 2012, as the corresponding amount of allowances will only be issued at the time of allocation.\n(6)\nWhile additional information, in particular changes to National Allocation Plans including as a result of legal proceedings, may become available, it will remain possible for this information to be reflected in future adjustments to the Community-wide quantity of allowances for 2013.\n(7)\nFor these reasons, the Commission has taken into account the following quantities of allowances to determine the Community-wide quantity of allowances to be issued for 2013:\n-\nallowances that have been or will be allocated to installations that are in the EU Emission Trading Scheme as from 2008,\n-\nallowances that have been or will be auctioned or sold in the EU Emission Trading Scheme in the period from 2008 to 2012 and that are indicated in the relevant National Allocation Plan tables of Member States for that purpose,\n-\nallowances that have been allocated to new entrants from the national reserve of Member States for new entrants from 1 January 2008 to 30 April 2010,\n-\nallowances that have not been allocated to new entrants from the national reserve of Member States for new entrants, in the event that the Member State concerned has determined, by means of national legislation or, where there is no such national legislation yet, by appropriate statements in its National Allocation Plan that allowances from the reserve for new entrants that will not have been distributed to new entrants by the end of the period from 2008 to 2012 will be auctioned or sold.\n(8)\nAllowances set aside in accordance with Commission Decision 2006/780/EC of 13 November 2006 on avoiding double counting of greenhouse gas emission reductions under the Community emissions trading scheme for project activities under the Kyoto Protocol pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) or other reasons, as indicated in the National Allocation Plan table decisions of some Member States, should only be added to the overall Community-wide quantity of allowances for 2013 and subsequent years if they are issued and allocated or if they are issued and auctioned or sold until 31 December 2012.\n(9)\nSince Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC requires Member States to allocate at least 90 % of the allowances free of charge, allowances reserved for new entrants should only be taken into account for the determination of the Community-wide quantity of allowances for 2013 to the extent, that the overall quantity of those allowances plus the quantity of allowances to be auctioned or sold does not exceed 10 % of the total quantity of allowances indicated in the National Allocation Plan table of a Member State.\n(10)\nThe quantity of allowances to be allocated to aircraft operators pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC is not included in the quantities laid down in this Decision as, pursuant to Article 3c of this Directive, a separate decision is required.\n(11)\nThe calculation of the absolute Community-wide quantity of allowances for 2013 is based on the information available to the Commission up until 30 April 2010.\n(12)\nThe average annual total quantity of allowances issued by Member States in accordance with the Commission Decisions on their national allocation plans for the period from 2008 to 2012, which is taken into account for the calculation of the Community-wide quantity of allowances pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 2003/87/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), amounts to 2 032 998 912 allowances.\n(13)\nThe total quantity of allowances to be issued from 2013 onwards is to annually decrease by a linear factor of 1,74 %, amounting to 35 374 181 allowances,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor 2013, the absolute Community-wide quantity of allowances referred to in Article 9 of Directive 2003/87/EC amounts to 1 926 876 368.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 July 2010.", "references": ["76", "16", "17", "93", "39", "79", "54", "72", "22", "50", "70", "99", "74", "23", "67", "63", "14", "86", "88", "85", "75", "82", "41", "49", "4", "13", "20", "71", "32", "55", "No Label", "58", "60"], "gold": ["58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 April 2012\non the second set of common safety targets as regards the rail system\n(notified under document C(2012) 2084)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/226/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community\u2019s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive) (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 7(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission issued a mandate to the European Railway Agency (\u2018the Agency\u2019) in accordance with Directive 2004/49/EC to draw up draft common safety targets (\u2018CSTs\u2019) and the related draft common safety methods for the period from 2011 to 2015. The Agency submitted its recommendation on the second set of draft CSTs to the Commission. This Decision is based on the recommendation by the Agency.\n(2)\nAccording to the methodology established by Commission Decision 2009/460/EC of 5 June 2009 on the adoption of a common safety method for assessment of achievement of safety targets, as referred to in Article 6 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), and in order to establish the first and second set of CSTs in accordance with Directive 2004/49/EC, it is necessary to quantitatively identify the current safety performance of railway systems in Member States by means of national reference values (\u2018NRVs\u2019). Decision 2009/460/EC defines NRV as a reference measure indicating, for the Member State concerned, the maximum tolerable level for a railway risk category. However, if the NRV is higher than the corresponding CST calculated on the basis of the methodology, the maximum tolerable level of risk for a Member State is the corresponding CST derived from the NRVs, in accordance with the methodology set out in Section 2.2 of the Annex to Decision 2009/460/EC.\n(3)\nThe values for the first set of CSTs, calculated on the basis of data from 2004 to 2007, were set out in Commission Decision 2010/409/EU of 19 July 2010 on Common Safety Targets as referred to in Article 7 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).\n(4)\nDirective 2004/49/EC provides for a second set of CSTs, which are to be based on the experience gained from the first set of common safety targets and their implementation. It should reflect any priority areas where safety needs to be further improved. The values for the second set of CSTs have been calculated on the basis of the data from 2004 to 2009, which have been supplied to Eurostat by Member States in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 91/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on rail transport statistics (4). They have been calculated using the methodology set out in points 2.1.1 and 2.3.1 of the Annex to Decision 2009/460/EC.\n(5)\nSince the first set of CSTs was published in July 2010, there has not been enough time to gain sufficient experience to change the risk categories. The risk categories remain therefore the same as for the first set of CSTs. However, based on the number of accidents and fatalities in rail traffic, the two main risk categories are unauthorised persons on railway premises (60 % of fatalities) and level crossing users (29 % of fatalities).\n(6)\nThe values for the second set of CSTs cover the Union rail system as a whole. There are no data available for calculating CSTs for the different parts of the rail system as laid down in point (e) of Article 3 of Directive 2004/49/EC. That provision defines CSTs as the safety levels that must at least be reached by different parts of the rail system (such as the conventional rail system, the high speed rail system, long railway tunnels or lines solely used for freight transport) and by the system as a whole, expressed in risk acceptance criteria. The development of CSTs for those parts of the rail system is at the moment not feasible due to the lack of harmonised and reliable data on safety performance of parts of rail systems which are in operation in the Member States. However, it is appropriate to adopt the second set of CSTs.\n(7)\nDecision 2010/409/EU should therefore be replaced by this Decision.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 27(1) of Directive 2004/49/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and definitions\nThis Decision establishes the second set of common safety targets for the rail system in accordance with Directive 2004/49/EC and Decision 2009/460/EC.\nFor the purposes of this Decision, the definitions of Directive 2004/49/EC, Regulation (EC) No 91/2003 and Decision 2009/460/EC apply.\nArticle 2\nNational reference values\nThe national reference values for the Member States and for the different risk categories used to calculate the common safety targets are set out in Part 1 of the Annex.\nArticle 3\nCommon safety targets\nThe values, which cover the rail system as a whole, of the second set of common safety targets for the different risk categories are set out in Part 2 of the Annex.\nArticle 4\nRepeal\nDecision 2010/409/EU is repealed.\nArticle 5\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2012.", "references": ["14", "81", "88", "58", "1", "82", "42", "87", "65", "33", "4", "63", "13", "9", "90", "85", "31", "97", "32", "19", "26", "71", "45", "67", "5", "74", "50", "16", "6", "7", "No Label", "53", "54", "55"], "gold": ["53", "54", "55"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 451/2012\nof 29 May 2012\non the withdrawal from the market of certain feed additives belonging to the functional group of silage additives\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 10(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 10(1) to (4) thereof sets out specific provisions for the evaluation of products used in the Union as silage additives at the date that Regulation became applicable.\n(2)\nThe feed additives set out in the Annex were entered in the Community Register of Feed Additives as existing products, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nAs regards the use of those feed additives as silage additives, no application for authorisation in accordance with Article 10(7) in conjunction with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 was submitted before the deadline provided for in Article 10(7). As regards the additive hexamethylene tetramine for certain species of animals, no application for authorisation was submitted before that deadline.\n(4)\nFor transparency purpose, the additives for which no application for authorisation was submitted within the period specified in Article 10(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 were listed in a separated part of the Community Register of Feed Additives.\n(5)\nThose feed additives should therefore be withdrawn from the market as far as their use as silage additives is concerned, except for species for which applications for authorisation have been submitted. This measure does not interfere with the use of some of the abovementioned additives according to other categories or functional groups for which they may be allowed.\n(6)\nSince the withdrawal of the silage additives concerned are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period within which existing stocks of those additives as well as premixtures and silage which have been produced with those additives may be used up.\n(7)\nThe withdrawal of the feed additives listed in the Annex should be considered as without prejudice to a possible future granting of an authorisation concerning them or to the adoption of a measure on their status on the grounds and under the procedures set out in Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nWithdrawal\nThe feed additives specified in Part A of the Annex, belonging to the functional group \u2018silage additives\u2019 within the category \u2018technological additives\u2019, shall be withdrawn from the market.\nThe feed additive specified in Part B of the Annex, belonging to the functional group \u2018silage additives\u2019 within the category \u2018technological additives\u2019, shall be withdrawn from the market in respect of the species of animals mentioned in that Part of the Annex.\nArticle 2\nTransitional measures\n1. Existing stocks of the feed additives set out in Part A of the Annex may continue to be placed on the market and used as feed additives belonging to the functional group \u2018silage additives\u2019 within the category \u2018technological additives\u2019 until 19 June 2013.\n2. Premixtures produced with the additives referred to in paragraph 1 may continue to be placed on the market and used until 19 June 2013.\n3. Silage produced with the additives referred to in paragraph 1 or with the premixtures referred to in paragraph 2 may continue to be placed on the market and used until 19 June 2014.\n4. As regards the feed additive set out in Part B of the Annex, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall apply in respect of the species of animals mentioned in that Part of the Annex.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 May 2012.", "references": ["49", "86", "12", "21", "0", "34", "95", "16", "59", "51", "47", "28", "92", "37", "94", "73", "45", "22", "35", "27", "55", "46", "76", "62", "7", "2", "4", "23", "44", "19", "No Label", "20", "25", "66", "74"], "gold": ["20", "25", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 July 2010\namending Decision 2009/767/EC as regards the establishment, maintenance and publication of trusted lists of certification service providers supervised/accredited by Member States\n(notified under document C(2010) 5063)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/425/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (1), and in particular Article 8(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe cross-border use of advanced electronic signatures supported by a qualified certificate and created with or without a secure signature creation device has been facilitated through Commission Decision 2009/767/EC of 16 October 2009 setting out measures facilitating the use of procedures by electronic means through the \u2018points of single contact\u2019 under Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market (2) which obliges Member States to make available information necessary for the validation of these electronic signatures. In particular, Member States must make available in their so-called \u2018trusted lists\u2019 information on certification service providers issuing qualified certificates to the public in accordance with Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures (3) and supervised/accredited by them and on the services they offer.\n(2)\nA number of practical tests with the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) have been organised to allow Member States to check the conformity of their trusted lists with the specifications set out in the Annex to Decision 2009/767/EC. These tests have demonstrated that some technical changes are needed in the technical specifications in the Annex to Decision 2009/767/EC, to ensure functioning and interoperable trusted lists.\n(3)\nThese tests also confirmed the need for Member States to make publicly available not only the human readable versions of their trusted lists as required by Decision 2009/767/EC but also the machine processable forms of these. The manual use of the human readable form of the trusted lists can be relatively complex and time consuming when Member States have a high number of certification service providers. The publication of the machine processable forms of trusted lists will facilitate their use by allowing for their automated processing and thereby enhance their use in public electronic services.\n(4)\nIn order to facilitate access to the national trusted lists, Member States should notify to the Commission information related to the location and protection of their trusted lists. This information should be made available by the Commission to other Member States in a secure manner.\n(5)\nThe results of these practical tests on Member States\u2019 trusted lists should be taken into account in order to allow for an automated use of the lists and to facilitate access to them.\n(6)\nDecision 2009/767/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nFor the purpose of allowing Member States to carry out the required technical changes to their current trusted lists it is appropriate that this Decision applies as of 1 December 2010.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Services Directive Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Decision 2009/767/EC\nDecision 2009/767/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Member States shall establish and publish both a human readable and a machine processable form of the trusted list in accordance with the specifications set out in the Annex.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph 2a is inserted:\n\u20182a. Member States shall sign electronically the machine processable form of their trusted list and they shall, as a minimum, publish the human readable form of the trusted list through a secure channel in order to ensure its authenticity and integrity.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Member States shall notify to the Commission the following information:\n(a)\nthe body or bodies responsible for the establishment, maintenance and publication of the human readable and machine processable forms of the trusted list;\n(b)\nthe locations where the human readable and machine processable forms of the trusted list are published;\n(c)\nthe public key certificate used to implement the secure channel through which the human readable form of the trusted list is published or, if the human readable list is electronically signed, the public key certificate used to sign it;\n(d)\nthe public key certificate used to electronically sign the machine processable form of the trusted list;\n(e)\nany changes to the information in points (a) to (d).\u2019;\n(d)\nthe following paragraph 4 is added:\n\u20184. The Commission shall make available to all Member States, through a secure channel to an authenticated web server, the information, referred to in paragraph 3, as notified by Member States, both in a human readable form and in a signed machine processable form.\u2019;\n2.\nthe Annex is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nApplication\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 December 2010.\nArticle 3\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2010.", "references": ["75", "80", "16", "93", "79", "34", "55", "91", "53", "14", "84", "11", "73", "58", "64", "90", "54", "18", "23", "61", "35", "37", "63", "45", "38", "39", "8", "65", "59", "43", "No Label", "2", "25", "40", "42"], "gold": ["2", "25", "40", "42"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 668/2011\nof 12 July 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 174/2005 imposing restrictions on the supply of assistance related to military activities to C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/412/CFSP of 12 July 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP (2) renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 174/2005 (3) imposed restrictions on the supply of assistance related to military activities to C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire.\n(3)\nDecision 2011/412/CFSP amended Decision 2010/656/CFSP in the light of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1980 (2011). It also provided for a specific derogation in relation to the ban on the supply to C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire of internal repression equipment.\n(4)\nThose measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 174/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately upon its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 174/2005 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 4(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. By way of derogation from Article 2, the prohibitions referred to therein shall not apply to:\n(a)\nthe provision of technical assistance, financing and financial assistance related to arms and related materiel, where such assistance or services are intended solely for the support of and use by the United Nations Operation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (UNOCI) and the French forces who support that Operation;\n(b)\nthe provision of technical assistance related to non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, including such equipment intended for European Union, United Nations, African Union and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) crisis management operations, where such activities have also been approved in advance by the Sanctions Committee;\n(c)\nthe provision of financing or financial assistance related to non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, including such equipment intended for European Union, United Nations, African Union and ECOWAS crisis management operations;\n(d)\nthe provision of technical assistance related to arms and related materiel intended solely for the support of or use in the Ivorian process of Security Sector Reform, pursuant to a formal request by the Ivorian Government, as approved in advance by the Sanctions Committee;\n(e)\nthe provision of financing or financial assistance related to arms and related materiel intended solely for support of or use in the Ivorian process of Security Sector Reform, pursuant to a formal request by the Ivorian Government;\n(f)\nsales or supplies temporarily transferred or exported to C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire to the forces of a State which is taking action, in accordance with international law, solely and directly to facilitate the evacuation of its nationals and those for whom it has consular responsibility in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, where such activities have also been notified in advance to the Sanctions Committee;\n(g)\nthe provision of technical assistance, financing or financial assistance related to non-lethal military equipment intended solely to enable the Ivorian security forces to use only appropriate and proportionate force while maintaining public order.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 4a is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4a\n1. By way of derogation from Article 3, the competent authority, as listed in Annex II, of the Member State where the exporter or service provider is established, may authorise, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, the sale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal equipment listed in Annex I, or the provision of technical assistance, financing or financial assistance related to such non-lethal equipment, after having determined that the non-lethal equipment concerned is intended solely to enable the Ivorian security forces to use only appropriate and proportionate force while maintaining public order.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 3, the competent authority, as listed in Annex II, of the Member State where the exporter or service provider is established, may authorise, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex I, which is intended solely for the support of the Ivorian process of Security Sector Reform, as well as the provision of financing, financial assistance or technical assistance related to such equipment.\n3. The relevant Member State shall inform other Member States and the European Commission of any authorisation made under this Article within two weeks of the authorisation.\n4. No authorisations shall be granted for activities that have already taken place.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["64", "82", "0", "90", "92", "44", "68", "69", "20", "81", "30", "70", "37", "28", "23", "54", "88", "17", "22", "29", "51", "72", "49", "87", "60", "31", "36", "62", "97", "91", "No Label", "3", "6", "94"], "gold": ["3", "6", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1189/2010\nof 15 December 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 December 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 December 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 December 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["17", "23", "64", "53", "36", "65", "78", "93", "87", "35", "97", "43", "21", "48", "60", "0", "12", "52", "5", "24", "80", "76", "3", "45", "77", "15", "57", "37", "31", "38", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 910/2011\nof 9 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 September 2011.", "references": ["57", "56", "59", "0", "37", "3", "71", "51", "75", "24", "50", "38", "45", "46", "13", "95", "44", "82", "63", "78", "11", "14", "94", "40", "93", "83", "29", "64", "39", "67", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1086/2010\nof 25 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 November 2010.", "references": ["58", "59", "40", "51", "74", "83", "4", "69", "85", "45", "25", "65", "23", "50", "43", "77", "94", "52", "14", "49", "16", "29", "63", "31", "22", "84", "70", "0", "82", "75", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1236/2011\nof 29 November 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 as regards investments through financial engineering instruments\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1), and in particular the third paragraph of Article 44 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe economic crisis continues to affect the Union as never before and requires new efforts to achieve sustainable growth and jobs.\n(2)\nInvestments in enterprises contribute to boost growth, to strengthen competitiveness and to create jobs.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to reinforce the measures to support enterprises. Such measures should allow for a wider access of enterprises to investments through financial engineering instruments covered by Article 43(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 of 8 December 2006 setting out rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund (2), and not only in enterprises which are at the stages of establishment, in the early stages, or on expansion.\n(4)\nSuch investments should be made only in activities which the managers of the financial engineering instruments judge potentially economically viable, hence, should be limited to situations where the lack of liquidity provided by the financial sector threatens the continuation of business activities of economically viable enterprises.\n(5)\nSuch measures should apply only to repayable investments made or guarantees for repayable investments provided after the entry into force of this Regulation, as part of an investment strategy foreseen by the funding agreements concerned. For funding agreements concluded before the entry into force of this regulation, transitional provisions should be foreseen requiring respective adjustments of the investment strategy.\n(6)\nThe Coordination Committee of the Funds has not delivered an opinion, as a result of the voting, on the measures provided for in this Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 45 of Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 45\nAdditional provisions applicable to financial engineering instruments for enterprises\nFinancial engineering instruments for enterprises referred to in Article 43(1)(a) shall invest only in activities which the managers of the financial engineering instruments judge potentially economically viable.\nThey shall not invest in firms in difficulty within the meaning of the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (3) as of 10 October 2004.\nArticle 2\nFunding agreements concluded before 1 December 2011 may be amended in order to include new repayable investments or new guarantees for repayable investments in accordance with Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006. Such amendments shall include the adjusted investment strategy referred to in Article 43(3)(a) of that Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2011.", "references": ["54", "3", "32", "12", "33", "78", "40", "47", "69", "52", "43", "27", "72", "55", "18", "28", "80", "14", "48", "49", "62", "75", "99", "6", "81", "20", "71", "58", "84", "8", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "31"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "31"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 20 October 2011\namending Implementing Decision 2011/303/EU as regards the date of application\n(notified under document C(2011) 7373)\n(Only the Dutch text is authentic)\n(2011/700/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(m), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Implementing Decision 2011/303/EU (2) the use of new methods for grading pig carcasses in the Netherlands was authorised. That Decision is to apply from 3 October 2011. On 9 September 2011 the competent authorities of the Netherlands informed the Commission about practical problems in several slaughterhouses with the timely implementation of the new methods and asked to postpone the application until 2 January 2012.\n(2)\nImplementing Decision 2011/303/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 4 of Implementing Decision 2011/303/EU, \u20183 October 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u20182 January 2012\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["88", "29", "27", "90", "76", "68", "9", "46", "44", "39", "22", "72", "18", "50", "87", "38", "1", "59", "92", "82", "81", "86", "42", "70", "58", "12", "21", "48", "20", "35", "No Label", "8", "19", "69", "73", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "19", "69", "73", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 389/2011\nof 19 April 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of an enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase, subtilisin and alpha-amylase as feed additive for laying hens (holder of authorisation Danisco Animal Nutrition)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of an enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei ATCC PTA 5588, subtilisin produced by Bacillus subtilis ATCC 2107 and alpha-amylase produced by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ATCC 3978. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of an enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase subtilisin and alpha-amylase as a feed additive for laying hens, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of the preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase, subtilisin and alpha-amylase has been authorised for 10 years for chickens for fattening, for ducks, and for turkeys for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1087/2009 (2).\n(5)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 7 December 2010 (3) that the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase, subtilisin and alpha-amylase, under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that that additive has the potential to improve egg parameter production in laying hens. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the European Union Reference Laboratory for Feed Additives set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase, subtilisin and alpha-amylase shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018digestibility enhancers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2011.", "references": ["89", "16", "35", "48", "71", "23", "77", "30", "24", "20", "51", "94", "36", "87", "31", "2", "14", "68", "11", "60", "82", "97", "95", "93", "47", "27", "50", "43", "49", "1", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 11 June 2010\namending the Annex to Decision 2004/432/EC on the approval of residue monitoring plans submitted by third countries in accordance with Council Directive 96/23/EC\n(notified under document C(2010) 3548)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/327/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 29(1) and Article 29(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 96/23/EC lays down measures to monitor the substances and groups of residues listed in Annex I thereto. Pursuant to Directive 96/23/EC, the inclusion and retention on the lists of third countries from which Member States are authorised to import animals and primary products of animal origin covered by that Directive, are subject to the submission by the third countries concerned of a plan setting out the guarantees which they offer as regards the monitoring of the groups of residues and substances listed in that Annex. Those plans are to be updated at the request of the Commission, particularly when certain checks render it necessary.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2004/432/EC of 29 April 2004 on the approval of residue monitoring plans submitted by third countries in accordance with Council Directive 96/23/EC (2) approves the residue monitoring plans submitted by certain third countries listed in the Annex to that Decision for the animals and primary animal products indicated in that list.\n(3)\nBotswana has submitted a residue monitoring plan to the Commission for equidae. The evaluation of that plan and the additional information obtained by the Commission provide sufficient guarantees concerning that plan in respect of equidae. Therefore, equidae should be included in the entry for Botswana in the list in the Annex to Decision 2004/432/EC.\n(4)\nGambia has failed to submit a residue monitoring plan for aquaculture for the year 2009. Therefore, the relevant entry for Gambia should be deleted from the list in the Annex to Decision 2004/432/EC. Gambia has been informed accordingly.\n(5)\nA Commission inspection to India has revealed serious deficiencies concerning the implementation of the residue monitoring plan for milk and honey. Therefore, the entries for India concerning milk and honey should be deleted from the list in the Annex to Decision 2004/432/EC. India has been informed accordingly.\n(6)\nMoldova has submitted a residue monitoring plan to the Commission for honey. The evaluation of that plan and the additional information obtained by the Commission provide sufficient guarantees concerning that plan in respect of honey. Honey should therefore be included in the entry for Moldova in the list in the Annex to Decision 2004/432/EC.\n(7)\nThe former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has submitted a residue monitoring plan to the Commission for swine, poultry, aquaculture, eggs, wild game and honey. The evaluation of that plan and the additional information obtained by the Commission provide sufficient guarantees concerning that plan in respect of those products. They should therefore be included in the entries for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the list in the Annex to Decision 2004/432/EC.\n(8)\nSingapore has submitted a residue monitoring plan to the Commission for aquaculture. The evaluation of that plan and the additional information obtained by the Commission provide sufficient guarantees concerning that plan in respect of aquaculture products. Therefore, the entry for aquaculture for Singapore in the list in the Annex to Decision 2004/432/EC should be amended so as to delete the restriction of imports to fishery products made of raw aquaculture materials from EU Member States or EU approved third countries.\n(9)\nUganda has submitted a residue monitoring plan to the Commission for honey and for aquaculture. The evaluation of that plan and the additional information obtained by the Commission provide sufficient guarantees concerning that plan to justify the inclusion of honey and aquaculture in the relevant entries for Uganda in the list in the Annex to Decision 2004/432/EC.\n(10)\nIn order to avoid any disruption to trade, a transitional period should be laid down to cover consignments of aquaculture products from Gambia and honey from India which were dispatched for the Union before the date of application of this Decision. There is no need to provide such transitional arrangement for milk products from India as currently there is no import of such products from India into the European Union due to the fact that there are no listed milk product establishments in India from which import of milk products may be allowed.\n(11)\nDecision 2004/432/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2004/432/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nFor a transitional period until 1 August 2010, Member States shall accept consignments of aquaculture products from Gambia and consignments of honey from India provided that the importer of such products can demonstrate that they had been certified and dispatched respectively from Gambia and India and were on route to the Union before 15 June 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall apply from 15 June 2010.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 June 2010.", "references": ["54", "7", "71", "77", "81", "95", "59", "76", "98", "3", "26", "73", "86", "75", "99", "56", "41", "51", "92", "48", "21", "63", "94", "37", "5", "8", "89", "20", "29", "10", "No Label", "4", "38", "60", "61", "66", "69"], "gold": ["4", "38", "60", "61", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 119/2012\nof 10 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["58", "64", "5", "60", "74", "72", "99", "44", "41", "57", "62", "73", "3", "48", "32", "27", "9", "80", "69", "39", "96", "90", "36", "6", "84", "43", "86", "78", "31", "81", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 91/2012\nof 2 February 2012\nconcerning the authorisation of Bacillus subtilis (CBS 117162) as a feed additive for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening (holder of authorisation Krka d.d.)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the Bacillus subtilis (CBS 117162). The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of Bacillus subtilis (CBS 117162) as a feed additive for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 7 September 2011 (2) that, under the proposed conditions of use, Bacillus subtilis (CBS 117162) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use can improve the weight gain in the target species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of Bacillus subtilis (CBS 117162) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018gut flora stabilisers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 February 2012.", "references": ["5", "77", "40", "56", "27", "6", "12", "30", "18", "54", "15", "3", "58", "92", "38", "76", "13", "85", "44", "8", "37", "64", "84", "79", "91", "98", "68", "62", "11", "72", "No Label", "25", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 694/2011\nof 19 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["46", "36", "57", "55", "20", "75", "97", "71", "58", "59", "45", "16", "51", "67", "53", "81", "70", "38", "21", "14", "33", "99", "44", "60", "62", "95", "15", "24", "65", "79", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 205/2011\nof 28 February 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic anti-dumping Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9(4) and Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Previous investigation and existing anti-dumping measures\n(1)\nIn August 2001, by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India. The measures consisted of an ad valorem anti-dumping duty ranging between 0 % and 62,6 % imposed on imports from individually named exporting producers, with a residual duty rate of 53,3 % on imports from all other companies.\n(2)\nIn March 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 (3), the Council amended the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001. The anti-dumping duty imposed ranged between 0 % and 18 %, taking into account the findings of the expiry review of the definitive countervailing duties which are detailed in Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 (4).\n(3)\nIn August 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1288/2006 (5), the Council, following an interim review concerning the subsidisation of an Indian PET film producer, amended the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on that producer by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001.\n(4)\nIn September 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1424/2006 (6), the Council, following a new exporting producer request, amended Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 in respect of an Indian PET film producer. The amended Regulation established a dumping margin of 15,5 % and an anti-dumping duty rate of 3,5 % for the company concerned taking into account the company\u2019s export subsidy margin as ascertained in the anti-subsidy investigation which led to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006. Since the company did not have an individual countervailing duty, the rate established for all other companies was applied.\n(5)\nIn November 2007, by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 (7), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. By the same Regulation a partial interim review, pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, limited to one Indian exporting producer was terminated.\n(6)\nIn January 2009, by Regulation (EC) No 15/2009 (8), the Council, following a partial interim review initiated by the Commission on its own initiative concerning the subsidisation of five Indian PET film producers, amended the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 and the definitive countervailing duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1292/2007 also maintained the extension of the measures to Brazil and Israel with certain companies being exempted. The last amendment to Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 in this regard was made by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 806/2010 of 13 September 2010 amending Regulations (EC) No 1292/2007 and (EC) No 367/2006 as regards the granting of an exemption from the measures imposed under those Regulations to one Israeli exporter of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India and terminating the registration of imports from that exporter (9).\n(8)\nIt should be noted that Vacmet India Limited is subject to a residual anti-dumping duty of 17,3 % on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007.\n2. Existing countervailing measures\n(9)\nIt should also be noted that Vacmet India Limited is subject to a countervailing duty of 19,1 % on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.\n3. Request for a partial interim review\n(10)\nOn 7 August 2009, the Commission received a request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. The request, limited in scope to the examination of dumping, was lodged by Vacmet India Limited, an exporting producer from India (\u2018the applicant\u2019). In its request, the applicant claimed that the circumstances on the basis of which measures were imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. The applicant provided prima facie evidence that the continued imposition of the measure at its current level is no longer necessary to offset dumping.\n4. Initiation of a review\n(11)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced on 14 January 2010, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (10) (\u2018notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of a partial interim review, in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of the applicant.\n(12)\nThe partial interim review investigation was also to assess the need, depending on the review findings, to amend the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the product concerned from exporting producers in the country concerned not individually mentioned in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007, i.e. the anti-dumping duty rate as applying to \u2018all other companies\u2019 in India.\n(13)\nOn 14 January 2010, the Commission also announced, by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union (11), the initiation of a partial interim review of the countervailing measures limited in scope to the examination of subsidisation as far as the applicant is concerned.\n5. Investigation\n(14)\nThe investigation of the level of dumping covered the period from 1 January to 31 December 2009 (\u2018review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019).\n(15)\nThe Commission officially informed the applicant, and the authorities of the exporting country and the Union industry, of the initiation of the partial interim review investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard.\n(16)\nIn order to obtain the information necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant and received a reply within the deadline set for that purpose.\n(17)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the determination of dumping. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of the applicant.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(18)\nThe product concerned by this review is the same as that defined in the Regulation imposing the measures in force (Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007), namely polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, originating in India, currently falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90.\n2. Like product\n(19)\nAs in previous investigations, this investigation has shown that PET film produced in India and exported to the EU and the PET film produced and sold domestically on the Indian market, as well as the PET film produced and sold in the EU by the Union producers have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same basic uses.\n(20)\nThese products are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n(a) Normal Value\n(21)\nIn order to establish normal value, it was first determined whether the total volume of domestic sales of the like product was representative in accordance of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, namely whether these sales represented 5 % of the sales volume of the product concerned exported to the EU. The Commission established that the like product was sold domestically by the applicant in overall representative volumes. This representativity test was then carried out on a type-by-type basis. It was found that two types were not sold domestically at all.\n(22)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of the like product could be regarded as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing, for the like product sold on the Indian market, the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers during the RIP. It was found that more than 90 % of the domestic sales were profitable.\n(23)\nFor the product types sold domestically and which passed the representativity test mentioned in recital 21 above, it was established that for one product type, all domestic transactions were not profitable and thus were not made in the ordinary course of trade in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(24)\nFor the product types which were sold in sufficient quantities and sold in the ordinary course of trade in India, normal value was established on the basis of prices paid or payable by unrelated customers pursuant to Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation. For the other types, namely the type mentioned in recital 23 above and the types not sold domestically, normal value was constructed on the basis of the costs of manufacturing incurred by the applicant for the exported model in question plus a reasonable amount for sales, general and administrative (SG&A) costs and for profit in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(25)\nGiven the high level of profitable domestic sales made in the ordinary course of trade, the SG&A costs and the profit were based on all domestic sales of the like product on the domestic market.\n(b) Export price\n(26)\nIn all cases where PET film was directly exported to independent customers in the EU, the export prices were established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of prices actually paid or payable.\n(27)\nFor the export sales to the EU made through a related company, the export price was established on the basis of prices at which the imported products were first resold to an independent buyer in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.\n(28)\nFor this purpose, adjustments were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale to the first independent customer in the Union market. A reasonable margin for SG&A costs and profit was also deducted for these sales. The percentages used to calculate the profit and the SG&A costs were in line with those reported in the Profit and Loss account of the related company.\n(c) Comparison\n(29)\nThe comparison between the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price was made on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and the export price, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which were demonstrated to affect prices and price comparability. For this purpose, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, commissions, financial costs and packing costs paid by the applicant where applicable and justified.\n(d) Dumping margin\n(30)\nAs provided for pursuant to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value by type was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned. This comparison did not show the existence of dumping.\nD. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES\n(31)\nIn accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, it was also examined whether the changed circumstances alleged by the applicant could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.\n(32)\nThe investigation showed that the indicative dumping margin calculated for the export sales of the applicant to third countries in the RIP was also negative. In terms of volume, these sales were several times higher than the export sales to the EU.\n(33)\nIt was also found that the applicant made significant investments as from 2007 to improve its production process and to produce the basic raw material which is necessary for the production of the product concerned. These changes have resulted in, in particular, a reduction of costs and have thus explained the direct impact on the Company dumping margin. This change in circumstances can be considered to be of a lasting nature.\n(34)\nIt was therefore considered that the circumstances that led to the initiation of this interim review are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future in a manner that would affect the findings of the present interim review. Hence, it was concluded that the changed circumstances are of a lasting nature and that the application of the anti-dumping measure at its current level is no longer justified.\nE. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(35)\nIn the light of the results of this review investigation, it is considered appropriate to amend the anti-dumping duty applicable to imports of the product concerned from the applicant to 0 %.\n(36)\nPursuant to Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation and Article 24(1), second subparagraph, of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (12), no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with one and the same situation arising from dumping or from export subsidisation. As mentioned in recital 9 above, the applicant is subject to a countervailing duty. Since the anti-dumping duty established for the applicant is 0 % with regard to the product concerned, this situation does not arise in the present case.\n(37)\nInterested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose to amend the duty rate applicable to the applicant and were given an opportunity to comment.\n(38)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered and, where appropriate, the definitive findings have been modified accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe table in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 is hereby amended by inserting the following:\n\u2018Vacmet India Limited, Anant Plaza, IInd Floor, 4/117-2A, Civil Lines, Church Road, Agra-282002, Uttar Pradesh, India\n0,0\nA992\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["61", "28", "45", "29", "21", "31", "15", "4", "78", "18", "72", "87", "77", "11", "92", "33", "0", "32", "52", "7", "36", "14", "24", "9", "38", "47", "98", "27", "71", "44", "No Label", "22", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 873/2010\nof 4 October 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 871/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 October 2010.", "references": ["17", "51", "57", "44", "56", "52", "79", "0", "95", "65", "20", "25", "87", "94", "91", "69", "30", "74", "61", "33", "23", "60", "49", "1", "67", "46", "59", "47", "75", "81", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 21 May 2010\non the establishment of a Register for Biocidal Products\n(notified under document C(2010) 3180)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/296/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular Article 18(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to facilitate compliance by the Member States with the requirement to submit the information concerning authorisation and registration of biocidal products set out in Article 18(1) of Directive 98/8/EC, it is appropriate to establish a standardised information system at European Union level, in the form of a Register for Biocidal Products, hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Register\u2019.\n(2)\nTo ensure consistency of the data, the Register should be used by all the Member States to enter the information required under Article 18(1) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(3)\nAs the standardised information system is still under development, it is appropriate to provide for the deferred applicability of this Decision.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nA Register for Biocidal Products is established.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall enter the information required under Article 18(1) of Directive 98/8/EC into the Register for Biocidal Products.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 July 2010.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2010.", "references": ["61", "92", "30", "96", "10", "86", "1", "11", "91", "29", "13", "40", "34", "0", "87", "84", "41", "80", "71", "81", "97", "49", "54", "55", "4", "93", "46", "12", "28", "18", "No Label", "25", "38", "42", "65", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "42", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 24/2012\nof 12 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 January 2012.", "references": ["58", "8", "25", "39", "7", "26", "84", "14", "3", "87", "57", "94", "44", "88", "90", "95", "98", "97", "10", "30", "13", "80", "69", "93", "32", "71", "18", "83", "51", "74", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/330/CFSP\nof 25 June 2012\namending Decision 2011/426/CFSP appointing the European Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 July 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/426/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Peter S\u00d8RENSEN as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The EUSR\u2019s mandate is to expire on 30 June 2015.\n(2)\nDecision 2011/426/CFSP provided the EUSR with the financial reference amount covering the period from 1 September 2011 to 30 June 2012. A new financial reference amount for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 should be established.\n(3)\nThe Foreign Affairs Council, in its Conclusions of 10 October 2011, reaffirmed its commitment to further strengthening its support to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The EUSR\u2019s team should be reinforced accordingly in order to have at his disposal the staff necessary to deliver this support.\n(4)\nThe European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUPM) will be terminated on 30 June 2012. The EUSR should then take over some tasks of the EUPM in the field of the rule of law.\n(5)\nThe EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty.\n(6)\nDecision 2011/426/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2011/426/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 3(e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nensure the implementation of the Union\u2019s efforts in the whole range of activities in the field of the rule of law, law enforcement and the security sector reform, promote overall Union coordination of, and give local political direction to, Union-led efforts in supporting police reform, the fight against organised crime, cross-border crime and corruption and, in this context, provide the HR and the Commission with assessments and advice as necessary;\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 3(f) is deleted;\n(3)\nin Article 5(1) the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 shall be EUR 5 250 000.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 10 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in accordance with the EUSR\u2019s mandate and the security situation in the geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under the direct authority of the EUSR, in particular by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, providing for mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area and the management of security incidents, and providing for a contingency plan and a mission evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of the EUSR\u2019s team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the EEAS;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the progress report and the report on the implementation of the mandate.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["88", "45", "26", "41", "93", "10", "64", "14", "1", "20", "6", "21", "33", "36", "66", "52", "67", "72", "57", "90", "89", "22", "15", "56", "76", "4", "27", "83", "87", "39", "No Label", "0", "3", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["0", "3", "7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/372/CFSP\nof 10 July 2012\namending and extending Decision 2010/330/CSFP on the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 7 March 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/190/CFSP on the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX (1).\n(2)\nOn 14 June 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/330/CFSP (2), which extended the mission until 30 June 2012.\n(3)\nFollowing the recommendations in the Strategic Review, the mission should be extended for a further period of 18 months.\n(4)\nEUJUST LEX-IRAQ will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty.\n(5)\nDecision 2010/330/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/330/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The training activities shall take place in Iraq and in the region as well as in the Union. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall have offices in Brussels, in Baghdad, including an antenna in Basra, and in Erbil (Kurdistan Region).\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 2(5) is deleted;\n(3)\nArticle 6(5) is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. All staff shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the Mission. All staff shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (3).\n(4)\nArticle 10 is hereby amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Civilian Operation Commander shall direct the Head of Mission\u2019s planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation for EUJUST LEX-IRAQ in accordance with Articles 4 and 8.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is deleted;\n(c)\nparagraph 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u20188. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ staff members, trainers and experts shall undergo mandatory security training and, when appropriate, medical checks prior to any deployment or travel to Iraq.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 11 the following paragraph is added:\n\u20182a. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the Mission between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2013 shall be EUR 27 150 000.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 16 the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall apply from 1 July 2010 until 31 December 2013.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["41", "8", "76", "39", "1", "81", "45", "99", "24", "69", "82", "85", "98", "84", "65", "54", "56", "11", "36", "62", "59", "61", "35", "51", "7", "92", "44", "87", "57", "43", "No Label", "0", "4", "9", "95"], "gold": ["0", "4", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 March 2011\namending Decision 2010/221/EU as regards the approval of national measures for preventing the introduction of ostreid herpesvirus 1 \u03bc\u03bdar (OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar) into certain areas of Ireland and the United Kingdom\n(notified under document C(2011) 1825)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/187/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (1), and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2010/221/EU of 15 April 2010 approving national measures for limiting the impact of certain diseases in aquaculture animals and wild aquatic animals in accordance with Article 43 of Council Directive 2006/88/EC (2) allows certain Member States to apply placing on the market and import restrictions on consignments of those animals in order to prevent the introduction of certain diseases into their territory, provided that they have either demonstrated that their territory, or certain demarcated areas of their territory, are free of such diseases or that they have established an eradication programme to obtain such freedom.\n(2)\nSince 2008, increased mortality in Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) has occurred in several areas in Ireland, France and the United Kingdom. The epidemiological investigations undertaken in 2009 suggested that a newly described strain of ostreid herpesvirus-1 (OsHV-1), namely OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar, played a major role in the increased mortality.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 175/2010 of 2 March 2010 implementing Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards measures to control increased mortality in oysters of the species Crassostrea gigas in connection with the detection of Ostreid herpesvirus 1 \u03bc\u03bdar (OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar) (3) was adopted with the aim of preventing the further spread of OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar. It introduced measures to control the spread of that disease and it applies until 30 April 2011.\n(4)\nOn 27 October 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) adopted a scientific opinion on the increased mortality events in Pacific oysters, Crassostrea gigas (4) (the EFSA opinion). In that opinion, the EFSA concludes that OsHV-1, both the reference strain and the new \u03bc variant (\u03bc\u03bdar) of that oyster herpesvirus, have been associated with high levels of mortality in Pacific oysters spat and juveniles and that available evidence suggests that an infection with OsHV-1 is a necessary cause but may not be sufficient by itself as other factors appear to be important. The EFSA opinion further concludes that OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar seems to be the dominant viral strain in the 2008-2010 increased mortality outbreaks although it is not clear if this is a result of increased virulence or other epidemiological factors.\n(5)\nIn 2010, Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom established programmes for the early detection of OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar and applied the relevant movement restrictions provided for in Regulation (EU) No 175/2010. The outcome of the surveillance undertaken by those Member States in the framework of those programmes suggests that parts of the Union are free of OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar.\n(6)\nIreland and the United Kingdom have submitted to the Commission surveillance programmes for approval in accordance with Directive 2006/88/EC (the surveillance programmes). The surveillance programmes aim to demonstrate that the areas where OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar has not been detected are free of that virus and to prevent its introduction into those areas.\n(7)\nUnder the surveillance programmes, Ireland and the United Kingdom would apply basic biosecurity measures against OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar which are equivalent to those laid down in Directive 2006/88/EC and targeted surveillance. In addition, they would apply restrictions on the movement of Pacific oysters into all areas covered by the surveillance programmes.\n(8)\nThe movement restrictions set out in the surveillance programmes would be limited to Pacific oysters intended for farming and relaying areas, and for dispatch centres, purification centres or similar businesses that are not equipped with effluent treatment systems which reduce the risk of transmitting diseases to the natural waters to an acceptable level.\n(9)\nThe conclusions of the EFSA opinion and the epidemiological data from 2010 suggest that the spread of OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar into virus free areas is likely to cause increased mortality and subsequent high losses to the Pacific oyster industry.\n(10)\nConsequently, it is appropriate to apply restrictions on the movement of Pacific oysters into areas covered by the surveillance programmes in order to prevent the introduction of OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar into those areas. For reasons of clarity and simplification of Union legislation, the respective placing on the market requirements are to be included in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 of 12 December 2008 implementing Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards conditions and certification requirements for the placing on the market and the import into the Community of aquaculture animals and products thereof and laying down a list of vector species (5).\n(11)\nThe surveillance programmes should therefore be approved.\n(12)\nAs OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar is an emerging disease, concerning which there are still many uncertainties, the movement restrictions set out in the surveillance programmes approved by this Decision should be reassessed and their appropriateness and necessity should be re-evaluated in due course. Therefore, the placing on the market requirements provided for in this Decision should apply only for a limited period of time. Additionally, Ireland and the United Kingdom should send annual reports to the Commission on the functioning of the movement restrictions and the surveillance undertaken.\n(13)\nAny suspicion of the presence of OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar in areas covered by the surveillance programmes should be investigated and during the investigation certain movement restrictions as provided for in Directive 2006/88/EC should be applied to protect other Member States with approved national measures as regards OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar. In addition, to facilitate the re-assessment of the approved national measures, any subsequent disease confirmation should be notified to the Commission and to the other Member States.\n(14)\nDecision 2010/221/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/221/EU is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nSubject matter and scope\nThis Decision approves the national measures of Member States listed in Annexes I, II and III hereto for limiting the impact and spread of certain diseases in aquaculture animals and wild aquatic animals in accordance with Article 43(2) of Directive 2006/88/EC.\u2019;\n2.\nthe following Article 3a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 3a\nApproval of national surveillance programmes regarding ostreid herpesvirus 1 \u03bc\u03bdar (OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar)\n1. The surveillance programmes regarding ostreid herpes virus 1 \u03bc\u03bdar (OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar) adopted by the Member States listed in the second column of the table in Annex III in respect of the areas listed in the fourth column thereof (surveillance programmes), are approved.\n2. For a period until 30 April 2013, the Member States listed in the table in Annex III may require that the following consignments introduced into an area listed in the fourth column of that Annex comply with the following requirements:\n(a)\nconsignments of Pacific oysters intended for farming and relaying areas must comply with the placing on the market requirements laid down in Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008;\n(b)\nconsignments of Pacific oysters must comply with the placing on the market requirements laid down in Article 8b of Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 where such consignments are intended for dispatch centres, purification centres or similar businesses before human consumption which are not equipped with an effluent treatment system validated by the competent authority that:\n(i)\ninactivates enveloped viruses; or\n(ii)\nreduces the risk of transmitting diseases to the natural waters to an acceptable level.\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nReporting\n1. By 30 April each year at the latest, the Member States listed in Annexes I and II shall submit a report to the Commission on the approved national measures referred to in Articles 2 and 3.\n2. By 31 December each year at the latest, the Member States listed in Annex III shall submit a report to the Commission on the approved national measures referred to in Article 3a.\n3. The reports provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall include at least up-to-date information on:\n(a)\nsignificant risks for the animal health situation of aquaculture animals or wild aquatic animals posed by the diseases, for which the national measures apply, and the necessity and appropriateness of those measures;\n(b)\nnational measures taken to maintain the disease-free status, including any testing that has been carried out; information concerning such testing must be provided using the model form set out in Annex VI to Commission Decision 2009/177/EC (6);\n(c)\nthe evolution of the eradication or surveillance programme, including any testing that has been carried out; information concerning such testing must be provided using the model form set out in Annex VI to Decision 2009/177/EC.\n4.\nthe following Article 5a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 5a\nSuspicion and detection of ostreid herpesvirus 1 \u03bc\u03bdar (OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar) in areas with surveillance programmes\n1. Where a Member State listed in Annex III suspects the presence of OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar, in an area listed in the fourth column of that Annex, that Member State shall take measures at least equivalent to those laid down in Article 28, Article 29(2), (3) and (4) and Article 30 of Directive 2006/88/EC.\n2. Where the epizootic investigation confirms the detection of OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar in areas referred to in paragraph 1, the Member State concerned shall inform the Commission and the other Member States thereof, and of any measures taken to contain that disease.\u2019;\n5.\na new Annex III is added, the text of which is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 May 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 March 2011.", "references": ["7", "71", "3", "9", "77", "52", "51", "41", "68", "34", "73", "12", "79", "17", "72", "64", "15", "24", "43", "23", "62", "69", "20", "57", "8", "56", "46", "14", "84", "2", "No Label", "38", "39", "66", "67"], "gold": ["38", "39", "66", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 3 November 2011\non granting a derogation requested by Italy with regard to the Regions of Emilia Romagna, Lombardia, Piemonte and Veneto pursuant to Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources\n(notified under document C(2011) 7770)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(2011/721/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1) and, in particular, the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIf the amount of manure that a Member State intends to apply per hectare each year is different from those specified in the first sentence of the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC and in point (a) of that subparagraph, that amount is to be fixed so as not to prejudice the achievement of the objectives specified in Article 1 of that Directive and it has to be justified on the basis of objective criteria, such as long growing seasons and crops with high nitrogen uptake.\n(2)\nItaly submitted to the Commission a request for a derogation under the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC with regard to the Regions of Emilia Romagna, Lombardia, Piemonte and Veneto.\n(3)\nThe requested derogation concerns the intention of Italy to allow the application in the Regions of Emilia Romagna, Lombardia, Piemonte and Veneto of up to 250 kg nitrogen per hectare per year from cattle manure and treated pig manure on farms with at least 70 % of crops with high nitrogen demand and long growing season. Approximately 10 313 cattle farms and 1 241 pig farms in the Regions of Emilia Romagna, Lombardia, Piemonte and Veneto corresponding to respectively 15,9 % and 9,7 % of total cattle and total pig farms in the same Regions, 10,7 % of the utilised agricultural land and 29,1 % of the total dairy livestock and 49,3 % of total pig numbers in the same Regions are estimated to be potentially encompassed by the derogation. Besides, also arable farms can apply for the derogation.\n(4)\nThe legislation implementing Directive 91/676/EEC and establishing the action programmes in Emilia Romagna (Decision n. 1273/2011 5.9.2011), Lombardia (Decision n. IX/2208 14.9.2011), Piemonte (Decision 18-2612 19.9.2011) and Veneto (Decision n. 1150 26.7.2011), has been adopted and applies in conjunction with this Decision for the period 2012 to 2015.\n(5)\nThe designated vulnerable zones to which the action programmes apply cover about 63 % of the utilised agricultural area (UAA) of Emilia Romagna, 82 % of the UAA of Lombardia, 38 % of the UAA of Piemonte and 87 % of the UAA of Veneto.\n(6)\nWater quality data submitted show that for groundwater in the Regions of Emilia Romagna, Lombardia, Piemonte and Veneto 89 % of groundwater bodies have mean nitrate concentrations below 50 mg/l nitrate and 63 % have mean nitrate concentrations below 25 mg/l nitrate. For surface waters, more than 98 % of monitoring sites have mean nitrate concentrations below 25 mg/l and no points have nitrate concentrations over 50 mg/l nitrate.\n(7)\nThe Regions Emilia Romagna, Lombardia, Piemonte and Veneto account for more than 70 % of livestock in Italy: in particular, 67,1 % of dairy cattle, 60,6 % of other cattle, 81 % of pigs and 79,4 % of poultry. Livestock numbers show a decreasing trend in the period 1982-2007 (20 % on average for the four Regions).\n(8)\nIn the period 1979-2008, chemical nitrogen consumption declined, as well as utilisation of mineral phosphorus fertilisers; the latter has been reduced by 70 %.\n(9)\nGrassland, maize grain, maize silage and winter cereals occupy about 53 % of the total agricultural area in Emilia Romagna, Lombardia, Piemonte and Veneto.\n(10)\nThe supporting documents presented in the request for the derogation show that the proposed amount of 250 kg nitrogen per hectare per year from cattle manure and treated pig manure is justified on the basis of objective criteria such as high net precipitation, long growing seasons and high yields of crops with high nitrogen uptake.\n(11)\nAfter examining the request, the Commission considers that the proposed amount of 250 kg per hectare from cattle manure and treated pig manure will not prejudice the achievement of the objectives of Directive 91/676/EEC, subject to certain strict conditions being met.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Nitrates Committee set up pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 91/676/EEC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe derogation requested by Italy, by letters of 10 March 2011 and of 28 July 2011, with regard to Regions Emilia Romagna, Lombardia, Piemonte and Veneto for the purpose of allowing a higher amount of livestock manure than that provided for in the first sentence of the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC and in point (a) thereof, is granted, subject to the conditions laid down in this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018farms\u2019 means agricultural holdings with or without livestock rearing;\n(b)\n\u2018parcel\u2019 means an individual field or a group of fields, homogeneous regarding cropping, soil type and fertilisation practices;\n(c)\n\u2018grassland\u2019 means permanent or temporary grassland (generally temporary lies less than 4 years);\n(d)\n\u2018late maturing maize\u2019 means maize class FAO 600-700, planted from mid March to the beginning of April, with a growing cycle of at least 145-150 days;\n(e)\n\u2018maize or sorghum followed by winter herbage\u2019 means medium-late or early maturing maize or sorghum followed by winter herbage, such as Italian ryegrass, barley, triticale or winter rye;\n(f)\n\u2018winter cereal followed by summer herbage\u2019 means winter wheat, winter barley or triticale, followed by summer herbage, such as maize, sorghum, Setaria or Panicum sp.;\n(g)\n\u2018crops with high nitrogen demand and long growing season\u2019 means grassland, late maturing maize, maize or sorghum followed by winter herbage and winter cereal followed by summer herbage;\n(h)\n\u2018cattle manure\u2019 means livestock manure excreted by cattle, including during grazing or in processed form;\n(i)\n\u2018manure treatment\u2019 means the processing of pig manure into two fractions, a solid fraction and a liquid fraction, performed in order to improve land application and enhance nitrogen and phosphorus recovery;\n(j)\n\u2018treated manure\u2019 means the liquid fraction resulting from pig manure treatment, with a minimum nitrogen to phosphate ratio (N/P2O5) of 2,5;\n(k)\n\u2018treated manure with nitrogen removal\u2019 means treated manure with a nitrogen content of less than 30 % compared to nitrogen content of the raw pig manure;\n(l)\n\u2018soils with low Organic Matter content\u2019 means soils with organic carbon content lower than 2 % in the top 30 centimetres of soil;\n(m)\n\u2018non-saline and low salinity soils\u2019 means those soils with electrical conductivity on saturated soil paste extract ECe < 4 mS/cm or electrical conductivity on aqueous extract with 1:2 soil/water ratio EC 1:2 < 1 ms/cm, or areas defined as certainly not affected by risk of salinisation, as indicated on the soil map defined at regional level;\n(n)\n\u2018nitrogen use efficiency\u2019 means the percentage of total nitrogen applied in livestock manure form which is available to crops in the year of application.\nArticle 3\nScope\nThis Decision applies on an individual basis to farms, where 70 % or more of the acreage of the farm is cultivated with crops with high nitrogen demand and long growing season, and subject to the conditions set out in Articles 4 to 7.\nArticle 4\nAnnual application and commitment\n1. Farmers who want to benefit from a derogation under this Decision shall submit an application to the competent authorities annually by 15 February.\n2. Together with the annual application referred to in paragraph 1 they shall undertake in writing to fulfil the conditions provided for in Articles 5, 6 and 7.\nArticle 5\nManure treatment\n1. Farmers benefiting from a derogation for the application of pig treated manure shall notify each year to the competent authorities the following information:\n(a)\nthe type of manure treatment;\n(b)\nthe capacity and main characteristics of the treatment plant, including its efficiency;\n(c)\nthe amount of manure sent to treatment;\n(d)\nthe amount, the composition, including a specification of the nitrogen and phosphorus content, and the destination of the solid fraction;\n(e)\nthe amount, the composition, including a specification of the nitrogen and phosphorus content, and the destination of the treated manure;\n(f)\nthe estimation of gaseous losses during treatment.\n2. The solid fraction resulting from manure treatment shall be stabilised in order to reduce odours and other emissions, improving agronomic and hygienic properties, facilitating handling and enhancing nitrogen and phosphate availability to crops. The resulting product shall not be applied to derogated farms. The competent authorities shall adopt measures to encourage the use of stabilised solid fraction on soils with low organic matter content. Those soils are indicated in maps established at regional level and made available to farmers.\n3. The competent authorities shall establish the methodologies to assess the composition of treated manure, the variations in composition and treatment efficiency for each farm benefiting from individual derogation.\n4. Ammonia and other emissions deriving from manure treatment shall be monitored by the competent authorities in representative locations for each treatment technique. On the basis of the monitoring results, an inventory of emissions shall be established by the competent authorities.\nArticle 6\nApplication of manure and other fertilisers\n1. The amount of cattle manure, including by the animals themselves, and treated manure applied to the land each year on farms benefiting from a derogation shall not exceed the amount of manure containing 250 kg nitrogen per hectare, subject to the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 to 12.\n2. The total nitrogen inputs shall not exceed the foreseeable nutrient demand of the considered crop. It shall take into account the supply from the soil and the increased manure nitrogen availability due to manure treatment. It shall not exceed maximum application standards, as established in the action programmes applicable to the farm.\n3. The total phosphorus inputs shall not exceed the foreseeable nutrient demand of the considered crop and take into account the phosphorus supply from the soil. Phosphorus in chemical fertilisers shall not be applied in derogated farms.\n4. A fertilisation plan describing the crop rotation of the farmland and the planned application of manure and mineral fertilisers shall be prepared for each farm by 15 February at the latest.\nThe fertilisation plan shall include the following:\n(a)\nthe number of livestock, a description of the housing and storage system, including the volume and type of manure storage available;\n(b)\na calculation of manure nitrogen and phosphorus produced in the farm;\n(c)\nthe description of manure treatment and characteristics of treated manure (if relevant);\n(d)\nthe amount, type and characteristics of manure delivered outside the farm or in the farm;\n(e)\nthe crop rotation and acreage of parcels with crops with high nitrogen demand and long growing season and parcels with other crops;\n(f)\nthe expected yields for each cultivated crop, depending on nutrient and water availability, as well as local conditions, such as climate, soil type, etc.;\n(g)\nthe estimated nitrogen and phosphorus crop requirements for each parcel;\n(h)\na calculation of manure nitrogen and phosphorus to be applied over each parcel;\n(i)\na calculation of nitrogen from chemical fertilisers to be applied over each parcel;\n(j)\nthe estimation of the amount of water needed for irrigation and the precise indication of water source; the authorisation for water abstraction or the contract for water use with the relevant \u2018water consortium\u2019 or the map indicating that the farm is located in areas where the shallow groundwater is in contact with the root zone shall be included in the plan.\nPlans shall be revised no later than 7 days following any changes in agricultural practices to ensure consistency between plans and actual agricultural practices.\n5. Fertilisation accounts shall be prepared by each farm on a parcel basis. They shall include applied amounts and time of application of manure and chemical fertilisers.\n6. The authorisation for water abstraction or the contract for water use with the relevant \u2018water consortium\u2019 or the map indicating that the farm is located in areas where the shallow groundwater is in contact with the root zone shall be available at the farm. The amount of authorised or contracted amount of water, where applicable, shall be sufficient to reach crops yields obtained in conditions without water constraints.\n7. Results of nitrogen and phosphorus analysis in soil shall be available for each farm benefiting from a derogation. Sampling and analysis shall be carried out before the 1st June at least once every 4 years for phosphorus and for nitrogen for each homogeneous area of the farm, with regard to crop rotation and soil characteristics. At least one analysis per 5 hectares of farmland shall be required.\n8. Livestock manure applied on derogation farms shall have a nitrogen use efficiency at least of 65 % for slurry and 50 % for solid manure.\n9. Livestock manure and chemical fertilisers applied on derogation farms cannot be spread after 1 November.\n10. At least two thirds of the amount of nitrogen from manure, excluding nitrogen from manure from grazing livestock, shall be applied before 30 June each year. For this purpose, farms benefiting from a derogation shall dispose of adequate storage capacity for livestock manure, which can cover at least periods during which manure application is not allowed.\n11. Liquid manure, including treated manure and slurries, shall be applied through low emissions application techniques. Solid manure shall be incorporated within 24 hours.\n12. In order to protect soils from risk of salinisation, treated manure with nitrogen removal shall be allowed only on non-saline and low-salinity soils. For that purpose, farmers intending to apply treated manure with nitrogen removal shall measure electrical conductivity on parcels to be used for application at least every 4 years and shall include results in the application referred to in Article 4(1). The competent authorities shall establish a protocol to be used by farmers to measure electrical conductivity. The competent authorities shall establish maps showing areas at risk of salinisation.\nArticle 7\nLand management\nFarmers benefiting from a derogation shall ensure that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\n70 % or more of the acreage of the farm shall be cultivated with crops with high nitrogen demand and long growing season;\n(b)\ntemporary grassland shall be ploughed in spring;\n(c)\ntemporary and permanent grassland shall not include more than 50 % of leguminous or other plants fixing atmospheric nitrogen;\n(d)\nlate maturing maize shall be harvested (the whole plant);\n(e)\nwinter herbage, such as Italian ryegrass, barley, triticale or winter rye, shall be seeded within 2 weeks after harvest of maize/sorghum and shall be harvested no earlier than 2 weeks before maize/sorghum sowing;\n(f)\nsummer herbage, such as maize, sorghum, Setaria or Panicum sp. shall be seeded within 2 weeks after harvest of winter cereals and shall be harvested no earlier than 2 weeks before winter cereals sowing;\n(g)\na crop with high nitrogen demand shall be seeded within 2 weeks after ploughing grass and fertilisers shall not be applied in the year of ploughing of permanent grassland.\nArticle 8\nOther measures\n1. The competent authorities shall ensure that derogations granted for the application of treated manure are compatible with the capacity of manure treatment plants.\n2. The competent authorities shall ensure that each granted derogation is compatible with the authorised water use in the farm benefiting from the derogation.\nArticle 9\nMeasures on manure transport\n1. The competent authorities shall ensure that transport of livestock manure to and from farms benefiting from a derogation is recorded through geographic positioning systems or is registered in accompanying documents, specifying the place of origin and destination. The recording through geographic positioning systems is obligatory for transports covering distances longer than 30 km.\n2. The competent authorities shall ensure that a document specifying the amount of transported manure and its nitrogen and phosphorus content is available during transport.\n3. The competent authorities shall ensure that treated manure and solid fractions resulting from manure treatment are analysed with regard to their nitrogen and phosphorus content. The analysis shall be performed by recognised laboratories. The results of the analysis shall be communicated to the competent authorities and to the receiving farmer. A certificate of the analysis shall be available in each transport.\nArticle 10\nMonitoring\n1. The competent authorities shall ensure that maps showing the percentage of farms, percentage of livestock, percentage of agricultural land covered by individual derogations and maps showing local land use for each municipality are drawn up and updated every year. Data on crop rotations and agricultural practices in farms benefiting from derogations shall be collected and updated every year.\n2. A monitoring network for sampling of surface and shallow groundwater shall be established and maintained to assess the impact of the derogation on water quality. The draft monitoring network shall be submitted to the Commission. The amount of initial monitoring sites cannot be reduced and the location of the sites cannot be changed during the period of applicability of this Decision.\n3. A reinforced water monitoring shall be conducted for agricultural catchments located in proximity to most vulnerable water bodies, to be identified by the competent authorities.\n4. Monitoring sites shall be established, in order to provide data on nitrogen and phosphorus concentration in soil water, on mineral nitrogen in soil profile and corresponding nitrogen and phosphorus losses through the root zone into groundwater, as well as on nitrogen and phosphorus losses by surface and subsurface run-off, both under derogation and non-derogation conditions. The monitoring sites shall include main soil types, fertilisation practices and crops. The draft monitoring network shall be submitted to the Commission. The amount of initial monitoring sites cannot be reduced and the location of the sites cannot be changed during the period of applicability of this Decision.\nArticle 11\nVerification\n1. The competent authorities shall ensure that all the applications for derogation are submitted to administrative control. Where the control demonstrates that the conditions provided for in Articles 5, 6 and 7 are not fulfilled, the applicant shall be informed thereof. In this instance, the application shall be considered to be refused.\n2. A programme of field inspections shall be established based on a risk analysis, results of controls of the previous years and results of general random controls of legislation implementing Directive 91/676/EEC. The field inspections shall cover at least 5 % of farms benefiting from a derogation in respect to the conditions set out in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of this Decision.\n3. The competent authorities shall ensure on-the-spot controls of at least 1 % of manure transport operations, based on risk assessments and results of administrative controls referred to in paragraph 1. Controls shall include, at least, assessment of accompanying documents, verification of manure origin and destination and sampling of transported manure.\n4. The competent authorities shall be granted the necessary powers and means to verify compliance with this Decision. Where verification indicates non-compliance with this Decision, the competent authorities shall take the necessary action for redress. In particular, farmers which do not comply with Articles 5, 6 and 7 shall be excluded from derogation the following year.\nArticle 12\nReporting\nThe competent authorities shall submit to the Commission every year by December, and for the year 2015 by September, a report containing the following information:\n(a)\nevaluation of the implementation of the derogation, on the basis of controls at farm level, as well as controls on manure transport, and information on non-compliant farms, on the basis of the results of the administrative and field inspections;\n(b)\ninformation on manure treatment, including further processing and utilisation of the solid fractions, and provide detailed data on characteristics of treatment systems, their efficiency and composition of treated manure, as well as final destination of solid fractions;\n(c)\nmaps showing areas with low organic matter content, as well as the measures taken in order to encourage the use of the stabilised solid fraction on soils with low organic matter content, as referred to in Article 5(2);\n(d)\nthe methodologies to assess the composition of treated manure, the variations in composition and treatment efficiency for each farm benefiting from individual derogation, referred to in Article 5(3);\n(e)\nthe inventory of ammonia and other emissions from manure treatment, referred to in Article 5(4);\n(f)\nthe established protocol to measure electrical conductivity and maps showing areas affected by salinisation, referred to in Article 6(12);\n(g)\nthe methodologies to verify the compatibility of granted derogations with the capacity of manure treatment plants, referred to in Article 8(1);\n(h)\nthe methodologies to verify the compatibility of each granted derogation with the authorised water use in the farm benefiting from the derogation, referred to in Article 8(2);\n(i)\nmaps showing the percentage of farms, percentage of livestock and percentage of agricultural land covered by individual derogations and maps showing local land use, as well as data on crop rotations and agricultural practices in derogation farms, referred to in Article 10(1);\n(j)\nthe results of water monitoring, including information on water quality trends for ground and surface waters, as well as the impact on derogation on water quality as referred to in Article 10(2);\n(k)\nthe list of most vulnerable water bodies, referred to in Article 10(3);\n(l)\nsummary and evaluation of data obtained from the monitoring sites referred to in Article 10(4).\nArticle 13\nApplication\nThis Decision shall apply in conjunction with the regulations implementing the action programme in Emilia Romagna (Decision n. 1273/2011 5.9.2011), Lombardia (Decision n. IX/2208 14.9.2011), Piemonte (Decision 18-2612 19.9.2011) and Veneto (Decision n. 1150 26.7.2011).\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2015.\nArticle 14\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2011.", "references": ["53", "35", "6", "32", "87", "76", "51", "86", "31", "54", "41", "80", "26", "90", "49", "12", "19", "46", "61", "4", "29", "9", "82", "43", "20", "78", "66", "52", "84", "69", "No Label", "8", "58", "60", "63", "64", "65", "83", "92"], "gold": ["8", "58", "60", "63", "64", "65", "83", "92"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUJUST LEX-IRAQ/1/2010\nof 22 June 2010\nextending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ\n(2010/351/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/330/CFSP of 14 June 2010 on the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ (1) and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 9(2) of Council Decision 2010/330/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ (hereinafter referred to as \u2018EUJUST LEX-IRAQ\u2019), including in particular the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nOn 15 December 2009, upon a proposal by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), the PSC adopted Decision 2009/982/CFSP (2) appointing Mr Francisco D\u00cdAZ ALCANTUD as Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ.\n(3)\nOn 16 June 2010, the HR proposed to the PSC that it extend the mandate of Mr Francisco D\u00cdAZ ALCANTUD as Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ until 30 June 2011.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Mr Francisco D\u00cdAZ ALCANTUD as Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ is hereby extended from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2010.", "references": ["77", "28", "21", "10", "59", "43", "60", "97", "79", "70", "29", "34", "22", "17", "89", "20", "72", "86", "6", "31", "67", "48", "7", "42", "35", "40", "38", "57", "12", "14", "No Label", "0", "3", "9", "95"], "gold": ["0", "3", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 392/2010\nof 6 May 2010\ngranting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 4 May 2010.\n(3)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 4 May 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the products and destinations referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 1 and in Article 2 of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2010.", "references": ["29", "28", "45", "44", "43", "26", "57", "32", "15", "35", "61", "48", "42", "52", "89", "8", "16", "50", "33", "19", "79", "93", "30", "90", "68", "62", "6", "38", "63", "4", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 50/2012\nof 19 January 2012\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 January 2012.", "references": ["87", "31", "76", "89", "74", "21", "98", "3", "2", "91", "11", "56", "88", "52", "28", "12", "39", "84", "94", "67", "0", "38", "18", "61", "34", "93", "79", "20", "15", "96", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 230/2011\nof 9 March 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 992/95 as regards tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and fishery products originating in Norway\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 992/95 of 10 April 1995 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and fishery products originating in Norway (1), and in particular Article 5(1)(a) and (b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn 2009, negotiations were concluded for an Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway concerning special provisions applicable for the period 2009-14 to imports into the Union of certain fish and fishery products, hereinafter \u2018the Additional Protocol\u2019.\n(2)\nThe signing, on behalf of the European Union, and the provisional application of the Additional Protocol has been authorised by Council Decision 2010/674/EU of 26 July 2010 on the signing and provisional application of an Agreement between the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway on an EEA Financial Mechanism for the period 2009-2014, an Agreement between the European Union and Norway on a Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009-2014, an Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Iceland concerning special provisions applicable to imports into the European Union of certain fish and fishery products for the period 2009-2014 and an Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Norway concerning special provisions applicable to imports into the European Union of certain fish and fishery products for the period 2009-2014 (2).\n(3)\nThe Additional Protocol provides for new annual duty free tariff quotas at import into the Union of certain fish and fishery products originating in Norway.\n(4)\nIn accordance with the Additional Protocol, the duty free tariff quotas levels that should have been opened for Norway as from 1 May 2009 until 1 March 2011 shall be divided in equal parts and allocated on a yearly basis for the remaining part of the period of application of this Protocol.\n(5)\nIn order to implement the new tariff quotas provided for in the Additional Protocol, it is necessary to amend Regulation (EC) No 992/95.\n(6)\nIt is necessary to replace the current reference in Regulation (EC) No 992/95 to free-at-frontier prices by a reference to the declared customs value in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (3), and to provide that in order to qualify for the preferences laid down in the Additional Protocol, that value must at least be equal to any reference price fixed or to be fixed in accordance with the same Regulation.\n(7)\nProtocol 3 to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway defining the concept of originating products and setting out the arrangements for administrative cooperation was amended by Decision No 1/2005 of the EC-Norway Joint Committee of 20 December 2005 (4). It is therefore necessary to provide explicitly that Protocol 3 as amended in 2005 is to apply.\n(8)\nFor reasons of clarity and to take account of the amendments to the Combined Nomenclature codes, laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (5), and of the Taric-subdivisions, it is appropriate to replace Annexes I and II to Regulation (EC) No 992/95.\n(9)\nFor reasons of clarity and to take account of the fact that several tariff quotas cover the same products for the same period, it is appropriate to merge them.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 992/95 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Decision 2010/674/EU the new tariff quotas must apply from 1 March 2011. This Regulation should therefore apply from the same date.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 992/95 is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\n1. When products originating in Norway listed in the Annex are put into free circulation in the European Union, they shall be eligible for exemption from customs duties within the limits of the tariff quotas, during the periods and in accordance with the provisions set out in this Regulation.\n2. Imports of the fish and fishery products listed in the Annex shall qualify for the tariff quotas mentioned in paragraph 1 only if the declared customs value is at least equal to the reference price fixed, or to be fixed, in accordance with Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (6).\n3. The provisions of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway defining the concept of originating products and setting out the arrangements for administrative cooperation, as last amended by Decision No 1/2005 of the EC-Norway Joint Committee of 20 December 2005 (7), shall apply.\n4. The benefit of the tariff quotas with order numbers 09.0710 and 09.0712 shall not be granted to goods declared for release for free circulation during the period 15 February to 15 June. Furthermore, the benefit of the tariff quota with order number 09.0714 shall not be granted to goods with CN code 0304 99 23 declared for release for free circulation during the period 15 February to 15 June.\n2.\nArticle 3, second paragraph, is replaced by the following:\n\u2018However, Article 308c(2) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 shall not apply to the tariff quotas with order numbers 09.0702, 09.0710, 09.0712, 09.0713, 09.0714, 09.0749 and 09.0750.\u2019;\n3.\nAnnexes I and II are replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2011.", "references": ["81", "82", "92", "60", "28", "0", "95", "51", "56", "5", "30", "61", "32", "26", "36", "70", "83", "1", "34", "11", "9", "84", "93", "7", "99", "16", "10", "55", "6", "73", "No Label", "21", "66", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "66", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 89/2011\nof 2 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 3 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 February 2011.", "references": ["49", "53", "70", "57", "41", "96", "6", "58", "48", "19", "44", "24", "67", "81", "29", "37", "77", "12", "47", "90", "38", "9", "45", "13", "84", "91", "1", "26", "40", "15", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 29 September 2010\non State aid C 32/09 (ex NN 50/09) implemented by Germany for the restructuring of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\n(notified under document C(2010) 6470)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/526/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on Member States and other interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions (1),\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nGermany notified the measures on 21 October 2009.\n(2)\nBy Decision of 4 November 2009 (2) (\u2018the opening Decision\u2019), the Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that the recapitalisation measures of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn (\u2018the Bank\u2019) constituted State aid and raised doubts as to whether the measures provided to Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn could be found compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3) TFEU. Further, the Commission required the submission of a restructuring plan by the German authorities.\n(3)\nOn 6 January 2010 the opening Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union and interested parties were requested to submit their comments.\n(4)\nOn 11 February 2010 Germany submitted a restructuring plan which was discussed in a series of meetings and teleconferences during the period from December 2009 to September 2010.\n(5)\nGermany submitted further information and updates to the restructuring plan on 15 January, 10, 12 and 24 February, 10 and 26 March, 21 and 28 May, 8 and 11 June, 23 July, and 10 and 23 August 2010. The final version of the restructuring plan was submitted on 1 September 2010.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE BENEFICIARY\n(6)\nSparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn is a German savings bank. It was created in its current form in 2005 as a result of the merger of Stadtsparkasse K\u00f6ln and Sparkasse Bonn, whose owners (\u2018Tr\u00e4ger\u2019, responsible public institutions, hereinafter \u2018owner\u2019) were, respectively, the cities of Cologne and Bonn. The city of Cologne indirectly holds a 70 % stake in the new bank, the city of Bonn 30 %. Subsequent to this merger the role of owner of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn is performed by the association Zweckverband Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn (\u2018Zweckverband\u2019). The Zweckverband, which is incorporated under public law, is a special purpose association. The sole participants in the Zweckverband are the city of Cologne (70 %) and the city of Bonn (30 %).\n(7)\nAt the end of 2008 Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn was the second largest savings bank in Germany with a balance sheet of EUR 31 billion. At this point, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn had an Aa2 rating from Moody\u2019s. This was changed to A1 on 15 March 2010.\n(8)\nSparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn provides banking services for retail clients (Privatkundengesch\u00e4ft) and corporate clients (Firmenkundengesch\u00e4ft). The Bank is, with a regional focus, active in project finance and capital markets (Kapitalmarktgesch\u00e4ft), as well as in other financial activities such as asset management.\n(9)\nThe Bank is active only in the Cologne-Bonn region, where it held a market share of approximately [30-35] (3) % in private customer deposits, around [20-25] % in loans to private customers and [15-20] % in credits to corporate clients in 2008 (4).\n3. THE AID MEASURES\n(10)\nThe capital of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn was strengthened by a total of EUR 650 million\n(i)\nby the issuance of certificates of participation (Genussrechte) at the end of 2008; and\n(ii)\nby a silent participation (Stille Einlage) at the beginning of 2009.\n3.1. Certificates of participation (Genussrechte)\n(11)\nIn December 2008 Rheinische Sparkassen-F\u00f6rderungsgesellschaft (\u2018F\u00f6rderungsgesellschaft\u2019) subscribed nominal participation certificates in Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn amounting to EUR 300 million in two tranches of EUR 150 million.\n(12)\nF\u00f6rderungsgesellschaft is a wholly-owed subsidiary of Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband (Rhine saving banks association - \u2018RSGV\u2019). RSGV is the public-law association (\u2018K\u00f6rperschaft des \u00f6ffentlichen Rechts\u2019) of all savings banks and their public owners located in the Rhineland and represents the Sparkassen and their (public) owners. According to its statute the objective of F\u00f6rderungsgesellschaft is the promotion of savings banks belonging to RSGV. F\u00f6rderungsgesellschaft can contribute to the capital of saving banks for the sole purpose of developing further credit-granting activities and can be granted loans.\n(13)\nThe coupon of the certificates is 8 %. The lifetime of the certificates is until 31 December 2013. From a regulatory point of view the certificates of participation are Tier-2 capital.\n(14)\nThe certificates of participation participate in yearly losses proportionately to the total of loss-absorbing equity. A [\u2026] carry forward of the payments on the participation certificates is attached to them, i.e. foregone payments on the participation certificates must be paid up to [2-6] years after they were due. The same applies to payments to top up the nominal value of the participation certificates if it is depleted due to absorption of losses.\n(15)\nIn order to finance the certificates, F\u00f6rderungsgesellschaft subscribed two loans with [\u2026]. These loans bear a fixed interest of [4-5] % over the lifetime of the certificates of participation. The loan is guaranteed to [\u2026] by RSGV, which will receive from F\u00f6rderungsgesellschaft a guarantee remuneration of [1,8-2,5] %.\n3.2. Silent participation\n(16)\nThe silent participation contracts were concluded on 2 January 2009 and on 27 February 2009 between Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn and the Zweckverband setting up a \u2018Stille Gesellschaft\u2019 for a total of EUR 350 million, paid out in two tranches, EUR 300 million on 2 January and EUR 50 million on 1 April 2009. The silent participation is a device by which the investor does not obtain any voting rights but receives a remuneration. The instrument is perpetual and acknowledged as Tier-1 core capital. The silent participation is held by the Zweckverband.\n(17)\nTo finance the silent participation, the Zweckverband has contracted a loan of EUR 300 million for the first tranche. 50 % of the loan is provided by [\u2026] and the remaining 50 % by [\u2026]. The remuneration of the loan payable by the Zweckverband amounts to 12-month EURIBOR plus [0,7-1,1] %. The second tranche of EUR 50 million was refinanced using a loan from [\u2026], remunerated at EURIBOR plus [0,7-1,1] %. Whilst there is no specific guarantee by either Cologne or Bonn, there exists an unlimited statutory liability of both cities for all liabilities of the Zweckverband pursuant to the statute of incorporation of the Zweckverband.\n(18)\nThe remuneration paid by Sparkasse K\u00f6ln Bonn for the silent participation is 12-month EURIBOR plus 7,25 %. That remuneration was set in line with a Fairness Opinion from Deutsche Bank. The payment of remuneration is subject to a balance sheet profit, and is foregone if Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn reports no profit for the year. A payment is excluded if, at the time it is due, the capital ratio is below 9 % and in so far as the payment would lead to or increase a loss for the relevant accounting year. In case of deferral of the payment there is no carry-forward obligation to pay the foregone amount at a later point in time. Furthermore, the silent participation absorbs balance sheet losses in proportion to the total loss-absorbing capital.\n4. THE RESTRUCTURING PLAN\n(19)\nAccording to the restructuring plan, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn will focus on its statutory business model of a regional savings bank. The Bank will concentrate on providing typical retail banking services to its traditional customer segments, being private customers and SMEs, and withdraw from other activities such as proprietary trading or investments in structured products and divest non-core subsidiaries. Further, the Bank will significantly reduce its administrative expenses.\n4.1. Description of the restructuring plan\n(20)\nSparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn will focus on the services to customers located in the Cologne-Bonn region in the segments for private customers, private banking, SMEs, and corporate and institutional clients. The Bank will focus on corporate clients with a yearly turnover below EUR 250 million.\n(21)\nSparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn will reduce its largest credit exposures by limiting the credit lines, requesting additional collateral or transferring risks to other credit institutions. In the corporate clients segment, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn has already achieved a EUR 551,5 million reduction and will further decrease the exposure by EUR [900-1 100] million by the end of 2013 from the original level of EUR 2,8 billion in 2008. In addition credit exposure in the amount of EUR [800-900] million granted to institutions not connected with the Cologne-Bonn region will be reduced by the end of 2013 using the same instruments (see Annex I, point 4).\n(22)\nSparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn has already decreased its proprietary trading portfolio from originally EUR 550 million to currently EUR [20-23] million, which will be further reduced to 0. The Bank will cease all proprietary trading activities in the future and considers giving up its status as trading book institute, thus accounting all remaining limited trading activities in the banking book. They will be qualitatively limited to certain products and have to respect a quantitative daily exposure limit (market risk < EUR [3-5] million, see Annex I, point 2).\n(23)\nOne of the main sources of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s losses in 2008 was its investments in so-called ABS and Strategic Assets Allocation (\u2018SAA\u2019) portfolios. At the time of investment in ABS portfolio, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn acquired geographically diversified (5) and predominantly AAA-rated assets, including RMBSs (6), CDO (7) s, CMBSs (8), ABSs (9) and CLOs (10). As per the end of 2007 the ABS portfolio amounted to EUR 1,05 billion in Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s accounts. SAA is an investment in special funds, through which Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn held a diversified portfolio consisting among others of international equity shares, REIT (11) and bonds including High Yield and Emerging Markets. As per the end of 2007 this portfolio was accounted for at EUR 2,2 billion in Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s books. Although Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn aimed at widespread diversification of its ABS and SAA portfolios, they were significantly affected by the financial crisis. Both portfolios mainly contributed to the write-downs of EUR 249 million (12) that Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn had to recognise on its investment portfolio in 2008, in addition to EUR 108 million already recorded in 2007.\n(24)\nIn its restructuring plan Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn classified the ABS and SAA investments as not in line with the risk profile and its strategic reorientation towards a traditional savings bank. As a result, the Bank decided to completely sell off or run down those commitments by 2014. Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn reduced its SAA investment by half in March 2008 in order to limit its exposure to equities. Further divestments took place in 2009, resulting in the reduction of the SAA portfolio to EUR 468 million as per 30 September 2009. The impact of the remaining ABS exposure (nominally EUR 970 million as per 30 September 2009) on the Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s accounts will be absorbed by provisioning and hedging in 2010. Finally in [2012-2014] the whole remaining portfolio is to be sold.\n(25)\nSparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn has started implementing a comprehensive cost-cutting programme, including staff reduction, internal processes optimisation and closure of 22 out of 131 existing branches by mid-2011. As a result, its administrative expenses will be gradually reduced by [5-8] % by 2014 (13).\n(26)\nGermany commits that the Bank will respect restrictions on coupon payments (Annex I, point 7), advertisement (Annex I, point 9) and acquisition bans (Annex I, point 8) and a price leadership ban which stipulates that until the end of 2014 Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn will not offer better rates for deposits and mortgages than the best out of its 10 largest competitors (for deposits in terms of market shares of competitors active in the relevant market in the Cologne-Bonn region and for mortgages in terms of market share in new production in Germany, see Annex I, point 5).\n4.2. Restructuring of subsidiaries\n(27)\nSparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn plans to reduce its holding of subsidiaries by one third. From the portfolio of subsidiaries, held at EUR 635 million in the Bank\u2019s accounts as per 31 December 2008, EUR [20-40] million were sold or liquidated by the end of 2009 and a further EUR [180-250] million are to be divested. By implementing this measure, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn follows two aims depending on the type of the subsidiary. First, the divestments of non-core subsidiaries (14), which are active in regional development projects or communal and social housing, aim at reducing Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s risk exposure and vulnerability. Second, the sale of stakes in entities which are only indirectly related to Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s activities, aims at generating profits to finance the restructuring of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn (see Annex I, point 10). A complete list of subsidiaries to be divested is given in Annex I, points 10 and 13.\n(28)\nExamples of divestments in the second group are stakes in companies such as RW Holding AG, S ProFinanz Versicherungsmakler GmbH, Schufa Holding AG and neue leben Pensionsverwaltung AG. Those sales have already been completed and have resulted in proceeds totalling approximately EUR [25-35] million.\n(29)\nFor some subsidiaries, which account for approximately EUR [70-100] million, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn expects little interest from private third-party purchasers. That low interest is mainly due to the character of those entities, as they are small, involved in social housing and regional development in cooperation with the City of Cologne, or their ownership structure, which is already dominated by the City of Cologne. Therefore, the Bank is considering selling those activities to [the City of Cologne or a company associated with the City of Cologne]. The transfer would take place at market value, assessed by an independent expert. The assets held by the subsidiaries to be sold to the City of Cologne are mainly related to real estate activities.\n(30)\nIn consequence of the implementation of the restructuring measures, the Bank will reduce its risk-weighted assets (RWA) by EUR [2-5] billion to EUR [15-20] billion (i.e. by [15-20] %) (without taking into account future growth in the core business over the restructuring period). If growth in the core business is taken into account, the reduction of RWA will amount to [10-15] % by 2014. Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s [\u2026] will be reduced by EUR [4-6] billion to [20-30] billion (i.e. by [15-20] %) (without taking into account future growth in the core business over the restructuring period). When growth in the core business is accounted for, the restructuring measures will result in a total assets reduction of 5 %.\n4.3. Ability to return to viability in base and stress case\n(31)\nGermany has submitted a base and a stress scenario with the aim of demonstrating Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s ability to restore its long-term viability.\n(32)\nIn the base case the submitted financial projections are based on assumptions which are in line with projections for Germany published by acknowledged economic institutes. It is assumed that GDP growth will remain at the same moderate level for the whole restructuring period. The unemployment rate is expected to continue rising until 2011 and fall slowly thereafter. Finally, it is expected that the currently unfavourable, low-interest rates environment will improve in 2010 and then remain unchanged for the rest of the restructuring period.\n(33)\nAs illustrated in Table 1 below, in the base case Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn is expected to return to profitability in 2010 and continuously improve its results until 2014. In 2014 the Bank will achieve a return on equity (ROE) of [9-10] %. Chart 1 below illustrates the main financial performance indicators of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn for the years 2008-2014.\nTable 1\nSparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s pre-tax profit 2010-2014 in base case\nScenario\n2009\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\nBase case\n-98,8\n[5-10]\n[80-100]\n[125-150]\n[150-175]\n[20-225]\nChart 1\nSparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s main financial performance indicators for 2008-2014 - base case\nIndicators\n2008\n2009\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\nRWA (15) (EUR bn)\n20,2\n19,1\n[17,5-20]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[15-20]\nTier-1 ratio (16)\n6,4 %\n(5,5 %)\n6,9 %\n(6,1 %)\n[7-8] %\n([6-7] %)\n[8-9] %\n([7-8] %)\n[8-9] %\n([7-8] %)\n[8-9] %\n([7-8] %)\n[8-10] %\n([8-9] %)\nROE\n-13,5 %\n-6,5 %\n[0-3] %\n[4-6] %\n[7-9] %\n[7-9] %\n[9-10] %\nCIR\n73,0 %\n70,0 %\n[65-75] %\n[60-70] %\n[55-65] %\n[50-60] %\n[50-60] %\nFTE\n3 824\n3 672\n[3 500-3 750]\n[3 250-3 500]\n[3 000-3 250]\n[3 000-3 250]\n[2 750-3 000]\n(34)\nIn the stress case the macroeconomic assumptions are those of a continuation of the crisis until 2011 and slow recovery in 2012. The stress case assumes two additional years of unfavourable low interest rates compared with the base case.\n(35)\nIn the stress case Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn is expected to return to profitability in 2012 and continuously improve its results until 2014. In 2014 the Bank will achieve an ROE of [10-12,5] %. According to the stress case scenario, the capital ratios for Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn and for the whole consolidated group will remain well above the minimum regulatory requirements throughout the restructuring period. Table 2 and Chart 2 below illustrate the main financial performance indicators of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn for the years 2008-2014 in the stress case.\nTable 2\nSparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s pre-tax profit 2010-2014 in stress case\nScenario\n2009\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\nStress case\n-98,8\n-[125-150]\n-[25-50]\n[50-75]\n[125-150]\n[175-200]\nChart 2\nSparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s main financial performance indicators for 2008-2014 - stress case\nIndicators\n2008\n2009\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\nRWA (17) (EUR bn)\n20,2\n19,1\n[17-20]\n[17-19]\n[17-19]\n[17-19]\n[16-18]\nTier-1 ratio (18)\n6,4 %\n(5,5 %)\n6,9 %\n(6,1 %)\n[6-7] %\n([5-6])\n[6-7] %\n([6-7])\n[6-7] %\n([6-7])\n[6-7] %\n([6-7])\n[7-8] %\n([6-7])\nROE\n-13,5 %\n-6,5 %\n-[8-9] %\n-[1-3] %\n[3-5] %\n[8-10] %\n[10-12] %\nCIR\n73,0 %\n70,0 %\n[70-75] %\n[65-70] %\n[60-65] %\n[55-60] %\n[50-55] %\nFTE\n3 824\n3 672\n[3 500-3 750]\n[3 250-3 500]\n[3 000-3 250]\n[3 000-3 250]\n[2 750-3 000]\n(36)\nBecause the current low level of short-term interest rates constitutes the main constraint on the Bank\u2019s earnings, an additional sensitivity analysis of the interest rates has been conducted (scenario 1: upward shift of the interest curve by 100 bps, scenario 2: its downward shift by 50 bps). The analysis confirmed that further increasing interest rates would improve Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s profitability, whereas decreasing interest rates would reduce its profitability, i.e. a linear decrease of 50 bps of the short-term interest rates would lead to a reduction of EUR [20-25] million of profits per year. Overall the sensitivity analysis provided by Germany demonstrates that Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s vulnerability to major interest rate shocks is limited.\n4.4. Corporate governance\n(37)\nGermany submitted information showing that the politically driven investments which contributed to Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s difficulties were decided in the period 1997-2004, prior to the merger of Stadtsparkasse K\u00f6ln with Sparkasse Bonn in 2005 which created Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn in its current form. Those investments were also decided under a different legal framework, defined mainly by the Savings Banks Act of North Rhine-Westphalia (19). Since then, improvements to the corporate governance of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn have been implemented.\n(38)\nDue to the change in the structure of the Bank\u2019s responsible public institution (Tr\u00e4ger) after the merger of 2005, important decisions in the Zweckverband are taken by qualified majority of shareholder\u2019s votes, which is set at 85 % at least, a level exceeding the participation held by any single city.\n(39)\nThe number and size of the institute\u2019s bodies have been reduced, including major reductions in the size of the Supervisory and Management Boards (20). The Participation Committee consisting of three members of the Management Board, which in the former Stadtsparkasse K\u00f6ln was entitled to pre-decide on investment in subsidiaries, was dissolved. The Management Board took over responsibility for investment policy in respect of equity engagements, which are to be assessed according to economic criteria. Additionally, any new investment entered into by Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn requires the approval of the Supervisory Board.\n(40)\nThe changes in the Savings Banks Act obliged the Bank to establish risk and accounting committees and provide them with far-reaching control powers. The law also requires members of the Supervisory Board to possess qualifications necessary to assess and control operations of a savings bank. The Management Board bears sole and comprehensive responsibility for management of the Bank and is not bound by any instructions of the Supervisory Board or the shareholders.\n(41)\nIn addition to the already implemented improvements to the corporate governance structure, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn will further strengthen its governance by increasing the number of independent (21) members of the Supervisory Board from two (at present) to four out of 18. The members of the Accounting Committee will be reduced from nine to seven and of the Risk Committee from nine to six respectively starting from 1 January 2011. The Participation and the Strategy Committees will be dissolved by the end of 2011 and the end of 2010 respectively. The former will naturally lose its importance once Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn has divested the major part of its subsidiaries. The duties of the latter will be performed by the Management Board. Finally, the decision-making processes regarding acquisitions of companies will be amended and will involve unanimous decision-making in the Management Board and require investments that exceed EUR [2-5] million to have already been positively assessed by an independent expert, in the course of a due diligence or business valuation.\n4.5. Hybrids\n(42)\nSparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn holds hybrid capital placed with third-party investors (private certificates of participation) in the amount of EUR 224 million. According to the information provided by Germany, the Genussrechte and the private certificates of participation rank pari passu. The silent participation is junior to both certificates. As shown in Table 3 below, since 2008 no coupon payments on hybrids have been made. In 2008 and 2009 the Genussrechte participated in the losses in the amount of EUR 57,4 million. The silent participation and the private certificates participated in the losses in 2009. Starting from 2010 the hybrid instruments will be topped up and from 2011 cancelled cumulative coupon payments will be caught up with by 2012. In 2013 all hybrids will be topped up, all cancelled coupon payments will be caught up with and a full coupon will be paid on each instrument. Given that the coupon payments are triggered either by a positive P&L or balance sheet result, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn does not have any discretion to suspend coupon payments if it operates profitably and any capital depletion has been replenished.\nTable 3\nSparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s profit distribution in 2009-2014 (base case)\n2008\n2009\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\nProfit before tax\n-98,8\n[5-10]\n[80-100]\n[125-150]\n[150-175]\n[200-225]\nProfit distribution according to capital instruments\nState's certificates of\nLoss absorption\n40,6\n16,8\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nPrincipal replenishment\n0\n0\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nCoupon\n0\n0\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nPrivate certificates of\nLoss absorption\n0\n12,5\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nPrincipal replenishment\n0\n0\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nCoupon\n0\n0\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nSilent participation\nLoss absorption\n0\n19,5\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nPrincipal replenishment\n0\n0\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nCoupon\n0\n0\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(43)\nGermany has provided the commitment that the Bank will not proceed with any coupon payments on the hybrid capital held by private investors, except for what it is contractually obliged to pay (see Annex I, point 7).\n4.6. WestLB\n(44)\nAnother source of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s difficulties was its participation in WestLB. In the past Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn incurred losses amounting to EUR [\u2026] million, because as a member of the regional savings banks association it contributed to the reserve fund established by the savings bank association as a safety net for its members and the Landesbanks. In the context of the WestLB rescue in 2008 the fund had to intervene. The remaining risk exposure is linked to Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s indirect holding in WestLB and remaining indirect liability for WestLB\u2019s bad bank via RSGV.\n(45)\nAlthough Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn has not invested directly in WestLB, it is exposed to the stake in it held by RSGV, in which Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn holds a direct stake of about 19 %. According to information provided by Germany, the risk that any impairment of RSGV\u2019s book value for WestLB will have an impact on Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn is very limited. First, WestLB has been valued by an independent party recently and its book value in RSGV accounts was reduced accordingly as per 31 December 2009 from the historic cost of EUR [\u2026] billion to EUR [\u2026] million as per 31 December 2009. Therefore the indirect stake of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn in WestLB amounts currently to approximately EUR [\u2026] million. Further, as Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn is exposed to WestLB only by its stake in RSGV, only the intrinsic value of the latter is relevant for Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn. This is influenced not only by the value of WestLB, but also other subsidiaries and investments held by RSGV. Valuation of other RSGV subsidiaries conducted at the end of 2009 disclosed significant latent reserves, which would suffice to cover even the potential worst case scenario write-down of WestLB to 0.\n(46)\nSparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s obligation to contribute [to the \u2026] created to cover potential losses of the recently created WestLB bad bank amounts to EUR [\u2026] million over 25 years. However, this commitment will not impact the capacity of the Bank to meet its regulatory requirements in the future because the contributions [to the \u2026] are to be made only out of future profits.\n4.7. Partial early exit\n(47)\nGermany has provided a commitment that Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn will repay part of the received capital earlier than provided for in the terms of the instruments (see Annex I, point 27). The repayment will take place starting in 2011 and involve two steps.\n(48)\nThe first step consists of the sale of a EUR 150 million tranche [\u2026] to the Zweckverband. The transaction, and in particular the level of the purchase price, will leave F\u00f6rderungsgesellschaft no better off than if it kept the instrument (22). The Zweckverband will then convert the Genussrechte, which are currently acknowledged as Tier-2 capital, into Tier-1 capital instruments. In particular, the new instrument would be subordinated, not be redeemed for at least 30 years and have non-cumulative coupon payments. That step will result in the improvement of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s Tier-1 capital ratio by [0,8-1,0] %.\n(49)\nThe increase in the Tier-1 capital ratio allows for the second step, which is the buy-back by Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn of the remaining tranche of the Genussrechte held by F\u00f6rderungsgesellschaft in 2011 worth nominally EUR 150 million. Overall both steps will result in a decrease in the Tier-2 capital ratio by [0,5-1,0] %. Additionally, RSGV or another member of the savings bank sector will buy at market price the stakes of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn in two savings-bank-related [\u2026] (23) and [\u2026]. The sale of the indirect stake in the two entities would result in a further [0,2-0,5] % decrease in the Bank\u2019s total assets. The sale of the two entities is closely linked to the repayment of the second tranche of the Genussrechte as RSGV will buy the two entities with the proceeds from the sale of the Genussrechte.\n5. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE ON THE RECAPITALISATION MEASURE\n(50)\nThe Commission recalls that in this case it opened the formal investigation procedure on the recapitalisation measure regarding its compatibility with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3) TFEU (24) as restructuring aid on 4 November 2009.\n(51)\nFurther, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether adequate burden-sharing was ensured in any way and whether the distortion of competition was limited, as required by the State aid rules (paragraph 50 of the opening Decision).\n(52)\nFinally, given the uncertainty as to whether the difficulties of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn were due to investment decisions taken well before the crisis or rather to the crisis itself, the Commission did not conclude whether the recapitalisation measures would fall under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU or under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. The Commission decided to proceed with an investigation of the facts in order to identify the proper legal basis to be applied and to take a position later in the process.\n6. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(53)\nThe Commission notes that no comments from interested third parties have been received with regard to the opening Decision on the recapitalisation measure.\n7. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY\n(54)\nGermany indicated that it had reviewed the Commission\u2019s Decision of 4 November 2009, in which the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU. It informed the Commission that it upheld its opinion that the recapitalisation measures received by Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn in the form of a silent participation and certificates of participation at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. Germany considered the measures to be in conformity with the market economy investor principle in accordance with the reasoning provided prior to the opening Decision (see paragraphs 24-28 of the opening Decision).\n(55)\nGermany disagreed with the Commission\u2019s assessment that at the time the recapitalisation measures were executed, i.e. end 2008/beginning 2009, the market for hybrid instruments had completely dried up (25). More specifically, it disagreed with the Commission\u2019s conclusion that no market economy investor or owner would have engaged in such an investment at the time, even at a higher price (see paragraph 38 of the opening Decision). It argued that market developments did not affect Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn, which was able to issue junior debt both in the last 4 months of 2008 (totalling EUR [10-15] million) and in the first quarter of 2009 (totalling EUR [35-40] million) in tranches of up to several hundred thousand euro.\n(56)\nFinally, Germany contested whether the recapitalisation of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn by F\u00f6rderungsgesellschaft involved any state resources.\n(57)\nGermany expressed, however, its confidence, that were the Commission to confirm its preliminary assessment regarding the State aid character of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s recapitalisation, the measures would be compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.\n(58)\nGermany argued that the restructuring plan complied with all the conditions set forth in the Commission\u2019s Communication of 23 July 2009 on the return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules (26) (\u2018Restructuring Communication\u2019).\n(59)\nIn Germany\u2019s opinion the restructuring plan ensures that Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s long-term viability is restored, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn provides a sufficient own contribution to the restructuring costs and distortions of competition are limited by substantial structural and behavioural measures.\n(60)\nThe commitments provided by Germany are set out in Annexes I to III and form an integral part of this Decision. In order to ensure that the commitments will be implemented, a monitoring trustee will be appointed. The appointment procedure and the responsibilities of the monitoring trustee are set out in Annex II. Further, Germany has committed itself to a timeline for divestments (see Annex I, points 10 and 13). Should the committed timeline for divestiture not be met, a divestiture trustee will be appointed and will perform his duties in accordance with the conditions stipulated in Annex III.\n8. ASSESSMENT\n8.1. Existence and amount of the aid\n(61)\nThe Commission must assess whether the measures concerned constitute State aid. Article 107(1) TFEU provides that any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the internal market.\n(62)\nIn the opening Decision (section 5.1) the Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that the recapitalisation measures of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn constituted State aid. The Commission cannot agree with Germany\u2019s reasoning according to which the measures did not constitute aid inasmuch as the conditions of both instruments were in line with what a market economy investor would have accepted. Even if the remuneration on both instruments was in line with the interest paid on comparable instruments until the beginning of 2008, it was too low in the case of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn given the high risk resulting from the lack of profitability of the Bank. At the time of the recapitalisation, the market for hybrid instruments had even completely dried up. Therefore, in the context of the case and in particular the situation of the market, the Commission could not accept the argument that a market economy investor would have made the investment at the time, not to mention investing on equivalent terms.\n(63)\nThe investigation did not reveal any information which would have altered this assessment. Junior debt issuances by Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn at the end of 2008 and in the first quarter of 2009 do not provide reliable evidence that the markets for hybrid instruments were active owing to the very limited amount of single tranches involved. Tranches of hybrid instruments worth several hundred thousand euro represent a considerably different level of risk from an instrument worth nominally EUR 150 million and are therefore much easier to absorb by the private markets. Therefore, the Commission upholds its view that no market economy investor would have acquired a hybrid instruments issue of comparable size and characteristics as Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s recapitalisation measures at that time.\n(64)\nAs regards the nature of the resources used to recapitalise Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn by F\u00f6rderungsgesellschaft, the Commission recalls that it has already established in its case practice that means provided by RSGV are resources directly or indirectly controlled by public authorities (27). The Commission considers that this also applies to F\u00f6rderungsgesellschaft, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of RSGV. Therefore, these resources are state resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(65)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission confirms the provisional conclusion reached in the opening Decision that the recapitalisation measures in favour of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(66)\nThe Commission furthermore notes that the rescue aid measures have been converted into restructuring aid which continues to constitute an advantage for the Bank. The measures allowed the Bank to obtain financing in a situation where it was unable to raise capital on the market, especially in the financial and economic crisis. This gives an economic advantage to the Bank and strengthens its position compared with that of its competitors in Germany and other Member States that are not benefiting from the same support. The measures must therefore be regarded as liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.\n(67)\nThe aid element in the capital injections amounts to EUR 650 million and represents 3,3 % in relation to the Bank\u2019s risk weighted assets (end of 2008).\n8.2. Compatibility of the aid with the internal market\n8.2.1. Legal basis for the compatibility assessment\n(68)\nIn its opening Decision of 4 November 2009, the Commission did not conclude what would be the proper legal basis for the analysis of the recapitalisation measures. Based on the information available at that time, the decisions to invest in regional development projects taken in the period considerably before the financial crisis seemed to be the major source of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s difficulties. As the crisis appeared only to have exacerbated existing problems of the Bank, the application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU was not excluded. On the other hand, the implementation date of the recapitalisation measures at the peak of the financial crisis and the Commission\u2019s financial crisis banking case practice suggested the application of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.\n(69)\nFurther, even if previous decisions made reference to the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (28) (\u2018Restructuring Guidelines\u2019), the Commission has clarified in point 49 of the Restructuring Communication that all aid notified to the Commission before 31 December 2010 will be assessed as restructuring aid to banks pursuant to the Restructuring Communication instead of the Restructuring Guidelines.\n(70)\nGiven the continuing sensitivity of the banking sector in Germany the Commission concludes that the potential dissolution of one of the biggest saving banks in Germany due to the [\u2026] would have had systemic implications and therefore threatened financial stability in Germany.\n(71)\nTherefore, Article 107(3)(b) TFEU is the appropriate legal basis for assessing whether the aid received by Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn is compatible with the internal market as restructuring aid in order to preserve financial stability.\n8.2.2. Compatibility of the restructuring aid with the internal market\n(72)\nAccording to the Restructuring Communication, first, the restructuring plan has to demonstrate that the restructuring process which a beneficiary of State aid is undergoing is suitable to restore its long-term viability. Second, the aid amount must be limited to the minimum necessary and both the beneficiary and its capital holders should contribute to the restructuring as much as possible with their own resources. Third, measures need to be in place to limit distortion of competition created by artificially supporting the market power of the beneficiary and to ensure a competitive banking sector. Finally, monitoring and procedural issues need to be addressed.\n(i) Restoration of long-term viability\n(73)\nIn line with points 9 to 11 of the Restructuring Communication, Germany submitted a comprehensive and detailed restructuring plan which provides complete information on the business model. The plan also identifies the causes of the difficulties faced by the Bank.\n(74)\nAs regards its business model, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn intends to refocus on the traditional regional savings bank business activities. It will provide a full range of retail banking products to its core customer segments in the Cologne-Bonn region: retail, SMEs as well as smaller corporate customers and institutional clients located in the region. As a consequence, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn will concentrate on its statutory activities and capitalise on its core competence, while withdrawing from those areas which have been at the origin of its financial difficulties. In particular, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn ceases proprietary trading, all non-core subsidiaries and investments in SAA and ABS portfolios. The Commission considers that the new business model of the Bank is viable and sustainable in the long term.\n(75)\nSparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s difficulties were mainly attributable to three activities: (i) regional development projects, (ii) investments in ABS and SAA portfolios and (iii) the Bank\u2019s investment in WestLB.\n(76)\nAlready in 2008 Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn initiated the sale or liquidation of non-core subsidiaries related to regional development. The full cessation of these activities constitutes a necessary and appropriate measure to remove the Commission\u2019s concerns as the divestments set an ultimate limit to any future losses or risk exposure resulting from the subsidiaries. Additionally, the measure frees up capital as well as management capacities, which can be re-employed in the core business of the Bank. Furthermore the divestments will also reduce the Bank\u2019s balance sheet by approximately EUR [180-230] million ([0-2] %) (29).\n(77)\nAs the activities of the subsidiaries to be sold to the City of Cologne are mainly real estate development and real estate-related services, the Commission does not consider that the application of the Communication on the treatment of impaired assets in the Community banking sector (30) (\u2018Impaired Assets Communication\u2019) is necessary or appropriate in this case. The book values of these subsidiaries have been significantly written down in the past years in order to bring them in line with their market values. Therefore significant further losses for the Bank due to the sale of the subsidiaries are not expected. Furthermore, the commitment of Germany that the Bank will sell at market value, which will be determined by an independent expert, ensures that no additional State aid is involved in the transactions.\n(78)\nAnother source of the Bank\u2019s problems was the ABS and SAA portfolios. Those investments have already been significantly reduced. Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn will withdraw completely from those portfolios by the end of 2014. As those investments are outside the scope of the new business model of the Bank, the withdrawal from those portfolios is a necessary step in the implementation of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s strategy. The current book values of the remaining assets in the ABS and SAA portfolios are overall in line with their market value. Therefore the remaining risk exposure stemming from those portfolios is limited and does not affect the viability of the Bank.\n(79)\nFinally, the Bank\u2019s remaining exposure to WestLB, which in the past resulted in Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s losses of EUR [\u2026] million, is limited in size and compensated by reserves in the investment portfolio of RSGV. Further, the contribution of the Bank [to the \u2026] is to be made only out of future net profits. Therefore, the obligation of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn to contribute [to the \u2026] will not endanger Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s long-term viability. Additionally, the Commission views positively the fact that the Bank\u2019s contributions can take place only once the State\u2019s capital has been remunerated in line with the recapitalisation terms.\n(80)\nThe Commission notes that the Bank has already addressed and will further address the weaknesses of its corporate governance. The change in the shareholders structure and the qualifying majority voting introduced in the light of the merger of Stadtsparkasse K\u00f6ln with Sparkasse Bonn in 2005 ensures that the political interests of the owners do not overrule the economic interests of the Bank. Further, the changes in the structure and size of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s bodies as well as in the decision-making process lead to improved accountability of the top management. Fewer divided responsibilities, as well as a higher proportion of personnel who are not politically driven and who are [external \u2026] experts in the Bank\u2019s bodies, will increase the transparency and efficiency of the decision-making process. Together with the change in the shareholder structure, those measures address the sources of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s difficulties as they minimise the risk that Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn will engage in politically-driven projects conflicting with the economic interests of the Bank. Further, the independence of the Bank\u2019s management seems to be sufficiently anchored in the existing law. The fact that Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn provided evidence that since 2004 the Bank has not engaged in new politically-driven projects shows that the implemented measures are effective. Overall, the new corporate governance code is in line with what was achieved in comparable cases (31). Therefore, the implemented and committed changes of the corporate governance of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn can be considered adequate and sufficient to contribute to the restoration of the Bank\u2019s long-term viability.\n(81)\nThe Commission considers that Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s restructuring plan meets the requirements set out in points 9 and 12-15 of the Restructuring Communication, namely that the restructuring plan should also demonstrate how the Bank will restore its long-term viability without State aid as soon as possible. In particular, the Bank should be able to generate an appropriate return on equity, while covering all the costs of its normal operations and complying with the relevant regulatory requirements.\n(82)\nFirst, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn has provided financial projections for the period 2008-2014, giving information on the revenues, costs, impairments, profits and capital position of the Bank. The Commission finds that the base case projections provided are based on reasonable underlying macroeconomic assumptions. The Bank expects to generate profits again in 2010 and continuously improve its yearly results over the whole restructuring period. Further, in 2014 ROE will reach a level of [9-10] %, which appears to be an adequate level of remuneration for a retail bank in normal market conditions. Furthermore, starting from 2013 Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn will fully remunerate the aid measures. The Bank\u2019s capital ratios remain well above the minimum regulatory requirements with the Tier-1 ratio improving from 6,1 % in 2009 to [8-9] % in 2014.\n(83)\nSecond, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn demonstrated that it is able to withstand a stress scenario. The assumptions of the stress scenario have been assessed as reasonable. As the stress scenario demonstrates that Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn will exceed its regulatory capital requirements, the Bank can be regarded as meeting the requirements of paragraph 13 of the Restructuring Communication. Further, the sensitivity analysis shows that the Bank is capable of withstanding a significant change in interest rates in the future.\n(84)\nFinally, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn presented a partial early exit strategy. The partial repayment of the state capital should be possible without depleting the capital base of the institution, as Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s Tier-1 capital ratio is projected to reach [6-7] % in 2010 and will exceed this level afterwards in the base case scenario and also remain well above the regulatory minimum in a stress case scenario in the restructuring plan. The partial early exit does not involve additional aid either to Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn or to other entities which are part of the transaction. First, due to the design of the purchase price to be paid for the first EUR 150 million tranche of the Genussrechte, which closely simulates the cash flow F\u00f6rderungsgesellschaft would receive had it kept the instrument, F\u00f6rderungsgesellschaft would be left no better off. Second, the transaction takes place between two public entities. Further, as the instrument to be converted into Tier-1 capital already qualifies as aid and Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn will pay the same remuneration to the Zweckverband after the conversion, the Commission does not see any additional aid involved in the conversion. Finally, the buy-back by Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn of the second EUR 150 million tranche will also closely simulate the cash flow F\u00f6rderungsgesellschaft would have received had it kept the instrument.\n(85)\nConsequently, the Commission considers that the restructuring plan submitted by Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn fulfils the requirements of the Restructuring Communication with regard to the restoration of the long-term viability and thereby allays the doubts expressed in the opening Decision.\n(ii) Own contribution/burden-sharing\n(86)\nAs stated in the Restructuring Communication, banks and their stakeholders need to contribute to the restructuring as much as possible in order to ensure that aid is limited to the minimum necessary. This implies that banks use their own resources to finance the restructuring, for instance by selling assets, while the stakeholders should absorb the losses of the bank where possible. The measures committed to by Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn ensure that own resources are used and that private investors holding hybrid capital of the Bank contribute to the restructuring.\n(87)\nThe restructuring plan does not contain any elements that suggest that the aid exceeds the means required to cover those costs which are triggered by the restoration of viability. The aid received is required to ensure that Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn will have reasonable capital buffers in the base case and will be able to comply with regulatory capital requirements in a stress scenario.\n(88)\nIn respect of the contribution to restructuring costs through internal resources generated by Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn, the Commission notes that the Bank is implementing cost-cutting measures. The cost-cutting measures will result in a reduction of annual costs by EUR [25-35] million by the end of the restructuring period, which represents about [5-8] % of the total costs in 2009.\n(89)\nFurther, the divestments of profitable non-core subsidiaries will generate proceeds which can be used to finance the restructuring costs.\n(90)\nThe Bank has no discretion to suspend or delay the payment of a coupon on the hybrid instruments if it generates a profit in a given year. However, the holders of hybrid instruments also bear to the extent possible the losses incurred by Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn, as both coupon payment and principal of the hybrid capital were suspended or participated in the absorption of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s losses. Therefore, the Commission considers that the maximum possible burden-sharing from its private hybrid investors is ensured and therefore the requirements of the Restructuring Communication for the contribution to the restructuring costs by the private investors are met.\n(91)\nPoint 24 of the Restructuring Communication states that an adequate remuneration of the state capital is also a means of achieving burden-sharing. In this respect the Commission considers the level of remuneration set in the terms of recapitalisation measures is appropriate in association with the other burden-sharing measures described above. The projected profits will allow the Bank to remunerate the state capital and pay suspended coupons in line with the terms of the recapitalisation starting from 2011 for Genussrechte and from 2013 for silent participation, after the nominal capital of the instruments has been topped up. It should be noted that the interest on the Genussrechte held by the State is cumulative for [2-6] years and the capital depleted due to loss absorption is to be topped up in the case of both recapitalisation instruments. Therefore, according to the financial projections in the base case the unpaid interest on the Genussrechte and depleted principal of both instruments will subsequently be recovered by the State.\n(92)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission considers that the restructuring plan submitted by Germany provides for a sufficient own contribution to the restructuring and therefore allays the doubts expressed in the opening Decision.\n(iii) Measures limiting the distortion of competition\n(93)\nThe Restructuring Communication requires that the restructuring plan proposes measures limiting distortions of competition and ensuring a competitive banking sector. Moreover, they should also address moral hazard issues and ensure that State aid is not used to fund anti-competitive behaviour.\n(94)\nThe package of measures sufficiently addresses the issue of moral hazard. Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn is committed to implementing a comprehensive sale of profitable non-core businesses. These include the stake in [\u2026], [\u2026], RW Holding AG, S ProFinanz Versicherungsmakler GmbH, Schufa Holding AG and Neue Leben Pensionsverwaltung AG, which are significant [\u2026] of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn.\n(95)\nThe German authorities have provided a detailed timeline for planned divestments and committed to the appointment of a monitoring trustee in order to ensure that the commitments will be carried out in a timely manner. A divestiture trustee would be appointed for the divestments if the committed timeline is not met.\n(96)\nThe restructuring of the Bank includes a reduction of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s presence in certain customer segments. Those measures will allow competitors to access parts of the Bank\u2019s large corporate and institutional clients. Since it affects mainly large entities, which generally have access to the capital markets, the Commission considers the risk of negative impact on the real economy of this measure to be negligible.\n(97)\nFurther, as a consequence of the implementation of the restructuring measures, Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn will reduce its total assets by [15-20] % in terms of RWA ([15-20] % in terms of total assets) on a pro forma basis and by [10-15] % including future growth (5 % in terms of total assets). The reduction will be mainly driven by the withdrawal from the SAA and ABS investments, the cessation of proprietary trading ([6-8] % in RWA terms, [6-8] % in terms of total assets) and the reduction of large credit exposures and credit lines to institutional clients (RWA: [5-7] %, total assets: [5-7] %).\n(98)\nIn view of the amount of aid in the present case (3,3 % of RWA), these measures can be considered to be sufficient and proportionate in terms of the reduction of the Bank\u2019s size and scope of activities. Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn is active only in the Cologne-Bonn region, where it has a significant ([18-23] % - [30-35] % depending on the product), but not dominant market position. Moreover, the Bank does not act as a price leader in its core business segments. For this reason, additional measures aiming at further reducing the Bank\u2019s market share in its core retail market do not appear to be appropriate in the case of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn. First, the Commission notes that the core activity was not the source of the Bank\u2019s difficulties. Further, Germany provided sufficient evidence showing that such measures would be difficult and disproportionately costly to implement, thereby negatively affecting the underlying earning ability of the Bank, and would constitute a threat to the long-term viability of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn. Furthermore such measures would adversely affect Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s core business segments, SMEs and private customers, which, however, were not the source of the Bank\u2019s difficulties. Finally, given the limited alternative sources of financing for those customer groups and Commission\u2019s case practice, which is aimed at maintaining lending to the real economy, the Commission finds that further constraints to Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn\u2019s scope of activities would impact its core business and would therefore be harmful both to the Bank and to the markets it serves.\n(99)\nThe Commission also notes the behavioural commitments provided by Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn and Germany. Those commitments include a price leadership ban and an advertisement ban on the state support, thus preventing Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn from using the aid to fund anti-competitive market conduct. In line with point 40 of the Restructuring Communication, the acquisition ban furthermore ensures that the State aid will not be used to take over competitors.\n(100)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission considers that the scale and nature of the measures proposed by Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn are sufficient and adequate to address any distortions of competition. Therefore, the restructuring plan of Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn fulfils the requirements of the Restructuring Communication in terms of viability, burden-sharing and measures to mitigate the distortion of competition and hence allays the doubts expressed in the opening Decision.\n8.2.3. Monitoring\n(101)\nPursuant to section 5 of the Restructuring Communication, regular reports are required to allow the Commission to verify that the restructuring plan is being implemented properly. Germany will appoint a monitoring trustee who will provide semi-annual monitoring reports. The first report is due in February 2011. The Commission, therefore, finds that proper monitoring of the implementation of the restructuring plan is ensured.\n(102)\nThe Commission finds that the restructuring plan set out in chapter 4 of this Decision is compatible with Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.\n9. CONCLUSION\n(103)\nThe Commission concludes that the restructuring measures are apt to enable Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn to restore its long-term viability, sufficient in respect to burden-sharing and appropriate and proportional to offset the market-distorting effects of the aid measures in question. It therefore considers that the submitted restructuring plan fulfils the criteria of the Restructuring Communication and the restructuring measures can therefore be considered compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. The capital injection measures can therefore be approved in accordance with the restructuring plan,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe restructuring aid provided to Sparkasse K\u00f6lnBonn by its public shareholders constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nThe aid is compatible with the internal market, subject to implementation of the restructuring plan and fulfilment of the commitments set out in Annexes I, II and III.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 29 September 2010.", "references": ["64", "77", "81", "21", "8", "14", "84", "10", "42", "7", "41", "1", "62", "54", "25", "94", "19", "71", "55", "52", "39", "44", "74", "17", "9", "20", "11", "70", "18", "6", "No Label", "4", "15", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "15", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1294/2011\nof 12 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 December 2011.", "references": ["0", "73", "80", "50", "14", "82", "56", "19", "3", "46", "32", "63", "92", "48", "40", "54", "52", "58", "11", "81", "60", "85", "41", "76", "91", "98", "95", "21", "49", "17", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 679/2011\nof 14 July 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1), and in particular Article 91 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1698/2005 established a single legal framework for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) support for rural development throughout the Union. That legal framework has been complemented by implementing rules laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 (2). In the light of experience gained and problems that have arisen in the implementation of Rural Development Programmes it is necessary to amend certain provisions of that Regulation and to introduce certain additional implementing rules.\n(2)\nOperations concerning the production of renewable energy on agricultural holdings pursuant to Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 may fall outside the scope of Article 42 of the Treaty. In order to ensure compliance with agricultural State aid rules, a specific provision should be laid down for investments in the production of renewable energy on agricultural holdings.\n(3)\nArticle 27(12) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 provides that adjustment of agri-environment or animal welfare commitments may take the form of an extension of the duration of the commitment. In order to avoid overlapping with the following programming period, such adjustment should be limited to the end of the premium period to which the 2013 payment claim refers.\n(4)\nArticle 47 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 provides that forest-environmental commitments are to be undertaken as a general rule for a period between 5 and 7 years. In order to avoid a situation in which renewed commitments overlap with the following programming period, it should be provided that Member States may allow such commitments to be extended to the end of the premium period to which the 2013 payment claim refers.\n(5)\nArticle 62(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 provides that, at the decision-making level of the local action group, economic and social partners, as well as other representatives of civil society, are to make up at least 50 % of the local partnership. Member States should ensure that local action groups comply with this minimum percentage with respect to voting, too, in order to prevent the public sector from dominating decision-making. Furthermore, it should be ensured that project promoters are not able to influence the project selection decision. Effective safeguards should therefore be established to avoid any conflict of interests with regard to the appraisal and vote on project proposals. The transparency of the decision making should also be guaranteed with the appropriate visibility.\n(6)\nArticle 38(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 provides for the possibility of paying advances for the running costs of local action groups. It has been proven that in order to ensure the cash flow needs of local action groups it is necessary to extend the possibility to pay advances to cover the costs related to acquiring skills and animating the territory as referred to in Article 63(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.\n(7)\nArticle 44(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 allows Member States to take specific measures to ensure that minor changes to the situation of a holding do not lead to inappropriate results in relation to commitments entered into, in terms of the obligation of the beneficiary to repay the assistance where a commitment is not taken over by the transferee of a part of the holding. In order to ensure legal certainty, a definition should be provided of what constitutes a minor change in cases where the area of the holding is reduced.\n(8)\nArticle 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 provides for a revision clause in case of amendments to the baseline for certain measures. A revision clause should also be provided in case the duration of new agri-environment, animal welfare or forest-environmental commitments undertaken for a period between 5 and 7 years extends beyond the end of the current programming period, in order to avoid inconsistencies with the legal and policy framework to be laid down for the period following the current programming period.\n(9)\nIn order to clarify the application of Article 52(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006, the basis on which the co-financing rate is applied in the case of financial engineering should be set out.\n(10)\nAs regards guarantee funds in the context of financial engineering under subsection 3 of Section 1 of Chapter IV of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006, additional details on the method of calculating the eligible expenses of the operation related to such interventions should be provided to ensure the most efficient use of Union resources.\n(11)\nWhile acknowledging the specificities of rural development, relating essentially to the small scale of supported operations, it is necessary, in order to maximise the leverage effect of the financial engineering tool, to clarify the reuse of the resources returned to the financial engineering operation during the programming period as well as to make a distinction between it and the reuse after the final date of eligibility of the rural development programme.\n(12)\nTaking into account the nature of some investments in forestry and the fact that payments could in certain cases be area-related, it should be possible to use standard costs calculations as an alternative to the invoice-based system used to determine the level of support for the measure referred to in Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. Article 53(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 should therefore be adapted accordingly.\n(13)\nArticle 54(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 provides for the conditions under which contributions in kind may be considered as eligible expenditure. In its present form, Article 54(1) considers contributions in kind to be eligible only for investment operations. Experience has shown that this condition is too restrictive for the efficient implementation of measures. Therefore, it should be provided that contributions in kind may be eligible for all types of operation.\n(14)\nArticle 55 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 lays down a set of rules for the definition of eligible expenditure for investment operations. In order to bring additional clarity to the implementation of this Article, the acquisition of payment entitlements should be explicitly excluded from eligibility. It should also be clarified that, given their nature, investments replacing agricultural production potential after natural disasters constitute eligible expenditure.\n(15)\nIn order to increase the impact of advances in the context of the ongoing financial crisis, taking due account of the specific role of regional governments in implementing rural development policy, the possibility for advance payments provided for in Article 56 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 should be opened up to regional authorities as well.\n(16)\nTo facilitate the implementation of investment projects in the context of the ongoing economic and financial crisis, the maximum ceiling for advance payments was raised to 50 % for investments in 2009 and 2010. In order to take account of the continuing negative effects of the economic and financial crisis, this higher ceiling should be maintained until the end of the programming period. In order to ensure continuity in the implementation of Rural Development Programmes between the end of 2010 and the entry into force of this Regulation, the relevant provision should be applied retroactively from 1 January 2011.\n(17)\nTo take account of the relatively small size of rural development projects and the difficulty such projects have in obtaining bank guarantees for advance payments, measures should be taken allowing those guarantees to be replaced by written guarantees from public authorities.\n(18)\nTo make the best use of advances, it should be left to the competent paying agency to define when guarantees are released.\n(19)\nRegulation (EC) No 1974/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(20)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Rural Development Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1974/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following Article 16a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 16a\nFor the purpose of Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, where investments are made in the production of thermal energy and/or electricity from renewable sources on agricultural holdings, renewable energy production facilities shall be eligible for support only if their production capacity is no more than equivalent to the combined average annual energy consumption of thermal energy and electricity on the agricultural holding, including the farm household.\nWhere investments are made in the production of biofuels within the meaning of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) on agricultural holdings, renewable energy production facilities shall be eligible for support only if their production capacity is no more than equivalent to the annual average transport fuel consumption on the agricultural holding.\n(2)\nin Article 27(12), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Such adjustments may also take the form of an extension of the duration of the commitment. The extension may not go beyond the end of the period to which the 2013 payment claim refers.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe following Article 32a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 32a\nFor the purpose of Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, Member States may allow forest-environmental commitments to be extended until the end of the period to which the 2013 payment claim refers.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 37, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. For the purposes of Article 62(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, decisions on the selection of projects by the decision-making body of local action groups shall be taken by a vote in which the economic and social partners as well as other representatives of the civil society, as provided for in Article 62(1)(b) of that Regulation, shall make up at least 50 % of the votes. As regards the decision-making process with regard to project selection, appropriate rules to guarantee transparency and to avoid situations of conflicts of interest shall be respected.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 38, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Member States may, upon request, pay an advance to local action groups. The amount of the advance shall not exceed 20 % of the public aid related to the costs referred to in Article 63(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and its payment shall be subject to the establishment of a bank guarantee or an equivalent guarantee corresponding to 110 % of the amount of the advance. The guarantee shall be released upon closure of the local development strategy at the latest.\nArticle 24(6) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 (4) shall not apply for the payment referred to in the first subparagraph.\n(6)\nin Article 44(3), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018A reduction in the area of the holding of up to 10 % of the area under commitment shall be considered as a minor change for the purpose of the first subparagraph.\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 46, the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018A revision clause shall be provided from 2012 onwards for commitments undertaken for a period of between 5 and 7 years, pursuant to Articles 39, 40 and 47 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, which extend beyond the end of the current programming period, to allow for their adjustment to the legal framework of the following programming period. However, Member States may decide to introduce such a revision clause already in 2011. The second paragraph shall apply also with respect to this paragraph.\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 52 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 52\n1. As regards financial engineering actions referred to in Article 51 of this Regulation, the expenditure declared to the Commission in accordance with Article 26(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 shall be the total expenditure paid in establishing or contributing to such funds.\nHowever, when paying the balance and closing the rural development programme in accordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the eligible expenditure shall be the total of:\n(a)\nany payment for investment in enterprises out of each of the funds concerned, or any guarantees provided including amounts committed as guarantees by guarantee funds;\n(b)\neligible management costs.\nThe co-financing rate to be applied shall correspond to the co-financing rate of the measure to which the fund contributes. If the fund contributes to several measures with different co-financing rates, these rates shall apply at the ratio of the respective eligible expenditure.\nThe difference between the EAFRD contribution actually paid pursuant to the first subparagraph and the eligible expenditure under points (a) or (b) of the second subparagraph shall be cleared in the context of the annual accounts of the last year of implementation of the programme. These accounts shall include the detailed financial information needed.\n2. Where EAFRD co-finances operations comprising guarantee funds for repayable investments pursuant to Article 50 of this Regulation, an appropriate ex ante assessment of expected losses shall be carried out, taking into account current market practices for similar operations for the type of investments and market concerned. The assessment of the expected losses may be reviewed, if justified by subsequent market conditions. The resources committed to honour guarantees shall reflect such an assessment.\n3. Resources returned to the operation during the programming period from investments undertaken by funds or left over after a guarantee has been honoured shall be reused by the fund according to the funding agreement referred to in Article 51(6) of this Regulation or cleared in the context of the annual accounts. After the final date of eligibility of the rural development programme, resources returned to the operation from investments undertaken by funds or left over after all guarantees have been honoured shall be used by the Member States concerned for the benefit of individual undertakings.\nInterest generated by payments from rural development programmes to funds shall be used according to the first subparagraph.\u2019;\n(9)\nin Article 53(1), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Where appropriate, Member States may fix the level of support provided for in Articles 27, 31, 37 to 41 and 43 to 49 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on the basis of standard costs and standard assumptions of income foregone.\u2019;\n(10)\nin Article 54(1), the introductory phrase of the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Contributions in kind from a public or private beneficiary, namely the provision of goods or services for which no cash payment supported by invoices or documents of equivalent probative value is made, may be eligible expenditure provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:\u2019;\n(11)\nArticle 55(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. In the case of agricultural investments, the purchase of agricultural production rights, payment entitlements, animals, annual plants and their planting shall not be eligible for investment support.\nSimple replacement investments shall not be eligible expenditure.\nHowever, in cases of restoration of agricultural production potential damaged by natural disasters pursuant to Article 20(b)(vi) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, expenditure for the purchase of animals and replacement investments may be eligible expenditure.\u2019;\n(12)\nArticle 56 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 56\n1. By way of derogation from Article 24(6) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, Member States may, upon request, pay an advance to the beneficiaries of investment support. As regards public beneficiaries, such an advance may be paid to municipalities and associations thereof, to regional authorities and to public law bodies.\n2. The amount of the advances shall not exceed 50 % of the public aid related to the investment, and its payment shall be subject to the establishment of a bank guarantee or an equivalent guarantee corresponding to 110 % of the amount of the advance.\nA facility provided as a guarantee by a public authority shall be considered equivalent to the guarantee referred to in the first subparagraph, provided that the authority undertakes to pay the amount covered by that guarantee should entitlement to the advance paid not be established.\n3. The guarantee may be released when the competent paying agency establishes that the amount of actual expenditure corresponding to the public aid related to the investment exceeds the amount of the advance.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1(12), as concerns the first subparagraph of Article 56(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006, shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 July 2011.", "references": ["97", "19", "41", "36", "99", "89", "14", "39", "25", "35", "5", "59", "78", "81", "93", "52", "85", "63", "13", "56", "70", "65", "48", "20", "88", "71", "96", "60", "2", "46", "No Label", "10", "15", "17", "61", "62"], "gold": ["10", "15", "17", "61", "62"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 42/2012\nof 18 January 2012\non the issue of import licences and the allocation of import rights for applications lodged during the first seven days of January 2012 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 (3) opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products originating in Brazil, Thailand and other third countries.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged in respect of Groups Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 during the first seven days of January 2012 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2012 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested.\n(3)\nThe applications for import rights lodged during the first seven days of January 2012 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2012 in respect of Group No 5 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import rights may be allocated should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2012 in respect of Groups Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\n2. The quantities for which import rights applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2012 in respect of Group No 5 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficient set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2012.", "references": ["4", "93", "29", "73", "60", "91", "14", "83", "39", "44", "15", "1", "20", "51", "81", "0", "18", "10", "84", "25", "13", "52", "68", "98", "26", "85", "97", "37", "48", "58", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "66", "69", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "66", "69", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1143/2010\nof 7 December 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 as regards the period of application of the transitional provisions for certain ornamental aquatic animals intended for closed ornamental facilities\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (1), and in particular Article 17(2), Articles 22 and 25 and Article 61(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 of 12 December 2008 implementing Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards conditions and certification requirements for the placing on the market and the import into the Community of aquaculture animals and products thereof and laying down a list of vector species (2) lays down the animal health conditions and certification requirements for imports into the Union of ornamental aquatic animals intended for closed ornamental facilities.\n(2)\nArticle 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 provides that ornamental fish of species susceptible to one or more of the diseases listed in Part II of Annex IV to Directive 2006/88/EC and intended for closed ornamental facilities are only to be imported into the Union from third countries, territories, zones or compartments listed in Annex III to that Regulation. Epizootic ulcerative syndrome (EUS) is listed in Part II of Annex IV to Directive 2006/88/EC as an exotic disease of certain susceptible species of fish.\n(3)\nArticle 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 provides that for a transitional period until 31 December 2010, Member States may authorise the import of ornamental aquatic animals of species susceptible to EUS intended solely for closed ornamental facilities from third countries or territories that are members of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).\n(4)\nPart II.2 of the model animal health certificate applicable to ornamental aquatic animals intended for closed facilities set out in Part B of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 sets out certain import requirements related to EUS. The second sub-paragraph of Article 20(5) of that Regulation provides that these requirements shall not apply during the transitional period referred to above.\n(5)\nFurther studies are needed at present to assess more precisely the risks associated with the import into the Union of such ornamental aquatic animals. In order not to disrupt trade in those animals, it is appropriate to prolong until 31 December 2012 the period of application of the transitional measures currently laid down in Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008.\n(6)\nIn addition, certain other transitional provisions currently laid down in Article 20 of that Regulation are no longer applicable. In the interests of conciseness and clarity of Union legislation, it is appropriate to delete those provisions.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1251/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 20\nFor a transitional period until 31 December 2012, Member States may authorise the import of ornamental aquatic animals of species susceptible to epizootic ulcerative syndrome (EUS) intended solely for closed ornamental facilities from third countries or territories that are Members of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).\nDuring that transitional period, the requirements concerning EUS set out in Part II.2 of the model animal health certificate set out in Part B of Annex IV, shall not apply to ornamental aquatic animals intended solely for closed ornamental facilities.\u2019\nArticle 2\nIn note (3) to Part II.2 of the model animal health certificate set out in Part B of Annex IV, the date \u20181 January 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u20181 January 2013\u2019.\nFor a transitional period until 31 December 2012, consignments of ornamental aquatic animals accompanied by animal health certificates issued in accordance with Part B of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 before the amendments introduced by the present Regulation, may continue to be imported into or transited through the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2010.", "references": ["91", "31", "94", "39", "87", "74", "53", "37", "15", "40", "20", "35", "90", "22", "45", "42", "36", "17", "30", "76", "72", "88", "59", "57", "55", "32", "80", "96", "86", "44", "No Label", "21", "38", "66", "67"], "gold": ["21", "38", "66", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 376/2011\nof 15 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 April 2011.", "references": ["63", "53", "94", "56", "83", "17", "28", "0", "26", "76", "64", "91", "90", "40", "15", "11", "71", "86", "39", "81", "82", "37", "33", "32", "70", "3", "55", "23", "85", "45", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 249/2011\nof 14 March 2011\nadopting the specifications of the 2012 ad hoc module on transition from work to retirement provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 of 9 March 1998 on the organisation of a labour force sample survey in the Community (1), and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThere is a need for a comprehensive and comparable set of data on the transition from work to retirement in order to monitor progress towards the common objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and of the open method of coordination in the area of social protection and social inclusion. Both processes identify promotion of active ageing and prolongation of working life as priorities for action, in particular under guideline 7 of the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines (Increasing labour market participation and reducing structural unemployment) and under the objective of adequate and sustainable pensions adopted by the European Council in March 2006 on the basis of the Commission communication \u2018Working together, working better: A new framework for the open coordination of social protection and inclusion policies in the European Union\u2019.\n(2)\nDecision No 1672/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity - Progress (2) supports the implementation of the European Employment Strategy. This programme financially supports the implementation of the objectives of the European Union in the fields of employment and social affairs from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013. In the field of pensions the programme provides for policy analysis, statistical information and advice.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 365/2008 of 23 April 2008 adopting the programme of ad hoc modules, covering the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, for the labour force sample survey provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 (3) includes an ad hoc module on transition from work to retirement. The list of variables for this module should be defined.\n(4)\nReference should be made to Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality reporting and Commission Recommendation 2009/498/EC (5) on the report structure.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe detailed list of variables for the 2012 ad hoc module on transition from work to retirement to be added to the labour force sample survey shall be as set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 March 2011.", "references": ["99", "15", "90", "53", "1", "82", "10", "54", "43", "47", "46", "11", "23", "24", "14", "60", "78", "76", "40", "98", "80", "45", "27", "96", "44", "57", "86", "55", "92", "61", "No Label", "19", "49", "50", "52"], "gold": ["19", "49", "50", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 969/2011\nof 29 September 2011\ninitiating a review of Implementing Regulation of the Council (EU) No 400/2010 (extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 on imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of China to imports of steel ropes and cables consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not) for the purposes of determining the possibility of granting an exemption from those measures to one Korean exporter, repealing the anti-dumping duty with regard to imports from that exporter and making imports from that exporter subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic anti-dumping Regulation), and in particular Articles 11(4), 13(4) and 14(5) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. EXISTING MEASURES\n(1)\nThe Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 (2) imposed anti-dumping measures on steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of China (the original measures). By Regulation (EC) No 400/2010 (3), the Council extended these measures to steel ropes and cables consigned from the Republic of Korea (the extended measures) with the exception of imports consigned by certain companies specifically mentioned\n(2)\nIn November 2010, the Commission published a notice of initiation (4) of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of China. Pending the completion of the expiry review investigation, the measures continue to be in force.\nB. REQUEST FOR A REVIEW\n(3)\nThe Commission has received a request for an exemption pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation from the anti-dumping measures extended to imports of steel ropes and cables consigned from the Republic of Korea. The application was lodged by SEIL Wire and Cable (the applicant), a producer in the Republic of Korea (the country concerned).\nC. PRODUCT\n(4)\nThe product under examination is steel ropes and cables including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm, consigned from the Republic of Korea (the product concerned) currently falling within CN codes ex 7312 10 81, ex 7312 10 83, ex 7312 10 85, ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 10 98.\nD. GROUNDS FOR THE REVIEW\n(5)\nThe applicant alleges that it did not export the product concerned to the European Union during the investigation period used in the investigation that led to the extended measures, i.e.1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.\n(6)\nFurthermore, the applicant alleges that it is not related to exporting producers subject to measures, and that it has not circumvented the measures applicable to steel ropes and cables of Chinese origin.\n(7)\nThe applicant further alleges that it has begun exporting the product concerned to the Union after the end of the investigation period used in the investigation that led to the extended measures.\nE. PROCEDURE\n(8)\nUnion producers known to be concerned have been informed of the above application and have been given an opportunity to comment.\n(9)\nHaving examined the evidence available, the Commission concludes that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation for the purposes of determining the possibility of granting the applicant an exemption from the extended measures.\n(a) Questionnaires\nIn order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send a questionnaire to the applicant.\n(b) Collection of information and holding of hearings\nAll interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing showing that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\nF. REPEAL OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY IN FORCE AND REGISTRATION OF IMPORTS\n(10)\nPursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, the anti-dumping duty in force should be repealed with regard to imports of the product concerned which are produced and sold for export to the European Union by the applicant.\n(11)\nAt the same time, such imports should be made subject to registration in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, in order to ensure that, should the examination result in a finding of circumvention in respect of the applicant, anti-dumping duties can be levied retroactively from the date of the initiation of this examination. The amount of the applicant\u2019s possible future liabilities cannot be estimated at this stage of the proceeding.\nG. TIME LIMITS\n(12)\nIn the interest of sound administration, time limits should be stated within which:\n-\ninterested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit the replies to the questionnaire mentioned in recital 9(a) of this Regulation or provide any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,\n-\ninterested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.\nH. NON-COOPERATION\n(13)\nIn cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.\n(14)\nWhere it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, of the facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially, and findings are therefore based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated,\nI. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\n(15)\nIt is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5).\nJ. HEARING OFFICER\n(16)\nIt is also noted that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of the Directorate-General for Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views.\n(17)\nFor further information and contact details interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages on DG Trade's website: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/hearing-officer/\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nA review of Implementing Regulation of the Council (EU) No 400/2010 is hereby initiated pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 in order to establish whether the imports of steel ropes and cables including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm, currently falling within CN codes ex 7312 10 81, ex 7312 10 83, ex 7312 10 85, ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 10 98 (TARIC codes 7312108113, 7312108313, 7312108513, 7312108913 and 7312109813) consigned from the Republic of Korea and produced by SEIL Wire and Cable (TARIC additional code A994), should be subject to the anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation of the Council (EU) No 400/2010.\nArticle 2\nThe anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation of the Council (EU) No 400/2010 is hereby repealed with regard to the imports identified in Article 1 of the present Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThe customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 14(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports identified in Article 1 of this Regulation. Registration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 4\n1. Interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit the replies to the questionnaire mentioned in recital 9(a) of this Regulation or any other information, unless otherwise specified, within 37 days of the entry into force of this Regulation. Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 depends on the party\u2019s making itself known within the aforementioned period.\nInterested parties may also apply in writing to be heard by the Commission within the same 37-day time limit.\n2. All written submissions, including the information requested in this Regulation, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties for which confidential treatment is requested shall be labelled Limited (6).\nInterested parties providing \u2018Limited\u2019 information are required to furnish non-confidential summaries of it pursuant to Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, which will be labelled \u2018For inspection by interested parties\u2019. These summaries should be sufficiently detailed to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence. If an interested party providing confidential information does not furnish a non-confidential summary of it in the requested format and quality, such confidential information may be disregarded.\nFor this investigation, the Commission will use an electronic document management system. Interested parties are required to make all submissions and requests in electronic format (the non-confidential submissions via e-mail, the confidential ones on CD-R/DVD), and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers of the interested party. However, any Powers of Attorney, signed certifications, and any updates thereof, accompanying questionnaire replies shall be submitted on paper, i.e. by post or by hand, at the address below. Pursuant to Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation if an interested party cannot provide its submissions and requests in electronic format, it must immediately inform the Commission. For further information concerning correspondence with the Commission, interested parties may consult the relevant web page on the website of Directorate-General for Trade: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/trade-defence/.\nCommission address for correspondence:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N105 04/092\n1049 Brussels\nBELGIUM\nFax (+32 2) 295 65 05\nE-mail: TRADE-STEEL-ROPE-DUMPING@EC.EUROPA.EU\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 September 2011.", "references": ["73", "55", "67", "82", "76", "32", "18", "10", "70", "2", "39", "68", "42", "74", "83", "93", "88", "86", "87", "6", "61", "89", "63", "40", "31", "24", "53", "62", "85", "77", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 358/2011\nof 12 April 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 353/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 April 2011.", "references": ["55", "29", "79", "12", "40", "37", "28", "38", "49", "2", "74", "70", "73", "16", "83", "87", "33", "48", "24", "85", "96", "94", "7", "52", "82", "31", "54", "18", "42", "36", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 20 June 2011\nauthorising Romania to introduce a special measure derogating from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(2011/363/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letters registered at the Commission on 4 November 2009, 2 July 2010, 26 July 2010 and 20 December 2010, Romania requested authorisation, for a period of 2 years, to designate as liable to value added tax (VAT) the taxable persons to whom supplies of certain cereals and oilseeds are made, by way of derogation from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC. It has said that it will not seek renewal of this authorisation.\n(2)\nThe Commission forwarded Romania\u2019s request to the other Member States by letter of 15 March 2011. By letter of 22 March 2011, the Commission notified Romania that it had all the information it considered necessary for appraisal of the requests.\n(3)\nRomania has found cases of tax evasion in the trade in certain unprocessed agricultural products, cereals and oilseeds. Some operators do not pay VAT to the Treasury after delivering their products, especially if they have acquired them without payment of input tax. Their customers, however, are entitled to deduct the VAT as they are in possession of a valid invoice.\n(4)\nDesignating the taxable person to whom the goods are supplied as liable for the VAT instead of the supplier would be a temporary emergency measure that would put an end to this form of evasion. Application of that special measure for 2 years should give Romania time to introduce in the agricultural sector definitive measures compatible with Directive 2006/112/EC that would prevent and combat this form of evasion.\n(5)\nTo prevent the fraudulent activity being transferred to the processing stage of food or industrial goods, or to other products, Romania should introduce at the same time appropriate declaration and control measures and notify the Commission thereof.\n(6)\nTo ensure that the special measure applies only to unprocessed agricultural products and that the taxable persons concerned do not incur disproportionate administrative costs or run any risk as to legal certainty, the goods covered by the special measure should be determined by using the combined nomenclature laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (2).\n(7)\nThe special measure is justified and proportionate to the objectives pursued. It is of fixed duration and concerns only a number of clearly designated products that are not normally used in the unaltered state for final consumption and have been the subject of tax evasion activities that have caused a substantial loss of VAT revenue. Given the scale of this lost tax revenue, the measure should be adopted as soon as possible.\n(8)\nThe special measure will not affect the overall amount of VAT revenue of Romania collected at the stage of final consumption and will have no adverse impact on the Union\u2019s own resources accruing from VAT,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC, Romania is hereby authorised to designate as the person liable to pay VAT the taxable recipient of supplies of the following goods, as set out in the combined nomenclature established by Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87:\nCN code\nProduct\n1001 10 00\nDurum wheat\n1001 90 10\nSpelt for sowing\nex 1001 90 91\nCommon wheat, seed\nex 1001 90 99\nOther spelt and common wheat, not for sowing\n1002 00 00\nRye\n1003 00\nBarley\n1005\nMaize\n1201 00\nSoya beans, whether or not broken\n1205\nRape or colza seeds, whether or not broken\n1206 00\nSunflower seeds, whether or not broken\n1212 91\nSugar beet\nArticle 2\nThe authorisation provided for in Article 1 is subject to Romania\u2019s introducing declaration obligations and appropriate and effective control measures with respect to taxable persons who supply the goods to which that authorisation applies.\nRomania shall notify the Commission of the introduction of the obligations and measures referred to in the first paragraph.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall take effect on the date of its notification.\nIt shall apply from 1 June 2011 until 31 May 2013.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to Romania.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["83", "88", "10", "27", "36", "71", "47", "5", "9", "0", "53", "75", "46", "30", "20", "80", "65", "23", "16", "19", "14", "33", "56", "22", "37", "43", "94", "45", "68", "72", "No Label", "8", "12", "34", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "12", "34", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 796/2012\nof 30 August 2012\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 9(4), 11(2), 11(5) and 11(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006 (2) (\u2018the original Regulation\u2019) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 27,1 % and 47,4 % on imports of lever arch mechanisms (\u2018LAM\u2019) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019).\n2. Request for an expiry review\n(2)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry (3) of the definitive anti-dumping measures in force, the Commission received on 26 April 2011 a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged by LAMMA (Lever arch mechanism manufacturers association) on behalf of three Union producers (\u2018the applicant\u2019) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the Union production of lever arch mechanisms.\n(3)\nThe request provided sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures imposed on imports of LAM originating in the PRC would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.\n3. Initiation of an expiry review\n(4)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 23 July 2011, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) (\u2018the notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n4. Investigation\n4.1. Review investigation period and the period considered\n(5)\nThe investigation concerning the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of the review investigation period (\u2018the period considered\u2019).\n4.2. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(6)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicant, other known Union producers, exporting producers in the country concerned, unrelated importers, users in the Union known to be concerned, as well as the representatives of the country concerned of the initiation of the expiry review.\n(7)\nInterested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(8)\nIn view of the apparently large number of exporting producers in the PRC, unrelated importers and Union producers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(9)\nIn respect of exporting producers in the PRC and unrelated importers, in order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a representative sample, those parties were requested to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation. Given that no exporting producer in the PRC made itself known and provided the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation and that only one unrelated importer made itself known but did not provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation, sampling was not considered necessary in either case.\n(10)\nThe Commission announced in the notice of initiation that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. This sample consisted of two companies, out of the six Union producers that were known prior to the initiation of the investigation, selected on the basis of their sales and production volume of the product concerned in 2010 as well as geographic location in the Union. The sample represented over 50 % of the total estimated Union production and sales during the RIP. Interested parties were invited to consult the file and to comment on the appropriateness of this choice within 15 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. No interested party opposed the proposed sample.\n(11)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the two sampled Union producers, the importer that made itself known and all users known to be concerned.\n(12)\nReplies to the questionnaires were received from the two sampled Union producers and two users. The unrelated importer mentioned in recital 9 that made itself known neither replied to the sampling questions nor filled in a questionnaire reply.\n(13)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for a determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following interested parties:\n(a)\nUnion producers\n-\nIndustria Meccanica Lombarda S.r.l., Offanengo, Italy,\n-\nNIKO Metallurgical company, d.d. Zelezniki, Slovenia;\n(b)\nuser\n-\nHIT OFFICE s.r.o., Teplice, Czech Republic.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(14)\nThe product concerned by this review is the same as the one in the original Regulation, namely lever arch mechanisms generally used for archiving sheets and other documents in binders or files currently falling within CN code ex 8305 10 00 (TARIC code 8305100050) (\u2018the product concerned\u2019) and originating in the PRC. These lever arch mechanisms consist of arched sturdy metal elements (normally two) on a back plate and having at least one opening trigger that permits inserting and filing of sheets and other documents. Ring binder mechanisms classified within the same CN code are not included in the scope of the product concerned for the purpose of this investigation.\n(15)\nThe present review investigation confirmed that, as in the original investigation, the product concerned and that produced in the Union by the Union producers have the same basic technical and physical characteristics and the same uses. They were therefore considered to be like products according to Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n(16)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(17)\nAs mentioned in recital 9, none of the known Chinese exporting producers contacted at initiation cooperated in the investigation. The Chinese authorities were notified of this fact as well as of the possible application of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, and were given an opportunity to present their comments. No comments were received in this regard.\n(18)\nTherefore, and in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, the findings in relation to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping set out below had to be based on facts available, in particular publicly available information such as official company websites and product web search engines, information in the request for review and information obtained from cooperating parties in the course of the review investigation (namely, the applicants and the sampled Union producers).\n2. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n(19)\nFor the purpose of establishing normal value, the notice of initiation made reference to the use of an analogue country.\n(20)\nAs concerns the export price, due to the lack of cooperation from both exporting producers in the PRC and unrelated importers in the Union market, the Commission was unable to establish any export sales quantities or prices on a transactional basis. In this respect, the Commission considered alternative means to determine the export price.\n(21)\nFirstly, it was considered whether Eurostat, cross-checked with other available data, could be used as an alternative means to establish export prices. These were considered unsuitable in so far as one of the sources also covered imports other than the product concerned and the other sources did not allow for the possibility to compare export prices with those of the Union industry on a type-per-type basis.\n(22)\nSecondly, the Commission also considered having recourse to the export prices contained in the request for review. It is recalled that this methodology was used in the original investigation and that it permits a comparison on a type-per-type basis. However, the invoices contained in the request for review were for export prices to other third countries.\n(23)\nAccordingly, no dumping calculation could be made on the basis of export prices to the Union and it was not possible to establish an affirmative determination of dumping. The investigation therefore focused on the likelihood of a recurrence of dumping.\n3. Likelihood of recurrence of dumping\n(24)\nAs regards the investigation of the likelihood of recurrence of dumping, the following elements were analysed: the relationship between normal value and export prices to third countries; production capacity, production and spare capacity in the PRC; and the attractiveness of the Union market in relation to imports from the PRC.\n3.1. Relationship between the normal value and export prices to third countries\n(25)\nIn view of the lack of cooperation from exporting producers in the PRC, normal value was compared to export prices from the PRC in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.\n3.1.1. Basis for determining normal value\n(26)\nSince the PRC is an economy in transition, in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation normal value had to be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in an appropriate market economy third country (the analogue country), or the price from the analogue country to other countries, including the Union, or, where those are not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit margin.\n(27)\nThe request for review by the Union industry cited a number of producers in market economy countries other than the Union (namely, India, Iran and Thailand). Upon initiation, these producers were duly contacted by the Commission as well as other potential producers in such countries that could be identified from publicly available sources.\n(28)\nThe notice of initiation specified that if no cooperation was forthcoming from producers in market economy countries other than the Union, the Commission envisaged using the prices actually paid or payable in the Union as the basis for determining the normal value. Indeed, the prices actually paid or payable in the Union was the basis used to determine normal value in the original investigation.\n(29)\nNo interested party commented on the appropriateness of the abovementioned basis for determining normal value.\n(30)\nNo producer in market economy countries, other than in the Union, contacted by the Commission decided to cooperate in the present review.\n(31)\nIn the above context, the Commission was left with no other alternative than to rely on the prices actually paid or payable in the Union as the basis to determine normal value.\n3.1.2. Normal value\n(32)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation and as explained in recitals 26 to 31 above, normal value was established using the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product which were found to be in the ordinary course of trade.\n(33)\nAs a result, normal value was established as the weighted average domestic sales price to unrelated customers of the sampled Union producers.\n(34)\nIt was first established whether the domestic sales of the like product to independent customers of the sampled Union producers were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of the total sales volume of the product concerned exported to the Union. Given the lack of cooperation from exporting producers in the PRC, information in relation to the total sales volume exported to the Union had to be determined according to facts available. As mentioned in recital 21, Eurostat and other statistics were considered unsuitable for the purposes of establishing a continuance of dumping, however, they can be used to indicate a level of imports (needed for the overall volume exported from the PRC) to the Union. On that basis, the domestic sales of the sampled Union producers were considered to be overall sufficiently representative during the RIP. In view of the lack of cooperation from exporters in the PRC, it was not possible to analyse representativity on a type-per-type basis.\n(35)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each sampled Union producer could be considered as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, i.e. whether for each sampled Union producer the average sales prices were equal or above the average costs of production and therefore profitable.\n(36)\nOn this basis it was established that sales of the Union producers were on average profitable and normal value was consequently determined on the basis of the weighted average sales prices of the sampled Union producers.\n3.1.3. Export price\n(37)\nIn the absence of cooperation from exporting producers, the most appropriate basis was found to be the information on the export prices from the PRC to third countries contained in the request for review.\n3.1.4. Comparison\n(38)\nThe comparison between the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price was made on an ex-works basis. This comparison showed that the export price to third countries in the request for review was significantly lower than the normal value (over 30 %). This indicates that prices to the Union will be very likely dumped should measures be repealed.\n3.2. Production capacity of the exporting producers\n(39)\nSince no cooperation from exporting producers was forthcoming, the following conclusions rely mainly on the information contained in the request for review, cross-checked where possible against publicly available information.\n(40)\nOn this basis, it was found that the PRC production capacity of LAM is estimated to be at least within a range of 600 million and 700 million pieces, which is based on information provided by the Union industry.\n(41)\nIn addition, information obtained during the investigation shows that the production capacity in the PRC for LAM can be easily increased, inter alia, through the employment of additional workforce and by limited investment in tooling, in case of increased demand.\n(42)\nNo interested party has come forward with other comments and/or information in relation to production capacity in the PRC.\n(43)\nOn this basis, production capacity in the PRC is around 170 %-350 % higher than the Union consumption and significantly more than the Union production.\n3.3. Production and spare capacity of exporting producers in the PRC\n(44)\nSince no cooperation from exporting producers was forthcoming, information in relation to actual production and spare capacity relied mainly on the information contained in the request for review, cross-checked where possible against publicly available information.\n(45)\nIn the request for review, production of LAM was estimated at between 200-400 million pieces and the spare capacity of between 200-500 million pieces. This spare capacity corresponds roughly to the equivalent of Union consumption.\n(46)\nThe submitted estimates were found to be reasonable after being cross-checked by reference to publicly available sources where possible.\n(47)\nIn relation to spare capacity, as mentioned in recital 41, the information obtained during the investigation shows that the production capacity in the PRC for LAM can be easily increased, inter alia, through the employment of additional workforce and by limited investment in tooling, in case of increased demand.\n(48)\nBased on the above, it can reasonably be concluded that substantial spare capacity exists in the PRC. As explained in recitals 49 to 55, there is a strong likelihood that such spare capacity would be directed towards the Union market should measures be repealed.\n3.4. Attractiveness of the Union market\n(49)\nInformation gathered during the present review reveals that the Union market would be an attractive market for imports of LAM from the PRC, should measures be repealed. It is recalled that prior to the imposition of the measures in force, consumption in the Union was substantial and close to 400 million pieces. At the same time, imports from the PRC were over 200 million pieces accounting for over 50 % of the entire Union consumption.\n(50)\nThe investigation has demonstrated that Union demand for LAM remained substantial. The Union consumption has only modestly declined over the period considered as determined in recitals 63 to 64 and 98 and the Union market remains the largest worldwide for LAM, representing over 50 % of the world market.\n(51)\nFurthermore, there are few other markets for LAM, which are not likely to accommodate the excess PRC capacity.\n(52)\nMoreover, as established in recital 38, a comparison between the export prices of imports from the PRC to third countries with prices in the Union market shows that the Union market would be attractive for such low-priced imports, if measures were repealed. This is also due to the fact that the prevailing prices are generally higher in the Union market than in other export markets.\n(53)\nGiven the above considerations, if measures were to be repealed, the likelihood would be that the exports from the PRC would be directed towards the Union market.\n(54)\nPublicly available information in respect of producers in the PRC reveals that such companies often primarily or exclusively direct their sales to the export market.\n(55)\nFinally, it should be observed that since the imposition of definitive measures a number of cases of misclassification of LAM imports have been observed whereby large volumes of separate LAM and covers were declared as complete lever arch files. This resulted in no duties being paid for such imports. This misclassification prompted the Customs Code Committee (in November 2010) to clarify in a statement that LAM imported under such circumstances must be separately declared. It is too early to determine whether such a statement has had the required effect and the Commission intends to monitor the situation closely. However, the practice constitutes further evidence that, in spite of measures, the Union market continues to be attractive for exporting producers in the PRC.\n3.5. Conclusion on the likelihood of a recurrence of dumping\n(56)\nAs mentioned in recital 38, a comparison between the export prices to other third countries contained in the request for review with the price on the Union market reveals a strong likelihood that dumping may recur.\n(57)\nIn addition, considering the significant production capacity available in the PRC, the ability of Chinese producers to increase rapidly their production volumes and direct them for export, the likely low prices of such exports and the attractiveness of the Union market for such exports, it is reasonable to assume that a repeal of the measures would result in increased exports at dumped levels of LAM from the PRC to the Union.\nD. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(58)\nDuring the RIP, LAM were manufactured in the Union by six known producers, out of which three were the applicants in the present case. No other companies came forward as Union producers in the course of this investigation. It is therefore considered that these six producers represent the Union industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019).\nE. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Preliminary remark\n(59)\nFor the purpose of the injury analysis data were obtained from Eurostat statistics and other statistical sources available to the Commission, the request for review, the responses to the questionnaire and information gathered during the verification visits.\n(60)\nThe macroeconomic indicators, namely production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales in the Union and to third markets, market share, growth, employment and productivity, magnitude of the actual dumping margin and the recovery from the past dumping are based on the data submitted by the Union industry. In this context the questionnaire responses obtained from the two sampled Union producers were complemented by information provided by all other Union producers.\n(61)\nThe microeconomic indicators, namely, stocks, wages, sales prices, profitability, investment, return on investment, cash flow and ability to raise capital refer to data supplied by the two sampled Union producers. Due to the fact that the sampled companies represent over 50 % of the total estimated Union production and sales, the sampled Union producers were deemed to be representative of the Union industry for the purposes of this review. Data relating to the two sampled companies can only be provided in indexed form, so as to preserve confidentiality of business-sensitive information pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation.\n(62)\nDue to the lack of cooperation from the Chinese exporting producers and unrelated importers, the development of import price and undercutting is based on alternative sources such as the request for review, Eurostat and other confidential statistics available to the Commission as well as information collected during the verification visits. Import data were based on the request for review which was based on Eurostat data. Given that these data also covered imports other than the product concerned, they were cross-checked and duly adjusted against other confidential statistical sources available to the Commission. Therefore, some figures below have been indexed or bracketed to protect confidential statistics.\n2. Consumption on the Union market\n(63)\nThe Union consumption was established on the basis of the sales volume of the Union industry on the Union market and imports. It was established that the consumption during the RIP was within the range of 200 and 350 million pieces.\n(64)\nThe consumption of LAM in the Union decreased by 12 % over the period considered. This could be partly attributed to the economic crisis as well as changing patterns in consumption (e.g. promotion of green office and electronic filing, general decrease in administrative jobs).\nTable 1\nConsumption\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nVolume\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n84\n90\n88\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies, Review request, Eurostat and other statistical sources available to the Commission.\n3. Volume and market share of imports from the PRC\n(65)\nAs described in Table 2 below, market share decreased by 54 % during the period considered.\n(66)\nMoreover, since the imposition of anti-dumping duties in 2006, the Chinese imports considerably decreased from 51 % market share in the IP of the original investigation to between 7 % and 15 % during the RIP. Concerning import volumes from the PRC, they remained low during the period considered due to the anti-dumping measures in force. However, the Chinese imports continued to be a major source (between 85 and 95 % in RIP) of total imports in the Union, due to the limited exports of LAM by other third countries. In the period considered imports decreased by 59 %.\nTable 2\nImports from the PRC\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nVolume of imports Index (2008 = 100)\n100\n56\n44\n41\nMarket share of imports Index (2008 = 100)\n100\n66\n48\n46\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies, Review request, Eurostat and other statistical sources available to the Commission.\n4. Trend in prices of imports from the PRC and price undercutting\n4.1. Trend in prices\n(67)\nDue to the lack of cooperation of the Chinese exporting producers and lack of alternative sources, it was not possible to establish an accurate import price. This is because, as explained in recital 21, statistics were considered unsuitable in so far as one of the sources also covered imports other than the product concerned and the other sources did not allow for the possibility to compare export prices with those of the Union industry on a type-per-type basis.\n(68)\nNevertheless, it is considered that the other confidential statistical sources available to the Commission were suitable to indicate the overall trend in import prices from the PRC. The trend in import prices shows a price increase over the period considered.\nTable 3\nPrices of imports of the product concerned\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nPRC\nIndex\n100\n102\n118\n118\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies, Review request, Eurostat and other statistical sources available to the Commission.\n4.2. Price undercutting\n(69)\nDue to the lack of cooperation of the Chinese exporting producers and lack of alternative sources, the undercutting calculation was, for the reasons set out in recital 37, based on the export prices to third countries contained in the request for review. The level of undercutting indicatively established amounts to about 20 %.\n5. Import volumes and market shares of imports from other third countries\n(70)\nThe main producers of LAM in the world are located in the Union and the PRC. Imports from other third countries such as India were found to be negligible, below 1 %.\n6. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(71)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry.\n6.1. Macroeconomic elements\n(a) Production\n(72)\nThe production volume in the Union remained within the same range over the period considered with the exception of 2009. The decrease in 2009 due to a certain degree to the global economic crisis was compensated by an increase in 2010.\n(73)\nDespite the downward trend in sales in the Union as explained in recitals 75 to 77, the Union producers could maintain the production levels during the period considered as they were able to increase their exports to third markets as explained in recital 78.\nTable 4\nTotal Union production\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nVolume (thousand pieces)\nProduction\n351 480\n301 661\n360 007\n354 646\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n86\n102\n101\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(b) Production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(74)\nProduction capacity slightly increased due to the investments in extra capacity and modernisation undertaken by the Union producers over the period considered. Capacity utilisation remained rather stable, showing a slight decrease in the year 2009. This slight decrease is primarily attributable to the effects of the global economic crisis during that year.\nTable 5\nProduction capacity and capacity utilisation\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nVolume (thousand pieces)\nProduction capacity\n452 407\n453 323\n465 984\n465 401\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n100\n103\n103\nCapacity utilisation\n77,7 %\n66,5 %\n77,3 %\n76,2 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n86\n99\n98\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(c) Sales volume in the Union\n(75)\nThe figures below represent the Union industry\u2019s sales volume to independent customers on the Union market.\nTable 6\nSales to unrelated customers\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nVolume (thousand pieces)\n315 715\n281 281\n309 941\n304 444\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n89\n98\n96\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(76)\nThe sales in the Union decreased over the period considered by 4 %.\n(77)\nIn 2009, the sales dropped by 11 %. This decline is to be attributed to the effects of the global economic crisis. In subsequent years the sales recovered and were close to 2008 figures during the RIP.\n(d) Sales to thirds markets\n(78)\nThe figures below represent the Union industry\u2019s sales volume to third markets and show a sharp increase in these sales over the period considered.\nTable 7\nSales to third countries\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nVolume (thousand pieces)\n26 750\n42 105\n59 221\n57 148\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n157\n221\n214\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(e) Market share\n(79)\nDespite the decrease in sales in the Union, the market share of the Union industry increased by 9 % over the period considered to reach a range of 80 % to 93 % during the RIP. The increase in the Union market share was a result of the decrease in consumption in the Union as well as the decrease of the market share of imports from the PRC.\nTable 8\nUnion market share\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n106\n109\n109\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies, Review request, Eurostat and other statistical sources available to the Commission.\n(f) Growth\n(80)\nBetween 2008 and the RIP, the Union consumption shrunk by 12 %. The volume of sales by the Union producers on the Union market decreased by 4 %. The Union producers\u2019 market share increased by 9 %.\n(g) Employment\n(81)\nEmployment in the sector decreased in the Union during the period considered. This decrease was linked to the modernisation and mechanisation of the production process by the Union industry.\nTable 9\nUnion employment\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nNumber of employees\n710\n588\n561\n552\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n83\n79\n78\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(h) Productivity\n(82)\nThe productivity of the Union industry\u2019s workforce, measured as output per person employed per year, developed positively over the period considered and remained stable through 2010 and the RIP.\n(83)\nThis increase in productivity was linked to the modernisation process undertaken which is described in recital 93.\nTable 10\nProductivity\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nProductivity (thousand pieces/year)\n495\n513\n642\n642\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n104\n130\n130\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(i) Magnitude of the actual dumping margin and recovery from the past dumping\n(84)\nIt is recalled that, due to the circumstances described in recitals 19 to 23, no dumping calculation could be carried out. However, a likelihood of recurrence of dumping was established based on a comparison between normal value established on the basis of the average Union industry sales prices and export price established on the basis of prices to third countries.\n(85)\nThe analysis shows that the Union industry recovered to a large extent due to the imposition of the measures against dumped imports and the measures in force are proving to be effective.\n6.2. Microeconomic elements\n(a) Stocks\n(86)\nThe figures below represent the volume of stocks at the end of each period.\nTable 11\nClosing Stocks\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n43\n61\n83\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(87)\nThe investigation showed that stocks held by the Union industry were not a relevant indicator for the assessment of the economic situation of the Union industry because the level of stocks varies on a seasonal basis.\n(b) Wages\n(88)\nDuring the period considered the average wage increased by 33 % per employee.\nTable 12\nWages (cost per employee)\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n116\n133\n133\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(c) Sales prices\n(89)\nAverage unit prices of LAM in the Union increased slightly between 2008 and RIP. The relative decrease in 2010 as compared to 2009 is linked to fluctuation of the prices of the raw materials.\nTable 13\nUnit price Union market\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n103\n101\n104\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(d) Profitability\n(90)\nThe profitability margins shown below are established by expressing the financial result achieved by the Union industry as a percentage of the turnover achieved on the Union market.\nTable 14\nProfitability\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n107\n105\n104\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(91)\nPrior to the imposition of definitive measures in 2006, the Union industry was heavily loss making. Since then, the economic situation of the LAM industry improved over the period considered, however remaining below the target profit of 5 % established in the original investigation during the RIP.\n(e) Investments, return on investments and cash flow\n(92)\nThe trends for investments, the return on investments and cash flow are shown in the following table.\nTable 15\nInvestments, return on investment and cash flow\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nInvestments\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n152\n41\n51\nReturn on investment\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n111\n109\n108\nCash flow\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n291\n247\n236\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(93)\nDue to the recovery after imposition of the measures in 2006, the industry carried out significant investments into modernisation and expansion of the production facility, in particular in 2008 and 2009. The improved profitability is also reflected in the improved cash flow.\n(f) Ability to raise capital\n(94)\nThe investigation did not reveal any particular problems in the ability of the Union industry to raise capital.\n6.3. Conclusion on the economic situation of the Union industry\n(95)\nBased on the abovementioned analysis, the economic situation of the Union industry has improved and the industry is proving to be viable after the imposition of the measures in 2006. Nonetheless, taking into account that the abovementioned positive developments occurred only after the imposition of the measures, employment is decreasing and profitability is still below its target level, it is considered that the economic situation of the industry remains fragile and vulnerable. It may therefore be concluded that the evidence suggests that the removal of injury is partly or solely due to the existence of the measures.\nF. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY\n(96)\nSince the imposition of the measures in force the situation of the Union industry improved considerably. However, the findings of the present analysis show that the Union industry still remains fragile and vulnerable.\n(97)\nUnder such circumstances it is appropriate to carry out an analysis of the likelihood of recurrence of material injury in order to examine whether - should the measures be repealed - projected developments in terms of volumes and prices of imports originating in the PRC would deteriorate the present situation, as detailed below from recitals 98 to 106.\n(98)\nThere are two main producers of LAM in the world - the PRC and the Union. The Union is the largest market for LAM worldwide, followed by South America and Russia. There are small producers in other countries, such as India, but these concentrate on their respective domestic markets. The USA and Canada use different filing systems.\n(99)\nIt is recalled that there is significant spare capacity in the PRC and that production of LAM in the PRC could be easily increased as explained in recitals 45 to 48.\n(100)\nIt is also recalled that the spare capacity available in the PRC corresponds roughly to the Union consumption (see recital 45).\n(101)\nIt was also established that any increase of LAM production in the PRC would be likely to be exported to the Union, if measures were repealed (see recital 53). This is based on the fact that the Union market remains the largest market worldwide for LAM, with a relatively stable consumption and due to the fact that the prevailing prices are generally higher in the Union market than in other export markets (see recital 52). Also it should be taken into account that, apart from the Union and the PRC, there are no other significant exporting countries producing LAM.\n(102)\nIn addition, as mentioned in recital 41, production capacity in the PRC can be increased easily by the simple provision of additional labour. Therefore, the PRC exports would be able to accommodate any increase in the Union consumption. In view of the potentially low price of Chinese imports, as shown by the comparison with their prices to third country markets, and the apparent unlimited ability to supply at low prices, the Union industry would very likely not be able to benefit of any increase in demand which would lead to important losses of market share, should measures be repealed.\n(103)\nOn this basis it is to be expected that the conditions of any future significant increase of LAM imports from the PRC to the Union would have serious negative consequences for the situation of the Union industry. As mentioned above, if measures are repealed, the import volume of LAM from the PRC is expected to be significant. Furthermore, those imports would most probably exert a significant price pressure on the Union market, thus on the Union industry, as suggested by the data on the level of prices in third country markets. Indeed, according to the data available it is estimated that the current Chinese prices do undercut Union prices by around 20 % as described in recital 69, which points to a strong likelihood for the Chinese imports to occur at prices substantially below Union prices should the measures be lifted.\n(104)\nThe attractiveness of the Union market for Chinese exporters is also underlined by the misclassification attempts to avoid the anti-dumping measures in place (see recital 55).\n(105)\nOn the basis of the above, it is likely that the expiry of the anti-dumping measures on imports of LAM originating in the PRC would result in a sharp increase in the volume of imports into the Union at very low prices, very likely undercutting substantially the Union sales prices. This would cause material injury and annihilate the investment and recovery efforts made by the industry in the past years.\n(106)\nOn this basis, it is concluded that the repeal of measures in force of imports from LAM originating in the PRC would in all likelihood result in the recurrence of injury to the Union industry.\nG. UNION INTEREST\n1. Preliminary remark\n(107)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole.\n(108)\nThe determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, i.e. those of the Union industry, the importers and the users.\n(109)\nIn the original investigation the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the present investigation is an expiry review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures are in place.\n(110)\nOn this basis, it was examined whether, despite the conclusion on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury, there are compelling reasons which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case.\n2. Interest of the Union industry\n(111)\nThe continuation of the anti-dumping measures on imports from the country concerned would enhance the possibility for the Union industry to reach a reasonable level of profitability, as it would help avoiding that the Union industry is pushed out of the market by substantial volumes of imports from the PRC.\n(112)\nIndeed, there is a clear likelihood of recurrence of the injurious dumping in substantial volumes which the Union industry could not withstand. The Union industry would therefore continue to benefit from the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.\n(113)\nAccordingly, it is concluded that the maintenance of anti-dumping measures against the PRC would clearly be in the interest of the Union industry.\n3. Interest of importers and users\n(114)\nAs indicated above, none of the identified unrelated importers submitted questionnaire replies. Importers of LAM are normally also users of the product concerned since they use it for the production of lever arch files (\u2018LAF\u2019).\n(115)\nSeveral users, i.e. producers of LAF, came forward in the course of the investigation. Only one user provided a questionnaire reply which, given the quality of the data submitted, was possible to verify only to some extent during the verification visit.\n(116)\nThe user that was verified claimed that anti-dumping measures should also be imposed on imports of LAF from the PRC. However, these claims were not substantiated by any supporting evidence.\n(117)\nTwo users expressed their opposition against the continuation of the measures. However, their allegations were not substantiated.\n(118)\nOn the other hand, the analysis also showed that if the Chinese were to become the sole suppliers of LAM as a consequence of the repeal of the measures, the position of the producers of lever arch files would also be endangered due to the disappearance of the competition on the world LAM market. It was therefore considered that the existing measures contribute to variety of supply and competition on the world market for LAM, which ultimately is in the interest of the users.\n(119)\nThe other three users using only the LAM produced in the Union remained neutral and one of them expressed its support for the continuation of the measures.\n(120)\nGiven that the cost of LAM represents a minimal percentage of the retail price of LAF, the measures have practically no effect, if any, on the price of the final product (LAF), and therefore no impact on final consumers.\n4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(121)\nTaking into account all of the factors outlined above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.\nH. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(122)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. The submissions and comments were analysed but have not led to the alteration of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to maintain the anti-dumping measures.\n(123)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in the PRC should be maintained,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of lever arch mechanisms generally used for archiving sheets and other documents in binders or files currently falling within CN code ex 8305 10 00 (TARIC code 8305100050) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China. These lever arch mechanisms consist of arched sturdy metal elements (normally two) on a back plate and having at least one opening trigger that permits inserting and filing of sheets and other documents.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1, and manufactured by the companies listed below, shall be as follows:\nManufacturer\nAnti-dumping duty\nTARIC additional code\nDongguan Nanzha Leco Stationary\nThe First Industrial Camp, Nanzha, Humen, Dongguan, China\n27,1 %\nA729\nAll other companies\n47,4 %\nA999\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 August 2012.", "references": ["6", "27", "1", "77", "82", "35", "40", "20", "10", "51", "25", "14", "56", "72", "29", "59", "78", "99", "75", "62", "36", "5", "84", "93", "80", "68", "41", "4", "64", "63", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "90", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "90", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 565/2011\nof 14 June 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 549/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 June 2011.", "references": ["59", "81", "60", "70", "94", "39", "50", "34", "79", "47", "74", "18", "95", "9", "45", "55", "53", "13", "5", "15", "42", "21", "23", "25", "6", "17", "3", "66", "63", "46", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 143/2011\nof 17 February 2011\namending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (\u2018REACH\u2019)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Articles 58 and 131 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides that substances meeting the criteria for classification as carcinogenic (category 1 or 2), mutagenic (category 1 or 2) and toxic for reproduction (category 1 or 2) in accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (2), substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, substances that are very persistent and very bioaccumulative, and/or substances for which there is scientific evidence of probable serious effects to human health and environment giving rise to an equivalent level of concern may be subject to authorisation.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 58(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (3), as from 1 December 2010 Article 57(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 shall refer to the classification criteria laid down respectively in Sections 3.6, 3.5 and 3.7 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. Therefore, references in this Regulation to the classification criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 should be made in accordance with that provision.\n(3)\n5-tert-butyl-2,4,6-trinitro-m-xylene (musk xylene) is very persistent and very bioaccumulative in accordance with the criteria for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 pursuant to Article 57(e) and set out in Annex XIII to that Regulation. It has been identified and included in the candidate list in accordance with Article 59 of that Regulation.\n(4)\n4,4\u2019-Diaminodiphenylmethane (MDA) meets the criteria for classification as carcinogenic (category 1B) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and therefore meets the criteria for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 pursuant to Article 57(a) of that Regulation. It has been identified and included in the candidate list in accordance with Article 59 of that Regulation.\n(5)\nAlkanes, C10-13, chloro (Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins - SCCPs) are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, and very persistent and very bioaccumulative in accordance with the criteria for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 pursuant to Article 57(d) and (e) respectively and set out in Annex XIII to that Regulation. They have been identified and included in the candidate list in accordance with Article 59 of that Regulation.\n(6)\nHexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) and the diastereoisomers alpha-, beta- and gamma-hexabromocyclododecane are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic in accordance with the criteria for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 pursuant to Article 57(d) and set out in Annex XIII to that Regulation. They have been identified and included in the candidate list in accordance with Article 59 of that Regulation.\n(7)\nBis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) meets the criteria for classification as toxic for reproduction (category 1B) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and therefore meets the criteria for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 pursuant to Article 57(c) of that Regulation. It has been identified and included in the candidate list in accordance with Article 59 of that Regulation.\n(8)\nBenzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) meets the criteria for classification as toxic for reproduction (category 1B) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and therefore meets the criteria for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 pursuant to Article 57(c) of that Regulation. It has been identified and included in the candidate list in accordance with Article 59 of that Regulation.\n(9)\nDibutyl phthalate (DBP) meets the criteria for classification as toxic for reproduction (category 1B) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and therefore meets the criteria for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 pursuant to Article 57(c) of that Regulation. It has been identified and included in the candidate list in accordance with Article 59 of that Regulation.\n(10)\nThe abovementioned substances have been prioritised for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 by the European Chemicals Agency in its recommendation of 1 June 2009 (4) in accordance with Article 58 of that Regulation.\n(11)\nIn December 2009, SCCPs were included as a persistent organic pollutant under the 1998 Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. The inclusion of SCCPs in this Protocol has triggered additional obligations for the European Union under Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC (5) that could have an impact on the inclusion at this stage of SCCPs in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(12)\nFor each substance listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, where the applicant wishes to continue to use the substance or place the substance on the market, it is appropriate to set a date by which applications must be received by the European Chemicals Agency, in accordance with Article 58(1)(c)(ii) of that Regulation.\n(13)\nFor each substance listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 it is appropriate to set a date from which the use and placing on the market is prohibited, in accordance with Article 58(1)(c)(i) of that Regulation.\n(14)\nThe European Chemicals Agency recommendation of 1 June 2009 has identified different latest application dates for the substances listed in the Annex to this Regulation. These dates should be set on the basis of the estimated time that would be required to prepare an application for the authorisation, taking into account the information available on the different substances and specifically the information received during the public consultation carried out in accordance with Article 58(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. Factors such as the number of actors in the supply chain, their homogeneity or heterogeneity, the existence of ongoing substitution efforts and information on potential alternatives and the expected complexity of the preparation of the analysis of alternatives should be taken into account.\n(15)\nIn accordance with Article 58(1)(c)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the latest application date is to be set at least 18 months before the sunset date.\n(16)\nArticle 58(1)(e) in conjunction with Article 58(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides for the possibility of exemptions of uses or categories of uses in cases where there is specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment that ensures proper control of the risks.\n(17)\nDEHP, BBP, and DBP are used in the immediate packaging of medicinal products. Aspects of safety of the immediate packaging of medicines are covered by Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (6) and Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (7). That legislation of the Union provides for a framework to properly control risks of such immediate packaging materials by imposing requirements on the quality, stability, and safety of the immediate packaging materials. It is therefore appropriate to exempt the use of DEHP, BBP, and DBP in the immediate packaging of medicinal products from authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(18)\nIn accordance with Article 60(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the Commission should not consider, when granting authorisations, the human health risks associated with the use of substances in medical devices regulated by Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices (8), Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (9), or Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (10). In addition, Article 62(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides that applications for authorisation should not include the risks to human health arising from the use of a substance in a medical device regulated under those Directives. It follows that an application for an authorisation should not be required for a substance used in medical devices regulated under Directives 90/385/EEC, 93/42/EEC, or 98/79/EC if such a substance has been identified in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 for human health concerns only. Therefore, an assessment as to whether the conditions for an exemption pursuant to Article 58(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 apply is not necessary.\n(19)\nOn the basis of the information currently available it is not appropriate to set exemptions for product and process orientated research and development.\n(20)\nOn the basis of the information currently available it is not appropriate to set review periods for certain uses.\n(21)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established pursuant to Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2011.", "references": ["87", "31", "10", "80", "50", "93", "30", "27", "15", "36", "48", "0", "49", "73", "55", "21", "94", "23", "97", "32", "19", "56", "70", "95", "86", "98", "68", "79", "13", "54", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "60", "83"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "60", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 434/2011\nof 4 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2011.", "references": ["98", "88", "38", "86", "97", "74", "44", "62", "79", "39", "47", "27", "75", "64", "25", "81", "40", "21", "90", "26", "89", "9", "6", "42", "22", "87", "69", "0", "51", "3", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 8 November 2011\non the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the 2006 International Tropical Timber Agreement\n(2011/731/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 192 and 207 thereof, read in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 January 2006 the negotiating conference established under the aegis of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) approved the text of the 2006 International Tropical Timber Agreement (\u2018the 2006 Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nThe 2006 Agreement was negotiated to replace the International Tropical Timber Agreement of 1994 (\u2018the 1994 Agreement\u2019) as extended, which will remain in force until the entry into force of the 2006 Agreement.\n(3)\nThe 2006 Agreement has been open for signature since 3 April 2006 and will remain so until 1 month after its final entry into force. Consent to be bound by that Agreement shall be expressed either by definitive signature or by ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.\n(4)\nThe objectives of the 2006 Agreement are consistent with both the common commercial policy and the environmental policy.\n(5)\nThe European Community was a party to the 1994 Agreement. The 2006 Agreement will continue to promote the European Union\u2019s sustainable development objectives.\n(6)\nThe Community signed the 2006 Agreement on 2 November 2007. All the Member States have expressed their intention to ratify it.\n(7)\nAs the compulsory contributions by the consumer members of the International Tropical Timber Organisation are assessed primarily in terms of the volume of tropical timber they import, the Union will contribute to the Administrative Account of the International Tropical Timber Organisation, once the 2006 Agreement enters into force, while the Member States, as well as the Union, will be able to make voluntary financial contributions to the planned actions via the voluntary contribution accounts of the Organisation.\n(8)\nThe 2006 Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe 2006 International Tropical Timber Agreement (1) (\u2018the 2006 Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit the instrument of approval on behalf of the Union with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in accordance with Article 36(2) of the 2006 Agreement.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2011.", "references": ["76", "73", "86", "85", "37", "47", "10", "17", "26", "6", "25", "95", "49", "70", "32", "2", "68", "64", "96", "31", "58", "83", "13", "16", "43", "72", "12", "55", "65", "67", "No Label", "3", "9", "88"], "gold": ["3", "9", "88"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2010/45/EU\nof 13 July 2010\namending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax as regards the rules on invoicing\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 113 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee,\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) lays down conditions and rules concerning value added tax (hereinafter \u2018VAT\u2019) with respect to invoices, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. In accordance with Article 237 of that Directive, the Commission has presented a report which identifies, in the light of technological developments, certain difficulties with regard to electronic invoicing and which, in addition, identifies certain other areas in which the VAT rules should be simplified with a view to improving the functioning of the internal market.\n(2)\nSince record keeping needs to be sufficient to allow Member States to control goods moving temporarily from one Member State to another, it should be made clear that record keeping is to include details of valuations on goods moving temporarily between Member States. Also, transfers of goods for valuation purposes to another Member State should not be regarded as a supply of goods for VAT purposes.\n(3)\nThe rules concerning the chargeability of VAT on intra-Community supplies of goods and on intra-Community acquisitions of goods should be clarified in order to ensure the uniformity of the information submitted in recapitulative statements and the timeliness of the exchange of information by means of those statements. It is furthermore appropriate that the continuous supply of goods from one Member State to another over a period of more than one calendar month should be regarded as being completed at the end of each calendar month.\n(4)\nTo help small and medium-sized enterprises that encounter difficulties in paying VAT to the competent authority before they have received payment from their customers, Member States should have the option of allowing VAT to be accounted using a cash accounting scheme which allows the supplier to pay VAT to the competent authority when he receives payment for a supply and which establishes his right of deduction when he pays for a supply. This should allow Member States to introduce an optional cash accounting scheme that does not have a negative effect on cash flow relating to their VAT receipts.\n(5)\nTo provide legal certainty for businesses regarding their invoicing obligations, it should be clearly stated which Member State\u2019s invoicing rules apply.\n(6)\nWith a view to improving the functioning of the internal market, it is necessary to impose a harmonised time limit for the issue of an invoice with respect to certain cross-border supplies.\n(7)\nCertain requirements concerning the information to be provided on invoices should be amended to allow better control of the tax, to create a more uniform treatment between cross-border and domestic supplies and to help promote electronic invoicing.\n(8)\nSince the use of electronic invoicing can help businesses to reduce costs and be more competitive, current VAT requirements on electronic invoicing should be revised to remove existing burdens and barriers to uptake. Paper invoices and electronic invoices should be treated equally and the administrative burden on paper invoicing should not increase.\n(9)\nEqual treatment should also apply as regards the competences of tax authorities. Their control competences and the rights and obligations of taxable persons should apply equally whether a taxable person chooses to issue paper invoices or electronic invoices.\n(10)\nInvoices must reflect actual supplies and their authenticity, integrity and legibility should therefore be ensured. Business controls can be used to establish reliable audit trails linking invoices and supplies, thereby ensuring that any invoice (whether on paper or in electronic form) complies with those requirements.\n(11)\nThe authenticity and integrity of electronic invoices can also be ensured by using certain existing technologies, such as Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) and advanced electronic signatures. However, since other technologies exist, taxable persons should not be required to use any particular electronic-invoicing technology.\n(12)\nIt should be clarified that, where a taxable person stores online invoices which he has issued or received, the Member State in which the tax is due, in addition to the Member State in which the taxable person is established, should have the right to access those invoices for control purposes.\n(13)\nSince the objectives of this Directive regarding the simplification, modernisation and harmonisation of the VAT invoicing rules cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at the level of the Union, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. 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 those objectives.\n(14)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better lawmaking (2), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n(15)\nDirective 2006/112/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Directive 2006/112/EC\nDirective 2006/112/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 17(2), point (f) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(f)\nthe supply of a service performed for the taxable person and consisting in valuations of, or work on, the goods in question physically carried out within the territory of the Member State in which dispatch or transport of the goods ends, provided that the goods, after being valued or worked upon, are returned to that taxable person in the Member State from which they were initially dispatched or transported;\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 64, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Continuous supplies of goods over a period of more than one calendar month which are dispatched or transported to a Member State other than that in which the dispatch or transport of those goods begins and which are supplied VAT-exempt or which are transferred VAT-exempt to another Member State by a taxable person for the purposes of his business, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 138, shall be regarded as being completed on expiry of each calendar month until such time as the supply comes to an end.\nSupplies of services for which VAT is payable by the customer pursuant to Article 196, which are supplied continuously over a period of more than one year and which do not give rise to statements of account or payments during that period, shall be regarded as being completed on expiry of each calendar year until such time as the supply of services comes to an end.\nMember States may provide that, in certain cases other than those referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the continuous supply of goods or services over a period of time is to be regarded as being completed at least at intervals of one year.\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 66, first paragraph, point (c), and the second paragraph are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nwhere an invoice is not issued, or is issued late, within a specified time no later than on expiry of the time-limit for issue of invoices imposed by Member States pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 222 or where no such time-limit has been imposed by the Member State, within a specified period from the date of the chargeable event.\nThe derogation provided for in the first paragraph shall not, however, apply to supplies of services in respect of which VAT is payable by the customer pursuant to Article 196 and to supplies or transfers of goods referred to in Article 67.\u2019;\n4.\nArticle 67 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 67\nWhere, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 138, goods dispatched or transported to a Member State other than that in which dispatch or transport of the goods begins are supplied VAT-exempt or where goods are transferred VAT-exempt to another Member State by a taxable person for the purposes of his business, VAT shall become chargeable on issue of the invoice, or on expiry of the time limit referred to in the first paragraph of Article 222 if no invoice has been issued by that time.\nArticle 64(1), the third subparagraph of Article 64(2) and Article 65 shall not apply with respect to the supplies and transfers of goods referred to in the first paragraph.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 69 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 69\nIn the case of the intra-Community acquisition of goods, VAT shall become chargeable on issue of the invoice, or on expiry of the time limit referred to in the first paragraph of Article 222 if no invoice has been issued by that time.\u2019;\n6.\nin Article 91(2), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Member States shall accept instead the use of the latest exchange rate published by the European Central Bank at the time the tax becomes chargeable. Conversion between currencies other than the euro shall be made by using the euro exchange rate of each currency. Member States may require that they be notified of the exercise of this option by the taxable person.\nHowever, for some of the transactions referred to in the first subparagraph or for certain categories of taxable persons, Member States may use the exchange rate determined in accordance with the Community provisions in force governing the calculation of the value for customs purposes.\u2019;\n7.\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 167a\nMember States may provide within an optional scheme that the right of deduction of a taxable person whose VAT solely becomes chargeable in accordance with Article 66(b) be postponed until the VAT on the goods or services supplied to him has been paid to his supplier.\nMember States which apply the optional scheme referred to in the first paragraph shall set a threshold for taxable persons using the scheme within their territory, based on the annual turnover of the taxable person calculated in accordance with Article 288. That threshold may not be higher than EUR 500 000 or the equivalent in national currency. Member States may increase that threshold up to EUR 2 000 000 or the equivalent in national currency after consulting the VAT Committee. However, such consultation of the VAT Committee shall not be required for Member States which applied a threshold higher than EUR 500 000 or the equivalent in national currency on 31 December 2012.\nMember States shall inform the VAT Committee of national legislative measures adopted pursuant to the first paragraph.\u2019;\n8.\nArticle 178 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nfor the purposes of deductions pursuant to Article 168(a), in respect of the supply of goods or services, he must hold an invoice drawn up in accordance with Sections 3 to 6 of Chapter 3 of Title XI;\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nfor the purposes of deductions pursuant to Article 168(c), in respect of the intra-Community acquisition of goods, he must set out in the VAT return provided for in Article 250 all the information needed for the amount of VAT due on his intra-Community acquisitions of goods to be calculated and he must hold an invoice drawn up in accordance with Sections 3 to 5 of Chapter 3 of Title XI;\u2019;\n9.\nArticle 181 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 181\nMember States may authorise a taxable person who does not hold an invoice drawn up in accordance with Sections 3 to 5 of Chapter 3 of Title XI to make the deduction referred to in Article 168(c) in respect of his intra-Community acquisitions of goods.\u2019;\n10.\nin Article 197(1), point (c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nthe invoice issued by the taxable person not established in the Member State of the person to whom the goods are supplied is drawn up in accordance with Sections 3 to 5 of Chapter 3.\u2019;\n11.\nArticle 217 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 217\nFor the purposes of this Directive, \u201celectronic invoice\u201d means an invoice that contains the information required in this Directive, and which has been issued and received in any electronic format.\u2019;\n12.\nin Section 3 of Chapter 3 of Title XI, the following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 219a\nWithout prejudice to Articles 244 to 248, the following shall apply:\n(1)\nInvoicing shall be subject to the rules applying in the Member State in which the supply of goods or services is deemed to be made, in accordance with the provisions of Title V.\n(2)\nBy way of derogation from point (1), invoicing shall be subject to the rules applying in the Member State in which the supplier has established his business or has a fixed establishment from which the supply is made or, in the absence of such place of establishment or fixed establishment, the Member State where the supplier has his permanent address or usually resides, where:\n(a)\nthe supplier is not established in the Member State in which the supply of goods or services is deemed to be made, in accordance with the provisions of Title V, or his establishment in that Member State does not intervene in the supply within the meaning of Article 192a, and the person liable for the payment of the VAT is the person to whom the goods or services are supplied.\nHowever where the customer issues the invoice (self-billing), point (1) shall apply.\n(b)\nthe supply of goods or services is deemed not to be made within the Community, in accordance with the provisions of Title V.\u2019;\n13.\nArticle 220 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 220\n1. Every taxable person shall ensure that, in respect of the following, an invoice is issued, either by himself or by his customer or, in his name and on his behalf, by a third party:\n(1)\nsupplies of goods or services which he has made to another taxable person or to a non-taxable legal person;\n(2)\nsupplies of goods as referred to in Article 33;\n(3)\nsupplies of goods carried out in accordance with the conditions specified in Article 138;\n(4)\nany payment on account made to him before one of the supplies of goods referred to in points (1) and (2) was carried out;\n(5)\nany payment on account made to him by another taxable person or non-taxable legal person before the provision of services was completed.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, and without prejudice to Article 221(2), the issue of an invoice shall not be required in respect of supplies of services exempted under points (a) to (g) of Article 135(1).\u2019;\n14.\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 220a\n1. Member States shall allow taxable persons to issue a simplified invoice in any of the following cases:\n(a)\nwhere the amount of the invoice is not higher than EUR 100 or the equivalent in national currency;\n(b)\nwhere the invoice issued is a document or message treated as an invoice pursuant to Article 219.\n2. Member States shall not allow taxable persons to issue a simplified invoice where invoices are required to be issued pursuant to points (2) and (3) of Article 220(1) or where the taxable supply of goods or services is carried out by a taxable person who is not established in the Member State in which the VAT is due, or whose establishment in that Member State does not intervene in the supply within the meaning of Article 192a, and the person liable for the payment of VAT is the person to whom the goods or services are supplied.\u2019;\n15.\nArticles 221, 222, 223, 224 and 225 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 221\n1. Member States may impose on taxable persons an obligation to issue an invoice in accordance with the details required under Article 226 or 226b in respect of supplies of goods or services other than those referred to in Article 220(1).\n2. Member States may impose on taxable persons who have established their business in their territory or who have a fixed establishment in their territory from which the supply is made, an obligation to issue an invoice in accordance with the details required in Article 226 or 226b in respect of supplies of services exempted under points (a) to (g) of Article 135(1) which those taxable persons have made in their territory or outside the Community.\n3. Member States may release taxable persons from the obligation laid down in Article 220(1) or in Article 220a to issue an invoice in respect of supplies of goods or services which they have made in their territory and which are exempt, with or without deductibility of the VAT paid in the preceding stage, pursuant to Articles 110 and 111, Article 125(1), Article 127, Article 128(1), Article 132, points (h) to (l) of Article 135(1), Articles 136, 371, 375, 376 and 377, Articles 378(2) and 379(2) and Articles 380 to 390b.\nArticle 222\nFor supplies of goods carried out in accordance with the conditions specified in Article 138 or for supplies of services for which VAT is payable by the customer pursuant to Article 196, an invoice shall be issued no later than on the fifteenth day of the month following that in which the chargeable event occurs.\nFor other supplies of goods or services Member States may impose time limits on taxable persons for the issue of invoices.\nArticle 223\nMember States shall allow taxable persons to issue summary invoices which detail several separate supplies of goods or services provided that VAT on the supplies mentioned in the summary invoice becomes chargeable during the same calendar month.\nWithout prejudice to Article 222, Member States may allow summary invoices to include supplies for which VAT has become chargeable during a period of time longer than one calendar month.\nArticle 224\nInvoices may be drawn up by the customer in respect of the supply to him, by a taxable person, of goods or services, where there is a prior agreement between the two parties and provided that a procedure exists for the acceptance of each invoice by the taxable person supplying the goods or services. Member State may require that such invoices be issued in the name and on behalf of the taxable person.\nArticle 225\nMember States may impose specific conditions on taxable persons in cases where the third party, or the customer, who issues invoices is established in a country with which no legal instrument exists relating to mutual assistance similar in scope to that provided for in Directive 2010/24/EU (3) and Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 (4).\n16.\nArticle 226 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following point is inserted:\n\u2018(7a)\nwhere the VAT becomes chargeable at the time when the payment is received in accordance with Article 66(b) and the right of deduction arises at the time the deductible tax becomes chargeable, the mention \u201cCash accounting\u201d;\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following point is inserted:\n\u2018(10a)\nwhere the customer receiving a supply issues the invoice instead of the supplier, the mention \u201cSelf-billing\u201d;\u2019;\n(c)\npoint (11) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(11)\nin the case of an exemption, reference to the applicable provision of this Directive, or to the corresponding national provision, or any other reference indicating that the supply of goods or services is exempt;\u2019;\n(d)\nthe following point is inserted:\n\u2018(11a)\nwhere the customer is liable for the payment of the VAT, the mention \u201cReverse charge\u201d;\u2019;\n(e)\npoints (13) and (14) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(13)\nwhere the margin scheme for travel agents is applied, the mention \u201cMargin scheme - Travel agents\u201d;\n(14)\nwhere one of the special arrangements applicable to second-hand goods, works of art, collectors\u2019 items and antiques is applied, the mention \u201cMargin scheme - Second-hand goods\u201d; \u201cMargin scheme - Works of art\u201d or \u201cMargin scheme - Collector\u2019s items and antiques\u201d respectively;\u2019;\n17.\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 226a\nWhere the invoice is issued by a taxable person, who is not established in the Member State where the tax is due or whose establishment in that Member State does not intervene in the supply within the meaning of Article 192a, and who is making a supply of goods or services to a customer who is liable for payment of VAT, the taxable person may omit the details referred to in points (8), (9) and (10) of Article 226 and instead indicate, by reference to the quantity or extent of the goods or services supplied and their nature, the taxable amount of those goods or services.\nArticle 226b\nAs regards simplified invoices issued pursuant to Article 220a and Article 221(1) and (2), Member States shall require at least the following details:\n(a)\nthe date of issue;\n(b)\nidentification of the taxable person supplying the goods or services;\n(c)\nidentification of the type of goods or services supplied;\n(d)\nthe VAT amount payable or the information needed to calculate it;\n(e)\nwhere the invoice issued is a document or message treated as an invoice pursuant to Article 219, specific and unambiguous reference to that initial invoice and the specific details which are being amended.\nThey may not require details on invoices other than those referred to in Articles 226, 227 and 230.\u2019;\n18.\nArticle 228 is deleted;\n19.\nArticle 230 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 230\nThe amounts which appear on the invoice may be expressed in any currency, provided that the amount of VAT payable or to be adjusted is expressed in the national currency of the Member State, using the conversion rate mechanism provided for in Article 91.\u2019;\n20.\nArticle 231 is deleted;\n21.\nthe heading of Section 5 of Chapter 3 of Title XI is replaced by the following:\n22.\nArticles 232 and 233 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 232\nThe use of an electronic invoice shall be subject to acceptance by the recipient.\nArticle 233\n1. The authenticity of the origin, the integrity of the content and the legibility of an invoice, whether on paper or in electronic form, shall be ensured from the point in time of issue until the end of the period for storage of the invoice.\nEach taxable person shall determine the way to ensure the authenticity of the origin, the integrity of the content and the legibility of the invoice. This may be achieved by any business controls which create a reliable audit trail between an invoice and a supply of goods or services.\n\u201cAuthenticity of the origin\u201d means the assurance of the identity of the supplier or the issuer of the invoice.\n\u201cIntegrity of the content\u201d means that the content required according to this Directive has not been altered.\n2. Other than by way of the type of business controls described in paragraph 1, the following are examples of technologies that ensure the authenticity of the origin and the integrity of the content of an electronic invoice:\n(a)\nan advanced electronic signature within the meaning of point (2) of Article 2 of Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures (5), based on a qualified certificate and created by a secure signature creation device, within the meaning of points (6) and (10) of Article 2 of Directive 1999/93/EC;\n(b)\nelectronic data interchange (EDI), as defined in Article 2 of Annex 1 to Commission Recommendation 1994/820/EC of 19 October 1994 relating to the legal aspects of electronic data interchange (6), where the agreement relating to the exchange provides for the use of procedures guaranteeing the authenticity of the origin and integrity of the data.\n23.\nArticle 234 is deleted;\n24.\nArticles 235, 236 and 237 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 235\nMember States may lay down specific conditions for electronic invoices issued in respect of goods or services supplied in their territory from a country with which no legal instrument exists relating to mutual assistance similar in scope to that provided for in Directive 2010/24/EU and Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003.\nArticle 236\nWhere batches containing several electronic invoices are sent or made available to the same recipient, the details common to the individual invoices may be mentioned only once where, for each invoice, all the information is accessible.\nArticle 237\nBy 31 December 2016 at the latest, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and the Council an overall assessment report, based on an independent economic study, on the impact of the invoicing rules applicable from 1 January 2013 and notably on the extent to which they have effectively led to a decrease in administrative burdens for businesses, accompanied where necessary by an appropriate proposal to amend the relevant rules.\u2019;\n25.\nArticle 238 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. After consulting the VAT Committee, Member States may, in accordance with conditions which they may lay down, provide that in the following cases only the information required pursuant to Article 226b shall be entered on invoices in respect of supplies of goods or services:\n(a)\nwhere the amount of the invoice is higher than EUR 100 but not higher than EUR 400, or the equivalent in national currency;\n(b)\nwhere commercial or administrative practice in the business sector concerned or the technical conditions under which the invoices are issued make it particularly difficult to comply with all the obligations referred to in Article 226 or 230.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is deleted;\n(c)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The simplified arrangements provided for in paragraph 1 shall not be applied where invoices are required to be issued pursuant to points (2) and (3) of Article 220(1) or where the taxable supply of goods or services is carried out by a taxable person who is not established in the Member State in which the VAT is due or whose establishment in that Member State does not intervene in the supply within the meaning of Article 192a and the person liable for the payment of VAT is the person to whom the goods or services are supplied.\u2019;\n26.\nArticle 243 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 243\n1. Every taxable person shall keep a register of the goods dispatched or transported by him, or on his behalf, to a destination outside the territory of the Member State of departure but within the Community for the purposes of transactions consisting in valuations of those goods or work on them or their temporary use as referred to in points (f), (g) and (h) of Article 17(2).\n2. Every taxable person shall keep accounts in sufficient detail to enable the identification of goods dispatched to him from another Member State, by or on behalf of a taxable person identified for VAT purposes in that other Member State, and used for services consisting in valuations of those goods or work on those goods.\u2019;\n27.\nArticle 246 is deleted;\n28.\nin Article 247, paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20182. In order to ensure that the requirements laid down in Article 233 are met, the Member State referred to in paragraph 1 may require that invoices be stored in the original form in which they were sent or made available, whether paper or electronic. Additionally, in the case of invoices stored by electronic means, the Member State may require that the data guaranteeing the authenticity of the origin of the invoices and the integrity of their content, as provided for in Article 233, also be stored by electronic means.\n3. The Member State referred to in paragraph 1 may lay down specific conditions prohibiting or restricting the storage of invoices in a country with which no legal instrument exists relating to mutual assistance similar in scope to that provided for in Directive 2010/24/EU and Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 or to the right referred to in Article 249 to access by electronic means, to download and to use.\u2019;\n29.\nin Section 3 of Chapter 4 of Title XI, the following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 248a\nFor control purposes, and as regards invoices in respect of supplies of goods or services supplied in their territory and invoices received by taxable persons established in their territory, Member States may, for certain taxable persons or certain cases, require translation into their official languages. Member States may, however, not impose a general requirement that invoices be translated.\u2019;\n30.\nArticle 249 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 249\nFor control purposes, where a taxable person stores, by electronic means guaranteeing online access to the data concerned, invoices which he issues or receives, the competent authorities of the Member State in which he is established and, where the VAT is due in another Member State, the competent authorities of that Member State, shall have the right to access, download and use those invoices.\u2019;\n31.\nin Article 272(1), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Member States may not release the taxable persons referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph from the invoicing obligations laid down in Sections 3 to 6 of Chapter 3 and Section 3 of Chapter 4.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 December 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 January 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nEntry into Force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2010.", "references": ["51", "43", "67", "33", "27", "98", "83", "59", "68", "30", "42", "57", "90", "81", "29", "69", "5", "97", "87", "55", "23", "52", "1", "92", "75", "86", "32", "95", "93", "7", "No Label", "20", "25", "34", "47", "76"], "gold": ["20", "25", "34", "47", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1015/2011\nof 13 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 October 2011.", "references": ["96", "1", "43", "17", "32", "99", "29", "78", "62", "64", "13", "83", "7", "18", "10", "14", "0", "24", "58", "26", "39", "85", "37", "81", "45", "15", "94", "33", "72", "56", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION 2012/544/CFSP\nof 25 June 2012\nimplementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (1), and in particular Article 32(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 January 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, and in accordance with Council Implementing Decision 2012/335/CFSP of 25 June 2012 implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (2), one additional person and additional entities should be included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe person and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\nArticle 2\nThe Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["70", "60", "94", "10", "67", "25", "29", "50", "82", "49", "64", "32", "20", "99", "78", "41", "68", "31", "83", "40", "34", "93", "74", "47", "17", "4", "62", "23", "86", "12", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 94/2011\nof 3 February 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Carciofo Spinoso di Sardegna (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Carciofo Spinoso di Sardegna\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2011.", "references": ["46", "7", "8", "16", "51", "36", "99", "74", "20", "6", "2", "79", "65", "42", "49", "45", "78", "39", "18", "87", "17", "82", "31", "43", "44", "60", "38", "90", "27", "13", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "66", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "66", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 854/2011\nof 24 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 August 2011.", "references": ["86", "0", "58", "40", "53", "69", "91", "23", "89", "70", "38", "95", "62", "73", "67", "7", "31", "59", "74", "2", "85", "84", "29", "24", "44", "51", "6", "90", "81", "79", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 235/2012\nof 16 March 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 230/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 March 2012.", "references": ["49", "98", "43", "60", "47", "44", "29", "13", "54", "32", "39", "9", "53", "46", "68", "23", "93", "20", "24", "56", "52", "90", "99", "63", "0", "74", "85", "7", "88", "75", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 992/2010\nof 4 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 November 2010.", "references": ["4", "39", "24", "40", "26", "8", "90", "38", "19", "84", "78", "12", "0", "97", "70", "27", "21", "46", "96", "75", "53", "55", "66", "43", "31", "33", "47", "64", "45", "85", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1276/2011\nof 8 December 2011\namending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the treatment to kill viable parasites in fishery products for human consumption\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business operators. It provides, inter alia, that food business operators are to place products of animal origin on the market in the European Union, only if they have been prepared and handled exclusively in establishments that meet the relevant requirements of Annex III to that Regulation.\n(2)\nPart D of Chapter III of Section VIII of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 provides that food business operators must ensure that certain fishery products, including those to be consumed raw or almost raw, undergo a freezing treatment to kill viable parasites that may represent a risk to the health of the consumer.\n(3)\nIn April 2010, the European Food Safety Authority adopted a scientific opinion on risk assessment of parasites in fishery products (2) (the EFSA Opinion). That Opinion includes information regarding the cases where fishery products may present a health hazard with regard to the presence of viable parasites. The EFSA Opinion also analyses the effects of various treatments for killing such parasites in fishery products.\n(4)\nThough the EFSA Opinion indicates that all wild caught seawater and freshwater fish must be considered at risk of containing viable parasites of human health hazard if these products are to be eaten raw or almost raw, in the case that epidemiological data show that the fishing grounds do not represent a health hazard with regard to the presence of parasites, the competent authority may adopt national measures which authorise an exemption from the required freezing treatment on fishery products derived from wild catches. These national measures should be notified to the Commission.\n(5)\nThe EFSA Opinion concludes that where farmed Atlantic salmon is reared in floating cages or onshore tanks, and fed compound feedstuffs, which are unlikely to contain live parasites, the risk of infection with larval anisakids is negligible unless changes in farming practices occur. Though the Opinion concludes that sufficient monitoring data are not available for any other farmed fish EFSA has set up criteria for considering when fishery products from aquaculture do not present a health hazard with regard to the presence of parasites.\n(6)\nTherefore, if the same rearing procedures based on these criteria are followed, farmed fishery products other than Atlantic salmon may be considered to present a negligible risk for parasites that may be a risk to the health of the consumer. Consequently, such farmed fishery products may also be exempted from the freezing requirements while the high level of health protection is still ensured.\n(7)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend the requirements set out in Part D of Chapter III of Section VIII of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 in order to take account of certain points of the new scientific advice included in the EFSA Opinion and practical experience gained.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2011.", "references": ["20", "31", "33", "48", "52", "47", "54", "42", "75", "89", "53", "19", "95", "62", "0", "10", "88", "70", "76", "81", "6", "80", "15", "63", "59", "84", "69", "45", "36", "13", "No Label", "7", "38", "43", "64", "67"], "gold": ["7", "38", "43", "64", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1351/2011\nof 20 December 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 as regards the suspension of tariff quotas of the Union and reference quantities for certain agricultural products originating in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 of 9 April 2001 providing for the management of Community tariff quotas and of reference quantities for products eligible for preferences by virtue of agreements with certain Mediterranean countries and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1981/94 and (EC) No 934/95 (1), and in particular Article 5(1)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAn Agreement has been concluded in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union, of the one part, and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part, providing further liberalisation of agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products and amending the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part (2) (the Agreement). The Agreement was approved on behalf of the Union by Council Decision 2011/824/EU (3).\n(2)\nThe Agreement provides for a period of 10 years from the date of its entry into force, for enlarged tariff concessions applicable to imports into the European Union of unlimited quantities of products originating in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Moreover, a further possible extension of the enlarged tariff concessions is also envisaged in the Agreement, depending on the future economic development of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.\n(3)\nSince the Agreement provides for a further liberalisation of trade in agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products, it is necessary to suspend the application of the tariff quotas and reference quantities laid down in Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 for products originating in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, during the application period of the Agreement.\n(4)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 of 21 December 1987 fixing conditions for the application of preferential customs duties on imports of certain flowers originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (4), was repealed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (5).\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 700/88 of 17 March 1988 laying down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements for the import into the Community of certain floricultural products originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (6), was repealed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2006 (7).\n(6)\nAs a result of those repeals Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 providing for non-eligibility for the tariff concessions for fresh cut flowers and flower buds where the price conditions laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 are not observed, has become redundant and should therefore be deleted.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 747/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nSince the Agreement enters into force on 1 January 2012, this Regulation should apply from that date.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 747/2001 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following Article 1a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 1a\nSuspension of the application of tariff quotas and reference quantities for products originating in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip\nThe application of the tariff quotas and reference quantities laid down in Annex VIII for products originating in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall be temporarily suspended for a period of 10 years from 1 January 2012.\nHowever, depending on the future economic development of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, a possible extension for an additional period could be considered at the latest 1 year before the expiration of the 10 years period as provided by the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters approved on behalf of the Union by Council Decision 2011/824/EU (8).\n(2)\nArticle 2 is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["78", "60", "50", "34", "65", "33", "92", "39", "62", "73", "93", "88", "24", "40", "75", "54", "14", "55", "85", "91", "83", "29", "31", "94", "17", "70", "9", "37", "16", "43", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "23", "66", "68", "69", "95"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "23", "66", "68", "69", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 November 2010\nestablishing the European Union Ecolabelling Board\n(notified under document C(2010) 7961)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/709/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, the EU Ecolabel criteria are to be established with the assistance of a European Union Ecolabelling Board (hereinafter referred to as \u2018EUEB\u2019).\n(2)\nFor the acceptance of the EU Ecolabel scheme by the general public, it is essential that organisations such as environmental non-governmental organisations and consumer organisations be members of the EUEB as interested parties together with the competent bodies of the Member States.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2000/730/EC of 10 November 2000 establishing the European Union Ecolabelling Board and its rules of procedure (2) should be replaced,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe European Union Ecolabelling Board, hereinafter referred to as \u2018EUEB\u2019, is hereby established.\nArticle 2\n1. The members of the EUEB shall be appointed by the Commission.\n2. The EUEB shall be composed of the representatives of the Competent Bodies of each Member State, of the representatives of the Member State of the European Economic Area and of the representatives of the following organisations:\n(a)\nBureau Europ\u00e9en des Consommateurs (BEUC);\n(b)\nEUROCOOP;\n(c)\nEuropean Environmental Bureau (EEB);\n(d)\nBusiness Europe;\n(e)\nEuropean Association of Craft, Small & Medium-sized Enterprises (UEAPME);\n(f)\nEUROCOMMERCE.\n3. The Commission may amend the membership of the EUEB as appropriate.\nArticle 3\n1. Each member of the EUEB shall designate a contact person.\n2. The meetings of the EUEB shall be chaired by its President.\n3. The EUEB shall adopt its rules of procedure in consultation with the Commission.\n4. The Commission shall reimburse travel and, where appropriate, subsistence expenses for members in connection with the EUEB\u2019s activities within the limits of the annual budget allocated to such expenditure.\nArticle 4\nDecision 2000/730/EC is repealed.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 October 2010.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["46", "99", "88", "39", "83", "51", "21", "76", "72", "78", "33", "85", "79", "52", "0", "31", "54", "80", "12", "8", "22", "23", "55", "84", "89", "9", "67", "4", "74", "66", "No Label", "7", "25", "58"], "gold": ["7", "25", "58"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 189/2012\nof 7 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2012.", "references": ["64", "45", "4", "73", "95", "49", "43", "65", "87", "98", "20", "16", "15", "72", "62", "74", "50", "56", "85", "53", "46", "5", "75", "96", "3", "38", "55", "89", "63", "80", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 20 October 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union, of the one part, and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part, providing further liberalisation of agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products and amending the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part\n(2011/824/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe relationship between the Union and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (\u2018the Palestinian Authority\u2019) builds on the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part (2) (\u2018Interim Agreement\u2019), which was signed in February 1997 and whose trade provisions entered into force on 1 July 1997. Its main objective is to promote trade and investment and harmonious economic relations between the Parties thereby fostering their sustainable economic development.\n(2)\nThe Interim Agreement provides for duty-free access to the Union markets for Palestinian industrial goods, and a phasing-out of duties on the Union exports to the occupied Palestinian territory over 5 years. The possibility of granting the Palestinian Authority additional trade preferences is envisaged in the Interim Agreement. Article 12 of the Interim Agreement provides that the Community and the Palestinian Authority shall progressively establish a greater liberalisation of their trade in agricultural and fishery products of interest to both Parties. Article 14(2) of the Interim Agreement provides that the Community and the Palestinian Authority shall examine, in the Joint Committee, the possibility of granting each other further concessions.\n(3)\nThe European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan (\u2018ENP Action Plan\u2019) for the Palestinian Authority, which was approved in May 2005 and subsequently extended, also contains provisions concerning the gradual liberalisation of trade in agriculture and fishery products.\n(4)\nThe Euro-Mediterranean Roadmap for agriculture (Rabat Roadmap) adopted by the Euro-Mediterranean Ministers of Foreign Affairs on 28 November 2005 provides that a high degree of trade liberalisation for agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products is desirable; the objective is full liberalisation of such trade by 2010, possibly excluding a very limited number of sensitive products.\n(5)\nAt the last Trade Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial meeting in December 2009, Ministers of Trade of the Euro-Mediterranean region committed themselves to facilitate the trade of Palestinian products, as stated in the document The Euromed Trade Roadmap beyond 2010. In addition, a comprehensive package of measures to facilitate trade of Palestinian products with other Euro-Mediterranean partners on a bilateral and regional basis has been agreed by Ministers of Trade in 2010.\n(6)\nNegotiations with the Palestinian Authority concerning greater liberalisation of trade in agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products were successfully concluded by signing the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union, of the one part, and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part, providing further liberalisation of agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products and amending the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part (\u2018the Agreement\u2019), in accordance with Council Decision 2011/248/EU (3).\n(7)\nThe occupied Palestinian territory governed by the Palestinian Authority is a state in the making. It is therefore not listed under any United Nations classification and therefore cannot benefit from the Union\u2019s Generalised System of Preferences (4).\n(8)\nThe Palestinian Authority is the smallest trading partner for the Union in the Euro-Mediterranean region and almost worldwide, with total trade amounting to EUR 56,6 million in 2009 where the vast majority of it is accounted for by EU exports (EUR 50,5 million). Union imports from the Palestinian Authority amount to just EUR 6,1 million in 2009 and consist mainly of agricultural products and processed agricultural products (approximately 70,1 % of total Union imports). In 2009, the Union exported EUR 1,7 million of agricultural goods, EUR 3,3 million of processed agricultural products and EUR 0,1 million of fish and fishery products. Further market opening is expected to support the development of the economy of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip through increased export performance while not creating negative effects for the Union. It is therefore appropriate to grant additional trade preferences to the Palestinian Authority by improving access to the Union market for agricultural products.\n(9)\nIn accordance with the ENP Action Plan, the level of ambition of the Union-Palestinian Authority relationship will depend on the degree of the Palestinian Authority\u2019s commitment to common values as well as its capacity to implement jointly agreed priorities. The Union is planning to complement the granting of additional trade preferences with a package of trade related technical assistance which will further help the Palestinian Authority to prepare for a future Palestinian State.\n(10)\nIn addition, entitlement to benefit from the additional trade preferences granted by the Union is conditional upon the Palestinian Authority\u2019s compliance with the relevant rules of origin and the procedures related thereto as well as the provision of effective administrative cooperation and assistance to the European Union. Any serious and systematic violations of these conditions, or other findings of fraud or irregularity, may lead to the adoption of measures by the Union following the relevant procedures in Article 23 bis of the Interim Agreement.\n(11)\nFor the purposes of defining the concept of originating products, certification of origin and administrative cooperation procedures, Protocol 3 to the Interim Agreement concerning the definition of the concept of \u2018originating products\u2019 and methods of administrative cooperation applies.\n(12)\nIf the imports of agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products originating in the territory of the Palestinian Authority significantly increase and thereby cause serious distortion to the Union internal market, the Union should be able to adopt, if appropriate, safeguard measures in accordance with this Decision.\n(13)\nThe import arrangements adopted by the Agreement should be renewed on the basis of the conditions established by the Council and in the light of the experience gained in granting them. It is therefore appropriate to limit their duration to 10 years. However, taking into account the economic situation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Parties should prolong the application of duty-free quota-free treatment should they consider that the Palestinian economy needs an additional transitional period in order to be ready to enter into negotiations leading to further reciprocal concessions.\n(14)\nThe Union and the Palestinian Authority should meet 5 years from the date of entry into force of the Agreement to consider the possibility of granting each other further permanent concessions of trade in agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products in accordance with the objective laid down in Article 12 of the Interim Agreement. If this will be considered as not appropriate due to the limited future economic developments of the occupied Palestinian territory, such discussions should take place at later stage.\n(15)\nThe Agreement should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union, of the one part, and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part, providing further liberalisation of agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products and amending the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part (\u2018the Agreement\u2019), is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nWhere the Union needs to take a safeguard measure concerning agricultural products and fish and fishery products, as provided for in the Article 23 of the Interim Association Agreement, that measure shall be adopted in accordance with the procedures provided for in Article 159(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (5), or by Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (6). For processed agricultural products, such safeguard measures shall be adopted in accordance with the procedures provided for, as appropriate, in Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (7), or in Article 11(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products (8).\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, with the deposit of the instrument of approval provided in the Agreement, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by it (9).\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["50", "64", "7", "5", "58", "81", "16", "40", "47", "32", "36", "34", "1", "86", "68", "39", "88", "46", "61", "43", "96", "31", "22", "62", "45", "37", "21", "20", "82", "25", "No Label", "3", "4", "9", "23", "66", "67", "95"], "gold": ["3", "4", "9", "23", "66", "67", "95"]}
-{"input": "Council Decision\nof 3 June 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Understanding between the European Union and the Republic of Chile concerning the conservation of swordfish stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean\n(2010/343/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1) It is the objective of the Union to establish framework cooperation Agreements on fisheries with third Parties to ensure the conservation and sustainable management of species of common interest and the access of Union vessels to third Parties\u2019 ports for operations of transhipment and landings, and for logistical purposes.\n(2) On 4 April 2008, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the Republic of Chile for the conservation of swordfish stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean. The negotiations were successfully concluded by initialling the Understanding concerning the conservation of swordfish stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean agreed on 15- 16 October 2008 in Brussels as modified by (i) the detailed Annex I to the Understanding as agreed during the bilateral technical meeting on 5- 6 October 2009 in New York; (ii) the Note Verbale of Chile of 23 November 2009 designating the Chilean ports of Arica, Antofagasta and Punta Arenas for access by EU vessels fishing for swordfish on the high seas in the South Eastern Pacific Ocean, in relation to point (xi) of Annex I; and (iii) the agreement that the first meeting of the bilateral Technical and Scientific Committee would take place at the latest on 1 January 2011 (the \"Understanding\").\n(3) The Understanding should be signed.\n(4) In view of the interest of Union vessels fishing for swordfish on the high seas in the South-Eastern Pacific to obtain access to designated Chilean ports without delay, the Understanding should be applied on a provisional basis pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion. It is, therefore, in the Union's interest to approve the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Chile on the provisional application of the Understanding,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Understanding between the European Union and the Republic of Chile concerning the conservation of swordfish stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean agreed on 15- 16 October 2008 in Brussels as modified by (i) the detailed Annex I to the Understanding as agreed during the bilateral technical meeting on 5- 6 October 2009 in New York; (ii) the Note Verbale of Chile of 23 November 2009 designating the Chilean ports of Arica, Antofagasta and Punta Arenas for access by EU vessels fishing for swordfish on the high seas in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean, in relation to point (xi) of Annex I; and (iii) the agreement that the first meeting of the bilateral Technical and Scientific Committee would take place at the latest on 1 January 2011 (\"the Understanding\") is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nThe text of the Understanding is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Understanding, on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Chile on the provisional application of the Understanding is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign, on behalf of the Union, the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters on the provisional application of the Understanding.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["36", "46", "42", "23", "78", "15", "11", "40", "52", "17", "54", "48", "2", "58", "64", "30", "68", "86", "32", "61", "43", "22", "7", "51", "88", "85", "91", "20", "82", "77", "No Label", "3", "9", "59", "67", "93"], "gold": ["3", "9", "59", "67", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 349/2010\nof 23 April 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of copper chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine as a feed additive for all animal species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of copper chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine as a feed additive for all animal species, to be classified in the additive category \u2018nutritional additives\u2019.\n(4)\nFrom the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) adopted on 12 November 2009 (2) read in combination with that of 16 April 2008 (3) it results that copper chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment. According to the opinion of 16 April 2008, the use of that preparation may be considered as a source of available copper and fulfils the criteria of a nutritional additive for all animal species. The Authority recommends appropriate measures for user safety. It does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of that preparation shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised, as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 1253/2008 of 15 December 2008 concerning the authorisation of copper chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine as a feed additive (4) that preparation was already authorised as a feed additive for chickens for fattening. That Regulation should be repealed.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018nutritional additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018compounds of trace elements\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 1253/2008 is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2010.", "references": ["96", "12", "58", "95", "30", "21", "56", "57", "25", "55", "11", "93", "85", "64", "81", "84", "72", "94", "65", "2", "54", "40", "99", "33", "43", "70", "97", "35", "8", "29", "No Label", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 August 2010\non imports into the Union of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine species as regards lists of semen collection and storage centres and embryo collection and production teams and certification requirements\n(notified under document C(2010) 5781)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/471/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), and in particular Article 17(2)(b), Article 17(3), the first indent of Article 18(1), and the introductory phrase and point (b) of Article 19 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing imports into the Union of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine species (\u2018the commodities\u2019). It provides only commodities that come from a third country or part of a third country on a list of third countries drawn up in accordance with that Directive, and accompanied by a health certificate corresponding to a model also drawn up in accordance with that Directive, may be imported into the Union. The health certificate must attest that the commodities come from approved collection and storage centres or collection and production teams offering guarantees at least equivalent to those established in Annex D(I) to that Directive.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2004/211/EC of 6 January 2004 establishing the list of third countries and parts of territory thereof from which Member States authorise imports of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species (2) establishes a list of third countries, or parts thereof from which Member States are to authorise imports of the commodities. In the interest of coherency and consistency of Union legislation, that list should be taken into account in the present Decision.\n(3)\nDirective 92/65/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 2008/73/EC (3), introduced a simplified procedure for the listing of semen collection and storage centres and embryo collection and production teams in third countries, approved for imports of the commodities into the Union.\n(4)\nAnnex D to Directive 92/65/EEC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 176/2010 (4), sets out certain new requirements for the commodities which are to apply from 1 September 2010. It introduces rules concerning semen storage centres and detailed conditions for their approval and supervision. It also sets out detailed conditions for the approval and supervision of embryo collection and production teams, for the collection and processing of in vivo derived embryos and the production and processing of in vitro fertilised embryos and micromanipulated embryos. It also amended the conditions to be applied to the donor animals of semen, ova and embryos of the equine species in addition to those laid down in Council Directive 2009/156/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing the movement and importation from third countries of equidae (5).\n(5)\nAccordingly, it is necessary to establish new model health certificates for imports into the Union of the commodities taking into account the amendments made to Directive 92/65/EEC by Directive 2008/73/EC and Regulation (EU) No 176/2010.\n(6)\nIn addition, provision should be made for imports into the Union of existing stocks of commodities that comply with the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC established prior to the entry into force of the amendments introduced by Regulation (EU) No 176/2010. Accordingly, it is necessary to set out separate model health certificates for imports of consignments of the commodities collected or produced, processed and stored in accordance with Annex D to Directive 92/65/EEC prior to 1 September 2010.\n(7)\nThe long lasting stocking capabilities for such commodities make it impossible at present to fix a date for the exhaustion of the existing stocks. Therefore, it is not possible to fix a date for the termination of the use of those model health certificates for the existing stocks.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure full traceability of the commodities, model health certificates should be set out in this Decision for imports into the Union of semen of animals of the equine species collected in approved semen collection centres and dispatched from an approved semen storage centre, whether or not the latter constitutes part of a semen collection centre approved under a different approval number.\n(9)\nIn the interests of consistency and simplification of Union legislation, the model health certificates for the importation of the commodities should take account of Commission Decision 2007/240/EC (6), which provides that the various veterinary, public and animal health certificates required for the imports into the Union of live animals, semen, embryo, ova and products of animal origin are to be based on the standard models for veterinary certificates set out in Annex I thereto.\n(10)\nIn addition, it is appropriate that consignments of the commodities imported into the Union from Switzerland are accompanied by the health certificates drawn up in accordance with the models used for trade within the Union in semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine species and set out in Commission Decision 2010/470/EU of 26 August 2010 laying down model health certificates for trade within the Union in semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine, ovine and caprine species and in ova and in embryos of animals of the porcine species (7), with the adaptations set out in points 8 and 9 of Chapter IX(B) of Appendix 2 of Annex 11 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in Agricultural Products, as approved by Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council, and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation (8).\n(11)\nIn the application of this Decision, account should be taken of the specific certification requirements and model health attestations which may be laid down in accordance with 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 (9), as approved by Council Decision 1999/201/EC (10).\n(12)\nIn the application of this Decision, account should also be taken of the specific certification requirements and model health attestations which may be laid down in accordance with the Agreement between the European Community and New Zealand on sanitary measures applicable to trade in live animals and animal products (11), as approved by Council Decision 97/132/EC (12).\n(13)\nIn the interest of clarity of Union legislation, it is necessary to repeal the Union acts currently setting out certification requirements for imports into the Union of the commodities. Accordingly, Commission Decision 96/539/EC of 4 September 1996 on animal health requirements and veterinary certification for imports into the Community of semen of the equine species (13) and Commission Decision 96/540/EC of 4 September 1996 on animal health requirements and veterinary certification for imports into the Community of ova and embryos of the equine species (14) should be repealed.\n(14)\nIn addition, Commission Decision 2004/616/EC of 26 July 2004 establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries (15) is now obsolete and should be repealed.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision lays down certain animal health requirements concerning imports into the Union of consignments of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine species.\nIt sets out model health certificates to be used for imports of those commodities into the Union.\nArticle 2\nImports of semen\nMember States shall authorise imports of consignments of semen of animals of the equine species provided that they comply with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey come from third countries or parts of the territory of third countries listed in columns 2 and 4 of Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC respectively from which permanent imports of registered horses, registered equidae or equidae for breeding and production are authorised;\n(b)\nthey come from an approved semen collection or storage centre listed in accordance with Article 17(3)(b) of Directive 92/65/EEC;\n(c)\nthey are accompanied by a health certificate drawn up in accordance with one of the following models set out in Part 2 of Annex I; and completed in accordance with the explanatory notes set out in Part 1 of that Annex:\n(i)\nMODEL 1 as set out in Section A, for consignments of semen collected after 31 August 2010 and dispatched from an approved semen collection centre of origin of the semen;\n(ii)\nMODEL 2 as set out in Section B, for consignments of stocks of semen collected, processed and stored before 1 September 2010 and dispatched after 31 August 2010 from an approved semen collection centre of origin of the semen;\n(iii)\nMODEL 3 as set out in Section C, for consignments of semen and stocks of semen referred to in (i) and (ii) dispatched from an approved semen storage centre;\nHowever, where specific certification requirements are laid down in bilateral agreements between the European Union and third countries, those requirements shall apply.\n(d)\nthey comply with the requirements set out in the health certificate referred to in point (c).\nArticle 3\nImports of ova and embryos\nMember States shall authorise imports of consignments of ova and embryos of animals of the equine species provided that they comply with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey come from third countries or parts of the territory of third countries listed in columns 2 and 4 of Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC respectively from which permanent imports of registered horses, registered equidae or equidae for breeding and production are authorised;\n(b)\nthey come from an approved embryo collection or production team listed in accordance with Article 17(3)(b) of Directive 92/65/EEC;\n(c)\nthey are accompanied by a health certificate drawn up in accordance with the model health certificate set out in Part 2 of Annex II; and completed in accordance with the explanatory notes set out in Part 1 of Annex II;\nHowever, where specific certification requirements are laid down in bilateral agreements between the European Union and third countries, those requirements shall apply.\n(d)\nthey comply with the requirements set out in the health certificate referred to in point (c).\nArticle 4\nGeneral conditions concerning the transport of consignments of semen, ova and embryos to the European Union\n1. Consignments of semen, ova and embryos shall not be transported in the same container as other consignments of semen, ova and embryos that:\n(a)\nare not intended for introduction into the Union, or\n(b)\nare of a lower health status.\n2. During transport to the Union, consignments of semen, ova and embryos shall be placed in closed and sealed containers and the seal must not be broken during the transport.\nArticle 5\nRepeal\nDecisions 96/539/EC, 96/540/EC and 2004/616/EC are repealed.\nArticle 6\nApplicability\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 September 2010.\nArticle 7\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 August 2010.", "references": ["43", "62", "28", "25", "54", "2", "48", "83", "60", "78", "32", "87", "41", "59", "34", "36", "96", "42", "9", "14", "57", "50", "23", "31", "91", "89", "20", "63", "90", "74", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "65", "66"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 23/2011\nof 13 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 January 2011.", "references": ["23", "7", "19", "91", "21", "64", "55", "77", "80", "90", "60", "87", "70", "40", "30", "94", "69", "9", "83", "84", "44", "25", "17", "5", "99", "27", "74", "42", "22", "48", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUPOL COPPS/1/2011\nof 20 December 2011\nextending the mandate of the Head of the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS)\n(2012/28/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/784/CFSP of 17 December 2010 on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Decision 2010/784/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PCS) is authorised, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of EUPOL COPPS, including in particular the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nOn 15 December 2009, upon a proposal by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affaires and Security Policy (HR), the PSC appointed by Decision EUPOL COPPS/2/2009 (2) Mr Henrik MALMQUIST as Head of Mission of EUPOL COPPS.\n(3)\nThe HR has proposed that the mandate of Mr MALMQUIST as Head of EUPOL COPPS be extended from 1 January 2012 until 30 June 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Mr Henrik MALMQUIST as Head of the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) is hereby extended from 1 January 2012 until 30 June 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply until 30 June 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["56", "35", "65", "88", "13", "8", "76", "51", "60", "44", "64", "26", "70", "91", "0", "34", "28", "4", "94", "25", "57", "62", "41", "12", "17", "59", "58", "63", "81", "48", "No Label", "1", "5", "52"], "gold": ["1", "5", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1070/2010\nof 22 November 2010\namending Directive 2008/38/EC by adding to the list of intended uses as a particular nutritional purpose the support of the metabolism of the joints in the case of osteoarthritis in dogs and cats\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the placing on the market and use of feed, amending European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 and repealing Council Directive 79/373/EEC, Commission Directive 80/511/EEC, Council Directives 82/471/EEC, 83/228/EEC, 93/74/EEC, 93/113/EC and 96/25/EC and Commission Decision 2004/217/EC (1), and in particular Article 10(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 the Commission received an application to add the particular nutritional purpose \u2018support of the joint function in the case of osteoarthritis\u2019 as regards dogs and cats to the list of intended uses of feed intended for particular nutritional purposes in Part B of Annex I to Commission Directive 2008/38/EC of 5 March 2008 establishing a list of intended uses of animal feedingstuffs for particular nutritional purposes (2). The Commission made the application, including the dossier, available to the Member States.\n(2)\nThe dossier included in the application demonstrates that the specific composition of the feed fulfils the particular intended nutritional purpose and that it has no adverse effects on animal health, human health, the environment or animal welfare. The application is therefore valid and the particular nutritional purpose \u2018support of the metabolism of the joints in the case of osteoarthritis\u2019 as regards dogs and cats should be added to the list of intended uses.\n(3)\nDirective 2008/38/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 2008/38/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["63", "84", "50", "13", "78", "7", "48", "81", "91", "47", "85", "14", "12", "49", "29", "60", "6", "42", "23", "11", "35", "97", "79", "93", "34", "69", "38", "31", "80", "37", "No Label", "24", "25", "66", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "66", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 219/2012\nof 14 March 2012\ncorrecting the Romanian version of Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Romanian language version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 (2) contains three errors which should be corrected.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1881/2006 should therefore be corrected accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n(Concerns only the Romanian language version.)\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 March 2012.", "references": ["99", "23", "45", "71", "78", "61", "87", "42", "47", "82", "92", "10", "36", "39", "66", "37", "22", "54", "56", "51", "4", "95", "90", "18", "31", "3", "49", "29", "81", "19", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "60", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "60", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 June 2011\namending Decisions 2008/603/EC, 2008/691/EC and 2008/751/EC as regards extension of the temporary derogations from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Mauritius, Seychelles and Madagascar with regard to tuna and tuna loins\n(notified under document C(2011) 4322)\n(2011/377/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements (1), and in particular Article 36(4) of Annex II thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 17 July 2008 Commission Decision 2008/603/EC (2) was adopted granting a temporary derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Mauritius with regard to preserved tuna and tuna loins. By Commission Decisions 2009/471/EC (3) and 2010/560/EU (4) extension of that temporary derogation was granted. On 27 December 2010 Mauritius requested in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 a new derogation from the rules of origin set out in that Annex. According to the information received from Mauritius the catches of raw tuna remain unusually low even compared to the normal seasonal variations. Given that the abnormal situation since 2008 remains unchanged and because of the problem of piracy in the Indian Ocean a new derogation should be granted with effect from 1 January 2011.\n(2)\nOn 14 August 2008 Commission Decision 2008/691/EC (5) was adopted granting a temporary derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Seychelles with regard to preserved tuna. By Decisions 2009/471/EC and 2010/560/EU extension of that temporary derogation was granted. On 8 November 2010 Seychelles requested in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 a new derogation from the rules of origin set out in that Annex for 4 000 tonnes of canned tuna. For the first time, Seychelles requested a derogation from the rules of origin for tuna loins. That request was for a quantity of 1 000 tonnes. According to the information provided by Seychelles the catches of raw tuna remain very low even compared to the normal seasonal variations. Furthermore, the threat of piracy results in a reduced number of fishing days in lucrative but high risk areas. Given that the abnormal situation since 2008 remains unchanged, a new derogation should be granted with effect from 1 January 2011.\n(3)\nOn 18 September 2008 Commission Decision 2008/751/EC (6) was adopted granting a temporary derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Madagascar with regard to preserved tuna and tuna loins. By Decisions 2009/471/EC and 2010/560/EU extension of that temporary derogation was granted. On 11 January 2011 Madagascar requested in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 a new derogation from the rules of origin set out in that Annex. On 28 January 2011 Madagascar provided additional information. According to this information sourcing of raw originating tuna remains difficult due to the problem of piracy in the Indian Ocean. Given that the abnormal situation since 2008 remains unchanged, a new derogation should be granted with effect from 1 January 2011.\n(4)\nDecisions 2008/603/EC, 2008/691/EC and 2008/751/EC applied until 31 December 2010 because the Interim Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States on the one part and the European Community and its Member States on the other part (ESA-EU Interim Partnership Agreement) did not enter into force or was not provisionally applied before that date.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 the rules of origin set out in Annex II to that Regulation and the derogations to them are to be superseded by the rules of the ESA-EU Interim Partnership Agreement of which the entry into force or the provisional application is foreseen to take place in 2011. Whilst a derogation is still to be granted in 2011, the overall situation, including the state of ratification of the ESA-EU Interim Partnership Agreement, will be reassessed in 2012.\n(6)\nIt is necessary to ensure continuity of importations from the ACP countries to the Union as well as a smooth transition to the ESA-EU Interim Economic Partnership Agreement. Decisions 2008/603/EC, 2008/691/EC and 2008/751/EC should therefore be prolonged with effect from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\n(7)\nMauritius, Seychelles and Madagascar will benefit from an automatic derogation from the rules of origin for tuna of HS heading 1604 pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Origin Protocol attached to the ESA-EU Interim Partnership Agreement signed by them, when this Agreement enters into force or is provisionally applied. It would be inappropriate to grant by this Decision derogations in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 which exceed the annual quota granted to the ESA region under the ESA-EU Interim Partnership Agreement. The ESA signatories to the Agreement have therefore signed a unilateral political declaration concerning the derogations for tuna granted in 2011 whereby these countries renounce to the global annual quantity of the automatic derogation for 2011 in case that the Agreement will either be provisionally applied or enter into force during that year. Consequently the quota amounts for 2011 should be set at 3 000 tonnes of preserved tuna and 600 tonnes of tuna loins for Mauritius, 3 000 tonnes of preserved tuna and 600 tonnes of tuna loins for Seychelles and 2 000 tonnes of preserved tuna and 500 tonnes of tuna loins for Madagascar.\n(8)\nDecisions 2008/603/EC, 2008/691/EC and 2008/751/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2008/603/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to the products and the quantities set out in the Annex which are declared for free circulation into the Community from Mauritius during the periods of 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2008, 1 January 2009 until 31 December 2009, 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2010 and 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011.\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 6, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall apply until 31 December 2011.\u2019;\n3.\nthe Annex is replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2008/691/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to the products and the quantities set out in the Annex which are declared for free circulation into the Community from Seychelles during the periods of 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2008, 1 January 2009 until 31 December 2009, 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2010 and 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011.\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 6, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall apply until 31 December 2011.\u2019;\n3.\nthe Annex is replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nDecision 2008/751/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to the products and the quantities set out in the Annex which are declared for free circulation into the Community from Madagascar during the periods of 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2008, 1 January 2009 until 31 December 2009, 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2010 and 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011.\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 6, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall apply until 31 December 2011.\u2019;\n3.\nthe Annex is replaced by the text set out in Annex III to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2011.", "references": ["80", "11", "0", "95", "93", "75", "18", "15", "71", "32", "3", "68", "69", "29", "38", "37", "39", "91", "13", "84", "83", "9", "43", "34", "63", "54", "64", "79", "88", "85", "No Label", "8", "21", "22", "23", "67", "72", "94"], "gold": ["8", "21", "22", "23", "67", "72", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 632/2011\nof 29 June 2011\nderogating, for 2011, from Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for common wheat of a quality other than high quality from third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 of 30 October 2008 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for common wheat of a quality other than high quality from third countries and derogating from Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (2) stipulates that the annual import quota of 2 989 240 tonnes be subdivided into three subquotas: 572 000 tonnes for the United States, 38 853 tonnes for Canada and 2 378 387 tonnes for other third countries.\n(2)\nArticle 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 stipulates that subquota III of 2 378 387 tonnes for other third countries be divided into four quarterly subperiods, covering in particular subperiod 3 extending from 1 July to 30 September for a quantity of 594 597 tonnes and subperiod 4 extending from 1 October to 31 December for a quantity of 594 596 tonnes.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation of the market, in order to promote a fluid supply of the EU market in cereals under subquota III for 2011, subperiod 3 and subperiod 4 should be merged into a single subperiod, covering the cumulative quantity for subperiods 3 and 4, namely 1 189 193 tonnes.\n(4)\nA derogation should therefore be made from Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 for 2011.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure effective management of the procedure for issuing import certificates from 1 July 2011, this Regulation must enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 3(3)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008, for 2011, subperiod 3 shall extend from 1 July 2011 to 31 December 2011, covering a quantity of 1 189 193 tonnes.\nBy way of derogation from Article 3(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008, subperiod 4 shall be eliminated for 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply until 31 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2011.", "references": ["76", "85", "82", "2", "80", "63", "83", "66", "89", "64", "17", "32", "97", "27", "71", "56", "61", "57", "95", "84", "45", "50", "41", "25", "73", "70", "79", "15", "99", "46", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 March 2011\non State aid C 39/07 implemented by Italy for Legler SpA\n(notified under document C(2011) 1758)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/51/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter \u2018the Treaty\u2019), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Commission decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty (1),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above, and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 5 April 2007, six months after the granting of rescue aid approved as compatible with the internal market by the Commission (2), Italy notified a restructuring plan for Legler SpA.\n(2)\nOn 25 September 2007, the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure in respect of the restructuring plan (3). Observations from Italy were received on 30 November 2007.\n(3)\nOn 10 December 2007, the Commission received comments from one interested party. It transmitted the comments to Italy by letter dated 3 March 2008. Italy provided its observations by letter dated 20 May 2008.\n(4)\nOn 23 July 2008, the Italian authorities withdrew the restructuring aid notification, stating that the plan had been abandoned.\n(5)\nThe Commission requested further information from the Italian authorities on 8 August 2008, 22 October 2008, 9 February 2009, 4 September 2009 and 17 March 2010, to which the Italian authorities replied by letters dated 26 September 2008, 1 December 2008, 3 June 2009, 6 October 2009, 24 February 2010 and 20 April 2010.\nII. DESCRIPTION\nII.1. Beneficiary\n(6)\nLegler SpA is the parent company of an Italian textile manufacturing group (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Legler\u2019, \u2018the group\u2019 or \u2018the company\u2019) founded in 1863 which, at the time the formal investigation procedure was initiated, comprised several legal entities, namely: Legler Ottana SpA, Legler Siniscola SpA and Legler Macomer SpA. Legler SpA held a minority shareholding in Legler Maroc SA and a 40 % share in Legler Ottana SpA The majority shareholding in Legler SpA was held by the holding company Piltar Ltd (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Piltar\u2019).\n(7)\nIn 2007, Legler employed 1 213 (4) persons and had plants in the region of Sardinia (at Macomer - province of Oristano, and at Siniscola and Ottana - province of Nuoro) and in the region of Lombardy (at Ponte San Pietro - province of Bergamo). The group\u2019s turnover was EUR 101 million in 2006 and EUR 30,9 million in September 2007.\n(8)\nLegler\u2019s core activity was the manufacturing of high-quality denim fabric, a sector in which the company had been a leading player in Italy and Germany and an important supplier to France and the Benelux. According to the Italian authorities, the denim market comprises two segments: pr\u00eat-\u00e0-porter for famous brands (this was Legler\u2019s main sector) and mass-market products, where competition is mainly price-based. Legler\u2019s main competitors were based in Italy, Greece, France, Tunisia, Turkey and Japan. Legler began experiencing difficulties in 2003, when a significant part of production was relocated to Asia or the southern Mediterranean.\n(9)\nOn 30 May 2007, at a board meeting of SFIRS SpA, an investment company of the region of Sardinia, it was decided that SFIRS would purchase from Intex SpA, in liquidation, for the price of EUR 450 000, a debt of a nominal value of EUR 17 million owed by Legler SpA and Legler Siniscola SpA.\n(10)\nAt the same meeting, SFIRS also decided to convert a part of Legler\u2019s EUR 17 million debt, in the amount of EUR 14,5 million, into participation in Legler\u2019s equity.\n(11)\nOn 31 May 2007, the debt-for-equity swap was carried out at a shareholders\u2019 meeting of Legler. By converting part of Legler\u2019s debt (for a face value of EUR 14,5 million) into Legler capital, SFIRS acquired 49 % of the ordinary shares (and 100 % of the extraordinary shares (5)) in Legler SpA The remaining 51 % was retained by Piltar.\n(12)\nIn January 2008, SFIRS decided to divest itself of its shareholding in Legler SpA, and of the remaining Legler group debt, and launched a call for expressions of interest for the joint purchase of the Legler equity and debt.\n(13)\nThe winning offer, submitted by the company Ferratex SRL (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Ferratex\u2019) was in the total amount of EUR 2 000 001. According to the Italian authorities, this price reflected the market value of SFIRS\u2019 total receivables from Legler and its subsidiaries, evaluated by an independent expert at EUR 2 million, plus the symbolic price of EUR 1 for SFIRS\u2019s holding in Legler\u2019s equity, also based on an independent expert\u2019s appraisal. The sale took place on 25 January 2008.\n(14)\nHowever, Legler ceased operations at all its plants in the period between December 2007 and August 2008 and all its plants have since remained inactive.\n(15)\nOn 23 July 2008 Legler SpA changed its name to Texfer SpA. Its Sardinian subsidiaries were also renamed respectively Texfer Ottana SpA, Texfer Siniscola SpA and Texfer Macomer SpA.\n(16)\nOn 18 August 2008 the group\u2019s parent company was declared insolvent by the competent court, and on 13 November 2008 it was admitted to the collective insolvency proceedings known as \u2018amministrazione straordinaria\u2019, together with its subsidiaries.\n(17)\nThe rescue aid guarantee was called by the bank shortly after Legler\u2019s failure to repay the rescue loan by the deadline. Consequently, the competent Ministry reimbursed the loan plus interest on 16 September 2008.\n(18)\nOn 21 October 2010 Texfer SpA was declared bankrupt. On 17 and 18 November 2010 Texfer Ottana SpA, Texfer Siniscola SpA and Texfer Macomer SpA were also declared bankrupt.\n(19)\nIn 2006, Legler\u2019s equity was negative at EUR - 8,6 million, against a still positive value of EUR 17,2 million in 2005. The company reported losses of EUR 25,9 million in 2006 and of EUR 28,1 million in 2005. Its turnover amounted to EUR 101,4 million in 2006 while it had been EUR 124,2 million in 2005. EBITDA amounted to - 10,9 in 2006 and - 0,7 in 2005. Interest costs were also increasing.\n(20)\nOn 30 November 2007, Legler\u2019s equity was negative for an amount of EUR 16,3 million. The losses over the period 2003-2007 had reached EUR 94,9 million and the company\u2019s situation had been steadily deteriorating, with increasing losses and shrinking turnover.\n(21)\nOn 13 November 2008 the group was subjected to collective insolvency proceedings under the national law, which ended with bankruptcy (see recitals 16 to 18).\nII.2. The restructuring measures\n(22)\nThe restructuring plan (piano industriale) notified by Italy (hereinafter also referred to as \u2018the plan\u2019) covered a three-year period (2007-2009) and consisted of three measures: (i) EUR 13 million in the form of a medium-term guarantee for the restructuring period, replacing the six-month guarantee authorised as rescue aid (6); (ii) EUR 13,2 million in the form of a direct grant; and (iii) EUR 13 million in the form of a conversion of debt into equity. However, on 31 May 2007 SFIRS implemented a debt-for-equity swap for a nominal amount of EUR 14,5 million.\n(23)\nAlthough the Italian authorities had submitted a restructuring plan (piano industriale) for the period 2007-2009, they claimed that the actual restructuring period would run from 1 June 2007 to the end of 2012. The only data provided to chart the progress of the company\u2019s restructuring from 2009 until 2012 were the cash flows and the evolution of the liabilities of the newly created company (NewCo).\n(24)\nIn this broader time-frame, the overall costs for setting up a new company from the merger of Legler SpA and its Sardinian subsidiaries amounted to EUR 106,2 million, including EUR 86,7 million for extensive group reorganisation, while the balance would go to restore capital and cover losses.\n(25)\nThe NewCo\u2019s activity would focus on the company\u2019s traditional core business, i.e. high-quality denim, whereas the other two production lines (corduroy and flat cotton) would be closed down. The group\u2019s geographical location would also be concentrated in only two production plants (Siniscola and Ottana), located in the same region. The remaining assets would be sold to enable Legler to provide its own contribution and to reduce energy, transport and personnel costs. The Macomer plant was not included in the plan (7).\n(26)\nThe plan also envisaged the entry of a new shareholder together with SFIRS, and indicated the need to obtain credit lines from private sources to implement the reorganisation process.\nII.3. Grounds for initiating the procedure\n(27)\nIn its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission had doubts whether the debt-for-equity swap was free from State aid elements. The Commission doubted that a private investor would have accepted swapping debt for shares in the company in the circumstances, especially as it appeared that part of the company\u2019s activities had been suspended for several months and the Italian authorities had submitted to the Commission no counterfactual scenario supporting SFIRS\u2019 assumption that investing in Legler and bearing its restructuring costs was more cost-effective than liquidating the group.\n(28)\nAs regards the compatibility of the aid with the internal market on the basis of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (8) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the rescue and restructuring guidelines\u2019), the Commission firstly posed the question whether Legler\u2019s difficulties could have been dealt with by the majority shareholder Piltar and whether there had been an arbitrary allocation of costs within the group.\n(29)\nSecondly, the Commission doubted that the plan would be able to restore long-term viability, as the planned divestment of assets and production lines seemed rather indeterminate and many assumptions on future operating conditions seemed unrealistic, given the suspension of Legler\u2019s production. The Commission also doubted that the proposed compensatory measures were real and went beyond the measures necessary to restore viability, that the level of own contribution was sufficient and that the \u2018one time, last time\u2019 principle had been respected.\n(30)\nFinally, the Commission requested the Italian authorities to submit information concerning the doubts raised (origin of SFIRS\u2019 credit, detailed information on Piltar and on the allocation of costs within the group, on the compensatory measures, on the actual likelihood of Legler finding a new shareholder and on access to the private financing required for reorganising Legler).\nIII. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(31)\nBy letter dated 14 December 2007, an interested party submitted its comments on the opening decision. The third party claimed that the measures in question would cause distortions of competition and pointed out that the sector was affected by significant overcapacity. It provided figures on worldwide denim production capacity for the year 2006, showing a global overcapacity of 27 %.\nIV. COMMENTS FROM ITALY\n(32)\nFirstly, the Italian authorities explained how SFIRS had become the majority shareholder in Legler. In March 2007 SFIRS purchased debt of Legler SpA and Legler Siniscola SpA from the company Intex SpA, in liquidation, for the price of EUR 450 000. On 31 May 2007 SFIRS converted part of that debt, having a nominal value of EUR 14,5 million, into Legler equity, thereby acquiring 49 % of Legler\u2019s ordinary shares (while Piltar retained the remaining 51 %) and 100 % of its extraordinary shares (9).\n(33)\nSecondly, the Italian authorities explained that Piltar was a mere vehicle controlled by natural persons. It was founded exclusively for the purpose of acquiring a shareholding in Legler and was engaged in no other business activity. The Italian authorities added that Piltar had long made it clear that it did not plan to support the company financially and that it intended to divest itself progressively of its shareholding in the group. Indeed, it appears that together with the 49 % shareholding SFIRS also acquired the right to purchase the remaining 51 % of Legler\u2019s ordinary shares.\n(34)\nThirdly, the Italian authorities promised to provide information on the compensatory measures.\n(35)\nFourthly, Italy stated that the market segments targeted by Legler\u2019s restructuring plan to restore financial viability, described in recital 25, were showing encouraging trends. The Italian authorities also mentioned the company\u2019s intention to secure private credit lines and a new shareholder to finance part of the plan, and stated that steps had already been taken to that effect.\n(36)\nNext, in response to the third party\u2019s comments, the Italian authorities pointed out that Legler\u2019s market share in the year 2006 was as little as 0,27 %. They added that as a compensatory measure, the plan involved a 22 % reduction in the company\u2019s capacity compared to 2006 and a 40 % reduction compared to 2005. Therefore, they considered that the aid would not distort competition to an extent contrary to the common interest.\n(37)\nIn their submissions following the withdrawal of the restructuring plan, the Italian authorities argued that the debt-for-equity swap would not qualify as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, as SFIRS had acted in line with the market economy investor principle. According to the Italian authorities a private investor would have acted in the same way to avoid bankruptcy and recover at least part of his credit in the most effective way, i.e. by converting it into capital and restructuring the company together with a new private investor and a new credit line.\nV. ASSESSMENT\n(38)\nUnder Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (10), the Member State concerned may withdraw the notification within the meaning of Article 2 in due time before the Commission has taken a decision pursuant to Article 4 or 7.\n(39)\nIn this case, where the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure, the Commission shall close that procedure pursuant to Article 8(2) of the same Regulation.\n(40)\nThe Commission notes that the direct grant of EUR 13,2 million has not been implemented by Italy and Italy will not pursue this aid project further. As the restructuring plan has been withdrawn, the formal investigation procedure opened on this measure no longer serves any purpose.\n(41)\nAs the other two notified restructuring measures were unlawfully implemented by Italy, in order to close the formal investigation procedure the Commission must determine whether they constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, and if so, whether this aid is compatible with the internal market.\n(42)\nArticle 107(1) of the Treaty lays down that any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade among Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\n(43)\nWhere State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty is to be or was granted to a company in difficulty, the compatibility of this aid must be assessed on the basis of the rescue and restructuring guidelines. Consequently, the aid can only be considered compatible on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty if the conditions laid down in the rescue and restructuring guidelines are met.\nV.1. Existence of aid\n(44)\nThe rescue aid guarantee in the amount of EUR 13 million was not terminated on the expiry of the six-month period for which it had been approved by the Commission, but remained in place after notification of the plan was withdrawn (see recital 17).\n(45)\nThe extension of the rescue aid guarantee was notified as a measure granted from the resources of the competent Ministry, financed from the State budget. Therefore, it was granted from State resources and it is imputable to the State. The guarantee constitutes a selective advantage as it allowed Legler to access financial resources which it would not have otherwise obtained, given its financial situation. Hence, it relieved Legler from the costs it would otherwise have incurred. Furthermore, as Legler was implementing a restructuring process aimed at resuming production, the aid was liable to distort competition in the internal market and to affect trade between Member States. The distortive effect of the measure was stressed by a third party, who also pointed out that the sector suffers from overcapacity.\n(46)\nTherefore, the Commission considers that the extension of the rescue aid guarantee, which is also a restructuring measure, constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(47)\nIn determining the amount of aid, the Commission recalls paragraph 4.1(a) of the Guarantee Notice (11), which states that \u2018for companies in difficulty, a market guarantor, if any, would, at the time the guarantee is granted charge a high premium given the expected rate of default. If the likelihood that the borrower will not be able to repay the loan becomes particularly high, this market rate may not exist and in exceptional circumstances the aid element of the guarantee may turn out to be as high as the amount effectively covered by that guarantee.\u2019\n(48)\nIn the light of Legler\u2019s severe financial distress at the time the guarantee was granted (increasing losses, decreasing turnover and negative equity as described in recitals 19 to 21 and 52), the Commission considers that it was highly unlikely that the company would have been able to obtain a bank loan on the market without State intervention; therefore, the Commission concludes that the aid amount corresponds to the totality of the loan amount (12).\n(49)\nThe Commission remarks that the swap was implemented by SFIRS, a public entity whose main shareholder, the Region of Sardinia, exerts a dominant influence on its decisions (13). Italy has never denied this fact. Hence, the Commission concludes that the measure in question is imputable to the State and was granted through State resources. This measure is also selective as it favours a single company, Legler. Furthermore, as Legler was pursuing a restructuring process aimed at resuming production, the aid was liable to distort competition in the internal market and to affect trade between Member States. The potential distortive impact of the measure was also highlighted in the comments submitted by a third party, which also pointed out that the sector suffers from overcapacity.\n(50)\nIn its response, Italy argued that the measure in question conferred no advantage on Legler as, in its view, it was in line with the market economy investor principle.\n(51)\nAccording to settled case-law (14), in order to determine whether Legler received an advantage from State resources it is necessary to consider whether, in similar circumstances, a private investor with characteristics comparable to those of SFIRS would have been willing to carry out a similar debt-for-equity swap, having regard to the information available and developments foreseeable at the date the transaction was implemented.\n(52)\nFirstly, on the basis of Legler\u2019s financial statements, the Commission notes that in 2007 the company had a capital of EUR 1,8 million and a negative equity of EUR - 16,2 million; over the period 2003-2007 losses reached EUR 94,9 million and the company\u2019s situation was clearly deteriorating, with increasing losses and decreasing turnover.\n(53)\nThe Commission also notes that despite the critical financial situation outlined above, SFIRS did not carry out a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis and a risk assessment for the transaction. In fact, despite numerous requests from the Commission to this effect, the Italian authorities have never submitted a substantiated counterfactual scenario demonstrating that SFIRS\u2019 choice was preferable to the scenario of liquidating Legler.\n(54)\nIndeed, similar remarks were made by the Bank of Italy in a report (15) issued after an investigation into SFIRS\u2019 activity. The report criticised SFIRS\u2019 behaviour for the incompleteness of its prior analysis of the debt-for-equity swap and for the inherent contradiction of making an \u2018investment\u2019 offering no concrete prospects of recovery.\n(55)\nIrrespective of this assessment, the financial situation of the company was such that no reasonable private investor in a market economy would have entered into a similar transaction.\n(56)\nIn this regard, the Commission also notes that the restructuring plan (piano industriale) notified by the company cannot be considered as a realistic basis for predicting the company\u2019s future performance. The fact alone that the plan covered not all but only a part of the restructuring period, and provided no information on the subsequent progress of the restructuring (see recital 23), clearly shows that such lack of information would have dissuaded any private investor from entering into the transaction in question.\n(57)\nSecond, as to SFIRS\u2019 actual prospects of recovering the money owed to it by Legler, by becoming a shareholder via the debt-for-equity swap SFIRS had actually weakened its claim position, compared with its prior position as a preferential creditor.\n(58)\nThe value and future prospects of SFIRS\u2019 equity investment at the moment of the debt-for-equity swap seemed too limited to counterbalance the risks outlined above, particularly in the light of the company\u2019s critical financial situation. This was clearly highlighted by an independent valuation of the company, which gave it the symbolic figure of EUR 1.\n(59)\nIt can be concluded from the above that in carrying out the debt-for-equity swap SFIRS did not act as a private investor operating under normal market conditions. A private investor would not have entered into such a transaction without a credible and realistic prior assessment showing that it would be more cost-effective to swap the debt for equity instead of remaining a preferential creditor of the company.\n(60)\nHence, by carrying out the debt-for-equity swap, SFIRS granted an advantage to Legler.\n(61)\nIt follows from the foregoing that the debt-for-equity swap constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(62)\nAs to calculating the amount of aid, it should be noted that the notion of State aid is limited to aid granted through public resources. The amount of aid must be calculated on the basis of the market value of the debt which SFIRS converted into Legler\u2019s equity. Hence, if the total nominal value of Legler\u2019s debt towards SFIRS was EUR 17 million, while on the day before the swap its market value was EUR 450 000, the market value of the transaction whereby SFIRS\u2019 converted 85,3 % of its total credit i.e. a nominal value of EUR 14,5 million, into equity, was EUR 383 850 (i.e. 85,3 % of EUR 450 000). Hence, the advantage granted through State resources was EUR 383 850. On the other hand, the nominal value of the swapped credit cannot be viewed as an advantage other than in merely accounting terms.\nV.2. Compatibility of the aid with the internal market\n(63)\nAs the two notified measures have been found to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, the Commission has to assess whether this aid is compatible with the internal market.\n(64)\nThe compatibility of the State aid measures in question with the internal market must be assessed on the basis of the rescue and restructuring guidelines.\n(65)\nAs regards the public guarantee, in order to assess its compatibility a distinction must be made between extension of the rescue aid on one hand, and the provision of State aid in the form of a medium-term guarantee, which is also a restructuring measure (for the duration of the restructuring period) on the other.\n(66)\nWith regard to the extension of the rescue aid, point 26 of the guidelines provides that where the Member State has submitted a restructuring plan within six months of the date of authorisation or, in the case of non-notified aid, of implementation of the measure, the deadline for reimbursing the loan or for putting an end to the guarantee is extended until the Commission reaches its decision on the plan, unless the Commission decides that such an extension is not justified.\n(67)\nThe notification of the restructuring plan allowed the rescue aid to continue beyond six months. However, Italy later withdrew this notification. It follows from point 26 of the guidelines that the notification of a restructuring plan is a condition sine qua non for an extension of the rescue aid. Therefore, if a notified restructuring plan is later withdrawn, the extension allowed for the rescue aid has to be terminated.\n(68)\nIt follows from the Commission\u2019s decision-making practice (cases Ernault (16) and Huta Cynku (17)) that if neither a restructuring plan nor a liquidation plan have been notified to the Commission or, as in the present case, if the restructuring plan has been withdrawn, the extension of the rescue aid in question cannot be maintained beyond the date on which the Member State withdrew notification of the restructuring plan.\n(69)\nAs the medium-term guarantee (for the duration of the restructuring plan), intended as notified restructuring aid, was an extension of the rescue aid guarantee, it was compatible until Italy withdrew its notification.\n(70)\nThus, the compatibility of the extended State aid guarantee with the internal market should be assessed starting from the day following that on which Italy withdrew its notification (i.e. from 24 July 2008).\n(71)\nThe granting of State aid to a company in difficulty can be considered compatible on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty only if all the conditions laid down in the rescue and restructuring guidelines are respected.\n(72)\nPursuant to points 12(a) and 14 of the guidelines, only firms in difficulty are eligible for restructuring aid.\n(73)\nUnder point 9 of the guidelines, a firm, irrespective of its size, is regarded as being in difficulty where it is unable, whether through its own resources or with the funds it is able to obtain from its shareholders or on the market, to stem losses which, without outside intervention by the public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to going out of business.\n(74)\nUnder point 10 of the guidelines a firm is regarded as being in difficulty in the following circumstances:\n(a)\nin the case of a limited liability company, where more than half of its registered capital has disappeared and more than one quarter of that capital has been lost over the preceding 12 months;\n(b)\nin the case of a company where at least some members have unlimited liability for the debt of the company, where more than half of its capital as shown in the company accounts has disappeared and more than one quarter of that capital has been lost in the preceding 12 months;\n(c)\nwhatever the type of company concerned, where it fulfils the criteria under its domestic law for being the subject of collective insolvency proceedings.\n(75)\nIt follows from point 10(a) of the rescue and restructuring guidelines that without outside intervention a company that has experienced a massive loss of registered capital will inevitably go out of business in the short or medium term. In an earlier decision (18) the Commission concluded that a company that has negative equity will a fortiori be considered to be in difficulty. In its Biria judgment (19) the General Court also confirmed that a massive loss of capital is indeed a sign of difficulty, and that the Commission had been right in concluding that a company with negative equity is a company in difficulty.\n(76)\nLegler fulfilled the criterion of point 10(a) of the rescue and restructuring guidelines as it had a negative equity in the year of 2006 (see recital 19).\n(77)\nThe Commission also notes that Legler was already considered to be a firm in difficulty within the meaning of Point 10(a) of the rescue and restructuring guidelines as at 22 May 2007, when the rescue aid was authorised.\n(78)\nThereafter, Legler\u2019s financial situation did not improve. In fact, it was declared insolvent by the competent court in 2008 (see recital 16).\n(79)\nThe Commission also observes that Legler is not a newly created firm within the meaning of point 12 of the rescue and restructuring guidelines.\n(80)\nPursuant to point 13 of the rescue and restructuring guidelines a firm belonging to or taken over by a larger business group is not normally eligible for rescue or restructuring aid, except where it can be demonstrated that the firm\u2019s difficulties are intrinsic and are not the result of an arbitrary allocation of costs within the group, and that the difficulties are too serious to be dealt with by the group itself.\n(81)\nThe Commission notes that Piltar was a mere commercial vehicle, which pursued no business activity other than holding shares in Legler. None of the information available to the Commission suggests that the company\u2019s difficulties were the result of an arbitrary allocation of costs within the group. Moreover, as Piltar was fully owned by private individuals and engaged in no business activity other than its equity investment in Legler, it was not in a position to contribute to Legler\u2019s restructuring.\n(82)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, it can be concluded that the conditions set out in point 9 of the rescue and restructuring guidelines are fulfilled.\n(83)\nGiven that Legler is eligible for restructuring aid, it now has to be assessed whether the conditions set out in points 32 to 51 of the rescue and restructuring guidelines for compatibility of the restructuring aid are met.\n(84)\nHowever, Italy withdrew Legler\u2019s restructuring plan, and therefore it is no longer committed to any restructuring plan within the meaning of point 35 of the rescue and restructuring guidelines. Consequently, the Commission cannot assess the unlawful aid in the light of the criteria set out in points 32 to 51 of the rescue and restructuring guidelines.\n(85)\nMoreover, the Commission takes the view that the public guarantee and the debt-for-equity swap cannot be found to be compatible with the internal market on any other legal basis.\nVI. CONCLUSION\n(86)\nThe formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) of the Treaty in respect of the direct grant of EUR 13,2 million must be terminated since Italy has withdrawn its notification and does not intend to pursue this aid project further.\n(87)\nThe Commission concludes that the public guarantee and the debt-for-equity swap fall within the scope of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(88)\nThese two measures were implemented by Italy in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty.\n(89)\nAccording to the Treaty and the Court of Justice\u2019s established case-law, when it has found aid to be incompatible with the internal market the Commission is competent to decide that the State concerned must abolish or alter it (20). The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to restore the previously existing situation (21). In this context, the Court has established that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored (22).\n(90)\nFollowing that case-law, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99 (23) laid down that \u2018where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary\u2019.\n(91)\nThus, given that the measures at hand are to be considered as unlawful aid incompatible with the internal market, the amounts of aid of these two measures, i.e. EUR 13 million and EUR 383 850 respectively, must be recovered in order to restore the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid.\n(92)\nAs regards the public guarantee, recovery shall therefore be effected from the day following Italy\u2019s withdrawal of the notification of the restructuring aid, i.e. from 24 July 2008, and shall bear recovery interest until their actual recovery.\n(93)\nAs regards the debt-for-equity swap, the sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which the aid was put at the disposal of the beneficiary, i.e. from 31 May 2007, until their actual recovery,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) of the Treaty in respect of the direct grant of EUR 13,2 million to the company Legler SpA is closed.\nArticle 2\nThe public guarantee amounting to EUR 13 million and the debt-for-equity swap of EUR 383 850 respectively, granted by Italy in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty in favour of Legler SpA constitute State aid incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 3\n1. Italy shall recover the aid referred to in Article 2 from the beneficiary.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest until the date of their actual recovery.\nAs regards the public guarantee, such interest shall be calculated from the day following Italy\u2019s withdrawal of notification of the restructuring aid.\nAs regards the debt-for-equity swap, such interest shall be calculated from the date on which the aid was made available to the beneficiary.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (24) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 (25) amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\n4. Italy shall cancel all outstanding payments of the aid referred to in Article 2 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Italy shall ensure that this decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 5\n1. Within two months following notification of this Decision, Italy shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken or planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Italy shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, upon request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2011.", "references": ["55", "88", "20", "93", "22", "43", "90", "18", "9", "45", "57", "58", "72", "27", "6", "19", "4", "76", "16", "29", "33", "24", "49", "37", "75", "41", "83", "84", "56", "85", "No Label", "8", "15", "48", "89", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "48", "89", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 June 2010\non protective measures with regard to equine infectious anaemia in Romania\n(notified under document C(2010) 3767)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/346/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nEquine infectious anaemia (\u2018EIA\u2019) is a viral disease affecting only animals of the family Equidae. The incubation period is normally one to three weeks, but may be as long as three months. Infected equidae remain infectious for life and can potentially transmit the infection to other equidae. Infection with EIA tends to become inapparent if death does not result from one of the acute clinical attacks during viraemia, and thus the likelihood of transmission is substantially increased. Local transmission occurs by the transfer of blood from an infected equine animal via interrupted feeding of bloodsucking horseflies and in utero to the foetus. The main means of the long distance spread of the disease is the movement of infected animals, their semen, ova and embryos, and the use of contaminated needles or infusion of blood products containing the virus.\n(2)\nEIA is a compulsorily notifiable disease in accordance with Annex A to Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (2). In addition, Council Directive 82/894/EEC of 21 December 1982 on the notification of animal diseases within the Community (3) provides that outbreaks of EIA are to be notified to the Commission and other Member States through the Animal Disease Notification System (\u2018ADNS\u2019).\n(3)\nArticle 4(5) of Directive 90/426/EEC provides for restrictions concerning the movement of equidae from holdings where the presence of EIA has been confirmed until, following the slaughter of the infected animals, the remaining animals have undergone two Coggins tests with negative results.\n(4)\nUnlike the animal health situation in other Member States, EIA is endemic in Romania and the immediate slaughter of infectious equidae is not implemented. For that reason, Commission Decision 2007/269/EC of 23 April 2007 on protective measures with regard to equine infectious anaemia in Romania (4) was adopted.\n(5)\nHowever, recent cases of EIA in equidae for breeding and production dispatched from Romania to other Member States, and the recently published outcome of a veterinary inspection mission carried out by the Commission\u2019s services in 2009 in that Member State in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 90/426/EEC (5), indicate that Decision 2007/269/EC is poorly implemented, enforced and monitored.\n(6)\nIn view of trade in live equidae, their semen, ova and embryos, the disease situation in Romania presents an animal health risk for equidae in the Union. It is therefore appropriate to adopt protective measures laying down a specific regime for the movement of and trade in equidae and equine semen, ova and embryos, as well as certain equine blood products from Romania in order to safeguard the health and welfare of equidae in the Union.\n(7)\nThe prevalence of the disease is not equally distributed throughout Romania and between various categories of equidae in that Member State. This situation allows applying less stringent conditions for the movement of certain registered horses for competition and races and should allow, in future, defining disease free regions.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) of Directive 90/426/EEC, the Member State of destination may, on a general or restricted basis, grant derogation from some of the requirements of Article 4(5) for any animal bearing a special mark indicating that it is scheduled for slaughter, provided that the health certificate mentions such derogation. In the case of granting such derogation equidae for slaughter must be transported directly to the designated slaughterhouse and be slaughtered within five days of arrival at the slaughterhouse.\n(9)\nArticle 12 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (6) lays down the accreditation requirements for laboratories carrying out analysis of samples taken during official controls.\n(10)\nThe Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 180/2008 of 28 February 2008 concerning the Community reference laboratory for equine diseases other than African horse sickness (7) lays down the functions, tasks and procedures of the reference laboratory in the Union for equine diseases as regards collaboration with laboratories responsible for diagnosing infectious diseases of equidae in the Member States. Those functions include, amongst others, promoting the harmonisation of diagnosis and ensuring proficiency of testing within the Union by organising and operating periodic comparative trials and by periodic transmission of the results of such trials to the Commission, the Member States and national/central laboratories. The work programme agreed between the Commission and that laboratory provides that the first proficiency testing for EIA is to take place in 2010.\n(11)\nIn the absence of specific Union standards for testing for EIA, reference should be made to the relevant Chapter of the Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals 2009 of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). That Chapter, which is currently Chapter 2.5.6, prescribes the agar gel immunodiffusion (AGID) for the detection of EIA in horses, which is an accurate and reliable test except in certain circumstances specified in the Manual. This Decision should therefore provide for two AGID tests for EIA with negative results to compensate for the limitations of that test.\n(12)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 504/2008 of 6 June 2008 implementing Council Directives 90/426/EEC and 90/427/EEC as regards methods for the identification of equidae (8) requires equidae to be identified by an identification document. To reinforce the link between the identification document and the animal, adult horses intended for transport from Romania to other Member States should be marked by injection of an electronic transponder.\n(13)\nArticle 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations (9) sets out the checks and other measures related to the journey log to be carried out by the competent authority before long journeys.\n(14)\nThe certification requirements for the movement and transport of equidae are laid down in Article 8 of Directive 90/426/EEC. In order to enhance the traceability of registered equidae from areas in Romania affected by EIA to other Member States, the attestation provided for in Annex B to Directive 90/426/EEC should be replaced by an animal health certification complying with Annex C to that Directive.\n(15)\nThe integrated computerised veterinary Trade Control and Expert System (\u2018TRACES\u2019) introduced in accordance with Commission Decision 2004/292/EC of 30 March 2004 on the introduction of the Traces system (10) may be instrumental for the \u2018channelling\u2019 of equidae from Romania to slaughterhouses in other Member States.\n(16)\nThe movement of equidae other than equidae for slaughter from Romania to other Member States should not be considered completed until a test for EIA, carried out on a sample collected during post-arrival isolation at the place of destination, has confirmed the absence of that disease.\n(17)\nAs the affected sector is fully aware of the risks posed by the disease situation in Romania, it is appropriate to allow those involved in the movement of equidae from Romania to share responsibility and the cost incurred by the competent authorities in relation to such movements.\n(18)\nCouncil Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (11), as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 176/2010 (12), introduced test requirements for EIA also for donor mares from which ova or embryos are collected. However, those amendments are only to apply from 1 September 2010. Therefore, where ova and embryos are collected from mares kept in Romania, it is necessary to complement the animal health requirements laid down in Commission Decision 95/294/EC of 24 July 1995 determining the specimen animal health certificate for trade in ova and embryos of the equine species (13) with a test requirement for EIA.\n(19)\nIn addition, the animal health requirements in Union legislation for blood products derived from equidae are currently being reviewed. At present, Chapter V(A) of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (14) sets out the requirements for serum of equidae.\n(20)\nIn the interests of clarity of Union legislation, Decision 2007/269/EC should be repealed and replaced by this Decision.\n(21)\nIt appears unnecessary to introduce transitional conditions as the measures provided for take due account of the recently adopted Romanian programme for the eradication of EIA in that country.\n(22)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nProtective measures applicable to equidae, semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine species and blood products derived from equidae\n1. Romania shall not dispatch the following commodities to other Member States:\n(a)\nequidae from the regions listed in the Annex;\n(b)\nsemen of animals of the equine species;\n(c)\nova and embryos of animals of the equine species;\n(d)\nblood products derived from equidae.\n2. The prohibition laid down in paragraph 1(a) shall not apply to equidae from holdings situated outside Romania that either:\n(a)\ntransit through Romania on major routes and highways; or\n(b)\nare transported through Romania directly and without any interruption to their journey to a slaughterhouse for immediate slaughter and are accompanied by an animal health certificate completed in accordance with the model set out in Annex C to Directive 90/426/EEC.\nArticle 2\nDerogations for movements of equidae from the regions listed in the Annex to other Member States\n1. By way of derogation from Article 1(1)(a), Romania may authorise the dispatch of consignments of equidae to other Member States, subject to compliance with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe entire consignment of equidae must have been:\n(i)\nisolated under official supervision on a holding approved by the competent authority as being free of equine infectious anaemia (\u2018EIA\u2019) (\u2018approved holding\u2019); and\n(ii)\nkept at a minimum distance to any other equidae of a lesser health status of at least 200 m for a period of at least 90 days prior to the date of dispatch;\n(b)\nall equidae comprising the consignment must have undergone an agar gel immunodiffusion test for EIA (\u2018the AGID test\u2019) carried out with negative results on blood samples taken on two occasions 90 days apart; the second sample of which must have been collected within 10 days prior to the date of dispatch of the consignment from the approved holding; the AGID test must meet the criteria established by the relevant Chapter of the Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals 2009 of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (\u2018the Manual\u2019);\n(c)\nthe transporter must document the arrangements made to ensure that the equidae comprising the consignment are dispatched from the approved holding directly to the place of destination without passing through a market or marshalling centre;\n(d)\nin the case the consignment includes registered equidae or equidae for breeding and production, all other equidae present on the approved holding during the isolation period referred to in point (a)(i) must have undergone an AGID test carried out with negative result on blood samples taken either before they are removed from the holding during the isolation period or within 10 days prior to the date of dispatch of the consignment from the approved holding;\n(e)\nall equidae comprising the consignment must be marked by implanting an electronic transponder and identified by means of the single identification document for equidae or passport provided for in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 504/2008 which must state:\n(i)\nthe number displayed when reading the implanted electronic transponder in point (5) of Part A of Section I of that document;\n(ii)\nthe AGID test provided for in points (b) and (d) of this paragraph and their results in Section VII of that document;\n(f)\nthe checks concerning the journey log carried out in accordance with Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 must be satisfactory and must not require details to be sent to a control post situated in a Member State of transit in accordance with Article 14(1)(d) of that Regulation;\n(g)\nthe equidae comprising the consignment must be accompanied by a duly completed animal health certificate in accordance with the model set out in Annex C to Directive 90/426/EEC, which must indicate the place of destination and bear the following additional wording:\n\u2018Equidae dispatched in accordance with Commission Decision 2010/346/EU (15)\n2. By way of derogation from point 1(b), the first AGID test, to be carried out on samples taken at least 90 days before dispatch, may not be required under the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe Member State of destination has granted such derogation in application of the measures provided for in Article 7(2) of Directive 90/426/EEC, or\n(b)\nthe equidae are destined for direct transport to the slaughterhouse and have been assembled on the approved holding from holdings certified free of EIA in accordance with the national EIA control programme in force.\nArticle 3\nDerogation from the movement of equidae from the regions listed in the Annex to other Member States as regards registered horses participating in certain competitions and events\nBy way of derogation from Article 2(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (f), Romania may authorise the dispatch to other Member States of consignments of registered horses for participation in competitions organised under the auspices of the World Equestrian Federation (FEI), or in major international horse race events, subject to compliance with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe horses must have undergone an AGID test, carried out with negative results in accordance with the criteria established by the Manual, on a blood sample taken within 10 days prior to the date of dispatch from the approved holding;\n(b)\nall equidae on the approved holding and within a perimeter of 200 m around the approved holding have undergone an AGID test carried out with negative results on a blood sample taken between 90 and 180 days before the date of intended movement;\n(c)\nthe conditions laid down in Article 2(1)(e) and (g).\nArticle 4\nRestrictions in the event of positive results to the AGID test\nIn the event of a positive result to any of the AGID tests provided for in Article 2(1)(b) and (d) and Article 3(a) of this Decision, the entire approved holding shall be placed under a movement restriction until the measures provided for in the third indent of Article 4(5)(a) of Directive 90/426/EEC have been completed.\nArticle 5\nDerogations for frozen semen, ova and embryos of the equine species and blood products derived from equidae\n1. By way of derogation from Article 1(1)(b), Romania may authorise the dispatch to other Member States of frozen semen of equidae complying with the requirements of points 1.6(c), 1.7 and 1.8 of Chapter II (I) of Annex D to Directive 92/65/EEC.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 1(1)(c), Romania may authorise the dispatch to other Member States of frozen embryos collected from donor mares which have undergone an AGID test carried out with negative result on blood samples taken 90 days apart; the second sample must have been taken between 30 and 45 days after the date of collection of the embryos.\n3. Consignments of frozen semen or embryos referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be accompanied by an animal health certificate established for the consignment in question in accordance with Article 11(5) of Directive 92/65/EEC, which shall bear the additional wording:\n\u2018Semen/embryos (delete what is not applicable) of the equine species dispatched in accordance with Commission Decision 2010/346/EU (16).\n4. By way of derogation from Article 1(1)(d), Romania may authorise the dispatch to other Member States of serum of equidae complying with the requirements of Chapter V(A) of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.\nArticle 6\nAdditional obligations on Romania\nRomania shall ensure that:\n(a)\nthe name and geographical location of approved holdings and the name and professional capacity of the official veterinarian responsible for the approved holding and signing the animal health certificate referred to in Article 2(1)(g) and Article 5(3) are communicated to the Commission and the other Member States;\n(b)\nthe official laboratory carrying out the AGID tests provided for in Article 2(1)(b) and (d) and Article 3:\n(i)\ncomplies with the requirements of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004;\n(ii)\nundergoes by 31 December 2010 and each year thereafter, an annual proficiency testing in collaboration with the European Union Reference Laboratory for equine diseases other than African horse sickness;\n(c)\nduplicate blood samples are stored in the official laboratory referred to in point (b) for each AGID test carried out within 10 days of the date of dispatch in accordance with Article 2(1)(b) and (d) and Article 3 for a period of at least 90 days, unless:\n(i)\nthe death of that animal has been notified in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 504/2008; or\n(ii)\na negative result was reported for the AGID test referred to in Article 7(1)(b) before the 90-day period elapsed;\n(d)\nthe movement is pre-notified to the place of destination through TRACES at least 36 hours in advance of the time of arrival.\nArticle 7\nObligations of Member States of the place of destination\n1. Member States of the place destination shall ensure that where the movement of equidae referred to in Article 2(1)(b) is pre-notified in accordance with Article 6(d), the equidae are, upon their arrival at the place of destination, either:\n(a)\nslaughtered within not more than 72 hours of the time of arrival at the slaughterhouse notified to the competent authorities through TRACES; 10 % of consignments arriving at the slaughterhouse in accordance with this Decision must be subject to post-arrival AGID testing; or\n(b)\nisolated under official veterinary supervision on the holding of destination indicated in the animal health certificate referred to in Article 2(1)(g) for at least 30 days and at a distance of least 200 m away from any other equidae or under vector protected conditions, and are subjected to a AGID test with negative results carried out on a blood sample taken not earlier than 28 days following the date of commencement of the isolation period.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 1(1)(b), Member States must ensure that during a period of 90 days following the date of arrival of equidae referred to in Article 2(1)(b) at the holding of destination referred to in paragraph 1(b) of this Article, equidae may only be dispatched from that holding to another Member State if:\n(a)\nthey have undergone an AGID test with negative results carried out on a blood sample taken within 10 days prior to the date of dispatch; and\n(b)\nthey are accompanied by a duly completed animal health certificate in accordance with the model set out in Annex C to Directive 90/426/EEC.\nArticle 8\nReporting obligations\nMember States affected by trade in equidae and their semen, ova and embryos in accordance with this Decision shall regularly, but at least each 3 months, report to the Commission and the other Member States at the meetings of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.\nArticle 9\nCosts of administrative procedures\n1. Romania shall take the necessary measures, including where necessary legal measures, to ensure that the costs of the additional administrative procedures, including any necessary laboratory testing or follow-up investigation, related to the movement of consignments of equidae, semen, ova and embryos and serum derived from equidae from that Member State in accordance with Articles 2, 3 and 5 are fully borne by the consignor of the equidae or their products.\n2. Member States of the place of destination shall take the necessary measures, including where necessary legal measures, to ensure that the costs of the additional administrative procedures, including any necessary laboratory testing or follow-up investigation until the measures provided for in Article 7 are completed, related to the movement of the equidae from Romania in accordance with Articles 2 and 3 are fully borne by the consignee of the equidae.\nArticle 10\nRepeal\nDecision 2007/269/EC is repealed.\nArticle 11\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2010.", "references": ["54", "45", "10", "6", "31", "34", "38", "93", "57", "79", "62", "35", "82", "30", "1", "22", "73", "77", "51", "81", "55", "53", "69", "94", "27", "13", "5", "70", "18", "92", "No Label", "20", "23", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "23", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 303/2011\nof 28 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 March 2011.", "references": ["47", "3", "0", "26", "8", "86", "80", "25", "77", "67", "71", "88", "4", "98", "6", "85", "36", "60", "83", "55", "56", "20", "37", "29", "87", "31", "30", "63", "17", "49", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 February 2011\namending Annex II to Decision 2006/766/EC as regards the inclusion of Fiji in the list of third countries and territories from which imports of fishery products for human consumption are permitted\n(notified under document C(2011) 1082)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/131/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 lays down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin. In particular, it provides that products of animal origin are only to be imported from a third country or a part of a third country that appears on a list drawn up in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 also provides that when drawing up and updating such lists, account is to be taken of Union controls in third countries and guarantees by the competent authorities of third countries as regards compliance or equivalence with Union feed and food law and animal health rules specified in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (2).\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2006/766/EC of 6 November 2006 establishing the lists of third countries and territories from which imports of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates, marine gastropods and fishery products are permitted (3) lists those third countries which satisfy the criteria referred to in Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and are therefore able to guarantee that export of those products to the Union meet the sanitary conditions laid down in Union legislation to protect the health of consumers. In particular, Annex II to that Decision sets out a list of third countries from which imports of fishery products for human consumption are permitted.\n(4)\nFiji is not currently included in the list in Annex II to Decision 2006/766/EC as a third country from which imports of fishery products intended for human consumption are permitted.\n(5)\nUnion controls to evaluate the control system in place in Fiji governing the production of fishery products intended for export to the Union, the last of which took place in September 2010, together with guarantees provided by the competent authority of Fiji, indicate that the conditions applicable in that third country to fishery products for human consumption destined for export to the Union are equivalent to those laid down in the relevant Union legislation. Accordingly, Annex II to Decision 2006/766/EC should be amended in order to permit imports from Fiji of fishery products for human consumption.\n(6)\nDecision 2006/766/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex II to Decision 2006/766/EC, the following entry for Fiji is inserted before the entry for the Falkland Islands:\n\u2018FJ\nFIJI\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 February 2011.", "references": ["71", "75", "34", "68", "91", "94", "12", "8", "64", "90", "31", "25", "77", "65", "89", "99", "52", "61", "58", "45", "70", "30", "50", "85", "33", "54", "60", "98", "55", "15", "No Label", "4", "22", "38", "67", "95"], "gold": ["4", "22", "38", "67", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 812/2010\nof 15 September 2010\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People's Republic of China\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 17 December 2009, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People's Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019 or the \u2018country concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 3 November 2009 by APFE - European Glass Fiber Producers Association (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain continuous filament glass fibre products. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant, other known Union producers, the exporting producers and the representatives of the PRC, importers, suppliers and users known to be concerned, as well as their associations, of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(4)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(5)\nIn view of the apparent high number of exporting producers, importers and Union producers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping and injury, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers, importers and Union producers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the investigation period (1 October 2008 - 30 September 2009).\n(6)\nEight Chinese exporting producers or groups of exporting producers and seven Union producers or groups of producers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. After examination of the information submitted, and given the high number of exporting producers and Union producers which indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was necessary with regard to these producers (see recitals (12) and (13) below).\n(7)\nWith regard to unrelated importers, at the sampling stage of the investigation, only three importers provided the requested information within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. It was therefore decided not to apply sampling and to send questionnaires to all importers that had come forward.\n(8)\nIn order to allow the sampled exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (\u2018MET\u2019) or individual treatment (\u2018IT\u2019), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the sampled exporting producers. All sampled (groups of) companies requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation or IT should the investigation establish that they did not meet the conditions for MET.\n(9)\nThe Commission officially disclosed the results of the MET findings to the exporting producers concerned in the PRC, the authorities of the PRC and the complainant. They were also given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing if there were particular reasons to be heard.\n(10)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the sampled exporting producers, sampled Union producers, to importers, and to all known users and user associations. Full questionnaire replies were received from the sampled exporting producers in the PRC, from all sampled Union producers, two importers and 13 users.\n(11)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury or threat of injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies.\n(a)\nExporting producers in the PRC\n-\nChongqing Polycomp International Corporation (\u2018CPIC\u2019)\n-\nJushi Group (Jushi Group Co., Ltd.; Jushi Group Chengdu Co., Ltd.; Jushi Group Jiujiang Co. Ltd.; Jushi P-D Interglas Co. Ltd.; China National Building Materials & Equipment Import and Export Corporation; CNBM International Corporation; Tongxiang Leishi Mineral Powder Co., Ltd.; Tongxiang Juzhen Mining Co., Ltd.; Tongxiang Jinshi Precious Metal Equipment Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Songyang Mingshi Mining Co., Ltd. and Zhenshi Group Zhejiang Yushi Int Logistics), and\n-\nNew Changhai Group (Changzhou New Changhai Fiberglass Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Changhai Composite Materials Holding Co., Ltd.)\n(b)\nUnion producers\n-\nJohns Manville Slovakia, Trnava, Slovakia\n-\nEuropean Owens Corning Fiberglas, Brussels, Belgium\n-\nOwens Corning France, Chamb\u00e9ry, France\n-\nPPG Industries BV, Hoogezand, The Netherlands\n(c)\nUnion users\n-\nSabic Europe BV, Sittard, The Netherlands and Genk, Belgium\n-\nSabic Innovative Plastics BV, Bergen op Zoom, The Netherlands\n(d)\nProducer in the analogue country\n-\nCam Elyaf Sanayii A.\u0218, Turkey.\n3. Sampling\n(12)\nOut of the eight Chinese exporting producers or groups of exporting producers which came forward, the Commission selected, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, a sample based on the largest representative volume of exports which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sample selected consists of three (groups of related) companies, representing over 70 % of the export volume of the co-operating parties from the PRC to the EU. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned were consulted and raised no objection.\n(13)\nWith regard to Union producers, seven producers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. On the basis of the information received from these cooperating Union producers, the Commission selected a sample of the three biggest in terms of sales and production (groups of) Union producers representing 64 % of the sales by all cooperating Union producers.\n4. Investigation period\n(14)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2009 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 2006 to the end of the investigation period (\u2018period considered\u2019).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(15)\nThe product concerned as described in the Notice of initiation is chopped glass fibre strands, of a length of not more than 50 mm; glass fibre rovings; slivers and yarns of glass fibre filaments; and mats made of glass fibre filaments excluding mats of glass wool and currently falling within CN codes 7019 11 00, 7019 12 00, 7019 19 10 and ex 7019 31 00 (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n(16)\nThe product concerned is the raw material most often used to reinforce thermoplastic and thermoset resins in the composites industry. The resulting composite materials (glass fibre reinforced plastics) are used in a large number of industries: automotive industry, electric/electronics, wind mill blades, building/construction, tanks/pipes, consumer goods, aerospace/military, etc.\n(17)\nThere are four basic types of continuous filament glass fibre products covered by this proceeding - i.e. chopped strands, rovings, mats (other than of glass wool) and yarns. The investigation has shown that, despite differences in appearance and possible differences in final applications of various types, almost all the different types of the product concerned share the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and are basically used for the same purposes. It was however found that slivers do not share the same basic chemical, physical and technical characteristics since they are not continuous filament glass fibres, but discontinuous strands of irregular length. The investigation also showed that certain very specific types of rovings and certain very specific types of yarns that are currently covered by CN Codes 7019 12 00 and 7019 19 10 respectively should be excluded since these types are specially treated by coating and impregnating and have a loss on ignition of more than 3 %, giving them different physical and chemical characteristics.\n(18)\nSeveral downstream users of yarns have claimed that the latter should be excluded completely from the product scope of the proceeding, given the almost non-existing production base in the Union as well as lack of substitutability between yarns and other product types.\n(19)\nHowever, the investigation has shown that at least one way demand substitutability exists (i.e. the yarn can be used in a number of applications instead of other types even if - given a relatively higher price of yarns - this would not always be an economically viable option) and the limited production base of a certain product type cannot per se be a reason for excluding such type from the product scope, as long as it shares the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and uses with other types. Given that continuous glass fibre filament yarns have the same essential characteristics as other continuous glass fibre filament products and they are interchangeable to a certain extent, it was provisionally concluded that there were no grounds to exclude yarns from the product definition. It is however noted that special attention will be given to the further assessment of this claim.\n2. Like product\n(20)\nThe product concerned and the continuous glass fibre filament products produced and sold on the domestic market of the PRC, and on the domestic market of Turkey, which served provisionally as an analogue country, as well as the continuous glass fibre filament products produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry were found to have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and uses. Therefore, these products are provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n1. Market economy treatment (\u2018MET\u2019)\n(21)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.\n(22)\nBriefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in summarised form below:\n1.\nbusiness decisions and costs are made in response to market conditions and without significant State interference;\n2.\naccounting records are independently audited, in line with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes;\n3.\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;\n4.\nlegal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy and property laws;\n5.\ncurrency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.\n(23)\nIn the present investigation, all three sampled exporting producers or groups requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form within the given deadlines:\n-\nChongqing Polycomp International Corporation (\u2018CPIC\u2019)\n-\nJushi Group, and\n-\nNew Changhai Group.\n(24)\nFor all the above mentioned sampled exporting producers or groups, the Commission sought all information deemed necessary and verified the information submitted in the MET claim forms and all other information deemed necessary at the premises of the companies in question.\n(25)\nThe investigation established that two sampled exporting producers/groups in the PRC did not meet the requirements of the criteria set forth in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation to be granted MET.\n(26)\nIn particular, one exporting producer/group could not demonstrate that its business decisions were sufficiently free from State interference. The majority of the directors on its Board of Directors were appointed by a majority State owned company. Consequently the State could successfully stop any decision from being taken. It is thus clear that the State plays a major role in the decision making process of the company. In addition, the company could not demonstrate that it has a clear set of accounting records that is independently audited and in line with international accounting standards as the taxable income of the company was not correctly disclosed in the financial statements.\n(27)\nThe other sampled exporting producer/group also could not demonstrate that its business decisions were sufficiently free from State interference. Two traders of the group are State owned enterprises. The State can also significantly interfere in the decision making of one exporting producer of the group due to the implicit veto power via the director representing the State owned parent company. This producer is in turn the mother company and major shareholder of two other exporting producers in the group and thus the State can also significantly interfere in their decision making. Moreover, three exporting producers from the group could not show that they fulfil criterion 2 as in the case of two of them the tax preferential treatment was not mentioned in the financial statements while as for the third one, the audit did not appear to be independent. In addition, five companies in the group failed to meet criterion 3 (mainly due to non-market oriented prices for the land use rights).\n(28)\nOne sampled exporting producer, consisting of a group of two related companies, demonstrated that they fulfilled all the criteria of Article 2(7)(c) and could be granted MET.\n(29)\nFollowing disclosure of the MET findings, comments were received from the Union industry and two sampled exporting producers/groups, which were proposed not to be granted MET. However, none of the comments received was of a nature as to change the findings in this regard.\n2. Individual treatment (\u2018IT\u2019)\n(30)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below:\n-\nin the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;\n-\nexport prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined;\n-\nthe majority of the shares belong to private persons. State officials appearing on the Boards of Directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from State interference;\n-\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and\n-\nState interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.\n(31)\nThe two above mentioned sampled companies/group of companies, which were denied MET, also claimed IT in the event that they would not be granted MET.\n(32)\nOn the basis of the information available, it was found that both companies/group of companies concerned failed to demonstrate that they cumulatively met all the requirements for IT as set forth in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. Namely, it was established that the companies failed to meet the criterion stipulated in Article 9(5)(c) of the basic Regulation that the majority of the shares belong to private persons or are sufficiently independent from the State, since as explained in recitals (26) and (27), all companies were found to be ultimately majority State owned or controlled. Also, as mentioned above, it was found that both these (groups of) companies failed to demonstrate that they fulfil the criterion set forth in Article 9(5)(e), namely that their decision making is free from significant State interference permitting circumvention of measures if the companies were given different rates of duty. Consequently, their claims for IT had to be rejected.\n(33)\nIt was therefore concluded that IT should not be granted to any of the sampled exporting producers/groups, which were denied MET.\n3. Normal value\n3.1. Determination of the normal value for the exporting producer/group granted MET\n(34)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first established for that exporting producer, whether its total domestic sales of continuous fibre glass products were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of its total volume of export sales of the product concerned to the Union. The investigation established that the domestic sales of the like product were representative.\n(35)\nThe Commission subsequently identified those product types sold domestically by the companies having overall representative domestic sales that were identical or closely resembling with the types sold for export to the Union.\n(36)\nFor each type sold by the exporting producer on their domestic market and found to be comparable with the type of continuous fibre glass products sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the volume of that product type sold on the domestic market to independent customers during the IP represented around 5 % of the total volume of the comparable product type sold for export to the Union. The investigation established that for all but four product types there were representative domestic sales.\n(37)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether each type of the product concerned sold domestically in representative quantities could be considered as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for each product type the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market during the investigation period.\n(38)\nWhere the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average sales price was equal to or higher than the unit cost, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of all domestic sales prices of the type in question.\n(39)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 %, or less of the total sales volume of that product type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cots, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as the weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of the type in question.\n(40)\nWhere the product types were all sold at a loss, it was considered that they were not sold in the ordinary course of trade.\n(41)\nThe investigation established that the profitable sales of all but one comparable product type were more than 80 % of total domestic sales and, thus, all domestic sales were used in calculating the average price for normal value. For one product type only the profitable sales were used. For sales of the four product types which were not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the Commission used for normal value representative domestic prices of closely resembling types, duly adjusted.\n3.2. Determination of normal value for exporting producers/groups not granted MET\n(a) Analogue country\n(42)\nIn accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, normal value for companies to which MET could not be granted was established on the basis of the prices or constructed value in an analogue country.\n(43)\nIn the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its intention to use Turkey as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC and invited interested parties to comment on this.\n(44)\nTwo interested parties came forward and stated that Turkey would not be an appropriate analogue country, without however substantiating this further. Another interested party commented on the choice of analogue country and suggested that India should be used instead as India would be at a comparable level of development as the PRC, the markets would be comparable as in both markets the wind power applications would be very important and comparable types would be produced in a similar manner. Moreover, the Indian market was described as open market with significant imports. Lastly, it was mentioned that access to raw materials would be comparable in both countries.\n(45)\nThe Commission sought the co-operation of the like product producers in Turkey, Canada, USA, the Republic of Korea and India. However, only the sole Turkish producer expressed its willingness to co-operate and provided a questionnaire reply.\n(46)\nIt is recognised that Turkey is a representative analogue country in terms of domestic sales volume. However, the normal value for one type of the like product which is not produced in Turkey would need to be constructed. It is also noted that the ongoing Turkish anti-dumping investigation for imports of continuous glass fibre products points to possible price depression on the domestic Turkish market. However, given that Turkey was the only country that agreed to co-operate in this investigation, it is provisionally concluded that Turkey should be used as an analogue country.\n(b) Determination of normal value\n(47)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers not granted MET was established on the basis of the verified information received from the producer in the analogue country, in accordance with the general methodology set out above for the group of companies granted MET. Where product types in the domestic market of the analogue country were all sold at a loss or where no resembling types were sold, the normal value was constructed pursuant to Article 2(3) and 2(6) of the basic Regulation.\n4. Export price\n(48)\nIn the majority of cases the product concerned was exported to independent customers in the Union, and therefore, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.\n(49)\nIn the case of few export sales of one exporting producer to its related companies in the Union, it was established that they were for captive use and consequently were not used in the provisional dumping calculation.\n5. Comparison\n(50)\nThe normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Appropriate adjustments were granted in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence. An adjustment was granted for indirect taxes, ocean freight and insurance, freight in the exporting country, level of trade (for differences in distribution channel), warranty expenses, credit costs and bank charges.\n6. Dumping margins\n(51)\nThe provisional dumping margins were expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.\n(52)\nFor the co-operating group of exporting producers which was granted MET, an individual dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.\n(53)\nThe dumping margin for sampled companies not granted MET or IT and for the non-sampled co-operating companies was calculated as an average of the three sampled companies/group of companies.\n(54)\nGiven the high level of co-operation in the investigation, the co-operating companies representing around 100 % of all imports from the PRC during the IP, for any non-cooperating companies, the country wide margin was established using the highest of the margins found for the sampled (groups of) companies.\n(55)\nOn this basis, the provisional levels of dumping are as follows:\nCompany\nProvisional dumping margin\nNew Changhai Group\n8,5 %\nOther cooperating companies\n43,6 %\nResidual\n43,6 %\nD. INJURY\n1. Union production and Union industry\n(56)\nDuring the IP, the like product was manufactured by 11 producers in the Union. Seven of these 11 producers cooperated with the investigation. These seven producers were all members of the complainant and they were found to account for a major proportion, in this case more than 90 %, of the total Union production of the like product. Of the remaining four Union producers one was also a complainant, two have actively supported the complaint whereas the fourth has neither supported nor opposed it. The 11 producers therefore constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will be hereafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\n(57)\nAs indicated under recital (13) above, a sample of three producers was selected, representing ca. 64 % of the total Union production. As two of these producers were groups of related companies, with several producing entities in the Union, the sample was constituted by nine individual companies in total.\n(58)\nSome interested parties alleged that the sampled Union producers should not be considered as Union industry given that all three of them had related Chinese producers manufacturing the product concerned. The investigation confirmed that indeed two of the three sampled Union producers had related Chinese producer companies. However, it was found that, despite the relationship, these two sampled Union producers did not behave in any way to render the findings of the investigation unreliable. The volumes that these Union producers imported from their related companies in the PRC are limited (less than 4 % of imports from the PRC). In addition, these imports can be considered as negligible as compared to the total production of the Union producers concerned, which should by no means be viewed as importers as they are clearly genuine glass fibre producers. Finally, the injury indicators relating to the Union producers concerned were not affected by these limited imports. In view of the above the Commission considered that there were no grounds to exclude any of the sampled Union producers from the definition of Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.\n2. Union consumption\n(59)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market and the import volumes data for the Union market obtained from Eurostat.\n(60)\nUnion consumption dropped strongly by 24 % between 2006 and the IP. The consumption had however slightly increased in 2007 and first half of 2008.\nTable 1\nUnion consumption\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n982 831\n1 043 611\n1 035 795\n748 045\nIndexed\n100\n106\n105\n76\n3. Imports from the country concerned\n3.1. Volume of dumped imports\n(61)\nThe volume of imports from the PRC of the product concerned on the Union market has been significantly increasing over the period considered. Overall, during the period considered, imports from the PRC increased by more than 50 %. In particular, between 2006 and 2008 imports from the PRC have more than doubled. They decreased in the IP as compared to 2008, but the rate of this decrease (25 %) was lower than that of the decline in consumption (28 %).\nTable 2\nImports from the PRC (volumes)\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n77 283\n122 190\n155 875\n116 413\nIndexed\n100\n158\n202\n151\n3.2. Market share of dumped imports\n(62)\nThe market share of dumped imports from the PRC has continuously increased over the period considered. In the IP, Chinese imports held a market share of 15,6 %, which is almost the double of their market share in 2006.\nTable 3\nImports from the PRC (market share)\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nMarket share (%)\n7,9 %\n11,7 %\n15,0 %\n15,6 %\nIndexed\n100\n149\n191\n198\n3.3. Prices\n(a) Price evolution\n(63)\nThe table below shows the average price of dumped imports from the PRC, at the European border duty unpaid, as reported by Eurostat. The average price of imports from the PRC remained substantially stable during the period considered. This could be observed despite a significant worldwide increase of raw material prices used for manufacturing continuous filament glass fibres during the period considered (as also shown in Table 18).\nTable 4\nImports from the PRC (prices)\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nAverage price/tonne (EUR)\n930\n936\n970\n943\nIndexed\n100\n101\n104\n101\n(b) Price undercutting\n(64)\nA type-to-type price comparison was made between the selling prices of the Chinese exporting producers and the sampled Union producers\u2019 selling prices in the Union. To this end, the sampled Union producers\u2019 prices to unrelated customers have been compared with the prices of sampled exporting producers of the country concerned. Adjustments were applied where necessary to take account of differences in the level of trade and post-importation costs.\n(65)\nThe comparison showed that, during the IP, imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC were sold in the Union at prices which undercut the Union industry prices, when expressed as a percentage of the latter, by 23 % to 39 %.\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n4.1. Preliminary remarks\n(66)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry. The data presented below relate to the whole Union industry for sales and market shares, and to the sampled producers for all the remaining indicators.\n4.2. Production\n(67)\nThe Union production volumes remained relatively stable from 2006 to 2008, but they fell sharply during the IP:\nTable 5\nUnion industry - production\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n495 942\n508 837\n502 729\n312 824\nIndexed\n100\n103\n101\n63\n4.3. Production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(68)\nThe production capacity of the Union industry developed as follows:\nTable 6\nUnion industry - production capacity\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nCapacity (tonnes)\n575 900\n573 600\n585 350\n510 700\nIndexed\n100\n100\n102\n89\nCapacity utilisation (%)\n86 %\n89 %\n86 %\n61 %\nIndexed\n100\n103\n100\n71\n(69)\nDuring the IP, production capacity was reduced. Indeed, in view of the price erosion and loss of market share caused by the dumped imports from the PRC, several production lines were dismantled, temporarily closed, or curtailed. In spite of this decrease in production capacity, the capacity utilisation rate went down from 86 % to 61 %, i.e. by 29 %.\n4.4. Stocks\n(70)\nThe table below shows that the stocks first decreased in 2007, when consumption was peaking, but they then increased strongly in 2008 in view of the sudden fall in demand in the fourth quarter of that year. During the IP, the stock levels returned to more normal levels.\nTable 7\nUnion industry - stocks\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n88 968\n73 018\n123 910\n82 160\nIndexed\n100\n82\n139\n92\n4.5. Sales volumes (total Union industry)\n(71)\nThe sales volume of all Union producers on the EU market, including the sales for captive use, developed as follows:\nTable 8\nUnion industry - EU sales (volumes)\nall EU producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n737 818\n743 784\n706 746\n520 064\nIndexed\n100\n101\n96\n70\n(72)\nThe sales volumes of the Union industry as a whole went down by 30 %. In 2007, while Union consumption grew by 6 % (as shown in Table 1 above), the sales volume of the product concerned by the Union industry on the Union market increased by only 1 %. This means that the Union industry could not benefit from the increased consumption in that period. Subsequently, in 2008 and the IP, the sales volume of the Union industry decreased strongly.\n4.6. Market share (total Union industry)\n(73)\nThe market share of the Union industry decreased strongly in 2007 and 2008 after which there was a slight recovery in the IP. However, overall, the Union industry lost 5,6 percentage points in market share during the period considered, whereby as shown in Table 3 above, the market share of dumped imports from the PRC has almost doubled over the period considered.\nTable 9\nUnion industry - EU market share\nall EU producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nEU market share (%)\n75,1 %\n71,3 %\n68,2 %\n69,5 %\nIndexed\n100\n95\n91\n93\n4.7. Sales prices\n(74)\nAs concerns average sales prices, the table below shows that the Union industry has not been able to increase sales prices to unrelated customers during the period considered. On the contrary, average sales prices have decreased by 2 % which is the more remarkable in the context of increasing raw material prices. In fact, the Union industry did not have the possibility to reflect in the selling prices the increase in raw material costs, due to the downward pressure on price levels in the Union market exerted by the dumped imports from the PRC.\nTable 10\nUnion industry - EU sales (average prices)\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nEUR/tonne\n1 179\n1 166\n1 192\n1 159\nIndexed\n100\n99\n101\n98\n4.8. Employment\n(75)\nThe employment level of the Union producers shows that the Union industry has rationalized production throughout the period considered, with the objective of reducing manufacturing costs and counterbalancing the increase in raw material costs. Indeed, the number of employees decreased by 20 percentage points over the whole period, with a decrease of 15 percentage points concentrated in the period between 2007 and the IP.\nTable 11\nUnion industry - employment\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nNumber of employees\n4 114\n3 890\n3 705\n3 302\nIndexed\n100\n95\n90\n80\n4.9. Productivity\n(76)\nAs a result of the efforts of the Union industry described in the previous recital, the productivity of the Union producers\u2019 workforce increased significantly in 2007 and 2008. This positive development reversed during the IP, resulting in an overall loss of productivity by 21 % over the period considered. This reverse in productivity was due partly to the collapse in demand and partly to the dumped imports from the PRC strongly undercutting the prices of the Union industry, which resulted in a substantial drop in production and thus an increase in employment per unit of glass fibre produced.\nTable 12\nUnion industry - productivity\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\ntonnes/employee\n121\n131\n136\n95\nIndexed\n100\n108\n113\n79\n4.10. Wages\n(77)\nDuring the period considered, the Union industry has managed to control the development of labour costs. Indeed, the table below shows that the average yearly wages slightly increased in 2007 and 2008, but they decreased in the IP. Over the whole period, unit labour costs went down by 3 %. This decrease would have been more explicit, however, had the amounts of severance payments been excluded from the above trend.\nTable 13\nUnion industry - labour costs\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nyearly wages (EUR)\n42 649\n43 257\n43 991\n41 394\nIndexed\n100\n101\n103\n97\n4.11. Profitability and return on investments (ROI)\n(78)\nProfitability of the Union industry was established by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product as a percentage of the turnover of these sales. In establishing the profitability of the Union producers, the verified figures have been corrected in order to prevent this analysis from being influenced from extraordinary company-specific issues which had a disproportionate impact on those companies\u2019 profit figures in a given period. Following these corrections, the sampled producers\u2019 profitability and return of investments linked to the sales of the like product in the Union developed as follows during the period considered:\nTable 14\nUnion industry - profitability & return on investments (ROI)\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nnet profit (as % of turnover)\n0,3 %\n4,7 %\n3,5 %\n-15,0 %\nROI\n2,5 %\n6,2 %\n3,0 %\n-16,8 %\n(79)\nAs the above table shows, the Union industry could achieve limited profit levels during most of the period considered, with some exception in the year of 2007 when the average profitability rate reached 4,7 %. The profits have turned into an enormous loss during the IP: the average loss rate of the Union industry being as low as 15 %.\n(80)\nAs concerns the return on investments (\u2018ROI\u2019), expressed as the profit in percent of the net book value of investments, this indicator appears to have followed the profitability trend. Overall, the return on investments remained rather limited throughout the whole period considered, with the exception of 2007. Finally, in the IP, the average ROI of the Union industry dropped to - 16,8 %.\n(81)\nThe above fragile financial situation was in spite of the increased consumption during the period between 2006 and 2008, as described in recital (60) above, and the efforts of the Union industry to rationalize production costs, as described in recitals (75) and (76) above. During the period considered, the strongly growing volumes of low-priced dumped imports from the PRC have affected the sales volumes of the Union industry and resulted also in serious price erosion. These factors have had an impact on the financial situation of the Union industry. This is best illustrated by the dramatic loss of 15 % during the IP.\n4.12. Cash flow and ability to raise capital\n(82)\nThe net cash flow from operating activities developed as follows:\nTable 15\nUnion industry - cash flow\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\ncash flow (EUR)\n34 261 986\n17 230 139\n7 452 912\n-22 001 723\nIndexed\n100\n50\n22\n-64\n(83)\nThe above table confirms the fragile financial situation of the Union industry in the period 2006-2008 and the resulting dramatic deterioration in the IP.\n4.13. Investments\n(84)\nDuring the period considered, the investments of the sampled producers developed as follows:\nTable 16\nUnion industry - investments\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nnet investments (EUR)\n40 089 991\n20 804 311\n43 613 463\n28 387 044\nIndexed\n100\n52\n109\n71\n(85)\nDuring the peak years 2006 and 2008, the level of investments was relatively high in view of furnace rebuilds. In this capital intensive industry, furnaces have to be rebuilt every 7 to 10 years and the costs associated with rebuilding a furnace can amount to EUR 8 million - EUR 13 million (range given for reasons of confidentiality). A good part of the other, more structural high investment costs is linked to the alloy consumption from the bushings and the consequent rebuilding of bushings.\n4.14. Magnitude of the actual dumping margin\n(86)\nThe dumping margins for imports from the PRC, as specified above in recital (55), are very high. Given the volume, market share and prices of the dumped imports, the impact of the margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.\n5. Conclusion on injury\n(87)\nIn spite of serious efforts undertaken by the Union industry to increase its competitiveness, most injury indicators pertaining to the Union industry developed negatively during the period considered. This is particularly noticeable when analysing the indicators related to the financial performance of the Union industry, notably the return on investments, cash flow and profitability, all of which developed dramatically. In addition, the indicators concerning production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volumes and market share have also confirmed a clearly deteriorating trend.\n(88)\nAt the same time, glass fibres imports from the PRC were undercutting Union industry prices by up to 39 % during the IP and the Union industry lost 5 percentage points market share within less than four years.\n(89)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is provisionally concluded that the Union industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\nE. CAUSATION\n1. Introduction\n(90)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports have caused injury to the Union industry to a degree that enables it to be classified as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time have injured the Union industry, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n2. Effect of the dumped imports\n(91)\nBetween 2006 and the IP, the volume of the dumped imports of the product concerned increased in terms of volume by 51 %, which resulted in an increase of Union market share by 98 %, from 7,9 % to 15,6 %.\n(92)\nThe increase in dumped imports of the product concerned from the PRC over the period considered coincided with a downward trend in most injury indicators of the Union industry. The Union industry lost 5,6 percentage points of market share and its sales prices decreased by 2 % due to the price pressure exerted by low-priced dumped imports on the Union market. The significant price undercutting prevented the Union industry from passing on the increased production costs in the sales prices to an acceptable extent, which resulted in low and, during the IP, negative profitability levels.\n(93)\nIt is also notable that the market share of dumped imports from PRC continued to increase even during the IP. In other words, as also referred to in recital (62) above, the volume of dumped imports from the PRC decreased at a lower pace than the Union consumption.\n(94)\nCertain interested parties claimed that there is no causal link between dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry. One of the arguments raised in this respect was that the price difference between Chinese and Union sales prices has been fairly constant throughout the whole period considered, while the profitability of the Union industry fluctuated at the same time. In this respect it must be borne in mind that it is not only the level of prices but also the volume of the already low-priced dumped imports that has put a strong pressure on the sales of the Union industry. Furthermore, even if other factors may have also played a role in the aggravated state of the Union industry, thus also affecting to some extent the profitability development of the Union industry, by no means can this mitigate the impact of the dumped imports from the PRC constantly undercutting the Union prices, particularly given that this occurred at a relatively stable rate despite the changes in the market such as consumption growth and fall or raw material price developments.\n(95)\nA similar argument has been put forward regarding the alleged lack of relation between the profitability figures of the Union industry and the development of their market share. Indeed, for instance, the profitability levels of the Union industry temporarily improved from 2006 to 2007 despite the drop in their market share. This was partly due to enhanced conditions on the Union market in the year of 2007 (see the 6 % increase in Union consumption as mentioned in recital (60) above). More importantly however, in the years of 2006 and 2007 the Union industry focused on rationalisation of its production by reducing manufacturing costs, which also had an impact on their profitability levels. As another example, between 2008 and the IP, the market share of the Union industry slightly rose while its profitability rate fell to a severe loss of 15 %. However, in the same period the dumped imports from the PRC could also raise their market share, while they still largely undercut the sales prices in the Union. This resulted in the huge loss realised by the Union industry. Indeed both above cases show that one or two separate indicators cannot in themselves be taken into account when measuring the effect of dumped imports on the state of the Union industry.\n(96)\nBased on the above it is provisionally concluded that the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC, which entered the Union market in large and constantly increasing volumes and which significantly undercut the Union industry prices throughout the period considered, had a considerably negative impact on the economic situation of the Union industry.\n3. Effect of other factors\n3.1. Imports from third countries\n(97)\nDuring the period considered, there were limited imports from other third countries. The total market share of imports from countries other than the PRC has decreased by 2 percentage points, from 17 % to 15 %. The second largest source of imports, Norway, held a market share of 3,3 % during the IP. Turkey had a market share of 2,5 % during the IP and the fourth largest source of imports, USA, had a market share of less than 2 % during the IP.\nTable 17\nImports from other countries\nCountry\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nNorway\nVolumes (tonnes)\n34 990\n28 834\n35 410\n24 993\nMarket share (%)\n3,6 %\n2,8 %\n3,4 %\n3,3 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n1 254\n1 412\n1 360\n1 256\nTurkey\nVolumes (tonnes)\n28 981\n25 035\n20 658\n18 874\nMarket share (%)\n2,9 %\n2,4 %\n2,0 %\n2,5 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n1 097\n1 155\n1 202\n1 077\nUSA\nVolumes (tonnes)\n22 921\n24 246\n20 447\n13 569\nMarket share (%)\n2,3 %\n2,3 %\n2,0 %\n1,8 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n2 309\n2 101\n2 506\n2 615\nMalaysia\nVolumes (tonnes)\n9 541\n25 569\n35 200\n12 601\nMarket share (%)\n1,0 %\n2,5 %\n3,4 %\n1,7 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n979\n1 019\n1 022\n1 025\nTaiwan\nVolumes (tonnes)\n19 318\n18 150\n14 655\n11 285\nMarket share (%)\n2,0 %\n1,7 %\n1,4 %\n1,5 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n1 193\n1 146\n1 069\n975\nIndia\nVolumes (tonnes)\n4 365\n11 231\n3 757\n5 361\nMarket share (%)\n0,4 %\n1,1 %\n0,4 %\n0,7 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n1 308\n1 232\n1 315\n1 240\nRep. of Korea\nVolumes (tonnes)\n7 959\n5 974\n13 934\n5 116\nMarket share (%)\n0,8 %\n0,6 %\n1,3 %\n0,7 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n1 430\n1 607\n894\n1 004\nJapan\nVolumes (tonnes)\n21 671\n10 727\n11 174\n4 609\nMarket share (%)\n2,2 %\n1,0 %\n1,1 %\n0,6 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n1 197\n1 315\n1 401\n1 804\nMexico\nVolumes (tonnes)\n4 894\n9 713\n7 226\n3 689\nMarket share (%)\n0,5 %\n0,9 %\n0,7 %\n0,5 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n1 488\n1 204\n1 289\n1 359\nCanada\nVolumes (tonnes)\n4 136\n3 309\n2 196\n2 244\nMarket share (%)\n0,4 %\n0,3 %\n0,2 %\n0,3 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n1 303\n2 025\n1 761\n2 146\nOther countries\nVolumes (tonnes)\n8 954\n14 848\n8 519\n9 227\nMarket share (%)\n0,9 %\n1,4 %\n0,8 %\n1,2 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n1 517\n1 527\n1 891\n1 615\n(98)\nThe above table, which is based on Eurostat data, also shows that the average Union border price levels of other imports are generally much higher than prices of imports from the PRC, as summarized in recital (63) above. Comparing these Eurostat prices with the Union industry sales prices reported in recital (74) above, imports from Turkey appeared to be undercutting the Union industry prices during the IP. However, imports from Turkey represented in the IP a market share of 2,5 % only and that is below their market share in 2006. Moreover, prices of these imports were constantly largely above the price levels of imports from the PRC, exceeding the latter by 14 % to 23 %. Imports from Malaysia, Taiwan and the Republic of Korea appear also to be below the Union industry's prices, however, their market shares are limited and shrinking as well. Therefore, imports from Turkey, Malaysia, Taiwan and the Republic of Korea, or any other third country imports, were not considered as having had a negative impact on the Union industry's situation. On these grounds, it is reasonably to provisionally conclude that imports from other countries did not break the causal link between the dumping found and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n3.2. Impact of the economic crisis\n(99)\nSeveral parties claimed that the injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by the economic crisis which had resulted in a sharp decline in demand.\n(100)\nIndeed, a strong drop in Union consumption could be observed between 2008 and the IP, as stated in recital (60) above. This decrease amounted to 28 % and it is recognized that it is caused by the economic crisis which hit the Union in that period. Most of the sectors using products which contain the product under investigation (car industry, wind energy, construction, etc) were seriously affected by the crisis and that resulted, at the beginning of the chain, in a drop in demand for glass fibres.\n(101)\nHowever, the negative effect of the economic downturn and the contraction in demand was exacerbated by the increased dumped imports from the PRC, which significantly undercut the prices of the Union industry. Even if the economic downturn could therefore be considered as contributing to the injury during the IP, this cannot in any way diminish the damaging injurious effects of low priced dumped imports from the PRC in the Union market over the whole period considered. Even in a situation of decreasing sales, the Union industry could have been able to maintain an acceptable level of volumes and prices, thereby limiting the negative effects of a drop in consumption. Nevertheless, this could have only been possible in the absence of the unfair competition of low priced dumped imports in the market. Moreover, the impact of the Chinese dumped imports that largely undercut the Union sales prices during the IP can be considered as even more injurious in a period of economic crisis.\n(102)\nGiven the above circumstances, the economic downturn cannot be considered as a possible cause breaking the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from the PRC.\n3.3. Evolution of Chinese import volumes and the Union industry's financial situation\n(103)\nCertain interested parties claimed that there is no causal link between dumped imports and the financial situation of the Union industry given that the latter achieved the best profitability rates in the years when imports from the PRC of the product concerned were at their highest volumes, and had its worst performance when imports from the PRC dropped to their lowest level during the period considered.\n(104)\nIn this respect, it is first noted that the development of consumption, in particular the economic downturn during the IP, has definitely had an effect on both the volumes of imports from the PRC and the financial situation of the Union industry, given the global character of the crisis.\n(105)\nHowever, as already stated above, the dumped imports from the PRC have largely undercut the sales prices of the Union industry in the IP, i.e. during the economic downturn. This was compounded by the fact that the exporting producers from the PRC have managed to slightly further increase their market share even in the period of economic downturn, while the Union industry has realised severe losses due to their inability to sell at more beneficial prices.\n(106)\nIndeed, it can be considered that the above price undercutting parallel to the increasing market share of dumped imports from the PRC have caused even more injury to the Union industry than as if it had been the case in a period without volatile consumption due to an economic downturn.\n(107)\nIn view of the above, by no means can it be concluded that the comparison of the mere trends of volumes of dumped imports from the PRC and the financial performance of the Union industry could be interpreted as a factor breaking the causal link between dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n3.4. Fall in export sales and/or captive use sales of the Union industry\n(108)\nIt was alleged by certain interested parties that the deterioration of the profitability of the Union industry was caused by the fall in export sales or the fall in production for captive use rather than by the fall of their sales within the Union. In this respect it should firstly be recalled that, with the exception of sales volumes, all injury indicators, including the profitability, have been assessed on the basis of the sales on the Union market to unrelated parties. In other words, both export sales and sales for captive use have been excluded from that calculation. Secondly, it is true that the export sales volumes have decreased at a slightly faster pace than Union sales, but this is not the case for the production for captive use which represented, throughout the period considered, between 22,4 % and 24,4 % of the total Union sales. Moreover, in view of the weight of the export sales as compared to the EU sales of the Union industry (fluctuating between 10 % and 14 % throughout the period considered), these sales cannot be considered so significant as to put into question the causal link between dumped imports and the impact on the Union industry. This argument is therefore dismissed.\n3.5. Increased capacity of the Union industry and increased cost of production\n(109)\nIt was argued by an interested party that the decline of the state of the Union industry was due to an erroneous decision to increase capacities. In this respect, it should first be mentioned that the glass fibres market has been for several years a growing market and the decision to increase capacity at certain plants cannot be considered as unreasonable business planning in a situation of growing consumption. Moreover, it is noted that, on the whole, over the period considered, the capacity of the Union industry actually decreased (see recital (68) above).\n(110)\nIn any event, it must be noted that the Union industry has managed to cut the cost per unit of the main raw materials despite the increase of raw material cost prices during the period considered:\nTable 18\nCost of raw material and cost per unit of glass fibre produced\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nPrice/tonne of raw material (3)\n100\n106\n104\n102\nCost of raw material/tonne of glass fibre (3)\n100\n99\n97\n94\n(111)\nThe above development of cost of raw material per unit of glass fibre manufactured has been due to investments targeting increased efficiency and competitiveness. Indeed, the Union industry has implemented several measures to enhance and rationalise production processes and input costs during the period considered.\n(112)\nAs concerns labour costs, as already stated in recitals (75) to (77) above, the Union industry reduced its number of employees by 20 % over the period considered, while the average wages have been lowered even without excluding the impact of sizeable severance payments.\n(113)\nFor the above reasons, the argument stating that the deteriorated state of the Union industry has actually been caused by the increased cost of production, possibly due to inefficiencies or high labour costs, is therefore dismissed.\n3.6. Competitiveness of dumped imports from the PRC and self-inflicted injury by related Chinese producers\n(114)\nIt has been claimed that it is the production scale and the modern technology applied by the Chinese exporters that caused injury, rather than dumping of the product under investigation. Actually, on the whole it can be established that Union producers also have large scale production as well as up to date production processes.\n(115)\nAn interested party stated that the Union industry could have in fact caused self-inflicted injury to itself by the imports from the Chinese producers related to them. In this context, it must be noted that, as stated in recital (58) above, the volume of such imports has been very limited, both in terms of the production of the Union industry and the imports of the product concerned from the PRC.\n(116)\nTherefore, neither the lack of competitiveness nor the imports from related Chinese producers could be considered as a factor breaking the causal link between dumped imports from the PRC and the established injury.\n4. Conclusion on causation\n(117)\nIn conclusion, the above analysis has demonstrated that imports of glass fibres from the PRC have increased substantially in terms of quantities over the period considered, gradually eroding the market share of the Union industry. Moreover, these increased quantities which entered the Union marked at dumped prices, severely undercut the Union industry prices, thereby impeding the Union industry to pass on to its customers the increase in the cost of raw materials. Though for a certain period the Union industry had been able to offset the negative effects of this pressure by operating gains in efficiency, this was no longer possible when the economic crisis substantially reduced the level of demand.\n(118)\nOther factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry have also been analysed. In this respect, it was found that imports from third countries, the impact of the economic crisis, the development of other sales by the Union industry and other factors including those mentioned in recitals (97) to (116) above, do not appear to be such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(119)\nBased on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors having an effect on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effect of the dumped imports, it is provisionally concluded that the imports from the PRC have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n(120)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether, despite the conclusions on dumping, injury and causation, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this particular case. For this purpose and pursuant to Article 21(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission considered the likely impact of possible measures on all parties involved as well as the likely consequences of not taking measures.\n(121)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to independent importers and users. In total, 60 questionnaires were sent out. Eventually, two importers and 13 users submitted a questionnaire reply within the time limits set. In addition, several importers and users came forward in the course of the proceeding with letters expressing opposition to any possible measures in this case.\n1. Interest of the Union industry\n(122)\nAs indicated in recital (56), the like product was manufactured by 11 producers in the Union. The eight complainants represented more than 90 % of the Union production; two others supported the complaint whilst the 11th company neither supported nor opposed it.\n(123)\nThe three sampled companies, which accounted for ca. 60 % of the total Union production, employed 3 300 persons directly involved in the production, sales and administration of the like product. It is recalled that the injury indicators showed an overall negative trend and that in particular the injury indicators related to market share and the financial performance of the Union industry, such as profitability, return on investment and cash flow, were seriously affected. In particular, over the period considered, the profitability of the Union industry fell from an already very low level of 0,3 % to - 15,0 %, while their market share decreased by 5,6 percentage points.\n(124)\nIf measures are imposed, it is expected that the price depression and loss of market share will come to an end and that the sales prices of the Union industry will start to recover, resulting in a significant improvement of the Union industry's financial situation.\n(125)\nOn the other hand it is likely that the deterioration of the Union industry's market and financial situation would continue should anti-dumping measures not be imposed. In such a scenario, it is expected that the Union industry will lose further market share and it will no longer be able to follow the market prices set by imports from the PRC. Further cuts in production and investments and the closure of more production facilities in the Union will be the likely effect, resulting in massive job losses.\n(126)\nAccordingly, it is provisionally concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would clearly be in the interest of the Union industry.\n2. Interest of unrelated importers in the Union\n(127)\nAs indicated above, sampling was not applied for the unrelated importers and two unrelated importers fully cooperated in this investigation by submitting a questionnaire reply. Only a small part of the turnover of these two importers (7 % and 25 % respectively) was generated through their activities with regard to the product concerned from the PRC. They both opposed an eventual imposition of anti-dumping measures as they considered that it could lead to a cessation of imports of the product concerned from the PRC.\n(128)\nThe imports declared by these two importers however represented a very small proportion of all imports from the PRC in the IP (less than 1 %). No other importers have cooperated by submitting a questionnaire reply or substantiated comments. On that basis, it is provisionally concluded that the imposition of provisional measures will not have negative effects on the interest of the EU importers to any significant extent.\n3. Interest of the users\n(129)\nFilament glass fibres subject to this proceeding are used for a large number of applications. Cooperation was obtained from the following user groups: weavers (both of high-end specialist fabrics and of more standard fabrics, e.g. for wind energy turbines, marine, transportation, aerospace and infrastructural applications); liner producers; manufacturers of compounds, inter alia used in the automotive industry; producers of composite semi-finished products or end-products.\n(130)\nThe volumes of the product concerned form the PRC purchased by the cooperating users represented ca. 20 % of the glass fibres imports from the PRC during the IP. From the information submitted through the questionnaire replies it further appears that the Union users\u2019 industry employs a significant number of people. Although in this respect, at this stage, no comprehensive and substantiated data has been submitted, the number of people working in the downstream industry in the EU can, on the basis of the information contained in these questionnaire replies, provisionally be estimated at 50 000 - 75 000. On the same basis, the employment of the glass fibre using divisions of those companies that used Chinese glass fibres during the IP can be estimated at ca. 27 000.\n(131)\nMost of the cooperating users reported to buy glass fibres from Chinese as well as other sources, including European producers. Only a few of them bought their glass fibres exclusively from the PRC. In this sector, there is not only a wide variety in the activities of the downstream industry, but the size of these companies can also vary to a significant degree - and certain of them are part of internationally operating larger groups of companies whereas others are fully independent.\n3.1. Possible impacts of measures on users\u2019 profitability\n(132)\nOn the basis of the questionnaire replies, the glass fibres user industry appears to be in a relatively healthy state. Indeed, most of the cooperating users reported profits on the production and sales of their products which contained the product under investigation throughout the period considered including the IP. However, a few users reported a loss on this activity during the IP but the profit of several others was in the range between 5 % and 10 %.\n(133)\nThe glass fibres purchase costs represent, in general, a significant part of the manufacturing costs of the user industry's products. According to the reported data this share can, depending on the product made of it, range from 10 % to more than 50 %. Therefore, for certain users an increase in the purchase costs of Chinese glass fibres may have a noticeable cost impact.\n(134)\nOn the basis of the information contained in the questionnaire replies of the cooperating users, on average, the possible profit impact of the anti-dumping measures can be estimated around 1 % on the turnover of those divisions of the user companies that use glass fibres, but less than 0,5 % on the turnover of the total companies within which glass fibre using divisions exist. In other words, the profitability of a glass fibre using division, and that of a total company, would be affected, respectively, on average by around one and less than half a percentage point.\n(135)\nIt should be noted, however, that in the case of certain user companies, the above impact could be higher, up to ca. 5 % of their company turnover. In view of the profit levels of certain users and the share of glass fibres in their production costs, it cannot be excluded that their profitability could be affected by a strong price increase of glass fibres, unless such cost increase can be passed on, entirely or at least for a good part, to their customers.\n(136)\nAll in all, it can provisionally be concluded that, while some user companies might be more affected by the possible impact of the anti-dumping measures, other users are likely to be affected to a rather moderate extent.\n3.2. Lack of interchangeability\n(137)\nIt was claimed by several users that many of the glass fibres needed by the user industry could not be purchased off-the-shelf. Instead, suppliers would need to go through a lengthy and complicated qualification process which could take 6 to 12 months, without a guarantee of success. Therefore, to change supplier in order to avoid paying anti-dumping duties would be costly, impossible in the short term and risky from a technological point of view.\n(138)\nIn this respect, it is recognised that, in particular applications, the characteristics of the product under investigation can indeed result in a lengthy qualification process which includes testing. However, also in view of the comments received from several users, at this moment it appears that for most of the cases multiple sources exist. It should also be recalled that anti-dumping measures are not meant to deny certain suppliers\u2019 access to the Union market - as any measure proposed is only meant to restore fair trade and correct a distorted market situation.\n(139)\nTherefore, it is provisionally concluded that imposing measures on Chinese glass fibres will unlikely result in a temporarily cessation of raw material supply to the user industry.\n3.3. Inability to pass on cost price increases and increased competition from non-EU downstream products\n(140)\nSeveral users submitted that they would not be in a position to pass on the glass fibres price increases to the customers of their products. These users mentioned that there was fierce competition on their products\u2019 markets and that their customers would easily switch supplier if they would increase prices.\n(141)\nGiven the diversity of the user companies, it is difficult to assess overall the ability of the users to pass on potential cost price increases to their customers. Nonetheless, on the basis of the data contained in the questionnaire replies of the users, it can be assumed that even if a given user could not pass on most of its cost price increase, in most cases its turnover and profitability would be affected only to a limited extent.\n(142)\nAs concerns the competition, several users further expressed the concern that the imposition of anti-dumping duties would lead to an increase of competition from non-EU suppliers on the downstream market, as downstream products would not be subject to any protective measures, and a shift of imports from the PRC, from the glass fibres to the downstream products like compounds, fabrics and composite blades for wind turbines. In fact, as concerns the PRC, it was submitted that there was already competition from the PRC on many of these markets and that it would only be logical that this competition would be increased by the imposition of measures against glass fibres. So the user industry, it was argued, would not only have to pay higher prices for their glass fibres, but it would also have to deal with increased competition. In such business environment, it was argued, it would not be possible to pass on a significant part of any price increase to the customers.\n(143)\nIn this respect, it should be noted that the fact that the imposition of anti-dumping measures might trigger more competition cannot be a reason not to impose such measures, if warranted. The European glass fibres user industry has the same rights as the glass fibres manufacturing industry and it would be fully entitled to resort to the EU trade law and request an anti-dumping investigation for their products, if they have sufficient standing and can demonstrate prima facie evidence of injurious dumping.\n(144)\nTherefore, the above argument concerning a potential increase in competition from non-EU downstream products cannot justify the non-imposition of anti-dumping measures.\n3.4. Shortage of supply\n(145)\nSeveral users submitted that, after the IP, there was already a shortage of supply on the Union market, and that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would aggravate this situation, as it would lead to reduced imports from the PRC whereas these imports are needed in view of the strong and growing demand.\n(146)\nThe complainants acknowledged that there was a bottleneck of supply of certain product groups manufactured by the Union industry, but they considered it as temporary and due to stock shortages following the recovery of the market after the economic crisis. They also submitted that the Union industry would be able to meet the predicted future growth in demand by the EU downstream industries, notably by using their idle capacity which could easily be restarted, further technological improvements and furnace rebuilds, in case healthy profitability levels were restored.\n(147)\nIn this respect, it should first be noted that the purpose of anti-dumping measures is to remedy unfair trading practices having an injurious effect on the Union industry and re-establish a situation of effective competition on the EU market, not to obstruct imports. Therefore, although EU price levels of the product concerned originating in the PRC would most likely increase following the imposition of anti-dumping measures, the measures as proposed are not such as to close the Union market for the exporting producers from the PRC and will therefore allow the continued presence of imports of the product concerned from the PRC on the Union market.\n(148)\nAs concerns the ability of the Union industry to supplement any potential lack of supply of Chinese glass fibres, it should be noted that the current level of capacity utilisation of the Union industry appear to ascertain that the demand on the market could meet complete supply. Indeed, even the totality of the 116 413 tonnes of Chinese imports of glass fibres during the IP could theoretically be supplemented by the idle capacity of the Union industry which was estimated as close to 200 000 tonnes during the IP.\n(149)\nIn view of the above, it can provisionally be concluded that the issue of a potential shortage of supply can be addressed by extended capacity utilisation of the Union industry, by other imports as well as by non-dumped imports of the product concerned from the PRC.\n4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(150)\nTo conclude, it is expected that the imposition of measures on dumped imports of the product concerned from the PRC would provide an opportunity for the Union industry to improve its situation through increased sales volumes, sales prices and market share. While some negative effects may occur in the form of cost increases for certain users, they are likely to be outweighed by the expected benefits for the producers and their suppliers.\n(151)\nIn the light of the above, it is provisionally concluded that on balance, no compelling reasons exist against the imposition of provisional measures on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC. However, this preliminary assessment may require further careful analysis following comments of interested parties.\nG. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(152)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional measures should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in the People's Republic of China in order to prevent further injury to the Union industry by the dumped imports.\n1. Injury elimination level\n(153)\nThe provisional measures on imports originating in the PRC should be imposed at a level sufficient to eliminate the injury caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports, without exceeding the dumping margin found. When calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it is considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and obtain overall a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports.\n(154)\nThe Union industry has claimed that for the determination of the injury elimination level a target profit of 12 % to 15 % should be used. However, the evidence provided so far does not convincingly show that such a profit level is the minimum necessary to ensure the viable business activity of the Union industry in this business sector. In the absence of solid evidence supporting a higher level of target profit, it has been provisionally considered that a target profit of 5 % would appear appropriate for the determination of the injury elimination level.\n(155)\nOn this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry of the like product. The non-injurious price has been established by deducting the actual profit margin from the ex-works price and adding to the thus calculated break even price the above-mentioned target profit margin.\n(156)\nAs a result, the following injury elimination levels have provisionally been established:\nCompany\nInjury elimination level\nNew Changhai Group\n61,4 %\nOther cooperating companies\n104,2 %\nResidual\n104,2 %\n2. Provisional measures\n(157)\nIn the light of the foregoing and pursuant to Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that a provisional anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC at the level of the lowest of the dumping margin and injury elimination level found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule, which is in all cases the dumping margin.\n(158)\nGiven the very high rate of co-operation of Chinese exporting producers, the provisional duty rate for co-operating exporting producers which were not granted individual treatment or examination and for any non co-operating exporting producers is the same. On the basis of the above, the proposed duty rates are:\nCompany\nProvisional duty\nNew Changhai Group\n8,5 %\nOther cooperating companies\n43,6 %\nAll other companies\n43,6 %\n(159)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the country concerned and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(160)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting-up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (4) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(161)\nIn order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the duty level for all other companies should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers, but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.\nH. FINAL PROVISION\n(162)\nIn the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of chopped glass fibre strands, of a length of not more than 50 mm; glass fibre rovings, excluding glass fibre rovings which are impregnated and coated and have a loss on ignition of more than 3 % (as determined by the ISO Standard 1887); yarns of glass fibre filaments, excluding yarns that are impregnated and coated and have a loss on ignition of more than 3 % (as determined by the ISO Standard 1887); and mats made of glass fibre filaments excluding mats of glass wool currently falling within CN codes 7019 11 00, ex 7019 12 00, ex 7019 19 10 and ex 7019 31 00 (TARIC codes 7019310029, 7019120021, 7019120022, 7019120023, 7019120024, 7019120039, 7019191061, 7019191062, 7019191063, 7019191064, 7019191065, 7019191066, 7019191079 and 7019310099) and originating in the People's Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below, shall be as follows:\nCompany\nAnti-dumping duty (%)\nTARIC additional code\nChangzhou New Changhai Fiberglass Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Changhai Composite Materials Holding Co., Ltd., Tangqiao, Yaoguan Town, Changzhou City, Jiangsu\n8,5\nA983\nAll other companies\n43,6\nA999\n3. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security, equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nWithout prejudice to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the details underlying the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nPursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 September 2010.", "references": ["35", "1", "0", "33", "64", "87", "81", "30", "32", "31", "65", "76", "75", "79", "45", "89", "13", "43", "56", "18", "38", "57", "28", "88", "46", "55", "58", "60", "37", "21", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1372/2011\nof 21 December 2011\nconcerning the non-approval of the active substance acetochlor, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply, with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval, to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (3). Acetochlor is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish lists of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. One of these lists included acetochlor.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (6) the notifier withdrew its support for the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (7) was adopted on the non-inclusion of acetochlor.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to Spain which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nSpain evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 22 April 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on the risk assessment of acetochlor to the Commission on 18 April 2011 (8). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 October 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for acetochlor.\n(7)\nDuring the evaluation of this active substance, concerns were identified. Those concerns were, in particular, the following. A potential human exposure above the acceptable daily intake has been identified. In addition, there is a potential for human exposure to the surface water metabolite t-norchloro acetochlor, the genotoxicity of which cannot be excluded. There is a high risk of groundwater contamination for several metabolites, a high risk for aquatic organisms and a high long term risk for herbivorous birds. Finally, the information available was not sufficient to conclude on the risk assessment for the groundwater contamination for metabolites t-norchloracetochlor and t-hydroxyacetochlor.\n(8)\nThe Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion of the Authority. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) to Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the applicant to submit comments on the draft review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(9)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns referred to in recital 7 could not be eliminated. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing acetochlor satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nAcetochlor should therefore not be approved pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(11)\nTo provide Member States with time to withdraw authorisations for plant protection products containing acetochlor, Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 should be derogated from.\n(12)\nFor plant protection products containing acetochlor, where Member States grant any period of grace in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, this period should expire at the latest one year after the withdrawal of the respective authorisation.\n(13)\nThis Regulation does not prejudice the submission of a further application for acetochlor pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(14)\nIn the interest of clarity, the entry for acetochlor in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC should be deleted.\n(15)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(16)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food chain and Animal Health did not deliver an opinion. An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation. The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the appeal committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nNon-approval of active substance\nThe active substance acetochlor is not approved.\nArticle 2\nTransitional measures\nBy way of derogation from Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002, Member States shall ensure that authorisations for plant protection products containing acetochlor are withdrawn by 23 June 2012.\nArticle 3\nPeriod of grace\nAny period of grace granted by Member States in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 shall be as short as possible and shall expire 12 months after withdrawal of the respective authorisation at the latest.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2008/934/EC\nIn the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC, the entry for \u2018acetochlor\u2019 is deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["43", "42", "66", "13", "31", "46", "95", "47", "74", "75", "96", "92", "23", "40", "59", "9", "27", "44", "97", "28", "22", "90", "8", "56", "2", "60", "5", "41", "21", "77", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 539/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 June 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund as regards simplification of certain requirements and as regards certain provisions relating to financial management\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 177 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe current financial and economic crisis has created major challenges for the Union. Whilst important actions to counterbalance the negative effects of the crisis have already been taken, including amendments of the legislative framework, the impact of the financial crisis on the real economy, the labour market and the citizens is only now being widely felt. The pressure on national financial resources is increasing and further steps should be taken to alleviate that pressure through the maximum and optimal use of the Union funding.\n(2)\nIn order to facilitate the management of Union funding, to help accelerate the investments in the Member States and regions and to increase the impact of the funding on the economy it is necessary to simplify further the rules governing cohesion policy.\n(3)\nGiven the differences between the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund and the objectives with regard to the definition of the environment, it is appropriate, for reasons of coherence and consistency, to apply a single threshold for the purpose of the definition of a major project. Given the importance of the investments in the environment, including those under the threshold provided for in this Regulation, the Member States should ensure appropriate monitoring of all such investments and inform the Commission in the annual implementation reports on operational programmes.\n(4)\nIt is also necessary to allow a major project to be covered by more than one operational programme in order to enable the implementation of such a major project covering different regions and objectives. This is of particular relevance in the case of investments with national or Union importance.\n(5)\nIt is necessary to make available financial engineering instruments in the measures for energy efficiency and renewable energy taking into account the importance of those measures in the Union and national priorities.\n(6)\nIn order to facilitate the adaptation of operational programmes to respond to the current financial and economic crisis, the Member States should provide an analysis justifying the revision of an operational programme instead of an evaluation.\n(7)\nIn line with the principle of sound financial management and the applicable national rules, revenues generated by operations should be taken into account when the public contribution is calculated. It is necessary to simplify the monitoring of revenues in order to align it with the overall programming cycle.\n(8)\nFor reasons of legal certainty it is necessary to clarify that expenditure becomes eligible from the date of the submission to the Commission of a request for revision of an operational programme only where it falls under a new category of expenditure added at the moment of the revision of that operational programme.\n(9)\nThe scope of the provisions on the durability of operations should be clarified. It is appropriate, in particular, to limit the application of those provisions, in so far as they concern actions falling within the scope of assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF), to actions falling under the State aid rules with an obligation to maintain investment. Furthermore, it is necessary to exclude the application of those provisions to operations which, after completion, undergo a substantial modification as a result of the cessation of productive activity due to a non-fraudulent bankruptcy.\n(10)\nIt is necessary to clarify and simplify the information required for annual reporting on the financial implementation of an operational programme. It is therefore appropriate to align the financial information required in the annual report on implementation of an operational programme with information provided in the statement of expenditure and to clarify the definition of financial indicators.\n(11)\nIn order to simplify the payment of advances to beneficiaries of State aid and to limit the financial risks associated with such a payment, the scope of the admissible guarantees should be redefined.\n(12)\nDue to exceptional circumstances and given the serious and unprecedented impact of the current economic and financial crisis on the budgets of the Member States, an additional pre-financing instalment for 2010 is needed for the Member States worst hit by the crisis in order to allow for a regular cash flow and to facilitate payments to beneficiaries during the implementation of programmes.\n(13)\nThe requirements for statements of expenditure concerning financial engineering instruments should be simplified. In particular, management fees in addition to management costs should be considered as eligible expenditure.\n(14)\nFor reasons of consistency, it is appropriate that Member States re-use the amounts corrected on an operation included in a partial closure in the case of irregularities detected by the Member States themselves.\n(15)\nIt is appropriate to extend the deadline for the calculation of the automatic decommitment of the annual budget commitment related to the 2007 total annual contribution so as to improve the absorption of funds committed for certain operational programmes. Such flexibility is necessary due to the slower than expected start-up and late approval of programmes.\n(16)\nOn the basis of experience it is appropriate to apply the reduction of amounts subject to the automatic decommitment rule by the amounts concerned for a major project from the date of the submission to the Commission of the application for a major project that fulfils all the requirements of this Regulation.\n(17)\nIn order to allow Member States to benefit from the simplification measures during the whole programming period and to ensure equal treatment, it is necessary to apply certain amendments retroactively.\n(18)\nRegulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund (3) was amended by Regulation (EC) No 397/2009 (4) which introduced the eligibility rules for expenditure on energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy in existing housing in all Member States. Therefore it is appropriate to apply the amendments related to energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy from the date of the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 397/2009.\n(19)\nOnce an application for a major project that fulfils all the requirements of this Regulation has been submitted, the amounts covered by the application should be protected from automatic decommitment. Such protection should apply to all major project applications submitted from the beginning of the programming period and should apply retroactively, especially in view of the current financial crisis.\n(20)\nAs the unprecedented crisis affecting international financial markets necessitates a rapid response in order to counter the effects on the economy as a whole, other amendments should enter into force on the day following that of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(21)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (5) should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(22)\nFollowing, inter alia, the change in the decision-making process resulting from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, amendments provided for by this Regulation have not been introduced in time to prevent the application of Article 93(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 284/2009 (6). Pursuant to Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (7) (the Financial Regulation), decommitments made by the Commission would therefore result in cancelling appropriations for the financial year 2007, which should be spread over the financial years 2008 to 2013 in accordance with the rules introduced by this Regulation. It is therefore appropriate, as a transitional measure, to allow for the reconstitution, as necessary, of the relevant appropriations for the purposes of implementing the decommitment rules as amended by this Regulation,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1083/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 39 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 39\nContent\nAs part of an operational programme or operational programmes, the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund may finance expenditure comprising a series of works, activities or services intended in itself to accomplish an indivisible task of a precise economic or technical nature which has clearly identified goals and whose total cost exceeds EUR 50 million (hereinafter a major project).\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 40 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the first paragraph, the introductory part is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Member State or the managing authorities shall provide the Commission with the following information on major projects:\u2019,\n(b)\npoint (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\na timetable for implementing the major project and, where the implementation period is expected to be longer than the programming period, the phases for which Union co-financing is requested during the 2007 to 2013 programming period;\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 41, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Commission shall appraise the major project, if necessary consulting outside experts, including the EIB, in the light of the factors referred to in Article 40, its consistency with the priorities of the operational programme or programmes concerned, its contribution to achieving the goals of those priorities and its consistency with other Union policies.\n2. The Commission shall adopt a decision as soon as possible but no later than three months after the submission by the Member State or the managing authority of a major project, provided that it is submitted in accordance with Article 40. That decision shall define the physical object, the amount to which the co-financing rate for the priority axis of the operational programme or programmes concerned applies, and the annual plan or plans of financial contribution from the ERDF or the Cohesion Fund.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 44 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018As part of an operational programme, the Structural Funds may finance expenditure in respect of an operation comprising contributions to support any of the following:\n(a)\nfinancial engineering instruments for enterprises, primarily small and medium-sized ones, such as venture capital funds, guarantee funds and loan funds;\n(b)\nurban development funds, that is, funds investing in public-private partnerships and other projects included in an integrated plan for sustainable urban development;\n(c)\nfunds or other incentive schemes providing loans, guarantees for repayable investments, or equivalent instruments, for energy efficiency and use of renewable energy in buildings, including in existing housing.\u2019,\n(b)\nin the second paragraph, the introductory part is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Where such operations are organised through holding funds, that is, funds set up to invest in several venture capital funds, guarantee funds, loan funds, urban development funds, funds or other incentive schemes providing loans, guarantees for repayable investments, or equivalent instruments, for energy efficiency and use of renewable energy in buildings, including in existing housing, the Member State or the managing authority shall implement them through one or more of the following forms:\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 48(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. During the programming period, Member States shall carry out evaluations linked to the monitoring of operational programmes in particular where that monitoring reveals a significant departure from the goals initially set. Where proposals are made for the revision of operational programmes, as referred to in Article 33, analyses shall be provided on the reasons for the revision, including any implementation difficulties, and the expected impact of the revision, including that on the strategy of the operational programme. The results of such evaluations or analyses shall be sent to the monitoring committee for the operational programme and to the Commission.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 55, paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Where it is objectively not possible to estimate the revenue in advance, the net revenue generated within five years of the completion of an operation shall be deducted from the expenditure declared to the Commission.\n4. Where it is established that an operation has generated net revenue that has not been taken into account under paragraphs 2 and 3, such net revenue shall be deducted by the certifying authority at the latest on submission of the documents for the operational programme referred to in Article 89(1)(a). The application for payment of the final balance shall be corrected accordingly.\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 56(3), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Where a new category of expenditure as referred to in Table 1 of Part A of Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 (8) is added at the time of the revision of an operational programme referred to in Article 33 of this Regulation, any expenditure falling under such category shall be eligible from the date of the submission to the Commission of the request for revision of the operational programme.\n(8)\nArticle 57 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Member State or managing authority shall ensure that an operation comprising investment in infrastructure or productive investment retains the contribution from the Funds only if it does not, within five years from its completion, undergo a substantial modification which is caused by a change in the nature of ownership of an item of infrastructure or the cessation of a productive activity and which affects the nature or the implementation conditions of the operation or gives to a firm or a public body an undue advantage.\nActions falling within the scope of assistance from the ESF shall be considered as not having retained the contribution only where they are subject to an obligation for maintenance of investment under the applicable rules on State aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and where they undergo a substantial modification as a result of the cessation of productive activity within the period laid down in those rules.\nMember States may reduce the time limit set out in the first subparagraph to three years in cases concerning the maintenance of investments by small and medium-sized enterprises.\u2019,\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. Paragraphs 1 to 4 shall not apply to any operation which undergoes a substantial modification as a result of the cessation of the productive activity due to a non-fraudulent bankruptcy.\u2019;\n(9)\nin Article 67(2), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nquantification of the financial indicators referred to in Article 66(2) expressing the cumulative financial implementation of the operational programme, detailing for each priority axis the following:\n(i)\nthe total amount of certified eligible expenditure paid by beneficiaries and the corresponding public contribution;\n(ii)\nthe ratio between the total amount of certified eligible expenditure paid by the beneficiaries and the total funding of the programme including Union funding and national counterpart.\nWhere appropriate, financial implementation in areas receiving transitional support shall be presented separately within each operational programme;\u2019;\n(10)\nArticle 78 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2:\n(i)\npoint (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthey shall be subject to a guarantee provided by a bank or other financial institution established in a Member State;\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018A facility provided as a guarantee by a public entity or by the Member State itself shall be considered equivalent to a guarantee referred to in point (a) in the first subparagraph.\u2019,\n(b)\nin paragraph 6:\n(i)\npoint (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\neligible management costs or fees; and\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe following point is added:\n\u2018(e)\nany loans or guarantees for repayable investments from funds or other incentive schemes providing loans, guarantees for repayable investments, or equivalent instruments, for energy efficiency and use of renewable energy in buildings, including in existing housing.\u2019,\n(c)\nparagraph 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. Interest generated by payments from operational programmes to funds as defined in Article 44 shall be used to finance any of the following:\n(a)\nurban development projects in the case of urban development funds;\n(b)\nfinancial engineering instruments for small and medium-sized enterprises;\n(c)\nin the case of funds or other incentive schemes providing loans, guarantees for repayable investments, or equivalent instruments, for energy efficiency and use of renewable energy in buildings, including in existing housing.\nResources returned to the operation from investments undertaken by funds as defined in Article 44 or left over after all guarantees have been honoured shall be reused by the competent authorities of the Member States concerned for the benefit of urban development projects, of small and medium-sized enterprises or for energy efficiency and use of renewable energy in buildings, including in existing housing.\u2019;\n(11)\nArticle 82(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the second subparagraph, the following point is added:\n\u2018(f)\nfor Member States that were granted loans in 2009 in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term assistance for Member States' balances of payments (9) or for Member States with a decrease in GDP in 2009 of more than 10 % in real terms in comparison to 2008: in 2010, 2 % of the contribution from the Cohesion Fund and 4 % of the contribution from the ESF to the operational programme.\n(b)\nthe following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018For the purpose of applying the criteria referred to in point (f) of the second subparagraph, GDP figures shall be based on Community statistics published in November 2009 (10).\n(12)\nin Article 88(3), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018However, in cases where irregularities in operations which have been subject to a declaration of partial closure are detected by the Member State, Article 98(2) and (3) shall apply. The statement of expenditure referred to in paragraph 2(a) of this Article shall be adjusted accordingly.\u2019;\n(13)\nArticle 93 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Commission shall automatically decommit any part of the amount calculated in accordance with the second subparagraph in an operational programme that has not been used for payment of the pre-financing or interim payments or for which an application for payment has not been sent in conformity with Article 86 by 31 December of the second year following the year of budget commitment under the programme, with the exception mentioned in paragraph 2.\nFor the purpose of the automatic decommitment, the Commission shall calculate the amount by adding one sixth of the annual budget commitment related to the 2007 total annual contribution to each of the 2008 to 2013 budget commitments.\u2019,\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20182a. By way of derogation from the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 and from paragraph 2, the deadlines for automatic decommitment shall not apply to the annual budget commitment related to the 2007 total annual contribution.\u2019;\n(14)\nArticle 94 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 94\nPeriod of interruption for major projects and aid schemes\n1. Where the Member State submits a major project application which meets all the requirements laid down in Article 40, the amounts potentially concerned by automatic decommitment shall be reduced by the annual amounts concerned by such major projects.\nWhere the Commission takes a decision to authorise an aid scheme, the amounts potentially concerned by automatic decommitment shall be reduced by the annual amounts concerned by such aid schemes.\n2. For the annual amounts referred to in paragraph 1, the starting date for the calculation of the automatic decommitment deadlines referred to in Article 93 shall be the date of the subsequent decision necessary in order to authorise such major projects or aid schemes.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nTransitional measures\nIn order to meet the exceptional circumstances of the transition to the decommitment rules introduced by this Regulation, appropriations which have been cancelled because of decommitments made by the Commission for the financial year 2007 in the implementation of Article 93(1) and Article 97 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 284/2009, pursuant to Article 11 of the Financial Regulation, shall be reconstituted to the extent necessary for the implementation of the second subparagraph of Article 93(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as amended by this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nHowever, Article 1(5) and (7) shall apply from 1 August 2006, points (8), (10)(a), (10)(b)(i), (13) and (14) of Article 1 shall apply from 1 January 2007 and points (4), (10)(b)(ii) and (10)(c) of Article 1 shall apply from 10 June 2009.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 June 2010.", "references": ["8", "29", "84", "61", "94", "28", "36", "62", "68", "1", "24", "53", "99", "72", "49", "15", "11", "76", "2", "95", "82", "45", "74", "26", "17", "3", "27", "67", "13", "37", "No Label", "4", "7", "9", "10", "44", "46"], "gold": ["4", "7", "9", "10", "44", "46"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 753/2010\nof 20 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 August 2010.", "references": ["22", "9", "82", "96", "67", "33", "11", "21", "78", "86", "75", "1", "51", "59", "63", "97", "94", "29", "92", "76", "0", "25", "7", "53", "10", "65", "80", "57", "64", "13", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/79/EU\nof 20 September 2011\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include fipronil as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes fipronil for use in product-type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to the Directive.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, fipronil has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 18.\n(3)\nFrance was designated as Rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 on 6 February 2009.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 6 May 2011, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as insecticides and containing fipronil may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include fipronil in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated in the Union level assessment, which only addressed professional use indoors by application in locations normally inaccessible to man and domestic animals after application. It is therefore appropriate to require that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to human populations and to environmental compartments that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nThe provisions of this Directive should be applied at the same time in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment on the Union market of biocidal products containing the active substance fipronil, and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(9)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(10)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 September 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 October 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2011.", "references": ["79", "9", "46", "16", "39", "57", "96", "10", "5", "1", "73", "89", "33", "63", "52", "4", "54", "99", "75", "48", "72", "53", "26", "86", "40", "68", "17", "0", "32", "90", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 617/2011\nof 24 June 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 900/2008 laying down the methods of analysis and other technical provisions necessary for the application of the arrangements for imports of certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 18 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (2), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 900/2008 (3) lays down the methods of analysis and other technical provisions necessary for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 514/2011 of 25 May 2011 laying down the detailed rules for implementing the preferential trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products, as provided for in Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 (4). Those methods and provisions apply to imports of certain processed agricultural products in order to determine their reduced agricultural components and to classify those products in the Combined Nomenclature.\n(2)\nIn the interest of clarity, it is necessary to update the scope of Regulation (EC) No 900/2008 and to adapt it to the measures laid down in that Regulation.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure consistent application of Regulation (EC) No 900/2008, it is necessary to provide that the formulas, procedures and methods laid down therein for the purpose of applying Annexes II and III to Regulation (EU) No 514/2011 are also to be used for the determination of milk fat content, milk protein content, starch/glucose content and sucrose/invert sugar/isoglucose content for the purpose of selecting the appropriate agricultural element, additional duties for sugar and additional duties for flour in the case of non-preferential imports as provided for in Part Two and in Part Three, Section I, Annex 1, of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure effective application of Regulation (EC) No 900/2008, it is necessary to provide that the methods and procedures laid down therein for classifying certain goods falling within certain CN codes for the purposes of applying Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 514/2011 should also be used for classifying those goods in the case of non-preferential imports as provided for in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87.\n(5)\nIn order to take account of amendments to the Combined Nomenclature, it is necessary to adapt certain references to CN codes.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 900/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 900/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nScope\nThis Regulation lays down the following:\n(a)\nthe methodology and methods of analysis to be used for determining the content of the agricultural products within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 (5) or their specific components considered to have been incorporated in imported goods within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009;\n(b)\nthe necessary methods of analysis to be used for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as far as imports of certain goods are concerned, of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/1987 and of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 514/2011 (6) or in the absence of a method of analysis, the nature of the analytical operations to be carried out or the principle of a method to be applied.\n(2)\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following title is added: \u2018Calculation of contents\u2019;\n(b)\nthe introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In accordance with the definitions set out in footnotes 1, 2 and 3 of Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 514/2011 and in footnotes 1, 2 and 3 of Part Three, Section I, Annex 1, Table 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 concerning milk protein content, starch/glucose content and sucrose/invert sugar/isoglucose content, the following formulas, procedures and methods shall be used:\n(a)\nfor the application of Annexes II and III to Regulation (EU) No 514/2011;\n(b)\nfor the determination of milk fat content, milk protein content, starch/glucose content and sucrose/invert sugar/isoglucose content for the purpose of selecting the appropriate agricultural element, additional duties for sugar and additional duties for flour in the case of non-preferential imports as provided for in Part Two and in Part Three, Section I, Annex 1, of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87:\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following title is added: \u2018Classification of Goods\u2019;\n(b)\nthe introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u2018For the purpose of applying Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 514/2011 and Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, the following methods and procedures shall be used for the classification of the following goods:\u2019\n(c)\npoints 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20182.\nFor the purposes of classifying goods falling within CN codes 1704 10 10 and 1704 10 90 and 1905 20 10 to 1905 20 90, the sucrose content, including invert sugar expressed as sucrose, shall be determined using the HPLC method (invert sugar expressed as sucrose is calculated as the sum of equal quantities of glucose and fructose multiplied by 0,95);\n3.\nFor the purposes of classifying goods falling within CN codes 1806 10 15 to 1806 10 90, the sucrose/invert sugar/isoglucose content shall be determined in accordance with the formulas, method and procedures set out in point 2 of Article 2 of this Regulation;\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 4 the following title is added: \u2018Test report\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 5 the following title is added: \u2018Final provision\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 June 2011.", "references": ["42", "8", "51", "47", "94", "50", "58", "19", "64", "13", "3", "62", "82", "12", "98", "32", "35", "44", "73", "67", "0", "92", "70", "18", "10", "30", "59", "57", "36", "56", "No Label", "21", "22", "43", "66", "77"], "gold": ["21", "22", "43", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 16 December 2010\non a temporary derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Kenya with regard to tuna loins\n(notified under document C(2010) 9034)\n(2010/782/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements (1), and in particular Article 36(4) of Annex II thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 17 August 2010 Kenya requested, in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007, a derogation from the rules of origin set out in that Annex for a period of one year. On 26 August 2010 Kenya submitted additional information relating to its request. The request covers a total quantity of 2 000 tonnes of tuna loins of HS heading 1604. The request is made because catches and supply of originating raw tuna have decreased.\n(2)\nAccording to the information provided by Kenya catches of raw originating tuna are unusually low even compared to the normal seasonal variations and have led to a decrease in production of tuna loins. This abnormal situation makes it impossible for Kenya to comply with the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 during a certain period.\n(3)\nTo ensure continuity of importations from the ACP countries to the Union as well as a smooth transition from the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement to the Agreement establishing a framework for an Interim Economic Partnership Agreement (EAC-EU Interim Partnership Agreement), a new derogation should be granted with retroactive effect from 1 January 2010.\n(4)\nA temporary derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 would not cause serious injury to an established Community industry taking into account the imports concerned, provided that certain conditions relating to quantities, surveillance and duration are respected.\n(5)\nIt is therefore justified to grant a temporary derogation under Article 36(1)(a) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007.\n(6)\nKenya will benefit from an automatic derogation from the rules of origin for tuna loins of HS heading 1604 pursuant to Article 41(8) of the Origin Protocol attached to the EAC-EU Interim Partnership Agreement, when that Agreement enters into force or is provisionally applied.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 the rules of origin set out in Annex II to that Regulation and the derogations from them are to be superseded by the rules of the EAC-EU Interim Partnership Agreement, the entry into force or provisional application of which is expected to take place in 2011. The derogation should therefore apply until 31 December 2010.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 41(8) of the Origin Protocol attached to the EAC-EU Interim Partnership Agreement, the automatic derogation from the rules of origin is limited to an annual quota of 2 000 tonnes of tuna loins for the countries having initialled the EAC-EU Interim Partnership Agreement (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Ruanda, Burundi). Kenya is the only country in the region that currently exports tuna loins to the Union. It is therefore appropriate to grant to Kenya a derogation under Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 in respect of 2 000 tonnes of tuna loins, quantity which does not exceed the full annual quota granted to the EAC region under the EAC-EU Interim Partnership Agreement.\n(9)\nAccordingly a derogation should be granted to Kenya in respect of 2000 tonnes of tuna loins for a period of one year.\n(10)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (2) lays down rules relating to the management of tariff quotas. In order to ensure efficient management carried out in close cooperation between the authorities of Kenya, the customs authorities of the Member States and the Commission, those rules should apply mutatis mutandis to the quantities imported under the derogation granted by this Decision.\n(11)\nIn order to allow efficient monitoring of the operation of the derogation, the authorities of Kenya should communicate regularly to the Commission details of the EUR.1 movement certificates issued.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 and in accordance with Article 36(1)(a) of that Annex, tuna loins of HS heading 1604 manufactured from non-originating materials shall be regarded as originating in Kenya in accordance with the terms set out in Articles 2 to 6 of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to the products and the quantities set out in the Annex which are declared for free circulation into the Union from Kenya during the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010.\nArticle 3\nThe quantities set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be managed in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\nArticle 4\nThe customs authorities of Kenya shall take the necessary measures to carry out quantitative checks on exports of the products referred to in Article 1.\nAll the EUR.1 movement certificates they issue in relation to those products shall bear a reference to this Decision.\nThe competent authorities of Kenya shall forward to the Commission a quarterly statement of the quantities in respect of which EUR.1 movement certificates have been issued pursuant to this Decision and the serial numbers of those certificates.\nArticle 5\nBox 7 of EUR.1 movement certificates issued under this Decision shall contain the following:\n\u2018Derogation - Decision 2010/\u2026/EU\u2019. (EN in all linguistic versions)\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2010.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2010.", "references": ["90", "70", "85", "40", "50", "19", "51", "12", "36", "24", "25", "72", "26", "16", "37", "86", "11", "75", "18", "78", "47", "35", "77", "87", "46", "0", "43", "29", "58", "74", "No Label", "8", "21", "22", "23", "67", "94"], "gold": ["8", "21", "22", "23", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 99/2012\nof 7 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 February 2012.", "references": ["80", "9", "37", "99", "60", "32", "24", "39", "81", "92", "38", "18", "13", "76", "83", "63", "28", "25", "79", "88", "33", "1", "40", "41", "78", "85", "20", "53", "3", "73", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/603/CFSP\nof 7 October 2010\non further measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 11 October 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/694/CFSP on further measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (1), with the aim of freezing all funds and economic resources belonging to all persons who have been indicted by the ICTY for war crimes but who are not in the custody of the ICTY. That Common Position was extended by Common Position 2009/717/CFSP (2) until 10 October 2010.\n(2)\nThe restrictive measures should be extended for a further year until 10 October 2011.\n(3)\nThe Union implementing measures are set out in Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 of 11 October 2004 imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (3),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to the natural persons listed in the Annex, who have been indicted by the ICTY, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available directly or indirectly to or for the benefit of the natural persons listed in the Annex.\n3. Exemptions may be made for funds or economic resources which are:\n(a)\nnecessary for basic expenses, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources;\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses.\n4. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which those accounts became subject to restrictive measures,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to paragraph 1.\nArticle 2\n1. The Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall adopt amendments to the list contained in the Annex as required.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the person concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person concerned accordingly.\nArticle 3\nIn order to maximise the impact of the abovementioned measures, the Union shall encourage third States to adopt restrictive measures similar to those contained in this Decision.\nArticle 4\nCouncil Common Position 2004/694/CFSP is hereby repealed. References to it shall be read as references to this Decision.\nArticle 5\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall apply until 10 October 2011. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 October 2010.", "references": ["23", "81", "63", "82", "69", "31", "70", "55", "29", "2", "15", "61", "67", "28", "44", "47", "48", "45", "73", "96", "35", "72", "71", "32", "87", "1", "95", "26", "92", "62", "No Label", "3", "11", "14", "36", "97", "99"], "gold": ["3", "11", "14", "36", "97", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 3 November 2010\nlaying down criteria and measures for the financing of commercial demonstration projects that aim at the environmentally safe capture and geological storage of CO2 as well as demonstration projects of innovative renewable energy technologies under the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community established by Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 7499)\n(2010/670/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 10a(8) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Council of June 2008 called on the Commission to bring forward as soon as possible a mechanism to incentivise Member State and private sector investments to ensure the construction and operation by 2015 of up to 12 carbon capture and storage (\u2018CCS\u2019) demonstration plants.\n(2)\nArticle 10a(8) of Directive 2003/87/EC establishes a mechanism for the financing of commercial demonstration projects that aim at the environmentally safe capture and geological storage of CO2 (hereinafter \u2018CCS demonstration projects\u2019) and demonstration projects of innovative renewable energy technologies (hereinafter \u2018RES demonstration projects\u2019). With a view to ensuring a smooth functioning of this mechanism, it is necessary to lay down both the rules and criteria for the selection and implementation of those projects and the basic principles for the monetisation of allowances and for the management of revenues.\n(3)\nThe Commission adopted the Communication entitled \u2018Investing in the Development of Low Carbon Technologies\u2019 (2) on 7 October 2009, which emphasises the role of funding under this Decision in implementing the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) in respect of the needed demonstration projects.\n(4)\nFunding under this Decision should be conditional on clearance by the Commission of any State aid component of the overall financial contribution from public sources pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty with a view to ensuring that funding is limited to the extent necessary for implementation and operation of the project, taking into account potential negative effects on competition. Member States should therefore notify the Commission of any financing involving State aid pursuant to Article 108(3) of the Treaty to allow coordination of the selection procedure under this Decision with the State aid assessment.\n(5)\nThe financing provided under this Decision is not part of the general budget of the European Union. It can therefore be combined with financing from other instruments, including the Structural and Cohesion Funds and the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR). It can also be combined with loan financing provided under the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF) set up by the Union and the European Investment Bank (EIB).\n(6)\nIn order to avoid a subsidy competition between Member States, financing under this Decision should be fixed at 50 % of the relevant costs, unless the total amount of funding under this Decision would exceed the limit of 15 % of the total available allowances as referred to in Directive 2003/87/EC, in which case funding should be limited to 15 % of the total available allowances. The funding should also be complementary to substantial co-financing by the operator. In order not to give preferential treatment to projects funded under the EEPR, financing under this Decision should be reduced by the amount of financing received from the EEPR.\n(7)\nThe establishment of an EU demonstration programme comprising the best possible projects of a wide range of technologies in geographically balanced locations within the territory of Member States, their exclusive economic zones and their continental shelves, cannot be sufficiently achieved if projects are selected on a national level. The selection should therefore take place at Union level. With a view to ensuring coherence with national selection and funding procedures, Member States should be responsible for collecting funding applications from the sponsors and for the evaluation of the projects on the basis of the eligibility criteria laid down in this Decision. Since projects financed under this Decision will in most cases be co-financed by Member States, Member States should have the possibility to decide which of the projects they wish to support, and whose applications they wish to submit to the Union selection process. Submission of these applications is not intended to replace a State aid notification for cases in which the funding contains a State aid component. The role of Member States should be further strengthened by reconsulting the relevant Member States to confirm, where appropriate, the value and structure of the total public funding contribution and by submitting the draft list of selected projects to the Climate Change Committee, including on the quality of projects, before the award decisions are taken.\n(8)\nIn light of its expertise in project selection and financing, the Commission has sought to involve the EIB in the implementation of this Decision. The EIB has agreed that, acting on request of, on behalf of and for the account of the Commission, it should perform certain tasks in respect of the project selection, the monetisation of allowances and the management of the revenues. The specific terms and conditions of the cooperation, including remuneration of the EIB, should be laid down in an agreement between the Commission and the EIB, subject to the approval of the decision-making bodies of the EIB. The EIB should be reimbursed for the performance of those tasks from income generated from its management of the revenues.\n(9)\nThe available revenues from the 300 million allowances should be awarded through two rounds of calls for proposals to allow, on the one hand, for mature projects to receive financing already in the first round, and on the other hand, to provide for the possibility to adjust any technical or geographical imbalance in the second round. Where there is insufficient competition in a particular subcategory of projects in the first round, award decisions in that subcategory should be postponed to the second round with a view to maximising the use of funds under this Decision.\n(10)\nThe financing under this Decision should be reserved for projects which make use of technologies which are innovative in relation to the state-of-the-art in the key substreams for each technology. Those technologies should not yet be commercially available, but sufficiently mature to be ready for demonstration at pre-commercial scale. They should have reasonable prospects of successful demonstration, taking into account that technological risks are inevitable, and the proposed scale of demonstration should be such that no significant additional problems are to be expected from further scaling up. They should also have a high replicability potential, and therefore offer significant prospects for cost-effective CO2 reduction both in the Union and globally. Therefore, only projects which fall into specific categories of projects and which comply with specific requirements set out in this Decision should be eligible for funding.\n(11)\nWith a view to ensuring technological diversity, eight CCS demonstration projects should be funded (with at least one and, at most, three projects in each project category, at least three with hydrocarbon reservoir storage, and at least three with saline aquifer storage) in the first round of calls for proposals, and one project should be funded in each of the RES project subcategories in the first round of calls for proposals. If there are sufficient resources, it should be possible to finance more projects while maintaining the balance between CCS and RES demonstration projects. Further, with a view to ensuring geographical balance, at least one and no more than three projects should be funded within any one Member State. The projects which are intended to take place on the territory of several Member States should not be, due to their nature, limited by that criteria.\n(12)\nIn principle, projects which satisfy the requirements on project numbers per category in the most cost-effective way should be selected.\n(13)\nWith a view to ensuring that the selected projects begin operation as planned and that funds are efficiently used, award decisions should be conditional on the issuing of all relevant national permits in accordance with relevant requirements under Union law and final investment decisions being reached by the sponsors, within a specified period of time upon adoption of the award decisions.\n(14)\nMember States should disburse the revenues to projects on the basis of legally binding instruments. As required by Directive 2003/87/EC, disbursement should take place annually, on the basis of the amount of CO2 stored for CCS demonstration projects as reported, monitored and verified under Directive 2003/87/EC, and on the basis of the amount of energy produced for RES projects. However, where Member States guarantee that any excess funding will be returned, it should be possible to disburse part or all of the funding for a project prior to its entry into operation. In light of the particular importance of knowledge-sharing in the context of a demonstration programme, funds should only be disbursed if knowledge-sharing requirements are met.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision lays down rules and criteria for the following:\n(1)\nthe selection of commercial demonstration projects that aim at the environmentally safe capture and geological storage of CO2 (\u2018CCS demonstration projects\u2019) and demonstration projects of innovative renewable energy technologies (\u2018RES demonstration projects\u2019) referred to in Directive 2003/87/EC;\n(2)\nthe monetisation of the allowances referred to in Directive 2003/87/EC for the support of CCS and RES demonstration projects, and the management of the related revenues;\n(3)\nthe disbursement of revenues and the implementation of CCS and RES demonstration projects.\nThis Decision, including the provisions in relation to the monetisation of allowances, shall be without prejudice to other implementing acts adopted pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC.\nArticle 2\nPrinciples\n1. The number of allowances in the new entrants\u2019 reserve referred to in Article 10a(8) of Directive 2003/87/EC shall be 300 million.\n2. Selection of CCS and RES demonstration projects for funding under this Decision shall take place through two rounds of calls for proposals organised by the Commission and addressed to Member States, covering the equivalent of 200 million allowances for the first round of call for proposals, and the equivalent of 100 million allowances and the remaining allowances from the first round of calls for proposals for the second round of calls for proposals.\n3. Subject to the fourth sentence in the fourth subparagraph of Article 10a(8) of Directive 2003/87/EC, financing under this Decision shall be 50 % of the relevant costs. Where the total request for public funding is less than 50 % of the relevant costs, the total request for public funding shall be financed under this Decision.\nHowever, where financing under this Decision is combined with financing from the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR), the financing under this Decision shall be reduced by the amount of financing received from the EEPR.\nArticle 3\nRelevant costs\n1. For the purposes of Article 2(3), the rules in paragraphs 2 to 5 of this Article shall apply.\n2. The relevant costs of CCS demonstration projects shall be those investment costs which are borne by the project due to the application of CCS net of the net present value of the best estimate of operating benefits and costs arising due to the application of CCS during the first 10 years of operation.\n3. Relevant costs of RES demonstration projects shall be those extra investment costs which are borne by the project as a result of the application of an innovative renewable energy technology net of the net present value of the best estimate of operating costs and benefits arising during the first 5 years compared to a conventional production with the same capacity in terms of effective production of energy.\n4. The investment costs referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall cover the cost of investment in land, plant and equipment.\nInvestment costs may also relate to investment in technology transfer and operating licenses of know-how (hereinafter \u2018intangible assets\u2019) where the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe intangible asset can be considered as a depreciable asset;\n(b)\nthe intangible asset is purchased on market terms at the lowest price possible;\n(c)\nthe intangible asset remains in the establishment of the recipient for at least 5 years.\nIf the intangible asset is sold before the expiry of the 5-year period referred to in point (c) of the second subparagraph, the yield from the sale shall be deducted from the relevant costs.\n5. The net operating costs and benefits referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be based on the best estimate of operating expenses borne by the project regarding production costs and take into account any additional benefits resulting from support schemes even if they do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, avoided costs and existing tax incentive measures.\nArticle 4\nRole of the EIB\nThe European Investment Bank (EIB) shall perform its tasks under this Decision on request of, on behalf of and for the account of the Commission. The Commission shall be responsible with regard to third parties.\nThe EIB shall be reimbursed for the performance of those tasks from income generated from its management of the revenues.\nThe Commission and the EIB shall enter into an agreement laying down the specific terms and conditions under which the EIB shall perform its tasks.\nArticle 5\nSelection procedure\n1. The calls for proposals shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. Member States shall collect funding applications for projects that are intended to take place on their territory.\nHowever, where a project is intended to take place on the territory of several Member States (hereinafter a \u2018transboundary project\u2019), the Member State receiving the funding application shall inform the other Member States concerned thereof and shall cooperate with the other Member States with a view to reaching a common decision on the submission of the project by the Member State receiving the funding application.\n3. Member States shall assess whether a project meets the eligibility criteria referred to in Article 6. Where this is the case and where the Member State supports the project, that Member State shall submit the proposal to the EIB and inform the Commission thereof.\nWhen submitting proposals for funding, the Member State shall provide the following information for each project:\n(a)\nthe relevant costs, in euro, referred to in Article 2(3);\n(b)\nthe total request for public funding in euro, which is the relevant costs minus any contribution to those costs from the operator;\n(c)\nthe best estimate of the net present value of additional benefits resulting from support schemes as calculated according to Article 3(5);\n(d)\nfor CCS demonstration projects, the total projected amount of CO2 stored in the first 10 years of operation, or, for RES demonstration projects, the total projected amount of energy produced in the first 5 years of operation.\nMember States shall also notify the Commission of any financing for the project involving State aid pursuant to Article 108(3) of the Treaty so as to allow coordination of the selection procedure with the State aid assessment.\n4. On the basis of the proposals submitted pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article, the EIB shall perform an assessment of the financial and technical viability (financial and technical due diligence) of the project in accordance with Article 7.\nWhere that assessment has been concluded positively, the EIB shall, in accordance with Article 8, make recommendations for award decisions to the Commission.\n5. On the basis of the recommendations referred to in paragraph 4, after reconsulting the Member States concerned to confirm, where appropriate, the value and structure of the total public funding contribution, and following an opinion from the Climate Change Committee pursuant to Article 3 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC (3), the Commission shall adopt award decisions addressed to the relevant Member States, indicating the awarded funding for the projects concerned in euro.\nArticle 6\nEligibility criteria\n1. A project shall be eligible for funding where the following criteria are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe project must fall into one of the categories set out in Part A of Annex I;\n(b)\nthe project must comply with the requirements set out in Part B of Annex I;\n(c)\nthe projects listed in Part A.II of Annex I must be innovative in nature. Existing, proven technologies are ineligible.\n2. Where a Member State is not in a position to submit proposals for projects falling under any of the subcategories specified in Part A.II of Annex I which meet the relevant thresholds to the EIB pursuant to Article 5(3), proposals for projects below the relevant thresholds for any of the subcategories concerned may be submitted by this Member State and shall be considered eligible for the award of financing by way of derogation from paragraph 1.\nArticle 7\nFinancial and technical due diligence\nThe EIB shall perform the due diligence assessment of any proposed project in accordance with specifications laid down in the calls for proposals referred to in Article 5(1) and shall cover at least the following aspects:\n(1)\ntechnical scope;\n(2)\ncosts;\n(3)\nfinancing;\n(4)\nimplementation;\n(5)\noperation;\n(6)\nenvironmental impact;\n(7)\nprocurement procedures.\nArticle 8\nProject selection\n1. Eight projects falling under Part A.I of Annex I and one project in each project subcategory specified in Part A.II of Annex I shall be funded.\nHowever, where resources allow, further projects may be funded while maintaining the balance between CCS and RES demonstration projects.\nWhere no more than two proposals are submitted in a given subcategory, the Commission shall assess the possible impact of the limited number of proposals on the competition for selection under this Decision, and may, where appropriate, decide to postpone award decisions in the relevant subcategory to the second round of calls for proposals.\n2. Projects shall be ranked in order of increasing cost-per-unit performance. CCS demonstration projects shall be ranked as a single group. RES demonstration projects shall be ranked within each of the subcategories specified in Part A.II of Annex I.\nFor the purposes of the first subparagraph, cost-per-unit performance shall be calculated as the sum of the amounts specified in Article 5(3)(b) and (c), divided by the total projected amount of CO2 stored in the first 10 years of operation for CCS demonstration projects, or, the total projected amount of energy produced in the first 5 years of operation for the RES demonstration projects.\nWhere the relevant Member States confirm, pursuant to Article 5(5), that there is a sufficient public funding for CCS demonstration projects, the highest ranked projects shall be selected in order of their ranking, provided all the following criteria are met:\n(a)\nat least one project and at most three projects are selected in each project category;\n(b)\nat least three projects with hydrocarbon reservoir storage are selected;\n(c)\nat least three projects with saline aquifer storage are selected.\nWhere those criteria are not met, the project under consideration for selection shall not be selected, and the next highest ranked project shall be considered for selection. The procedure shall be repeated until eight projects are selected.\nWhere the relevant Member States confirm, pursuant to Article 5(5), that there is a sufficient public funding for RES demonstration projects, the highest ranked project in each subcategory shall be selected. Where, in either of the rounds for calls for proposals there are no eligible and financially and technically viable projects in one or more project subcategories, a corresponding number of additional projects shall be funded in other subcategories of the same project category. Details shall be specified in the call for proposals pursuant to Article 5(1).\nThe selected CCS demonstration projects shall collectively constitute \u2018the CCS group\u2019 and the selected RES demonstration projects shall collectively constitute \u2018the RES group\u2019.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where the total request for funding under this Decision is higher than the available funds, the number of selected projects shall be reduced so that the request for funding is reduced in the same proportion in each of the groups referred to in the third and fifth subparagraphs of paragraph 2.\nFor each of the groups, the project representing the highest cost-per-unit performance shall be deselected first, the project representing the highest cost-per-unit performance in another category shall be deselected next. The procedure shall be repeated until the requested funding is covered by the available funds.\n4. Subject to the availability of proposals submitted to the EIB pursuant to Article 5(3) and recommended by the EIB for award decisions to the Commission pursuant to Article 5(4), at least one and no more than three projects shall be funded within one Member State.\nHowever, the first subparagraph shall not apply to transboundary projects.\nArticle 9\nAward decisions\nAward decisions shall be conditional upon all relevant national permits in accordance with relevant requirements under Union law being issued, approval by the Commission of any State aid in respect of a project being granted, and final investment decisions being reached by the sponsors, within 24 months of adoption of the award decisions.\nWith regard to CCS demonstration projects, with saline aquifer storage, award decisions shall be conditional upon all relevant national permits in accordance with relevant requirements under Union law being issued, approval by the Commission of any State aid in respect of a project being granted, and final investment decisions being reached by the sponsors, within 36 months of adoption of the award decisions.\nAward decisions shall cease to have legal effect where the conditions referred to in the first or second paragraph are not met.\nArticle 10\nMonetisation of allowances and management of revenues\n1. For the purposes of monetisation of allowances and management of revenues, the Commission shall act on behalf of Member States.\n2. The Member States and the Commission shall ensure that the 300 million allowances referred to in Article 2(1) shall be transferred to the EIB for monetisation and management of the revenues.\n3. The EIB shall sell the allowances for the first round of calls for proposals before the award decisions are adopted by the Commission for each round of calls for proposals referred to in Article 5(1).\nThe EIB shall manage the revenues and shall pass them to Member States as required for disbursement pursuant to Article 11.\nArticle 11\nDisbursement of revenues and use of non-disbursed revenues\n1. Member States shall disburse the revenues to project sponsors on the basis of legally binding instruments which shall set out at least the following:\n(a)\nthe project and the awarded funding in euro;\n(b)\nthe date of entry into operation;\n(c)\nthe requirements for knowledge-sharing pursuant to Article 12;\n(d)\nrequirements regarding disbursement of the revenues pursuant to paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article;\n(e)\nrequirements for reporting pursuant to Article 13;\n(f)\nthe information on conditions of applicability of the decision referred to in Article 9.\nFor the first round of calls for proposals referred to in Article 5(1), the date of entry into operation referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall be 31 December 2015 at the latest except where the respective award decision is adopted after 31 December 2011, in which case the date of entry into operation shall be no later than 4 years from the date of the award decision.\n2. Disbursement shall take place annually. The disbursed amount shall be, for CCS demonstration projects, the amount of CO2 stored in the relevant year as monitored, reported and verified pursuant to Articles 14 and 15 of Directive 2003/87/EC multiplied by the funding rate, and for RES demonstration projects, the amount of energy produced multiplied by the funding rate.\nThe funding rate shall be calculated by dividing the awarded funding by 75 % of the projected total amount of stored CO2 in the first 10 years of operation in case of CCS demonstration projects, or 75 % of the projected total amount of energy produced in the first 5 years of operation in the case of RES demonstration projects.\n3. Disbursement for a given year shall take place only where the knowledge-sharing requirements are met for that year.\n4. Disbursement shall be limited to a period of 10 years from the date referred to in paragraph (1)(b) in the case of CCS demonstration projects, and to a period of 5 years from that date in the case of RES demonstration projects. The total funds disbursed shall not exceed the awarded funding referred to in paragraph 1(a).\n5. Where the Member State concerned guarantees that any funding which exceeds the funding determined pursuant to paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 will be returned to the EIB, part or all of the funding for a project may be disbursed prior to the entry into operation of that project in accordance with specifications set out in the award decision.\n6. Without prejudice to the second paragraph of Article 4, revenues which are not disbursed to projects and income generated from the management of revenues shall be used to co-finance further demonstration projects under this Decision until 31 December 2015.\nMember States shall return revenues which are not disbursed to the EIB.\nAfter 31 December 2015, any remaining funds shall accrue to the Member States. At the end of disbursement, these funds shall be passed on to the Member States in accordance with the principles laid down in Article 10a(7) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\nArticle 12\nKnowledge-sharing\nMember States shall ensure that all project operators, consortium members, suppliers and subcontractors who receive substantial benefit regarding the development of their product or service from the public finance provided, share the information on the elements set out in Annex II with other project operators, public authorities, research institutes, non-governmental organisations and the public in accordance with the further specifications set out in the calls for proposals referred to in Article 5(1).\nInformation shall be shared on an annual basis and shall comprise all information generated and processed in a given year.\nArticle 13\nReporting by Member States\nDuring the periods referred to in Article 11(4), Member States shall, by 31 December of each year, submit reports on the implementation of the projects to the Commission.\nThose reports shall include at least the following information for each project:\n(1)\nthe amount of CO2 stored or clean energy produced;\n(2)\nthe funds disbursed;\n(3)\nany significant problems with project implementation.\nArticle 14\nReporting by the Commission\nAfter completion of the first round of calls for proposals, the Commission shall report to the Climate Change Committee on the implementation of that round of calls for proposals, indicating whether any amendment to this Decision is necessary with the view to ensuring geographical and technical balance in the second round of calls for proposals.\nArticle 15\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2010.", "references": ["28", "98", "57", "76", "75", "93", "19", "0", "37", "81", "95", "74", "25", "59", "17", "6", "91", "90", "52", "92", "5", "96", "27", "22", "12", "26", "65", "43", "38", "13", "No Label", "58", "60"], "gold": ["58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1207/2011\nof 22 November 2011\nlaying down requirements for the performance and the interoperability of surveillance for the single European sky\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network (the interoperability Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 3(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has issued a mandate to Eurocontrol in accordance with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (2) to develop requirements for the performance and the interoperability of surveillance within the European air traffic management network (EATMN). This Regulation is based on the resulting mandate report of 9 July 2010.\n(2)\nSeamless operations are dependent on the coherence of the minimum requirements for the separation of aircraft applied within the airspace of the single European sky.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure interoperability, common principles should be applied when surveillance data are exchanged between systems. In addition, minimal capabilities and performance applicable to airborne constituents of surveillance systems should be identified.\n(4)\nThe capabilities of the airborne constituents of surveillance systems should give the flexibility to the air navigation service providers to choose the most appropriate ground based surveillance solutions for their particular environments.\n(5)\nThe implementation of this Regulation should be without prejudice to the deployment of other surveillance applications and technologies bringing benefits in specific environments.\n(6)\nOperators need sufficient notice to equip new aircraft and existing fleets with new capabilities. This should be taken into account when defining dates for mandatory equipage.\n(7)\nCriteria for possible exemptions, based in particular on economic or compelling technical consideration, should be identified allowing operators exceptionally not to equip specific types of aircraft with some of the required capabilities. Appropriate procedures should be established to allow the Commission to take decisions in this respect.\n(8)\nThe 24-bit ICAO aircraft address should be assigned and operated in compliance with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) requirements in order to ensure the interoperability of the air and ground surveillance systems.\n(9)\nThe foundation established through the implementation of ADS-B \u2018Out\u2019 capabilities by aircraft operators should enable the deployment of ground applications and should also facilitate the deployment of future airborne applications.\n(10)\nThe EATMN systems should support the implementation of advanced, agreed and validated concepts of operation for all phases of flight, in particular as envisaged in the ATM Master Plan for the development of the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR).\n(11)\nThe performance of the systems within the scope of this Regulation and of their constituents should be regularly assessed taking into account the local environment in which they operate.\n(12)\nThe uniform application of specific procedures within the airspace of the single European sky is critical for the achievement of interoperability and seamless operations.\n(13)\nSpectrum used by surveillance systems should be protected to prevent harmful interferences. Member States should take the necessary measures in this respect.\n(14)\nThis Regulation should not cover military operations and training as referred in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004.\n(15)\nWith a view to maintaining or enhancing existing safety levels of operations, Member States should be required to ensure that the parties concerned carry out a safety assessment including hazard identification, risk assessment and mitigation processes. Harmonised implementation of these processes to the systems covered by this Regulation requires the identification of specific safety requirements for all interoperability and performance requirements.\n(16)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 552/2004, implementing rules for interoperability should describe the specific conformity assessment procedures to be used to assess either the conformity or the suitability for use of constituents as well as the verification of systems.\n(17)\nIn the case of air traffic services provided primarily to aircraft flying as general air traffic under military supervision, procurement constraints could prevent compliance with this Regulation.\n(18)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down requirements on the systems contributing to the provision of surveillance data, their constituents and associated procedures in order to ensure the harmonisation of performance, the interoperability and the efficiency of these systems within the European air traffic management network (EATMN) and for the purpose of civil-military coordination.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to the surveillance chain constituted of:\n(a)\nairborne surveillance systems, their constituents and associated procedures;\n(b)\nground-based surveillance systems, their constituents and associated procedures;\n(c)\nsurveillance data processing systems, their constituents and associated procedures;\n(d)\nground-to-ground communications systems used for distribution of surveillance data, their constituents and associated procedures.\n2. This Regulation shall apply to all flights operating as general air traffic in accordance with instrument flight rules within the airspace provided for in Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) with the exception of Articles 7(3) and 7(4) which shall apply to all flights operating as general air traffic.\n3. This Regulation shall apply to air traffic service providers which provide air traffic control services based on surveillance data, and to communication, navigation or surveillance service providers which operate systems laid down in paragraph 1.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the definitions in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 shall apply.\nThe following definitions shall also apply:\n(1)\n\u2018surveillance data\u2019 means any data item, time stamped or not, within the surveillance system that pertains to:\n(a)\naircraft 2D position;\n(b)\naircraft vertical position;\n(c)\naircraft attitude;\n(d)\naircraft identity;\n(e)\n24-bit ICAO aircraft address;\n(f)\naircraft intent;\n(g)\naircraft velocity;\n(h)\naircraft acceleration;\n(2)\n\u2018operator\u2019 means a person, organisation or enterprise engaged in or offering to engage in an aircraft operation;\n(3)\n\u2018ADS-B\u2019 means automatic dependent surveillance - broadcast, a surveillance technique in which aircraft automatically provide, via a data link, data derived from on-board navigation and position-fixing systems;\n(4)\n\u2018ADS-B Out\u2019 means the provision of ADS-B surveillance data from an aircraft transmit perspective;\n(5)\n\u2018harmful interference\u2019 means interference that prevents the achievement of the performance requirements;\n(6)\n\u2018surveillance chain\u2019 means a system composed of the aggregation of airborne and ground-based constituents used to determine the respective surveillance data items of aircraft, including the surveillance data processing system, if deployed;\n(7)\n\u2018cooperative surveillance chain\u2019 means a surveillance chain requiring both ground and airborne components to determine surveillance data items;\n(8)\n\u2018surveillance data processing system\u2019 means a system that processes all surveillance inputs received to form a best estimate of the current aircraft surveillance data;\n(9)\n\u2018aircraft identification\u2019 means a group of letters, figures or a combination thereof which is either identical to, or the coded equivalent of, the aircraft call sign to be used in air-to-ground communications, and which is used to identify the aircraft in ground-to-ground air traffic services communications;\n(10)\n\u2018State aircraft\u2019 means any aircraft used for military, customs and police purposes;\n(11)\n\u2018transport type State aircraft\u2019 means fixed wing State aircraft that are designed for the purpose of transporting persons and/or cargo;\n(12)\n\u2018extrapolate\u2019 means to project, predict or extend known data based upon values within an already observed time interval;\n(13)\n\u2018coasted\u2019 means extrapolated for a period longer than the ground surveillance systems update period;\n(14)\n\u2018time of applicability\u2019 means the time at which the data item has been measured by the surveillance chain or the time for which it has been calculated by the surveillance chain;\n(15)\n\u2018accuracy\u2019 means the degree of conformity of the provided value of a data item with its actual value at the time when the data item is output from the surveillance chain;\n(16)\n\u2018availability\u2019 means the degree to which a system or component is operational and accessible when required for use;\n(17)\n\u2018integrity\u2019 means the degree of undetected (at system level) non-conformity of the input value of the data item with its output value;\n(18)\n\u2018continuity\u2019 means the probability that a system will perform its required function without unscheduled interruption, assuming that the system is available at the initiation of the intended operation;\n(19)\n\u2018timeliness\u2019 means the difference between the time of output of a data item and the time of applicability of that data item.\nArticle 4\nPerformance requirements\n1. Air navigation service providers shall ensure seamless operations within the airspace under their responsibility and at the boundary with adjacent airspaces by applying appropriate minimum requirements for the separation of aircraft.\n2. Air navigation service providers shall ensure that systems referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 2(1) are deployed as necessary to support the minimum requirements for the separation of aircraft applied in accordance with paragraph 1.\n3. Air navigation service providers shall ensure that the output of the surveillance chain referred to in Article 2(1) complies with the performance requirements set out in Annex I provided that the airborne constituent functions used are compliant with the requirements set out in Annex II.\n4. If an air navigation service provider identifies an aircraft whose avionics exhibit a functional anomaly, he shall inform the operator of the flight of the deviation from the performance requirements. The operator shall investigate the matter before the next flight is initiated and any rectification necessary shall be introduced in line with normal maintenance and corrective procedures for the aircraft and its avionics.\nArticle 5\nInteroperability requirements\n1. Air navigation service providers shall ensure that all surveillance data transferred from their systems identified in points (b) and (c) of Article 2(1) to other navigation service providers complies with the requirements set out in Annex III.\n2. Air navigation service providers when transferring surveillance data from their systems identified in points (b) and (c) of Article 2(1) to other air navigation service providers, shall establish formal arrangements with them for the exchange of the data in accordance with the requirements set out in Annex IV.\n3. Air navigation service providers shall ensure that, by 2 January 2020 at the latest, the cooperative surveillance chain has the necessary capability to allow them to establish individual aircraft identification using downlinked aircraft identification made available by aircraft equipped in accordance with Annex II.\n4. Operators shall ensure that:\n(a)\naircraft operating flights referred to in Article 2(2) with an individual certificate of airworthiness first issued on or after 8 January 2015 are equipped with secondary surveillance radar transponders having the capabilities set out in Part A of Annex II;\n(b)\naircraft with a maximum certified take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg or having a maximum cruising true airspeed capability greater than 250 knots, operating flights referred to in Article 2(2), with an individual certificate of airworthiness first issued on or after 8 January 2015 are equipped with secondary surveillance radar transponders having, in addition to the capabilities set out in Part A of Annex II, the capabilities set out in Part B of that Annex;\n(c)\nfixed wing aircraft with a maximum certified take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg or having a maximum cruising true airspeed capability greater than 250 knots, operating flights referred to in Article 2(2), with an individual certificate of airworthiness first issued on or after 8 January 2015 are equipped with secondary surveillance radar transponders having, in addition to the capabilities set out in Part A of Annex II, the capabilities set out in Part C of that Annex.\n5. Operators shall ensure that by 7 December 2017 at the latest:\n(a)\naircraft operating flights referred to in Article 2(2), with an individual certificate of airworthiness first issued before 8 January 2015, are equipped with secondary surveillance radar transponders having the capabilities set out in Part A of Annex II;\n(b)\naircraft with a maximum certified take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg or having a maximum cruising true airspeed capability greater than 250 knots, operating flights referred to in Article 2(2), with an individual certificate of airworthiness first issued before 8 January 2015 are equipped with secondary surveillance radar transponders having, in addition to the capabilities set out in Part A of Annex II, the capabilities set out in Part B of that Annex;\n(c)\nfixed wing aircraft with a maximum certified take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg or having a maximum cruising true airspeed capability greater than 250 knots, operating flights referred to in Article 2(2), with an individual certificate of airworthiness first issued before 8 January 2015 are equipped with secondary surveillance radar transponders having, in addition to the capabilities set out in Part A of Annex II, the capabilities set out in Part C of that Annex.\n6. Operators shall ensure that aircraft equipped in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 and having a maximum certified take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg or having a maximum cruising true airspeed capability greater than 250 knots operate with antenna diversity as prescribed in paragraph 3.1.2.10.4 of Annex 10 to the Chicago Convention, Volume IV, Fourth Edition including all amendments up to No 85.\n7. Member States may impose carriage requirements in accordance with point (b) of paragraph 4 and point (b) of paragraph 5 to all aircraft operating flights referred to in Article 2(2) in areas where surveillance services using the surveillance data identified in Part B of Annex II are provided by air navigation service providers.\n8. Air navigation service providers shall ensure that, before putting into service the systems referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 2(1), they are implementing the most efficient deployment solutions taking into account the local operating environments, constraints and needs as well as airspace users capabilities.\nArticle 6\nSpectrum protection\n1. By 5 February 2015 at the latest Member States shall ensure that a secondary surveillance radar transponder on board any aircraft flying over a Member State is not subject to excessive interrogations that are transmitted by ground-based surveillance interrogators and which either elicit replies or whilst not eliciting a reply are of sufficient power to exceed the minimum threshold level of the receiver of the secondary surveillance radar transponder.\n2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, the sum of such interrogations shall not cause the secondary surveillance radar transponder to exceed the rates of reply per second, excluding any squitter transmissions, specified in paragraph 3.1.1.7.9.1 for Mode A/C replies and in paragraph 3.1.2.10.3.7.3 for Mode S replies of Annex 10 to the Chicago Convention, Volume IV, Fourth Edition.\n3. By 5 February 2015 at the latest Member States shall ensure that the use of a ground based transmitter operated in a Member State does not produce harmful interference on other surveillance systems.\n4. In the event of disagreement between Member States regarding the measures detailed in paragraphs 1 and 3 the Member States concerned shall bring the matter to the Commission for action.\nArticle 7\nAssociated procedures\n1. Air navigation service providers shall assess the level of performance of ground based surveillance chain before putting them into service as well as regularly during the service, in accordance with the requirements set out in Annex V.\n2. Operators shall ensure that a check is performed at least every two years, and, whenever an anomaly is detected on a specific aircraft, so that the data items set out in point 3 of Part A of Annex II, in point 3 of Part B of Annex II and in point 2 of Part C of Annex II, if applicable, are correctly provided at the output of secondary surveillance radar transponders installed on board their aircraft. If any of the data items are not correctly provided then the operator shall investigate the matter before the next flight is initiated and any rectification necessary shall be introduced in line with normal maintenance and corrective procedures for the aircraft and its avionics.\n3. Member States shall ensure that the assignment of 24-bit ICAO aircraft addresses to aircraft equipped with a Mode S transponder complies with Chapter 9 and its appendix of Annex 10 to the Chicago Convention, Volume III, Second Edition including all amendments up to No 85.\n4. Operators shall ensure that on board the aircraft they are operating, any Mode S transponder operates with a 24-bit ICAO aircraft address that corresponds to the registration that has been assigned by the State in which the aircraft is registered.\nArticle 8\nState aircraft\n1. Member States shall ensure that, by 7 December 2017 at the latest, State aircraft operating in accordance with Article 2(2) are equipped with secondary surveillance radar transponders having the capability set out in Part A of Annex II.\n2. Member States shall ensure that, by 1 January 2019 at the latest, transport-type State aircraft with a maximum certified take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg or having a maximum cruising true airspeed capability greater than 250 knots, operating in accordance with Article 2(2) are equipped with secondary surveillance radar transponders having in addition to the capability set out in Part A of Annex II, the capability set out in Part B and Part C of that Annex.\n3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission by 1 July 2016 at the latest the list of State aircraft that cannot be equipped with secondary surveillance radar transponders that comply with the requirements set out in Part A of Annex II, together with the justification for non-equipage.\nMember States shall communicate to the Commission by 1 July 2018 at the latest the list of transport-type State aircraft with a maximum certified take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg or having a maximum cruising true airspeed capability greater than 250 knots, that cannot be equipped with secondary surveillance radar transponders that comply with the requirements set out in Part B and Part C of Annex II, together with the justification for non-equipage.\nThe justification for non-equipage shall be one of the following:\n(a)\ncompelling technical reasons;\n(b)\nState aircraft operating in accordance with Article 2(2) that will be out of operational service by 1 January 2020 at the latest;\n(c)\nprocurement constraints.\n4. Where State aircraft cannot be equipped with secondary surveillance radar transponders as specified by paragraphs 1 or 2 for the reason set out in point (c) of paragraph 3 Member States shall include in the justification their procurement plans regarding these aircraft.\n5. Air traffic service providers shall ensure that the State aircraft identified in paragraph 3 can be accommodated, provided that they can be safely handled within the capacity of the air traffic management system.\n6. Member States shall publish the procedures for the handling of State aircraft which are not equipped in accordance with paragraphs 1 or 2 in national aeronautical information publications.\n7. Air traffic service providers shall communicate on an annual basis to the Member State that has designated them their plans for the handling of State aircraft which are not equipped according with paragraphs 1 or 2. Those plans shall be defined by taking into account the capacity limits associated with the procedures referred to in paragraph 6.\nArticle 9\nSafety requirements\n1. Member States shall ensure that, by 5 February 2015 at the latest, a safety assessment is conducted by the parties concerned for all existing systems referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 2(1).\n2. Member States shall ensure that any changes to the existing systems referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 2(1) or the introduction of new systems are preceded by a safety assessment, including hazard identification, risk assessment and mitigation, conducted by the parties concerned.\n3. During the assessments identified in paragraphs 1 and 2, the requirements set out in Annex VI shall be taken into consideration as a minimum.\nArticle 10\nConformity or suitability for use of constituents\nBefore issuing an EC declaration of conformity or suitability for use provided in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 552/2004, manufacturers of constituents of the systems referred to in Article 2(1) of this Regulation or their authorised representatives established in the Union, shall assess the conformity or suitability for use of those constituents in compliance with the requirements set out in Annex VII.\nHowever, certification processes complying with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), shall be considered as acceptable procedures for the conformity assessment of constituents if they include the demonstration of compliance with the applicable interoperability, performance and safety requirements of this Regulation.\nArticle 11\nVerification of systems\n1. Air navigation service providers which can demonstrate or have demonstrated that they fulfil the conditions set out in Annex VIII shall conduct a verification of the systems referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 2(1) in compliance with the requirements set out in Part A of Annex IX.\n2. Air navigation service providers which cannot demonstrate that they fulfil the conditions set out in Annex VIII shall subcontract to a notified body a verification of the systems referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 2(1). This verification shall be conducted in compliance with the requirements set out in Part B of Annex IX.\n3. Certification processes complying with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 shall be considered as acceptable procedures for the verification of systems if they include the demonstration of compliance with the applicable interoperability, performance and safety requirements of this Regulation.\nArticle 12\nAdditional requirements\n1. Air navigation service providers shall ensure that all personnel concerned are made duly aware of the requirements laid down in this Regulation and that they are adequately trained for their job functions.\n2. Air navigation service providers shall:\n(a)\ndevelop and maintain operations manuals containing the necessary instructions and information to enable all personnel concerned to apply this Regulation;\n(b)\nensure that the manuals referred to in point (a) are accessible and kept up to date and that their update and distribution are subject to appropriate quality and documentation configuration management;\n(c)\nensure that the working methods and operating procedures comply with this Regulation.\n3. Operators shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the personnel operating and maintaining surveillance equipment are made duly aware of the relevant provisions of this Regulation, that they are adequately trained for their job functions, and that instructions about how to use this equipment are available in the cockpit where feasible.\n4. Member States shall ensure compliance with this Regulation including the publication of the relevant information on surveillance equipment in the national aeronautical information publications.\nArticle 13\nExemptions on the cooperative surveillance chain\n1. For the specific case of approach areas where air traffic services are provided by military units or under military supervision and when procurement constraints prevent compliance with Article 5(3), Member States shall communicate to the Commission by 31 December 2017 at the latest, the date of compliance of the cooperative surveillance chain that shall not be later than 2 January 2025.\n2. Following consultation with the Network Manager and not later than 31 December 2018, the Commission may review the exemptions communicated under paragraph 1 that could have a significant impact on the EATMN.\nArticle 14\nExemptions on aircraft\n1. Aircraft of specific types with a first certificate of airworthiness issued before 8 January 2015 that have a maximum take off mass exceeding 5 700 kg or a maximum cruising true airspeed greater than 250 knots that do not have the complete set of parameters detailed in Part C of Annex II available on a digital bus on-board the aircraft may be exempted from complying with the requirements of point (c) of Article 5(5).\n2. Aircraft of specific types with a first certificate of airworthiness issued before 1 January 1990 that have a maximum take off mass exceeding 5 700 kg or a maximum cruising true airspeed greater than 250 knots may be exempted from complying with the requirements of Article 5(6).\n3. The Member States concerned shall communicate to the Commission by 1 July 2017 at the latest, detailed information justifying the need for granting exemptions to these specific aircraft types based on the criteria of paragraph 5.\n4. The Commission shall examine the requests for exemption referred to in paragraph 3, and, following consultation with the parties concerned, shall adopt a decision.\n5. The criteria referred to in paragraph 3 shall include the following:\n(a)\nspecific aircraft types reaching the end of their production life;\n(b)\nspecific aircraft types being produced in limited numbers;\n(c)\ndisproportionate re-engineering costs.\nArticle 15\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4, Article 5(1) and (2) and Article 7(1) shall apply from 13 December 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2011.", "references": ["95", "28", "41", "82", "15", "0", "19", "75", "12", "22", "63", "59", "21", "10", "80", "17", "37", "77", "68", "27", "67", "84", "24", "11", "94", "6", "30", "73", "74", "26", "No Label", "13", "40", "46", "53", "57", "76"], "gold": ["13", "40", "46", "53", "57", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1191/2011\nof 18 November 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 479/2010 laying down rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards Member States\u2019 notifications to the Commission in the milk and milk products sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 192(2) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 2(4) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 479/2010 (2) provides that the \u2018ex-factory price\u2019 notified by the Member States to the Commission has to relate to the sales that have been invoiced in the reference period.\n(2)\nWhilst invoices are reliable official accountancy documents, restricting the source of prices only to invoices may prevent Member States from using other available reliable sources of prices. Depending on the product, these other available reliable sources of prices may better reflect the prevailing market situation. Therefore, the notification of prices resulting from contracts concluded in the reference period should also be allowed.\n(3)\nPractice has shown that the notification deadline for the monthly prices referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 479/2010 is difficult to be met in several Member States and does not allow them to provide the Commission with definitive prices. The accuracy of the notified prices should be improved by an extension of the deadline.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to better describe the survey method used as regards the origin of the price data and the way that data should be collected by the competent authorities.\n(5)\nIt is necessary to reconcile the information on the export licences notified by the Member States on monthly basis with that notified on a daily basis. Therefore, additional information is required in the monthly notifications.\n(6)\nRegulation (EU) No 479/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 479/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, the introductory sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Not later than the 15th of each month and in respect of ex-factory prices recorded in the previous month for the products listed in Annex I.B, Member States shall notify to the Commission:\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. For the purpose of paragraphs 1 and 2, \u201cex-factory price\u201d means the price at which the product is purchased from the enterprise, excluding taxes (VAT) and any other cost (transport, loading, handling, storage, pallets, insurance, etc.).\nMember States shall ensure that the notified price is representative of the prevailing market situation. The notified price shall be based on the most adequate available source of information, namely on:\n(a)\nsales that have been invoiced in the reference period;\nand/or\n(b)\ncontracts concluded in the reference period for deliveries within three months.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 7(1), points (a) and (b) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe quantities, broken down by code of the export refund nomenclature for milk products, by destination code and date of lodging the application, covered by licence applications cancelled under the second subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009;\n(b)\nthe unused quantities on licences expired and returned in the previous month and which have been issued since 1 July of the current GATT-year, broken down by code of the export refund nomenclature for milk products and by destination code;\u2019;\n(3)\npoint 3(c) of Annex II is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nthe survey method: an indication shall be given from which stakeholders (producers, first buyers) the data are originating and by which way or method the data are collected;\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["18", "47", "72", "63", "68", "2", "37", "78", "10", "1", "39", "5", "81", "54", "86", "49", "94", "3", "85", "36", "13", "80", "99", "16", "65", "28", "64", "33", "14", "6", "No Label", "15", "35", "61", "70", "82"], "gold": ["15", "35", "61", "70", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 246/2012\nof 20 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 March 2012.", "references": ["8", "1", "60", "41", "0", "89", "70", "18", "49", "91", "79", "33", "28", "38", "94", "26", "10", "24", "55", "96", "23", "77", "17", "66", "3", "53", "34", "85", "80", "81", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 573/2011\nof 16 June 2011\nimplementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\nIn view of the developments in Libya, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entry for the person set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 June 2011.", "references": ["88", "30", "44", "76", "79", "80", "70", "41", "1", "49", "42", "82", "77", "40", "4", "45", "72", "17", "28", "74", "13", "21", "51", "6", "35", "36", "34", "56", "50", "71", "No Label", "3", "11", "94"], "gold": ["3", "11", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1249/2011\nof 29 November 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of 3 months, continue to be invoked by the holder, pursuant to Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of 3 months pursuant to Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2011.", "references": ["31", "49", "14", "39", "28", "20", "59", "50", "53", "68", "60", "64", "78", "48", "81", "66", "69", "65", "3", "85", "57", "45", "77", "84", "11", "13", "67", "17", "7", "47", "No Label", "21", "40"], "gold": ["21", "40"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 8/2012\nof 6 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 January 2012.", "references": ["91", "13", "26", "69", "72", "50", "97", "46", "8", "25", "71", "6", "81", "10", "65", "76", "27", "56", "48", "79", "32", "14", "47", "24", "63", "90", "42", "20", "7", "41", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/63/EU\nof 1 June 2011\namending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 98/70/EC sets environmental specifications as well as analytical methods for petrol and diesel fuels placed on the market.\n(2)\nThose analytical methods refer to certain standards established by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Since CEN has replaced those standards by new ones due to technical progress, it is appropriate to update the references to those standards in Annexes I and II to Directive 98/70/EC.\n(3)\nAnnex III to Directive 98/70/EC specifies the permitted vapour pressure waiver for petrol containing bioethanol. The figures contained in that Annex are rounded to the second decimal place. Standard EN ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 4259:2006 defines the rules for rounding results according to the precision of the test method and requires rounding to the first decimal place. It is therefore appropriate to amend the figures set out in Annex III to Directive 98/70/EC accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Fuel Quality, established by Article 11(1) of Directive 98/70/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nDirective 98/70/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nAnnex I is amended as follows:\n(a)\nfootnote 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(1)\nTest methods shall be those specified in EN 228:2008. Member States may adopt the analytical method specified in replacement EN 228:2008 standard if it can be shown to give at least the same accuracy and at least the same level of precision as the analytical method it replaces.\u2019;\n(b)\nfootnote 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(6)\nOther mono-alcohols and ethers with a final boiling point no higher than that stated in EN 228:2008.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Annex II, footnote 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(1)\nTest methods shall be those specified in EN 590:2009. Member States may adopt the analytical method specified in replacement EN 590:2009 standard if it can be shown to give at least the same accuracy and at least the same level of precision as the analytical method it replaces.\u2019;\n(3)\nAnnex III is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive within 12 months of its publication in the Official Journal.\nThey shall apply those provisions within 12 months of the publication of this Directive in the Official Journal.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2011.", "references": ["25", "99", "20", "92", "52", "11", "57", "24", "73", "22", "65", "49", "1", "44", "50", "37", "21", "2", "12", "56", "86", "97", "33", "82", "35", "3", "15", "67", "62", "27", "No Label", "76", "77", "80"], "gold": ["76", "77", "80"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 69/2011\nof 28 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 January 2011.", "references": ["37", "98", "6", "11", "63", "57", "65", "76", "66", "99", "31", "24", "73", "92", "47", "81", "28", "74", "36", "91", "87", "84", "72", "5", "21", "3", "75", "88", "90", "53", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 889/2011\nof 5 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 September 2011.", "references": ["55", "71", "28", "25", "18", "15", "86", "9", "47", "78", "72", "85", "7", "84", "6", "63", "98", "24", "12", "66", "52", "87", "16", "59", "94", "11", "27", "73", "60", "2", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 19 October 2011\nregarding State aid schemes implemented by Greece in the Kastoria, Evia, Florina, Kilkis, Rodopi, Evros, Xanthi and Dodecanese Prefectures, and the islands of Lesbos, Samos and Chios (debt restructuring)\n(Nos C 23/04 (ex NN 153/03), C 20/05 (ex NN 70/04) and C 50/05 (ex NN 20/05))\n(notified under document C(2011) 7252)\n(Only the Greek text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/307/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 108(2), first subparagraph thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to Article 108(2), first subparagraph of the Treaty (1) and having regard to those comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nHaving received information indicating that aid had been granted in 1993 and over the subsequent years to firms in the Kastoria and Evia Prefectures in the context of debt re-negotiation, the Commission asked the Greek authorities in a letter dated 27 May 2003 to submit within four weeks the text of the legal basis for this operation, together with any other information necessary for an examination under Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty (3).\n(2)\nBy letter dated 10 July 2003, registered as received on 17 July 2003, the Greek Permanent Representation to the European Union forwarded to the Commission a letter from the Greek authorities requesting a one-month extension of the period referred to in recital 1.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 4 August 2003, registered as received on 6 August 2003, the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union forwarded to the Commission the information requested in its letter of 27 May 2003.\n(4)\nAfter examination of the information, it was found that the aid had been granted without the approval of the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission decided to open a non-notified aid dossier, registered under number NN 153/03.\n(5)\nBy letter dated 21 June 2004 (4), the Commission informed Greece of its decision to open the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (C 23/04) (hereinafter, \u2018opening of the first procedure\u2019).\n(6)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision to open the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid in question.\n(7)\nThe Commission did not receive any comments from interested third parties.\n(8)\nBy letter dated 13 July 2004, registered as received on 19 July 2004, the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union requested a one-month extension of the period granted to the Greek authorities to submit their response to the opening of the first procedure.\n(9)\nBy fax dated 6 August 2004, the Commission granted the extension requested.\n(10)\nBy letter dated 9 August 2004, registered as received on 10 August 2004, the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union forwarded to the Commission the response from the Greek authorities to the opening of the first procedure.\n(11)\nDuring the examination of the information submitted by the Greek authorities in their letter of 4 August 2003, it was found that, in addition to the Kastoria and Evia Prefectures, the aid in question also concerned the Florina and Kilkis Prefectures. Accordingly, the Commission requested additional information on the latter aid schemes from the Greek authorities by fax dated 22 April 2004.\n(12)\nBy letter dated 26 May 2004, the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union requested a one-month extension of the period granted to the Greek authorities to submit the additional information mentioned above.\n(13)\nBy fax dated 7 June 2004, the Commission granted the extension requested.\n(14)\nBy letter dated 1 July 2004, registered as received on the same day, the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union forwarded to the Commission the information requested in its fax of 22 April 2004.\n(15)\nAfter examination of the information, it was found that the aid had been granted without the approval of the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission decided to open a non-notified aid dossier, registered under number NN 70/04.\n(16)\nBy letter dated 9 June 2005 (7), the Commission informed Greece of its decision to open the procedure provided for under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to the aid measures granted in the Florina and Kilkis Prefectures (C 20/05) (hereinafter, \u2018the opening of the second procedure\u2019).\n(17)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision to open the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (8). The Commission invited the interested parties to submit their comments on the aid in question.\n(18)\nThe Commission did not receive any comments from interested third parties.\n(19)\nBy letter dated 24 June 2005, registered as received on 28 June 2005, the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union requested a two-month extension of the period granted to the Greek authorities to submit their response to the opening of the second procedure.\n(20)\nBy fax dated 13 July 2005, the Commission granted the extension requested.\n(21)\nBy letter dated 18 August 2005, registered as received on 24 August 2005, the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union forwarded to the Commission the response from the Greek authorities to the opening of the second procedure.\n(22)\nDuring the examination of the information submitted by the Greek authorities by letter dated 1 July 2004, it was found that aid had also been granted in Prefectures other than those concerned by the openings of the first two procedures. Accordingly, the Commission requested additional information on these aid measures from the Greek authorities by fax dated 12 November 2004.\n(23)\nBy letter dated 13 December 2004, registered as received on 15 December 2004, the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union requested that the European Commission grant a one-month extension of the period granted to the Greek authorities to submit the additional information referred to above.\n(24)\nBy fax dated 6 January 2005, the Commission granted the extension requested.\n(25)\nBy letter dated 27 January 2005, registered as received on 1 February 2005, the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union forwarded to the Commission the information requested in its letter of 12 November 2004.\n(26)\nAfter examination of the information, it was found that the aid had been granted without the approval of the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission decided to open a non-notified aid dossier, registered under number NN 20/05.\n(27)\nBy letter dated 22 December 2005 (10), the Commission informed Greece of its decision to open the procedure provided for under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to the aid granted in the Rodopi, Evia, Xanthi and the Dodecanese Prefectures, and the islands of Lesbos, Samos and Chios (C 50/05) (hereinafter, \u2018the opening of the third procedure\u2019).\n(28)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision to open the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (11). The Commission invited the interested parties to submit their comments on the aid in question.\n(29)\nThe Commission did not receive any comments from interested third parties.\n(30)\nBy letter dated 23 January 2006, registered as received on 25 January 2006, the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union requested a three-month extension of the period granted to the Greek authorities to submit their response to the opening of the third procedure.\n(31)\nBy fax dated 3 February 2006, the Commission granted the extension requested.\n(32)\nBy letter dated 10 May 2006, registered as received on 11 May 2006, the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union forwarded to the Commission the response from the Greek authorities to the opening of the third procedure.\n(33)\nAfter re-examining all the legal bases submitted, the Commission requested, by fax dated 12 January 2011, that the Greek authorities provide further clarifications on the aid in question within one month.\n(34)\nBy e-mail dated 7 February 2011, the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union asked the Commission to extend the deadline referred to above by a further 40 working days.\n(35)\nBy fax dated 17 February 2011, the Commission granted an extension of 20 working days.\n(36)\nBy e-mails dated 15 March 2011 and 29 March 2011, the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union forwarded the clarifications referred to above to the Commission.\nII. DESCRIPTION\n(37)\nMinisterial Decision No 69836/B1461 of 30 September 1993 provides for the conversion of total debts, whether due or not, at 30 June 1993 resulting from loans of all types (for working capital and fixed capital) in drachma or foreign currencies granted to industrial and craft firms established and operating, irrespective of the location of their registered headquarters, in the Kastoria and Evia Prefectures, as well as from bank guarantees in drachma or foreign currencies issued on behalf of the said firms, into a new loan repayable over 10 years in equal six-monthly total payments (principal plus interest) or in equal six-monthly principal payments (simple amortisation) with interest calculated every six months at the rate applied for the restructuring at the time (the rate applicable to the new loan is the rate applied for the latest 12-month Treasury bonds issued prior to the start of each interest-calculation period in respect of the loan, increased by two percentage points, with a reduction of ten percentage points during the first five years charged against the account set up pursuant to Law No 128/75 (12).\n(38)\nAlternatively, the firms mentioned above may receive for five years an interest reduction of ten percentage points in respect of their outstanding debts in drachma or foreign currencies at 30 June 1993 and linked to investments in fixed or working capital.\n(39)\nThe firms must be viable after the restructuring (which implies that their situation was to some extent difficult); this criterion was verified by the banks.\n(40)\nMinisterial Decisions No 2035824/5887 of 1 June 1994, 2045909/7431/0025 of 26 August 1994, 2071670/11297 of 9 November 1994 and 72742/B1723 of 8 December 1994 modulate the grace periods and interest reductions linked to the new loans and cover the latter by means of a State guarantee.\n(41)\nMinisterial Decision No 66336/B1398 of 14 September 1993 provides for the same aid measures and conditions as described under recital 37. It also provides for the granting of a State guarantee on the principal and interest of the restructured debt of industrial and craft firms in the Florina and Kilkis Prefectures, as well as the coverage by the State of the arrears interest applicable at 31 December 1992 in respect of loans granted for the working or investment capital of those firms, within the budgetary limits pursuant to Law No 128/75.\n(42)\nDecision No 66336/B1398 of 14 September 1993 was amended by Decision No 30755/B1199 of 21 July 1994, Decision No 60029/B1541 of 23 September 1994, Decision No 72742/B1723 of 8 December 1994, Decision No 236/B22 of 4 January 1995, Decision No 8014/B285 of 28 February 1995, Decision No 44678/B1145 of 3 July 1995, Decision No 44446/B1613 of 24 December 1996, Decision No 40410/B1678 of 9 December 1997, Decision No 10995/B546 of 24 March 1999, Decision No 12169/B736 of 22 March 2000 and Decision No 35913/B2043 of 24 October 2000. These various Decisions amend the duration of the loans, the grace periods and interest rate reductions linked to the new loans, and also extend the period after which outstanding instalments become payable.\n(43)\nThe firms must be viable after the restructuring (which implies that their situation was to some extent difficult); this criterion was verified by the banks.\n(44)\nMinisterial Decision No 1648/B.22/13.1.1994 provides as follows:\n(a)\nfor new working capital loans granted from 1 April 1993 onwards to industrial, craft and mining firms, industrial livestock firms, hotel firms and shipping firms, established irrespective of the location of their registered headquarters, in the Prefectures of Xanthi, Rodopi and Evros, an interest reduction of 10 (ten) percentage points charged against the account set up pursuant to Law No 128/75, up to a rate of 20 % of the firm\u2019s turnover for the previous year or 50 % of orders for the year in progress, in respect of interest booked from 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1996, with a State guarantee up to a total amount of GRD 100 000 000 (EUR 293 470);\n(b)\nthe total debts, whether due or not, at 31 December 1993 resulting from loans for working capital and fixed capital granted to industrial, craft and mining firms, industrial livestock firms, hotel firms and shipping firms in the Thrace Region will be converted into a new loan, repayable over 10 years in equal six-monthly total payments (principal plus interest), from the account set up pursuant to law No 128/75, with a State guarantee;\n(c)\ninclusion in the restructured debt of arrears interest due at 31 December 1992 in respect of loans for fixed or working capital.\n(45)\nThe firms must be viable after the restructuring (which implies that their situation was to some extent difficult); this criterion was verified by the banks.\n(46)\nA number of amendments were made to Ministerial Decision No 1648/B.22/13.1.1994 by means of the following Ministerial Decisions: Nos 14237/B.664/6.4.1994, 235/B.21/4.1.1995, 44678/B.1145/3.7.1995, 14946/B.566/30.4.1996, 44446/B.1613/24.12.1996, 32576/B.1282/9.10.1997 (13), 11362/B.472/7.4.1997, 40412/B.1677/9.12.1997 (14), 42998/B.2026/15.12.1998, 19954/B.957/7.6.1999, 10123/B.507/17.3.1999, 6244/B.270/18.2.2000 and 35913/B.2043/24.10.2000 (15). All these texts modulate the technical parameters such as interest reductions, grace periods, duration of loans and duration of periods after which outstanding instalments become payable.\n(47)\nDecision No 2003341/683/0025/17.2.94 confers a State guarantee for working capital loans granted from 1 April 1993 onwards to industrial, craft and mining firms, industrial livestock firms, hotel firms and shipping firms established, irrespective of where their registered headquarters are located, in the Xanthi, Rodopi and Evros Prefectures, up to a total amount of GRD 100 000 000 (EUR 293 470) per firm, as well as for debts (capital and interest) resulting from the restructuring outstanding at 31 December 1993 of debts resulting from old loans granted in accordance with the provisions of Joint Decision No 1648/G.G.54/B.22/13.1.94.\n(48)\nA number of amendments were made to Decision No 2003341/683/0025/17.2.94 by means of the following Decisions: Nos 2022973/3968/0025/18.5.94, 2043231/6673/0025/11.7.95, 2030175/4446/0025/10.6.1996, 2087184/49/0025/11.7.97, 2016123/2133/0025/6.3.1998, 2090373/11216/0025/1.6.98 (16), 2/21857/0025/7.10.1999, 2/14774/0025/31.5.2000, 2/82257/0025/18.12.2000, 2/7555/0025/25.5.2001, 2/61352/0025/31.1.2002 and 2/64046/0025/2003/28.1.2004. All these texts confer the State guarantee in case of application of the measures provided for by the different Decisions amending Ministerial Decision No 1648/B.22/13.1.1994 (cf. recital 46).\n(49)\nOn the aforementioned list, Ministerial Decision No 2/82257/0025/18.12.2000 stipulates that, in order for its provisions to be applicable, firms must be viable in the absolute (and not after the restructuring, as is the case with regard to the other Ministerial Decisions referred to in this Decision), which presupposes the absence of a state of difficulty.\n(50)\nMinisterial Decision No 2041901/16.5.1989 grants an interest reduction of three percentage points, charged against the joint account set up pursuant to Law No 128/75, on outstanding balances payable in respect of working capital loans granted from 1 April 1989 onwards to trade and craft firms with their registered headquarters in the Evros, Lesbos, Samos, Chios and Dodecanese Prefectures.\n(51)\nDecision No 2078809/10.10.89 grants an interest reduction of three percentage points, charged against the joint account set up pursuant to Law No 128/75, on outstanding balances payable in respect of working capital loans issued from 1 April 1989 onwards to trade and craft firms with their registered headquarters in the Rodopi, Xanthi and Samos Prefectures.\n(52)\nMinisterial Decisions Nos 9034/B.289/10.2.2003 and 37497/B.1232/2.6.2003 extend the provisions of the Decisions referred to under recitals 50 and 51 by specifying the scope and certain technical parameters relating to the interest reductions provided for.\nIII. REASONS FOR INITIATING THE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(53)\nWith regard to the aid schemes in question, the Commission had doubts as regards not only the absence of State aid, but also the compatibility of the aid, which in the opinion of the Commission actually exists, with the internal market.\n(a) Justification of opening of the first procedure\n(54)\nThe first procedure was opened for the following reasons:\n(a)\nwhen asked to provide explanations in relation to the aid in question, the Greek authorities stated that the Ministerial Decisions constituting the legal basis for the aid measures were not notified because they considered that the aid which they implemented did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty; they also stated that, although they did not know the exact number of beneficiaries, the amounts of the aid measures in question likely fell under the de minimis rule;\n(b)\nsince the de minimis rule was not applicable in the agricultural sector at the time when the aid measures was granted and that the Decisions constituting the legal basis of the aid measures in question were intended to assist firms experiencing liquidity problems, the Commission considered that the aid should be analysed in the light of the different rules applicable to the rescuing and restructuring of firms in difficulty from the entry into force of the first of the aforementioned Decisions; however, the information available did not make it possible to ascertain to what extent these rules had been followed;\n(c)\nagain with regard to the agricultural sector, the information available did not make it possible to determine whether the State guarantee had been granted in accordance with the various rules applicable to State aid in the form of guarantees from the entry into force of the first of the aforementioned Decisions;\n(d)\nin the industrial and craft sectors, the de minimis rule did, of course, apply, but as the Greek authorities did not know the number of beneficiaries of the measures introduced by these Ministerial Decisions and as the de minimis aid ceilings are calculated for a three-year period, not for a one-off measure, it was impossible to tell whether the aid provided for by the Decisions in question could in fact fall under the de minimis rule; in this context, the aid measures also had to be analysed on the basis of the rules on the rescuing and restructuring of firms in difficulty which had been applicable since the entry into force of the first of the Decisions referred to; however, the information available did not make it possible to ascertain to what extent these rules had been followed;\n(e)\nwith regard to these sectors, the information available did not make it possible to determine whether the State guarantee had been granted in accordance with the different rules applicable to State aid in the form of guarantees applicable from the entry into force of the first of the aforementioned Decisions.\n(b) Justification of the opening of the second procedure\n(55)\nThe second procedure was opened for the following reasons:\n(a)\nwhen asked to provide explanations in relation to the aid in question, the Greek authorities stated that, although they did not know the exact number of beneficiaries, the amounts of aid in question probably fell under the de minimis rule; however, quite apart from the fact that the de minimis rule did not apply to the agricultural sector until 1 January 2005, the Commission did not have any data which would have allowed it to ascertain the extent to which the amounts received by agricultural firms in application of Ministerial Decision No 66336/B.1398 could have fallen under the scope of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 of 6 October 2004 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the agriculture sector (17), which introduced a de minimis rule in the agricultural sector;\n(b)\ngiven that these Decisions were intended to assist firms in difficulty, the aid had to be analysed in the light of the various rules applicable to the rescuing and restructuring of firms in difficulty since the entry into force of the first of the above Decisions, that is to say, since 21 September 1993; however, the information available did not make it possible to determine to what extent these rules had been followed;\n(c)\nagain with regard to the agricultural sector, the information available did not make it possible to determine whether the State guarantee had been granted in accordance with the various rules applicable to State aid in the form of guarantees from 21 September 1993;\n(d)\nin the industrial and craft sectors, the de minimis rule did, of course, apply, but as the Greek authorities did not know the number of beneficiaries of the measures introduced by these Decisions and as the aid ceilings are calculated for a three-year period, not for a one-off measure, it was impossible to tell whether the aid provided for by the Decisions in question could in fact fall under the de minimis rule; in this context, the aid measures also had to be analysed on the basis of the rules on the rescuing and restructuring of firms in difficulty which had been applicable since 21 September 1993; however, the information available did not make it possible to ascertain to what extent these rules had been followed;\n(e)\nin these sectors, the information available did not make it possible to determine whether the State guarantee had been granted in accordance with the various rules applicable to State aid in the form of guarantees from 21 September 1993.\n(c) Justification of the opening of the third procedure\n(56)\nThe third procedure was opened for the following reasons:\n(a)\nas had been the case for the opening of the first and second procedures, the Greek authorities indicated in the information they provided that the amounts in question likely fell under the de minimis rule; however, quite apart from the fact that the de minimis rule did not apply to the agricultural sector until 1 January 2005, the Commission did not have any data which would have allowed it to ascertain the extent to which the amounts received by agricultural firms in application of the Decisions constituting the legal basis of the aid scheme in question could have fallen under the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004;\n(b)\ngiven that these Ministerial Decisions were intended to assist firms in difficulty, the aid had to be analysed in the light of the various rules which had applied to the rescuing and restructuring of firms in difficulty since the entry into force of the first of the above Decisions; however, the information available did not make it possible to determine to what extent these rules had been followed;\n(c)\nin the industrial, hotel and craft sectors, the de minimis rule did, of course, apply, but as the Greek authorities did not indicate the number of beneficiaries of the aid and as the de minimis aid ceilings are calculated for a three-year period, not for a one-off measure, it was impossible to tell whether the aid provided for by the Decisions in question could in fact fall under the de minimis rule; in this context, the aid measures also had to be analysed on the basis of the rules on the rescuing and restructuring of firms in difficulty which had been applicable since the entry into force of the first of the Decisions referred to; however, the information available did not make it possible to ascertain to what extent these rules had been followed;\n(d)\nin the coal and shipping sectors, the de minimis rule had only applied since the entry into force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis (18) aid; however, for the reasons given under point (c), the aid measures also had to be analysed on the basis of the various rules applicable to the rescuing and restructuring of firms in difficulty from the entry into force of the first of the above Decisions; however, the information available did not make it possible to ascertain to what extent these rules had been followed;\n(e)\nin the maritime transport sector, no de minimis rule applied; the aid measures therefore had to be analysed on the basis of the rules that had applied since the entry into force of the first of the above Decisions to the rescuing and restructuring of firms in difficulty; however, the information available did not make it possible to ascertain to what extent these rules have been followed;\n(f)\nin none of the above sectors did the information available make it possible to determine whether the State guarantee was given in accordance with the various rules that had applied since the first of the above Decisions entered into force to State aid in the form of guarantees;\n(g)\nDecision No 2041901/16.5.1989 and those referred to under recitals 51 and 52 above provided for aid in Prefectures other than Rodopi, Evros and Xanthi and it was not possible to ascertain whether the system of aid they introduced was an extension of that applied in the above three Prefectures or was a separate system; whatever the case, it was not possible to ascertain, on the basis of the information available, whether the rules on State aid (rules on regional aid or the de minimis rule) had been followed;\n(h)\nif the Ministerial Decisions referred to under point (g) had constituted an extension of the system of aid applied in the Rodopi, Xanthi and Evros Prefectures, it was not possible to determine whether the planned aid measures could fall under the de minimis rule or be considered compatible with the provisions governing the granting of aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty;\n(i)\nif the Ministerial Decisions referred to under point (g) had constituted an independent aid system, it was necessary, in the absence of details in this regard in their provisions, to examine the compatibility of its application to healthy firms and firms in difficulty; the analysis resulted in the following conclusions:\n(i)\nfor firms in difficulty, it was not possible to determine whether the planned aid measures could fall under the de minimis rule or be considered compatible with the provisions governing the granting of aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty,\n(ii)\nfor healthy firms, it was not possible to determine whether the working capital constituted by means of a loan together with the interest reduction granted had served to finance eligible investments within the meaning of Union rules on regional aid.\nIV. OBSERVATIONS OF THE GREEK AUTHORITIES ON THE FORMAL OPENING OF THE PROCEDURE\n(a) Observations of the Greek authorities on the opening of the first procedure\n(57)\nIn their letter of 9 August 2004, the Greek authorities made the following statements:\n(a)\nthe consolidation of the loans is an administrative instrument not resulting in high costs for the public authorities;\n(b)\nthe calculation of interest per six-month period has already been upheld in the case-law of the national Supreme Court, which declared quarterly compounding to be illegal and abusive, and responsible for imposing an excessive burden on debtors;\n(c)\nthe granting of the State guarantee cannot be considered as aid since its use is contingent on particularly stringent measures for the principal debtor;\n(d)\nduring the reference period, interest rates in Greece were much higher than the average rates in the rest of the Union and remained thus despite the reductions; there was therefore no distortion of competition, not least since the beneficiary firms had to be viable; moreover, the reductions were financed by a special account, separate from the State budget;\n(e)\nthe granting of periods of grace cannot be considered as an aid measure, given that the debt and interest remain: this merely constitutes restructuring of repayment over time, justified on the grounds of the economic situation;\n(f)\nMinisterial Decision No 72742/B1723 (cf. recital 42 above) did not give rise to any additional costs in relation to those introduced by the original Decision which constitutes the basis of the scheme in question;\n(g)\nthe release of securities by means of Ministerial Decision No 2071670/11297 cannot be considered an aid measure in respect of firms, since they are adapted to the level of the restructured loans; moreover, the guarantee from the Greek State does not cover all types of charges imposed on lenders by the banks;\n(h)\nMinisterial Decision No 69836/B1451 and its amendments concerned processing firms in general and did not refer specifically to processing firms in the agriculture sector, which were covered by Council Regulations (EEC) No 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products (19), (EC) No 951/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products (20) and (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (21); these Regulations were applied by means of the implementation of operational programmes under the second and third Community Support Frameworks; firms which had made investments and received aid from the Ministry of Rural Development and Food to this end were not eligible for debt restructuring, since this had not been provided for; the de minimis rule was not applied either since, in order to obtain a subsidy, operators had to have carried out work and borne the cost;\n(i)\nthe reference to the de minimis rule served exclusively to illustrate the fact that most of the aid measures granted were below the de minimis ceiling, without specific reference to the agricultural sector;\n(j)\nthe criterion of \u2018viability after restructuring\u2019 has no bearing on the overall assessment of the viability of the firm prepared by the credit body, since eligibility for restructuring is determined immediately after the viability study;\n(k)\nthe restructuring concerned old loans and did not constitute financing for new investments;\n(l)\nas regards the overall grant equivalent for the restructuring, the vast majority of the aid measures constituted small amounts, the areas for which the measures were intended (Kastoria and Evia) were all less-favoured areas within the meaning of Council Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on mountain and hill farming in certain less-favoured areas (22), and the country as a whole falls under Objective 1;\n(m)\nthe interest rate applied to new loans was that which applied to the latest issue of Greek Treasury bonds; the reduction does not concern the entire duration of the restructured loan, but only the first critical years; the difference between the rates was not very high (1 to 2 points);\n(n)\nthe scheme existed from 30 June 1993 to 30 June 2003.\n(b) Observations of the Greek authorities on the opening of the second procedure\n(58)\nBy letter of 18 August 2005, the Greek authorities set out the following arguments, most of which had already been presented in their reply to the first opening of the procedure (cf. previous recital):\n(a)\nthe consolidation of the loans is an administrative instrument which does not result in high costs for the public authorities (the authorities add here that the intention of this instrument is not the selective granting of aid);\n(b)\nthe calculation of interest per six-month period has already been upheld in the case-law of the national Supreme Court, which declared quarterly compounding to be illegal and abusive, and responsible for imposing an excessive burden on debtors;\n(c)\nduring the reference period, interest rates in Greece were much higher than in the rest of the Union and remained thus despite the reductions applied;\n(d)\nthe granting of the State guarantee cannot be considered as aid since, even if it is used, it is contingent on particularly stringent conditions for the principal debtor;\n(e)\nthe arrears interest and the interest-rate reductions were financed by a special account (account set up pursuant to Law No 128/75), separate from the State budget;\n(f)\nthe granting of periods of grace cannot be considered as an aid measure, given that the debt and interest remain: this merely constitutes restructuring of repayment over time, justified on the grounds of the economic situation;\n(g)\nthe provisions of Ministerial Decision 66336/B.1398/1993 and its amendments provided for the possibility of aid for firms established in the Florina and Kilkis Prefectures without high costs for the public authorities and on the condition that the firms in question were considered viable; they did not therefore distort competition within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty; moreover, it should be recalled that the Florina and Kilkis Prefectures share borders with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and that, during the reference period (1990s), they suffered greatly as a result of the war and instability in the region;\n(h)\nlastly, the aforementioned Decision refers to industrial and craft firms; according to the Greek authorities, no agricultural firms are concerned by these provisions.\n(c) Observations of the Greek authorities on the opening of the third procedure\n(59)\nBy letter of 10 May 2006, the Greek authorities submitted the following arguments:\n(a)\nthe Prefectures concerned by the Decisions in question were experiencing a difficult economic situation characterised by low levels of economic activity and a higher unemployment rate than in the rest of the country; this situation was compounded by the state of war in neighbouring countries (for example, Kosovo); competition could not therefore be distorted and the aid measures granted in the form of debt restructuring and reductions could therefore benefit from the derogation provided for in Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty;\n(b)\nthe aid measures were focused on resolving problems such as the lack of dynamism of local markets, the contraction of the labour market and falling demand, as well as long-term economic development;\n(c)\nwith regard to the Commission\u2019s argument that the conditions of Community trade could be distorted given the high level of competition in the agricultural sector, only Decision 1648/B22/13.1.1994, among all those examined, concerns industrial livestock firms; moreover, over the period 1995-2004, meat production in the Evros, Rodopi and Xanthi Prefectures only accounted for a small proportion of agricultural production in the Prefectures in question, and, although the gross domestic product (GDP) of these Prefectures rose over that period (both in absolute terms and per capita), it remained well below the national average;\n(d)\nMinisterial Decisions Nos 2041901/16.5.1989 and 2078809/1989, which provide for interest reductions in respect of working capital loans for firms in Lesbos, Samos, Chios and the Dodecanese Prefectures, also stipulate that the firms must be viable before and after the restructuring of their debts;\n(e)\nthe competent authorities in Greece were asked to collect data on the beneficiaries and the aid actually granted, but said they were unable;\n(f)\nthe interest-rate reductions are financed by an account set up pursuant to Law No 128/75 which does not constitute a State resource, since it is an account intended primarily for the redistribution of funds.\n(d) Letters from the Greek authorities of 15 and 29 March 2011\n(60)\nBy letters dated 15 and 29 March 2011, the Greek authorities firstly stated the expiry dates for the initial Ministerial Decisions governing the schemes in question. The dates are as follows:\n(a)\n30 June 2003 for Decision No 69836/B1461 (Kastoria and Evia Prefectures);\n(b)\n30 June 2000 for Decision No 66336/B/398/14-9-1993 (Florina and Kilkis Prefectures);\n(c)\n31 December 2005 for Decision No 1648/B.22/13.1.94 (Xanthi, Rodopi and Evros Prefectures);\n(d)\n31 December 2004 for Decision No 2041901/16-5-1989 (Rodopi, Evros, Xanthi and Dodecanese Prefectures; islands of Lesbos, Samos and Chios).\n(61)\nThe Greek authorities then indicated that the criterion regarding the viability of the firms after the restructuring did not constitute the only factor considered; rather, there was an overall assessment of the viability of the firms before and after restructuring.\n(62)\nThe letters also contain tables indicating the grant equivalent of the aid measures in question received by each beneficiary firm, with the objective of illustrating the percentage of firms for which the aid measures could fall under a de minimis scheme. The Greek authorities indicate, however, that, with regard to the aid measures granted under Ministerial Decisions 2041901/16-5-1989 (Xanthi, Rodopi and Evros, Samos, Lesbos, Chios and the Dodecanese Prefectures) and 1648/B.22/13.1.94 (Xanthi, Rodopi and Evros), the data available relates to the period 2004-07 only. The data provided in respect of aid measures granted under Ministerial Decision No 69836/B1461 (Kastoria and Evia Prefectures) relate to the period 1993-1998 and in respect of that granted under Ministerial Decision No 66336/B/398/14-9-1993 (Florina and Kilkis Prefectures) relate to the period 1993-2001. These data were requested from the credit institutions, some of which did not reply. The Greek authorities consider, however, that the data collected are close to the total amount of aid granted, since the banks which did reply are the main lenders to the Prefectures in question. According to the Greek authorities, analysis of the data demonstrates that the aid in question falls below the de minimis ceiling in 73,55 % to 99,46 % of cases, depending on the three-year period and the Decision considered.\n(63)\nLastly, the Greek authorities state that agricultural product production, processing and marketing firms were not eligible for the aid and that the expression \u2018mining firms\u2019 actually designates marble and stone extraction firms.\nV. EVALUATION\nV.I. EXISTENCE OF AID\n(64)\nIn accordance with Article 107(1) of the Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the internal market. In absolute terms, the aid measures in question correspond to this definition in the sense that they are granted by the State or through State resources, are intended for certain firms (firms in the agriculture, craft, industrial, hotel, extraction - cf. recital 63 - and shipping sectors in the aforementioned Prefectures) and favour those firms by means of measures such as restructuring their loans, reducing the size of instalments by extending the repayment period, interest-rate reductions and the granting of guarantees, and may affect trade (23) and distort competition (24).\n(65)\nThe Greek authorities sought to demonstrate that the aid measures in question could fall under a de minimis scheme and did not therefore constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. However, quite apart from the fact that the de minimis rule was not applicable in all the sectors concerned over the validity period of the Ministerial Decisions constituting the legal basis of the schemes in question (this was indeed one of the reasons for the opening of the procedures in question), the data is incomplete, as acknowledged by the Greek authorities themselves (cf. recital 62). Moreover, the amounts of de minimis aid vary between the sectors (they are not the same in the industrial and agricultural sectors) and the tables provided suggest that the Greek authorities were not sufficiently aware of this difference. Lastly, the Commission notes that, despite the Greek authorities\u2019 claims that agricultural production, processing and marketing firms were not eligible for the aid schemes in question, the tables mentioned above clearly demonstrate that some firms in those sectors did receive aid considered to fall under a de minimis scheme even though they clearly exceed the permissible ceiling.\n(66)\nThe Commission recalls that, any individual aid granted under an aid scheme that at the time it was granted satisfied the conditions laid down in an applicable de minimis regulation is deemed not to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(67)\nWhen the Greek authorities first granted the aid measures in question in the agricultural sector, no Union provisions existed on de minimis aid.\n(68)\nThe first provisions adopted in this respect were those of Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 (25).\n(69)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, which relates to both primary agricultural production and the processing and marketing of agricultural products, aid not exceeding a ceiling of EUR 3 000 per beneficiary over any period of three years does not affect trade between Member States, does not distort or threaten to distort competition and therefore does not fall under Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(70)\nPursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, the same applies in respect of aid granted before the entry into force of that Regulation, subject to compliance with the conditions laid down in Articles 1 and 3 thereof.\n(71)\nOn 1 January 2008, Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 was replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 of 20 December 2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the sector of agricultural production (26), which raises the amount of de minimis aid to EUR 7 500 per beneficiary over a period of three fiscal years, irrespective of the form of the aid or the objective pursued, within the limits of the maximum amount per Member State corresponding to 0,75 % of annual output.\n(72)\nArticle 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 stipulates that \u2018this Regulation shall apply to aid granted before 1 January 2008 to undertakings in the sector of agricultural production, provided that such aid fulfils all the conditions laid down in Articles 1 to 4, except for the reference requirement clearly set out in this Regulation in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1)\u2019. The Regulation only applies to primary agricultural production, however.\n(73)\nWith regard to the processing and marketing of agricultural products, the de minimis rule applicable with effect from 1 January 2007 is set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (27).\n(74)\nArticle 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 sets at EUR 200 000 per beneficiary over a period of three fiscal years the amount up to which aid does not affect trade between Member States, does not distort or threaten to distort competition and does not therefore fall under Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(75)\nArticle 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 stipulates that \u2018the Regulation shall apply to aid granted before its entry into force to undertakings active in the transport sector and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products if the aid fulfils all the conditions laid down in Articles 1 and 2\u2026.\u2019.\n(76)\nConsequently, the Commission will not consider aid granted under the Ministerial Decisions analysed as State aid if it does not exceed the following levels per beneficiary:\n(a)\nin the case of primary agricultural production: EUR 3 000 per three-year period, if, at the time of granting, the aid was in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, or EUR 7 500 per period of three fiscal years if, at the time of granting it was in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007;\n(b)\nin the case of the processing and marketing of agricultural products: EUR 3 000 per three-year period, if, at the time of granting, the aid was in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, or EUR 200 000 per period of three fiscal years if, at the time of granting it was in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006.\n(77)\nThe Commission recalls, however, that firms in difficulty are not eligible for the provisions of Regulations (EC) No 1998/2006 and (EC) No 1535/2007.\n(78)\nIn sectors other than the agricultural sector (that is to say, in this case, the different sectors mentioned in this Decision, with the exception of the shipping sector, which will be addressed in recitals 80 and 81 below (28)), the de minimis rule set out in the Commission\u2019s Communication of 20 May 1992 - Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises (29) (hereinafter, \u2018the 1992 Guidelines\u2019) was applicable at the time when the aid measures in question were granted. The Communication stipulated that \u2018one-off payments of aid of up to ECU 50 000, in respect of a given type of expenditure and schemes under which the amount of aid a given firm may receive in respect of a given type of expenditure over a three-year period is limited to that figure, will no longer be considered notifiable under Article 93(3) [of the EC Treaty] (30), provided that it is an express condition of the award or scheme that any further aid the same firm may receive in respect of the same type of expenditure from other sources or under other schemes does not take the total aid the firm receives above the ECU 50 000 limit.\u2019 This rule was subsequently amended in the 1996 Commission notice on the de minimis rule for State aid (31) (hereinafter \u2018the 1996 Notice\u2019), which set the amount of de minimis aid at ECU 100 000 for the same period, and thereafter in Regulation (EC) No 69/2001, which set the amount at EUR 100 000 for the same period.\n(79)\nOn account of the expiry dates for the schemes analysed (the last being 31 December 2005) and the non-retroactive applicability of the regulations in respect of the sectors mentioned under recital 78, the Commission will not consider as State aid aid granted under the Decisions analysed which does not exceed the following amounts per beneficiary:\n(a)\nECU 50 000 per three-year period between 19 August 1992 and 5 March 1996, if, at the time of granting, the aid was in accordance with the provisions of the 1992 Guidelines;\n(b)\nECU/EUR 100 000 per three-year period between 6 March 1996 and 1 February 2001, if, at the time of granting, the aid was in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 1996 Notice;\n(c)\nEUR 100 000 per three-year period between 2 February 2001 and 31 December 2005, if, at the time of granting, the aid was in accordance with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001.\n(80)\nLastly, in the shipbuilding sector, the de minimis rule has only been applicable since the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001.\n(81)\nConsequently, the Commission will not consider as State aid aid granted under the Ministerial Decisions analysed which do not exceed EUR 100 000 per beneficiary and per three-year period over the period 2 February 2001-30 June 2007, if, at the time of granting, the aid was in accordance with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001.\n(82)\nThe other arguments put forward by the Greek authorities to justify the absence of State aid cannot be accepted by the Commission for the following reasons, valid in every case in which those arguments were cited:\n(a)\nby claiming that the loan consolidation does not result in high costs for the public authorities (cf. recitals 57(a) and 58(a) in particular), the Greek authorities recognise that the operation imposes a cost on the State, or in other words uses State resources;\n(b)\nuntil the entry into force of the Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (32) (hereinafter \u2018the 2000 Notice\u2019), all guarantees were considered to include an element of State aid (cf. recital 105(a)); the 2000 Notice states that a guarantee may be deemed not to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty where the beneficiaries are not borrowers in financial difficulty and would in principle be able to obtain a loan on market conditions from the financial markets without any intervention by the State, the guarantee is linked to a specific financial transaction, is for a fixed maximum amount, does not cover more than 80 % of the outstanding loan or other financial obligation (except for bonds and similar instruments) and is not open-ended, the terms of the scheme are based on a realistic assessment of the risk so that the premiums paid by the beneficiary enterprises make it, in all probability, self-financing, the scheme provides for the terms on which future guarantees are granted and the overall financing of the scheme to be reviewed at least once a year, and the premiums cover both the normal risks associated with granting the guarantee and the administrative costs of the scheme, including, where the State provides the initial capital for the start-up of the scheme, a normal return on that capital; however, no documentation has been submitted by the Greek authorities demonstrating the applicability of this scenario in this case;\n(c)\nwith regard to competition, the granting of grace periods (cf. recitals 57(e) and 58(f)) does not constitute simply a restructuring of repayment over time, since it reduces the repayment burden at a specific time and therefore provides temporary financial relief for the beneficiary;\n(d)\neven if, as the Greek authorities state, the account set up pursuant to Law No 128/75 used to finance interest-rate reductions (cf. recitals 57(d), 58(e) and 59(f)) does not form part of the budget of the Greek State, it nevertheless constitutes a State resource (33);\n(e)\nthe granting of an interest-rate reduction in respect of loans confers an advantage on the beneficiary firms, even if interest rates are high in the country in question;\n(f)\nthe release of securities provided for the purposes of obtaining the guarantee (cf. recital 57(g)), while it may not involve any direct expenditure for the Greek State in accordance with Ministerial Decision No 2071670/11297, comprises an element of aid since, in providing this possibility, the State not only offers beneficiary firms the opportunity to obtain capital, but also waives one of the prerequisites for the obtention of its guarantee;\n(g)\nthe fact that interest rates were high in Greece (cf. recital 57(d)) does not imply the absence of aid, in the sense that, irrespective of the economic context in which the restructuring with reductions was carried out, the granting of the aid in itself had the effect of relieving the beneficiaries of a burden which they would normally have had to bear in the exercise of their activity.\n(83)\nIn the light of all these elements, the Commission can only conclude that aid measures which do not fall within the scope of and comply with the prerequisites for the granting of de minimis aid defined under recitals 68 to 81 do indeed fall within the scope of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\nV.II. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID\n(84)\nHowever, in the situations provided for in Article 107(2) and (3) of the Treaty, certain types of aid may, by way of derogation, be deemed compatible with the internal market.\n(85)\nIn the case under consideration, it is necessary to examine, in the context of each procedure opened, which exemption might apply in each of the sectors concerned (whilst differentiating between the agricultural and other sectors).\nV.II.1. AID TO THE PREFECTURES OF KASTORIA AND EVIA, ADDRESSED WHEN THE FIRST PROCEDURE WAS OPENED\n(a) Agricultural sector\n(86)\nIn view of the nature of the aid granted, the only exemption which may be relied on to demonstrate its compatibility with the internal market is that provided for in Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty pursuant to which aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, may be considered to be compatible with the common market.\n(87)\nSince the aid in question is non-notified aid, it is essential in order for this exemption to apply that it complies with the rules on State aid in place at the time the aid was granted. According to information provided by the Greek authorities, the scheme in question ran from 30 June 1993 to 30 June 2003. The compatibility of the scheme in question with the internal market will therefore be examined in the light of the rules on State aid applicable during this period.\n(88)\nOne of the reasons on which the Commission\u2019s decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty was based is that the aid was apparently intended for firms in difficulty. In this regard, the Greek authorities indicated in their letter of 9 August 2004 that the \u2018viability after restructuring\u2019 criterion had absolutely no bearing on the overall assessment of the firm\u2019s viability carried out by the credit institution, since the decision regarding eligibility for restructuring was made immediately after the viability study was carried out. This argument was reiterated in the letters of 15 and 29 March 2011 (see recital 61).\n(89)\nThe Commission considers that this explanation does not enable it to exclude the possibility that aid was granted to firms in difficulty, because even if the decision regarding eligibility for restructuring was made immediately after the viability study had been carried out as the Greek authorities claim, the study itself focused on the viability prospects of the beneficiaries post-restructuring. This implies that it is possible that applicants could have been in difficulty at the time of the study but may nevertheless have been admitted to the scheme because the institution carrying out the study predicted a potential return to viability after debt restructuring (the Commission had also highlighted this evidence in point 23 of its decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty because reference was made in the preamble to Ministerial Decision No 2045909/7931/0025 to the need to support firms experiencing cash-flow problems in the Prefectures of Kastoria and Evia).\n(i) Rules applicable to rescue and restructuring aid to firms in difficulty during the period in question\nI. From 1 October 1993 to 31 December 1997\n(90)\nAid to firms in difficulty is subject to a number of rules. At the time of entry into force of Ministerial Decision No 69836/B1461, it was Commission policy to consider this type of aid in the agricultural sector to be operating aid which could be considered compatible with the internal market only if the following three conditions were satisfied:\n(a)\nsuch aid had to concern financial charges on loans taken out to finance investments that had already been made;\n(b)\nthe overall grant equivalent of any aid granted when the loan was taken out and the aid in question could not exceed the percentage generally authorised by the Commission, i.e.:\n(i)\nfor investments in primary agricultural production: 35 % or 75 % in less-favoured areas within the meaning of Directive 75/268/EEC;\n(ii)\nfor investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural products: 55 % or 75 % in Objective 1 regions for projects complying with the sectoral programmes or one of the objectives of Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 (34) and 35 % (or 50 % in Objective 1 regions) for other projects not excluded on the basis of the selection criteria under point 2 of the Annex to Commission Decision 90/342/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products (35) (or Commission Decision 94/173/EC (36) which replaced it);\n(c)\nthe aid in question could be paid only following changes in the rates for the new loans taken out, so as to take account of variations in the interest rates (in such cases, the amount of aid had to be less than or equal to the difference in interest rates on the new loans) or had to concern agricultural holdings providing guarantees of viability, particularly in the event that the financial burdens resulting from the existing loans were such as to threaten the viability of the holdings or put them at risk of bankruptcy.\n(91)\nIn their letter of 9 August 2004, the Greek authorities argued that Decision No 69836/B1451 and its subsequent amendments concerned processing firms in general and made no specific reference to agricultural processing firms covered by Regulations (EEC) No 866/90, (EC) No 951/97 and (EC) No 1257/1999, that all of Greece is an Objective 1 region, and that the firms which had invested and had therefore received aid from the Ministry of Rural Development and Food were unable to benefit from debt restructuring as this had not been provided for. Furthermore, they added that, with regard to the overall grant-equivalent of the restructuring, only small amounts of aid had been granted in most cases, and that the restructuring related to previous loans and thus investments which had already been made.\n(92)\nAbove all, the explanations offered by the Greek authorities are not sufficient to permit the Commission to rule out the possibility that certain agricultural processing firms received aid under Ministerial Decision No 69836/B1451 and its subsequent amendments because the fact no specific reference was made to the aforementioned firms does not necessarily indicate that they did not belong to the generic category of processing firms (industrial firms) falling within the scope of the Decision.\n(93)\nIn terms of compliance with the conditions referred to in recital 90, the Commission finds that Decision No 69836/B1451 and its subsequent amendments concerned the restructuring of either investment or working capital loans.\n(94)\nWith regard to the restructuring of investment loans, on the basis of the information provided by the Greek authorities, the Commission finds that the condition referred to in recital 90(a) has been satisfied, because these loans concerned investments which had already been made.\n(95)\nMoreover, the Commission finds that the second alternative condition referred to in recital 90(c) has been complied with, since beneficiary firms must be deemed viable after restructuring on the basis of an assessment by the financial institutions.\n(96)\nHowever, the information at the Commission\u2019s disposal is not sufficient to establish beyond doubt that the condition referred to in recital 90(b) has been complied with, because the Greek authorities explained in their letter of 9 August 2004 that enterprises engaged in processing and marketing agricultural products were covered by, inter alia, the provisions of Regulations (EEC) No 866/90 and (EC) No 951/97 and that these Regulations were applied in compliance with the provisions thereof, which implies that aid could already have been granted at the maximum intensity provided for in the aforementioned Regulations (75 % for Objective 1 regions, which applies to all of Greece) and that it is possible that the operation of the scheme in question could, as a result of the cumulation of aid, have resulted in this intensity being exceeded.\n(97)\nWith regard to the restructuring of working capital loans, the scheme could not have been applied in compliance with all the conditions set out in recital 90, as the first condition (point (a)) explicitly states that loans must be linked to investments.\nII. From 1 January 1998 to 30 June 2000\n(98)\nIn 1997, the conditions set out in recital 90 were replaced by the provisions of Communication from the Commission - Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (hereinafter \u2018the 1997 Guidelines\u2019) (37). Point 4.4 of the aforementioned Guidelines stipulates that: \u2018As regards the agricultural sector, these Guidelines will enter into force on 1 January 1998 for new State aids. For existing ones, entry into force will be on the same date or, in the event that the Commission has opened the procedure pursuant to Article 93(2) of the [EC] Treaty against one more or more Member States in this context, once the Commission has adopted a final decision vis-\u00e0-vis the Member State(s) concerned pursuant to Article 93(2) of the [EC] Treaty.\u2019\n(99)\nThe 1997 Guidelines, entirely new for the agricultural sector provided for, inter alia:\n(a)\nrescue aid: liquidity measures, warranted on the grounds of serious social difficulties and consisting of loan guarantees or loans bearing normal commercial interest rates, restricted to the amount needed to keep a firm in business (for example, covering wage and salary costs and routine supplies), paid only for the time needed to devise the necessary and feasible recovery measures, and having no undue adverse effects on the industrial and agricultural situations in other Member States;\n(b)\nrestructuring aid: the granting of aid linked to a restructuring plan entailing a capacity reduction or irreversible closure of production capacity where there is structural excess capacity in the sector (the capacity reduction must be supplementary to any applicable in the absence of restructuring aid), the only exemption to this being in cases where the totality of decisions taken in favour of all beneficiaries over any consecutive 12-month period does not involve a quantity of product which exceeds a certain percentage of the total annual production of that product in that country (3 % for measures targeted on a particular category of products or operators and 1,5 % for non-targeted measures).\n(100)\nThe Member States were permitted to ask for these agricultural provisions to be applied instead of those in the 1997 Guidelines for sectors other than agriculture (stringent conditions applied to these sectors, particularly in respect of the restructuring plan and the beneficiary\u2019s contribution to restructuring - see recitals 109 to 121 of section (b) below, \u2018Non-agricultural sector\u2019).\n(101)\nIn their letter of 9 August 2004 the Greek authorities failed to provide any information which might enable the Commission to establish that the aid scheme had been adapted in order to comply with these provisions and that the aid granted during the period in question was therefore granted in accordance with the relevant conditions laid down in the 1997 Guidelines, meaning either the conditions described under recital 99(b) above or the conditions laid down for the sectors other than agriculture (submission of a restructuring plan to restore viability on the basis of realistic assumptions within a reasonable time-scale, mitigation of the effects on competitors, due regard for the \u2018one time, last time\u2019 principle, capacity reduction in the case of structural excess capacity in the sector concerned and aid in proportion to the restructuring costs and benefit that also the social costs of restructuring).\nIII. From 1 July 2000 until 30 June 2003\n(102)\nThe 1997 Guidelines were replaced on 9 October 1999 with the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (hereinafter \u2018the 1999 Guidelines\u2019) (38). Point 6.3 of the 1999 Guidelines states that \u2018Member States must adapt their existing rescue and restructuring aid schemes which are to remain in operation after 30 June 2000 in order to bring them into line with [the] Guidelines \u2026 after that date.\u2019 Moreover, \u2018to enable the Commission to monitor the adaptation process, Member States must let it have a list of all such schemes before 31 December 1999. They must subsequently, and in any event before 30 June 2000, provide it with sufficient information to enable it to check that the schemes have indeed been modified in accordance with [the] Guidelines.\u2019\n(103)\nThe 1999 guidelines also included a specific section on restructuring firms in difficulty in the agricultural sector. As compared with the 1997 Guidelines, this section provided a definition of structural excess capacity in the sector, limited the exemption referred to in recital 99(b) to firms in the primary sector (with the result that the sub-sector of the processing and marketing of agricultural products automatically faced a capacity reduction requirement) and introduced the \u2018one time, last time\u2019 condition which meant that restructuring aid could only be granted once.\n(104)\nIn their letter of 9 August 2004, the Greek authorities failed to provide any information which might enable the Commission to establish that the aid scheme had been adapted in order to comply with these provisions and that the aid granted during the period in question was therefore granted in accordance with the relevant conditions laid down in the 1999 Guidelines, in other words following the submission of a restructuring plan entailing closure of capacity in the case of structural excess capacity, applying the limited exemption referred to in recital 103 where necessary, and based on the \u2018one time, last time\u2019 principle.\n(ii) Guarantees\n(105)\nAnother factor in the Commission\u2019s decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty is the issue of the compatibility of any aid granted in the form of guarantees. The Greek authorities made a number of observations in their letter of 9 August 2004 (see recital 57(c) and (g)). However, the Commission finds it necessary to comment on these observations as follows:\n(a)\nwith regard to point (c), the fact that the granting of guarantees is subject to strict conditions does not in itself exclude the existence of State aid - on the contrary, the rules which applied during the life-span of the scheme in question, as set out in the letters to the Member States ref. SG(89) D/4328 of 5 April 1989 and SG(89) D/12772 of 12 October 1989 and in point 38 of the Commission communication to the Member States on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty and of Article 5 of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC to public undertakings in the manufacturing sector (39), clearly state that \u2018\u2026 all guarantees given by the State directly or by way of delegation through financial institutions [fall] within the scope of Article 92(1) of the EEC Treaty,\u2019 and impose the application of conditions which may include the firm being declared bankrupt. Whilst it is true that the abovementioned letters were replaced in 2000 by the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees, which laid down conditions enabling the existence of State aid to be excluded, none of the information provided in the letter from the Greek authorities of 9 August 2004 demonstrates that the guarantees granted met any of these conditions;\n(b)\neven if the Greek authorities had supplied information intended to demonstrate that the guarantees granted fulfilled the conditions for excluding State aid, the Commission would not have been able to accept the justification as, to cite but one example, the exemption only applies if the beneficiary firms are not in financial difficulty;\n(c)\nas regards point (g), the fact that the guarantee does not cover certain charges in no way demonstrates that all the conditions under which the aid inherent in the granting of a guarantee can be considered compatible with the internal market have been fulfilled; moreover, it must be acknowledged that none of the other information provided by the Greek authorities in their letter of 9 August 2004 demonstrates that the conditions have been met.\n(106)\nThat being clear, the Commission therefore considers that the guarantees constituted, during the life-span of the scheme in question, part of a package of instruments for granting aid to firms in difficulty and that as a result their compatibility is linked to the restructuring process as a whole, for which, as sufficiently indicated in the analysis in recitals 94 to 104, the Greek authorities have not provided sufficient information to remove the doubts expressed by the Commission when it initiated the procedure provided for under Article 108(2) of the Treaty (these findings in respect of guarantees apply equally to the three procedures referred to in this Decision and to all the sectors mentioned, with the exception of the guarantees provided for in Ministerial Decision No 2/82257/0025 of 18 December 2000, which, in view of the viability criterion used - viability prior to debt restructuring - will be examined separately).\n(107)\nNone of the other arguments put forward by the Greek authorities in their letter of 9 August 2004 (the rate of interest applied, the issue of the existence or otherwise of additional expenditure arising from Ministerial Decisions which formed an integral part of the legal basis of the scheme, frequency with which interest is calculated) contain any substance which alters the Commission\u2019s position as outlined above.\n(108)\nSince the information provided by the Greek authorities does not remove the doubts expressed by the Commission when it initiated the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty, the Commission can only conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible with the common market.\n(b) Non-agricultural sector\n(109)\nAs in the case of the agricultural sector, the Commission must examine the aid in question in the light of the rules applicable to aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty.\n(110)\nAt the time of entry into force of Ministerial Decree No 69836/B1461, i.e. 1 October 1993, the rules in question were set out in the Eighth Report on Competition Policy, and in particular under points 177, 227 and 228 of the latter.\n(111)\nPoint 177 of the Report states that while rescue measures may be needed in order to provide a breathing space during which longer-term solutions to a company\u2019s difficulties can be worked out, they should not frustrate any necessary reductions in capacity and should therefore be limited to cases where they are required to cope with acute social problems.\n(112)\nPoint 227 of the Report states that rescue aid can be warranted pursuant to the Treaty when linked to restructuring aimed to restore the firm and/or regions concerned to long-term viability and when applied specifically enough to a given region or industry to allow its effects to be assessed.\n(113)\nPoint 228 of the Report further clarifies the Commission\u2019s position in respect of rescue aid and defines restructuring aid.\n(114)\nRescue aid must:\n(a)\nconsist of liquidity in the form of loan guarantees or loans bearing the normal commercial interest rates;\n(b)\nbe restricted to the amount needed to keep a firm in business, to cover wage and salary costs and routine supplies;\n(c)\nbe paid only for the time needed (generally six months) to draw up the necessary and feasible recovery measures;\n(d)\nbe warranted on the grounds of serious social difficulties and keeping the firm in operation must not have any adverse effects on the industrial situation in other Member States.\n(115)\nRestructuring aid must also be strictly conditional on the implementation of a sound restructuring and/or conversion programme and duly and effectively serve to restore the viability of the production concerned, the intensity and amount of aid must be restricted to the strict minimum for supporting the firm during the inevitable transitional period before such a programme takes effect, and the period involved must therefore be limited and the assistance gradually reduced.\n(116)\nThese conditions were replaced by the 1994 Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (40), which entered into force on 23 December 1994 (hereinafter \u2018the 1994 Guidelines\u2019), and subsequently by the 1997 Guidelines, which entered into force on 1 January 1998, and then by the 1999 Guidelines, which applied from 1 July onwards taking into account the adjustment period extended to Member States with regard to aid schemes (see recitals 98 and 102).\n(117)\nThe 1994 Guidelines confirm Commission policy in respect of rescue aid (see recital 114) and define in more detail the content and implications of the restructuring plans to be submitted (prospect of the restoration of viability on the basis of realistic assumptions within a reasonable time-scale, mitigation of the effects on competitors, due regard for the \u2018one time, last time\u2019 principle, capacity reduction in the case of structural excess capacity in the sector in question and aid in proportion to the restructuring costs and benefit that also covers the social costs of restructuring).\n(118)\nIn the non-agricultural sectors, the 1997 Guidelines, which were a result of the regular review of Commission policy on rescuing and restructuring of firms in difficulty, reiterate the content of the 1994 Guidelines.\n(119)\nThe 1999 Guidelines apply stricter conditions to the granting of rescue aid by introducing a set time-frame for submitting the restructuring plan. In terms of restructuring, the Guidelines are far more restrictive in respect of SMEs and provide for the possibility of compulsory capacity reduction even in the absence of structural excess capacity in the sector.\n(120)\nSince the explanations provided by the Greek authorities in their letter of 9 August 2004 apply equally to the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors, the Commission can only conclude, as it has done in the case of the agricultural sector, that none of the information provided by the Greek authorities enables the Commission to establish that the various conditions laid down in the 1994, 1997 and 1999 Guidelines were fulfilled (to cite but one example, there is nothing to suggest that the beneficiary firms submitted a restructuring plan including the necessary compensatory measures). This finding applies equally to compliance with the provisions set out in the Eighth Report on Competition Policy.\n(121)\nIn the absence of evidence of compliance with the abovementioned provisions, the Commission is unable to find that the aid was granted following the submission of a restructuring plan which included all the elements required by the various rules referred to above (in particular, the prospect of the restoration of viability on the basis of realistic assumptions within a reasonable time-scale, mitigation of the effects on competitors, due regard for the \u2018one time, last time\u2019 principle, capacity reduction and aid in proportion to the restructuring costs and benefit that also covers the social costs of restructuring). The doubts that the Commission expressed when it initiated the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty therefore persist and the Commission can only conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible with the common market.\nV.II.2. AID TO FIRMS IN THE PREFECTURES OF FLORINA AND KILKIS, ADDRESSED WHEN THE SECOND PROCEDURE WAS OPENED\n(a) Agricultural sector\n(122)\nIn their letter of 18 August 2005, the Greek authorities argued that the basic Decision governing the granting of aid (Ministerial Decision No 66336/B.1398/1993) concerned industrial and craft enterprises and that none of the provisions thereof concerned agricultural firms.\n(123)\nThe Commission notes this information and considers it unnecessary, therefore, to examine the scheme in question in the light of the rules applicable to State aid to the agricultural sector at the time the aid was granted.\n(b) Non-agricultural sector\n(124)\nThe Commission, which considered at the time the procedure was initiated that the scheme was aimed at firms in difficulty because Ministerial Decision No 66336/B.1398/1993 stipulated that the firms must be viable after restructuring (which in itself did not exclude the possibility that the firms were in difficulty when admitted to the aid scheme), must analyse the compatibility of the aid in question in the light of the rules on rescue and restructuring aid to firms in difficulty in place at the time the aid was granted.\n(125)\nThe rules on rescue and restructuring aid to firms in difficulty in place at the time the aid in question was granted were, in chronological order, the provisions set out in points 177, 227 and 228 of the Eighth Report on Competition Policy, the 1994 Guidelines and the 1997 Guidelines.\n(126)\nRegarding compliance with the provisions of points 177, 227 and 228 of the Eighth Report on Competition Policy and the 1994, 1997 and 1999 Guidelines, the explanations offered by the Greek authorities in their letter of 18 August 2005 are identical to those put forward to justify the granting of aid in the Prefectures of Kastoria and Evia (the arguments of the Greek authorities detailed in recital 57(a) to (f) are the same as those set out in recital 56(a) to (e)). The Commission\u2019s analysis in recitals 110 to 121 therefore applies equally to the case in question, meaning that the doubts expressed by the Commission when it initiated the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty have not been removed and that the Commission can only conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible with the common market.\n(127)\nIn their letter of 18 August 2005, the Greek authorities also sought to justify the aid in question on the grounds that the Prefectures of Florina and Kilkis border on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and that the local firms suffered greatly as a result of the instability and the state of war in that region.\n(128)\nThis reference to exceptional occurrences might have permitted the application of Article 107(2)(b) of the Treaty under which aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences is compatible with the internal market. However, the Greek authorities have not supplied any evidence of the difficulties they claim the firms in the two Prefectures experienced or establishing a causal link between those difficulties and the instability in the region caused by events in Yugoslavia. Furthermore, the Commission does not have any information which suggests that the events referred to by the Greek authorities could have had the effects described throughout the life-span of the scheme. Finally, the Commission wonders why the scheme applied only to certain sectors of the economy in the two Prefectures whereas the events referred to would logically have affected all local firms, irrespective of sector.\n(129)\nIn view of these factors, the Commission cannot see how Article 107(2)(b) of the Treaty could be applied to the aid scheme in question. Therefore, the Commission can only conclude, once again, that the scheme in question is incompatible with the common market.\nV.II.3. AID IN THE PREFECTURES OF RODOPI, EVROS, XANTHI, LESBOS, SAMOS, CHIOS AND THE DODECANESE, ADDRESSED WHEN THE THIRD PROCEDURE WAS OPENED\n(130)\nIn view of the fact that the Commission had indicated in the decision to initiate the procedure that, based on the information available, it would be unable to determine whether the two Ministerial Decisions of 1989 and those which followed (detailed in recitals 50 to 52 above) constituted an independent aid scheme or whether they formed an integral part of the overall system which has been analysed in the various procedures opened, and given that the letter of 10 May 2006 from the Greek authorities provided no explanation in this regard, the compatibility with the internal market of the aid provided for in the Ministerial Decisions under scrutiny will be assessed separately. The guarantees provided for in Ministerial Decision No 2/82257/0025 of 18 December 2000 (see recital 49) will also be examined separately since the latter provides that the beneficiary firms must be viable and not viable after restructuring as in the other cases referred to here.\n(131)\nWith regard to the Ministerial Decisions referred to in recitals 44 to 52, the analysis will consist of two main parts, an agricultural and a non-agricultural one, as in the case of the schemes examined in the first two procedures, but the non-agricultural part will be divided into several sub-parts - the industrial, hotel and craft sectors on the one hand, and the shipping sector on the other. The coal sector, which was also addressed by the opening of the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty will not be examined here because the Greek authorities explained in their letters of 15 and 29 March 2011 that the relevant extraction activities concerned marble and stone, which means the firms involved fall within the scope of the analysis of the industrial sector.\n(a) Agricultural sector\n(132)\nThe Commission must examine the scheme in the light of the rules applicable to State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty when the aid was granted.\n(133)\nWith regard to the agricultural sector, the rules in question have been set out in recitals 90, and 98 to 103. Given that the scheme in question expired on 31 December 2005, the 2004 Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (41) (hereinafter: \u20182004 Guidelines\u2019) should be added to the list of applicable regulations; the 2004 Guidelines came into force on 10 October 2004 tightening the conditions established in the 1999 Guidelines (notably by reaffirming that the contribution of the beneficiary to the restructuring must be real and free from aid). Moreover, in view of the nature of the beneficiaries (industrial livestock firms and dairy farms), there are grounds for considering that the scheme could have covered both primary production (livestock breeding alone) and processing/marketing (such as farms with a on-site processing line).\n(134)\nIn terms of compliance with the conditions themselves, the Commission finds that Ministerial Decision No 1648/B22 of 13 January 1994 and its subsequent amendments provided for the restructuring of loans that could be used for investment or working capital.\n(135)\nRegarding the restructuring of loans linked to investments, the Greek authorities, in their letter of 10 May 2006, provided no information allowing the Commission to confirm that the restructured loans were actually linked to investments that had been already carried out. Consequently, the Commission cannot find that the condition set out in recital 90(a) has been satisfied.\n(136)\nSimilarly, the Commission is not able to conclude without any doubt, on the basis of the information available, that there has been full compliance with the condition set out in recital 90(b), since Greece provided no details in this connection in its letter of 10 May 2006.\n(137)\nWith regard to the requirement set out in recital 90(c), the Commission finds that the second alternative has been satisfied, since the beneficiary firms had to be viable after restructuring based on an assessment carried out by the banks.\n(138)\nWith regard to the restructuring of loans used to constitute working capital, the scheme in question could not have been applied in compliance with all the conditions set out in recital 90 either, as the first requirement (recital 90(a)) specifically lays down that loans must be linked to investments.\n(139)\nConcerning the aid granted from 1 January 1998 until the date of applicability of the 2004 Guidelines, the analysis carried out in recitals 98 to 104 also applies to the substance of the present case since, in its letter of 10 May 2006, Greece provided no information allowing the Commission to confirm that a restructuring plan together with the obligatory contribution was presented with a view to obtaining the aid in question.\n(140)\nLastly, with regard to the aid granted from the date of applicability of the 2004 Guidelines, the Commission can but remark that, in its letter of 10 May 2006, Greece provided no facts allowing the Commission to confirm that a restructuring plan together with the obligatory contribution had been presented with a view to obtaining the aid in question. Consequently, it is not in a position to be able to remove all the doubts expressed when it initiated the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty, and therefore is forced to conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible with the common market.\n(141)\nIn their letter of 10 May 2006, the Greek authorities sought to justify the aid in question on the grounds of the war in the neighbouring regions. Greece took the view that the context rendered the aid eligible for exemption under Article 107(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty (cf. recital 59(a)).\n(142)\nThe Commission cannot accept this argument for several reasons:\n(a)\nfrom a regulatory viewpoint, the existence of a conflict is deemed to be an exceptional occurrence that can only be covered by Article 107(2)(b) of the Treaty, according to which aid intended to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or by other exceptional occurrences is compatible with the internal market;\n(b)\nin the agricultural sector, compatibility of the aid measures is assessed in the light of the exemption provided for in Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, which lays down that aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, may be considered compatible with the internal market, and not in the light of the exemption provided for in Article 107(3)(a) of the Treaty, which establishes that aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, and of the regions referred to in Article 349 (42), in view of their structural, economic and social situation may be considered compatible with the internal market;\n(c)\nin order for this derogation to apply, this would have required that the aid be granted in compliance with the rules governing the aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty; whereas it has been shown above that this was not the case.\n(143)\nThe Commission is not able to ascertain the applicability of Article 107(2)(b) of the Treaty on the following grounds:\n(a)\nin its letter of 10 May 2006, Greece rightfully pointed out that the overall and per capita GDP in the Prefectures concerned was very low in relation to other regions in the country during the period covered by the scheme, but it also stated that GDP did record some growth in this same period, which shows that the war in the neighbouring regions did not have a catastrophic impact on the economies of the affected zones;\n(b)\nas the description of the scheme\u2019s legal basis shows, some changes were made to the scheme almost 10 years after the end of hostilities in the neighbouring regions; consequently, Greece cannot be considered to have been forced to intervene because of a state of war in the bordering areas and that as a result there existed a relation of cause and effect between this and the difficulties of firms (a sole example is sufficient to bear out this remark: Ministerial Decision No 2/64046/0025/2003 of 28 January 2004 referred to in recital 48 covers loans that could be taken out by industrial businesses - in other words potentially by industrial livestock firms - until 31 December 2004).\n(144)\nWith respect to the other comments made by the Greek authorities in their letter of 10 May 2006, the Commission stresses the following (these observations excluding (b) also apply to all the other sectors referred to in the procedure opened):\n(a)\nproblems such as the lack of dynamism in local markets or the drop in demand cannot be resolved by aid grants to firms in difficulty without restructuring. Structural measures are a more appropriate means of assistance;\n(b)\nthe share of meat production of the Prefectures concerned in Greece\u2019s overall production has absolutely no bearing on the risk of distortion of competition arising from aid granted outside the established regulatory framework (in the present case, aid granted to firms in difficulty without a restructuring plan); according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, where financial aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with competitors (which is the substance in this present case), this aid may give rise to a competitive advantage over the other undertakings not benefiting from this assistance (43);\n(c)\nthe question of the viability of the firms within the meaning established in the two Ministerial Decisions issued in 1989 will be dealt with later on in this Decision;\n(d)\nthe argument according to which the account set up pursuant to Law No 128/75 did not constitute a State resource was dealt with in recital 82(d).\n(145)\nIn view of these considerations, the Commission is forced to conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible with the internal market.\n(b) Industrial, craft and hotel sectors\n(146)\nThe Commission must examine the scheme in question in the light of the rules governing aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty.\n(147)\nAs in the case of aid referred to in the first two procedures, the rules applicable to rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty at the time the aid in question was granted were, in chronological order, points 177, 227 and 228 of the Eighth Report on Competition Policy and the 1994, 1997 and 1999 Guidelines. In the case under consideration, as the regime expired on 31 December 2005 in certain Prefectures, the 2004 Guidelines should be added to this list.\n(148)\nThe information sent by the Greek authorities in their letter of 10 May 2006 and set out in recital 59 does not include any details with regard to compliance with rules governing the rescuing and restructuring of firms in difficulty. Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to verify if there was compliance with points 177, 227 and 228 of the Eighth Report on Competition Policy and the 1994, 1997, 1999 and 2004 Guidelines.\n(149)\nTherefore, the Commission is not in a position to be able to remove all the doubts it expressed when it initiated the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty, and so it is forced to conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible with the common market.\n(c) Shipping sector\n(150)\nThe compatibility of the scheme in question with the internal market will be assessed from two viewpoints, reflecting the fact that the term \u2018shipping sector\u2019 covers both shipbuilding and transport by ship.\n(151)\nThe Commission must examine the scheme in question in the light of the rules governing aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty.\n(152)\nRegarding shipbuilding, the rules applicable for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty following the entry into force of Ministerial Decision No 1648/B.22 of 13 January 1994 have been the following:\n(a)\nuntil 31 December 1998: Council Directive 90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 on aid to shipbuilding (44);\n(b)\nfrom 1 January 1999 to 31 December 2003: Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (45);\n(c)\nsince 1 January 2004: the Framework on State aid to shipbuilding (46).\n(153)\nIn their letter of 10 May 2006, the Greek authorities provided no information that might allow the Commission to find that the aid scheme in question had been applied in compliance with the rules applicable to rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty in this sector. Therefore, the Commission is not in a position to dispel the doubts it expressed when it initiated the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty and is forced to conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible with the internal market.\n(154)\nSimilarly, with regard to maritime transport, the Commission shall examine the scheme in question in the light of the rules governing aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty.\n(155)\nSince the entry into force of Ministerial Decision No 1648/B.22 of 13 January 1994, the rules governing the rescue and restructuring of firms in difficulty in the shipping industry have been and continue to be the following:\n(a)\n\u2018Financial and fiscal measures concerning shipping operations with ships registered in the Community\u2019 (47);\n(b)\nCommunity guidelines on State aid to maritime transport 1997 (48);\n(c)\nCommunity guidelines on State aid to maritime transport 2004 (49).\n(156)\nIn their letter of 10 May 2006, the Greek authorities again provided no information that might allow the Commission to find that the aid scheme in question had been applied in compliance with the rules applicable to rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty in the sector. Therefore the Commission is not in a position to remove the doubts it expressed when it initiated the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty and is forced to conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible with the internal market.\n(d) Aid granted in the Prefectures of Lesbos, Samos, Chios and the Dodecanese, also referred to in the third procedure\n(157)\nWithin the framework of the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty, the Commission, since it did not have sufficient information, considered two hypotheses:\n(a)\nthe aid provided for in Ministerial Decision No 2041901 of 16 May 1989 and Ministerial Decision No 2078809 of 10 October 1989 and their amendments was covered by the same framework as that established by the Decisions referred to in recitals 44 to 48;\n(b)\nthe aid was part of a financing system that was not set up on the same bases.\n(158)\nIn its letter of 10 May 2006, Greece stated that the two Ministerial Decisions issued in 1989 laid down that firms had to be viable prior to and after the restructuring of their debts. The Commission cannot endorse this statement as, following re-examination, it appears that neither of the two Decisions in question establishes that the firms had to be viable prior to and after the restructuring of the debts. Consequently, the Commission will assess the compatibility of the aid covered by the two Decisions and their amendments, basing itself not only on the two hypotheses set out in recital 157, but also without excluding, in the second hypothesis, that the aid may have been granted to firms in difficulty.\n(159)\nConcerning the first hypothesis set out in recital 157, the Commission is forced to find, if the two Ministerial Decisions issued in 1989 and their amendments fall within the same framework as that established by the Ministerial Decisions referred to in recitals 44 to 48, that the analysis carried out in recitals 146 to 149 remains valid, the explanations given by Greece in its letter of 10 May 2006 do not dispel the doubts expressed when it initiated the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty and that it is forced to conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible with the internal market.\n(160)\nWith respect to the second hypothesis, two scenarios must be envisaged: aid was granted to firms in difficulty or aid was granted to viable firms.\n(161)\nIn the first scenario, the analysis carried out in recitals 146 to 149 remains valid, and the explanations given by Greece in its letter of 10 May 2006 do not dispel the doubts expressed when the Commission initiated the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty and consequently the Commission is forced to conclude that the regime in question is incompatible with the internal market.\n(162)\nIn the second scenario, the Commission also notes that Greece\u2019s explanations in its letters of 10 May 2006, 15 March 2011 and 29 March 2011 do not allow it to ascertain if the working capital constituted using subsidised loans financed eligible investment within the meaning of Union rules on regional aid (since the entry into force of Ministerial Decision No 2041901 of 16 May 1989, the applicable rules have been the Commission communication on the method for applying Article 92(3)(a) and (c) to regional aid (50), followed by the 1998 Guidelines on national regional aid 1998 (51)). The Commission must therefore conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible with the internal market.\n(163)\nIn the event that this working capital did not finance eligible investments within the meaning laid down by the Union rules on national regional aid, the Commission must check whether the aid granted to constitute that capital, which then qualifies as operating aid, can be declared compatible under the relevant provisions of the Union\u2019s rules on national regional aid. In view of this, the Commission wishes to underline that it is up to the Member State concerned to fulfil the duty of cooperation it has towards the Commission by providing all the elements required for the Commission to be able to check the compatibility of the aid in question (52). Since the information in the various letters sent by Greece does not allow the Commission to verify compliance with the provisions in the Union\u2019s rules on national regional aid, it cannot but conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible with the internal market.\n(164)\nThe guarantee granted under Decision No 2/82257/0025 of 18 December 2000 cannot be considered as an instrument to assist the restructuring of a firm in difficulty like that provided for in other Decisions referred to in this Decision because Ministerial Decision No 2/82257/0025 lays down that it can only be awarded to viable firms and not to firms that are viable following debt restructuring. Therefore, it should be examined in the light of the applicable State aid rules.\n(165)\nFrom the entry into force of Ministerial Decision No 2/82257/0025 of 18 December 2000 until 31 December 2005 (the expiry date of the scheme), guarantees were governed by the 2000 Communication.\n(166)\nThe 2000 Communication establishes that the Commission must assess the compatibility of aid linked to the grant of a guarantee on the basis of the rules applied to other aid forms and laid down in the various frameworks and guidelines applicable in the sectors concerned. Moreover, the guarantee can only be accepted if its mobilisation is contractually linked to specific conditions which may go as far as the compulsory declaration of bankruptcy of the beneficiary firm or any similar procedure.\n(167)\nIn the present case, the Greek authorities did not submit any information on the guarantees granted. As a result, the Commission is unable to assess it in the light of the various rules applicable in the sectors concerned or ascertain if this aid measure could have exceeded the maximum aid intensities applicable, as appropriate, to firms not in difficulty (moreover Greece did not provide any information on compliance with the various rules in their reply to the third procedure).\n(168)\nIn these circumstances, the Commission is unable to conclude that the aid granted in the form of guarantees under Ministerial Decision No 2/82257/0025 of 18 December 2000 is compatible with the internal market.\nVI. CONCLUSION\n(169)\nThe Commission notes that Greece unlawfully implemented the aid measures in question in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty. The foregoing analysis shows that the aid cannot be declared compatible with the internal market, as Greece has not provided any information establishing compliance with the various rules mentioned, and therefore the Commission is not in a position to dispel the doubts it expressed when opening the various procedures. In this connection, the Commission recalls that it is the responsibility of the Member State concerned to fulfil the duty of cooperation it has towards the Commission by providing all the elements required for it to check the compatibility of the aid in question.\n(170)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (53), where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission must decide that the Member State concerned must take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary (in the present case, all the firms that have benefited from the provisions of the Ministerial Decisions examined). Greece must take all necessary measures to recover the incompatible aid granted from the beneficiaries. In accordance with the provisions of point 42 of the notice from the Commission \u2018Towards an effective implementation of Commission decisions ordering Member States to recover unlawful and incompatible State aid\u2019 (54), Greece has a time limit of four months following the notification of this Decision to implement it. The aid to be recovered is to include interest calculated in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (55).\n(171)\nThis Decision must be implemented immediately, notably with regard to the recovery of all individual aid granted under the aid scheme, excluding individual aid granted to specific projects which, at the time the aid was granted, met all the conditions established in the de minimis or exemption regulation applicable under Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to certain categories of horizontal State aid (56), or under an aid scheme approved by the Commission.\n(172)\nHowever, Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 lays down that the powers of the Commission to recover aid are subject to a limitation period. The limitation period shall begin on the day on which the unlawful aid is awarded to the beneficiary either as individual aid or as aid under an aid scheme. Any action taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission, with regard to the unlawful aid shall interrupt the limitation period and each interruption shall start time running afresh.\n(173)\nIn the present case, the dates to which the Commission may go back for recovery purposes are as follows:\n(a)\nconcerning aid referred to in the first procedure: 1 October 1993, in view of the fact that the Commission\u2019s first action dates from 27 May 2003 whereas Ministerial Decision No 69836/B1461, adopted on 14 September 1993, was published in the Greek Government Gazette on 1 October 1993 and entered into force on that date;\n(b)\nconcerning aid referred to in the second procedure: 22 April 1994, in view of the fact that the Commission\u2019s first action dates from 22 April 2004;\n(c)\nconcerning aid referred to in the third procedure: 12 November 1994, in view of the fact that the Commission\u2019s first action dates from 12 November 2004,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe aid schemes in the form of debt restructuring unlawfully implemented by Greece in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union in the Prefectures of Kastoria, Evia, Florina, Kilkis, Rodopi, Evros, Xanthi and the Dodecanese, and the islands of Lesbos, Samos and Chios are incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\nIndividual aid granted under one of the schemes referred to in Article 1 shall not be qualified as aid if, at the time it was granted, it complied with the conditions established by one of the regulations adopted pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 994/98 applicable at the time the aid was granted.\nArticle 3\n1. Greece shall recover the incompatible aid granted under the schemes referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiaries.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiaries until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\n4. Greece shall cancel all outstanding payments of aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 4\nRecovery of the aid granted under the schemes referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.\nGreece shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months of its notification.\nArticle 5\n1. Within two months of the notification of this Decision, Greece shall send the Commission the following information:\n(a)\nthe list of the beneficiaries that have received aid under the schemes referred to in Article 1 and the total amount received by each of them under the scheme concerned;\n(b)\nthe total amount (capital and interest) to be recovered from each beneficiary in the case of aid which cannot be covered by the de minimis rule;\n(c)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and those planned to comply with this Decision;\n(d)\nthe documents showing that the beneficiaries have been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Greece shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and those planned to comply with this Decision It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and interest already recovered from the beneficiaries.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 19 October 2011.", "references": ["63", "14", "86", "34", "54", "5", "85", "69", "67", "52", "41", "56", "88", "84", "98", "47", "68", "31", "13", "90", "29", "20", "80", "71", "66", "97", "39", "7", "32", "73", "No Label", "8", "15", "44", "48", "92"], "gold": ["8", "15", "44", "48", "92"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 11/2011\nof 7 January 2011\namending certain regulations on the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nShark-cartilage powder, presented in gelatine capsules and used as a food supplement, was classified under heading 0305 pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1858/98 of 27 August 1998 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (2). Prepared oil (containing evening primrose oil, milk-fat and vitamin E), presented in gelatine capsules and used as a food supplement, was classified under heading 1517, in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3513/92 of 3 December 1992 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (3).\n(2)\nIn joined Cases C-410/08 to C-412/08 Swiss Caps AG v Hauptzollamt Singen (4), the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that products presented in capsules and intended for use as a food supplement should be classified under heading 2106, as food preparations not elsewhere specified or included.\n(3)\nAs a consequence, it is appropriate to adapt Regulation (EC) No 1858/98 and Regulation (EEC) No 3513/92, in order to avoid divergent tariff classification and to ensure the uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature within the European Union.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1858/98 and Regulation (EEC) No 3513/92 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nIn addition to the above corrections, it is necessary to amend Commission Regulation (EC) No 1179/2009 of 26 November 2009 amending or repealing certain regulations on the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature (5). In the tables set out in Annexes I, II and III thereto, the regulations subject to an amendment (respectively, in the form of a change of CN code, in the form of the deletion of an item in the regulation, or in the form of the repeal of the regulation) are listed. Item (1) in the table set out in the said Annex I and item (3) in the table set out in the said Annex III both refer to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 484/79 of 13 March 1979 (6); similarly, item (79) in the table set out in the said Annex I and item (31) in the table set out in the said Annex II both refer to point 3 of the table set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2696/95 of 21 November 1995 (7).\n(6)\nFor the purpose of rectifying the situation, Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1179/2009 should be amended, by the deletion of items (1) and (79) therein.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPoint (2) in the table set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1858/98 is deleted.\nArticle 2\nPoint (1) in the table set out in the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 3513/92 is deleted.\nArticle 3\nIn the table set out in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1179/2009, items (1) and (79) are deleted.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 January 2011.", "references": ["13", "81", "74", "90", "46", "76", "57", "24", "23", "42", "22", "71", "53", "88", "60", "34", "72", "59", "14", "80", "58", "48", "75", "32", "84", "93", "36", "61", "7", "97", "No Label", "8", "19", "21"], "gold": ["8", "19", "21"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1312/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 19 December 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 as regards certain provisions relating to financial management for certain Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 42 and 43 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe unprecedented global financial crisis and the unprecedented economic downturn have seriously damaged economic growth and financial stability and provoked a strong deterioration of financial and economic conditions for several Member States. In particular, certain Member States are experiencing, or are threatened with, serious difficulties, notably those connected with problems in their economic growth and financial stability and with a deterioration in their deficit and debt position, due to the international economic and financial environment.\n(2)\nWhilst important actions to counterbalance the negative effects of the crisis have already been taken, including amendments to the legislative framework, the impact of the financial crisis on the real economy, the labour market and the citizens is being widely felt. The pressure on national financial resources is increasing and further steps should now be taken to alleviate that pressure through the maximal and optimal use of the funding from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).\n(3)\nBased on Article 122(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provides for the possibility of granting Union financial assistance to a Member State in difficulties or seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by exceptional occurrences beyond its control, Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (3) established such mechanism with a view to preserving the financial stability of the Union.\n(4)\nBy Council Implementing Decisions 2011/77/EU (4) and 2011/344/EU (5) respectively, Ireland and Portugal were granted such Union financial assistance. Greece was experiencing serious difficulties with respect to its financial stability before the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 and received financial assistance, inter alia, from other euro area Member States.\n(5)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States\u2019 balances of payments (6) established an instrument providing that the Council is to grant medium-term financial assistance where a Member State, which has not adopted the euro, is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with difficulties as regards its balance of payments.\n(6)\nBy Council Decisions 2009/102/EC (7), 2009/290/EC (8) and 2009/459/EC (9) respectively, Hungary, Latvia and Romania were granted such financial assistance.\n(7)\nThe period during which financial assistance is available to Ireland, Hungary, Latvia, Portugal and Romania is set out in the respective Council Decisions. Assistance to Hungary expired on 4 November 2010.\n(8)\nFor Greece, the Inter-creditor Agreement concluded together with the Loan Facility Agreement entered into force on 11 May 2010. The Inter-creditor Agreement provides that the availability period is to expire on the third anniversary of the date of that agreement.\n(9)\nOn 11 July 2011, the finance ministers of the 17 euro area Member States signed the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). That Treaty follows the European Council Decision 2011/199/EU of 25 March 2011 amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro (10). It is anticipated that, by 2013, the ESM will assume the tasks currently assumed by the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM).\n(10)\nIn its conclusions of 23 and 24 June 2011, the European Council welcomed the Commission\u2019s intention to enhance the synergies between the loan programme for Greece and the Union funds and supported all efforts to increase Greece\u2019s capacity to absorb Union funds, in order to stimulate growth and employment, by refocusing on improving competitiveness and employment creation. Moreover, the European Council welcomed and supported the preparation by the Commission, together with the Member States, of a comprehensive programme of technical assistance to Greece. This amendment to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the Agricultural Fund for Rural development (EAFRD) (11) contributes to such efforts to enhance synergies.\n(11)\nIn order to facilitate the management of Union funding, to help accelerate the investments in Member States and regions concerned and to increase the impact of the funding on the economy, it is necessary to allow the EAFRD contribution rate to increase up to 95 % of eligible public expenditure in the regions eligible under the Convergence Objective and to increase up to 85 % of eligible public expenditure in other regions which are facing serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability.\n(12)\nIn accordance with the general principles applicable under Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the increased co-financing rates are to apply only to payments to be made after the respective rural development programmes, including the new financial plans, have been approved by the Commission. It is therefore also necessary to determine the procedure under which the Member States may use that possibility as well as the mechanism through which it will be ensured.\n(13)\nThe temporary increase in co-financing rates should also take account of the budgetary restraints facing all Member States, and those budgetary restraints should be reflected appropriately in the general budget of the European Union. In addition, since the main purpose of the mechanism is to address specific current difficulties, its application should be limited to expenditure incurred by the paying agencies until 31 December 2013.\n(14)\nRegulation (EC) No 1698/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(15)\nDue to the urgent need to address the economic crisis, this Regulation should enter into force immediately on publication,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 70 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph 4b:\n\u20184c. By way of derogation from the ceilings set out in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, the EAFRD contribution may be increased up to a maximum of 95 % of eligible public expenditure in the regions eligible under the Convergence Objective and the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean Islands, and 85 % of eligible public expenditure in other regions. These rates shall apply to the eligible expenditure newly declared in each certified declaration of expenditure incurred during the period in which a Member State complies with one of the following conditions:\n(a)\nfinancial assistance is made available to it under Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (12) or is made available to it by other euro area Member States before the entry into force of that Regulation;\n(b)\nmedium-term financial assistance is made available to it in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States\u2019 balances of payments (13);\n(c)\nfinancial assistance is made available to it in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism.\nA Member State wishing to make use of the derogation provided for in the first subparagraph shall submit a request to the Commission to modify its rural development programme accordingly. The derogation shall apply from the approval, by the Commission, of the modification of the programme, and shall cease to apply once the Member State no longer fulfils any of the conditions set out in points (a), (b) or (c) of the first subparagraph. In any event, the derogation provided for in the first subparagraph shall apply only to expenditure incurred by the paying agencies until 31 December 2013.\nWhen the derogation provided for in the first subparagraph ceases to apply, the Member State shall send the Commission a proposal for modification of the programme, including a new financing plan that complies with the maximum rates applicable before the derogation.\nIf a Member State does not submit to the Commission a proposal for modifying its rural development programme, including a new financing plan, on the date that the derogation ceases to apply in accordance with the second subparagraph, or if the financing plan notified does not comply with the maximum rates laid down in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, those rates shall become automatically applicable from that date.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["50", "11", "71", "61", "46", "90", "29", "41", "87", "74", "81", "92", "59", "93", "84", "64", "36", "33", "34", "8", "55", "1", "53", "7", "38", "0", "14", "95", "54", "89", "No Label", "4", "10", "15", "16", "17"], "gold": ["4", "10", "15", "16", "17"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 333/2011\nof 31 March 2011\nestablishing criteria determining when certain types of scrap metal cease to be waste under Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (1) and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter submission of the proposed measures to the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt results from an evaluation of several waste streams that recycling markets for scrap metal would benefit from the development of specific criteria determining when scrap metal 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 scrap metal as waste by third countries.\n(2)\nReports of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission have shown that a market and demand exist for iron, steel and aluminium scrap to be used as feedstock in steel works, foundries, aluminium refiners and remelters for the production of metals. Iron, steel and aluminium scrap should therefore be sufficiently pure and meet the relevant scrap standards or specifications required by the metal producing industry.\n(3)\nThe criteria determining when iron, steel and aluminium scrap cease to be waste should ensure that iron, steel and aluminium scrap resulting from a recovery operation meet the technical requirements of the 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 scrap metal resulting from the recovery operation, fulfil those objectives since they should result in the production of iron, steel and aluminium scrap devoid of hazardous properties and sufficiently free of non-metallic compounds.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure compliance with the criteria, it is appropriate to provide that information on scrap metal which has ceased to be waste is issued and that a quality management system is implemented.\n(5)\nA review of the criteria may prove necessary if, on the basis of a monitoring of the development of market conditions for iron and steel scrap and aluminium scrap, adverse effects on recycling markets for iron and steel scrap and aluminium scrap are noted, in particular with regard to the availability of, and access to, such scrap.\n(6)\nIn order to allow operators to adapt to the criteria determining when scrap metal ceases to be waste, it is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period to elapse before this Regulation applies.\n(7)\nThe Committee established by Article 39(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC has not delivered an opinion on the measures provided for in this Regulation and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to the measures and forwarded it to the European Parliament.\n(8)\nThe European Parliament has not opposed the proposed measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation establishes criteria determining when iron, steel and aluminium scrap, including aluminium alloy scrap, cease to be waste.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions set out in Directive 2008/98/EC shall apply.\nIn addition, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018iron and steel scrap\u2019 means scrap metal which consists mainly of iron and steel;\n(b)\n\u2018aluminium scrap\u2019 means scrap metal which consists mainly of aluminium and aluminium alloy;\n(c)\n\u2018holder\u2019 means the natural or legal person who is in possession of scrap metal;\n(d)\n\u2018producer\u2019 means the holder who transfers scrap metal to another holder for the first time as scrap metal which has ceased to be waste;\n(e)\n\u2018importer\u2019 means any natural or legal person established within the Union who introduces scrap metal which has ceased to be waste into the customs territory of the Union;\n(f)\n\u2018qualified staff\u2019 means staff which is qualified by experience or training to monitor and assess the properties of scrap metal;\n(g)\n\u2018visual inspection\u2019 means inspection of scrap metal covering all parts of a consignment and using human senses or any non-specialised equipment;\n(h)\n\u2018consignment\u2019 means a batch of scrap metal 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.\nArticle 3\nCriteria for iron and steel scrap\nIron and steel scrap shall cease to be waste where, upon transfer from the producer to another holder, all of the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe waste used as input for the recovery operation complies with the criteria set out in Section 2 of Annex I;\n(b)\nthe waste used as input for the recovery operation has been treated in accordance with the criteria set out in Section 3 of Annex I;\n(c)\nthe iron and steel scrap resulting from the recovery operation complies with the criteria set out in Section 1 of Annex I;\n(d)\nthe producer has satisfied the requirements set out in Articles 5 and 6.\nArticle 4\nCriteria for aluminium scrap\nAluminium scrap, including aluminium alloy scrap, shall cease to be waste where, upon transfer from the producer to another holder, all of the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe waste used as input in the recovery operation complies with the criteria set out in Section 2 of Annex II;\n(b)\nthe waste used as input in the recovery operation has been treated in accordance with the criteria set out in Section 3 of Annex II;\n(c)\nthe aluminium scrap resulting from the recovery operation complies with the criteria set out in Section 1 of Annex II;\n(d)\nthe producer has satisfied the requirements set out in Articles 5 and 6.\nArticle 5\nStatement of conformity\n1. The producer or the importer shall issue, for each consignment of scrap metal, a statement of conformity in accordance with the model set out in Annex III.\n2. The producer or the importer shall transmit the statement of conformity to the next holder of the scrap metal consignment. The producer or the importer shall retain a copy of the statement of conformity for at least 1 year after its date of issue and shall make it available to competent authorities upon request.\n3. The statement of conformity may be in electronic form.\nArticle 6\nQuality management\n1. The producer shall implement a quality management system suitable to demonstrate compliance with the criteria referred to in Articles 3 and 4, respectively.\n2. The quality management system shall include a set of documented procedures concerning each of the following aspects:\n(a)\nacceptance control of waste used as input for the recovery operation as set out in Section 2 of Annexes I and II;\n(b)\nmonitoring of the treatment processes and techniques described in Section 3.3 of Annexes I and II;\n(c)\nmonitoring of the quality of scrap metal resulting from the recovery operation as set out in Section 1 of Annexes I and II (including sampling and analysis);\n(d)\neffectiveness of the radiation monitoring as set out in Section 1.5 of Annexes I and II, respectively;\n(e)\nfeedback from customers concerning compliance with scrap metal quality;\n(f)\nrecord keeping of the results of monitoring conducted under points (a) to (d);\n(g)\nreview and improvement of the quality management system;\n(h)\ntraining of staff.\n3. The quality management system shall also prescribe the specific monitoring requirements set out in Annexes I and II for each criterion.\n4. Where any of the treatments referred to in Section 3.3 of Annex I or Section 3.3 of Annex II are carried out by a prior holder, the producer shall ensure that the supplier implement a quality management system which complies with the requirements of this Article.\n5. A conformity assessment body, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products (2), which has obtained accreditation in accordance with that Regulation, or any other environmental verifier as defined in Article 2(20)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) (3) shall verify that the quality management system complies with the requirements of this Article. The verification should be carried out every 3 years.\n6. The importer shall require his suppliers to implement a quality management system which complies with the requirements of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article and has been verified by an independent external verifier.\n7. The producer shall give competent authorities access to the quality management system upon request.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 9 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["20", "36", "91", "96", "27", "30", "25", "44", "17", "8", "43", "3", "26", "57", "83", "21", "56", "81", "85", "75", "42", "11", "32", "73", "49", "54", "9", "84", "13", "62", "No Label", "38", "58"], "gold": ["38", "58"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1226/2010\nof 20 December 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 of 27 June 2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 lists the competent authorities to which specific functions related to the implementation of that Regulation are attributed.\n(2)\nFurther to a request made by Estonia the information concerning the competent authority in Estonia should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["73", "69", "59", "43", "99", "10", "89", "31", "34", "51", "49", "40", "44", "62", "82", "21", "13", "70", "9", "78", "27", "87", "96", "15", "35", "2", "92", "48", "74", "22", "No Label", "1", "4", "12", "14", "20", "23", "41"], "gold": ["1", "4", "12", "14", "20", "23", "41"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/005 ES/Comunidad Valenciana Natural Stone from Spain)\n(2010/806/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nSpain submitted an application on 9 March 2010 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in 66 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 23 (manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products) in a single NUTS II region, Comunidad Valenciana (ES52), and supplemented it with additional information up to 25 May 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 422 850.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Spain,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 422 850 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["11", "98", "50", "82", "56", "57", "87", "20", "14", "8", "23", "6", "22", "51", "26", "71", "63", "36", "18", "52", "28", "21", "83", "44", "16", "61", "92", "27", "30", "93", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/522/CFSP\nof 2 September 2011\namending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1).\n(2)\nOn 18 August 2011, the Union condemned in the strongest terms the brutal campaign that Bashar Al-Assad and his regime were waging against their own people which had led to the killing or injury of many Syrian citizens. The Union has repeatedly emphasised that the brutal repression must be stopped, detained protesters released, free access by international humanitarian and human rights organisations and media allowed, and a genuine and inclusive national dialogue launched. The Syrian leadership, however, has remained defiant with regard to calls from the Union as well as from the broad international community.\n(3)\nIn this context, the Union has decided to adopt additional restrictive measures against the Syrian regime.\n(4)\nThe restrictions on admission and the freezing of funds and economic resources should be applied to additional persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime, in particular persons and entities financing the regime, or providing logistical support to the regime, in particular the security apparatus, or who undermine the efforts towards a peaceful transition to democracy in Syria.\n(5)\nIn addition, the purchase, import or transport from Syria of crude oil and petroleum products should be prohibited.\n(6)\nIn this regard, it should be noted that a partial suspension of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Syrian Arab Republic (2) has been decided by the Council in its Decision 2011/523/EU of 2 September 2011 (3),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nCouncil Decision 2011/273/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following Articles are added:\n\u2018Article 2a\n1. The purchase, import or transport from Syria of crude oil and petroleum products shall be prohibited.\n2. It shall be prohibited to provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, including financial derivatives, as well as insurance and reinsurance, related to the prohibitions referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. It shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly or intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.\nArticle 2b\nThe prohibitions set out in Article 2a shall be without prejudice to the execution, until 15 November 2011, of obligations provided for in contracts concluded before 2 September 2011.\u2019;\n\u2018Article 4a\nNo claims, including for compensation or any other claim of this kind, such as a claim of set-off or a claim under a guarantee, in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which was affected, directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, by reason of measures covered by this Decision, shall be granted to the designated persons or entities listed in the Annex, or any other person or entity in Syria, including the Government of Syria, or any person or entity claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or entity.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 3(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, persons benefiting from or supporting the regime, and persons associated with them, as listed in the Annex.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 4(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. All funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by, persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime, and persons and entities associated with them, as listed in the Annex, shall be frozen.\u2019;\n(4)\nthe following points are added to Article 4(3):\n\u2018(e)\nnecessary for humanitarian purposes, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from Syria;\n(f)\nto be paid into or from an account of a diplomatic or consular mission or an international organisation enjoying immunities in accordance with international law, in so far as such payments are intended to be used for official purposes of the diplomatic or consular mission or international organisation.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added in the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/273/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2011.", "references": ["28", "58", "36", "70", "64", "73", "1", "39", "60", "85", "22", "38", "5", "86", "21", "45", "4", "13", "26", "51", "35", "84", "98", "93", "76", "94", "24", "75", "49", "81", "No Label", "3", "23", "80", "95"], "gold": ["3", "23", "80", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/859/CFSP\nof 19 December 2011\namending Decision 2010/232/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/232/CFSP of 26 April 2010 renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar (1), and in particular Article 14 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 April 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/232/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar.\n(2)\nThe information relating to one entity on the list in Annex I to Decision 2010/232/CFSP should be updated.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Decision 2010/232/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex I to Decision 2010/232/CFSP, the entry for Mayar (H.K) Ltd shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Mayar India Ltd (Yangon Branch)\n37, Rm (703/4), Level (7), Alanpya Pagoda Rd, La Pyayt Wun Plaza, Dagon, Yangon.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["69", "49", "55", "57", "28", "74", "20", "38", "80", "37", "44", "87", "7", "24", "56", "47", "63", "62", "30", "66", "71", "33", "16", "25", "0", "13", "48", "68", "72", "4", "No Label", "3", "23", "76", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "23", "76", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 643/2012\nof 16 July 2012\nimplementing Article 11(1) and (4) of Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 of 1 August 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 11(1) and (4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 August 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 753/2011.\n(2)\nOn 11 June 2012, the Committee, established pursuant to paragraph 30 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1988 (2011), deleted two persons from the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(3)\nOn 27 June 2012, the Committee added one person to the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(4)\nFurthermore, on 28 June 2012, the Committee added another two persons and two entities to the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(5)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entries for the persons and entities appearing in Annex I to this Regulation are added to the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 753/2011.\nArticle 2\nThe entries for the persons appearing in Annex II to this Regulation are deleted from the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 753/2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["32", "67", "22", "29", "66", "30", "53", "27", "39", "20", "18", "46", "38", "93", "76", "34", "87", "65", "25", "9", "33", "0", "81", "84", "24", "58", "7", "74", "79", "28", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 733/2010\nof 13 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 August 2010.", "references": ["1", "17", "78", "40", "9", "60", "70", "11", "49", "44", "12", "62", "6", "30", "24", "28", "76", "96", "7", "21", "59", "16", "37", "8", "89", "53", "98", "69", "63", "55", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 December 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application, of the Agreement between the European Union and the People\u2019s Democratic Republic of Algeria on scientific and technological cooperation\n(2012/184/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 186 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 16 November 2009, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate, on behalf of the Union, an Agreement between the European Union and the People\u2019s Democratic Republic of Algeria on scientific and technological cooperation (the \u2018Agreement\u2019). It was initialled on 14 October 2010.\n(2)\nThe Agreement should be signed and applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the People\u2019s Democratic Republic of Algeria on scientific and technological cooperation is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\n2. The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe Agreement shall be applied on a provisional basis, in accordance with Article 7(2) thereof, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["96", "63", "21", "92", "67", "13", "50", "40", "82", "87", "76", "65", "85", "31", "39", "51", "58", "64", "0", "7", "79", "74", "29", "33", "53", "72", "89", "26", "10", "42", "No Label", "3", "4", "9", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2012/14/EU\nof 8 May 2012\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include methyl nonyl ketone as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes methyl nonyl ketone.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, methyl nonyl ketone has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 19, repellents and attractants, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nSpain was designated as Rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 8 April 2009 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 9 December 2011, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as repellents and containing methyl nonyl ketone may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include methyl nonyl ketone in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at Union level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to human populations and to environmental compartments that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nThe provisions of this Directive should be applied at the same time in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment on the Union market of biocidal products containing the active substance methyl nonyl ketone and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC, in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(9)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(10)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 April 2013 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 May 2014.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 May 2012.", "references": ["87", "95", "11", "94", "89", "64", "44", "53", "21", "0", "14", "60", "75", "30", "4", "55", "15", "19", "36", "63", "20", "32", "84", "27", "26", "97", "48", "74", "91", "58", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 December 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex IV (Energy) to the EEA Agreement\n(2011/886/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 114(1), 192(1) and 218 (9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex IV to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2), (hereinafter \u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning energy.\n(2)\nDirective 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (3) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(3)\nDirective 2009/28/EC repeals Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market (4), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement and is therefore to be repealed under the EEA Agreement.\n(4)\nNorway\u2019s fulfilment of the target for share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy in 2020 must be seen in the context of the initial high share of renewable energy compared to the EU Member States, and the uncertainty associated with supply and demand embedded in the combination of a hydro-based energy production system and a cold climate,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex IV (Energy) to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 December 2011.", "references": ["10", "53", "50", "8", "70", "42", "73", "41", "66", "88", "48", "17", "21", "61", "23", "27", "99", "72", "65", "57", "34", "83", "31", "45", "86", "19", "46", "37", "38", "7", "No Label", "3", "9", "58", "78"], "gold": ["3", "9", "58", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1357/2011\nof 20 December 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of December 2011 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 December 2011 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 December 2011 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 0,401722 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["25", "20", "36", "74", "28", "16", "78", "59", "55", "8", "38", "7", "42", "33", "82", "66", "54", "95", "67", "68", "99", "81", "89", "83", "10", "80", "39", "30", "90", "56", "No Label", "21", "22", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 480/2012\nof 7 June 2012\nopening and providing for the management of a tariff quota for broken rice of CN code 1006 40 00 for production of food preparations of CN code 1901 10 00\n(codification)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/96 of 18 June 1996 on the implementation of the concessions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in the wake of the conclusion of the GATT XXIV.6 negotiations (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2058/96 of 28 October 1996 opening and providing for the management of a tariff quota for broken rice of CN code 1006 40 00 for production of food preparations of CN code 1901 10 (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.\n(2)\nAmong the concessions granted is an annual quota of 1 000 tonnes at zero duty of broken rice of CN code 1006 40 00 for production of food preparations of CN code 1901 10 00.\n(3)\nIt should be stated that Commission Regulation (EC) No 1342/2003 of 28 July 2003 laying down special detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences for cereals and rice (4) applies to imports under this Regulation.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (5) lays down in particular detailed rules for applications for import licences, the status of applicants and the issue of licences. It limits the period of validity of import licences to the final day of the tariff quota period and applies without prejudice to additional conditions or derogations laid down by the sectoral regulations.\n(5)\nIn the interests of improved administration of the tariff quota opened under this Regulation, it is necessary to continue to allow operators to submit more than one licence application per quota period, and therefore to derogate from Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006. Moreover, in order to improve controls on this quota and to harmonise and simplify its administration, provision should be made for import licence applications to be submitted on a weekly basis.\n(6)\nTo ensure that the quota is properly managed specific rules on submission of applications and issuing of licences are required. Those rules either supplement or derogate from the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (6).\n(7)\nSpecific provisions are required to ensure that the broken rice imported is not deflected from the prescribed use. Duty exemption should therefore be made conditional on submission of an undertaking by the importer as to the use of the rice and lodging of a security equal to the uncharged duty. Proper management of the quota requires that a reasonable time be allowed for processing. Consignment of the goods requires a T5 control copy to be made out in the Member State of entry for free circulation in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (7), as the appropriate means of giving proof of processing. When processing takes place in the Member State of entry for free circulation proof of processing may be furnished by means of an equivalent national document.\n(8)\nAlthough the purpose of the security is to ensure payment of a newly arising import debt, there should be some flexibility regarding the release of the security.\n(9)\nSecurity against import licences of EUR 25 per tonne should suffice for proper management of the quota.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAn annual zero duty tariff quota of 1 000 tonnes of broken rice of CN code 1006 40 00 for use in the production of food preparations of CN code 1901 10 00 is opened in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation.\nThe order number of the quota shall be 09.4079.\nRegulations (EC) No 1342/2003, (EC) No 1301/2006 and (EC) No 376/2008 shall apply to the quota referred to in the first paragraph, save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.\nArticle 2\n1. Applications for import licences shall relate to a quantity of at least 5 tonnes and at most 500 tonnes.\nEach licence application shall indicate a quantity in kilograms (whole numbers).\nApplications for import licences shall be lodged with the competent authorities of the Member States no later than 13.00 (Brussels time) every Friday.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, applicants may submit more than one licence application per quota period. However, applicants may submit only one licence application per week.\n3. Box 7 of the licence application and the import licence shall indicate the exporting country and the word \u2018yes\u2019 shall be marked with a cross.\n4. Licence applications and licences shall contain:\n(a)\nin box 20, one of the entries listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nin box 24, one of the entries listed in Annex II.\n5. By way of derogation from Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2003, the security against import licences provided for in this Regulation shall be EUR 25 per tonne.\nArticle 3\n1. Where the quantities applied for in a given week exceed the quantity available under the quota, the Commission shall fix the allocation coefficient for the quantities applied for during that week, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, no later than the fourth working day following the last day for the submission of applications for that week, as referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) of this Regulation, and shall suspend the submission of new licence applications until the end of the quota period.\nApplications submitted in respect of the current week shall be considered inadmissible.\nMember States shall allow operators to withdraw, within two working days following the date of publication of the Implementing Regulation fixing the allocation coefficient, applications for which the quantity for which the licence is to be issued is less than 20 tonnes.\n2. The import licence shall be issued on the eighth working day following the final day for the submission of applications.\nArticle 4\nThe Member States shall send the Commission, by electronic means:\n(a)\non the Monday following the final day for the submission of licence applications, no later than 18.00 (Brussels time), the information on the import licence applications as referred to in Article 11(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, with the total quantities covered by those applications;\n(b)\nno later than the second working day following the issue of the import licences, the information on the licences issued as referred to in Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, with the total quantities for which import licences have been issued and the quantities for which licence applications have been withdrawn in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of this Regulation;\n(c)\nno later than the last day of each month, the total quantities actually released for free circulation under the quota concerned during the previous month but one. If no quantities have been released for free circulation during one of these months, a \u2018nil\u2019 notification shall be sent. However, this notification shall no longer be required in the third month following the final day of validity of the licences.\nArticle 5\n1. Exemption from customs duty shall be subject to:\n(a)\nsubmission on entry for free circulation of a written undertaking by the importer that all the goods entered will be processed as indicated in box 20 of the licence within six months of the date of acceptance of the entry for free circulation;\n(b)\nlodging by the importer, on entry for free circulation, of security for an amount equal to the customs duty for broken rice fixed in Article 140 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (8).\n2. On entry for free circulation the importer shall indicate as the place of processing either the name of a processing undertaking and a Member State or not more than five different processing plants. Consignment of the rice shall require a T5 control copy to be made out in the Member State of departure which, in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, shall also constitute proof of processing.\nHowever, where processing takes place in the Member State of entry into free circulation, proof of processing may be an equivalent national document.\n3. The T5 control copy shall carry:\n(a)\nin box 104, one of the entries listed in Annex III;\n(b)\nin box 107, one of the entries listed in Annex IV.\n4. Except in cases of force majeure the security referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall be released when the importer gives proof to the competent authority of the Member State of entry into free circulation that all the rice entered has been processed into the product indicated in the import licence. Processing is deemed to have taken place when the product has been manufactured either in one or more of the processing plants belonging to the undertaking referred to in paragraph 2 situated in the Member State referred to therein, or in the processing plant or one of the processing plants referred to in that paragraph, within the time limit indicated in paragraph 1(a).\nWhere rice entered for free circulation has not been processed within the specified time limit the security released shall be reduced by 2 % for each day by which the time limit is exceeded.\n5. Proof of processing shall be given to the competent authority within six months following the time limit for processing.\nIf proof is not given within the time limit laid down in this paragraph, the security referred to in paragraph 1(b), where applicable minus the percentage provided for in the second subparagraph of paragraph 4, shall be reduced by 2 % for each day by which the time limit is exceeded.\nThe amount of the security which is not released shall be forfeit as customs duties.\nArticle 6\nBy way of derogation from Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, the quantity entered for free circulation may not exceed that entered in boxes 17 and 18 of the import licence. The figure \u20180\u2019 shall accordingly be entered in box 19 of the licence.\nArticle 7\nRegulation (EC) No 2058/96 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex VI.\nArticle 8\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["2", "46", "28", "19", "83", "15", "33", "59", "74", "65", "84", "97", "77", "0", "79", "4", "18", "51", "98", "35", "56", "7", "48", "67", "31", "69", "14", "24", "80", "41", "No Label", "8", "21", "22", "68", "72"], "gold": ["8", "21", "22", "68", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 592/2010\nof 5 July 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 577/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2010.", "references": ["67", "23", "7", "31", "61", "69", "92", "79", "9", "84", "70", "81", "25", "2", "43", "30", "86", "85", "42", "73", "63", "87", "74", "50", "15", "34", "57", "68", "52", "93", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 336/2010\nof 21 April 2010\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN codes indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3 of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN codes indicated in column 2 of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 April 2010.", "references": ["88", "83", "56", "1", "33", "92", "57", "97", "14", "80", "87", "45", "82", "78", "2", "65", "19", "47", "73", "3", "72", "44", "81", "89", "69", "10", "12", "51", "60", "68", "No Label", "21", "85"], "gold": ["21", "85"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 June 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement\n(2012/297/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 338(1) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex XXI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning statistics.\n(2)\nRegulation (EU) No 692/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2011 concerning European statistics on tourism (3) should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 692/2011 repealed Council Directive 95/57/EC of 23 November 1995 on the collection of statistical information in the field of tourism (4) which is incorporated to Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement.\n(4)\nAnnex XXI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["26", "62", "67", "94", "7", "1", "85", "81", "4", "33", "41", "15", "90", "14", "75", "59", "49", "97", "96", "50", "10", "61", "53", "72", "23", "89", "56", "39", "12", "48", "No Label", "3", "9", "19", "36"], "gold": ["3", "9", "19", "36"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 20 October 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/001 DK/Nordjylland from Denmark)\n(2010/662/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nDenmark submitted an application on 22 January 2010 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the manufacturing of machinery and equipment sector in the Nordjylland region, and supplemented it by additional information up to 28 April 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 7 521 359.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Denmark,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 7 521 359 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["71", "6", "72", "50", "59", "94", "88", "13", "26", "23", "38", "63", "43", "30", "51", "20", "25", "79", "56", "57", "86", "83", "8", "24", "27", "87", "67", "32", "61", "92", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 31 May 2012\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs\n(2012/292/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (the \u2018Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Agreement will allow the reciprocal protection of the geographical indications of the Union and the Republic of Moldova, as well as contribute to the approximation of legislation among the neighbouring countries of the Union.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (1).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2012.", "references": ["47", "13", "78", "59", "11", "53", "58", "55", "92", "12", "67", "28", "5", "4", "69", "94", "29", "60", "36", "61", "38", "48", "51", "20", "95", "32", "16", "83", "98", "0", "No Label", "3", "9", "24", "25", "66", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "24", "25", "66", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 259/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 14 March 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 as regards the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in consumer laundry detergents and consumer automatic dishwasher detergents\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn its Report of 4 May 2007 to the Council and the European Parliament, the Commission evaluated, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), the use of phosphates in detergents. Following further analysis, it has been concluded that the use of phosphates in consumer laundry detergents and consumer automatic dishwasher detergents should be limited in order to reduce the contribution of phosphates from detergents to eutrophication risks and to reduce the cost of phosphates removal in waste water treatment plants. Those cost savings outweigh the cost of reformulating consumer laundry detergents with alternatives to phosphates.\n(2)\nEfficient alternatives to phosphate-based consumer laundry detergents require small amounts of other phosphorus compounds, namely phosphonates which, if used in increasing quantities, might be of concern for the environment. While it is important to encourage the use of alternative substances with a more favourable environmental profile than phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in the manufacture of consumer laundry detergents and consumer automatic dishwasher detergents, such substances should, under their normal conditions of use, present no risk, or a lower risk, to humans and/or the environment. The REACH (4) system should therefore, where appropriate, be used to evaluate such substances.\n(3)\nThe interaction between phosphates and other phosphorus compounds requires a careful choice of the scope and level of the limitation on the use of phosphates in consumer laundry detergents and consumer automatic dishwasher detergents. The limitation should apply not only to phosphates, but also to all phosphorus compounds in order to preclude a mere substitution of other phosphorus compounds for phosphates. The limit on phosphorus content should be low enough to effectively prevent the marketing of phosphate-based consumer laundry detergent formulations, while being high enough to allow the minimum quantity of phosphonates required for alternative formulations.\n(4)\nIt is currently not appropriate to extend limitations on the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in consumer laundry detergents and consumer automatic dishwasher detergents to industrial and institutional detergents at the level of the Union because suitable technically and economically feasible alternatives to the use of phosphates in those detergents are not yet available. As concerns consumer automatic dishwasher detergents, alternatives are likely to be more widely available in the near future. It is therefore appropriate to provide a restriction on the use of phosphates in those detergents. Such a restriction should apply from a future date by which time alternatives to phosphates are expected to be widely available, in order to stimulate the developments of new products. It is also appropriate to specify a maximum permissible phosphorus content, based on evidence including existing national restrictions for phosphorus in consumer automatic dishwasher detergents. However, it is also necessary to provide that the Commission should, before that restriction becomes applicable throughout the Union, carry out a thorough assessment of the limit value based on the most recent available data and, if justified, present a legislative proposal. That assessment should cover the impact on the environment, industry and consumers of consumer automatic dishwasher detergents with phosphorus levels above and below the limit value set out in Annex VIa and alternatives, taking into account matters including their cost, availability, cleaning efficiency and impact on waste water treatment.\n(5)\nOne of the aims of this Regulation is to protect the environment by reducing eutrophication caused by phosphorus in detergents used by consumers. It would therefore not be appropriate to force Member States that already have restrictions concerning phosphorus in consumer automatic dishwasher detergents to adapt those restrictions before the Union restriction becomes applicable. Furthermore, it is desirable that Member States be permitted to phase in the restrictions set out in this Regulation as early as possible.\n(6)\nA definition of \u2018cleaning\u2019 should be included in Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 instead of a reference to the relevant ISO standard to facilitate readability, and definitions of \u2018consumer laundry detergent\u2019 and \u2018consumer automatic dishwasher detergent\u2019 should also be included. Furthermore, it is appropriate to clarify the definition of \u2018placing on the market\u2019 and to include a definition of \u2018making available on the market\u2019.\n(7)\nIn order to provide accurate information within the shortest possible timescale, it is appropriate to modernise the way in which the Commission publishes the lists of competent authorities and approved laboratories.\n(8)\nIn order to adapt Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 to scientific and technical progress, to introduce provisions on solvent-based detergents and in order to introduce appropriate individual risk-based concentration limits for fragrance allergens, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amendments to the Annexes to that Regulation that are necessary to meet those objectives. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(9)\nMember States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 and ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n(10)\nIt is appropriate to provide for deferred application of the restrictions established in this Regulation so as to allow operators, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, to reformulate their phosphate-based consumer laundry detergents and consumer automatic dishwasher detergents using alternatives during their usual reformulation cycle in order to minimise the costs thereof.\n(11)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely to reduce the contribution of phosphates from consumer detergents to eutrophication risks, to reduce the costs of phosphates removal in waste water treatment plants and to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market in consumer laundry detergents and consumer automatic dishwasher detergents, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States because national measures with different technical specifications cannot ensure a comprehensive improvement in the quality of water crossing national borders, and can therefore be better achieved at the level of the Union, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(12)\nRegulation (EC) No 648/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 648/2004 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1(2), the third and fourth indents are replaced by the following, and a fifth indent is added:\n\u2018-\nthe additional labelling of detergents, including fragrance allergens,\n-\nthe information that manufacturers must hold at the disposal of the Member States\u2019 competent authorities and medical personnel,\n-\nlimitations on the content of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in consumer laundry detergents and consumer automatic dishwasher detergents.\u2019,\n(2)\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following points are inserted:\n\u20181a.\n\u201cConsumer laundry detergent\u201d means a detergent for laundry placed on the market for use by non-professionals, including in public laundrettes.\n1b.\n\u201cConsumer automatic dishwasher detergent\u201d means a detergent placed on the market for use in automatic dishwashers by non-professionals.\u2019;\n(b)\npoint 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183.\n\u201cCleaning\u201d means the process by which an undesirable deposit is dislodged from a substrate or from within a substrate and brought into a state of solution or dispersion.\u2019;\n(c)\npoint 9 is replaced by the following:\n\u20189.\n\u201cPlacing on the market\u201d means the first making available on the Union market. Import into the Union customs territory shall be deemed to be placing on the market.\n9a.\n\u201cMaking available on the market\u201d means any supply for distribution, consumption or use on the Union market in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 4a\nLimitations on the content of phosphates and of other phosphorus compounds\nDetergents listed in Annex VIa that do not comply with the limitations on the content of phosphates and of other phosphorus compounds laid down in that Annex shall not be placed on the market from the dates set out therein.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 8, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Commission shall make publicly available the lists of competent authorities, mentioned in paragraph 1, and of approved laboratories, mentioned in paragraph 2.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 11, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Additionally, the packaging of consumer laundry detergents and consumer automatic dishwasher detergents shall bear the information provided for in section B of Annex VII.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 12, paragraph 3 is deleted;\n(7)\nArticles 13 and 14 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 13\nAdaptation of Annexes\n1. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 13a in order to introduce amendments necessary for adapting Annexes I to IV, VII and VIII to scientific and technical progress. The Commission shall, wherever possible, use European standards.\n2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 13a in order to introduce amendments to the Annexes of this Regulation regarding solvent-based detergents.\n3. Where individual risk-based concentration limits for the fragrance allergens are established by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, the Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 13a in order to adapt the limit of 0,01 % set out in section A of Annex VII accordingly.\nArticle 13a\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 13 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 19 April 2012. By 19 July 2016, the Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for further periods of 5 years, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than 3 months before the end of each such period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 13 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 13 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.\nArticle 14\nFree movement clause\n1. Member States shall not prohibit, restrict or impede the making available on the market of detergents, and/or of surfactants for detergents, which comply with the requirements of this Regulation, on grounds that are dealt with in this Regulation.\n2. Member States may maintain or lay down national rules concerning restrictions on the content of phosphates and of other phosphorus compounds in detergents for which no restrictions on the content are set out in Annex VIa where justified, in particular, on grounds such as the protection of public health or the environment and where technically and economically feasible alternatives are available.\n3. Member States may maintain national rules that were in force on 19 March 2012 concerning restrictions on the content of phosphates and of other phosphorus compounds in detergents for which restrictions set out in Annex VIa have not yet become applicable. Such existing national measures shall be reported to the Commission by 30 September 2012 and may remain in force until the date when the restrictions set out in Annex VIa apply.\n4. From 19 March 2012 until 31 December 2016 Member States may adopt national rules that implement the restriction on the content of phosphates and of other phosphorus compounds laid down in the point 2 of Annex VIa, where justified, in particular, on grounds such as the protection of public health or the environment and where technically and economically feasible alternatives are available. Member States shall notify such measures to the Commission in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (5).\n5. The Commission shall make publicly available the list of national measures referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4.\n(8)\nin Article 15, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Where a Member State has justifiable grounds for believing that a specific detergent, although complying with the requirements of this Regulation, constitutes a risk to the safety or health of humans or of animals or a risk to the environment, it may take all appropriate provisional measures, commensurate with the nature of the risk, in order to ensure that the detergent concerned no longer presents that risk, is withdrawn from the market or recalled within a reasonable period or its availability is otherwise restricted.\nThe Member State shall immediately inform the other Member States and the Commission thereof, giving the reasons for its decision.\u2019;\n(9)\nArticle 16 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 16\nReport\n1. By 31 December 2014, the Commission shall, taking into account information from Member States on the content of phosphorus in consumer automatic dishwasher detergents placed on the market in their territories and in the light of any existing or new scientific information available to it regarding substances employed in phosphates-containing and alternative formulations, evaluate by way of a thorough assessment whether the restriction set out in point 2 of Annex VIa should be modified. That assessment shall include an analysis of the impact on the environment, industry and consumers of consumer automatic dishwasher detergents with phosphorus levels above and below the limit value set out in Annex VIa, taking into account matters including cost, availability, cleaning efficiency and the impact on waste water treatment. The Commission shall submit that thorough assessment to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n2. In addition, if the Commission, on the basis of the thorough assessment referred to in paragraph 1, considers that the restriction of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds used in consumer automatic dishwasher detergents requires revision, it shall, by 1 July 2015, present an appropriate legislative proposal. Any such proposal must be aimed at minimising the negative impact from all consumer automatic dishwasher detergent products on the wider environment, whilst considering any economic costs as identified in that thorough assessment. Unless the European Parliament and the Council, on the basis of such a proposal, decide otherwise by 31 December 2016, the limit value set out in point 2 of Annex VIa shall become the limitation for phosphorus content in consumer automatic dishwasher detergents from the date set out in that point.\u2019;\n(10)\nArticle 18 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 18\nPenalties\nMember States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. This may also include appropriate measures allowing the competent authorities of the Member States to prevent the making available on the market of detergents or surfactants for detergents that fail to comply with this Regulation. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify those provisions and any subsequent amendment affecting those provisions to the Commission without delay.\nThose rules shall include measures allowing the competent authorities of Member States to detain consignments of detergents that fail to comply with this Regulation.\u2019;\n(11)\nthe text set out in the Annex to this Regulation is inserted as Annex VIa to Regulation (EC) No 648/2004;\n(12)\nAnnex VII shall be amended as follows:\n(a)\nin section A, the following text is deleted:\n\u2018If individual risk-based concentration limits for the fragrance allergens are subsequently established by the SCCNFP, the Commission shall propose the adoption of such limits to replace the limit of 0,01 % mentioned above. Those measures, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 12(3).\u2019,\n(b)\nsection B is replaced by the following:\n\u2018B. Labelling of dosage information\nAs prescribed in Article 11(4), the following provisions on labelling shall apply to the packaging of detergents sold to the general public.\nConsumer laundry detergents\nThe packaging of detergents sold to the general public intended to be used as laundry detergents shall bear the following information:\n-\nthe recommended quantities and/or dosage instructions expressed in millilitres or grams appropriate to a standard washing machine load, for soft, medium and hard water hardness levels and making provision for one or two cycle washing processes,\n-\nfor heavy-duty detergents, the number of standard washing machine loads of \u201cnormally soiled\u201d fabrics, and, for detergents for delicate fabrics, the number of standard washing machine loads of \u201clightly soiled\u201d fabrics, that can be washed with the contents of the package using water of medium hardness, corresponding to 2,5 millimoles CaCO3/l,\n-\nthe capacity of any measuring cup, if provided, shall be indicated in millilitres or grams, and markings shall be provided to indicate the dose of detergent appropriate for a standard washing machine load for soft, medium and hard water hardness levels,\nThe standard washing machine loads are 4,5 kg dry fabric for heavy-duty detergents and 2,5 kg dry fabric for light-duty detergents, in line with the definitions of Commission Decision 1999/476/EC of 10 June 1999 establishing the Ecological Criteria for the award of the Community Eco-label to Laundry Detergents (6). A detergent shall be considered to be a heavy-duty detergent unless the claims of the manufacturer predominantly promotes fabric care, i.e. low temperature wash, delicate fibres and colours.\nConsumer automatic dishwasher detergents\nThe packaging of detergents sold to the general public intended to be used as automatic dishwasher detergents shall bear the following information:\n-\nthe standard dosage expressed in grams or ml or number of tablets for the main washing cycle for normally soiled tableware in a fully loaded 12 place settings dishwasher, making provisions, where relevant, for soft, medium, and hard water hardness,\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 14 March 2012.", "references": ["75", "19", "15", "53", "6", "84", "54", "77", "72", "98", "12", "91", "59", "82", "44", "99", "73", "7", "62", "92", "37", "21", "56", "49", "97", "67", "14", "11", "32", "51", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "60", "79", "83", "86"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "60", "79", "83", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/10/EU\nof 8 February 2011\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include bifenthrin as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes bifenthrin.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, bifenthrin has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product type 8, wood preservatives, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nFrance was designated as Rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 3 January 2008 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 24 September 2010, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as wood preservatives and containing bifenthrin may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include bifenthrin in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at the Union level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to environmental compartments and populations that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nUnacceptable risks were identified for non-professional users. It is therefore appropriate to require that product authorisations are limited to industrial or professional use, unless it is demonstrated in the application for product authorisation that risks to non-professional users can be reduced to acceptable levels in accordance with Article 5 of, and Annex VI to, Directive 98/8/EC.\n(8)\nIn view of the assumptions made during the risk assessment, it is appropriate to require that products authorised for industrial or professional use are used with appropriate personal protective equipment, unless it can be demonstrated in the application for product authorisation that risks to industrial or professional users can be reduced to an acceptable level by other means.\n(9)\nIn view of the risks identified for the soil and aquatic compartments, appropriate measures should be taken to protect those compartments. It is therefore appropriate to require that instructions are provided to indicate that freshly treated timber is stored after treatment under shelter or on impermeable hardstanding, or both, and that any losses from the application of products used as wood preservatives and containing bifenthrin are collected for reuse or disposal. Furthermore, it is appropriate to require that products are not authorised for the in situ treatment of wood outdoors, or for treatment of wood that will be either continually exposed to the weather or protected from the weather but subject to frequent wetting (use class 3 as defined by OECD (3), unless data is submitted demonstrating that the product will meet the requirements of Article 5 of, and Annex VI to, Directive 98/8/EC, if necessary by the application of appropriate risk mitigation measures.\n(10)\nIt is important that the provisions of this Directive be applied simultaneously in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment of biocidal products on the market containing the active substance bifenthrin and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(11)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(12)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(13)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 January 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 February 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 February 2011.", "references": ["9", "57", "15", "28", "73", "89", "70", "69", "41", "76", "45", "43", "37", "20", "71", "87", "75", "21", "88", "16", "97", "78", "60", "49", "92", "35", "55", "53", "51", "6", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 523/2012\nof 20 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the inclusion of certain Regulations of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on the type-approval of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Council Decision 97/836/EC (2), the Union has acceded to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 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 (\u2018Revised 1958 Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nBy Decision 97/836/EC, the Union has also acceded to UNECE Regulation No 30 on pneumatic tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers, Regulation No 54 on pneumatic tyres for commercial vehicles and their trailers, and Regulation No 64 on temporary-use spare unit, run-flat tyres, run-flat system and tyre pressure monitoring system.\n(3)\nBy a separate Council Decision (3), the Union has acceded to UNECE Regulation No 117 on tyre rolling sound emissions and adhesion on wet surfaces.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (4), vehicles manufacturers seeking approval for their systems, components, or separate technical units have the choice of meeting the requirements of either the relevant Directives or the corresponding UNECE Regulations. Most of the requirements under Directives on vehicle parts are taken over from the corresponding UNECE Regulations. As technology progresses, UNECE Regulations are constantly amended and the relevant Directives have to be regularly updated to keep them in line with the content of the respective UNECE Regulations. In order to avoid this duplication, the CARS 21 High Level Group recommended the replacement of several Directives by the corresponding UNECE Regulations.\n(5)\nThe possibility to apply UNECE Regulations for the purpose of EC vehicle type-approval on a compulsory basis and to replace Union legislation by those UNECE Regulations is provided for in Directive 2007/46/EC. According to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 type-approval in accordance with UNECE Regulations which apply on a compulsory basis is to be considered as EC type-approval in accordance with that Regulation and its implementing measures.\n(6)\nReplacing Union legislation by UNECE Regulations helps to avoid duplication not only of technical requirements but also of certification and administrative procedures. In addition, type-approval that is directly based on internationally agreed standards should improve market access in third countries, in particular in those which are contracting parties to the Revised 1958 Agreement, thus enhancing the competitiveness of the Union industry.\n(7)\nTherefore, Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 provides for the repeal of several Directives concerning the type-approval of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor, which, for the purposes of EC type-approval in accordance with that Regulation, should be replaced by corresponding UNECE Regulations in order to ensure that type-approval provisions are maintained and to facilitate scientific and technological developments.\n(8)\nFor that reason, it is appropriate to include UNECE Regulations Nos 30, 54, 64 and 117 into Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009, which lists the UNECE Regulations that apply on a compulsory basis.\n(9)\nIt is also appropriate to clarify Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 407/2011 (5), as regards the application of UNECE Regulation No 13 on braking of vehicles and trailers, Regulation No 13-H on braking of passenger cars, Regulation No 34 on the prevention of fire risks (liquid fuel tanks) and Regulation No 55 on mechanical coupling components of combinations of vehicles.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe UNECE Regulations listed in the Annex to this Regulation should apply following the implementation dates set out in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\n1. With effect from 1 November 2012, UNECE Regulation No 30, supplement 16 to the 02 series of amendments (6), and UNECE Regulation No 117, 02 series of amendments (7), including the stage 2 rolling sound requirements set out in paragraph 6.1.1, the requirements for wet grip performance set out in paragraph 6.2, and the stage 1 rolling resistance requirements set out in paragraph 6.3.1 of that UNECE Regulation, shall apply for the purpose of type-approval of new types of tyres of Class C1.\n2. With effect from 1 November 2014, UNECE Regulation No 30, supplement 16 to the 02 series of amendments, and UNECE Regulation No 117, 02 series of amendments, including the wet grip performance requirements set out in paragraph 6.2 of that UNECE Regulation, shall apply for the purpose of the sale and entry into service of new tyres of Class C1.\n3. With effect from 1 November 2012, UNECE Regulation No 54, supplement 17 to the original version of the Regulation (8), and UNECE Regulation No 117, 02 series of amendments, including the stage 2 rolling sound requirements set out in paragraphs 6.1.2 to 6.1.3 and the stage 1 rolling resistance requirements set out in paragraph 6.3.1 of that UNECE Regulation, shall apply for the purpose of type-approval of new types of tyres of Classes C2 and C3.\n4. With effect from 1 November 2014, UNECE Regulation No 54 supplement 17 to the original version of the Regulation, shall apply on a compulsory basis for the purpose of the sale and entry into service of new tyres of Classes C2 and C3.\n5. With effect from 1 November 2016, UNECE Regulation No 117, 02 series of amendments, including the stage 2 rolling sound requirements set out in paragraphs 6.1.1 to 6.1.3 of that UNECE Regulation, shall apply for the purpose of the sale and entry into service of new tyres of Classes C1, C2 and C3.\n6. With effect from 1 November 2014, UNECE Regulation No 117, 02 series of amendments, including the stage 1 rolling resistance requirements set out in paragraph 6.3.1 of that UNECE Regulation, shall apply for the purpose of the sale and entry into service of new tyres of Classes C1 and C2.\n7. With effect from 1 November 2016, UNECE Regulation No 117, 02 series of amendments, including the stage 1 rolling resistance requirements set out in paragraph 6.3.1 of that UNECE Regulation, shall apply for the purpose of the sale and entry into service of new tyres of Class C3.\n8. With effect from 1 November 2016, UNECE Regulation No 117, 02 series of amendments, including the stage 2 rolling resistance requirements set out in paragraph 6.3.2 of that UNECE Regulation, shall apply for the purpose of type-approval of new types of tyres of Classes C1, C2 and C3.\n9. With effect from 1 November 2018, UNECE Regulation No 117, 02 series of amendments, including the stage 2 rolling resistance requirements set out in paragraph 6.3.2 of that UNECE Regulation, shall apply on a compulsory basis for the purpose of the sale and entry into service of new tyres of Classes C1 and C2.\n10. With effect from 1 November 2020, UNECE Regulation No 117, 02 series of amendments, including the stage 2 rolling resistance requirements set out in paragraph 6.3.2 of that UNECE Regulation, shall apply for the purpose of the sale and entry into service of new tyres of Class C3.\n11. New tyres of Classes C1, C2 and C3 that were manufactured prior to the dates set out in paragraph 2 concerning general requirements and wet grip performance, paragraph 4 concerning general requirements, paragraph 5 concerning stage 2 rolling sound requirements, paragraphs 6 and 7 concerning stage 1 rolling resistance requirements as well as paragraphs 9 and 10 concerning stage 2 rolling resistance requirements, and which do not comply with these requirements, may be sold and entering into service for an additional period not exceeding 30 months from those dates.\nArticle 3\n1. With effect from 1 November 2012, national authorities shall refuse to grant EC type-approval of new types of vehicles of category M1 which are not fitted with a tyre pressure monitoring system (TPMS) complying with the relevant requirements laid down in UNECE Regulation No 64, 02 series of amendments, corrigendum 1 (9).\n2. With effect from 1 November 2014, national authorities shall prohibit the registration, sale and entry into service of vehicles of category M1 which are not fitted with a TPMS complying with the relevant requirements laid down in UNECE Regulation No 64, 02 series of amendments, corrigendum 1.\nArticle 4\n1. With effect from 1 November 2012, UNECE Regulation No 64, 02 series of amendments, corrigendum 1, shall apply for the purpose of EC type-approval of new types of vehicles of categories M1 and N1 where such vehicles are fitted with equipment covered by that Regulation.\n2. With effect from 1 November 2014, UNECE Regulation No 64, 02 series of amendments, corrigendum 1, shall apply on a compulsory basis for the purpose of the registration, sale and entry into service of new vehicles of categories M1 and N1, where such vehicles are fitted with equipment covered by that Regulation.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2012.", "references": ["51", "18", "21", "80", "19", "12", "62", "1", "34", "3", "0", "81", "95", "94", "86", "96", "10", "6", "37", "47", "78", "50", "72", "70", "13", "52", "7", "17", "79", "90", "No Label", "54", "55", "76", "99"], "gold": ["54", "55", "76", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 914/2011\nof 13 September 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 605/2010 laying down animal and public health and veterinary certification conditions for the introduction into the European Union of raw milk and dairy products intended for human consumption\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), and in particular the introductory phrase and point (b) of Article 9(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 605/2010 of 2 July 2010 (2) laying down animal and public health and veterinary certification conditions for the introduction into the European Union of raw milk and dairy products intended for human consumption provides that consignments of raw milk and dairy products intended for human consumption, authorised for importation into the Union, are to be accompanied by a health certificate drawn up in accordance with the appropriate model set out in Part 2 of Annex II thereto for the commodity concerned (\u2018the model health certificates\u2019).\n(2)\nIt should be clarified that the requirement regarding the use of the model health certificates provided for in that Regulation is without prejudice to specific certification requirements laid down in other Union acts or in agreements concluded by the Union with third countries.\n(3)\nThe model health certificates specify the commodity code for the commodities covered by Regulation (EU) No 605/2010 on the basis of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System (\u2018HS codes\u2019) of tariff nomenclature maintained by the World Customs Organization (WCO).\n(4)\nCertain dairy products covered by Regulation (EU) No 605/2010 do not fall within the commodity codes in the model health certificates. In order to allow a more precise identification of those commodities in the model health certificates, it is necessary to amend those models and add the missing HS codes, in particular as regards HS codes 35.01 and 35.02 (casein, caseinates and albumines).\n(5)\nIn addition, it should be clarified in the model health certificates that the requirements regarding antibiotic residues, contaminants and pesticide residues may be based on the findings of official monitoring programmes which are at least equivalent to those provided for in Union legislation.\n(6)\nFor reasons of clarity and transparency of Union legislation, the model health certificates should be replaced by the model health certificates set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nRegulation (EU) No 605/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 605/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 1, the following second paragraph is added:\n\u2018This Regulation shall apply without prejudice to any specific certification requirements laid down in other Union acts or in agreements concluded by the Union with third countries.\u2019\n(2)\nAnnex II is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nFor a transitional period until 30 November 2011, consignments of raw milk and dairy products for which the relevant health certificates have been issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 605/2010 before the entry into force of this Regulation may continue to be introduced into the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2011.", "references": ["77", "55", "40", "20", "59", "90", "87", "89", "25", "83", "36", "62", "72", "41", "2", "11", "63", "95", "9", "34", "84", "42", "91", "67", "86", "66", "33", "98", "56", "50", "No Label", "21", "22", "70"], "gold": ["21", "22", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 November 2010\namending Annex I to Decision 2006/766/EC as regards the title and the entry for Chile in the list of third countries from which imports of live, frozen or processed bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods for human consumption are permitted\n(notified under document C(2010) 8259)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/725/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 provides that products of animal origin are only to be imported from a third country or part of a third country that appears on a list drawn up in accordance with that Regulation. It also lays down special conditions for the import of bivalve molluscs, tunicates, echinoderms and marine gastropods from third countries.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 provides that a third country shall appear on such lists only if a Union control in that country confirms that the competent authority provides appropriate guarantees as specified in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (2). In particular, Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 provides that third countries are to appear on such lists only if their competent authorities provide appropriate guarantees as regards compliance or equivalence with Union feed and food law and animal health rules.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2006/766/EC of 6 November 2006 establishing the lists of third countries and territories from which imports of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates, marine gastropods and fishery products are permitted (3) lists those third countries which satisfy the criteria referred to in Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and are therefore able to guarantee that exports of those products to the Union meet the sanitary conditions laid down in Union legislation to protect the health of consumers. In particular, Annex I to that Decision sets out a list of third countries from which imports of live, frozen or processed bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods for human consumption are permitted. That list also indicates restrictions concerning such imports from certain third countries.\n(4)\nChile is currently included in the list in Annex I to Decision 2006/766/EC as a third country from which imports of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods intended for human consumption are permitted, but such imports are restricted to frozen or processed products.\n(5)\nUnion controls in Chile to evaluate the control system in place governing the production of bivalve molluscs intended for export to the Union, the last of which took place in 2010, together with guarantees provided by the competent authority of Chile, indicate that the conditions applicable in that third country to chilled and eviscerated bivalve molluscs belonging to the family of Pectinidae wild or harvested in class A production areas and destined for export to the Union are equivalent to those laid down in the relevant Union legislation. As a result imports from Chile of such bivalve molluscs should be permitted.\n(6)\nAnnex I to Decision 2006/766/EC should be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Decision 2006/766/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nthe title of Annex I is replaced by the following:\n2.\nthe entry for Chile is replaced by the following:\n\u2018CL\nCHILE\nOnly frozen or processed bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods, and chilled and eviscerated Pectinidae wild or harvested in production areas classified as A according to Point A.3 of Chapter II of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 November 2010.", "references": ["45", "75", "80", "63", "7", "51", "90", "14", "21", "65", "89", "68", "77", "31", "2", "11", "94", "66", "46", "83", "69", "27", "88", "12", "76", "85", "17", "34", "47", "13", "No Label", "4", "22", "25", "38", "67", "93"], "gold": ["4", "22", "25", "38", "67", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/29/EU\nof 7 March 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include etridiazole as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included etridiazole.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of etridiazole.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the Netherlands, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe Netherlands evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 2 December 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on etridiazole to the Commission on 24 September 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for etridiazole.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing etridiazole may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include etridiazole in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, in assessing applications to authorise plant protection products containing etridiazole for uses other than on ornamental plants, Member States shall ensure that any necessary information is provided before such an authorisation is granted. Moreover, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information confirming: the specification of the technical material as commercially manufactured by appropriate analytical data, the relevance of the impurities, the equivalence between the specifications of the technical material, as commercially manufactured, and those of the test material used in the ecotoxicity dossiers, the relevance of the plant metabolites 5-hydroxy-ethoxyetridiazole acid and 3-hydroxymethyletridiazole, the indirect exposure of groundwater and soil-dwelling organisms to etridiazole and to its soil metabolites dichloro-etridiazole and etridiazole acid, and the long-range and short-range transport through the atmosphere of etridiazole acid.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing etridiazole to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of etridiazole and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning etridiazole in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning etridiazole in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing etridiazole as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to etridiazole are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing etridiazole as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning etridiazole. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing etridiazole as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing etridiazole as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["95", "47", "45", "21", "81", "89", "34", "67", "32", "31", "87", "79", "33", "36", "69", "50", "19", "5", "58", "20", "39", "74", "51", "86", "23", "4", "64", "63", "11", "49", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 June 2010\non the recognition of Algeria as regards education, training and certification of seafarers for the recognition of certificates of competency\n(notified under document C(2010) 4226)\n(2010/363/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1) and in particular Article 19(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the letter of 13 May 2005 from the Cypriot Authorities, requesting the recognition of Algeria in order to recognise certificates of competency issued by this country,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMember States may decide to endorse seafarers\u2019 certificates of competency issued by third countries, provided that the relevant third country is recognised by the Commission as ensuring that this country complies with the requirements of the international Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW Convention) (2);\n(2)\nFollowing the request of the Cypriot Authorities, the Commission assessed the maritime education, training and certification systems in Algeria in order to verify whether this country complies with the requirements of the STCW Convention and whether appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. This assessment was based on the results of a fact-finding inspection performed by experts of the European Maritime Safety Agency in September 2006;\n(3)\nWhere deficiencies had been identified during the assessment of compliance with the STCW Convention, the Algerian Authorities provided to the Commission the requested relevant information and evidence concerning the implementation of appropriate and sufficient corrective action to address most of these issues;\n(4)\nThe remaining shortcomings as regards seafarers\u2019 training and certification procedures mainly concern missing specific legal provisions regarding the use of simulators and an explicit correspondence between the designation of Algerian certificates of competency and some training requirements of the STCW Convention and the associated Code. The Algerian authorities have therefore been invited to implement further corrective action in this respect. However, these shortcomings do not warrant calling into question the overall level of compliance of the Algerian systems regarding education, training and certification of seafarers with the STCW Convention;\n(5)\nThe outcome of the assessment of compliance and the evaluation of the information provided by the Algerian Authorities demonstrate that Algeria complies with the relevant requirements of the STCW Convention, while this country has taken appropriate measures to prevent fraud involving certificates and should thus be recognised by the Union;\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAlgeria is recognised as regards education, training and certification of seafarers, for the purpose of recognition of certificates of competency issued by this country.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision takes effect from the date of its notification to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2010.", "references": ["68", "31", "63", "46", "14", "28", "93", "69", "37", "4", "39", "29", "24", "25", "72", "90", "16", "47", "10", "8", "30", "75", "73", "45", "88", "32", "79", "67", "42", "18", "No Label", "49", "50", "54", "56", "94"], "gold": ["49", "50", "54", "56", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 351/2011\nof 11 April 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 297/2011 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53 (1) (b)(ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 provides for the possibility to adopt appropriate Union emergency measures for food and feed imported from a third country in order to protect public health, animal health or the environment, where the risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member States individually.\n(2)\nFollowing the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station on 11 March 2011, the Commission was informed that radionuclide levels in certain food products originating in Japan such as milk and spinach exceeded the action levels in food applicable in Japan. Such contamination may constitute a threat to public and animal health within the Union and therefore Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 297/2011 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station (2) was adopted on 25 March 2011.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 297/2011 provides for the requirement for pre-export control by the competent authorities of Japan. Action levels for iodine, caesium and plutonium in food have been established by the competent authorities of Japan. The Commission was informed on 17 March 2011 of these action levels applicable in Japan but it was indicated that these action levels were adopted for the time being as provisional regulation values. The authorities from Japan also informed the Commission that products that are not allowed to be placed on the Japanese market, are also not allowed to be exported. It becomes now evident that these action levels will be applied in Japan for a longer term. It is therefore appropriate in order to provide consistency between the pre-export controls performed by the Japanese authorities and the controls on the level of radionuclides performed on feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan at the entry into the EU, to apply on a provisional basis the same maximum levels in the EU for radionuclides in feed and food from Japan as the action levels applicable in Japan as long as these are lower than the EU values.\n(4)\nThis Regulation is without prejudice to the scientifically established levels laid down in Council Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87 and Commission Regulations (Euratom) No 944/89 and (Euratom) No 770/90 for application in case of a future nuclear accident or any other case of radiological emergency affecting the EU territory. This Regulation applies for isotopes of strontium the values established in Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87, since there are no such values laid down in Japan.\n(5)\nGiven that for the time being, there is evidence that feed and food from certain regions from Japan is contaminated by the radionuclides iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium 137 and that there is no indication that feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan is contaminated with other radionuclides, it is appropriate to restrict the obligatory controls to iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137. Member States may also perform analysis on a voluntary basis for the presence of other radionuclides in view of gathering information on the possible presence of these other radionuclides. It is therefore appropriate to mention the existing maximum levels in EU legislation or action levels applied in Japan for the radionuclides strontium, plutonium and trans-plutonium elements in Annex II to this Regulation.\n(6)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Regulation (EU) 297/2011 accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) 297/2011 is amended as follows\n(1)\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nIn Paragraph 3, the third indent is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nin case the product is originating in or consigned from the prefectures Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamagata, Niigata, Nagano, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo and Chiba, the product does not contain levels of the radionuclides iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 above the maximum levels provided for in Annex II to this Regulation. This provision applies also to products originating in the coastal waters of these prefectures, irrespective of where such products are landed.\u2019\n(b)\nParagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The model of the declaration referred to in paragraph 3 is set out in the Annex I. The declaration shall be signed by an authorised representative of the Japanese competent authorities and shall for the products falling under paragraph 3, third indent be accompanied by an analytical report.\u2019\n(2)\nArticle 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 7\nNon-compliant products\nFeed and food originating in or consigned from Japan which do not comply with the maximum levels referred to in Annex II, shall not be placed on the market. Such non-compliant feed and food shall be safely disposed of or returned to the country of origin.\u2019\n(3)\nThe Annex is replaced by the text in Annex I to this Regulation.\n(4)\nA new Annex II, the text of which is set out in Annex II to this Regulation, is added.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["29", "99", "88", "52", "85", "89", "65", "53", "7", "86", "90", "39", "19", "51", "93", "44", "62", "11", "63", "67", "87", "8", "26", "82", "5", "48", "37", "31", "32", "24", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "23", "38", "60", "61", "66", "72", "81", "95", "96"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "23", "38", "60", "61", "66", "72", "81", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/37/EU\nof 30 March 2011\namending Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life vehicles\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles (1), and in particular Article 4(2)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2000/53/EC prohibits the use of lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium in materials and components of vehicles put on the market after 1 July 2003, other than in cases listed in Annex II to that Directive and under the conditions specified therein. Pursuant to Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 2000/53/EC, Annex II to that Directive should be adapted to scientific and technical progress by the Commission on a regular basis.\n(2)\nAnnex II to Directive 2000/53/EC lists vehicle materials and components exempted from the prohibition set out in Article 4(2)(a) thereof. Vehicles put on the market before the expiry date of a given exemption may contain lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium in materials and components listed in Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC.\n(3)\nCertain materials and components containing lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium should continue to be exempted from the prohibition set out in Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2000/53/EC, since the use of such substances in those specific materials and components is still technically or scientifically unavoidable. It is therefore appropriate to prolong the expiry date of those exemptions until the use of the prohibited substances becomes avoidable.\n(4)\nThe use of lead in automotive thermoelectric materials in applications reducing CO2 emissions by recuperation of exhaust heat is currently technically and scientifically unavoidable. Those materials should therefore be temporarily exempted from the prohibition set out in Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2000/53/EC.\n(5)\nCertain materials and components containing lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium should continue to be exempted from the prohibition set out in Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2000/53/EC without an expiry date, since the use of such substances in the specific materials and components listed in Annex II to that Directive is still technically or scientifically unavoidable.\n(6)\nAnnex II to Directive 2000/53/EC provides that spare parts put on the market after 1 July 2003 which are used for vehicles put on the market before 1 July 2003 are exempted from the provisions of Article 4(2)(a) of that Directive. The exemption allows for the repair of vehicles put on the market before the entry into force of the prohibition set out in that Article with spare parts meeting the same quality and safety requirements as the parts with which they were originally equipped.\n(7)\nSpare parts for vehicles put on the market after 1 July 2003 but before the expiry date of a given exemption of Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC are not covered by that exemption. Hence, spare parts for those vehicles should be heavy metal free, even if they are used to replace parts which originally contained heavy metals.\n(8)\nIn certain cases it is technically impossible to repair vehicles with spare parts other than original ones as this would require changes in dimensional and functional properties of entire vehicle systems. Such spare parts cannot fit into the vehicle systems originally manufactured with parts containing heavy metals and these vehicles cannot be repaired and may need to be prematurely disposed of. Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC should therefore be amended to enable the repair of such vehicles.\n(9)\nDirective 2000/53/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 18(1) of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Directive 2000/53/EC is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 December 2011 at the latest.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 March 2011.", "references": ["87", "92", "79", "12", "91", "93", "89", "18", "78", "21", "65", "74", "24", "68", "71", "63", "70", "96", "95", "48", "44", "61", "40", "6", "97", "28", "59", "30", "11", "19", "No Label", "54", "58", "76", "84", "85"], "gold": ["54", "58", "76", "84", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1235/2011\nof 29 November 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the wet grip grading of tyres, the measurement of rolling resistance and the verification procedure\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters (1), and in particular Article 11(a) and (c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1222/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council aims at establishing a framework for the provision of harmonised information on tyre parameters through labelling, allowing end-users to make an informed choice when purchasing tyres.\n(2)\nThe rolling resistance of tyres determines their fuel efficiency grading. Measurement of rolling resistance must be reproducible; tests on the same tyres in different laboratories must produce the same results in order to ensure a fair comparison between tyres from different suppliers. In addition, a good reproducibility of testing results prevents market surveillance authorities from obtaining different results from those of the suppliers when testing the same tyres.\n(3)\nA procedure for the alignment of test laboratories with regard to the measurement of rolling resistance would improve the reproducibility of the testing results.\n(4)\nSince a suitable harmonised testing method of grip on wet roads has been developed at ISO level, a wet grip grading of C2 and C3 tyres should now be introduced, in accordance with Article 11 (a) of Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009.\n(5)\nThe clarity of the conformity verification procedure set out in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 should be improved by introducing thresholds according to which the declared values used for the labelling requirements are considered to be in compliance with that Regulation.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 1222/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009\nRegulation (EC) No 1222/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nAnnex I, part A: Fuel efficiency classes, the first sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The fuel efficiency class must be determined on the basis of the rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) according to the \u201cA\u201d to \u201cG\u201d scale specified below and measured in accordance with Annex 6 of UNECE Regulation No 117 and its subsequent amendments and aligned according to the procedure laid down in Annex IVa.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Annex I, part B: Wet grip classes, the text and table are replaced by the following:\n\u20181.\nThe wet grip class of C1 tyres must be determined on the basis of the wet grip index (G) according to the \u201cA\u201d to \u201cG\u201d scale specified in the table below, calculated in accordance with point 3 and measured in accordance with Annex V.\n2.\nThe wet grip class of C2 and C3 tyres must be determined on the basis of the wet grip index (G) according to the \u201cA\u201d to \u201cG\u201d scale specified in the table below, calculated in accordance with point (3) and measured in accordance with ISO 15222:2011 whereby the following Standard Reference Test Tyres (SRTT) must be used:\n(i)\nfor C2 tyres, the SRTT 225/75 R 16 C, ASTM F 2872-11;\n(ii)\nfor C3 tyres having Nominal Section Width lower than 285 mm, the SRTT 245/70R19.5, ASTM F 2871-11;\n(iii)\nfor C3 tyres having Nominal Section Width greater than or equal to 285 mm, the SRTT 315/70R22.5, ASTM F 2870-11.\n3.\nCalculation of wet grip index (G)\nG = G(T) - 0,03\nwhere: G(T) = wet grip index of the candidate tyre as measured in one test cycle\nC1 tyres\nC2 tyres\nC3 tyres\nG\nWet grip class\nG\nWet grip class\nG\nWet grip class\n1,55 \u2264 G\nA\n1,40 \u2264 G\nA\n1,25 \u2264 G\nA\n1,40 \u2264 G \u2264 1,54\nB\n1,25 \u2264 G \u2264 1,39\nB\n1,10 \u2264 G \u2264 1,24\nB\n1,25 \u2264 G \u2264 1,39\nC\n1,10 \u2264 G \u2264 1,24\nC\n0,95 \u2264 G \u2264 1,09\nC\nEmpty\nD\nEmpty\nD\n0,80 \u2264 G \u2264 0,94\nD\n1,10 \u2264 G \u2264 1,24\nE\n0,95 \u2264 G \u2264 1,09\nE\n0,65 \u2264 G \u2264 0,79\nE\nG \u2264 1,09\nF\nG \u2264 0,94\nF\nG \u2264 0,64\nF\nEmpty\nG\nEmpty\nG\nEmpty\nG\u2019\n(3)\nAnnex IV: Verification procedure, is replaced by the following:\n\u2018ANNEX IV\nVerification procedure\nThe conformity of the declared fuel efficiency and wet grip classes, as well as the declared external rolling noise class and declared value, must be assessed for each tyre type or each grouping of tyres as determined by the supplier, according to one of the following procedures:\n(a)\n(i)\na single tyre or tyre set is tested first. If the measured values meet the declared classes or external rolling noise declared value to within the tolerance defined in Table 1, the test is successfully passed; and\n(ii)\nif the measured values do not meet the declared classes or external rolling noise declared value within the range defined in Table 1, three more tyres or tyre sets are tested. The average measurement value stemming from the three tyres or tyre sets tested is used to assess conformity with the declared information within the range defined in Table 1; or\n(b)\nwhere the labelled classes or values are derived from type approval test results obtained in accordance with Directive 2001/43/EC, Regulation (EC) No 661/2009, or UNECE Regulation No 117 and its subsequent amendments, Member States may make use of measurement data obtained from conformity of production tests on tyres.\nAssessment of the measurement data obtained from the conformity of production tests must take into account the allowances defined in Table 1.\nTable 1\nMeasured parameter\nVerification tolerances\nRolling resistance coefficient (fuel efficiency)\nThe aligned measured value shall not be greater than the upper limit (the highest RRC) of the declared class by more than 0,3 kg/1 000kg.\nExternal rolling noise\nThe measured value shall not be greater than the declared value of N by more than 1 dB(A).\nWet grip\nThe measured value shall not be lower than the lower limit (the lowest value of G) of the declared class.\u2019\n(4)\nthe text set out in the Annex to this Regulation is added as Annex IVa.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall apply from 30 May 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2011.", "references": ["1", "47", "51", "30", "87", "12", "98", "39", "52", "45", "22", "73", "48", "13", "41", "11", "81", "74", "2", "89", "72", "70", "92", "29", "91", "32", "14", "37", "9", "26", "No Label", "24", "25", "76", "78", "80", "83"], "gold": ["24", "25", "76", "78", "80", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 336/2011\nof 7 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1292/2008 as regards the use of the feed additive Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CECT 5940 in feed containing diclazuril, monensin sodium and nicarbazin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the possibility to modify the authorisation of a feed additive further to a request from the holder of the authorisation and an opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (the Authority).\n(3)\nThe use of the micro-organism preparation of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CECT 5940 was authorised for 10 years for chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1292/2008 of 18 December 2008 concerning the authorisation of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CECT 5940 (Ecobiol and Ecobiol Plus) as a feed additive (2).\n(4)\nThe holder of the authorisation submitted an application for a modification of the authorisation of this additive to allow its use in feed containing the coccidiostats monensin sodium, diclazuril, nicarbazin, robenidine hydrochloride, salinomycin sodium, lasalocid sodium, narasin/nicarbazin, maduramycin ammonium, decoquinate or semduramicin sodium for chickens for fattening. The holder of the authorisation submitted the relevant data to support its request.\n(5)\nThe Authority concluded in its opinion of 9 November 2010 that the additive Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CECT 5940 is compatible with diclazuril, monensin sodium and nicarbazin (3).\n(6)\nThe conditions provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 are satisfied.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1292/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1292/2008 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 April 2011.", "references": ["20", "47", "18", "26", "14", "21", "71", "93", "84", "63", "89", "6", "52", "9", "82", "12", "96", "69", "27", "2", "3", "43", "39", "42", "67", "98", "77", "75", "64", "19", "No Label", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1272/2011\nof 5 December 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of 3 months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of 3 months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 December 2011.", "references": ["12", "3", "8", "86", "60", "58", "37", "5", "90", "11", "39", "80", "70", "92", "26", "96", "4", "94", "43", "30", "24", "18", "15", "40", "13", "78", "17", "22", "9", "50", "No Label", "21", "66", "74"], "gold": ["21", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 398/2012\nof 7 May 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sodium cyclamate originating in, inter alia, the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 9(4), 11(3), 11(5) and 11(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Measures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 435/2004 (2), the Council imposed, following an anti-dumping investigation, a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the PRC\u2019 or \u2018the country concerned\u2019) and Indonesia (\u2018the original investigation\u2019). Following an expiry review, the Council, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2010 (3) imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty for a further period of five years. The measures were set at the level of dumping and consist of specific anti-dumping duties. The rate of the duty for the PRC ranges between 0 and 0,11 EUR/kilo for individually named Chinese producers with a residual duty rate of 0,26 EUR/kilo imposed on imports from other producers (\u2018current duties\u2019).\n1.2. Request for a review\n(2)\nA request for a partial interim review (\u2018the current review\u2019) pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation was lodged by Productos Aditivos S.A., the sole Union producer of sodium cyclamate and the complainant in the original investigation (\u2018the complainant\u2019). The request was limited in scope to dumping and to Golden Time Enterprise (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd (\u2018GT Enterprise\u2019 or \u2018the company concerned\u2019), member of the Rainbow Rich group (\u2018the group of companies concerned\u2019, \u2018Rainbow group\u2019, or \u2018Rainbow\u2019), which was also one of the individually named Chinese producers in the original investigation. The anti-dumping duty applicable to imports of products produced by GT Enterprise is 0,11 EUR/kilo and the duty applicable to imports from the other production companies within the group of companies concerned is 0,26 EUR/kilo (i.e. the residual duty rate).\n(3)\nThe complainant provided prima facie evidence that the existing measures are no longer sufficient to counteract the dumping which is causing injury.\n1.3. Initiation of a partial interim review\n(4)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that the request contained sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the initiation of the partial interim review, the Commission announced, by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) on 17 February 2011, the initiation of a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation limited to the examination of dumping as far as GT Enterprise is concerned.\n1.4. Product concerned and like product\n(5)\nThe product under review is sodium cyclamate, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN code ex 2929 90 00 (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n(6)\nAs in previous investigations, this investigation has shown that the product concerned produced in the PRC and sold to the Union is identical in terms of physical and chemical characteristics and uses to the product produced and sold on the domestic market in Indonesia which served as an analogue country in the current review. It is therefore concluded that products sold on the domestic market in Indonesia and sold by the group of companies concerned on the Union market are like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n1.5. Parties concerned\n(7)\nThe Commission officially informed the complainant, the company concerned and the representatives of the country concerned about the initiation of the current review. The Commission also advised producers in Indonesia of the initiation of the proceedings, as Indonesia was envisaged as a possible analogue country.\n(8)\nInterested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(9)\nIn order to obtain the information deemed necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the company concerned and received replies from five companies in the Rainbow group within the deadline set for that purpose. (As the Rainbow group now consists of two production companies (one being GT Enterprise), one raw material supplier, one company previously involved with the product concerned, but now dormant, and a trader in Hong Kong, the review encompassed the activities of the full group). The Commission also sent questionnaires to producers in Indonesia. One Indonesian producer showed willingness to provide information in the current review and provided a partial reply to the questionnaire.\n(10)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary for the analysis of market economy treatment and individual treatment and the determination of dumping. The Commission carried out verification visits at the premises of the following members of the group of the companies concerned:\n-\nGolden Time Enterprises (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd, Shenzhen, PRC, (GT Enterprise),\n-\nJintian Industrial (Nanjing) Co. Ltd, Nanjing, PRC,\n-\nGolden Time Chemical (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd, Jiangsu, PRC,\n-\nNanjing Jinzhang Industrial Co. Ltd, Nanjing, PRC,\n-\nRainbow Rich Ltd, Hong Kong.\n1.6. Review investigation period\n(11)\nThe investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019).\n2. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n2.1. Market economy treatment (MET)\n(12)\nIn anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 2 of the basic Regulation for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) thereof. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, the criteria in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, fulfilment of which the applicant companies have to demonstrate, are set out in summarised form below:\n-\nbusiness decisions and costs are made in response to market conditions, and without significant State interference and costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values,\n-\naccounting records are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes,\n-\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system,\n-\nlegal certainty and stability are provided by bankruptcy and property laws,\n-\ncurrency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.\n(13)\nThe group of companies concerned requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and submitted claim forms for four producers located in the People\u2019s Republic of China. The Commission sought and verified at the premises of the companies all information submitted in the companies\u2019 requests and deemed necessary.\n(14)\nThe current review revealed that the situation of the company concerned changed since the original investigation. It was found that GT Enterprise no longer meets all MET criteria. Furthermore, compared to the original investigation the Rainbow group had been enlarged and restructured. The other companies within the group that submitted claim forms could not demonstrate either that they meet all MET criteria.\n(15)\nWith regard to criterion 1 concerning business decisions and State interference, it was found that the local government has the authority to interfere in the hiring and dismissal of personnel in one company within the group. Furthermore, the local government is a major shareholder of the company producing raw materials. Indications of significant State interference were identified in the supply of raw materials to the company (electricity and water) and by the company to its related companies, in labour costs and in the operations and decision-making of this company. As a way of example the State shareholder outsourced personnel to the raw material producer at terms that the company could not specify. Furthermore, the company has been continuously loss-making due to selling raw material at abnormally low prices to its related companies and without any further compensation e.g. in the form of profit distribution. Through the accumulation of these losses, the State-owned raw material producer influenced the decisions of the related companies with regard to purchase of raw materials for the production of sodium cyclamate. Finally, interference and influence could be detected in the financing and investment decisions of another company within the group by a local government agency.\n(16)\nWith regard to criterion 2 concerning accounting, the investigation showed that accounting records of all members of the group of companies concerned were not in line with international accounting standards as a number of material accounting shortcomings and errors were found which were not reported by the auditors.\n(17)\nWith regard to criterion 3, it was found that distortions were carried over from the non-market economy system through the provision of infrastructure investments to one company of the group for free. The same company benefited from favourable rental conditions for the land it uses. The other companies within the group could not demonstrate that they acquired their land use rights in return for a consideration and/or that the consideration would have reflected a market value. Finally one company was not able to demonstrate that certain assets transferred to it were made for monetary consideration or otherwise at prices reflecting market values.\n(18)\nFinally, with regard to criteria 4 and 5, it was found that the companies met the criteria as the companies were subject to bankruptcy and property laws which guaranteed stability and legal certainty. Currency conversions were carried out at or following the official rate published by the Bank of China.\n(19)\nThe group of companies concerned and the complainant were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings. The complainant had no comments but the group of companies concerned objected on several grounds. Some of these comments were reiterated after final disclosure of the facts and considerations on the basis of which it was proposed to impose definitive measures. The most important comments received are described in the recitals below.\n(20)\nThe Rainbow group firstly stated that the Commission illegally imposed an obligation to re-qualify for MET as the group was given MET in the original investigation and the expiry review and thus the legal obligation to apply the same methodology in reviews as in the original investigation was breached. It argued that the Commission has not shown that circumstances of this company had changed in a way that would justify a different method to that applied in the original investigation. According to the claimant several of the issues identified by the Commission had already existed at the time of the original investigation and thus the Commission\u2019s new findings do not relate to new circumstances but are merely a different interpretation of the same circumstances.\n(21)\nIt should be noted that, contrary to the claimant\u2019s statement, the same methodology was applied both in the original investigation and in the current review whereas due account was taken of the fact that certain circumstances have changed since the original investigation. Even if the claimant\u2019s argumentation would be correct in relation to certain facts that were indeed the same during both the original and current investigations, namely in relation to GT Enterprise\u2019s land use right agreement, the following can be noted. The current review established additional other facts that - even though they had already existed during the original investigation - were not disclosed at that time by GT Enterprise, such as the local government\u2019s authority to approve the hiring and dismissal of its personnel. Finally, the circumstances of the company have also changed since the original investigation in respect of criterion 2. That is because it was established in the current review that during the RIP GT Enterprise had not had a clear set of accounting records that were independently audited in line with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes.\n(22)\nThe claimant later explained that it considers that it had disclosed the local government\u2019s authority to approve the hiring and dismissal of its personnel by providing in the original investigation the same Articles of Association as in the current review. However, the translation of this document provided by the claimant both during the original and current investigation was incomplete as it did not disclose the powers given by the Articles of Association to the local government.\n(23)\nThe Rainbow group further argued that the MET regime was introduced for countries with an economy in transition, i.e. from the former non-market economy system towards a market economy. It would therefore be illogical to require a company that previously qualified for MET to once again submit sufficient evidence in an interim review that it still qualifies for MET. In this respect it should be noted that there is nothing in the basic Regulation which would support such an interpretation and which would prevent the application of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation in reviews initiated pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, this argument had to be dismissed.\n(24)\nThe Rainbow group also invoked the procedural requirement in Article 2(7)(c) that an MET determination shall be made within three months of the initiation of the investigation. Rainbow itself acknowledges that exceeding this deadline is in itself insufficient ground to contest the results of the investigation, but it highlights that the Commission services already had all the information necessary to calculate the dumping margin at their disposal when MET findings were disclosed. In its argumentation Rainbow however ignores the fact that even though the Commission indeed for administrative efficiency requested and verified all necessary information from the group of companies concerned at the same time, it had not had at its disposal information about the analogue country that would have made it possible to determine the dumping margin in case of rejecting MET. Indeed, information concerning the normal value in the analogue country was made available to the Commission only after the findings concerning MET had been disclosed to Rainbow. Thus the timing of the MET determination could not have any impact on its content. In the light of the above, this claim is rejected as unfounded.\n(25)\nWith respect to criterion 1, it has been submitted as a general comment that the theoretical possibility of State influence or State control per se does not automatically mean that there is an actual and significant State interference within the meaning of Article 2(7)(c). Rainbow repeatedly quotes a decision of the Court of First Instance (5) to argue that State control does not equal significant State interference because this would \u2018lead to the exclusion, in principle, of state-controlled companies from entitlement to MES, irrespective of the real factual, legal and economic context in which they operate.\u2019 Rainbow also claims that it would mean an unreasonable burden of proof on MET applicants if they were to show that there can never be a possibility for the State to interfere in business decisions. Further it argues that the State action would have to render the company\u2019s decisions incompatible with market considerations so as not to be in line with criterion 1.\n(26)\nContrary to the above assertions by the Rainbow group, the current investigation established specific and significant State interference in the operations of several companies within the group. In the case of the group company in which the hiring and dismissal of personnel was subject to the approval of the local government, it is the company\u2019s own rules of internal functioning, i.e. its Articles of Association, that clearly provide the authority for the State to interfere in its operational decisions. In the case of another group company, the State partner was found to have had an influence in the company in a manner which is incompatible with market considerations. Firstly, the State partner had contributed most of the capital to this company without this fact being reflected in the share of its ownership of the company. Secondly, the company\u2019s operations were always loss-making, which was mostly detrimental to the State partner given the capital it invested. Thirdly, the State partner itself incurred continuous losses as it supplied inputs such as water and electricity to the group company at below market prices and without proper receipt of payment.\n(27)\nConcerning the conclusion on State interference in the financing and investment decisions of another member of the group of companies concerned, it was submitted that factual findings of the Commission on a loan and its conditions were incorrect. The Commission however, has evidence collected during the verification showing that the company was instructed by a local government agency to take a loan which was not related to its business operations. The company reasons that the financing decisions were taken as a favour to this government agency and not as an obligation and the transaction in question was without further risk to the company since it would have had the possibility to seek compensation through the non-payment of utilities\u2019 invoices issued to it by the agency. The evidence collected by the Commission shows that the land use right of the company is indirectly used as a security in the relevant financial transaction; therefore the company bears significant risk. The land use right itself was acquired through the same government agency to whom the company alleges to have been providing only a favour. The allegation that a compensation would have been possible through non-payment for utilities demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of basic accounting standards (offsetting) and contradicts the company\u2019s further claim that influence on financial operations as such do not mean an influence on \u2018decisions on firms regarding prices, costs and inputs\u2019 as required by Article 2(7)(c). Furthermore, investment decisions are clearly and significantly influenced by the government agency as there are company-specific requirements set in the land use right agreement of the company on the investment to be performed and these requirements go beyond local zoning laws contrary to what has been suggested by the company. Therefore the claim that State interference in the financing and investment decisions do not amount to an influence according to Article 2(7)(c) is rejected.\n(28)\nAs to the group company producing one of the raw materials used in the production of sodium cyclamate, it was claimed that any shortcomings with respect to the company\u2019s decision-making and financial situation would have a very limited impact as the raw material produced by this company represents only around 10 % of the cost of production of sodium cyclamate. As the Commission was able to calculate the difference between profitable sales price and actual sales price of the raw material, the company suggests that it would be more appropriate to adjust the costs of low-priced raw material rather than rejecting MET. However, the objective of the MET assessment is to ascertain that inputs reflect market values and business decisions are made in response to market signals. It should be noted that Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation explicitly requires that costs of major inputs substantially reflect market value in order the conditions for the MET to be met without making any reference to the possibility of adjusting the distorted costs of major inputs. Therefore this claim has to be rejected.\n(29)\nThe company\u2019s claim concerning the abnormally low prices paid for water and electricity and labour costs - arguing that these are not major inputs only representing in total around 14 % of the total cost of production of the raw material - had to be rejected as this is considered, both individually and cumulatively, a significant enough cost element to have an impact on the total costs of the company. In the case of labour costs it is also noted that it was not possible to fully verify these elements as the company was not able to provide contracts or other documentation. Therefore it could not be ascertained that these costs reflected market values.\n(30)\nWith respect to criterion 2 it was argued that the Commission ignored the materiality principle pursuant to which omissions or misstatements of items are material only if they could influence the economic decisions that users make on the basis of financial statements and that such immaterial shortcomings would not need to be reported by the auditor either.\n(31)\nContrary to what the group claims, there were serious shortcomings in the accounting of the companies in relation to basic accounting principles (see, for more details, the next paragraph). Secondly, the objective of requiring a clear set of accounts for MET purposes is not for a user making economic decisions but to ensure that the financial statements provide a true and fair view of revenues, costs, etc. The objective of the MET investigation is to establish whether accounts are kept and audited in accordance with international accounting standards.\n(32)\nThe Rainbow group disputed that its companies breached the elements of the IAS rules and accounting practices mentioned in the MET assessment such as the accrual principle, faithful representation of transactions principle and offsetting, going concern principle, correct classification of balance sheets items, recognition of losses, only business related transactions and recordings within the accounts, correct classification and depreciation of expenses, respect of IAS and/or Chinese GAAP rules on the recognition of the value and depreciation of assets. The abovementioned breaches of IAS were identified from the information provided by the group in its MET claim form and all issues were subject to verification at the premises of the companies. The arguments presented by the companies on these issues following the disclosure of the MET findings were not such as to warrant a change in the conclusion that, in regard to these issues, the companies failed criterion 2.\n(33)\nWith respect to criterion 3, the Rainbow group claims that the provision of infrastructure investments to one company for free is a normal activity that also takes place in market economies in order to attract investments and that the impact of this subsidisation would be negligible on the financial situation of the company in the RIP. However, the fact that a company could avoid payments for infrastructure developments and at the same time benefited from very low rental prices for the same land do not reflect a normal situation in a market economy. This benefit on the other hand had a direct impact on the financial position of the production company and its ability to take decisions in response to market signals.\n(34)\nThe Commission accepted the claimant\u2019s arguments concerning GT Enterprise\u2019s land use right as explained in recital 21. Arguments presented concerning the land use right by the other companies however were not such as to reverse findings as the company itself acknowledges that it had not paid the agreed amount for its land use right in one case. In the case of another land use right the Rainbow group claims that prices of land in that region had been rising sharply and thus it is normal that the land was valued significantly higher a few years after its acquisition date. However, the evidence provided by the company referred to price increases for residential properties in the region and thus it is irrelevant. Rainbow ultimately claimed that the Commission\u2019s approach of requiring positive evidence that a company has paid a price that reflects market value imposes an unreasonable burden of proof. However, Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation explicitly requires that a claim for market economy treatment must \u2018contain sufficient evidence that the producers operates under market economy conditions\u2019. Therefore this argument had to be rejected.\n(35)\nRainbow group contests the finding on assets transferred to one company without a monetary consideration or otherwise at prices reflecting market values on the basis that this company had stopped production in the RIP. Indeed the company stopped production. However, the company was still selling its previously produced products on the domestic market. Thus an MET assessment had to be performed for this company as well to ascertain that there were no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system that could affect prices.\n(36)\nIt is therefore considered that GT Enterprise failed to meet the first and second criteria for MET, Jintian Industrial (Nanjing) Ltd failed to meet criterion two and three, Golden Time Chemical (Jiangsu) Ltd failed to meet criteria one and two and three for MET and Nanjing Jinzhang Industrial Ltd failed to meet criteria one, two and three. If one related company associated with the production and sale of the product concerned does not qualify for MET, MET cannot be granted to the group of related companies. Therefore, as all of the companies assessed for MET individually failed to meet the relevant criteria it is concluded that the Rainbow group cannot be granted MET. In these circumstances, after consulting the Advisory Committee, the group of companies concerned was denied MET.\n2.2. Individual treatment (IT)\n(37)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a countrywide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation to be granted IT. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below:\n-\nin the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits,\n-\nexport prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined,\n-\nthe majority of the shares belong to private persons. State officials appearing on the Boards of Directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from State interference,\n-\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate, and\n-\nState interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.\n(38)\nThe two exporting producers within the group having exported sodium cyclamate during the RIP claimed IT. It was not necessary to make an IT assessment for the other companies in the Rainbow group given that they are not exporters of the product concerned. On the basis of the information available and verified during the verification visits, it was found that these two exporting producers fulfilled the requirements foreseen in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and thus could be granted IT.\n2.3. Dumping\n2.3.1. Analogue country\n(39)\nAccording to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country (analogue country).\n(40)\nIn the notice of initiation the Commission indicated its intention to use Indonesia (the analogue country in the original investigation) as appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value and invited interested parties to comment thereon.\n(41)\nThe Commission has received no comments on the choice of the analogue country.\n(42)\nThe Commission sought cooperation from producers in Indonesia. Letters and relevant questionnaires were sent to all known companies. Of the several companies contacted, only one producer submitted the necessary information for the determination of normal value and agreed to partially cooperate with the review. As the company could not accept a verification visit at its premises, the Commission analysed the information provided for completeness and consistency. The information was found to be sufficient and reliable for the determination of the normal value and, whenever necessary, the Indonesian producer provided clarifications sought by the Commission. The information used was cross-checked with information provided in the review request.\n(43)\nThe investigation established that Indonesia has a competitive market for the like product.\n(44)\nThe investigation further revealed that the production volume of the cooperating Indonesian producer constitutes considerably more than 5 % of the volume of Chinese exports of the product concerned to the Union, hence the production was representative in terms of volume. As for the quality, technical specifications and standards of the like product in Indonesia, no major overall differences were found when compared to Chinese products. Therefore, the Indonesian market was deemed sufficiently representative for the determination of normal value.\n(45)\nIt is noted that to the Commission\u2019s knowledge there are no other production facilities elsewhere in the world, besides the known producers in Spain, the PRC and Indonesia.\n(46)\nIn view of all the above it was concluded that Indonesia constitutes an appropriate analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n2.3.2. Determination of normal value\n(47)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value was established on the basis of information received from the producer in the analogue country as set out below. It is noted that the Indonesian producer was investigated in a previous investigation concerning imports of sodium cyclamate from Indonesia (6). The data now provided by the company in its questionnaire response were found to be reliable and a solid basis to establish normal value for the purposes of this investigation. Indeed, average sales prices as well as the average cost of production followed a similar trend in line with the evolution of the average raw material cost. In addition, this trend could be confirmed by a similar evolution of the average raw material cost observed in the Union market.\n(48)\nThe domestic sales of the Indonesian producer of the like product were found to be representative in terms of volume compared to the product concerned exported to the Union by the group of companies concerned in the PRC.\n(49)\nThe Commission subsequently identified those product types, sold domestically by the producer in the analogue country, that were identical or directly comparable to the types sold for export to the Union. The standard product type of the Indonesian producer was found to be directly comparable.\n(50)\nFor the standard product type sold by the producer in the analogue country on its domestic market and found to be directly comparable with the type sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular type of sodium cyclamate were considered sufficiently representative when the total domestic sales volume of that type during the IP represented 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the comparable type exported to the Union by the group of companies concerned.\n(51)\nAn examination was also made as to whether the domestic sales could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, by establishing for the standard product type the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market during the investigation period. Since the volume of profitable sales of the like product per product type represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that type made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not.\n(52)\nIn the determination of the normal value for the product type that had not been sold on the domestic market by the producer in the analogue country, the weighted average sales price of all the sales of the standard product type was used, after having adjusted for differences within the two product types.\n2.3.3. Export price\n(53)\nAll exporting producers within the group of companies concerned made export sales to the Union through their related trading company located outside the Union. The export price was established on the basis of the prices of the product when sold by the related trading company to the Union, i.e. to an independent buyer, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation on the basis of prices actually paid or payable.\n2.3.4. Comparison\n(54)\nThe normal value and export price were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting price and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs and credit cost where applicable and supported by verified evidence.\n2.3.5. Dumping margin\n(55)\nThe dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average export price for all exporting producers, in accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation.\n(56)\nThis comparison showed a dumping margin of 14,2 %, expressed as a percentage of the CIF frontier price, duty unpaid.\n2.4. Lasting nature of changed circumstances\n(57)\nIn accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the circumstances on the basis of which the current dumping margin was based have changed and whether such change was of a lasting nature.\n(58)\nThe current findings are based on the rejection of the claim for the market economy treatment to the group of companies concerned in the current review whereas the member of the group of related companies investigated in the original investigation GT Enterprise was granted MET. The circumstances that led to the different conclusion are firstly due to the fact that in the current review four companies within the group were investigated as compared to only GT Enterprise in the original investigation. The group was recently enlarged and reorganised with considerable investments and there is no indication that this situation would change in the foreseeable future. Secondly, as regards GT Enterprise, it was found that the company\u2019s practice of not keeping a clear set of accounting audited in line with international accounting standard is an established practice and nothing indicates that this would change in the future. Also, its Articles of Association allowing for State influence had been in force for a longer period and there were no indications for their amendment in the future. In these circumstances, it is considered that the non-MET status of the group is of a lasting nature.\n(59)\nFurthermore, as regards export price, the investigation showed certain stability in pricing policies of the group of companies concerned over a longer period since the price of the product concerned charged to the Union and to other third countries did not differ significantly and followed the same trend between 2007 and the RIP. This supports the conclusion that the newly calculated dumping margin is likely to be of a lasting nature.\n(60)\nIt was therefore considered that the investigation showed that the structure and behaviour of the group of companies concerned, including the circumstances that led to the initiation of the current review, were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future in a manner that would affect the findings of the current review. Therefore it was concluded that the changed circumstances are of a lasting nature and that the application of the measure at its current level is no longer sufficient to offset dumping.\n3. AMENDMENT OF THE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(61)\nIn view of the findings of increased dumping as well as the lasting nature of the changed circumstances, it is considered that the existing measures are no longer sufficient to counteract the dumping which is causing injury. The measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2010 on imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the PRC should therefore be modified for GT Enterprise and the same duty should be imposed to the other exporting producer within the group by amending that Regulation accordingly.\n(62)\nNo individual injury margin can be established in the current review, since it is limited to the examination of dumping as far as the GT Enterprise and its related companies within the group are concerned. Therefore, the dumping margin established in the current review was compared to the injury margin as established in the original investigation. Since the latter was higher than the dumping margin found in the current review, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed for the group of companies concerned at the level of the dumping margin found in the current review.\n(63)\nRegarding the form of the measure, it was considered that the amended anti-dumping duty should take the same form as the duties imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2010. To ensure efficiency of the measures and to discourage price manipulation it was considered appropriate to impose duties in the form of a specific amount per kilo. As a result, the anti-dumping duty to be imposed on imports of the product concerned produced and sold for export to the Union by the group of companies concerned, calculated on the basis of the dumping margin as established in the current review expressed as a specific amount per kilo, should be EUR 0,23 per kilo.\n4. DISCLOSURE\n(64)\nThe group of companies concerned as well as the other parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose the amendment of the anti-dumping measures in force.\n(65)\nRainbow group commented on the final disclosure. These comments related mostly to the withdrawal of the complaint in the ongoing investigation concerning imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China limited to two Chinese exporting producers, Fang Da Food Additive (Shen Zhen) Limited and Fang Da Food Additive (Yang Quan) Limited (\u2018Fang Da group\u2019) (\u2018parallel proceeding\u2019) (7). Rainbow claimed that the withdrawal of the complaint in the parallel proceeding should, logically and legally, also result in the termination of anti-dumping measures against other producers in the PRC or, at the least, result in the termination of the current review with respect to Rainbow group.\n(66)\nIt demanded the termination of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2010 arguing that in the absence of any finding that imports by Fang Da were not dumped and/or imports by Fang Da were not causing injury, the principle of non-discrimination contained in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation mandates the termination of the anti-dumping measures imposed. To support its argument it referred to previous Council Regulations where simultaneous interim reviews concerning imports of some countries were terminated without the imposition of measures following the non-imposition of measures in anti-dumping investigations concerning the imports of the same products from other countries (LAECs (8), flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel (9)). However, it should be noted that these cases refer to investigations where several countries were concerned and the principle of non-discrimination was applied vis-\u00e0-vis imports from different countries. Secondly, in these cases the reason for terminating the measures on some countries was that measures on other countries were not imposed because the Council did not adopt the proposal within the statutory time limits (LAECs, flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel). Therefore even though indeed it was found necessary to terminate the proceedings of anti-dumping measures in the simultaneous proceedings in the quoted cases in order to respect the principle of non-discrimination, these have no relevance for the current review. A further reference to the approach taken in monosodium glutamate (10) concerns a case where the complainant intended to withdraw its complaint concerning imports of Brazil even though these were found to have been dumped. In that case it was envisaged not to accept the withdrawal of the complaint because it was concluded that to take measures against the other countries in the absence of measures against Brazil would have been discriminatory.\n(67)\nFurthermore, the two situations are quite different. In the parallel proceeding, the complaint was withdrawn and it was concluded that the termination was not against the Union interest. In the current review, the request was maintained and it was found that the dumping by the Rainbow group increased. Therefore, increasing the duty for that group does not constitute discrimination.\n(68)\nThe Rainbow group also demanded that the withdrawal of the complaint should result in the termination of the current review with respect to Rainbow group as the two proceedings were initiated on the basis of the same procedural document, covered the same period of investigation and in the complaint the complainant treated Fang Da group and Rainbow group together for all practical purposes.\n(69)\nSecondly, it claimed that despite the investigation against Fang Da group being initiated under Article 5 of the basic Regulation, the investigation concerning imports of the Fang Da group and the interim review concerning the imports of Rainbow group are legally and for all practical purposes in essence the same proceeding. Finally it stated that having created the distinction between proceedings and investigations, Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation in effect means that even though Fang Da group was subject to a zero duty following the original investigation, it remained subject to the proceeding. For this reason, the withdrawal of the complaint concerning the imports by the Fang Da group should thus in view of the Rainbow group concerned result in the termination of the current review as well.\n(70)\nIt should be noted in this respect that the document presented by the complainant constituted both the complaint for the anti-dumping investigation on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation and the request for this interim review on the basis of Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. It also presented sufficient evidence to justify initiating both proceedings individually. Indeed, the Commission has initiated the Article 5 investigation and the interim review in two separate notices of initiation. Thus the anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation and the interim review based on Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation are two different proceedings.\n(71)\nRainbow group presented further arguments speculating on the possible reasons for the withdrawal of the complaint. As these arguments are hypothetical and irrelevant, they cannot be addressed and are thus rejected.\n(72)\nFinally, Rainbow group stated that the Commission has manifestly violated its rights to have 10 days to comment on the final disclosure as a non-confidential version of the withdrawal letter was disclosed to it seven days before the deadline to submit comments.\n(73)\nAs explained in recital 70, the Article 5 investigation in the framework of which Rainbow group received an information letter about the withdrawal of the complaint is a separate proceeding from the current review. Rainbow group was an interested party in the Article 5 review and only for this reason was it notified of the withdrawal of the complaint. This notification letter was not part of the final disclosure in the current review. The Rainbow group had 30 days to comment on the final disclosure in the current proceeding. Therefore its right to have sufficient time to comment was not violated.\n(74)\nTo sum up, the comments received were not such as to change the above conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe table in Article 1(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2010 is hereby amended by replacing the following:\nCountry\nCompany\nRate of duty (EUR per kilogramme)\nTARIC additional code\n\u2018The People\u2019s Republic of China\nGolden Time Enterprise (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd, Shanglilang, Cha Shan Industrial Area, Buji Town, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, People\u2019s Republic of China\n0,11\nA473\u2019\nwith the following:\nCountry\nCompany\nRate of duty (EUR per kilogramme)\nTARIC additional code\n\u2018The People\u2019s Republic of China\nGolden Time Enterprise (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd, Shanglilang, Cha Shan Industrial Area, Buji Town, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, People\u2019s Republic of China; Golden Time Chemical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, No 90-168, Fangshui Road, Chemical Industry Zone, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, People\u2019s Republic of China\n0,23\nA473\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2012.", "references": ["34", "80", "26", "53", "94", "72", "59", "27", "71", "50", "79", "16", "2", "78", "6", "66", "99", "44", "25", "9", "49", "14", "41", "57", "56", "42", "63", "4", "35", "88", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "74", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "74", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 627/2012\nof 10 July 2012\nterminating the partial interim review and the expiry review concerning the anti-dumping measures applicable on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and Thailand imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Article 11(2), (3), (5) and (6) and Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC) and Thailand.\n(2)\nThat Regulation was subsequently amended by Council Regulations (EC) No 1356/2007 (3), (EC) No 249/2008 (4) and (EC) No 189/2009 (5) and by Council Implementing Regulations (EU) No 474/2011 (6) and (EU) No 475/2011 (7).\n2. Requests for reviews and initiation\n(3)\nOn 18 May 2010, the Commission received a request for a partial interim review of Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 from Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd, an exporting producer of certain plastic sacks and bags in the PRC (\u2018the applicant\u2019).\n(4)\nSubsequently, following the publication of a notice of impending expiry of the definitive anti-dumping measures in force, the Commission received, pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, a request for an expiry review, lodged on 30 June 2011.\n(5)\nThe request was lodged by 44 Union producers together, representing around 30 % of the total estimated Union production of certain plastic sacks and bags.\n(6)\nThe request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation of dumping and injury if measures were allowed to lapse.\n(7)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of the partial interim review and an expiry review, the Commission announced the initiation of the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation and an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of that Regulation by a notice published on 21 September 2010 and 27 September 2011 respectively in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n3. Investigations\n3.1. Investigation periods\n(8)\nThe expiry review investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 up to the end of the RIP (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n(9)\nThe review investigation period for the partial interim review limited in scope to the examination of dumping with regard to Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 30 June 2010.\n3.2. Product concerned and like product\n(10)\nThe product concerned in both investigations is plastic sacks and bags, containing at least 20 % by weight of polyethylene and of sheeting of a thickness not exceeding 100 micrometres (\u03bcm), originating in the PRC and Thailand (\u2018the product concerned\u2019), currently falling within CN codes ex 3923 21 00, ex 3923 29 10 and ex 3923 29 90.\n(11)\nAs far as the product produced and sold in the Union market is concerned, no conclusive findings could be made with regard to Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation, due to the insufficient cooperation of the Union industry in the expiry review (see Section B).\n(12)\nAs far as the product produced and sold on the domestic market by the applicant of the interim review is concerned, as well as the product produced and sold in a potential analogue country in the framework of the interim review, it is noted that the investigation did not reach any conclusions given the termination of both current investigations and the repeal of the existing measures (see Section B).\n3.3. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(13)\nThe Commission officially advised Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd and the representatives of the PRC of the initiation of the partial interim review limited in scope to the examination of dumping. Both parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(14)\nThe Commission officially advised the Union producers who lodged the request for the expiry review, other known Union producers and associations of Union producers, exporting producers, importers and users known to be concerned as well as their associations. Producers in the possible analogue countries, i.e. India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey and USA and the representatives of the PRC and Thailand were also informed of the initiation of the expiry review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(15)\nAll interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\n3.4. Sampling of Union producers\n(16)\nIn view of the large number of Union producers involved in the expiry investigation, the application of sampling was envisaged in the relevant notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n3.4.1. Description of the Union industry\n(17)\nThe sector of plastic sacks and bags production in the Union is highly fragmented with a very large number of producers of different sizes, including a large sector of small producers spread over several Member States.\n(18)\nThe information provided at the initiation stage in the request indicated that large or medium-sized companies represented around 25 % of the cooperating producers and around 70 % of the cooperating Union production. Accordingly, small companies represented around 75 % of the cooperating producers and around 30 % of their production.\n(19)\nIn addition, the information showed that the Union production is spread among several Member States, but largely concentrated in Germany, France, Spain and Italy.\n3.4.2. Sampling methodology\n(20)\nArticle 3(2) of the basic Regulation requires that a determination of injury shall be based on positive evidence and shall involve an objective determination of, inter alia, the impact of dumped imports on the Union industry. Any findings of injury and the information collected for that purpose would thus have to be representative of the entire Union industry.\n(21)\nIt follows that the high level of fragmentation of the plastic sack and bags sector had to be taken into consideration in the sampling exercise. In order to be able to draw conclusions that would be representative of the entire Union industry, it was considered necessary to ensure that also the situation of the small companies was properly reflected.\n(22)\nConsequently, for the purpose of selecting a representative sample of Union producers, the cooperating Union producers were divided into two segments based on the volume of their yearly production: large or medium-sized companies with production above 15 000 tonnes on the one hand and small companies with production below 15 000 tonnes on the other hand. It was envisaged to sample the largest companies within each segment.\n(23)\nFurthermore, the producers\u2019 geographical spread amongst Member States as described in recital 19 was also taken into consideration.\n3.4.3. Procedure for selecting the provisional sample\n(24)\nThe procedure to obtain the information necessary for the selection of the sample of Union producers emanated from the information obtained at initiation stage. In addition, the relevant notice of initiation invited all other producers to make themselves known should they wish to be included in the sample. Following the publication of the notice of initiation, no company contacted the Commission requesting to be included in the sample.\n(25)\nAs a result of the criteria explained in recitals 20 to 23, five Union producers operating in four Member States were selected to be in the sample. They were the largest producers of each of the two segments, taking into account size and geographical location. Three sampled companies belong to the segment of large or medium-sized companies, two to the segment of small companies.\n(26)\nThe selected companies also reflected the geographical spread amongst Member States in terms of production, with Germany and France representing the companies operating in the large or medium-sized segment and Spain and Italy those companies operating in the small segment.\n(27)\nThe sample thus selected represented 22,5 % of total production of plastic sacks and bags by the cooperating producers and 12,3 % of the total estimated Union production, based on the total Union production figures reported in the request.\n(28)\nAt the initiation stage, all known Union producers were informed about the composition of the provisional sample and were given the possibility to comment. No comments were received.\nB. SITUATION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(29)\nIt is recalled that the determination of injury must be an evidence-based assessment of the effect of the dumped imports on the Union industry.\n(30)\nThe fragmentation of the industry therefore had to be taken into account in the sample and questionnaires requesting general data mainly regarding macroeconomic indicators per Member State were in addition sent to all known Union associations of producers in order to obtain the necessary information needed.\n(31)\nIn terms of the sample of Union producers, the level of representativity was seriously affected by the fact that the largest sampled producer operating in the segment of large or medium-sized companies and one producer operating in the segment of small companies informed the Commission that they did not wish to respond to the questionnaire. This meant that only three out of the five sampled companies continued to cooperate and that no or only partial information would be provided for the identified segments and producing Member States.\n(32)\nNumerous attempts where therefore made to select a new representative sample that would respect the selection methodology outlined in recitals 17 to 28.\n(33)\nIn this respect a total of six additional Union producers, that had expressed their willingness to be sampled, were identified as possible replacements for the two companies that had withdrawn the cooperation from the sample. These six additional companies were approached and requested to cooperate by filling out the Union producer\u2019s questionnaire.\n(34)\nOut of these six additional Union producers approached, only one producer, representing the segment of large or medium-sized companies, eventually agreed to cooperate. No replacement was found to represent the production in Germany, one of the largest Member States in terms of production of plastic sacks and bags.\n(35)\nTherefore, it was not possible to select a new sample in accordance with Article 17(4) of the basic Regulation, as the requisite representativity in terms of the identified segments and producing Member States could not be reached.\n(36)\nDue to the low cooperation on the part of the sampled Union producers, it could not be reasonably concluded that the data compiled from the cooperating companies reflected the situation of the entire Union industry and therefore it was not possible to properly assess whether the conditions specified in Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation were met.\n(37)\nFollowing the attempts to select a new sample, one group of producers reiterated their commitment to taking an active part in the expiry review, restating the importance of maintaining the anti-dumping measures in force for the Union industry. This group of producers expressed regrets that only one amongst them was invited by the Commission to complete the questionnaire. In this context it should be noted that the willingness of these companies to cooperate was fully considered and they were all included in the group of companies that were taken into account for the selection of the new sample. It is recalled, however, that in order to ensure the required representativity, the selection method, as described in recitals 17 to 28 had to be respected also for the new sample. Since only one of the companies of this group fulfilled the criteria mentioned above, only that company could be invited to be part of the sample. The other companies were of a size or situated in Member States that were already sufficiently represented in the sample.\n(38)\nCertain information on country-wide production, sales figures and other key macro indicators were received from the national associations of the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and partially France. However, the European Plastics Converters Association (EuPC) did not provide the information requested in the specific questionnaire sent to them and therefore, no conclusive data could be collected on a macroeconomic level across the Union.\nC. TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS\n(39)\nIn light of the above and in accordance with Article 9 (2) of the basic Regulation, the expiry review concerning imports of plastic bags from the PRC and Thailand should be terminated.\n(40)\nThe low level of cooperation of the Union producers and the lack of a representative sample has prevented the Commission from being able to assess whether the conditions specified in Article 3(2) and Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation are met. It can thus not be concluded whether the expiry of the measures in place would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of injury and the investigation should be terminated on these grounds.\n(41)\nIt follows from the above that the interim review is without purpose and should be terminated as well.\n(42)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the termination of the two investigations. They were also granted a period to submit comments subsequent to that disclosure. The submissions and comments were duly taken into consideration where warranted.\n(43)\nOne interested party claimed that since it was proposed to terminate the review due to lack of cooperation of the Union producers, the anti-dumping measures should be repealed with retroactive effect, i.e. as of 30 September 2011, when the measures in force should have initially expired.\n(44)\nIn this context it is recalled that the request for the review was made by Union producers representing more than 30 % of the total Union production in accordance with the basic Regulation. Moreover, Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation explicitly stipulates that measures shall remain in force pending the outcome of the review. The findings mentioned in recital 40, however, did not have an impact on the legality of the initiation of the review as such which means that the provisions in Article 11(2) stipulating that measures shall remain in force pending the outcome of the review continue to apply. This argument therefore had to be rejected.\n(45)\nA number of Union producers also responded to the disclosure by stating they were withdrawing as complaining producer. However, taking into account other Union producers maintained their position and given the fact that the standing requirements as described in recital 5 were fulfilled at the time of the initiation of the case, this would not have an impact on the procedure.\n(46)\nIn view of the foregoing, none of the comments received were such as to alter the above conclusions. It is therefore concluded that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the PRC and Thailand should be terminated and measures be repealed. It follows that the ongoing interim review referred to in recital 3, will be terminated at the same time as this expiry review,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping measures concerning imports of certain plastic sacks and bags, currently falling within CN codes ex 3923 21 00, ex 3923 29 10 and ex 3923 29 90 and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and Thailand are hereby repealed and the proceeding concerning these imports is terminated.\nArticle 2\nThe partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain plastic sacks and bags, currently falling within CN codes ex 3923 21 00, ex 3923 29 10 and ex 3923 29 90 and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China initiated pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["33", "25", "7", "94", "18", "84", "12", "44", "37", "13", "17", "6", "55", "76", "70", "16", "1", "2", "86", "9", "60", "92", "97", "57", "47", "49", "41", "38", "80", "72", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 October 2011\non State aid SA 32600 (2011/C) - France - Restructuring aid to SeaFrance SA granted by the SNCF\n(notified under document C(2011) 7808)\n(Only the French version is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/397/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter: \u2018TFEU\u2019), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1),\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n1.1. General procedural context\n(1)\nBy decision of 18 August 2010 (2) the Commission approved rescue aid (hereinafter: \u2018rescue aid\u2019) in favour of SeaFrance SA (hereinafter: \u2018SeaFrance\u2019), which France has since implemented. This aid consisted of a loan for a maximum amount of EUR [40-70] million granted by the SNCF to SeaFrance.\n(2)\nOn 18 February 2011, the French authorities notified restructuring aid (hereinafter \u2018restructuring aid\u2019) in favour of SeaFrance amounting to EUR 223 million, accompanied by a restructuring plan. By letter dated 29 March 2011, the Commission requested additional information, which was provided by the French authorities on 4 May 2011.\n(3)\nOn 6 April 2011, a competitor of SeaFrance, P&O Ferries (hereinafter: \u2018P&O\u2019), filed a complaint with the Commission against the restructuring aid.\n(4)\nBy letter dated 22 June 2011, the Commission notified the French Republic of its decision to initiate the procedure (hereinafter: \u2018the decision to initiate the procedure\u2019) provided for under Article 108(2) TFEU.\n(5)\nThe Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid in question (3). A detailed description of the comments received by it is given in Section V.\n(6)\nThe French authorities presented comments on 14 July 2011 in response to the decision to initiate the procedure, on 22 July 2011 following the complaint by P&O, and on 19 August 2011 in response to the comments by interested third parties on the decision to initiate the procedure.\n(7)\nOn 12 September 2011, the French authorities communicated a modified restructuring plan.\n(8)\nOn 3 October 2011, the French authorities again modified the restructuring plan (hereinafter: \u2018the modified restructuring plan\u2019).\n(9)\nThe Commission and the French authorities met [\u2026]. A large number of telephone calls (4) and e-mail exchanges also occurred throughout the procedure. On 18 October 2011, the French authorities sent a letter to the Commission, summarising the arguments presented during the previous exchanges.\n1.2. National procedural context\n(10)\nIn the context of the procedure for judicial reorganisation of SeaFrance, initiated on 30 June 2010, the Paris Commercial Court is to give a final decision on 25 October 2011 on whether SeaFrance is to go into liquidation or continue its activity (5).\n(11)\nFurthermore, since the opening of the judicial reorganisation procedure, third parties have been permitted to submit bids to the official receiver that will enable the company to remain in business through its total or partial sale. According to the information available to the Commission, three takeover bids have been presented: one jointly by the French group Louis Dreyfus Armateurs and the Danish company DFDS A/S (hereinafter: \u2018DFDS\u2019) (referred to jointly hereinafter as \u2018DFDS-LDA\u2019), one by the trade union Conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration fran\u00e7aise d\u00e9mocratique du travail (hereinafter: \u2018the CFDT\u2019) and one by the SNC Being Bang Immaterial (hereinafter: \u2018Being Bang\u2019).\n(12)\nDFDS-LDA submitted a partial bid to take over the assets and staff of SeaFrance for three symbolic euro (6). It forwarded a copy of the bid to the Commission, for information. Under this bid, DFDS-LDA would retain only 460 employees (i.e. 200 fewer than proposed in the modified restructuring plan) and would retain the freight vessel Nord Pas-de-Calais (in addition to the multi-purpose car ferries Berlioz and Rodin), but not the car ferry Moli\u00e8re (whereas the modified restructuring plan proposes the sale of the freight vessel Nord Pas-de-Calais and does not consider relinquishing the car ferry Moli\u00e8re, but on the contrary early exercise of the purchase option on it).\n(13)\nAccording to the press, the CFDT lodged a takeover bid for the company with the Paris Commercial Court on 24 August 2011. The CFDT would like to retain all the present 1 100 employees. To this end, it is considering purchasing the SeaFrance vessels for a symbolic euro and not taking over the company\u2019s liabilities. The CFDT plans to obtain a secured loan amounting to at least EUR 50 million from banks and also to apply to regional and local authorities for an additional loan of EUR 80 million to be able to contend with any new crisis.\n(14)\nStill according to the press, Being Bang also submitted a bid to take over SeaFrance, the terms of which are not known to the Commission. Being Bang communicated a bid to take over SeaFrance to the Commission for information. This document reached the Commission outside the time limit in which interested parties could present their comments, i.e. within 15 days of the date of publication of the decision to initiate the procedure. In accordance with case-law, the Commission did not therefore forward it to the French authorities and will not take it into account for the purposes of the present decision (7).\n(15)\nNone of the bids referred to in recitals (11) to (14) has been forwarded by France to the Commission. Therefore they will not be the subject of the present decision.\n1.3. Subject of the present decision\n(16)\nThe present decision concerns only the capital increase notified by France in respect of SeaFrance, two loans, of EUR 99,8 million and EUR [40-70] million respectively, planned in favour of SeaFrance, and the rescue aid approved by the Commission on 18 August 2010.\n(17)\nThe present decision does not cover either the extension of the cash management agreement granted by the SNCF to SeaFrance (SA.31331 - 2011/NN) or the financing granted to SeaFrance by the SNCF with a view to the exercise of the option on the vessel SeaFrance Berlioz (SA.31252 - 2010/NN). The Commission had also initiated the procedure provided for under Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of these two measures on 22 June 2011.\n(18)\nIn view of the urgency associated with the judicial reorganisation procedure - the Paris Commercial Court being due to give its decision on 25 October 2011 -, the present decision concerns only the restructuring aid, which according to the modified restructuring plan, consists of recapitalisation and two loans, and the rescue aid authorised for a limited period. The investigation procedure therefore remains open with regard to the cash management agreement (SA.31331 - 2011/NN) and the Berlioz financing (SA.31252 - 2010/NN).\nII. DESCRIPTION OF THE BENEFICIARY\n(19)\nSeaFrance is a public limited liability company governed by French law, fully owned by SNCF Participations SA, also a public limited liability company governed by French law, which manages the participating interests of the SNCF group, which in turn is fully owned by the public industrial and commercial entity \u2018Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 nationale des chemins de fer fran\u00e7ais\u2019 (hereinafter: \u2018SNCF\u2019).\n(20)\nSeaFrance provides maritime transport services (freight and passengers). It operates only on the Calais-Dover route. Its market shares on this route are as follows:\n2007\n2010\nPassengers (8)\n3 720\n2 920\nFreight (9)\n770 550\n550 884\n(21)\nAt the time of notification of the original restructuring plan in February 2011, the SeaFrance fleet consisted of the following vessels:\n-\nthree multi-purpose car ferries (\u2018Ro-pax\u2019, roll-on-roll-off passenger ships) carrying passengers and freight: the Rodin, the Moli\u00e8re and the Berlioz;\n-\none vessel dedicated exclusively to freight transport: the Nord Pas-de-Calais; and\n-\ntwo vessels not in operation awaiting sale, the C\u00e9zanne and the Renoir (these vessels were sold in July 2011).\n(22)\nIn December 2009, SeaFrance had a permanent workforce of 1 550 employees.\n(23)\nSeaFrance transports freight (transport of lorries) and passengers (foot passengers until the end of 2008, cars, caravans, motorbikes and coaches) and also offers other services, such as on-board sales (10) and foreign exchange services.\nIII. DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\n(24)\nUnder the restructuring plan, as originally notified in February 2011 (hereinafter: \u2018the original restructuring plan\u2019), the restructuring aid was to consist of a SeaFrance capital increase of EUR 223 million, to be underwritten by its sole shareholder, SNCF Participations SA.\n(25)\nThe original restructuring plan was essentially based on:\n-\na reduction in capacity from 6 to 4 vessels;\n-\na reorganisation of the crossings schedule leading to a decrease of 29,4 % in the number of crossings per year compared to the original crossings schedule;\n-\nthe equivalent of 725 full-time redundancies, i.e. almost half the December 2009 workforce, in order to return to a staff costs/turnover ratio of 26 % in 2013.\n(26)\nThe plan also provided for an improvement in productivity of on-board sales depending on passenger numbers, a change in the catering range, a redefinition of the \u2018Croisi\u00e8re Bleu marine\u2019 package, a review of the car-deck space management, the abandonment of transporting individual foot passengers (effective since the end of 2008) and the axing of tours operating to single destinations. Furthermore, reductions in external charges completed the restructuring: the creation of a purchasing department to rationalise the purchasing procedures and improvement of internal control (launch of a computer-assisted maintenance management project, centralised stock control on land and on board, invitations to tender systematically open to European shipyards for the award of contracts for withdrawal from service of the vessels, reduction in advertising expenditure).\n(27)\nUnder the restructuring plan communicated on 12 September 2011, the SeaFrance capital increase underwritten by the SNCF was to amount to only EUR 166,3 million.\n(28)\nThis capital increase was to be supplemented by two loans of EUR 99,8 million and EUR [40-70] million respectively, the former intended to finance the restructuring proper of SeaFrance and the latter to replace the existing loan concerning the vessel Moli\u00e8re in order to exercise the purchase option for this vessel early (at the beginning of the year [\u2026] instead of the end of the year [\u2026]). Taking up this option early was to enable SeaFrance to acquire, from the end of [\u2026], full ownership of a vessel with an estimated value of EUR [\u2026] million.\n(29)\nThese two loans were to be granted at 6,05 % interest for a period of 12 years with constant capital repayments.\n(30)\nThe French authorities justified this rate of 6,05 %:\n(1)\nby the application of the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (11) (hereinafter: \u2018the Reference Rates Communication\u2019), taking account of high collateral for a rating of CCC, i.e. a margin of 400 basis points; and\n(2)\nby the application by the SNCF, at its request, of a method presented as \u2018traditional\u2019 (12), resulting in a rate of between [6,00-6,15]% and [6,00-6,15]% (13), based on:\n-\nthe reference rate EURIBOR 12 months (which on 1 August 2011 stood at 2,18 %);\n-\na rating of SeaFrance by the SNCF at BB-, based on financial projections covering the period 2011-2019 consisting of 6 ratios, i.e. the leverage (14), gearing (15), equity (16), interest coverage (17), liquidity (18) and profitability (19) ratios, evaluated at between [0-5/20] and [15-20/20]; and\n-\nthe calculation of a margin (in this case [0-5] %) resulting from the combination of the BB- rating and a loss given default rate of between [30-40] % and [40-50] %.\n(31)\nIn addition to the measures already announced in the original restructuring plan and the two above-mentioned loans, other measures were proposed in the restructuring plan communicated on 12 September 2011, i.e.:\n-\nthe sale of another vessel, the freight vessel Nord Pas-de-Calais, in addition to the two vessels C\u00e9zanne and Renoir sold in July 2011 in accordance with the original restructuring plan;\n-\na total reduction in the workforce of 922 employees (instead of 1 550 employees in December 2009, i.e. a - 60 % reduction) bringing the total wage bill/turnover ratio to [20-25] % in 2013 and [20-25] % in 2019;\n-\na decrease in the number of crossings per year of 5 830 crossings (i.e. an additional cut of 2 352 crossings compared to the original restructuring plan), which boils down to a 37,6 % reduction compared to the crossings schedule of 2007;\n-\neconomies amounting to EUR [1-5] million (closing of two SeaFrance agencies located in Calais and Paris, closing of the call centres in Belgium and Germany, reduction in marketing expenditure, transfer of all services by the end of 2013 to Calais, abolishing the quality certification of the freight vessel Nord Pas-de-Calais and introduction of automated embarkation checks).\n(32)\nThe restructuring period defined in the modified restructuring plan is spread over 5 years, i.e. from 2011 to 2015, whereas that provided for in the original restructuring plan lasted until 2019.\n(33)\nUnder the modified restructuring plan, the conditions agreed for the two loans granted by the SNCF are now as follows:\n-\nthe loans are granted at a rate established at 8,55 % (20); France justifies this rate by referring to the Reference Rates Communication, taking account of normal collateral for a CCC rating. Consequently the margin is established at 650 basis points;\n-\nthe loans are granted for a 12-year term; the loan of EUR 99,7 million may be drawn down in four instalments (21) and that of EUR [40-70] million in one instalment; and\n-\neach drawing must be repaid in constant annual instalments until repayment in full at the end of 2023.\nThe other measures proposed in the restructuring plan communicated on 12 September 2011 (see recital 31) have been included in the modified restructuring plan.\n(34)\nThe estimated financing needs for the implementation of the modified restructuring plan are as follows:\n-\nrepayment of the credit line granted by the SNCF to SeaFrance (EUR [40-70] million);\n-\nrepayment of the cash management agreement concluded between the SNCF and SeaFrance (EUR [40-70] million);\n-\nthe future operating cash flows until 2017, net of the job-protection plan, existing investments and borrowings (EUR [\u2026] million);\n-\nthe cost cover for the job-protection plan (EUR [\u2026] million);\n-\nthe payments related to borrowings, including the Rodin, Berlioz and Moli\u00e8re loans (EUR [\u2026] million);\n-\nthe payments related to investments, i.e. primarily the scrubbers (EUR [\u2026] million);\n-\nthe intra-annual working capital requirements (WCR) or requirements related to operating contingencies (EUR [\u2026] million).\n(35)\nThe estimated financing needs for the implementation of the modified restructuring plan amount to a total of EUR [\u2026] million (net of proceeds from sales):\n(in EUR million)\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\n2016\n2017\nTotal\nRepayment of short-term credit facilities\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nFuture operating cash flows (from December 2011)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nResidual job-protection plan\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nPayments related to borrowings\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nPayments related to investments\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nIntra-annual WCR\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTotal financing needs\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nIV. REASONS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(36)\nThe Commission concluded that the notified measure constituted aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and launched a detailed investigation in the light of its doubts regarding the prospects for return to long-term viability of the company under the restructuring plan and the level of the company\u2019s own contribution. The Commission also wondered about the adequacy of the measures proposed with a view to limiting the distortions of competition caused by the aid.\nV. COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES\n5.1. Comments by interested parties opposed to the restructuring aid\n5.1.1. Complaint and comments of P&O\n(37)\nOn 29 July 2011, P&O communicated comments on the decision to initiate the procedure, which supplement its complaint.\n(38)\nThe arguments put forward in the complaint and P&O\u2019s comments are as follows:\n5.1.1.1. Concerning the difficulties of SeaFrance\n(39)\nAccording to P&O, SeaFrance\u2019s share of the market concerned (22) fell from 21 % in 2006 to 17 % in 2010 and the company\u2019s load factor fell from 63 % in 2008 to 56 % and 58 % in 2009 and 2010 respectively, i.e. to a non-viable level.\n(40)\nP&O points out that, for many years, SeaFrance\u2019s losses have been well in excess of its profits (net losses of EUR 120 million over the period), which means that SeaFrance would be unable to offer a return on investment to its shareholders/investors for a very long time.\nYear\n1996\n1997\n1998\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\n2003\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\n2010\nProfits/losses of SeaFrance (23)\n-16,8\n-1,7\n-2,8\n2,6\n-3,5\n3,4\n14,8\n-2,4\n-3,0\n-19,0\n7,9\n7,27\n-13,6\n-57,7\n-36,0\nSource: P&O\u2019s comments.\n(41)\nIn view of the fact that most of SeaFrance\u2019s car ferries are ro-pax (multi-purpose vessels able to carry both passengers and freight) and that the \u2018passenger\u2019 business is very seasonal, it would be crucial for SeaFrance not to alienate the freight customers who must be assured that the service will be provided reliably and continuously throughout the year.\n(42)\nHowever, according to P&O, as regards the freight business, the value of the goodwill, reputation and market share of SeaFrance had declined significantly, notably on account of the frequent interruptions in service (strikes, etc.), the market\u2019s awareness of SeaFrance\u2019s difficulties and the lay-up of the freight vessel Nord Pas-de-Calais (to keep a vessel laid up would be very expensive, according to P&O, which also points out that the laying-up of the vessels C\u00e9zanne and Renoir in the port of Dunkerque would cost at least EUR 1,09 million, and possibly EUR 2,4 million).\n5.1.1.2. Concerning the compatibility of the aid\n(43)\nP&O provides statistics to show that the market concerned is subject to long-term structural overcapacity. However, according to point 8 of the Communication from the Commission - Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (24) (hereinafter: \u2018the Guidelines\u2019), \u2018it would not be justified to keep a firm artificially alive in a sector with long-term structural overcapacity or when it can only survive as a result of repeated State interventions\u2019.\n5.1.1.3. Concerning the causes of SeaFrance\u2019s difficulties\n(44)\nThe causes of SeaFrance\u2019s difficulties are the following:\n-\nover-staffing, salaries too high, vessels ill-adapted to the market;\n-\nthe management is not sufficiently independent of the State and social power to truly be able to manage the company according to the market;\n-\ninability to adapt to three new market components: the rising price of fuel, a market tending towards recession and the competitive pressure from Eurotunnel.\n(45)\nFinally, it is revealing, according to P&O, that SeaFrance, which was up for sale for a period of over three years, did not find a buyer.\n5.1.1.4. Concerning the difficulty of restoring long-term viability\n(46)\nTo explain the difficulty in restoring the long-term viability of SeaFrance, P&O essentially takes up the arguments already set out concerning the market shares of SeaFrance, its load factors and its status of firm in difficulty.\n5.1.1.5. Concerning the ill-adapted nature of the internal restructuring measures\n(47)\nThe only substantial measure proposed by SeaFrance in the original restructuring plan consisted in reducing the workforce, but the salaries would remain too high (salary costs/turnover ratio of 26 % compared to 15 % at P&O). Even in the case of an additional 200 redundancies, the ratio would be in the vicinity of 22 %.\n(48)\nThe laying-up of the vessels Manet, C\u00e9zanne and Renoir would in no way have improved the results (losses) of 2008, 2009 and 2010 and the planned laying-up of the freight vessel Nord Pas-de-Calais would not significantly improve SeaFrance\u2019s situation, especially on account of the cost of keeping a vessel laid up (EUR 1.8 million per year).\n(49)\nThe reduction in the number of crossings alleged by SeaFrance is misleading as it would amount to only 10 % and would result from the change in fleet (the vessels C\u00e9zanne and Renoir replaced by the larger vessel Moli\u00e8re). The laying-up of the freight vessel Nord Pas-de-Calais would reduce capacity by only an additional 7 %.\n(50)\nThe proposals to improve on-board sales, the restaurants, the subcontracting and the control of advertising expenditure are only part of normal business management, like that of all the competitors of SeaFrance.\n(51)\nNone of the measures proposed would respond to the three new market components (recession, price of fuel, competition from Eurotunnel) and the exchange rate fluctuations.\n5.1.1.6. Concerning the market forecasts used by SeaFrance\n(52)\nP&O points out that SeaFrance\u2019s restructuring plan forecasts a spectacular increase in its load factors (from 58 % to 80 %) on the basis of a rapid rise in demand and/or a significant increase in its market share.\n(53)\nHowever, the SeaFrance forecasts in no way correspond to those of P&O nor to the trend in SeaFrance\u2019s market share, which fell from 21 % in 2006 to 17 % in 2010. The quality of the offer to freight customers would be liable to suffer from the laying-up of the freight vessel Nord Pas-de-Calais and some of the customers could turn to Eurotunnel in periods of affluence, when SeaFrance would suffer from under-capacity.\n(54)\nThe fact that the aid measures will have effect only from 2016 but will permit the long-term viability of the company to be assured only from 2019, would not comply with point 35 of the Guidelines, according to which the duration of the restructuring plan must be \u2018as short as possible\u2019 and \u2018must restore the long-term viability of the firm within a reasonable timescale\u2019. The laying-up of the freight vessel Nord Pas-de-Calais and additional job reductions would not significantly improve SeaFrance\u2019s situation: it would save EUR 6 million in salary costs and EUR 7 million in vessel-related costs (i.e. EUR 13 million in total). P&O nevertheless considers that SeaFrance would lose 50 000 freight units, i.e. EUR 5-6 million in freight revenue, and that the laying-up of the freight vessel Nord Pas-de-Calais would cost EUR 1,8 million per year in the absence of a buyer.\n5.1.1.7. Concerning the compensatory measures\n(55)\nThe compensatory measures must be added to the measures aiming to restore viability and must therefore be separate from them. However, according to the French authorities and the decision to initiate the procedure, all the allegedly compensatory measurers are necessary to restore the company\u2019s viability. There is therefore no compensatory measure, according to P&O.\n5.1.1.8. Concerning the company\u2019s own contribution\n(56)\nAccording to P&O, the withdrawal of the vessel Manet in 2008 and that of the vessels C\u00e9zanne and Renoir cannot count as a contribution since these withdrawals took place well before the notification of the restructuring and the value of the vessels is minimal compared to the total amount of the State aid, i.e. EUR 400 million, according to P&O. The French authorities apparently did not propose that the sale of the freight vessel Nord Pas-de-Calais should count as own contribution and its value, estimated at EUR 12 million, would be negligible compared to the total amount of State aid.\n(57)\nP&O suggests the sale and lease-back of the SeaFrance vessels as own contribution.\n5.1.1.9. Concerning the conditions of granting the aid\n(58)\nP&O suggests that the restructuring of SeaFrance should be subject to the following conditions, in addition to changes remedying the inadequacies and problems described:\n-\nthe sale and lease-back of the multi-purpose vessels fully owned by SeaFrance;\n-\nthe transparency of costs relating to the main assets of SeaFrance (notably the leasing of vessels);\n-\nduring the restructuring period:\n-\nthe commitment not to sell at a loss;\n-\nthe commitment not to extend the fleet (beyond the three existing multi-purpose vessels);\n-\nthe commitment to limit the capacity and frequency of crossings of the multi-purpose ferries;\n-\nthe commitment of France/SNCF not to grant any more aid;\n-\nthe commitment of France/SNCF to draw up a report showing verifiably that SeaFrance is complying with the restructuring plan.\n(59)\nIn conclusion, P&O asked the Commission not to approve the restructuring aid.\n5.1.2. Comments by Eurotunnel\n(60)\nOn 29 July 2011, the Eurotunnel SA group (hereinafter: \u2018Eurotunnel\u2019) forwarded its comments to the Commission on the decision to initiate the procedure.\n(61)\nEurotunnel is sceptical about the feasibility of the increase in the load factors forecasted by SeaFrance. In fact, Eurotunnel considers that the Channel has been suffering from overcapacity for many years. The capacity of the Channel Tunnel is only 57 % used and the ferries have invested in vessels with very large capacity, thereby increasing the already existing overcapacity of supply. Moreover, Eurotunnel is of the opinion that the reduction in the SeaFrance fleet from 6 to 4 vessels still does not allow the cross-Channel market to return to equilibrium. For that matter, from January to February 2011, SeaFrance operated with only two vessels without any reduction in its overall traffic. The load factors of 80 % for the period 2011-2019 are therefore unrealistic. According to the Eurotunnel estimates, SeaFrance would need to increase its traffic by 25 %. On the basis of press articles: \u2018[\u2026] to recover this traffic we have had to cut our prices\u2019 (25), Eurotunnel therefore accuses SeaFrance of having conducted a price war for a long time.\n(62)\nFinally, Eurotunnel considers that it is not relevant to compare the load factors of ro-pax and the railway shuttles using the Channel Tunnel, as the latter are not passenger/freight and they allow real-time adjustment to traffic demand.\n(63)\nWith regard to taking into account the fuel surcharge, Eurotunnel asserts that SeaFrance only invoices part of this surcharge to its customers, i.e. EUR 8,11 per crossing, compared to EUR 11,62 for P&O and EUR 14,73 for DFDS. The lost earnings for SeaFrance would amount to EUR 1,2 million since the beginning of 2011.\n(64)\nWith regard to the nearly 50 % redundancies, this loss of staff should be seen in relative terms, according to Eurotunnel, as some of the employees have the possibility of being reintegrated into the SNCF group, which will only have a minimal impact on the net balance of employment in the region.\n(65)\nFinally, Eurotunnel concludes that the restructuring plan is not only inadequate, but also fails to meet the specifications of prudent investments.\n5.1.3. Comments by DFDS\n(66)\nDFDS communicated its comments to the Commission by letter dated 29 July 2011.\n(67)\nDFDS remains sceptical about the ability of SeaFrance to recover long-term economic viability on account of the inadequacy of the restructuring measures in relation to its present financial situation. DFDS is concerned about the effects of these new aid measures on competition in the market concerned.\n(68)\nDFDS sent the Commission comments on the SeaFrance restructuring plan by e-mail dated 23 September 2011.\n(69)\nThis document reached the Commission outside the time limit within which interested parties could submit their comments, i.e. within 15 days of the date of publication of the decision to initiate the procedure. Furthermore, it provides no new information. In accordance with case-law, the Commission has therefore not forwarded this document to the French authorities and will not take it into account for the purposes of the present decision (26).\n5.1.4. Comments by CLdN\n(70)\nOn 29 July 2011, the CLdN group (hereinafter: \u2018CLdN\u2019) communicated its comments to the Commission.\n(71)\nCLdN is a Luxembourg-based transport company which is involved in particular in the transport of freight by freight vessel (roll-on/roll-off or \u2018ro-ro\u2019) or by ro-pax, in the Channel and the North Sea between Belgium and the Netherlands, on the one hand, and the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark, on the other.\n(72)\nCLdN regards itself as a competitor to SeaFrance which would suffer considerably from the adverse consequences of the measures implemented by the SNCF in favour of its subsidiary SeaFrance on account of the geographical proximity of the routes operated by CLdN, i.e. Ipswich-Rotterdam and Purfleet-Zeebrugge.\n(73)\nCLdN considers in fact that the measures implemented are very likely to have anti-competitive consequences on freight not only on the Calais-Dover route, but also on the neighbouring routes between the United Kingdom and Belgium. It considers that the negative effects of these measures are not sufficiently offset by the compensatory measures and the own contribution proposed in the restructuring plan. On the contrary, these measures would merely maintain a firm in difficulty, incapable of reducing its basic costs, on the market and would enable it to increase its capacities on a market with overcapacity.\n(74)\nAccording to CLdN, the measures in question will reduce the viability of the existing competitors by maintaining on the market transport capacity which should normally have disappeared. It would be unrealistic to rely on SeaFrance being able to achieve a load factor of 80 %, unless the aid is used to carry out aggressive price cuts and to take market shares from competitors. However, this strategy would be economically unsustainable in the medium or long term for SeaFrance and would be harmful for its direct competitors, i.e. P&O and Eurotunnel, which operate on the same Calais-Dover route, but also, in time, for CLdN.\n(75)\nFinally, CLdN emphasises the inadequacy of the workforce cuts provided for in the restructuring plan (which would be far from enabling SeaFrance to approach the staff costs/turnover ratio of its competitors) and the fact that the redundancy costs will be low compared to traditional restructuring, as a large number of SeaFrance employees will be taken on by the SNCF.\n(76)\nCLdN consequently wishes the European Commission to take a negative decision.\n5.2. Comments from interested parties in favour of the restructuring aid\n5.2.1. Comments by the SNCF\n(77)\nOn 29 July 2011, the SNCF communicated comments to the Commission, which correspond to the comments made by the French authorities (see section VI).\n5.2.2. Comments by an economic operator wishing to remain anonymous\n(78)\nOn 30 July 2011, an economic operator wishing to remain anonymous communicated its comments to the Commission.\n(79)\nFirstly, it recalls the main characteristics of the cross-Channel market, concluding from this that the keener competition between the shipping companies and Eurotunnel, the inflation in fuel pries and the volatility of the sterling exchange rate have caused difficulties for SeaFrance, but also pose a threat to the long-term viability of P&O and DFDS.\n(80)\nThe operator in question considers that the difficulties of SeaFrance are chiefly structural (employment coefficient too high and organisation too inflexible), but that recapitalisation combined with the restructuring of SeaFrance and a fleet maintained at 4 vessels can guarantee the long-term viability of the company.\n(81)\nIt considers that the disappearance of SeaFrance would in fact result in a duopoly between Eurotunnel and P&O. However, many road hauliers work with at least 2 shipping companies to guarantee timetable flexibility and the profitability of their lorries.\n(82)\nAccording to the operator in question, if SeaFrance were to disappear, the capacity of the other two shipping companies would be insufficient to cope with the traffic in the Channel. According to the operator wishing to remain anonymous, Eurotunnel has almost achieved maximum capacity and therefore could absorb only a small proportion of the SeaFrance traffic. \u2018The overcapacity in the Channel today is [\u2026] very relative and should not constitute a serious problem\u2019 since as soon as a problem arises at one shipping company or in the ports, this leads to congestion in the ports of Calais, Dover and Dunkerque.\n(83)\nMoreover, a single freighter in the Channel operated by P&O would not guarantee the necessary transport capacity and would distort the market in favour of P&O, which would in this way hold a monopoly for the transport of hazardous goods.\n(84)\nAccording to the operator in question, P&O is at the origin of the price undercutting; this operator believes in the viability of SeaFrance on account of the quality of management of the company (quality of cooperation with its agents), its modern fleet capable of functioning for at least 10 years and the high motivation of its staff.\n5.2.3. Comments by road haulage companies\n(85)\nBy letters dated 26, 27 and 28 July 2011, five road haulage companies and representative associations (LKW Walter Internationale Transportorganisation AG, Youngs Transportation & Logistics Ltd, Laser Transport International Limited, Carna Transport Ltd and Road Haulage association international group) communicated their comments to the Commission.\n(86)\nThese five companies and associations express their concerns in the event of the disappearance of SeaFrance. In their opinion, the disappearance of SeaFrance would result, on the one hand, in an oligopoly on the cross-Channel transport market leading to a decline in the quality of services and an increase in prices and, on the other hand, a risk regarding the capacity of the operators remaining on the market to be able to cope with the volume of freight, especially in cases where one of them is unable to provide services.\n(87)\nIf SeaFrance were to dispose of its freight vessel, the Nord Pas-de Calais, they are also worried about the emergence of a de facto P&O monopoly for the transport of hazardous goods which cannot be undertaken through the Tunnel or by a multi-purpose ferry.\n5.2.4. Comments of tour operators and travel agencies\n(88)\nA large number of travel agencies and tour operators expressed their concern regarding the possible disappearance of SeaFrance (see list in the table in this recital):\nDate of the comments\nName of the interested parties\n26.07.2011\n4 separate position papers: 1) R&T Tours; 2) Sports Tours Ltd; 3) TM Ski&Travel Ltd; 4) International Sport & Leisure\n27.07.2011\n5 separate position papers: 1) Broadway Tours; 2) Gemini Travel; 3)DE Vere Travel Group; 4) Adaptable Travel; 5) Gower Tours Ltd\n28.07.2011\n2 separate position papers: Angling Lines Ltd; Acorn Ventures Ltd\n29.07.2011\nBartletts Battlefield Journeys Ltd\n(89)\nIn their opinion, the disappearance of SeaFrance would lead, on the one hand, to the emergence of an oligopoly on the cross-Channel transport market, with the consequence of a decline in the quality of the services and a rise in prices and, on the other hand, a risk regarding the capacity of the operators remaining on the market to cope with the passenger volume, especially in cases where one of them is unable to provide services.\n5.2.5. Comments from the C\u00f4te d\u2019Opale Chamber of Commerce and Industry\n(90)\nBy letter dated 29 July 2011, the C\u00f4te d\u2019Opale Chamber of Commerce and Industry (hereinafter: \u2018CCI\u2019) communicated its comments to the Commission. The CCI specifies that it is a public institution responsible for contributing to economic development, attractiveness and support of businesses in the Nord Pas-de-Calais region. The CCI is also the concessionaire of the Port of Calais and, in this capacity, runs the port.\n(91)\nFirstly, the CCI recalls the key role played by SeaFrance in the development of the Port of Calais. At the end of 2008, the SeaFrance workforce comprised 1 600 employees, most of whom lived in the Nord Pas-de-Calais region. It also contributes to the revenue received by the Port of Calais in respect of services to ships and goods services. In 2008, SeaFrance was also the largest purchaser of non-port goods and services, representing EUR 130 million per year in supplies, services, consumables, repairs and maintenance, about 36 % of which were in the Nord Pas-de-Calais region. The CCI adds that the Port of Calais plays a leading role in the economic development of Pas-de-Calais.\n(92)\nAccording to the CCI, the disappearance of SeaFrance would have a significant impact on the development of the Port of Calais on account of the loss of jobs and of direct and indirect revenue generated by the company. The Nord Pas-de-Calais region has also approved the implementation of the \u2018Port 2015\u2019 project which provides for the extension of the port, the construction of a new sea dock and the improvement of the existing structures. This project is based on operational forecasts which risk being seriously affected in the event of the disappearance of SeaFrance.\n(93)\nFurthermore, the CCI is worried about the emergence of a Eurotunnel-P&O duopoly which would have a negative impact on prices and services, if SeaFrance were to disappear.\n(94)\nThe CCI concludes from this that keeping SeaFrance in operation is necessary in the present competitive context, particularly as the traffic forecasts are upwards, especially for freight transport.\n5.2.6. Comments by the CFDT trade union\n(95)\nBy letter dated 29 July 2011, the Syndicat Maritime Nord (hereinafter: \u2018the SMN\u2019), which belongs to the CFDT, communicated its comments to the Commission.\n(96)\nThe SMN firstly stresses that since its creation in 1996, SeaFrance has never been recapitalised by its sole shareholder, the SNCF. SeaFrance has therefore had to pay for the renewal of its fleet from its equity, which has had a considerable impact on the cash position of the company.\n(97)\nThe SMN also points out the disparities existing between British and French social legislation (longer working hours in the United Kingdom not entirely offset by smaller crews in France). On account of the staff costs/turnover ratio, the SMN emphasises the fact that SeaFrance is not inclined to practise a low price policy and compensates for this by the quality of the services offered. It also points out that in view of the market shares of SeaFrance, which are well below those of the market leaders, both in freight and in passenger transport, SeaFrance has little impact on prices.\n(98)\nThe SMN considers that the adverse impacts of the fall in sterling continue to decrease as expenses, and especially technical expenses, are as often as possible denominated in sterling.\n(99)\nThe SMN considers that SeaFrance has already made significant cuts in the number of crossings and the transport capacities since 2009 (- 30 % in frequency and - 25 % in volume) and with the 4 vessels currently operating, SeaFrance has reached the minimum size allowing it a sufficient rotation frequency to remain credible.\n(100)\nFinally, the SMN points out that the employees of SeaFrance would not understand the Commission not taking account of the consequences of the successive restructuring implemented, in terms of both working conditions and employment at SeaFrance, but also in the Calais employment area, which is one of the most stricken in France.\nVI. COMMENTS BY FRANCE\n6.1. Comments concerning the reasons for SeaFrance\u2019s difficulties in general\n(101)\nRegarding the difficulties of SeaFrance, the French authorities point out that the information communicated by P&O is largely incorrect and that, contrary to the results of SeaFrance as presented by P&O - which contain errors for the years 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2006 (see recital 40), the cumulated losses of SeaFrance between 1996 and 2010 amount to EUR - 151,4 million and not EUR - 169 million. The French authorities communicated the following table, rectifying the errors appearing in the table drawn up by P&O in its complaint:\nYear\n1996\n1997\n1998\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\n2003\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\n2010\nProfits/losses of SeaFrance (27)\n-16,8\n-1,7\n-2,8\n2,6\n-3,5\n3,4\n26,2\n-2,4\n4,9\n-9,3\n7,9\n15,4\n-20,9\n-57,7\n-36,2\n(102)\nThe French authorities dispute the reasons for the difficulties of SeaFrance put forward by P&O, i.e. that the value of the goodwill, reputation and market share of SeaFrance concerning freight has declined significantly on account, in particular, of the frequent interruptions in service and market awareness of SeaFrance\u2019s difficulties (see recital 42). They counter this with the observations of SeaFrance customers which underline the quality of the services provided by the company and the progress achieved in recent years to improve the quality of the services supplied (see recitals 85 to 89).\n(103)\nIn response to the argument of the competitors of SeaFrance that the company workforce is too large, the French authorities point out that SeaFrance undertook a significant reduction in the workforce, as a result of which nearly 725 jobs were cut, this drastic measure being designed to enable a staff costs/turnover ratio of 26 % to be restored in 2013. This ratio would remain slightly higher than those obtained by Eurotunnel and Irish Ferries. However, the activities of SeaFrance will be quite significantly different in their implementation from those of the Channel Tunnel operator, whose ratio stood at 22,5 % in 2010, and it is inconceivable, under the French flag, for SeaFrance to manage to achieve such a low ratio as Irish Ferries, whose vessels are apparently under the Cypriot flag. The French authorities consider that, in view of the considerable effort made by SeaFrance as regards redundancies, the staff costs/turnover ratio of 26 % is sufficient and allows SeaFrance to remain competitive. They specify that the level of salaries paid by SeaFrance results from French social legislation, which offers greater protection than that of the States where its competitors are established, and especially that of the United Kingdom, in particular with regard to the minimum wage.\n(104)\nThe SeaFrance fleet, as defined in the restructuring plan, is not ill-adjusted. Quite the contrary, it was specifically constructed for the Calais/Dover route, with the exception of the vessel Moli\u00e8re, which had to have conversion work carried out on it to be adapted to maritime transport in the North Sea. As regards P&O\u2019s argument that the management of SeaFrance is not sufficiently independent of the State and of worker power to manage the company efficiently, the French authorities consider that this is an assertion which is not based on any evidence.\n6.2. Comments concerning the competitive position on the Dover/Calais market\n(105)\nThe French authorities contest the allegations of P&O, Eurotunnel and CLdN concerning structural overcapacity of the market. In their view, the overcapacity observed is largely attributable to the economic climate (in particular, the economic crisis has led to a reduction in freight traffic and rise in the sterling exchange rate). On the basis of the growth forecasts drawn up before the crisis, certain operators increased their capacities but the hoped-for growth failed to materialise on account of the economic recession. The French authorities cite market analyses carried out by the Dover Harbour Board in 2005 (28) and 2008 (29) indicating long-term growth in freight volumes.\n(106)\nFrance considers that the concerns expressed by certain SeaFrance customers relating to the emergence of a P&O monopoly for the transport of hazardous goods on the Calais/Dover route (see recitals 83 and 87) are unfounded. In fact, since there are no national or international regulations prohibiting the transport of hazardous goods on car ferries, SeaFrance could consider carrying out such transport during crossings with low passenger numbers, for example on certain night crossings.\n6.3. Comments concerning the compatibility of the restructuring aid\n(107)\nAs regards the compatibility of the measures notified under the restructuring plan, the French authorities provided the following replies to the doubts expressed by the Commission concerning the return to long-term viability expected from the restructuring plan, on the prevention of any excessive distortion of competition and on SeaFrance\u2019s own contribution to the restructuring plan.\n6.3.1. On the return to long-term viability and the restructuring plan\n(108)\nThe French authorities justify the fact that the load factors forecasted for the coming years are higher than those observed in the past on the basis of the introduction from 2006 of a new information system allowing optimisation and rationalisation of the loading of these vessels. In their opinion, this system in particular has allowed low profitability crossings to be identified and withdrawn from the SeaFrance schedule. Furthermore, the French authorities emphasise the fact that between 2000 and 2007, the period taken into account by the Commission, SeaFrance\u2019s operating activities were organised in the form of shuttles, irrespective of the intensity of demand.\n(109)\nThe French authorities also justify the lower load factors of SeaFrance\u2019s competitors by the operating method chosen by the competitors. In their opinion, P&O had a large number of vessels and a \u2018shuttle\u2019 type service exerting a downwards influence on the load factor. As regards DFDS, the specialised nature of its vessels would preclude the optimisation of its loads according to their individual profitability. Moreover, on account of the length of its crossings, DFDS would be forced to offer a shuttle service over long periods. Finally, the high capacity of its vessels would automatically lower the average load factors of DFDS through crossings with low demand.\n(110)\nFurthermore, the French authorities reacted to the Commission\u2019s doubts and to the comments of third parties concerning taking into account the risks (fuel costs, depreciation of sterling), which is necessary to evaluate the credibility of the restructuring plan. They emphasise firstly that the financial hedging policy in the form of foreign exchange contracts will be resumed by SeaFrance as soon as the judicial reorganisation is over. They then explain that the company applies a \u2018bunker adjustment factor\u2019 (hereinafter: \u2018BAF\u2019) which covers about 40 % of the additional cost associated with the increase in the price of fuel above EUR 285 per tonne and that after 2015, the BAF will be supplemented by a new surcharge taking account of the obligation to consume fuel with 0,1 % sulphur content.\n(111)\nAs regards the depreciation of sterling, the French authorities specify firstly that the policy of hedging part of the monthly balances in sterling by forward sales based on the budgetary rate, interrupted on account of the judicial reorganisation procedure, will be applied once more as soon as this procedure is over. [\u2026]\n(112)\nConcerning the other measures mentioned in recital 96 of the decision to initiate the procedure, the French authorities specify that their effects were not taken into account in the business plan as they are difficult to quantify. However, these measures would be likely to generate savings.\n(113)\nFinally, the French authorities point out that the staff costs/turnover ratio should change from [20-25]% in 2012 to [20-25]% in 2019. It would approach the ratios of SeaFrance\u2019s competitors.\n6.3.2. Concerning the prevention of any excessive distortion of competition\n(114)\nAs regards the prevention of any excessive distortion of competition, the French authorities wish to confirm that the sale of the two vessels, the Renoir and the C\u00e9zanne, did indeed occur on 7 July 2011 at the price of USD [0-10] million (EUR [0-10] million).\n6.3.3. Concerning SeaFrance\u2019s own contribution to the restructuring plan\n(115)\nAccording to the French authorities, a first part of SeaFrance\u2019s own contribution to the restructuring plan consists of the proceeds from the sale of the vessels Renoir and C\u00e9zanne, as well as the expected income from the sale of the vessel Nord Pas de Calais.\n(116)\nThe French authorities consider in addition that the two loans described in recitals 28 to 33 are exempt from State aid and that the loan of EUR 99,8 million must be considered as an own contribution. According to the French authorities, to evaluate the existence of aid, the Commission must take only the Reference Rates Communication as a basis. They point out that the Commission applied this Communication in its decision to initiate the procedure concerning the loan granted to \u010cSA - Czech Airlines by the publicly owned company Osinek (30) and in its decision concerning the loans granted by the Hungarian Development Bank in favour of Hungarian fertiliser producer P\u00e9ti Nitrog\u00e9nm\u00fcvek (31). They consider that, for the reasons described in recitals 28 to 33, the two loans do not constitute aid.\nVII. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n7.1. Existence of aid\n(117)\nAccording to Article 107(1) TFEU, \u2018any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(118)\nThe classification of a measure as State aid presupposes that the following cumulative conditions are satisfied, i.e.: 1) the measure in question confers an advantage, 2) this advantage is granted through State resources, 3) this advantage is selective and 4) the measure in question distorts or threatens to distort competition and is liable to affect trade between Member States (32).\n(119)\nThe present decision covers three aid measures: the recapitalisation and the two loans described in recitals 28 to 33.\n7.1.1. Recapitalisation of SeaFrance\n(120)\nThe French authorities themselves consider in their notification that the capital increase in favour of SeaFrance constitutes State aid. By their notification, the French authorities admit that the recapitalisation measure is imputable to the State and that it confers a selective advantage on SeaFrance alone.\n(121)\nAs regards the existence of an advantage, the Commission considers that, for the reasons to be explained in section 7.2.1, SeaFrance constitutes a firm in difficulty. In view of the very difficult situation of SeaFrance and the fact that it has been placed under the judicial reorganisation procedure, the company would be unable to cope with the implementation of its restructuring plan and its cash requirements. In such circumstances, a private operator would not have contributed capital. In addition, the French authorities did not even try to demonstrate that the expected return corresponds to that which a private investor would have required. The measure therefore constitutes a selective advantage since only SeaFrance benefits from it. It is granted through public resources, since the SNCF is a public undertaking. It is imputable to the State.\n(122)\nAs regards the effect on competition and on trade within the Union, it should first be pointed out that, according to established case-law, as soon as an undertaking operates in a sector where producers from various Member States are effectively competing, any aid that this undertaking may receive from the public authorities is liable to affect trade between Member States and damage competition, inasmuch as its continuing presence on the market prevents competitors from increasing their market share (33).\n(123)\nIn this respect, the fact that an economic sector has been liberalised at Union level constitutes evidence that the aid may have a real or potential effect on competition and on trade between Member States (34).\n(124)\nIn this context, it is important to point out that Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries (35) fully liberalised maritime transport between Member States as of 1 January 1993.\n(125)\nIn the present case, as previously established, there is modal competition with the other maritime operators in a liberalised sector and also intermodal competition, especially with railway transport (36).\n(126)\nThe Commission concludes from this that the recapitalisation is likely to strengthen the position of the company in relation to its competitors in trade between the Member States of the Union. The measure therefore affects trade between Member States and is liable to cause distortions of competition.\n(127)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission considers that the measure in question constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n7.1.2. The loans described in recitals 28 to 33\n(128)\nFrance considers that the two loans described in recitals 28 to 33 are granted under market conditions and therefore respect the principle of the private market economy investor (see recital 116).\n(129)\nThe Commission does not agree with this analysis. In fact, in the present case, the SNCF has already granted aid to SeaFrance, notably rescue aid, and is planning to grant new aid, i.e. the recapitalisation. The loans pursue the same purpose as the other aid measures, i.e. the rescue and restructuring of SeaFrance. They will be granted at a time when SeaFrance is a firm in difficulty and at the same time as the restructuring aid. This is self-evident as regards the loan of EUR 99,7 million, which is intended - just like the recapitalisation - to enable SeaFrance to meet its current capital requirements. However, it is also true of the loan of EUR [40-70] million, which serves to refinance and exercise the purchase option under the leasing contract for the vessel Moli\u00e8re earlier than provided for. In fact, the financing of means of production, here the vessel, is closely linked to the day-to-day activities of SeaFrance. Through the refinancing and early purchase under the leasing contract, SeaFrance aims to reduce its operating costs, which comes under the restructuring of the company. Consequently, the loan of EUR [40-70] million also comes under the logic of restructuring SeaFrance.\n(130)\nIn its BP Chemicals judgment, the Court of First Instance clarified that in such a situation, it is appropriate to analyse the loans, from the point of view of State aid, not in isolation, but together with the other measures (37).\n(131)\nAccording to the judgment of the Court of First Instance, it is true that the mere fact that a public undertaking has already made capital injections into a subsidiary which are classed as \u2018aid\u2019 does not, in principle, mean that a further capital injection cannot be classed as an operation which satisfies the private market economy investor test. However, the Court considers that, in a case which concerned three capital injections made by the same investor over a period of two years, the first two of which brought no return, it was for the Commission to determine whether the third injection could reasonably be dissociated from the first two and classed, for the purposes of the private investor test, as an independent investment.\n(132)\nThe Court considers that the considerations relevant to determining whether the subsequent measure could reasonably be dissociated from the first two and classed, for the purposes of the private investor test, as an independent investment, include in particular the timing of the capital injections in question, their purpose and the subsidiary\u2019s situation at the time when each decision to make an injection was made.\n(133)\nFrance does not dispute the fact that the recapitalisation constitutes aid, as it has no prospect of obtaining a return corresponding to that which a private investor would have demanded. This also emerges from the table in recital 35, which indicates the financing need for the period 2011-2017. In fact the company would be unable to distribute dividends during this period. In view of the considerable costs entailed in the payment of the interest and principal on the loans described in recitals 28 to 33 and the low profit margin provided for in the restructuring plan, this situation would be very likely to continue beyond 2017 until the repayment of the loans in full in 2023. However, a private investor in a traditional industry such as maritime transport would not accept the entire absence of return on an investment amounting to EUR 166,3 million for a 12-year period. Since the two loans have the same purpose as the recapitalisation, i.e. the financing of the restructuring costs, and since the economic situation of the company is unchanged (it is in difficulty) and the loans are granted at the same time as the recapitalisation, these loans cannot reasonably be dissociated from the rescue aid and the recapitalisation.\n(134)\nTaken as a whole, the return on the rescue aid and on the recapitalisation and the two loans is below the return that a private market economy investor would require. In fact, as explained, the SNCF cannot expect any return on the recapitalisation before 2023. Even if, considered individually, the return on the two loans corresponded to market conditions - which is not the case -, this would not be sufficient for the measures as a whole to be regarded as satisfying the private market economy investor principle. The following developments are therefore set out for the sake of completeness.\n(135)\nThe French authorities cite the Reference Rates Communication to justify the absence of aid as regards the two loans. They consider that, in view of the company rating (CCC) and the collateral offered (normal), the rate must amount to 8,55 %, i.e. EURIBOR 12 months plus 650 basis points. The French authorities consider that this is a conservative application of the Reference Rates Communication.\n(136)\nEven if the two loans were to be assessed in isolation - which is not the case -, the French authorities would not have demonstrated that they were granted at a market rate.\n(137)\nIn this respect, the Commission first wishes to emphasise that, as pointed out in the first paragraph of the Reference Rates Communication: \u2018The reference and discount rates are applied as a proxy for the market rate and to measure the grant equivalent of aid, in particular when it is disbursed in several instalments and to calculate the aid element resulting from interest subsidy schemes. They are also used to check compliance with the de minimis rule and block exemption regulations.\u2019 (38). The Reference Rates Communication cannot therefore be binding on the Commission as regards its application of the principle of the private market economy operator, especially in cases where real market data are available which are manifestly different from those resulting from the methodology set out in this Communication.\n(138)\nIn this case, since the provider of the aid is also supplying the loan, in order to ensure that the proposed remuneration does in fact correspond to market remuneration, the Commission must take operators external to the SNCF as a basis. The Commission asked the French authorities on several occasions to produce an example of an offer from an independent financial institution. This offer was never produced.\n(139)\nFurthermore, the Commission also carried out a market survey. According to the Commission\u2019s estimates, with normal collateral, the rate on the loans, to be in line with market conditions, should be around 14 % (5-year swap rate of 2,825 % (39) + average CDS (40) below B- (i.e. CCC) of 11,18 % + premium of 0,2 %). This corresponds to the data observed in April, May and June 2011. In addition, despite the Commission\u2019s repeated requests (41), the French authorities have never produced a rating or a rate proposal from a private bank.\n(140)\nIn addition, on several occasions (42), the Commission asked the French authorities to consider external financing or to produce a rating or a rate proposal from a commercial bank. These suggestions were not formally followed up.\n(141)\nFinally, the arguments put forward by the French authorities under recital 116 that the Commission applied the Reference Rates Communication in two recent procedures could not be accepted. In fact, as regards these two procedures, one of which is still in progress, the issues were different. As regards P\u00e9ti Nitrog\u00e9nm\u00fcvek, all the measures under examination constituted State aid. As for Osinek, the Commission has not yet taken a final decision and at the time when the loan was granted, no aid measure had been notified.\n(142)\nThe Commission concludes that the loans used to finance the own contribution and the early exercise of the purchase option for the vessel Moli\u00e8re also confer an advantage on SeaFrance. For the reasons set out in recitals 121 to 126, the other three conditions for the existence of aid (selective advantage granted through public resources, effect on competition and effect on intra-Community trade) are also satisfied. These loans therefore constitute State aid.\n7.1.3. The rescue aid\n(143)\nFor the reasons set out in recitals 30 to 47 of the Commission decision of 18 August 2010, the loan granted by the SNCF to SeaFrance as rescue aid constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n7.2. Compatibility of the three aid measures\n(144)\nIn view of the purpose of the three restructuring aid measures in question and the claims made by the French authorities in the context of their notifications, the Commission considers that the compatibility of the three aid measures with the internal market must be analysed on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and in the light of the Guidelines.\n7.2.1. Eligibility: firm in difficulty\n(145)\nTo be able to qualify for restructuring aid, a firm must be regarded as a firm in difficulty within the meaning of Section 2.1 of the Guidelines.\n(146)\nIn this respect, the Commission considers that SeaFrance is a firm in difficulty within the meaning of point 10(a) of the Guidelines, since more than half of its registered capital has disappeared, falling from EUR 81,7 million in 2007 to EUR 57,7 million in 2008 and to EUR - 0,69 million in 2009 (i.e. a reduction of more than 100 %, by EUR 82,4 million between 2007 and 2009), and more than one quarter of that capital has been lost over the preceding 12 months, since it fell from EUR 57,7 million in 2008 to EUR - 0,69 million in 2009.\n(147)\nIn addition, SeaFrance can also be considered as being in difficulty within the meaning of point 10(c) of the Guidelines on the grounds that it fulfils the criteria for being the subject of collective insolvency proceedings. In fact, as indicated in recital 10, SeaFrance was placed under a judicial reorganisation procedure on 30 June 2010 by the Paris Commercial Court.\n(148)\nFurthermore, the conditions set out under point 13 of the Guidelines are also satisfied as, although belonging to the SNCF group, SeaFrance\u2019s difficulties relate specifically to itself and are not the result of an arbitrary allocation of costs within the group.\n7.2.2. Own contribution\n(149)\nIn the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission considered that SeaFrance\u2019s own contribution to the restructuring effort was uncertain and insufficient according to the provisions of the Guidelines.\n(150)\nIn the modified restructuring plan, the French authorities propose an own contribution from SeaFrance of EUR [80-130] million, consisting in the following measures:\n-\na loan of EUR 99,7 million at 8,55 % to finance the restructuring of SeaFrance;\n-\nthe planned sale of the freight vessel Nord-Pas-de-Calais (market value estimated at EUR [0-10] million by two independent experts); and\n-\nthe sale of the vessels Renoir and C\u00e9zanne in July 2011 for an amount of USD [0-10] million, or approximately EUR [0-10] million.\n(151)\nPursuant to point 43 of the Guidelines, \u2018The amount and intensity of the aid must be limited to the strict minimum of the restructuring costs necessary to enable restructuring to be undertaken in the light of the existing financial resources of the company, its shareholders or the business group to which it belongs. Such assessment will take account of any rescue aid granted beforehand. Aid beneficiaries will be expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources, including the sale of assets that are not essential to the firm\u2019s survival, or from external financing at market conditions. Such contribution is a sign that the markets believe in the feasibility of the return to viability. Such contribution must be real, i.e., actual, excluding all future expected profits such as cash flow, and must be as high as possible.\u2019 (43).\n(152)\nPoint 7 of the Guidelines also specifies that \u2018it is appropriate to reaffirm with greater clarity the principle that [the substantial contribution from the beneficiary to the restructuring] must be real and free of aid. The beneficiary\u2019s contribution has a twofold purpose: on the one hand, it will demonstrate that the markets (owners, creditors) believe in the feasibility of the return to viability within a reasonable time period. On the other hand, it will ensure that restructuring aid is limited to the minimum required to restore viability while limiting distortion of competition. [\u2026].\u2019 (44).\n(153)\nThe Union case-law also emphasised that the own contribution must indicate that the markets believe in the feasibility of the return to viability (45).\n(154)\nThe French authorities informed the Commission that the sale of the two vessels, i.e. the Renoir and the C\u00e9zanne, took place on 7 July 2011, for an amount of EUR 3,1 million.\n(155)\nThe planned sale of the freight vessel Nord-Pas-de-Calais should bring SeaFrance\u2019s contribution resulting from the sale of the vessels to EUR [10-20] million. At the time of notification of the original restructuring plan, the French authorities had committed to SeaFrance disposing of the vessels Renoir and C\u00e9zanne. These two sales took place in July 2011. It is established decision-making practice of the Commission that future sales of assets can be accepted as own contribution on condition that the Member State has produced a realistic estimate of their market value (46). In this case, the French authorities produced two valuations for the freight vessel Nord-Pas-de-Calais carried out by two independent experts, both establishing the market value of the vessel at about EUR [0-10] million. The Commission points out that one of the two experts had estimated the market value of the vessels Renoir and C\u00e9zanne at USD [0-10 000 000] in April 2011. The two vessels were sold for a value of USD [0-10 000 000] in July 2011. Consequently, the Commission considers firstly that the estimate of the market value can be considered realistic and secondly that the planned sale of the freight vessel Nord-Pas-de-Calais is acceptable as own contribution.\n(156)\nAs a preliminary point, the French authorities specified that the loan for EUR [40-70] million intended to finance the exercise of the purchase option on the vessel Moli\u00e8re does not constitute an additional own contribution. In fact, it replaces an off-balance sheet contribution already existing under the leasing contract relating to the vessel Moli\u00e8re. It was not therefore taken into account in the calculation of the total own contribution. Nevertheless, in so far as this financing replaces existing financing, the Commission must ensure that it too meets the criteria of compatibility of the own contribution, especially that of the absence of aid.\n(157)\nIn so far as the loans are granted by the SNCF in accordance with point 43 of the Guidelines, the Commission must ensure that this financing is free of aid and it \u2018is a sign that the markets believe in the feasibility of the return to viability\u2019. Such is not the case for the following three reasons, each of which would suffice to support this conclusion.\n(158)\nFirstly, as indicated by the Commission in section 7.1.2, recitals 129 to 142 above, the conditions to which the loans were subject do not correspond to market conditions.\n(159)\nAccording to the Commission\u2019s estimates, with normal collateral, the rate on the loans, to be in line with market conditions, should be around 14 % (5-year swap rate of 2,825 % (47) + average CDS (48) below B- (i.e. CCC) of 11,18 % + premium 0,2 %). This corresponds to the data observed in April, May and June 2011. In addition, despite the Commission\u2019s repeated requests (49), the French authorities never produced a rating or rate proposal from a private bank.\n(160)\nSecondly, as shown in section 7.1.2., recitals 129 to 142, the loans in question themselves constitute State aid. They could not therefore be taken into consideration as an own contribution which must be free of aid, in accordance with the title preceding point 43 of the Guidelines.\n(161)\nThirdly, and in any case, according to points 7 and 43 of the Guidelines, the real contribution serves in particular to show that the markets believe in the feasibility of the return to viability (50). However, in the present case, the authority granting the aid and the parent company are combined in a single legal person, i.e. the SNCF, and the measures concerned are simultaneous. Under these circumstances, this purpose cannot be complied with in the absence of a real contribution obtained from an investor or creditor external to the SNCF. In fact, the conduct of the authority granting the aid in no way shows that the markets believe in the return to viability.\n(162)\nAs indicated in recital 141, the Commission considers that the reference made by France in its comments to the decisions relating respectively to the aid granted by the publicly owned company Osinek in favour of \u010cSA - Czech Airlines and the loans granted by the Hungarian Development Bank in favour of Hungarian fertiliser producer P\u00e9ti Nitrog\u00e9nm\u00fcvek (see recital 116) is not relevant as, in the first of these cases, the Commission has not yet taken a final decision and, in the second, this is not a case of restructuring.\n(163)\nIn addition, as indicated previously and independently of the question of a possible aid element in the loans, the own contribution must indicate that the markets believe in the feasibility of the return to viability.\n(164)\nIn this case, the financing by the SNCF could not demonstrate this. In fact, the SNCF is both the grantor of aid and the provider of the own contribution. The French authorities did not provide any information showing that a prudent independent investor would be prepared to enter into a firm commitment to provide an own contribution and a loan to exercise the option under the same conditions as those proposed by the SNCF.\n(165)\nSeaFrance\u2019s own contribution meeting the requirements of point 43 of the Guidelines, i.e. free of aid and expressing the belief of the markets in the feasibility of a return to viability, consequently amounts to only EUR [10-20] million, i.e. to less than [< 10] % of the restructuring costs. The 50 % threshold provided for in point 44 of the Guidelines is therefore not reached. The Commission therefore considers that SeaFrance\u2019s own contribution to the restructuring effort remains very inadequate in terms of the provisions of the Guidelines.\n(166)\nThe Commission also observes that France has not invoked the exceptional circumstances clause provided for in point 44 of the Guidelines or provided any evidence of the existence of an exceptional situation of this kind.\n(167)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the requirement of a \u2018real contribution, free of aid\u2019, provided for by the Guidelines, is not satisfied.\n7.2.3. Return to long-term viability\n(168)\nIn so far as SeaFrance\u2019s own contribution to the restructuring effort remains very inadequate in the light of the provisions of the Guidelines, the Commission considers that there is no need to assess the condition of return to long-term viability.\n7.2.4. Prevention of any excessive distortion of competition (compensatory measures)\n(169)\nIn the decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission indicated that the compensatory measures proposed by the French authorities were inadequate. In their comments in response to the decision to initiate the procedure, the French authorities accepted (51) the near non-existence of compensatory measures (52). They indicated that this problem would be resolved under a modified restructuring plan.\n(170)\nSupplementary compensatory measures were indeed proposed under the restructuring plan communicated on 12 September 2011, and especially the forthcoming sale of the freight vessel Nord Pas-de-Calais. The French authorities also mention the already completed sale of the vessels Renoir and C\u00e9zanne, the reduction in the number of crossings (reduction by 5 830 crossings, i.e. - 37,6 % compared to the 2007 crossings schedule) and the reduction in market shares of SeaFrance ([10-15]% of the car transport market for 2012-2019, compared to [15-20]% in 2008).\n(171)\nIn so far as SeaFrance\u2019s own contribution to the restructuring effort remains very inadequate in the light of the provisions of the Guidelines, the Commission considers that there is no need to analyse the compensatory measures proposed.\n7.2.5. Consequence of the incompatibility of the restructuring aid and the rescue aid\n(172)\nFollowing the notification of the restructuring plan by France on 18 February 2011, in accordance with point 26 of the Guidelines, the 6-month period within which the loan must be reimbursed was extended until the Commission reaches its decision on the restructuring plan. Since the Commission considers that the measures notified as restructuring aid do not satisfy the compatibility conditions provided for by the Guidelines, the consequences of this incompatibility must be drawn. The loan cannot therefore be extended any longer beyond the date of this decision and must therefore be reimbursed without delay.\n(173)\nThe amount to be recovered consists of the principal of the rescue loan, plus contractual interest due and not yet paid on the date of notification of the present decision, plus, from the date of the notification of the present decision, interest calculated in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (53).\nVIII. CONCLUSION\n(174)\nThe capital increase of EUR 166,3 million, the loan of EUR 99,7 million and the loan of EUR [40-70] million that the SNCF plans to grant to SeaFrance constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. This aid is incompatible with the internal market and therefore cannot be implemented.\n(175)\nThe loan granted by France, through the SNCF, as rescue aid in favour of SeaFrance, authorised by Commission decision of 18 August 2010, must be reimbursed immediately, together with the contractual interest due and not yet paid on the date of notification of the present decision.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe capital increase of EUR 166,3 million, the loan of EUR 99,7 million and the loan of EUR [40-70] million that the French Republic is planning to implement, through the SNCF, as restructuring aid in favour of SeaFrance constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and are incompatible with the internal market.\nFor this reason, these aid schemes may not be implemented.\nArticle 2\nThe loan granted by France, through the SNCF, as rescue aid in favour of SeaFrance, referred to in the Commission decision of 18 August 2010, constitutes aid which is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 3\n1. France, through the SNCF, shall recover the aid referred to in Article 2 from the beneficiary, including the contractual interest due and not yet paid on the date of notification of the present decision.\n2. The amounts to be recovered shall bear interest from the date of notification of the present decision until they are in fact recovered.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\nArticle 4\n1. The recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. France shall ensure that the present decision is implemented within four months following the date of its notification.\nArticle 5\n1. During the two months following the notification of the present decision, France shall communicate the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe principal amount of the aid to be recovered from the beneficiary, which comprises the amount of the loan and the interest on the loan due and not yet paid;\n(b)\nthe amount of the interest to be recovered from the beneficiary, which must be calculated according to the principles set out in Article 3(3);\n(c)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with the present decision; and\n(d)\nthe documents showing that the beneficiary has been ordered to reimburse the aid.\n2. France shall keep the Commission informed of the progress in the national measures taken to implement the present decision until full recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2. It shall forward immediately, at the Commission\u2019s request, any information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with the present decision. It shall also provide detailed information on the amounts of aid and the interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 6\nThis decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 24 October 2011.", "references": ["52", "50", "13", "18", "6", "81", "71", "25", "31", "7", "22", "67", "3", "69", "75", "40", "10", "32", "90", "37", "88", "2", "35", "54", "94", "46", "19", "11", "66", "93", "No Label", "15", "48", "55", "82", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "48", "55", "82", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 976/2010\nof 29 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Hessischer Apfelwein (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Hessischer Apfelwein\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 October 2010.", "references": ["67", "52", "59", "9", "78", "26", "12", "38", "80", "83", "44", "48", "84", "29", "43", "69", "20", "33", "81", "39", "54", "58", "76", "30", "19", "8", "28", "65", "85", "74", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 414/2010\nof 12 May 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Nieheimer K\u00e4se (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Nieheimer K\u00e4se\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2010.", "references": ["36", "39", "90", "78", "37", "1", "69", "63", "56", "49", "14", "66", "50", "19", "53", "29", "73", "2", "64", "13", "23", "75", "82", "93", "0", "98", "87", "15", "68", "45", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 552/2011\nof 1 June 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for black scabbardfish in EU and international waters of V, VI, VII and XII by vessels flying the flag of Germany\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2011.", "references": ["33", "46", "4", "70", "37", "89", "42", "28", "81", "68", "65", "47", "34", "86", "73", "92", "71", "98", "32", "29", "23", "51", "44", "61", "45", "95", "25", "48", "93", "90", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 406/2010\nof 26 April 2010\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 79/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of hydrogen-powered motor vehicles\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 79/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on type-approval of hydrogen-powered motor vehicles, and amending Directive 2007/46/EC (1), and in particular Article 12 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 79/2009 is a separate Regulation for the purposes of the Community type-approval procedure provided for by Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 79/2009 lays down fundamental provisions on requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to hydrogen propulsion, for the type-approval of hydrogen components and hydrogen systems and for the installation of such components and systems.\n(3)\nFrom entry into force of the present Regulation manufacturers should be able to apply for the EC whole-vehicle type-approval of hydrogen-powered vehicles on a voluntary basis. However, some of the separate Directives in the context of the Community type-approval procedure under Directive 2007/46/EC or some of their requirements should not apply to hydrogen-powered vehicles, since the technical characteristics of hydrogen-powered vehicles differ significantly from conventional ones, for which those type-approval Directives were essentially designed. Pending the amendment of those Directives to include specific provisions and test procedures on hydrogen-powered vehicles, it is necessary to set out transitional provisions in order to exempt hydrogen-powered vehicles from those Directive or some of their requirements.\n(4)\nAdopting harmonised rules on hydrogen receptacles, including receptacles designed to use liquid hydrogen, is necessary in order to ensure that hydrogen vehicles can be refuelled throughout the Community in a safe and reliable manner.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018Hydrogen sensor\u2019 means a sensor used to detect hydrogen in air;\n(2)\n\u2018Class 0 component\u2019 means high-pressure hydrogen components including fuel lines and fittings containing hydrogen at a nominal working pressure greater than 3,0 MPa;\n(3)\n\u2018Class 1 component\u2019 means medium-pressure hydrogen components including fuel lines and fittings containing hydrogen at a nominal working pressure greater than 0,45 MPa and up to and including 3,0 MPa;\n(4)\n\u2018Class 2 component\u2019 means low-pressure hydrogen components including fuel lines and fittings containing hydrogen at a nominal working pressure up to and including 0,45 MPa;\n(5)\n\u2018Fully wrap\u2019 means over-wrap with the filaments wound around the liner both in the circumferential and longitudinal directions of the container;\n(6)\n\u2018Hoop wrap\u2019 means over-wrap with the filaments wound in a substantially circumferential pattern over the cylindrical portion of the liner, so that the filaments do not carry any significant load in the longitudinal direction of the container;\n(7)\n\u2018Nm3\u2019 or \u2018Ncm3\u2019 means a volume of dry gas that occupies a volume of 1 m3 or 1 cm3 at a temperature of 273,15 K (0 \u00b0C) and an absolute pressure of 101,325 kPa (1 atm);\n(8)\n\u2018Service life\u2019 means the life in years during which the containers may safely be used in accordance with the service conditions;\n(9)\n\u2018Type of hydrogen system\u2019 means a group of hydrogen systems which do not differ either as regards their trade name or mark of their manufacturer or as regards the hydrogen components included therein;\n(10)\n\u2018Vehicle type with regard to hydrogen propulsion\u2019 means a group of vehicles which do not differ as regards the state of the hydrogen used or the main characteristics of its hydrogen system(s);\n(11)\n\u2018Type of hydrogen component\u2019 means a group of hydrogen components which do not differ in any of the following aspects:\n(a)\ntrade name or mark of their manufacturer;\n(b)\nclassification;\n(c)\nmain function;\n(12)\n\u2018Electronic control system\u2019 means a combination of units, designed to cooperate in the production of the stated vehicle control function by electronic data processing;\n(13)\n\u2018Complex electronic vehicle control systems\u2019 mean electronic control systems which are subject to a hierarchy of control in which one electronically controlled function may be over-ridden by a higher-level system/function and become part of the complex system;\n(14)\n\u2018Container\u2019 means any system used for the storage of cryogenic hydrogen or compressed gaseous hydrogen, excluding any other hydrogen components which may be attached to or fitted inside the container;\n(15)\n\u2018Container Assembly\u2019 means two or more containers with integral interconnecting fuel lines, protectively encased inside a housing shell or protective frame;\n(16)\n\u2018Duty Cycle\u2019 means one start up and shut down cycle of the hydrogen conversion system(s);\n(17)\n\u2018Filling cycle\u2019 means a pressure increase of more than 25 per cent of the working pressure of the container due to an external source of hydrogen;\n(18)\n\u2018Pressure regulator\u2019 means a device used to control the delivery pressure of gaseous fuel to the hydrogen conversion system;\n(19)\n\u2018First pressure regulator\u2019 means the pressure regulator having the container pressure as its inlet pressure;\n(20)\n\u2018Non-return valve\u2019 means a valve that allows hydrogen to flow in only one direction;\n(21)\n\u2018Pressure\u2019 means gauge pressure measured in MPa against atmospheric pressure, unless otherwise stated;\n(22)\n\u2018Fitting\u2019 means a connector used in a piping, tubing or hose system;\n(23)\n\u2018Flexible fuel line\u2019 means flexible tubing or a hose through which hydrogen flows;\n(24)\n\u2018Heat exchanger\u2019 means a device for heating the hydrogen;\n(25)\n\u2018Hydrogen filter\u2019 means a filter used to separate oil, water and dirt from hydrogen;\n(26)\n\u2018Automatic valve\u2019 means a valve that is not operated manually, but by an actuator, with the exception of non-return valves as defined in point 20;\n(27)\n\u2018Pressure relief device\u2019 means a non-reclosing device that, when activated under specified conditions, is used to release fluid from a pressurised hydrogen system;\n(28)\n\u2018Pressure relief valve\u2019 means a reclosing pressure activated device that, when activated under specified conditions, is used to release fluid from a pressurised hydrogen system;\n(29)\n\u2018Refuelling connection\u2019 or \u2018receptacle\u2019 means a device used to fill the container at the filling station;\n(30)\n\u2018Removable storage system\u2019 means a removable system within a vehicle that houses and protects one or more container(s) or a container assembly;\n(31)\n\u2018Removable storage system connector\u2019 means the hydrogen connection device between a removable storage system and the section of the hydrogen system permanently installed in the vehicle;\n(32)\n\u2018Auto-frettage\u2019 means a pressure application procedure used in manufacturing composite containers with metal liners, which strains the liner past its yield point sufficiently to cause permanent plastic deformation, which results in the liner having compressive stresses and the fibres having tensile stresses at zero internal pressure;\n(33)\n\u2018Liner\u2019 means a part of a container that is used as a gas tight inner shell, on which reinforcing fibres are filament wound to reach the necessary strength;\n(34)\n\u2018Ambient temperature\u2019 means a temperature range of 20 \u00b0C \u00b1 10 \u00b0C;\n(35)\n\u2018Units\u2019 mean the smallest divisions of system components for the purposes of Annex VI, as these combinations of components are treated as single entities for purposes of identification, analysis or replacement;\n(36)\n\u2018Ground clearance of the vehicle\u2019 means the distance between the ground plane and the underside of the vehicle;\n(37)\n\u2018Safety device\u2019 means a device that ensures safe operation within the normal operating range or the permissible fault range of the system;\n(38)\n\u2018Hydrogen conversion system\u2019 means any system designed for the conversion of hydrogen into electrical, mechanical or thermal energy and includes, for example, the propulsion system(s) or auxiliary power unit(s);\n(39)\n\u2018Impermissible fault range\u2019 of a process variable means the range within which an unwanted event is to be expected;\n(40)\n\u2018Leak test gas\u2019 means hydrogen, helium or an inert gas mixture containing a demonstrated detectable amount of helium or hydrogen gas;\n(41)\n\u2018Normal operating range\u2019 of a process variable means the range planned for its values;\n(42)\n\u2018Outer pressure\u2019 means the pressure acting on the convex side of the inner tank or outer jacket;\n(43)\n\u2018Outer jacket\u2019 means the part of the container that encases the inner tank(s) and its insulation system;\n(44)\n\u2018Rigid fuel line\u2019 means tubing that has not been designed to flex in normal operation and through which hydrogen flows;\n(45)\n\u2018Boil off management system\u2019 means a system that renders boil off gas harmless in normal conditions;\n(46)\n\u2018Safety instrumented systems\u2019 mean process control systems that prevent an impermissible fault range from being reached by an automatic intervention in the process;\n(47)\n\u2018Batch\u2019 means a quantity of successively produced finished containers having the same nominal dimensions, design, specified materials of construction, process of manufacture, equipment for manufacture and, where appropriate, conditions of time, temperature and atmosphere during heat treatment;\n(48)\n\u2018Equipment of the container\u2019 means all devices that are fixed directly to the inner tank or outer jacket of the container;\n(49)\n\u2018Finished container\u2019 means a container that is typical of normal production, complete with external coating including integral insulation specified by the manufacturer, but free from non-integral insulation or protection;\n(50)\n\u2018Burst pressure\u2019 means the pressure at which the container ruptures;\n(51)\n\u2018Permissible fault range\u2019 of a process variable means the range between the normal operating range and the impermissible fault range;\n(52)\n\u2018Boil off system\u2019 means a system that in normal conditions vents the boil-off before the pressure relief device of the container(s) opens;\n(53)\n\u2018Manual valve\u2019 means a manually operated valve;\n(54)\n\u2018Safety concept\u2019 means measures designed to ensure safe operation even in the event of a failure or random faults;\n(55)\n\u2018Usage monitoring and control system\u2019 means a system that counts the filling cycles and prevents further use of the vehicle when a predetermined number of filling cycles is exceeded;\n(56)\n\u2018Fuel supply line\u2019 means the line that supplies hydrogen to the hydrogen conversion system(s);\n(57)\n\u2018Composite container\u2019 means a container constructed of more than one material;\n(58)\n\u2018Over-wrap\u2019 means resin impregnated continuous filaments used as reinforcement around a liner;\n(59)\n\u2018Auto-frettage pressure\u2019 means the pressure within the over-wrapped container at which the required distribution of stresses between the liner and the over-wrap is established;\n(60)\n\u2018Boundary of functional operation\u2019 means the boundaries of the external physical limits within which a system is able to maintain control;\n(61)\n\u2018Range of control\u2019 means the range over which the system is likely to exercise control with regard to an output variable;\n(62)\n\u2018Transmission links\u2019 mean the means used for interconnecting distributed units for the purpose of conveying signals, operating data or an energy supply;\n(63)\n\u2018Higher-level systems/functions\u2019 mean controls that employ additional processing and/or sensing provisions to modify vehicle behaviour by commanding variations in the normal function(s) of the vehicle control system.\nArticle 2\nAdministrative provisions for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to hydrogen propulsion\n1. The manufacturer or his representative shall submit to the type-approval authority the application for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to hydrogen propulsion.\n2. The application shall be drawn in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Part 1 of Annex I.\nThe manufacturer shall provide the information set out in Part 3 of Annex I for periodic requalification by inspection during the service life of the vehicle.\n3. If the relevant requirements set out in Part 1 of Annex III or Part 1 of Annex IV, Annex V and Annex VI are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC type-approval and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nA Member State may not assign the same number to another vehicle type.\n4. For the purposes of paragraph 3, the type-approval authority shall deliver an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 3\nAdministrative provisions for EC component type-approval of hydrogen components and systems\n1. The manufacturer or his representative shall submit to the type-approval authority the application for EC component type-approval for a type of hydrogen component or hydrogen system.\nThe application shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Part 1 of Annex II.\n2. If the relevant requirements set out in Annex III or Annex IV are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC component type-approval and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nA Member State may not assign the same number to another type of hydrogen component or hydrogen system.\n3. For the purposes of paragraph 2, the type-approval authority shall deliver an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex II.\nArticle 4\nFor the purpose of the EC whole-vehicle type-approval of hydrogen-powered vehicles in accordance to Articles 6 and 9 of Directive 2007/46/EC, the following shall not apply:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 80/1268/EEC (3);\n(2)\nCouncil Directive 80/1269/EEC (4), as regards hydrogen-powered vehicles propelled by internal combustion engine;\n(3)\nAnnex I to Council Directive 70/221/EEC (5);\n(4)\nSection 3.3.5 of Annex II and Section 4.3.2 of Appendix 1 to Annex II to Directive 96/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6);\n(5)\nSection 3.2.6 of Annex II and Section 1.4.2.2 of Appendix 1 to Annex II to Directive 96/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7).\nArticle 5\nEC component type-approval mark\nEvery hydrogen component or hydrogen system conforming to a type in respect of which EC component type-approval has been granted pursuant to this Regulation shall bear an EC component type-approval mark as set out in Part 3 of Annex II.\nArticle 6\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["49", "38", "88", "89", "87", "48", "8", "44", "91", "25", "60", "57", "95", "65", "90", "96", "32", "94", "31", "26", "24", "93", "14", "18", "73", "84", "37", "86", "17", "5", "No Label", "20", "23", "54", "58", "76", "80", "83"], "gold": ["20", "23", "54", "58", "76", "80", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 21 February 2011\nconcerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the West African Economic and Monetary Union on certain aspects of air services\n(2011/126/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8),\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Council authorised the Commission on 5 June 2003 to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral Agreements with a Community Agreement.\n(2)\nOn behalf of the European Community, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement with the West African Economic and Monetary Union on certain aspects of air services in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community Agreement.\n(3)\nThe Agreement was signed on behalf of the Community on 30 November 2009 subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2010/144/EC (1).\n(4)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the West African Economic and Monetary Union on certain aspects of air services (\u2018the Agreement\u2019), is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 9(1) of the Agreement and make the following notification:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d in the text of the Agreement are, where appropriate, to be read as \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day after its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2011.", "references": ["56", "39", "26", "81", "2", "65", "74", "16", "41", "6", "0", "25", "22", "59", "28", "79", "75", "4", "62", "52", "42", "38", "18", "32", "99", "63", "31", "70", "94", "37", "No Label", "3", "9", "57"], "gold": ["3", "9", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1/2011\nof 3 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 January 2011.", "references": ["12", "28", "82", "66", "65", "1", "20", "96", "30", "62", "26", "49", "63", "57", "76", "46", "95", "4", "32", "24", "17", "60", "36", "16", "18", "69", "75", "19", "42", "15", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 607/2012\nof 6 July 2012\non the detailed rules concerning the due diligence system and the frequency and nature of the checks on monitoring organisations as provided for in Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market (1), and in particular Articles 6(2) and 8(8) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 995/2010 obliges operators to use a framework of procedures and measures (hereinafter referred to as a due diligence system) in order to minimise the risk of placing illegally harvested timber or products derived from illegally harvested timber on the internal market.\n(2)\nIt is necessary to clarify cases in which information on the full scientific name of tree species, the sub-national region where the timber was harvested and the concession of harvest needs to be provided.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to specify the frequency and nature of checks that the competent authorities need to carry out on monitoring organisations.\n(4)\nProtection of individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data within the scope of this Regulation, in particular as regards the processing of personal data obtained in the context of checks is subject to the requirements laid down in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (2) and to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down detailed rules concerning the due diligence system and the frequency and the nature of the checks on monitoring organisations.\nArticle 2\nApplication of the due diligence system\n1. Operators shall apply the due diligence system to each specific type of timber or timber product supplied by a particular supplier within a period not exceeding 12 months, provided that the tree species, the country or countries of harvest or, where applicable, the sub-national region(s) and concession(s) of harvest remain unchanged.\n2. The first paragraph is without prejudice to operator\u2019s obligation to maintain measures and procedures providing access to the information referred to in Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 concerning each consignment of timber and timber products placed on the market by the operator.\nArticle 3\nInformation concerning the operator\u2019s supply\n1. The information on operator\u2019s supply of timber or timber products referred to in Article (6)(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 shall be provided in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.\n2. The full scientific name of the tree species referred to in the first indent of Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 shall be provided where ambiguity in the use of the common name exists.\n3. Information on the sub-national region referred to in the second indent of Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 shall be provided where the risk of illegal harvesting between sub-national regions varies.\n4. Information on the concession of harvest referred to in the second indent of Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 shall be provided where the risk of illegal harvesting between concessions of harvest in a country or sub-national region varies.\nFor the purposes of the first subparagraph, any arrangement conferring the right to harvest timber in a defined area shall be considered a concession of harvest.\nArticle 4\nRisk assessment and mitigation\nCertification or other third-party verified schemes referred to in the first indent of the second paragraph of Article 6(1)(b) and in Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 may be taken into account in the risk assessment and risk mitigation procedures where they meet the following criteria:\n(a)\nthey have established and made available for third-party use a publicly available system of requirements, which system shall at the least include all relevant requirements of the applicable legislation;\n(b)\nthey specify that appropriate checks, including field-visits, are made by a third party at regular intervals no longer than 12 months to verify that the applicable legislation is complied with;\n(c)\nthey include means, verified by a third party, to trace timber harvested in accordance with applicable legislation, and timber products derived from such timber, at any point in the supply chain before such timber or timber products are placed on the market;\n(d)\nthey include controls, verified by a third party, to ensure that timber or timber products of unknown origin, or timber or timber products which have not been harvested in accordance with applicable legislation, do not enter the supply chain.\nArticle 5\nRecord keeping by operators\n1. Information concerning the operator\u2019s supply as provided for in Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 and application of risk mitigation procedures shall be documented through adequate records, which shall be stored for five years and made available for checks by the competent authority.\n2. In applying their due diligence system operators shall be able to demonstrate how the information gathered was checked against the risk criteria provided for in Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, how a decision on risk mitigation measures was taken and how the operator determined the degree of risk.\nArticle 6\nFrequency and nature of checks on monitoring organisations\n1. The competent authorities shall ensure that the checks at regular intervals referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 are carried out at least once every two years.\n2. Checks referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 shall be carried out in particular in any of the following cases:\n(a)\nwhere a competent authority has, while carrying out checks on operators, detected shortcomings in the effectiveness or implementation by operators of the due diligence system established by a monitoring organisation;\n(b)\nwhere the Commission has informed the competent authorities that a monitoring organisation has undergone subsequent changes as provided for in Article 9(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 363/2012 of 23 February 2012 on the procedural rules for the recognition and withdrawal of recognition of monitoring organisations as provided for in Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market (4).\n3. Checks shall be carried out without prior warning, except where prior notification of the monitoring organisation is necessary in order to ensure the effectiveness of the checks.\n4. The competent authorities shall carry out checks in accordance with documented procedures.\n5. Competent authorities shall carry out checks to ensure compliance with Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 that shall include, in particular and as appropriate, the following activities:\n(a)\nspot checks, including field audits;\n(b)\nexamination of documentation and records of monitoring organisations;\n(c)\ninterviews with the management and staff of the monitoring organisation;\n(d)\ninterviews with operators and traders or any other relevant person;\n(e)\nexamination of documentation and records of operators;\n(f)\nexamination of samples of the supply of operators using the due diligence system of the monitoring organisation concerned.\nArticle 7\nReports of the checks on monitoring organisations\n1. The competent authorities shall draw up reports on individual checks that they have carried out, which shall include a description of the process and techniques applied and their findings and conclusions.\n2. The competent authorities shall provide a monitoring organisation that has been subject to a check with the findings and conclusions of the draft report. The monitoring organisation may provide comments to the competent authorities within the time limit specified by the competent authorities.\n3. The competent authorities shall draw up reports referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 on the basis of the reports on individual checks.\nArticle 8\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2012.", "references": ["15", "87", "65", "74", "90", "54", "60", "38", "64", "14", "43", "36", "12", "7", "67", "98", "77", "46", "69", "21", "9", "37", "93", "24", "45", "2", "34", "47", "63", "85", "No Label", "20", "25", "26", "42", "88"], "gold": ["20", "25", "26", "42", "88"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2009/026 NL/Noord Holland and Utrecht Division 18 from the Netherlands)\n(2010/744/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nThe Netherlands submitted an application on 30 December 2009 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in 79 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions Noord Holland (NL32) and Utrecht (NL31) and supplemented it with additional information up to 6 May 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 266 625.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Netherlands,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 266 625 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["88", "28", "2", "68", "90", "59", "66", "61", "93", "87", "14", "24", "86", "80", "54", "62", "0", "69", "16", "82", "11", "84", "74", "18", "85", "32", "52", "55", "27", "21", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1263/2010\nof 20 December 2010\nconcerning the allocation of the fishing opportunities under the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Seychelles\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA new Protocol (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019) setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and The Republic of Seychelles (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was initialled on 3 June 2010. The Protocol provides EU vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which the Republic of Seychelles has sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries.\n(2)\nOn 20 December 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/814/EU (2) on the signing and provisional application of the Protocol.\n(3)\nThe method for allocating the fishing opportunities among the Member States should be defined for the duration of the Protocol.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 of 29 September 2008 concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters (3), if it appears that the fishing opportunities allocated to the Union under the Protocol are not fully utilised, the Commission should inform the Member States concerned. The absence of a reply within a deadline to be set by the Council is considered as confirmation that the vessels of the Member State concerned are not making full use of their fishing opportunities in the given period. The deadline should be set.\n(5)\nThis Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Offical Journal of the European Union and should apply from 18 January 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The fishing opportunities set out in the Protocol to the Agreement shall be allocated among the Member States as follows:\n(a)\nTuna purse seiners\nSpain\n22 vessels\nFrance\n23 vessels\nItaly\n3 vessels\n(b)\nSurface longliners\nSpain\n2 vessels\nFrance\n5 vessels\nPortugal\n5 vessels\n2. Without prejudice to the Agreement and the Protocol, Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 shall apply.\n3. If applications for fishing authorisations from the Member States referred to in paragraph 1 do not cover all the fishing opportunities set by the Protocol, the Commission shall consider applications for fishing authorisations from any other Member State in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008.\nThe deadline referred to in Article 10(1) of that Regulation shall be set at 10 working days.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 18 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["64", "92", "63", "95", "91", "88", "45", "50", "97", "11", "47", "25", "66", "69", "42", "82", "84", "26", "53", "32", "36", "2", "6", "19", "7", "16", "70", "15", "52", "0", "No Label", "3", "9", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 498/2011\nof 18 May 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for mackerel in VI, VII, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of IIa, XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 May 2011.", "references": ["62", "65", "18", "26", "11", "22", "59", "47", "60", "58", "49", "21", "77", "15", "44", "57", "33", "46", "83", "43", "12", "37", "52", "4", "84", "72", "99", "82", "30", "94", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1108/2010\nof 30 November 2010\napproving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Castagna del Monte Amiata (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and in accordance with Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of an amendment to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Castagna del Monte Amiata\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1904/2000 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendment in question is not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendment should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendment to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["83", "72", "94", "33", "8", "15", "98", "50", "42", "2", "32", "68", "19", "12", "86", "70", "44", "52", "27", "47", "77", "46", "75", "67", "9", "36", "39", "58", "57", "87", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 571/2012\nof 28 June 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances aluminium silicate, hydrolysed proteins and 1,4-diaminobutane (putrescine)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2)(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe active substances aluminium silicate, hydrolysed proteins and 1,4-diaminobutane (putrescine) were included in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) by Commission Directive 2008/127/EC (3) in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 24b of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 of 3 December 2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4). Since the replacement of Directive 91/414/EEC by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, these substances are deemed to have been approved under that Regulation and are listed in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (5).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 25a of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004, the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, presented to the Commission its views on the draft review reports for aluminium silicate (6), hydrolysed proteins (7) and 1,4-diaminobutane (putrescine) (8) on 16 December 2011. The draft review reports and the views of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 1 June 2012 in the format of the Commission review reports for aluminium silicate, hydrolysed proteins and 1,4-diaminobutane (putrescine).\n(3)\nThe Authority communicated its views on aluminium silicate, hydrolysed proteins and 1,4-diaminobutane (putrescine) to the notifiers, and the Commission invited them to submit comments on the review reports.\n(4)\nIt is confirmed that the active substances aluminium silicate, hydrolysed proteins and 1,4-diaminobutane (putrescine) are to be deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is necessary to amend the conditions of approval of aluminium silicate, hydrolysed proteins and 1,4-diaminobutane (putrescine). It is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information as regards aluminium silicate and hydrolysed proteins. At the same time certain technical adaptations should be made, in particular the name of the active substance \u2027putrescin (1,4-diaminobutane)\u2027 should be replaced by \u20271,4-diaminobutane (putrescine)\u2027. The Annex to Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nA reasonable period of time should be allowed before the application of this Regulation in order to allow Member States, notifiers and holders of authorisations for plant protection products to meet the requirements resulting from amendment to the conditions of the approval.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 November 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2012.", "references": ["53", "19", "56", "91", "32", "93", "20", "35", "80", "8", "26", "12", "57", "52", "78", "37", "82", "72", "55", "33", "92", "54", "0", "42", "63", "3", "62", "6", "31", "7", "No Label", "25", "61", "70", "83"], "gold": ["25", "61", "70", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 17 July 2012\namending Decision 2010/472/EU as regards animal health requirements relating to Simbu viruses and epizootic haemorrhagic disease\n(notified under document C(2012) 4831)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/411/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), and in particular Article 17(2)(b), the first indent of Article 18(1), and the introductory phrase and point (b) of Article 19 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2010/472/EU of 26 August 2010 on imports of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species into the Union (2) sets out a list of third countries or parts thereof from which Member States are to authorise the importation into the Union of consignments of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species. It also lays down additional guarantees as regards specific animal diseases to be provided by certain third countries or parts thereof listed in Annexes I and III thereto and establishes the model health certificates for such imports in Part 2 of Annexes II and IV thereto.\n(2)\nThe animal health requirements relating to bluetongue in the model health certificates set out in Part 2 of Annexes II and IV to Decision 2010/472/EU are based on the recommendations of Chapter 8.3 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the World Organisation for animal Health (OIE) which deals with that disease. That Chapter recommends a whole range of risk mitigating measures aiming at either protecting the mammalian host from exposure to the infectious vector or at inactivating the virus by antibodies.\n(3)\nIn addition, the OIE has laid down a Chapter on Surveillance for arthropod vectors of animal diseases in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Those recommendations do not include the monitoring of ruminants for antibodies to Simbu viruses, such as the Akabane and Aino viruses of the Bunyaviridae family, which in the past was considered an economical method for determining the distribution of bluetongue competent vectors until more information on the spread of those diseases became available.\n(4)\nAlso, the OIE does not list Akabane and Aino diseases in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Consequently, the requirement for annual testing for those diseases to prove the absence of the vector should be deleted from Annexes I and III to Decision 2010/472/EU and from the model health certificates set out in Part 2 of Annexes II and IV thereto.\n(5)\nIn addition, the animal health requirements for epizootic haemorrhagic disease in the model health certificates in Part 2 of Annexes II and IV to Decision 2010/472/EU are not entirely consistent with the requirements laid down in Commission Implementing Decision 2011/630/EU of 20 September 2011 on imports into the Union of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species (3) and the recommendations of the Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals of the OIE. Those model health certificates should therefore be amended to take account of the requirements laid down in Implementing Decision 2011/630/EU and the recommendations of that Manual.\n(6)\nThe Annexes to Decision 2010/472/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nTo avoid any disruption of trade, the use of health certificates issued in accordance with Decision 2010/472/EU in its version prior to the amendments introduced by this Decision should be authorised during a transitional period subject to certain conditions.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annexes to Decision 2010/472/EU are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nFor a transitional period until 30 June 2013, Member States shall authorise imports from third countries of consignments of:\n(a)\nsemen of animals of the ovine and caprine species which are accompanied by a health certificate issued not later than 31 May 2013 in accordance with the model health certificate set out in Section A of Part 2 of Annex II to Decision 2010/472/EU in its version prior to the amendments introduced by this Decision.\n(b)\nova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species accompanied by a health certificate issued not later than 31 May 2013 in accordance with the model health certificate set out in Part 2 of Annex IV to Decision 2010/472/EU in its version prior to the amendments introduced by this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2013.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 July 2012.", "references": ["80", "92", "76", "73", "24", "40", "28", "47", "3", "91", "17", "14", "67", "84", "49", "97", "9", "85", "18", "29", "57", "58", "69", "93", "74", "77", "55", "59", "37", "63", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "65", "66"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 19 April 2012\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/006 ES/Comunidad Valenciana Construction of buildings from Spain)\n(2012/261/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nSpain submitted an application on 1 July 2011 to mobilise the EGF in respect of 1 138 redundancies in 513 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (\u2018Construction of buildings\u2019) in the NUTS II region of Comunidad Valenciana (ES52), and supplemented it by additional information up to 25 November 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 642 030.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Spain,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 642 030 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["51", "71", "37", "1", "61", "7", "26", "19", "41", "62", "38", "35", "74", "80", "68", "65", "27", "11", "14", "34", "6", "89", "95", "25", "88", "5", "24", "30", "98", "93", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "87", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "87", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/203/CFSP\nof 31 March 2011\namending Decision 2010/445/CFSP extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for the crisis in Georgia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 September 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/760/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Pierre MOREL European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the crisis in Georgia until 28 February 2009.\n(2)\nOn 11 August 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/445/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 31 August 2011. The financial reference amount provided for to cover the expenditure relating to the mandate of the EUSR until that date was set at EUR 700 000. The financial reference amount should be increased to EUR 1 004 000 in order to allow for additional operational needs.\n(3)\nDecision 2010/445/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 5 of Decision 2010/445/CFSP, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure relating to the mandate of the EUSR during the period from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011 shall be EUR 1 004 000.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 March 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["45", "97", "94", "5", "51", "30", "83", "64", "76", "44", "75", "4", "63", "53", "13", "21", "23", "71", "17", "61", "72", "28", "66", "2", "79", "24", "35", "15", "87", "34", "No Label", "3", "9", "11", "91"], "gold": ["3", "9", "11", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\non the recognition of the \u2018Roundtable of Sustainable Biofuels EU RED\u2019 scheme for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria under Directives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(2011/435/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1), and in particular Article 18(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels (2) as amended by the Directive 2009/30/EC (3), and in particular Article 7c(6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee established by Article 25, paragraph 2 of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC both lay down sustainability criteria for biofuels. When reference is made to the provisions of Articles 17 and 18 and Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC this should be construed as the reference also to the similar provisions of Articles 7a, 7b and 7c and Annex IV to Directive 2009/30/EC.\n(2)\nWhere biofuels and bioliquids are to be taken into account for the purposes referred to in Article 17(1)(a), (b) and (c), Member States shall require economic operators to show the compliance of biofuels and bioliquids with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(2) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(3)\nRecital 76 of Directive 2009/28/EC states that the imposition of an unreasonable burden on industry should be avoided and voluntary schemes can help creating efficient solutions for proving compliance with these sustainability criteria.\n(4)\nThe Commission may decide that a voluntary national or international scheme demonstrates that consignments of biofuels comply with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(3) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC or that a voluntary national or international scheme to measure greenhouse gas emission savings contains accurate data for the purposes of Article 17(2) of this Directive.\n(5)\nThe Commission may recognise such a voluntary scheme for a period of 5 years.\n(6)\nWhen an economic operator provides proof or data obtained in accordance with a scheme that has been recognised by the Commission, to the extent covered by that recognition decision, a Member State shall not require the supplier to provide further evidence of compliance with the sustainability criteria.\n(7)\nThe \u2018Roundtable of Sustainable Biofuels EU RED\u2019 (hereinafter \u2018RSB EU RED\u2019) scheme was submitted on 10 May 2011 to the Commission with the request for recognition. The scheme has a global scope and can cover a wide range of different biofuels. The recognised scheme will be made available at the transparency platform established under Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission will take into account considerations of commercial sensitivity and may decide to only partially publish the scheme.\n(8)\nAssessment of the \u2018RSB EU RED\u2019 scheme found it to adequately cover the sustainability criteria of Directive 2009/28/EC, as well as applying a mass balance methodology in line with the requirements of Article 18(1) of the Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(9)\nThe evaluation of the \u2018RSB EU RED\u2019 scheme found that it meets adequate standards of reliability, transparency and independent auditing and also complies with the methodological requirements in Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(10)\nAny additional sustainability elements covered by the \u2018RSB EU RED\u2019 scheme are not part of the consideration of this Decision. These additional sustainability criteria are not mandatory to show compliance with sustainability requirements set up in Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission may at a later stage take a view on whether the scheme also contains accurate data for the purpose of information on measures taken for issues referred to in the second paragraph, second sentence of Article 18(4) of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018Roundtable of Sustainable Biofuels EU RED\u2019 for which the request for partial recognition was submitted to the Commission on 10 May 2011 demonstrates that consignments of biofuels comply with the sustainability criteria as laid down in Article 17(3)(a), (b) and (c) and Article 17(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC, and Article 7b(3)(a), (b) and (c) and Article 7b(4) and (5) of Directive 98/70/EC. The scheme also contains accurate data for purposes of Article 17(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(2) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nFurthermore, it may be used for demonstrating compliance with Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nArticle 2\n1. The Decision is valid for a period of 5 years after it enters into force. If the scheme, after adoption of Commission decision, undergoes changes to its contents in a way that might affect the basis of this Decision, such changes shall be notified to the Commission without delay. The Commission will assess the notified changes with a view to establish whether the scheme is still adequately covering the sustainability criteria for which it is recognised.\n2. If it has been clearly demonstrated that the scheme has not implemented elements considered to be decisive for this Decision and if severe and structural breach of those elements has taken place, the Commission reserves the right to revoke its Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision enters into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["83", "75", "61", "25", "17", "71", "11", "88", "7", "95", "52", "69", "24", "43", "91", "37", "23", "55", "74", "42", "13", "18", "3", "36", "79", "21", "62", "86", "57", "15", "No Label", "58", "76", "77", "78"], "gold": ["58", "76", "77", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 706/2011\nof 20 July 2011\napproving the active substance profoxydim, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply, with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval, to active substances for which a decision has been adopted in accordance with Article 6(3) of that Directive before 14 June 2011. For profoxydim the conditions of Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 are fulfilled by Commission Decision 1999/43/EC (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC Spain received on 2 April 1998 an application from BASF SE for the inclusion of the active substance profoxydim in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Decision 1999/43/EC confirmed that the dossier was \u2018complete\u2019 in the sense that it could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annexes II and III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nFor that active substance, the effects on human and animal health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicant. The designated rapporteur Member State submitted a draft assessment report on 28 March 2001.\n(4)\nFor profoxydim the draft assessment report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. The review was finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for profoxydim.\n(5)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing profoxydim may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) and Article 5(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve profoxydim.\n(6)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing profoxydim. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(7)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (4) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (5) should be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nIn the interest of clarity, Commission Directive 2011/14/EU of 24 February 2011 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include profoxydim as active substance (6) should be repealed.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance profoxydim, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing profoxydim as active substance by 31 January 2012.\nBy that date, they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing profoxydim as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 July 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing profoxydim as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 January 2013 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing profoxydim as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 January 2013 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nRepeal\nDirective 2011/14/EU is repealed.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["96", "79", "30", "74", "33", "55", "29", "48", "77", "70", "57", "50", "62", "73", "59", "64", "90", "31", "24", "95", "42", "41", "34", "75", "82", "23", "98", "85", "37", "26", "No Label", "25", "43", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "43", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 829/2012\nof 14 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for roundnose grenadier in EU and international waters of VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 September 2012.", "references": ["99", "31", "48", "42", "90", "72", "12", "80", "35", "93", "88", "84", "50", "51", "87", "81", "15", "28", "41", "17", "16", "1", "29", "21", "43", "53", "34", "70", "82", "64", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 162/2011\nof 21 February 2011\ndetermining the intervention centres for rice\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 41 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex B to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1173/2009 (2) lists the intervention centres for rice referred to in Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 670/2009 (3). Annex A to that Regulation, which lists the intervention centres for durum wheat, was repealed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1125/2010 of 3 December 2010 determining the intervention centres for cereals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1173/2009 (4).\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (5) sets out the conditions to be complied with, from the 2010/2011 marketing year onwards, for the designation and approval of intervention centres for rice and their storage premises.\n(3)\nWith effect from 1 September 2010, Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 repeals Regulation (EC) No 670/2009 with regard to rice.\n(4)\nWith effect from 1 September 2010, the intervention centres for rice designated pursuant to Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 must comply with the conditions laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009. Regulation (EC) No 1173/2009 should therefore be repealed.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 55(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, the Member States have sent the Commission a list of intervention centres for rice for actual designation and a list of the storage premises attached to those centres which they have approved as fulfilling the minimum standards required by EU legislation. In cases where rice production levels are low, or where estimates do not indicate any rice sectors generating surpluses and intervention has not been used for a significant period, some Member States have not reported any intervention centres for rice.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure that the public intervention scheme works efficiently, the Commission should designate intervention centres on the basis of their geographical location and publish a list of the storage premises attached thereto, together with all the information required by the operators involved in public intervention.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe intervention centres for rice referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 are designated in the Annex hereto.\nThe addresses of the storage premises linked to each intervention centre and the detailed information relating to these premises and intervention centres are published on the Internet (6).\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 1173/2009 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2011.", "references": ["4", "8", "3", "56", "79", "65", "50", "9", "11", "35", "21", "85", "80", "46", "53", "14", "30", "38", "93", "64", "91", "99", "34", "87", "73", "12", "81", "19", "33", "63", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 March 2011\non the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway on an EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014, an Agreement between the European Union and Norway on a Norwegian Financial Mechanism for the period 2009-2014, an Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Iceland, concerning special provisions applicable to imports into the European Union of certain fish and fisheries products for the period 2009-2014, and an Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Norway, concerning special provisions applicable to imports into the European Union of certain fish and fisheries products for the period 2009-2014\n(2011/160/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Council Decision 2010/674/EU (1), the following agreements and protocols were signed, on behalf of the Union:\n-\nAgreement between the European Union, Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway on an EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014 and the Annex thereto,\n-\nAgreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on a Norwegian Financial Mechanism for the period 2009-2014,\n-\nAdditional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Annex thereto,\n-\nAdditional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway and the Annex thereto.\n(2)\nThe replacement of the existing financial mechanisms by new mechanisms, which relate to different time periods, different amounts of funds, and different implementing provisions, as well as the renewal and extension of the concessions relating to certain fish and fisheries products, taken as a whole, constitute an important development of the association with the EEA EFTA States, which justifies the recourse to Article 217 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(3)\nThese agreements and protocols should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following agreements and protocols are hereby approved on behalf of the Union:\n-\nAgreement between the European Union, Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway on an EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014 and the Annex thereto,\n-\nAgreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on a Norwegian Financial Mechanism for the period 2009-2014,\n-\nAdditional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Annex thereto,\n-\nAdditional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway and the Annex thereto.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to deposit on behalf of the Union the act of approval provided for in each of the agreements and additional protocols, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["64", "12", "62", "87", "28", "56", "42", "41", "29", "50", "81", "21", "25", "53", "80", "24", "48", "68", "20", "44", "14", "8", "72", "6", "91", "76", "27", "45", "99", "19", "No Label", "3", "4", "9", "23", "67", "96"], "gold": ["3", "4", "9", "23", "67", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 14 October 2011\namending and correcting the Annex to Commission Decision 2011/163/EU on the approval of plans submitted by third countries in accordance with Article 29 of Council Directive 96/23/EC\n(notified under document C(2011) 7167)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/690/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 29(1) and Article 29(2) thereof.\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 96/23/EC lays down measures to monitor the substances and groups of residues listed in Annex I thereto. Pursuant to Directive 96/23/EC, the inclusion and retention on the lists of third countries from which Member States are authorised to import animals and animal products covered by that Directive are subject to the submission by the third countries concerned of a plan setting out the guarantees which they offer as regards the monitoring of the groups of residues and substances listed in that Annex. Those plans are to be updated at the request of the Commission, particularly when certain checks render it necessary.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2011/163/EU (2) approves the plans provided for in Article 29 of Directive 96/23/EC (\u2018the plans\u2019) submitted by certain third countries listed in the Annex thereto for the animals and animal products indicated in that list. Decision 2011/163/EU repealed and replaced Commission Decision 2004/432/EC of 29 April 2004 on the approval of residue monitoring plans submitted by third countries in accordance with Council Directive 96/23/EC (3).\n(3)\nIn the light of the recent plans submitted by certain third countries and additional information obtained by the Commission, it is necessary to update the list of third countries from which Member States are authorised to import certain animals and animal products, as provided for in Directive 96/23/EC and currently listed in the Annex to Decision 2011/163/EU (\u2018the list\u2019).\n(4)\nBelize is currently included in the list for aquaculture and honey. However, Belize has not provided a plan as required by Article 29 of Directive 96/23/EC. Therefore, Belize should be removed from the list.\n(5)\nGhana has submitted a plan for honey to the Commission. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. Therefore, an entry for Ghana for honey should be included in the list.\n(6)\nIndia has now carried out corrective measures to address the shortcomings in its residue plan for honey. That third country has submitted an improved residue plan for honey and a Commission inspection confirmed an acceptable implementation of the plan. Therefore, the entry for India in the list should include honey.\n(7)\nMadagascar has submitted a plan for honey to the Commission. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. Therefore, honey should be included in the entry for Madagascar in the list.\n(8)\nMauritius is currently included in the list for poultry but with a reference to footnote 2 in the Annex to Decision 2011/163/EU. That footnote restricts such imports to those from third countries using only raw material either from Member States or from other third countries approved for imports of such raw material to the Union, in accordance with Article 2 of that Decision. However, Mauritius has not provided the required guarantees for the plan for poultry. Therefore, the entry for that third country in the list should no longer include poultry.\n(9)\nTurkey has submitted a plan for eggs to the Commission. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. Therefore, eggs should be included in the entry for Turkey in the list.\n(10)\nThe entry for Singapore in the list includes aquaculture but with a reference to footnote 2 in the Annex to Decision 2011/163/EU. However, in the Annex to Decision 2004/432/EC, as amended by Commission Decision 2010/327/EU (4), there is no reference to footnote 2 as Singapore submitted an approved plan for aquaculture. The Commission has not been advised of any change since the approval of that plan. Therefore, the entry for that third country in the list should be corrected by deleting the reference to that footnote for imports of aquaculture. For reasons of legal certainty, the entry for Singapore should apply retroactively from 15 March 2011, the date of application of Decision 2011/163/EU when the error in the entry regarding Singapore occurred. The competent authorities of the Member States have been informed accordingly and no disruption to imports has been reported to the Commission.\n(11)\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/163/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/163/EU is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 November 2011.\nHowever, the amendment concerning the entry for Singapore shall apply from 15 March 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2011.", "references": ["28", "16", "13", "71", "76", "54", "47", "86", "78", "15", "72", "33", "0", "85", "2", "98", "49", "59", "68", "7", "87", "6", "84", "65", "3", "73", "63", "34", "74", "89", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "38", "60", "61", "66", "67", "69", "91", "93", "94", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "38", "60", "61", "66", "67", "69", "91", "93", "94", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/77/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 27 September 2011\namending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 53(1), 62 and 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), the term of protection for performers and producers of phonograms is 50 years.\n(2)\nIn the case of performers this period starts with the performance or, when the fixation of the performance is lawfully published or lawfully communicated to the public within 50 years after the performance is made, with the first such publication or the first such communication to the public, whichever is the earliest.\n(3)\nFor phonogram producers the period starts with the fixation of the phonogram or its lawful publication within 50 years after fixation, or, if it is not so published, its lawful communication to the public within 50 years after fixation.\n(4)\nThe socially recognised importance of the creative contribution of performers should be reflected in a level of protection that acknowledges their creative and artistic contribution.\n(5)\nPerformers generally start their careers young and the current term of protection of 50 years applicable to fixations of performances often does not protect their performances for their entire lifetime. Therefore, some performers face an income gap at the end of their lifetime. In addition, performers are often unable to rely on their rights to prevent or restrict an objectionable use of their performances that may occur during their lifetime.\n(6)\nThe revenue derived from the exclusive rights of reproduction and making available, as provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (4), as well as fair compensation for reproductions for private use within the meaning of that Directive, and from the exclusive rights of distribution and rental within the meaning of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (5), should be available to performers for at least their lifetime.\n(7)\nThe term of protection for fixations of performances and for phonograms should therefore be extended to 70 years after the relevant event.\n(8)\nThe rights in the fixation of the performance should revert to the performer if a phonogram producer refrains from offering for sale in sufficient quantity, within the meaning of the International Convention on the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations, copies of a phonogram which, but for the term extension, would be in the public domain, or refrains from making such a phonogram available to the public. That option should be available on expiry of a reasonable period of time for the phonogram producer to carry out both of these acts of exploitation. The rights of the phonogram producer in the phonogram should therefore expire, in order to avoid a situation in which these rights would coexist with those of the performer in the fixation of the performance while the latter rights are no longer transferred or assigned to the phonogram producer.\n(9)\nUpon entering into a contractual relationship with a phonogram producer, performers normally have to transfer or assign to the phonogram producer their exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution, rental and making available of fixations of their performances. In exchange, some performers are paid an advance on royalties and enjoy payments only once the phonogram producer has recouped the initial advance and made any contractually defined deductions. Other performers transfer or assign their exclusive rights in return for a one-off payment (non-recurring remuneration). This is particularly the case for performers who play in the background and do not appear in the credits (non-featured performers) but sometimes also for performers who appear in the credits (featured performers).\n(10)\nIn order to ensure that performers who have transferred or assigned their exclusive rights to phonogram producers actually benefit from the term extension, a series of accompanying measures should be introduced.\n(11)\nA first accompanying measure should be the imposition on phonogram producers of an obligation to set aside, at least once a year, a sum corresponding to 20 % of the revenue from the exclusive rights of distribution, reproduction and making available of phonograms. \u2018Revenue\u2019 means the revenue derived by the phonogram producer before deducting costs.\n(12)\nPayment of those sums should be reserved solely for the benefit of performers whose performances are fixed in a phonogram and who have transferred or assigned their rights to the phonogram producer in return for a one-off payment. The sums set aside in this manner should be distributed to non-featured performers at least once a year on an individual basis. Such distribution should be entrusted to collecting societies and national rules on non-distributable revenue may be applied. In order to avoid the imposition of a disproportionate burden in the collection and administration of that revenue, Member States should be able to regulate the extent to which micro-enterprises are subject to the obligation to contribute where such payments would appear unreasonable in relation to the costs of collecting and administering such revenue.\n(13)\nHowever, Article 5 of Directive 2006/115/EC already grants performers an unwaivable right to equitable remuneration for the rental of, inter alia, phonograms. Likewise, in contractual practice performers do not usually transfer or assign to phonogram producers their rights to claim a single equitable remuneration for broadcasting and communication to the public under Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC and to fair compensation for reproductions for private use under point (b) of Article 5(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC. Therefore, in the calculation of the overall amount to be dedicated by a phonogram producer to payments of the supplementary remuneration, no account should be taken of revenue which the phonogram producer has derived from the rental of phonograms, of the single equitable remuneration received for broadcasting and communication to the public or of the fair compensation received for private copying.\n(14)\nA second accompanying measure designed to rebalance contracts whereby performers transfer their exclusive rights on a royalty basis to a phonogram producer, should be a \u2018clean slate\u2019 for those performers who have assigned their above-mentioned exclusive rights to phonogram producers in return for royalties or remuneration. In order for performers to benefit fully from the extended term of protection, Member States should ensure that, under agreements between phonogram producers and performers, a royalty or remuneration rate unencumbered by advance payments or contractually defined deductions is paid to performers during the extended period.\n(15)\nFor the sake of legal certainty it should be provided that, in the absence of clear indications to the contrary in the contract, a contractual transfer or assignment of rights in the fixation of the performance concluded before the date by which Member States are to adopt measures implementing this Directive shall continue to produce its effects for the extended term.\n(16)\nMember States should be able to provide that certain terms in those contracts which provide for recurring payments can be renegotiated for the benefit of performers. Member States should have procedures in place to cover the eventuality that the renegotiation fails.\n(17)\nThis Directive should not affect national rules and agreements which are compatible with its provisions, such as collective agreements concluded in Member States between organisations representing performers and organisations representing producers.\n(18)\nIn some Member States, musical compositions with words are given a single term of protection, calculated from the death of the last surviving author, while in other Member States separate terms of protection apply for music and lyrics. Musical compositions with words are overwhelmingly co-written. For example, an opera is often the work of a librettist and a composer. Moreover, in musical genres such as jazz, rock and pop music, the creative process is often collaborative in nature.\n(19)\nConsequently, the harmonisation of the term of protection in respect of musical compositions with words the lyrics and music of which were created in order to be used together is incomplete, giving rise to obstacles to the free movement of goods and services, such as cross-border collective management services. In order to ensure the removal of such obstacles, all such works in protection at the date by which the Member States are required to transpose this Directive should have the same harmonised term of protection in all Member States.\n(20)\nDirective 2006/116/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(21)\nSince the objectives of the accompanying measures cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, inasmuch as national measures in that field would either lead to distortion of competition or affect the scope of exclusive rights of the phonogram producer which are defined by Union legislation, 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 those objectives.\n(22)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the interinstitutional agreement on better law-making (6), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and their transposition measures, and to make them public,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Directive 2006/116/EC\nDirective 2006/116/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nThe following paragraph shall be added to Article 1:\n\u20187. The term of protection of a musical composition with words shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not those persons are designated as co-authors: the author of the lyrics and the composer of the musical composition, provided that both contributions were specifically created for the respective musical composition with words.\u2019.\n(2)\nArticle 3 shall be amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the second sentence shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018However,\n-\nif a fixation of the performance otherwise than in a phonogram is lawfully published or lawfully communicated to the public within this period, the rights shall expire 50 years from the date of the first such publication or the first such communication to the public, whichever is the earlier,\n-\nif a fixation of the performance in a phonogram is lawfully published or lawfully communicated to the public within this period, the rights shall expire 70 years from the date of the first such publication or the first such communication to the public, whichever is the earlier.\u2019;\n(b)\nin the second and third sentences of paragraph 2, the number \u201850\u2019 shall be replaced by \u201870\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraphs shall be inserted:\n\u20182a. If, 50 years after the phonogram was lawfully published or, failing such publication, 50 years after it was lawfully communicated to the public, the phonogram producer does not offer copies of the phonogram for sale in sufficient quantity or does not make it available to the public, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, the performer may terminate the contract by which the performer has transferred or assigned his rights in the fixation of his performance to a phonogram producer (hereinafter a \u201ccontract on transfer or assignment\u201d). The right to terminate the contract on transfer or assignment may be exercised if the producer, within a year from the notification by the performer of his intention to terminate the contract on transfer or assignment pursuant to the previous sentence, fails to carry out both of the acts of exploitation referred to in that sentence. This right to terminate may not be waived by the performer. Where a phonogram contains the fixation of the performances of a plurality of performers, they may terminate their contracts on transfer or assignment in accordance with applicable national law. If the contract on transfer or assignment is terminated pursuant to this paragraph, the rights of the phonogram producer in the phonogram shall expire.\n2b. Where a contract on transfer or assignment gives the performer a right to claim a non-recurring remuneration, the performer shall have the right to obtain an annual supplementary remuneration from the phonogram producer for each full year immediately following the 50th year after the phonogram was lawfully published or, failing such publication, the 50th year after it was lawfully communicated to the public. The right to obtain such annual supplementary remuneration may not be waived by the performer.\n2c. The overall amount to be set aside by a phonogram producer for payment of the annual supplementary remuneration referred to in paragraph 2b shall correspond to 20 % of the revenue which the phonogram producer has derived, during the year preceding that for which the said remuneration is paid, from the reproduction, distribution and making available of the phonogram in question, following the 50th year after it was lawfully published or, failing such publication, the 50th year after it was lawfully communicated to the public.\nMember States shall ensure that phonogram producers are required on request to provide to performers who are entitled to the annual supplementary remuneration referred to in paragraph 2b any information which may be necessary in order to secure payment of that remuneration.\n2d. Member States shall ensure that the right to obtain an annual supplementary remuneration as referred to in paragraph 2b is administered by collecting societies.\n2e. Where a performer is entitled to recurring payments, neither advance payments nor any contractually defined deductions shall be deducted from the payments made to the performer following the 50th year after the phonogram was lawfully published or, failing such publication, the 50th year after it was lawfully communicated to the public.\u2019.\n(3)\nThe following paragraphs shall be added to Article 10:\n\u20185. Article 3(1) to (2e) in the version thereof in force on 31 October 2011 shall apply to fixations of performances and phonograms in regard to which the performer and the phonogram producer are still protected, by virtue of those provisions in the version thereof in force on 30 October 2011, as at 1 November 2013 and to fixations of performances and phonograms which come into being after that date.\n6. Article 1(7) shall apply to musical compositions with words of which at least the musical composition or the lyrics are protected in at least one Member State on 1 November 2013, and to musical compositions with words which come into being after that date.\nThe first subparagraph of this paragraph shall be without prejudice to any acts of exploitation performed before 1 November 2013. Member States shall adopt the necessary provisions to protect, in particular, acquired rights of third parties.\u2019.\n(4)\nThe following Article shall be inserted:\n\u2018Article 10a\nTransitional measures\n1. In the absence of clear contractual indications to the contrary, a contract on transfer or assignment concluded before 1 November 2013 shall be deemed to continue to produce its effects beyond the moment at which, by virtue of Article 3(1) in the version thereof in force on 30 October 2011, the performer would no longer be protected.\n2. Member States may provide that contracts on transfer or assignment which entitle a performer to recurring payments and which are concluded before 1 November 2013 can be modified following the 50th year after the phonogram was lawfully published or, failing such publication, the 50th year after it was lawfully communicated to the public.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 November 2013. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nWhen Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nReporting\n1. By 1 November 2016, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee a report on the application of this Directive in the light of the development of the digital market, accompanied, where appropriate, by a proposal for the further amendment of Directive 2006/116/EC.\n2. By 1 January 2012, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee, assessing the possible need for an extension of the term of protection of rights to performers and producers in the audiovisual sector. If appropriate, the Commission shall submit a proposal for the further amendment of Directive 2006/116/EC.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 5\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 27 September 2011.", "references": ["64", "5", "62", "9", "66", "91", "13", "24", "28", "37", "75", "15", "27", "98", "14", "60", "83", "23", "79", "7", "12", "22", "82", "3", "58", "52", "48", "53", "70", "31", "No Label", "8", "40", "77"], "gold": ["8", "40", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 29 June 2011\non measure SA.27106 (C 13/09 - ex N 614/08) which France is planning to implement for ports\n(notified under document C(2011) 4391)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/519/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 108(2), first subparagraph, thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments (2) pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (3) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter of 4 December 2008, the French authorities notified, pursuant to Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), an aid scheme consisting of tax measures to underpin the port reform set out in Law No 2008-660 of 4 July 2008 (4). The aid was registered under number N 614/08.\n(2)\nThe tax arrangements notified were intended to underpin the transfer of port-handling equipment to private operators as provided for under the reform. The arrangements consisted of two measures: a diminishing reduction over a five-year period of the rental value used as a basis for calculating the local tax paid by private operators taking over the port-handling equipment, and the possibility for the local authorities managing sea ports to exempt handling companies from business tax for a period of 6 years.\n(3)\nBy letter of 11 December 2008, the Commission asked the French authorities to provide additional information, not only on the tax arrangements notified but also on the transfer by the major sea ports of specific port-handling equipment and facilities. The deadline for replying was extended to 9 February 2009 at the request of the French authorities.\n(4)\nA meeting between the French authorities and Commission representatives took place on 28 January 2009. By letter of 10 February 2009, the French authorities sent the Commission the information requested.\n(5)\nBy letter of 9 April 2009 (D/2165) the Commission notified the French authorities of its decision of 8 April 2009 to initiate the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU. The decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5). The Commission\u2019s decision concerns the tax arrangements notified and also the transfer by the major seaports of specific port-handling equipment and facilities. In it, the Commission invited France and interested parties to submit their comments within a certain time limit.\n(6)\nThe Commission received the French authorities\u2019 comments on 11 May 2009 (A/18191). It also received comments within the time limit from one interested party, the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO). ESPO\u2019s comments were forwarded to the French authorities by letter of 16 July 2009 (D/60307). The latter\u2019s comments were received by letter dated 27 August 2009 (A/28446).\n(7)\nA meeting between the French authorities and Commission representatives took place on 30 November 2009. By letters of 25 January 2010 (A/3263) and of 24 March 2010 (A/5136), the French authorities sent the Commission additional information.\n(8)\nBy letter of 9 June 2010 (D/7519) and in the context of the reform of business tax in France, the Commission asked the French authorities to provide additional information. The purpose of this letter from the Commission was to obtain clarification on the impact on the notified arrangements of the abolition of business tax and the procedural consequences of this.\n(9)\nBy letter dated 2 July 2010, the French authorities requested an extension of the deadline for replying. The Commission received the reply from the French authorities by letter of 4 August 2010 (A/11533).\n(10)\nIn this letter, the French authorities informed the Commission that they were withdrawing their notification of the tax measure as regards the possibility for the local authorities managing sea ports to exempt handling companies from business tax for a period of not more than 6 years. Under this measure, it was possible, under certain conditions, from 2010 to 2015, to exclude the rental value of specific port-handling equipment and facilities from the calculation of business tax. This possibility had now become irrelevant given the abolition of business tax and had in fact been repealed in the 2010 budget.\n(11)\nAs regards the part of the notification referring to the diminishing reduction, limited in time, of the rental value used to establish local taxes to be paid by private operators taking over large sea port equipment and facilities, the French authorities stated in their letter of 2 July 2010 that this reduction also applied to the land tax paid by companies under the regional business tax (6) which replaces business tax. The French authorities passed on to the Commission the names of four companies (7) benefiting under this measure and the amount of the resulting tax benefit for each one.\n(12)\nThe updated figures for the tax benefits received showed that, for three of the companies concerned, the tax relief was lower than the threshold of two hundred thousand euro over a consecutive period of three fiscal years set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (8). However, the same did not apply to the fourth company.\n(13)\nIn this context, and following various contacts with the Commission, the French authorities decided to limit the tax benefit for companies under the measure set out in recital 11 to the threshold of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006, subject to the conditions laid down therein.\n(14)\nThus by letter of 20 January 2011, the French authorities informed the Commission of the adoption of Article 36 of Law No 2010-1658 of 29 December 2010 on the supplementary budget for 2010 (9), which makes the diminishing tax reduction set out in the port reform subject to compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006. The French authorities also informed the Commission of the withdrawal of their notification concerning this tax aspect of the port reform.\n(15)\nThe Commission takes note of the withdrawal by the French authorities of the notification of all the tax arrangements notified. This Decision concerns only the procedure for transferring specific port-handling equipment and facilities that was the subject of the Commission\u2019s decision of 8 April 2009. This Decision does not in any way concern the conditions for operating specific port-handling equipment and facilities before or after they have been transferred.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE INVESTIGATED\n2.1. Background\n(16)\nThe measure at issue is part of the reform introduced by the port reform law (10). The purpose of the reform is to improve the performance and competitiveness of French sea ports (Dunkirk, Le Havre, Nantes Saint Nazaire, La Rochelle, Bordeaux and Marseilles).\n(17)\nIn this context, the law on port reform is aimed at:\n-\nredefining the missions of the autonomous ports which, in mainland France, will become the \u2018major sea ports\u2019 (11);\n-\nmodernising governance of the major sea ports,\n-\norganising coordination between ports with the same hinterland or on the same inland waterway axis,\n-\nsimplifying and rationalising port-handling in line with the main European ports, with the introduction of integrated terminal operators responsible for all handling operations,\n(18)\nThe missions of the major sea ports will be redirected to management activities (security, safety and port police) and to tasks relating to renovation of the port area. However, integrated terminal operators will be responsible for all handling operations in order to enhance the efficiency of these activities.\n(19)\nThe French authorities explained that the transfer to private operators of the port-handling activities still carried out by the major sea ports under a procedure for the sale of equipment in the major maritime ports formed part of this drive to simplify and streamline port-handling operations. They also said that the reform would bring the French system closer to the European model where the functions of the port authority and port operator were clearly distinguished and where the latter was in most cases a private company.\n2.2. The procedure for transferring equipment\n(20)\nThe major sea ports will stop operating specific port-handling equipment and facilities (\u2018handling equipment\u2019), which they will transfer to private companies under a sales procedure set out in Article 9 of the law on port reform.\n(21)\nUnder this measure (12), the procedure for selling the handling equipment and transferring the property rights attached to it consists of several stages:\n-\nInitially, the major sea port must negotiate the arrangements for transferring the handling equipment with the operators that regularly use the port services or have made significant investments in the terminal,\n-\nIf there are no operators or if the negotiations are not successfully concluded within 3 months, the major sea port must publish an invitation to tender following a transparent, non-discriminatory procedure,\n-\nIf the tendering procedure proves fruitless and if the port\u2019s strategic plan provides for this, the port can set up a subsidiary to which it can entrust the activity in question. A new tendering procedure must be organised at the end of a five-year period. Terminal contracts must be concluded with the successful candidates after the tendering procedure.\n(22)\nUnder Article 9 of the port reform law, a national independent committee, the National Committee for the Assessment of Port Equipment Transfers (CNECOP), is tasked with ensuring the smooth functioning and transparency of the equipment transfer procedure (13). Its role is to issue an opinion on the assessment of the equipment before it is transferred. In this context, it must take account of economic balance and the prospects for developing the business. For the purposes of this evaluation, the CNECOP can also call in an expert to estimate the value of the equipment.\n(23)\nThe CNECOP\u2019s opinions are based on the draft sales deeds which must be included in the file communicated by the chairmen of the boards of major sea ports pursuant to Article 9 of the port reform law. These drafts contain a description of the equipment to be sold, their price and the financing conditions.\n(24)\nNo final sales deed can be signed without a prior opinion by the CNECOP. This is a simple opinion (non-binding) published at national and local levels.\n(25)\nThe members of the CNECOP include one judge from the Court of Auditors, one representative of local authorities and one person with professional experience of ports. The duties of a CNECOP member are incompatible with those inherent in another position of responsibility in the management or supervision of major sea ports or handling companies purchasing public equipment, for the entire contract period and for a period of 5 years after its cessation.\n3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(26)\nIn its decision of 8 April 2009, the Commission considered that it could not rule out that transferring port-handling equipment through a direct agreement procedure could be considered a form of state aid. The Commission noted, in this respect, that the CNECOP opinion was not binding. Given this, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the equipment would be sold at the market price. It also questioned the independence of the CNECOP members.\n(27)\nWhen checking this handling equipment transfer procedure for compatibility with the internal market, the Commission considered that none of the derogations set out in Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU seemed applicable in this case.\n(28)\nAccordingly, the Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure in order to allay its doubts both as to whether the handling equipment transfer procedure constituted state aid and as to its compatibility with the internal market.\n4. COMMENTS FROM THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES\n(29)\nAs regards the nature of the opinion issued by the CNECOP, the French authorities pointed out that this committee consists of four independent members, including the chairman, appointed from among the judges in the Court of Auditors by its First President, and that it issues an opinion on cases of public equipment transfers submitted to it by the chairmen of the boards of the major sea ports. These cases comprise a description of the direct agreement procedure, a list of the properties transferred, the draft sales deed stating in particular the envisaged price and the conditions for operating the terminal.\n(30)\nThe French authorities also pointed out that the CNECOP is, in particular, tasked with ensuring, in line with Article L. 3211-18 of the General Code on Public Authority Property, that public equipment will not be transferred \u2018free of charge or at a lower price than the market price\u2019, thus complying with the requirement of transfer of public property at the market price.\n(31)\nThis committee issues a simple opinion which is published to prevent transfers at a price lower than the market price. The authorities undertake to ensure that the opinion is published on the website and in the official gazette of the Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Regional Development, and at local level, by means of notices posted in each major sea port. The French authorities stated that they would also send a letter to each chairman of the board of a major sea port (the director of which is responsible for protecting the interests of the port), reminding them of the CNECOP\u2019s rules of procedure and the rules for transferring public property, with which they must comply.\n(32)\nThe French authorities added that, pursuant to Article L. 313-6 of the Public Finance Courts Code, the chairmen of the boards can be fined up to double the amount of the gross annual salary they are receiving at the date of the infringement for any unjustified advantage which they may have attempted to procure or have procured for a third party, either financial or in kind, causing damage to the Treasury, the local authorities or the organisation in question.\n(33)\nThe French authorities also undertook to notify the Commission before the signature of the sales deed of any decision by the chairman of the board of a major sea port which departs from the CNECOP opinion.\n(34)\nAs regards the competence and independence of the CNECOP members, the French authorities submitted to the Commission the curriculum vitae of the four CNECOP members, including that of its chairman, specifying the qualifications of each one of its members in terms of the CNECOP\u2019s responsibilities. According to the French authorities, all of these members were proposed because of their knowledge of sales and privatisation processes and their experience in relation to ports, as witnessed by their curriculum vitae.\n(35)\nThe French authorities pointed out that the independence of Court of Auditor judges is enshrined in the Constitution of 4 October 1958 and confirmed by Constitutional Council Decision No 2001-448 DC of 25 July 2001, and that the independence of members of parliament with respect to the executive power is enshrined in Article 16 of the Declaration of Human and Citizen\u2019s Rights of 26 August 1789 which lays down the principle of separation of powers and is included in the preamble to the Constitution of 4 October 1958.\n(36)\nThe French authorities also pointed out that, in accordance with Article 6 of Decree No 2008-1032 of 9 October 2008 implementing Law No 2008-660 (14), rules on conflicts of interest providing an additional guarantee of the independence of the CNECOP members apply to its members throughout their mandate and for 5 years following the end of it:\n-\nthis applies to all mandates for members of the board of directors, management board or supervisory board of a port-handling company which has purchased public port equipment and to the performance of activities paid for by such a company; and\n-\nit also applies to all mandates as members of the supervisory board or management board of a major sea port.\n(37)\nLastly, they stated that the CNECOP\u2019s capacity in terms of experts can be reinforced since Article 7 of Decree No 2008-1032 of 9 October 2008 states that an expert can be called in to estimate more precisely the value of equipment before it is transferred to handling companies.\n(38)\nIn the light of the above, the French authorities felt that the transfer procedures laid down by the port reform law provide sufficient guarantees to ensure that port-handling equipment and the property rights attached to it are sold at the market price and, hence, no state aid is involved.\n5. COMMENTS BY THE INTERESTED PARTY AND COMMENTS BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES ON THE COMMENTS BY THE INTERESTED PARTY\n(39)\nESPO pointed out, in support of the views of the French authorities, that by restoring the so-called \u2018landlord model\u2019, the reform in question contributes to improving the competitiveness of French ports and the overall performance of European ports. Transfer by the major sea ports of port-handling activities to private operators will in effect modernise the governance of the major French sea ports by bringing them into line with the most widely-used model in the European Union and throughout the world.\n(40)\nGiven the complexity of this reform and its social and financial implications, ESPO stated that support by the Member State concerned is often the only way of making such an extensive reform acceptable to all the stakeholders.\n(41)\nWhile not wishing to assess in detail whether or not the measures in question qualify as state aid, ESPO pointed out that the conditions for evaluating the equipment are sufficient to guarantee that they are sold at the market price.\n(42)\nThe French authorities took note of the comments by ESPO.\n6. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE\n(43)\nFollowing the initiation of the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU and bearing in mind the arguments put forward in that context by the French authorities and the interested party, the Commission takes the view that the tax scheme in question does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(44)\nAccording to Article 107(1) TFEU, \u2018any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(45)\nClassifying a national measure as state aid presupposes that the following cumulative conditions are met: the measure in question confers an advantage through state resources; (2) the advantage is selective; and (3) the measure distorts or threatens to distort competition and is capable of affecting trade between Member States (15).\n(46)\nFirst it must be pointed out that, in order to rule out any advantage, the public property in question - the port-handling equipment - must be sold at the market rate.\n(47)\nIn this respect, the Commission points out that the port-handling equipment is not being sold by means of an open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional procedure since only if the direct negotiations with the current operators are not successful, or if there is no current operator, will such a procedure be launched (see recital 21 above).\n(48)\nHowever, the Commission notes that, in the event of sale by direct agreement, the proposed procedure involves the establishment of a National Committee for the Evaluation of Port Equipment Transfers, the CNECOP. The Commission notes that, prior to the sale, the CNECOP must issue a public opinion on the value of the property to be sold.\n(49)\nIn the framework of its decision of 8 April 2009 to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission pointed out that, since that the opinion expressed by the CNECOP was not binding, it was still possible that the property could be sold at a lower price than the market rate.\n(50)\nAcknowledging the doubts expressed by the Commission, the French authorities informed it, in letters dated 20 January 2010 and 24 March 2010, that the Director of the Transport Department had sent letters to all chairmen of the boards of the major sea ports on 16 March 2009 and 18 January 2010 explaining the framework for negotiating the sale of the port-handling equipment and specifying the conditions to be respected for the purpose of this sale.\n(51)\nIn these letters, the chairmen of the boards of the major sea ports were informed that the CNECOP would systematically ask the major sea ports to have the value of the property to be sold assessed. Thus, before referral of the matter to the CNECOP, an independent technical valuation of the market value of the port equipment should be carried out by an independent firm and should be included in the file sent to the CNECOP.\n(52)\nThe chairmen of the major sea ports were also informed that while the law did not regard CNECOP opinions as conferring approval, they could not be overruled, therefore no sales deed departing from an opinion issued by the CNECOP could be signed. Thus in the event of a negative opinion by the CNECOP, either the negotiations should be resumed, if the date for referral to the CNECOP permitted this, and a new file should where appropriate be presented, or the failure of the negotiations should be acknowledged and a tendering procedure should be launched.\n(53)\nMoreover, the government commissioners for the major sea ports must automatically oppose all deliberations by the port supervisory board that disregard an opinion by the CNECOP, and chairmen of the boards of major sea ports are reminded of the sanctions in the event that they grant an unjustified advantage to third parties in the performance of their duties.\n(54)\nThe Commission considers that these instructions addressed to the chairmen of the boards of the major sea ports concerning the need to have an independent evaluation of the port-handling equipment to be sold and concerning the binding nature of CNECOP opinions are sufficient to guarantee that the equipment in question will not be sold at a lower price than the market price.\n(55)\nThe Commission notes, moreover, that this is further reinforced by the fact that the CNECOP opinion must be published nationally by the national authorities and locally by the ports. Where appropriate, these publications are sufficient to enable the conditions of sale of the handling equipment in question to be disputed.\n(56)\nAs regards the independence and qualifications of the CNECOP members for the purpose of evaluating the equipment sold, the French authorities have sent the Commission the curriculum vitae of its four members, including the chairman.\n(57)\nIt is worthwhile pointing out that one of the CNECOP members, a member of the Court of Auditors, has been proposed by the First President of the Court of Auditors as chair of the CNECOP, and that he has direct professional experience of maritime affairs. The French authorities point out that the independence of the judges in the Court of Auditors with respect to the legislative and executive powers is enshrined in the Constitution of 4 October 1958 and confirmed by Constitutional Council Decision No 2001-448 DC of 25 July 2001.\n(58)\nThe CNECOP member who represents regional authorities has expertise directly relating to maritime ports. The French authorities state that the independence of members of parliament with respect to the executive power is guaranteed by Article 16 of the Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights of 26 August 1789, which contains the principle of separation of powers, and features in the preamble to the Constitution of 4 October 1958.\n(59)\nAs for the two members proposed as people with professional experience, it can be clearly seen from their curriculum vitae that one has experience of ports and that the other is experienced in the transfer of public property.\n(60)\nThe French authorities also point out that, in accordance with Article 6 of Decree No 2008-1032 of 9 October 2008 (16), rules on conflicts of interest are binding on CNECOP members throughout their mandates and for 5 years after they end (see recital 36).\n(61)\nThe Commission considers that these rules on conflicts of interest constitute, in the case in question, an additional guarantee of the independence of the CNECOP members.\n(62)\nGiven these elements and the specific circumstances in this case, the Commission feels that the obligation to have the market value of the equipment estimated by an independent firm, on the basis of which the experienced, independent CNECOP members would issue a binding opinion, in principle guarantees that transfers will be made in accordance with market conditions.\n(63)\nProvided the conditions and circumstances referred to in Section 6, Assessment of the measure, are complied with, it follows from the above that there are no grounds for considering that the sale of port-handling equipment in the context of a direct agreement is likely to confer an economic advantage on the purchasers of that equipment. This would not be the case as regards individual transactions that did not strictly comply with the said conditions.\n7. CONCLUSION\n(64)\nIn the light of all these comments, the Commission\n-\ntakes note of the withdrawal of the notification concerning the two support measures notified in relation to the tax dimension of the port reform and referred to in recital 2 of this Decision,\n-\nconsiders that the procedure for transferring port-handling equipment and specific facilities, described in paragraph 16 et seq. of this Decision, which was also the subject of the Commission decision of 8 April 2009 and is set out in recitals 16-25 of this Decision, does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe measure entailing the transfer of port-handling equipment to private operators which France is planning to implement as part of the port reform provided for by Law No 2008-660 of 4 July 2008 does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nImplementation of the measure is accordingly authorised.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2011.", "references": ["36", "58", "67", "93", "5", "25", "44", "85", "33", "40", "79", "17", "13", "80", "54", "52", "22", "32", "92", "62", "98", "34", "49", "95", "20", "27", "26", "31", "99", "46", "No Label", "8", "15", "48", "53", "56", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "48", "53", "56", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 October 2010\namending Decision 2010/89/EU as regards the list of certain establishments for meat, fishery products, egg products and coldstores in Romania subjected to transitional measures concerning the application of certain structural requirements\n(notified under document C(2010) 7269)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/651/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (1), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 12 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 9 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2010/89/EU (3) lays down transitional measures concerning the application of certain structural requirements laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 and in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 to establishments for meat, egg products, fishery products and coldstores in Romania listed in Annexes I to IV to that Decision. As long as those establishments are covered by transitional measures, products originating from them are only to be placed on the domestic market or used for further processing in Romanian establishments covered by the same measures.\n(2)\nIn July 2010 the Romanian Authorities officially informed the Commission, that, since the entry into force of Decision 2010/89/EU, nine meat establishments have been approved for intra-Union trade and four were closed; one fishery products establishment was approved for intra-Union trade; one egg products establishment has been approved for intra-Union trade and two coldstores have been closed.\n(3)\nIn light of the ongoing structural improvements, it is appropriate that the lists of establishments set out in Annex I to IV to Decision 2010/89/EU be modified accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe lists of establishments for meat, egg products, fishery products and coldstores in Romania listed in Annexes I to IV to Decision 2010/89/EU (\u2018establishments\u2019) are replaced by the lists of establishments in Annex I to IV of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 October 2010.", "references": ["53", "64", "50", "1", "54", "11", "47", "21", "25", "44", "84", "28", "16", "83", "69", "17", "58", "40", "18", "59", "35", "65", "30", "23", "85", "89", "10", "41", "24", "20", "No Label", "9", "38", "61", "67", "72", "73", "74", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "38", "61", "67", "72", "73", "74", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 658/2010\nof 22 July 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 645/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2010.", "references": ["23", "74", "39", "47", "33", "37", "2", "90", "5", "88", "12", "57", "91", "50", "51", "48", "46", "62", "66", "89", "93", "64", "53", "3", "82", "16", "4", "28", "6", "29", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 December 2011\napproving certain amended programmes for the eradication and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses for the year 2011 and amending Decision 2010/712/EU as regards the financial contribution by the Union for programmes approved by that Decision\n(notified under document C(2011) 9478)\n(2011/862/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Articles 27(5) and (6) and 28(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution by the Union for programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2008/341/EC of 25 April 2008 laying down Community criteria for national programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses (2) provides that in order to be approved under the measures provided for in Article 27(1) of Decision 2009/470/EC, programmes submitted by the Member States to the Commission for the eradication, control and monitoring of the animal diseases and zoonoses listed in the Annex to that Decision must meet at least the criteria set out in the Annex to Decision 2008/341/EC.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2010/712/EU of 23 November 2010 approving annual and multiannual programmes and the financial contribution from the Union for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses presented by the Member States for 2011 and following years (3) approves certain national programmes and sets out the rate and maximum amount of the financial contribution by the Union for each programme submitted by the Member States.\n(4)\nThe Commission has assessed the reports submitted by the Member States on the expenditures incurred for those programmes. The results of that assessment show that certain Member States will not utilise their full allocation for the year 2011 while others will spend in excess of the allocated amount.\n(5)\nCertain Member States have informed the Commission that, under the current financial situation, additional support to the compensation of owners of culled animals and other measures financed at a level of 50 % is required to ensure the continuity of the EU co-financed veterinary programmes, in order to maintain the positive trend regarding the different diseases.\n(6)\nThe Commission examined the requests for an increased level of funding taking into account the veterinary situation and the availability of funds from the current financial year, and considered appropriate that the eligible measures financed at a level of 50 %, receive reinforced support by modifying the level of funding to 60 %.\n(7)\nThe financial contribution by the Union for a number of national programmes therefore needs to be adjusted. It is appropriate to reallocate funding from national programmes which will not use their full allocation to those that are expected to exceed it. The reallocation should be based on the most recent information on expenditure actually incurred by the concerned Member States.\n(8)\nIn addition, Portugal has submitted an amended programme for the eradication of bovine brucellosis, Latvia has submitted an amended programme for the control of salmonellosis, Romania and Slovakia have submitted amended programmes for the control and monitoring of classical swine fever, Denmark has submitted an amended survey programme for avian influenza in poultry and wild birds, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have submitted amended programmes for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE), bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and scrapie and Romania, Slovenia and Finland submitted amended programmes for the eradication of rabies.\n(9)\nThe Commission has assessed those amended programmes from both the veterinary and the financial point of view. They were found to comply with relevant Union veterinary legislation and in particular with the criteria set out in the Annex to Decision 2008/341/EC. The amended programmes should therefore be approved.\n(10)\nDecision 2010/712/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of amended programme for the eradication of bovine brucellosis submitted by Portugal\nThe amended programme for bovine brucellosis submitted by Portugal on 12 April 2011 is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nApproval of amended programmes for salmonellosis (zoonotic salmonella) in breeding, laying and broiler flocks of Gallus gallus and in flocks of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) submitted by Belgium and Latvia\nThe following amended programmes for the control of certain zoonotic salmonella in breeding, laying and broiler flocks of Gallus gallus and in flocks of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) are is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011:\n(a)\nthe programme submitted by Belgium on 26 July 2011;\n(b)\nthe programme submitted by Latvia on 8 March 2011.\nArticle 3\nApproval of amended programme for classical swine fever programmes submitted by Romania and Slovakia\nThe following amended programmes for the control and monitoring of classical swine fever are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011:\n(a)\nthe programme submitted by Romania on 7 October 2011;\n(b)\nthe programme submitted by Slovakia on 21 November 2011.\nArticle 4\nApproval of amended survey programme for avian influenza in poultry and wild birds submitted by Denmark\nThe amended survey programme for avian influenza in poultry and wild birds submitted by Denmark on 4 March 2011 is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 5\nApproval of amended programmes for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE), bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and scrapie submitted by certain Member States\nThe following amended programmes for the monitoring of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE), and for the eradication of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and of scrapie are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011:\n(a)\nthe programme submitted by Belgium on 15 June 2011;\n(b)\nthe programme submitted by the Czech Republic on 17 June 2011;\n(c)\nthe programme submitted by Denmark on 8 June 2011;\n(d)\nthe programme submitted by Germany on 14 June 2011;\n(e)\nthe programme submitted by Estonia on 27 June 2011;\n(f)\nthe programme submitted by Ireland on 29 June 2011;\n(g)\nthe programme submitted by Spain on 1 July 2011;\n(h)\nthe programme submitted by France on 13 July 2011;\n(i)\nthe programme submitted by for Italy on 22 June 2011;\n(j)\nthe programme submitted by Cyprus on 30 June 2011;\n(k)\nthe programme submitted by Latvia on 28 June 2011;\n(l)\nthe programme submitted by Luxembourg on 24 June 2011;\n(m)\nthe programme submitted by Hungary on 29 June 2011;\n(n)\nthe programme submitted by the Netherlands on 30 June 2011;\n(o)\nthe programme submitted by Austria on 29 June 2011;\n(p)\nthe programme submitted by Poland on 28 June 2011;\n(q)\nthe programme submitted by Portugal on 29 June 2011;\n(r)\nthe programme submitted by Slovenia on 8 June 2011;\n(s)\nthe programme submitted by Slovakia on 30 June 2011;\n(t)\nthe programme submitted by Finland on 22 June 2011;\n(u)\nthe programme submitted by Sweden on 20 June 2011;\n(v)\nthe programme submitted by the United Kingdom on 28 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nApproval of amended programmes for rabies submitted by Romania and Finland\nThe following amended programmes for rabies are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011:\n(a)\nthe programme submitted by Romania on 23 September 2011;\n(b)\nthe programme submitted by Finland on 15 September 2011.\nArticle 7\nApproval of amended multiannual programme for rabies submitted by Slovenia\nThe amended multiannual programme for rabies submitted by Slovenia on 16 September 2011 is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2012.\nArticle 8\nAmendments to Decision 2010/712/EU\nDecision 2010/712/EU is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2(b), \u201850 %\u2019 is replaced by \u201860 %\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2(c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 4 600 000 for Spain;\n(ii)\nEUR 3 000 000 for Italy;\n(iii)\nEUR 90 000 for Cyprus;\n(iv)\nEUR 1 040 000 for Portugal;\n(v)\nEUR 1 350 000 for the United Kingdom.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, points (a) to (d) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\n:\nfor a rose bengal test\n:\nEUR 0,24 per test;\n(b)\n:\nfor a SAT test\n:\nEUR 0,24 per test;\n(c)\n:\nfor a complement fixation test\n:\nEUR 0,48 per test;\n(d)\n:\nfor an ELISA test\n:\nEUR 1,2 per test\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2(b), \u201850 %\u2019 is replaced by \u201860 %\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2(c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 16 000 000 for Ireland;\n(ii)\nEUR 18 500 000 for Spain;\n(iii)\nEUR 5 500 000 for Italy;\n(iv)\nEUR 1 440 000 for Portugal;\n(v)\nEUR 26 500 000 for the United Kingdom.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, points (a) and (b) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\n:\nfor a tuberculin test\n:\nEUR 2,4 per test;\n(b)\n:\nfor a gamma-interferon test\n:\nEUR 6 per test\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2(b), \u201850 %\u2019 is replaced by \u201860 %\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2(c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 160 000 for Greece;\n(ii)\nEUR 9 200 000 for Spain;\n(iii)\nEUR 4 200 000 for Italy;\n(iv)\nEUR 85 000 for Cyprus;\n(v)\nEUR 2 260 000 for Portugal.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, points (a) and (b) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\n:\nfor a rose bengal test\n:\nEUR 0,24 per test;\n(b)\n:\nfor a complement fixation test\n:\nEUR 0,48 per test;\u2019;\n4.\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2(b), \u201850 %\u2019 is replaced by \u201860 %\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2(c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 420 000 for Belgium;\n(ii)\nEUR 10 000 for Bulgaria;\n(iii)\nEUR 1 700 000 for the Czech Republic;\n(iv)\nEUR 0 for Denmark;\n(v)\nEUR 400 000 for Germany;\n(vi)\nEUR 10 000 for Estonia;\n(vii)\nEUR 10 000 for Ireland;\n(viii)\nEUR 100 000 for Greece;\n(ix)\nEUR 5 200 000 for Spain;\n(x)\nEUR 3 000 000 for France;\n(xi)\nEUR 300 000 for Italy;\n(xii)\nEUR 20 000 for Latvia;\n(xiii)\nEUR 5 000 for Lithuania;\n(xiv)\nEUR 60 000 for Hungary;\n(xv)\nEUR 10 000 for Malta;\n(xvi)\nEUR 50 000 for the Netherlands;\n(xvii)\nEUR 160 000 for Austria;\n(xviii)\nEUR 50 000 for Poland;\n(xix)\nEUR 1 650 000 for Portugal;\n(xx)\nEUR 100 000 for Romania;\n(xxi)\nEUR 50 000 for Slovenia;\n(xxii)\nEUR 60 000 for Slovakia;\n(xxiii)\nEUR 20 000 for Finland;\n(xxiv)\nEUR 20 000 for Sweden.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, points (a) to (f) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\n:\nfor an ELISA test\n:\nEUR 3 per test;\n(b)\n:\nfor a PCR test\n:\nEUR 12 per test;\n(c)\n:\nfor the purchase of monovalent vaccines\n:\nEUR 0,36 per dose;\n(d)\n:\nfor the purchase of bivalent vaccines\n:\nEUR 0,54 per dose;\n(e)\n:\nfor the administration of vaccines to bovine animals\n:\nEUR 1,80 per bovine animal vaccinated, regardless of the number and types of doses used;\n(f)\n:\nfor the administration of vaccines to ovine or caprine animals\n:\nEUR 0,90 per ovine or caprine animal vaccinated, regardless of the number and types of doses used.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 5 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2(b), \u201850 %\u2019 is replaced by \u201860 %\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2(c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 1 200 000 for Belgium;\n(ii)\nEUR 25 000 for Bulgaria;\n(iii)\nEUR 2 100 000 for the Czech Republic;\n(iv)\nEUR 340 000 for Denmark;\n(v)\nEUR 1 000 000 for Germany;\n(vi)\nEUR 40 000 for Estonia;\n(vii)\nEUR 120 000 for Ireland;\n(viii)\nEUR 1 000 000 for Greece;\n(ix)\nEUR 1 300 000 for Spain;\n(x)\nEUR 660 000 for France;\n(xi)\nEUR 1 700 000 for Italy;\n(xii)\nEUR 150 000 for Cyprus;\n(xiii)\nEUR 1 650 000 for Latvia;\n(xiv)\nEUR 20 000 for Luxembourg;\n(xv)\nEUR 2 400 000 for Hungary;\n(xvi)\nEUR 150 000 for Malta;\n(xvii)\nEUR 3 900 000 for the Netherlands;\n(xviii)\nEUR 1 200 000 for Austria;\n(xix)\nEUR 4 800 000 for Poland;\n(xx)\nEUR 65 000 for Portugal;\n(xxi)\nEUR 500 000 for Romania;\n(xxii)\nEUR 120 000 for Slovenia;\n(xxiii)\nEUR 600 000 for Slovakia;\n(xxiv)\nEUR 75 000 for the United Kingdom.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, points (a) to (e) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\n:\nfor a bacteriological test (cultivation/isolation)\n:\nEUR 8,4 per test;\n(b)\n:\nfor the purchase of vaccine\n:\nEUR 0,06 per dose;\n(c)\n:\nfor serotyping of relevant isolates of Salmonella spp.\n:\nEUR 24 per test;\n(d)\n:\nfor a bacteriological test to verify the efficiency of disinfection of poultry houses after depopulation of a salmonella-positive flock\n:\nEUR 6 per test;\n(e)\n:\nfor a test for the detection of antimicrobials or bacterial growth inhibitory effect in tissues from birds from flocks tested for salmonella\n:\nEUR 6 per test.\u2019;\n6.\nArticle 6 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2(b), \u201850 %\u2019 is replaced by \u201860 %\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2(c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 120 000 for Bulgaria;\n(ii)\nEUR 1 600 000 for Germany;\n(iii)\nEUR 240 000 for France;\n(iv)\nEUR 160 000 for Italy;\n(v)\nEUR 700 000 for Hungary;\n(vi)\nEUR 700 000 for Romania;\n(vii)\nEUR 30 000 for Slovenia;\n(viii)\nEUR 300 000 for Slovakia.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, \u2018EUR 2,5\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 3\u2019;\n7.\nArticle 8 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2(b), \u201850 %\u2019 is replaced by \u201860 %\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2(c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 90 000 for Belgium;\n(ii)\nEUR 25 000 for Bulgaria;\n(iii)\nEUR 70 000 for the Czech Republic;\n(iv)\nEUR 80 000 for Denmark;\n(v)\nEUR 300 000 for Germany;\n(vi)\nEUR 10 000 for Estonia;\n(vii)\nEUR 75 000 for Ireland;\n(viii)\nEUR 50 000 for Greece;\n(ix)\nEUR 150 000 for Spain;\n(x)\nEUR 150 000 for France;\n(xi)\nEUR 1 000 000 for Italy;\n(xii)\nEUR 20 000 for Cyprus;\n(xiii)\nEUR 45 000 for Latvia;\n(xiv)\nEUR 10 000 for Lithuania;\n(xv)\nEUR 10 000 for Luxembourg;\n(xvi)\nEUR 360 000 for Hungary\n(xvii)\nEUR 20 000 for Malta;\n(xviii)\nEUR 360 000 for the Netherlands;\n(xix)\nEUR 60 000 for Austria;\n(xx)\nEUR 100 000 for Poland;\n(xxi)\nEUR 45 000 for Portugal;\n(xxii)\nEUR 180 000 for Romania;\n(xxiii)\nEUR 50 000 for Slovenia;\n(xxiv)\nEUR 15 000 for Slovakia;\n(xxv)\nEUR 25 000 for Finland;\n(xxvi)\nEUR 50 000 for Sweden;\n(xxvii)\nEUR 160 000 for the United Kingdom.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, points (a) to (e) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\n:\nELISA test\n:\nEUR 2,4 per test;\n(b)\n:\nagar gel immune diffusion test\n:\nEUR 1,44 per test;\n(c)\n:\nHI test for H5/H7\n:\nEUR 14,40 per test;\n(d)\n:\nvirus isolation test\n:\nEUR 48 per test;\n(e)\n:\nPCR test\n:\nEUR 24 per test.\u2019;\n8.\nArticle 9 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2(c), \u201850 %\u2019 is replaced by \u201860 %\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2(d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 1 900 000 for Belgium;\n(ii)\nEUR 330 000 for Bulgaria;\n(iii)\nEUR 1 030 000 for the Czech Republic;\n(iv)\nEUR 1 370 000 for Denmark;\n(v)\nEUR 7 750 000 for Germany;\n(vi)\nEUR 330 000 for Estonia;\n(vii)\nEUR 4 000 000 for Ireland;\n(viii)\nEUR 2 000 000 for Greece;\n(ix)\nEUR 6 650 000 for Spain;\n(x)\nEUR 18 850 000 for France;\n(xi)\nEUR 6 000 000 for Italy;\n(xii)\nEUR 1 700 000 for Cyprus;\n(xiii)\nEUR 320 000 for Latvia;\n(xiv)\nEUR 720 000 for Lithuania;\n(xv)\nEUR 125 000 for Luxembourg;\n(xvi)\nEUR 1 180 000 for Hungary;\n(xvii)\nEUR 25 000 for Malta;\n(xviii)\nEUR 3 530 000 for the Netherlands;\n(xix)\nEUR 1 800 000 for Austria;\n(xx)\nEUR 3 440 000 for Poland;\n(xxi)\nEUR 1 800 000 for Portugal;\n(xxii)\nEUR 1 000 000 for Romania;\n(xxiii)\nEUR 250 000 for Slovenia;\n(xxiv)\nEUR 550 000 for Slovakia;\n(xxv)\nEUR 580 000 for Finland;\n(xxvi)\nEUR 850 000 for Sweden;\n(xxvii)\nEUR 6 500 000 for the United Kingdom.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3(d) \u2018EUR 10\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 12\u2019;\n9.\nArticle 10, paragraph 2(c) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (i) \u2018EUR 1 800 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 850 000\u2019;\n(b)\nin point (ii) \u2018EUR 620 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 570 000\u2019;\n(c)\nin point (iv) \u2018EUR 7 110 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 8 110 000\u2019;\n(d)\nin point (v) \u2018EUR 5 000 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 2 100 000\u2019;\n(e)\nin point (vii) \u2018EUR 200 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 290 000\u2019;\n10.\nin Article 10 paragraph 4, \u2018paragraphs 2 and 3\u2019 is replaced by \u2018paragraph 2(a), paragraph 2(b) and paragraph 3\u2019;\n11.\nArticle 11, paragraph 5(c) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (i) \u2018EUR 2 250 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 1 600 000\u2019;\n(b)\nin point (ii) \u2018EUR 1 800 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 1 500 000\u2019;\n(c)\nin point (v) \u2018EUR 740 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 850 000\u2019;\n12.\nin Article 11 paragraph 7, \u2018paragraphs 5 and 6\u2019 is replaced by \u2018paragraph 5(a), paragraph 5(b) and paragraph 6\u2019.\nArticle 9\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["93", "0", "18", "73", "49", "65", "92", "87", "20", "56", "86", "45", "13", "80", "70", "64", "15", "32", "37", "33", "85", "99", "4", "78", "1", "59", "88", "89", "27", "30", "No Label", "10", "38", "61", "66"], "gold": ["10", "38", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 6 January 2012\nlaying down the rules and procedures related to experts in national accounting assisting the Commission in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community\n(notified under document C(2011) 9973)\n(2012/20/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 of 25 May 2009 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 479/2009 requires the Commission (Eurostat) to assess the quality of data to be used for the excessive deficit procedure (EDP), including in the form of methodological visits. For the purpose of carrying out such visits, the Commission (Eurostat) could be assisted by experts in national accounting.\n(2)\nIt is necessary to lay down the rules and procedures for selection of the experts, taking into account an appropriate distribution of experts across Member States and an appropriate rotation of experts between Member States, their working arrangements and the financial details,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe rules and procedures for selection of experts in national accounting to assist the Commission (Eurostat) in visits to the Member States under Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 479/2009, their working arrangements and the sharing of the costs of such visits between the Commission and the experts\u2019 national authority responsible for excessive deficit procedure reporting are set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply to the assistance referred to in Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 479/2009, provided as from 1 January 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 January 2012.", "references": ["46", "28", "6", "1", "69", "9", "42", "14", "62", "86", "44", "36", "90", "3", "41", "29", "11", "57", "23", "49", "35", "76", "48", "38", "10", "85", "21", "37", "58", "84", "No Label", "7", "18", "33", "50", "52"], "gold": ["7", "18", "33", "50", "52"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2010/84/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\namending, as regards pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 and Article 168(4)(c) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (3),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (4),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (5) lays down harmonised rules for the authorisation, supervision and pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use within the Union.\n(2)\nPharmacovigilance rules are necessary for the protection of public health in order to prevent, detect and assess adverse reactions to medicinal products placed on the Union market, as the full safety profile of medicinal products can only be known after they have been placed on the market.\n(3)\nIn the light of the experience acquired and following an assessment by the Commission of the Union system of pharmacovigilance, it has become clear that it is necessary to take measures in order to improve the operation of Union law on the pharmacovigilance of medicinal products.\n(4)\nWhile the fundamental objective of the regulation of medicinal products is to safeguard public health, this aim should nevertheless be achieved by means that do not impede the free movement of safe medicinal products within the Union. It has emerged from the assessment of the Union system of pharmacovigilance that divergent actions by Member States in relation to safety issues pertaining to medicinal products are creating obstacles to the free movement of medicinal products. In order to prevent or eliminate those obstacles the existing pharmacovigilance provisions at Union level should be strengthened and rationalised.\n(5)\nFor the sake of clarity, the definition of the term \u2018adverse reaction\u2019 should be amended to ensure that it covers noxious and unintended effects resulting not only from the authorised use of a medicinal product at normal doses, but also from medication errors and uses outside the terms of the marketing authorisation, including the misuse and abuse of the medicinal product. The suspicion of an adverse drug reaction, meaning that there is at least a reasonable possibility of there being a causal relationship between a medicinal product and an adverse event, should be sufficient reason for reporting. Therefore, the term \u2018suspected adverse reaction\u2019 should be used when referring to reporting obligations. Without prejudice to the existing Union and national provisions and practices on medical confidentiality, Member States should ensure that reporting and processing of personal data related to suspected adverse reactions, including those associated with medication errors is carried out on a confidential basis. This should not affect Member States\u2019 obligations regarding the mutual exchange of information on pharmacovigilance issues or their obligation to make available to the public important information on pharmacovigilance concerns. Furthermore, the principle of confidentiality should not affect the obligations of the persons concerned to provide information under criminal law.\n(6)\nThe pollution of waters and soils with pharmaceutical residues is an emerging environmental problem. Member States should consider measures to monitor and evaluate the risk of environmental effects of such medicinal products, including those which may have an impact on public health. The Commission should, based, inter alia, on data received from the European Medicines Agency, the European Environment Agency and Member States, produce a report on the scale of the problem, along with an assessment on whether amendments to Union legislation on medicinal products or other relevant Union legislation are required.\n(7)\nThe marketing authorisation holder should establish a pharmacovigilance system to ensure the monitoring and supervision of one or more of its authorised medicinal products, recorded in a pharmacovigilance system master file which should be permanently available for inspection. The competent authorities should undertake to supervise those pharmacovigilance systems. Applications for marketing authorisations should therefore be accompanied by a brief description of the corresponding pharmacovigilance system, which should include a reference to the location where the pharmacovigilance system master file for the medicinal product concerned is kept and available for inspection by the competent authorities.\n(8)\nMarketing authorisation holders should plan pharmacovigilance measures for each individual medicinal product in the context of a risk management system. The measures should be proportionate to the identified risks, the potential risks, and the need for additional information on the medicinal product. It should also be ensured that any key measures included in a risk management system are made conditions of the marketing authorisation.\n(9)\nIt is necessary from a public health perspective to complement the data available at the time of authorisation with additional data about the safety and, in certain cases, the efficacy of authorised medicinal products. Competent authorities should therefore be empowered to impose on the marketing authorisation holder the obligation to conduct post-authorisation studies on safety and on efficacy. It should be possible to impose that obligation at the time of the granting of the marketing authorisation or later, and it should be a condition of the marketing authorisation. Such studies may be aimed at collecting data to enable the assessment of the safety or efficacy of medicinal products in everyday medical practice.\n(10)\nIt is essential that a strengthened system of pharmacovigilance not lead to the premature granting of marketing authorisations. However, some medicinal products are authorised subject to additional monitoring. This includes all medicinal products with a new active substance and biological medicinal products, including biosimilars, which are priorities for pharmacovigilance. Competent authorities may also require additional monitoring for specific medicinal products that are subject to the obligation to conduct a post-authorisation safety study or to conditions or restrictions with regard to the safe and effective use of the medicinal product. Medicinal products subject to additional monitoring should be identified as such by a black symbol and an appropriate standardised explanatory sentence in the summary of product characteristics and in the package leaflet. A publicly available list of medicinal products subject to additional monitoring should be kept up to date by the European Medicines Agency established by Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (6) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Agency\u2019).\n(11)\nThe Commission should, in collaboration with the Agency and national competent authorities and following consultations with organisations representing patients, consumers, doctors and pharmacists, social health insurers, and other interested parties, present to the European Parliament and the Council an assessment report regarding the readability of the summaries of product characteristics and the package leaflets and their value to the healthcare professionals and the general public. Following an analysis of that data, the Commission should, if appropriate, make proposals to improve the layout and content of the summaries of product characteristics and of the package leaflets to ensure that they represent a valuable source of information for healthcare professionals and the general public respectively.\n(12)\nExperience has shown that the responsibilities of marketing authorisation holders with regard to pharmacovigilance of authorised medicinal products should be clarified. The marketing authorisation holder should be responsible for continuously monitoring the safety of its medicinal products, for informing the authorities of any changes that might impact on the marketing authorisation, and for ensuring that the product information is kept up to date. As medicinal products could be used outside the terms of the marketing authorisation, the marketing authorisation holder\u2019s responsibilities should include providing all available information, including the results of clinical trials or other studies, as well as reporting any use of the medicinal product which is outside the terms of the marketing authorisation. It is also appropriate to ensure that all relevant information collected on the safety of the medicinal product is taken into account when the marketing authorisation is being renewed.\n(13)\nIn order to ensure close cooperation between the Member States in the area of pharmacovigilance, the mandate of the coordination group set up by Article 27 of Directive 2001/83/EC should be enlarged to include the examination of questions related to the pharmacovigilance of all medicinal products authorised by the Member States. In order to fulfil its new tasks, the coordination group should be further strengthened through the adoption of clear rules as regards the expertise required, the procedures for reaching agreements or positions, transparency, independence and professional secrecy of its members, and the need for cooperation between Union and national bodies.\n(14)\nWith a view to ensuring the same level of scientific expertise in the area of pharmacovigilance decision-making at both Union and national levels, the coordination group should rely on the recommendations of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee when fulfilling its pharmacovigilance tasks.\n(15)\nIn order to avoid duplication of work, the coordination group should agree on a single position for pharmacovigilance assessments concerning medicinal products authorised in more than one Member State. Agreement within the coordination group should suffice for pharmacovigilance measures to be implemented throughout the Union. Where no agreement is reached within the coordination group, the Commission should be authorised to adopt a decision concerning the necessary regulatory action in respect of the marketing authorisation, addressed to the Member States.\n(16)\nA single assessment should also be conducted in the case of pharmacovigilance issues which concern medicinal products authorised by the Member States and medicinal products authorised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. In such cases, the Commission should adopt harmonised measures for all medicinal products concerned on the basis of an assessment at Union level.\n(17)\nMember States should operate a pharmacovigilance system to collect information that is useful for the monitoring of medicinal products, including information on suspected adverse reactions arising from use of a medicinal product within the terms of the marketing authorisation as well as from use outside the terms of the marketing authorisation, including overdose, misuse, abuse and medication errors, and suspected adverse reactions associated with occupational exposure. Member States should ensure the quality of the pharmacovigilance system through the follow-up of cases of suspected adverse reactions. For those tasks, Member States should establish a permanent pharmacovigilance system, supported by the appropriate expertise, so that the obligations under this Directive can be fully met.\n(18)\nIn order to further increase the coordination of resources between the Member States, Member State should be authorised to delegate certain pharmacovigilance tasks to another Member State.\n(19)\nIn order to simplify the reporting of suspected adverse reactions, the marketing authorisation holders and the Member States should report those reactions only to the Union pharmacovigilance database and data-processing network referred to in Article 57(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (the \u2018Eudravigilance database\u2019). The Eudravigilance database should be equipped to immediately forward reports on suspected adverse reactions received from marketing authorisation holders to the Member States on whose territory the reaction occurred.\n(20)\nIn order to increase the level of transparency of the pharmacovigilance processes, the Member States should create and maintain medicines web-portals. To the same end, the marketing authorisation holders should provide the competent authorities with prior or simultaneous warnings about safety announcements and the competent authorities should also provide each other with advance notice of safety announcements.\n(21)\nUnion rules in relation to pharmacovigilance should continue to rely on the crucial role of healthcare professionals in monitoring the safety of medicinal products, and should take account of the fact that patients are also well placed to report suspected adverse reactions to medicinal products. It is therefore appropriate to facilitate the reporting of suspected adverse reactions to medicinal products by both healthcare professionals and patients, and to make methods for such reporting available to them.\n(22)\nAs a result of the submission of all suspected adverse reaction data directly to the Eudravigilance database, it is appropriate to amend the scope of periodic safety update reports so that they present an analysis of the risk-benefit balance of a medicinal product rather than a detailed listing of individual case reports already submitted to the Eudravigilance database.\n(23)\nObligations imposed in respect of periodic safety update reports should be proportionate to the risks posed by medicinal products. Periodic safety update reporting should therefore be linked to the risk management system for newly authorised medicinal products and routine reporting should not be required for generic medicinal products, for medicinal products containing an active substance for which well-established medicinal use has been demonstrated, for homeopathic medicinal products or for traditional-use registered herbal medicinal products. However, in the interests of public health, the competent authorities should require periodic safety update reports for such medicinal products when concerns arise relating to pharmacovigilance data or as a result of the lack of available safety data when the use of the active substance concerned is concentrated in medicinal products for which periodic safety update reporting is not routinely required.\n(24)\nIt is necessary to increase the shared use of resources between competent authorities for the assessment of periodic safety update reports. A single assessment of periodic safety update reports for medicinal products authorised in more than one Member State should be provided for. Moreover, procedures should be established to set single frequency and submission dates of periodic safety update reports for all medicinal products containing the same active substance or the same combination of active substances.\n(25)\nFollowing a single assessment of periodic safety update reports, any resulting measures as regards the maintenance, variation, suspension or revocation of the marketing authorisations concerned should be adopted through a Union procedure leading to a harmonised result.\n(26)\nThe Member States should automatically submit certain safety issues related to medicinal products to the Agency thereby triggering a Union-wide assessment of the issue. Therefore it is appropriate to establish rules for an assessment procedure by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, and for the subsequent follow-up as regards the marketing authorisations concerned with a view to the adoption of harmonised measures across the Union.\n(27)\nIn connection with the clarification and strengthening of the provisions relating to pharmacovigilance activities in Directive 2001/83/EC, it is also appropriate to further clarify the procedures for all Union-wide post-authorisation assessments of safety issues concerning medicinal products. To that end, the number of procedures for Union-wide assessment should be limited to two, one of which allows for a swift assessment and should be applied when urgent action is considered necessary. Regardless of whether the urgent procedure or the normal procedure is applied, and whether the medicinal product was authorised through the centralised or non-centralised procedure, the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee should always give its recommendation when the reason for taking action is based on pharmacovigilance data. It is appropriate that the coordination group and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use should rely on this recommendation when performing their assessment of the issue.\n(28)\nIt is necessary to introduce harmonised guiding principles for, and regulatory supervision of, post-authorisation safety studies that are requested by competent authorities and that are non-interventional, that are initiated, managed or financed by the marketing authorisation holder, and that involve the collection of data from patients or healthcare professionals and that therefore fall outside of the scope of Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use (7). The supervision of such studies should be the responsibility of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee. Studies requested after the marketing authorisation of a medicinal product by only one competent authority to be conducted in only one Member State should be supervised by the national competent authority of the Member State in which the study is to be conducted. Provision should also be made for the subsequent follow-up, if appropriate, as regards the marketing authorisations concerned with a view to the adoption of harmonised measures across the Union.\n(29)\nIn order to enforce the provisions relating to pharmacovigilance, the Member States should ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties are applied to marketing authorisation holders for non-compliance with pharmacovigilance obligations. If the conditions included in the marketing authorisation are not fulfilled within the given deadline, the national competent authorities should have the power to review the marketing authorisation.\n(30)\nIn order to protect public health, the pharmacovigilance activities of national competent authorities should be adequately funded. It should be ensured that adequate funding is possible for pharmacovigilance activities by empowering the national competent authorities to charge fees to marketing authorisation holders. However, the management of those collected funds should be under the permanent control of the national competent authorities in order to guarantee their independence in the performance of those pharmacovigilance activities.\n(31)\nIt should be possible for Member States to allow the relevant actors, under certain conditions, to deviate from certain provisions of Directive 2001/83/EC related to the requirements for labelling and packaging in order to address severe availability problems related to the potential lack of authorised medicinal products or of medicinal products placed on the market or shortages thereof.\n(32)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely to improve the safety of medicinal products placed on the market in the Union in a harmonised way across the Member States, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can, by reason of the scale of the measures, 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 Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve this objective.\n(33)\nThis Directive shall apply without prejudice to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (8) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (9). In order to detect, assess, understand and prevent adverse reactions, and to identify and take actions to reduce the risks of, and increase the benefits from, medicinal products for the purpose of safeguarding public health, it should be possible to process personal data within the Eudravigilance system while respecting Union legislation relating to data protection. The purpose of safeguarding public health constitutes a substantial public interest and consequently the processing of personal data can be justified if identifiable health data are processed only when necessary and only when the parties involved assess this necessity at every stage of the pharmacovigilance process.\n(34)\nThe provisions on the monitoring of medicinal products in Directive 2001/83/EC constitute specific provisions within the meaning of Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products (10).\n(35)\nThe pharmacovigilance activities provided for in this Directive require that uniform conditions be established as concerns the contents and maintenance of the pharmacovigilance system master file, as well as the minimum requirements for the quality system for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities by the national competent authorities and marketing authorisation holders, the use of internationally agreed terminology, formats and standards for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities, and the minimum requirements for the monitoring of the data contained in the Eudravigilance database to determine whether there are new risks or whether risks have changed. The format and content of the electronic transmission of suspected adverse reactions by Member States and marketing authorisation holders, the format and content of electronic periodic safety update reports and risk management plans as well as the format of protocols, abstracts and final study reports for the post-authorisation safety studies should also be established. In accordance with Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers are to be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (11) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable.\n(36)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in order to supplement the provisions in Articles 21a and 22a of Directive 2001/83/EC. The Commission should be empowered to adopt supplementary measures laying down the situations in which post-authorisation efficacy studies may be required. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(37)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (12), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n(38)\nDirective 2001/83/EC should be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Directive 2001/83/EC\nDirective 2001/83/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u201811. Adverse reaction: A response to a medicinal product which is noxious and unintended.\u2019;\n(b)\npoint 14 is deleted;\n(c)\npoint 15 is replaced by the following:\n\u201815. Post-authorisation safety study: Any study relating to an authorised medicinal product conducted with the aim of identifying, characterising or quantifying a safety hazard, confirming the safety profile of the medicinal product, or of measuring the effectiveness of risk management measures.\u2019;\n(d)\nthe following points are inserted:\n\u201828b. Risk management system: a set of pharmacovigilance activities and interventions designed to identify, characterise, prevent or minimise risks relating to a medicinal product, including the assessment of the effectiveness of those activities and interventions.\n28c. Risk management plan: a detailed description of the risk management system.\n28d. Pharmacovigilance system: a system used by the marketing authorisation holder and by Member States to fulfil the tasks and responsibilities listed in Title IX and designed to monitor the safety of authorised medicinal products and detect any change to their risk-benefit balance.\n28e. Pharmacovigilance system master file: A detailed description of the pharmacovigilance system used by the marketing authorisation holder with respect to one or more authorised medicinal products.\u2019.\n2.\nArticle 8(3) is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (ia) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(ia)\nA summary of the applicant\u2019s pharmacovigilance system which shall include the following elements:\n-\nproof that the applicant has at his disposal a qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance,\n-\nthe Member States in which the qualified person resides and carries out his/her tasks,\n-\nthe contact details of the qualified person,\n-\na statement signed by the applicant to the effect that the applicant has the necessary means to fulfil the tasks and responsibilities listed in Title IX,\n-\na reference to the location where the pharmacovigilance system master file for the medicinal product is kept.\u2019,\n(b)\nthe following point is inserted after point (ia):\n\u2018(iaa)\nThe risk management plan describing the risk management system which the applicant will introduce for the medicinal product concerned, together with a summary thereof.\u2019;\n(c)\npoint (l) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(l)\nCopies of the following:\n-\nany authorisation, obtained in another Member State or in a third country, to place the medicinal product on the market, a summary of the safety data including the data contained in the periodic safety update reports, where available, and suspected adverse reactions reports, together with a list of those Member States in which an application for authorisation submitted in accordance with this Directive is under examination;\n-\nthe summary of the product characteristics proposed by the applicant in accordance with Article 11 or approved by the competent authorities of the Member State in accordance with Article 21 and the package leaflet proposed in accordance with Article 59 or approved by the competent authorities of the Member State in accordance with Article 61;\n-\ndetails of any decision to refuse authorisation, whether in the Union or in a third country, and the reasons for such a decision.\u2019,\n(d)\npoint (n) is deleted;\n(e)\nthe following subparagraphs are added after the second subparagraph:\n\u2018The risk management system referred to in point (iaa) of the first subparagraph shall be proportionate to the identified risks and the potential risks of the medicinal product, and the need for post-authorisation safety data.\nThe information referred to in the first subparagraph shall be updated where and when appropriate.\u2019.\n3.\nIn Article 11 the following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018For medicinal products included on the list referred to in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the summary of product characteristics shall include the statement: \u201cThis medicinal product is subject to additional monitoring\u201d. This statement shall be preceded by the black symbol referred to in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and followed by an appropriate standardised explanatory sentence.\nFor all medicinal products, a standard text shall be included expressly asking healthcare professionals to report any suspected adverse reaction in accordance with the national spontaneous reporting system referred to in Article 107a(1). Different ways of reporting, including electronic reporting, shall be available in compliance with the second subparagraph of Article 107a(1).\u2019.\n4.\nArticle 16g(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Article 3(1) and (2), Article 4(4), Article 6(1), Article 12, Article 17(1), Articles 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 40 to 52, 70 to 85, 101 to 108b, Article 111(1) and (3), Articles 112, 116, 117, 118, 122, 123, 125, the second paragraph of Article 126, and Article 127 of this Directive as well as Commission Directive 2003/94/EC of 8 October 2003 laying down the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice in respect of medicinal products for human use and investigational medicinal products for human use (13) shall apply, by analogy, to traditional-use registration granted under this Chapter.\n5.\nArticle 17 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, the words \u2018Articles 27\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018Articles 28\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the words \u2018Articles 27\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018Articles 28\u2019;\n6.\nIn Article 18, the words \u2018Articles 27\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018Articles 28\u2019.\n7.\nIn Article 21, paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The national competent authorities shall, without delay, make publicly available the marketing authorisation together with the package leaflet, the summary of the product characteristics and any conditions established in accordance with Articles 21a, 22 and 22a, together with any deadlines for the fulfilment of those conditions for each medicinal product which they have authorised.\n4. The national competent authorities shall draw up an assessment report and make comments on the file as regards the results of the pharmaceutical and pre-clinical tests, the clinical trials, the risk management system and the pharmacovigilance system of the medicinal product concerned. The assessment report shall be updated whenever new information becomes available which is important for the evaluation of the quality, safety or efficacy of the medicinal product concerned.\nThe national competent authorities shall make the assessment report publicly accessible without delay, together with the reasons for their opinion, after deletion of any information of a commercially confidential nature. The justification shall be provided separately for each indication applied for.\nThe public assessment report shall include a summary written in a manner that is understandable to the public. The summary shall contain, in particular, a section relating to the conditions of use of the medicinal product.\u2019.\n8.\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 21a\nIn addition to the provisions laid down in Article 19, a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product may be granted subject to one or more of the following conditions:\n(a)\nto take certain measures for ensuring the safe use of the medicinal product to be included in the risk management system;\n(b)\nto conduct post-authorisation safety studies;\n(c)\nto comply with obligations on the recording or reporting of suspected adverse reactions which are stricter than those referred to in Title IX;\n(d)\nany other conditions or restrictions with regard to the safe and effective use of the medicinal product;\n(e)\nthe existence of an adequate pharmacovigilance system;\n(f)\nto conduct post-authorisation efficacy studies where concerns relating to some aspects of the efficacy of the medicinal product are identified and can be resolved only after the medicinal product has been marketed. Such an obligation to conduct such studies shall be based on the delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 22b while taking into account the scientific guidance referred to in Article 108a.\nThe marketing authorisation shall lay down deadlines for the fulfilment of these conditions where necessary.\u2019.\n9.\nArticle 22 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 22\nIn exceptional circumstances and following consultation with the applicant, the marketing authorisation may be granted subject to certain conditions, in particular relating to the safety of the medicinal product, notification to the national competent authorities of any incident relating to its use, and action to be taken.\nThe marketing authorisation may be granted only when the applicant can show that he is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety of the medicinal product under normal conditions of use, for objective, verifiable reasons and must be based on one of the grounds set out in Annex I.\nContinuation of the marketing authorisation shall be linked to the annual reassessment of these conditions.\u2019.\n10.\nThe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 22a\n1. After the granting of a marketing authorisation, the national competent authority may impose an obligation on the marketing authorisation holder:\n(a)\nto conduct a post-authorisation safety study if there are concerns about the risks of an authorised medicinal product. If the same concerns apply to more than one medicinal product, the national competent authority shall, following consultation with the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, encourage the marketing authorisation holders concerned to conduct a joint post-authorisation safety study;\n(b)\nto conduct a post-authorisation efficacy study when the understanding of the disease or the clinical methodology indicate that previous efficacy evaluations might have to be revised significantly. The obligation to conduct the post-authorisation efficacy study shall be based on the delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 22b while taking into account the scientific guidance referred to in Article 108a.\nThe imposition of such an obligation shall be duly justified, notified in writing, and shall include the objectives and timeframe for submission and conduct of the study.\n2. The national competent authority shall provide the marketing authorisation holder with an opportunity to present written observations in response to the imposition of the obligation within a time limit which it shall specify, if the marketing authorisation holder so requests within 30 days of receipt of the written notification of the obligation.\n3. On the basis of the written observations submitted by the marketing authorisation holder, the national competent authority shall withdraw or confirm the obligation. Where the national competent authority confirms the obligation, the marketing authorisation shall be varied to include the obligation as a condition of the marketing authorisation and the risk management system shall be updated accordingly.\nArticle 22b\n1. In order to determine the situations in which post-authorisation efficacy studies may be required under Articles 21a and 22a of this Directive, the Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 121a, and subject to the conditions of Articles 121b and 121c, measures supplementing the provisions in Articles 21a and 22a.\n2. When adopting such delegated acts, the Commission shall act in accordance with the provisions of this Directive.\nArticle 22c\n1. The marketing authorisation holder shall incorporate any conditions referred to in Articles 21a, 22 or 22a in his risk management system.\n2. The Member States shall inform the Agency of the marketing authorisations that they have granted subject to conditions pursuant to Articles 21a, 22 or 22a.\u2019.\n11.\nArticle 23 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 23\n1. After a marketing authorisation has been granted, the marketing authorisation holder shall, in respect of the methods of manufacture and control provided for in Article 8(3)(d) and (h), take account of scientific and technical progress and introduce any changes that may be required to enable the medicinal product to be manufactured and checked by means of generally accepted scientific methods.\nThose changes shall be subject to the approval of the competent authority of the Member State concerned.\n2. The marketing authorisation holder shall forthwith provide the national competent authority with any new information which might entail the amendment of the particulars or documents referred to in Article 8(3), Articles 10, 10a, 10b and 11, or Article 32(5), or Annex I.\nIn particular, the marketing authorisation holder shall forthwith inform the national competent authority of any prohibition or restriction imposed by the competent authorities of any country in which the medicinal product is marketed and of any other new information which might influence the evaluation of the benefits and risks of the medicinal product concerned. The information shall include both positive and negative results of clinical trials or other studies in all indications and populations, whether or not included in the marketing authorisation, as well as data on the use of the medicinal product where such use is outside the terms of the marketing authorisation.\n3. The marketing authorisation holder shall ensure that the product information is kept up to date with the current scientific knowledge, including the conclusions of the assessment and recommendations made public by means of the European medicines web-portal established in accordance with Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\n4. In order to be able to continuously assess the risk-benefit balance, the national competent authority may at any time ask the marketing authorisation holder to forward data demonstrating that the risk-benefit balance remains favourable. The marketing authorisation holder shall answer fully and promptly any such request.\nThe national competent authority may at any time ask the marketing authorisation holder to submit a copy of the pharmacovigilance system master file. The marketing authorisation holder shall submit the copy at the latest 7 days after receipt of the request.\u2019.\n12.\nArticle 24 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018To this end, the marketing authorisation holder shall provide the national competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including the evaluation of data contained in suspected adverse reactions reports and periodic safety update reports submitted in accordance with Title IX, and information on all variations introduced since the marketing authorisation was granted, at least 9 months before the marketing authorisation ceases to be valid in accordance with paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Once renewed, the marketing authorisation shall be valid for an unlimited period, unless the national competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, including exposure of an insufficient number of patients to the medicinal product concerned, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal in accordance with paragraph 2.\u2019.\n13.\nThe title \u2018Chapter 4 Mutual recognition and decentralised procedure\u2019 is deleted.\n14.\nArticle 27 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. A coordination group shall be set up for the following purposes:\n(a)\nthe examination of any question relating to a marketing authorisation of a medicinal product in two or more Member States in accordance with the procedures laid down in Chapter 4;\n(b)\nthe examination of questions related to the pharmacovigilance of medicinal products authorised by the Member States, in accordance with Articles 107c, 107e, 107g, 107k and 107q;\n(c)\nthe examination of questions relating to variations of marketing authorisations granted by the Member States, in accordance with Article 35(1).\nThe Agency shall provide the secretariat of this coordination group.\nFor the fulfilment of its pharmacovigilance tasks, including approving risk management systems and monitoring their effectiveness, the coordination group shall rely on the scientific assessment and the recommendations of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee provided for in Article 56(1)(aa) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\n2. The coordination group shall be composed of one representative per Member State appointed for a renewable period of 3 years. Member States may appoint an alternate for a renewable period of 3 years. Members of the coordination group may arrange to be accompanied by experts.\nMembers of the coordination group and experts shall, for the fulfilment of their tasks, rely on the scientific and regulatory resources available to national competent authorities. Each national competent authority shall monitor the level of expertise of the evaluations carried out and facilitate the activities of nominated coordination group members and experts.\nArticle 63 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 shall apply to the coordination group as regards transparency and the independence of its members.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraphs are added:\n\u20184. The Executive Director of the Agency or his representative and representatives of the Commission shall be entitled to attend all meetings of the coordination group.\n5. The members of the coordination group shall ensure that there is appropriate coordination between the tasks of that group and the work of national competent authorities, including the consultative bodies concerned with the marketing authorisation.\n6. Save where otherwise provided for in this Directive, the Member States represented within the coordination group shall use their best endeavours to reach a position by consensus on the action to be taken. If such a consensus cannot be reached, the position of the majority of the Member States represented within the coordination group shall prevail.\n7. Members of the coordination group shall be required, even after their duties have ceased, not to disclose information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.\u2019.\n15.\nAfter Article 27 the following heading is inserted:\n16.\nArticle 31(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Member States, the Commission, the applicant or the marketing authorisation holder shall, in specific cases where the interests of the Union are involved, refer the matter to the Committee for application of the procedure laid down in Articles 32, 33 and 34 before any decision is reached on an application for a marketing authorisation or on the suspension or revocation of a marketing authorisation, or on any other variation of the marketing authorisation which appears necessary.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following subparagraphs are inserted after the first subparagraph:\n\u2018Where the referral results from the evaluation of data relating to pharmacovigilance of an authorised medicinal product, the matter shall be referred to the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee and Article 107j(2) may be applied. The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee shall issue a recommendation according to the procedure laid down in Article 32. The final recommendation shall be forwarded to the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use or to the coordination group, as appropriate, and the procedure laid down in Article 107k shall apply.\nHowever, where urgent action is considered necessary, the procedure laid down in Articles 107i to 107k shall apply.\u2019.\n17.\nArticle 36 is deleted.\n18.\nArticle 59 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(i)\npoint (e) is replaced by:\n\u2018(e)\na description of the adverse reactions which may occur under normal use of the medicinal product and, if necessary, the action to be taken in such a case.\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018For medicinal products included in the list referred to in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the following additional statement shall be included \u201cThis medicinal product is subject to additional monitoring\u201d. This statement shall be preceded by the black symbol referred to in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and followed by an appropriate standardised explanatory sentence.\nFor all medicinal products, a standardised text shall be included, expressly asking patients to communicate any suspected adverse reaction to his/her doctor, pharmacist, healthcare professional or directly to the national spontaneous reporting system referred to in Article 107a(1), and specifying the different ways of reporting available (electronic reporting, postal address and/or others) in compliance with the second subparagraph of Article 107a(1).\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. By 1 January 2013, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and the Council an assessment report on current shortcomings in the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet and how they could be improved in order to better meet the needs of patients and healthcare professionals. The Commission shall, if appropriate, and on the basis of the report, and consultation with appropriate stakeholders, present proposals in order to improve the readability, layout and content of these documents. \u2019\n19.\nArticle 63(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. When the medicinal product is not intended to be delivered directly to the patient, or where there are severe problems in respect of the availability of the medicinal product, the competent authorities may, subject to measures they consider necessary to safeguard human health, grant an exemption to the obligation that certain particulars should appear on the labelling and in the package leaflet. They may also grant a full or partial exemption to the obligation that the labelling and the package leaflet must be in the official language or languages of the Member State in which the medicinal product is placed on the market.\u2019.\n20.\nTitle IX is replaced by the following:\n\u2018TITLE IX\nPHARMACOVIGILANCE\nCHAPTER 1\nGeneral provisions\nArticle 101\n1. Member States shall operate a pharmacovigilance system for the fulfilment of their pharmacovigilance tasks and their participation in Union pharmacovigilance activities.\nThe pharmacovigilance system shall be used to collect information on the risks of medicinal products as regards patients\u2019 or public health. That information shall in particular refer to adverse reactions in human beings, arising from use of the medicinal product within the terms of the marketing authorisation as well as from use outside the terms of the marketing authorisation, and to adverse reactions associated with occupational exposure.\n2. Member States shall, by means of the pharmacovigilance system referred to in paragraph 1, evaluate all information scientifically, consider options for risk minimisation and prevention and take regulatory action concerning the marketing authorisation as necessary. They shall perform a regular audit of their pharmacovigilance system and report the results to the Commission on 21 September 2013 at the latest and then every 2 years thereafter.\n3. Each Member State shall designate a competent authority for the performance of pharmacovigilance tasks.\n4. The Commission may request Member States to participate, under the coordination of the Agency, in international harmonisation and standardisation of technical measures in relation to pharmacovigilance.\nArticle 102\nThe Member States shall:\n(a)\ntake all appropriate measures to encourage patients, doctors, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals to report suspected adverse reactions to the national competent authority; for these tasks, organisations representing consumers, patients and healthcare professionals may be involved as appropriate;\n(b)\nfacilitate patient reporting through the provision of alternative reporting formats in addition to web-based formats;\n(c)\ntake all appropriate measures to obtain accurate and verifiable data for the scientific evaluation of suspected adverse reaction reports;\n(d)\nensure that the public is given important information on pharmacovigilance concerns relating to the use of a medicinal product in a timely manner through publication on the web-portal and through other means of publicly available information as necessary;\n(e)\nensure, through the methods for collecting information and where necessary through the follow-up of suspected adverse reaction reports, that all appropriate measures are taken to identify clearly any biological medicinal product prescribed, dispensed, or sold in their territory which is the subject of a suspected adverse reaction report, with due regard to the name of the medicinal product, in accordance with Article 1(20), and the batch number;\n(f)\ntake the necessary measures to ensure that a marketing authorisation holder who fails to discharge the obligations laid down in this Title is subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties.\nFor the purposes of point (a) and (e) of the first paragraph the Member States may impose specific obligations on doctors, pharmacists and other health-care professionals.\nArticle 103\nA Member State may delegate any of the tasks entrusted to it under this Title to another Member State subject to a written agreement of the latter. Each Member State may represent no more than one other Member State.\nThe delegating Member State shall inform the Commission, the Agency and all other Member States of the delegation in writing. The delegating Member State and the Agency shall make that information public.\nArticle 104\n1. The marketing authorisation holder shall operate a pharmacovigilance system for the fulfilment of his pharmacovigilance tasks equivalent to the relevant Member State\u2019s pharmacovigilance system provided for under Article 101(1).\n2. The marketing authorisation holder shall by means of the pharmacovigilance system referred to in paragraph 1 evaluate all information scientifically, consider options for risk minimisation and prevention and take appropriate measures as necessary.\nThe marketing authorisation holder shall perform a regular audit of his pharmacovigilance system. He shall place a note concerning the main findings of the audit on the pharmacovigilance system master file and, based on the audit findings, ensure that an appropriate corrective action plan is prepared and implemented. Once the corrective actions have been fully implemented, the note may be removed.\n3. As part of the pharmacovigilance system, the marketing authorisation holder shall:\n(a)\nhave permanently and continuously at his disposal an appropriately qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance;\n(b)\nmaintain and make available on request a pharmacovigilance system master file;\n(c)\noperate a risk management system for each medicinal product;\n(d)\nmonitor the outcome of risk minimisation measures which are contained in the risk management plan or which are laid down as conditions of the marketing authorisation pursuant to Articles 21a, 22 or 22a;\n(e)\nupdate the risk management system and monitor pharmacovigilance data to determine whether there are new risks or whether risks have changed or whether there are changes to the benefit-risk balance of medicinal products.\nThe qualified person referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph shall reside and operate in the Union and shall be responsible for the establishment and maintenance of the pharmacovigilance system. The marketing authorisation holder shall submit the name and contact details of the qualified person to the competent authority and the Agency.\n4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 3, national competent authorities may request the nomination of a contact person for pharmacovigilance issues at national level reporting to the qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance activities.\nArticle 104a\n1. Without prejudice to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article, holders of marketing authorisations granted before 21 July 2012 shall, by way of derogation from Article 104(3)(c), not be required to operate a risk management system for each medicinal product.\n2. The national competent authority may impose an obligation on a marketing authorisation holder to operate a risk management system, as referred to in Article 104(3)(c), if there are concerns about the risks affecting the risk-benefit balance of an authorised medicinal product. In that context, the national competent authority shall also oblige the marketing authorisation holder to submit a detailed description of the risk-management system which he intends to introduce for the medicinal product concerned.\nThe imposition of such obligations shall be duly justified, notified in writing and shall include the timeframe for submission of the detailed description of the risk-management system.\n3. The national competent authority shall provide the marketing authorisation holder with an opportunity to present written observations in response to the imposition of the obligation within a time limit which it shall specify, if the marketing authorisation holder so requests within 30 days of receipt of the written notification of the obligation.\n4. On the basis of the written observations submitted by the marketing authorisation holder, the national competent authority shall withdraw or confirm the obligation. Where the national competent authority confirms the obligation, the marketing authorisation shall be varied accordingly to include the measures to be taken as part of the risk management system as conditions of the marketing authorisation referred to in point (a) of Article 21a.\nArticle 105\nThe management of funds intended for activities connected with pharmacovigilance, the operation of communication networks and market surveillance shall be under the permanent control of the national competent authorities in order to guarantee their independence in the performance of those pharmacovigilance activities.\nThe first paragraph shall not preclude the national competent authorities from charging fees to marketing authorisation holders for performing those activities by the national competent authorities on the condition that their independence in the performance of those pharmacovigilance activities is strictly guaranteed.\nCHAPTER 2\nTransparency and communications\nArticle 106\nEach Member State shall set up and maintain a national medicines web-portal which shall be linked to the European medicines web-portal established in accordance with Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. By means of the national medicines web-portals, the Member States shall make publicly available at least the following:\n(a)\npublic assessment reports, together with a summary thereof;\n(b)\nsummaries of product characteristics and package leaflets;\n(c)\nsummaries of risk management plans for medicinal products authorised in accordance with this Directive;\n(d)\nthe list of medicinal products referred to in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(e)\ninformation on the different ways of reporting suspected adverse reactions to medicinal products to national competent authorities by healthcare professionals and patients, including the web-based structured forms referred to in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\nArticle 106a\n1. As soon as the marketing authorisation holder intends to make a public announcement relating to information on pharmacovigilance concerns in relation to the use of a medicinal product, and in any event at the same time or before the public announcement is made, he shall be required to inform the national competent authorities, the Agency and the Commission.\nThe marketing authorisation holder shall ensure that information to the public is presented objectively and is not misleading.\n2. Unless urgent public announcements are required for the protection of public health, the Member States, the Agency and the Commission shall inform each other not less than 24 hours prior to a public announcement relating to information on pharmacovigilance concerns.\n3. For active substances contained in medicinal products authorised in more than one Member State, the Agency shall be responsible for the coordination between national competent authorities of safety announcements and shall provide timetables for the information being made public.\nUnder the coordination of the Agency, the Member States shall make all reasonable efforts to agree on a common message in relation to the safety of the medicinal product concerned and the timetables for their distribution. The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee shall, at the request of the Agency, provide advice on those safety announcements.\n4. When the Agency or national competent authorities make public information referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, any information of a personal or commercially confidential nature shall be deleted unless its public disclosure is necessary for the protection of public health.\nCHAPTER 3\nRecording, reporting and assessment of pharmacovigilance data\nSection 1\nRecording and reporting of suspected adverse reactions\nArticle 107\n1. Marketing authorisation holders shall record all suspected adverse reactions in the Union or in third countries which are brought to their attention, whether reported spontaneously by patients or healthcare professionals, or occurring in the context of a post-authorisation study.\nMarketing authorisation holders shall ensure that those reports are accessible at a single point within the Union.\nBy way of derogation from the first subparagraph, suspected adverse reactions occurring in the context of a clinical trial shall be recorded and reported in accordance with Directive 2001/20/EC.\n2. Marketing authorisation holders shall not refuse to consider reports of suspected adverse reactions received electronically or by any other appropriate means from patients and healthcare professionals.\n3. Marketing authorisation holders shall submit electronically to the database and data-processing network referred to in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (hereinafter referred to as the \u201cEudravigilance database\u201d) information on all serious suspected adverse reactions that occur in the Union and in third countries within 15 days following the day on which the marketing authorisation holder concerned gained knowledge of the event.\nMarketing authorisation holders shall submit electronically to the Eudravigilance database information on all non-serious suspected adverse reactions that occur in the Union, within 90 days following the day on which the marketing authorisation holder concerned gained knowledge of the event.\nFor medicinal products containing the active substances referred to in the list of publications monitored by the Agency pursuant to Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, marketing authorisation holders shall not be required to report to the Eudravigilance database the suspected adverse reactions recorded in the listed medical literature, but they shall monitor all other medical literature and report any suspected adverse reactions.\n4. Marketing authorisation holders shall establish procedures in order to obtain accurate and verifiable data for the scientific evaluation of suspected adverse reaction reports. They shall also collect follow-up information on these reports and submit the updates to the Eudravigilance database.\n5. Marketing authorisation holders shall collaborate with the Agency and the Member States in the detection of duplicates of suspected adverse reaction reports.\nArticle 107a\n1. Each Member State shall record all suspected adverse reactions that occur in its territory which are brought to its attention from healthcare professionals and patients. Member States shall involve patients and healthcare professionals, as appropriate, in the follow-up of any reports they receive in order to comply with Article 102(c) and (e).\nMember States shall ensure that reports of such reactions may be submitted by means of the national medicines web-portals or by other means.\n2. For reports submitted by a marketing authorisation holder, Member States on whose territory the suspected adverse reaction occurred may involve the marketing authorisation holder in the follow-up of the reports.\n3. Member States shall collaborate with the Agency and the marketing authorisation holders in the detection of duplicates of suspected adverse reaction reports.\n4. Member States shall, within 15 days following the receipt of the reports of serious suspected adverse reactions referred to in paragraph 1, submit the reports electronically to the Eudravigilance database.\nThey shall, within 90 days from the receipt of reports referred to in paragraph 1, submit reports of non-serious suspected adverse reactions electronically to the Eudravigilance database.\nMarketing authorisation holders shall access those reports through the Eudravigilance database.\n5. Member States shall ensure that reports of suspected adverse reactions arising from an error associated with the use of a medicinal product that are brought to their attention are made available to the Eudravigilance database and to any authorities, bodies, organisations and/or institutions, responsible for patient safety within that Member State. They shall also ensure that the authorities responsible for medicinal products within that Member State are informed of any suspected adverse reactions brought to the attention of any other authority within that Member State. These reports shall be appropriately identified in the forms referred to in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\n6. Unless there are justifiable grounds resulting from pharmacovigilance activities, individual Member States shall not impose any additional obligations on marketing authorisation holders for the reporting of suspected adverse reactions.\nSection 2\nPeriodic safety update reports\nArticle 107b\n1. Marketing authorisation holders shall submit to the Agency periodic safety update reports containing:\n(a)\nsummaries of data relevant to the benefits and risks of the medicinal product, including results of all studies with a consideration of their potential impact on the marketing authorisation;\n(b)\na scientific evaluation of the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product;\n(c)\nall data relating to the volume of sales of the medicinal product and any data in possession of the marketing authorisation holder relating to the volume of prescriptions, including an estimate of the population exposed to the medicinal product.\nThe evaluation referred to in point (b) shall be based on all available data, including data from clinical trials in unauthorised indications and populations.\nThe periodic safety update reports shall be submitted electronically.\n2. The Agency shall make available the reports referred to in paragraph 1 to the national competent authorities, the members of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and the coordination group by means of the repository referred to in Article 25a of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, the holders of marketing authorisations for medicinal products referred to in Article 10(1), or Article 10a, and the holders of registrations for medicinal products referred to in Articles 14 or 16a, shall submit periodic safety update reports for such medicinal products in the following cases:\n(a)\nwhere such obligation has been laid down as a condition in the marketing authorisation in accordance with Article 21a or Article 22; or\n(b)\nwhen requested by a competent authority on the basis of concerns relating to pharmacovigilance data or due to the lack of periodic safety update reports relating to an active substance after the marketing authorisation has been granted. The assessment reports of the requested periodic safety update reports shall be communicated to the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, which shall consider whether there is a need for a single assessment report for all marketing authorisations for medicinal products containing the same active substance and inform the coordination group or the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use accordingly, in order to apply the procedures laid down in Article 107c(4) and Article 107e.\nArticle 107c\n1. The frequency with which the periodic safety update reports are to be submitted shall be specified in the marketing authorisation.\nThe dates of submission according to the specified frequency shall be calculated from the date of the authorisation.\n2. Holders of marketing authorisations which were granted before 21 July 2012, and for which the frequency and dates of submission of the periodic safety update reports are not laid down as a condition to the marketing authorisation, shall submit the periodic safety update reports in accordance with the second subparagraph of this paragraph until another frequency or other dates of submission of the reports are laid down in the marketing authorisation or determined in accordance with paragraphs 4, 5 or 6.\nPeriodic safety update reports shall be submitted to the competent authorities immediately upon request or in accordance with the following:\n(a)\nwhere a medicinal product has not yet been placed on the market, at least every 6 months following authorisation and until the placing on the market;\n(b)\nwhere a medicinal product has been placed on the market, at least every 6 months during the first 2 years following the initial placing on the market, once a year for the following 2 years and at three-yearly intervals thereafter.\n3. Paragraph 2 shall also apply to medicinal products which are authorised only in one Member State and for which paragraph 4 does not apply.\n4. Where medicinal products that are subject to different marketing authorisations contain the same active substance or the same combination of active substances, the frequency and dates of submission of the periodic safety update reports resulting from the application of paragraphs 1 and 2 may be amended and harmonised to enable a single assessment to be made in the context of a periodic safety update report work-sharing procedure and to set a Union reference date from which the submission dates are calculated.\nThis harmonised frequency for the submission of the reports and the Union reference date may be determined, after consultation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, by one of the following:\n(a)\nthe Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, where at least one of the marketing authorisations for the medicinal products containing the active substance concerned has been granted in accordance with the centralised procedure provided for in Chapter 1 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(b)\nthe coordination group, in other cases than those referred to in point (a).\nThe harmonised frequency for the submission of the reports determined pursuant to the first and second subparagraphs shall be made public by the Agency. Marketing authorisation holders shall submit an application for a variation of the marketing authorisation accordingly.\n5. For the purposes of paragraph 4, the Union reference date for medicinal products containing the same active substance or the same combination of active substances shall be one of the following:\n(a)\nthe date of the first marketing authorisation in the Union of a medicinal product containing that active substance or that combination active substances;\n(b)\nif the date referred to in point (a) cannot be ascertained, the earliest of the known dates of the marketing authorisations for a medicinal product containing that active substance or that combination of active substances.\n6. Marketing authorisation holders shall be allowed to submit requests to the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use or the coordination group, as appropriate, to determine Union reference dates or to change the frequency of submission periodic safety update reports on one of the following grounds:\n(a)\nfor reasons relating to public health;\n(b)\nin order to avoid a duplication of the assessment;\n(c)\nin order to achieve international harmonisation.\nSuch requests shall be submitted in writing and shall be duly justified. The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use or the coordination group shall, following the consultation with the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, shall either approve or deny such requests. Any change in the dates or the frequency of submission of periodic safety update reports shall be made public by the Agency. The marketing authorisation holders shall accordingly submit an application for a variation of the marketing authorisation.\n7. The Agency shall make public a list of Union reference dates and frequency of submission of periodic safety update reports by means of the European medicines web-portal.\nAny change to the dates of submission and frequency of periodic safety update reports specified in the marketing authorisation as a result of the application of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 shall take effect 6 months after the date of such publication.\nArticle 107d\nThe national competent authorities shall assess periodic safety update reports to determine whether there are new risks or whether risks have changed or whether there are changes to the risk-benefit balance of medicinal products.\nArticle 107e\n1. A single assessment of periodic safety update reports shall be performed for medicinal products authorised in more than one Member State and, in the cases of paragraphs 4 to 6 of Article 107c, for all medicinal products containing the same active substance or the same combination of active substances and for which a Union reference date and frequency of periodic safety update reports has been established.\nThe single assessment shall be conducted by either of the following:\n(a)\na Member State appointed by the coordination group where none of the marketing authorisations concerned has been granted in accordance with the centralised procedure provided for in Chapter 1 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004; or\n(b)\na rapporteur appointed by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, where at least one of the marketing authorisations concerned has been granted in accordance with the centralised procedure provided for in Chapter 1 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\nWhen selecting the Member State in accordance with point (a) of the second subparagraph, the coordination group shall take into account whether any Member State is acting as a reference Member State, in accordance with Article 28(1).\n2. The Member State or rapporteur, as appropriate, shall prepare an assessment report within 60 days of receipt of the periodic safety update report and send it to the Agency and to the Member States concerned. The Agency shall send the report to the marketing authorisation holder.\nWithin 30 days of receipt of the assessment report, the Member States and the marketing authorisation holder may submit comments to the Agency and to the rapporteur or Member State.\n3. Following the receipt of the comments referred to in paragraph 2, the rapporteur or Member State shall within 15 days update the assessment report taking into account any comments submitted, and forward it to the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee. The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee shall adopt the assessment report with or without further changes at its next meeting and issue a recommendation. The recommendation shall mention the divergent positions with the grounds on which they are based. The Agency shall include the adopted assessment report and the recommendation in the repository set up under Article 25a of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and forward both to the marketing authorisation holder.\nArticle 107f\nFollowing the assessment of periodic safety update reports, the national competent authorities shall consider whether any action concerning the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product concerned is necessary.\nThey shall maintain, vary, suspend or revoke the marketing authorisation as appropriate.\nArticle 107g\n1. In the case of a single assessment of periodic safety update reports that recommends any action concerning more than one marketing authorisation in accordance with Article 107e(1) which does not include any marketing authorisation granted in accordance with the centralised procedure provided for in Chapter 1 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the coordination group shall, within 30 days of receipt of the report of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, consider the report and reach a position on the maintenance, variation, suspension or revocation of the marketing authorisations concerned, including a timetable for the implementation of the agreed position.\n2. If, within the coordination group, the Member States represented reach agreement on the action to be taken by consensus, the chairman shall record the agreement and send it to the marketing authorisation holder and the Member States. The Member States shall adopt necessary measures to maintain, vary, suspend or revoke the marketing authorisations concerned in accordance with the timetable for implementation determined in the agreement.\nIn the event of a variation, the marketing authorisation holder shall submit to the national competent authorities an appropriate application for a modification, including an updated summary of product characteristics and package leaflet within the determined timetable for implementation.\nIf an agreement by consensus cannot be reached, the position of the majority of the Member States represented within the coordination group shall be forwarded to the Commission which shall apply the procedure laid down in Articles 33 and 34.\nWhere the agreement reached by the Member States represented within the coordination group or the position of the majority of Member States differs from the recommendation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, the coordination group shall attach to the agreement or the majority position a detailed explanation of the scientific grounds for the differences together with the recommendation.\n3. In the case of a single assessment of periodic safety update reports that recommends any action concerning more than one marketing authorisation in accordance with Article 107e(1) which includes at least one marketing authorisation granted in accordance with the centralised procedure provided for in Chapter 1 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use shall, within 30 days of receipt of the report of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, consider the report and adopt an opinion on the maintenance, variation, suspension or revocation of the marketing authorisations concerned, including a timetable for the implementation of the opinion.\nWhere this opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use differs from the recommendation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use shall attach to its opinion a detailed explanation of the scientific grounds for the differences together with the recommendation.\n4. On the basis of the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use referred to in paragraph 3, the Commission shall:\n(a)\nadopt a decision addressed to the Member States concerning the measures to be taken in respect of marketing authorisations granted by the Member States and concerned by the procedure provided for in this section; and\n(b)\nwhere the opinion states that regulatory action concerning the marketing authorisation is necessary, adopt a decision to vary, suspend or revoke the marketing authorisations granted in accordance with the centralised procedure provided for in Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and concerned by the procedure provided for in this section.\nArticles 33 and 34 of this Directive shall apply to the adoption of the decision referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph and to its implementation by the Member States.\nArticle 10 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 shall apply to the decision referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph. Where the Commission adopts such decision, it may also adopt a decision addressed to the Member States pursuant to Article 127a of this Directive.\nSection 3\nSignal detection\nArticle 107h\n1. Regarding medicinal products authorised in accordance with this Directive, national competent authorities in collaboration with the Agency, shall take the following measures:\n(a)\nmonitor the outcome of risk minimisation measures contained in risk management plans and of the conditions referred to in Articles 21a, 22 or 22a;\n(b)\nassess updates to the risk management system;\n(c)\nmonitor the data in the Eudravigilance database to determine whether there are new risks or whether risks have changed and whether those risks impact on the risk-benefit balance.\n2. The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee shall perform the initial analysis and prioritisation of signals of new risks or risks that have changed or changes to the risk-benefit balance. Where it considers that follow-up action may be necessary, the assessment of those signals and agreement on any subsequent action concerning the marketing authorisation shall be conducted in a timescale commensurate with the extent and seriousness of the issue.\n3. The Agency and national competent authorities and the marketing authorisation holder shall inform each other in the event of new risks or risks that have changed or changes to the risk-benefit balance being detected.\nMember States shall ensure that marketing authorisation holders inform the Agency and national competent authorities in the event of new risks or risks that have changed or when changes to the risk-benefit balance have been detected.\nSection 4\nUrgent Union procedure\nArticle 107i\n1. A Member State or the Commission, as appropriate, shall initiate the procedure provided for in this section, by informing the other Member States, the Agency and the Commission when urgent action is considered necessary, as a result of the evaluation of data resulting from pharmacovigilance activities, in any of the following cases:\n(a)\nit considers suspending or revoking a marketing authorisation;\n(b)\nit considers prohibiting the supply of a medicinal product;\n(c)\nit considers refusing the renewal of a marketing authorisation;\n(d)\nit is informed by the marketing authorisation holder that, on the basis of safety concerns, he has interrupted the placing on the market of a medicinal product or has taken action to have a marketing authorisation withdrawn, or that he intends to do so;\n(e)\nit considers that a new contraindication, a reduction in the recommended dose, or a restriction to the indications is necessary.\nThe Agency shall verify whether the safety concern relates to medicinal products other than the one covered by the information, or whether it is common to all products belonging to the same range or therapeutic class.\nWhere the medicinal product involved is authorised in more than one Member State, the Agency shall without undue delay inform the initiator of the procedure of the outcome of this verification, and the procedures laid down in Articles 107j and 107k shall apply. Otherwise, the safety concern shall be addressed by the Member State concerned. The Agency or the Member State, as applicable, shall make information that the procedure has been initiated available to marketing authorisation holders.\n2. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, and Articles 107j and 107k, a Member State may, where urgent action is necessary to protect public health, suspend the marketing authorisation and prohibit the use of the medicinal product concerned on its territory until a definitive decision is adopted. It shall inform the Commission, the Agency and the other Member States no later than the following working day of the reasons for its action.\n3. At any stage of the procedure laid down in Articles 107j to 107k, the Commission may request Member States in which the medicinal product is authorised to take temporary measures immediately.\nWhere the scope of the procedure, as determined in accordance with paragraph 1, includes medicinal products authorised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the Commission may, at any stage of the procedure initiated under this section, take temporary measures immediately in relation to those marketing authorisations.\n4. The information referred to in this Article may relate to individual medicinal products or to a range of medicinal products or a therapeutic class.\nIf the Agency identifies that the safety concern relates to more medicinal products than those which are covered by the information or that it is common to all medicinal products belonging to the same range or therapeutic class, it shall extend the scope of the procedure accordingly.\nWhere the scope of the procedure initiated under this Article concerns a range of medicinal products or therapeutic class, medicinal products authorised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 which belong to that range or class shall also be included in the procedure.\n5. At the time of the information referred to in paragraph 1, the Member State shall make available to the Agency all relevant scientific information that it has at its disposal and any assessment by the Member State.\nArticle 107j\n1. Following receipt of the information referred to in Article 107i(1), the Agency shall publicly announce the initiation of the procedure by means of the European medicines web-portal. In parallel, Member States may publicly announce the initiation on their national medicines web-portals.\nThe announcement shall specify the matter submitted to the Agency in accordance with Article 107i, and the medicinal products and, where applicable, the active substances concerned. It shall contain information on the right of the marketing authorisation holders, healthcare professionals and the public to submit to the Agency information relevant to the procedure and it shall state how such information may be submitted.\n2. The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee shall assess the matter which has been submitted to the Agency in accordance with Article 107i. The rapporteur shall closely collaborate with the rapporteur appointed by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and the Reference Member State for the medicinal products concerned.\nFor the purposes of that assessment, the marketing authorisation holder may submit comments in writing.\nWhere the urgency of the matter permits, the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee may hold public hearings, where it considers that this is appropriate on justified grounds particularly with regard to the extent and seriousness of the safety concern. The hearings shall be held in accordance with the modalities specified by the Agency and shall be announced by means of the European medicines web-portal. The announcement shall specify the modalities of participation.\nIn the public hearing, due regard shall be given to the therapeutic effect of the medicinal product.\nThe Agency shall, in consultation with the parties concerned, draw up Rules of Procedure on the organisation and conduct of public hearings, in accordance with Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\nWhere a marketing authorisation holder or another person intending to submit information has confidential data relevant to the subject matter of the procedure, he may request permission to present that data to the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee in a non-public hearing.\n3. Within 60 days of the information being submitted, the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee shall make a recommendation, stating the reasons on which it is based, having due regard to the therapeutic effect of the medicinal product. The recommendation shall mention the divergent positions and the grounds on which they are based. In the case of urgency, and on the basis of a proposal by its chairman, the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee may agree to a shorter deadline. The recommendation shall include any or a combination of the following conclusions:\n(a)\nno further evaluation or action is required at Union level;\n(b)\nthe marketing authorisation holder should conduct further evaluation of data together with the follow-up of the results of that evaluation;\n(c)\nthe marketing authorisation holder should sponsor a post-authorisation safety study together with the follow up evaluation of the results of that study;\n(d)\nthe Member States or marketing authorisation holder should implement risk minimisation measures;\n(e)\nthe marketing authorisation should be suspended, revoked or not renewed;\n(f)\nthe marketing authorisation should be varied.\nFor the purposes of point (d) of the first subparagraph, the recommendation shall specify the risk minimisation measures recommended and any conditions or restrictions to which the marketing authorisation should be made subject.\nWhere, in the cases referred to in point (f) of the first subparagraph, it is recommended to change or add information in the summary of product characteristics or the labelling or package leaflet, the recommendation shall suggest the wording of such changed or added information and where in the summary of the product characteristics, labelling or package leaflet such wording should be placed.\nArticle 107k\n1. Where the scope of the procedure, as determined in accordance with Article 107i(4), does not include any marketing authorisation granted in accordance with the centralised procedure provided for in Chapter 1 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the coordination group shall, within 30 days of receipt of the recommendation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, consider the recommendation and reach a position on the maintenance, variation, suspension, revocation or refusal of the renewal of the marketing authorisation concerned, including a timetable for the implementation of the agreed position. Where an urgent adoption of the position is necessary, and on the basis of a proposal by its chairman, the coordination group may agree to a shorter deadline.\n2. If, within the coordination group, the Member States represented reach agreement on the action to be taken by consensus, the chairman shall record the agreement and send it to the marketing authorisation holder and the Member States. The Member States shall adopt necessary measures to maintain, vary, suspend, revoke or refuse renewal of the marketing authorisation concerned in accordance with the implementation timetable determined in the agreement.\nIn the event that a variation is agreed upon, the marketing authorisation holder shall submit to the national competent authorities an appropriate application for a variation, including an updated summary of product characteristics and package leaflet within the determined timetable for implementation.\nIf an agreement by consensus cannot be reached, the position of the majority of the Member States represented within the coordination group shall be forwarded to the Commission which shall apply the procedure laid down in Articles 33 and 34. However, by way of derogation from Article 34(1), the procedure referred to in Article 121(2) shall apply.\nWhere the agreement reached by the Member States represented within the coordination group or the position of the majority of the Member States represented within the coordination group differs from the recommendation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, the coordination group shall attach to the agreement or majority position a detailed explanation of the scientific grounds for the differences together with the recommendation.\n3. Where the scope of the procedure, as determined in accordance with Article 107i(4), includes at least one marketing authorisation granted in accordance with the centralised procedure provided for in Chapter 1 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use shall, within 30 days of receipt of the recommendation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, consider the recommendation and adopt an opinion on the maintenance, variation, suspension, revocation or refusal of the renewal of the marketing authorisations concerned. Where an urgent adoption of the opinion is necessary, and on the basis of a proposal by its chairman, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use may agree to a shorter deadline.\nWhere the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use differs from the recommendation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use shall attach to its opinion a detailed explanation of the scientific grounds for the differences together with the recommendation.\n4. On the basis of the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use referred to in paragraph 3, the Commission shall:\n(a)\nadopt a decision addressed to the Member States concerning the measures to be taken in respect of marketing authorisations that are granted by the Member States and that are subject to the procedure provided for in this section; and\n(b)\nwhere the opinion is that regulatory action is necessary, adopt a decision to vary, suspend, revoke or refuse renewal of the marketing authorisations granted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and subject to the procedure provided for in this section.\nArticles 33 and 34 of this Directive shall apply to the adoption of the decision referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph and to its implementation by the Member States. However, by way of derogation from Article 34(1) of this Directive, the procedure referred to in Article 121(2) thereof shall apply.\nArticle 10 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 shall apply to the decision referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph. However, by way of derogation from Article 10(2) of that Regulation, the procedure referred to in Article 87(2) thereof shall apply. Where the Commission adopts such decision, it may also adopt a decision addressed to the Member States pursuant to Article 127a of this Directive.\nSection 5\nPublication of assessments\nArticle 107l\nThe Agency shall make public the final assessment conclusions, recommendations, opinions and decisions referred to in Articles 107b to 107k by means of the European medicines web-portal.\nCHAPTER 4\nSupervision of post-authorisation safety studies\nArticle 107m\n1. This Chapter applies to non-interventional post-authorisation safety studies which are initiated, managed or financed by the marketing authorisation holder voluntarily or pursuant to obligations imposed in accordance with Articles 21a or 22a, and which involve the collection of safety data from patients or healthcare professionals.\n2. This Chapter is without prejudice to national and Union requirements for ensuring the well-being and rights of participants in non-interventional post-authorisation safety studies.\n3. The studies shall not be performed where the act of conducting the study promotes the use of a medicinal product.\n4. Payments to healthcare professionals for participating in non-interventional post-authorisation safety studies shall be restricted to the compensation for time and expenses incurred.\n5. The national competent authority may require the marketing authorisation holder to submit the protocol and the progress reports to the competent authorities of the Member States in which the study is conducted.\n6. The marketing authorisation holder shall send the final report to the competent authorities of the Member States in which the study was conducted within 12 months of the end of data collection.\n7. While a study is being conducted, the marketing authorisation holder shall monitor the data generated and consider its implications for the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product concerned.\nAny new information which might influence the evaluation of the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product shall be communicated to the competent authorities of the Member State in which the medicinal product has been authorised in accordance with Article 23.\nThe obligation laid down in the second subparagraph is without prejudice to the information on the results of studies that the marketing authorisation holder shall make available by means of the periodic safety update reports as laid down in Article 107b.\n8. Articles 107n to 107q shall apply exclusively to studies referred to in paragraph 1 which are conducted pursuant to an obligation imposed in accordance with Articles 21a or 22a.\nArticle 107n\n1. Before a study is conducted, the marketing authorisation holder shall submit a draft protocol to the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, except for studies to be conducted in only one Member State that requests the study according to Article 22a. For such studies, the marketing authorisation holder shall submit a draft protocol to the national competent authority of the Member State in which the study is conducted.\n2. Within 60 days of the submission of the draft protocol the national competent authority or the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, as appropriate, shall issue:\n(a)\na letter endorsing the draft protocol;\n(b)\na letter of objection, which shall set out in detail the grounds for the objection, in any of the following cases:\n(i)\nit considers that the conduct of the study promotes the use of a medicinal product;\n(ii)\nit considers that the design of the study does not fulfil the study objectives; or\n(c)\na letter notifying the marketing authorisation holder that the study is a clinical trial falling under the scope of Directive 2001/20/EC.\n3. The study may commence only when the written endorsement from the national competent authority or the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, as appropriate, has been issued.\nWhere a letter of endorsement as referred to in paragraph 2(a) has been issued, the marketing authorisation holder shall forward the protocol to the competent authorities of the Member States in which the study is to be conducted and may thereafter commence the study according to the endorsed protocol.\nArticle 107o\nAfter a study has been commenced, any substantial amendments to the protocol shall be submitted, before their implementation, to the national competent authority or to the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, as appropriate. The national competent authority or the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, as appropriate, shall assess the amendments and inform the marketing authorisation holder of its endorsement or objection. Where applicable, the marketing authorisation holder shall inform Member States in which the study is conducted.\nArticle 107p\n1. Upon completion of the study, a final study report shall be submitted to the national competent authority or the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee within 12 months of the end of data collection unless a written waiver has been granted by the national competent authority or the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, as appropriate.\n2. The marketing authorisation holder shall evaluate whether the results of the study have an impact on the marketing authorisation and shall, if necessary, submit to the national competent authorities an application to vary the marketing authorisation.\n3. Together with the final study report, the marketing authorisation holder shall electronically submit an abstract of the study results to the national competent authority or the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee.\nArticle 107q\n1. Based on the results of the study and after consultation of the marketing authorisation holder, the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee may make recommendations concerning the marketing authorisation, stating the reasons on which they are based. The recommendations shall mention the divergent positions and the grounds on which they are based.\n2. When recommendations for the variation, suspension or revocation of the marketing authorisation are made for a medicinal product authorised by the Member States pursuant to this Directive, the Member States represented within the coordination group shall agree a position on the matter taking into account the recommendation referred to in paragraph 1 and including a timetable for the implementation of the agreed position.\nIf, within the coordination group, the Member States represented reach agreement on the action to be taken by consensus, the chairman shall record the agreement and send it to the marketing authorisation holder and the Member States. The Member States shall adopt necessary measures to vary, suspend or revoke the marketing authorisation concerned in accordance with the implementation timetable determined in the agreement.\nIn the event that a variation is agreed upon, the marketing authorisation holder shall submit to the national competent authorities an appropriate application for a variation, including an updated summary of product characteristics and package leaflet within the determined timetable for implementation.\nThe agreement shall be made public on the European medicines web-portal established in accordance with Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\nIf an agreement by consensus cannot be reached, the position of the majority of the Member States represented within the coordination group shall be forwarded to the Commission, which shall apply the procedure laid down in Articles 33 and 34.\nWhere the agreement reached by the Member States represented within the coordination group or the position of the majority of Member States differs from the recommendation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, the coordination group shall attach to the agreement or majority position a detailed explanation of the scientific grounds for the differences together with the recommendation.\nCHAPTER 5\nImplementation, Delegation and Guidance\nArticle 108\nIn order to harmonise the performance of the pharmacovigilance activities provided for in this Directive, the Commission shall adopt implementing measures in the following areas for which pharmacovigilance activities are provided for in Article 8(3), and in Articles 101, 104, 104a, 107, 107a, 107b, 107h, 107n and 107p:\n(a)\nthe content and maintenance of the pharmacovigilance system master file kept by the marketing authorisation holder;\n(b)\nthe minimum requirements for the quality system for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities by the national competent authorities and the marketing authorisation holder;\n(c)\nthe use of internationally agreed terminology, formats and standards for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities;\n(d)\nthe minimum requirements for the monitoring of data in the Eudravigilance database to determine whether there are new risks or whether risks have changed;\n(e)\nthe format and content of the electronic transmission of suspected adverse reactions by Member States and the marketing authorisation holder;\n(f)\nthe format and content of electronic periodic safety update reports and risk management plans;\n(g)\nthe format of protocols, abstracts and final study reports for the post-authorisation safety studies.\nThose measures shall take account of the work on international harmonisation carried out in the area of pharmacovigilance and shall, where necessary, be revised to take account of technical and scientific progress. Those measures shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 121(2).\nArticle 108a\nIn order to facilitate the performance of pharmacovigilance activities within the Union, the Agency shall, in cooperation with competent authorities and other interested parties, draw up:\n(a)\nguidance on good pharmacovigilance practices for both competent authorities and marketing authorisation holders;\n(b)\nscientific guidance on post-authorisation efficacy studies.\nArticle 108b\nThe Commission shall make public a report on the performance of pharmacovigilance tasks by the Member States on 21 July 2015 at the latest and then every 3 years thereafter.\u2019.\n21.\nArticle 111 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nthe first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The competent authority of the Member State concerned shall, in cooperation with the Agency, ensure that the legal requirements governing medicinal products are complied with, by means of inspections, if necessary unannounced, and, where appropriate, by asking an Official Medicines Control Laboratory or a laboratory designated for that purpose to carry out tests on samples. This cooperation shall consist in sharing information with the Agency on both inspections that are planned and that have been conducted. Member States and the Agency shall cooperate in the coordination of inspections in third countries.\u2019;\n(ii)\nin the fifth subparagraph, point (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\ninspect the premises, records, documents and pharmacovigilance system master file of the marketing authorisation holder or any firms employed by the marketing authorisation holder to perform the activities described in Title IX.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. After every inspection referred to in paragraph 1, the competent authority shall report on whether the inspected entity complies with the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice and good distribution practices referred to in Articles 47 and 84, or whether the marketing authorisation holder complies with the requirements laid down in Title IX.\nThe competent authority which carried out the inspection shall communicate the content of those reports to the inspected entity.\nBefore adopting the report, the competent authority shall give the inspected entity concerned the opportunity to submit comments.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. If the outcome of the inspection as referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 or the outcome of an inspection of a distributor of medicinal products or active substances or a manufacturer of excipients used as starting materials is that the inspected entity does not comply with the legal requirements and/or the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice or good distribution practices as provided for by Union law, the information shall be entered in the Union database as provided for in paragraph 6.\u2019;\n(d)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20188. If the outcome of the inspection referred to in paragraph 1(d) is that the marketing authorisation holder does not comply with the pharmacovigilance system as described in the pharmacovigilance system master file and with Title IX, the competent authority of the Member State concerned shall bring the deficiencies to the attention of the marketing authorisation holder and give him the opportunity to submit comments.\nIn such case the Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States, the Agency and the Commission.\nWhere appropriate, the Member State concerned shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a marketing authorisation holder is subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties.\u2019.\n22.\nArticle 116 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 116\nThe competent authorities shall suspend, revoke or vary a marketing authorisation if the view is taken that the medicinal product is harmful or that it lacks therapeutic efficacy, or that the risk-benefit balance is not favourable, or that its qualitative and quantitative composition is not as declared. Therapeutic efficacy shall be considered to be lacking when it is concluded that therapeutic results cannot be obtained from the medicinal product.\nA marketing authorisation may also be suspended, revoked or varied where the particulars supporting the application as provided for in Articles 8, 10 or 11 are incorrect or have not been amended in accordance with Article 23, or where any conditions referred to in Articles 21a, 22 or 22a have not been fulfilled or where the controls referred to in Article 112 have not been carried out.\u2019.\n23.\nArticle 117 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(i)\npoint (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe medicinal product is harmful; or\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nthe risk-benefit balance is not favourable; or\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. The competent authority may, for a medicinal product for which the supply has been prohibited or which has been withdrawn from the market in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2, in exceptional circumstances during a transitional period allow the supply of the medicinal product to patients who are already being treated with the medicinal product.\u2019.\n24.\nThe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 121a\n1. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 22b shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 20 January 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated powers not later than 6 months before the end of the 5 year period. The delegation of powers shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 121b.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 121b and 121c.\nArticle 121b\n1. The delegation of powers referred to in Article 22b may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of powers shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 121c\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 2 months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 2 months.\n2. If, on expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to the delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\u2019.\n25.\nArticle 122(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Upon reasoned request, Member States shall send electronically the reports referred to in Article 111(3) to the competent authorities of another Member State or to the Agency.\u2019.\n26.\nArticle 123(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Agency shall make public annually a list of the medicinal products for which marketing authorisations have been refused, revoked or suspended, whose supply has been prohibited or which have been withdrawn from the market.\u2019.\n27.\nIn Article 126a, paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20182. When a Member State avails itself of this possibility, it shall adopt the necessary measures in order to ensure that the requirements of this Directive are complied with, in particular those referred to in Titles V, VI, VIII, IX and XI. Member States may decide that Article 63(1) and (2) shall not apply to medicinal products authorised under paragraph 1.\n3. Before granting such a marketing authorisation, a Member State:\n(a)\nshall notify the marketing authorisation holder, in the Member State in which the medicinal product concerned is authorised, of the proposal to grant a marketing authorisation under this Article in respect of the medicinal product concerned.\n(b)\nmay request the competent authority in that Member State to submit copies of the assessment report referred to in Article 21(4) and of the marketing authorisation in force in respect of the medicinal product concerned. If so requested, the competent authority in that Member State shall supply, within 30 days of receipt of the request, a copy of the assessment report and the marketing authorisation in respect of the medicinal product concerned.\u2019.\n28.\nArticle 127a is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 127a\nWhen a medicinal product is to be authorised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use in its opinion refers to recommended conditions or restrictions as provided for in points (c), (ca), (cb) or (cc) of Article 9(4) thereof, the Commission may adopt a decision addressed to the Member States, in accordance with Articles 33 and 34 of this Directive, for the implementation of those conditions or restrictions.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nTransitional provisions\n1. With regard to the obligation on the part of the marketing authorisation holder to maintain and make available on request a pharmacovigilance system master file in respect of one or more medicinal products provided for in Article 104(3)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC as amended by this Directive, the Member States shall ensure that that obligation applies to marketing authorisations granted before 21 July 2011 as from either:\na)\nthe date on which those marketing authorisations are renewed; or\nb)\nthe expiry of a period of 3 years starting from 21 July 2011,\nwhichever is earlier.\n2. The Member States shall ensure that the procedure provided for in Articles 107m to 107q of Directive 2001/83/EC as amended by this Directive applies only to studies which have commenced after 21 July 2011.\n3. With regard to the obligation on the part of the marketing authorisation holder to submit information on suspected adverse reactions electronically to the Eudravigilance database, provided for in Article 107(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC as amended by this Directive, the Member States shall ensure that this obligation applies as from 6 months after the functionalities of the database are established and have been announced by the Agency.\n4. Until the Agency can ensure the functionalities of the Eudravigilance database as specified in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010 (14) of the European Parliament and of the Council, marketing authorisation holders shall report, within 15 days of the day on which the holder concerned gained knowledge of the event, all serious suspected adverse reactions that occur in the Union, to the competent authority of the Member State on whose territory the incident occurred and shall report all serious suspected adverse reactions that occur on the territory of a third country to the Agency and, if requested, to the competent authorities of the Member States in which the medicinal product is authorised.\n5. Until the Agency can ensure the functionalities of the Eudravigilance database as specified in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010, the competent authority of a Member State may require marketing authorisation holders to report to it all non-serious suspected adverse reactions that occur on the territory of that Member State, within 90 days of the day on which the marketing authorisation holder concerned gained knowledge of the event.\n6. During this period, Member States shall ensure that the reports referred to in paragraph 4 that relate to events that occurred in their territory are promptly made available to the Eudravigilance database, and in any case within 15 days of the notification of suspected serious adverse reactions.\n7. With regard to the obligation on the part of the marketing authorisation holder to submit periodic safety update reports to the Agency as provided for in Article 107b(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC as amended by this Directive, the national competent authorities shall ensure that this obligation applies as from 12 months after the functionalities of the repository have been established and have been announced by the Agency.\nUntil the Agency can ensure the functionalities agreed for the repository of the periodic safety update reports, the marketing authorisation holders shall submit the periodic safety reports to all Member States in which the medicinal product has been authorised.\nArticle 3\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 21 July 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 21 July 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 5\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["64", "37", "86", "41", "24", "63", "55", "83", "58", "69", "43", "35", "98", "62", "3", "44", "79", "12", "18", "90", "11", "57", "89", "10", "80", "29", "5", "85", "9", "87", "No Label", "25", "38"], "gold": ["25", "38"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 743/2012\nof 9 August 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Yancheng Long Xia) (PGI)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, China\u2019s application to register the name \u2018\n\u2019 (Yancheng Long Xia) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 August 2012.", "references": ["2", "65", "19", "17", "30", "11", "43", "58", "98", "71", "6", "74", "0", "54", "27", "93", "51", "42", "90", "94", "34", "20", "31", "3", "40", "7", "10", "64", "81", "37", "No Label", "24", "25", "67", "95", "96"], "gold": ["24", "25", "67", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 675/2011\nof 13 July 2011\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for import licences lodged from 1 July 2011 to 8 July 2011 under subquota III in the context of the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 for common wheat of a quality other than high quality\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 (3) opens an overall annual import tariff quota of 2 989 240 tonnes of common wheat of a quality other than high quality. That quota is divided into three subquotas.\n(2)\nArticle 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 divides subquota III (order number 09.4125) into four quarterly subperiods and has fixed the quantity at 594 597 tonnes for subperiod 3, for the period from 1 July to 30 September 2011.\n(3)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EC) No 632/2011 (4) derogates from Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 for 2011 by merging subperiods 3 and 4 of subquota III (order number 09.4125) and fixes the quantity at 1 189 193 tonnes for subperiod 3, which runs from 1 July to 31 December 2011.\n(4)\nThe notification made under Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 shows that the applications lodged between 1 July 2011 at 13:00 and 8 July 2011 at 13:00 (Brussels time), in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of that Regulation, exceed the quantities available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined and the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities applied for should be fixed.\n(5)\nImport licences should no longer be issued under subquota III as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 for the current quota period.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure for issuing import licences, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Each import licence application in respect of subquota III as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 and lodged between 1 July 2011 at 13:00 and 8 July 2011 at 13:00 (Brussels time) shall give rise to the issue of a licence for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 50,926778 %.\n2. The issue of licences for quantities applied for from 8 July 2011 at 13:00 (Brussels time) falling within subquota III as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 is hereby suspended for the current quota period.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2011.", "references": ["10", "31", "30", "1", "64", "46", "99", "80", "82", "59", "24", "44", "11", "81", "18", "79", "4", "5", "73", "45", "55", "94", "19", "66", "12", "29", "33", "72", "67", "84", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 March 2011\non the conclusion of a Protocol between the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland\n(2011/351/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 78(2)(e), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFollowing the authorisation given to the Commission on 27 February 2006, negotiations with the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein of a Protocol on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019) have been finalised.\n(2)\nIn accordance with the Decision of the Council of 28 February 2008, and subject to its conclusion at a later date, the Protocol was signed on behalf of the European Community, on 28 February 2008.\n(3)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nThe Protocol should be approved.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, these Member States are taking part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Protocol between the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland and the declarations annexed thereto are approved on behalf of the European Union.\nThe text of the Protocol, its Final Act and related Declarations are attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to deposit on behalf of the Union the instrument of approval provided for in Article 8(1) of the Protocol, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound, and to make the following notification:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d in the Protocol as well as in the Agreement are, where appropriate, to be understood as to \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["57", "27", "35", "47", "68", "62", "21", "54", "43", "88", "12", "6", "86", "69", "48", "92", "50", "46", "74", "64", "71", "38", "90", "51", "15", "73", "61", "20", "40", "45", "No Label", "3", "9", "13", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "13", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 139/2011\nof 16 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 February 2011.", "references": ["17", "5", "74", "52", "58", "48", "27", "69", "97", "70", "82", "38", "83", "85", "11", "94", "93", "55", "39", "91", "30", "59", "92", "21", "2", "7", "24", "41", "18", "78", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1361/2011\nof 19 December 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Terre Aurunche (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy's application to register the name \u2018Terre Aurunche\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["94", "98", "16", "93", "11", "23", "12", "95", "52", "47", "68", "34", "9", "0", "83", "21", "62", "82", "74", "40", "8", "90", "72", "73", "99", "58", "41", "29", "19", "50", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 404/2011\nof 8 April 2011\nlaying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Articles 6(5), 7(5), 8(1), 9(5), 14(10), 15(9), 16(2), 21(7), 22(7), 23(5), 24(8) and 25(2), Article 32, Articles 37(4), 40(6), 55(5), 58(9), 60(7), Article 61, and Articles 64(2), 72(5), 73(9), 74(6), 75(2), 76(4), 78(2), 79(7), 92(5), 103(8), 105(6), 106(4), 107(4), 111(3), 116(6), 117(4) and 118(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1224/2009 (hereafter referred to as \u2018the Control Regulation\u2019) provides for the adoption of detailed rules and measures to implement certain provisions it sets out.\n(2)\nWith a view to ensuring a coherent application of these detailed rules the establishment of certain definitions is necessary.\n(3)\nArticle 6(1) of the Control Regulation provides that a EU fishing vessel may only be used for the commercial exploitation of living aquatic resources if it has a valid fishing licence. Article 7(1) of the Control Regulation provides that an EU fishing vessel shall only be authorised to carry out specific fishing activities in so far as they are indicated in a valid fishing authorisation. It is appropriate to establish common rules for the issuance and management of such fishing licences and fishing authorisations to ensure a common standard of information contained therein.\n(4)\nArticle 8(1) of the Control Regulation provides that a master of a fishing vessel has to respect conditions and restrictions relating to the marking and identification of fishing vessels and their gear. As such conditions and restrictions apply to EU waters it is necessary to establish them at the level of the European Union.\n(5)\nAccording to Article 9(1) of the Control Regulation, Member States shall operate a satellite-based Vessel Monitoring System for the effective monitoring of fishing activities of their fishing vessels wherever they may be and of fishing activities in their waters. It is appropriate to establish common specifications at the level of the European Union for such a system. Such specifications should set out in particular the characteristics of satellite tracking devices, details on the transmission of position data and rules in the case of a technical failure or non-functioning of satellite tracking devices.\n(6)\nArticle 14(1) of the Control Regulation provides that masters of EU fishing vessels of 10 metres length overall or more have to keep a fishing logbook of their operations. It is necessary to determine the information that has to be recorded in the fishing logbooks and their format.\n(7)\nArticle 14(7) of the Control Regulation provides that masters of EU fishing vessels have to use conversion factors established at EU level for converting stored or processed fish weight into live fish weight. It is therefore necessary to establish such conversion factors.\n(8)\nArticle 15(1) of the Control Regulation provides that masters of EU fishing vessels of 12 metres length overall or more have to record logbook information by electronic means. It is appropriate to establish the requirements for the electronic completion and transmission of this information and to specify their format.\n(9)\nArticles 21(1) and 23(1) of the Control Regulation provide that masters of EU fishing vessels of 10 metres length overall and more have to complete and submit transhipment and landing declarations. It is appropriate to determine the information that has to be contained in these declarations and to specify the details of their submission.\n(10)\nArticles 22(1) and 24(1) of the Control Regulation provides for the electronic completion and transmission of transhipment and landing declarations by electronic means. It is appropriate to establish the requirements for the electronic completion and transmission of these data and to specify their format.\n(11)\nArticles 16(1) and 25(1) of the Control Regulation provide that every Member State has to monitor on the basis of sampling the activities of fishing vessels which are not subject to logbook requirements and landing declarations. With a view to ensure common standards of such samplings detailed rules, should be established at the level of the European Union.\n(12)\nArticle 37 of the Control Regulation provides that necessary corrective actions are to be taken by the Commission in case the Commission has prohibited fishing because of the alleged exhaustion of the fishing opportunities available to a Member State or group of Member States, or to the European Union and it transpires that a Member State has not in fact exhausted its fishing opportunities. It is necessary to adopt adequate rules for the reallocation of such fishing opportunities, which take into account situations where a total allowable catch (TAC) for the EU is available or not, or where due to the annual setting of fishing opportunities circumstances do not permit such reallocation.\n(13)\nArticles 39 to 41 of the Control Regulation foresee rules to ensure that the engine power of fishing vessels is not exceeded. It is necessary to establish the technical rules of the relevant certifications and verifications to be done in this field.\n(14)\nArticle 55 of the Control Regulation provides that Member States should ensure that recreational fisheries are conducted in a manner compatible with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy. For stocks under a recovery plan Member States should collect catch data of recreational fisheries. Where such fisheries have a significant impact on the resources, specific management measures may be decided by the Council. It is appropriate to lay down detailed rules for the establishment of sampling plans in order to allow Member States to monitor the catches of stocks subject to recovery plans by recreational fisheries practised from their vessels, in waters subject to their sovereignty or jurisdiction.\n(15)\nIn order to establish a comprehensive control regime the whole chain of production and marketing should be covered by such a regime. Article 58 of the Control Regulation provides for a coherent traceability system to ensure that all lots of fisheries and aquaculture products are traceable at all stages of production, processing and distribution, from catching or harvesting to the retail stage. It is necessary to lay down common rules for identification procedures of the product concerned.\n(16)\nArticle 60 of the Control Regulation provides that all fishery products are to be weighed on systems approved by the competent authorities unless they have adopted a sampling plan approved by the Commission. It is necessary to establish common rules in all Member States for the weighing of fresh and frozen fisheries products, as well as for the weighing of transhipped fisheries products, and for the weighing of fisheries products after transport from the place of landing.\n(17)\nArticle 61 of the Control Regulation provides for the possibility for fisheries products to be weighed after transport under the condition that the Member State has adopted a control plan or, when the fisheries products are transported to another Member State, that the Member States concerned have adopted a common control programme that are approved by the Commission and based on a risk-based methodology adopted by the Commission. This risk-based methodology needs to be defined.\n(18)\nThe fishery on herring, mackerel and horse mackerel has some specific features. For this reason it is appropriate to establish special rules on weighing and related elements to take account of these specific features.\n(19)\nArticle 64 of the Control Regulation foresees that the detailed rules on the content of sales notes are to be adopted. It is pertinent to include such rules in this Regulation.\n(20)\nArticles 71 and 72 of the Control Regulation provide that Member States shall carry out surveillance in EU waters and take the necessary measures if a sighting does not correspond to the information available to them. It is necessary to lay down common rules regarding the content of a surveillance report, and its means of transmission.\n(21)\nArticle 73 of the Control Regulation provides the possibility for the Council to establish control observer schemes and establishes in general lines the profile and tasks of control observers on board fishing vessels. Therefore detailed rules on the deployment and duties of control observers should be drawn up.\n(22)\nAccording to Chapter I of Title VII of the Control Regulation, rules are to be established for the conduct of inspections in order to enhance a standardised approach to control activities carried out by Member States. Rules should be laid down for the conduct of officials in charge of inspections, and the obligations of Member States regarding the behaviour of their officials authorised to conduct such inspections. At the same time, the duties of operators during inspection should be clarified. It is also necessary to lay down common principles for inspection procedures at sea, in port, during transport, at market places, and regarding inspection reports and their transmission.\n(23)\nArticle 79 of the Control Regulation provides that Union inspectors may carry out inspections in EU waters and on EU fishing vessels outside EU waters. It is appropriate to draw up rules regarding the nomination of Union inspectors, their tasks and obligations, as well as the type of follow up to be given to their report.\n(24)\nArticle 92 of the Control Regulation provides for the establishment of a point system for serious infringements with the aim to ensure compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy and a level playing field in all EU waters. For this to be achieved, it is necessary to establish common rules at the level of the European Union for the application of such a point system, including a list of points to be attributed for each serious infringement.\n(25)\nIn accordance with Article 5(6) and Article 103 of the Control Regulation, the financial assistance in the framework of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (2) and Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea (3) is made conditional upon compliance by Member States with their obligations in the fields of fisheries conservation and control, the Commission having the possibility under certain conditions to suspend and cancel such financial assistance. It is necessary to lay down detailed rules for the application of these measures.\n(26)\nArticle 107 of the Control Regulation provides for deduction of quotas by the Commission in cases of failure by Member States to comply with the rules on stocks subject to multiannual plans which leads to a serious threat to the conservation of such stocks. Rules should therefore be drawn up regarding the extent of the deduction, taking into account the nature of the non-compliance, the extent of its impact, as well as the gravity of the threat to the resource.\n(27)\nChapter I of Title XII of the Control Regulation establishes rules on the handling of data recorded for the purpose of that Regulation, including the obligation for the Member States to set up a computerised database and a validation system and the provisions on accessing and exchanging such data. It is necessary to lay down common rules establishing procedures to process such data and to ensure access to it by the Commission and specifying the requirements for the exchange of data.\n(28)\nArticle 110 of the Control Regulation deals with the remote access of the Commission or the body designated by it to computer files containing the data recorded by fisheries monitoring centres of Member States. In order to ensure such an access it is pertinent to establish clear rules on the conditions and the procedures that should be respected.\n(29)\nArticles 114 to 116 of the Control Regulation provide that the Member States have to establish official websites. With a view to ensure their equal accessibility in all Member States it is pertinent to establish rules at EU level on these websites.\n(30)\nAccording to Article 117 of the Control Regulation a system of mutual assistance shall be established for ensuring the administrative cooperation among Member States and the Commission. Such administrative cooperation is essential to ensure that a level playing field in the EU is established and that illegal activities are properly investigated and sanctioned. Rules should therefore be drawn up for a systematic exchange of information either on request or spontaneously, and for the possibility to request enforcement measures and administrative notification by another Member State.\n(31)\nThe protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Member States is governed by Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (4). The protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Commission is governed by Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5), in particular as regards the requirements of confidentiality and security of processing, the transfer of personal data from the national systems of Member States to the Commission, the lawfulness of processing, and the rights of data subjects to information, access to and rectification of their personal data.\n(32)\nTo facilitate the implementation of the fisheries control system, detailed rules should be concentrated in one single Regulation. The following Commission Regulations should therefore be repealed:\n-\nRegulation (EEC) No 2807/83 (6) laying down detailed rules for recording information on Member States\u2019 catches of fish,\n-\nRegulation (EEC) No 3561/85 (7) concerning information about inspections of fishing activities carried out by national control authorities,\n-\nRegulation (EEC) No 493/87 (8) establishing detailed rules for remedying the prejudice caused on the halting of certain fisheries,\n-\nRegulation (EEC) No 1381/87 (9) establishing detailed rules concerning the marking and documentation of fishing vessels,\n-\nRegulation (EEC) No 1382/87 (10) establishing detailed rules concerning the inspection of fishing vessels,\n-\nRegulation (EC) No 2943/95 (11) setting out detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1627/94 laying down general provisions concerning special fishing permits,\n-\nRegulation (EC) No 1449/98 (12) laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 as regards effort reports,\n-\nRegulation (EC) No 356/2005 (13) laying down detailed rules for the marking and identification of passive fishing gear and beam trawls,\n-\nRegulation (EC) No 2244/2003 (14) laying down detailed provisions regarding satellite-based Vessel Monitoring Systems,\n-\nRegulation (EC) No 1281/2005 (15) of the management of fishing licences and the minimal information to be contained therein,\n-\nRegulation (EC) No 1042/2006 (16) laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Article 28(3) and (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy,\n-\nRegulation (EC) No 1542/2007 (17) on landing and weighing procedures for herring, mackerel and horse mackerel,\n-\nRegulation (EC) No 1077/2008 (18) laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1966/2006 on electronic recording and reporting of fishing activities and on means of remote sensing and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1566/2007, and\n-\nRegulation (EC) No 409/2009 (19) establishing Community conversion factors and presentation codes used to convert fish processed weight into fish weight, and amending Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2807/83.\n(33)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION\nTITLE I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nSCOPE\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down detailed rules for the application of the control system of the European Union as established by the Control Regulation.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018EU fishing vessel\u2019 means a vessel defined in Article 3(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (20);\n(2)\n\u2018EU waters\u2019 means waters defined in Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;\n(3)\n\u2018holder of a fishing licence\u2019 means a natural or legal person to whom a fishing licence as referred to Article 6 of the Control Regulation has been issued;\n(4)\n\u2018Union inspectors\u2019 means inspectors as defined in Article 4(7) of the Control Regulation;\n(5)\n\u2018fish aggregating device\u2019 means any equipment floating on the sea surface or anchored with the objective of attracting fish;\n(6)\n\u2018passive gear\u2019 means any fishing gear the catch operation of which does not require an active movement of the gear, including:\n(a)\ngillnets, entangling nets, trammel nets, and trap nets;\n(b)\ndrifting gillnets, and drifting trammel nets, any of which may be equipped with anchoring, floating and navigational gear;\n(c)\nlong lines, lines, pots and traps;\n(7)\n\u2018beam trawl\u2019 means any towed trawl in which the mouth of the trawl is held open by a beam or similar device, irrespectively of whether they are supported or not when dragged along the seabed;\n(8)\n\u2018vessel monitoring system\u2019 (VMS) as referred to in Article 9(1) of the Control Regulation means a satellite-based fishing vessel monitoring system providing to the fisheries authorities data at regular intervals on the location, course and speed of vessels;\n(9)\n\u2018satellite-tracking device\u2019 as referred to in Article 4(12) of the Control Regulation means a device installed on board of a fishing vessel that transmits position and related data automatically to the fisheries monitoring centre according to the legal requirements and that allows detection and identification of the fishing vessel at all times;\n(10)\n\u2018fishing trip\u2019 means any voyage of a fishing vessel during which fishing activities are conducted that starts at the moment when the fishing vessel leaves a port and ends on arrival in port;\n(11)\n\u2018fishing operation\u2019 means all activities in connection with searching for fish, the shooting, towing and hauling of active gears, setting, soaking, removing or resetting of passive gears and the removal of any catch from the gear, keep nets, or from a transport cage to fattening and farming cages;\n(12)\n\u2018electronic fishing logbook\u2019 means the record by computerised means of fishing operation details by the master of a fishing vessel transmitted to the Member State authorities;\n(13)\n\u2018product presentation\u2019 means a description of the processed state of the fisheries product or part thereof in accordance with the codes and descriptions in Annex I;\n(14)\n\u2018European Fisheries Control Agency\u2019 means the agency as defined in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 (21);\n(15)\n\u2018sighting\u2019 means any observation of a fishing vessel by any competent authority of a Member State;\n(16)\n\u2018commercially sensitive information\u2019 means information the release of which is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of an operator;\n(17)\n\u2018computerised validation system\u2019 means a system capable of verifying that all data recorded in Member States databases is accurate, complete and submitted within the deadlines;\n(18)\n\u2018web service\u2019 means a software system designed to support interoperable machine-to-machine interaction over a network.\nTITLE II\nGENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ACCESS TO WATERS AND RESOURCES\nCHAPTER I\nFishing licenses\nArticle 3\nIssue and management of fishing licences\n1. A fishing licence referred to in Article 6 of the Control Regulation shall be valid for one EU fishing vessel only.\n2. Fishing licences referred to in Article 6 of the Control Regulation shall be issued, managed and withdrawn by Member States for their fishing vessels in accordance with this Regulation.\n3. Fishing licences referred to in Article 6 of the Control Regulation shall contain as a minimum the information set out in Annex II.\n4. Fishing licences issued in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1281/2005 shall be considered as fishing licences issued in accordance with this Regulation if they contain the minimum information required by paragraph 3 of this Article.\n5. A fishing licence shall only be valid if the conditions on the basis of which it has been issued are still met.\n6. If a fishing licence has been temporarily suspended or permanently withdrawn, the authorities of the flag Member State shall immediately inform the holder of the fishing licence.\n7. At any moment the total capacity corresponding to the fishing licences issued by a Member State, in GT or kW, shall not be higher than the maximum capacity levels for that Member State established in accordance with Articles 12 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1438/2003 (22), Council Regulation (EC) No 639/2004 (23), and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2104/2004 (24).\nCHAPTER II\nFishing authorisations\nArticle 4\nFishing authorisations\n1. A fishing authorisation referred to in Article 7 of the Control Regulation shall be valid for one EU fishing vessel only.\n2. Fishing authorisations referred to in Article 7 of the Control Regulation shall contain as a minimum the information set out in Annex III. The flag Member State shall ensure that the information contained in the fishing authorisation is accurate and consistent with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy.\n3. Special fishing permits issued in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1627/94 (25) shall be considered as fishing authorisations issued in accordance with this Regulation if they contain the minimum information required by paragraph 2 of this Article.\n4. A fishing authorisation as referred to in paragraph 2 and a fishing licence as referred to in Article 3(2) of this Regulation may be contained in the same document.\n5. Without prejudice to special rules EU fishing vessels of less than 10 metres\u2019 length overall which fish exclusively in the territorial waters of their flag Member States shall be excluded from the obligation to a have a fishing authorisation.\n6. Paragraph 2 and paragraph 5 of Article 3 of this Regulation shall apply correspondingly.\nArticle 5\nList of fishing authorisations\n1. Without prejudice to special rules, when the websites as referred to in Article 114 of the Control Regulation have become operational and not later than 1 January 2012 Member States shall make available on the secure part of their official websites the list of their fishing vessels that have received fishing authorisations referred to in Article 7 of the Control Regulation before these fishing authorisations become valid. They shall update their list in case of any changes to this list before they become effective.\n2. For the period 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011, on request Member States shall make available to the Commission a list of their fishing vessels that have received fishing authorisations for 2011. They shall inform the Commission of any changes to this list before these changes become effective.\nCHAPTER III\nMarking and identification of EU fishing vessels and their gear\nSection 1\nMarking and identification of fishing vessels\nArticle 6\nMarking of fishing vessels\nAn EU fishing vessel shall be marked as follows:\n(a)\nthe letter(s) of the port or district in which the EU fishing vessel is registered and the number(s) under which it is registered shall be painted or displayed on both sides of the bow, as high above the water as possible so as to be clearly visible from the sea and the air, in a colour contrasting with the background on which they are painted;\n(b)\nfor EU fishing vessels over 10 metres length overall and less than 17 metres length overall, the height of the letters and numbers shall be at least 25 centimetres with a line thickness of at least 4 centimetres. For EU fishing vessels of 17 metres length overall or more, the height of the letters and numbers shall be at least 45 centimetres, with a line thickness of at least 6 centimetres;\n(c)\nthe flag Member State may require the international radio call sign (IRCS) or the external registration letters and numbers to be painted on top of the wheelhouse, so as to be clearly visible from the air, in a colour contrasting with the ground on which it is painted;\n(d)\nthe contrasting colours shall be white and black;\n(e)\nthe external registration letters and numbers painted or displayed on the hull of the EU fishing vessel shall not be removable, effaced, altered, illegible, covered or concealed.\nArticle 7\nDocuments carried on board an EU fishing vessel\n1. The master of a EU fishing vessel of 10 metres length overall or more shall carry on board documents, issued by a competent authority of the Member State in which it is registered, showing at least the following elements of the vessel:\n(a)\nthe name if any;\n(b)\nthe letters of the port or district in which it is registered, and the number(s) under which it is registered;\n(c)\nthe international radio call sign, if any;\n(d)\nthe names and addresses of the owner(s) and, where applicable, the charterer(s);\n(e)\nthe length overall, propulsion engine power, gross tonnage and, for EU fishing vessels which entered into service from 1 January 1987 onwards, date of entry into service.\n2. On EU fishing vessels of 17 metres length overall or more with fish rooms the master shall keep on board accurate drawings with description of its fish rooms, including the indication of all access points and of their storage capacity in cubic metres.\n3. The master of an EU vessel with chilled or refrigerated seawater tanks shall keep on board an up-to-date document indicating the calibration of the tanks in cubic metres at 10 centimetre intervals.\n4. The documents referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be certified by the competent authority of the flag Member State. Any modification of the characteristics contained in the documents referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3, shall be certified by a competent authority of the flag Member State.\n5. The documents referred to in this Article shall be presented for the purposes of control and inspection at the request of the officials.\nSection 2\nMarking and identification of fishing gear and crafts\nArticle 8\nMarking of crafts and fish aggregating devices\nAny craft carried on board EU fishing vessels and fish aggregating devices shall be marked with external registration letters and numbers of the EU fishing vessel(s) which use them.\nArticle 9\nGeneral rules for passive gear and beam trawls\n1. The provisions contained in Articles 9 to 12 of this Regulation shall apply to EU fishing vessels fishing in all EU waters and the provisions contained in Articles 13 to 17 of this Regulation to EU waters outside 12 nautical miles measured from the base lines of the coastal Member States.\n2. It shall be prohibited in EU waters as set down in paragraph 1 to carry out fishing activities with passive gear, buoys, and beam trawls, which are not marked and identifiable in accordance with the provisions of Articles 10 to 17 of this Regulation.\n3. It shall be prohibited in EU waters as set down in paragraph 1 to carry on board:\n(a)\nbeams of a beam trawl which do not display the external registration letters and numbers in accordance with Article 10 of this Regulation;\n(b)\npassive gear which is not labelled in accordance with Article 11(2) of this Regulation;\n(c)\nbuoys which are not marked in accordance with Article 13(2) of this Regulation.\nArticle 10\nRules for beam trawls\nThe master of an EU fishing vessel or his representative shall ensure that each assembled beam trawl carried on board or used for fishing clearly displays the external registration letters and numbers of that fishing vessel on the beam of each beam trawl assembly.\nArticle 11\nRules for passive gear\n1. The master of an EU fishing vessel or his representative shall ensure that each passive gear carried on board or used for fishing is clearly marked and identifiable in accordance with the provisions of this Article.\n2. Each passive gear used for fishing shall permanently display the external registration letters and numbers displayed on the hull of the fishing vessel to which it belongs:\n(a)\nfor nets, on a label attached to the upper first row;\n(b)\nfor lines and long lines, on a label at the point of contact with the mooring buoy;\n(c)\nfor pots and traps, on a label attached to the ground rope;\n(d)\nfor passive gear extending more than 1 nautical mile, on labels attached in accordance with (a), (b) and (c) at regular intervals not exceeding 1 nautical mile so that no part of the passive gear extending more than 1 nautical mile shall be left unmarked.\nArticle 12\nRules for labels\n1. Each label shall be:\n(a)\nmade of durable material;\n(b)\nsecurely fitted to the gear;\n(c)\nat least 65 millimetres broad;\n(d)\nat least 75 millimetres long.\n2. The label shall not be removable, effaced, altered, illegible, covered or concealed.\nArticle 13\nRules for buoys\n1. The master of a EU fishing vessel or his representative shall ensure that two end marker buoys and intermediary marker buoys, rigged in accordance with Annex IV, are fixed to each passive gear used for fishing and are deployed in accordance with the provisions of this Section.\n2. Each end marker buoy and intermediary buoy shall display the external registration letters and numbers displayed on the hull of the EU fishing vessel to which they belong and which has deployed such buoys as follows:\n(a)\nletters and numbers shall be displayed as high above the water as possible so as to be clearly visible;\n(b)\nin a colour contrasting with the surface on which they are displayed.\n3. The letters and numbers displayed on the marker buoy shall not be effaced, altered or allowed to become illegible.\nArticle 14\nRules for cords\n1. The cords linking the buoys to the passive gear shall be of submersible material, or shall be weighted down.\n2. The cords linking the end marker buoys to each gear shall be fixed at the ends of that gear.\nArticle 15\nRules for end marker buoys\n1. End marker buoys shall be deployed so that each end of the gear may be determined at any time.\n2. The mast of each end marker buoy shall have a height of at least 1 metre above the sea level measured from the top of the float to the lower edge of the bottom most flag.\n3. End marker buoys shall be coloured, but may not be red or green.\n4. Each end marker buoy shall include:\n(a)\none or two rectangular flag(s); where two flags are required on the same buoy, the distance between them shall be at least 20 centimetres flags indicating the extremities of the same gear shall be of the same colour and may not be white and shall be of the same size;\n(b)\none or two light(s), which shall be yellow and give one flash each 5 seconds (F1 Y 5s), and be visible from a minimum distance of 2 nautical miles.\n5. Each end marker buoy may include a top sign on the top of the buoy with one or two striped luminous bands which shall be neither red nor green and shall be at least 6 centimetres broad.\nArticle 16\nRules for fixing of end marker buoys\n1. End marker buoys shall be fixed to passive gear in the following way:\n(a)\nthe buoy in the western sector (meaning the half compass circle from south through west to and including north) shall be rigged with two flags, two striped luminous bands, two lights and a label in accordance with Article 12 of this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe buoy in the eastern sector (meaning the half compass circle from north through east to and including the south) shall be rigged with one flag one striped luminous band, one light and a label in accordance with Article 12 of this Regulation.\n2. The label shall contain the information contained in Article 13(2) of this Regulation.\nArticle 17\nIntermediary marker buoys\n1. Intermediary marker buoys shall be fixed to passive gear extending more than 5 nautical miles as follows:\n(a)\nintermediary marker buoys shall be deployed at distances of not more than 5 nautical miles so that no part of the gear extending 5 nautical miles or more shall be left unmarked;\n(b)\nintermediary marker buoys shall be fitted with a flashing light which shall be yellow and give one flash every 5 seconds (F1 Y 5s) and be visible from a minimum distance of 2 nautical miles. They shall have the same characteristics as those of the end marker buoy in the eastern sector, except that the flag shall be white.\n2. By derogation from paragraph 1, in the Baltic Sea intermediary marker buoys shall be fixed to passive gear extending more than 1 nautical mile. Intermediary marker buoys shall be deployed at distances of not more than 1 nautical mile so that no part of the gear extending 1 nautical mile or more shall be left unmarked.\nIntermediary marker buoys shall have the same characteristics as those of the end marker buoy in the eastern sector except for the following:\n(a)\nthe flags shall be white;\n(b)\nevery fifth intermediary marker buoys shall be fitted with a radar reflector giving an echo of at least 2 nautical miles.\nCHAPTER IV\nVessel monitoring system\nArticle 18\nRequirement of satellite-tracking devices on EU fishing vessels\n1. Without prejudice to Article 25(3) of this Regulation an EU fishing vessel subject to VMS shall not be allowed to leave a port without a fully operational satellite-tracking device installed on board.\n2. When an EU fishing vessel is in port, the satellite-tracking device may only be switched off if:\n(a)\nprior notification has been given to the fisheries monitoring centre (FMC) of the flag Member State and the FMC of the coastal Member State; and\n(b)\nproviding that the next report shows that the EU fishing vessel has not changed its position in relation to the previous report.\nThe competent authorities of the flag Member State may allow to replace the prior notification referred to in (a) with an automatic VMS message or alarm generated by the system, indicating that the EU fishing vessel is within a pre-defined geographical area of a port.\n3. This Chapter shall not apply to EU fishing vessels used exclusively for the exploitation of aquaculture.\nArticle 19\nCharacteristics of satellite-tracking devices\n1. The satellite-tracking device installed on board EU fishing vessels shall ensure the automatic transmission to the FMC of the flag Member State, at regular intervals, of data relating to:\n(a)\nthe fishing vessel identification;\n(b)\nthe most recent geographical position of the fishing vessel, with a position error which shall be less than 500 metres, with a confidence interval of 99 %;\n(c)\nthe date and time (expressed in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)) of the fixing of the said position of the fishing vessel; and\n(d)\nthe instant speed and course of the fishing vessel.\n2. Member States shall ensure that satellite-tracking devices are protected against input or output of false positions and cannot be manually over-ridden.\nArticle 20\nResponsibilities of the masters concerning the satellite-tracking devices\n1. The masters of an EU fishing vessel shall ensure that the satellite-tracking devices are fully operational at all times and that the data referred to in Article 19(1) of this Regulation are transmitted.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 26(1) of this Regulation, the master of an EU fishing vessel shall ensure in particular that:\n(a)\nthe data are not altered in any way;\n(b)\nthe antenna or the antennas connected to the satellite tracking devices are not obstructed, disconnected or blocked in any way;\n(c)\nthe power supply of the satellite-tracking devices is not interrupted in any way; and\n(d)\nthe satellite-tracking device is not removed from the fishing vessel.\n3. It shall be prohibited to destroy, damage, render inoperative or otherwise interfere with the satellite-tracking device unless the competent authorities of the flag Member State have authorised its repair or replacement.\nArticle 21\nControl measures to be adopted by flag Member States\nEach flag Member State shall ensure the continuous and systematic monitoring and control of the accuracy of the data referred to in Article 19 of this Regulation, and shall act promptly whenever data are found to be inaccurate or incomplete.\nArticle 22\nFrequency of data transmission\n1. Each Member State shall ensure that its FMC receives, at least once every 2 hours, through the VMS the information referred to in Article 19 of this Regulation concerning its fishing vessels. The FMC may require the information at shorter time intervals.\n2. The FMC shall have the capacity of polling the actual position of each of its fishing vessel.\nArticle 23\nMonitoring of entry into and exit from specific areas\nEach Member State shall ensure that through VMS data its FMC monitors, as regards its fishing vessels, date and time of entry into and exit from:\n(a)\nany maritime area where specific rules on access to waters and resources apply;\n(b)\nfishing restricted areas referred to in Article 50 of the Control Regulation;\n(c)\nregulatory areas of the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations to which the European Union or certain Member States are a party;\n(d)\nwaters under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of a third country.\nArticle 24\nTransmission of data to the coastal Member State\n1. The VMS established by each Member State shall ensure the automatic transmission to the FMC of a coastal Member State of the data to be provided in accordance with Article 19 of this Regulation concerning its fishing vessels during the time they are in the waters of the coastal Member State. That data transmission shall be simultaneous with the receipt at the FMC of the flag Member State and shall be in accordance with the format set out in Annex V.\n2. Coastal Member States monitoring jointly an area may specify a common destination for the transmission of the data to be provided in accordance with Article 19 of this Regulation. They shall inform the Commission and the other Member States thereof.\n3. Each Member State shall transmit to the other Member States and the Commission in a, where possible electronic, format compatible with the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) a comprehensive list of the latitude and longitude coordinates which delineate its exclusive economic zone or exclusive fishery zone. It shall also communicate to the other Member States and the Commission any changes of these coordinates. Alternatively Member States may publish this list on the website referred to in Article 115 of the Control Regulation.\n4. Member States shall ensure effective coordination between their competent authorities regarding the transmission of VMS data in accordance with Article 9(3) of the Control Regulation, including through the establishment of clear and documented procedures for this purpose.\nArticle 25\nTechnical failure or non-functioning of the satellite-tracking device\n1. In the event of a technical failure or non-functioning of the satellite-tracking device fitted on board a EU fishing vessel, the master or his representative shall, starting from the time that the event was detected or from the time that he was informed in accordance with paragraph 4 or Article 26(1) of this Regulation, communicate every 4 hours, to the FMC of the flag Member State the up-to-date geographical coordinates of the fishing vessel by appropriate telecommunication means. Member States shall decide on the telecommunication means to be used and indicate them on the website referred to in Article 115 of the Control Regulation.\n2. The FMC of the flag Member State shall enter the geographical positions referred to in paragraph 1 into the VMS database without delay on their receipt. The manual VMS data shall be clearly distinguishable in a database from automatic messages. Where appropriate, those manual VMS data shall be transmitted without delay to coastal Member States.\n3. Following a technical failure or non-functioning of the satellite-tracking device, an EU fishing vessel may only leave port once the satellite-tracking device fitted on board is fully functioning to the satisfaction of the competent authorities of the flag state. By derogation the FMC of the flag Member State may authorise its fishing vessels to leave the port with a non-functioning satellite-tracking device for its repair or replacement.\n4. The competent authorities of the flag Member State or, where appropriate, of the coastal Member State shall seek to inform the master of or the person responsible for the vessel or their representative when the satellite-tracking device fitted on board a EU fishing vessel appears to be defective or not fully functioning.\n5. The removal of the satellite-tracking device for repair or replacement shall be subject to the approval of the competent authorities of the flag Member State.\nArticle 26\nNon-receipt of data\n1. When the FMC of a flag Member State has not received data transmissions in accordance with Article 22 or Article 25(1) of this Regulation for 12 consecutive hours it shall notify the master or the operator of the EU fishing vessel or their representative(s) thereof as soon as possible. If, in respect of an EU particular fishing vessel, that situation occurs more than three times within a period of a calendar year, the flag Member State shall ensure that the satellite-tracking device of the fishing vessel is thoroughly checked. The flag Member State shall investigate the matter in order to establish whether the equipment has been tampered with. By way of derogation from Article 20(2)(d) of this Regulation, that investigation may entail the removal of such equipment for examination.\n2. When the FMC of a flag Member State has not received data transmissions for 12 hours in accordance with Article 22 or Article 25(1) of this Regulation and the last received position was from within the waters of another Member State it shall notify the FMC of that coastal Member State thereof as soon as possible.\n3. When the competent authorities of a coastal Member State observe an EU fishing vessel in its waters and have not received data in accordance with Article 24(1) or 25(2) of this Regulation, they shall notify the master of the fishing vessel and the FMC of the flag Member State thereof.\nArticle 27\nMonitoring and recording of the fishing activities\n1. Member States shall use the data received pursuant to Article 22, Article 24(1) and Article 25 of this Regulation for the effective monitoring of the activities of fishing vessels.\n2. Flag Member States shall:\n(a)\nensure that data received according to this Chapter are recorded in computer-readable form and safely stored in computerised databases for at least 3 years;\n(b)\ntake all necessary measures to ensure that they are only used for official purposes; and\n(c)\ntake all necessary technical measures to protect such data against any accidental or illicit destruction, accidental loss, deterioration, distribution or unauthorised consultation.\nArticle 28\nAccess to data by the Commission\nThe Commission may request Member States in accordance with Article 111(1)(a) of the Control Regulation to ensure the automatic transmission to the Commission or to the body designated by it, of the data to be provided in accordance with Article 19 of this Regulation concerning a specific group of fishing vessels and during a specific time. That data transmission shall be simultaneous with receipt at the FMC of the flag Member State and shall be in accordance with the format set out in Annex V.\nTITLE III\nCONTROL OF FISHERIES\nCHAPTER I\nFishing logbook, transhipment declaration and landing declaration in paper format\nSection 1\nCompletion and submission of a fishing logbook, landing declaration and transhipment declaration in paper format\nArticle 29\nEU fishing vessels subject to the completion and submission of a fishing logbook and transhipment/landing declaration in paper format\n1. Without prejudice to specific provisions contained in multi-annual plans, the master of a EU fishing vessel of 10 metres length overall or more that is not subject to the electronic completion and transmission of fishing logbook data, transhipment declarations and landing declarations, shall complete and submit the fishing logbook data, transhipment declarations and landing declarations referred to in Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Control Regulation in paper format. These transhipment declarations and landing declarations may also be completed and submitted by the representative of the master on his behalf.\n2. The requirement to complete and submit the fishing logbook data, transhipment declarations and landing declarations in paper format shall also apply to EU fishing vessels whose length overall is less than 10 metres when they are required by their flag Member State to keep a fishing logbook and submit transhipment and/or landing declarations in accordance with Articles 16(3) and 25(3) of the Control Regulation.\nArticle 30\nModels for fishing logbooks, transhipment declarations and landing declarations in paper format\n1. For all fishing areas, except NAFO sub area 1 and ICES divisions V(a) and XIV, the fishing logbook, transhipment declaration and landing declaration in paper format shall be completed and submitted by masters of EU fishing vessels in accordance with the model shown in Annex VI. However, the model shown in Annex VII may be used for fisheries operations carried out exclusively in the Mediterranean by masters of EU fishing vessels which are not subject to the obligation to transmit fishing logbook, transhipment declaration and landing declaration data electronically, and which make daily fishing trips in a single fishing zone.\n2. For NAFO sub area 1 and ICES divisions V(a) and XIV, the format shown in Annex VIII shall be used for the paper fishing logbook and the format shown in Annex IX for paper transhipment declarations and landing declarations.\n3. The fishing logbook, transhipment declaration and landing declaration in paper format shown in Annexes VI and VII shall also be kept in accordance with paragraph 1 and Article 31 of this Regulation when such EU fishing vessels are carrying out fishing activities in the waters of a third country, in waters regulated by a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation or in waters outside EU waters not regulated by a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation, unless the third country or the rules of the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation concerned specifically require a different kind of fishing logbook, transhipment declaration or landing declaration to be completed and submitted. If the third country does not specify a particular fishing logbook, but does require data elements different from those required by the European Union, such data elements shall be recorded.\n4. Member States may continue to use paper fishing logbook formats in conformity with Regulation (EEC) No 2807/83 for EU fishing vessels not subject to the electronic completion and transmission of fishing logbook data in accordance with Article 15 of the Control Regulation until stocks of paper fishing logbook formats have been used up.\nArticle 31\nInstructions for the completion and submission of fishing logbooks, transhipment declarations and landing declarations in paper format\n1. The fishing logbook, transhipment declaration and landing declaration in paper format shall be completed and submitted in accordance with the instructions set out in Annex X.\n2. Where the instructions set out in Annex X state that the application of a rule is optional, the flag Member State may make it mandatory.\n3. All entries in the fishing logbook, transhipment declaration or landing declaration shall be legible and indelible. No entry shall be erased or altered. If a mistake is made the incorrect entry shall be crossed out with a single line and the new correct entry shall be written and initialled by the master. Each line shall be initialled by the master.\n4. The master of the EU fishing vessel or, for transhipment declarations and landing declarations, his representative shall certify with his initials or signature that the entries in the fishing logbook, transhipment declaration and landing declaration are correct.\nArticle 32\nDeadlines for the submission of a fishing logbook, transhipment declaration and a landing declaration in paper format\n1. When a EU fishing vessel has made a landing in a port or a transhipment in a port or in a place close to the shore of its flag Member State, its master shall submit the original(s) of the fishing logbook, transhipment declaration and landing declaration as soon as possible and not later than 48 hours after completion of transhipment or landing to the competent authorities of the Member State concerned. The original(s) of such a transhipment declaration and landing declaration may also be submitted by the representative of the master on his behalf.\n2. When no catches are landed after a fishing trip, the master shall submit the original(s) of the fishing logbook and transhipment declaration as soon as possible and not later than 48 hours after arrival in port. The original(s) of such a transhipment declaration may also be submitted by the representative of the master on his behalf.\n3. When a EU fishing vessel has made a transhipment in a port or in a place close to the shore or a landing in a port of a Member State other than its flag Member State, it shall submit the first copy (copies) of the fishing logbook, transhipment declaration and landing declaration as soon as possible and not later than 48 hours after transhipment or landing to the competent authorities of the Member State in which the transhipment or landing takes place. The original(s) of the fishing logbook, transhipment declaration and landing declaration shall be dispatched as soon as possible and not later than 48 hours after transhipment or landing to the competent authorities of the flag Member State.\n4. When a EU fishing vessel has made a transhipment in a port or in the waters of a third country or on the high seas or a landing in a port of a third country, it shall dispatch the original(s) of the fishing logbook, transhipment declaration and landing declaration as soon as possible and not later than 48 hours after the transhipment or landing to the competent authorities of the flag Member State.\n5. When a third country or the rules of a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation require a different kind of fishing logbook, transhipment declaration or landing declaration from the one in Annex VI the master of the EU fishing vessel shall submit a copy of that document to his competent authorities as soon as possible and not later than 48 hours after transhipment or landing.\nSection 2\nSpecific rules for the fishing logbook in paper format\nArticle 33\nCompletion of fishing logbook in paper format\n1. The paper fishing logbook shall be completed with all obligatory information even when there are no catches:\n(a)\ndaily by not later than 24.00 and before entering the port;\n(b)\nat the time of any inspection at sea;\n(c)\nat the time of events defined in the Community legislation or by the flag Member State.\n2. A new line in the paper fishing logbook shall be filled in:\n(a)\nfor each day at sea;\n(b)\nwhen fishing in a new ICES Division or another fishing zone the same day;\n(c)\nwhen entering fishing effort data.\n3. A new page in the paper fishing logbook shall be filled in:\n(a)\nwhen using different gear, or a net of a different mesh size range, to that of the previous gear used;\n(b)\nfor any fishing done after a transhipment or an intermediate landing;\n(c)\nif the number of columns is insufficient;\n(d)\non departure from a port when no landing has taken place.\n4. On departure from a port, or following completion of a transhipment operation, and when catches remain on board, the quantities of each species shall be indicated on a new fishing logbook page.\n5. The codes given in Annex XI shall apply to indicate, under the appropriate headings of the paper format fishing logbook, the fishing gear used.\nSection 3\nSpecific rules for the transhipment declaration and landing declaration in paper format\nArticle 34\nHanding over of a transhipment declaration in paper format\n1. In the case of a transhipment operation between two EU fishing vessels on completion of a transhipment operation the master of the transhipping fishing vessel or his representative shall hand over a copy of his vessel\u2019s paper transhipment declaration to the master of the receiving vessel or his representative. The master of the receiving vessel or his representative on completion of transhipment operation shall also hand over a copy of his vessel\u2019s paper transhipment declaration to the master of the transhipping vessel or his representative.\n2. The copies referred to in paragraph 1 shall be presented for the purposes of control and inspection at the request of an official.\nArticle 35\nSigning of the landing declaration\nEach page of the landing declaration shall be signed prior to submission by the master or his representative.\nCHAPTER II\nFishing logbook, landing declaration and transhipment declaration in electronic format\nSection 1\nCompletion and transmission of a fishing logbook, landing declaration and transhipment declaration data in electronic format\nArticle 36\nRequirement of electronic recording and reporting system on EU fishing vessels\n1. Without prejudice to Article 39(4) of this Regulation an EU fishing vessel subject to electronic completion and transmission of fishing logbook, transhipment declaration and landing declaration in accordance with Articles 15, 21 and 24 of the Control Regulation shall not be allowed to leave port without a fully operational electronic recording and reporting system installed on board.\n2. This Chapter shall not apply to EU fishing vessels used exclusively for the exploitation of aquaculture.\nArticle 37\nFormat for transmission of data from an EU fishing vessel to the competent authority of its flag State\nMember States shall determine the format to be used between EU fishing vessels flying their flags and their competent authorities for the completion and transmission of fishing logbook, transhipment declaration and landing declaration data as referred to in Articles 15, 21 and 24 of the Control Regulation.\nArticle 38\nReturn messages\n1. Return messages shall be issued to the EU fishing vessels for each transmission of fishing logbook, transhipment, prior notification and landing data. The return message shall contain an acknowledgement of receipt.\n2. The master of an EU fishing vessel shall retain the return message until the end of the fishing trip.\nArticle 39\nProvisions in the event of technical failure or non-functioning of electronic recording and reporting systems\n1. In the event of a technical failure or non-functioning of the electronic recording and reporting system fitted on board a EU fishing vessel, the master of the fishing vessel or his representative shall, starting from the time that the event was detected or from the time that he was informed in accordance with Article 40(1) of this Regulation, communicate fishing logbook, transhipment declaration and landing declaration data to the competent authorities of the flag Member State by appropriate telecommunications means on a daily basis and no later than 24.00 even when there are no catches. Member States shall decide on the telecommunication means to be used and indicate them on the website referred to in Article 115 of the Control Regulation.\n2. In the event of a technical failure or non-functioning of the electronic recording and reporting system fishing logbook and transhipment declaration data shall also be sent:\n(a)\nat the request of the competent authority of the flag State;\n(b)\nimmediately after the last fishing operation or after the transhipment has been completed;\n(c)\nbefore entering into port;\n(d)\nat the time of any inspection at sea;\n(e)\nat the time of events defined in Community legislation or by the flag State.\nPrior notification and landing declaration data shall also be sent in the cases referred to in (a) and (e).\n3. The competent authorities of the flag Member State shall enter the data referred to in paragraph 1 into the electronic data base without delay on their receipt.\n4. Following a technical failure or non-functioning of its electronic recording and reporting system, a EU fishing vessel may only leave port once the recording and reporting system fitted on board is fully functioning to the satisfaction of the competent authorities of the flag Member State or is otherwise authorised to leave by the competent authorities of the flag Member State. The flag Member State shall immediately notify the coastal Member State when it has authorised one of its fishing vessels to leave a port in the coastal Member State with a non-functioning electronic recording and reporting system.\n5. The removal of the electronic recording and reporting system for repair or replacement shall be subject to the approval of the competent authorities of the flag Member State.\nArticle 40\nNon-receipt of data\n1. When the competent authorities of a flag Member State have not received data transmissions in accordance with Articles 15, 22 and 24 of the Control Regulation they shall notify the master or the operator of the EU fishing vessel or their representative(s) thereof as soon as possible. If, in respect of a particular EU fishing vessel, that situation occurs more than three times within a period of calendar year, the flag Member State shall ensure that the electronic recording and reporting system of the fishing vessel is thoroughly checked. The flag Member State shall investigate the matter in order to establish why data have not been received and shall take appropriate measures.\n2. When the competent authorities of a flag Member State have not received data transmissions in accordance with Articles 15, 22 and 24 of the Control Regulation and the last position received through the Vessel Monitoring System was from within the waters of a coastal Member State they shall notify the competent authorities of that coastal Member State thereof as soon as possible.\n3. The master or the operator of the EU fishing vessel or their representative shall send all data which have not yet been transmitted and for which a notification was received in accordance with paragraph 1 to the competent authorities of the flag Member State immediately on receipt of the notification.\nArticle 41\nData access failure\n1. When the competent authorities of a coastal Member State observe an EU fishing vessel of another Member State in their waters and cannot access fishing logbook or transhipment data in accordance with Article 44 of this Regulation they shall request the competent authorities of the flag Member State to ensure access to those data.\n2. If the access referred to in paragraph 1 is not ensured within 4 hours of the request, the coastal Member State shall notify the flag Member State. On receipt of the notification the flag Member State shall immediately send the data to the coastal Member State by any available electronic means.\n3. If the coastal Member State does not receive the data referred to in paragraph 2, the master or operator of the EU fishing vessel or their representative shall send the data and a copy of the return message referred to in Article 38 of this Regulation to the competent authorities of the coastal Member State on request and by any available, if possible electronic, means. Member States shall decide on the means to be used and shall indicate them on the website referred to in Article 115 of the Control Regulation.\n4. If the master or the operator of the EU fishing vessel or their representative can not provide the competent authorities of the coastal Member State with a copy of the return message referred to in Article 38 of this Regulation, fishing activities in the waters of the coastal Member State by the fishing vessel concerned shall be prohibited until the master, the operator of the fishing vessel or his representative can provide a copy of the return message or information referred to in Article 14(1) of the Control Regulation to the said authorities.\nArticle 42\nData on the functioning of the electronic recording and reporting system\n1. Member States shall maintain databases on the functioning of their electronic recording and reporting system. Those databases shall contain at least and be capable to generate automatically the following information:\n(a)\nthe list of their fishing vessels whose electronic recording and reporting systems have experienced technical failure or have failed to function;\n(b)\nthe number of vessels that have not made daily electronic fishing logbook transmissions and the average number of electronic fishing logbook transmissions received per fishing vessel, broken down by flag Member State;\n(c)\nthe number of transhipment declaration, landing declaration, takeover declaration and sales note transmissions received, broken down by flag Member State.\n2. Summaries of information generated according to paragraph 1 shall be sent to the Commission at its request. Alternatively this information may also be made available on the secure website in a format and at time intervals to be decided by the Commission after consultation with Member States.\nArticle 43\nFormat for exchange of information between Member States\n1. Information referred to in this Section shall be exchanged between Member States using the format defined in Annex XII from which extensible mark-up language (XML) shall be derived. The XML standard to be used for all electronic data exchanges between Member States, and between Member States, the Commission and the body designated by it, shall be decided by the Commission after consultation with Member States.\n2. Amendments to the format referred to in paragraph 1 shall be clearly identified and marked with the date it was updated. Such amendments shall not come into effect earlier than 6 months after they have been decided.\n3. When a Member State receives electronic information from another Member State it shall ensure that a return message is issued to the competent authorities of that Member State. The return message shall contain an acknowledgement of receipt.\n4. Data elements in Annex XII that are mandatory for masters to record in their fishing logbook according to EU rules shall also be mandatory in exchanges between Member States.\nArticle 44\nAccess to data\n1. A flag Member State shall ensure in real time the electronic exchange of information referred to in Article 111(1) of the Control Regulation to a coastal Member State on fishing logbook, transhipment declaration, prior notifications and landing declaration data of its fishing vessels when conducting fishing operations in the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction or entering a port of the coastal Member State.\n2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1 a flag Member State may on request ensure in real time the electronic exchange of information referred to in Article 111(1) of the Control Regulation on fishing logbook and transhipment declaration data of its fishing vessels to a Member State carrying out, in accordance with Article 80 of the Control Regulation, inspections of fishing vessels of another Member State in EU waters outside of the waters of the requesting Member State, in international waters or in waters of third countries.\n3. Data referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 for the previous 12 months shall be made available by the flag Member State on request.\n4. The data referred to in paragraph 1 shall at least include the data from the last departure from port to the time when the landing is completed. The data referred to in paragraph 2 shall at least include the data from the last departure from port to the time of the request. Data as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 from fishing trips for the previous 12 months shall be made available on request.\n5. The master of an EU fishing vessel shall have secure access to his own electronic fishing logbook information, transhipment declaration data and landing declaration data stored in the database of the flag Member State at any time.\n6. A coastal Member State shall grant online access to its database of fishing logbook, transhipment declaration, prior notification and landing declaration data to a fishery patrol vessel of another Member State via the FMC of that Member State in the context of a joint deployment plan or other agreed joint inspection activities.\nArticle 45\nExchange of data between Member States\n1. Access to the data referred to in Article 44 of this Regulation shall be by secure Internet connection on a permanent basis.\n2. Member States shall exchange the relevant technical information to ensure mutual access to and exchange of electronic fishing logbook data, transhipment declaration data and landing declaration data.\n3. Member States shall:\n(a)\nensure that data received according to this Chapter are recorded in computer-readable form and safely stored in computerised databases for at least 3 years;\n(b)\ntake all necessary measures to ensure that they are only used for official purposes; and\n(c)\ntake all necessary technical measures to protect such data against any accidental or illicit destruction, accidental loss, deterioration, distribution or unauthorised consultation.\nArticle 46\nSingle authority\n1. In each Member State, the single authority referred to in Article 5(5) of the Control Regulation shall be responsible for transmitting, receiving, managing and processing all data covered by this Chapter.\n2. Member States shall exchange contact details of the authorities referred to in paragraph 1 and shall inform the Commission and the body designated by it thereof within 3 months after the entry into force of this Regulation.\n3. Any changes in the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be communicated to the Commission, the body designated by it and other Member States before they become effective.\nSection 2\nSpecific rules for the fishing logbook in electronic format\nArticle 47\nFrequency of transmission\n1. When at sea the master of an EU fishing vessel shall transmit the electronic fishing logbook information to the competent authorities of the flag Member State at least once a day and no later than 24.00 even when there are no catches. He shall also send such data:\n(a)\nat the request of the competent authority of the flag Member State;\n(b)\nimmediately after the last fishing operation has been completed;\n(c)\nbefore entering into port;\n(d)\nat the time of any inspection at sea;\n(e)\nat the time of events defined in EU legislation or by the flag State.\nWhen the last fishing operation took place not more than 1 hour before the entry into port the transmissions referred to in (b) and (c) may be sent in a single message.\n2. The master may transmit corrections to the electronic fishing logbook and transhipment declaration data up to the last transmission referred to in paragraph 1(c). Corrections shall be easily identifiable. All original electronic fishing logbook data and corrections to those data shall be stored by the competent authorities of the flag Member State.\n3. The master shall keep a copy of the information referred to in paragraph 1 on board the fishing vessel for the duration of each absence from port and until the landing declaration has been submitted.\n4. When a EU fishing vessel is in port, does not carry fishery products on board and the master has submitted the landing declaration for all fishing operations on the last fishing trip, transmission in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article may be suspended subject to prior notification to the FMC of the flag Member State. Transmission shall be resumed when the EU fishing vessel leaves the port. Prior notification is not required for EU fishing vessels equipped with and transmitting data via VMS.\nCHAPTER III\nCommon rules for fishing logbooks, transhipment declarations and landing declarations in paper or electronic format\nSection 1\nCommon rules for the determination of live weight\nArticle 48\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Chapter the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018presentation\u2019 means the form into which the fish is processed while on board of the fishing vessel and prior to landing, as described in Annex I;\n(2)\n\u2018collective presentation\u2019 means a presentation consisting of two or more parts extracted from the same fish.\nArticle 49\nConversion factors\n1. For the completion and submission of fishing logbooks as referred to in Articles 14 and 15 of the Control Regulation the EU conversion factors set out in Annexes XIII, XIV and XV shall apply to convert stored or processed fish weight into live fish weight. They shall apply to fisheries products on board or transhipped or landed by EU fishing vessels.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, of which the European Union is a contracting party or cooperating non-contracting party, for its regulatory area or a third country with whom the European Union has an agreement to fish, for the waters under its sovereignty or jurisdiction, have established conversion factors, those factors shall apply.\n3. Where no conversion factors as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 exist for a given species and presentation, the conversion factor adopted by the flag Member State shall apply.\n4. Without prejudice to paragraph 2 the competent authorities of Member States shall use the EU conversion factors referred to in paragraph 1 when calculating the live weight of transhipments and landings in order to monitor the quota uptake.\nArticle 50\nCalculation method\n1. The fish live weight shall be obtained by multiplying the fish processed weight by the conversion factors referred to in Article 49 of this Regulation for each species and presentation.\n2. In case of collective presentations, only one conversion factor corresponding to one of the parts of the collective presentation of a fish shall be used.\nSection 2\nCommon rules for the completion and submission of the Fishing logbook\nArticle 51\nGeneral rules for fishing logbooks\n1. The margin of tolerance referred to in Article 14(3) of the Control Regulation for the estimation of quantities in kilograms live weight of each species retained on board shall be expressed as a percentage of the fishing logbook figures.\n2. For catches which are to be landed unsorted the margin of tolerance may be calculated on the basis of one or more representative samples for the total quantities kept on board.\n3. For the purpose of the application of Article 14 of the Control Regulation species caught for live bait shall be considered as a species caught and kept on board.\n4. The master of a EU fishing vessel crossing an effort zone where it is authorised to fish shall record and report the information referred to in Article 14(5) of the Control Regulation as applicable even if he does not carry out any fishing activities in that zone.\nSection 3\nCommon rules for the completion and submission of transhipment/landing declarations\nArticle 52\nMargin of tolerance in the transhipment declaration\nThe margin of tolerance referred to in Article 21(3) of the Control Regulation for the estimation of quantities in kilograms live weight of each species transhipped or received shall be expressed as a percentage of the transhipment declaration figures.\nArticle 53\nDifference in transhipped catches\nWhen a difference exists between the quantities of catches transhipped from the transhipping vessel and the quantities taken on board by the receiving vessel the higher quantity shall be considered to have been transhipped. Member States shall ensure that follow up action is taken to determine the actual weight of fishery products transhipped between the transhipping and the receiving vessel.\nArticle 54\nCompletion of landing operation\nWhen, in accordance with Article 61 of the Control Regulation, the fisheries products are transported from the place of landing before they have been weighed, the landing operation shall be regarded to have been completed for the purpose of the application of Articles 23(3) and 24(1) of the Control Regulation when the fisheries products have been weighed.\nArticle 55\nFishing Operations involving two or more EU fishing vessels\nWithout prejudice to special rules in the case of fishing operations involving two or more EU fishing vessels:\n-\nfrom different Member States, or\n-\nfrom the same Member State but where the catches are landed in a Member States of which they do not fly the flag,\nthe landed catch shall be attributed to the EU fishing vessel landing the fisheries products.\nCHAPTER IV\nSampling plans and collection of data on EU fishing vessels not subject to fishing logbook and landing declaration requirements\nArticle 56\nEstablishment of sampling plans\nThe sampling plans referred to in Articles 16(2) and 25(2) of the Control Regulation for the monitoring of EU fishing vessels not subject to fishing logbook and landing declaration requirements shall be established by Member States in accordance with this Chapter to determine the landings of a stock or group of stocks taken by such fishing vessels and, where appropriate, their fishing effort. These data shall be used for the recording of catches and, where appropriate, fishing effort as referred to in Article 33 of the Control Regulation.\nArticle 57\nSampling methodology\n1. The sampling plans referred to in Article 56 of this Regulation shall be drawn up in accordance with Annex XVI.\n2. The size of the sample to be inspected shall be determined on the basis of risk as follows:\n(a)\n\u2018very low\u2019 risk: 3 % of the sample;\n(b)\n\u2018low\u2019 risk: 5 % of the sample;\n(c)\n\u2018medium\u2019 risk: 10 % of the sample;\n(d)\n\u2018high\u2019 risk: 15 % of the sample;\n(e)\n\u2018very high\u2019 risk: 20 % of the sample.\n3. Catches per day of a fleet sector for a given stock shall be estimated by multiplying the total number of active EU fishing vessels of the fleet sector concerned with the average daily catch per given stock per EU fishing vessel based on the catches of the sample of the EU fishing vessels inspected.\n4. Member States that collect systematically on at least a monthly basis for each of their fishing vessels not subject to fishing logbook and landing requirements data:\n(a)\non all landings of catches of all species in kilogram, including zero landings;\n(b)\non the statistical rectangles where these catches where taken, shall be considered to have met the requirement of a sampling plan as referred to in Article 56 of this Regulation.\nCHAPTER V\nControl of fishing effort\nArticle 58\nFishing effort report\n1. The fishing effort report referred to in Article 28 of the Control Regulation shall be sent in accordance with Annex XVII.\n2. Where the master of an EU fishing vessel transmits a message to the competent authorities by radio in accordance with Article 28(1) of the Control Regulation, Member States shall decide on the radio stations to be used and indicate them on the website referred to in Article 115 of the Control Regulation.\nCHAPTER VI\nCorrective measures\nArticle 59\nGeneral principles\nIn order to benefit from the corrective measures referred to in Article 37 of the Control Regulation, Member States shall notify the Commission as soon as possible and in any case within 1 month of the date of the publication in the Official Journal of a closure of a fishery in accordance with Article 36 of the Control Regulation of the extent of the prejudice suffered.\nArticle 60\nAllocation of available fishing opportunities\n1. When the prejudice has not been removed wholly or in part by action in accordance with Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, the Commission shall, as soon as possible after receiving the information referred to in Article 59 of this Regulation, take the necessary measures with the aim of remedying the prejudice caused.\n2. The measure referred to in paragraph 1 shall state:\n(a)\nwhich Member States have suffered prejudice (the prejudiced Member States) and the amount of the prejudice (as reduced by any quota exchanges);\n(b)\nwhere applicable, which Member States have exceeded their fishing opportunities (the exceeding Member States) and the amount of the excess of fishing opportunities (as reduced by any exchanges in accordance with Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002);\n(c)\nwhere applicable, the deductions to be made from the fishing opportunities of the exceeding Member States in proportion to the exceeded fishing opportunities;\n(d)\nwhere applicable, the additions to be made to the fishing opportunities of the prejudiced Member States in proportion to the prejudice suffered;\n(e)\nwhere applicable the date or dates on which the additions and deductions shall take effect;\n(f)\nwhere appropriate, any other necessary measure for remedying the prejudice suffered.\nCHAPTER VII\nEngine power\nArticle 61\nCertification of propulsion engine power\n1. The certification of the maximum continuous engine power of a new propulsion engine, a replacement propulsion engine and a propulsion engine that has been technically modified, as referred to in Article 40(1) and (2) of the Control Regulation, shall be provided in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86 (26).\n2. A propulsion engine shall be considered to have been technically modified as referred to in paragraph 1 when any of its main components (parts), including but not limited to, injection equipment, valves, turbocharger, pistons, cylinder liners, connecting rods, cylinder heads, have been modified or replaced by new parts with different technical specifications resulting in a modified power rating or when the engine adjustments, such as the injection settings, turbocharger configuration, or the valve timings have been modified. The nature of the technical modification shall be clearly explained in the certification referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. The holder of a fishing licence shall inform the competent authorities before a new propulsion engine will be installed or before an existing propulsion engine will be replaced or technically modified.\n4. This Article shall apply to fishing vessels subject to a fishing effort regime as from 1 January 2012. For other fishing vessels it shall apply as from 1 January 2013. It shall only apply to fishing vessels which have had new propulsion engines installed, or whose existing propulsion engines have been replaced or technically modified, after the entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 62\nVerification and sampling plan\n1. For the purpose of verifying the engine power in accordance with Article 41 of the Control Regulation, Member States shall establish a sampling plan for the identification of those fishing vessels or groups of fishing vessels in their fleet with a risk of under-declaration of propulsion engine power. As a minimum, the sampling plan shall be based on following high risk criteria:\n(a)\nfishing vessels operating in fisheries that are subject to fishing effort regimes, in particular those fishing vessels to which an individual effort allocation in kWdays has been allocated;\n(b)\nfishing vessels subject to limitations of vessel power resulting from national or European Union law;\n(c)\nfishing vessels for which the ratio of vessel power (kW) to vessel tonnage (GT) is 50 % lower than the average ratio for the same type of fishing vessel, gear type and target species. For the purpose of that analysis, Member States may divide the fleet according to one or several of the following criteria:\n(i)\nfleet segmentation or management units defined in national law;\n(ii)\nlength categories;\n(iii)\ntonnage categories;\n(iv)\ngears used;\n(v)\ntarget species.\n2. Member States may consider additional risk criteria following their own assessment.\n3. Member States shall draw a list of their fishing vessels which meet one or more of the risk criteria referred to in paragraph 1 and, where appropriate, the risk criteria referred to in paragraph 2.\n4. From each group of fishing vessels corresponding to one of the risk criteria referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States shall take a random sample of fishing vessels. The size of the sample shall be equal to the square root rounded to the nearest whole number of fishing vessels in the group concerned.\n5. For each fishing vessel included in the random sample, Member States shall verify all technical documents as referred to in Article 41(1) of the Control Regulation in their possession. Among the other documents as referred to under letter (g) of Article 41(1) of the Control Regulation, Member States shall pay special attention to the engine maker catalogue specifications, where available.\n6. This Article shall apply as from 1 January 2012. Physical verifications as referred to in Article 41(2) of the Control Regulation shall prioritise trawlers operating in a fishery subject to a fishing effort regime.\nArticle 63\nPhysical verification\n1. When propulsion power measurements are performed on board a fishing vessel in the framework of a physical verification of propulsion engine power as referred to in Article 41(2) of the Control Regulation, the propulsion engine power may be measured at the most accessible point between the propeller and the engine.\n2. If the power of the propulsion engine is measured after the reduction gear, an appropriate correction shall be applied to the measurement in order to calculate the propulsion engine power at the engine output flange according to the definition in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86. That correction shall take into account the power losses resulting from the gearbox on the basis of the official technical data provided by the gearbox manufacturer.\nCHAPTER VIII\nControl of recreational fisheries\nArticle 64\nEstablishment of sampling plans\n1. Without prejudice to the use of data as referred to in paragraph 5, sampling plans to be established by Member States in accordance with Article 55(3) of the Control Regulation for the purpose of monitoring catches of stocks subject to recovery plans practised from vessels engaged in recreational fisheries shall provide for the collection of biennial data.\n2. The methods used in the sampling plans shall be established clearly and shall be, as far as possible:\n(a)\nstable over time;\n(b)\nstandardised within regions;\n(c)\nin accordance with the quality standards established by relevant international scientific bodies and, where appropriate, by the relevant Regional Fisheries Management Organisations to which the European Union is contracting party or observer.\n3. The sampling plan shall include a sampling design for the estimation of catches of stocks subject to recovery plans, the gear used and the relevant geographical area of the recovery plan concerned where these catches where taken;\n4. Member States shall estimate systematically the accuracy and precision of the collected data.\n5. For the purpose of the sampling plans referred to in paragraph 1 Member States may use the data collected according to the multiannual Community programme as laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 (27) to the extent that such data are available.\n6. This provision shall not apply when a Member State has prohibited recreational fisheries of stocks subject to a recovery plan.\nArticle 65\nNotification and evaluation of sampling plans\n1. Member States shall notify their sampling plans to the Commission 12 months after the entry into force of a recovery plan. For recovery plans which are already in force at the time of entry into force of this Regulation, the sampling plan shall be notified within 12 months after entry into force of this Regulation. Amendments of the sampling plan shall be notified before they become effective.\n2. In addition to the evaluation requested in Article 55(4) of the Control Regulation, the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries shall also evaluate:\n(a)\nafter the notification referred to in paragraph 1 and every 5 years thereafter the conformity of the notified sampling plans with the criteria and requirements mentioned in Article 64(2) and (3) of this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe conformity of any amendments to a sampling plan referred to in paragraph 1 with the criteria and requirements mentioned in Article 64(2) and (3) of this Regulation.\n3. The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries shall make recommendations, where appropriate, for improving the sampling plan.\nTITLE IV\nCONTROL OF MARKETING\nCHAPTER I\nTraceability\nArticle 66\nDefinition\nFor the purpose of this Chapter, the following definition shall apply:\n\u2018Fisheries and aquaculture products\u2019 mean any products which fall under Chapter 03 and Tariff headings 1604 and 1605 of the Combined Nomenclature established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (28).\nArticle 67\nInformation on lots\n1. Operators shall provide the information on fisheries and aquaculture products referred to in Article 58(5) of the Control Regulation at the moment when the fisheries and aquaculture products are put into lots and no later than the first sale.\n2. In addition to paragraph 1, operators shall update the relevant information referred to in Article 58(5) of the Control Regulation which ensues from the merging or splitting of the lots of fisheries and aquaculture products after first sale, at the stage when it becomes available.\n3. In case where, as a result of the merging or splitting of the lots after first sale, fisheries and aquaculture products from several fishing vessels or aquaculture production units are mixed, operators shall be able to identify each lot of origin at least by means of their identification number referred to in Article 58(5)(a) of the Control Regulation and make possible to trace them back to catching or harvesting stage, in accordance with Article 58(3) of the Control Regulation.\n4. Systems and procedures referred to in Article 58(4) of the Control Regulation shall allow operators to identify the immediate supplier(s) and, except when they are final consumers, the immediate buyer(s) of the fisheries and aquaculture products.\n5. The information on fisheries and aquaculture products referred to in Article 58(5) of the Control Regulation shall be provided by means of the labelling or packaging of the lot, or by means of a commercial document physically accompanying the lot. It may be affixed to the lot by way of an identification tool such as a code, barcode, electronic chip or a similar device or marking system. The information on the lot shall remain available at all stages of production, processing and distribution in such a way that the competent authorities of Member States have access to it at any time.\n6. Operators shall affix the information on fisheries and aquaculture products referred to in Article 58(5) of the Control Regulation by way of an identification tool such as a code, barcode, electronic chip or a similar device or marking system:\n(a)\nas from 1 January 2013, to fisheries subject to a multiannual plan;\n(b)\nas from 1 January 2015, to other fisheries and aquaculture products.\n7. Where the information referred to in Article 58(5) of the Control Regulation is provided by means of a commercial document physically accompanying the lot, at least the identification number shall be affixed to the corresponding lot.\n8. Member States shall cooperate with each other to ensure that the information affixed to the lot and/or accompanying physically the lot can be accessed by the competent authorities of another Member State than the one where the fisheries or aquaculture products have been put into the lot, in particular when the information is affixed to the lot by way of an identification tool such as a code, barcode, an electronic chip or a similar device. Operators using such tools shall ensure that they are developed on the basis of internationally recognised standards and specifications.\n9. The information on the date of catches referred to in Article 58(5) point (d) of the Control Regulation may include several calendar days or one period of time corresponding to several dates of catches.\n10. The information on the suppliers referred to in Article 58(5) point (f) of the Control Regulation shall be the immediate supplier(s) of the operator referred in paragraph 4 of this Article. This information may be provided, where applicable, by way of the identification mark referred to in Annex II, Section I, of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (29).\n11. The information listed in points (a) to (f) of Article 58(5) of the Control Regulation shall not apply to:\n(a)\nimported fisheries and aquaculture products which are excluded from the scope of implementation of the catch certificate in accordance with Article 12(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 (30);\n(b)\nfisheries and aquaculture products caught or farmed in freshwater; and\n(c)\nornamental fish, crustaceans and molluscs.\n12. The information listed in points (a) to (h) of Article 58(5) of the Control Regulation shall not apply to fisheries and aquaculture products falling under Tariff headings 1604 and 1605 of the Combined Nomenclature.\n13. For the purposes of Article 58 of the Control Regulation, the information on the relevant geographical area shall be:\n(a)\nthe relevant geographical area, as defined in Article 4(30) of the Control Regulation, for catches of stocks or group of stocks subject to a quota and/or a minimum size in EU legislation; or\n(b)\nthe catch area in accordance with Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2065/2001 (31), for other stocks or group of stocks.\n14. The value of small quantities of fisheries and aquaculture products referred to in Article 58(8) of the Control Regulation shall be applicable to direct sales by a fishing vessel, per calendar day and per final consumer.\nArticle 68\nInformation to the consumer\n1. Member States shall ensure that the information referred to in Article 58(6) of the Control Regulation concerning the commercial designation, the scientific name of the species, the catch area referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2065/2001 and the production method is indicated on the label or appropriate mark of the fisheries and aquaculture products offered for retail sale, including imported products.\n2. By derogation from paragraph 1, the scientific name of the species may be provided to the consumers at retail level by means of commercial information such as bill boards or posters.\n3. Where a fisheries or aquaculture product has been previously frozen, the word \u2018defrosted\u2019 shall also be indicated on the label or appropriate mark referred to in paragraph 1. The absence of this wording at retail level shall be considered as meaning that the fisheries and aquaculture products have not been frozen beforehand and later defrosted.\n4. By derogation from paragraph 3, the word \u2018defrosted\u2019 shall not have to appear on:\n(a)\nfisheries and aquaculture products previously frozen for health safety purposes, in accordance with Annex III, Section VIII, of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004; and\n(b)\nfisheries and aquaculture products which have been defrosted before the process of smoking, salting, cooking, pickling, drying or a combination of those processes.\n5. This Article shall not apply to fisheries and aquaculture products falling under Tariff headings 1604 and 1605 of the Combined Nomenclature.\n6. Fisheries and aquaculture products and packages labelled or marked prior to the date of entry into force of this Article which do not comply with Article 58(5) point (g) on the scientific name and point (h) of the Control Regulation and with paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of this Article may be marketed until such stocks have been used up.\nCHAPTER II\nWeighing of fisheries products\nSection 1\nGeneral rules on weighing\nArticle 69\nScope\nWithout prejudice to Articles 78 - 89 of this Regulation the provisions contained in this chapter shall apply to landings from EU fishing vessels taking place in a Member State and transhipments involving EU fishing vessels taking place in ports or places close to the shore of a Member State as well as to the weighing of fisheries products on board EU fishing vessels in EU waters.\nArticle 70\nWeighing records\n1. Registered buyers, registered auctions or other bodies or persons that are responsible for the first marketing or storage before first marketing of fisheries products, or where appropriate the master of the EU fishing vessel, shall record weighing carried out in accordance Articles 60 and 61 of the Control Regulation by indicating the following information:\n(a)\nthe FAO alpha-3 codes of the species weighed;\n(b)\nresult of weighing for each quantity of each species in kilograms product weight;\n(c)\nthe external identification number and the name of the fishing vessel from which the weighed quantity originates;\n(d)\npresentation of the fisheries products weighed;\n(e)\ndate of weighing (YYYY-MM-DD).\n2. Registered buyers, registered auctions or other bodies or persons that are responsible for the first marketing, or storage before first marketing of fisheries products or where appropriate the master of an EU fishing vessel, shall keep the records referred to in paragraph 1 for a period of 3 years.\nArticle 71\nTiming of weighing\n1. Where fisheries products are transhipped between EU fishing vessels and the first landing of the transhipped fisheries products is to take place in a port outside of the European Union, the fisheries products shall be weighed before being transported away from the port or place of transhipment.\n2. When the fisheries products are weighed on board an EU fishing vessel in accordance with Article 60(3) of the Control Regulation and they are weighed again on land after landing the figure resulting from the weighing on land shall be used for the purpose of Article 60(5) of the Control Regulation.\n3. Without prejudice to special provisions for EU fishing vessels not subject to the electronic completion and transmission of fishing logbook data as referred to in Article 15 of the Control Regulation the Member State may require the master to hand over a copy of the log sheet to the competent authorities of the Member State of landing prior to weighing.\nArticle 72\nWeighing systems\n1. All weighing systems shall be calibrated and sealed in accordance with national systems by the competent authorities of the Member State.\n2. The natural or legal person responsible for the weighing system shall maintain a record of calibration.\n3. Where the weighing is carried out on a conveyor belt system a visible counter shall be fitted that records the cumulative total of the weight. The reading of the counter at the start of the weighing operation as well as the cumulative total shall be recorded. All use of the system shall be recorded by the natural or legal person responsible for the weighing in the weighing logbook.\nArticle 73\nWeighing of frozen fisheries products\n1. Without prejudice to special provisions and in particular Articles 70 and 74 of this Regulation when landed quantities of frozen fisheries products are weighed, the weight of frozen fisheries products landed in boxes or blocks may be determined per species and, where appropriate, presentation by multiplying the total number of boxes or blocks by a net average weight for a box or block calculated according to the methodology set down in Annex XVIII.\n2. The natural or legal persons weighing the fisheries products shall keep a record per landing, indicating:\n(a)\nthe name and external registration letters and numbers of the vessel from which the fishery products have been landed;\n(b)\nthe species and, where appropriate, presentation of fish landed;\n(c)\nthe size of the lot and sample of pallets per species and, where appropriate, presentation in accordance with the provisions of point 1 of Annex XVIII;\n(d)\nthe weight of each pallet in the sample and the average weight of the pallets;\n(e)\nthe number of boxes or blocks on each pallet in the sample;\n(f)\nthe tare weight per box, if different from the tare weight specified in point 4 of Annex XVIII;\n(g)\nthe average weight of an empty pallet in accordance with the provisions of point 3(b) of Annex XVIII;\n(h)\nthe average weight per box or block of fisheries per species and, where appropriate, presentation.\nArticle 74\nIce and water\n1. Before weighing the registered buyer, registered auction or other bodies or persons responsible for the first marketing of fisheries products shall ensure that the fisheries products be cleaned of ice as is reasonable without causing spoilage and reducing quality.\n2. Without prejudice to special rules for pelagic species referred to in Articles 78 - 89 of this Regulation which are landed in bulk for transfer to the point of first marketing, storage or processing, the deduction of water and ice from the total weight shall not exceed 2%. In all cases the percentage for deduction of water and ice shall be recorded on the weighing slip with the entry for weight. For non-pelagic species there shall be no deduction of water or ice.\nArticle 75\nAccess by competent authorities\nThe competent authorities shall have full access at all times to the weighing systems, the weighing records, written declarations and all premises where the fisheries products are stored or processed.\nArticle 76\nSampling plans\n1. The sampling plan referred to in Article 60(1) of the Control Regulation and any substantial modification thereof shall be adopted by Member States in accordance with the risk-based methodology described in Annex XIX.\n2. The sampling plan referred to in Article 60(3) of the Control Regulation and any substantial modification thereof shall be adopted by Member States in accordance with the risk-based methodology described in Annex XX. If catches are weighed on board, the margin of tolerance as referred to in Articles 14(3) and 21(3) of the Control Regulation shall not apply when the figure resulting from weighing after landing is greater than the corresponding figure resulting from weighing on board.\n3. When Member States are intending to adopt sampling plans as referred to in Article 60(1) and (3) of the Control Regulation, they shall preferably submit a single sampling plan covering all weighing procedures concerned for a period of 3 years within 6 months after the entry into force of this Regulation. This sampling plan may consist of different parts for different fisheries.\n4. Any new sampling plans to be adopted after the date referred to in paragraph 3 or any modifications to such plans shall be submitted for approval 3 months before the end of the year concerned.\nArticle 77\nControl plans and programmes for the weighing of fisheries products after transport from the place of landing\n1. The control plan referred to in Article 61(1) of the Control Regulation and any substantial modification thereof shall be adopted by Member States in accordance with the risk-based methodology described in Annex XXI.\n2. When Member States are intending to adopt control plans referred to in Article 61(1) of the Control Regulation they shall submit a single control plan per Member State covering all transports of fisheries products to be weighed after transport. Such a control plan shall be submitted within 6 months after the entry into force of this Regulation. This single control plan may consist of different parts for different fisheries.\n3. The common control programme referred to in Article 61(2) of the Control Regulation and any substantial modification thereof shall be adopted by Member States in accordance with the risk-based methodology described in Annex XXII.\n4. When Member States are intending to adopt common control programmes referred to in Article 61(2) of the Control Regulation, they shall submit them within 6 months after the entry into force of this Regulation.\n5. Any new control plan as referred to in paragraph 2 or common control programmes as referred to in paragraph 4 to be adopted after the date referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 or any modifications to such plans or programmes shall be submitted 3 months before the end of the year preceding the date of entry into force of that plan or programme.\nSection 2\nSpecial rules for weighing of certain pelagic species\nArticle 78\nScope of weighing procedures for catches of herring, mackerel and horse mackerel\nThe rules set out in this Section shall apply to the weighing of catches landed in the European Union or by EU fishing vessels in third countries, of herring (Clupea harengus), mackerel (Scomber scombrus) and horse mackerel (Trachurus spp.) or a combination thereof, taken in:\n(a)\nfor herring in ICES zones: I, II, IIIa, IV, Vb, VI and VII;\n(b)\nfor mackerel in ICES zones: IIa, IIIa, IV, Vb, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII, XIV and EU waters of CECAF;\n(c)\nfor horse mackerel: ICES zones IIa, IV, Vb, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII, XIV and EU waters of CECAF,\nwhen the quantities per landing exceed 10 tonnes.\nArticle 79\nPorts of weighing catches of herring, mackerel and horse mackerel\n1. Catches of species referred to in Article 78 of this Regulation shall be weighed immediately on landing. However, catches of these species may be weighed after transport where:\n-\nfor a destination within a Member State the Member State concerned has adopted a control plan as referred to in Article 61(1) of the Control Regulation in accordance with the risk-based methodology described in Annex XXI,\n-\nfor a destination in another Member State the Member States concerned have adopted a common control programme as referred to in Article 61(2) of the Control Regulation in accordance with the risk-based methodology described in Annex XXII,\nand where this control plan or common control programme has been approved by the Commission\n2. Each Member State concerned shall establish at which of its ports the weighing of species referred to in Article 78 of this Regulation shall be carried out and shall ensure that all landings of such species are carried out in those ports. Such ports shall have:\n(a)\nestablished landing and transhipment times;\n(b)\nestablished landing and transhipment places;\n(c)\nestablished inspection and surveillance procedures.\n3. The Member States concerned shall communicate to the Commission the list of such ports and the inspection and surveillance procedures applicable in those ports, including the terms and conditions for recording and transmitting the quantities of any such species within each landing.\n4. Any changes to the lists of ports and to the inspection and surveillance procedures referred to in paragraph 3 shall be transmitted to the Commission, at least 15 days before they enter into force.\n5. Member States shall ensure that all landings of species referred to in Article 78 of this Regulation by their vessels outside the European Union are carried out in ports expressly chosen for the purpose of weighing by third countries which have concluded agreements with the European Union concerning such species.\n6. The Commission shall transmit the information referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 as well as the list of ports chosen by third countries to all Member States concerned.\n7. The Commission and the Member States concerned shall publish the list of ports and changes thereto on their official websites.\nArticle 80\nEntry into a port of a Member State\n1. For the purpose of weighing, the master of a fishing vessel or his representative shall inform the competent authorities of the Member State in which the landing is to be made, at least 4 hours in advance of entry to port of landing concerned of the following:\n(a)\nthe port he intends to enter, the name of the vessel and its external registration letters and numbers;\n(b)\nthe estimated time of arrival at that port;\n(c)\nthe quantities in kilograms live weight of herring, mackerel and horse mackerel retained on board;\n(d)\nrelevance geographical area(s) where the catch was taken; the zone shall refer to the sub-area and division or sub-division in which catch limits apply pursuant to Union law.\n2. The master of an EU fishing vessel which is under the obligation to record fishing logbook data electronically shall send the information referred to in paragraph 1 electronically to his flag Member State. The Member States shall transmit this information without delay to the Member State where the landing is to be made. The electronic fishing logbook data referred to in Article 15 of the Control Regulation and the information referred to in paragraph 1 may be sent in a single electronic transmission.\n3. Member States may provide for a shorter notification period than laid down in paragraph 1. In such a case the Member States concerned shall inform the Commission 15 days before the entry into force of the shorter notification period. The Commission and the Member States concerned shall put this information on their websites.\nArticle 81\nDischarge\nThe competent authorities of the Member State concerned shall require that the discharge of any catches referred to in Article 78 of this Regulation does not commence until it is expressly authorised. If the discharge is interrupted, permission shall be required before the discharge can recommence.\nArticle 82\nFishing logbook\n1. Immediately upon arrival in port and before the discharge commences, the master of a fishing vessel which is not under the obligation to record fishing logbook data electronically shall present the completed relevant page or pages of the fishing logbook for inspection by the competent authority of the Member State at the port of landing.\n2. The quantities of herring, mackerel and horse mackerel retained on board, notified prior to landing as referred to in Article 80(1)(c) of this Regulation, shall be equal to the quantities recorded in the fishing logbook after its completion.\nArticle 83\nPublicly operated weighing facilities for fresh herring, mackerel and horse mackerel\nWithout prejudice to the provisions of Article 72 of this Regulation, where publicly operated weighing facilities are used, the natural or legal persons weighing catches referred to in Article 78 of this Regulation shall issue to the buyer a weighing slip indicating the date and time of the weighing and the identity number of the tanker. A copy of the weighing slip shall be attached to the sales note or takeover declaration.\nArticle 84\nPrivately operated weighing facilities for fresh fish\n1. In addition to the provisions of Article 72 of this Regulation, the use of privately operated weighing facilities shall also be subject to the requirements of this Article.\n2. The natural or legal persons weighing any catches referred to in Article 78 of this Regulation shall for each weighing system keep a bound, paginated record. This shall be completed immediately after the completion of weighing of an individual landing, and at the latest by 23.59 local time of the day of completion of weighing. This record shall indicate:\n(a)\nthe name and external registration letters and numbers of the vessel from which any catches referred to in Article 78 of this Regulation have been landed;\n(b)\nthe unique identity number of the tankers and its load in cases where any catches referred to in Article 78 of this Regulation have been transported from the port of landing before weighing in accordance with Article 79 of this Regulation. Each tanker load shall be weighed and recorded separately. However the total weight of all the tanker loads from the same vessel may be recorded as a whole in case these tanker loads are weighed consecutively and without interruption;\n(c)\nthe species of fish;\n(d)\nthe weight of each landing;\n(e)\nthe date and time of the beginning and end of the weighing.\n3. Without prejudice to Article 72(3) of this Regulation, where the weighing is carried out on a conveyor belt system all use of the system shall be recorded in the bound, paginated record of weighing.\nArticle 85\nWeighing of frozen fish\nWhen landed quantities of frozen herring, mackerel and horse mackerel are weighed, the weight of frozen fish landed in boxes shall be determined per species in accordance with Article 73 of this Regulation.\nArticle 86\nKeeping of weighing records\nAll records of weighing provided for in Article 84(3) and Article 85 of this Regulation and the copies of any transport documents as part of a control plan or a common control programme referred to in Article 79(1) of this Regulation shall be kept for 6 years.\nArticle 87\nSales note and takeover declaration\nThe natural or legal persons responsible for the submission of sales notes and takeover declarations shall submit such declarations in respect of species referred to in Article 78 of this Regulation to the competent authorities of the Member State concerned on demand.\nArticle 88\nCross-checks\nUntil the establishment of a computerised database in accordance with Article 109 of the Control Regulation the competent authorities shall carry out administrative cross-checks on all landings between the following:\n(a)\nquantities by species of herring, mackerel and horse mackerel indicated in the prior notification of landing, as referred to in Article 80(1)(c) of this Regulation, and the quantities recorded in the fishing logbook;\n(b)\nquantities by species of herring, mackerel and horse mackerel recorded in the fishing logbook and the quantities recorded in the landing declaration;\n(c)\nquantities by species of herring, mackerel and horse mackerel recorded on the landing declaration and the quantities recorded in the takeover declaration or the sales note;\n(d)\ncatch area recorded in the vessel\u2019s fishing logbook and the VMS data for the vessel concerned.\nArticle 89\nMonitoring of weighing\n1. The weighing of catches of herring, mackerel and horse mackerel from the vessel shall be monitored by species. In the case of vessels pumping catch ashore the weighing of the entire discharge shall be monitored. In the case of landings of frozen herring, mackerel and horse mackerel, all boxes shall be counted and the methodology for calculating the average net weight of boxes provided for in Annex XVIII shall be monitored.\n2. The following data shall be cross-checked in addition to those referred to in Article 88 of this Regulation:\n(a)\nquantities by species of herring, mackerel and horse mackerel recorded in the records of weighing at public or private facilities and the quantities by species recorded in the takeover declaration or the sales note;\n(b)\nquantities by species of herring, mackerel and horse mackerel recorded in any transport documents as part of a control plan or a common control programme referred to in Article 79(1) of this Regulation;\n(c)\nunique identity numbers of tankers entered into the record in accordance with Article 84(2)(b) of this Regulation.\n3. It shall be verified that the vessel is empty of all fish, once the discharge has been completed.\n4. All monitoring activities covered by this Article and Article 107 of this Regulation shall be documented. Such documentation shall be kept for 6 years.\nCHAPTER III\nSales notes\nArticle 90\nGeneral rules\n1. In the sales note the number of individuals as referred to in Article 64(1)(f) of the Control Regulation shall be indicated if the relevant quota is managed on the basis of individuals.\n2. The type of presentation referred to in Article 64(1)(g) of the Control Regulation shall include the state of presentation as set out in Annex I.\n3. The price referred to in Article 64(1)(l) of the Control Regulation shall be indicated in the currency applicable in the Member State where the sale takes place.\nArticle 91\nFormats of sales notes\n1. Member States shall determine the format to be used for the electronic completion and transmission of sales notes as referred in Article 63 of the Control Regulation.\n2. Information referred to in this Chapter shall be exchanged between Member States using the format defined in Annex XII from which extensible mark-up language (XML) shall be derived. The XML standard to be used for all electronic data exchanges between Member States, and between Member States, the Commission and the body designated by it, shall be decided by the Commission after consultation with Member States.\n3. Amendments to the format referred to in paragraph 1 shall be clearly identified and marked with the date it was updated. Such amendments shall not come into effect earlier than 6 months after they have been decided.\n4. When a Member State receives electronic information from another Member State it shall ensure that a return message is issued to the competent authorities of that Member State. The return message shall contain an acknowledgement of receipt.\n5. Data elements in Annex XII that are mandatory for registered buyers, registered auctions or other bodies or persons authorised by Member States to record in their sales notes according to EU rules shall also be mandatory in exchanges between Member States.\n6. Member States shall:\n(a)\nensure that data received according to this Chapter are recorded in computer-readable form and safely stored in computerised databases for at least 3 years;\n(b)\ntake all necessary measures to ensure that they are only used for official purposes; and\n(c)\ntake all necessary technical measures to protect such data against any accidental or illicit destruction, accidental loss, deterioration, distribution or unauthorised consultation.\n7. In each Member State, the single authority referred to in Article 5(5) of the Control Regulation shall be responsible for transmitting, receiving, managing and processing all data covered by this Chapter.\n8. Member States shall exchange contact details of the authorities referred to in paragraph 7 and shall inform the Commission and the body designated by it thereof within 3 months after the entry into force of this Regulation.\n9. Any changes in the information referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8 shall be communicated to the Commission, the body designated by it and other Member States before they become effective.\n10. The format of sales notes not subject to electronic completion and transmission shall be decided by Member States. Those sales notes shall contain as a minimum the information set down in Article 64(1) of the Control Regulation.\nTITLE V\nSURVEILLANCE\nCHAPTER I\nSurveillance reports\nArticle 92\nInformation to be recorded in the surveillance report\n1. The surveillance reports referred to in Article 71(3) and (4) of the Control Regulation shall be established in accordance with Annex XXIII to this Regulation.\n2. Member States shall upload the data contained in their surveillance reports into the electronic database referred to in Article 78 of the Control Regulation and provide for the functionalities referred to in Annex XXIV No 2 to this Regulation. The minimum information recorded in this database shall be that indicated in Annex XXIII. Paper surveillance reports may also additionally be scanned into the database.\n3. The data from the reports shall be kept available in the database for at least 3 years.\n4. Upon receipt of a surveillance report as referred to in paragraph 1 the flag Member State shall, as soon as possible, initiate an investigation on the activities of its fishing vessels to which the surveillance report refers.\n5. Paragraph 1 shall apply without prejudice to the rules adopted by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations to which the European Union is a contracting party.\nCHAPTER II\nControl observers\nArticle 93\nGeneral rules concerning control observers\n1. Without prejudice to special rules established by a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation or agreed with a third country, EU fishing vessels identified for the application of a control observer scheme shall carry at least one control observer on board during the time fixed by the scheme.\n2. Member States shall designate control observers and ensure they are able to carry out their tasks. Member States shall ensure in particular the deployment of control observers to and from the EU fishing vessel concerned.\n3. Control observers shall not perform other tasks than those established Article 73 of the Control Regulation and in Article 95 of this Regulation unless other tasks are to be performed pursuant to the EU control observer scheme or as a part of an observer programme under the scope of a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation or established in the framework of a bilateral agreement with a third country.\n4. The competent authorities shall ensure that for the purposes of their mission control observers have means of communication independent from the communication system of the fishing vessel.\n5. These rules do not affect the powers of the master of the fishing vessel as being in sole charge of the operations of the vessel.\nArticle 94\nIndependence of control observers\nIn order to be independent from the owner, the operator, the master of the EU fishing vessel and any crew member, as prescribed by Article 73(2) of the Control Regulation, control observers shall not be:\n-\na relative or an employee of the master of the EU fishing vessel or any other crew member, the representative of the master or the owner or the operator of the EU fishing vessel to which he is assigned,\n-\nan employee of a company controlled by the master, a crew member, the representative of the master or the owner or the operator of the EU fishing vessel to which he is assigned.\nArticle 95\nDuties of control observers\n1. Control observers shall verify the relevant documents and record the fishing activities of the EU fishing vessel in which they are embarked as are listed in Annex XXV.\n2. Control observers on board an EU fishing vessel shall, where appropriate, brief the officials who are about to proceed to an inspection of that fishing vessel upon arrival on board. If the facilities on board the EU fishing vessel so allow and where appropriate the brief shall take place in a closed meeting.\n3. Control observers shall draw up the report referred to in Article 73(5) of the Control Regulation using the format established in Annex XXVI. They shall forward that report without delay and in any case within 30 days following completion of an assignment to his authorities and to the competent authorities of the flag Member State. Their competent authorities shall make the report available, on request, to the coastal Member State, the Commission or the body designated by it. Copies of reports made available to other Member States may not include the locations where the catches were taken in respect of start and finish positions of each fishing operation, but may include daily totals of catch in kilograms live weight equivalent by species and ICES division or other zone as appropriate.\nArticle 96\nPilot projects\nThe Union may provide financial assistance for carrying out pilot projects involving the deployment of control observers in accordance with Article 8(a)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006.\nTITLE VI\nINSPECTION\nCHAPTER I\nConduct of inspections\nSection 1\nGeneral provisions\nArticle 97\nOfficials authorised to conduct inspections at sea or on land\n1. Officials responsible for carrying out inspections, as referred to in Article 74 of the Control Regulation shall be authorised by the competent authorities of the Member States. To this end, Member States shall provide their officials with a service card stating their identity and the capacity under which they operate. Each official on duty shall carry that service card and present it during an inspection at the earliest opportunity.\n2. Member States shall confer adequate powers on their officials as necessary for the fulfilment of control, inspection and enforcement in accordance with this Regulation, and to ensure compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy.\nArticle 98\nGeneral principles\n1. Without prejudice to provisions contained in multi-annual plans, competent authorities of Member States shall adopt a risk based approach for the selection of targets for inspection, using all available information. In accordance with this approach, officials shall carry out inspections in accordance with rules laid down in this Chapter.\n2. Without prejudice to provisions contained in multi-annual plans, Member States shall coordinate their control, inspection and enforcement activities. To this end, they shall adopt and execute national control action programmes as referred to in Article 46 of the Control Regulation and common control programmes as referred to in Article 94 of the Control Regulation covering both activities at sea and on land as necessary to ensure compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy.\n3. Subject to a risk based control and enforcement strategy each Member State shall carry out the necessary inspection activities in an objective way in order to prevent the retention on board, transhipment, landing, transfer to cages and farms, processing, transport, storage, marketing and stocking of fishery products originating from activities that are not in compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy.\n4. Inspections shall be carried out in a manner as to prevent to the extent possible any negative impact on the hygiene and quality of the fisheries products inspected.\n5. Member States shall ensure that national fisheries related information systems allow for the direct electronic exchange of information on port state inspections between themselves, other Member States, the Commission and the body designated by it as appropriate, in accordance with Article 111 of the Control Regulation.\nArticle 99\nDuties of officials during the pre-inspection phase\nDuring the pre-inspection phase officials shall, where possible, collect all appropriate information, including:\n(a)\nfishing licences and fishing authorisations;\n(b)\nVMS information corresponding to the current fishing trip;\n(c)\naerial surveillance, and other sightings;\n(d)\nprevious inspection records and available information on the secure part of the website of the flag Member State on the EU fishing vessel concerned.\nArticle 100\nDuties of officials authorised to conduct inspections\n1. Officials authorised to conduct inspections shall verify and note the relevant items defined in the appropriate inspection module of the inspection report in Annex XXVII. For this purpose they may take pictures, video and audio recordings in accordance with national law, and, where appropriate, samples.\n2. Officials shall not interfere with the right of any operator to communicate with the competent flag state authorities during inspection operations.\n3. Officials shall take into account any information provided in accordance with Article 95(2) of this Regulation by a control observer on board the fishing vessel to be inspected.\n4. On completion of an inspection officials shall debrief operators as appropriate on fisheries regulations relevant to the prevailing circumstances.\n5. Officials shall leave as soon as possible the fishing vessel or the inspected premise following the completion of the inspection if no evidence of an apparent infringement is detected.\nArticle 101\nObligations of Member States, the Commission and European Fisheries Control Agency\n1. The competent authorities of Member States, and, where appropriate, the Commission and the European Fisheries Control Agency, shall ensure that their officials, whilst being courteous and sensitive, conduct inspections professionally and to a high standard.\n2. The competent authorities of each Member State shall establish procedures to ensure that any complaint made by operators regarding the conduct of inspections carried out by their officials is investigated in a fair and thorough manner in accordance with national law.\n3. Coastal Member States may, subject to appropriate arrangements with the flag Member State of a fishing vessel, invite officials of the competent authorities of that Member State to participate in inspections of fishing vessels of that Member State, whilst those vessels are operating in waters of the coastal Member State or landing in its ports.\nSection 2\nInspections at sea\nArticle 102\nGeneral provisions on inspections at sea\n1. Any vessel used for control purposes including surveillance shall display so as to be clearly visible, a pennant or a symbol as shown in Annex XXVIII.\n2. A boarding craft used to facilitate the transfer of officials carrying out inspections shall fly a similar flag or pennant of a size appropriate to that of the boarding craft to indicate that it is engaged in fishery inspection duties.\n3. Persons in charge of inspection vessels shall have due regard to the rules of seamanship and manoeuvre at a safe distance from the fishing vessel in accordance with the international rules for the prevention of collisions at sea.\nArticle 103\nBoarding fishing vessels at sea\n1. Officials responsible for the conduct of the inspection shall ensure that no action is taken that may compromise the safety of the fishing vessel and its crew.\n2. Officials shall not require the master of a fishing vessel that is being boarded or disembarked to stop or manoeuvre during fishing, or to stop the shooting or hauling of fishing gear. Officials may, however, require the interruption or delay of the shooting of gear to permit safe boarding or disembarkation until they have boarded or disembarked the fishing vessel. In the case of boarding this delay shall not exceed 30 minutes after officials have boarded the fishing vessel unless an infringement has been detected. This provision does not affect the possibility of officials to require the gear to be hauled for inspection.\nArticle 104\nOn board activities\n1. When carrying out their inspection, officials shall verify and note all appropriate items provided for in the appropriate inspection report module set out in Annex XXVII to this Regulation.\n2. Officials may require the master to haul a fishing gear for inspection.\n3. Inspection teams shall normally be comprised of two officials. Additional officials may supplement inspections teams when necessary.\n4. The duration of an inspection shall not exceed 4 hours, or until the net is hauled in, and the net and catches are inspected, whichever is longer. It shall not apply in the case that an apparent infringement is detected or where the officials need further information.\n5. In the case of an apparent infringement being detected, identification marks and seals may be affixed securely to any part of the fishing gear or the fishing vessel, including containers of fisheries products and the compartment(s) in which they may be stowed, and the official(s) may remain on board for the time necessary for the completion of appropriate measures to ensure security and continuity of all the evidence of the apparent infringement.\nSection 3\nInspections in port\nArticle 105\nPreparation of inspection\n1. Without prejudice to benchmarks defined in specific control and inspection programmes and in Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, an inspection of a fishing vessel shall take place in port or on landing, on the following occasions:\n(a)\nroutinely subject to a sampling methodology based on a risk-based management; or\n(b)\nwhere it is suspected of failing to comply with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy.\n2. In cases referred to in paragraph 1(b) and without prejudice to the last sentence of Article 106(2) of this Regulation the competent authorities of the Member States shall ensure that the fishing vessel to be inspected in port is met by their officials on arrival.\n3. Paragraph 1 does not exclude the possibility for Member States to undertake random inspections.\nArticle 106\nInspections in port\n1. When carrying out inspections officials shall verify and note all appropriate items listed in the corresponding inspection report module set out in Annex XXVII to this Regulation. Officials shall have due regard to any specific requirements which apply to the inspected fishing vessel, in particular to relevant provisions in multi-annual plans.\n2. When carrying out an inspection of a landing officials shall monitor the whole landing process from the beginning to the end of the respective operation. A cross-check shall be carried out between the quantities by species recorded in the prior notification of arrival to land fishery products, the quantities by species recorded in the fishing logbook and the quantities by species landed or transhipped whichever is applicable. This provision shall not exclude the possibility of an inspection taking place after the start of the landing.\n3. Member States shall ensure the effective inspection and control of premises used in connection with fishing activities and subsequent processing of fisheries products.\nArticle 107\nInspection of certain pelagic landings\nFor landings of herring, mackerel and horse mackerel as referred to in Title IV, Chapter II, Section 2 of this Regulation the competent authorities of a Member State shall ensure that at least 15 % of the quantities of this fish landed and at least 10 % of the landings of this fish are inspected.\nSection 4\nTransport inspections\nArticle 108\nGeneral principles\n1. Without prejudice to provisions contained in multi-annual plans, transport inspections may take place anywhere and at anytime from the point of landing to the arrival of the fisheries products at the place of sale or processing. In carrying out inspections, the necessary measures shall be taken as to ensure the maintenance of the cold chain of the fisheries products inspected.\n2. Without prejudice to provisions contained in multi-annual plans and national control programmes or specific control and inspection programmes, transport inspections shall include, wherever possible, a physical examination of the products transported.\n3. The physical examination of the transported fishery products shall involve the taking of a sample representative of the different sections of the lot or lots transported.\n4. When carrying out a transport, inspection officials shall verify and note all items referred to in Article 68(5) of the Control Regulation and all appropriate items in the report module set out in Annex XXVII to this Regulation. This shall include verification that the quantities of fisheries products transported correspond to the details entered on the transport document.\nArticle 109\nTransport vehicles sealed\n1. When a vehicle or a container has been sealed to avoid manipulation of the cargo, competent authorities of Member States shall ensure that serial numbers of seals are noted on the transport document. Officials shall inspect that the seals are intact and that the serial numbers correspond with the details on the transport document.\n2. Where seals are removed to facilitate inspection of the cargo before the cargo arrives at the final destination, officials shall replace the original seal with a fresh seal, recording the seal details in the transport document and the reasons for the removal of the original seal.\nSection 5\nMarket inspections\nArticle 110\nGeneral principles\nOfficials shall verify and note all appropriate items listed in the corresponding inspection module in Annex XXVII to this Regulation when visiting cold stores, gross and retail markets, restaurants or any other premises where fish is stored and/or sold after landing has taken place.\nArticle 111\nAdditional methodologies and technologies\nIn addition to the items listed in Annex XXVII, Member States may make use of available methodologies and technologies for the identification and validation of fisheries products, their source or origin and the suppliers and catching vessels or production units.\nArticle 112\nControl of fisheries products withdrawn from the market\nOfficials shall verify that fisheries products withdrawn from sale in accordance with Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 (32) are disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2493/2001 (33).\nCHAPTER II\nDuties of operators\nArticle 113\nGeneral obligations of operators\n1. All operators acting under the jurisdiction of a Member State may be subject to an inspection regarding their obligations under rules of the Common Fishery Policy.\n2. All operators subject to an inspection shall:\n(a)\nfacilitate and provide officials on request with the necessary information and documents, including, where possible, copies thereof, or access to relevant databases, regarding fishing activities as required to be completed and held in electronic or paper format in accordance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy;\n(b)\nfacilitate access to all parts of vessels, premises and any transport means, including aircraft and hovercraft used in connection or associated with fishing and processing activities;\n(c)\nensure at any moment the safety of officials, and actively assist and cooperate with the officials in the performance of their inspection duties;\n(d)\nnot obstruct, intimidate or interfere, not cause any other person to obstruct, intimidate or interfere, and prevent any other person to obstruct, intimidate or interfere with officials carrying out the inspection;\n(e)\nprovide, where possible, a meeting facility in isolation for a briefing of officials by a control observer as referred to in Article 95(2) of this Regulation.\nArticle 114\nObligations of the master during inspections\n1. The master of a fishing vessel which is being inspected or his representative shall:\n(a)\nfacilitate safe and effective boarding of officials in accordance with good seamanship when the appropriate signal of the International Code of Signals is given or when the intention to board is established through radio communication by a vessel or helicopter carrying an official;\n(b)\nprovide a boarding ladder meeting the requirements of Annex XXIX to facilitate safe and convenient access to any vessel which requires a climb of 1,5 metres or more;\n(c)\nfacilitate the officials to perform their inspection duties, providing such assistance as is requested and is reasonable;\n(d)\npermit the official(s) to communicate with the authorities of the flag State, the coastal State and the inspecting State;\n(e)\nalert officials to particular safety hazards on board fishing vessels;\n(f)\nprovide access by officials to all areas of the vessel, all processed or unprocessed catches, all fishing gears and all relevant information and documents;\n(g)\nfacilitate safe disembarkation by officials on completion of the inspection.\n2. Masters shall not be required to reveal commercially sensitive information over open radio channels.\nCHAPTER III\nInspection report\nArticle 115\nCommon rules concerning inspection reports\n1. Without prejudice to special rules in the framework of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, inspection reports as referred to in Article 76 of the Control Regulation shall include the relevant information contained in the appropriate module established in Annex XXVII. The reports shall be completed by officials during the inspection or as soon as possible after the completion of the inspection.\n2. When an apparent infringement is detected in the course of an inspection, the legal and material elements together with any other information relevant to the infringement shall be included in the inspection report. When several infringements are detected in the course of an inspection, relevant elements of each infringement shall be noted in the inspection report.\n3. Officials shall communicate their findings to the natural person in charge of the fishing vessel, vehicle, aircraft, hovercraft or premises being inspected (operator) at the end of the inspection. The operator shall have the possibility to comment on the inspection and its findings. Comments by the operator shall be noted in the inspection report. In case where officials do not speak the same language as the inspected operator, they shall take appropriate measures to make understandable their findings.\n4. If required, the operator shall have the right to contact his representative or the competent authorities of his flag State, if serious difficulties arise regarding comprehension of the outcomes of the inspection and of the ensuing report.\n5. The format for electronic transmission referred to in Article 76(1) of the Control Regulation shall be decided after consultation between the Member States and the Commission.\nArticle 116\nCompletion of inspection reports\n1. When the inspection report is established manually on a paper format, it shall be legible, indelible and clearly recorded. No entry in the report shall be erased or altered. If a mistake is made in a manually established report, the incorrect entry shall be struck out neatly and shall be initialled by the official concerned.\n2. The official responsible for the inspection shall sign the report. The operator shall be invited to sign the report. Without prejudice to national law his/her signature shall constitute an acknowledgement of the report and shall not be regarded as an acceptance of the contents therein.\n3. Officials may establish inspection reports referred to in Article 115 of this Regulation by electronic means.\nArticle 117\nCopy of the inspection report\nA copy of the inspection report referred to in Article 116 of this Regulation shall be sent to the operator no later than 15 working days after the completion of the inspection and in accordance with the national law of the Member State having sovereignty or jurisdiction at the place of inspection. If an infringement is detected, disclosure of the report shall be subject to the laws on disclosure of information in the Member State concerned.\nCHAPTER IV\nElectronic database\nArticle 118\nElectronic database\n1. Member States shall include in their national control programmes procedures on the recording by their officials of inspection reports in a paper or an electronic format. These reports shall be entered into the electronic database referred to in Article 78 of the Control Regulation and provide for the functionalities referred to in Annex XXIV No. 2 to this Regulation. The minimum information contained in the electronic database shall be those items noted in accordance with Article 115(1) of this Regulation and indicated as compulsory in Annex XXVII. Paper inspection reports shall also be scanned into the database.\n2. The database shall be accessible for the Commission and the body designated by it, in accordance with the procedures described in Articles 114, 115 and 116 of the Control Regulation. The relevant data in the database shall also be accessible to other Member States in the context of a joint deployment plan.\n3. The data from the inspection reports shall be kept available in the database for at least 3 years.\nCHAPTER V\nUnion inspectors\nArticle 119\nNotification of Union inspectors\n1. Member States and the European Fisheries Control Agency shall notify the Commission electronically within 3 months after the entry into force of this Regulation of the names of their officials to be included in the list of Union inspectors referred to in Article 79 of the Control Regulation.\n2. Officials to be included in the list shall:\n(a)\nhave a thorough experience in the field of fisheries control and inspection;\n(b)\nhave an in-depth knowledge of fisheries legislation of the European Union;\n(c)\nhave a thorough knowledge of one of the official languages of the European Union and a satisfactory knowledge of a second;\n(d)\nbe physically fit to perform their duties;\n(e)\nhave, where appropriate, received the necessary training with regard the safety at sea.\nArticle 120\nList of Union inspectors\n1. On the basis of the notifications of Member States and the European Fisheries Control Agency the Commission shall adopt a list of Union inspectors 6 months after the entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. After the establishment of the initial list, Member States and the European Fisheries Control Agency shall notify to the Commission by October each year any amendment to the list which they wish to introduce for the following calendar year. The Commission shall amend the list accordingly by 31 December each year.\n3. The list and amendment thereto shall be published on the official website of the European Fisheries Control Agency.\nArticle 121\nCommunication of Union inspectors to Regional Fisheries Management Organisations\nThe body designated by the Commission shall communicate to the secretariat of a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation the list of Union inspectors who are to carry out inspections in the framework of that Organisation.\nArticle 122\nPowers and duties of Union inspectors\n1. In the accomplishment of their tasks Union inspectors shall comply with the law of the European Union and, as far as applicable, the national law of the Member State where the inspection takes place or, where the inspection is carried out outside EU waters, of the flag Member State of the inspected fishing vessel and relevant international rules.\n2. Union inspectors shall present a service card stating their identity and the capacity under which they operate. For this purpose they shall be provided with an identification document issued by the Commission or the European Fisheries Control Agency stating their identity and capacity.\n3. Member States shall facilitate the execution of duties by Union inspectors and shall afford them such assistance as they need to fulfil their tasks.\n4. Competent authorities of Member States may permit Union inspectors to assist national inspectors in the execution of their duties.\n5. Articles 113 and 114 of this Regulation shall apply in a corresponding manner.\nArticle 123\nReports\n1. Union inspectors shall submit a daily summary on their inspection activities, including the name and identification number of each fishing vessel or craft inspected and the type of inspection carried out, to the competent authorities of the Member State in whose waters the inspection took place or, where the inspection was carried outside EU waters, to the flag Member State of the inspected EU fishing vessel, and the European Fisheries Control Agency.\n2. If Union inspectors detect an infringement in the course of an inspection, they shall without delay submit a summarised inspection report to the competent authorities of the coastal Member State or, where the inspection was carried outside EU waters, to competent authorities of the flag State of the inspected fishing vessel and the European Fisheries Control Agency. Such summarised inspection report shall specify at least the date and place of the inspection, identification of the inspection platform, identification of the inspected target and type of infringement detected.\n3. Union inspectors shall submit a copy of the full inspection report noting the relevant items in the appropriate inspection module of the inspection report in Annex XXVII to the competent authorities of the flag State of the inspected fishing vessel or craft and of the Member State in whose waters the inspection took place, within 7 days from the date of inspection. If the Union inspectors have detected an infringement, a copy of the full inspection report shall also be sent to the European Fisheries Control Agency.\n4. Daily reports and inspection reports referred to in this Article shall be transmitted, upon request, to the Commission.\nArticle 124\nFollow-up of reports\n1. Member States shall act on reports submitted by the Union inspectors in accordance with Article 123 of this Regulation in the same way as they act on reports from their own officials.\n2. The Member State that nominated the Union inspector or, where appropriate, the Commission or the European Fisheries Control Agency shall cooperate with the Member State acting on a report submitted by the Union inspector in order to facilitate judicial and administrative proceedings.\n3. On request, a Union inspector shall assist and give evidence in infringement proceedings undertaken by any Member State.\nTITLE VII\nENFORCEMENT\nPOINT SYSTEM FOR SERIOUS INFRINGEMENTS\nArticle 125\nSetting up and operation of a point system for serious infringements\nEach Member State shall designate the competent national authorities which shall be responsible for:\n(a)\nsetting up the system for the attribution of points for serious infringements, as referred to in Article 92(1) of the Control Regulation;\n(b)\nassigning the appropriate numbers of points to the holder of a fishing licence;\n(c)\ntransferring assigned points to any future holder of a fishing licence for the fishing vessel concerned where the latter is sold, transferred or otherwise changes ownership; and\n(d)\nkeeping relevant records of the points assigned or transferred to the holder for each fishing licence.\nArticle 126\nAssignation of points\n1. The number of points for serious infringements shall be assigned in accordance with Annex XXX to the holder of the fishing licence for the fishing vessel concerned by the competent authority of the flag Member State.\n2. When two or more serious infringements by the same natural or legal person holding the licence are detected in the course of one inspection, points in respect of each serious infringement concerned shall be assigned to the holder of the fishing licence referred to in paragraph 1 up to a maximum of 12 points.\n3. The holder of the fishing licence shall be informed that points have been assigned to him.\n4. The points are assigned to the holder of the licence on the date set in the decision assigning them. Member States shall ensure that the application of national rules concerning the suspensory effects of review proceedings do not render the point system ineffective.\n5. Where the serious infringement is detected in a Member State other than the flag Member State, the points shall be assigned by the competent authorities of the flag Member State referred to in Article 125 of this Regulation upon notification pursuant to Article 89(4) of the Control Regulation.\nArticle 127\nNotification of decisions\nIf the authority designated in accordance with Article 125 of this Regulation is not the same as the single authority referred to in Article 5(5) of the Control Regulation, the latter shall be informed of any decision taken pursuant to this Title.\nArticle 128\nTransfer of ownership\nWhen the fishing vessel is offered for sale or for other type of transfer of ownership, the holder of the fishing licence shall inform any potential future licence holder of the number of points which are still assigned to him by means of a certified copy obtained from the competent authorities.\nArticle 129\nSuspension and permanent withdrawal of a fishing licence\n1. The accumulation of 18, 36, 54, 72 points by the holder of a fishing licence shall automatically trigger the first, second, third and fourth suspension of the fishing licence respectively for the relevant periods referred to in Article 92(3) of the Control Regulation.\n2. The accumulation of 90 points by the holder of a fishing licence shall trigger automatically the permanent withdrawal of the fishing licence.\nArticle 130\nFollow-up of suspension and permanent withdrawal of fishing licence\n1. If a fishing licence is suspended or permanently withdrawn in accordance with Article 129 of this Regulation, the competent authority of the flag Member State shall inform the holder of the fishing licence immediately of this suspension or permanent withdrawal.\n2. Upon receiving the information referred to in paragraph 1 the holder of the fishing licence shall ensure that the fishing activity of the vessel concerned ceases immediately. He shall ensure that it proceeds immediately to its home port or a port indicated by the competent authorities of the flag Member State. During the voyage the fishing gear shall be lashed and stowed in accordance with Article 47 of the Control Regulation. The holder of the fishing licence shall ensure that any catch on board the fishing vessel is dealt with in accordance with the instructions of the competent authorities of the flag Member State.\nArticle 131\nDeletion of fishing licences from relevant lists\n1. If the fishing licence is suspended or withdrawn permanently in accordance with Article 129(1) or (2) of this Regulation, the fishing vessel to which the suspended or permanently withdrawn fishing licence relates shall be identified as being without fishing licence in the national register referred to in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. This fishing vessel shall also be identified in this way in the EU fishing fleet register referred to in Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\n2. The permanent withdrawal of a fishing licence in accordance with Article 129(2) of this Regulation shall not affect the reference levels of the Member State issuing the licence as referred to in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\n3. The competent authorities of Member States shall immediately update the list referred to in Article 116(1)(d) of the Control Regulation with an indication of all points assigned and resulting suspensions and permanent withdrawals of fishing licences, including the date on which they became applicable and their duration.\nArticle 132\nIllegal fishing during the suspension period or after the permanent withdrawal of a fishing licence\n1. If a fishing vessel, the fishing licence of which is suspended or has been permanently withdrawn in accordance with Article 129 of this Regulation, carries out fishing activities during the suspension period or after the permanent withdrawal of the fishing licence, the competent authorities shall take immediate enforcement measures in accordance with Article 91 of the Control Regulation.\n2. The fishing vessel referred to in paragraph 1 may, where appropriate, be included the EU IUU vessel list in accordance with Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008.\nArticle 133\nDeletion of points\n1. If a fishing licence has been suspended in accordance with Article 129 of this Regulation, the points on the basis of which the fishing licence has been suspended shall not be deleted. Any new points assigned to the holder of the fishing licence shall be added to existing points for the purpose of Article 129 of this Regulation.\n2. For the application of Article 92(3) of the Control Regulation, if points have been deleted in accordance with Article 92(4) of the Control Regulation the holder of fishing licence shall be considered as if his fishing licence had not been suspended in accordance with Article 129 of this Regulation.\n3. Two points shall be deleted provided that the total amount of points assigned to the holder of the fishing licence for the fishing vessel concerned exceeds two, if:\n(a)\nthe fishing vessel which has been used in committing the infringement for which points were assigned uses thereafter VMS or records and transmits thereafter fishing logbook, transhipment and landing declaration data electronically without being legally subject to these technologies; or\n(b)\nthe holder of the fishing licence volunteers after the assignation of points to take part in a scientific campaign for the improvement of the selectivity of the fishing gear; or\n(c)\nthe holder of the fishing licence is a member of a producer organisation and the holder of the fishing licence accepts a fishing plan adopted by the producer organisation in the year following the assignation of the points involving a reduction of 10 % of the fishing opportunities for the holder of the fishing licence; or\n(d)\nthe holder of the fishing licence joins a fishery covered by an eco-labelling scheme that is designed to certify and promote labels for products from well-managed marine capture fisheries and focus on issues related to the sustainable use of fisheries resources.\nFor each 3-year period since the date of the last serious infringement, the holder of a fishing licence can avail himself of one of the options under (a), (b), (c) or (d), to reduce the amount of points assigned only once, and provided that such reduction does not lead to the deletion of all points on the fishing licence.\n4. If the points were deleted in accordance with paragraph 3 the holder of the fishing licence shall be informed of that deletion. The holder of the fishing licence shall also be informed of the number of points that still remain.\nArticle 134\nPoint system for masters of fishing vessels\nMember States shall inform the Commission 6 months after the date of application of this Title of their national point systems for masters as referred to in Article 92(6) of the Control Regulation.\nTITLE VIII\nMEASURES TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE BY THE MEMBER STATES OF COMMON FISHERIES POLICY OBJECTIVES\nCHAPTER I\nSuspension and cancellation of Union financial assistance\nArticle 135\nDefinition\nFor the purpose of this Chapter the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018payment\u2019 means any financial contribution to be paid out by the Commission following a payment request submitted by a Member State during or at the end of the implementation of an operational programme under Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 or of a project covered by Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006;\n(2)\n\u2018interruption\u2019 means disrupting the running of the payment\u2019s deadline;\n(3)\n\u2018suspension\u2019 means suspension of the payments pursuant to specific payment requests as referred to in Article 103(1) of the Control Regulation;\n(4)\n\u2018cancellation\u2019 means annulling all or part of the suspended Union contribution to an operational programme under Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 or to a specific project covered by Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006.\nArticle 136\nInterruption of the payment deadline\n1. The deadline for a payment may be interrupted by the authorising officer by delegation as defined in Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (34) for a maximum period of 6 months if:\n(a)\nthere are findings of non-compliance with CFP rules; or\n(b)\nthe authorising officer by delegation has to carry out additional verifications following findings indicating that there are failures in the control system of a Member State and/or non-compliance with CFP rules of fishery and fishery-related activities.\n2. The concerned Member State shall be informed in writing as referred to in Article 103(3) of the Control Regulation of the reasons for the interruption of the payment deadline. It shall be asked to communicate to the Commission within 1 month of receipt of that letter the remedial actions taken and/or information concerning the financial assistance granted to the fisheries related activities subject matter of the non-compliance as set out in Annex XXXI to this Regulation.\n3. Where the Member State concerned does not respond to the Commission\u2019s request within the period mentioned in paragraph 2, or where it provides an unsatisfactory response, the Commission may send a reminder allowing an additional period of maximum 15 days.\n4. The interruption shall be ended where the Member State demonstrates in its reply that it has taken remedial actions to ensure compliance with CFP rules or that the findings indicating that there are failures in its control system and/or non-compliance with CFP rules of fishery and fishery-related activities were unfounded.\nArticle 137\nSuspension of payments\n1. 1. Where the Member State concerned does not respond to the Commission\u2019s request within the period mentioned in Article 136 of this Regulation, or where it provides an unsatisfactory response, the Commission may adopt on the basis of the information available at that time a decision to suspend all or part of payments of the Union financial assistance to that Member State (hereinafter referred to as \u2018suspension decision\u2019) as referred to in Article 103(1) of the Control Regulation.\n2. The suspension decision shall summarise the relevant issues of fact and law, shall include the assessment of the Commission with regard to the conditions referred to in Article 103(1) and (6) of the Control Regulation and shall set the part of the payment that is suspended. The suspension decision shall call upon the Member State concerned to take remedial actions within a prescribed period which shall not exceed 6 months.\n3. The amount of payments to be suspended shall be decided by applying a rate which shall be determined taking into account the criteria set in Article 103(5) of the Control Regulation.\nArticle 138\nCancellation of financial assistance\n1. Where, during the suspension period, the Member State still fails to demonstrate that it has corrected the situation which led to the suspension decision, as referred to in Article 103(2) of the Control Regulation, the Commission may inform it of its intention to adopt a cancellation decision. Article 136(2) and (3) of this Regulation shall apply in a corresponding manner.\n2. Where the Member State concerned does not respond to the Commission\u2019s request referred to in paragraph 1, or where it provides an unsatisfactory response, the Commission may adopt on the basis of the information available at that time a decision to cancel all or part of suspended payments to that Member State.\n3. The cancellation decision referred to in paragraph 2 may include the recovery of part of or all of the advance, if any, on the financial contribution already paid for in relation to the projects covered by Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 for which payments were suspended.\n4. The amount of the suspended payments to be cancelled shall be decided by applying a rate which shall be determined taking into account the criteria set in Article 103(5) of the Control Regulation.\n5. The amount of the advance on the financial contribution to be recovered on projects for which payments were suspended shall be repaid to the Commission by a recovery procedure as set in Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and Article 72 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.\nCHAPTER II\nDeduction of fishing opportunities\nArticle 139\nGeneral rules for the deduction of fishing opportunities for excess of utilisation\n1. The size of the excess of utilisation of fishing opportunities with respect to available quotas and fishing effort established for a given period, as referred to in Articles 105(1) and 106(1) of the Control Regulation, shall be determined on the basis of the figures available on the 15th day of the second month after the expiration of the regulated period.\n2. The size of the excess of utilisation of fishing opportunities shall be determined with respect to the fishing opportunities available at the end of each given period to the Member State concerned taking into account exchanges of fishing opportunities in accordance with Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, quota transfers in accordance with Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 (35), reallocation of available fishing opportunities in accordance with Article 37 of the Control Regulation, and deduction of fishing opportunities in accordance with Articles 105, 106 and 107 of the Control Regulation.\n3. The exchange of fishing opportunities in accordance with Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 for a given period shall not be allowed after the last day of the first month after the expiration of that period.\nArticle 140\nConsultation on the deduction of fishing opportunities\nFor deductions of fishing opportunities in accordance with Article 105(4) and (5) and Article 106(3) of the Control Regulation, the Commission shall consult the Member State concerned on suggested measures. The Member State concerned shall respond within 10 working days to this consultation by the Commission.\nCHAPTER III\nDeduction of quotas for failure to comply with the rules of the common fisheries policy\nArticle 141\nRules for deduction of quotas for failure to comply with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy\n1. The deadline for the Member State to demonstrate that the fisheries can be safely exploited, referred to in Article 107(2) of the Control Regulation, shall apply from the date of the Commission\u2019s letter to the Member State.\n2. Member States shall include, in their reply pursuant to Article 107(2) of the Control Regulation, material evidence that is capable of demonstrating to the Commission that the fishery can be safely exploited.\nArticle 142\nDetermination of the quantities to be deducted\n1. Any deduction of quotas in accordance with Article 107 of the Control Regulation shall be proportionate to the extent and the nature of non-compliance with rules on stocks subject to multi-annual plans and gravity of the threat to the conservation of these stocks. It shall take into account the damage caused to these stocks by the non-compliance with rules on stocks subject to multi-annual plans.\n2. If a deduction according to paragraph 1 cannot be operated on the quota, allocation or share of a stock or group of stocks to which the non-compliance refers because a quota, allocation or share of a stock or group of stocks in question is not or not sufficiently available to the Member State concerned, the Commission, after consultation of the Member State concerned, may deduct in the following year or years quotas for other stocks or groups of stocks available to that Member States in the same geographical area, or with the same commercial value in accordance with paragraph 1.\nTITLE IX\nDATA AND INFORMATION\nCHAPTER I\nAnalysis and audit of data\nArticle 143\nSubject matter\nThe computerised validation system referred to in Article 109(1) of the Control Regulation shall comprise in particular:\n(a)\na database or databases storing all data to be validated by this system, as referred to in Article 144 of this Regulation;\n(b)\nvalidation procedures including data quality checks, analysis and cross-checks of all these data, as referred to in Article 145 of this Regulation;\n(c)\nprocedures for the access to all these data by the Commission or a body designated by it, as referred to in Article 146 of this Regulation.\nArticle 144\nData to be validated\n1. For the purpose of the computerised validation system, Member States shall ensure that all data referred to in Article 109(2) of the Control Regulation, are stored in a computerised database or databases. The minimum elements to be included are the items listed in Annex XXIII, those indicated as compulsory in Annex XXVII, the items in Annex XII and the items in Annex XXXII. The validation system may also take into account any other data deemed necessary for the purpose of the validation procedures.\n2. The data in the databases referred to in paragraph 1 shall be accessible for the validation system on a continuous basis and in real-time. The validation system shall have direct access to all these databases without any human intervention. To this end all databases or systems in a Member State containing the data referred to in paragraph 1 shall be linked with each other.\n3. If the data referred to in paragraph 1 are not stored automatically in a database, Member States shall foresee the manual entry or digitising into the databases, without delay and by respecting the deadlines set in the relevant legislation. The date of data receipt and data entry shall be correctly recorded in the database.\nArticle 145\nValidation procedures\n1. The computerised validation system shall validate each dataset referred to in Article 144(1) of this Regulation on the basis of automated computerised algorithms and procedures in a continuous, systematic and thorough manner. The validation shall contain procedures to control the basic data quality, to check the data format and the minimal data requirements, as well as more advanced verification by analysing several records of a dataset into detail, using statistical methods, or cross-checking data from different sources.\n2. For each validation procedure, there shall be a business rule or a set of business rules that defines which validations are executed by the procedure, as well as where the results of these validations are stored. Where applicable, the relevant reference to the legislation whose application is being verified shall be indicated. The Commission may define after consultation with Member States a standard set of business rules to be used.\n3. All results of the computerised validation system, both positive and negative, shall be stored in a database. It shall be possible to identify immediately any inconsistency and non-compliance issue detected by the validation procedures, as well as the follow-up of these inconsistencies. It shall also be possible to retrieve the identification of fishing vessels, vessel masters or operators for which inconsistencies and possible non-compliance issues were detected repeatedly in the course of the past 3 years.\n4. The follow-up of the inconsistencies detected by the validation system shall be linked with the validation results, indicating the date of validation and follow-up.\nIf the detected inconsistency is identified as the result of a wrong data entry, that data entry shall be corrected in the database, clearly marking the data as being corrected, as well as reporting the original value or entry and the reason for correcting the data.\nIf the detected inconsistency leads to a follow-up, the validation result shall contain a link to the inspection report, where appropriate, and the follow-up of it.\nArticle 146\nAccess by the Commission\n1. Member States shall ensure that the Commission or the body designated by it have at any time real-time access to:\n(a)\nall the data referred in Article 144(1) of this Regulation;\n(b)\nall business rules defined for the validation system, containing the definition, the relevant legislation and the place where the validation results are stored;\n(c)\nall validation results and follow-up measures, with a marker if the data item has been corrected, and with a link to infringement procedures if applicable.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the data referred to in paragraph 1(a), (b) and (c) can be accessed by the automated exchange of data via secure web services, as defined in Article 147 of this Regulation.\n3. The data shall be made available for download according to the data exchange format and all data elements as defined in Annex XII and in the XML format. Other data items that shall be accessible and are not defined in Annex XII shall be available in the format as defined in Annex XXXII.\n4. The Commission or the body designated by it shall be given the possibility to download the data referred to in paragraph 1 for any period and any geographical area for an individual fishing vessel or list of fishing vessels.\n5. At the reasoned request of the Commission the Member State concerned shall correct without delay data for which the Commission has identified inconsistencies. The Member State concerned shall inform other relevant Member States about this correction without delay.\nCHAPTER II\nWebsites of Member States\nArticle 147\nOperation of websites and web services\n1. For the purpose of the official websites referred to in Articles 115 and 116 of the Control Regulation Member States shall create web services. These web services shall generate real-time and dynamic content for the official websites and they shall provide automated access to the data. If necessary, Member States shall adapt their existing databases or create new databases in order to provide the required content of the web services.\n2. This web services shall enable the Commission and the body designated by it to pull all available data referred to in Articles 148 and 149 of this Regulation at any time. That automated pulling mechanism shall be based on the electronic information exchange protocol and format referred to Annex XII. Web services shall be created according to international standards.\n3. Every subpage of the official website referred to in paragraph 1 shall contain a menu at the left side where hyperlinks to all other subpages are listed. It shall also contain the definition of the related web service at the bottom of the subpage.\n4. Web services and websites shall be deployed in a centralised manner, providing only one unique access point per Member State.\n5. The Commission may lay down common standards, technical specifications and procedures for the website\u2019s interface, technically compatible computerised systems and web services among Member States, the Commission and the body designated by it. The Commission shall coordinate the process to create those specifications and procedures after consultation with the Member States.\nArticle 148\nPublicly accessible website and web services\n1. The publicly accessible part of the website shall contain an overview page and different subpages. The public overview page shall list hyperlinks containing the references in Article 115(a) to (g) of the Control Regulation and referring to subpages providing the information referred to in that Article.\n2. Each public subpage shall contain at least one of the information items listed in Article 115(a) to (g) of the Control Regulation. Subpages, as well as the related web services, shall contain at least the information set out in Annex XXXIII.\nArticle 149\nSecured website and web services\n1. The secure part of the website shall contain an overview page and different subpages. The secure overview page shall list hyperlinks containing the references in Article 116(1)(a) to (h) of the Control Regulation and referring to subpages providing the information referred to in that Article.\n2. Each secure subpage shall contain at least one of the information items listed in Article 116(1)(a) to (h) of the Control Regulation. Subpages, as well as the related web services, shall contain at least the information set out in Annex XXIV.\n3. Both the secure website as the secure web services shall make use of electronic certificates referred to in Article 116(3) of the Control Regulation.\nTITLE X\nIMPLEMENTATION\nCHAPTER I\nMutual assistance\nSection 1\nGeneral provisions\nArticle 150\nScope\n1. This Chapter lays down the conditions under which the Member States shall administratively cooperate with each other, with third countries, with the Commission and with the body designated by it in order to ensure the effective application of the Control Regulation and of this Regulation. It does not prevent Member States to establish other forms of administrative cooperation.\n2. This Chapter shall not bind Member States to grant each other assistance where that would be likely to be injurious to their national legal system, public policy, security or other fundamental interests. Before denying a request for assistance, the requested Member State shall consult the applicant Member State to determine whether assistance may be given in part, subject to specific terms and conditions. Where a request for assistance cannot be complied with the applicant Member State and the Commission or the body designated by it shall promptly be notified of that fact and reasons shall be stated.\n3. This Chapter shall not affect the application in the Member States of rules on criminal procedure and mutual assistance in criminal matters, including those on secrecy of judicial inquiries.\nArticle 151\nCosts\nMember States shall bear their own costs of executing a request for assistance and shall waive all claims for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in applying this Title.\nArticle 152\nSingle authority\nThe single authority referred to in Article 5(5) of the Control Regulation shall act as a single liaison office responsible for the application of this Chapter.\nArticle 153\nFollow up measures\n1. Where national authorities decide, in response to a request for assistance based on this Chapter or following a spontaneous exchange of information, to take measures which may be implemented only with the authorisation or at the demand of a judicial authority, they shall communicate to the Member State concerned and the Commission or the body designated by it any information on those measures which is related to non-compliance with rules of the Common Fisheries Policy.\n2. Any such communication must have the prior authorisation of the judicial authority if such authorisation is required by national law.\nSection 2\nInformation without prior request\nArticle 154\nInformation without prior request\n1. When a Member State becomes aware of any potential non-compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular serious infringement referred to in Article 90(1) of the Control Regulation or reasonably suspects that such an infringement may occur, it shall notify the other Member States concerned and the Commission or the body designated by it, without delay. That notification shall supply all necessary information and shall be made via the single authority as referred to in Article 152 of this Regulation.\n2. When a Member State takes enforcement measures in relation to a non-compliance or an infringement referred to in paragraph 1, it shall notify the other Member States concerned and the Commission or the body designated by it via the single authority as referred to in Article 152 of this Regulation.\n3. All notifications according to this Article shall be made in writing.\nSection 3\nRequests for assistance\nArticle 155\nDefinition\nFor the purpose of this Section \u2018request for assistance\u2019 means a request addressed by one Member State to another Member State or by the Commission or the body designated by it to a Member State for:\n(a)\ninformation including information according to Article 93(2) and (3) of the Control Regulation;\n(b)\nenforcement measures; or\n(c)\nadministrative notification.\nArticle 156\nGeneral requirements\n1. The applicant Member State shall ensure that all requests for assistance contain sufficient information to enable a requested Member State to fulfil the request, including any necessary evidence obtainable in the territory of the applicant Member State.\n2. Requests for assistance shall be limited to substantiated cases where there is reasonable cause to believe that non-compliance with rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular serious infringements referred to in Article 90(1) of the Control Regulation have occurred and where the applicant Member State is not able to obtain the requested information or to take the requested measures by its own means.\nArticle 157\nTransmission of requests and replies\n1. Requests shall only be sent by the single authority of the applicant Member State, by the Commission or the body designated by it to the single authority of the requested Member State. All replies to a request shall be communicated in the same way.\n2. Requests for mutual assistance and the respective replies shall be made in writing.\n3. The languages used for requests and replies shall be agreed by the single authorities concerned before requests are made. If no agreement can be reached, requests shall be communicated in the official language(s) of the applicant Member State and replies in the official language(s) of the requested Member State.\nArticle 158\nRequests for information\n1. A Member State shall, at the request of an applicant Member State, of the Commission or the body designated by it, supply any relevant information required to establish whether non-compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular serious infringements as referred to in Article 90(1) of the Control Regulation, have occurred or to establish whether there is a reasonable suspicion it may occur. That information shall be supplied via the single authority as referred to in Article 152 of this Regulation.\n2. The requested Member State shall, at the request of the applicant Member State, of the Commission or the body designated by it, carry out the appropriate administrative enquiries concerning operations which constitute or appear to the applicant to constitute non-compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular serious infringements referred to in Article 90(1) of the Control Regulation The requested Member State shall communicate the results of such administrative enquiries to the applicant Member State and to the Commission or the body designated by it.\n3. At the request of the applicant Member State, of the Commission or the body designated by it, the requested Member State may permit a competent official of the applicant Member State to accompany the officials of the requested Member State, the Commission or the body designated by it, in the course of administrative enquiries referred to in paragraph 2. In so far as national provisions on criminal proceedings restrict certain acts to officials specifically designated by national law, the officials of the applicant Member State shall not take part in such acts. In no event, shall they participate in searches of premises or the formal questioning of persons under criminal law. The officials of the applicant Member States present in the requested Member State must at all time be able to present written authority stating their identity and their official functions.\n4. At the request of the applicant Member State, the requested Member State shall supply it with any document or certified true copies in its possession which relates to non-compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy or serious infringements referred to in Article 90(1) of the Control Regulation.\n5. The standard form for the exchange of information on request is set out in Annex XXXIV.\nArticle 159\nRequests for enforcement measures\n1. A requested Member State shall, based on the evidence referred to in Article 156 of this Regulation, at the request of an applicant Member State, of the Commission or the body designated by it, take all necessary enforcement measures to bring about the cessation, within its territory or within maritime waters under its sovereignty or jurisdiction, of any non-compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy or serious infringements referred to in Article 90(1) of the Control Regulation without delay.\n2. The requested Member State may consult the applicant Member State, the Commission or the body designated by it in the course of taking the enforcement measures referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. The requested Member State shall report the measures taken and their effect to the applicant Member State, the other Member States concerned, the Commission or the body designated by it, via the single authority as referred to in Article 152 of this Regulation.\nArticle 160\nDeadline for replies to requests for information and enforcement measures\n1. The requested Member State shall provide the information referred to in Articles 158(1) and 159(3) of this Regulation as quickly as possible, but not later than 4 weeks following the date of receipt of the request. Different time limits may be agreed between the requested and the applicant Member State, the Commission or the body designated by it.\n2. Where the requested Member State is unable to respond to the request by the deadline, it shall inform the applicant Member State, the Commission or the body designated by it in writing of the reason for its failure to do so, and indicate when it considers it will be able to respond.\nArticle 161\nRequests for administrative notification\n1. A requested Member State shall, at the request of an applicant Member State and in accordance with its national rules governing the notification of similar instruments and decisions, notify the addressee of all instruments and decisions taken in the field covered by the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular on issues regulated under the Control Regulation or this Regulation which emanate from the administrative authorities of the applicant Member State and are to be served in the territory of the requested Member State.\n2. Requests for notification shall be made using the standard form attached to this Regulation in Annex XXXV.\n3. The requested Member State shall transmit its reply to the applicant Member State immediately after the notification via the single authority referred to in Article 152 of this Regulation. The reply shall be made using the standard form set out in Annex XXXVI.\nSection 4\nRelations with the Commission or the body designated by it\nArticle 162\nCommunication between the Member States and the Commission or the body designated by it\n1. Each Member State shall communicate to the Commission or the body designated by it as soon as it is available to it any information it considers relevant concerning methods, practices or revealed tendencies used or suspected of having been used in cases of non-compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular in serious infringements as referred to in Article 90(1) of the Control Regulation.\n2. The Commission or the body designated by it shall communicate to the Member States, as soon as it becomes available to it, any information that would help them in the enforcement of the Control Regulation or of this Regulation.\nArticle 163\nCoordination by the Commission or the body designated by it\n1. Where a Member State becomes aware of operations which constitute, or appear to constitute, non-compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular serious infringements referred to in Article 90(1) of the Control Regulation, and which are of particular relevance at Union level, it shall communicate to the Commission or the body designated by it as soon as possible any relevant information needed to determine the facts. The Commission or the body designated by it shall convey that information to the other Member States concerned.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, operations which constitute non-compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular serious infringements as referred to in Article 90(1) of the Control Regulation shall be deemed to be of particular relevance at the level of the European Union especially where:\n(a)\nthey have, or might have, connections in one or more Member States; or\n(b)\nit appears likely to the Member State that similar operations have also been carried out in other Member States.\n3. Where the Commission or the body designated by it considers that operations which constitute non-compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular serious infringements as referred to in Article 90(1) of the Control Regulation have taken place in one or more Member States, it shall inform the Member States concerned thereof which shall as soon as possible carry out enquiries. The Member States concerned shall, as soon as possible, communicate to the Commission or the body designated by it the findings of those enquiries.\nSection 5\nRelations with third countries\nArticle 164\nInformation exchange with third countries\n1. When a Member State receives information from a third country or a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation which is relevant for the effective application of the Control Regulation and this Regulation, it shall communicate that information via the single authority to the other Member States concerned, to the Commission or the body designated by it, in so far as it is permitted to do so by bilateral agreements with that third country or the rules of that Regional Fisheries Management Organisation.\n2. Information received under this Chapter may be communicated to a third country or a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation by a Member State via its single authority under a bilateral agreement with that third country or in accordance with the rules of that Regional Fisheries Management Organisation. That communication shall take place after consultation of the Member State that originally communicated the information and in accordance with EU and national legislation regarding the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.\n3. The Commission or the body designated by it may, in the framework of fisheries agreements concluded between the Union and third countries or in the framework of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations or similar arrangements to which the Union is a Contracting Party or a non-contracting Cooperating Party, communicate relevant information concerning non-compliance with of the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy or serious infringements referred to in Article 90(1) of the Control Regulation to other parties to those agreements, organisations or arrangements, subject to the consent of the Member State that supplied the information.\nCHAPTER II\nReporting obligations\nArticle 165\nFormat and deadlines for reports\n1. For the 5 years-report as referred to in Article 118(1) of the Control Regulation Member Sates shall use the data defined in Annex XXXVII.\n2. The report stating the rules that have been used for producing reports on basic data as referred to in Article 118(4) of the Control Regulation shall be sent 6 months after the entry into force of this Regulation. Member States shall send a new report when these rules are modified.\nTITLE XI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 166\nRepeals\n1. Regulations (EEC) No 2807/83, (EEC) No 3561/85, (EEC) No 493/87, (EEC) No 1381/87, (EEC) No 1382/87, (EEC) No 2943/95, (EC) No 1449/98, (EC) No 2244/2003, (EC) No 1281/2005, (EC) No 1042/2006, (EC) No 1542/2007, (EC) No 1077/2008 and (EC) No 409/2009 shall be repealed.\n2. Regulation (EC) No 356/2005 shall be repealed with effect from 1 January 2012.\n3. References to the repealed Regulations shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 167\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, except Title VII, which shall enter into force on 1 July 2011.\nHowever, Title II, Chapter III and Title IV, Chapter 1 shall apply as from 1 January 2012. In accordance with Article 124(c) of the Control Regulation and the previous paragraph Title VII shall apply as from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 April 2011.", "references": ["47", "32", "45", "0", "82", "94", "79", "5", "99", "58", "3", "76", "31", "71", "78", "22", "4", "86", "34", "77", "6", "66", "10", "50", "56", "19", "33", "54", "1", "62", "No Label", "13", "40", "41", "42", "67"], "gold": ["13", "40", "41", "42", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 764/2011\nof 29 July 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [B\u0153uf de Vend\u00e9e (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France's application to register the name \u2027B\u0153uf de Vend\u00e9e\u2027 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2011.", "references": ["18", "71", "87", "84", "76", "47", "62", "95", "20", "49", "99", "41", "26", "2", "98", "53", "56", "42", "63", "51", "81", "6", "40", "45", "68", "52", "4", "65", "55", "79", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 September 2010\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Finland\n(2010/559/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Article 25 of Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1),\nHaving regard to Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1, of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(5)\nFinland has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on Vehicle Registration Data (VRD).\n(6)\nA pilot run has been carried out by Finland with the Netherlands, with a view to evaluating the results of the questionnaire concerning VRD.\n(7)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in Finland and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group with a view to evaluating the questionnaire concerning VRD.\n(8)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning VRD has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of the automated searching of vehicle registration data (VRD), Finland has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Article 12 of that Decision as from the date of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2010.", "references": ["51", "62", "17", "4", "82", "10", "34", "3", "75", "19", "60", "15", "38", "65", "64", "79", "86", "54", "92", "67", "13", "52", "55", "7", "89", "59", "87", "50", "94", "11", "No Label", "40", "41", "42", "53", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["40", "41", "42", "53", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 976/2011\nof 30 September 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 October 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 October 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 October 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 September 2011.", "references": ["28", "8", "64", "45", "89", "49", "71", "5", "59", "87", "77", "93", "75", "74", "47", "14", "50", "32", "36", "92", "26", "48", "63", "86", "62", "60", "20", "76", "7", "9", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 921/2011\nof 14 September 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 916/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 September 2011.", "references": ["14", "11", "85", "27", "52", "84", "31", "46", "55", "90", "69", "26", "88", "49", "78", "50", "38", "75", "6", "57", "7", "93", "15", "92", "56", "36", "29", "54", "24", "74", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 20 May 2011\nauthorising methods for grading pig carcasses in the Netherlands\n(notified under document C(2011) 3427)\n(Only the Dutch text is authentic)\n(2011/303/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(m), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPoint 1 of Section B.IV of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that, for the classification of pig carcasses, the lean-meat content has to be assessed by means of grading methods authorised by the Commission, which methods may only be statistically proven assessment methods based on the physical measurement of one or more anatomical parts of the pig carcass. The authorisation of grading methods is subject to compliance with a maximum tolerance for statistical error in assessment. That tolerance is defined in Article 23(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/2008 of 10 December 2008 laying down detailed rules on the implementation of the Community scales for the classification of beef, pig and sheep carcasses and the reporting of prices thereof (2).\n(2)\nBy Decision 2005/627/EC (3), the Commission authorised the use of two methods for grading pig carcasses in the Netherlands.\n(3)\nDue to technical adaptations and the fact that a change in the Dutch pig population is foreseen as castrated males are expected to be absent in the near future, the Netherlands has requested the Commission to authorise three methods for grading pig carcasses on its territory and has presented a detailed description of the dissection trial, indicating the principles on which those methods are based, the results of its dissection trial and the equations used for assessing the percentage of lean meat in the protocol provided for in Article 23(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/2008.\n(4)\nExamination of that request has revealed that the conditions for authorising those grading methods are fulfilled. Those grading methods should therefore be authorised in the Netherlands.\n(5)\nModifications of the apparatus or grading methods should not be allowed, unless they are explicitly authorised by Commission Decision.\n(6)\nFor reasons of clarity and legal certainty, Decision 2005/627/EC should be repealed.\n(7)\nIn view of the technical circumstances while introducing new devices and new equations, the methods for grading pig carcasses authorised under this Decision should apply from 3 October 2011.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe use of the following methods is hereby authorised for grading pig carcasses pursuant to point 1 of Section B.IV of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in the Netherlands:\n-\nthe Hennessy Grading Probe (HGP 7) apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 1 of the Annex,\n-\nthe Capteur Gras/Maigre - Sydel (CGM) apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 2 of the Annex,\n-\nthe CSB Image-Meater (CSB) apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 3 of the Annex.\nArticle 2\nModifications of the authorised apparatus or assessment methods shall not be allowed, unless those modifications are explicitly authorised by Commission Decision.\nArticle 3\nDecision 2005/627/EC is repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall apply from 3 October 2011.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2011.", "references": ["78", "25", "60", "55", "61", "40", "52", "26", "18", "32", "2", "20", "34", "21", "3", "6", "11", "83", "65", "23", "7", "63", "75", "47", "9", "73", "77", "4", "87", "41", "No Label", "19", "69", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["19", "69", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 586/2012\nof 3 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 July 2012.", "references": ["0", "30", "72", "28", "27", "26", "42", "82", "94", "18", "19", "15", "37", "25", "11", "49", "14", "16", "31", "84", "76", "32", "62", "75", "53", "43", "20", "46", "70", "2", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2010/76/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\namending Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC as regards capital requirements for the trading book and for re-securitisations, and the supervisory review of remuneration policies\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 53(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nExcessive and imprudent risk-taking in the banking sector has led to the failure of individual financial institutions and systemic problems in Member States and globally. While the causes of such risk-taking are many and complex, there is agreement by supervisors and regulatory bodies, including the G-20 and the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS), that the inappropriate remuneration structures of some financial institutions have been a contributory factor. Remuneration policies which give incentives to take risks that exceed the general level of risk tolerated by the institution can undermine sound and effective risk management and exacerbate excessive risk-taking behaviour. The internationally agreed and endorsed Financial Stability Board (FSB) Principles for Sound Compensation Practices (the FSB principles) are therefore of particular importance.\n(2)\nDirective 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (4) requires credit institutions to have arrangements, strategies, processes and mechanisms to manage the risks to which they are exposed. By virtue of Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (5), that requirement applies to investment firms within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (6). Directive 2006/48/EC requires competent authorities to review those arrangements, strategies, processes and mechanisms, and to determine whether the own funds held by the credit institution or investment firm concerned ensure a sound management and coverage of the risks to which the institution or firm is or might be exposed. That supervision is carried out on a consolidated basis in relation to banking groups, and includes financial holding companies and affiliated financial institutions in all jurisdictions.\n(3)\nIn order to address the potentially detrimental effect of poorly designed remuneration structures on the sound management of risk and control of risk-taking behaviour by individuals, the requirements of Directive 2006/48/EC should be supplemented by an express obligation for credit institutions and investment firms to establish and maintain, for categories of staff whose professional activities have a material impact on their risk profile, remuneration policies and practices that are consistent with effective risk management. Those categories of staff should include at least senior management, risk takers, staff engaged in control functions and any employee whose total remuneration, including discretionary pension benefit provisions, takes them into the same remuneration bracket as senior management and risk takers.\n(4)\nBecause excessive and imprudent risk-taking may undermine the financial soundness of credit institutions or investment firms and destabilise the banking system, it is important that the new obligation concerning remuneration policies and practices should be implemented in a consistent manner and should cover all aspects of remuneration including salaries, discretionary pension benefits and any similar benefits. In that context, discretionary pension benefits should mean discretionary payments granted by a credit institution or investment firm to an employee on an individual basis payable by reference to or expectation of retirement and which can be assimilated to variable remuneration. It is therefore appropriate to specify clear principles on sound remuneration to ensure that the structure of remuneration does not encourage excessive risk-taking by individuals or moral hazard and is aligned with the risk appetite, values and long-term interests of the credit institution or investment firm. Remuneration should be aligned with the role of the financial sector as the mechanism through which financial resources are efficiently allocated in the economy. In particular, the principles should provide that the design of variable remunerationpolicies ensures that incentives are aligned with the long-term interests of the credit institution or investment firm and that payment methods strengthen its capital base. Performance-based components of remuneration should also help enhance fairness within the remuneration structures of the credit institution or investment firm. The principles should recognise that credit institutions and investment firms may apply the provisions in different ways according to their size, internal organisation and the nature, scope and complexity of their activities and, in particular, that it may not be proportionate for investment firms referred to in Article 20(2) and (3) of Directive 2006/49/EC to comply with all of the principles. In order to ensure that the design of remuneration policies is integrated in the risk management of the credit institution or investment firm, the management body, in its supervisory function, of each credit institution or investment firm should adopt and periodically review the principles to be applied. In that context, it should be possible, where applicable and in accordance with national company law, for the management body in its supervisory function to be understood as the supervisory board.\n(5)\nCredit institutions and investment firms that are significant in terms of their size, internal organisation and the nature, the scope and the complexity of their activities should be required to establish a remuneration committee as an integral part of their governance structure and organisation.\n(6)\nBy 1 April 2013, the Commission should review the principles on remuneration policy with particular regard to their efficiency, implementation and enforcement, taking into account international developments including any further proposals from the FSB and the implementation of the FSB principles in other jurisdictions including the link between the design of variable remuneration and excessive risk-taking behaviour.\n(7)\nRemuneration policy should aim at aligning the personal objectives of staff members with the long-term interests of the credit institution or investment firm concerned. The assessment of the performance-based components of remuneration should be based on longer-term performance and take into account the outstanding risks associated with the performance. The assessment of performance should be set in a multi-year framework of at least three to 5 years, in order to ensure that the assessment process is based on longer term performance and that the actual payment of performance-based components of remuneration is spread over the business cycle of the credit institution or investment firm. To align incentives further, a substantial portion of variable remuneration of all staff members covered by those requirements should consist of shares, share-linked instruments of the credit institution or investment firm, subject to the legal structure of the credit institution or investment firm concerned or, in the case of a non-listed credit institution or investment firm, other equivalent non-cash instruments and, where appropriate, other long-dated financial instruments that adequately reflect the credit quality of the credit institution or investment firm. It should be possible for such instruments to include a capital instrument which, where the institution is subject to severe financial problems, is converted into equity or otherwise written down. In cases where the credit institution concerned does not issue long-dated financial instruments, it should be permitted to issue the substantial portion of variable remuneration in shares and share-linked instruments and other equivalent non-cash instruments. The Member States or their competent authorities should be able to place restrictions on the types and designs of those instruments or prohibit certain instruments, as appropriate.\n(8)\nTo minimise incentives for excessive risk-taking, variable remuneration should constitute a balanced proportion of total remuneration. It is essential that an employee\u2019s fixed salary represents a sufficiently high proportion of his total remuneration to allow the operation of a fully flexible variable remuneration policy, including the possibility to pay no variable remuneration. In order to ensure coherent remuneration practices throughout the sector, it is appropriate to specify certain clear requirements. Guaranteed variable remuneration is not consistent with sound risk management or the pay-for-performance principle and should, as a general rule, be prohibited.\n(9)\nA substantial portion of the variable remuneration component, such as 40 to 60 %, should be deferred over an appropriate period of time. That portion should increase significantly with the level of seniority or responsibility of the person remunerated. Moreover, a substantial portion of the variable remuneration component should consist of shares, share-linked instruments of the credit institution or investment firm, subject to the legal structure of the credit institution or investment firm concerned or, in the case of a non-listed credit institution or investment firm, other equivalent non-cash instruments and, where appropriate, other long-dated financial instruments that adequately reflect the credit quality of the credit institution or investment firm. In that context, the principle of proportionality is of great importance since it may not always be appropriate to apply those requirements in the context of small credit institutions and investment firms. Taking into account the restrictions that limit the amount of variable remuneration payable in cash and payable upfront, the amount of variable remuneration which can be paid in cash or cash equivalent not subject to deferral should be limited in order to further align the personal objectives of staff with the long-term interest of the credit institution or investment firm.\n(10)\nCredit institutions and investment firms should ensure that the total variable remuneration does not limit their ability to strengthen their capital base. The extent to which capital needs to be built up should be a function of the current capital position of the credit institution or investment firm. In that context, Member States\u2019 competent authorities should have the power to limit variable remuneration, inter alia, as a percentage of total net revenue when it is inconsistent with the maintenance of a sound capital base.\n(11)\nCredit institutions and investment firms should require their staff to undertake not to use personal hedging strategies or insurance to undermine the risk alignment effects embedded in their remuneration arrangements.\n(12)\nRegarding entities that benefit from exceptional government intervention, priority should be given to building up their capital base and providing for recovery of taxpayer assistance. Any variable remuneration payments should reflect those priorities.\n(13)\nThe principles regarding sound remuneration policies set out in the Commission Recommendation of 30 April 2009 on remuneration policies in the financial services sector (7) are consistent with and complement the principles set out in this Directive.\n(14)\nThe provisions on remuneration should be without prejudice to the full exercise of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Treaties, in particular Article 153(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), general principles of national contract and labour law, legislation regarding shareholders\u2019 rights and involvement and the general responsibilities of the administrative and supervisory bodies of the institution concerned, as well as the rights, where applicable, of the social partners to conclude and enforce collective agreements, in accordance with national law and customs.\n(15)\nIn order to ensure fast and effective enforcement, the competent authorities should also have the power to impose or apply financial or non-financial penalties or other measures for breach of a requirement under Directive 2006/48/EC, including the requirement to have remuneration policies that are consistent with sound and effective risk management. Those measures and penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. In order to ensure consistency and a level playing field, the Commission should review the adoption and application by the Member States of such measures and penalties on an aggregate basis with regard to their consistency across the Union.\n(16)\nIn order to ensure effective supervisory oversight of the risks posed by inappropriate remuneration structures, the remuneration polices and practices adopted by credit institutions and investment firms should be included in the scope of supervisory review under Directive 2006/48/EC. In the course of that review, supervisors should assess whether those policies and practices are likely to encourage excessive risk-taking by the staff in question. In addition, CEBS should ensure the existence of guidelines for the assessment of the suitability of the persons who effectively direct the business of a credit institution.\n(17)\nThe Commission Green Paper of 2 June 2010 on corporate governance in financial institutions and remuneration policies identifies a series of failures in corporate governance in credit institutions and investment firms that should be addressed. Among the solutions identified, the Commission refers to the need to strengthen significantly requirements relating to persons who effectively direct the business of the credit institution who should be of sufficiently good repute and have appropriate experience and also be assessed as to their suitability to perform their professional activities. The Green Paper also underlines the need to improve shareholders\u2019 involvement in approving remuneration policies. The European Parliament and the Council note the Commission\u2019s intention, as a follow-up, to make legislative proposals, where appropriate, on those issues.\n(18)\nIn order further to enhance transparency as regards the remuneration practices of credit institutions and investment firms, the competent authorities of Member States should collect information on remuneration to benchmark remuneration trends in accordance with the categories of quantitative information that the credit institutions and investment firms are required to disclose under this Directive. The competent authorities should provide CEBS with that information in order to enable it to conduct similar assessments at Union level.\n(19)\nIn order to promote supervisory convergences in the assessment of remuneration policies and practices, and to facilitate information collection and the consistent implementation of the remuneration principles in the banking sector, CEBS should elaborate guidelines on sound remuneration policies in the banking sector. The Committee of European Securities Regulators should assist in the elaboration of such guidelines to the extent that they also apply to remuneration policies for persons involved in the provision of investment services and carrying out of investment activities by credit institutions and investment firms within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC. CEBS should conduct open public consultations regarding the technical standards and analyse the potentially related costs and benefits. The Commission should be able to make legislative proposals entrusting the European supervisory authority dealing with banking matters and, to the extent it is appropriate, the European supervisory authority dealing with markets and securities matters, as established pursuant to the de Larosi\u00e8re process on financial supervision, with the elaboration of draft technical regulatory and implementing standards to facilitate information collection and the consistent implementation of the remuneration principles in the banking sector to be adopted by the Commission.\n(20)\nSince poorly designed remuneration policies and incentive schemes are capable of increasing to an unacceptable extent the risks to which credit institutions and investment firms are exposed, prompt remedial action and, if necessary, appropriate corrective measures should be taken. Consequently, it is appropriate to ensure that competent authorities have the power to impose qualitative or quantitative measures on the relevant entities that are designed to address problems that have been identified in relation to remuneration policies in the Pillar 2 supervisory review. Qualitative measures available to the competent authorities include requiring the credit institutions and investment firms to reduce the risk inherent in their activities, products or systems, including by introducing changes to their structures of remuneration or freezing the variable parts of remuneration to the extent that they are inconsistent with effective risk management. Quantitative measures include a requirement to hold additional own funds.\n(21)\nGood governance structures, transparency and disclosure are essential for sound remuneration policies. In order to ensure adequate transparency to the market of their remuneration structures and the associated risk, credit institutions and investments firms should disclose detailed information on their remuneration policies, practices and, for reasons of confidentiality, aggregated amounts for those members of staff whose professional activities have a material impact on the risk profile of the credit institution or investment firm. That information should be made available to all stakeholders (shareholders, employees and the general public). However, that obligation should be without prejudice to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with the regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (8).\n(22)\nIn order to guarantee their full effectiveness and in order to avoid any discriminatory effect in their application, the provisions on remuneration laid down in this Directive should be applied to remuneration due on the basis of contracts concluded before the date of their effective implementation in each Member State and awarded or paid after that date. Moreover, in order to safeguard the objectives pursued by this Directive, especially effective risk management, in respect of periods still characterised by a high degree of financial instability, and in order to avoid any risk of circumvention of the provisions on remuneration laid down in this Directive during the period prior to their implementation, it is necessary to apply those provisions to remuneration awarded, but not yet paid, before the date of their effective implementation in each Member State, for services provided in 2010.\n(23)\nThe review of risks to which the credit institution might be exposed should result in effective supervisory measures. It is therefore necessary that further convergence be reached with a view to supporting joint decisions by supervisors and ensuring equal conditions of competition within the Union.\n(24)\nCredit institutions investing in re-securitisations are required under Directive 2006/48/EC to exercise due diligence also with regard to the underlying securitisations and the non-securitisation exposures ultimately underlying the former. Credit institutions should assess whether exposures in the context of asset-backed commercial paper programmes constitute re-securitisation exposures, including those in the context of programmes which acquire senior tranches of separate pools of whole loans where none of those loans is a securitisation or re-securitisation exposure, and where the first-loss protection for each investment is provided by the seller of the loans. In the latter situation, a pool-specific liquidity facility should generally not be considered a re-securitisation exposure because it represents a tranche of a single asset pool (that is, the applicable pool of whole loans) which contains no securitisation exposures. By contrast, a programme-wide credit enhancement covering only some of the losses above the seller-provided protection across the various pools generally would constitute a tranching of the risk of a pool of multiple assets containing at least one securitisation exposure, and would therefore be a re-securitisation exposure. Nevertheless, if such a programme funds itself entirely with a single class of commercial paper, and if either the programme-wide credit enhancement is not a re-securitisation or the commercial paper is fully supported by the sponsoring credit institution, leaving the commercial paper investor effectively exposed to the default risk of the sponsor instead of the underlying pools or assets, then that commercial paper generally should not be considered a re-securitisation exposure.\n(25)\nThe provisions on prudent valuation in Directive 2006/49/EC should apply to all instruments measured at fair value, whether in the trading book or non-trading book of institutions. It should be clarified that, where the application of prudent valuation would lead to a lower carrying value than actually recognised in the accounting, the absolute value of the difference should be deducted from own funds.\n(26)\nInstitutions should have a choice whether to apply a capital requirement to or deduct from own funds those securitisation positions that receive a 1 250 % risk weight under this Directive, irrespective of whether the positions are in the trading or the non-trading book.\n(27)\nCapital requirements for settlement risks should also apply to the non-trading book.\n(28)\nOriginator or sponsor institutions should not be able to circumvent the prohibition of implicit support by using their trading books in order to provide such support.\n(29)\nWithout prejudice to the disclosures explicitly required by this Directive, the aim of the disclosure requirements should be to provide market participants with accurate and comprehensive information regarding the risk profile of individual institutions. Institutions should therefore be required to disclose additional information not explicitly listed in this Directive where such disclosure is necessary to meet that aim.\n(30)\nIn order to ensure coherent implementation of Directive 2006/48/EC throughout the Union, the Commission and CEBS set up a working group (Capital Requirements Directive Transposition Group - CRDTG) in 2006, entrusted with the task of discussing and resolving issues related to the implementation of that Directive. According to the CRDTG, certain technical provisions of Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC need to be further specified. It is therefore appropriate to specify those provisions.\n(31)\nWhere an external credit assessment for a securitisation position incorporates the effect of credit protection provided by the investing institution itself, the institution should not be able to benefit from the lower risk weight resulting from that protection. This should not lead to the deduction from capital of the securitisation if there are other ways to determine a risk weight in line with the actual risk of the position, not taking into account such credit protection.\n(32)\nIn the field of securitisation, disclosure requirements of institutions should be considerably strengthened. They should in particular also take into account the risks of securitisation positions in the trading book. Furthermore, in order to ensure adequate transparency regarding the nature of an institution\u2019s securitisation activities, disclosures should reflect the extent to which the institution sponsors securitisation special purpose entities and the involvement of certain affiliated entities, since closely related parties may pose on-going risks to the institution concerned.\n(33)\nSpecific risk charges for securitisation positions should be aligned with the capital requirements in the banking book since the latter provide for a more differentiated and risk-sensitive treatment of securitisation positions.\n(34)\nGiven their recent weak performance, the standards for internal models to calculate market risk capital requirements should be strengthened. In particular, their capture of risks should be completed regarding credit risks in the trading book. Furthermore, capital charges should include a component adequate to stress conditions to strengthen capital requirements in view of deteriorating market conditions and in order to reduce the potential for pro-cyclicality. Institutions should also carry out reverse stress tests to examine what scenarios could challenge the viability of the institution unless they can prove that such a test is dispensable. Given the recent particular difficulties of treating securitisation positions using approaches based on internal models, institutions\u2019 ability to model securitisation risks in the trading book should be limited and a standardised capital charge for securitisation positions in the trading book should be required by default.\n(35)\nThis Directive lays down limited exceptions for certain correlation trading activities, in accordance with which an institution may be permitted by its supervisor to calculate a comprehensive risk capital charge subject to strict minimum requirements. In such cases the institution should be required to subject those activities to a capital charge equal to the higher of the capital charge in accordance with that internally developed approach and 8 % of the capital charge for specific risk in accordance with the standardised measurement method. It should not be required to subject those exposures to the incremental risk charge but they should be incorporated into both the value-at-risk measures and the stressed value-at-risk measures.\n(36)\nArticle 152 of Directive 2006/48/EC requires certain credit institutions to provide own funds that are at least equal to certain specified minimum amounts for the three twelve-month periods between 31 December 2006 and 31 December 2009. In the light of the current situation in the banking sector and the extension of the transitional arrangements for minimum capital adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, it is appropriate to renew that requirement for a limited period of time until 31 December 2011.\n(37)\nIn order not to discourage credit institutions from moving to the Internal Ratings Based Approach (the IRB Approach) or Advanced Measurement Approaches for calculating the capital requirements during the transitional period due to unreasonable and disproportionate implementation costs, it should be possible to allow credit institutions which have moved to the IRB Approach or Advanced Measurement Approaches since 1 January 2010 and which have previously calculated their capital requirements in accordance with other less sophisticated approaches, subject to supervisory approval, to use the less sophisticated approaches as the basis for the calculation of the transitional floor. The competent authorities should monitor their markets closely and ensure a level playing field within all their markets and market segments and avoid distortions in the internal market.\n(38)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (9), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Union, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n(39)\nThe provisions of this Directive constitute steps in the reform process in response to the financial crisis. In line with the conclusions of the G-20, the FSB and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, further reforms may be necessary, including the need to build counter-cyclical buffers, \u2018dynamic provisioning\u2019, the rationale underlying the calculation of capital requirements in Directive 2006/48/EC and supplementary measures to risk-based requirements for credit institutions to help constrain the build-up of leverage in the banking system. In order to ensure appropriate democratic oversight of the process, the European Parliament and the Council should be involved in a timely and effective manner.\n(40)\nThe Commission should review the application of Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC to ensure that their provisions are applied in an equitable way which does not result in discrimination between credit institutions on the basis of their legal structure or ownership model.\n(41)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of technical adjustments to Directive 2006/48/EC to clarify definitions to ensure uniform application of that Directive or to take account of developments on financial markets; to align terminology on, and frame definitions in accordance with, subsequent relevant acts; to expand the content or adapt the terminology of the list of activities subject to mutual recognition under that Directive to take account of developments on financial markets; to adjust the areas in which the competent authorities are required to exchange information; to adjust the provisions of that Directive on own funds to reflect developments in accounting standards or Union legislation, or with regard to the convergence of supervisory practices; to expand the lists of exposure classes for the purposes of the Standardised Approach or the IRB Approach to take account of developments on financial markets; to adjust certain amounts relevant to those exposure classes to take into account the effects of inflation; to adjust the list and classification of off-balance sheet items; and to adjust specific provisions and technical criteria on the treatment of counterparty credit risk, the organisation and treatment of risk, the Standardised Approach and the IRB Approach, credit risk mitigation, securitisation, operational risk, review and evaluation by the competent authorities and disclosure in order to take account of developments on financial markets or in accounting standards or Union legislation, or with regard to the convergence of supervisory practices. The Commission should also be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance withArticle 290 TFEU in respect of measures to specify the size of sudden and unexpected changes in interest rates relevant for the purposes of the review and evaluation by the competent authorities under Directive 2006/48/EC of interest rate risk arising from non-trading activities; to prescribe a temporary reduction in the minimum level of own funds or risk weights specified under that Directive in order to take account of specific circumstances; to clarify the exemption of certain exposures from the application of provisions of that Directive on large exposures; and to adjust the criteria for the assessment by supervisors under that Directive of the suitability of a proposed acquirer for a credit institution and the financial soundness of any proposed acquisition.\n(42)\nThe Commission should also be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of technical adjustments to Directive 2006/49/EC to clarify definitions to ensure uniform application of that Directive or to take account of developments on financial markets; to adjust the amounts of initial capital prescribed by certain provisions of that Directive and specific amounts relevant to the calculation of capital requirements for the trading book to take account of developments in the economic and monetary field; to adjust the categories of investment firms eligible for certain derogations to required minimum levels of own funds to take account of developments on financial markets; to clarify the requirement that investment firms hold own funds equivalent to one quarter of their fixed overheads of the preceding year to ensure uniform application of that Directive; to align terminology and definitions with subsequent relevant acts; to adjust technical provisions of that Directive on the calculation of capital requirements for various classes of risk and large exposures, on the use of internal models to calculate capital requirements and on trading in order to take account of developments on financial markets or in risk measurement or accounting standards, or in Union legislation, or which have regard to the convergence of supervisory practices; and to take account of the outcome of the review of various matters relating to the scope of Directive 2004/39/EC.\n(43)\nThe European Parliament and the Council should have 3 months from the date of notification to object to a delegated act. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council, it should also be possible to prolong that period by 3 months. It should be possible for the European Parliament and the Council to inform the other institutions of their intention not to raise objections. Such early approval of delegated acts is particularly appropriate when deadlines need to be met, for example where there are timetables in the basic act for the Commission to adopt delegated acts.\n(44)\nIn Declaration 39 on Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007, the Conference took note of the Commission\u2019s intention to continue to consult experts appointed by the Member States in the preparation of draft delegated acts in the financial services area, in accordance with its established practice.\n(45)\nSince the objectives of this Directive, namely to require credit institutions and investment firms to establish remuneration policies that are consistent with effective risk management and to adjust certain capital requirements, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the 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. 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 those objectives.\n(46)\nDirectives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Directive 2006/48/EC\nDirective 2006/48/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following points are inserted:\n\u2018(40a)\n\u201cre-securitisation\u201d means a securitisation where the risk associated with an underlying pool of exposures is tranched and at least one of the underlying exposures is a securitisation position;\n(40b)\n\u201cre-securitisation position\u201d means an exposure to a re-securitisation;\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following point is added:\n\u2018(49)\n\u201cdiscretionary pension benefits\u201d means enhanced pension benefits granted on a discretionary basis by a credit institution to an employee as part of that employee\u2019s variable remuneration package, which do not include accrued benefits granted to an employee under the terms of the company pension scheme.\u2019.\n2.\nIn Article 11(1), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018The Committee of European Banking Supervisors shall ensure the existence of guidelines for the assessment of the suitability of the persons who effectively direct the business of the credit institution.\u2019.\n3.\nArticle 22 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Home Member State competent authorities shall require that every credit institution have robust governance arrangements, which include a clear organisational structure with well-defined, transparent and consistent lines of responsibility, effective processes to identify, manage, monitor and report the risks it is or might be exposed to, adequate internal control mechanisms, including sound administration and accounting procedures, and remuneration policies and practices that are consistent with and promote sound and effective risk management.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraphs are added:\n\u20183. Home Member State competent authorities shall use the information collected in accordance with the criteria for disclosure established in point 15(f) of part 2 of Annex XII to benchmark remuneration trends and practices. The competent authorities shall provide the Committee of European Banking Supervisors with that information.\n4. The Committee of European Banking Supervisors shall ensure the existence of guidelines on sound remuneration policies which comply with the principles set out in points 23 and 24 of Annex V. The guidelines shall take into account the principles on sound remuneration policies set out in the Commission Recommendation of 30 April 2009 on remuneration policies in the financial services sector (10).\nThe Committee of European Banking Supervisors shall, inter alia, ensure the existence of guidelines to:\n(a)\nset specific criteria to determine the appropriate ratios between the fixed and the variable component of the total remuneration within the meaning of point 23(l) of Annex V;\n(b)\nspecify instruments that can be eligible as instruments within the meaning of point 23(o)(ii) of Annex V that adequately reflect the credit quality of credit institutions within the meaning of point 23(o) of that Annex.\nThe Committee of European Securities Regulators shall cooperate closely with the Committee of European Banking Supervisors in ensuring the existence of guidelines on remuneration policies for categories of staff involved in the provision of investment services and activities within the meaning of point 2 of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC.\nThe Committee of European Banking Supervisors shall use the information received from the competent authorities in accordance with paragraph 3 to benchmark remuneration trends and practices at the Union level.\n5. Home Member State competent authorities shall collect information on the number of individuals per credit institution in pay brackets of at least EUR 1 million including the business area involved and the main elements of salary, bonus, long-term award and pension contribution. That information shall be forwarded to the Committee of European Banking Supervisors, which shall disclose it on an aggregate home Member State basis in a common reporting format. The Committee of European Banking Supervisors may elaborate guidelines to facilitate the implementation of this paragraph and ensure the consistency of the information collected.\n4.\nIn Article 54, the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018Member States shall ensure that, for the purposes of the first paragraph, their respective competent authorities have the power to impose or apply financial and non-financial penalties or other measures. Those penalties or measures shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\u2019.\n5.\nIn the first paragraph of Article 57, point (r) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(r)\nthe exposure amount of securitisation positions which receive a risk weight of 1 250 % under this Directive and the exposure amount of securitisation positions in the trading book that would receive a 1 250 % risk weight if they were in the same credit institutions non-trading book.\u2019.\n6.\nIn Article 64, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. Credit institutions shall apply the requirements of Part B of Annex VII to Directive 2006/49/EC to all their assets measured at fair value when calculating the amount of own funds and shall deduct from the total of the items (a) to (ca) minus (i) to (k) in Article 57 the amount of any additional value adjustments necessary. The Committee of European Banking Supervisors shall establish guidelines regarding the details of the application of this provision.\u2019.\n7.\nIn Article 66, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Half of the total of the items in Article 57(l) to (r) shall be deducted from the total of the items in points (a) to (ca) minus (i) to (k) of that Article, and half from the total of the items in points (d) to (h) of that Article, after application of the limits laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article. To the extent that half of the total of the items in points (l) to (r) exceeds the total of the items in Article 57(d) to (h), the excess shall be deducted from the total of the items in points (a) to (ca) minus (i) to (k) of that Article.\nItems in Article 57(r) shall not be deducted if they have been included for the purposes of Article 75 in the calculation of risk-weighted exposure amounts as specified in this Directive or in the calculation of capital requirements as specified in Annex I or V to Directive 2006/49/EC.\u2019.\n8.\nIn Article 75, points (b) and (c) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nin respect of their trading-book business, for position risk and counter-party risk and, in so far as it is authorised that the limits laid down in Articles 111 to 117 are exceeded, for large exposures exceeding such limits, the capital requirements determined in accordance with Article 18 and Articles 28 to 32 of Directive 2006/49/EC;\n(c)\nin respect of all their business activities, for foreign exchange risk, for settlement risk and for commodities risk, the capital requirements determined in accordance with Article 18 of Directive 2006/49/EC;\u2019.\n9.\nIn Article 101, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. A sponsor credit institution, or an originator credit institution which in respect of a securitisation has made use of Article 95 in the calculation of risk-weighted exposure amounts or has sold instruments from its trading book to a securitisation special purpose entity to the effect that it is no longer required to hold own funds for the risks of those instruments shall not, with a view to reducing potential or actual losses to investors, provide support to the securitisation beyond its contractual obligations.\u2019.\n10.\nArticle 136 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, the following points are added:\n\u2018(f)\nrequiring credit institutions to limit variable remuneration as a percentage of total net revenues when it is inconsistent with the maintenance of a sound capital base;\n(g)\nrequiring credit institutions to use net profits to strengthen the capital base.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018For the purposes of determining the appropriate level of own funds on the basis of the review and evaluation carried out in accordance with Article 124, the competent authorities shall assess whether any imposition of a specific own funds requirement in excess of the minimum level is required to capture risks to which a credit institution is or might be exposed, taking into account the following:\n(a)\nthe quantitative and qualitative aspects of the credit institutions\u2019 assessment process referred to in Article 123;\n(b)\nthe credit institutions\u2019 arrangements, processes and mechanisms referred to in Article 22;\n(c)\nthe outcome of the review and evaluation carried out in accordance with Article 124.\u2019.\n11.\nIn Article 145, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Credit institutions shall adopt a formal policy to comply with the disclosure requirements laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2, and have policies for assessing the appropriateness of their disclosures, including their verification and frequency. Credit institutions shall also have policies for assessing whether their disclosures convey their risk profile comprehensively to market participants.\nWhere those disclosures do not convey the risk profile comprehensively to market participants, credit institutions shall publicly disclose the information necessary in addition to that required in accordance with paragraph 1. However, they shall only be required to disclose information which is material and not proprietary or confidential in accordance with the technical criteria set out in Part 1 of Annex XII.\u2019.\n12.\nThe title of Title VI is replaced by the following:\n\u2018DELEGATED ACTS AND POWERS OF EXECUTION\u2019.\n13.\nArticle 150 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Without prejudice, as regards own funds, to the proposal that the Commission is to submit pursuant to Article 62, the technical adjustments in the following areas shall be adopted by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 151a, and subject to the conditions of Articles 151b and 151c:\n(a)\nclarification of the definitions to ensure uniform application of this Directive;\n(b)\nclarification of the definitions in order to take account, in the application of this Directive, of developments on financial markets;\n(c)\nthe alignment of terminology on, and the framing of definitions in accordance with, subsequent acts on credit institutions and related matters;\n(d)\nexpansion of the content of the list referred to in Articles 23 and 24 and set out in Annex I or adaptation of the terminology used in that list to take account of developments on financial markets;\n(e)\nthe areas in which the competent authorities shall exchange information as listed in Article 42;\n(f)\ntechnical adjustments in Articles 56 to 67 and in Article 74 as a result of developments in accounting standards or requirements which take account of Union legislation or with regard to the convergence of supervisory practices;\n(g)\namendment of the list of exposure classes in Articles 79 and 86 in order to take account of developments on financial markets;\n(h)\nthe amount specified in Article 79(2)(c), Article 86(4)(a), Annex VII, Part 1, point 5 and Annex VII, Part 2, point 15, to take into account the effects of inflation;\n(i)\nthe list and classification of off-balance sheet items in Annexes II and IV;\n(j)\nadjustment of the provisions in Annexes III and V to XII in order to take account of developments on financial markets (in particular new financial products) or in accounting standards or requirements which take account of Union legislation, or with regard to the convergence of supervisory practices.\n1a. The following measures shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 151(2a):\n(a)\ntechnical adjustments to the list in Article 2;\n(b)\nalteration of the amount of initial capital prescribed in Article 9 to take account of developments in the economic and monetary field.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin the first subparagraph, the introductory part is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Commission may adopt the following measures:\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The measures referred to in points (a), (b), (c) and (f) of the first subparagraph shall be adopted by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 151a, and subject to the conditions of Articles 151b and 151c. The measures referred to in points (d) and (e) of the first subparagraph shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 151(2a).\u2019.\n14.\nIn Article 151, paragraphs 2 and 3 are deleted.\n15.\nThe following articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 151a\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 150(1) and the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 150(2) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 4 years from 15 December 2010. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated power at the latest 6 months before the end of the four-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 151b.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 151b and 151c.\nArticle 151b\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 150(1) and the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 150(2) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke a delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 151c\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 3 months from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 3 months.\n2. If, on the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein. The delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to the delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. In accordance with Article 296 TFEU, the institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\u2019.\n16.\nIn Article 152, the following paragraphs are inserted:\n\u20185a. Credit institutions calculating risk-weighted exposure amounts in accordance with Articles 84 to 89 shall until 31 December 2011 provide own funds which are at all times more than or equal to the amount indicated in paragraph 5c or paragraph 5d if applicable.\n5b. Credit institutions using the Advanced Measurement Approaches as specified in Article 105 for the calculation of their capital requirements for operational risk shall until 31 December 2011 provide own funds which are at all times more than or equal to the amount indicated in paragraph 5c or 5d if applicable.\n5c. The amount referred to in paragraphs 5a and 5b shall be 80 % of the total minimum amount of own funds that the credit institutions would be required to hold under Article 4 of Directive 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC, as applicable prior to 1 January 2007.\n5d. Subject to the approval of the competent authorities, for credit institutions referred to in paragraph 5e, the amount referred to in paragraphs 5a and 5b may amount to up to 80 % of the total minimum amount of own funds that those credit institutions would be required to hold under any of Articles 78 to 83, 103 or 104 and Directive 2006/49/EC, as applicable prior to 1 January 2011.\n5e. A credit institution may apply paragraph 5d only if it started to use the IRB Approach or the Advanced Measurement Approaches for the calculation of its capital requirements on or after 1 January 2010.\u2019.\n17.\nArticle 154(5) is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. Until 31 December 2012, the exposure weighted average LGD for all retail exposures secured by residential properties and not benefiting from guarantees from central governments shall not be lower than 10 %.\u2019.\n18.\nIn Article 156, the following paragraphs are inserted after the third paragraph:\n\u2018By 1 April 2013 the Commission shall review and report on the provisions on remuneration, including those set out in Annexes V and XII, with particular regard to their efficiency, implementation and enforcement, taking into account international developments. That review shall identify any lacunae arising from the application of the principle of proportionality to those provisions. The Commission shall submit its report to the European Parliament and the Council together with any appropriate proposals.\nIn order to ensure consistency and a level playing field, the Commission shall review the implementation of Article 54 with regard to the consistency of the penalties and other measures imposed and applied across the Union and, if appropriate, shall put forward proposals.\nThe Commission\u2019s periodic review of the application of this Directive shall ensure that the way it is applied does not result in manifest discrimination between credit institutions on the basis of their legal structure or ownership model.\nIn order to ensure consistency in the prudential approach to capital, the Commission shall review the relevance of the reference to instruments within the meaning of Article 66(1a)(a) in point 23(o)(ii) of Annex V as soon as it takes an initiative to review the definition of capital instruments as provided for in Articles 56 to 67.\u2019.\n19.\nThe following article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 156a\nBy 31 December 2011 the Commission shall review and report on the desirability of changes to align Annex IX of this Directive taking into consideration international agreements regarding the capital requirements of credit institutions for securitisation positions. The Commission shall submit that report to the European Parliament and the Council together with any appropriate legislative proposals.\u2019.\n20.\nThe Annexes are amended as set out in Annex I to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nAmendments to Directive 2006/49/EC\nDirective 2006/49/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nIn the first subparagraph of Article 3(1), the following point is added:\n\u2018(t)\n\u201csecuritisation position\u201d and \u201cre-securitisation position\u201d mean, respectively, securitisation position and re-securitisation position as defined in Directive 2006/48/EC.\u2019.\n2.\nIn the first subparagraph of Article 17(1), the introductory part is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Where an institution calculates risk-weighted exposure amounts for the purposes of Annex II to this Directive in accordance with Articles 84 to 89 of Directive 2006/48/EC, the following shall apply for the purposes of the calculation provided for in point 36 of Part 1 of Annex VII to Directive 2006/48/EC:\u2019.\n3.\nIn Article 18(1), point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe capital requirements, calculated in accordance with the methods and options laid down in Articles 28 to 32 and Annexes I, II, and VI and, as appropriate, Annex V, for their trading book business, and points 1 to 4 of Annex II for their non-trading book business;\u2019.\n4.\nThe title of Section 2 of Chapter VIII is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Delegated acts and powers of execution\u2019.\n5.\nArticle 41(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall be adopted by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 42a, and subject to the conditions of Articles 42b and 42c.\u2019.\n6.\nIn Article 42, paragraph 2 is deleted.\n7.\nThe following articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 42a\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 41 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 4 years from 15 December 2010. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated power at the latest 6 months before the end of the four-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 42b.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 42b and 42c.\nArticle 42b\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 41 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke a delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 42c\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 3 months from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 3 months.\n2. If, on the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein. The delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to the delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. In accordance with Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\u2019.\n8.\nArticle 47 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Until 30 December 2011 or any earlier date specified by the competent authorities on a case-by-case basis, institutions that have received specific risk-model recognition prior to 1 January 2007 in accordance with point 1 of Annex V may, for that existing recognition, apply points 4 and 8 of Annex VIII to Directive 93/6/EEC as those points stood prior to 1 January 2007.\u2019.\n9.\nThe Annexes are amended as set out in Annex II to this Directive.\nArticle 3\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with:\n(a)\npoints 3, 4, 16 and 17 of Article 1 and points 1, 2(c), 3 and 5(b)(iii) of Annex I, by 1 January 2011; and\n(b)\nthe provisions of this Directive other than those specified in point (a), by 31 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt the measures referred to in this paragraph, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.\n2. The laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with point 1 of Annex I shall require credit institutions to apply the principles laid down therein to:\n(i)\nremuneration due on basis of contracts concluded before the effective date of implementation in each Member State and awarded or paid after that date; and\n(ii)\nfor services provided in 2010, remuneration awarded, but not yet paid, before the date of effective implementation in each Member State.\n3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 4\nReport\nWith regard to the international nature of the Basel framework and the risks associated with a non- simultaneous implementation of the changes to that framework in major jurisdictions, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council by 31 December 2010 on progress made towards the international implementation of the changes to the capital adequacy framework, together with any appropriate proposals.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 6\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["48", "26", "59", "15", "60", "86", "22", "6", "62", "50", "83", "20", "89", "77", "19", "51", "13", "69", "74", "32", "71", "45", "18", "97", "49", "34", "72", "87", "96", "57", "No Label", "16", "29", "30", "52"], "gold": ["16", "29", "30", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 842/2011\nof 19 August 2011\nestablishing standard forms for the publication of notices in the field of public procurement and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1564/2005\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (1), and in particular Article 3a thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (2), and in particular Article 3a thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (3), and in particular Articles 44(1) and 63(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (4), and in particular Articles 36(1), 58(2), 64(2) and 70(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities in the field of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC (5), and in particular Articles 32(1), 52(2) and 64 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee for Public Contracts,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 89/665/EEC and 2004/18/EC require that public supply, public works and public service should be advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union. The notices for those publications should include the information set out in those Directives.\n(2)\nDirectives 92/13/EEC and 2004/17/EC require that public procurement contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors should be advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union. The notices for those publications should include the information set out in those Directives.\n(3)\nDirective 2009/81/EC requires that certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts in the field of defence and security are to be advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union. The notices for that publication should include the information set out in that Directive.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1564/2005 of 7 September 2005 establishing standard forms for the publication of notices in the field of public procurement (6) sets out the standard forms provided for by Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC and by Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC.\n(5)\nIn order to comply with Directive 2009/81/EC and to ensure the full effectiveness of Directives 89/665/EEC, 92/13/EEC, 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC, it is necessary to adapt and complement, the standard forms annexed to Regulation (EC) No 1564/2005. It is also appropriate to update certain elements of the standard forms in order to take into account technical progress. Given the number and extent of the necessary adjustments, Regulation (EC) No 1564/2005 should be replaced.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nContracting entities shall use, for the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the notices referred to in Articles 41 to 44 and 63 of Directive 2004/17/CE, the standard forms set out in Annexes IV to IX, XII and XIII to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nContracting authorities shall use, for the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the notices referred to in Articles 35, 36, 58, 64, 69 and 70 of Directive 2004/18/EC, the standard forms set out in Annexes I, II, III and VIII to XIII to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nContracting authorities and contracting entities shall use, for the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the notice referred to in Article 3a of Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC, the standard form set out in Annex XIV to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nContracting authorities and contracting entities shall use, for the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the notices referred to in Articles 30, 32, 52 et 64 of Directive 2009/81/EC, the standard forms set out in Annexes XV to XVIII to this Regulation.\nArticle 5\nRegulation (EC) No 1564/2005 is repealed.\nArticle 6\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 August 2011.", "references": ["35", "48", "15", "24", "77", "83", "72", "88", "57", "26", "30", "33", "79", "63", "19", "53", "68", "76", "13", "34", "73", "62", "6", "14", "75", "99", "84", "51", "7", "97", "No Label", "20", "39"], "gold": ["20", "39"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 17 May 2010\non the signing of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of the Congo on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT)\n(2010/615/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn May 2003 the European Commission adopted a Communication to the European Parliament and to the Council entitled \u2018Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT): Proposal for an EU Action Plan\u2019 which called for measures to address illegal logging through the development of Voluntary Partnership Agreements with timber-producing countries. Council conclusions on that Action Plan were adopted in October 2003 (1).\n(2)\nOn 5 December 2005 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations on Partnership Agreements to implement the EU Action Plan for FLEGT.\n(3)\nOn 20 December 2005 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 (2) which established a FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of timber into the Union from countries with which the Union has concluded Voluntary Partnership Agreements.\n(4)\nThe negotiations with the Republic of the Congo have been concluded, and the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of the Congo on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was initialled on 9 May 2009.\n(5)\nSubject to its conclusion at a later date, the Agreement should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of the Congo on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT) is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (3).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 17 May 2010.", "references": ["53", "80", "38", "28", "0", "13", "87", "44", "10", "61", "74", "25", "56", "49", "67", "95", "82", "6", "63", "79", "36", "57", "45", "41", "99", "29", "97", "1", "90", "40", "No Label", "2", "4", "12", "15", "22", "46", "94"], "gold": ["2", "4", "12", "15", "22", "46", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/89/EU\nof 6 November 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include quinmerac as active substance and amending Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included quinmerac.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the applicant withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of quinmerac.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter the applicant) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Article 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe United Kingdom evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 18 June 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on quinmerac to the Commission on 26 February 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 October 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for quinmerac.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing quinmerac may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1) (a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include quinmerac in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information to confirm the results of the risk assessment on the basis of most recent scientific knowledge as regards the potential of plant metabolism to result in an opening of the quinoline ring, the residues in rotational crops and the long term risk for earthworms due to the metabolite BH 518-5.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing quinmerac to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8 (2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nCommission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances provides for the non-inclusion of quinmerac and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning quinmerac in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning quinmerac in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31 October 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 November 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing quinmerac as an active substance by 1 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to quinmerac are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing quinmerac as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 30 April 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning quinmerac. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1) (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing quinmerac as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 April 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing quinmerac as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 April 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 May 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 November 2010.", "references": ["87", "86", "50", "61", "60", "9", "96", "56", "58", "36", "68", "71", "26", "77", "59", "15", "29", "0", "3", "28", "8", "19", "5", "99", "94", "81", "53", "64", "80", "42", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "41", "65"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "41", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 952/2011\nof 23 September 2011\non the issue of licences for importing rice under the tariff quotas opened for the September 2011 subperiod by Regulation (EC) No 327/98\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 of 10 February 1998 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (3), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 327/98 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 IX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nSeptember is the fourth subperiod for the quotas laid down in Article 1(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98, the third subperiod for the quotas laid down in Article 1(1)(d) and the first subperiod for the quota laid down in Article 1(1)(e).\n(3)\nThe notifications presented under Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98 show that, for the quotas with order numbers 09.4112 - 09.4168, the applications lodged in the first ten working days of September 2011 under Article 4(1) of the Regulation cover a quantity greater than that available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested under the quotas in question.\n(4)\nIt is also clear from the notifications that, for the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4129 - 09.4130 - 09.4116 - 09.4117 - 09.4118, the applications lodged in the first ten working days of September 2011 under Article 4(1) of the Regulation cover a quantity less than that available.\n(5)\nThe quantities not used for the September subperiod of the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4129 - 09.4130 are transferred to the quota bearing the order number 09.4138 for the following subperiod under Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 327/98.\n(6)\nThe total quantities available for the following subperiod should therefore be fixed for the quotas with order numbers 09.4138 and 09.4168, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 327/98.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. For import licence applications for rice under the quotas with order numbers 09.4112 - 09.4168 as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98 lodged in the first ten working days of September 2011, licences shall be issued for the quantities requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The total quantities available under the quotas with order numbers 09.4138 and 09.4168 as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98 for the following subperiod are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2011.", "references": ["79", "6", "9", "95", "45", "84", "92", "39", "36", "85", "28", "77", "41", "96", "40", "26", "70", "17", "66", "57", "2", "32", "42", "71", "88", "69", "49", "18", "58", "19", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 761/2012\nof 21 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 August 2012.", "references": ["65", "84", "87", "7", "16", "83", "46", "71", "25", "20", "10", "67", "57", "17", "93", "41", "96", "44", "32", "69", "13", "18", "40", "82", "0", "91", "79", "80", "88", "37", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU, Euratom) No 833/2010\nof 21 September 2010\nimplementing Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,\nHaving regard to the Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 of 24 June 2010 concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 736/96 (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission is required to adopt the provisions concerning the form and other technical details of the notification of data and information referred to in Articles 3 and 5 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010.\n(2)\nIn order to gather comparable data and to simplify the reporting by Member States or their delegated entities or bodies referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010, notifications to be made should be standardized by the use of reporting tables.\n(3)\nFollowing the repeal of Council Regulation (EC) No 736/96 (2), Commission Regulation (EC) No 2386/96 (3) should also be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe form and technical details of the notification to the Commission of data and information on investment projects in energy infrastructure referred to in Articles 3 and 5 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 2386/96 is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 September 2010.", "references": ["62", "84", "11", "14", "6", "70", "50", "26", "21", "48", "37", "2", "85", "5", "95", "90", "51", "10", "55", "72", "58", "46", "79", "97", "65", "71", "19", "35", "33", "59", "No Label", "7", "9", "31", "41", "42", "78", "80", "81"], "gold": ["7", "9", "31", "41", "42", "78", "80", "81"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 692/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 6 July 2011\nconcerning European statistics on tourism and repealing Council Directive 95/57/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 338(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Council, in its Presidency Conclusions of 14 December 2007, stressed the crucial role that tourism plays in generating growth and jobs in the Union and called on the Commission, Member States, industry and other stakeholders to join forces in the timely implementation of the Agenda for a sustainable and competitive European tourism.\n(2)\nThe Union\u2019s tourism industry occupies an important place in the economy of the Member States with tourist activities representing a large potential source of employment. Any appraisal of its competitiveness requires a good knowledge of the volume of tourism, its characteristics, the profile of the tourist and tourism expenditure and the benefits for the economies of the Member States.\n(3)\nMonthly data is needed in order to measure the seasonal influences of demand on tourist accommodation capacity and thereby help public authorities and economic operators develop more suitable strategies and policies for improving the seasonal spread of holidays and tourism activities.\n(4)\nThe majority of European businesses operating in the tourism industry are small or medium-sized, and the strategic importance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in European tourism is not confined to their economic value and their substantial job-creation potential. They also underpin the stability and prosperity of local communities, safeguarding the hospitality and local identity that are the hallmark of tourism in Europe\u2019s regions. Given the size of SMEs, the potential administrative burden needs to be considered, and a system of thresholds should be introduced so that users\u2019 needs can be met, while at the same time reducing the burden of response on the parties responsible for providing statistical data, particularly SMEs.\n(5)\nThe changing nature of tourism behaviour since the entry into force of Council Directive 95/57/EC of 23 November 1995 on the collection of statistical information in the field of tourism (2), with the growing importance of short trips and same-day visits contributing substantially in many regions or countries to the income from tourism, the increasing importance of non-rented accommodation or accommodation in smaller establishments, and the growing impact of the Internet on the booking behaviour of tourists and on the tourism industry, means that the production of tourism statistics should be adapted.\n(6)\nIn order to enable assessment of the macroeconomic importance of tourism in the economies of the Member States based on the internationally accepted framework of tourism satellite accounting, showing the effects of tourism on the economy and jobs, there is a need to improve the availability, completeness and comprehensiveness of the basic tourism statistics as an input for compiling such accounts and, if deemed necessary by the Commission, as a preparation for a legislative proposal for the transmission of harmonised tables for tourism satellite accounts. This requires that the legal requirements which are currently laid down in Directive 95/57/EC be updated.\n(7)\nIn order to examine major issues of economic and social concern in the tourism sector, especially new issues requiring specific research, the Commission needs micro-data. Tourism in the Union has a predominantly intra-European dimension, which means that micro-data emanating from harmonised European statistics on the demand for outbound tourism already provide a source of statistics on inbound tourism demand for the Member State of destination, without imposing additional burden, thus avoiding duplicated observation of tourism flows.\n(8)\nSocial tourism allows as many people as possible to participate in tourism, and moreover, it can contribute to combating seasonality, strengthening the notion of European citizenship and promoting regional development, in addition to facilitating the development of specific local economies. To assess the participation of various socio-demographic groups in tourism and to monitor the Union programmes in the area of social tourism, the Commission needs regular data on participation in tourism and on the tourism behaviour of those groups.\n(9)\nA recognised framework at Union level can help to guarantee reliable, detailed and comparable data, which will in turn enable the structure and development of tourism supply and demand to be properly monitored. Sufficient comparability at Union level is essential as regards methodology, definitions and the programme of statistical data and metadata.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (3), which constitutes the reference framework for this Regulation, provides that statistics are to be collected to high standards of impartiality, transparency, reliability, objectivity, scientific independence, cost-effectiveness and statistical confidentiality.\n(11)\nIn the production and dissemination of European statistics under this Regulation, the statistical authorities at national and Union level should take account of the principles set out in the European Statistics Code of Practice adopted by the Statistical Programme Committee on 24 February 2005 and attached to the Recommendation of the Commission of 25 May 2005 on the independence, integrity and accountability of national and Community statistical authorities.\n(12)\nIn order to take account of economic, social and technical developments, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of adapting the deadlines for data transmission and the Annexes, except for the optional nature of the required data and the limitation of the scope as defined in the Annexes. The Commission should also be empowered to adapt the definitions to the changes in international definitions. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council.\n(13)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (4).\n(14)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely to establish a common framework for the systematic development, production and dissemination of European statistics on tourism cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, due to the absence of common statistical features and quality requirements and a lack of methodological transparency, but can, by applying a common statistical framework, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.\n(15)\nIn the light of changes in the tourism industry and in the type of data required by the Commission and by other users of European statistics on tourism, the provisions of Directive 95/57/EC are no longer relevant. As the legislation in this field needs to be updated, Directive 95/57/EC should be repealed.\n(16)\nA Regulation is the appropriate way of ensuring the use of common standards and the production of comparable statistics.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation establishes a common framework for the systematic development, production and dissemination of European statistics on tourism.\nFor this purpose, Member States shall collect, compile, process and transmit harmonised statistics on tourism supply and demand.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation:\n(a)\n\u2018reference period\u2019 means a period to which data refer;\n(b)\n\u2018reference year\u2019 means a reference period of 1 calendar year;\n(c)\n\u2018NACE Rev. 2\u2019 means the common statistical classification of economic activities within the Union, as established by Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5);\n(d)\n\u2018NUTS\u2019 means the common classification of territorial units for the production of regional statistics within the Union, as established by Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6);\n(e)\n\u2018usual environment\u2019 means the geographical area, though not necessarily a contiguous one, within which an individual conducts his regular life routines and shall be determined on the basis of the following criteria: the crossing of administrative borders or the distance from the place of usual residence, the duration of the visit, the frequency of the visit, the purpose of the visit;\n(f)\n\u2018tourism\u2019 means the activity of visitors taking a trip to a main destination outside their usual environment, for less than a year, for any main purpose, including business, leisure or other personal purpose, other than to be employed by a resident entity in the place visited;\n(g)\n\u2018domestic tourism\u2019 means visits within a Member State by visitors who are residents of that Member State;\n(h)\n\u2018inbound tourism\u2019 means visits to a Member State by visitors who are not residents of that Member State;\n(i)\n\u2018outbound tourism\u2019 means visits by residents of a Member State outside that Member State;\n(j)\n\u2018national tourism\u2019 means domestic and outbound tourism;\n(k)\n\u2018internal tourism\u2019 means domestic and inbound tourism;\n(l)\n\u2018tourist accommodation establishment\u2019 means a local kind-of-activity unit, as defined in the Annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 696/93 of 15 March 1993 on the statistical units for the observation and analysis of the production system in the Community (7), providing as a paid service - although the price might be partially or fully subsidised - short-stay accommodation services as described in groups 55.1 (hotels and similar accommodation), 55.2 (holiday and other short-stay accommodation) and 55.3 (camping grounds, recreational vehicle parks and trailer parks) of NACE Rev. 2;\n(m)\n\u2018non-rented accommodation\u2019 means, inter alia, accommodation provided without charge by family or friends and accommodation in owner-occupied vacation homes, including time share properties;\n(n)\n\u2018same-day visits\u2019 means visits without overnight stay made by residents outside their usual environment and which originated from the place of usual residence.\n2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 11 concerning amendments to the definitions in paragraph 1 of this Article for the purpose of adapting those definitions to changes to international definitions.\nArticle 3\nSubjects covered and characteristics of the required data\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the data to be transmitted by the Member States in accordance with Article 9 shall relate to:\n(a)\ninternal tourism, in terms of the capacity and occupancy of tourist accommodation establishments, for the variables, periodicity and breakdowns laid down in Sections 1, 2 and 3 of Annex I;\n(b)\ninternal tourism, in terms of tourism nights spent in non-rented accommodation, for the variables, periodicity and breakdowns laid down in Section 4 of Annex I;\n(c)\nnational tourism, in terms of the tourism demand, which concerns the participation in tourism and the characteristics of tourism trips and visitors, for the variables, periodicity and breakdowns laid down in Sections 1 and 2 of Annex II;\n(d)\nnational tourism, in terms of the tourism demand, which concerns the characteristics of same-day visits, for the variables, periodicity and breakdowns laid down in Section 3 of Annex II.\n2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt, where necessary, delegated acts in accordance with Article 11 concerning adaptation of the Annexes, except for the optional nature of the required data and to the limitation of the scope as defined in the Annexes in order to take account of economic, social or technical developments. In exercising its power pursuant to this provision, the Commission shall ensure that any delegated acts adopted do not impose significant additional administrative burdens on the Member States and on the respondents.\nArticle 4\nScope of observation\nThe scope of observation for the requirements laid down in:\n(a)\nArticle 3(1)(a) shall be all tourist accommodation establishments as defined in Article 2(1)(l), unless otherwise specified in Annex I;\n(b)\nArticle 3(1)(b) shall be all tourism nights by residents and non-residents spent in non-rented accommodation;\n(c)\nArticle 3(1)(c), as regards the data on participation in tourism, shall be all individuals residing in the territory of the Member State, unless otherwise specified in Section 1 of Annex II;\n(d)\nArticle 3(1)(c), as regards the data on characteristics of tourism trips and visitors, shall be all tourism trips with at least one overnight stay outside the usual environment by the resident population and which ended during the reference period, unless otherwise specified in Section 2 of Annex II;\n(e)\nArticle 3(1)(d), as regards the characteristics of same-day visits, shall be all same-day visits as defined in Article 2(1)(n), unless otherwise specified in Section 3 of Annex II.\nArticle 5\nPilot studies\n1. The Commission shall draw up a programme for pilot studies which may be carried out by Member States on a voluntary basis in order to prepare the development, production and dissemination of harmonised tables for tourism satellite accounts and to assess the benefits in relation to the cost of the compilation.\n2. The Commission shall also draw up a programme for pilot studies which may be carried out by Member States on a voluntary basis in order to develop a system for the compilation of data showing the effects of tourism on the environment.\nArticle 6\nQuality criteria and reports\n1. Member States shall ensure the quality of the data transmitted.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation, the quality criteria as laid down in Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 shall apply.\n3. Every year, Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with a report on the quality of the data relating to the reference periods in the reference year, and on any methodological changes that have been made. The report shall be provided within 9 months after the end of the reference year.\n4. In applying the quality criteria referred to in paragraph 2 to the data covered by this Regulation, the arrangements for and structure of the quality reports shall be defined by the Commission in the form of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 12(2).\nArticle 7\nEvaluation report\nBy 12 August 2016 and every 5 years thereafter, the Commission shall submit an evaluation report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the statistics compiled pursuant to this Regulation and, in particular, on their relevance and the burden on business.\nArticle 8\nData sources\nAs regards the basis on which the data is collected, Member States shall take any measures they deem appropriate to maintain the quality of the results. Member States may produce the necessary statistical data by using a combination of the following different sources:\n(a)\nsurveys, where reporting units are asked to give timely, accurate and complete data;\n(b)\nother appropriate sources, including administrative data, if these are appropriate in terms of timeliness and relevance;\n(c)\nappropriate statistical estimation procedures.\nArticle 9\nTransmission of data\n1. Member States shall transmit the data, including confidential data, to the Commission (Eurostat), in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009.\n2. Member States shall transmit the data listed in Annex I and in Sections 1 and 3 of Annex II in the form of aggregate tables, in accordance with an interchange standard specified by the Commission (Eurostat). The data shall be transmitted or uploaded by electronic means to the single entry point for data at the Commission (Eurostat). The practical arrangements for the transmission of the data shall be adopted by the Commission in the form of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 12(2).\n3. Member States shall transmit the data listed in Section 2 of Annex II in the form of micro-data files - with each observed trip being an individual record in the transmitted dataset - which shall be fully checked, edited and, where necessary, imputed, in accordance with an interchange standard specified by the Commission (Eurostat). The data shall be transmitted or uploaded by electronic means to the single entry point for data at the Commission (Eurostat). The practical arrangements for the transmission of the data shall be adopted by the Commission in the form of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 12(2).\n4. Member States shall transmit:\n(a)\nthe annual data listed in Sections 1 and 2 of Annex I within 6 months after the end of the reference period, unless otherwise specified in Annex I;\n(b)\nthe monthly data listed in Section 2 of Annex I within 3 months after the end of the reference period;\n(c)\nthe rapid key indicators relating to nights spent by residents and non-residents in tourist accommodation establishments, as listed in Section 2 of Annex I, within 8 weeks after the end of the reference period;\n(d)\nthe data listed in Section 4 of Annex I within 9 months after the end of the reference period, if the Member State concerned opts in favour of transmitting them;\n(e)\nthe data listed in Annex II within 6 months after the end of the reference period.\n5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt, where necessary, delegated acts in accordance with Article 11 concerning amendments to the transmission deadlines laid down in paragraph 4 of this Article in order to take account of economic, social or technical developments. Any such amendments shall take into account the existing data collection practices in the Member States.\n6. For all data required by this Regulation, the first reference period, unless otherwise specified, shall begin on 1 January 2012.\nArticle 10\nMethodological manual\nThe Commission (Eurostat) shall, in close cooperation with the Member States, draw up and regularly update a methodological manual which shall contain guidelines on the statistics produced pursuant to this Regulation, including definitions to be applied to the characteristics of the required data and common standards designed to ensure the quality of the data.\nArticle 11\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt the delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 2(2), 3(2) and 9(5) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 11 August 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 9 months before the end of the 5-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than 3 months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 2(2), 3(2) and 9(5) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 2(2), 3(2) and 9(5) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.\nArticle 12\nCommittee\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the European Statistical System Committee established by Regulation (EC) No 223/2009. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 13\nRepeal\nDirective 95/57/EC is hereby repealed.\nMember States shall provide results in accordance with Directive 95/57/EC for all reference periods for 2011.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 6 July 2011.", "references": ["43", "61", "26", "76", "0", "3", "74", "29", "88", "9", "10", "98", "60", "38", "49", "44", "33", "31", "55", "32", "2", "73", "59", "52", "69", "16", "37", "20", "97", "14", "No Label", "7", "19", "36", "40", "42"], "gold": ["7", "19", "36", "40", "42"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/386/CFSP\nof 12 July 2010\nupdating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 December 2001, the Council adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (1).\n(2)\nOn 22 December 2009, the Council adopted Decision 2009/1004/CFSP updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (2).\n(3)\nIn 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 2009/1004/CFSP applies.\n(4)\nThis 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.\n(5)\nThe Council has determined that there are no longer grounds for keeping certain groups on the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply.\n(6)\nThe Council has concluded, that with the exception of the groups referred to in recital 5, the other 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.\n(7)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply shall be that set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2009/1004/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2010.", "references": ["70", "48", "38", "58", "94", "66", "34", "74", "65", "56", "97", "61", "45", "19", "16", "24", "90", "22", "17", "43", "99", "64", "54", "73", "52", "35", "68", "9", "32", "18", "No Label", "1", "3", "8", "36"], "gold": ["1", "3", "8", "36"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 September 2010\nauthorising Romania to introduce a special measure derogating from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(2010/583/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 291(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter registered with the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 23 September 2009, Romania requested authorisation to introduce a special measure derogating from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC.\n(2)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 395(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission informed the other Member States by letter dated 14 December 2009 of the request made by Romania. By letter dated 17 December 2009, the Commission notified Romania that it had all the information it considered necessary for appraisal of the request.\n(3)\nArticle 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC provides that the taxable person supplying the goods or services is, as a general rule, liable for the payment of the value added tax (VAT) to the tax authorities. The purpose of the derogation requested by Romania is to make the recipient of supplies of goods or services liable for VAT in two specific types of circumstances. The first case covered is where taxable persons supply wood products as defined in the national legislation. The second is where goods and/or services are supplied by taxable persons, with the exception of retailers, while under an insolvency procedure.\n(4)\nInsolvent businesses are often prevented by financial difficulties from paying the VAT on their supplies of goods or services to the competent authorities. The recipient of such goods or services can nonetheless in principle deduct the VAT even though it has not been paid to the competent authorities by the supplier.\n(5)\nSince retailers would find it difficult to ascertain the tax status of their customers at the point of sale, the reverse charge should not apply to retailers while under an insolvency procedure.\n(6)\nRomania also encounters problems in the timber market because of the nature of the market and the businesses involved. The market has a large number of small enterprises which the Romanian authorities have found difficult to control. The most common form of tax evasion involves the supplier invoicing for supplies then disappearing without paying the tax to the competent authorities but leaving the customer in receipt of a valid invoice for the right of tax deduction.\n(7)\nBy designating the recipient as the person liable for the payment of the VAT in the case of supplies of wood products by taxable persons and in the case of supplies of goods and the provision of services by taxable persons, with the exception of retailers, while under an insolvency procedure, the derogation removes the difficulties encountered without affecting the amount of tax due. This has the effect of preventing certain types of evasion or avoidance.\n(8)\nThe measure is proportionate to the objectives pursued since it is not intended to apply generally, but only to specific operations and sectors which pose considerable problems in charging the tax or of tax evasion or avoidance.\n(9)\nThe authorisation should be limited in time until 31 December 2013. In light of the experience gained up to that date an assessment may be made on whether or not the derogation remains justified.\n(10)\nThe derogation has no adverse impact on the Union\u2019s own resources accruing from VAT,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC, Romania is hereby authorised until 31 December 2013 to designate the taxable person to whom the supplies of goods or services referred to in Article 2 of this Decision are made as the person liable for the payment of the tax.\nArticle 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to:\na)\nsupplies of wood products by taxable persons including standing timber, round or cleft working wood, fuel wood, timber products, as well as square edged or chipped wood and wood in the rough, processed or semi-manufactured wood;\nb)\nsupplies of goods and the provision of services by taxable persons, with the exception of retailers, while under an insolvency procedure.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Romania.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["73", "13", "39", "14", "15", "9", "28", "35", "72", "41", "48", "36", "1", "5", "44", "61", "49", "90", "46", "58", "98", "7", "79", "20", "31", "22", "42", "53", "76", "2", "No Label", "8", "11", "12", "25", "26", "34", "88", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "11", "12", "25", "26", "34", "88", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 April 2012\nappointing seven French members and 11 French alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/217/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the French Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nSeven members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the mandates of Ms Claude du GRANRUT, Mr Alain LE VERN, Mr Daniel PERCHERON, Mr Jean PRORIOL, Mr Camille de ROCCA SERRA, Mr Alain ROUSSET and Mr Ange SANTINI.\n(3)\nEleven alternate members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the mandates of Mr Jacques AUXIETTE, Mr Jean-Paul BACHY, Ms Martine CALDEROLI-LOTZ, Ms Anne-Marie COMPARINI, Mr Jean-Jacques FRITZ, Mr Claude GEWERC, Ms Arlette GROSSKOST, Mr Antoine KARAM, Mr Martin MALVY, Mr Michel NEUGNOT and Ms \u00c9lisabeth TH\u00c9VENON-DURANTIN,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMr Fran\u00e7ois DECOSTER, Conseiller r\u00e9gional du Nord Pas de Calais,\n-\nMr Jean-Paul DENANOT, Conseiller r\u00e9gional du Limousin,\n-\nMr Claude GEWERC, Conseiller r\u00e9gional de Picardie,\n-\nMs Annabelle JAEGER, Conseill\u00e8re r\u00e9gionale de Provence-Alpes C\u00f4te d\u2019Azur,\n-\nMr Pascal MANGIN, Conseiller r\u00e9gional d\u2019Alsace,\n-\nMr Didier ROBERT, Conseiller r\u00e9gional de la R\u00e9union,\n-\nMr St\u00e9phan ROSSIGNOL, Conseiller r\u00e9gional du Languedoc Roussillon;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMr Laurent BEAUVAIS, Conseiller r\u00e9gional de Basse-Normandie,\n-\nMs Caroline CAYEUX, Conseill\u00e8re r\u00e9gionale de Picardie,\n-\nMs Nathalie COLIN-OESTERLE, Conseill\u00e8re r\u00e9gionale de Lorraine,\n-\nMr Mathieu DARNAUD, Conseiller r\u00e9gional de Rh\u00f4ne-Alpes,\n-\nMs Marie-Marguerite DUFAY, Conseill\u00e8re r\u00e9gionale de Franche-Comt\u00e9,\n-\nMr Nicolas FLORIAN, Conseiller r\u00e9gional d\u2019Aquitaine,\n-\nMs Peggy KAN\u00c7AL, Conseill\u00e8re r\u00e9gionale d\u2019Aquitaine,\n-\nMr Alain LE VERN, Conseiller r\u00e9gional de Haute-Normandie,\n-\nMr Victorin LUREL, Conseiller r\u00e9gional de Guadeloupe,\n-\nMr Daniel PERCHERON, Conseiller r\u00e9gional du Nord Pas-de-Calais,\n-\nMr Christophe ROSSIGNOL, Conseiller r\u00e9gional du Centre.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["25", "49", "65", "35", "12", "30", "69", "82", "42", "21", "61", "98", "89", "66", "62", "43", "37", "40", "32", "78", "9", "74", "46", "5", "79", "92", "71", "48", "63", "70", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 622/2010\nof 15 July 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pesca di Leonforte (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Pesca di Leonforte\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 July 2010.", "references": ["55", "87", "82", "38", "71", "73", "20", "31", "28", "47", "43", "93", "53", "78", "2", "64", "32", "21", "65", "80", "41", "22", "86", "9", "60", "51", "50", "99", "85", "89", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 402/2010\nof 10 May 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pintadeau de la Dr\u00f4me (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Pintadeau de la Dr\u00f4me\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2010.", "references": ["29", "14", "27", "17", "61", "81", "16", "8", "41", "90", "52", "31", "37", "30", "47", "38", "36", "26", "10", "95", "39", "59", "1", "43", "82", "78", "73", "71", "22", "54", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 1 December 2010\non financial aid from the Union for the year 2011 for certain European Union reference laboratories in the field of animal health and live animals\n(notified under document C(2010) 8344)\n(Only the Danish, English, French, German, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2010/735/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 31(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (2), and in particular Article 32(7) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 31(1) of Decision 2009/470/EC European Union reference laboratories in the field of animal health and live animals may be granted Union aid.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 of 28 November 2006 laying down detailed rules for the granting of Community financial assistance to Community reference laboratories for feed and food and the animal health sector (3) provides that the financial assistance from the Union is to be granted if the approved work programmes are efficiently carried out and the beneficiaries supply all the necessary information within certain time limits.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 the relationship between the Commission and European Union reference laboratories is laid down in a partnership agreement which is supported by a multiannual work programme.\n(4)\nThe Commission has assessed the work programmes and corresponding budget estimates submitted by the European Union reference laboratories for the year 2011.\n(5)\nAccordingly, Union financial assistance should be granted to the European Union reference laboratories designated to carry out the functions and duties provided for in the following acts:\n-\nCouncil Directive 92/35/EEC of 29 April 1992 laying down control rules and measures to combat African horse sickness (4),\n-\nCouncil Directive 92/66/EEC of 14 July 1992 introducing Community measures for the control of Newcastle disease (5),\n-\nCouncil Directive 92/119/EEC of 17 December 1992 introducing general Community measures for the control of certain animals diseases and specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease (6),\n-\nCouncil Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993 introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain fish diseases (7),\n-\nCouncil Directive 95/70/EC of 22 December 1995 introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain diseases affecting bivalve molluscs (8),\n-\nCouncil Decision 2000/258/EC of 20 March 2000 designating a specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines (9),\n-\nCouncil Directive 2000/75/EC of 20 November 2000 laying down specific provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue (10),\n-\nCouncil Directive 2001/89/EC of 23 October 2001 on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever (11),\n-\nCouncil Directive 2002/60/EC of 27 June 2002 laying down specific provisions for the control of African swine fever and amending Directive 92/119/EEC as regards Teschen disease and African swine fever (12),\n-\nCouncil Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC and Decisions 89/531/EEC and 91/665/EEC and amending Directive 92/46/EEC (13),\n-\nCouncil Decision 96/463/EC of 23 July 1996 designating the reference body responsible for collaborating in rendering uniform the testing methods and the assessment of the results for pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species (14),\n-\nRegulation (EC) No 882/2004 for brucellosis,\n-\nCouncil Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and repealing Directive 92/40/EEC (15),\n-\nCouncil Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (16),\n-\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 180/2008 of 28 February 2008 concerning the Community reference laboratory for equine diseases other than African horse sickness and amending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (17),\n-\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 737/2008 of 28 July 2008 designating the Community reference laboratories for crustacean diseases, rabies and bovine tuberculosis, laying down additional responsibilities and tasks for the Community reference laboratories for rabies and bovine tuberculosis and amending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (18).\n(6)\nFinancial assistance for the operation and organisation of workshops of European Union reference laboratories should also be in conformity with the eligibility rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1754/2006 lays down eligibility rules for the workshops organised by the European Union reference laboratories. It also limits the financial assistance to a maximum of 32 participants in workshops. Derogations to that limitation should be provided in accordance with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to some European Union reference laboratories that needs support for attendance by more than 32 participants in order to achieve the best outcome of its workshops. Derogations can be obtained in case a European Union reference laboratory takes the leadership and responsibility of organising a workshop with another European Union reference laboratory.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Articles 3(2)(a) and 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (19), animal disease eradication and control programmes (veterinary measures) shall be financed from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF). Furthermore, Article 13, second paragraph of that regulation foresees that in duly justified exceptional cases, for measures and programmes covered by Decision 2009/470/EC, expenditure relating to administrative and personnel costs incurred by Member States and beneficiaries of aid from the EAGF shall be borne by the Fund. For financial control purposes, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 are to apply.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor African horse sickness, the Union grants financial assistance to the Laboratorio Central de Sanidad Animal de Algete, Algete (Madrid), Spain, to carry out the functions and duties set out in Annex III to Directive 92/35/EEC.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that laboratory for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 105 000 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nFor Newcastle disease, the Union grants financial assistance to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA, ex-CVL), New Haw, Weybridge, United Kingdom, to carry out the functions and duties set out in Annex V to Directive 92/66/EEC.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that laboratory for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 90 850 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011, of which a maximum of EUR 850 shall be dedicated to the organisation of a restricted technical workshop on Newcastle disease.\nArticle 3\nFor swine vesicular disease, the Union grants financial assistance to the AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright Laboratory, Pirbright, United Kingdom, to carry out the functions and duties set out in Annex III to Directive 92/119/EEC.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that laboratory for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 130 000 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 4\nFor fish diseases, the Union grants financial assistance to the Technical University of Denmark, National Veterinary Institute, Department of Poultry, Fish and Fur Animals, Aarhus, Denmark, to carry out the functions and duties set out in Annex VI to Directive 2006/88/EC.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that laboratory for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 318 000 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011, of which a maximum of EUR 40 000 shall be dedicated to the organisation of a technical workshop on fish diseases.\nArticle 5\nFor diseases of bivalve molluscs, the Union grants financial assistance to Ifremer, La Tremblade, France, to carry out the functions and duties set out in Annex VI to Directive 2006/88/EC.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that institute for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 130 000 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 6\nFor bluetongue, the Union grants financial assistance to the AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright Laboratory, Pirbright, United Kingdom, to carry out the functions and duties set out in Annex II(B) to Directive 2000/75/EC.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that laboratory for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 300 000 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 7\nFor classical swine fever, the Union grants financial assistance to the Institut f\u00fcr Virologie der Tier\u00e4rztlichen Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany, to carry out the functions and duties set out in Annex IV to Directive 2001/89/EC.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that institute for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 340 000 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011 of which a maximum of EUR 49 000 shall be dedicated to the organisation of a technical workshop on classical swine fever.\nArticle 8\nFor African swine fever, the Union grants financial assistance to the Centro de Investigaci\u00f3n en Sanidad Animal, Valdeolmos, Madrid, Spain, to carry out the functions and duties set out in Annex V to Directive 2002/60/EC.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that research centre for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 200 000 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011, of which a maximum of EUR 40 000 shall be dedicated to the organisation of a technical workshop on African swine fever.\nArticle 9\nFor foot-and-mouth disease, the Union grants financial assistance to the Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright Laboratory, of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Pirbright, United Kingdom, to carry out the functions and duties set out in Annex XVI to Directive 2003/85/EC.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that laboratory for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 360 000 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 10\nFor collaborating in rendering uniform the testing methods and the assessment of the results for pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species, the Union grants financial assistance to the Interbull Centre, Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, to carry out the functions and duties set out in Annex II to Decision 96/463/EC.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that centre for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 150 000 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 11\nFor brucellosis, the Union grants financial assistance to ANSES (ex-AFSSA), Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches en pathologie animale et zoonoses, Maisons-Alfort, France, to carry out the functions and duties set out in Article 32(2) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that laboratory for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 275 000 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011, of which a maximum of EUR 25 000 shall be dedicated to the organisation of a technical workshop on brucellosis.\nArticle 12\nFor avian influenza, the Union grants financial assistance to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA, ex-CVL), New Haw, Weybridge, United Kingdom, to carry out the functions and duties set out in Annex VII to Directive 2005/94/EC.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that laboratory for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 385 850 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011, of which a maximum of EUR 850 shall be dedicated to the organisation of a restricted technical workshop on avian influenza.\nArticle 13\nFor crustacean diseases, the Union grants financial assistance to the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Weymouth Laboratory, United Kingdom, to carry out the functions and duties set out in Part I Annex VI to Directive 2006/88/EC.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that laboratory for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 150 000 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011 of which a maximum of EUR 40 000 shall be dedicated to the organisation of a technical workshop on crustacean diseases.\nArticle 14\nFor equine diseases other than African Horse Sickness, the Union grants financial assistance to ANSES (ex-AFSSA), Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches en pathologie animale et zoonoses/Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherche en pathologie equine, France, to carry out the functions and duties set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 180/2008.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that laboratory for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 540 000 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011 of which a maximum of EUR 40 000 shall be dedicated to the organisation of a technical workshop on equine diseases.\nArticle 15\nFor rabies, the Union grants financial assistance to ANSES (ex-AFSSA), Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes sur la rage et la pathologie des animaux sauvages, Nancy, France, to carry out the functions and duties set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 737/2008.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that laboratory for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 275 000 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011, of which a maximum of EUR 25 000 shall be dedicated to the organisation of a technical workshop on rabies.\nArticle 16\nFor tuberculosis, the Union grants financial assistance to the Laboratorio de Vigilancia Veterinaria (Visavet) of the Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, to carry out the functions and duties set out in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 737/2008.\nThe Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be at the rate of 100 % of the eligible costs as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 to be incurred by that laboratory for the work programme and shall amount to a maximum of EUR 245 000 for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011, of which a maximum of EUR 30 000 shall be dedicated to the organisation of a technical workshop on tuberculosis.\nArticle 17\nThis Decision is addressed to:\n-\nfor African horse sickness: Laboratorio Central de Sanidad Animal, Ministerio de Agricultura, PESCA y Alimentaci\u00f3n, Ctra. De Algete km. 8, Valdeolmos, 28110, Algete (Madrid), Spain;\n-\nfor Newcastle disease: Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Weybridge, New Haw, Addelstone, Surrey KT15 3NB, United Kingdom;\n-\nfor swine vesicular disease: AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright Laboratory, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey GU24 ONF, United Kingdom;\n-\nfor fish diseases: the Technical University of Denmark, National Veterinary Institute, Department of Poultry, Fish and Fur Animals, Hang\u00f8vej 2, 8200-\u00c5rhus Denmark;\n-\nfor diseases of bivalve molluscs: Ifremer, B.P. 133 17390 La Tremblade, France;\n-\nfor bluetongue: AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright Laboratory, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey GU24 ONF, United Kingdom;\n-\nfor classical swine fever: Institut f\u00fcr Virologie der Tier\u00e4rztlichen Hochschule, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 3000 Hannover, Germany;\n-\nfor African swine fever: Centro de Investigaci\u00f3n en Sanidad Animal, Ctra. De Algete a El Casar, Valdeolmos 28130, Madrid, Spain;\n-\nfor foot-and-mouth disease: AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright Laboratory, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey GU24 ONF, United Kingdom;\n-\nInterbull Centre, Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics SLU, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box: 7023, SE-750 07 Uppsala Sweden;\n-\nfor brucellosis: ANSES, Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches en pathologie animale et zoonoses, 23 avenue du G\u00e9n\u00e9ral de Gaulle 94 706 Maisons-Alfort, Cedex France;\n-\nfor Avian influenza: Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Weybridge, New Haw, Addelstone, Surrey KT15 3NB, United Kingdom;\n-\nfor crustacean diseases: Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Weymouth Laboratory, The Nothe, Barrack Road, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8UB, United Kingdom;\n-\nfor equine diseases: ANSES, Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches en pathologie animale et zoonoses, 23 avenue du G\u00e9n\u00e9ral de Gaulle 94 706 Maisons-Alfort, Cedex France;\n-\nfor rabies: ANSES, Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes sur la rage et la pathologie des animaux sauvages, site de Nancy, Domaine de Pix\u00e9r\u00e9court, BP 9, 54220 Malz\u00e9ville, France;\n-\nfor tuberculosis: Visavet - Laboratorio de vigilancia veterinaria, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Avda. Puerta de Hierro, s/n. Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2010.", "references": ["35", "60", "33", "82", "27", "39", "7", "0", "14", "26", "76", "80", "54", "46", "73", "31", "65", "37", "64", "69", "22", "94", "9", "18", "83", "20", "99", "88", "85", "1", "No Label", "4", "15", "66", "77", "96"], "gold": ["4", "15", "66", "77", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 799/2012\nof 5 September 2012\nlaying down form and content of the accounting information to be submitted to the Commission for the purpose of the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and EAFRD as well as for monitoring and forecasting purposes\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 42 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 8(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (2) provides that the form and content of the accounting information referred to in Article 7(1)(c) of that Regulation and the way it is to be forwarded to the Commission are to be established.\n(2)\nThe form and content of the accounting information to be submitted to the Commission for the purpose of the clearance of the accounts of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) as well as for monitoring and forecasting purposes are presently laid down in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 909/2011 (3).\n(3)\nThe Annexes to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 909/2011 cannot be used for their intended purposes in the financial year 2013. Implementing Regulation (EU) No 909/2011 should therefore be repealed and replaced by a new regulation setting out the form and content of the accounting information for that financial year.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Agricultural Funds Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe form and content of the accounting information referred to in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 and the way it is to be forwarded to the Commission shall be as set out in Annexes I (X Table), II (Technical specifications for the transfer of computer files to the EAGF and EAFRD), III (Aide-m\u00e9moire) and IV (Structure of EAFRD budget codes [F109]) to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 909/2011 is repealed with effect from 16 October 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 16 October 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 September 2012.", "references": ["43", "94", "55", "60", "79", "64", "42", "48", "4", "98", "58", "83", "50", "57", "65", "75", "2", "5", "74", "24", "90", "61", "73", "84", "53", "0", "41", "76", "66", "68", "No Label", "10", "17", "33", "47", "63"], "gold": ["10", "17", "33", "47", "63"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 28 November 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement\n(2011/780/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning transport.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (2) has as its principal objective to establish and maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation safety within the Union.\n(3)\nThe activities of the European Aviation Safety Agency may affect the level of civil aviation safety within the European Economic Area.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 216/2008 should therefore be incorporated into the Agreement in order to allow for the full participation of the EFTA States in the European Aviation Safety Agency.\n(5)\nSince Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 repeals Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 (3), which is incorporated into the Agreement, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 should consequently be repealed under the Agreement.\n(6)\nAnnex XIII to the Agreement should be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe Union should therefore take the position set out in the attached draft Decision within the EEA Joint Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the envisaged amendment to Annex XIII (Transport) to the Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 28 November 2011.", "references": ["12", "42", "47", "20", "66", "16", "4", "37", "95", "40", "86", "98", "34", "64", "81", "46", "15", "19", "45", "2", "14", "41", "28", "67", "10", "51", "71", "58", "43", "5", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "53", "57"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "53", "57"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1389/2011\nof 19 December 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 11(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (Commission) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1631/2005 (2) the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping measures consisting of individual duties ranging from 7,3 % to 40,5 % with a residual duty of 42,6 % (3) on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC).\n(2)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 855/2010 (4) the Council lowered the individual duty applied to one company from 14,1 % to 3,2 %.\n2. Request for a review\n(3)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry (5) of the definitive anti-dumping measures in force, on 6 July 2010 the Commission received a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) on behalf of Union producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 90 %, of the total Union production of trichloroisocyanuric acid (the applicants).\n(4)\nThe request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.\n3. Initiation\n(5)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that there was sufficient evidence for the initiation of an expiry review, on 6 October 2010 the Commission announced the initiation of such a review, pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, in a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (6) (the Notice of initiation).\n4. Investigation\n4.1. Investigation period\n(6)\nThe review investigation period (RIP) lasted from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury aspects was analysed during the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the RIP (period considered).\n4.2. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(7)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicants, the other known Union producer, exporting producers, importers and users known to be concerned, as well as the representatives of the PRC, of the initiation of the expiry review.\n(8)\nInterested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the Notice of initiation. All interested parties who requested a hearing and who showed that there were specific reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(9)\nIn view of the apparently large number of exporting producers in the PRC and unrelated importers in the Union, sampling was envisaged for these parties in the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(10)\nIn order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested, pursuant to Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within 15 days of the publication of the notice of initiation and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the Notice of initiation.\n(11)\nNone of the exporting producers in the PRC cooperated in the investigation.\n(12)\nAs regards importers, a few companies initially came forward but then withdrew their cooperation at a later stage.\n(13)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all the parties known to be concerned within the deadlines set in the Notice of initiation. Replies were received from the three known Union producers and from two users.\n(14)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary with a view to determining the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the two major Union producers:\n-\nFluidra (Inquide Sau), Passeig de Sanllehy, 25, 08213 Polinya (Barcelona), Spain,\n-\nErcros (Aragonesas), Avenida Diagonal 595, Barcelona, Spain.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(15)\nThe product concerned by the current review is trichloroisocyanuric acid and preparations thereof (TCCA), also referred to as \u2018symclosene\u2019 under the international non-proprietary name (INN), currently falling within CN codes ex 2933 69 80 and ex 3808 94 20 (TARIC codes 2933698070 and 3808942020), and originating in the PRC.\n(16)\nTCCA is a chemical product used as a broad-spectrum organic chlorine disinfectant and bleacher, in particular used for disinfecting water in swimming pools. It is sold in the form of powder, granules, tablets or chips. All forms of TCCA and preparations thereof share the same basic characteristics (chemical composition) and properties (disinfectant), are all intended for similar use and are therefore considered as a single product.\n(17)\nThe present investigation has confirmed that the product concerned, as manufactured and sold by exporting producers to the Union, is similar in terms of its physical and chemical characteristics, as well as its uses, to the product produced and sold by the Union producers on the Union market and by the producer in the analogue country on both its domestic and export markets. Hence, they are considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(18)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, a review was held to determine whether the expiry of the existing measures was likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.\n(19)\nAs explained above, none of the 30 known exporting producers contacted came forward during the sampling exercise or made themselves known in the course of the investigation.\n(20)\nSince none of the exporting producers in the PRC cooperated, the findings on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping rely on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, namely Eurostat data, the review request and official PRC export statistics.\n(21)\nAdditionally, data submitted by the cooperating exporting producer in the analogue country, Japan, were used to determine the normal value.\n2. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n2.1. Analogue country\n(22)\nSince the PRC is an economy in transition and since, pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value has to be determined on the basis of the price or constructed normal value obtained in an appropriate market economy third country (the analogue country), or on the basis of the price from the analogue country to other countries, including the European Union, or where those cannot be determined, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit margin.\n(23)\nIn its Notice of initiation the Commission announced that Japan had been used in the previous investigation as an appropriate market economy country for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of the PRC and that it envisaged using Japan again for this purpose. In the course of the present review investigation, producers in other market economy countries such as the USA and Taiwan were also contacted, to seek their cooperation. However, cooperation was obtained only from one exporting producer in Japan.\n(24)\nIt was therefore considered that Japan was an appropriate analogue country. In this connection, no comments or objections on the appropriateness of this country were received from interested parties.\n2.2. Normal value\n(25)\nPursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, normal value was established on the basis of the information received from the cooperating exporting producer in the analogue country, i.e. on the basis of prices paid or payable on the domestic market in Japan for like products which were found to be sold in the ordinary course of trade.\n(26)\nIt was first established for the cooperating exporting producer in Japan whether its total domestic sales of the like product to independent customers were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. whether they accounted for at least 5 % of the total export sales volume of the product concerned into the Union. Domestic sales of the cooperating exporting producer in Japan were found to be representative during the RIP.\n(27)\nSubsequently, domestic sales were examined to determine whether they were made in the ordinary course of trade (OCOT), in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(28)\nSince all sales on the domestic market were considered to have been sold at a profit, normal value was based on the actual weighted average domestic price during the RIP.\n2.3. Export price\n(29)\nIn the absence of any cooperation from exporting producers in the PRC, the export price was established on the basis of Eurostat data.\n2.4. Comparison\n(30)\nThe comparison between the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price was made on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In order to ensure a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which affect prices and price comparability. For this purpose, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences in transport and insurance costs.\n2.5. Dumping margin\n(31)\nAs provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value was compared with the weighted average export price. Based on the above methodology, the dumping margin established amounts to 75 %.\n3. Development of imports if measures were repealed\n3.1. Preliminary remark\n(32)\nIn addition to analysing the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood of the continuation of dumping was also investigated.\n(33)\nIn this respect the following elements were analysed: the spare capacity available in the PRC, the attractiveness of the Union market for PRC exporting producers and their exports to third countries.\n3.2. Spare capacity of PRC exporting producers\n(34)\nIn the absence of other information concerning production capacity, the analysis was carried out in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation on the basis of the information contained in the review request.\n(35)\nAccording to the review request, with rates below 40 % production capacity utilisation in the PRC remained low during the period considered. As a result of huge production capacity and low domestic demand, there appears to be more than 180 000 tonnes of spare capacity available in the PRC which could be exported. This compares to Union consumption of around 44 000 tonnes in the RIP.\n3.3. Attractiveness of the Union market\n(36)\nThe attractiveness of the Union market is reflected in the fact that the imposition of anti-dumping duties did not stop the expansion of PRC exports to the Union. Although during the period 2007-2009 import volumes were at a lower level compared to the investigation period of the original investigation that led to the imposition of the measures, import volumes in the RIP were above that level, reaching 22 696 tonnes.\n(37)\nDespite the increase in the average import price during the period considered, prices remained constantly below those of the Union industry.\n(38)\nThe fact that PRC imports during the period considered increased during the RIP to a level that was higher than during the original investigation period shows that there is continued PRC interest in the Union market.\n3.4. Export prices to third countries\n(39)\nPRC export statistics were analysed with respect to PRC export volumes and prices to other third countries. According to these statistics, 24 % of exports from the PRC in 2010 were destined for the Union market. EU export prices at FOB level were slightly higher than export prices to the rest of the world. However, in the absence of cooperation or any data in the review request regarding exports to other third countries, it was not possible to compare those prices at CIF level with the average price of the Union industry. Nevertheless, the fact that export prices to third countries are on average lower than export prices to the Union can be seen as an indication that the Union market is an attractive market for PRC exporters and that exports would be likely to increase further in the absence of measures.\n4. Conclusion of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping\n(40)\nIn view of the above findings, it can be concluded that exports from the PRC are still being dumped and that it is likely that dumping will continue on the Union market if the current anti-dumping measures are removed. Indeed, taking into account the existing spare capacity in the PRC and the attractiveness of the Union market, based on a comparison between export prices to the EU and those to third countries, it is likely that the volume of dumped PRC exports into the Union would increase substantially if measures were allowed to lapse.\nD. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Definition of the Union industry\n(41)\nThe product concerned is manufactured within the Union by three companies. They are therefore deemed to constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019).\n2. Preliminary remark\n(42)\nData were obtained from Eurostat statistics, the review request, the responses to the questionnaire and information gathered during the verification visits.\n(43)\nThe economic indicators concerning production, capacity, utilisation rate of capacity, volume of sales, market share and employment refer to data supplied by the three Union producers. All the other indicators refer to data supplied by the applicants only, because of the limited cooperation of one of the Union producers that was not an applicant in the present review. Considering that the applicants represented around 90 % of Union production in the RIP, their data were deemed to be representative of the Union industry for the purposes of this review. Only the data obtained from the applicants were verified on the spot.\n(44)\nData relating to the economic situation of the Union industry as well as consumption can only be provided in indexed form, so as to preserve confidentiality pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation. This is because such economic indicators concern only two producers or, in some cases, three producers, one of them being only marginally active in the sector.\n(45)\nIn June 2009, one of the applicants closed down one of its two plants, stopping production as of this date and laying off all employees. At first the plant in question was put on hold for a few months, but it closed down definitely in January 2010. This had some impact on a number of indicators such as consumption, production volume and productivity, as further explained below in recitals 47 and 62.\n3. Consumption in the Union market\n(46)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volume of the three Union producers on the Union market and import data from Eurostat.\n(47)\nBetween 2007 and 2009 Union consumption of TCCA decreased by 19 % before recovering in the RIP at a level exceeding by 6 % the one achieved in 2007. For the years 2008 and 2009 this trend can be explained by the combined effects of lower demand, due to the global economic crisis, and restricted supply, due to the closure of one production site in 2009 (see recital 45). The higher level of Union consumption achieved in the RIP is mainly linked to the recovery from the economic crisis and the increase of imports from the PRC.\nTable 1\nUnion consumption\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nUnion consumption (MT)\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n93\n81\n106\n4. Volume and market share of dumped imports from the People\u2019s Republic of China\n(48)\nTrends in the volumes and market shares of dumped imports from the PRC are set out below. The following quantity and market shares are based on Eurostat import statistics, since no PRC exporters/producers cooperated in this review.\n(49)\nQuantities of TCCA imported from the PRC decreased slightly in 2008 and 2009. This downturn in imports was followed by a significant increase in the RIP (more than 35 % as compared to 2009). In parallel, PRC imports continuously increased their market share during the period considered.\nTable 2\nPRC import volumes and market shares\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nImport volumes in MT\n17 957\n17 298\n16 645\n22 696\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n96\n93\n126\nMarket shares (ranges)\n40 %-50 %\n40 %-50 %\n45 %-55 %\n50 %-60 %\n5. Trends in prices of dumped imports from the People\u2019s Republic of China and price undercutting\n5.1. Trends in prices\n(50)\nPrices of imports from the PRC have shown a steady increase of 11,3 %. On the one hand this trend can be attributed to the evolution of the prices of the main raw materials component that started to increase more substantially in 2009 and during the RIP. On the other hand, it may to a certain extent reflect a variation in the product mix (7).\nTable 3\nPRC unit price\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nEUR/MT\n1 048\n1 052\n1 163\n1 167\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n100,4\n111\n111,3\n5.2. Price undercutting\n(51)\nOverall, the prices of PRC imports remained below the prices of the Union industry during the entire period. In determining the extent of price undercutting, the Commission based its calculation on the average CIF export prices of the PRC obtained from Eurostat. The prices of the product concerned were compared to the weighted average price of the Union industry adjusted to ex-works level. The comparison showed that imports from the PRC were undercutting the prices of the Union industry by more than 10 %, without taking into account the anti-dumping duty in place.\n6. Imports from other countries\n(52)\nThe volume and market shares of imports from other countries during the period considered are shown in the table below. The respective data is based on Eurostat figures:\nTable 4\nImports from other countries (volume and market share)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nVolume of imports from other third countries (MT)\n501\n239\n296\n378\nMarket share of imports from other third countries (ranges)\nBelow 2 %\nBelow 2 %\nBelow 2 %\nBelow 2 %\n(53)\nIn terms of volume and market share, imports from other third countries were negligible during the period considered. Imports from the USA, another country subject to an anti-dumping measure, stopped completely during the period considered.\n7. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(54)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry.\n7.1. Production\n(55)\nThere was a serious decline in production from 2009 onwards following the global economic crisis and the closing down of one production facility in June 2009, when production from that plant stopped completely (see recital 45 above).\nTable 5\nUnion production\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nUnion production volume index (2007 = 100)\n100\n95,2\n66,5\n70,7\n7.2. Capacity and capacity utilisation rates\n(56)\nProduction capacity followed the same trend as production during the period considered. Capacity utilisation, however, was positively influenced during the RIP by some process improvements.\n(57)\nAs a result of the closure of one plant in the Union in 2009 (see recital 45 above), the data collected for the RIP is limited to the capacity of the remaining plant.\nTable 6\nUnion production capacity and capacity utilisation\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProduction capacity\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n101,5\n91,0\n80,6\nCapacity utilisation\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n93,4\n72,8\n86,9\n7.3. Stocks\n(58)\nThis indicator was based on the information supplied by the applicants, for the reasons explained in recital 54 above. The investigation at the company\u2019s premises revealed some seasonal patterns in the consumption of TCCA, with the product concerned being used mostly in summer. This has an impact on the variation in the level of stocks throughout the year: stocks peak in winter time and are considerably reduced in the summer period. For the years 2007-2009 the figures represent the level of stocks on 31 December of the given year. The figure for the RIP, however, shows the level of stocks at 30 June 2010, the time of the year with the highest stock utilisation. Hence, this indicator does not allow for a proper comparison between the RIP and the rest of the period concerned and is therefore considered not to be relevant for assessing injury.\n7.4. Sales volume\n(59)\nThe economic crisis had a negative influence on the sales volume of the product concerned on the Union market. The increase during the RIP can be attributed mainly to the increase of Union consumption due to recovery from the recession after the economic crisis.\nTable 7\nSales\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nVolume\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n92\n73\n91\n7.5. Market share\n(60)\nDuring the period considered the Union industry was unable to recover its market share, which decreased significantly over the period considered.\nTable 8\nUnion market share\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nUnion market share (ranges)\n55 %-65 %\n50 %-60 %\n45 %-55 %\n45 %-55 %\n7.6. Employment and wages\n(61)\nEmployment in the sector decreased in the EU during the period considered, particularly following the closing down of one of the production facilities (see recital 45 above). As a result, wage costs at the Union industry level also went down. Average wages per employee remained relatively stable throughout the period considered.\nTable 9\nEmployment\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nEmployees\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n98,7\n84,1\n74,2\nWages per employee\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n104,6\n105,7\n106,0\n7.7. Productivity\n(62)\nThe productivity of the Union industry\u2019s workforce, measured as output per person employed per year, developed negatively over the period considered, showing a sharp decrease by around 20 % in 2009. This was a result of the reorganisation required by the closure of the production facilities, putting production on hold for 6 months in 2009 until the plant was closed down in January 2010 (see recital 45 above). Productivity then recovered during the RIP, although for the first semester it was partly influenced by the negative trends in 2009.\nTable 10\nProductivity\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProductivity\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n96,5\n79,2\n95,3\n7.8. Sales prices\n(63)\nAverage unit prices of TCCA in the EU (as shown in the table below) increased slightly between 2007 and 2009, returning to the 2007 level during the RIP. To some extent, the 2007-2009 increase is related to the product mix effect (see footnote 1 on page 10).\nTable 11\nSales price Union market\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nAverage unit price\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n104,6\n111,4\n103,1\n7.9. Profitability\n(64)\nProfitability on sales of TCCA in the EU developed negatively from 2007 onwards, with a significant loss in 2009. This poor performance has to be seen in relation to the closure in that year of one production site by a Union producer. In the RIP, profitability did become slightly positive, although the profit level was far below the normal profit level (i.e. 10 % (8)) that should be achieved in this sector of activity. This shows that the Union industry is still in a weak financial situation.\nTable 12\nProfitability\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProfitability (range)\n- 10 % to 0 %\n- 10 % to 0 %\n- 20 % to - 10 %\n0 % to 10 %\n7.10. Investments and return on investments\n(65)\nThere was no major capital expenditure during the period considered. The indexed figures shown in the table present the investments made to improve productivity and the production process. The indexes for the return on investments follow the same trend as profitability.\nTable 13\nInvestments\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nNet investments\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n158\n32\n23\nROI (range)\n- 10 % to 0 %\n- 10 % to 0 %\n- 20 % to - 10 %\n0 % to 10 %\n7.11. Cash flow\n(66)\nCash flow remained positive during the period considered, with the exception of the year 2009, when extra restructuring costs had to be covered due to the closing down of one of the production sites (see recital 45 above). The development of cash flow was in line with the development of profitability.\nTable 14\nCash flow\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nCash flow (range)\n0 % to 10 %\n0 % to 10 %\n- 10 % to 0 %\n5 % to 15 %\n7.12. Magnitude of dumping margin\n(67)\nDumping from the PRC continued during the RIP at a level significantly above the current level of measures. Moreover, given the spare capacity and prices of imports from the PRC, the impact on the Union industry of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.\n7.13. Recovery from past dumping\n(68)\nAnti-dumping measures were imposed in October 2005. Taking into account the overall situation of the Union industry as well as the imports from the PRC in the period from 2007 to RIP, it can be concluded that the Union industry has not recovered fully from these effects despite the anti-dumping measures in force.\n7.14. Conclusion on injury\n(69)\nSeveral injury indicators developed negatively during the period considered. Taking into account the overall worsening situation of the Union producers, the Union industry is considered to have suffered material injury over the period considered.\n8. Impact of dumped imports and other factors\n8.1. Impact of dumped imports from the PRC\n(70)\nAs set out in recital 49, imports of TCCA from the PRC grew significantly between 2007 and RIP, in terms of both volume and market share. Significant price undercutting was also found (see recital 51). The continuous massive inflow of dumped imports from the PRC occurred in a context of overall increasing Union consumption in the period considered, reaching in the RIP a level exceeding by 6 % the one achieved in 2007, despite a decrease between 2007 and 2009. As demonstrated by the worsening situation of the Union industry, it was mainly imports from the PRC that benefited from the increase in consumption.\n8.2. Impact of other factors\n(71)\nThe Commission analysed whether any known factors other than the dumped imports from the PRC could have had a bearing on the continued injury suffered by the Union producers.\n(72)\nIn parallel with dumped imports from the PRC, it is likely that the reduced performance of the Union industry on third markets, where it also faced PRC competition, and on the US market in particular, had a negative impact on the Union production. However, most of the activity of the Union producers is devoted to the Union market, limiting to some extent the potential impact of reduced exports.\n(73)\nThe economic crisis also had a negative impact on the performance of the Union industry, leading to a decrease in production and the restructuring of one of the Union producers. Nonetheless, the impact of the economic crisis was limited in time (part of 2008 and 2009), while the economic situation of the Union industry continued to deteriorate throughout the period considered. Moreover, developments in the RIP show that the Union industry did start to recover partially. It can therefore be considered that the impact of the economic crisis was not insignificant in this case, although it did not break the causal link between dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n8.3. Conclusion\n(74)\nThe continued dumping of imports from the PRC along with the economic crisis altered the recovery process and accentuated the difficulties of the Union industry. Although other factors contributed to the deterioration in the performance of the Union industry, none of them proved to be sufficient to break the causal link between dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry. On these grounds, it may be concluded that dumped imports from the PRC have caused material injury to the Union industry.\nE. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF INJURY\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(75)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, imports from the country concerned were assessed in order to establish if there was a likelihood of continuation of injury.\n(76)\nWith regard to the likely effect on the Union industry of the expiry of the measures in force, the following factors were taken into account in line with the elements summarised above regarding the likelihood of the continuation of dumping.\n2. PRC import volumes and prices\n(77)\nImports of TCCA from the PRC, representing approximately 98 % of all imports to the EU, continued to gain market share during the period considered, reaching over 50 % during the RIP. The investigation revealed that these imports were made at dumped prices with a substantial dumping margin. Moreover, the prices of PRC imports remained steadily below the Union industry prices during the entire period, undercutting the Union prices by over 10 % (without taking into account the measures in force).\n3. Spare capacity in the PRC market\n(78)\nAs mentioned in recitals 34 and 35, the analysis of available capacities in the PRC showed that production capacity utilisation remained low during the period considered. The estimated excess production capacity was found to be more than three times higher than in the Union market. At the same time, according to the information received in the review request, there was only a limited market for the product concerned in the PRC.\n4. Attractiveness of the Union market\n(79)\nIn the light of growing import trends and available spare capacities in the PRC, the EU is likely to attract further imports from the PRC in the future. The fact that the Union market is attractive for PRC exporters is demonstrated by the developments in 2009, when the production shortage in the EU, which was caused by the restructuring of the sector, was partially met by extra imports from the PRC.\n(80)\nThis situation may be further exacerbated by the fact that, in the US market, the existing anti-dumping measures on TCCA from the PRC have recently been extended. It is therefore to be expected that the expiry of the AD-measure in the EU would make the Union market comparatively more attractive.\n5. Conclusion on the likelihood of continuation of injury\n(81)\nThe Union industry had been suffering from the effects of PRC dumped imports for several years and is still in a precarious economic situation.\n(82)\nAs established above, the investigation revealed that the injurious situation of the Union industry has continued throughout the period considered. According to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the continuation of injury is in itself a strong indicator that the injury is likely to continue in the future, which would suggest that the measures should be maintained.\n(83)\nGiven the spare capacity available in the PRC and the attractiveness of the Union market, if the measures are lifted the growing trend whereby large imports from the PRC at dumped prices significantly undercut Union producers\u2019 prices is likely to continue.\n(84)\nIf the measures in force are not extended, the situation of the Union industry would deteriorate and its very existence would be jeopardised. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a clear likelihood of continuation of injury to the Union industry, should existing measures be removed.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n1. Introduction\n(85)\nPursuant to Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was necessary to examine whether the maintenance of existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. Determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of the various interests involved, i.e. those of the Union producers, importers and users.\n(86)\nIn previous investigations, it was considered that the adoption of measures was not against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the fact that the current investigation is a review, and thus analyses a situation in which anti-dumping measures are already in place, allows for the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.\n(87)\nOn this basis it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of the continuation of dumping and of injury, it could be clearly concluded that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case.\n2. Interest of the Union industry\n(88)\nIn view of the conclusions on the situation of the Union industry set out in recital 66 above, and in line with the arguments underpinning the likelihood of continuation of injury as explained in recitals 78 to 81, it can be considered that the expiry of the measures in force would lead to further deterioration in the economic situation of the Union TCCA industry, which has suffered from the injurious effect of the dumped imports from the PRC and whose situation has been worsened by the global economic crisis.\n(89)\nIt is considered that the continuation of measures would benefit the Union industry, which could in this case recover from the injurious effect of past dumping aggravated by the economic crisis. In contrast, the discontinuation of the measures would put a stop to the recovery of the Union industry, seriously threatening its viability, and, as a result, putting its existence at risk, thus reducing supply and competition on the market.\n3. Interest of importers and users\n(90)\nAll known users, importers, processors and actors in the downstream TCCA industry were contacted.\n(91)\nOnly two users came forward, both expressing their support for the continuation of the measures in force. Both claimed that the continuation of measures would not have a negative impact on competition in the Union market, but that, on the contrary, it would provide the user industry with a wider range of suppliers competing at market prices. Since no other parties came forward in this case, there is no evidence to show that the maintenance of the anti-dumping measures in the present case would have a serious effect on importers and users in the Union.\n4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(92)\nThe continuation of measures can be expected to assist the Union industry, with consequent beneficial effects on the competitive conditions on the Union market and the consolidation of the sector after the economic crisis and the restructuring. Furthermore, the continuation of the measures can be expected to benefit users and importers by maintaining a wide range of suppliers in the Union market.\n(93)\nTaking all the above factors into account, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the continuation of the measures in question.\nG. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(94)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to submit comments subsequent to that disclosure. The submissions and comments were duly taken into consideration, where warranted.\n(95)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of TCCA originating in the PRC should be maintained,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid and preparations thereof, also referred to as \u2018symclosene\u2019 under the international non-proprietary name (INN), currently falling within CN codes ex 2933 69 80 and ex 3808 94 20 (TARIC codes 2933698070 and 3808942020), and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable before duty to the net free-at-Union-frontier price for products manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nAnti-dumping duty rate\nTARIC additional code\nHebei Jiheng Chemical Co. Limited\n8,1 %\nA604\nPuyang Cleanway Chemicals Limited\n7,3 %\nA628\nHeze Huayi Chemical Co. Limited\n3,2 %\nA629\nZhucheng Taisheng Chemical Co. Limited\n40,5 %\nA627\nAll other companies\n42,6 %\nA999\n3. The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the duty rate applicable to all other companies shall apply.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["51", "70", "69", "65", "91", "10", "50", "0", "39", "18", "56", "1", "4", "78", "47", "99", "53", "92", "41", "98", "85", "42", "87", "62", "72", "13", "35", "74", "86", "32", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 59/2012\nof 23 January 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 25/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["37", "2", "41", "95", "8", "27", "82", "77", "38", "63", "50", "67", "68", "0", "44", "3", "89", "5", "29", "98", "65", "80", "16", "93", "85", "53", "23", "51", "58", "20", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1151/2010\nof 8 December 2010\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on population and housing censuses, as regards the modalities and structure of the quality reports and the technical format for data transmission\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on population and housing censuses (1), and in particular Articles 5(5) and 6(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 763/2008 establishes common rules for the decennial provision of comprehensive data on population and housing.\n(2)\nIn order to assess the quality of the data transmitted to the Commission (Eurostat) by the Member States, it is necessary to define the modalities and structure of the quality reports.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure the proper transmission of the data and metadata, the technical format should be the same for all Member States. It is therefore necessary to adopt the appropriate technical format to be used for data transmission.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down the modalities and structure of the quality reports to be submitted by Member States on the quality of the data they transmit to the Commission (Eurostat) from their population and housing censuses for the reference year 2011, as well as the technical format for data transmission, to fulfil the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 763/2008.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nThe definitions and technical specifications set out in Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1201/2009 (2) and (EU) No 519/2010 (3) shall apply for the purpose of this Regulation. The following definitions shall also apply:\n1.\n\u2018statistical unit\u2019 means the basic observation unit, namely a natural person, household, family, living quarter, or conventional dwelling;\n2.\n\u2018individual enumeration\u2019 means that information on each statistical unit is obtained so that their characteristics can be recorded separately and cross-classified with other characteristics;\n3.\n\u2018simultaneity\u2019 means that the information obtained in a census refers to the same point in time (reference date);\n4.\n\u2018universality within a defined territory\u2019 means that data are provided for all statistical units within a precisely defined territory. Where statistical units are persons, \u2018universality within a defined territory\u2019 means that data are provided which are based on information for all persons that have their usual residence in the defined territory (total population);\n5.\n\u2018availability of small-area data\u2019 means the availability of data for small geographic areas and for small groups of statistical units;\n6.\n\u2018defined periodicity\u2019 means the capacity to conduct censuses regularly at the beginning of every decade, including the continuity of registers;\n7.\n\u2018target population\u2019 means the set of all statistical units in a defined geographical area at the reference date which qualify for reporting on one or more specified topics. The target population includes each valid statistical unit exactly once;\n8.\n\u2018estimated target population\u2019 means the best available approximation of the target population. The estimated target population consists of the census population plus under-coverage minus over-coverage;\n9.\n\u2018census population\u2019 means the set of statistical units which is factually represented by the census results on one or more specified topics for a specified target population. The data records for the census population are the data records in the data source for the specified target population, including all imputed records and excluding all deleted records. If a data source comprises, as a matter of methodological principle, data records for only a sample of the statistical units in its estimated target population, the census population comprises, in addition to the statistical units in the sample, the complementary set of statistical units;\n10.\n\u2018complementary set of statistical units\u2019 means the set of those statistical units that belong to an estimated target population, but about which the data source contains no data records as a result of an applied sampling methodology;\n11.\n\u2018coverage assessment\u2019 means a study of the difference between a specified target population and its census population;\n12.\n\u2018post-enumeration survey\u2019 means a survey conducted shortly after the enumeration for coverage and content assessment purposes;\n13.\n\u2018under-coverage\u2019 means the set of all statistical units that belong to a specified target population, but are not included in the corresponding census population;\n14.\n\u2018over-coverage\u2019 means the set of all statistical units that are included in a census population used to report on a specified target population without belonging to that target population;\n15.\n\u2018record imputation\u2019 means the assignment of an artificial but plausible data record to exactly one geographical area at the most detailed geographical level for which census data are produced, and the imputation of that data record into a data source;\n16.\n\u2018record deletion\u2019 means the act of deleting or ignoring a data record that is included in a data source used to report on a specified target population, but does not report any valid information on any statistical unit within that target population;\n17.\n\u2018item imputation\u2019 means the insertion of artificial but plausible information into a data record where the data record already exists in a data source but does not contain this information;\n18.\n\u2018data source\u2019 means the set of data records for statistical units and/or events related to statistical units which forms a basis for the production of census data about one or more specified topics for a specified target population;\n19.\n\u2018register-based data\u2019 means data that are in or originate from a register;\n20.\n\u2018questionnaire-based data\u2019 means data that are originally obtained from respondents by the means of a questionnaire in the context of a collection of statistical data which refer to a specified point in time;\n21.\n\u2018register\u2019 means a repository which stores information about statistical units and is directly updated in the course of events affecting the statistical units.\n22.\n\u2018record linkage\u2019 means the process of merging information from different data sources by comparing the records for the individual statistical units and merging the information for each statistical unit where the unit to which the records refer is the same;\n23.\n\u2018matching of registers\u2019 means a record linkage where all matched data sources are contained in registers;\n24.\n\u2018data extraction\u2019 means the process of retrieving census information from information contained in a register and relating to individual statistical units;\n25.\n\u2018coding\u2019 means the process of converting information into codes representing classes within a classification scheme;\n26.\n\u2018identifying variable\u2019 means a variable in the data records in a data source or any list of statistical units which is used\n-\nto evaluate whether the data source (or list of statistical units) includes no more than one data record for each statistical unit, and/or\n-\nfor a record linkage.\n27.\n\u2018capturing\u2019 means the process by which collected data are put into a machine-readable form;\n28.\n\u2018record editing\u2019 means the process of checking and modifying data records to make them plausible while at the same time preserving major parts of these records;\n29.\n\u2018generation of a household\u2019 means the identification of a private household according to the household-dwelling concept as defined in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1201/2009 under the topic \u2018Household status\u2019;\n30.\n\u2018generation of a family\u2019 means the identification of a family based on information on whether the persons live in the same household, but with no or incomplete information on family relationships between persons. The term \u2018family\u2019 is specified as \u2018family nucleus\u2019 in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1201/2009 under the topic \u2018Family status\u2019;\n31.\n\u2018unit no-information\u2019 means the failure to collect any data from a statistical unit that is in the census population;\n32.\n\u2018item no-information\u2019 means the failure to collect data on one or more specified topics for a statistical unit that is in the census population, while data on at least one other topic can be collected for that statistical unit;\n33.\n\u2018statistical disclosure control\u2019 means the methods and processes applied in order to minimise the risk of disclosing information on individual statistical units while releasing as much statistical information as possible;\n34.\n\u2018estimation\u2019 means the calculation of statistics or estimates using a mathematical formula and/or algorithm applied to the available data;\n35.\n\u2018coefficient of variation\u2019 means the standard error (square root of the variance of an estimator) divided by the expected value of the estimator;\n36.\n\u2018model assumption error\u2019 means an error due to assumptions underlying the estimation and containing uncertainty or lack of detail;\n37.\n\u2018data structure definition\u2019 means a set of structural metadata associated with a data set, which includes information about how concepts are associated with the measures, dimensions, and attributes of a hypercube, along with information about the representation of data and related descriptive metadata.\nArticle 3\nMetadata and quality reporting\n1. Member States shall report to the Commission (Eurostat), by 31 March 2014, the background information specified in Annex I to this Regulation as well as the quality-related data and metadata specified in Annexes II and III to this Regulation, with reference to their population and housing censuses for the reference year 2011 and to the data and metadata transmitted to the Commission (Eurostat) as required by Regulation (EU) No 519/2010.\n2. To meet the requirements of paragraph 1, Member States shall make a coverage assessment for their population and housing censuses for the reference year 2011 as well as an assessment of the imputation and deletion of data records.\n3. Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 (4) and the Euro SDMX Metadata Structure as defined in Commission Recommendation 2009/498/EC (5) for the production and exchange of reference metadata (including quality) shall apply in the context of this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nData sources\nAny data source shall be able to contribute information needed to fulfil the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 763/2008, in particular to\n-\nmeet the essential features as listed in Article 2(i) of Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 and defined in Article 2 (2) to (6),\n-\nrepresent the target population,\n-\nrespect the relevant technical specifications laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1201/2009, and\n-\ncontribute to the provision of data for the programme of statistical data set out in Regulation (EU) No 519/2010.\nArticle 5\nAccess to relevant information\nAt the request of the Commission (Eurostat), Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with access to any information relevant to the assessment of the quality of the transmitted data and metadata as required by Regulation (EU) No 519/2010, excluding the transmission to and storage at the Commission of any microdata and confidential data.\nArticle 6\nTechnical format for data transmission\nThe technical format to be used for the transmission of data and metadata for the reference year 2011 shall be the Statistical Data and Metadata eXchange (SDMX) format. Member States shall transmit the required data conforming to the data structure definitions and related technical specifications provided by the Commission (Eurostat). Member States shall store until 1 January 2025 the required data and metadata for any later transmission requested by the Commission (Eurostat).\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2010.", "references": ["74", "20", "69", "63", "79", "29", "89", "99", "60", "90", "84", "62", "48", "83", "71", "95", "34", "17", "50", "55", "12", "8", "78", "38", "37", "22", "91", "75", "68", "5", "No Label", "9", "19", "40", "42", "76"], "gold": ["9", "19", "40", "42", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 201/2011\nof 1 March 2011\non the model of declaration of conformity to an authorised type of railway vehicle\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 26(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission should adopt the model of declaration of conformity to an authorised type of vehicle as provided for with the Directive.\n(2)\nThe European Railway Agency issued the recommendation of 30 June 2010 on the model of declaration of conformity to an authorised type of vehicle.\n(3)\nThe annexes to the declaration of conformity to type should provide evidence on the completion of the relevant procedures for verification in accordance with the applicable Union legislation and notified national rules, and indicate the references of the directives, technical specifications for interoperability, national rules and other provisions. The type authorisation, which is identified by the European identification number, should provide information on all the legal requirements on the basis of which the type authorisation has been granted in a Member State.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe model of declaration of conformity to type referred to in Article 26(4) of Directive 2008/57/EC is set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 2 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States, except Cyprus and Malta as long as no railway system is established within their territory.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2011.", "references": ["85", "47", "49", "12", "97", "69", "19", "18", "72", "92", "46", "25", "14", "77", "75", "4", "23", "33", "60", "34", "32", "66", "11", "59", "21", "30", "84", "28", "6", "16", "No Label", "9", "55", "76"], "gold": ["9", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/684/CFSP\nof 13 October 2011\namending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria. (1)\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, an additional entity should be subject to the restrictive measures set out in Decision 2011/273/CFSP with a view to preventing that entity from using funds or economic resources presently owned, held or controlled by it in order to provide financial support to the Syrian regime, whilst allowing on a temporary basis for frozen funds or economic resources subsequently received by that entity to be used in connection with the financing of trade with non-designated persons and entities.\n(3)\nDecision 2011/273/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nCouncil Decision 2011/273/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, persons benefiting from or supporting the regime, and persons associated with them, as listed in Annex I.\u2019;\n(ii)\nparagraph 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u20188. In cases where pursuant to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in Annex I, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the person concerned therewith.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nparagraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. All funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime, and persons and entities associated with them, as listed in Annexes I and II, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of, natural or legal persons or entities listed in Annexes I and II.\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (a) of paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of the persons listed in Annexes I and II and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\u2019;\n(iii)\npoint (a) of paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe funds or economic resources are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the natural or legal person or entity referred to in Article 4(1) was included in Annexes I and II, or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\u2019;\n(iv)\npoint (c) of paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a natural or legal person or entity listed in Annexes I and II; and\u2019;\n(v)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20185a. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent a designated entity listed in Annex II, for a period of two months after the date of its designation, from making a payment from frozen funds or economic resources received by such entity after the date of its designation, where such payment is due under a contract in connection with the financing of trade, provided that the relevant Member State has determined that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 4a is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4a\nNo claims, including for compensation or indemnification or any other claim of this kind, such as a claim of set-off, fines or a claim under a guarantee, claims for extension or payment of a bond, financial guarantee, including claims arising from letters of credit and similar instruments in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which was affected, directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, by reason of measures covered by this Decision, shall be granted to the designated persons or entities listed in Annexes I and II, or any other person or entity in Syria, including the Government of Syria, its public bodies, corporations and agencies, or any person or entity claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or entity.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 5(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall establish and amend the lists in Annexes I and II.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\n1. Annexes I and II shall include the grounds for listing the persons and entities concerned.\n2. Annexes I and II shall also contain, where available, the information necessary to identify the persons or entities concerned. With regard to persons, such information may include names, including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and identity card numbers, gender, address if known, and function or profession. With regard to entities, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/273/CFSP shall become Annex I.\nArticle 3\nThe Annex to this Decision shall be added to Decision 2011/273/CFSP as Annex II.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 October 2011.", "references": ["66", "60", "37", "82", "99", "97", "68", "73", "71", "90", "75", "89", "54", "32", "81", "55", "64", "47", "41", "88", "6", "70", "18", "59", "69", "7", "38", "76", "35", "39", "No Label", "3", "12", "95"], "gold": ["3", "12", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 935/2010\nof 18 October 2010\non the issue of licences for the import of garlic in the subperiod from 1 December 2010 to 28 February 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 (3) opens and provides for the administration of tariff quotas and introduces a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and other agricultural products imported from third countries.\n(2)\nThe quantities for which \u2018A\u2019 licence applications have been lodged by traditional importers and by new importers during the first seven working days of October 2010, pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 exceed the quantities available for products originating in China, and all third countries other than China and Argentina.\n(3)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, it is now necessary to establish the extent to which the \u2018A\u2019 licence applications sent to the Commission by 14 October 2010 can be met in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApplications for \u2018A\u2019 import licences lodged pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 during the first seven working days of October 2010 and sent to the Commission by 14 October 2010 shall be met at a percentage rate of the quantities applied for as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 October 2010.", "references": ["43", "7", "15", "38", "13", "27", "12", "73", "36", "82", "50", "35", "16", "63", "62", "11", "92", "42", "29", "75", "39", "25", "47", "87", "5", "61", "98", "58", "20", "79", "No Label", "4", "21", "23", "68", "93", "95", "96"], "gold": ["4", "21", "23", "68", "93", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 29/2011\nof 14 January 2011\non selling prices for cereals in response to the fourth individual invitations to tender within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 (2) has opened the sales of cereals by tendering procedures, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission has to fix for each cereal and per Member State a minimum selling price or to decide not to fix a minimum selling price.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the fourth individual invitations to tender, it has been decided that a minimum selling price should be fixed for the cereals and for the Member States.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the fourth individual invitations to tender for selling of cereals within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 12 January 2011, the decisions on the selling price per cereal and Member State are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 January 2011.", "references": ["27", "70", "82", "67", "47", "83", "10", "37", "8", "53", "65", "19", "35", "51", "80", "59", "7", "99", "97", "64", "93", "28", "13", "69", "26", "16", "46", "25", "18", "85", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 122/2012\nof 13 February 2012\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance methylprednisolone\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nMethylprednisolone is currently included in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as an allowed substance, for bovine species, applicable to muscle, fat, liver, kidney and milk. The provisional maximum residue limits (hereinafter \u2018MRLs\u2019) for that substance set out for bovine milk expired on 1 July 2011.\n(4)\nAdditional data were provided and assessed leading the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use to recommend that the provisional MRLs for methylprednisolone for bovine milk should be set as definitive.\n(5)\nThe entry for methylprednisolone in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 February 2012.", "references": ["80", "20", "29", "13", "60", "73", "12", "22", "74", "82", "48", "86", "96", "14", "88", "3", "34", "4", "50", "28", "49", "76", "57", "62", "51", "70", "67", "0", "99", "40", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65", "69", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 997/2011\nof 7 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 October 2011.", "references": ["81", "67", "10", "15", "8", "92", "21", "42", "41", "3", "70", "1", "29", "53", "9", "80", "58", "4", "84", "98", "77", "59", "94", "56", "27", "78", "14", "73", "44", "97", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1102/2010\nof 26 November 2010\non selling prices for cereals in response to the first individual invitations to tender within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 (2) has opened the sales of cereals by tendering procedures, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission has to fix for each cereal and per Member State a minimum selling price or to decide not to fix a minimum selling price.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the first individual invitations to tender, it has been decided that a minimum selling price should be fixed for certain cereals and for certain Member States and no minimum selling price should be fixed for other cereals and other Member States.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the first individual invitations to tender for selling of cereals within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 24 November 2010, the decisions on the selling price per cereal and Member State are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 November 2010.", "references": ["38", "89", "91", "21", "30", "61", "66", "29", "57", "84", "92", "54", "7", "77", "71", "41", "72", "63", "34", "40", "11", "18", "70", "75", "44", "8", "67", "32", "85", "64", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1355/2011\nof 20 December 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People\u2019s Republic of Korea\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 (1), and in particular Article 13(1)(e) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex V to Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 lists persons, entities and bodies who, having been designated by the Council, are covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 19 December 2011, the Council decided to amend the list of persons, entities and bodies to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex V should therefore be updated.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex V to Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 is hereby replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["14", "63", "31", "91", "98", "13", "97", "6", "1", "94", "36", "59", "32", "51", "39", "17", "71", "84", "21", "43", "26", "23", "82", "33", "29", "72", "83", "74", "53", "86", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 4 July 2011\nauthorising a laboratory in Japan to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines\n(notified under document C(2011) 4595)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/396/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2000/258/EC of 20 March 2000 designating a specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2000/258/EC designates the Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (ANSES) in Nancy, France (previously known as the Agence fran\u00e7aise de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire des aliments, AFSSA), as the specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines.\n(2)\nThat Decision also provides that the ANSES is to document the appraisal of laboratories in third countries that have applied to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines.\n(3)\nThe competent authority of Japan has submitted an application for approval of a laboratory in that third country to perform such serological tests. That application is supported by a favourable report by the ANSES dated 4 February 2011 of the appraisal of that laboratory.\n(4)\nThat laboratory should therefore be authorised to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines in dogs, cats and ferrets.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Decision 2000/258/EC, the following laboratory is authorised to perform the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines in dogs, cats and ferrets:\nLaboratory Department, Animal Quarantine Service\nMinistry of Agriculture, forestry and fisheries\n11-1, Haramachi, Isogo-ku\nYokohama\nKanagawa 235-0008\nJAPAN\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 August 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 July 2011.", "references": ["71", "32", "18", "44", "29", "17", "97", "23", "12", "19", "24", "65", "86", "0", "90", "70", "45", "98", "80", "1", "30", "84", "13", "72", "60", "62", "4", "89", "51", "81", "No Label", "38", "66", "77", "95", "96"], "gold": ["38", "66", "77", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 640/2011\nof 30 June 2011\namending for the 152nd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a), and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 22 June 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove five natural persons and three legal persons from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 June 2011.", "references": ["73", "85", "97", "41", "56", "61", "49", "16", "89", "38", "75", "88", "45", "15", "0", "64", "51", "87", "63", "19", "35", "72", "71", "42", "48", "60", "77", "39", "8", "68", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 487/2012\nof 7 June 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Tomate La Ca\u00f1ada (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Tomate La Ca\u00f1ada\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["67", "2", "93", "90", "65", "41", "19", "94", "78", "38", "71", "28", "75", "73", "35", "10", "43", "91", "70", "82", "26", "3", "80", "39", "5", "0", "77", "17", "31", "57", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "92"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "92"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 738/2011\nof 26 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2011.", "references": ["45", "67", "15", "12", "44", "49", "2", "98", "72", "19", "73", "69", "16", "20", "96", "25", "23", "55", "32", "93", "78", "40", "92", "0", "3", "71", "59", "31", "47", "74", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2012/16/EU\nof 10 May 2012\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include hydrochloric acid as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes hydrochloric acid.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, hydrochloric acid has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 2, private area and public health area disinfectants and other biocidal products, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nLatvia was designated as rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 16 October 2009 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 9 December 2011, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as private area and public health area disinfectants and other biocidal products, in accordance with the said product-type 2, and containing hydrochloric acid may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include hydrochloric acid in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at Union level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to human populations and to environmental compartments that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nIn view of the corrosivity of the substance as well as the possible measures identified to mitigate the related risk, it is appropriate to require that exposure during non-professional use is minimised through the design of the packaging, unless it can be demonstrated in the application for product authorisation that risks for human health can be reduced to acceptable levels by other means.\n(8)\nThe provisions of this Directive should be applied at the same time in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment on the Union market of biocidal products containing the active substance hydrochloric acid and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(9)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC, in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(10)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(11)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 April 2013 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 May 2014.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2012.", "references": ["50", "28", "1", "73", "47", "97", "27", "48", "24", "34", "26", "89", "0", "75", "78", "91", "33", "12", "88", "56", "94", "22", "96", "2", "7", "92", "70", "30", "23", "49", "No Label", "25", "61", "83"], "gold": ["25", "61", "83"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE COMMISSION, THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE COURT OF AUDITORS, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS\nof 29 June 2012\namending Decision 2009/496/EC, Euratom on the organisation and operation of the Publications Office of the European Union\n(2012/368/EU, Euratom)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,\nTHE COUNCIL,\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nTHE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nTHE COURT OF AUDITORS,\nTHE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE,\nTHE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt is necessary to amend Decision 2009/496/EC, Euratom of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 26 June 2009 on the organisation and operation of the Publications Office of the European Union (1) in order to adapt it to the provisions of the Treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon and, in particular, to add the European Council as a signatory institution.\n(2)\nThe Management Committee of the Publications Office has agreed, at its meeting on 2 July 2010, that the European Council become a signatory institution and, on 14 April 2011, that Decision 2009/496/EC, Euratom should therefore be amended,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2009/496/EC, Euratom is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe title shall be replaced by \u2018Decision of the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the organisation and operation of the Publications Office of the European Union\u2019;\n(2)\nthe list of enacting institutions and bodies shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,\nTHE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,\nTHE COUNCIL,\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nTHE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nTHE COURT OF AUDITORS,\nTHE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE,\nTHE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 1(1) the first subparagraph shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The task of the Publications Office of the European Union (hereinafter the Office), which is an interinstitutional office, shall be to publish the publications of the institutions of the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community under optimum conditions.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 4(6) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20186. The institutions may conclude service agreements with the Office in order to define the methods of their cooperation. The European External Action Service may also cooperate with the Office and, for this purpose, conclude a service agreement.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 6(1) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20181. A Management Committee shall be established, within which all the signatory institutions are represented. The Management Committee shall be made up of the Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Secretaries-General of the other institutions or their representatives. The European Central Bank shall take part in the work of the Management Committee as an observer. The European Central Bank shall be represented by the Secretary to its Executive Board or by their appointed substitute.\u2019;\n(6)\nthe list of signatories shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018For the European Parliament,\nFor the European Council,\nFor the Council,\nFor the Commission,\nFor the Court of Justice of the European Union,\nFor the Court of Auditors,\nFor the European Economic and Social Committee,\nFor the Committee of the Regions\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels and at Luxembourg, 29 June 2012.", "references": ["3", "70", "81", "2", "66", "10", "61", "21", "27", "67", "4", "20", "34", "62", "72", "53", "24", "88", "55", "44", "82", "9", "37", "46", "74", "99", "73", "12", "0", "6", "No Label", "7", "8"], "gold": ["7", "8"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 January 2011\nadopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region\n(notified under document C(2010) 9666)\n(2011/63/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Atlantic biogeographical region referred to in Article 1(c)(iii) of Directive 92/43/EEC comprises the territories of Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and parts of Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Portugal and Spain as specified in the biogeographical map approved on 25 April 2005 by the Committee set up by Article 20 of that Directive, hereinafter the \u2018Habitats Committee\u2019.\n(2)\nIt is necessary in the context of a process which was initiated in 1995 to make further progress in the actual establishment of the Natura 2000 network, which is an essential element of the protection of biodiversity in the Union.\n(3)\nThe initial list and the first three updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region, within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC, were adopted by Commission Decisions 2004/813/EC (2), 2008/23/EC (3), 2009/96/EC (4) and 2010/43/EU (5). On the basis of Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Member State concerned shall designate the sites included in the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region as special areas of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most, establishing conservation priorities and the necessary conservation measures.\n(4)\nIn the context of a dynamic adaptation of the Natura 2000 network, the lists of sites of Community importance are reviewed. A fourth update of the Atlantic list is therefore necessary.\n(5)\nOn the one hand, the fourth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region is necessary in order to include additional sites that have been proposed since 2008 by the Member States as sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC. The obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC are applicable as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region.\n(6)\nOn the other hand, the fourth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region is necessary in order to reflect any changes in site related information submitted by the Member States following the adoption of the initial and the first three updated Community lists. In that sense, the fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region constitutes a consolidated version of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region. However, it should be stressed that the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC are applicable as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the initial or the first three updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region, depending on which list a site of Community importance was included as such for the first time.\n(7)\nFor the Atlantic biogeographical region, lists of sites proposed as sites of Community importance within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC have been transmitted to the Commission between March 2002 and November 2009 by the Member States concerned in accordance with Article 4(1) of that Directive.\n(8)\nThe lists of proposed sites were accompanied by information on each site, supplied in the format established by Commission Decision 97/266/EC of 18 December 1996 concerning a site information format for proposed Natura 2000 sites (6).\n(9)\nThat information includes the most recent and definitive map of the site transmitted by the Member States concerned, name, location and extent of the site, and the data yielded by application of the criteria specified in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(10)\nOn the basis of the draft list drawn up by the Commission in agreement with each of the Member States concerned, which also identifies sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, a fourth updated list of sites selected as sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region should be adopted.\n(11)\nKnowledge of the existence and distribution of the natural habitat types and species is constantly evolving, as a result of the surveillance in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, the evaluation and selection of sites at Community level was done using the best available information at present.\n(12)\nCertain Member States have not proposed sufficient sites to meet the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC for certain habitat types and species. For those habitat types and species it can therefore not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is complete. Taking into account the delay in receiving the information and reaching agreement with the Member States, it is necessary to adopt a fourth updated list of sites, which will need to be revised in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(13)\nGiven that knowledge on the existence and distribution of some of the natural habitat types of Annex I and species of Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC remains incomplete, it should not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is either complete or incomplete. The list should be revised, if necessary, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(14)\nIn the interests of clarity and transparency Decision 2010/43/EU should be repealed.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Habitats Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2010/43/EU is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 January 2011.", "references": ["61", "84", "29", "89", "45", "23", "67", "3", "27", "47", "1", "48", "60", "25", "15", "93", "57", "28", "83", "9", "24", "37", "76", "54", "14", "86", "70", "26", "35", "56", "No Label", "39", "58", "59", "96"], "gold": ["39", "58", "59", "96"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/99/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\non the European protection order\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 82(1)(a) and (d) thereof,\nHaving regard to the initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice.\n(2)\nArticle 82(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the Union shall be based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions.\n(3)\nAccording to the Stockholm Programme - An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens (2), mutual recognition should extend to all types of judgments and decisions of a judicial nature, which may, depending on the legal system, be either criminal or administrative. It also calls on the Commission and the Member States to examine how to improve legislation and practical support measures for the protection of victims. The programme also points out that victims of crime can be offered special protection measures which should be effective within the Union. This Directive forms part of a coherent and comprehensive set of measures on victims\u2019 rights.\n(4)\nThe resolution of the European Parliament of 26 November 2009 on the elimination of violence against women calls on Member States to improve their national laws and policies to combat all forms of violence against women and to act in order to tackle the causes of violence against women, not least by employing preventive measures and calls on the Union to guarantee the right to assistance and support for all victims of violence. The resolution of the European Parliament of 10 February 2010 on equality between women and men in the European Union 2009 endorses the proposal to introduce the European protection order for victims.\n(5)\nIn its Resolution of 10 June 2011 on a Roadmap for strengthening the rights and protection of victims, in particular in criminal proceedings, the Council stated that action should be taken at the level of the Union in order to strengthen the rights and protection of victims of crime and called on the Commission to present appropriate proposals to that end. In this framework, a mechanism should be created to ensure mutual recognition among Member States of decisions concerning protection measures for victims of crime. According to that Resolution, this Directive, which concerns the mutual recognition of protection measures taken in criminal matters, should be complemented by an appropriate mechanism concerning measures taken in civil matters.\n(6)\nIn a common area of justice without internal borders, it is necessary to ensure that the protection provided to a natural person in one Member State is maintained and continued in any other Member State to which the person moves or has moved. It should also be ensured that the legitimate exercise by citizens of the Union of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of Member States, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 21 TFEU, does not result in a loss of their protection.\n(7)\nIn order to attain these objectives, this Directive should set out rules whereby the protection stemming from certain protection measures adopted according to the law of one Member State (\u2018the issuing State\u2019) can be extended to another Member State in which the protected person decides to reside or stay (\u2018the executing State\u2019).\n(8)\nThis Directive takes account of the different legal traditions of the Member States as well as the fact that effective protection can be provided by means of protection orders issued by an authority other than a criminal court. This Directive does not create obligations to modify national systems for adopting protection measures nor does it create obligations to introduce or amend a criminal law system for executing a European protection order.\n(9)\nThis Directive applies to protection measures which aim specifically to protect a person against a criminal act of another person which may, in any way, endanger that person\u2019s life or physical, psychological and sexual integrity, for example by preventing any form of harassment, as well as that person\u2019s dignity or personal liberty, for example by preventing abductions, stalking and other forms of indirect coercion, and which aim to prevent new criminal acts or to reduce the consequences of previous criminal acts. These personal rights of the protected person correspond to fundamental values recognised and upheld in all Member States. However, a Member State is not obliged to issue a European protection order on the basis of a criminal measure which does not serve specifically to protect a person, but primarily serves other aims, for example the social rehabilitation of the offender. It is important to underline that this Directive applies to protection measures which aim to protect all victims and not only the victims of gender violence, taking into account the specificities of each type of crime concerned.\n(10)\nThis Directive applies to protection measures adopted in criminal matters, and does not therefore cover protection measures adopted in civil matters. For a protection measure to be executable in accordance with this Directive, it is not necessary for a criminal offence to have been established by a final decision. Nor is the criminal, administrative or civil nature of the authority adopting a protection measure relevant. This Directive does not oblige Member States to amend their national law to enable them to adopt protection measures in the context of criminal proceedings.\n(11)\nThis Directive is intended to apply to protection measures adopted in favour of victims, or possible victims, of crimes. This Directive should not therefore apply to measures adopted with a view to witness protection.\n(12)\nIf a protection measure, as defined in this Directive, is adopted for the protection of a relative of the main protected person, a European protection order may also be requested by and issued in respect of that relative, subject to the conditions laid down in this Directive.\n(13)\nAny request for the issuing of a European protection order should be treated with appropriate speed, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, including the urgency of the matter, the date foreseen for the arrival of the protected person on the territory of the executing State and, where possible, the degree of risk for the protected person.\n(14)\nWhere information is to be provided under this Directive to the protected person or to the person causing danger, this information should also, where relevant, be provided to the guardian or the representative of the person concerned. Due attention should also be paid to the need for the protected person, the person causing danger or the guardian or representative in the proceedings, to receive the information provided for by this Directive, in a language that that person understands.\n(15)\nIn the procedures for the issuing and recognition of a European protection order, competent authorities should give appropriate consideration to the needs of victims, including particularly vulnerable persons, such as minors or persons with disabilities.\n(16)\nFor the application of this Directive, a protection measure may have been imposed following a judgment within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions (3), or following a decision on supervision measures within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention (4). If a decision was adopted in the issuing State on the basis of one of those Framework Decisions, the recognition procedure should be followed accordingly in the executing State. This, however, should not exclude the possibility to transfer a European protection order to a Member State other than the State executing decisions based on those Framework Decisions.\n(17)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the person causing danger should be provided, either during the procedure leading to the adoption of a protection measure or before issuing a European protection order, with the possibility of being heard and challenging the protection measure.\n(18)\nIn order to prevent a crime being committed against the victim in the executing State, that State should have the legal means for recognising the decision previously adopted in the issuing State in favour of the victim, while also avoiding the need for the victim to start new proceedings or to produce evidence in the executing State again, as if the issuing State had not adopted the decision. The recognition of the European protection order by the executing State implies, inter alia, that the competent authority of that State, subject to the limitations set out in this Directive, accepts the existence and validity of the protection measure adopted in the issuing State, acknowledges the factual situation described in the European protection order, and agrees that protection should be provided and should continue to be provided in accordance with its national law.\n(19)\nThis Directive contains an exhaustive list of prohibitions and restrictions which, when imposed in the issuing State and included in the European protection order, should be recognised and enforced in the executing State, subject to the limitations set out in this Directive. Other types of protection measures may exist at national level, such as, if provided by national law, the obligation on the person causing danger to remain in a specified place. Such measures may be imposed in the issuing State in the framework of the procedure leading to the adoption of one of the protection measures which, according to this Directive, may be the basis for a European protection order.\n(20)\nSince, in the Member States, different kinds of authorities (civil, criminal or administrative) are competent to adopt and enforce protection measures, it is appropriate to provide a high degree of flexibility in the cooperation mechanism between the Member States under this Directive. Therefore, the competent authority in the executing State is not required in all cases to take the same protection measure as those which were adopted in the issuing State, and has a degree of discretion to adopt any measure which it deems adequate and appropriate under its national law in a similar case in order to provide continued protection to the protected person in the light of the protection measure adopted in the issuing State as described in the European protection order.\n(21)\nThe prohibitions or restrictions to which this Directive applies include, among others, measures aimed at limiting personal or remote contacts between the protected person and the person causing danger, for example by imposing certain conditions on such contacts or imposing restrictions on the contents of communications.\n(22)\nThe competent authority of the executing State should inform the person causing danger, the competent authority of the issuing State and the protected person of any measure adopted on the basis of the European protection order. In the notification to the person causing danger, due regard should be taken of the interest of the protected person in not having that person\u2019s address or other contact details disclosed. Such details should be excluded from the notification, provided that the address or other contact details are not included in the prohibition or restriction imposed as an enforcement measure on the person causing danger.\n(23)\nWhen the competent authority in the issuing State withdraws the European protection order, the competent authority in the executing State should discontinue the measures which it has adopted in order to enforce the European protection order, it being understood that the competent authority in the executing State may - autonomously, and in accordance with its national law - adopt any protection measure under its national law in order to protect the person concerned.\n(24)\nGiven that this Directive deals with situations in which the protected person moves to another Member State, issuing or executing a European protection order should not imply any transfer to the executing State of powers relating to principal, suspended, alternative, conditional or secondary penalties, or relating to security measures imposed on the person causing danger, if the latter continues to reside in the State that adopted the protection measure.\n(25)\nWhere appropriate, it should be possible to use electronic means with a view to putting into practice the measures adopted in application of this Directive, in accordance with national laws and procedures.\n(26)\nIn the context of cooperation among the authorities involved in ensuring the protection of the protected person, the competent authority of the executing State should communicate to the competent authority of the issuing State any breach of the measures adopted in the executing State with a view to executing the European protection order. This communication should enable the competent authority of the issuing State to promptly decide on any appropriate response with respect to the protection measure imposed in its State on the person causing danger. Such a response may comprise, where appropriate, the imposition of a custodial measure in substitution of the non-custodial measure that was originally adopted, for example, as an alternative to preventive detention or as a consequence of the conditional suspension of a penalty. It is understood that such a decision, since it does not impose ex novo a penalty in relation to a new criminal offence, does not interfere with the possibility that the executing State may, where applicable, impose penalties in the event of a breach of the measures adopted in order to execute the European protection order.\n(27)\nIn view of the different legal traditions of the Member States, where no protection measure would be available in the executing State in a case similar to the factual situation described in the European protection order, the competent authority of the executing State should report any breach of the protection measure described in the European protection order of which it is aware to the competent authority of the issuing State.\n(28)\nIn order to ensure the smooth application of this Directive in each particular case, the competent authorities of the issuing and the executing States should exercise their competencies in accordance with the provisions of this Directive, taking into account the principle of ne bis in idem.\n(29)\nThe protected person should not be required to sustain costs related to the recognition of the European protection order which are disproportionate to a similar national case. When implementing this Directive, Member States should ensure that, after recognition of the European protection order, the protected person is not required to initiate further national proceedings to obtain from the competent authority of the executing State, as a direct consequence of the recognition of the European protection order, a decision adopting any measure that would be available under its national law in a similar case in order to ensure the protection of the protected person.\n(30)\nBearing in mind the principle of mutual recognition upon which this Directive is based, Member States should promote, to the widest extent possible, direct contact between the competent authorities when they apply this Directive.\n(31)\nWithout prejudice to judicial independence and differences in the organisation of the judiciary across the Union, Member States should consider requesting those responsible for the training of judges, prosecutors, police and judicial staff involved in the procedures aimed at issuing or recognising a European protection order to provide appropriate training with respect to the objectives of this Directive.\n(32)\nIn order to facilitate the evaluation of the application of this Directive, Member States should communicate to the Commission relevant data related to the application of national procedures on the European protection order, at least with regard to the number of European protection orders requested, issued and/or recognised. In this respect, other types of data, such as, for example, the types of crimes concerned, would also be useful.\n(33)\nThis Directive should contribute to the protection of persons who are in danger, thereby complementing, but not affecting, the instruments already in place in this field, such as Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA and Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA.\n(34)\nWhen a decision relating to a protection measure falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (5), Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (6), or the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (7), the recognition and enforcement of that decision should be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legal instrument.\n(35)\nMember States and the Commission should include information about the European protection order, where it is appropriate, in existing education and awareness-raising campaigns on the protection of victims of crime.\n(36)\nPersonal data processed when implementing this Directive should be protected in accordance with Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (8) and with the principles laid down in the 1981 Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data.\n(37)\nThis Directive should respect the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in accordance with Article 6 TEU.\n(38)\nWhen implementing this Directive, Member States are encouraged to take into account the rights and principles enshrined in the 1979 United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.\n(39)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely to protect persons who are in danger, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 TEU. 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.\n(40)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Directive.\n(41)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(42)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nObjective\nThis Directive sets out rules allowing a judicial or equivalent authority in a Member State, in which a protection measure has been adopted with a view to protecting a person against a criminal act by another person which may endanger his life, physical or psychological integrity, dignity, personal liberty or sexual integrity, to issue a European protection order enabling a competent authority in another Member State to continue the protection of the person in the territory of that other Member State, following criminal conduct, or alleged criminal conduct, in accordance with the national law of the issuing State.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018European protection order\u2019 means a decision, taken by a judicial or equivalent authority of a Member State in relation to a protection measure, on the basis of which a judicial or equivalent authority of another Member State takes any appropriate measure or measures under its own national law with a view to continuing the protection of the protected person;\n(2)\n\u2018protection measure\u2019 means a decision in criminal matters adopted in the issuing State in accordance with its national law and procedures by which one or more of the prohibitions or restrictions referred to in Article 5 are imposed on a person causing danger in order to protect a protected person against a criminal act which may endanger his life, physical or psychological integrity, dignity, personal liberty or sexual integrity;\n(3)\n\u2018protected person\u2019 means a natural person who is the object of the protection resulting from a protection measure adopted by the issuing State;\n(4)\n\u2018person causing danger\u2019 means the natural person on whom one or more of the prohibitions or restrictions referred to in Article 5 have been imposed;\n(5)\n\u2018issuing State\u2019 means the Member State in which a protection measure has been adopted that constitutes the basis for issuing a European protection order;\n(6)\n\u2018executing State\u2019 means the Member State to which a European protection order has been forwarded with a view to its recognition;\n(7)\n\u2018State of supervision\u2019 means the Member State to which a judgment within the meaning of Article 2 of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, or a decision on supervision measures within the meaning of Article 4 of Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA, has been transferred.\nArticle 3\nDesignation of competent authorities\n1. Each Member State shall inform the Commission which judicial or equivalent authority or authorities are competent under its national law to issue a European protection order and to recognise such an order, in accordance with this Directive, when that Member State is the issuing State or the executing State.\n2. The Commission shall make the information received available to all Member States. Member States shall inform the Commission of any change to the information referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 4\nRecourse to a central authority\n1. Each Member State may designate a central authority or, where its legal system so provides, more than one central authority, to assist its competent authorities.\n2. A Member State may, if it is necessary as a result of the organisation of its internal judicial system, make its central authority or authorities responsible for the administrative transmission and reception of any European protection order, as well as for all other official correspondence relating thereto. As a consequence, all communications, consultations, exchanges of information, enquiries and notifications between competent authorities may be dealt with, where appropriate, with the assistance of the designated central authority or authorities of the Member State concerned.\n3. Member States wishing to make use of the possibilities referred to in this Article shall communicate to the Commission information relating to the designated central authority or authorities. These indications shall be binding upon all the authorities of the issuing State.\nArticle 5\nNeed for an existing protection measure under national law\nA European protection order may only be issued when a protection measure has been previously adopted in the issuing State, imposing on the person causing danger one or more of the following prohibitions or restrictions:\n(a)\na prohibition from entering certain localities, places or defined areas where the protected person resides or visits;\n(b)\na prohibition or regulation of contact, in any form, with the protected person, including by phone, electronic or ordinary mail, fax or any other means; or\n(c)\na prohibition or regulation on approaching the protected person closer than a prescribed distance.\nArticle 6\nIssuing of a European protection order\n1. A European protection order may be issued when the protected person decides to reside or already resides in another Member State, or when the protected person decides to stay or already stays in another Member State. When deciding upon the issuing of a European protection order, the competent authority in the issuing State shall take into account, inter alia, the length of the period or periods that the protected person intends to stay in the executing State and the seriousness of the need for protection.\n2. A judicial or equivalent authority of the issuing State may issue a European protection order only at the request of the protected person and after verifying that the protection measure meets the requirements set out in Article 5.\n3. The protected person may submit a request for the issuing of a European protection order either to the competent authority of the issuing State or to the competent authority of the executing State. If such a request is submitted in the executing State, its competent authority shall transfer this request as soon as possible to the competent authority of the issuing State.\n4. Before issuing a European protection order, the person causing danger shall be given the right to be heard and the right to challenge the protection measure, if that person has not been granted these rights in the procedure leading to the adoption of the protection measure.\n5. When a competent authority adopts a protection measure containing one or more of the prohibitions or restrictions referred to in Article 5, it shall inform the protected person in an appropriate way, in accordance with the procedures under its national law, about the possibility of requesting a European protection order in the case that that person decides to leave for another Member State, as well as of the basic conditions for such a request. The authority shall advise the protected person to submit an application before leaving the territory of the issuing State.\n6. If the protected person has a guardian or representative, that guardian or representative may introduce the request referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, on behalf of the protected person.\n7. If the request to issue a European protection order is rejected, the competent authority of the issuing State shall inform the protected person of any applicable legal remedies that are available, under its national law, against such a decision.\nArticle 7\nForm and content of the European protection order\nThe European protection order shall be issued in accordance with the form set out in Annex I to this Directive. It shall, in particular, contain the following information:\n(a)\nthe identity and nationality of the protected person, as well as the identity and nationality of the guardian or representative if the protected person is a minor or is legally incapacitated;\n(b)\nthe date from which the protected person intends to reside or stay in the executing State, and the period or periods of stay, if known;\n(c)\nthe name, address, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address of the competent authority of the issuing State;\n(d)\nidentification (for example, through a number and date) of the legal act containing the protection measure on the basis of which the European protection order is issued;\n(e)\na summary of the facts and circumstances which have led to the adoption of the protection measure in the issuing State;\n(f)\nthe prohibitions or restrictions imposed, in the protection measure underlying the European protection order, on the person causing danger, their duration and the indication of the penalty, if any, in the event of the breach of any of the prohibitions or restrictions;\n(g)\nthe use of a technical device, if any, that has been provided to the protected person or to the person causing danger as a means of enforcing the protection measure;\n(h)\nthe identity and nationality of the person causing danger, as well as that person\u2019s contact details;\n(i)\nwhere such information is known by the competent authority of the issuing State without requiring further inquiry, whether the protected person and/or the person causing danger has been granted free legal aid in the issuing State;\n(j)\na description, where appropriate, of other circumstances that could have an influence on the assessment of the danger that confronts the protected person;\n(k)\nan express indication, where applicable, that a judgment within the meaning of Article 2 of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, or a decision on supervision measures within the meaning of Article 4 of Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA, has already been transferred to the State of supervision, when this is different from the State of execution of the European protection order, and the identification of the competent authority of that State for the enforcement of such a judgment or decision.\nArticle 8\nTransmission procedure\n1. Where the competent authority of the issuing State transmits the European protection order to the competent authority of the executing State, it shall do so by any means which leaves a written record so as to allow the competent authority of the executing State to establish its authenticity. All official communication shall also be made directly between those competent authorities.\n2. If the competent authority of either the executing State or the issuing State is not known to the competent authority of the other State, the latter authority shall make all the relevant enquiries, including via the contact points of the European Judicial Network referred to in Council Decision 2008/976/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the European Judicial Network (9), the National Member of Eurojust or the National System for the coordination of Eurojust of its State, in order to obtain the necessary information.\n3. When an authority of the executing State which receives a European protection order has no competence to recognise it, that authority shall, ex officio, forward the European protection order to the competent authority and shall, without delay, inform the competent authority of the issuing State accordingly by any means which leaves a written record.\nArticle 9\nMeasures in the executing State\n1. Upon receipt of a European protection order transmitted in accordance with Article 8, the competent authority of the executing State shall, without undue delay, recognise that order and take a decision adopting any measure that would be available under its national law in a similar case in order to ensure the protection of the protected person, unless it decides to invoke one of the grounds for non-recognition referred to in Article 10. The executing State may apply, in accordance with its national law, criminal, administrative or civil measures.\n2. The measure adopted by the competent authority of the executing State in accordance with paragraph 1, as well as any other measure taken on the basis of a subsequent decision as referred to in Article 11, shall, to the highest degree possible, correspond to the protection measure adopted in the issuing State.\n3. The competent authority of the executing State shall inform the person causing danger, the competent authority of the issuing State and the protected person of any measures adopted in accordance with paragraph 1, as well as of the possible legal consequence of a breach of such measure provided for under national law and in accordance with Article 11(2). The address or other contact details of the protected person shall not be disclosed to the person causing danger unless such details are necessary in view of the enforcement of the measure adopted in accordance with paragraph 1.\n4. If the competent authority in the executing State considers that the information transmitted with the European protection order in accordance with Article 7 is incomplete, it shall without delay inform the competent authority of the issuing State by any means which leaves a written record, assigning a reasonable period for it to provide the missing information.\nArticle 10\nGrounds for non-recognition of a European protection order\n1. The competent authority of the executing State may refuse to recognise a European protection order in the following circumstances:\n(a)\nthe European protection order is not complete or has not been completed within the time limit set by the competent authority of the executing State;\n(b)\nthe requirements set out in Article 5 have not been met;\n(c)\nthe protection measure relates to an act that does not constitute a criminal offence under the law of the executing State;\n(d)\nthe protection derives from the execution of a penalty or measure that, according to the law of the executing State, is covered by an amnesty and relates to an act or conduct which falls within its competence according to that law;\n(e)\nthere is immunity conferred under the law of the executing State on the person causing danger, which makes it impossible to adopt measures on the basis of a European protection order;\n(f)\ncriminal prosecution, against the person causing danger, for the act or the conduct in relation to which the protection measure has been adopted is statute-barred under the law of the executing State, when the act or the conduct falls within its competence under its national law;\n(g)\nrecognition of the European protection order would contravene the ne bis in idem principle;\n(h)\nunder the law of the executing State, the person causing danger cannot, because of that person\u2019s age, be held criminally responsible for the act or the conduct in relation to which the protection measure has been adopted;\n(i)\nthe protection measure relates to a criminal offence which, under the law of the executing State, is regarded as having been committed, wholly or for a major or essential part, within its territory.\n2. Where the competent authority of the executing State refuses to recognise a European protection order in application of one of the grounds referred to in paragraph 1, it shall:\n(a)\nwithout undue delay, inform the issuing State and the protected person of this refusal and of the grounds relating thereto;\n(b)\nwhere appropriate, inform the protected person about the possibility of requesting the adoption of a protection measure in accordance with its national law;\n(c)\ninform the protected person of any applicable legal remedies that are available under its national law against such a decision.\nArticle 11\nGoverning law and competence in the executing State\n1. The executing State shall be competent to adopt and to enforce measures in that State following the recognition of a European protection order. The law of the executing State shall apply to the adoption and enforcement of the decision provided for in Article 9(1), including rules on legal remedies against decisions adopted in the executing State relating to the European protection order.\n2. In the event of a breach of one or more of the measures taken by the executing State following the recognition of a European protection order, the competent authority of the executing State shall, in accordance with paragraph 1, be competent to:\n(a)\nimpose criminal penalties and take any other measure as a consequence of the breach, if that breach amounts to a criminal offence under the law of the executing State;\n(b)\ntake any non-criminal decisions related to the breach;\n(c)\ntake any urgent and provisional measure in order to put an end to the breach, pending, where appropriate, a subsequent decision by the issuing State.\n3. If there is no available measure at national level in a similar case that could be taken in the executing State, the competent authority of the executing State shall report to the competent authority of the issuing State any breach of the protection measure described in the European protection order of which it is aware.\nArticle 12\nNotification in the event of breach\nThe competent authority of the executing State shall notify the competent authority of the issuing State or of the State of supervision of any breach of the measure or measures taken on the basis of the European protection order. Notice shall be given using the standard form set out in Annex II.\nArticle 13\nCompetence in the issuing State\n1. The competent authority of the issuing State shall have exclusive competence to take decisions relating to:\n(a)\nthe renewal, review, modification, revocation and withdrawal of the protection measure and, consequently, of the European protection order;\n(b)\nthe imposition of a custodial measure as a consequence of revocation of the protection measure, provided that the protection measure has been applied on the basis of a judgment within the meaning of Article 2 of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, or on the basis of a decision on supervision measures within the meaning of Article 4 of Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA;\n2. The law of the issuing State shall apply to decisions adopted in accordance with paragraph 1.\n3. Where a judgment within the meaning of Article 2 of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, or a decision on supervision measures within the meaning of Article 4 of Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA, has already been transferred, or is transferred after the issuing of the European protection order, to another Member State, subsequent decisions, as provided for by those Framework Decisions, shall be taken in accordance with the relevant provisions of those Framework Decisions.\n4. When the protection measure is contained in a judgment within the meaning of Article 2 of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA which has been transferred or is transferred after the issuing of the European protection order to another Member State, and the competent authority of the State of supervision has made subsequent decisions affecting the obligations or instructions contained in the protection measure in accordance with Article 14 of that Framework Decision, the competent authority of the issuing State shall renew, review, modify, revoke or withdraw without delay the European protection order accordingly.\n5. The competent authority of the issuing State shall inform the competent authority of the executing State without delay of any decision taken in accordance with paragraph 1 or 4.\n6. If the competent authority in the issuing State has revoked or withdrawn the European protection order in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 1 or with paragraph 4, the competent authority in the executing State shall discontinue the measures adopted in accordance with Article 9(1) as soon as it has been duly notified by the competent authority of the issuing State.\n7. If the competent authority in the issuing State has modified the European protection order in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 1 or with paragraph 4, the competent authority in the executing State shall, as appropriate:\n(a)\nmodify the measures adopted on the basis of the European protection order, acting in accordance with Article 9; or\n(b)\nrefuse to enforce the modified prohibition or restriction when it does not fall within the types of prohibitions or restrictions referred to in Article 5, or if the information transmitted with the European protection order in accordance with Article 7 is incomplete or has not been completed within the time limit set by the competent authority of the executing State in accordance with Article 9(4).\nArticle 14\nGrounds for discontinuation of measures taken on the basis of a European protection order\n1. The competent authority of the executing State may discontinue the measures taken in execution of a European protection order:\n(a)\nwhere there is clear indication that the protected person does not reside or stay in the territory of the executing State, or has definitively left that territory;\n(b)\nwhere, according to its national law, the maximum term of duration of the measures adopted in execution of the European protection order has expired;\n(c)\nin the case referred to in Article 13(7)(b); or\n(d)\nwhere a judgment within the meaning of Article 2 of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, or a decision on supervision measures within the meaning of Article 4 of Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA, is transferred to the executing State after the recognition of the European protection order.\n2. The competent authority of the executing State shall immediately inform the competent authority of the issuing State and, where possible, the protected person of such decision.\n3. Before discontinuing measures in accordance with point (b) of paragraph 1 the competent authority of the executing State may invite the competent authority of the issuing State to provide information as to whether the protection provided for by the European protection order is still needed in the circumstances of the case in question. The competent authority of the issuing State shall, without delay, reply to such an invitation.\nArticle 15\nPriority in recognition of a European protection order\nA European protection order shall be recognised with the same priority which would be applicable in a similar national case, taking into consideration any specific circumstances of the case, including the urgency of the matter, the date foreseen for the arrival of the protected person on the territory of the executing State and, where possible, the degree of risk for the protected person.\nArticle 16\nConsultations between competent authorities\nWhere appropriate, the competent authorities of the issuing State and of the executing State may consult each other in order to facilitate the smooth and efficient application of this Directive.\nArticle 17\nLanguages\n1. A European protection order shall be translated by the competent authority of the issuing State into the official language or one of the official languages of the executing State.\n2. The form referred to in Article 12 shall be translated by the competent authority of the executing State into the official language or one of the official languages of the issuing State.\n3. Any Member State may, either when this Directive is adopted or at a later date, state in a declaration that it shall deposit with the Commission that it will accept a translation in one or more other official languages of the Union.\nArticle 18\nCosts\nCosts resulting from the application of this Directive shall be borne by the executing State, in accordance with its national law, except for costs arising exclusively within the territory of the issuing State.\nArticle 19\nRelationship with other agreements and arrangements\n1. Member States may continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements which are in force upon the entry into force of this Directive, in so far as they allow the objectives of this Directive to be extended or enlarged and help to simplify or facilitate further the procedures for taking protection measures.\n2. Member States may conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements after the entry into force of this Directive, in so far as they allow the objectives of this Directive to be extended or enlarged and help to simplify or facilitate the procedures for taking protection measures.\n3. By 11 April 2012, Member States shall notify the Commission of the existing agreements and arrangements referred to in paragraph 1 which they wish to continue applying. Member States shall also notify the Commission of any new agreements or arrangements referred to in paragraph 2 within three months of the signing thereof.\nArticle 20\nRelationship with other instruments\n1. This Directive shall not affect the application of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, or the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.\n2. This Directive shall not affect the application of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA or Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA.\nArticle 21\nImplementation\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with this Directive by 11 January 2015. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nWhen Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 22\nData collection\nMember States shall, in order to facilitate the evaluation of the application of this Directive, communicate to the Commission relevant data related to the application of national procedures on the European protection order, at least on the number of European protection orders requested, issued and/or recognised.\nArticle 23\nReview\nBy 11 January 2016, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Directive. That report shall be accompanied, if necessary, by legislative proposals.\nArticle 24\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 25\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["61", "75", "54", "89", "69", "98", "2", "83", "18", "6", "22", "88", "85", "93", "37", "64", "3", "4", "63", "24", "35", "36", "77", "73", "1", "94", "15", "39", "48", "42", "No Label", "9", "12", "14"], "gold": ["9", "12", "14"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 176/2012\nof 1 March 2012\namending Annexes B, C and D to Council Directive 90/429/EEC as regards animal health requirements for brucellosis and Aujeszky\u2019s disease\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/429/EEC of 26 June 1990 laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species (1), and in particular Article 17 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 90/429/EEC lays down the animal health conditions governing intra-Union trade in and imports from third countries of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species.\n(2)\nDirective 90/429/EEC provides that semen intended for trade must have been collected from domestic animals of the porcine species whose health status complies with Annex B to that Directive. Chapter I of Annex B sets out conditions applying to the admission of animals to approved semen collection centres. Chapter II of that Annex sets outs compulsory routine tests for animals kept at an approved semen collection centre.\n(3)\nIn addition, Directive 90/429/EEC provides that semen intended for trade must have been collected, processed, stored and transported in accordance with Annex C to that Directive. That Annex sets out conditions which semen collected at approved centres must satisfy for the purposes of intra-Union trade. Point 4 of Annex C to Directive 90/429/EEC provides that Member States may refuse admission of semen from collection centres where boars vaccinated against Aujeszky\u2019s disease are admitted to their territory, or to a region of their territory, when it has been recognised as free of Aujeszky\u2019s disease.\n(4)\nFinally, Annex D to Directive 90/429/EEC establishes a model animal health certificate for trade in that commodity.\n(5)\nCommission Decision 2008/185/EC of 21 February 2008 on additional guarantees in intra-Community trade of pigs relating to Aujeszky\u2019s disease and criteria to provide information on this disease (2) lays down additional guarantees applicable to intra-Union trade in pigs relating to Aujeszky\u2019s disease. In the interest of consistency of Union legislation, the animal health requirements applicable to donor male animals of the porcine species and their semen set out in Annex B to Directive 90/429/EEC should be aligned with Decision 2008/185/EC.\n(6)\nEqually should a provision be inserted in point 4 of Annex C to Directive 90/429/EEC obliging Member States to inform the other Member States and the Commission when they use the right to refuse porcine semen produced in the semen collection centres keeping animals of the porcine species vaccinated against Aujeszky\u2019s disease.\n(7)\nThe Commission requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to assess the suitability of the buffered Brucella antigen test (rose Bengal test) which currently is the only authorised test for brucellosis diagnosis in Annex B to Directive 90/429/EEC and to provide a scientific opinion on the suitability of other available diagnostic tests for inclusion in that Annex.\n(8)\nOn 5 June 2009, EFSA adopted a Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission on porcine brucellosis (Brucella suis) (3). EFSA concluded that a competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (cELISA) and an indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (iELISA) for the detection of antibodies to a Brucella suis infection may be considered for the purpose of testing donor animals of the porcine species for admission to the semen collection centres and for compulsory routine testing during the stay or on exit from such centres. Therefore, these tests should be included in Annex B to Directive 90/429/EEC along with the current buffered Brucella antigen test (rose Bengal test).\n(9)\nIn addition, it is necessary to revise the protocol provided for in Chapter I of Annex B to Directive 90/429/EEC to rule out or confirm a suspicion of brucellosis on admission of animals to the semen collection centres and to provide in Chapter II of that Annex that the re-establishment of the health status of a semen collection centre shall be carried out under the responsibility of the competent authority of a Member State.\n(10)\nIt is also necessary to align the model animal health certificate for intra-Union trade in semen of animals of the porcine species provided for in Annex D to Directive 90/429/EEC with the amendments in Annexes B and C. The model animal health certificate should also be presented in accordance with the standardised layout of veterinary certificates as set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 599/2004 of 30 March 2004 concerning the adoption of a harmonised model certificate and inspection report linked to intra-Community trade in animals and products of animal origin (4).\n(11)\nAnnexes B, C and D to Directive 90/429/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nTo avoid any disruption of trade, the use of animal health certificates issued in accordance with Annex D to Directive 90/429/EEC, before the amendments introduced by this Regulation, should be authorised during a transitional period subject to certain conditions.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes B, C and D to Directive 90/429/EEC are replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nFor a transitional period until 31 July 2012, Member States may authorise trade in semen of domestic animals of the porcine species accompanied by an animal health certificate issued not later than 31 May 2012 in accordance with the model set out in Annex D to Directive 90/429/EEC in its version prior to the amendments introduced by this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 June 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2012.", "references": ["62", "28", "3", "47", "7", "35", "81", "1", "17", "54", "23", "89", "0", "48", "51", "15", "45", "93", "16", "72", "88", "63", "98", "96", "32", "69", "79", "25", "33", "29", "No Label", "20", "21", "38", "61", "65", "66"], "gold": ["20", "21", "38", "61", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 5 April 2011\non the measures C 11/09 (ex NN 53b/08, NN 2/10 and N 19/10) implemented by the Dutch State for ABN AMRO Group NV (created following the merger between Fortis Bank Nederland and ABN AMRO N)\n(notified under document C(2011) 2114)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/823/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments (1) pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 3 October 2008, the Dutch State acquired Fortis Bank Nederland (\u2018FBN\u2019) (namely the Dutch banking subsidiary of the financial holding company Fortis SA/NV (2)) including ABN AMRO Holding assets owned by FBN (\u2018ABN AMRO N\u2019) for an amount of EUR 12,8 billion. In the same transaction, the Dutch State also replaced Fortis Bank SA/NV, the Belgian banking subsidiary of Fortis SA/NV, as obligee in loans to FBN with a nominal value of EUR 16,1 billion (3). The Dutch State also granted FBN a short-term liquidity facility of EUR 45 billion and agreed to indemnify Fortis SA/NV for costs and obligations which stemmed from the consortium shareholders agreement (\u2018CSA\u2019). The CSA described the rights and obligations of the three financial institutions (Fortis SA/NV, Banco Santander and Royal Bank of Scotland (\u2018RBS\u2019) or the three \u2018consortium members\u2019) which had jointly bid for ABN AMRO Holding via the newly created legal entity \u2018RFS Holdings\u2019. On 7 October 2008, the Dutch State notified the Commission of its measures of 3 October 2008 (namely the acquisition of FBN for EUR 12,8 billion, the novation of long-term loans with a nominal value of EUR 16,1 billion and the short-term liquidity facility of EUR 45 billion, hereafter \u2018the integrated transactions of 3 October 2008\u2019) as measures not constituting State aid in order to get legal certainty on those measures. Since the measures had already been implemented, the Commission registered the case as an NN-case (that is, NN53b/08).\n(2)\nDuring the negotiations leading to the acquisition of FBN on 3 October 2008, the Dutch State relied on an external valuation report by [\u2026] (4), a copy of which was sent to the Commission on 15 October 2008.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 30 October 2008, the Commission informed the Dutch Ministry of Finance of its preliminary opinion that the measures of 3 October 2008 seemed to constitute State aid to FBN. On 20 November 2008, a meeting took place between the services of the Commission and the Dutch State.\n(4)\nOn 21 November 2008, the Dutch State officially decided that it would not keep FBN and ABN AMRO N apart, but instead would pursue a merger of the two companies (\u2018the merger\u2019), in line with the earlier plans of Fortis SA/NV.\n(5)\nOn 3 December 2008, the Commission took a Decision (5) (\u2018the Decision of 3 December 2008\u2019) declaring the measures by the Dutch State of 3 October 2008 in favour of Fortis Bank SA/NV as State aid compatible with the common market. However, recital 4 of that Decision stated explicitly that the Commission would judge in a separate procedure whether the measures implemented on 3 October 2008 also contained aid to FBN.\n(6)\nOn 17 December 2008, the Dutch State informed the Commission of its intention to acquire ABN AMRO N from FBN for EUR 6,5 billion. The acquisition took place on 24 December 2008. On 2 February 2009, the Dutch authorities notified that acquisition to the Commission as a measure not constituting State aid for reasons of legal certainty.\n(7)\nOn 24 December 2008, RBS, Banco Santander and the Dutch State signed an amendment to the CSA by which the Dutch State replaced Fortis SA/NV in the CSA.\n(8)\nOn 6 March 2009, the Dutch State sent to the Commission a due diligence report (6) of the acquired businesses which had been prepared by [\u2026] at the request of the Dutch State.\n(9)\nBy Decision of 8 April 2009 (\u2018the Decision of 8 April 2009\u2019), the Commission initiated the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty under case number C11/09 (ex-NN53b/08), with respect to alleged aid granted to FBN and ABN AMRO N.\n(10)\nOn 6 May 2009, the Commission received a letter of complaint from Van Lanschot Bank (\u2018the complainant\u2019), a Dutch competitor of FBN and ABN AMRO N. That letter was forwarded by the Commission to the Dutch State on 22 July 2009, asking for comments. The Dutch State asked for a deadline extension on 20 August 2009 and sent a detailed answer to the complaint on 22 September 2009. The complainant provided further information by letters of 21 August 2009 and 28 August 2009. These letters were forwarded to the Dutch State on 23 September 2009 and the Dutch State replied on 29 October 2009.\n(11)\nOn 15 May 2009, the Dutch State sent a letter to the Commission answering a number of questions raised in the Decision of 8 April 2009. A detailed reply on substance - for which the Dutch State had asked more time - was sent to the Commission on 11 August 2009.\n(12)\nIn a non-paper sent on 15 June 2009 and during a follow-up meeting with the Commission on 16 June 2009, the Dutch State informed the Commission of its intention to implement a EUR 2,5 billion recapitalisation plan enabling ABN AMRO N to separate from its parent company ABN AMRO Bank (7). During that meeting, the Dutch State indicated that, after the first injection of EUR 2,5 billion, additional but not yet quantifiable measures would be necessary.\n(13)\nIn the Decision of 8 April 2009, the Commission had invited the Dutch financial supervisor (\u2018DNB\u2019) to comment on the soundness of FBN and ABN AMRO N respectively. The Commission received the requested information on FBN by letter of 18 June 2009 and an update on 5 January 2010. The Dutch State also forwarded a letter from DNB on ABN AMRO N on 20 January 2010.\n(14)\nOn 6 July 2009, ABN AMRO Bank - the parent company of ABN AMRO N - sent a letter to the Commission commenting on the Decision of 8 April 2009. That letter was forwarded to the Dutch State on 22 July 2009 and the Dutch State replied on 22 September 2009.\n(15)\nOn 9 July 2009, the Dutch State informed the Commission that FBN had redeemed all the short-term funding it had received from the Dutch State under the 3 October 2008 liquidity facility of EUR 45 billion.\n(16)\nOn 15 July 2009, the Dutch State informed the Commission of plans by FBN to acquire Fortis Clearing Americas (\u2018FCA\u2019) from Fortis Bank SA/NV.\n(17)\nOn 17 July 2009, the Dutch State formally notified a plan with recapitalisation measures worth EUR 2,5 billion (8) consisting of a credit default swap (\u2018CDS\u2019) with a capital relief effect of EUR 1,7 billion (\u2018the capital relief instrument\u2019 or \u2018CRI\u2019) and a Mandatory Convertible Security (\u2018MCS\u2019) of EUR 800 million. The measures were initially recorded under case number N429/09, but since the measures were implemented before the Commission had taken a decision on them, the case was moved from the register of notified aid to the non-notified aid register (under number NN 2/10).\n(18)\nOn 10 September 2009, the Dutch State sent a non-paper to the Commission with an update of the separation process and indications that additional (unquantified) State aid measures would be unavoidable.\n(19)\nDuring a meeting with the Commission on 9 November 2009, the Dutch State indicated that FBN and ABN AMRO N would need additional measures worth EUR 4,39 billion, thereby bringing the total amount of measures (including the measures notified on 17 July 2009) to EUR 6,89 billion. The measures were further detailed in an addendum of 10 November 2009 to the non-paper of 10 September 2009, and in an additional explanatory note of 13 November 2009.\n(20)\nOn 26 November 2009, the Dutch State provided the Commission with a report of [\u2026] commenting on the transaction of 24 December 2008. The submission also contained some background material explaining [\u2026].\n(21)\nOn 4 December 2009, the Dutch State submitted to the Commission a first version (9) of a restructuring plan for ABN AMRO Group (the \u2018December 2009 Restructuring Plan\u2019), the new entity resulting from the merger between FBN and ABN AMRO N. That plan described the new entity\u2019s strategy and also contained financial projections for a base case scenario.\n(22)\nOn 14 January 2010, the Dutch State formally notified the new State aid measures of EUR 4,39 billion in addition to the measures already notified in July 2009. The Commission registered the new measures under number N19/10.\n(23)\nBy Decision of 5 February 2010 (\u2018the Decision of 5 February 2010\u2019), the Commission decided to extend the investigation procedure C11/09 to include the measures registered under NN2/10 and N19/10. In that Decision, the Commission temporarily approved those measures as rescue aid measures until 31 July 2010. The Dutch State sent the Commission a letter with a price leadership ban commitment applicable until the end of 2010.\n(24)\nOn 23 March 2010, the Commission received a reply by the Dutch State - which had asked for a deadline extension - to the Decision of 5 February 2010. The Dutch State also provided extra information on the December 2009 Restructuring Plan of the new ABN AMRO Group with, inter alia, financial projections for a worst case scenario.\n(25)\nThe Commission asked additional questions on 8 April 2010, which were answered on 7 May 2010. The Dutch State also provided the Commission with extra information on cross liabilities resulting from the implementation of the Merger Remedy (10) on 26 May 2010. On the same day, the Commission sent an electronic mail with follow-up questions, which were answered on 9 June 2010.\n(26)\nOn 20 July 2010, the Dutch State asked the Commission to extend the temporary approval of the rescue aid measures registered under NN2/10 and N19/10. The Dutch State also sent a letter extending the price leadership ban commitment until the earlier of 30 June 2011 or until the adoption date of the final Decision of the Commission.\n(27)\nOn 30 July 2010, the Commission decided to extend the temporary approval of the rescue aid measures registered under case numbers NN2/10 and N19/10 until the Commission had finalised its investigation C11/09.\n(28)\nOn 20 August 2010, the Dutch State sent to the Commission a document explaining in detail its exit strategy.\n(29)\nOn 5 October 2010, the Dutch State provided a business plan for the private equity division of ABN AMRO Group. A similar plan for the division \u2018Energy, Commodities and Transportation\u2019 of ABN AMRO Group was sent to the Commission on 10 January 2010.\n(30)\nOn 15 October 2010, ABN AMRO Group announced that it would exercise its call option to terminate the capital relief instrument as of 31 October 2010.\n(31)\nOn 8 November 2010, the Dutch State sent an update (\u2018the November 2010 Restructuring Plan\u2019) - dated 29 October 2010 - of ABN AMRO Group\u2019s restructuring plan of 4 December 2009. On 10 January 2011, the Dutch State sent a document explaining how the ABN AMRO Group updated forecasts of 8 November 2010 compared to the original forecasts of 4 December 2009.\n(32)\nDuring the procedure, numerous information exchanges, teleconferences and meetings between representatives of the Dutch State, ABN AMRO N and FBN and the European Commission took place.\n2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE BENEFICIARIES AND THE MEASURES\n2.1. The creation of ABN AMRO Group\n(33)\nIn spring 2007, the consortium members created a new legal entity \u2018RFS Holdings\u2019 to acquire ABN AMRO Holding.\n(34)\nThe consortium members intended to separate ABN AMRO Holding into three parts and the arrangements for that separation process were set out in the \u2018CSA\u2019.\n(35)\nIn order to facilitate the break-up, the consortium members created so-called \u2018tracking shares\u2019 representing the economic ownership of the businesses attributed to each consortium member. As a result, RBS, Banco Santander and Fortis SA/NV became the economic (11) owners of respectively the so-called R-share, S-share and N-share (\u2018ABN AMRO R\u2019, \u2018ABN AMRO S\u2019 and \u2018ABN AMRO N\u2019).\n(36)\nABN AMRO R comprised, inter alia, the business unit (\u2018BU\u2019) Global Business & Markets, BU Asia, BU Global Transaction Services and the international network, while ABN AMRO S comprised, inter alia, BU Latin America and BU Antonveneta (Italy).\n(37)\nABN AMRO N comprised the BUs Netherlands and Private Banking and also the International Diamond and Jewelry Group.\n(38)\nItems that were not allocated to the individual consortium members were brought together in the so-called ABN AMRO Z-share (\u2018ABN AMRO Z\u2019), which remained responsible for head office functions for instance. Each consortium member held a pro-rata stake (12) in ABN AMRO Z.\n(39)\nOn 3 October 2008, the Dutch State acquired FBN from Fortis Bank SA/NV for EUR 12,8 billion. As a result of that acquistion, the Dutch State also became the indirect owner of ABN AMRO N, since FBN was - within Fortis Bank SA/NV - the legal owner of ABN AMRO N. On 3 October 2008, the Dutch State also committed itself to indemnify Fortis SA/NV for any charge Fortis SA/NV would face as a consequence of its continued presence in the CSA. On 24 December 2008, RBS, Banco Santander and the Dutch State signed an amendment to the CSA, by which the Dutch State replaced Fortis SA/NV in the CSA.\n(40)\nOn 24 December 2008, the Dutch State acquired ABN AMRO N from FBN for EUR 6,5 billion, thereby becoming the direct owner of ABN AMRO N. Prior to that acquistion, the Dutch State controlled ABN AMRO N indirectly via FBN.\n(41)\nChart 1:\nSeparation of ABN AMRO N\n(42)\nOn 21 November 2008, the Dutch State decided that it would merge ABN AMRO N with FBN (which had been the unimplemented intention of Fortis SA/NV). The merger could only be implemented once ABN AMRO N was separated from ABN AMRO Bank, its parent company. As a first step, the activities of ABN AMRO N were transferred to a new legal entity within ABN AMRO Bank which was named ABN AMRO II.\n(43)\nOn 6 February 2010, ABN AMRO II was separated as described in recital 41 and renamed ABN AMRO Bank. At the same time, the legal entity formerly known as ABN AMRO Bank was renamed \u2018The Royal Bank of Scotland NV\u2019 (\u2018RBS NV\u2019) (see chart above).\n(44)\nBefore the new entity, ABN AMRO Bank, could merge with FBN, it first had to implement a merger remedy. When Fortis SA/NV acquired ABN AMRO N in 2007, the Commission had concluded (13) (the \u2018Merger Decision\u2019) that a merger between ABN AMRO N and FBN would lead to concentration problems in the Dutch banking market, especially in the segments of commercial banking and factoring.\n(45)\nTo remedy those concentration problems, Fortis SA/NV committed to sell a number of activities (that is, the factoring division IFN and the commercial banking activities of \u2018New HBU\u2019) to Deutsche Bank. When the Dutch State acquired FBN and ABN AMRO N on 3 October 2008, Fortis SA/NV had not yet completed the intended sale of New HBU and IFN to Deutsche Bank. Once the Dutch State had decided to proceed with the merger between FBN and ABN AMRO N, it resumed negotiations with Deutsche Bank (14). The sale of New HBU and IFN to Deutsche Bank was closed on 1 April 2010.\n(46)\nNew HBU had total assets of EUR [10 - 20] billion and employed around [1 000 - 1 500] full time equivalents (\u2018FTEs\u2019). New HBU included Hollandsche Bank Unie (\u2018HBU\u2019) (a commercial bank owned by ABN AMRO N), some ABN AMRO sales offices (13 out of a total of 78) and some ABN AMRO Corporate Client Units (2 out of a total of 5).\n(47)\nABN AMRO Bank and FBN officially merged to form ABN AMRO Group on 1 July 2010, as is described in the Chart 2 in recital 49.\n(48)\nThe Dutch State transferred the management of its stake in ABN AMRO Z to the new ABN AMRO Bank as it did not want to dedicate resources to the day-to-day management of that participation. Nevertheless, the Dutch State has remained the legal owner of ABN AMRO Z and is entitled to all potential gains and liable for all potential losses of ABN AMRO Z (15).\n(49)\nChart 2:\nCreation of ABN AMRO Group\n2.2. Beneficiaries\n2.2.1. Economic activities of ABN AMRO N and ABN AMRO Z\n(50)\nABN AMRO N - on a stand-alone basis the third largest bank in the Netherlands behind Rabobank and ING - consisted of BU Netherlands and BU Private Banking.\n(51)\nThe first business unit, BU Netherlands offered retail and commercial banking services via a branch network of 510 bank shops and 78 advisory branches and also through alternative channels such as the Internet, ATMs (16) and call centres. BU Netherlands employed roughly 19 000 FTEs.\n(52)\nIn retail banking, BU Netherlands had a strong customer franchise segmented in \u2018mass retail\u2019 (more than [3,5 - 5] million customers) and \u2018preferred banking\u2019 (more than [250 000 - 420 000] customers) (17), which it offered a wide range of products (such as savings, investments, mortgages, insurance, credit card loans and payments).\n(53)\nIn commercial banking, ABN AMRO N serviced [300 000 - 400 000] SME (18) customers and [9 000 - 21 000] larger corporate customers (though under the terms of the CSA, ABN AMRO Bank\u2019s larger customers were attributed to RBS) with a broad range of products (such as credits, payment & cash management, savings, treasury, risk and insurance management, complex financial solutions & products, leasing and factoring).\n(54)\nThe second business unit, BU Private Banking targeted individuals with net investable assets of more than EUR 1 million with various asset management and estate planning products. BU Private Banking had built up a well-developed network, through organic growth in the Netherlands and France and through acquisitions in Germany (Delbr\u00fcck Bethmann Maffei) and Belgium (Bank Corluy). BU Private Banking also included the French insurance joint venture Neuflize Vie.\n(55)\nThe businesses acquired on 3 October 2008 by the Dutch State also included the International Diamond and Jewelry Group, which is a division dedicated to companies involved in jewellery manufacturing and the trading of diamonds.\n(56)\nABN AMRO Z did not contain operational assets but included, inter alia, tax assets, a number of participations (amongst others in the Saudi Hollandi Bank) and the remaining private equity portfolio. In terms of liabilities, there was a provision to settle obligations in respect of the United States Department of Justice, other provisions (partly personnel-related) and inter-company financing of company assets. As stated in footnote 11, the stake owned by the Dutch State represents 33,81 % of ABN AMRO Z.\n(57)\nA number of pro-forma key financial data of ABN AMRO N are summarised in Table 1 below:\nTable 1\nKey financial data ABN AMRO N (in million EUR)\n2008\n2009\nTotal operating income (19)\n5 189\n4 899\nNet profit\n471\n(117)\nReturn on equity\n6,7 %\n-2,7 %\nCost-income ratio\n73 %\n77,5 %\nTotal assets\n183 539\n202 084\nTotal equity\n7 044\n4 278 (20)\nRWA (21)\n91 700\n74 973 (22)\nTier 1 ratio\n9,4 %\n10,2 % (23)\nTotal capital ratio or BIS-ratio\n12,6 %\n14,8 %\nStable funding/non liquid assets\n107 %\n110 %\nSource: ABN AMRO Bank NV, Annual Review 2009, ex ABN AMRO Z and private equity consolidation, but including New HBU.\n(58)\nFor the financial year 2009, ABN AMRO N reported a loss of EUR 117 million. The loss was due to higher loan impairments, pressure on interest margins, higher charges related to the Dutch deposit guarantee scheme and separation and integration costs (24). Excluding separation and integration costs, ABN AMRO N would have recorded a small net profit for 2009 of EUR 52 million.\n2.2.2. Fortis Bank Nederland (FBN)\n(59)\nOn a stand-alone basis, FBN was the fourth largest bank on the Dutch market (after Rabobank, ING and ABN AMRO N, but before SNS REAAL).\n(60)\nThe Dutch State (and previously Fortis SA/NV) held directly 92,6 % of FBN, with the investment vehicle Fortis FBN(H) Preferred Investments BV owning the remaining stake of 7,4 % in the form of preferred shares. The Dutch State owned 70 % of the shares in that investment vehicle, with the remaining 30 % in the hands of a number of private investors (25). The privately-owned preferred shares had a nominal value of EUR 210 million and a (non-cumulative) dividend of 5,85 % (26).\n(61)\nFBN\u2019s activities were subdivided in three segments - Retail banking, Private banking and Merchant banking.\n(62)\nRetail Banking activities included the traditional retail banking activities (with a network of 157 branches, [2 - 3] million individual customers and [20 000 - 60 000] SME customers) but also Directbank (which offered mortgage solutions via intermediaries) and the consumer finance and payment card products of respectively Alfam and ICS.\n(63)\nPrivate Banking was mainly developed under the Fortis Mees Pierson brand name and offered wealth management services (estate planning, investing, lending and insurance) on a segmented basis to [15 000 - 40 000] customers throughout the Netherlands.\n(64)\nIn Merchant Banking, FBN distinguished seven different sub-divisions. In the division \u2018Commercial Banking\u2019 (1), FBN had 23 business centres offering multiple products to companies with a turnover of up to EUR 250 million. Companies with a turnover of more than EUR 250 million as well as the public sector were serviced by another subdivision, \u2018Corporate & Public Banking\u2019 (2). There were also \u2018Investment banking\u2019 (3) (27), \u2018Specialised Financial Services\u2019 (4) (28), \u2018Energy, Commodities & Transportation\u2019 (5), \u2018Global Markets & Institutional Banking\u2019 (6) (29) and \u2018Clearing Funds & Custody\u2019 (7) (30) sub-divisions.\n(65)\nA number of FBN\u2019s key financial data are summarised in Table 2 below:\nTable 2\nKey financial data FBN\n(in million EUR)\n2006\n2007\n2008 (31)\n2009\nTotal operating income\n3 473\n3 553\n3 096\n2 171\nNet profit\n1 157\n1 296\n-18 486\n406\nReturn on equity (norm.) (32)\n20,1 %\n8,9 %\n4,9 %\n0,7 %\nCost-income ratio\n50,5 %\n54,2 %\n64,9 %\n84,2 %\nTotal assets\n209 749\n272 378\n184 203\n189 785\nTotal equity\n5 910\n21 763\n2 944\n4 716\nRWA\n66 995\n75 850\n70 932\n53 730 (33)\nTier 1 ratio\n8,6 %\n11,2 %\n7,4 %\n12,5 %\nTotal capital ratio\n10,5 %\n11,2 %\n11,2 %\n16,7 %\nLoan-to-deposit ratio\n167 %\n237 %\n208 %\nSource: FBN annual reports 2008/2009.\n(66)\nIn 2008, FBN made a loss of EUR 18,5 billion, but that loss was to a large extent linked to exceptional items. The company was obliged to report a net loss of EUR 16,8 billion on its stake in RFS Holdings and the sale thereof and it also incurred an impairment of EUR 922 million (net of taxes) in its division Prime Fund Solutions due to the Madoff fraud (34). Net underlying profit, excluding those elements, came in to EUR 604 million, almost exclusively realised in the first half of 2008.\n(67)\nIn 2009, FBN realised a net profit of EUR 406 million, helped by two exceptional gains (a EUR 362,5 million cash settlement with Fortis Capital Company) and a Madoff-related recovery of provisions of EUR 16 million. Net underlying profit decreased to EUR 27 million (35) (from EUR 604 million in 2008).\n2.2.3. ABN AMRO Group\n(68)\nABN AMRO Group, which was created following the merger between FBN and ABN AMRO Bank (that is to say ABN AMRO N activities) on 1 July 2010 groups all the activities of FBN and ABN AMRO N in two separate BUs, \u2018Retail and Private banking\u2019 and \u2018Commercial and Merchant banking\u2019. The group had a 2008 pro forma operating income of EUR 7,15 billion and pro forma total assets of EUR 360 billion. According to the latest figures (36), ABN AMRO Group has total IFRS (37) equity of EUR 11,7 billion.\n(69)\nABN AMRO Group is well diversified with EUR 4,2 billion operating income in \u2018Retail and Private banking\u2019 and EUR 2,8 billion operating income in \u2018Commercial and Merchant banking\u2019. Geographically, the bulk of ABN AMRO Group\u2019s revenues (namely [65 - 95] % of the total) originates in the Netherlands.\n(70)\nIn \u2018Retail and Private banking\u2019, the integrated ABN AMRO Group has market shares of [15 - 20] % and [15 - 20] % (38) in respectively \u2018mass retail\u2019 and \u2018preferred banking\u2019 (39), which makes it third-largest on the Dutch banking market in terms of market share. In private banking (branded ABN AMRO Mees Pierson), ABN AMRO Group is by far the largest in the Dutch market with a market share of approximately [30 - 40] % (40). In \u2018Commercial and Merchant banking\u2019, the market share of ABN AMRO Group is around [15 - 25] % (41).\n(71)\nABN AMRO Group no longer includes New HBU and the factoring activities of IFN which were divested in the framework of the Merger Remedy on 1 April 2010.\n(72)\nAs part of the restructuring process, two small divisions of FBN (namely Intertrust and Prime Fund Solutions (\u2018PFS\u2019)) were also divested and are no longer part of the ABN AMRO Group.\n(73)\nIn September 2009, FBN (and its partner Banque G\u00e9n\u00e9rale du Luxembourg (\u2018BGL\u2019) (42) sold Intertrust to private equity specialist Waterland. Intertrust is one of the largest players in global trust and corporate management. It employs 1 000 experts in 19 countries and has operating income and RWA of respectively EUR [\u2026] million and EUR [\u2026] million.\n(74)\nIn May 2010, FBN also announced the sale of PFS to Credit Suisse. PFS provides fund services to the alternative asset management industry including, for example, administration, banking, custody and financing. Its customers range from boutique asset managers to large global institutions such as pension funds and sovereign wealth funds. PFS was responsible for the EUR 922 million post-tax provision related to the Madoff-fraud which FBN registered in 2008. PFS has income of EUR [\u2026] million and RWA of EUR [\u2026] million.\n(75)\nOn 4 March 2011, ABN AMRO Group published its results for the fiscal year 2010, showing a net loss of EUR 414 million. Excluding separation and integration costs, ABN AMRO Group reported an underlying profit of EUR 1 077 million. As at 31 December 2010, ABN AMRO Group\u2019s Core Tier 1, Tier 1 and total capital ratio were 10,4 %, 12,8 % and 16,6 % respectively. In consultation with the Dutch State, ABN AMRO Group established a dividend policy targeting a dividend payout of 40 % of the reported annual profit.\n2.3. Description of the Restructuring Plan of December 2009 and the updated Restructuring Plan of November 2010\n(76)\nThe Dutch State provided the Commission with the December 2009 Restructuring Plan on 4 December 2009. Further information was provided in March 2010 (43). A merger between FBN and ABN AMRO N is central to the business concept developed in the December 2009 Restructuring Plan. ABN AMRO Group, the new bank emerging from the December 2009 Restructuring Plan, will focus on the mid-market segment in the Netherlands (44) and will be active in \u2018Retail and Private Banking\u2019 and \u2018Commercial and Merchant Banking\u2019.\n(77)\nThe December 2009 Restructuring Plan starts from the diagnosis that the capital needs were not related to the underlying performance of FBN and ABN AMRO N, but rather to the need to finance their respective separation from their parent companies and the up-front integration costs of the merger.\n(78)\nIn a counterfactual scenario without State aid, the December 2009 Restructuring Plan acknowledges that, without the coordinated effort of the Benelux governments, Fortis SA/NV would have collapsed, which would also have dragged down FBN and ABN AMRO N.\n(79)\nThe December 2009 Restructuring Plan contains financial projections for the period 2009-2012 with a divisional breakdown into Retail Banking, Private Banking NL, Private Banking International and Commercial & Merchant Banking. Specifically for 2012, ABN AMRO Group has also calculated a \u2018run-rate\u2019 profit, which excludes transition costs and assumes that cost synergies were already accounted for the full year. Those projections were provided for a base case scenario and a worst case scenario.\n(80)\nOn 8 November 2010 in, the Dutch State updated the December 2009 Restructuring Plan\u2019s financial projections for the period until 2012, including additional projections for 2013 in the November 2010 Restructuring Plan.\n(81)\nIn the base case scenario, the Dutch State starts from the assumption that business volumes will grow in line with inflation. Personnel costs are assumed to rise by [1 - 6] % per annum and other costs by a more moderate [1 - 5] % per annum The Dutch State also anticipates that ABN AMRO Group\u2019s loan loss provisions will start to decrease from the high level reported in 2009.\n(82)\nIn the base case scenario in the November 2010 Restructuring Plan, ABN AMRO Group realises a negative net result of EUR [\u2026] million in 2010 before returning to profits from 2011 on (that is, EUR [\u2026] million profit in 2011).\n(83)\nIn 2012 and 2013, it is expected that ABN AMRO Group\u2019s net profits increase to respectively EUR [\u2026] million and EUR [\u2026] million, translating in a Return on Equity (45) (\u2018RoE\u2019) of around [\u2026] %. The improvement of the ABN AMRO Group\u2019s profitability is driven by better operating income (which should recover after the weak 2009 figure), the cost-cutting programme which at cruise speed should lower costs by EUR 1,1 billion pre-tax per annum and a normalisation of loan loss provisions after a peak in 2009. In 2013, ABN AMRO Group\u2019s cost-income ratio is projected to be [\u2026] %.\n(84)\nBase case scenario\nTable 3\n2009 (Actual)\n2010 (E (46))\n2011 (E)\n2012 (E)\n2012 run rate (E)\n2013 (E)\nOperating income\n7 039\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nNet interest income\n4 528\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nNet fee & comm. income\n1 933\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nOther income\n849\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nOperating expenses\n-5 568\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nOp. exp. - business as usual\n-5 258\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nOp exp. - transition\n- 310\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nOperating result\n1 471\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nLoan impairments\n-1 585\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nProfit before taxes\n- 114\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTaxes and minorities\n45\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nNet profit\n-68\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nUnderlying net profit\n(ex transition costs)\n163\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(85)\nUnder the worst case scenario in the November 2010 Restructuring Plan, the Dutch State started from more conservative assumptions than under the base case scenario. It used interest margins which were 7,5 % lower than in the base case, more cautious forecasts for commissions & fees (growth of 4 % per annum as opposed to 7 % in the base case), lower synergies (impact of - EUR [\u2026] million on 2013 profit) and 15 % lower recovery rate of loan loss provisions (impact of - EUR [\u2026] million on 2013 profit).\n(86)\nWhile, those more conservative figures would lead to lower results, ABN AMRO Group would still be able to post a profit. The worst case scenario foresees an underlying net profit of EUR [\u2026] million and EUR [\u2026] million in respectively 2012 and 2013 (which compares to respectively EUR [\u2026] million and EUR [\u2026] million in the base case scenario).\n(87)\nIn its December 2009 Restructuring Plan, the Dutch State also touched upon its exit strategy, underlining that it does not have the intention to remain a long-term investor in ABN AMRO Group.\n(88)\nBy letter of 20 August 2010, the Dutch State provided the Commission with more details on its exit strategy. The Dutch State explained that it is contemplating a placement in the form of an IPO (47), but is keeping open other options such as a private sale to an investor or market participant. In its letter of 20 August 2010, the Dutch State indicates that a first stake of between [0 - 50] - [10 - 60] % might be made available for an IPO in [\u2026] at the earliest, followed by a secondary offering of another [0 - 50] - [10 - 60] % in 2015. The Dutch State wants to earn back its initial investment increased by its cost of funding of [2 - 5] %. It is the Dutch State\u2019s intention to reduce its stake in ABN AMRO Group up to a maximum of [25 - 65] %, preferably before the end of [2014 - 2018]. Ultimately, the Dutch State is fully committed to a complete exit. The final decision on the IPO rests with the Dutch Minister of Finance and will depend on market circumstances, the \u2018IPO readiness\u2019 of ABN AMRO Group and the expected proceeds. On 24 January 2011, the Dutch government also publicly set out its exit strategy (48).\n(89)\nThe December 2009 Restructuring Plan (and also the updated November 2010 Restructuring Plan) show that - after implementation of all the State aid measures- ABN AMRO Group is sufficiently capitalised. During the restructuring period, the projected Tier 1 ratios should stay comfortably above [\u2026] % between 2009 and 2012, to increase further to [\u2026] % in 2013.\n(90)\nIn its December 2009 Restructuring Plan, the Dutch State explains that ABN AMRO Group has already divested a number of businesses. Apart from the sale of New HBU and IFN during the Merger Remedy process, ABN AMRO N and FBN also divested Intertrust and PFS.\n(91)\nCompared to ABN AMRO Group, Intertrust and PFS jointly represent [0 - 5] %, [0 - 5] % and [0 - 5] % in terms of its projected total operating income, costs and RWA respectively.\n(92)\nDuring the restructuring process, FBN also made an acquisition to correct a misalignment resulting from the break-up of Fortis SA/NV. FBN was the legal owner of the BU Brokerage, Clearing and Custody and all the offices related to that business except for the Chicago office, which had remained part of Fortis Bank SA/NV. To correct that separation-linked misalignment, FBN acquired the Chicago branch of Fortis Clearing Americas from Fortis Bank SA/NV on 31 July 2009 for a price of approximately USD [\u2026] million.\n2.4. Description of the measures\n(93)\nTo identify the individual State aid measures, the Commission uses in this Decision the same letter codes as in its Decision of 5 February 2010.\n2.4.1. Measures covered by the Decision of 8 April 2009\n(94)\nOn 3 October 2008, the Dutch State acquired FBN (including ABN AMRO N) from Fortis SA/NV for EUR 12,8 billion (\u2018Measure X\u2019). The Commission did not open the procedure in respect of that measure, which as such did not provide State aid to FBN, even if it was part of a transaction providing State aid to FBN (see recital 32 of the Decision of 8 April 2009).\n(95)\nAt the time of the FBN\u2019s acquisition by the Dutch State, FBN depended heavily on Fortis Bank SA/NV for its funding. To ensure full separation of FBN from Fortis Bank SA/NV, it was necessary for the Dutch State to end the funding relationship between FBN and Fortis Bank SA/NV. To cut the existing links, the Dutch State granted FBN a short-term liquidity facility of EUR 45 billion (\u2018Measure Y1\u2019) on 3 October 2008. That liquidity facility allowed FBN to repay to Fortis Bank SA/NV short-term loans of EUR 34 billion. The Dutch State also replaced Fortis Bank SA/NV as a lender of long-term loans to FBN for a nominal amount of EUR 16,1 billion in a so-called \u2018novation\u2019 (\u2018Measure Y2\u2019) (49).\n(96)\nThe short-term liquidity facility covered by Measure Y1 remained in place until the end of June 2009. While that measure was in place the remuneration changed a number of times. In the period between 6 October 2008 and 23 October 2008, the Dutch State provided FBN short-term funding at EONIA (50) (for overnight lending with a maximum amount of EUR 5 billion) or EURIBOR (51) (for longer-term liquidity with a maximum amount of EUR 40 billion) without any extra spread. After 23 October 2008, there was a short period (until 5 November 2008) during which the Dutch State applied EONIA + 50 basis points and EURIBOR + 50 basis points. During that second period, that arrangement was still for maximum amounts of EUR 5 billion for overnight liquidity and EUR 40 billion for longer-term liquidity. In the period between 5 November 2008 and 1 March 2009, the Dutch State changed the remuneration to EONIA + 25 basis points for overnight loans, EURIBOR + 25 basis points for loans with a maturity (52) of less than 3 months and EURIBOR + 50 basis points for loans with a maturity of more than 3 months (53). After 1 March 2009, the Dutch State developed a two-step system encouraging FBN to reduce its reliance on the State. A first tranche of funding (irrespective of the maturity) was made available at EURIBOR + 25 basis points but once that threshold was exceeded, FBN could only get extra liquidity at EURIBOR + 50 basis points (54). The amount of the total liquidity facility and the amount of the first threshold were gradually lowered. On 9 July 2009, the Dutch State informed the Commission that FBN had repaid all its short-term loans to the State.\n(97)\nThe long-term loans novated to the Dutch State (Measure Y2) amounted to EUR 16,1 billion, including EUR 8,15 billion of Tier 2 capital (of which EUR 3 billion upper Tier 2) and EUR 7,95 billion of senior loans.\n(98)\nOn 24 December 2008, the Dutch State acquired ABN AMRO N from FBN for EUR 6,5 billion (\u2018Measure Z\u2019). The Dutch State did not pay in cash but paid for the purchase by cancelling EUR 6,5 billion of long-term debt it had obtained in the integrated transactions of 3 October 2008 as part of Measure Y2. In other words, the Dutch State waived EUR 6,5 billion of claims towards FBN to pay for ABN AMRO N (55).\n2.4.2. Measures covered by the Decision of 5 February 2010\n(99)\nSome of the measures covered by the Decision of 5 February 2010 (56) were notified to the Commission in July 2009 and the remainder in January 2010. In July 2009, the Dutch State notified a capital relief instrument or \u2018CRI\u2019 (\u2018Measure A\u2019 with a capital relief effect of EUR 1,7 billion), a Mandatory Convertible Security (\u2018MCS\u2019) of EUR 500 million (\u2018Measure B1\u2019) and a second MCS-tranche of EUR 300 million (\u2018Measure B2\u2019).\n(100)\nIn January 2010, the Dutch State notified additional capital measures worth EUR 4,39 billion. The Dutch State subscribed to additional MCS-instruments of EUR 2,28 billion to cover additional separation costs (EUR 780 million, \u2018Measure B3\u2019), the capital shortfall resulting from the sale of New HBU (EUR 300 million, \u2018Measure B4\u2019) and integration costs (EUR 1,2 billion, \u2018Measure B5\u2019). To bring FBN\u2019s Tier 1 capital in line with regulatory requirements, the Dutch State also converted EUR 1,35 billion of FBN-Tier 2 capital it already owned into Tier 1 capital (\u2018Measure C\u2019). The Dutch State also paid the other consortium members EUR 740 million in cash (\u2018Measure D\u2019) as was foreseen in the CSA to settle issues that only emerged in the course of the separation process. Finally, the Dutch State also provided a guarantee on cross liabilities resulting from the sale of New HBU (\u2018Measure E\u2019).\n(101)\nThe Dutch State sold credit protection via a CDS on a Dutch mortgage portfolio of ABN AMRO N, representing around [30 - 80] % of ABN AMRO N\u2019s total home loan portfolio. That measure had the effect of reducing the risk weighted assets of ABN AMRO N.\n(102)\nTo remunerate the credit protection, the Dutch State received an annual fee of 51,5 basis points (calculated as a percentage of the portfolio value in the beginning of each reference period).\n(103)\nThat fee was calculated using the capital equivalent cost methodology. The Dutch State determined how much capital ABN AMRO N could free up due to the capital relief instrument (namely EUR 1,7 billion, based on Basel I requirements which were still applied at the time the CRI agreement was implemented) and then it calculated a return of 10 % on that capital relief (namely 10 % on EUR 1,7 billion), which was equivalent to 51,5 basis points of the initial portfolio value of EUR 34,5 billion.\n(104)\nEach year, ABN AMRO N kept a first loss tranche of 20 basis points (calculated as a percentage of the initial portfolio value).\n(105)\nABN AMRO N kept a vertical slice of 5 % of the remaining risk.\n(106)\nThe pricing of the credit protection instrument would not be adjusted once ABN AMRO N fully adopted Basel II capital requirments, even though the capital relief effect of the CRI would then be substantially smaller.\n(107)\nIn principle, the CDS-contract had a maturity of 7 years, but ABN AMRO N had call options enabling it to terminate the contract on a number of pre-determined reference dates (for example October 2010, January 2011 and January 2012) (57).\n(108)\nUnder the CSA, the three consortium partners had to ensure that ABN AMRO Z remained sufficiently capitalised. In that context, the Dutch State had to contribute EUR 2,2 billion to the ABN AMRO Z capital shortfall. The aim of the CRI was to allow ABN AMRO N to make part of that EUR 2,2 billion contribution to ABN AMRO Z.\n(109)\nThe Dutch State preferred the unconventional CRI-solution over a traditional capital increase since, prior to the separation, it could not ring-fence capital contributions in ABN AMRO Bank. In other words, since ABN AMRO N was not a separate legal entity, a capital injection in ABN AMRO Bank could also have benefited the other two consortium members. That course of action could have had severe implications especially in scenarios of increased distress.\n(110)\nWhen the separation took place, ABN AMRO N became a separate legal entity (the new ABN AMRO Bank). The Dutch State continued to bear the responsibility under the CSA to fill the EUR 2,2 billion capital shortage of ABN AMRO Z. The Dutch State decided that ABN AMRO N should use cash from MCS-instruments (namely Measure B3 insofar as it related to the prudential margin of EUR 500 million and EUR 1,2 billion of Measure B5) to inject EUR 1,7 billion in ABN AMRO Z, while it kept the CRI in place in the new ABN AMRO Bank to cover the prudential margin of EUR 500 million and the integration costs of EUR 1,2 billion.\n(111)\nOn 15 October 2010, ABN AMRO Bank and the Dutch State announced that the CRI would be terminated as of 30 October 2010. Indeed, as ABN AMRO Bank had in the meantime implemented the Basel II requirements, the CRI had become less interesting and less necessary (58).\n(112)\nSince the CRI did not suffice to cover the entire EUR 2,2 billion capital shortfall of ABN AMRO Z, the Dutch State provided extra capital to ABN AMRO Bank via an MCS.\n(113)\nThat MCS was categorised as hybrid Tier 1 capital, it carried a coupon of 10 % and automatically converted into shares of ABN AMRO II at the time of the separation of ABN AMRO N from ABN AMRO Bank. From that moment on, it qualified as core Tier 1 capital. The conversion took place at nominal value (59). The measure allowed ABN AMRO II (renamed ABN AMRO Bank) to contribute EUR 500 million to ABN AMRO Z.\n(114)\nIn order to cover costs related to the separation of ABN AMRO N from ABN AMRO Bank, the Dutch State subscribed to additional MCS. A first tranche of roughly EUR 300 million (Measure B2) was notified in July 2009, with the remainder (namely EUR 780 million) notified in January 2010 (Measure B3).\n(115)\nThe full amount of EUR 1,08 billion (namely Measures B2 and B3 together) was needed to cover the following costs:\n-\nEUR 480 million of well-defined separation costs;\n-\nEUR 90 million to set up a money market desk; and\n-\nEUR 500 million to provide for a prudential margin.\n(116)\nThe Dutch State provided a further breakdown of the separation costs of EUR 480 million. They related to cross liabilities exposure (EUR [0 - 200] million), unwinding of risk allocation letters (EUR [0 - 200] million), repurchase of securitisation notes (EUR [0 - 200] million), the transfer from ABN AMRO R of trading-related market risk of ABN AMRO N customers (EUR [0 - 200] million), discontinuation of capital relief instruments (EUR [0 - 200] million) and sundry separation and unwinding costs (EUR [0 - 300] million).\n(117)\nAfter the separation from its parent company ABN AMRO Bank, ABN AMRO II needed to set up a money market desk on its own, which cost EUR 90 million.\n(118)\nFinally, the Dutch State injected another EUR 500 million in capital to ensure that ABN AMRO N could operate with some margin above the minimum regulatory requirements.\n(119)\nFBN and ABN AMRO N could only merge once the concentration issues identified in the Merger Decision were resolved. Therefore, the Dutch State decided to sell New HBU and IFN to Deutsche Bank. That transaction resulted however in an additional capital need of EUR 470 million, which ABN AMRO N could not deal with entirely on its own. The Dutch State decided to help and injected EUR 300 million in the form of MCS (60).\n(120)\nTo implement the merger, ABN AMRO N and FBN (and after the merger ABN AMRO Group) had to pay for upfront integration costs of EUR 1,2 billion (after tax), related to redundancy costs, the integration of ICT platforms and the restructuring of the branch network. Since ABN AMRO N and FBN were not able to finance those costs themselves, the Dutch State decided to inject capital in the form of MCS (61).\n(121)\nFBN was obliged to increase its Tier 1 capital after the DNB (62) had indicated that there was a Tier 1 capital shortage of approximately EUR 1,26 billion. After the separation from its parent company Fortis SA/NV, FBN also had to spend EUR 90 million to cover costs related to the set up of a treasury desk, Basel-related models, licenses and consultancy services.\n(122)\nThe Dutch State provided that extra capital by converting Tier 2 debt with a nominal value of EUR 1,35 billion into Tier 1 capital. Consequently, the transaction did not involve any new cash (63).\n(123)\nWhen the consortium members negotiated the acquisition of ABN AMRO Holding in 2007, they realised that not all facts were already known at the time. Therefore, the CSA contained a number of general principles to settle certain payment obligations, which would only become apparent during the separation process. The exact amounts result from a negotiating process in which the Dutch State (and Fortis SA/NV before it) participated.\n(124)\nThe total amount of EUR 740 million relates to:\n[\u2026]\nThose cash outflows are partly compensated by the fact that the Dutch State received [\u2026] from the other consortium members related to stranded costs.\n(125)\nThe balance of the payment obligations in respect of other consortium members (namely EUR 740 million) was paid in cash, in part directly to the other consortium members and in part to ABN AMRO Bank (now RBS NV).\n(126)\nEven after the divestment of New HBU, ABN AMRO Bank (now RBS NV) and ABN AMRO II (or its legal successors) will remain liable towards creditors of New HBU if New HBU is unable to meet its obligations towards its own creditors. Likewise New HBU will face cross liabilities towards creditors of ABN AMRO Bank and ABN AMRO II. Since the cross liabilities were rooted in the sale of New HBU which resulted from a decision of ABN AMRO II and its shareholders, it was also their responsibility to find a solution. The proposed solution implied that the Dutch State and Deutsche Bank (namely the purchaser of New HBU) agreed that new HBU and ABN AMRO II would indemnify each other for those cross liabilities by providing each other collateral, so as to reduce the induced regulatory capital requirements to a desired 20 %. As a result of that agreement, ABN AMRO II had to provide collateral to New HBU for an amount up to EUR 950 million (declining over time as underlying liabilities mature) for the liabilities of New HBU towards ABN AMRO II and towards ABN AMRO Bank (now RBS NV). Since ABN AMRO II did not have the means to provide the collateral needed in respect of the liability towards ABN AMRO Bank (now RBS NV), the State provided a counter-indemnity in the form of a guarantee on the debt of ABN AMRO Bank (now RBS NV).\n(127)\nThe Dutch State priced that risk as if it was a State guarantee on ABN AMRO Bank (now RBS NV) subordinated debt. The pricing - based on the European Central Bank (\u2018ECB\u2019) Recapitalisation Recommendation (64)- was set at 200 basis points plus the median CDS-spread (65).\n(128)\nTable 4 summarises the measures assessed in this Decision. The column \u2018Reason\u2019 is the same as that in Table 1 at point (57) of the Decision of 5 February 2010. As indicated in recital 110, following the separation of ABN AMRO N with ABN AMRO Bank on 6 February 2010, the measures and the objectives of the measures were reshuffled. More specifically, Measure A was used from that date on for the objectives of Measure B3 (insofar as it concerns the prudential margin) and Measure B5 and vice versa.\nTable 4\nState support measures\nDescription\nSize\n(in EUR billion)\nReason\nLegal entity to which the measure is granted\nMeasures covered by the Decision of 8 April 2009\nY1\nST funding\n45\nFBN\nY2\nLT funding\n16,1\nFBN (to allow repayment to Fortis Bank SA/NV)\nZ\nAcquisition of ABN AMRO N\n6,5\nFBN (purchase price paid by waiving debt)\nCapital measures notified in July 2009 and implemented in July/August 2009\nMeasure A\nCapital relief instrument\nCDS-protection on a EUR 34,5 billion portfolio (having a capital relief effect of EUR 1,7 billion)\nFilling the capital shortage of ABN AMRO Z\nABN AMRO Bank (now RBS NV) and moved to ABN AMRO II (now ABN AMRO Bank) on separation date\nMeasure B1\nMCS\n0,5\nMeasure B2\nMCS\n0,3\nFirst tranche of separation costs\nABN AMRO Bank NV (now RBS NV) and moved to ABN AMRO II (now ABN AMRO Bank on separation)\nAdditional capital measures notified in January 2010\nMeasure B3\nMCS\n0,78\nSecond tranche of separation costs and prudential margin of EUR 0,5 billion\nEUR 967 million paid to ABN AMRO Bank (now RBS NV) and then moved to ABN AMRO II (now ABN AMRO Bank) on separation, the remainder directly paid to ABN AMRO II\nMeasure B4\nMCS\n0,3\nCapital impact from sale of new HBU\nMeasure B5\nMCS\n1,2\nIntegration costs\nMeasure C\nExchange Tier 2 into common equity\n1,35\nTier 1 shortage at the level of FBN\nFBN\nMeasure D\nCash payment to consortium partners\n0,74\nPayment obligations resulting from the CSA\nOther consortium partners/ABN AMRO Bank (now RBS NV)\nMeasure E\nGuarantee on liabilities of EUR 950 million\n0,95\nCross liabilities resulting from sale of new HBU\nABN AMRO II (now ABN AMRO Bank)\n3. GROUNDS TO OPEN\n3.1. Grounds to open in the Decision of 8 April 2009\n(129)\nIn the Decision of 8 April 2009, the Commission opened proceedings because it had grounds to believe that Measures Y1, Y2 and Z (66) represented State aid in favour of FBN and ABN AMRO N. The Commission believed that those measures allowed FBN and ABN AMRO N to stay on the market and pursue their activities. It had reasons to believe that those measures were selectively advantageous to FBN and ABN AMRO N.\n(130)\nIn recitals 29 and 30 of the Decision of 8 April 2009, the Commission noted that Measures X, Y1 and Y2 were part of the same sale contract, which aimed at separating FBN from the rest of the Fortis SA/NV. The Decision of 3 December 2008 already concluded that by entering in that contract on 3 October 2008, the Dutch State had not acted as a normal investor in a market economy.\n(131)\nIn recital 33 of the Decision of 8 April 2009, the Commission argued that Measure Y1 was apparently advantageous to FBN as it had received an amount of funding, which it could not have found on the markets, the markets being at the time in complete disarray. Keeping in mind those extreme market circumstances, the Commission also doubted that the interest rates required by the Dutch State would have been acceptable to a private investor. The Commission also noted that the solidity of its new funding provider seemed advantageous to FBN. FBN was no longer dependent on a liquidity-constrained company in distress like Fortis SA/NV but received its funding from the Dutch State.\n(132)\nThe Commission doubted that Measure Y1 was compatible with the Communication from the Commission - The application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis (the \u2018Banking Communication\u2019) (67) as it was neither proportional nor limited to the minimum necessary. More specific concerns were raised in recital 52 of the Decision of 8 April 2009 on the compatibility of the following elements: (1) the remuneration that FBN paid, (2) the maximum period during which FBN could benefit from funding, (3) the maximum maturity of instruments concerned and (4) the volume of the liquidity facility.\n(133)\nThe Commission also indicated that Measure Y2 could contain elements of State aid if Fortis Bank SA/NV was at the time of the acquisition in a position to request the immediate redemption of the long-term loans should the ownership of FBN change. If there was indeed an ownership-related redemption clause, Measure Y2 allowed FBN to benefit from long-term loans at pre-crisis interest rates. Measure Y2 implied that FBN was not obliged to find alternative funding at the prevailing market conditions at that time. Moreover, since Fortis Bank SA/NV had the right to ask for redemption, the Dutch State choice to provide of long-term loans rather than short-term loans could be questioned. Therefore, in the Decision of 8 April 2009, the Commission voiced concerns that Measure Y2 contained State aid for a longer-term period than was strictly necessary. To be in a position to evaluate the State aid implications of Measure Y2, the Commission requested the Dutch State to provide more information on the contractual early redemption terms of the long-term loan contracts.\n(134)\nIn recital 54 of the Decision of 8 April 2009, the Commission also doubted whether the Dutch State had taken sufficient measures to limit undue distortions of competition, in line with point (27) of the Banking Communication.\n(135)\nThe Commission was also concerned that ABN AMRO N had - potentially indirectly - benefited from the liquidity measures provided to FBN. Therefore, it asked the Dutch State to provide more information on ABN AMRO N\u2019s funding position and funding strategy.\n(136)\nWith respect to Measure Z, the Commission doubted that the Dutch State paid FBN the market price for the acquisition of ABN AMRO N. The Commission observed that the Dutch State paid more than the 3 October 2008\u2018current market conditions\u2019 valuation of the Dutch State\u2019s own valuation expert [\u2026] in its report which was mentioned in recital 2. Moreover, the Commission observed that the Dutch State had not applied a correction factor to reflect the stock market decline that occurred between October and December 2008 and which was especially pronounced for bank stocks. If the Dutch State overpaid when buying ABN AMRO N, Measure Z was equivalent to State aid helping to recapitalise FBN.\n(137)\nIn general, the Commission also observed in the Decision of 8 April 2009 that the Dutch State had not yet submitted an evaluation of FBN and ABN AMRO N by the DNB. Nor had the Dutch State provided a viability plan or a restructuring plan with detailed financial projections. Because neither a viability plan nor a restructuring plan were available, the Commission was unable to determine whether, as a result of Measures X, Y1, Y2 and Z, ABN AMRO N and FBN had sufficient capital and were able to realise an acceptable level of profitability.\n3.2. Grounds to extend the proceedings in the Decision of 5 February 2010\n(138)\nWhen on 17 July 2009 and on 15 January 2010, the Dutch State notified extra measures in favour of FBN and ABN AMRO N as measures not constituting State aid, the Commission was concerned that some of these additional measures represented extra State aid to FBN and ABN AMRO N.\n(139)\nIn the Decision of 5 February 2010, the Commission observed that under the CSA the Dutch State had a number of obligations, which were not obligations of ABN AMRO N. Measures taken by the Dutch State to comply with its obligations under the CSA (and in particular the obligation to bear the cost of ABN AMRO Z and the obligation to separate ABN AMRO N from ABN AMRO Bank) would at first sight not qualify as State aid to ABN AMRO N.\n(140)\nThe Commission indicated that the Measures A and B1 seemed primarily designed to cover the capital shortage of ABN AMRO Z, but at the same time it was not clear to the Commission whether there was not also an indirect benefit to the economic activities of ABN AMRO N. In that regard, the Commission wanted to know whether ABN AMRO N and ABN AMRO Z - with no separate legal status - were sufficiently ring-fenced vis-\u00e0-vis one another. The Commission also wanted to receive more information on the reasons behind the capital shortfall of ABN AMRO Z and for instance on the transfer of Unicredito shares from ABN AMRO Z to ABN AMRO N. The Commission also had questions as to the remuneration by ABN AMRO N to ABN AMRO Z for the performance of head office functions. The Commission suspected that - at least part of - the undercapitalisation of ABN AMRO Z was linked to the fact that ABN AMRO N did not pay a market price for the head office services of ABN AMRO Z.\n(141)\nEven though the separation of ABN AMRO N from ABN AMRO Bank is an obligation of the Dutch State under the CSA, the Commission could not exclude that the State recapitalisation financing the separation costs could be State aid. The Commission observed that not all costs categorised as separation costs were strictu senso linked to the separation obligations as described in the CSA. The Commission noticed that the category \u2018separation costs\u2019 included an amount of EUR 500 million which was needed to provide ABN AMRO Group with a prudential margin over minimum prudential requirements.\n(142)\nThe Commission observed that the Dutch State helped FBN and ABN AMRO N to pay the costs related to the merger. To resolve concentration problems created by the merger, ABN AMRO N decided to sell IFN and New HBU, which led to a new capital shortfall. The Commission observed that FBN and ABN AMRO N were able to profit from the benefits of the merger (for example merger synergies, the advantages of being a stronger company with higher market shares on the Dutch market, \u2026), while the Dutch State financed the upfront costs. In that regard, the Commission observed that there was no legal obligation for the Dutch State to pay those costs since they originated in the decision of the Dutch State of 21 November 2008 to merge FBN and ABN AMRO N and not in the CSA.\n(143)\nThe Commission took note of the fact that the merger and the specific conditions surrounding the separation resulted in cross liabilities (Measure E). Dutch corporate law implied that ABN AMRO Bank (now RBS NV) and ABN AMRO II remained liable for the debt-holders of New HBU should New HBU (or its new owner Deutsche Bank) fail to fulfil its payment obligations. New HBU had similar obligations vis-\u00e0-vis debt-holders of ABN AMRO Bank (now RBS NV) and ABN AMRO II). The Commission could not exclude that the indemnification solution, which implied that the Dutch State guaranteed the debt-holders of ABN Amro Bank (now RBS NV) at a premium of 200 basis points plus the median CDS-spread, implied State aid.\n(144)\nThe Commission also raised concerns about the design of the capital relief instrument (Measure A). The Commission acknowledged that Measure A was fundamentally different from other impaired asset measures as it was not put in place to protect ABN AMRO N against further declines in toxic assets with a highly uncertain valuation. Nevertheless, the Commission considered that to be compatible with the internal market, Measure A should comply with the general principles of the Communication from the Commission on the treatment of impaired assets in the Community banking sector (68) (the \u2018Impaired Asset Communication\u2019). More specifically, there should be sufficient evidence of appropriate pricing, meaning that the bank should not transfer expected losses to the State. In that regard, the Commission also wanted to understand what impact a number of specific contractual features (for example. the clawback mechanism and the vertical slice) would have on the actual cashflows and pricing. Finally, the Commission also doubted that there were insufficient incentives ensuring that ABN AMRO N would terminate the instrument as soon as it was no longer strictly necessary.\n(145)\nThe Commission doubted whether the December 2009 Restructuring Plan fulfilled the criteria set forward in the Communication for the Commission on the return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules (69) (the \u2018Restructuring Communication\u2019) in terms of viability, burden-sharing and undue distortions of competition.\n(146)\nThe Commission acknowledged that ABN AMRO Group would at first sight realise sufficient revenues to cover all its operational costs (including impairments) and earn an acceptable return on equity. However, the Commission also noted that the return on equity of ABN AMRO Group depended to a large extent on the realisation of a number of key assumptions. First, if ABN AMRO Group wants to become cost-efficient with an acceptable cost-income ratio, it is crucial that ABN AMRO Group implements the projected synergies (namely EUR 1,1 billion pre-tax which compares to a 2013 net profit of [\u2026] billion EUR). Second, as indicated in recital 118 of the Decision of 5 February 2010, it was also of crucial importance for the viability of ABN AMRO Group that it would be able to improve its net interest margin from the low levels of FBN and ABN AMRO N in the second half of 2008 and the first half of 2009. In its Decision of 5 February 2010, the Commission indicated that it needed more details on those issues, so as to evaluate whether long-term viability had truly been restored.\n(147)\nThe Commission also noted that the December 2009 Restructuring Plan did not yet include financial projections for a worst case scenario as required by point (13) of the Restructuring Communication. Therefore, the Commission asked for such worst case financial projections, allowing it to verify how ABN AMRO Group would perform in more stressful market conditions.\n(148)\nThe Commission also observed that the December 2009 Restructuring Plan contained little information on smaller sub-divisions, so that the Commission could not judge whether all viability issues at that level had been sufficiently addressed. More specifically, the Commission doubted whether viability of PFS, a division of FBN, which reported major Madoff-related losses in 2008, was sufficiently guaranteed.\n(149)\nThe Commission questioned whether the State aid was limited to the minimum necessary to restore the viability of ABN AMRO Group. In that respect, it noted that ABN AMRO Group had indicated that it wished to make small add-on acquisitions, which it deemed necessary to rebuild product competences lost during the separation processes from Fortis SA/NV and ABN AMRO Holding. In the Decision of 5 February 2010, the Commission argued that State aid should not be used to finance acquisitions or new investments unless essential for restoring the viability of an undertaking. The Commission asked the Dutch State to shed more light on the acquisition policy of ABN AMRO Group and to provide it with, inter alia, a detailed list of activities that ABN AMRO Group needed to rebuild for viability reasons.\n(150)\nThe Commission also doubted whether all hybrid capital providers of FBN and ABN AMRO N had paid their share of the restructuring. The Commission was concerned that, for instance, the preferred shareholders of FBN (70) had not sufficiently contributed to ensure that the intervention of the Dutch State was not limited to the minimum necessary.\n(151)\nAlso in terms of duration, the State aid should be limited to the minimum necessary. In that regard, the Commission observed that a number of measures were needed to address temporary problems, but the Commission doubted whether the Dutch State had taken sufficient steps ensuring that the measures would be unwound once they were no longer necessary.\n(152)\nWith regard to Measure A, the Commission observed that the CRI would become unattractive once ABN AMRO N was allowed to implement Basel II requirements. Although the CRI contained call features allowing for an early termination of the contract, the Commission observed that there was no clear timetable for the Dutch State\u2019s exit.\n(153)\nAlso with regard to the prudential margin of EUR 500 million, the Commission noted that the intention was that ABN AMRO Group replaced that amount by self-financed capital. Again the Commission observed that there was no indication whatsoever on timing.\n(154)\nWith respect to the integration costs of EUR 1,2 billion (namely Measure B5), the Commission observed that the Dutch State claimed that these would lead to important synergies of EUR 1,1 billion (pre-tax) per year, which could in principle be used to repay the State aid. Yet, the Commission observed that the Dutch State had not put in place a mechanism ensuring such a repayment. On the capital needs related to the sale of New HBU, the Commission concluded that the capital requirements related to the credit umbrella would decline rapidly as loans would gradually mature. Again, the Commission underlined that the State aid should be repaid once it was no longer necessary.\n(155)\nIn terms of distortion of competition, the Commission noted that the capital needs of FBN and ABN AMRO N stemmed to a certain extent from their separation of their former parent companies and from upfront integration costs, and not from excessive risk-taking or mismanagement within FBN and ABN AMRO N themselves. Against that background, the Commission concluded that further divestments were unlikely to be necessary.\n(156)\nAt the same time however, the Commission expressed doubts that the December 2009 Restructuring Plan contained sufficient behavioural measures to ensure that FBN and ABN AMRO N would not use the State aid to grow at the expense of their competitors, for example by implementing an unsustainable pricing policy or acquiring other financial institutions, which could weaken the incentives of non-beneficiaries to compete, invest and innovate and could discourage entry in the Dutch banking market.\n(157)\nIn terms of exit, the Commission argued that it would be helpful if the Dutch State developed and clearly communicated an exit strategy. Indeed, the repeated and massive interventions of the Dutch State could be perceived by depositors as a sign of its permanent support.\n4. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n4.1. First set of comments from Van Lanschot (letter of 6 May 2009)\n(158)\nThe complainant argued that thanks to the State aid and State ownership, FBN and ABN AMRO N (including their subsidiaries such as MoneYou and Mees Pierson) offered unsustainably high interest rates on individual savings and deposit accounts, thereby destabilising the Dutch banking market.\n(159)\nThe complainant believed that interest rates offered by FBN and ABN AMRO N were loss-making. In that regard, it referred to the fact that EURIBOR rates declined from 5 % in September 2008 to less than 2 % in January/February 2009, while interest rates offered by FBN and ABN AMRO N on savings accounts actually rose.\n(160)\nThe complainant also points at the specificities in the Dutch private banking market when compared to the retail banking market, which tend to increase the distortive effect of the measures taken. Saving amounts in private banking are on average larger than in retail banking. For low savings amounts, customers care less about their bank\u2019s risk profile as they are protected by the Dutch Deposit Guarantee Scheme (up to an amount of EUR 100 000). Risk awareness increases however once that threshold is passed, which is rather common in private banking.\n(161)\nThe complainant also argued that FBN and ABN AMRO N benefit from an implicit State guarantee. It argued that customers of FBN and ABN AMRO N are convinced that the Dutch State will not allow State-owned banks to go bankrupt.\n(162)\nThe complainant - which weathered the crisis without State aid - underlined that it was severely affected by FBN and ABN AMRO N distortive behaviour as it relied traditionally to an important extent on the Dutch savings market to fund its assets (71). In absolute figures, the complainant had savings & deposits of EUR 15 billion, which implied that a 1 % increase in interest rates could cost the company approximately EUR 150 million per year (72). In addition to that cost increase, there was also a volume effect as Van Lanschot lost customers.\n4.2. Follow-up comments of Van Lanschot (letters of 21 and 28 August 2009)\n(163)\nAccording to the complainant, the unusual behaviour of FBN and ABN AMRO N persisted over the summer months of 2009.\n(164)\nAs an additional argument, the complainant referred to unusually large volume and market share changes in the traditionally stable Dutch savings market. In that regard, the complainant pointed to FBN and ABN AMRO N press releases which reported deposit inflows of respectively EUR 9 billion and EUR 21 billion in the first half of 2009 (73). The complainant deemed those figures to be sizeable given the fact that the total Dutch savings market is worth approximately EUR 287 billion.\n(165)\nAs another illustration of unusual pricing, the complainant referred to the fact that savings interest rates in neighbouring countries such as Belgium, France and Germany had followed the decline in EURIBOR rates, while Dutch savings interest rates had remained stubbornly high.\n4.3. Comments from ABN AMRO Bank (letter of 6 July 2009)\n(166)\nCommenting on the Decision of 8 April 2009 launching the formal investigation procedure, ABN AMRO Bank (i.e. the parent company of ABN AMRO N) provided more information on its funding position and funding strategy. ABN AMRO Bank denied it had benefitted - directly or indirectly - from any funding aid given to FBN (Measures Y1 and Y2). ABN AMRO Bank pointed out that it had not needed help to fund itself throughout the crisis thanks to its diversified funding strategy. It also underlined that its liquidity statistics remained well within regulatory limits and within its own internal limits as well.\n5. COMMENTS FROM THE DUTCH STATE\n5.1. Comments from the Dutch State on the Decision of 8 April 2009\n(167)\nThe Dutch State acknowledged that FBN had been able to pursue its activities because of its acquisition by the State (74), but it argued that the acquisition was in line with the so-called \u2018market economy investor principle\u2019 (MEIP). As a result, according to the Dutch State there was no selective advantage and consequently no State aid. The Dutch State claimed that - even though the integrated transactions of 3 October 2008 were primarily meant to prevent the destabilisation of FBN and ABN AMRO N and the Dutch banking system in general - by purchasing participations in FBN and ABN AMRO N it aimed to make a positive long-term return. The Dutch State underlined that the price for FBN (including ABN AMRO N) was within the valuation range of its external valuation expert.\n(168)\nThe Dutch State claimed that it had paid a fair market price for FBN but it pointed out that even if it overpaid, that payment would have been State aid to Fortis SA/NV (which was the selling company) and not State aid to FBN.\n(169)\nWith respect to Measure Y1, the Dutch State claimed that it provided short-term funding to FBN at market conditions. It argued that before the crisis FBN received funding from its parent company at EONIA or EURIBOR rates without any extra spread. The Dutch State argued that the pricing it applied (as described in recital 96) was in line with market practice. More specifically, it also argued that its pricing system used for the period after 5 November 2008 (with a 50 basis points spread for loans of more than 3 months) was aligned with the Dutch Guarantee Scheme (75).\n(170)\nWith respect to the period during which FBN\u2019s liquidity facility was made available, the Dutch State explained that it started negotiations on ending the liquidity facility in January 2009 with the aim of ending the liquidity facility as fast as possible. With that objective in mind, the Dutch State introduced in March 2009 a new two-step pricing system, which made funding more expensive if it exceeded a pre-defined threshold. The Dutch State assumed that FBN could repay the liquidity facility at a rate of EUR 4 to 5 billion a month and intended to end the liquidity facility by the end of 2009. In reality, FBN repaid the liquidity facility faster than anticipated. The liquidity facility was already ended on 1 July 2009.\n(171)\nThe Dutch State argued that the maximum maturity of the liquidity provided under the liquidity facility was proportional. In that regard, the Dutch State explained that in the first period (i.e. from 6 to 23 October 2008), it had granted liquidity with a maturity of not more than a few weeks. When the liquidity facility was subsequently adjusted, the maximum maturity was prolonged to 9 months to avoid redemption peaks.\n(172)\nThe Dutch State explained that the total volume of the liquidity facility (namely EUR 5 billion overnight and EUR 40 billion longer-term funding) was based on FBN\u2019s real financing needs and was therefore the minimum necessary. The short-term liquidity facility of EUR 45 billion took into account the normal volatility of FBN\u2019s cash position and it also allowed FBN to immediately repay approximately EUR 34 billion to Fortis SA/NV.\n(173)\nWith respect to the long-term loans (namely Measure Y2), the Dutch State acknowledged that Fortis Bank SA/NV could have requested the repayment of the fixed-interest rate loans (but not of the variable-rate loans) (76). The Dutch State argued however that it had only replaced Fortis Bank SA/NV leaving all the conditions of the existing contracts unchanged. According to the Dutch State, the contract between Fortis Bank SA/NV and FBN was a normal market contract between private market actors. The Dutch State argued that - because it had replaced a market economy investor - its behaviour was automatically in line with the MEIP. As such, the Dutch State considered it did not have to justify why rates could have been higher or why it should have replaced those long-term loans by shorter-term loans (77).\n(174)\nThe Dutch State also argued that it was quite common for companies, when pursuing acquisitions, to simultaneously provide liquidity to newly-acquired subsidiaries.\n(175)\nAs to whether direct or indirect State aid had been provided to ABN AMRO N, the Dutch State denied that ABN AMRO N received funding from the Dutch State or FBN. The Dutch State explained that ABN AMRO N, with its large retail and private banking franchise, had sufficient funding of its own.\n(176)\nWith respect to Measure Z, the Dutch State claimed that the transaction price of EUR 6,5 billion was a fair market price. It underlined that the price was between the \u2018current market conditions\u2019 valuation of EUR [4 - 6,5] billion and the \u2018through the cycle\u2019 valuation of EUR [6,5 - 9] billion as calculated by its external valuation expert at the beginning of October 2008 (prior to the 3 October 2008 transaction). As regards to the fact that the acquisition (Measure Z) took place two and a half months after that valuation was made, the Dutch State believed that no corrections were necessary since uncertainties were already reflected in the early October 2008 valuation (78). The Dutch State also argued that investment banking and toxic assets were usually at the basis of confidence problems in other banks, translating into important share price declines for those banks. ABN AMRO N, by contrast, with its stable retail and commercial bank profile, was fundamentally different to other banks. Given that context, the Dutch State argued that a price correction by analogy to other banks made no sense.\n(177)\nThe Dutch State also underlined that the other consortium members, and in particular RBS, had to approve the transaction and that [\u2026]. The Dutch State also refers to points (166) and (177) of the preliminary report of experts to the General Shareholders\u2019 Meeting of Fortis SA/NV on 11 February 2009 in Brussels (79), claiming that those points support the Dutch State\u2019s argument that it paid a fair price for FBN, ABN AMRO N, Fortis Insurance and Fortis Corporate Insurance on 3 October 2008, which constitutes therefore a valid reference price for the sale of December 2008.\n(178)\nThe Dutch State implemented Measure Z by waiving claims it had towards FBN. Furthermore, the Dutch State claimed that the Commission - if it were to come to the conclusion that Measure Z implied State aid - should apply a correction. Since similar instruments of other banks were trading at a substantial discount to par (80), it was logical that the market value of the debt instruments waived by the Dutch State was also below par. In other words, the prevailing market circumstances suggested that the Dutch State was not entitled to par value but to a lower market value. The Dutch State argued that, taking into account the then prevailing market circumstances, it was only entitled to a market value of EUR [4,55 - 5,85] billion (so the par value of the loans of EUR 6,5 billion corrected for a market discount of EUR [0,65 - 1,95] billion).\n(179)\nOn 18 June 2009, the Dutch Ministry of Finance forwarded to the Commission the evaluation of FBN by DNB as requested in the Decision of 8 April 2009. [\u2026] (81), (82), (83)\n(180)\nDNB also informed the Commission on [\u2026] ABN AMRO N by letter of 20 January 2010. [\u2026]\n5.2. Comments from the Dutch State on the Decision of 5 February 2010\n(181)\nIn general, the Dutch State argued that the measures taken did not constitute State aid because the measures:\n(i)\ndid not benefit ABN AMRO N nor FBN,\n(ii)\nwere necessary to separate ABN AMRO N and FBN from their respective former parent companies and followed from contractual obligations of the Dutch State as successor to Fortis SA/NV in the CSA, or\n(iii)\nwere economically rational from the viewpoint of a private investor.\n(182)\nThe Dutch State argued that the Commission should apply the MEIP to every individual measure that the Dutch State had taken. Particularly concerning the merger-related measures (namely Measures B4 and B5), the Dutch State underlined that the merger was an investment with a positive net present value (\u2018NPV\u2019) and therefore compatible with the MEIP.\n(183)\nIn other words, the Dutch State did not accept the Commission\u2019s preliminary position, as developed in recital 96 of the Decision of 5 February 2010, that the MEIP did not apply to the measures following the integrated transactions of 3 October 2008 State, since those measures were part of a larger rescue and restructuring operation.\n(184)\nThe Dutch State acknowledged that the State aid rules imply that the MEIP does not apply when several interconnected capital injections are made in a short time period. Nevertheless it argued that this analysis did not hold true for FBN and ABN AMRO N as the integrated transactions of 3 October 2008 - in its view - did not contain State aid measures and, in addition, the follow-up measures were not connected to the initial transaction.\n(185)\nThe Dutch State argued that the Commission should take into account the very specific circumstances under which the Dutch State was obliged to buy FBN. The Dutch State also pointed out that the sale of New HBU had been very burdensome for the Dutch State and for ABN AMRO N with a negative capital impact of EUR 470 million.\n(186)\nThe Dutch State claimed to have based all its measures on the principles set forward in the Banking Communication (84) and the Communication from the Commission - The recapitalisation of financial institutions in the current financial crisis: limitation of aid to the minimum necessary and safeguards against undue distortions of competition (85) (the \u2018Recapitalisation Communication\u2019). In general, the Dutch State argued that its measures were well-targeted, proportionate to the challenges faced and designed so as to minimise negative spill-over effects to competitors.\n(187)\nThe Dutch State argued Measure A and Measure B1 did not qualify as State aid, since the State was contractually obliged to resolve capital problems faced by ABN AMRO Z. The Dutch State was contractually obliged under the CSA to implement the separation of ABN AMRO Holding. DNB only allowed the separation of ABN AMRO II to start if all the consortium members had paid their share in the capital shortage of ABN AMRO Z. The Dutch State admitted that it had provided capital to ABN AMRO Z via ABN AMRO N but it underlined that ABN AMRO N only acted as an intermediate vehicle. Ultimately, ABN AMRO N had only passed capital through to ABN AMRO Z and Measure A did not selectively advantage ABN AMRO N.\n(188)\nAs to whether the capital shortage of ABN AMRO Z was the result of selective advantages granted to ABN AMRO N, the Dutch State stated that the consortium members had already ensured at the time of the acquisition of ABN AMRO Holdings by the consortium (see recital 33) that the activities of the different tracking shares (as defined in recital 35) were sufficiently ring-fenced vis-\u00e0-vis one another. That arrangement meant that there was also a clear distinction between the activities of ABN AMRO N and ABN AMRO Z. It meant for instance that ABN AMRO N had its own corporate governance structure and its own reporting. The Dutch State also drew the Commission\u2019s attention to the fact that ABN AMRO N had separate legal status as of 6 February 2010 (86).\n(189)\nThe Dutch State also provided evidence that the ABN AMRO Z capital shortfall already existed at the time of the acquisition of 3 October 2008. The opening balance of ABN AMRO Z was already a negative EUR 7,4 billion on 3 October 2008 and the share of Fortis SA/NV therein was approximately EUR 2,5 billion. With respect to the sources of the capital shortfall, the Dutch State admitted that there had been a transfer of EUR 1 billion worth of Unicredito shares from ABN AMRO Z to the operational tracking shares (including approximately EUR 300 million to ABN AMRO N), but it provided information showing that the Unicredito share transfer took place in February 2008, well before the Dutch State intervened. Therefore the Unicredito share transfer could not be considered as State aid.\n(190)\nWith respect to the costs borne by ABN AMRO Z related to head office functions, the Dutch State underlined that those costs decreased dramatically after the acquisition of ABN AMRO Holding by the consortium members described in recital 33. Since the consortium members had no interest in maintaining a large integrated head office, it was logical to keep those costs as low as possible. Figures provided by the Dutch State showed that group function costs borne by ABN AMRO Z were EUR [0 - 0,5] billion in 2008 and EUR [0 - 0,2] billion in 2009, which the Dutch State considered to be negligible. The Dutch State also underlined that it incurred the obligation to absorb those costs when it replaced Fortis SA/NV as a party to the CSA, following the acquisition of FBN (including ABN AMRO N) on 3 October 2008.\n(191)\nShould the Commission consider Measure A as State aid, the Dutch State argued that the Impaired Asset Communication (87) should not apply. According to the Dutch State, there was no uncertainty on the valuation of the protected assets, which therefore could not be considered \u2018impaired\u2019 in the sense used in the Communication. Should the Commission not share its point of view, the Dutch government contended that ABN AMRO N\u2019s CDS still complied with the general principles of that Communication. Moreover, it argued that the credit protection instrument was necessary and proportional, while keeping competition distortions to the minimum.\n(192)\nThe Dutch State asserted that the remuneration of the CRI - a 10 % return of the freed up capital - was sufficiently high. It also provided evidence that the first loss tranche of 20 basis points was substantially higher than the expected loss. The Dutch State contended that historical losses (namely [0 - 15] basis points) and 2010 projected losses (namely [0 - 30] basis points) on the mortgage portfolio of ABN AMRO N provided a good forecast for a range of future expected losses. Also market information from rating reports (88) confirmed that the first tranche loss exceeded expected losses. The Dutch State also referred to a document of the investment bank [\u2026], which simulated how the Dutch State cashflows could evolve under different stress scenarios.\n(193)\nThe Dutch State also believed that the CRI contained sufficient exit incentives. The Dutch State drew the Commission\u2019s attention to the calls included in the CRI and to the fact that the CRI would become rather unattractive once ABN AMRO Group was allowed to operate under Basel II requirements. Against that background, the Dutch State believed that ABN AMRO N would probably call the CRI in January 2011, when the transition to Basel II requirements was expected to result in a reduction of the freed up capital.\n(194)\nThe Dutch State explained that the separation costs (namely Measures B2 and B3) were the result of the CSA, to which the Dutch State was de facto a party since 3 October 2008. According to the terms of the CSA, the State -as opposed to ABN AMRO N - was obliged to split ABN AMRO Holding in three parts. The Dutch State denied that those costs provided ABN AMRO N with a benefit and it also explained that it paid for the separation costs as it was the State\u2019s contractual obligation to implement the separation.\n(195)\nWith respect to the prudential margin of EUR 500 million - also categorised under separation costs -, the Dutch State argued it was common banking practice. Banks cannot operate with only the minimum required capital but need an additional comfort margin. Otherwise, should banks face - even a small - setback, they would immediately run into financial trouble. The Dutch State indicated, however, that its contribution to the prudential margin should be temporary and that, in the longer-term, ABN AMRO N should generate the prudential margin itself without any help by the Dutch State.\n(196)\nWith respect to Measure B4, the Dutch State argued that the measure did not constitute State aid. The Dutch State argued that the decision to merge both banks was already taken and partly implemented when it acquired FBN. The Dutch State supported its claim by referring to the fact that ABN AMRO Asset Management had already been separated and integrated within Fortis SA/NV at the time of the integrated transactions of 3 October 2008. The Dutch State also underlined that the Commission had obliged it to implement a merger remedy to resolve outstanding concentration problems and that it inherited from Fortis SA/NV the New HBU Merger Remedy. The Dutch State also indicated that ultimately ABN AMRO N\u2019s financial means would not increase and therefore it defended the position that Measure B4 did not constitute State aid.\n(197)\nThe Dutch State indicated that the State funds granted to finance integration costs (Measure B5) should be seen as a rational investment, leading to healthy returns in the form of synergies. The Dutch government estimated those synergies at around EUR 1,1 billion a year (pre-tax), while the upfront integration costs amount to EUR 1,2 billion (after-tax). According to the Dutch State, the total NPV of the merger (taking into account synergies, integration costs and the cost of the Merger Remedy) should amount to a positive EUR 2,88 billion (89).\n(198)\nAccording to the Dutch State, the conversion of Tier 2 into Tier 1 capital (Measure C) did not selectively advantage FBN. The Dutch State claimed that the conversion was in the Dutch State\u2019s interest as it was able to convert loans with an average coupon of 2,976 % into equity that, in its view, had an attractive remuneration. In that regard, the Dutch State referred to ABN AMRO Group\u2019s projected normalised 2012 RoE of approximately [\u2026] % as put forward in the December 2009 Restructuring Plan.\n(199)\nShould the Commission consider Measure C to be State aid, the Dutch State argued that the Commission should not consider all loans waived as State aid. It explained that the conversion could be broken down in a repayment of Tier 2 capital at par in combination with a core Tier 1 capital injection (with no net cash implications). According to the Dutch State, it could not have reasonably expected repayment of Tier 2 capital at par at that time, since comparable instruments of other banks were trading at a substantial discount to par reflecting fragile market circumstances. The Dutch State indicated that a discount of EUR [135 - 405] million was justified, based on comparable figures.\n(200)\nThe Dutch State indicated that the payment of EUR 740 million (Measure D) was one of its obligations stemming from the CSA. Moreover, the Dutch State underlined that there were only payments to the other consortium members and not to ABN AMRO N, so that there was also no State aid provided to ABN AMRO N.\n(201)\nRegarding Measure E, the Dutch State argued that ABN AMRO II did not benefit from the counter-indemnity (described in recital 126), but that Measure E merely put ABN AMRO II in a position to provide a counter-indemnity to Deutsche Bank. It claimed that the counter-indemnity could not be used by the bank for development of new business and would therefore not give rise to any distortion of competition.\n(202)\nThe Dutch State considered the counter-indemnity to be in line with the Commission\u2019s Recapitalisation Communication. The Dutch State underlined that it had based its pricing on the ECB Recapitalisation Recommendation.\n(203)\nThe Dutch State also commented on the Commission\u2019s suspicion that the preferred shareholders of FBN (90) had not sufficiently contributed in terms of burden-sharing. The Dutch State explained that the investors in preferred shares had not received dividends in 2008 (neither in cash nor in accrual) and that preferred shares were trading below par. The Dutch State added that FBN\u2019s ability to pay or reserve fixed dividends in the future depended on FBN having sufficient IFRS profits. The Dutch State noted that the dividend clause governing the FBN preferred shares included so-called dividend stopper/pusher language (91) and that the uncertainty around the dividend policy of the ABN AMRO Group reduced the comfort that the investors in preferred shares could derive from the dividend stopper/pusher language.\n(204)\nAs to whether capital would be repaid once the (temporary) capital needs disappear, the Dutch State argued that it intended to use the dividend policy of ABN AMRO Group in such a way that ABN AMRO Group would not have any excess capital which could result in a distortion of competition (92).\n(205)\nConcerning distortions of competition, the Dutch State indicated that it did not agree with the Commission\u2019s position that ABN AMRO N and FBN were reinforced in the Netherlands as a result of the merger nor that such a development threatened to create undue distortions of competition. It rather believed the contrary and pointed in that regard to the fact that the separation of FBN and ABN AMRO N from their respective parent companies and the subsequent merger were very labour-intensive and implied that the management of FBN and ABN AMRO N could dedicate less time to the day-to-day commercial business and therefore it argued that the separation and the subsequent merger had a negative impact on the competitive position of FBN and ABN AMRO N (or ABN AMRO Group post-merger).\n5.3. Comments from the Dutch State on the comments of interested parties\n5.3.1. Comments from the Dutch State on the complainant\u2019s letter of 6 May 2009\n(206)\nIn general, the Dutch State underlined that in its view the measures in favour of FBN and ABN AMRO N did not meet the Union definition of State aid and therefore did not have distortive effects. It considered the market behaviour of FBN and ABN AMRO N on the savings and deposit market to be in line with that of a rational market player protecting its commercial interests. The Dutch State believed that the interest rates offered by FBN and ABN AMRO N were not distortive. As a result, it argued that there was no infringement of Union competition law.\n(207)\nThe Dutch State presented a number of comparative tables with interest rates offered on specific deposit and savings products. The Dutch State denied that FBN and ABN AMRO N were consistently offering the highest interest rates, especially when compared to smaller Dutch banks like SNS, NIBC and DSB. The Dutch State also pointed out that interest rates on savings accounts were already high in the Netherlands before the financial crisis, partly due to the behaviour of smaller banks with an aggressive pricing policy. The Dutch State believed that during the financial crisis banks tried to protect their savings franchises by offering relatively high interest rates on savings products for customers.\n(208)\nThe Dutch State also commented on the pricing strategy of MoneYou, the Internet brand of ABN AMRO N, which was introduced in the market in September 2008. The Dutch State argued that MoneYou is a dedicated Internet product, which differed considerably from more traditional products in terms of cost base and service level. The Dutch State indicated that MoneYou had to build up brand recognition in the first 6 months of its existence and therefore had to offer interest rates which were mostly slightly lower or equal than those offered by similar Internet-banking marketplayers (93). From the second quarter of 2009 onwards, the interest rates offered by MoneYou were lowered and MoneYou positioned itself within the so-called mid-tier segment (94). With respect to MoneYou, the Dutch State added that it only raised limited volumes of funds (namely EUR [0 - 5] billion), representing roughly [0 - 5] % of total volume on the Dutch savings market. The Dutch State added that ex-Van Lanschot customers only represented a small part of MoneYou\u2019s business (namely [0 - 5 000] accounts or [0 - 5] % of MoneYou\u2019s accounts).\n(209)\nThe Dutch State also denied that ABN AMRO N and FBN were solely relying on the Dutch savings market to fund themselves. The Dutch State provided new information showing that ABN AMRO N had issued a covered bond of EUR 2 billion on 6 July 2009 and that FBN had issued EUR 15,5 billion of State-guaranteed debt instruments. According to the Dutch State, the complainant\u2019s allegations were incorrect and premature. It indicated that FBN just needed some time to set up treasury operations and issue State-guaranteed debt instruments. The Dutch State also indicated that deposits and saving products are also important to establish a customer relationship and have a different and broader purpose than that of other funding instruments. In that regard, the Dutch State pointed out that a loss in a bank\u2019s savings and deposits market share could lead to market share losses in other banking products.\n(210)\nThe Dutch State also denied that the consumers and market participants perceived ABN AMRO N and FBN as safer banks than competitors. It referred to the ratings of FBN and ABN AMRO N at rating agencies, which were below the AAA-rating of Rabobank for example. Its relative CDS-spreads told a similar story. The Dutch State also believed that the State-ownership did not make ABN AMRO N or FBN more secure in the eyes of consumers and market participants. In that regard, it pointed out that the many ad-hoc State interventions had shown that the Dutch State would, if possible, intervene with respect to any privately-owned bank. Consequently, it believed that de facto there was no perceived difference between the security offered by Dutch privately-owned banks compared with that of Dutch State-owned banks.\n(211)\nTo calculate whether interest rates offered on savings products were loss-making, the Dutch State argued that they should not be compared with EURIBOR rates but rather with rates resulting from the so-called \u2018replicating portfolio methodology\u2019 (95). Using that methodology, the Dutch State acknowledged that for some products, there was a temporary negative margin. However, it argued that it was rational market behaviour and in line with market behaviour of (privately-owned) competitors at that precise point in time.\n5.3.2. Comments from the Dutch State on the complainant\u2019s arguments of 21 and 28 August 2009\n(212)\nThe Dutch argued that its earlier comments summarized in recitals 206 to 211 concerning the complainant were still valid.\n(213)\nIn addition, the Dutch State noted that the complainant\u2019s claim that ABN AMRO N and FBN market share had increased was based on flawed statistics. With respect to the alleged EUR 21 billion increase in deposits collected by ABN AMRO N, the Dutch State argued that only EUR 5,1 billion was due to Dutch retail savings with the rest mainly due to corporate customer savings and foreign deposits. The Dutch State also provided data, showing that a large part of FBN\u2019s volume increase of deposits and savings stemmed from corporate banking as opposed to retail and private banking.\n(214)\nThe Dutch State observed that that Dutch customers had invested more into their savings because of the uncertain macroeconomic environment. It pointed to data of the Central Bureau of Statistics (\u2018CBS\u2019) which indicated that savings increased by 7,7 % year-on-year in the first half of 2009. ABN AMRO N\u2019s customer savings increased by 7,5 % year-on-year, which indicated that the ABN AMRO N\u2019s market share rather declined. FBN also presented evidence showing that its customer savings had evoled in line with the market.\n5.3.3. Comments from the Dutch State on the comments of ABN AMRO Bank\n(215)\nThe Dutch State confirmed that it had not provided a liquidity facility to ABN AMRO N, thereby broadly confirming ABN AMRO Bank\u2019s arguments.\n6. ASSESSMENT\n6.1. Existence of aid\n(216)\nArticle 107(1) of the Treaty provides that any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market. It follows that a State measure qualifies as State aid if it meets the following four (cumulative) criteria:\n-\nState resources;\n-\nselective advantage;\n-\ndistortive impact on competition; and\n-\nimpact on trade between Member States.\n(217)\nThe first criterion is met for Measures (Y1) to (E) in Table 4 in recital 128 as all those Measures are directly financed from the Dutch State\u2019s resources.\n(218)\nWhether a measure constitutes a selective advantage to FBN, ABN AMRO N or ABN AMRO Group post-merger (the second criterion) is analysed in the recitals 220 to 278, examining each measure separately.\n(219)\nIf a selective advantage exists in this case, the third and fourth criteria would also be fulfilled. All the measures distort or threaten to distort competition as they place FBN, ABN AMRO N or ABN AMRO Group after the merger in a beneficial position vis-\u00e0-vis other competing banks (third criterion). Moreover, the measures also have an impact on trade between Member States. FBN, ABN AMRO N and ABN AMRO Group post-merger are internationally-oriented banks with activities outside the Netherlands while also competing in their home market with subsidiaries of foreign banks (fourth criterion).\n6.1.1. Measures Y1 and Y2 of 3 October 2008\n(220)\nIt is appropriate to recall that this Decision assesses only potential aid to FBN, ABN AMRO N or ABN AMRO Group post-merger. Potential aid to Fortis Bank SA/NV arising out of Measures Y1 and Y2 was assessed in the Decision of 3 December 2008.\n(221)\nAs indicated in recital 52 of the Decision of 3 December 2008 (96) and in the initial aid assessment of those measures in the Decision of 8 April 2009, the measures taken on 3 October 2008 (namely Measures X, Y1 and Y2) are inextricably linked. The Dutch State separated FBN and ABN AMRO N from their liquidity-constrained parent by means of the acquisition of FBN but, in order to fully insulate FBN from its parent\u2019s liquidity problems, the Dutch State also had to assume the role of funding provider of FBN. That goal translated into Measures Y1 and Y2. In addition, on 3 October 2008 the Dutch State took over Fortis SA/NV\u2019s CSA-obligations.\n(222)\nAs indicated in recital 50 of the Decision of 3 December 2008, the Commission cannot accept that the MEIP is satisfied for the integrated transactions of 3 October 2008 by which the Dutch State acquired FBN (including ABN AMRO N) for EUR 12,8 billion and also provided FBN with a very large amount of funding. Given the then prevailing market circumstances, no buyer would have been able and willing to offer as much to save FBN (97). Moreover, additional information submitted by the Dutch State confirmed that, on 3 October 2008, the Dutch State also agreed to indemnify Fortis SA/NV for its CSA-obligations. That CSA-agreement would have rendered the integrated transactions of 3 October 2008 even less acceptable to a market economy investor. Without appropriate due diligence, no investor would have taken over the obligations of Fortis SA/NV under the CSA, which resulted in major liabilities at a later stage (of which the Dutch State was already partially aware on 3 October 2008).\n(223)\nFor the Dutch State, the integrated transactions of 3 October 2008 were necessary to avoid large negative spill-over effects into the Dutch banking system and economy (98). A market economy investor typically does not take such spill-over effects into account.\n(224)\nThe willingness to avoid a serious disruption of the Dutch banking system and economy also explains why the Dutch State took its decisions so rapidly. A market economy investor would have taken much more time to evaluate the potential need for additional capital injections and would also have investigated the financials of the companies in more detail. As a result, a market economy investor - with sufficient time to carry out a proper due diligence - would have had a better view on follow-up investments and would have taken that information into account in its valuation. The Dutch State having to act swiftly to preserve financial stability in the Netherlands, could not behave like a market economy investor and take more time to consider the integrated transactions of 3 October 2008 and the CSA-related obligations in further depth.\n(225)\nTherefore, the Commission confirms its assessment that the integrated transactions of 3 October 2008 were not in line with the MEIP (that conclusion was already made in the Decision of 3 December 2008, which considered those transactions to be State aid to Fortis Bank SA/NV).\n(226)\nAs regards the existence of an advantage, the measures of 3 October 2008 taken together allowed the separation of FBN and ABN AMRO N from Fortis SA/NV and therefore conferred an important selective advantage on FBN, which was highly integrated in Fortis Bank SA/NV and in particular relied heavily on the latter for funding. In the December 2009 Restructuring Plan (see also recital 78), the Dutch State admitted that, had it not intervened, FBN would have been dragged down by Fortis SA/NV. Without the State aid measures, FBN would have remained exposed to the liabilities of Fortis SA/NV, which was on the verge of bankruptcy, and that exposure would have substantially hindered FBN\u2019s activities. By ring-fencing its activities from Fortis SA/NV, FBN was able to avoid to a large extent the problems and costs typical of a (financial) company in distress (for example higher funding costs, worse payment conditions from suppliers and counterparties, higher personnel costs to retain staff, reduction of activities and risk-weighted assets to preserve capital) (99). Although ABN AMRO N remained on an operational level a separate company, the Dutch State feared contamination resulting from the fact that markets might associate ABN AMRO N with its future owner Fortis SA/NV.\n(227)\nMeasure Y1 - an important component of the integrated transactions of 3 October 2008 - also provided a major advantage to FBN, especially given the size of the transaction and the then prevailing market circumstances.\n(228)\nThe large liquidity facility of EUR 45 billion (100) was provided when wholesale markets were virtually closed, particularly for large amounts and for companies with a relatively high loan-to-deposit ratio such as FBN. The fact that such a high amount of liquidity was not readily available on the market is confirmed by the fact that FBN needed several quarters to replace the short-term liquidity facility by other sources of funding. In the end, FBN repaid all the short-term funding from the Dutch State in June 2009, 9 months after the liquidity aid was granted. The refinancing was partly done via State-guaranteed debt issues (101).\n(229)\nTherefore, it should be concluded that Measure Y1 constitutes State aid as it provided FBN with an advantage in the form of funding which it could not have found on the market in the then prevailing market circumstances.\n(230)\nWith respect to Measure Y2, the novation of long-term loans made by Fortis Bank SA/NV, the Commission considers that measure provides a selective advantage to FBN. The information submitted by the Dutch State shows that Fortis Bank SA/NV was entitled to immediate repayment of the fixed-rate long-term loans (with a nominal value of EUR 7,9 billion) because of the ownership change at the level of FBN. Thanks to Measure Y2, FBN did not have to find new funding on the market in order to repay those long-term loans. It could continue to benefit from the existing loans at pre-crisis rates.\n(231)\nBy accepting the novation, the Dutch State provided FBN with long-term debt at pre-crisis interest rates. A market economy investor would not have provided these loans at pre-crisis interest rates but would have negotiated interest rates which would better reflect the then prevailing market circumstances, especially since it concerned loans for a sizeable amount.\n(232)\nTherefore, it should be concluded that Measure Y2 constitutes State aid to FBN as it provided a selective advantage to FBN in the form of a loan at pre-crisis rates. The Dutch State did not try to bring the interest rates of the redeemable loans in line with post-crisis interest rates, thereby not behaving like a market economy investor.\n(233)\nThe Commission has received sufficient information to conclude that ABN AMRO N did not receive funding through Measures Y1 and Y2. It therefore did not draw an advantage from those measures.\n(234)\nThus, the integrated transactions of 3 October 2008 are not in line with the MEIP and provide FBN with a selective advantage. Those measures allowed FBN to stay on the market and to pursue its activities, without further contamination from the problems of its parent company. FBN also received a very large amount of funding aid which was not available on the market on such a short notice. Measures Y1 and Y2 therefore do constitute State aid while, as laid down in recital 32 of the Decision of 8 April 2009, Measure X as such does not constitute State aid to FBN but is part of a wider transaction - the separation of FBN from Fortis Bank SA/NV - which involved State aid to FBN.\n6.1.2. Applicability of the MEIP for the measures implemented after the initial aid of 3 October 2008\n(235)\nThe Dutch State has taken a large number of measures in favour of FBN and ABN AMRO N, spread out over a period of roughly 18 months. The Dutch State claims that that the MEIP-test should be applied to each of those measures individually (and especially to the merger-related Measures B4 and B5). However, based on the chronology of the measures (I), the common purpose of the measures (II) and the situation of the companies at the time of each measure (III), the Commission concludes that they are not sufficiently distinct to be judged against the MEIP independently. The Commission considers all measures to be part of one lengthy restructuring process (102), (103).\n(236)\nThe chronology of measures (I) described earlier in section 2.1 and section 2.4 in this Decision shows that all measures are interrelated and were taken in a short period of time.\n(237)\nIn addition, the merger-related measures are clearly linked to the preceding interventions. When the Dutch State decided on 21 November 2008 - slightly more than 6 weeks after the rescue intervention of 3 October 2008 - to merge FBN and ABN AMRO N, it could only do so because it had just rescued the two companies from bankruptcy. In other words, in a counterfactual scenario without the 3 October 2008 intervention, implementing the merger would not have been an option as either the two companies would no longer have existed or they would have been present only in a substantially reduced form which would have lead to a much smaller and less attractive merged entity, which the Dutch State also admits in its December 2009 Restructuring Plan (see recital 78).\n(238)\nAll the measures had the common objective (II) of fully restoring the viability of FBN and ABN AMRO N. Immediately after the integrated transactions of 3 October 2008, it was clear that the Dutch State had merely stabilised the situation, with important operational problems still awaiting resolution, notably because of the separation of each entity from its former parent.\n(239)\nMoreover, the merger was a measure needed to achieve that common goal, to fully restore viability. On a stand-alone basis, FBN\u2019s funding position was weak as it had a relatively small retail franchise and depended to a large extent on wholesale funding (104). ABN AMRO N had lost important product competences and a large part of its international network. Both companies faced operational issues related to, for example IT, tax and risk management and it was also uncertain whether they had sufficient scale in all the businesses in which they were active. The Dutch State looked at a number of alternatives and quickly decided that a merger in combination with additional capital increases was the best way to fully restore viability. In a merger scenario, the deposit-rich retail activities of ABN AMRO N compensated for the weak funding position of FBN, while FBN could bring larger size and international branches to ABN AMRO N. Moreover, the combined entity was in a better position to tackle practical problems and could also benefit from additional economies of scale. The merger avoided having to rebuild each entity separately.\n(240)\nWith respect to the situation of the companies at the time of each measure (III), the Commission notes that the viability of the companies was only fully restored once all the measures were implemented. They were not viable at an intermediate stage, such as on 21 November 2008 when the decision to merge was taken. In that regard, the Commission underlines that at the end of December 2008, and so after the decision to merge, FBN threatened to fall below the minimum capital requirements of the DNB, because it had to take a write-down on ABN AMRO N. ABN AMRO N was still in the books of FBN for a valuation which was no longer realistic (105) after the valuation used in Measure X and therefore a write-down had become inevitable. In order to sort out FBN\u2019s capital problem, the Dutch State acquired ABN AMRO N from FBN for EUR 6,5 billion and took further corrective capital action at the end of 2009 with the conversion of Tier 2 capital into Tier 1 capital (see recital 121 and footnote 52 of this Decision). Declarations of the Dutch State, [\u2026] and [\u2026] confirm that FBN and ABN AMRO N still faced important viability-related issues after the 3 October 2008 integrated transactions (106).\n(241)\nThe Commission also observes that the Dutch State only submitted a full-fledged restructuring plan once all the measures were decided, which indicates that viability was only then fully restored. During the procedure, the Commission asked repeatedly for a detailed restructuring plan (see for instance recital 137), which was indispensable to evaluate whether the viability of an aided company has been fully restored.\n(242)\nThe Dutch State submitted on 4 December 2009 the December 2009 Restructuring Plan but that first plan still lacked important elements mentioned in the Restructuring Communication such as financial projections for a worst case scenario. The necessary completions arrived on 23 March 2010. The Dutch State replied to earlier requests made by the Commission for a restructuring plan that the merger between FBN and ABN AMRO N played a crucial role in the restructuring of those companies. According to it the transition management team of ABN AMRO Group needed time to prepare a plan and could not have a complete view on the future shape of the group before the merger was implemented.\n6.1.3. Existence of an advantage and conclusion on the existence of aid for the measures implemented after integrated transactions of 3 October 2008\n(243)\nMeasure Z was necessary to avoid FBN\u2019s capital ratios falling below the minimum regulatory capital requirements.\n(244)\nFBN\u2019s capital problem was due to the high valuation of ABN AMRO N in its accounts. Simulations in [\u2026]\u2019s due diligence report show that bringing the book value of ABN AMRO N down to EUR 6,5 billion would lead to Tier 1 and total capital ratios of 3,8 % and 7,6 % respectively for FBN (107). In other words, there was a risk that FBN would fall below the minimum regulatory ratios requiring a minimum total capital ratio of 8 % (with maximum half of it Tier 2). According to the [\u2026]-report, selling ABN AMRO N to the Dutch State for a price of EUR 6,5 billion lifted the Tier 1 and total capital ratios of FBN to respectively 7,8 % and 15,7 %, thereby sorting out FBN\u2019s capital problem and allowing the company to stay on the market.\n(245)\nThe measure provided FBN with an advantage in the form of capital it could not have found on the markets. The company was also unable to use internally generated underlying profits to sort out (part of) the problem, partly because it incurred losses of EUR 922 million in 2008 related to the Madoff fraud. Since FBN ran the risk of falling below minimum capital requirements, the measure allowed the company to comply with regulatory requirements and to pursue its activities.\n(246)\nThe Commission has come to the conclusion that the purchase of ABN AMRO N by the Dutch State did not take place at market conditions for the reasons which follow.\n(247)\nA market economy investor (108) with an interest in acquiring ABN AMRO N in December 2008 would have used a market price, taking into account the market conditions at that particular point in time. In the [\u2026] report, the Dutch State had two valuations: a \u2018through the cycle\u2019 valuation of EUR [5 - 9] billion which assumed a normalisation of the markets and a \u2018current market conditions\u2019 valuation of EUR [4 - 6,5] billion which was based on the market conditions in the first days of October 2008 (109). A market economy investor would have used the \u2018current market conditions\u2019 valuation as a starting point.\n(248)\nA correction to the \u2018current conditions\u2019 market valuation would be needed in any event to take into account the deterioration of the market conditions between 3 October 2008 (namely the date of the [\u2026] valuation report) and the actual date when the acquisition of ABN AMRO N by the Dutch State was decided upon. In that period, the Euro Stoxx 50 index fell by 22,2 % while the Euro Stoxx Banks index fell by 45,3 %.\n(249)\nThe Dutch State\u2019s argument that no correction is needed given ABN AMRO N\u2019s conservative risk profile (namely no toxic assets, good funding position, etc.) cannot be accepted. The market decline was widespread, and especially so amongst banking stocks, indicating that it was not so much linked to stock-specifics but rather to worsened economic and financial market conditions and the associated increase in required risk premiums. Given that background, it is necessary to adjust the 3 October 2008\u2018current market conditions\u2019 valuation downwards to obtain a reasonable estimate of the value of ABN AMRO N on 14 December 2008. Applying the observed percentage declines of the Euro Stoxx 50 index and the Euro Stoxx Banks index (22,2 % and 45,3 %) leads to a market price range for December 2008 of between EUR [2,2 - 3,6] billion and EUR [3,1 - 5,1] billion (namely [4 - 6,5] billion EUR decreased by 22,2 % and by 45,3 %) (110).\n(250)\nThe Commission can accept that, as claimed by the Dutch authorities, a correction should be made to take account of the fact that the Dutch State did not pay the transaction in cash. As a result of Measure Y2, the Dutch State owned debt issued by FBN and it then paid FBN for ABN AMRO N by waiving part of that debt with a nominal value of EUR 6,5 billion. Since debt issued by other banks traded at the time at a discount to par, the Commission can accept that the value of the debt instruments waived was below par value. Based on available market information, the Commission could accept a correction of [10 - 30] % or EUR [0,65 - 1,95] billion. That would imply an actual transaction price of EUR [4,55 - 5,85] billion (EUR 6,5 billion minus EUR [0,65 - 1,95] billion), rather than EUR 6,5 billion (111).\n(251)\nThe aid amount in Measure Z would then be the difference between the price paid and the market value of ABN AMRO N. It would then be between EUR [0 - 2,75] billion (EUR [4,55 - 5,85] billion minus EUR [3,1 - 5,1] billion) and EUR [0,95 - 3,65]-billion (EUR [4,55 - 5,85] billion minus EUR [2,2 - 3,6] billion).\n(252)\nThe Commission sees no basis to the claims of the Dutch State that its EUR 6.5 billion valuation was convincingly corroborated by the approval of the other consortium members and by a report of [\u2026]. Overpaying for ABN AMRO N did not affect the other consortium members, which means that their approval of the sale was not an approval of the valuation itself. There is also no indication that the consortium members made a new valuation themselves. The [\u2026] letter also does not support the claim of the Dutch State. [\u2026] merely verified the methodology and the process, and its short report cannot be seen as a credible valuation exercise. The [\u2026] report also used as a basis the price paid by the Dutch State for FBN and ABN AMRO N on 3 October 2008. As set out above, the transaction of 3 October 2008 is not a market-based transaction. A transaction containing aid cannot be used to derive a market price.\n(253)\nThe report of the experts working for the shareholders of Fortis SA/NV also does not support the hypothesis that the Dutch State did not overpay. The report is only a secondary analysis of the valuations and valuation methods that were used during the process and is not a new valuation exercise. Moreover, the report should be seen in its context. The shareholders of Fortis SA/NV were worried that they received a too low price for the assets acquired by the Dutch State and the report mainly addresses that claim i.e. that the Dutch State paid a too low price. Finally it should also be mentioned that the paragraphs to which the Dutch State refers say nothing on ABN AMRO N in isolation, but only refer to the full package of assets acquired by the Dutch State.\n(254)\nTherefore, it should be concluded that Measure Z is a State aid measure in favour of FBN as it provides FBN with capital enabling it to remain on the market. The identified amount of aid is situated in a range between EUR [0 - 2,75] billion and EUR [0,95 - 3,65] billion.\n(255)\nThe Commission has concluded that it was the Dutch State\u2019s responsibility - and not that of ABN AMRO N - to cover the capital shortfall of ABN AMRO Z. Since 3 October 2008, the Dutch State was bound by the terms of the CSA. Consequently, it was obliged to implement the separation of ABN AMRO Holding under the terms described in the CSA. Since the financial supervisor only allowed the separation process to start once the ABN AMRO Z capital problem was settled, the Dutch State and the other consortium members had no other choice than to fill the capital gap of ABN AMRO Z.\n(256)\nABN AMRO N merely acted as an intermediary in a construction to provide ABN AMRO Z, which has no operational activities, with the necessary capital.\n(257)\nThe Commission has not found evidence of indirect aid to ABN AMRO N. The clarifications provided by the Dutch State confirmed that all meaningful financial transactions between ABN AMRO Z and ABN AMRO N took place at market conditions or before the State intervention of 3 October 2008.\n(258)\nAs mentioned in recital 110, the CRI was kept in place after the separation of ABN AMRO II from ABN AMRO Bank to cover the prudential margin of EUR 500 million and the integration costs of EUR 1,2 billion, while cash coming from MCS instruments was injected in ABN AMRO Z. Thus from the date of the separation of ABN AMRO II from ABN AMRO Bank (namely 6 February 2010) (until the end of the CRI in October 2010), the CRI constituted State aid to ABN AMRO II, while the amount of EUR 1,7 billion of MCS the proceeds of which were transferred to ABN AMRO Z ceased to be aid to ABN AMRO N/ABN AMRO II on the same date. Those changes therefore do not change the quantity of aid but only the instruments by which the aid was provided and its duration. That change of form does not raise any issues which need to be considered in the remainder of this Decision.\n(259)\nTherefore, it should be concluded that Measure A does not constitute State aid. Under the CSA, it was a contractual obligation of the Dutch State as a successor of Fortis SA/NV to resolve ABN AMRO Z\u2019s capital shortages. Therefore, the measure does not represent a selective advantage to ABN AMRO N and does not relieve it of costs it would normally have borne.\n(260)\nSince the CRI did not suffice to cover ABN AMRO Z\u2019s capital shortfall, the Dutch State had to inject extra capital via a MCS. The rationale developed in respect of Measure A also applies for Measure B1.\n(261)\nTherefore, it should be concluded that Measure B1 does not constitute State aid, as funding ABN AMRO Z\u2019s capital shortage was an obligation of the Dutch State under the CSA and does not selectively advantage ABN AMRO N.\n(262)\nThe full amount of EUR 1,08 billion (namely Measures B2 and B3 together) includes general separation costs of EUR 480 million, EUR 90 million of costs related to the set-up of a money market desk and a prudential buffer of EUR 500 million. It is important to distinguish between the prudential buffer of EUR 500 million and the other separation costs of EUR 580 million.\n(263)\nWith respect to the other separation costs, the Commission accepts that the CSA obliged the Dutch State to pursue the split of ABN AMRO Holding in three separate parts, following the CSA guidelines. In other words, the separation costs are the consequence of the contractual CSA-obligations of the Dutch State as successor of Fortis SA/NV. On a net basis, ABN AMRO N will not have a better capital position because of that measure, since the Dutch State injects capital which is immediately consumed by separation costs.\n(264)\nThat reasoning does not however hold good for the prudential margin of EUR 500 million as there was no contractual obligation of the State to provide it. If the Dutch State had not provided that assistance, ABN AMRO N would have been in a worse financial position and it would have been obliged for instance to reduce its RWA to free up capital. In other words, the prudential margin is a selective advantage which improved ABN AMRO N\u2019s competitive position when compared to a scenario in which the measure had not been implemented.\n(265)\nTherefore, it should be concluded that, while the general separation costs do not constitute State aid, the prudential margin of EUR 500 million (namely part of Measure B3) does. It provides ABN AMRO N with extra capital and represents a selective advantage.\n(266)\nThe Commission observes that there was no contractual or economic obligation to merge FBN and ABN AMRO N when the Dutch State acquired those companies. The asset management division of ABN AMRO N had indeed been integrated within Fortis Bank SA/NV, but that division is not a must-have business for banks as many other banks source their asset management products from specialised external providers. It was the Dutch State itself which decided on 21 November 2008 to merge ABN AMRO N and FBN as it preferred that option over other restructuring alternatives such as a standalone strategy for the two banks, the rapid sale of one or both of the companies or the rapid sale of major subsidiaries.\n(267)\nFBN and ABN AMRO N could not pay the upfront integration costs of the merger themselves. The Commission observes that the Dutch State has defended the merger in public saying that \u2018the two banks together are stronger than alone\u2019 (112). The merger should indeed lead to major advantages in the form of synergies (estimated at EUR 1,1 billion pre-tax per year) and a stronger competitive position (for example higher market shares, better funding base etc.).\n(268)\nTo get the benefits of the merger, FBN and ABN AMRO N had to incur a variety of costs (namely costs related to the merger remedy, integration costs). The Dutch State paid those costs via a recapitalisation (at a time when capital was still available only with difficulty), while FBN and ABN AMRO N got all the benefits. It therefore provides a clear advantage to FBN and ABN AMRO N.\n(269)\nAccording to the Dutch State, the merger has a positive net present value (113). However, as is already developed extensively in recitals 235 to 242, the Measures B4 and B5 follow other State aid measures and are part of a larger restructuring plan, so that the MEIP does not apply.\n(270)\nTherefore, it should be concluded that Measures B4 and B5 do constitute State aid of respectively EUR 300 million and EUR 1,2 billion. They provide FBN and ABN AMRO N with a selective advantage by providing them capital.\n(271)\nMeasure C provides FBN with capital, which allowed it to comply with the minimum regulatory requirements of the financial supervisor. If the Dutch State had not converted its Tier 2 capital into Tier 1 capital, FBN would have had to discontinue its operations or would have been obliged to look for alternative solutions, such as reducing its RWA to free up Tier 1 capital. Thanks to the measure, FBN ended up with more capital and in a stronger competitive position than in a \u2018no aid\u2019 scenario.\n(272)\nThe Dutch State converted Tier 2 debt instruments with a nominal value of EUR 1,35 billion into an equivalent amount of Tier 1 capital. That conversion leads to the same cash flows as a scenario in which FBN had repurchased the Tier 2 instruments owned by the State at par, followed by capital increase of the same amount. By analogy with recital 250, the Commission could accept that the market value of the debt instruments waived by the Dutch State was below par. Taking into account discounts of similar instruments of peer banks, a discount of EUR [135 - 405] million (or [10 - 30] %) is justified. In other words, FBN indirectly paid EUR [135 - 405] million too much to the Dutch State by implicitly buying back the instruments at par. The aid amount would therefore be EUR [0,945 - 1,215] billion, rather than EUR 1,35 billion.\n(273)\nThe Dutch State\u2019s claim that the measure is in line with the MEIP cannot be accepted. The measure follows other measures contaminated by State aid as explained in recitals 235 to 242, so that the MEIP does not apply.\n(274)\nTherefore, it should be concluded that Measure C constitutes State aid for an amount of EUR [0,945 - 1,215] billion as it provides FBN with an advantage in the form of extra capital.\n(275)\nWith respect to the payments to the other consortium members, the Commission has concluded that the payments are indeed part of CSA-related obligations. The consortium members had anticipated that some unexpected issues would show up during the separation process and the CSA describes the procedures to be used to settle those issues. The Commission has found no evidence that the payments of the Dutch State to the other consortium members led to an extra transfer of net assets to ABN AMRO N or to any other advantage for the company.\n(276)\nTherefore, it should be concluded that Measure D does not constitute State aid as Measure D was a CSA-obligation of the State and not of ABN AMRO N. The Measure implied no selective advantage to ABN AMRO N.\n(277)\nThe Commission has come to the conclusion that the cross liabilities are to a large extent linked to the specific separation context of ABN AMRO N from its parent company ABN AMRO Bank (now RBS NV). Under Dutch company law, Deutsche Bank as the purchaser of New HBU remains liable for debts of ABN AMRO Bank if the latter does not meet its obligations. Therefore Deutsche Bank wants to be indemnified for the risk it runs towards ABN AMRO Bank. If ABN AMRO N had not been separated from ABN AMRO Bank, those cross liabilities between New HBU and ABN AMRO Bank would not have existed. The Dutch State therefore provides a guarantee on a cross liability which exists exclusively because of the separation of ABN AMRO N. The Dutch State does not provide a guarantee on the cross liability between New HBU and ABN AMRO N.\n(278)\nTherefore, it should be concluded that it can be accepted that Measure E does not constitute State aid as the separation of ABN AMRO N from ABN AMRO Bank is an obligation of the Dutch State under the CSA.\n6.1.4. Quantification of the State aid\n(279)\nABN AMRO Group (or FBN and ABN AMRO N before the merger) have benefitted from recapitalisation aid, which is situated in a range between EUR 4,2 billion and EUR 5,45 billion. That amount translates into a range of 2,75 %-3,5 % when compared to ABN AMRO Group\u2019s risk-weighted assets.\n(280)\nThe Commission observes that FBN also benefited from a very sizeable amount of liquidity aid, both in relative and in absolute terms.\nTable 5\nState aid: Summary table of recapitalisation aid and liquidity aid\nRecapitalisation aid\n(all figures in EUR billion)\nState aid min\nState aid max\nRWA of the combined entity FBN-ABN AMRO N\nmin % of RWA\nmax % of RWA\nMeasure Z: Dutch State acquires AA from FBN\n[0 - 2,75]\n[0,95 - 3,65]\n162,6 (114)\n[0-1,7] %\n[0,6 - 2,25] %\nMeasure B3: Separation costs (prudential margin)\n0,5\n0,5\n149,5 (115)\n0,33 %\n0,33 %\nMeasure B4: Capital shortage related to HBU sale\n0,3\n0,3\n149,5\n0,20 %\n0,20 %\nMeasure B5: Integration costs\n1,2\n1,2\n149,5\n0,80 %\n0,80 %\nMeasure C: Tier 2 ==> Tier 1 conversion\n[0,945 - 1,215]\n[0,945 - 1,215]\n149,5\n[0,63 - 0,82] %\n[0,63 - 0,82 %\nTotal recapitalisation aid\n4,2\n5,45\n2,75 %\n3,5 %\nFunding/Liquidity aid\nMeasure Y1: Short-term liquidity facility\n45\nMeasure Y2: Long-term loans\n7,9\nIssue of new debt instrument guaranteed under the Dutch guarantee scheme\n18,8\nTotal funding/liquidity aid\n71,7 (or 52,9 when corrected for double counting) (116)\n6.2. Compatibility of the different aid measures\n(281)\nArticle 107(3)(b) of the Treaty empowers the Commission to declare aid compatible with the internal market if it is intended \u2018to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State\u2019. In respect of the Dutch economy the risk for serious disturbance was confirmed in the Commission\u2019s various approvals of the measures undertaken by the Dutch authorities to combat the financial crisis such as the Guarantee Scheme.\n(282)\nIn this regard, it is however important to underline that the Court of First Instance has emphasised that Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty should be applied restrictively (117), so that the economic disturbance should affect the entire Member State and not just be of a regional dimension. The Commission notes that ABN AMRO N and FBN are leading Dutch banks with a nation-wide branch network and top market positions in a wide range of segments on the Dutch retail and SME banking market. In the context of the various uncertainties surrounding the recovery from the global financial and economic crisis, the discontinuity of those banks would create a serious disturbance for the Dutch economy and therefore State aid from the Dutch government can be assessed under Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty.\n(283)\nThe Commission set out more details on the compatibility of specific measures in its Banking Communication, Recapitalisation Communication and Impaired Asset Communication, and on the required restructuring in its Restructuring Communication.\n(284)\nThe individual measures should be tested against the relevant Communications of the Commission. The capital relief instrument does not cover impaired assets and is de facto a proxy for a recapitalisation measure. The general principles behind the Impaired Asset Communication should however hold also for the capital relief instrument to be in line with the internal market. In order to maintain a level playing field, the Commission had to check whether the CRI was not used to shift expected losses on the portfolio to the State. Measure A should also contain sufficient exit incentives and in case the economic situation would deteriorate, ABN AMRO N still had to take some losses via a vertical slice. The liquidity measures (Measures Y1 and Y2) should be judged against the Banking Communication and the recapitalisation measures (and more specifically Measures Z, B4 and B5 as well as the prudential margin of EUR 500 million which was part of Measures B3 and C) against the Recapitalisation Communication.\n6.2.1. Compatibility of Measures Y1 and Y2 under the Banking Communication\n(285)\nIn order to comply with the Banking Communication, Measures Y1 and Y2 should be well-targeted, proportionate and designed to avoid undue distortions of competition.\n(286)\nThe Commission repeats the conclusion of recital 51 of the Decision of 8 April 2009 that the measure to cut all the links between FBN and its liquidity-constrained parent Fortis SA/NV was necessary to shelter FBN from the then acute difficulties of its parent company. Therefore, the measures can be considered well-targeted in order to achieve the rescue of FBN.\n(287)\nThe measures Y1 and Y2 should also be proportionate and not unnecessarily distort competition. In that regard, the Commission looks favourably at the pricing system developed by the Dutch State, which aimed to create a level playing field with the Guarantee Scheme (see recital 169). In respect of guarantee schemes, the Commission has consistently requested Member States to charge a premium of at least 50 basis points for guarantees longer than 3 months (and not longer than 12 months). The Commission found that the Dutch State did not consistently ask EURIBOR + 50 basis points for loans of longer than 3 months. Therefore, the Commission can only declare Measure Y1 compatible with the internal market on the condition that a corrective payment of EUR 18,2 million is made to ensure that loans with a maturity of more than 3 months are effectively remunerated at EURIBOR + 50 basis points. The Commission notes positively that all the liquidity facilities were repaid and ended in June 2009.\n(288)\nWith respect to Measure Y2, the Commission observes that since the Dutch State did not change the interest rate and maturity of the loans, FBN benefitted from relatively cheap loans, which could distort competition. Therefore, the Commission can only declare the measure compatible with the Banking Communication if all the conditions set out later in this Decision and more specifically the measures to limit distortions of competition are correctly implemented.\n6.2.2. Compatibility of Measures Z, B3 (namely EUR 500 million), B4 and B5 and C under the Recapitalisation Communication\n(289)\nThe Commission has concluded that the measures concerned were put in place to sort out a genuine need and represented the minimum necessary to fully restore the viability of the companies concerned.\n(290)\nWith respect to remuneration, the Commission observed that the State was already the owner of 100 % of the ordinary shares of FBN (and indirectly of 100 % of ABN AMRO N). All those measures were indispensable to preserve the value of that shareholding.\n(291)\nABN AMRO Group will realise a RoE of approximately [\u2026] % in 2013, which indicates that thanks to all the State interventions, a viable and profitable entity has been created.\n(292)\nAll the available valuations of ABN AMRO Group are well above the sum of the aid in measures Z, B3, B4, B5 and C (namely between EUR 4,2 billion and EUR 5,45 billion). Thus the State will receive an appropriate remuneration on the aid granted to ABN AMRO N and FBN (118).\n(293)\nIn view of the above, the Commission has concluded that Measures Z, B3, B4, B5 and C are compatible with the Recapitalisation Communication if the conditions set out later in this Decision are correctly implemented.\n6.2.3. Compatibility of the capital relief instrument with the principles set forward in the Impaired Asset Communication\n(294)\nThe Commission acknowledges that the capital relief instrument put in place by the Dutch State differs from the traditional impaired asset measures evaluated in other cases. While other impaired asset measures sought to relieve banks from impaired assets, the portfolio protected by the CRI is a traditional Dutch mortgage portfolio of which neither ABN AMRO N nor external experts expected the performance to deteriorate to a significant extent.\n(295)\nThe Commission observes that a traditional recapitalisation at the level of ABN AMRO N was not opportune for the Dutch State, because it was not a separate legal entity at the relevant moment and the Dutch State would not have been in a position to ring-fence its capital contribution, which could have had negative consequences especially in distress scenarios. Moreover, private capital relief instruments were not feasible given the size of the transaction and the complexities related to the separation of ABN AMRO Bank NV, the parent company of ABN AMRO N and ABN AMRO Z.\n(296)\nGiven that particular background, the Commission can accept that the CRI is an alternative to a traditional capital increase rather than a protection against toxic assets and is therefore a necessary and appropriately targeted measure to sort out the specific capital problem of ABN AMRO Z.\n(297)\nIn spite of the fact that the measure is mainly a proxy measure for a recapitalisation, the measure should be consistent with other capital relief schemes, thereby protecting the internal market as explained in recital 284.\n(298)\nThe Commission has concluded that the Dutch State has provided sufficient evidence to show that the valuation was such that ABN AMRO N or its legal successor will bear the expected losses. Market data (in particular rating reports), historical data and recent evidence from ABN AMRO N show that the yearly first loss tranche of 20 basis points should suffice to cover expected losses.\n(299)\nThe remuneration that ABN AMRO N pays is not lower than that requested in the Impaired Asset Communication and the Recapitalisation Communication. The remuneration implies that ABN AMRO N will pay 10 % on the capital that is relieved by the transaction as a result of the reduction of RWA. That rate compares favourably to the minimum rates set out in point (27) of the Recapitalisation Communication. Given the relatively high remuneration, the vertical slice of 5 % and the claw-back mechanisms can be considered to be in line with point (24) and footnote 15 of the Impaired Asset Communication.\n(300)\nMeasure A also contains sufficient incentives to exit. The call options described in recital 107 indicate that it is easy for ABN AMRO N (or now ABN AMRO Group) to terminate the measure. Moreover, the pricing is such that the measure becomes more expensive as time goes by. The contractual terms imply that the pricing will not be adjusted when ABN AMRO Group started to calculate its capital requirements based on Basel II. That lack of adjustment will reduce the capital relief effect of the measure while the guarantee fee will not fall. Moreover, the first loss tranche is calculated as a percentage of the initial portfolio value, so that the first loss tranche as a percentage of the outstanding portfolio (namely initial portfolio corrected for, inter alia, repayments) will gradually increase over time.\n(301)\nIn view of the characteristics of the CRI and in view of the December 2009 Restructuring Plan and the updated November 2010 Restructuring Plan as described under heading 2.3 of this Decision, the Commission considers Measure A to be compatible with the general principles of the Impaired Asset Measure and with the principles of the internal market as explained in recital 284.\n(302)\nThe fact that the CRI was called by ABN AMRO Group soon after it implemented Basel II requirments confirms ex-post the analysis made in recitals 294 to 301.\n6.3. Assessment of the aid and of the December 2009 Restructuring Plan and the updated November 2010 Restructuring Plan under the Restructuring Communication\n(303)\nGiven the amount and the scope of the aid as described in the preceding paragraphs and in particular the fact that the recapitalisation aid exceeds 2 % of RWA, the Commission believes that in-depth restructuring is required, in line with point (4) of the Restructuring Communication.\n6.3.1. Viability\n(304)\nA restructuring plan should demonstrate that the bank\u2019s strategy is based on a coherent concept and show that the bank has restored long-term viability without reliance on State support.\n(305)\nAs already concluded in the Decision of 5 February 2010, the business models of FBN and ABN AMRO N did not rely on excessive risk taking and unsustainable lending practices. The two entities were, however, left vulnerable and unequipped in certain core fields as a consequence of the separation from their respective parent groups. After its parent company was broken up, ABN AMRO N had poor access to larger companies, no longer had an international network and lacked a number of product and IT capabilities. FBN was also heavily affected by the separation from its parent company and its funding relied heavily on wholesale markets. ABN AMRO Group\u2019s December 2009 Restructuring Plan (and also the updated November 2010 Restructuring Plan) shows that the integration of ABN AMRO N and FBN substantially reduces the weaknesses of each of the individual entities. The combination of FBN and ABN AMRO N helped to allay some of those concerns. The large retail and private banking franchise of ABN AMRO N was deposit-rich which created a better funding profile for the integrated group, FBN sorted out part of the international network problem of ABN AMRO N and the two groups together were better able to sort out, for example IT-related problems (namely they did not each have to rebuild separately an IT-platform and other support tools).\n(306)\nThe financial projections show that at the end of the restructuring period the combined entity should be able to cover its costs and realise an appropriate return on equity of approximately [\u2026] %. Even in a stress scenario, the company will continue to make profits, while its capital adequacy ratios remain above the minimum regulatory thresholds. Thus the company\u2019s capital buffer seems sufficiently high - after the repeated interventions of the State - to weather future adverse circumstances without having to return to the State again.\n(307)\nAs the figures of the second half of 2008 and the first half of 2009 showed, it is of crucial importance to realise sufficiently high net interest revenues to create a fully viable company. Therefore, the December 2009 Restructuring Plan and the updated November 2010 Restructuring Plan can only be declared compatible with the viability requirements of the Restructuring Communication on the condition that ABN AMRO Group will strive to realise the updated net interest revenues set out in the November 2010 Restructuring Plan. ABN AMRO Group should report on its progress to the Commission on a regular basis - at least every quarter. If ABN AMRO Group observes divergences compared with those projections, it should immediately undertake corrective action.\n(308)\nA restructuring plan should contain projections with the necessary breakdown and restructuring also requires a withdrawal from activities which would remain structurally loss-making in the medium-term (119). In recital 120 of the Decision of 5 February 2010, the Commission doubted whether the viability issues of the Prime Fund Solutions division - which reported an important Madoff-related loss in 2008 - had been adequately tackled. By selling PFS to Credit Suisse (see also recital 74), that issue has been resolved. The detailed projections at divisional level show that both in a base case and a stress case all divisions contribute positively to results. Therefore, the Commission can conclude that there are no other divisions with structural profitability problems and, in light of that conclusion, no further divestments are needed to improve the viability of the company.\n6.3.2. Burden-sharing/Minimum necessary\n(309)\nA restructuring plan should clearly show that the aid has remained limited to the minimum necessary. Costs associated with the restructuring should not only be borne by the State but to a maximum extent also by those who invested in the bank. In other words, the bank and its capital holders should contribute to the restructuring as much as possible with their own resources. Restructuring aid should be limited to covering costs which are necessary for the restoration of viability. Accordingly, an undertaking should not be endowed with public resources which could be used to finance market distorting activities not linked to the restructuring process like, for example, acquisitions (120).\n(310)\nThe Restructuring Communication recalls that an acquisition ban is necessary to keep the aid limited to the minimum necessary. Point (23) of the Restructuring Communication mentions explicitly that \u2018an undertaking should not be endowed with public resources which could be used to finance market-distorting activities not linked to the restructuring process. For example, acquisitions of shares in other undertakings or new investments cannot be financed through State aid unless this is essential for restoring an undertaking\u2019s viability\u2019.\n(311)\nThe Restructuring Communication also links an acquisition ban to distortions of competition. In points (39) and (40), the Communication explains that \u2018State aid must not be used to the detriment of competitors, which do not enjoy similar public support\u2019, and that \u2018Banks should not use State aid for the acquisition of competing businesses. This condition should apply for at least 3 years and may continue until the end of the restructuring period, depending on the scope, size and duration of the aid\u2019.\n(312)\nIn line with point (40) of the Restructuring Communication, the aid can only be declared compatible on the condition that ABN AMRO Group strictly applies an acquisition ban (121) in the 3 years following the date of the present Decision. The acquisition ban should be extended if the Dutch State continues to own more than 50 % of ABN AMRO Group after 3 years. However, the acquisition ban should not extend beyond 5 years. While part of the aid has already been redeemed, some measures (in particular measures Z and C) cannot be redeemed by the bank due to the form in which they were granted (i.e. not in the form of a hybrid debt instrument). The end of the State ownership is a proxy for estimating when the advantage derived from the aid ends.\n(313)\nThe Commission observes that the December 2009 Restructuring Plan (completed with worst case financial projections on 23 March 2010) indicated already that ABN AMRO Group has become a viable entity that should realise a decent return on equity and is even expected to realise decent profits in worse economic conditions. The updated November 2010 Restructuring Plan confirmed this analysis. That return to viability does not hinge on acquisitions. An acquisition ban therefore does not go against the return to viability.\n(314)\nThe Commission considers that, pursuant to point (26) of the Restructuring Communication, a hybrid coupon ban and a hybrid call ban are unavoidable (122). In a restructuring context, measures which reduce the total amount of own funds are not compatible with the objective of burden-sharing and the minimum necessary requirement.\n(315)\nAs stated in point (26) of the Restructuring Communication, \u2018banks should not use State aid to remunerate own funds (equity and subordinated debt) when its activities do not generate sufficient profits\u2019. A detailed assessment of ABN AMRO Group\u2019s December 2009 Restructuring Plan (and the updated November 2010 Restructuring Plan) allows the Commission to conclude that in approximately 2 years\u2019 time, ABN AMRO Group should have restored its viability as is illustrated by an acceptable RoE of approximately [\u2026] % in respectively 2012 and 2013. Against that background, a hybrid coupon and hybrid call ban of 2 years (123) seems to provide appropriate burden-sharing from the company\u2019s capital holders (124). Thus the aid can only be declared compatible on the condition of a two-year hybrid coupon and call ban as described in detail in Article 8 of the operational part of the Decision. That coupon and call ban should also apply to the holders of FBNH Preferred Shares to remove the doubt expressed by the Commission in recital 130 of the Decision of 5 February 2010.\n(316)\nIn other cases, burden-sharing measures are also necessary to make sure that rescued banks bear adequate responsibility for the consequences of their past behaviour so as to create appropriate incentives for the future behaviour of themselves and others. That factor is less relevant in this case as the problems of the company were to a large extent linked to the former parent company Fortis SA/NV (see section 6.3.3 \u2018Measures to limit distortions of competition\u2019). Therefore it can also be accepted, from a burden-sharing perspective, that there are no major divestments apart from the disposal of PFS and Intertrust which jointly accounted for [\u2026] % of total operating income and [\u2026] % of RWA.\n6.3.3. Measures to limit distortions of competition\n(317)\nWith respect to the measures needed to limit distortion of competition, the present case presents some atypical features.\n(318)\nPoint (28) of the Restructuring Communication indicates the type of distortion of competition which may occur when State aid is provided in order to support financial stability in times of systemic crisis: \u2018Where banks compete on the merits of their products and services, those which accumulate excessive risk and/or rely on unsustainable business models will ultimately lose market share and, possibly, exit the market while more efficient competitors expand on or enter the markets concerned. State aid prolongs past distortions of competition created by excessive risk-taking and unsustainable business models by artificially supporting the market power of beneficiaries. In this way it may create a moral hazard for the beneficiaries, while weakening the incentives for non-beneficiaries to compete, invest and innovate\u2019.\n(319)\nAs explained in the Decision of 3 December 2008, the difficulties of Fortis SA/NV and Fortis Bank SA/NV followed from excessive risk: (i) Fortis Bank SA/NV invested a large amount of money in structured credit and (ii) Fortis SA/NV decided to purchase ABN AMRO N at a very high price. In order to authorize aid to such banks, the Commission requires a significant reduction of the market presence of the beneficiary. In this respect, the Commission observes that Fortis SA/NV has been cut into four: the Belgian and international insurance assets are still part of the listed Fortis SA/NV (which after the collapse of Fortis SA/NV was renamed Ageas); Fortis Bank SA/NV and BGL have been acquired by BNP Paribas; the Dutch State acquired FBN (including ABN AMRO N); and the Dutch State also acquired the Dutch insurance activities (125). In other words, Fortis SA/NV has been split in smaller entities and Fortis Bank SA/NV itself has been cut into two parts (126).\n(320)\nThe Commission observes that the measures in favour of FBN and ABN AMRO N assessed in this Decision have specific features which differ from other restructuring cases it had to deal with during the current crisis, including those of Fortis Bank SA/NV and Fortis SA/NV. In this case, FBN and ABN AMRO N do not primarily need State aid because they took flawed management decisions. The need for State aid does not stem for instance from the accumulation of excessive risks in their investments or in their lending policy, or because they had undertaken an unsustainable pricing policy. Equally, the difficulty of Fortis SA/NV and Fortis Bank SA/NV did not stem from risky lending or pricing policies in the retail banking, private banking or commercial banking activities, which were on the contrary profitable. Consequently, the Commission considers that the aid to FBN and ABN AMRO N is significantly less distortive than the aid approved in favour of financial institutions which had accumulated excessive risks. Therefore, the Commission considers that further divestments are not necessary.\n(321)\nHowever, it should to be ensured that the State aid is not used by FBN and ABN AMRO N to grow at the expense of competitors, for instance by implementing an unsustainable pricing policy or by acquiring other financial institutions. If that were to happen, the aid would \u2018weaken the incentives for non-beneficiaries to compete, invest and innovate\u2019 and could undermine \u2018incentives for cross-border activities\u2019 by discouraging entry in the Dutch market.\n(322)\nThe State aid can therefore only be declared compatible if there are sufficient measures in place ensuring that the State aid is not used to the detriment of competitors, some of which did not receive similar public support. A level playing-field should remain in place between banks which received public support and those which did not. It should also be avoided that the State aid weakens incentives for non-beneficiaries to compete, invest and innovate and that entry barriers are created which could undermine cross-border activity.\n(323)\nThe Restructuring Communication provides that the nature and form of such caps will depend on the amount of aid and the conditions and circumstances under which it was granted and also on the characteristics of the market(s) on which the beneficiary bank will operate. The amount of aid has been described in section 6.1.3 \u2018Quantification of Aid\u2019. The specific conditions and circumstances under which it was granted have been discussed at the beginning of the present section. As mentioned in point (32) of the Restructuring Communication, the size and relative importance of the bank on its market(s) play also a role. If the restructured bank has limited remaining market presence, additional measures are less likely to be needed. Therefore, the conditions necessary to declare the aid compatible mainly relate to retail and private banking as the company has already substantially reduced its presence in commercial banking via the divestment of New HBU.\n(324)\nThe aid can be declared compatible with the Restructuring Communication on the condition that ABN AMRO Group implements the measures described in points (325) to (329).\n(325)\nIn retail and private banking, the aid can be declared compatible on the condition that ABN AMRO Group will not be the price leader for standardized savings and mortgage products. In line with point (44) of the Restructuring Communication, ABN AMRO Group should not offer price conditions which cannot be matched by non-aided competitors.\n(326)\nSince a price leadership ban might be less effective in segments with many non-standardised products such as private banking in the Netherlands where there was a specific complaint, an additional condition is needed in line with point (44) of the Restructuring Communication to declare the aid compatible. ABN AMRO Group must aim to achieve the net interest revenues as presented to the Commission on 8 November 2010. ABN AMRO Group should therefore take appropriate action as soon as it observes that it undershoots its projections, especially when the latter is due to low interest margins.\n(327)\nSince a price leadership ban is difficult to implement and monitor in private banking, it is necessary to implement other suitable remedies to ensure effective competition, such as measures that favour entry, as described in point (44) of the Restructuring Communication. In that regard, a necessary condition to declare the aid compatible is that ABN AMRO Group will implement a measure that facilitates switching. Concretely, ABN AMRO Group should cover its own administrative and transfer and transaction costs for its customers of Private Banking NL, which are the direct consequence of the ending of the private banking relationship and the transferring of portfolios (127). That measure should apply during a period of two consecutive months, starting as soon as possible and within a year after the date of the Decision at the latest. As soon as the two-month period starts, the Bank will inform all its private banking customers in an unambiguous way of the possibility offered to them. ABN AMRO Group should also provide evidence to the Commission that the customer transfers are executed following the normal proceedings and that there were no delays in the customer transfer process.\n(328)\nIf the measures to limit undue distortions of competition and more particularly the specific measures in retail and private banking are correctly implemented, they would also sufficiently addresses the issues raised by the complainant. When investigating those issues, the Commission found that ABN AMRO has been pricing some products temporarily at a loss but that pricing policy took place in a liquidity-constrained environment where all banks were competing aggressively for savings, while there was also the specific start-up context of MoneYou (whose launch was decided before the Fortis SA/NV collapse).\n(329)\nPoint (44) of the Restructuring Communication also mentions that banks should not invoke State support as a competitive advantage when marketing their financial offers. Therefore, a condition to declare the aid compatible is that ABN AMRO Group will not use State aid in its marketing campaigns and communication to investors, for a period of 3 years. Those prohibitions should extend to up to a period of 5 years as long as the Dutch State holds a shareholding of at least 50 % in ABN AMRO Group.\n(330)\nFrom the perspective of undue distortions of competition, the Commission regards positively the divestments of PFS and Intertrust. The disposal of PFS reduces the company\u2019s attractiveness towards institutional customers, while Intertrust provided, inter alia, services which could make the private banking franchise stronger. As a result, its sale might make it easier for competitors to improve their competitive position as against that of ABN AMRO Mees Pierson. The Commission also considers that the fact that part of the aid has been repaid contributes to limit the distortions of competition. The Commission also takes a favourable view on the dividend policy as described in recital 75.\n6.3.4. Conclusion\n(331)\nThus, if all the conditions described in sections 6.2 and 6.3 are correctly implemented, the December 2009 Restructuring Plan updated by the November 2010 Restructuring Plan provides sufficient evidence that the long-term viability of ABN AMRO Group has been restored. The December 2009 Restructuring Plan updated by the November 2010 Restructuring Plan provides sufficient burden-sharing and contains adequate measures to limit undue distortions of competition. Therefore, the Commission can conditionally declare the December 2009 Restructuring Plan as updated by the November 2010 Restructuring Plan in line with the Restructuring Communication.\n7. CONCLUSION\nThe Commission finds that the Netherlands has unlawfully implemented the State aid listed in section 6.1.3 \u2018Quantification of the State aid\u2019 in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty. However, that aid can be found compatible if the conditions set out in sections 6.2 and 6.3 and described more in detail in the operative part of this Decision are implemented.\nThe Commission notes that the Dutch State has exceptionally accepted to receive the text of this Decision only in English.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid provided by the Netherlands to ABN AMRO Group is compatible with the internal market, subject to the conditions set out in Articles 3 to 9.\nThat State aid was provided as follows:\n-\nrecapitalisation aid worth between EUR 4,2 billion and EUR 5,45 billion respectively in favour of FBN and ABN AMRO N, and\n-\nEUR 71,7 billion of liquidity aid.\nArticle 2\nFor the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions apply:\n(a)\n\u2018ABN AMRO Group\u2019 means ABN AMRO Group and its wholly owned direct or indirect subsidiaries, including the entities in which ABN AMRO Group has sole control within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (128).\n(b)\n\u2018rank first\u2019 means to offer the most attractive price.\n(c)\n\u2018retail customers\u2019 means all individual customers (as opposed to corporate customers).\n(d)\n\u2018standardised retail savings and deposit products\u2019 means all standardised retail and deposit products covering at any point in time at least 85 % in volume of the products of ABN AMRO Group in the retail savings and deposit market.\n(e)\n\u2018standardised mortgage products\u2019 means all standardised retail and deposit products covering at any point in time at least 85 % in volume of the products of ABN AMRO Group in mortgages.\n(f)\nPrivate Banking NL means all clients of BU Private Banking except those that are part of Private Banking International (129)\nArticle 3\n1. In the absence of the Commission\u2019s prior authorisation, ABN AMRO Group shall not rank first with respect to standardised retail savings and deposit products for retail customers among the [\u2026] financial institutions having the largest market share in volume on the Dutch retail savings market in any of the following segments:\n-\nsavings accounts;\n-\nfixed term deposits with a period of 1 year;\n-\nfixed term deposits with a period of 2 years;\n-\nfixed term deposits with a period of 3 years;\n-\nfixed term deposits with a period of 4 years; and\n-\nfixed term deposits with a period of 5 years.\nNotwithstanding the first subparagraph, where three financial institutions jointly rank first among the [\u2026] financial institutions having the largest market share in a segment of the Dutch retail savings and deposit market, ABN AMRO Group may match the rate of those three financial institutions with respect to standardised products in the corresponding segment.\n2. In the absence of the Commission\u2019s prior authorisation, ABN AMRO Group shall not rank first with respect to any standardised type of mortgage among the [\u2026] financial institutions having the largest market share on the Dutch retail mortgage market.\nNotwithstanding the first subparagraph, where three financial institutions jointly rank first among the [\u2026] financial institutions having the largest market share in the Dutch retail mortgage market, ABN AMRO Group may match the rate of those three financial institutions with respect to the corresponding standardised type of mortgage.\n3. To ensure compliance with paragraphs 1 and 2, ABN AMRO Group shall on a permanent basis, and at least every week, monitor the conditions offered by the [\u2026] other financial institutions having the largest market share in volume on the respective Dutch savings markets, to the extent these conditions are available in the public domain. If the figures of any of those [\u2026] other financial institutions are not publicly available, they will be replaced by the figures of next largest financial institutions from the market share ranking.\nAs soon as ABN AMRO Group detects that it offers a more favourable price for any of its products than that price which it is allowed to offer on the basis of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of this article ABN AMRO Group shall immediately inform the Commission. It shall immediately adjust the products price and implement the price adjustment as soon as possible\u2019.\nWith respect to retail savings and deposit products, ABN AMRO Group shall implement the adjustment no later than ten working days from the date on which it noticed the condition variation. However, if the variation concerns products for which the price can only be amended at the end of a month and there are less than ten working days between the time when the variation was noticed and the end of a month, ABN AMRO Group shall implement the adjustment at the first opportunity from the end of the subsequent month.\nWith respect to mortgages, ABN AMRO Group shall adjust its pricing within ten working days from the date on which it noticed the condition variation and the adjustment shall be implemented no later than fifteen working days from the date on which the variation from the condition was noticed.\n4. The condition as laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply for 3 years as from the date of this Decision. ABN AMRO Group shall submit to the Commission a compliance report with this condition on a quarterly basis and at the latest within 2 weeks of publication of ABN AMRO Group\u2019s quarterly financial results.\nArticle 4\n1. ABN AMRO Group shall use its best efforts to achieve the projections (including net interest revenues) submitted to the Commission in the December 2009 Restructuring Plan, as updated by the November 2010 Restructuring Plan. The November 2010 projections shall be achieved, at ABN AMRO Group\u2019s consolidated level.\nABN AMRO Group shall report to the Commission on a quarterly basis setting out a breakdown of the projections and the actual figures (including net interest revenues) at the level of the four segments defined in the December 2009 Restructuring Plan and the November 2010 Restructuring Plan: namely, Retail Banking, Private Banking NL, Private Banking International, Commercial & Merchant Banking.\nABN AMRO Group may submit a reasoned request to the Commission to revise its projections (including net interest revenues) to take into account external developments.\n2. ABN AMRO Group shall provide a breakdown of net interest revenue projections into volumes and margins on a consolidated level and at the level of private banking.\nABN AMRO Group shall report to the Commission on a quarterly basis, and at the latest within 2 weeks after the publication of its quarterly financial results, setting out whether the net interest revenues achieved at the consolidated level are in line with the projections referred to in paragraph 1. That report shall also set out a comparison of projected margins and actual margins at the consolidated level and at the level of private banking.\nIf the net interest revenues achieved at the consolidated level are not in line with those projections, ABN AMRO Group shall set out in that report the measures taken to achieve those projections.\n3. The obligations laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply for 3 years as from the date of this Decision.\nArticle 5\n1. ABN AMRO Group shall not acquire control of more than [0 - 7] % of any undertaking.\n2. By derogation from paragraph 1, ABN AMRO Group may make acquisitions if the total gross cumulative purchase price (excluding the assumption or transfer of debt in relation to such acquisitions) paid by ABN AMRO Group for all such acquisitions during a period of 3 years following the date of this Decision is less than EUR [0 - 600] million.\nThe prohibition laid down in paragraph 1 shall not apply to private equity acquisitions by ABN AMRO Group if they fit within its business plan and the planned budget of its \u2018Private Equity\u2019 division as submitted to the Commission on 5 October 2010.\nThe prohibition laid down in paragraph 1 shall also not apply to [\u2026] equity stakes taken by ABN AMRO Group\u2019s division \u2018Energy, Commodities and Transportation\u2019 in support of its normal financing business if they fit within ABN AMRO Group\u2019s business plan and the planned budget of that division as submitted to the Commission on 10 January 2010.\nABN AMRO Group shall report to the Commission on a quarterly basis and at the latest within 2 weeks after the publication of its quarterly financial results. That report shall list actual acquisitions by the \u2018Private Equity\u2019 and \u2018Energy, Commodities and Transportation\u2019 divisions. The report shall also provide detailed information on ABN AMRO Group\u2019s other acquisitions which it is allowed to make on the basis of the first subparagraph.\n3. The prohibition laid down in paragraph 1 shall apply for at least 3 years as from the date of this Decision or until the date on which the Netherlands\u2019 shareholding stake in ABN AMRO Group falls below 50 %, whichever is later. That prohibition shall cease to apply at the latest 5 years as from the date of this Decision.\nIn the event that the prohibition laid down in paragraph 1 applies for more than 3 years as from the date of this Decision, the total gross cumulative purchase price applicable under subparagraph 1 of paragraph 2 shall be increased by EUR [0 - 200] million per year.\nArticle 6\nABN AMRO Group shall not advertise the fact that it is State-owned nor make any reference to any State support received in its communications with existing or potential customers and or investors for a period of at least 3 years as from the date of this Decision or until the date on which the Netherlands\u2019 stake falls below 50 % of the shares in ABN AMRO Group, whichever is later. That prohibition shall cease to apply at the latest 5 years as from the date of this Decision.\nNotwithstanding that prohibition, ABN AMRO Group may refer to the fact that it is State-owned and to any other State support it received whenever such reference is required under applicable legislative or regulatory provisions.\nArticle 7\n1. ABN AMRO Group shall offer customers of Private Banking NL the option to end their private banking relationship with ABN AMRO Group and to transfer their investment portfolios to other banks. That offer shall hold for a period of two consecutive months (\u2018the relevant period\u2019).\nThe relevant period shall start as soon as possible after the date of this Decision allowing for (if required) a reasonable period for preparation, and within a year after the date of this Decision at the latest. ABN AMRO Group shall submit for approval to the Commission a start date for the relevant period at least 4 weeks before the relevant period is supposed to start.\n2. ABN AMRO Group shall provide to all its Private Banking NL customers the terms of the offer, described in paragraph 1, in an unambiguous way on the first day of the relevant period at the latest. The information to be sent by ABN AMRO Group to its customers shall first be provided to the Commission at least 4 weeks before that information is sent to its customers.\n3. ABN AMRO Group shall facilitate the closure of private banking relationships where so requested by customers, using the ordinary procedures at the lowest cost possible. If the customer decides to transfer its position and/or (related) security rights, and if that transfer is possible from the perspective of the transferee bank, ABN AMRO shall facilitate such a transfer. Customers shall be informed of the option to transfer positions rather than liquidating them and will be informed of the costs of the two options.\nABN AMRO Group shall cover its own administrative, transfer and transaction costs which are the direct consequence of the ending of the private banking relationship and the transfer of portfolios (130).\nABN AMRO Group shall not be obliged to cover other financial consequences for the customer.\nArticle 8\nABN AMRO Group shall not pay any coupon on core Tier 1, Tier-1 and Tier-2 capital instruments (including hybrid capital instruments and preference shares) issued before the date of this Decision or exercise any call option rights in relation to such capital instruments until 10 March 2013 included, unless there is legal obligation to do so.\nABN AMRO Group may issue new capital instruments after the date of this Decision or pay coupons on such new capital instruments, unless such issues or payments result in an obligation to pay coupons on its own existing capital instruments\nBy derogation from the first subparagraph, ABN AMRO Group may call FCC instrument (namely EUR 87,5 million, 6,25 % non-cumulative non-voting perpetual class A series I preference shares issued by Fortis Capital Company Ltd).\nUntil 10 March 2013 included, ABN AMRO Group shall only pay a dividend on its ordinary shares if that dividend exceeds EUR 100 million (131).\nArticle 9\nBy 30 June 2011 at the latest, ABN AMRO Group shall pay to the Netherlands an adjusted interest rate on the loans identified in the electronic mail from the Commission to the Dutch State dated 24 June 2010. The amounts adjusted with interest come to EUR 18 152 722.\nArticle 10\nWithin 2 months of notification of this Decision, the Netherlands shall inform the Commission of the measures it has taken to comply with this Decision.\nArticle 11\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.\nDone at Brussels, 5 April 2011.", "references": ["80", "44", "90", "28", "81", "89", "73", "17", "86", "25", "60", "30", "70", "69", "24", "13", "19", "37", "66", "53", "71", "33", "43", "99", "7", "72", "77", "22", "3", "85", "No Label", "4", "15", "20", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "15", "20", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 56/2012\nof 23 January 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (2) confirming the restrictive measures taken since 2007 and providing for additional restrictive measures against Iran in order to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010) and accompanying measures as requested by the European Council in its Declaration of 17 June 2010.\n(2)\nThese restrictive measures included the freezing of the assets of certain persons and entities.\n(3)\nOn 23 January 2012 the Council adopted Decision 2012/35/CFSP by which it added to the list of targeted persons or entities financial institutions, in relation to which specific derogations were provided concerning the financing of trade.\n(4)\nSome of those measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(5)\nIt is therefore necessary to amend Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, in order to incorporate the above-mentioned derogations.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, the latter should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 the following Article is inserted:\n\"Article 19a\n1. The prohibitions in Article 16 shall not apply to:\n(a)\n(i)\na transfer by or through Central Bank of Iran of funds or economic resources received and frozen after the date of its designation, or\n(ii)\na transfer of funds or economic resources to or through Central Bank of Iran where the transfer is related to a payment by a person or entity not listed in Annex VII or VIII due in connection with a specific trade contract,\nprovided that the competent authority of the relevant Member State has determined, on a case-by-case basis, that the payment will not directly or indirectly be received by any other person or entity listed in Annex VII or VIII; or\n(b)\na transfer made by or through Central Bank of Iran of frozen funds or economic resources in order to provide financial institutions within the jurisdiction of the Member States with liquidity for the financing of trade, provided that the transfer has been authorised by the competent authority of the relevant Member State.\n2. The prohibitions in Article16 shall not prevent Bank Tejarat, for a period of two months, from the date on which it was designated, from making a payment from funds or economic resources received and frozen after the date of its designation or from receiving a payment after the date of its designation, provided that:\n(a)\nsuch payment is due in connection with a specific trade contract; and\n(b)\nthe competent authority of the relevant Member State has determined on a case-by-case basis that the payment will not directly or indirectly be received by a person or entity listed in Annex VII and Annex VIII.\".\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["1", "77", "64", "22", "18", "43", "93", "28", "62", "55", "14", "63", "0", "81", "52", "45", "98", "19", "6", "8", "74", "60", "32", "71", "75", "96", "67", "70", "82", "48", "No Label", "3", "30", "95"], "gold": ["3", "30", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 648/2011\nof 4 July 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 as regards the period of application of the transitional measures concerning the conditions for exempting certain animals from the exit ban provided for in Council Directive 2000/75/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/75/EC of 20 November 2000 laying down specific provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(c), Articles 11 and 12 and the third paragraph of Article 19 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 of 26 October 2007 on implementing rules for Council Directive 2000/75/EC as regards the control, monitoring, surveillance and restrictions on movements of certain animals of susceptible species in relation to bluetongue (2) lays down rules for the control, monitoring, surveillance and restrictions on movements of animals, in relation to bluetongue, in and from the restricted zones.\n(2)\nArticle 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 lays down conditions for exemption from the exit ban provided for in Directive 2000/75/EC. Article 8(1) of that Regulation provides that movements of animals, their semen, ova and embryos, from a holding or semen collection or storage centre located in a restricted zone to another holding or semen collection or storage centre are to be exempted from that exit ban provided that they comply with the conditions set out in Annex III to that Regulation or with any other appropriate animal health guarantees based on a positive outcome of a risk assessment of measures against the spread of the bluetongue virus and protection against attacks by vectors, required by the competent authority of the place of origin and approved by the competent authority of the place of destination, prior to the movement of such animals.\n(3)\nArticle 9(a)(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 provides that, as a transitional measure and by way of derogation from the conditions set out in Annex III to that Regulation, Member States of destination may require that the movement of certain animals which are covered by the exemption, provided for in Article 8(1) thereof, be subjected to additional conditions, on the basis of a risk assessment taking into account the entomological and epidemiological conditions in which animals are being introduced. Those additional conditions specify that the animals must be less than 90 days old, they must have been kept since birth in vector protected confinement and they must have been subject to certain tests referred to in Annex III to that Regulation.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1266/2007, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1142/2010 (3), prolonged the period of application of the transitional measures provided for in Article 9(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 for another 6 months, until 30 June 2011. At the time of adoption of Regulation (EU) No 1142/2010, it was expected that new rules on criteria for vector protected establishments would have been laid down in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 and that those transitional measures would therefore no longer be necessary. However, those planned amendments to Annex III to that Regulation have not yet been made.\n(5)\nAccordingly, it is necessary to prolong the period of application of the transitional measures provided for in Article 9(a)(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 for another year, pending the adoption of the amendments to Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 on vector protected establishments.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 1266/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn the introductory phrase of Article 9a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007, the date \u201830 June 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201830 June 2012\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 July 2011.", "references": ["68", "29", "51", "21", "31", "7", "57", "37", "83", "63", "45", "3", "91", "24", "89", "90", "47", "52", "94", "79", "55", "27", "41", "81", "62", "99", "87", "32", "6", "53", "No Label", "8", "23", "38", "54", "65", "66"], "gold": ["8", "23", "38", "54", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 4 August 2011\nextending the period referred to in Article 114(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in relation to national provisions maintaining the limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury and nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys notified by Germany pursuant to Article 114(4)\n(notified under document C(2011) 5355)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/510/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 20 January 2011, the German Federal Government requested the Commission, pursuant to Article 114(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the permission to retain the existing provisions provided in German law for the five elements: lead, arsenic, mercury, barium and antimony, as well as for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances released from toy material, beyond the date of entry into force of Annex II, Part III of Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys (1).\n(2)\nArticle 114(4) and (6) TFEU provides:\n\u20184. If, after the adoption by the Council or by the Commission of a harmonisation measure, a Member State deems it necessary to maintain national provisions on grounds of major needs referred to in Article 36, or relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment, it shall notify the Commission of these provisions as well as the grounds for maintaining them.\n(\u2026)\n6. The Commission shall, within 6 months of the notification, approve or reject the national provisions involved after having verified whether or not they are a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction to trade between Member States and whether or not they shall constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market.\nIn the absence of a Decision by the Commission within this period the national provisions referred to in paragraphs 4 (\u2026) shall be deemed to have been approved.\nWhen justified by the complexity of the matter and in the absence of danger for human health, the Commission may notify the Member State concerned that the period referred to in this paragraph may be extended for a further period of up to 6 months.\u2019\n(3)\nDirective 2009/48/EC (hereinafter \u2018the Directive\u2019) lays down rules on the safety of toys and on their free movement in the European Union. According to Article 54, Member States shall bring into force national provisions complying with this Directive by 20 January 2011, and they shall apply them as from 20 July 2011. Part III of Annex II to the Directive will be applicable as from 20 July 2013.\n(4)\nThe Directive contains, in Annex II, part III, point 8, specific values for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances. These substances shall be prohibited for use in toys intended for use by children under 36 months or in other toys intended to be placed in the mouth if the migration of the substances is equal to or higher than 0,05 mg/kg for nitrosamines and 1 mg/kg for nitrosatable substances. Point 13 of part III of Annex II to the Directive contains specific migration limits for several elements, including lead, arsenic, mercury, barium and antimony. Three different migration limits exist, related to the type of toy material: dry, brittle, power-like or pliable toy material, liquid or sticky toy material and scraped-off toy material. The following limits shall not be exceeded: 13,5, 3,4 and 160 mg/kg for lead, 3,8, 0,9 and 47 mg/kg for arsenic, 7,5, 1,9 and 94 mg/kg for mercury, 4 500, 1 125 and 56 000 mg/kg for barium, and 45, 11,3 and 560 mg/kg for antimony.\n(5)\nThe German Consumer Goods Ordinance (Bedarfsgegenst\u00e4ndeverordnung) sets requirements for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances. These provisions were adopted in 2008, in the context of the absence of specific EU provisions on nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys. The Consumer Goods Ordinance (Bedarfsgegenst\u00e4ndeverordnung) requires that for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys made of natural or synthetic rubber designed for children under 36 months and intended or likely to be placed in the mouth, the amount released as a result of migration must be so small as not to be laboratory detectable. The abovementioned Ordinance currently requires the migration of nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances to be below 0,01 mg/kg for nitrosamines and below 0,1 mg/kg for nitrosatable substances. The detailed provisions on nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances are laid down in Annex 4, point 1.b, and Annex 10, point 6, of the Consumer Goods Ordinance (Bedarfsgegenst\u00e4ndeverordnung), published on 23 December 1997, and most recently amended by the Ordinance of 6 March 2007.\n(6)\nThe Second Equipment and Product Safety Act Ordinance (Verordnung \u00fcber die Sicherheit von Spielzeug - 2. GPSGV) concerns in particular the following elements: lead, arsenic, mercury, barium and antimony. The limit values for the abovementioned elements contained in the Second Equipment and Product Safety Act Ordinance (Verordnung \u00fcber die Sicherheit von Spielzeug - 2. GPSGV) are those laid down in Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of toys (2). These limits have been applicable in the EU since 1990. The maximum daily bioavailability is 0,7 \u03bcg for lead, 0,1 \u03bcg for arsenic, 0,5 \u03bcg for mercury, 25 \u03bcg for barium, and 0,2 \u03bcg for antimony. The detailed provisions on the abovementioned elements are laid down in \u00a7 2 of the Second Equipment and Product Safety Act Ordinance (Verordnung \u00fcber die Sicherheit von Spielzeug - 2. GPSGV), most recently amended by the Ordinance of 6 March 2007.\n(7)\nAt the time of adoption of the Directive (May 2009) Germany voted against its adoption for reasons including its view that the level of protection as regards the chemical requirements is inadequate.\n(8)\nWith a first letter of its Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Technology, received on 20 January 2011, the German Federal Government requested the Commission, pursuant to Article 114(4) TFEU, the permission to retain the existing provisions provided in German law for the five elements: lead, arsenic, mercury, barium and antimony, as well as for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances released from toy material, beyond the date of entry into force of Annex II, Part III of the Directive. A complete justification of the request has been sent by the German Federal Government with letter from the Office of its Permanent Representative, dated 2 March 2011. The detailed justification contained several annexes including scientific studies on the health assessment of the abovementioned substances from the Bundesinstitut f\u00fcr Risikobewertung (hereinafter \u2018BfR\u2019), dating January 2011.\n(9)\nThe Commission confirmed receipt of the request with letters dated 24 February and 14 March 2011 and set the deadline for her reaction to 5 September 2011 in accordance with Article 114(6) TFEU.\n(10)\nBy letter of 24 June 2011 the Commission informed the other Member States of the notification received from the German Federal Government. The Commission also published a notice regarding the notification in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) in order to inform other interested parties of the national provisions the German Federal Government intends to maintain as well as the grounds invoked to that effect.\n(11)\nArticle 114(4) concerns cases in which national provisions are notified in relation to an EU harmonisation measure, where the former were adopted and entered into force before the adoption of the latter and where the maintenance of the national provisions would be incompatible with the EU harmonisation measure. The national provisions were notified in relation to Directive 2009/48/EC, a harmonisation measure adopted on the basis of Article 95 of the former EC Treaty. They were adopted and entered into force in 1990 and 2008, therefore before the adoption of that Directive.\nFurthermore, Article 114(4) requires that the notification of the national provisions be accompanied by a description of the grounds relating to one or more of the major needs referred to in Article 36 or to the protection of the environment or the working environment. The application submitted by Germany contains an explanation of the reasons relating to the protection of the human health which, in the opinion of Germany, justify the maintenance of its national provisions.\nIn the light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the application submitted by Germany with a view to obtaining authorisation to maintain its national provisions on the five elements: lead, arsenic, mercury, barium and antimony, as well as for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances, is admissible.\n(12)\nAfter a careful examination of all data and information, the Commission considers that the conditions laid down in Article 114(6), third subparagraph, are met in order for it to have recourse to the possibility of extending the 6-month period within which it has to approve or reject the national provisions notified by Germany.\n(13)\nThe German Federal Government provided several annexes containing detailed justification and scientific information in support of the notified national measures. In particular, health assessment from the BfR on lead, antimony, barium, arsenic and mercury, as well as on nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances, dating from January 2011, was provided.\n(14)\nThe information received from the BfR contains detailed and complex toxicological data on the abovementioned substances, as well as extended references to scientific reports and literature. It is necessary, in order to proceed to a Commission decision pursuant to Article 114(6) TFEU, to verify if the information provided by Germany was already assessed and considered during the Directive\u2019s revision process, or if it is to be considered as new scientific information.\n(15)\nThe directive foresees, in Article 46, the possibility to amend certain chemical-related provisions in order to ensure alignment on technical and scientific developments. The five elements concerned by Germany\u2019s request (lead, arsenic, barium, mercury and antimony) can therefore be amended and aligned on the latest scientific information.\n(16)\nThe Commission set up, in 2010, a working group on chemical substances in toys (hereinafter \u2018the working group\u2019), at the request of Member States. This working group, made up of chemical experts from the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Industry and Consumer organisations evaluates new scientific information and gives recommendations to Member States and the Commission on how to proceed with the amendment of certain chemical provisions contained in the Directive.\n(17)\nThe Commission will seek the opinion of the working group on the detailed justification received from Germany, to determine if it can be considered as new scientific information and therefore used as a basis for amending the chemical provisions of the Directive by setting out stringent requirements. The next meeting of the working group is foreseen on 31 August 2011.\n(18)\nFurthermore, on 5 April 2011, the working group recommended to Member States experts the amendment of the current values for lead downwards. These recommendations were endorsed by the Commission and experts from Member States. The Commission started the preparatory work for this amendment and the preliminary impact assessment report will be presented for discussion during the next meeting with Member States experts in October 2011. A formal proposal is planned for adoption in the first half of 2012.\n(19)\nThe working group discussed the current limit values for barium, and stated that no new scientific evidence was available; however different assessments by scientific organisations were taken. The working group decided that further discussion is needed. The working group is expected to finalise its recommendations during the meeting of 31 August 2011, which then will be presented to Member States experts in October 2011.\n(20)\nThe Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety (SCCS) is currently evaluating the seriousness of the risk posed by the presence of nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in balloons and cosmetic products. This opinion, expected for September 2011, will bring new light on children\u2019s exposure to nitrosamines and nitrosatables substances and on the risk related to this exposure.\n(21)\nThe Commission Decision pursuant to Article 114(6), first subparagraph, should therefore await the outcome of the ongoing discussions and evaluations, in order to carefully assess all relevant current or future evidence and draw consequences as regards to the national measures. Hence, the Commission considers that it is justified to extend the 6-month period within which it has to approve or reject the national provisions for a further period expiring on 5 March 2012.\n(22)\nAs indicated in Article 55 of the Directive, point 8 and 13 of part III, Annex II will be applicable from 20 July 2013. Until 20 July 2013, the current provisions related to lead, antimony, barium, arsenic and mercury laid down in Directive 88/378/EEC and in the Second Equipment and Product Safety Act Ordinance (Verordnung \u00fcber die Sicherheit von Spielzeug - 2. GPSGV) will apply. As there are no applicable EU provisions on nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances released from toys, Annex 4, point 1.b, and Annex 10, point 6, of the Consumer Goods Ordinance (Bedarfsgegenst\u00e4ndeverordnung) remains as well applicable until 20 July 2013.\n(23)\nTherefore, as the national provisions the German Federal Government intends to maintain will not be repealed before 20 July 2013, the Commission concludes that the condition of absence of danger to health is met.\n(24)\nIn the light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the application of Germany, completely notified to it on 2 March 2011, with a view of obtaining approval for maintaining the values for lead, arsenic, mercury, barium and antimony, as well as for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances, for use in toys intended for use by children under 36 months or in other toys intended to be placed in the mouth, is admissible.\n(25)\nHowever, in view of the complexity of the matter and of the absence of evidence highlighting a danger for human health, the Commission considers it justified to extend the period referred to in Article 114(6), first subparagraph, for a further period expiring on 5 March 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nPursuant to Article 114(6), third subparagraph, TFEU, the period of 6 months referred to in its first subparagraph to approve or reject the national provisions concerning the five elements (lead, arsenic, mercury, barium and antimony, as well as for nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances), notified by Germany on 2 March 2011, pursuant to Article 114(4), is extended until 5 March 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 4 August 2011.", "references": ["84", "83", "68", "34", "95", "50", "59", "78", "16", "52", "65", "75", "99", "69", "48", "89", "33", "71", "1", "93", "86", "74", "29", "46", "40", "7", "30", "49", "18", "27", "No Label", "8", "24", "60", "76", "90", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "24", "60", "76", "90", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/515/CFSP\nof 23 August 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), and in particular Article 5(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/273/CFSP.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/273/CFSP,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/273/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 August 2011.", "references": ["74", "39", "6", "7", "79", "61", "90", "68", "97", "42", "12", "32", "21", "98", "30", "75", "64", "73", "52", "85", "14", "72", "5", "43", "0", "81", "19", "47", "10", "70", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 11 April 2011\nconcerning the non-inclusion of dichlobenil in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC\n(notified under document C(2011) 2437)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/234/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included dichlobenil.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11f of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 and Article 12(1)(a) and Article 12(2)(b) of that Regulation, Commission Decision 2008/754/EC of 18 September 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of dichlobenil in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (4) was adopted.\n(3)\nThe original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/754/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe United Kingdom evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 7 October 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on dichlobenil to the Commission on 29 July 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for dichlobenil.\n(6)\nThe additional report by the rapporteur Member State and the conclusion by the Authority concentrate on the concerns that lead to the non-inclusion; in particular, there was a concern with regard to the consumer exposure from drinking water and the leaching to groundwater. More concerns were identified in the review report for dichlobenil.\n(7)\nAdditional information was submitted by the applicant, in particular as regards the leaching to groundwater, the consumer exposure from drinking water, the risks to birds and mammals and methods of analysis for impurities in the technical material and for products of animal origin.\n(8)\nHowever, the additional information provided by the applicant did not permit to eliminate all of the specific concerns arising in respect of dichlobenil.\n(9)\nDuring the evaluation of this active substance, a number of concerns have been identified. Several unacceptable effects on the environment were identified. In particular, the potential groundwater contamination by the very persistent metabolite 2,6-dichlorobenzamide (BAM) is expected to be very high, with concentrations well above 10 \u03bcg/l for all modelled scenarios. There is a potential for long-range transport of the metabolite BAM through the atmosphere. A high acute risk to birds and a high long-term risk to earthworm-eating birds and mammals were identified. The available data were insufficient to address the nature of residues of the metabolite BAM in processed commodities.\n(10)\nThe Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion by the Authority. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) to Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the applicant to submit comments on the draft review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(11)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns identified could not be eliminated, and assessments made on the basis of the information submitted and evaluated during the expert meetings of the Authority have not demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing dichlobenil satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(12)\nDichlobenil should therefore not be included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(13)\nIn the interest of clarity, Decision 2008/754/EC should be repealed.\n(14)\nThis Decision does not prejudice the submission of a further application for dichlobenil pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDichlobenil shall not be included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 2\nCommission Decision 2008/754/EC is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["69", "88", "39", "4", "97", "99", "21", "92", "35", "75", "76", "51", "7", "59", "6", "84", "67", "80", "56", "11", "52", "8", "63", "47", "36", "95", "42", "41", "17", "64", "No Label", "20", "38", "48", "60", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "38", "48", "60", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 721/2012\nof 6 August 2012\nprohibiting fishing activities for longliners flying the flag of or registered in Greece or Malta, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and in the Mediterranean Sea\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules on the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36, paragraph 2 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2) fixes the amount of bluefin tuna which may be fished in 2012 in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea by European Union fishing vessels.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 of 6 April 2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, amending Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1559/2007 (3), requires Member States to inform the Commission of the individual quota allocated to their vessels over 24 m and, for catching vessels less than 24 m, at least of the quota allocated to producer organisations or groups of vessels fishing with similar gear.\n(3)\nThe common fisheries policy is designed to ensure the long-term viability of the fisheries sector through sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources based on the precautionary approach.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, where the Commission finds that, on the basis of information provided by Member States and of other information in its possession fishing opportunities available to the European Union, a Member State or group of Member States are deemed to have been exhausted for one or more gears or fleets, the Commission shall inform the Member States concerned thereof and shall prohibit fishing activities for the respective area, gear, stock, group of stocks or fleet involved in those specific fishing activities.\n(5)\nThe information in the Commission\u2019s possession indicates that the fishing opportunities for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea allocated to longliners flying the flag of or registered in Greece or Malta have been exhausted.\n(6)\nOn 3 May 2012 Greece informed the Commission of the fact that it had imposed a stop on the fishing activities of its longline vessels active in the 2012 bluefin tuna fishery, with effect from that day at 00.00.\n(7)\nOn 2 July 2012 Malta informed the Commission of the fact that it had imposed a stop on the fishing activities of its longline vessels active in the 2012 bluefin tuna fishery, with effect from 1 July at 00.00.\n(8)\nWithout prejudice to the action by Greece and Malta mentioned above, it is necessary that the Commission confirms the prohibition of fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W and the Mediterranean Sea as from 3 May 2012 at 00.00 for longliners flying the flag of or registered in Greece and as from 1 July 2012 at 00.00 for longliners flying the flag of or registered in Malta,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean by longliners flying the flag of or registered in Greece shall be prohibited as from 3 May 2012 at 00.00 at the latest.\nIt shall also be prohibited to retain on board, place in cages for fattening or farming, tranship, transfer or land such stock caught by those vessels as from that date.\nArticle 2\nFishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean by longliners flying the flag of or registered in Malta shall be prohibited as from 1 July 2012 at 00.00 at the latest.\nIt shall also be prohibited to retain on board, place in cages for fattening or farming, tranship, transfer or land such stock caught by those vessels as from that date.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 August 2012.", "references": ["83", "34", "16", "90", "75", "43", "39", "53", "77", "4", "87", "71", "18", "68", "76", "10", "54", "48", "66", "17", "64", "11", "28", "47", "55", "30", "62", "32", "21", "3", "No Label", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 April 2011\non the conclusion of a Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Moldova in Union programmes\n(2011/283/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 114, 168, 169, 172, 173(3), 188 and 192, in conjunction with point (a) of Article 218(6), Article 218(7) and the second subparagraph of Article 218(8), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament, (1)\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Moldova in Union programmes (2) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019) was signed on behalf of the Union on 30 September 2010.\n(2)\nThe Protocol should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle1\nThe Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Moldova in Union programmes is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall give on behalf of the Union the notification provided for in Article 10 of the Protocol.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 12 April 2011.", "references": ["47", "33", "2", "85", "39", "86", "69", "14", "37", "81", "16", "87", "42", "72", "5", "63", "49", "88", "36", "28", "67", "31", "60", "17", "95", "64", "52", "71", "25", "0", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 23/2012\nof 11 January 2012\napproving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Dauno (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and in application of Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of an amendment to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Dauno\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2325/97 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendment in question is not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the amendment should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendment to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 January 2012.", "references": ["67", "73", "28", "44", "57", "21", "75", "86", "68", "77", "40", "8", "83", "20", "33", "74", "1", "16", "61", "26", "49", "64", "79", "53", "36", "37", "84", "18", "90", "38", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 June 2010\non the beneficiary countries which qualify for the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance for the period from 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2011, as provided in Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008\n(notified under document C(2010) 3639)\n(2010/318/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007 (1), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 732/2008 provides for the granting of a special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance to developing countries which satisfy the requirements established under its Articles 8 and 9.\n(2)\nAny developing country wishing to avail itself of the special incentive arrangement as of 1 July 2010 had to submit a request to that effect by 30 April 2010, accompanied by comprehensive information concerning ratification of the relevant conventions, the legislation and measures to implement effectively the provisions of the conventions and its commitment to accept and comply fully with the monitoring and review mechanism envisaged in the relevant conventions and related instruments. To be granted the request, the requesting country also has to be considered to be a vulnerable country as defined in Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008.\n(3)\nBy 30 April 2010, the Commission received a request from the Republic of Panama (hereinafter Panama) to benefit from the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance as from 1 July 2010.\n(4)\nThe request has been examined in accordance with the provisions of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008.\n(5)\nThe examination showed that Panama fulfils all the necessary requirements of Article 8 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008. Accordingly, the special incentive arrangement should be granted to Panama from 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2011.\n(6)\nPursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008, this Decision is to be notified to Panama.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Generalised Preferences Committee.\n(8)\nThis decision does not affect the beneficiary status under the arrangement of any country listed in Commission Decision 2008/938/EC of 9 December 2008 on the list of the beneficiary countries which qualify for the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance, provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Republic of Panama shall benefit from the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance provided for in Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 from 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Panama.\nDone at Brussels, 9 June 2010.", "references": ["74", "12", "80", "55", "13", "42", "17", "97", "78", "65", "91", "84", "98", "46", "70", "71", "57", "92", "95", "67", "33", "63", "19", "73", "69", "75", "51", "44", "7", "90", "No Label", "4", "15", "16", "20", "93"], "gold": ["4", "15", "16", "20", "93"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 806/2010\nof 13 September 2010\namending Regulations (EC) No 1292/2007 and (EC) No 367/2006 as regards the granting of an exemption from the measures imposed under those Regulations to one Israeli exporter of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India and terminating the registration of imports from that exporter\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic anti-dumping Regulation) and in particular Articles 11(4) and 13(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (2) (the basic anti-subsidy Regulation) and in particular Articles 20, 23(5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. MEASURES IN FORCE\n(1)\nThe Council, by Regulations (EC) No 1676/2001 (3) and (EC) No 2597/1999 (4) imposed anti-dumping and countervailing measures respectively on PET film originating, inter alia, in India (the original measures). By Regulations (EC) No 1975/2004 (5) and (EC) No 1976/2004 (6), the Council extended these measures to PET film consigned from Israel and from Brazil (the extended measures) with the exception of imports produced by one Brazilian company, Terphane Ltd, and one Israeli company, Jolybar Ltd, specifically mentioned in each of those Regulations.\n(2)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 101/2006 (7) the Council amended Regulations (EC) No 1975/2004 and (EC) No 1976/2004 in order to exempt one other Israeli company, Hanita Coatings Rural Cooperative Association Ltd, from the extended measures.\n(3)\nFollowing an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 (8), imposed an anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India and maintained the extension of that duty to imports of the same product consigned from Brazil and from Israel, whether or not declared as originating in Brazil or Israel, with the exception of certain producers specified in Articles 2(4) of that Regulation (the anti-dumping measures in force).\n(4)\nFollowing an expiry review of the countervailing measures, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 (9) imposed a countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India and maintained the extension of that duty to imports of the same product consigned from Brazil and from Israel, whether or not declared as originating in Brazil or Israel, with the exception of certain producers specified in Article 1(3) of that Regulation (the countervailing measures in force). The anti-dumping measures in force and the countervailing measures in force shall hereinafter together be referred to as \u2018the anti-dumping and countervailing measures in force\u2019.\n(5)\nRegulations (EC) No 1292/2007 and (EC) No 367/2006 were last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 15/2009 (10).\nB. CURRENT INVESTIGATION\n1. Request for a review\n(6)\nThe Commission subsequently received a request for an exemption from the extended measures pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Articles 20, 23(5) and 23(6) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. The application was lodged by S.Z.P. Plastic Packaging Products Ltd (SZP), a producer in Israel (the country concerned).\n2. Initiation of a review\n(7)\nThe Commission examined the evidence submitted by SZP and considered it sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Articles 20, 23(5) and 23(6) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation for the purposes of determining the possibility of granting SZP an exemption from the extended measures. After consultation of the Advisory Committee, and after the Union industry concerned had been given the opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated, by Regulation (EU) No 6/2010 (11) (the initiating Regulation), a review of Regulations (EC) No 1292/2007 and (EC) No 367/2006 with regard to SZP.\n(8)\nThe Regulation initiating the review repealed the anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 with regard to imports of the product under investigation consigned from Israel by SZP. Simultaneously, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, customs authorities were directed to take appropriate steps to register such imports.\n3. Product concerned\n(9)\nThe product concerned is the same as that defined in the regulations imposing the original measures, being polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India, currently falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90 (the product concerned).\n(10)\nIt is considered that the PET film consigned from Israel to the Union under CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90 (the product under review) has the same basic technical, physical and chemical characteristics and the same uses as the product concerned. Therefore, it is considered to be a like product within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 2(c) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.\n4. Investigation\n(11)\nThe Commission officially advised SZP and the representatives of the country concerned of the initiation of the review. Interested parties were invited to make their views known and informed of the possibility to request a hearing. No such request was, however, received.\n(12)\nThe Commission also sent a questionnaire to SZP and received a reply within the relevant deadline. The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the purposes of the review. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of SZP.\n5. Investigation period\n(13)\nThe investigation covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (the IP). Data was collected from 2006 up to the end of the IP to investigate any change in the pattern of trade.\nC. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n(14)\nThe investigation confirmed that SZP did not export the product under review to the European Union during the period of the investigation that led to the extended measures, i.e. 1 January to 31 December 2003. SZP\u2019s first exports of the product under review occurred subsequent to the extension of measures to, inter alia, Israel.\n(15)\nFurthermore, according to documentary evidence submitted, SZP was able to satisfactorily demonstrate that it did not have any direct or indirect links with any of the Indian exporting producers or Israeli companies subject to the anti-dumping and countervailing measures in force.\n(16)\nAs already mentioned in recital 14, SZP did not export the product concerned to the Union until after the period of investigation that led to the extended measures. SZP manufactures PET film and either sells this film or uses it itself to produce a range of packaging products.\n(17)\nRaw material of Indian origin, amongst others, is used by SZP to manufacture PET film exported to the Union but this was not considered to be a process involving circumvention. The Indian raw material constituted only a small proportion of the raw material bought at arms-length by SZP and was mixed with other raw materials which were mainly purchased domestically. The Indian producer of the raw material is a long-standing supplier to SZP.\n(18)\nIn addition no evidence was found that SZP was purchasing finished PET film from India to resell or tranship to the European Union.\nD. AMENDMENT OF THE MEASURES BEING REVIEWED\n(19)\nIn accordance with the above findings that SZP has not engaged in circumvention practices, the company should be exempted from the anti-dumping and countervailing measures in force.\n(20)\nThe registration of imports of PET film consigned from Israel by SZP, as imposed by the initiating Regulation, should cease. In accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, which provides that measures shall be applied against registered imports from the date of registration, and in view of the exemption of the company from measures, no anti-dumping duty should be collected on imports of PET film consigned from Israel by SZP which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation.\n(21)\nIn relation to the countervailing measures, as SZP has been found not to be circumventing the measures in force, the exemption should take effect from the date of entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 6/2010 in accordance with Article 23(6) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. Repayment or remission must be requested from national customs authorities in accordance with applicable customs legislation.\n(22)\nThe exemption from the extended measures granted to PET film produced by SZP shall, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 23(6) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, remain valid on condition that the facts as finally ascertained justify the exemption and that it is, for instance, not established that the exemption was granted on the basis of false or misleading information submitted by the company concerned. Should prima facie evidence indicate otherwise, an investigation may be initiated by the Commission to establish if withdrawal of the exemption is warranted.\n(23)\nThe exemption from the extended measures of imports of PET film from SZP was established on the basis of the findings of the present review. This exemption is thus exclusively applicable to imports of PET film consigned from Israel and produced by that specific legal entity. Imported PET film produced or consigned by any company not specifically mentioned in Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 and Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from the exemption and should be subject to the residual duty rate as imposed by those Regulations.\nE. PROCEDURE\n(24)\nSZP and all other interested parties were informed of the facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to grant an exemption to SZP from the extended measures. No comments were received,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 is hereby amended as follows:\nin Article 2(4), the following company is added to the list of companies that produce polyethylene terephthalate film in Brazil and Israel and whose imports of polyethylene terephthalate film are exempted from the application of the extended definitive residual anti-dumping duty:\n\u2018S.Z.P. Plastic Packaging Products Ltd, PO Box 53, Shavei Zion, 22086 Israel (TARIC additional code A964)\u2019.\n2. Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\nin Article 1(3), the following company is added to the list of companies that produce polyethylene terephthalate film in Brazil and Israel and whose imports of polyethylene terephthalate film are exempted from the application of the extended definitive countervailing duty:\n\u2018S.Z.P. Plastic Packaging Products Ltd, PO Box 53, Shavei Zion, 22086 Israel (TARIC additional code A964)\u2019.\nArticle 2\nCountervailing duties which have been levied after 7 January 2010 under Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 on imports from S.Z.P. Plastic Packaging Products Ltd shall be reimbursed to the importer or importers concerned. Repayment or remission shall be requested from national customs authorities in accordance with applicable customs legislation.\nArticle 3\nThe customs authorities are hereby directed to cease the registration of imports carried out pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 6/2010. No anti-dumping duty shall be collected on the imports thus registered.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1(2) shall apply from 7 January 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2010.", "references": ["49", "19", "72", "51", "35", "64", "53", "76", "99", "38", "42", "98", "28", "12", "45", "10", "6", "55", "74", "87", "43", "1", "44", "21", "97", "50", "52", "70", "66", "3", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 741/2011\nof 27 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2011.", "references": ["75", "12", "45", "3", "93", "67", "49", "76", "85", "83", "19", "98", "58", "79", "34", "87", "56", "6", "59", "26", "96", "37", "64", "15", "38", "7", "69", "33", "13", "41", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 331/2010\nof 22 April 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on cucumbers and cherries, other than sour cherries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2) provides for surveillance of imports of the products listed in Annex XVII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of applying Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded as part of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2007, 2008 and 2009, the trigger levels for additional duties on cucumbers and cherries, other than sour cherries, should be adjusted.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 April 2010.", "references": ["28", "30", "69", "8", "95", "11", "84", "43", "18", "38", "16", "67", "64", "57", "92", "31", "99", "22", "12", "86", "51", "89", "47", "6", "0", "3", "98", "14", "7", "34", "No Label", "4", "10", "17", "21", "25", "62"], "gold": ["4", "10", "17", "21", "25", "62"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 693/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 6 July 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 (3) provides for financing in the following areas: international relations, governance, data collection and scientific advice and control and enforcement of the common fisheries policy (CFP).\n(2)\nIn each field of action, Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 is supplemented by other related regulations or decisions. Several elements of that related legislation have evolved since the adoption of that Regulation, which should now be amended in order to ensure coherence between all the elements of the legislative framework.\n(3)\nExperience has also demonstrated the need to amend Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 by slightly adapting some of its provisions to better fit the current situation.\n(4)\nIt is also necessary to clarify, where appropriate, the scope of the measures financed and to improve the drafting of some articles.\n(5)\nPartnerships in the international field may be concluded at bilateral, regional or multilateral level.\n(6)\nThe fact that Regional Advisory Councils have been granted the status of bodies pursuing an aim of general European interest in Council Decision 2007/409/EC of 11 June 2007 amending Decision 2004/585/EC establishing Regional Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy (4) should be reflected in this Regulation.\n(7)\nIn respect of the preparatory meetings of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA), the possibility should exist to grant financial support to representatives other than those from the European Trade Organisations and to allow for the financing of the costs of translation, interpretation and room hire. The list of consultative bodies for the meetings of which the ACFA plenary designates a representative should be updated.\n(8)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (5) has enlarged the scope of data collection in order to cover the collection, the management and the use of data and that should be explicitly acknowledged in this Regulation.\n(9)\nCommission Decision 2008/949/EC of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 (6) provides that the data to be collected are to comprise socioeconomic variables.\n(10)\nEligible measures for Union financial support in the field of data collection and scientific advice are set out in Regulation (EC) No 199/2008, and Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 should be aligned with those provisions.\n(11)\nThe programming measures in the field of data collection and scientific advice are set out in Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 of 14 July 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 (7).\n(12)\nA number of the provisions of Council Decision 2000/439/EC of 29 June 2000 on a financial contribution from the Community towards the expenditure incurred by Member States in collecting data, and for financing studies and pilot projects for carrying out the common fisheries policy (8) were not included in Regulation (EC) No 861/2006, nor were they converted into implementing rules. This created a legal void for the years 2007 and 2008 during which period the Commission continued to apply the rules previously in force, as laid down in Decision 2000/439/EC. In the interests of legal certainty, it should be provided retroactively that those rules remained applicable during that period.\n(13)\nExpenditure in the area of scientific advice should include expenditure for partnership contracts with international bodies in charge of stock assessment.\n(14)\nThe indications concerning eligible expenditure in the field of control should be presented in a clearer and more detailed way, and a link should be made with Council Regulations (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (9) and (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (10).\n(15)\nParticipants in training programmes in the area of control and enforcement of the CFP rules, although representing a Member State authority, are not necessarily civil servants. Therefore, expenditure incurred for the training of other personnel should also be eligible for financial measures.\n(16)\nThe Joint Research Centre not only analyses the implementation of control activities, but also gives advice and is involved in developing new technologies.\n(17)\nThe programming rules for the control of expenditure need to be adapted in order to improve sound financial management, notably by bringing closer the date for the submission of the applications for Union financial support and by further specifying the information to be communicated on the projects and the format in which it should be provided.\n(18)\nThe title and the enacting terms of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 should be changed to take account of the entry into force, on 1 December 2009, of the Treaty of Lisbon.\n(19)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the measures in the area of control and enforcement, and more particularly as regards expenditure incurred by Member States in implementing the monitoring and control systems applicable to the CFP, as well as measures in the area of basic data collection, management and use, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control, by Member States, of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (11).\n(20)\nRegulation (EC) No 861/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 861/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe title shall be replaced by the following:\n(2)\nin the enacting terms, with the exception of references to the Community Fisheries Control Agency in Article 4(c), the word \u2018Community\u2019 and the word \u2018Communities\u2019 shall be replaced by the word \u2018Union\u2019. The words \u2018Community waters\u2019 shall be replaced by the words \u2018EU waters\u2019. Any necessary grammatical adjustments shall be made;\n(3)\nin Article 2, point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nconservation measures, collection and management of data and use of data to generate scientific advice for the CFP;\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 3, point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nimproving the collection, the management and the use of data necessary for the CFP;\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nSpecific objectives in the area of data collection, management and use and scientific advice\nUnion financial measures referred to in Articles 9, 10 and 11 shall contribute to the objective of improving data collection, management and use and scientific advice on the state of the resources, on the level of fishing, on the impact that fisheries have on the resources and the marine ecosystem, on the economic aspects of fisheries and aquaculture and on the performance of the fishing industry, within and outside EU waters, by providing financial support to the Member States to establish multiannual aggregated and science based datasets which incorporate biological, technical, environmental and socioeconomic information.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 7, paragraph 1, point (c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\ndeveloping, through partnership at a bilateral, regional or multilateral level, the fisheries resource management and control capacities of third countries, in order to ensure sustainable fishing and to promote the economic development of the fisheries sector in those countries by improving the scientific and technical evaluation of the fisheries concerned, the monitoring and control of fishing activities, the health conditions and the business environment in the sector;\u2019;\n(7)\nArticle 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8\nMeasures in the area of control and enforcement\n1. In the area of control and enforcement of CFP rules, the following expenditure shall be eligible for Union financial measures:\n(a)\nexpenditure incurred by Member States in implementing the monitoring and control systems applicable to the CFP for:\n(i)\ninvestments, relating to control activities carried out by the competent national authorities, by administrative bodies or by the private sector, in:\n-\nthe purchase and/or development of technology, including hardware and software, vessel detection systems (VDS) and IT networks enabling the gathering, administration, validation, analysis and exchange of, and the development of sampling methods for, data related to fisheries, including the development of websites related to control,\n-\nthe purchase and/or development of the components necessary to ensure the transmission to the relevant Member State and Union authorities of data from actors involved in fishing and the marketing of fisheries products, including the necessary components for electronic recording and reporting systems (ERS), vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and automatic identification systems (AIS),\n-\nthe implementation of programmes for the exchange and analysis of data between Member States,\n-\nthe purchase and modernisation of control means;\n(ii)\nprogrammes for the training and exchange, including between Member States, of personnel responsible for monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries activities;\n(iii)\nthe implementation of pilot projects related to fisheries control;\n(iv)\ncost/benefit analysis as well as assessment of audits performed and expenditure incurred by competent authorities in carrying out monitoring, control and surveillance;\n(v)\ninitiatives, including seminars and media tools, aimed at raising awareness, both among fishermen and other players such as inspectors, public prosecutors and judges, and among the general public, of the need to fight illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and on the implementation of the CFP rules;\n(b)\nexpenditure relating to administrative arrangements with the Joint Research Centre or any other Union consultative body for the purpose of assessing and developing new control technologies;\n(c)\nall operational expenditure related to inspection, by Commission inspectors, of the implementation of the CFP by the Member States, and in particular inspection missions, safety equipment and training of inspectors, meetings and the charter or purchase by the Commission of inspection means;\n(d)\nthe contribution to the budget of the CFCA in order to cover staff, administrative and operating expenditure relating to the annual work plan of the CFCA.\n2. The Commission may adopt detailed rules for the application of point (a) of paragraph 1 by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 30(2).\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 9 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 9\nMeasures in the area of basic data collection, management and use\n1. In the area of basic data collection, management and use, the following expenditure shall be eligible for Union financial support in the framework of multiannual national programmes referred to in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (12):\n(a)\nexpenditure incurred for the collection of biological, technical, environmental and socioeconomic data in relation to commercial and recreational fisheries, including sampling, at-sea-monitoring and research surveys, and the collection of environmental and socioeconomic data on the aquaculture and processing industry, as laid down in the multiannual Union programme referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008;\n(b)\nexpenditure incurred for measures related to the management, development, enhancement and exploitation of data referred to in point (a);\n(c)\nexpenditure incurred for measures related to the use of the data referred to in point (a), such as estimates of biological parameters and the production of data sets for scientific analysis and advice;\n(d)\nexpenditure incurred in connection with participation in regional coordination meetings referred to in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008, in the relevant scientific meetings of regional fisheries management organisations of which the Union is a contracting party or observer and in the meetings of international bodies in charge of providing scientific advice.\n2. The Commission may adopt detailed rules for the application of paragraph 1 by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 30(2).\n(9)\nArticle 10 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe heading is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Measures in the area of additional data collection, management and use\u2019;\n(b)\nin the introduction to paragraph 1, the second sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The activities which may be eligible for Union financial support shall include:\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 1, point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nmethodological studies and projects aimed at optimising and standardising methods of collecting data required for giving scientific advice;\u2019;\n(10)\nin Article 11, point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nexpenditure for partnership contracts with national research institutions, or with international bodies in charge of stock assessments, for the provision of scientific advice and data;\u2019;\n(11)\nArticle 12 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoints (a), (b) and (c) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe travelling and accommodation costs of the members of representative organisations in the ACFA in connection with preparatory meetings in advance of ACFA meetings, and the costs of translation, interpretation and room hire incurred for those preparatory meetings;\n(b)\nthe cost of the participation of the representatives designated by the ACFA to represent it at meetings of the RACs, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the STECF;\n(c)\nthe operating costs of the RACs as provided for in Decision 2004/585/EC;\u2019;\n(b)\nin point (d), point (ii) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(ii)\nproviding very wide access to data and explanatory material concerning, in particular, Commission proposals, through developing the Internet websites of the appropriate Commission departments and producing a regular publication, as well as organising information and training seminars for opinion formers.\u2019;\n(12)\nin Article 13(1), point (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nvoluntary financial contributions to work or programmes carried out by international organisations which are of special interest to the Union;\u2019;\n(13)\nArticle 16 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe heading is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Rates of co-financing in the area of basic data collection, management and use\u2019;\n(b)\nthe words \u2018Article 23(1)\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008\u2019;\n(14)\nthe heading of Article 17 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Rates of co-financing in the area of additional data collection, management and use\u2019;\n(15)\nin Article 18, paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Drawing rights shall be allocated under a financing agreement with the Commission to each representative organisation which is a member of the ACFA plenary in proportion to entitlements within the plenary committee of the ACFA and depending on the financial resources available.\n3. Those drawing rights and the average cost of a journey by a member of a representative organisation shall determine the number of journeys for which each organisation may be financially responsible, undertaken for the purpose of preparatory meetings. Within the overall limit of the drawing right, 20 % of the actual eligible expenditure shall be retained as a lump sum by each representative organisation in order to cover those of its organisational and administrative costs which are strictly linked with the organisation of the preparatory meetings.\u2019;\n(16)\nArticle 20 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Applications by Member States for Union financial support shall be submitted to the Commission by 15 November of the year preceding the year of implementation concerned.\nSuch applications shall be accompanied by an annual fisheries control programme containing the following information:\n(a)\nthe objectives of the annual fisheries control programme;\n(b)\nthe planned human resources available;\n(c)\nthe planned financial resources available;\n(d)\nthe planned number of vessels and aircraft available;\n(e)\na list of projects for which a financial contribution is sought;\n(f)\nthe overall expenditure planned for carrying out the projects;\n(g)\na schedule for completion in respect of each project listed in the annual fisheries control programme;\n(h)\na list of indicators to be used to assess the efficacy of the annual fisheries control programme.\n2. For each project, the annual fisheries control programme shall specify the measure referred to in Article 8(a) to which it relates, the aim of the project and a detailed description thereof, including the following particulars: the owner, the location, the estimated cost, the timetable for completion of the project and the public procurement procedure to be followed. When a project is conducted jointly by more than one Member State, the annual fisheries control programme shall also include a list of the Member States conducting the project, the estimated total costs for the project as well as the estimated costs per Member State.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nhow many hours or days over the course of a year they are likely to be used for fishery control purposes and which system is in place in the Member State, in order to make it possible for the Commission or the Court of Auditors to check their effective use for control purposes;\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. Member States shall provide the information requested in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 by submitting, both electronically and as a hardcopy, the electronic form communicated to them by the Commission.\u2019;\n(17)\nthe heading of Section 2 of Chapter V is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Procedures in the area of data collection, management and use\u2019;\n(18)\nArticle 22 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 22\nIntroductory provision\nThe Union financial contribution to the expenditure incurred by the Member States for the collection, management and use of the basic data referred to in Article 9 shall be provided in accordance with the procedures set out in this Section.\u2019;\n(19)\nArticle 23 is deleted;\n(20)\nArticle 24 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe heading is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Commission financing decision\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. On the basis of the multiannual programmes submitted by the Member States in accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 and approved by the Commission in accordance with Article 6(3) of that Regulation, decisions on the Union financial contribution to the national programmes shall be taken each year, in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 30(2).\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 2 is deleted;\n(21)\nArticle 30 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 30\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture established by Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (13).\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\n(22)\nArticle 31 is deleted;\n(23)\nArticle 32 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 32\nRepeal of obsolete acts\nRegulation (EC) No 657/2000 and Decisions 2000/439/EC and 2004/465/EC are hereby repealed with effect from 1 January 2007. Nevertheless, the rules set out in the second indent of Article 3 and in Articles 4 and 6 of Decision 2000/439/EC and the Annex thereto, as applicable on 31 December 2006, shall apply by analogy to the national programmes for the collection, management and use of data for the years 2007 and 2008.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nPoint 23 of Article 1 shall apply from 1 January 2007.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 6 July 2011.", "references": ["62", "7", "65", "59", "94", "79", "74", "19", "17", "2", "43", "40", "29", "86", "82", "33", "77", "28", "30", "72", "49", "1", "46", "87", "20", "39", "81", "92", "56", "71", "No Label", "10", "42", "67"], "gold": ["10", "42", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 948/2010\nof 21 October 2010\nfixing the export refunds on milk and milk products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in milk and milk products, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that export refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that comply with the requirements of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (2).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 650/2010 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nExport refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation, subject to the conditions provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 650/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["8", "0", "41", "34", "73", "22", "80", "4", "87", "91", "21", "3", "88", "74", "97", "54", "60", "26", "95", "2", "69", "72", "42", "6", "24", "86", "28", "39", "37", "90", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 1 April 2011\namending Annexes II to IV to Council Directive 2009/158/EC on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs\n(notified under document C(2011) 2068)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/214/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (1), and in particular Article 34 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2009/158/EC lays down animal health conditions governing intra-Union trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs. Annex II thereto sets out the rules for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Union trade in those commodities. Chapters II, III and IV of that Annex set out the conditions for facilities and operation of establishments, disease surveillance programmes and the criteria for suspending or withdrawing approval of an establishment, which include testing for certain micro-organisms, Salmonella and Mycoplasma, that have to be carried out in establishments approved for trade within the Union.\n(2)\nExperience gained in implementing the conditions for facilities and operation of establishments set out in Chapter II of Annex II to Directive 2009/158/EC show that it is appropriate to adapt them to current practices in the industry, in particular with respect to the laying behaviour of different poultry species.\n(3)\nIn addition, Chapters III and IV of Annex II to Directive 2009/158/EC should be amended to take account of scientific progress made in diagnostic techniques for Mycoplasma in line with Chapter 2.3.5 of the Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines of the World Organisation for Animal Health and changes to the nomenclature of Salmonella according to the Collaborating Centre of the World Health Organisation for Reference and Research on Salmonella in the White-Kauffmann-Le Minor Scheme for Antigenic Formulae of the Salmonella serovars of 2007 and in line with Chapter 2.3.11 of the Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines of the World Organisation for Animal Health.\n(4)\nAnnex III to Directive 2009/158/EC sets out poultry vaccination conditions. It should be amended in order to include specific conditions for vaccination against Salmonella.\n(5)\nIt is also necessary to amend certain references in relation to vaccination against avian influenza in the model veterinary certificates set out in Annex IV to Directive 2009/158/EC.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the control of salmonella and other specified food-borne zoonotic agents (2) lays down rules to ensure that proper and effective measures are taken to detect and control salmonella and other zoonotic agents. It provides that the flocks and herds of origin of certain species listed in Annex I to that Regulation are to be tested for certain specified zoonoses and zoonotic agents prior to any dispatch of live animals or hatching eggs from the food business of origin. The date and the results of testing are to be included in the relevant veterinary certificates provided for in Union legislation, including Directive 2009/158/EC.\n(7)\nAnnex IV to Directive 2009/158/EC sets out model veterinary certificates for intra-Union trade in poultry and hatching eggs.\n(8)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 584/2008 of 20 June 2008 implementing Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a Community target for the reduction of the prevalence of Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium in turkeys (3) lays down that testing requirements also apply to turkey flocks from 1 January 2010 and the respective veterinary certificates set out in Annex IV to Directive 2009/158/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nAnnexes II, III and IV to Directive 2009/158/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II, III and IV to Directive 2009/158/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 April 2011.", "references": ["30", "51", "17", "24", "93", "95", "55", "96", "16", "94", "11", "81", "82", "77", "44", "80", "32", "5", "47", "35", "23", "1", "21", "79", "50", "14", "3", "53", "98", "90", "No Label", "4", "20", "22", "38", "66", "69"], "gold": ["4", "20", "22", "38", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 15 April 2011\nof excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)\n(notified under document C(2011) 2517)\n(only the Bulgarian, Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(2011/244/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving consulted the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 and Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the Commission is to carry out the necessary verifications, communicate to the Member States the results of these verifications, take note of the comments of the Member States, initiate a bilateral discussion so that an agreement may be reached with the Member States in question, and formally communicate its conclusions to them.\n(2)\nThe Member States have had an opportunity to request the launch of a conciliation procedure. That opportunity has been used in some cases and the reports issued on the outcome have been examined by the Commission.\n(3)\nUnder Regulations (EC) No 1258/1999 and (EC) No 1290/2005, only agricultural expenditure which has been incurred in a way that has not infringed European Union rules may be financed.\n(4)\nIn the light of the verifications carried out, the outcome of the bilateral discussions and the conciliation procedures, part of the expenditure declared by the Member States does not fulfil this requirement and cannot, therefore, be financed under the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the EAGF and the EAFRD.\n(5)\nThe amounts that are not recognised as being chargeable to the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the EAGF and the EAFRD should be indicated. Those amounts do not relate to expenditure incurred more than 24 months before the Commission\u2019s written notification of the results of the verifications to the Member States.\n(6)\nAs regards the cases covered by this decision, the assessment of the amounts to be excluded on grounds of non-compliance with European Union rules was notified by the Commission to the Member States in a summary report on the subject.\n(7)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to any financial conclusions that the Commission may draw from the judgments of the Court of Justice in cases pending on 31 December 2010 and relating to its content,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe expenditure itemised in the Annex hereto that has been incurred by the Member States\u2019 accredited paying agencies and declared under the EAGGF Guarantee Section, under the EAGF or under the EAFRD shall be excluded from European Union financing because it does not comply with European Union rules.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic, Romania and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 15 April 2011.", "references": ["1", "80", "40", "62", "29", "50", "73", "20", "56", "33", "17", "22", "28", "7", "9", "53", "24", "32", "75", "86", "97", "8", "59", "81", "96", "64", "49", "38", "15", "71", "No Label", "10", "61"], "gold": ["10", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 459/2011\nof 12 May 2011\namending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 631/2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, amending Directive 2007/46/EC and repealing Directives 2003/102/EC and 2005/66/EC (1), in particular Article 4(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 631/2009 of 22 July 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, amending Directive 2007/46/EC and repealing Directives 2003/102/EC and 2005/66/EC (2), lays down detailed rules for the implementation of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 which is a separate regulatory act for the purposes of the type-approval procedure provided for by Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (3).\n(2)\nThe technical prescriptions necessary to implement the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 should be based on the specifications provided for in Commission Decision 2004/90/EC of 23 December 2003 on the technical prescriptions for the implementation of Article 3 of Directive 2003/102/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users before and in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle and amending Directive 70/156/EEC (4).\n(3)\nBased on experience gained through initial assessments, as carried out by vehicle manufacturers and technical services and in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 631/2009, four different areas have been identified where specific requirements should be further clarified. The provisions which should be amended concern the general requirements which are based on the existing first phase requirements, as set out in Directive 2003/102/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5). Certain important assessment boundaries in the general requirements need to be adapted to take account of scientific and technical developments and in order to align the requirements of the first phase in Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 with those as laid down concerning the first phase in Directive 2003/102/EC.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 631/2009 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2011.", "references": ["13", "51", "29", "48", "28", "60", "6", "71", "23", "75", "25", "91", "70", "5", "54", "36", "7", "90", "0", "52", "43", "24", "27", "94", "87", "99", "41", "35", "83", "63", "No Label", "53", "55"], "gold": ["53", "55"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 674/2011\nof 13 July 2011\nfixing an acceptance percentage for the issuing of export licences, rejecting export-licence applications and suspending the lodging of export-licence applications for out-of-quota sugar\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 7e in conjunction with Article 9(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 61, first subparagraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 the sugar produced during the marketing year in excess of the quota referred to in Article 56 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit fixed by the Commission.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 of 7 May 2010 fixing the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2010/2011 marketing year (3) sets the above mentioned limits.\n(3)\nThe quantities of sugar covered by applications for export licences exceed the quantitative limit fixed by Regulation (EU) No 397/2010. An acceptance percentage should therefore be set for quantities applied for on 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 July 2011. All export-licence applications for sugar lodged after 8 July 2011 should accordingly be rejected and the lodging of export-licence applications should be suspended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export licences for out-of-quota sugar for which applications were lodged between 4 July and 8 July 2011 shall be issued for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an acceptance percentage of 71,122263 %.\n2. Applications for out-of-quota sugar export licences submitted on 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 July 2011 are hereby rejected.\n3. The lodging of applications for out-of-quota sugar export licences shall be suspended for the period 18 July 2011 to 30 September 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2011.", "references": ["81", "35", "4", "33", "51", "72", "76", "41", "52", "56", "46", "26", "62", "49", "6", "50", "69", "66", "84", "70", "25", "90", "27", "63", "39", "0", "40", "48", "64", "67", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "71"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 2/2012\nof 4 January 2012\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 11(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1890/2005 (2) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitively the provisional duties imposed on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof (\u2018SSF\u2019) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. At the same time, the proceeding on imports of SSF originating in Malaysia and the Philippines was terminated.\n(2)\nOn 25 August 2009, following a review initiated on the basis of Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 768/2009 (3) amended the abovementioned measures as far as one exporting producer in Vietnam is concerned.\n(3)\nThe Regulation which led to the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain SSF originating, inter alia, in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019) and Taiwan, will hereinafter be referred to as \u2018the original Regulation\u2019. The investigation that led to the measures imposed by the original Regulation on the countries concerned will be hereinafter referred to as \u2018the original investigation\u2019.\n2. Request for an expiry review\n(4)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry (4) of the definitive anti-dumping measures in force, the Commission received on 19 August 2010 a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute (\u2018EIFI\u2019) (\u2018the applicant\u2019) on behalf of five Union producers: Bulnava SRL, Inox Viti di Cattinori Bruno & C. SNC, Inox Bolt SRL, Bontempi Vibo SpA. and Ugivis SA representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of SSF.\n(5)\nThe request was limited to the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports originating in the PRC and Taiwan (\u2018the countries concerned\u2019). Consequently, the anti-dumping measures imposed by the original Regulation on imports of SSF originating in Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand are not subject to this review.\n(6)\nThe request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures imposed on imports of SSF originating in the countries concerned would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.\n3. Initiation of an expiry review\n(7)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 19 November 2010, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation (\u2018notice of initiation\u2019).\n4. Investigation\n4.1. Review investigation period and the period considered\n(8)\nThe investigation of continuation of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2010 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the review investigation period (\u2018the period considered\u2019).\n4.2. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(9)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicant, other known Union producers, exporting producers, importers, users in the Union known to be concerned and their associations, and the representatives of the countries concerned of the initiation of the expiry review.\n(10)\nThe Commission also gave interested parties the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(11)\nIn view of the apparent large number of exporting producers from the countries concerned, unrelated importers in the Union and Union producers involved in the investigation, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(12)\nIn order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested, pursuant to Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within 15 days of the publication of the notice of initiation and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation. In view of the replies received it was decided to apply sampling in respect of Taiwanese exporting producers, unrelated importers in the Union and Union producers. As regards the PRC, no exporting producers from the PRC cooperated in the investigation.\n(13)\nThirty six Taiwanese exporters/groups of exporters provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. Ten of them could not be taken into account as they appeared to be trading companies only or did not export to the Union in the RIP. On the basis of the information received from the cooperating Taiwanese companies, the Commission selected a sample of four exporting producers. Subsequently one sampled company withdrew its cooperation. The remaining three sampled companies represented 41,6 % of the Taiwanese exports to EU during the RIP.\n(14)\nAs regards unrelated importers in the Union, out of eight companies which provided the requested information, the three largest ones representing almost 90 % of the imported volume reported by the cooperating companies were selected for the sample. Subsequently only one importer submitted a questionnaire reply.\n(15)\nTwelve Union producers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. On the basis of the information received from the cooperating Union producers, the Commission selected a sample of six Union producers. Subsequently one sampled Union producer withdrew its cooperation. The remaining five sampled producers represented 38 % of the sales by all Union producers to unrelated customers in the EU during the RIP.\n(16)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the sampled parties and to all users known to be concerned. As explained above, replies to the questionnaires were received from five Union producers, three exporting producers from Taiwan and one importer. None of the users contacted came forward or made themselves known in the course of the investigation.\n(17)\nAs explained in recitals 13 and 15 one sampled Taiwanese exporting producer and one sampled Union producer decided not to submit a questionnaire reply. However, in both cases the sample of the remaining companies was considered to be still representative in terms of the relevant sales volumes.\n(18)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for a determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and for the determination of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nUnion producers\n-\nBulnava SRL, Suello, Italy,\n-\nInox Viti di Cattinori Bruno & C. SNC, Grumello del Monte, Italy,\n-\nBontempi Vibo SpA, Rodengo Saiano, Italy,\n-\nReisser Schraubentechnik GmbH, Ingelfingen-Criesbach, Germany,\n-\nUgivis SA, Belley, France;\n(b)\nExporting producers in Taiwan\n-\nArrow Fastener Co., Ltd and its related exporters, Shu-Lin City,\n-\nShekai Precision Co., Ltd and its related exporter, Kaohsiung,\n-\nYi Tai Shen Co., Ltd Tainan Hsien;\n(c)\nUnrelated importer in the Union\n-\nW\u00fcrth-Gruppe, K\u00fcnzelsau, Deutschland.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(19)\nThe product concerned by this review is the same as the one defined in the original Regulation, namely certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof, originating in the PRC and Taiwan, currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70 (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n(20)\nThe review investigation confirmed that, as in the original investigation, the product concerned and the products manufactured and sold by the exporting producers on the domestic markets, as well as those manufactured and sold in the EU by the Union producers, have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same uses and are, therefore, considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(21)\nFour parties came forward and claimed that the products falling under CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10 and 7318 15 51 should be excluded from the scope of this investigation because allegedly they are not produced within the Union. This claim was rejected because (i) no evidence was presented showing that these products would be different in terms of basic physical and technical characteristics and (ii) in any event the product scope cannot be modified in the context of an expiry review.\n(22)\nAfter disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was recommended that the existing measures be maintained (the \u2018final disclosure\u2019) one of the Taiwanese exporting producers claimed that bi-metal fasteners should not be included in the product scope due to the significant differences existing between the bi-metal fasters and stainless steel fasteners in terms of unit sales price, cost of production, basic physical and technical characteristics, as well as applications. However, as explained in recital 21 above the product scope cannot be modified in the context of an expiry review. This claim could be dealt with in a product scope interim review, which can be requested by the company.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n(23)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.\n1. PRC\n1.1. Preliminary remarks\n(24)\nAs explained above, none of the PRC exporting producers cooperated in the investigation.\n(25)\nTherefore, findings on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping set out below had to be based on best facts available, in particular the Eurostat data and the information submitted by the Union industry in the review request. Official PRC exports statistics could not be used in this case as the product concerned represents only a small fraction of the quantities reported in the relevant Harmonised System Tariff positions.\n1.2. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n(26)\nIn view of the lack of cooperation of the PRC exporting producers no individual dumping margins could be calculated.\n(27)\nAccording to the review request, exports from the PRC into the Union were allegedly dumped with margins ranging from 13,6 % to 61,8 %. As mentioned in the notice of initiation, the applicant compared the export prices from the PRC to the Union with a constructed normal value in Taiwan, the analogue country used in the original investigation.\n(28)\nAs there was no cooperation from the PRC companies, there is no information available which would allow a different conclusion. Moreover, it is noted that normal value established for the only cooperating Taiwanese company was found to be substantially higher than the normal value established by the applicant in the expiry investigation request. Since there is no indication that export prices from the PRC to the Union are different than in the request, it is likely that dumping from the PRC has continued at higher levels than those indicated in the request.\n1.3. Development of imports should measures be repealed\n(29)\nFurther to the analysis of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood of the recurrence of dumping was also investigated.\n(30)\nIn this respect the following elements were analysed: the spare capacity of the PRC exporting producers; the attractiveness of the Union market for the PRC producers and their export to third countries.\n1.3.1. Spare capacity of the PRC exporting producers\n(31)\nAs there is little public information available on the PRC SSF industry, the information contained in the review request was used to estimate the capacity in the PRC. On that basis, it appears that new production facilities of SSF have been established in the PRC since 2003. Moreover, as a consequence of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of certain iron and steel fasteners (6) and of the subsequent drop of the PRC imports of that type of fasteners into the Union as from 2009, the PRC producers have significant unused production capacity which could be used to manufacture the product concerned as the production can be easily switched between the two types of fasteners.\n1.3.2. Attractiveness of the Union market\n(32)\nThe attractiveness of the Union market can be illustrated by the fact that the imposition of the anti-dumping duties did not stop the expansion of the PRC exports of the product concerned. On the contrary, according to Eurostat data the volume of imports from the PRC to the Union has increased by 13 % between 2007 and the RIP. The price evolution of PRC imports for the same period showed that the average import price according to Eurostat increased. However, a more detailed analysis showed that the price of SSF declared in the CN code representing 59 % of the total quantity imported during the RIP decreased by 24 % during the period considered. This demonstrates that despite the measures in force the PRC exporters were still able to increase the export volume and to further reduce their prices for the majority of exported product concerned.\n1.3.3. Export to third countries\n(33)\nWith regard to the volumes and prices of PRC exports to third countries, it has to be noted that PRC export data concern whole HS codes. By comparison to EU import statistics on TARIC level the product concerned is accounted for around 3 % in terms of volume within these HS codes. The export data are therefore not a very meaningful source of information. Due to the lack of cooperation of PRC exporting producers, no other relevant information could be obtained with regard to the PRC exports to third countries.\n1.4. Conclusion of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping\n(34)\nIn view of the findings described above, it can be concluded that the exports from the PRC are still being dumped and that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping on the Union market in case the current anti-dumping measures are removed. Indeed, taking into account the existing spare capacity in the PRC and the fact that imports of the product concerned into the Union increased during the period considered despite the existence of anti-dumping measures, there appears to be an incentive for PRC exporting producers to further increase their exports to the Union market at dumped prices if the measure is allowed to lapse.\n2. Taiwan\n2.1. Preliminary remarks\n(35)\nIt is noted that in view of the large number of Taiwanese exporting producers which expressed their willingness to cooperate, a representative sample of four companies/groups of companies was selected for further investigation. One of these four companies later withdrew its cooperation. However, as the remaining companies represented in terms of volume 41,6 % of the total Taiwanese exports (7) to the Union in the RIP the sample was still considered representative.\n(36)\nIt is further noted that during the verifications visits carried out at the premises of the remaining three sampled companies it was not possible to verify the information provided in the questionnaire reply by one of them while it was established that the second company provided misleading information. The exporting producers in question were immediately informed of the Commission\u2019s intention to apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation which would result in disregarding the information provided and consequently resorting to the best facts available. The companies were given an opportunity to submit further comments on this situation. However, the subsequent comments did not alter the Commission\u2019s decision to rely on facts available with regard to these two exporting producers. As a result, an individual dumping margin was calculated only for one Taiwanese exporting producer.\n(37)\nIn view of the above, most of the findings concerning the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping set out below had to be based on facts available, in particular the data provided by the sole cooperating Taiwanese exporting producer, one cooperating importer, Eurostat data and the information submitted by the applicant in the review request. Official Taiwanese exports statistics could not be used in this case as the product concerned represent only a small fraction of the quantities declared under the relevant Harmonised System Tariff positions.\n2.2. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n2.2.1. Normal value\n(38)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined whether the cooperating Taiwanese exporting producer\u2019s domestic sales of the like product to independent customers were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was equal to at least 5 % of the total volume of the corresponding export sales to the Union.\n(39)\nThe Commission subsequently identified those types of the like product sold domestically by the company that were identical or directly comparable to the types sold for export to the Union. The elements taken into account in defining the product types were (i) type of fasteners, (ii) grade of steel used as raw material, (iii) fasteners\u2019 DIN norm, (iv) fasteners\u2019 diameter and (v) their length.\n(40)\nIt was further examined whether the domestic sales of the cooperating exporting producer were representative for each product type, i.e. whether domestic sales of each product type constituted at least 5 % of the sales volume of the same product type to the Union. For the product types sold in representative quantities it was then examined whether such sales were made in the ordinary course of trade (\u2018OCOT\u2019), in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(41)\nThe examination as to whether the domestic sales of each product type, sold domestically in representative quantities, could be regarded as having been made in the OCOT was made by establishing the proportion of the profitable sales to independent customers of the type in question. In all cases where the domestic sales of the particular product type were made in sufficient quantities and in the OCOT, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of all the domestic sales of that type made during the RIP.\n(42)\nFor the remaining product types where domestic sales were not representative or not sold in the OCOT, normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. Normal value was constructed by adding to the manufacturing costs of the exported types, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable percentage for selling, general and administrative expenses and a reasonable margin for profit, on the basis of actual data pertaining to production and sales of the like product in the OCOT, in accordance with the first sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.\n2.2.2. Export price\n(43)\nAll but one export sales to the Union market of the cooperating Taiwanese exporting producer were made directly to independent customers. Thus, the export price was established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n(44)\nFor the export transaction where the export to the Union was made through a related trading company, the export price was established on the basis of the first resale price of the related trader to independent customers in the Union, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.\n2.2.3. Comparison\n(45)\nThe comparison between the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price was made on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and the export price, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which were demonstrated to affect prices and price comparability. For this purpose, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, financial costs, packing costs, commissions and rebates where applicable and justified.\n2.2.4. Dumping margin\n(46)\nAs provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value by type was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned. Based on the above methodology, it was found that the cooperating exporter continued to engage in dumping practices during the RIP. On the basis of 4 months out of the 12 months of the RIP, dumping amounted to 22 %.\n(47)\nIt is recalled that basing the dumping calculation on 4 months of the RIP is a methodology normally used by the Commission in expiry reviews, where it should be determined whether there is continuation of dumping or a likelihood that dumping will recur. Indeed, in expiry reviews it is not required to establish a dumping margin for all transactions since such calculation is only necessary to amend the level of the anti-dumping measure in force, which is not the purpose of an expiry review. The 4 months selected were the last months of each quarter and therefore evenly spread over the 12 month period of the RIP.\n(48)\nAfter the final disclosure, the sole cooperating Taiwanese exporting producer claimed that certain domestic transactions reported in the questionnaire which were taken into account for the normal value calculation were actually destined for exports to the European Union, not for domestic consumption. The company argued that these resales were made through independent fastener manufacturers or traders in Taiwan.\n(49)\nIt is noted that this claim was not supported by any evidence showing that these goods would be exported to the European Union. Therefore this claim was rejected.\n(50)\nIn view of the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation with regard to the other two sampled exporting producers, no dumping margin was calculated for them. However, according to the review request exports from Taiwan were allegedly dumped with margins ranging from 14 % to 50 %. There is no available information which would allow drawing a different conclusion. Moreover, the fact that the sole investigated company was found to practise dumping in the Union market and that the average price of the product concerned imported from Taiwan is lower than the average export price of that company, confirm the existence of dumping at the countrywide level on the basis of verified information.\n2.3. Development of imports should measures be repealed\n(51)\nFurther to the analysis of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood of the continuation of dumping was also investigated for Taiwan.\n(52)\nIn this respect the following elements were analysed: the spare capacity of the exporting Taiwanese producers, the attractiveness of the Union market for the Taiwanese producers and their export to third countries.\n2.3.1. Spare capacity of the exporters\n(53)\nRegarding the spare capacity of the exporters, since little public information is available about the Taiwanese SSF industry, the following conclusions rely mainly on the information contained in the review request and on information obtained during the verification visits. According to the review request, new Taiwanese producers of SSF have invested in new equipment to increase their production capacity. In addition, the verification showed that the investments in capacity are expected to increase by 12 % in 2011 compared to the IP of the original investigation. During the RIP, the spare capacity of the cooperating producer was 7 % of the total production capacity. The stock levels were found to be very low as the cooperating company produced the product concerned only against orders.\n2.3.2. Attractiveness of the Union market\n(54)\nThe attractiveness of the Union market can be illustrated by the fact that the imposition of the anti-dumping duties did not affect the Taiwanese exports to the Union. According to Eurostat and verified import data, the volumes of imports from Taiwan were rather stable between 2007 and the RIP but the value of these imports decreased by 16 % in the same period. This indicates that the average selling price of SSF originating in Taiwan decreased during the RIP. This demonstrates that despite the measures in force the Taiwanese exporters were still able to maintain the export volume and to further reduce their prices.\n(55)\nIn this regard, one of the interested Taiwanese parties pointed out that the decrease in the Taiwanese export prices had not been a result of the exporters\u2019 hostile price behaviour but had followed rather the evolution of the prices of the main raw material i.e. wire rods. It is noteworthy that the decrease in raw material, prices affected all producers of SSF in a similar way. However the conclusion that the Union market remains attractive for the Taiwanese exporters remains unchanged as they managed to maintain the volume of their exports despite the anti-dumping measures in force.\n2.3.3. Export prices to third countries\n(56)\nWith regard to the Taiwanese exports to third countries, it has to be noted that the Taiwanese export data which could be analysed concern whole HS codes. By comparison to EU import statistics on TARIC level the product concerned accounted for around 2,6 % in terms of volume within these HS codes. Therefore, these data are meaningless as a source of information on volumes and prices of exports to third countries of the product concerned from Taiwan. However, verified export data obtained from the three sampled Taiwanese exporters show a decrease in export volume to third countries. This points to the fact that the Taiwanese exports are more EU oriented.\n(57)\nIt is also noted that the information provided by the cooperating Taiwanese exporter shows that the unit sales price is 10 % higher when selling to the Union compared to other countries and that the volume exported to other countries represents only 20 % of the exports volume to the Union.\n2.4. Conclusion of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping\n(58)\nIn view of the findings described above, it can be concluded that the exports from Taiwan are still being dumped and that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping on the Union market in case the current anti-dumping measures are removed. Indeed, taking into account the existing spare capacity in Taiwan and the attractiveness of the Union market, there appears to be an incentive for Taiwanese exporting producers to increase their exports to the Union market at dumped prices if the current measure is allowed to lapse.\nD. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n1. Union production\n(59)\nAll available information concerning Union producers, including information provided in the review request and data collected from Union producers before and after the initiation of the investigation, was used in order to establish the total Union production.\n(60)\nOn that basis, the total Union production was estimated to be around 63 000 tonnes during the IP. This figure includes the production of all Union producers that made themselves known and the estimated production volume of producers which remained silent in the proceeding.\n(61)\nAs indicated in recital 11 sampling was applied for investigating Union producers. Out of the 12 producers that provided information for the selection of the sample, a sample of six producers was selected. Subsequently, as explained in recital 17 one producer did not cooperate. The cooperating sampled companies represented around 31 % of the total estimated Union production.\n2. Union industry\n(62)\nAll Union producers referred to in recital 59 are deemed to constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will hereinafter be referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\nE. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Preliminary remark\n(63)\nThe relevant Eurostat import statistics for CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70, together with data provided in the review request and data collected from Union producers before and after the initiation of the investigation, supplemented by the verified questionnaire responses of the sampled Union producers were used in the evaluation of volume and price trends.\n2. Union consumption\n(64)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry in the Union, taken from the review request and supplemented by verified data obtained from the cooperating sampled producers and the volume of imports based on data from Eurostat.\n(65)\nOn this basis the Union consumption developed as follows:\nTable 1\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nTotal Union consumption (tonnes)\n123 224\n120 598\n101 143\n121 402\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n98\n82\n99\n(66)\nBetween 2007 and the RIP, Union consumption remained relatively stable. However, between 2007 and 2009 there was a dramatic decrease by 18 % in line with the global negative effects of the financial crisis. Between 2009 and the RIP the Union consumption recovered again, showing an increase of 20 %.\n3. Volume, market share and prices of imports from the countries concerned\n3.1. Cumulation\n(67)\nIn order to make an assessment as to the cumulation of the imports from the countries concerned, the individual situation of both countries was examined in the light of the conditions set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(68)\nIt was found that the import volumes of both the PRC and Taiwan were above the de minimis threshold laid down in Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation and not negligible. In addition, import volumes from the two countries followed a largely similar trend during the period considered, decreasing between 2007 and 2009, followed by an increase in the RIP. As regards average import prices, as explained in recital 32 the price evolution of PRC imports showed that the average import price according to Eurostat increased. However, a more detailed analysis showed that the price of SSF declared in the CN code representing a majority of the total quantity imported during the RIP decreased by 24 % during the period considered. The Taiwanese prices decreased throughout the period considered, and were at their lowest level in the RIP. The investigation also showed that the conditions of competition between the relevant operators were similar. It was therefore considered that the conditions for cumulation were met.\n3.2. Dumped imports from the PRC and Taiwan\n(69)\nImports from the PRC and Taiwan developed as follows during the period considered:\nTable 2\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nVolume of imports from countries concerned (tonnes)\n8 559\n6 636\n6 154\n8 795\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n78\n72\n103\nMarket share of imports from countries concerned\n6,9 %\n5,5 %\n6,1 %\n7,2 %\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n79\n88\n104\nAverage import price from the countries concerned (EUR/tonne)\n4 998\n4 709\n4 656\n4 730\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n94\n93\n95\n(70)\nAs shown in the above table, the volume of imports originating in the countries concerned increased by 3 % over the period considered. In line with evolution of the consumption, there was a drop in the period 2008-2009. However, this decrease was less marked than the decrease in consumption in the same period. Between 2009 and the RIP imports increased again by as much as 43 %.\n(71)\nAverage import prices decreased by 5 % during the period considered. As for the volumes, also import prices were at their lowest level in 2009 after which they increased slightly.\n(72)\nOver the period considered market share of the dumped imports followed the evolution of the consumption and remained stable at around 7 %.\n3.3. Price undercutting\n(73)\nIn view of the non-cooperation of the PRC exporting producers and limited cooperation of the Taiwanese exporting producers there is very limited information available in respect of the types of SSF exported to the Union. This together with the fact that the product concerned covers a variety of different types of SSF with a large price variation (for example, the unit prices within the category of wood screws may vary by 30 times), made it impossible to make a meaningful price comparison for the purpose of establishing the undercutting margins. The comparison of the weighted average sales price of the Union industry to unrelated customers in the Union, adjusted to ex-works level, with the average cif import price of the countries concerned, derived from Eurostat, did not show any undercutting in the RIP. As regards Taiwan, the sole cooperating exporting producer exported a specific type of SSF for which there is very limited production in the Union. Therefore, in the absence of matching product types no undercutting calculation on a type by type basis could be performed for this company.\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n4.1. Preliminary remarks\n(74)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry.\n(75)\nDue to the use of sampling, the injury indicators have been established partially for the Union industry as a whole and partially for the sampled Union producers only. The injury analysis with regard to macroeconomic data, such as market share, production, capacity and capacity utilisation, sales volume, growth, stocks, employment and productivity is based on data of the Union industry as a whole. Otherwise, data with regard to the sampled Union producers have been used (transaction prices, investment and return on investment, wages, profitability, cash flow and ability to raise capital).\n4.2. Production\n(76)\nThe table below shows that production decreased by 17 % during the period considered. In line with a decreased demand, the Union industry\u2019s production first decreased sharply by 24 % between 2007 and 2009, and then slightly increased by 10 % between 2009 and the RIP.\nTable 3\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProduction (tonnes)\n74 514\n69 514\n56 396\n62 213\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n93\n76\n83\nSource: Macro data.\n4.3. Capacity and capacity utilisation\n(77)\nProduction capacity declined during the period considered by 13 % and in line with the evolution of the production the rate of the capacity utilisation showed a slight decrease of 4 % between 2007 and the RIP.\nTable 4\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProduction capacity (tonnes)\n148 039\n140 743\n127 200\n128 881\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n95\n86\n87\nCapacity utilisation\n50 %\n49 %\n44 %\n48 %\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n98\n88\n96\nSource: Macro data.\n4.4. Stocks\n(78)\nThe level of closing stocks of the Union industry decreased in 2008 compared to 2007 and then remained stable between 2008 and RIP. In the RIP, the level of stocks increased somewhat, but was still 26 % lower than in 2007.\nTable 5\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nClosing stock (tonnes)\n9 688\n7 465\n6 964\n7 139\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n77\n72\n74\nSource: Micro data.\n4.5. Sales volume\n(79)\nThe sales by the Union industry on the Union market to unrelated customers decreased by 25 % over the period considered. Sales volumes decreased by 28 % between 2007 and 2009 reaching their lowest level in 2009. However, during the RIP sales volumes recovered and showed an increase of 5 % when compared to 2009 levels. It is noteworthy that this increase was much less than the increase in demand (20 %) in the same period.\nTable 6\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nEU Sales volume to unrelated customers (tonnes)\n62 326\n56 042\n44 627\n46 851\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n90\n72\n75\nSource: Macro data.\n4.6. Market share\n(80)\nThe market share held by the Union industry declined progressively by 12 percentage points between 2007 and the RIP.\nTable 7\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nMarket share of the Union industry\n50,6 %\n46,5 %\n44,1 %\n38,6 %\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n92\n87\n76\nSource: Macro data.\n4.7. Growth\n(81)\nAs shown in Table 1 in recital 65, Union consumption decreased between 2007 and 2009 after which it increased again to almost the same level as in 2007. The Union industry however lost 12 percentage points of market share during the period considered, whilst the imports concerned managed to keep their market share stable.\n4.8. Employment\n(82)\nThe level of employment of the Union industry declined by 7 % between 2007 and the RIP.\nTable 8\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nEmployment product concerned (persons)\n954\n1 007\n863\n886\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n106\n90\n93\nSource: Macro data.\n4.9. Productivity\n(83)\nProductivity of the Union industry\u2019s workforce, measured as output per person employed per year, decreased by 10 % between 2007 and the RIP. It reached its lowest level in 2009, before it recovered during the RIP.\nTable 9\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProductivity (tonnes per employee)\n78,1\n69\n65,3\n70,2\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n88\n84\n90\nSource: Macro data.\n4.10. Sales prices and factors affecting domestic prices\n(84)\nUnit sales prices of the Union industry showed a significant declining trend between 2007 and 2009 when they decreased by 50 %. This was partly due to the significant decrease in costs of the raw material used to produce SSF. During the RIP the sales prices recovered, however, compared to the year 2009 but were still 35 % lower compared to those prevailing at the beginning of the period considered.\n(85)\nThe investigation showed that the decrease in sales prices between 2007 and 2009 partly reflected the impact of the economic crisis which led to a decrease in costs by 28 % in that period. This decrease mainly reflected the price development of nickel, the main raw material used in the production of stainless steel fasteners. However, the investigation showed that even if the financial crisis had a negative impact on the sales prices, there was also a downward pressure by imports in particular from other third countries, which expanded on the Union market despite the flat consumption and applied price pressure to the core product types manufactured and sold by the Union industry which was forced to decrease its sales prices more than the decrease in costs. This led to a significant deterioration of the Union industry\u2019s performance during this period. Even if sales prices increased during the RIP compared to 2009 their level was not sufficient to cover all costs and allow the Union industry to make a reasonable margin of profit.\n(86)\nThe sales prices reported on the table below are average prices per tonne which largely depend on the product mix. As explained in recital 73, prices within certain categories of SSF can vary up to even 30 times.\nTable 10\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nAverage sales prices (EUR/tonne)\n5 842\n4 437\n2 914\n3 803\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n76\n50\n65\nSource: Micro data.\n4.11. Wages\n(87)\nBetween 2007 and the RIP, the average wages per employee decreased by 12 %.\nTable 11\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nAnnual labour cost per employee (EUR thousand)\n47\n44\n41\n42\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n94\n87\n88\nSource: Micro data.\n4.12. Investments\n(88)\nIn 2008 the Union industry invested heavily in the production of SSF, compared to the other years covered by the period considered. After this year investments decreased.\nTable 12\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nNet investments (EUR thousand)\n2 504\n9 899\n3 087\n2 299\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n395\n123\n92\nSource: Micro data.\n4.13. Profitability and return on investments\n(89)\nAs mentioned in recital 85 above, the investigation showed that even if the decrease in sales prices partly reflected the decrease in costs, the price of the Union industry was under the pressure exerted by the imports of SSF and did not allow covering all costs incurred in the production and sale of SSF. This led to a significant deterioration of profitability, which was positive in 2007, and negative thereafter as shown in the table below.\n(90)\nThe return on investments (\u2018ROI\u2019) significantly decreased from a level of 29 % in 2007 to - 17 % in the RIP.\nTable 13\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nNet Profit of EU sales to unrelated customers (% of net sales)\n7 %\n-9 %\n-36 %\n-3 %\nROI (net profit in % of net book value of investments)\n29 %\n-16 %\n-41 %\n-17 %\nSource: Micro data.\n4.14. Cash flow and ability to raise capital\n(91)\nThe net cash flow from operating activities decreased significantly during the period considered. It reached its lowest level in 2009 after which it increased slightly. However, cash flow in the RIP was still significantly lower than in 2007.\nTable 14\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nCash flow (EUR thousand)\n15 899\n- 698\n-12 357\n-8 271\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n-4\n-78\n-52\nSource: Micro data.\n4.15. Magnitude of dumping margin\n(92)\nDespite the measures in force substantial dumping continued at levels of 13,6 % to 61,8 % for the PRC and 14 % to 50 % for Taiwan, based both on the data obtained from the review request and the sole cooperating exporting producer in Taiwan. The impact on the Union industry of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.\n4.16. Recovery from the effects of past dumping\n(93)\nAlmost all of the indicators examined show a deterioration in the economic and financial situation of the Union industry following the year 2007. Despite the measures in force, imports from the countries concerned have increased slightly and managed to keep their market share stable. In 2009 when the financial crisis impacted the overall demand in the Union and sales prices were under pressure, the Union producers lost a substantial part of their customers. Only some Union producers were able to increase their production volumes by producing other types of fasteners (e.g. carbon steel fasteners) and could benefit from economies of scale and thus compensate for the lost sales volume incurred in the SSF business. At the same time, the Union producers made efforts to increase their investments in order to produce more efficiently. During the RIP, the Union industry managed to improve their performance, although they still remained loss making. The situation is not likely to improve given the very low level of capacity utilisation forecast.\n5. Impact of dumped imports and other factors\n5.1. Impact of the dumped imports\n(94)\nThe investigation showed that despite the measures in force and the decrease in consumption in the Union over the period considered, imports from the PRC and Taiwan increased slightly over the period considered, keeping their market share stable.\n(95)\nAs described in recital 73 it was not possible to make a meaningful price comparison between the import prices of the countries concerned and the sales prices of the Union industry on the Union market in view of the lack of information of types exported by the PRC and Taiwanese exporting producers and the large price variation of different product types within this average price. Indeed, the export prices of the sole cooperating Taiwanese producer could not be compared in a meaningful way with the prices of the sampled Union producers, as there was no matching of similar product types.\n(96)\nFurther to the final disclosure, the cooperating Taiwanese producer mentioned in recital 22 claimed that its exports have not caused any injury to the applicant, since it produces types of SSF which are produced only by a few Union producers in limited quantities. In this respect it is noted, firstly, that the injury assessment is made for the Union industry as a whole and not only for the applicant. Secondly, measures are in force for the product scope as defined in the original investigation, and as explained in recital 21 it is not possible to modify the product scope in the context of an expiry review.\n5.2. Impact of the economic crisis\n(97)\nDue to the positive economic conditions prevailing in the steel and related industries in 2007, the Union industry was in a relatively good economic condition when the economic crisis started at the end of 2008. Even when the market stagnated, in particular in 2009, some Union producers continued their investments to replace obsolete machinery and equipment in order to lower the cost of production and to be more competitive in face of the dumped imports from the countries concerned and the surge of low priced imports from other third countries. Furthermore, when a downturn in demand was perceived, the Union producers were also confronted with strong negotiating power by large distributors which started to exercise more price pressure which negatively impacted the Union industry's economical situation.\n5.3. Imports from other countries\n(98)\nThe impact of imports from other third countries has also been analysed. Their combined import volume increased by 26 % during the period considered, from around 52 000 tonnes to around 66 000 tonnes. At the same time average import prices decreased by 28 % during the period considered and consequently their market share increased from 42,5 % in 2007 to 54,2 % in the RIP.\n(99)\nThe bulk of the imports from other third countries appear to be from India, Philippines and Malaysia. Imports from these three countries accounted for a total market share of around 36 % in the RIP.\n(100)\nAs regards imports from India, they increased by 141 % over the period considered, from around 8 000 tonnes in 2007 to almost 20 000 tonnes in the RIP. The average import prices decreased by 32 % over the same period and were significantly below the average sales price of the Union industry in the RIP. Consequently, the Indian exporters increased their market share from 6,7 % in 2007 to 16,4 % in the RIP.\n(101)\nImports from Philippines show a similar trend to those from India and increased by 129 % over the period considered, from around 6 000 tonnes in 2007 to almost 14 000 tonnes in the RIP. The average import prices decreased by 38 % over the same period and in the RIP they were undercutting the average sales price of the Union industry. Consequently, the market share of Philippines increased from 4,9 % in 2007 to 11,4 % in the RIP.\n(102)\nAs regards imports from Malaysia, although there was a decreasing trend in imports over the period considered (- 27 %), the Malaysian exporters still had a market share of 8,2 % in the RIP. Furthermore, according to the Eurostat data, the average import prices from Malaysia were higher than those from the countries concerned in the beginning of the period considered, however, in the second part, the prices were significantly lower.\n(103)\nIn conclusion, it appears that exporters in other third countries, in particular India, Philippines and Malaysia, have profited from the existence of anti-dumping measures against the PRC and Taiwan. In the second part of the period considered the Indian and Philippine imports more than doubled at prices below those of the PRC and Taiwan, while the imports from Malaysia showed a decreasing trend. This additional price pressure had a further negative impact on the Union industry which saw its profits and other financial indicators showing a strong negative trend from 2008 onwards. Therefore, the development of imports from in particular India and the Philippines have certainly contributed to the loss of market share of the Union industry and the negative development of its financial situation.\nTable 15\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nVolume of imports from other countries (tonnes)\n52 339\n57 920\n50 362\n65 756\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n111\n96\n126\nMarket share of imports from the other countries\n42,5 %\n48,0 %\n49,8 %\n54,2 %\nPrice of imports from the other countries (EUR/tonne)\n5 830\n4 993\n4 384\n4 196\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n86\n75\n72\nVolume of imports from India (tonnes)\n8 282\n13 667\n16 776\n19 945\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n165\n203\n241\nMarket share of imports from India\n6,7 %\n11,3 %\n16,6 %\n16,4 %\nPrice of imports from India (EUR/tonne)\n4 632\n3 758\n3 123\n3 164\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n81\n67\n68\nVolume of imports from Philippines (tonnes)\n6 048\n7 046\n5 406\n13 854\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n117\n89\n229\nMarket share of imports from Philippines\n4,9 %\n5,8 %\n5,3 %\n11,4 %\nPrice of imports from Philippines (EUR/tonne)\n5 685\n4 645\n3 474\n3 505\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n82\n61\n62\nVolume of imports from Malaysia (tonnes)\n13 548\n13 712\n9 810\n9 933\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n101\n72\n73\nMarket share of imports from Malaysia\n11,0 %\n11,4 %\n9,7 %\n8,2 %\nPrice of imports from Malaysia (EUR/tonne)\n5 062\n4 203\n2 963\n3 068\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n83\n59\n61\n6. Conclusion\n(104)\nWhile the Union consumption remained rather stable during the period considered the Union industry lost 25 % of its sales volume in the Union during the same period, leading to a loss of market share from 50,6 % in 2007 to 38,6 % in the RIP. At the same time dumped imports from the countries concerned managed to keep their market share stable.\n(105)\nBetween 2007 and the RIP, and notwithstanding the existence of the anti-dumping measures, most injury indicators developed negatively: production and sales volumes decreased by 17 % and 25 % respectively, capacity and capacity utilisation dropped and were followed by a decrease in employment and productivity levels. Profitability dropped from 7 % in 2007 to - 3 % in the RIP and cash flow showed a similar negative trend.\n(106)\nIt is concluded that the Union industry\u2019s situation deteriorated overall during the period considered and that the Union industry was in a fragile situation at the end of the RIP, when its efforts to maintain sales volumes and a sufficient level of prices were hampered by the increased presence of the dumped imports from the countries concerned as well as low priced imports from other third countries.\nF. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF INJURY\n1. Relationship between export volumes and prices of the countries concerned to third countries and export volumes and prices to the Union\n(107)\nIn the absence of cooperation from PRC exporters, there is no information available regarding their export prices to other markets. As regards Taiwan, based on the information available from the verified companies, average export prices to third countries are lower than those charged in the Union market. Therefore, it is considered that, should measures lapse, Taiwanese exporters would have an incentive to shift significant quantities of exports from other third countries to the more attractive Union market.\n2. Unused capacity in the countries concerned\n(108)\nBased on the information available it appears that there is a large production capacity available both in the PRC and Taiwan and both countries have the ability to increase rapidly their production volumes. In this respect it is recalled that the imposition of anti-dumping measures on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners from the PRC in 2009 (8) has led to a drop in the PRC imports and freed capacity which could be used for the production of SSF. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that a circumvention investigation concluded recently extended the measures imposed on certain iron and steel fasteners originating in the PRC to imports consigned from Malaysia (9). Therefore, the capacity to significantly increase export quantities to the EU exists, in particular because there are no indications that third country markets or the domestic market could absorb any additional production.\n3. Conclusion\n(109)\nIt is clear that the producers in the countries concerned have the potential to raise their export volumes significantly to the EU market. Moreover, in respect of Taiwan, it appears that export prices to third countries are lower than those charged in the Union market, thus increasing the likelihood that a share of the third country exports would be redirected to the EU market in the absence of measures. This would, in all likelihood, have a negative impact on the economic situation of the Union industry.\n(110)\nAs shown above, the situation of the Union industry remains vulnerable. If the Union industry were to be exposed to increased volumes of imports from the countries concerned at dumped prices, this would be likely to result in a further deterioration of its sales, market share, sales prices, as well as a consequent deterioration of its financial situation. On this basis, it is therefore concluded, that the repeal of the measures would in all likelihood result in a worsening of the already fragile situation, and a continuation of material injury to the Union industry.\nG. UNION INTEREST\n1. Introduction\n(111)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of the various interests involved, i.e. those of the Union industry, of importers, and of users. All interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known pursuant to Article 21(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(112)\nIt should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the imposition of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place, allows the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.\n(113)\nOn this basis it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a continuation of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case.\n2. Interest of the Union industry\n(114)\nThe Union industry has proven to be a structurally viable industry. This was confirmed by the rather healthy economic situation observed in the beginning of the period considered. However, throughout the period considered the Union industry lost sales volume and market share and sales prices decreased while imports from the countries concerned increased slightly despite the measures in force. During the same period the financial situation of the Union industry deteriorated and it turned loss-making. Without the existence of the measures, the Union industry would in all likelihood be in an even worse situation.\n3. Interest of importers/users\n(115)\nNone of the 20 contacted users came forward to cooperate. It is recalled that in the original investigation only one user cooperated and it was concluded that users could obtain the product under investigation not only from the countries concerned, but also from other sources of supply. Furthermore, given the marginal impact of SSF on the costs of downstream products, it was concluded that the measures would not adversely impact the users industry.\n(116)\nOnly one importer out of the three sampled importers replied to the questionnaire. Its share of the imports from the countries concerned was very limited and amounted to 1,1 % during the RIP. Furthermore, the investigation showed that the importer generated a healthy profitability (between 5 % and 10 %) while the share of the product concerned in relation to the total company activity is below 10 %. Consequently, it can be concluded that the continuation of measures would have a very limited impact on this importer.\n4. Conclusion\n(117)\nGiven the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.\nH. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(118)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to submit comments subsequent to that disclosure. The submissions and comments were duly taken into consideration where warranted.\n(119)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the PRC and Taiwan, imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1890/2005 should be maintained,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof, currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70 originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and Taiwan.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, for products manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCountry\nCompanies\nAD duty rate (%)\nTARIC additional code\nPRC\nTengzhou Tengda Stainless Steel Product Co. Ltd, Tengzhou City\n11,4\nA650\nTong Ming Enterprise (Jiaxing) Co. Ltd, Zhejiang\n12,2\nA651\nAll other companies\n27,4\nA999\nTaiwan\nArrow Fasteners Co. Ltd, Taipei\n15,2\nA653\nJin Shing Stainless Ind. Co. Ltd, Tao Yuan\n8,8\nA654\nMin Hwei Enterprise Co. Ltd, Pingtung\n16,1\nA655\nTong Hwei Enterprise, Co. Ltd, Kaohsiung\n16,1\nA656\nYi Tai Shen Co. Ltd, Tainan\n11,4\nA657\nCompanies listed in the Annex\n15,8\nA649\nAll other companies\n23,6\nA999\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 January 2012.", "references": ["18", "74", "32", "50", "79", "85", "2", "7", "92", "40", "75", "27", "12", "33", "54", "44", "26", "59", "55", "62", "58", "20", "24", "52", "90", "82", "17", "47", "81", "4", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 711/2012\nof 3 August 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security as regards the methods used for screening persons other than passengers and items carried\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 of 2 April 2009 supplementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security laid down in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) provides that the implementing rules to be adopted pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 may allow the use of explosive trace detection (ETD) equipment and explosive detection dogs for screening persons other than passengers and items carried.\n(2)\nIt is necessary to adopt detailed provisions on the deployment of explosive trace detection (ETD) equipment and explosive detection dogs for screening persons other than passengers and items carried.\n(3)\nThe use of explosive trace detection (ETD) equipment and explosive detection dogs for screening persons other than passengers and items carried should take into account the specific context of staff screening and can facilitate and improve the effectiveness of the screening process.\n(4)\nThe provisions relating to walk-through metal detection (WTMD) are laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 of 4 March 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (3) should be revised in line with the evolution of the threat to civil aviation and the risk posed by different categories of persons.\n(5)\nRegulation (EU) No 185/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Civil Aviation Security,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 August 2012.", "references": ["64", "47", "41", "92", "27", "18", "22", "58", "32", "59", "15", "6", "34", "73", "26", "29", "80", "36", "11", "42", "12", "8", "86", "49", "61", "52", "67", "17", "10", "85", "No Label", "1", "24", "53", "54", "57", "76"], "gold": ["1", "24", "53", "54", "57", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 21 December 2011\nestablishing the list of Union inspectors pursuant to Article 79(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009\n(notified under document C(2011) 9701)\n(2011/883/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Article 79(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishes a Community system for control, inspection and enforcement to ensure compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy. Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 provides that, without prejudice to the primary responsibility of the coastal Member States, Union inspectors may carry out inspections in accordance with that Regulation in Union waters and on Union fishing vessels outside Union waters. The list of Union inspectors is to be established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\n(2)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (2) lays down detailed rules for the application of the control system of the European Union as established by Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\n(3)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 provides that the list of Union inspectors is to be adopted on the basis of the notifications of Member States and the European Fisheries Control Agency.\n(4)\nOn the basis of the notifications received from the Member States, it is therefore appropriate to lay down the list of Union inspectors in the Annex to this Decision.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe list of Union inspectors pursuant to Article 79(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["21", "24", "81", "87", "94", "84", "44", "57", "95", "22", "28", "65", "46", "59", "73", "89", "71", "99", "38", "56", "13", "35", "54", "25", "97", "50", "26", "6", "76", "47", "No Label", "8", "67"], "gold": ["8", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1326/2011\nof 16 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["98", "13", "86", "6", "37", "83", "52", "88", "31", "28", "3", "19", "58", "69", "0", "17", "99", "79", "94", "92", "87", "47", "23", "84", "49", "73", "45", "7", "12", "30", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 January 2012\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in the Czech Republic\n(2012/58/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 2(3) and Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2), in particular Article 20 thereof and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nThe Czech Republic has informed the General Secretariat of the Council of the national DNA analysis files to which Articles 2 to 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA apply and the conditions for automated searching as referred to in Article 3(1) of that Decision in accordance with Article 36(2) of that Decision.\n(5)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1, of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(6)\nThe Czech Republic has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on DNA data exchange.\n(7)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by the Czech Republic with Slovakia.\n(8)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in the Czech Republic and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the Slovakian evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(9)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning DNA data exchange has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching and comparison of DNA data, the Czech Republic has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of that Decision as from the day of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["16", "0", "81", "8", "76", "44", "94", "31", "61", "9", "87", "74", "64", "57", "66", "56", "39", "67", "83", "85", "93", "37", "28", "20", "98", "29", "75", "21", "48", "86", "No Label", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2012/4/EU\nof 22 February 2012\namending Directive 2008/43/EC setting up, pursuant to Council Directive 93/15/EEC, a system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil uses\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonisation of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses (1), and in particular the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 14 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFuses, including safety fuses as well as cap-type primers, are subject to Directive 93/15/EEC, but they are used for pyrotechnic rather than for explosive purposes. The potential effects of their misuse are likely to be similar to the effects of misuse of pyrotechnic articles which present a low level of hazard and therefore those effects are much less severe in comparison with the other types of explosives. For reasons of proportionality, fuses, including safety fuses as well as cap-type primers, should be exempted from the system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil use.\n(2)\nThe development of the computerised systems needed to implement the system for the identification and traceability of explosives has taken longer than initially expected. A postponement of the application of Commission Directive 2008/43/EC (2) is necessary to provide the explosives industry with extra time to fully develop, test, validate and, thereby, to increase the security of the electronic systems required to implement Directive 2008/43/EC. In order to allow this, the obligation on manufacturers and importers to mark explosives should be postponed by 1 year to 5 April 2013. Additional time is necessary to have the requisite electronic tracking systems implemented by all actors along the supply chain. Furthermore, stocks of explosives with longer shelf-lives which were produced earlier and were not to be marked in accordance with Directive 2008/43/EC will still be in the supply chain and it is impractical to oblige companies to maintain different types of records. The obligations on data collection and record keeping should therefore be postponed by 3 years to 5 April 2015.\n(3)\nCertain articles are too small to affix the code of the manufacturing site and the electronically readable information. On certain other articles, affixing a unique identification is technically impossible due to their shape or design. In those cases, the required identification should be affixed on each smallest packaging unit. Future technical progress may make it possible to affix the code of the manufacturing site and the electronically readable information on those articles. The Commission should therefore carry out a review by the end of 2020 to assess whether the required information can be affixed on the articles themselves.\n(4)\nDirective 2008/43/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 13(1) of Directive 93/15/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2008/43/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2, the following points (d), (e) and (f) are added:\n\u2018(d)\nfuses, which are cord-like non-detonating igniting devices;\n(e)\nsafety fuses, which consist of a core of fine grained black powder surrounded by a flexible woven fabric with one or more protective outer coverings and which, when ignited, burn at a predetermined rate without any external explosive effect;\n(f)\ncap-type primers, which consist of a metal or plastic cap containing a small amount of primary explosive mixture that is readily ignited by impact and which serve as igniting elements in small arms cartridges or in percussion primers for propelling charges.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 7\nPlain detonators\nFor plain detonators the unique identification shall consist of an adhesive label or direct printing or stamping on the detonator shell. An associated label shall be placed on each case of detonators.\nIn addition, undertakings may use a passive inert electronic tag attached to each detonator, and an associated tag for each case of detonators.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticles 9 and 10 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 9\nPrimers and boosters\nFor primers other than those referred to in Article 2 and for boosters the unique identification shall consist of an adhesive label or direct printing on such primers and boosters. An associated label shall be placed on each case of such primers and boosters.\nIn addition, undertakings may use a passive inert electronic tag attached to each such primer and booster, and an associated tag for each case of such primers and boosters.\nArticle 10\nDetonating cords\nFor detonating cords the unique identification shall consist of an adhesive label or direct printing on the bobbin. The unique identification will be marked every 5 meters on either the external envelope of the cord or the plastic extruded inner layer immediately under the exterior fibre of the cord. An associated label shall be placed on each case of detonating cord.\nIn addition, undertakings may use a passive inert electronic tag inserted within the cord, and an associated tag for each case of cord.\u2019;\n(4)\nthe second subparagraph of Article 15(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018They shall apply those provisions from 5 April 2013. However, they shall apply the provisions necessary to comply with Article 3(6) and Articles 13 and 14 from 5 April 2015.\u2019;\n(5)\nthe following Article 15a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 15a\nBy 31 December 2020, the Commission shall carry out a review to assess whether technical progress has made it possible to revoke the exemptions set out in point 3 of the Annex.\u2019;\n(6)\nin point 3 of the Annex, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u2018For articles too small to affix the information under point 1(b)(i) and (ii) and point 2 or where it is technically impossible due to their shape or design to affix a unique identification, a unique identification shall be affixed on each smallest packaging unit.\nEach smallest packaging unit shall be closed with a seal.\nEach plain detonator or booster falling under the exemption set out in the second paragraph shall be marked in a durable way so as to ensure that it is clearly legible with the information under point 1(b)(i) and (ii). The number of plain detonators and boosters contained shall be printed on the smallest packaging unit.\nEach detonating cord falling under the exemption set out in the second paragraph shall be marked with the unique identification on the reel or spool and, where applicable, on the smallest packaging unit.\u2019.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 4 April 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 5 April 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 February 2012.", "references": ["65", "78", "3", "68", "79", "95", "87", "24", "7", "34", "74", "75", "45", "0", "15", "69", "72", "21", "60", "48", "4", "16", "61", "71", "76", "2", "38", "28", "81", "62", "No Label", "25", "41", "42", "77", "83"], "gold": ["25", "41", "42", "77", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1006/2011\nof 27 September 2011\namending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Articles 9 and 12 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 established a goods nomenclature, hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Combined Nomenclature\u2019, to meet, at one and the same time, the requirements of the Common Customs Tariff, the external trade statistics of the Community, and other Community policies concerning the importation or exportation of goods.\n(2)\nIn the interests of legislative simplification, it is appropriate to modernise the Combined Nomenclature and to adapt its structure.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to amend the Combined Nomenclature, in order to take account of the following: changes in requirements relating to statistics and to commercial policy, changes made in order to fulfil international commitments, technological and commercial developments, changes in the Harmonised System nomenclature pursuant to the Recommendation of 26 June 2009 of the Customs Cooperation Council and the consequences thereof, and the need to align or clarify texts.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, Annex I to that Regulation should be replaced, with effect from 1 January 2012, by a complete version of the Combined Nomenclature, together with the autonomous and conventional rates of duty resulting from measures adopted by the Council or by the Commission.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2011.", "references": ["12", "91", "51", "20", "88", "73", "72", "14", "70", "83", "64", "32", "29", "28", "30", "13", "5", "40", "52", "69", "55", "76", "89", "84", "8", "24", "3", "56", "45", "99", "No Label", "21", "22", "25"], "gold": ["21", "22", "25"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 868/2011\nof 31 August 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of a preparation of Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 21762) and of a preparation of Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 22963) as feed additives for all animal species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, applications were submitted for the authorisation of a preparation of Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 21762) and of a preparation of Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 22963). Those applications were accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe applications concern the authorisation of a preparation of Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 21762) and of a preparation of Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 22963) as feed additives for all animal species, to be classified in the additive category \u2018technological additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 15 March 2011 (2) that Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 21762) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that this preparation has the potential to improve the production of silage from all forages by reducing the pH and increasing the preservation of dry matter. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additives in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe Authority concluded in its opinion of 7 April 2011 (3) that Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 22963) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that this preparation has the potential to improve the production of silage by increasing acetic acid production. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additives in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of the preparation of Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 21762) and of the preparation of Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 22963) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of those preparations should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparations specified in Annex belonging to the additive category \u2018technological additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018silage additives\u2019, are authorised as additives in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 August 2011.", "references": ["31", "71", "91", "50", "48", "38", "33", "89", "67", "15", "41", "69", "56", "96", "57", "85", "6", "32", "86", "92", "16", "68", "83", "87", "30", "94", "97", "0", "79", "22", "No Label", "25", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 47/2011\nof 20 January 2011\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Community,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2011.", "references": ["96", "26", "91", "6", "79", "0", "45", "19", "94", "28", "48", "44", "14", "52", "2", "76", "66", "58", "25", "12", "80", "60", "36", "77", "27", "23", "54", "99", "43", "67", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1238/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\namending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 as regards the provision of duty-free treatment for specified pharmaceutical active ingredients bearing an \u2018international non-proprietary name\u2019 (INN) from the World Health Organization and specified products used for the manufacture of finished pharmaceuticals\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn the course of the Uruguay Round negotiations, the Community and a number of countries agreed that duty-free treatment should be granted to pharmaceutical products falling within the Harmonised System (HS) Chapter 30 and HS headings 2936, 2937, 2939 and 2941 as well as to designated pharmaceutical active ingredients bearing an \u2018international non-proprietary name\u2019 (INN) from the World Health Organization, specified salts, esters and hydrates of such INNs, and designated pharmaceutical intermediates used for the production and manufacture of finished pharmaceuticals.\n(2)\nThe results of the discussions, as set out in the Record of Discussions, were incorporated into the tariff schedules of the participants annexed to the Marrakesh Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994.\n(3)\nParticipants concluded that representatives of World Trade Organization (WTO) members, party to the Record of Discussions, would meet under the auspices of the Council for Trade in Goods of the WTO, normally at least once every three years, to review the product coverage with a view to including, by consensus, additional pharmaceutical products for tariff elimination.\n(4)\nThree such reviews have taken place with the result that a certain number of additional INNs and pharmaceutical intermediates used for the production and manufacture of finished pharmaceuticals have been granted duty-free treatment, that some of those intermediates have been transferred to the list of INNs, and that the list of specified prefixes and suffixes for salts, esters or hydrates of INNs has been expanded.\n(5)\nA fourth review was deemed appropriate and was launched in 2009. It concluded that a certain number of additional INNs and pharmaceutical intermediates used for the production and manufacture of finished pharmaceuticals should be granted duty-free treatment, that some of those intermediates already included in the pharmaceutical sectoral arrangement and its revisions should be transferred to the list of INNs, and that the list of specified prefixes and suffixes for salts, esters or hydrates of INNs should be expanded.\n(6)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (2) established the Combined Nomenclature (CN) and set out the conventional duty rates of the Common Customs Tariff.\n(7)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation apply from 1 January 2011, it should enter into force on the day following that of its publication,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes 3, 4 and 6 of Section II of Part Three of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (Lists of pharmaceutical substances which qualify for duty-free treatment) are hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nAs from 1 January 2011 the Union shall extend duty-free treatment to the INNs listed in Annex I.\n2.\nAs from 1 January 2011 the list of prefixes and suffixes which, in combination with the INNs included in the pharmaceutical sectoral arrangement and its revisions, describe the salts, esters or hydrates of INNs which are also eligible for duty-free treatment, on condition that they are classifiable in the same six-digit HS subheading as the corresponding INN, shall be amended as set out in Annex II.\n3.\nAs from 1 January 2011 the Union shall extend duty-free treatment to the pharmaceutical intermediates used in the production and manufacture of finished pharmaceuticals, listed in Annex III.\n4.\nAs from 1 January 2011 the pharmaceutical intermediates listed in Annex IV shall be withdrawn from the list of such compounds receiving duty-free treatment.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["55", "88", "98", "19", "83", "60", "35", "50", "93", "13", "91", "90", "79", "74", "84", "62", "77", "81", "5", "42", "41", "0", "29", "46", "1", "24", "53", "2", "75", "58", "No Label", "21", "38", "99"], "gold": ["21", "38", "99"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 July 2010\non the existence of an excessive deficit in Finland\n(2010/408/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 126(6) in conjunction with Article 126(13) and Article 136 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the observations made by Finland,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 126(1) of the Treaty Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits.\n(2)\nThe Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.\n(3)\nThe excessive deficit procedure (EDP) under Article 126 of the Treaty, as clarified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1) (which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact), provides for a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit. The Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the EDP. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provision of the said Protocol.\n(4)\nThe 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the EDP. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.\n(5)\nArticle 126(5) of the Treaty requires the Commission to address an opinion to the Council if the Commission considers that an excessive deficit in a Member State exists or may occur. Having taken into account its report in accordance with Article 126(3) and having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee in accordance with Article 126(4), the Commission concluded that an excessive deficit exists in Finland. The Commission therefore addressed such an opinion to the Council in respect of Finland on 15 June 2010 (3).\n(6)\nArticle 126(6) of the Treaty states that the Council should consider any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make before deciding, after an overall assessment, whether an excessive deficit exists. In the case of Finland, this overall assessment leads to the following conclusions.\n(7)\nAccording to the data notified by the Finnish authorities in April 2010, the general government deficit in Finland is planned to reach 4,1 % of GDP in 2010, thus exceeding the 3 % of GDP reference value. While the third supplementary budget presented by the Ministry of Finance to the Parliament on 14 May 2010 suggests that tax revenues in 2010 could turn out higher than planned, this has not officially altered the deficit target. The planned deficit is not close to the 3 % of GDP reference value, but the planned excess over the reference value can be qualified as exceptional within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. In particular, it does result from a severe economic downturn in the sense of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. Furthermore, the planned excess over the reference value can be considered temporary. According to the Commission services\u2019 spring 2010 forecast, the deficit will fall below the reference value in 2011, supported by the projected economic recovery taking hold. The deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.\n(8)\nAccording to the data notified by the Finnish authorities in April 2010, the general government gross debt remains below the 60 % of GDP reference value at 49,9 % of GDP in 2010. The Commission services\u2019 spring 2010 forecast projects the debt ratio to be at 50,5 % of GDP in 2010 and to increase to 54,9 % of GDP in 2011, still to remain below the 60 % of GDP reference value. The debt criterion in the Treaty is fulfilled.\n(9)\nAccording to Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, \u2018relevant factors\u2019 can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) if the double condition - that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary - is fully met. In the case of Finland, this double condition is not met. Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFrom an overall assessment it follows that an excessive deficit exists in Finland.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Finland.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2010.", "references": ["61", "15", "45", "66", "0", "57", "19", "83", "26", "41", "49", "1", "71", "4", "93", "85", "59", "3", "81", "12", "8", "82", "50", "30", "95", "34", "18", "88", "27", "40", "No Label", "16", "28", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["16", "28", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 781/2011\nof 4 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 August 2011.", "references": ["88", "69", "20", "30", "27", "62", "45", "5", "39", "40", "79", "78", "54", "99", "34", "6", "26", "57", "47", "83", "89", "97", "60", "0", "98", "23", "13", "33", "53", "18", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 8 May 2012\non State aid SA.22668 (C 8/08 (ex NN 4/08))\n(notified under document C(2012) 3025)\n(Only the Spanish text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2013/126/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 22 February 2007, the Commission received a State aid complaint from Complainant A (2) concerning support allegedly given by the Region of Valencia to the Ciudad de la Luz film studios. Complainant A confirmed on 15 March 2007 that its complaint could be forwarded to the Spanish authorities.\n(2)\nOn 10 April 2007, the Commission forwarded the full complaint to the Spanish authorities, requesting information about the alleged aid. The Commission had not previously been notified of any film support measures in Valencia for State aid approval.\n(3)\nAfter requesting an extension of deadline on 18 April 2007 (granted on 24 April), the Spanish authorities replied to the Commission\u2019s request for information on 15 June 2007.\n(4)\nOn 30 April 2007, Complainant A provided links to articles published in Variety allegedly setting out the production subsidies offered for filming in Valencia and confirming that Ciudad de la Luz was attracting large budget film productions (3).\n(5)\nThe Commission requested additional information from the Spanish authorities on 13 July 2007. After requesting an extension of deadline on 18 July 2007 (granted on 19 July), the Spanish authorities replied to the Commission\u2019s request for information on 8 October 2007.\n(6)\nOn 15 July 2007, the Commission received a complaint from Complainant B (4). After having obtained the agreement of the complainant, the Commission forwarded its complaint to the Spanish authorities on 2 August 2007.\n(7)\nBy letter dated 13 February 2008, the Commission informed the Spanish authorities that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of the aid. Spain replied to this on 28 April 2008.\n(8)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.\n(9)\nThe Commission received comments from interested parties, and forwarded them to Spain on 3 October 2008. The Spanish authorities\u2019 comments were received on 21 November 2008 and on 29 December 2008.\n(10)\nAfter a meeting between the Commission and the Spanish authorities on 11 February 2009, Spain provided additional information on 30 March 2009.\n(11)\nThe Commission sent a further request for information to Spain on 26 August 2009 to which the Spanish authorities replied on 20 October 2009, providing additional information on 1 February 2010.\n(12)\nThe Commission sent a further request for information to Spain on 24 May 2011, informing Spain of the appointment of an independent economic consultant, Ecorys. Spain replied on 7 June 2011. The Commission replied to Spain on 22 July 2011.\n(13)\nThe Commission sent Spain its final request for information, including the report from Ecorys, on 1 August 2011. Spain provided its comments on the Ecorys report on 3 October 2011. Spain provided further data on the public investment in Ciudad de la Luz SAU on 11 April 2012.\nII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION\n(14)\nCiudad de la Luz is a major film studio complex just outside Alicante (Valencia). The Valencia Regional Government (Generalitat Valenciana) took its initial decision to invest in the Ciudad de la Luz project on 24 October 2000.\n(15)\nCiudad de la Luz SA was incorporated on 2 November 2000. Its objective was to carry out the necessary activities for the promotion, organisation and management of the \u2018Ciudad de la Luz\u2019 site, including the construction, management and operation of audiovisual and cinematographic facilities, as well as other related leisure and accommodation activities.\n(16)\n75 % of the original EUR 600 000 share capital of Ciudad de la Luz SA was owned by Parque Tem\u00e1tico de Alicante SAU, which later became Sociedad Proyectos Tem\u00e1ticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU (SPTCV). SPTCV is a public entity which carries out investment activities on behalf of the Valencia Regional Government. The remaining 25 % belonged to Producciones Aguamarga SL, a private company which was responsible for the remaining construction work, for promoting Ciudad de la Luz and for managing the studios.\n(17)\nIn November 2001, the share capital was increased to EUR 9 million, with SPTCV purchasing all the additional shares, taking its holding to 98,4 %. SPTCV increased its holding further in February 2003 and May 2004 through similar purchases of new share capital. Producciones Aguamarga sold its 0,2 % share of Ciudad de la Luz SA (6) to SPTCV in July 2004 (for EUR 139 059). Since then, the Valencia Regional Government has held 100 % of the share capital of Ciudad de la Luz SAU via SPTCV. Since that time, Ciudad de la Luz SAU has been a public undertaking entirely owned by SPTCV and subject to public law as to tendering and financial supervision. However, Producciones Aguamarga continued to manage Ciudad de la Luz.\n(18)\nThe film studio complex opened for filming in August 2005. Designed to accommodate the largest film productions, construction began in 2002 and has been divided into three phases:\n-\nPhase 1 (completed): 6 air-conditioned sound stages with a combined area of 11 000 m2, production support buildings, 15 050 m2 of workshops/storage, and 2 external filming areas (back lots) of a total of 14 hectares.\n-\nPhase 2 (completed after the formal investigation opened): catering facilities, an administrative building, a post-production laboratory and a third external filming area (back lot) of 5 hectares with an aquatic filming tank.\n-\nPhase 2B (work not started): a large, deep natural-horizon water tank.\n-\nPhase 3 (work not started) a 5 000 m2 sound stage (intended to be the world\u2019s largest), another back lot and 4 TV studios.\n(19)\nThe studio complex also houses a university school dedicated to audiovisual production (cinema, TV, radio, internet) which offers master\u2019s degrees covering all aspects of production (artistic, technical marketing, communication). The initial plans in 2000 included other additional investments in adjacent malls, hotels and a sports complex which were to generate positive cash inflows for the project, but which have not been developed to date. Although the necessary land was provided by the Generalitat in 2004 and invitations to tender for operation of these businesses under concession were launched in 2005, the bids were not attractive enough and the additional investments have not been followed up.\n(20)\nCertain aspects of the \u2018state-of-the-art\u2019 facilities at Ciudad de la Luz put it well ahead of the limited number of competing major film studios in Europe in terms of capacity for large-budget films. For instance, the 5 000 m2 sound stage in the original plans for Ciudad de la Luz would have been the largest in the world (7). The Commission notes that large sound stages are only of interest to major film productions.\n(21)\nUntil recently, the studio was managed by Aguamarga Gesti\u00f3n de Estudios SL, which acted as agent for the film studio in return for remuneration on the basis of a multi-annual management contract with the shareholder.\n(22)\nPrior to the start of the construction works, in 1999-2000, the feasibility, scope and strategic guidelines of the development of Ciudad de la Luz were analysed by third party consultants in four studies submitted by Spain in the course of the formal investigation procedure.\n(23)\nThese studies explored the growth prospects of the number of film productions (8), compared alternative locations in the Region of Valencia for the construction of film studios (9) and provided a preliminary analysis (10) and business plan (11) for a film studio complex. They had not been submitted by the Spanish authorities before the Commission\u2019s decision to open a formal State aid investigation concerning the project. The data in the opening decision of 22 February 2008 were from a study (by Consultia) which the Spanish authorities had informed the Commission was carried out in 2002. However, after the opening decision, Spain subsequently informed the Commission that this study had been carried out in 2004.\n(24)\nThe conclusions of the 2000 business plan developed by Arthur Andersen (12) were positive, including its profitability prospects in the medium to long term. The positive cash flows of the film studio project were documented for a five-year period (2002-2006) after completion of the construction of the studio buildings, a conference hall and school for film and television techniques.\n(25)\nThe cost of construction of these phases was estimated to be 16,9 billion pesetas (EUR 101,7 million). The land cost was not included and the business plan indicated that the costings could vary by +/- 30 %. Subsequent phases to complete the project were not costed.\n(26)\nOn the basis of this business plan, between 2000 and 2004, SPTCV carried out or committed investments in Ciudad de la Luz through share capital increases and land totalling EUR 104 259 759. See details in recital 53.\n(27)\nSince the construction took two years more than expected and the investment schedule was modified to be increased significantly, in 2004 Ciudad de la Luz/SPTCV commissioned a new study and business plan from Consultia (13). The Consultia study also concluded positively on the profitability of the project, with a business plan for the period 2004-2014 showing a positive return for the investment by SPTCV until 2014 and in the longer term.\n(28)\nThe share of Ciudad de la Luz SA held by Producciones Aguamarga SL was bought out by SPTCV in July 2004 for EUR 139 059. Unlike SPTCV, Producciones Aguamarga SL had made no further investment in Ciudad de la Luz SA after its initial EUR 150 000 investment in November 2000. So the share of Ciudad de la Luz SA held by Producciones Aguamarga SL had fallen to 0,2 % by the time this was acquired by SPTCV. After this transaction, the company became wholly publicly-owned and hence became Ciudad de la Luz SAU.\n(29)\nOn the basis of the modified work schedule and business plan, SPTCV, as sole shareholder, granted two participating loans of EUR 95 million in 2005 and EUR 20 million in 2007. The accounts of Ciudad de la Luz SAU to 31 December 2010, provided by the Spanish authorities in April 2012, show that SPTCV went on to invest a total of EUR 45 829 840 in convertible loan stock between 2008 and 2010. These accounts also show that SPTCV was owed interest on the 2005 and 2009 participating loans totalling EUR 7 222 160 for 2009 and 2010, In addition, EUR 1 814 187 of unpaid interest on the convertible loan stock had accumulated by 31 December 2010. Therefore, the investment of public funds by SPTCV in Ciudad de la Luz, including the interest pending on the loans provided, totalled EUR 274 125 946 by the end of 2010.\n(30)\nIn the 2000 business plan, Ciudad de la Luz was aiming to become the studio complex with the second largest capacity in Europe (after Pinewood) and to attract Spanish productions (cinema, TV and commercials) supplemented with a target of sixteen foreign (EU and US) film productions per year. The 2004 revised business plan considered that one of the strategic objectives of Ciudad de la Luz should be to make large film and TV productions its main clients.\n(31)\nThe 2004 business plan regarded the main international competitors of Ciudad de la Luz to be large studios outside the US, particularly those which have similar characteristics to Ciudad de la Luz, namely Pinewood-Shepperton (UK), Cinecitta (Italy), Barrandov (Czech Republic), Babelsberg (Germany), Cinecite Montreal & Lions Gate (Canada) and Warner Roadshow & Fox (Australia).\n(32)\nIn the initial 2000 business plan, the planned tariffs for studio services (e.g. back lot rental, workshop) were envisaged within a range of the tariffs applied by comparable studios in the EU (i.e. Shepperton and Elstree in the UK, Babelsberg in Germany). The 2004 revised business plan also presents a strategic pricing model with reference to the tariffs applied by studios with international reputation, roughly 15-20 % cheaper than established leaders (USA and Pinewood UK) but 50 %-100 % more expensive than EU studios (Barrandov in the Czech Republic and Babelsberg in Germany).\n(33)\nIn practice, the national and international targets of the business strategy of Ciudad de la Luz have not materialised. Out of 33 films shot in Ciudad de la Luz between 2005 and 2009, 28 are Spanish productions and only 5 are EU co-productions (Greece, France). Apart from occasional highlights provided by major European co-productions such as Asterix at the Olympic Games and most recently a US-Spanish coproduction, in practice the films shot at Ciudad de la Luz since it opened in August 2005 have been mainly Spanish national productions.\n(34)\nDespite the prospects shown by the 2004 business plan setting 2010 as the first year of (modest) positive operating results, the commercial operation of Ciudad de la Luz has been loss-making to date. Ciudad de la Luz had cumulative losses of EUR 84 million by the end of 2010, compared to the cumulative profits of EUR 12 million by the same date forecast by the 2004 business plan. In comparison to the studios mentioned above, Ciudad de la Luz has failed to attract the planned amount of non-Spanish productions so far and, even for Spanish demand, the results are below expectations. Operating losses are also bigger than expected.\n(35)\nThe Commission\u2019s investigation was prompted in 2007 by a complaint from Complainant A, as well as a subsequent complaint from Complainant B, both of which are prominent players in the film sector in different Member States. The complaints alleged illegal State aid in the public funding of Ciudad de la Luz and, especially, in the system of film-specific incentives put in place by Ciudad de la Luz.\n(36)\nAs noted above, at the time the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure in February 2008, the only basis for the investment decision that had been provided by the Spanish authorities was the Consultia business plan, purportedly carried out in 2002. After a preliminary assessment, the Commission had serious doubts that a market investor would have invested on the same terms and on the same scale as the Valencia Regional Government.\n(37)\nAs to the possible compatibility of the aid, the Commission had no information enabling it to verify whether the conditions of the Regional Aid Guidelines applicable to the Region of Valencia at the time (2000-2004) were met. The Commission also doubted that the cultural exception referred to in Article 107(3)(d) of the Treaty could be applied, since Ciudad de la Luz was not promoting culture or heritage conservation, could be used for all sorts of audiovisual works, including commercials, and was competing with other operators to attract commercial productions.\n(38)\nThe Commission also noted possible State aid in the incentive system for shooting at Ciudad de la Luz and identified the relevant film producers as beneficiaries. The film-specific incentives were targeting specific activities in a specific location on the basis of unknown criteria and thus appeared not to meet the rules laid down in the Commission\u2019s \u2018Cinema Communication\u2019.\nIII. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(39)\nThe Commission received comments from ten interested parties in total. Four of these are active in the exploitation of film studio business in Member States other than Spain (Complainant A, Complainant B, Barrandov Studio and Mediterranean Film Studios Limited); five are active in the Spanish film sector (the Federaci\u00f3n de Asociaciones de Productores Audiovisuales Espa\u00f1oles - FAPAE, the Associacio de directors de cinema valencians, the Empreses audiovisuals valencianes federades - EAVf, the association Productors audiovisuals valencians and the Sociedad Proyectos Tematicos de la Comunidad Valenciana - SPTCV SAU); and one was a national film funding and policy body (UK Film Council).\n(40)\nIn its confidential submission of 25 June 2008, Complainant B expresses its concerns about the aid through which Ciudad de la Luz developed and operates at present. It claims that the measures taken by the Commission in opening the procedure are essential for its company and the sector.\n(41)\nIn its confidential submission dated 30 June 2008, Complainant A confines its comments on the in-depth investigation to four issues: (i) the costs of financing the studios, (ii) the approach to financing a \u2018start-up business\u2019, (iii) the final disposal valuation and (iv) the other incentives granted by Ciudad de la Luz. In its view, \u2018a private investor would regard even an established and profit-making studio business as at least a medium risk investment \u2026. This is based on the fact that, although a studio business is asset backed \u2026, its operational gearing is likely to be high, which makes profit difficult to forecast. Further uncertainty is introduced by factors such as the cyclical nature of the film production sector.\u2019\n(42)\nAccording to Complainant A, a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of about 15 % might be appropriate for an established studio business, although \u2018the return expected by [Complainant A\u2019s] private equity investors was higher than that\u2019. A start-up studio business would be viewed by a private investor as \u2018a medium to high risk venture and would therefore expect materially higher returns from its investment (albeit that some lead time to profitability would be tolerated). Given that there is usually limited (if any) capacity for start-ups to borrow from conventional sources, the WACC for a start-up business is generally increased by both the higher equity returns that are required and the lack of lower cost debt.\u2019\n(43)\nAs to the final disposal value of Ciudad de la Luz indicated in the opening decision, Complainant A considers it unrealistic. It also claims that a private investor would generally find it unusual for a multiple of earnings before interest and tax of more than 12-15 to be a good proxy for valuation.\n(44)\nFinally, as to the incentives granted to attract productions, Complainant A alleged that they appear to have effectively subsidised the cost to film production companies of bringing in qualified technical and support staff, which are allegedly lacking in the Valencia region. Complainant A considers that the incentives have a serious adverse effect on competition as the studios would have found it more difficult to attract film productions without such incentives.\n(45)\nIn their initial submission of 25 June 2008, Barrandov Studio stressed that the alleged aid distorts the relevant market and disadvantages other competitors and requested an additional time period to submit further comments, given the complexity of the case. Those comments reached the Commission on 15 September 2008. Barrandov Studio subscribe to the grounds of the complaint alleged by Complainant A and stress that the size and number of sound stages indicate that Ciudad de la Luz is focused on high budget US films rather than on Spanish ones. The low density of film professionals and infrastructure in Alicante compared to Madrid or Barcelona does not indicate a logical choice of location. In terms of strategy, an investor in the studio business would split their clientele into local clients providing stable income and foreign clients focused on large foreign productions. Ciudad de la Luz adopts the opposite strategy, based on the provision of studio services at extremely low prices which disregard the establishment costs. Moreover, given the uncertainty caused by the difficulty of forecasting revenues beyond 3-5 years in the industry, a private investor would have requested a much faster return. In Barrandov\u2019s opinion, this assertion is corroborated by a confidential business plan illustrating its recent investment in new studios, which was undertaken on the assumption of having net earnings from the second year of operation and a pay-back period of less than 8 years. Nor does Barrandov see any rational explanation for the amount of profits (EUR 341 million) expected by the Spanish Authorities by 2014.\n(46)\nIn its submission of 27 June 2008, Mediterranean Film Studios Limited confines its comments to the water tanks that Ciudad de la Luz announced. They claim that their own water tanks are unique in Europe and comparable only to those of Fox in Baja California (Mexico). Given the low occupancy rate per year of their tanks, they allege that in their view and the industry consensus view, there is already enough capacity in the Mediterranean area or in Europe for filming water tanks.\n(47)\nIn its comments dated 30 June 2008, the Federacion de asociaciones de productores audiovisuales espanoles (FAPAE) considers that Ciudad de la Luz has introduced more competition in the market for big production facilities and that the complainants simply wish to maintain their market position and bar the entry of competitors which propose credible alternative service and price-wise to their studios which dominate the European market. The FAPAE also claims that studios such as Barrandov, Cinecitt\u00e0, Babelsberg or Mafilms have built up their market position and reputation around public support in different forms, including public participation in share capital. More generally, the FAPAE stresses that the maintenance of cultural diversity justifies strong public intervention in the industry. In particular, Ciudad de la Luz allegedly provides the Spanish production industry with sophisticated and state-of-the-art services in Spain which would otherwise need to be obtained abroad at higher cost. Against the allegation that Ciudad de la Luz targets super-productions, the FAPAE alleges that Ciudad de la Luz greatly benefits low-budget Spanish productions and focuses on national or local culture, thereby contributing to cultural objectives set out in the former Article 87(3)(d) (now Article 107(3)(d)). The observations dated 21 May 2008 of the Empreses audiovisuals valencianes federades (EAVf) and those dated 16 May 2008 of the association of Productors audiovisuals valencians largely echo, sometimes verbatim, the comments of FAPAE.\n(48)\nIn their comments of 5 June 2008, the Associaci\u00f2 de directors de cinema valencians stresses that the dominance of the US cinema industry marginalises European productions through a variety of allegedly abusive practices. In their view, corrective measures are necessary for European cultural creations to compete on a level playing field. This association alleges that the public intervention in Ciudad de la Luz is fully instrumental in that respect, to the benefit of European, Spanish and Valencian production and with a view to defending their cultural identities.\n(49)\nThe observations of Sociedad Proyectos Tem\u00e1ticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU (the 100 % owner of Ciudad de la Luz SAU, itself owned by the Comunidad Valenciana) dated 23 June 2008, in essence reproduce the same subsidiary arguments and rely on the evidence adduced by Spain. Some aspects on which their observations place particular emphasis are the following. Firstly, the fact that a private investor partly funded the project at its inception in 2000 based on the studies available shows that the investment by public authorities followed the logic of a private investor. Both studies in 2000 and 2004 concluded without any reservation that the project was profitable. Secondly, the incentives provided to specific films are commercially justified for a new business and granted as a \u2018sponsoring contract\u2019 in exchange for promotion activities which generate a return on the reputation of the studios whilst triggering advertising costs for the recipients. A study carried out in this respect estimates the economic return of sponsoring contracts for Ciudad de la Luz to be to EUR [\u2026] (14) million.\n(50)\nThe UK Film Council asserts in its letter of 25 June 2008 that there is a case to answer in the decision opening the formal investigation procedure.\nIV. COMMENTS FROM SPAIN\n(51)\nAfter the formal investigation was opened, the Spanish authorities revealed that the initial investment decision was based on a business plan prepared in 2000, and not on the one which they had submitted previously. This business plan was in a study carried out in 2004, and not in 2002, as the Spanish authorities had previously informed the Commission.\n(52)\nBy the time of the 2004 study, more than EUR 90 million had already been invested in the project. Consequently, the Spanish authorities claim that two investment decisions were taken: one in 2000 for the first phase of the project and one in 2004 for the planned extension.\n(53)\nThe timetable for investments in the Ciudad de la Luz, as last updated by the Spanish authorities in April 2012, was as follows:\nDate\nDescription\nPublic investment\n(in EUR)\n24.10.2000\nValencia Region decides to develop Ciudad de la Luz\n-\n2.11.2000\nCiudad de la Luz SA is created (75 % owned by Parque Tem\u00e1tico de Alicante SAU, 25 % owned by Producciones Aguamarga SL)\n450 000\n[75 % of 600 000]\n21.11.2001\nParque Tem\u00e1tico de Alicante SAU invests unilaterally for a capital increase of EUR 9 million in Ciudad de la Luz SA (increasing its share to 98,4 %)\n9 000 000\n6.2.2003\nProyectos Tem\u00e1ticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU (15) invests unilaterally in a capital increase of EUR 30 million in Ciudad de la Luz SA (increasing its share to 99,6 %)\n30 000 000\n4.5.2004\nProyectos Tem\u00e1ticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU invests unilaterally in a capital increase of EUR 54 870 660 in Ciudad de la Luz SA (increasing its share to 99,8 %)\n54 870 660\n23.7.2004\nProyectos Tem\u00e1ticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU acquires the 0,2 % share of Ciudad de la Luz SA owned by Producciones Aguamarga SL (with a nominal value of EUR 150 000) for EUR 139 059 (increasing its share in Ciudad de la Luz SA to 100 %)\n139 059\n9.3.2005\nProyectos Tem\u00e1ticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU ceded the land on which the studios were built to Ciudad de la Luz SA, thereby increasing its equity by EUR 9 800 040 (even though the land had been valued at EUR 1 030 856 in the accounts of Proyectos Tem\u00e1ticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU). Before this date, the project had already received permission from the Valencian Government to build the studios on the site.\n9 800 040\nSummer 2005\nCiudad de la Luz SA starts its activities as a film studio\n-\n28.4.2005\nParticipating loan of EUR 95 million\n95 000 000\n26.12.2007\nParticipating loan of EUR 20 million\n20 000 000\n30.6.2008\nConvertible loan stock issued with an option to convert the loan to shares before 31 December 2008\n10 000 000\n2.1.2009\nConvertible loan stock issued with an option to convert the loan to shares before 30 June 2009.\n10 000 000\n17.3.2009\nConvertible loan stock authorised up to EUR 30 million with an option to convert the loan to shares before 30 December 2009.\n25 829 840\n31.12.2010\nUnpaid interest on participative loans in 2009 & 2010\n7 222 160\n31.12.2010\nUnpaid interest on unconverted loans in 2009 and 2010\n1 814 187\nTotal\n274 125 946\n(54)\nThe Spanish authorities focused their responses on attempting to demonstrate that the investment is not State aid as a market investor would have invested in the project on the same terms and conditions (applying the market economy investor principle). They have provided reports from economic consultancy LECG to support this.\n(55)\nEven if the Commission considered that at least part of the investment was State aid, Spain alleged that all the films shot in Ciudad de la Luz met the cultural criteria of the Valencia film incentives, which were approved by the Commission in April 2008, December 2008 and July 2009 (16). According to Spain, the cultural exception provided in Article 107(3)(d) TFEU can be applied to investment aid upstream or downstream of the production of films.\n(56)\nSpain also notes that any aid contained in the public funding of Ciudad de la Luz and in the incentives offered to films should be viewed in the perspective of the distorting effects of national film support schemes approved by the Commission in other Member States which attract major film productions to competitors of Ciudad de la Luz (17).\n(57)\nSpain also contends that the Regional aid guidelines applicable at the time (1998) would have allowed an aid intensity of 36 % for the investment project. The additional conditions introduced later in the 2002 Multi-sectoral framework for large investment projects with less than 25 % market share and 5 % capacity increase on the market would also be met.\n(58)\nSpain provided a second LECG report which criticised the analysis of the 2004 business plan by the Commission services. LECG criticised the analysis of the Commission services and provided alternative values for the data and risk factors, as well as providing retrospective valuations of the land on which Ciudad de la Luz was constructed.\n(59)\nA second economic analysis by the Commission services examined the 2000 business plan and the retrospective land valuations provided by Spain. In addition, an independent economic assessment of the market economy investor principle test was carried out by an independent consultancy at the request of the Commission. The independent report was sent to the Spanish authorities on 30 September 2011.\n(60)\nThe Spanish authorities reiterated their view, as in their observations to the opening decision, that the profitability prospects of Ciudad de la Luz should be benchmarked against its main EU competitors in the film studio business (e.g. Babelsberg, Pinewood) and not, as Ecorys (18) does, with diversified US audiovisual conglomerates (Time Warner, Disney) (19). The Spanish authorities maintain that this benchmarking should be based on publicly available information (e.g. Bloomberg) from the time of their investment decision (i.e. 2000 and 2004, not 2008). Finally, they also claim that a number of misunderstandings or technical flaws invalidate the conclusions of the Ecorys study (20). The Spanish authorities claimed that, if these were corrected and the appropriate benchmarking with competitors carried out, the profitability of the prospects of the investment decision based on the evidence available at the time would meet the requirements of the MEIP test.\nV. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n(61)\nAccording to Article 107(1) of the TFEU, \u2018any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019. It follows that in order to be qualified as State aid, the following cumulative conditions have to be met: (1) the measure has to be granted out of State resources, (2) it has to confer an economic advantage to undertakings, (3) the advantage has to be selective and distort or threaten to distort competition, (4) the measure has to affect intra-Community trade.\n(62)\nAs pointed out above, the Spanish authorities have argued that the measure does not constitute State aid, as it fulfils the market economy investor principle (\u2018MEIP\u2019) test. This test considers whether a market investor would have invested in the project on the same terms and conditions as the public investor at the time when the decision to make public investment was taken. In this respect it is relevant that initially there had been a private investor in the project (21) and that the Spanish authorities had commissioned several studies which concluded that the project would generate a positive cash flow (see recital 22).\n(63)\nAs pointed out in recital 17, in the case of Ciudad de la Luz, initially a private investor (the managing company) held 25 % of the project (i.e. EUR 150 000 of the initial share capital of EUR 600 000). However, this private investor withdrew before it had committed any further funds itself (it was bought out by SPTCV in 2004). Subsequently, no other private investor invested in the project.\n(64)\nThe fact that the only available private investor had only committed a marginal amount while withdrawing at the moment where the bulk of the investment had to be committed may be considered as prima facie evidence that a private investor would not have carried out such a project under the conditions available at the time. Furthermore, the situation of this private investor was very specific (and therefore not in line with the market investor considered by case law), since it was also responsible for initiating the project, for overseeing the construction work and for managing and promoting the studios in return for a management fee. This means that its initial investment could be rational for other reasons than its mere profitability, when considered in isolation.\n(65)\nIn the absence of any private shareholder, the regional authority based its investment decision on the results of the consultancy studies. However, the mere existence of such studies is not sufficient for fulfilling the MEIP test. Before committing funds on the scale invested into Ciudad de la Luz, one would expect a private investor to examine thoroughly the business plan and the assumptions on which such studies are based. A private investor would have to come to his own judgement whether the specific assumptions used to justify the business plan are appropriate in this particular case. Furthermore, a private investor can be expected to compare the expected return of the Ciudad de la Luz project with the expected return of alternative projects. Such an analysis had not been done at the time. Further, it was even not feasible to carry out such a comparison on the basis of the estimated positive cash flows provided in these studies.\n(66)\nIn the context of a State aid investigation, jurisprudence requires the Commission to carry out its own assessment of the facts (22). It is therefore necessary to judge the validity of reports carried out at the time of the transaction.\n(67)\nIn view of the reports submitted by the Spanish authorities since the opening decision, there appear to have been two investment decisions concerning the project. The first of these was in 2000 based on the Arthur Andersen business plan of 2000 (covering investments in the period 2002-2006). In 2004, potentially to review whether further investment in the project was appropriate, the Consultia report was commissioned (covering actual investments in the period 2002-2004 and forecast investments in 2004-2014). Consequently, the MEIP should be assessed for both investment decisions.\n(68)\nThe Commission has assessed whether a hypothetical private investor would have invested in the project creating the company Ciudad de la Luz. According to the market economy investor principle, the investment undertaken is considered to be State aid if the expected compensation to be received by the State is lower than what a private investor would have requested under the circumstances of that particular project.\n(69)\nIn order to finance a project, investors need to invest some capital. Such capital has a cost, the cost of capital. Typically, there are two broad sources of capital: equity capital and (financial) debt capital. The total cost of capital is the weighted average cost of capital (WACC), taking into account the proportion of equity capital and the proportion of debt capital. The cost of debt capital and cost of equity capital are expected costs and not historical costs. In the particular case of Ciudad de la Luz, the business plan envisaged that the project would be fully financed with equity capital. Therefore, the total cost of capital is the equity capital.\n(70)\nA private equity investor would have been willing to invest in Ciudad de la Luz if the expected internal rate of return (23) was higher than or equal to the opportunity cost of equity capital (24) (i.e. the return that he could have obtained in a similar project).\n(71)\nThe Commission has calibrated the Capital Asset Pricing Model to obtain the cost of equity capital. The cost of equity capital reflects the opportunity cost of investment for shareholders in companies or projects with the same (or similar) business and financial risk as the one under consideration. According to the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), the cost of equity capital, Ke should be estimated by the following formula:\nwhere Rf is the risk-free rate, is the market risk premium and \u00df is the \u2018Beta\u2019, a measure of the systematic (non-diversifiable) risk associated with the stock of Ciudad de la Luz, which reflects both the business and financial risk.\n(72)\nFor the risk free rate, Rf , market practice (25) suggests to take the long-term (typically 10 years) government bond rate in the country of operation (these are considered the least risky investments). The average annual return on 10 year government bonds in Spain was 4,1 % in 2004 (26). For the market risk premium, one should take the historical market risk premium over a reasonably long time period. It is common market practice to take the difference between the historical return on a diversified equity index in the country of operations, and the risk free rate. According to Fern\u00e1ndez (2004) (27), the historical market risk premium over government bonds in Spain (during the period 1991-2003) was between 6,8 %-9,3 %. The Commission took a conservative approach in the estimation of the market risk premium and considered the lower bound of this interval, namely 6,8 %. A subsequent and more recent paper by the same author (28) comes to reinforce the validity of this value, by presenting the required equity premium during the period 2000-2004 in the range of 6-7 %.\n(73)\nFor the estimate of beta, the Commission used publicly available information pertaining to companies that have been identified as direct competitors to Ciudad de la Luz by Spanish authorities, namely Carrere Group (29) and Babelsberg. These figures were reported by financial analysts that carried an in-depth analysis of the two companies. An average of the two betas, adjusted to match the financial risk profile of Ciudad de la Luz, gives a value around 1,5. This is a conservative approach, since the investment in Ciudad de la Luz is likely to involve a higher degree of idiosyncratic risk as the other two established studios. Ciudad de la Luz it is a green-field investment in a region which does not host either Spanish or international film producers. In other words, Ciudad de la Luz\u2019s beta is probably higher than that of its competitors.\n(74)\nApplying the formula above (see recital 71), the Commission obtained that the expected cost of equity capital should be approximately 14,9 %.\n(75)\nBy way of comparison, as discussed in Annex I, Spain submitted that the application the CAPM Model would show that a private investor \u2018would require\u2019 a risk premium, not a return, of 3,75 % in 2000 and 2,07 % in 2004.\u2019 This calculation is based on a beta of \u00df = 0,395. A beta of 1 represents the portfolio of all stocks, so the \u2018average\u2019 stock. A beta significantly below 1 would therefore imply a particular low-risk investment. Spain did not substantiate such assumption and did not back it up with any hard and verifiable data.\n(76)\nAs stated above (see recital 70), a private investor would only invest in a project with an internal rate of return larger than the opportunity cost of capital. The Commission notes that the 2000 business plan evaluated only the initial phases of the project in detail. The Commission\u2019s analysis (see Annex II) arrived at a negative net present value, based on the 2000 business plan and taking the cash flows presented in the business plan at face value. On this basis, a private investor would not have invested in the project.\n(77)\nWhen establishing the internal rate of return, the Commission again takes a conservative approach by not questioning the assumptions of the business plan, in particular the stream of cash flows forecasted for the proposed project. However, it should be noted that the cash flows forecasted in the 2004 business plans appear to be unduly optimistic, especially taking into account the losses incurred by the company during the period 2002-2004 (30). Given the information at the Commission\u2019s disposal, one can therefore consider that the expected cash flows presented in the 2004 business plan represented an upper bound (31). The stream of cash flows determines its expected return. The Commission also takes at face value the expected return of Ciudad de la Luz. However, it calibrates the cost of raising capital. This would have to be done by any rational private investor.\n(78)\nOn the basis of the 2004 business plan proposed by Ciudad de la Luz, the internal rate of return of this project is 5,74 % (see Annex I). A private investor in Ciudad de la Luz, facing an opportunity cost of capital of at least 14 % (as computed above, see recital 73), would not have undertaken this investment, since its internal rate of return is lower than the opportunity cost of capital.\n(79)\nFurthermore, the Commission computed the Net Present Value (NPV) of the investment in Ciudad de la Luz in order to give the magnitude of how much the project would be worth for the private investor. The object of any investment decision is to find real assets that are worth more than they cost, in other words, investments that have an expected return higher than the opportunity cost of capital. If this is not the case, as for Ciudad de la Luz, the value of the project is negative and consequently the investment is not viable for any rational private investor. The NPV of any project quantifies how much the investment is worth at the moment of taking a decision, and is computed by discounting the stream of cash flows forecasted in the business plan using the discount factor, which is the cost of capital. Intuitively, the higher the cost of capital, the lower the NPV.\n(80)\nFor Ciudad de la Luz, using the opportunity cost of capital of 14 % and the cash flows provided in the Consultia business plan of 2004 (which are taken at face value by the Commission as explained in recital 76), the NPV of the investment is around minus EUR 130 million (see Annex). Consequently, this investment opportunity is not worthwhile for a private investor.\n(81)\nThe Commission has also undertaken a robustness check showing that the result is very solid. Above a reasonable threshold, the result is hardly sensitive to the value of the opportunity cost of capital, as estimated by the Commission. In other words, significant changes in the parameters calibrated by the Commission in calculating the cost of capital do not alter the result. The graph below plots the approximate values of the NPV against different values of the cost of capital (WACC) from 5 % to 20 %. The graph illustrates that the NPV becomes negative for a WACC of between 5 % and 6 %. Hence, if the cost of capital is higher than 6 %, a private investor would not undertake the project. Moreover, for values of WACC higher than 10 %, the value of the NPV is practically unaffected. The Commission has estimated a WACC of around 14 %, hence in a range where it can be concluded with high degree of confidence that the project is not profitable.\n(82)\nIn response to the Commission\u2019s assessment, on the basis of a consultancy report (32), the Spanish authorities argued that the Commission\u2019s assessment was flawed. Firstly, while the CAPM analysis as such was considered to be the correct approach, the consultancy report questioned the parameter values used by the Commission. In particular, the equity premium and the \u2018betas\u2019 should have been lower. Secondly, to establish the relevant benchmark, the Commission should not have used only the Consultia IT\u2019s business plan but also the Arthur Andersen\u2019s 2000 business plan. Thirdly, the Commission did not use the appropriate financial ratios to estimate the expected profitability of the Ciudad de la Luz project. Finally, the Commission did not take into account expected revenues deriving from the development of hotels and office space.\n(83)\nThese arguments were rebutted by the Commission. As regards the equity premium, Annex II explains in some detail why the values in the range proposed by Spain cannot be valid. Most importantly, the values proposed for the premium were estimated values for 2009 and not those which prevailed in 2000 and 2004. Clearly, the parameters to be used for the estimation of the CAPM should be contemporaneous to the date of the business decision. In fact, for the relevant period, the author quoted by the Spanish authorities himself provides estimates which are in line with the Commission\u2019s assessment. Annex II also explains why the Spanish authorities\u2019 request for lower \u2018betas\u2019 is mistaken. The Commission uses values from public studies which calculated betas for close competitors of Ciudad de la Luz. The Spanish authorities\u2019 proposal to use historical betas is refuted by financial experts.\n(84)\nIn reply to the Spanish authorities\u2019 request to consider the 2000 business plan, Annex II provides such a calculation. As can be seen, due to a higher risk premium and to a higher risk-free rate, in that case the WACC would be even higher than in 2004. Also, this calculation leads to a negative NPV. Finally, with regard to possible revenues deriving from hotels and office space, the assertions made by the Spanish authorities were based on new evidence, namely six land valuation reports drawn up subsequently. This evidence was not part of the information available to a potential investor at the time. While the Andersen report mentions the possibility of developing a hotel complex, it does not contain information about expected profitability and there was no business plan pertaining to the development of the land. Annex II nevertheless looks in detail at the proposed ex post reports on land development. They are seriously flawed. For instance, benchmark prices proposed for office space in the Ciudad de la Luz complex are those of the most prestigious business streets in Alicante. Given that the Ciudad de la Luz complex is outside the city of Alicante and next to an industrial complex, these benchmark prices are highly inflated. Similarly, the benchmark prices for hotels are based on 4 or 5 stars hotels. No indication is given that there would be sufficient demand for such hotels outside of Alicante (and located close to a highway and an industrial complex).\n(85)\nApart from its own internal assessment, the Commission also commissioned an independent study on whether a private investor would have carried out such an investment in Ciudad de la Luz under the same terms (33). The Ecorys report considers various scenarios which estimate the cost of equity capital to be between 12,5 % and 21,4 % for the investment in 2000 and between 10,9 % and 15,9 % for the further investment in 2004. Thus, the result of the Commission\u2019s study is within the range calculated by Ecorys. By way of contrast, the internal rate of return calculated on the basis of the business plan is well below the minimum cost of equity capital as estimated by Ecorys.\n(86)\nEcorys\u2019 overall conclusion is therefore that it does not seem likely that the investments made in 2000 and 2004 were congruent with the conduct of a diligent private investor in a market economy. With regard to the 2000 investment plan, Ecorys finds that the reconstructed business case shows a negative NPV of PTA 9,3 billion. Investing in the stock market would have been a much more interesting investment for a prudent market investor. As regards the 2004 investment Ecorys concludes that \u2018a diligent market investor would most probably not have decided to complete the full CDL project, but may have opted to operate the 6 sound stages already invested in, or to close down the project and take the loss\u2019 (34). Finally, Ecorys considers that a private lender would not have provided a participating loan or any other debt to the project since the project cash-flow was insufficient for debt service payments.\n(87)\nIt is therefore concluded that neither the investments made in Ciudad de la Luz between 2000 and 2004, nor those made since then fulfil the market economy investor principle and therefore constitute an advantage for the undertaking Ciudad de la Luz SAU. Since the MEIP tests are not fulfilled, a market economy investor would not have invested in 2000 and would not have continued to invest in the project on the basis of the 2004 business plan.\n(88)\nConsequently, the Commission considers that the economic advantage is the whole value of the investment. The loans granted to Ciudad de la Luz by SPTCV were subordinated loans, which means that they were treated on the balance sheet as something similar to equity. As already noted by the Commission in the opening decision, the interest on the loans was calculated with on a fixed and one variable part. The rate of the fixed part was very low, and would not be acceptable to a market economy lender. The unusually low fixed part of the loan could be in principle compensated by the prospect of an adequate remuneration on the participating loan thanks to the variable part linked to the profitability of the project, but this could not be the case for the project under scrutiny (see the reasoning above about the market economy investor principle). Furthermore, no financial costs were included in the forecast profit and statement provided to the Commission by the Spanish authorities for the period 2002-2014. Finally, in theory the loans were to be paid back in April 2015, that is after the date of termination of the project (and possibly its disposal), planned for 2014, which a Market Economy Lender would not have accepted. In their reply dated 20 April 2009 to the opening decision, the Spanish authorities explained that these loans should, from an economic point of view, be considered as capital injection as the lender and the shareholder are the same (i.e. SPTCV). Indeed, as none of the loans paid in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009 have been (even partially) repaid, and the beneficiary has not paid any interest for these loans, they must be considered de facto as equity investment. According to the information provided by the Spanish authorities in April 2012, this was a total of EUR 265 089 599 by the end of 2010 (35).\n(89)\nThe aid is also selective since the benefits arising from the support confers an advantage only to the undertakings active in the sector, and in fact only to some of them.\n(90)\nThe Commission notes that the Generalitat Valenciana has funded the investment through its fully-owned investment arm SPTCV and that the studies which led to the public investment in Ciudad de la Luz were carried out for the Generalitat Valenciana. Hence, these allocations can be considered as State resources.\n(91)\nWhen State aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other competing undertakings, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid. The support strengthens the position of Ciudad de la Luz compared with other competing undertakings by allowing it to enter the market of film studios. Competition between undertakings profiting from the measure and those not profiting from it is distorted. Even assuming that film productions in other Member States in which other film studios are located receive subsidies, this is not a relevant argument to deny the existence of a distortion of competition. A measure does not escape the qualification as State aid merely because other Member States may also have adopted their own market-distorting measures. No such \u2018balancing\u2019 takes place in assessing the condition related to the distortion of competition.\n(92)\nFinally, the Commission considers that the measure in question affects trade between Member States. Film studios market their facilities on an international basis. Film producers regularly negotiate prices and conditions with a number of film studios based in different Member States. The Commission has approved aid schemes in Spain and other Member States which support the production of audiovisual works and, hence, indirectly encourage the use of national technical facilities, including film studios. However, the fourth criterion of the 2001 Cinema Communication excludes aid supplements for specific production activities, including the use of film studios.\n(93)\nIn view of the above, the Commission considers that the project grants a selective economic advantage to Ciudad de la Luz. The project is publicly funded, distorts competition and has an effect on trade between Member States. Therefore the Commission regards the notified measure as constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(94)\nThe Commission must first ensure that the aid is not contrary to the provisions of the TFEU in areas other than State aid. In this case, the Commission\u2019s assessment is without prejudice to any further findings with regard to the compatibility with EU public procurement legislation. The aid does not contain any other elements which could present problems regarding the principle of general legality of the aid.\n(95)\nAs noted in the opening decision, as a subsidiary argument in the event that the Commission considered that the measures at hand constitute State aid, the Spanish authorities have claimed, that such measures would be compatible with Article 107(3) as regional aid and as aid aimed at promoting culture.\n(96)\nRegional aid for the construction of Ciudad de la Luz may be justified on the grounds that the investment is carried out in an assisted area. The Spanish authorities have suggested that an aid intensity of 36 % would be allowed by the regional aid rules applicable at the time of the initial investment decision in 2000-2006.\n(97)\nAs this is unnotified aid, the Regional Aid Guidelines for 2000-2006 (36) apply. Point 4.2 of the Guidelines states: \u2018To ensure that productive investment is viable and sound, the recipient\u2019s contribution to its financing must be at least 25 %.\u2019 Footnote 20 of the Guidelines clarifies that this minimum contribution of 25 % must not contain any aid. Although there was a private investor for 25 % of the initial share capital of EUR 600 000, this private investor was the management company for the project in return for a fee and did not make any further investment in the project to match the majority of the public investment in the project. Consequently, this first investment cannot be considered in isolation from the public investment as it is not a standalone investment. Moreover, the private investor was bought out by SPTCV in July 2004, at which time its holding dropped to 0,2 %.\n(98)\nThe Spanish authorities have argued that the 25 % investment from SPTCV itself could be regarded as the recipient\u2019s contribution. The Commission considers that such an approach, in which 25 % of the investment is covered by a publicly-owned body which does not behave as a private investor (see above, section V, subsection \u2018economic advantage\u2019) while the remaining 75 % of the investment is also provided from state resources, cannot ensure that the productive investment aided is viable and sound.\n(99)\nAs the investment in Ciudad de la Luz has been completely financed through public funds from SPTCV, this condition is not met.\n(100)\nIn certain situations, the Commission has cleared aid to the audiovisual sector under Article 107(3)(c) taking into account the cultural objectives of Article 167 TFEU. The cultural exception can be used in combination with other legal bases for compatibility, such as aid to certain economic activities under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (37). Although it has not been proposed by the Spanish authorities, in the light of the comments from other parties, that legal basis is considered in what follows.\n(101)\nAn assessment under Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU is carried out under a three-step test balancing the benefits and the negative effects of the measure in question.\n(102)\nIn applying this balancing test, the Commission assesses the following questions:\n(a)\nIs the aid measure aimed at a well-defined objective of common interest (i.e. does the proposed aid address a market failure or other objective)?\n(b)\nIs the aid well designed to deliver the objective of common interest? In particular:\n(i)\nIs the aid measure an appropriate instrument, i.e. are there other, better-placed instruments?\n(ii)\nIs there an incentive effect, i.e. does the aid change the behaviour of firms?\n(iii)\nIs the aid measure proportional, i.e. could the same change in behaviour be obtained with less aid?\n(c)\nAre the distortions of competition and the effect on trade limited, so that the overall balance is positive?\n(103)\nA \u2018market failure\u2019 is said to exist if the market outcome does not lead to the highest total social welfare. A inefficient market outcome may arise in the case of so-called public or merit goods (38). Such goods generate positive external effects where the social benefit exceeds the private benefit. As a result, the quantity supplied is below the optimum - which in turn could justify public intervention (and possibly public subsidies).\n(104)\nIn the EU there exists a highly competitive, commercial market with a number of large film studios. In addition, for large film productions, European film studios face significant competition from studios outside the EU. Prima facie evidence therefore does not support a market failure on the basis of insufficient supply and high entry costs. In their reply to the opening decision, Spanish filmmakers claim that the Spanish market did not have similar high quality services prior to the construction of Ciudad de la Luz. In particular, Valencian filmmakers have pointed out that having access to a local film studio would allow them to reduce the cost of production (lower transportation costs, proximity to other services which are necessary for film production, etc.).\n(105)\nHowever, the fact that domestic film producers would benefit from Ciudad de la Luz does not suffice to establish a \u2018market failure\u2019 as defined above. First, to consider that Ciudad de la Luz addresses a market failure with regard to local film production in Spain would be contrary to the objective declared by the Spanish authorities. The 2004 Consultia report considers only local studios as \u2018indirect\u2019 competitors, as Ciudad de la Luz would instead be directed towards large film productions.\n(106)\nSecondly, in order to show a market failure with regard to Spanish film producers, one would have to assess whether the social benefit from a studio such as Ciudad de la Luz is higher than the cost. Among other elements, this would require consideration of whether existing facilities are not sufficient, i.e. that Spanish film makers could not use the existing film studios in Spain (such as Video Planning, Cartuja Producciones and Loasur Audiovisual in Andaluc\u00eda, Media Park in Catalu\u00f1a, Plat\u00f3s Valencia in Valencia, and Estudios Barajas, Estudios El \u00c1lamo, Estudios Los \u00c1ngeles and Flash Estudio in Madrid) or in other Member States. While Spanish film producers pointed out some (unquantified) cost advantages from Ciudad de la Luz, they did not argue that such local studios would be essential for domestic film production.\n(107)\nIn addition, as there is no well-defined market failure which would be addressed by the measure, the aid cannot be considered to be appropriate and proportionate to address that market failure. If the purpose of the film studio was to support local film production, it would have been necessary, among other issues, to compare the investment carried out with other measures which could have achieved comparable efficiencies from the point of view of film producers. Such a comparison has not been provided by the Spanish authorities.\n(108)\nThe balancing test further requires an assessment of the negative effects in terms of distortion of competition and trade. Given that production has fallen significantly below original expectations and that it has attracted mainly local film production, one may consider that until today the distortive effect of the Ciudad de la Luz studios may have been limited. However, the number of film productions made at Ciudad de la Luz is not a good indicator of its possible distortive effects. Ciudad de la Luz\u2019s entry into the European film studio market has increased overall studio capacity. Basic economic reasoning implies that such an increase in supply will generate an overall price reduction irrespective of the amount of production Ciudad de la Luz is able to attract. As it would affect the overall market price, such a price reduction could not be observed by comparing Ciudad de la Luz\u2019s price-setting with that of its competitors. Furthermore, the building of Ciudad de la Luz may encourage other Member States to carry out similar investments. Finally, given its modern facilities, Ciudad de la Luz\u2019s position in the market may change in the future.\n(109)\nOn the basis of the above, the measure cannot be considered to be compatible under Article 107(3)(c), as it does not address a market failure of the sector and risks adversely affecting competition and trade.\n(110)\nThe Spanish authorities have not provided any arguments to modify the Commission\u2019s view expressed in the opening decision that it \u2018considers that there is no element indicating that [the cultural] exception can be applied to State aid that provides the construction and operating costs of a new, large film studio complex.\u2019 The opening decision discounted the possibility of treating the studios as \u2018cultural infrastructure\u2019 as they are highly specialised and their use is limited to the audiovisual sector (for making films, TV productions and commercials).\n(111)\nTo apply the cultural exception provided for in Article 107(3)(d) TFEU to funding not covered by the Cinema Communication, the aid would need to have been not only necessary, proportionate and adequate, (as for the Article 107(3)(c) assessment above) but also directed towards a cultural objective. As it is found that these criteria are not under Article 107(3)(c), the same applies with regard to Article 107(3)(d).\n(112)\nIn December 2008, the Commission approved the film incentives offered by the Valencia region on the basis of the Cinema Communication (39). Prior to this, any incentives granted by the Valencia regional government in connection with filming at Ciudad de la Luz cannot be considered compatible in cases where filming in Ciudad de la Luz had been a condition of the aid (this is contrary to the fourth criterion of the Cinema Communication, which excludes aid supplements for specific film production activities).\n(113)\nFinally, there is no need to examine further in the framework of the present decision, whether aid was granted to film producers.\nVI. CONCLUSION\n(114)\nThe Commission finds that Spain has granted State aid to Ciudad de la Luz SA in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The investment in Ciudad de la Luz made by the Valencia region would not have been made by a private investor on the same terms and conditions. As a result, the entire public investment in the project is considered by the Commission to be illegal aid.\n(115)\nConsequently, the aid amount up to December 2010 is the total of EUR 265 089 599 of direct public investment in Ciudad de la Luz SA and any incentive granted to film producers under the condition that filming took place at Ciudad de la Luz.\n(116)\nAccording to the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union and the established case law of the Court of Justice, the Commission is competent to decide that the State concerned must abolish or alter aid (40) when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market. The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a State to abolish or alter aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation (41). In this context, the Court has established that this objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored (42).\n(117)\nIn accordance with that case-law, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (43) lays down that \u2018where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.\u2019\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe initial share capital and the subsequent share capital increases amounting to EUR 94 459 719, land allocated to Ciudad de la Luz amounting to EUR 9 800 040, the participating loans amounting to EUR 115 million, the convertible loan stock issued since 2008 totalling EUR 45 829 840 granted unlawfully to Spain by Ciudad de la Luz SA prior to 31 December 2010, and any incentive granted to film producers under the condition that filming takes place at Ciudad de la Luz, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty, constitute State aid incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\n1. Spain shall recover the incompatible aid granted under Article 1 from the beneficiary.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Council Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (44).\n4. Spain shall cancel all outstanding payments of the aid referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 3\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Spain shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification thereof.\nArticle 4\n1. Within two months following notification of this Decision, Spain shall submit the following information:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Spain shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, at the request of the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 8 May 2012.", "references": ["75", "6", "68", "79", "43", "28", "47", "1", "67", "59", "26", "34", "20", "17", "65", "21", "60", "83", "92", "63", "57", "30", "71", "14", "39", "41", "53", "72", "61", "11", "No Label", "8", "15", "29", "40", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "29", "40", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT\nof 7 October 2010\non discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2008\n(2010/756/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,\nhaving regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2008,\nhaving regard to the Court of Auditors\u2019 report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2008, together with the College\u2019s replies (1),\nhaving regard to the Council\u2019s recommendation of 16 February 2010 (5827/2010 - C7-0061/2010),\nhaving regard to its Decision of 5 May 2010 (2) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2008, and the replies by the Director of the European Police College,\nhaving regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nhaving regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3), and in particular Article 185 thereof,\nhaving regard to Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL) (4), and in particular Article 16 thereof,\nhaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,\nhaving regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,\nhaving regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0253/2010),\n1.\nrefuses to grant the Director of the European Police College discharge in respect of the implementation of the College\u2019s budget for the financial year 2008 (6);\n2.\nsets out its observations in the resolution below;\n3.\ninstructs its President to forward this Decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Director of the European Police College, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).", "references": ["92", "6", "58", "46", "85", "88", "93", "94", "78", "95", "7", "51", "53", "37", "60", "64", "71", "36", "55", "86", "27", "8", "68", "13", "99", "80", "90", "75", "97", "47", "No Label", "9", "10", "33"], "gold": ["9", "10", "33"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 May 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement amending for the second time the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005\n(2010/648/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217, in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 February 2009 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States with a view to amending, for the second time, the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1), as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (2), (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Cotonou Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nThe negotiations were concluded on 19 March 2010 by the initialling, at an extraordinary ACP-EU Council of Ministers\u2019 meeting, of the texts forming the basis of the Agreement amending for the second time the Cotonou Agreement (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(3)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement amending for the second time the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019), together with the joint declarations and the declaration by the Union, attached to the Final Act, is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nThe texts of the Agreement and of the Final Act are attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion and to make the following declaration, which is attached to the Final Act of the Agreement:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d in the text of the Agreement are, where appropriate, to be read as \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\nThe European Union will propose to the ACP States an Exchange of Letters with the aim of bringing the Agreement into conformity with the institutional changes in the European Union resulting from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 14 May 2010.", "references": ["50", "23", "73", "61", "21", "57", "89", "15", "59", "90", "93", "38", "22", "56", "47", "19", "66", "94", "63", "17", "88", "7", "62", "81", "75", "46", "28", "33", "99", "82", "No Label", "3", "9", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/52/EU\nof 20 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include carboxin as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included carboxin.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of carboxin.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe United Kingdom evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 4 December 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on carboxin to the Commission on 11 October 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for carboxin.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing carboxin may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include carboxin in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further confirmatory information as regards: the specification of the technical material, as commercially manufactured, including appropriate analytical data, the relevance of the impurities, comparison and verification of the test material used in the mammalian toxicity and ecotoxicity dossiers against the specification of the technical material, analytical methods for the monitoring of the metabolite M6 (7) in soil, groundwater and surface water and for the monitoring of metabolite M9 (8) in groundwater, additional values regarding the period required for 50 percent dissipation in soil for the soil metabolites P/V-54 (9) and P/V-55 (10), rotational crop metabolism, the long-term risk to granivorous birds, granivorous mammals and herbivorous mammals and the relevance for ground water of the soil metabolites P/V-54, P/V-55 and M9 if carboxin is classified under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11) as \u2018suspected of causing cancer\u2019.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing carboxin to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (12) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of carboxin and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning carboxin in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning carboxin in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing carboxin as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to carboxin are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing carboxin as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning carboxin. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing carboxin as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing carboxin as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["34", "75", "52", "39", "6", "33", "11", "18", "54", "84", "94", "17", "59", "37", "80", "74", "90", "93", "22", "9", "35", "4", "5", "60", "0", "15", "64", "89", "27", "12", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 18 January 2011\namending Decision 2007/884/EC authorising the United Kingdom to continue to apply a measure derogating from Articles 26(1)(a), 168 and 169 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(2011/37/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn a letter registered by the Commission\u2019s Secretariat-General on 22 July 2010, the United Kingdom requested authorisation to extend a derogating measure in order to continue to restrict the right of deduction of VAT by the hirer or lessee on charges for the hire or lease of a passenger car where the car is not used entirely for business purposes.\n(2)\nThe Commission informed the other Member States of the request made by the United Kingdom by letter dated 12 October 2010. By letter dated 15 October 2010, the Commission notified the United Kingdom that it had all the information necessary to consider the request.\n(3)\nCouncil Decision 2007/884/EC of 20 December 2007 authorising the United Kingdom to continue to apply a measure derogating from Articles 26(1)(a), 168 and 169 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (2), authorised the United Kingdom to restrict to 50 % the right of the hirer or lessee to deduct input VAT on charges for the hire or lease of a passenger car where the car is not used entirely for business purposes. The United Kingdom was also allowed not to treat as supplies of services for consideration the private use of a car hired or leased by a taxable person for his business purposes. This simplification measure removed the need for the hirer or the lessee to keep records of private mileage travelled in business cars and to account for tax on the actual private mileage of each car.\n(4)\nAccording to the information provided by the United Kingdom, the restriction to 50 % still corresponds to the actual circumstances as regards the business and the non-business use by the hirer or lessee of the vehicles concerned. It is therefore appropriate that the United Kingdom be authorised to apply the measure for a further limited period, until 31 December 2013.\n(5)\nWhere the United Kingdom considers a further extension beyond 2013 is necessary, a report which includes a review of the percentage applied should be submitted to the Commission together with the extension request no later than 1 April 2013.\n(6)\nOn 29 October 2004, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC, now Directive 2006/112/EC, that includes the harmonisation of the categories of expenses for which exclusions of the right of deduction may apply. Under this proposal, exclusions on the right to deduct may be applied to motorised road vehicles. The derogating measures provided for in this Decision should expire on the date of the entry into force of such amending Directive, if that date is earlier than the date of expiry provided for in this Decision.\n(7)\nThe derogation has no impact on the Union\u2019s own resources accruing from value added tax.\n(8)\nDecision 2007/884/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 3 of Decision 2007/884/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\nThis Decision shall expire on the date of entry into force of Union rules determining the expenditure relating to motorised road vehicles that is not eligible for full deduction of VAT, or on 31 December 2013, whichever is the earlier.\nAny request for the extension of the measures provided for in this Decision shall be submitted to the Commission by 1 April 2013.\nAny request for extension of those measures shall be accompanied by a report which includes a review of the percentage restriction applied on the right to deduct VAT on the hire or lease of cars not entirely used for business purposes.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nThis Decision shall apply as from 1 January 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["42", "85", "81", "54", "75", "80", "99", "77", "59", "84", "52", "24", "83", "6", "56", "0", "61", "70", "82", "65", "71", "69", "93", "86", "31", "63", "57", "4", "7", "1", "No Label", "25", "26", "34", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "26", "34", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 3 June 2010\nappointing six Italian members and four Italian alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/311/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Italian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nSix members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Agazio LOIERO, Mr Antonio BASSOLINO, Mr Massimo PINESCHI, Ms Mercedes BRESSO, Mr Claudio BURLANDO and Mr Claudio MARTINI. Three alternate members\u2019 seats have become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Maria Giuseppina MUZZARELLI, Mr Sante ZUFFADA and Ms Maria Rita LORENZETTI. An alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Gianfranco VITAGLIANO as a member of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMr Giuseppe SCOPELLITI, Presidente Regione Calabria,\n-\nMr Gianfranco VITAGLIANO, Assessore Regione Molise,\n-\nMs Renata POLVERINI, Presidente Regione Lazio,\n-\nMr Roberto COTA, Presidente Regione Piemonte,\n-\nMs Mercedes BRESSO, Consigliere Regione Piemonte,\n-\nMs Catiuscia MARINI, Presidente Regione Umbria;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMs Simonetta SALIERA, Vice Presidente Regione Emilia Romagna,\n-\nMr Paolo Valentini PUCCITELLI, Consigliere Regione Lombardia,\n-\nMr Stefano CALDORO, Presidente Regione Campania,\n-\nMr Enrico ROSSI, Presidente Regione Toscana.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["14", "48", "60", "24", "82", "84", "75", "19", "70", "65", "25", "85", "88", "91", "8", "90", "92", "23", "53", "71", "15", "81", "80", "35", "11", "28", "3", "46", "94", "86", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 17 February 2012\non the detailed arrangements for the collection of premiums for excess CO2 emissions from new light commercial vehicles pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/99/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 setting emission performance standards for new light commercial vehicles as part of the Union\u2019s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (1), and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nWhere the Commission, in accordance with Article 8(6) of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011, confirms, and in accordance with Article 10(2) of that Regulation, makes public, that a manufacturer has failed to comply with Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011, it shall in accordance with Article 9(1) of that Regulation impose excess emissions premiums on that manufacturer, or in the case of a pool, on the pool manager.\n(2)\nIt is necessary to adopt detailed arrangements for the collection of those excess emissions premiums.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 9(4) of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011, the amounts of excess emissions premiums are to be considered as revenue for the general budget of the European Union and are to be entered and booked in title 7 of the general budget. It is therefore appropriate to apply as collection method the rules for recovery of receivable amounts set out in Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2) and Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3).\n(4)\nFor the purpose of establishing the amount receivable within the meaning of Article 71 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, it should be considered that, in accordance with Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011, the manufacturer is to be notified by the Commission of the provisional calculations of its average specific emissions of CO2 in the preceding year, the specific emissions target and the difference between its average specific emissions and the specific emissions target for that year, and must in accordance with Article 8(5) of that Regulation be given the possibility to verify those calculations and to notify the Commission of any errors within three months from receipt of the provisional calculations.\n(5)\nIn view of the exchange of views that takes place between the Commission and the manufacturer prior to the confirmation of the manufacturer\u2019s performance in accordance with Article 8(6) and Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 and the possibility given to the manufacturer for raising objections against the calculation of its performance, it should be considered that the Commission by confirming the performance has demonstrated that the debt exists and that the amount receivable is certain within the meaning of Article 71 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.\n(6)\nThe excess emissions premium is to be calculated in accordance with the formulae laid down in Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 and is to be made public pursuant to Article 10 of that Regulation. The amount receivable should therefore be considered as a fixed amount that is due within the meaning of Article 71 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Commission shall proceed with the recovery of the excess emissions premium calculated in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 by establishing a recovery order and by issuing a debit note addressed to the manufacturer concerned in accordance with the provisions set out in Articles 71 to 74 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 and Articles 78 to 89 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2012.", "references": ["96", "62", "31", "92", "97", "98", "17", "66", "70", "54", "99", "84", "74", "12", "4", "86", "47", "14", "22", "16", "11", "37", "15", "36", "43", "40", "46", "29", "48", "89", "No Label", "33", "55", "58", "60", "85"], "gold": ["33", "55", "58", "60", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 July 2012\non measure SA.23324 - C 25/07 (ex NN 26/07) - Finland Finavia, Airpro and Ryanair at Tampere-Pirkkala airport\n(notified under document C(2012) 5036)\n(Only the Finnish and Swedish versions are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2013/664/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1),\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nIn February 2005 the Commission received a complaint from Blue1 Oy (\u2018Blue1\u2019), a Finnish airline that is part of the SAS Group. Blue1 alleged, among other things, that Ryanair Ltd (\u2018Ryanair\u2019) was receiving aid due to lower-than-average airport charges at Tampere-Pirkkala airport (\u2018TMP airport\u2019 or \u2018the airport\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Commission requested Finland to provide further information in relation to the complaint by letters of 2 March 2005 and 23 May 2006. Finland replied by letters of 27 April 2005 and 27 July 2006.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 10 July 2007 the Commission informed Finland of its decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (2) (\u2018the opening decision\u2019) in respect of the agreement between Airpro Oy and Ryanair and the implementation of the low-cost strategy by Finavia and Airpro Oy at TMP airport. Finland provided its comments on the opening decision on 28 November 2007.\n(4)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure in question within one month of the publication date.\n(5)\nThe Commission received comments on the subject from four interested parties (Ryanair, SAS Group, Air France and the Association of European Airlines). It transmitted these comments to Finland by letter dated 13 February 2008. Finland transmitted its comments on 15 April 2008.\n(6)\nBy letter dated 25 June 2010 the Commission requested further information. Finland replied by letter dated 1 July 2010. By letter dated 5 April 2011 the Commission requested further information on the financing of the airport. Finland replied by letter dated 5 May 2011. However, Finland\u2019s reply was incomplete. Therefore, the Commission sent a reminder pursuant to Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (4). Finland replied by letter dated 15 June 2011.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES AND GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE\n2.1. Background to the investigation\n(7)\nTMP airport is located in Pirkkala, 13 kilometres south-west of the City of Tampere in southern Finland. It is the third largest airport in Finland (measured in number of passengers, see table in paragraph (10)). Besides handling civil aviation, the airport also serves as a base for the Finnish Air Force.\n(8)\nTMP airport has two scheduled passenger terminals:\n-\nTerminal 1 (also \u2018T1\u2019) was built in 1998 and is currently used by Finnair, Flybe, SAS, Blue1 and Air Baltic. In 2003 the capacity of T1 was 550 000 passengers a year.\n-\nTerminal 2 (also \u2018T2\u2019) was initially used as a cargo hangar by DHL and (after it became vacant in 2002) converted into a low-cost terminal. T2 currently serves Ryanair only. The capacity of T2 is 425 000 passengers a year.\n(9)\nTMP airport, with the exception of T2, is owned and operated by Finavia Oyj (5) (\u2018Finavia\u2019). T2 is rented out by Finavia to its subsidiary Airpro Oy (6) (\u2018Airpro\u2019). Airpro operates the terminal and provides ground handling services there. Furthermore, Airpro entered into an agreement with Ryanair [\u2026] (7) starting from 3 April 2003.\n(10)\nPassenger traffic at the airport increased from 304 025 in 2003 to 617 397 in 2010. This is due to the development of passenger numbers at T2. In 2010, Ryanair\u2019s passenger share at TMP airport amounted to approximately [\u2026]. The following table summarises the development of passenger numbers at TMP airport from 2003 to 2010:\nYear\nNumber of passengers, T1\nNumber of passengers, T2\nTotal number of passengers at TMP airport\n2003\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n304 025\n2004\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n495 892\n2005\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n597 102\n2006\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n632 010\n2007\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n687 711\n2008\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n709 356\n2009\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n628 105\n2010\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n617 397\n2.2. The measures under investigation and the initial assessment by the Commission\n(11)\nThe opening decision raised the following questions:\n-\nfirstly, whether Finavia acted as a market economy investor when it decided to convert a cargo hangar into T2, a low-cost terminal, in which case this investment decision does not involve State aid in favour of Airpro; and if not, whether such aid could be considered compatible with the internal market; and\n-\nsecondly, whether a market economy operator would have entered into an agreement similar to Airpro\u2019s agreement with Ryanair; and if not, whether the aid contained in the agreement could be deemed compatible with the internal market.\n(12)\nAs regards the first question, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether Finavia was guided by prospects of long-term profitability when it decided to transform the cargo hangar into a low-cost terminal. Furthermore, the Commission had doubts as to whether the investments made by Finavia to transform this former cargo hangar into a low-cost terminal could also be considered a selective advantage in favour of Airpro that it would not have obtained under normal market conditions.\n(13)\nAs regards the second question, the Commission had to examine whether, in this particular case, the behaviour of Airpro had been guided by prospects of long-term profitability and whether the advantage allegedly conferred on Ryanair was an advantage it would not have obtained under normal market conditions. The Commission expressed, in particular, doubts as to whether the \u2018all-inclusive charge\u2019 paid by Ryanair was based on costs for the provision of services to the airline by Airpro. Furthermore, Finland did not provide the Commission either with the terms of the agreement with Ryanair or with the business plan evaluating the profitability of the agreement for Airpro. Hence in its opening decision the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the behaviour of Airpro had been guided by prospects of long-term profitability. Accordingly, it could not be excluded that the agreement provided Ryanair with an advantage it would not have benefited from under normal market conditions.\n(14)\nThe Commission expressed doubts as to whether the conditions for compatibility as set out in the Community guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports (8) (\u2018the 2005 Aviation Guidelines\u2019) had been satisfied in the present case, and whether the State aid measures could be declared compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU.\n3. COMMENTS FROM FINLAND\n3.1. The low-cost strategy of Finavia and Airpro at TMP airport\n(15)\nFinland began its observations by providing background information on Finavia\u2019s and Airpro\u2019s low-cost strategy at TMP airport. Finland explained that T2 was built in 1979 for temporary use as an airport building. In 1995 it was converted into a cargo hangar suitable for freight operations and was used by DHL. In 2002 DHL terminated the lease agreement and the terminal became vacant.\n(16)\nFinland indicated that, as Finavia was not able to attract any other cargo operator to Tampere or to rent out the hangar, it decided to convert the hangar into a low-cost terminal suitable for basic ground handling services. The initial construction costs of T2 had by that time already been depreciated and the refurbishment of the terminal required only minor renovations (9). The following table details the investment costs of the refurbishment of T2, amounting to EUR 760 612.\nRefurbishment works\nInvestment costs in EUR\nPlanning\n[\u2026]\nCopies, permits, travel\n[\u2026]\nConstruction engineering\n[\u2026]\nHeating/pipes/air conditioning\n[\u2026]\nElectricity\n[\u2026]\nLow-voltage installations\n[\u2026]\nConveyors\n[\u2026]\nSecurity screening equipment\n[\u2026]\nTotal amount\n760 612\n(17)\nIn view of the above calculation Finland indicated that even if Finavia had been able to find another tenant to use T2 as a cargo hangar, it would have been necessary to carry out certain construction engineering works amounting to approximately EUR 100 000. Furthermore, the conveyors could always be used at Finavia\u2019s other airports.\n(18)\nFinland explained further that Finavia\u2019s intention was to make the new low-cost terminal available to all airlines willing to accept the lower quality of service. The following table provides a comparison of the level of service and of facilities at T1 and T2 at TMP airport:\nTerminal 1 (T1)\nTerminal 2 (T2)\nOperational model\nTraditional model: check-in operations, security checks, transportation, sorting, loading and unloading of luggage are carried out by different professional groups and companies.\nLow-cost model: the same persons perform all the tasks of the different professional groups at T1, such as check-in, security checks, loading and unloading of luggage. The functions are located in a restricted area of the terminal, which requires only minimum staff and speeds up passenger flows.\nGround handling capacity\nThree to five (depending on the type of aeroplane) simultaneous take-offs or landings.\nOne outbound aeroplane an hour\nFacilities\nFacilities providing good service including a sophisticated luggage transportation system, pleasant waiting rooms with associated services, facilities to accommodate the needs of several ground handling providers, etc.\nBasic facilities that correspond mainly to warehouse standards (e. g. concrete floors), with only few windows.\n(19)\nFinland indicated that as T2 could provide ground handling services for only one outbound aeroplane an hour, it was suitable only for point-to-point carriers using large aircraft. At the same time, in order to optimise the use of its staff, the operator of the terminal required airlines to enter into long-term agreements and also agreements on timetables; for instance flights could not always be operated at the times requested by the airlines, as was the case in T1. According to Finland, the optimisation of staff expenses and the service levels provided allowed cost savings of approximately [\u2026] compared to T1.\n(20)\nFinland indicated that before starting the refurbishment of T2 and adopting a low-cost strategy there, the issue was discussed several times at the meetings of Finavia\u2019s board of directors. A business plan was also prepared for this purpose. The following table summarises the business plan (worst-case scenario) for the refurbishment of T2 and the implementation of a low-cost strategy: [\u2026]\n(21)\nFinland indicated that the ex ante business plan was based on prudent assumptions, leading to an underestimation of the revenues and an overestimation of the costs expected in the last years of the period under consideration. Under the other scenarios the low-cost strategy was expected to be even more profitable. The all-inclusive charges paid by the airlines using T2 varied in the different scenarios between [\u2026] per aircraft turnaround. As the decision on the low-cost strategy was made by Finavia\u2019s board of directors on the basis of calculations and studies, it was not imputable to the State. The measures were not the result of requirements or orders by authorities, nor were the authorities involved in the adoption of the measures.\n(22)\nFinland indicated that Finavia and Airpro operated in compliance with business principles and financed their operations from the service charges and revenues collected from customers and from other business operations. In particular, neither Finavia nor Airpro received funding from the State budget: they operated profitably and annually distributed part of their profit to the State in accordance with the profit requirements imposed on them.\n(23)\nFinland indicated that the Ministry of Transport and Communications decided on Finavia\u2019s performance targets. These performance targets, however, concern the group as a whole and individual business decisions were taken at Finavia\u2019s own discretion. In the past few years (2003 to 2005) Finavia\u2019s profit requirement had been approximately 4 % of the invested capital. The following table summarises Finavia\u2019s performance:\nKey financial data of Finavia in million EUR (actual figures)\nYear\n2003\n2004\n2005\nRevenues\n219\n234\n243\nProfit\n17\n15\n22\nDividends paid to the State\n6\n5\n10\n(24)\nFinland indicated that Finavia did not prepare airport-specific financial statements, as all its airports were part of the same legal entity. However, since 2000 Finavia had nevertheless collected airport-specific information based on its own internal calculations (actual data). This information was based on airports\u2019 volume trends and associated revenue and on the costs of the resources used at airports, namely personnel, contracted services and the depreciation of fixed assets. The overall performance of Finavia at TMP airport (excluding services provided by Airpro) is summarised in the following table: [\u2026]\n(25)\nBesides commercial operations, the financial results of Finavia at TMP airport also included operations falling within the public policy remit, such as air traffic control and use of the runway at TMP airport for military purposes. Finland explained that the runway at TMP airport had to be available for military purposes 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The runway was indeed used for military purposes (at least 30 % of the actual aircraft movements a year). The air traffic control cost amounted to approximately [\u2026]. The above figures took into account the rent paid by Airpro to Finavia for the use of T2 and the landing charges as well as other airport charges for the services provided to airlines using T2.\n(26)\nAs regards Airpro, Finland explained further that it was a limited company and legally distinct from Finavia. The following table summarises the actual financial results of Airpro\u2019s operations at TMP airport: [\u2026]\n(27)\nAirpro\u2019s financial results at TMP airport included costs, such as the rent for T2 at TMP airport, Airpro\u2019s own costs for personnel and equipment, and also the cost of services provided by Finavia. The financial statements included revenues, such as the all-inclusive charge paid by Ryanair, parking fees and other commercial revenues.\n(28)\nConsequently, Finland argued that Finavia and Airpro acted as market economy investors when they decided to implement the low-cost strategy and convert the cargo hangar into a low-cost passenger terminal.\n(29)\nFinland argued that even if the financing of the refurbishment of T2 were considered State aid, it would be compatible on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU, as it complied with the compatibility criteria set out in the 2005 Aviation Guidelines.\n(30)\nFinland argued further that the measures could be considered to meet objectives of general interest, which in its view related not only to the general-interest nature of airport operations, but also to the diversification of traffic connections in the region in a manner that met the needs of the residents and society. According to Finland, therefore, the alterations to T2 were proportional to their purpose and to the result achieved.\n(31)\nIn addition, Finland stated that the operations of airports had special characteristics that needed to be taken into account. For example TMP airport helped to improve mobility at more congested airports in accordance with the Union\u2019s objective. Operating TMP airport contributed to regionally balanced development in a sparsely populated country such as Finland. In this regard, it was particularly important to safeguard traffic connections from the more remote regions in Finland to Europe, since other forms of transport were not a viable alternative. The costs incurred for the construction of the terminal were proportional to the purpose as well as necessary. On the basis of the business plans and the actual figures, the infrastructure in question had sufficient medium-term prospects for use. T2 was open in a fair and non-discriminatory manner to all airlines. So far, however, no airline but Ryanair had shown interest in it.\n(32)\nAccording to Finland the infrastructure in question did not affect trade to an extent contrary to the interests of the Union. TMP airport was small and therefore the impact of the measures at Union level was not significant. In addition, the benefits of the measures for the region outweighed any negative impact at Union level.\n3.2. The lease agreement between Finavia and Airpro for T2 at TMP airport\n(33)\nFinland indicated that on 23 February 2003 Finavia concluded a lease agreement with Airpro concerning T2 for the period between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2013 (referred to also as \u2018the lease agreement\u2019). Even though Finavia originally paid for the costs of the refurbishment, Airpro would reimburse Finavia for these costs in its rent. Finland also provided a copy of the lease agreement.\n(34)\nPursuant to the lease agreement, Airpro pays a monthly rent amounting to [\u2026] plus [\u2026] VAT for the use of the facilities. Accordingly, the rent including VAT totals [\u2026] a month. The agreement provides that in addition to the basic rent the rent also includes the costs incurred for turning the cargo hangar into a low-cost passenger terminal, plus the related interest.\n(35)\nFinland indicated that at the time of concluding the lease agreement, the alterations to T2 were still ongoing and the refurbishment costs of the terminal had to be estimated in order to determine the amount of rent. The costs were estimated at EUR 700 000 and their monthly impact on the rent was expected to be approximately [\u2026]. In addition to the estimated refurbishment costs Finavia estimated that the costs of additional works and arrangements made after the commencement of the operations of T2 would be approximately [\u2026] and their monthly impact on the rent would be [\u2026]. In accordance with the calculations above, Airpro compensated Finavia for the costs incurred by the alterations to T2 with a monthly rent amounting to [\u2026].\n(36)\nFinland argued that the monthly rent paid by Airpro was not below the market price. The rent paid by Airpro was actually higher than the rent paid by the previous tenant, DHL. DHL paid a monthly rent amounting to [\u2026] excluding VAT for the use of the facilities, which corresponded to approximately [\u2026] (10). The share of VAT amounted to [\u2026], so the total monthly rent including VAT was [\u2026], which corresponded to approximately [\u2026].\n(37)\nFinland noted further that without the implementation of the low-cost strategy and conversion of the cargo hangar into a low-cost terminal, T2 might have remained vacant, which would have encumbered the finances of TMP airport.\n3.3. The implementation of the low-cost strategy by Airpro and the agreement of 3 April 2003 between Airpro and Ryanair\n(38)\nAs regards the implementation of the low-cost strategy by Airpro, Finland explained that discussions with airlines had started earlier. There had been ongoing discussions for example with Ryanair for a few years before the decision was taken to implement a low-cost strategy at TMP airport.\n(39)\nAccording to Finland the letter sent by Airpro to a number of airlines inviting them to consider starting up operations at the low-cost terminal was only one part of the marketing strategy for T2. T2 at TMP airport was actively marketed at the Routes trade fair (11) for several years starting in 2002. It was assumed that other airlines, in addition to Ryanair, would also be interested in establishing their operations at this terminal.\n(40)\nFinland provided a copy of the marketing letter. The letter indicates the charges applicable at T2, such as the charge for ground handling and terminal use, the amount of which depends on the aircraft type used. In addition to the charges applicable at T2, the airlines are to pay the normal landing, terminal navigation and security charges.\n(41)\nFinland provided a copy of the agreement with a period of validity of [\u2026] concluded between Airpro and Ryanair on 3 April 2003 (\u2018the agreement\u2019). The agreement sets out the operational and financial conditions under which Ryanair is to establish and operate commercial flights to and from T2 at TMP airport. The agreement took effect on the day after the signature of that agreement (i.e. 4 April 2003) and will end on [\u2026].\n(42)\nFor services provided at TMP airport Ryanair is to pay a single charge for each aircraft turnaround (departure and arrival), i.e. an all-inclusive charge, for each B737-800 aircraft or other variant of the B-737 aircraft with a maximum MTOW (12) of 67 000 kg as from 4 April 2003. This charge includes the landing and take-off charge, lighting charges, noise and night fees, the terminal navigation charge, ramp and passenger handling charges including the security and safety charges, and the passenger charge.\n(43)\nAs summarised in the tables below the all-inclusive charge depends on the daily frequencies of Ryanair at the airport and on the year of the agreement: [\u2026]\n(44)\nIn the agreement, Ryanair commits itself to commencing operations at TMP airport with [\u2026] daily turnarounds. Furthermore Ryanair agrees to give [\u2026] notice of any reduction in the number of daily turnarounds at the airport.\n(45)\n[\u2026]\n(46)\nPursuant to the agreement Ryanair expected to generate approximately [\u2026] departing passengers at TMP airport during the first 12 months and approximately [\u2026] departing passengers during the following 12 months.\n(47)\nPursuant to the agreement, T2 at TMP airport has a maximum capacity of one turnaround an hour between 7:00 and 24:00. Ryanair and Airpro will agree beforehand on the flight schedules.\n(48)\nAirpro will operate a passenger service desk in a prime location in the main airport terminal (T1) and will provide reservations facility for Ryanair\u2019s passengers. Pursuant to the agreement Ryanair pays a commission to Airpro at the rate of [\u2026] for all Ryanair flights (excluding taxes, fees and other charges) sold by Airpro and paid by debit/credit card.\n(49)\nThe agreement also provides for arrangements during the necessary maintenance of the runway at TMP airport during summer 2003, when the airport will be closed to all traffic. During this period the traffic of TMP airport will be diverted to Pori airport and Airpro will arrange bus transportation for Ryanair\u2019s passengers.\n(50)\nAccording to Finland the agreement between Airpro and Ryanair was on commercial terms and did not involve State aid. Other airlines had also had the possibility to agree with Airpro on similar contractual terms and conditions to those obtained by Ryanair. For example the marketing brochure The Case for Tampere-Pirkkala Airport, which had been prepared for the 2004 trade fair, highlighted the fact that T2 was open to all operators, as at that time the terminal still had capacity available for two more airlines.\n(51)\nFinland considered further that the charges paid by Ryanair at TMP airport were cost-based and generated an economic profit for Airpro\u2019s and Finavia\u2019s operations at TMP airport. Airpro collected charges from Ryanair for services it provided and also for services provided by Finavia. Airpro subsequently disbursed to Finavia the charges resulting from Ryanair\u2019s operations at the airport pursuant to Finavia\u2019s Aeronautical Information Publication (\u2018AIP\u2019) (13). Any differences in charges were based on the nature and scale of the services concerned.\n(52)\nFinland indicated that all airlines using TMP airport paid the same charges for services of the same quality. For instance, the passenger charge collected for the services provided at T2 depended on the quality of the services provided at the terminal. Neither Finavia nor Airpro played any role in the collection of the passenger service charge marked on Ryanair\u2019s air ticket, which was collected by Ryanair from its passengers. Contrary to the allegations of Blue1, Ryanair was not exempted from paying the passenger charge. The fact that Airpro\u2019s operations at T2 were profitable was evidence that Ryanair had to pay a charge for the services provided by Airpro.\n(53)\nFinavia collected the following charges from Ryanair through Airpro at TMP airport, amounting to [\u2026] in total:\n-\nlanding charge (14): [\u2026]\n-\nair navigation services charge: [\u2026]\n(54)\nAs regards the air traffic navigation charges, Finland stated that they depended on the weight of the aircraft, the length of the flight and the content of the services used. Finavia\u2019s profits also included an annual route charge (15), which amounted to approximately [\u2026] in 2006 and would increase with the additional frequencies operated by Ryanair.\n(55)\nFinland explained further that in 2005 the operating benefit from Ryanair\u2019s operations at TMP airport totalled [\u2026]. Finally, Finland argued that pursuant to the agreement, Ryanair had also committed itself to increasing traffic and to meeting the passenger targets indicated in the agreement.\n4. OBSERVATIONS FROM THIRD PARTIES\n(56)\nThe Commission has received observations from four interested parties.\n4.1. Ryanair\n(57)\nRyanair began its observations dated 16 November 2007 by stating that in its opinion the initiation of a formal investigation procedure was unfair and unnecessary. It also stated that it regretted that the Commission had not given Ryanair the possibility to participate in the preliminary examination.\n(58)\nOn the substance of the case Ryanair was of the opinion that the Commission should have based itself on standard commercial arrangements and decided that the agreement complied with the market economy operator principle and hence did not involve State aid. As in Ryanair\u2019s opinion both Finavia and Airpro benefitted from its presence at TMP airport, both were acting as market economy operators and the financing of T2 was void of any aid.\n(59)\nAs regards the development of the low-cost terminal at TMP airport, Ryanair explained that there were ongoing projects to differentiate services provided by airports in the Union in order to serve the needs of low-cost airlines and their passengers. The differentiated level of services provided by airports resulted in differentiated charges paid by airlines. TMP airport was among the first to follow the model of differentiated service levels at the same airport. Ryanair confirmed that the airport operator Finavia had decided on the development of T2 on the basis of a sound business plan that was swiftly implemented and resulted in an increase in Finavia\u2019s revenue. Therefore, Ryanair was of the opinion that the development of the low-cost terminal did not contain any elements of State aid towards Finavia\u2019s activity at TMP airport.\n(60)\nWith regard to the management of T2, Ryanair explained that competition between terminals at the same airport resulted in improved efficiency and reduced costs. In Ryanair\u2019s view, the higher efficiency standards at T2 improved the efficiency of T1 to the benefit of all airlines using the airport. To Ryanair\u2019s knowledge, Airpro was renting the terminal on commercial terms. Finavia benefitted additionally from increased traffic at the airport and an increase in revenue from landing and air traffic control charges. Consequently, in Ryanair\u2019s view no State aid was involved in the commercial agreements between Finavia and Airpro with regard to the management of T2.\n(61)\nAs regards the agreement concluded between Ryanair and Airpro, Ryanair first stated that its business model was based on increasing efficiency, which was passed on to passengers in the form of lower air fares. The all-inclusive fee paid at TMP airport included all charges applicable to airlines at the airport. The differentiated charges for the use of T2 were justified by the level of services provided. With regard to the discount on airport charges related to the increase in frequencies, Ryanair argued that this was normal commercial behaviour applied in all industries. Most of the conditions of the agreement between Ryanair and Airpro at T2 were generally applicable to all airlines willing to fly from T2. Therefore, Ryanair was of the opinion that its agreement with Airpro was not selective. Ryanair further argued that both Finavia and Airpro benefitted from its presence at TMP airport.\n4.2. SAS Group\n(62)\nSAS Group submitted its comments by letter dated 16 November 2007. SAS Group pointed out that its comments focused on the link between Finavia and Airpro, the costs of the conversion of T2, and the preferential treatment of Ryanair at TMP airport.\n(63)\nAs regards the link between Finavia and Airpro, SAS Group stated that the managing director of TMP airport was a member of the board of directors of Airpro when Finavia decided to lease T2 to Airpro. In addition, the close link between Finavia and Airpro was evident in the publication Tampere-Pirkkala Airport Finland\u2019s Future-Ready Airport.\n(64)\nSAS Group argued that Finavia was cross-subsidising T2 with revenues from T1. SAS Group was in particular of the opinion that no passenger charges were paid at T2. Furthermore, Airpro administered the car park located outside T2 and kept the revenues generated by the car park. The parking charges at the car park next to T2 were twice as high as those at T1.\n(65)\nAs regards the costs for the services at T2, SAS Group argued that Finland had not granted it access to this information. SAS Group had no information on whether T2 or TMP airport were profitable and whether Airpro paid for the infrastructure supplied by Finavia. For example Finavia had acquired security screening equipment for T2. SAS Group stated that according to Finland and Airpro the price level at T2 related to the level of services. SAS Group argued that the level of services was normally based on the ground handling concept agreed between an airline and the ground handling company and not on the space or facilities available.\n(66)\nSAS Group argued further that the arrangements concerning T2 at TMP airport favoured one business model and were clearly contrary to Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n4.3. Air France\n(67)\nAir France provided comments by letter dated 16 November 2007. Air France started by explaining its commercial situation in Finland. In Finland, Air France did not operate services from and to TMP airport. However it operated five daily frequencies between Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris and Helsinki airport (located approximately 180 kilometres from TMP airport) through a code sharing arrangement with Finnair.\n(68)\nAir France said it endorsed the 2005 Aviation Guidelines and the preliminary assessment conducted by the Commission as regards the financial arrangement at TMP airport. In particular, Air France was of the opinion that an exception from the payment of the passenger fee provided benefits to Ryanair and was clearly of a discriminatory nature, and therefore should not be considered compatible with the internal market.\n4.4. Association of European Airlines\n(69)\nThe Association of European Airlines (\u2018AEA\u2019) provided its comments by letter of 16 November 2007. AEA\u2019s comments were entirely in line with those provided by SAS Group and Air France.\n5. COMMENTS FROM FINLAND ON THIRD-PARTY COMMENTS\n(70)\nFinland received the comments of the four interested parties.\n(71)\nAs regards Ryanair\u2019s comments, Finland observed that the airline had commented on both general developments in the aviation market in Europe and on developments at TMP airport. With respect to these aspects, Finland referred to its earlier observations submitted following the opening of the formal investigation procedure.\n(72)\nFinland observed that SAS Group\u2019s comments raised new issues that needed to be clarified. Finland stated that, as it had already pointed out, Airpro was a legally distinct company and did not benefit from any support from its owner Finavia.\n(73)\nFinland indicated that TMP airport\u2019s managing director was not a member of the board of directors of Airpro at the time when the lease agreement was signed. TMP airport\u2019s managing director was on Airpro\u2019s board of directors only from May 2003 to April 2007. As regards the marketing publication concerning TMP airport and its low-cost strategy, Finland argued that such marketing operations could not prejudge the legal and economic links between the companies concerned. SAS Group, which operated from T1 at TMP airport, was not mentioned in the publication, because the publication was aimed at marketing TMP airport\u2019s low-cost strategy.\n(74)\nAs regards SAS Group\u2019s allegations concerning possible cross-subsidisation between T2 and T1 at TMP airport, Finland stated that it had already provided evidence that Airpro\u2019s operations at TMP airport were profitable and that Airpro did not receive any subsidies from Finavia.\n(75)\nAs regards the different infrastructure adjustments related to the refurbishment of T2, Finland indicated that the rent paid by Airpro to Finavia covered these costs plus interest. With regard to the purchase of security screening equipment for T2 by Finavia, Finland indicated that these costs were reflected in the rent paid. The car park located next to T2 was part of the area rented out to Airpro. Airpro was free to set the charges as long as it did so in a transparent way.\n(76)\nAs regards SAS\u2019s allegations concerning differentiated pricing at TMP airport\u2019s T2, Finland referred to its comments on the opening of the procedure.\n6. EXISTENCE OF AID\n(77)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU states that \u2018any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(78)\nThe criteria set out in Article 107(1) are cumulative. A measure constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU only if all of the following conditions are fulfilled. The financial support must:\n-\nbe granted by the State or through state resources;\n-\nfavour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods;\n-\ndistort or threaten to distort competition; and\n-\naffect trade between Member States.\n6.1. Do the financial arrangements in the context of implementing the low-cost strategy at TMP airport constitute State aid?\n(79)\nIn assessing whether there is any aid component in the financial arrangements related to the low-cost strategy at TMP airport, in particular with regard to the conversion of a vacant cargo hangar into a low-cost terminal and the subsequent lease agreement with Airpro, the Commission has to examine whether in similar circumstances a market economy investor would have entered into the same or similar commercial arrangements as Finavia (16).\n(80)\nPursuant to the principles established in the case-law, the Commission has to compare the conduct of Finavia to a market economy investor who can be guided by prospects of long-term profitability (17). In addition, pursuant to the Charleroi judgment (18), when assessing the measures in question the Commission has to take into account all the relevant features of the measures and their context. In other words, the Commission has to analyse the decision of Finavia to refurbish the cargo hangar at TMP airport and the planned implementation of the low-cost strategy at TMP airport by Airpro on the basis of an integrated approach taking into account all the features of the measures in question.\n(81)\nThe Court declared in the Stardust Marine Judgment that, \u2018[\u2026] in order to examine whether or not the State has adopted the conduct of a prudent investor operating in a market economy, it is necessary to place oneself in the context of the period during which the financial support measures were taken in order to assess the economic rationality of the State\u2019s conduct, and thus to refrain from any assessment based on a later situation\u2019 (19).\n(82)\nIn order to be able to apply the market economy investor test the Commission has to place itself in the context of the period when Finavia took the decision to refurbish the vacant cargo hangar and subsequently to rent it out to Airpro i.e. the beginning of 2003. The Commission must also base its assessment on the information and assumptions which were at the disposal of the operator when the decisions on the financial arrangements for the implementation of the low-cost strategy were taken.\n(83)\nFinland argues that Finavia acted rationally and substantiates its arguments with a copy of Finavia\u2019s ex ante business plan and the actual results of Finavia and Airpro at TMP airport.\n(84)\nIn this context, the Commission notes that the cargo hangar at TMP airport became vacant after DHL had terminated its rental agreement. Finavia was losing the monthly rent of approximately [\u2026]. After some months, it became evident that Finavia would not be able to attract another air cargo company to TMP airport. In addition, low-cost airlines were not ready to use Terminal 1 at the airport, because the costs of the ground-handling services were higher than these airlines were ready to accept. However, the 2002 forecasts for the aviation transport sector indicated a high growth potential for low-cost carriers, such as Ryanair, of approximately 30 % a year.\n(85)\nThe Commission observes further that the empty cargo hangar was fully depreciated and the refurbishment costs for transforming the hangar into a low-cost passenger terminal amounted to EUR 760 612. Even if the cargo hangar had not been converted into a passenger terminal, Finavia would have nonetheless had to undertake certain refurbishment works amounting to approximately EUR 100 000.\n(86)\nIn addition, Finavia was obliged to keep TMP airport\u2019s runway available for military purposes 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Therefore, an increase in traffic at the airport might well result in a better allocation of resources and a reduction in possible overcapacities. At the same time, the diversification of airlines using the airport might also reduce the business risks of the airport (such as the risk of unused capacity in the event that one of the airlines terminated its operations) and improve the efficient utilisation of the runway.\n(87)\nThis situation is explained in Finavia\u2019s business plan for implementing the low-cost strategy. As shown in the worst-case scenario in Finavia\u2019s business plan, the investment project was expected to make a positive contribution: the average profit margin (20) was expected to be around [\u2026] (see table in paragraph (20)), which according to the data available to the Commission is broadly in line with the profit margins of other airports in the Union (21). The Commission observes further that the ex ante business plan was based on prudent assumptions which led to an underestimation of the revenue and an overestimation of the costs in the last years of the period under consideration. In addition, the ex ante business plan did not take into account the profit gained by Finavia from the landing charges, as these costs were deducted from the expected revenue. Furthermore the refurbishment costs and an appropriate remuneration for the capital invested were fully reflected in the rent paid by Airpro to Finavia, which was also deducted from the expected revenue.\n(88)\nIn order to assess the low-cost strategy of Finavia and Airpro on the basis of an integrated approach, the Commission\u2019s expert consolidated the revenues and costs of the ex ante business plan (base-case scenario). In particular, the inter-company payments (such as the rent paid by Airpro to Finavia for the use of T2, landing charges and terminal navigation charges) were taken into account as revenue. The following table summarises the revenue and cost calculations related to the implementation of the low-cost strategy at TMP airport as described above and its contribution to the earnings before interest and taxes (\u2018EBIT\u2019) at a consolidated level (i.e. for Finavia and Airpro) over the next ten years: [\u2026] (22)\n(89)\nThe Commission observes that on the basis of the ex ante business plan and the positive NPV (23) Finavia\u2019s decision to implement the low-cost strategy at TMP airport was in line with the behaviour of a market economy investor. The positive NPV of the low-cost strategy increased the equity value of Finavia. The Commission further notes that the assumptions of the ex ante business plan and the expected results of the low-cost strategy are further supported by the actual positive results of Airpro\u2019s activity at TMP airport (see in particular the table in paragraph (26)). Moreover, the combined actual financial results of TMP airport (taking into account the financial results of Airpro\u2019s and Finavia\u2019s activity at TMP airport, see tables in paragraphs (24) and (26)) show that due to the operation of the low-cost terminal the entire airport\u2019s activity became profitable.\n(90)\nIn view of the above, the Commission can conclude that Finavia\u2019s decision to implement the low-cost strategy at TMP airport and the underlying financial arrangements are in line with the market economy investor test and therefore free of any economic advantage that does not correspond to normal market conditions.\n(91)\nAs one of the cumulative criteria in Article 107(1) of the TFEU is not fulfilled, the Commission considers that Finavia\u2019s decision to implement the low-cost strategy at TMP airport and the underlying financial arrangements are void of any State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n(92)\nAs regards a possible cross-subsidisation of Airpro by Finavia (such as lost rent revenue or compensation for operating losses), the Commission notes that given that all financial arrangements related to the low-cost strategy at TMP airport are based on an ex ante business plan in accordance with the market economy investor principle, that Airpro pays a market rent for the use of T2 and the full costs of Airpro\u2019s activity at TMP airport are covered by the charges paid by the airlines using T2 (i.e. Ryanair), and that Finavia\u2019s activity at TMP airport is profitable only due to the operation of T2, the cross-subsidisation of Airpro by Finavia can be excluded.\n6.2. Does the agreement between Airpro and Ryanair constitute State aid?\n(93)\nAs regards the agreement between Airpro and Ryanair, Finland has argued that Airpro acted as a market economy operator would have done in a similar situation. If this is the case, Ryanair has not been favoured by the agreement and no State aid is involved.\n(94)\nIn assessing whether the agreement was concluded under normal market conditions, the Commission has to examine whether in similar circumstances an airport operating under normal market economy conditions and guided by prospects of long-term profitability would have entered into the same or similar commercial arrangements as Airpro (24). Furthermore, the Commission has to analyse the expected impact of the agreement on Airpro\u2019s and Finavia\u2019s activity at TMP airport on the basis of an integrated approach taking into account all the features of the measure in question (25).\n(95)\nIn order to be able to apply the private investor test, the Commission has to place itself in the context of the period when the agreement was signed. The Commission must also base its assessment on the information and assumptions available to the operator when the agreement was signed. Airpro signed the agreement with Ryanair on 3 April 2003 for a period of validity of [\u2026].\n(96)\nPursuant to the agreement, Ryanair committed itself to commencing operations at TMP airport with [\u2026] daily turnarounds. On this basis Ryanair expected to generate approximately [\u2026] departing passengers at TMP airport during the first 12 months, and approximately [\u2026] departing passengers during the following 12 months. The agreement provides for a schedule of charges per turnaround depending on the number of daily frequencies (see in particular the tables in paragraph (43)). The average price for one turnaround (based on three flights a day) is [\u2026]. The following table compares the charges paid by airlines using T1 at TMP airport and the average price paid by Ryanair:\nService provided\nAirport charges applicable at Terminal 1 (T1) in EUR\nAirport charges paid by Ryanair (average fee) at Terminal 2 (T2)\nLanding charge\n442\n442\nTerminal navigation charges\n92\n92\nSecurity charge\n410\n410\nTerminal (passenger) services and ground handling\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTotal price per turnaround\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(97)\nThe Commission observes that Ryanair pays the same landing, terminal navigation and security charges as airlines using T1 at TMP airport. According to the information provided by Finland Ryanair is not exempted from the passenger fee. The only difference in the price paid by Ryanair relates to the charges paid for terminal (passenger) services and ground handling. However the quality of the services provided to Ryanair and its passengers at T2 is lower than the quality of services provided at T1, and the reduction achieved in underlying costs, in particular personnel costs, represents approximately [\u2026] of Airpro\u2019s total costs (including the rent, landing and terminal navigation charges paid to Finavia). Contrary to T1, the number of staff at T2 is kept at a low level and the staff performs a variety of operations related to check-in, security checks and ground handling. According to the information provided by the airport to the Commission\u2019s expert, T2\u2019s personnel costs are about [\u2026] lower than T1\u2019s. In addition, the Commission observes that the airport charges paid by Ryanair for the terminal (passenger) services and ground handling are only around [\u2026] lower than the charges paid at T1. The divergence between the cost savings (around [\u2026]) and the difference in the charges paid by airlines using the two terminals (around [\u2026]) reflects the additional profit margin generated by Airpro (around [\u2026], see also table in paragraph (20)). Hence, the Commission considers that the difference between the charges paid by Ryanair at T2 and those paid at T1 is justified.\n(98)\nOn the basis of the above, Airpro was able to forecast the revenue generated by the agreement with Ryanair. Airpro assumed that in year 1 Ryanair would perform [\u2026] daily turnarounds with a load factor of [\u2026]; as of year 2 it was expected that Ryanair would operate [\u2026] daily turnarounds for the remaining period of validity of the agreement with the same load factor as in year 1. The result takes into account Airpro\u2019s aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues (including the car park revenue, etc.). Airpro\u2019s costs over the period of validity of the agreement were estimated by using the projected costs related to the implementation of the low-cost strategy at TMP airport. For instance, the costs of personnel were expected to amount to [\u2026] per turnaround (and [\u2026] when calculated on the basis of daily aircraft turnaround).\n(99)\nThe following table summarises the revenue and cost calculations related to the agreement and the positive contribution of the agreement to the equity value of Airpro during its period of validity. These calculations are based on the business plan provided by Finland and the assumptions set out above. [\u2026] (26)\n(100)\nThe Commission notes that during its period of validity the agreement with Ryanair was expected to generate a positive contribution to Airpro\u2019s equity value, with an NPV amounting to EUR 0,5 million. Furthermore Airpro\u2019s and Finavia\u2019s overall activity at TMP airport was expected to be positive over the period of validity of the agreement.\n(101)\nThe Commission also observes that the revenues stemming from the agreement cover all of Airpro\u2019s costs at TMP airport and all of Finavia\u2019s costs related to the agreement. The full-cost approach in this case includes the cost of capital (i.e. depreciation costs for the airport infrastructure) and operating costs (such as costs of personnel, energy, material, etc.). It also includes costs for security and safety measures that may represent measures falling within the public policy remit which would not be considered an economic activity within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. Thus the calculated NPV is underestimated and the positive contribution of the agreement may indeed be even higher.\n(102)\nThe Commission observes that on the basis of the ex ante business plan the decision of Airpro, as a subsidiary of Finavia, to conclude the agreement in question with Ryanair was in line with the conduct of a market economy investor. The Commission further notes that the assumptions of the ex ante business plan and the expected results of the agreement are further supported by the actual positive results of Airpro\u2019s activity at TMP airport (see in particular the table in paragraph (26)). Moreover, the combined actual financial results of TMP airport (taking into account the financial results of Airpro\u2019s and Finavia\u2019s activity at TMP airport, see in particular the tables in paragraphs (24) and (26)) show that not only the operations of the low-cost terminal but also those of the airport as a whole became profitable.\n(103)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that Airpro\u2019s decision to enter into the agreement in question with Ryanair is in line with the market economy investor test and therefore free of any economic advantages that do not correspond to normal market conditions.\n(104)\nAs the cumulative criteria in Article 107(1) of the TFEU are not fulfilled, the Commission considers that the agreement of 3 April 2003 between Airpro and Ryanair is void of any State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe measures taken by Finavia Oyj and Airpro Oy consisting of the financial arrangements related to the implementation of the low-cost strategy at Tampere-Pirkkala airport, in particular the refurbishment costs of Terminal 2 and the lease agreement for Terminal 2 concluded between Finavia Oyj and Airpro Oy on 23 February 2003, do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThe agreement concluded between Airpro Oy and Ryanair Ltd on 3 April 2003 does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Finland.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2012.", "references": ["70", "92", "34", "30", "24", "3", "22", "93", "20", "52", "19", "83", "80", "43", "55", "32", "54", "88", "89", "87", "41", "38", "35", "75", "26", "16", "56", "98", "72", "8", "No Label", "15", "48", "53", "57", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "48", "53", "57", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 270/2012\nof 26 March 2012\namending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for amidosulfuron, azoxystrobin, bentazone, bixafen, cyproconazole, fluopyram, imazapic, malathion, propiconazole and spinosad in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor azoxystrobin, bentazone, bixafen, malathion and propiconazole, maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Annex II and Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For amidosulfuron, cyproconazole, flusilazole, malathion and spinosad, MRLs were set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For fluopyram and imazapic, no MRLs were set before in any of the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, so the default value of 0,01 mg/kg applied.\n(2)\nIn the context of a procedure, for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance azoxystrobin on seeds of mustard, poppy and gold of pleasure an application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing MRLs.\n(3)\nAs regards bentazone, such an application was made for legume vegetables and fresh herbs. As regards bixafen, such an application was made for rape seed, linseed, mustard seed and poppy seed. As regards amidosulfuron, such an application was made for bovine fat, kidney, liver and milk, taking into account existing uses on cereals and grass fed to ruminants. As regards cyprococonazole, such an application was made for rape seed. As regards fluopyram, such an application was made for pome fruit, strawberry, grapes, carrots, onion bulb, spring onions, tomatoes, sweet corn, cucurbits, flowering brassica, Brussels sprouts, head cabbage, Chinese cabbage, lamb's lettuce, lettuce, cress, land cress, rucola, red mustard, leaves and sprouts of brassica, globe artichokes, leek, peaches, peppers, peas and peas with and without pods, rape seed, wheat and animal products, taking into account uses on animal feed crops fed to domestic food producing animals. On root and tuber vegetables, bulb, brassica, fruiting vegetables, leafy vegetables and herbs that substance may also be present due to treatment of previous crops. Therefore, an application was made to raise the MRLs also for these crops. As regards propiconazole, such an application was made for rice. As regards spinosad, such an application was made for blackberries, raspberries, bananas, radishes and parsley.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 an application was made for flusilazole for tea. The applicant claims that authorised use of flusilazole on tea in Indonesia leads to residues exceeding the MRL in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 and that a higher MRL is necessaryto avoid trade barriers for the importation of tea.\n(5)\nAs regards imazapic, such an application was made to raise the current MRLs for sugar cane from Central and South America (Costa Rica, Brazil, Guatemala). As regards fluopyram, such an application was made to raise the current MRLs for citrus, tree nuts, apple, stone fruits, strawberries, cane fruit, blueberries, bananas, potato, radish, garlic, onions, shallots, peppers, aubergines, okra, sweet corn, scarole, herbs, legume vegetables, pulses, oilseeds, cereals, hops, spices, and sugar beet from the United States. As regards malathion, such an application was made to raise the current MRL for camomille from Egypt.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, these applications were evaluated by the Member States concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission.\n(7)\nThe European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \"the Authority\", assessed the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs (2). It forwarded these opinions to the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public.\n(8)\nThe Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that, as regards use of bentazone on peas with and without pods, the MRLs were already fixed at the levels corresponding to the intended authorised uses. As regards beans and lentils, the Authority proposed lower MRLs based on the assumption, that the current MRLs were no longer needed. In the absence of information confirming that assumption the MRLs should be kept unmodified. As regards fluopyram, with the exception of tree nuts, pome fruit, cherries, strawberries, potato, onions, pulses, peanuts, rape seed, soya bean, maize, rye, sorghum, wheat and sugar beet, no evidence was submitted about the authorisation in the United States for the crops for which import tolerance were requested. Therefore the requirements set out in Article 14 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 were not fulfilled. As regards flusilazole the Authority concluded that, as regards use on tea the data were not adequate to support the MRL requested. As regards malathion on camomille, the Authority proposed two MRLs, one based on the data concerning residues since 2007 and a second one taking into account a possible change of the agricultural practice after 2007 in Egypt. Since there is no evidence of such a change it is appropriate to take the first proposal of the Authority. As regards spinosad the Authority concluded that, as regards use on blackberries and raspberries the data were not adequate to support the MRLs requested.\n(9)\nAs regards all other applications, the Authority concluded that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs requested by the applicants were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime exposure to these substances via consumption of all food products that may contain these substances, nor the short term exposure due to extreme consumption of the relevant crops and products showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference dose (ARfD) is exceeded.\n(10)\nBased on the reasoned opinions of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 March 2012.", "references": ["10", "73", "14", "57", "31", "99", "15", "43", "69", "87", "98", "36", "95", "22", "21", "82", "88", "76", "77", "51", "53", "74", "97", "66", "41", "81", "56", "7", "5", "6", "No Label", "25", "38", "60", "65", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "60", "65", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 436/2012\nof 23 May 2012\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance azamethiphos\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit (hereinafter \u2018MRL\u2019) for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding MRLs in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nAzamethiphos is currently included in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as an allowed substance, for salmonidae species.\n(4)\nAn application for the extension of the existing entry for azamethiphos applicable to fin fish species has been submitted to the European Medicines Agency.\n(5)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use recommended the extension of that entry and the absence of the need to establish an MRL for azamethiphos in fin fish species.\n(6)\nThe entry for azamethiphos in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2012.", "references": ["64", "26", "57", "13", "96", "39", "4", "11", "83", "99", "6", "28", "60", "58", "71", "33", "29", "21", "17", "27", "59", "97", "18", "1", "47", "22", "89", "85", "70", "53", "No Label", "25", "38", "67", "69", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "67", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 118/2012\nof 10 February 2012\namending Regulations (EC) No 2380/2001, (EC) No 1289/2004, (EC) No 1455/2004, (EC) No 1800/2004, (EC) No 600/2005, (EU) No 874/2010, Implementing Regulations (EU) No 388/2011, (EU) No 532/2011 and (EU) No 900/2011 as regards the name of the holder of the authorisation of certain additives in animal feed and correcting Implementing Regulation (EU) No 532/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1) and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAlpharma BVBA and Pfizer Ltd have submitted an application under Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 proposing to change the name of the holder of the authorisations as regards Commission Regulations (EC) No 2380/2001 of 5 December 2001 concerning the 10-year authorisation of an additive in feedingstuffs (2), (EC) No 1289/2004 of 14 July 2004 concerning the authorisation for 10 years of the additive Deccox\u00ae in feedingstuffs, belonging to the group of coccidiostats and other medicinal substances (3), (EC) No 1455/2004 of 16 August 2004 concerning the authorisation for 10 years of the additive \u2018Avatec 15 %\u2019 in feedingstuffs, belonging to the group of coccidiostats and other medicinal substances (4), (EC) No 1800/2004 of 15 October 2004 concerning the authorisation for 10 years of the additive Cycostat 66G in feedingstuffs, belonging to the group of coccidiostats and other medicinal substances (5), (EC) No 600/2005 of 18 April 2005 concerning a new authorisation for 10 years of a coccidiostat as an additive in feedingstuffs, the provisional authorisation of an additive and the permanent authorisation of certain additives in feedingstuffs (6), (EU) No 874/2010 of 5 October 2010 concerning the authorisation of lasalocid A sodium as a feed additive for turkeys up to 16 weeks (holder of authorisation Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA) and amending Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (7), Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) No 388/2011 of 19 April 2011 concerning the authorisation of maduramicin ammonium alpha as a feed additive for chickens for fattening (holder of authorisation Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA) and amending Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (8), (EU) No 532/2011 of 31 May 2011 concerning the authorisation of robenidine hydrochloride as a feed additive for rabbits for breeding and rabbits for fattening (holder of authorisation Alpharma Belgium BVBA) and amending Regulations (EC) No 2430/1999 and (EC) No 1800/2004 (9) and as regards (EU) No 900/2011 of 7 September 2011 concerning the authorisation of lasalocid A sodium as a feed additive for pheasants, guinea fowl, quails and partridges other than laying birds (holder of authorisation Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA) (10).\n(2)\nThe applicants claim that, with effect from 1 March 2011 as a result of the acquisition of Alpharma BVBA by Pfizer Ltd, the latter owns the marketing rights for the additives decoquinate, lasalocid A sodium, maduramicin ammonium alpha, robenidine hydrochloride and salinomycin.\n(3)\nThe proposed change of the terms of the authorisations is purely administrative in nature and does not entail a fresh assessment of the additives concerned. The European Food Safety Authority was informed of the application.\n(4)\nTo allow the applicant to exploit its marketing rights under the name of Pfizer Ltd it is necessary to change the terms of the authorisations.\n(5)\nRegulations (EC) No 2380/2001, (EC) No 1289/2004, (EC) No 1455/2004, (EC) No 1800/2004, (EC) No 600/2005, (EU) No 874/2010, Implementing Regulations (EU) No 388/2011, (EU) No 532/2011 and (EU) No 900/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nSince the modifications to the conditions of the authorisations are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to provide for a transitional period during which existing stocks may be used up.\n(7)\nThe maximum residue limits (MRLs) for turkeys and chickens for fattening introduced into the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1800/2004 by Commission Regulation (EC) No 101/2009 (11) and the trade name \u2018Robenz 66 G\u2019 for turkeys and chickens for fattening introduced into the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1800/2004 by Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2009 (12) were, by error, omitted in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1800/2004 as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 532/2011. It is therefore necessary to reintroduce these MRLs and the trade name.\n(8)\nTherefore, the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 532/2011 should be corrected accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 2380/2001\nIn column 2 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2380/2001, the words \u2018Alpharma Belgium BVBA\u2019 are replaced by \u2018Pfizer Ltd\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 1289/2004\nIn column 2 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1289/2004, the words \u2018Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA\u2019 are replaced by \u2018Pfizer Ltd\u2019.\nArticle 3\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 1455/2004\nIn column 2 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1455/2004, the words \u2018Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA\u2019 are replaced by \u2018Pfizer Ltd\u2019.\nArticle 4\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 1800/2004\nIn column 2 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1800/2004, the words \u2018Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA\u2019 are replaced by \u2018Pfizer Ltd\u2019.\nArticle 5\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 600/2005\nIn column 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 600/2005, the words \u2018Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA\u2019 are replaced by \u2018Pfizer Ltd\u2019.\nArticle 6\nAmendment to Regulation (EU) No 874/2010\nIn column 2 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 874/2010, the words \u2018Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA\u2019 are replaced by \u2018Pfizer Ltd\u2019.\nArticle 7\nAmendment to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 388/2011\nIn column 2 of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 388/2011, the words \u2018Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA\u2019 are replaced by \u2018Pfizer Ltd\u2019.\nArticle 8\nAmendment to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 532/2011\nIn column 2 of Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 532/2011 the words \u2018Alpharma Belgium BVBA\u2019 are replaced by \u2018Pfizer Ltd\u2019.\nArticle 9\nAmendment to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 900/2011\nIn column 2 of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 900/2011, the words \u2018Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA\u2019 are replaced by \u2018Pfizer Ltd\u2019.\nArticle 10\nCorrection to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 532/2011\nAnnex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 532/2011 is corrected in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 11\nTransitional measures\nExisting stocks which are in conformity with the provisions applying before the date of entry into force of this Regulation may continue to be placed on the market and used until 2 September 2012.\nArticle 12\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 10 and the Annex shall, however, apply from 21 June 2011.\nThis Regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["57", "17", "69", "83", "95", "3", "77", "28", "42", "1", "22", "26", "58", "71", "70", "99", "94", "59", "4", "78", "29", "68", "64", "49", "31", "98", "5", "73", "61", "41", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1243/2010\nof 20 December 2010\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China produced by Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nFollowing an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ironing boards originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019 or \u2018the country concerned\u2019) and Ukraine (\u2018the first investigation\u2019), anti-dumping measures were imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 (2). That Regulation entered into force on 27 April 2007.\n(2)\nIt is recalled that the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on ironing boards produced by the Chinese exporting producer Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (\u2018Since Hardware\u2019) was 0 % while it ranged between 18,1 % and 38,1 % for other Chinese exporting producers. Following a subsequent interim review. these duty rates were increased to up to 42,3 % pursuant to Implementing Regulation of the Council (EU) No 270/2010 of 29 March 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 (3).\n2. Initiation of the current proceeding\n(3)\nOn 2 October 2009, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) (\u2018notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation concerning imports into the Union of ironing boards originating in the PRC, limited to Since Hardware. In the notice of initiation, the Commission also announced the initiation of a review pursuant to Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 (\u2018review pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001\u2019) in order to allow for any necessary amendment of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in the light of the WTO Appellate Body report entitled \u2018Mexico - Definitive Anti-dumping Measures on Beef and Rice\u2019 (AB-2005-6) (5) (the \u2018WTO Appellate Body report\u2019).\n(4)\nThe anti-dumping investigation was initiated following a complaint lodged on 20 August 2009 by three Union producers, Colombo New Scal S.p.A., Pirola S.p.A. and Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd. (\u2018the complainants\u2019), representing a major proportion of the total Union production of ironing boards.\n(5)\nIt is recalled that a new anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation was initiated against Since Hardware rather than an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, in the light of the WTO Appellate Body report. This report stipulates in paragraphs 305 and 306 that an exporting producer not found to be dumping in an original investigation has to be excluded from the scope of the definitive measure imposed as a result of such investigation and cannot be made subject to administrative and changed circumstances reviews.\n(6)\nSince Hardware submitted that the Commission could not initiate a new anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation against one company as it thereby violated the general principle enshrined in GATT Article VI and the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement (WTO ADA) as well as that in the basic Regulation that anti-dumping proceedings are directed against imports of countries and not of individual companies. In particular, Since Hardware claimed that the Commission had breached Articles 9(3) and 11(6) of the basic Regulation by initiating an anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 instead of Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. Since Hardware also argued that in the absence of a direct effect of WTO rules in the Union legal order, the Commission could not decide to ignore the above provisions of the basic Regulation in order to implement a WTO ruling automatically, without prior modification by the Council of the basic Regulation.\n(7)\nIn this respect, it is acknowledged that anti-dumping proceedings are normally initiated against imports from a country and not from individual companies. However, the present case is an exception to the above rule in view of the following special circumstances. The WTO Appellate Body report provides in paragraphs 216 to 218 that Article 5.8 of the WTO ADA requires an investigative authority to terminate the investigation in respect of an exporter found not to have a margin above de minimis in an original investigation and, in paragraph 305, that the exporter consequently must be excluded from definitive anti-dumping measures and cannot be subject to administrative and changed circumstances reviews. It is true that the lack of direct effect of WTO rules means that the legality of measures adopted by the Union Institutions (the \u2018Institutions\u2019) cannot normally be reviewed in the light of the WTO agreements. However, this does not mean, in this particular case, that the Institutions must ignore WTO rules, and in particular the WTO Appellate Body report. Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 was adopted specifically to allow the Institutions to bring a measure taken under the basic Regulation into conformity with the rulings contained in a report adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body as mentioned in recital (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 without a prior amendment of the basic Regulation. Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 thus, in particular, allows the Institutions to formally exclude exporters which have been found, during an earlier original investigation, not to be dumping, from the scope of the Regulation which was adopted at the end of that investigation. In order to do so, the review of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001.\n(8)\nMoreover, none of the provisions of the basic Regulation exclude the opening of a new anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation against one company. Also, Union legislation must, so far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with international law, in particular where the provisions at issue are intended to give effect to an international agreement concluded by the Union. Since the WTO ADA on the one hand allows WTO members to impose duties to counteract harmful dumping, but on the other hand has been interpreted by the Appellate Body in the WTO Appellate Body report as not allowing reviews of companies found not to be dumping during an original investigation, the basic Regulation must therefore be interpreted to allow the Union to open an investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation in a case like the present one.\n(9)\nBy Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1241/2010 of 20 December 2010 (6) Since Hardware was excluded from the scope of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007.\n(10)\nTherefore, in view of the special circumstances of the case, the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation against Since Hardware is lawful.\n3. Parties concerned\n(11)\nThe Commission officially advised Since Hardware, the importers and Union producers known to be concerned, the representatives of the country concerned, and producers in potential analogue countries of the initiation of the proceeding. The interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(12)\nIn order to allow Since Hardware to submit a claim for market economy treatment (\u2018MET\u2019) or individual treatment (\u2018IT\u2019), if it so wished, the Commission sent a claim form to the exporting producer. The Commission also sent a questionnaire to Since Hardware. The exporting producer submitted a filled-in MET/IT claim and replied to the questionnaire.\n(13)\nIn view of the high number of Union producers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of contribution to injury, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. Five Union producers came forward and provided the requested information for sampling within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation.\n(14)\nFrom the above five Union producers, only the three complainants formed part of the Union industry in the first investigation. Given the specificities of this case, as set out in recitals (57) to (60), it was decided to send questionnaires only to these three Union producers while the other two Union producers were requested to submit any additional comments which might assist the Commission in ascertaining whether imports of the products manufactured by Since Hardware have caused injury to the Union industry. All three complainant Union producers submitted questionnaire replies. The other two Union producers did not submit further comments on the proceeding.\n(15)\nThe Commission also sent questionnaires to all known producers in potential analogue countries and to all importers known to be concerned and not related to Since Hardware. As concerns unrelated importers in the Union, there were initially two companies cooperating in the investigation. However, one of them was not in the position to continue cooperation. The other importer was the same company as one of the non-complainant Union producers. It submitted a reply to the importers\u2019 questionnaire. In addition, one trade association also cooperated in the investigation and submitted comments.\n(16)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of assessing MET and for the determination of dumping, contribution to injury and Union interest. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of Since Hardware in Guangzhou in the PRC and of Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd. in the UK.\n(17)\nThe Commission informed interested parties that given the complex legal background linked to the present investigation (see recital (3) et seq. above), it considered it more appropriate not to impose provisional measures in this case but to continue the investigation. No objection was raised by any party.\n(18)\nInterested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and were given an opportunity to comment. The comments submitted by the parties were considered and, when appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly.\n4. Investigation period\n(19)\nThe investigation of dumping and price undercutting covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (the \u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of import volumes of Since Hardware products relevant for the assessment of the contribution to injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (the \u2018period considered\u2019). However, because of the specificities of this case - namely that another original investigation concerning the same product and third country took place only some years ago, and because the duties resulting from that investigation are still in place - in the injury analysis reference to the investigation period of that earlier investigation will also be made (\u2018IP of the first investigation\u2019).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(20)\nThe product concerned is ironing boards, whether or not free-standing, with or without a steam soaking and/or heating top and/or blowing top, including sleeve boards, and essential parts thereof, i.e. the legs, the top and the iron rest originating in the PRC and produced by Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (\u2018the product concerned\u2019), currently falling within CN codes ex 3924 90 00, ex 4421 90 98, ex 7323 93 90, ex 7323 99 91, ex 7323 99 99, ex 8516 79 70 and ex 8516 90 00.\n(21)\nThe investigation showed that there are different types of ironing boards and their essential parts depend mainly on their construction and size, their construction material and accessories. However, all different types have the same basic physical characteristics and uses.\n(22)\nThe exporting producer claimed that the essential parts of ironing boards should not be covered by the investigation because ironing boards and their essential parts (i.e. legs, tops and iron rests) do not constitute a single product and therefore could not be part of the same product concerned in one investigation. This argument was not confirmed by the investigation. It was found in the present investigation that essential parts of ironing boards should be covered since legs, tops and iron rests determine the characteristics of the finished product and cannot have an end-use other than being incorporated into the final product (i.e. the ironing board) and, as such, they are not a distinct product. This is in line with a number of other investigations in which finished products and key components were considered as one single product. Consequently, similarly to the first investigation, all existing types of ironing boards and their essential parts thereof are considered as one product for the purposes of this investigation.\n2. Like product\n(23)\nNo differences were found between the product concerned and the ironing boards and the essential parts thereof produced by the complainants and other cooperating Union producers and sold on the Union market which finally also served as an analogue country. They both share the same physical characteristics and uses and are interchangeable one with the other.\n(24)\nConsequently, ironing boards and the essential parts thereof produced and sold in the Union and the product concerned are considered like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n1. Market Economy Treatment (MET)\n(25)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 2 of the basic Regulation for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) thereof, i.e. where it is shown that market economy conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in a summarised form below:\n-\nbusiness decisions are made in response to market signals, and without significant State interference; costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values;\n-\nfirms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with International Accounting Standards (\u2018IAS\u2019) and are applied for all purposes;\n-\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;\n-\nbankruptcy and property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty;\n-\ncurrency exchanges are carried out at market rates.\n(26)\nSince Hardware requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and was invited to complete a MET claim form.\n(27)\nThe investigation established that Since Hardware did not meet the MET criterion referred to in the first indent of Article 2(7)(c) (criterion 1) of the basic Regulation as regards costs of major inputs. Moreover, the investigation established that Since Hardware did not meet the MET criterion referred to in the second indent of Article 2(7)(c) (criterion 2) of the basic Regulation. The major MET findings are set out below.\n(28)\nAs regards criterion 1, i.e. that business decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values, it is noted that Since Hardware claimed to have started to purchase its main raw materials (steel products) on the domestic Chinese market, unlike in the investigation period in the first investigation when Since Hardware imported these raw materials. Therefore, it was examined if the Chinese domestic market for the main raw materials could be considered as reflecting market values.\n(29)\nIt was established that after the investigation period in the first investigation, i.e. after 2005, export restrictions were imposed by the State on several steel products, including the main raw materials for the production of ironing boards, i.e. steel plate, steel pipes and steel wire. It is noted that the cost of these raw materials represent a significant part of the total raw material cost of the product concerned. The imposition of export taxes decreased the incentive to export and thereby increased the volumes available domestically, leading in turn to lower prices. However, in June 2009 (at the end of the IP), the Chinese policy towards the steel sector appears to have changed again: the export tax was abolished and a new VAT rebate on steel products was introduced which creates a more favourable environment for exports. The new policy which no longer discourages exports coincides with the drop in steel prices on other world markets and with the alignment of Chinese domestic prices with international steel prices, i.e. a situation of no danger of increased prices in the domestic market. These repeated changes in the steel export tax/VAT regime over time apparently took place in order to regulate the Chinese domestic steel market and prices. Thus, the State continued to exercise an important influence on the domestic steel market and, thus, the steel prices in the PRC for these particular raw materials do not freely follow world market trends.\n(30)\nIndeed, many studies and reports as well as publicly available accounts of a number of steel producers (7) confirm that the Chinese State is actively supporting the development of the steel sector in the PRC.\n(31)\nAs a consequence, domestic steel prices in the PRC were, during the first half of the investigation period, far below prices on other sizeable world markets, notably steel prices in North America and North Europe (8), and these price differences cannot be explained by any competitive advantage in the production of steel. In the second half of the IP, world steel prices dropped significantly in Europe and in North America while Chinese domestic prices dropped to a much lesser extent. Thus the price difference between Chinese and international steel prices practically disappeared by the end of the IP. However, the measures taken by the Chinese government to regulate the Chinese steel market have essentially lead to a situation where the raw material prices continue to be the result of State intervention that has a direct influence on company decisions when acquiring raw materials.\n(32)\nGiven that Since Hardware purchased its raw materials during this IP on the Chinese domestic market, it was benefiting from these artificially low and distorted prices of steel during the IP.\n(33)\nIt was thus concluded that major inputs of Since Hardware do not substantially reflect market values. Consequently, it was concluded that Since Hardware has not shown that it fulfils criterion 1 set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and, thus, could not be granted MET.\n(34)\nMoreover, the company could not demonstrate that it has one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with IAS and applied for all purposes, as the accounts, and in particular the capital verification report, were silent on an important transaction that happened during the IP. Moreover, the auditors did not comment on this important transaction. In addition, a booking of a significant amount has been found which did not respect the principle of fair representation of accounts under IAS. The auditor did not comment on this either. It was thus concluded that the company also failed to demonstrate that it fulfils criterion 2 set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.\n(35)\nSince Hardware, the authorities of the country concerned and the Union industry were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings. Comments were received from Since Hardware and the Union industry.\n(36)\nSince Hardware put forward three main arguments on the MET finding. Firstly, it stated that the MET decision was made after the Commission had requested and obtained the company\u2019s domestic sales and costs which would have been in breach of the second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. Second, although Since Hardware did not disagree with the evolution of steel prices as such, it claimed that the Chinese raw material prices were still in line with prices in other countries and that the price paid by Since Hardware on the Chinese market was above the prices of several steel markets in market-economy countries world-wide. In this context, the company also questioned the relevance of the North European and North American steel market prices to which a comparison was made. Since Hardware stated that prices of other international markets such as the Turkish or Ukrainian export prices would also be available, and that these were lower than the domestic prices in the PRC. Third, Since Hardware argued that MET could not be denied to a company active in one industry (ironing boards) for factors relating exclusively to another industry (steel) and that the Commission could not offset subsidies in the upstream market through the rejection of a MET claim in the downstream market. Moreover, Since Hardware claimed that it was an unreasonable burden of proof to require a small ironing boards company to provide evidence that the Chinese steel industry is not subsidised.\n(37)\nConcerning the first argument of Since Hardware, it is noted that pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, a determination whether Since Hardware meets the five relevant criteria shall be made and this determination shall remain in force throughout the investigation. As the present investigation is limited to one exporting producer, the Commission verified the MET claim and the anti-dumping questionnaire reply at the same time, in the framework of the same on-spot investigation. The MET claim was investigated on its own merits and irrespective of the effects which it might have on the calculation of the dumping margin. In fact, detailed dumping calculations for Since Hardware could not be made before the MET determination in the absence of data from an appropriate market economy country. Hence there was no breach of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.\n(38)\nConcerning the second claim of Since Hardware, the investigation revealed that although the price difference diminished in the second half of the IP and was practically eliminated at the end of the IP, it is maintained that this alignment of Chinese prices to international market prices was also the result of State intervention. Indeed, in 2009, when prices on international steel markets had plummeted due to the financial and economic crises, the State abolished the export taxes previously imposed, thereby allowing for an alignment of domestic prices with international prices without the danger of a significant price increase for these important raw materials on the domestic market. This shows that the market for the raw materials necessary to produce the product concerned continued to be the subject of State intervention also in the second half of the IP.\n(39)\nIt is noted that the additional price information submitted by Since Hardware supported the finding that the main raw materials for the production of ironing boards in the first half of the IP were on average significantly cheaper on the Chinese domestic market than on other sizeable world markets. A comparison was made between Chinese domestic steel prices and domestic prices on other markets which are comparable to the Chinese market in terms of volume (EU, USA and Canada) as they have a high consumption of steel and there are several active producers. Other markets suggested by Since Hardware such as Turkey and Ukraine (domestic and export markets) have not been found to be representative in terms of size and/or number of producers of these particular raw materials and thus not comparable to the Chinese domestic market.\n(40)\nIt is also recalled that the basic Regulation puts the burden of proof on the company that claims MET to demonstrate that it fulfils the relevant criteria. As the Commission established a number of elements pointing to the cost of major inputs not reflecting market values, it is consequently for the company to come up with elements that would refute this.\n(41)\nFurthermore, the basic Regulation in Article 2(7)(c) provides explicitly for the possibility to examine whether decisions of firms regarding, inter alia, inputs are made in response to market signals reflecting supply and demand and without significant State interference and whether costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values. Consequently, if a company does not fulfil these conditions, as outlined above, MET can be refused. It is also noted that Since Hardware used to import its raw materials during the first investigation but switched to Chinese sourcing due to lower prices on the Chinese market.\n(42)\nWith regard to the identified accounting issues, Since Hardware claimed that they did not relate to Since Hardware\u2019s accounts and, in any event, did not mean that the company did not fully comply with international accounting standards. Since Hardware also claimed that the accounting mistake identified was immaterial.\n(43)\nThe fact that the Chinese companies may not be subject under their domestic law to comply with certain accounting standards has no bearing on whether their accounts may be assessed in the light of those standards for the purpose of a MET determination. The fair presentation of financial statements is a basic IAS and it is up to the company to show that any infringement of those standards does not constitute a breach of the second criterion of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. This has not been done either for the transaction in question or the wrong booking. In any event, the latter cannot be considered as immaterial as represents a sizeable percentage of total exports to the Union in the investigation period.\n(44)\nTo conclude, none of the arguments raised by Since Hardware were such as to lead to a different assessment of the findings. On the basis of the above, the findings and the conclusion that MET should not be granted to Since Hardware were confirmed. It is thus definitively concluded that MET should not be granted to Since Hardware.\n2. Individual treatment (IT)\n(45)\nPursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria for individual treatment set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below:\n-\nin the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;\n-\nexport prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined;\n-\nthe majority of the shares belong to private persons; State officials appearing on the board of directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from State interference;\n-\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and\n-\nState interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.\n(46)\nSince Hardware, as well as requesting MET, also claimed IT in the event of it not being granted MET.\n(47)\nThe investigation showed that Since Hardware met all the above criteria and it is concluded that IT should be granted to Since Hardware.\n3. Normal value\n(48)\nAccording to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, in case of imports from non-market-economy countries and to the extent that MET could not be granted, for countries specified in Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, normal value has to be established on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country (analogue country).\n(49)\nIn the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its intention to use the United States of America (\u2018USA\u2019) as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC, but no producer from the USA cooperated in the investigation. Subsequently, Turkish and Ukrainian companies were also approached but there was no cooperation from them either.\n(50)\nAs no third country producer cooperated, Union producers were approached on the basis of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation and one of them cooperated.\n(51)\nNo comments on using the information obtained from a Union producer for establishment of normal value were received from Since Hardware. Thus, the normal value was established pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation on the basis of verified information received from the cooperating Union producer.\n(52)\nThe domestic sales of the Union producer of the like product were found to be representative in terms of volume when compared to the product concerned exported to the Union by Since Hardware.\n(53)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for Since Hardware was established on the basis of verified information received from the sole cooperating Union producer, i.e. on the basis of prices paid or payable on the Union market for comparable product types, where these were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade, or on constructed values, where no domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade for comparable product types were found, i.e. on the basis of the cost of manufacturing of ironing boards manufactured by the Union producer plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and for profit. The profit margin used is in line with the one used in the first investigation.\n4. Export price\n(54)\nIn all cases the product concerned was directly sold for export to independent customers in the Union, and therefore, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of prices actually paid or payable for the product when sold for export to the Union.\n5. Comparison\n(55)\nThe normal value and export price were compared on an ex-works basis. In order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and export price, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which were claimed and demonstrated to affect prices and price comparability. On this basis, allowances for transport costs, insurance, handling charges, credit costs and indirect taxes were made where applicable and justified.\n6. Dumping margin\n(56)\nAs provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value by type was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned. This comparison showed the existence of dumping.\n(57)\nThe dumping margin of Since Hardware as a percentage of the net, free-at-Union-frontier price was found to be 51,7 %.\nD. INJURY\n1. General\n1.1. Specificities of this investigation\n(58)\nThe examination of material injury suffered by the Union industry is normally based on all dumped imports originating in one or more exporting countries, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(59)\nHowever, in this case, a full analysis of injury in respect of all imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the PRC was already carried out in the framework of the first investigation. Indeed, in that investigation the Commission established that dumped imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the PRC had caused material injury to the Union industry. These findings, made in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the basic Regulation, were based on an assessment of the effects of all imports originating in the PRC and Ukraine, with the sole exclusion of imports of ironing boards produced by Since Hardware which had been found to be sold at non-dumped prices.\n(60)\nAs a result, during the IP, anti-dumping duties were applicable to all imports from those countries (only Since Hardware was subject to a zero duty). As the Union industry was already protected against the harmful effects of these imports during the IP, it was impossible to perform a normal full injury analysis. Therefore, a specific approach was developed, adapted to the specificities of this investigation, in which the Institutions focused on particular injury indicators. The information requested from the Union industry focused on whether Since Hardware had been undercutting its prices and on what was the profitability of those prices. Furthermore, the Union industry was invited to provide any other information that, in its view, indicated that Since Hardware\u2019s exports to the Union had caused it injury.\n(61)\nIn this context, the Commission examined i) the development of dumped imports of ironing boards produced by Since Hardware; ii) whether those imports had been made at prices undercutting the sales prices of the Union industry and what was the profitability of the Union industry prices; and iii) any information provided by the Union industry indicating that Since Hardware\u2019s exports to the Union had caused it injury, e.g. concerning the Union industry\u2019s losses of customers and orders to Since Hardware and the profitability of their Union sales during the IP.\n1.2. Definition of the Union industry\n(62)\nThe complaint was lodged by three Union producers representing a major proportion of the total known Union production of ironing boards, i.e. in this case approximately 40 % of the estimated Union production. None of the other Union producers opposed the initiation of the present proceeding.\n(63)\nAs stated in recital (11), from the five producers which replied to the sampling questions only the three complainants formed part of the Union industry in the first investigation. As stated above, in light of the specificities of this case, questionnaires were sent only to the three selected Union producers that also formed part of the Union industry in the first investigation.\n1.3. Union consumption\n(64)\nBased on information provided by the Union industry, it appears that the consumption of ironing boards in the Union has remained substantially stable since the publication of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007, having only slightly increased in proportion with the population increase of the Union due to the latest Union enlargement in 2007. The estimated Union consumption thus amounted to about 8,5 to 9 million units during the period considered.\n1.4. Union production\n(65)\nIroning board producers can be found in several Member States including Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. The total volume of annual Union production of ironing boards can be estimated at above 5 million units.\n2. Imports from Since Hardware\n2.1. Status of imports\n(66)\nAs described in recitals (22) to (54), this investigation has shown that imports from Since Hardware have been dumped on the Union market.\n2.2. Volume of dumped imports\n(67)\nOver the period considered, Since Hardware\u2019s exports to the Union increased strongly, by 64 % (9). On the other hand, the imports of other Chinese and Ukrainian producers have constantly decreased following the imposition of provisional duties in 2006 (confidential data based on Member States\u2019 reports in accordance with Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation):\nVolume of imports of ironing boards produced by Since Hardware\nIndices for confidentiality reasons\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nSince Hardware\n100\n119\n176\n164\nPRC (excluding Since Hardware) and Ukraine\n100\n94\n87\n83\n2.3. Market share of dumped imports\n(68)\nGiven that Union consumption has remained substantially stable over the period considered except for the slight increase between 2006 and 2007, as mentioned in recital (61), the market share of Since Hardware has developed in line with its import volumes shown. It should be noted that in 2006, the Union market share of Since Hardware represented about one fifth of the total market share of the other Chinese and Ukrainian producers, whereas by the IP, Since Hardware\u2019s market share amounted to almost half of the total market share of the other Chinese and Ukrainian producers. Both the substantial increase of Since Hardware\u2019s import volume and its market share can be explained by the fact that it has been the only Chinese producer that has had a zero anti-dumping duty and therefore its market opportunities have actually improved since the imposition of provisional duties in 2006. This can also be confirmed by the pronounced opposite, positive development of their import volumes as compared to the deteriorating trend of the import volumes of the other Chinese and Ukrainian producers. Indeed when looking at the period considered, the following converse evolution of market shares has been found:\nMarket share of imports of ironing boards produced by Since Hardware\nIndices for confidentiality reasons\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nSince Hardware\n100\n113\n166\n155\nPRC (excluding Since Hardware) and Ukraine\n100\n89\n82\n79\n(69)\nIt is clear from the above tables that Since Hardware has managed to significantly increase its import volumes and market share (10).\n(70)\nIn addition, the Union industry has claimed to have lost numerous client orders to Since Hardware in the past years. Indeed clear indications have been found that certain important customers of the Union industry have changed suppliers, sourcing more products from Since Hardware and fewer from the Union industry than before.\n(71)\nFor instance, the data gathered by the Commission in the first investigation show that a Union producer sold a significant number of pieces to a Union customer in the IP of the first investigation (2005), whereas in the current investigation it has stated that it sold considerably less (between 10 % and 30 % of that quantity) to the same customer in the current IP. By contrast, Since Hardware sold a small number of pieces to this Union customer in the IP of the first investigation, but sold much more (between 300 % and 500 % of that quantity) to that customer during the IP of the current investigation.\n(72)\nFurthermore, the data gathered by the Commission in the first investigation show that the sales of an Union producer to another Union customer in the IP of the first investigation dropped considerably (between 30 % and 50 %) in the current IP. Again by contrast, whereas Since Hardware sold nothing to this customer in the IP of the first investigation, it sold a substantial quantity in the current IP. That quantity is between 60 % and 80 % of the quantity by which the Union producer\u2019s sales to that customer went down between the IP of the first investigation and the current IP.\n2.4. Undercutting\n(73)\nFor the purpose of analysing price undercutting, the import prices of Since Hardware were compared to the Union industry\u2019s prices, on the basis of weighted averages for comparable product types during the IP. The Union industry\u2019s prices were adjusted to an ex-works level, and compared to CIF Union frontier import prices, plus customs duties where applicable. This price comparison was made for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and discounts.\n(74)\nThe average undercutting margin found for Since Hardware, expressed as a percentage of the Union industry\u2019s price, is 16,1 %.\n(75)\nIt is noted that the Union industry\u2019s prices were found to be overall loss-making in the IP.\n3. Conclusion on injury\n(76)\nThe above-mentioned facts show that the Union industry suffered injury due to the dumped quantities sold by Since Hardware on the Union market which might otherwise have been supplied by the Union industry.\nE. CAUSATION\n(77)\nAs shown above, Since Hardware offered its products, during the IP, at heavily dumped prices which strongly undercut the Union industry\u2019s prices. As a result, it succeeded to sell quantities during the IP which were much higher than, for instance, in 2005 or 2006. Since Hardware thus caused the injury which was found above.\n(78)\nOne importer stated that the EUR/USD exchange rate was the cause of the strong presence of Since Hardware ironing boards on the Union market rather than dumping practices. However, if this was true, all imports invoiced in USD would have been advantaged in their competition with goods invoiced in euro. Instead, as set out in recitals (64) and (65), imports from other Chinese and Ukrainian producers, also selling in USD, have constantly decreased between 2006 and the IP i.e. in the period during which the EUR/USD exchange rates have every so often changed, in contrast with the significant increase of imports from Since Hardware throughout the same period. Therefore this claim was rejected.\n(79)\nNo further comments were received. It is therefore concluded that no factor appears to exist that could break the causal link between the dumped imports from Since Hardware and their contribution to injury which was found above.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n(80)\nAs mentioned in recital (12), one trade association cooperated in the investigation. In addition, the cooperating Union producers and importers were also asked to comment on whether in their view the imposition of a possible anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware would change the conclusion regarding Union interest reached in recitals (51) to (62) of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007.\n(81)\nAccording to the Union producers, the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware would not change the conclusions on Union interest as established by Regulation (EC) No 452/2007.\n(82)\nThe cooperating trade association stated that imposing an anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware would normally have a negative impact on the profitability of the importers and retailers or distributors concerned. However, according to the trade association, their members - including large retail stores - also confirmed that the product under investigation is one upon which price increases such as those resulting from anti-dumping measures can be passed on without impacting substantially on consumers\u2019 perception. Therefore, no concrete element was submitted which would change the conclusions on Union interest as established by the above two Regulations.\n(83)\nIn view of the above it is concluded that the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware would leave the conclusions regarding Union interest reached in recitals (51) to(62) of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 substantially unaffected. No reasons were put forward as to why that analysis would not apply, mutatis mutandis, to the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware.\nG. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES FOLLOWING DISCLOSURE\n(84)\nWritten and oral representations were made following final disclosure of the findings from the Union industry and from Since Hardware. The Union industry agrees with the findings disclosed. Since Hardware\u2019s comments were examined, however, none of them were such as to alter the above conclusions. The main arguments raised by Since Hardware were as follows.\n(85)\nSince Hardware reiterated its earlier claims concerning the alleged illegality of initiating an original investigation against one company and concerning the allegedly incorrect MET findings. These claims have been described and rebutted in recitals (4) to (10) and (33) to (41). Regarding some detailed points made by Since Hardware on the first point (a number of which were made during a hearing) the following can be observed:\n(86)\ni)\nSince Hardware argued that the last sentence of Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation is not a provision implementing any provision of the WTO AD Agreement, and as such cannot be affected by any findings made by a WTO Panel. However, Article 9(3) does not oblige the Institutions to use a review to investigate claims of dumping against companies for whom, during an original investigation, de minimis or no dumping was found. It merely foresees that these \u2018may\u2019 be investigated in any subsequent review carried out pursuant to Article 11of the basic Regulation. It is clear, however, that after the adoption of that provision, the WTO Appellate Body report, has established that doing so would violate the WTO ADA. Therefore, it is possible for and incumbent upon (11) the Institutions to use the flexibility that the word \u2018may\u2019 provides, and not to use a review to investigate such claims. The same conclusion has already been drawn in at least one earlier investigation (12).\n(87)\nii)\nSince Hardware repeated that in its view an original investigation against one company would not be possible under the basic Regulation. On top of what has been said on this in recitals (5) and (8) above, the following can be noted. It is true that many of the provisions quoted by Since Hardware are phrased in a manner which reflects a normal situation, namely an original investigation against a country as a whole. However, Since Hardware has not been able to point to any provision which prohibits an original investigation against only one company in the specific circumstances of this case.\n(88)\niii)\nSince Hardware argued that Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 permits the bringing into conformity with WTO dispute settlement rulings of existing anti-dumping measures, but nothing else. This, firstly, means, that Since Hardware does not object to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001, which formally excludes Since Hardware from the scope of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in a manner which makes clear that on the basis of that Regulation no duty will apply to its imports. Regarding Since Hardware\u2019s allegation that Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 permits nothing else, it should however be emphasised that this Regulation is based on the basic Regulation. In particular, it is based on the fact, as explained above, that nothing in that Regulation prohibits conducting an original investigation against only one company in the specific circumstances of this case. As suggested by Since Hardware, certain language in the disclosure which may have been confusing on this point has been removed.\n(89)\niv)\nSince Hardware claimed to be discriminated against, since in its view the findings in the WTO Appellate Body report are equally applicable to companies that received a zero duty in a review investigation. The most important point that can be made here is that the WTO Appellate Body report simply does not concern that situation. Those companies are therefore in a different situation.\n(90)\nv)\nSince Hardware argued that the Commission was conducting a de facto review of its zero duty. This view cannot be accepted. Firstly, contrary to what Since Hardware alleges, the injury analysis conducted above is not limited to confirming that during the first investigation injury was found. On the contrary, it focuses on the actual detrimental effects of Since Hardware\u2019s behaviour after that investigation on the Union industry, whilst taking into account that a normal injury analysis is not possible in this case. Secondly, the fact that the duty will expire earlier than after the normal five years does not mean that the investigation is a de facto review. In quite a number of investigations, for various reasons, durations of less than five years have been adopted. In this case, the Institutions consider that, whereas on the one hand Since Hardware should not derive any benefits from having started dumping after the first investigation, it should, on the other hand, not suffer any unjustified negative effects. For instance, should, no expiry review be requested for Regulation (EC) No 452/2007, it would appear discriminatory to continue the duty on Since Hardware after the expiry of that Regulation.\n(91)\nvi)\nSince Hardware argued that its rights are infringed by the choice for an original investigation, because if it had been investigated by means of a review, Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation would apply (there is an obligation, in a review, to use the same methodology as that used in the original investigation). However, Since Hardware has not pointed to any issue which would indicate that in this investigation the Institutions used a methodology which was different to that used in the first investigation Secondly, even if Since Hardware could point to the use of a different methodology, this would be a result of the fact that the WTO Appellate Body report leads to the conclusion that it was incumbent on the Institutions to not investigate the claims against Since Hardware by means of a review.\n(92)\nvii)\nFinally, Since Hardware suggested that the Institutions should have investigated the claims against it by means of a review, and then, in case a duty were imposed upon it and the PRC would successfully challenge this in WTO dispute settlement, remove that duty but only prospectively. However, it would clearly be inappropriate to knowingly violate WTO rules, whereas, like in this case, a method of investigating the case can be found which is in line with the basic Regulation, interpreted in light of WTO rules. Moreover, without prejudice to the validity of such claims, it is clear that such a course of action could lead to damage claims by the companies concerned against the Institutions.\n(93)\nRegarding the MET findings, Since Hardware argued that it had an excessive burden to prove that it complied with the criteria for MET, in particular as far as State interference in the prices of its main raw materials were concerned. However, MET is an exception to the general rule and any derogation from, or exception to, a general rule must be interpreted strictly. MET can only be granted if it is shown that market economy conditions prevail for the exporting producer in question. As already mentioned in recital (37), the burden of proof lies with the exporting producer wishing to avail itself of market economy status. The claim must contain sufficient evidence. There is no obligation for the Commission to prove that the exporting producer does not satisfy the MET criteria. The Commission has to assess whether the evidence supplied by the exporting producer is sufficient to show that the MET criteria are fulfilled. As the Commission established a number of elements pointing to significant State interference concerning the cost of major inputs, it is consequently for the company to demonstrate that this State interference does not exist and/or that it did not affect the company\u2019s decisions (criterion 1 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation). In any event, as set out in recitals (31) and (40), Since Hardware has also failed to show that it fulfils criterion 2 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation concerning accounting for which it has claimed an excessive burden to prove.\n(94)\nFurther to the above, Since Hardware made two new claims in its comments on the final disclosure document. First, Since Hardware claimed that the normal value should have been adjusted in accordance with Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation because the raw materials (steel products) in the PRC are lower-priced than in the analogue country market. This claim cannot be accepted. Indeed, it is recalled that Since Hardware was denied MET. Consequently, the normal value is established in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country. This necessarily implies that prices and costs in the PRC are considered to be unreliable for the establishment of normal value and may not be used to determine or otherwise adjust the latter. It is further noted that an adjustment under Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation as claimed by Since Hardware cannot be made if it is not shown that customers would consistently pay different prices for the like product on the domestic market, in this case in the analogue country market, because of a difference in raw material prices. Since Hardware has not demonstrated any such price difference.\n(95)\nSecond, Since Hardware has claimed that the Commission did not carry out a sufficiently detailed injury analysis in the present investigation. It also claimed that in line with Article 3(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission should have investigated all injury indicators. It should be noted however, that the Commission has found (see in particular part D) that dumped imports from Since Hardware substantially increased over the period considered while their sales prices were found to be largely undercutting those of the Union industry. This finding is based on an objective examination of positive evidence. It thus complies with Article 3 of the basic Regulation.\n(96)\nIt is true that not all of the factors set out in Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation have been examined. However, it should be recalled that in a situation where Since Hardware was not yet found to be dumping, namely during the first investigation, it was already found, by examining those factors, that the dumped imports from the PRC caused injury. Examining those factors once again would have been of no use, since even assuming that all those factors would now have become positive, that would be (at least in part) due to the fact that the Union industry is now protected against all (13) dumped exports from the PRC and Ukraine (except those from Since Hardware). Moreover, no factor has been identified that would break the causal link between the dumped imports from Since Hardware and their negative effects on the Union industry. Finally, not imposing measures against Since Hardware would be discriminatory vis-\u00e0-vis the exporting producers subject to the measure imposed following the first original investigation.\nH. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(97)\nIn view of the above conclusions reached with regard to dumping, resulting contribution to injury, causation and Union interest, definitive measures on imports of the product concerned from the PRC, produced by Since Hardware, should be imposed.\n1. Injury elimination level\n(98)\nThe level of the definitive anti-dumping measures should be sufficient to eliminate the injury to the Union industry caused by the dumped imports, without exceeding the dumping margins found. As stated in recital (72), the Union industry\u2019s prices were found to be overall loss-making during the IP. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to base the duty merely on the margin of undercutting.\n(99)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs and obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports. The pre-tax profit margin used for this calculation was 7 % of turnover. As mentioned in recital (63) of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007, it was demonstrated in the course of the first investigation that this was the profit level that could reasonably be expected in the absence of injurious dumping. On this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the like product of the Union industry. For this purpose, information was collected from the Union industry to calculate the weighted average of their actual profit/loss margin during the current IP. The non-injurious price has been obtained by deducting the thus calculated actual profit/loss margin of the Union industry from their sales prices and adding the above mentioned target profit margin of 7 %.\n(100)\nThe necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price, as established for the undercutting calculation, with the average non-injurious price of products sold by the Union industry on the Union market. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the average import CIF value. An injury elimination level of 35,8 % was thus established, which was below the dumping margin found for Since Hardware.\n2. Exclusion of Since Hardware from the definitive anti-dumping measure imposed by Regulation (EC) No 452/2007\n(101)\nIn the context of the review pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 and in the light of the WTO Appellate Body report as adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, and in particular paragraphs 305 and 306 thereof, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1241/2010 excluded Since Hardware from the definitive anti-dumping measure imposed by Regulation (EC) No 452/2007.\n(102)\nA new measure may now be imposed on Since Hardware.\n3. Form and level of measure\n(103)\nIn the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC and produced by Since Hardware at the level eliminating the injury.\n(104)\nOn the basis of the above, the definitive duty rate for these imports is 35,8 %.\n(105)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, anti-dumping measures normally apply for five years, unless there are specific grounds or circumstances which call for a shorter period. In the current case, it is considered appropriate to limit the duration of the measure so that it lasts until the expiry of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of the product concerned originating, inter alia, in the PRC imposed by Regulation (EC) No 452/2007. This will give the opportunity to consider at the same time any request for expiry review of the measures in force for all imports originating, inter alia, in the PRC. Of course, operators concerned, and in particular Since Hardware and/or the Union industry may, before 27 April 2012, request other reviews, in particular an interim review, of this Regulation provided that all requirements for doing so are complied with.\n(106)\nAny claim requesting the application of this individual company anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (14) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, this Regulation will then be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nA definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of ironing boards, whether or not free-standing, with or without a steam soaking and/or heating top and/or blowing top, including sleeve boards, and essential parts thereof, i.e. the legs, the top and the iron rest originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and produced by Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., falling within CN codes ex 3924 90 00, ex 4421 90 98, ex 7323 93 90, ex 7323 99 91, ex 7323 99 99, ex 8516 79 70 and ex 8516 90 00 (TARIC codes 3924900010, 4421909810, 7323939010, 7323999110, 7323999910, 8516797010 and 8516900051).\nArticle 2\n1. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, for products manufactured by the company specified below shall be as follows:\nManufacturer\nDuty rate\nTaric additional code\nSince Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., Guangzhou\n35,8 %\nA784\n2. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Unless reviewed under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, it shall remain in force until 27 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["77", "1", "42", "51", "9", "89", "28", "39", "14", "46", "15", "38", "27", "50", "84", "75", "41", "67", "97", "32", "13", "3", "99", "8", "69", "47", "91", "17", "12", "79", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "90", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "90", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/43/EU\nof 13 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include lime sulphur as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 1112/2002 (2) and (EC) No 2229/2004 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included lime sulphur.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 24e of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 the applicant withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/941/EC of 8 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of lime sulphur.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the application of the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Spain, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/941/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nSpain evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 14 February 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on lime sulphur to the Commission on 28 October 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for lime sulphur.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing lime sulphur may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include lime sulphur in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(8)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing lime sulphur to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(9)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(10)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(11)\nDecision 2008/941/EC provides for the non-inclusion of lime sulphur and the withdrawal of authorisation of plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning lime sulphur in the Annex to that Decision.\n(12)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/941/EC accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning lime sulphur in the Annex to Decision 2008/941/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing lime sulphur as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to lime sulphur are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing lime sulphur as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 30 April 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account Part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning lime sulphur. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing lime sulphur as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing lime sulphur as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 April 2011.", "references": ["21", "59", "12", "36", "99", "97", "31", "40", "98", "77", "95", "71", "42", "9", "69", "94", "73", "34", "72", "81", "50", "1", "88", "46", "15", "28", "22", "87", "18", "17", "No Label", "2", "20", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "20", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 132/2011\nof 14 February 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Piacentinu Ennese (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Piacentinu Ennese\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 February 2011.", "references": ["69", "53", "59", "30", "42", "51", "7", "99", "73", "37", "12", "68", "41", "57", "20", "54", "66", "21", "36", "34", "76", "61", "18", "72", "95", "56", "52", "63", "50", "43", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 576/2011\nof 16 June 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 121(e), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex XI to Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 (2) contains the list of national reference laboratories.\n(2)\nThe competent authorities of France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Austria have notified the Commission of the new designation of their existing national reference laboratory, respectively.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 543/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XI to Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 June 2011.", "references": ["31", "46", "19", "99", "32", "22", "47", "64", "26", "57", "91", "5", "49", "3", "73", "93", "24", "28", "54", "87", "43", "61", "62", "58", "60", "98", "4", "95", "39", "82", "No Label", "38", "66", "69", "77", "96"], "gold": ["38", "66", "69", "77", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 545/2011\nof 10 June 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the data requirements for plant protection products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular the first sentence of Article 8(4) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the dossier to be submitted for the approval of an active substance or for the authorisation of a plant protection product is to fulfil the same requirements in respect of the data requirements for the plant protection product as under the previously applicable rules which are set out in Annexes II and III to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2).\n(2)\nIt is therefore necessary for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to adopt a regulation containing those data requirements for the plant protection product. Such a regulation is not to include any substantial modification,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe data requirements for the plant protection product provided for in Article 8(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 14 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 June 2011.", "references": ["5", "13", "99", "89", "14", "86", "21", "74", "33", "62", "85", "87", "98", "10", "94", "70", "17", "16", "30", "67", "72", "55", "96", "0", "71", "80", "40", "84", "36", "26", "No Label", "25", "65", "66"], "gold": ["25", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 946/2012\nof 12 July 2012\nsupplementing Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to rules of procedure on fines imposed to credit rating agencies by the European Securities and Markets Authority, including rules on the right of defence and temporal provisions\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies (1), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 513/2011 (2), and in particular Article 23e(7) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has been empowered to adopt rules of procedure for the exercise of the power to impose fines or periodic penalty payments by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) upon credit rating agencies and persons involved in rating activities. Those rules are to be adopted via delegated act and they should include provisions on rights of defence, temporal provisions, provisions on the collection of fines or periodic penalty payments, as well as detailed provisions on the limitation periods for the imposition and enforcement of fines and periodic penalty payments.\n(2)\nThis delegated act specifies rules of procedures to be followed by ESMA when imposing fines and penalty payments as part of its direct supervisory power over credit rating agencies. It is important that such rules of procedure to be followed by an EU regulatory agency are directly applicable and do not require further implementation in national law. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Commission adopts these rules by means of an EU Regulation. Furthermore the objective of having uniform rules on rights of defence for credit rating agencies can only be achieved via Regulation.\n(3)\nThe right to be heard is recognised in point (a) of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In order to respect the rights of defence of credit rating agencies and of other persons subject to action by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and to ensure that it takes all relevant facts into account when adopting enforcement decisions, ESMA should hear the credit rating agencies or any other persons concerned. The right to be heard should take place by granting the persons concerned the right to make written submissions in response to statements of findings issued by ESMA\u2019s investigating officer and ESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors.\n(4)\nFollowing the written submissions by the credit rating agency to the investigating officer, the Board of Supervisors will receive a complete file, including those submissions.\n(5)\nHowever, it may occur that some elements of the written submissions that the credit rating agency made to the investigating officer or, the case being, to the Board of Supervisors, are not sufficiently clear or detailed, and that they need to be further explained by the credit rating agency. Should the investigating officer or, the case being, the Board of Supervisors, consider that this is the case, ESMA may convoke an oral hearing for the credit rating agency to clarify those elements.\n(6)\nThe right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy is recognised in point (b) of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Articles 23e(4), 25(2) and Article 36c(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 establish that, safeguard rights of defence of persons subject to the ESMA proceedings, they shall be entitled to have access to ESMA\u2019s file, subject to the legitimate interest of other persons in protecting their business secrets and of their personal data. The right of access to the file should not extend to confidential information.\n(7)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (3) lays down detailed rules on limitation periods for when the Commission has to fine an undertaking under Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Legislation in force in Member States also provides for rules on limitation periods either specifically within the securities field, or generally in their general administrative laws. Common features have been extracted from those national rules and from Union legislation and are mainly reflected in Articles 6 and 7 of this Regulation.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 1060/2009 and this Regulation refer to time periods and dates. This is the case, for instance, for the registration process of credit rating agencies, or when establishing limitation periods for the imposition and enforcement of penalties. To enable those periods to be correctly calculated, it is appropriate to apply rules which already exist within Union legislation, namely, Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits (4) for acts of the Council and the Commission.\n(9)\nArticle 36d of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 provides that penalties imposed by ESMA pursuant to Articles 36a and 36b of that Regulation shall be enforceable, and that enforcement shall be governed by the rules of civil procedure in force in the State in the territory of which it is carried out. The corresponding amounts shall be allocated to the general budget of the EU.\n(10)\nIn the interest of an immediate exercise of effective supervisory and enforcement activity, this Regulation should enter into force on the third day following that of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down procedural rules regarding fines and periodic penalty payments to be imposed by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) on credit rating agencies or other persons that are subject to ESMA\u2019s enforcement proceedings, including rules on rights of defence and limitation periods.\nArticle 2\nRight to be heard by the investigating officer\n1. Upon completion of his/her investigations and before submitting the file to ESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors pursuant to Article 3(1), the investigating officer shall inform the person subject to investigation in writing of his/her findings and shall provide it with the opportunity to make written submissions pursuant to paragraph 3. That statement of findings shall set out the facts liable to constitute one or more of the infringements listed in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, including any aggravating or mitigating factors of these infringements.\n2. The statement of findings shall set a reasonable time limit within which the person subject to investigation may make its written submissions. The investigating officer shall not be obliged to take into account written submissions received after that time limit has expired.\n3. In its written submissions, the person subject to investigation may set out all the facts known to it which are relevant to its defence. It shall attach any relevant documents as proof of the facts set out. It may propose that the investigating officer hear other persons who may corroborate the facts set out in the submissions of the person subject to investigation.\n4. The investigating officer may also invite a person subject to investigation to which a statement of findings has been addressed to attend an oral hearing. The persons subject to investigation may be assisted by their lawyers or other qualified persons admitted by the investigating officer. Oral hearings shall not be held in public.\nArticle 3\nRight to be heard by ESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors with regard to fines and supervisory measures\n1. The complete file to be submitted by the investigating officer to ESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors shall include at least the following documents:\n-\ncopy of the statement of findings that he addressed to the credit rating agency,\n-\ncopy of the written submissions by the credit rating agency,\n-\nminutes of any oral hearing.\n2. Where ESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors considers that the file submitted by the investigating officer is not complete, it shall send back the file to the investigating officer with reasoned request for additional documents.\n3. Where ESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors considers, on the basis of a complete file, that the facts, described in the statement of findings, appear not to disclose any possible infringement of the ones listed in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, it shall take a decision to close the case and it shall notify such a decision to the persons subject to investigation.\n4. Where ESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors does not agree with the findings of the investigating officer it shall submit a new statement of findings to the persons subject to investigation.\nThe statement of findings shall set a reasonable time limit within which the persons subject to investigation may make written submissions. ESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors shall not be obliged to take into account written submissions received after the expiry of that time limit for adopting a decision on the existence of an infringement and on supervisory measures and the imposition of a fine in accordance with Articles 24 and 36a of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors may also invite the persons subject to investigation to which a statement of findings has been addressed to attend an oral hearing. The persons subject to investigation may be assisted by their lawyers or other qualified persons admitted by ESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors. Oral hearings shall not be held in public.\n5. Where ESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors agrees with the findings of the investigating officer it shall inform the persons subject to investigation accordingly. Such communication shall set a reasonable time limit within which the person subject to investigation may make written submissions. ESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors shall not be obliged to take into account written submissions received after the expiry of that time limit for adopting a decision on the existence of an infringement and on supervisory measures and the imposition of a fine in accordance with Articles 24 and 36a of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors may also invite the persons subject to investigation to which a statement of findings has been addressed to attend an oral hearing. The persons subject to investigation may be assisted by their lawyers or other qualified persons admitted by ESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors. Oral hearings shall not be held in public.\n6. If ESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors has decided that one or more of the infringements listed in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 has been committed by a person subject to investigation and has adopted a decision imposing a fine in accordance with Article 36a, it shall notify immediately such decision to the person subject to investigation.\nArticle 4\nRight to be heard by ESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors with regard to periodic penalty payments\nBefore taking a decision imposing a periodic penalty payment according to Article 36b(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, the Board of Supervisors shall submit a statement of findings to the person subject to the proceedings setting out the reasons justifying the imposition of a penalty payment and the amount of the penalty payment per day of non-compliance. The statement of findings shall set a time limit within which the person concerned may make written submissions. The Board of Supervisor shall not be obliged to take into account written submissions received after the expiry of that time limit for deciding on the periodic penalty payment.\nOnce the credit rating agency or person concerned has complied with the relevant decision referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) of Article 36b(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, a periodic penalty payment can no longer be imposed.\nESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors may also invite the person subject to the proceedings to attend an oral hearing. The person subject to the proceedings may be assisted by their lawyers or other qualified persons admitted by ESMA\u2019s Board of Supervisors. Oral hearings shall not be held in public.\nArticle 5\nAccess to the file and use of documents\n1. If so requested, ESMA shall grant access to the file to the parties to whom the investigating officer or the Board of Supervisors has sent a statement of findings. Access shall be granted following the notification of any statement of findings.\n2. File documents accessed pursuant to this Article shall be used only for the purposes of judicial or administrative proceedings concerning the application of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nArticle 6\nLimitation periods for the imposition of penalties\n1. ESMA\u2019s powers to impose fines on credit rating agencies shall be subject to the following limitation periods:\n(a)\nthree years in the case of infringements for which the minimum basic amount of the fine foreseen in Article 36a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 is EUR 50 000 or less.\n(b)\nfive years in the case of all other infringements.\n2. The periods of time referred to in paragraph 1 shall begin to run on the day following that on which the infringement is committed. However, in the case of continuing or repeated infringements, those periods of time shall begin to run on the day on which the infringement ceases.\n3. Any action taken by ESMA for the purpose of the investigating or proceedings in respect of an infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 shall interrupt the limitation period for the imposition of fines. That limitation period shall be interrupted with effect from the date on which the action is notified to the credit rating agency or the person subject to the investigating or proceedings.\n4. Each interruption shall cause the limitation period to start running afresh. However, the limitation period shall expire at the latest on the day on which a period equal to twice the limitation period has elapsed without ESMA having imposed a fine. That period shall be extended by the time during which limitation is suspended pursuant to paragraph 5.\n5. The limitation period for imposing fines shall be suspended for as long as the decision of ESMA is the subject of proceedings pending before the Board of Appeal, in accordance with Article 58 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), and before the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with Article 36e of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nArticle 7\nLimitation periods for the enforcement of penalties\n1. The power of ESMA to enforce decisions taken pursuant to Articles 36a and 36b of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 shall be subject to a limitation period of five years.\n2. The five-year period referred to in paragraph 1 shall start to run on the day following that on which the decision becomes final.\n3. The limitation period for the enforcement of penalties shall be interrupted by:\n(a)\na notification by ESMA to the credit rating agency or other person concerned of a decision varying the original amount of the fine or periodic penalty payment;\n(b)\nany action of ESMA or a Member State authority acting at the request of ESMA, designed to enforce payment or payment terms and conditions of the fine or periodic penalty payment.\n4. Each interruption shall cause the limitation period to start running afresh.\n5. The limitation period for the enforcement of penalties shall be suspended for so long as:\n(a)\ntime to pay is allowed;\n(b)\nenforcement of payment is suspended pursuant to a pending decision of ESMA Board of Appeal, in accordance with Article 58 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, and the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with Article 36e of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nArticle 8\nCollection of fines and periodic penalty payments\nThe amounts of fines and periodic penalty payments collected by ESMA shall be lodged to an interest bearing account opened by the accounting officer of ESMA until such time as they become final. In the meantime such amounts shall not be entered in ESMA\u2019s budget or recorded as budgetary amounts.\nOnce ESMA\u2019s Accounting Officer has established that the fines and/or periodic penalty payments have become final following the outcome of all possible legal challenges he shall transfer these amounts plus any interest accruing to the Commission. These amounts shall then be entered in the EU budget under general revenue.\nESMA\u2019s Accounting Officer shall report on a regular basis to the Authorising Officer of DG MARKT on the amounts of fines and periodic penalty payments imposed and their status.\nArticle 9\nCalculation of periods, dates and time limits\nRegulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 shall apply to periods of time, dates and time limits.\nArticle 10\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2012.", "references": ["6", "17", "10", "5", "76", "92", "0", "18", "8", "59", "37", "72", "2", "94", "78", "84", "20", "26", "3", "51", "68", "91", "95", "71", "73", "27", "60", "77", "64", "25", "No Label", "7", "12", "29", "33", "46"], "gold": ["7", "12", "29", "33", "46"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1092/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\non European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFinancial stability is a precondition for the real economy to provide jobs, credit and growth. The financial crisis has revealed important shortcomings in financial supervision, which has failed to anticipate adverse macro-prudential developments and to prevent the accumulation of excessive risks within the financial system.\n(2)\nThe European Parliament called repeatedly for the reinforcement of a true level playing field for all actors at the level of the Union while pointing out significant failures in the Union\u2019s supervision of ever more integrated financial markets (in its resolutions of 13 April 2000 on the Commission communication on implementing the framework for financial markets: Action Plan (4), of 21 November 2002 on prudential supervision rules in the European Union (5), of 11 July 2007 on financial services policy (2005 to 2010) - White Paper (6), of 23 September 2008 with recommendations to the Commission on hedge funds and private equity (7) and of 9 October 2008 with recommendations to the Commission on Lamfalussy follow-up: future structure of supervision (8), and in its positions of 22 April 2009 on the amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (9) and of 23 April 2009 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Credit Rating Agencies (10)).\n(3)\nIn November 2008, the Commission mandated a High-Level Group chaired by Jacques de Larosi\u00e8re to make recommendations on how to strengthen European supervisory arrangements with a view to better protecting the citizen and rebuilding trust in the financial system.\n(4)\nIn its final report presented on 25 February 2009 (the \u2018de Larosi\u00e8re Report\u2019), the High-Level Group recommended, inter alia, the establishment of a Union level body charged with overseeing risk in the financial system as a whole.\n(5)\nIn its Communication of 4 March 2009 entitled \u2018Driving European Recovery\u2019, the Commission welcomed and broadly supported the recommendations of the de Larosi\u00e8re Report. At its meeting of 19 and 20 March 2009, the European Council agreed on the need to improve the regulation and supervision of financial institutions within the Union and to use the de Larosi\u00e8re Report as a basis for action.\n(6)\nIn its Communication of 27 May 2009 entitled \u2018European Financial Supervision\u2019, the Commission suggested a series of reforms to the current arrangements for safeguarding financial stability at the Union level, in particular including the creation of a European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) responsible for macro-prudential oversight. The Council on 9 June 2009 and the European Council at its meeting of 18 and 19 June 2009 supported the Commission\u2019s suggestions and welcomed its intention to put forward legislative proposals for the new framework to be in place in the course of 2010. In line with the views of the Commission, the Council concluded, inter alia, that the European Central Bank (ECB) \u2018should provide analytical, statistical, administrative and logistical support to the ESRB, also drawing on technical advice from national central banks and supervisors\u2019. The support provided by the ECB to the ESRB, as well as the tasks assigned to the ESRB, should be without prejudice to the principle of the independence of the ECB in the performance of its tasks pursuant to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).\n(7)\nGiven the integration of international financial markets and the contagion risk of financial crises, there is a need for a strong commitment on the part of the Union at the global level. The ESRB should draw expertise from a high-level scientific committee and take on all the global responsibilities required in order to ensure that the voice of the Union is heard on issues relating to financial stability, in particular by cooperating closely with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB), which are expected to provide early warnings of macro-prudential risks at the global level, and the partners of the Group of Twenty (G-20).\n(8)\nThe ESRB should contribute, inter alia, towards implementing the recommendations of the IMF, the FSB and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) to the G-20.\n(9)\nThe report of the IMF, the BIS and the FSB, of 28 October 2009, presented to the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, entitled \u2018Guidance to Assess the Systemic Importance of Financial Institutions, Markets and Instruments: Initial Considerations\u2019 also states that the assessment of systemic risk is likely to vary depending on the economic environment. It will also be conditioned by the financial infrastructure and crisis management arrangements and the capacity to deal with failures when they occur. Financial institutions may be systemically important for local, national or international financial systems and economies. The key criteria helping to identify the systemic importance of markets and institutions are size (the volume of financial services provided by the individual component of the financial system), substitutability (the extent to which other components of the system can provide the same services in the event of failure) and interconnectedness (linkages with other components of the system). An assessment based on those three criteria should be supplemented by a reference to financial vulnerabilities and the capacity of the institutional framework to deal with financial failures and should consider a wide range of additional factors such as, inter alia, the complexity of specific structures and business models, the degree of financial autonomy, intensity and scope of supervision, transparency of financial arrangements and linkages that may affect the overall risk of institutions.\n(10)\nThe ESRB\u2019s task should be to monitor and assess systemic risk in normal times for the purpose of mitigating the exposure of the system to the risk of failure of systemic components and enhancing the financial system\u2019s resilience to shocks. In that respect, the ESRB should contribute to ensuring financial stability and mitigating the negative impacts on the internal market and the real economy. In order to accomplish its objectives, the ESRB should analyse all the relevant information.\n(11)\nThe present arrangements of the Union place too little emphasis on macro-prudential oversight and on inter-linkages between developments in the broader macroeconomic environment and the financial system. Responsibility for macro-prudential analysis remains fragmented, and is conducted by various authorities at different levels with no mechanism to ensure that macro-prudential risks are adequately identified and that warnings and recommendations are issued clearly, followed up and translated into action. A proper functioning of Union and global financial systems and the mitigation of threats thereto require enhanced consistency between macro- and micro-prudential supervision.\n(12)\nA newly designed system of macro-prudential oversight requires credible and high-profile leadership. Therefore, given its key role and its international and internal credibility, and in the spirit of the recommendations of the de Larosi\u00e8re Report, the President of the ECB should be the Chair of the ESRB for a first term of 5 years following the entry into force of this Regulation. In addition, the accountability requirements should be increased and the ESRB bodies should be able to draw on a wide range of experience, backgrounds and opinions.\n(13)\nThe de Larosi\u00e8re Report also states that macro-prudential oversight is not meaningful unless it can somehow impact on supervision at the micro level whilst micro-prudential supervision cannot effectively safeguard financial stability without adequately taking account of macro-level developments.\n(14)\nA European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) should be established, bringing together the actors of financial supervision at national level and at the level of the Union, to act as a network. Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation in accordance with Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, the parties to the ESFS should cooperate with trust and full mutual respect, in particular to ensure that appropriate and reliable information flows between them. At the level of the Union, the network should comprise the ESRB and three micro-supervisory authorities: the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11), the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (12), and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (13) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the \u2018ESAs\u2019).\n(15)\nThe Union needs a specific body responsible for macro-prudential oversight across its financial system, which would identify risks to financial stability and, where necessary, issue risk warnings and recommendations for action to address such risks. Consequently, the ESRB should be established as a new independent body, covering all financial sectors as well as guarantee schemes. The ESRB should be responsible for conducting macro-prudential oversight at the level of the Union and should have no legal personality.\n(16)\nThe ESRB should comprise a General Board, a Steering Committee, a Secretariat, an Advisory Scientific Committee and an Advisory Technical Committee. The composition of the Advisory Scientific Committee should take into account adequate rules of conflict of interests adopted by the General Board. The establishment of the Advisory Technical Committee should take into account existing structures with a view to avoiding any duplication.\n(17)\nThe ESRB should issue warnings and, where it deems necessary, recommendations either of a general or a specific nature, which should be addressed in particular to the Union as a whole or to one or more Member States, or to one or more of the ESAs, or to one or more of the national supervisory authorities with a specified timeline for the relevant policy response.\n(18)\nThe ESRB should elaborate a colour code in order to allow interested parties better to assess the nature of the risk.\n(19)\nIn order to increase their influence and legitimacy, such warnings and recommendations should also be transmitted, subject to strict rules of confidentiality, to the Council and the Commission and, where addressed to one or more national supervisory authorities, to the ESAs. The deliberations of the Council should be prepared by the Economic and Financial Committee (EFC) in accordance with its role as defined in the TFEU. In order to prepare the Council\u2019s discussions and provide it with timely policy advice, the ESRB should inform the EFC regularly and should send the texts of any warnings and recommendations as soon as they have been adopted.\n(20)\nThe ESRB should also monitor compliance with its warnings and recommendations, based on reports from addressees, in order to ensure that its warnings and recommendations are effectively followed. Addressees of recommendations should act on them and provide an adequate justification in case of inaction (\u2018act or explain\u2019 mechanism). If the ESRB considers that the reaction is inadequate, it should inform, subject to strict confidentiality rules, the addressees, the Council and, where appropriate, the European Supervisory Authority concerned.\n(21)\nThe ESRB should decide, on a case-by-case basis and after having informed the Council sufficiently in advance so that it is able to react, whether a recommendation should be kept confidential or made public, bearing in mind that public disclosure can help to foster compliance with the recommendations in certain circumstances.\n(22)\nIf the ESRB detects a risk which could seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the Union\u2019s financial system, it should promptly inform the Council of the situation. If the ESRB determines that an emergency situation may arise, it should contact the Council and provide an assessment of the situation. The Council should then assess the need to adopt a decision addressed to the ESAs determining the existence of an emergency situation. During that process, due protection of confidentiality is of the outmost importance.\n(23)\nThe ESRB should report to the European Parliament and the Council at least annually, and more frequently in the event of widespread financial distress. Where appropriate, the European Parliament and the Council should be able to invite the ESRB to examine specific issues related to financial stability.\n(24)\nThe ECB and the national central banks should have a leading role in macro-prudential oversight because of their expertise and their existing responsibilities in the area of financial stability. National supervisors should be involved in providing their specific expertise. The participation of micro-prudential supervisors in the work of the ESRB is essential to ensure that the assessment of macro-prudential risk is based on complete and accurate information about developments in the financial system. Accordingly, the chairpersons of the ESAs should be members with voting rights. One representative of the competent national supervisory authorities of each Member State should attend meetings of the General Board, without voting rights. In a spirit of openness, 15 independent persons should provide the ESRB with external expertise through the Advisory Scientific Committee.\n(25)\nThe participation of a Member of the Commission in the ESRB will help to establish a link with the macroeconomic and financial surveillance of the Union, while the presence of the President of the EFC will reflect the role of Member States\u2019 ministries responsible for finance and the Council in safeguarding financial stability and performing economic and financial oversight.\n(26)\nIt is essential that the members of the ESRB perform their duties impartially and consider only the financial stability of the Union as a whole. Where consensus cannot be reached, voting on warnings and recommendations within the ESRB should not be weighted and decisions should, as a rule, be taken by simple majority.\n(27)\nThe interconnectedness of financial institutions and markets implies that the monitoring and assessment of potential systemic risks should be based on a broad set of relevant macroeconomic and micro-financial data and indicators. Those systemic risks include risks of disruption to financial services caused by a significant impairment of all or parts of the Union\u2019s financial system that have the potential to have serious negative consequences for the internal market and the real economy. Any type of financial institution and intermediary, market, infrastructure and instrument has the potential to be systemically significant. The ESRB should therefore have access to all the information necessary to perform its duties while preserving the confidentiality of that information as required.\n(28)\nThe measures for the collection of information set out in this Regulation are necessary for the performance of the tasks of the ESRB and should be without prejudice to the legal framework of the European Statistical System in the field of statistics. This Regulation should therefore be without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (14) and to Council Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the collection of statistical information by the European Central Bank (15).\n(29)\nMarket participants can provide valuable input to the understanding of the evolutions affecting the financial system. Where appropriate, the ESRB should therefore consult private sector stakeholders, including financial sector representatives, consumer associations, user groups in the financial services area established by the Commission or by Union legislation, and give them a fair opportunity to make observations.\n(30)\nThe establishment of the ESRB should contribute directly to achieving the objectives of the internal market. The Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system is an integral part of the overall new supervisory arrangements in the Union as the macro-prudential aspect is closely linked to the micro-prudential supervisory tasks attributed to the ESAs. Only with arrangements in place that properly acknowledge the interdependence of micro- and macro-prudential risks can all stakeholders have sufficient confidence to engage in cross-border financial activities. The ESRB should monitor and assess risks to financial stability arising from developments that can impact on a sectoral level or at the level of the financial system as a whole. By addressing such risks, the ESRB should contribute directly to an integrated Union supervisory structure necessary to promote timely and consistent policy responses among the Member States, thus preventing diverging approaches and improving the functioning of the internal market.\n(31)\nThe Court of Justice in its judgment of 2 May 2006 in Case C-217/04 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union) held that \u2018nothing in the wording of Article 95 EC [now Article 114 TFEU] implies that the addressees of the measures adopted by the Community legislature on the basis of that provision can only be the individual Member States. The legislature may deem it necessary to provide for the establishment of a Community body responsible for contributing to the implementation of a process of harmonisation in situations where, in order to facilitate the uniform implementation and application of acts based on that provision, the adoption of non-binding supporting and framework measures seems appropriate\u2019 (16). The ESRB should contribute to the financial stability necessary for further financial integration in the internal market by monitoring systemic risks and issuing warnings and recommendations where appropriate. Those tasks are closely linked to the objectives of the Union legislation concerning the internal market for financial services. The ESRB should therefore be established on the basis of Article 114 TFEU.\n(32)\nAs suggested in the de Larosi\u00e8re Report, a step-by-step approach is necessary and the European Parliament and the Council should conduct a full review of the ESFS, the ESRB and the ESAs by 17 December 2013.\n(33)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely an effective macro-prudential oversight of the Union financial system, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States because of the integration of the Union financial markets, and can therefore be better achieved at the 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nEstablishment\n1. A European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) is established. It shall have its seat in Frankfurt am Main.\n2. The ESRB shall be part of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS), the purpose of which is to ensure the supervision of the Union\u2019s financial system.\n3. The ESFS shall comprise:\n(a)\nthe ESRB;\n(b)\nthe European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010;\n(c)\nthe European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010;\n(d)\nthe European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010;\n(e)\nthe Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (Joint Committee) provided for by Article 54 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010;\n(f)\nthe competent or supervisory authorities in the Member States as specified in the Union acts referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n4. Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation in accordance with Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, the parties to the ESFS shall cooperate with trust and full mutual respect, in particular to ensure that appropriate and reliable information flows between them.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018financial institution\u2019 means any undertaking that falls within the scope of the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, as well as any other undertaking or entity in the Union whose main business is of a similar nature;\n(b)\n\u2018financial system\u2019 means all financial institutions, markets, products and market infrastructures;\n(c)\n\u2018systemic risk\u2019 means a risk of disruption in the financial system with the potential to have serious negative consequences for the internal market and the real economy. All types of financial intermediaries, markets and infrastructure may be potentially systemically important to some degree.\nArticle 3\nMission, objectives and tasks\n1. The ESRB shall be responsible for the macro-prudential oversight of the financial system within the Union in order to contribute to the prevention or mitigation of systemic risks to financial stability in the Union that arise from developments within the financial system and taking into account macroeconomic developments, so as to avoid periods of widespread financial distress. It shall contribute to the smooth functioning of the internal market and thereby ensure a sustainable contribution of the financial sector to economic growth.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the ESRB shall carry out the following tasks:\n(a)\ndetermining and/or collecting and analysing all the relevant and necessary information, for the purposes of achieving the objectives described in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nidentifying and prioritising systemic risks;\n(c)\nissuing warnings where such systemic risks are deemed to be significant and, where appropriate, making those warnings public;\n(d)\nissuing recommendations for remedial action in response to the risks identified and, where appropriate, making those recommendations public;\n(e)\nwhen the ESRB determines that an emergency situation may arise pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 issuing a confidential warning addressed to the Council and providing the Council with an assessment of the situation, in order to enable the Council to assess the need to adopt a decision addressed to the ESAs determining the existence of an emergency situation;\n(f)\nmonitoring the follow-up to warnings and recommendations;\n(g)\ncooperating closely with all the other parties to the ESFS; where appropriate, providing the ESAs with the information on systemic risks required for the performance of their tasks; and, in particular, in collaboration with the ESAs, developing a common set of quantitative and qualitative indicators (risk dashboard) to identify and measure systemic risk;\n(h)\nparticipating, where appropriate, in the Joint Committee;\n(i)\ncoordinating its actions with those of international financial organisations, particularly the IMF and the FSB as well as the relevant bodies in third countries on matters related to macro-prudential oversight;\n(j)\ncarrying out other related tasks as specified in Union legislation.\nCHAPTER II\nORGANISATION\nArticle 4\nStructure\n1. The ESRB shall have a General Board, a Steering Committee, a Secretariat, an Advisory Scientific Committee and an Advisory Technical Committee.\n2. The General Board shall take the decisions necessary to ensure the performance of the tasks entrusted to the ESRB, pursuant to Article 3(2).\n3. The Steering Committee shall assist in the decision-making process of the ESRB by preparing the meetings of the General Board, reviewing the documents to be discussed and monitoring the progress of the ESRB\u2019s ongoing work.\n4. The Secretariat shall be responsible for the day-to-day business of the ESRB. It shall provide high-quality analytical, statistical, administrative and logistical support to the ESRB under the direction of the Chair and the Steering Committee in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 1096/2010 (17). It shall also draw on technical advice from the ESAs, national central banks and national supervisors.\n5. The Advisory Scientific Committee and the Advisory Technical Committee referred to in Articles 12 and 13 shall provide advice and assistance on issues relevant to the work of the ESRB.\nArticle 5\nChair and Vice-Chairs of the ESRB\n1. The ESRB shall be chaired by the President of the ECB for a term of 5 years following the entry into force of this Regulation. For the subsequent terms, the Chair of the ESRB shall be designated in accordance with the modalities determined on the basis of the review provided for in Article 20.\n2. The first Vice-Chair shall be elected by and from the members of the General Council of the ECB for a term of 5 years, with regard to the need for a balanced representation of Member States overall and between those whose currency is the euro and those whose currency is not the euro. The first Vice-Chair may be re-elected once.\n3. The second Vice-Chair shall be the Chair of the Joint Committee as appointed pursuant to Article 55(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n4. The Chair and the Vice-Chairs shall present to the European Parliament, during a public hearing, how they intend to discharge their duties under this Regulation.\n5. The Chair shall preside at the meetings of the General Board and the Steering Committee.\n6. The Vice-Chairs, in order of precedence, shall preside at the General Board and/or the Steering Committee when the Chair is unable to participate in a meeting.\n7. If the term of office of a member of the General Council of the ECB elected as first Vice-Chair ends before the completion of the five-year term or if for any reason the first Vice-Chair is unable to discharge his duties, a new first Vice-Chair shall be elected in accordance with paragraph 2.\n8. The Chair shall represent the ESRB externally.\nArticle 6\nGeneral Board\n1. Members of the General Board with voting rights shall comprise:\n(a)\nthe President and the Vice-President of the ECB;\n(b)\nthe Governors of the national central banks;\n(c)\na Member of the Commission;\n(d)\nthe Chairperson of the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority);\n(e)\nthe Chairperson of the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority);\n(f)\nthe Chairperson of the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority);\n(g)\nthe Chair and the two Vice-Chairs of the Advisory Scientific Committee;\n(h)\nthe Chair of the Advisory Technical Committee.\n2. Members of the General Board without voting rights shall comprise:\n(a)\none high-level representative per Member State of the competent national supervisory authorities, in accordance with paragraph 3;\n(b)\nthe President of the Economic and Financial Committee (EFC).\n3. With regard to the representation of the national supervisory authorities under paragraph 2(a), the respective high-level representatives shall rotate depending on the item discussed, unless the national supervisory authorities of a particular Member State have agreed on a common representative.\n4. The General Board shall establish rules of procedure for the ESRB.\nArticle 7\nImpartiality\n1. When participating in the activities of the General Board and of the Steering Committee or when conducting any other activity relating to the ESRB, the members of the ESRB shall perform their duties impartially and solely in the interest of the Union as a whole. They shall not seek nor take instructions from the Member States, the Union institutions or any other public or private body.\n2. No member of the General Board (whether voting or non-voting) shall have a function in the financial industry.\n3. Neither the Member States, the Union institutions nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the members of the ESRB in the performance of the tasks set out in Article 3(2).\nArticle 8\nProfessional secrecy\n1. Members of the General Board and any other persons who work or who have worked for or in connection with the ESRB (including the relevant staff of central banks, the Advisory Scientific Committee, the Advisory Technical Committee, the ESAs and the Member States\u2019 competent national supervisory authorities) shall not disclose information that is subject to professional secrecy, even after their duties have ceased.\n2. Information received by members of the ESRB shall be used only in the course of their duties and in performing the tasks set out in Article 3(2).\n3. Without prejudice to Article 16 and the application of criminal law, no confidential information received by the persons referred to in paragraph 1 whilst performing their duties shall be divulged to any person or authority whatsoever, except in summary or aggregate form, such that individual financial institutions cannot be identified.\n4. The ESRB shall, together with the ESAs, agree on and establish specific confidentiality procedures in order to safeguard information regarding individual financial institutions and information from which individual financial institutions can be identified.\nArticle 9\nMeetings of the General Board\n1. Ordinary plenary meetings of the General Board shall be convened by the Chair of the ESRB and shall take place at least four times a year. Extraordinary meetings may be convened at the initiative of the Chair of the ESRB or at the request of at least one third of the members of the General Board with voting rights.\n2. Each member shall be present in person at the meetings of the General Board and shall not be represented.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, a member who is prevented from attending the meetings for a period of at least 3 months may appoint an alternate. That member may also be replaced by a person who has been formally appointed under the rules governing the institution concerned for the substitution of representatives on a temporary basis.\n4. Where appropriate, high-level representatives from international financial organisations carrying out activities directly related to the tasks of the ESRB set out in Article 3(2) may be invited to attend the meetings of the General Board.\n5. Participation in the work of the ESRB may be open to high-level representatives of the relevant authorities from third countries, in particular from EEA countries, strictly limited to issues of particular relevance to those countries. Arrangements may be made by the ESRB specifying, in particular, the nature, scope and procedural aspects of the involvement of those third countries in the work of the ESRB. Such arrangements may provide for representation, on an ad-hoc basis, as an observer, on the General Board and should concern only items of relevance to those countries, excluding any case where the situation of individual financial institutions or Member States may be discussed.\n6. The proceedings of the meetings shall be confidential.\nArticle 10\nVoting modalities of the General Board\n1. Each member of the General Board with a voting right shall have one vote.\n2. Without prejudice to the voting procedures set out in Article 18(1), the General Board shall act by a simple majority of members present with voting rights. In the event of a tie, the Chair of the ESRB shall have the casting vote.\n3. By derogation from paragraph 2, a majority of two-thirds of the votes cast shall be required to adopt a recommendation or to make a warning or recommendation public.\n4. A quorum of two-thirds of the members with voting rights shall be required for any vote to be taken by the General Board. If the quorum is not met, the Chair of the ESRB may convene an extraordinary meeting at which decisions may be taken with a quorum of one-third. The rules of procedure referred to in Article 6(4) shall provide for adequate notice for convening an extraordinary meeting.\nArticle 11\nSteering Committee\n1. The Steering Committee shall be composed of:\n(a)\nthe Chair and first Vice-Chair of the ESRB;\n(b)\nthe Vice-President of the ECB;\n(c)\nfour other members of the General Board who are also members of the General Council of the ECB, with regard to the need for a balanced representation of Member States overall and between those whose currency is the euro and those whose currency is not the euro. They shall be elected by and from among the members of the General Board who are also members of the General Council of the ECB, for a period of 3 years;\n(d)\na Member of the Commission;\n(e)\nthe Chairperson of the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority);\n(f)\nthe Chairperson of the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority);\n(g)\nthe Chairperson of the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority);\n(h)\nthe President of the EFC;\n(i)\nthe Chair of the Advisory Scientific Committee; and\n(j)\nthe Chair of the Advisory Technical Committee.\nAny vacancy for an elected member of the Steering Committee shall be filled by the election of a new member by the General Board.\n2. Meetings of the Steering Committee shall be convened by the Chair of the ESRB at least quarterly, before each meeting of the General Board. The Chair of the ESRB may also convene ad-hoc meetings.\nArticle 12\nAdvisory Scientific Committee\n1. The Advisory Scientific Committee shall be composed of the Chair of the Advisory Technical Committee and 15 experts representing a wide range of skills and experiences proposed by the Steering Committee and approved by the General Board for a four-year, renewable mandate. The nominees shall not be members of the ESAs and shall be chosen on the basis of their general competence and their diverse experience in academic fields or other sectors, in particular in small and medium-sized enterprises or trade-unions, or as providers or consumers of financial services.\n2. The Chair and the two Vice-Chairs of the Advisory Scientific Committee shall be appointed by the General Board following a proposal from the Chair of the ESRB and they shall each have a high level of relevant expertise and knowledge, for example by virtue of their academic background in the sectors of banking, securities markets, or insurance and occupational pensions. The chairmanship of the Advisory Scientific Committee should rotate between those three persons.\n3. The Advisory Scientific Committee shall provide advice and assistance to the ESRB in accordance with Article 4(5), at the request of the Chair of the ESRB.\n4. The ESRB Secretariat shall support the work of the Advisory Scientific Committee and the head of the Secretariat shall participate in its meetings.\n5. Where appropriate, the Advisory Scientific Committee shall organise consultations at an early stage with stakeholders such as market participants, consumer bodies and academic experts, in an open and transparent manner, while taking into account the requirement of confidentiality.\n6. The Advisory Scientific Committee shall be provided with all necessary means in order to successfully complete its tasks.\nArticle 13\nAdvisory Technical Committee\n1. The Advisory Technical Committee shall be composed of:\n(a)\na representative of each national central bank and a representative of the ECB;\n(b)\none representative per Member State of the competent national supervisory authorities, in accordance with the second subparagraph;\n(c)\na representative of the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority);\n(d)\na representative of the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority);\n(e)\na representative of the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority);\n(f)\ntwo representatives of the Commission;\n(g)\na representative of the EFC; and\n(h)\na representative of the Advisory Scientific Committee.\nThe supervisory authorities of each Member State shall choose one representative in the Advisory Technical Committee. With regard to the representation of national supervisory authorities under point (b) of the first subparagraph, the respective representatives shall rotate depending on the item discussed, unless the national supervisory authorities of a particular Member State have agreed on a common representative.\n2. The Chair of the Advisory Technical Committee shall be appointed by the General Board following a proposal from the Chair of the ESRB.\n3. The Advisory Technical Committee shall provide advice and assistance to the ESRB in accordance with Article 4(5) at the request of the Chair of the ESRB.\n4. The ESRB Secretariat shall support the work of the Advisory Technical Committee and the head of the Secretariat shall participate in its meetings.\n5. The Advisory Technical Committee shall be provided with all necessary means in order to successfully complete its tasks.\nArticle 14\nOther sources of advice\nIn performing the tasks set out in Article 3(2), the ESRB shall, where appropriate, seek the views of relevant private sector stakeholders.\nCHAPTER III\nTASKS\nArticle 15\nCollection and exchange of information\n1. The ESRB shall provide the ESAs with the information on risks necessary for the achievement of their tasks.\n2. The ESAs, the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), the Commission, the national supervisory authorities and national statistics authorities shall cooperate closely with the ESRB and shall provide it with all the information necessary for the fulfilment of its tasks in accordance with Union legislation.\n3. Subject to Article 36(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, the ESRB may request information from the ESAs, as a rule in summary or aggregate form such that individual financial institutions cannot be identified.\n4. Before requesting information in accordance with this Article, the ESRB shall first take account of the existing statistics produced, disseminated and developed by the European Statistical System and the ESCB.\n5. If the requested information is not available or is not made available in a timely manner, the ESRB may request the information from the ESCB, the national supervisory authorities or the national statistics authorities. If the information remains unavailable, the ESRB may request it from the Member State concerned, without prejudice to the prerogatives conferred, respectively, on the Council, the Commission (Eurostat), the ECB, the Eurosystem and the ESCB in the field of statistics and data collection.\n6. If the ESRB requests information that is not in summary or aggregate form, the reasoned request shall explain why data on the respective individual financial institution is deemed to be systemically relevant, and necessary, considering the prevailing market situation.\n7. Before each request for information which is not in summary or aggregate form, the ESRB shall duly consult the relevant European Supervisory Authority in order to ensure that the request is justified and proportionate. If the relevant European Supervisory Authority does not consider the request to be justified and proportionate, it shall, without delay, send the request back to the ESRB and ask for additional justification. After the ESRB has provided the relevant European Supervisory Authority with such additional justification, the requested information shall be transmitted to the ESRB by the addressees of the request, provided that they have legal access to the relevant information.\nArticle 16\nWarnings and recommendations\n1. When significant risks to the achievement of the objective in Article 3(1) are identified, the ESRB shall provide warnings and, where appropriate, issue recommendations for remedial action, including, where appropriate, for legislative initiatives.\n2. Warnings or recommendations issued by the ESRB in accordance with Article 3(2)(c) and (d) may be of either a general or a specific nature and shall be addressed in particular to the Union as a whole or to one or more Member States, or to one or more of the ESAs, or to one or more of the national supervisory authorities. If a warning or a recommendation is addressed to one or more of the national supervisory authorities, the Member State(s) concerned shall also be informed thereof. Recommendations shall include a specified timeline for the policy response. Recommendations may also be addressed to the Commission in respect of the relevant Union legislation.\n3. At the same time as they are transmitted to the addressees in accordance with paragraph 2, the warnings or recommendations shall be transmitted, in accordance with strict rules of confidentiality, to the Council and the Commission and, where addressed to one or more national supervisory authorities, to the ESAs.\n4. In order to enhance the awareness of risks in the economy of the Union and to prioritise such risks, the ESRB, in close cooperation with the other parties to the ESFS, shall elaborate a colour-coded system corresponding to situations of different risk levels.\nOnce the criteria for such classification have been elaborated, the ESRB\u2019s warnings and recommendations shall indicate, on a case-by-case basis, and where appropriate, to which category the risk belongs.\nArticle 17\nFollow-up of the ESRB recommendations\n1. If a recommendation referred to in Article 3(2)(d) is addressed to the Commission, to one or more Member States, to one or more ESAs, or to one or more national supervisory authorities, the addressees shall communicate to the ESRB and to the Council the actions undertaken in response to the recommendation and shall provide adequate justification for any inaction. Where relevant, the ESRB shall, subject to strict rules of confidentiality, inform the ESAs without delay of the answers received.\n2. If the ESRB decides that its recommendation has not been followed or that the addressees have failed to provide adequate justification for their inaction, it shall, subject to strict rules of confidentiality, inform the addressees, the Council and, where relevant, the European Supervisory Authority concerned.\n3. If the ESRB has made a decision under paragraph 2 on a recommendation that has been made public following the procedure set out in Article 18(1), the European Parliament may invite the Chair of the ESRB to present that decision and the addressees may request to participate in an exchange of views.\nArticle 18\nPublic warnings and recommendations\n1. The General Board shall decide on a case-by-case basis, after having informed the Council sufficiently in advance so that it is able to react, whether a warning or a recommendation should be made public. Notwithstanding Article 10(3), a quorum of two-thirds shall always apply to decisions taken by the General Board under this paragraph.\n2. If the General Board decides to make a warning or recommendation public, it shall inform the addressees in advance.\n3. The addressees of warnings and recommendations made public by the ESRB shall also be provided with the right of making public their views and reasoning in response thereto.\n4. Where the General Board decides not to make a warning or a recommendation public, the addressees and, where appropriate, the Council and the ESAs shall take all the measures necessary for the protection of their confidential nature.\nCHAPTER IV\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 19\nAccountability and reporting obligations\n1. At least annually and more frequently in the event of widespread financial distress, the Chair of the ESRB shall be invited to an annual hearing in the European Parliament, marking the publication of the ESRB\u2019s annual report to the European Parliament and the Council. That hearing shall be conducted separately from the monetary dialogue between the European Parliament and the President of the ECB.\n2. The annual report referred to in paragraph 1 shall contain the information that the General Board decides to make public in accordance with Article 18. The annual report shall be made available to the public.\n3. The ESRB shall also examine specific issues at the invitation of the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission.\n4. The European Parliament may request the Chair of the ESRB to attend a hearing of the competent Committees of the European Parliament.\n5. The Chair of the ESRB shall hold confidential oral discussions at least twice a year and more often if deemed appropriate, behind closed doors with the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament on the ongoing activity of the ESRB. An agreement shall be concluded between the European Parliament and the ESRB on the detailed modalities of organising those meetings, with a view to ensuring full confidentiality in accordance with Article 8. The ESRB shall provide a copy of that agreement to the Council.\nArticle 20\nReview\nBy 17 December 2013, the European Parliament and the Council shall examine this Regulation on the basis of a report from the Commission and, after having received an opinion from the ECB and the ESAs, shall determine whether the mission and organisation of the ESRB need to be reviewed.\nThey shall, in particular, review the modalities for the designation or election of the Chair of the ESRB.\nArticle 21\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["98", "26", "53", "9", "55", "62", "90", "0", "11", "37", "96", "27", "35", "34", "15", "88", "73", "79", "84", "49", "61", "10", "45", "18", "2", "41", "48", "87", "94", "38", "No Label", "7", "8", "28", "29", "30", "33"], "gold": ["7", "8", "28", "29", "30", "33"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1087/2010\nof 25 November 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1083/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 November 2010.", "references": ["94", "57", "8", "1", "68", "47", "55", "5", "37", "24", "97", "79", "99", "66", "56", "2", "33", "40", "44", "95", "74", "14", "19", "9", "0", "12", "39", "29", "34", "28", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 586/2011\nof 17 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2011.", "references": ["8", "67", "63", "42", "24", "4", "14", "6", "0", "32", "52", "92", "5", "38", "90", "58", "91", "18", "93", "62", "45", "27", "43", "30", "60", "79", "57", "25", "44", "71", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 284/2012\nof 29 March 2012\nimposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1)(b)(ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 provides for the possibility to adopt appropriate Union emergency measures for food and feed imported from a third country in order to protect public health, animal health or the environment, where the risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member States individually.\n(2)\nFollowing the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station on 11 March 2011, the Commission was informed that radionuclide levels in certain food products originating in Japan exceeded the action levels in food applicable in Japan. Such contamination may constitute a threat to public and animal health in the Union and therefore Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 297/2011 of 25 March 2011 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station (2) was adopted. That Regulation was later replaced by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 (3).\n(3)\nThe Japanese authorities have provided information to the Commission that in the many samples taken of sake and other spirit drinks (whiskey and shochu) no radioactivity was detected in all samples. The process of polishing, fermentation and distillation removes the radioactivity nearly completely from the spirit drink itself. The issue will be followed-up based on the continued monitoring of sake, whiskey and shochu by the Japanese authorities. It is therefore appropriate to exclude sake, whiskey and shochu from the scope of this Regulation in order to reduce the administrative burden for the Japanese authorities and the competent authorities of the importing Member States.\n(4)\nThe Japanese authorities have adopted on 24 February 2012 new maximum levels for the sum of caesium-134 and caesium-137, to be applied as from 1 April 2012, with transitional measures foreseen for rice, beef and soybean and processed products thereof, which are lower than the maximum levels established by Council Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87 of 22 December 1987 laying down maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs and of feedingstuffs following a nuclear accident or any other case of radiological emergency (4). The transitional measures for beef have no relevance for the import into the Union as the import of beef from Japan into the Union is not allowed for animal and public health reasons other than radioactivity. The Japanese authorities also informed the Commission that products that are not allowed to be placed on the Japanese market are also not allowed to be exported. It is therefore appropriate, although there is no need for safety reasons, in order to provide consistency between the pre-export controls performed by the Japanese authorities and the controls on the level of radionuclides performed on feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan at the entry into the Union, to apply the same maximum levels in the Union for radionuclides in feed and food from Japan as the maximum levels applicable in Japan as long as these are lower than the values established in Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87.\n(5)\nShortly after the nuclear accident, controls were required for the presence of iodine-131 and the sum of caesium-134 and caesium-137 in feed and food originating from Japan, as there was evidence that the release of radioactivity into the environment was related to a very large part to iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137, and there was only very limited or no emission of the radionuclides strontium (Sr-90), plutonium (Pu-239) and americium (Am-241). Iodine-131 has a short half-life of 8 days and because there were no releases of radioactivity from the affected nuclear power plant into the environment in recent months and the affected nuclear reactor is now in a stable situation and no further releases to the environment are expected, iodine-131 is no longer present in the environment and consequently also not in feed and food from Japan. Therefore the control for the presence of iodine-131 was no longer required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1371/2011 of 21 December 2011 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station (5). Therefore there is no need to maintain maximum levels for iodine-131 in this Regulation.\n(6)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 provided also maximum levels for strontium, plutonium and americium in case there would have been new releases to the environment of radioactivity including these radionuclides. Given that the affected nuclear reactor is now in a stable situation, the possibility of new releases of radioactivity to the environment is excluded or very minimal and there have been no significant releases to the environment of strontium, plutonium and americium following the nuclear power plant accident, it is evident that the control for the presence of these radionuclides in food or feed from Japan is not necessary. As a consequence there is no need to maintain maximum levels for these radionuclides in this Regulation.\n(7)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 has been amended at two occasions to take into account the development of the situation. Given that this Regulation provides for further amendments requiring changes to several provisions of that Regulation, it is appropriate to replace Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 by a new Regulation.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to feed and food within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87 originating in or consigned from Japan, with the exclusion of:\n(a)\nproducts which left Japan before 28 March 2011;\n(b)\nproducts which have been harvested and/or processed before 11 March 2011;\n(c)\nsake falling within CN codes ex 2206 00 39 (sparkling), ex 2206 00 59 (still, in containers holding 2 litres or less) or ex 2206 00 89 (still, in containers holding more than 2 litres);\n(d)\nwhiskey falling within CN code 2208 30;\n(e)\nshochu falling within CN code ex 2208 90 56, ex 2208 90 69, ex 2208 90 77 or ex 2208 90 78.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, \u2018transitional measures provided in the Japanese legislation\u2019 means the transitional measures adopted by the Japanese authorities on 24 February 2012 as regards the maximum levels for the sum of caesium-134 and caesium-137 as set out in Annex III.\nArticle 3\nImport into the Union\nFeed and food (hereinafter: \u2018the products\u2019) referred to in Article 1 may only be imported into the European Union if they comply with this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nMaximum levels of caesium-134 and caesium-137\n1. The products referred to in Article 1, except rice, soybean and processed products thereof, shall comply with the maximum level for the sum of caesium-134 and caesium-137 as set out in Annex II.\n2. Rice and soybean and processed products thereof shall comply with the maximum level for the sum of caesium-134 and caesium-137 as set out in Annex III.\nArticle 5\nDeclaration\n1. Each consignment of products referred to in Article 1 shall be accompanied by a valid declaration drawn up and signed in accordance with Article 6.\n2. The declaration referred to in paragraph 1 shall:\n(a)\nattest that the products comply with the legislation in force in Japan; and\n(b)\nspecify whether the products are falling or not under the transitional measures provided for in the Japanese legislation.\n3. The declaration referred to in paragraph 1 shall furthermore certify that:\n(a)\nthe products have been harvested and/or processed before 11 March 2011; or\n(b)\nthe products originate in and are consigned from a prefecture other than Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa and Shizuoka; or\n(c)\nthe products are consigned from Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa and Shizuoka prefectures, but do not originate in one of those prefectures and have not been exposed to radioactivity during transiting; or\n(d)\nwhere the products originate in Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa and Shizuoka prefectures, the products are accompanied by an analytical report containing the results of sampling and analysis.\n4. Point (d) of paragraph 3 shall apply also to products caught or harvested in the coastal waters of the prefectures referred to therein, irrespective of where such products are landed.\nArticle 6\nDrawing up and signing of the declaration\n1. The declaration referred to in Article 5 shall be drawn up in accordance with the model set out in Annex I.\n2. For the products referred to in the points (a), (b) or (c) of Article 5(3), the declaration shall be signed by an authorised representative of the competent Japanese authority or by an authorised representative of an instance authorised by the competent Japanese authority under the authority and supervision of the competent Japanese authority.\n3. For the products referred to in the point (d) of Article 5(3), the declaration shall be signed by an authorised representative of the competent Japanese authority and shall be accompanied by an analytical report containing the results of sampling and analysis.\nArticle 7\nIdentification\nEach consignment of products referred to in Article 1 shall be identified by means of a code which shall be indicated on the declaration referred to in Article 5(1), on the analytical report referred to in Article 6(3), on the sanitary certificate and on any commercial documents accompanying the consignment.\nArticle 8\nBorder inspection posts and designated point of entry\nConsignments of products referred to in Article 1, except those falling within the scope of Council Directive 97/78/EC (6), shall be introduced into the Union through a designated point of entry within the meaning of Article 3(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (7) (hereinafter \u2018designated point of entry\u2019).\nArticle 9\nPrior notification\nFeed and food business operators or their representatives shall give prior notification of the arrival of each consignment of the products referred to in Article 1, at least two working days prior to the physical arrival of the consignment, to the competent authorities at the border inspection post or at the designated point of entry.\nArticle 10\nOfficial controls\n1. The competent authorities of the border inspection post or designated point of entry shall carry out:\n(a)\ndocumentary checks on all consignments of products referred to in Article 1;\n(b)\nphysical checks and identity checks, including laboratory analysis on the presence of caesium-134 and caesium-137, on at least:\n(i)\n5 % of the consignments of products referred to in Article 5(3)(d); and\n(ii)\n10 % of the consignments of products referred to in Article 5(3)(b) and (c).\n2. Consignments shall be kept under official control, for a maximum of five working days, pending the availability of the results of the laboratory analysis.\n3. In case the result of the laboratory analysis provides evidence that the guarantees provided in the declaration are false, the declaration is considered not to be valid and the consignment of feed and food does not comply with the provisions of this Regulation.\nArticle 11\nCosts\nAll costs resulting from the official controls referred to in Article 10 and any measures taken following non-compliance, shall be borne by the feed and food business operators.\nArticle 12\nRelease for free circulation\nThe consignments may only be released for free circulation if the feed and food business operators or their representative submit to the customs authorities a declaration, as referred to in Article 5(1), which:\n(a)\nhas been duly endorsed by the competent authority at the border inspection post or designated point of entry; and\n(b)\ngives evidence that the official controls referred to in Article 10 have been carried out and that the results of those controls have been favourable.\nArticle 13\nNon-compliant products\nProducts which do not comply with the provisions of this Regulation shall not be placed on the market. Such products shall be safely disposed of or returned to the country of origin.\nArticle 14\nReports\nMember States shall inform the Commission monthly through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) of all analytical results obtained.\nArticle 15\nRepeal\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 16\nTransitional measure\nBy way of derogation from Article 3, products referred to in Article 1 may be imported into the Union if they comply with Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 where:\n(a)\nthe products left Japan before the entry into force of this Regulation; or\n(b)\nthe products are accompanied by a declaration in accordance with that Regulation which was issued before 1 April 2012 and the products have left Japan before 15 April 2012.\nArticle 17\nEntry into force and period of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the date of entry into force until 31 October 2012. The Regulation will be reviewed regularly taking into account the development of the contamination situation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 March 2012.", "references": ["32", "59", "56", "43", "4", "19", "25", "62", "18", "14", "80", "41", "33", "35", "10", "58", "52", "5", "27", "88", "31", "93", "47", "9", "51", "26", "50", "57", "77", "68", "No Label", "20", "22", "38", "60", "66", "72", "81", "95", "96"], "gold": ["20", "22", "38", "60", "66", "72", "81", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2010/65/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 20 October 2010\non reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2002/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States of the Community (4) requires Member States to accept certain standardised forms (FAL forms) in order to facilitate traffic, as defined by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL Convention), adopted on 9 April 1965, as amended.\n(2)\nFor the facilitation of maritime transport and in order to reduce the administrative burdens for shipping companies, the reporting formalities required by legal acts of the Union and by Member States need to be simplified and harmonised to the greatest extent possible. However, this Directive should be without prejudice to the nature and content of the information required, and should not introduce any additional reporting requirements for ships not already under such obligation according to legislation applicable in Member States. It should deal solely with how the information procedures can be simplified and harmonised, and how the information could be gathered more effectively.\n(3)\nThe transmission of data required upon arrival in and/or departure from ports under Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (5), Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (6), Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security (7), Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on port State control (8), and, where appropriate, the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code adopted in 1965, with the amendments thereto adopted and having entered into force, covers the information required by FAL forms. Therefore, where that information corresponds to the requirements in the above-mentioned legal acts, FAL forms should be accepted for providing it.\n(4)\nIn view of the global dimension of maritime transport, legal acts of the Union must take account of IMO requirements if simplification is to take place.\n(5)\nMember States should deepen the cooperation between the competent authorities, such as their customs, border control, public health and transport authorities in order to continue to simplify and harmonise reporting formalities within the Union and make the most efficient use of electronic data transmission and information exchange systems, with a view to the, as far as possible, simultaneous elimination of barriers to maritime transport and the achievement of a European maritime transport space without barriers.\n(6)\nDetailed statistics on maritime transport should be available to assess the efficiency of and the need for policy measures aiming at facilitating maritime traffic within the Union, taking into account the need not to create unnecessary additional requirements with regard to the collection of statistics by the Member States and to make full use of Eurostat. For the purposes of this Directive, it would be important to collect relevant data concerning ship traffic within the Union and/or ships calling at third country ports or in free zones.\n(7)\nIt should be easier for shipping companies to benefit from the status of \u2018authorised regular shipping service\u2019 in line with the objective of the Commission communication of 21 January 2009 entitled \u2018Communication and action plan with a view to establishing a European maritime transport space without barriers\u2019.\n(8)\nWidespread use should be made of electronic means of data transmission for all reporting formalities as soon as possible and by 1 June 2015 at the latest, building on the international standards developed by the FAL Convention, whenever practicable. In order to streamline and accelerate the transmission of potentially very large amounts of information, electronic formats for reporting formalities should be used, whenever practicable. Within the Union, the provision of information in FAL forms in paper format should be the exception and should be accepted only for a limited period of time. Member States are encouraged to use administrative means, including economic incentives, to promote the use of electronic formats. For the above-mentioned reasons exchange of information between the competent authorities of the Member States should take place electronically. In order to facilitate such a development, electronic systems need to be technically interoperable to a greater extent and as far as possible by the same deadline to ensure the smooth functioning of the European maritime transport space without barriers.\n(9)\nParties involved in trade and transport should be able to lodge standardised information and documents via an electronic single window to fulfil reporting formalities. Individual data elements should only be submitted once.\n(10)\nThe SafeSeaNet systems established at national and Union level should facilitate the reception, exchange and distribution of information between the information systems of Member States on maritime activity. To facilitate maritime transport and to reduce the administrative burdens for maritime transport, the SafeSeaNet system should be interoperable with other systems of the Union for reporting formalities. The SafeSeaNet system should be used for additional exchange of information for the facilitation of maritime transport. Reporting formalities regarding information for solely national purposes should not need to be introduced in the SafeSeaNet system.\n(11)\nWhen adopting new Union measures, it should be ensured that Member States can maintain the electronic transmission of data and are not required to use paper formats.\n(12)\nThe full benefits of electronic data transmission can only be achieved where there is smooth and effective communication between SafeSeaNet, e-Customs and the electronic systems for entering or calling up data. To that end, in order to limit the administrative burdens, recourse should be had in the first instance to the applicable standards.\n(13)\nFAL forms are regularly updated. This Directive should therefore refer to the version of these forms that is currently in force. Any information required by Member States\u2019 legislation which goes beyond the requirements of the FAL Convention should be communicated in a format to be developed on the basis of FAL Convention standards.\n(14)\nThis Directive should not affect Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (9), Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (10), Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (11), or national legislation in the area of border control for those Member States which do not apply the Schengen border control acquis, and Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code) (12).\n(15)\nIn the interest of making the electronic transmission of information standard and for the facilitation of maritime transport, Member States should extend the use of electronic means of transmitting data according to an adequate timetable, and should, in cooperation with the Commission, discuss the possibility of harmonising the use of electronic means of transmitting data. To this end, consideration should be given to the work of the High Level Steering Group for the SafeSeaNet system as regards the SafeSeaNet road map, when adopted, and to the concrete funding requirements and respective allocation of Union financial means for the development of electronic transmission of data.\n(16)\nShips operating between ports situated in the customs territory of the Union should be exempt from the obligation to send the information referred to in the FAL forms, where the ships do not come from, call at or are headed towards a port situated outside that territory or a free zone subject to type I controls within the meaning of customs legislation, without prejudice to the applicable legal acts of the Union and the information Member States may request in order to protect internal order and security and to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, environmental or sanitary laws.\n(17)\nExemptions from administrative formalities should also be permitted on the basis of the ship\u2019s cargo, not merely on the basis of its destination and/or place of departure. This is necessary to ensure that additional formalities for ships that have called at a port in a third country or a free zone are minimised. The Commission should examine this issue within the framework of the report to the European Parliament and the Council on the functioning of this Directive.\n(18)\nA new temporary form should be introduced in order to harmonise the information required for the prior Declaration of Security provided for by Regulation (EC) No 725/2004.\n(19)\nNational language requirements are often an obstacle to the development of the coastal shipping network. The Member States should make all possible efforts to facilitate written and oral communication in maritime traffic between Member States, in accordance with international practice, with a view to finding common means of communication.\n(20)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of the Annex to this Directive. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(21)\nThe various legal acts of the Union requiring, for example, pre-notification formalities at the entry into ports, such as Directive 2009/16/EC, may impose different time limits for the accomplishment of these pre-notification formalities. The Commission should examine the possibility of shortening and harmonising these time-limits, taking advantage of ongoing progress in electronic data processing in the framework of the report to the European Parliament and the Council on the functioning of this Directive which should contain, if appropriate, a legislative proposal.\n(22)\nWithin the framework of the report to the European Parliament and the Council on the functioning of this Directive, the Commission should consider how far the purpose of this Directive, namely the simplification of administrative formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States, should be extended to the areas inland of those ports, particularly to river transport, with a view to the quicker and smoother movement of maritime traffic inland and a lasting solution to congestion in and around seaports.\n(23)\nSince the objectives of this Directive, in particular to facilitate maritime transport in a harmonised way across the Union, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may take 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 those objectives.\n(24)\nAccording to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, where transposition of a directive is pointless for reasons of geography, this transposition is not mandatory. Therefore, requirements foreseen in this Directive are not relevant for Member States which do not have any ports at which ships falling under the scope of this Directive normally can call.\n(25)\nThe measures stipulated in this Directive help achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Agenda.\n(26)\nAccess to SafeSeaNet and to other electronic systems should be regulated in order to protect commercial and confidential information and without prejudice to the applicable law on the protection of commercial data and, in respect of personal data, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (13) and to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (14). The Member States and the Union institutions and bodies should pay particular attention to the need to protect commercial and confidential information through appropriate access control systems.\n(27)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (15), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Union, their own tables, which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n(28)\nIn the interest of clarity, Directive 2002/6/EC should be replaced by this Directive,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. The purpose of this Directive is to simplify and harmonise the administrative procedures applied to maritime transport by making the electronic transmission of information standard and by rationalising reporting formalities.\n2. This Directive shall apply to the reporting formalities applicable to maritime transport for ships arriving in and ships departing from ports situated in Member States.\n3. This Directive shall not apply to ships exempted from reporting formalities.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018reporting formalities\u2019 means the information set out in the Annex which, in accordance with the legislation applicable in a Member State, must be provided for administrative and procedural purposes when a ship arrives in or departs from a port in that Member State;\n(b)\n\u2018FAL Convention\u2019 means the IMO Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, adopted on 9 April 1965, as amended;\n(c)\n\u2018FAL forms\u2019 means the standardised forms, as provided for in the FAL Convention;\n(d)\n\u2018ship\u2019 means any seagoing vessel or craft;\n(e)\n\u2018SafeSeaNet\u2019 means the Union maritime information exchange system as defined in Directive 2002/59/EC;\n(f)\n\u2018electronic transmission of data\u2019 means the process of transmitting information that has been encoded digitally, using a revisable structured format which can be used directly for storage and processing by computers.\nArticle 3\nHarmonisation and coordination of reporting formalities\n1. Each Member State shall take measures to ensure that the reporting formalities are requested in a harmonised and coordinated manner within that Member State.\n2. The Commission shall, in cooperation with the Member States, develop mechanisms for the harmonisation and coordination of reporting formalities within the Union.\nArticle 4\nNotification prior to arrival into ports\nSubject to specific provisions on notification provided for in the applicable legal acts of the Union or under international legal instruments applicable to maritime transport and binding on the Member States, including provisions on control of persons and goods, Member States shall ensure that the master or any other person duly authorised by the operator of the ship provides notification, prior to arriving in a port situated in a Member State, of the information required under the reporting formalities to the competent authority designated by that Member State:\n(a)\nat least 24 hours in advance; or\n(b)\nat the latest, at the time the ship leaves the previous port, if the voyage time is less than 24 hours; or\n(c)\nif the port of call is not known or it is changed during the voyage, as soon as this information is available.\nArticle 5\nElectronic transmission of data\n1. Member States shall accept the fulfilment of reporting formalities in electronic format and their transmission via a single window as soon as possible and in any case no later than 1 June 2015.\nThis single window, linking SafeSeaNet, e-Customs and other electronic systems, shall be the place where, in accordance with this Directive, all information is reported once and made available to various competent authorities and the Member States.\n2. Without prejudice to the relevant format set out in the FAL Convention, the format referred to in paragraph 1 shall comply with Article 6.\n3. Where reporting formalities are required by legal acts of the Union and to the extent necessary for the good functioning of the single window established pursuant to paragraph 1, the electronic systems referred to in paragraph 1 must be interoperable, accessible and compatible with the SafeSeaNet system established in accordance with Directive 2002/59/EC and, where applicable, with the computer systems stipulated in Decision No 70/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on a paperless environment for customs and trade (16).\n4. Without prejudice to specific provisions on customs and border control set out in Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and Regulation (EC) No 562/2006, Member States shall consult economic operators and inform the Commission of progress made using the methods stipulated in Decision No 70/2008/EC.\nArticle 6\nExchange of data\n1. Member States shall ensure that information received in accordance with the reporting formalities provided in a legal act of the Union is made available in their national SafeSeaNet systems and shall make relevant parts of such information available to other Member States via the SafeSeaNet system. Unless otherwise provided by a Member State, this shall not apply to information received pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 450/2008.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the information received in accordance with paragraph 1 is accessible, upon request, to the relevant national authorities.\n3. The underlying digital format of the messages to be used within national SafeSeaNet systems in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be established in accordance with Article 22a of Directive 2002/59/EC.\n4. Member States may provide relevant access to the information referred to in paragraph 1 either through a national single window via an electronic data exchange system or through the national SafeSeaNet systems.\nArticle 7\nInformation in FAL forms\nMember States shall accept FAL forms for the fulfilment of reporting formalities. Member States may accept that information required in accordance with a legal act of the Union is provided in a paper format until 1 June 2015 only.\nArticle 8\nConfidentiality\n1. Member States shall, in accordance with the applicable legal acts of the Union or national legislation, take the necessary measures to ensure the confidentiality of commercial and other confidential information exchanged in accordance with this Directive.\n2. Member States shall take particular care to protect commercial data collected under this Directive. In respect of personal data, Member States shall ensure that they comply with Directive 95/46/EC. The Union institutions and bodies shall ensure that they comply with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\nArticle 9\nExemptions\nMember States shall ensure that ships falling within the scope of Directive 2002/59/EC and operating between ports situated in the customs territory of the Union, but which do not come from, call at or are headed towards a port situated outside that territory or a free zone subject to type I controls under customs legislation, are exempt from the obligation to send the information referred to in the FAL forms, without prejudice to the applicable legal acts of the Union and the possibility that Member States may request information in the FAL forms referred to in points 1 to 6 of Part B of the Annex to this Directive which is necessary to protect internal order and security and to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, environmental or sanitary laws.\nArticle 10\nAmendment procedure\n1. The Commission may adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as regards the Annex to this Directive, so as to ensure that account is taken of any relevant changes to the FAL forms introduced by the IMO. These amendments shall not have the effect of widening the scope of this Directive.\n2. For the delegated acts referred to in this Article, the procedures set out in Articles 11, 12 and 13 shall apply.\nArticle 11\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 10 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 18 November 2010. The Commission shall make a report in respect of the delegated powers at the latest 6 months before the end of the 5-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 12.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 12 and 13.\nArticle 12\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of powers referred to in Article 10 may be revoked by the European Parliament or by the Council at any time.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of powers shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 13\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 2 months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 2 months.\n2. Where, on expiry of the initial 2-month period or, if applicable, the extended period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of the initial 2-month period or, if applicable, the extended period where the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. Where the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 14\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 19 May 2012 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 19 May 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 15\nReport\nThe Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council, by 19 November 2013, on the functioning of this Directive, including on the:\n(a)\npossibility of extending the simplification introduced by this Directive to cover inland waterway transport;\n(b)\ncompatibility of the River Information Services with the electronic data transmission process referred to in this Directive;\n(c)\nprogress towards harmonisation and coordination of reporting formalities that has been achieved under Article 3;\n(d)\nfeasibility of avoiding or simplifying formalities for ships that have called at a port in a third country or free zone;\n(e)\navailable data concerning ship traffic/movement within the Union, and/or calling at third country ports or in free zones.\nThe report shall, if appropriate, be accompanied by a legislative proposal.\nArticle 16\nRepeal of Directive 2002/6/EC\nDirective 2002/6/EC shall be repealed as of 19 May 2012. Any references to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive.\nArticle 17\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["83", "80", "98", "72", "17", "37", "65", "50", "91", "86", "78", "74", "4", "94", "44", "58", "49", "11", "64", "85", "81", "90", "46", "89", "28", "23", "48", "18", "1", "79", "No Label", "2", "21", "56", "76"], "gold": ["2", "21", "56", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 19 January 2011\non the equivalence of certain third country public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities and a transitional period for audit activities of certain third country auditors and audit entities in the European Union\n(notified under document C(2011) 117)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/30/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (1), and in particular Article 46(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 45(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC the competent authorities of the Member States are required to register all auditors and audit entities that provide audit reports concerning the annual or consolidated accounts of certain companies incorporated outwith the Community whose transferable securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market within the Community. Article 45(3) of Directive 2006/43/EC requires Member States to subject such auditors and audit entities to their systems of public oversight, quality assurance, investigations and penalties.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2008/627/EC of 29 July 2008 concerning a transitional period for audit activities of certain third country auditors and audit entities (2) allowed the auditors and audit entities from the third countries listed in the Annex to that Decision to continue their activities in the European Union in relation to audit reports concerning the annual or consolidated accounts for financial years starting during the period from 29 June 2008 to 1 July 2010.\n(3)\nThe Commission has carried out assessments of the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities of the third countries and territories listed in the Annex to Decision 2008/627/EC. The assessments were carried out with the assistance of the European Group of Auditors\u2019 Oversight Bodies. The principles governing the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities of those third countries and territories were assessed in the light of the criteria set out in Articles 29, 30 and 32 of Directive 2006/43/EC which govern the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit firms of the Member States. The ultimate objective of cooperation between Member States and third country systems of public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty for auditors and audit entities should be to reach mutual reliance on each other\u2019s oversight systems based on the equivalence of the systems.\n(4)\nFollowing such assessments, it appears that Australia, Canada, China, Croatia, Japan, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea and Switzerland have public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities that operate under similar rules to those set out in Articles 29, 30 and 32 of Directive 2006/43/EC. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities of those third countries as equivalent to the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit firms of the Member States.\n(5)\nWith regard to South Africa, its legislation requires the prior consent of the auditor or audit firm for the transfer of information from the competent authorities in South Africa to the competent authorities in Member States. That requirement for prior consent may present difficulties in the effective implementation of Article 46(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC. Therefore, until the necessary changes are made in South Africa\u2019s legislation, the competent authorities of Member States should require that auditors and audit entities waive their right to prior consent when registering auditors and audit entities that provide audit reports of companies incorporated in South Africa.\n(6)\nThe United States of America have a public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty system for auditors and audit entities that operates under similar rules to those set out in Articles 29, 30 and 32 of Directive 2006/43/EC. However, the competent authorities in the United States of America do not consider that the ultimate objective of cooperation with Member States is to reach mutual reliance with the competent authorities for public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit firms of the Member States. As long as there is no mutual reliance, the provisions of Article 46(1) cannot be fully applied on a permanent basis by Member States for the auditors and audit entities that provide audit reports concerning the annual or consolidated accounts of companies incorporated in the United States of America. Therefore, the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty system for auditors and audit entities of the United States of America should be reviewed for the purpose of assessing the progress made towards reaching mutual reliance. For those reasons, this Decision should be limited in time and cease to apply on 31 July 2013 in respect of the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities of the United States of America.\n(7)\nOnce the Commission has taken a decision recognising that the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty system for auditors and audit entities of a third country or territory is equivalent for the purpose of Article 46(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC, Member States may disapply or modify on the basis of reciprocity the requirements of Article 45(1) and (3) in relation to the auditors and audit entities of that third country or territory. The conditions under which the requirements of Article 45(1) and (3) will be disapplied or modified must be set in a cooperative arrangement as referred to in Article 46(3) of the Directive 2006/43/EC between the Member State and the relevant third country or territory and communicated to the Commission.\n(8)\nAbu Dhabi, Brazil, the Dubai International Financial Centre, Guernsey, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Isle of Man, Jersey, Malaysia, Mauritius, Russia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey have established or are in the process of establishing public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities. However, information about the functioning and the rules governing such systems is not sufficient. In order to carry out a further assessment for the purpose of taking a final equivalence decision in respect of such systems, there is a need to obtain additional information from those third countries and territories. Therefore, it is appropriate to extend the transitional period granted by Decision 2008/627/EC in respect of the auditors and audit entities that provide audit reports concerning the annual or consolidated accounts of companies incorporated in those third countries and territories.\n(9)\nAlthough Egypt was not included in Decision 2008/627/EC, since then it has established a system of public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalties for auditors and audit entities. In order to carry out a further assessment for the purpose of taking a final equivalence decision in respect of Egypt, there is a need to obtain additional information from that third country. Therefore, it is appropriate to include in the transitional period the auditors and audit firms that provide audit reports concerning the annual or consolidated accounts of companies incorporated in Egypt.\n(10)\nBermuda, Cayman Islands, Israel and New Zealand do not have a public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty system for auditors and audit entities in place yet. However, those third countries and territories made a clear public commitment to the Commission with a concrete action plan to establish a public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty system for auditors and audit entities under equivalent rules to those set out in Articles 29, 30 and 32 of Directive 2006/43/EC. Therefore, it is appropriate to extend the transitional period granted by Decision 2008/627/EC in respect of the auditors and audit entities that provide audit reports concerning the annual or consolidated accounts of companies incorporated in those third countries and territories. Nevertheless, the Commission should review the progress made in 2011 by those countries and territories in enacting legislation to establish a public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty system for auditors and audit entities and assess the need to shorten the transitional period as regards those third countries and territories.\n(11)\nThe auditors and audit entities that provide audit reports concerning the annual or consolidated accounts of companies incorporated in Argentina, Bahamas, Chile, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Mexico, Pakistan and Ukraine benefited from the transitional period granted by Decision 2008/627/EC. Since then, they did not provide information regarding their audit regulatory and oversight systems. Under these circumstances, it appears that those third countries are not willing to continue towards having their audit regulation recognised by the Commission as equivalent to the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities of the Member States. Therefore, the transitional period granted to them by Decision 2008/627/EC should not be extended in respect of the auditors and audit entities that provide audit reports concerning the annual or consolidated accounts of companies incorporated in those third countries.\n(12)\nIn order to protect investors, auditors and audit entities that provide audit reports concerning the annual or consolidated accounts of companies incorporated in the third countries listed in the Annex to this Decision should be able to continue their audit activities during the transitional period in the European Union without being registered under Article 45 of Directive 2006/43/EC only if they provide the required information. Provided they give the information, those auditors and audit entities should be able to continue their activities in relation to audit reports concerning annual or consolidated accounts for financial years starting during the period from 2 July 2010 to 31 July 2012. This Decision should not affect Member States\u2019 rights to apply their investigation and penalty systems in respect of such auditors and audit entities.\n(13)\nWhere a company incorporated in one of the third countries or territories listed in Article 1 of this Decision whose transferable securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market of a Member State, but which is not admitted to trading in the third country or territory where it is incorporated, Member States should ensure that all the audit engagements related to the financial statements of such a company are covered by the cooperative arrangements concluded with the third country or territory concerned to determine which public oversight, quality assurance, investigations and penalties system will apply to the auditors of such companies. In a case where such audit engagements are undertaken by an auditor or audit entity of another Member State, Member States should cooperate to ensure that the audit engagement is included in the scope of one of their public oversight, quality assurance, investigations and penalty systems.\n(14)\nWhere a company incorporated in one of the third countries or territories listed in the Annex to this Decision whose transferable securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market of a Member State, but which is not admitted to trading in the third country or territory where it is incorporated, Member States should cooperate with the third country or territory concerned to ensure that all the audit engagements related to the financial statements of such a company are covered by a public oversight, quality assurance, investigations and penalties system. In a case where such audit engagements are undertaken by an auditor or audit entity of another Member State, Member States should cooperate to ensure that the audit engagement is included in the scope of one of their public oversight, quality assurance, investigations and penalty systems.\n(15)\nDuring the transitional period, equivalence decisions should not be taken by Member States at national level. The fact that auditors and audit entities that provide audit reports concerning the annual or consolidated accounts of companies incorporated in the third countries and territories listed in the Annex to this Decision may, under this Decision, continue their audit activities with regard to companies referred to in Article 45 of Directive 2006/43/EC, should not prevent Member States from establishing cooperative arrangements on individual quality assurance reviews between the competent authorities of a Member State and the competent authorities of a third country or territory.\n(16)\nThe Commission should monitor the operation of the transitional arrangements and examine the progress made by the third countries and territories to which a transitional period was granted or extended. At the end of the transitional period, the Commission may decide on the equivalence of the public oversight, quality assurance, investigations and penalties systems for auditors and audit entities of the third countries and territories concerned. The Commission should review whether the Member States encountered difficulties in obtaining recognition as equivalent by the third countries and territories concerned by this Decision in relation to the public oversight, quality assurance and investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit firms of the Member States.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 48(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purpose of Article 46(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC, the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities of the following third countries shall be considered equivalent to the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit firms of the Member States in relation to audit activities concerning the annual or consolidated accounts for financial years starting from 2 July 2010:\n1.\nAustralia\n2.\nCanada\n3.\nChina\n4.\nCroatia\n5.\nJapan\n6.\nSingapore\n7.\nSouth Africa\n8.\nSouth Korea\n9.\nSwitzerland\n10.\nThe United States of America.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall not apply Article 45 of Directive 2006/43/EC in relation to auditors and audit entities that provide audit reports concerning the annual or consolidated accounts of companies incorporated in the third countries and territories listed in the Annex to this Decision, as referred to in Article 45(1) of that Directive, for financial years starting during the period from 2 July 2010 to 31 July 2012, in cases where the auditor or audit entity concerned provides the competent authorities of the Member State with all of the following:\n(a)\nthe name and address of the auditor or audit entity concerned and information about its legal structure;\n(b)\nwhere the auditor or the audit entity belongs to a network, a description of the network;\n(c)\nthe auditing standards and independence requirements which have been applied to the audit concerned;\n(d)\na description of the internal quality control system of the audit entity;\n(e)\nan indication of whether and when the last quality assurance review of the auditor or audit entity was carried out and, unless this information is being provided by the third country competent authority, the necessary information about the outcome of the review. Where the necessary information about the outcome of the last quality assurance review is not public, the competent authorities of Member States shall treat such information on a confidential basis.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the public is informed about the name and address of auditors and audit entities that provide audit reports concerning the annual or consolidated accounts of companies incorporated in the third countries and territories listed in the Annex to this Decision and about the fact that the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems of those countries and territories are not yet recognised as equivalent under Article 46(2) of Directive 2006/43/EC. For these purposes, the competent authorities of Member States referred to in Article 45 of Directive 2006/43/EC may also register the auditors and audit entities that carry out audits of the annual or consolidated accounts of companies incorporated in the third countries and territories listed in the Annex to this Decision.\n3. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States may apply their investigation and penalty systems to the auditors and audit entities that carry out audits of the annual or consolidated accounts of companies incorporated in third countries and territories listed in the Annex.\n4. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to cooperative arrangements on quality assurance reviews between the competent authorities of a Member State and the competent authorities of a third country or territory listed in the Annex provided that such an arrangement meets all the following criteria:\n(a)\nit includes carrying out quality assurance reviews on the basis of equality of treatment;\n(b)\nit has been communicated in advance to the Commission;\n(c)\nit does not pre-empt any Commission decision under Article 47 of Directive 2006/43/EC.\nArticle 3\nThe Commission shall monitor the situation of the third countries and territories listed in the Annex. In particular, the Commission shall monitor whether the competent administrative authorities of those third countries and territories listed in the Annex that made a public commitment to the Commission to establish public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities have established such systems, on the basis of the following principles:\n(a)\nthe systems are independent from the audit profession;\n(b)\nthey ensure adequate oversight for audits of listed companies;\n(c)\ntheir operation is transparent and ensures that the outcome of quality assurance reviews is reliable;\n(d)\nthey are supported by investigations and penalties in an effective way.\nWith regard to Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Israel and New Zealand, the Commission shall, in particular, review the progress made in enacting legislation to establish a public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty system for auditors and audit entities in 2011. Where necessary, the Commission shall amend the Annex to this Decision accordingly.\nArticle 4\nPoint 10 of Article 1 shall cease to apply on 31 July 2013.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 January 2011.", "references": ["65", "2", "84", "25", "85", "1", "43", "21", "15", "79", "39", "18", "32", "45", "62", "64", "5", "72", "66", "24", "81", "6", "98", "27", "42", "94", "0", "11", "17", "33", "No Label", "46", "47", "50"], "gold": ["46", "47", "50"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 234/2012\nof 16 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 March 2012.", "references": ["50", "5", "23", "30", "53", "47", "83", "67", "2", "1", "69", "32", "14", "79", "87", "84", "33", "78", "56", "40", "44", "72", "90", "6", "21", "95", "39", "96", "60", "42", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 622/2012\nof 11 July 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 641/2009 with regard to ecodesign requirements for glandless standalone circulators and glandless circulators integrated in products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Ecodesign Consultation Forum,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 7 of Regulation (EC) No 641/2009 of 22 July 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for glandless standalone circulators and glandless circulators integrated in products (2) requires the Commission to review the methodology for calculating the energy efficiency index, set out in Annex II, point 2, to that Regulation, for glandless circulators integrated in products before 1 January 2012.\n(2)\nThe review carried out by the Commission as well as experience gained with the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 641/2009 revealed the necessity to amend certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 641/2009 in order to avoid unintended impacts on the circulator markets and on the performance of the products covered by that Regulation.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 19(1) of Directive 2009/125/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 641/2009\nRegulation (EC) No 641/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticles 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation establishes ecodesign requirements for the placing on the market of glandless standalone circulators and glandless circulators integrated in products.\n2. This Regulation shall not apply to:\n(a)\ndrinking water circulators, except as regards the product information requirements of Annex I, point 2(1)(d);\n(b)\ncirculators integrated in products and placed on the market no later than 1 January 2020 as replacement for identical circulators integrated in products and placed on the market no later than 1 August 2015, except as regards the product information requirements of Annex I, point 2(1)(e).\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u201ccirculator\u201d means an impeller pump, with or without pump housing, which has the rated hydraulic output power of between 1 W and 2 500 W and is designed for use in heating systems or in secondary circuits of cooling distribution systems;\n(2)\n\u201cglandless circulator\u201d means a circulator with the rotor directly coupled to the impeller and the rotor immersed in the pumped medium;\n(3)\n\u201cstandalone circulator\u201d means a circulator, designed to operate independently from the product;\n(4)\n\u201cproduct\u201d means an appliance that generates and/or transfers heat;\n(5)\n\u201ccirculator integrated in a product\u201d means a circulator designed to operate as part of a product carrying at least one of the following design details:\n(a)\nthe pump housing is designed to be mounted and used inside a product;\n(b)\nthe circulator is designed to be speed controlled by the product;\n(c)\nthe circulator is designed for safety features not suitable for standalone operation (ISO IP classes);\n(d)\nthe circulator is defined as part of product approval or product CE marking;\n(6)\n\u201cdrinking water circulator\u201d means a circulator specifically designed to be used in the recirculation of water intended for human consumption as defined in Article 2 of the Council Directive 98/83/EC (3);\n(7)\n\u201cpump housing\u201d means the part of an impeller pump which is intended to be connected to the pipe work of the heating systems or secondary circuits of the cooling distribution system.\n(2)\nArticle 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 7\nRevision\nThe Commission shall review this Regulation before 1 January 2017, in the light of technological progress.\nThe review shall include the assessment of design options that can facilitate reuse and recycling.\nThe results of the review shall be presented to the Ecodesign Consultation Forum.\u2019;\n(3)\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EC) No 641/2009 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 July 2012.", "references": ["65", "34", "67", "3", "76", "66", "52", "2", "17", "35", "43", "92", "24", "47", "80", "72", "38", "77", "8", "44", "15", "32", "64", "49", "12", "70", "39", "42", "31", "9", "No Label", "25", "58", "78", "85", "87"], "gold": ["25", "58", "78", "85", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 157/2012\nof 22 February 2012\namending and derogating from Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) and Article 148(c), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products reached on the basis of Article 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as approved by Council Decision 2011/818/EU (2), provides for an increase in the annual duty free tariff quota and an extension to all types of cheeses originating in Norway as from 1 January 2012. Those changes need to be reflected in Articles 5 and 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 (3) and in Part H of Annex I to that Regulation.\n(2)\nWhilst the current quota is managed on the basis of a yearly period running from July to June, the increased quota will be managed on a calendar year basis. By way of derogation from Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, which provides for division into two equal parts for 6-month periods, the available quantity for 2012 should take account of the quantity of 2 000 tonnes already made available in 2011 for the first half of 2012. Consequently, only a quantity of 1 600 tonnes should be available for the subperiod which, for organisational reasons, is to start on 1 March 2012. However, this Regulation should be without prejudice to the quantity of 2 000 tonnes already made available for the period from 1 January to 30 June 2012.\n(3)\nSince the period for lodging import licence applications for the first half of 2012, as provided for in Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, has expired, provision should be made for a new period for submitting import licence applications and for a derogation from that Article in relation to the quantity of 1 600 tonnes for the subperiod March-June 2012. In order to avoid that applicants who already lodged applications in November 2011 for the quantity of 2 000 tonnes would be excluded from the new submission period, it is appropriate to provide for a derogation from Article 6(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (4).\n(4)\nArticle 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides for the notification of the quantities covered by import licences within 2 months of expiry of the validity of the licences in question. However, for purposes of good management, it is necessary for the Commission to have this information at an earlier stage. An appropriate notification obligation should therefore be provided for in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 2535/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001\nRegulation (EC) No 2535/2001 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 5, point (h) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(h)\nthe quotas provided for in Annex V to the Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway, approved by Council Decision 2011/818/EU (5), hereinafter referred to as \u201cthe Agreement with Norway\u201d;\n(2)\nin Article 16, the following paragraph 5 is added:\n\u20185. By way of derogation from point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) in conjunction with the second subparagraph of that Article of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantities, including nil returns, covered by import licences they have issued, within 10 working days following the end of the period for issuing those licences referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 19(1), point (g) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(g)\nRules referred to in point 9 of the Agreement with Norway;\u2019;\n(4)\nPart H of Annex I is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nDerogation from Regulations (EC) No 2535/2001 and (EC) No 1301/2006\n1. By way of derogation from Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, for the quota for the period from 1 March to 30 June 2012 relating to a quantity of 1 600 tonnes, as set out in Part H of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 as amended by the Annex to this Regulation, applications for import licences may be lodged from 1 to 10 March 2012.\nThose applications shall relate to not less than 10 tonnes.\n2. Import licences issued in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be valid until 30 June 2012.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 March 2012.\nHowever, this Regulation shall be without prejudice to the quantity of 2 000 tonnes already made available for the period from 1 January to 30 June 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 February 2012.", "references": ["3", "58", "69", "20", "18", "99", "38", "56", "26", "41", "79", "43", "87", "10", "14", "74", "29", "12", "78", "6", "81", "76", "88", "24", "30", "98", "64", "90", "16", "48", "No Label", "8", "9", "21", "22", "23", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "9", "21", "22", "23", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2010/32/EU\nof 10 May 2010\nimplementing the Framework Agreement on prevention from sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector concluded by HOSPEEM and EPSU\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 155(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe social partners may, in accordance with Article 155(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the TFEU), jointly request that agreements concluded by them at the level of the Union in matters covered by Article 153 of the TFEU be implemented by a Council decision on a proposal from the Commission.\n(2)\nBy letter of 17 November 2008, the European social partner organisations HOSPEEM (the European Hospital and Healthcare Employers\u2019 Association, a sectoral organisation representing employers) and EPSU (the European Federation of Public Services Unions, a European trade union organisation) informed the Commission of their wish to enter into negotiations in accordance with Article 138(4) and Article 139 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (the EC Treaty) (1) with a view to concluding a Framework Agreement on prevention from sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector.\n(3)\nOn 17 July 2009 the European social partners signed the text of a Framework Agreement on prevention from sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector.\n(4)\nSince the objectives of the Directive, namely to achieve the safest possible working environment by preventing injuries to workers caused by all medical sharps (including needle-sticks) and protecting workers at risk in the hospital and healthcare sector, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at the level of the Union, 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 those objectives.\n(5)\nWhen drafting its proposal for a Directive, the Commission took account of the representativeness of the signatory parties, having regard to the scope of the Agreement, for the hospital and healthcare sector, their mandate and the legality of the clauses in the Framework Agreement and its compliance with the relevant provisions concerning small and medium-sized undertakings.\n(6)\nThe Commission informed the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee of its proposal.\n(7)\nThe European Parliament adopted on 11 February 2010 a resolution on the proposal.\n(8)\nThe purpose of the Framework Agreement as set out in Clause 1 thereof is to further the achievement of one of the objectives of social policy, namely the improvement of working conditions.\n(9)\nClause 11 allows the Member States and the Community (since 1 December 2009 replaced by the Union) to maintain and introduce provisions which are more favourable to workers\u2019 protection from injuries caused by medical sharps.\n(10)\nThe Member States should provide for effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties in the event of any breach of the obligations under this Directive.\n(11)\nThe Member States may entrust the social partners, at their joint request, with the implementation of this Directive, as long as they take all the steps necessary to ensure that they can at all times guarantee the results imposed by this Directive.\n(12)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making (2), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nThis Directive implements the Framework Agreement on prevention from sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector signed by the European social partners HOSPEEM and EPSU on 17 July 2009, as set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall determine what penalties are applicable when national provisions enacted pursuant to this Directive are infringed. The penalties shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\nArticle 3\n1. The Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive or shall ensure that the social partners have introduced the necessary measures by agreement by 11 May 2013 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nWhen the Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. The Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2010.", "references": ["72", "37", "35", "28", "12", "70", "96", "3", "19", "20", "6", "76", "29", "43", "64", "77", "54", "68", "14", "40", "33", "65", "90", "13", "60", "79", "85", "32", "49", "30", "No Label", "38", "51", "58"], "gold": ["38", "51", "58"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 853/2010\nof 27 September 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 819/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["86", "25", "47", "74", "9", "96", "73", "6", "55", "32", "23", "94", "21", "17", "8", "93", "54", "76", "85", "98", "37", "30", "46", "40", "33", "36", "34", "56", "79", "90", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 601/2010\nof 8 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 July 2010.", "references": ["43", "47", "34", "31", "58", "33", "86", "51", "32", "28", "95", "10", "39", "46", "25", "9", "83", "22", "62", "69", "54", "89", "2", "15", "4", "73", "75", "21", "11", "42", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 643/2011\nof 1 July 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 as regards import duties on sorghum and rye\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 5(4) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 on rules of application (cereal sector import duties) for Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (2) stipulates that the representative cif import price determined for barley shall be used for calculating import duties on sorghum and rye.\n(2)\nTrends in the barley market and the minor importance of the United States on the world market for this product mean that barley no longer provides an estimate of the sorghum market. Furthermore, the sources of information on the sorghum market are too few or too unreliable to provide a basis for setting import duties for this product. Lastly, it appears from the sources available that the prices of sorghum and of maize exported from the United States are very close to one another. Consequently, the representative cif import price calculated for maize should be applied to sorghum. Furthermore, the existing equality between the duties that apply to rye and those that apply to sorghum should be maintained.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 642/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 642/2010 is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 5 shall be amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe introductory phrase of paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018For common wheat of high quality, durum wheat and maize referred to in Article 2(1) of this Regulation, the components determining the representative cif import prices referred to in Article 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be:\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The representative cif import prices for durum wheat, high quality common wheat and maize shall be the sum of the components referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1. The representative cif import prices for sorghum and rye shall be those calculated for maize.\u2019;\n2.\nAnnex III is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2011.", "references": ["9", "94", "33", "5", "61", "83", "25", "21", "42", "58", "79", "72", "8", "14", "97", "36", "10", "89", "46", "30", "60", "3", "45", "24", "39", "76", "38", "81", "18", "55", "No Label", "22", "35", "53", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "53", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 6 July 2010\non State aid C 34/08 (ex N 170/08) which Germany is planning to implement in favour of Deutsche Solar AG\n(notified under document C(2010) 4489)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/4/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) of the latter,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1),\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy electronic notification of 28 March 2008, registered the same day at the Commission, Germany notified to the Commission, in line with the individual notification requirement resulting from the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 (2) (hereinafter RAG), its intention to provide regional aid for a large investment project in favour of Deutsche Solar AG, for the setting-up of a plant to produce solar wafers in Freiberg, Saxony, Germany.\n(2)\nOn 27 February 2008 and on 25 June 2008, a meeting took place between the Commission services and the German authorities. The Commission requested additional information by letter of 28 May 2008 and sent an information letter on 10 June 2008. The additional information was provided by Germany by letter of 16 June 2008.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 16 July 2008, with reference C(2008) 3507 final, the Commission informed Germany that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the aid.\n(4)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) on 26 August 2008. The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid measure.\n(5)\nBy letters dated 7 August (A/16575) and 26 September (A/19789) 2008, the German authorities asked a delay to submit their comments. The Commission received the comments from the German authorities on 31 October (A/22972) and 2 December (A/25961) 2008. The Commission received no comments from third parties.\n(6)\nBy letters dated 7 April (A/8226), 29 May (A/13120), 4 (A/25461) and 17 (A/26433) December 2009, and 12 January (A/550), 26 April (A/7045), 14 May (A/8206), and 10 June (A/9628) 2010, the German authorities submitted additional information to the Commission.\n(7)\nOn 12 October 2009, a meeting took place between the Commission services and the German authorities as well as the investor in Berlin.\n2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\n2.1. Objective of the measure\n(8)\nThe aid project aims at promoting regional development. The investment is to take place in eastern Germany, namely Freiberg in the land Saxony, an assisted area pursuant to Article 107(3)(a) TFEU.\n(9)\nThe German authorities intend to provide regional investment aid to Deutsche Solar AG (hereinafter DS) for the setting-up of a plant to produce solar wafers. The total eligible costs of the notified investment amount to EUR 350 million in nominal value.\n2.2. The beneficiary\n(10)\nThe beneficiary of the financial support is DS, a company producing crystalline silicon based solar wafers. DS is a 100 % daughter company of SolarWorld AG (hereinafter SW). The SW group is active at worldwide level (production sites in Germany, the US and South Korea) in the solar power industry, combining all stages of the solar value chain, from the raw material silicon to turn-key solar power plants. SW group produces solar wafers, solar cells and solar modules with the exception of solar systems (4). In 2009, SW group had 2 000 employees and a consolidated revenue exceeding EUR 1 billion.\n(11)\nFurther to the notified investment in Freiberg East, DS already has two other production plants located in Freiberg, Sachsen (one in the industrial park Freiberg South and one in the industrial park Freiberg Saxonia). The three sites are located within 5-6 km distance from each other. In 2007, DS had a turnover of EUR 318 million. In 2008, DS had 770 employees. Other 100 % subsidiaries of SW group located in Freiberg are Deutsche Cell GmbH (production of solar cells), Solar Factory GmbH (production of solar modules), Sunicon AG (recycling of silicon), SolarWorld Innovations GmbH (R & D), and SolarWorld Solicium GmbH (production of silicon). SW also holds 49 % in the Freiberg based JSSi GmbH (production of silicon), a joint venture with Evonik Degussa GmbH.\n2.3. The project\n2.3.1. Notified project (Freiberg East)\n(12)\nGermany notified aid for a large investment project by DS, consisting in the setting-up of a new plant for the production of multi-crystalline solar wafers in Freiberg East. The new plant is planned to have a nominal annual capacity of 500 Megawatt peak (MWp) (5).\n(13)\nThe project started on 18 December 2007. The investment project should be finalised in 2010 and full production will be reached by end of 2010.\n(14)\nWith the new project, DS intends to create at least 130 direct jobs and the same number of indirect jobs in a region with high unemployment rates.\n2.3.2. Previous projects (Freiberg South)\n(15)\nAt the time of the notification, Germany informed the Commission on aid to be granted for another DS investment (project P3 in Freiberg South) started almost simultaneously with the notified project (on 1 September 2007), for the extension of its existing solar wafer plant from 350 to 500 MWp. Eligible costs of this project amount to EUR 49 million (nominal value). The German authorities intended to grant regional aid amounting to EUR 14 million (nominal value) for this investment. The aid for this project was however withdrawn and Germany informed the Commission after the opening of the formal investigation that no aid was paid out or would be granted for this project.\n(16)\nAfter the opening of the formal investigation, Germany informed the Commission about aid granted for a DS investment previous to the above mentioned project P3, started also within 3 years (on 1 June 2006) from the start of the notified investment project in Freiberg East. This project P2 relates to an earlier extension of the existing solar wafer plant (from 270 to 350 MWp), involving aid amounting to EUR 16 905 000 (nominal value) for eligible costs of EUR 49 995 991 (nominal value). The aid was granted in 2006 on the basis of existing aid schemes (6).\n2.4. Legal basis\n(17)\nThe aid for the notified project Freiberg East is to be granted under existing aid schemes in the form of two instruments: a direct grant and an investment premium.\n(18)\nThe direct grant will be based on the aid scheme \u201836. Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe Verbesserung des regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur\u2019 (7) (\u2018Improvement of the regional economic structure\u2019) (hereinafter GA scheme).\n(19)\nThe investment premium will be granted on the basis of the \u2018Investitionszulagengesetz 2007\u2019 (8) (\u2018Law on investment premiums 2007\u2019) and if necessary its successor scheme \u2018Investitionszulagengesetz 2010\u2019 (9) (hereinafter IZ schemes).\n2.5. Investment costs\n(20)\nThe notified project in Freiberg East involves a total eligible investment in nominal value of EUR 350 000 000. A breakdown of the eligible costs over the years is given in the table below:\n(EUR)\n2008\n2009\n2010\nTotal\nEligible costs\n136 000 000\n164 000 000\n50 000 000\n350 000 000\n2.6. Financing of the project\n(21)\nDS will finance the notified project in Freiberg East using own resources and (bank) loans, in addition to the aid applied for. An overview of the relevant amounts per source is given in the table below (nominal values):\n(EUR)\nSource\nAmount\nOwn resources\n[\u2026] (10)\nGrant under GA scheme and IZ schemes\n45 395 000\nBank loan (not covered by public guarantee)\n[\u2026]\nTotal\n350 000 000\n2.7. Applicable regional aid intensity ceiling\n(22)\nFreiberg, Saxony is an assisted area in virtue of Article 107(3)(a) TFEU with a maximum aid intensity of 30 % gross grant equivalent (GGE) for large undertakings according to the RAG and the German regional aid map (11) in force at the time of the notification.\n2.8. Aid amount and aid intensity\n(23)\nThe beneficiary applied for aid for the notified project on 17 August 2007. By letter dated 22 August 2007, the German authorities informed the beneficiary that the project was eligible for aid. Germany committed to not grant the aid before approval by the Commission and to respect the maximum aid approved.\n(24)\nGermany initially notified regional aid amounting to EUR 48 million (nominal value) for the DS investment project in Freiberg East. The Commission however initiated the formal investigation against this aid based on doubts that the notified project should be considered a single investment project (point 60 of the RAG) with a previous aided project in Freiberg South, and that hence the notified aid intensity would exceed the maximum allowable (applying the scaling down mechanism of point 67 of the RAG).\n(25)\nAfter the opening of the formal investigation, Germany informed the Commission that it had withdrawn the aid for project P3 in Freiberg South. Germany also reduced the notified aid for the DS project in Freiberg East to EUR 40 364 760 (discounted value (12)), corresponding to an aid intensity of 12,97 % GGE, in order to limit the total aid granted for the combined eligible costs (EUR 402 865 942 in discounted value) of the notified project and previous projects P2 and P3 undertaken within 3 years to the maximum allowable (EUR 55 749 652 in discounted value - 14,06 % GGE) in a \u2018single investment project\u2019 scenario.\n2.9. General commitments\n(26)\nThe German authorities have committed to submit to the Commission:\n-\nwithin 2 months of granting the aid, a copy of the signed aid contract between the granting authority and the beneficiary,\n-\non a five-yearly basis, starting from the approval of the aid by the Commission, an intermediary report (including information on the aid amounts being paid, on the execution of the aid contract and on any other investment projects started at the same establishment/plant),\n-\nwithin 6 months after payment of the last tranche of the aid, based on the notified payment schedule, a detailed final report.\n3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(27)\nThe Commission, in its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in the present case, noted that it had doubts on the compatibility of the aid with the internal market based on Article 107(3)(a) TFEU and with the RAG.\n(28)\nAccording to point 60 of the RAG, in order to prevent that a large investment project is being artificially divided into sub-projects in order to escape the provisions of these guidelines, an investment project will be considered to be a \u2018single investment project\u2019 when the initial investment is undertaken in a period of 3 years by one or more companies and consists of fixed assets combined in an economically indivisible way.\n(29)\nTo asses whether an initial investment is economically indivisible, the RAG stipulates in its footnote 55 that the Commission will take into account the technical, functional and strategic links and the immediate geographical proximity.\n(30)\nIn case the notified project would constitute a single investment project with project P3 in Freiberg South, the scaling down mechanism of point 67 of the RAG would have to be applied to the combined eligible costs of the two projects, and the notified aid together with the aid to be granted for the project P3 would exceed the maximum allowable, and the excess would be incompatible with Article 107(3)(a) TFEU.\n(31)\nIn its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission noted that the distance of only about 5 km between the location of the notified project (Freiberg East) and the previous project P3 (Freiberg South) could be regarded as immediate geographical proximity. The Commission further noted the presence of certain functional and technical links between the two investments, as well as rather strong strategic links. On this basis, the Commission raised doubts against Germany\u2019s view that the notified project did not constitute a single investment project (in the meaning of point 60 and footnote 55 of the RAG) with the project P3 in Freiberg South, and invited third parties to comment on the indivisibility of the two DS investment projects in Freiberg.\n(32)\nIn its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission also assessed the compatibility with the general provisions of the RAG and with the specific rules for aid to large investment projects in point 68(a) and (b) of the RAG, concluding that the notified measure was in compliance with them.\n4. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(33)\nThe Commission received no observations from third parties.\n5. COMMENTS FROM THE GERMAN AUTHORITIES\n5.1. Initial comments submitted by Germany\n(34)\nIn its initial comments submitted to the Commission (on 31 October and 2 December 2008), Germany expressed the view that the criteria (geographical proximity, technical, functional and strategic links) specified in point 60 and footnote 55 of the RAG are not suitable to determine whether two investment projects should be considered \u2018economically indivisible\u2019, because these factors do not allow to clarify the circumstances in which a project can be considered to be economically viable without the other project. Germany further argued that to interpret the legal concept of \u2018economic indivisibility\u2019 the sole decisive factor is whether one project is economically feasible without the other.\n(35)\nGermany further considered that the Commission\u2019s argument that there is some kind of functional and technical links between the projects in Freiberg East and South is not sufficient to establish that they are economically indivisible. Germany concluded that the Commission\u2019s grounds for initiating the formal investigation procedure were therefore based on a misuse of the discretionary power of the Commission accorded to it under Article 107(3) TFEU, which resulted in a disproportionate decision against the beneficiary of the aid.\n(36)\nMoreover, Germany stated that the application of the criterion \u2018geographical proximity\u2019 is inappropriate for the purpose of preventing subsidy increases, since not all language versions of footnote 55 of the RAG include the requirement that the investment sites be in \u2018immediate\u2019 geographical proximity to one another (e.g. the French version does not specify \u2018immediate\u2019 but only \u2018geographical proximity\u2019). Germany argued that the criteria in footnote 55 do therefore not form a uniform legal framework for the regulation of subsidy spirals.\n(37)\nIn view of the above, Germany concluded that the DS projects in Freiberg South and Freiberg East were not economically indivisible and were not to be considered to form a single investment project in the meaning of point 60 and footnote 55 of the RAG. According to Germany, the notified aid for the Freiberg East investment was therefore not to be reduced applying the scaling down mechanism to the combined eligible investment costs of the DS projects in Freiberg South and East.\n(38)\nWith its initial comments, Germany also submitted updated information on the investment projects undertaken by DS in Freiberg South and East within 3 years from the start of the notified project: previously to the project P3 (extension of solar wafer production capacity from 350 to 500 MWp) in Freiberg South, another project P2 (previous extension of solar wafer production capacity from 270 to 350 MWp) had been undertaken at the same site. Aid had also been granted (under existing aid schemes) to this project P2. Furthermore, Germany informed that the planned aid to project P3 would only be granted in the form of investment premium (based on the IZ scheme).\n5.2. Further updating information submitted to the Commission - amendment of the initial notification\n(39)\nSubsequently to its initial comments, Germany at several stages submitted updated information on the investment projects undertaken or to be undertaken by the beneficiary group in Freiberg South within a period of 3 years from the start of the notified investment project.\n(40)\nThe final picture of the situation is summarised in the table below:\nFreiberg South (P2 - P3)\nFreiberg East\nFreiberg Saxonia\nStatus\nPrevious projects P2 and P3, non-notifiable aid\nNotified project\nFuture project\nProduct\nSolar wafers\nSolar wafers\nSolar modules\nProduction capacity\n(in MWp)\nFrom 270 to 350 (P2)\nFrom 350 to 500 (P3)\n500\n300\nStart of project\n1.6.2006 (P2)\n1.9.2007 (P3)\n18.12.2007\nSummer/Autumn 2010\nEligible costs\n(EUR, nominal values)\n49 995 991 (P2)\n49 000 000 (P3)\n350 000 000\n72 500 000\nAid amount\n(EUR, nominal values)\n16 905 000 (P2)\n0 (13) (P3)\n45 395 000 (14)\n?\n(41)\nThe main changes to the initial notification concern the withdrawal of all aid to be granted for project P3 in Freiberg South, and the reduction of the aid to be granted for the notified project in Freiberg East. Germany also committed that no aid had been or would be paid out for project P3.\n(42)\nGermany informed the Commission in the course of the formal investigation that, even though it did not explicitly admit that the notified project in Freiberg East would form a single investment project in the meaning of point 60 and footnote 55 of the RAG together with the projects in Freiberg South, Germany would limit the total aid granted for the combined eligible costs (EUR 402 865 942 in discounted value) of the three projects P2, P3 and the notified project to the maximum allowable (EUR 55 749 652 in discounted value - 14,06 % GGE) in a \u2018single investment project\u2019 scenario.\n(43)\nAdditionally, Germany also included information on a future large investment project SF III by SW group in Freiberg Saxonia (setting-up of a new plant for the production of solar modules), to be started within 3 years from the start of the notified project, and announced its intention to grant aid to this project. Germany committed to notify the aid for SF III separately and make it conditional to Commission approval.\n6. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n6.1. Existence of State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU\n(44)\nIn its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission concluded that the financial support to be granted by Germany to DS on the basis of existing regional aid schemes (GA scheme and IZ schemes) constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The German authorities have not contested that conclusion.\n6.2. Notification requirement, legality of the aid, and applicable law\n(45)\nBy notifying the planned aid measure on 28 March 2008 before putting it into effect, Germany respected its obligations under Article 108(3) TFEU and the individual notification requirement expressed in Article 7(e) of the Block Exemption Regulation for regional aid.\n(46)\nHaving established that the measure involves State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, it is necessary to consider whether the above mentioned measure can be found compatible with the internal market. As the measure relates to a regional investment aid, the Commission assessed it on the basis of the RAG, and, more specifically, the provisions of section 4.3 of the RAG relating to large investment projects.\n6.3. Compatibility of the aid with general provisions of the RAG\n(47)\nIn its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission indicated that the notified aid is to be granted on the basis of, and in conformity with, the provisions of block-exempted aid schemes which respect the general compatibility criteria of the RAG.\n(48)\nIn particular, the project comprises an initial investment within the meaning of the RAG as it concerns the setting-up of a new establishment. The costs eligible for investment aid are defined in line with the RAG, and the rules on cumulation are respected.\n(49)\nFurthermore, the beneficiary has applied for aid, the German authorities confirmed in writing, before DS started work on the project, that the project was eligible for aid, and agreed to grant the aid subject to the Commission\u2019s approval.\n(50)\nDS has the obligation to maintain the investment in the region for a minimum of 5 years after completion of the project.\n(51)\nDS provides a financial contribution of at least 25 % of the eligible costs in a form which is free of any public support.\n6.4. Compatibility with the provisions for aid to large investment projects\n6.4.1. Single investment project and maximum aid intensity\n(52)\nAccording to point 60 of the RAG, in order to prevent that a large investment project is being artificially divided into sub-projects in order to escape the provisions of these guidelines, an investment project will be considered to be a \u2018single investment project\u2019 when the initial investment is undertaken in a period of 3 years by one or more companies and consists of fixed assets combined in an economically indivisible way.\n(53)\nMember States might be inclined to notify separate projects because treating them as separate instead of as a single investment project normally allows a higher maximum aid intensity due to the application of the automatic scaling-down mechanism (point 67 of the RAG) (15).\n(54)\nIn the present case, the Commission opened the formal investigation based on doubts that the notified aid would exceed the maximum allowable if the project would form a single investment project with a previously subsidised project (P3) in Freiberg South. Project P3 is a follow-up project of P2 (both projects are related to subsequent extensions of the production capacity of an existing solar wafer plant from 270 to 350 MW and then from 350 to 500 MW), which is a classical example of a \u2018single investment project\u2019 scenario. Indeed, the investments are carried out within 3 years in immediate geographical proximity (within the same integrated production site of SW group in Freiberg South) and present clear technical (same product and production technology), functional (same raw material, common suppliers/customers, common services) and strategic (integrated capacity increase strategy addressing a same market) links.\n(55)\nIn this case, Germany withdrew all aid to project P3 and amended the notification to reduce the aid intensity for the notified project in order to limit the total aid granted for the combined eligible costs of the notified project in Freiberg East and two previous projects (P2 and P3) in Freiberg South to the maximum allowable in a \u2018single investment project\u2019 scenario (covering all projects undertaken within 3 years). The Commission therefore does not need to further investigate and take a position on whether the notified project forms a single investment project with these previous projects.\n(56)\nAs regards the calculation of the aid, Germany agreed that projects P3 and P2 will be taken into account for the calculation of the maximum aid intensity like in a \u2018single investment project\u2019 scenario between the notified project and previous projects.\n(57)\nTherefore, regarding the calculation of the maximum allowable aid intensity, in line with point 41 of the RAG, all eligible costs were discounted to the year of granting the first aid to project P2 (12 September 2006), using the discount rate applicable at that date (4,36 %): the total costs amount to EUR 402 865 942 in discounted value. The maximum allowable aid in discounted value in this case would be EUR 55 749 652 (16), corresponding to an aid intensity of 14,06 % GGE for the single investment project.\n(58)\nAs EUR 15 384 891 (discounted value) has already been granted (for P2), the maximum allowable aid for the notified project would be EUR 40 364 760 (discounted value), corresponding to an aid intensity of 12,97 % GGE. Since Germany committed to respect this maximum, it can be concluded that the scaling down rules under point 67 of the RAG are respected even in case the notified project would constitute a single investment project with previous subsidised projects within 3 years.\n(59)\nSince Germany committed to notify the aid for the mentioned future project SF III in Freiberg Saxonia separately and make it conditional to Commission approval, the Commission does not need to take a position in the present decision on whether the notified project forms a single investment project with the future project SF III.\n6.4.2. Compatibility with point 68 of the RAG\n(60)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision to allow regional aid to large investment projects falling under point 68 of the RAG depends on the market shares of the beneficiary before and after the investment and on the capacity created by the investment. To carry out the relevant tests under point 68(a) and (b) of the RAG, the Commission has to establish appropriate product and geographic market definitions.\n(61)\nIn its decision opening the formal investigation, the Commission noted that the product envisaged by the notified investment project is multi-crystalline silicon based solar wafers.\n(62)\nIn line with point 69 of the RAG (where the project concerns an intermediate product and a significant part of the output is not sold on the market, the product concerned may be the downstream product), since the Commission could not exclude that the solar wafers produced in Freiberg East would not, at least partly, be used internally by the beneficiary group for further production into solar cells or solar modules, the Commission took the view, in its decision opening the formal investigation procedure, that the product concerned by the notified project was thus not only solar wafers but also solar cells and solar modules. The Commission further defined the relevant product markets for the assessment of point 68(a) of the RAG to be the markets for solar wafers, solar cells and solar modules, and defined the geographical market for the assessment as being worldwide.\n(63)\nIn its decision to initiate the investigation procedure, the Commission calculated the beneficiary group market shares on all relevant markets before and after the investment (2006 to 2011), taking into account a worst case scenario that the market would not grow after 2010 (as the independent studies available did not provide a forecast for the years after 2010). Since based on these calculations, all market shares were below 20 % before the investment and below 15 % after the investment, the Commission noted that the market shares would not exceed 25 % and concluded that hence the notified aid was in line with point 68(a) of the RAG.\n(64)\nIn its decision to initiate the investigation procedure, the Commission also concluded that since the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the apparent consumption for photovoltaic products in the EEA for the year 2001 to 2006 (35 %) was clearly above the CAGR of the European Economic Area\u2019s GDP (1,97 %) for the same years, there should be no doubt that the CAGR of the apparent consumption in the EEA for the same years for the intermediate products would also be clearly above this 1,97 % even if there was no data available on these intermediate products in the EEA. The Commission consequently concluded that the notified aid was compatible with point 68(b) of the RAG.\n(65)\nDuring the formal investigation procedure there were no indications that could raise doubts on the above statements regarding the compatibility with point 68 of the RAG. Moreover, the analysis in the opening decision demonstrated that the SW group expected market shares on all relevant markets in 2011 were below 15 %, there is thus no risk that when recalculated based on more recent studies they would exceed 25 %.\n(66)\nIn view of the above, the Commission confirms its conclusion taken in the decision to initiate the formal investigation that the notified aid is compatible with point 68 of the RAG.\n6.5. Conclusion\n(67)\nBased on the above assessment, the Commission concludes that the notified aid measure is in line with the RAG and the regional aid map for Germany in force at the time of the notification,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany is planning to implement for Deutsche Solar AG, amounting to EUR 40 364 760 in discounted value, corresponding to an aid intensity of 12,97 % GGE, is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n2. Implementation of the aid amounting to EUR 40 364 760 in discounted value, corresponding to an aid intensity of 12,97 % GGE, is accordingly authorised.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2010.", "references": ["10", "3", "55", "40", "51", "80", "11", "41", "43", "30", "39", "14", "92", "64", "54", "63", "6", "94", "33", "37", "26", "75", "70", "16", "67", "0", "25", "9", "95", "57", "No Label", "15", "34", "48", "78", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "34", "48", "78", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 8 November 2010\nconcerning the non-inclusion of certain substances in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market\n(notified under document C(2010) 7579)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/675/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.\n(2)\nFor a number of substance/product type combinations included in that list, either all participants have discontinued their participation from the review programme, or no complete dossier was received within the time period specified in Article 9 and Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 by the Member State designated as Rapporteur for the evaluation.\n(3)\nConsequently, and pursuant to Articles 11(2), 12(1) and 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the Commission informed the Member States accordingly. That information was also made public by electronic means.\n(4)\nWithin the period of 3 months from those publications, a number of companies indicated an interest in taking over the role of participant for the substances and product-types concerned. However, those companies subsequently failed to submit a complete dossier.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 12(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the substances and product types concerned should therefore not be included in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.\n(6)\nIn the interest of legal certainty, the date should be specified after which biocidal products containing active substances for the product-types indicated in the Annex to this Decision shall no longer be placed on the market.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe substances indicated in the Annex to this Decision shall not be included for the product-types concerned in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.\nArticle 2\nFor the purposes of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, biocidal products containing active substances for the product-types indicated in the Annex to this Decision shall no longer be placed on the market with effect from 1 November 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["27", "96", "12", "43", "44", "31", "91", "56", "72", "41", "5", "94", "61", "2", "4", "26", "87", "9", "3", "75", "18", "19", "0", "32", "92", "57", "49", "40", "99", "85", "No Label", "25", "38", "60", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "60", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 October 2011\non the request by the United Kingdom to accept Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA\n(notified under document C(2011) 7228)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(2011/692/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 331(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Parliament and the Council adopted on 5 April 2011 Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA (1).\n(2)\nPursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom did not take part in the adoption of the Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 4 of the said Protocol, the United Kingdom notified the Commission by letter of 14 July 2011 of its intention to accept the Directive,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2011/36/EU shall apply to the United Kingdom.\nArticle 2\nDirective 2011/36/EU shall come into force for the United Kingdom from the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2011.", "references": ["76", "56", "45", "86", "39", "20", "68", "53", "88", "94", "81", "27", "92", "93", "87", "41", "48", "4", "69", "42", "78", "29", "17", "0", "31", "2", "28", "9", "67", "25", "No Label", "3", "8", "12", "14", "36", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "8", "12", "14", "36", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 2 September 2011\namending Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU on granting Union financial assistance to Ireland\n(2011/542/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUpon a request by Ireland, the Council granted financial assistance to it (Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU (2)) in support of a strong economic and financial reform programme aiming at restoring confidence, enabling the return of the economy to sustainable growth, and safeguarding financial stability in Ireland, the euro area and the Union.\n(2)\nIn line with Article 3(9) of Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU, the Commission, together with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and in liaison with the European Central Bank (ECB), has conducted the third review of the Irish authorities\u2019 progress on the implementation of the agreed measures as well as of the effectiveness and economic and social impact of the agreed measures.\n(3)\nUnder the Commission\u2019s current projections for nominal GDP growth (1,1 % in 2011, 2,8 % in 2012 and 3,8 % in 2013), the fiscal adjustment path is in line with the Council Recommendation to Ireland of 7 December 2010 pursuant to Article 126(7) of the Treaty and is consistent with a path for the debt-to-GDP ratio of 109,9 % in 2011, 116,2 % in 2012 and 119,4 % in 2013. The debt to GDP ratio would peak in 2013 and be placed on a declining path thereafter, assuming further progress in the reduction of the deficit. Debt dynamics are affected by several below-the-line operations, including capital injection into banks in 2011 with net debt-increasing effect of around 6 percentage points of GDP, an assumption to maintain high cash reserves, and differences between accrued and cash interest payments.\n(4)\nThe Irish authorities have indicated that there are very realistic prospects, based on the results of the Liability Management Exercises (LME) conducted thus far, to secure a further EUR 0,51 billion private sector-contribution to the recapitalisation of Bank of Ireland by 31 December 2011. In light of the already large public cost of the bank recapitalisation, and given the conservative approach used to determine Bank of Ireland\u2019s recapitalisation need, it is now deemed unnecessary and indeed inappropriate for Ireland to inject that amount of EUR 0,51 billion in advance of the completion of further private sector-contributions in order to meet the programme deadline, as doing so would result in higher than needed fiscal cost and an unnecessarily high capital adequacy ratio for Bank of Ireland once the proceeds from the further private sector-contribution become available. The deadline for the completion of this part of the recapitalisation of Bank of Ireland has been reset to end 2011.\n(5)\nIn light of these developments, Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nImplementing Decision 2011/77/EU is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Union financial assistance shall be made available by the Commission to Ireland in a maximum of 13 instalments. An instalment may be disbursed in one or several tranches. The maturities of the tranches under the first and third instalments may be longer than the maximum average maturity referred to in paragraph 1. In such cases, the maturities of further tranches shall be set so that the maximum average maturity referred to in paragraph 1 be achieved once all instalments have been disbursed.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 3(7) is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (g) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(g)\nthe recapitalisation of the domestic banks by end July 2011 (subject to appropriate adjustment for expected asset sales and liability management exercises in the cases of Irish Life & Permanent and Bank of Ireland) in line with the findings of the 2011 Prudential Liquidity Assessment Review (PLAR) and Prudential Capital Assessment Review (PCAR), as announced by the Central Bank of Ireland on 31 March 2011. To allow further burden sharing, the final EUR 0,51 billion step in recapitalising Bank of Ireland will be completed by end 2011 and any further recapitalisation of Irish Life & Permanent will be completed following the disposal of the insurance arm.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following points are added:\n\u2018(q)\nthe submission to the D\u00e1il, by end October, of a Pre-Budget Outlook setting out a medium-term fiscal consolidation plan for 2012-15 outlining the overall composition of revenue and expenditure adjustments for each year, consistent with the targets set out in the Council Recommendation of 7 December 2010;\n(r)\nthe announcement, by 2012 Budget day (early December 2011), of binding medium-term expenditure cash ceilings and set out revenue and expenditure measures to deliver the needed adjustment over 2012-15;\n(s)\nthe issuance by the Central Bank of Ireland, by end December 2011, of guidance to banks for the recognition of accounting losses incurred in their loan book;\n(t)\nthe publication by the Central Bank of Ireland, by end December 2011, of new guidelines for the valuation of collateral for bank loans;\n(u)\nthe preparation and discussion, by end December 2011, of a draft programme of asset disposals, including the identification of the potential assets to be disposed, any necessary regulatory changes, and a timetable for implementation.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to Ireland.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2011.", "references": ["63", "98", "56", "14", "67", "93", "0", "57", "18", "74", "7", "70", "4", "48", "82", "36", "54", "21", "64", "39", "86", "76", "3", "78", "90", "23", "34", "79", "35", "43", "No Label", "15", "16", "32", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "16", "32", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 487/2010\nof 3 June 2010\ngranting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 1 June 2010.\n(3)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 1 June 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in point (c) of Article 1 and in Article 2 respectively of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["41", "54", "30", "13", "10", "6", "14", "60", "26", "29", "63", "32", "83", "88", "84", "80", "37", "73", "71", "15", "35", "82", "59", "39", "22", "94", "92", "19", "27", "18", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 11 June 2012\nconcerning national provisions notified by Denmark on certain industrial greenhouse gases\n(notified under document C(2012) 3717)\n(Only the Danish text is authentic)\n(2012/301/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter of 13 February 2012 and pursuant to Article 114(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) the Kingdom of Denmark notified to the Commission that Denmark intends to maintain its national provisions on certain industrial greenhouse gases which are more stringent than Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases (1) beyond 31 December 2012, the end date of the authorisation by Commission Decision 2007/62/EC (2), adopted in accordance with Article 95(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) (now Article 114(6) TFEU).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 842/2006 on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-gases) aims at preventing and containing the emissions of certain F-gases (HFCs, PFCs and SF6) covered by the Kyoto Protocol. It also contains a limited number of use bans and placing on the market prohibitions when alternatives were considered available and cost effective at Community level and where improvement of containment and recovery were regarded as not feasible.\n(3)\nThe Regulation has a double legal base, Article 175(1) TEC (now Article 192(1) TFEU) with respect to all provisions but Articles 7, 8 and 9, which are based on Article 95 TEC (now Article 114 TFEU) due to their implications in terms of free circulation of goods within the Union\u2019s single market.\n(4)\nDenmark has had national provisions on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases since 2002 and notified those provisions to the Commission in its letter of 2 June 2006. A general ban on the import, sale and use of new products containing the covered F-gases is accompanied by derogations specified in Annex I of the Order. These derogations relate to a number of highly specific applications and, for a number of more common applications, are based on the quantity of greenhouse gases used in the respective systems, thereby exempting for instance refrigeration units, heat pumps or air conditioning units with charges between 0,15 kg and 10 kg as well as refrigeration systems for recovering heat with a charge less or equal to 50 kg. Products for ships and military use as well as the use of SF6 in high voltage units are exempted. On 8 December 2006 the Commission decided with reference to Article 95(6) TEC (now Article 114(6) TFEU) to authorise Denmark to maintain the provisions until 31 December 2012.\n(5)\nSince the adoption of Decision 2007/62/EC the circumstances justifying maintaining more stringent provisions, as laid out in that decision, persist. The national rules remain part of a broader strategy put in place by Denmark in order to meet its emission reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol and the subsequent burden sharing agreement adopted at Union level. Under this arrangement, Denmark has undertaken to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 21 % over the 2008-2012 period compared to the base year, 1990. The notified measures are reported to have significantly contributed to the reduction of HFC emissions in Denmark. In the decisions adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community\u2019s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020 (3), Denmark has undertaken to further reduce emissions by 20 % in 2020 compared to 2005 levels.\n(6)\nThe derogations provided for in the Order, as well as the possibility to grant in very specific cases individual exemptions from the general ban, ensure the proportionality of the measure. Furthermore, it concerns only new equipment and allows the use of F-gases for the servicing and maintenance of existing equipment so that unnecessary abandonment of equipment is avoided.\n(7)\nWhile noting that the Order has implications on the free circulation of goods within the Union, the provisions are general and apply to national and imported products alike. There is no evidence that the notified national provisions have been or will be used as a means of arbitrary discrimination between economic operators in the Union. In view of the risks for the environment resulting from the use of F-gases, the Commission confirms its assessment that the notified national provisions do not constitute a disproportionate obstacle to the functioning of the internal market in relation to the pursued objectives, in particular considering the conclusions of the recent assessment of the application, effects and adequacy of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 (4) that further measures for the reduction of F-gas emissions are necessary to reach the agreed Union-wide greenhouse gas emission targets.\n(8)\nThe Commission is of the opinion that the request by Denmark, submitted on 13 February 2012, for maintaining its national legislation more stringent than Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 with respect to the placing on the market of products and equipment containing, or whose functioning relies upon, F-gases, is admissible.\n(9)\nMoreover, the Commission confirms its Decision 2007/62/EC that the national provisions in Order No 552 of 2 July 2002:\n-\nmeet needs on grounds of the protection of the environment,\n-\ntake into account the existence and technical and economic availability of alternatives to the banned applications in Denmark,\n-\nare likely to result in limited economic impact,\n-\nare not a means of arbitrary discrimination,\n-\ndo not constitute a disguised restriction on trade between Member States, and\n-\nare thus compatible with the Treaty.\nThe Commission therefore considers that they can be approved.\n(10)\nThe Commission may at any moment reassess whether the conditions for the approval continue to be fulfilled. This may, in particular, become relevant in the case of substantial changes to Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 or to Decision No 406/2009/EC. Considering this possibility and the long term commitments of the EU and its Member States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a limitation of the duration of the approval to a specific date is not deemed necessary,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe national provisions on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases, which the Kingdom of Denmark notified to the Commission by letter, dated 13 February 2012, and which are more stringent than Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 with respect to the placing on the market of products and equipment containing, or whose functioning relies upon, F-gases, are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.\nDone at Brussels, 11 June 2012.", "references": ["67", "4", "86", "8", "27", "85", "46", "62", "2", "3", "76", "10", "22", "48", "40", "61", "56", "32", "20", "89", "88", "16", "51", "80", "53", "14", "1", "63", "30", "81", "No Label", "58", "60", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["58", "60", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUCAP NESTOR/1/2012\nof 17 July 2012\nconcerning the appointment of the Head of the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR)\n(2012/426/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2012/389/CFSP of 16 July 2012 on the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR) (1), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 9(1) of Decision 2012/389/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nThe High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Mr Jacques LAUNAY as Head of Mission of EUCAP NESTOR from 17 July 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Jacques LAUNAY is hereby appointed Head of the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR) from 17 July 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 17 July 2012.", "references": ["93", "68", "92", "99", "85", "10", "65", "5", "81", "13", "8", "24", "52", "71", "46", "69", "4", "63", "67", "22", "31", "2", "50", "77", "19", "80", "39", "60", "38", "9", "No Label", "3", "7", "53", "94"], "gold": ["3", "7", "53", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1180/2010\nof 13 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["80", "91", "28", "13", "78", "51", "92", "83", "26", "3", "19", "87", "37", "45", "9", "22", "24", "29", "48", "86", "0", "63", "43", "18", "96", "30", "47", "71", "21", "75", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 214/2011\nof 3 March 2011\namending Annexes I and V to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals (1), and in particular Article 22(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 689/2008 implements the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade, signed on 11 September 1998 and approved, on behalf of the Community, by Council Decision 2003/106/EC (2).\n(2)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 should be amended to take into account regulatory action in respect of certain chemicals taken pursuant to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (3), Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (4) and Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (5).\n(3)\nAnnex V to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 should be amended to take into account decisions taken in respect of certain chemicals under the Stockholm Convention on persistant organic pollutants (the Stockholm Convention), signed on 22 May 2001 and approved, on behalf of the Community, by Council Decision 2006/507/EC (6) and subsequent regulatory action in respect of those chemicals taken pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC (7). Annex V should also be amended to reflect regulatory action taken to ban the export of certain chemicals other than persistent organic pollutants.\n(4)\nThe substances diphenylamine, triazoxide and triflumuron have not been included as active substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, with the effect that those active substances are banned for pesticide use and thus should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008. Since new applications were submitted that will require new decisions on inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, the addition to the list of chemicals contained in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 should not be applied until the new decisions on the status of those chemicals are adopted.\n(5)\nThe substances bifenthrin and metam have not been included as active substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC; as far as Directive 98/8/EC is concerned those substances have been identified and notified for evaluation. As a result bifenthrin and metam are severely restricted for pesticide use since the use of both substances is almost completely prohibited despite the fact that they may continue to be authorised by Member States until a decision under Directive 98/8/EC is taken. It is therefore appropriate to add bifenthrin and metam to the list of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008. Since new applications were submitted that will require new decisions on inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, the addition to the list of chemicals contained in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 should not be applied until the new decisions on the status of those chemicals are adopted.\n(6)\nThe substance carbosulfan has not been included as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, with the effect that carbosulfan is banned for pesticide use and thus should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008. The addition of carbosulfan to Part 2 of Annex I was suspended due to a new application for inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC submitted pursuant to Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (8). This new application has been withdrawn by the applicant with the effect that the reason for suspending the addition to Part 2 of Annex I disappeared. Therefore, the substance carbosulfan should be added to the list of chemicals contained in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(7)\nThe substance trifluralin has not been included as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, with the effect that trifluralin is banned for pesticide use and thus should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008. The addition of trifluralin to Part 2 of Annex I was suspended due to a new application for inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC submitted pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008. This new application resulted again in the decision not to include the substance trifluralin as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC with the effect that trifluralin remains banned for pesticide use and that the reason for suspending the addition to Part 2 of Annex I disappeared. Therefore, the substance trifluralin should be added to the list of chemicals contained in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(8)\nThe substance chlorthal-dimethyl has not been included as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC with the effect that chlorthal-dimethyl is banned for pesticide use and thus should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(9)\nThe chemicals chlordecone, hexabromobiphenyl, hexachlorocyclohexanes, lindane and pentabromodiphenyl ether will be added to the list of chemicals that are banned for export included in Part 1 of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to keep those chemicals in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to that Regulation and consequently the entries should be deleted.\n(10)\nThe chemicals hexabromobiphenyl, hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) and lindane are already listed in Part 3 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008. Their addition to Part 1 of Annex V to that Regulation should therefore be reflected in Part 3 of Annex I.\n(11)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 757/2010 of 24 August 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on persistent organic pollutants as regards Annexes I and III (9) implements decisions taken under the Stockholm Convention to list chlordecone, pentachlorobenzene, hexabromobiphenyl, hexachlorocyclohexanes, lindane, tetrabromodiphenyl ether, pentabromodiphenyl ether, hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether in Part 1 of Annex A to the Stockholm Convention by adding those chemicals to Part A of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004. Consequently, those chemicals should be added to Part 1 of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(12)\nRegulation (EC) No 1102/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the banning of exports of metallic mercury and certain mercury compounds and mixtures and the safe storage of metallic mercury (10) bans the export of metallic mercury and certain mercury compounds and mixtures from the European Union to third countries. Consequently, those chemicals should be added to the list of chemicals contained in Part 2 of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008. Moreover, the entry for mercury compounds in Part 1 of Annex I should be modified to reflect the export ban of certain mercury compounds and the current status of mercury compounds under Directive 98/8/EC.\n(13)\nAnnexes I and V to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nIn order to allow enough time for Member States and industry to take the measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation, its application should be deferred.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 689/2008 is amended as follows:\n1.\nAnnex I is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\n2.\nAnnex V is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 March 2011.", "references": ["23", "59", "91", "98", "75", "40", "2", "19", "36", "35", "49", "69", "39", "16", "55", "27", "6", "81", "71", "13", "67", "11", "84", "65", "33", "54", "17", "68", "94", "28", "No Label", "22", "25", "60", "61", "83"], "gold": ["22", "25", "60", "61", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 7 November 2011\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency measures taken to combat avian influenza in Denmark in 2010\n(notified under document C(2011) 7850)\n(Only the Danish text is authentic)\n(2011/727/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3) first and second indents of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nArticle 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Implementing Decision 2011/204/EU of 31 March 2011 on a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Denmark and the Netherlands in 2010 (3) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Denmark in 2010.\n(5)\nDenmark submitted an official request for reimbursement on 26 May 2011, as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(6)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines. The Commission\u2019s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Denmark by e-mail dated 14 June 2011. Denmark agreed by e-mail dated 14 June 2011.\n(7)\nThe Danish authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(8)\nIn view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of avian influenza in Denmark in 2010 should now be fixed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating avian influenza in Denmark in 2010 is fixed at EUR 183 858,72.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision constituting a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.\nDone at Brussels, 7 November 2011.", "references": ["7", "57", "0", "11", "50", "10", "90", "62", "17", "13", "67", "49", "42", "29", "8", "15", "84", "33", "24", "52", "34", "44", "30", "37", "16", "20", "23", "93", "51", "43", "No Label", "4", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 319/2012\nof 13 April 2012\nadding to the 2012 fishing quotas certain quantities withheld in the year 2011 pursuant to Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (1), and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 847/96, Member States may ask the Commission, before 31 October of the year of application of a fishing quota allocated to them, to withhold a maximum of 10 % of that quota to be transferred to the following year. The Commission is to add to the relevant quota the quantity withheld.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), Council Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 of 29 November 2010 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea (3), Council Regulation (EU) No 1256/2010 of 17 December 2010 fixing the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea for 2011 (4) and Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (5) fix fishing quotas for certain stocks for 2011 and specify which stocks may be subject to the measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 847/96.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 1225/2010, Council Regulation (EU) No 1256/2011 of 30 November 2011 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea and amending Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 (6), Council Regulation (EU) No 5/2012 of 19 December 2011 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea (7), Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (8) and Council Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (9) fix fishing quotas for certain stocks for 2012.\n(4)\nCertain Member States have requested, before 31 October 2011, pursuant to Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 847/96, that part of their quotas for 2011 be withheld and transferred to the following year. Within the limits indicated in that Regulation, the quantities withheld should be added to the quota for 2012.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe fishing quotas fixed for 2012 in Regulations (EU) No 1225/2010, (EU) No 1256/2011, (EU) No 5/2012, (EU) No 43/2012 and (EU) No 44/2012 are increased as set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 April 2012.", "references": ["9", "86", "63", "75", "26", "58", "51", "69", "80", "13", "37", "4", "88", "68", "65", "3", "19", "46", "72", "2", "53", "85", "79", "92", "38", "97", "44", "0", "23", "18", "No Label", "67"], "gold": ["67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 541/2011\nof 1 June 2011\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt is appropriate to list active substances deemed to be approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and active substances approved under that Regulation in separate Parts of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (2).\n(2)\nRegulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThe active substances, as set out in Part A of the Annex, shall be deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nThe active substances approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 are as set out in Part B of the Annex.\u2019\n(2)\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 14 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2011.", "references": ["11", "18", "61", "20", "32", "95", "39", "59", "96", "9", "21", "85", "44", "26", "70", "23", "72", "6", "43", "33", "48", "99", "13", "22", "15", "41", "45", "94", "30", "24", "No Label", "25", "65"], "gold": ["25", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 579/2012\nof 29 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 121, first paragraph, point (m), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (2) and in particular point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 6(3a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol, the first subparagraph of Article 6(3a) of Directive 2000/13/EC provides for the obligation to label all ingredients defined in paragraph 4(a) of that Article and listed in Annex IIIa to that Directive.\n(2)\nThe exemption from this obligation as regards wines, within the meaning of Annex XIb to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, placed on the market or labelled before 30 June 2012 until stocks are exhausted, as provided for in Commission Directive 2007/68/EC (3), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1266/2010 (4), will no longer apply as from 30 June 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to establish detailed rules for labelling these beverages, including a mention of the substances referred to in Annex IIIa to Directive 2000/13/EC and used when making the beverages, if their presence can be detected in the final product using the analysis methods referred to in Article 120g of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and if they consequently must be considered ingredients within the meaning of Article 6(4)(a) of Directive 2000/13/EC.\n(4)\nIn a multilingual context, labelling products using pictograms may improve the readability of the information provided to consumers and offer better guarantees for consumers. Therefore operators should be given the possibility of complementing written information with pictograms.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 (5) should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nIn order to prevent the new rules from affecting the marketing of products that are already labelled, it should be specified that they apply only to wines made completely or partially from grapes harvested in 2012 or later and labelled after 30 June 2012.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 607/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 51 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 51\nApplication of certain horizontal rules\n1. For the purposes of indicating the ingredients as referred to in Article 6(3a) of Directive 2000/13/EC, the terms concerning sulphites/sulfites, milk and milk-based products and eggs and egg-based products that must be used are those listed in part A of Annex X.\n2. The terms referred to in paragraph 1 may be accompanied, as applicable, by one of the pictograms shown in part B of Annex X.\u2019;\n(2)\nAnnex X is replaced by the contents of the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt is applicable, as regards the terms concerning milk and milk-based products and eggs and egg-based products referred to in Article 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 607/2009, as amended by this Regulation, to the wines referred to in Annex XIb to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, made completely or partially from grapes harvested in 2012 or later and labelled after 30 June 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2012.", "references": ["5", "23", "62", "78", "49", "84", "59", "74", "1", "60", "55", "88", "42", "75", "39", "89", "77", "19", "64", "45", "2", "27", "51", "56", "83", "35", "38", "86", "9", "0", "No Label", "24", "25", "43", "69", "70", "71", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "43", "69", "70", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/92/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\non combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 82(2) and Article 83(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, including child pornography, constitute serious violations of fundamental rights, in particular of the rights of children to the protection and care necessary for their well-being, as provided for by the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in which Article 24(2) provides that in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child\u2019s best interests must be a primary consideration. Moreover, the Stockholm Programme - An Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting Citizens (4) gives a clear priority to combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.\n(3)\nChild pornography, which consists of images of child sexual abuse, and other particularly serious forms of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children are increasing and spreading through the use of new technologies and the Internet.\n(4)\nCouncil Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA of 22 December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (5) approximates Member States\u2019 legislation to criminalise the most serious forms of child sexual abuse and sexual exploitation, to extend domestic jurisdiction, and to provide for a minimum level of assistance for victims. Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (6) establishes a set of victims\u2019 rights in criminal proceedings, including the right to protection and compensation. Moreover, the coordination of prosecution of cases of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography will be facilitated by the implementation of Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA of 30 November 2009 on prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings (7).\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 34 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. The 2000 United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and, in particular, the 2007 Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse are crucial steps in the process of enhancing international cooperation in this field.\n(6)\nSerious criminal offences such as the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography require a comprehensive approach covering the prosecution of offenders, the protection of child victims, and prevention of the phenomenon. The child\u2019s best interests must be a primary consideration when carrying out any measures to combat these offences in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA should be replaced by a new instrument providing such comprehensive legal framework to achieve that purpose.\n(7)\nThis Directive should be fully complementary with Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA (8), as some victims of human trafficking have also been child victims of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation.\n(8)\nIn the context of criminalising acts related to pornographic performance, this Directive refers to such acts which consist of an organised live exhibition, aimed at an audience, thereby excluding personal face-to-face communication between consenting peers, as well as children over the age of sexual consent and their partners from the definition.\n(9)\nChild pornography frequently includes images recording the sexual abuse of children by adults. It may also include images of children involved in sexually explicit conduct, or of their sexual organs, where such images are produced or used for primarily sexual purposes and exploited with or without the child\u2019s knowledge. Furthermore, the concept of child pornography also covers realistic images of a child, where a child is engaged or depicted as being engaged in sexually explicit conduct for primarily sexual purposes.\n(10)\nDisability, by itself, does not automatically constitute an impossibility to consent to sexual relations. However, the abuse of the existence of such a disability in order to engage in sexual activities with a child should be criminalised.\n(11)\nIn adopting legislation on substantive criminal law, the Union should ensure consistency of such legislation in particular with regard to the level of penalties. The Council conclusions of 24 and 25 April 2002 on the approach to apply regarding approximation of penalties, which indicate four levels of penalties, should be kept in mind in the light of the Lisbon Treaty. This Directive, because it contains an exceptionally high number of different offences, requires, in order to reflect the various degrees of seriousness, a differentiation in the level of penalties which goes further than what should usually be provided in Union legal instruments.\n(12)\nSerious forms of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children should be subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties. This includes, in particular, various forms of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children which are facilitated by the use of information and communication technology, such as the online solicitation of children for sexual purposes via social networking websites and chat rooms. The definition of child pornography should also be clarified and brought closer to that contained in international instruments.\n(13)\nThe maximum term of imprisonment provided for in this Directive for the offences referred to therein should apply at least to the most serious forms of such offences.\n(14)\nIn order to reach the maximum term of imprisonment provided for in this Directive for offences concerning sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, Member States may combine, taking into account their national law, the imprisonment terms provided for in national legislation in respect of those offences.\n(15)\nThis Directive obliges Member States to provide for criminal penalties in their national legislation in respect of the provisions of Union law on combating sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. This Directive creates no obligations regarding the application of such penalties, or any other available system of law enforcement, in individual cases.\n(16)\nEspecially for those cases where the offences referred to in this Directive are committed with the purpose of financial gain, Member States are invited to consider providing for the possibility to impose financial penalties in addition to imprisonment.\n(17)\nIn the context of child pornography, the term \u2018without right\u2019 allows Member States to provide a defence in respect of conduct relating to pornographic material having for example, a medical, scientific or similar purpose. It also allows activities carried out under domestic legal powers, such as the legitimate possession of child pornography by the authorities in order to conduct criminal proceedings or to prevent, detect or investigate crime. Furthermore, it does not exclude legal defences or similar relevant principles that relieve a person of responsibility under specific circumstances, for example where telephone or Internet hotlines carry out activities to report those cases.\n(18)\nKnowingly obtaining access, by means of information and communication technology, to child pornography should be criminalised. To be liable, the person should both intend to enter a site where child pornography is available and know that such images can be found there. Penalties should not be applied to persons inadvertently accessing sites containing child pornography. The intentional nature of the offence may notably be deduced from the fact that it is recurrent or that the offence was committed via a service in return for payment.\n(19)\nSolicitation of children for sexual purposes is a threat with specific characteristics in the context of the Internet, as the latter provides unprecedented anonymity to users because they are able to conceal their real identity and personal characteristics, such as their age. At the same time, Member States acknowledge the importance of also combating the solicitation of a child outside the context of the Internet, in particular where such solicitation is not carried out by using information and communication technology. Member States are encouraged to criminalise the conduct where the solicitation of a child to meet the offender for sexual purposes takes place in the presence or proximity of the child, for instance in the form of a particular preparatory offence, attempt to commit the offences referred to in this Directive or as a particular form of sexual abuse. Whichever legal solution is chosen to criminalise \u2018off-line grooming\u2019, Member States should ensure that they prosecute the perpetrators of such offences one way or another.\n(20)\nThis Directive does not govern Member States\u2019 policies with regard to consensual sexual activities in which children may be involved and which can be regarded as the normal discovery of sexuality in the course of human development, taking account of the different cultural and legal traditions and of new forms of establishing and maintaining relations among children and adolescents, including through information and communication technologies. These issues fall outside of the scope of this Directive. Member States which avail themselves of the possibilities referred to in this Directive do so in the exercise of their competences.\n(21)\nMember States should provide for aggravating circumstances in their national law in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems on aggravating circumstances. They should ensure that those aggravating circumstances are available for judges to consider when sentencing offenders, although there is no obligation on judges to apply those aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances should not be provided for in Member States\u2019 law when irrelevant taking into account the nature of the specific offence. The relevance of the various aggravating circumstances provided for in this Directive should be evaluated at national level for each of the offences referred to in this Directive.\n(22)\nPhysical or mental incapacity under this Directive should be understood as also including the state of physical or mental incapacity caused by the influence of drugs and alcohol.\n(23)\nIn combating sexual exploitation of children, full use should be made of existing instruments on the seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime, such as the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols thereto, the 1990 Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime, Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA of 26 June 2001 on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime (9), and Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (10). The use of seized and confiscated instrumentalities and the proceeds from the offences referred to in this Directive to support victims\u2019 assistance and protection should be encouraged.\n(24)\nSecondary victimisation should be avoided for victims of offences referred to in this Directive. In Member States where prostitution or the appearance in pornography is punishable under national criminal law, it should be possible not to prosecute or impose penalties under those laws where the child concerned has committed those acts as a result of being victim of sexual exploitation or where the child was compelled to participate in child pornography.\n(25)\nAs an instrument of approximation of criminal law, this Directive provides for levels of penalties which should apply without prejudice to the specific criminal policies of the Member States concerning child offenders.\n(26)\nInvestigating offences and bringing charges in criminal proceedings should be facilitated, to take into account the difficulty for child victims of denouncing sexual abuse and the anonymity of offenders in cyberspace. To ensure successful investigations and prosecutions of the offences referred to in this Directive, their initiation should not depend, in principle, on a report or accusation made by the victim or by his or her representative. The length of the sufficient period of time for prosecution should be determined in accordance with national law.\n(27)\nEffective investigatory tools should be made available to those responsible for the investigation and prosecutions of the offences referred to in this Directive. Those tools could include interception of communications, covert surveillance including electronic surveillance, monitoring of bank accounts or other financial investigations, taking into account, inter alia, the principle of proportionality and the nature and seriousness of the offences under investigation. Where appropriate, and in accordance with national law, such tools should also include the possibility for law enforcement authorities to use a concealed identity on the Internet.\n(28)\nMember States should encourage any person who has knowledge or suspicion of the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child to report to the competent services. It is the responsibility of each Member State to determine the competent authorities to which such suspicions may be reported. Those competent authorities should not be limited to child protection services or relevant social services. The requirement of suspicion \u2018in good faith\u2019 should be aimed at preventing the provision being invoked to authorise the denunciation of purely imaginary or untrue facts carried out with malicious intent.\n(29)\nRules on jurisdiction should be amended to ensure that sexual abusers or sexual exploiters of children from the Union face prosecution even if they commit their crimes outside the Union, in particular via so-called sex tourism. Child sex tourism should be understood as the sexual exploitation of children by a person or persons who travel from their usual environment to a destination abroad where they have sexual contact with children. Where child sex tourism takes place outside the Union, Member States are encouraged to seek to increase, through the available national and international instruments including bilateral or multilateral treaties on extradition, mutual assistance or a transfer of the proceedings, cooperation with third countries and international organisations with a view to combating sex tourism. Member States should foster open dialogue and communication with countries outside the Union in order to be able to prosecute perpetrators, under the relevant national legislation, who travel outside the Union borders for the purposes of child sex tourism.\n(30)\nMeasures to protect child victims should be adopted in their best interest, taking into account an assessment of their needs. Child victims should have easy access to legal remedies and measures to address conflicts of interest where sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child occurs within the family. When a special representative should be appointed for a child during a criminal investigation or proceeding, this role may be also carried out by a legal person, an institution or an authority. Moreover, child victims should be protected from penalties, for example under national legislation on prostitution, if they bring their case to the attention of competent authorities. Furthermore, participation in criminal proceedings by child victims should not cause additional trauma to the extent possible, as a result of interviews or visual contact with offenders. A good understanding of children and how they behave when faced with traumatic experiences will help to ensure a high quality of evidence-taking and also reduce the stress placed on children when carrying out the necessary measures.\n(31)\nMember States should consider giving short and long term assistance to child victims. Any harm caused by the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of a child is significant and should be addressed. Because of the nature of the harm caused by sexual abuse and sexual exploitation, such assistance should continue for as long as necessary for the child\u2019s physical and psychological recovery and may last into adulthood if necessary. Assistance and advice should be considered to be extended to parents or guardians of the child victims where they are not involved as suspects in relation to the offence concerned, in order to help them to assist child victims throughout the proceedings.\n(32)\nFramework Decision 2001/220/JHA establishes a set of victims\u2019 rights in criminal proceedings, including the right to protection and compensation. In addition child victims of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation and child pornography should be given access to legal counselling and, in accordance with the role of victims in the relevant justice systems, to legal representation, including for the purpose of claiming compensation. Such legal counselling and legal representation could also be provided by the competent authorities for the purpose of claiming compensation from the State. The purpose of legal counselling is to enable victims to be informed and receive advice about the various possibilities open to them. Legal counselling should be provided by a person having received appropriate legal training without necessarily being a lawyer. Legal counselling and, in accordance with the role of victims in the relevant justice systems, legal representation should be provided free of charge, at least when the victim does not have sufficient financial resources, in a manner consistent with the internal procedures of Member States.\n(33)\nMember States should undertake action to prevent or prohibit acts related to the promotion of sexual abuse of children and child sex tourism. Different preventative measures could be considered, such as the drawing up and reinforcement of a code of conduct and self-regulatory mechanisms in the tourism industry, the setting-up of a code of ethics or \u2018quality labels\u2019 for tourist organisations combating child sex tourism, or establishing an explicit policy to tackle child sex tourism.\n(34)\nMember States should establish and/or strengthen policies to prevent sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, including measures to discourage and reduce the demand that fosters all forms of sexual exploitation of children, and measures to reduce the risk of children becoming victims, by means of, information and awareness-raising campaigns, and research and education programmes. In such initiatives, Member States should adopt a child-rights based approach. Particular care should be taken to ensure that awareness-raising campaigns aimed at children are appropriate and sufficiently easy to understand. The establishment of help-lines or hotlines should be considered.\n(35)\nRegarding the system of reporting sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and helping children in need, hotlines under the number 116 000 for missing children, 116 006 for victims of crime and 116 111 for children, as introduced by Commission Decision 2007/116/EC of 15 February 2007 on reserving the national numbering beginning with 116 for harmonised numbers for harmonised services of social value (11), should be promoted and experience regarding their functioning should be taken into account.\n(36)\nProfessionals likely to come into contact with child victims of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation should be adequately trained to identify and deal with such victims. That training should be promoted for members of the following categories when they are likely to come into contact with child victims: police officers, public prosecutors, lawyers, members of the judiciary and court officials, child and health care personnel, but could also involve other groups of persons who are likely to encounter child victims of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation in their work.\n(37)\nIn order to prevent the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, intervention programmes or measures targeting sex offenders should be proposed to them. Those intervention programmes or measures should meet a broad, flexible approach focusing on the medical and psycho-social aspects and have a non-obligatory character. Those intervention programmes or measures are without prejudice to intervention programmes or measures imposed by the competent judicial authorities.\n(38)\nIntervention programmes or measures are not provided as an automatic right. It is for the Member State to decide which intervention programmes or measures are appropriate.\n(39)\nTo prevent and minimise recidivism, offenders should be subject to an assessment of the danger posed by the offenders and the possible risks of repetition of sexual offences against children. Arrangements for such assessment, such as the type of authority competent to order and carry out the assessment or the moment in or after the criminal proceedings when that assessment should take place as well as arrangements for effective intervention programmes or measures offered following that assessment should be consistent with the internal procedures of Member States. For the same objective of preventing and minimising recidivism, offenders should also have access to effective intervention programmes or measures on a voluntary basis. Those intervention programmes or measures should not interfere with national schemes set up to deal with the treatment of persons suffering from mental disorders.\n(40)\nWhere the danger posed by the offenders and the possible risks of repetition of the offences make it appropriate, convicted offenders should be temporarily or permanently prevented from exercising at least professional activities involving direct and regular contacts with children. Employers when recruiting for a post involving direct and regular contact with children are entitled to be informed of existing convictions for sexual offences against children entered in the criminal record, or of existing disqualifications. For the purposes of this Directive, the term \u2018employers\u2019 should also cover persons running an organisation that is active in volunteer work related to the supervision and/or care of children involving direct and regular contact with children. The manner in which such information is delivered, such as for example access via the person concerned, and the precise content of the information, the meaning of organised voluntary activities and direct and regular contact with children should be laid down in accordance with national law.\n(41)\nWith due regard to the different legal traditions of the Member States, this Directive takes into account the fact that access to criminal records is allowed only either by the competent authorities or by the person concerned. This Directive does not establish an obligation to modify the national systems governing criminal records or the means of access to those records.\n(42)\nThe aim of this Directive is not to harmonise rules concerning consent of the person concerned when exchanging information from the criminal registers, i.e. whether or not to require such consent. Whether the consent is required or not under national law, this Directive does not establish any new obligation to change the national law and national procedures in this respect.\n(43)\nMember States may consider adopting additional administrative measures in relation to perpetrators, such as the registration in sex offender registers of persons convicted of offences referred to in this Directive. Access to those registers should be subject to limitation in accordance with national constitutional principles and applicable data protection standards, for instance by limiting access to the judiciary and/or law enforcement authorities.\n(44)\nMember States are encouraged to create mechanisms for data collection or focal points, at the national or local levels and in collaboration with civil society, for the purpose of observing and evaluating the phenomenon of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children. In order to be able to properly evaluate the results of actions to combat sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, the Union should continue to develop its work on methodologies and data collection methods to produce comparable statistics.\n(45)\nMember States should take appropriate action for setting up information services to provide information on how to recognise the signs of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation.\n(46)\nChild pornography, which constitutes child sexual abuse images, is a specific type of content which cannot be construed as the expression of an opinion. To combat it, it is necessary to reduce the circulation of child sexual abuse material by making it more difficult for offenders to upload such content onto the publicly accessible web. Action is therefore necessary to remove the content and apprehend those guilty of making, distributing or downloading child sexual abuse images. With a view to supporting the Union\u2019s efforts to combat child pornography, Member States should use their best endeavours to cooperate with third countries in seeking to secure the removal of such content from servers within their territory.\n(47)\nHowever, despite such efforts, the removal of child pornography content at its source is often not possible when the original materials are not located within the Union, either because the State where the servers are hosted is not willing to cooperate or because obtaining removal of the material from the State concerned proves to be particularly long. Mechanisms may also be put in place to block access from the Union\u2019s territory to Internet pages identified as containing or disseminating child pornography. The measures undertaken by Member States in accordance with this Directive in order to remove or, where appropriate, block websites containing child pornography could be based on various types of public action, such as legislative, non-legislative, judicial or other. In that context, this Directive is without prejudice to voluntary action taken by the Internet industry to prevent the misuse of its services or to any support for such action by Member States. Whichever basis for action or method is chosen, Member States should ensure that it provides an adequate level of legal certainty and predictability to users and service providers. Both with a view to the removal and the blocking of child abuse content, cooperation between public authorities should be established and strengthened, particularly in the interests of ensuring that national lists of websites containing child pornography material are as complete as possible and of avoiding duplication of work. Any such developments must take account of the rights of the end users and comply with existing legal and judicial procedures and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Safer Internet Programme has set up a network of hotlines the goal of which is to collect information and to ensure coverage and exchange of reports on the major types of illegal content online.\n(48)\nThis Directive aims to amend and expand the provisions of Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA. Since the amendments to be made are of substantial number and nature, the Framework Decision should, in the interests of clarity, be replaced in its entirety in relation to Member States participating in the adoption of this Directive.\n(49)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely to combat sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States alone and can therefore, by reasons of the scale and effects, 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 to achieve that objective.\n(50)\nThis Directive respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in particular the right to the protection of human dignity, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the rights of the child, the right to liberty and security, the right to freedom of expression and information, the right to the protection of personal data, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties. This Directive seeks to ensure full respect for those rights and principles and must be implemented accordingly.\n(51)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol (No 21) on the position of United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom and Ireland have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Directive.\n(52)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Directive establishes minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, child pornography and solicitation of children for sexual purposes. It also introduces provisions to strengthen the prevention of those crimes and the protection of the victims thereof.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions apply:\n(a)\n\u2018child\u2019 means any person below the age of 18 years;\n(b)\n\u2018age of sexual consent\u2019 means the age below which, in accordance with national law, it is prohibited to engage in sexual activities with a child;\n(c)\n\u2018child pornography\u2019 means:\n(i)\nany material that visually depicts a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct;\n(ii)\nany depiction of the sexual organs of a child for primarily sexual purposes;\n(iii)\nany material that visually depicts any person appearing to be a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct or any depiction of the sexual organs of any person appearing to be a child, for primarily sexual purposes; or\n(iv)\nrealistic images of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct or realistic images of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;\n(d)\n\u2018child prostitution\u2019 means the use of a child for sexual activities where money or any other form of remuneration or consideration is given or promised as payment in exchange for the child engaging in sexual activities, regardless of whether that payment, promise or consideration is made to the child or to a third party;\n(e)\n\u2018pornographic performance\u2019 means a live exhibition aimed at an audience, including by means of information and communication technology, of:\n(i)\na child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct; or\n(ii)\nthe sexual organs of a child for primarily sexual purposes;\n(f)\n\u2018legal person\u2019 means an entity having legal personality under the applicable law, except for States or public bodies in the exercise of State authority and for public international organisations.\nArticle 3\nOffences concerning sexual abuse\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional conduct referred to in paragraphs 2 to 6 is punishable.\n2. Causing, for sexual purposes, a child who has not reached the age of sexual consent to witness sexual activities, even without having to participate, shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 1 year.\n3. Causing, for sexual purposes, a child who has not reached the age of sexual consent to witness sexual abuse, even without having to participate, shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 2 years.\n4. Engaging in sexual activities with a child who has not reached the age of sexual consent shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 5 years.\n5. Engaging in sexual activities with a child, where:\n(i)\nabuse is made of a recognised position of trust, authority or influence over the child, shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 8 years if the child has not reached the age of sexual consent, and of at least 3 years of imprisonment, if the child is over that age; or\n(ii)\nabuse is made of a particularly vulnerable situation of the child, in particular because of a mental or physical disability or a situation of dependence, shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 8 years if the child has not reached the age of sexual consent, and of at least 3 years of imprisonment if the child is over that age; or\n(iii)\nuse is made of coercion, force or threats shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years if the child has not reached the age of sexual consent, and of at least 5 years of imprisonment if the child is over that age.\n6. Coercing, forcing or threatening a child into sexual activities with a third party shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years if the child has not reached the age of sexual consent, and of at least 5 years of imprisonment if the child is over that age.\nArticle 4\nOffences concerning sexual exploitation\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional conduct referred to in paragraphs 2 to 7 is punishable.\n2. Causing or recruiting a child to participate in pornographic performances, or profiting from or otherwise exploiting a child for such purposes shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 5 years if the child has not reached the age of sexual consent and of at least 2 years of imprisonment if the child is over that age.\n3. Coercing or forcing a child to participate in pornographic performances, or threatening a child for such purposes shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 8 years if the child has not reached the age of sexual consent, and of at least 5 years of imprisonment if the child is over that age.\n4. Knowingly attending pornographic performances involving the participation of a child shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 2 years if the child has not reached the age of sexual consent, and of at least 1 year of imprisonment if the child is over that age.\n5. Causing or recruiting a child to participate in child prostitution, or profiting from or otherwise exploiting a child for such purposes shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 8 years if the child has not reached the age of sexual consent, and of at least 5 years of imprisonment if the child is over that age.\n6. Coercing or forcing a child into child prostitution, or threatening a child for such purposes shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years if the child has not reached the age of sexual consent, and of at least 5 years of imprisonment if the child is over that age.\n7. Engaging in sexual activities with a child, where recourse is made to child prostitution shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 5 years if the child has not reached the age of sexual consent, and of at least 2 years of imprisonment if the child is over that age.\nArticle 5\nOffences concerning child pornography\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional conduct, when committed without right, referred to in paragraphs 2 to 6 is punishable.\n2. Acquisition or possession of child pornography shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 1 year.\n3. Knowingly obtaining access, by means of information and communication technology, to child pornography shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 1 year.\n4. Distribution, dissemination or transmission of child pornography shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 2 years.\n5. Offering, supplying or making available child pornography shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 2 years.\n6. Production of child pornography shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 3 years.\n7. It shall be within the discretion of Member States to decide whether this Article applies to cases involving child pornography as referred to in Article 2(c)(iii), where the person appearing to be a child was in fact 18 years of age or older at the time of depiction.\n8. It shall be within the discretion of Member States to decide whether paragraphs 2 and 6 of this Article apply to cases where it is established that pornographic material as referred to in Article 2(c)(iv) is produced and possessed by the producer solely for his or her private use in so far as no pornographic material as referred to in Article 2(c)(i), (ii) or (iii) has been used for the purpose of its production and provided that the act involves no risk of dissemination of the material.\nArticle 6\nSolicitation of children for sexual purposes\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable:\nthe proposal, by means of information and communication technology, by an adult to meet a child who has not reached the age of sexual consent, for the purpose of committing any of the offences referred to in Article 3(4) and Article 5(6), where that proposal was followed by material acts leading to such a meeting, shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 1 year.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that an attempt, by means of information and communication technology, to commit the offences provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) by an adult soliciting a child who has not reached the age of sexual consent to provide child pornography depicting that child is punishable.\nArticle 7\nIncitement, aiding and abetting, and attempt\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that inciting or aiding and abetting to commit any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 6 is punishable.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that an attempt to commit any of the offences referred to in Article 3(4), (5) and (6), Article 4(2), (3), (5), (6) and (7), and Article 5(4), (5) and (6) is punishable.\nArticle 8\nConsensual sexual activities\n1. It shall be within the discretion of Member States to decide whether Article 3(2) and (4) apply to consensual sexual activities between peers, who are close in age and degree of psychological and physical development or maturity, in so far as the acts did not involve any abuse.\n2. It shall be within the discretion of Member States to decide whether Article 4(4) applies to a pornographic performance that takes place in the context of a consensual relationship where the child has reached the age of sexual consent or between peers who are close in age and degree of psychological and physical development or maturity, in so far as the acts did not involve any abuse or exploitation and no money or other form of remuneration or consideration is given as payment in exchange for the pornographic performance.\n3. It shall be within the discretion of Member States to decide whether Article 5(2) and (6) apply to the production, acquisition or possession of material involving children who have reached the age of sexual consent where that material is produced and possessed with the consent of those children and only for the private use of the persons involved, in so far as the acts did not involve any abuse.\nArticle 9\nAggravating circumstances\nIn so far as the following circumstances do not already form part of the constituent elements of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the following circumstances may, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national law, be regarded as aggravating circumstances, in relation to the relevant offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7:\n(a)\nthe offence was committed against a child in a particularly vulnerable situation, such as a child with a mental or physical disability, in a situation of dependence or in a state of physical or mental incapacity;\n(b)\nthe offence was committed by a member of the child\u2019s family, a person cohabiting with the child or a person who has abused a recognised position of trust or authority;\n(c)\nthe offence was committed by several persons acting together;\n(d)\nthe offence was committed within the framework of a criminal organisation within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime (12);\n(e)\nthe offender has previously been convicted of offences of the same nature;\n(f)\nthe offender has deliberately or recklessly endangered the life of the child; or\n(g)\nthe offence involved serious violence or caused serious harm to the child.\nArticle 10\nDisqualification arising from convictions\n1. In order to avoid the risk of repetition of offences, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a natural person who has been convicted of any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 may be temporarily or permanently prevented from exercising at least professional activities involving direct and regular contacts with children.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that employers, when recruiting a person for professional or organised voluntary activities involving direct and regular contacts with children, are entitled to request information in accordance with national law by way of any appropriate means, such as access upon request or via the person concerned, of the existence of criminal convictions for any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 entered in the criminal record or of the existence of any disqualification from exercising activities involving direct and regular contacts with children arising from those criminal convictions.\n3. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, for the application of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, information concerning the existence of criminal convictions for any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7, or of any disqualification from exercising activities involving direct and regular contacts with children arising from those criminal convictions, is transmitted in accordance with the procedures set out in Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States (13) when requested under Article 6 of that Framework Decision with the consent of the person concerned.\nArticle 11\nSeizure and confiscation\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that their competent authorities are entitled to seize and confiscate instrumentalities and proceeds from the offences referred to in Articles 3, 4 and 5.\nArticle 12\nLiability of legal persons\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that legal persons may be held liable for any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 committed for their benefit by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, and having a leading position within the legal person, based on:\n(a)\na power of representation of the legal person;\n(b)\nan authority to take decisions on behalf of the legal person; or\n(c)\nan authority to exercise control within the legal person.\n2. Member States shall also take the necessary measures to ensure that legal persons may be held liable where the lack of supervision or control by a person referred to in paragraph 1 has made possible the commission, by a person under its authority, of any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 for the benefit of that legal person.\n3. Liability of legal persons under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be without prejudice to criminal proceedings against natural persons who are perpetrators, inciters or accessories to the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7.\nArticle 13\nSanctions on legal persons\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held liable pursuant to Article 12(1) is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which shall include criminal or non-criminal fines and may include other sanctions, such as:\n(a)\nexclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid;\n(b)\ntemporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of commercial activities;\n(c)\nplacing under judicial supervision;\n(d)\njudicial winding-up; or\n(e)\ntemporary or permanent closure of establishments which have been used for committing the offence.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held liable pursuant to Article 12(2) is punishable by sanctions or measures which are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\nArticle 14\nNon-prosecution or non-application of penalties to the victim\nMember States shall, in accordance with the basic principles of their legal systems take the necessary measures to ensure that competent national authorities are entitled not to prosecute or impose penalties on child victims of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation for their involvement in criminal activities, which they have been compelled to commit as a direct consequence of being subjected to any of the acts referred to in Article 4(2), (3), (5) and (6), and in Article 5(6).\nArticle 15\nInvestigation and prosecution\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that investigations into or the prosecution of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 are not dependent on a report or accusation being made by the victim or by his or her representative, and that criminal proceedings may continue even if that person has withdrawn his or her statements.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to enable the prosecution of any of the offences referred to in Article 3, Article 4(2), (3), (5), (6) and (7) and of any serious offences referred to in Article 5(6) when child pornography as referred to in Article 2(c)(i) and (ii) has been used, for a sufficient period of time after the victim has reached the age of majority and which is commensurate with the gravity of the offence concerned.\n3. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that effective investigative tools, such as those which are used in organised crime or other serious crime cases are available to persons, units or services responsible for investigating or prosecuting offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7.\n4. Member States shall take the necessary measures to enable investigative units or services to attempt to identify the victims of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7, in particular by analysing child pornography material, such as photographs and audiovisual recordings transmitted or made available by means of information and communication technology.\nArticle 16\nReporting suspicion of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the confidentiality rules imposed by national law on certain professionals whose main duty is to work with children do not constitute an obstacle to the possibility, for those professionals, of their reporting to the services responsible for child protection any situation where they have reasonable grounds for believing that a child is the victim of offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to encourage any person who knows about or suspects, in good faith that any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 have been committed, to report this to the competent services.\nArticle 17\nJurisdiction and coordination of prosecution\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to establish their jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 where:\n(a)\nthe offence is committed in whole or in part within their territory; or\n(b)\nthe offender is one of their nationals.\n2. A Member State shall inform the Commission where it decides to establish further jurisdiction over an offence referred to in Articles 3 to 7 committed outside its territory, inter alia, where:\n(a)\nthe offence is committed against one of its nationals or a person who is an habitual resident in its territory;\n(b)\nthe offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in its territory; or\n(c)\nthe offender is an habitual resident in its territory.\n3. Member States shall ensure that their jurisdiction includes situations where an offence referred to in Articles 5 and 6, and in so far as is relevant, in Articles 3 and 7, is committed by means of information and communication technology accessed from their territory, whether or not it is based on their territory.\n4. For the prosecution of any of the offences referred to in Article 3(4), (5) and (6), Article 4(2), (3), (5), (6) and (7) and Article 5(6) committed outside the territory of the Member State concerned, as regards paragraph 1(b) of this Article, each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that its jurisdiction is not subordinated to the condition that the acts are a criminal offence at the place where they were performed.\n5. For the prosecution of any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 committed outside the territory of the Member State concerned, as regards paragraph 1(b) of this Article, each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that its jurisdiction is not subordinated to the condition that the prosecution can only be initiated following a report made by the victim in the place where the offence was committed, or a denunciation from the State of the place where the offence was committed.\nArticle 18\nGeneral provisions on assistance, support and protection measures for child victims\n1. Child victims of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 shall be provided assistance, support and protection in accordance with Articles 19 and 20, taking into account the best interests of the child.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a child is provided with assistance and support as soon as the competent authorities have a reasonable-grounds indication for believing that a child might have been subject to any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7.\n3. Member States shall ensure that, where the age of a person subject to any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 is uncertain and there are reasons to believe that the person is a child, that person is presumed to be a child in order to receive immediate access to assistance, support and protection in accordance with Articles 19 and 20.\nArticle 19\nAssistance and support to victims\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that assistance and support are provided to victims before, during and for an appropriate period of time after the conclusion of criminal proceedings in order to enable them to exercise the rights set out in Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, and in this Directive. Member States shall, in particular, take the necessary steps to ensure protection for children who report cases of abuse within their family.\n2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that assistance and support for a child victim are not made conditional on the child victim\u2019s willingness to cooperate in the criminal investigation, prosecution or trial.\n3. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the specific actions to assist and support child victims in enjoying their rights under this Directive, are undertaken following an individual assessment of the special circumstances of each particular child victim, taking due account of the child\u2019s views, needs and concerns.\n4. Child victims of any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 shall be considered as particularly vulnerable victims pursuant to Article 2(2), Article 8(4) and Article 14(1) of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA.\n5. Member States shall take measures, where appropriate and possible, to provide assistance and support to the family of the child victim in enjoying the rights under this Directive when the family is in the territory of the Member States. In particular, Member States shall, where appropriate and possible, apply Article 4 of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA to the family of the child victim.\nArticle 20\nProtection of child victims in criminal investigations and proceedings\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in criminal investigations and proceedings, in accordance with the role of victims in the relevant justice system, competent authorities appoint a special representative for the child victim where, under national law, the holders of parental responsibility are precluded from representing the child as a result of a conflict of interest between them and the child victim, or where the child is unaccompanied or separated from the family.\n2. Member States shall ensure that child victims have, without delay, access to legal counselling and, in accordance with the role of victims in the relevant justice system, to legal representation, including for the purpose of claiming compensation. Legal counselling and legal representation shall be free of charge where the victim does not have sufficient financial resources.\n3. Without prejudice to the rights of the defence, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in criminal investigations relating to any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7:\n(a)\ninterviews with the child victim take place without unjustified delay after the facts have been reported to the competent authorities;\n(b)\ninterviews with the child victim take place, where necessary, in premises designed or adapted for this purpose;\n(c)\ninterviews with the child victim are carried out by or through professionals trained for this purpose;\n(d)\nthe same persons, if possible and where appropriate, conduct all interviews with the child victim;\n(e)\nthe number of interviews is as limited as possible and interviews are carried out only where strictly necessary for the purpose of criminal investigations and proceedings;\n(f)\nthe child victim may be accompanied by his or her legal representative or, where appropriate, by an adult of his or her choice, unless a reasoned decision has been made to the contrary in respect of that person.\n4. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in criminal investigations of any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 all interviews with the child victim or, where appropriate, with a child witness, may be audio-visually recorded and that such audio-visually recorded interviews may be used as evidence in criminal court proceedings, in accordance with the rules under their national law.\n5. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in criminal court proceedings relating to any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7, that it may be ordered that:\n(a)\nthe hearing take place without the presence of the public;\n(b)\nthe child victim be heard in the courtroom without being present, in particular through the use of appropriate communication technologies.\n6. Member States shall take the necessary measures, where in the interest of child victims and taking into account other overriding interests, to protect the privacy, identity and image of child victims, and to prevent the public dissemination of any information that could lead to their identification.\nArticle 21\nMeasures against advertising abuse opportunities and child sex tourism\nMember States shall take appropriate measures to prevent or prohibit:\n(a)\nthe dissemination of material advertising the opportunity to commit any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 6; and\n(b)\nthe organisation for others, whether or not for commercial purposes, of travel arrangements with the purpose of committing any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 5.\nArticle 22\nPreventive intervention programmes or measures\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that persons who fear that they might commit any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 may have access, where appropriate, to effective intervention programmes or measures designed to evaluate and prevent the risk of such offences being committed.\nArticle 23\nPrevention\n1. Member States shall take appropriate measures, such as education and training, to discourage and reduce the demand that fosters all forms of sexual exploitation of children.\n2. Member States shall take appropriate action, including through the Internet, such as information and awareness-raising campaigns, research and education programmes, where appropriate in cooperation with relevant civil society organisations and other stakeholders, aimed at raising awareness and reducing the risk of children, becoming victims of sexual abuse or exploitation.\n3. Member States shall promote regular training for officials likely to come into contact with child victims of sexual abuse or exploitation, including front-line police officers, aimed at enabling them to identify and deal with child victims and potential child victims of sexual abuse or exploitation.\nArticle 24\nIntervention programmes or measures on a voluntary basis in the course of or after criminal proceedings\n1. Without prejudice to intervention programmes or measures imposed by the competent judicial authorities under national law, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that effective intervention programmes or measures are made available to prevent and minimise the risks of repeated offences of a sexual nature against children. Such programmes or measures shall be accessible at any time during the criminal proceedings, inside and outside prison, in accordance with national law.\n2. The intervention programmes or measures, referred to in paragraph 1 shall meet the specific developmental needs of children who sexually offend.\n3. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the following persons may have access to the intervention programmes or measures referred to in paragraph 1:\n(a)\npersons subject to criminal proceedings for any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7, under conditions which are neither detrimental nor contrary to the rights of the defence or to the requirements of a fair and impartial trial, and, in particular, in compliance with the principle of the presumption of innocence; and\n(b)\npersons convicted of any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7.\n4. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the persons referred to in paragraph 3 are subject to an assessment of the danger that they present and the possible risks of repetition of any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7, with the aim of identifying appropriate intervention programmes or measures.\n5. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the persons referred to in paragraph 3 to whom intervention programmes or measures in accordance with paragraph 4 have been proposed:\n(a)\nare fully informed of the reasons for the proposal;\n(b)\nconsent to their participation in the programmes or measures with full knowledge of the facts;\n(c)\nmay refuse and, in the case of convicted persons, are made aware of the possible consequences of such a refusal.\nArticle 25\nMeasures against websites containing or disseminating child pornography\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure the prompt removal of web pages containing or disseminating child pornography hosted in their territory and to endeavour to obtain the removal of such pages hosted outside of their territory.\n2. Member States may take measures to block access to web pages containing or disseminating child pornography towards the Internet users within their territory. These measures must be set by transparent procedures and provide adequate safeguards, in particular to ensure that the restriction is limited to what is necessary and proportionate, and that users are informed of the reason for the restriction. Those safeguards shall also include the possibility of judicial redress.\nArticle 26\nReplacement of Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA\nFramework Decision 2004/68/JHA is hereby replaced in relation to Member States participating in the adoption of this Directive without prejudice to the obligations of those Member States relating to the time limits for transposition of the Framework Decision into national law.\nIn relation to Member States participating in the adoption of this Directive, references to Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA shall be construed as references to this Directive.\nArticle 27\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 18 December 2013.\n2. Member States shall transmit to the Commission the text of the provisions transposing into their national law the obligations imposed on them under this Directive.\n3. When Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States.\nArticle 28\nReporting\n1. The Commission shall, by 18 December 2015, submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with this Directive, accompanied, if necessary, by a legislative proposal.\n2. The Commission shall, by 18 December 2015, submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council assessing the implementation of the measures referred to in Article 25.\nArticle 29\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 30\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["6", "17", "15", "99", "1", "86", "47", "13", "53", "82", "68", "54", "9", "77", "91", "31", "14", "29", "44", "0", "69", "33", "41", "5", "18", "30", "89", "98", "97", "42", "No Label", "12", "36"], "gold": ["12", "36"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 May 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of Korea, on the other part\n(2013/40/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 207 and 212, in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 7 May 2008, the Council authorised the European Commission to negotiate a Framework Agreement with the Republic of Korea, hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019.\n(2)\nThe negotiations were concluded and the Agreement was initialled on 14 October 2009.\n(3)\nSubject to its conclusion at a later date, the Agreement should be signed and provisionally applied,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of Korea, on the other part, is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nPending the completion of the necessary procedures for its entry into force, the Agreement shall be applied on a provisional basis. The provisional application begins on the first day of the first month following the date on which the Parties have notified each other of the completion of the necessary procedures for provisional application.\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2010.", "references": ["86", "63", "45", "33", "57", "79", "41", "10", "24", "13", "81", "6", "25", "7", "17", "23", "43", "68", "60", "88", "4", "64", "61", "28", "19", "85", "14", "52", "56", "34", "No Label", "3", "9", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 546/2011\nof 10 June 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards uniform principles for evaluation and authorisation of plant protection products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 29(6) and Article 84 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the uniform principles for evaluation and authorisation of plant protection products are to contain the requirements set out in Annex VI to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2).\n(2)\nIt is therefore necessary for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to adopt a regulation containing the requirements, as set out in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC. Such a regulation is not to include any substantial modification,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe uniform principles for evaluation and authorisation of plant protection products provided for in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 14 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 June 2011.", "references": ["95", "74", "38", "12", "1", "82", "18", "36", "39", "34", "4", "80", "29", "89", "51", "63", "62", "8", "56", "93", "45", "11", "20", "84", "78", "44", "15", "70", "41", "61", "No Label", "7", "19", "25", "65", "66", "77"], "gold": ["7", "19", "25", "65", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 466/2011\nof 13 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 May 2011.", "references": ["71", "88", "1", "41", "33", "39", "19", "4", "34", "18", "62", "48", "28", "65", "25", "51", "52", "29", "14", "17", "38", "66", "57", "75", "85", "98", "90", "7", "30", "82", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 25 November 2011\non an additional financial contribution towards Member States\u2019 fisheries control, inspection and surveillance programmes for 2011\n(notified under document C(2011) 8359)\n(Only the Bulgarian, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, German, Greek, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2011/779/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea (1), and in particular Article 21 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBased upon the requests for Union co-finance that have been submitted by Member States in their fisheries control programmes for 2011, the Commission has adopted Implementing Decision 2011/431/EU of 11 July 2011 on a Union financial contribution towards Member States\u2019 fisheries control, inspection and surveillance programmes for 2011 (2), which has left some of the 2011 budget available unused.\n(2)\nThat unused part of the 2011 budget should now be allocated by a new Decision.\n(3)\nIn conformity with Article 21(2) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006, Member States have been asked to submit programmes related to additional funding in the priority areas defined by the Commission in its letter to Member States of 20 May 2011, i.e. automation and management of data, electronic recording an reporting systems (ERS systems), electronic recording and reporting devices (ERS devices) and vessel monitoring systems (VMS) as well as traceability and control of engine power.\n(4)\nOn that basis and given budgetary constraints, requests in the programmes for Union funding related to actions such as training and exchange programmes as well as pilot inspection and observer schemes, analysis and assessment of expenditure, initiatives raising awareness of common fisheries policy (CFP) rules and the construction of patrol vessels and aircrafts, have been rejected since they were not dedicated to the priority areas defined above.\n(5)\nWithin the priority areas indicated by the Commission, not all the eligible expenditure in the programmes could be retained, due to budgetary restraints. The Commission selected the projects to be co-financed on the basis of the most urgent needs defined by the Commission.\n(6)\nApplications concerning actions listed in Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 may qualify for Union funding.\n(7)\nThe applications for Union funding have been assessed with regard to their compliance with the rules set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 391/2007 of 11 April 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States in implementing the monitoring and control systems applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy (3).\n(8)\nIt is appropriate to fix the maximum amounts and the rate of the Union financial contribution within the limits set by Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and to lay down the conditions under which such contribution may be granted.\n(9)\nIn order to encourage investment in the priority actions defined by the Commission and in view of the negative impact of the financial crisis on Member States\u2019 budgets, expenditure related to the abovementioned priority areas should benefit from a high co-financing rate, within the limits laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006.\n(10)\nIn order to qualify for the contribution, automatic localisation devices should satisfy the requirements fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (4).\n(11)\nIn order to qualify for the contribution, electronic recording and reporting devices on board fishing vessels should satisfy the requirements fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision provides for an additional Union financial contribution towards expenditure incurred by Member States for 2011 in implementing monitoring and control systems applicable to the common fisheries policy (CFP), as referred to in Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006. It establishes the amount of the Union financial contribution for each Member State, the rate of the Union financial contribution and the conditions on which such contribution may be granted.\nArticle 2\nClosure of outstanding commitments\nAll payments in respect of which a reimbursement is claimed shall be made by the Member State concerned by 30 June 2015. Payments made by a Member State after that deadline shall not be eligible for reimbursement. Unused budgetary appropriations related to this Decision shall be de-committed at the latest by 31 December 2016.\nArticle 3\nNew technologies and IT networks\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex I, on the setting up of new technologies and IT networks in order to allow efficient and secure collection and management of data in connection with monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries activities, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\n2. Any other expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred in Annex I, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 4\nAutomatic localisation devices\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex II, on the purchase and fitting on board of fishing vessels of automatic localisation devices enabling vessels to be monitored at a distance by a fisheries monitoring centre through a vessel monitoring system (VMS) shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits established in that Annex.\n2. The financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated on the basis of a price capped at EUR 2 500 per vessel.\n3. In order to qualify for the financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1, automatic localisation devices shall satisfy the requirements laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011.\nArticle 5\nElectronic recording and reporting systems\nExpenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex III, on the development, purchase, and installation of, as well as technical assistance for, the components necessary for electronic recording and reporting systems (ERS), in order to allow efficient and secure data exchange related to monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries activities, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 6\nElectronic recording and reporting devices\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex IV, on the purchase and fitting on board of fishing vessels of ERS devices enabling vessels to record and report electronically to a Fisheries Monitoring Centre data on fisheries activities, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits established in that Annex.\n2. The financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated on the basis of a price capped at EUR 3 000 per vessel, without prejudice of paragraph 4.\n3. In order to qualify for a financial contribution, ERS devices shall satisfy the requirements established in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011.\n4. In case of devices combining ERS and VMS functions and fulfilling the requirements laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011, the financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be calculated on the basis of a price capped at EUR 4 500 per vessel.\nArticle 7\nPilot projects\nExpenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex V, on pilot projects on new control technologies shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 8\nTotal maximum Union contribution per Member State\nThe planned expenditure, the eligible share thereof, and the maximum Union contribution per Member State are as follows:\n(in EUR)\nMember State\nExpenditure planned in the national fisheries control additional programme\nExpenditure for projects selected under this Decision\nMaximum Union contribution\nBulgaria\n147 254\n147 254\n132 530\nCyprus\n259 000\n255 000\n229 500\nDenmark\n2 159 798\n1 408 564\n1 267 708\nGermany\n6 792 280\n137 480\n123 732\nIreland\n51 610 000\n250 000\n225 000\nGreece\n2 133 500\n590 000\n455 000\nSpain\n4 182 697\n2 264 977\n2 038 480\nItaly\n4 010 000\n1 140 000\n1 026 000\nLatvia\n140 944\n140 944\n126 850\nLithuania\n207 200\n135 313\n121 782\nMalta\n270 664\n191 486\n130 313\nNetherlands\n300 000\n0\n0\nPoland\n386 324\n385 360\n343 623\nPortugal\n2 843 921\n2 395 200\n2 155 680\nRomania\n589 000\n85 000\n76 500\nFinland\n1 000 000\n870 000\n635 000\nUnited Kingdom\n2 862 415\n1 349 325\n1 214 392\nTotal\n79 894 998\n11 745 904\n10 302 090\nArticle 9\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 25 November 2011.", "references": ["19", "14", "25", "54", "63", "71", "80", "52", "22", "13", "47", "15", "23", "99", "41", "51", "64", "37", "11", "0", "9", "90", "33", "32", "39", "12", "49", "27", "3", "29", "No Label", "10", "31", "42", "67", "76", "96"], "gold": ["10", "31", "42", "67", "76", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 May 2010\nconcerning State aid in the form of a tax settlement agreement implemented by Belgium in favour of Umicore SA (formerly Union Mini\u00e8re SA) (State aid C 76/03 (ex NN 69/03))\n(notified under document C(2010) 2538)\n(Only the French and Dutch texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/276/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments (1) pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter dated 11 February 2002 the Commission informed the Belgian authorities of the information it had in its possession concerning an agreement between the Belgian Special Tax Inspectorate and the company Umicore SA (\u2018Umicore\u2019), formerly known as Union Mini\u00e8re SA, on a reduction of a value added tax (VAT) debt. In its letter, the Commission asked the Belgian authorities to furnish it with all the information that might enable it to assess the agreement in the light of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (2).\n(2)\nThe Belgian Government replied to the Commission by letter dated 7 May 2002.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 9 August 2002 the Commission requested further information to complete its assessment of the measure. This information was communicated by the Belgian Government by letter dated 18 September 2002.\n(4)\nBy letter dated 21 October 2003 the Commission asked the Belgian authorities to provide additional documentation clarifying the position of the Belgian tax authorities on the agreement with Umicore.\n(5)\nBy letter dated 31 October 2003 the Belgian authorities informed the Commission that Umicore\u2019s tax file and all the documents pertaining to the agreement in question had been seized by the investigating judge in Brussels, Mr Lugentz, who was conducting a criminal investigation against a person or persons unknown regarding the circumstances in which the agreement had been concluded between the Special Tax Inspectorate and Umicore.\n(6)\nBy letter dated 10 December 2003 the Commission informed Belgium that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty in respect of this aid.\n(7)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) on 7 September 2004. The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments on the aid in question.\n(8)\nAs a result of an error in the text published on 7 September 2004, the decision was published again in the Official Journal of the European Union on 17 November 2004 (4).\n(9)\nThe Commission received comments from Umicore, by letters dated 7 October and 13 December 2004, and from an anonymous third party by letter dated 4 October 2004.\n(10)\nFollowing the new publication of the decision, Belgium sent its comments by letter dated 15 December 2004.\n(11)\nThe Commission forwarded to Belgium the comments from third parties on 13 May 2005. Belgium submitted its comments on 13 June 2005.\n(12)\nBy letter dated 12 December 2005 the Commission informed Belgium of its decision to suspend its examination of the measure until the Belgian judicial authorities had taken a decision in the pending case.\n(13)\nIn its reply dated 19 January 2006 Belgium pointed out that searches had been carried out on the tax authorities\u2019 premises and the complete tax file had been seized; Belgium promised to inform the Commission of decisions communicated to the authorities concerned by the judicial authorities.\n(14)\nBy letter dated 31 March 2008 the Commission requested information about the progress made in the legal proceedings and the possible recovery of the seized documents.\n(15)\nIn its reply to the Commission dated 16 June 2008 Belgium explained that the legal proceedings had been closed on 13 November 2007.\n(16)\nOn 28 July 2008 a meeting took place between representatives of the Special Tax Inspectorate and the Commission. After the meeting a list of questions containing the points raised by the Commission at the meeting was sent by e-mail to the Belgian authorities. The Belgian authorities replied by letter dated 9 September 2008.\n(17)\nBy letter dated 17 October 2008 the Commission reminded Belgium of its duty to take all necessary steps, including the recovery of the seized documents, to answer the Commission\u2019s questions. In the letter the Commission also stated that it could issue a formal order requiring Belgium to provide the information requested given that the information should already have been sent to the Commission following its previous requests.\n(18)\nBy e-mail dated 21 January 2009 the Commission asked the Belgian authorities to keep it informed of the action taken in response to its letter dated 17 October 2008. By letter dated 29 January 2009 the Belgian authorities replied that the Special Tax Directorate was taking steps to answer the Commission\u2019s questions.\n(19)\nBy letter dated 7 May 2009 Belgium informed the Commission that the seized documents had finally been returned to the Special Tax Inspectorate and were being examined with a view to answering the Commission\u2019s questions.\n(20)\nBy letter dated 6 August 2009 Belgium sent the Commission its answers to the questions raised by the Commission in its letter dated 17 October 2008.\n(21)\nAt the Commission\u2019s request, Belgium sent additional information on certain applicable administrative provisions by e-mail dated 22 September 2009.\nII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\nII.1. General context of the agreement of 21 December 2000 between the Special Tax Inspectorate and Umicore\n(22)\nAs part of investigations by tax authorities in several Member States into transactions involving precious metals, the Brussels Regional Directorate of the Special Tax Inspectorate carried out checks on Umicore SA covering the period 1995 to 1999. Following these checks the Special Tax Inspectorate addressed to Umicore, on 30 November 1998 and 30 April 1999 respectively, two adjustment notices concerning the irregular application of VAT exemptions to sales of silver granules to undertakings established in Italy, Switzerland and Spain.\n(23)\nIn particular, the two adjustment notices concerned the provisional establishment of the VAT owed by Umicore, as a result of the irregular application of exemptions, and the amount of the tax fine, as well as the interest automatically payable from the date on which the VAT debt was incurred. The two notices invited Umicore to send in writing within 20 days to the Special Tax Inspectorate its approval of the amounts established or its duly justified objections.\n(24)\nFollowing the second option, Umicore sent two letters to the Special Tax Inspectorate in June 1999, in which it stated its objections to the Special Tax Inspectorate\u2019s findings and claimed that the VAT exemptions applied were in order. The Special Tax Inspectorate responded to the two letters from Umicore on 23 December 1999 by reaffirming the validity of the findings in the two adjustment notices. The Special Tax Inspectorate invited Umicore either to agree to the tax established or to provide new information that would lead to the reduction or cancellation of the amount and, if appropriate, to forgo the part of the limitation period already elapsed so as to allow suspension of limitation for the recovery of the tax, the interest and the tax fines. On 30 March 2000 Umicore put forward further arguments and again rejected the Special Tax Inspectorate\u2019s conclusions.\n(25)\nOn 21 December 2000 the Special Tax Inspectorate accepted a proposal for an agreement from Umicore (\u2018the settlement agreement\u2019) concerning the two adjustment notices, covering the application of VAT for the entire period examined by the Special Tax Inspectorate. The agreement provided for the payment by Umicore of a much lower amount than the amounts included in the adjustment notices.\nII.2. Tax arrangements applicable to intra-Community supplies and exports of goods\n(26)\nThe VAT rules applicable to intra-Community supplies and exports of the goods covered by the settlement agreement from 1995 to 1998 originate in the transposition of Council Directive 91/680/EEC (5) into the Belgian VAT Code. The Directive provides for transitional VAT arrangements with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers and amends the Sixth VAT Directive (6).\n1. Taxation of supplies of goods\n(27)\nThe first subparagraph of Article 2 of the Belgian VAT Code states: \u2018supplies of goods and services carried out for consideration by a taxable person acting as such are subject to tax when they take place in Belgium.\u2019\n(28)\nArticle 10 of the VAT Code states:\n\u2018The supply of goods shall mean the transfer of the right to dispose of property as owner. In particular, this involves making goods available to a person acquiring them pursuant to a contract transferring or dividing up ownership.\u2019\n(29)\nArticle 15 of the VAT Code states:\n\u2018(1) Goods are supplied in Belgium when the place where the supply is deemed to take place in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 6 is in Belgium.\n(2) The place of supply of goods is deemed to be the place where the goods are made available to the person acquiring them.\nHowever, the place of supply is deemed to be:\n1.\nwhere the dispatch or transport to the person to whom they are supplied begins when the goods are dispatched or transported by the supplier, by the person acquiring them or by a third party;\n\u2026\n(7) Unless proven otherwise, movable goods are deemed to have been supplied in Belgium when, at the time of supply, one of the parties to the transaction has established his business or has a fixed establishment there or, in the absence of such a place of business or fixed establishment, has his permanent address or is habitually resident there.\u2019\n(30)\nThe supply of goods (the transport of which begins in Belgium) is therefore in principle taxable in Belgium. The law has introduced a legal presumption that the supply is deemed to have taken place in Belgium when one of the parties to the transaction is established in Belgium.\n2. VAT liability\n(31)\nIn accordance with Article 51(1) of the VAT Code tax is payable by the taxable person carrying out the supply of taxable goods or services that takes place in Belgium.\n3. Exports\n(32)\nArticle 39(1) of the VAT Code lays down VAT exemptions for exports of goods; it states: \u2018The following are exempt from tax: 1. the supply of goods dispatched or transported to a destination outside the Community by or on behalf of the vendor; 2. the supply of goods dispatched or transported to a destination outside the Community by or on behalf of the purchaser, who is not established in Belgium \u2026\u2019\n(33)\nIn accordance with Article 39(3) of the VAT Code, Royal Decree No 18 of 29 December 1992 lays down the conditions in Belgian law for exempting exports of goods from Belgium to destinations outside the Community (7).\n4. Intra-Community supplies\n(34)\nArticle 39 bis of the VAT Code provides from 1 January 1993: \u2018The following are exempt from tax: 1. supplies of goods dispatched or transported to destinations outside Belgium, but within the Community, by or on behalf of the vendor \u2026 or the person acquiring the goods for another taxable person or non-taxable natural person acting as such in another Member State who is liable for tax on his intra-Community acquisitions of goods \u2026\u2019\n(35)\nBelgian tax law lays down several conditions regarding the proof that has to be furnished to ensure correct application of the exemption provided for in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code. Article 1 of Royal Decree No 52 of 29 December 1992 states: \u2018The tax exemptions provided for in Article 39 bis of the Code are subject to proof that the goods were dispatched or transported outside Belgium but within the Community\u2019. Article 2 of Royal Decree No 52 specifies that the exemption is \u2018also subject to proof that the supply is carried out for a taxable person \u2026 registered for VAT in another Member State.\u2019 In addition, the first subparagraph of Article 3 of Royal Decree No 52 provides: \u2018The vendor must at all times be in possession of all documents proving that the dispatch or transport of the goods has actually taken place \u2026\u2019 In this connection, the extract from a press release published in Moniteur belge No 36 of 20 February 1993 informs taxpayers that \u2018transport must be carried out by or on behalf of the vendor or the person acquiring the goods. Consequently, if transport is carried out by or on behalf of a subsequent customer (e.g. in chain transactions where the transport is carried out by the final customer), supplies before the supply to the final customer may not be exempted\u2019.\n(36)\nIn order to qualify for an exemption for intra-Community supply, the taxable person must therefore prove, inter alia, that the transport was carried out by or on behalf of either the vendor or the person acquiring the goods (8).\n(37)\nIf the conditions for the application of the exemptions laid down in Articles 39 and 39 bis of the VAT Code are not fulfilled, the supply of the goods becomes taxable in Belgium and the debt is incurred as a result of the mere existence of the transaction (9). In the interests of fairness towards the taxable person, the Belgian tax authorities nevertheless agree to grant an exemption under these articles to a taxable person who is not able to provide all the proof necessary to show that the conditions for exemption have been met if they themselves are in possession of such proof, for example within the framework of mutual assistance from other Member States or third countries.\n5. Taxation based on actual facts\n(38)\nAccording to the established case law of the Belgian Court of Cassation, tax (including VAT) must be established on the basis of the actual facts (10). In applying this principle, the authorities are therefore required to impose tax, not on the basis of the apparent existence of an act as presented by the taxpayer, but on the basis of the actual existence of an act (resulting from the actual intention of one of the parties concerned).\n6. Procedure\n(39)\nIn cases where the authorities contest VAT exemptions applied to supplies of goods, they address an adjustment notice (11) to the taxable person, normally together with a fine.\n7. Settlement with the taxable person\n(40)\nThe second subparagraph of Article 84 of the VAT Code states that the Minister for Finance may conclude settlements with taxpayers provided that these do not involve an exemption from or a reduction of the tax. Such settlements, therefore, must concern only points of fact and not points of law. They are generally possible only when both parties make concessions (12) (not on the amount of the tax that may arise from the established facts, but on points of fact, the setting of fines, etc.).\n(41)\nThe Minister for Finance delegates his powers in this area to the Regional Directorates of the VAT authorities and to the Special Tax Inspectorate.\n8. Imposition of administrative fines\n(42)\nAs regards the imposition of fines when the right to an exemption is not proved, Article 70(1) of the VAT Code lays down a fine in proportion to the infringement of the obligation to pay VAT, equivalent to twice the amount of the unpaid tax. Nevertheless, Royal Decree No 41 of 30 January 1987 provides for a scale reducing the proportional tax fines. Article 1(1) of Royal Decree No 41 states that the fine is reduced by 10 % of the amount of the tax due (table G of the Annex) in the case of infringements against Article 39 bis of the VAT Code (wrongly applied exemption or lack of proof of the right to an exemption). The same proportional fine is imposed for similar infringements of Article 39 of the VAT Code.\n(43)\nArticle 70(2) of the VAT Code lays down a fine of twice the amount of the tax due on the transaction if the invoice is not supplied or contains inaccurate information, inter alia, as regards identification, the name or the address of the parties to the transaction. In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 70(2) of the VAT Code this fine is, however, not imposed when the irregularities can be deemed to be purely accidental (13) or when the supplier had no reason to doubt that the other party (14) was a non-taxable person.\n(44)\nRoyal Decree No 41 (15) increases the fine to 100 % of the tax due on the transactions in the case of inaccuracies in the invoices. Article 3 of the same Royal Decree provides for full cancellation of the fine if a taxpayer rectifies the situation immediately before the intervention of the tax authorities.\n9. Proportionality of fines\n(45)\nIn a judgment of 24 February 1999 (16) the Belgian Court of Arbitration (17) decided that a judge must be able to verify whether \u2018a decision of a punitive nature is justified by fact and by law and respects all legislative provisions and general principles incumbent on the authorities, including the principle of proportionality.\u2019 In the same judgment, the Court of Arbitration also found that administrative fines in the field of VAT are punitive in nature.\n(46)\nIn addition, recent case law from the Belgian Court of Cassation (18) confirmed that both the competent tax authority and the judge are obliged to apply the principle of proportionality to the calculation of administrative fines, even if this means derogating from fixed scales.\n10. Possible reduction or cancellation of fines by the authorities\n(47)\nFollowing the entry into force of the Law of 15 March 1999 on tax disputes, the provisions of the VAT Code (19) that enabled the Minister for Finance to cancel fines have been repealed. Nevertheless, on the basis of Article 9 of the Regent\u2019s Decree of 18 March 1831 (20) the Minister for Finance, or the official delegated by him for this purpose, retains the power to reduce or cancel fines. The Minister has delegated this power to the Director-General and the Regional Directors (21) of the VAT authorities (22).\n(48)\nIn principle this provision allows the authorities, when imposing a VAT fine, to deviate from the scales laid down in Article 70(2) of the VAT Code and in Royal Decree No 41, especially when strict application of the scales would not be in line with the principle of proportionality.\n(49)\nIf a reduction in the fine is possible, it is therefore normal, in the case of an amicable settlement between the tax authorities and the taxpayer, for the agreement also to cover the fine and for negotiations to be held on this matter.\n11. Default interest\n(50)\nArticle 91(1) of the VAT Code states that default interest is to be calculated at a rate of 0,8 % of the tax due for each month of default. Article 84 bis of the VAT Code provides that, in special cases, the competent Director-General may, under the conditions stipulated by himself, grant an exemption for all or part of the interest payable under Article 91 of the VAT Code.\n(51)\nHowever, it is clear from administrative comments on VAT (23) that a partial or total remission of default interest may be granted only if the taxable person is in a difficult financial situation for reasons beyond his control. This view was confirmed by Belgium in its letter dated 13 June 2005 in response to the comments from third parties, where it stated: \u2018the Special Tax Inspectorate\u2019s Regional Directors have never granted a total or partial remission of default interest in any tax case. Moreover, such a remission is granted only to taxpayers in a difficult financial situation \u2026\u2019\n12. Refund\n(52)\nArticle 77(1), number 7, of the VAT Code provides that the tax charged on the supply of goods (or services) shall be refunded in the appropriate amount in the event of the loss of a claim for payment of all or part of the purchase price.\n(53)\nCircular No 78 on VAT refunds (24) specifies that a refund applies not only when the claim for payment of the purchase price is lost due to bankruptcy or composition, but also in all cases where the supplier establishes that the invoice has either not been paid at all or has only been partially paid and that he has exhausted all remedies. The point at which the loss can be deemed to be certain depends on the factual circumstances of each case (25).\n(54)\nWhen only part of the invoice has been paid, for example if the person acquiring the goods pays the amount on the invoice excluding VAT but an amount corresponding to the VAT remains unpaid, only the part of VAT relating proportionally to the unpaid amount (26) can be refunded (27).\n13. Possibility of deducting VAT from corporate tax\n(55)\nArticle 53 of the Income Tax Code provides that certain taxes are not deductible when calculating the tax base subject to income tax (including corporate tax). However, this does not include VAT.\n(56)\nThe administrative instructions on income tax (28) also state that the VAT paid or owed by a taxpayer to the tax authorities that is not covered by VAT charged to the customer constitutes a business expense.\n14. Possibility of deducting VAT fines from corporate tax\n(57)\nIn accordance with the case law of the Court of Cassation, as confirmed in administrative comments (29), proportional VAT fines are deductible from corporate tax.\n15. Powers of the Special Tax Inspectorate\n(58)\nAccording to Article 87 of the Law of 8 August 1980, the Special Tax Inspectorate and its Regional Directors enjoy the same powers as the VAT authorities.\nII.3. The beneficiary\n(59)\nUmicore SA is a Belgian limited company operating in the EU and international markets that manufactures and sells special materials and precious metals; this includes the manufacture and sale of silver granules. In particular, Umicore is reputed to be one of the world\u2019s biggest silver refiners.\n(60)\nThe silver manufactured by Umicore is extracted from other materials, in most cases from industrial waste, supplied to it under tolling agreements on the recovery of precious and non-precious metals (silver, gold, platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium, cobalt, copper, lead, etc.). Umicore specialises in the manufacture of silver granules, which are generally sold to jewellery wholesalers or to industry.\n(61)\nAs part of its marketing activities in silver granules, Umicore carries out deliveries in particular to other Member States. According to the information provided by Umicore to the Belgian tax authorities, at the material time global consumption of silver was approximately 26 000 tonnes a year and Italy was the biggest market in Europe and one of the main geographic markets, with consumption of approximately 2 000 tonnes a year.\nII.4. Checks made and adjustment notices sent by the Special Tax Inspectorate\n(62)\nFollowing checks carried out by the Special Tax Inspectorate concerning the precious metals marketing activities carried on by Umicore from 1995 to 1999 inclusive, the Special Tax Inspectorate\u2019s Brussels Regional Directorate addressed on Umicore, on 30 November 1998 and 30 April 1999 respectively, two adjustment notices concerning the irregular application of the exemption under Article 39 bis of the VAT Code (and in certain cases under Article 39 of the Code concerning the exemption for the export of goods outside the European Union) with respect to various deliveries of silver granules to Italy on behalf of Italian, Spanish and Swiss customers. In particular, the investigations carried out by the relevant authorities of the Member States concerned had made it possible to establish that some of Umicore\u2019s foreign customers were fictitious and linked to \u2018carrousel fraud\u2019 type mechanisms implemented to evade payment of VAT.\n(63)\nThe irregularities found by the Special Tax Inspectorate concerned, in particular, infringements of Articles 39 and 39 bis of the VAT Code and Articles 1 to 3 of Royal Decree No 52 relating to exemptions applied by Umicore to certain intra-Community supplies and exports. In particular, the tax authorities considered that the company was not in a position to prove that the conditions for application of the exemption under Articles 39 and 39 bis of the VAT Code had been fulfilled for the supplies. The Special Tax Inspectorate was therefore of the opinion, on a preliminary basis, that Umicore had wrongfully applied the VAT exemption to certain intra-Community supplies or certain exports.\n(64)\nWith respect to certain sales to various Italian and Spanish companies in particular (in the 1995-96 period), the Special Tax Inspectorate considered (on a preliminary basis) that the goods had been transported, not by either Umicore or the purchasers indicated on the invoices, or on their behalf, but by subsequent customers, further down the supply chain in Italy. According to the Special Tax Inspectorate, the supplies concerned did not therefore fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code concerning exemptions on intra-Community supplies of goods.\n(65)\nWith respect to certain sales to companies established in Switzerland, the Special Tax Inspectorate was also of the opinion that the exemption provided for in Article 39 of the VAT Code for the export of goods outside the European Union was not applicable either, given that the goods had been delivered to Italy and had not therefore left the territory of the European Union.\n(66)\nConsequently, the Special Tax Inspectorate provisionally concluded, in its adjustment notice of 30 November 1998, that, for the years 1995 and 1996, Umicore owed the Belgian Government the following amounts:\n-\nBEF 708 211 924 (approximately EUR 17 556 115) in VAT,\n-\nBEF 70 820 000 (approximately EUR 1 755 582) by way of a reduced tax fine (table G annexed to Royal Decree No 41),\n-\n0,8 % per month of interest on arrears beginning from 21 January 1997 to be calculated on the amount of VAT owed.\n(67)\nIn addition, in its adjustment notice of 30 April 1999, the Special Tax Inspectorate concluded provisionally that, for the years 1997 and 1998, Umicore owed the Belgian Government the following amounts:\n-\nBEF 274 966 597 (approximately EUR 6 816 243) in VAT,\n-\nBEF 27 496 000 (approximately EUR 681 608) by way of a reduced tax fine (table G annexed to Royal Decree No 41),\n-\n0,8 % per month of interest on arrears beginning from 21 January 1999 to be calculated on the amount of VAT owed.\n(68)\nIn all, the amount of VAT sought from Umicore following the adjustment notices totalled EUR 24 372 358 and the tax fine calculated in the adjustment notices was EUR 2 437 235.\n(69)\nBy letters of 11 and 18 June 1999 and 31 March 2000, Umicore indicated its disagreement with the two adjustment notices. In particular, it argued that the irregularities committed by its customers were beyond its control and defended itself by pointing out that, as a wholesaler in the silver granules market, it was not supposed to know who the customers of its purchasers were, given that sales of silver were made ex works to avoid uncertainties with shipments. In addition, Umicore contended that all of its customers were registered for VAT purposes in other Member States over the period when the transactions were made, that all of the deliveries in question had been included in Umicore\u2019s quarterly intra-Community deliveries statements in accordance with Belgium\u2019s VAT Code, that the names of the companies receiving delivery had been included in the invoices identifying them for VAT purposes, in line with the agreements made on taking the orders, that the shipments had actually been made by specialised transport companies and that the goods had effectively left Belgian territory and actually been delivered in Italy. Umicore was therefore of the opinion that it had rightfully applied the VAT exemption laid down in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code to the transactions in question.\n(70)\nUmicore also emphasised that some States merely required proof that goods had been shipped to a Member State other than that from which they originated, whereas Belgium demanded proof that transport had been carried out by or on behalf of the vendor or the purchaser of the goods in question, which, it held, was contrary to EU law and resulted in serious distortions of competition to the disadvantage of Umicore and other Belgian companies engaged in this type of intra-Community supply. Umicore thus held that it had acted in good faith in not applying VAT to the transactions at issue.\nII.5. Basis of the settlement agreement of 21 December 2000\n(71)\nOn 21 December 2000 the Special Tax Inspectorate accepted a proposal for an agreement submitted by Umicore regarding its VAT liabilities for the years 1995 to 1998. In the proposed agreement it was indicated that Umicore disputed the validity of the adjustments claimed by the Special Tax Inspectorate but accepted the settlement put forward in the interests of conciliation.\n(72)\nThe agreement provides for the payment by Umicore of BEF 423 000 000, i.e. around EUR 10 485 896, in \u2018full and final settlement of Umicore\u2019s VAT liabilities for the years 1995 to 1999 inclusive\u2019. The agreement further stipulates that this amount will not be deductible from corporate tax.\n(73)\nAs was indicated by Belgium during the preliminary investigation before proceedings were opened, its tax authorities are of the view that the settlement amount corresponds to a fine established pursuant to Article 70(2) of the VAT Code, reduced in application of Article 84 of the same Code. In particular, Article 70(2) stipulates that errors in invoices drafted by a taxable person \u2018concerning the VAT identification numbers, the names or addresses of the parties to the transaction, the nature or quantity of goods supplied or services provided, the prices or incidental expenses\u2019 result in the application of a fine equal to double the tax due on the transaction. However, the fine is reduced to 100 % of the tax due in accordance with Article 1(3) of Royal Decree No 41 (Table C annexed to Royal Decree No 41).\n(74)\nBelgium further claims that the settlement amount agreed by Umicore and the Special Tax Inspectorate was entirely legitimate and justified under Belgian law. It derives from the following calculation:\n-\ntax due in principle (theoretical calculation) on the transactions at issue: BEF 708 million,\n-\nstatutory fine: BEF 708 million \u00d7 200 % = BEF 1 416 million (application of Article 70(2) of the VAT Code),\n-\nreduction to 100 % in accordance with Royal Decree No 41 (Table C) setting the level of fines regarding VAT when the breaches were not committed with the intention of evading or allowing for the evasion of VAT: BEF 708 million,\n-\nconsideration of the non-deductibility of the fine under business expenses (708 - 40,17 % of 708): BEF 423 million (approximately EUR 10 485 896).\n(75)\nAccording to Belgium, such a settlement was justified because the adjustment statements in question constitute merely the first stage of a complicated administrative process aimed at establishing the tax owed by a company liable for VAT. An in-depth examination of the information and arguments presented by Umicore, which has always denied having committed fraud, allegedly convinced the Special Tax Inspectorate that no tax should be demanded in the present case. The Special Tax Inspectorate takes the view that the facts as a whole, in particular the documents provided by Umicore and the Italian authorities, led to the conclusion that the conditions for VAT exemption had been met in spite of what had been noted in the adjustment statements. Since no amount of tax due had been established, no reduction of VAT owing was granted.\nIII. GROUNDS FOR OPENING THE PROCEDURE\n(76)\nIn its decision to open the procedure, the Commission found that doubts existed as to the application of the VAT exemption to the supplies of goods covered by the adjustment statements drawn up by the Special Tax Inspectorate. It was of the opinion that a wrongfully applied VAT exemption would result in an increase in profit margins for the supplier on the sales in question.\n(77)\nThe Commission noted that an intra-Community supply of goods, taxable in theory in Belgium, could benefit from an exemption if the following two conditions were met:\n-\nthe goods were dispatched or transported by the vendor or the purchaser or on their behalf beyond the territory of a Member State but within the Union, and\n-\nthe supply of the goods was carried out for another taxable person acting as such in a Member State other than that from which the goods were dispatched or transported.\n(78)\nAccording to the information at the Commission\u2019s disposal, during the checks made by the Special Tax Inspectorate, Umicore did not appear to be in a position to prove that the conditions for exemption were fulfilled. Consequently, and in line with the rules on the application of VAT to supplies of goods in Belgium, a tax liability arose out of the fact that these taxable transactions had taken place.\n(79)\nThe Commission therefore considered that the agreement in question appeared to grant an advantage to Umicore consisting of a reduction in the tax burden it would normally have borne.\n(80)\nThe Commission also noted that it would be contradictory and unjustified to inflict a fine in proportion to the VAT evaded without recovering the VAT itself.\n(81)\nAccording to the Commission, Umicore\u2019s alleged lack of fraudulent intent did not warrant the imposition of a proportional fine instead of the payment of the tax itself.\n(82)\nThe Commission further noted that the amount of VAT used in the basis for calculating the proportional fine (BEF 708 million) amounted to merely a part of the liability initially established in the Special Tax Inspectorate\u2019s notices (BEF 983 million). The information provided by Belgium on the calculation concerning the settlement made did not appear to take Umicore\u2019s VAT liability for the 1997-98 period into account under the adjustment notice of 30 April 1999.\n(83)\nThe Commission, moreover, expressed doubts as to the lawfulness of a subsequent reduction of the amount in question, applied under the non-deductibility of the fine as a business cost for the purposes of corporate tax.\n(84)\nIn addition, the Commission expressed doubts as to the way in which the agreement was reached. In particular, the fact that the agreement did not specify its legal basis and its formal justification from a legal point of view constituted a departure from the normal procedure for determining and settling a VAT liability generally applicable in Belgium. In principle, in instances in which the authorities challenge the right of a taxable person to an exemption, they send him an adjustment statement, generally accompanied by a fine. In the event that the taxable person objects to the tax claimed by the authorities and his objections are incapable of convincing the department concerned, the authorities should, in principle, send him a constraining order along with a 50 % increase in the fine.\n(85)\nAs for the selective nature of the measure, the Commission noted that discretionary practices by tax authorities are likely to give rise to advantages falling within the scope of Article 107(1) of the Treaty (30).\n(86)\nThe Commission therefore held that an amicable settlement such as the one from which Umicore had benefited, involving a reduction in a VAT liability, fines and interest, was not generally available to all taxpayers, even assuming that they were to dispute the merits of the infringements attributed to them, and that the criterion of selectivity was thus fulfilled.\n(87)\nAccording to the Commission, the aid in question did not appear to benefit from any of the exemptions laid down in Article 107 of TFEU.\nIV. BELGIUM\u2019S COMMENTS\n(88)\nBelgium emphasises that the VAT Code does not lay down any precise formal procedure for imposing adjustments on persons liable for VAT. A standard practice has, nevertheless, become established in this respect, aimed firstly at informing the taxpayer of the adjustment planned by the authorities and asking him to submit information which might prevent such taxation. This practice is consonant with the application of the principles of sound administration and the rights of the defence. In this context, the adjustment notice merely constitutes a proposal from the authorities designed as a basis for discussion with the taxable person, without giving rise to any legal effect on the taxable person or establishing a claim for the authorities. The adjustment notice essentially therefore enables the taxpayer to challenge the initial stance of the tax authorities and provide information in support of his position.\n(89)\nAccording to Belgium, after examining the arguments presented by the taxpayer in response to the adjustment notice, it can happen that the adjustment planned has to be modified or even that the taxation has to be completely abandoned.\n(90)\nBelgium also explains that the adjustment notice does not have the effect of creating a tax liability. Only the constraining order, rendered enforceable, constitutes the legal act by which the State establishes a tax liability for VAT (31). As no constraining order was ever issued to Umicore in the context of the case in question, the expression \u2018reduction of a VAT debt\u2019 is, in Belgium\u2019s view, inaccurate.\n(91)\nIn order to show that the procedure followed in the Umicore case is also adopted with respect to other taxpayers, Belgium submits a copy of an agreement made with a taxable person in 2000 for an amount of BEF 6 million, whereas the notice issued in 1995 to the same taxable person for the same transactions indicated that they were liable for a total of BEF 14 million.\n(92)\nWith regard to the procedure followed with that taxable person, Belgium adds that tax agreements are basic instruments in VAT matters, widely acknowledged by scholarly works and case law, and explicitly provided for by Article 84 of the VAT code. Settlements are thus an intrinsic part of the procedure in itself and are available to all taxpayers without exception.\n(93)\nAs for the fact that the agreement does not specify its legal basis, Belgium explains that Article 84 of the VAT Code does not lay down any binding form or content for tax agreements on VAT. There was consequently no obligation to mention any legal basis or formal justification in the agreement.\n(94)\nBelgium notes that the Commission questioned it in 1999 about the severity shown by the Belgian authorities in their appraisal of the evidence provided by taxpayers to prove the reality of the intra-Community supplies they had carried out. It refers, in this respect, to correspondence between the Commission and the Belgian Ministry of Finance regarding the standard of proof required to obtain an exemption in the event of an intra-Community supply (32).\n(95)\nBelgium also notes that there is no precise method formally provided for in European Union legislation or in Belgian law by which taxpayers could and should, in all circumstances, prove their right to an exemption. On the contrary, it is for the tax authorities initially and, where necessary, for the courts subsequently, to assess on a case-by-case basis whether or not the information aimed at establishing that the conditions for an exemption have been fulfilled is sufficiently persuasive. In this context, Belgium also submits copies of a number of judgments deciding such issues in favour of the tax authorities.\n(96)\nWith regard to the first adjustment notice concerning the years 1995 and 1996, Belgium explains that the following factors were taken into account in deciding not to levy the taxation initially considered:\n-\nthe non-involvement of Umicore in the fraudulent system,\n-\nthe goods were paid for before being transported by professional hauliers appointed by the purchasers,\n-\nproof of the goods being transported to Italy was provided, even though this was essentially furnished by the Italian authorities rather than Umicore (33).\n(97)\nBelgium indicates, however, that having recorded Umicore\u2019s shortcomings in terms of identifying the real customers, the Special Tax Inspectorate was of the opinion that a significant fine should be imposed on it. Against this backdrop, the authorities only compromised on the amount of the fine, as can be shown by the fact that the taxpayer\u2019s payment was recorded as a proportional fine in the Government accounts.\n(98)\nAs for the second adjustment notice concerning the years 1997 and 1998, Belgium notes that proposal not to levy VAT is warranted as the conditions for the exemption were proven to have effectively been met. The goods were indeed sent to another Member State (Italy) and the deliveries were made to a company registered for VAT purposes in another Member State (the United Kingdom) (34).\n(99)\nBelgium also indicated that the change in appraisal flowed from the fact that not all the relevant documents had become available in 1998 and 1999. When they were obtained, however, it was up to the authorities to assess, on the basis of all the information at its disposal, whether they could refuse the exemption and whether they would have a reasonable chance of success in defending such a decision before the courts. Belgium adds that, on the basis of a risk analysis similar to that of any private creditor, the Special Tax Inspectorate preferred an immediate, tangible and undisputed result rather than engaging in long and costly litigation the outcome of which was less than certain.\n(100)\nBelgium notes that when the adjustment notices were drawn up, the staff responsible automatically applied the legal provisions relating to the taxation concerned. In the event of an exemption wrongfully claimed or applied without fraudulent intent, Article 70(1) of the VAT Code and Table G (point VII.2.A) of Royal Decree No 41 provide for a fine of 10 % of the tax due. Belgium emphasises that in doing so the Special Tax Inspectorate\u2019s staff had necessarily considered that it was not possible to establish any fraudulent intent on Umicore\u2019s part.\n(101)\nAccording to Belgium, the motive for the fine accepted in the agreement of 21 December 2000 was radically different from that underpinning the fine considered in the adjustment notices. With the reality of the intra-Community supplies having been established to the requisite legal standard, Belgium emphasises that it would have been completely contradictory to impose a fine based on Article 70(1) of the VAT Code on the ground that the exemption under Article 39 bis of that Code had been wrongfully claimed.\n(102)\nBelgium further highlights that, although the reality of the intra-Community supplies had been established, the invoices produced by Umicore nonetheless showed gross negligence with respect to identifying the real Italian customers for the silver supplied. The fact that Umicore is a major player in economic terms, active essentially and continually at the international and, thus, European level, was taken into account when assessing the seriousness of this negligence. It was therefore assumed that the company\u2019s managers must have known that the invoices bore shortcomings in the identification of customers and did not thus entirely comply with Belgian regulations. In view of the lack of other elements, however, this assumption was insufficient to establish fraudulent intent on the part of Umicore.\n(103)\nBelgium refers to the way in which the amount of the settlement was calculated and explains that the imposition of a proportional fine when no VAT is due does not run counter to the legislation in force. When a transaction is taxable in principle (35), the VAT Code grants a subsequent exemption, which is entirely ex post, from tax in Belgium for certain transactions such as intra-Community supplies. It follows from this that a proportional fine can be imposed on the amount of tax due in principle on the transactions concerned, even if those transactions are subsequently exempted (36).\n(104)\nBelgium concludes that the fine referred to in Article 70(2) of the VAT Code is a punishment for the inexactitude of the indications on invoices, irrespective of the VAT scheme to be applied to the transactions concerned. It is therefore, in its view, not true that such a fine cannot be imposed in the event of a transaction which is not taxable pursuant to Article 2 of the VAT Code. The fine provided for under Article 70(2) of the VAT Code is not, moreover, a punishment for failing to pay the tax, which is punished under Article 70(1) of the Code, but for making it possible to evade tax due at subsequent stages of the marketing of the goods concerned. By disguising the true identity of the purchaser of the goods, the authorities would lose track of them and would not be able to secure payment of either VAT or even the direct taxes due as result of the subsequent transactions involving the goods supplied. The administrative guidelines for the VAT Code are very clear in this respect (37).\n(105)\nRegarding the calculation of the proportional fine, Belgium explains that a reduction from 200 %, as laid down in Article 70(2) of the VAT Code, to 100 % is entirely legal, since such a reduction is in line with the levels of fines stipulated in Table C of Royal Decree No 41 when there is no fraudulent intent.\n(106)\nBelgium also emphasises that, according to the settled case law of the Belgian Court of Cassation, proportional fines for VAT are deductible from the tax base for corporate tax (38). Given the fact that Umicore wished to bring this deduction forward, so to speak, in order to put an end to its dispute with the Special Tax Inspectorate before the end of the 2000 financial year, the authorities reportedly accepted to included the effect of bringing the deduction forward in the settlement of 21 December 2000. Belgium further emphasises that accepting this request fell entirely within the Ministry\u2019s powers to reduce or waive fines. It also stresses that Umicore actually paid the amount of BEF 423 million before 31 December 2000 as it had undertaken to do.\n(107)\nBelgium disputes ever having granted aid to Umicore. It also emphasises that the settlement under consideration did not bear any special feature or advantage for Umicore and it did not strengthen the position of the company in relation to competitors in trade between Member States in any way. It is of the opinion that Umicore did not benefit from any special treatment whatsoever, but was merely the subject of the material application to a particular case of a basic instrument which is very widely used.\n(108)\nAccording to Belgium, such settlement agreements are commonplace not only in Belgium but, for obvious reasons (that is, to avoid long and costly litigation the outcome of which is uncertain) with the authorities of numerous other Member States. In this respect, Belgium notes that the Commission itself had recourse to a settlement agreement with Philip Morris International in a case involving the loss of customs duties and VAT which should have been paid for legal imports (39).\n(109)\nBelgium adds that if VAT had been charged on the transactions at issue, that VAT would have had to be reimbursed to Umicore\u2019s customers by the tax authorities, since those customers could use their right to the deduction of VAT as undertakings registered for VAT. It would therefore have had no financial impact on Belgium\u2019s public accounts, with no transfer of state resources.\n(110)\nAs for the criterion of specificity, Belgium indicates that, contrary to what the Commission argued in its decision to open the procedure, the mere fact that the settlement agreement related only to Umicore is not enough to claim that the criterion of specificity has been fulfilled (40). In order to determine if there was a specific advantage, the measure would have to be assessed in the light of the treatment given to undertakings in similar factual and legal circumstances as the allegedly favoured undertaking (41).\n(111)\nAccording to Belgium, if, as in this case, any person subject to VAT has the possibility to contest an adjustment notice, to present his arguments before the authorities and to conclude an agreement with the authorities relating to his specific case, which does not imply any derogation from the law and is confined, as indicated by the evidence submitted, to accepting the merits of the facts as established by the taxable person, the measure would be general and would not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty. According to Belgium, the procedure applicable to Umicore is open to other undertakings and applies in a similar manner to all disputes.\n(112)\nIn this respect, Belgium emphasizes that in this case the authorities did not have and did not use any discretionary or arbitrary powers in applying VAT law.\n(113)\nAccording to Belgium, the measure under investigation is justified also by the nature and structure of the Belgian tax system. Under any administrative procedure, it is logical to expect a correct solution as soon as possible, which contributes to legal certainty while ensuring strict procedural compliance and effective recovery of the tax. The agreements concluded with taxpayers such as Umicore ultimately serve the purpose of avoiding protracted and indecisive legal disputes.\n(114)\nThe Belgian authorities point out that, to the best of their knowledge, the European competitors of Umicore supplied fine silver to the same Italian customers as Umicore and under the same terms, and that the VAT situation of those producers has not been the object of any adjustment applied by their national authorities on the ground that the fraud occurred in Italy and not at the producers. Because it accepted to pay a significant fine, while its competitors paid neither VAT nor any administrative fines, Umicore was certainly not an aid recipient, but the object of a measure that affected its competitive position in the relevant market. If there was any distortion of trade, it was to its disadvantage.\n(115)\nBelgium considers therefore that the measure does not meet any of the conditions required in order to establish the existence of State aid under the Treaty. The case does not involve any transfer of resources, advantage, selectivity or distortion of competition or trade between Member States.\n(116)\nBelgium concludes that if the Commission intends henceforth to attack the very mechanism of tax settlements, even though it is widely used and essential for the proper functioning of tax collection by any tax authorities, in order to assess the substantive application of law it will have, in each case, to substitute itself for the national court acting as \u2018appeal court\u2019 for decisions by national authorities.\nV. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\nV.1. Umicore\n(117)\nUmicore begins by pointing out that, under the current practice developed in the area of international trade in precious metals, deliveries take place at the plant (\u2018ex works\u2019), the transportation of the goods being taken care of by the buyer. This type of sale appears to be very risky under the new VAT system for intra-Community supplies. The seller has to prove the reality of the transport operation, but in this case the documents proving the transport operation are in the possession of the buyer (given that, since 1993, the ultimate proof of transport, namely the customs stamp on the export document, no longer applies to intra-Community supplies).\n(118)\nAs regards the proof of transport of the goods, more particularly, Umicore emphasizes that it submitted to the Special Tax Inspectorate very detailed documentation justifying the transport.\n(119)\nUmicore also mentions that it acted in good faith in connection with the disputed transactions, as witness the 10 % fine indicated in the adjustment notices, which applies only to taxable persons who act in good faith. In this context, Umicore also points out that it cooperated spontaneously with the Italian legal authorities, which, convinced of its good faith, did not proceed against it.\n(120)\nUmicore also underscores that, in its opinion, the Italian authorities are liable to the extent that they did not cancel the VAT numbers of the fictitious Italian companies as soon as serious irregularities were found by the Italian tax authorities.\n(121)\nUmicore also maintains that other competing silver producers, established in other Member States, carried out deliveries to the same Swiss and Italian intermediaries under the same circumstances and terms as those of the deliveries carried out by itself but their deliveries have not been questioned by their tax authorities. It is therefore unacceptable for Umicore, after having paid BEF 423 million (EUR 10 485 896), to be considered a State aid recipient when those other competing companies escape any prosecution.\n(122)\nFinally, Umicore agrees with the comments submitted by Belgium, according to which an adjustment notice, contrary to a constraining order, does not in any way create a VAT debt under Belgian law.\n(123)\nUmicore\u2019s arguments are similar to those made by Belgium in respect of the legality and validity of VAT agreements concluded between the authorities and taxable persons. The interested party recalls that such agreements may apply only to factual questions such as the proof of transport for intra-Community supplies (and the resulting tax base). In this context, Umicore states that the practice of concluding such agreements is widespread, including at the level of the Special Tax Inspectorate services (42).\n(124)\nThe interested party also mentions that the validity and legality of reductions in administrative fines, in exchange for an agreement with the taxpayer in respect of the amount, are confirmed by case law (43).\n(125)\nFinally, as regards the factoring-in of the tax deductibility of the payable amount, Umicore emphasizes the following:\n-\nthe Special Tax Inspectorate does not have only VAT competences, but also competences relating to income tax,\n-\ninstead of requesting that Umicore pay a gross amount before income tax, which would have been tax deductible, the Special Tax Inspectorate accepted the payment of a net amount, after tax, provided that, of course, as specified in the agreement, the net amount was not itself tax deductible. In return, Umicore accepted to pay the (net) amount within a very short period (a week), which did not violate any applicable legal provision.\n(126)\nUmicore considers that the amount of BEF 423 million represents VAT owed for the period 1995-96 and that the Special Tax Inspectorate exempted Umicore from paying late interest pursuant to Article 84a of the VAT Code and a proportional fine (of 10 %) pursuant to Article 9 of the Regent\u2019s Decree.\n(127)\nAs regards the reduction of the VAT owed from BEF 708 million to BEF 423 million, Umicore stresses that it is justified by the fact that the VAT claim established when Umicore invoiced the VAT to Italian and Swiss buyers remains unpaid and is therefore tax deductible.\n(128)\nIn connection with the years 1997-98, Umicore states that the adjustment notice of 30 April 1999 has not been acted upon, since the taxable person provided appropriate evidence that the sales in question could be exempted from VAT pursuant to Article 39a of the VAT Code.\n(129)\nUmicore considers that a tax agreement such as the agreement at issue does not constitute an advantage within the meaning of the TFEU and therefore it is not State aid. In particular, Umicore disputes the Commission\u2019s allegation that the tax agreement at issue placed the company in a more favourable position than other taxpayers.\n(130)\nFirst, Umicore states that in reality the Special Tax Inspectorate itself assessed the tax agreement as more advantageous for the Treasury than the launching of a procedure whose final outcome risked being less favourable.\n(131)\nSecond, the possibility of concluding a tax agreement and reaching a compromise does not constitute in itself an advantage specific to Umicore. Such agreements are available to all taxable persons and are a current and normal practice in the field of VAT.\n(132)\nThird, a settlement agreement, by its very nature, does not grant any advantage capable of being caught by the State aid rules. By definition, any decision to compromise involves assessing the risks for each of the parties in question by comparing a certain and immediate payment with the supposed or possible outcome of a legal dispute.\n(133)\nUmicore considers, therefore, that it is an error to describe the terms of a settlement as an \u2018advantage\u2019, except in exceptional situations where one party derives from that settlement an outcome that is obviously superior to what it could expect from a legal dispute.\n(134)\nAccording to Umicore, the Commission presupposes that if the tax dispute had had to be brought before the Belgian courts, by way of an appeal against the administrative decision, the court seized would necessarily have sentenced Umicore to pay a larger amount than that based on the agreement concluded between the Special Tax Inspectorate and Umicore. To reach such a conclusion, the Commission would have to substitute its own assessment for that of the national authorities or even that of the national courts, as applicable.\n(135)\nFourth, Umicore refers to the case D\u00e9m\u00e9nagements-Manutention Transport SA (DMT) (44), where the Court of Justice concluded that by granting payment facilities to the company in question the ONSS (45) acted as a public creditor which, like a private creditor, sought to obtain the amounts owed to it by a debtor in financial difficulty. The Court then decided that it was for the national courts to determine whether the payment facilities were clearly more significant than those that the company could obtain from a private creditor.\n(136)\nFollowing the reasoning of the Court, Umicore estimates that in the present case the Special Tax Inspectorate, acting as a public creditor which seeks to obtain the amounts owed to it just like a private creditor, opted for the immediate payment of a net amount instead of a gross amount, which made the recovery of the amount certain and very fast. This behaviour is therefore rational and cautious from an economic standpoint, and comparable with the behaviour of a hypothetical private creditor in the same situation.\n(137)\nUmicore considers that the selectivity criterion has clearly not been met in this case, since the tax agreement at issue is only one specific application of a general scheme available to all taxpayers in the same situation and the Special Tax Inspectorate does not exercise any discretionary powers when compromising.\n(138)\nEven if the measure at issue were considered selective, it would still be justified by the nature and structure of the system. According to Umicore, even if it is selective, a tax measure should be considered as not conferring an advantage as long as it has been demonstrated that it contributes to the effectiveness of tax recovery (46). In the present case, Umicore considers that the measure is justified by the nature and structure of the system to the extent that the agreement concluded contributed to the effective recovery of tax (47).\n(139)\nUmicore states that interpreting the concept of State aid as including a tax agreement such as the one concluded with the Special Tax Inspectorate would inevitably lead the Commission to exceed its powers by assuming a competence in respect of the recovery of indirect taxes which it does not have, and to encroach upon the prerogatives of the national courts, which are alone competent to decide on tax disputes.\n(140)\nUmicore points out that it paid a considerable amount to the Special Tax Inspectorate while other competing silver producers established in other Member States did not pay any VAT, fine or interest on deliveries carried out under identical circumstances and terms.\n(141)\nIn this context, Umicore considers that the measure at issue clearly could not strengthen its competitive position in the relevant market, i.e. the market for silver granules. Consequently, Umicore takes the view that the agreement concluded with the Special Tax Inspectorate does not affect competition or trade between Member States and therefore Article 107(1) of the Treaty does not apply to the present case.\nV.2. Anonymous third party\n(142)\nAn anonymous third party sent the Commission a copy of a letter addressed to the Belgian Finance Minister, dated 15 February 2002, containing a legal analysis of the agreement concluded with Umicore and of the transactions in question.\n(143)\nIn that letter, the anonymous third party points out that (a) the effect of the agreement concluded between the Special Tax Inspectorate and Umicore was to transform an amount of VAT due into a fine, in breach of Articles 10 and 172 of the Belgian Constitution and Article 84 of the VAT Code; (b) it is illegal to take into account the impact of corporate tax when calculating the amount of VAT due or the fine; and (c) it is illogical to apply a fine proportional to the amount of VAT without demanding payment of the VAT itself.\nVI. BELGIUM\u2019S REACTION TO THE COMMENTS OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES\n(144)\nBelgium considers that the position of Umicore generally confirms the position of Belgium on the procedure in question, in particular as regards the non-existence of a formal VAT rectification procedure, the lack of legal force of an adjustment notice not signed by the taxable person, the legality of tax agreements and their availability to all taxpayers, and more generally the lack of elements constituting State aid.\n(145)\nIn connection with the anonymous letter of 1 October 2004, Belgium considers that it does not contain any specific observation relating to the State aid procedure and is therefore irrelevant.\nVII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY BELGIUM\n(146)\nAfter returning the documents seized by the legal authorities, Belgium sent the Commission information and documents concerning the transactions covered by this procedure.\n(147)\nAs regards sales to customers established in Italy, Belgium has sent the documents on the basis of which it was decided to grant the exemption provided for in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code. More specifically, the documents in question include invoices issued by Umicore, transport invoices and other transport documents.\n(148)\nAs regards deliveries to customers established in Switzerland, Belgium has sent a number of documents intended to demonstrate that the goods were transported directly to Italy. According to Belgium, the role played by the Swiss companies was limited to a financial intervention in the purchasing and transport operations.\n(149)\nIn connection with the deliveries carried out in 1997 and 1998, Belgium has pointed out that initially the adjustment for 1995-96 was also applied in the following years. Belgium adds that the inspectors of the Special Tax Inspectorate themselves abandoned the adjustment for this period very quickly. To this end, Belgium has submitted also copies of internal memoranda showing that the inspectors in question effectively abandoned the envisaged taxation.\nVIII. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n(150)\nPursuant to Article 107(1) of the Treaty, \u2018any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(151)\nThe classification of a measure as State aid requires the following cumulative conditions to be met: (1) the measure in question confers an advantage through state resources; (2) the advantage is selective; and (3) the measure distorts or threatens to distort competition and is capable of affecting trade between Member States.\n(152)\nIt should also be recalled that, according to established case law, the concept of aid includes not only positive actions such as subsidies, but also interventions, such as exemptions and tax relief, which act in various ways to provide relief from charges normally borne by company budgets (48).\nVIII.1. Preliminary remarks\n(153)\nIt should first be noted that settlement agreements concluded with taxpayers are a normal practice of the Belgian tax authorities and in the field of VAT they are explicitly provided for in Article 84 of the VAT Code. Moreover, this Decision does not question the utility of such agreements, which serve to avoid numerous legal disputes.\n(154)\nIt should be recalled that the applicable Belgian administrative rules state that concluding a settlement with the taxpayer generally involves concessions on both sides. Nevertheless, in accordance with Article 84 of the VAT Code, such settlements are possible only to the extent that they do not involve a tax exemption or reduction. Pursuant to this principle, a settlement cannot refer to the amount of tax arising from the established facts, but rather to points of fact.\n(155)\nIn this context, the Commission considers that a settlement agreement between a person subject to VAT and the Belgian tax authorities can lead to an economic advantage only under the following conditions:\n-\nwhen the concessions made by the authorities are clearly out of proportion to the concessions made by the taxable person, given the circumstances, and there are indications that the authorities clearly do not apply the same favourable treatment to other taxpayers in similar situations,\n-\nwhen the legality of the agreement must be questioned, for example when the amount of tax due is reduced in violation of Article 84 of the VAT Code (tax exemption or reduction concerning a point of law).\n(156)\nIt is necessary, therefore, to examine whether the settlement concluded between the Special Tax Inspectorate and Umicore meets the conditions mentioned above.\nVIII.2. Existence of an advantage\n(157)\nIt is necessary, first of all, to check whether the measure grants the beneficiary any advantage that provides relief from charges normally borne by its budget (49). In the case under consideration, this involves determining whether the disputed settlement was concluded illegally or on the basis of disproportionate concessions made by the tax authorities.\nVIII.2.1. Regularity of the procedure\n(158)\nIn its opening decision, the Commission stated that the procedure followed by the tax authorities could constitute a deviation from the normal course of the procedure for determining and settling VAT debt in so far as the agreement does not mention the legal basis and the tax authorities, in the absence of an agreement with the taxpayer, could issue a constraining order accompanied by a 50 % increase in the fine.\n(159)\nAs already indicated in recital 39, issuing an adjustment notice is a normal practice of the Belgian tax authorities in the field of VAT, aimed at ensuring compliance with fundamental principles such as the right to defence. Consequently, the two adjustment notices issued by the Special Tax Inspectorate and addressed to Umicore have to be considered preliminary notices issued by the tax authorities and not as giving rise to a VAT exemption.\n(160)\nMoreover, the possibility of concluding settlement agreements with taxable persons is explicitly provided for in the Belgian VAT Code and has to be considered a normal practice of the Belgian tax authorities. However, the authorities must comply with the principle that such settlements can involve neither an exemption from nor a reduction in the amount of tax due. Therefore, such settlements can occur, in principle, only in situations where the tax authorities wish to avoid a legal dispute with the taxable person concerning facts that have not been clearly established.\n(161)\nFurthermore, it should be noted that the tax authorities are under no obligation to issue a constraining order in cases where the authorities have not been able to reach an agreement with the taxable person on the taxation proposed in the adjustment notice. On the contrary, where there are doubts concerning the facts at issue, the competent authorities may still attempt to conclude an agreement with the taxable person.\n(162)\nFinally, the analysis of the legal texts shows that there is no provision that establishes an obligation for the Belgian tax authorities to indicate an explicit legal basis in the agreements in question.\n(163)\nTherefore, the Commission has to conclude, on the basis of the legal context described in this Decision, that the procedure applied by the tax authorities in relation to Umicore was carried out in compliance with the rules and practices in force and did not constitute a deviation from the normal course of the procedure.\n(164)\nIt is then necessary to analyse the settlements in question by taking into account the preliminary remarks made, with a view to determining the possible existence of an advantage. The reasoning presented below rests on the analysis of two distinct periods, one that includes the years 1995 and 1996 which were covered by the adjustment carried out by the tax authorities and one that includes the years 1997 and 1998 for which taxation was completely abandoned.\nVIII.2.2. Years 1995-96\n(165)\nAs regards the period 1995-96, it is necessary to analyse three different types of transaction covered by the draft rectification notified to Umicore on 30 November 1998, in order to determine the possible existence of an advantage. For each type of transaction, the analysis seeks to identify the minimum amounts of VAT, fines and late interest that should have been imposed by the Belgian tax authorities on the basis of a reasonable interpretation of the facts, without excessive concessions or irregular application of the VAT rules.\n1. Deliveries of goods to customers established in Italy\n(166)\nThe first case refers to transactions relating to \u2018ex-works\u2019 deliveries of pure silver carried out between February 1995 and February 1996, as follows:\n(167)\nUmicore invoiced the goods to company B (50), established in Italy and holding a VAT registration number issued in that Member State. The latter company re-invoiced the goods to customer C, another taxable person subject to VAT established in Italy. The goods were transported, on behalf of C, directly from the place of production in Belgium to Italy. Most of the invoices issued by Umicore for its customer B were paid for by taxable person C.\n(168)\nUmicore issued the invoices addressed to B under the exemption provided for in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code. The examination of the pro forma invoices, obtained through administrative cooperation with the Italian tax authorities, suggests that taxable person C was the consignee of the goods.\n(169)\nIn its adjustment notice of 30 November 1998, the Special Tax Inspectorate considered initially that the transport criterion for the exemption of intra-Community supplies had not been met in so far as the transport had been carried out on behalf of a subsequent customer (and not by or on behalf of the seller or the buyer, as provided for in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code). On this basis, the authorities took the view that the transaction concluded between Umicore and customer B constituted a delivery of goods that did not include transport and therefore could not benefit from the exemption in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code.\n(170)\nThe information communicated by Belgium and Umicore to the Commission appears to indicate, nonetheless, that the reality of the transaction between Umicore and company B could reasonably be called into question by the Belgian tax authorities. For instance:\n-\nthe information communicated by the Italian tax authorities appeared to indicate that company B could be regarded as a \u2018missing trader\u2019, the role of which was confined to producing invoices charging VAT and then disappearing without fulfilling its tax obligations, including the payment of the VAT to the Italian tax authorities,\n-\nthe information communicated by the Italian tax authorities also indicated that the sole director of company B was not recorded on the police register,\n-\ntwo requests for information sent by the Belgian tax authorities to their Italian counterparts on 26 August 1998 and 1 April 1999 also indicate that the Belgian tax authorities had serious doubts as to the actual existence of company B prior to the conclusion of the agreement,\n-\nthe goods had been transported to Italy on behalf of company C, a taxable person,\n-\nthe goods had been directly transported from the production site in Belgium to a warehouse in Italy where they had been made available to C,\n-\nthe vast majority of the invoices which Umicore sent to company B had been paid by company C,\n-\nbased on statements made by the Umicore managers and set out in a report, an extract from which was included in the adjustment notice, it seems that there was no contract between Umicore and company B,\n-\nhowever, it seems that the actual existence of company C was never questioned by the Italian tax authorities, who had obtained full access to its accounts during an inspection.\n(171)\nLook at separately, neither one of these observations is probably sufficient to demonstrate the fictitious nature of the sale between Umicore and company B. However, when looked at together, these observations can instil definite doubt about the reality of the sale between Umicore and company B. The Belgian tax authorities, who had been informed of suspicions about the actual existence of the activities of company B before the conclusion of the transaction with Umicore on 21 December 2000, thus enjoyed a wide discretion in assessing the reality of the transactions and, where appropriate, in reclassifying them.\n(172)\nIt must be remembered, in this respect, that in line with the settled case law of the Court of Cassation in Belgium, tax must be based on actual facts (51). The Belgian tax authorities are therefore required in principle to base their taxation, not on apparent transactions presented by a taxable person to justify a potential exemption, but on actual transactions based on the real intentions of the parties.\n(173)\nIf it emerged from the information available to the Belgian tax authorities that the sale between A and B was fictitious and that the real sale (involving transfer of the power to dispose of the goods) had in fact occurred between A and C, these authorities were therefore entitled to reclassify delivery of the goods between A and B as delivery of the goods between A and C, and to apply the VAT rules to this reclassified transaction.\n(174)\nThe fact that fraud had occurred in Italy through the intermediary of a missing trader does not mean that the right to exemption which Umicore could avail itself of should be called into question, since the good faith of the latter had not been disputed by the Belgian authorities.\n(175)\nIn the light of the above, the Belgian tax authorities could legitimately reclassify the transactions in question as intra-Community supplies between Umicore and company C, without this reclassification constituting a disproportionate concession or irregular application of VAT rules. They could also exempt the reclassified transactions from VAT since all the conditions for exemption had been met (including transport by or on behalf of the purchaser).\n(176)\nIt must therefore be examined (i) whether the Belgian tax authorities were entitled to impose a fine based on Article 70(2) of the VAT Code because of the inaccurate information on the invoices and, if so, (ii) what should have been the amount of this fine, and (iii) whether Umicore benefited from disproportionate concessions or irregular application of the law by the tax authorities.\n(177)\nFirst, it must be pointed out that, in the case of inaccurate information featured on an invoice relating to intra-Community supplies, Royal Decree No 41 provides for a fine amounting to 100 % of the tax owed on the transactions in question. Nevertheless, as stated in recitals 45 and 46, administrative fines are subject to the principle of proportionality and the authorities have the power, pursuant to Article 9 of the Regent\u2019s Decree of 18 March 1831, to depart from the scales for fines set out in Royal Decree No 41.\n(178)\nIn the present case, it cannot be ruled out that a fine of 100 % would have been disproportionate given the good faith of the taxable person, which had not been disputed by the tax authorities. It may also be true that, in the context of the legal proceedings with Umicore, the Belgian tax authorities had attempted to maximise its revenue in the same way that a creditor tries to optimise the recovery of the amount owed to him. It must be remembered that this practice is unlikely to come within the scope of Article 107 of the Treaty in so far as it does not give rise to disproportionate or illegal concessions by the authorities.\n(179)\nGiven the discretion available to the authorities in this context, it can reasonably be considered that, in a settlement agreement, the amount of the fine should have been set by the authorities at between 10 % and 50 %. A 10 % rate can be regarded as acceptable with reference to the 10 % rate provided for in table G of the annex to Royal Decree No 41 for infringements covered by Article 70(1) of the VAT Code and with reference to the 10 % fine referred to in the adjustment notice of 30 November 1998. In addition, the 50 % rate could be regarded as the maximum rate applicable in line with the principle of proportionality and the context of a settlement agreement. The application of a 50 % rate also appears to be supported by recent case law of the Belgian Court of Cassation (52). Given the fact that this last judgment concerns a criminal case, it can therefore be considered, in the present case, in which the absence of fraudulent intent on the part of Umicore has been established, that a 50 % rate is the maximum rate.\n(180)\nIt can therefore be concluded, given the circumstances of the present case, that the fine could reasonably be set at between BEF 33 238 698 (10 % of BEF 332 386 976) and BEF 166 193 488 (50 % of BEF 332 386 976).\n(181)\nSince a selective advantage could only have resulted from disproportionate concessions by the tax authorities, only the lowest amount - BEF 33 238 698 - must be taken into account when determining the potential advantage. This amount is in principle deductible from the tax base for corporate tax (53).\n2. Deliveries of goods to customers established in Switzerland\n(182)\nIn the second example, the sequence of disputed transactions with Swiss customers was as follows:\n(183)\nBetween February and October 1996, Umicore invoiced the goods to a company B (54), established in Switzerland, with no VAT registration number in any Member State. The Swiss company then re-invoiced the goods to customer C, liable for VAT, who was established in Italy. The goods were transported directly from the place of production in Belgium to Italy. On the basis of documents communicated by Belgium, it appears that the transportation was commissioned by company C. It also appears that, in some cases, company C paid the price of the goods directly to Umicore, while in others the payment was made by company B. Company C in fact refers to companies deemed fictitious by the Spanish and Italian tax authorities (55).\n(184)\nThe invoices which Umicore sent to Swiss company B between February and October 1996 concern sales of pure silver \u2018ex works (Hoboken)\u2019, with the following indications: \u2018Export - Exempt from VAT pursuant to Article 39 of the Code\u2019.\n(185)\nAlthough the goods in question were indeed delivered by Umicore and were exempt from VAT under Article 39 of the VAT Code, the information obtained by the Special Tax Inspectorate from the taxable person and from Belgian Customs and Excise indicated that the goods had been transported to Italy but that export had not taken place.\n(186)\nBecause the goods had not been exported and hence there was no entitlement to exemption under Article 39 of the VAT Code, the question once again is whether the Belgian tax authorities could have been led to conclude that the transactions between Umicore and the Swiss company were fictitious, that the real transactions had occurred between Umicore and C, and that these transactions might be exempt in line with Article 39 bis of the VAT Code.\n(187)\nIn its adjustment notice of 30 November 1998, the Special Tax Inspectorate had considered that the criteria for exemption in line with Article 39 of the VAT Code (exports) had not been met since no document providing evidence of actual export, and in particular no export declaration, had been produced.\n(188)\nIn view of this, the authorities had concluded that the transactions between Umicore and the Swiss companies could not be exempted from VAT in line with Article 39 of the VAT Code and were deemed to have taken place in Belgium, in accordance with Article 15(7) of the VAT Code. They were therefore subject to Belgian VAT under Article 2 of the VAT Code. The authorities thus considered that Umicore was liable for VAT amounting to BEF 312 608 393 (56) (EUR 7 749 359) and for a fine of 10 % of this amount.\n(189)\nIn a further reply of 30 March 2000 concerning the adjustment statements, Umicore stated that it had been established that the mechanism used was fictitious, something which Umicore\u2019s commercial department could not have known. The goods were never imported into Switzerland and it was therefore essential to point out that, in these cases as in the others, the reality of the deliveries to Italy was not disputed.\n(190)\nIt appears, moreover, that the name of the Italian taxable person, the consignee, is explicitly indicated on the pro forma invoices which Umicore sent to its Swiss customers, and that the identity of this consignee is confirmed in the waybills drawn up by the carrier.\n(191)\nThe transactions concerned cannot be reclassified as intra-Community supplies between Umicore and company C for the following reasons:\n-\nat the time when the agreement was concluded, the Belgian authorities had already been informed that company C in fact referred to entities regarded as fictitious by the Italian and Spanish tax authorities,\n-\nthe actual existence of the Swiss companies had never been questioned by either the Belgian or the Italian tax authorities, or by Umicore,\n-\nUmicore could not have known that it was not entitled to apply the exemption in Article 39 of the VAT Code (VAT exemption for exports) because the goods had not been exported.\n(192)\nConsequently, the transactions in question were not eligible for a VAT exemption on the basis of Article 39 of the VAT Code (because the goods had not been exported) or for a VAT exemption under Article 39 bis of the VAT Code. They must, in this case, be looked upon as deliveries of goods without transport which are not eligible for a VAT exemption. Therefore, in accordance with Articles 2 and 15(2) and (7) of the VAT Code, Umicore owed VAT amounting to BEF 312 608 393 (EUR 7 749 359). Moreover, a 10 % fine, amounting to BEF 31 260 839, was also chargeable on this amount under Article 70(1) of the VAT Code and Article 1(1) of Royal Decree No 41. There is nothing in the file to lead the Commission to consider that this 10 % rate would pose a problem in terms of the principle of proportionality (57).\n(193)\nIn line with the tax rules applicable, the additional VAT owed by the taxable person and not invoiced to the customer must be regarded as a deductible expense when determining the taxable base for corporate tax. The amount of the administrative fine can also be deducted from corporate tax.\n3. Deliveries of goods to customers established in Italy and Spain\n(194)\nBetween October and December 1996, the sequence of disputed transactions with these customers was as follows:\n(195)\nUmicore invoiced the goods to companies \u2018B\u2019 established in Italy and Spain and registered for VAT there. The invoices concerned sales of pure silver ex works and were drawn up on the basis of the exemption in either Article 39 (exports) or Article 39 bis (intra-Community supplies) of the VAT Code. The goods were transported directly from the place of production in Belgium to Italy. In most cases, the invoices were paid by Swiss company C (58), which also seemed to be the company which actually commissioned the transport (59).\n(196)\nLastly, the information sent by the Italian and Spanish tax authorities to the Belgian authorities prior to the conclusion of the settlement agreement would seem to indicate that companies B were fictitious.\n(197)\nIn their adjustment notice of 30 November 1998, the Belgian tax authorities considered that the owners indicated on the invoices were incorrect and that the real owners of the goods were Swiss companies C. The Belgian authorities stated in their adjustment notice that, where goods were not exported outside the territory of the EU, the exemption provided for in Article 39 of the VAT Code did not apply and the sales in question had to be reclassified as deliveries of goods subject to Belgian VAT under Article 15(2) and (7), and Article 2 of the VAT Code. The authorities thus considered that Umicore was liable for VAT amounting to BEF 63 216 555 (60) (EUR 1 567 097,46) and for a fine of 10 % of this amount.\n(198)\nIn the context of an exchange of correspondence with the Special Tax Inspectorate, Umicore stated that the Swiss companies had been mandated by companies B to organise the transport of the goods and were in addition acting as the financial agent for these companies.\n(199)\nIt must be pointed out here that there is no evidence in the file to suggest that the Swiss companies had acted as transport agents for the Italian and Spanish companies. On the contrary, all the documents communicated to the Commission would seem to indicate that the goods had been transported on behalf of the Swiss companies and that they were the recipients and actual owners of these goods.\n(200)\nThe Commission therefore considers that the Belgian tax authorities had been quite right to reclassify the disputed transactions in their adjustment notice as deliveries of goods to the Swiss companies. These deliveries must therefore be subject to Belgian VAT pursuant to Article 15(2) and (7), and Article 2 of the VAT Code; they are not eligible for an exemption on the basis of Article 39 or 39 bis of this Code.\n(201)\nEven if the tax authorities had been able to legitimately recognise the existence of the transactions with the Italian and Spanish companies, exemption on the basis of Article 39 bis of the VAT Code would have had to be refused on the ground that the goods had not been transported by or on behalf of the seller (Umicore) or purchaser (B).\n(202)\nIt must therefore be concluded that Umicore was liable to pay VAT amounting to BEF 63 216 555 (EUR 1 567 097,46) plus an administrative fine of BEF 6 321 655 (10 % of the VAT owed) pursuant to Article 70(1) of the VAT Code and of Article 1(1) of Royal Decree No 41.\n(203)\nThis amount of BEF 63 216 555 and the administrative fine can in principle be deducted from corporate tax.\n4. Consideration of the non-deductibility of the amount of the transaction\n(204)\nThe practice of considering an administrative fine, which is in principle deductible (from the tax base) for corporate tax, as non-deductible and of then reducing the amount of this fine to take account of its non-deductibility (compensation or netting) is not in keeping with administrative rules or practice in this area (61). As a result, the advantage and disadvantage resulting from this practice must be looked at compared with a situation in which such compensation has not been applied by the authorities.\n(205)\nThe same reasoning can be applied to the amounts of VAT which are in principle deductible from corporate tax and which would have benefited from this compensation.\n(206)\nOf the amounts established in the previous recitals, the following must be regarded as deductible:\nBEF 33 238 698 + 312 608 393 + 31 260 839 + 63 216 555 + 6 321 655 = BEF 446 646 140.\n(207)\nThe negative impact for Umicore of not being able to deduct these amounts can, in principle, be estimated at:\nBEF 446 646 140 \u00d7 40,17 % (62) = BEF 179 417 754.\n(208)\nHowever, given that Umicore showed a tax loss in terms of taxable income for 2000, the non-deductibility of the amounts concerned actually only had a negative impact the following tax year (2001 earnings) when Umicore in fact credited the entire tax loss that could be carried over against its earnings. The compensation mechanism as applied by the Belgian authorities therefore had the effect of deferring payment of the tax and fine until the following tax year.\n(209)\nIn addition, since Belgian corporate tax is in general collected by means of advance payments made by the taxpayer during the tax year in order to avoid increases in the amount of tax to be paid (63), it is reasonable to consider that without compensation, Umicore would have had to make the payments in question in mid-2001, which means that in practice Umicore\u2019s obligation to pay BEF 179 417 754 was postponed for 6 months.\n(210)\nThe positive impact for Umicore of non-deductibility can therefore be estimated as follows:\nBEF 179 417 754 \u00d7 0,8 % (64) \u00d7 6 months = BEF 8 612 052.\n5. Interest on late payments\n(211)\nThe interest on late payments owed on the VAT amounts calculated above must be calculated at a monthly rate of 0,8 % from 21 January 1997 (65) up until the payment was actually made at the end of December 2000:\n37,6 % (66) \u00d7 (312 608 393 + 63 216 555) = BEF 141 310 180.\n6. List of amounts owed for the period 1995-96\n(212)\nThe minimum amounts owed by Umicore for the period 1995-96 are listed in the table below:\n(BEF)\nDESCRIPTION\nAMOUNTS OWED\n1)\nFirst type of transaction\nAdministrative fine\n33 238 698\n2)\nSecond type of transaction\nVAT owed\n312 608 393\nAdministrative fine (10 %)\n31 260 839\n3)\nThird type of transaction\nVAT owed\n63 216 555\nAdministrative fine (10 %)\n6 321 655\nSub-total\nBEF 446 646 140\n4)\nInterest on late payments\n141 310 180\nTotal owed in principle (VAT + interest)\nBEF 587 956 320\n5)\nImpact of non-deductibility:\n- negative impact of non-deductibility\n- 179 417 754\n+ positive impact of deferred payment\n+8 612 052\nTOTAL\nBEF 417 150 618\n(213)\nOn the basis of the above calculation, it must be considered that the minimum amount for which Umicore was liable for 1995 and 1996 in the context of a settlement agreement with the tax authorities was BEF 587 956 320 (EUR 14 575 056,46). However, before comparing this amount with the amount in the agreement, the impact of non-deductibility must be taken into account, which reduces the amount to BEF 417 150 618 (EUR 10 340 893,71).\nVIII.2.3. Years 1997-98\n(214)\nFor 1997 and 1998, the transactions questioned in the adjustment notice of 30 April 1999 were as follows:\n(215)\nIn this last scenario, Umicore\u2019s customer is a subsidiary (B), established in the United Kingdom, of a Swiss company registered for VAT in the UK. The subsequent customer is taxable person C, established in Italy. The goods were transported directly from the place of production in Belgium to Italy. Finally, the invoices drawn up by Umicore were paid by taxable person B.\n(216)\nIn their adjustment notice of 30 April 1999, the tax authorities considered that taxable person B was not entitled to claim the VAT exemption provided for in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code because it did not have a valid VAT number in Italy. In the alternative, it considered that, even if it was accepted that taxable person B had a real economic activity granting it status as an entity liable for VAT, the sales in question should be looked upon as triangular intra-Community transactions. In this case, the first sale between Umicore and taxable person B should be regarded as a national sale without transport subject to Belgian VAT without any possibility of exemption since the transport had seemingly been carried out on behalf of Italian customers.\n(217)\nIt must be noted first of all that, contrary to the period 1995-96, the Special Tax Inspectorate inspectors themselves considered subsequently that there was insufficient evidence to refuse exemption. This is clear from internal memos sent by the inspectors to their director before and after the conclusion of the agreement.\n(218)\nSecond, it emerges from the documents which Belgium sent to the Commission with its letter of 6 August 2009 that the transport had indeed been carried out on behalf of taxable person B (and not on behalf of a possible subsequent customer). Moreover, it appears to be possible to confirm this on the basis of copies of documents sent by Umicore to the Special Tax Inspectorate with its letter of 11 June 1999 which indicate that, for each sale, a fax was sent by taxable person B to Umicore to inform it of the identification of the transporter, the driver\u2019s name and the lorry\u2019s registration number.\n(219)\nThe fact that taxable person B did not have a valid VAT number in Italy, as stated by the Belgian authorities in their adjustment notice of 30 April 1999, does not appear to be relevant since taxable persons need not be registered for VAT in the Member State to which the goods are being sent. It must also be noted that the British tax authorities, which had communicated information to the Belgian authorities at their request, did not at any time dispute the reality of taxable person B\u2019s activities in the UK.\n(220)\nLastly, the Belgian tax authorities did not dispute the fact that the goods had indeed left Belgian territory and had been transported to another Member State.\n(221)\nThese considerations would seem to indicate clearly that the Special Tax Inspectorate did not have sufficient information to allow it to refuse the VAT exemption applied by Umicore. It must therefore be concluded that Umicore was not liable for any additional VAT payments, fines or interest for the period 1997-98.\nVIII.2.4. Conclusions concerning the existence of an economic advantage\n(222)\nOn the strength of the above, it must be considered that the minimum amount for which Umicore was liable for 1995 to 1998 under a settlement agreement with the tax authorities was BEF 417 150 618 (EUR 10 340 893,71).\n(223)\nIn as much as this amount is lower than the amount paid by Umicore under the agreement of 21 December 2000, it cannot be concluded that the Belgian tax authorities made disproportionate concessions. The only aspect of the agreement which departs from administrative practice and rules concerns the compensation mechanism by which the amount due was reduced to take account of the non-deductibility from corporate tax. However, the economic impact of this practice was duly taken into account in the evaluation concerned.\n(224)\nThe Commission therefore considers that the Belgian tax authorities did not grant an economic or financial advantage to Umicore in the settlement agreement of 21 December 2000.\nIX. CONCLUSION\n(225)\nThe Commission finds that the settlement agreement concluded on 21 December 2000 between the Belgian tax authorities and Umicore did not involve an advantage for the latter and does not therefore constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe settlement agreement concluded on 21 December 2000 between the Belgian Government and Umicore SA (formerly Union Mini\u00e8re SA) concerning an amount of BEF 423 million does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.\nDone at Brussels, 26 May 2010.", "references": ["52", "60", "13", "8", "92", "7", "74", "89", "88", "93", "73", "10", "75", "18", "47", "40", "24", "32", "70", "61", "41", "29", "21", "44", "87", "12", "54", "43", "22", "25", "No Label", "34", "48", "79", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["34", "48", "79", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 280/2012\nof 28 March 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 276/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 March 2012.", "references": ["62", "63", "8", "34", "5", "56", "65", "13", "70", "47", "38", "46", "89", "19", "94", "9", "0", "27", "39", "31", "3", "6", "15", "14", "78", "41", "23", "4", "25", "32", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 16 August 2012\nallowing Member States to extend provisional authorisations granted for the new active substance Aureobasidium pullulans\n(notified under document C(2012) 5709)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/480/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (2), and in particular Article 80(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Directive 91/414/EEC shall continue to apply to active substances for which a decision has been adopted in accordance with Article 6(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC before 14 June 2011.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in April 2008 Austria received an application from bio-ferm GmbH for the inclusion of the active substance Aureobasidium pullulans in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2008/953/EC (3) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(3)\nConfirmation of the completeness of the dossier was necessary in order to allow it to be examined in detail and to allow Member States the possibility of granting provisional authorisations, for periods of up to three years, for plant protection products containing the active substance concerned, while complying with the conditions laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and, in particular, the conditions relating to the detailed assessment of the active substance and the plant protection products in the light of the requirements laid down by that Directive.\n(4)\nFor this active substance, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicant. The rapporteur Member State submitted the draft assessment report to the Commission on 16 December 2009.\n(5)\nFollowing submission of the draft assessment report by the rapporteur Member State, it has been found to be necessary to request further information from the applicant and to have the rapporteur Member State examine that information and submit its assessment. Therefore, the examination of the dossier is still ongoing and it will not be possible to complete the evaluation within the timeframe provided for in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(6)\nAs the evaluation so far has not identified any reason for immediate concern, Member States should be given the possibility of prolonging provisional authorisations granted for plant protection products containing the active substance concerned for a period of 24 months in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of Directive 91/414/EEC so as to enable the examination of the dossier to continue. It is expected that the evaluation and decision-making process with respect to a decision on a possible approval in accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 for Aureobasidium pullulans will have been completed within 24 months.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States may extend provisional authorisations for plant protection products containing Aureobasidium pullulans for a period ending on 31 August 2014 at the latest.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall expire on 31 August 2014.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2012.", "references": ["52", "16", "27", "10", "17", "75", "73", "86", "51", "69", "58", "14", "42", "47", "31", "15", "54", "32", "28", "77", "7", "26", "6", "71", "60", "43", "95", "55", "21", "48", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 February 2012\nlaying down rules concerning the transitional national plans referred to in Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions\n(notified under document C(2012) 612)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/115/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (1), and in particular Article 41(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU provides that Member States, during the period from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2020, may draw up and implement a transitional national plan covering particular combustion plants for which the plan shall cover emissions of one or more of the following pollutants: nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and dust. For gas turbines, only nitrogen oxides emissions shall be covered by the plan.\n(2)\nCombustion plants covered by the transitional national plan may be exempted from compliance with the emission limit values referred to in Article 30(2) of Directive 2010/75/EU for the pollutants which are subject to the plan or, where applicable, with the rates of desulphurisation referred to in Article 31 of Directive 2010/75/EU.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure uniform implementation of Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU, implementing rules should be adopted.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 75(1) of Directive 2010/75/EU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nCombustion plants to be included in the transitional national plans\nIn accordance with the detailed provisions laid down in Section 1 of the Annex to this Decision, a transitional national plan shall only include entire combustion plants covered by Chapter III of Directive 2010/75/EU, taking into account the provisions of Article 32(1) and the aggregation rules provided for in Article 29 of Directive 2010/75/EU.\nArticle 2\nContent of the transitional national plans\n1. Each transitional national plan shall include the following information in accordance with Section 2 of the Annex to this Decision:\n(a)\na list of all the combustion plants that fall under the plan, including all relevant information on their operational characteristics;\n(b)\nthe calculated contribution of each individual combustion plant to the emission ceilings for 2016 and 2019;\n(c)\na table setting out the emission ceilings for each of the pollutants the plan covers for the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and for the first semester of the year 2020;\n(d)\nthe details of the calculation of those emission ceilings.\nIn addition, the transitional national plan shall contain the following information:\n(a)\na description of how the implementation of the plan shall be monitored and reported to the Commission;\n(b)\na list of the measures that shall be applied to ensure that all combustion plants that are included in the plan comply on 1 July 2020 at the latest with the applicable emission limit values set out in Annex V to Directive 2010/75/EU.\n2. For the purposes of point (a) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, Member States shall use the template provided for in Table A.1 in Appendix A to the Annex to this Decision.\nFor the purposes of point (c) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, Member States shall use the template provided for in Table B.3 in Appendix B to the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nSetting emission ceilings in the transitional national plans\n1. For the purposes of Article 32(3) of Directive 2010/75/EU the emission ceilings shall be calculated in accordance with the methods set out in Section 3 of the Annex to this Decision.\n2. Member States shall use the template provided for in Table B.1 in Appendix B to the Annex to this Decision to present the relevant emission limit values and minimum rates of desulphurisation, the calculated contributions of each combustion plant to the 2016 emission ceilings and the total 2016 emission ceilings.\nIn the following cases, Member States shall, in the column of the template labelled \u2018comments\u2019, provide additional information on the emission limit values applied for the calculation:\n(a)\nwhere emission limit values mentioned in the Notes to Tables C.1 and C.2 in Appendix C to the Annex to this Decision have been applied;\n(b)\nwhere plants use multiple fuel types or consist of a combination of multiple plant types.\n3. Member States shall use the template provided for in Table B.2 in Appendix B to the Annex to this Decision to present the relevant emission limit values and the minimum rates of desulphurisation, the calculated contributions of each combustion plant to the 2019 emission ceilings and the total 2019 emission ceilings.\nIn the following cases, Member States shall, in the column of the template labelled \u2018comments\u2019, provide additional information on the emission limit values applied for the calculation:\n(a)\nwhere emission limit values mentioned in the Notes to Tables D.1 and D.2 in Appendix D to the Annex to this Decision have been applied;\n(b)\nwhere plants use multiple fuel types or consist of a combination of multiple plant types.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the transitional national plan\nIn accordance with the second and third subparagraphs of Article 32(5) of Directive 2010/75/EU, a Member State may only implement its transitional national plan upon acceptance by the Commission.\nArticle 5\nSubsequent changes to the transitional national plan\n1. Member States shall establish a mechanism that allows identifying any relevant changes to combustion plants falling under the transitional national plan which may affect the applicable emission ceilings.\n2. For the purposes of Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU, Member States shall inform the Commission of any subsequent changes to the plan affecting the applicable emission ceilings, in accordance with Section 4 of the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 6\nCompliance monitoring, remedial action and reporting to the Commission\n1. For the purposes of Article 32(4) of Directive 2010/75/EU, the competent authorities shall monitor the emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and dust of each combustion plant falling under the transitional national plan, by verifying the monitoring or calculation data of the operators of the combustion plants.\n2. Member States shall ensure that emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and dust from the combustion plants falling under the transitional national plan are limited to a degree which allows compliance with the emission ceilings. Where there is a risk that emission ceilings are not complied with, Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent any emissions exceeding those ceilings.\n3. Member States implementing a transitional national plan shall report to the Commission every year within 12 months the plant-by-plant data listed in Article 72(3) of Directive 2010/75/EU for all combustion plants included in the plan.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["74", "20", "65", "52", "67", "95", "37", "62", "56", "63", "41", "69", "57", "23", "66", "26", "27", "75", "53", "80", "14", "7", "61", "10", "3", "15", "83", "77", "97", "96", "No Label", "58", "60", "76", "82"], "gold": ["58", "60", "76", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 February 2012\nauthorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean 356043 (DP-356\u00d843-5) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2012) 702)\n(Only the Dutch, English and French texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/84/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 7(3) and 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 February 2007, Pioneer Overseas Corporation submitted to the competent authority of the United Kingdom an application, in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from 356043 soybean (\u2018the application\u2019).\n(2)\nThe application also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of 356043 soybean for the same uses as any other soybean with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with Articles 5(5) and 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.\n(3)\nOn 26 July 2011, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It concluded that soybean 356043, as described in the application, is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment (3).\n(4)\nIn its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Articles 6(4) and 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(5)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.\n(6)\nTaking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products containing, consisting of, or produced from 356043 soybean as described in the application (\u2018the products\u2019).\n(7)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each genetically modified organism (GMO) as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).\n(8)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from 356043 soybean. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (5) lays down labelling requirements in Article 4(6) for products containing or consisting of GMOs. Traceability requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs are laid down in paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article 4 and for food and feed produced from GMOs are laid down in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(10)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). The EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in point (e) of Article 6(5) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(11)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the EU register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(12)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).\n(13)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(14)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman. An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the Appeal Committee for further deliberation. The appeal committee did not deliver an opinion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified soybean 356043, as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier DP-356\u00d843-5, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Articles 4(2) and 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from DP-356\u00d843-5 soybean;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from DP-356\u00d843-5 soybean;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of DP-356\u00d843-5 soybean for the same uses as any other soybean with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018soybean\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of DP-356\u00d843-5 soybean referred to in Article 2(b) and (c).\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nEU register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the EU register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Pioneer Overseas Corporation, Belgium, representing Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., United States.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Pioneer Overseas Corporation, Avenue des Arts/Kunstlaan 44, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["11", "18", "87", "13", "35", "99", "90", "94", "97", "73", "1", "91", "24", "62", "85", "30", "54", "10", "45", "70", "8", "26", "80", "39", "4", "83", "2", "49", "52", "59", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 27 May 2011\nestablishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the Food Aid Committee as regards the extension of the Food Aid Convention, 1999\n(2011/339/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 214(4), in conjunction with Article 218(9), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Community concluded the Food Aid Convention, 1999 by means of Council Decision 2000/421/EC (1). The Food Aid Convention was extended by various decisions of the Food Aid Committee.\n(2)\nThe current Food Aid Convention expires on 30 June 2011 and the question of a renewal will be addressed in the session of the Food Aid Committee in June 2011.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article XXV(b) of the Food Aid Convention, its extension is conditional upon the Grains Trade Convention, 1995 remaining in force during the same period of extension. The Grains Trade Convention remains in force until 30 June 2011 and the Union, by means of Council Decision 2011/224/EU (2), has taken the position, within the International Grains Council, in favour of its extension. Its extension should be decided on by the International Grains Council on 6 June 2011.\n(4)\nAt its 103rd session on 14 December 2010, the members of the Food Aid Committee agreed that the issue of the extension of the Food Aid Convention will be revisited closer to the date of its expiry. The Union took the position that it will work towards taking a decision in June 2011 as to the future of the Food Aid Convention and that formal renegotiation should start directly without any prejudice to the formal position that will be communicated in June 2011.\n(5)\nThe members of the Food Aid Committee further agreed to begin the formal process of renegotiating the Food Aid Convention, with a series of negotiation sessions.\n(6)\nThe aim of the Union is for members of the Food Aid Committee to finalise the renegotiation of the Food Aid Convention and reach agreement on a new Food Aid Convention text prior to the session of the Food Aid Committee in June 2011.\n(7)\nThe Union has to prepare a common position in view of the session of the Food Aid Committee in London in June 2011 for two possible alternative scenarios as follows:\n(a)\nthe renegotiation of the Food Aid Convention by the members of the Food Aid Committee reaches a final stage prior to the session of the Food Aid Committee in June 2011, in which case an extension of the Food Aid Convention for 1 more year will be the most appropriate means to avoid a vacuum between the existing Food Aid Convention and the entry into force of a new Convention; or\n(b)\nthe renegotiation of the Food Aid Convention has not reached a final stage prior to the session of the Food Aid Committee in June 2011, in which case an extension of the Food Aid Convention for 1 more year will not be appropriate, and the Commission, on behalf of the Union and its Member States, should formally oppose the emergence of a consensus in the Food Aid Committee, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure under the Food Aid Convention, 1999, in favour of an extension of the Food Aid Convention.\n(8)\nWhether the renegotiation of the Food Aid Convention has reached a final stage or not should be assessed prior to the session of the Food Aid Committee in June 2011 by the Council Working Group on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid (COHAFA), which, for the Food Aid Convention negotiations, serves as the committee referred to in Article 218(4) of the Treaty.\n(9)\nThe Commission, which represents the Union in the Food Aid Committee, should therefore be authorised either to favour an extension of the Food Aid Convention for 1 year, i.e. until 30 June 2012, or to oppose a consensus in the Food Aid Committee favouring such extension,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position of the Union within the Food Aid Committee shall be either:\n(a)\nto vote in favour of the further extension of the Food Aid Convention for a period of 1 year, i.e. until 30 June 2012, provided that the renegotiation of that Convention is in a final stage prior to the session of the Food Aid Committee in June 2011, and provided that the Grains Trade Convention, 1995 remains in force during the same period of extension; or\n(b)\nto oppose, if the renegotiation of the Food Aid Convention has not reached a final stage prior to the session of the Food Aid Committee in June 2011, the emergence of a consensus in the Food Aid Committee, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure under the Food Aid Convention, 1999, favouring an extension of the Food Aid Convention.\nArticle 2\nThe Commission is hereby authorised to express this position within the Food Aid Committee.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2011.", "references": ["57", "74", "33", "81", "20", "86", "22", "36", "85", "32", "0", "19", "8", "44", "64", "14", "1", "99", "66", "28", "47", "38", "67", "17", "83", "91", "63", "69", "12", "23", "No Label", "3", "4", "9"], "gold": ["3", "4", "9"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 8 March 2012\non the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols 1, 2 and 3 and their Annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part\n(2012/497/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 16 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (1) (hereinafter the \u2018Association Agreement\u2019), which has been in force since 1 March 2000, provides for the gradual implementation of greater liberalisation of reciprocal trade in agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products.\n(2)\nIn July 2005, the EU-Morocco Association Council adopted an Action Plan of the European Neighbourhood Policy including a specific provision having the objective of the further liberalisation of trade in agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products.\n(3)\nOn 14 October 2005, the Council authorised the Commission to conduct negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco within the framework of the Association Agreement, in order to achieve that objective.\n(4)\nOn 14 December 2009, the Commission concluded negotiations on behalf of the Union in respect of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters (hereinafter the \u2018Agreement\u2019) with the aim of amending the Association Agreement.\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters (hereinafter the \u2018Agreement\u2019) between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols 1, 2 and 3 and their Annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, is approved on behalf of the European Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nWhere the Union needs to take a safeguard measure concerning agricultural products, fish and fishery products, as provided for in the Association Agreement, that measure shall be adopted in accordance with the procedures provided for in Article 159(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (2); or by Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (3). For processed agricultural products, the safeguard measures shall be adopted according to the procedures provided for in Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (4), or Article 11(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products (5).\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council is authorised to appoint the person or persons empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to the deposit of the instrument of approval provided for in the Agreement, in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2012.", "references": ["14", "73", "21", "52", "22", "86", "36", "98", "82", "16", "76", "56", "47", "88", "17", "91", "92", "44", "29", "57", "63", "39", "46", "77", "33", "71", "10", "43", "50", "49", "No Label", "3", "9", "20", "66", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "20", "66", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/312/CFSP\nof 18 June 2012\non the European Union Aviation Security CSDP Mission in South Sudan\n(EUAVSEC-South Sudan)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 28 and Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn its Resolution 1996 (2011), adopted on 8 July 2011, the United Nations Security Council welcomed the establishment of the Republic of South Sudan on 9 July 2011 upon its proclamation as an independent State and underscored the need for forging stronger and well-defined partnerships among the United Nations, development agencies, bilateral partners, and other relevant actors, regional and sub-regional institutions and the international financial institutions, to implement national strategies aimed at effective institution building, which are based on national ownership, the achievement of results, and mutual accountability.\n(2)\nOn 20 June 2011, the Council agreed to follow a comprehensive approach to Sudan and South Sudan with, inter alia, the aim of assisting South Sudan to become a viable, stable, and prosperous state. The Comprehensive Approach set out, as a short-term option, the possible deployment of a civilian common security and defence policy (CSDP) mission to strengthen airport security and, as a medium-term option, the contribution to broader border management in South Sudan.\n(3)\nOn 19 July 2011, on behalf of the Government of South Sudan (GoSS), the South Sudanese Minister for Transport and Roads addressed a letter to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) welcoming the Union\u2019s proposal to contribute to the strengthening of the security at Juba International Airport (JIA) in order to raise it to internationally accepted standards, through the deployment of a CSDP mission.\n(4)\nOn 23 January 2012 the Council approved the Crisis Management Concept for a European Union Aviation Security CSDP mission in South Sudan (EUAVSEC-South Sudan).\n(5)\nThe Watch-Keeping Capability should be activated for EUAVSEC-South Sudan.\n(6)\nEUAVSEC-South Sudan will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMission\nThe Union hereby establishes a European Union Aviation Security CSDP Mission in South Sudan (EUAVSEC-South Sudan).\nArticle 2\nObjectives\n1. The strategic objective of EUAVSEC-South Sudan is to contribute to the sustainable and effective functioning of Juba International Airport (JIA), by achieving acceptable security capacity under local ownership, in line with international standards and applicable best practice.\n2. In particular, EUAVSEC-South Sudan shall contribute to strengthening aviation security, border control and law enforcement at JIA, under public oversight and in accordance with human rights standards.\nArticle 3\nTasks\n1. In order to fulfil the objectives set out in Article 2, EUAVSEC-South Sudan shall:\n(a)\nassist and advise the Government of South Sudan (GoSS) and other relevant South Sudanese services to establish the aviation security organisation at the Ministry of Transport and at JIA;\n(b)\nassist and advise the GoSS and other relevant South Sudanese services to develop, adopt and implement:\n-\naviation security programmes and plans by the civil aviation authority of South Sudan,\n-\naviation security programmes, plans and relevant standard operating procedures at JIA;\n(c)\nimprove the performance of officials involved in aviation security operations, according to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards and recommended procedures, through training, mentoring, monitoring, advice, assistance and coordination;\n(d)\nsupport sustainability and long-term viability of South Sudan\u2019s achievements by working with other Union and international stake-holders;\n(e)\nsupport the promotion of security awareness amongst the commercial and private entities operating at JIA.\n2. EUAVSEC-South Sudan shall not carry out any executive function.\nArticle 4\nChain of command and structure\n1. EUAVSEC-South Sudan shall have a unified chain of command as a crisis management operation.\n2. EUAVSEC-South Sudan shall have its Headquarters in Juba.\n3. During the preparatory phase of EUAVSEC-South Sudan, the Head of Mission shall be assisted by a planning team comprising the necessary staff to respond to Mission preparation needs.\n4. During the implementation phase, EUAVSEC-South Sudan shall be structured as follows:\n(a)\nHead of Mission;\n(b)\nPlanning and Operations component including training capacity;\n(c)\nMission Support component;\n(d)\nReporting, Security and Political Advisory/Public Information elements.\nArticle 5\nCivilian Operation Commander\n1. The Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) Director shall be the Civilian Operation Commander for EUAVSEC-South Sudan.\n2. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and overall authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), shall exercise command and control of EUAVSEC-South Sudan at the strategic level.\n3. The Civilian Operation Commander shall ensure, with regard to the conduct of operations, proper and effective implementation of the Council\u2019s decisions as well as the PSC\u2019s decisions, including by issuing instructions at the strategic level as required to the Head of Mission and providing him with advice and technical support.\n4. The Civilian Operation Commander shall report to the Council through the HR.\n5. All seconded staff shall remain under the full command of the national authorities of the seconding State or Union institution concerned. National authorities shall transfer Operational Control (OPCON) of their personnel, teams and units to the Civilian Operation Commander.\n6. The Civilian Operation Commander shall have overall responsibility for ensuring that the Union\u2019s duty of care is properly discharged.\n7. The Civilian Operation Commander, the European Union Special Representative for Sudan and South Sudan (EUSR) and the Head of Union Delegation in South Sudan shall consult each other as required.\nArticle 6\nHead of Mission\n1. The Head of Mission shall assume responsibility for, and exercise command and control of, EUAVSEC-South Sudan at theatre level and shall be directly responsible to the Civilian Operation Commander.\n2. The Head of Mission shall exercise command and control over personnel, teams and units from contributing States as assigned by the Civilian Operation Commander together with administrative and logistic responsibility including over assets, resources and information placed at the disposal of EUAVSEC-South Sudan.\n3. The Head of Mission shall issue instructions to all EUAVSEC-South Sudan staff for the effective conduct of the EUAVSEC-South Sudan in theatre, assuming its coordination and day-to-day management, and following the instructions at the strategic level of the Civilian Operation Commander.\n4. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the implementation of the budget of EUAVSEC-South Sudan. For this purpose, the Head of Mission shall sign a contract with the Commission.\n5. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for disciplinary control over the staff. For seconded staff, disciplinary action shall be exercised by the national authority or Union institution concerned.\n6. The Head of Mission shall represent EUAVSEC-South Sudan in the operations area and shall ensure appropriate visibility of EUAVSEC-South Sudan.\n7. The Head of Mission shall coordinate, as appropriate, with other Union actors on the ground. The Head of Mission shall, without prejudice to the chain of command, receive local political guidance from the EUSR, in close coordination with the Head of Union Delegation in South Sudan.\nArticle 7\nStaff\n1. EUAVSEC-South Sudan shall consist primarily of staff seconded by Member States, Union institutions or the European External Action Service (EEAS). Each Member State or Union institution, or EEAS shall bear the costs related to any of the staff seconded by it, including travel expenses to and from the place of deployment, salaries, medical coverage and allowances other than applicable daily allowances.\n2. The State or Union institution, or EEAS having seconded a member of staff shall be responsible for answering any claims linked to the secondment, from or concerning the member of staff and for bringing any action against the seconded person.\n3. International and local staff shall be recruited on a contractual basis by the EUAVSEC-South Sudan if the functions required are not provided by personnel seconded by Member States. Exceptionally, in duly justified cases, where no qualified applications from Member States are available, nationals from participating third States may be recruited on a contractual basis, as appropriate.\n4. The conditions of employment and the rights and obligations of international and local staff shall be laid down in the contracts between the Head of Mission and the members of staff.\nArticle 8\nStatus of EUAVSEC-South Sudan and of its staff\nThe status of EUAVSEC-South Sudan and its staff, including where appropriate the privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of EUAVSEC-South Sudan, shall be the subject of an agreement concluded pursuant to Article 37 TEU and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 9\nPolitical control and strategic direction\n1. The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and of the HR, political control and strategic direction of the EUAVSEC-South Sudan. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 TEU. This authorisation shall include the powers to appoint a Head of Mission, upon a proposal of the HR, and to amend the Concept of operations (CONOPS) and the Operation Plan (OPLAN). The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of the EUAVSEC-South Sudan shall remain vested in the Council.\n2. The PSC shall report to the Council at regular intervals.\n3. The PSC shall receive, on a regular basis and as required, reports by the Civilian Operation Commander and the Head of Mission on issues within their areas of responsibility.\nArticle 10\nParticipation of third States\n1. Without prejudice to the decision-making autonomy of the Union and its single institutional framework, third States may be invited to contribute to EUAVSEC-South Sudan, provided that they bear the cost of the staff seconded by them, including salaries, all risk insurance cover, daily subsistence allowances and travel expenses to and from South Sudan, and that they contribute to the running costs of EUAVSEC-South Sudan, as appropriate.\n2. Third States contributing to EUAVSEC-South Sudan shall have the same rights and obligations in terms of day-to-day management of EUAVSEC-South Sudan as Member States.\n3. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions and to establish a Committee of Contributors.\n4. Detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States shall be covered by agreements concluded in accordance with Article 37 TEU and additional technical arrangement as necessary. Where the Union and a third State conclude an agreement establishing a framework for the participation of that third State in Union crisis-management operations, the provisions of that agreement shall apply in the context of EUAVSEC-South Sudan.\nArticle 11\nSecurity\n1. The Civilian Operation Commander shall direct the Head of Mission\u2019s planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation by EUAVSEC-South Sudan in accordance with Article 5.\n2. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the security of EUAVSEC-South Sudan and for ensuring compliance with minimum security requirements applicable to EUAVSEC-South Sudan, in line with the policy of the Union on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V TEU, and its supporting instruments.\n3. The Head of Mission shall be assisted by a Mission Security Officer (MSO), who shall report to the Head of Mission and also maintain a close functional relationship with the EEAS.\n4. The EUAVSEC-South Sudan staff shall undergo mandatory security training before taking up their duties, in accordance with the OPLAN. They shall also receive regular in-theatre refresher training organised by the MSO.\n5. The Head of Mission shall ensure the protection of EU classified information in accordance with Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (1).\nArticle 12\nWatch-Keeping Capability\nThe Watch-Keeping Capability shall be activated for EUAVSEC-South Sudan.\nArticle 13\nFinancial arrangements\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUAVSEC-South Sudan shall be EUR 12 500 000.\n2. All expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. Nationals of participating third States and of host and neighbouring countries shall be allowed to tender for contracts. Subject to the Commission\u2019s approval, the Head of Mission may conclude technical arrangements with Member States, participating third States, and other international actors regarding the provision of equipment, services and premises to EUAVSEC-South Sudan.\n4. The financial arrangements shall respect the operational requirements of EUAVSEC-South Sudan including compatibility of equipment and interoperability of its teams.\n5. The Head of Mission shall report fully to, and be supervised by, the Commission on the activities undertaken in the framework of his/her contract.\n6. The expenditure related to EUAVSEC-South Sudan shall be eligible as of the date of appointment of the Head of Mission.\nArticle 14\nConsistency of the Union\u2019s response and coordination\n1. The HR shall ensure the consistency of the implementation of this Decision with the Union\u2019s external action as a whole, including the Union\u2019s development programmes.\n2. Without prejudice to the chain of command, the Head of Mission shall act in close coordination with the Union\u2019s delegation in Juba to ensure the consistency of Union action in South Sudan.\n3. The Head of Mission shall coordinate closely with Member States present in South Sudan.\nArticle 15\nRelease of information\n1. The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States associated with this Decision, as appropriate and in accordance with the needs of EUAVSEC-South Sudan, EU classified information up to \u2018CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL\u2019 level generated for the purposes of EUAVSEC-South Sudan, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU.\n2. The HR shall also be authorised to release to the United Nations (UN) and the ICAO, in accordance with the operational needs of EUAVSEC-South Sudan, EU classified information up to \u2018RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED\u2019 level which are generated for the purposes of EUAVSEC-South Sudan, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU. Arrangements between the HR and the competent authorities of UN and ICAO shall be drawn up for this purpose.\n3. In the event of a specific and immediate operational need, the HR shall also be authorised to release to the host State any EU classified information up to \u2018RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED\u2019 level which are generated for the purposes of EUAVSEC-South Sudan, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU. Arrangements between the HR and the competent authorities of the host State shall be drawn up for this purpose.\n4. The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States associated with this Decision any EU non-classified documents connected with the deliberations of the Council relating to EUAVSEC-South Sudan and covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (2).\n5. The HR may delegate the powers referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4, as well as the ability to conclude the arrangements referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 to persons placed under his/her authority, to the Civilian Operations Commander and/or to the Head of Mission.\nArticle 16\nEntry into force and duration\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply for a period of 19 months.\nDone at Luxembourg, 18 June 2012.", "references": ["0", "39", "69", "87", "93", "52", "43", "80", "50", "83", "45", "56", "49", "51", "24", "34", "44", "37", "13", "76", "18", "84", "61", "26", "71", "47", "73", "21", "68", "10", "No Label", "1", "5", "9", "53", "57", "94"], "gold": ["1", "5", "9", "53", "57", "94"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/65/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 8 June 2011\non the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment\n(recast)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA number of substantial changes are to be made to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (4). In the interest of clarity, that Directive should be recast.\n(2)\nThe disparities between the laws or administrative measures adopted by the Member States regarding the restriction of the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) could create barriers to trade and distort competition in the Union and may thereby have a direct impact on the establishment and functioning of the internal market. It therefore appears necessary to lay down rules in this field and to contribute to the protection of human health and the environmentally sound recovery and disposal of waste EEE.\n(3)\nDirective 2002/95/EC provides that the Commission shall review the provisions of that Directive, in particular, in order to include in its scope equipment which falls within certain categories and to study the need to adapt the list of restricted substances on the basis of scientific progress, taking into account the precautionary principle, as endorsed by Council Resolution of 4 December 2000.\n(4)\nDirective 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste (5) gives first priority to prevention in waste legislation. Prevention is defined, inter alia, as measures that reduce the content of harmful substances in materials and products.\n(5)\nCouncil Resolution of 25 January 1988 on a Community action programme to combat environmental pollution by cadmium (6) invited the Commission to pursue without delay the development of specific measures for such a programme. Human health also has to be protected and an overall strategy that in particular restricts the use of cadmium and stimulates research into substitutes should therefore be implemented. The Resolution stresses that the use of cadmium should be limited to cases where suitable alternatives do not exist.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants (7) recalls that the objective of protecting the environment and human health from persistent organic pollutants cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, owing to the transboundary effects of those pollutants, and can therefore be better achieved at Union level. Pursuant to that Regulation, releases of persistent organic pollutants, such as dioxins and furans, which are unintentional by-products of industrial processes, should be identified and reduced as soon as possible with the ultimate aim of elimination, where feasible.\n(7)\nThe available evidence indicates that measures on the collection, treatment, recycling and disposal of waste EEE as set out in Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (8) are necessary to reduce the waste management problems associated with the heavy metals and flame retardants concerned. In spite of those measures, however, significant parts of waste EEE will continue to be found in the current disposal routes inside or outside the Union. Even if waste EEE were collected separately and submitted to recycling processes, its content of mercury, cadmium, lead, chromium VI, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) would be likely to pose risks to health or the environment, especially when treated in less than optimal conditions.\n(8)\nTaking into account technical and economic feasibility, including for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), the most effective way of ensuring a significant reduction of risks to health and the environment relating to those substances, in order to achieve the chosen level of protection in the Union, is the substitution of those substances in EEE by safe or safer materials. Restricting the use of those hazardous substances is likely to enhance the possibilities and economic profitability of recycling of waste EEE and decrease the negative impact on the health of workers in recycling plants.\n(9)\nThe substances covered by this Directive are scientifically well researched and evaluated and have been subject to different measures both at Union and at national level.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive should take into account existing international guidelines and recommendations and should be based on an assessment of available scientific and technical information. The measures are necessary to achieve the chosen level of protection of human health and the environment, with due respect for the precautionary principle, and having regard to the risks which the absence of measures would be likely to create in the Union. The measures should be kept under review and, if necessary, adjusted to take account of available technical and scientific information. The annexes to this Directive should be reviewed periodically to take into account, inter alia, Annexes XIV and XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and establishing a European Chemicals Agency (9). In particular, the risks to human health and the environment arising from the use of Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD), Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) and Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) should be considered as a priority. With a view to further restrictions of substances, the Commission should re-investigate the substances that were subject to previous assessments, in accordance with the new criteria set out in this Directive as part of the first review.\n(11)\nThis Directive supplements the general Union waste management legislation, such as Directive 2008/98/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(12)\nA number of definitions should be included in this Directive in order to specify its scope. In addition, the definition of \u2018electrical and electronic equipment\u2019 should be complemented by a definition of \u2018dependent\u2019, to cover the multipurpose character of certain products, where the intended functions of EEE are to be determined on the basis of objective characteristics, such as the design of the product and its marketing.\n(13)\nDirective 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (10) enables specific ecodesign requirements to be set for energy-related products which may also be covered by this Directive. Directive 2009/125/EC and the implementing measures adopted pursuant to it are without prejudice to Union waste management legislation.\n(14)\nThis Directive should apply without prejudice to Union legislation on safety and health requirements and specific Union waste management legislation, in particular Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators (11) and Regulation (EC) No 850/2004.\n(15)\nThe technical development of EEE without heavy metals, PBDE and PBB should be taken into account.\n(16)\nAs soon as scientific evidence is available, and taking into account the precautionary principle, the restriction of other hazardous substances, including any substances of very small size or with a very small internal or surface structure (nanomaterials) which may be hazardous due to properties relating to their size or structure, and their substitution by more environmentally friendly alternatives which ensure at least the same level of protection of consumers should be examined. To this end, the review and amendment of the list of restricted substances in Annex II should be coherent, maximise synergies with, and reflect the complementary nature of the work carried out under other Union legislation, and in particular under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 while ensuring the mutually independent operation of this Directive and that Regulation. Consultation with the relevant stakeholders should be carried out and specific account should be taken of the potential impact on SMEs.\n(17)\nThe development of renewable forms of energy is one of the Union\u2019s key objectives, and the contribution made by renewable energy sources to environmental and climate objectives is crucial. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (12) recalls that there should be coherence between those objectives and other Union environmental legislation. Consequently, this Directive should not prevent the development of renewable energy technologies that have no negative impact on health and the environment and that are sustainable and economically viable.\n(18)\nExemptions from the substitution requirement should be permitted if substitution is not possible from the scientific and technical point of view, taking specific account of the situation of SMEs or if the negative environmental, health and consumer safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the environmental, health and consumer safety benefits of the substitution or the reliability of substitutes is not ensured. The decision on exemptions and on the duration of possible exemptions should take into account the availability of substitutes and the socioeconomic impact of substitution. Life-cycle thinking on the overall impacts of exemptions should apply, where relevant. Substitution of the hazardous substances in EEE should also be carried out in such a way as to be compatible with the health and safety of users of EEE. The placing on the market of medical devices requires a conformity assessment procedure, according to Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (13) and Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (14), which could require the involvement of a notified body designated by competent authorities of Member States. If such a notified body certifies that the safety of the potential substitute for the intended use in medical devices or in vitro diagnostic medical devices is not demonstrated, the use of that potential substitute will be deemed to have clear negative socioeconomic, health and consumer safety impacts. It should be possible, from the date of entry into force of this Directive, to apply for exemptions for equipment, even before the actual inclusion of that equipment in the scope of this Directive.\n(19)\nExemptions from the restriction for certain specific materials or components should be limited in their scope and duration, in order to achieve a gradual phase-out of hazardous substances in EEE, given that the use of those substances in such applications should become avoidable.\n(20)\nAs product reuse, refurbishment and extension of lifetime are beneficial, spare parts need to be available.\n(21)\nProcedures for assessing the conformity of EEE subject to this Directive should be consistent with relevant Union legislation, in particular Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products (15). Harmonising conformity assessment procedures should give manufacturers legal certainty as to what they have to provide as proof of compliance to the authorities throughout the Union.\n(22)\nThe conformity marking applicable for products at Union level, CE marking, should also apply to EEE that is subject to this Directive.\n(23)\nThe market surveillance mechanisms laid down by Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products (16) provide the safeguard mechanisms to check compliance with this Directive.\n(24)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, particularly with regard to the guidelines and format of applications for exemptions, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (17).\n(25)\nFor the purposes of achieving the objectives of this Directive the Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of amendments to Annex II, detailed rules for complying with maximum concentration values, and the adaptation of Annexes III and IV to technical and scientific progress. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(26)\nThe obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive change as compared with the earlier Directive. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under the earlier Directive.\n(27)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law and application of the Directive set out in Annex VII, Part B.\n(28)\nWhen reviewing this Directive, a thorough analysis of its coherence with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 should be carried out by the Commission.\n(29)\nIn accordance with paragraph 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (18), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables, which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and their transposition measures, and to make those tables public.\n(30)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely to establish restrictions on the use of hazardous substances in EEE, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale of the problem and its implications in respect of other Union legislation on recovery and disposal of waste and areas of common interest, such as human health protection, 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,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Directive lays down rules on the restriction of the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) with a view to contributing to the protection of human health and the environment, including the environmentally sound recovery and disposal of waste EEE.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Directive shall, subject to paragraph 2, apply to EEE falling within the categories set out in Annex I.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 4(3) and 4(4), Member States shall provide that EEE that was outside the scope of Directive 2002/95/EC, but which would not comply with this Directive, may nevertheless continue to be made available on the market until 22 July 2019.\n3. This Directive shall apply without prejudice to the requirements of Union legislation on safety and health, and on chemicals, in particular Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, as well as the requirements of specific Union waste management legislation.\n4. This Directive does not apply to:\n(a)\nequipment which is necessary for the protection of the essential interests of the security of Member States, including arms, munitions and war material intended for specifically military purposes;\n(b)\nequipment designed to be sent into space;\n(c)\nequipment which is specifically designed, and is to be installed, as part of another type of equipment that is excluded or does not fall within the scope of this Directive, which can fulfil its function only if it is part of that equipment, and which can be replaced only by the same specifically designed equipment;\n(d)\nlarge-scale stationary industrial tools;\n(e)\nlarge-scale fixed installations;\n(f)\nmeans of transport for persons or goods, excluding electric two-wheel vehicles which are not type-approved;\n(g)\nnon-road mobile machinery made available exclusively for professional use;\n(h)\nactive implantable medical devices;\n(i)\nphotovoltaic panels intended to be used in a system that is designed, assembled and installed by professionals for permanent use at a defined location to produce energy from solar light for public, commercial, industrial and residential applications;\n(j)\nequipment specifically designed solely for the purposes of research and development only made available on a business-to-business basis.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018electrical and electronic equipment\u2019 or \u2018EEE\u2019 means equipment which is dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields in order to work properly and equipment for the generation, transfer and measurement of such currents and fields and designed for use with a voltage rating not exceeding 1 000 volts for alternating current and 1 500 volts for direct current;\n(2)\nfor the purposes of point 1, \u2018dependent \u2018 means, with regard to EEE, needing electric currents or electromagnetic fields to fulfil at least one intended function;\n(3)\n\u2018large-scale stationary industrial tools\u2019 means a large-scale assembly of machines, equipment, and/or components, functioning together for a specific application, permanently installed and de-installed by professionals at a given place, and used and maintained by professionals in an industrial manufacturing facility or research and development facility;\n(4)\n\u2018large-scale fixed installation\u2019 means a large-scale combination of several types of apparatus and, where applicable, other devices, which are assembled and installed by professionals, intended to be used permanently in a pre-defined and dedicated location, and de-installed by professionals;\n(5)\n\u2018cables\u2019 means all cables with a rated voltage of less than 250 volts that serve as a connection or an extension to connect EEE to the electrical outlet or to connect two or more EEE to each other;\n(6)\n\u2018manufacturer\u2019 means any natural or legal person who manufactures an EEE or who has an EEE designed or manufactured and markets it under his name or trademark;\n(7)\n\u2018authorised representative\u2019 means any natural or legal person established within the Union who has received a written mandate from a manufacturer to act on his behalf in relation to specified tasks;\n(8)\n\u2018distributor\u2019 means any natural or legal person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer, who makes an EEE available on the market;\n(9)\n\u2018importer\u2019 means any natural or legal person established within the Union, who places an EEE from a third country on the Union market;\n(10)\n\u2018economic operators\u2019 means the manufacturer, the authorised representative, the importer and the distributor;\n(11)\n\u2018making available on the market\u2019 means any supply of an EEE for distribution, consumption or use on the Union market in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge;\n(12)\n\u2018placing on the market\u2019 means making available an EEE on the Union market for the first time;\n(13)\n\u2018harmonised standard\u2019 means a standard adopted by one of the European standardisation bodies listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (19) on the basis of a request made by the Commission in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 98/34/EC;\n(14)\n\u2018technical specification\u2019 means a document that prescribes technical requirements to be fulfilled by a product, process or service;\n(15)\n\u2018CE marking\u2019 means a marking by which the manufacturer indicates that the product is in conformity with the applicable requirements set out in Union harmonisation legislation providing for its affixing;\n(16)\n\u2018conformity assessment\u2019 means the process demonstrating whether the requirements of this Directive relating to an EEE, are met;\n(17)\n\u2018market surveillance\u2019 means the activities carried out and measures taken by public authorities to ensure that EEE complies with the requirements set out in this Directive and does not endanger health, safety or other issues of public interest protection;\n(18)\n\u2018recall\u2019 means any measure aimed at achieving the return of a product that has already been made available to the end user;\n(19)\n\u2018withdrawal\u2019 means any measure aimed at preventing a product in the supply chain from being made available on the market;\n(20)\n\u2018homogeneous material\u2019 means one material of uniform composition throughout or a material, consisting of a combination of materials, that cannot be disjointed or separated into different materials by mechanical actions such as unscrewing, cutting, crushing, grinding and abrasive processes;\n(21)\n\u2018medical device\u2019 means a medical device within the meaning of point (a) of Article 1(2) of Directive 93/42/EEC and which is also EEE;\n(22)\n\u2018in vitro diagnostic medical device\u2019 means an in vitro diagnostic medical device within the meaning of point (b) of Article 1(2) of Directive 98/79/EC;\n(23)\n\u2018active implantable medical device\u2019 means any active implantable medical device within the meaning of point (c) of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices (20);\n(24)\n\u2018industrial monitoring and control instruments\u2019 means monitoring and control instruments designed for exclusively industrial or professional use;\n(25)\n\u2018availability of a substitute\u2019 means the ability of a substitute to be manufactured and delivered within a reasonable period of time as compared with the time required for manufacturing and delivering the substances listed in Annex II;\n(26)\n\u2018reliability of a substitute\u2019 means the probability that an EEE using a substitute will perform a required function without failure under stated conditions for a stated period of time;\n(27)\n\u2018spare part\u2019 means a separate part of an EEE that can replace a part of an EEE. The EEE cannot function as intended without that part of the EEE. The functionality of EEE is restored or is upgraded when the part is replaced by a spare part;\n(28)\n\u2018non-road mobile machinery made available exclusively for professional use\u2019 means machinery, with an on-board power source, the operation of which requires either mobility or continuous or semi-continuous movement between a succession of fixed working locations while working, and is made available exclusively for professional use.\nArticle 4\nPrevention\n1. Member States shall ensure that EEE placed on the market, including cables and spare parts for its repair, its reuse, updating of its functionalities or upgrading of its capacity, does not contain the substances listed in Annex II.\n2. For the purposes of this Directive, no more than the maximum concentration value by weight in homogeneous materials as specified in Annex II shall be tolerated. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 20 and subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 21 and 22, detailed rules for complying with these maximum concentration values taking into account, inter alia, surface coatings.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall apply to medical devices and monitoring and control instruments which are placed on the market from 22 July 2014, to in vitro diagnostic medical devices which are placed on the market from 22 July 2016 and to industrial monitoring and control instruments which are placed on the market from 22 July 2017.\n4. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to cables or spare parts for the repair, the reuse, the updating of functionalities or upgrading of capacity of the following:\n(a)\nEEE placed on the market before 1 July 2006;\n(b)\nmedical devices placed on the market before 22 July 2014;\n(c)\nin vitro diagnostic medical devices placed on the market before 22 July 2016;\n(d)\nmonitoring and control instruments placed on the market before 22 July 2014;\n(e)\nindustrial monitoring and control instruments placed on the market before 22 July 2017;\n(f)\nEEE which benefited from an exemption and which was placed on the market before that exemption expired as far as that specific exemption is concerned.\n5. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to reused spare parts, recovered from EEE placed on the market before 1 July 2006 and used in equipment placed on the market before 1 July 2016, provided that reuse takes place in auditable closed-loop business-to-business return systems, and that the reuse of parts is notified to the consumer.\n6. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the applications listed in Annexes III and IV.\nArticle 5\nAdaptation of the Annexes to scientific and technical progress\n1. For the purposes of adapting Annexes III and IV to scientific and technical progress, and in order to achieve the objectives set out in Article 1, the Commission shall adopt by means of individual delegated acts in accordance with Article 20 and subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 21 and 22, the following measures:\n(a)\ninclusion of materials and components of EEE for specific applications in the lists in Annexes III and IV, provided that such inclusion does not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and where any of the following conditions is fulfilled:\n-\ntheir elimination or substitution via design changes or materials and components which do not require any of the materials or substances listed in Annex II is scientifically or technically impracticable,\n-\nthe reliability of substitutes is not ensured,\n-\nthe total negative environmental, health and consumer safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the total environmental, health and consumer safety benefits thereof.\nDecisions on the inclusion of materials and components of EEE in the lists in Annexes III and IV and on the duration of any exemptions shall take into account the availability of substitutes and the socioeconomic impact of substitution. Decisions on the duration of any exemptions shall take into account any potential adverse impacts on innovation. Life-cycle thinking on the overall impacts of the exemption shall apply, where relevant;\n(b)\ndeletion of materials and components of EEE from the lists in Annexes III and IV where the conditions set out in point (a) are no longer fulfilled.\n2. Measures adopted in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 1 shall, for categories 1 to 7, 10 and 11 of Annex I, have a validity period of up to 5 years and, for categories 8 and 9 of Annex I, a validity period of up to 7 years. The validity periods are to be decided on a case-by-case basis and may be renewed.\nFor the exemptions listed in Annex III as at 21 July 2011, the maximum validity period, which may be renewed, shall, for categories 1 to 7 and 10 of Annex I, be 5 years from 21 July 2011 and, for categories 8 and 9 of Annex I, 7 years from the relevant dates laid down in Article 4(3), unless a shorter period is specified.\nFor the exemptions listed in Annex IV as at 21 July 2011, the maximum validity period, which may be renewed, shall be 7 years from the relevant dates laid down in Article 4(3), unless a shorter period is specified.\n3. An application for granting, renewing or revoking an exemption shall be made to the Commission in accordance with Annex V.\n4. The Commission shall:\n(a)\nacknowledge receipt of an application in writing within 15 days of its receipt. The acknowledgement shall state the date of receipt of the application;\n(b)\ninform the Member States of the application without delay and make the application and any supplementary information supplied by the applicant available to them;\n(c)\nmake a summary of the application available to the public;\n(d)\nevaluate the application and its justification.\n5. An application for renewal of an exemption shall be made no later than 18 months before the exemption expires.\nThe Commission shall decide on an application for renewal of an exemption no later than 6 months before the expiry date of the existing exemption unless specific circumstances justify other deadlines. The existing exemption shall remain valid until a decision on the renewal application is taken by the Commission.\n6. In the event that the application for renewal of an exemption is rejected or that an exemption is revoked, the exemption shall expire at the earliest 12 months, and at the latest 18 months, after the date of the decision.\n7. Before Annexes are amended, the Commission shall, inter alia, consult economic operators, recyclers, treatment operators, environmental organisations and employee and consumer associations and make the comments received publicly available.\n8. The Commission shall adopt a harmonised format for applications referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article as well as comprehensive guidelines for such applications, taking into account the situation of SMEs. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 19(2).\nArticle 6\nReview and amendment of list of restricted substances in Annex II\n1. With a view to achieving the objectives set out in Article 1 and taking account of the precautionary principle, a review, based on a thorough assessment, and amendment of the list of restricted substances in Annex II shall be considered by the Commission before 22 July 2014, and periodically thereafter on its own initiative or following the submission of a proposal by a Member State containing the information referred to in paragraph 2.\nThe review and amendment of the list of restricted substances in Annex II shall be coherent with other legislation related to chemicals, in particular Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, and shall take into account, inter alia, Annexes XIV and XVII to that Regulation. The review shall use publicly available knowledge obtained from the application of such legislation.\nIn order to review and amend Annex II, the Commission shall take special account of whether a substance, including substances of very small size or with a very small internal or surface structure, or a group of similar substances:\n(a)\ncould have a negative impact during EEE waste management operations, including on the possibilities for preparing for the reuse of waste EEE or for recycling of materials from waste EEE;\n(b)\ncould give rise, given its uses, to uncontrolled or diffuse release into the environment of the substance, or could give rise to hazardous residues, or transformation or degradation products through the preparation for reuse, recycling or other treatment of materials from waste EEE under current operational conditions;\n(c)\ncould lead to unacceptable exposure of workers involved in the waste EEE collection or treatment processes;\n(d)\ncould be replaced by substitutes or alternative technologies which have less negative impacts.\nDuring that review, the Commission shall consult interested parties, including economic operators, recyclers, treatment operators, environmental organisations and employee and consumer associations.\n2. The proposals to review and amend the list of restricted substances, or a group of similar substances, in Annex II shall contain at least the following information:\n(a)\nprecise and clear wording of the proposed restriction;\n(b)\nreferences and scientific evidence for the restriction;\n(c)\ninformation on the use of the substance or the group of similar substances in EEE;\n(d)\ninformation on detrimental effects and exposure in particular during waste EEE management operations;\n(e)\ninformation on possible substitutes and other alternatives, their availability and reliability;\n(f)\njustification for considering a Union-wide restriction as the most appropriate measure;\n(g)\nsocioeconomic assessment.\n3. The measures referred to in this Article shall be adopted by the Commission by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 20 and subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 21 and 22.\nArticle 7\nObligations of manufacturers\nMember States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nwhen placing EEE on the market, manufacturers ensure that it has been designed and manufactured in accordance with the requirements set out in Article 4;\n(b)\nmanufacturers draw up the required technical documentation and carry out the internal production control procedure in line with module A of Annex II to Decision No 768/2008/EC or have it carried out;\n(c)\nwhere compliance of EEE with the applicable requirements has been demonstrated by the procedure referred to in point (b), manufacturers draw up an EU declaration of conformity and affix the CE marking on the finished product. Where other applicable Union legislation requires the application of a conformity assessment procedure which is at least as stringent, compliance with the requirements of Article 4(1) of this Directive may be demonstrated within the context of that procedure. A single technical documentation may be drawn up;\n(d)\nmanufacturers keep the technical documentation and the EU declaration of conformity for 10 years after the EEE has been placed on the market;\n(e)\nmanufacturers ensure that procedures are in place for series production to remain in conformity. Changes in product design or characteristics and changes in the harmonised standards or in technical specifications by reference to which conformity of EEE is declared shall be adequately taken into account;\n(f)\nmanufacturers keep a register of non-conforming EEE and product recalls, and keep distributors informed thereof;\n(g)\nmanufacturers ensure that their EEE bears a type, batch or serial number or other element allowing its identification, or, where the size or nature of the EEE does not allow it, that the required information is provided on the packaging or in a document accompanying the EEE;\n(h)\nmanufacturers indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark and the address at which they can be contacted on the EEE or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or in a document accompanying the EEE. The address must indicate a single point at which the manufacturer can be contacted. Where other applicable Union legislation contains provisions for the affixing of the manufacturer\u2019s name and address which are at least as stringent, those provisions shall apply;\n(i)\nmanufacturers who consider or have reason to believe that EEE which they have placed on the market is not in conformity with this Directive immediately take the necessary corrective measures to bring that EEE into conformity, to withdraw it or recall it, if appropriate, and immediately inform the competent national authorities of the Member States in which they made the EEE available to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective measures taken;\n(j)\nmanufacturers, further to a reasoned request from a competent national authority, provide it with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the EEE with this Directive, in a language which can be easily understood by that authority, and that they cooperate with that authority, at its request, on any action taken to ensure compliance with this Directive of EEE which they have placed on the market.\nArticle 8\nObligations of authorised representatives\nMember States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nmanufacturers have the possibility to appoint an authorised representative by written mandate. The obligations laid down in point (a) of Article 7 and the drawing up of technical documentation shall not form part of the authorised representative\u2019s mandate;\n(b)\nan authorised representative performs the tasks specified in the mandate received from the manufacturer. The mandate shall allow the authorised representative to do at least the following:\n-\nkeep the EU declaration of conformity and the technical documentation at the disposal of national surveillance authorities for 10 years following the placing on the market of the EEE,\n-\nfurther to a reasoned request from a competent national authority, provide that authority with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of an EEE with this Directive,\n-\ncooperate with the competent national authorities, at their request, on any action taken to ensure compliance with this Directive of EEE covered by their mandate.\nArticle 9\nObligations of importers\nMember States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nimporters place only EEE that complies with this Directive on the Union market;\n(b)\nimporters, before placing an EEE on the market, ensure that the appropriate conformity assessment procedure has been carried out by the manufacturer, and that they further ensure that the manufacturer has drawn up the technical documentation, that the EEE bears the CE marking and is accompanied by the required documents, and that the manufacturer has complied with the requirements set out in points (f) and (g) of Article 7;\n(c)\nwhere an importer considers or has reason to believe that an EEE is not in conformity with Article 4, that importer does not place the EEE on the market until it has been brought into conformity, and that that importer informs the manufacturer and the market surveillance authorities to that effect;\n(d)\nimporters indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark and the address at which they can be contacted on the EEE or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or in a document accompanying the EEE. Where other applicable Union legislation contains provisions for the affixing of the importer\u2019s name and address which are at least as stringent, those provisions shall apply;\n(e)\nimporters, in order to ensure compliance with this Directive, keep a register of non-compliant EEE and EEE recalls, and keep distributors informed thereof;\n(f)\nimporters who consider or have reason to believe that an EEE which they have placed on the market is not in conformity with this Directive immediately take the corrective measures necessary to bring that EEE into conformity, to withdraw it or recall it, as appropriate, and immediately inform the competent national authorities of the Member States in which they made the EEE available to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective measures taken;\n(g)\nimporters keep, for 10 years following the placing on the market of the EEE, a copy of the EU declaration of conformity at the disposal of the market surveillance authorities and ensure that the technical documentation can be made available to those authorities, upon request;\n(h)\nimporters, further to a reasoned request from a competent national authority, provide it with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of an EEE with this Directive in a language which can be easily understood by that authority, and that they cooperate with that authority, at its request, on any action taken to ensure compliance with this Directive of EEE which they have placed on the market.\nArticle 10\nObligations of distributors\nMember States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nwhen making an EEE available on the market, distributors act with due care in relation to the requirements applicable in particular by verifying that the EEE bears the CE marking, that it is accompanied by the required documents in a language which can be easily understood by consumers and other end-users in the Member State in which the EEE is to be made available on the market, and that the manufacturer and the importer have complied with the requirements set out in points (g) and (h) of Article 7 and in point (d) of Article 9;\n(b)\nwhere a distributor considers or has reason to believe that an EEE is not in conformity with Article 4, that distributor does not make the EEE available on the market until it has been brought into conformity, and that that distributor informs the manufacturer or the importer as well as the market surveillance authorities to that effect;\n(c)\ndistributors who consider or have reason to believe that an EEE which they have made available on the market is not in conformity with this Directive make sure that the corrective measures necessary to bring that EEE into conformity, to withdraw it or recall it, as appropriate, are taken and that they immediately inform the competent national authorities of the Member States in which they made the EEE available to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective measures taken;\n(d)\ndistributors, further to a reasoned request from a competent national authority, provide it with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of EEE with this Directive, and that they cooperate with that authority, at its request, on any action taken to ensure the compliance with this Directive of the EEE which they have made available on the market.\nArticle 11\nCases in which obligations of manufacturers apply to importers and distributors\nMember States shall ensure that an importer or distributor is considered a manufacturer for the purposes of this Directive and that he is subject to the obligations of the manufacturer under Article 7, where he places EEE on the market under his name or trademark or modifies EEE already placed on the market in such a way that compliance with the applicable requirements may be affected.\nArticle 12\nIdentification of economic operators\nMember States shall ensure that economic operators, on request, identify the following to the market surveillance authorities, for 10 years following the placing on the market of the EEE:\n(a)\nany economic operator who has supplied them with an EEE;\n(b)\nany economic operator to whom they have supplied an EEE.\nArticle 13\nEU declaration of conformity\n1. The EU declaration of conformity shall state that it has been demonstrated that the requirements specified in Article 4 have been met.\n2. The EU declaration of conformity shall have the model structure and shall contain the elements specified in Annex VI and shall be updated. It shall be translated into the language or languages required by the Member State on the market of which the product is placed or made available.\nWhere other applicable Union legislation requires the application of a conformity assessment procedure which is at least as stringent, compliance with the requirements of Article 4(1) of this Directive may be demonstrated within the context of that procedure. A single technical documentation may be drawn up.\n3. By drawing up the EU declaration of conformity, the manufacturer shall assume responsibility for the compliance of the EEE with this Directive.\nArticle 14\nGeneral principles of the CE marking\nThe CE marking shall be subject to the general principles set out in Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.\nArticle 15\nRules and conditions for affixing the CE marking\n1. The CE marking shall be affixed visibly, legibly and indelibly to the finished EEE or to its data plate. Where that is not possible or not warranted on account of the nature of the EEE, it shall be affixed to the packaging and to the accompanying documents.\n2. The CE marking shall be affixed before the EEE is placed on the market.\n3. Member States shall build upon existing mechanisms to ensure the correct application of the regime governing the CE marking and take appropriate action in the event of improper use of the CE marking. Member States shall also provide for penalties for infringements, which may include criminal sanctions for serious infringements. Those penalties shall be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and constitute an effective deterrent against improper use.\nArticle 16\nPresumption of conformity\n1. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Member States shall presume EEE bearing the CE marking to comply with this Directive.\n2. Materials, components and EEE on which tests and measurements demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Article 4 have been performed, or which have been assessed, in accordance with harmonised standards, the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be presumed to comply with the requirements of this Directive.\nArticle 17\nFormal objection to a harmonised standard\n1. Where a Member State or the Commission considers that a harmonised standard does not entirely satisfy the requirements which it covers and which are set out in Article 4, the Commission or the Member State concerned shall bring the matter before the Committee set up pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC, giving its arguments. The Committee shall, after consulting the relevant European standardisation bodies, deliver its opinion without delay.\n2. In the light of the Committee\u2019s opinion, the Commission shall decide to publish, not to publish, to publish with restriction, to maintain, to maintain with restriction or to withdraw the references to the harmonised standard concerned in or from the Official Journal of the European Union.\n3. The Commission shall inform the European standardisation body concerned and, if necessary, request the revision of the harmonised standards concerned.\nArticle 18\nMarket surveillance and controls of EEE entering the Union market\nMember States shall carry out market surveillance in accordance with Articles 15 to 29 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.\nArticle 19\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the committee set up pursuant to Article 39 of Directive 2008/98/EC. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 20\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The powers to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 4(2), Article 5(1) and Article 6 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 21 July 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of delegated powers at the latest 6 months before the end of the 5 year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 21.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The powers to adopt delegated acts are conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 21 and 22.\nArticle 21\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 4(2), Article 5(1) and Article 6 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of powers shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 22\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 2 months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 2 months.\n2. If, on expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to the delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 23\nPenalties\nThe Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission by 2 January 2013 and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.\nArticle 24\nReview\n1. No later than 22 July 2014 the Commission shall examine the need to amend the scope of this Directive in respect of the EEE referred to in Article 2, and shall present a report thereon to the European Parliament and the Council accompanied by a legislative proposal, if appropriate, with respect to any additional exclusions related to that EEE.\n2. No later than 22 July 2021 the Commission shall carry out a general review of this Directive, and shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council accompanied, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal.\nArticle 25\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 2 January 2013, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 26\nRepeal\nDirective 2002/95/EC as amended by the acts listed in Annex VII, Part A is repealed with effect from 3 January 2013 without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law and application of the Directive set out in Annex VII, Part B.\nReferences to the repealed acts shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex VIII.\nArticle 27\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 28\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 8 June 2011.", "references": ["52", "67", "74", "47", "81", "2", "48", "94", "6", "96", "98", "30", "42", "36", "7", "89", "51", "14", "41", "23", "46", "10", "50", "44", "82", "75", "37", "31", "84", "97", "No Label", "20", "25", "58", "60", "76", "86"], "gold": ["20", "25", "58", "60", "76", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 8 February 2011\nconcerning a financial contribution by the Union to the Netherlands for studies on Q fever\n(notified under document C(2011) 554)\n(Only the Dutch text is authentic)\n(2011/89/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 23 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Financial Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 75 thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Implementing Rules\u2019), and in particular Article 90 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the budget of the European Union shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nQ fever is a highly contagious zoonotic disease caused by pathogen Coxiella burnetii which is commonly present in almost all countries worldwide. Many domesticated and wild animals can be carriers of the disease but cattle, goats and sheep are the main reservoirs.\n(3)\nIn the EU, there are no harmonised rules as regards notification or control of Q fever in animals. Disease control measures are normally taken on national, regional or even farm level.\n(4)\nAccording to the EFSA opinion of 27 April 2010 (4), the overall impact of Q fever on the health of humans and domestic ruminants in EU Member States is limited. However, in certain epidemiological circumstances and for particular risk groups the public health impact and thereby also the impact on society and/or the economy can be significant.\n(5)\nIn the years 2008 and 2009, a major increase of human cases of Q fever was observed in the Netherlands, with several human deaths. The epidemiological investigations indicated a link with large dairy goat holdings in the area, where this particular type of milk production has developed rapidly over the past decade. However, the abovementioned EFSA opinion highlighted that the precise reasons for the emergence of clinical problems in the animal population in 2005, and the increase of cases in the human population in 2007 are still unclear.\n(6)\nOn 24 March 2010, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality submitted a request for co-financing in the framework of Decision 2009/470/EC for technical and scientific studies on disease dynamics and the effectiveness of possible control measures applicable to domestic ruminants, such as vaccination of goats.\n(7)\nThe studies for which the Netherlands has requested co financing for will address among other things the following topics: (i) characterisation of the different genotypes of Coxiella burnetii that exist in different animal species in the Netherlands and their difference in virulence, if any; (ii) pathogenicity of Coxiella burnetii in pregnant and non-pregnant goats; (iii) the survival of Coxiella burnetii in manure; and (iv) suitable means of disinfection.\n(8)\nPursuant to Article 22 of Decision 2009/470/EC, the Union may undertake, or assist the Member States or international organisations in undertaking, the technical and scientific measures necessary for the development of EU veterinary legislation and for the development of veterinary education or training.\n(9)\nA financial contribution should be granted to the studies on Q fever in the Netherlands as the outcomes may lead to new insights that may contribute to possible future development of veterinary legislation in the Union, in particular as regards the possible adoption of harmonised rules on monitoring and reporting of this disease.\n(10)\nUnder Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (5), veterinary measures are to be financed under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. For financial control purposes, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of that Regulation are to apply.\n(11)\nThe payment of the financial contribution must be subject to the condition that the studies planned have actually been carried out and that the authorities supply all the necessary information to the Commission.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Union shall grant the Netherlands financial assistance for their studies on Q fever, as summarised in the Annex. The present Decision constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\n2. The following conditions must be fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe outcomes of the studies must be made available to the Commission and all Member States and presented at the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health;\n(b)\nthe Netherlands must forward a final technical and financial report to the Commission on 31 March 2012 at the latest, the financial report accompanied by supporting documents justifying evidence as to the costs incurred and the results attained.\nArticle 2\n1. The maximum contribution authorised by this Decision for the costs incurred for the work referred to in Article 1(1) is set at EUR 500 000 to be financed from the following Budgetary Line of the General Budget of the European Union for 2011:\n-\nBudgetary Line No 17 04 02 01: EUR 500 000.\n2. The Union\u2019s financial assistance shall be paid following presentation of the reports and supporting documents referred to Article 1(2)(b).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Netherlands.\nDone at Brussels, 8 February 2011.", "references": ["90", "98", "59", "16", "75", "52", "11", "51", "40", "53", "22", "18", "21", "97", "36", "8", "55", "93", "69", "42", "64", "28", "12", "58", "91", "7", "60", "78", "76", "81", "No Label", "4", "15", "66", "96"], "gold": ["4", "15", "66", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 455/2010\nof 26 May 2010\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3 of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column 2 of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 May 2010.", "references": ["25", "61", "37", "36", "98", "10", "54", "6", "42", "3", "35", "18", "38", "53", "4", "1", "70", "15", "29", "91", "41", "19", "62", "92", "72", "51", "45", "65", "11", "23", "No Label", "21", "43"], "gold": ["21", "43"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1265/2010\nof 20 December 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt is in the interest of the Union to suspend totally the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on a certain number of new products currently not listed in the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 (1).\n(2)\nSeven products with CN and TARIC codes 2805309010, 2805309020, 2825500010, 2933790040, 3908900020, 3920621988and 8525801930 currently listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 should be deleted because it is no longer in the interest of the Union to maintain the suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for those products.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to modify the description of 18 suspensions in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 in order to take account of technical product developments and economic trends on the market. Those suspensions should be deleted from the list in that Annex and reinserted as new suspensions using new descriptions. Moreover, CN codes should be changed for 20 products and TARIC codes for 11 products.\n(4)\nThe suspensions for which those technical modifications are necessary should be deleted from the list of suspensions in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 and should be reinserted in that list using new product descriptions, new CN codes or new TARIC codes.\n(5)\nIn the interest of clarity, the modified entries should be marked with an asterisk in the lists of inserted and deleted suspensions set out in the texts of the Annex I and Annex II to this Regulation.\n(6)\nExperience has shown that it is necessary to provide an expiry date for the suspensions listed in Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 to ensure that account is taken of technological and economic changes. This should not exclude early termination of certain measures or their continuation beyond the expiry date, if economic justification is provided, in accordance with the principles laid down in the Commission communication of 1998 concerning autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas (2).\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1255/96 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nSince the suspensions laid down in this Regulation have to take effect from 1 January 2011, this Regulation should apply from the same date and enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nthe rows for the products listed in Annex I to this Regulation are inserted;\n2.\nthe rows for the products for which the CN and TARIC codes are set out in Annex II to this Regulation are deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["96", "59", "90", "35", "99", "70", "52", "28", "49", "22", "15", "95", "14", "72", "39", "5", "4", "23", "93", "46", "85", "6", "77", "76", "84", "12", "29", "13", "41", "55", "No Label", "10", "21", "66", "75", "82"], "gold": ["10", "21", "66", "75", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 994/2011\nof 6 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 October 2011.", "references": ["17", "55", "52", "83", "82", "56", "18", "12", "62", "85", "38", "95", "31", "51", "64", "73", "14", "77", "34", "91", "47", "16", "78", "97", "42", "66", "20", "36", "23", "74", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 647/2012\nof 16 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["16", "28", "38", "66", "46", "0", "29", "81", "84", "8", "21", "96", "39", "12", "40", "73", "89", "64", "51", "44", "70", "15", "23", "77", "56", "2", "90", "18", "67", "94", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 July 2011\non the safety requirements to be met by European standards to address certain risks posed to children by internal blinds, corded window coverings and safety devices pursuant to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/477/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (1), and in particular Article 4(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC, a product is presumed safe when it complies with voluntary national standards transposing European standards, the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(2)\nThose European standards are to be established by European standardisation bodies on the basis of specific safety requirements determined by the Commission.\n(3)\nMany homes have blinds and other window coverings with cords that are used to raise or lower the product (operating cord) or to connect its different parts (inner cord). These cords pose a strangulation hazard to children, as loops can be formed and children can become entangled in them, while playing near the window. Children can also climb on window sills or furniture to access the cords. Accidents can also happen when beds or cots are placed near windows where cords are within reach of children.\n(4)\nIn 1998, in a sample of hospitals in the 15 Member States of the European Union, 129 children were hospitalised due to an injury involving a window blind loop or drapery cord (2). In the United Kingdom, it is estimated that one or two children die every year after becoming entangled in the cords of a blind. More recently, the Commission has become aware of 10 fatal accidents involving children aged between 15 and 36 months that occurred in Ireland, Finland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Turkey in the period 2008 to 2010. In the United States 119 fatalities and 111 near-misses involving corded window coverings were reported to have occurred since 1999. In Canada, 28 fatalities and 23 near-misses have been linked to the same products since 1986. In Australia, at least 10 children have been accidentally strangled by blinds cords since 2000 (3). However, these figures capture only a part of the problem, as many such accidents are not reported (4).\n(5)\nResearch indicates that most accidental deaths involving blind cords happen in bedrooms and the children concerned are aged between 16 months and 36 months. Over half these accidents happen to children around 23 months. Although fully mobile at that age, children find it difficult to free themselves if they become entangled in the cords, as their heads still weigh more in proportion to their bodies compared to adults, and their muscular control is not yet fully developed. In addition, their windpipes have not yet fully developed and are thus smaller and less rigid than in adults and older children, so that they suffocate more quickly if their necks are constricted (5).\n(6)\nEuropean standard EN 13120:2009 contains performance requirements for internal blinds, including safety. However, some models of blinds, which have been linked to accidents, are not included within the scope of this standard.\n(7)\nEuropean standard EN 13120:2009 refers to both manual and power-operated internal blinds, the latter being covered in relationship with Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery (6). However, this Directive does not cover child-safety in relation to the specific risk of strangulation and does not apply to corded blinds manually operated.\n(8)\nMotorisation can eliminate the risks associated with the operating cords, but not the risks relating to the inner cords.\n(9)\nOther window coverings with hazardous cords exposed pose a similar risk to children.\n(10)\nReports of cord-related accidents give the cause of death as internal asphyxiation. Existing European standards relating to window coverings and blinds do not contain requirements to address this risk.\n(11)\nTo cover the risk of incorrect installation or lack of installation, manufacturers should improve the design of the safety devices or of the window coverings to prevent the product being used if the safety devices are not properly installed.\n(12)\nIt is therefore necessary to lay down safety requirements to ensure that internal blinds and other corded window coverings are inherently safe for children, eliminating the risk of strangulation and internal asphyxiation due to accessible cords and small parts.\n(13)\nIn addition to requirements concerning the safe operation of corded window coverings and blinds, requirements and product safety information must be also developed for the safety devices.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up under Article 15 of Directive 2001/95/EC and neither the European Parliament nor the Council has opposed them,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Decision the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018internal blinds\u2019 shall mean a window covering product fitted anywhere within the internal surface of the building;\n(b)\n\u2018corded window coverings\u2019 shall mean a product used to cover a window, other than an internal blind, which features exposed cords. Window coverings can be placed outside the window, or inside two window panels, or in front of a window;\n(c)\n\u2018hazardous loop\u2019 shall mean a loop of exposed cord, chain or similar, combined or not with fabric, and that would fit over the head or around the neck of a young child creating a strangulation hazard;\n(d)\n\u2018safety devices\u2019 shall mean a device or a design that protects a young child from the risk of strangulation by, for example, preventing the forming of a hazardous loop in the cord or chain, breaking the hazardous loop, releasing a cord or a chain when a hazardous loop is formed or when the cord or a chain is subject to a load, making the cord or chain inaccessible to children, preventing the cords getting entangled;\n(e)\n\u2018accessible cord(s), chain(s), ball-chain(s) or similar\u2019 shall mean cord(s), chain(s), ball-chain(s) or similar that are exposed from the front, back or side of the blind or window covering, and can be reached and pulled by a young child, creating a strangulation hazard. Height is not considered as a restriction to accessibility.\nArticle 2\nThe safety requirements for internal blinds, corded window coverings and safety devices to be met by European standards pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2001/95/EC are set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2011.", "references": ["72", "87", "95", "17", "1", "2", "34", "5", "79", "96", "78", "74", "39", "4", "31", "51", "65", "36", "92", "58", "90", "45", "0", "70", "77", "62", "64", "27", "88", "9", "No Label", "24", "76"], "gold": ["24", "76"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 236/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 14 March 2012\non short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAt the height of the financial crisis in September 2008, competent authorities in several Member States and supervisory authorities in third countries such as the United States of America and Japan adopted emergency measures to restrict or ban short selling in some or all securities. They acted due to concerns that at a time of considerable financial instability, short selling could aggravate the downward spiral in the prices of shares, notably in financial institutions, in a way which could ultimately threaten their viability and create systemic risks. The measures adopted by Member States were divergent as the Union lacks a specific common regulatory framework for dealing with short selling issues.\n(2)\nTo ensure the proper functioning of the internal market and to improve the conditions of its functioning, in particular with regard to the financial markets, and to ensure a high level of consumer and investor protection, it is therefore appropriate to lay down a common regulatory framework with regard to the requirements and powers relating to short selling and credit default swaps and to ensure greater coordination and consistency between Member States where measures have to be taken in exceptional circumstances. It is necessary to harmonise the rules for short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps, to prevent the creation of obstacles to the proper functioning of the internal market, as otherwise it is likely that Member States continue taking divergent measures.\n(3)\nIt is appropriate and necessary for those rules to take the legislative form of a regulation in order to ensure that provisions directly imposing obligations on private parties to notify and disclose net short positions relating to certain instruments and regarding uncovered short selling are applied in a uniform manner throughout the Union. A regulation is also necessary to confer powers on the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (ESMA) established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) to coordinate measures taken by competent authorities or to take measures itself.\n(4)\nThe scope of this Regulation should be as broad as possible to provide for a preventive regulatory framework to be used in exceptional circumstances. That framework should cover all financial instruments but should provide for a proportionate response to the risks that short selling of different instruments could represent. It is therefore only in the case of exceptional circumstances that competent authorities and ESMA should be entitled to take measures concerning all types of financial instruments, going beyond the permanent measures that only apply to particular types of instruments where there are clearly identified risks that need to be addressed.\n(5)\nTo end the current fragmented situation in which some Member States have taken divergent measures and to restrict the possibility that divergent measures are taken by competent authorities it is important to address the potential risks arising from short selling and credit default swaps in a harmonised manner. The requirements to be imposed should address the identified risks without unduly detracting from the benefits that short selling provides to the quality and efficiency of markets. While in certain situations it could have adverse effects, under normal market conditions, short selling plays an important role in ensuring the proper functioning of financial markets, in particular in the context of market liquidity and efficient price formation.\n(6)\nReferences in this Regulation to natural and legal persons should include registered business associations without legal personality.\n(7)\nEnhanced transparency relating to significant net short positions in specific financial instruments is likely to be of benefit to both the regulator and market participants. For shares admitted to trading on a trading venue in the Union, a two-tier model that provides for greater transparency of significant net short positions in shares at the appropriate level should be introduced. At the lower threshold, notification of a position should be made privately to the regulators concerned to enable them to monitor and, where necessary, investigate short selling that could create systemic risks, be abusive or create disorderly markets; at the higher threshold, positions should be publicly disclosed to the market in order to provide useful information to other market participants about significant individual short positions in shares.\n(8)\nA requirement to notify regulators of significant net short positions relating to sovereign debt in the Union should be introduced as such notification would provide important information to assist regulators in monitoring whether such positions are in fact creating systemic risks or being used for abusive purposes. Such a requirement should only include private disclosure to regulators as publication of information to the market for such instruments could have a detrimental effect on sovereign debt markets where liquidity is already impaired.\n(9)\nThe notification requirements relating to sovereign debt should apply to the debt instruments issued by a Member State and by the Union, including the European Investment Bank, a Member State\u2019s government department, agency, special purpose vehicle or international financial institution established by two or more Member States that issues debt on behalf of a Member State or on behalf of several Member States, such as the European Financial Stability Facility or the prospective European Stability Mechanism. In the case of federal Member States, the notification requirements should also apply to debt instruments issued by a member of the federation. They should not, however, apply to other regional or local bodies or quasi-public bodies in a Member State that issue debt instruments. The objective of debt instruments issued by the Union is to provide balance of payments or financial stability support to Member States or macro-financial assistance to third countries.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure comprehensive and effective transparency, it is important that the notification requirements cover not only short positions created by trading shares or sovereign debt on trading venues but also short positions created by trading outside trading venues and net short positions created by the use of derivatives, such as options, futures, index-related instruments, contracts for differences and spread bets relating to shares or sovereign debt.\n(11)\nTo be useful to regulators and markets, any transparency regime should provide complete and accurate information about a natural or legal person\u2019s positions. In particular, information provided to the regulator or to the market should take into account both short and long positions so as to provide valuable information about the natural or legal person\u2019s net short position in shares, sovereign debt and credit default swaps.\n(12)\nThe calculation of short or long positions should take into account any form of economic interest which a natural or legal person has in relation to the issued share capital of a company or to the issued sovereign debt of a Member State or of the Union. In particular, it should take into account such an economic interest obtained directly or indirectly through the use of derivatives such as options, futures, contracts for differences and spread bets relating to shares or sovereign debt, and indices, baskets of securities and exchange traded funds. In the case of positions relating to sovereign debt it should also take into account credit default swaps relating to sovereign debt issuers.\n(13)\nIn addition to the transparency regime provided for in this Regulation, the Commission should consider, in the context of its revision of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (5), whether inclusion by investment firms of information about short sales in transaction reports to competent authorities would provide useful supplementary information to enable competent authorities to monitor levels of short selling.\n(14)\nBuying credit default swaps without having a long position in underlying sovereign debt or any assets, portfolio of assets, financial obligations or financial contracts the value of which is correlated to the value of the sovereign debt, can be, economically speaking, equivalent to taking a short position on the underlying debt instrument. The calculation of a net short position in relation to sovereign debt should therefore include credit default swaps relating to an obligation of a sovereign debt issuer. The credit default swap position should be taken into account both for the purposes of determining whether a natural or legal person has a significant net short position relating to sovereign debt that needs to be notified to a competent authority and where a competent authority suspends restrictions on uncovered credit default swap transactions for the purposes of determining the significant uncovered position in a credit default swap relating to a sovereign debt issuer that needs to be notified to the competent authority.\n(15)\nTo enable ongoing monitoring of positions, the transparency regime should also include notification or disclosure where a change in a net short position results in an increase or decrease above or below certain thresholds.\n(16)\nIn order to be effective, it is important that the transparency regime apply regardless of where the natural or legal person is located, including in a third country, where that person has a significant net short position in a company that has shares admitted to trading on a trading venue in the Union or a net short position in sovereign debt issued by a Member State or by the Union.\n(17)\nThe definition of a short sale should not include a repurchase agreement between two parties where one party sells the other a security at a specified price with a commitment to buy the security back at a later date at another specified price or a derivative contract where it is agreed to sell securities at a specified price at a future date. The definition should not include a transfer of securities under a securities lending agreement.\n(18)\nUncovered short selling of shares and sovereign debt is sometimes viewed as increasing the potential risk of settlement failure and volatility. To reduce such risks it is appropriate to place proportionate restrictions on uncovered short selling of such instruments. The detailed restrictions should take into account the different arrangements currently used for covered short selling. These include a separate repurchase agreement on the basis of which the person selling a security short buys back an equivalent security in due time to allow settlement of the short sale transaction and includes collateral arrangements if the collateral taker can use the security for settling the short sale transaction. Further examples include rights issues (offerings) of companies to existing shareholders, lending pools and repurchase agreement facilities provided, for instance, by trading venues, clearing systems or central banks.\n(19)\nIn relation to uncovered short selling of shares it is necessary for a natural or legal person to have an arrangement with a third party under which the third party has confirmed that the share has been located, which means that the third party confirms that it considers that it can make the share available for settlement when it is due. In order to give this confirmation it is necessary for measures to be taken vis-\u00e0-vis third parties for the natural or legal person to have a reasonable expectation that settlement can be effected when it is due. This includes measures such as a third party having allocated the shares for borrowing or purchase so that settlement can be effected when it is due. With regard to short sales to be covered by purchase of the share during the same day this includes confirmation by the third party that it considers the share to be easy to borrow or to purchase. The liquidity of the shares, in particular the level of turnover and the ease with which buying, selling and borrowing can take place with minimum market impact, should be taken into account by ESMA in determining what measures are necessary in order to have a reasonable expectation that settlement can be effected when it is due.\n(20)\nIn relation to uncovered short selling of sovereign debt, the fact that a short sale will be covered by the purchase of the sovereign debt during the same day can be considered as an example of offering a reasonable expectation that settlement can be effected when it is due.\n(21)\nSovereign credit default swaps should be based on the insurable interest principle whilst recognising that there can be interests in a sovereign issuer other than bond ownership. Such interests include hedging against the risk of default of the sovereign issuer where a natural or legal person has a long position in the sovereign debt of that issuer or hedging against the risk of a decline in the value of the sovereign debt where the natural or legal person holds assets or is subject to liabilities which refer to public or private sector entities in the Member State concerned, the value of which is correlated to the value of the sovereign debt. Such assets should include financial contracts, a portfolio of assets or financial obligations, as well as interest rate or currency swap transactions with respect to which the sovereign credit default swap is used as a counterparty risk management tool for hedging exposure on financial and foreign trade contracts. No position or portfolio of positions used in the context of hedging exposures to a sovereign should be considered an uncovered position in a sovereign credit default swap. This includes any exposures to the central, regional and local administration, public sector entities or any exposure guaranteed by any referred entity. Furthermore, exposure to private sector entities established in the Member State concerned should also be included. All exposures should be considered in this context including loans, counterparty credit risk (including potential exposure when regulatory capital is required to such exposure), receivables and guarantees. This also includes indirect exposures to any of the referred entities obtained, inter alia, through exposure to indices, funds or special purpose vehicles.\n(22)\nSince entering into a sovereign credit default swap without underlying exposure to the risk of a decline in the value of the sovereign debt could have an adverse impact on the stability of sovereign debt markets, natural or legal persons should be prohibited from entering into such uncovered credit default swap positions. However, at the very first signal that the sovereign debt market is not functioning properly, the competent authority should be able to suspend such a restriction temporarily. Such a suspension should be based on the belief of the competent authority based on objective grounds following an analysis of the indicators set out in this Regulation. Competent authorities should also be able to use additional indicators.\n(23)\nIt is also appropriate to include requirements on central counterparties relating to buy-in procedures and fines for failed settlement of transactions in shares. The buy-in procedures and late settlement requirements should set basic standards relating to settlement discipline. The buy-in and fining requirements should be sufficiently flexible to permit the central counterparty that is responsible for ensuring such procedures are in place to be able to rely on another market participant to perform operationally the buy-in or impose the fine. However, for the proper functioning of financial markets it is essential to address wider aspects of settlement discipline in a horizontal legislative proposal.\n(24)\nMeasures relating to sovereign debt and sovereign credit default swaps including increased transparency and restrictions on uncovered short selling should impose requirements which are proportionate and at the same time avoid an adverse impact on the liquidity of sovereign bond markets and sovereign bond repurchase markets.\n(25)\nShares are increasingly admitted to trading on different trading venues within the Union and in third countries. Many large companies based in a third country also have shares admitted to trading on a trading venue within the Union. For reasons of efficiency, it is appropriate to exempt securities from certain notification and disclosure requirements, where the principal venue for trading of that instrument is in a third country.\n(26)\nMarket making activities play a crucial role in providing liquidity to markets within the Union and market makers need to take short positions to perform that role. Imposing requirements on such activities could severely inhibit their ability to provide liquidity and have a significant adverse impact on the efficiency of the Union markets. Furthermore market makers would not be expected to take significant short positions except for very brief periods. It is therefore appropriate to exempt natural or legal persons involved in such activities from requirements which could impair their ability to perform such a function and therefore adversely affect the Union markets. In order for such requirements to capture equivalent third-country entities a procedure is necessary to assess the equivalence of third-country markets. The exemption should apply to the different types of market-making activity but not to proprietary trading. It is also appropriate to exempt certain primary market operations such as those relating to sovereign debt and stabilisation schemes as they are important activities that assist the efficient functioning of markets. Competent authorities should be notified of the use of exemptions and should have the power to prohibit a natural or legal person from using an exemption if they do not fulfil the relevant criteria in the exemption. Competent authorities should also be able to request information from the natural or legal person to monitor their use of the exemption.\n(27)\nIn the case of adverse developments which constitute a serious threat to financial stability or to market confidence in a Member State or the Union, competent authorities should have powers of intervention to require further transparency or to impose temporary restrictions on short selling, credit default swap transactions or other transactions in order to prevent a disorderly decline in the price of a financial instrument. Such measures could be necessary due to a variety of adverse events or developments including not just financial or economic events but also for example natural disasters or terrorist acts. Furthermore, some adverse events or developments requiring measures could arise in a single Member State and have no cross-border implications. Such powers need to be flexible enough to enable competent authorities to deal with a range of different exceptional circumstances. In taking such measures, competent authorities should pay due regard to the principle of proportionality.\n(28)\nAs this Regulation addresses only restrictions on short selling and credit default swaps to prevent a disorderly decline in the price of a financial instrument, the need for other types of restrictions such as position limits or restrictions on products, which may give rise to serious investor protection concerns, are more appropriately considered in the context of the Commission\u2019s revision of Directive 2004/39/EC.\n(29)\nWhile competent authorities are usually best placed to monitor market conditions and to react initially to an adverse event or development by deciding if a serious threat to financial stability or to market confidence has arisen and whether it is necessary to take measures to address such a situation, powers in this regard and the conditions and procedures for their use should be harmonised as far as possible.\n(30)\nIn the case of a significant fall in the price of a financial instrument on a trading venue a competent authority should also have the ability to restrict temporarily short selling of the financial instrument on that venue within its own jurisdiction or to request that ESMA restrict such short selling in other jurisdictions in order to be able to intervene rapidly where appropriate and for a short period to prevent a disorderly decline in price of the instrument concerned. The competent authority should also be required to notify ESMA of such a decision so that ESMA can immediately inform the competent authorities of other Member States with venues which trade the same instrument, coordinate the taking of measures by those other Member States and, if necessary, assist them in reaching an agreement or take a decision itself, in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n(31)\nWhere an adverse event or development extends beyond a single Member State or has other cross-border implications, for example if a financial instrument is admitted to trading on different trading venues in a number of different Member States, close consultation and cooperation between competent authorities is essential. ESMA should perform a key coordination role in such a situation and should try to ensure consistency between competent authorities. The composition of ESMA, which includes representatives of competent authorities, will assist it in the performance of such a role. In addition, competent authorities should have power to take measures where they have an interest in intervening.\n(32)\nIn addition to coordinating measures by competent authorities, ESMA should ensure that measures are taken by competent authorities only where necessary and proportionate. ESMA should be able to give opinions to competent authorities on the use of powers of intervention.\n(33)\nWhile competent authorities will often be best placed to monitor and to react quickly to an adverse event or development, ESMA should also have the power to take measures where short selling and other related activities threaten the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union, where there are cross-border implications and competent authorities have not taken sufficient measures to address the threat. ESMA should consult the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) established by Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (6) where possible, and other relevant authorities where such a measure could have effects beyond the financial markets, as could be the case for commodity derivatives which are used to hedge physical positions.\n(34)\nESMA\u2019s powers under this Regulation to restrict short selling and other related activities in exceptional circumstances are in accordance with Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. Those powers should be without prejudice to the powers of ESMA in an emergency situation under Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. In particular, ESMA should be able to adopt individual decisions requiring competent authorities to take measures or individual decisions addressed to financial market participants under Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n(35)\nReferences in this Regulation to Articles 18 and 38 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 are of a declaratory nature. Those articles apply even in the absence of such references.\n(36)\nPowers of intervention of competent authorities and ESMA to restrict short selling, credit default swaps and other transactions should be only of a temporary nature and should be exercised only for such a period and to the extent necessary to deal with the specific threat.\n(37)\nBecause of the specific risks which can arise from the use of credit default swaps, such transactions require close monitoring by competent authorities. In particular, competent authorities should, in exceptional cases, have the power to require information from natural or legal persons entering into such transactions about the purpose for which the transaction is entered into.\n(38)\nESMA should be given power to conduct an inquiry into an issue or practice relating to short selling or the use of credit default swaps to assess whether that issue or practice poses any potential threat to financial stability or to market confidence. ESMA should publish a report setting out its findings where it conducts such an inquiry.\n(39)\nAs some of the provisions of this Regulation apply to natural or legal persons and actions in third countries, it is necessary that competent authorities and supervisory authorities in third countries cooperate in certain situations. Competent authorities should therefore enter into arrangements with supervisory authorities in third countries. ESMA should coordinate the development of such cooperation arrangements and the exchange between competent authorities of information received from third countries.\n(40)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter), in particular the right to the protection of personal data provided for in Article 16 TFEU and in Article 8 of the Charter. Transparency regarding significant net short positions, including public disclosure above a certain threshold, where provided for under this Regulation, is necessary for reasons of financial market stability and investor protection. Such transparency will enable regulators to monitor the use of short selling in connection with abusive strategies and the implications of short selling on the proper functioning of the markets. In addition, such transparency could help reduce information asymmetries, ensuring that all market participants are adequately informed about the extent to which short selling is affecting prices. Any exchange or transmission of information by competent authorities should take place in accordance with the rules on the transfer of personal data as laid down in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (7). Any exchange or transmission of information by ESMA should take place in accordance with the rules on the transfer of personal data as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (8), which should be fully applicable to the processing of personal data for the purposes of this Regulation.\n(41)\nTaking into consideration the principles set out in the Commission\u2019s Communication on reinforcing sanctioning regimes in the financial services sector and legal acts of the Union adopted as a follow-up to that Communication, Member States should lay down rules on penalties and administrative measures applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and should ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties and administrative measures should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. They should be based on guidelines adopted by ESMA to promote convergence and cross-sector consistency of penalty regimes in the financial sector.\n(42)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (9). The Commission should keep the European Parliament informed of progress relating to decisions determining the equivalence of third-country legal and supervisory frameworks with requirements of this Regulation.\n(43)\nThe power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of details concerning calculating short positions, where a natural or legal person has an uncovered position in a credit default swap, notification or disclosure thresholds and further specification of criteria and factors for determining in which cases an adverse event or development creates a serious threat to financial stability or to market confidence in a Member State or the Union. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at the level of experts of the relevant institutions, authorities and agencies, where appropriate. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(44)\nThe Commission should submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council assessing the appropriateness of the notification and public disclosure thresholds provided for, the operation of the restrictions and requirements relating to the transparency of net short positions, and whether any other restrictions or conditions on short selling or credit default swaps are appropriate.\n(45)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, although competent authorities are better placed to monitor, and have better knowledge of, market developments, the overall impact of the problems relating to short selling and credit default swaps can be fully perceived only in a Union context, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(46)\nSince some Member States have already put in place restrictions on short selling and since this Regulation provides for delegated acts and binding technical standards which should be adopted before it can be usefully applied, it is necessary to provide for a sufficient period of time for transitional purposes. Since it is essential to specify, before 1 November 2012, key non-essential elements which will facilitate compliance by market participants with this Regulation and enforcement by competent authorities, it is also necessary to provide the Commission with the means to adopt the technical standards and delegated acts before that date,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to the following:\n(a)\nfinancial instruments within the meaning of point (a) of Article 2(1) that are admitted to trading on a trading venue in the Union, including such instruments when traded outside a trading venue;\n(b)\nderivatives referred to in points (4) to (10) of Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC that relate to a financial instrument referred to in point (a) or to an issuer of such a financial instrument, including such derivatives when traded outside a trading venue;\n(c)\ndebt instruments issued by a Member State or the Union and derivatives referred to in points (4) to (10) of Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC that relate or are referenced to debt instruments issued by a Member State or the Union.\n2. Articles 18, 20 and 23 to 30 shall apply to all financial instruments within the meaning of point (a) of Article 2(1).\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\n1. For the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:\n(a)\n\u2018financial instrument\u2019 means an instrument listed in Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC;\n(b)\n\u2018short sale\u2019 in relation to a share or debt instrument means any sale of the share or debt instrument which the seller does not own at the time of entering into the agreement to sell including such a sale where at the time of entering into the agreement to sell the seller has borrowed or agreed to borrow the share or debt instrument for delivery at settlement, not including:\n(i)\na sale by either party under a repurchase agreement where one party has agreed to sell the other a security at a specified price with a commitment from the other party to sell the security back at a later date at another specified price;\n(ii)\na transfer of securities under a securities lending agreement; or\n(iii)\nentry into a futures contract or other derivative contract where it is agreed to sell securities at a specified price at a future date;\n(c)\n\u2018credit default swap\u2019 means a derivative contract in which one party pays a fee to another party in return for a payment or other benefit in the case of a credit event relating to a reference entity and of any other default, relating to that derivative contract, which has a similar economic effect;\n(d)\n\u2018sovereign issuer\u2019 means any of the following that issues debt instruments:\n(i)\nthe Union;\n(ii)\na Member State, including a government department, an agency, or a special purpose vehicle of the Member State;\n(iii)\nin the case of a federal Member State, a member of the federation;\n(iv)\na special purpose vehicle for several Member States;\n(v)\nan international financial institution established by two or more Member States which has the purpose of mobilising funding and provide financial assistance to the benefit of its members that are experiencing or threatened by severe financing problems; or\n(vi)\nthe European Investment Bank;\n(e)\n\u2018sovereign credit default swap\u2019 means a credit default swap where a payment or other benefit will be paid in the case of a credit event or default relating to a sovereign issuer;\n(f)\n\u2018sovereign debt\u2019 means a debt instrument issued by a sovereign issuer;\n(g)\n\u2018issued sovereign debt\u2019 means the total of sovereign debt issued by a sovereign issuer that has not been redeemed;\n(h)\n\u2018issued share capital\u2019 in relation to a company, means the total of ordinary and any preference shares issued by the company but does not include convertible debt securities;\n(i)\n\u2018home Member State\u2019 means:\n(i)\nin relation to an investment firm within the meaning of point (1) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC, or to a regulated market within the meaning of point (14) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC, the home Member State within the meaning of point (20) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC;\n(ii)\nin relation to a credit institution, the home Member State within the meaning of point (7) of Article 4 of Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (10);\n(iii)\nin relation to a legal person not referred to in point (i) or (ii), the Member State in which its registered office is situated or, if it has no registered office, the Member State in which its head office is situated;\n(iv)\nin relation to a natural person, the Member State in which that person\u2019s head office is situated, or, where there is no head office, the Member State in which that person is domiciled;\n(j)\n\u2018relevant competent authority\u2019 means:\n(i)\nin relation to sovereign debt of a Member State, or, in the case of a federal Member State, in relation to sovereign debt of a member of the federation, or a credit default swap relating to a Member State or a member of a federation, the competent authority of that Member State;\n(ii)\nin relation to sovereign debt of the Union or a credit default swap relating to the Union, the competent authority of the jurisdiction in which the department issuing the debt is situated;\n(iii)\nin relation to sovereign debt of several Member States acting through a special purpose vehicle or a credit default swap relating to such a special purpose vehicle, the competent authority of the jurisdiction in which the special purpose vehicle is established;\n(iv)\nin relation to sovereign debt of an international financial institution established by two or more Member States, which has the purpose to mobilise funding and provide financial assistance to the benefit of its members that are experiencing or threatened by severe financing problems, the competent authority of the jurisdiction in which the international financial institution is established;\n(v)\nin relation to a financial instrument other than an instrument referred to in points (i) to (iv), the competent authority for that financial instrument as defined in point (7) of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006 (11) and determined in accordance with Chapter III of that Regulation;\n(vi)\nin relation to a financial instrument that is not covered under points (i) to (v), the competent authority of the Member State in which the financial instrument was first admitted to trading on a trading venue;\n(vii)\nin relation to a debt instrument issued by the European Investment Bank, the competent authority of the Member State in which the European Investment Bank is located;\n(k)\n\u2018market making activities\u2019 means the activities of an investment firm, a credit institution, a third-country entity, or a firm as referred to in point (l) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC, which is a member of a trading venue or of a market in a third country, the legal and supervisory framework of which has been declared equivalent by the Commission pursuant to Article 17(2) where it deals as principal in a financial instrument, whether traded on or outside a trading venue, in any of the following capacities:\n(i)\nby posting firm, simultaneous two-way quotes of comparable size and at competitive prices, with the result of providing liquidity on a regular and ongoing basis to the market;\n(ii)\nas part of its usual business, by fulfilling orders initiated by clients or in response to clients\u2019 requests to trade;\n(iii)\nby hedging positions arising from the fulfilment of tasks under points (i) and (ii);\n(l)\n\u2018trading venue\u2019 means a regulated market within the meaning of point (14) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC, or a multilateral trading facility within the meaning of point (15) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC;\n(m)\n\u2018principal venue\u2019 in relation to a share means the venue for the trading of that share with the highest turnover;\n(n)\n\u2018authorised primary dealer\u2019 means a natural or legal person who has signed an agreement with a sovereign issuer or who has been formally recognised as a primary dealer by or on behalf of a sovereign issuer and who, in accordance with that agreement or recognition, has committed to dealing as principal in connection with primary and secondary market operations relating to debt issued by that issuer;\n(o)\n\u2018central counterparty\u2019 means a legal entity which interposes itself between the counterparties to the contracts traded within one or more financial markets, becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer and which is responsible for the operation of a clearing system;\n(p)\n\u2018trading day\u2019 means a trading day as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006;\n(q)\n\u2018turnover\u2019 of a share means turnover within the meaning of point (9) of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006.\n2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 42 specifying the definitions laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article, in particular specifying when a natural or legal person is considered to own a financial instrument for the purposes of the definition of short sale in point (b) of paragraph 1.\nArticle 3\nShort and long positions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, a position resulting from either of the following shall be considered to be a short position relating to issued share capital or issued sovereign debt:\n(a)\na short sale of a share issued by a company or of a debt instrument issued by a sovereign issuer;\n(b)\nentering into a transaction which creates or relates to a financial instrument other than an instrument referred to in point (a) where the effect or one of the effects of the transaction is to confer a financial advantage on the natural or legal person entering into that transaction in the event of a decrease in the price or value of the share or debt instrument.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation, a position resulting from either of the following shall be considered to be a long position relating to issued share capital or issued sovereign debt:\n(a)\nholding a share issued by a company or a debt instrument issued by a sovereign issuer;\n(b)\nentering into a transaction which creates or relates to a financial instrument other than an instrument referred to in point (a) where the effect or one of the effects of the transaction is to confer a financial advantage on the natural or legal person entering into that transaction in the event of an increase in the price or value of the share or debt instrument.\n3. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, the calculation of a short or a long position, in respect of any position held by the relevant person indirectly, including through or by way of any index, basket of securities or any interest in any exchange traded fund or similar entity, shall be determined by the natural or legal person in question acting reasonably having regard to publicly available information as to the composition of the relevant index or basket of securities, or of the interests held by the relevant exchange traded fund or similar entity. In calculating such a short or long position, no person shall be required to obtain any real-time information as to such composition from any person.\nFor the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 the calculation of a short or long position relating to sovereign debt shall include any sovereign credit default swap that relates to the sovereign issuer.\n4. For the purposes of this Regulation, the position remaining after deducting any long position that a natural or legal person holds in relation to the issued share capital from any short position that that natural or legal person holds in relation to that capital shall be considered a net short position in relation to the issued share capital of the company concerned.\n5. For the purposes of this Regulation, the position remaining after deducting any long position that a natural or legal person holds in relation to issued sovereign debt and any long position in debt instruments of a sovereign issuer the pricing of which is highly correlated to the pricing of the given sovereign debt from any short position that that natural or legal person holds in relation to the same sovereign debt shall be considered a net short position in relation to the issued sovereign debt of the sovereign issuer concerned.\n6. The calculation of sovereign debt under paragraphs 1 to 5 shall be for each single sovereign issuer even if separate entities issue sovereign debt on behalf of the sovereign issuer.\n7. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 42 specifying:\n(a)\ncases in which a natural or legal person is considered to hold a share or debt instrument for the purposes of paragraph 2;\n(b)\ncases in which a natural or legal person has a net short position for the purposes of paragraphs 4 and 5 and the method of calculation of such position;\n(c)\nthe method of calculating positions for the purposes of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 when different entities in a group have long or short positions or for fund management activities relating to separate funds.\nFor the purposes of point (c) of the first subparagraph, the method of calculation shall take into account, in particular, whether different investment strategies are pursued in relation to a particular issuer through more than one separate fund managed by the same fund manager, whether the same investment strategy is pursued in relation to a particular issuer through more than one fund, and whether more than one portfolio within the same entity is managed on a discretionary basis pursuing the same investment strategy in relation to a particular issuer.\nArticle 4\nUncovered position in a sovereign credit default swap\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, a natural or legal person shall be considered to have an uncovered position in a sovereign credit default swap where the sovereign credit default swap does not serve to hedge against:\n(a)\nthe risk of default of the issuer where the natural or legal person has a long position in the sovereign debt of that issuer to which the sovereign credit default swap relates; or\n(b)\nthe risk of a decline of the value of the sovereign debt where the natural or legal person holds assets or is subject to liabilities, including but not limited to financial contracts, a portfolio of assets or financial obligations the value of which is correlated to the value of the sovereign debt.\n2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 42 specifying, for the purposes of paragraph 1 of this Article:\n(a)\ncases in which a sovereign credit default swap transaction is considered to be hedging against a default risk or the risk of a decline of the value of the sovereign debt, and the method of calculation of an uncovered position in a sovereign credit default swap;\n(b)\nthe method of calculating positions where different entities in a group have long or short positions or for fund management activities relating to separate funds.\nCHAPTER II\nTRANSPARENCY OF NET SHORT POSITIONS\nArticle 5\nNotification to competent authorities of significant net short positions in shares\n1. A natural or legal person who has a net short position in relation to the issued share capital of a company that has shares admitted to trading on a trading venue shall notify the relevant competent authority, in accordance with Article 9, where the position reaches or falls below a relevant notification threshold referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. A relevant notification threshold is a percentage that equals 0,2 % of the issued share capital of the company concerned and each 0,1 % above that.\n3. The European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (ESMA) may issue an opinion to the Commission on adjusting the thresholds referred to in paragraph 2, taking into account the developments in financial markets.\n4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 42 modifying the thresholds referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, taking into account the developments in financial markets.\nArticle 6\nPublic disclosure of significant net short positions in shares\n1. A natural or legal person who has a net short position in relation to the issued share capital of a company that has shares admitted to trading on a trading venue shall disclose details of that position to the public, in accordance with Article 9, where the position reaches or falls below a relevant publication threshold referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. A relevant publication threshold is a percentage that equals 0,5 % of the issued share capital of the company concerned and each 0,1 % above that.\n3. ESMA may issue an opinion to the Commission on adjusting the thresholds referred to in paragraph 2, taking into account the developments in financial markets.\n4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 42 modifying the thresholds referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, taking into account the developments in financial markets.\n5. This Article is without prejudice to laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted in relation to takeover bids, merger transactions and other transactions affecting the ownership or control of companies regulated by the supervisory authorities appointed by Member States pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids (12) that require disclosure of short positions beyond the requirements of this Article.\nArticle 7\nNotification to competent authorities of significant net short positions in sovereign debt\n1. A natural or legal person who has a net short position relating to issued sovereign debt shall notify the relevant competent authority, in accordance with Article 9, where such a position reaches or falls below the relevant notification thresholds for the sovereign issuer concerned.\n2. The relevant notification thresholds shall consist of an initial amount and then additional incremental levels in relation to each sovereign issuer, as specified in the measures taken by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 3. ESMA shall publish on its website the notification thresholds for each Member State.\n3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 42 specifying the amounts and incremental levels referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article.\nThe Commission shall:\n(a)\nensure that the thresholds are not set at such a level as to require notification of positions which are of minimal value;\n(b)\ntake into account the total amount of outstanding issued sovereign debt for each sovereign issuer, and the average size of positions held by market participants relating to the sovereign debt of that sovereign issuer; and\n(c)\ntake into account the liquidity of each sovereign bond market.\nArticle 8\nNotification to competent authorities of uncovered positions in sovereign credit default swaps\nWhere a competent authority suspends restrictions in accordance with Article 14(2), a natural or legal person who has an uncovered position in a sovereign credit default swap shall notify the relevant competent authority where such a position reaches or falls below the relevant notification thresholds for the sovereign issuer, as specified in accordance with Article 7.\nArticle 9\nMethod of notification and disclosure\n1. Any notification or disclosure under Article 5, 6, 7 or 8 shall set out details of the identity of the natural or legal person who holds the relevant position, the size of the relevant position, the issuer in relation to which the relevant position is held and the date on which the relevant position was created, changed or ceased to be held.\nFor the purposes of Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8, natural and legal persons that hold significant net short positions shall keep, for a period of 5 years, records of the gross positions which make a significant net short position.\n2. The relevant time for calculation of a net short position shall be at midnight at the end of the trading day on which the natural or legal person holds the relevant position. That time shall apply to all transactions irrespective of the means of trading used, including transactions executed through manual or automated trading, and irrespective of whether the transactions have taken place during normal trading hours. The notification or disclosure shall be made not later than at 15.30 on the following trading day. The times specified in this paragraph shall be calculated according to the time in the Member State of the relevant competent authority to whom the relevant position must be notified.\n3. The notification of information to a relevant competent authority shall ensure the confidentiality of the information and incorporate mechanisms for authenticating the source of the notification.\n4. The public disclosure of information set out in Article 6 shall be made in a manner ensuring fast access to information on a non-discriminatory basis. That information shall be posted on a central website operated or supervised by the relevant competent authority. The competent authorities shall communicate the address of that website to ESMA, which, in turn, shall put a link to all such central websites on its own website.\n5. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details of the information to be provided for the purposes of paragraph 1.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 March 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n6. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraph 4, ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards specifying the means by which information may be disclosed to the public.\nESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 31 March 2012.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 10\nApplication of notification and disclosure requirements\nThe notification and disclosure requirements under Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 apply to natural or legal persons domiciled or established within the Union or in a third country.\nArticle 11\nInformation to be provided to ESMA\n1. The competent authorities shall provide information in summary form to ESMA on a quarterly basis on net short positions relating to issued share capital and to issued sovereign debt, and on uncovered positions relating to sovereign credit default swaps, for which it is the relevant competent authority and receives notifications under Articles 5, 7 and 8.\n2. ESMA may request at any time, in order to carry out its duties under this Regulation, additional information from a relevant competent authority on net short positions relating to issued share capital and to issued sovereign debt, or on uncovered positions relating to sovereign credit default swaps.\nThe competent authority shall provide the requested information to ESMA at the latest within 7 calendar days. Where there are adverse events or developments which constitute a serious threat to financial stability or to market confidence in the Member State concerned or in another Member State, the competent authority shall provide ESMA with any available information based on the notification requirements under Articles 5, 7 and 8 within 24 hours.\n3. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details of the information to be provided in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 March 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n4. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraph 1, ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards defining the format of information to be provided in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2.\nESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 31 March 2012.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nCHAPTER III\nUNCOVERED SHORT SALES\nArticle 12\nRestrictions on uncovered short sales in shares\n1. A natural or legal person may enter into a short sale of a share admitted to trading on a trading venue only where one of the following conditions is fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe natural or legal person has borrowed the share or has made alternative provisions resulting in a similar legal effect;\n(b)\nthe natural or legal person has entered into an agreement to borrow the share or has another absolutely enforceable claim under contract or property law to be transferred ownership of a corresponding number of securities of the same class so that settlement can be effected when it is due;\n(c)\nthe natural or legal person has an arrangement with a third party under which that third party has confirmed that the share has been located and has taken measures vis-\u00e0-vis third parties necessary for the natural or legal person to have a reasonable expectation that settlement can be effected when it is due.\n2. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraph 1, ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the types of agreements, arrangements and measures that adequately ensure that the share will be available for settlement. In determining what measures are necessary to have a reasonable expectation that settlement can be effected when it is due, ESMA shall take into account, inter alia, the intraday trading and the liquidity of the shares.\nESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 31 March 2012.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 13\nRestrictions on uncovered short sales in sovereign debt\n1. A natural or legal person may enter into a short sale of sovereign debt only where one of the following conditions is fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe natural or legal person has borrowed the sovereign debt or has made alternative provisions resulting in a similar legal effect;\n(b)\nthe natural or legal person has entered into an agreement to borrow the sovereign debt or has another absolutely enforceable claim under contract or property law to be transferred ownership of a corresponding number of securities of the same class so that settlement can be effected when it is due;\n(c)\nthe natural or legal person has an arrangement with a third party under which that third party has confirmed that the sovereign debt has been located or otherwise has a reasonable expectation that settlement can be effected when it is due.\n2. The restrictions in paragraph 1 do not apply if the transaction serves to hedge a long position in debt instruments of an issuer, the pricing of which has a high correlation with the pricing of the given sovereign debt.\n3. Where the liquidity of sovereign debt falls below the threshold determined in accordance with the methodology referred to in paragraph 4, the restrictions referred to in paragraph 1 may be temporarily suspended by the relevant competent authority. Before suspending those restrictions, the relevant competent authority shall notify ESMA and the other competent authorities about the proposed suspension.\nA suspension shall be valid for an initial period not exceeding 6 months from the date of its publication on the website of the relevant competent authority. The suspension may be renewed for periods not exceeding 6 months if the grounds for the suspension continue to apply. If the suspension is not renewed by the end of the initial period or of any subsequent renewal period it shall automatically expire.\nESMA shall, within 24 hours of notification by the relevant competent authority, issue an opinion based on paragraph 4 on the notified suspension or renewal of suspension. The opinion shall be published on ESMA\u2019s website.\n4. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 42 specifying the parameters and methods for calculating the threshold of liquidity referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article in relation to issued sovereign debt.\nThe parameters and methods for Member States to calculate the threshold shall be set in such a way that where it is reached, it represents a significant decline relative to the average level of liquidity for the sovereign debt concerned.\nThe threshold shall be defined based on objective criteria specific to the relevant sovereign debt market, including the total amount of outstanding issued sovereign debt for each sovereign issuer.\n5. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraph 1, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the types of agreements or arrangements that adequately ensure that the sovereign debt will be available for settlement. ESMA shall, in particular, take into account the need to preserve liquidity of markets, especially sovereign bond and sovereign bond repurchase markets.\nESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 31 March 2012.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 14\nRestrictions on uncovered sovereign credit default swaps\n1. A natural or legal person may enter into sovereign credit default swap transactions only where that transaction does not lead to an uncovered position in a sovereign credit default swap as referred to in Article 4.\n2. A competent authority may temporarily suspend restrictions referred to in paragraph 1, where it has objective grounds for believing that its sovereign debt market is not functioning properly and that such restrictions might have a negative impact on the sovereign credit default swap market, especially by increasing the cost of borrowing for sovereign issuers or affecting the sovereign issuers\u2019 ability to issue new debt. Those grounds shall be based on the following indicators:\n(a)\na high or rising interest rate on the sovereign debt;\n(b)\na widening of interest rate spreads on the sovereign debt compared to the sovereign debt of other sovereign issuers;\n(c)\na widening of the sovereign credit default swap spreads compared to the own curve and compared to other sovereign issuers;\n(d)\nthe timeliness of the return of the price of the sovereign debt to its original equilibrium after a large trade;\n(e)\nthe amounts of sovereign debt that can be traded.\nThe competent authority may also use indicators other than those set out in points (a) to (e) of the first subparagraph.\nBefore suspending restrictions under this Article, the relevant competent authority shall notify ESMA and the other competent authorities of the proposed suspension and the grounds on which it is based.\nA suspension shall be valid for an initial period not exceeding 12 months from the date of its publication on the website of the relevant competent authority. The suspension may be renewed for periods not exceeding 6 months if the grounds for the suspension continue to apply. If the suspension is not renewed by the end of the initial period or of any subsequent renewal period, it shall automatically expire.\nESMA shall, within 24 hours of the notification by the relevant competent authority, issue an opinion on the intended suspension or on the renewal of that suspension, irrespective of whether the competent authority has based the suspension on the indicators set out in points (a) to (e) of the first subparagraph or on other indicators. Where the intended suspension or renewal of a suspension is based on the second subparagraph, that opinion shall also include an assessment of the indicators used by the competent authority. The opinion shall be published on ESMA\u2019s website.\nArticle 15\nBuy-in procedures\n1. A central counterparty in a Member State that provides clearing services for shares shall ensure that procedures are in place which comply with all of the following requirements:\n(a)\nwhere a natural or legal person who sells shares is not able to deliver the shares for settlement within four business days after the day on which settlement is due, procedures are automatically triggered for the buy-in of the shares to ensure delivery for settlement;\n(b)\nwhere the buy-in of the shares for delivery is not possible, an amount is paid to the buyer based on the value of the shares to be delivered at the delivery date plus an amount for losses incurred by the buyer as a result of the settlement failure; and\n(c)\nthe natural or legal person who fails to settle reimburses all amounts paid pursuant to points (a) and (b).\n2. A central counterparty in a Member State that provides clearing services for shares shall ensure that procedures are in place, which ensure that where a natural or legal person who sells shares fails to deliver the shares for settlement by the date on which settlement is due, such person must make daily payments for each day that the failure continues.\nThe daily payments shall be sufficiently high to act as a deterrent to natural or legal persons failing to settle.\nCHAPTER IV\nEXEMPTIONS\nArticle 16\nExemption where the principal trading venue is in a third country\n1. Articles 5, 6, 12 and 15 shall not apply to shares of a company admitted to trading on a trading venue in the Union where the principal venue for the trading of the shares is located in a third country.\n2. The relevant competent authority for shares of a company that are traded on a trading venue in the Union and a venue located in a third country shall determine, at least every 2 years, whether the principal venue for the trading of those shares is located in a third country.\nThe relevant competent authority shall notify ESMA of any such shares identified as having their principal trading venue located in a third country.\nEvery 2 years ESMA shall publish the list of shares for which the principal trading venue is located in a third country. The list shall be effective for a 2-year period.\n3. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the method for calculation of the turnover to determine the principal venue for the trading of a share.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 March 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n4. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraphs 1 and 2 ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to determine:\n(a)\nthe date on which and period in respect of which any calculation determining the principal trading venue for a share is to be made;\n(b)\nthe date by which the relevant competent authority shall notify ESMA of those shares for which the principal trading venue is in a third country;\n(c)\nthe date from which the list is to be effective following publication by ESMA.\nESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 31 March 2012.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 17\nExemption for market making activities and primary market operations\n1. Articles 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 14 shall not apply to transactions performed due to market making activities.\n2. The Commission may, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 44(2), adopt decisions determining that the legal and supervisory framework of a third country ensures that a market authorised in that third country complies with legally binding requirements which are, for the purpose of the application of the exemption set out in paragraph 1, equivalent to the requirements under Title III of Directive 2004/39/EC, under Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (13) and under Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (14), and which are subject to effective supervision and enforcement in that third country.\nThe legal and supervisory framework of a third country may be considered equivalent where that third country\u2019s:\n(a)\nmarkets are subject to authorisation and to effective supervision and enforcement on an ongoing basis;\n(b)\nmarkets have clear and transparent rules regarding admission of securities to trading so that such securities are capable of being traded in a fair, orderly and efficient manner, and are freely negotiable;\n(c)\nsecurity issuers are subject to periodic and ongoing information requirements ensuring a high level of investor protection; and\n(d)\nmarket transparency and integrity are ensured by preventing market abuse in the form of insider dealing and market manipulation.\n3. Articles 7, 13 and 14 shall not apply to the activities of a natural or legal person where, acting as an authorised primary dealer pursuant to an agreement with a sovereign issuer, it is dealing as principal in a financial instrument in relation to primary or secondary market operations relating to the sovereign debt.\n4. Articles 5, 6, 12, 13 and 14 of this Regulation shall not apply to a natural or legal person where it enters into a short sale of a security or has a net short position in relation to the carrying out of a stabilisation under Chapter III of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2273/2003 of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards exemptions for buy-back programmes and stabilisation of financial instruments (15).\n5. The exemption referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply only where the natural or legal person concerned has notified the competent authority of its home Member State in writing that it intends to make use of the exemption. The notification shall be made not less than 30 calendar days before the natural or legal person first intends to use the exemption.\n6. The exemption referred to in paragraph 3 shall apply only where the authorised primary dealer has notified the relevant competent authority in relation to the sovereign debt concerned in writing that it intends to make use of the exemption. The notification shall be made not less than 30 calendar days before the natural or legal person acting as authorised primary dealer first intends to use the exemption.\n7. The competent authority referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 may prohibit the use of the exemption if it considers that the natural or legal person does not satisfy the conditions of the exemption. Any prohibition shall be imposed within the 30 calendar day period referred to in paragraph 5 or 6 or subsequently if the competent authority becomes aware that there have been changes in the circumstances of the natural or legal person so that it no longer satisfies the conditions of the exemption.\n8. A third-country entity that is not authorised in the Union shall send the notification referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 to the competent authority of the main trading venue in the Union in which it trades.\n9. A natural or legal person who has given a notification under paragraph 5 shall as soon as possible notify in writing the competent authority of its home Member State where there are any changes affecting that person\u2019s eligibility to use the exemption, or if it no longer wishes to use the exemption.\n10. A natural or legal person who has given a notification under paragraph 6 shall as soon as possible notify in writing the relevant competent authority in relation to sovereign debt concerned where there are any changes affecting that person\u2019s eligibility to use the exemption, or if it no longer wishes to use the exemption.\n11. The competent authority of the home Member State may request information, in writing, from a natural or legal person operating under the exemptions set out in paragraph 1, 3 or 4 about short positions held or activities conducted under the exemption. The natural or legal person shall provide the information not later than 4 calendar days after the request is made.\n12. A competent authority shall notify ESMA within 2 weeks of notification in accordance with paragraph 5 or 9 of any market makers and in accordance with paragraph 6 or 10 of any authorised primary dealers who are making use of the exemption and of any market makers and authorised primary dealers who are no longer making use of the exemption.\n13. ESMA shall publish and keep up to date on its website a list of market makers and authorised primary dealers who are using the exemption.\n14. A notification under this Article may be made by a person to a competent authority and by a competent authority to ESMA at any time within 60 calendar days before 1 November 2012.\nCHAPTER V\nPOWERS OF INTERVENTION OF COMPETENT AUTHORITIES AND OF ESMA\nSECTION 1\nPowers of competent authorities\nArticle 18\nNotification and disclosure in exceptional circumstances\n1. Subject to Article 22, a competent authority may require natural or legal persons who have net short positions in relation to a specific financial instrument or class of financial instruments to notify it or to disclose to the public details of the position where the position reaches or falls below a notification threshold fixed by the competent authority and where:\n(a)\nthere are adverse events or developments which constitute a serious threat to financial stability or to market confidence in the Member State concerned or in one or more other Member States; and\n(b)\nthe measure is necessary to address the threat and will not have a detrimental effect on the efficiency of financial markets which is disproportionate to its benefits.\n2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply to financial instruments in respect of which transparency is already required under Articles 5 to 8. A measure under paragraph 1 may apply in circumstances or be subject to exceptions specified by the competent authority. Exceptions may in particular be specified to apply to market making activities and primary market activities.\nArticle 19\nNotification by lenders in exceptional circumstances\n1. Subject to Article 22, a competent authority may take the measure referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article where:\n(a)\nthere are adverse events or developments which constitute a serious threat to financial stability or to market confidence in the Member State concerned or in one or more other Member States; and\n(b)\nthe measure is necessary to address the threat and will not have a detrimental effect on the efficiency of financial markets which is disproportionate to its benefits.\n2. A competent authority may require natural or legal persons engaged in the lending of a specific financial instrument or class of financial instruments to notify any significant change in the fees requested for such lending.\nArticle 20\nRestrictions on short selling and similar transactions in exceptional circumstances\n1. Subject to Article 22, a competent authority may take one or more of the measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article where:\n(a)\nthere are adverse events or developments which constitute a serious threat to financial stability or to market confidence in the Member State concerned or in one or more other Member States; and\n(b)\nthe measure is necessary to address the threat and will not have a detrimental effect on the efficiency of financial markets which is disproportionate to its benefits.\n2. A competent authority may prohibit or impose conditions relating to natural or legal persons entering into:\n(a)\na short sale; or\n(b)\na transaction other than a short sale which creates, or relates to, a financial instrument and the effect or one of the effects of that transaction is to confer a financial advantage on the natural or legal person in the event of a decrease in the price or value of another financial instrument.\n3. A measure taken under paragraph 2 may apply to transactions concerning all financial instruments, financial instruments of a specific class or a specific financial instrument. The measure may apply in circumstances or be subject to exceptions specified by the competent authority. Exceptions may in particular be specified to apply to market making activities and primary market activities.\nArticle 21\nRestrictions on sovereign credit default swap transactions in exceptional circumstances\n1. Subject to Article 22, a competent authority may restrict the ability of natural or legal persons to enter into sovereign credit default swap transactions or may limit the value of sovereign credit default swap positions that those persons are permitted to enter into where:\n(a)\nthere are adverse events or developments which constitute a serious threat to financial stability or to market confidence in the Member State concerned or in one or more other Member States; and\n(b)\nthe measure is necessary to address the threat and will not have a detrimental effect on the efficiency of financial markets which is disproportionate to its benefits.\n2. A measure taken under paragraph 1 may apply to sovereign credit default swap transactions of a specific class or to specific sovereign credit default swap transactions. The measure may apply in circumstances or be subject to exceptions specified by the competent authority. Exceptions may in particular be specified to apply to market making activities and primary market activities.\nArticle 22\nMeasures by other competent authorities\nWithout prejudice to Article 26, a competent authority in relation to a financial instrument for which it is not the relevant competent authority may impose or renew a measure under Article 18, 19, 20 or 21 only with the consent of the relevant competent authority.\nArticle 23\nPower to restrict short selling of financial instruments temporarily in the case of a significant fall in price\n1. Where the price of a financial instrument on a trading venue has fallen significantly during a single trading day in relation to the closing price on that venue on the previous trading day, the competent authority of the home Member State for that venue shall consider whether it is appropriate to prohibit or restrict natural or legal persons from engaging in short selling of the financial instrument on that trading venue or otherwise limit transactions in that financial instrument on that trading venue in order to prevent a disorderly decline in the price of the financial instrument.\nWhere the competent authority is satisfied under the first subparagraph that it is appropriate to do so, it shall in the case of a share or a debt instrument, prohibit or restrict natural and legal persons from entering into a short sale on that trading venue or in the case of another type of financial instrument, limit transactions in that financial instrument on that trading venue in order to prevent a disorderly decline in the price of the financial instrument.\n2. The measure under paragraph 1 shall apply for a period not exceeding the end of the trading day following the trading day on which the fall in price occurs. If, at the end of the trading day following the trading day on which the fall in price occurs, there is, despite the measure being imposed, a further significant fall in value of at least half of the amount specified in paragraph 5 of the financial instrument from the closing price of the first trading day, the competent authority may extend the measure for a further period not exceeding 2 trading days after the end of the second trading day.\n3. The measure under paragraph 1 shall apply in circumstances or be subject to exceptions specified by the competent authority. Exceptions may in particular be specified to apply to market making activities and primary market activities.\n4. A competent authority of the home Member State of a venue where a financial instrument has during a single trading day fallen by the value referred to in paragraph 5 shall notify ESMA about the decision taken under paragraph 1 at the latest 2 hours after the end of that trading day. ESMA shall immediately inform the competent authorities of the home Member States of venues which trade the same financial instrument.\nIf a competent authority disagrees with the action taken by another competent authority on a financial instrument traded on different venues regulated by different competent authorities, ESMA may assist those authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nThe conciliation shall be completed before midnight at the end of the same trading day. If the competent authorities concerned fail to reach an agreement within the conciliation phase, ESMA may take a decision in accordance with Article 19(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. The decision shall be taken before the opening of the next trading day.\n5. The fall in value shall be 10 % or more in the case of a liquid share, as defined in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006, and for illiquid shares and other classes of financial instruments an amount to be specified by the Commission.\n6. ESMA may issue and send to the Commission an opinion on adjusting the threshold referred to in paragraph 5, taking into account the developments in financial markets.\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 42 modifying the thresholds referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article, taking into account the developments in financial markets.\n7. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 42 specifying what constitutes a significant fall in value for financial instruments other than liquid shares, taking into account the specificities of each class of financial instrument and the differences of volatility.\n8. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the method of calculation of the 10 % fall for liquid shares and of the fall in value specified by the Commission as referred to in paragraph 7.\nESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 March 2012.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 24\nPeriod of restrictions\nA measure imposed under Article 18, 19, 20 or 21 shall be valid for an initial period not exceeding 3 months from the date of publication of the notice referred to in Article 25.\nThe measure may be renewed for further periods not exceeding 3 months if the grounds for taking the measure continue to apply. If the measure is not renewed by the end of such a 3-month period, it shall automatically expire.\nArticle 25\nNotice of restrictions\n1. A competent authority shall publish on its website notice of any decision to impose or renew any measure referred to in Articles 18 to 23.\n2. The notice shall specify at least details of:\n(a)\nthe measures imposed including the instruments and classes of transactions to which they apply and their duration;\n(b)\nthe reasons why the competent authority believes it is necessary to impose the measures including the evidence supporting those reasons.\n3. A measure under Articles 18 to 23 shall take effect when the notice is published or at a time specified in the notice that is after its publication and shall only apply in relation to a transaction entered into after the measure takes effect.\nArticle 26\nNotification to ESMA and other competent authorities\n1. Before imposing or renewing any measure under Article 18, 19, 20 or 21 and before imposing any restriction under Article 23, a competent authority shall notify ESMA and the other competent authorities of the measure it proposes.\n2. The notification shall include details of the proposed measures, the classes of financial instruments and transactions to which they will apply, the evidence supporting the reasons for those measures and when the measures are intended to take effect.\n3. Notification of a proposal to impose or renew a measure under Article 18, 19, 20 or 21 shall be made not less than 24 hours before the measure is intended to take effect or to be renewed. In exceptional circumstances, a competent authority may make the notification less than 24 hours before the measure is intended to take effect where it is not possible to give 24 hours notice. A notification of a restriction under Article 23 shall be made before the measure is intended to take effect.\n4. A competent authority that receives notification under this Article may take measures in accordance with Articles 18 to 23 in that Member State where it is satisfied that the measure is necessary to assist the competent authority making the notification. The competent authority that receives notification shall also give notice in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 3 where it proposes to take measures.\nSECTION 2\nPowers of ESMA\nArticle 27\nCoordination by ESMA\n1. ESMA shall perform a facilitation and coordination role in relation to measures taken by the competent authorities under Section 1. In particular ESMA shall ensure that a consistent approach is taken by competent authorities regarding measures taken, especially regarding where it is necessary to use powers of intervention, the nature of any measures imposed and the commencement and duration of such measures.\n2. After receiving notification under Article 26 of any measure that is to be imposed or renewed under Article 18, 19, 20 or 21, ESMA shall within 24 hours issue an opinion on whether it considers the measure or proposed measure is necessary to address the exceptional circumstances. The opinion shall state whether ESMA considers that adverse events or developments have arisen which constitute a serious threat to financial stability or to market confidence in one or more Member States, whether the measure or proposed measure is appropriate and proportionate to address the threat and whether the proposed duration of any such measure is justified. If ESMA considers that the taking of any measure by the other competent authorities is necessary to address the threat, it shall also state this in its opinion. The opinion shall be published on ESMA\u2019s website.\n3. Where a competent authority proposes to take or takes measures contrary to an ESMA opinion under paragraph 2 or declines to take measures contrary to an ESMA opinion under that paragraph, it shall publish on its website within 24 hours of receiving ESMA\u2019s opinion a notice fully explaining its reasons for doing so. Where such a situation arises ESMA shall consider whether the conditions are satisfied and it is an appropriate case for the use of its powers of intervention under Article 28.\n4. ESMA shall review measures under this Article regularly and in any event at least every 3 months. If the measure is not renewed by the end of such a 3-month period, it shall automatically expire.\nArticle 28\nESMA intervention powers in exceptional circumstances\n1. In accordance with Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, ESMA shall, subject to paragraph 2 of this Article, either:\n(a)\nrequire natural or legal persons who have net short positions in relation to a specific financial instrument or class of financial instruments to notify a competent authority or to disclose to the public details of any such position; or\n(b)\nprohibit or impose conditions on, the entry by natural or legal persons into a short sale or a transaction which creates, or relates to, a financial instrument other than financial instruments referred to in point (c) of Article 1(1) where the effect or one of the effects of the transaction is to confer a financial advantage on such person in the event of a decrease in the price or value of another financial instrument.\nA measure may apply in particular circumstances, or be subject to exceptions specified by ESMA. Exceptions may in particular be specified to apply to market-making activities and primary market activities.\n2. ESMA shall take a decision under paragraph 1 only if:\n(a)\nthe measures listed in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 address a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union and there are cross-border implications; and\n(b)\nno competent authority has taken measures to address the threat or one or more of the competent authorities have taken measures that do not adequately address the threat.\n3. Where taking measures referred to in paragraph 1 ESMA shall take into account the extent to which the measure:\n(a)\nsignificantly addresses the threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union or significantly improves the ability of the competent authorities to monitor the threat;\n(b)\ndoes not create a risk of regulatory arbitrage;\n(c)\ndoes not have a detrimental effect on the efficiency of financial markets, including by reducing liquidity in those markets or creating uncertainty for market participants, that is disproportionate to the benefits of the measure.\nWhere one or more competent authorities have taken a measure under Article 18, 19, 20 or 21, ESMA may take any of the measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article without issuing the opinion provided for in Article 27.\n4. Before deciding to impose or renew any measure referred to in paragraph 1, ESMA shall consult the ESRB and, where appropriate, other relevant authorities.\n5. Before deciding to impose or renew any measure referred to in paragraph 1, ESMA shall notify the competent authorities concerned of the measure it proposes to take. The notification shall include details of the proposed measures, the class of financial instruments and transactions to which they will apply, the evidence supporting the reasons for those measures and when the measures are intended to take effect.\n6. The notification shall be made not less than 24 hours before the measure is to take effect or to be renewed. In exceptional circumstances, ESMA may make the notification less than 24 hours before the measure is intended to take effect where it is not possible to give 24 hours\u2019 notice.\n7. ESMA shall publish on its website notice of any decision to impose or renew any measure referred to in paragraph 1. The notice shall at least specify:\n(a)\nthe measures imposed including the instruments and classes of transactions to which they apply, and their duration; and\n(b)\nthe reasons why ESMA is of the opinion that it is necessary to impose the measures including the evidence supporting those reasons.\n8. After deciding to impose or renew any measure referred to in paragraph 1, ESMA shall immediately notify the competent authorities of the measures taken.\n9. A measure shall take effect when the notice is published on the ESMA website or at a time specified in the notice that is after its publication and shall only apply in relation to a transaction entered into after the measure takes effect.\n10. ESMA shall review the measures referred to in paragraph 1 at appropriate intervals and at least every 3 months. If the measure is not renewed by the end of such a 3-month period it shall automatically expire. Paragraphs 2 to 9 shall apply to a renewal of measures.\n11. A measure adopted by ESMA under this Article shall prevail over any previous measure taken by a competent authority under Section 1.\nArticle 29\nESMA\u2019s powers in emergency situations relating to sovereign debt\nIn the case of an emergency situation relating to sovereign debt or sovereign credit default swaps, Articles 18 and 38 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 shall apply.\nArticle 30\nFurther specification of adverse events or developments\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 42 specifying criteria and factors to be taken into account by the competent authorities and by ESMA in determining in which cases the adverse events or developments referred to in Articles 18 to 21 and Article 27 and the threats referred to in point (a) of Article 28(2) arise.\nArticle 31\nInquiries by ESMA\nESMA may, on the request of one or more of the competent authorities, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission or on its own initiative conduct an inquiry into a particular issue or practice relating to short selling or relating to the use of credit default swaps to assess whether that issue or practice poses any potential threat to financial stability or market confidence in the Union.\nESMA shall publish a report setting out its findings and any recommendations relating to the issue or practice within 3 months as from the end of any such inquiry.\nCHAPTER VI\nROLE OF COMPETENT AUTHORITIES\nArticle 32\nCompetent authorities\nEach Member State shall designate one or more of the competent authorities for the purpose of this Regulation.\nWhere a Member State designates more than one competent authority, it shall clearly determine their respective roles and it shall designate the authority to be responsible for coordinating the cooperation and the exchange of information with the Commission, ESMA and the competent authorities of the other Member States.\nMember States shall inform the Commission, ESMA and the competent authorities of the other Member States of those designations.\nArticle 33\nPowers of competent authorities\n1. In order to fulfil their duties under this Regulation, the competent authorities shall have all the supervisory and investigatory powers that are necessary for the exercise of their functions. They shall exercise their powers in any of the following ways:\n(a)\ndirectly;\n(b)\nin collaboration with other authorities;\n(c)\nby application to the competent judicial authorities.\n2. In order to fulfil their duties under this Regulation, the competent authorities shall, in accordance with national law, have the power:\n(a)\nto gain access to any document in any form and to receive or take a copy thereof;\n(b)\nto require information from any natural or legal person and if necessary to summon and question a natural or legal person with a view to obtaining information;\n(c)\nto carry out on-site inspections with or without prior announcement;\n(d)\nto require existing telephone and existing data traffic records;\n(e)\nto require the cessation of any practice that is contrary to the provisions in this Regulation;\n(f)\nto require the freezing and/or the sequestration of assets.\n3. The competent authorities shall, without prejudice to points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2, have the power in individual cases to require a natural or legal person entering into a credit default swap transaction to provide:\n(a)\nan explanation about the purpose of the transaction and whether it is for the purposes of hedging against a risk or otherwise; and\n(b)\ninformation verifying the underlying risk where the transaction is for hedging purposes.\nArticle 34\nProfessional secrecy\n1. The obligation of professional secrecy shall apply to all natural or legal persons who work or who have worked for the competent authority or for any authority or natural or legal person to whom the competent authority has delegated tasks, including auditors and experts contracted by the competent authority. Confidential information covered by professional secrecy may not be disclosed to any other natural or legal person or authority except where such disclosure is necessary for legal proceedings.\n2. All the information exchanged between the competent authorities under this Regulation that concerns business or operational conditions and other economic or personal affairs shall be considered confidential and shall be subject to the requirements of professional secrecy, except where the competent authority states at the time of communication that such information may be disclosed or such disclosure is necessary for legal proceedings.\nArticle 35\nObligation to cooperate\nThe competent authorities shall cooperate where necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Regulation. In particular, the competent authorities shall, without undue delay, supply each other with information which is relevant for the purposes of carrying out their duties under this Regulation.\nArticle 36\nCooperation with ESMA\nThe competent authorities shall cooperate with ESMA for the purposes of this Regulation in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nThe competent authorities shall provide, without delay, ESMA with all the information necessary to carry out its duties in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 37\nCooperation in case of request for on-site inspections or investigations\n1. The competent authority of one Member State may request assistance from the competent authority of another Member State with regard to on-site inspections or investigations.\nThe requesting competent authority shall inform ESMA of any request referred to in the first subparagraph. In case of an investigation or an inspection with cross-border effects, ESMA may and if requested shall coordinate the investigation or inspection.\n2. Where a competent authority receives a request from a competent authority of another Member State to carry out an on-site inspection or an investigation, it may:\n(a)\ncarry out the on-site inspection or investigation itself;\n(b)\nallow the competent authority which submitted the request to participate in an on-site inspection or investigation;\n(c)\nallow the competent authority which submitted the request to carry out the on-site inspection or investigation itself;\n(d)\nappoint auditors or experts to carry out the on-site inspection or investigation;\n(e)\nshare specific tasks relating to supervisory activities with the other competent authorities.\n3. ESMA may request the competent authorities to carry out specific investigatory tasks and on-site inspections where information is reasonably required by ESMA to enable it to exercise a power expressly conferred on it by this Regulation.\nArticle 38\nCooperation with third countries\n1. The competent authorities shall, where possible, conclude cooperation arrangements with supervisory authorities of third countries concerning the exchange of information with supervisory authorities of third countries, the enforcement of obligations arising under this Regulation in third countries and the taking of similar measures in third countries by their supervisory authorities to complement measures taken under Chapter V. These cooperation arrangements shall ensure at least an efficient exchange of information that allows the competent authorities to carry out their duties under this Regulation.\nA competent authority shall inform ESMA and the competent authorities of the other Member States where it proposes to enter into such an arrangement.\n2. The cooperation arrangement shall contain provisions on the exchange of data and information necessary for the relevant competent authority to comply with the obligation set out in Article 16(2).\n3. ESMA shall coordinate the development of cooperation arrangements between the competent authorities and the relevant supervisory authorities of third countries. For that purpose, ESMA shall prepare a template document for cooperation arrangements that may be used by the competent authorities.\nESMA shall also coordinate the exchange between the competent authorities of information obtained from supervisory authorities of third countries that may be relevant to the taking of measures under Chapter V.\n4. The competent authorities shall conclude cooperation arrangements on the exchange of information with the supervisory authorities of third countries only where the information disclosed is subject to guarantees of professional secrecy which are at least equivalent to those set out in Article 34. Such exchange of information shall be intended for the performance of the tasks of those competent authorities.\nArticle 39\nTransfer and retention of personal data\nWith regard to transfer of personal data between Member States or between Member States and a third country, Member States shall apply Directive 95/46/EC. With regard to transfer of personal data by ESMA to Member States or to a third country, ESMA shall comply with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\nPersonal data referred to in the first paragraph shall be retained for a maximum period of 5 years.\nArticle 40\nDisclosure of information to third countries\nA competent authority may transfer to a supervisory authority of a third country data and the analysis of data where the conditions laid down in Article 25 or 26 of Directive 95/46/EC are fulfilled but such transfer shall be made only on a case-by-case basis. The competent authority shall be satisfied that the transfer is necessary for the purposes of this Regulation. Any such transfer shall be made under agreement that the third country shall not transfer the data to the supervisory authority of another third country without the express written authorisation of the competent authority.\nA competent authority shall disclose information which is confidential pursuant to Article 34 and which is received from a competent authority of another Member State to a supervisory authority of a third country only where the competent authority has obtained the express agreement of the competent authority which transmitted the information and, where applicable, the information is disclosed solely for the purposes for which that competent authority gave its agreement.\nArticle 41\nPenalties\nMember States shall establish rules on penalties and administrative measures, applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties and administrative measures shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\nIn accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, ESMA may adopt guidelines to ensure a consistent approach is taken concerning the penalties and administrative measures to be established by Members States.\nMember States shall notify the Commission and ESMA of the provisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs by 1 July 2012 and shall notify them without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting those provisions.\nESMA shall publish on its website and update regularly a list of existing penalties and administrative measures applicable in each Member State.\nMember States shall provide ESMA annually with aggregate information regarding the penalties and administrative measures imposed. If a competent authority discloses to the public the fact that a penalty or an administrative measure has been imposed, it shall, contemporaneously, notify ESMA thereof.\nCHAPTER VII\nDELEGATED ACTS\nArticle 42\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 2(2), Article 3(7), Article 4(2), Article 5(4), Article 6(4), Article 7(3), Article 17(2), Article 23(5) and Article 30 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 2(2), Article 3(7), Article 4(2), Article 5(4), Article 6(4), Article 7(3), Article 17(2), Article 23(5) and Article 30 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of power specified in that decision. The decision to revoke shall take effect on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union or on a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 2(2), Article 3(7), Article 4(2), Article 5(4), Article 6(4), Article 7(3), Article 17(2), Article 23(5) and Article 30 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed by either the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 3 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 3 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 43\nDeadline for the adoption of delegated acts\nThe Commission shall adopt the delegated acts under Article 2(2), Article 3(7), Article 4(2), Article 5(4), Article 6(4), Article 7(3), Article 17(2), Article 23(5) and Article 30 by 31 March 2012.\nThe Commission may extend the deadline referred to in the first paragraph by 6 months.\nCHAPTER VIII\nIMPLEMENTING ACTS\nArticle 44\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the European Securities Committee established by Commission Decision 2001/528/EC (16). That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nCHAPTER IX\nTRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 45\nReview and report\nBy 30 June 2013, the Commission shall, in light of discussions with the competent authorities and ESMA, report to the European Parliament and the Council on:\n(a)\nthe appropriateness of the notification and disclosure thresholds under Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8;\n(b)\nthe impact of the individual disclosure requirements under Article 6, in particular with regard to the efficiency and volatility of financial markets;\n(c)\nthe appropriateness of direct, centralised reporting to ESMA;\n(d)\nthe operation of the restrictions and requirements in Chapters II and III;\n(e)\nthe appropriateness of the restrictions on the uncovered sovereign credit default swaps and the appropriateness of any other restrictions or conditions on short selling or credit default swaps.\nArticle 46\nTransitional provision\n1. Existing measures falling within the scope of this Regulation, in force before 15 September 2010, may remain applicable until 1 July 2013 provided that they are notified to the Commission by 24 April 2012.\n2. Credit default swap transactions resulting in an uncovered position in a sovereign credit default swap that have been concluded before 25 March 2012 or during a suspension of restrictions on uncovered sovereign credit default swaps in accordance with Article 14(2) may be held until the maturity date of the credit default swap contract.\nArticle 47\nStaff and resources of ESMA\nBy 31 December 2012, ESMA shall assess its staffing and resources needs arising from the assumption of its powers and duties under this Regulation and submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.\nArticle 48\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 November 2012.\nHowever, Article 2(2), Article 3(7), Article 4(2), Article 7(3), Article 9(5), Article 11(3) and (4), Article 12(2), Article 13(4) and (5), Article 16(3) and (4), Article 17(2), Article 23(5), (7) and (8), and Articles 30, 42, 43 and 44 shall apply from 25 March 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 14 March 2012.", "references": ["27", "78", "73", "64", "76", "39", "85", "97", "26", "47", "33", "81", "63", "24", "4", "36", "53", "82", "7", "84", "49", "42", "2", "99", "91", "66", "87", "12", "67", "21", "No Label", "11", "29", "30", "32", "48"], "gold": ["11", "29", "30", "32", "48"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 4 November 2010\namending Decision 2007/66/EC on a temporary experiment with regard to increasing the maximum weight of a lot of certain fodder plant seeds under Council Directive 66/401/EEC\n(notified under document C(2010) 7474)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/667/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 66/401/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of fodder plant seed (1), and in particular Article 13a thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe temporary experiment provided for in Commission Decision 2007/66/EC (2) is to end on 30 June 2012.\n(2)\nDecision 2007/66/EC requires that the ISTA (International Seed Testing Association)/ISF (International Seed Federation) Experiment on Herbage Seed Lot Size, as adopted by the Council of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), be followed, when derogating from the maximum size of gramineae seed lots. The ISTA/ISF Experiment on Herbage Seed Lot Size continues until 31 December 2013.\n(3)\nThe temporary experiment provided for in Decision 2007/66/EC should also end on 31 December 2013 in order to align the end date of that experiment with the end date of the ISTA/ISF experiment.\n(4)\nIn addition, the reference to the ISTA/ISF experiment should be updated as there is a new website.\n(5)\nDecision 2007/66/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 3 of Decision 2007/66/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\nThe temporary experiment shall start on 1 January 2007 and end on 31 December 2013.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nFootnote 1 of the Annex to Decision 2007/66/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(1)\nhttp://www.seedtest.org/en/ista_isf_experiment_on_herbage_seed_lot_size_content---1--1265--484.html\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 November 2010.", "references": ["71", "10", "3", "14", "66", "16", "63", "84", "48", "37", "20", "27", "57", "97", "75", "74", "47", "11", "56", "52", "26", "45", "22", "96", "70", "29", "34", "85", "78", "39", "No Label", "8", "25", "65", "68", "76"], "gold": ["8", "25", "65", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 52/2011\nof 20 January 2011\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to milk and milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(p) and listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nIn the case of certain milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, there is a danger that, if high refund rates are fixed in advance, the commitments entered into in relation to those refunds may be jeopardised. In order to avert that danger, it is therefore necessary to take appropriate precautionary measures, but without precluding the conclusion of long-term contracts. The fixing of specific refund rates for the advance fixing of refunds in respect of those products should enable those two objectives to be met.\n(6)\nArticle 15(2) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 provides that, when the rate of the refund is being fixed, account is to be taken, where appropriate, of aids or other measures having equivalent effect applicable in all Member States in accordance with the Regulation on the common organisation of the agricultural markets to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 or to assimilated products.\n(7)\nArticle 100(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides for the payment of aid for Union-produced skimmed milk processed into casein if such milk and the casein manufactured from it fulfil certain conditions.\n(8)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 953/2010 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Part XVI of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 953/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2011.", "references": ["5", "39", "22", "77", "21", "68", "36", "27", "17", "44", "26", "59", "97", "89", "61", "43", "87", "73", "16", "91", "45", "42", "30", "33", "50", "38", "86", "47", "71", "76", "No Label", "23", "70"], "gold": ["23", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1133/2011\nof 8 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2011.", "references": ["85", "45", "62", "19", "12", "0", "3", "74", "81", "54", "67", "60", "5", "64", "96", "15", "80", "78", "11", "92", "8", "56", "53", "13", "4", "36", "31", "72", "48", "89", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\non the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument\n(2012/3/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular the fifth paragraph of point 27 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\nAfter having examined all possibilities for reallocating appropriations under subheading 1a and heading 4, the two arms of the budgetary authority agreed to mobilise the Flexibility Instrument to complement the financing in the 2012 budget, beyond the ceiling of subheading 1a, of EUR 50 million towards the financing of the Europe 2020 Strategy, and beyond the ceiling of heading 4, of EUR 150 million towards the financing of the European Neighbourhood Policy,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012 (hereinafter \u2018the 2012 budget\u2019), the Flexibility Instrument shall be used to provide the sum of EUR 50 million in commitment appropriations under subheading 1a and EUR 150 million in commitment appropriations under heading 4.\nThat amount shall be used to complement the financing of:\n-\nEUR 50 million for the Europe 2020 Strategy under subheading 1a,\n-\nEUR 150 million for the European Neighbourhood Policy under heading 4.\nArticle 2\nThis decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["91", "74", "99", "51", "61", "81", "65", "63", "58", "12", "72", "69", "20", "9", "90", "13", "95", "85", "82", "46", "36", "59", "68", "78", "34", "71", "2", "83", "3", "92", "No Label", "10", "31", "33"], "gold": ["10", "31", "33"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 654/2011\nof 6 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2011.", "references": ["10", "33", "8", "38", "81", "14", "64", "15", "70", "94", "36", "72", "37", "62", "90", "79", "47", "92", "73", "69", "18", "41", "75", "46", "11", "1", "71", "28", "60", "51", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 313/2012\nof 12 April 2012\namending Annexes IV and VIII to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular Article 8(2)(a) and Article 40 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishes for each Member State the maximum value of all payment entitlements that can be allocated during a calendar year. In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 40(1), Annex VIII should be adapted to take into account the notifications of the Member States in accordance with Article 188a(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (2) with regard to wine.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 188a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and the second subparagraph of Article 40(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal and Slovenia notified the Commission of the areas grubbed up and the regional average of the value of the entitlements referred to in point B of Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.\n(3)\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishes for each Member State the ceilings which may not be exceeded by the total amounts of the direct payments, net of modulation, which may be granted in respect of a calendar year in the Member State concerned.\n(4)\nFollowing the notifications of the Member States in accordance with Article 188a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and the second subparagraph of Article 40(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the total maximum amounts of direct payments that may be granted need to be increased. Therefore, in accordance with Article 8(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the ceilings set out in Annex IV to that Regulation should be reviewed.\n(5)\nAnnexes IV and VIII to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes IV and VIII to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 April 2012.", "references": ["1", "38", "11", "33", "22", "30", "71", "79", "14", "82", "34", "25", "9", "18", "41", "97", "0", "73", "69", "78", "2", "23", "55", "27", "13", "72", "16", "37", "80", "89", "No Label", "4", "15", "61"], "gold": ["4", "15", "61"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 8 November 2011\namending Decision 2011/734/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit\n(2011/791/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Article 126(9) and Article 136 thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1)(a) TFEU foresees the possibility of adopting measures specific to the Member States whose currency is the euro with a view to strengthening the coordination and surveillance of their budgetary discipline.\n(2)\nArticle 126 TFEU establishes that Member States are to avoid excessive government deficits and sets out the excessive deficit procedure to that effect. The Stability and Growth Pact, which in its corrective arm implements the excessive deficit procedure, provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.\n(3)\nOn 27 April 2009, the Council decided, in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), that an excessive deficit existed in Greece.\n(4)\nOn 10 May 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/320/EU (1) addressed to Greece under Article 126(9) and Article 136 with a view to reinforcing and deepening the fiscal surveillance and giving notice to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit at the latest by the deadline of 2014. The Council established the following adjustment path for the deficit correction: government deficits not exceeding EUR 18 508 million in 2010, EUR 17 065 million in 2011, EUR 14 916 million in 2012, EUR 11 399 million in 2013 and EUR 6 385 million in 2014.\n(5)\nDecision 2010/320/EU had been substantially amended several times (2). Since further amendments were to be made, it was recast, on 12 July 2011, by means of Council Decision 2011/734/EU (3) in the interests of clarity.\n(6)\nIn September 2011, it became evident that, taking into account budgetary execution until that September, with unchanged policies, the 2011 target for the deficit would be missed by a significant amount which would jeopardise the overall credibility of the programme. In October 2011, the Greek government announced measures aimed at minimising the slippage in the 2011 budget and presented a draft budget for 2012 aimed at respecting the ceiling for 2012 established by Decision 2010/320/EU. These measures will become law by the end of October 2011. Extensive discussions on these measures have taken place between the Hellenic authorities and the Commission\u2019s services.\n(7)\nIn the light of the above considerations, it appears appropriate to amend Decision 2011/734/EU in a number of respects, while keeping unchanged the deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 2 of Decision 2011/734/EU is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20186a. Greece shall adopt and implement the following measures without delay:\n(a)\na reduction in tax exemptions, in particular the tax-free personal income thresholds, with the aim of increasing revenue by at least EUR 2 831 million in 2012;\n(b)\na permanent levy on real estate, collected through electricity invoices, with the aim of collecting at least EUR 1 667 million in 2011, and EUR 1 750 million per annum from 2012 onwards;\n(c)\nan immediate implementation of the revised wage grid for civil servants, thereby contributing to a reduction in expenditure of at least EUR 101 million in 2011, and with a carry-over of at least EUR 552 million for 2012, additional to savings provided in the MTFS through 2015. This reform shall cover all general government employees, except those covered by special wage regimes. These net savings take into account the impact of this measure on income tax and social contributions, as well as bonuses to be paid to specific employee categories;\n(d)\na cut in main and supplementary pensions, as well as in lump sums paid on retirement, with the aim of saving at least EUR 219 million in 2011 with a carry-over of EUR 446 million in 2012, additional to savings provided for in the MTFS;\n(e)\ncapping at 5 % of its deposits spending by the Green Fund, with the aim of saving EUR 360 million in 2012;\n(f)\nministerial decisions or circulars concerning the measures on excise on natural gas, heating oil and vehicle taxes provided for in the MTFS;\n(g)\nministerial decisions to uniformly regulate health benefits provided by the several social security funds;\n(h)\nlegislation for the collection of the solidarity surcharge through withholding tax;\n(i)\nministerial decisions that initiate the closure, merging or substantial downsizing of entities. This affects KED, ETA, ODDY, National Youth Institute, EOMEX, IGME, OSK, DEPANOM, THEMIS, ETHYAGE and ERT, and 35 other smaller entities;\n(j)\na ministerial Decision specifying the disability criteria on the attribution of disability pensions, consistent with achieving the MTFS saving objectives;\n(k)\na law to freeze the indexation of main and supplementary pensions through 2015;\n(l)\nfinalisation of the positive list for pharmaceuticals that establish prices charged to social security funds;\n(m)\ntransferring to the privatisation fund \"Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund\" (HRADF) the following assets: Alpha Bank (0,619 % of shares); National Bank of Greece (1,234 % of shares); Piraeus Bank (1,308 % of shares); Piraeus Port Authority (23,1 % of shares); Thessaloniki Port Authority (23,3 % of shares); Elefsina, Lavrio, Igoumenitsa, Alexandroupolis, Volos, Kavala, Corfu, Patras, Rafina, Heraklion port authorities (100 %); Athens Water and Sewerage Company (27,3 %); Thessaloniki Water and Sewerage Company (40 %); Regional state airports (transfer of concession rights); off-shore natural gas storage facility \"South Kavala\" (transfer of rights of current and future concessions); Hellenic motorways (transfer of economic rights of current and future concessions); Egnatia odos (100 %); Hellenic Post (90 %); OPAP, SA (29 %); four state buildings;\n(n)\nappointing the legal, technical and financial advisors for at least 14 of the privatisations that are planned until end-2012;\n(o)\nbased on a dialogue with social partners and taking into account the objective of creating and preserving jobs and improving firms\u2019 competitiveness, adopting further measures to allow the adaptation of wages to economic conditions. In particular: the extension of occupational and sectoral collective agreements and the so-called favourability principle shall be suspended during the period of application of the MTFS in such a manner that firm-level agreements take precedence over sectoral and occupational agreements; firm-level collective contracts may be signed either by trade unions or, when there is no firm-level union, by work councils or other employees\u2019 representations, irrespective of the firms\u2019 size.\u2019;\n(2)\nparagraph 7 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\na budget for 2012 in line with the MTFS targets and the deficit ceilings set out in this Decision; update and publish information on the several measures provided for in the MTFS; and the tax and expenditure legislative acts that are necessary to implement the budget at the same time of the budget;\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nassessment of the results of the first phase of the independent functional review of central administration which will result in an action plan for the implementation of operational policy recommendations. These recommendations shall determine how to achieve a more streamlined and effective public service, to define clear responsibilities and command lines of ministerial departments, eliminating overlapping competences, and to improve inter- and intra-ministerial mobility; finalisation of the ongoing functional review of existing social programmes;\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following points are added:\n\u2018(i)\nappointment of advisors for the other privatisation transactions planned for 2012 and not included in point (n) of paragraph 6a; acceleration of state land ownership registration and secondary legislation on tourism housing and on land use; establishment and operation of a new General Secretariat of Public Property working together with the newly merged KED/ETA (real estate management and tourism real estate institutions, respectively), which are to prepare real estate for privatisation of commercial and tradable assets. The aim is to improve the management of real estate assets, clear them of encumbrances and prepare them for privatisation; creation of six real estate portfolios by the HRDAF; adoption of the legal act on the transfer to the State of the mobile and immobile assets of entities that are closed;\n(j)\nthe reform of revenue administration, through: the activation of a large-taxpayers unit; the removal of barriers to effective tax administration by implementing the key reforms of the new tax law, including replacing managers who do not meet performance targets, reassessing tax auditors\u2019 qualifications; the operation of the newly created fast-track administrative dispute resolution body to deal rapidly with large dispute cases (i.e. within 90 days); the centralisation of the functions of, and the merging of, at least 31 tax offices;\n(k)\nto strengthen expenditure control: appointment of permanent financial accounting officers in all Ministries;\n(l)\npublication of a medium-term staffing plan for the period up to 2015 in line with the rule of 1 recruitment for 5 exits which applies to general government as a whole without sectoral exceptions; transfer of about 15 000 staff currently employed by various government entities to the labour reserve, and placement of about 15 000 in pre-retirement. Staff in the labour reserve, and in pre-retirement, are to be paid at 60 % of their basic wage (excluding overtime and other extra payments) for not more than 12 months. This period of 12 months may be extended up to 24 months for staff close to retirement. Payments to staff while in the labour reserve are part of their severance pay;\n(m)\nrevision of the list of heavy and arduous professions and reduction in its coverage to less than 10 % of employment. An in-depth revision of the functioning of secondary/supplementary public pension funds, including welfare funds and lump-sum schemes, with the aim of stabilising pension expenditure, guaranteeing the budgetary neutrality of these schemes, and ensuring medium- and long-term sustainability of the system. The revision shall achieve: a further reduction in the number of existing funds; the elimination of imbalances in those funds with deficits; the stabilisation of the current spending at sustainable level, through appropriate adjustments to be made from 1 January 2012; and the long-term sustainability of secondary schemes through a strict link between contributions and benefits.\u2019;\n(3)\nin paragraph 8, the following points are added:\n\u2018(c)\nundertaking of the second phase of the existing functional review of social programmes which include a more detailed review of specific programmes, aiming at reducing excessive fragmentation, generating savings and creating efficiencies;\n(d)\ncoverage of all medical acts by e-prescribing (medicines, referrals, diagnostics, surgery) in both national health system (NHS) facilities and providers contracted by EOPYY and the social security funds; production of detailed monthly auditing reports by NHS facilities and by providers; association of a lower cost-sharing rate to generic medicines that have a significantly lower price than the reference price (lower than 60 % of the reference price) on the basis of the experience of other Member States; publication by the social security funds of an annual report on medicine prescription; adoption by all hospitals of commitment registers;\n(e)\nmove towards a new centralised procurement of pharmaceuticals and medical goods for the NHS through the Supplies Coordination Committee with the support of the Specifications Committee, using the uniform coding system for medical supplies and pharmaceuticals;\n(f)\nin order to strengthen expenditure control, adoption of legislation streamlining the procedure for submission and approval of supplementary budgets; continuation of the process of establishing commitment registries, which shall cover the whole general government.\u2019;\n(4)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u2018(9) Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of June 2012:\n(a)\nPreparation of the measures to be adopted at the same time as the 2013 budget and at the same time as the 2014 budget, initiation of a review of public expenditure programmes, with the aim of identifying measures amounting to 3 % of GDP. The review shall draw on external technical assistance and shall focus on pensions and social transfers (in a manner that will preserve basic social protection); reduction of defence spending without prejudice to the defence capability of the country; and restructuring of central and local administrations; adjustments to special wage regimes; specification of further rationalisation of pharmaceutical spending and operational spending of hospitals, and welfare cash benefits.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2011.", "references": ["82", "39", "44", "29", "58", "5", "37", "60", "54", "90", "74", "85", "22", "89", "81", "9", "61", "78", "68", "7", "6", "40", "31", "42", "48", "92", "13", "12", "70", "49", "No Label", "4", "15", "27", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "15", "27", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 January 2012\nappointing the Chairperson of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board\n(2012/42/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 235/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the approval of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 16 March 2009, the Council adopted Decision 2009/249/EC (2) appointing Mr Johnny \u00c5KERHOLM as the Chairperson of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board for a period of three years from 23 March 2009.\n(2)\nIt is therefore necessary to appoint a new Chairperson to take office upon expiry of the term of office which began on 23 March 2009.\n(3)\nAccording to Article 3(3) in Decision No 235/2008/EC, the chairperson shall not be a current member of either a National Statistical Office or the Commission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Thomas WIESER is hereby appointed Chairperson of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board, for a period of three years from 23 March 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 24 January 2012.", "references": ["91", "70", "81", "16", "69", "58", "94", "30", "85", "63", "93", "29", "75", "26", "72", "3", "54", "25", "98", "20", "88", "34", "36", "87", "0", "48", "5", "4", "77", "66", "No Label", "7", "19"], "gold": ["7", "19"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 581/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 8 June 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 55/2008 introducing autonomous trade preferences for the Republic of Moldova\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 55/2008 (2) entered into force on 31 January 2008 and has been applied since 1 March 2008. That Regulation introduces a specific scheme of autonomous trade preferences (ATPs) for the Republic of Moldova (hereinafter \u2018Moldova\u2019). It gives all products originating in Moldova free access to the Union market, except for certain agricultural products listed in its Annex I, for which limited concessions have been given either in the form of exemption from customs duties within the limit of tariff quotas or in the form of a reduction of customs duties.\n(2)\nIn the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), the EU-Moldova ENP Action Plan, and the Eastern Partnership, Moldova has adopted an ambitious agenda for political association and further economic integration with the Union. Negotiations on a new Association Agreement started in January 2010. Moldova is also making strong progress on regulatory approximation leading to convergence with Union laws and standards in preparation for future negotiations on a deep and comprehensive free trade area (DCFTA) between the Union and Moldova, in the framework of the future Association Agreement.\n(3)\nEvery year since the application of Regulation (EC) No 55/2008, the tariff quota for wine was fully used months before the end of the year.\n(4)\nMoldova\u2019s economy is strongly affected by the adverse effects of the global financial and economic crises. The wine sector employs some 300 000 workers, and exports of wine are an important source of export earnings.\n(5)\nIn order to support Moldova\u2019s efforts, in line with the ENP and the Eastern Partnership, and to provide an attractive and reliable market for Moldova\u2019s wine exports, it is proposed to increase the existing tariff quota for wine for the year 2011 from 100 000 hectolitres to 150 000 hectolitres, for the year 2012 from 120 000 hectolitres to 180 000 hectolitres, and from the year 2013 onwards to 240 000 hectolitres per year.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 55/2008 is applicable until 31 December 2012.\n(7)\nNegotiations on a future DCFTA between the Union and Moldova are a common objective for both parties provided that Moldova demonstrates its preparedness to negotiate and sustain the effects of such an ambitious undertaking. In order to allow enough time for appropriate preparations and the negotiation of a DCFTA, it is necessary to extend the validity of Regulation (EC) No 55/2008 beyond 31 December 2012.\n(8)\nThe extension of validity of Regulation (EC) No 55/2008 should be decided well in advance of its end date, so as to provide Moldovan economic operators in good time with a transparent and predictable trading regime for their exports to the Union beyond 31 December 2012. The validity of that Regulation should therefore be extended until 31 December 2015.\n(9)\nIn the light of the experience gained under the present ATP scheme, and in order to support further the development of Moldova\u2019s economy and the process of regulatory approximation leading to convergence with Union laws and standards in the context of the Eastern Partnership, it is appropriate to review the level of tariff quotas of some products covered by the present ATPs.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure compliance with the Union\u2019s international obligations, the preferences contained in this Regulation should be made conditional on the continuation or renewal of the existing waiver from World Trade Organization obligations obtained by the Union.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 55/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 55/2008 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 16, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall apply until 31 December 2015.\nThe preferences provided for in this Regulation shall cease to apply, in whole or in part, should they not be permitted, in whole or in part, by a waiver granted by the World Trade Organization.\nThose preferences shall cease to apply from the day on which the waiver is no longer in effect.\nThe Commission shall, sufficiently prior to that date, publish a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union to inform operators and the competent authorities thereof. The notice shall specify which preferences provided for by this Regulation will no longer apply and the date on which they cease to apply.\u2019;\n(2)\nTable 1 of Annex I is replaced by the table appearing in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 8 June 2011.", "references": ["38", "23", "62", "2", "86", "17", "82", "81", "73", "7", "77", "65", "26", "84", "61", "55", "22", "90", "18", "28", "99", "50", "47", "6", "1", "89", "94", "78", "34", "36", "No Label", "20", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1120/2010\nof 2 December 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M as a feed additive for weaned piglets (holder of the authorisation Lallemand SAS)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M as a feed additive for weaned piglets, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M has been authorised without a time limit for chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1200/2005 (2), and for pigs for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2036/2005 (3), and for salmonids and shrimps by Commission Regulation (EC) No 911/2009 (4) for 10 years.\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for the authorisation of the preparation for weaned piglets. The European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 23 June 2010 (5) that Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M, under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use showed a significant improvement either in growth performance or in feed efficiency in the target species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018gut flora stabilisers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["13", "11", "36", "75", "76", "43", "99", "77", "41", "56", "64", "47", "39", "89", "9", "93", "44", "12", "40", "85", "94", "2", "62", "20", "46", "28", "81", "82", "53", "58", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/47/EU\nof 15 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include aluminium sulphate as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 1112/2002 (2) and (EC) No 2229/2004 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included aluminium sulphate.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 24e of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/941/EC of 8 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of aluminium sulphate.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter the \u2018applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the application of the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the Netherlands, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/941/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe Netherlands evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 9 March 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on aluminium sulphate to the Commission on 28 October 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for aluminium sulphate.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing aluminium sulphate may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include aluminium sulphate in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit confirmatory information as regards the specification of the technical material, as commercially manufactured, in the form of appropriate analytical data.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing aluminium sulphate to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/941/EC provides for the non-inclusion of aluminium sulphate and the withdrawal of authorisation of plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning aluminium sulphate in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/941/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning aluminium sulphate in the Annex to Decision 2008/941/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing aluminium sulphate as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to aluminium sulphate are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing aluminium sulphate as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning aluminium sulphate. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing aluminium sulphate as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing aluminium sulphate as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 April 2011.", "references": ["30", "86", "35", "66", "45", "49", "34", "44", "50", "16", "33", "39", "13", "8", "97", "15", "26", "57", "73", "56", "80", "10", "5", "27", "53", "84", "88", "91", "19", "85", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 603/2012\nof 30 April 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 laying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999 (1), and in particular Article 51(d) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 1236/2010 incorporates into Union law the provisions of the Scheme of control and enforcement (\u2018the Scheme\u2019) established by a recommendation adopted by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) at its Annual Meeting on 15 November 2006, and subsequently amended by several recommendations at the Annual Meetings in November 2007, 2008 and 2009.\n(2)\nAt its Annual Meeting in November 2011, NEAFC adopted Recommendation 9: 2012 amending Article 14 of the Scheme on the communication of reports and messages to the NEAFC Secretary.\n(3)\nUnder Articles 12 and 15 of the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries approved by Council Decision 81/608/EEC (2), that recommendation came into force on 3 February 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010, the following paragraph 1a is inserted after paragraph 1:\n\u20181a. The reports referred to in Article 9 may be cancelled by means of a cancellation report.\nIf a report requires a correction, it shall be cancelled by way of a cancellation report. A new, corrected report shall be sent after the cancellation report and within the time limits set out in Article 9.\nIf the Fisheries Monitoring Centre of the flag Member State accepts the cancellation of a report, it shall communicate it to the NEAFC Secretary.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 April 2012.", "references": ["89", "34", "93", "84", "86", "14", "94", "43", "76", "26", "81", "28", "77", "88", "0", "3", "44", "92", "68", "83", "13", "52", "99", "78", "90", "62", "46", "1", "15", "11", "No Label", "4", "39", "42", "59", "67"], "gold": ["4", "39", "42", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 297/2011\nof 25 March 2011\nimposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53 (1) (b)(ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 provides for the possibility to adopt appropriate Community emergency measures for food and feed imported from a third country in order to protect public health, animal health or the environment, where the risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member States individually.\n(2)\nFollowing the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station on 11 March 2011, the Commission was informed that radionuclide levels in certain food products originating in Japan such as milk and spinach exceeded the action levels in food applicable in Japan. Such contamination may constitute a threat to public and animal health within the Union and it is therefore appropriate as a precautionary measure to urgently take measures at Union level to ensure the safety of the feed and food, including fish and fishery products, originating in or consigned from Japan. As the accident is not yet under control, it is at this stage appropriate that the required testing before export would apply to feed and food originating from the affected prefectures with a buffer zone and a random testing of feed and food at import originating from the whole territory of Japan.\n(3)\nMaximum levels have been established by Council Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87 of 22 December 1987 laying down maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs and of feedingstuffs following a nuclear accident or any other case of radiological emergency (2), Commission Regulation (Euratom) No 944/89 of 12 April 1989 laying down maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination in minor foodstuffs following a nuclear accident or any other case of radiological emergency (3) and Commission Regulation (Euratom) No 770/90 of 29 March 1990 laying down maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination of feedingstuffs following a nuclear accident or any other case of radiological emergency (4).\n(4)\nThese maximum levels can be rendered applicable after the Commission is informed of a nuclear accident substantiating that the maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs and feedingstuffs are likely to be reached or have been reached pursuant to Council Decision 87/600/Euratom of 14 December 1987 on Community arrangements for the early exchange of information in the event of radiological emergency (5) or under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Convention on early notification of a nuclear accident of 26 September 1986. In the meantime it is appropriate to use these pre-established maximum levels as reference values to judge the acceptability to place feed and food on the market.\n(5)\nThe Japanese authorities have informed the Commission services that appropriate testing is carried out on food products from the affected region exported from Japan.\n(6)\nIn addition to the testing carried out by the Japanese authorities, it is appropriate to foresee random controls on such imports.\n(7)\nIt is appropriate that Member States inform the Commission of all analytical results through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and the European Union's Urgent Radiological Information Exchange system (ECURIE). The measures will be reviewed on the basis of these analytical results.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to feedstuffs and foodstuffs within the meaning of Article 1 (2) of Regulation 3954/87 originating in or consigned from Japan, with the exclusion of products which left Japan before 28 March 2011 and of products which have been harvested and/or processed before 11 March 2011.\nArticle 2\nAttestation\n1. All consignments of the products referred to in Article 1 shall be subject to the conditions laid down in this Regulation.\n2. Consignments of the products referred to in Article 1 falling outside the scope of Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community for third countries (6) shall be introduced into the EU through a designated point of entry (hereinafter \u2018DPE\u2019) within the meaning of Article 3 (b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 of 24 July 2009 implementing Regulation (EC) 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin and amending Decision 2006/504/EC (7).\n3. Each consignment of the products referred to in Article 1 shall be accompanied by a declaration, attesting that\n-\nthe product has been harvested and/or processed before 11 March 2011, or\n-\nthe product is originating from a prefecture other than Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamagata, Niigata, Nagano, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo and Chiba, or\n-\nin case the product is originating from the prefectures Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamagata, Niigata, Nagano, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo and Chiba, the product does not contain levels of the radionuclides iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 above the maximum levels provided for in Council Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87 of 22 December 1987, Commission Regulation (Euratom) No 944/89 of 12 April 1989 and Commission Regulation (Euratom) No 770/90 of 29 March 1990.\n4. The model of the declaration referred to in paragraph 3 is set out in the Annex. The declaration shall be signed by an authorised representative of the Japanese competent authorities and shall for the products falling under paragraph 3, third indent be accompanied by an analytical report.\nArticle 3\nIdentification\nEach consignment of the products referred to in Article 1 shall be identified by means of a code which shall be indicated on the declaration, on the analytical report containing the results of sampling and analysis, sanitary certificate and on any commercial documents accompanying the consignment.\nArticle 4\nPrior notification\nFeed and food business operators or their representatives shall give prior notification of the arrival of each consignment of the products referred to in Article 1, at least two working days prior to the physical arrival of the consignment, to the competent authorities at the Border Inspection Post (hereinafter \u2018BIP\u2019) or at the DPE.\nArticle 5\nOfficial controls\n1. The competent authorities of the BIP or DPE shall carry out documentary and identity checks on all consignments of products referred to in Article 1, and physical checks, including laboratory analysis, on the presence of iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137, on at least 10% of such consignments of the products referred to in Article 2 (3), 3rd indent and on at least 20 % of such consignments of the products referred to in Article 2(3) 2nd indent.\n2. Consignments shall be kept under official control, for a maximum of 5 working days, pending the availability of the results of the laboratory analysis.\n3. The release for free circulation of consignments shall be subject to the presentation by the feed and food business operator or their representative to the customs authorities of the declaration referred to in Annex, duly endorsed by the competent authority at the BIP or DPE, giving evidence that the official controls referred to in paragraph 1 have been carried out and that the results from physical checks, where such checks were carried out, have been favourable.\nArticle 6\nCosts\nAll costs resulting from the official controls referred to in Article 5(1) and 5(2) and any measures taken following non-compliance, shall be borne by the feed and food business operator.\nArticle 7\nNon-compliant products\nPursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87 feedstuffs and foodstuffs not in compliance with the maximum permitted levels referred to in the Annex of Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87, Regulation (Euratom) No 944/89 and Regulation (Euratom) No 770/90 shall not be placed on the market safely disposed of or returned to the country of origin.\nArticle 8\nReports\nMember States shall inform the Commission regularly through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and the European Union's Urgent Radiological Information Exchange system (ECURIE) of all analytical results obtained.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force and period of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the date of entry into force until 30 June 2011. The Regulation will be reviewed monthly on the basis of the analytical results obtained.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 March 2011.", "references": ["35", "99", "87", "28", "70", "47", "33", "40", "88", "58", "32", "45", "51", "27", "73", "59", "39", "62", "9", "84", "26", "80", "0", "90", "65", "55", "7", "67", "85", "53", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "23", "38", "60", "61", "66", "72", "81", "95", "96"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "23", "38", "60", "61", "66", "72", "81", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 32/2012\nof 14 November 2011\nsupplementing Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 laying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999 (1), and in particular Articles 10(3) and 46 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 1236/2010 supplements the control measures provided for in:\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, (2) and\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (3).\n(2)\nAccording to Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010, Member States are to inform the Commission monthly of the quantities of fishery resources caught in the NEAFC area by vessels flying their flag. The list of fishery resources to be reported should now be established,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nList of resources\nThe list of fishery resources referred to in Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 shall be as set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["8", "83", "5", "77", "69", "92", "55", "78", "10", "57", "21", "36", "0", "86", "2", "93", "95", "98", "35", "24", "26", "23", "13", "12", "11", "17", "65", "30", "94", "14", "No Label", "3", "4", "42", "59", "67"], "gold": ["3", "4", "42", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/58/EU\nof 10 May 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to renew the inclusion of carbendazim as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe inclusion of carbendazim in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC expires on 13 June 2011.\n(2)\nOn request the inclusion of an active substance may be renewed for a period not exceeding ten years. On 6 August 2007 the Commission received such a request from the applicant regarding the renewal of the inclusion for this substance.\n(3)\nOn 10 January 2008, the applicant submitted to the rapporteur Member State Germany data in support of its request for renewal of the inclusion of carbendazim.\n(4)\nThe rapporteur Member State prepared a draft re-assessment report which was commented by the applicant on 13 May 2009 and after its finalisation was submitted to the applicant and the Commission on 24 July 2009. In addition to the assessment of the substance, that report includes a list of the studies the rapporteur Member State relied on for its assessment.\n(5)\nThe Commission communicated the draft re-assessment report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter: \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Member States on 28 July 2009 for comments.\n(6)\nAt the request of the Commission, the draft re-assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority and commented by the applicant on 14 December 2009. The Authority presented its conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of carbendazim (2) to the Commission on 30 April 2010. After the applicant had been given the possibility to comment and taking into account its comments delivered on 31 May 2010, the draft re-assessment report and the conclusion from the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 23 November 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for carbendazim.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing carbendazim may be expected to continue to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to renew the inclusion of carbendazim in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, in order to ensure that plant protection products containing this active substance may continue to be authorised where they comply with that Directive. In addition to the uses supported for the first inclusion, the applicant supports in its renewal dossier the use on fodder beet. Taking into consideration the additional data submitted by the applicant, the use on fodder beet should be added to the list of uses that may be authorised.\n(8)\nArticle 5(4) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to restrictions. In order to correctly reflect the high level of protection of human and animal health and the environment sought in the Union, it is necessary to limit the uses of carbendazim to those that have actually been assessed and which are considered to comply with the conditions of Article 5(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC. This implies that uses which are not part of the list of uses set out in Annex I to that Directive may not be authorised unless they are first added to that list. It is appropriate to set maximum limits for the presence of two relevant impurities 2-amino-3-hydroxyphenazine (AHP) and 2,3-diaminophenazine (DAP) in commercially manufactured carbendazim.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion set out in recital 8, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submits further information as regards, the aerobic degradation in soil, the long-term risk to birds and the relevance of a third impurity, for confidentiality reasons referred to as AEF037197. In addition, the applicant should be requested to examine the studies included in the list in the draft re-assessment report of 16 July 2009 (Volume 1, Level 4 \u2018Further information\u2019, pp. 155-157).\n(10)\nSeveral Member States have expressed concerns as regards the hazard profile of this substance. Similar concerns were expressed at the time of the first inclusion. The renewal dossier is, in part, based on toxicity data used during the assessment of the dossier submitted for the initial inclusion of this substance. The original inclusion was limited to a period of three years (3). Account should also be taken of the progressive understanding of the need to ensure a high level of protection of human and animal health and the sustainable environment. Therefore, it is appropriate to limit the renewal period of the inclusion to three and half years.\n(11)\nAs with all substances included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, the status of carbendazim could be reviewed under Article 5(5) of that Directive in the light of any new data becoming available, such as its currently ongoing evaluation in the framework of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal substances on the market (4) and from the review of relevant scientific literature.\n(12)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is renewed in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the renewal.\n(13)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of renewing the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I thereto, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after renewal to review authorisations of plant protection products containing carbendazim to make sure that the requirements laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13, and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I to that Directive, continue to be satisfied. As appropriate, Member States should renew, where appropriate with modifications, or refuse to renew authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(14)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(15)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health did not deliver an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chair and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures. Since, on the expiry of the period laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 19(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, the Council had neither adopted the proposed measures nor indicated its opposition to them, these measures are to be adopted by the Commission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing carbendazim as an active substance by 1 December 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to carbendazim are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing carbendazim as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances, all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 1 June 2011 at the latest, Member States shall, where necessary, re-evaluate the products, to take into account developments occurred in the scientific and technical knowledge and in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning carbendazim. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product still satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC. Following that determination Member States shall, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 1 December 2013.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2011.", "references": ["10", "59", "80", "71", "30", "24", "52", "15", "97", "3", "49", "89", "36", "27", "43", "81", "53", "23", "85", "6", "12", "16", "8", "66", "72", "32", "79", "28", "45", "26", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION\nof 23 January 2012\nappointing the members of the Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)\n(2012/45/EU, Euratom)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,\nHaving regard to Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 (2) and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 of 25 May 1999 (3) concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and in particular Article 11(2) of each of those Regulations.\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticles 11(2) of Regulations (EC) No 1073/1999 and (Euratom) No 1074/1999 provide that the Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) shall be composed of five independent outside persons who possess the qualifications required for appointment in their respective countries to senior posts relating to the Office\u2019s areas of activity and that those persons shall be appointed by common accord of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;\n(2)\nAccording to Article 11(3), the term of office of the members of the Supervisory Committee shall be three years and shall be renewable once;\n(3)\nThe members of the Supervisory Committee appointed with effect from 30 November 2005 have reached their maximum term of office. In accordance with Article 11(4) of Regulations (EC) No 1073/1999 and (Euratom) No 1074/1999, these members remained in office after the expiry of their term of office, pending completion of the process of appointment of new members of the Supervisory Committee. New members should therefore be appointed as soon as possible,\nHAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\n1. The following persons are hereby appointed as members of the Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) as from 23 January 2012:\n-\nMr Herbert B\u00d6SCH,\n-\nMr Johan DENOLF,\n-\nMs Catherine PIGNON,\n-\nMs Rita SCHEMBRI,\n-\nMr Christiaan TIMMERMANS.\n2. Should any of the above persons resign from the Supervisory Committee, die or become permanently incapacitated, they shall immediately be replaced by the first named person on the following list who has not yet been appointed to the Supervisory Committee:\n-\nMr Jens MADSEN,\n-\nMs Cristina NICOAR\u0102,\n-\nMr Tuomas Henrik P\u00d6YSTI,\n-\nMr Dimitrios ZIMIANITIS.\nArticle 2\nIn carrying out their duties, the Members of the Supervisory Committee shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or any institution, body, office or agency.\nThey shall not deal with a matter in which, directly or indirectly, they have any personal interest such as to impair their independence, and, in particular, family and financial interests.\nThey shall treat the files submitted to them and their deliberations concerning them in strict secrecy.\nArticle 3\nMembers of the Supervisory Committee shall be reimbursed for expenses they may incur in the course of their duties, and shall receive a daily payment for each day spent on those duties. The amount of that payment and the procedure for reimbursement shall be determined by the Commission.\nArticle 4\nThe Commission shall inform the above persons of this Decision, and shall immediately inform any person subsequently appointed to the Supervisory Committee pursuant to Article 1(2).\nThis appointment is made pursuant to Article 11(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999. It is without prejudice to any future amendments to these provisions which may be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, especially the potential modification of the duration of their mandate in order to ensure the possible introduction of a staggered renewal of the members of the Committee.\nArticle 5\nThe Decision shall enter into force on 23 January 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["48", "98", "95", "52", "3", "59", "28", "75", "72", "50", "43", "64", "4", "29", "63", "15", "49", "51", "25", "94", "91", "44", "20", "21", "68", "73", "9", "23", "35", "33", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/26/EU\nof 3 March 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include diethofencarb as active substance and amending Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included diethofencarb.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of diethofencarb.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to France, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nFrance evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 21 December 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on diethofencarb to the Commission on 7 September 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for diethofencarb.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing diethofencarb may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include diethofencarb in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information confirming the potential uptake of the metabolite 6-NO2-DFC in succeeding crops and the risk assessment for non-target arthropod species.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing diethofencarb to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of diethofencarb and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning diethofencarb in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning diethofencarb in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing diethofencarb as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to diethofencarb are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing diethofencarb as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning diethofencarb. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing diethofencarb as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing diethofencarb as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 March 2011.", "references": ["99", "87", "1", "82", "58", "3", "51", "85", "55", "48", "18", "47", "98", "52", "81", "41", "4", "19", "29", "64", "45", "7", "26", "44", "93", "89", "32", "73", "88", "72", "No Label", "2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 22/2011\nof 12 January 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 18/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 January 2011.", "references": ["99", "85", "25", "84", "50", "14", "31", "41", "96", "17", "37", "63", "75", "58", "48", "86", "38", "60", "5", "39", "78", "46", "92", "0", "13", "88", "89", "49", "57", "51", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 456/2012\nof 30 May 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 on implementing rules for Council Directive 2000/75/EC as regards the control, monitoring, surveillance and restrictions on movements of certain animals of susceptible species in relation to bluetongue\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/75/EC of 20 November 2000 laying down specific provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(c), Articles 11 and 12 and the third paragraph of Article 19 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 (2) lays down rules for the control, monitoring, surveillance and restrictions on movements of animals, in relation to bluetongue, in and from the restricted zones. It also establishes the conditions for exemptions from the exit ban applicable to movements of susceptible animals, their semen, ova and embryos provided for in Directive 2000/75/EC, including rules on the use of vaccines against bluetongue.\n(2)\nUnder the current rules laid down in Directive 2000/75/EC, the use of vaccines against bluetongue is not permitted outside protection zones. Directive 2012/5/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 amending Council Directive 2000/75/EC as regards vaccination against bluetongue (3) makes the rules on vaccination laid down in Directive 2000/75/EC more flexible in order to allow vaccination with inactivated vaccines against bluetongue also outside the areas subject to animal movement restrictions. As a consequence, Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 should be amended. Furthermore, amendments are necessary to simplify the process of monitoring and surveillance and to adapt the procedures established by Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 to recent scientific opinions.\n(3)\nFor the purpose of gathering and analysing epidemiological information on bluetongue, Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 provides that Member States are to transmit to the BlueTongue NETwork application (BT-Net system) information on bluetongue gathered in the course of the implementation of the bluetongue monitoring and surveillance programmes.\n(4)\nHowever, experience shows that there is sufficient information available in the framework of other existing Union disease notification and reporting obligations. The obligation to exchange information through the BT-Net system is therefore no longer necessary.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1266/2007, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 123/2009 (4) introduced the possibility for Member States to demarcate, under certain conditions, \u2018lower risk areas\u2019 to facilitate preventive vaccination in parts of their territory without virus circulation. As a consequence of the entry into force of Directive 2012/5/EU, whereby vaccination against bluetongue may be performed also outside restricted zones the provisions for the demarcation of \u2018lower risk areas\u2019 are no longer necessary.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007, a Member State may decide to remove an epidemiological geographical relevant area from a restricted zone, and thereby claim freedom from disease in that area after two years of absence of virus circulation as proven by monitoring.\n(7)\nHowever, those parts of a restricted zone where for at least one year, including a full vector activity season, monitoring and surveillance show that no virus circulation of a specific bluetongue serotype or serotypes has taken place, are at risk of reintroduction of the disease by introduction of infectious animals from other parts of the same restricted zone where the bluetongue virus is still circulating. For these situations, in order to provide for a safe transition towards freedom from disease under favourable epidemiological conditions, Member States should be allowed to demarcate a \u2018provisionally free area\u2019 subject to the condition that monitoring and surveillance to ascertain the absence of virus circulation is carried out.\n(8)\nAccording to the Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare of the EFSA on the \u2018Risk of Bluetongue Transmission in Animal Transit\u2019, adopted on 11 September 2008 (5), there is a theoretical possibility that infectious midges co-travel with the animals. That risk might be controlled by cleaning the vehicle and treating it with insecticides or repellents before loading the animals or when moving animals through areas known to be at low risk or at a period of time when the risk is known to be low. In order to limit undesired effects to the environment of those substances and to avoid possible problems as regards waiting periods and possible residues in the animals, the treatment of animals with authorised insecticides or repellents should no longer be required as this treatment provides for limited additional safety.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 1266/2007, as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2011 (6), allows, for a transitional period, Member States of destination, in which the introduction of non-immune animals under certain circumstances could pose a risk for animal health, to require that the movement of such animals is subject to certain additional conditions. As rules on criteria for vector protected establishments are laid down in this Regulation, that transitional provision is no longer necessary.\n(10)\nDue to the different levels of virus circulation, environmental conditions and different vaccination strategies in the Member States, the epidemiological situations as regards bluetongue may differ considerably in different areas of the Union. Experience has shown that different surveillance strategies may be successfully implemented to achieve the desired objectives. Therefore, the minimum harmonised requirements for monitoring and surveillance as laid down in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 should be simplified to allow for more flexibility for the Member States to design their national monitoring and surveillance programmes, taking into account the Scientific Opinion of the EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on bluetongue monitoring and surveillance (7).\n(11)\nBased on the abovementioned Scientific Opinion, the minimum sample size to detect a prevalence of 5 % with 95 % confidence in the susceptible species population should be sufficient for surveillance for the purpose of demonstrating the absence of virus circulation in an epidemiological relevant geographical area during a period of two years.\n(12)\nKeeping bluetongue susceptible animals in a vector proof establishment for a specified period of time is an important requirement for certain conditions for exemptions from the exit ban as set out in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007. Experience shows that it is difficult for Member States to establish proper criteria for the implementation of a vector proof establishment for regular movements for trade in animals of susceptible species such as cattle, sheep and goats.\n(13)\nIn order to improve the effectiveness of vector proof establishments and to assist the Member States in their implementation of that control measure, a number of criteria should be established. Those criteria should be based on experiences of the Member States and the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). To align the terminology with the OIE, the term \u2018vector proof establishment\u2019, currently used in Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007, should be replaced by \u2018vector protected establishment\u2019.\n(14)\nIn response to new scientific information which indicates the possibility of transplacental transmission of the bluetongue virus, in particular for bluetongue virus serotype 8, precautionary measures to prevent the possible spread of bluetongue by pregnant animals or certain newborn animals were introduced in Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 384/2008 (8).\n(15)\nAccording to the Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare of the EFSA on bluetongue serotype 8 (9), there is scientific evidence for transplacental transmission of bluetongue virus serotype 8 which was introduced in the Union in 2006. However, transplacental transmission of other serotypes of the bluetongue virus in affected areas where no modified live vaccines have been used has not been shown. In the light of the conclusions of that opinion, the precautionary measure as regards the movement of pregnant animals should only apply for zones which are restricted for bluetongue virus serotype 8.\n(16)\nRegulation (EC) No 1266/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1266/2007 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nBluetongue monitoring and surveillance programmes\nMember States shall implement bluetongue monitoring and surveillance programmes in accordance with the minimum requirements set out in Annex I.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 5 is deleted;\n(3)\nin Article 6, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Before taking any decision to remove an epidemiologically relevant geographical area from a restricted zone, Member States shall provide the Commission with substantiated information demonstrating the absence of bluetongue virus circulation in that area during a period of two years, including two full vector activity seasons, following the implementation of the bluetongue monitoring and surveillance programme in accordance with point 3 of Annex I.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 7, paragraph 2a is replaced by the following:\n\u20182a. Member States may demarcate an epidemiological relevant geographical area in a restricted zone as a \u201cprovisionally free area\u201d provided that for a period of one year, including one full vector season, monitoring and surveillance in accordance with point 3 of Annex I has demonstrated the absence of bluetongue virus circulation in that part of the restricted zone for that specific bluetongue serotype or combination of serotypes.\nA Member State which intends to demarcate a restricted zone or part of a restricted zone as a \u201cprovisionally free area\u201d shall notify its intention to the Commission. That notification shall be accompanied by the information referred to in point 3 of Annex I.\nThe Commission shall inform the Member States in the framework of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health of the list of \u201cprovisionally free areas\u201d.\nMovements of animals within the same restricted zone from an area where the same bluetongue virus serotype or serotypes are circulating to a part of the same restricted zone demarcated as a \u201cprovisionally free area\u201d may only be permitted if:\n(a)\nthe animals comply with the conditions set out in Annex III; or\n(b)\nthe animals comply with any other appropriate animal health guarantees based on a positive outcome of a risk assessment of measures against the spread of the bluetongue virus and protection against attacks by vectors, required by the competent authority of the place of origin and approved by the competent authority of the place of destination, prior to the movement of such animals; or\n(c)\nthe animals are destined for immediate slaughter.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 8(5), the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Information on the designated slaughterhouses shall be made available to the other Member States and to the public.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 9 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 9\nFurther conditions for the transit of animals\n1. The transit of animals shall be allowed by the competent authority provided that:\n(a)\nafter adequate cleansing and disinfection at the place of loading, the means in which the animals are transported are treated with authorised insecticides and/or repellents. This treatment must in any case take place prior to leaving or entering the restricted zone;\n(b)\nwhen a rest period of more than one day is foreseen at a control post during the movement through a restricted zone, the animals are protected against attacks by vectors in a vector protected establishment in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex II.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply if the transit takes place:\n(a)\nexclusively from or through epidemiologically relevant geographical areas of the restricted zone during the bluetongue seasonally vector-free period defined in accordance with Annex V; or\n(b)\nfrom or through parts of the restricted zone demarcated as a \u201cprovisionally free area\u201d in accordance with Article 7(2a).\n3. For the animals referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the following additional wording shall be added to the corresponding health certificates laid down in Directives 64/432/EEC, 91/68/EEC and 92/65/EEC, or referred to in Decision 93/444/EEC: \u201cInsecticide/repellent treatment with \u2026 (insert name of the product) on \u2026 (insert date) in conformity with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007.\u201d\u2019;\n(7)\nArticle 9a is deleted;\n(8)\nAnnexes I, II, III and V are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the fifth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 May 2012.", "references": ["57", "32", "43", "75", "82", "9", "98", "80", "86", "12", "13", "58", "16", "53", "55", "78", "62", "10", "2", "72", "22", "35", "17", "8", "39", "33", "83", "56", "69", "30", "No Label", "23", "38", "54", "61", "63", "65", "66"], "gold": ["23", "38", "54", "61", "63", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 442/2012\nof 24 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 May 2012.", "references": ["66", "88", "39", "80", "20", "30", "59", "91", "62", "37", "70", "32", "63", "57", "33", "82", "94", "60", "86", "47", "36", "73", "3", "81", "51", "25", "11", "96", "8", "15", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 April 2011\nconcerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the \u2018infrastructure\u2019 subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system\n(notified under document C(2011) 2741)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/275/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 2(e) of and Annex II to Directive 2008/57/EC, the rail system is subdivided into structural and functional subsystems, including an infrastructure subsystem.\n(2)\nBy Decision C(2006) 124 final of 9 February 2006, the Commission gave a mandate to the European Railway Agency (the Agency) to develop technical specifications for interoperability (TSIs) under Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (2). Under the terms of that mandate, the Agency was requested to draw up the draft TSI related to the infrastructure subsystem of the conventional rail system.\n(3)\nTechnical specifications for interoperability (TSI) are specifications adopted in accordance with Directive 2008/57/EC. The TSI in Annex covers the infrastructure subsystem in order to meet the essential requirements and ensure the interoperability of the rail system.\n(4)\nThe TSI in Annex does not fully deal with all essential requirements. In accordance with Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/57/EC technical aspects which are not covered are identified as open points in Annex F of this TSI.\n(5)\nThe TSI in Annex should refer to Commission Decision 2010/713/EU of 9 November 2010 on modules for the procedures for assessment of conformity, suitability for use and EC verification to be used in the technical specifications for interoperability adopted under Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 17(3) of Directive 2008/57/EC, Member States are to notify to the Commission and other Member States the conformity assessment and verification procedures to be used for the specific cases, as well as the bodies responsible for carrying out these procedures.\n(7)\nThe TSI in Annex should be without prejudice to the provisions of other relevant TSIs which may be applicable to infrastructure subsystems.\n(8)\nThe TSI in Annex should not impose the use of specific technologies or technical solutions except where this is strictly necessary for the interoperability of the rail system within the Union.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 11(5) of Directive 2008/57/EC, the TSI in Annex should allow, for a limited period of time, for interoperability constituents to be incorporated into subsystems without certification if certain conditions are met.\n(10)\nTo continue to encourage innovation and to take into account the experience acquired, the TSI in Annex should be subject to periodic revision.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in conformity with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nA technical specification for interoperability (TSI) relating to the infrastructure subsystem of the trans-European conventional railway, is hereby adopted by the Commission.\nThe TSI shall be as set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis TSI shall be applicable to all new, upgraded or renewed infrastructure of the trans-European conventional rail system as defined in Annex I to Directive 2008/57/EC.\nArticle 3\n1. With regard to those issues classified as open points set out in Annex F of the TSI, the conditions to be complied with for the verification of the interoperability pursuant to Article 17(2) of Directive 2008/57/EC shall be those applicable technical rules in use in the Member State which authorise the placing in service of the subsystems covered by this Decision.\n2. Each Member State shall notify to the other Member States and to the Commission within six months of the notification of this Decision:\n(a)\nthe applicable technical rules mentioned in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe conformity assessment and checking procedures to be applied with regard to the application of the technical rules mentioned in paragraph 1;\n(c)\nthe bodies it appoints for carrying out the conformity assessment and checking procedures of the open points mentioned in paragraph 1.\nArticle 4\n1. The Member State shall define which lines of the conventional trans-European transport network (TEN-T) as established by Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) are intended to be classified as core TEN lines or other TEN lines on the basis of the categories given in Section 4.2.1 of this TSI. Member States shall notify this information to the Commission within a period of one year from the date of application of this Commission Decision.\n2. The Commission, in cooperation with the Agency and the Member States, shall coordinate the classification referred to in paragraph 1, especially with regard to the border crossings and its consistency with the European Deployment Plan on European Rail Traffic Management System as referred to in Commission Decision 2009/561/EC (5).\n3. The final classification resulting from the coordination shall be examined by the Committee set up by Council Directive 96/48/EC (6) and, after discussion, made public by the Agency.\n4. The Member State shall take into account the classification published by the Agency when defining its national migration plan.\nArticle 5\nThe procedures for assessment of conformity, suitability for use and EC verification set out in Chapter 6 of the TSI in Annex shall be based on the modules defined in Decision 2010/713/EU.\nArticle 6\n1. During a transition period of 10 years, it shall be permissible to issue an EC certificate of verification for a subsystem that contains interoperability constituents not holding an EC declaration of conformity or suitability for use, on the condition that the provisions set out in Section 6.6 of the Annex are met.\n2. The production or upgrade/renewal of the subsystem with use of the non-certified interoperability constituents must be completed within the transition period, including the placing in service.\n3. During the transition period Member States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nthe reasons for non-certification of the interoperability constituents are properly identified in the verification procedure referred to in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe details of the non-certified interoperability constituents and the reasons for non-certification, including the application of national rules notified under Article 17 of Directive 2008/57/EC, are included by the National Safety Authorities in their report referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7).\n4. After the transition period and with the exceptions allowed under Section 6.6.3 on maintenance, interoperability constituents shall be covered by the required EC declaration of conformity and/or suitability for use before being incorporated into the subsystem.\nArticle 7\nIn accordance with Article 5(3)(f) of Directive 2008/57/EC, Chapter 7 of the TSI in Annex, sets out a strategy for migrating towards a full interoperable infrastructure subsystem. This migration needs to be applied in conjunction with Article 20 of that Directive which specifies the principles of the application of the TSI to the renewal and upgrading projects. Member States shall notify to the Commission a report on the implementation of Article 20 of Directive 2008/57/EC 3 years after the entry into force of this Decision. This report will be discussed in the context of the Committee set up in Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC and, where appropriate, the TSI in Annex will be adapted.\nArticle 8\n1. With regard to those issues classified as specific cases set out in Chapter 7 of the TSI, the conditions to be complied with for the verification of the interoperability pursuant to Article 17(2) of Directive 2008/57/EC shall be those applicable technical rules in use in the Member State which authorise the placing in service of the subsystems covered by this Decision.\n2. Each Member State shall notify to the other Member States and to the Commission within six months of the notification of this Decision:\n(a)\nthe applicable technical rules mentioned in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe conformity assessment and checking procedures to be applied with regard to the application of the technical rules mentioned in paragraph 1;\n(c)\nthe bodies it appoints for carrying out the conformity assessment and checking procedures of the specific cases mentioned in paragraph 1.\nArticle 9\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 June 2011.\nArticle 10\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2011.", "references": ["3", "62", "65", "88", "5", "26", "85", "52", "86", "73", "89", "68", "32", "44", "39", "99", "22", "19", "96", "69", "47", "20", "67", "82", "13", "83", "77", "41", "16", "54", "No Label", "9", "55", "76"], "gold": ["9", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1266/2011\nof 6 December 2011\napportioning, for the 2011/12 marketing year, 5 000 tonnes of short flax fibre and hemp fibre as national guaranteed quantities between Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 95, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 8(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2008 of 6 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1673/2000 on the common organisation of the markets in flax and hemp grown for fibre (2) lays down that the apportioning of 5 000 tonnes of short flax fibre and hemp fibre as national guaranteed quantities, as provided for in Article 94(1a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for the marketing year 2011/12, must be effected before 16 November of the marketing year in progress.\n(2)\nTo that end, Italy has sent the Commission information relating to areas covered by sale/purchase contracts, processing commitments and processing contracts, and estimated flax and hemp straw and fibre yields.\n(3)\nConversely, no flax or hemp fibre will be produced for the 2011/12 marketing year in Denmark, Ireland, Greece or Luxembourg.\n(4)\nOn the basis of estimates of production resulting from the information provided, total production in the five Member States concerned will not reach the overall quantity of 5 000 tonnes allocated to them, and the national guaranteed quantities as set out below should be set.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 2011/12 marketing year, the apportionment in national guaranteed quantities provided for in Article 94(1a) in conjunction with Annex XI A.II.(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be as follows:\n-\nDenmark\n0 tonnes,\n-\nIreland\n0 tonnes,\n-\nGreece\n0 tonnes,\n-\nItaly\n15 tonnes,\n-\nLuxembourg\n0 tonnes.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 16 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 December 2011.", "references": ["19", "56", "94", "29", "77", "59", "93", "74", "23", "64", "5", "63", "47", "20", "90", "37", "18", "80", "41", "45", "27", "35", "21", "81", "16", "0", "55", "72", "6", "58", "No Label", "61", "62", "68", "75", "89", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["61", "62", "68", "75", "89", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/801/CFSP\nof 22 December 2010\namending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d'Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d'Ivoire (1).\n(2)\nOn 13 December, the Council emphasised the importance of the Presidential election held on 31 October and 28 November 2010 for the return of peace and stability in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire and declared it to be imperative that the sovereign wish expressed by the Ivorian people be respected.\n(3)\nThe Council further decided to adopt restrictive measures against those who are obstructing the process of peace and national reconciliation, and in particular who are jeopardising the proper outcome of the electoral process,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/656/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of:\n(a)\nthe persons referred to in Annex I and designated by the Sanctions Committee, who constitute a threat to the peace and national reconciliation process in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire, in particular those who block the implementation of the Linas-Marcoussis and Accra III Agreements, any other person determined as responsible for serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire on the basis of relevant information, any other person who publicly incites hatred and violence and any other person determined by the Sanctions Committee to be in violation of the measures imposed by paragraph 7 of UNSCR 1572(2004);\n(b)\nthe persons referred to in Annex II who are not included in the list in Annex I and who are obstructing the process of peace and national reconciliation, and in particular who are jeopardising the proper outcome of the electoral process.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1(a) shall not apply where the Sanctions Committee determines that:\n(a)\ntravel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, including religious obligations;\n(b)\nan exemption would further the objectives of the UNSC Resolutions for peace and national reconciliation in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire and stability in the region.\n4. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation of international law, namely:\n(i)\nas a host country to an international intergovernmental organisation;\n(ii)\nas a host country to an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the UN;\n(iii)\nunder a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities; or\n(iv)\nunder the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran pact) concluded by the Holy See (State of the Vatican City) and Italy.\n5. Paragraph 4 shall be considered as applying also in cases where a Member State is host country to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).\n6. The Council shall be duly informed in all cases where a Member State grants an exemption pursuant to paragraphs 4 or 5.\n7. Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed under paragraph 1(b) where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the European Union, or hosted by a Member State holding the Chairmanship-in-office of the OSCE, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire.\n8. A Member State wishing to grant exemptions referred to in paragraph 7 shall notify the Council in writing. The exemption shall be deemed to be granted unless one or more of the Council members raises an objection in writing within two working days of receiving notification of the proposed exemption. Should one or more Council members raise an objection, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to grant the proposed exemption.\n9. In cases where, pursuant to paragraphs 4, 5 and 7, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in Annexes I or II, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\u2019.\n2.\nArticle 5(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. All funds and economic resources owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the persons or entities designated by the Sanctions Committee pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) or held by entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by them or by any persons acting on their behalf or at their direction, as designated by the Sanctions Committee, shall be frozen.\nThe persons referred in the first subparagraph are listed in Annex I.\u2019.\n3.\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\n1. The Council shall establish the list in Annex I and amend it in accordance with determinations made by either the United Nations Security Council or the Sanctions Committee.\n2. The Council, acting on a proposal from a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall establish and amend the list in Annex II.\u2019.\n4.\nArticle 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 7\n1. Where the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee designates a person or entity, the Council shall include such person or entity in the list in Annex I.\n2. Where the Council decides to apply to a person or entity the measures referred to in Article 4(1)(b), it shall amend Annex II accordingly.\n3. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the person or entity concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person or entity with an opportunity to present observations.\n4. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person or entity accordingly.\u2019.\n5.\nArticle 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8\n1. Annexes I and II shall include the grounds for listing the persons and entities as provided by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee in the case of Annex I.\n2. Annexes I and II shall also contain, where available, the information necessary to identify the persons or entities concerned which is provided by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee in the case of Annex I. With regard to persons, such information may include names, including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, and function or profession. With regard to entities, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. Annex I shall also include the date of designation by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\u2019.\n6.\nArticle 10 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 10\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\n2. It shall be reviewed, amended or repealed as appropriate, in accordance with relevant decisions of the United Nations Security Council.\n3. The measures referred to in Article 4(1)(b) shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every twelve months. They shall cease to apply to the persons or entities concerned if the Council establishes, in accordance with the procedure in Article 6(2), that the conditions necessary for their application are no longer met.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe Annex to Decision 2010/656/CFSP becomes Annex I and its title is replaced by the following:\nArticle 3\nThe Annex to this Decision shall be added as Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2010.", "references": ["81", "26", "97", "37", "51", "45", "36", "86", "90", "84", "54", "18", "65", "2", "88", "55", "82", "93", "13", "71", "50", "41", "28", "15", "1", "87", "19", "8", "29", "24", "No Label", "3", "5", "9", "23", "79", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "9", "23", "79", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 July 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement\n(2012/451/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019) entered into force on 1 January 1994.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 98 of the EEA Agreement, the EEA Joint Committee may decide to amend, among others, Annex XX to the EEA Agreement.\n(3)\nAnnex XX to the EEA Agreement contains provisions and arrangements concerning the environment.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to incorporate into the EEA Agreement Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community (3).\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to incorporate into the EEA Agreement Commission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 of 12 November 2010 on the timing, administration and other aspects of auctioning of greenhouse gas emission allowances pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowances trading within the Community (4), as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 1210/2011 of 23 November 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 in particular to determine the volume of greenhouse gas emission allowances to be auctioned prior to 2013 (5). It is also appropriate to incorporate into the EEA Agreement other Commission acts adopted pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC (6).\n(6)\nCertain adaptations should be provided for in relation to Directive 2003/87/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC, and Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010; they are justified by the extension of the emission trading scheme of the European Union to the EEA EFTA States.\n(7)\nAnnex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe position of the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["91", "40", "37", "34", "89", "92", "26", "2", "96", "50", "12", "38", "64", "23", "13", "47", "43", "27", "65", "56", "77", "5", "35", "71", "10", "52", "99", "46", "74", "31", "No Label", "3", "9", "20", "25", "58", "60"], "gold": ["3", "9", "20", "25", "58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1205/2010\nof 16 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2010.", "references": ["39", "32", "99", "66", "26", "34", "46", "43", "8", "47", "60", "21", "80", "62", "55", "10", "94", "45", "50", "58", "22", "1", "76", "4", "65", "36", "20", "56", "95", "92", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 492/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 5 April 2011\non freedom of movement for workers within the Union\n(codification)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 46 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (3) has been substantially amended several times (4). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.\n(2)\nFreedom of movement for workers should be secured within the Union. The attainment of this objective entails the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment, as well as the right of such workers to move freely within the Union in order to pursue activities as employed persons subject to any limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.\n(3)\nProvisions should be laid down to enable the objectives laid down in Articles 45 and 46 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in the field of freedom of movement to be achieved.\n(4)\nFreedom of movement constitutes a fundamental right of workers and their families. Mobility of labour within the Union must be one of the means by which workers are guaranteed the possibility of improving their living and working conditions and promoting their social advancement, while helping to satisfy the requirements of the economies of the Member States. The right of all workers in the Member States to pursue the activity of their choice within the Union should be affirmed.\n(5)\nSuch right should be enjoyed without discrimination by permanent, seasonal and frontier workers and by those who pursue their activities for the purpose of providing services.\n(6)\nThe right of freedom of movement, in order that it may be exercised, by objective standards, in freedom and dignity, requires that equality of treatment be ensured in fact and in law in respect of all matters relating to the actual pursuit of activities as employed persons and to eligibility for housing, and also that obstacles to the mobility of workers be eliminated, in particular as regards the conditions for the integration of the worker\u2019s family into the host country.\n(7)\nThe principle of non-discrimination between workers in the Union means that all nationals of Member States have the same priority as regards employment as is enjoyed by national workers.\n(8)\nThe machinery for vacancy clearance, in particular by means of direct cooperation between the central employment services and also between the regional services, as well as by coordination of the exchange of information, ensures in a general way a clearer picture of the labour market. Workers wishing to move should also be regularly informed of living and working conditions.\n(9)\nClose links exist between freedom of movement for workers, employment and vocational training, particularly where the latter aims at putting workers in a position to take up concrete offers of employment from other regions of the Union. Such links make it necessary that the problems arising in this connection should no longer be studied in isolation but viewed as interdependent, account also being taken of the problems of employment at the regional level. It is therefore necessary to direct the efforts of Member States toward coordinating their employment policies,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nEMPLOYMENT, EQUAL TREATMENT AND WORKERS\u2019 FAMILIES\nSECTION 1\nEligibility for employment\nArticle 1\n1. Any national of a Member State shall, irrespective of his place of residence, have the right to take up an activity as an employed person, and to pursue such activity, within the territory of another Member State in accordance with the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action governing the employment of nationals of that State.\n2. He shall, in particular, have the right to take up available employment in the territory of another Member State with the same priority as nationals of that State.\nArticle 2\nAny national of a Member State and any employer pursuing an activity in the territory of a Member State may exchange their applications for and offers of employment, and may conclude and perform contracts of employment in accordance with the provisions in force laid down by law, regulation or administrative action, without any discrimination resulting therefrom.\nArticle 3\n1. Under this Regulation, provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action or administrative practices of a Member State shall not apply:\n(a)\nwhere they limit application for and offers of employment, or the right of foreign nationals to take up and pursue employment or subject these to conditions not applicable in respect of their own nationals; or\n(b)\nwhere, though applicable irrespective of nationality, their exclusive or principal aim or effect is to keep nationals of other Member States away from the employment offered.\nThe first subparagraph shall not apply to conditions relating to linguistic knowledge required by reason of the nature of the post to be filled.\n2. There shall be included in particular among the provisions or practices of a Member State referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 those which:\n(a)\nprescribe a special recruitment procedure for foreign nationals;\n(b)\nlimit or restrict the advertising of vacancies in the press or through any other medium or subject it to conditions other than those applicable in respect of employers pursuing their activities in the territory of that Member State;\n(c)\nsubject eligibility for employment to conditions of registration with employment offices or impede recruitment of individual workers, where persons who do not reside in the territory of that State are concerned.\nArticle 4\n1. Provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action of the Member States which restrict by number or percentage the employment of foreign nationals in any undertaking, branch of activity or region, or at a national level, shall not apply to nationals of the other Member States.\n2. When in a Member State the granting of any benefit to undertakings is subject to a minimum percentage of national workers being employed, nationals of the other Member States shall be counted as national workers, subject to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (5).\nArticle 5\nA national of a Member State who seeks employment in the territory of another Member State shall receive the same assistance there as that afforded by the employment offices in that State to their own nationals seeking employment.\nArticle 6\n1. The engagement and recruitment of a national of one Member State for a post in another Member State shall not depend on medical, vocational or other criteria which are discriminatory on grounds of nationality by comparison with those applied to nationals of the other Member State who wish to pursue the same activity.\n2. A national who holds an offer in his name from an employer in a Member State other than that of which he is a national may have to undergo a vocational test, if the employer expressly requests this when making his offer of employment.\nSECTION 2\nEmployment and equality of treatment\nArticle 7\n1. A worker who is a national of a Member State may not, in the territory of another Member State, be treated differently from national workers by reason of his nationality in respect of any conditions of employment and work, in particular as regards remuneration, dismissal, and, should he become unemployed, reinstatement or re-employment.\n2. He shall enjoy the same social and tax advantages as national workers.\n3. He shall also, by virtue of the same right and under the same conditions as national workers, have access to training in vocational schools and retraining centres.\n4. Any clause of a collective or individual agreement or of any other collective regulation concerning eligibility for employment, remuneration and other conditions of work or dismissal shall be null and void in so far as it lays down or authorises discriminatory conditions in respect of workers who are nationals of the other Member States.\nArticle 8\nA worker who is a national of a Member State and who is employed in the territory of another Member State shall enjoy equality of treatment as regards membership of trade unions and the exercise of rights attaching thereto, including the right to vote and to be eligible for the administration or management posts of a trade union. He may be excluded from taking part in the management of bodies governed by public law and from holding an office governed by public law. Furthermore, he shall have the right of eligibility for workers\u2019 representative bodies in the undertaking.\nThe first paragraph of this Article shall not affect laws or regulations in certain Member States which grant more extensive rights to workers coming from the other Member States.\nArticle 9\n1. A worker who is a national of a Member State and who is employed in the territory of another Member State shall enjoy all the rights and benefits accorded to national workers in matters of housing, including ownership of the housing he needs.\n2. A worker referred to in paragraph 1 may, with the same right as nationals, put his name down on the housing lists in the region in which he is employed, where such lists exist, and shall enjoy the resultant benefits and priorities.\nIf his family has remained in the country whence he came, they shall be considered for this purpose as residing in the said region, where national workers benefit from a similar presumption.\nSECTION 3\nWorkers\u2019 families\nArticle 10\nThe children of a national of a Member State who is or has been employed in the territory of another Member State shall be admitted to that State\u2019s general educational, apprenticeship and vocational training courses under the same conditions as the nationals of that State, if such children are residing in its territory.\nMember States shall encourage all efforts to enable such children to attend these courses under the best possible conditions.\nCHAPTER II\nCLEARANCE OF VACANCIES AND APPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT\nSECTION 1\nCooperation between the Member States and with the Commission\nArticle 11\n1. The Member States or the Commission shall instigate or together undertake any study of employment or unemployment which they consider necessary for freedom of movement for workers within the Union.\nThe central employment services of the Member States shall cooperate closely with each other and with the Commission with a view to acting jointly as regards the clearing of vacancies and applications for employment within the Union and the resultant placing of workers in employment.\n2. To this end the Member States shall designate specialist services which shall be entrusted with organising work in the fields referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 and cooperating with each other and with the departments of the Commission.\nThe Member States shall notify the Commission of any change in the designation of such services and the Commission shall publish details thereof for information in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 12\n1. The Member States shall send to the Commission information on problems arising in connection with the freedom of movement and employment of workers and particulars of the state and development of employment.\n2. The Commission, taking the utmost account of the opinion of the Technical Committee referred to in Article 29 (\u2018the Technical Committee\u2019), shall determine the manner in which the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article is to be drawn up.\n3. In accordance with the procedure laid down by the Commission taking the utmost account of the opinion of the Technical Committee, the specialist service of each Member State shall send to the specialist services of the other Member States and to the European Coordination Office referred to in Article 18 such information concerning living and working conditions and the state of the labour market as is likely to be of guidance to workers from the other Member States. Such information shall be brought up to date regularly.\nThe specialist services of the other Member States shall ensure that wide publicity is given to such information, in particular by circulating it among the appropriate employment services and by all suitable means of communication for informing the workers concerned.\nSECTION 2\nMachinery for vacancy clearance\nArticle 13\n1. The specialist service of each Member State shall regularly send to the specialist services of the other Member States and to the European Coordination Office referred to in Article 18:\n(a)\ndetails of vacancies which could be filled by nationals of other Member States;\n(b)\ndetails of vacancies addressed to third countries;\n(c)\ndetails of applications for employment by those who have formally expressed a wish to work in another Member State;\n(d)\ninformation, by region and by branch of activity, on applicants who have declared themselves actually willing to accept employment in another country.\nThe specialist service of each Member State shall forward this information to the appropriate employment services and agencies as soon as possible.\n2. The details of vacancies and applications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be circulated according to a uniform system to be established by the European Coordination Office referred to in Article 18 in collaboration with the Technical Committee.\nThis system may be adapted if necessary.\nArticle 14\n1. Any vacancy within the meaning of Article 13 communicated to the employment services of a Member State shall be notified to and processed by the competent employment services of the other Member States concerned.\nSuch services shall forward to the services of the first Member State the details of suitable applications.\n2. The applications for employment referred to in point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) shall be responded to by the relevant services of the Member States within a reasonable period, not exceeding 1 month.\n3. The employment services shall grant workers who are nationals of the Member States the same priority as the relevant measures grant to nationals vis-\u00e0-vis workers from third countries.\nArticle 15\n1. The provisions of Article 14 shall be implemented by the specialist services. However, in so far as they have been authorised by the central services and in so far as the organisation of the employment services of a Member State and the placing techniques employed make it possible:\n(a)\nthe regional employment services of the Member States shall:\n(i)\non the basis of the information referred to in Article 13, on which appropriate action will be taken, directly bring together and clear vacancies and applications for employment;\n(ii)\nestablish direct relations for clearance:\n-\nof vacancies offered to a named worker,\n-\nof individual applications for employment sent either to a specific employment service or to an employer pursuing his activity within the area covered by such a service,\n-\nwhere the clearing operations concern seasonal workers who must be recruited as quickly as possible;\n(b)\nthe services territorially responsible for the border regions of two or more Member States shall regularly exchange data relating to vacancies and applications for employment in their area and, acting in accordance with their arrangements with the other employment services of their countries, shall directly bring together and clear vacancies and applications for employment.\nIf necessary, the services territorially responsible for border regions shall also set up cooperation and service structures to provide:\n-\nusers with as much practical information as possible on the various aspects of mobility, and\n-\nmanagement and labour, social services (in particular public, private or those of public interest) and all institutions concerned, with a framework of coordinated measures relating to mobility,\n(c)\nofficial employment services which specialise in certain occupations or specific categories of persons shall cooperate directly with each other.\n2. The Member States concerned shall forward to the Commission the list, drawn up by common accord, of services referred to in paragraph 1 and the Commission shall publish such list for information, and any amendment thereto, in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 16\nAdoption of recruiting procedures as applied by the implementing bodies provided for under agreements concluded between two or more Member States shall not be obligatory.\nSECTION 3\nMeasures for controlling the balance of the labour market\nArticle 17\n1. On the basis of a report from the Commission drawn up from information supplied by the Member States, the latter and the Commission shall at least once a year analyse jointly the results of Union arrangements regarding vacancies and applications.\n2. The Member States shall examine with the Commission all the possibilities of giving priority to nationals of Member States when filling employment vacancies in order to achieve a balance between vacancies and applications for employment within the Union. They shall adopt all measures necessary for this purpose.\n3. Every 2 years the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the implementation of Chapter II, summarising the information required and the data obtained from the studies and research carried out and highlighting any useful points with regard to developments on the Union\u2019s labour market.\nSECTION 4\nEuropean Coordination Office\nArticle 18\nThe European Office for Coordinating the Clearance of Vacancies and Applications for Employment (\u2018the European Coordination Office\u2019), established within the Commission, shall have the general task of promoting vacancy clearance at Union level. It shall be responsible in particular for all the technical duties in this field which, under the provisions of this Regulation, are assigned to the Commission, and especially for assisting the national employment services.\nIt shall summarise the information referred to in Articles 12 and 13 and the data arising out of the studies and research carried out pursuant to Article 11, so as to bring to light any useful facts about foreseeable developments on the Union labour market; such facts shall be communicated to the specialist services of the Member States and to the Advisory Committee referred to in Article 21 and the Technical Committee.\nArticle 19\n1. The European Coordination Office shall be responsible, in particular, for:\n(a)\ncoordinating the practical measures necessary for vacancy clearance at Union level and for analysing the resulting movements of workers;\n(b)\ncontributing to such objectives by implementing, in cooperation with the Technical Committee, joint methods of action at administrative and technical levels;\n(c)\ncarrying out, where a special need arises, and in agreement with the specialist services, the bringing together of vacancies and applications for employment for clearance by those specialist services.\n2. It shall communicate to the specialist services vacancies and applications for employment sent directly to the Commission, and shall be informed of the action taken thereon.\nArticle 20\nThe Commission may, in agreement with the competent authority of each Member State, and in accordance with the conditions and procedures which it shall determine on the basis of the opinion of the Technical Committee, organise visits and assignments for officials of other Member States, and also advanced programmes for specialist personnel.\nCHAPTER III\nCOMMITTEES FOR ENSURING CLOSE COOPERATION BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES IN MATTERS CONCERNING THE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT\nSECTION 1\nThe Advisory Committee\nArticle 21\nThe Advisory Committee shall be responsible for assisting the Commission in the examination of any questions arising from the application of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and measures taken in pursuance thereof, in matters concerning the freedom of movement of workers and their employment.\nArticle 22\nThe Advisory Committee shall be responsible in particular for:\n(a)\nexamining problems concerning freedom of movement and employment within the framework of national manpower policies, with a view to coordinating the employment policies of the Member States at Union level, thus contributing to the development of the economies and to an improved balance of the labour market;\n(b)\nmaking a general study of the effects of implementing this Regulation and any supplementary measures;\n(c)\nsubmitting to the Commission any reasoned proposals for revising this Regulation;\n(d)\ndelivering, either at the request of the Commission or on its own initiative, reasoned opinions on general questions or on questions of principle, in particular on exchange of information concerning developments in the labour market, on the movement of workers between Member States, on programmes or measures to develop vocational guidance and vocational training which are likely to increase the possibilities of freedom of movement and employment, and on all forms of assistance to workers and their families, including social assistance and the housing of workers.\nArticle 23\n1. The Advisory Committee shall be composed of six members for each Member State, two of whom shall represent the Government, two the trade unions and two the employers\u2019 associations.\n2. For each of the categories referred to in paragraph 1, one alternate member shall be appointed by each Member State.\n3. The term of office of the members and their alternates shall be 2 years. Their appointments shall be renewable.\nOn expiry of their term of office, the members and their alternates shall remain in office until replaced or until their appointments are renewed.\nArticle 24\nThe members of the Advisory Committee and their alternates shall be appointed by the Council, which shall endeavour, when selecting representatives of trade unions and employers\u2019 associations, to achieve adequate representation on the Committee of the various economic sectors concerned.\nThe list of members and their alternates shall be published by the Council for information in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 25\nThe Advisory Committee shall be chaired by a member of the Commission or his representative. The Chairman shall not vote. The Committee shall meet at least twice a year. It shall be convened by its Chairman, either on his own initiative, or at the request of at least one third of the members.\nSecretarial services shall be provided for the Committee by the Commission.\nArticle 26\nThe Chairman may invite individuals or representatives of bodies with wide experience in the field of employment or movement of workers to take part in meetings as observers or as experts. The Chairman may be assisted by expert advisers.\nArticle 27\n1. An opinion delivered by the Advisory Committee shall not be valid unless two thirds of the members are present.\n2. Opinions shall state the reasons on which they are based; they shall be delivered by an absolute majority of the votes validly cast; they shall be accompanied by a written statement of the views expressed by the minority, when the latter so requests.\nArticle 28\nThe Advisory Committee shall establish its working methods by rules of procedure which shall enter into force after the Council, having received an opinion from the Commission, has given its approval. The entry into force of any amendment that the Committee decides to make thereto shall be subject to the same procedure.\nSECTION 2\nThe Technical Committee\nArticle 29\nThe Technical Committee shall be responsible for assisting the Commission in the preparation, promotion and follow-up of all technical work and measures for giving effect to this Regulation and any supplementary measures.\nArticle 30\nThe Technical Committee shall be responsible in particular for:\n(a)\npromoting and advancing cooperation between the public authorities concerned in the Member States on all technical questions relating to freedom of movement of workers and their employment;\n(b)\nformulating procedures for the organisation of the joint activities of the public authorities concerned;\n(c)\nfacilitating the gathering of information likely to be of use to the Commission and the undertaking of the studies and research provided for in this Regulation, and encouraging exchange of information and experience between the administrative bodies concerned;\n(d)\ninvestigating at a technical level the harmonisation of the criteria by which Member States assess the state of their labour markets.\nArticle 31\n1. The Technical Committee shall be composed of representatives of the Governments of the Member States. Each Government shall appoint as member of the Technical Committee one of the members who represent it on the Advisory Committee.\n2. Each Government shall appoint an alternate from among its other representatives - members or alternates - on the Advisory Committee.\nArticle 32\nThe Technical Committee shall be chaired by a member of the Commission or his representative. The Chairman shall not vote. The Chairman and the members of the Committee may be assisted by expert advisers.\nSecretarial services shall be provided for the Committee by the Commission.\nArticle 33\nThe proposals and opinions formulated by the Technical Committee shall be submitted to the Commission, and the Advisory Committee shall be informed thereof. Any such proposals and opinions shall be accompanied by a written statement of the views expressed by the various members of the Technical Committee, when the latter so request.\nArticle 34\nThe Technical Committee shall establish its working methods by rules of procedure which shall enter into force after the Council, having received an opinion from the Commission, has given its approval. The entry into force of any amendment which the Committee decides to make thereto shall be subject to the same procedure.\nCHAPTER IV\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 35\nThe rules of procedure of the Advisory Committee and of the Technical Committee in force on 8 November 1968 shall continue to apply.\nArticle 36\n1. This Regulation shall not affect the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community which deal with eligibility for skilled employment in the field of nuclear energy, nor any measures taken in pursuance of that Treaty.\nNevertheless, this Regulation shall apply to the category of workers referred to in the first subparagraph and to members of their families in so far as their legal position is not governed by the above-mentioned Treaty or measures.\n2. This Regulation shall not affect measures taken in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n3. This Regulation shall not affect the obligations of Member States arising out of special relations or future agreements with certain non-European countries or territories, based on institutional ties existing on 8 November 1968, or agreements in existence on 8 November 1968 with certain non-European countries or territories, based on institutional ties between them.\nWorkers from such countries or territories who, in accordance with this provision, are pursuing activities as employed persons in the territory of one of those Member States may not invoke the benefit of the provisions of this Regulation in the territory of the other Member States.\nArticle 37\nMember States shall, for information purposes, communicate to the Commission the texts of agreements, conventions or arrangements concluded between them in the manpower field between the date of their being signed and that of their entry into force.\nArticle 38\nThe Commission shall adopt measures pursuant to this Regulation for its implementation. To this end it shall act in close cooperation with the central public authorities of the Member States.\nArticle 39\nThe administrative expenditure of the Advisory Committee and of the Technical Committee shall be included in the general budget of the European Union in the section relating to the Commission.\nArticle 40\nThis Regulation shall apply to the Member States and to their nationals, without prejudice to Articles 2 and 3.\nArticle 41\nRegulation (EEC) No 1612/68 is hereby repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II.\nArticle 42\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 5 April 2011.", "references": ["46", "13", "40", "95", "53", "4", "17", "21", "77", "98", "9", "88", "97", "79", "65", "90", "1", "16", "15", "45", "73", "34", "85", "28", "71", "75", "62", "82", "94", "74", "No Label", "14", "49", "50"], "gold": ["14", "49", "50"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 473/2012\nof 4 June 2012\namending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for spinetoram (XDE-175) in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 18(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor spinetoram (XDE-175) MRLs are set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (2), France notified on 11 May 2012 to the Commission the temporary authorisation of plant protection products containing the active substance spinetoram (XDE-175), due to an unexpected outbreak of Drosophila suzukii, a danger that was unforeseeable and could not be contained by any other reasonable means. Consequently, France has also notified to the other Member States, the Commission and the Authority in accordance with Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 that it has authorised the placing on the market in its territory of cherries, raspberries and blueberries containing pesticide residues higher than the MRLs. Currently, those MRLs are established at the limit of determination in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(3)\nFrance submitted to the Commission an appropriate consumer risk assesment and proposed temporary MRLs on that basis.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \"the Authority\", assessed the data provided and issued a statement (3) on the safety of the proposed temporary MRLs.\n(5)\nThe Authority concluded that the emergency use of spinetoram (XDE-175) on cherries, raspberries and blueberries is not likely to result in a consumer exposure exceeding the toxicological reference value and therefore is not expected to pose a public health concern.\n(6)\nFrance did not report details of supervised field trials, nor complete a quality assessment of such trials. The Authority had to base its statement on the assumption that the supervised field trials are valid and confirm the proposed temporary MRLs. In order to verify the correctness of the assumption, France should update the evaluation report as soon as possible.\n(7)\nBased on the statement of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nGiven that the emergency uses of plant protection products concerning spinetoram are already authorized by France and the resulting urgent need to ensure a high level of consumer protection, it is appropriate to provide for the MRLs by applying the procedure referred to in Article 45(5) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the next day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 June 2012.", "references": ["59", "17", "83", "56", "43", "15", "0", "73", "37", "70", "9", "26", "16", "4", "88", "54", "50", "89", "11", "31", "2", "55", "90", "35", "64", "52", "3", "79", "10", "97", "No Label", "25", "38", "65", "68", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "65", "68", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 2 July 2012\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency measures taken to combat avian influenza in Poland in 2007\n(Only the Polish text is authentic)\n(2012/350/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3) first and second indents of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nArticle 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2008/557/EC of 27 June 2008 on a financial contribution from the Community towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Poland in 2007 (3) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Poland in 2007. An official request for reimbursement was submitted by Poland on 13 March 2008, as set out in Article 7(1) and 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(5)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union is to be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines. Decision 2008/557/EC provided that a first tranche of EUR 845 000,00 be paid as part of the Union\u2019s financial contribution. Commission Implementing Decision 2011/799/EU (4) provided that a second tranche of EUR 750 000,00 be paid as part of the Union\u2019s financial contribution.\n(6)\nPoland has in accordance with Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC without delay informed the Commission and the other Member States of the measures applied in accordance with Union legislation on notification and eradication and the results thereof. The request for reimbursement was, as required in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005, accompanied by a financial report, supporting documents, an epidemiological report on each holding where the animals have been slaughtered or destroyed and the results of respective audits.\n(7)\nAn audit according to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 was carried out by the Commission\u2019s services. The Commission\u2019s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Poland on 23 December 2011. Poland agreed by letter dated 3 April 2012.\n(8)\nConsequently the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred in connection with the eradication of avian influenza in Poland in 2007 can now be fixed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating avian influenza in Poland in 2007 is fixed at EUR 1 648 571,50.\nArticle 2\nThe balance of the financial contribution is fixed at EUR 53 571,50.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision constituting a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation is addressed to the Republic of Poland.\nDone at Brussels, 2 July 2012.", "references": ["70", "8", "14", "48", "55", "43", "74", "85", "68", "53", "27", "50", "76", "63", "25", "80", "31", "98", "49", "88", "83", "17", "24", "44", "47", "81", "95", "58", "41", "13", "No Label", "4", "10", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 772/2011\nof 2 August 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2011.", "references": ["70", "94", "58", "38", "53", "40", "25", "95", "29", "87", "44", "78", "4", "33", "73", "89", "68", "96", "62", "93", "15", "65", "2", "56", "75", "43", "60", "71", "14", "39", "No Label", "21", "54"], "gold": ["21", "54"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 413/2012\nof 15 May 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 496/2011 as regards the minimum content of sodium benzoate as a feed additive in feed for weaned piglets\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe use of sodium benzoate, belonging to the additive category of \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019, was authorised for 10 years as a feed additive for use in weaned piglets by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 496/2011 (2).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, the holder of the authorisation has proposed changing the terms of authorisation of the substance concerned by reducing its minimum concentration from 99,9 % to 99,0 % as regards use on weaned piglets. That application was accompanied by the relevant supporting data.\n(3)\nThe European Food Safety Authority concluded in its opinion of 15 November 2011 that the substance concerned is safe for humans, the target species and the environment, and under the same conditions of use as the current formulation, its use is efficacious in weaned piglets at the requested minimum content of \u2265 99,0 % (3).\n(4)\nThe conditions provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 are satisfied.\n(5)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 496/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn column 4 of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 496/2011 the words \u2018Sodium benzoate: \u2265 99,9 %\u2019 are replaced by \u2018Sodium benzoate: \u2265 99,0 %\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 May 2012.", "references": ["82", "52", "71", "57", "0", "31", "34", "43", "27", "62", "23", "21", "94", "60", "40", "90", "46", "4", "8", "56", "39", "72", "63", "95", "70", "6", "54", "87", "91", "80", "No Label", "25", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 54/2012\nof 23 January 2012\nimplementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 961/2010.\n(2)\nOn 1 December 2011, the Council reiterated its serious and deepening concerns over the nature of Iran's nuclear programme, and in particular over the findings on Iranian activities relating to the development of military nuclear technology, as reflected in the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report. In the light of these concerns and in accordance with the European Council Declaration of 23 October 2011, the Council agreed to broaden existing sanctions.\n(3)\nOn 9 December 2011, the European Council endorsed the Council conclusions of 1 December 2011 and invited the Council to proceed with its work relating to extending the scope of EU restrictive measures against Iran as a matter of priority.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2), additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010. In addition, the entries for certain persons and entities included in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The persons and entities listed in Annex I to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010.\n2. The entity mentioned in Annex II to this Regulation shall be removed from the list set out in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010.\n3. The entries in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 shall be amended as set out in Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["84", "85", "42", "87", "21", "91", "23", "53", "4", "79", "98", "16", "10", "2", "46", "15", "1", "62", "31", "26", "68", "90", "43", "48", "47", "93", "12", "76", "96", "67", "No Label", "3", "5", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 8 July 2010\namending the Annexes to Decision 93/52/EEC as regards the recognition of Lithuania and the region of Molise in Italy as officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis) and amending the Annexes to Decision 2003/467/EC as regards the declaration of certain administrative regions of Italy as officially free of bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis and enzootic-bovine-leukosis\n(notified under document C(2010) 4592)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/391/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), and in particular Annex A(I)(4), Annex A(II)(7) and Annex D(I)(E) thereto,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals (2), and in particular Section II of Chapter 1 of Annex A thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 91/68/EEC defines the animal health conditions governing trade in the Union in ovine and caprine animals. It lays down the conditions whereby Member States or regions thereof are to be recognised as being officially brucellosis-free.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 93/52/EEC of 21 December 1992 recording the compliance by certain Member States or regions with the requirements relating to brucellosis (B. melitensis) and according them the status of a Member State or region officially free of the disease (3) lists, in the Annexes thereto, the Member States and regions thereof which are recognised as officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis) in accordance with Directive 91/68/EEC.\n(3)\nLithuania has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the appropriate conditions laid down in Directive 91/68/EEC in order to be recognised as officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis) as regards its whole territory. That Member State should therefore be recognised as being officially free of that disease. Annex I to Decision 93/52/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nItaly has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the appropriate conditions laid down in Directive 91/68/EEC as regards all the provinces in the region of Molise in order for that region to be recognised as officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis). That region should therefore be recognised as being officially free of that disease.\n(5)\nItaly has also requested that amendments be made to the entry for that Member State in the list of regions of the Member States which are recognised as officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis) in Annex II to Decision 93/52/EEC. The current administrative division of Italy splits the region Trentino-Alto Adige into two distinct regions: namely the province of Bolzano and the province of Trento. The region of Sardegna has been divided into eight provinces. In addition, as all the provinces of the regions of Lombardia, Piemonte, Toscana, Sardegna and Umbria have already been recognised as officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis), those entire regions should be recognised as officially free of that disease.\n(6)\nThe entry for Italy in Annex II to Decision 93/52/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nDirective 64/432/EEC applies to trade in the Union in bovine animals and swine. It lays down the conditions whereby a Member State or part or region thereof may be declared officially free of tuberculosis, brucellosis and enzootic-bovine-leukosis as regards bovine herds.\n(8)\nCommission Decision 2003/467/EC of 23 June 2003 establishing the official tuberculosis, brucellosis and enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free status of certain Member States and regions of Member States as regards bovine herds (4) lists such Member States and regions in Annexes I, II and III respectively to that Decision.\n(9)\nItaly has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the appropriate conditions laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC as regards all provinces of the regions of Lombardia and Toscana, and the provinces of Cagliari, Medio-Campidano, Ogliastra and Olbia-Tempio in the region of Sardegna in order that those regions and provinces may be declared officially tuberculosis-free regions of Italy.\n(10)\nItaly has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the appropriate conditions laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC as regards the province of Campobasso in the region of Molise in order that that province may be declared an officially brucellosis-free region of Italy.\n(11)\nItaly has also submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the appropriate conditions laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC as regards the province of Napoli in the region of Campania, the province of Brindisi in the region of Puglia and the provinces of Agrigento, Caltanissetta, Siracusa and Trapani in the region of Sicily in order that they may be declared officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free regions of Italy.\n(12)\nFollowing evaluation of the documentation submitted by Italy, the provinces and the regions concerned should be declared officially tuberculosis-free, officially brucellosis-free and officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free regions of Italy respectively.\n(13)\nItaly has also requested that amendments be made to the entry for that Member State in the lists of regions of the Member States declared officially free of tuberculosis, brucellosis and officially free of enzootic-bovine-leukosis in the Annexes to Decision 2003/467/EC. The current administrative division of Italy splits the region Trentino-Alto Adige into two distinct regions: namely the province of Bolzano and province of Trento.\n(14)\nIn addition, as all the provinces of the regions of Emilia-Romagna, Lombardia, Sardegna and Umbria listed in Chapter 2 of Annex II to Decision 2003/467/EC have already been declared officially free of brucellosis and all the provinces of the regions of Emilia-Romagna, Lombardia, Marche, Piemonte, Toscana, Umbria and Val d\u2019Aosta listed in Chapter 2 of Annex III to Decision 2003/467/EC have already been declared officially free of enzootic-bovine-leukosis, those entire regions should be considered as officially free of those respective diseases.\n(15)\nThe Annexes to Decision 2003/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(16)\nDecisions 93/52/EEC and 2003/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annexes to Decision 93/52/EEC are amended in accordance with Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Annexes to Decision 2003/467/EC are amended in accordance with Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 July 2010.", "references": ["89", "20", "25", "64", "56", "6", "90", "1", "78", "74", "45", "19", "70", "76", "49", "0", "62", "69", "93", "59", "53", "34", "83", "88", "63", "35", "5", "86", "96", "58", "No Label", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "92"], "gold": ["38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "92"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 126/2012\nof 14 February 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 as regards documentary evidence and amending Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from the United States of America\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (1), and in particular Article 33(2) and (3) and Article 38(c) and (d) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 requires control authorities and control bodies to provide documentary evidence to the operators subject to their controls.\n(2)\nAccording to Article 28(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, operators who export products produced in compliance with the production rules laid down in that Regulation must submit their undertaking to the control system referred to in Article 27 of that Regulation.\n(3)\nUnder that control system and in the light of the production rules established by Article 14(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and by Article 24 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (2), the control authorities and the control bodies currently verify the livestock records of the operator, including regarding veterinary treatment and the use of antibiotics. In the light of this concrete application of the control system and in the interest of organic livestock producers in the Union, it is appropriate to ensure the identification of certain production methods not using antibiotics when such identification is requested by the operator. Adequate information about the specific characteristics of the production method is also needed in order to facilitate the market access to the United States. Those specific characteristics should be attested through complementary documentary evidence provided in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, in addition to the documentary evidence referred to in Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008.\n(4)\nCertain agricultural products imported from the United States are currently marketed in the Union pursuant to the transitional rules provided for in Article 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 of 8 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries (3). The United States submitted a request to the Commission to be included in the list provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008. It submitted the information required pursuant to Articles 7 and 8 of that Regulation. The examination of that information and subsequent discussions with the US authorities have led to the conclusion that in that country the rules governing the production and controls of organic agricultural products are equivalent to those laid down in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. The Commission has carried out a satisfactory on-the-spot check of the rules of production and the control measures actually applied in the United States, as provided for in Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. Consequently, the United States should be included in the list set out in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008.\n(5)\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 contains a list of control bodies and control authorities competent to carry out controls and issue certificates in third countries for the purpose of equivalence. As a consequence of the inclusion of the United States in Annex III to that Regulation, the relevant US control bodies and control authorities should be deleted from Annex IV to the extent that they control production in the United States.\n(6)\nRegulations (EC) No 889/2008 and (EC) No 1235/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the regulatory Committee on organic production,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 889/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 63(1), the following point (d) is added:\n\u2018(d)\nthe specific characteristics of the production method used, where the operator intends to request documentary evidence in accordance with Article 68(2).\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 68 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 68\nDocumentary evidence\n1. For the purpose of the application of Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 the control authorities and control bodies shall use the model of the documentary evidence set out in Annex XII to this Regulation.\n2. If an operator subject to the controls of the control authorities and control bodies as referred to in paragraph 1 so requests within a time period to be indicated by those control authorities and control bodies, the control authorities and control bodies shall provide complementary documentary evidence confirming the specific characteristics of the production method used by means of the model set out in Annex XIIa.\nApplications for complementary documentary evidence shall contain in box 2 of the model set out in Annex XIIa the relevant entry listed in Annex XIIb.\u2019;\n(3)\nin the title of Annex XII, the reference to \u2018Article 68\u2019 is replaced by a reference to \u2018Article 68(1)\u2019;\n(4)\nAnnexes XIIa and XIIb are inserted as set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAnnexes III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 are amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply as from 1 June 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 February 2012.", "references": ["99", "61", "10", "12", "65", "57", "16", "48", "52", "40", "77", "50", "98", "15", "47", "1", "17", "88", "36", "78", "58", "43", "5", "60", "4", "35", "0", "89", "62", "69", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "25", "38", "72", "76", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "25", "38", "72", "76", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 June 2010\napproving the conclusion, by the European Commission on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community, of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and Turkmenistan, of the other part, and the Exchange of Letters amending the Interim Agreement as regards the authentic language versions\n(2011/186/Euratom)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 101 thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPending the entry into force of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Turkmenistan, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 25 May 1998, it is necessary to approve the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and Turkmenistan, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 10 November 1999 (\u2018Interim Agreement\u2019) (1).\n(2)\nArticle 31 of the Interim Agreement should be amended in order to take into account the new official languages of the Union since the signature of the Interim Agreement, by the Exchange of Letters between the European Community and Turkmenistan amending the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and Turkmenistan, of the other part, as regards the authentic language versions (\u2018Exchange of Letters\u2019) (2).\n(3)\nThe conclusion, by the European Commission on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community, of the Interim Agreement, its Annexes, the Protocol and the declarations, and the Exchange of Letters, should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nThe conclusion by the European Commission, on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community, of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and Turkmenistan of the other part, together with its Annexes, the Protocol and the declarations, and the Exchange of Letters between the European Community and Turkmenistan amending the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and Turkmenistan, of the other part, as regards the authentic language versions, is hereby approved.\nDone at Luxembourg, 14 June 2010.", "references": ["81", "52", "0", "53", "70", "45", "22", "25", "40", "26", "37", "83", "34", "19", "46", "84", "63", "62", "58", "43", "92", "98", "79", "66", "56", "18", "7", "10", "48", "28", "No Label", "3", "4", "9", "78", "95", "97"], "gold": ["3", "4", "9", "78", "95", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 198/2011\nof 28 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["75", "53", "40", "16", "59", "63", "12", "6", "44", "30", "41", "58", "8", "60", "93", "4", "33", "72", "98", "32", "34", "92", "90", "94", "77", "76", "24", "65", "31", "56", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1115/2011\nof 4 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 November 2011.", "references": ["83", "64", "53", "84", "91", "1", "39", "3", "57", "4", "73", "52", "13", "5", "94", "97", "14", "38", "29", "49", "86", "69", "76", "98", "77", "28", "19", "47", "90", "59", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 842/2010\nof 23 September 2010\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Community,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2010.", "references": ["76", "92", "78", "68", "95", "37", "80", "31", "53", "50", "98", "91", "17", "29", "82", "9", "44", "3", "0", "46", "10", "12", "67", "54", "28", "8", "64", "75", "52", "74", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 April 2010\nappointing one Austrian member and one Austrian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/242/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Austrian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Herbert SAUSGRUBER. An alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Markus WALLNER as a member of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas member:\n-\nHerr Landesstatthalter Mag. Markus WALLNER, Stellvertretender Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg (change of mandate),\nand\n(b)\nas alternate member:\n-\nFrau Landtagspr\u00e4sidentin Dr. Bernadette MENNEL, Pr\u00e4sidentin des Vorarlberger Landtags.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["60", "76", "58", "1", "95", "47", "61", "87", "5", "41", "16", "31", "11", "22", "4", "2", "28", "24", "88", "49", "30", "75", "25", "79", "23", "26", "9", "99", "27", "93", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 911/2011\nof 9 September 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 902/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 September 2011.", "references": ["21", "97", "56", "59", "78", "0", "75", "11", "23", "86", "45", "16", "8", "62", "98", "83", "36", "67", "74", "1", "88", "60", "51", "44", "57", "41", "79", "14", "2", "63", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 1152/2011\nof 14 July 2011\nsupplementing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards preventive health measures for the control of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in dogs\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 lays down animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals. In particular, it lays down rules applicable to non-commercial movements into Member States of dogs, cats and ferrets and provides, where necessary, for preventive health measures to be adopted by means of delegated acts to ensure the control of diseases, other than rabies, likely to be spread due to the movement of those animals. Those measures are to be scientifically justified and proportionate to the risk of the spread of those diseases by such movements.\n(2)\nIn addition, Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that pet animals are to be accompanied by a passport issued by a veterinarian authorised by the competent authority certifying, where necessary, that preventive health measures regarding diseases other than rabies were carried out on the animal in question.\n(3)\nAlveolar echinococcosis is a parasitic disease caused by the tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis. Where the disease is established, the typical transmission cycle of the parasite in Europe is wildlife-based and involves wild carnivores as definitive hosts and several species of mammals, notably small rodents, as intermediate hosts which become infected by ingesting eggs disseminated with the faeces of definitive hosts into the environment.\n(4)\nAlthough of secondary importance for the persistence of the life cycle of the parasite in endemic settings, dogs can be infested by ingesting infected rodents. As potential definitive hosts and due to close contacts to human, they may serve as a source of infection for humans as well as a source of contamination of the environment, including parasite-free areas behind natural barriers. There are no reports of ferrets being definitive hosts and according to the current knowledge, the contribution of cats to the transmission cycle is doubtful.\n(5)\nWhere humans are affected as aberrant intermediate hosts by the larval form of the tapeworm, severe clinical and pathological signs of the disease are observed after a long incubation period and in untreated or in inadequately treated patients, mortality may be more than 90 %. The increasing prevalence of the disease in wildlife, and in parallel in humans, in certain parts of Europe causes serious concern for public health authorities in many Member States.\n(6)\nWhile Echinococcus multilocularis infection in animals occurs in the northern hemisphere, including central and northern parts of Europe, Asia and North America, it has never been recorded in domestic and wild definitive hosts in certain areas of the European Union despite ongoing surveillance of wildlife and unrestricted access of dogs.\n(7)\nThe transboundary movement of infected wildlife has been identified by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), in a scientific opinion on the Assessment of the risk of echinococcosis introduction into the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, Malta and Finland as a consequence of abandoning national rules (2), as the main potential route of incursion of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite, especially in areas lacking effective physical barriers, such as open seas. The EFSA considers that the epidemiological role of dogs in endemic settings is of limited importance for the life cycle of the parasite.\n(8)\nHowever, the EFSA considers that the risk of the transmission cycle of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite being established in suitable wild intermediate and definitive hosts in previously parasite-free areas is greater than negligible, where the parasite is introduced through the movement of infected dogs shedding eggs of the tapeworm.\n(9)\nAccording to the EFSA, the risk of introducing the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite into previously parasite-free areas could be mitigated if dogs from endemic areas are treated. In order to prevent re-infection, such treatment should be applied as soon as possible prior to entry into the areas free of that parasite. However, a minimum post-treatment period of 24 hours is necessary to prevent the shedding of residual amounts of infectious eggs in the environment of the parasite-free area.\n(10)\nTo ensure their effectiveness for the control of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in dogs, the medicinal products should have been granted a marketing authorisation in accordance with either Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (3) or Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing the European Medicines Agency (4), or should have been approved or licensed by the competent authority of the third country of origin of the animal.\n(11)\nArticle 16 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom, as regards echinococcosis, may make the entry of pet animals into their territory subject to compliance with the special rules applicable on the date of entry into force of that Regulation. Because Article 16 of that Regulation applies only until 31 December 2011, it is necessary to adopt measures before that date, in order to ensure continuous protection of those Member States mentioned in that Article that claim to have remained free of the parasite as a result of applying national rules.\n(12)\nExperience has shown that the 24 to 48 hour treatment window required by some Member States under national rules in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 may be very burdensome or even not feasible for pet owners especially when the treatment has to be carried out during weekends and public holidays or when the departure after treatment is delayed for reasons beyond the control of the owner.\n(13)\nGiven the experience of some other Member States which permit a longer treatment window under national rules in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 and have remained free from the parasite, a reasonable increase in that treatment window to a 24 to 120 hour period should not significantly enhance the risk of re-infection of treated dogs from endemic areas with the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite.\n(14)\nThe preventive health measures for the control of Echinococcus multilocularis infections in dogs should therefore consist in the documented administration by a veterinarian of an effective authorised or licensed medicinal product which guarantees the timely elimination of the intestinal forms of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite.\n(15)\nThe treatment should be documented in the relevant section of the passport as established by Commission Decision 2003/803/EC of 26 November 2003 establishing a model passport for the intra-Community movements of dogs, cats and ferrets (5) or the health certificate established by Commission Decision 2004/824/EC of 1 December 2004 establishing a model health certificate for non-commercial movements of dogs, cats and ferrets from third countries into the Community (6).\n(16)\nConsidering that the preventive health measures are burdensome, they should be applied proportionately to the risk of the spread of Echinococcus multilocularis infection through the non-commercial movements of pet dogs. Therefore, it is appropriate to mitigate such risks by applying the preventive health measures provided for in this Regulation to non-commercial movements of dogs entering the territory of Member States or parts thereof in which the infection was not recorded, namely those Member States listed in Part A of Annex I to this Regulation.\n(17)\nIn addition, and for a strictly limited period of time, the preventive health measures should be also applied to prevent the re-introduction of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite into Member States or parts thereof with a low prevalence of that parasite and where a compulsory programme for its eradication in wild definitive hosts is being implemented, namely those Member States listed in Part B of Annex I to this Regulation.\n(18)\nCouncil Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (7) lays down, amongst others, animal health rules for trade in and imports from third countries of dogs. The health requirements in Articles 10 and 16 of that Directive refer to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003. Therefore, in the interests of consistency of Union legislation, it is appropriate that the programmes for the eradication of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in wild definitive hosts be drawn up and presented to the Commission outlining in particular the elements in Article 14(1) of Directive 92/65/EEC.\n(19)\nAs the movement of dogs from an area free of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite presents a negligible risk of spreading the disease, the preventive health measures should not be required for dogs coming from Member States or parts thereof listed in Part A of Annex I to this Regulation.\n(20)\nSweden has reported cases of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in wildlife since January 2011, while Ireland, Finland and the United Kingdom have submitted to the Commission results of their surveillance for the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite in wild definite hosts which support their claim of the absence of the parasite in their respective ecosystems.\n(21)\nMalta has submitted evidence that suitable definitive wildlife host animals are missing on the island, that the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite has never been recorded in indigenous domestic definitive hosts and that the environment does not support a significant population of potential intermediate host animals.\n(22)\nFrom the information submitted by Ireland, Malta, Finland and the United Kingdom, it is clear that those Member States comply with one of the conditions for being listed in Part A of Annex I to this Regulation for the whole of their territory. Accordingly, they should be permitted to apply the preventive health measures provided for in this Regulation from 1 January 2012, when the transitional measure provided for in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 expires.\n(23)\nAccording to the EFSA\u2019s opinion of 2006, the shedding of infectious eggs of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite does not commence until 28 days after ingestion of an infected intermediate host. Therefore, this Regulation should lay down the conditions for granting derogations in the case of dogs residing for less than 28 days following the application of preventive health measures on the territory of Member States or parts thereof listed in Annex I to this Regulation, since those dogs do not represent a risk of introducing that parasite,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\nThis Regulation establishes preventive health measures for the control of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in dogs intended for non-commercial movements into the territories of the Member States or parts thereof, which are determined on the basis of:\n(a)\nthe absence of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite in definitive host animals; or\n(b)\nthe implementation of a programme for the eradication of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite in wild definitive host animals, within a defined timescale.\nArticle 2\nGeographical application of preventive health measures\n1. Member States listed in Annex I shall apply the preventive health measures provided for in Article 7 (\u2018the preventive health measures\u2019) to dogs intended for non-commercial movements entering into the territory of those Member States or parts thereof listed in that Annex.\n2. Member States listed in Part A of Annex I shall not apply the preventive health measures to the dogs intended for non-commercial movements coming directly from another Member State or parts thereof listed in that Part.\n3. Member States listed in Part B of Annex I shall not apply the preventive health measures to dogs intended for non-commercial movements coming directly from another Member State or parts thereof listed in Part A.\nArticle 3\nConditions for listing Member States or parts thereof in Part A of Annex I\nMember States shall be listed in Part A of Annex I, for the whole or parts of their territory, where they have submitted to the Commission an application documenting compliance with at least one of the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey have declared, in accordance with the procedure recommended in paragraph 3 of Article 1.4.6 of Chapter 1.4 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 2010 Edition, Volume 1, of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the whole or part of their territory to be free from Echinococcus multilocularis infection in definitive host animals, and rules are in place for Echinococcus multilocularis infection in host animals to be compulsorily notifiable under national law;\n(b)\nduring the 15 years prior to the date of that application and without applying a pathogen-specific surveillance programme they have not recorded any occurrence of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in host animals provided that during the 10 years prior to the date of that application the following conditions have been met:\n(i)\nrules have been in place for Echinococcus multilocularis infection in host animals to be compulsorily notifiable under national law;\n(ii)\nan early detection system for Echinococcus multilocularis infection in host animals has been in place;\n(iii)\nappropriate measures to prevent the introduction of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite through domestic definitive host animals have been in place;\n(iv)\ninfection with the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite has not been known to be established in the wild host animals on their territory;\n(c)\nthey have implemented, for three 12-month periods prior to the date of that application, a pathogen-specific surveillance programme which complies with the requirements of Annex II and has not recorded any occurrence of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in wild definitive host animals, and such occurrences are compulsorily notifiable under national law.\nArticle 4\nConditions for listing Member States or parts thereof in Part B of Annex I\nMember States shall be listed in Part B of Annex I for not more than five 12-month surveillance periods where they have submitted to the Commission an application documenting that:\n(a)\na compulsory programme, in line with the indents in Article 14(1) of Directive 92/65/EEC, for the eradication of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in wild definitive host animals has been implemented in the whole or part of their territory to be listed in that Part;\n(b)\nrules are in place for Echinococcus multilocularis infection in host animals to be compulsorily notifiable under national law.\nArticle 5\nObligations of Member States listed in Annex I\n1. Member States listed in Annex I shall have in place:\n(a)\nrules for Echinococcus multilocularis infection in host animals to be compulsorily notifiable under national law;\n(b)\nan early detection system for Echinococcus multilocularis infection in host animals.\n2. Member States listed in Annex I shall implement a pathogen-specific surveillance programme which is drawn up and carried out in accordance with Annex II.\n3. Member States listed in Annex I shall immediately notify to the Commission and the other Member States the detection of any Echinococcus multilocularis infection in samples taken from wild definitive host animals:\n(a)\nduring the previous 12-month surveillance period, in the case of Member States or parts thereof listed in Part A of Annex I; or\n(b)\nafter the first 24-month period following the beginning of the compulsory programme provided for in Article 4 for the eradication of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in wild definitive host animals in Member States or parts thereof listed in Part B of Annex I.\n4. Member States listed in Annex I shall report to the Commission the results of the pathogen-specific surveillance programme referred to in paragraph 2 by 31 May following the end of each 12-month surveillance period.\nArticle 6\nConditions for delisting Member States or parts thereof from Annex I\nThe Commission shall remove Member States or parts thereof from the respective list set out in Annex I when:\n(a)\nthe conditions set up in Article 5(1) no longer apply; or\n(b)\nthe occurrence of any Echinococcus multilocularis infection in definitive host animals has been detected during the surveillance periods referred to in Article 5(3); or\n(c)\nthe report referred to in Article 5(4) has not been supplied to the Commission within the set deadline provided for in Article 5(4); or\n(d)\nthe eradication programme provided for in Article 4 has been terminated.\nArticle 7\nPreventive health measures\n1. Dogs intended for non-commercial movements into Member States or parts thereof listed in Annex I shall be treated against mature and immature intestinal forms of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite within a period of not more than 120 hours and not less than 24 hours before the time of their scheduled entry into such Member States or parts thereof.\n2. The treatment provided for in paragraph 1 shall be administered by a veterinarian and shall consist of a medicinal product:\n(a)\nwhich contains the appropriate dose of:\n(i)\npraziquantel; or\n(ii)\npharmacologically active substances, which alone or in combination, have been proven to reduce the burden of mature and immature intestinal forms of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite in the host species concerned;\n(b)\nwhich has been granted:\n(i)\na marketing authorisation in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2001/82/EC or Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004; or\n(ii)\nan approval or a licence by the competent authority of the third country of provenance of the dog intended for non-commercial movement.\n3. The treatment provided for in paragraph 1 shall be certified by:\n(a)\nthe administering veterinarian in the relevant section of the model passport established by Decision 2003/803/EC, in the case of intra-Union non-commercial movements of dogs; or\n(b)\nan official veterinarian in the relevant section of the model animal health certificate established by Decision 2004/824/EC, in the case of non-commercial movements of dogs from a third country.\nArticle 8\nDerogation from the application of the preventive health measures\n1. By way of derogation from Article 7(1), the non-commercial movement into Member States or parts thereof listed in Annex I shall be permitted for dogs which have been subjected to the preventive health measures as provided for:\n(a)\nin Article 7(2) and Article 7(3)(a), at least twice at an interval of a maximum of 28 days and the treatment is repeated thereafter at regular intervals not exceeding 28 days;\n(b)\nin Article 7(2) and (3), not less than 24 hours before the time of entering, and not more than 28 days prior to the date of completing the transit, in which case those dogs must pass through a travellers\u2019 point of entry listed by that Member State in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003.\n2. The derogation provided for in paragraph 1 shall only apply to movements of dogs entering those Member States or parts thereof listed in Annex I which have:\n(a)\nnotified the Commission of the conditions for the control of such movements; and\n(b)\nmade such conditions publicly available.\nArticle 9\nRevision\nThe Commission shall:\n(a)\nreview this Regulation no later than 5 years following the date of its entry into force in the light of scientific developments regarding Echinococcus multilocularis infection in animals;\n(b)\nsubmit the results of its review to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nThe review shall, in particular, assess the proportionality and the scientific justification of the preventive health measures.\nArticle 10\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 July 2011.", "references": ["87", "32", "96", "55", "24", "27", "93", "81", "83", "59", "49", "56", "46", "1", "25", "67", "39", "7", "18", "78", "29", "68", "28", "72", "2", "63", "5", "0", "85", "62", "No Label", "38", "54", "61", "66"], "gold": ["38", "54", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 192/2011\nof 25 February 2011\nestablishing special measures as regards the private storage aid for pigmeat laid down by Regulation (EU) No 68/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 of 20 August 2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products (2), and in particular Article 23(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAn examination of the situation has indicated a risk that there will be an excessively large number of applications for the private storage aid scheme for pigmeat introduced by Commission Regulation (EU) No 68/2011 of 28 January 2011 on fixing the amount of aid in advance for private storage of pigmeat (3).\n(2)\nTherefore, it is necessary to suspend application of the scheme established by Regulation (EU) No 68/2011 and reject the applications in question.\n(3)\nIn order to avoid speculation, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Application of Regulation (EU) No 68/2011 is hereby suspended for the period 27 February 2011 to 4 March 2011. Applications to conclude contracts submitted during this period shall not be accepted.\n2. Applications submitted from 22 February 2011, whose acceptance would have been decided during the period referred to in paragraph 1, are hereby rejected.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 February 2011.", "references": ["46", "94", "56", "3", "97", "14", "81", "53", "49", "15", "25", "21", "47", "71", "95", "91", "24", "80", "6", "9", "77", "11", "22", "1", "87", "63", "8", "98", "79", "43", "No Label", "26", "61", "62", "69"], "gold": ["26", "61", "62", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 634/2011\nof 29 June 2011\nopening a standing invitation to tender for the 2010/2011 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe world market prices for sugar have been at a constant high level during the first months of the 2010/2011 marketing year, which has slowed down the pace of imports in particular from third countries benefiting from certain preferential agreements.\n(2)\nConfronted with this situation, the Commission recently adopted a series of measures with the purpose to bring additional supply to the Union market. Those measures included Commission Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 of 3 March 2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2010/2011 (2), which increased the combined availability of sugar and isoglucose on the Union market by 526 000 tonnes, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2011 of 28 March 2011 opening an exceptional import tariff quota for certain quantities of sugar in the 2010/11 marketing year (3), which suspended the import duties for sugar falling within CN 1701 for a quantity of 300 000 tonnes.\n(3)\nImports of sugar under Inward Processing in accordance with chapter 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (4) have been reduced and the processing industry has increased the use of quota sugar in exported products. Those developments have maintained the tight supply situation on the Union market, which threaten to cause undersupply during the last months of the marketing year, until the arrival of the new harvest.\n(4)\nThe high prices on the world market for sugar therefore threaten the availability of supply on the Union market. For that reason and with the view to increasing the supply, it is necessary to make imports easier through the reduction of the import duty for certain quantities of sugar. That quantity and the reduction of the duty should be assessed in the light of the current state and foreseeable development of the Union and world sugar market. The quantity and reduction should therefore be based on a tendering system.\n(5)\nThe minimum eligibility requirements to tender should be specified.\n(6)\nA security should be lodged for each tender. That security should become the security for the import licence application in the case of a successful tender and be released when a tender is unsuccessful.\n(7)\nThe competent authorities of the Member States should notify the Commission of the admissible tenders. In order to simplify and standardise those notifications, models should be made available.\n(8)\nFor each partial invitation to tender, provision should be made for the Commission to fix a minimum customs duty and, if appropriate, an allocation coefficient in order to reduce the quantities accepted, or to decide not to fix a minimum customs duty.\n(9)\nMember States should inform the tenderers of the result of their participation in the partial invitation to tender within a short period.\n(10)\nThe competent authorities should notify the Commission of the quantities for which import licenses have been issued. For this purpose, models should be made available by the Commission.\n(11)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nA tendering procedure is opened for the 2010/2011 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty pursuant to Article 187 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and bearing reference number 09.4314.\nThat customs duty shall replace the common customs tariff duty and the additional duties referred to in Article 141 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Article 36 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 (5).\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 (6) shall apply save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.\nArticle 2\n1. The period during which tenders may be submitted in response to the first partial invitation to tender shall end on 13 July 2011 at 12 noon, Brussels time.\n2. The periods during which tenders may be submitted in response to the second and subsequent partial invitations shall begin on the first working day following the end of the preceding period. They shall end at 12 noon., Brussels time, on 27 July 2011, 24 August 2011, 14 September 2011 and 28 September 2011.\n3. The Commission may suspend the submission of tenders for one or several partial invitations to tender.\nArticle 3\n1. Tenders in connection with this tendering procedure shall be addressed to the competent authority in a Member State by fax or electronic mail.\nThe competent authorities of the Member States may require that electronic tenders be accompanied by an advance electronic signature within the meaning of Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7).\n2. Tenders shall be admissible only if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\ntenders shall indicate:\n(i)\nthe name, address and VAT number of the tenderer;\n(ii)\nthe quantity of sugar tendered, which shall at least be 20 tonnes and shall not exceed 45 000 tonnes;\n(iii)\nthe proposed amount of the customs duty, in euros per tonne of sugar, rounded to no more than two decimal places;\n(iv)\nthe eight digit CN code of the sugar;\n(b)\nproof is furnished before expiry of the time limit for the submission of tenders that the tenderer has lodged the security referred to in Article 4(1);\n(c)\nthe tender is accompanied by an application for an import licence for the tendered quantities and customs duty, containing the entries provided for Article 8(2);\n(d)\nthe tender is presented in the official language, or one of the official languages of the Member State in which the tender is lodged;\n(e)\nthe tender indicates a reference to this Regulation and the expiry date for the submission of the tenders;\n(f)\nthe tender does not include any additional conditions introduced by the tenderer other than those laid down in this Regulation.\n3. A tender which is not submitted in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not be admissible.\n4. Applicants shall not submit more than one tender per eight digit CN code for the same partial invitation to tender.\n5. A tender may not be withdrawn or amended after its submission.\nArticle 4\n1. In accordance with the provisions of Title III of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 (8) each tenderer shall lodge a security of EUR 150 per tonne of sugar to be imported under this Regulation.\nWhere a tender is successful, that security shall become the security for the import licence.\n2. The security referred to in paragraph 1 shall be released in the case of unsuccessful tenderers.\nArticle 5\n1. The competent authorities of the Member States shall decide on the validity of tenders on the basis of the conditions set out in Article 3.\nPersons authorised to receive and examine the tenders shall be under an obligation not to disclose any particulars relating thereto to any unauthorised person.\nWhere the competent authorities of the Member States decide that a tender is invalid they shall inform the tenderer.\n2. The competent authority concerned shall notify the Commission, by fax, of the admissible tenders submitted within 2 hours after the expiry of the time limit for the submissions laid down in Article 2(1) and (2). That notification shall not contain the data referred to in Article 3(2)(a)(i).\n3. The form and content of the notifications shall be defined on the basis of models made available by the Commission to the Member States. When no tenders are submitted, the competent authority shall notify the Commission thereof by fax within the same time limit.\nArticle 6\nIn the light of the current state and foreseeable development of the Union and world sugar markets, the Commission shall, for each partial invitation to tender and eight digit CN code, either fix a minimum customs duty or decide not to fix a minimum customs duty by adopting an Implementing Regulation in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nWith that Regulation, the Commission shall also fix, where necessary, an allocation coefficient applicable to the tenders which have been introduced at the level of the minimum customs duty. In this case, the security referred to in Article 4 shall be released in proportion to the quantities allocated.\nArticle 7\n1. Where no minimum customs duty has been fixed all tenders shall be rejected.\nThe competent authorities of the Member States shall not accept tenders that have not been notified as provided for in Article 5.\n2. The competent authority concerned shall notify applicants within three working days after the day of publication of the Regulation referred in Article 6 of the result of their participation in the partial invitation to tender. It shall send statements of award to any tenderer whose tender quotes a customs duty for the eight digit CN code equal to or more than the minimum customs duty fixed for that eight digit CN code. The quantities awarded for a specific customs duty and eight digit CN code shall be the quantities tendered for that customs duty and eight digit CN code.\n3. Statements of award shall indicate at least:\n(a)\nthe procedure to which the tender relates;\n(b)\nthe quantity of sugar awarded;\n(c)\nthe amount, expressed in euros rounded to no more than two decimal places, of the customs duty to be paid per tonne of sugar of the quantity referred to in point (b);\n(d)\nthe eight digit CN code of the sugar.\nArticle 8\n1. No later than the last working day of the week following the week during which the Regulation referred in Article 6 was published, the competent authority shall issue an import licence to every successful tenderer covering the quantity awarded.\n2. Import licence applications and import licences shall contain the following entries:\n(a)\nin box 16, the eight digit CN code of the sugar;\n(b)\nin boxes 17 and 18, the quantity of sugar;\n(c)\nin box 20 at least one of the entries listed in Part A of the Annex;\n(d)\nin box 24 the customs duty applicable using one of the entries listed in Part B of the Annex.\n3. By way of derogation from Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, the rights deriving from the import licence shall not be transferable.\nArticle 9\nImport licences issued in connection with a partial invitation to tender shall be valid from the day of issue until the end of the third month following the month in which the Regulation on partial invitation referred in Article 6 is published.\nArticle 10\nNo later than the last working day of the second week following the week during which the Regulation referred in Article 6 is published the competent authorities shall notify the Commission of the quantities for which import licences have been issued under this Regulation. The notification shall be transmitted electronically in accordance with models and methods made available to the Member States by the Commission.\nArticle 11\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 31 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2011.", "references": ["31", "12", "84", "51", "28", "6", "58", "54", "35", "80", "97", "79", "67", "88", "40", "49", "24", "96", "59", "10", "77", "19", "8", "33", "61", "89", "38", "70", "57", "4", "No Label", "21", "22", "71", "73"], "gold": ["21", "22", "71", "73"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 20 October 2011\non the conclusion of the Memorandum of Cooperation NAT-I-9406 between the United States of America and the European Union\n(2011/710/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with point (a) of Article 218(6), Article 218(7) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated on behalf of the Union the Memorandum of Cooperation NAT-I-9406 between the United States of America and the European Union (hereinafter the \u2018Memorandum\u2019) in civil aviation research and development.\n(2)\nThe Memorandum was signed on 3 March 2011.\n(3)\nThe Memorandum should be approved by the Union.\n(4)\nIt is necessary to lay down procedural arrangements for the participation of the Union in the Joint Committee established by the Memorandum, and the resolution of disagreements,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Memorandum of Cooperation NAT-I-9406 between the United States of America and the European Union (hereinafter the \u2018Memorandum\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (1).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to give the notification provided for in Article XII(B) of the Memorandum (2).\nArticle 3\nThe Union shall be represented in the Joint Committee established under Article III of the Memorandum by the Commission, assisted by representatives of the Member States.\nArticle 4\n1. The Commission, after consultation with the Special Committee appointed by the Council, shall determine the position to be taken by the Union in the Joint Committee, including with respect to the adoption of:\n-\nadditional Annexes to the Memorandum and Appendices thereto as referred to in Article III(E), paragraph 2 of the Memorandum,\n-\namendments to Annexes to the Memorandum and Appendices thereto, as referred to in Article III(E), paragraph 3 of the Memorandum.\n2. The Commission shall determine the position to be taken by the Union in the Joint Committee for the development and adoption of the internal governing procedures of the Joint Committee as provided for in Article III(C) of the Memorandum.\n3. The Commission may take any appropriate action under Articles II(B), IV, V, VII and VIII of the Memorandum.\n4. The Commission shall represent the Union in consultations under Article XI of the Memorandum.\nArticle 5\nThe Commission shall regularly inform the Council of the implementation of the Memorandum.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["18", "79", "86", "30", "35", "3", "6", "64", "71", "91", "37", "61", "43", "45", "56", "51", "44", "55", "27", "85", "19", "20", "76", "2", "0", "94", "99", "72", "70", "46", "No Label", "4", "39", "57", "77", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "39", "57", "77", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 June 2011\non establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to lubricants\n(notified under document C(2011) 4447)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/381/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Union Ecolabelling Board,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, the EU Ecolabel may be awarded to those products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 66/2010 provides that specific EU Ecolabel criteria are to be established according to product groups.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2005/360/EC (2) has established the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements for lubricants which are valid until 30 June 2011.\n(4)\nThose criteria have been further reviewed in light of technological developments. The new criteria, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, should be valid for 4 years from the date of adoption of this Decision\n(5)\nDecision 2005/360/EC should be replaced for reasons of clarity.\n(6)\nA transitional period should be allowed for producers whose products have been awarded the EU Ecolabel for lubricants on the basis of the criteria set out in Decision 2005/360/EC, so that they have sufficient time to adapt their products to comply with the revised criteria and requirements. Producers should also be allowed to submit applications based on the criteria set out in Decision 2005/360/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision until the lapse of validity of that Decision.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe product group \u2018lubricants\u2019 shall comprise the following categories:\nCategory 1\n:\nhydraulic fluids and tractor transmission oils\nCategory 2\n:\ngreases and stern tube greases\nCategory 3\n:\nchainsaw oils, concrete release agents, wire rope lubricants, stern tube oils and other total loss lubricants\nCategory 4\n:\ntwo-stroke oils\nCategory 5\n:\nindustrial and marine gear oils.\nArticle 2\nFor the purpose of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018lubricant\u2019 means a preparation consisting of base fluids and additives;\n(2)\n\u2018basefluid\u2019 means a lubricating fluid whose flow, ageing, lubricity and anti-wear properties, as well as its properties regarding contaminant suspension, have not been improved by the inclusion of additive(s);\n(3)\n\u2018substance\u2019 means a chemical element and its compounds in the natural state or obtained by any production process, including any additive necessary to preserve the stability of the products and any impurity deriving from the process used, but excluding any solvent which may be separated without affecting the stability of the substance or changing its composition;\n(4)\n\u2018thickener\u2019 means one or more substances in the base fluid used to thicken or modify the rheology of a lubricating fluid or grease;\n(5)\n\u2018main component\u2019 means any substance accounting for more than 5 % by weight of the lubricant;\n(6)\n\u2018additive\u2019 means a substance or mixture whose primary functions are the improvement of the flow, ageing, lubricity, anti-wear properties or of contaminant suspension;\n(7)\n\u2018grease\u2019 means a solid to semi-solid mixture which consists of a \u2018thickener\u2019 and may include other ingredients imparting special properties in a liquid lubricant.\nArticle 3\nIn order to be awarded the EU Ecolabel under Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 a product shall fall within the product group \u2018lubricants\u2019 as defined in Article 1 of this Decision and shall comply with the criteria as well as the related assessment and verification requirements set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThe ecological criteria for the product group \u2018lubricants\u2019, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements shall be valid for 4 years from the date of the adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 5\nFor administrative purposes, the code number assigned to the product group \u2018lubricants\u2019 shall be \u2018027\u2019.\nArticle 6\nDecision 2005/360/EC is repealed.\nArticle 7\n1. By derogation from Article 6, applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018lubricants\u2019 submitted before the date of adoption of this Decision shall be evaluated in accordance with the conditions laid down in Decision 2005/360/EC.\n2. Applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018lubricants\u2019 submitted from the date of adoption of this Decision but by 30 June 2011 at the latest may be based either on the criteria set out in Decision 2005/360/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision. Those applications shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria on which they are based.\n3. Where the EU Ecolabel is awarded on the basis of an application evaluated according to the criteria set out in Decision 2005/360/EC, that EU Ecolabel may be used for 12 months from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 June 2011.", "references": ["2", "15", "13", "35", "43", "71", "98", "28", "4", "56", "40", "81", "94", "77", "30", "95", "29", "60", "84", "66", "20", "80", "76", "90", "32", "27", "10", "85", "5", "3", "No Label", "24", "25", "58", "83"], "gold": ["24", "25", "58", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 95/2011\nof 3 February 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Arancia di Ribera (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy's application to register the name \u2018Arancia di Ribera\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2011.", "references": ["72", "23", "44", "68", "15", "92", "87", "18", "12", "31", "57", "40", "38", "34", "48", "42", "82", "45", "59", "58", "11", "52", "1", "61", "95", "37", "3", "79", "76", "86", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "66", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "66", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 386/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 19 April 2012\non entrusting the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) with tasks related to the enforcement of intellectual property rights, including the assembling of public and private-sector representatives as a European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 and the first paragraph of Article 118 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe economic well-being of the Union relies on sustained creativity and innovation. Therefore, measures for their effective protection are indispensable in ensuring its future prosperity.\n(2)\nIntellectual property rights are vital business assets that help to ensure that creators and innovators get a fair return for their work and that their investment in research and new ideas is protected.\n(3)\nA sound, harmonised and progressive approach to intellectual property rights is fundamental in the endeavour to fulfil the ambitions of the Europe 2020 Strategy including A Digital Agenda for Europe.\n(4)\nThe constant increase in infringements of intellectual property rights constitutes a genuine threat not only to the Union economy, but also, in many cases, to the health and safety of Union consumers. Therefore, effective, immediate and coordinated action at national, European and global levels is needed to successfully combat this phenomenon.\n(5)\nIn the context of the overall intellectual property rights strategy envisaged by the Council Resolution of 25 September 2008 on a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan (3), the Council called on the Commission to set up a European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy. The Commission therefore formed a network of experts from the public and the private sectors and described the tasks of that network in its Communication entitled \u2018Enhancing the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market\u2019. The name of the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy should be changed to the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights (\u2018the Observatory\u2019).\n(6)\nThat Communication stated that the Observatory should serve as the central resource for gathering, monitoring and reporting information and data related to all infringements of intellectual property rights. It should be used as a platform for cooperation between representatives from national authorities and stakeholders to exchange ideas and expertise on best practices and make recommendations to policymakers for joint enforcement strategies. The Communication specified that the Observatory would be hosted and managed by the services of the Commission.\n(7)\nIn its Resolution of 1 March 2010 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market (4), the Council invited the Commission, the Member States and industry to provide the Observatory with available reliable and comparable data on counterfeiting and piracy and to jointly develop and agree, in the context of the Observatory, on plans to collect further information. The Council also invited the Observatory to publish each year a comprehensive annual report covering the scope, scale and principal characteristics of counterfeiting and piracy as well as its impact on the internal market. That annual report should be prepared using the relevant information provided in that regard by the authorities of the Member States, the Commission and the private sector within the limits of data protection law. The Council also recognised the importance of developing new competitive business models enlarging the legal offer of cultural and creative content and at the same time preventing and combating infringements of intellectual property rights as necessary means for fostering economic growth, employment and cultural diversity.\n(8)\nIn its Conclusions of 25 May 2010 on the future revision of the Trade Mark system in the European Union (5), the Council called on the Commission to establish a legal basis for the involvement of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (\u2018the Office\u2019) in enforcement-related activities, including the fight against counterfeiting, in particular through fostering its cooperation with the national trade mark offices and the Observatory. In that respect, Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (6) provides, inter alia, for certain measures to promote cooperation, including the exchange of information, among Member States and between Member States and the Commission.\n(9)\nIn its Recommendation of 26 March 2009 on strengthening security and fundamental freedoms on the internet (7), the European Parliament recommended that the Council preserve full and safe access to the internet while encouraging private/public cooperation in enhancing law enforcement cooperation.\n(10)\nIn its Resolution of 22 September 2010 on enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market (8), the European Parliament called on the Member States and the Commission to extend the cooperation between the Office and national intellectual property offices so as to include the fight against infringements of intellectual property rights.\n(11)\nIn its Resolution of 12 May 2011 on unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries (9), the European Parliament urged the Commission to take into account the specific problems encountered by small and medium-sized enterprises when it comes to asserting their intellectual property rights and to promote best practice and effective methods to respect those rights.\n(12)\nIn its Resolution of 6 July 2011 on a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union (10), the European Parliament called on the Commission to ensure full harmonisation and legal certainty, providing a uniform and high level of protection of individuals in all circumstances.\n(13)\nIn view of the range of tasks assigned to the Observatory, a solution is needed to ensure an adequate and sustainable infrastructure for the fulfilment of its tasks.\n(14)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (11) provides for administrative cooperation between the Office and the courts or authorities of the Member States, and the exchange of publications between the Office and the central industrial property offices of the Member States. On that basis, the Office has established cooperation with national offices that are active in the field of protection of intellectual property rights. Consequently, the Office already possesses, to a considerable extent, the necessary experience and expertise to provide an adequate and sustainable infrastructure in the field of the Observatory\u2019s tasks.\n(15)\nThe Office is therefore well placed to be entrusted with carrying out those tasks.\n(16)\nThose tasks should relate to all intellectual property rights covered by Directive 2004/48/EC, since in many cases, infringing acts affect a bundle of intellectual property rights. Furthermore, data and the exchange of best practices are needed on the entire abovementioned range of intellectual property rights, in order to obtain a complete picture of the situation and to enable comprehensive strategies to be devised with a view to reducing infringements of intellectual property rights.\n(17)\nThe tasks that the Office should carry out can be linked to the enforcement and reporting measures laid down by Directive 2004/48/EC. Thus, the Office should provide services to national authorities or operators which affect, in particular, the homogenous implementation of the Directive and which are likely to facilitate its application. The Office\u2019s tasks should therefore be considered as closely linked to the subject matter of acts approximating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States.\n(18)\nAssembled by the Office, the Observatory should become a centre of excellence on information and data relating to infringements of intellectual property rights, by benefiting from the Office\u2019s expertise, experience and resources.\n(19)\nThe Office should offer a forum that brings together public authorities and the private sector, ensuring the collection, analysis and dissemination of relevant objective, comparable and reliable data regarding the value of intellectual property rights and infringements of those rights, identifying and promoting best practices and strategies to enforce intellectual property rights, and raising public awareness of the impact of infringements of intellectual property rights. Furthermore, the Office should fulfil additional tasks, such as improving the understanding of the value of intellectual property rights, fostering the exchange of information on new competitive business models which enlarge the legal offer of cultural and creative content, enhancing the expertise of persons involved in the enforcement of intellectual property rights by appropriate training measures, increasing knowledge of techniques to prevent counterfeiting, and improving cooperation with third countries and international organisations. The Commission should be associated with the activities undertaken by the Office under this Regulation.\n(20)\nThe Office should thus facilitate and support the activities of national authorities, the private sector and the Union institutions relating to the enforcement of intellectual property rights and in particular their activities in the fight against infringements of those rights. The exercise by the Office of its powers under this Regulation does not prevent Member States from exercising their competences. The Office\u2019s tasks and activities under this Regulation do not extend to participation in individual operations or investigations carried out by the competent authorities.\n(21)\nIn order to fulfil those tasks in the most efficient manner, the Office should consult and cooperate with other authorities at national, European and, where appropriate, international levels, create synergies with the activities carried out by such authorities and avoid any duplication of measures.\n(22)\nThe Office should implement the tasks and activities relating to the enforcement of intellectual property rights by making use of its own budgetary means.\n(23)\nWith regard to representatives of the private sector, the Office should, when assembling the Observatory in the context of its activities, involve a representative selection of the economic sectors - including the creative industries - most concerned by or most experienced in the fight against infringements of intellectual property rights, in particular representatives of right holders, including authors and other creators, as well as internet intermediaries. Also, a proper representation of consumers and of small and medium-sized enterprises should be ensured.\n(24)\nThe information obligations imposed by this Regulation on the Member States and on the private sector should not create unnecessary administrative burdens and should endeavour to avoid duplication as regards data already provided by Member States and private-sector representatives to Union institutions under existing Union reporting requirements.\n(25)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely to entrust the Office with tasks related to the enforcement of intellectual property rights, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of its effect, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\nThis Regulation entrusts the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (\u2018the Office\u2019) with tasks aimed at facilitating and supporting the activities of national authorities, the private sector and the Union institutions in the fight against infringements of the intellectual property rights covered by Directive 2004/48/EC. In carrying out these tasks the Office shall organise, administer and support the gathering of experts, authorities and stakeholders assembled under the name \u2018European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights\u2019 (\u2018the Observatory\u2019).\nThe tasks and activities of the Office under this Regulation do not extend to participation in individual operations or investigations carried out by the competent authorities.\nArticle 2\nTasks and activities\n1. The Office shall have the following tasks:\n(a)\nimproving understanding of the value of intellectual property;\n(b)\nimproving understanding of the scope and impact of infringements of intellectual property rights;\n(c)\nenhancing knowledge of best public and private sector practices to protect intellectual property rights;\n(d)\nassisting in raising citizens\u2019 awareness of the impact of infringements of intellectual property rights;\n(e)\nenhancing the expertise of persons involved in the enforcement of intellectual property rights;\n(f)\nenhancing knowledge of technical tools to prevent and tackle infringements of intellectual property rights, including tracking and tracing systems which help to distinguish genuine products from counterfeit ones;\n(g)\nproviding mechanisms which help to improve the online exchange, between Member States\u2019 authorities working in the field of intellectual property rights, of information relating to the enforcement of such rights, and fostering cooperation with and between those authorities;\n(h)\nworking, in consultation with Member States, to foster international cooperation with intellectual property offices in third countries so as to build strategies and develop techniques, skills and tools for the enforcement of intellectual property rights.\n2. In the fulfilment of the tasks set out in paragraph 1, the Office shall carry out the following activities in accordance with the work programme adopted pursuant to Article 7, and in line with Union law:\n(a)\nestablishing a transparent methodology for the collection, analysis and reporting of independent, objective, comparable and reliable data relating to infringements of intellectual property rights;\n(b)\ncollecting, analysing and disseminating relevant objective, comparable and reliable data regarding infringements of intellectual property rights;\n(c)\ncollecting, analysing and disseminating relevant objective, comparable and reliable data regarding the economic value of intellectual property and its contribution to economic growth, welfare, innovation, creativity, cultural diversity, the creation of high-quality jobs and the development of high quality products and services within the Union;\n(d)\nproviding regular assessments and specific reports by economic sector, geographic area and type of intellectual property right infringed, which evaluate, inter alia, the impact of infringements of intellectual property rights on society and the economy, including an assessment of the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as on health, the environment, safety and security;\n(e)\ncollecting, analysing and disseminating information regarding best practices between the representatives meeting as the Observatory, and, if applicable, making recommendations for strategies based on such practices;\n(f)\ndrawing up reports and publications to raise awareness amongst Union citizens of the impact of infringements of intellectual property rights and to that end, organising conferences, events and meetings at European and international levels as well as assisting national and Europe-wide actions, including online and offline campaigns, principally by providing data and information;\n(g)\nmonitoring the development of new competitive business models which enlarge the legal offer of cultural and creative content, and encouraging the exchange of information and raising consumer awareness in this respect;\n(h)\ndeveloping and organising online and other forms of training for national officials involved in the protection of intellectual property rights;\n(i)\norganising ad hoc meetings of experts, including academic experts and relevant representatives of civil society, to support its work under this Regulation;\n(j)\nidentifying and promoting technical tools for professionals and benchmark techniques, including tracking and tracing systems which help to distinguish genuine products from counterfeit ones;\n(k)\nworking with national authorities and the Commission to develop an online network facilitating the exchange of information on infringements of intellectual property rights between public administrations, bodies and organisations in the Member States dealing with the protection and enforcement of those rights;\n(l)\nworking in cooperation with, and building synergies between, the central industrial property offices of the Member States, including the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property and other Member States\u2019 authorities working in the field of intellectual property rights, with a view to developing and promoting techniques, skills and tools relating to the enforcement of intellectual property rights, including training programmes and awareness campaigns;\n(m)\ndeveloping, in consultation with the Member States, programmes for the provision of technical assistance to third countries as well as developing and delivering specific training programmes and events for officials from third countries who are involved in the protection of intellectual property rights;\n(n)\nmaking recommendations to the Commission on issues falling within the scope of this Regulation, on the basis of a request from the Commission;\n(o)\ncarrying out similar activities necessary in order to enable the Office to fulfil the tasks set out in paragraph 1.\n3. In carrying out the tasks and activities referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the Office shall comply with existing provisions of Union law on data protection.\nArticle 3\nFinancing\nThe Office shall at all times ensure that the activities entrusted to it by this Regulation are carried out by making use of its own budgetary means.\nArticle 4\nMeetings of the Observatory\n1. In order to carry out the activities referred to in Article 2(2), the Office shall at least once per year invite to meetings of the Observatory representatives from public administrations, bodies and organisations in the Member States dealing with intellectual property rights and representatives from the private sector, for the purpose of their participation in the Office\u2019s work under this Regulation.\n2. Private-sector representatives invited to meetings of the Observatory shall include a broad, representative and balanced range of Union and national bodies representing the different economic sectors, including the creative industries, most concerned by or most experienced in the fight against infringements of intellectual property rights.\nConsumer organisations, small and medium-sized enterprises, authors and other creators shall be properly represented.\n3. The Office shall invite each Member State to send at least one representative from its public administration to meetings of the Observatory. In that context, Member States shall ensure continuity in the Observatory\u2019s work.\n4. The meetings referred to in paragraph 1 may be complemented by working groups within the Observatory made up of representatives from Member States and representatives from the private sector.\n5. Where appropriate, and in addition to the meetings referred to in paragraph 1, the Office shall organise meetings consisting of:\n(a)\nrepresentatives from the public administrations, bodies and organisations in the Member States; or\n(b)\nprivate-sector representatives.\n6. Members or other representatives of the European Parliament and representatives from the Commission shall be invited to any of the meetings covered by this Article, either as participants or observers, as appropriate.\n7. The names of the representatives attending, the agenda and the minutes of the meetings referred to in this Article shall be published on the Office\u2019s website.\nArticle 5\nInformation obligations\n1. As appropriate, in accordance with national law, including the law governing the processing of personal data, Member States shall, at the request of the Office or on their own initiative:\n(a)\ninform the Office of their overall policies and strategies on the enforcement of intellectual property rights and any changes thereto;\n(b)\nprovide available statistical data on infringements of intellectual property rights;\n(c)\ninform the Office of important case-law.\n2. Without prejudice to the law governing the processing of personal data and to the protection of confidential information, private-sector representatives meeting as the Observatory shall, when possible, at the request of the Office:\n(a)\ninform the Office of policies and strategies in their field of activity on the enforcement of intellectual property rights and any changes thereto;\n(b)\nprovide statistical data on infringements of intellectual property rights in their field of activity.\nArticle 6\nThe Office\n1. The relevant provisions of Title XII of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 shall apply to the carrying-out of the tasks and activities provided for under this Regulation.\n2. Using the powers conferred by Article 124 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, the President of the Office shall adopt the internal administrative instructions and shall publish the notices that are necessary for the fulfilment of all the tasks entrusted to the Office by this Regulation.\nArticle 7\nContent of the work programme and of the management report\n1. The Office shall draw up an annual work programme that appropriately prioritises the activities under this Regulation and for the meetings of the Observatory, in line with the Union\u2019s policies and priorities in the field of protection of intellectual property rights and in cooperation with the representatives referred to in point (a) of Article 4(5).\n2. The work programme referred to in paragraph 1 shall be submitted to the Office\u2019s Administrative Board for information.\n3. The management report provided for in point (d) of Article 124(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 shall contain at least the following information concerning the Office\u2019s tasks and activities under this Regulation:\n(a)\na review of the main activities carried out during the preceding calendar year;\n(b)\nthe results achieved during the preceding calendar year, accompanied, where appropriate, by sectoral reports analysing the situation in the different industry and product sectors;\n(c)\nan overall assessment of the fulfilment of the Office\u2019s tasks as provided for in this Regulation and in the work programme drawn up in accordance with paragraph 1;\n(d)\nan overview of the activities that the Office intends to undertake in the future;\n(e)\nobservations on the enforcement of intellectual property rights and potential future policies and strategies, including on how to enhance effective cooperation with and between Member States;\n(f)\nan overall assessment of the proper representation in the Observatory of all the actors mentioned in Article 4(2).\nBefore submitting the management report to the European Parliament, the Commission and the Administrative Board, the President of the Office shall consult the representatives referred to in point (a) of Article 4(5) on the relevant parts of the report.\nArticle 8\nEvaluation\n1. The Commission shall adopt a report evaluating the application of this Regulation by 6 June 2017.\n2. The evaluation report shall assess the operation of this Regulation, in particular as regards its impact on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market.\n3. The Commission shall, when preparing the evaluation report, consult the Office, the Member States and the representatives meeting as the Observatory on the issues referred to in paragraph 2.\n4. The Commission shall transmit the evaluation report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee and shall undertake a broad consultation among stakeholders on the evaluation report.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["44", "18", "50", "64", "81", "31", "52", "56", "91", "55", "69", "17", "54", "53", "37", "70", "24", "25", "33", "95", "47", "94", "15", "13", "43", "97", "10", "98", "80", "23", "No Label", "1", "7", "12", "41", "77"], "gold": ["1", "7", "12", "41", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 956/2010\nof 22 October 2010\namending Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of rapid tests\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 23 and the introductory phrase and point (a) of Article 23a thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in animals. It applies to the production and placing on the market of live animals and products of animal origin and in certain specific cases to exports thereof.\n(2)\nPoint 4 of Chapter C of Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 sets out a list of rapid tests to be used for the monitoring of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in bovine animals and TSEs in ovine and caprine animals.\n(3)\nOn 18 December 2009 and 29 April 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published two Scientific Opinions on Analytical sensitivity of approved TSE rapid tests. Those opinions were based on studies performed by the European Union Reference Laboratory (EURL) for TSEs. The EURL studies were intended to evaluate the analytical sensitivity of all the currently approved TSE rapid tests in order to produce robust analytical sensitivity data and evaluate each test against the same sample sets for the three main types of ruminant TSE: BSE, classical scrapie and atypical scrapie.\n(4)\nAs regards scrapie, the EFSA concluded in its opinion published on 18 December 2009 that the tests \u2018Enfer TSE v2\u2019, \u2018Enfer TSE v3\u2019, \u2018Prionics\u00ae-Check LIA SR\u2019 and \u2018Prionics\u00ae-WB Check Western SR\u2019 could fail in identifying atypical scrapie cases that other validated tests would detect and according to the EFSA protocol for evaluation of rapid post mortem tests to detect TSE in small ruminants (EFSA, 2007b) they could not be recommended for use for TSE monitoring in that field. Accordingly, those methods should no longer be included in the list of rapid tests to be used for the monitoring of TSEs in ovine and caprine animals set out in point 4 of Chapter C of Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.\n(5)\nOn 2 July 2009, Idexx laboratories informed the Commission that their combined test \u2018IDEXX HerdChek BSE-Scrapie Antigen Test Kit, EIA\u2019, which was developed both for the monitoring of TSE in small ruminants and BSE in bovine animals, has never been included in the list of rapid tests to be used for the monitoring of BSE in the Union even though it has been officially approved by the EURL for that purpose. That test should therefore be added to the list of rapid tests for BSE monitoring set out in point 4 of Chapter C of Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.\n(6)\nFor practical reasons, the amendments introduced by this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2011, as the Member States need sufficient time in order to align their monitoring procedures for TSEs in ovine and caprine animals with the new list of rapid tests.\n(7)\nAnnex X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 October 2010.", "references": ["27", "54", "95", "86", "85", "68", "43", "96", "21", "11", "72", "65", "64", "35", "36", "16", "12", "75", "94", "45", "4", "87", "61", "31", "7", "40", "24", "51", "28", "84", "No Label", "8", "38", "66"], "gold": ["8", "38", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/478/CFSP\nof 28 July 2011\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Kosovo (1)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 4 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (2) and Joint Action 2008/123/CFSP (3) appointing Mr Pieter FEITH as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Kosovo.\n(2)\nOn 5 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/270/CFSP (4) appointing Mr Fernando GENTILINI as the EUSR in Kosovo until 31 July 2011.\n(3)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 30 September 2011.\n(4)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2011/270/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nMr Fernando GENTILINI is hereby appointed as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Kosovo from 1 May 2011 until 30 September 2011. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 5(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 May 2011 to 30 September 2011 shall be EUR 690 000.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2011.", "references": ["48", "92", "46", "29", "95", "1", "21", "0", "31", "68", "61", "11", "28", "67", "72", "23", "43", "14", "58", "24", "64", "93", "6", "4", "10", "79", "2", "25", "76", "71", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "91", "96"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "91", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 499/2012\nof 12 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 June 2012.", "references": ["29", "34", "92", "28", "90", "69", "93", "86", "71", "33", "88", "67", "65", "9", "59", "17", "78", "14", "75", "66", "51", "4", "46", "70", "50", "48", "8", "43", "62", "11", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 176/2011\nof 24 February 2011\non the information to be provided before the establishment and modification of a functional airspace block\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (the service provision Regulation) (1) and in particular Article 9a(9) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe functional airspace blocks are key enablers for enhancing cooperation between Member States in order to improve performance and create synergies. For that purpose and in order to optimise the interface of functional airspace blocks in the single European sky, the Member States concerned should cooperate with each other and where appropriate they may also cooperate with third countries.\n(2)\nMember States have to comply with the requirements of Article 9a of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 when establishing a functional airspace block.\n(3)\nMember States that establish a functional airspace block have to provide information to the Commission, the European Aviation Safety Agency, other Member States and other interested parties, giving them an opportunity to submit their observations with the aim of facilitating an exchange of views. However, the Member States should not provide classified information, business secrets or otherwise confidential information.\n(4)\nThe information to be provided under this Regulation should reflect compliance with the objectives for the functional airspace blocks and assist Member States in ensuring consistency with other measures of the single European sky.\n(5)\nIn order to facilitate such exchange of information and submission of observations, the information which is considered as \u2018adequate\u2019 to be provided to Member States, the Commission, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and other interested parties should be clearly laid out as well as the procedures for this exchange of information.\n(6)\nIn particular, the Member States concerned should jointly provide the information and accordingly provide one set of information and documentary evidence per functional airspace block.\n(7)\nThe establishment of a functional airspace block should be considered as the legal process through which Member States must enhance cooperation between their respective airspace blocks. Member States should take the necessary measures to comply with this requirement at the latest by 4 December 2012, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 550/2004.\n(8)\nThe determination whether a functional airspace block has been modified should be made on the basis of the same criteria for all Member States and should be limited to those changes which have a considerable impact on the functional airspace block and/or the neighbouring functional airspace blocks or Member States.\n(9)\nAccording to Article 13a of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), Member States and the Commission should coordinate with the EASA to ensure that all safety aspects are properly addressed when implementing the single European sky.\n(10)\nThis Regulation does not affect the security or defence policy interests of Member States and related confidentiality needs according to Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004.\n(11)\nPursuant to Article 83 of the Chicago Convention, Member States that establish a functional airspace block will have to register agreements or arrangements for functional airspace blocks and any subsequent amendment thereto with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).\n(12)\nThe establishment of functional airspace blocks which would result in changes to the ICAO flight information region (FIR) boundaries or to the facilities and services provided within those boundaries should continue to be the subject of the ICAO air navigation planning process and the procedure for amendment of the ICAO air navigation plans.\n(13)\nMember States should ensure that they fulfil their safety responsibilities effectively when establishing a functional airspace block. They should demonstrate and provide the necessary assurance that the functional airspace block will be established and managed safely and address the Member States and the air navigation service providers safety management elements associated with the functional airspace block establishment, with a focus on their respective safety roles and responsibilities.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\nThis Regulation lays down the requirements for:\n(1)\nthe information to be provided by the Member States concerned to the Commission, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), other Member States and interested parties before the establishment and modification of a functional airspace block;\n(2)\nthe procedures for the provision of the information to and submission of observations from the parties referred to in point (1), before notification of the functional airspace block is made to the Commission.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the definitions in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 shall apply.\nIn addition the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018Member States concerned\u2019 means the Member States having mutually agreed to establish a functional airspace block under Regulation (EC) No 550/2004.\n(2)\n\u2018Interested parties\u2019 means the neighbouring third countries to a functional airspace block, relevant airspace users or groups of airspace users and staff representative bodies as well as adjacent air navigation service providers to those in a functional airspace block.\nArticle 3\nDemonstration of compliance\nThe Member States concerned shall jointly provide the information set out in the Annex to this Regulation to demonstrate fulfilment of the requirements of Article 9a of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004.\nArticle 4\nProcedure for exchange of information for new functional airspace blocks\n1. The Member States concerned shall provide the information set out in the Annex to the Commission at the latest by 24 June 2012. The Commission shall make it available for observations to the EASA, other Member States and interested parties at the latest one week after receipt of the information.\n2. The observations of the EASA, other Member States and interested parties shall be submitted to the Commission at the latest two months after receipt of the information. The Commission shall without delay communicate the observations received and its own observations to the Member States concerned.\n3. The Member States concerned shall duly consider the observations received before establishing their functional airspace block.\nArticle 5\nModification of an established functional airspace block\n1. For the purpose of this Regulation, an established functional airspace block shall be considered as modified when a proposed modification shall result in changes to the defined dimensions of the functional airspace block.\n2. At least six months before a modification is implemented, the Member States concerned shall jointly notify the Commission of the proposed changes and provide information supporting the changes, updating as appropriate the information provided for the establishment of the functional airspace block. The Commission shall make it available for observations to the EASA, other Member States and interested parties at the latest one week after receipt of the information.\n3. The observations of the EASA, other Member States and interested parties shall be submitted to the Commission at the latest two months after receipt of the information. The Commission shall without delay communicate the observations received and its own observations to the Member States concerned.\n4. The Member States concerned shall duly consider the observations received before modifying their functional airspace block.\nArticle 6\nFunctional airspace blocks already established\nMember States concerned which have already established a functional airspace block prior to the entry into force of this Regulation shall ensure that the required information laid out in the Annex, which has not been already submitted as part of their notification, is provided to the Commission at the latest by 24 June 2012.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2011.", "references": ["18", "91", "60", "79", "77", "3", "66", "6", "45", "70", "40", "17", "11", "49", "71", "55", "50", "63", "14", "86", "52", "84", "20", "29", "82", "98", "8", "16", "28", "56", "No Label", "9", "13", "25", "53", "54", "57"], "gold": ["9", "13", "25", "53", "54", "57"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 779/2011\nof 12 July 2011\nconcerning the allocation of the fishing opportunities under the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 May 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 764/2006 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (1) (\u2018Partnership Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nSince the protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Partnership Agreement expired on 27 February 2011, a new protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement (the Protocol) (2) was initialled on 25 February 2011. The Protocol provides EU vessels with fishing opportunities in waters falling within the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Morocco.\n(3)\nOn 12 July 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/491/EU (3) on the signing and the provisional application of the Protocol.\n(4)\nThe method for allocating the fishing opportunities among the Member States should be defined for the period of application of the Protocol.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 of 29 September 2008 concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters (4), if it appears that the number of fishing authorisations or the amount of fishing opportunities allocated to the Union under the protocol are not fully utilised, the Commission is to inform the Member States concerned. The absence of a reply within the deadline to be set by the Council is to be considered as confirmation that the vessels of the Member State concerned are not making full use of their fishing opportunities during in the given period. That deadline should be set.\n(6)\nGiven that the previous Protocol expired on 27 February 2011 and that the Protocol is provisionally applied from 28 February 2011, this Regulation should apply from 28 February 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The fishing opportunities set by the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (\u2018the Protocol\u2019) shall be allocated among the Member States as follows:\nFishing category\nType of vessel\nMember State\nLicences or quota\nSmall-scale fishing/north, pelagic species\nseiners\nSpain\n20\nSmall-scale fishing/north\nBottom longliners, < 40 GT\nSpain\n20\nPortugal\n7\nBottom longliners, > 40 GT < 150 GT\nPortugal\n3\nSmall-scale fishing/south\nSpain\n20\nDemersal\nbottom longliners\nSpain\n7\nPortugal\n4\nTrawlers\nSpain\n10\nItaly\n1\nTuna fishing\nPole-and-line vessels\nSpain\n23\nFrance\n4\nIndustrial fishing for pelagic species\nGermany\n4 850 t\nLithuania\n15 520 t\nLatvia\n8 730 t\nNetherlands\n19 400 t\nIreland\n2 500 t\nPoland\n2 500 t\nUnited Kingdom\n2 500 t\nSpain\n400 t\nPortugal\n1 333 t\nFrance\n2 267 t\n2. Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 shall apply without prejudice to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco.\n3. If applications for fishing authorisations from the Member States referred to in paragraph 1 do not cover all the fishing opportunities set out in the Protocol, the Commission shall consider applications for fishing authorisations from any other Member State in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008.\nThe deadline referred to in Article 10(1) of that Regulation shall be set at 10 working days.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 28 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["62", "97", "19", "51", "85", "9", "95", "48", "71", "57", "8", "34", "16", "79", "96", "56", "92", "66", "42", "47", "18", "6", "81", "58", "40", "24", "55", "83", "25", "74", "No Label", "67", "94"], "gold": ["67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 412/2011\nof 27 April 2011\non the issue of licences for importing rice under the tariff quotas opened for the April 2011 subperiod by Regulation (EC) No 327/98\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 of 10 February 1998 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (3), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 327/98 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 IX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nApril is the second subperiod for the quotas provided for in Article 1(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98.\n(3)\nThe notification sent in accordance with Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98 shows that, for the quota with order number 09.4130, the applications lodged in the first 10 working days of April 2011 under Article 4(1) of that Regulation relate to a quantity greater than that available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined and the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities applied for under the quota concerned should be laid down.\n(4)\nThe notification also shows that, for the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4129, the applications lodged in the first 10 working days of April 2011 in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Regulation relate to a quantity less than that available.\n(5)\nFor the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4129 - 09.4130 the total quantities available for the following subperiod should therefore be set, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 327/98.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. For import licence applications for rice under the quotas with order number 09.4130 referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98 lodged in the first 10 working days of April 2011, licences shall be issued for the quantities requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficient set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The total quantities available for the following subperiod under the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4129 - 09.4130, referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98, are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2011.", "references": ["9", "53", "49", "16", "55", "56", "8", "60", "47", "1", "83", "85", "79", "32", "12", "84", "80", "54", "33", "15", "87", "59", "25", "11", "13", "61", "94", "35", "96", "62", "No Label", "4", "21", "66", "68"], "gold": ["4", "21", "66", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 July 2011\non the safety requirements to be met by European standards for gymnastic equipment pursuant to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/479/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (1), and in particular Article 4(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2001/95/EC provides for European standards to be established by the European standardisation bodies. Such standards should ensure that products satisfy the general safety requirement of that Directive.\n(2)\nUnder Directive 2001/95/EC, a product is to be presumed safe when it conforms to voluntary national standards transposing the European standards, the references of which have been published by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(3)\nArticle 4 of Directive 2001/95/EC lays down the procedure for drawing up the European standards. Under that procedure, the Commission is to determine the specific safety requirements which the European standards should satisfy and, subsequently, on the basis of those requirements, to give mandates to the European standardisation bodies to draw up those standards.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to publish the references of the European standards adopted in that way in the Official Journal of the European Union. Under the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC, the references to the European standards which have been adopted by the European standardisation bodies before the entry into force of that Directive may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union even in the absence of a Commission mandate, if those standards ensure compliance with the general safety requirement laid down in that Directive.\n(5)\nBy its Decision 2005/718/EC (2) the Commission published the references of seven European standards concerning the safety of gymnastic equipment in the Official Journal of the European Union\n(6)\nThe seven European standards on the safety of gymnastic equipment concerned by Decision 2005/718/EC are not supported by a Commission mandate adopted in accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/95/EC.\n(7)\nOne of those standards, EN 913:1996, has been replaced by a new version, EN 913:2008. This new version was adopted after the entry into force of the Directive 2001/95/EC and its reference cannot, as a consequence, be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the absence of a Commission mandate including specific safety requirements.\n(8)\nIn order to assess the conformity of the new version and of any subsequent versions of the European standards for gymnastic equipment with the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC, it is necessary to re-establish the procedure laid down in Article 4 of that Directive.\n(9)\nThe Commission should therefore determine specific safety requirements for gymnastic equipment with a view to mandating the European standardisation bodies to develop relevant European standards for gymnastic equipment on the basis of those requirements.\n(10)\nOnce the relevant standards are available, and provided that the Commission decides to publish their references in the Official Journal of the European Union, according to the procedure laid down in Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC, gymnastic equipment is to be presumed to conform to the general safety requirements of that Directive, as far as the safety requirements covered by the standards are concerned.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up under Article 15 of Directive 2001/95/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Decision \u2018gymnastic equipment\u2019 means equipment used for training, exercising or competition purposes, involving group and individual exercise. This equipment either stands on the floor or is fixed to the ceiling or a wall or other fixed structure. It is either permanently installed or able to be moved and modified for use.\nArticle 2\nThe specific safety requirements for the products referred to in Article 1 to be met by European standards pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2001/95/EC are set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2011.", "references": ["6", "82", "94", "34", "99", "64", "33", "22", "56", "62", "8", "2", "66", "25", "90", "83", "52", "3", "67", "73", "98", "57", "71", "16", "80", "38", "86", "50", "88", "91", "No Label", "24", "36", "76"], "gold": ["24", "36", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 379/2011\nof 18 April 2011\nentering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (\u2018Kie\u0142basa ja\u0142owcowa\u2019 (TSG))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 9(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Kie\u0142basa ja\u0142owcowa\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, a statement of objection was sent to the Commission, substantiated under Article 9(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006. In its letter dated 26 January 2010, the Commission invited the interested parties to hold appropriate consultations.\n(3)\nGiven that an agreement was reached within 6 months without modification of the details published in accordance with the provisions referred to in Article 8(2), the Commission must adopt a decision.\n(4)\nIn the light of the above, this name must therefore be registered.\n(5)\nThe protection referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has not been requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2011.", "references": ["76", "93", "95", "22", "11", "25", "8", "83", "44", "14", "10", "69", "16", "50", "98", "46", "27", "73", "41", "7", "52", "36", "80", "74", "54", "29", "82", "3", "5", "53", "No Label", "23", "24", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "24", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 542/2011\nof 1 June 2011\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances to take into account Directive 2011/58/EU amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to renew the inclusion of carbendazim as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 78(3) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPart A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (2) contains the list of active substances included in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (3).\n(2)\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC has been amended by Commission Directive 2011/58/EU (4).\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 14 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2011.", "references": ["88", "23", "63", "32", "79", "43", "91", "11", "42", "46", "9", "14", "96", "44", "73", "67", "40", "87", "76", "70", "22", "81", "57", "3", "45", "12", "27", "62", "2", "77", "No Label", "25", "65"], "gold": ["25", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 2 February 2011\namending Decision 2003/249/EC as regards the extension of the duration of temporary derogations from certain provisions of Council Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of plants of strawberry (Fragaria L.), intended for planting, other than seeds, originating in Chile\n(notified under document C(2011) 477)\n(2011/75/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Directive 2000/29/EC, plants of strawberry (Fragaria L.), intended for planting, other than seeds, originating in non-European countries, other than Mediterranean countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the continental States of the United States of America, may not in principle be introduced into the Union. However, that Directive permits derogations from that rule, provided that it is established that there is no risk of spreading harmful organisms.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2003/249/EC (2) authorises Member States to provide for temporary derogations from certain provisions of Directive 2000/29/EC to permit the import of plants of strawberry (Fragaria L.), intended for planting, other than seeds, originating in Chile.\n(3)\nThe circumstances justifying the authorisation provided for in Decision 2003/249/EC are still present and there is no new information giving cause for revision of the specific conditions.\n(4)\nBy Commission Directive 2008/64/EC (3) Colletotrichum acutatum Simmonds was removed from point (c) of Section II of Part A of Annex II to Directive 2000/29/EC. Therefore this organism should no longer be included in the Annex of Decision 2003/249/EC.\n(5)\nBased on the experience gained with the application of Decision 2003/249/EC it is appropriate to extend the period of validity of that authorisation for 10 years.\n(6)\nDecision 2003/249/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2003/249/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nthe second paragraph of Article 1 of Decision 2003/249/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The authorisation to provide for derogations, as provided for in paragraph 1 (hereinafter referred to as \u201cthe authorisation\u201d), shall be subject, in addition to the conditions laid down in Annexes I, II and IV to Directive 2000/29/EC, to the conditions provided for in the Annex to this Decision, and shall only apply to the plants that are introduced into the Union, in the period from 1 June to 30 September of each year.\u2019;\n2.\nthe following Article 3a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 3a\nThis Decision shall expire on 30 September 2020.\u2019;\n3.\nthe second indent of point 1(c) of the Annex is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 February 2011.", "references": ["44", "70", "47", "15", "76", "24", "4", "85", "80", "97", "45", "3", "72", "48", "58", "39", "64", "60", "62", "54", "25", "2", "92", "32", "82", "84", "26", "96", "31", "17", "No Label", "8", "22", "23", "61", "65", "68", "93"], "gold": ["8", "22", "23", "61", "65", "68", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 535/2012\nof 21 June 2012\nfixing the export refunds on eggs\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in eggs, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely within the Union and comply with requirements under Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2) and of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3), as well as marking requirements under point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 340/2012 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nIn order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 and those defined in point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 340/2012 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2012.", "references": ["58", "14", "36", "34", "95", "85", "32", "10", "90", "4", "75", "17", "26", "91", "15", "96", "93", "76", "59", "94", "28", "74", "39", "19", "38", "51", "53", "98", "2", "46", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 15 February 2011\non the clearance of the accounts of certain paying agencies in Italy and Romania concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2009 financial year\n(notified under document C(2011) 770)\n(Only the Italian and Romanian texts are authentic)\n(2011/105/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 32(8) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decisions 2010/258/EU (2) and 2010/730/EU (3) cleared, for the 2009 financial year, the accounts of all the paying agencies except for the Italian paying agencies \u2018AGEA\u2019 and \u2018ARBEA\u2019, and the Romanian paying agency \u2018PIAA\u2019.\n(2)\nFollowing the transmission of new information and after additional checks, the Commission can now take a decision on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the Italian paying agencies \u2018AGEA\u2019 and \u2018ARBEA\u2019, and the Romanian paying agency \u2018PIAA\u2019.\n(3)\nThe first subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (4) lays down that the amounts that are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State, in accordance with the accounts clearance decision referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the said Regulation, shall be determined by deducting the monthly payments in respect of the financial year in question, i.e. 2009, from expenditure recognised for that year in accordance with paragraph 1. The Commission shall deduct that amount from or add it to the monthly payment relating to the expenditure effected in the second month following that in which the accounts clearance decision is taken.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities shall be borne by the Member State concerned and 50 % by the EU budget if the recovery of those irregularities has not taken place within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts. Article 32(3) of the said Regulation obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, together with the annual accounts, a summary report on the recovery procedures undertaken in response to irregularities. Detailed rules on the application of the Member States\u2019 reporting obligation of the amounts to be recovered are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. Annex III to the said Regulation provides the model table that had to be provided in 2010 by the Member States. On the basis of the tables completed by the Member States, the Commission should decide on the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities older than 4 or 8 years respectively. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 32(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. Such a decision may only be taken if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered or if the recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. If that decision has been taken within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, 100 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery should be borne by the EU budget. In the summary report referred to in Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 the amounts for which the Member State decided not to pursue recovery and the grounds for the decision are shown. These amounts are not charged to the Member States concerned and are consequently to be borne by the EU budget. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of the said Regulation.\n(6)\nIn clearing the accounts of the paying agencies concerned, the Commission must take account of the amounts already withheld from the Member States concerned on the basis of Decisions 2010/258/EU and 2010/730/EU.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from EU financing expenditure not effected in accordance with EU rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accounts of the Italian paying agencies \u2018AGEA\u2019 and \u2018ARBEA\u2019, and the Romanian paying agency \u2018PIAA\u2019 concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in respect of the 2009 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State concerned pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic and Romania.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2011.", "references": ["41", "87", "60", "7", "28", "67", "90", "6", "80", "31", "9", "71", "12", "57", "1", "21", "8", "82", "11", "50", "88", "19", "33", "69", "77", "89", "24", "3", "66", "30", "No Label", "10", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 8 November 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation\n(2010/687/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(3), in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 November 2008 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation. The negotiations were successfully concluded and the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (\u2018Agreement\u2019) was initialled on 19 October 2010.\n(2)\nThe Agreement should be signed, on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation is hereby approved, on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (1).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["37", "36", "38", "41", "20", "32", "16", "29", "39", "30", "21", "70", "94", "77", "44", "90", "46", "62", "84", "22", "95", "86", "42", "92", "60", "71", "66", "14", "45", "18", "No Label", "3", "9", "13", "91"], "gold": ["3", "9", "13", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 23 April 2012\non recognition of the \u2018Ensus voluntary scheme under RED for Ensus bioethanol production\u2019 for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria under Directives 2009/28/EC and 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(2012/210/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1), and in particular Article 18(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels (2), as amended by Directive 2009/30/EC (3), and in particular Article 7c(6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee established by Article 25, paragraph 2 of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC both lay down sustainability criteria for biofuels. When reference is made to the provisions of Articles 17, 18 and Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC this should be construed as the reference also to the similar provisions of Articles 7b, 7c and Annex IV to Directive 98/70/EC.\n(2)\nWhere biofuels and bioliquids are to be taken into account for the purposes referred to in Article 17(1), points (a), (b) and (c), Member States shall require economic operators to show the compliance of biofuels and bioliquids with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(2) to (5) by Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(3)\nRecital 76 of Directive 2009/28/EC states that the imposition of an unreasonable burden on industry should be avoided and voluntary schemes can help create efficient solutions for proving compliance with these sustainability criteria.\n(4)\nThe Commission may decide that a voluntary national or international scheme demonstrates that consignments of biofuel comply with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(3) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC or that a voluntary national or international scheme to measure greenhouse gas emission savings contains accurate data for the purposes of Article 17(2) of this Directive.\n(5)\nThe Commission may recognise such a voluntary scheme for a period of five years.\n(6)\nWhen an economic operator provides proof or data obtained in accordance with a scheme that has been recognised by the Commission, to the extent covered by that recognition decision, a Member State shall not require the supplier to provide further evidence of compliance with the sustainability criteria.\n(7)\nThe \u2018Ensus voluntary scheme under RED for Ensus bioethanol production\u2019 (hereafter \u2018Ensus scheme\u2019) was submitted on 21 November 2011 to the Commission with the request for recognition. This scheme covers bioethanol from EU feed wheat produced by the Ensus One plant. The recognised scheme will be made available at the transparency platform established under Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission will take into account considerations of commercial sensitivity and may decide to only partially publish the scheme.\n(8)\nAssessment of the Ensus scheme found it to adequately cover the sustainability criteria of Directive 2009/28/EC, as well as applying a mass balance methodology in line with the requirements of Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(9)\nThe evaluation of the Ensus scheme found that it meets adequate standards of reliability, transparency and independent auditing and also complies with the methodological requirements in Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018Ensus voluntary scheme under RED for Ensus bioethanol production\u2019 for which the request for recognition was submitted to the Commission on 21 November 2011 demonstrates that consignments of biofuels comply with the sustainability criteria as laid down in Article 17(3), 17(4) and 17(5) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(3), 7b(4) and 7b(5) of Directive 98/70/EC. The scheme also contains accurate data for purposes of Article 17(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(2) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nFurthermore, it may be used for demonstrating compliance with Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC and of Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nArticle 2\n1. The Decision is valid for a period of five years after it enters into force. If the scheme, after adoption of the Commission decision, undergoes changes to its contents in a way that might affect the basis of this Decision, such changes shall be notified to the Commission without delay. The Commission will assess the notified changes with a view to establish whether the scheme is still adequately covering the sustainability criteria for which it is recognised.\n2. If it has been clearly demonstrated that the scheme has not implemented elements considered to be decisive for this Decision and if a severe and structural breach of those elements has taken place, the Commission may revoke its Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2012.", "references": ["59", "45", "54", "41", "9", "56", "80", "61", "64", "47", "43", "96", "75", "49", "22", "12", "37", "17", "73", "27", "70", "32", "2", "95", "1", "55", "19", "72", "91", "60", "No Label", "58", "76", "77", "78"], "gold": ["58", "76", "77", "78"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 211/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 February 2011\non the citizens\u2019 initiative\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 24 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Treaty on European Union (TEU) reinforces citizenship of the Union and enhances further the democratic functioning of the Union by providing, inter alia, that every citizen is to have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union by way of a European citizens\u2019 initiative. That procedure affords citizens the possibility of directly approaching the Commission with a request inviting it to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties similar to the right conferred on the European Parliament under Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and on the Council under Article 241 TFEU.\n(2)\nThe procedures and conditions required for the citizens\u2019 initiative should be clear, simple, user-friendly and proportionate to the nature of the citizens\u2019 initiative so as to encourage participation by citizens and to make the Union more accessible. They should strike a judicious balance between rights and obligations.\n(3)\nThey should also ensure that citizens of the Union are subject to similar conditions for supporting a citizens\u2019 initiative regardless of the Member State from which they come.\n(4)\nThe Commission should, upon request, provide citizens with information and informal advice about citizens\u2019 initiatives, notably as regards the registration criteria.\n(5)\nIt is necessary to establish the minimum number of Member States from which citizens must come. In order to ensure that a citizens\u2019 initiative is representative of a Union interest, while ensuring that the instrument remains easy to use, that number should be set at one quarter of Member States.\n(6)\nFor that purpose, it is also appropriate to establish the minimum number of signatories coming from each of those Member States. In order to ensure similar conditions for citizens to support a citizens\u2019 initiative, those minimum numbers should be degressively proportional. For the purpose of clarity, those minimum numbers should be set out for each Member State in an annex to this Regulation. The minimum number of signatories required in each Member State should correspond to the number of Members of the European Parliament elected in each Member State, multiplied by 750. The Commission should be empowered to amend that annex in order to reflect any modification in the composition of the European Parliament.\n(7)\nIt is appropriate to fix a minimum age for supporting a citizens\u2019 initiative. That should be set as the age at which citizens are entitled to vote in elections to the European Parliament.\n(8)\nA minimum organised structure is needed in order to successfully carry through a citizens\u2019 initiative. That should take the form of a citizens\u2019 committee, composed of natural persons (organisers) coming from at least seven different Member States, in order to encourage the emergence of European-wide issues and to foster reflection on those issues. For the sake of transparency and smooth and efficient communication, the citizens\u2019 committee should designate representatives to liaise between the citizens\u2019 committee and the institutions of the Union throughout the procedure.\n(9)\nEntities, notably organisations which under the Treaties contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union, should be able to promote a citizens\u2019 initiative, provided that they do so with full transparency.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure coherence and transparency in relation to proposed citizens\u2019 initiatives and to avoid a situation where signatures are being collected for a proposed citizens\u2019 initiative which does not comply with the conditions laid down in this Regulation, it should be mandatory to register such initiatives on a website made available by the Commission prior to collecting the necessary statements of support from citizens. All proposed citizens\u2019 initiatives that comply with the conditions laid down in this Regulation should be registered by the Commission. The Commission should deal with registration in accordance with the general principles of good administration.\n(11)\nOnce a proposed citizens\u2019 initiative is registered, statements of support from citizens may be collected by the organisers.\n(12)\nIt is appropriate to set out the form for the statement of support in an annex to this Regulation, specifying the data required for the purposes of verification by the Member States. The Commission should be empowered to amend that annex in accordance with Article 290 TFEU, taking into account information forwarded to it by Member States.\n(13)\nWith due respect for the principle that personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected, the provision of personal data, including, where applicable, a personal identification number or a personal identification document number by signatories of a proposed citizens\u2019 initiative is required as far as may be necessary in order to allow for the verification of statements of support by Member States, in accordance with national law and practice.\n(14)\nIn order to put modern technology to good use as a tool of participatory democracy, it is appropriate to provide for statements of support to be collected online as well as in paper form. Online collection systems should have adequate security features in place in order to ensure, inter alia, that the data are securely collected and stored. For that purpose, the Commission should set out detailed technical specifications for online collection systems.\n(15)\nIt is appropriate for Member States to verify the conformity of online collection systems with the requirements of this Regulation before statements of support are collected.\n(16)\nThe Commission should make available an open-source software incorporating the relevant technical and security features necessary in order to comply with the provisions of this Regulation as regards online collection systems.\n(17)\nIt is appropriate to ensure that statements of support for a citizens\u2019 initiative are collected within a specific time limit. In order to ensure that proposed citizens\u2019 initiatives remain relevant, whilst taking account of the complexity of collecting statements of support across the Union, that time limit should not be longer than 12 months from the date of registration of the proposed citizens\u2019 initiative.\n(18)\nIt is appropriate to provide that, where a citizens\u2019 initiative has received the necessary statements of support from signatories, each Member State should be responsible for the verification and certification of statements of support collected from signatories coming from that Member State. Taking account of the need to limit the administrative burden for Member States, they should, within a period of three months from receipt of a request for certification, carry out such verifications on the basis of appropriate checks, which may be based on random sampling, and should issue a document certifying the number of valid statements of support received.\n(19)\nOrganisers should ensure that all the relevant conditions set out in this Regulation are met prior to submitting a citizens\u2019 initiative to the Commission.\n(20)\nThe Commission should examine a citizens\u2019 initiative and set out its legal and political conclusions separately. It should also set out the action it intends to take in response to it, within a period of three months. In order to demonstrate that a citizens\u2019 initiative supported by at least one million Union citizens and its possible follow-up are carefully examined, the Commission should explain in a clear, comprehensible and detailed manner the reasons for its intended action, and should likewise give its reasons if it does not intend to take any action. When the Commission has received a citizens\u2019 initiative supported by the requisite number of signatories which fulfils the other requirements of this Regulation, the organisers should be entitled to present that initiative at a public hearing at Union level.\n(21)\nDirective 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (4) is fully applicable to the processing of personal data carried out in application of this Regulation. In this respect, for the sake of legal certainty, it is appropriate to clarify that the organisers of a citizens\u2019 initiative and the competent authorities of the Member States are the data controllers within the meaning of Directive 95/46/EC and to specify the maximum period within which the personal data collected for the purposes of a citizens\u2019 initiative may be retained. In their capacity as data controllers, organisers need to take all the appropriate measures to comply with the obligations imposed by Directive 95/46/EC, in particular those relating to the lawfulness of the processing, the security of the processing activities, the provision of information and the rights of data subjects to have access to their personal data, as well as to procure the correction and erasure of their personal data.\n(22)\nThe provisions of Chapter III of Directive 95/46/EC on judicial remedies, liability and sanctions are fully applicable as regards the data processing carried out in application of this Regulation. Organisers of a citizens\u2019 initiative should be liable in accordance with applicable national law for any damage that they cause. In addition, Member States should ensure that organisers are subject to appropriate penalties for infringements of this Regulation.\n(23)\nRegulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5) is fully applicable to the processing of personal data carried out by the Commission in application of this Regulation.\n(24)\nIn order to address future adaptation needs, the Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU for the purpose of amending the Annexes to this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(25)\nThe measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (6).\n(26)\nThis Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 8 thereof, which states that everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.\n(27)\nThe European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted and adopted an opinion (7),\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation establishes the procedures and conditions required for a citizens\u2019 initiative as provided for in Article 11 TEU and Article 24 TFEU.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018citizens\u2019 initiative\u2019 means an initiative submitted to the Commission in accordance with this Regulation, inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties, which has received the support of at least one million eligible signatories coming from at least one quarter of all Member States;\n2.\n\u2018signatories\u2019 means citizens of the Union who have supported a given citizens\u2019 initiative by completing a statement of support form for that initiative;\n3.\n\u2018organisers\u2019 means natural persons forming a citizens\u2019 committee responsible for the preparation of a citizens\u2019 initiative and its submission to the Commission.\nArticle 3\nRequirements for organisers and for signatories\n1. The organisers shall be citizens of the Union and be of the age to be entitled to vote in elections to the European Parliament.\n2. The organisers shall form a citizens\u2019 committee of at least seven persons who are residents of at least seven different Member States.\nThe organisers shall designate one representative and one substitute (\u2018the contact persons\u2019), who shall liaise between the citizens\u2019 committee and the institutions of the Union throughout the procedure and who shall be mandated to speak and act on behalf of the citizens\u2019 committee.\nOrganisers who are Members of the European Parliament shall not be counted for the purposes of reaching the minimum number required to form a citizens\u2019 committee.\nFor the purpose of registering a proposed citizens\u2019 initiative in accordance with Article 4, only the information concerning the seven members of the citizens\u2019 committee who are needed in order to comply with the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article and in this paragraph shall be considered by the Commission.\n3. The Commission may request the organisers to provide appropriate proof that the requirements laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 are fulfilled.\n4. In order to be eligible to support a proposed citizens\u2019 initiative, signatories shall be citizens of the Union and shall be of the age to be entitled to vote in elections to the European Parliament.\nArticle 4\nRegistration of a proposed citizens\u2019 initiative\n1. Prior to initiating the collection of statements of support from signatories for a proposed citizens\u2019 initiative, the organisers shall be required to register it with the Commission, providing the information set out in Annex II, in particular on the subject matter and objectives of the proposed citizens\u2019 initiative.\nThat information shall be provided in one of the official languages of the Union, in an online register made available for that purpose by the Commission (\u2018the register\u2019).\nThe organisers shall provide, for the register and where appropriate on their website, regularly updated information on the sources of support and funding for the proposed citizens\u2019 initiative.\nAfter the registration is confirmed in accordance with paragraph 2, the organisers may provide the proposed citizens\u2019 initiative in other official languages of the Union for inclusion in the register. The translation of the proposed citizens\u2019 initiative into other official languages of the Union shall be the responsibility of the organisers.\nThe Commission shall establish a point of contact which provides information and assistance.\n2. Within two months from the receipt of the information set out in Annex II, the Commission shall register a proposed citizens\u2019 initiative under a unique registration number and send a confirmation to the organisers, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe citizens\u2019 committee has been formed and the contact persons have been designated in accordance with Article 3(2);\n(b)\nthe proposed citizens\u2019 initiative does not manifestly fall outside the framework of the Commission\u2019s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties;\n(c)\nthe proposed citizens\u2019 initiative is not manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious; and\n(d)\nthe proposed citizens\u2019 initiative is not manifestly contrary to the values of the Union as set out in Article 2 TEU.\n3. The Commission shall refuse the registration if the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 are not met.\nWhere it refuses to register a proposed citizens\u2019 initiative, the Commission shall inform the organisers of the reasons for such refusal and of all possible judicial and extrajudicial remedies available to them.\n4. A proposed citizens\u2019 initiative that has been registered shall be made public in the register. Without prejudice to their rights under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, data subjects shall be entitled to request the removal of their personal data from the register after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of registration of a proposed citizens\u2019 initiative.\n5. At any time before the submission of statements of support in accordance with Article 8, the organisers may withdraw a proposed citizens\u2019 initiative that has been registered. In that case, an indication to that effect shall be entered in the register.\nArticle 5\nProcedures and conditions for the collection of statements of support\n1. The organisers shall be responsible for the collection of the statements of support from signatories for a proposed citizens\u2019 initiative which has been registered in accordance with Article 4.\nOnly forms which comply with the models set out in Annex III and which are in one of the language versions included in the register for that proposed citizens\u2019 initiative may be used for the collection of statements of support. The organisers shall complete the forms as indicated in Annex III prior to initiating the collection of statements of support from signatories. The information given in the forms shall correspond to the information contained in the register.\n2. The organisers may collect statements of support in paper form or electronically. Where statements of support are collected online, Article 6 shall apply.\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, statements of support which are electronically signed using an advanced electronic signature, within the meaning of Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures (8), shall be treated in the same way as statements of support in paper form.\n3. Signatories shall be required to complete statement of support forms made available by the organisers. They shall indicate only the personal data that are required for the purposes of verification by the Member States, as set out in Annex III.\nSignatories may only support a given proposed citizens\u2019 initiative once.\n4. Member States shall forward to the Commission any changes to the information set out in Annex III. Taking into account those changes, the Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts, in accordance with Article 17 and subject to the conditions of Articles 18 and 19, amendments to Annex III.\n5. All statements of support shall be collected after the date of registration of the proposed citizens\u2019 initiative and within a period not exceeding 12 months.\nAt the end of that period, the register shall indicate that the period has expired and, where appropriate, that the required number of statements of support was not collected.\nArticle 6\nOnline collection systems\n1. Where statements of support are collected online, the data obtained through the online collection system shall be stored in the territory of a Member State.\nThe online collection system shall be certified in accordance with paragraph 3 in the Member State in which the data collected through the online collection system will be stored. The organisers may use one online collection system for the purpose of collecting statements of support in several or all Member States.\nThe models for the statement of support forms may be adapted for the purpose of the online collection.\n2. The organisers shall ensure that the online collection system used for the collection of statements of support complies with paragraph 4.\nPrior to initiating the collection of statements of support, the organisers shall request the competent authority of the relevant Member State to certify that the online collection system used for that purpose complies with paragraph 4.\nThe organisers may only start collecting statements of support through the online collection system once they have obtained the certificate referred to in paragraph 3. The organisers shall make a copy of that certificate publicly available on the website used for the online collection system.\nBy 1 January 2012, the Commission shall set up and thereafter shall maintain open-source software incorporating the relevant technical and security features necessary for compliance with the provisions of this Regulation regarding the online collection systems. The software shall be made available free of charge.\n3. Where the online collection system complies with paragraph 4, the relevant competent authority shall within one month issue a certificate to that effect in accordance with the model set out in Annex IV.\nMember States shall recognise the certificates issued by the competent authorities of other Member States.\n4. Online collection systems shall have adequate security and technical features in place in order to ensure that:\n(a)\nonly natural persons may submit a statement of support form online;\n(b)\nthe data provided online are securely collected and stored, in order to ensure, inter alia, that they may not be modified or used for any purpose other than their indicated support of the given citizens\u2019 initiative and to protect personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration or unauthorised disclosure or access;\n(c)\nthe system can generate statements of support in a form complying with the models set out in Annex III, in order to allow for the verification by the Member States in accordance with Article 8(2).\n5. By 1 January 2012, the Commission shall adopt technical specifications for the implementation of paragraph 4, in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 20(2).\nArticle 7\nMinimum number of signatories per Member State\n1. The signatories of a citizens\u2019 initiative shall come from at least one quarter of Member States.\n2. In at least one quarter of Member States, signatories shall comprise at least the minimum number of citizens set out, at the time of registration of the proposed citizens\u2019 initiative, in Annex I. Those minimum numbers shall correspond to the number of the Members of the European Parliament elected in each Member State, multiplied by 750.\n3. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts, in accordance with Article 17 and subject to the conditions of Articles 18 and 19, appropriate adjustments to Annex I in order to reflect any modification in the composition of the European Parliament.\n4. Signatories shall be considered as coming from the Member State which is responsible for the verification of their statement of support in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 8(1).\nArticle 8\nVerification and certification by Member States of statements of support\n1. After collecting the necessary statements of support from signatories in accordance with Articles 5 and 7, the organisers shall submit the statements of support, in paper or electronic form, to the relevant competent authorities referred to in Article 15 for verification and certification. For that purpose the organisers shall use the form set out in Annex V and shall separate those statements of support collected in paper form, those which were electronically signed using an advanced electronic signature and those collected through an online collection system.\nThe organisers shall submit statements of support to the relevant Member State as follows:\n(a)\nto the Member State of residence or of nationality of the signatory, as specified in point 1 of Part C of Annex III, or\n(b)\nto the Member State that issued the personal identification number or the personal identification document indicated in the statement of support, as specified in point 2 of Part C of Annex III.\n2. The competent authorities shall, within a period not exceeding three months from receipt of the request, verify the statements of support submitted on the basis of appropriate checks, in accordance with national law and practice, as appropriate. On that basis they shall deliver to the organisers a certificate in accordance with the model set out in Annex VI, certifying the number of valid statements of support for the Member State concerned.\nFor the purpose of the verification of statements of support, the authentication of signatures shall not be required.\n3. The certificate provided for in paragraph 2 shall be issued free of charge.\nArticle 9\nSubmission of a citizens\u2019 initiative to the Commission\nAfter obtaining the certificates provided for in Article 8(2), and provided that all relevant procedures and conditions set out in this Regulation have been complied with, the organisers may submit the citizens\u2019 initiative to the Commission, accompanied by information regarding any support and funding received for that initiative. That information shall be published in the register.\nThe amount of support and funding received from any source in excess of which information is to be provided shall be identical to that set out in Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (9).\nFor the purpose of this Article, the organisers shall make use of the form set out in Annex VII and shall submit the completed form together with copies, in paper or electronic form, of the certificates provided for in Article 8(2).\nArticle 10\nProcedure for the examination of a citizens\u2019 initiative by the Commission\n1. Where the Commission receives a citizens\u2019 initiative in accordance with Article 9 it shall:\n(a)\npublish the citizens\u2019 initiative without delay in the register;\n(b)\nreceive the organisers at an appropriate level to allow them to explain in detail the matters raised by the citizens\u2019 initiative;\n(c)\nwithin three months, set out in a communication its legal and political conclusions on the citizens\u2019 initiative, the action it intends to take, if any, and its reasons for taking or not taking that action.\n2. The communication referred to in paragraph 1(c) shall be notified to the organisers as well as to the European Parliament and the Council and shall be made public.\nArticle 11\nPublic hearing\nWhere the conditions of Article 10(1)(a) and (b) are fulfilled, and within the deadline laid down in Article 10(1)(c), the organisers shall be given the opportunity to present the citizens\u2019 initiative at a public hearing. The Commission and the European Parliament shall ensure that this hearing is organised at the European Parliament, if appropriate together with such other institutions and bodies of the Union as may wish to participate, and that the Commission is represented at an appropriate level.\nArticle 12\nProtection of personal data\n1. In processing personal data pursuant to this Regulation, the organisers of a citizens\u2019 initiative and the competent authorities of the Member State shall comply with Directive 95/46/EC and the national provisions adopted pursuant thereto.\n2. For the purposes of their respective processing of personal data, the organisers of a citizens\u2019 initiative and the competent authorities designated in accordance with Article 15(2) shall be considered as data controllers in accordance with Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46/EC.\n3. The organisers shall ensure that personal data collected for a given citizen\u2019s initiative are not used for any purpose other than their indicated support for that initiative, and shall destroy all statements of support received for that initiative and any copies thereof at the latest one month after submitting that initiative to the Commission in accordance with Article 9 or 18 months after the date of registration of the proposed citizens\u2019 initiative, whichever is the earlier.\n4. The competent authority shall use the personal data it receives for a given citizens\u2019 initiative only for the purpose of verifying the statements of support in accordance with Article 8(2), and shall destroy all statements of support and copies thereof at the latest one month after issuing the certificate referred to in that Article.\n5. Statements of support for a given citizens\u2019 initiative and copies thereof may be retained beyond the time limits laid down in paragraphs 3 and 4 if necessary for the purpose of legal or administrative proceedings relating to a proposed citizen\u2019s initiative. The organisers and the competent authority shall destroy all statements of support and copies thereof at the latest one week after the date of conclusion of the said proceedings by a final decision.\n6. The organisers shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure or access, in particular where the processing involves the transmission of data over a network, and against all other unlawful forms of processing.\nArticle 13\nLiability\nOrganisers shall be liable for any damage they cause in the organisation of a citizens\u2019 initiative in accordance with applicable national law.\nArticle 14\nPenalties\n1. Member States shall ensure that organisers are subject to appropriate penalties for infringements of this Regulation and in particular for:\n(a)\nfalse declarations made by organisers;\n(b)\nthe fraudulent use of data.\n2. The penalties referred to in paragraph 1 shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\nArticle 15\nCompetent authorities within the Member States\n1. For the purpose of the implementation of Article 6(3), Member States shall designate competent authorities responsible for issuing the certificate provided for therein.\n2. For the purpose of the implementation of Article 8(2), each Member State shall designate one competent authority responsible for coordinating the process of verification of statements of support and for delivering the certificates provided for therein.\n3. Not later than 1 March 2012, Member States shall forward the names and addresses of the competent authorities to the Commission.\n4. The Commission shall make the list of competent authorities publicly available.\nArticle 16\nAmendment of the Annexes\nThe Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 17 and subject to the conditions of Articles 18 and 19, amendments to the Annexes to this Regulation within the scope of the relevant provisions of this Regulation.\nArticle 17\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 16 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 18 and 19.\nArticle 18\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 16 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 19\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to the delegated act within a period of two months from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council this period shall be extended by two months.\n2. If, on expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 20\nCommittee\n1. For the purpose of the implementation of Article 6(5), the Commission shall be assisted by a committee.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\nThe period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.\nArticle 21\nNotification of national provisions\nEach Member State shall notify to the Commission the specific provisions it adopts in order to implement this Regulation.\nThe Commission shall inform the other Member States thereof.\nArticle 22\nReview\nBy 1 April 2015, and every three years thereafter, the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Regulation.\nArticle 23\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 February 2011.", "references": ["48", "38", "34", "3", "66", "32", "88", "79", "52", "55", "40", "82", "17", "93", "56", "75", "21", "37", "18", "39", "58", "67", "35", "53", "70", "28", "92", "86", "1", "62", "No Label", "0", "7", "8", "9"], "gold": ["0", "7", "8", "9"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 28 February 2011\non the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of the Congo on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT)\n(2011/202/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(3) and the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) and (7) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn May 2003 the European Commission published an EU Action Plan for forest law enforcement governance and trade (FLEGT) which called for measures to address illegal logging through the development of voluntary partnership agreements with timber-producing countries. Council conclusions on this Action Plan were adopted in October 2003 (1) and Parliament adopted a resolution on 11 July 2005 (2).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2010/615/EU (3), the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of the Congo on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was signed on 17 May 2010, subject to its conclusion at a later date.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Congo on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered on behalf of the Union to make the notification provided for in Article 28 of the Agreement, in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe Union shall be represented by representatives of the Commission in the Joint Agreement Implementation Committee set up in accordance with Article 19 of the Agreement.\nThe Member States may participate in meetings of the Joint Agreement Implementation Committee as members of the Union delegation.\nArticle 4\nFor the purpose of amending the Annexes to the Agreement on the basis of Article 26 thereof, the Commission is authorised, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 of 20 December 2005 on the establishment of a FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of timber into the European Community (4), to approve such amendments on the Union\u2019s behalf.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["90", "48", "25", "78", "87", "66", "36", "62", "99", "84", "34", "33", "46", "3", "57", "35", "60", "27", "12", "43", "11", "17", "28", "64", "16", "82", "80", "92", "19", "41", "No Label", "9", "20", "22", "88", "94"], "gold": ["9", "20", "22", "88", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 538/2010\nof 18 June 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of June 2010 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1384/2007 for poultrymeat originating in Israel\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1384/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/96 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain quotas for imports into the Community of poultrymeat products originating in Israel (3), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of June 2010 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2010 relate to quantities exceeding those available for licences under the quota with order number 09.4092. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 1384/2007 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2010 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2010.", "references": ["97", "5", "30", "51", "79", "36", "89", "73", "9", "60", "56", "17", "84", "71", "19", "18", "98", "24", "93", "10", "46", "80", "8", "25", "0", "68", "14", "82", "58", "33", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "69", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "69", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1100/2011\nof 31 October 2011\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances dicamba, difenoconazole, and imazaquin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe active substances dicamba, difenoconazole and imazaquin were included in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) by Commission Directive 2008/69/EC (3) in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 11b of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 of 14 August 2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 (4). Since the replacement of Directive 91/414/EEC by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, these substances are deemed to have been approved under that Regulation and are listed in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (5).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 12a of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002, the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, presented to the Commission the conclusions on the peer review for difenoconazole (6), dicamba (7) and imazaquin (8) on 17 December 2010. These conclusions were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and were finalised on 27 September 2011 in the format of the Commission review reports for difenoconazole, dicamba, and imazaquin.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Commission invited the notifiers to submit their comments on the conclusions of the Authority. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 13(1) of that Regulation, the Commission invited the notifiers to submit comments on the draft review reports for dicamba, difenoconazole and imazaquin. The notifiers submitted their comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(4)\nIt is confirmed that the active substances dicamba, difenoconazole and imazaquin are to be deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is necessary to amend the conditions of approval of dicamba, difenoconazole and imazaquin. It is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(6)\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nA reasonable period of time should be allowed before the application of this Regulation in order to allow Member States, notifiers and holders of authorisations for plant protection products to meet the requirements resulting from amendment to the conditions of the approval.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 May 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["48", "91", "88", "5", "55", "0", "15", "23", "63", "86", "90", "34", "59", "62", "50", "51", "26", "98", "54", "84", "71", "94", "24", "80", "44", "4", "40", "1", "53", "36", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, OF THE COUNCIL AND OF THE COMMISSION\nof 15 February 2011\non renewing the term of office of the members of the Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF)\n(2011/158/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) (1) and in particular Article 4,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and to Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (3) concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF), and in particular Article 11(2),\nHaving regard to Decision 2005/833/EC, Euratom of the European Parliament, of the Council and of the Commission of 4 November 2005 appointing the members of the Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (4),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 11(2) of Regulations (EC) No 1073/1999 and (Euratom) No 1074/1999 provides that the Supervisory Committee \u2018shall be composed of five independent outside persons who possess the qualifications required for appointment in their respective countries to senior posts relating to the Office's areas of activity\u2019 and that those persons shall be appointed by common accord of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.\n(2)\nAccording to Article 11(3), the term of office of the members of the Supervisory Committee shall be 3 years and shall be renewable once. The term of office of the current members of the Supervisory Committee expired on 30 November 2008. They continued to exercise their function upon the expiry of their term of office in accordance with Article 11(4) of the Regulations.\n(3)\nGiven that the term of the office of the members of the Supervisory Committee should not exceed 6 years, the term of office of the current members, who remained in office upon expiry of their first term, should be renewed until 30 November 2011,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are reappointed members of the Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) until 30 November 2011:\n-\nMr Peter STR\u00d6MBERG,\n-\nMr K\u00e1lm\u00e1n GY\u00d6RGYI,\n-\nMs Rosalind WRIGHT,\n-\nMr Luis L\u00d3PEZ SANZ-AR\u00c1NGUEZ,\n-\nMs Diemut R. THEATO.\nArticle 2\nThe persons concerned shall be notified of this decision by the Commission.\nArticle 3\nThis decision shall have effect as from 1 December 2008.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2011.", "references": ["56", "16", "28", "70", "49", "69", "86", "68", "23", "8", "98", "84", "45", "17", "35", "34", "91", "6", "9", "79", "41", "1", "85", "59", "71", "97", "12", "81", "99", "3", "No Label", "0", "7", "11", "52"], "gold": ["0", "7", "11", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 212/2012\nof 12 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 March 2012.", "references": ["64", "82", "89", "7", "78", "85", "34", "14", "21", "5", "86", "98", "29", "51", "58", "11", "99", "57", "75", "23", "48", "65", "30", "0", "50", "81", "55", "36", "83", "49", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 535/2011\nof 31 May 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 June 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 June 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 June 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2011.", "references": ["5", "1", "77", "23", "48", "61", "49", "9", "14", "79", "18", "45", "40", "54", "89", "47", "75", "64", "41", "26", "85", "36", "3", "51", "76", "20", "44", "37", "50", "42", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\non a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Spain in 2009\n(notified under document C(2011) 8721)\n(Only the Spanish text is authentic)\n(2011/798/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3), first and second indents, of that Decision identifies the percentage of Union financial contributions that can be paid to compensate the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nArticle 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2010/148/EU of 5 March 2010 on a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France and Italy in 2009 (3) provided for a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza, amongst others, in Spain in 2009.\n(5)\nSpain submitted an official request for reimbursement on 3 May 2010 as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(6)\nArticle 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 makes the payment of that financial contribution from the Union subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(7)\nAn audit according to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 carried out by the Commission\u2019s services did reveal only minor financial issues.\n(8)\nSpain has thus to this point complied with its technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(9)\nIn view of the above considerations, a first tranche of the financial support from the Union to Spain to the eligible expenditure incurred in association with the eradication of avian influenza in 2009 should now be fixed.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nA first tranche of EUR 500 000,00 shall be paid to Spain as part of the Union financial contribution.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision constituting a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["23", "64", "12", "48", "85", "39", "40", "94", "59", "36", "2", "27", "11", "89", "19", "16", "15", "70", "25", "71", "46", "6", "29", "35", "26", "80", "92", "45", "99", "79", "No Label", "4", "10", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 992/2011\nof 5 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 October 2011.", "references": ["13", "70", "6", "1", "62", "63", "75", "96", "77", "24", "17", "2", "39", "55", "0", "31", "52", "44", "21", "42", "40", "32", "83", "76", "93", "18", "5", "47", "87", "65", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 834/2012\nof 17 September 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 September 2012.", "references": ["83", "45", "39", "69", "73", "24", "38", "96", "65", "20", "5", "64", "1", "90", "91", "87", "82", "76", "2", "27", "40", "32", "70", "42", "66", "31", "62", "80", "94", "88", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 27 September 2010\non the signing of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cameroon on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT)\n(2011/200/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207, in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn May 2003 the Commission adopted a Communication to the Council and the European Parliament entitled \u2018Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT): Proposal for an EU Action Plan\u2019 which called for measures to address illegal logging through the development of voluntary partnership agreements with timber-producing countries. Council conclusions on that Action Plan were adopted in October 2003 (1) and the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the subject on 11 July 2005 (2).\n(2)\nOn 5 December 2005, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations on partnership agreements to implement the Union Action Plan for FLEGT.\n(3)\nOn 20 December 2005, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 (3) which established a FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of timber into the Union from countries with which the Union has concluded voluntary partnership agreements.\n(4)\nThe negotiations with the Republic of Cameroon have been concluded and the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cameroon on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was initialled on 6 May 2010.\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be signed subject to its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cameroon on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT) is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision (4).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["40", "27", "7", "33", "54", "80", "81", "30", "47", "62", "90", "5", "67", "92", "42", "76", "35", "34", "3", "14", "11", "26", "28", "59", "1", "49", "37", "21", "32", "31", "No Label", "2", "4", "12", "15", "22", "46", "94"], "gold": ["2", "4", "12", "15", "22", "46", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 3 May 2011\namending Decision 2004/211/EC as regards the entry for South Africa in the list of third countries and parts thereof from which the introduction into the European Union of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species are authorised\n(notified under document C(2011) 2959)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/267/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), and in particular Article 17(3)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2009/156/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (2), and in particular Article 12(1), and the introductory phrase and points (a) and (b) of Article 19, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 92/65/EEC lays down conditions applicable to imports of animals, semen, ova and embryos. Those conditions are to be at least equivalent to those applicable to trade between Member States.\n(2)\nDirective 2009/156/EC lays down animal health conditions for the movement between Member States and importation from third countries of live equidae. Pursuant to that Directive, equidae must come from third countries which are free from African horse sickness.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2004/211/EC of 6 January 2004 establishing the list of third countries and parts of territory thereof from which Member States authorise imports of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species, and amending Decisions 93/195/EEC and 94/63/EC (3) establishes a list of third countries and parts of territories thereof from which Member States are to authorise imports of equidae and semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine species and indicates the other conditions applicable to such imports. That list is set out in Annex I to that Decision. The Metropolitan area of Cape Town is included in that list.\n(4)\nIn March 2011, South Africa notified outbreaks of African horse sickness on the boundaries between the surveillance zone and the African horse sickness free area in the Metropolitan area of Cape Town, established in accordance with Commission Decision 2008/698/EC of 8 August 2008 on the temporary admission and imports into the Community of registered horses from South Africa (4).\n(5)\nThat situation is liable to constitute a serious animal health risk for the equine population in the Union and, therefore, the temporary admission of registered horses and the imports into the Union of such horses and of semen collected from registered horses from the Metropolitan area of Cape Town should be suspended.\n(6)\nDecision 2004/211/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC, the entry for South Africa is replaced by the following:\n\u2018ZA\nSouth Africa\nZA-0\nWhole country\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nZA-1\nMetropolitan area of Cape Town (see box 2 for details)\nF\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nDecision 2008/698/EC\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 May 2011.", "references": ["92", "60", "56", "24", "88", "90", "49", "93", "55", "82", "57", "89", "8", "21", "96", "72", "77", "95", "26", "46", "2", "74", "13", "3", "91", "54", "36", "16", "37", "12", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "65", "66", "94"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "65", "66", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 383/2011\nof 18 April 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006 (1) and in particular Article 18(1)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex V to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 lists the entities covered by certain export, financing and investment restrictions under that Regulation.\n(2)\nAnnex VI to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(3)\nAnnex VII to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 lists the enterprises owned or controlled by the Government of Burma/Myanmar or its members or persons associated with them, subject to restrictions on investment under that Regulation.\n(4)\nCouncil Decision (EU) No 2011/239/CFSP (2), replaces Annexes I, II and III of Council Decision 2010/232/CFSP of 26 April 2010 (3), which present the list of enterprises referred to in Articles 3(2)(b), 5 and 14 of that Decision, the list of natural and legal persons referred to in Articles 9, 10 and 13 of that Decision and the list of enterprises referred to in Articles 10 and 14 of that Decision. Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 gives effect to Council Decision 2010/232/CFSP to the extent that action at Union level is required. Annexes V, VI and VII to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nIn the case of the individuals identified in Annex IV of Council Decision 2011/239/CFSP, the effects of their listing in Annex II of the same Decision are suspended. Accordingly it is not appropriate to include their names in Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 194/2008.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 is replaced by the text of Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 is replaced by the text of Annex II to this Regulation.\n3. Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 is replaced by the text of Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2011.", "references": ["58", "62", "47", "33", "1", "21", "37", "73", "97", "98", "20", "16", "41", "72", "30", "81", "13", "90", "69", "24", "46", "18", "44", "80", "42", "2", "17", "99", "22", "50", "No Label", "3", "12", "14", "23", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "12", "14", "23", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 326/2012\nof 17 April 2012\non the division between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 of national milk quotas fixed for 2011/2012 in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 69(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 67(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that producers may have one or two individual quotas, one for deliveries and the other for direct sales and quantities may be converted from one quota to the other only by the competent authority of the Member State, at the duly justified request of the producer.\n(2)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 471/2011 of 16 May 2011 on the division between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 of national milk quotas fixed for 2010/2011 in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (2) sets out the division between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 for the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 for all Member States.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 25(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (3), Member States have notified the quantities which have been definitively converted at the request of the producers between individual quotas for deliveries and for direct sales.\n(4)\nThe total national quotas for all Member States fixed in point 1 of Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 72/2009 (4) were increased with 1 %, effective from 1 April 2011, except for Italy whose quota was already increased with 5 %, effective from 1 April 2009. Member States, except Italy, have notified the Commission of the division between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 of the additional quota.\n(5)\nIt is therefore appropriate to establish the division between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 of the national quotas applicable for the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012 fixed in Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(6)\nGiven the fact that the division between direct sales and deliveries is used as a reference basis for controls pursuant to Articles 19 to 21 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 and for the establishment of the annual questionnaire set out in Annex I to that Regulation, it is appropriate to determine a date of expiry of this Regulation after the last possible date for these controls.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe division, applicable for the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012, between \u2018deliveries\u2019 and \u2018direct sales\u2019 of the national quotas fixed in Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 is set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 April 2012.", "references": ["12", "40", "75", "53", "69", "54", "71", "46", "68", "89", "23", "39", "14", "56", "20", "31", "3", "82", "35", "47", "85", "96", "97", "86", "15", "93", "7", "63", "10", "24", "No Label", "25", "26", "61", "62", "70"], "gold": ["25", "26", "61", "62", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 July 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand amending the Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand\n(2011/464/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand (1) (the Agreement on Mutual Recognition) entered into force on 1 January 1999 (2).\n(2)\nOn 8 July 2002, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with New Zealand with a view to amending the Agreement on Mutual Recognition. The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand amending the Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand (the Agreement) in Brussels on 29 June 2009.\n(3)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand amending the Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand (the Agreement) is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (3).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["28", "14", "98", "22", "93", "13", "19", "50", "20", "85", "63", "6", "71", "10", "7", "65", "37", "79", "86", "66", "16", "41", "45", "74", "43", "46", "15", "58", "59", "12", "No Label", "3", "8", "9", "25", "76", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "8", "9", "25", "76", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 859/2010\nof 28 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 September 2010.", "references": ["46", "12", "84", "7", "58", "23", "36", "19", "97", "99", "30", "3", "85", "91", "43", "6", "80", "31", "93", "28", "52", "59", "90", "72", "73", "47", "45", "82", "42", "53", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 907/2010\nof 11 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 October 2010.", "references": ["43", "90", "20", "39", "53", "40", "32", "77", "23", "49", "1", "88", "46", "60", "72", "3", "92", "64", "99", "27", "74", "0", "76", "4", "78", "80", "86", "47", "25", "44", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 862/2012\nof 4 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 as regards information on the consent to use of the prospectus, information on underlying indexes and the requirement for a report prepared by independent accountants or auditors\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (1), and in particular Article 5(5) and Article 7(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 of 29 April 2004 implementing Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards information contained in prospectuses as well as the format, incorporation by reference and publication of such prospectuses and dissemination of advertisements (2) sets out the minimum information to be included in a prospectus for different kinds of securities in order to comply with Article 5(5) and Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/71/EC.\n(2)\nDirective 2003/71/EC was amended by Directive 2010/73/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 amending Directives 2003/71/EC on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (3) in order to enhance investor protection, reduce administrative burdens for companies when raising capital in the securities markets in the Union and increase efficiency in the prospectus regime. Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 should therefore be amended regarding the consent of the issuer or the person responsible for drawing up the prospectus to the use of the prospectus by financial intermediaries and the information to be included in the prospectus relating to underlying indexes and profit forecasts and estimates.\n(3)\nFor the purposes of the third subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Directive 2003/71/EC, Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 should specify what information is to be provided where the issuer or the person responsible for drawing up the prospectus consents by means of a written agreement to its use by financial intermediaries.\n(4)\nIn order to take account of technical developments on financial markets, and notably the increase in the use of indexes as underlying of structured securities, certain requirements of Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 should be reviewed and clarified. By conferring the responsibility to compose the index on another entity of the group, issuers could circumvent the requirement to include in the prospectus a description of the index composed by the issuer (item 4.2.2 of Annex XII) and thus avoid liability where the description is inaccurate. Accordingly, that requirement should also be extended to indexes composed by an entity belonging to the same group as the issuer.\n(5)\nWith a view to increasing efficiency and reducing administrative burdens, this Regulation should also lay down conditions under which a description of the index within the prospectus is not required when the index is composed by entities acting in association with or on behalf of the issuer. Moreover, as item 2.10 of Annex XV only refers to broadly based and recognised published index, a statement in the prospectus specifying where the information about the index can be found should be sufficient without a description of the composition of the index being necessary.\n(6)\nIn order to reduce the administrative costs for issuers when raising capital, this Regulation should lay down conditions under which the report prepared by independent accountants or auditors accompanying profit forecasts and estimates is not required, notably where independent accountants or auditors are not able to sign the audit report because the complete set of documents constitutive of annual financial statements are not available to them.\n(7)\nDirective 2010/73/EU replaced the term \u2018key information\u2019 by the term \u2018essential information\u2019 in a number of provisions of Directive 2003/71/EC. The Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 should therefore be adapted.\n(8)\nIn order to avoid any further inconsistent application of Directive 2003/71/EC, in particular for the purposes of the third subparagraph of Article 3(2) thereof, and to avoid additional delays in ensuring enhanced investor protection and reduction of administrative burdens for companies when raising capital in the securities markets in the Union it is essential to provide for an entry into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 809/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 809/2004\nRegulation (EC) No 809/2004 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe second paragraph of Article 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018A prospectus shall contain the information items required in Annexes I to XVII and Annexes XX to XXX depending on the type of issuer or issues and securities involved. Subject to Article 4a(1), a competent authority shall not require that a prospectus contains information items which are not included in Annexes I to XVII or Annexes XX to XXX.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following Article 20a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 20a\nAdditional information building block for consent given in accordance with Article 3(2) of Directive 2003/71/EC\n1. For the purposes of the third subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Directive 2003/71/EC, the prospectus shall contain the following:\n(a)\nthe additional information set out in Sections 1 and 2A of Annex XXX where the consent is given to one or more specified financial intermediaries;\n(b)\nthe additional information set out in Sections 1 and 2B of Annex XXX where the issuer or the person responsible for drawing up the prospectus chooses to give its consent to all financial intermediaries.\n2. Where a financial intermediary does not comply with the conditions attached to consent as disclosed in the prospectus, a new prospectus shall be required in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 3(2) of Directive 2003/71/EC.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe second subparagraph of Article 22(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018A base prospectus shall contain the information items required in Annexes I to XVII, Annex XX and Annexes XXIII to XXX depending on the type of issuer and securities involved. Competent authorities shall not require that a base prospectus contains information items which are not included in Annexes I to XVII, Annex XX or Annexes XXIII to XXX.\u2019;\n(4)\nthe Annexes are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nTransitional provision\n1. This Regulation shall not apply to the approval of a supplement to a prospectus or base prospectus where the prospectus or base prospectus was approved before the date referred to in Article 3.\n2. Where in accordance with Article 18 of Directive 2003/71/EC the competent authority of the home Member State notifies the competent authority of the host Member State with a certificate of approval in relation to a prospectus or a base prospectus approved before the date referred to in Article 3, the competent authority of the home Member State shall clearly and explicitly indicate in the certificate that the prospectus or base prospectus was approved before the date referred to in Article 3.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 June 2012.", "references": ["92", "56", "26", "90", "37", "20", "15", "11", "49", "34", "50", "6", "76", "61", "65", "72", "33", "16", "69", "74", "55", "0", "12", "62", "82", "40", "58", "51", "52", "88", "No Label", "19", "30", "39", "47"], "gold": ["19", "30", "39", "47"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/699/CFSP\nof 20 October 2011\nimplementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 20 December 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/788/CFSP.\n(2)\nOn 8 July 2011, the Sanctions Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1533 (2004) concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, updated the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures. The Annex to Decision 2010/788/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2010/788/CFSP shall be replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["70", "38", "68", "33", "10", "91", "69", "58", "84", "5", "88", "11", "22", "67", "17", "55", "13", "14", "35", "45", "53", "95", "59", "42", "77", "16", "74", "20", "32", "34", "No Label", "3", "12", "94"], "gold": ["3", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 August 2010\nrecognising in principle the completeness of the dossier submitted for detailed examination in view of the possible inclusion of penthiopyrad in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC\n(notified under document C(2010) 5556)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/466/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 91/414/EEC provides for the development of a European Union list of active substances authorised for incorporation in plant protection products.\n(2)\nThe dossier for the active substance penthiopyrad was submitted by LKC Ltd to the authorities of the United Kingdom on 10 December 2009 with the application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nThe authorities of the United Kingdom have indicated to the Commission that, on preliminary examination, the dossier for the active substance concerned appears to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC. The dossier submitted appears also to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substance concerned. In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, the dossier was subsequently forwarded by the applicant to the Commission and other Member States, and was referred to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.\n(4)\nBy this Decision it should be formally confirmed at European Union level that the dossier is considered as satisfying in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II and, for at least one plant protection product containing the active substance concerned, the requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe dossier concerning the active substance identified in the Annex to this Decision, which was submitted to the Commission and the Member States with a view to obtaining the inclusion of that substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, satisfies in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to that Directive.\nThe dossier also satisfies the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substance, taking into account the uses proposed.\nArticle 2\nThe rapporteur Member State shall pursue the detailed examination for the dossier referred to in Article 1 and shall communicate to the Commission the conclusions of its examination accompanied by any recommendations on the inclusion or non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substance referred to in Article 1 and any conditions for that inclusion as soon as possible and by 31 August 2011 at the latest.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 August 2010.", "references": ["63", "43", "47", "89", "36", "57", "66", "72", "80", "82", "12", "69", "88", "45", "85", "1", "16", "35", "91", "26", "52", "27", "23", "83", "22", "78", "11", "70", "24", "15", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 106/2011\nof 7 February 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Cerezas de la Monta\u00f1a de Alicante (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and having regard to Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Spain's application for approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Cerezas de la Monta\u00f1a de Alicante\u2019, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 February 2011.", "references": ["13", "1", "80", "41", "92", "94", "2", "57", "4", "50", "67", "8", "10", "53", "43", "45", "71", "73", "27", "39", "32", "86", "35", "3", "85", "95", "90", "26", "64", "84", "No Label", "23", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 135/2012\nof 16 February 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste to include certain unclassified wastes in Annex IIIB thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (1), and in particular Article 58(1)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIreland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria and Finland have submitted a request to the Commission to consider certain unclassified wastes for inclusion in Annex IIIB to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006.\n(2)\nThe Commission has received comments from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Finland and Sweden with regard to the acceptability of the submitted requests to be considered as green listed waste for inclusion in Annex IIIB to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006.\n(3)\nTaking into account those comments, the Commission advised Ireland, the Netherlands and Finland to submit to the Secretariat of the Basel Convention of 22 March 1989 on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal (2) (\u2018Basel Convention\u2019) applications for new entries to Annex IX to the Basel Convention, following the procedure of the Basel Convention\u2019s COP8 Decision VIII/15 regarding the revisions to the procedure for the review or adjustment of the lists of wastes contained in Annexes VIII and IX to the Basel Convention.\n(4)\nFinland, the Netherlands and Ireland submitted to the Secretariat of the Basel Convention applications for new entries to Annex IX to the Basel Convention on 14 January 2011, 25 January 2011 and 1 February 2011, respectively. Until a decision is made to include the unclassified entries in the relevant Annexes to the Basel Convention or to Decision C(2001)107/Final of the OECD Council concerning the revision of Decision C(92)39/Final on the control of transboundary movements of wastes destined for recovery operations (OECD Decision), those entries can be added on a provisional basis to Annex IIIB to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1013/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 39 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IIIB to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 February 2012.", "references": ["71", "35", "67", "26", "80", "30", "53", "36", "41", "38", "52", "61", "92", "17", "72", "62", "46", "0", "6", "34", "37", "50", "18", "83", "5", "87", "90", "82", "66", "74", "No Label", "4", "20", "22", "58", "60"], "gold": ["4", "20", "22", "58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 669/2010\nof 26 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["72", "42", "78", "26", "63", "91", "28", "56", "32", "19", "87", "55", "8", "10", "93", "54", "7", "21", "43", "40", "3", "18", "6", "36", "23", "86", "12", "47", "20", "59", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 218/2011\nof 3 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 March 2011.", "references": ["96", "40", "78", "71", "27", "4", "9", "39", "33", "43", "48", "7", "34", "79", "5", "3", "25", "55", "74", "85", "37", "14", "12", "77", "19", "15", "47", "70", "11", "45", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 9 August 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of fermented black bean extract as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 5645)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(2011/497/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 8 July 2008 the company Cantox Health Sciences International on behalf of CBC Co. Ltd (Japan) made a request to the competent authorities of United Kingdom to place fermented black bean extract on the market as a novel food ingredient for use in food supplements.\n(2)\nOn 28 January 2009 the competent food assessment body of United Kingdom issued its initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that fermented black bean extract was acceptable as a novel food ingredient provided that the product specifications and use levels are maintained.\n(3)\nThe Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to all Member States on 5 February 2009.\n(4)\nWithin the 60-day period laid down in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 reasoned objections to the marketing of the product were raised in accordance with that provision.\n(5)\nTherefore the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was consulted on 19 August 2009.\n(6)\nOn 8 April 2011, EFSA in the \u2018Scientific Opinion on the safety of a \u201cfermented black bean extract\u201d (Touchi) as a Novel Food ingredient\u2019 (2) came to the conclusion that fermented black bean extract was safe under the proposed use and conditions of use.\n(7)\nOn the basis of the scientific assessment, it is established that fermented black bean extract complies with the criteria laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97, without prejudice to the specific provisions of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (3) and to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and certain other substances to foods (4).\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFermented black bean extract as specified in the Annex may be placed on the market in the Union as a novel food ingredient in food supplements without prejudice to the specific provisions of Directive 2002/46/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006, with a maximum intake of 4,5 g per day.\nArticle 2\nThe designation of the authorised fermented black bean extract by this Decision on the labelling of the foodstuff containing it shall be \u2018fermented black bean (Soya) extract\u2019 or \u2018fermented Soya extract\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to CBC Co. Ltd, 2-15-13, Tsukima, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0052, JAPAN.\nDone at Brussels, 9 August 2011.", "references": ["98", "32", "43", "63", "50", "14", "44", "30", "22", "7", "82", "52", "79", "89", "10", "49", "97", "24", "36", "90", "34", "85", "17", "54", "53", "20", "26", "47", "81", "69", "No Label", "25", "38", "65", "68", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "65", "68", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 926/2010\nof 15 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 October 2010.", "references": ["92", "94", "96", "98", "24", "34", "19", "25", "40", "87", "74", "53", "75", "85", "33", "2", "44", "9", "82", "65", "70", "62", "32", "12", "28", "56", "79", "38", "71", "23", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 774/2010\nof 2 September 2010\non laying down guidelines relating to inter-transmission system operator compensation and a common regulatory approach to transmission charging\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity (1), and in particular Article 8(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1228/2003 provides for the establishment of an inter-transmission system operator compensation mechanism. In accordance with that Regulation, the Commission is to establish the guidelines specifying details of the procedure and methodology to be applied in the inter-transmission system operator compensation mechanism and appropriate rules leading to a progressive harmonisation of the setting of charges under national tariff systems.\n(2)\nValuable experience has been gained since the need for intertransmission system operator compensation mechanism was first recognised, in particular through voluntary mechanisms by transmission system operators. However, transmission system operators have found it increasingly difficult to reach agreement on such voluntary mechanisms.\n(3)\nBinding guidelines establishing an inter-transmission system operator compensation mechanism should provide a stable basis for the operation of the inter-transmission system operator compensation mechanism and fair compensation to transmission system operators for the costs of hosting cross border flows of electricity.\n(4)\nTransmission system operators from third countries or from territories which have concluded agreements with the Union whereby they have adopted and are applying Union law in the field of electricity should be entitled to participate in the inter-transmission system compensation Mechanism on an equivalent basis to transmission system operators from Member States.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to allow transmission system operators in third countries which have not concluded agreements with the Union whereby they have adopted and are applying Union law in the field of electricity to enter into multi-party agreements with the transmission system operators in the Member States which enable all parties to be compensated for the costs of hosting cross-border flows of electricity on a fair and equitable basis.\n(6)\nTransmission system operators should be compensated for energy losses resulting from hosting cross border flows of electricity. Such compensation should be based on an estimate of what losses would have been incurred in the absence of transits of electricity.\n(7)\nA fund should be established to compensate transmission system operators for the costs of making infrastructure available to host cross border flows of electricity. The value of this fund should be based on a Union wide assessment of the long run average incremental costs of making infrastructure available to host cross border flows of electricity.\n(8)\nTransmission system operators in third countries should face the same costs for using the Union transmission system as transmission system operators in Member States.\n(9)\nVariations in charges applied to producers of electricity for access to the transmission system should not undermine the internal market. For this reason average charges for access to the network in Member States should be kept within a range which helps to ensure that the benefits of harmonisation are realised.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nTransmission system operators shall receive compensation for costs incurred as a result of hosting cross-border flows of electricity on their networks on the basis of the guidelines set out in Part A of the Annex.\nArticle 2\nCharges applied by network operators for access to the transmission system shall be in accordance with guidelines set out in Part B of the Annex.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall expire on 2 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2010.", "references": ["59", "95", "8", "36", "57", "56", "88", "18", "34", "24", "33", "64", "82", "66", "72", "0", "5", "7", "73", "83", "79", "91", "19", "63", "85", "89", "4", "93", "94", "46", "No Label", "20", "54", "78", "81"], "gold": ["20", "54", "78", "81"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 61/2012\nof 24 January 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 as regards the administration of the CXL concessions sugar\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Articles 144(1), 148 and 156 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2) provides that for CXL concessions sugar with order number 09.4317, 09.4318, 09.4319, 09.4321 (country specific) and Balkan sugar import licence applications are to be accompanied by the original of the export licence.\n(2)\nFor CXL concession sugar with order number 09.4320 (any third country) the presentation of the export licence is not required.\n(3)\nBy simplifying the administrative requirements to have access to CXL concessions sugar for imports into the Union through the elimination of the requirement to present the export licence for country specific concessions it is possible to encourage competition between operators and secure a smoother functioning of the market. Since the release for free circulation would continue to be subject to the presentation of a certificate of origin, this simplification can be attained without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to take the necessary measures to satisfy themselves that the transactions have been carried out correctly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure a smooth transition to the simplified administrative requirements, it is appropriate to foresee to defer their application to 1 February 2012.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 891/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly\n(6)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. For Balkan sugar, import licence applications shall be accompanied by the original of the export licence, in accordance with the model in Annex II, issued by the competent authorities of the third country concerned. The quantity mentioned in the import licence applications may not exceed the quantity shown on the export licences.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 February 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 January 2012.", "references": ["15", "83", "61", "75", "85", "40", "23", "39", "24", "88", "60", "48", "70", "5", "30", "36", "10", "94", "77", "91", "64", "74", "38", "89", "84", "54", "95", "82", "14", "81", "No Label", "2", "21", "22", "73"], "gold": ["2", "21", "22", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 357/2010\nof 23 April 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 of 4 March 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (1) and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 820/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (2) contains security procedures for supplies of liquids and tamper-evident bags. However, that Regulation will be repealed as from 29 April 2010.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 of 4 March 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (3) will replace Regulation (EC) No 820/2008. Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 does not contain security procedures for supplies of liquids and tamper-evident bags.\n(3)\nIn order to protect civil aviation against acts of unlawful interference that jeopardise the security of civil aviation, security procedures for supplies of liquids, aerosols and gels and security tamper-evident bags sold airside at Union airports should be maintained. Therefore, it is necessary to include them in Regulation (EU) No 185/2010.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 185/2010 will apply from 29 April 2010. The entry into force of this Regulation is therefore urgent as it should apply from the same date.\n(5)\nRegulation (EU) No 185/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Civil Aviation Security set up by Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 29 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2010.", "references": ["65", "93", "75", "77", "37", "98", "45", "25", "27", "6", "28", "13", "64", "54", "71", "49", "56", "73", "39", "12", "62", "96", "29", "2", "67", "20", "80", "40", "30", "94", "No Label", "24", "53", "57", "76"], "gold": ["24", "53", "57", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 137/2011\nof 16 February 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to fertilisers for the purposes of adapting Annexes I and IV thereto to technical progress\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 relating to fertilisers (1), and in particular Article 31(1) and (3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 provides that a fertiliser belonging to a type of fertiliser listed in Annex I thereto and complying with the conditions laid down in that Regulation may be designated \u2018EC fertiliser\u2019.\n(2)\nCalcium formate (CAS 544-17-2) is a secondary nutrient fertiliser that is used as foliar fertiliser for fruit cultivation in one Member State. The substance is harmless for the environment and human health. Therefore to make it more easily available to farmers throughout the Union, calcium formate should be recognised as an \u2018EC fertiliser\u2019 type.\n(3)\nProvisions on micro-nutrient chelates and micro-nutrient solutions should be adapted to allow the use of more than one chelating agent, to introduce common values for the minimum content of water-soluble micro-nutrient and to ensure that each chelating agent that chelates at least 1 % of the water-soluble micro-nutrient and that is identified and quantified by EN standards is labelled. A sufficient transitional period is necessary in order to allow economic operators to sell off their stocks of fertilisers.\n(4)\nZinc oxide powder (CAS 1314-13-2) is a zinc fertiliser listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003. Zinc oxide in powder form presents a potential dust hazard in use. The use of zinc oxide in the form of a stable suspension in water avoids this hazard. Zinc fertiliser suspension should therefore be recognised as an \u2018EC fertiliser\u2019 type to allow a safer use of zinc oxide. To allow flexibility within formulations, the use of zinc salts and one or more types of zinc chelate(s) should also be permitted in any such water-based suspensions.\n(5)\nArticle 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 contains rules for the composition and labelling of mixed micro-nutrient fertilisers but such mixtures are not yet listed among the fertiliser types of Annex I. Mixed micro-nutrient fertilisers therefore cannot be sold as \u2018EC fertilisers\u2019. Micro-nutrient fertiliser type designations should therefore be introduced in Annex I for solid and fluid fertilisers.\n(6)\nIminodisuccinic acid (hereinafter \u2018IDHA\u2019) is a chelating agent which is authorised for use in two Member States as foliar sprays, for soil application, in hydroponics and in fertigation. IDHA should be added to the list of authorised chelating agents in Annex I to make it more easily available to farmers throughout the Union.\n(7)\nArticle 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 requires the control of \u2018EC fertilisers\u2019 in accordance with the methods of analysis that are described therein. However, some methods have not been internationally recognised. EN standards have now been developed by the European Committee for Standardisation and should replace those methods.\n(8)\nValidated methods published as EN standards usually include a ring test (inter-laboratory test) to check the reproducibility and repeatability of the analytical methods between different laboratories. A distinction between validated EN standards and non-validated methods should therefore be made to help to identify the EN standards which have undergone an inter-laboratory test to correctly inform controllers about the statistical reliability of EN standards.\n(9)\nTo simplify legislation and facilitate future revision, it is appropriate to replace the full text of the standards in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 with references to the EN standards to be published by the European Committee for Standardisation.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 2003/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments\n1. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nTransitional provisions\nPoints (a) to (e) of point (2) of Annex I shall apply from 9 October 2012 to fertilisers that are placed on the market before 9 March 2011.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 February 2011.", "references": ["88", "9", "39", "0", "35", "64", "4", "95", "71", "27", "21", "60", "54", "20", "45", "94", "66", "7", "83", "75", "30", "62", "79", "22", "33", "41", "50", "28", "91", "16", "No Label", "8", "23", "24", "25", "65", "76"], "gold": ["8", "23", "24", "25", "65", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1097/2010\nof 26 November 2010\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 177/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framework for business registers for statistical purposes, as regards the exchange of confidential data between the Commission (Eurostat) and central banks\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 177/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 establishing a common framework for business registers for statistical purposes and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2186/93 (1), and in particular Article 12 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 177/2008 establishes a new common framework for business registers exclusively for statistical purposes in order to maintain the development of business registers in a harmonised framework.\n(2)\nAn exchange of confidential data between the Commission and national central banks, and between the Commission and the European Central Bank, exclusively for statistical purposes, should help ensure the quality of multinational enterprise group information in the European Union. It is therefore necessary to establish the format, the security and confidentiality measures and the procedure for the transmission of such confidential data to national central banks and the European Central Bank, to ensure that the data transmitted is used exclusively for statistical purposes.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the collection of statistical information by the European Central Bank (2), data that the ESCB members have received from ESS authorities should be used exclusively for statistical purposes. The ESCB members should also ensure the physical and logical protection of confidential statistical information provided by the ESS authorities. The ECB should publish annual confidentiality reports on the measures adopted to safeguard the confidentiality of this statistical information.\n(4)\nTo ensure consistency, the data sets transmitted in accordance with this Regulation should use the same naming conventions, structures, and definition of fields as referred to in Commission Regulation (EC) No 192/2009 of 11 March 2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 177/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framework for business registers for statistical purposes, as regards the exchange of confidential data between the Commission (Eurostat) and Member States (3).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFormat\n1. The format set out in part A of the Annex shall be used for the data transmitted under Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 177/2008.\n2. The data and metadata shall be transmitted in accordance with the standards of the European Statistical System and with the structure defined in the most recent version of the Eurostat Business Registers Recommendations Manual available from the Commission (Eurostat).\nArticle 2\nConfidentiality measures\nThe characteristics specified in part B of the Annex, including confidentiality flags, may be transmitted, for statistical purposes only, by the Commission (Eurostat) to the national central banks and the European Central Bank, provided that the transmission is explicitly authorised by the appropriate national authority and that, in the case of data transmitted to a national central bank, at least one unit of a multinational enterprise group is located in the territory of the Member State of that national central bank.\nArticle 3\nSecurity measures\n1. Any transmission of confidential data under this Regulation to ESCB members shall take place only after the ESCB members, within their respective spheres of competence, have taken the necessary measures in line with Article 8a and 8b of Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 to ensure:\n-\nthe protection of this data, in particular the storage of data that has been flagged as confidential in a secure area with restricted and controlled access,\n-\nthat the data are used exclusively for statistical purposes,\n-\nthat information on the measures has been included in the annual confidentiality report referred to in Article 8b of Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 or national central banks or the European Central Bank have informed the Commission (Eurostat) and the appropriate national authorities of the measures by other means.\n2. The data shall be transmitted in an encrypted form.\nArticle 4\nProcedure for transmission\n1. The data and metadata transmitted pursuant to this Regulation shall be exchanged in electronic form.\n2. The data and metadata shall be transmitted via the secure medium used by the Commission (Eurostat) for the transmission of confidential data, or via a secured remote access.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 November 2010.", "references": ["22", "30", "75", "97", "86", "88", "26", "31", "68", "43", "38", "5", "96", "24", "53", "80", "23", "66", "33", "60", "13", "85", "28", "21", "20", "4", "84", "82", "87", "29", "No Label", "19", "41", "42", "44", "45"], "gold": ["19", "41", "42", "44", "45"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 288/2012\nof 30 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 March 2012.", "references": ["14", "58", "40", "46", "8", "92", "33", "30", "25", "94", "26", "37", "97", "21", "59", "83", "72", "39", "76", "78", "44", "24", "29", "20", "57", "60", "93", "18", "47", "0", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 261/2011\nof 16 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 March 2011.", "references": ["16", "75", "37", "62", "38", "47", "12", "83", "99", "57", "53", "6", "94", "96", "58", "98", "48", "14", "32", "77", "84", "65", "0", "87", "72", "85", "88", "10", "49", "25", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 746/2011\nof 28 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2011.", "references": ["46", "27", "23", "79", "87", "36", "89", "62", "10", "58", "44", "48", "64", "2", "98", "4", "6", "76", "17", "99", "25", "69", "18", "85", "81", "30", "51", "26", "97", "14", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 657/2011\nof 7 July 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 297/2011 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53 (1) (b)(ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 provides for the possibility to adopt appropriate Union emergency measures for food and feed imported from a third country in order to protect public health, animal health or the environment, where the risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member States individually.\n(2)\nFollowing the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station on 11 March 2011, the Commission was informed that radionuclide levels in certain food products originating in Japan such as milk and spinach exceeded the action levels in food applicable in Japan. Such contamination may constitute a threat to public and animal health in the Union and therefore Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 297/2011 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station (2) was adopted.\n(3)\nOn 14 June 2011, the Commission was informed of the finding of a high level of radioactive caesium in green tea leaves, originating in the Shizuoka prefecture. That was confirmed on 15 June 2011 by five other findings of high level of radioactive caesium in green tea leaves from Shizuoka prefecture. That prefecture is not among the prefectures of the affected zone, where a testing of all feed and food originating from those prefectures is required before export to the Union. Given these recent findings it is appropriate to add Shizuoka prefecture to the affected zone.\n(4)\nA significant number of samples taken by the Japanese authorities from food produced in Niigata and Yamagata prefectures show that the production of feed and food in those prefectures is only to a very limited extent affected by the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station as none of the samples had non-compliant levels of radioactivity, nearly all samples had non-detectable levels of radioactivity and only in few samples low levels of radioactivity were detected. Therefore, it is appropriate to remove those prefectures from the zone, where a testing of all feed and food originating from those prefectures is required before export to the Union.\n(5)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Regulation (EU) No 297/2011 accordingly, whilst keeping the date of applicability of the Regulation unchanged.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 297/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Each consignment of the products referred to in Article 1, which leaves Japan from the date of entry into force of this Regulation, shall be accompanied by a declaration, attesting that:\n(a)\nthe product has been harvested and/or processed before 11 March 2011, or\n(b)\nthe product originates in and is consigned from a prefecture other than Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Nagano, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa and Shizuoka, or\n(c)\nthe product is consigned from Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Nagano, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa and Shizuoka prefectures, but does not originate in one of those prefectures and has not been exposed to radioactivity during transiting, or\n(d)\nwhere a product originates in Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Nagano, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa and Shizoka prefectures, the product does not contain levels of radionuclides iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 above the maximum levels provided for in Annex II to this Regulation. That provision applies also to products caught or harvested in the coastal waters of those prefectures, irrespective of where such products are landed.\n4. The declaration, referred to in paragraph 3 and as set out in Annex I, shall be signed by an authorised representative of the competent authority of Japan. For the products referred to in point (d) of paragraph 3, the declaration shall be accompanied by an analytical report.\u2019\n(2)\nAnnex I is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 July 2011.", "references": ["10", "36", "28", "94", "52", "11", "92", "17", "73", "78", "7", "90", "26", "65", "5", "70", "62", "64", "54", "31", "76", "57", "48", "66", "12", "0", "97", "13", "47", "84", "No Label", "22", "38", "60", "72", "81", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "38", "60", "72", "81", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 825/2012\nof 14 September 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 September 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 September 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 September 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 September 2012.", "references": ["5", "8", "46", "47", "77", "0", "97", "52", "34", "18", "79", "29", "48", "27", "99", "40", "73", "56", "1", "35", "84", "98", "38", "42", "15", "75", "4", "32", "43", "63", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/74/EU\nof 29 July 2011\namending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical progress, Annex II to Directive 96/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain methods for quantitative analysis of binary textile fibre mixtures\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 96/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 on certain methods for quantitative analysis of binary textile fibre mixtures (1), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on textile names (2) requires labelling to indicate the fibre composition of textile products, with checks being carried out by analysis on the conformity of these products with indications given on the label.\n(2)\nUniform methods for quantitative analysis of binary textile fibre mixtures are provided for in Directive 96/73/EC.\n(3)\nOn the basis of recent findings by a technical working group, Directive 2008/121/EC was adapted to technical progress, by adding the fibre polypropylene/polyamide bicomponent to the list of fibres set out in Annexes I and V to that Directive.\n(4)\nIt is therefore necessary to define uniform test methods for polypropylene/polyamide bicomponent.\n(5)\nDirective 96/73/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Directives relating to Textile Names and Labelling,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Directive 96/73/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 July 2012 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2011.", "references": ["59", "20", "17", "66", "18", "50", "90", "34", "61", "22", "43", "38", "35", "68", "98", "7", "65", "63", "47", "94", "46", "48", "74", "78", "12", "91", "14", "95", "37", "24", "No Label", "76", "77", "89"], "gold": ["76", "77", "89"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 787/2010\nof 3 September 2010\namending for the 134th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) and 7a(5) (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 6 August 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add one natural person and one legal person to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply and to amend three entries on the list.\n(3)\nOn 24 August 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add one natural person to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(4)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 September 2010.", "references": ["70", "89", "67", "15", "32", "94", "7", "87", "55", "46", "28", "88", "95", "60", "82", "85", "45", "31", "18", "10", "86", "21", "40", "90", "73", "39", "84", "99", "27", "36", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "11"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "11"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 July 2010\non a position of the European Union to be adopted in the EU-Mexico Joint Committee relating to Annex III to Decision No 2/2000 of the EU-Mexico Joint Council concerning the definition of the concept of \u2018originating products\u2019 and methods of administrative cooperation\n(2010/479/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(4) first subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nJoint Declaration V (1) to Decision No 2/2000 of the EU-Mexico Joint Council (2) established by the Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the United Mexican States, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 8 December 1997 (3) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Decision No 2/2000\u2019) provides that the EU-Mexico Joint Committee established by that agreement is to review the necessity to extend beyond 30 June 2003 the application of the rules of origin set out in Notes 2 and 3 of Appendix II(a) to Annex III to Decision No 2/2000.\n(2)\nOn 22 March 2004 and on 14 June 2007 the Joint Committee adopted Decisions No 1/2004 (4) and No 1/2007 (5) extending the application of the rules of origin established in those Notes until 30 June 2006 and 30 June 2009, respectively.\n(3)\nIn accordance with the analysis of the relevant economic conditions undertaken according to Joint declaration V, it is considered appropriate to extend once again, on a temporary basis, the application of the rules of origin established in Notes 2 and 3 of Appendix II(a) to Annex III to Decision No 2/2000, thereby ensuring the continuity of application of the mutual advantages provided under that Decision.\n(4)\nAn extension of the application of the rules of origin established in Notes 2 and 3 of Appendix II(a) to Annex III to Decision No 2/2000 granted by Decision No 1/2007 of the Joint Committee expired on 30 June 2009, therefore in order not to introduce disruption in existing economic conditions it is considered appropriate to apply the proposed decision for a new extension retrospectively, from 1 July 2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be adopted by the Union within the EU-Mexico Joint Committee relating to Annex III to Decision No 2/2000 is that set out in the attached draft decision of the Joint Committee.\nArticle 2\nThe decision of the Joint Committee shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2010.", "references": ["84", "86", "64", "70", "4", "99", "50", "92", "74", "39", "0", "98", "67", "87", "32", "60", "53", "69", "63", "45", "20", "80", "40", "59", "88", "26", "27", "28", "51", "90", "No Label", "2", "3", "8", "23", "83", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "3", "8", "23", "83", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 July 2010\nconcerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 February 2007, the Council of the European Union adopted Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1) which implemented United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1737 (2006).\n(2)\nOn 23 April 2007, the Council adopted Common Position 2007/246/CFSP (2) which implemented UNSCR 1747 (2007).\n(3)\nOn 7 August 2008, the Council adopted Common Position 2008/652/CFSP (3) which implemented UNSCR 1803 (2008).\n(4)\nOn 9 June 2010, the United Nations Security Council (\u2018the Security Council\u2019) adopted UNSCR 1929 (2010) which widened the scope of the restrictive measures imposed by UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), and UNSCR 1803 (2008) and introduced additional restrictive measures against Iran.\n(5)\nOn 17 June 2010, the European Council underlined its deepening concern about Iran's nuclear programme and welcomed the adoption of UNSCR 1929 (2010). Recalling its Declaration of 11 December 2009, the European Council invited the Council to adopt measures implementing those contained in UNSCR 1929 (2010) as well as accompanying measures, with a view to supporting the resolution of all outstanding concerns regarding Iran's development of sensitive technologies in support of its nuclear and missile programmes, through negotiation. These should focus on the areas of trade, the financial sector, the Iranian transport sector, key sectors in the oil and gas industry and additional designations in particular for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).\n(6)\nUNSCR 1929 (2010) prohibits investment by Iran, its nationals and entities incorporated in Iran or subject to its jurisdiction, or by persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them in any commercial activity involving uranium mining, production or use of nuclear materials and technology.\n(7)\nUNSCR 1929 (2010) extends the financial and travel restrictions imposed by UNSCR 1737 (2006) to additional persons and entities, including IRGC individuals and entities as well as entities of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL).\n(8)\nIn accordance with the European Council Declaration, the restrictions on admission and the freezing of funds and economic resources should be applied to further persons and entities, in addition to those designated by the Security Council or the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 18 of UNSCR 1737 (2006) (\u2018the Committee\u2019), using the same criteria as those applied by the Security Council or the Committee.\n(9)\nIn accordance with the European Council Declaration, it is appropriate to prohibit the supply, sale or transfer to Iran of further items, materials, equipment, goods and technology, in addition to those determined by the Security Council or the Committee, that could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems or to the pursuit of activities related to other topics about which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has expressed concerns or identified as outstanding, or to other weapons of mass destruction programmes. This prohibition should include dual-use goods and technology.\n(10)\nIn accordance with the European Council Declaration, Member States should exercise restraint in entering into new short term commitments for public and private provided financial support for trade with Iran with a view to reducing outstanding amounts, in particular to avoid any financial support contributing to proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, and should prohibit any medium and long-term commitment for public and private provided financial support for trade with Iran.\n(11)\nUNSCR 1929 (2010) calls upon all States to inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation, and consistent with international law, all cargoes to and from Iran, in their territory, including seaports and airports, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) or UNSCR 1929 (2010).\n(12)\nUNSCR 1929 (2010) also notes that Member States, consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea, may request inspections of vessels on the high seas with the consent of the flag State, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the vessels carry items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) or UNSCR 1929 (2010).\n(13)\nUNSCR 1929 (2010) also provides that UN Member States are to seize and dispose of items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) or UNSCR 1929 (2010) in a manner that is not inconsistent with their obligations under the applicable Security Council Resolutions and international conventions.\n(14)\nUNSCR 1929 (2010) further provides that UN Member States are to prohibit the provision by their nationals or from their territory of bunkering services, or other servicing of vessels, to Iran vessels if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe they are carrying items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) or UNSCR 1929 (2010).\n(15)\nIn accordance with the European Council Declaration, Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, in particular relevant international civil aviation agreements, should take the necessary measures to prevent the access to the airports under their jurisdiction of all cargo flights from Iran with the exception of mixed passengers and cargo flights.\n(16)\nMoreover, the provision by nationals of Member States or from the territory of Member States of engineering and maintenance services to Iranian cargo aircrafts should be prohibited if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that they are carrying items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) or UNSCR 1929 (2010).\n(17)\nUNSCR 1929 (2010) also calls upon all UN Member States to prevent the provision of financial services, including insurance and re-insurance, or the transfer to, through, or from their territory, or to or by their nationals or entities organised under their laws, or persons of financial institutions in their territory, of any financial or other assets or resources that could contribute to Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.\n(18)\nIn accordance with the European Council Declaration, Member States should prohibit the provision of insurance and re-insurance to the Government of Iran, to entities incorporated in Iran or subject to Iran's jurisdiction or to individuals and entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or to entities owned and controlled by them, including through illicit means.\n(19)\nMoreover, the sale or purchase of, or brokering or assistance in the issuance of public or public-guaranteed bonds to and from the Government of Iran, the Central Bank of Iran or Iranian banks, including branches and subsidiaries, and financial entities controlled by persons and entities domiciled in Iran should be prohibited.\n(20)\nIn accordance with the European Council Declaration and in order to fulfil the objectives of UNSCR 1929 (2010), the opening of new branches, subsidiaries, or representative offices of Iranian banks in the territory of Member States, and the establishment of new joint ventures, or the taking of an ownership interest by Iranian banks in banks within the jurisdiction of Member States, should be prohibited. Furthermore, Member States should take the appropriate measures to prohibit financial institutions within their territories or under their jurisdiction from opening representatives offices or subsidiaries or banking accounts in Iran.\n(21)\nUNSCR 1929 (2010) also provides for States to require their nationals, persons subject to their jurisdiction or firms incorporated in their territories or subject to their jurisdiction to exercise vigilance when doing business with entities incorporated in Iran or subject to Iran's jurisdiction, if they have reasonable grounds to believe that such business could contribute to Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery system or to violations of UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) or UNSCR 1929 (2010).\n(22)\nUNSCR 1929 (2010) notes the potential connection between Iran's revenues derived from its energy sector and the funding of Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities and further notes that chemical process equipment and materials required for the petrochemical industry have much in common with those required for certain sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities.\n(23)\nIn accordance with the European Council Declaration, Member States should prohibit the sale, supply or transfer to Iran of key equipment and technology as well as related technical and financial assistance, which could be used in key sectors in the oil and natural gas industries. Moreover, Member States should prohibit any new investment in these sectors in Iran.\n(24)\nThe procedure for amending Annexes I and II to this Decision should include providing to designated persons and entities the grounds for listing so as to give them an opportunity to present observations. Where observations are submitted or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in the light of those observations and inform the person or entity concerned accordingly.\n(25)\nThis Decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the right to property and the right to the protection of personal data. This Decision should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(26)\nThis Decision also fully respects the obligations of Member States under the Charter of the United Nations and the legally binding nature of Security Council Resolutions.\n(27)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nCHAPTER 1\nEXPORT AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS\nArticle 1\n1. The direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer of the following items, materials, equipment, goods and technology, including software, to, or for the use in, or benefit of, Iran, by nationals of Member States, or through the territories of Member States, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, shall be prohibited whether or not originating in their territories:\n(a)\nitems, materials, equipment, goods and technology contained in the Nuclear Suppliers Group and Missile Technology Control Regime lists;\n(b)\nany additional items, materials, equipment, goods and technology, determined by the Security Council or the Committee, which could contribute to enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems;\n(c)\narms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for such arms and related materiel, as well as equipment which might be used for internal repression. This prohibition shall not apply to non-combat vehicles which have been manufactured or fitted with materials to provide ballistic protection, intended solely for protective use of personnel of the EU and its Member States in Iran;\n(d)\ncertain other items, materials, equipment, goods and technology that could contribute to enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems or to the pursuit of activities related to other topics about which the IAEA has expressed concerns or identified as outstanding. The Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this provision;\n(e)\nother dual-use goods and technology listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (4) and not covered by point (a) except for category 5 - Part 1 and category 5 - Part 2 in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009.\n2. The prohibition in paragraph 1 shall not apply to the direct or indirect transfer to, or for use in, or the benefit of Iran through the territories of Member States of items referred to in subparagraphs 3(b)(i) and (ii) of UNSCR 1737 (2006) for light water reactors begun before December 2006.\n3. It shall also be prohibited to:\n(a)\nprovide technical assistance or training, investment, or brokering services related to items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in paragraph 1 and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of these items, materials, equipment, goods and technology, directly or indirectly to any person, entity or body in, or for use in Iran;\n(b)\nprovide financing or financial assistance related to items and technologies referred to in paragraph 1, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of these items and technologies, or for the provision of related technical training, services or assistance, directly or indirectly to any person, entity or body in, or for use in Iran;\n(c)\nparticipate, knowingly or intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibition referred to in points (a) and (b).\n4. The procurement by nationals of Member States, or using their flagged vessels or aircraft, of the items, materials, equipment, goods and technology referred to in paragraph 1 from Iran shall be prohibited, whether or not originating in the territory of Iran.\nArticle 2\n1. The direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to, or for use in, or the benefit of Iran, by nationals of Member States or through the territories of Member States, or using vessels or aircraft under their jurisdiction, of items, materials, equipment, goods and technology, including software, not covered by Article 1, that could contribute to enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems or to the pursuit of activities related to other topics about which the IAEA has expressed concerns or identified as outstanding, shall be subject to authorisation on a case-by-case basis by the competent authorities of the exporting Member State. The Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this provision.\n2. The provision of:\n(a)\ntechnical assistance or training, investment, or brokering services related to items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in paragraph 1 and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of these items, directly or indirectly, to any person, entity or body in, or for use in, Iran;\n(b)\nfinancing or financial assistance related to items and technologies referred to in paragraph 1, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of these items, or for the provision of related technical training, services or assistance, directly or indirectly to any person, entity or body in, or for use in, Iran;\nshall also be subject to an authorisation of the competent authority of the exporting Member State.\n3. The competent authorities of the Member States shall not grant any authorisation for any supply, sale or transfer of the items, materials, equipment, goods and technology referred to in paragraph 1 if they determine that the sale, supply, transfer or export concerned or the provision of the service concerned would contribute to the activities referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 3\n1. The measures imposed by Article 1(1)(a), (b) and (c) and (3) shall not apply, as appropriate, where the Committee determines in advance and on a case-by-case basis that such supply, sale, transfer or provision of such items or assistance would clearly not contribute to the development of Iran's technologies in support of its proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities and of development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, including where such items or assistance are for food, agricultural, medical or other humanitarian purposes, provided that:\n(a)\ncontracts for delivery of such items or assistance include appropriate end-user guarantees; and\n(b)\nIran has committed not to use such items in proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or for development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.\n2. The measures imposed by Article 1(1)(e) and (3) shall not apply where the competent authority in the relevant Member State determines in advance and on a case-by-case basis that such supply, sale, transfer or provision of such items or assistance would clearly not contribute to the development of Iran's technologies in support of its proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities and of development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, including where such items or assistance are for medical or other humanitarian purposes, provided that:\n(a)\ncontracts for delivery of such items or assistance include appropriate end-user guarantees; and\n(b)\nIran has committed not to use such items in proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or for development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.\nThe relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States of any exemption rejected.\nArticle 4\n1. The sale, supply or transfer of key equipment and technology for the following key sectors of the oil and natural gas industry in Iran, or to Iranian or Iranian-owned enterprises engaged in those sectors outside Iran, by nationals of Member States, or from the territories of Member States, or using vessels or aircraft under the jurisdiction of Member States shall be prohibited whether or not originating in their territories:\n(a)\nrefining;\n(b)\nliquefied natural gas;\n(c)\nexploration;\n(d)\nproduction.\nThe Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this provision.\n2. It shall be prohibited to provide the following to enterprises in Iran that are engaged in the key sectors of the Iranian oil and gas industry referred to in paragraph 1 or to Iranian, or Iranian-owned enterprises engaged in those sectors outside Iran:\n(a)\ntechnical assistance or training and other services related to key equipment and technology as determined according to paragraph 1;\n(b)\nfinancing or financial assistance for any sale, supply, transfer or export of key equipment and technology as determined according to paragraph 1 or for the provision of related technical assistance or training.\n3. It shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly or intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.\nRESTRICTIONS ON FINANCING OF CERTAIN ENTERPRISES\nArticle 5\nInvestment in the territories under the jurisdiction of Member States by Iran, its nationals, or entities incorporated in Iran or subject to its jurisdiction, or by persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them in any commercial activity involving uranium mining, production or use of nuclear materials and technology, in particular uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, all heavy-water related activities or technologies related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, shall be prohibited. The Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this Article.\nArticle 6\nThe following shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nthe granting of any financial loan or credit to enterprises in Iran that are engaged in the sectors of the Iranian oil and gas industry referred to in Article 4(1) or to Iranian or Iranian-owned enterprises engaged in those sectors outside Iran;\n(b)\nthe acquisition or extension of a participation in enterprises in Iran that are engaged in the sectors of the Iranian oil and gas industry referred to in Article 4(1), or to Iranian or Iranian-owned enterprises engaged in those sectors outside Iran, including the acquisition in full of such enterprises and the acquisition of shares and securities of a participating nature;\n(c)\nthe creation of any joint venture with enterprises in Iran that are engaged in the industries in the oil and gas sectors referred to in Article 4(1) and with any subsidiary or affiliate under their control.\nArticle 7\n1. The prohibition in Article 4(1) shall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation relating to the delivery of goods provided for in contracts concluded before the date of adoption of this Decision.\n2. The prohibitions in Article 4 shall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts concluded before the date of adoption of this Decision and relating to investments made in Iran before the same date by enterprises established in Member States.\n3. The prohibitions in Article 6(a) and (b) respectively:\n(i)\nshall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts or agreements concluded before the date of adoption of this Decision;\n(ii)\nshall not prevent the extension of a participation, if such extension is an obligation under an agreement concluded before the date of adoption of this Decision.\nRESTRICTIONS ON FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR TRADE\nArticle 8\n1. Member States shall exercise restraint in entering into new short term commitments for public and private provided financial support for trade with Iran, including the granting of export credits, guarantees or insurance, to their nationals or entities involved in such trade, with a view to reducing their outstanding amounts, in particular to avoid any financial support contributing to proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems. In addition, Member States shall not enter into new medium and long-term commitments for public and private provided financial support for trade with Iran.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not affect commitments established prior to the entry into force of this Decision.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not concern trade for food, agricultural, medical or other humanitarian purposes.\nCHAPTER 2\nFINANCIAL SECTOR\nArticle 9\nMember States shall not enter into new commitments for grants, financial assistance and concessional loans to the Government of Iran, including through their participation in international financial institutions, except for humanitarian and developmental purposes.\nArticle 10\n1. In order to prevent the provision of financial services, or the transfer to, through, or from the territories of Member States, or to or by nationals of Member States or entities organised under their laws (including branches abroad), or persons or financial institutions in the territories of Member States, of any financial or other assets or resources that could contribute to Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, Member States shall exercise enhanced monitoring over all the activities of financial institutions within their jurisdiction with:\n(a)\nbanks domiciled in Iran, in particular the Central Bank of Iran;\n(b)\nbranches and subsidiaries within the jurisdiction of the Member States of banks domiciled in Iran;\n(c)\nbranches and subsidiaries outside the jurisdiction of the Member States of banks domiciled in Iran;\n(d)\nfinancial entities that are not domiciled in Iran, but are controlled by persons and entities domiciled in Iran.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, financial institutions shall be required, in their activities with banks and financial institutions as set out in paragraph 1, to:\n(a)\nexercise continuous vigilance over account activity including through their programmes on customer due diligence and under their obligations relating to money-laundering and financing of terrorism;\n(b)\nrequire that all information fields of payment instructions which relate to the originator and beneficiary of the transaction in question be completed; and if that information is not supplied, refuse the transaction;\n(c)\nmaintain all records of transactions for a period of five years and make them available to national authorities on request;\n(d)\nif they suspect or have reasonable grounds to suspect that funds are related to proliferation financing, promptly report their suspicions to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) or another competent authority designated by the Member State concerned. The FIU or such other competent authority shall have access, directly or indirectly, on a timely basis to the financial, administrative and law enforcement information that it requires to properly undertake this function, including the analysis of suspicious transaction reports.\n3. Transfers of funds to and from Iran shall be processed as follows:\n(a)\ntransfers due on transactions regarding foodstuffs, healthcare, medical equipment, or for humanitarian purposes shall be carried out without any prior authorisation; the transfer shall be notified to the competent authority of the Member State concerned if above 10 000 euros;\n(b)\nany other transfer below 40 000 euros shall be carried out without any prior authorisation; the transfer shall be notified to the competent authority of the Member State concerned if above 10 000 euros;\n(c)\nany other transfer above 40 000 euros shall require the prior authorisation from the competent authority of the Member State concerned. The authorisation shall be deemed granted within four weeks unless the competent authority of the Member State concerned has objected within this time-limit. The relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States of any authorisation rejected.\n4. Branches and subsidiaries of banks domiciled in Iran within the jurisdiction of the Member States shall also be required to notify the competent authority of the Member State where they are established, of all transfers of funds carried out or received by them, within five working days after carrying out or receiving the respective transfer of funds.\nSubject to information-sharing arrangements, notified competent authorities shall without delay transmit this data, as appropriate, to the competent authorities of other Member States, where the counterparts to such transactions are established.\nArticle 11\n1. The opening of new branches, subsidiaries, or representative offices of Iranian banks in the territories of Member States, and the establishment of new joint ventures, or the taking of an ownership interest, or the establishment of new correspondent banking relationships by Iranian banks, including the Central Bank of Iran, its branches and subsidiaries and other financial entities referred to in Article 10(1), with banks in the jurisdiction of Member States, shall be prohibited.\n2. Financial institutions within the territories of Member States or under their jurisdiction shall be prohibited from opening representative offices, subsidiaries or banking accounts in Iran.\nArticle 12\n1. The provision of insurance and re-insurance to the Government of Iran, or to entities incorporated in Iran or subject to Iran's jurisdiction, or to any individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or to entities owned or controlled by them, including through illicit means, shall be prohibited.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the provision of health and travel insurances to individuals.\n3. It shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly or intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibition referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 13\nThe direct or indirect sale or purchase of, or brokering or assistance in the issuance of public or public-guaranteed bonds issued after the entry into force of this Decision to and from the Government of Iran, the Central Bank of Iran, or banks domiciled in Iran, or branches and subsidiaries within and outside the jurisdiction of Member States of banks domiciled in Iran, or financial entities that are neither domiciled in Iran nor within the jurisdiction of the Member States, but are controlled by persons and entities domiciled in Iran as well as any individuals and entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them, shall be prohibited.\nArticle 14\nMember States shall require their nationals, persons subject to their jurisdiction and firms incorporated in their territories or subject to their jurisdiction to exercise vigilance when doing business with entities incorporated in Iran or subject to Iran's jurisdiction, including those of the IRGC and IRISL and any individuals and entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, and entities owned or controlled by them including through illicit means in order to ensure such business does not contribute to Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems or to violations of UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) or UNSCR 1929 (2010).\nCHAPTER 3\nTRANSPORT SECTOR\nArticle 15\n1. Member States shall inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea and relevant international civil aviation agreements, all cargo to and from Iran in their territories, including seaports and airports, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under this Decision.\n2. Member States, consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea, may request inspections of vessels on the high seas with the consent of the flag State, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the vessels carry items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under this Decision.\n3. Member States shall cooperate, in accordance with their national legislation, with inspections undertaken pursuant to paragraph 2.\n4. Aircrafts and vessels transporting cargo to and from Iran shall be subject to the requirement of additional pre-arrival or pre-departure information for all goods brought into or out of a Member State.\n5. In cases where an inspection referred to in paragraphs 1 or 2 is undertaken, Member States shall seize and dispose of (such as through destruction, rendering inoperable, storage or transferring to a State other than the originating or destination States for disposal) items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under this Decision in accordance with paragraph 16 of UNSCR 1929 (2010). Such seizure and disposal will be carried out at the expense of the importer or, if it is not possible to recover these expenses from the importer, they may, in accordance with national legislation, be recovered from any other person or entity responsible for the attempted illicit supply, sale, transfer or export.\n6. The provision by nationals of Member States or from the territories under the jurisdiction of Member States of bunkering or ship supply services, or other servicing of vessels, to Iranian-owned or -contracted vessels, including chartered vessels, shall be prohibited if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the vessels carry items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under this Decision unless the provision of such services is necessary for humanitarian purposes or until the cargo has been inspected, and seized and disposed of if necessary, in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 5.\nArticle 16\nMember States shall communicate to the Committee any information available on transfers or activity by Iran's Air's cargo division or vessels owned or operated by the IRISL to other companies, that may have been undertaken in order to evade the sanctions of, or in violation of the provisions of UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) or UNSCR 1929 (2010), including the renaming or re-registering of aircraft, vessels or ships.\nArticle 17\nMember States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, in particular relevant international civil aviation agreements, shall take the necessary measures to prevent access to the airports under their jurisdiction of all cargo flights operated by Iranian carriers or originating from Iran with the exception of mixed passenger and cargo flights.\nArticle 18\nThe provision by nationals of Member States, or from the territories of Member States, of engineering and maintenance services to Iranian cargo aircraft shall be prohibited if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo aircraft carry items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under this Decision unless the provision of such services is necessary for humanitarian and safety purposes or until the cargo has been inspected, and seized and disposed of if necessary, in accordance with Article 15 (1) and (5).\nCHAPTER 4\nRESTRICTIONS ON ADMISSION\nArticle 19\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through their territories of:\n(a)\npersons listed in the Annex to UNSCR 1737 (2006), and additional persons designated by the Security Council or by the Committee in accordance with paragraph 10 of UNSCR 1737 (2006) as well as IRGC individuals designated by the Security Council or by the Committee, as listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nother persons not covered by Annex I that are engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support for Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, including through the involvement in procurement of the prohibited items, goods, equipment, materials and technology, or persons acting on their behalf or at their direction, or persons that have assisted designated persons or entities in evading or violating the provisions of UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) and UNSCR 1929 (2010) or this Decision as well as other senior members of the IRGC, as listed in Annex II.\n2. The prohibition in paragraph 1 shall not apply to the transit through the territories of Member States for the purposes of activities directly related to the items specified in subparagraphs 3(b)(i) and (ii) of UNSCR 1737 (2006) for light water reactors begun before December 2006.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n4. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation of international law, namely:\n(i)\nas a host country of an international intergovernmental organisation;\n(ii)\nas a host country to an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the United Nations;\n(iii)\nunder a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities;\n(iv)\nunder the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran pact) concluded by the Holy See (State of the Vatican City) and Italy.\n5. Paragraph 4 shall be considered as applying also in cases where a Member State is host country of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).\n6. The Council shall be duly informed in all cases where a Member State grants an exemption pursuant to paragraph 4 or 5.\n7. Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed in paragraph 1 where they determine that travel is justified on the grounds of:\n(i)\nurgent humanitarian need, including religious obligations;\n(ii)\nthe necessity to meet the objectives of UNSCR 1737 (2006) and UNSCR 1929 (2010), including where Article XV of the IAEA Statute is engaged;\n(iii)\nattending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the Union, or hosted by a Member State holding the Chairmanship in office of the OSCE, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Iran.\n8. A Member State wishing to grant exemptions referred to in paragraph 6 shall notify the Council thereof in writing. The exemption shall be deemed to be granted unless one or more of the Council Members raises an objection in writing within two working days of receiving notification of the proposed exemption. Should one or more of the Council members raise an objection, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to grant the proposed exemption.\n9. In cases where, pursuant to paragraphs 4, 5 and 7, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in Annex I or II, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\n10. Member States shall notify the Committee of the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the persons set out in Annex I, if an exemption has been granted.\nCHAPTER 5\nFREEZING OF FUNDS AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES\nArticle 20\n1. All funds and economic resources which belong to, are owned, held or controlled, directly or indirectly by the following, shall be frozen:\n(a)\npersons and entities designated in the Annex to UNSCR 1737 (2006), additional persons and entities designated by the Security Council or by the Committee in accordance with paragraph 12 of UNSCR 1737 (2006) and paragraph 7 of UNSCR 1803 (2008) as well as IRGC individuals and entities and IRISL entities designated by the Security Council or by the Committee, as listed in Annex I;\n(b)\npersons and entities not covered by Annex I that are engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support for, Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, including through the involvement in procurement of the prohibited items, goods, equipment, materials and technology, or persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them, including through illicit means, or persons and entities that have assisted designated persons or entities in evading or violating the provisions of UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) and UNSCR 1929 (2010) or this Decision as well as other senior members and entities of IRGC and IRISL and entities owned or controlled by them or acting on their behalf, as listed in Annex II.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of persons and entities referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. Exemptions may be made for funds and economic resources which are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy basic needs, including payment for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges, in accordance with national laws, for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds and economic resources;\nafter notification by the Member State concerned to the Committee of the intention to authorise, where appropriate, access to such funds and economic resources and in the absence of a negative decision by the Committee within five working days of such notification.\n4. Exemptions may also be made for funds and economic resources which are:\n(a)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, after notification by the Member State concerned to, and approval by, the Committee;\n(b)\nthe subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien or judgement, in which case the funds and economic resources may be used to satisfy that lien or judgement provided that the lien or judgement was entered before the date of UNSCR 1737 (2006), and is not for the benefit of a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1, after notification by the Member State concerned to the Committee;\n(c)\nnecessary for activities directly related to the items specified in subparagraphs 3(b)(i) and (ii) of UNSCR 1737 (2006) for light water reactors begun before December 2006.\n5. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments to frozen accounts due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which those accounts became subject to restrictive measures;\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to paragraph 1.\n6. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent a designated person or entity from making payment due under a contract entered into before the listing of such a person or entity, provided that the relevant Member State has determined that:\n(a)\nthe contract is not related to any of the prohibited items, materials, equipment, goods, technologies, assistance, training, financial assistance, investment, brokering or services referred to in Article 1;\n(b)\nthe payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1;\nand after notification by the relevant Member State to the Committee of the intention to make or receive such payments or to authorize, where appropriate, the unfreezing of funds or economic resources for this purpose, 10 working days prior to such authorisation.\nCHAPTER 6\nOTHER RESTRICTIVE MEASURES\nArticle 21\nMember States shall, in accordance with their national legislation, take the necessary measures to prevent specialised teaching or training of Iranian nationals, within their territories or by their nationals, of disciplines which would contribute to Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities and development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.\nCHAPTER 7\nGENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 22\nNo claims, including for compensation or for other claim of this kind, such as a claim of set-off or a claim under a guarantee, in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which was affected, directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, by reason of measures decided on pursuant to UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) or UNSCR 1929 (2010), including measures of the Union or any Member State in accordance with, as required by or in any connection with, the implementation of the relevant decisions of the Security Council or measures covered by the present Decision, shall be granted to the designated persons or entities listed in Annexes I or II, or any other person or entity in Iran, including the Government of Iran, or any person or entity claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or entity.\nArticle 23\n1. The Council shall implement modifications to Annex I on the basis of the determinations made by the Security Council or by the Committee.\n2. The Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal from Member States or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall establish the list in Annex II and adopt modifications to it.\nArticle 24\n1. Where the Security Council or the Committee lists a person or entity, the Council shall include such person or entity in Annex I.\n2. Where the Council decides to subject a person or entity to the measures referred to in Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b), it shall amend Annex II accordingly.\n3. The Council shall communicate its decision to the person or entity referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, including the grounds for listing, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person or entity an opportunity to present observations.\n4. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person or entity accordingly.\nArticle 25\n1. Annexes I and II shall include the grounds for listing of listed persons and entities, as provided by the Security Council or by the Committee with regard to Annex I.\n2. Annexes I and II shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify the persons or entities concerned, as provided by the Security Council or by the Committee for Annex I. With regard to persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known and function or profession. With regard to entities such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. Annex I shall also include the date of designation by the Security Council or by the Committee.\nArticle 26\n1. This Decision shall be reviewed, amended or repealed as appropriate, notably in the light of relevant decisions by the Security Council.\n2. The measures on banking relationships with Iranian banks in Articles 10 and 11 shall be reviewed within six months of the adoption of this Decision.\n3. The measures referred to in Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months. They shall cease to apply in respect of the persons and entities concerned if the Council determines, in accordance with the procedure referred in Article 24, that the conditions for their application are no longer met.\nArticle 27\nCommon Position 2007/140/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 28\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["38", "43", "56", "99", "90", "16", "63", "93", "70", "64", "81", "45", "52", "71", "59", "87", "50", "74", "42", "18", "29", "24", "22", "76", "67", "88", "40", "96", "26", "0", "No Label", "3", "5", "12", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "12", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 874/2011\nof 31 August 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 August 2011.", "references": ["38", "17", "84", "32", "37", "73", "25", "82", "27", "71", "98", "0", "70", "58", "80", "81", "89", "78", "91", "14", "85", "67", "33", "7", "68", "5", "34", "60", "90", "83", "No Label", "21", "69", "72"], "gold": ["21", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 26 April 2012\nauthorising Romania to apply measures derogating from Article 26(1)(a) and Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(2012/232/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter registered with the Commission on 27 September 2011, Romania requested authorisation to introduce special measures concerning certain motorised road vehicles derogating from those provisions laid down in Directive 2006/112/EC which govern a taxable person\u2019s right to deduct VAT paid on the purchase of goods and services and those which require tax to be accounted for on business assets used for non-business purposes.\n(2)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 395(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, by letter dated 1 December 2011, the Commission informed the other Member States of the request made by Romania. By letter dated 5 December 2011, the Commission notified Romania that it had all the information necessary to consider the request.\n(3)\nArticle 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC establishes a taxable person\u2019s right to deduct VAT charged on supplies of goods and services received by him for the purposes of his taxed transactions. Point (a) of Article 26(1) of that Directive contains a requirement to account for VAT when a business asset is put to use for the private purposes of the taxable person or his staff or, more generally, for purposes other than those of his business.\n(4)\nThe non-business use of vehicles is difficult to identify accurately and even where it is possible, the mechanism for doing so is often burdensome. Under the requested measures, the amount of VAT on expenditure eligible for deduction concerning motorised road vehicles which are not used exclusively for business purposes should, with some exceptions, be set at a flat percentage rate. Based on currently available information, Romania believes that a rate of 50 % is justifiable. At the same time, to avoid double taxation, the requirement for accounting for VAT on the non-business use of a motorised road vehicle should be suspended where it has been subject to this restriction. These measures can be justified by the need to simplify the procedure for charging VAT and to prevent evasion through incorrect record-keeping and false tax declaration.\n(5)\nThe restriction on the right of deduction under the special measures should apply to VAT paid on the purchase, intra-Community acquisition, importation, hire or leasing of specified motorised road vehicles and on expenditure related thereto, including the purchase of fuel.\n(6)\nCertain types of motorised road vehicles should be excluded from the scope of the special measures since, due to their nature or the type of business they are used for, any non-business use thereof is considered to be negligible. Therefore, the special measures should not apply to vehicles with more than nine seats including the driver\u2019s, or with a maximum permissible laden mass of more than 3 500 kilograms. In addition, a detailed list of specific types of vehicles excluded from that restriction should be provided, based on their particular use.\n(7)\nThese derogating measures should be limited in time to allow for an evaluation of their effectiveness and of the appropriate percentage, since the proposed percentage is based on initial findings regarding business use.\n(8)\nWhere Romania considers an extension of the derogating measures is necessary, a report on the application of the measures in question, which includes a review of the percentage applied, should be submitted to the Commission together with the request for an extension in a timely manner.\n(9)\nOn 29 October 2004, the Commission adopted a proposal (2) for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC, now Directive 2006/112/EC, that includes the harmonisation of the categories of expenses for which exclusions from the right of deduction may apply. Under that proposal, exclusions from the right to deduct could be applied to motorised road vehicles. The derogating measures provided for in this Decision should expire on the date of the entry into force of such an amending Directive, if that date is earlier than the date of expiry provided for in this Decision.\n(10)\nThe derogation will have only a negligible effect on the overall amount of tax revenue collected at the stage of final consumption and will have no impact on the Union\u2019s own resources accruing from value added tax,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC, Romania is hereby authorised to limit to 50 % the right to deduct the VAT on the purchase, intra-Community acquisition, importation, hire or leasing of motorised road vehicles as well as the VAT charged on expenditure related to those vehicles, where the vehicle is not used exclusively for business purposes.\nThe restriction set out in the first subparagraph shall not apply to motorised road vehicles with a maximum permissible laden mass of more than 3 500 kg or with more than nine seats including the driver\u2019s seat.\nArticle 2\nThe first subparagraph of Article 1 shall not apply to the following categories of motorised road vehicles:\n(a)\nvehicles used exclusively for emergency services, for security, protection and courier services;\n(b)\nvehicles used by sales agents and by purchasing agents;\n(c)\nvehicles used for the transport of passengers for consideration, including taxi services;\n(d)\nvehicles used for the supply of services for consideration, including hire or driving lessons provided by driving schools;\n(e)\nvehicles used for hire or leasing;\n(f)\nvehicles used as commodities for trading purposes.\nArticle 3\nBy way of derogation from point (a) of Article 26(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC, Romania is authorised not to treat as a supply of services for consideration the private use by a taxable person or his staff or, more generally, for purposes other than those of his business, of a vehicle to which the restriction referred to in Article 1 of this Decision applies.\nArticle 4\n1. This Decision shall expire on the date of entry into force of Union rules determining the expenditure relating to motorised road vehicles that is not eligible for full deduction of VAT, or on 31 December 2014, whichever is the earlier.\n2. Any request for the extension of the measures provided for in this Decision shall be submitted to the Commission by 31 March 2014.\nSuch request shall be accompanied by a report which includes a review of the percentage restriction applied on the right to deduct VAT on the basis of this Decision.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to Romania.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2012.", "references": ["35", "75", "53", "84", "40", "48", "76", "67", "85", "17", "94", "41", "59", "62", "69", "66", "11", "3", "36", "82", "14", "27", "4", "33", "83", "21", "61", "5", "7", "43", "No Label", "8", "25", "34", "54", "55", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "25", "34", "54", "55", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 144/2011\nof 17 February 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) and Article 9(2)(b) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2004/68/EC of 26 April 2004 laying down animal health rules for the importation into and transit through the Community of certain live ungulate animals, amending Directives 90/426/EEC and 92/65/EEC and repealing Directive 72/462/EEC (2), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) and Article 7(e) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (3) applies to intra-Union trade in bovine animals. It provides that bovine animals for breeding and production must come from an officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free herd and if more than 12 months old, have reacted negatively to an individual test carried out during the 30 days prior to leaving the herd of origin and complying with the provisions of Annex D thereto.\n(2)\nDirective 64/432/EEC also sets out diagnostic tests to be used for brucellosis and the certification requirements for intra-Union trade in bovine animals for breeding and production. In addition, that Directive, as amended by Commission Decision 2008/984/EC (4), now includes fluorescence polarization assay as a standard diagnostic test.\n(3)\nDirective 2004/68/EC lays down the animal health requirements for the importation into, and transit through, the Union of live ungulates. Those requirements include specific animal health requirements for live ungulates which are to be based on the rules laid down in Union legislation for the diseases to which those animals are susceptible.\n(4)\nDirective 2004/68/EC also provides that specific conditions may be laid down for third countries for which equivalence has been formally recognised by the Union based on the official health guarantees provided by the third country concerned.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 of 12 March 2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements (5) lays down the veterinary certification requirements for the introduction into the Union of certain consignments of live animals or fresh meat. Annexes I and II thereto lay down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof from which consignments of those animals and meat may be introduced into the Union.\n(6)\nIn addition, Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 sets out specific conditions for the introduction into the Union of domestic bovine animals intended for breeding and production, together with a model veterinary certificate for those animals, including Bubalus and Bison species, and their cross-breeds (BOV-X).\n(7)\nSpecial condition \u2018IVb\u2019 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 refers to \u2018territory with approved holdings recognised as having an official enzootic-bovine-leukosis (EBL) free status for the purposes of exports to the Union of live animals certified according to the model of certificate (BOV-X)\u2019. That special condition should be amended to take account of the provisions concerning officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free herds laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC.\n(8)\nAccordingly, specific condition IVb set out in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 and model of veterinary certificate (BOV-X) set out in Part 2 of that Annex should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nIn addition, Part 6 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 should be amended to take account of the flurorescence polarization essay diagnostic test set out in Directive 64/432/EEC.\n(10)\nRegulation (EU) No 206/2010 also provides that fresh meat introduced into the Union must satisfy the requirements set out in the appropriate veterinary certificate for that meat in accordance with the models set out in Part 2 of Annex II, taking into account any specific conditions or supplementary guarantees required for such meat.\n(11)\nBotswana has requested the authorisation to export to the Union de-boned and matured bovine meat of animals from the veterinary control zone 4a within the territory identified as BW-4 in column 2 of the table in Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010.\n(12)\nRequirements for imports of meat from third countries into the Union depend on the animal health status of the exporting third country, territory or part thereof. The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) determines the foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) status of its member countries and in May 2010 recognised the area in question as a FMD free zone where vaccination is not practised. Botswana has established an intensive surveillance zone of 10 km to segregate the disease free zone from other parts of that country.\n(13)\nBotswana should thus be authorised for the introduction into the Union of de-boned and matured bovine meat of animals from the disease free zone. Column 4 of the table in Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 should therefore refer to model veterinary certificate BOV. Part 1 of Annex II to that Regulation should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(15)\nIt is necessary to provide for a transitional period in order to give Member States and the industry sufficient time to take the necessary measures to comply with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 206/2010, as amended by this Regulation, without any disruption to trade.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nFor a transitional period until 31 May 2011, consignments of domestic bovine animals intended for breeding and/or production after import accompanied by a veterinary certificate in accordance with the Model BOV-X, as set out in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 before the amendments introduced by Article 1 of this Regulation, may continue to be introduced into the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2011.", "references": ["58", "17", "81", "11", "41", "77", "46", "74", "27", "30", "97", "52", "99", "28", "24", "48", "5", "70", "10", "39", "75", "14", "18", "50", "2", "68", "72", "37", "36", "3", "No Label", "4", "21", "22", "23", "38", "61", "66", "69"], "gold": ["4", "21", "22", "23", "38", "61", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 741/2010\nof 17 August 2010\namending Regulations (EC) No 1490/2002 and (EC) No 2229/2004 as regards the date until which authorisations may continue to be in force in cases where the notifier has submitted an application in accordance with the accelerated procedure under Regulation (EC) No 33/2008\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 of 14 August 2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 of 3 December 2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage and the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(2)\nIn cases where the notifier withdraws its support of the inclusion of the active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 or Article 24e of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004, authorisations are to be withdrawn by 31 December 2010.\n(3)\nFor most of the substances concerned applications have been submitted in accordance with the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (4).\n(4)\nIn order to allow the examination of those substances to be completed, it is necessary to extend the period for Member States to withdraw authorisations in respect of those substances.\n(5)\nRegulations (EC) No 1490/2002 and (EC) No 2229/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002\nIn Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002, the following sentence is added:\n\u2018However, the latest date for Member States to withdraw authorisations shall be 31 December 2011 where an application has been submitted in accordance with the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 (5).\nArticle 2\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004\nIn Article 25(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004, the following sentence is added:\n\u2018However, the latest date for Member States to withdraw authorisations shall be 31 December 2011 where an application has been submitted in accordance with the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 (6).\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 August 2010.", "references": ["27", "75", "92", "72", "12", "37", "79", "17", "38", "64", "47", "76", "95", "69", "48", "43", "15", "6", "31", "18", "91", "9", "21", "30", "66", "29", "94", "80", "46", "90", "No Label", "2", "25", "41", "60", "65"], "gold": ["2", "25", "41", "60", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1055/2010\nof 18 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for anglerfish in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2010.", "references": ["78", "52", "99", "28", "83", "31", "54", "44", "80", "69", "17", "33", "7", "30", "72", "86", "47", "84", "2", "3", "42", "63", "9", "24", "23", "40", "88", "81", "73", "12", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 437/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 19 May 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 on the European Regional Development Fund as regards the eligibility of housing interventions in favour of marginalised communities\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 178 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nWith a view to enhancing the economic and social cohesion of the Union, it is necessary to support limited interventions for the renovation of existing buildings serving housing purposes in Member States that acceded to the European Union on or after 1 May 2004. Those interventions may take place under the conditions set out in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund (3).\n(2)\nExpenditure should be programmed within the framework of an integrated urban development operation or priority axis for areas experiencing or threatened by physical deterioration and social exclusion. For clarity, the conditions under which housing interventions in urban areas may take place should be simplified. To this end, expenditure on housing interventions should be programmed taking into account different parameters regardless of the source of financing. Furthermore only expenditure on interventions in regard to existing buildings should be considered as eligible expenditure.\n(3)\nIn several Member States, for marginalised communities living in urban or rural areas, housing constitutes a decisive factor of integration. It is therefore necessary to extend the eligibility of expenditure on housing interventions in all Member States to communities living in urban or rural areas.\n(4)\nIrrespective of whether communities are located in urban or rural areas, due to the extremely poor quality of their housing conditions, expenditure on the renovation or replacement of existing housing, including by newly constructed housing, should also be considered as eligible expenditure.\n(5)\nIn line with Principle No 2 of the Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion reiterated by the Council in its Conclusions on Inclusion of the Roma of 8 June 2009, housing interventions focused on a specific group should not exclude other people sharing similar socio-economic circumstances.\n(6)\nIn line with Principle No 1 of those Common Basic Principles, in order to limit the risks of segregation, housing interventions for marginalised communities should take place within the framework of an integrated approach, which includes, in particular, actions in the fields of education, health, social affairs, employment and security, and desegregation measures.\n(7)\nUniform conditions of implementation should be ensured for the adoption of the list of criteria needed to determine the areas experiencing or threatened by physical deterioration and social exclusion and the adoption of the list of eligible interventions. Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of its implementing powers are laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of such a regulation and in order to avoid any disruption of the Union\u2019s legislative action, the provisions of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (4) should continue to be applied.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 1080/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Expenditure on housing, except for energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy as set out in paragraph 1a, shall be eligible expenditure in the following cases:\n(a)\nfor the Member States that acceded to the European Union on or after 1 May 2004 and within the framework of an integrated urban development approach for areas experiencing or threatened by physical deterioration and social exclusion;\n(b)\nfor all Member States only within the framework of an integrated approach for marginalised communities.\nThe allocation to housing expenditure shall be either a maximum of 3 % of the ERDF allocation to the operational programmes concerned or 2 % of the total ERDF allocation.\n2a. For the purposes of points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 but without prejudice to the second subparagraph of this paragraph, expenditure shall be limited to the following interventions:\n(a)\nrenovation of the common parts in existing multi-family housing;\n(b)\nrenovation and change of use of existing buildings owned by public authorities or non-profit operators for use as housing designated for low-income households or people with special needs.\nFor the purposes of point (b) of paragraph 2, interventions may include the renovation or replacement of existing housing.\nThe Commission shall adopt the list of criteria needed for determining the areas referred to under point (a) of paragraph 2 and the list of eligible interventions in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 103(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 19 May 2010.", "references": ["9", "98", "54", "19", "47", "70", "3", "83", "97", "37", "59", "71", "92", "50", "5", "2", "73", "79", "48", "31", "91", "41", "84", "42", "21", "12", "35", "38", "82", "43", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "36"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "36"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 497/2012\nof 7 June 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 as regards the requirements for imports of animals susceptible to bluetongue\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2004/68/EC of 26 April 2004 laying down animal health rules for the importation into and transit through the Community of certain live ungulate animals, amending Directives 90/426/EEC and 92/65/EEC and repealing Directive 72/462/EEC (1), and in particular Article 6(1), Article 7(e), and Article 13(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 of 12 March 2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements (2) lays down the list of third countries, territories or parts thereof from which live ungulate animals, including those susceptible to bluetongue, may be introduced into the Union and the veterinary certification requirements for such introduction.\n(2)\nIn particular, with regard to animals susceptible to bluetongue, certificates BOV-X, BOV-Y, OVI-X, OVI-Y and RUM set out in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 include inter alia the requirement that the animals come from a territory which, at the date of issue of the certificate accompanying them had been free from bluetongue for a period of twelve months.\n(3)\nAs a result of new technical developments, \"inactivated vaccines\" against bluetongue have become available which do not pose the risk of undesired local circulation of the vaccine virus to unvaccinated cattle, sheep and goats. It is now widely accepted that vaccination with inactivated vaccines is the preferred tool for the control of bluetongue and for the prevention of clinical disease in such animals in the Union.\n(4)\nTo ensure better control of the spread of the bluetongue virus and to reduce the burden on the agricultural sector posed by that disease, the rules on vaccination laid down in Council Directive 2000/75/EC of 20 November 2000 laying down specific provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue (3) were recently amended by Directive 2012/5/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) to take account of the recent technological developments in vaccine production.\n(5)\nAccordingly, Directive 2000/75/EC now provides for the use of inactivated vaccines in all parts of the EU.\n(6)\nAs a result of the evolving epidemiological situation as regards bluetongue, and to align with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) standards, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 of 26 October 2007 on implementing rules for Council Directive 2000/75/EC as regards the control, monitoring, surveillance and restrictions on movements of certain animals of susceptible species in relation to bluetongue (5) was amended recently. The EU standards require the absence of virus circulation for a minimum period of two years in order to consider a territory free from bluetongue. The period of twelve months referred to in the relevant certificates set out in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nDirective 2000/75/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 apply to intra-Union movements of live ungulates of species susceptible to bluetongue. It is appropriate that the models of veterinary certificates BOV-X, BOV-Y, OVI-X, OVI-Y and RUM set out in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 be amended to align the animal health requirements for imports into the Union, as regards bluetongue, to the requirements for intra-Union movement in animals susceptible to that disease.\n(8)\nRegulation (EU) No 206/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nFor a transitional period until 30 June 2012, consignments of live ungulates accompanied by a certificate issued before the date of entry into force of this Regulation in accordance with the models BOV-X, BOV-Y, OVI-X, OVI-Y or RUM set out in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 before the amendments introduced by this Regulation may continue to be introduced into the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["36", "2", "23", "51", "5", "1", "32", "40", "19", "24", "18", "94", "41", "86", "91", "26", "9", "33", "99", "62", "92", "38", "71", "72", "44", "6", "95", "30", "76", "3", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "61", "65", "66"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "61", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 508/2011\nof 24 May 2011\namending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for abamectin, acetamiprid, cyprodinil, difenoconazole, dimethomorph, fenhexamid, proquinazid, prothioconazole, pyraclostrobin, spirotetramat, thiacloprid, thiamethoxam and trifloxystrobin in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor abamectin, acetamiprid, fenhexamid, pyraclostrobin, thiacloprid and trifloxystrobin maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Annex II and Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For cyprodinil, difenoconazole, dimethomorph, proquinazid, prothioconazole, spirotetramat, and thiamethoxam, MRLs were set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(2)\nIn the context of a procedure, in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2), for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance fenhexamid on onions an application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing MRLs.\n(3)\nAs regards abamectin, such an application was made for the use on apricots and peaches. As regards acetamiprid, such an application was made for the use on land cress and red mustard. As regards cyprodinil, such application was made for the use in fresh lentils. As regards difenoconazole, such an application was made for the use on peppers and aubergines. As regards dimethomorph, such an application was made for the use in garlic, onions, shallots, aubergines and globe artichokes. As regards proquinazid, such an application was made for the use on strawberries. As regards prothioconazole, such an application was made for the use on various root vegetables As regards pyraclostrobin, such an application was made for the use on tomatoes, aubergines, globe artichokes and celeriac. As regards spirotetramat, such an application was made for the use in various crops outside the European Union. As regards thiacloprid, such an application was made for the use on cotton seed and figs. As regards thiamethoxam, such an application was made for the use in strawberries and beans (with pods). As regards trifloxystrobin, such an application was made for the use on leafy brassica.\n(4)\nRegarding trifloxystrobin, the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019 has reviewed not only the use on leafy brassica but also the animal feeding studies and has concluded that it is necessary to set MRLs for products of animal origin with an amended residue definition at the limit of determination for enforcement purposes.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, these applications were evaluated by the Member States concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission.\n(6)\nThe Authority, assessed the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs (3). It forwarded these opinions to the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public.\n(7)\nThe Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs as recommended by the Authority were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime exposure to these substances via consumption of all food products that may contain these substances, nor the short term exposure due to extreme consumption of the relevant crops showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference dose (ARfD) is exceeded.\n(8)\nBased on the reasoned opinions and statement of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(9)\nAnnex II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 May 2011.", "references": ["15", "9", "88", "75", "46", "77", "50", "0", "53", "35", "74", "99", "1", "58", "83", "82", "67", "62", "87", "98", "28", "43", "19", "13", "21", "5", "52", "33", "26", "17", "No Label", "38", "65", "66", "69", "72", "76"], "gold": ["38", "65", "66", "69", "72", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 3 November 2011\namending Decision 2008/866/EC on emergency measures suspending imports from Peru of certain bivalve molluscs intended for human consumption, as regards its period of application\n(notified under document C(2011) 7767)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/723/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1)(b)(i) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 178/2002 lays down the general principles governing food and feed in general, and food and feed safety in particular, at Union and national level. It provides for emergency measures where there is evidence that food or feed imported from a third country is likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment, and that such risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member State(s) concerned.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2008/866/EC of 12 November 2008 on emergency measures suspending imports from Peru of certain bivalve molluscs intended for human consumption (2) was adopted following an outbreak of hepatitis A in humans related to the consumption of bivalve molluscs imported from Peru contaminated with hepatitis A virus (HAV). That Decision initially applied until 31 March 2009 but this period of application was extended until 30 November 2011 by Commission Decision 2010/641/EU (3).\n(3)\nA Commission audit carried out in September 2009 verified that the Peruvian authorities were putting in place the corrective measures contained in the information they provided after the outbreak of hepatitis A. However these measures were not completely implemented at the time of the inspection.\n(4)\nA follow-up Commission audit has taken place in June 2011.\n(5)\nThe results of the audit showed that a well-implemented control system and monitoring plan are in place and improvements have been noted since the 2009 inspection visit.\n(6)\nHowever, the protective measures put in place with regard to the possible contamination of live bivalve molluscs with hepatitis A virus are still unsatisfactory. The Peruvian Competent Authority is currently developing a monitoring system for virus detection in live bivalve molluscs, but the testing method used cannot be considered reliable as it has not been validated yet.\n(7)\nDecision 2008/866/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 5 of Decision 2008/866/EC, the date \u201830 November 2011\u2019 is replaced by the date \u201830 November 2012\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2011.", "references": ["9", "88", "99", "8", "4", "21", "46", "28", "61", "53", "35", "41", "1", "49", "48", "55", "6", "13", "56", "44", "78", "81", "83", "90", "84", "27", "54", "18", "80", "62", "No Label", "22", "23", "38", "67", "93"], "gold": ["22", "23", "38", "67", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 365/2010\nof 28 April 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs as regards Enterobacteriaceae in pasteurised milk and other pasteurised liquid dairy products and Listeria monocytogenes in food grade salt\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 4(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs (2) lays down microbiological criteria for certain micro-organisms and the implementing rules to be complied with by food business operators when implementing the general and specific hygiene measures referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004.\n(2)\nAccording to the article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 microbiological criteria shall be reviewed taking into account progress in science, technology and methodology, emerging pathogenic micro-organisms in foodstuffs, and information from risk assessments.\n(3)\nChapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 sets out food safety criteria for Listeria monocytogenes in certain ready-to-eat foods. Part 1.3 provides limits for ready-to-eat foods unable to support the growth of L. monocytogenes, other than those intended for infants and for special medical purposes. Food business operators are required to prove compliance with the criteria in products placed on the market during their shelf-life.\n(4)\nAccording to the Regulation (EC) 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (3), food grade salt is a ready-to-eat food. According to scientific evidence, presence and survival of L. monocytogenes in salt is unlikely in normal circumstances. Therefore, food grade salt should be added to footnote 4 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 which provides for the ready-to-eat foods in which regular testing of L. monocytogenes is not required.\n(5)\nAccording to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005, a process hygiene criterion applies to Enterobacteriaceae in pasteurised milk and other pasteurised liquid dairy products including an analytical reference method and limits.\n(6)\nThe analytical reference method set out for Enterobacteriaceae in pasteurised milk and other pasteurised liquid dairy products ISO 21528-1 has been shown to be difficult to use for routine analyses in own checks since it is very laborious and time consuming. Due to the methodological development the analytical reference method of Enterobacteriaceae in pasteurised milk and other pasteurised liquid dairy products should be changed to ISO 21528-2 which is quicker and easier to perform.\n(7)\nAnalytical reference methods have an effect on test results. Therefore, the criterion limit of Enterobacteriaceae in pasteurised milk and other pasteurised liquid dairy products needs to be changed accordingly. The change would still guarantee sufficient detection limit for the process hygiene since likely problems in the manufacturing process would cause much higher growth of Enterobacteriaceae.\n(8)\nGiven a recent change in taxonomy the name of Enterobacter sakazakii in Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 should be changed to Cronobacter spp. (Enterobacter sakazakii).\n(9)\nSome of the provisions were applicable until 1 January 2010 and new ones already laid down in the Regulation will apply thereafter. To facilitate readability of these provisions, it is appropriate to delete the old ones.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 2073/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 is amended as follows:\n1.\nChapter 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nRow 1.5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181.5\nMinced meat and meat preparations made from poultry meat intended to be eaten cooked\nSalmonella\n5\n0\nAbsence in 25 g\nEN/ISO 6579\nProducts placed on the market during their shelf-life\u2019\n(b)\nRow 1.9 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181.9\nMeat products made from poultry meat intended to be eaten cooked\nSalmonella\n5\n0\nAbsence in 25 g\nEN/ISO 6579\nProducts placed on the market during their shelf-life\u2019\n(c)\nRow 1.24 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181.24\nDried infant formulae and dried dietary foods for special medical purposes intended for infants below 6 months of age (14)\nCronobacter spp. (Enterobacter sakazakii)\n30\n0\nAbsence in 10 g\nISO/TS 22964\nProducts placed on the market during their shelf-life\u2019\n2.\nIn footnote 4 of Chapter 1 the following indent is added:\n\u2018-\nfood grade salt\u2019\n3.\nPart 2.2. of Chapter 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nRow 2.2.1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182.2.1\nPasteurised milk and other pasteurised liquid dairy products(4)\nEntero-bacteriaceae\n5\n0\n10 cfu/ml\nISO 21528-2\nEnd of the manufacturing process\nCheck on the efficiency of heat-treatment and prevention of recontamination as well as the quality of raw materials\u2019\n(b)\nFootnote (2) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(2)\nFor points 2.2.1, 2.2.7, 2.2.9 and 2.2.10 m=M\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 April 2010.", "references": ["95", "31", "76", "56", "28", "80", "32", "0", "52", "59", "82", "64", "2", "99", "63", "92", "53", "90", "22", "98", "25", "26", "58", "45", "44", "69", "16", "42", "24", "4", "No Label", "38", "70", "72", "73", "77"], "gold": ["38", "70", "72", "73", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1011/2010\nof 9 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2010.", "references": ["20", "71", "60", "37", "30", "23", "87", "43", "63", "58", "80", "0", "4", "11", "2", "81", "64", "53", "32", "31", "76", "29", "55", "98", "56", "33", "52", "38", "93", "97", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 658/2011\nof 7 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 July 2011.", "references": ["27", "48", "90", "32", "62", "70", "11", "75", "76", "20", "23", "92", "50", "44", "64", "84", "31", "57", "56", "91", "40", "34", "26", "53", "87", "54", "73", "95", "94", "37", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 784/2012\nof 30 August 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 to list an auction platform to be appointed by Germany and correcting Article 59(7) thereof\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Articles 3d(3) and 10(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 of 12 November 2010 on the timing, administration and other aspects of auctioning of greenhouse gas emission allowances pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowances trading within the Community (2), allows Member States not participating in the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2) to appoint their own auction platform for the auctioning of their share of the volume of allowances covered by Chapters II and III of Directive 2003/87/EC. The appointment of such auction platforms is subject to listing of the auction platform concerned in Annex III, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 30(5) of that Regulation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 30(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, Germany informed the Commission of its decision not to participate in the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2) of that Regulation, and to appoint its own auction platform.\n(3)\nOn 9 March 2012, Germany notified the Commission of its intention to appoint European Energy Exchange AG (\u2018EEX\u2019) as an auction platform referred to in Article 30(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010.\n(4)\nOn 22 March 2012, Germany presented the notification to the Climate Change Committee. In addition, Germany has provided further information and clarification to the Commission, supplementing the notification accordingly.\n(5)\nThe proposed appointment of EEX as an auction platform referred to in Article 30(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 is compatible with the requirements of that Regulation and is in conformity with the objectives set out in Article 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n(6)\nIn accordance with point (e) of Article 35(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, an auction platform must not abuse the contract appointing it to unduly leverage the competitiveness of its other activities, notably the secondary market it organises. Therefore, the listing of EEX as an auction platform should be conditional upon EEX providing the option to candidate bidders to be admitted to bid in the auctions without being required to become a member of or a participant in the secondary market organised by EEX or of any other trading place operated by EEX or by any third party.\n(7)\nIn accordance with point (h) of Article 35(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, when appointing an auction platform, the Member States have to take into account the extent to which adequate measures are provided to require an auction platform to hand over all tangible and intangible assets necessary for the conduct of the auctions by an auction platform\u2019s successor. Such measures should be laid down in a clear and timely manner in an exit strategy that should be reviewed by the auction monitor. EEX should develop such an exit strategy and take into utmost account the auction monitor\u2019s opinion thereon.\n(8)\nAn auction platform is required to obtain the auction monitor\u2019s opinion on the methodology for the application of Articles 7(6) and 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010. However, where the auction monitor has not been appointed before the start of the auction concerned, the auction platform should be allowed to proceed without having obtained the auction monitor\u2019s opinion.\n(9)\nRegulation (EU) No 1031/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nMoreover, certain references in Article 59(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 should be corrected.\n(11)\nIn order to ensure predictable and timely auctions by the auction platform to be appointed by Germany, this Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010\nRegulation (EU) No 1031/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 3, the following point is added:\n\u201844.\n\u201cexit strategy\u201d means one or more documents determined in accordance with the contracts appointing the auction monitor or the auction platform concerned, setting out detailed measures planned to ensure the following:\n(a)\nthe transfer of all tangible and intangible assets necessary for the uninterrupted continuation of the auctions and the smooth operation of the auction process by an auction platform\u2019s successor;\n(b)\nthe provision to the contracting authorities or the auction monitor, or both, of all information relating to the auction process, that is necessary for the procurement procedure for the appointment of the auction platform\u2019s successor;\n(c)\nthe provision to the contracting authorities, or the auction monitor or the auction platform\u2019s successor, or any combination of these, of the technical assistance that enables the contracting authorities, or the auction monitor or the auction platform\u2019s successor, or any combination of these, to understand, access or use the relevant information provided pursuant to points (a) and (b).\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 7, paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. Before an auction is started, the auction platform shall determine the methodology for the application of paragraph 6, after consulting the auction monitor and obtaining its opinion thereon and notifying the competent national authorities referred to in Article 56.\nIn between two bidding windows on the same auction platform, the auction platform concerned may modify the methodology after having consulted the auction monitor, obtained its opinion thereon, and notified the competent national authorities referred to in Article 56.\nWhere the auction monitor has not been appointed at least one month prior to the start of the auction concerned, the auction platform may apply the intended methodology without having obtained the auction monitor\u2019s opinion.\nThe auction platform concerned shall take the utmost account of the auction monitor\u2019s opinion.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 8, paragraph 3, the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Where the auction monitor has not yet been appointed at least one month prior to the start of the auction concerned, the auction platform may proceed with the intended change of time.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 25, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. The auction monitor shall provide opinions pursuant to Articles 7(7) and 8(3), and as provided in Annex III. Opinions shall be delivered within a reasonable time.\u2019;\n(5)\nAnnex III is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nCorrection to Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010\nIn Article 59, paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. Clients of bidders referred to in paragraph 1 may direct any complaints that they may have with regard to compliance with the conduct rules provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 to the competent authorities mentioned in paragraph 4 in accordance with the procedural rules laid down for the handling of such complaints in the Member State where the persons referred to in paragraph 1 are supervised.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 August 2012.", "references": ["33", "49", "99", "16", "45", "40", "56", "3", "22", "41", "51", "63", "80", "31", "86", "26", "21", "5", "42", "23", "17", "70", "93", "52", "24", "64", "46", "12", "69", "77", "No Label", "25", "58", "60", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "58", "60", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 October 2010\nconcerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Additional Protocol to the Cooperation Agreement for the Protection of the Coasts and Waters of the North-East Atlantic against Pollution\n(2010/655/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 196(2) and 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Union is a Party to the Cooperation Agreement for the Protection of the Coasts and Waters of the North-East Atlantic against Pollution approved by Council Decision 93/550/EEC (2) (hereinafter referred to as the Lisbon Agreement).\n(2)\nA political dispute over the borders in Western Sahara prevented Spain and Morocco from ratifying the Lisbon Agreement. This dispute has now been resolved by the Additional Protocol to the Lisbon Agreement modifying Article 3(c) thereof.\n(3)\nFollowing the adoption of the Council Decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Community, of the Additional Protocol to the Cooperation Agreement for the Protection of the Coasts and Waters of the North-East Atlantic against Pollution on 12 December 2008, the Additional Protocol was signed, on behalf of the Community, on 25 March 2009.\n(4)\nThe Additional Protocol to the Lisbon Agreement is open to ratification, acceptance or approval by the Parties.\n(5)\nIt is therefore appropriate for the Union to conclude the Additional Protocol to the Lisbon Agreement.\n(6)\nThe European Union and Member States Parties to the Lisbon Agreement should endeavour to deposit simultaneously, to the extent possible, their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval of the Additional Protocol.\n(7)\nFollowing the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union notified the Government of Portugal as regards the European Union having replaced and succeeded the European Community,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Additional Protocol to the Cooperation Agreement for the Protection of the Coasts and Waters of the North-East Atlantic against Pollution is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.\nThe text of the Additional Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\n1. The President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to the deposit of the instrument of approval with the Government of Portugal, which assumes the function of Depositary , in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Additional Protocol, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by that Protocol.\n2. The Union and Member States Parties to the Lisbon Agreement shall endeavour to deposit simultaneously, to the extent possible, their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval of the Additional Protocol.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nThe date of entry into force of the Additional Protocol shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 19 October 2010.", "references": ["20", "41", "75", "46", "18", "48", "15", "32", "56", "62", "93", "77", "80", "83", "31", "85", "79", "24", "30", "71", "54", "28", "2", "99", "65", "86", "72", "16", "33", "67", "No Label", "3", "58", "59", "60"], "gold": ["3", "58", "59", "60"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 954/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 14 September 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (3) lays down the conditions under which the competent authorities in the Member States designated as responsible for the enforcement of the laws that protect consumers\u2019 interests are to cooperate with each other and with the Commission in order to ensure compliance with those laws and the smooth functioning of the internal market, and in order to enhance the protection of consumers\u2019 economic interests.\n(2)\nPoint (a) of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 defines \u2018the laws that protect consumers\u2019 interests\u2019 as the Directives, as transposed into the internal legal order of Member States, and the Regulations listed in the Annex to that Regulation (\u2018the Annex\u2019).\n(3)\nSince the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004, several of the legislative acts listed in the Annex have been repealed, and new legislation has been adopted.\n(4)\nDirective 84/450/EEC (4) has been repealed and replaced by Directive 2006/114/EC (5). The reference to Directive 84/450/EEC should therefore be removed from the Annex and replaced by a reference to the specific Articles of Directive 2006/114/EC which aim at protecting consumers\u2019 interests.\n(5)\nWhilst Directive 87/102/EEC (6) has been repealed and replaced by Directive 2008/48/EC (7), Directive 2008/48/EC does not expressly state that references to the repealed Directive 87/102/EEC are to be construed as references to Directive 2008/48/EC. For reasons of legal certainty, the reference to Directive 87/102/EEC in the Annex should therefore be replaced by a reference to Directive 2008/48/EC.\n(6)\nDirective 89/552/EEC (8) has been repealed and replaced by Directive 2010/13/EU (9). Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 34 of Directive 2010/13/EU, references to Directive 89/552/EEC are to be construed as references to Directive 2010/13/EU. However, for the sake of clarity, the reference to Directive 89/552/EEC in the Annex should be replaced by a reference to the relevant Articles of Directive 2010/13/EU.\n(7)\nDirective 93/13/EEC (10) was not amended by Decision 2002/995/EC (11). Therefore, the reference to that Decision should be removed from the Annex.\n(8)\nDirective 94/47/EC (12) has been repealed and replaced by Directive 2008/122/EC (13). Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 18 of Directive 2008/122/EC, references to Directive 94/47/EC are to be construed as references to Directive 2008/122/EC. However, for the sake of clarity, the reference to Directive 94/47/EC in the Annex should be replaced by a reference to Directive 2008/122/EC.\n(9)\nDirective 97/55/EC (14) is an amending Directive to the repealed Directive 84/450/EEC. Therefore, the reference to Directive 97/55/EC should be removed from the Annex.\n(10)\nThe Annex should be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nIt is necessary to assess the effectiveness and operational mechanisms of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and thoroughly examine the possible inclusion in the Annex of additional laws that protect consumers\u2019 interests, with a view to a possible revision of that Regulation aimed at providing public enforcement authorities with improved means to effectively detect, investigate and bring about the cessation or prohibition of infringements harming the collective interests of consumers in cross-border situations. To that end, the Commission should submit as soon as possible, and in any event by the end of 2014, a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, accompanied, where appropriate, by a legislative proposal,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 2006/2004 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 21a\nReview\nBy 31 December 2014, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council which shall assess the effectiveness and operational mechanisms of this Regulation and thoroughly examine the possible inclusion in the Annex of additional laws that protect consumers\u2019 interests. The report shall be based on an external evaluation and extended consultation of all relevant stakeholders, and shall be accompanied, where appropriate, by a legislative proposal.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe Annex is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 14 September 2011.", "references": ["78", "27", "89", "3", "0", "93", "98", "30", "1", "66", "15", "44", "79", "26", "40", "57", "29", "17", "62", "97", "65", "9", "36", "20", "45", "49", "48", "85", "60", "86", "No Label", "2", "4", "8", "24"], "gold": ["2", "4", "8", "24"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 843/2010\nof 23 September 2010\nfixing the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the seventh individual invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the seventh individual invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the seventh individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 21 September 2010, the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be EUR 214,00/100 kg.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2010.", "references": ["47", "97", "94", "89", "39", "3", "29", "13", "25", "42", "23", "27", "53", "17", "21", "90", "7", "95", "44", "85", "73", "31", "55", "57", "38", "64", "1", "15", "49", "62", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/450/CFSP\nof 11 August 2010\nappointing the European Union Special Representative for Sudan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 July 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/556/CFSP (1) concerning the appointment of a European Union Special Representative (hereinafter the EUSR) for Sudan.\n(2)\nMrs Rosalind MARSDEN should be appointed as EUSR for Sudan from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011. However, the mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter the HR) following the entry into force of the Decision establishing the European External Action Service.\n(3)\nThe EUSR will implement her mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the Common Foreign and Security Policy objectives set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAppointment\nMrs Rosalind MARSDEN is hereby appointed as the EUSR for Sudan from 1 September 2010 until 31 August 2011. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the HR following the entry into force of the Decision establishing the European External Action Service.\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the European Union (hereinafter \u2018the EU\u2019 or \u2018the Union\u2019) in Sudan, working with the Sudanese parties, the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN) and other national, regional and international stakeholders to achieve a peaceful transition under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), including the organisation of credible referenda on Abyei and on self-determination of South Sudan in January 2011. This includes actively contributing to the full and timely implementation of the CPA and post-referendum arrangements; supporting institution building and fostering stability, security and development in South Sudan irrespective of the outcome of the referendum on self-determination; improving security and facilitating a political solution to the conflict in Darfur; promoting justice, reconciliation and respect for human rights, including full cooperation with the International Criminal Court; and improving humanitarian access throughout Sudan.\nArticle 3\nMandate\n1. In order to achieve the policy objectives, the EUSR\u2019s mandate shall be to:\n(a)\nliaise with the Government of Sudan, the Government of Southern Sudan, the Darfur armed movements and other Sudanese parties as well as civil society and non-governmental organisations and maintain close cooperation with the AU, and the UN with the aim of pursuing the Union\u2019s policy objectives;\n(b)\npromote a consistent international approach towards Sudan maintaining close contacts with the AU, and in particular the AU High-Level Implementation Panel for Sudan (AUHIP), the UN, including close and regular consultations with the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), and the AU/UN hybrid operation in Darfur (UNAMID), the Inter-Governmental Agency for Development (IGAD), the League of Arab States (LAS) and regional and other key stakeholders including the US Special Envoy;\n(c)\nparticipate in the work of the International Consultative Forum with regard to coherent international efforts towards Sudan;\n(d)\nto maintain regular high level political contacts with IGAD and the main regional stakeholders, in view of further developments in the implementation of the CPA and their impact on Sudan\u2019s integration in the region to actively engage with regional and key African States to strengthen consensus behind CPA implementation including respect for the outcome of the referendum on self-determination for South Sudan;\n(e)\nsupport the work of the Joint UN/AU Mediator and the AUHIP with regard to international efforts to facilitate a lasting peace agreement for Darfur and follow closely the negotiation process, inter alia facilitated by the Governments of Qatar, Egypt, Libya and others;\n(f)\nwith regard to the fight against impunity in Sudan and respect for human rights, including the rights of children and women, follow the situation and maintain regular contacts with the Sudanese authorities, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the AU and the UN, in particular with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the human rights observers active in the region;\n(g)\nrepresent the Union, whenever possible, at the CPA Assessment and Evaluation Commission;\n(h)\nwithout prejudice to the independence of EU electoral observation missions (EU EOM), closely accompany the preparation and deployment of any future EOM in Sudan and promote the follow-up to recommendations made; and\n(i)\nactively contribute to the formulation of a future EU strategy and engagement following the end of the CPA, also in terms of promoting constructive relations between Khartoum and Juba, irrespective of the outcome of the referenda.\n2. For the purpose of the fulfilment of her mandate, the EUSR shall, inter alia:\n(a)\nadvise and report on the definition of EU positions in international forums in order to proactively promote and strengthen a consistent EU policy approach towards Sudan;\n(b)\nmaintain an overview of all activities of the Union and cooperate closely with the Union delegation in Khartoum and the Union delegation to the AU in Addis Ababa;\n(c)\nsupport the political process and activities relating to the implementation of the CPA, and the negotiation of the arrangements necessary for the post-referendum period as well as efforts in the area of institution-building in South Sudan;\n(d)\ncontribute to the implementation of the EU policy regarding UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) 1325 (2000) and 1820 (2008) on women, peace and security, including by monitoring and reporting on developments in this regard; and\n(e)\nfollow up and report on compliance by the Sudanese parties with the relevant UNSCRs, notably 1556 (2004), 1564 (2004), 1590 (2005), 1591 (2005), 1593 (2005), 1612 (2005), 1663 (2006), 1672 (2006), 1679 (2006), 1769 (2007), 1778 (2007), 1881 (2009), 1882 (2009), 1891 (2009), 1919 (2010).\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (hereinafter the PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011 shall be EUR 1 820 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of her mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting her team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of her team.\n2. Member States and institutions of the Union may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of personnel who are seconded by a Member State or an institution of the Union to the EUSR shall be covered by the Member State or the institution of the Union concerned respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the General Secretariat of the Council may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State or Union institution and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\n4. Offices of the EUSR shall be maintained in Khartoum and in Juba, comprising a political advisor and the necessary administrative and logistic support staff. In accordance with the EUSR\u2019s mandate as described in Article 3, a sub-office in Darfur may also be established if the existing offices in Khartoum and Juba cannot provide all necessary support to EUSR staff deployed in the Darfur region.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and her staff\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of her staff shall be agreed with the host party/parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of her team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council\u2019s security regulations (2), in particular when managing EU classified information.\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegation and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with her mandate and the security situation in her geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under her direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the General Secretariat of the Council, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as management of security incidents and including a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of her team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the General Secretariat of the Council;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the HR, the Council and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\n1. The EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report as necessary to Council working parties. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\n2. The EUSR shall regularly report to the PSC on the situation in Darfur and on the situation in Sudan as a whole.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote overall Union political coordination. She shall help to ensure that all Union instruments in the field are engaged coherently to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSRs active in the region. The EUSR shall provide Member States\u2019 missions and the Union\u2019s delegations with regular briefings.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegations, including in Khartoum and in Addis Ababa and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the HR, the Council and the Commission with a progress report before the end of February 2011 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["76", "66", "56", "46", "30", "73", "21", "36", "60", "38", "77", "35", "34", "32", "0", "92", "17", "69", "74", "79", "33", "93", "40", "64", "82", "61", "50", "25", "29", "54", "No Label", "3", "9", "11", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "11", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 147/2011\nof 17 February 2011\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Community,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2011.", "references": ["36", "77", "73", "44", "47", "74", "23", "85", "2", "3", "32", "5", "80", "9", "56", "53", "63", "66", "75", "64", "12", "93", "86", "31", "88", "62", "79", "97", "95", "10", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 August 2011\non setting up the Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human Beings and repealing Decision 2007/675/EC\n(2011/502/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 67(3) of the Treaty assigned the European Union the task of ensuring a high level of security within the area of freedom, security and justice. That objective is to be achieved by preventing and combating crime, organised and other, including trafficking in human beings and crimes against children.\n(2)\nAccording to Article 5(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, trafficking in human beings is prohibited.\n(3)\nTrafficking in human beings, as defined in Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA (1), is a serious crime comprising violations of fundamental human rights and human dignity and requiring a multi-disciplinary approach across the entire trafficking chain, encompassing countries of origin, transit and destination alike.\n(4)\nOn 25 March 2003, by Decision 2003/209/EC (2), the Commission decided to set up a consultative group known as the \u2018Experts Group on Trafficking in Human Beings\u2019. By Decision 2007/675/EC (3), the Commission repealed the Decision of 25 March 2003 and set up a new consultative group, the Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human Beings, which has contributed substantively to the prevention of and the fight against trafficking in human beings and enabled the Commission to gather opinions about initiatives relating to trafficking in human beings. Following the expiry of the 3-year period of validity of Decision 2007/675/EC, it has to be repealed and replaced.\n(5)\nIn the light of the valuable work carried out by both expert groups since 2003 that has enabled the Commission to further develop its policy in this area, and taking into account the increasing importance at global level of the policy on trafficking in human beings, there is a continuing need for a group of experts.\n(6)\nA new group of experts should continue to advise the Commission, taking into account recent developments at EU level. These include, the adoption of Directive 2011/36/EU; the appointment of the EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator; the Action-Oriented Paper on strengthening the EU external dimension on action against trafficking in human beings, of 30 November 2009.\n(7)\nThe group should be composed of 15 members representing a wide range of expertise in all the aspects of anti-trafficking policies and also a balanced representation in terms of institutional background and geographic regions.\n(8)\nRules on disclosure of information by members of the group should be laid down.\n(9)\nPersonal data relating to members of the group should be processed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (4).\n(10)\nThe term of office of the members should be 4 years and should be renewable.\n(11)\nIt is appropriate to fix a period for the application of this Decision. The Commission will in due time consider the advisability of an extension.\n(12)\nDecision 2007/675/EC should be repealed,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThe Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human Beings, hereinafter referred to as \u2018the group\u2019, is hereby established.\nArticle 2\nTasks\nThe group\u2019s tasks shall be (5):\n(a)\nto advise the Commission on matters related to trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims by issuing written contributions, as appropriate and agreed with the Commission, and ensuring a coherent approach to the subject;\n(b)\nto help the Commission to assess the evolution of policy in the field of trafficking in human beings at national, European and international levels;\n(c)\nto assist the Commission in identifying and defining possible relevant measures and actions at national, European and international level across the range of the anti-trafficking policies;\n(d)\nto provide a forum for discussion on matters related to trafficking in human beings and bring about exchanges of experience.\nArticle 3\nConsultation\nThe Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to trafficking in human beings.\nArticle 4\nMembership - Appointment\n1. The group shall be composed of 15 members.\n2. The members of the group shall be individuals with expertise and experience in the prevention and the fight against trafficking in human beings and protection of its victims.\n3. The composition of the group shall reflect the balance of expertise required on the different forms of trafficking as well as the various aspects involved, such as, but not limited to labour, healthcare, law enforcement, migration, victims support, development cooperation, gender, children, fundamental rights and education.\n4. Members of the group must be nationals of a Member State of the European Union or, if appropriate, of a candidate or potential candidate country or a European Economic Area country.\n5. Members are appointed by the Director-General of DG Home Affairs from among those who have responded to the call for applications (see Annex to the present Decision).\n6. On the basis of the call for applications, applicants who were deemed suitable candidates for group membership but were not appointed should be placed on a reserve list, with their consent. The Commission will use this list for the appointment of replacements for members, if needed.\n7. Members are appointed in a personal capacity for a period of 4 years. They shall remain in office until replaced or until their term of office ends. Their term of office may be renewed.\n8. Members who are no longer capable of contributing effectively to the group\u2019s deliberations, who resign or who do not comply with the conditions set out in this Article, or Article 339 of the Treaty, may be replaced for the remainder of their term of office.\n9. Members shall act independently and in the public interest.\n10. The names of the group\u2019s members shall be published in the Register of Commission expert groups and other similar entities (6) and on the Internet site of DG Home Affairs.\n11. Personal data shall be collected, processed and published in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\nArticle 5\nOperation\n1. The group shall be chaired by the EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator.\n2. In agreement with the Commission, the group may set up sub-groups to examine specific questions on the basis of terms of reference defined by the group. Such groups shall be dissolved as soon as their mandate is fulfilled.\n3. The Chairperson may invite experts from outside the group with specific competence in a subject on the agenda to participate in the work of the group or a sub-group on an ad-hoc basis.\n4. The Chairperson may invite official representatives of Member States, candidate countries, potential candidates or third countries and of international, inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations to participate in the meetings of the group as invited experts or observers.\n5. At the latest 2 months after the beginning and 2 months after the halfway point of the term of office, the Commission and the group shall meet in order to exchange their views regarding the working priorities of the group.\n6. The working priorities shall reflect the need for a coordinated, multi-disciplinary and coherent policy response to all aspects of trafficking in human beings.\n7. Members of the group as well as invited experts and observers shall comply with the obligations of professional secrecy laid down by the Treaties and their implementing rules, as well as with the Commission\u2019s rules on security regarding the protection of EU classified information, laid down in the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, EURATOM (7). Should they fail to respect these obligations, the Commission may take appropriate measures.\n8. The meetings of the group and sub-groups shall be held on Commission premises. The Commission shall provide secretarial services.\n9. The group shall submit its opinions and reports to the Commission. The Commission may fix a deadline by which an opinion or a report is to be delivered.\n10. The deliberations of the group shall not be subject to any vote. When an opinion or a report is adopted unanimously by the group, the latter shall establish common conclusions and attach them to the minutes. When the group fails to reach unanimous agreement on an opinion or a report, it shall inform the Commission of the dissenting views expressed.\n11. The Commission may publish, in the original language of the document concerned, any summary, conclusion or partial conclusion or working document prepared by the group.\n12. The Commission shall publish relevant information on the activities carried out by the group either by including it in the Register or via a link from the Register to the Internet site of DG Home Affairs.\nArticle 6\nMeeting expenses\n1. Participants in the activities of the group shall not be remunerated for the services they render.\n2. Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by participants in the activities of the group shall be reimbursed by the Commission in accordance with the provisions in force within the Commission.\n3. Those expenses shall be reimbursed within the limits of available appropriations allocated under the annual procedure for the allocation of resources.\nArticle 7\nRepeal\nDecision 2007/675/EC is repealed.\nArticle 8\nEntry into Force and Applicability\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall apply for 5 years.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2011.", "references": ["91", "97", "41", "6", "85", "60", "34", "52", "15", "8", "74", "25", "78", "32", "42", "72", "37", "27", "94", "89", "86", "45", "22", "77", "10", "26", "75", "69", "64", "58", "No Label", "12", "36", "50"], "gold": ["12", "36", "50"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 642/2010\nof 20 July 2010\non rules of application (cereal sector import duties) for Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007\n(codification)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 on rules of application (cereal sector import duties) for Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.\n(2)\nArticle 135 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides for the common customs tariff duties to be charged when the products referred to in Article 1 thereof are imported. However, for the products referred to in Article 136(1) of that Regulation, the import duty is to be the intervention price valid for these products at the time of importation, increased by 55 % and then reduced by the cif import price applicable to the consignment.\n(3)\nFor the purposes of grading imported products, the products referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 are, in certain cases, to be classed in several standard qualities. The standard qualities to be used should therefore be determined using objective grading criteria and tolerance rates should also be set allowing products to be given the most appropriate quality grading. Of the possible objective quality grading criteria for common wheat, protein content, specific weight and miscellaneous impurity (Schwarzbesatz) content are those most commonly used in the trade and also the easiest to use. For durum wheat, these criteria are specific weight, miscellaneous impurity (Schwarzbesatz) content and vitreous grain content. Imported goods are accordingly to be subjected to analysis to determine these parameters for each lot imported. However, where the Union has established an official recognition procedure for quality certificates issued by an authority of the country of origin of the goods, these analyses should be able to be carried out merely by way of verification on a sufficiently representative number of imported lots.\n(4)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that for the purposes of calculating the import duty, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article. For the establishment of these prices, the use must be stipulated of quotations for the several wheat qualities and for the other cereals. The actual quotation sources to be used should be specified.\n(5)\nThe use of quotations for the various wheat types and for other cereals on the commodity exchanges of the United States of America will provide a basis both transparent and objective for establishing representative cif import prices. The addition of the commercial premium assigned on the United States market to each quality of the various cereals will allow the exchange quotation for each cereal to be converted into a fob export price from the United States of America. By the addition of sea freight costs between the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Lakes and a port of the Union that are quoted on the freight markets, these fob prices can be converted into representative cif import prices. Given the volume of freight passing through and the amount of trade at the port of Rotterdam, this port is the destination in the Union for which sea freight quotations are most widely known, most transparent and most easily available. The port of destination to be selected for the Union should therefore be Rotterdam.\n(6)\nAccordingly, for the sake of transparency, the representative cif import prices referred to in Article 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, are to be established from commodity exchange quotations for the cereal in question plus the commercial premium assigned to the cereal and sea freight costs between the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Lakes and the port of Rotterdam. However, freight cost differences by port of destination justify flat rate adjustment of the import duty for Union ports located on the Mediterranean and on the Black Sea, on the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula, in the United Kingdom and in Ireland, in the Nordic countries, in the Baltic States and in Poland. The factors of calculation of the representative cif import prices so established should be monitored daily so that the trend of these prices can be followed. In the case of sorghum and rye, the representative cif import price calculated for barley allows the market situation for those two products to be estimated and consequently the representative cif import price determined for barley applies for these cereals.\n(7)\nFor the purpose of setting the import duty on the cereals referred to in Article 136 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 a period of 10 working days recording of the representative cif import prices for each cereal will reflect market trends without introducing uncertainty. Import duties for these products can therefore be determined on the fifteenth day and the last working day of each month using the average representative cif import price recorded over that period. The import duty thus calculated can be applied for two weeks without any appreciable distorting effect on the duty paid import price. However, if no exchange quotation is available during the calculation period for the representative cif import prices or if as a result of sudden changes in the components of the calculation of import duty they fluctuate very substantially during the period of calculation, action must be taken to maintain a properly representative price for the product in question. In the case of large fluctuations in either the exchange quotation, the commercial premiums attached to the quotation, the sea freight costs or the rate of exchange used to calculate the representative cif import price of the product, the price used for calculation of the import duty should be kept representative by means of an adjustment corresponding to the deviation from it that these changes account for. Even where this type of adjustment is made, the timing of the next determination need not be affected.\n(8)\nIn the case of imports of flint maize, the exchange quotation used for calculation of the representative cif import price may not, either because of the particular quality of the goods or because their price includes a quality premium over the normal price, take account of the existence of such a premium over normal market terms. To take account of that quality premium over prices or quotations importers who show that they have used the goods to make high quality products justifying the existence of such a premium should be reimbursed, at a flat rate, part of the import duty paid.\n(9)\nIn order to ensure that importers respect the provisions of this Regulation security should be required from them additional to that pertaining to licences.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Common Customs Tariff duty rates referred to in Article 135 and Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those applicable on the date stipulated by Article 67 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (4).\nArticle 2\n1. The import duties referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 other than hybrid for sowing, shall be calculated daily but fixed on the 15 and the last working day of each month by the Commission for application respectively from the 16 of the month and the first day of the following month. Where the 15 is not a Commission working day, the duties shall be fixed on the working day preceding the 15 of the month in question.\nHowever, if during the period of application of the duties thus fixed the average import duty calculated differs by EUR 5 per tonne or more from that fixed, the corresponding adjustment shall be made.\n2. The price to be used for the calculation of the import duty shall be the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5. For each fixing, the import duty considered shall be the average of import duties calculated during the previous 10 working days. For fixing and adjustments, the Commission shall not take account of daily import duties used for the previous fixing.\nThe intervention price to be used for calculation of the duties shall be that of the month in which the import duty applies.\n3. Import duties fixed as provided for in this Regulation shall be applicable until a new fixing comes into force.\nOn the occasion of each fixing or adjustment the Commission shall publish in the Official Journal of the European Union the import duties and the data used for their calculation.\n4. Where the port of unloading in the Union is located:\n(a)\non the Mediterranean (beyond the Strait of Gibraltar) or on the Black Sea and where the goods arrive via the Atlantic Ocean or the Suez Canal, the Commission shall reduce the import duty by EUR 3 per tonne;\n(b)\non the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula, in the United Kingdom, in Ireland, in Denmark, in Estonia, in Latvia, in Lithuania, in Poland, in Finland and in Sweden and where the goods arrive via the Atlantic Ocean, the Commission shall reduce the import duty by EUR 2 per tonne.\nThe customs authority at the port of unloading shall issue a certificate in accordance with the model given in Annex I attesting the quantity of each product unloaded. For the duty reduction provided for in the first subparagraph to be granted this must accompany the goods until completion of the customs import formalities.\nArticle 3\n1. Import duties shall be reduced by EUR 24 per tonne on flint maize meeting the specifications laid down in Annex II.\n2. In order to benefit from the reduction provided for in paragraph 1, flint maize must be processed into a product of CN codes 1904 10 10, 1103 13 or 1104 23 within six months from the date of acceptance of entry for free circulation.\n3. The end-use provisions of Article 82 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and Articles 291 to 300 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2454/93 (5) shall apply.\n4. Notwithstanding Article 293(1)(e) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, the importer shall lodge with the competent authority an additional security of EUR 24 per tonne for flint maize, except where an import licence is accompanied by a certificate of conformity issued by the Argentine Servicio National de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (Senasa) in accordance with Article 7(2)(a) of this Regulation. In such cases, the type of certificate of conformity and its number shall be entered in box 24 of the import licence application and the import licence itself.\nIf, however, the duty applicable on the date of the acceptance of the declaration of release for free circulation is less than EUR 24 per tonne of maize, the security shall be equal to the duty amount.\nArticle 4\nThe quality standards to be met on importation into the Union and the tolerances allowed shall be those shown in Annex II.\nArticle 5\n1. For common wheat of high quality, durum wheat, maize and the other feed grains referred to in Article 2(1) of this Regulation, the components determining the representative cif import prices referred to in Article 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be:\n(a)\nthe representative exchange quotation on the market of the United States of America;\n(b)\nthe known commercial premiums and discounts attached to that quotation in the United States of America market on the quotation day and in particular, in the case of durum wheat, attached to the meal quality;\n(c)\nsea freight and associated costs between the United States of America (Gulf of Mexico or Duluth) and the port of Rotterdam for a vessel of at least 25 000 tonnes.\n2. The Commission shall record each working day:\n(a)\nthe component referred to in paragraph 1(a) from the exchanges and using the reference qualities shown in Annex III;\n(b)\ncomponents referred to in points (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 from publicly available information.\n3. With a view to calculating the component referred to in paragraph 1(b) or the relevant fob quotation, the following premiums and discounts shall apply:\n(a)\npremium of EUR 14 per tonne for high quality common wheat;\n(b)\ndiscount of EUR 10 per tonne for medium quality durum wheat;\n(c)\ndiscount of EUR 30 per tonne for low quality durum wheat.\n4. The representative cif import prices for durum wheat, high quality common wheat and maize shall be the sum of the components referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1. The representative cif import prices for rye and sorghum shall be calculated using the barley quotations in the United States of America in accordance with, the provisions of Annex III.\n5. The representative cif import prices for common wheat seed of CN code 1001 90 91 and maize seed of CN code 1005 10 90 shall be those calculated for high quality common wheat and maize respectively.\nArticle 6\n1. Import licences applications for high quality common wheat shall be valid only if the applicant:\n(a)\nenters the quality to be imported in box 20 of the import licence;\n(b)\ngives a written commitment to lodge with the relevant competent body on the date of acceptance of the declaration of release for free circulation a specific security additional to those provided for in Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1342/2003 (6).\nThe additional security referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph, shall be EUR 95 per tonne. However, in cases where the import licence is to be accompanied by certificates of conformity issues by the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) and by the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) in accordance with Article 7(2)(b) or (c), no additional security shall be required. In such cases, the type of certificate of conformity and its number shall be entered in box 24 of the import licence application and import licence itself.\n2. Import licences applications for durum wheat shall be valid only if the applicant:\n(a)\nenters the quality to be imported in box 20 of the import licence;\n(b)\ngives a written commitment to lodge with the relevant competent body on the date of acceptance of the declaration of release for free circulation a specific security additional to those provided for in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2003, if the import duty on the quality shown in box 20 of the import licence is not the highest duty for the product category in question.\nThe amount of the additional security referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph shall be the difference on the day of acceptance of the declaration of release for free circulation between the highest duty and that applicable to the quality shown, plus a supplement of EUR 5 per tonne. However, where the import duty applicable to the different qualities of durum wheat is zero, the commitment referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph shall not be required.\nWhere the import licence is to be accompanied by certificates of conformity issued by the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) and by the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC), in accordance with Article 7, no additional security shall be required. In this case, the import licence shall contain in box 24 the mention of the type of certificate of conformity.\n3. Where customs duties for all quality categories of common wheat have been suspended under Article 187 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the additional security of EUR 95 per tonne referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be required for the entire period which the duties are suspended.\nArticle 7\n1. The customs office of release for free circulation shall take representative samples, in accordance with Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 (7), of every consignment of high quality common wheat, of durum wheat and of flint maize. However, sampling shall not take place where the import duty for the different qualities is the same.\nIf, however, the Commission officially recognises a quality certificate for high quality common wheat, durum wheat or flint maize issued by the country of origin of the cereals, samples shall be taken for verification of the certified quality only from a sufficiently representative number of consignments.\n2. The following certificates of conformity shall be officially recognised by the Commission pursuant to the principles laid down in Articles 63 to 65 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93:\n(a)\ncertificates issued by the Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (Senasa) of Argentina for flint maize;\n(b)\ncertificates issued by the Federal Grains Inspection Services (FGIS) of the United States of America for high quality common wheat and high quality durum wheat;\n(c)\ncertificates issued by the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) of Canada for high quality common wheat and high quality durum wheat.\nA blank specimen of the certificates of conformity issued by Senasa is given in Annex IV. Reproduction of the stamps authorised by the Argentine government shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nBlank specimens of the certificates of conformity and stamps issued by the FGIS are given in Annex V.\nBlank specimens of the certificates of conformity, export specifications and stamps issued by the CGC are given in Annex VI.\nWhen the analytical parameters entered in the certificates of conformity issued by the entities referred to in the first subparagraph show conformity with the high quality common wheat, durum wheat and flint maize quality standards given in Annex II, samples shall be taken of at least 3 % of the cargoes arriving at each entry port during the marketing year.\nThe goods shall be classed in the standard quality for which all the requirements indicated in Annex II are met.\n3. The standard methods for the determinations referred to in paragraph 1 shall be those given in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 (8).\nFlint maize is maize of the species Zea mays indurata the grains of which present a dominantly vitreous endosperm (hard or horny texture). They are generally orange or red. The upper part (opposite the germ), or crown, shows no fissure.\nVitreous grains of flint maize are defined as grains meeting two criteria:\n(a)\ntheir crown shows no fissure;\n(b)\nwhen cut lengthwise their endosperm shows a central mealy part completely surrounded by a horny part. The horny part must account for the dominant part of the total cut surface.\nThe vitreous grain percentage shall be established by counting in a representative sample of 100 grains the number meeting the criteria referred to in the third subparagraph.\nThe reference method for determining the flotation index is given in Annex VII.\n4. If the analysis results show the imported high quality common wheat, durum wheat and flint maize to be of a lower standard quality than entered on the import licence the importer shall pay the difference between the import duty applicable to the product shown on the licence and that on the product actually imported. In this case, the security for the import licence referred to in Article 12(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2003 and the additional security provided for in Articles 3(4), and 6 (1) and (2) of this Regulation shall be released, except for the EUR 5 supplement provided for in the second subparagraph of that Article 6(2).\nIf the difference referred to in the first subparagraph is not paid within one month, the additional security provided for in Article 3(4) and Article 6(1) and (2) shall be forfeit.\n5. Representative samples of imported cereals taken by the competent authority of the Member State shall be retained for six months.\nArticle 8\nRegulation (EC) No 1249/96 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex IX.\nArticle 9\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2010.", "references": ["64", "26", "57", "71", "14", "67", "40", "47", "83", "78", "93", "8", "36", "9", "28", "5", "80", "90", "91", "15", "89", "61", "95", "69", "86", "75", "65", "45", "19", "29", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "30", "35", "68"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "30", "35", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 12 September 2012\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/008 DK/Odense Steel Shipyard from Denmark)\n(2012/537/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened, for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to 30 December 2011, to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nDenmark submitted an application on 28 October 2011 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in the Odense Steel Shipyard enterprise, and supplemented it by additional information up to 8 March 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 6 455 104.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Denmark,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 6 455 104 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 12 September 2012.", "references": ["41", "25", "2", "0", "94", "26", "71", "51", "7", "6", "77", "13", "28", "99", "43", "42", "3", "57", "9", "65", "68", "89", "23", "36", "93", "29", "61", "98", "60", "17", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/98/CFSP\nof 17 February 2012\namending Decision 2010/232/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 April 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/232/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar (1).\n(2)\nOn 23 January 2012, the Council welcomed the remarkable programme of political reform undertaken by the Government and Parliament in Burma/Myanmar, together with its commitment to economic and social development. The Council noted the commitment by the Government to continue and complete these reforms.\n(3)\nThe Council decided, as a first step, that the visa ban concerning the President, the vice-Presidents, cabinet members and the Speakers of the two Houses of Parliament of Burma/Myanmar should be suspended.\n(4)\nDecision 2010/232/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 15 of Decision 2010/232/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:\n\"Article 15\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall apply until 30 April 2012.\n3. The measures referred to in Article 9(1) and in Article 10(1) and (2), insofar as they apply to persons listed in Annex IV, shall be suspended until 30 April 2012.\n4. The measures referred to in Article 9(1), insofar as they apply to persons listed in Annex V, shall be suspended until 30 April 2012.\".\nArticle 2\nThe Annex to this Decision shall be added as Annex V to Decision 2010/232/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2012.", "references": ["39", "71", "76", "26", "14", "5", "50", "73", "55", "99", "65", "13", "44", "69", "67", "15", "20", "97", "45", "84", "82", "87", "43", "58", "37", "93", "4", "9", "70", "98", "No Label", "3", "12", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "12", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2012/3/EU\nof 9 February 2012\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include bendiocarb as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes bendiocarb.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, bendiocarb has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nThe United Kingdom was designated as rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 1 April 2008 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 22 September 2011, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods and containing bendiocarb may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include bendiocarb in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at Union level. For example, the assessment only considers professional use, and does not cover direct application to soil or application on food or feedstuff or on surfaces that will come in contact with food or feedstuff. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to human populations and to environmental compartments that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nIn view of the risks identified for the aquatic environment due to wet cleaning of treated surfaces, resulting in emissions of a certain scale to surface waters, it is appropriate to require that products not be authorised for use on surfaces that are prone to frequent wet cleaning, other than crack and crevice or spot treatments, unless data are submitted demonstrating that the product will meet the requirements of both Article 5 of and Annex VI to Directive 98/8/EC, if necessary by the application of appropriate risk mitigation measures.\n(8)\nIn view of the risks identified for human health, it is appropriate to require that products authorised for industrial or professional use must be used with appropriate personal protective equipment, unless it can be demonstrated in the application for product authorisation that risks to industrial or professional users can be reduced to an acceptable level by other means.\n(9)\nIn view of the potential risk to honey bees, it is appropriate to require that, where relevant, action is taken to prevent foraging bees gaining access to treated nests by removing the combs or blocking the nest entrances.\n(10)\nThe provisions of this Directive should be applied at the same time in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment on the Union market of biocidal products containing the active substance bendiocarb and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(11)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC, in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(12)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(13)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 January 2013 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 February 2014.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 February 2012.", "references": ["84", "16", "86", "23", "42", "37", "3", "73", "40", "80", "83", "99", "78", "36", "29", "69", "13", "20", "55", "90", "79", "87", "56", "44", "14", "33", "58", "17", "54", "8", "No Label", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "66"], "gold": ["25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 645/2011\nof 1 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2011.", "references": ["37", "39", "95", "80", "22", "58", "44", "1", "25", "82", "5", "76", "26", "3", "2", "78", "33", "59", "14", "40", "31", "62", "93", "60", "89", "28", "86", "63", "29", "23", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 21 October 2010\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the Association Council set up by the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the People\u2019s Democratic Republic of Algeria, of the other part, with regard to the adoption of provisions on the coordination of social security systems\n(2010/699/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(2)(b) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 70 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the People\u2019s Democratic Republic of Algeria, of the other part (1) (\u2018the Agreement\u2019), provides that the Association Council shall adopt provisions to implement the principles on the coordination of social security systems as set out in Article 68 of the Agreement before the end of the first year following its entry into force.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 21) on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the Association Council set up by the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the People\u2019s Democratic Republic of Algeria, of the other part (\u2018the Agreement\u2019), concerning the implementation of Article 70 of the Agreement, shall be based on the draft decision of the Association Council attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["33", "7", "98", "76", "99", "25", "15", "65", "40", "62", "59", "47", "17", "35", "63", "51", "24", "81", "49", "73", "50", "12", "10", "95", "30", "85", "5", "18", "54", "36", "No Label", "2", "9", "37", "94", "96"], "gold": ["2", "9", "37", "94", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 May 2012\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, of the other part\n(2012/279/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 79(3), 91, 100, 207 and 209 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 14 May 2007, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a Framework Agreement with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on Comprehensive Partnership and Cooperation (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nThe provisions of the Agreement that fall within the scope of Part Three, Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union bind the United Kingdom and Ireland as separate Contracting Parties, and not as part of the European Union, unless the European Union together with the United Kingdom and/or Ireland have jointly notified the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that the United Kingdom or Ireland is bound as part of the European Union in accordance with the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. If the United Kingdom and/or Ireland ceases to be bound as part of the European Union in accordance with Article 4a of the Protocol (No 21), the European Union together with the United Kingdom and/or Ireland are to immediately inform the Socialist Republic of Vietnam of any change in their position in which case they are to remain bound by the provisions of the Agreement in their own right. The same applies to Denmark in accordance with the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to those Treaties.\n(3)\nWhere the United Kingdom and/or Ireland have not provided the notification required under Article 3 of the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice, they do not take part in the adoption by the Council of this Decision to the extent that it covers provisions pursuant to Part Three, Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The same applies to Denmark in accordance with the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be signed, subject to its conclusion at a later date,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, of the other part, is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (1).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision will enter into force the day after its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 May 2012.", "references": ["54", "53", "26", "43", "98", "67", "34", "94", "12", "76", "38", "57", "46", "73", "69", "61", "74", "17", "39", "50", "36", "44", "89", "51", "72", "19", "71", "6", "99", "30", "No Label", "3", "9", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 May 2011\nappointing a member of the European Statistical Advisory Committee\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/317/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 234/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing the European Statistical Advisory Committee and repealing Council Decision 91/116/EEC (1), and in particular Article 4(1)(a) thereof,\nAfter consultation of the Council,\nAfter consultation of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Statistical Advisory Committee (ESAC) comprises 24 members.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 4(1) of Decision No 234/2008/EC, 12 members of the ESAC have to be appointed by the Commission, after consulting the European Parliament and the Council.\n(3)\nBy Decision 2009/304/EC (2) the Commission appointed 12 members of the ESAC.\n(4)\nAs one of these members has resigned, the Commission, after having duly consulted the European Parliament and the Council, now has to appoint a new member of the ESAC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Kris DEGROOTE is hereby appointed as a member of the ESAC for a term of 5 years.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2011.", "references": ["61", "14", "39", "38", "24", "97", "21", "1", "71", "98", "43", "17", "85", "53", "20", "55", "58", "62", "40", "28", "46", "69", "0", "50", "59", "70", "84", "29", "3", "88", "No Label", "7", "19"], "gold": ["7", "19"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 844/2011\nof 23 August 2011\napproving the pre-export checks carried out by Canada on wheat and wheat flour as regards the presence of ochratoxin A\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 23 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (2) lays down permitted maximum levels of ochratoxin A in foodstuffs. Only foodstuffs complying with the maximum level may be placed on the Union market.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 882/2004 provides an obligation for the Member States to ensure that official controls are carried out regularly, on a risk basis and with appropriate frequency in order to achieve the objectives of the Regulation, which are inter alia preventing, eliminating or reducing to acceptable levels risks to humans and animals.\n(3)\nArticle 23 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 provides that specific pre-export checks that a third country carries out on feed and food immediately prior to export to the European Union with a view to verifying that the exported products satisfy Union requirements may be approved.\n(4)\nSuch an approval may only be granted to a third country if an European Union audit has shown that feed or food exported to the European Union meets Union requirements or equivalent requirements and that the controls carried out in the third country prior to dispatch are considered sufficiently effective and efficient as to replace or reduce the documentary, identity and physical checks laid down in Union law.\n(5)\nOn 8 October 2007 Canada has submitted to the Commission an application for obtaining an approval of the pre-export checks performed by the competent authorities of Canada on the ochratoxin A contamination in wheat (common and durum) and wheat flour intended for export to the European Union.\n(6)\nThe Commission has assessed in detail the information provided by the Canadian Grain Commission, the competent authority of Canada under the responsibility of which the pre-export checks will be performed, and considers that the guarantees provided are satisfactory and justify the approval of the pre-export checks on wheat and wheat flour as regards the presence of ochratoxin A.\n(7)\nIt is therefore appropriate to grant approval of pre-export checks carried out by Canada on wheat and wheat flour ensuring compliance with the maximum levels of ochratoxin A laid down in Union law.\n(8)\nAccording to Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 Member States are required to adjust the frequency of physical checks on imports to the risk associated with different categories of food and taking into account, among other things, the guarantees provided by the competent authorities of the third country of origin of the food in question. Systematic pre-export checks carried out under the authority of the Canadian Grain Commission in conformity with the Union approval and in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation 882/2004 provide a satisfactory level of guarantees in relation to the ochratoxin A contamination in wheat and wheat flour and therefore allow Member States to reduce the frequency of physical checks performed on those commodities.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of pre-export checks\nPre-export checks as regards the presence of ochratoxin A, carried out by the Canadian Grain Commission immediately prior to export to the European Union, are approved for the following foodstuffs\n(a)\nwheat falling within HS/CN code 1001, produced on the territory of Canada, and\n(b)\nwheat flour falling within HS/CN code 1101 00, produced on the territory of Canada.\nArticle 2\nConditions for approval of pre-export checks\n1. Each consignment of products referred to in Article 1 shall be accompanied by:\n(a)\na report containing the results of sampling and analysis performed in accordance with the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 401/2006 of 23 February 2006 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of mycotoxins in foodstuffs (3), or with equivalent requirements, by a laboratory approved for that purpose by the Canadian Grain Commission;\n(b)\na certificate in accordance with the model set out in the Annex, completed, verified and signed by a representative of the Canadian Grain Commission; the certificate shall be valid for four months from the date of issuance.\n2. The report and certificate referred to in paragraph 1 may be provided electronically, after the practical modalities have been agreed upon.\n3. Each consignment of foodstuffs shall bear an identification code which shall be reproduced on the report and on the certificate referred to in paragraph 1. Each individual bag, or other packaging form, of the consignment shall be identified with the same code.\nArticle 3\nSplitting of consignments\nIf a consignment is split, copies of the certificate provided for in Article 2 (1) (b) and certified by the competent authority of the Member State on whose territory the splitting has taken place, shall accompany each part of the split consignment until it is released for free circulation.\nArticle 4\nOfficial controls\nIn accordance with the provisions of Article 16 (2) and Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) 882/2004, the frequency of the physical checks carried out by the Member States on consignments of products referred to in Article 1 shall be reduced to a maximum of 1 % of the number of consignments presented in accordance with Article 2.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 August 2011.", "references": ["74", "7", "19", "79", "91", "70", "80", "55", "43", "10", "95", "13", "32", "18", "61", "27", "64", "56", "53", "98", "65", "20", "6", "87", "17", "62", "63", "73", "9", "90", "No Label", "22", "38", "60", "68", "72", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "38", "60", "68", "72", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 September 2010\namending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of N\u00e1rodn\u00e1 banka Slovenska\n(2010/484/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular to Article 27.1 thereof,\nHaving regard to Recommendation ECB/2010/6 of the European Central Bank of 1 July 2010 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of N\u00e1rodn\u00e1 banka Slovenska (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are to be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB\u2019s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the current external auditors of N\u00e1rodn\u00e1 banka Slovenska ended after the audit for the financial year 2009. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2010.\n(3)\nN\u00e1rodn\u00e1 banka Slovenska has selected Ernst & Young Slovakia, spol. s.r.o. as its external auditors for the financial years 2010 to 2014.\n(4)\nThe Governing Council of the ECB recommended that Ernst & Young Slovakia, spol. s.r.o. should be appointed as the external auditors of N\u00e1rodn\u00e1 banka Slovenska for the financial years 2010 to 2014.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to follow the recommendation of the Governing Council of the ECB and to amend Decision 1999/70/EC (2) accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1(16) of Decision 1999/70/EC shall be replaced by the following:\n\u201816. Ernst & Young Slovakia, spol. s.r.o. are hereby approved as the external auditors of N\u00e1rodn\u00e1 banka Slovenska for the financial years 2010 to 2014.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be notified to the ECB.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 7 September 2010.", "references": ["75", "62", "63", "88", "99", "53", "71", "2", "97", "70", "23", "39", "57", "19", "72", "58", "17", "8", "31", "66", "82", "93", "89", "0", "68", "37", "95", "84", "64", "30", "No Label", "28", "47", "50", "96"], "gold": ["28", "47", "50", "96"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION ATALANTA/2/2012\nof 3 July 2012\non the appointment of an EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)\n(2012/361/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (Atalanta), and in particular Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6(1) of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (hereinafter \u2018EU Force Commander\u2019).\n(2)\nOn 25 May 2012, the PSC adopted Decision Atalanta/1/2012 (2) appointing Rear-Admiral Jean-Baptiste DUPUIS as EU Force Commander.\n(3)\nThe EU Operation Commander has recommended the appointment of Rear-Admiral Enrico CREDENDINO as the new EU Force Commander.\n(4)\nThe EU Military Committee supports that recommendation.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nRear-Admiral Enrico CREDENDINO is hereby appointed EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 6 August 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 3 July 2012.", "references": ["20", "81", "66", "11", "16", "80", "86", "45", "99", "52", "50", "5", "2", "69", "54", "73", "91", "95", "15", "57", "70", "84", "32", "28", "77", "3", "22", "78", "48", "97", "No Label", "6", "7", "9", "12", "94"], "gold": ["6", "7", "9", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 866/2010\nof 30 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 September 2010.", "references": ["64", "32", "3", "47", "80", "72", "14", "74", "33", "95", "12", "82", "8", "31", "83", "98", "49", "37", "54", "77", "78", "60", "94", "85", "86", "24", "13", "69", "18", "62", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 June 2012\non the position to be taken, on behalf of the European Union, in the EU-EFTA Joint Committee concerning the adoption of a Decision amending the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure\n(2012/430/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(9), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 15a of the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure (1) (the \u2018Convention\u2019) allows for a third country to become a Contracting Party to the Convention following a decision of the Joint Committee set up by the Convention to invite the country.\n(2)\nArticle 15 of the Convention empowers the Joint Committee to recommend and adopt, by decisions, amendments to the Convention and the Appendices thereto.\n(3)\nTurkey formally expressed its wish to join the common transit system and has been invited following a decision by the Joint Committee on 19 January 2012.\n(4)\nHaving satisfied the essential legal, structural and information technology requirements which are preconditions for accession, and following the formal procedure for accession, Turkey will accede to the Convention.\n(5)\nThe enlargement of the common transit system will require certain amendments to the Convention. These concern new linguistic references in Turkish and the appropriate adaptations to guarantee documents.\n(6)\nThe proposed amendment was presented to and discussed within the EU-EFTA Working Group and the text received preliminary approval.\n(7)\nTherefore, the position of the European Union concerning the proposed amendment should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the EU-EFTA Joint Committee on common transit concerning the adoption of Decision No XXX by that Committee amending the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure shall be based on the draft Decision attached to this Decision.\nMinor changes to the draft Decision may be agreed upon by the representatives of the Union in the EU-EFTA Joint Committee after having duly informed the Council.\nArticle 2\nThe Commission shall publish the Decision of the EU-EFTA Joint Committee on common transit, once adopted, in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 June 2012.", "references": ["46", "84", "40", "99", "34", "64", "75", "1", "62", "45", "67", "38", "98", "72", "9", "73", "71", "93", "25", "16", "56", "6", "29", "57", "86", "63", "87", "41", "54", "20", "No Label", "3", "21", "91", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "21", "91", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 May 2011\namending Annex II to Decision 93/52/EEC as regards the recognition of certain regions in Italy as officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis) and amending the Annexes to Decision 2003/467/EC as regards the declaration that certain regions of Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom are officially free of bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis and enzootic bovine leukosis\n(notified under document C(2011) 3066)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/277/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), and in particular Annex A(I)(4), Annex A(II)(7) and Annex D(I)(E) thereto,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals (2), and in particular Section II of Chapter 1 of Annex A thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 91/68/EEC defines the animal health conditions governing trade in the Union in ovine and caprine animals. It lays down the conditions whereby Member States or regions thereof may be recognised as being officially brucellosis-free.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 93/52/EEC of 21 December 1992 recording the compliance by certain Member States or regions with the requirements relating to brucellosis (B. melitensis) and according them the status of a Member State or region officially free of the disease (3) lists, in Annex II thereto, the regions of the Member States which are recognised as officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis) in accordance with Directive 91/68/EEC.\n(3)\nItaly has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating for the regions of Emilia-Romagna and Valle d\u2019Aosta compliance with the conditions laid down in Directive 91/68/EEC in order for those regions in Italy to be recognised as officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis).\n(4)\nFollowing evaluation of the documentation submitted by Italy, the regions of Emilia-Romagna and Valle d\u2019Aosta should be recognised as being officially free of that disease. The entry for Italy in Annex II to Decision 93/52/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nDirective 64/432/EEC applies to trade within the Union in bovine animals and swine. It lays down the conditions whereby a Member State or region of a Member State may be declared officially tuberculosis-free, brucellosis-free and enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free as regards bovine herds.\n(6)\nEven though the Isle of Man, as an internally self-governing dependency of the British Crown, is not part of the Union, it has a special, limited relationship with the Union. As a result, Regulation (EEC) No 706/73 of the Council of 12 March 1973 concerning the Community arrangements applicable to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man for trade in agricultural products (4) provides that for the purpose of applying rules concerning, amongst others, animal health legislation, the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man are to be treated as a single Member State.\n(7)\nThe Annexes to Commission Decision 2003/467/EC of 23 June 2003 establishing the official tuberculosis, brucellosis and enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free status of certain Member States and regions of Member States as regards bovine herds (5) list the Member States and regions thereof which are declared respectively officially tuberculosis-free, officially brucellosis-free and officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free.\n(8)\nItaly has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions for the officially tuberculosis-free status laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC for the provinces of Rieti and Viterbo in the region of Lazio.\n(9)\nFollowing evaluation of the documentation submitted by Italy, the provinces of Rieti and Viterbo in the region of Lazio should be declared as officially tuberculosis-free regions of Italy.\n(10)\nItaly and the United Kingdom has also submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions for the officially brucellosis-free status laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC for the provinces of Frosinone, Latina and Viterbo in the region of Lazio in Italy and the Isle of Man in the United Kingdom.\n(11)\nFollowing evaluation of the documentation submitted by Italy and the United Kingdom, the provinces of Frosinone, Latina and Viterbo in the region of Lazio in Italy and the Isle of Man in the United Kingdom should be declared as officially brucellosis-free regions of Italy and the United Kingdom respectively.\n(12)\nItaly, Poland and the United Kingdom respectively have submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the appropriate conditions provided for in Directive 64/432/EEC as regards the province of Viterbo in the region of Lazio in Italy, 44 administrative regions (powiaty) within the superior administrative units (voivodships) of Lubuskie, Kujawsko-Pomorskie, Mazowieckie, Podlaskie, Warmi\u0144sko-Mazurskie and Wielkopolskie in Poland and the Isle of Man in the United Kingdom so that those regions may be considered officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free regions of Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom.\n(13)\nFollowing evaluation of the documentation submitted by Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom, the regions concerned should be declared as officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free regions of Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom respectively.\n(14)\nThe Annexes to Decision 2003/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Decision 93/52/EEC is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Annexes to Decision 2003/467/EC are amended in accordance with Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2011.", "references": ["81", "34", "59", "17", "42", "33", "90", "83", "67", "93", "71", "52", "56", "31", "86", "58", "51", "11", "84", "3", "21", "80", "44", "0", "95", "87", "79", "10", "76", "64", "No Label", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 April 2012\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Poland\n(2012/236/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (2), in particular Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1, of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(5)\nPoland has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on Vehicle Registration Data (VRD).\n(6)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by Poland with the Netherlands.\n(7)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in Poland and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the Belgian/Dutch evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(8)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning VRD has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching of vehicle registration data (VRD), Poland has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Article 12 of that Decision as from the day of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2012.", "references": ["79", "60", "58", "68", "30", "2", "54", "37", "52", "62", "25", "21", "5", "70", "35", "16", "61", "98", "18", "66", "81", "80", "45", "63", "92", "12", "4", "1", "32", "90", "No Label", "40", "41", "42", "53", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["40", "41", "42", "53", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 June 2012\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Estonia\n(2012/299/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 2(3) and Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2), in particular Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nEstonia has informed the General Secretariat of the Council of the national DNA analysis files to which Articles 2 to 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA apply and the conditions for automated searching as referred to in Article 3(1) of that Decision in accordance with Article 36(2) of that Decision.\n(5)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1, of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(6)\nEstonia has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on DNA data exchange.\n(7)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by Estonia with the Netherlands.\n(8)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in Estonia and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the Dutch evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(9)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning DNA data exchange has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching and comparison of DNA data, Estonia has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of that Decision as from the date of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["19", "82", "34", "48", "54", "17", "23", "70", "84", "96", "66", "77", "4", "31", "8", "71", "90", "73", "58", "35", "12", "28", "72", "89", "45", "37", "99", "5", "86", "11", "No Label", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91"], "gold": ["40", "41", "42", "43", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 383/2010\nof 5 May 2010\nrefusing to authorise a health claim made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children\u2019s development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 18(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on food are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Authority\u2019.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission and to deliver an opinion on a health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nFollowing an application from ELVIR S.A.S., submitted on 5 June 2008 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of a milk product, rich in fibre and protein, on the reduction of the sense of hunger (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-396) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018This product reduces the sense of hunger\u2019.\n(6)\nOn 19 December 2008, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority. It followed from the opinion and subsequent clarification from the Authority that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of the milk product, rich in fibre and protein, and a reduction of the sense of hunger that is nutritionally or physiologically beneficial in terms of effect on food energy intake. Considering this, the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health, at its meeting of 27 April 2009 concluded that the health claim should be subject to further consideration and the Commission submitted on 24 June 2009 a request to the Authority for further advice on a number of elements in relation to the submitted application.\n(7)\nOn 22 July 2009 the Commission and the Member States received the response from the Authority where it is clarified that the effect observed could not be attributed solely to the food tested because of the lack of information on the dietary conditions of the studies. Accordingly, that health claim can not be considered as complying with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and it should not be authorised.\n(8)\nThe comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission, pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(9)\nHealth claims referred to in Article 13(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 are subject to the transition measures laid down in Article 28(6) of that Regulation only if they comply with the conditions therein mentioned, among which that the applications for health claims not subject of evaluation and authorisation in a Member State have to be made before 19 January 2008. As the application for the health claim subject to the present Regulation was not made before that date it can not benefit from the transition period foreseen in Article 28(6) of that Regulation.\n(10)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe health claim set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall not be included in the Community list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 May 2010.", "references": ["55", "40", "63", "17", "60", "68", "22", "36", "86", "20", "13", "64", "49", "99", "96", "52", "91", "57", "30", "42", "61", "65", "92", "88", "56", "7", "3", "35", "77", "28", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "39", "70", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "39", "70", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 February 2011\non the clearance of the accounts of a paying agency in Italy concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year\n(notified under document C(2011) 911)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(2011/113/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 7(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), and in particular Articles 30 and 32(8) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decisions 2007/327/EC (3), 2008/394/EC (4) and 2010/61/EU (5) cleared, for the 2006 financial year, the accounts of all the paying agencies except for the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019.\n(2)\nFollowing the transmission of new information and after additional checks, the Commission can now take a decision on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019.\n(3)\nThe second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (6) lays down that the amounts that are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State, in accordance with the accounts clearance decision referred to in the first subparagraph, shall be determined by deducting advances paid during the financial year in question, i.e. 2006, from expenditure recognised for that year in accordance with the first subparagraph. Such amounts are to be deducted from, or added to advances against expenditure from the second month following that in which the accounts clearance decision is taken.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities shall be borne by the Member State concerned and 50 % by the EU budget if the recovery of those irregularities has not taken place within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts. Article 32(3) of the said Regulation obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, together with the annual accounts, a summary report on the recovery procedures undertaken in response to irregularities. Detailed rules on the application of the Member States\u2019 reporting obligation of the amounts to be recovered are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (7). Annex III to the said Regulation provides the model tables 1 and 2 that had to be provided in 2007 by the Member States. On the basis of the tables completed by the Member States, the Commission should decide on the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities older than 4 or 8 years respectively. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 32(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. Such a decision may only be taken if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered or if the recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. If that decision has been taken within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, 100 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery should be borne by the EU budget. In the summary report referred to in Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 the amounts for which the Member State decided not to pursue recovery and the grounds for the decision are shown. These amounts are not charged to the Member States concerned and are consequently to be borne by the EU budget. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of the said Regulation.\n(6)\nIn clearing the accounts of the paying agencies concerned, the Commission must take account of the amounts already withheld from the Member States concerned on the basis of Decisions 2007/327/EC, 2008/394/EC and 2010/61/EU.\n(7)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from EU financing expenditure not effected in accordance with EU rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accounts of the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019 concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, in respect of the 2006 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State concerned pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 18 February 2011.", "references": ["30", "81", "32", "1", "76", "59", "5", "46", "43", "94", "90", "2", "34", "15", "21", "64", "80", "66", "13", "4", "89", "20", "69", "99", "87", "24", "62", "72", "41", "95", "No Label", "10", "47", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "47", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 15 February 2011\non the clearance of the accounts of a paying agency in Italy concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2007 financial year\n(notified under document C(2011) 753)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(2011/102/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 32(8) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decisions 2008/396/EC (2), 2009/87/EC (3) and 2010/62/EU (4) cleared, for the 2007 financial year, the accounts of all the paying agencies except for the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019.\n(2)\nFollowing the transmission of new information and after additional checks, the Commission can now take a decision on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019.\n(3)\nThe first subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (5) lays down that the amounts that are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State, in accordance with the accounts clearance decision referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the said Regulation, shall be determined by deducting the monthly payments in respect of the financial year in question, i.e. 2007, from expenditure recognised for that year in accordance with paragraph 1. The Commission shall deduct that amount from or add it to the monthly payment relating to the expenditure effected in the second month following that in which the accounts clearance decision is taken.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities shall be borne by the Member State concerned and 50 % by the EU budget if the recovery of those irregularities has not taken place within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts. Article 32(3) of the said Regulation obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, together with the annual accounts, a summary report on the recovery procedures undertaken in response to irregularities. Detailed rules on the application of the Member States\u2019 reporting obligation of the amounts to be recovered are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. Annex III to the said Regulation provides the model table that had to be provided in 2008 by the Member States. On the basis of the tables completed by the Member States, the Commission should decide on the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities older than 4 or 8 years respectively. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 32(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. Such a decision may only be taken if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered or if the recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. If that decision has been taken within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, 100 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery should be borne by the EU budget. In the summary report referred to in Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 the amounts for which the Member State decided not to pursue recovery and the grounds for the decision are shown. These amounts are not charged to the Member States concerned and are consequently to be borne by the EU budget. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of the said Regulation.\n(6)\nIn clearing the accounts of the paying agencies concerned, the Commission must take account of the amounts already withheld from the Member States concerned on the basis of Decisions 2008/396/EC, 2009/87/EC and 2010/62/EU.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from EU financing expenditure not effected in accordance with EU rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accounts of the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019 concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in respect of the 2007 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State concerned pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2011.", "references": ["81", "54", "92", "13", "17", "88", "90", "43", "15", "41", "37", "76", "22", "93", "16", "65", "32", "40", "33", "87", "0", "9", "71", "25", "55", "75", "86", "21", "39", "4", "No Label", "10", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION\nof 25 March 2011\namending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro\n(2011/199/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 48(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal for revising Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union submitted to the European Council by the Belgian Government on 16 December 2010,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission (2),\nAfter obtaining the opinion of the European Central Bank (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 48(6) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) allows the European Council, acting by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament, the Commission and, in certain cases, the European Central Bank, to adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Such a decision may not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties and its entry into force is conditional upon its subsequent approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.\n(2)\nAt the meeting of the European Council of 28 and 29 October 2010, the Heads of State or Government agreed on the need for Member States to establish a permanent crisis mechanism to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as a whole and invited the President of the European Council to undertake consultations with the members of the European Council on a limited treaty change required to that effect.\n(3)\nOn 16 December 2010, the Belgian Government submitted, in accordance with Article 48(6), first subparagraph, of the TEU, a proposal for revising Article 136 of the TFEU by adding a paragraph under which the Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole and stating that the granting of any required financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality. At the same time, the European Council adopted conclusions about the future stability mechanism (paragraphs 1 to 4).\n(4)\nThe stability mechanism will provide the necessary tool for dealing with such cases of risk to the financial stability of the euro area as a whole as have been experienced in 2010, and hence help preserve the economic and financial stability of the Union itself. At its meeting of 16 and 17 December 2010, the European Council agreed that, as this mechanism is designed to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as whole, Article 122(2) of the TFEU will no longer be needed for such purposes. The Heads of State or Government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes.\n(5)\nOn 16 December 2010, the European Council decided to consult, in accordance with Article 48(6), second subparagraph, of the TEU, the European Parliament and the Commission, on the proposal. It also decided to consult the European Central Bank. The European Parliament (1), the Commission (2) and the European Central Bank (3), respectively, adopted opinions on the proposal.\n(6)\nThe amendment concerns a provision contained in Part Three of the TFEU and it does not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following paragraph shall be added to Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:\n\u20183. The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole. The granting of any required financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall notify the Secretary-General of the Council without delay of the completion of the procedures for the approval of this Decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 1 January 2013, provided that all the notifications referred to in the first paragraph have been received, or, failing that, on the first day of the month following receipt of the last of the notifications referred to in the first paragraph.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 25 March 2011.", "references": ["54", "76", "36", "22", "93", "92", "55", "74", "94", "77", "72", "6", "45", "58", "25", "91", "71", "60", "95", "67", "97", "2", "75", "85", "14", "34", "44", "23", "73", "10", "No Label", "27", "28", "32"], "gold": ["27", "28", "32"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1251/2011\nof 30 November 2011\namending Directives 2004/17/EC, 2004/18/EC and 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of their application thresholds for the procedures for the awards of contract\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services (1), and in particular Article 69 thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (2), and in particular Article 78 thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC (3), and in particular Article 68 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986 to 1994) (4) the Council concluded the Agreement on Government Procurement (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019). The Agreement should be applied to any procurement contract with a value that reaches or exceeds the amounts (hereinafter referred to as \u2018thresholds\u2019) set in the Agreement and expressed as special drawing rights.\n(2)\nOne of the objectives of Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC is to allow the contracting entities and the contracting authorities which apply those Directives to comply at the same time with the obligations laid down in the Agreement. To achieve this, the thresholds laid down by those Directives for public contracts which are also covered by the Agreement should be aligned in order to ensure that they correspond to the euro equivalents, rounded down to the nearest thousand, of the thresholds set out in the Agreement.\n(3)\nFor reasons of coherence, it is appropriate to align also those thresholds in Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC which are not covered by the Agreement. At the same time, the thresholds laid down by Directive 2009/81/EC should be aligned to the revised thresholds laid down in Article 16 of Directive 2004/17/EC.\n(4)\nDirectives 2004/17/EC, 2004/18/EC and 2009/81/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Committee for Public Contracts,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2004/17/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 16 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (a), the amount \u2018EUR 387 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 400 000\u2019;\n(b)\nin point (b), the amount \u2018EUR 4 845 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 5 000 000\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 61 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the amount \u2018EUR 387 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 400 000\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the amount \u2018EUR 387 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 400 000\u2019.\nArticle 2\nDirective 2004/18/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 7 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (a), the amount \u2018EUR 125 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 130 000\u2019;\n(b)\nin point (b), the amount \u2018EUR 193 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 200 000\u2019;\n(c)\nin point (c), the amount \u2018EUR 4 845 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 5 000 000\u2019;\n(2)\nthe first paragraph of Article 8 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (a), the amount \u2018EUR 4 845 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 5 000 000\u2019;\n(b)\nin point (b), the amount \u2018EUR 193 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 200 000\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 56, the amount \u2018EUR 4 845 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 5 000 000\u2019;\n(4)\nin the first subparagraph of Article 63(1), the amount \u2018EUR 4 845 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 5 000 000\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 67(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (a), the amount \u2018EUR 125 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 130 000\u2019;\n(b)\nin point (b), the amount \u2018EUR 193 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 200 000\u2019;\n(c)\nin point (c), the amount \u2018EUR 193 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 200 000\u2019.\nArticle 3\nArticle 8 of Directive 2009/81/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin point (a), the amount \u2018EUR 387 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 400 000\u2019;\n(2)\nin point (b), the amount \u2018EUR 4 845 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 5 000 000\u2019.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 1 January 2012\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["74", "35", "85", "40", "68", "77", "41", "27", "83", "99", "97", "42", "9", "91", "63", "8", "75", "61", "10", "86", "26", "45", "34", "32", "30", "28", "5", "2", "69", "60", "No Label", "20"], "gold": ["20"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 461/2010\nof 27 May 2010\non the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation No 19/65/EEC of the Council of 2 March 1965 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements and concerted practices (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,\nHaving published a draft of this Regulation,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation No 19/65/EEC empowers the Commission to apply Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2) by regulation to certain categories of vertical agreements and corresponding concerted practices falling within Article 101(1) of the Treaty. Block exemption regulations apply to vertical agreements which fulfil certain conditions and may be general or sector-specific.\n(2)\nThe Commission has defined a category of vertical agreements which it regards as normally satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 101(3) of the Treaty and to this end has adopted Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (3), which replaces Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 (4).\n(3)\nThe motor vehicle sector, which includes both passenger cars and commercial vehicles, has been subject to specific block exemption regulations since 1985, the most recent being Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (5). Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 expressly stated that it did not apply to vertical agreements the subject matter of which fell within the scope of any other block exemption regulation. The motor vehicle sector therefore fell outside the scope of that Regulation.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1400/2002 expires on 31 May 2010. However, the motor vehicle sector should continue to benefit from a block exemption in order to simplify administration and reduce compliance costs for the undertakings concerned, while ensuring effective supervision of markets in accordance with Article 103(2)(b) of the Treaty.\n(5)\nExperience acquired since 2002 regarding the distribution of new motor vehicles, the distribution of spare parts and the provision of repair and maintenance services for motor vehicles, makes it possible to define a category of vertical agreements in the motor vehicle sector which can be regarded as normally satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 101(3) of the Treaty.\n(6)\nThis category includes vertical agreements for the purchase, sale or resale of new motor vehicles, vertical agreements for the purchase, sale or resale of spare parts for motor vehicles and vertical agreements for the provision of repair and maintenance services for such vehicles, where those agreements are concluded between non-competing undertakings, between certain competitors, or by certain associations of retailers or repairers. It also includes vertical agreements containing ancillary provisions on the assignment or use of intellectual property rights. The term \u2018vertical agreements\u2019 should be defined accordingly to include both such agreements and the corresponding concerted practices.\n(7)\nCertain types of vertical agreements can improve economic efficiency within a chain of production or distribution by facilitating better coordination between the participating undertakings. In particular, they can lead to a reduction in the transaction and distribution costs of the parties and to an optimisation of their sales and investment levels.\n(8)\nThe likelihood that such efficiency-enhancing effects will outweigh any anticompetitive effects due to restrictions contained in vertical agreements depends on the degree of market power of the parties to the agreement and, therefore, on the extent to which those undertakings face competition from other suppliers of goods or services regarded by their customers as interchangeable or substitutable for one another, by reason of the products\u2019 characteristics, their prices and their intended use. Vertical agreements containing restrictions which are likely to restrict competition and harm consumers, or which are not indispensable to the attainment of the efficiency-enhancing effects, should be excluded from the benefit of the block exemption.\n(9)\nIn order to define the appropriate scope of a block exemption regulation, the Commission must take into account the competitive conditions in the relevant sector. In this respect, the conclusions of the in-depth monitoring of the motor vehicle sector set out in the Evaluation Report on the operation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 28 May 2008 (6) and in the Commission Communication on The Future Competition Law Framework applicable to the Motor Vehicle sector of 22 July 2009 (7) have shown that a distinction should be drawn between agreements for the distribution of new motor vehicles and agreements for the provision of repair and maintenance services and distribution of spare parts.\n(10)\nAs regards the distribution of new motor vehicles, there do not appear to be any significant competition shortcomings which would distinguish this sector from other economic sectors and which could require the application of rules different from and stricter than those set out in Regulation (EU) No 330/2010. The market-share threshold, the non-exemption of certain vertical agreements and the other conditions laid down in that Regulation normally ensure that vertical agreements for the distribution of new motor vehicles comply with the requirements of Article 101(3) of the Treaty. Therefore, such agreements should benefit from the exemption granted by Regulation (EU) No 330/2010, subject to all the conditions laid down therein.\n(11)\nAs regards agreements for the distribution of spare parts and for the provision of repair and maintenance services, certain specific characteristics of the motor vehicle aftermarket should be taken into account. In particular, the experience acquired by the Commission in applying Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 shows that price increases for individual repair jobs are only partially reflected in increased reliability of modern cars and lengthening of service intervals. These latter trends are linked to technological evolution and to the increasing complexity and reliability of automotive components that the vehicle manufacturers purchase from original equipment suppliers. Such suppliers sell their products as spare parts in the aftermarket both through the vehicle manufacturers\u2019 authorised repair networks and through independent channels, thereby representing an important competitive force in the motor vehicle aftermarket. The costs borne on average by consumers in the Union for motor vehicle repair and maintenance services represent a very high proportion of total consumer expenditure on motor vehicles.\n(12)\nCompetitive conditions in the motor vehicle aftermarket also have a direct bearing on public safety, in that vehicles may be driven in an unsafe manner if they have been repaired incorrectly, as well as on public health and the environment, as emissions of carbon dioxide and other air pollutants may be higher from vehicles which have not undergone regular maintenance work.\n(13)\nIn so far as a separate aftermarket can be defined, effective competition on the markets for the purchase and sale of spare parts, as well as for the provision of repair and maintenance services for motor vehicles, depends on the degree of competitive interaction between authorised repairers, that is to say those operating within repair networks established directly or indirectly by vehicle manufacturers, as well as between authorised and independent operators, including independent spare parts suppliers and repairers. The latters\u2019 ability to compete depends on unrestricted access to essential inputs such as spare parts and technical information.\n(14)\nHaving regard to those specificities, the rules in Regulation (EU) No 330/2010, including the uniform market share threshold of 30 %, are necessary but are not sufficient to ensure that the benefit of the block exemption is reserved only to those vertical agreements for the distribution of spare parts and for the provision of repair and maintenance services for which it can be assumed with sufficient certainty that the conditions of Article 101(3) of the Treaty are satisfied.\n(15)\nTherefore, vertical agreements for the distribution of spare parts and for the provision of repair and maintenance services should benefit from the block exemption only if, in addition to the conditions for exemption set out in Regulation (EU) No 330/2010, they comply with stricter requirements concerning certain types of severe restrictions of competition that may limit the supply and use of spare parts in the motor vehicle aftermarket.\n(16)\nIn particular, the benefit of the block exemption should not be granted to agreements that restrict the sale of spare parts by members of the selective distribution system of a vehicle manufacturer to independent repairers, which use them for the provision of repair or maintenance services. Without access to such spare parts, independent repairers would not be able to compete effectively with authorised repairers, since they could not provide consumers with good quality services which contribute to the safe and reliable functioning of motor vehicles.\n(17)\nMoreover, in order to ensure effective competition on the repair and maintenance markets and to allow repairers to offer end users competing spare parts, the block exemption should not cover vertical agreements which, although they comply with Regulation (EU) No 330/2010, nonetheless restrict the ability of a producer of spare parts to sell such parts to authorised repairers within the distribution system of a vehicle manufacturer, independent distributors of spare parts, independent repairers or end users. This does not affect the liability of producers of spare parts under civil law, or the ability of vehicle manufacturers to require the authorised repairers within their distribution system to only use spare parts that match the quality of the components used for the assembly of a certain motor vehicle. Moreover, in view of the vehicle manufacturers\u2019 direct contractual involvement in repairs under warranty, free servicing, and recall operations, agreements containing obligations on authorised repairers to use only spare parts supplied by the vehicle manufacturer for those repairs should be covered by the exemption.\n(18)\nFinally, in order to allow authorised and independent repairers and end users to identify the manufacturer of motor vehicle components or of spare parts and to choose between alternative parts, the block exemption should not cover agreements by which a manufacturer of motor vehicles limits the ability of a manufacturer of components or original spare parts to place its trade mark or logo on those parts effectively and in a visible manner.\n(19)\nIn order to allow all operators time to adapt to this Regulation, it is appropriate to extend the period of application of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 relating to vertical agreements for the purchase, sale and resale of new motor vehicles until 31 May 2013. As regards vertical agreements for the distribution of spare parts and for the provision of repair and maintenance services, this Regulation should apply from 1 June 2010 so as to continue to ensure adequate protection of competition on the motor vehicle aftermarkets.\n(20)\nThe Commission will, on a continuous basis, monitor developments in the motor vehicle sector and will take appropriate remedial action if competition shortcomings arise which may lead to consumer harm on the market for the distribution of new motor vehicles or the supply of spare parts or after-sales services for motor vehicles.\n(21)\nThe Commission may withdraw the benefit of this Regulation, pursuant to Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (8), where it finds in a particular case that an agreement to which the exemption provided for in this Regulation applies nevertheless has effects which are incompatible with Article 101(3) of the Treaty.\n(22)\nThe competition authority of a Member State may withdraw the benefit of this Regulation pursuant to Article 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in respect of the territory of that Member State, or a part thereof where, in a particular case, an agreement to which the exemption provided for in this Regulation applies nevertheless has effects which are incompatible with Article 101(3) of the Treaty in the territory of that Member State, or in a part thereof, and where such territory has all the characteristics of a distinct geographic market.\n(23)\nIn determining whether the benefit of this Regulation should be withdrawn pursuant to Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the anti-competitive effects that may derive from the existence of parallel networks of vertical agreements that have similar effects which significantly restrict access to a relevant market or competition therein are of particular importance. Such cumulative effects may, for example, arise in the case of selective distribution or non-compete obligations.\n(24)\nIn order to strengthen supervision of parallel networks of vertical agreements which have similar anti-competitive effects and which cover more than 50 % of a given market, the Commission may by regulation declare this Regulation inapplicable to vertical agreements containing specific restraints relating to the market concerned, thereby restoring the full application of Article 101 of the Treaty to such agreements.\n(25)\nIn order to assess the effects of this Regulation on competition in motor vehicle retailing, in the supply of spare parts and in after sales servicing for motor vehicles in the internal market, it is appropriate to draw up an evaluation report on the operation of this Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nCOMMON PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018vertical agreement\u2019 means an agreement or concerted practice entered into between two or more undertakings each of which operates, for the purposes of the agreement or the concerted practice, at a different level of the production or distribution chain, and relating to the conditions under which the parties may purchase, sell or resell certain goods or services;\n(b)\n\u2018vertical restraint\u2019 means a restriction of competition in a vertical agreement falling within the scope of Article 101(1) of the Treaty;\n(c)\n\u2018authorised repairer\u2019 means a provider of repair and maintenance services for motor vehicles operating within the distribution system set up by a supplier of motor vehicles;\n(d)\n\u2018authorised distributor\u2019 means a distributor of spare parts for motor vehicles operating within the distribution system set up by a supplier of motor vehicles;\n(e)\n\u2018independent repairer\u2019 means:\n(i)\na provider of repair and maintenance services for motor vehicles not operating within the distribution system set up by the supplier of the motor vehicles for which it provides repair or maintenance;\n(ii)\nan authorised repairer within the distribution system of a given supplier, to the extent that it provides repair or maintenance services for motor vehicles in respect of which it is not a member of the respective supplier\u2019s distribution system;\n(f)\n\u2018independent distributor\u2019 means:\n(i)\na distributor of spare parts for motor vehicles not operating within the distribution system set up by the supplier of the motor vehicles for which it distributes spare parts;\n(ii)\nan authorised distributor within the distribution system of a given supplier, to the extent that it distributes spare parts for motor vehicles in respect of which it is not a member of the respective supplier\u2019s distribution system;\n(g)\n\u2018motor vehicle\u2019 means a self-propelled vehicle intended for use on public roads and having three or more road wheels;\n(h)\n\u2018spare parts\u2019 means goods which are to be installed in or upon a motor vehicle so as to replace components of that vehicle, including goods such as lubricants which are necessary for the use of a motor vehicle, with the exception of fuel;\n(i)\n\u2018selective distribution system\u2019 means a distribution system where the supplier undertakes to sell the contract goods or services, either directly or indirectly, only to distributors selected on the basis of specified criteria and where these distributors undertake not to sell such goods or services to unauthorised distributors within the territory reserved by the supplier to operate that system.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation, the terms \u2018undertaking\u2019, \u2018supplier\u2019, \u2018manufacturer\u2019 and \u2018buyer\u2019 shall include their respective connected undertakings.\n\u2018Connected undertakings\u2019 means:\n(a)\nundertakings in which a party to the agreement, directly or indirectly:\n(i)\nhas the power to exercise more than half the voting rights; or\n(ii)\nhas the power to appoint more than half the members of the supervisory board, board of management or bodies legally representing the undertaking; or\n(iii)\nhas the right to manage the undertaking\u2019s affairs;\n(b)\nundertakings which directly or indirectly have, over a party to the agreement, the rights or powers listed in point (a);\n(c)\nundertakings in which an undertaking referred to in point (b) has, directly or indirectly, the rights or powers listed in point (a);\n(d)\nundertakings in which a party to the agreement together with one or more of the undertakings referred to in points (a), (b) or (c), or in which two or more of the latter undertakings, jointly have the rights or powers listed in point (a);\n(e)\nundertakings in which the rights or the powers listed in point (a) are jointly held by:\n(i)\nparties to the agreement or their respective connected undertakings referred to in points (a) to (d); or\n(ii)\none or more of the parties to the agreement or one or more of their connected undertakings referred to in points (a) to (d) and one or more third parties.\nCHAPTER II\nVERTICAL AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE PURCHASE, SALE OR RESALE OF NEW MOTOR VEHICLES\nArticle 2\nApplication of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002\nPursuant to Article 101(3) of the Treaty, from 1 June 2010 until 31 May 2013, Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply to vertical agreements relating to the conditions under which the parties may purchase, sell or resell new motor vehicles, which fulfil the requirements for an exemption under Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 that relate specifically to vertical agreements for the purchase, sale or resale of new motor vehicles.\nArticle 3\nApplication of Regulation (EU) No 330/2010\nWith effect from 1 June 2013, Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 shall apply to vertical agreements relating to the purchase, sale or resale of new motor vehicles.\nCHAPTER III\nVERTICAL AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE AFTERMARKET\nArticle 4\nExemption\nPursuant to Article 101(3) of the Treaty and subject to the provisions of this Regulation Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply to vertical agreements relating to the conditions under which the parties may purchase, sell or resell spare parts for motor vehicles or provide repair and maintenance services for motor vehicles, which fulfil the requirements for an exemption under Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 and do not contain any of the hardcore clauses listed in Article 5 of this Regulation.\nThis exemption shall apply to the extent that such agreements contain vertical restraints.\nArticle 5\nRestrictions that remove the benefit of the block exemption - hardcore restrictions\nThe exemption provided for in Article 4 shall not apply to vertical agreements which, directly or indirectly, in isolation or in combination with other factors under the control of the parties, have as their object:\n(a)\nthe restriction of the sales of spare parts for motor vehicles by members of a selective distribution system to independent repairers which use those parts for the repair and maintenance of a motor vehicle;\n(b)\nthe restriction, agreed between a supplier of spare parts, repair tools or diagnostic or other equipment and a manufacturer of motor vehicles, of the supplier\u2019s ability to sell those goods to authorised or independent distributors or to authorised or independent repairers or end users;\n(c)\nthe restriction, agreed between a manufacturer of motor vehicles which uses components for the initial assembly of motor vehicles and the supplier of such components, of the supplier\u2019s ability to place its trade mark or logo effectively and in an easily visible manner on the components supplied or on spare parts.\nCHAPTER IV\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 6\nNon-application of this Regulation\nPursuant to Article 1a of Regulation No 19/65/EEC, the Commission may by regulation declare that, where parallel networks of similar vertical restraints cover more than 50 % of a relevant market, this Regulation shall not apply to vertical agreements containing specific restraints relating to that market.\nArticle 7\nMonitoring and evaluation report\nThe Commission will monitor the operation of this Regulation and draw up a report on its operation by 31 May 2021 at the latest, having regard in particular to the conditions set out in Article 101(3) of the Treaty.\nArticle 8\nPeriod of validity\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 June 2010.\nIt shall expire on 31 May 2023.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2010.", "references": ["46", "51", "69", "23", "21", "32", "76", "5", "58", "53", "55", "3", "24", "88", "2", "45", "77", "72", "95", "59", "1", "11", "78", "65", "16", "39", "33", "66", "7", "38", "No Label", "25", "26", "48", "54", "75", "85"], "gold": ["25", "26", "48", "54", "75", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 414/2011\nof 26 April 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (\u03a6\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03b9 \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 (Firiki Piliou) (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Greece\u2019s application to register the name \u2018\u03a6\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03b9 \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 (Firiki Piliou)\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2011.", "references": ["95", "84", "55", "94", "22", "16", "60", "14", "5", "7", "74", "71", "32", "81", "83", "8", "12", "20", "80", "78", "86", "10", "90", "65", "48", "35", "52", "38", "13", "69", "No Label", "23", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 8 November 2010\namending Decision 95/467/EC implementing Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC on construction products\n(notified under document C(2010) 7542)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/679/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988, on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1), and in particular Article 13(4)(a) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee on Construction,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 24 October 1995, the Commission adopted Decision 95/467/EC implementing Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC on construction products (2).\n(2)\nIn order to adapt the systems of attestation of conformity of the product family \u2018CHIMNEYS, FLUES AND SPECIFIC PRODUCTS\u2019 to technical progress, Annex 3 to the Decision should be adjusted.\n(3)\nThe Decision should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex 3 to Decision 95/467/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["55", "28", "68", "41", "69", "44", "31", "89", "98", "75", "80", "46", "62", "15", "17", "42", "7", "94", "2", "35", "93", "27", "67", "54", "82", "23", "86", "40", "90", "78", "No Label", "24", "76", "87"], "gold": ["24", "76", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 341/2012\nof 19 April 2012\nfixing the export refunds on poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in poultrymeat, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely in the Union and bear the identification mark provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products should also comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 48/2012 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nIn order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the identification marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 48/2012 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["99", "39", "16", "23", "88", "4", "31", "15", "2", "53", "40", "82", "81", "63", "76", "56", "1", "50", "5", "27", "35", "29", "65", "11", "42", "33", "84", "85", "0", "6", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 608/2010\nof 9 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 July 2010.", "references": ["7", "95", "30", "62", "44", "78", "41", "2", "64", "4", "84", "91", "29", "26", "5", "75", "16", "53", "47", "98", "86", "37", "9", "56", "77", "55", "18", "87", "15", "66", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 149/2012\nof 20 February 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Limone di Rocca Imperiale (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Limone di Rocca Imperiale\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 February 2012.", "references": ["5", "14", "37", "53", "33", "9", "55", "32", "71", "92", "81", "30", "7", "26", "65", "27", "95", "77", "12", "0", "72", "51", "3", "17", "16", "56", "19", "66", "13", "59", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 821/2010\nof 17 September 2010\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 808/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning Community statistics on the information society\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 808/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 concerning Community statistics on the information society (1), and in particular Article 8 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 808/2004 established a common framework for the systematic production of European statistics on the information society.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 808/2004, implementing measures are necessary to determine the data to be supplied for preparation of the statistics referred to in Articles 3 and 4 of that Regulation and the deadlines for their transmission.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe data to be transmitted for the production of European statistics on the information society as referred to in Articles 3(2) and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 808/2004 shall be as specified in Annexes I and II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 September 2010.", "references": ["53", "92", "5", "93", "95", "75", "36", "34", "50", "23", "83", "14", "20", "46", "12", "51", "3", "84", "55", "67", "4", "30", "1", "79", "91", "94", "59", "21", "71", "28", "No Label", "19", "40", "41", "42", "45"], "gold": ["19", "40", "41", "42", "45"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 27/2012\nof 12 January 2012\non the minimum customs duty for sugar to be fixed in response to the fourth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/2012 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, the Commission is to decide, in the light of the tenders received in response to a partial invitation to tender, either to fix a minimum customs duty or not to fix a minimum customs duty per eight-digit CN code.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the fourth partial invitation to tender, a minimum customs duty should be fixed for certain eight-digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701 and no minimum customs duty should be fixed for the other eight-digit codes for sugar falling within that CN code.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the fourth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 11 January 2012, a minimum customs duty has been fixed, or has not been fixed, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation for the eight-digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 January 2012.", "references": ["93", "39", "11", "78", "65", "49", "9", "35", "8", "79", "95", "76", "29", "86", "37", "16", "59", "62", "17", "97", "19", "40", "44", "14", "81", "41", "67", "2", "77", "32", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "71", "73"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "71", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 113/2011\nof 7 February 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 February 2011.", "references": ["2", "15", "14", "42", "88", "8", "44", "79", "3", "49", "37", "64", "67", "50", "5", "6", "55", "57", "34", "27", "56", "51", "70", "96", "30", "99", "97", "84", "18", "24", "No Label", "21", "38", "40"], "gold": ["21", "38", "40"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 June 2010\namending Decision 2008/855/EC as regards animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in feral pigs\n(notified under document C(2010) 4170)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/354/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2) and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2008/855/EC of 3 November 2008 concerning animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in certain Member States (3) lays down certain control measures in relation to classical swine fever in the Member States or regions thereof set out in the Annex to that Decision.\n(2)\nThe Annex to Decision 2008/855/EC comprises three parts, depending on the epidemiological situation in the areas listed therein. Parts I and II of that Annex list the areas in the Member States where the epidemiological situation with regard to feral pigs is considered to be most favourable.\n(3)\nAlthough feral pigs are included in the scope of Decision 2008/855/EC, the control measures provided for in that Decision are primarily targeting pigs from holdings and products derived therefrom.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2002/106/EC (4) sets out the diagnostic procedures, sampling methods and criteria for evaluation of the laboratory tests for the confirmation of classical swine fever.\n(5)\nIn order to better control the spread of classical swine fever, it is appropriate to provide for certain animal health control measures targeting the feral pig population affected by that disease. In particular, a prohibition on the dispatch from the areas listed in the Annex to Decision 2008/855/EC of consignments of live feral pigs and of fresh meat, meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing such meat should be laid down.\n(6)\nIt is however appropriate to permit that consignments of fresh meat of feral pigs, meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing such meat be dispatched from those areas to other areas not listed in the Annex to Decision 2008/855/EC, provided that virological tests are performed in accordance with Decision 2002/106/EC, that the results of those tests are negative and that the competent veterinary authority of the place of destination gives its prior approval.\n(7)\nDecision 2008/855/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following Article 8b is inserted in Decision 2008/855/EC:\n\u2018Article 8b\nMeasures relating to live feral pigs, fresh meat, meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing meat from feral pigs\n1. The Member States concerned with areas listed in the Annex shall ensure that:\n(a)\nno live feral pigs from the areas listed in the Annex are dispatched to other Member States or to other areas in the territory of the same Member State;\n(b)\nno consignments of fresh meat of feral pigs, meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing such meat from the areas listed in the Annex are dispatched to other Member States or to other areas in the territory of the same Member State.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1(b), the Member States concerned with areas listed in Parts I and II of the Annex may authorise the dispatch of consignments of fresh meat of feral pigs, meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing such meat from those areas to other areas not listed in the Annex, provided that:\n(a)\nthe pigs have been tested with negative results for classical swine fever according to any of the diagnostic procedures described in Part A(1), Part B or Part C of Chapter VI of the Annex to Decision 2002/106/EC;\n(b)\nthe competent authority of the place of destination gives its prior approval.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 June 2010.", "references": ["22", "93", "58", "21", "76", "42", "71", "82", "84", "51", "94", "90", "16", "5", "74", "15", "89", "20", "81", "36", "3", "35", "98", "41", "48", "72", "46", "50", "19", "62", "No Label", "23", "38", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "38", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 650/2011\nof 4 July 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 646/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 July 2011.", "references": ["29", "78", "83", "50", "46", "52", "14", "36", "6", "2", "75", "16", "32", "3", "43", "81", "80", "57", "18", "77", "88", "45", "89", "71", "64", "41", "23", "53", "93", "7", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 760/2010\nof 24 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 August 2010.", "references": ["9", "47", "72", "66", "28", "1", "16", "52", "22", "6", "65", "5", "89", "38", "21", "17", "71", "45", "92", "94", "24", "78", "13", "90", "43", "42", "74", "64", "46", "37", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 648/2012\nof 25 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2012.", "references": ["33", "85", "8", "92", "11", "56", "42", "96", "75", "1", "55", "90", "98", "66", "49", "47", "27", "64", "73", "77", "34", "97", "36", "52", "10", "87", "16", "79", "53", "60", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 554/2011\nof 30 May 2011\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation) and in particular Articles 9 and 11(2), (5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Measures in force\n(1)\nFollowing an anti-dumping investigation carried out pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres (PSF) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China. The rate of the anti-dumping duty ranged between 4,9 % and 49,7 % depending on the manufacturer of the product concerned.\n1.2. Request for review\n(2)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures (3), applicable to imports of PSF originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, the Commission received on 14 December 2009 a request for review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(3)\nThe request was lodged by the European Man-made Fibres Association (the applicant) on behalf of Union producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the production of PSF in the Union.\n(4)\nThe request was accompanied by prima facie evidence showing that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.\n1.3. Initiation\n(5)\nAccordingly, after having consulted the Advisory Committee, the Commission published a notice of initiation (4) of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports into the Union of PSF originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n(6)\nThe Commission officially advised the exporting producers, importers concerned, the representatives of the People\u2019s Republic of China, the representative users and the Union producers of the initiation of the review investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n2. WITHDRAWAL OF THE REQUEST\n(7)\nBy a letter addressed to the Commission, dated 7 March 2011, the applicant formally withdrew its request.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1) and Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, a proceeding may be terminated where the request for review is withdrawn unless such a termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(9)\nIt was considered that the present proceeding should be terminated since the investigation had not brought to light any considerations showing that its termination would not be in the Union interest. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to submit comments. However, no such comments were received as would give reason to reach a different conclusion.\n(10)\nIt was therefore concluded that the anti-dumping expiry review proceeding concerning imports into the Union of PSF originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China should be terminated and the existing measures should be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping measures concerning imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, currently falling within CN code 5503 20 00 and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, are hereby repealed and the proceeding on these imports is terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 May 2011.", "references": ["52", "70", "42", "0", "62", "8", "90", "98", "19", "11", "34", "61", "30", "57", "82", "5", "86", "26", "85", "73", "18", "56", "75", "80", "78", "25", "51", "1", "71", "79", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1264/2010\nof 20 December 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 opening and providing for the management of autonomous tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and industrial products\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure sufficient and uninterrupted supplies of certain goods which are insufficiently produced in the Union and to avoid any disturbances on the market for certain agricultural and industrial products, autonomous tariff quotas were opened by Council Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 (1). Products within those tariff quotas can be imported at reduced or zero duty rates. For the same reasons,with effect from 1 January 2011 new tariff quotas at a zero duty rate for an appropriate volume for certain additional products should be opened.\n(2)\nThe quota volume for autonomous tariff quotas entered with the order numbers 09.2977 and 09.2635 are insufficient to meet the needs of the industry of the Union for the current quota period ending on 31 December 2010. Consequently, those quota volumes should be increased with effect from 1 July 2010.\n(3)\nIt is no longer in the interest of the Union to continue to grant tariff quotas in 2011 for certain products for which such quotas were established for 2010. Those quotas should therefore be closed with effect from 1 January 2011 and the products concerned should be deleted from the list in Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010.\n(4)\nIn view of the many changes to be made, clarity requires Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/10 to be replaced in its entirety.\n(5)\nRegulation (EU) No 7/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nSince the tariff quotas have to take effect from 1 January 2011, this Regulation should apply from the same date and enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010:\n-\nthe quota volume of the tariff quota for order number 09.2977 is fixed at 40 000 tonnes,\n-\nthe quota volume of the tariff quota for order number 09.2635 is fixed at 1 300 000 km,\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nArticle 2 shall apply from 1 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["47", "24", "39", "93", "80", "78", "33", "86", "89", "72", "19", "26", "14", "95", "6", "85", "62", "90", "88", "27", "41", "49", "58", "11", "74", "9", "35", "10", "52", "38", "No Label", "21", "22", "66", "82"], "gold": ["21", "22", "66", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1229/2010\nof 20 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["65", "16", "37", "23", "64", "81", "78", "77", "24", "98", "36", "34", "90", "10", "56", "63", "33", "44", "49", "92", "41", "66", "75", "17", "72", "27", "25", "46", "93", "91", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 573/2010\nof 30 June 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (1) and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 the Commission should adopt detailed measures for the implementation of common basic standards referred to in Article 4(1) and of general measures supplementing common basic standards referred to in Article 4(2) of that Regulation.\n(2)\nIf they contain sensitive security measures, these measures should be regarded as EU classified information within the meaning of Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending internal rules of procedure (2), as provided for by Article 18 point (a) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 and should therefore not be published. These measures should be adopted separately, by means of a Decision addressed to the Member States.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 300/2008 shall apply in full as from the date specified in the implementing rules adopted in accordance with the procedures referred to in Article 4(2) and 4(3) of that Regulation but not later than 29 April 2010. This Regulation should therefore apply as from 29 April 2010 in order to harmonise the application of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 and its implementing acts.\n(4)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 1217/2003 of 4 July 2003 laying down common specifications for national civil aviation security quality control programmes (3), (EC) No 1486/2003 of 22 August 2003 laying down procedures for conducting Commission inspections in the field of civil aviation security (4), (EC) No 1138/2004 of 21 June 2004 establishing a common definition of critical parts of security restricted areas at airports (5) and (EC) No 820/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (6), which all implemented Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security (7) should therefore be repealed.\n(5)\nArticle 18 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 permits that, notwithstanding the general rule that the Commission shall publish measures that have a direct impact on passengers, certain measures containing aviation security sensitive information may be classified in accordance with Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending internal rules of procedure, and not published. These measures should be adopted separately, by means of a Decision addressed to Member States. The part of the Decision which contains security sensitive measures and procedures should not be published and should be made available only to those operators and entities with legitimate interest. Such measures include, in particular, certain detailed procedures and exemptions there from, concerning the way aircrafts, vehicles, persons, baggage, mail and cargo are controlled when entering or within security restricted areas as well as the technical specifications for screening equipment.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Civil Aviation Security set up by Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation lays down detailed measures for the implementation of common basic standards for safeguarding civil aviation against acts of unlawful interference that jeopardise the security of civil aviation and general measures supplementing the common basic standards.\nArticle 2\nImplementation rules\n1. The measures referred to in Article 1 are set out in the Annex.\n2. In accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008, national civil aviation security programmes shall take appropriate account of this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force and apply from the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 June 2010.", "references": ["46", "17", "92", "80", "50", "88", "38", "13", "95", "59", "6", "26", "74", "82", "4", "32", "11", "31", "55", "29", "52", "94", "23", "8", "44", "14", "1", "96", "90", "75", "No Label", "53", "57", "76"], "gold": ["53", "57", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 January 2012\non the clearance of the accounts of certain paying agencies in Germany and the Netherlands concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2010 financial year\n(notified under document C(2012) 369)\n(Only the German and Dutch texts are authentic)\n(2012/52/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 32(8) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Decision 2011/272/EU (2) cleared, for the 2010 financial year, the accounts of all the paying agencies except for the German paying agency \u2018Rheinland-Pfalz\u2019, the Greek paying agency \u2018OPEKEPE\u2019, the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019, and the Dutch paying agency \u2018Dienst Regelingen\u2019.\n(2)\nFollowing the transmission of new information and after additional checks, the Commission can now take a decision on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the German paying agency \u2018Rheinland-Pfalz\u2019 and the Dutch paying agency \u2018Dienst Regelingen\u2019.\n(3)\nThe first subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (3) lays down that the amounts that are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State, in accordance with the accounts clearance decision referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the said Regulation, shall be determined by deducting the monthly payments in respect of the financial year in question, i.e. 2010, from expenditure recognised for that year in accordance with paragraph 1. The Commission shall deduct that amount from or add it to the monthly payment relating to the expenditure effected in the second month following that in which the accounts clearance decision is taken.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities shall be borne by the Member State concerned and 50 % by the EU budget if the recovery of those irregularities has not taken place within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within eight years if the recovery is taken to the national courts. Article 32(3) of the said Regulation obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, together with the annual accounts, a summary report on the recovery procedures undertaken in response to irregularities. Detailed rules on the application of the Member States\u2019 reporting obligation of the amounts to be recovered are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. Annex III to the said Regulation provides the model table that had to be provided in 2011 by the Member States. On the basis of the tables completed by the Member States, the Commission should decide on the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities older than four or eight years respectively. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 32(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. Such a decision may only be taken if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered or if the recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. If that decision has been taken within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding or within eight years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, 100 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery should be borne by the EU budget. In the summary report referred to in Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 the amounts for which the Member State decided not to pursue recovery and the grounds for the decision are shown. These amounts are not charged to the Member States concerned and are consequently to be borne by the EU budget. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of the said Regulation.\n(6)\nIn clearing the accounts of the paying agencies concerned, the Commission must take account of the amounts already withheld from the Member States concerned on the basis of Implementing Decision 2011/272/EU.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from EU financing expenditure not effected in accordance with EU rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accounts of the German paying agency \u2018Rheinland-Pfalz\u2019 and the Dutch paying agency \u2018Dienst Regelingen\u2019 concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in respect of the 2010 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State concerned pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.\nDone at Brussels, 27 January 2012.", "references": ["87", "74", "4", "62", "1", "82", "98", "83", "24", "20", "44", "29", "85", "94", "13", "19", "51", "53", "90", "33", "28", "31", "88", "57", "25", "12", "30", "50", "89", "86", "No Label", "10", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1364/2011\nof 19 December 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Speck Alto Adige/S\u00fcdtiroler Markenspeck/S\u00fcdtiroler Speck (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2027Speck Alto Adige\u2027/\u2027S\u00fcdtiroler Markenspeck\u2027/\u2027S\u00fcdtiroler Speck\u2027, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["30", "75", "64", "42", "31", "5", "26", "37", "28", "6", "80", "90", "88", "1", "79", "66", "85", "44", "18", "47", "49", "58", "62", "77", "20", "56", "60", "51", "43", "76", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 926/2011\nof 12 September 2011\nfor the purposes of Council Decision 2009/470/EC as regards Union financial aid to the EU reference laboratories for feed and food and the animal health sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the Union\u2019s financial contribution towards inspection measures in the veterinary field. Pursuant to that Decision, the Union is to contribute towards improving the efficiency of veterinary inspections by granting financial aid to EU liaison and EU reference laboratories. It provides that any EU liaison or EU reference laboratory designated as such in accordance with Union veterinary legislation and fulfilling the duties and requirements laid down therein, may receive Union aid.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (2) lays down the general tasks, duties and requirements for EU reference laboratories for food and feed and for animal health and live animals. EU reference laboratories for food and feed are listed in Part I while EU reference laboratories for animal health and live animals are listed in Part II of Annex VII to that Regulation.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 of 28 November 2006 laying down detailed rules for the granting of Community financial assistance to Community reference laboratories for feed and food and the animal health sector (3) lays down the detailed rules for the granting of Union financial aid for the operation of EU reference laboratories, as provided for in Article 31 of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, and for the organisation of workshops.\n(4)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006, the relationship between the Commission and individual EU reference laboratories is to be laid down in partnership agreements. Partnership agreements are to run for 5 years and be supported by a multiannual work programme.\n(5)\nEU reference laboratories are listed in Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. The Joint Research Centre was designated for some of them. As it is a directorate-general of the Commission, this Regulation does not apply. Rules governing the Union financial aid for the Joint Research Centre are laid down in an annual administrative arrangement.\n(6)\nThe level of the annual Union financial aid for the activity of certain EU reference laboratories is decided on a yearly basis by annual financing decisions relating to feed and food safety and animal health and live animals.\n(7)\nIn 2008, the Commission\u2019s Internal Audit Service (IAS) performed an audit on grant management in food safety, animal health and welfare and plant health activity. The IAS concluded that the detailed rules for the granting of Union financial aid to EU reference laboratories for feed and food and the animal health sector should be simplified. To simplify the rules, the IAS suggested that the Commission continue adopting annual financing decisions on a yearly basis but without the need for partnership agreements between the Commission and each individual EU reference laboratory.\n(8)\nMeetings and training activities held by EU reference laboratories need to be regularly organised. Therefore, meetings and training activities should be added to the list of eligible expenditure of this Regulation.\n(9)\nFor financial control purposes, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (4) are applicable.\n(10)\nSince a number of changes are to be made to Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006, that Regulation should be repealed and replaced by this Regulation in the interests of clarity, while taking into account Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\n(11)\nThis Regulation is to apply to all EU reference laboratories whose framework partnership agreements come to an end in 2011 and for EU reference laboratories whose framework partnership agreements are terminated by mutual agreement. For EU reference laboratories whose framework partnership agreements are not terminated, Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 remains applicable.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and Decision 2009/470/EC as regards the arrangements for the granting of Union financial aid provided for in Article 32(7) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and Article 31(1) of Decision 2009/470/EC for the activities of EU reference laboratories (\u2018laboratories\u2019) other than the Joint Research Centre, including for the organisation of workshops, and the conditions according to which that aid is granted.\nThis Regulation shall apply to all EU reference laboratories whose framework partnership agreements come to an end in 2011 and for EU reference laboratories whose framework partnership agreements are terminated by mutual agreement. For EU laboratories whose framework partnership agreements are not terminated, Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 remains applicable.\nArticle 2\nWork programme and estimated budget\n1. The laboratories shall, by 1 September of each calendar year \u2018n\u2019:\n(a)\nset out the Union activities planned during calendar year \u2018n + 1\u2019, including the organisation of workshops, (\u2018the work programme\u2019) in collaboration with the Commission\u2019s services;\n(b)\nsubmit to the Commission:\n(i)\nthe work programme;\n(ii)\nthe estimated budget per activity concerning the work programme\u2019s expenditure (\u2018the estimated budget\u2019).\n2. Laboratories shall provide the estimated budget in computerised form in accordance with Annexes I(a) and I(b).\nArticle 3\nExchange rate\nFor estimated budgets in a currency other than the euro, the Commission shall apply the first exchange rate fixed in September of year \u2018n\u2019, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nApproval\nThe Commission shall adopt an annual financing decision (\u2018the annual financing decision\u2019) approving the work programmes and the corresponding budgets for all laboratories.\nAny amendment to work programmes shall be subject to the Commission\u2019s prior written agreement.\nArticle 5\nPre-financing\nFollowing the adoption by the Commission of the annual financing decision, laboratories may request pre-financing amounting to 70 % of the total aid for their work programme.\nArticle 6\nPayment of the aid\nThe balance of Union financial aid for work programmes shall be paid to laboratories following the approval of the financial and technical reports referred to in Articles 11 and 16 provided that laboratories have:\n(a)\nimplemented the work programme effectively;\n(b)\nsubmitted the financial and technical reports within the time limits provided for in those Articles.\nArticle 7\nSupporting documents\n1. Laboratories shall record the work programme\u2019s expenditure in their cost accounting system and keep all original documents or certified copies for 7 years for financial control purposes.\n2. Laboratories shall keep all original supporting documents or certified copies of the supporting documents relating to the work programme receiving Union financial aid.\n3. The supporting documents, evidencing all the expenditure referred to in the application for reimbursement, shall be sent to the Commission on request.\nArticle 8\nChecks\nFor financial control purposes, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 shall apply.\nCHAPTER II\nACTIVITIES OF THE LABORATORIES, EXCLUDING THE ORGANISATION OF WORKSHOPS\nArticle 9\nDefinition\nThe activities of the laboratories are defined as being the tasks deriving from their responsibilities laid down in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\nArticle 10\nEligibility\n1. Expenditure relating to staff dedicated to the activities of the laboratories, subcontracting, capital equipment, consumables, the shipment of samples for comparative tests, missions, meetings, training activities and overheads shall be eligible under the laboratories\u2019 activities.\n2. The expenditure referred to in paragraph 1 shall be eligible within the limits set out in the relevant annual financing decision and in accordance with the eligibility rules set out in Annex II.\n3. Laboratories shall submit a written request to the Commission for its prior approval to increase the budget of one of the items (staff, subcontracting, capital equipment, consumables, the shipment of samples for comparative tests, missions, meetings or training activities) and/or one of the activities mentioned in the work programme by more than 10 % and without exceeding the total eligible costs stipulated in the annual financing decision.\nArticle 11\nSubmission of reports on the laboratories\u2019 activities\n1. Laboratories shall submit, no later than 31 March of calendar year \u2018n + 2\u2019, to the Commission the following reports:\n(a)\na paper version and an electronic version of their financial report drawn up in accordance with Annexes III(a) and III(b);\n(b)\na technical report of their activities, certified by the laboratory\u2019s technical director.\nHowever, for meetings and training activities, the financial report shall be drawn up and submitted in accordance with Article 16.\nThe postmark shall serve as proof of the date of posting of the financial and technical reports.\n2. Union financial aid may be reduced if the work programme is not effectively and/or entirely executed.\n3. If the financial and technical reports are not sent within the time limit provided for in paragraph 1, Union financial aid shall be reduced.\nIf the submission deadline is exceeded by more than 1 month, Union financial aid shall be reduced by 25 %.\nIf the submission deadline is exceeded by more than 2 months, Union financial aid shall be reduced by 50 %.\nIf the submission deadline is exceeded by more than 3 months, Union financial aid shall be reduced by 75 %.\nIf the submission deadline is exceeded by more than 4 months, Union financial aid shall be reduced by 100 %.\nArticle 12\nExchange rate for payments in a currency other than the euro\nFor requests regarding the payment of balances submitted in a currency other than the euro, the Commission shall apply the first exchange rate fixed in March of year \u2018n\u2019, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union.\nHowever, the exchange rate for requests for the payment of balances for meetings and training activities submitted in a currency other than the euro shall be the rate provided for in Article 17.\nArticle 13\nValue-added tax\nNon-recoverable value-added tax (VAT) paid by laboratories shall be regarded as eligible expenditure pursuant to this Regulation provided that laboratories submit, together with the financial report provided for in Article 11(1), an attestation from the Ministry of Finance of the relevant Member State or from an equivalent authority confirming that the laboratory is not subject or partially subject to VAT and that its area of activity is not subject to this tax.\nCHAPTER III\nORGANISATION OF WORKSHOPS\nArticle 14\nDefinition\nA workshop is an annual date for information and coordination to which all National Reference Laboratories are invited by the laboratories.\nArticle 15\nEligibility\n1. Expenditure relating to travel costs, hotel expenses and daily allowances for a maximum of thirty-two participants in workshops, to which at least one participant per Member State has been invited, shall be eligible under the organisation of workshops.\n2. Additional expenditure relating to travel costs, hotel expenses and daily allowances for a maximum of three invited speakers in workshops shall be eligible under the organisation of workshops.\n3. Additional expenditure relating to travel costs, hotel expenses and daily allowances for a maximum of ten representatives of third countries in workshops shall be eligible under the organisation of workshops.\n4. Workshop expenditure referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be eligible within the limits set out in the annual financing decisions and in accordance with the eligibility rules set out in Annex IV. Derogations from paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 may be granted in duly justified cases pursuant to the annual financing decisions.\nArticle 16\nSubmission of reports on workshops\n1. Laboratories shall submit, no later than 2 months following the workshop, to the Commission the following:\n(a)\na paper version and an electronic version of their financial report on the workshops drawn up in accordance with Annex V;\n(b)\na technical report signed by the laboratory\u2019s technical director.\nThe postmark shall serve as proof of the date of posting of the financial and technical reports.\n2. If the workshops\u2019 financial and technical reports are not sent within the time limit set out in paragraph 1, Union financial aid shall be reduced.\nIf the submission deadline is exceeded by more than 1 month, Union financial aid shall be reduced by 25 %.\nIf the submission deadline is exceeded by more than 2 months, Union financial aid shall be reduced by 50 %.\nIf the submission deadline is exceeded by more than 3 months, Union financial aid shall be reduced by 75 %.\nIf the submission deadline is exceeded by more than 4 months, Union financial aid shall be reduced by 100 %.\nArticle 17\nExchange rate for payments in a currency other than the euro\nFor requests regarding the payment of balances submitted in a currency other than the euro, the Commission shall apply the first exchange rate fixed in the month in which the workshop was held as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union.\nCHAPTER IV\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 18\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 1754/2006 is repealed.\nReferences to Regulation (EC) No 1754/2006 shall be construed as being made to this Regulation.\nArticle 19\nEntry into force and applicability\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply to Union financial aid granted to laboratories from 2012 onwards.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2011.", "references": ["74", "48", "23", "38", "19", "80", "44", "26", "57", "88", "43", "36", "52", "34", "93", "49", "50", "22", "17", "85", "90", "91", "14", "89", "73", "72", "69", "39", "96", "81", "No Label", "4", "15", "66", "77"], "gold": ["4", "15", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 15 September 2010\non the State aid C 26/09 (ex N 289/09) which Latvia is planning to implement for the restructuring of AS Parex banka\n(notified under document C(2010) 6202)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/364/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1),\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 10 November 2008 Latvia notified to the Commission a package of measures in favour of AS Parex banka (hereinafter \u2018Parex banka\u2019), designed to support the stability of the financial system, which was approved on 24 November 2008 (2) (hereinafter \u2018first rescue Decision\u2019) based on Latvia\u2019s commitment to submit a restructuring plan for Parex banka within 6 months. On 26 January 2009, Latvia informed the Commission about several changes to the public support measures to Parex banka. Those changes were approved on 11 February 2009 (3) (hereinafter \u2018second rescue Decision\u2019). On 29 March 2009, Latvia notified to the Commission the need for further changes to the recapitalisation measure. Those changes were approved by Commission Decision of 11 May 2009 (4) (hereinafter \u2018third rescue Decision\u2019).\n(2)\nOn 11 May 2009, Latvia notified a restructuring plan for Parex banka. On 5 June 2009 a request for information was sent to the Latvian authorities. On 15 June 2009 a meeting was held between the Latvian authorities and the Commission. Latvia replied partially to that request for information by letter of 7 July 2009.\n(3)\nBy letter of 29 July 2009, the Commission informed Latvia that it had decided to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU (5) (hereinafter \u2018opening Decision\u2019) in respect of the restructuring aid measures.\n(4)\nThe opening Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 6 October 2009 and interested parties were requested to submit their comments on the proposed restructuring aid measures within 1 month from the date of publication. The Commission received no comments from interested parties. However, after the expiry of the prescribed period, the Commission received letters dated 15 June and 13 July 2010 from Valerijs Kargins and Viktors Krasovickis, the former majority shareholders of Parex banka (hereinafter \u2018former majority shareholders\u2019). Furthermore, the Commission received letters from members of the Latvian parliament dated 22 June and 1 July 2010.\n(5)\nBy letter of 12 August 2009, the Latvian authorities requested that the deadline for the submission of additional information set in the opening Decision be extended until 15 October 2009. On 4 September 2009 they presented a revised restructuring plan for Parex banka along with additional information as a response to the opening Decision. The revised restructuring plan was further updated on 22 September 2009 and additional information was provided. Meetings were held between the Latvian authorities and the Commission on 11 and 17 September 2009.\n(6)\nIn addition, Latvia provided further information and clarifications on 11 September, 6 and 26 October, 9 and 23 December 2009, 19 February and 2 March 2010.\n(7)\nOn 12 and 26 October 2009 Latvia provided information regarding a potential change of the restructuring strategy for Parex banka. On 22 March 2010 a meeting was held between the Commission and the Latvian authorities. By letter of 31 March 2010 Latvia submitted a new version of Parex banka\u2019s restructuring plan dated 31 March 2010, which was later complemented by submissions dated 14 May, 9, 12, 17 and 21 June 2010.\n(8)\nThe Commission requested further information on 10 May 2010. Latvia replied by letter of 7 July 2010. With this letter Latvia submitted also an updated version of the restructuring plan of 31 March 2010. The restructuring plan was subsequently amended on 18 and 27 August 2010 (hereinafter \u2018final restructuring plan\u2019).\n(9)\nBy letter of 2, 18 and 27 August and 2 September 2010 Latvia provided additional clarifications regarding the commitments to be undertaken. On 3 September 2010, the Commission received a final list of commitments.\n(10)\nOn 2 September 2010, the Latvian authorities informed the Commission that they exceptionally accept that this Decision be adopted in the English language.\n2. DESCRIPTION\n2.1. THE BENEFICIARY AND ITS DIFFICULTIES\n(11)\nParex banka was the second largest bank in Latvia with total assets of LVL 3,4 billion (EUR 4,9 billion) as of 31 December 2008. At the end of 2007, before the crisis, the bank had the largest share (18 %) of the country\u2019s deposits market and the third largest share (12 %) of its lending market (6). Therefore, it was regarded as being of systemic importance for the financial system by the Latvian authorities.\n(12)\nParex banka offered a wide range of banking products directly and through specialised subsidiaries, including lending, payment card services, leasing, asset management and securities brokerage. In addition to its Latvian banking operations, Parex banka operated a banking subsidiary in Lithuania and Switzerland (AP Anlage & Privatbank AG) and branches in Estonia, Sweden and Germany, a pan-Baltic asset manager and several leasing companies operating in the Commonwealth of Independent States (hereinafter \u2018CIS\u2019).\n(13)\nParex banka was founded in 1992 and was majority-owned by two individuals who prior to the State intervention held 84,83 % of the bank\u2019s share capital. As a result of the problems it faced, Parex banka was partially nationalised through the acquisition of the entire ownership of the former majority shareholders at a symbolic total purchase price of 2 LVL (approx. 3 EUR) (7). In April 2009, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (hereinafter \u2018EBRD\u2019) concluded a share purchase agreement, whereby the EBRD would acquire 25 % of the share capital of Parex banka plus one share (8).\n(14)\nAlthough Parex banka has historically been a profitable institution with a strong banking franchise in Latvia, the bank\u2019s management chose an inadequate business strategy and made some high-risk decisions in the face of intense competition from more sophisticated subsidiaries of foreign banks. In particular, Parex banka became increasingly involved in the CIS markets, relying excessively on large, short-term non-resident deposits. The financial crisis severely affected emerging markets including the CIS countries, and rumours circulated regarding the ability of Parex banka to refinance its syndicated loans maturing in February 2009. A combination of these events resulted in a loss of depositor confidence especially among non-resident clients prompting a run on the bank. The bank run reached a peak daily outflow of up to EUR 100 million and was not halted by the bank\u2019s partial nationalisation. It resulted in a fall in deposits of 36 % compared to the end of 2007, causing severe liquidity crisis. To prevent a further outflow of deposits, restrictions on withdrawals were imposed by the Latvian regulator, the Finance and Capital Markets Commission.\n(15)\nIn 2008, consolidated losses were LVL 131 million (EUR 185 million) compared to a profit of LVL 40 million (EUR 58 million) in 2007. By the end of 2008 total shareholders\u2019 equity was 65 % lower than the previous year, amounting to LVL 77 million, mainly because of increased loan loss provisions and losses on the securities portfolio. The capital adequacy ratio (hereinafter \u2018CAR\u2019) of Parex banka on solo basis and at group level (9) was only 4,1 % and 3,1 % respectively. Therefore, Parex banka was no longer able to meet regulatory solvency requirements.\n2.2. THE RESCUE MEASURES ALREADY APPROVED\n(16)\nParex banka sought State assistance in early November 2008. Following its nationalisation, Latvia decided to implement rescue measures that provisionally stabilised Parex banka. Overall, the European Commission temporarily approved as rescue aid: (i) a liquidity facility up to LVL 1,5 billion; (ii) State guarantees covering existing syndicated loans in the amount of EUR 775 million and new loans issued to refinance a syndicated loan in the amount of EUR 275 million; and (iii) recapitalisation measures, allowing Parex banka to reach a CAR of 11 % during the rescue phase (10).\n2.3. THE RESTRUCTURING PLANS\n2.3.1. THE INITIAL RESTRUCTURING PLAN\n(17)\nOn 11 May 2009, Latvia submitted a restructuring plan for Parex banka as a follow-up to the first recapitalisation measures (hereinafter the \u2018initial restructuring plan\u2019), the contents of which were described in more detail in section 2.4 of the opening Decision.\n(18)\nThe plan contained a preliminary analysis of the business of Parex banka, the restructuring aid measures envisaged, its future business strategy and measures to restore viability.\n(19)\nThe plan covered a period from 2009 to 2013. Corporate, retail and wealth management business (11) were deemed to be the future core segments of Parex banka. The plan foresaw the implementation of a new strategy with Parex banka aiming to become a leading pan-Baltic bank. All \u2018non-Baltic\u2019 activities were considered as non-core. However, the plan excluded their possible sale in the short- to mid-term.\n(20)\nThe envisaged business strategy included attractive rates and an aggressive marketing strategy to support the growth of Parex banka and regain the lost deposit base. The plan assumed that Parex banka would remain dependent on State liquidity measures even beyond the restructuring period.\n2.3.2. THE REVISED RESTRUCTURING PLAN\n(21)\nOn 4 September 2009, Latvia submitted a revised restructuring plan which was subsequently amended on 22 September 2009. This plan was aimed at addressing doubts raised by the Commission in the opening Decision.\n(22)\nThe revised strategy for Parex banka was also based on building a strong Baltics operation across corporate, retail and wealth management business. The revised plan foresaw that Parex banka would be able to repay all State liquidity measures by the end of the restructuring period.\n(23)\nUnlike the initial restructuring plan, however, the revised plan included a decrease in Parex banka\u2019s balance sheet through focusing on core segments. In particular, it envisaged the shrinkage of Parex banka\u2019s lending activity.\n(24)\nFurthermore, the plan indicated the possibility to spin off non-core activities. When Latvia later endorsed this strategic change, it was necessary to draw up a new corresponding version of the restructuring plan.\n2.3.3. THE FINAL RESTRUCTURING PLAN\n(25)\nAccording to the final restructuring plan, the primary strategic objective is to return the bank to the private sector through its sale to a strategic investor providing a release of funding arrangements from the State while ensuring the long-term viability of the bank. Latvia has already attracted the EBRD as a strong reputable external investor with sufficient financial resources and a long-term commitment (see recital 13).\n(26)\nThe final restructuring plan assumes the split of Parex banka\u2019s assets into a newly established bank named AS Citadele banka (hereinafter \u2018Citadele banka\u2019), so-called \u2018good bank\u2019, which will focus on the traditional banking operations, and a so-called \u2018bad bank\u2019 (Parex banka), [\u2026] (12).\n(27)\nIn order to re-establish long-term viability, the core bank will be separated from non-core and non-performing assets. The proposed restructuring is based on a \u2018good-out\u2019 scenario based on the establishment of a bank with a resilient capital base under Latvian regulatory oversight and with a Baltics focus. All core assets and some non-core assets (in particular CIS performing loans) are transferred out of Parex banka into the newly established bank. The remaining non-core and non-performing assets (loans, securities and repossessed real estate) will remain with Parex banka, [\u2026].\n(28)\nTable 1 illustrates the structures of Citadele banka and Parex banka after the split.\nTable 1\nShareholders structure after the split\n(29)\nLatvia has already taken initial steps to implement the \u2018good-out\u2019 scenario. The new bank, Citadele banka, was registered on 30 June 2010 and most of the assets were transferred on 1 August 2010 (13). In principle, the full operational separation of Citadele banka and Parex banka should be completed within 12 months after the transfer.\n(30)\nIn consequence, the following assets and liabilities will be transferred from Parex banka to Citadele banka:\n-\nBaltic performing loans (LVL [between 300 and 800] million),\n-\nCIS performing loans (LVL [between 50 and 350] million),\n-\nBranches in Sweden and Germany,\n-\nWealth management business-related deposits.\n(31)\nThe following assets and liabilities will remain in Parex banka:\n-\nBaltic non-performing loans (LVL [between 200 and 800] million) (14),\n-\nLoans to legacy shareholders (LVL [\u2026] million),\n-\nCIS leasing subsidiaries,\n-\nCIS non-performing loans (LVL [between 50 and 350] million).\n(32)\nTable 2 illustrates the assets that are transferred to Citadele banka and those left in Parex banka, as well as the reduction of the balance sheet as per pre-crisis, as estimated in the final restructuring plan and amended on 27 August 2010:\nTable 2\nSplit of assets between Citadele banka and Parex banka\n(in LVL thousand)\nParex banka - 2008\nParex banka - 2009\nParex banka - 31.7.2010 (15)\nCitadele banka\nParex banka after the split (16)\nAssets\nCash and deposits with central banks\n79 154\n136 769\n131 693\n119 783\n30 876\nBalances due from credit Institutions\n228 752\n189 321\n227 741\n245 069\n5 583\nLoans\n1 744 871\n1 429 466\n1 355 831\n748 457\n627 471\nSecurities\n941 293\n405 800\n356 439\n224 735\n130 936\nInvestment in subsidiaries\n51 442\n72 725\n81 691\n5 530\n51 962\nOther assets\n323 797\n220 097\n75 584\n45 604\n52 747\nTotal Assets\n3 369 309\n2 484 501\n2 228 978\n1 389 179\n899 576\nLiabilities and Equity\nBank of Latvia\n587 183\n140 449\n-\n-\n-\nCredit Institutions\n129 584\n50 865\n27 295\n41 571\n51 703\nSyndicate\n544 673\n381 271\n163 402\n-\n163 402\nState Treasury\n676 398\n622 048\n692 454\n131 000\n458 454\nCustomer Deposits\n1 225 488\n911 318\n1 006 202\n928 686\n75 314\nEurobond\n88 712\n87 489\n113 136\n109 244\n-\nSubordinated (Legacy)\n52 848\n52 857\n52 863\n-\n52 878\nSubordinated (State)\n-\n37 338\n37 338\n50 270\n-\nSubordinated (EBRD)\n-\n12 932\n12 932\nOther Liabilities\n35 556\n31 458\n34 754\n30 280\n21 522\nTotal Liabilities\n3 340 442\n2 328 025\n2 140 376\n1 291 051\n823 274\nEquity\n28 867\n156 476\n88 602\n98 127 (17)\n76 302\nTotal\n3 369 309\n2 484 501\n2 228 978\n1 389 179\n899 576\nSplit Ratio, including the transfer of investments in Lithuanian subsidiary, in AP Anlage & Privatbank AG and deposits in German branch (18)\n64 %\n36 %\nIn terms of Parex banka - 2008\n44 %\n(33)\nCitadele banka\u2019s strategy to ensure long-term viability is based on building a strong Baltics operations, focusing on Latvia across the three main business segments: Corporate, Retail and wealth management business (19). However, the wealth management business will remain as a core business of Citadele banka only if the bank is sold by [\u2026]. If that sale is not achieved, the wealth management business will be sold separately by the same date.\n(34)\nCitadele banka will not engage in CIS lending and the CIS performing loan portfolio is hence deemed non-core. No new lending will be done in this segment and the existing portfolio will be disposed of by [\u2026].\n(35)\nParex banka\u2019s presence in Lithuania and Estonia was considerably more limited than in Latvia. Citadele banka also plans to retain a limited presence in these markets in the future.\n(36)\nAs regards the two deposit-taking branches in Sweden and Germany transferred to Citadele Banka, Latvia explained that as a result of the run on the bank a significant share of Baltic funding of the bank has been depleted. Further, in the current macroeconomic context of Latvia it is difficult to attract external funding. The total deposits of the residents in the Baltic states are significantly lower than the loan portfolio thereof, whereas Parex banka\u2019s main competitors receive funding from their parent companies established in other countries (mostly Sweden). Thus, Citadele banka has to retain some funding base abroad (in Sweden and Germany).\n(37)\nCitadele banka intends to address the issues that forced Parex banka to seek State aid and to restore long-term viability through the key measures as follows.\n(38)\nChanging of management style and corporate governance: Prior to nationalisation, Parex banka\u2019s decision-making processes were centralised with the main owners. Citadele banka will adhere to the enhanced corporate governance recently adopted. It will implement a set of procedures of Management Board and Supervisory Board aimed to ensure high corporate governance standards. Key corporate governance principles of Citadele banka are: strict separation of ownership and management; ensuring the rights of shareholders; disclosure and transparency; responsibilities and structure of the board; and promoting ethical and responsible decision-making.\n(39)\nEnhanced risk management: The management of Parex banka has reviewed and strengthened risk management and controls within the bank both at the enterprise and operational level across all major risk categories (market, credit and operational risks). In particular, credit risk controls in Citadele banka will be substantially re-configured, to change the previous approach of Parex banka, namely collateral-based lending with inherently uncertain valuations, to cash flow-based evaluations of the borrower\u2019s debt service capacity. Risk management is an essential element of Citadele banka\u2019s management process. Risk management within Citadele banka is controlled by independent unit. In addition, the Supervisory Board of Citadele banka takes part in risk management supervision and has elected one of its members to be responsible for the supervision of risk management, internal audit and compliance function. Monthly risk reports are prepared for the Supervisory Board, which include update on credit risk and compliance in the bank.\n(40)\nSmaller balance sheet focused on core segments: The core business of Citadele banka will be in the Baltics and the management\u2019s focus will be to return Citadele banka to profitability in this region. The non-core CIS performing loan portfolio will be transferred to Citadele banka, but will be sold by [\u2026]. By refocusing on its core activities and by materially reducing the size of its active balance sheet, Citadele banka will be profitable in a sustainable manner.\n(41)\nStabilisation of liquidity position: The strategy of Citadele banka is to develop a sustainable, low-risk funding model by reducing reliance on wholesale financing, lengthening the maturity profile and diversifying the sources of funding through increasing the proportion of longer-term customer deposits in Citadele banka\u2019s funding base. The deposits in Citadele banka are not subject to withdrawal restrictions imposed by the Latvian regulator.\n(42)\nReturn to profitability in the core segment by 2011: Citadele banka plans to decrease administrative costs and personnel expenses as well as other administrative costs. Administrative costs of Parex banka have already been decreased by 39 % or LVL 32 million per 2009. Citadele banka\u2019s cost/income ratio is expected to decrease even further, and stand at [between 35 and 55] % in 2014. That decrease will be achieved through [\u2026] cuts in personnel expenses as well as by reviewing different processes within Citadele banka. In order to reduce its operational costs and become financially stable, Citadele banka will continue steps already initiated by Parex banka to rebuild the cost structure through optimisation of the branch network, [\u2026] and other cost-saving measures. Cost-cutting will be supplemented with various income increasing initiatives and focus on asset quality management in order to improve return on equity (hereinafter, \u2018ROE\u2019).\n(43)\nAccording to the projections included in the final restructuring plan, in the base case Citadele banka would expect to return to profitability already in 2011 and to continuously improve its results until 2015. In 2014 Citadele banka would achieve a ROE of [between 18 and 28] %. Further, Table 3 illustrates the main financial performance indicators of Citadele banka for the years 2010-2014. The effects of the restructuring actions carried out by the bank\u2019s management are visible in the 2014 key ratios with a cost/income ratio of [between 35 and 55] % and a ROE of [between 18 and 28] %. A more solid capital structure would be established with equity/total assets ratio of [between 8 and 14] % in 2015.\nTable 3\nThe main financial performance indicators of Citadele banka in the base case for the years 2010-2014\nAug-Dec 2010e\n2011e\n2012e\n2013e\n2014e\nCost analysis\nOperating expenses/total income\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[35-55] %\nImpairments/net loans\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[1-3] %\nProfitability\nNet Income (Loss), in LVL million\n[loss]\n[profit]\n[profit]\n[profit]\n[profit]\nROE\n[-] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[18-28] %\nBalance sheet\nTotal assets (LVL million)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[1,400-1,650]\nDeposits/total assets\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\nLoans/customer deposits\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[50-80] %\nEquity/total assets\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[9-13] %\nCAR\n[10-14] %\n[11-15] %\n[12-16] %\n[14-19] %\n[16-20] %\n(44)\nIn a worst case scenario Citadele banka is expected to return to profitability in 2013 and to improve its results further in 2014. In 2014 the bank would achieve a ROE of [> 0] % (20). The plan shows that in the worst case scenario the capital ratios for Citadele banka and for the whole consolidated group remain well above the minimum regulatory requirements. Table 4 illustrates the main financial performance indicators of Citadele banka for the years 2010-2014 in the worst case scenario.\nTable 4\nThe main financial performance indicators of Citadele banka in the worst case scenario for the years 2010-2014\nAug-Dec 2010e\n2011e\n2012e\n2013e\n2014e\nCost analysis\nOperating expenses/total income\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[45-60] %\nProfitability\nNet Income (Loss), in LVL million\n[loss]\n[loss]\n[loss]\n[profit]\n[profit]\nROE\n-\n[\u2026] %\n[> 0] %\nBalance sheet\nLoans/customer deposits\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n[40-60] %\nCAR\n[> 8] %\n[> 8] %\n[> 8] %\n[> 8] %\n[> 8] %\n(45)\nAccording to the results of a stress testing of Citadele banka (See Table 5) carried out by the Latvian Central Bank, no additional capital would be needed to meet minimum capital requirements by the end of 2015 with the capital adequacy ratio [> 8 %].\nTable 5\nThe stress testing results for Citadele banka\nNew Bank\nBaseline scenario\nAdditional provisions needed, million LVL\nAdditional capital needed, million LVL\nCAR, %\n2010\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2011\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2012\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2013\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n2014\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(46)\nAfter the split Parex banka (including its subsidiaries) will be in [\u2026]. It will sell and run off all of its assets during the 2010-2017 period. The main task of Parex banka will be to recover the maximum amount from the assets assigned to it over its lifetime, which for forecasting purposes is assumed to be 8 years. Parex banka will thus avoid the need for a fire-sale of a portfolio or a time-pressured realisation of collateral. Parex banka will concentrate on working out non-performing loans together with already repossessed real estate assets. Hence, the main activities of Parex banka are to handle the asset recovery procedures and thereafter manage and sell off assets in an orderly fashion as soon as possible on reasonable terms.\n(47)\nFollowing the split, neither Parex banka nor its subsidiaries will engage in new economic activities unless required for its primary task to manage transferred assets and to sell them. In particular, Parex banka will stop new loan origination. However, it can unbundle certain assets into separate subsidiaries for management (sale) purposes.\n(48)\nAs regards funding of the CIS leasing companies, Parex will attempt to dispose of these businesses. As mentioned above, no new loans, including leasing, are being made and, if no buyers are found, the existing leasing portfolios are expected to be fully run-down by [\u2026]. A significant proportion of the leasing portfolios are [\u2026].\n(49)\nThese actions collectively are expected to result in an inflow of liquidity into Parex banka whereby it will start returning the State deposits. However, the capital invested in the Bank will not be recovered by the State, on the basis of the financial forecasts.\n(50)\nThe restructuring plan envisages that Parex banka remains capital compliant only until [\u2026].\n(51)\nParex banka has suffered from a continuous deposit run. As a result, the deposit base presently is significantly lower than prior to the crisis. The lending activities were also significantly constrained due to the lack of funding. The Latvian authorities commit to cap Citadele banka\u2019s lending and deposit-taking operations in the relevant geographical segments (see section 2.5 below). The capped lending and deposit-taking operations will not allow a higher increase than [between 9 and 13] % on a yearly basis from the already reduced market presence.\n(52)\nThe restructuring plan envisages the reduction of business activities of Citadele banka compared to Parex banka pre-crisis. That reduction will be partly achieved by divesting certain assets (the performing CIS loans and the wealth management business, if sold separately from Citadele banka). Furthermore, Latvia committed to privatise Citadele banka by 31 December 2014.\n(53)\nAs a result of nationalisation, the former majority shareholders in Parex banka were wiped out (see recital 13). Due to the subsequent recapitalisation of Parex banka by the State and the EBRD, the minority shareholders were diluted (from previous 15,2 % to 3,7 % as at 7 July 2010).\n2.4. THE RESTRUCTURING AID MEASURES\n(54)\nThe final restructuring plan indicates that the existing rescue aid will be extended over the restructuring period and split between the newly created bank, Citadele banka, and Parex banka. Some additional State aid is planned in addition to that already received.\n(55)\nThe planned liquidity support in the form of State deposits for both Citadele banka and Parex banka will not exceed the amount of LVL 1,5 billion, which was approved as maximum rescue aid in the form of liquidity support for Parex banka before the split (21). In the base case and worst case scenarios State deposits in Citadele banka should be repaid by 2012. In the best case scenario State deposits should be fully repaid by 2011. The State deposits in Parex banka remain outstanding at the end of the restructuring period under the base and worst case scenarios. Unpaid amounts ranges from LVL [0-100] million (the base case scenario) to LVL [100-200] million (the worst case scenario). The repayment can take place earlier in case of a sale of beneficiaries or their assets. The outstanding balances under different scenarios are shown in Table 6.\nTable 6\nState liquidity measures (outstanding balances at year end)\nCitadele banka\n(LVL million)\n1.8.10\n31.12.10\n31.12.11\n31.12.12\n31.12.13\n31.12.14\nBase case\n131\n143\n36\n0\n-\n-\nBest case\n131\n143\n-\n-\n-\n-\nWorst case\n131\n143\n36\n0\n-\n-\nParex banka\n(LVL million)\n1.8.10\n31.12.10\n31.12.11\n31.12.12\n31.12.13\n31.12.14\n31.12.15\n31.12.16\n31.12.17\nBase case\n[400-550]\n[400-550]\n[400-550]\n[250-400]\n[250-400]\n[150-400]\n[150-400]\n[100-250]\n[0-100]\nBest case\n[400-550]\n[400-550]\n[400-550]\n[250-400]\n[250-400]\n[150-400]\n[150-400]\n[100-250]\n0\nWorst case\n[400-550]\n[400-550]\n[400-550]\n[250-400]\n[250-400]\n[150-400]\n[150-400]\n[100-250]\n[100-200]\n(56)\nThe remuneration of the liquidity was fixed in the second rescue Decision on the basis of the European Central Bank Recommendations of 20 October 2008 on government guarantees on bank debt. According to the restructuring plan, pricing for both Citadele banka and Parex banka will be determined as State funding costs (22) plus a 50 bps add-on fee. In addition, an incentive fee will be introduced for Citadele banka - starting from April 2011 the fee will be increased by up to 15 bps each quarter as an incentive for the bank to refinance itself on the markets.\n(57)\nThe projected cost of State liquidity support as compared to that of customer deposits in Citadele banka is shown in Table 7.\nTable 7\nCost of State deposits in Citadele banka as compared to cost of customer deposits\n(%)\n2010e\n2011e\n2012e\n2013e\nCost of liquidity support\n9,6\n5,4\n6,5\n7,9\nCost of customer deposits\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(58)\nAfter the split, the existing guarantees to Parex banka\u2019s syndicated lenders, as approved under the first and second rescue Decisions, will remain in Parex banka along with the syndicated loans. The restructuring plan envisages that they will be terminated by 31 December 2011, without requiring the government to honour its guarantee.\n(59)\nIn March 2010, Parex banka signed an agreement with the European Investment Bank (hereinafter \u2018EIB\u2019), which will provide a credit line of up to EUR 100 million to be used to provide finance to small and medium-sized enterprises. The credit line is to be transferred to Citadele banka. The EIB requires a State guarantee for this financing as long as Citadele banka remains below investment grade.\n(60)\nCitadele banka may also need additional State guarantees or liquidity of up to LVL 88 million (EUR 126 million) in respect of the outstanding Eurobonds, which expire in May 2011.\n(61)\nThe pricing for State guarantees is that approved in the second rescue Decision (23). As regards the pricing of the potential additional State guarantees included in the restructuring plan, it will be benchmarked to the existing State guarantee (1,048 %) plus a step-up add-on fee of 12,5 bps which will be introduced and increased by 12,5 bps at the end of each quarter.\n(62)\nThe restructuring plan assumes that the equity capital (Tier 1) already injected into Parex banka during the rescue period will remain in Parex banka.\n(63)\nAccording to the restructuring plan no additional capital will be required from the State except for:\n(a)\na capitalisation of LVL 103 million by way of conversion of State deposits into equity in Citadele banka at the time of the split. Remuneration of this capital should be achieved through the sale of Citadele banka that Latvia has undertaken to carry out by end of 2014;\n(b)\nand a capitalisation by way of conversion of some of the State deposits and interest on those deposits in Parex banka in the years 2010-2013 up to an amount of maximum LVL 210,7 million in the base case and LVL 218,7 million in the worst case. Parex banka is envisaged to pay [\u2026] % per annum interest on State deposits capitalised after the split until 31 December 2013. From 2014 onwards capitalised State deposits will be charged to the profit/loss account at [\u2026] %.\n(64)\nThe respective amounts of the Tier 1 capital to be provided by the State to Parex banka under different scenarios are shown in Tables 8 and 9.\nTable 8\nProjected capitalisation of State deposits in Parex banka\n(LVL million)\n31.7.10\n31.12.10\n31.12.11\n31.12.12\n31.12.13\n31.12.14\n31.12.15\n31.12.16\n31.12.17\nBase case\n-\n-\n[10-30]\n[30-60]\n[0-20]\n-\n-\n-\n-\nBest case\n-\n-\n[10-30]\n[30-60]\n[0-20]\n-\n-\n-\n-\nWorst case\n-\n-\n[10-30]\n[30-60]\n[0-20]\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTable 9\nDeferred/capitalised State Treasury Interest in Parex banka\n(LVL million)\n31.7.10\n31.12.10\n31.12.11\n31.12.12\n31.12.13\n31.12.14\n31.12.15\n31.12.16\n31.12.17\nBase case\n-\n[0-10]\n[20-40]\n[20-40]\n[20-40]\n-\n-\n-\n-\nBest case\n-\n[0-10]\n[20-40]\n[20-40]\n[20-40]\n-\n-\n-\n-\nWorst case\n-\n[0-10]\n[20-40]\n[20-40]\n[20-40]\n-\n-\n-\n-\n(65)\nLatvia committed that the maximum total amount of capital provided to Parex banka must not exceed LVL 218,7 million and that it shall not provide directly or indirectly any further capital in whatever form to Parex banka after the end of [\u2026].\n(66)\nThe projected repayment of the principal of the State deposits and the interests by Parex banka is shown in Table 10.\nTable 10\nProjected repayment of the principal of the State deposits and the interest by Parex banka\n(in LVL million)\nBase case\nWorst case\nPrincipal repayment of the State deposit\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nInterest repayment on the State deposit\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nTotal\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(67)\nThe rescue aid in the form of the subordinated loan (Tier 2 capital) will be transferred to Citadele banka. The remuneration was fixed in the second and third rescue Decisions (24) on the basis of the European Central Bank Recommendations of 20 November 2008 for pricing recapitalisation instruments. As of December 2009 fixed interest for the subordinated loan was [\u2026] %, after February 2010 it was increased to [\u2026] %.\n(68)\nNo Tier 2 capital was or will be provided to Parex banka by the State at or after the split.\n(69)\nAs described in recitals 27-32, certain assets will be transferred from Parex banka to Citadele banka, which will continue some Parex banka activities while non-core and non-performing assets will remain in Parex banka. As regards the value of assets remaining in Parex banka, an assessment on a conservative basis based on the worst case scenario would arrive at losses for the State of LVL [200-400] million and LVL [50-300] million in the base case scenario. The losses would correspond to around [20-50] % of the assets\u2019 book value (of LVL 814 million) in the worst case scenario and around [\u2026] % in the base case scenario. If provisioning figures are taken into account the discount on the nominal value of assets would be even bigger.\n(70)\nThe respective estimates of outstanding liabilities and lost State equity after the liquidation of assets in Parex banka are shown in Table 11.\nTable 11\nThe outstanding liabilities and lost State equity after the liquidation of assets in Parex banka\n(LVL million)\nBase case\nOutstanding State deposit\n[0-100]\nRecapitalisation by the State\n[\u2026]\nTotal\n[50-300]\nWorst case\nOutstanding State deposit\n[100-200]\nRecapitalisation by the State\n[\u2026]\nTotal\n[200-400]\n2.5. COMMITMENTS OF LATVIA\n(71)\nIn order to enable the Commission to find the restructuring aid to Citadele banka and Parex banka compatible with the internal market, on 3 September 2010 Latvia provided \u2018Commitments to the European Commission\u2019, a document signed by Latvia, Citadele banka and Parex banka containing commitments aiming at ensuring full implementation of the restructuring plan and limiting distortions of competition that result from the restructuring aid (hereinafter \u2018the commitments\u2019). The main commitments are described hereunder.\n2.5.1. COMMITMENTS REGARDING CITADELE BANKA\n(72)\nCommitment to divest the CIS loans. Citadele banka shall divest or procure the divestiture of the CIS loans by [\u2026] to a purchaser and on terms of sale approved by the Commission. To carry out the divestiture, Citadele banka shall find a purchaser and enter into a final binding sale and purchase agreement for the sale of the CIS loans by no later than [\u2026]. If Citadele banka has not entered into such an agreement by this date, it shall grant the divestiture trustee an exclusive mandate to sell the CIS loans by [\u2026].\n(73)\nCommitment to divest the wealth management business. The wealth management business shall be divested by [\u2026] as a going concern to a purchaser and on terms of sale approved by the Commission. To this end, by no later than [\u2026]:\n(a)\nLatvia must find a purchaser and enter into a final binding sale and purchase agreement for the sale of 100 % of its participation in Citadele banka including the wealth management business; or\n(b)\nCitadele banka must find a purchaser and enter into a final binding sale and purchase agreement for the sale of the wealth management business separately from the rest of Citadele banka.\nIf the wealth management business is not divested, along with Citadele banka or separately, by [\u2026], Citadele banka shall grant the divestiture trustee an exclusive mandate to sell the wealth management business separately from the rest of Citadele banka by [\u2026].\n(74)\nPreservation of viability, marketability and competitiveness. Until the closing of the sale of the wealth management business, Citadele banka shall preserve the economic viability, marketability and competitiveness of the wealth management business in accordance with good business practice, and shall minimise as far as possible any risk of loss of its competitive potential.\n(75)\nHold separate obligation. Until the closing of the sale of the wealth management business, Citadele banka shall keep the wealth management business separately from the businesses it is retaining and ensure that key personnel of the wealth management business have no involvement in any business retained and vice versa. Citadele banka shall appoint the hold separate manager who shall be responsible for overseeing the management of the wealth management business under the supervision of the monitoring trustee. The hold separate manager shall manage the wealth management business independently and in the best interest of the business with a view to ensuring its continued economic viability, marketability and competitiveness and its independence from the business retained by Citadele banka.\n(76)\nCommitment to sell Citadele banka. Latvia shall dispose or procure the disposal of Citadele banka by 31 December 2015 to a purchaser and on terms of sale approved by the Commission. To carry out the disposal, Latvia shall find a purchaser and enter into a final binding sale and purchase agreement for the sale of Citadele banka by no later than 31 December 2014. To carry out this commitment, Latvia must sell all the shares held directly or indirectly (including through public undertakings), in Citadele banka. If Latvia has not entered into such an agreement by 31 December 2014, Latvia shall grant the Divestiture Trustee an exclusive mandate to sell Citadele banka by 31 December 2015.\n(77)\nCaps on new lending and deposits in the Baltic countries. In Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia Citadele banka and its Affiliated Undertakings shall cap:\n(a)\ntheir new gross lending in terms of volume and market shares in lending in terms of total loan portfolio for Citadele banka and AB \u2018Citadele\u2019 bankas (25); and\n(b)\ntheir deposit balances in terms of both volume and market shares,\nto the maximum allowed amounts provided in Tables 12-17.\nLatvian market\nTable 12\nCaps on lending in Latvia\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\nGross new core lending (LVL million)\n[28-40]\n[115-165]\n[120-175]\n[130-190]\n[145-210]\n[160-230]\nMarket share for core loans (without CIS loans) in terms of share of loan portfolio to total loans in Latvia (%)\n[< 5] %\n[< 6] %\n[< 6] %\n[< 6] %\n[< 7] %\n[< 7] %\nGross new private capital management sector (PCM) (26) lending (LVL million)\n[0-4]\n[9-13]\n[9,5-14]\n[10-15]\n[11-17]\n[12,5-18]\nTable 13\nCaps on deposit balances in Latvia\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\nCore deposit balance (without PCM deposits) (LVL million)\n[550-790]\n[600-860]\n[660-950]\n[720-1045]\n[795-1150]\n[875-1260]\nMarket share for core deposits (%)\n[< 7] %\n[< 8] %\n[< 8] %\n[< 8] %\n[< 8] %\n[< 8] %\nPCM deposit balance (LVL million)\n[340-490]\n[405-585]\n[375-540]\n[410-590]\n[440-630]\n[475-685]\nMarket shares for PCM deposits (%)\n[< 5] %\n[< 5] %\n[< 5] %\n[< 5] %\n[< 5] %\n[< 5] %\nLithuanian market\nTable 14\nCaps on lending in Lithuania\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\nGross new lending (LVL million)\n[19-27]\n[36,5-53]\n[40-58]\n[44-63]\n[48-70]\n[53-76]\nMarket share in terms of share of loan portfolio to total loans in Lithuania (%)\n[< 2,5] %\n[< 2,5] %\n[< 2,5] %\n[< 3] %\n[< 3] %\n[< 3] %\nTable 15\nCaps on total deposit balances in Lithuania\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\nTotal deposit balance (LVL million)\n[115-170]\n[130-185]\n[140-205]\n[155-225]\n[170-245]\n[190-270]\nMarket share (%)\n[< 3] %\n[< 3] %\n[< 3] %\n[< 4] %\n[< 4] %\n[< 4] %\nEstonian market\nTable 16\nCaps on lending in Estonia\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\nGross new lending (LVL million)\n[3,2-4,6]\n[7-10]\n[7,6-11]\n[8-12]\n[9-13]\n[10-14]\nMarket share in terms of share of loan portfolio to total loans in Estonia (%)\n[< 1,5] %\n[< 1,5] %\n[< 1,5] %\n[< 1,5] %\n[< 1,5] %\n[< 1,5] %\nTable 17\nCaps on total deposit balances in Estonia\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\nTotal deposit balance (LVL million)\n[85-125]\n[95-135]\n[105-150]\n[115-165]\n[125-180]\n[135-195]\nMarket share (%)\n[< 1] %\n[< 1,5] %\n[< 2,5] %\n[< 2,5] %\n[< 2,5] %\n[< 2,5] %\n(78)\nCaps on the deposits for German and Swedish branches. Citadele banka shall cap its deposit balances in the German and Swedish branches in terms of both volume and respective market shares to the maximum allowed amounts provided in Tables 18 and 19.\nTable 18\nCaps on total deposit balances for the German branch\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\nTotal deposit balance (LVL million)\n[47-69]\n[50-75]\n[60-85]\n[65-90]\n[70-100]\n[80-110]\nMarket share (%)\n[< 0,5] %\n[< 0,5] %\n[< 0,5] %\n[< 0,5] %\n[< 0,5] %\n[< 0,5] %\nTable 19\nCaps on total deposit balances for the Swedish branch\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\nTotal deposit balance (LVL million)\n[35-50]\n[40-55]\n[40-60]\n[45-70]\n[50-75]\n[55-80]\nMarket share (%)\n[< 0,5] %\n[< 0,5] %\n[< 0,5] %\n[< 0,5] %\n[< 0,5] %\n[< 0,5] %\n(79)\nNo increase in the number of branches: Citadele banka shall not increase the total number of branches. This, however, does not prevent Citadele banka from reallocating some of its branches.\n(80)\nThe Commitments referred to in recitals 77-79 shall apply until both the full repayment of the State aid in the form of liquidity measures provided by Latvia to Citadele banka and the closing of the sale of Citadele banka have taken place, and until [\u2026] at least. If the wealth management business is sold separately from the rest of Citadele banka, the caps regarding the PCM (a part of wealth management business) loans and deposits referred to in recital 77 shall cease to apply after the closing of the separate sale of the wealth management business.\n(81)\nRemuneration in respect of the asset relief measure: Citadele banka shall remunerate Latvia for the asset relief up to the amount of estimated losses to Latvia in the worst case scenario being the sum of the liquidity measures provided by Latvia potentially to be lost at the end of assets\u2019 realisation (LVL [100-200] million) and the projected total capital to be provided to Parex banka as from the transfer date (LVL [\u2026] million). The remuneration shall take the form of costs in the profit and loss account, i.e. before the establishment of the annual net income. That remuneration should be paid every year in which Citadele banka\u2019s capital adequacy ratio on solo basis is not lower than 12 % and capital adequacy ratio at group level is not lower than 8 % as long as the relevant amount does not lead to Citadele banka showing losses in the relevant year. This commitment shall apply until the closing of the sale of Citadele banka.\n(82)\nAcquisition ban. Citadele banka shall refrain from acquisitions of both financial and non-financial institutions until both the full repayment of restructuring aid in the form of liquidity measures provided by Latvia to Citadele banka and the closing of the sale of Citadele banka.\n(83)\nNo new CIS loans. Until the closing of the sale of the CIS loans, Citadele banka shall not grant any new loans to clients from the CIS countries and clients whose ultimate beneficiaries are from the CIS countries. Citadele banka and its affiliated undertakings will be allowed to disburse funds only when the formal loan contract has been signed before the transfer date. Citadele banka shall cease granting further advances on existing loans save for situations where this is necessary to preserve or increase the probability of Citadele or its affiliated undertakings being repaid on outstanding loans. In addition, such advances shall be limited to a maximum of 2 % of the previous year\u2019s loan portfolio.\n2.5.2. COMMITMENTS REGARDING PAREX BANKA\n(84)\nNo new activities. Parex banka and its affiliated undertakings shall not engage in any new activities that are not necessary for its primary task of managing the assets and sell them thereafter.\n(85)\nParex banka and its affiliated undertakings shall cease:\n(a)\ngranting any new loans to corporate or private customers, including leasing loans. Parex banka and its affiliated undertakings will be allowed to disburse funds only when the formal loan contract has been signed before the transfer date or there is no new money and the loan is made to restructure the borrowing linked to assets for restructuring. Parex banka will be in a position to issue new loans to its affiliated undertakings in order to manage repossessed collaterals;\n(b)\ngranting further advances on existing loans except for situations where this is necessary to preserve or increase the probability of Parex banka or its affiliated undertakings being repaid on outstanding loans and where a further advance is required to fund repairs and improvements that are essential to the structural integrity of the secured property. In addition, such advances shall be limited to a maximum of 5 % of the previous year\u2019s loan portfolio;\n(c)\ntaking any new deposits from the public.\n(86)\nParex banka and its affiliated undertakings shall wind-down or divest all leasing activities by [\u2026].\n(87)\nThe maximum total amount of capital provided directly or indirectly to Parex banka by Latvia in whatever form shall not exceed LVL 218,7 million. Latvia shall not provide directly or indirectly any further capital in whatever form to Parex banka after [\u2026].\n2.5.3. OTHER COMMITMENTS\n(88)\nDividend and Coupon ban. Citadele banka, Parex banka and their affiliated undertakings shall not pay investors any dividends or coupons on existing capital instruments (including preference shares, B shares, and upper and lower tier-2 instruments) or exercise any call rights in relation to the same, unless there is a legal obligation to do so. This commitment, however, does not apply to the capital held directly or indirectly by Latvia and capital held by Citadele banka and Parex banka in their affiliated undertakings.\n(89)\nNo reference to State support in advertising. Citadele banka and Parex banka shall not use the granting of the State aid, State ownership or any competitive advantages arising in any way from that aid or ownership for advertising purposes.\n(90)\nThe commitments set out in recitals 88-89 shall apply to Citadele banka until both the full repayment of the State aid in the form of the liquidity measures provided by Latvia to Citadele banka and the closing of the sale of Citadele banka.\n(91)\nSeparation between Citadele banka and Parex banka: Citadele banka and Parex banka shall be fully operationally separated by no later than 1 August 2011, except for certain IT activities and management and administration of the CIS loans. The latter service shall be remunerated at a market-oriented fee.\n(92)\nTrustees. monitoring trustee shall be appointed to carry out the functions specified in section F of the commitments.\n(93)\nIf Latvia or Citadele banka, as appropriate, have not entered into a binding sales and purchase agreement 1 month before the end of the periods referred to in recitals 72, 73 and 76, a divestiture trustee shall be appointed to carry out the functions specified in section F of the commitments.\n(94)\nThe trustees will be independent of Citadele banka, Parex banka and Latvia, possess the necessary qualifications to carry out its mandate, and will neither have nor become exposed to a conflict of interest.\n(95)\nThe Commission will have discretion to approve or reject the proposed trustees and to approve the proposed mandate subject to any modifications it deems necessary for the trustees to fulfil their obligations.\n(96)\nThe trustee(s) will assume its specified duties in order to ensure compliance with the commitments. The Commission may, on its own initiative or at the request of the trustee, Latvia, Citadele banka or Parex banka, give any orders or instructions to the trustee in order to ensure compliance with the conditions and obligations referred to in this Decision and the commitments.\n3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(97)\nThe Commission opened the formal investigation procedure on the initial restructuring plan submitted on 11 May 2009 in this case because it had, inter alia, doubts that the initial restructuring plan was adequate to ensure the restoration of the bank\u2019s long-term viability without continued State support.\n(98)\nMore specifically, it was not clear how and when Parex banka would re-establish compliance with relevant regulatory requirements. The initial plan also did not adequately address the risk factors (including exposure to non-OECD borrowers) identified in the due diligence report submitted with the restructuring plan. Moreover, the initial plan appeared to be based on rather optimistic assumptions as to the future operating conditions. The Commission had doubts on how the bank would have been able to manage the lifting of deposit withdrawal restrictions. Notwithstanding liquidity constraints, the initial plan appeared to be built on an expanding business strategy for all lending segments and did not provide for abandoning or significant reduction of more risky activities, such as lending to high net worth individuals in CIS countries. Regarding the then forecasted expansion of the deposits volumes and deposit-raising activities, there were doubts as to whether that plan was realistic and cost-efficient. Furthermore, the Latvian authorities had not at that stage provided the results of the stress test. In the opening Decision, the Commission invited therefore the Latvian authorities to reconsider the overall proposed business strategy for Parex banka.\n(99)\nThe plan envisaged a business expansion strategy which appeared to mainly rely on an aggressive pricing and marketing policy to regain lost market shares using the bank\u2019s competitive advantage due to State aid. However, it did not include adequate measures to limit competition distortions.\n(100)\nAs regards the issue of burden-sharing/own contribution, the initial plan did not provide clear information on the whole amount of required State support and Parex banka\u2019s own contribution. The Commission had doubts whether the initial plan was focussed so as to limit the aid to the minimum. Under all scenarios, even by the end of the restructuring period the bank remained dependent on the State liquidity facilities or guarantees. In this context, the Commission also needed to investigate to what extent the funding needs of Parex banka could be reduced by a greater focus on core activities and an overall further reduction of the bank\u2019s size.\n4. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(101)\nNo comments from interested third parties were received with regard to the opening Decision within the prescribed time limits.\n5. COMMENTS FROM LATVIA\n(102)\nIn reply to the opening Decision the Latvian authorities submitted a revised restructuring plan dated 4 September 2009 in which they aimed at addressing a number of doubts raised by the Commission by changing the restructuring strategy for Parex banka. The content of the plan is described in section 3.2. However, following the final decision on the split of Parex banka, that plan was replaced by the final restructuring plan, submitted on 7 July 2010.\n6. OTHER COMMENTS\n(103)\nAfter the expiry of the prescribed period, the Commission received letters dated 15 June and 13 July 2010 from the former majority shareholders of Parex banka. Furthermore, the Commission received letters from members of the Latvian parliament dated 22 June and 1 July 2010. The main issue raised in the letters of 15 June and 13 July 2010 related to the choice between the \u2018good-out\u2019 and \u2018bad-out\u2019 scenarios for the bank\u2019s restructuring. The letters of 22 and of 1 July concentrated on the implications which the chosen strategy for Parex banka and ongoing legislative initiatives may have in view of the Latvian legal system.\n(104)\nThe Commission notes that, where appropriate, it has taken into account the issues raised in those letters in its assessment of the final restructuring plan to the extent that they were relevant and the matter fell within its competence.\n7. ASSESSMENT\n7.1. EXISTENCE OF AID\n(105)\nThe Commission must assess whether the measures concerned constitute State aid. Article 107(1) TFEU provides that any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\n(106)\nThe Commission observes that, with regard to the rescue measures in the form of guarantee, liquidity support and recapitalisation granted to Parex banka, which are maintained after the split of Parex banka during the restructuring phase, it has already established in the first rescue Decision (27) that those measures constitute State aid. The Commission has no reason to change its previous assessment in this respect. Likewise, as these measures benefit a substantial part of the economic activity previously done by Parex banka that is continued by Citadele banka, they also constitute State aid to Citadele banka.\n(107)\nAs regards the aid measures described in recitals 63 and 69, Latvia implements them for the restructuring of Parex banka which was and partly remains involved in cross-border and international activities. Also Citadele banka, which takes over economic activities of Parex banka, is and will be active on markets open to international competition. Therefore any advantage from State resources would affect competition in the banking sector and have an impact on intra-Union trade. Furthermore, the measures concerned are selective as they solely benefit Citadele banka and Parex banka and they are financed through State resources. In the current circumstances of a financial crisis and in view of the Parex banka financial difficulties a market economy investor would not have granted such measures on comparable terms.\n(108)\nIn addition, as regards the capitalisation measures, it is considered that a market economy investor expects a return commensurate with the risk perceived for the investment under consideration. This is especially true for Citadele banka which currently is not rated, and has emerged from the bank in difficulty in the context of restructuring.\n(109)\nIt is considered that the transfer of assets from Parex banka to Citadele banka implemented under a \u2018good-out\u2019 scenario (see recital 69) as an asset relief measure, because the newly created bank (Citadele banka) is relieved from the burden of potential losses on non-core and non-performing assets left behind in Parex banka. That relief, in turn, allows Citadele banka to avoid the subsequent depletion of its capital. Therefore, the measure at issue confers an advantage on Citadele banka.\n(110)\nThe assets relief measure is financed through the State resources given that according to the final restructuring plan Latvia will provide capital to Parex banka up to LVL 218,7 million until [\u2026] which, along with the outstanding deposits in the amount of LVL [100-200] million, will potentially not be repaid at the end of the projected [\u2026] period (see Table 11 above).\n(111)\nIn light of the above, it is considered that further recapitalisation at the time of the split in the form of a capital injection into Citadele banka of LVL 103 million and the conversion of State deposits and interest on those deposits in Parex banka upon the split and thereafter (see above recital 63) and the asset relief measure (see above recital 69) also constitute State aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU.\n7.2. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID\n7.2.1. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT\n(112)\nArticle 107(3)(b) TFEU empowers the Commission to find aid compatible with the internal market if it is intended to \u2018remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State\u2019. As already indicated in the opening Decision, the Commission considers, that, due to the systemic relevance of Parex banka, Article 107(3)(b) TFEU can be applied in this case and that the notified aid measures should be assessed on this basis.\n(113)\nOn the basis of the three Communications (28) adopted in the context of the current financial crisis that were in force at the time the decision was taken, in the opening Decision the case was preliminarily assessed in line with the principles of the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (29), while taking into consideration the particular features of the crisis in the financial markets.\n(114)\nAlthough the opening Decision made reference to the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, the Commission has clarified in recital 49 of the Communication on the return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules (hereinafter, \u2018Restructuring Communication\u2019) (30) that all aid relating to financial institutions notified to it before 31 December 2010 will be assessed as restructuring aid to banks pursuant to the Restructuring Communication instead of the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty.\n(115)\nAs regards the asset relief measure, it should also be assessed on the basis of Communication on the treatment of impaired assets in the Community banking sector (31) (hereinafter, \u2018Impaired Assets Communication\u2019).\n(116)\nIn the context of the first rescue Decision (and later confirmed, inter alia, in the opening Decision), it was already established that Parex banka is an institution in difficulties and hence an in-depth restructuring of the bank was necessary.\n7.2.2. COMPLIANCE OF THE MEASURES WITH THE IMPAIRED ASSETS COMMUNICATION\n(117)\nAs previously pointed out in recitals 109, 108 and 111, the transaction regarding the transfer of the assets from Parex banka into Citadele banka can be considered an asset relief measure. The State will assume a significant share of losses from non-core and non-performing assets.\n(118)\nThe specific conditions applying to asset relief measures are laid down in the Impaired Assets Communication. Pursuant to section 5.2 of that Communication, an asset relief measure should ensure ex-ante transparency and should provide for adequate burden-sharing followed by the correct valuation of the eligible assets and the correct remuneration of the State, so that the asset relief measure ensures shareholders\u2019 responsibility and does not unduly distort competition.\n(119)\nOverall, where this case departs from similar transactions (32), it does so in a positive manner since Latvia will not cover all losses from the impaired portfolio. Instead, coverage is ensured only up to a maximum amount and to the extent necessary to make Parex banka capital compliant until [\u2026]. In asset split scenarios where the \u2018good-out\u2019 method is chosen, as in the current case, the burden of losses on non-core and non-performing assets is also partly borne by the former majority shareholders and the legacy minority shareholders. That method is viewed positively from a State aid point of view as it limits to some degree the necessity for a fully fledged valuation of the extent of the impairments.\n(120)\nPursuant to the Impaired Assets Communication, the appropriateness of the transfer price and the remuneration should be assessed. In the present case, it is clear that the book value of the assets remaining with Parex banka is higher than their market value and therefore constitutes State aid to Citadele banka, as already established in recitals 109-111.\n(121)\nAccording to points 23 and 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication, the transfer price in asset purchase measures should be based on their underlying long-term economic value. In a \u2018good-out\u2019 scenario, the good bank should in principle therefore cover the difference between transfer value and real economic value. If this is not possible to avoid technical insolvency, this difference would have to be recovered, for example through a claw-back.\n(122)\nIn the present case and as already set out in recital 69, a conservative approach based on the worst case scenario would incur losses for the State of LVL [between 100 and 400] million; there would be losses for the State of LVL [\u2026] million in the base case scenario. Given that most of the loans are collateralised, those valuations of assets\u2019 long-term economic value in the financial projections do not appear to be too optimistic. Were Citadele banka able to fully cover these losses, the measure would be equivalent to an asset transfer at real economic value.\n(123)\nIn addition, pursuant to section 5.2 of the Impaired Assets Communication, the Commission considers that Citadele banka should pay an appropriate remuneration for the capital relief achieved by the impaired assets measures.\n(124)\nThe objective of requiring remuneration (including, where applicable, a claw-back) is two-fold: to ensure burden-sharing and to ensure a level playing field (i.e. minimise competition distortions).\n(125)\nIn the light of the estimated effect of the asset relief and the projected net income (see Tables 3 and 4 above) the Commission takes the view that the Citadele banka will not able to pay the required remuneration (including a full claw-back) for the asset relief while still restoring viability. However, the projected net income should allow it to pay at least part of that remuneration after it returns to profitability and its capital base is adequate.\n(126)\nTherefore, the Commission welcomes the commitment provided by Latvia whereby Citadele banka shall remunerate the State for the asset relief up to the amount of estimated losses in the worst case scenario, being the sum of the State deposits to be lost at the end of assets\u2019 realisation (LVL [between 100 and 200] million) and the State recapitalisation measures (LVL [\u2026] million). The payment of the remuneration will take the form of expenditure in the profit and loss account, i.e. before the establishment of the annual net result, and should be paid every year in which Citadele banka\u2019s capital adequacy ratio is not lower than 12 % up to an amount that does not lead to Citadele banka showing losses in the relevant year. This commitment shall apply until the closing of the sale of Citadele banka (see recital 81). Overall, the Commission considers that this mechanism ensures as far as possible a contribution from Citadele banka to costs stemming from [\u2026].\n(127)\nHowever, as the remuneration and claw-back may not reach the level foreseen by the Impaired Assets Communication, a far-reaching restructuring is required by point 41 of the Impaired Assets Communication. That restructuring must include, in particular, a significant limitation of size of the distressed bank, to compensate for the fact that Citadele banka does not fully bear the losses and does not pay a fully adequate remuneration.\n(128)\nTo conclude whether the restructuring is sufficient, it has to be assessed against the objectives of the remuneration and the claw-back, i.e. burden-sharing and mitigation of competition distortions. In particular, it needs to be ascertained whether a sufficient burden-sharing has been achieved through other means and whether competition distortions are limited by verifying the market position and the size of Citadele banka. This assessment will have to take into account the other aid measures that have benefitted Parex banka and Citadele banka and is reflected in the part of this Decision that analyses the compliance of the aid measures with the Restructuring Communication (see recitals 144 and following).\n(129)\nAfter the split, Parex banka will be separate and organisationally independent from Citadele banka, as required by section 5.6 of the Impaired Assets Communication.\n(130)\nIn conclusion, the Commission considers that the present case is in compliance with the Impaired Assets Communication.\n7.2.3. COMPATIBILITY UNDER THE RESTRUCTURING COMMUNICATION\n(131)\nThe Restructuring Communication sets out the State aid rules applicable to the restructuring of financial institutions in the current crisis. In order to be compatible with Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, the restructuring of a financial institution in the context of the current financial crisis has to:\n(i)\nlead to the restoration of the long-term viability of the bank;\n(ii)\ninclude sufficient own contribution by the beneficiary (burden-sharing);\n(iii)\ncontain sufficient measures limiting the distortion of competition.\n(132)\nSection 2 of the Restructuring Communication states that the Member State should submit a coherent, comprehensive and detailed restructuring plan. It should demonstrate how the bank will restore long-term viability without State aid as soon as possible. The plan should also identify the causes of the bank\u2019s difficulties and the bank\u2019s own weaknesses, and outline how the proposed restructuring measures remedy the bank\u2019s underlying problems.\n(133)\nIn line with the requirements set out in point 11 of the Restructuring Communication, the final restructuring plan submitted by Latvia is coherent, comprehensive and detailed. It provides detailed information on the business model, underlying assumptions and resulting financial projections. In line with point 10 of that Communication, the plan also identifies the causes of the difficulties faced by Parex banka, in particular the management\u2019s choice of an inadequate business strategy and some high-risk decisions (see section 2.1 and recitals 38-42 of this Decision). The restructuring activities presented in the final plan adequately address the bank\u2019s weaknesses. In this way, the concerns regarding the originally notified restructuring plan as set out in the opening Decision are addressed in the final restructuring plan.\n(134)\nMore specifically, as regards the focus of the business model, one of the major concerns in the opening Decision, Citadele banka will, according to the final restructuring plan, refocus on traditional bank business activities in the Baltics. Accordingly, Citadele banka will concentrate on its core activities, while withdrawing from those areas which aggravated its financial difficulties. In particular, it is viewed positively that all CIS leasing (including subsidiaries) and non-performing CIS loans are left behind in Parex banka. As for performing CIS loans, although they were transferred to Citadele banka, Latvia has committed that they will be divested and in any case no new loans will be originated (see recitals 72 and 83). Furthermore, the wealth management business will be divested either separately from Citadele banka by [\u2026] or sold with Citadele bank if an investor for the whole bank is found by that date (see recital 73 of this Decision).\n(135)\nFurther, as the Commission indicated in the opening Decision, the emerging Citadele banka will be of much smaller scale than Parex banka was before the crisis. That reduced size is in particular due to the split and the divestitures that will be carried out. The aggressive expansion in lending and deposit markets envisaged in the initial restructuring plan has been conservatively revised downwards in the final restructuring plan and will be capped as committed by Latvia (see recitals 77 and 78) of this Decision).\n(136)\nThe changes in management style (major shareholders and members of the boards have already been replaced) and corporate governance of Citadele banka and the strengthened risk management and controls within the bank are viewed positively. Parex banka has already reduced administrative costs by 39 %. Citadele banka\u2019s expected cost/income ratio will decrease to [between 35 and 55] % in 2014 mainly thanks to optimisation of the branch network and personnel expenses.\n(137)\nAccording to the requirements set out in points 12 to 15 of the Restructuring Communication, the final restructuring plan should also demonstrate how the bank will restore its long-term viability without continuous State aid as soon as possible. In particular, the bank should be able to generate an appropriate return on equity, while covering all costs of its normal operations and complying with the relevant regulatory requirements.\n(138)\nFirst, the restructuring plan provides detailed financial data and projections for the period 2006-2015, giving information on revenues, costs, impairments, profits and capital position of the bank. The Commission considers that the base case projections provided are based on reasonable underlying macroeconomic assumptions (they are less optimistic that those of the 2010 European Economic Spring Forecast).\n(139)\nCitadele banka expects to generate profits again in 2011 and continuously improve its yearly results over the restructuring period. In 2014 the ROE is planned to reach a level of [between 18 and 28] %, which appears to be a sufficient level of remuneration for normal market conditions in Latvia. This would be comparable to the historical ROE of 28 % in 2006 and of 20 % in 2007. The capital ratios of Citadele banka and those of the group remain well above the minimum regulatory requirements. Given the stable business model of the bank and Parex banka\u2019s track record in the past with respect to its core operations, the Commission considers, on the basis of the information provided, the projections presented as feasible.\n(140)\nSecond, in light of the stress testing exercise by the Central Bank (see recital 45) the Commission is of the view that Citadele banka is able to withstand a stress scenario without needing further aid. The stress scenario demonstrates that the bank meets its regulatory capital requirements. Moreover, the sensitivity analysis used in the stress testing shows that a significantly changing economic environment should not endanger the bank\u2019s viability.\n(141)\nThird, deposit withdrawal restrictions will not apply to Citadele banka and all other regulatory requirements will be complied with. As regards deposit withdrawal restrictions, a major part of the main depositors have agreed to keep the deposits in the bank for a certain period of time after the restrictions are lifted. These deposits have been effectively transferred to Citadele banka (as indicated in Table 2). Moreover, the Commission welcomes the proposed low-risk funding model that relies to a greater extent on longer-term funding, thus addressing the previously existing maturity gap between liabilities and assets.\n(142)\nFinally, the plan provides that Citedele banka will repay State liquidity measures by 31 December 2012 even in the worst case scenario. That envisaged repayment addresses the concerns raised in recital 80 of the opening Decision that the bank continued to rely on State liquidity beyond the restructuring period. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the State capital of LVL 103 million placed in Citadele banka at the date of the split will be \u2018redeemed\u2019 in line with the commitment undertaken by Latvia regarding the sale of Citadele banka by 31 December 2014 (see recital 76).\n(143)\nIn light of the above, the Commission considers that the new business model of Citadele banka is viable and sustainable in the long-term. Therefore, the restructured bank will be able to compete in the market place on its own merits in compliance with the relevant regulatory requirements and its viability will not be endangered even in a significantly changing environment. Consequently, the Commission is of the opinion that the Parex banka\u2019s restructuring plan fulfils the requirements of the Restructuring Communication with regard to the restoration of the long-term viability.\n(144)\nSection 3 of the Restructuring Communication provides that banks and their stakeholders should contribute to the restructuring as much as possible in order to limit the aid to a minimum and to address distortions of competition and moral hazard. That requirement implies that banks use their own resources to finance the restructuring, for instance by selling assets, while the stakeholders should absorb the losses of the bank where possible. Restructuring aid is limited under point 23 of the Restructuring Communication to those costs which are necessary for the restoration of viability.\n(145)\nThe final restructuring plan, unlike the initial plan submitted on 11 May 2009, has a clear focus and abandons the expansive strategy originally envisaged for Parex banka. That targeted approach contributed to limiting the aid required. In this context, the proposed divestments and the scaling down of Citadele banka\u2019s balance sheet, as well as putting Parex banka in [\u2026] are viewed positively. In particular, the proceeds from materialising the assets will finance part of the restructuring costs and limit the aid required. The Commission highlights that the Latvian authorities have provided a detailed timeline for planned divestments and committed to the appointment of a monitoring trustee as well as a divestment trustee in order to ensure compliance with the commitments. Moreover, in respect of the contribution to restructuring costs through internal resources generated by the bank, the Commission notes that the bank implements far-reaching cost-cutting measures.\n(146)\nIt is considered that the measures already implemented and those committed to by Latvia ensure that own resources are used and that private capital holders of Parex banka adequately contribute to the restructuring.\n(147)\nThe burden to the former majority shareholders can be demonstrated by the take-over of their entire shareholdings in Parex banka by Latvia for the symbolic price of LVL 2. They have been wiped out and thus can be considered as having borne the consequences of the failure of Parex banka. In addition to the removal of the former majority shareholders, the shareholding of minority shareholders has been significantly diluted as a result of the State and the EBRD recapitalising the Bank. Their ownership has been diluted from the previous level of 15,2 % to 3,7 % currently, and they will remain with Parex banka after the split ([\u2026]). Those measures serve as a valuable signal against moral hazard.\n(148)\nAdditionally, subordinated loans by legacy shareholders will be junior liabilities in Parex banka. The liquidation of the assets of Parex banka in the base case scenario does not envisage that sufficient proceeds will be received to cover more than senior liabilities in the bank. As subordinated loans mature in the period 2015-2018 and the State would only support the capital of Parex banka [\u2026], while at the same time it receives adequate remuneration for the State deposits, the subordinated debt holders are likely to bear losses on the capital they invested [\u2026].\n(149)\nMoral hazard is adequately addressed by the own contribution of past capital holders in the bank. Consequently, the Parex banka\u2019s restructuring plan provides for sufficient burden sharing and own contribution to the restructuring. The final restructuring plan complies accordingly with section 3 of the Restructuring Communication.\n(150)\nSection 4 of the Restructuring Communication requires that the restructuring plan includes measures limiting distortions of competition and ensuring a competitive banking sector. Moreover, those measures should ensure that State aid is not used to fund anti-competitive behaviour.\n(151)\nThe Commission considers that the package of measures contained in the final restructuring plan represents a significant improvement compared to the initial restructuring plan which addresses the doubts on this issue raised in the opening Decision. In view of significant divestitures and market caps as well as the bank\u2019s downsizing (see Table 20) the Commission considers that the plan represents an appropriate package of measures that will contribute to the maintenance of a level playing field and competitive markets. The initial strategy of the notified plan based on expansion of the business, on which the opening Decision raised substantial doubts, has changed and the final restructuring plan is based on a significant reduction of the bank\u2019s size, in terms of both balance sheet total and market shares in its core markets.\nTable 20\nDownsizing and reduction of Citadele banka\u2019s presence in the core markets\nAssets of Citadele banka as compared to pre-crisis Parex banka\nCitadele banka at the end of restructuring period,\nYE 2014\n(including incremental growth)\nMarket share reduction in the core lending markets at the end of restructuring\n(including incremental growth)\nMarket share reduction in the deposits (core and wealth management business) markets at the end of restructuring (including incremental growth)\nAfter the split: 44 %\n(total assets reduced by EUR 1,9 billion);\nIf the divestment of CIS loans is taken into account (YE [\u2026]): [35-50] %\n(total assets reduced by EUR [1,6-2,3] billion)\n[40-55] % (reduced by EUR [1,9-2,3] billion)\nPre-crisis market share of 11,7 % vs. [< 7] % in 2014 (capped): market presence reduced by [50-60] %\nPre-crisis market share of 20 % (33) vs. [< 13] % (decreasing to [< 10] % by 2015): market presence reduced by [55-65] %\n(152)\nThe restructuring of the bank includes a substantial reduction of the bank\u2019s presence in core market segments. First, as a consequence of the implementation of the restructuring measures, Citadele banka will reduce its total assets by approximately 60 % and its market presence in all core markets by more than 50 % as compared to Parex banka pre-crisis. The reduced market presence of the bank as well as the envisaged divestitures will free respective market segments for the competitors. Second, as already mentioned in the section 2.5, Citadele banka will either be sold by Latvia by 31 December 2014 at the latest or by a divestiture trustee by 31 December 2015, and the wealth management business will be sold by [\u2026] (whether within Citadele banka or separately), thereby giving potentially harmed competitors the possibility to bid for those businesses. The sale can be considered as a measure to limit distortions of competition (34).\n(153)\nThe measures to limit distortions of competition are found to be adequate also due to the relatively limited absolute size of the bank in restructuring (around EUR 2,2 billion). Following the restructuring, only its core activities will remain. The most important of those will be Citadele banka\u2019s presence in Latvia, whose market is already rather concentrated and dominated by a number of foreign banks (35). The capped market share of Citadele banka of around [4-7] % of loans and [7-10] % of deposits (see recital 77) can be considered as adequate mitigation of potential distortions of competition, when compared to its market share of 12 % of lending and about 20 % in deposits before the crisis.\n(154)\nThe bank\u2019s presence in other geographical markets is limited and will be capped to further limit potential distortions of competition so as not to exceed market shares of [< 4] % in the Lithuanian lending and deposit markets, [< 1,5] % in the Estonian lending market and [< 2,5] % in the Estonian deposit market, and [< 0,5] % in the Swedish and German deposit markets (see recitals 77 and 78). The caps allow for a limited growth in those markets due to the need for the bank to diversify its funding sources. The current macroeconomic context of Latvia makes it difficult to attract external funding. The deposits of Latvian residents are significantly lower than the total loan portfolio in that Member State. The bank\u2019s main competitors receive funding from their parent companies established abroad. Thus, it is accepted that Citadele banka needs to retain some funding base abroad (one branch each in Sweden and Germany) in order to diversify its funding base. Given the small presence of the bank in those markets and the necessity of the diversified funding for the bank\u2019s viability, the Commission considers that the agreed caps in those markets are adequate.\n(155)\nThe Commission also welcomes a ban on advertising State support, thus preventing Citadele banka from using the aid for anti-competitive market conduct, and an acquisition ban, furthermore ensuring that the State aid will not be used to take over competitors. Furthermore, Citadele banka will not increase the number of its branches.\n(156)\nAfter the split Parex banka and its subsidiaries will be effectively [\u2026] over its lifetime that is assumed to be 8 years. This period is considered to be appropriate in order to conclude asset recovery procedures and disposals of assets while avoiding a fire sale.\n(157)\nAlthough Parex banka will keep its banking licence, neither it nor its subsidiaries will be allowed to conduct any new activities other than those necessary to manage and sell the assigned assets. In particular, Parex banka will cease any new loan origination and taking of deposits from the public (see recitals 84 and 85). Furthermore, it will wind down or sell its leasing activities by [\u2026].\n(158)\nLatvia has committed to limit strictly the additional capital in time ([\u2026]) and scale (up to LVL 218,7 million) (see above recital 87).\n(159)\nIn light of the above, it is considered that the aid to Parex banka (after the split) is restricted to the minimum necessary for the [\u2026] and, therefore, undue distortions of competition are avoided.\n(160)\nAccordingly, the scale and nature of measures, in particular the significant downsizing and reduction of market presence combined with the sale within a reasonable timeframe proposed with respect to Citadele banka and Parex banka, are sufficient and adequate to avoid undue distortions of competition. In addition, the depth of the restructuring combined with the sale of the Citadele banka would suffice to compensate for any distortions of competition that may result from a potentially inadequate remuneration and claw-back.\n(161)\nPoint 46 of the Restructuring Communication lays down the requirement that, in order to verify that the restructuring plan is being implemented properly, detailed regular reports from the Member State are necessary. Accordingly, the Latvian authorities committed to provide the Commission every 6 months starting from the date of this Decision with such reports for both Citadele banka and Parex banka.\n(162)\nLatvia has committed to appoint a monitoring trustee who will monitor compliance with the commitments and provide reports to the Commission.\n(163)\nThe Commission finds that the restructuring plan of Parex banka set out in section 2 of this Decision is compatible with Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and fulfils the requirements of the Restructuring Communication in terms of viability, burden sharing and measures to mitigate the distortions of competition.\n(164)\nLatvia has exceptionally accepted that this Decision be adopted in the English language,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nHaving regard to the restructuring plan and commitments undertaken by the Republic of Latvia, the restructuring aid which Latvia implements for AS Parex banka and AS Citadele banka is found to be compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Latvia.\nDone at Brussels, 15 September 2010.", "references": ["94", "57", "66", "97", "64", "10", "42", "70", "36", "4", "37", "3", "76", "31", "17", "28", "89", "83", "14", "0", "32", "30", "53", "2", "20", "19", "98", "16", "46", "79", "No Label", "15", "29", "48", "91"], "gold": ["15", "29", "48", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 18/2012\nof 11 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 January 2012.", "references": ["72", "11", "75", "16", "50", "69", "19", "34", "64", "48", "29", "40", "13", "25", "73", "33", "59", "70", "83", "38", "78", "46", "5", "26", "76", "10", "12", "63", "3", "28", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 143/2012\nof 17 February 2012\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of February 2012 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 February 2012 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 February 2012 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 0,392215 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2012.", "references": ["13", "90", "65", "38", "58", "40", "3", "86", "59", "67", "79", "89", "39", "30", "20", "26", "12", "14", "6", "4", "75", "88", "97", "78", "63", "72", "18", "23", "52", "44", "No Label", "21", "22", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 761/2010\nof 25 August 2010\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance methylprednisolone\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the European Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nMethylprednisolone is currently included in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as an allowed substance, for bovine species, applicable to muscle, fat, liver and kidney, excluding animals producing milk for human consumption.\n(4)\nAn application for the extension of the existing entry for methylprednisolone applicable to bovine milk has been submitted to the European Medicines Agency.\n(5)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use has recommended to establish a provisional maximum residue limit (hereinafter \u2018MRL\u2019) for methylprednisolone for bovine milk and to remove the provision \u2018not for use in animals from which milk is produced for human consumption\u2019.\n(6)\nThe entry for methylprednisolone in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to include the provisional MRL for bovine milk and to remove the existing provision \u2018not for use in animals from which milk is produced for human consumption\u2019. The provisional MRL set out in that Table for methylprednisolone should expire on 1 July 2011.\n(7)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period of time for the stakeholders concerned to take measures that may be required to comply with the newly set MRL.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 25 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 August 2010.", "references": ["84", "47", "12", "5", "90", "92", "99", "17", "10", "61", "18", "98", "13", "25", "44", "73", "2", "9", "67", "36", "68", "85", "88", "26", "15", "8", "64", "97", "96", "76", "No Label", "7", "24", "38", "69", "72"], "gold": ["7", "24", "38", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 111/2011\nof 7 February 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 February 2011.", "references": ["26", "35", "42", "59", "70", "11", "54", "5", "81", "49", "33", "67", "22", "63", "8", "60", "37", "7", "57", "16", "83", "91", "23", "14", "55", "43", "10", "71", "32", "1", "No Label", "21", "38", "84"], "gold": ["21", "38", "84"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 5 April 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/010 CZ/Unilever from the Czech Republic)\n(2011/233/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nThe Czech Republic submitted an application on 24 March 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in Unilever \u010cR spol.s r.o. and supplemented it with additional information up to 20 September 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 323 820.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Czech Republic,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 323 820 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 5 April 2011.", "references": ["50", "34", "69", "66", "17", "26", "79", "4", "35", "2", "51", "18", "92", "94", "42", "12", "9", "67", "70", "38", "23", "93", "60", "53", "86", "55", "1", "74", "45", "8", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 569/2010\nof 29 June 2010\nderogating from Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 as regards sales by tender of butter and skimmed milk powder provided for respectively by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 and Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f) and (j) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 4(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) of intervention measures in the form of public storage operations and the accounting of public storage operations by the paying agencies of the Member States (2), the EAGF finances expenditure on the physical operations referred to in Annex V of the Regulation on the basis of standard amounts, provided that the corresponding expenditure has not been set by the applicable legislation for the sector. The standard amounts were established and notified to the Member States in September 2009 for the 2010 accounting year. These standard amounts were set taking into consideration the costs of loading onto lorries or railway wagons on the basis of the rules applicable at the time.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3) provides for the sale of products from intervention, the rules relating to the submission of tenders and the stage of delivery of the products, together with the costs to be borne by intervention bodies and buyers. These rules apply to the dairy sector from 1 March 2010. In the case of sales by tender of butter and skimmed milk powder opened by Commission Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 (4) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (5) respectively, the applicable rules regarding costs are those provided for by Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009. The standard amounts set and notified to the Member States before the entry into force of the Regulations were calculated on the basis of the rules applicable before 1 March 2010. It is therefore necessary to provide for the uniform application of the rules for the whole of the accounting year 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to derogate until the end of the accounting year 2010 from Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(4)\nThis derogation must apply from the next special invitation to tender. The Regulation must enter into force on the date of its publication.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. By way of derogation from Article 42(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, the price in euros shall be tendered for the product, supplied on pallets at the loading bay for the place of storage or, if necessary, supplied on pallets loaded onto the means of transport, where this concerns a lorry or a railway wagon.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, the product shall be made available to operators on pallets at the loading bay for the place of storage or, if necessary, supplied on pallets loaded onto the means of transport, where this concerns a lorry or a railway wagon.\n3. By way of derogation from Article 52(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, the costs, depending on the case, for the movement of the products to the loading bay or onto the means of transport shall be borne by the paying agency and any stowage or depalettising charges shall be borne by the purchaser.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply to special invitations to tender provided for, respectively, by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 and by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, for which tenders may be submitted from 6 July 2010 at 11:00 (Brussels time) until 21 September 2010 at 11:00 (Brussels time).\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2010.", "references": ["1", "84", "85", "86", "49", "10", "74", "5", "78", "25", "33", "32", "35", "57", "39", "4", "91", "36", "11", "88", "99", "12", "16", "75", "48", "68", "77", "83", "96", "95", "No Label", "20", "26", "66"], "gold": ["20", "26", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 367/2011\nof 12 April 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for deep-sea sharks in EU and international waters of V, VI, VII, VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2) lays down quotas for 2011 and 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 April 2011.", "references": ["50", "46", "85", "75", "61", "10", "16", "0", "94", "77", "53", "78", "95", "69", "11", "14", "15", "68", "20", "74", "80", "31", "57", "58", "98", "44", "40", "36", "92", "90", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency measures taken to combat avian influenza in the Netherlands in 2010\n(notified under document C(2011) 8714)\n(Only the Dutch text is authentic)\n(2011/794/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3), first and second indents, of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member Sates.\n(3)\nArticle 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Implementing Decision 2011/204/EU of 31 March 2011 on a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Denmark and the Netherlands in 2010 (3) granted, amongst others, a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in the Netherlands in 2010. An official request for reimbursement was submitted by the Netherlands on 20 May 2011, as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(5)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union is to be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(6)\nThe Netherlands has, in accordance with Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC, without delay informed the Commission and the other Member States of the measures applied in accordance with Union legislation on notification and eradication and the results thereof. The request for reimbursement was, as required in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005, accompanied by a financial report, supporting documents, an epidemiological report on each holding where the animals have been slaughtered or destroyed, and the results of respective audits.\n(7)\nThe Commission\u2019s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to the Netherlands on 8 August 2011. The Netherlands agreed by e-mail dated 16 August 2011.\n(8)\nConsequently the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred in connection with the eradication of avian influenza in the Netherlands in 2010 can now be fixed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating avian influenza in the Netherlands in 2010 is fixed at EUR 54 203,48.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision constituting a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["21", "78", "92", "19", "40", "7", "67", "98", "33", "14", "16", "54", "73", "9", "35", "36", "87", "23", "70", "83", "43", "20", "74", "51", "18", "29", "65", "6", "30", "15", "No Label", "4", "10", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 400/2011\nof 20 April 2011\nfixing the export refunds on milk and milk products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in milk and milk products, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that export refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that comply with the requirements of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (2).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 44/2011 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nExport refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation, subject to the conditions provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 44/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["79", "66", "84", "7", "65", "98", "73", "80", "35", "32", "86", "30", "17", "12", "42", "88", "11", "5", "16", "50", "52", "14", "55", "27", "9", "41", "15", "93", "13", "1", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 41/2012\nof 18 January 2012\nsuspending submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 1 to 7 January 2012 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, are equal to the quantity available under order numbers 09.4318, 09.4319 and 09.4321.\n(2)\nSubmission of further applications for licences for order numbers 09.4318, 09.4319 and 09.4321 should be suspended until the end of the marketing year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubmission of further applications for licences, which correspond to the order numbers indicated in the Annex, shall be suspended until the end of the marketing year 2011/2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2012.", "references": ["93", "19", "75", "13", "63", "70", "98", "90", "82", "85", "32", "41", "10", "69", "4", "42", "6", "51", "79", "49", "67", "59", "26", "3", "46", "20", "68", "73", "96", "54", "No Label", "21", "22", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "71"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 551/2012\nof 21 June 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 opening and providing for the management of autonomous tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and industrial products\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure sufficient and uninterrupted supplies of certain goods insufficiently produced in the Union and to avoid any disturbances on the market, for certain agricultural and industrial products, autonomous tariff quotas have been opened by Council Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 (1) within which those products can be imported at reduced or zero duty rates. For the same reasons it is necessary to open, with effect from 1 July 2012, for two products a new tariff quota at a zero duty rate for an appropriate volume.\n(2)\nThe quota volumes, previously established, for autonomous tariff quotas of the Union with order numbers 09.2638, 09.2814 and 09.2889 are insufficient to meet the needs of the Union industry. Consequently, those quota volumes should be increased with effect from 1 January 2012.\n(3)\nMoreover, for the autonomous tariff quota of the Union with the order number 09.2633 the product description should be adapted.\n(4)\nIn addition, for the quota with order number 09.2767, it is no longer in the interest of the Union to continue to grant a tariff quota for the second semester 2012. That tariff quota should therefore be closed with effect from 1 July 2012 and the corresponding row should be deleted from the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010.\n(5)\nSince some of the measures provided for in this Regulation should take effect from 1 January 2012 and others from 1 July 2012, this Regulation should apply from those same dates and should enter into force immediately upon publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(6)\nRegulation (EU) No 7/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe rows with order numbers 09.2644 and 09.2645 set out in Annex I to this Regulation are inserted;\n(2)\nthe rows for the tariff quotas with order numbers 09.2638, 09.2814 and 09.2889 are replaced by the rows set out in Annex II to this Regulation;\n(3)\nthe row for the tariff quota with order number 09.2633 is replaced by the row set out in Annex I to this Regulation;\n(4)\nthe row for the tariff quota with order number 09.2767 is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nHowever, Article 1(2) shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 21 June 2012.", "references": ["89", "18", "45", "65", "3", "77", "41", "71", "50", "12", "4", "92", "70", "27", "69", "75", "40", "54", "62", "68", "58", "81", "93", "91", "31", "38", "52", "99", "26", "56", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "82"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 700/2011\nof 20 July 2011\nadding to the 2011 fishing quotas certain quantities withheld in the year 2010 pursuant to Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (1), and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 847/96, Member States may ask the Commission, before 31 October, in the year of application of a fishing quota, to withhold a maximum of 10 % of that quota to be transferred to the following year. The Commission shall add to the relevant quota the quantity withheld.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (2), Council Regulation (EC) No 1226/2009 of 20 November 2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2010 (3), Council Regulation (EC) No 1287/2009 of 27 November 2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and the conditions relating thereto for certain fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea for 2010 (4) and Council Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (5), fix quotas for certain stocks for 2010 and specify which stocks may be subject to the measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 847/96.\n(3)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (6), Council Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 of 29 November 2010 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea (7), Council Regulation (EU) No 1256/2010 of 17 December 2010 fixing the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea for 2011 (8) and Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non EU waters (9), fix quotas for certain stocks for 2011.\n(4)\nCertain Member States have requested, before 31 October of 2010, pursuant to Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 847/96, that part of their quotas for 2010 be withheld and transferred to the following year. Within the limits indicated in that Regulation, the quantities withheld should be added to the quota for 2011.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe fishing quotas fixed for 2011 in Regulations (EU) No 1225/2010, (EU) No 1124/2010, (EU) No 1256/2010, and (EU) No 57/2011 are increased as set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["92", "45", "23", "55", "58", "86", "11", "44", "77", "41", "4", "63", "90", "73", "31", "99", "88", "12", "39", "61", "51", "47", "97", "28", "93", "27", "21", "62", "10", "25", "No Label", "13", "67", "96"], "gold": ["13", "67", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 597/2010\nof 7 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 July 2010.", "references": ["99", "89", "69", "1", "28", "20", "39", "85", "38", "94", "59", "41", "79", "21", "51", "88", "54", "93", "43", "72", "65", "3", "80", "47", "78", "34", "64", "73", "84", "45", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1286/2011\nof 9 December 2011\nadopting a common methodology for investigating marine casualties and incidents developed pursuant to Article 5(4) of Directive 2009/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Council Directive 1999/35/EC and Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2009/18/EC requires the Commission to adopt a common methodology for investigating marine casualties and incidents to be followed by investigative bodies when carrying out safety investigations.\n(2)\nThe common methodology for investigating marine casualties and incidents should provide for common standards applicable in principle to all investigations carried out in accordance with Directive 2009/18/EC in order to achieve a high level quality investigation.\n(3)\nThe general rules as provided for by the common methodology should be directly used by the investigative bodies of the Member States.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe common methodology for investigating marine casualties and incidents as provided for in Article 5(4) of Directive 2009/18/EC is set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["62", "70", "79", "94", "80", "76", "15", "95", "66", "52", "34", "72", "47", "86", "98", "75", "7", "9", "18", "83", "8", "48", "22", "63", "44", "35", "19", "51", "28", "11", "No Label", "0", "53", "56"], "gold": ["0", "53", "56"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 278/2012\nof 28 March 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 as regards the determination of the levels of dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed (2) lays down maximum levels for dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in feed and action thresholds triggering investigations by Member States to identify the sources of those substances.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 of 27 January 2009 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of feed (3) includes methods for the determination of the levels of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in feed.\n(3)\nA screening method of analysis with widely acceptable validation and high throughput can be used to identify the samples with significant levels of PCDD/Fs and dioxin-like PCBs (preferably selecting samples exceeding action thresholds and ensuring the selection of samples exceeding maximum levels). The levels of PCDD/Fs and dioxin-like PCBs in these samples need to be determined by a confirmatory method of analysis. It is therefore appropriate to establish appropriate requirements for the screening method making sure that the false-compliant rate with respect to maximum levels is below 5 % and strict requirements for the confirmatory methods of analysis. Furthermore, confirmatory methods allow the determination of levels also in the low background range. That is important for the follow-up of time trends, exposure assessment and for the re-evaluation of maximum and action thresholds.\n(4)\nThe modification of the maximum levels for dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs and the establishment of non-dioxin-like PCBs in Directive 2002/32/EC and the need to update the criteria for screening methods makes it necessary to amend the rules on the determination of dioxins and PCBs in feed, as laid down by Part B of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 152/2009. For reasons of clarity and comprehensibility, it is appropriate to replace Part B of Annex V.\n(5)\nIt is of major importance that analytical results are reported and interpreted in a uniform way in order to ensure a harmonised enforcement approach throughout the Union.\n(6)\nAnnex V to Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart B of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the date of entry into force.\nThis Regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 March 2012.", "references": ["48", "92", "18", "64", "46", "14", "33", "88", "12", "6", "2", "84", "52", "83", "27", "30", "91", "99", "65", "81", "23", "47", "5", "15", "87", "9", "58", "63", "45", "98", "No Label", "25", "38", "43", "60", "66"], "gold": ["25", "38", "43", "60", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 654/2010\nof 22 July 2010\nfixing the export refunds on pigmeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), final subparagraph, and Article 170 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVII of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in pigmeat, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162 to 164, 167, 169 and 170 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the condition provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 must meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) Nos 852/2004 and 853/2004, notably preparation in an approved establishment and compliance with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2010.", "references": ["52", "76", "35", "40", "0", "54", "1", "61", "31", "96", "15", "75", "92", "25", "70", "27", "32", "60", "44", "56", "90", "33", "67", "37", "24", "21", "28", "16", "2", "51", "No Label", "20", "22", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1322/2011\nof 16 December 2011\namending Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94 on common rules for imports of textile products from certain third countries not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other specific Community import rules\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94 of 7 March 1994 on common rules for imports of textile products from certain third countries not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other specific Community import rules (1), and in particular Article 28 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries should be updated to take account of amendments to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (2) which also affect certain codes in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 517/94.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 517/94 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Textile Committee established by Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 517/94,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 517/94 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["54", "32", "30", "72", "53", "68", "86", "94", "74", "65", "4", "15", "26", "91", "63", "55", "8", "38", "41", "61", "27", "44", "83", "17", "79", "71", "45", "97", "12", "67", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "89"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "89"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 April 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement\n(2012/228/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 338(1) and Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex XXI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019), contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning statistics.\n(2)\nRegulation (EU) No 691/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2011 on European environmental economic accounts (3) should be incorporated into the Agreement.\n(3)\nWith regard to Iceland, Annexes I, II and III to Regulation (EU) No 691/2011 are to be implemented within two years from the first transmission deadline to allow for the further development of the Icelandic national environmental accounts.\n(4)\nSince Liechtenstein is already exempted from the European system of national and regional accounts under Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community (4), it is also to be exempted from the obligations concerning the European environmental economic accounts.\n(5)\nThe position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should therefore be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["99", "37", "49", "94", "84", "56", "20", "54", "17", "26", "0", "5", "45", "2", "43", "30", "74", "73", "78", "70", "79", "50", "60", "35", "72", "75", "61", "39", "48", "87", "No Label", "3", "9", "19", "58"], "gold": ["3", "9", "19", "58"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/424/CFSP\nof 26 July 2010\namending Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 15 September 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1).\n(2)\nJoint Action 2008/736/CFSP was last extended by Joint Action 2009/572/CFSP (2) until 14 September 2010. The financial reference amount provided for to cover the expenditure related to EUMM Georgia until that date was set at EUR 49 600 000. The financial reference amount should be increased by EUR 2 500 000 in order to allow for additional operational needs of the Mission.\n(3)\nJoint Action 2008/736/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 14(1) of Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the Mission shall be EUR 52 100 000.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["74", "85", "17", "1", "70", "83", "6", "60", "29", "67", "31", "22", "54", "43", "96", "26", "55", "40", "68", "46", "88", "90", "72", "38", "23", "2", "32", "73", "12", "8", "No Label", "3", "5", "9", "91"], "gold": ["3", "5", "9", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 416/2010\nof 12 May 2010\namending Annexes I, II and III to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1), and in particular Article 74 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 lists the rules of national jurisdiction referred to in Articles 3(2) and 4(2) of the Regulation. Annex II contains the lists of courts or competent authorities that have jurisdiction in the Member States to deal with applications for a declaration of enforceability. Annex III lists the courts with which appeals may be lodged against decisions on a declaration of enforceability.\n(2)\nAnnexes I, II and III to Commission Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 were amended on several occasions, lastly by Commission Regulation (EC) No 280/2009 (2) so as to update the rules of national jurisdiction, the lists of courts or competent authorities and the applicable redress procedures.\n(3)\nMember States have notified the Commission of additional amendments to the lists set out in Annexes I, II and III. It therefore appears appropriate to publish consolidated versions of the lists contained in these annexes.\n(4)\nDenmark, in accordance with Article 4 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters (3), should not take part in the adoption of amendments to the Brussels I Regulation and no such amendments should be binding upon or applicable in Denmark.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 44/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I to III to Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 are replaced by the corresponding Annexes to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2010.", "references": ["40", "18", "77", "4", "63", "26", "59", "38", "76", "46", "43", "16", "70", "3", "60", "7", "35", "78", "42", "54", "53", "14", "56", "84", "28", "12", "68", "48", "1", "72", "No Label", "8", "11", "13", "20", "96"], "gold": ["8", "11", "13", "20", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 628/2012\nof 6 July 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Rheinisches Zuckerr\u00fcbenkraut / Rheinischer Zuckerr\u00fcbensirup / Rheinisches R\u00fcbenkraut (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Rheinisches Zuckerr\u00fcbenkraut / Rheinischer Zuckerr\u00fcbensirup / Rheinisches R\u00fcbenkraut\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2012.", "references": ["86", "1", "80", "13", "75", "61", "16", "69", "52", "73", "77", "89", "11", "35", "34", "53", "20", "47", "81", "54", "5", "22", "23", "49", "2", "76", "62", "99", "50", "14", "No Label", "24", "25", "71", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "71", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 3/2011\nof 4 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 January 2011.", "references": ["64", "52", "39", "34", "22", "67", "43", "18", "27", "72", "78", "8", "90", "16", "57", "11", "93", "99", "31", "88", "97", "40", "14", "59", "46", "85", "79", "98", "9", "13", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 29 November 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and on the provisional application of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros\n(2010/783/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 5 October 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1563/2006 concerning the conclusion of the Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros (1).\n(2)\nThe Protocol annexed to the said Agreement is to expire on 31 December 2010.\n(3)\nThe European Union negotiated with the Union of the Comoros (hereinafter \u2018the Comoros\u2019) a new Protocol, providing EU vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which the Comoros has sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries. In order for EU vessels to pursue fishing activities, Article 13 of the new Protocol provides that that Protocol will apply provisionally.\n(4)\nFollowing negotiations, the new Protocol was initialled on 21 May 2010 and was amended by an Exchange of Letters on 16 September 2010.\n(5)\nThe new Protocol should be signed and applied provisionally, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Protocol.\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the European Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThe Protocol shall be applied on a provisional basis in accordance with Article 13 thereof, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2010.", "references": ["64", "10", "5", "85", "76", "82", "86", "61", "19", "43", "66", "87", "65", "13", "62", "21", "97", "40", "11", "27", "68", "35", "30", "79", "83", "39", "22", "20", "24", "52", "No Label", "3", "16", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "16", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/49/EU\nof 18 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include pencycuron as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included pencycuron.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of pencycuron.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the Netherlands, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe Netherlands evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 4 December 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on pencycuron to the Commission on 24 September 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for pencycuron.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing pencycuron may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include pencycuron in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit confirmatory information as regards the fate and behaviour in soil of the chlorophenyl and cyclopentyl portions of pencycuron, the fate and behaviour in natural surface water and sediment systems of the chlorophenyl and phenyl portions of pencycuron, the long-term risk to large omnivorous mammals.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing pencycuron to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of pencycuron and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning pencycuron in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning pencycuron in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing pencycuron as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to pencycuron are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing pencycuron as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning pencycuron. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing pencycuron as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing pencycuron as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2011.", "references": ["91", "84", "48", "53", "15", "6", "70", "92", "30", "46", "45", "95", "98", "39", "58", "8", "33", "74", "41", "28", "14", "54", "97", "35", "89", "43", "16", "18", "0", "96", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 423/2011\nof 29 April 2011\non selling prices for cereals in response to the 11th individual invitations to tender within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 (2) has opened the sales of cereals by tendering procedures, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission has to fix for each cereal and per Member State a minimum selling price or to decide not to fix a minimum selling price.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the 11th individual invitations to tender, it has been decided that a minimum selling price should be fixed for the cereals and for the Member States.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 11th individual invitations to tender for selling of cereals within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 27 April 2011, the decisions on the selling price per cereal and Member State are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 April 2011.", "references": ["1", "90", "86", "94", "37", "95", "58", "9", "74", "42", "27", "44", "85", "81", "7", "56", "77", "93", "70", "84", "23", "28", "51", "73", "19", "92", "11", "49", "3", "31", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 October 2010\non the financing of emergency measures concerning rabies in north-east Italy\n(notified under document C(2010) 7379)\n(2010/657/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2009/470/EC provides that where a Member State is directly threatened by the occurrence or the development, in the territory of a third country or Member State, of one of the diseases listed in Annex I to that Decision, it may be decided to adopt measures appropriate to the situation and to grant a Union financial contribution towards the measures deemed particularly necessary for the success of the actions undertaken.\n(2)\nRabies is an animal disease that mainly affects wild and domestic carnivores and has serious public health implications. It is one of the diseases listed in Annex I to Decision 2009/470/EC.\n(3)\nIn recent years, the Union has co-financed programmes for the oral immunisation of wild carnivores, which are the reservoir of that disease, and they have resulted in a favourable situation in most Member States with a drastic reduction in the number of cases of rabies in wild and domestic animals and the disappearance of human cases.\n(4)\nItaly has been considered a rabies free country since 1997. However, in October 2008 in the region of Friuli Venezia Giulia, one case of rabies was detected, followed by eight new cases in the same region. In 2009, the sylvatic rabies spread also to the Veneto region. By the end of 2009, 35 cases were detected in Friuli Venezia Giulia and 33 cases in Veneto.\n(5)\nNeighbouring Member States have expressed concern that their territories are threatened by the rabies situation in north-east Italy.\n(6)\nAccordingly, emergency measures are necessary to prevent the further spread of the disease in Italy, as well as the spread to the neighbouring Member States of Austria and Slovenia, and to reinforce the efforts to eradicate the disease as soon as possible.\n(7)\nOn 9 December 2009, Italy submitted to the Commission an emergency plan for the oral vaccination of foxes, \u2018Rabies control programme in the regions of north-east Italy - Special vaccination plan for foxes\u2019. The plan was found to be acceptable and it is therefore appropriate that certain measures receive Union financing. A Union financial contribution should therefore be granted for its implementation.\n(8)\nThe Union financial contribution should be paid on the basis of the official request for reimbursement submitted by Member States and supporting documents referred to in Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. (2)\n(9)\nTaking into account the urgency to implement the extended vaccination plan in order to prevent spread to other Member States it is justified that Union financial contribution is made available from 9 December 2009 when the plan was submitted to the Commission for financing.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe \u2018Rabies control programme in the regions of north-east Italy - Special vaccination plan for foxes\u2019 (\u2018the plan\u2019) submitted by Italy on 9 December 2009 is hereby approved for the period from 9 December 2009 to 31 December 2010.\nArticle 2\n1. The Union may grant a financial contribution for the plan at the rate of 50 % of the costs incurred by Italy for:\n(a)\nthe carrying out of laboratory tests for:\n(i)\nthe detection of rabies antigen or antibodies;\n(ii)\nthe isolation and characterisation of rabies virus;\n(iii)\nthe detection of biomarker;\n(iv)\nthe titration of vaccine baits;\n(b)\nthe purchase and distribution of oral vaccine plus baits and the purchase and administration to livestock of parenteral vaccines for the plan.\nHowever, the Union financial contribution for the costs referred to in points (a) and (b) shall not exceed EUR 2 300 000.\n2. The maximum amount of the costs to be reimbursed to Italy for the plan shall, on average, not exceed:\n(a)\nfor a serological test\nEUR 8 per test;\n(b)\nfor a test to detect tetracycline in bone\nEUR 8 per test;\n(c)\nfor a fluorescent antibody test (FAT)\nEUR 12 per test;\n(d)\nfor a polymerase chain reaction test (PCR)\nEUR 10 per test;\n(e)\nfor the purchase of oral vaccine plus baits\nEUR 0,4 per dose;\n(f)\nfor the purchase of parenteral vaccine\nEUR 1 per dose;\n(g)\nfor the vaccination of livestock\nEUR 1,50 per animal.\n3. The costs for carrying out the laboratory tests referred to in paragraph 1, point (a) shall include:\n(a)\nthe costs paid for the purchase of test kits, reagents and all consumables used to carry out the tests;\n(b)\nthe costs paid for staff specifically allocated, entirely or in part, for carrying out the tests;\n(c)\na maximum of 7 % of overheads of the total sum of the costs referred to in points (a) and (b).\nArticle 3\n1. The Union financial contribution for the plan shall be granted provided that Italy:\n(a)\nimplements the plan in accordance with the relevant provisions of Union law, including rules on competition, the award of public contracts and State aid;\n(b)\nsubmits a final report to the Commission, in accordance with the Annexes, by 30 April 2011 at the latest on the technical execution of the plan accompanied by evidence justifying the costs paid and the results attained during the period from 9 December 2009 to 31 December 2010;\n(c)\nimplements the plan efficiently.\n2. In the event that Italy does not comply with the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, the Commission shall reduce the Union financial contribution, taking into account the nature and gravity of the non-compliance and the financial loss incurred by the Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall apply from 9 December 2009.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 October 2010.", "references": ["46", "39", "77", "45", "7", "55", "85", "86", "8", "42", "11", "88", "3", "53", "98", "99", "26", "73", "79", "87", "19", "60", "35", "90", "24", "28", "76", "57", "82", "15", "No Label", "10", "38", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "38", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 103/2012\nof 7 February 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 February 2012.", "references": ["50", "1", "99", "17", "20", "12", "71", "24", "86", "97", "16", "18", "75", "96", "4", "33", "74", "41", "19", "92", "23", "3", "36", "62", "27", "78", "43", "34", "83", "28", "No Label", "21", "40", "42"], "gold": ["21", "40", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 June 2011\non the Union-wide quantity of allowances referred to in Article 3e(3)(a) to (d) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowances trading within the Community\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/389/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowances trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Article 3e(3)(a) to (d) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3e(3)(a) to (d) of Directive 2003/87/EC provides for a decision by the Commission, before the start of each trading period, fixing the total quantity of allowances to be created, auctioned, placed in the special reserve provided for in Article 3f(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, and distributed for free to aircraft operators. These quantities are to be determined arithmetically from the figure on the historical aviation emissions which has been set by Commission Decision 2011/149/EU of 7 March 2011 on historical aviation emissions pursuant to Article 3c(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowances trading within the Community (2), at 219 476 343 tonnes of CO2.\n(2)\nFollowing its adaptation on incorporation into the EEA Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 6/2011 of 1 April 2011 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement (3), Article 3e(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC also provides for the calculation of EEA-wide quantities of allowances by the EEA Joint Committee when incorporating this Decision into the EEA Agreement.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 3e(3)(e) and the third subparagraph of Article 3f(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (inserted on incorporation into the EEA Agreement), the Commission is to decide on the EEA-wide benchmark, which needs to be based on the EEA-wide quantities of allowances fixed by the EEA Joint Committee. Accordingly, a decision on the benchmark cannot be taken until the EEA-wide quantities have been fixed by the EEA Joint Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Union-wide total number of allowances referred to in Article 3c(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC relating to the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012 is 212 892 053.\n2. The Union-wide total number of allowances referred to in Article 3c(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC relating to each year of the period beginning on 1 January 2013 is 208 502 526.\nArticle 2\n1. The Union-wide total number of allowances referred to in Article 3d(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC relating to the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012 is 31 933 808.\n2. The Union-wide total number of allowances referred to in Article 3d(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC relating to each year of the period beginning on 1 January 2013 is 31 275 379.\nArticle 3\nThe Union-wide total number of allowances referred to in Article 3f(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC relating to the special reserve is 50 040 608.\nArticle 4\n1. The Union-wide total number of allowances referred to in Article 3e(3)(d) of Directive 2003/87/EC relating to the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012 is 180 958 245.\n2. The Union-wide total number of allowances referred to in Article 3e(3)(d) of Directive 2003/87/EC relating to each year of the period beginning on 1 January 2013 is 170 972 071.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 30 June 2011.", "references": ["29", "41", "88", "36", "3", "73", "46", "93", "1", "64", "56", "66", "23", "16", "11", "26", "39", "68", "99", "53", "96", "95", "17", "6", "52", "85", "59", "45", "67", "12", "No Label", "9", "57", "58", "60"], "gold": ["9", "57", "58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 950/2011\nof 23 September 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2).\n(2)\nBy Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 (3), the Council amended Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 to extend the measures against Syria, including an expansion of the listing criteria, and a prohibition on the purchase, import or transportation from Syria of crude oil.\n(3)\nBy Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP (4) which amended Decision 2011/273/CFSP, the Council agreed on the adoption of further measures, namely a prohibition on investment in the crude oil sector, the addition of further listings, the prohibition of the delivery of Syrian banknotes and coins to the Central Bank of Syria and some adjustments to the provisions protecting economic operators against claims related to the implementation of sanctions.\n(4)\nThose measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately upon its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 442/2011 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 1, the following point is inserted:\n\u2018(j)\n\u2018Syrian person, entity or body\u2019 means:\n(i)\nthe State of Syria or any public authority thereof;\n(ii)\nany natural person in, or resident in, Syria;\n(iii)\nany legal person, entity or body having its registered office in Syria;\n(iv)\nany legal person, entity or body, inside or outside Syria, owned or controlled directly or indirectly by one or more of the above mentioned persons or bodies;\u2019;\n(2)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 2a\nIt shall be prohibited to sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, new Syrian denominated banknotes and coinage, printed or minted in the European Union, to the Central Bank of Syria.\u2019;\n(3)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 3c\n1. The following shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nthe granting of any financial loan or credit to any Syrian person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 2;\n(b)\nthe acquisition or extension of a participation in any Syrian person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 2;\n(c)\nthe creation of any joint venture with any Syrian person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 2;\n(d)\nthe participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a), (b) or (c).\n2. The prohibitions in paragraph 1 shall apply to any Syrian person, entity or body engaged in the exploration, production or refining of crude oil.\n3. For the purposes of paragraph 2 only, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018exploration of crude oil\u2019 includes the exploration for, prospecting for and management of crude oil reserves, as well as the provision of geological services in relation to such reserves;\n(b)\n\u2018refining of crude oil\u2019 means the processing, conditioning or preparation of oil for the ultimately final sale of fuels.\n4. The prohibitions in paragraph 1:\n(a)\nshall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts or agreements concluded before 23 September 2011;\n(b)\nshall not prevent the extension of a participation, if such extension is an obligation under an agreement concluded before 23 September 2011.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 10a is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 10a\nNo claims, including for compensation or indemnification or any other claim of this kind, such as a claim of set-off, fines or claims under a guarantee, claims for extension or payment of a bond, financial guarantee, including claims arising from letters of credit and similar instruments in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which was affected, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the measures imposed by this Regulation, shall be granted to the Government of Syria, its public bodies, corporations and agencies, or to any person or entity claiming through it or for its benefit.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAnnex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 is hereby amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 is hereby replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2011.", "references": ["98", "1", "96", "34", "60", "43", "33", "74", "81", "17", "92", "20", "44", "84", "53", "15", "7", "64", "90", "78", "5", "8", "97", "18", "22", "99", "85", "69", "26", "32", "No Label", "3", "23", "28", "80", "95"], "gold": ["3", "23", "28", "80", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 758/2011\nof 1 August 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 1291/2009 concerning the selection of returning holdings for the purpose of determining incomes of agricultural holdings\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 of 30 November 2009 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Community (1), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 2 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1291/2009 of 18 December 2009 concerning the selection of returning holdings for the purpose of determining incomes of agricultural holdings (2) sets the thresholds for the economic size of agricultural holdings for the accounting year 2010 and subsequent accounting years.\n(2)\nStructural change in Ireland has led to a decrease in the number of the smallest holdings and in their contribution to the total output of agriculture, thereby making their use unnecessary in order for the field of survey to cover the most relevant part of the agricultural activity.\n(3)\nIn the case of France, the structure of the agricultural sector in the divisions Guadeloupe, Martinique and La R\u00e9union is not reflected by the threshold applicable for France as a whole.\n(4)\nTherefore, in the case of Ireland, it is advisable to raise the threshold to EUR 8 000 and, in the case of France, the threshold for the divisions Guadeloupe, Martinique and La R\u00e9union should be set at EUR 15 000.\n(5)\nIn the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1291/2009 the total number of returning holdings for Ireland has been fixed at 1 300. This number has not been changed since 1982, despite the reduction in the number of holdings in Ireland and an increase in the average size of holdings. Satisfactory representativeness should therefore be achieved on the basis of a smaller sample than the current one.\n(6)\nIn the case of France, the addition of the new divisions Guadeloupe, Martinique and La R\u00e9union should be reflected and the number of returning holdings in each French division should be adjusted at levels that ensure satisfactory representativeness of the sample.\n(7)\nIn the case of Hungary, the reduction of the number of divisions needs to be reflected.\n(8)\nRegulation (EU) No 1291/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 1291/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe indent concerning Ireland is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nIreland: EUR 8 000\u2019;\n(b)\nthe indent concerning France is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nFrance (with the exception of Guadeloupe, Martinique and La R\u00e9union): EUR 25 000\n-\nFrance (only Guadeloupe, Martinique and La R\u00e9union): EUR 15 000\u2019;\n(2)\nthe Annex is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the 2012 accounting year.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 August 2011.", "references": ["51", "86", "22", "84", "5", "58", "43", "27", "53", "9", "39", "77", "69", "52", "62", "41", "74", "7", "21", "10", "17", "37", "60", "8", "75", "0", "28", "46", "92", "55", "No Label", "18", "19", "63", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["18", "19", "63", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 680/2011\nof 14 July 2011\nestablishing budgetary ceilings for 2011 applicable to certain direct support schemes provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006 and (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 51(2), Articles 69(3), 87(3) and 123(1), the second subparagraph of Article 128(1), the second subparagraph of Article 128(2), and Article 131(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor the Member States implementing, in 2011, the single payment scheme provided for under Title III of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the budgetary ceilings for each of the payments referred to in Articles 52, 53 and 54 of that Regulation should be established for 2011.\n(2)\nFor the Member States making use, in 2011, of the option provided for in Article 87 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the budgetary ceilings applicable to the direct payments excluded from the single payment scheme should be fixed for 2011.\n(3)\nFor the Member States making use, in 2011, of the options provided for in Article 69(1) or 131(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the budgetary ceilings for the specific support referred to in Chapter 5 of Title III of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 should be established for 2011.\n(4)\nArticle 69(4) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 limits the resources that can be used for any coupled measure provided for in points (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Article 68(1)(a) and in Article 68(1)(b) and (e) to 3,5 % of the national ceiling referred to in Article 40 of the same Regulation. For the sake of clarity, the Commission should publish the ceiling resulting from the amounts notified by the Member States for the measures concerned.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 69(6)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the amounts calculated in accordance with Article 69(7) of that Regulation have been laid down in Annex III to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (2). For the sake of clarity, the Commission should publish the amounts notified by Member States which they intend to use in accordance with Article 69(6)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.\n(6)\nFor the sake of clarity, the 2011 budgetary ceilings for the single payment scheme, resulting from deduction of the ceilings established for the payments referred to in Articles 52, 53, 54, 68 and 87 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 from the ceilings given in Annex VIII to the same Regulation, should be published. The amount to be deducted from the said Annex VIII in order to finance the specific support provided for in Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 corresponds to the difference between the total amount for the specific support notified by the Member States and the amounts notified to finance the specific support in accordance with Article 69(6)(a) of the same Regulation. Where a Member State implementing the single payment scheme decides to grant the support referred to in point (c) of Article 68(1), the amount notified to the Commission is to be included in the single payment scheme ceiling, as this support takes the form of an increase in the unit value and/or the number of the farmer\u2019s payment entitlements.\n(7)\nFor Member States implementing, in 2011, the single area payment scheme provided for in Chapter 2 of Title V of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the annual financial envelopes should be established in accordance with Article 123(1) of that Regulation.\n(8)\nFor the sake of clarity, the maximum amount of funds available to Member States applying the single area payment scheme for granting separate sugar payments in 2011 pursuant to Article 126 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, established on the basis of their notification, should be published.\n(9)\nFor the sake of clarity, the maximum amount of funds available to Member States applying the single area payment scheme for granting separate fruit and vegetables payments in 2011 pursuant to Article 127 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, established on the basis of their notification, should be published.\n(10)\nFor Member States applying the single area payment scheme, the 2011 budgetary ceilings applicable to transitional payments for fruit and vegetables payments in 2011 in accordance with Article 128(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, should be published on the basis of their notification.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The budgetary ceilings for 2011 referred to in Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. The budgetary ceilings for 2011 referred to in Article 87(3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\n3. The budgetary ceilings for 2011 referred to in Articles 69(3) and 131(4) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex III to this Regulation.\n4. The budgetary ceilings for 2011 for the support provided for in points (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Article 68(1)(a) and in Article 68(1)(b) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex IV to this Regulation.\n5. The amounts that can be used by the Member States in accordance with Article 69(6)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 to cover the specific support provided for in Article 68(1) of the same Regulation are set out in Annex V to this Regulation.\n6. The budgetary ceilings for 2011 for the single payment scheme referred to in Title III of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex VI to this Regulation.\n7. The annual financial envelopes for 2011 referred to in Article 123(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex VII to this Regulation.\n8. The maximum amounts of funding available to the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia for granting the separate sugar payment in 2011, as referred to in Article 126 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, are set out in Annex VIII to this Regulation.\n9. The maximum amounts of funding available to the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia for granting the separate fruit and vegetables payment in 2011, as referred to in Article 127 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, are set out in Annex IX to this Regulation.\n10. The budgetary ceilings for 2011 referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 128(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex X to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 July 2011.", "references": ["77", "38", "39", "70", "80", "20", "71", "12", "60", "19", "43", "58", "48", "83", "85", "11", "22", "93", "98", "82", "62", "47", "21", "86", "76", "16", "10", "63", "1", "4", "No Label", "32", "33", "61", "96"], "gold": ["32", "33", "61", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 933/2010\nof 18 October 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 922/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 October 2010.", "references": ["74", "51", "87", "70", "80", "63", "73", "26", "36", "13", "29", "97", "69", "12", "76", "64", "62", "30", "16", "56", "46", "75", "4", "24", "52", "9", "82", "96", "41", "50", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 6 July 2011\non emergency measures applicable to fenugreek seeds and certain seeds and beans imported from Egypt\n(notified under document C(2011) 5000)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/402/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1)(b)(i) and Article 53(1)(b)(iii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 178/2002 lays down the general principles governing food and feed in general, and food and feed safety in particular, at Community and national level. It provides for emergency measures where it is evident that food or feed imported from a third country is likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment, and that such risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member State(s) concerned.\n(2)\nOn 22 May 2011 Germany reported an outbreak of Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli- bacteria (STEC), serotype O104:H4 in the Northern part of Germany. Based on epidemiological investigations and laboratory testing the source of contamination could be linked to the consumption of sprouted seeds produced in one establishment south of Hamburg.\n(3)\nOn 15 June 2011 France reported an outbreak in Bordeaux, France, which -according to preliminary results- was caused by the same E. coli strain (Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli - bacteria (STEC), serotype O104:H4) as the one found in Germany. Just as in the case of Germany, investigations indicate that consumption of sprouted seeds may have caused the outbreak.\n(4)\nFurther indicators suggest that the dry seeds used for sprouting could be the original cause of the outbreak in Germany and in France. In order to ascertain the origin of the contamination, the Commission initiated a tracing back exercise coordinated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in consultation with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the World Health Organisation. On 5 July 2011, EFSA published its final report. The report states that the comparison of the back tracing information from the French and German outbreaks leads to the conclusion that a lot of fenugreek seeds imported from Egypt is the most likely common link although it cannot be excluded that other lots may be implicated. Given the possible severe human health impact arising from exposure to a small quantity of contaminated material, and, in the absence of information regarding the source and means of contamination as well as possible cross-contamination, it seems appropriate currently to consider all lots of the identified exporter as suspect.\n(5)\nIn addition the present tracing back exercise supports the hypothesis that the outbreaks are linked and are due to the import of fenugreek seeds which were contaminated at the importation or prior to import into the EU. The contamination of seeds with the E. coli O104:H4 strain reflects a production process which allowed contamination of faecal material of human and/or animal origin. Where exactly in the food chain this took place is still uncertain and whether this has in the meantime been remedied is also unknown. Further microbiological sampling shall be carried out in Member States to complement the evidence derived from the epidemiological studies as provided for in Article 8 of Directive 2003/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic agents amending Council Decision 90/424/EEC and repealing Council Directive 92/117/EEC (2).\n(6)\nOn the basis of the precautionary principle it is necessary to temporary prohibit also the import of all seeds and beans originated from Egypt, identified in the Annex, to allow the time necessary for further assessment of their safety. It is evident that there is possible severe human health impact arising from exposure to a small quantity of contaminated material also from other seeds and beans and that there is no precise information regarding the exact origin in Egypt and means of the contamination as well as possible cross-contamination.\n(7)\nTherefore it is appropriate to adopt, at European Union level, certain precautionary emergency measures to ensure that Member States adopt all necessary measures to withdraw from the EU market all lots of fenugreek seeds imported from Egypt during the period 2009 - 2011 mentioned in the notifications of the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed linked to the tracing back exercise, to sample them and then destroy them and to temporarily suspend import from Egypt of all seeds and beans identified in the Annex to this Decision.\n(8)\nIn order to allow the time necessary for the Competent Authorities of Egypt to provide feedback and to consider the appropriate risk management measures the temporary suspension of imports should be in force at least until 31 October 2011.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS IMPLEMENTING DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States shall adopt all the necessary measures so that all lots of fenugreek seeds imported from Egypt during the period 2009 - 2011, mentioned in the notifications of the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed linked to the tracing back exercise are withdrawn from the market and destroyed. In accordance with Article 8 of Directive 2003/99/EC the concerned lots shall be sampled.\nArticle 2\nThe release for free circulation in the EU of seeds and beans from Egypt as set out in the Annex is prohibited until 31 October 2011.\nArticle 3\nThe measures laid down in this Decision shall be regularly reassessed on the basis of the guarantees offered by Egypt, results of the analytical tests and investigations carried out by the Member States.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2011.", "references": ["46", "53", "81", "2", "71", "60", "43", "14", "78", "30", "32", "3", "58", "27", "0", "83", "7", "15", "85", "37", "93", "69", "89", "13", "87", "18", "82", "26", "62", "1", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "23", "38", "65", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "23", "38", "65", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 127/2012\nof 14 February 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards an extension of the use of the active substance metazachlor\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2)(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Directive 2008/116/EC (2) metazachlor was included as active substance in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (3) for use as a herbicide at a maximum application rate of 1,0 kg/ha only every third year on the same field. Since the replacement of Directive 91/414/EEC by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, this substance is deemed to have been approved under that Regulation and is listed in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011, implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (4).\n(2)\nOn 23 March 2010 one of the notifiers at whose request metazachlor was included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, submitted an application for an amendment to the specific provisions of use of metazachlor to allow more frequent applications on the same field, without however exceeding the total maximum amount of 1,0 kg/ha over a three-year period. That application was accompanied by additional information. It was submitted to the United Kingdom which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 (5).\n(3)\nThe rapporteur Member State assessed the additional information submitted by the applicant and prepared an addendum to the draft assessment report. It submitted that addendum to the Commission on 4 January 2011 which communicated it to the other Member States and to the European Food Safety Authority for comments. The addendum to the draft assessment report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 24 January 2012 in the format of an addendum to the Commission review report for metazachlor.\n(4)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations carried out that the amendment to the specific provisions of use applied for does not cause any risks in addition to those already taken into account in the approval of metazachlor and in the Commission review report for that substance.\n(5)\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nIn the column \u2018Specific provisions\u2019 of row number 217, metazachlor, of Part A of the Annex, Part A is replaced by the following:\n\u2018PART A\nOnly uses as herbicide may be authorised. Applications shall be limited to a total dose of not more than 1,0 kg metazachlor/ha in a three-year period on the same field.\u2019\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 February 2012.", "references": ["51", "74", "70", "14", "0", "38", "26", "7", "73", "48", "12", "9", "45", "62", "17", "94", "63", "6", "49", "15", "56", "52", "59", "32", "47", "5", "2", "96", "39", "60", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 795/2011\nof 8 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 August 2011.", "references": ["49", "95", "40", "32", "4", "42", "2", "87", "78", "88", "64", "92", "21", "39", "10", "9", "47", "63", "24", "53", "56", "72", "81", "71", "30", "34", "99", "75", "55", "11", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 February 2011\namending Decision 2009/821/EC as regards the lists of border inspection posts and veterinary units in Traces\n(notified under document C(2011) 701)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/93/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 20(1) and (3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (2), and in particular the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (3), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/821/EC of 28 September 2009 drawing up a list of approved border inspection posts, laying down certain rules on the inspections carried out by Commission veterinary experts and laying down the veterinary units in Traces (4) lays down a list of border inspection posts approved in accordance with Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC. That list is set out in Annex I to that Decision.\n(2)\nFollowing communication from Denmark, the Inspection centre 2 at the border inspection post at the port of Hirtshals should be deleted in the entries for that border inspection post set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC. In addition, the categories of products of animal origin that can currently be checked at the border inspection post at the airport of Billund should be deleted in the entries for that border inspection post.\n(3)\nFollowing a satisfactory inspection by the Commission inspection services, the Food and Veterinary Office, an additional border inspection post at Kalundborg in Denmark should be added to the entries for that Member State in the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(4)\nFollowing communication from Germany, the Inspection centre \u2018Frigo Altenwerder\u2019 at the border inspection post at the port of Hamburg should be replaced by the Inspection centre \u2018Altenwerder Kirchtal\u2019, with additional categories of products of animal origin that can be checked at that Inspection centre. That new Inspection centre should be included in the entries for that border inspection post set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(5)\nFollowing communication from Greece, the approval of the railway border inspection post of Neos Kafkassos should be deleted from the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC. In addition, certain categories of live animals that can currently be checked at the road border inspection post of Neos Kafkassos should be deleted in the entries for that border inspection post in that list.\n(6)\nSpain has communicated that an additional Inspection centre has been installed at the border inspection post at the airport of Barcelona. Following that communication, the list of border inspection posts for that Member State should be amended.\n(7)\nFrance has communicated that the approval of the border inspection post at the port of Boulogne should be deleted from the list of border inspection posts for that Member State.\n(8)\nFollowing communication from Latvia, the current suspension of approval of one Inspection centre at the border inspection post at the port of Riga (Riga port) should no longer apply. The entry for that border inspection post should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nFollowing communication from the United Kingdom, certain categories of products of animal origin that can currently be checked at the border inspection posts at Belfast International Airport and at the airport of Nottingham East Midlands should be deleted in the entries for those border inspection posts set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC. In addition, the entry for the border inspection post at the airport of Manston should be deleted in the list of entries for that Member State set out in that Annex.\n(10)\nAnnex II to Decision 2009/821/EC lays down the list of central units, regional units and local units in the integrated computerised veterinary system (Traces).\n(11)\nFollowing communications from Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Portugal, certain changes should be brought to the list of central, regional and local units in Traces for those Member States laid down in Annex II to Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(12)\nDecision 2009/821/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2009/821/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2011.", "references": ["99", "35", "66", "85", "18", "46", "30", "83", "3", "6", "75", "50", "11", "24", "78", "67", "62", "26", "90", "31", "47", "76", "36", "80", "17", "55", "97", "77", "86", "40", "No Label", "1", "4", "13", "22", "38", "41", "54", "61", "69"], "gold": ["1", "4", "13", "22", "38", "41", "54", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 514/2012\nof 18 June 2012\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 15(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (2) lays down rules concerning the increased level of official controls to be carried out on imports of feed and food of non-animal origin listed in Annex I thereto (\u2018the list\u2019), at the points of entry into the territories referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\n(2)\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 provides that the list is to be reviewed on a regular basis, and at least quarterly, taking into account at least the sources of information referred to in that Article.\n(3)\nThe occurrence and relevance of food incidents notified through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), the findings of missions to third countries carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office, as well as the quarterly reports on consignments of feed and food of non-animal origin submitted by Member States to the Commission in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 indicate that the list should be amended.\n(4)\nIn particular, the list should be amended by decreasing the frequency of official controls of the commodities for which the information sources indicate an overall improvement of compliance with the relevant requirements provided for in Union legislation and for which the current level of official control is therefore no longer justified.\n(5)\nThe list should also be amended to increase the frequency of official controls of the commodities for which the same sources of information show a higher degree of non-compliance with the relevant Union legislation, thereby warranting an increased level of official controls.\n(6)\nIn addition, certain other commodities for which the information sources indicate a degree of non-compliance with the relevant safety requirements, thereby warranting the introduction of an increased level of official controls, should be included in the list.\n(7)\nThe entries in the list for certain imports from India and for certain other commodities imported from the Dominican Republic should therefore be amended accordingly. In addition, an entry concerning consignments of nutmeg and mace from Indonesia should be inserted in the list.\n(8)\nThe amendment to the list concerning the reduction in the frequency of official controls on imports of yardlong beans, bitter melon, peppers and aubergines from the Dominican Republic should apply as soon as possible, as the original safety concerns have been partially solved. Accordingly, the amendments to the list concerning the entry for that third country should apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n(9)\nTaking into account the number of amendments that need to be made to Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009, it is appropriate to replace it by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 669/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nHowever, the amendment to Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 concerning the reduction in the frequency of physical and identity checks on yardlong beans, bitter melon, peppers and aubergines from the Dominican Republic shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2012.", "references": ["59", "28", "60", "89", "40", "68", "33", "54", "11", "49", "42", "9", "41", "91", "27", "73", "21", "4", "52", "16", "62", "64", "70", "44", "48", "63", "0", "92", "53", "74", "No Label", "20", "22", "38", "66", "72", "93", "95", "96"], "gold": ["20", "22", "38", "66", "72", "93", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 374/2011\nof 11 April 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Farina di castagne della Lunigiana (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Farina di castagne della Lunigiana\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["60", "41", "87", "59", "18", "92", "76", "78", "20", "11", "14", "13", "88", "57", "70", "50", "37", "30", "83", "46", "29", "5", "73", "82", "84", "28", "61", "79", "27", "56", "No Label", "23", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 7 December 2010\non granting Union financial assistance to Ireland\n(2011/77/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (1), and in particular Article 3(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIreland has recently come under increasing pressure in financial markets, reflecting rising concerns about the sustainability of the Irish public finances in view of comprehensive public support measures to the weakened financial sector. Due to its excessive exposure to real estate and construction projects, the domestic banking system has experienced large losses in the aftermath of the collapse of those sectors. The current crisis in the economic and banking sectors has also had a dramatic impact on Ireland\u2019s public finances, compounding the impact of the recession. Falling tax revenue and an increase in cyclical expenditure, in particular due to rising unemployment, have contributed to a high general government deficit and a steep increase in debt, compared to the favourable pre-crisis positions and despite the implementation of five important fiscal consolidation packages since mid-2008. Support measures for the banking sector, including significant capital injections, have added greatly to the deterioration in the public finance position. Current market concerns primarily reflect the fact that the solvency of the Irish sovereign and the banking system have become inextricably linked in the crisis; they have led to a steep increase in Irish sovereign bond yields, while the domestic banking system is effectively cut off from international market funding.\n(2)\nIn view of this severe economic and financial disturbance caused by exceptional occurrences beyond the control of the government, the Irish authorities officially requested financial assistance from the European Union, the Member States whose currency is the euro and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on 21 November 2010 with a view to supporting the return of the economy to sustainable growth, ensuring a properly-functioning banking system and safeguarding financial stability in the Union and in the euro zone. On 28 November 2010, an agreement at technical level was reached in respect of a comprehensive policy package for the period 2010-2013.\n(3)\nThe draft economic and financial adjustment programme (the \u2018Programme\u2019) submitted to the Council and the Commission aims at restoring financial market confidence in the Irish banking sector and the sovereign, enabling the economy to return to sustainable growth. To achieve these goals, the Programme contains three main elements. First, a financial sector strategy which comprises fundamental downsizing, deleveraging and reorganisation of the banking sector, complemented by appropriate recapitalisation to the extent needed. Second, an ambitious fiscal consolidation strategy, building on the National Recovery Plan 2011-2014 published by the Irish authorities on 24 November 2010. The plan sets out detailed fiscal consolidation measures aiming at putting gross public debt on a firm downward path in the medium term. The authorities are committed to reducing the deficit to below 3 % of GDP by 2015, the revised deadline set by the Council on 7 December 2010. Third, also building on the National Recovery Plan, the Programme sets out an ambitious structural reform agenda, notably in the labour market, with a view to facilitating adjustment and strengthening the economy\u2019s growth potential. In support of this ambitious policy package, the Irish authorities are requesting financial assistance from the Union and the Member States whose currency is the euro, and bilateral loans from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark and the IMF.\n(4)\nUnder the Commission\u2019s current projections for nominal GDP growth (1,4 % in 2011, 2,7 % in 2012 and 3,8 % in 2013), the fiscal adjustment path specified in Council Recommendation of 7 December 2010 with a view to bringing to an end the situation of an excessive deficit in Ireland is consistent with a path for the debt-to-GDP ratio of 98,9 % in 2010, 113,5 % in 2011, 120,0 % in 2012 and 121,8 % in 2013. The debt-to-GDP ratio would therefore be stabilised in 2013 and be placed on a declining path thereafter, assuming further progress in the reduction of the deficit. Debt dynamics are affected by several below-the-line operations, which are projected to increase the debt-to-GDP ratio by 5,3 percentage points (pps.) of GDP in 2011 and 0,8 pps. of GDP in 2012, and to reduce it by 1,3 pps. of GDP in 2013. These include projected capital injections into banks in 2011, reductions in cash reserves, and differences between accrued and cash interest payments.\n(5)\nThe assessment by the Commission, in liaison with the European Central Bank (ECB), is that Ireland needs financing of a total amount of EUR 85 billion (85 000 million) over the period from December 2010 to the end of 2013. Notwithstanding the significant fiscal adjustment, the financing gap for the sovereign may amount to EUR 50 billion over the period of the Programme. This assumes roll-over rates for maturing long-term debt of 0 % until the end of 2011, 20 % in 2012, and 80 % in 2013. Conservative roll-over assumptions are also made regarding short-term debt. The financial sector strategy contained in the Programme to restore confidence in the Irish banking system on a sustainable basis contains a banking support scheme of up to EUR 35 billion. This comprises an immediate capital injection of up to EUR 10 billion into selected banks to bring their core tier 1 capital ratio to 12 %, while also funding early measures to support deleveraging and taking account of haircuts on the additional loans to be transferred to the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA). Further provisions of contingency capital of EUR 25 billion should provide assurance that banks are able to meet current and future capital requirements. Actual funding needs may, however, be substantially lower, in particular if market conditions improve significantly and no severe unexpected banking losses materialise during the period of the Programme.\n(6)\nThe Programme would be financed through contributions from external sources and the use of Irish financial buffers. The Union\u2019s assistance to Ireland would reach up to EUR 22,5 billion under the European financial stabilisation mechanism (EFSM) established by Regulation (EU) No 407/2010. This would be part of total support provided by Ireland\u2019s European partners amounting to EUR 45 billion. Further to the support from the EFSM, loans from Ireland\u2019s partner countries in the Union would include contributions from the European Financial Stability Facility (EUR 17,7 billion), and bilateral lending support from the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark (EUR 4,8 billion in total). In addition, Ireland has requested a loan from the IMF of 19,5 billion Special Drawing Rights (equivalent to around EUR 22,5 billion) under an Extended Fund Facility. The Irish contribution would be EUR 17,5 billion, and would come from the use of the existing Treasury cash reserve and contributions from the National Pensions Reserve Fund. The support from the EFSM needs to be supplied on terms and conditions similar to those of the IMF.\n(7)\nThe Council should review on a regular basis the economic policies implemented by Ireland, in particular in the context of the annual reviews of Ireland\u2019s update of the stability programme and implementation of the National Reform Programme, as well as under the excessive deficit procedure.\n(8)\nThe Union financial assistance should be managed by the Commission. The specific economic policy conditions agreed with Ireland should be laid down in a Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Conditionality (the \u2018Memorandum of Understanding\u2019). The detailed financial terms should be laid down in a Loan Facility Agreement.\n(9)\nThe Commission, in consultation with the ECB, should verify at regular intervals that the economic policy conditions attached to the assistance are fulfilled, through missions and regular reporting by the Irish authorities, on a quarterly basis.\n(10)\nThroughout the implementation of the Programme, the Commission should provide additional policy advice and technical assistance in specific areas.\n(11)\nThe operations which the Union financial assistance helps to finance must be compatible with Union policies and comply with the law of the Union. Interventions in support of financial institutions must be carried out in accordance with the Union\u2019s rules on competition. The Commission, working together with the ECB and the IMF, intends to involve Member States as appropriate in the design and implementation of the prudential liquidity assessment (PLAR) and in the development of the strategy for the future structure, functioning and viability of Irish credit institutions.\n(12)\nThe assistance should be provided with a view to supporting the successful implementation of the Programme,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Union shall make available to Ireland a loan amounting to a maximum of EUR 22,5 billion, with a maximum average maturity of 7\u00bd years.\n2. The financial assistance shall be made available during 3 years starting from the first day after the entry into force of this Decision.\n3. The Union financial assistance shall be made available by the Commission to Ireland in a maximum of 13 instalments. An instalment may be disbursed in one or several tranches. The maturities of the tranches under the first instalment may be longer than the maximum average maturity referred to in paragraph 1. In such cases, the maturities of further tranches shall be set so that the maximum average maturity referred to in paragraph 1 be achieved once all instalments have been disbursed.\n4. The first instalment shall be released subject to the entry into force of the Loan Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding. Any subsequent loan releases shall be conditional upon a favourable quarterly assessment by the Commission, in consultation with the ECB, of Ireland\u2019s compliance with the general economic policy conditions as defined by this Decision and the Memorandum of Understanding.\n5. Ireland shall pay the actual cost of funding of the Union for each tranche plus a margin of 292,5 basis points, which results in conditions similar to those of the IMF support.\n6. In addition, costs referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 shall be charged to Ireland.\n7. If required in order to finance the loan, the prudent use of interest rate swaps with counterparties of the highest credit quality shall be permitted.\n8. The Commission shall decide on the size and release of further instalments. The Commission shall decide on the size of the tranches.\nArticle 2\n1. The assistance shall be managed by the Commission in a manner consistent with Ireland\u2019s undertakings and with recommendations by the Council, in particular the Recommendations addressed to Ireland in the context of the implementation of its National Reform Programme as well as in the context of the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact.\n2. The Commission, in consultation with the ECB, shall agree with the Irish authorities the specific economic policy conditions attached to the financial assistance as set out in Article 3. Those conditions shall be laid down in a Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by the Commission and the Irish authorities consistent with the undertakings and recommendations referred to in paragraph 1. The detailed financial terms shall be laid down in a Loan Facility Agreement to be concluded with the Commission.\n3. The Commission, in consultation with the ECB, shall verify at regular intervals that the economic policy conditions attached to the assistance are fulfilled, and report to the Economic and Financial Committee before disbursement of each instalment. To this end, the Irish authorities shall cooperate in full with the Commission and the ECB, and shall place all the necessary information at their disposal. The Commission shall keep the Economic and Financial Committee informed of possible refinancing of the borrowings, or restructuring of the financial conditions.\n4. Ireland shall adopt and implement additional consolidation measures to ensure macro-financial stability, in case such measures will be necessary during the programme of assistance. The Irish authorities shall consult the Commission and the ECB in advance of the adoption of any such additional measures.\nArticle 3\n1. The economic and financial adjustment programme (the \u2018Programme\u2019) prepared by the Irish authorities is hereby approved.\n2. The disbursement of each further instalment shall be made on the basis of a satisfactory implementation of the Programme to be included in the Stability Programme of Ireland, in the National Reform Programme and, more particularly, the specific economic policy conditions laid down in the Memorandum of Understanding. These shall include, inter alia, the measures provided for in paragraphs 4 to 9 of this Article.\n3. The general government deficit shall not exceed 10,6 % of projected GDP in 2011, 8,6 % of GDP in 2012 and 7,5 % of GDP in 2013, in order to place Ireland on track to reduce the deficit to below 3 % of GDP by 2015. The projected annual deficit path does not incorporate the possible direct effect of potential bank support measures in the context of the government\u2019s financial sector strategy as set out in the Memorandum of Economic and Financial Polices and specified in the Memorandum of Understanding. Further, this path is consistent with the preliminary view of the Commission (Eurostat) on the ESA95 accounting treatment of time of recording of interest payments on promissory notes payable to Anglo Irish Bank (2), such that a revision of that view would result in a revision of the deficit path.\n4. Ireland shall adopt the measures specified in paragraphs 7 to 9 before the end of the indicated year, with exact deadlines for the years 2011-2013 being specified in the Memorandum of Understanding. Ireland shall stand ready to take additional consolidation measures to reduce the deficit to below 3 % of GDP by 2015 in case downside risks to the deficit targets specified in paragraph 3 of this Article materialise.\n5. With a view to restoring confidence in the financial sector, Ireland shall adequately recapitalise, rapidly deleverage and thoroughly restructure the banking system as set out in the Memorandum of Understanding. In that regard, Ireland shall develop and agree with the European Commission, the ECB and the IMF a strategy for the future structure, functioning and viability of the Irish credit institutions which will identify how to ensure that they are able to operate without further state support. In particular, Ireland shall:\n(a)\ntake action to ensure that Allied Irish Banks, Bank of Ireland, Educational Building Society and Irish Life and Permanent are recapitalised in the form of equity, if needed, so as to ensure that the minimum capital requirement of 10,5 % core tier 1 capital will be maintained, depending on the results of the Prudential Capital Adequacy Review for 2011;\n(b)\nimplement the divestiture of participations in banks acquired during the crisis within the shortest timeframe possible, in a manner compatible with financial stability and public finance considerations;\n(c)\nimplement a specific plan for the resolution of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society, which will seek to minimise capital losses arising from the working out of these non-viable credit institutions;\n(d)\nby the end of 2010, submit draft legislation to the Oireachtas (Parliament) on financial stabilisation and restructuring of credit institutions which will, inter alia, address burden sharing by subordinated debt bond holders;\n(e)\nby the end of March 2011, submit draft legislation to the Oireachtas on a special resolution regime for banks and building societies, and improved procedures for early intervention in distressed banks by the Central Bank of Ireland.\n6. Ireland shall adopt the following measures before the end of 2010:\nAdoption of a budget for 2011 including fiscal consolidation measures in a total amount of EUR 6 billion aiming at a reduction of the general government deficit within the timeframe referred to in paragraph 3. The budget shall include revenue measures to raise at least EUR 1,4 billion in 2011, including a lowering of personal income tax bands and credits or equivalent measures to yield EUR 945 000 000 in 2011; a reduction in pension tax relief and pension related deductions to yield EUR 155 000 000 in 2011; a reduction in general tax expenditures to yield EUR 220 000 000 in 2011; increases in excises and miscellaneous tax measures to raise EUR 80 000 000 in 2011. In addition, the budget shall specify that the government will outline methods to raise at least EUR 700 000 000 in one-off and other measures in 2011. The budget shall also include a reduction of current expenditure in 2011 of at least EUR 2,09 billion, including: social protection expenditure reductions; a reduction of public service employment; a reduction of existing public service pensions on a progressive basis averaging over 4 %; other expenditure savings, including cuts in goods and services spending and in other transfer payments; a reduction of at least EUR 1,8 billion in public capital expenditure against existing plans for 2011. In exceptional circumstances, other measures yielding comparable savings shall be considered, in close consultation with the Commission.\n7. Ireland shall adopt the following measures during 2011, in line with specifications in the Memorandum of Understanding:\n(a)\na 10 % pay reduction for new entrants to the public service. The Irish government shall also consider an appropriate adjustment, including in relation to the public service wage bill, to compensate for potential shortfalls from projected savings from administrative efficiencies and public service numbers reductions;\n(b)\nthe adoption of a budget for 2012 including fiscal consolidation measures amounting to at least EUR 3,6 billion and aiming at a reduction of the general government deficit within the timeframe referred to in Article 3(3). The draft budget shall, in particular, include revenue measures to yield EUR 1,5 billion in a full year including, inter alia: a lowering of personal income tax bands and credits; a reduction in private pension tax relief; a reduction in general tax expenditure; a new property tax; a reform of capital gains tax and capital acquisitions tax; and, an increase in the carbon tax. The budget shall provide for a reduction of expenditure in 2012 of EUR 2,1 billion including social expenditure reductions; cuts in public sector employment; adjustments in public sector pensions and in other expenditure set out in the Programme; and reductions in capital expenditure;\n(c)\nthe finalisation of an independent assessment of transfer of responsibility for water services provision from local authorities to a water utility, and preparation of proposals for implementation with a view to starting charging in 2012-2013;\n(d)\nthe adoption of legislation to increase the state pension age to 66 years in 2014, 67 in 2021, and 68 in 2028, with a view to enhancing the long-term sustainability of the public finances. Further, pension entitlements for new entrants to the public service shall be reformed with effect from 2011. This shall include a review of accelerated retirement for certain categories of public servants and an indexation of pensions to consumer prices. Pensions shall be based on career average earnings. New entrants\u2019 retirement age shall be linked to the state pension retirement age;\n(e)\nthe adoption of measures reinforcing a credible budgetary strategy and strengthening the budgetary framework. Ireland shall adopt and implement the fiscal rule that any additional unplanned revenues in the period 2011-2015 will be allocated to deficit and debt reduction. In accordance with the proposal set out in the National Recovery Plan 2011-2014, Ireland shall establish a budgetary advisory council to provide an independent assessment of the government\u2019s budgetary position and forecasts. Ireland shall adopt a fiscal responsibility law introducing a medium-term expenditure framework with binding multi-annual ceilings on expenditure in each area. This shall be adopted taking into account any revised economic governance reforms at the level of the Union and shall build on reforms already in place;\n(f)\nIreland shall adopt legislative changes to remove restrictions to trade and competition in sheltered sectors including the legal profession, medical services and the pharmacy profession;\n(g)\nthe recapitalisation of Irish domestic banks to an initial level of 12 % core tier 1 capital, taking account of haircuts on the additional loans to be transferred to NAMA, and funding of early deleveraging by making available EUR 10 billion in the system. The recapitalisation shall take the form of equity shares (or equivalent instruments for the Educational Building Society);\n(h)\nthe introduction of legislation to reform the minimum wage in such a way to foster job creation and act to prevent distortions caused by sectoral minimum wages, and undertaking, in agreement with the Commission, an independent review of the framework Registered Employment Agreements and Employment Regulation Orders;\n(i)\na reform of the unemployment benefit system to enhance incentives for an early exit from unemployment. Activation measures shall be strengthened by better identifying job seekers\u2019 needs, enhancing engagement, and developing sanctions to ensure job search or training by beneficiaries; this shall be underpinned by more effective monitoring. The sanctions mechanism shall be set to cause an effective loss of income without being excessively penal;\n(j)\nthe publication of an in-depth review of the personal debt regime, and start of work on a reform of legislation which will balance the interests of both creditors and debtors;\n(k)\nthe preparation of a report providing an independent assessment of the electricity and gas sectors to assist with public financing needs, as well as to increase competition. The Irish authorities shall consult with the Commission on the results of this assessment with a view to setting appropriate targets;\n(l)\nenhancing competition in open markets; legislation shall be reformed to generate more credible deterrence by providing for the possible imposition of fines and other sanctions in competition cases. In addition, the competition authorities will be required to identify sectors which are effectively outside the scope of competition law and identify processes to address those exclusions;\n(m)\nencouraging growth in the retail sector; the government will conduct a study to examine the economic impact of eliminating the current cap on the size of retail premises with a view to enhancing competition and lowering prices for consumers. Implementation of the policy of the study will be discussed with the Commission.\n8. Ireland shall adopt the following measures during 2012, in line with specifications in the Memorandum of Understanding:\n(a)\nthe adoption of a budget for 2013 including fiscal consolidation measures amounting to at least EUR 3,1 billion aiming at a reduction of the general government deficit within the timeframe referred to in Article 3(3). In particular, the budget shall include revenue measures to raise at least EUR 1,1 billion (inclusive of carryover from 2012), including: a lowering of personal income tax bands and credits; a reduction in private pension tax relief; a reduction in general tax expenditures and an introduction of property tax. The budget shall also provide for a reduction in expenditure in 2013 of at least EUR 2 billion, including: social expenditure reductions; a reduction of public service employment; public service pension adjustments; cuts in other expenditure set out in the Programme; and reductions in capital expenditure;\n(b)\nthe submission of legislation to the Oireachtas to reform the personal debt regime with a view to ensuring a better balance of the interests of both creditors and debtors.\n9. In order to ensure the smooth implementation of the Programme\u2019s conditionality, and to help to correct imbalances in a sustainable way, the Commission shall provide continued advice and guidance on fiscal, financial market and structural reforms. Within the framework of the assistance to be provided to Ireland, together with the IMF and in liaison with the ECB, it shall periodically review the effectiveness and economic and social impact of the agreed measures, and shall recommend necessary corrections with a view to enhancing growth and job creation, securing the necessary fiscal consolidation and minimising harmful social impacts, particularly regarding the most vulnerable members of Irish society.\nArticle 4\nIreland shall open a special account with the Central Bank of Ireland for the management of the Union financial assistance.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to Ireland.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2010.", "references": ["49", "98", "47", "18", "93", "12", "37", "78", "52", "20", "72", "33", "30", "6", "48", "2", "83", "66", "79", "35", "39", "95", "46", "84", "43", "63", "99", "70", "17", "59", "No Label", "4", "10", "15", "16", "19", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "15", "16", "19", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 22 December 2011\nproviding the rules for the establishment, the management and the functioning of the network of national responsible authorities on eHealth\n(2011/890/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients\u2019 rights in cross-border healthcare (1), and in particular Article 14(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 14 of the Directive 2011/24/EU assigned the Union to support and facilitate cooperation and the exchange of information among Member States working within a voluntary network connecting national authorities responsible for eHealth designated by the Member States (\u2018the eHealth Network\u2019).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 14(3) of Directive 2011/24/EU the Commission has an obligation to adopt the necessary rules for the establishment, management and transparent functioning of the eHealth Network.\n(3)\nParticipation in the eHealth Network being voluntary, the Member States should be able to join at any time. For organisational purposes, the Member States wishing to participate should inform the Commission of this intention in advance.\n(4)\nPersonal data of representatives of Member States, experts and observers participating in the Network should be processed in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (2) and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (3).\n(5)\nThe 2009 Council conclusions on safe and efficient healthcare through eHealth called for an alignment of eHealth with health strategies and needs at the Union and national levels through the direct involvement of national health authorities. To achieve this, the Council conclusions also called for a high-level mechanism of governance following which a Joint Action (4) and a Thematic Network were launched in the framework respectively of the Health Programme (5) and the ICT Policy Support Programme of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (6) (hereafter \u2018the Joint Action\u2019 and \u2018the Thematic Network\u2019). To ensure coordination, coherence and consistency of the work on eHealth at Union level and to avoid duplication of work, it is appropriate to ensure continuation of the work of the high level mechanism above mentioned within the framework of the eHealth Network, in so far as this work is compatible with the objectives assigned to the Network by Article 14(2) of Directive 2011/24/EU, and to link the Joint Action and the Thematic Network to the eHealth Network.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 16 of Directive 2011/24/EU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision sets the necessary rules for the establishment, the management and the functioning of the Network of national responsible authorities on eHealth, as provided for by Article 14(1) of Directive 2011/24/EU.\nArticle 2\nTask\n1. The eHealth Network shall pursue the objectives assigned to it by Article 14(2) of Directive 2011/24/EU.\n2. In pursuing those objectives the eHealth Network shall work in close cooperation with the Joint Action and the Thematic Network and shall build on the results achieved in the framework of those two activities.\nArticle 3\nMembership - Appointment\n1. Members shall be Member States\u2019 authorities responsible for eHealth designated by those Member States participating in the eHealth Network.\n2. Member States wishing to participate in the eHealth Network shall notify in writing to the Commission this intention as well as the national authority responsible for eHealth they have designated in accordance with Article 14(1) of Directive 2011/24/EU.\n3. Each national authority responsible for eHealth shall nominate one representative in the eHealth Network, as well as one alternate, and shall communicate this information to the Commission.\n4. The names of Member States\u2019 authorities may be published in the Register of Commission expert groups and other similar entities (\u2018the Register\u2019).\n5. Personal data of representatives of Member States, experts and observers participating in the Network shall be collected, processed and published in accordance with Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC.\nArticle 4\nRelation between the eHealth Network and the Commission\n1. The Commission may consult the eHealth Network on any matter relating to eHealth in the Union, in particular when this is needed in order to provide guidance to the Joint Action and the Thematic Network.\n2. Any Member of the eHealth Network may advise the Commission to consult the eHealth Network on a specific question.\nArticle 5\nRules of procedure\nThe eHealth Network shall adopt by a simple majority of its Members its own rules of procedure on the proposal by the Commission services, following consultation with the Member States participating in the Network.\nArticle 6\nOperation\n1. The eHealth Network may set up sub-groups to examine specific questions on the basis of terms of reference defined by it. Such sub-groups shall be disbanded as soon as their mandate is fulfilled.\n2. The eHealth Network shall adopt a multiannual work programme and an evaluation instrument on the implementation of such programme.\n3. Members of the eHealth Network and their representatives, as well as invited experts and observers, shall comply with the obligations of professional secrecy laid down by Article 339 of the Treaty and its implementing rules, as well as with the Commission\u2019s rules on security regarding the protection of EU classified information, laid down in the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending its internal Rules of Procedure (7). Should they fail to respect these obligations, the Chair of the eHealth Network may take all appropriate measures.\nArticle 7\nSecretariat of the eHealth Network\n1. The Commission shall provide secretarial services for the eHealth Network.\n2. Other Commission officials with an interest in the proceedings may attend meetings of the eHealth Network and its sub-groups.\n3. The Commission shall publish relevant information on the activities carried out by the eHealth Network either by including it in the Register or via a link from the Register to a dedicated website.\nArticle 8\nMeeting expenses\n1. Participants in the activities of the eHealth Network shall not be remunerated by the Commission for their services.\n2. Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by participants in the activities of the eHealth Network shall be reimbursed by the Commission in accordance with the provisions in force within the Commission.\nThose expenses shall be reimbursed within the limits of the available appropriations allocated under the annual procedure for the allocation of resources.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone in Brussels, 22 December 2011.", "references": ["87", "70", "0", "6", "34", "36", "1", "55", "47", "76", "72", "26", "11", "20", "71", "85", "77", "28", "45", "15", "8", "17", "39", "64", "30", "92", "62", "33", "67", "97", "No Label", "2", "38", "40", "41"], "gold": ["2", "38", "40", "41"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/106/CFSP\nof 15 February 2011\non adapting and extending the period of application of the measures in Decision 2002/148/EC concluding consultations with Zimbabwe under Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1) and revised in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, on 23 June 2010 (2) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement\u2019), and in particular Article 96 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Council Decision 2002/148/EC (4), the consultations with the Republic of Zimbabwe under Article 96(2)(c) of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement were concluded and appropriate measures, as specified in the Annex to that Decision, were taken.\n(2)\nPursuant to Council Decision 2010/97/CFSP (5), the measures referred to in the Annex to Decision 2002/148/EC were adapted and their period of application was extended for 12 months until 20 February 2011.\n(3)\nThe creation of the Government of National Unity (GNU) in Zimbabwe was recognised as an opportunity to re-establish a constructive relationship between the European Union and Zimbabwe and to support the implementation of Zimbabwe\u2019s reform programme.\n(4)\nHowever, this is being undermined by the lack of progress by the GNU to implement certain essential elements of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, to which the GNU had committed itself in the Global Political Agreement (GPA).\n(5)\nThe period of application of the measures referred to in Decision 2002/148/EC should therefore be extended. The measures should constantly be reviewed in light of concrete progress on the ground.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe measures referred to in the letter annexed to this Decision are hereby extended as appropriate measures within the meaning of Article 96(2)(c) of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement.\nThese measures shall apply until 20 February 2012. They shall be kept under constant review.\nArticle 2\nThe letter annexed to this Decision shall be addressed to President Mugabe of Zimbabwe and copied to Prime Minister Tsvangirai and Deputy Prime Minister Mutambara.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2011.", "references": ["75", "40", "27", "85", "83", "10", "35", "49", "90", "44", "67", "50", "89", "56", "32", "2", "7", "52", "45", "8", "48", "84", "82", "29", "6", "33", "64", "68", "63", "53", "No Label", "0", "1", "4", "9", "14", "15", "94", "96"], "gold": ["0", "1", "4", "9", "14", "15", "94", "96"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 1/2010 OF THE JOINT VETERINARY COMMITTEE SET UP BY THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND THE SWISS CONFEDERATION ON TRADE IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS\nof 1 December 2010\nregarding the amendment of Appendices 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 11 to Annex 11 to the Agreement\n(2010/797/EU)\nTHE JOINT VETERINARY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agriculture Agreement\u2019), and in particular Article 19(3) of Annex 11 thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agriculture Agreement entered into force on 1 June 2002.\n(2)\nUnder Article 19(1) of Annex 11 to the Agriculture Agreement the Joint Veterinary Committee is responsible for considering any matter arising in connection with the said Annex and its implementation and for carrying out the tasks provided for therein. Article 19(3) of that Annex authorises the Joint Veterinary Committee to amend the Appendices thereto, in particular with a view to their adaptation and updating.\n(3)\nThe Appendices to Annex 11 to the Agriculture Agreement were amended for the first time by Decision No 2/2003 of the Joint Veterinary Committee set up by the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products of 25 November 2003 amending Appendices 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 to Annex 11 to the Agreement (1).\n(4)\nThe Appendices to Annex 11 to the Agriculture Agreement were last amended by Decision No 1/2008 of the Joint Veterinary Committee set up by the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products of 23 December 2008 regarding the amendment of Appendices 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 to Annex 11 to the Agreement (2).\n(5)\nThe Swiss Confederation has requested an extension to the previously granted derogation in respect of the Trichinella examination of carcasses and meat of domestic swine kept for fattening and slaughter in low-capacity slaughter establishments. Since such carcasses and meat of domestic swine, as well as meat preparations, meat products and derived processed products thereof, may not be traded with the Member States of the European Union, pursuant to the provisions of Article 9(a) of the Swiss Ordinance on foodstuffs of animal origin issued by the D\u00e9partement F\u00e9d\u00e9ral de l\u2019Int\u00e9rieur (RS 817.022.108), this request can be complied with. The derogation in question should, therefore, be made applicable until 31 December 2014.\n(6)\nSince the Appendices to Annex 11 to the Agriculture Agreement were last amended, the legislative provisions of Appendices 1, 2, 5, 6 and 10 to Annex 11 to that Agreement have also been amended. The contact points referred to in Appendix 11 to Annex 11 to the Agriculture Agreement should therefore be updated.\n(7)\nIt is necessary to adapt the provisions of Appendices 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 11 to Annex 11 to the Agriculture Agreement accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAppendices 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 11 to Annex 11 to the Agriculture Agreement shall be amended in accordance with Annexes I to VI to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision, drawn up in duplicate, shall be signed by the joint chairmen or other persons empowered to act on behalf of the parties.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date when both parties will have signed it.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Bern, 1 December 2010.", "references": ["72", "22", "25", "51", "11", "1", "71", "31", "73", "37", "14", "82", "19", "2", "45", "17", "54", "16", "13", "4", "68", "55", "5", "29", "50", "93", "94", "56", "0", "87", "No Label", "9", "21", "24", "38", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "21", "24", "38", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 546/2012\nof 25 June 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) and Article 8(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2004/68/EC of 26 April 2004 laying down animal health rules for the importation into and transit through the Community of certain live ungulate animals, amending Directives 90/426/EEC and 92/65/EEC and repealing Directive 72/462/EEC (2), and in particular Article 3(1) and Article 7(e) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 (3) lays down the veterinary certification requirements for the introduction into the Union of certain consignments of live animals or fresh meat. It also lays down the lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof from which those consignments may be introduced into the Union.\n(2)\nRegulation (EU) No 206/2010 provides that consignments of ungulates are to be introduced into the Union only if they come from the third countries, territories or parts thereof listed in Part 1 of Annex I thereto for which there is a model veterinary certificate corresponding to the consignment concerned listed in that Part. In addition, those consignments are to be accompanied by the appropriate veterinary certificate, drawn up in accordance with the relevant model set out in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010, taking into account the specific conditions indicated in column 6 of the table in Part 1 of that Annex.\n(3)\nThe whole territory of Canada, except the Okanagan Valley region of British Columbia, is currently listed in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 as approved for the export to the Union, inter alia, of domestic ovine animals (Ovis aries) and domestic caprine animals (Capra hircus) intended for breeding and/or production after importation and accompanied by a veterinary certificate in accordance with model OVI-X. However, Canada is not listed in column 6 of the table in Part 1 of that Annex as having an official brucellosis-free status for the purposes of exports to the Union of live animals certified according to that model certificate.\n(4)\nCouncil Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals (4) lays down, inter alia, the conditions under which Member States or regions thereof may be recognised as being officially brucellosis-free.\n(5)\nIn addition, Directive 2004/68/EC provides that, where the equivalence of the official health guarantees provided for by a third country can be formally recognised by the Union, the specific animal health conditions for the introduction of live ungulates from that third country into the Union may be based on those guarantees.\n(6)\nCanada has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions laid down in Directive 91/68/EEC to be recognised as officially free from brucellosis (B. melitensis) for the entire territory of that third country for the purposes of exports to the Union of domestic ovine animals (Ovis aries) and domestic caprine animals (Capra hircus) intended for breeding and/or production after importation and accompanied by a veterinary certificate in accordance with model certificate OVI-X set out in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010.\n(7)\nFollowing the evaluation of the documentation submitted by Canada, that third country should be recognised as being officially free from brucellosis (B. melitensis). The appropriate reference should therefore be included in the entry for that third country in column 6 of the table in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010.\n(8)\nIn addition, Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 provides that consignments of fresh meat intended for human consumption are to be imported into the Union only if they come from the third countries, territories or parts thereof listed in Part 1 of Annex II to that Regulation for which there is a model veterinary certificate corresponding to the consignment concerned listed in that Part.\n(9)\nFour parts of the territory of Botswana are listed in Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 as regions from which imports of fresh de-boned and matured meat from ungulates into the Union are authorised. Those regions consist of a number of veterinary disease control zones.\n(10)\nFollowing an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in region BW-1 of Botswana, Regulation (EU) No 206/2010, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 801/2011 (5), provides that the authorisation of Botswana to export fresh de-boned and matured meat from ungulates into the Union from that region is suspended as from 11 May 2011. The region BW-1 of Botswana is composed of veterinary disease control zones 3c, 4b, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 18.\n(11)\nOn 2 December 2011, Botswana notified the Commission of the successful approval of veterinary disease control zones 3c, 4b, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 18 as free from foot-and-mouth disease by the World Organisation for Animal Health. The suspension of the authorisation to export fresh de-boned and matured meat from ungulates into the Union from that region is therefore no longer necessary.\n(12)\nHowever, within veterinary disease control zone 6, Botswana has declared an area close to the border with Zimbabwe as a intensive surveillance zone and informed the Commission that all domestic bovine animals in that zone were slaughtered. That area should not be authorised for exports to the Union of fresh de-boned and matured meat from ungulates. It should therefore be excluded from the region BW-1 as listed in part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010.\n(13)\nRegulation (EU) No 206/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 206/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Part 1 of Annex I, the entry for Canada is replaced by the following:\n\u2018CA - Canada\nCA-0\nWhole country\nPOR-X\nIVb IX V\u2019\nCA-1\nWhole country, except the Okanagan Valley region of British Columbia described as follows:\n-\nFrom a point on the Canada/United States border 120\u00b015\u2032 longitude, 49\u00b0 latitude\n-\nNortherly to a point 119\u00b035\u2032 longitude, 50\u00b030\u2032 latitude\n-\nNorth-easterly to a point 119\u00b0 longitude, 50\u00b045\u2032 latitude\n-\nSoutherly to a point on the Canada/United States border 118\u00b015\u2032 longitude, 49\u00b0 latitude\nBOV-X, OVI-X, OVI-Y RUM (*)\nA\n(2)\nin Part 1 of Annex II, the entry for Botswana is replaced by the following:\n\u2018BW - Botswana\nBW-0\nWhole country\nEQU, EQW\nBW-1\nThe veterinary disease control zones 3c, 4b, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 18, except the intensive surveillance zone in zone 6 between the border with Zimbabwe and the highway A1\nBOV, OVI, RUF, RUW\nF\n1\n11 May 2011\n26 June 2012\nBW-2\nThe veterinary disease control zones 10, 11, 13 and 14\nBOV, OVI, RUF, RUW\nF\n1\n7 March 2002\nBW-3\nThe veterinary disease control zone 12\nBOV, OVI, RUF, RUW\nF\n1\n20 October 2008\n20 January 2009\nBW-4\nThe veterinary disease control zone 4a, except the intensive surveillance buffer zone of 10 km along the boundary with the foot-and-mouth disease vaccination zone and wildlife management areas\nBOV\nF\n1\n18 February 2011\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["46", "38", "37", "99", "17", "83", "44", "67", "57", "18", "86", "3", "0", "95", "49", "73", "29", "26", "45", "27", "8", "47", "91", "68", "2", "58", "63", "78", "39", "76", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "65", "66", "69", "93", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "65", "66", "69", "93", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 226/2012\nof 15 March 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1730/2006 as regards the conditions of use of benzoic acid (holder of authorisation Emerald Kalama Chemical BV)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe preparation benzoic acid, belonging to the additive category of \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019, was authorised for 10 years as a feed additive for use in weaned piglets by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1730/2006 (2) and for use in pigs for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1138/2007 (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, the holder of the authorisation has proposed changing the terms of the authorisation of the preparation benzoic acid as feed additive for weaned piglets to delete the condition regarding inclusion of that preparation in compound feed via premixture and to modify the conditions regarding complementary feedingstuffs. The application was accompanied by the relevant supporting data. The Commission forwarded that application to the European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019).\n(3)\nThe Authority concluded in its opinion of 6 September 2011 (4) that there is no reason to continue to restrict the inclusion of the preparation benzoic acid to compound feed via premixtures. It considered the restrictions on the use of the additive in complementary feed established by Regulation (EC) No 1138/2007 as being sufficient and applicable to weaned piglets.\n(4)\nThe conditions provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 are satisfied.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1730/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex to Regulation (EC) No 1730/2006 is replaced by the text of the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 March 2012.", "references": ["13", "35", "98", "49", "54", "63", "3", "92", "94", "89", "77", "10", "75", "93", "62", "22", "85", "88", "57", "55", "47", "12", "1", "59", "41", "29", "15", "80", "16", "46", "No Label", "25", "38", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/322/CFSP\nof 8 June 2010\namending and extending Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (1), EULEX KOSOVO\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 4 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP (2). That Joint Action applies until 14 June 2010.\n(2)\nOn 9 June 2009, the Council adopted Joint Action 2009/445/CFSP (3), which amended Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP by increasing the financial reference amount to cover the Mission\u2019s expenditure until the expiry of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP.\n(3)\nOn 28 May 2010, the Political and Security Committee recommended the extension of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP for a period of two years and the extension of the financial reference amount of EUR 265 000 000 until 14 October 2010.\n(4)\nThe command and control structure of EULEX KOSOVO should be without prejudice to the contractual responsibilities of the Head of Mission towards the European Commission for implementing the budget.\n(5)\nEULEX KOSOVO will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the common foreign and security policy as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty.\n(6)\nJoint Action 2008/124/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nJoint Action 2008/124/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 7(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and the overall authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), shall exercise command and control of EULEX KOSOVO at the strategic level.\u2019;\n2.\nParagraphs 3, 4 and 5 in Article 9 are replaced by the following:\n\u20183. International civilian staff and local staff may also be recruited by EULEX KOSOVO, as required, on a contractual basis, if the functions required are not provided by personnel seconded by Member States. Exceptionally, in duly justified cases, where no qualified applications from Member States are available, nationals from participating third States may be recruited on a contractual basis, as appropriate.\n4. All staff shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the Mission. All staff shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council\u2019s security regulations (4).\n3.\nParagraphs 2, 3 and 4 in Article 11 are replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Under the responsibility of the Council and the HR, the PSC shall exercise political control and strategic direction of EULEX KOSOVO.\n3. As also laid down in Article 7, the Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the PSC and the overall authority of the HR, shall be the commander of EULEX KOSOVO at strategic level and, as such, shall issue the Head of Mission with instructions and provide him with advice and technical support.\n4. The Civilian Operation Commander shall report to the Council through the HR.\u2019;\n4.\nParagraphs 1 and 2 in Article 12 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and the HR, political control and strategic direction of EULEX KOSOVO.\n2. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions for this purpose, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty. This authorisation shall include the powers to amend the OPLAN and the chain of command. It shall also include powers to take subsequent decisions regarding the appointment of the Head of Mission. The Council, on the recommendation of the HR, shall decide on the objectives and termination of EULEX KOSOVO.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 13(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States shall be laid down in an agreement to be concluded in accordance with Article 37 of the Treaty and Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Where the EU and a third State conclude an agreement establishing a framework for the participation of such third State in the EU crisis management operations, the provisions of such agreement shall apply in the context of EULEX KOSOVO.\u2019;\n6.\nParagraphs 1 and 2 in Article 16 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure of EULEX KOSOVO until 14 October 2010 shall be EUR 265 000 000.\nThe financial reference amount for the subsequent periods for EULEX KOSOVO shall be decided by the Council.\n2. All expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable to the general budget of the EU.\u2019;\n7.\nArticle 17 is deleted;\n8.\nArticle 18 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 18\nRelease of classified information\n1. The HR shall be authorised to release to the United Nations, NATO/KFOR and to other third parties associated with this Joint Action, EU classified information and documents generated for the purposes of EULEX KOSOVO up to the level of the relevant classification respectively for each of them, in accordance with Decision 2001/264/EC. Local technical arrangements shall be drawn up to facilitate this.\n2. In the event of a specific and immediate operational need, the HR shall also be authorised to release to the competent local authorities EU classified information and documents up to the level \u201cRESTREINT UE\u201d generated for the purposes of EULEX KOSOVO, in accordance with Decision 2001/264/EC. In all other cases, such information and documents shall be released to the competent local authorities in accordance with the procedures appropriate to those authorities\u2019 level of cooperation with the EU.\n3. The HR shall be authorised to release to the United Nations, NATO/KFOR, to other third parties associated with this Joint Action and to the relevant local authorities, EU non-classified documents related to the deliberations of the Council with regard to EULEX KOSOVO covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (5).\n9.\nArticle 19 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 19\nReview\nThe Council shall evaluate, not later than 6 months before the expiry of this Joint Action whether EULEX KOSOVO should be extended.\u2019;\n10.\nArticle 20, second subparagraph, is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 14 June 2012.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 8 June 2010.", "references": ["69", "51", "25", "38", "13", "35", "6", "52", "23", "86", "32", "24", "20", "22", "11", "88", "82", "57", "95", "53", "87", "58", "17", "8", "62", "47", "63", "12", "56", "90", "No Label", "0", "3", "9", "91", "96"], "gold": ["0", "3", "9", "91", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 193/2011\nof 28 February 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 1445/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the system of quality control used for Purchasing Power Parities\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1445/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 establishing common rules for the provision of basic information on Purchasing Power Parities and for their calculation and dissemination (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1445/2007 establishes common rules for the provision of basic information on Purchasing Power Parities and for their calculation and dissemination.\n(2)\nThe minimum quality standards for the basic information to be provided by Member States, the minimum quality standards for the validation of price survey results and the reporting and assessment requirements are specified in Section 5 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1445/2007.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to further define the common quality criteria and the structure of the quality reports.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe common quality criteria and the structure of the quality reports concerning Purchasing Power Parities as provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1445/2007 shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["14", "95", "5", "1", "80", "8", "82", "92", "47", "7", "54", "49", "86", "53", "68", "28", "38", "27", "41", "64", "50", "23", "3", "90", "73", "6", "52", "29", "46", "74", "No Label", "18", "19", "39", "40", "42", "76"], "gold": ["18", "19", "39", "40", "42", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 605/2012\nof 4 July 2012\nprohibiting fishing activities for traps registered in Spain, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and in the Mediterranean Sea\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules on the common fisheries policy, (1) and in particular Article 36, paragraph 2 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements fixes the amount of bluefin tuna which may be fished in 2012 in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 of 6 April 2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, amending Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1559/2007 (2), requires Member States for vessels less than 24 m and for traps to inform the Commission of the quota allocated to producer organisations or groups of vessels fishing with similar gear.\n(3)\nThe Common Fisheries Policy is designed to ensure the long-term viability of the fisheries sector through sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources based on the precautionary approach.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, where the Commission finds that, on the basis of information provided by Member States and of other information in its possession, fishing opportunities available to the European Union, a Member State or group of Member States are deemed to have been exhausted for one or more gears or fleets, the Commission shall inform the Member States concerned thereof and shall prohibit fishing activities for the respective area, gear, stock, group of stocks or fleet involved in those specific fishing activities.\n(5)\nThe information in the Commission's possession indicates that the fishing opportunities for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea allocated to traps registered in Spain is deemed to have been exhausted on 20 June. The Commission has informed Spain thereof.\n(6)\nOn the 7, 14 and the 21 June, Spain informed the Commission of the fact that it had imposed a stop on the fishing activities of its four traps active in the 2012 bluefin tuna fishery, with effect from 8 June for two of the traps and with effect from 14 June for one trap and with effect from 21 June for the remaining trap, resulting in the prohibition of all the activities as from 21 June 2012 at 14:00.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to the actions by Spain mentioned above, it is necessary that the Commission confirms the prohibition of fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W and the Mediterranean Sea as from 21 June by traps registered in Spain.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea by traps registered in Spain shall be prohibited as from 21 June 2012 at 14:00 at the latest.\nIt shall also be prohibited to retain on board, place in cages for fattening or farming, tranship, transfer or land such stock caught by those traps as from that date.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["93", "52", "90", "46", "66", "62", "41", "26", "50", "18", "85", "1", "35", "57", "22", "83", "89", "40", "8", "11", "76", "24", "81", "88", "17", "32", "28", "20", "82", "9", "No Label", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 July 2010\non the existence of an excessive deficit in Denmark\n(2010/407/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 126(6) in conjunction with Article 126(13) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the observations made by Denmark,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 126(1) of the Treaty Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits.\n(2)\nThe Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.\n(3)\nThe excessive deficit procedure (EDP) under Article 126 of the Treaty, as clarified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1) (which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact), provides for a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit. The Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the EDP. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provision of the said Protocol.\n(4)\nThe 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the EDP. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.\n(5)\nArticle 126(5) of the Treaty requires the Commission to address an opinion to the Council if the Commission considers that an excessive deficit in a Member State exists or may occur. Having taken into account its report in accordance with Article 126(3) and having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee in accordance with Article 126(4), the Commission concluded that an excessive deficit exists in Denmark. The Commission therefore addressed such an opinion to the Council in respect of Denmark on 15 June 2010 (3).\n(6)\nArticle 126(6) of the Treaty states that the Council should consider any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make before deciding, after an overall assessment, whether an excessive deficit exists. In the case of Denmark, this overall assessment leads to the following conclusions.\n(7)\nAccording to data notified by the Danish authorities in April 2010, the general government deficit in Denmark is planned to reach 5,4 % of GDP in 2010, thus exceeding the 3 % of GDP reference value. The planned deficit is not close to the 3 % of GDP reference value, but the planned excess over the reference value can be qualified as exceptional within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. In particular, it resulted from a severe economic downturn in the sense of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. According to the Commission services\u2019 2010 spring forecast, real GDP in Denmark contracted by 4,9 % in 2009 and is projected to recover at 1,6 % in 2010. The deficit in 2010 is a consequence of both the economic downturn and the stimulus measures taken in line with the EERP by the Danish authorities. However, the planned excess over the reference value cannot be considered temporary. According to the Commission services\u2019 spring 2010 forecast, the deficit would decline to 4,9 % of GDP in 2011 on a no-policy-change (4) basis. The deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.\n(8)\nAccording to data notified by the Danish authorities in April 2010, the general government gross debt remains below the 60 % of GDP reference value, at 45,1 % of GDP in 2010. The Commission services\u2019 spring 2010 forecast projects the debt ratio to be at 46 % of GDP in 2010 and to increase to 49,5 % of GDP in 2011, still to remain below the 60 % of GDP reference value. The debt criterion in the Treaty is fulfilled.\n(9)\nAccording to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, \u2018relevant factors\u2019 can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) if the double condition - that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary - is fully met. In the case of Denmark, this double condition is not met. Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFrom an overall assessment it follows that an excessive deficit exists in Denmark.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2010.", "references": ["49", "10", "63", "60", "23", "99", "19", "52", "41", "42", "57", "72", "73", "67", "95", "78", "74", "30", "81", "39", "84", "61", "47", "17", "2", "83", "43", "48", "35", "50", "No Label", "16", "28", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["16", "28", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 4 October 2011\namending Decision 2008/185/EC as regards the inclusion of Belgium in the list of Member States free of Aujeszky\u2019s disease\n(notified under document C(2011) 6997)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/648/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), and in particular Articles 9(2) and 10(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 64/432/EEC lays down rules applicable to trade in the Union in bovine animals and swine. Article 9 of that Directive lays down criteria for the approval of compulsory national control programmes for certain contagious diseases, including Aujeszky\u2019s disease. In addition, Article 10 of that Directive provides that where a Member State considers its territory or part thereof to be free of such diseases, including Aujeszky\u2019s disease, it is to present appropriate supporting documentation to the Commission.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2008/185/EC of 21 February 2008 on additional guarantees in intra-Community trade of pigs relating to Aujeszky\u2019s disease and criteria to provide information on this disease (2) lays down the additional guarantees for movements of pigs between Member States. Those guarantees are linked to the classification of Member States according to their Aujeszky\u2019s disease status.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Decision 2008/185/EC lists Member States or regions thereof which are free of Aujeszky\u2019s disease and where vaccination is prohibited. Annex II to that Decision lists Member States or regions thereof where approved national control programmes for the eradication of Aujeszky\u2019s disease are in place.\n(4)\nBelgium is currently listed in Annex II to Decision 2008/185/EC, as a Member State where approved national control programmes for the eradication of Aujeszky\u2019s disease have been implemented.\n(5)\nBelgium has now submitted documentation in support of its application to declare that Member State free from Aujeszky\u2019s disease.\n(6)\nFollowing the evaluation of the supporting documentation submitted by that Member State, it is appropriate that Belgium be no longer listed in Annex II to Decision 2008/185/EC, but instead be listed in Annex I thereto.\n(7)\nDecision 2008/185/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2008/185/EC are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 October 2011.", "references": ["56", "22", "47", "90", "82", "86", "69", "29", "88", "10", "49", "41", "94", "71", "4", "79", "72", "75", "92", "51", "55", "73", "25", "19", "98", "46", "16", "9", "52", "36", "No Label", "20", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 8 September 2011\namending, for the purposes of adapting to technical progress, the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards exemptions for applications containing lead or cadmium\n(notified under document C(2011) 6309)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/534/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (1), and in particular Article 5(1)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2002/95/EC prohibits the use of lead and cadmium in electrical and electronic equipment put on the market after 1 July 2006.\n(2)\nThe substitution of lead in PZT based dielectric ceramic materials for capacitors being part of integrated circuits or discrete semiconductors is still technically impracticable. The use of lead in those materials should therefore be exempted from the prohibition.\n(3)\nThe substitution of cadmium in photoresistors for analogue optocouplers applied in professional audio equipment is still technically impracticable. The use of cadmium in those photoresistors should therefore be exempted from the prohibition. However, that exemption should be limited in time as the research for cadmium free technology is in progress and substitutes could become available within the next 3 years.\n(4)\nDirective 2002/95/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 5(2) of Directive 2002/95/EC, the Commission has consulted the relevant parties.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 18 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 September 2011.", "references": ["56", "41", "14", "71", "79", "50", "20", "96", "2", "19", "15", "89", "70", "83", "33", "11", "6", "75", "53", "60", "0", "66", "48", "55", "91", "28", "54", "42", "10", "68", "No Label", "76", "84", "86"], "gold": ["76", "84", "86"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 387/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 19 April 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund, as regards certain provisions relating to financial management for certain Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe unprecedented global financial crisis and the unprecedented economic downturn have seriously damaged economic growth and financial stability and have provoked a strong deterioration in financial and economic conditions in several Member States. In particular, certain Member States are experiencing or are threatened with serious difficulties, notably problems concerning their economic growth and financial stability and a deterioration in their deficit and debt position, due to the international economic and financial environment.\n(2)\nWhilst important actions to counterbalance the negative effects of the crisis have already been taken, including amendments to the legislative framework, the impact of the financial crisis on the real economy, the labour market and citizens is being widely felt. Pressure on national financial resources is increasing and further steps should be taken to alleviate that pressure through the maximal and optimal use of funding from the European Fisheries Fund.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 122(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provides for the possibility of granting Union financial assistance to a Member State in difficulties or seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused inter alia by exceptional occurrences beyond its control, Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 (3) established a European financial stabilisation mechanism, with a view to preserving the financial stability of the Union.\n(4)\nBy Council Implementing Decisions 2011/77/EU (4) and 2011/344/EU (5) respectively, Ireland and Portugal were granted such Union financial assistance.\n(5)\nGreece was already experiencing serious difficulties with respect to its financial stability before the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 407/2010. Financial assistance to Greece could not, therefore, be based on that Regulation.\n(6)\nThe Intercreditor Agreement and the Loan Facility Agreement for Greece signed on 8 May 2010 entered into force on 11 May 2010. The Intercreditor Agreement is to remain in full force and effect for a three-year programme period as long as there are any amounts outstanding under the Loan Facility Agreement.\n(7)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States\u2019 balances of payments (6) provides that the Council is to grant mutual assistance where a Member State which has not adopted the euro is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with difficulties as regards its balance of payments.\n(8)\nBy Council Decisions 2009/102/EC (7), 2009/290/EC (8) and 2009/459/EC (9) respectively, Hungary, Latvia and Romania were granted such Union financial assistance.\n(9)\nThe period during which the financial assistance is available to Ireland, Hungary, Latvia, Portugal and Romania is set out in the relevant Council Decisions. The period during which financial assistance was made available to Hungary expired on 4 November 2010.\n(10)\nThe period during which financial assistance under the Intercreditor Agreement and the Loan Facility Agreement is available to Greece is different for each Member State participating in those instruments.\n(11)\nFollowing the European Council Decision of 25 March 2011, finance ministers of the 17 euro area Member States signed the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism on 11 July 2011. Following decisions taken by the Heads of State and Government of the euro area Member States on 21 July and 9 December 2011, the Treaty was modified in order to improve the effectiveness of the mechanism and signed on 2 February 2012. Under this Treaty, the European Stability Mechanism will, by 2013, assume the tasks currently performed by the European Financial Stability Facility and the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism. This future mechanism should therefore already be taken into account in this Regulation.\n(12)\nIn its conclusions of 23 and 24 June 2011, the European Council welcomed the Commission\u2019s intention to enhance the synergies between the loan programme for Greece and the Union funds, and supported efforts to increase Greece\u2019s capacity to absorb Union funds, with the aim of stimulating growth and employment by refocusing on improving competitiveness and employment creation. Moreover, it welcomed and supported the preparation, by the Commission, together with the Member States, of a comprehensive programme of technical assistance to Greece. This Regulation contributes to such efforts to enhance synergies.\n(13)\nIn order to facilitate the management of Union funding, to help accelerate investments in Member States and regions and to increase the impact of funding on the economy, it is necessary to allow, in justified cases, temporarily and without prejudice to the 2014 to 2020 programming period, an increase of interim payments from the European Fisheries Fund by an amount corresponding to 10 percentage points above the co-financing rate applicable for each priority axis for Member States that are facing serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability and that have requested to benefit from this measure, resulting in a corresponding reduction in the national counterpart. Due to the temporary nature of that increase, and in order to maintain the original co-financing rates as the reference point for calculation of the temporarily increased amounts, the changes resulting from application of the mechanism should not be reflected in the financial plan included in the operational programmes. However, it should be possible to update operational programmes in order to concentrate the funds on competitiveness, growth and employment, and in order to align their targets and objectives with the decrease in the total funding available.\n(14)\nA Member State making a request to the Commission to benefit from a derogation under this Regulation should submit all the information necessary to enable the Commission to establish, by means of data on the Member State\u2019s macroeconomic and fiscal situation, that resources for the national counterpart are not available. It should also show that an increase of payments resulting from the granting of the derogation is necessary to safeguard the continued implementation of operational programmes and that the absorption capacity problems persist even if the maximum ceilings applicable to co-financing rates laid down in Article 53(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 (10) are used.\n(15)\nThe Member State making a request to the Commission to benefit from a derogation under this Regulation should also provide the reference to the relevant Council Decision or other legal act pursuant to which it is eligible to benefit from the derogation. It is necessary for the Commission to have an appropriate period, starting from the submission of the Member State\u2019s request, in which to verify the correctness of the information submitted and to raise any objections. In order to make the derogation effective and operational, there should be a presumption that such a request is justified if the Commission does not raise an objection. If the Commission objects to the Member State\u2019s request, it should adopt, by way of implementing acts, a decision to this effect, stating reasons.\n(16)\nThe rules on the calculation of interim payments and of payments of the final balance for operational programmes during the period in which the Member States receive the Union financial assistance for addressing serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability should be revised accordingly.\n(17)\nIt is necessary to ensure that there is appropriate reporting on the use of the increased amounts made available to the Member States benefiting from a temporary increase in interim payments under this Regulation.\n(18)\nAfter the end of the period during which financial assistance has been made available, it might be necessary for the evaluations carried out in accordance with Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 to assess, inter alia, whether the reduction of the national co-funding leads to a significant departure from the goals that were initially set. Such evaluations might lead to the revision of the operational programme.\n(19)\nAs the unprecedented crisis affecting international financial markets and the unprecedented economic downturn, which have seriously damaged the financial stability of several Member States, necessitate a rapid response in order to counter the effects on the economy as a whole, this Regulation should enter into force as soon as possible. Given the exceptional circumstances of the Member States concerned, it should apply retroactively, starting either from the budgetary year of 2010 or from the date on which the financial assistance was made available, depending on the requesting Member State\u2019s status, for the periods during which the Member States received financial assistance from the Union or from other euro area Member States in order to address serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability.\n(20)\nWhere a temporary increase in interim payments is envisaged, that temporary increase should also be considered in the context of the budgetary restraints facing all Member States, and those budgetary restraints should be reflected appropriately in the general budget of the European Union. In addition, since the main purpose of the mechanism is to address specific current difficulties, its application should be limited in time. Therefore, the mechanism should start to apply on 1 January 2010 and should operate for a limited period until 31 December 2013.\n(21)\nRegulation (EC) No 1198/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1198/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticles 76 and 77 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 76\nRules for calculating interim payments\n1. Interim payments shall be calculated by applying - to the public contribution declared in the statement of expenditure certified by the certifying authority under each priority axis and under each convergence/non-convergence objective - the co-financing rate established under the current financing plan for that priority axis and that objective.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, in response to a specific and properly grounded request by the Member State, an interim payment shall be calculated as the amount of Union assistance paid or due to be paid to the beneficiaries in respect of the priority axis and of the objective. This amount must be specified by the Member State in the statement of expenditure.\n3. By way of derogation from Article 53(3), at the request of a Member State, interim payments shall be increased by an amount corresponding to 10 percentage points above the co-financing rate applicable to each priority axis, up to a maximum of 100 %, to be applied to the amount of eligible public expenditure newly declared in each certified statement of expenditure submitted during the period in which a Member State fulfils one of the following conditions:\n(a)\nfinancial assistance is made available to it under Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (11), or is made available to it by other euro area Member States before the entry into force of that Regulation;\n(b)\nmedium-term financial assistance is made available to it in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States\u2019 balances of payments (12);\n(c)\nfinancial assistance is made available to it in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism signed on 2 February 2012.\n4. For the purpose of calculating interim payments after the Member State ceases to benefit from the Union financial assistance referred to in paragraph 3, the Commission shall not take into account the increased amounts paid in accordance with that paragraph.\nHowever, those amounts shall be taken into account for the purpose of Article 79(1).\n5. The increased interim payments resulting from the application of paragraph 3 shall be made available within the shortest period of time to the managing authority and shall only be used for making payments in connection with the implementation of the operational programme.\n6. In the context of the annual reporting in accordance with Article 67(1), the Member States shall provide the Commission with appropriate information on the use of the derogation referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article, showing how the increase in the amounts of support has contributed to the promotion of competitiveness, growth and jobs in the Member State concerned. This information shall be taken into account by the Commission in the preparation of the annual reporting provided for by Article 68(1).\nArticle 77\nRules for calculating payments of the balance\n1. Payments of the balance shall be limited to whichever of the following two amounts is smaller:\n(a)\nthe amount calculated by applying to the public contribution declared in the final statement of expenditure, certified by the certifying authority under each priority axis and under each convergence/non-convergence objective, the co-financing rate established under the current financing plan for that priority axis and that objective;\n(b)\nthe amount of Union assistance paid or due to be paid to the beneficiaries in respect of each priority axis and for each objective. This amount must be specified by the Member State in the final statement of expenditure certified by the certifying authority in respect of each priority axis and for each objective.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 53(3), at the request of a Member State, payments of the final balance shall be increased by an amount corresponding to 10 percentage points above the co-financing rate applicable to each priority axis, up to a maximum of 100 %, to be applied to the amount of eligible public expenditure newly declared in each certified statement of expenditure submitted during the period in which a Member State fulfils one of the conditions laid down in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 76(3).\n3. For the purpose of calculating the payment of the final balance after the Member State ceases to benefit from the Union financial assistance referred to in Article 76(3), the Commission shall not take into account the increased amounts paid in accordance with that paragraph.\n(2)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 77a\nLimit to the Union contribution through interim payments and payments of the balance\n1. Notwithstanding Article 76(3) and Article 77(2), the Union contribution through interim payments and payments of the final balance shall not be higher than the public contribution and the maximum amount of assistance from the EFF for each priority axis and objective as laid down in the decision of the Commission approving the operational programme.\n2. The derogation referred to in Article 76(3) and Article 77(2) shall be granted by the Commission upon the written request of a Member State fulfilling one of the conditions laid down in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 76(3). That request shall be submitted by 17 July 2012 or within two months from the date on which a Member State fulfils one of the conditions laid down in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 76(3).\n3. In its request submitted to the Commission, the Member State shall justify the necessity of the derogation referred to in Article 76(3) and Article 77(2) by providing information necessary to establish:\n(a)\nby means of data on its macroeconomic and fiscal situation, that resources for the national counterpart are not available;\n(b)\nthat an increase of payments referred to in Article 76(3) and Article 77(2) is necessary to safeguard the continued implementation of operational programmes;\n(c)\nthat problems persist even if the maximum ceilings applicable to co-financing rates of Article 53(3) are used;\n(d)\nthat it fulfils one of the conditions referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 76(3) as justified by reference to a Council Decision or other legal act, as well as the actual date from which the financial assistance was made available to the Member State.\nThe Commission shall verify whether the information submitted justifies granting a derogation. The Commission shall raise any objection as to that information within 30 days from the date of submission of the request. If the Commission decides to object to the Member State\u2019s request, it shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision to this effect and shall state reasons.\nIf the Commission does not raise an objection to the Member State\u2019s request, that request shall be deemed to be justified.\n4. The Member State\u2019s request shall also detail the intended use of the derogation provided for in Article 76(3) and Article 77(2), and shall give information about complementary measures envisaged in order to concentrate the funds on competitiveness, growth and employment, including, where appropriate, a modification of operational programmes.\n5. The derogation provided for in Article 76(3) and Article 77(2) shall not apply to statements of expenditure submitted after 31 December 2013.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nHowever, it shall apply retroactively to the following Member States:\n(a)\nin the cases of Ireland, Greece and Portugal, with effect from the date when the financial assistance was made available to those Member States pursuant to Article 76(3);\n(b)\nin the cases of Hungary, Latvia and Romania, with effect from 1 January 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["41", "79", "20", "74", "98", "32", "61", "12", "56", "2", "80", "26", "40", "48", "89", "81", "13", "83", "33", "28", "85", "60", "97", "17", "71", "18", "34", "76", "7", "45", "No Label", "4", "10", "15", "16", "67"], "gold": ["4", "10", "15", "16", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1217/2011\nof 24 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 November 2011.", "references": ["36", "65", "14", "97", "1", "99", "39", "12", "32", "98", "87", "81", "66", "64", "89", "27", "95", "83", "41", "78", "11", "28", "40", "9", "30", "46", "93", "92", "56", "60", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION ATALANTA/3/2011\nof 5 July 2011\non the appointment of an EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)\n(2011/399/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (Atalanta), and in particular Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Force Commander.\n(2)\nOn 13 April 2011, the PSC adopted Decision Atalanta/1/2011 (2) appointing commodore Alberto Manuel Silvestre CORREIA as EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\n(3)\nThe EU Operation Commander has recommended the appointment of Rear Admiral Thomas JUGEL as the new EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\n(4)\nThe EU Military Committee supports that recommendation.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nRear Admiral Thomas JUGEL is hereby appointed EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 13 August 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2011.", "references": ["27", "68", "16", "45", "63", "75", "89", "29", "60", "53", "58", "62", "59", "56", "35", "95", "81", "84", "55", "3", "85", "38", "20", "90", "49", "87", "80", "61", "44", "57", "No Label", "5", "6", "7", "12", "94"], "gold": ["5", "6", "7", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 983/2010\nof 3 November 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 of 2 April 2009 supplementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security laid down in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), the Commission recognises the equivalence of aviation security standards of third countries under the condition that the criteria set out in that Regulation are met.\n(2)\nThe Commission has verified that the United States of America fulfil the criteria set out in Part E of Annex to Regulation (EC) No 272/2009.\n(3)\nThe Commission should notify without delay the appropriate national authorities responsible for aviation security if it has information suggesting that security standards applied by the third country with a significant impact on overall levels of aviation security in the Union are no longer equivalent to common basic standards on aviation security.\n(4)\nThe appropriate authorities of the Member States should be notified without delay when the Commission has credible information about actions taken to re-establish the equivalency of relevant aviation security standards including compensatory measures applied by the third country.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 (3) should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Civil Aviation Security,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2010.", "references": ["5", "47", "42", "71", "83", "61", "55", "56", "52", "67", "8", "3", "31", "54", "77", "6", "35", "90", "86", "22", "24", "0", "72", "21", "59", "26", "40", "25", "9", "36", "No Label", "53", "57", "76", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["53", "57", "76", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 9 December 2011\non the beneficiary countries which qualify for the Special Incentive Arrangement for Sustainable Development and Good Governance from 1 January 2012, as provided in Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008\n(notified under document C(2011) 9044)\n(2011/830/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences from 1 January 2009 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007 (1), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 512/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) extended the application of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 to 31 December 2013 or until a date laid down by the successor Regulation, whichever is earlier.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 732/2008 provides for the granting of a special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance to developing countries which satisfy the requirements established under its Articles 8 and 9.\n(3)\nAny developing country wishing to avail itself of the special incentive arrangement as of 1 January 2012 had to submit a request to that effect by 31 October 2011, accompanied by comprehensive information concerning ratification of the relevant conventions, the legislation and measures taken to implement effectively the provisions of the conventions and its commitment to accept and comply fully with the monitoring and review mechanism envisaged in the relevant conventions. To be granted the special incentive arrangement, the requesting country also has to be a vulnerable country as defined in Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008.\n(4)\nBy 31 October 2011, the Commission received a request from the Republic of Cape Verde (hereinafter Cape Verde) to benefit from the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance as from 1 January 2012.\n(5)\nThe request has been examined in accordance with the provisions of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008.\n(6)\nThe examination showed that Cape Verde fulfils all the necessary requirements of Articles 8 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008. Accordingly, the special incentive arrangement should be granted to Cape Verde from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013 or until a date laid down by the successor Regulation, whichever is earlier.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008, this Decision is to be notified to Cape Verde.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Generalised Preferences Committee.\n(9)\nThis Decision does not affect the beneficiary status under the arrangement of any country listed in Commission Decision 2008/938/EC of 9 December 2008 on the list of the beneficiary countries which qualify for the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance, provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 (3), as amended by Decision 2009/454/EC (4), and in Commission Decision 2010/318/EU of 9 June 2010 on the beneficiary countries which qualify for the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance for the period from 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2011, as provided in Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (5),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Republic of Cape Verde shall benefit from the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance provided for in Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013 or until a date laid down by the successor Regulation, whichever is earlier.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Cape Verde.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["3", "38", "62", "79", "47", "32", "39", "30", "14", "18", "26", "12", "53", "90", "25", "41", "7", "91", "10", "74", "52", "6", "69", "17", "22", "73", "56", "35", "92", "64", "No Label", "2", "4", "15", "16", "20", "94"], "gold": ["2", "4", "15", "16", "20", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 808/2010\nof 14 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 September 2010.", "references": ["46", "15", "1", "42", "71", "26", "23", "66", "40", "77", "39", "94", "17", "38", "67", "2", "14", "76", "58", "70", "12", "33", "57", "6", "28", "41", "96", "75", "51", "32", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 420/2012\nof 16 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2012.", "references": ["75", "66", "12", "89", "3", "0", "45", "73", "55", "59", "15", "83", "70", "99", "60", "20", "57", "33", "28", "8", "88", "41", "69", "76", "1", "65", "38", "50", "27", "7", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1198/2011\nof 21 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 November 2011.", "references": ["32", "6", "42", "10", "28", "77", "56", "78", "39", "5", "23", "84", "11", "57", "31", "69", "38", "48", "85", "20", "75", "24", "25", "96", "76", "53", "59", "66", "79", "64", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1221/2011\nof 25 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 November 2011.", "references": ["92", "4", "37", "12", "29", "34", "55", "8", "89", "32", "63", "73", "20", "42", "27", "45", "44", "85", "53", "93", "47", "97", "77", "2", "94", "25", "99", "80", "82", "41", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2012/22/EU\nof 22 August 2012\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include DDACarbonate as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe United Kingdom received on 17 January 2007 an application from Lonza, in accordance with Article 11(1) of Directive 98/8/EC, for the inclusion of the active substance DDACarbonate in Annex I to that Directive for use in product type 8, wood preservatives, as defined in Annex V to Directive 98/8/EC. DDACarbonate was not on the market on the date referred to in Article 34(1) of Directive 98/8/EC as an active substance of a biocidal product.\n(2)\nAfter carrying out an evaluation, the United Kingdom submitted its report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 11 November 2010.\n(3)\nThe report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 2 March 2012, and the findings of the review were incorporated in an assessment report.\n(4)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as wood preservatives and containing DDACarbonate may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include DDACarbonate for use in product type 8 in Annex I to that Directive.\n(5)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at Union level. For example, use by non-professional users was not assessed. It is therefore appropriate to require that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to human populations and to environmental compartments that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(6)\nIn view of the risks identified for human health, for industrial users it is appropriate to require that safe operational procedures are established, and that products are used with appropriate personal protective equipment, unless it can be demonstrated in the application for product authorisation that risks can be reduced to an acceptable level by other means.\n(7)\nIn view of the risks identified for the aquatic and terrestrial compartments, it is appropriate to require that industrial application is conducted within a contained area or on impermeable hard standing with bunding, that freshly treated timber is stored after treatment under shelter or on impermeable hard standing, or both, and that any losses from the application of products used as wood preservatives and containing DDACarbonate are collected for reuse or disposal.\n(8)\nUnacceptable risks for the environment were identified for situations where wood treated by dipping with DDACarbonate was continually exposed to the weather or subject to frequent wetting (use class 3 as defined by OECD (2)), and where wood treated with DDACarbonate was used for outdoor constructions near or above water (the \u2018bridge\u2019 scenario in use class 3, as defined by OECD (3)) or was in contact with fresh water (use class 4b as defined by OECD (4)). It is therefore appropriate to require that products are not authorised for the treatment of wood intended for those uses, unless data is submitted demonstrating that the product will meet the requirements of both Article 5 of and Annex VI to Directive 98/8/EC, if necessary by the application of appropriate risk mitigation measures.\n(9)\nThe provisions of this Directive should be applied simultaneously in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment on the Union market of biocidal products of product type 8 containing the active substance DDACarbonate and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC in order to permit Member States to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\n(11)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 January 2013 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 February 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 August 2012.", "references": ["2", "17", "63", "29", "77", "91", "89", "32", "5", "9", "98", "67", "78", "40", "60", "37", "57", "76", "73", "51", "3", "19", "64", "26", "59", "41", "45", "50", "16", "85", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "83", "88"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "83", "88"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 November 2010\non modules for the procedures for assessment of conformity, suitability for use and EC verification to be used in the technical specifications for interoperability adopted under Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 7582)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/713/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 5(3)(e) and Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nTechnical specifications for interoperability (TSIs) are specifications adopted in accordance with Directive 2008/57/EC. TSIs set all the conditions with which interoperability constituents and subsystems must conform, and the procedures to be followed in assessing conformity and suitability for use of interoperability constituents and EC verification of subsystems.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2006/66/EC (2) established the modules to be used for conformity assessment of interoperability constituents and EC verification of subsystems of the technical specification for interoperability (TSI) \u2018rolling stock-noise\u2019, Commission Decision 2006/861/EC (3) did the same for the TSI \u2018rolling stock-freight wagons\u2019 and Commission Decision 2006/679/EC (4) established modules for the TSI \u2018control-command and signalling\u2019 of the trans-European conventional rail system.\n(3)\nCommission Decisions 2008/217/EC (5), 2008/284/EC (6), 2008/232/EC (7) and 2006/860/EC (8) established the modules to be used for conformity assessment of interoperability constituents and EC verification of subsystems of the TSI \u2018infrastructure\u2019, the TSI \u2018energy\u2019, the TSI rolling stock and the TSI \u2018control-command and signalling\u2019 of the trans-European high-speed rail system respectively.\n(4)\nCommission Decisions 2008/163/EC (9) and 2008/164/EC (10) established the modules to be used for conformity assessment of interoperability constituents and EC verification of subsystems for the TSI \u2018safety in railway tunnels\u2019 and for the TSI \u2018people with reduced mobility\u2019 of the trans-European conventional and high-speed rail system respectively.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 5(3)(e) of Directive 2008/57/EC, TSI have to refer to modules set out in Council Decision 93/465/EEC (11). That Decision has been repealed by Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products (12), and lays down common principles and reference provisions intended to apply across sectoral legislation in order to provide a coherent basis for drawing up, revision or recasts of that legislation.\n(6)\nHowever, a specific comprehensive legal framework is already in place for the railway sector which necessitates specific adaptation of the modules of Decision No 768/2008/EC. In particular, the provisions of Directive 2008/57/EC related to conformity assessment and suitability for use of interoperability constituents and EC verification of subsystems require specific adaptation of the modules set out in Annex II to Decision No 768/2008/EC.\n(7)\nAs specific features of rail must be taken into account to ensure consistency of all legislative acts concerning interoperability constituents and subsystems, it is appropriate to lay down modules which are specific for railways.\n(8)\nTo establish a common set of modules for all TSIs it is necessary to introduce them in one legislative act. This Decision should provide such a common set of modules which should enable the legislator to choose the appropriate procedures for conformity assessment, suitability for use and EC verification when drafting or revising TSIs.\n(9)\nThe TSIs which are in force on the date this Decision becomes applicable, should not apply the modules provided for in this Decision until their revision and should be allowed to continue to apply the modules for conformity assessment and suitability for use of interoperability constituents and EC verification of subsystems as defined in the relevant annexes to those TSIs. However, when those TSIs will be revised they should fall within the scope of this Decision.\n(10)\nIn order to provide a better comprehension, a list of terms used in the conformity assessment modules specific for railways and their equivalent in generic modules defined in Decision No 768/2008/EC should be attached to this Decision. Furthermore, a correlation table of the modules used in the TSIs referred to in recitals 2 to 4, the modules used in Decision No 768/2008/EC and the specific modules for railways set out in Annex I to this Decision should be set up.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThe modules for procedures for assessment of conformity and suitability for use of the interoperability constituents and for EC verification of subsystems, as set out in Annex I, are hereby adopted.\nA list of terms used in the conformity assessment modules specific for railways and their equivalent in generic modules defined in Decision No 768/2008/EC is set out in Annex II.\nA correlation table of the modules used is attached in Annex III.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThe modules shall be applicable to all TSIs which enter in force on or after the date referred to in Article 8.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018technical specification for interoperability\u2019 (TSI) means a specification adopted in accordance with Directive 2008/57/EC by which each subsystem or part subsystem is covered in order to meet the essential requirements and ensure the interoperability of the rail system;\n2.\n\u2018vehicle\u2019 means a railway vehicle that runs on its own wheels on railway lines, with or without traction. A vehicle is composed of one or more structural and functional subsystems or parts of such subsystems;\n3.\n\u2018subsystems\u2019 means the result of the division of the rail system, as shown in Annex II to Directive 2008/57/EC;\n4.\n\u2018interoperability constituents\u2019 means any elementary component, group of components, sub-assembly or complete assembly of equipment incorporated or intended to be incorporated into a subsystem, upon which the interoperability of the rail system depends directly or indirectly. The concept of a \u2018constituent\u2019 covers both tangible objects and intangible objects such as software;\n5.\n\u2018applicant\u2019 means contracting entity or manufacturer;\n6.\n\u2018contracting entity\u2019 means any entity, whether public or private, which orders the design and/or construction or the renewal or upgrading of a subsystem. This entity may be a railway undertaking, an infrastructure manager or a keeper, or the concession holder responsible for carrying out a project;\n7.\n\u2018notified bodies\u2019 means the bodies which are responsible for assessing the conformity or suitability for use of the interoperability constituents or for appraising the \u2018EC\u2019 procedure for verification of the subsystems;\n8.\n\u2018harmonised standard\u2019 means any European standard adopted by one of the European standardisation bodies listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (13) in connection with a mandate by the Commission drawn up in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 6(3) of that Directive, which, by itself or together with other standards, provides a solution as regards compliance with a legal provision;\n9.\n\u2018placing in service\u2019 means all the operations by which a subsystem or a vehicle is put into its design operating state;\n10.\n\u2018placing on the market\u2019 means the first making available of an interoperability constituent on the Union market;\n11.\n\u2018manufacturer\u2019 means any natural or legal person who manufactures a product or has a product designed or manufactured, and markets that product under his name or trademark;\n12.\n\u2018authorised representative\u2019 means any natural or legal person established within the Union who has received a written mandate from a manufacturer or a contracting entity to act on their behalf in relation to specified tasks;\n13.\n\u2018conformity assessment\u2019 means the process demonstrating whether requirements specified in the relevant TSI relating to an interoperability constituent have been fulfilled;\n14.\n\u2018assessment of suitability for use\u2019 means the process demonstrating whether requirements for suitability for use specified in the relevant TSI relating to an interoperability constituent have been fulfilled;\n15.\n\u2018EC verification\u2019 means the procedure referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2008/57/EC whereby a notified body checks and certifies that the subsystem complies with Directive 2008/57/EC, relevant TSI(s) and with the other regulations deriving from the Treaty, and may be put into operation.\nArticle 4\nConformity assessment procedures\n1. The procedures for conformity assessment for the interoperability constituents covered by the TSIs shall be chosen among the modules set out in Annex I, in accordance with the following criteria:\n(a)\nwhether the module concerned is appropriate to the type of interoperability constituent;\n(b)\nthe nature of the risks entailed by the interoperability constituent and the extent to which conformity assessment corresponds to the type and degree of risk;\n(c)\nthe need for the manufacturer to have a choice between quality management system and product certification modules set out in Annex I;\n(d)\nthe need to avoid imposing modules which would be too burdensome in relation to the risks.\n2. The TSI(s) shall specify the modules for conformity assessment to be applied for the interoperability constituents. Where necessary, the TSI(s) may clarify and complement them due to the specificity of the sub system concerned.\nArticle 5\nProcedure for assessment of suitability for use\nWhere the TSIs so require, the procedure for assessment of suitability for use of the interoperability constituents shall be done in accordance with the instructions set out in the module CV set out in Annex I.\nArticle 6\nEC verification procedures\n1. The EC verification procedures for the subsystems covered by the TSIs shall be chosen among the modules set out in Annex I, in accordance with the following criteria:\n(a)\nwhether the module concerned is appropriate to the type of the subsystem;\n(b)\nthe nature of the risks entailed by the subsystem and the extent to which EC verification corresponds to the type and degree of risk;\n(c)\nthe need for the manufacturer to have a choice between quality management system and product certification modules set out in Annex I;\n(d)\nthe need to avoid imposing modules which would be too burdensome in relation to the risks.\n2. The TSI(s) shall specify the modules for EC verification to be applied for the subsystems. Where necessary, the TSI(s) may clarify and complement them due to the specificity of the sub system concerned.\nArticle 7\nSubsidiaries of and subcontracting by notified bodies\n1. Where a notified body subcontracts specific tasks connected with conformity assessment or EC verification or has recourse to a subsidiary, it shall take full responsibility for the tasks performed by subcontractors or subsidiaries wherever these are established.\n2. Activities may be subcontracted or carried out by a subsidiary only with the agreement of the applicant.\nArticle 8\nApplication\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nArticle 9\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2010.", "references": ["88", "6", "27", "49", "57", "59", "31", "77", "93", "52", "64", "46", "66", "58", "62", "20", "79", "39", "82", "11", "33", "89", "94", "41", "0", "81", "4", "78", "37", "83", "No Label", "9", "53", "55", "76"], "gold": ["9", "53", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1249/2010\nof 22 December 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 498/2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (1), and in particular Article 102 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 70(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 provides that Member States should be responsible for preventing, detecting, correcting irregularities and recovering amounts unduly paid, notifying these to the Commission and keep the Commission informed of the progress of administrative proceedings.\n(2)\nIn the light of the experience gained by the Commission and by the Member States with regard to the application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field (2), the procedures for reporting on follow-up to irregularities should be simplified. Furthermore, in order to reduce the administrative burden imposed on Member States it is necessary to determine more precisely which information the Commission requires. To that end, information on irrecoverable amounts and on the aggregated amounts related to reported irregularities should be included in the annual statement to be submitted to the Commission pursuant to Article 46 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 498/2007 (3).\n(3)\nThe procedures for reporting on irrecoverable amounts should accurately reflect the obligations of Member States laid down in Article 70 of Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 and in particular the obligation to ensure an effective pursuit of recoveries. It is also appropriate to simplify the procedures whereby the Commission monitors compliance with those obligations in order to render them more efficient and cost-effective.\n(4)\nAs a consequence to Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006, it should be clearly stated that the certifying authority is responsible for keeping complete accounting records, including, in particular, references to amounts reported as irregular to the Commission in accordance with Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 498/2007.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure an efficient flow of information concerning irregularities and to avoid overlaps of different contact points, it is appropriate to group the provisions on cooperation with Member States in a single Article.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 498/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Fisheries Fund Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 498/2007 is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 40, the following paragraph 4 is added:\n\u20184. In the accounting records maintained in accordance with Article 60(f) of the basic Regulation, any amount related to an irregularity reported to the Commission under Article 55 shall be identified by the reference number attributed to that irregularity or by any other adequate method.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 46 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nthe introductory sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018By 31 March of each year, the certifying authority shall submit to the Commission a statement in accordance with the model set out in Annex X identifying for each priority axis of the operational programme:\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nthe amounts recovered which have been deducted from those statements of expenditure submitted during the preceding year;\u2019;\n(iii)\nthe following point (d) is added:\n\u2018(d)\na list of amounts for which it was established during the preceding year that they cannot be recovered or are not expected to be recovered, classified by the year in which the recovery orders were issued.\u2019;\n(iv)\nthe following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018For the purposes of points (a), (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph, aggregated amounts related to irregularities reported to the Commission under Article 55 shall be provided for each priority axis.\nFor the purposes of point (d) of the first subparagraph, any amount related to an irregularity reported to the Commission under Article 55 shall be identified by the reference number of that irregularity or by any other adequate method.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraphs 2a and 2b are inserted:\n\u20182a. For each amount referred to in point (d) of paragraph 2, the certifying authority shall indicate whether it requests the Community share to be borne by the general budget of the European Union.\nThe Community share shall be borne by the general budget of the European Union, where within one year from the date of the submission of the statement, the Commission does not carry out any of the following:\n(a)\nrequest information for the purposes of Article 70(2) of the basic Regulation;\n(b)\ninform in writing the Member State about its intention to open an enquiry in respect of that amount;\n(c)\nrequest the Member State to continue the recovery procedure.\nThe time limit of one year shall not apply in cases of suspected or established fraud.\n2b. For the purposes of the statement referred to in paragraph 2, Member States which have not adopted the euro as their currency by the date when the statement is submitted shall convert amounts in national currency into euro using the exchange rate referred to in Article 95(3) of the basic Regulation. Where the amounts relate to expenditure registered in the accounts of the certifying authority during more than one month, the exchange rate in the month during which expenditure was last registered may be used.\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 55 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, second subparagraph, points (l) to (o) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(l)\nthe total eligible expenditure and the public contribution approved for the operation together with the corresponding amount of the Community contribution;\n(m)\nthe expenditure and the public contribution certified to the Commission which are affected by the irregularity and the corresponding amount of the Community contribution at risk;\n(n)\nin case of suspected fraud and where no payment of the public contribution has been made to the persons or other entities identified under point (k), the amounts which would have been unduly paid had the irregularity not been identified;\n(o)\nthe code of region or area where the operation has been located or carried out, by specifying the NUTS level or otherwise;\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, first subparagraph, points (b) and (c) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\ncases brought to the attention of the managing or certifying authority by the beneficiary voluntarily and before detection by either of them, whether before or after the inclusion of the expenditure concerned in a certified statement submitted to the Commission;\n(c)\ncases which are detected and corrected by the managing or certifying authority before the inclusion of the expenditure concerned in a statement of expenditure submitted to the Commission.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Where some of the information referred to in paragraph 1, and in particular information concerning the practices employed in committing the irregularity and the manner in which it was discovered, is not available or needs to be rectified, Member States shall as far as possible supply the missing or correct information when submitting subsequent quarterly reports of irregularities to the Commission.\u2019;\n4.\nArticle 57 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 57\nFollow-up reporting\n1. In addition to the information referred to in Article 55(1), Member States shall inform the Commission, within two months following the end of each quarter, with a reference back to any previous reports made pursuant to that Article, on details concerning the initiation, conclusion or abandonment of any procedures for imposing administrative or criminal penalties related to the reported irregularities as well as of the outcome of such procedures.\nWith regard to irregularities for which penalties have been imposed, Member States shall also indicate the following:\n(a)\nwhether the penalties are of administrative or criminal nature;\n(b)\nwhether the penalties result from breach of Community or national law;\n(c)\na reference to the provisions in which the penalties are laid down;\n(d)\nwhether fraud was established.\n2. At the written request of the Commission, the Member State shall provide information in relation to a specific irregularity or group of irregularities.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 60 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe heading is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Co-operation with Member States\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Without prejudice to the contacts referred to in paragraph 1, where the Commission considers that, due to the nature of the irregularity identical or similar practices could occur in other Member States, it shall submit the matter to the advisory Committee for the Coordination of fraud prevention set up by Commission Decision 94/140/EC (4).\nThe Commission shall every year inform that Committee and the committee referred to in Article 101 of the basic Regulation of the order of magnitude of the irregularities affecting the Fund which have been discovered and of the various categories of irregularities, broken down by type and number.\n6.\nArticle 62 is deleted;\n7.\nArticle 63 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the second, third and fourth subparagraphs are deleted;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Member States which have not adopted the euro as their currency by the date when the report under Article 55(1) is submitted shall convert amounts in national currency into euro using the exchange rate referred to in Article 95(3) of the basic Regulation.\nWhere the amounts relate to expenditure registered in the accounts of the certifying authority during more than one month, the exchange rate in the month during which expenditure was last registered may be used. Where the expenditure has not been registered in the accounts of the certifying authority, the most recent accounting exchange rate published electronically by the Commission shall be used.\u2019;\n8.\nAnnex X is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2010.", "references": ["93", "38", "3", "69", "65", "71", "12", "26", "45", "30", "13", "37", "27", "91", "89", "70", "28", "53", "60", "21", "0", "85", "9", "32", "83", "34", "75", "58", "72", "82", "No Label", "10", "17", "67"], "gold": ["10", "17", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 256/2012\nof 22 March 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 as regards representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1484/95 should be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 March 2012.", "references": ["25", "12", "96", "17", "21", "34", "20", "62", "4", "6", "23", "19", "5", "71", "91", "90", "32", "48", "53", "92", "97", "66", "80", "65", "98", "93", "82", "94", "36", "42", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 83/2012\nof 31 January 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 February 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 February 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 February 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2012.", "references": ["17", "88", "75", "54", "64", "8", "81", "4", "85", "48", "26", "37", "76", "70", "52", "60", "19", "47", "40", "89", "44", "30", "97", "11", "69", "36", "82", "92", "57", "65", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 July 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement\n(2012/399/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 91(1) in conjunction with 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning transport.\n(2)\nDirective 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (3) should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(3)\nIt is appropriate to include in the EEA Agreement a provision allowing for an adaptation in relation to tolling arrangements on the trans-European road network in Norway.\n(4)\nAnnex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["30", "69", "7", "49", "5", "66", "23", "94", "18", "67", "64", "2", "45", "26", "89", "81", "88", "24", "63", "65", "33", "87", "90", "16", "48", "1", "80", "6", "84", "44", "No Label", "3", "9", "34", "53", "54", "55", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "34", "53", "54", "55", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1002/2011\nof 10 October 2011\nimplementing Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 of 12 April 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 April 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 359/2011.\n(2)\nIn view of the ongoing human rights abuses in Iran, additional persons should be included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 10 October 2011.", "references": ["50", "5", "2", "66", "70", "16", "76", "38", "84", "31", "44", "58", "85", "48", "82", "47", "45", "77", "92", "15", "19", "53", "81", "7", "75", "21", "63", "54", "40", "60", "No Label", "3", "14", "95"], "gold": ["3", "14", "95"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUCAP SAHEL NIGER/1/2012\nof 17 July 2012\non the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP Mission in Niger (EUCAP SAHEL Niger)\n(2012/436/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2012/392/CFSP of 16 July 2012 on the European Union CSDP Mission in Niger (1) (EUCAP SAHEL Niger), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Article 9(1) of Decision 2012/392/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EUCAP SAHEL Niger mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nThe High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Colonel Francisco ESPINOSA NAVAS as Head of Mission of EUCAP SAHEL Niger,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nColonel Francisco ESPINOSA NAVAS is hereby appointed Head of the European Union CSDP Mission in Niger (EUCAP SAHEL Niger) for a period of 12 months.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 17 July 2012.", "references": ["98", "76", "78", "47", "63", "26", "58", "92", "22", "57", "40", "97", "34", "88", "61", "46", "56", "15", "42", "93", "12", "18", "6", "38", "90", "0", "80", "20", "70", "19", "No Label", "7", "9", "94"], "gold": ["7", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 360/2012\nof 25 April 2012\non the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid granted to undertakings providing services of general economic interest\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to certain categories of horizontal State aid (1), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nHaving published a draft of this Regulation (2),\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee on State Aid,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 994/98 empowers the Commission to set out in a Regulation a threshold below which aid measures are considered not to meet all the criteria laid down in Article 107(1) of the Treaty and therefore do not fall under the notification procedure provided for in Article 108(3) of the Treaty.\n(2)\nOn the basis of that Regulation, the Commission has adopted, in particular, Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (3), which sets a general de minimis ceiling of EUR 200 000 per beneficiary over a period of three fiscal years.\n(3)\nThe Commission\u2019s experience in applying the State aid rules to undertakings providing services of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 106(2) of the Treaty has shown that the ceiling below which advantages granted to such undertakings may be deemed not to affect trade between Member States and/or not to distort or threaten to distort competition can, in some cases, differ from the general de minimis ceiling established in Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006. Indeed, at least some of those advantages are likely to constitute compensation for additional costs linked to the provision of services of general economic interest. Moreover, many activities qualifying as the provision of services of general economic interest have a limited territorial scope. It is therefore appropriate to introduce, alongside Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006, a Regulation containing specific de minimis rules for undertakings providing services of general economic interest. A ceiling should be established for the amount of de minimis aid each undertaking may receive over a specific period of time.\n(4)\nIn the light of the Commission\u2019s experience, aid granted to undertakings providing a service of general economic interest should be deemed not to affect trade between Member States and/or not to distort or threaten to distort competition provided that the total amount of aid granted for the provision of services of general economic interest received by the beneficiary undertaking does not exceed EUR 500 000 over any period of three fiscal years. In view of the development of the road passenger transport sector and of the mostly local nature of services of general economic interest in this field, it is not appropriate to apply a lower ceiling to this sector and the ceiling of EUR 500 000 should apply.\n(5)\nThe years to be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether that ceiling is met should be the fiscal years as used for fiscal purposes by the undertaking in the Member State concerned. The relevant period of three years should be assessed on a rolling basis so that, for each new grant of de minimis aid, the total amount of de minimis aid granted in the fiscal year concerned, as well as during the previous two fiscal years, needs to be determined. Aid granted by a Member State should be taken into account for this purpose even when financed entirely or partly by resources of Union origin. It should not be possible for aid measures exceeding the de minimis ceiling to be broken down into a number of smaller parts in order to bring such parts within the scope of this Regulation.\n(6)\nThis Regulation should apply only to aid granted for the provision of a service of general economic interest. The beneficiary undertaking should therefore be entrusted in writing with the service of general economic interest in respect of which the aid is granted. While the entrustment act should inform the undertaking of the service of general economic interest in respect of which it is granted, it must not necessarily contain all the detailed information as set out in Commission Decision 2012/21/EU of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (4).\n(7)\nIn view of the special rules which apply in the sectors of primary production of agricultural products, fisheries, aquaculture and road freight transport, of the fact that undertakings in those sectors are rarely entrusted with services of general economic interest, and of the risk that amounts of aid below the ceiling set out in this Regulation could fulfil the criteria of Article 107(1) of the Treaty in those sectors, this Regulation should not apply to those sectors. However, if undertakings are active in the sectors of primary production of agricultural products, fisheries, aquaculture or road freight transport as well as in other sectors or activities, this Regulation should apply to those other sectors or activities (such as for example collection of litter at sea) provided that Member States ensure that the activities in the excluded sectors do not benefit from the de minimis aid under this Regulation, by appropriate means such as separation of activities or distinction of costs. Member States can fulfill this obligation, in particular, by limiting the amount of de minimis aid to the compensation of the costs of the provision of the service, including a reasonable profit. This Regulation should not apply to the coal sector, in view of its special characteristics and of fact that undertakings in those sectors are rarely entrusted with services of general economic interest.\n(8)\nConsidering the similarities between the processing and marketing of agricultural products, on the one hand, and of non-agricultural products, on the other, this Regulation should apply to the processing and marketing of agricultural products, provided that certain conditions are met. Neither on-farm activities necessary for preparing a product for the first sale, such as harvesting, cutting and threshing of cereals, or packing of eggs, nor the first sale to resellers or processors should be considered as processing or marketing in this respect.\n(9)\nThe Court of Justice has established (5) that, once the Union has legislated for the establishment of a common organisation of the market in a given sector of agriculture, Member States are under an obligation to refrain from taking any measure which might undermine or create exceptions to it. For this reason, this Regulation should not apply to aid the amount of which is set on the basis of the price or quantity of products purchased or put on the market. Nor should it apply to de minimis support which is linked to an obligation to share the aid with primary producers.\n(10)\nThis Regulation should not apply to de minimis export aid or de minimis aid favouring domestic over imported products.\n(11)\nThis Regulation should not apply to undertakings in difficulty within the meaning of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (6) since it is not appropriate to grant operating aid to firms in difficulty outside of a restructuring concept and there are difficulties linked to determining the gross grant equivalent of aid granted to undertakings of this type.\n(12)\nIn accordance with the principles governing aid falling within Article 107(1) of the Treaty, de minimis aid should be considered to be granted at the moment the legal right to receive the aid is conferred on the undertaking under the applicable national legal regime.\n(13)\nIn order to avoid circumvention of maximum aid intensities laid down in different Union instruments, de minimis aid should not be cumulated with State aid in respect of the same eligible costs if such cumulation would result in an aid intensity exceeding that specified in the particular circumstances of each case by a block exemption regulation or decision adopted by the Commission.\n(14)\nThis Regulation should not restrict the application of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 to undertakings providing services of general economic interest. Member States should remain free to rely either on this Regulation or on Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 as regards aid granted for the provision of services of general economic interest.\n(15)\nThe Court of Justice, in its Altmark judgment (7), has identified a number of conditions which must be fulfilled in order for compensation for the provision of a service of general economic interest not to constitute State aid. Those conditions ensure that compensation limited to the net costs incurred by efficient undertakings for the provision of a service of general economic interest does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty. Compensation in excess of those net costs constitutes State aid which may be declared compatible on the basis of the applicable Union rules. In order to avoid this Regulation being applied to circumvent the conditions identified in the Altmark judgment, and in order to avoid de minimis aid granted under this Regulation affecting trade due to its cumulation with other compensation for the same service of general economic interest, de minimis aid under this Regulation should not be cumulated with any other compensation in respect of the same service, regardless of whether or not it constitutes State aid under the Altmark judgment or compatible State aid under Decision 2012/21/EU or under the Communication from the Commission - European Union framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011) (8). Therefore, this Regulation should not apply to compensation received for the provision of a service of general economic interest in respect of which other types of compensation are also being granted, except where that other compensation constitutes de minimis aid according to other de minimis regulations and the cumulation rules set out in this Regulation are complied with.\n(16)\nFor the purposes of transparency, equal treatment and correct application of the de minimis ceiling, all Member States should apply the same method of calculation. In order to facilitate such calculation and in accordance with present practice in applying the de minimis rule, aid amounts not taking the form of a cash grant should be converted into their gross grant equivalent. Calculation of the grant equivalent of transparent types of aid other than grants and of aid payable in several instalments requires the use of market rates prevailing at the time of granting such aid. With a view to uniform, transparent and simple application of the State aid rules, the market rates for the purposes of this Regulation should be deemed to be the reference rates, as currently set out in the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (9).\n(17)\nFor the purposes of transparency, equal treatment and effective monitoring, this Regulation should apply only to de minimis aid which is transparent. Transparent aid is aid for which it is possible to calculate precisely the gross grant equivalent ex ante without a need to undertake a risk assessment. Such a precise calculation can, for instance, be made for grants, interest rate subsidies and capped tax exemptions. Aid comprised in capital injections should not be considered as transparent de minimis aid, unless the total amount of the public injection is lower than the de minimis ceiling. Aid comprised in risk capital measures as referred to in the Community guidelines on State aid to promote risk capital investments in small and medium-sized enterprises (10) should not be considered as transparent de minimis aid, unless the risk capital scheme concerned provides capital only up to the de minimis ceiling to each target undertaking. Aid comprised in loans should be treated as transparent de minimis aid when the gross grant equivalent has been calculated on the basis of market interest rates prevailing at the time of grant.\n(18)\nLegal certainty needs to be provided for guarantee schemes which do not have the potential to affect trade and distort competition and in respect of which sufficient data are available to assess any potential effects reliably. This Regulation should therefore transpose the de minimis ceiling of EUR 500 000 into a guarantee-specific ceiling based on the guaranteed amount of the individual loan underlying such guarantee. This specific ceiling should be calculated using a methodology assessing the State aid amount included in guarantee schemes covering loans in favour of viable undertakings. The methodology and the data used to calculate the guarantee-specific ceiling should exclude undertakings in difficulty as referred to in the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty. This specific ceiling should therefore not apply to individual aid granted outside the scope of a guarantee scheme, to aid granted to undertakings in difficulty, or to guarantees on underlying transactions not constituting a loan, such as guarantees on equity transactions. The specific ceiling should be determined on the basis of the fact that taking account of a cap rate (net default rate) of 13 %, representing a worst case scenario for guarantee schemes in the Union, a guarantee amounting to EUR 3 750 000 can be considered as having a gross grant equivalent identical to the EUR 500 000de minimis ceiling. Only guarantees covering up to 80 % of the underlying loan should be covered by these specific ceilings. A methodology accepted by the Commission following notification of such methodology on the basis of a Commission regulation in the State aid area may also be used by Member States for the purpose of assessing the gross grant equivalent contained in a guarantee, if the approved methodology explicitly addresses the type of guarantees and the type of underlying transactions at stake in the context of the application of this Regulation.\n(19)\nUpon notification by a Member State, the Commission may examine whether an aid measure which does not consist in a grant, loan, guarantee, capital injection, risk capital measure or capped tax exemption leads to a gross grant equivalent that does not exceed the de minimis ceiling and could therefore be covered by the provisions of this Regulation.\n(20)\nThe Commission has a duty to ensure that State aid rules are complied with and in particular that aid granted under the de minimis rules adheres to the conditions thereof. In accordance with the cooperation principle laid down in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, Member States should facilitate the fulfilment of this task by establishing the necessary tools in order to ensure that the total amount of de minimis aid granted to the same undertaking for the provision of services of general economic interest does not exceed the overall permissible ceiling. To that end and to ensure compliance with the provisions on cumulation with de minimis aid under other de minimis regulations, when granting de minimis aid under this Regulation, Member States should inform the undertaking concerned of the amount of the aid and of its de minimis character by referring to this Regulation. Moreover, prior to granting such aid the Member State concerned should obtain from the undertaking a declaration about other de minimis aid covered by this Regulation or by other de minimis regulations received during the fiscal year concerned and the two previous fiscal years. Alternatively, the Member State should have the possibility to ensure that the ceiling is observed by means of a central register.\n(21)\nThis Regulation should apply without prejudice to the requirements of Union law in the area of public procurement or of additional requirements flowing from the Treaty or from sectoral Union legislation.\n(22)\nThis Regulation should apply to aid granted before its entry into force to undertakings providing services of general economic interest.\n(23)\nThe Commission intends to carry out a review of this Regulation five years after its entry into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope and definitions\n1. This Regulation applies to aid granted to undertakings providing a service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 106(2) of the Treaty.\n2. This Regulation does not apply to:\n(a)\naid granted to undertakings active in the fishery and aquaculture sectors, as covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 (11);\n(b)\naid granted to undertakings active in the primary production of agricultural products;\n(c)\naid granted to undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, in the following cases:\n(i)\nwhen the amount of the aid is fixed on the basis of the price or quantity of such products purchased from primary producers or put on the market by the undertakings concerned,\n(ii)\nwhen the aid is conditional on being partly or entirely passed on to primary producers;\n(d)\naid to export-related activities towards third countries or Member States, namely aid directly linked to the quantities exported, to the establishment and operation of a distribution network or to other current expenditure linked to the export activity;\n(e)\naid contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods;\n(f)\naid granted to undertakings active in the coal sector, as defined in Council Decision 2010/787/EU (12);\n(g)\naid granted to undertakings performing road freight transport for hire or reward;\n(h)\naid granted to undertakings in difficulty.\nIf undertakings are active in the sectors referred to in points (a), (b), (c) or (g) of the first subparagraph as well as in sectors not excluded from the scope of application of this Regulation, this Regulation applies only to aid granted in respect of those other sectors or activities, provided that Member States ensure that the activities in the excluded sectors do not benefit from the de minimis aid under this Regulation, by appropriate means such as separation of activities or distinction of costs.\n3. For the purposes of this Regulation:\n(a)\n\u2018agricultural products\u2019 means products listed in Annex I to the Treaty, with the exception of fishery products;\n(b)\n\u2018processing of agricultural products\u2019 means any operation on an agricultural product resulting in a product which is also an agricultural product, except on-farm activities necessary for preparing an animal or plant product for the first sale;\n(c)\n\u2018marketing of agricultural products\u2019 means holding or display with a view to sale, offering for sale, delivery or any other manner of placing on the market, except the first sale by a primary producer to resellers or processors and any activity preparing a product for such first sale; a sale by a primary producer to final consumers shall be considered as marketing if it takes place in separate premises reserved for that purpose.\nArticle 2\nDe minimis aid\n1. Aid granted to undertakings for the provision of a service of general economic interest shall be deemed not to meet all the criteria of Article 107(1) of the Treaty and shall therefore be exempt from the notification requirement of Article 108(3) of the Treaty if it fulfils the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 to 8 of this Article.\n2. The total amount of de minimis aid granted to any one undertaking providing services of general economic interest shall not exceed EUR 500 000 over any period of three fiscal years.\nThis ceiling shall apply irrespective of the form of the de minimis aid and regardless of whether the aid granted by the Member State is financed entirely or partly by resources of Union origin. The period shall be determined by reference to the fiscal years used by the undertaking in the Member State concerned.\n3. The ceiling laid down in paragraph 2 shall be expressed as a cash grant. All figures used shall be gross, that is, before any deduction of tax or other charges. Where aid is awarded in a form other than a grant, the aid amount shall be the gross grant equivalent of the aid.\nAid payable in several instalments shall be discounted to its value at the moment of it being granted. The interest rate to be used for discounting purposes shall be the discount rate applicable at the time of grant.\n4. This Regulation shall apply only to aid in respect of which it is possible to calculate precisely the gross grant equivalent of the aid ex ante without need to undertake a risk assessment (\u2018transparent aid\u2019). In particular:\n(a)\naid comprised in loans shall be considered as transparent de minimis aid when the gross grant equivalent has been calculated on the basis of the reference rate applicable at the time of the grant;\n(b)\naid comprised in capital injections shall not be considered as transparent de minimis aid, unless the total amount of the public injection does not exceed the de minimis ceiling;\n(c)\naid comprised in risk capital measures shall not be considered as transparent de minimis aid, unless the risk capital scheme concerned provides capital only up to the de minimis ceiling to each target undertaking;\n(d)\nindividual aid provided under a guarantee scheme to undertakings which are not undertakings in difficulty shall be treated as transparent de minimis aid when the guaranteed part of the underlying loan provided under such scheme does not exceed EUR 3 750 000 per undertaking. If the guaranteed part of the underlying loan only accounts for a given proportion of this ceiling, the gross grant equivalent of that guarantee shall be deemed to correspond to the same proportion of the ceiling laid down in paragraph 2. The guarantee shall not exceed 80 % of the underlying loan. Guarantee schemes shall also be considered as transparent if:\n(i)\nbefore the implementation of the scheme, the methodology to calculate the gross grant equivalent of the guarantees has been accepted following notification of this methodology to the Commission under a regulation adopted by the Commission in the State aid area, and\n(ii)\nthe approved methodology explicitly addresses the type of guarantees and the type of underlying transactions at stake in the context of the application of this Regulation.\n5. Where the overall amount of de minimis aid under this Regulation granted to an undertaking for the provision of services of general economic interest exceeds the ceiling laid down in paragraph 2, that amount may not benefit from this Regulation, even for a fraction not exceeding that ceiling. In such a case, the benefit of this Regulation may not be claimed for this aid measure.\n6. De minimis aid under this Regulation shall not be cumulated with State aid in respect of the same eligible costs if such cumulation would result in an aid intensity exceeding that stipulated in the specific circumstances of each case by a block exemption regulation or decision adopted by the Commission.\n7. De minimis aid under this Regulation may be cumulated with de minimis aid under other de minimis regulations up to the ceiling laid down in paragraph 2.\n8. De minimis aid under this Regulation shall not be cumulated with any compensation in respect of the same service of general economic interest, regardless of whether or not it constitutes State aid.\nArticle 3\nMonitoring\n1. Where a Member State intends to grant de minimis aid under this Regulation to an undertaking, it shall inform that undertaking in writing of the prospective amount of the aid expressed as gross grant equivalent, of the service of general economic interest in respect of which it is granted and of the de minimis character of the aid, making express reference to this Regulation and citing its title and publication reference in the Official Journal of the European Union. Where de minimis aid under this Regulation is granted to different undertakings on the basis of a scheme and different amounts of individual aid are granted to those undertakings under that scheme, the Member State concerned may choose to fulfil that obligation by informing the undertakings of a fixed sum corresponding to the maximum aid amount to be granted under that scheme. In such case, the fixed sum shall be used for determining whether the ceiling laid down in Article 2(2) is met. Prior to granting the aid, the Member State shall also obtain a declaration from the undertaking providing the service of general economic interest, in written or electronic form, about any other de minimis aid received under this Regulation or under other de minimis regulations during the previous two fiscal years and the current fiscal year.\nThe Member State shall grant the new de minimis aid under this Regulation only after having checked that this will not raise the total amount of de minimis aid granted to the undertaking concerned to a level above the ceiling laid down in Article 2(2) and that the cumulation rules in Article 2(6), (7) and (8) are complied with.\n2. Where a Member State has set up a central register of de minimis aid containing complete information on all de minimis aid granted to undertakings providing services of general economic interest by any authority within that Member State, the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall cease to apply from the moment the register covers a period of three years.\n3. Member States shall record and compile all the information regarding the application of this Regulation. Such records shall contain all information necessary to demonstrate that the conditions of this Regulation have been complied with. Records regarding individual de minimis aid shall be maintained for 10 fiscal years from the date on which the aid was granted. Records regarding a de minimis aid scheme shall be maintained for 10 years from the date on which the last individual aid was granted under such a scheme. On written request, the Member State concerned shall provide the Commission, within a period of 20 working days or such longer period as may be fixed in the request, with all the information that the Commission considers necessary for assessing whether the conditions of this Regulation have been complied with, and in particular the total amount of de minimis aid under this Regulation and under other de minimis regulations received by any undertaking.\nArticle 4\nTransitional provisions\nThis Regulation shall apply to de minimis aid granted for the provision of services of general economic interest before its entry into force, provided that such aid fulfils the conditions laid down in Articles 1 and 2. Any aid for the provision of services of general economic interest which does not fulfil those conditions shall be assessed in accordance with the relevant decisions, frameworks, guidelines, communications and notices.\nAt the end of the period of validity of this Regulation, any de minimis aid which fulfils the conditions of this Regulation may be validly implemented for a further period of six months.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and period of validity\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply until 31 December 2018.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 April 2012.", "references": ["78", "53", "82", "68", "7", "97", "94", "67", "33", "52", "92", "31", "76", "30", "40", "72", "42", "66", "63", "17", "2", "10", "9", "43", "75", "21", "22", "73", "86", "47", "No Label", "4", "8", "15", "24", "48"], "gold": ["4", "8", "15", "24", "48"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 867/2010\nof 30 September 2010\nfixing the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), lays down that the cif import prices for white sugar and raw sugar are to be considered the representative prices. Those prices are fixed for the standard qualities defined in points II and III respectively of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(2)\nFor the purposes of fixing those representative prices, account must be taken of all the information provided for in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, except in the cases provided for in Article 24 of that Regulation.\n(3)\nFor the purposes of adjusting prices not relating to the standard quality, the price increases or reductions referred to in Article 26(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 should be applied to the offers taken into consideration in the case of white sugar. In the case of raw sugar, the corrective factors provided for in point (b) of that paragraph should be applied.\n(4)\nWhere there is a difference between the trigger price for the product concerned and the representative price, additional import duties should be fixed under the terms laid down in Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(5)\nThe representative prices and additional import duties for the products concerned should be fixed in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and the additional duties applying to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 September 2010.", "references": ["12", "92", "25", "83", "17", "78", "63", "55", "20", "39", "7", "62", "49", "61", "18", "24", "30", "95", "97", "82", "19", "31", "38", "54", "37", "16", "58", "29", "23", "14", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 689/2011\nof 18 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["79", "2", "90", "15", "80", "18", "56", "57", "34", "84", "53", "83", "47", "13", "96", "94", "59", "46", "37", "60", "97", "0", "64", "10", "28", "61", "33", "52", "12", "75", "No Label", "22", "35", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 December 2011\nconcerning the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012 to 2013)\n(2012/93/Euratom)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission submitted after consultation of the Scientific and Technical Committee,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nJoint national and European efforts in the area of research and training are essential to promote and ensure economic growth and the well-being of citizens in Europe.\n(2)\nThe Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013) (hereinafter \u2018the Framework Programme\u2019) should complement other European Union actions in the area of research policy that are necessary for implementing the Europe 2020 strategy adopted by the European Council on 17 June 2010, in particular those on education, training, competitiveness and innovation, industry, employment, and the environment.\n(3)\nThe Framework Programme should build on the achievements of the Seventh Framework Programme adopted by Council Decision 2006/970/Euratom of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007 to 2011) (3), whilst including necessary reinforced emphasis on nuclear safety contributing to reorientation of nuclear research. It should also contribute to the creation of the European Research Area and towards the development of a knowledge economy and society in Europe.\n(4)\nThe Framework Programme should contribute to the implementation of the Innovation Union, one of the Europe 2020 flagship initiatives adopted by the Council conclusions at its meeting on 25 and 26 November 2010, by enhancing competition for scientific excellence and accelerating the deployment of key innovations in the nuclear energy field, notably in fusion and nuclear safety, and contribute to tackling energy and climate change challenges.\n(5)\nIn the context of the Energy Policy for Europe, the European Council at its meeting on 8 and 9 March 2007 confirmed that it is for each and every Member State to decide whether or not to rely on nuclear energy and stressed that this has to be done while further improving nuclear safety and the management of radioactive waste. It is also acknowledged that nuclear energy has, for the time being, the role of a \u2018bridging technology\u2019 in certain Member States.\n(6)\nNotwithstanding the potential impact of nuclear energy on energy supply and economic development, severe nuclear accidents may have a potential to endanger human health. Therefore, under the Framework Programme, nuclear safety and, where appropriate, security aspects should be given greatest possible attention. The security aspects of the Framework Programme should be limited to the direct actions of the Joint Research Centre (JRC).\n(7)\nThe European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET Plan), set out in the Council conclusions of 28 February 2008, is accelerating the development of a portfolio of low carbon technologies. The European Council agreed, at the meeting on 4 February 2011, that the Union and its Member States would promote investment in renewables, safe and sustainable low carbon technologies and focus on implementing the technology priorities established in the SET Plan.\n(8)\nThe Community has created a single and fully integrated fusion research programme that has taken a leading international role in the development of fusion as a source of energy.\n(9)\nFollowing the Council Decision of 20 December 2005, the Community acceded to the Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation-IV International Forum (GIF) on11 May 2006. The GIF coordinates multilateral cooperation in pre-conceptual design research on a number of advanced nuclear systems also aiming at satisfactorily addressing nuclear safety, waste, proliferation and public perception concerns, relevant for the Framework Programme.\n(10)\nThe Council Conclusions on the need for skills in the nuclear field, adopted at its meeting held on 1 and 2 December 2008, recognise that it is essential to maintain within the Community a high level of training in the nuclear field.\n(11)\nIn 2010, the Commission received the final reports on an external assessment of implementation and results of the Community activities in nuclear research over the period 2007-2009, covering both direct and indirect actions.\n(12)\nThe realisation of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Europe, in accordance with the Agreement of 21 November 2006 on the establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organisation for the joint implementation of the ITER project (4), should be the central feature of fusion research activities under the Framework Programme.\n(13)\nThe Community activities to help realise ITER, in particular to construct ITER at Cadarache and carry out the ITER technology research and development during the Framework Programme are to be steered by the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (Fusion for Energy), in accordance with Council Decision 2007/198/Euratom of 27 March 2007 establishing the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy and conferring advantages upon it (5).\n(14)\nResearch activities supported by the Framework Programme should respect fundamental ethical principles, including those reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.\n(15)\nThis Decision should establish, for the entire duration of the Framework Programme, a financial envelope that constitutes the prime reference, within the meaning of point 37 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (6), for the budgetary authority during the annual budgetary procedure.\n(16)\nThe JRC should contribute to providing customer-driven scientific and technological support for the formulation, development, implementation and monitoring of the Union\u2019s policies with an enhanced focus on safety and security research. In this regard, the JRC should continue to function as an independent reference centre of science and technology in the Union in the areas of its specific competence. The JRC should notably have the necessary capacity to provide independent scientific and technical expertise in the field of nuclear incidents and accidents.\n(17)\nThe international and global dimension of European research activities is important with a view to obtain mutual benefits. The Framework Programme should be open to the participation of countries that have concluded the necessary agreements to this effect, and should also be open, at project level and on the basis of mutual benefit, to the participation of entities from third countries and of international organisations for scientific cooperation.\n(18)\nThe Framework Programme should contribute to the enlargement of the Union by providing scientific and technological support to the candidate countries for their implementation of the Union acquis and for their integration within the European Research Area.\n(19)\nThe Communication from the Commission of 26 March 2009 on nuclear non-proliferation, recognises the role of the JRC in the field of nuclear security research and training.\n(20)\nAppropriate measures should also be taken to prevent irregularities and fraud and to recover funds lost, wrongly paid or incorrectly used, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (7), Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities\u2019 financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (8) and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (9),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAdoption of the Framework Programme\nA multiannual framework programme for nuclear research and training activities (hereinafter the \u2018Framework Programme\u2019), is adopted for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013.\nArticle 2\nObjectives\n1. The Framework Programme shall pursue the general objectives set out in Article 1 and Article 2(a) of the Treaty with special consideration of nuclear safety, security and radiation protection, while contributing towards the creation of the Innovation Union and building on the European Research Area.\n2. The Framework Programme shall cover Community research, technological development, international cooperation, dissemination of technical information, exploitation activities and training, to be set out in two specific programmes.\n3. The first specific programme shall cover the following indirect actions:\n(a)\nfusion energy research, with the objective of developing the technology for a safe, sustainable, environmentally responsible and economically viable energy source;\n(b)\nnuclear fission, safety and radiation protection, with the objective of enhancing the safety of nuclear fission and other uses of radiation in industry, in medicine and in improving the management of radioactive waste.\n4. The second specific programme shall cover the direct research activities of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in the field of nuclear waste management, environmental impact, safety and security.\n5. The objectives and broad lines of the two specific programmes are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 3\nMaximum amount and shares assigned to each specific programme\nThe maximum amount for the implementation of the Framework Programme shall be EUR 2 560 270 000. This amount shall be distributed as follows:\n(a)\nfor the specific programme, referred to in Article 2(3), to be carried out by means of indirect actions:\n-\nfusion energy research\nEUR 2 208 809 000 (10),\n-\nnuclear fission, safety, and radiation protection\nEUR 118 245 000;\n(b)\nfor the specific programme, referred to in Article 2(4), to be carried out by means of direct actions:\n-\nnuclear activities of the JRC\nEUR 233 216 000.\nThe detailed rules for Community financial participation in the Framework Programme are set out in Annex II.\nArticle 4\nProtection of the Union\u2019s financial interests\nFor Community actions financed under this Decision, Regulations (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 and (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 shall apply to any infringement of a provision of Union law, including the infringement of a contractual obligation under the Framework Programme, resulting from an act or omission by an economic operator, which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the European Union or budgets managed by it as a result of an unjustified item of expenditure.\nArticle 5\nFundamental ethical principles\nAll the research activities carried out under the Framework Programme shall be carried out in compliance with fundamental ethical principles.\nArticle 6\nMonitoring, assessment and review\n1. The Commission shall continually and systematically monitor the implementation of the Framework Programme and its specific programmes and regularly report and disseminate the results of this monitoring. In early 2013, a specific monitoring report shall be presented to the Council, dedicated to the implementation of nuclear safety and security activities of the Framework Programme.\n2. Following the completion of the Framework Programme, the Commission shall, by 31 December 2015, have an external evaluation carried out by independent experts of its rationale, implementation and achievements. The Commission shall communicate the conclusions thereof, accompanied by its observations, to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["34", "88", "92", "19", "22", "0", "49", "64", "72", "14", "75", "27", "95", "96", "56", "57", "84", "87", "11", "44", "93", "71", "52", "79", "61", "66", "37", "16", "21", "43", "No Label", "9", "10", "58", "60", "76", "77", "81"], "gold": ["9", "10", "58", "60", "76", "77", "81"]}
-{"input": "Council Decision\nof 27 October 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union\n(2011/767/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1) On 29 January 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with certain other Members of the World Trade Organisation under Article XXIV:6 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 in the course of the accessions to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania.\n(2) Negotiations have been conducted by the Commission within the framework of the negotiating directives adopted by the Council.\n(3) These negotiations have been concluded and the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (\"the Agreement\") was initialled on 7 September 2010.\n(4) The Agreement was signed on behalf of the Union on 28 April 2011, subject to its conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2011/255/EU [1].\n(5) The Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (\"the Agreement\") is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to give, on behalf of the Union, the notification provided for in the Agreement [2].\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 27 October 2011.\nFor the Council\nThe President\nJ. Miller\n[1] OJ L 110, 29.4.2011, p. 12.\n[2] The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.\n--------------------------------------------------\nAgreement\nin the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union\nA. Letter from the Union\nDone at Brussels, 28 April 2011.\nSir,\nFollowing negotiations under Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of the Schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union, I have the honour to propose the following:\n1. The European Union shall incorporate in its schedule, for the customs territory of the EU 27, the concessions contained in the schedule of the EU-25 with the following modifications:\nAdd 400 tonnes (carcase weight) to the allocation for New Zealand under the EU tariff rate quota \"meat of sheep or goats, fresh, chilled or frozen\", maintaining the present in-quota rate of 0 %;\nCreate an erga omnes allocation of 200 tonnes (carcase weight) under the EU tariff rate quota \"meat of sheep or goats, fresh, chilled or frozen\", maintaining the present in-quota rate of 0 %;\nAdjust the EU tariff rate quota \"live sheep, other than pure-bred breeding animals\", with an in-quota rate 10 %, by removing the allocations of 1010 tonnes (Romania) and 4255 tonnes (Bulgaria);\nAdjust the EU tariff rate quota \"meat of sheep or goats, fresh, chilled or frozen\", with an in-quota rate 0 %, by removing the allocations of 75 tonnes (Romania) and 1250 tonnes (Bulgaria);\nChange the definition of the EU tariff rate quota of 1300 tonnes \"high quality beef\" in the EU WTO schedule to: \"High quality meat of bovine animals fresh, chilled or frozen. Supplying country New Zealand. Qualification for the quota is subject to conditions laid down in the relevant EU provisions\".\n2. The European Union shall also replace the definition of high quality beef in the European Union regulations implementing this quota by the following: \"Selected beef cuts derived from exclusively pasture grazed steers or heifers, the carcases of which have a dressed weight of not more than 370 kilograms. The carcases shall be classified as A, L, P, T or F, be trimmed to a fat depth of P or lower and have a muscling classification of 1 or 2 according to the carcase classification system administered by the New Zealand Meat Board\".\n3. New Zealand accepts the European Union\u2019s approach to netting-out of tariff rate quotas as a way of adjusting the GATT obligations of the EU-25 and those of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania following the recent enlargement of the European Union.\n4. Consultations may be held at any time with regard to any of the above matters at the request of either Party.\nI should be obliged if you would confirm that your Government is in agreement with the content of this letter. Should this be the case, this letter and your confirmation shall together constitute an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand (the \"Agreement\").\nThe European Union and New Zealand shall notify to each other the completion of their internal procedures for the entry into force of the Agreement. The Agreement shall enter into force 14 days after the date of receipt of the latest notification.\nPlease accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.\nFor the European Union\n+++++ TIFF +++++\n+++++ TIFF +++++\nB. Letter from New Zealand\nDone at Brussels, 28 April 2011.", "references": ["36", "61", "46", "86", "71", "88", "80", "10", "79", "44", "76", "19", "90", "32", "27", "11", "51", "40", "49", "92", "6", "35", "16", "73", "7", "43", "4", "85", "18", "47", "No Label", "3", "9", "21", "22", "23", "91", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "21", "22", "23", "91", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 31 March 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance\n(2011/220/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 81(3), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union is working towards the establishment of a common judicial area based on the principle of mutual recognition of decisions.\n(2)\nThe Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (\u2018the Convention\u2019) constitutes a good basis for a worldwide system of administrative cooperation and for recognition and enforcement of maintenance decisions and maintenance arrangements, providing for free legal assistance in virtually all child support cases and for a streamlined procedure for recognition and enforcement.\n(3)\nArticle 59 of the Convention allows Regional Economic Integration Organisations such as the Union to sign, accept, approve or accede to the Convention.\n(4)\nMatters governed by the Convention are also dealt with in Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (1). The Union should decide, in this particular case, to sign the Convention alone and to exercise competence over all the matters governed by it.\n(5)\nAll appropriate declarations and reservations should be made by the Union at the time of the approval of the Convention.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom and Ireland are taking part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (\u2018the Convention\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Convention on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["94", "63", "60", "57", "70", "81", "46", "5", "35", "53", "44", "17", "93", "55", "41", "19", "40", "90", "78", "66", "12", "68", "76", "50", "16", "14", "75", "42", "26", "74", "No Label", "3", "34", "38"], "gold": ["3", "34", "38"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 609/2011\nof 22 June 2011\nwithdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSubmission of applications for import licences concerning order number 09.4318 were suspended as from 20 January 2011 by Commission Regulation (EU) No 42/2011 of 19 January 2011 suspending submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas (3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009.\n(2)\nFollowing notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for that order number. The suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe suspension laid down by Regulation (EU) No 42/2011 of submission of applications for import licences for order number 09.4318 as from 20 January 2011 is withdrawn.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2011.", "references": ["62", "54", "84", "2", "29", "98", "18", "52", "68", "44", "91", "58", "40", "49", "7", "88", "43", "80", "51", "35", "75", "50", "48", "16", "41", "94", "33", "79", "34", "11", "No Label", "21", "22", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 7 June 2011\non establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for copying and graphic paper\n(notified under document C(2011) 3751)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/332/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Union Eco-labelling Board,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, the EU Ecolabel may be awarded to those products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 66/2010 provides that specific EU Ecolabel criteria are to be established according to product groups.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 1999/554/EC (2) has established the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements for copying and graphic paper. Following the review of the criteria set out in that Decision, Commission Decision 2002/741/EC (3) has established revised criteria which are valid until 30 June 2011.\n(4)\nThose criteria have been further reviewed in the light of technological developments. In the light of the review, it is appropriate to modify the definition of the product group and to establish new ecological criteria. Those new criteria, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, should be valid for 4 years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\n(5)\nDecision 2002/741/EC should be replaced for reasons of clarity.\n(6)\nA transitional period should be allowed for producers whose products have been awarded the Ecolabel for copying and graphic paper on the basis of the criteria set out in Decision 2002/741/EC, so that they have sufficient time to adapt their products to comply with the revised criteria and requirements. Producers should also be allowed to submit applications based on the criteria set out in Decision 2002/741/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision until the lapse of validity of that Decision.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The product group \u2018copying and graphic paper\u2019 shall comprise sheets or reels of not converted, unprinted blank paper and not converted boards up to basis weight of 400 g/m2.\n2. It shall not include newsprint paper, thermally sensitive paper, photographic and carbonless paper, packaging and wrapping paper as well as fragranced paper.\nArticle 2\nFor the purpose of this Decision, the following definition shall apply:\n\u2018recycled fibres\u2019 means fibres diverted from the waste stream during a manufacturing process or generated by households or by commercial, industrial and institutional facilities in their role as end-users of the product, which can no longer be used for their intended purpose. Excluded is reutilisation of materials generated in a process and capable of being reclaimed within the same process that generated it (mill broke - own produced or purchased).\nArticle 3\nIn order to be awarded the EU Ecolabel under Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, an item of copying and graphic paper shall fall within the product group \u2018copying and graphic paper\u2019 as defined in Article 1 of this Decision and shall comply with the criteria as well as the related assessment and verification requirements set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThe criteria for the product group \u2018copying and graphic paper\u2019, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid for 4 years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 5\nFor administrative purposes the code number assigned to \u2018copying and graphic paper\u2019 shall be \u2018011\u2019.\nArticle 6\nDecision 2002/741/EC is repealed.\nArticle 7\n1. By derogation from Article 6, applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018copying and graphic paper\u2019 submitted before the date of adoption of this Decision shall be evaluated in accordance with the conditions laid down in Decision 2002/741/EC.\n2. Applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018copying and graphic paper\u2019 submitted from the date of adoption of this Decision but by 30 June 2011 at the latest may be based either on the criteria set out in Decision 2002/741/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision.\nThose applications shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria on which they are based.\n3. Where the Ecolabel is awarded on the basis of an application evaluated in accordance with the criteria set out in Decision 2002/741/EC, that Ecolabel may be used for 12 months from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2011.", "references": ["44", "72", "49", "91", "77", "70", "86", "74", "46", "68", "6", "21", "87", "81", "36", "29", "39", "56", "37", "78", "67", "14", "92", "43", "99", "79", "23", "84", "33", "31", "No Label", "24", "25", "58", "88"], "gold": ["24", "25", "58", "88"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 11 October 2011\namending Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU on granting Union financial assistance to Portugal\n(2011/683/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUpon a request by Portugal, the Council granted financial assistance to it (Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU (2)) in support of a strong economic and financial reform programme aiming at restoring confidence, enabling the return of the economy to sustainable growth, and safeguarding financial stability in Portugal, the euro area and the Union.\n(2)\nAn extension of maturities and a reduction in the interest rate margin would be beneficial to secure the programme\u2019s objectives, in line with the conclusions of the Heads of State or Government of the euro area and Union institutions of 21 July 2011 regarding European Financial Stability Facility lending.\n(3)\nIn order to enhance liquidity and sustainability objectives, the extension of maturities and the reduction in the interest rate margin should also apply to the tranches that have already been disbursed.\n(4)\nIn light of these developments, Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1 of Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU is amended as follows:\n(1)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Union shall make available to Portugal a loan amounting to a maximum of EUR 26 billion, with a maximum average maturity of 12,5 years. The maturity of individual tranches of the loan may be of up to 30 years.\u2019;\n(2)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. Portugal shall pay the cost of funding of the Union for each tranche.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nArticle 1(1), first sentence and Article 1(5) of Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU as amended by this Decision, shall also apply to the tranches of the loan that have been disbursed before the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Luxembourg, 11 October 2011.", "references": ["71", "28", "49", "37", "62", "6", "84", "67", "51", "27", "25", "34", "93", "89", "0", "46", "54", "52", "12", "24", "68", "92", "14", "18", "33", "11", "90", "53", "17", "5", "No Label", "4", "10", "15", "16", "29", "30", "32", "47", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "15", "16", "29", "30", "32", "47", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 879/2011\nof 2 September 2011\namending Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 as regards catch limits for Norway pout and associated by-catches in ICES zone IIIa and Union waters of ICES zones IIa and IV\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (1), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nZero catch limits for the stock of Norway pout and associated species in ICES zone IIIa and in Union waters of ICES zones IIa and IV are laid down in Annex IA to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011.\n(2)\nOn the basis of the scientific information collected during the first half of 2011, the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries advises that catches in 2011 of up to 6 000 tonnes would correspond to a fishing mortality of 0,02 and are expected to maintain the stock above precautionary limits.\n(3)\nNorway pout is a North Sea stock which is shared with Norway but which is currently not managed jointly by the two Parties. The measures provided for in this Regulation should be in accordance with consultations held with Norway pursuant to the provisions of the Agreed Record of conclusions of fisheries consultations between the European Union and Norway of 3 December 2010.\n(4)\nIn consequence, the Union share of Norway pout catches in ICES zone IIIa and in Union waters of ICES zones IIa and IV should be fixed at 75 % of 6 000 tonnes.\n(5)\nHaddock and whiting are caught as a by-catch in the Norway pout fishery. It is therefore appropriate to count these catches against the Member State quotas for Norway pout and associated species, but in order to prevent excessive catches the quantities of these species that can be counted against this quota should be limited to 5 % of the total.\n(6)\nAnnex IA to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nNorway pout is a short-lived species. Consequently the new quantities of the catch limitations should be implemented as soon as possible, in order to ensure the continued operation of the fishery. This regulation should therefore enter into force on the day following its publication.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IA to Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2011.", "references": ["29", "39", "48", "5", "71", "74", "87", "11", "14", "84", "91", "50", "83", "17", "6", "97", "60", "37", "45", "69", "58", "25", "4", "73", "1", "85", "19", "18", "72", "27", "No Label", "13", "67"], "gold": ["13", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 105/2012\nof 7 February 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 February 2012.", "references": ["81", "92", "12", "73", "32", "43", "75", "10", "46", "74", "31", "6", "38", "47", "39", "11", "20", "80", "18", "34", "8", "85", "60", "13", "97", "55", "36", "82", "77", "1", "No Label", "21", "40", "41", "42"], "gold": ["21", "40", "41", "42"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 709/2012\nof 2 August 2012\nimplementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (1), and in particular Article 46(1) and (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 March 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.\n(2)\nThe Council considers that certain persons should be removed from the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 and that the entries concerning certain entities should be amended.\n(3)\nFollowing the decision by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Committee established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1737 (2006), two persons and one entity should be removed from the list set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 and included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex VIII to that Regulation.\n(4)\nThe lists set out in Annexes VIII and IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, it should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in Annex I to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, the entries concerning the entities referred to in Annex II to this Regulation shall be replaced by the entries set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThe persons and entity listed in Annex III to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 and added to the list set out in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, as amended by the entries set out in Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2012.", "references": ["24", "46", "8", "6", "70", "78", "77", "87", "57", "21", "13", "30", "84", "19", "98", "33", "91", "59", "23", "12", "53", "88", "15", "42", "32", "90", "82", "94", "31", "43", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 5 August 2010\namending Decision 2004/558/EC implementing Council Directive 64/432/EEC as regards additional guarantees for intra-Union trade in bovine animals relating to infectious bovine rhinotracheitis\n(notified under document C(2010) 5352)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/433/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), and in particular Articles 9(2) and 10(2) thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nInfectious bovine rhinotracheitis is the description of the most prominent clinical signs of the infection with the bovine herpes virus type 1 (BHV1). As many infections with that virus run a subclinical course, control measures should be directed to the eradication of the infection rather than to the suppression of symptoms.\n(2)\nAnnex E (II) to Directive 64/432/EEC lists \u2018infectious bovine rhinotracheitis\u2019 among the diseases for which national control programmes may be approved and additional guarantees requested.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2004/558/EC of 15 July 2004 implementing Council Directive 64/432/EEC as regards additional guarantees for intra-Community trade in bovine animals relating to infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and the approval of the eradication programmes presented by certain Member States (2) lists in Annex I the Member States or parts thereof which implement a programme for the eradication of BHV1 and in Annex II those which have already attained freedom from this disease. Annex III to that Decision sets up criteria for a holding considered to be free of BHV1 infection.\n(4)\nIn order to prevent transmission of BHV1 into BHV1-free holdings, the Decision requires for the movement of bovine animals from an area without BHV1 status or listed in Annex I to a holding situated in an area listed in Annex II that a test for the presence of antibodies to the BHV1 virus is carried out with negative result on samples taken during a 30 days pre-movement quarantine.\n(5)\nBased on current experience with the implementation of approved programmes for the eradication of BHV1 infection, direct movement of bovine animals from holdings free of BHV1 infection to enclosed fattening units in Member States or parts thereof which are free of BHV1 infection could be allowed, provided a channelling system is implemented by which the competent authorities at the place of the fattening unit ensure additional testing at arrival and removal of the animals only to the slaughterhouse.\n(6)\nAt present, all regions of Germany with the exception of the administrative units of Regierungsbezirke Oberpfalz and Oberfranken in the federal state of Bavaria are listed in Annex I to Decision 2004/558/EC.\n(7)\nGermany has now submitted documentation in support of its application to declare also the administrative units of Regierungsbezirke Mittelfranken and Unterfranken in the federal state of Bavaria free of BHV1 infection and provided rules for the national movement of bovine animals within and into this part of its territory. Accordingly, Germany has requested the application of the additional guaranties, in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC, to be extended to those administrative units in Bavaria.\n(8)\nFollowing the evaluation of the application submitted by Germany, it is appropriate that those two BHV1-free administrative units in Germany be no longer listed in Annex I, but be included in Annex II to Decision 2004/558/EC and to extend the application of the additional guaranties established in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC to them.\n(9)\nDecision 2004/558/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2004/558/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 2(2)(b)(ii) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(ii)\nthey are transported without coming into contact with animals of lesser health status to a holding of unknown BHV1 status in the Member State of destination listed in Annex I, where according to the approved national eradication programme all animals are fattened indoors, and from which they can only be transported to the slaughterhouse;\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 3, point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nafter the second indent: \u201cArticle 3 paragraph \u2026 point \u2026 of Commission Decision 2004/558/EC\u201d;\u2019\n(b)\nthe following paragraphs are added:\n\u20184. By way of derogation to paragraph 1(a) and (b), the competent authority in the Member State of destination may authorise the introduction of bovine animals intended for meat production onto a BHV1-free holding as defined in Annex III (BHV1-free holding) situated in a region of that Member State listed in Annex II under the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe animals must not have been vaccinated against BHV1 and must originate in and have remained since birth on BHV1-free holdings;\n(b)\nthe animals are transported without coming into contact with animals of lesser health status;\n(c)\nfor at least 30 days immediately prior to dispatch, or since birth where the animals are less than 30 days old, the animals have remained on the holding of origin, or in an isolation facility approved by the competent authority, which is situated in a Member State in which infectious bovine rhinotracheitis is a compulsorily notifiable disease and in which within an area of 5 km radius around the holding or isolation facility there was no clinical or pathological evidence of BHV1 infection during the past 30 days;\n(d)\nthe animals have been subjected with negative result either to a serological test for antibodies against the gE-glycoprotein of the BHV1 in the case the animals originate from a BHV1 vaccinated herd, or in all other cases to a serological test for antibodies against the entire BHV1 carried out on a sample of blood taken within 7 days prior to dispatch from the holding referred to in point (c);\n(e)\non the BHV1-free holding of destination all animals are fattened indoors and are only removed to be transported to the slaughterhouse;\n(f)\nthe animals referred to in point (d) are subjected to a serological test for antibodies against the gE-glycoprotein of the BHV1 or the entire BHV1 carried out on a sample of blood taken within 21 to 28 days after arrival in the holding referred to in point (e):\n(i)\neither with negative result in each case; or\n(ii)\nthe BHV1-free status of the holding remains suspended until the infected animals have been slaughtered within less than 45 days after arrival on the holding, and\n-\neither the animals in direct contact with the infected animals have reacted with negative results to a test for antibodies against the gE-glycoprotein of the BHV1 or the entire BHV1 carried out on a sample of blood collected not earlier than 28 days following the removal of the infected animals, or\n-\nthe animals which shared a common airspace with the infected animals have reacted with negative results to a test for antibodies against the entire BHV1 carried out on a sample of blood collected not earlier than 28 days following the removal of the infected animals, or\n-\nthe remaining animals on the holding have reacted with negative results to a test for antibodies against the entire BHV1 carried out on a sample of blood collected not earlier than 28 days following the removal of the infected animals, or\n-\nthe BHV1-free status is restored in accordance with point 4 of Annex III.\n5. The Member State of destination referred to in paragraph 4 shall notify to the Commission and to the other Member States the regions listed in Annex II in which the provisions of paragraph 4 are going to be implemented and the date of intended application.\u2019;\n3.\nAnnex I is replaced by the text in Annex I to the present Decision;\n4.\nAnnex II is replaced by the text in Annex II to the present Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2010.", "references": ["31", "72", "48", "43", "63", "64", "90", "14", "5", "87", "86", "0", "94", "46", "24", "16", "7", "13", "6", "98", "73", "56", "75", "1", "95", "22", "37", "27", "8", "59", "No Label", "20", "54", "61", "65", "66"], "gold": ["20", "54", "61", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1330/2011\nof 16 December 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2011 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1384/2007 for poultrymeat originating in Israel\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1384/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/96 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain quotas for imports into the Community of poultrymeat products originating in Israel (3), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2011 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2012 relate to quantities exceeding those available for licences under the quota with order number 09.4092. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 1384/2007 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2012 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["4", "34", "65", "47", "60", "24", "25", "29", "90", "15", "0", "81", "93", "86", "89", "73", "50", "45", "97", "54", "52", "71", "36", "11", "83", "2", "6", "8", "5", "48", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "61", "69", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "61", "69", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 21 March 2011\nextending the validity of Decision 2006/502/EC requiring Member States to take measures to ensure that only lighters which are child-resistant are placed on the market and to prohibit the placing on the market of novelty lighters\n(notified under document C(2011) 1754)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/176/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2006/502/EC (2) requires Member States to take measures to ensure that only lighters which are child-resistant are placed on the market and to prohibit the placing on the market of novelty lighters.\n(2)\nDecision 2006/502/EC was adopted in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of Directive 2001/95/EC, which restricts the validity of the Decision to a period not exceeding one year, but allows it to be confirmed for additional periods none of which shall exceed one year.\n(3)\nDecision 2006/502/EC was amended four times, firstly by Commission Decision 2007/231/EC (3) which extended the validity of the Decision until 11 May 2008, secondly by Commission Decision 2008/322/EC (4) which extended the validity of the Decision until 11 May 2009, thirdly by Commission Decision 2009/298/EC (5) which extended the validity of the Decision until 11 May 2010 and fourthly by Commission Decision 2010/157/EU (6) which extended the validity of the Decision for a further year until 11 May 2011.\n(4)\nIn the absence of other satisfactory measures addressing the child safety of lighters, it is necessary to extend the validity of Decision 2006/502/EC for a further 12 months.\n(5)\nTherefore, Decision 2006/502/EC should be amended it accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Directive 2001/95/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 6 of Decision 2006/502/EC, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. This Decision shall apply until 11 May 2012.\u2019\nArticle 2\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to comply with this Decision by 11 May 2011 at the latest and shall publish those measures. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["38", "1", "35", "50", "43", "44", "17", "13", "10", "9", "72", "2", "18", "27", "40", "28", "78", "94", "69", "32", "7", "56", "66", "55", "63", "52", "54", "34", "79", "83", "No Label", "24", "25", "76", "82"], "gold": ["24", "25", "76", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 878/2010\nof 6 October 2010\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 15(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (2) lays down rules concerning the increased level of official controls to be carried out on imports of feed and food of non-animal origin listed in Annex I thereto, at the points of entry into the territories referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\n(2)\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 provides that the list in Annex I thereto is to be reviewed on a regular basis, and at least quarterly, taking into account at least the sources of information referred to in that Article.\n(3)\nOccurrence and relevance of food incidents notified through the Rapid Alert System for Feed and Food (RASFF), findings of the missions to third countries carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office, as well as the quarterly reports which Member States have to make available as regards the official controls performed at their borders according to Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 indicate that there is need to review the list in Annex I to the above Regulation. In particular, Annex I thereto must be reviewed by removing those commodities for which the above information sources show an overall satisfactory degree of compliance with the relevant EU safety requirements and for which an increased level of official control is therefore no longer justified, and by adding other commodities for which the same sources show a degree of non-compliance with the relevant EU safety requirements that warrants the introduction of increased level of official controls.\n(4)\nThe amendments to Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 provided for in this Regulation should become applicable as soon as possible so that the increased level of official controls can, on one hand, cease for those commodities which are removed from the list and, on the other hand, start for those newly added.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 669/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 October 2010.", "references": ["86", "57", "56", "44", "65", "93", "53", "12", "91", "54", "11", "34", "74", "97", "89", "0", "73", "46", "58", "48", "27", "76", "31", "85", "33", "41", "98", "81", "29", "52", "No Label", "4", "21", "22", "23", "38", "66", "72"], "gold": ["4", "21", "22", "23", "38", "66", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 70/2011\nof 28 January 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 33/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 January 2011.", "references": ["96", "64", "1", "41", "30", "90", "29", "83", "68", "2", "66", "97", "59", "47", "57", "70", "7", "58", "4", "9", "46", "60", "94", "85", "43", "88", "11", "82", "95", "40", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 316/2011\nof 30 March 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of 3 months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of 3 months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 March 2011.", "references": ["2", "33", "24", "91", "15", "48", "99", "36", "72", "62", "44", "65", "27", "67", "54", "13", "10", "93", "38", "77", "12", "35", "53", "9", "30", "57", "75", "43", "49", "73", "No Label", "21", "55"], "gold": ["21", "55"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 18/2011\nof 10 January 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 13/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 January 2011.", "references": ["20", "26", "0", "96", "15", "80", "2", "61", "91", "89", "32", "38", "59", "74", "29", "33", "49", "65", "87", "27", "46", "98", "17", "69", "36", "75", "53", "63", "34", "90", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 746/2010\nof 18 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 August 2010.", "references": ["99", "66", "70", "95", "20", "73", "74", "0", "84", "86", "98", "63", "25", "59", "92", "97", "37", "65", "54", "57", "79", "62", "8", "3", "81", "31", "2", "5", "1", "28", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 427/2011\nof 2 May 2011\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the entry for Israel in the list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1) and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first paragraph of point 1 of Article 8 and point 4 of Article 8 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (2), and in particular Articles 23(1) and 24(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (3) provides that the commodities covered by it are only to be imported into and transited through the Union from the third countries, territories, zones or compartments listed in the table in Part 1 of Annex I thereto.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008, where an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) occurs in a third country, territory, zone or compartment previously free of that disease, that third country, territory, zone or compartment is to again be considered as free of HPAI, provided that certain conditions are met. Those conditions concern the implementation of a stamping out policy to control the disease, including adequate cleansing and disinfection carried out on all previously infected establishments. In addition, avian influenza surveillance must have been carried out in accordance with Part II of Annex IV to that Regulation during a three-month period following completion of the stamping out policy and cleansing and disinfection.\n(3)\nIsrael is listed in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as a third country from which all poultry commodities covered by that Regulation may be imported into the Union. Following a HPAI outbreak in early 2010 imports of certain commodities from Israel to the Union were restricted to defined parts of its territory by that Regulation, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 332/2010 (4). The area from which imports of certain commodities were prohibited is described in column 3 with the code IL-2 in the entry for Israel in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 and applied until 1 May 2010. However, the prohibition of imports of certain poultry commodities from IL-2 in relation to that outbreak should continue for commodities produced before that date.\n(4)\nIn addition, on 8 March 2011 Israel has notified the Commission of an outbreak of HPAI of the H5N1 subtype on its territory.\n(5)\nDue to the confirmed outbreak of HPAI, the territory of Israel may no longer be considered as free from that disease. As a consequence, the veterinary authorities of Israel have suspended issuing veterinary certificates for consignments of certain poultry commodities accordingly.\n(6)\nIsrael has submitted information to the Commission on the control measures taken in relation to the recent outbreak of the disease. That information and the epidemiological situation in Israel have been evaluated by the Commission.\n(7)\nIsrael has implemented a stamping out policy in order to control the disease and limit its spread. The prompt and decisive action taken by Israel to confine the disease and the positive outcome of the evaluation of the epidemiological situation allow limiting the restrictions on imports into the Union for certain poultry commodities to the zone affected by the disease, which the veterinary authorities of Israel have placed under restrictions.\n(8)\nIn addition, Israel is carrying out surveillance activities for avian influenza which appear to meet the requirements laid down in Part II of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008.\n(9)\nTaking into account the favourable development of the epidemiological situation and the surveillance activities for avian influenza in resolving the outbreak in accordance with the conditions set out in Regulation (EC) No 798/2008, it is appropriate to limit the time period during which the authorisation for imports into the Union is suspended to a three-month period until 14 June 2011 following adequate cleansing and disinfection of the previously infected holding.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008, the entry for Israel is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 May 2011.", "references": ["58", "62", "89", "15", "34", "87", "30", "72", "16", "64", "7", "13", "11", "23", "80", "24", "42", "46", "14", "2", "56", "12", "88", "47", "55", "52", "1", "83", "86", "93", "No Label", "8", "21", "22", "61", "66", "69", "95", "96"], "gold": ["8", "21", "22", "61", "66", "69", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/7/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 February 2011\non combating late payment in commercial transactions\n(recast)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA number of substantive changes are to be made to Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (3). It is desirable, for reasons of clarity and rationalisation, that the provisions in question be recast.\n(2)\nMost goods and services are supplied within the internal market by economic operators to other economic operators and to public authorities on a deferred payment basis whereby the supplier gives its client time to pay the invoice, as agreed between parties, as set out in the supplier\u2019s invoice or as laid down by law.\n(3)\nMany payments in commercial transactions between economic operators or between economic operators and public authorities are made later than agreed in the contract or laid down in the general commercial conditions. Although the goods are delivered or the services performed, many corresponding invoices are paid well after the deadline. Such late payment negatively affects liquidity and complicates the financial management of undertakings. It also affects their competitiveness and profitability when the creditor needs to obtain external financing because of late payment. The risk of such negative effects strongly increases in periods of economic downturn when access to financing is more difficult.\n(4)\nJudicial claims related to late payment are already facilitated by Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (4), Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (5), Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (6) and Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure (7). However, in order to discourage late payment in commercial transactions, it is necessary to lay down complementary provisions.\n(5)\nUndertakings should be able to trade throughout the internal market under conditions which ensure that transborder operations do not entail greater risks than domestic sales. Distortions of competition would ensue if substantially different rules applied to domestic and transborder operations.\n(6)\nIn its Communication of 25 June 2008 entitled \u2018 \u201cThink Small First\u201d - A \u201cSmall Business Act\u201d for Europe\u2019, the Commission emphasised that small and medium-sized enterprises\u2019 (SMEs) access to finance should be facilitated and that a legal and business environment supportive of timely payments in commercial transactions should be developed. It should be noted that public authorities have a special responsibility in this regard. The criteria for the definition of SMEs are set out in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (8).\n(7)\nOne of the priority actions of the Commission Communication of 26 November 2008 entitled \u2018European Economic Recovery Plan\u2019 is the reduction of administrative burdens and the promotion of entrepreneurship by, inter alia, ensuring that, as a matter of principle, invoices, including to SMEs, for supplies and services are paid within 1 month to ease liquidity constraints.\n(8)\nThe scope of this Directive should be limited to payments made as remuneration for commercial transactions. This Directive should not regulate transactions with consumers, interest in connection with other payments, for instance payments under the laws on cheques and bills of exchange, or payments made as compensation for damages including payments from insurance companies. Furthermore, Member States should be able to exclude debts that are subject to insolvency proceedings, including proceedings aimed at debt restructuring.\n(9)\nThis Directive should regulate all commercial transactions irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings or between undertakings and public authorities, given that public authorities handle a considerable volume of payments to undertakings. It should therefore also regulate all commercial transactions between main contractors and their suppliers and subcontractors.\n(10)\nThe fact that the liberal professions are covered by this Directive should not oblige Member States to treat them as undertakings or merchants for purposes outside the scope of this Directive.\n(11)\nThe delivery of goods and the provision of services for remuneration to which this Directive applies should also include the design and execution of public works and building and civil engineering works.\n(12)\nLate payment constitutes a breach of contract which has been made financially attractive to debtors in most Member States by low or no interest rates charged on late payments and/or slow procedures for redress. A decisive shift to a culture of prompt payment, including one in which the exclusion of the right to charge interest should always be considered to be a grossly unfair contractual term or practice, is necessary to reverse this trend and to discourage late payment. Such a shift should also include the introduction of specific provisions on payment periods and on the compensation of creditors for the costs incurred, and, inter alia, that the exclusion of the right to compensation for recovery costs should be presumed to be grossly unfair.\n(13)\nAccordingly, provision should be made for business-to-business contractual payment periods to be limited, as a general rule, to 60 calendar days. However, there may be circumstances in which undertakings require more extensive payment periods, for example when undertakings wish to grant trade credit to their customers. It should therefore remain possible for the parties to expressly agree on payment periods longer than 60 calendar days, provided, however, that such extension is not grossly unfair to the creditor.\n(14)\nIn the interest of consistency of Union legislation, the definition of \u2018contracting authorities\u2019 in Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (9) and in Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public services contracts (10) should apply for the purposes of this Directive.\n(15)\nStatutory interest due for late payment should be calculated on a daily basis as simple interest, in accordance with Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits (11).\n(16)\nThis Directive should not oblige a creditor to claim interest for late payment. In the event of late payment, this Directive should allow a creditor to resort to charging interest for late payment without giving any prior notice of non-performance or other similar notice reminding the debtor of his obligation to pay.\n(17)\nA debtor\u2019s payment should be regarded as late, for the purposes of entitlement to interest for late payment, where the creditor does not have the sum owed at his disposal on the due date provided that he has fulfilled his legal and contractual obligations.\n(18)\nInvoices trigger requests for payment and are important documents in the chain of transactions for the supply of goods and services, inter alia, for determining payment deadlines. For the purposes of this Directive, Member States should promote systems that give legal certainty as regards the exact date of receipt of invoices by the debtors, including in the field of e-invoicing where the receipt of invoices could generate electronic evidence and which is partly governed by the provisions on invoicing contained in Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (12).\n(19)\nFair compensation of creditors for the recovery costs incurred due to late payment is necessary to discourage late payment. Recovery costs should also include the recovery of administrative costs and compensation for internal costs incurred due to late payment for which this Directive should determine a fixed minimum sum which may be cumulated with interest for late payment. Compensation in the form of a fixed sum should aim at limiting the administrative and internal costs linked to the recovery. Compensation for the recovery costs should be determined without prejudice to national provisions according to which a national court may award compensation to the creditor for any additional damage regarding the debtor\u2019s late payment.\n(20)\nIn addition to an entitlement to payment of a fixed sum to cover internal recovery costs, creditors should also be entitled to reimbursement of the other recovery costs they incur as a result of late payment by a debtor. Such costs should include, in particular, those incurred by creditors in instructing a lawyer or employing a debt collection agency.\n(21)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to the right of Member States to provide for fixed sums for compensation of recovery costs which are higher and therefore more favourable to the creditor, or to increase those sums, inter alia, in order to keep pace with inflation.\n(22)\nThis Directive should not prevent payments by instalments or staggered payments. However, each instalment or payment should be paid on the agreed terms and should be subject to the rules for late payment set out in this Directive.\n(23)\nAs a general rule, public authorities benefit from more secure, predictable and continuous revenue streams than undertakings. In addition, many public authorities can obtain financing at more attractive conditions than undertakings. At the same time, public authorities depend less than undertakings on building stable commercial relationships for the achievement of their aims. Long payment periods and late payment by public authorities for goods and services lead to unjustified costs for undertakings. It is therefore appropriate to introduce specific rules as regards commercial transactions for the supply of goods or services by undertakings to public authorities, which should provide in particular for payment periods normally not exceeding 30 calendar days, unless otherwise expressly agreed in the contract and provided it is objectively justified in the light of the particular nature or features of the contract, and in any event not exceeding 60 calendar days.\n(24)\nHowever, account should be taken of the specific situation of public authorities carrying out economic activities of an industrial or commercial nature by offering goods or services on the market as a public undertaking. For that purpose, Member States should be allowed, under certain conditions, to extend the statutory payment period up to a maximum of 60 calendar days.\n(25)\nA particular cause for concern in connection with late payment is the situation of health services in a large number of Member States. Healthcare systems, as a fundamental part of Europe\u2019s social infrastructure, are often obliged to reconcile individual needs with the available finances, as the population of Europe ages, as expectations rise, and as medicine advances. All systems have to deal with the challenge of prioritising healthcare in a way that balances the needs of individual patients with the financial resources available. Member States should therefore be able to grant public entities providing healthcare a certain amount of flexibility in meeting their commitments. For that purpose, Member States should be allowed, under certain conditions, to extend the statutory payment period up to a maximum of 60 calendar days. Member States should, nonetheless, make every effort to ensure that payments in the healthcare sector are made within the statutory payment periods.\n(26)\nIn order not to jeopardise the achievement of the objective of this Directive, Member States should ensure that in commercial transactions the maximum duration of a procedure of acceptance or verification does not exceed, as a general rule, 30 calendar days. Nevertheless, it should be possible for a verification procedure to exceed 30 calendar days, for example in the case of particularly complex contracts, when expressly agreed in the contract and in any tender documents and if it is not grossly unfair to the creditor.\n(27)\nThe Union institutions are in a situation comparable to that of the public authorities of Member States with regard to their financing and commercial relationships. Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (13) specifies that the validation, authorisation and payment of expenditure by Union institutions must be completed within the time limits laid down in its implementing rules. Those implementing rules are currently set out in Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (14), and specify the circumstances in which creditors which are paid late are entitled to receive default interest. In the context of the ongoing review of those Regulations, it should be ensured that the maximum time limits for payment by the Union institutions are aligned with statutory periods applicable to public authorities in accordance with this Directive.\n(28)\nThis Directive should prohibit abuse of freedom of contract to the disadvantage of the creditor. As a result, where a term in a contract or a practice relating to the date or period for payment, the rate of interest for late payment or the compensation for recovery costs is not justified on the grounds of the terms granted to the debtor, or it mainly serves the purpose of procuring the debtor additional liquidity at the expense of the creditor, it may be regarded as constituting such an abuse. For that purpose, and in accordance with the academic \u2018Draft Common Frame of Reference\u2019, any contractual term or practice which grossly deviates from good commercial practice and is contrary to good faith and fair dealing should be regarded as unfair to the creditor. In particular, the outright exclusion of the right to charge interest should always be considered as grossly unfair, whereas the exclusion of the right to compensation for recovery costs should be presumed to be grossly unfair. This Directive should not affect national provisions relating to the way contracts are concluded or regulating the validity of contractual terms which are unfair to the debtor.\n(29)\nIn the context of enhanced efforts to prevent the abuse of freedom of contract to the detriment of creditors, organisations officially recognised as representing undertakings and organisations with a legitimate interest in representing undertakings should be able to take action before national courts or administrative bodies in order to prevent the continued use of contract terms or practices which are grossly unfair to the creditor.\n(30)\nIn order to contribute to the achievement of the objective of this Directive, Member States should foster the spread of good practices, including by encouraging the publication of a list of prompt payers.\n(31)\nIt is desirable to ensure that creditors are in a position to exercise a retention of title clause on a non-discriminatory basis throughout the Union, if the retention of title clause is valid under the applicable national provisions designated by private international law.\n(32)\nThis Directive only defines the term \u2018enforceable title\u2019 but should not regulate the various procedures for forced execution of such a title or the conditions under which forced execution of such a title can be stopped or suspended.\n(33)\nThe consequences of late payment can be dissuasive only if they are accompanied by procedures for redress which are rapid and effective for the creditor. In accordance with the principle of non-discrimination set out in Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, those procedures should be available to all creditors who are established in the Union.\n(34)\nIn order to facilitate compliance with the provisions of this Directive, Member States should encourage recourse to mediation or other means of alternative dispute resolution. 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 (15) already sets a framework for systems of mediation at Union level, especially for cross-border disputes, without preventing its application to internal mediation systems. Member States should also encourage interested parties to draw up voluntary codes of conduct aimed, in particular, at contributing to the implementation of this Directive.\n(35)\nIt is necessary to ensure that the recovery procedures for unchallenged claims related to late payment in commercial transactions be completed within a short period of time, including through an expedited procedure and irrespective of the amount of the debt.\n(36)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely combating late payment in the internal market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can, therefore, by reason of its scale and effect, be better achieved at the 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.\n(37)\nThe obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive change as compared with Directive 2000/35/EC. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under that Directive.\n(38)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law and application of Directive 2000/35/EC.\n(39)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (16), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Union, their own tables which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and their transposition measures, and to make those tables public,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. The aim of this Directive is to combat late payment in commercial transactions, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, thereby fostering the competitiveness of undertakings and in particular of SMEs.\n2. This Directive shall apply to all payments made as remuneration for commercial transactions.\n3. Member States may exclude debts that are subject to insolvency proceedings instituted against the debtor, including proceedings aimed at debt restructuring.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018commercial transactions\u2019 means transactions between undertakings or between undertakings and public authorities which lead to the delivery of goods or the provision of services for remuneration;\n(2)\n\u2018public authority\u2019 means any contracting authority, as defined in point (a) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC and in Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC, regardless of the subject or value of the contract;\n(3)\n\u2018undertaking\u2019 means any organisation, other than a public authority, acting in the course of its independent economic or professional activity, even where that activity is carried out by a single person;\n(4)\n\u2018late payment\u2019 means payment not made within the contractual or statutory period of payment and where the conditions laid down in Article 3(1) or Article 4(1) are satisfied;\n(5)\n\u2018interest for late payment\u2019 means statutory interest for late payment or interest at a rate agreed upon between undertakings, subject to Article 7;\n(6)\n\u2018statutory interest for late payment\u2019 means simple interest for late payment at a rate which is equal to the sum of the reference rate and at least eight percentage points;\n(7)\n\u2018reference rate\u2019 means either of the following:\n(a)\nfor a Member State whose currency is the euro, either:\n(i)\nthe interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its most recent main refinancing operations; or\n(ii)\nthe marginal interest rate resulting from variable-rate tender procedures for the most recent main refinancing operations of the European Central Bank;\n(b)\nfor a Member State whose currency is not the euro, the equivalent rate set by its national central bank;\n(8)\n\u2018amount due\u2019 means the principal sum which should have been paid within the contractual or statutory period of payment, including the applicable taxes, duties, levies or charges specified in the invoice or the equivalent request for payment;\n(9)\n\u2018retention of title\u2019 means the contractual agreement according to which the seller retains title to the goods in question until the price has been paid in full;\n(10)\n\u2018enforceable title\u2019 means any decision, judgment or order for payment issued by a court or other competent authority, including those that are provisionally enforceable, whether for immediate payment or payment by instalments, which permits the creditor to have his claim against the debtor collected by means of forced execution.\nArticle 3\nTransactions between undertakings\n1. Member States shall ensure that, in commercial transactions between undertakings, the creditor is entitled to interest for late payment without the necessity of a reminder, where the following conditions are satisfied:\n(a)\nthe creditor has fulfilled its contractual and legal obligations; and\n(b)\nthe creditor has not received the amount due on time, unless the debtor is not responsible for the delay.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the applicable reference rate:\n(a)\nfor the first semester of the year concerned shall be the rate in force on 1 January of that year;\n(b)\nfor the second semester of the year concerned shall be the rate in force on 1 July of that year.\n3. Where the conditions set out in paragraph 1 are satisfied, Member States shall ensure the following:\n(a)\nthat the creditor is entitled to interest for late payment from the day following the date or the end of the period for payment fixed in the contract;\n(b)\nwhere the date or period for payment is not fixed in the contract, that the creditor is entitled to interest for late payment upon the expiry of any of the following time limits:\n(i)\n30 calendar days following the date of receipt by the debtor of the invoice or an equivalent request for payment;\n(ii)\nwhere the date of the receipt of the invoice or the equivalent request for payment is uncertain, 30 calendar days after the date of receipt of the goods or services;\n(iii)\nwhere the debtor receives the invoice or the equivalent request for payment earlier than the goods or the services, 30 calendar days after the date of the receipt of the goods or services;\n(iv)\nwhere a procedure of acceptance or verification, by which the conformity of the goods or services with the contract is to be ascertained, is provided for by statute or in the contract and if the debtor receives the invoice or the equivalent request for payment earlier or on the date on which such acceptance or verification takes place, 30 calendar days after that date.\n4. Where a procedure of acceptance or verification, by which the conformity of the goods or services with the contract is to be ascertained, is provided for, Member States shall ensure that the maximum duration of that procedure does not exceed 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the goods or services, unless otherwise expressly agreed in the contract and provided it is not grossly unfair to the creditor within the meaning of Article 7.\n5. Member States shall ensure that the period for payment fixed in the contract does not exceed 60 calendar days, unless otherwise expressly agreed in the contract and provided it is not grossly unfair to the creditor within the meaning of Article 7.\nArticle 4\nTransactions between undertakings and public authorities\n1. Member States shall ensure that, in commercial transactions where the debtor is a public authority, the creditor is entitled upon expiry of the period defined in paragraphs 3, 4 or 6 to statutory interest for late payment, without the necessity of a reminder, where the following conditions are satisfied:\n(a)\nthe creditor has fulfilled its contractual and legal obligations; and\n(b)\nthe creditor has not received the amount due on time, unless the debtor is not responsible for the delay.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the applicable reference rate:\n(a)\nfor the first semester of the year concerned shall be the rate in force on 1 January of that year;\n(b)\nfor the second semester of the year concerned shall be the rate in force on 1 July of that year.\n3. Member States shall ensure that in commercial transactions where the debtor is a public authority:\n(a)\nthe period for payment does not exceed any of the following time limits:\n(i)\n30 calendar days following the date of receipt by the debtor of the invoice or an equivalent request for payment;\n(ii)\nwhere the date of receipt of the invoice or the equivalent request for payment is uncertain, 30 calendar days after the date of the receipt of the goods or services;\n(iii)\nwhere the debtor receives the invoice or the equivalent request for payment earlier than the goods or the services, 30 calendar days after the date of the receipt of the goods or services;\n(iv)\nwhere a procedure of acceptance or verification, by which the conformity of the goods or services with the contract is to be ascertained, is provided for by statute or in the contract and if the debtor receives the invoice or the equivalent request for payment earlier or on the date on which such acceptance or verification takes place, 30 calendar days after that date;\n(b)\nthe date of receipt of the invoice is not subject to a contractual agreement between debtor and creditor.\n4. Member States may extend the time limits referred to in point (a) of paragraph 3 up to a maximum of 60 calendar days for:\n(a)\nany public authority which carries out economic activities of an industrial or commercial nature by offering goods or services on the market and which is subject, as a public undertaking, to the transparency requirements laid down in Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (17);\n(b)\npublic entities providing healthcare which are duly recognised for that purpose.\nIf a Member State decides to extend the time limits in accordance with this paragraph, it shall send a report on such extension to the Commission by 16 March 2018.\nOn that basis, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council indicating which Member States have extended the time limits in accordance with this paragraph and taking into account the impact on the functioning of the internal market, in particular on SMEs. That report shall be accompanied by any appropriate proposals.\n5. Member States shall ensure that the maximum duration of a procedure of acceptance or verification referred to in point (iv) of point (a) of paragraph 3 does not exceed 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the goods or services, unless otherwise expressly agreed in the contract and any tender documents and provided it is not grossly unfair to the creditor within the meaning of Article 7.\n6. Member States shall ensure that the period for payment fixed in the contract does not exceed the time limits provided for in paragraph 3, unless otherwise expressly agreed in the contract and provided it is objectively justified in the light of the particular nature or features of the contract, and that it in any event does not exceed 60 calendar days.\nArticle 5\nPayment schedules\nThis Directive shall be without prejudice to the ability of parties to agree, subject to the relevant provisions of applicable national law, on payment schedules providing for instalments. In such cases, where any of the instalments is not paid by the agreed date, interest and compensation provided for in this Directive shall be calculated solely on the basis of overdue amounts.\nArticle 6\nCompensation for recovery costs\n1. Member States shall ensure that, where interest for late payment becomes payable in commercial transactions in accordance with Article 3 or 4, the creditor is entitled to obtain from the debtor, as a minimum, a fixed sum of EUR 40.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the fixed sum referred to in paragraph 1 is payable without the necessity of a reminder and as compensation for the creditor\u2019s own recovery costs.\n3. The creditor shall, in addition to the fixed sum referred to in paragraph 1, be entitled to obtain reasonable compensation from the debtor for any recovery costs exceeding that fixed sum and incurred due to the debtor\u2019s late payment. This could include expenses incurred, inter alia, in instructing a lawyer or employing a debt collection agency.\nArticle 7\nUnfair contractual terms and practices\n1. Member States shall provide that a contractual term or a practice relating to the date or period for payment, the rate of interest for late payment or the compensation for recovery costs is either unenforceable or gives rise to a claim for damages if it is grossly unfair to the creditor.\nIn determining whether a contractual term or a practice is grossly unfair to the creditor, within the meaning of the first subparagraph, all circumstances of the case shall be considered, including:\n(a)\nany gross deviation from good commercial practice, contrary to good faith and fair dealing;\n(b)\nthe nature of the product or the service; and\n(c)\nwhether the debtor has any objective reason to deviate from the statutory rate of interest for late payment, from the payment period as referred to in Article 3(5), point (a) of Article 4(3), Article 4(4) and Article 4(6) or from the fixed sum as referred to in Article 6(1).\n2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, a contractual term or a practice which excludes interest for late payment shall be considered as grossly unfair.\n3. For the purpose of paragraph 1, a contractual term or a practice which excludes compensation for recovery costs as referred to in Article 6 shall be presumed to be grossly unfair.\n4. Member States shall ensure that, in the interests of creditors and competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of contractual terms and practices which are grossly unfair within the meaning of paragraph 1.\n5. The means referred to in paragraph 4 shall include provisions whereby organisations officially recognised as representing undertakings, or organisations with a legitimate interest in representing undertakings may take action according to the applicable national law before the courts or before competent administrative bodies on the grounds that contractual terms or practices are grossly unfair within the meaning of paragraph 1, so that they can apply appropriate and effective means to prevent their continued use.\nArticle 8\nTransparency and awareness raising\n1. Member States shall ensure transparency regarding the rights and obligations stemming from this Directive, including by making publicly available the applicable rate of statutory interest for late payment.\n2. The Commission shall make publicly available on the Internet details of the current statutory rates of interest which apply in all the Member States in the event of late payment in commercial transactions.\n3. Member States shall, where appropriate, use professional publications, promotion campaigns or any other functional means to increase awareness of the remedies for late payment among undertakings.\n4. Member States may encourage the establishment of prompt payment codes which set out clearly defined payment time limits and a proper process for dealing with any payments that are in dispute, or any other initiatives that tackle the crucial issue of late payment and contribute to developing a culture of prompt payment which supports the objective of this Directive.\nArticle 9\nRetention of title\n1. Member States shall provide in conformity with the applicable national provisions designated by private international law that the seller retains title to goods until they are fully paid for if a retention of title clause has been expressly agreed between the buyer and the seller before the delivery of the goods.\n2. Member States may adopt or retain provisions dealing with down payments already made by the debtor.\nArticle 10\nRecovery procedures for unchallenged claims\n1. Member States shall ensure that an enforceable title can be obtained, including through an expedited procedure and irrespective of the amount of the debt, normally within 90 calendar days of the lodging of the creditor\u2019s action or application at the court or other competent authority, provided that the debt or aspects of the procedure are not disputed. Member States shall carry out this duty in accordance with their respective national laws, regulations and administrative provisions.\n2. National laws, regulations and administrative provisions shall apply the same conditions for all creditors who are established in the Union.\n3. When calculating the period referred to in paragraph 1, the following shall not be taken into account:\n(a)\nperiods for service of documents;\n(b)\nany delays caused by the creditor, such as periods devoted to correcting applications.\n4. This Article shall be without prejudice to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006.\nArticle 11\nReport\nBy 16 March 2016, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of this Directive. The report shall be accompanied by any appropriate proposals.\nArticle 12\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 1 to 8 and 10 by 16 March 2013. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. They shall also include a statement that references in existing laws, regulations and administrative provisions to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive. The methods of making such reference and the formulation of such statement shall be laid down by Member States.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\n3. Member States may maintain or bring into force provisions which are more favourable to the creditor than the provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\n4. In transposing the Directive, Member States shall decide whether to exclude contracts concluded before 16 March 2013.\nArticle 13\nRepeal\nDirective 2000/35/EC is repealed with effect from 16 March 2013, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limit for its transposition into national law and its application. However, it shall remain applicable to contracts concluded before that date to which this Directive does not apply pursuant to Article 12(4).\nReferences to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive and be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in the Annex.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 15\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 February 2011.", "references": ["83", "8", "50", "73", "48", "26", "62", "80", "17", "16", "42", "95", "32", "1", "12", "0", "69", "19", "28", "90", "29", "67", "70", "81", "18", "85", "71", "40", "38", "49", "No Label", "2", "22", "44", "45", "47"], "gold": ["2", "22", "44", "45", "47"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 654/2012\nof 17 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 July 2012.", "references": ["26", "60", "24", "10", "64", "41", "12", "57", "29", "33", "69", "7", "9", "82", "52", "55", "88", "43", "4", "16", "44", "40", "63", "92", "93", "6", "76", "18", "83", "48", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 588/2010\nof 5 July 2010\napproving minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Sopr\u00e8ssa Vicentina (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the second sentence of Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for approval of an amendment to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Sopr\u00e8ssa Vicentina\u2019, registered by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 492/2003 (3).\n(2)\nThe proposed amendment to the specification concerns the marking of the pigs used as the raw material.\n(3)\nThe Commission has examined the amendment in question and decided that it is justified. Since the amendment is a minor one within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission can approve it without recourse to the procedure laid down in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the said Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Sopr\u00e8ssa Vicentina\u2019 is hereby amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe updated Single Document is set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2010.", "references": ["17", "22", "58", "20", "10", "57", "65", "49", "36", "8", "13", "55", "37", "95", "68", "85", "90", "6", "21", "7", "33", "18", "61", "88", "50", "0", "23", "34", "82", "15", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 78/2012\nof 30 January 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 59/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 January 2012.", "references": ["7", "45", "3", "58", "36", "67", "30", "63", "28", "41", "2", "99", "23", "74", "62", "81", "24", "5", "90", "33", "43", "56", "70", "68", "95", "4", "40", "65", "82", "57", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 614/2012\nof 9 July 2012\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Falukorv (TSG))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 9(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, the Commission has examined Sweden\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the traditional speciality guaranteed \u2018Falukorv\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/2001 (2).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union, as required by the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of that Regulation (3). As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 July 2012.", "references": ["55", "4", "30", "19", "77", "63", "90", "64", "51", "58", "16", "87", "57", "88", "66", "54", "1", "46", "32", "67", "62", "6", "99", "75", "40", "2", "42", "20", "70", "5", "No Label", "23", "24", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "24", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 421/2011\nof 29 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 April 2011.", "references": ["77", "51", "99", "52", "53", "29", "49", "9", "27", "95", "10", "76", "69", "37", "97", "34", "82", "60", "56", "81", "16", "39", "48", "4", "84", "21", "79", "85", "65", "47", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 March 2011\non the conclusion of a Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela and of an Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and the United States of America\n(2011/194/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(4), first subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2010/314/EU (1), the Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela and the Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and the United States of America were signed on behalf of the Union on 31 May 2010 and 8 June 2010, respectively, subject to their conclusion at a later date.\n(2)\nThose two Agreements should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following Agreements are hereby approved:\n(a)\nthe Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela (2) (the \u2018Geneva Agreement\u2019);\n(b)\nthe Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and the United States of America (3) (the \u2018EU/US Agreement\u2019).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to the notification provided for in paragraph 8(a) of the Geneva Agreement and in paragraph 6 of the EU/US Agreement, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by those Agreements.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["76", "52", "38", "0", "91", "36", "11", "73", "79", "42", "62", "49", "2", "30", "70", "95", "66", "37", "94", "58", "55", "7", "78", "41", "43", "45", "39", "1", "27", "63", "No Label", "3", "9", "10", "22", "68", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "10", "22", "68", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 1060/2010\nof 28 September 2010\nsupplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of household refrigerating appliances\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2010/30/EU requires the Commission to adopt delegated acts as regards the labelling of energy-related products representing significant potential for energy savings and having a wide disparity in performance levels with equivalent functionality.\n(2)\nProvisions on the energy labelling of household refrigerating appliances were established by Commission Directive 94/2/EC of 21 January 1994 implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations (2).\n(3)\nThe electricity used by household refrigerating appliances accounts for a significant share of total household electricity demand in the Union. In addition to the energy efficiency improvements already achieved, the scope for further reducing the energy consumption of household refrigerating appliances is substantial.\n(4)\nDirective 94/2/EC should be repealed and new provisions should be laid down by this Regulation in order to ensure that the energy label provides dynamic incentives for manufacturers to further improve the energy efficiency of household refrigerating appliances and to accelerate the market transformation towards energy-efficient technologies.\n(5)\nThe combined effect of the provisions set out in this Regulation, and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 643/2009 of 22 July 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for household refrigerating appliances (3), could amount to annual electricity savings of 6 TWh by 2020 (4), compared to the situation if no measures were taken.\n(6)\nThere is also an opportunity for energy savings for products in the growing markets of absorption-type refrigerating appliances and wine storage appliances. Those appliances should therefore be included in the scope of this Regulation.\n(7)\nAbsorption-type refrigerating appliances are noiseless, but consume significantly more energy than compression-type appliances. In order for end-users to make an informed decision, information on airborne acoustical noise emissions of household refrigerating appliances should be included on the label.\n(8)\nThe information provided on the label should be obtained through reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement procedures that take into account the recognised state-of-the-art measurement methods including, where available, harmonised standards adopted by the European standardisation bodies, as listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (5).\n(9)\nThis Regulation should specify a uniform design and content for the label for household refrigerating appliances.\n(10)\nIn addition, this Regulation should specify requirements as to the technical documentation and the fiche for household refrigerating appliances.\n(11)\nMoreover, this Regulation should specify requirements as to the information to be provided for any form of distance selling, advertisements and technical promotional materials for household refrigerating appliances.\n(12)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a review of the provisions of this Regulation taking into account technological progress.\n(13)\nIn order to facilitate the transition from Directive 94/2/EC to this Regulation, household refrigerating appliances labelled in accordance with this Regulation should be considered compliant with Directive 94/2/EC.\n(14)\nDirective 94/2/EC should therefore be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation establishes requirements for the labelling of and the provision of supplementary product information on electric mains-operated household refrigerating appliances with a storage volume between 10 and 1 500 litres.\n2. This Regulation shall apply to electric mains-operated household refrigerating appliances, including those sold for non-household use or for the refrigeration of items other than foodstuffs and including built-in appliances.\nIt shall also apply to electric mains-operated household refrigerating appliances that can be battery-operated.\n3. This Regulation shall not apply to:\n(a)\nrefrigerating appliances that are primarily powered by energy sources other than electricity, such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), kerosene and bio-diesel fuels;\n(b)\nbattery-operated refrigerating appliances that can be connected to the mains through an AC/DC converter, purchased separately;\n(c)\ncustom-made refrigerating appliances, made on a one-off basis and not equivalent to other refrigerating appliance models;\n(d)\nrefrigerating appliances for tertiary sector application where the removal of refrigerated foodstuffs is electronically sensed and that information can be automatically transmitted through a network connection to a remote control system for accounting;\n(e)\nappliances where the primary function is not the storage of foodstuffs through refrigeration, such as stand-alone ice-makers or chilled drinks dispensers.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2010/30/EU, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018foodstuffs\u2019 means food, ingredients, beverages including wine, and other items primarily intended for consumption which require refrigeration at specified temperatures;\n(2)\n\u2018household refrigerating appliance\u2019 means an insulated cabinet, with one or more compartments, intended for refrigerating or freezing foodstuffs, or for the storage of refrigerated or frozen foodstuffs for non-professional purposes, cooled by one or more energy-consuming processes, including appliances sold as building kits to be assembled by the end-user;\n(3)\n\u2018built-in appliance\u2019 means a fixed refrigerating appliance intended to be installed in a cabinet, in a prepared recess in a wall or similar location, and requiring furniture finishing;\n(4)\n\u2018refrigerator\u2019 means a refrigerating appliance intended for the preservation of foodstuffs with at least one compartment suitable for the storage of fresh food and/or beverages, including wine;\n(5)\n\u2018compression-type refrigerating appliance\u2019 means a refrigerating appliance in which refrigeration is effected by means of a motor-driven compressor;\n(6)\n\u2018absorption-type refrigerating appliance\u2019 means a refrigerating appliance in which refrigeration is effected by an absorption process using heat as the energy source;\n(7)\n\u2018refrigerator-freezer\u2019 means a refrigerating appliance with at least one fresh-food storage compartment and at least one compartment suitable for the freezing of fresh food and the storage of frozen foodstuffs under three-star storage conditions (the food-freezer compartment);\n(8)\n\u2018frozen-food storage cabinet\u2019 means a refrigerating appliance with one or more compartments suitable for the storage of frozen foodstuffs;\n(9)\n\u2018food freezer\u2019 means a refrigerating appliance with one or more compartments suitable for freezing foodstuffs with temperatures ranging from ambient temperature down to - 18 \u00b0C, and which is also suitable for the storage of frozen foodstuffs under three-star storage conditions; a food freezer may also include two-star sections and/or compartments within the compartment or cabinet;\n(10)\n\u2018wine storage appliance\u2019 means a refrigerating appliance that has no compartment other than one or more wine storage compartments;\n(11)\n\u2018multi-use appliance\u2019 means a refrigerating appliance that has no compartment other than one or more multi-use compartments;\n(12)\n\u2018equivalent household refrigerating appliance\u2019 means a household refrigerating appliance model placed on the market with the same gross and storage volumes, same technical, efficiency and performance characteristics, and same compartment types as another household refrigerating appliance model placed on the market under a different commercial code number by the same manufacturer;\n(13)\n\u2018end-user\u2019 means a consumer buying or expected to buy a household refrigerating appliance;\n(14)\n\u2018point of sale\u2019 means a location where household refrigerating appliances are displayed or offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase.\nThe definitions set out in Annex I shall also apply.\nArticle 3\nResponsibilities of suppliers\nSuppliers shall ensure that:\n(a)\neach household refrigerating appliance is supplied with a printed label in the format and containing information as set out in Annex II;\n(b)\na product fiche, as set out in Annex III, is made available;\n(c)\nthe technical documentation as set out in Annex IV is made available on request to the authorities of Member States and to the Commission;\n(d)\nany advertisement for a specific model of household refrigerating appliance contains the energy efficiency class, if the advertisement discloses energy-related or price information;\n(e)\nany technical promotional material concerning a specific model of household refrigerating appliance which describes its specific technical parameters includes the energy efficiency class of that model.\nArticle 4\nResponsibilities of dealers\nDealers shall ensure that:\n(a)\neach household refrigerating appliance at the point of sale bears the label provided by suppliers in accordance with Article 3(a) on the outside of the front or top of the appliance, in such a way as to be clearly visible;\n(b)\nhousehold refrigerating appliances offered for sale, hire or hire purchase where the end-user cannot be expected to see the product displayed, are marketed with the information to be provided by the suppliers in accordance with Annex V;\n(c)\nany advertisement for a specific model of household refrigerating appliance contains its energy efficiency class, if the advertisement discloses energy-related or price information;\n(d)\nany technical promotional material concerning a specific model of household refrigerating appliance, which describes its specific technical parameters, includes the energy efficiency class of that model.\nArticle 5\nMeasurement methods\nThe information to be provided pursuant to Article 3 shall be obtained by reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement procedures, which take into account the recognised state-of-the-art measurement methods, as set out in Annex VI.\nArticle 6\nVerification procedure for market surveillance purposes\nMember States shall apply the procedure laid down in Annex VII when assessing the conformity of the declared energy efficiency class, the annual energy consumption, the fresh and frozen food volumes, the freezing capacity and the airborne acoustical noise emissions.\nArticle 7\nRevision\nThe Commission shall review this Regulation in the light of technological progress no later than four years after its entry into force. The review shall in particular assess the verification tolerances set out in Annex VII and the possibilities for removing or reducing the values of the correction factors set out in Annex VIII.\nArticle 8\nRepeal\nDirective 94/2/EC is repealed from 30 November 2011.\nArticle 9\nTransitional provisions\n1. Articles 3(d), (e), 4(b), (c) and (d) shall not apply to printed advertisement and printed technical promotional material published before 30 March 2012.\n2. Household refrigerating appliances placed on the market before 30 November 2011 shall comply with the provisions set out in Directive 94/2/EC.\n3. Household refrigerating appliances which comply with the provisions of this Regulation and which are placed on the market or offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase before 30 November 2011 shall be regarded as complying with the requirements of Directive 94/2/EC.\nArticle 10\nEntry into force and application\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. It shall apply from 30 November 2011. However, Articles 3(d), (e), 4(b), (c) and (d) shall apply from 30 March 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 September 2010.", "references": ["92", "93", "26", "70", "46", "83", "31", "71", "73", "60", "74", "23", "94", "2", "9", "21", "97", "87", "99", "65", "0", "51", "4", "8", "16", "66", "22", "35", "64", "90", "No Label", "24", "25", "76", "78", "86"], "gold": ["24", "25", "76", "78", "86"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 July 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms\n(2012/400/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 46 and 48, in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nProtocol 31 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (the \u2018EEA Agreement\u2019) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement to activities outside the four freedoms, including cooperation concerning free movement of workers, coordination of social security systems and measures for migrants, including migrants from third countries.\n(3)\nProtocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe position of the Union within the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["91", "43", "59", "47", "31", "8", "88", "79", "13", "78", "38", "6", "97", "11", "75", "2", "42", "5", "41", "12", "39", "89", "58", "93", "51", "33", "10", "15", "70", "34", "No Label", "3", "9", "37", "49", "50"], "gold": ["3", "9", "37", "49", "50"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1201/2011\nof 18 November 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["50", "14", "10", "28", "60", "15", "3", "53", "23", "9", "24", "64", "35", "36", "54", "84", "20", "58", "57", "76", "31", "32", "49", "7", "56", "87", "90", "37", "66", "4", "No Label", "21", "40", "42"], "gold": ["21", "40", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 January 2011\nconcerning the non-inclusion of 1,3-dichloropropene in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC\n(notified under document C(2011) 119)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/36/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Decision 2007/619/EC (2) it was decided not to include the active substance 1,3-dichloropropene in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That Decision was taken within the framework of the second stage of the programme of work provided for in Commission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (3) and (EC) No 703/2001 (4) which lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and which establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(2)\nThe original notifier submitted a new application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5). It requested the application of the accelerated procedure pursuant to Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and submitted an updated dossier. The application was submitted to Spain, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000.\n(3)\nThat application complies with the substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and was submitted within the time period provided for in the second sentence of Article 13 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nSpain evaluated the new information and data submitted by the notifier and prepared an additional report on 15 April 2009.\n(5)\nThe additional report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018EFSA\u2019, and presented to the Commission on 30 September 2009 in the format of the EFSA Conclusion for 1,3-dichloropropene (6). This report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 9 July 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for 1,3-dichloropropene.\n(6)\nThe new assessment by the rapporteur Member State and the new conclusion by the EFSA concentrated on the concerns that lead to the non-inclusion, which were due to the release in the environment of large amounts of known and unknown polychlorinated impurities, for which no information on persistency, toxicological behaviour, uptake from crops, accumulation, metabolic fate and residue level were available, as well as to the inconclusive nature of the consumer risk assessment and to the risk of groundwater potential contamination, for birds, mammals, aquatic organisms and other non-target organism.\n(7)\nNew data and information were submitted by the notifier in the updated dossier to address the concerns which lead to the non-inclusion, in particular as regards the identity of a number of impurities, the level of residues expected in crops, the risk to groundwater contamination and the risk to birds, mammals, aquatic organisms and non-target organisms. A new assessment was performed, as included in the additional report and in the EFSA Conclusion for 1,3-dichloropropene.\n(8)\nHowever, the additional data and information provided by the notifier did not permit to eliminate all the specific concerns that led to the non-inclusion.\n(9)\nIn particular, there is a concern for the consumer exposure in relation to 11 unidentified manufacturing impurities. Furthermore, the potential contamination of groundwater in relation to 1,3-dichloropropene, its relevant toxic breakdown product (EZ)-3-chloroacrylic acid and 11 unidentified manufacturing impurities were not adequately addressed and there is a potential for long-range transport through the atmosphere of 10 manufacturing impurities. In addition, the risk to non-target organisms was not demonstrated to be acceptable.\n(10)\nThe Commission invited the notifier to submit its comments on the results of the peer review and on its intention or not to further support the substance. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the notifier to submit comments on the draft review report. The notifier submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(11)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the notifier, the concerns identified could not be eliminated, and assessments made on the basis of the information submitted and evaluated during the EFSA expert meetings have not demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing 1,3-dichloropropene satisfy in general the conditions laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(12)\n1,3-dichloropropene should therefore not be included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(13)\nDecision 2007/619/EC should be repealed.\n(14)\nThis Decision does not prejudice the submission of a further application for 1,3-dichloropropene pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(15)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health did not deliver an opinion within the time-limit laid down by its Chairman and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures. On the expiry of the period laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 19(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, the Council had neither adopted the proposed implementing act nor indicated its opposition to the proposal for implementing measures and it is accordingly for the Commission to adopt these measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1,3-dichloropropene shall not be included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2007/619/EC is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2011.", "references": ["89", "10", "66", "97", "71", "90", "44", "26", "24", "75", "22", "68", "56", "62", "46", "52", "49", "35", "39", "61", "50", "40", "34", "98", "58", "0", "29", "55", "4", "93", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "41", "65"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "41", "65"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1211/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe composition of the lists of third countries and territories in Annexes I and II to Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (2) should be, and should remain, consistent with the criteria laid down in recital 5 of that Council Regulation. Third countries or territories for which the situation has changed as regards those criteria should be transferred from one Annex to the other.\n(2)\nThe imposition of the visa requirement on the citizens of Taiwan is no longer justified, as, in particular, the territory does not represent any risk of illegal immigration or threat to public policy for the Union, and in the light of external relations, in accordance with the criteria set out in recital 5 of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. Consequently the reference to that territory should be transferred to Annex II to that Regulation. Further, visa liberalisation should apply only to holders of passports issued by Taiwan which include an identity card number.\n(3)\nA reference to Northern Mariana should be deleted from Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, as the citizens of the territory in question are, as holders of US passports, citizens of the United States, which is listed in Annex II to that Regulation.\n(4)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (3), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point (B), of Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement (4).\n(5)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (5), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points (B) and (C), of Decision 1999/437/EC, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (6).\n(6)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol signed between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points (B) and (C), of Decision 1999/437/EC, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/261/EC (7).\n(7)\nThis Regulation constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (8); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(8)\nThis Regulation constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (9); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(9)\nAs regards Cyprus, this Regulation constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the 2003 Act of Accession.\n(10)\nThis Regulation constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the 2005 Act of Accession,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 539/2001 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nAnnex I is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin Part 1, the reference to Northern Mariana is deleted;\n(b)\nin Part 2, the reference to Taiwan is deleted.\n2.\nIn Annex II, the following is added:\n\u20184.\nENTITIES AND TERRITORIAL AUTHORITIES THAT ARE NOT RECOGNISED AS STATES BY AT LEAST ONE MEMBER STATE:\nTaiwan (10)\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["92", "53", "27", "76", "65", "4", "81", "40", "0", "67", "1", "44", "8", "63", "5", "74", "78", "35", "37", "30", "56", "14", "36", "89", "84", "9", "66", "25", "90", "16", "No Label", "13"], "gold": ["13"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1234/2011\nof 23 November 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 1245/2010 opening Union tariff quotas for 2011 for sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Articles 144(1) and 148 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1245/2010 (2) provides for the opening of Union import tariff quotas for sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011.\n(2)\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Australia pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (3) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Agreement\u2019), approved by Council Decision 2011/768/EU (4), provides for the granting of an additional annual tariff quota quantity of 400 tonnes (carcase weight) for Australia, which should be added to the quantity available for 2011 under Regulation (EU) No 1245/2010.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 1245/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1245/2010, the row concerning Australia is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\n09.2105\n09.2106\n09.2012\nAustralia\n19 186\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 November 2011.", "references": ["46", "36", "20", "34", "62", "99", "60", "55", "93", "59", "31", "18", "29", "88", "56", "54", "80", "50", "91", "61", "68", "27", "92", "5", "11", "75", "6", "79", "89", "70", "No Label", "21", "22", "65", "66", "69", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "65", "66", "69", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/324/CFSP\nof 25 June 2012\namending and extending Decision 2010/784/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 14 November 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/797/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (1) (EUPOL COPPS) which was last extended by Council Decision 2009/955/CFSP (2) and expired on 31 December 2010.\n(2)\nOn 17 December 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/784/CFSP (3) continuing EUPOL COPPS as from 1 January 2011 which was last amended by Decision 2011/858/CFSP (4). Decision 2010/784/CFSP expires on 30 June 2012.\n(3)\nOn 4 May 2012, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) recommended an extension of EUPOL COPPS until 30 June 2013.\n(4)\nEUPOL COPPS should be further extended from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2013 on the basis of its current mandate.\n(5)\nIt is also necessary to lay down the financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL COPPS for the period from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2013.\n(6)\nEUPOL COPPS will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/784/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following subparagraph is added to Article 13(1):\n\u2018The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL COPPS for the period from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2013 shall be EUR 9 330 000.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 16, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 30 June 2013.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["72", "16", "45", "66", "26", "39", "42", "12", "76", "15", "47", "4", "98", "80", "88", "91", "40", "3", "11", "36", "24", "17", "79", "71", "74", "73", "96", "14", "97", "32", "No Label", "9", "10", "95"], "gold": ["9", "10", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 366/2011\nof 14 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Acrylamide)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Article 131 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAcrylamide is classified as a carcinogenic category 1B and mutagenic category 1B substance. Its risks were evaluated in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (2).\n(2)\nThe results of the European risk assessment concluded that there was a need to limit the risk to the aquatic compartment from use of acrylamide based grouts in construction applications, and risk to other organisms from indirect exposure through contaminated water from the same application. Furthermore, concerns for workers and humans exposed via the environment were raised in view of the carcinogenic and mutagenic nature of acrylamide and for its neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity as a consequence of exposure arising from small and large-scale use of acrylamide based grouts.\n(3)\nCommission Recommendation 2004/394/EC of 29 April 2004 on the results of the risk evaluation and the risk reduction strategies for the substances: Acetonitrile; Acrylamide; Acrylonitrile; Acrylic acid; Butadiene; Hydrogen fluoride; Hydrogen peroxide; Methacrylic acid; Methyl methacrylate; Toluene; Trichlorobenzene (3), adopted within the framework of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93, recommended consideration at Union level of marketing and use restrictions in Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (4), for the use of acrylamide in grouts for small and large-scale applications.\n(4)\nThe limit value of 0,1 % of acrylamide is included to cover other sources of free acrylamide in the grouting process such as from N-methylolacrylamide, as indicated in Recommendation 2004/394/EC.\n(5)\nIn order to protect human health and the environment, it is therefore necessary to restrict the placing on the market and the use of acrylamide in grouts and for all grouting applications.\n(6)\nIn accordance with the provisions on transitional measures in Article 137(1)a of REACH, it is necessary to amend Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 April 2011.", "references": ["27", "18", "37", "17", "81", "74", "43", "29", "35", "32", "46", "5", "42", "93", "20", "36", "52", "89", "2", "75", "65", "91", "22", "24", "78", "8", "63", "56", "85", "40", "No Label", "25", "38", "48", "60", "83", "87"], "gold": ["25", "38", "48", "60", "83", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 979/2011\nof 3 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 October 2011.", "references": ["34", "8", "50", "77", "37", "14", "76", "65", "54", "18", "38", "5", "2", "26", "87", "71", "70", "1", "12", "94", "51", "80", "53", "29", "93", "11", "32", "17", "40", "96", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 419/2011\nof 29 April 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 11a(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 April 2005, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\n(2)\nIn view of the developments in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 April 2011.", "references": ["48", "76", "21", "46", "36", "81", "61", "82", "31", "33", "83", "97", "20", "42", "99", "67", "77", "19", "75", "64", "84", "28", "68", "60", "0", "18", "71", "74", "54", "96", "No Label", "3", "11", "30", "94"], "gold": ["3", "11", "30", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/231/CFSP\nof 26 April 2010\nconcerning restrictive measures against Somalia and repealing Common Position 2009/138/CFSP\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 10 December 2002, the Council adopted Common Position 2002/960/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Somalia (1) following United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) 733 (1992), 1356 (2001) and 1425 (2002) relating to an arms embargo against Somalia.\n(2)\nOn 16 February 2009, the Council adopted Common Position 2009/138/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Somalia and repealing Common Position 2002/960/CFSP (2), implementing UNSCR 1844 (2008) which introduced restrictive measures against those who seek to prevent or block a peaceful political process, or those who threaten the Transitional Federal Institutions (TFIs) of Somalia or the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) by force, or take action that undermines stability in Somalia or in the region.\n(3)\nOn 1 March 2010, the Council adopted Council Decision 2010/126/CFSP amending Common Position 2009/138/CFSP (3) and implementing UNSCR 1907 (2009) which called upon all States to inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, all cargoes to and from Somalia, in their territory, including seaports and airports, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items whose supply, sale, transfer or export is prohibited under the general and complete arms embargo to Somalia established pursuant to paragraph 5 of UNSCR 733 (1992) and elaborated and amended by subsequent resolutions.\n(4)\nOn 19 March 2010, the United Nations Security Council (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Security Council\u2019) adopted UNSCR 1916 (2010) which, inter alia, extended the mandate of the monitoring group referred to in paragraph 3 of UNSCR 1558 (2004) and decided to ease some restrictions and obligations under the sanctions regime to enable the delivery of supplies and technical assistance by international, regional and sub-regional organisations and to ensure the timely delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance by the United Nations (UN).\n(5)\nOn 12 April 2010, the Sanctions Committee established by paragraph 11 of UNSCR 751 (1992) concerning Somalia (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Sanctions Committee\u2019) adopted the list of persons and entities which are subject to restrictive measures.\n(6)\nFor the sake of clarity, the measures imposed by Common Position 2009/138/CFSP as amended by Council Decision 2010/126/CFSP and the exemptions provided for in UNSCR 1916 (2010) should be integrated into a single legal instrument.\n(7)\nCommon Position 2009/138/CFSP should therefore be repealed.\n(8)\nThis Decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (4) and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the right to property and the right to the protection of personal data. This Decision should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(9)\nThis Decision also fully respects the obligations of Member States under the Charter of the United Nations and the legally binding nature of Security Council Resolutions.\n(10)\nThe procedure for amending the Annex to this Decision should include providing to designated persons and entities the reasons for their listing as transmitted by the Sanctions Committee, so as to give them an opportunity to present observations. Where observations are submitted or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in the light of those observations and inform the person or entity concerned accordingly.\n(11)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer of arms and related material of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned to Somalia by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States shall be prohibited whether originating or not in their territories.\n2. The direct or indirect supply to Somalia of technical advice, financial and other assistance and training related to military activities, including in particular technical training and assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items mentioned in paragraph 1, by nationals of Member States or from the territories of the Member States, shall be prohibited.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nthe supply, sale or transfer of arms and related material of all types and the direct or indirect supply of technical advice, financial and other assistance and training related to military activities intended solely for the support of or use by AMISOM as stipulated in paragraph 4 of UNSCR 1744 (2007) or for the sole use of States and regional organisations undertaking measures in accordance with paragraph 6 of UNSCR 1851 (2008) and paragraph 10 of UNSCR 1846 (2008);\n(b)\nthe supply, sale or transfer of arms and related material of all types and to the direct or indirect supply of technical advice intended solely for the purpose of helping to develop security sector institutions, consistent with the political process set out in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of UNSCR 1744 (2007) and in the absence of a negative decision by the Sanctions Committee within five working days of receiving the relevant notification;\n(c)\nthe supply, sale or transfer of non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, or of material intended for institution building programmes of the Union, or Member States, including in the field of security, carried out within the framework of the Peace and Reconciliation Process, as approved in advance by the Sanctions Committee, and to protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to Somalia by UN personnel, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only.\nArticle 2\nRestrictive measures as provided for in Articles 3, 5(1) and 6(1) and (2) shall be imposed against persons and entities designated by the Sanctions Committee as:\n-\nengaging in or providing support for acts that threaten the peace, security or stability of Somalia, including acts that threaten the Djibouti Agreement of 18 August 2008 or the political process, or threaten the TFIs or AMISOM by force,\n-\nhaving acted in violation of the arms embargo and related measures as referred to in Article 1,\n-\nobstructing the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Somalia, or access to, or distribution of, humanitarian assistance in Somalia.\nThe relevant persons and entities are listed in the Annex.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the direct and indirect supply, sale or transfer of weapons and military equipment and the direct or indirect supply of technical assistance or training, financial and other assistance including investment, brokering or other financial services, related to military activities or to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, maintenance or use of weapons and military equipment, to persons or entities referred to in Article 2.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, all cargo to and from Somalia in their territory, including at their airports and seaports, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under Article 3.\n2. Aircrafts and vessels transporting cargo to and from Somalia shall be subject to the requirement of additional pre-arrival or pre-departure information for all goods brought into or out of a Member State.\n3. Member States shall, upon discovery, seize and dispose of (either by destroying or rendering inoperable) items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under Article 3.\nArticle 5\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the persons referred to in Article 2.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where the Sanctions Committee:\n(a)\ndetermines on a case-by-case basis that such entry or transit is justified on the grounds of humanitarian need, including religious obligation,\n(b)\ndetermines on a case-by-case basis that an exemption would otherwise further the objectives of peace and national reconciliation in Somalia and stability in the region.\n4. In cases where, pursuant to paragraph 3, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons designated by the Sanctions Committee, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\nArticle 6\n1. All funds and economic resources owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the persons or entities referred to in Article 2 or held by entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by them or by any persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, as designated by the Sanctions Committee, shall be frozen. The persons and entities concerned are identified in the Annex.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the persons or entities referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. Member States may allow for exemptions from the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 in respect of funds and economic resources which are:\n(a)\nnecessary for basic expenses, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges, in accordance with national laws, for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds and economic resources;\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, after notification by the Member State concerned to, and approval by, the Sanctions Committee;\n(e)\nthe subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien or judgment, in which case the funds and economic resources may be used to satisfy that lien or judgment provided that the lien or judgment was entered before designation by the Sanctions Committee of the person or entity concerned, and is not for the benefit of a person or entity referred to in Article 2, after notification by the Member State concerned to the Sanctions Committee.\n4. The exemptions referred to in paragraph 3(a), (b) and (c) may be made after notification to the Sanctions Committee by the Member State concerned of its intention to authorise, where appropriate, access to such funds and economic resources, and in the absence of a negative decision by the Sanctions Committee within three working days of such notification.\n5. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which those accounts became subject to restrictive measures,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments remain subject to paragraph 1.\n6. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the making available of funds, other financial assets or economic resources necessary to ensure the timely delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance in Somalia, by the UN, its specialized agencies or programmes, humanitarian organizations having observer status with the UN General Assembly that provide humanitarian assistance, or their implementing partners.\nArticle 7\nThe Council shall establish the list contained in the Annex and amend it in accordance with determinations made by either the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 8\n1. Where the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee lists a person or entity and has provided a statement of reasons for the designation, the Council shall include such person or entity in the Annex. The Council shall communicate its decision and the statement of reasons to the person or entity concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person or entity an opportunity to present observations.\n2. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person or entity accordingly.\nArticle 9\nThe Annex shall include, where available, information provided by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee necessary to identify the persons or entities concerned. With regard to persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known and function or profession. With regard to entities such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. The Annex shall also include the date of designation by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 10\nThis Decision shall be reviewed, amended or repealed, as appropriate, in accordance with relevant decisions of the Security Council.\nArticle 11\nCommon Position 2009/138/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 12\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["53", "46", "38", "49", "60", "79", "73", "59", "8", "69", "78", "89", "82", "68", "0", "90", "92", "67", "45", "41", "62", "33", "88", "4", "98", "43", "61", "40", "86", "84", "No Label", "3", "6", "9", "25", "94"], "gold": ["3", "6", "9", "25", "94"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 493/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 5 April 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers network\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(2)(c) and Article 74 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 (2) lays down the obligation to establish forms of cooperation among immigration liaison officers of Member States, the objectives of such cooperation, the functions and appropriate qualifications of such liaison officers, as well as their responsibilities vis-\u00e0-vis the host country and the posting Member State.\n(2)\nCouncil Decision 2005/267/EC (3) established a secure web-based Information and Coordination Network for Member States\u2019 Migration Management Services for the exchange of information on irregular migration, illegal entry and immigration and the return of illegal residents. Under that Decision the elements for information exchange are to include the network of immigration liaison officers.\n(3)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 (4) established a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex). Frontex is tasked with preparing general and tailored risk analyses to be submitted to the Council and the Commission.\n(4)\nImmigration liaison officers are to collect information concerning illegal immigration for use either at operational level or at strategic level, or both. Such information could substantially contribute to the activities of Frontex relating to risk analysis, and closer cooperation between different immigration liaison officers networks and Frontex should be established to that effect.\n(5)\nAll Member States should be able to initiate meetings, when considered appropriate, between the immigration liaison officers posted in a particular third country or region in order to enhance cooperation between them. Representatives of the Commission and Frontex should participate in those meetings. It should be possible to invite other bodies and authorities, such as the European Asylum Support Office and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.\n(6)\nDecision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) establishes for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013 the External Borders Fund as part of the General programme \u2018Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows\u2019, in order to contribute to strengthening the area of freedom, security and justice and applying the principle of solidarity between the Member States. It should be possible to use the available resources of the External Borders Fund to enhance the activities organised by the consular and other services of Member States in third countries and to support the reinforcement of the operational capacity of different immigration liaison officers networks, thereby promoting a more effective cooperation via those networks, between the Member States.\n(7)\nThe European Parliament, the Council and the Commission should be informed regularly about the activities of immigration liaison officers networks in specific countries and/or regions of particular interest to the Union and about the situation in those countries and/or regions in matters relating to illegal immigration. The selection of the specific countries and/or regions of particular interest to the Union should be based on objective migratory indicators, such as statistics on illegal immigration, and risk analyses and other relevant information or reports prepared by Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office, and should take into consideration the overall Union external relations policy.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 377/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely adapting the current Union provisions on the creation and functioning of immigration liaison officers networks in order to take into account changes in Union law and practical experience gained in that context, 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 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.\n(10)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and reflected in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.\n(11)\nThe United Kingdom is taking part in this Regulation, in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Article 8(2) of Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (6).\n(12)\nIreland is taking part in this Regulation, in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (7).\n(13)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Regulation builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of 6 months after the Council has decided on this Regulation whether it will implement it in its national law.\n(14)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (8) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points A and E of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (9) on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement.\n(15)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (10) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points A and E, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (11).\n(16)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol signed between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points A and E, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/261/EC (12),\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments\nRegulation (EC) No 377/2004 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the second sentence is deleted;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. The information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be made available on the secure web-based Information and Coordination Network for Member States\u2019 Migration Management Services established by Council Decision 2005/267/EC (13) (ICONet) under the section dedicated to immigration liaison officers networks. The Commission shall also provide that information to the Council.\n(2)\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the second indent is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nexchange information and practical experience, in particular at meetings and via ICONet,\n-\nexchange information, where appropriate, on experience regarding asylum seekers\u2019 access to protection,\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Representatives of the Commission and the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 (14) may participate in the meetings organised within the framework of the immigration liaison officers network, although, if operational considerations so require, meetings may be held in the absence of those representatives. Other bodies and authorities may also be invited, as appropriate.\n(c)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Member State holding the Presidency of the Council of the European Union shall take the initiative to hold such meetings. If the Member State holding the Presidency is not represented in the country or region concerned, it is up to the Member State serving as acting Presidency to take the initiative to hold the meeting. Such meetings may also be held at the initiative of other Member States.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\n1. The Member State holding the Presidency of the Council of the European Union or, where that Member State is not represented in the country or region concerned, the Member State serving as acting Presidency shall draw up, by the end of each semester, a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the activities of immigration liaison officers networks in specific countries and/or regions of particular interest to the Union, as well as on the situation in those countries and/or regions, in matters relating to illegal immigration, taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, including human rights. The selection, following a consultation with the Member States and the Commission, of the specific countries and/or regions of particular interest to the Union shall be based on objective migratory indicators, such as statistics on illegal immigration, and risk analyses and other relevant information or reports prepared by Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office, and shall take into consideration the overall Union external relations policy.\n2. The Member State\u2019s reports referred to in paragraph 1 shall be drawn up in accordance with the model established by Commission Decision 2005/687/EC of 29 September 2005 on the format for the report on the activities of immigration liaison officers networks and on the situation in the host country in matters relating to illegal immigration (15) and shall indicate the relevant selection criteria.\n3. The Commission shall, on the basis of the Member State\u2019s reports referred to in paragraph 1, taking into consideration human rights aspects where relevant, provide a factual summary and, where appropriate, recommendations to the European Parliament and to the Council, on an annual basis, on the development of immigration liaison officers networks.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 5 April 2011.", "references": ["43", "85", "71", "33", "30", "62", "32", "57", "11", "49", "59", "68", "86", "93", "54", "72", "6", "76", "36", "83", "44", "27", "10", "34", "56", "7", "16", "52", "51", "8", "No Label", "1", "4", "9", "41"], "gold": ["1", "4", "9", "41"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 15 December 2011\namending Decision 2005/363/EC concerning animal health protection measures against African swine fever in Sardinia, Italy\n(notified under document C(2011) 9248)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/852/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (3), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2005/363/EC of 2 May 2005 concerning animal health protection measures against African swine fever in Sardinia, Italy (4) was adopted in response to a serious recrudescence of African swine fever in domestic and feral pigs in the endemically infected island of Sardinia, Italy.\n(2)\nThis Decision prohibits the dispatch from Sardinia of live pigs, their semen ova and embryos and of pig meat, pig meat products and any other products containing pig meat.\n(3)\nHowever, in accordance with Article 4(3) of Directive 2002/99/EC, the Decision provides for certain derogations as regards the dispatch of certain pig meat products derived from pigs originating in holdings outside the risk areas defined in Annex I to the Decision that meet specific biosecurity requirements.\n(4)\nDuring the past weeks Italy has informed the Commission of a significant increase in numbers and territorial extension of outbreaks of African swine fever in seven out of eight provinces of Sardinia, affecting also large commercial pig holdings.\n(5)\nThe current disease evolution on Sardinia is liable to endanger the pig herds in other regions of Italy and in other Member States, in view of placing on the market of pig meat and pig meat products and any other products containing pig meat. It is therefore necessary to extend the risk areas in Annex I to Decision 2005/363/EC to the whole of the region of Sardinia. Consequently, since the conditions laid down in Article 5(2)(b) of Decision 2005/363/EC cannot be met anymore, the derogation granted to Italy to authorise the dispatch of pig meat from Sardinia to areas outside Sardinia, is suspended. The same applies to the derogation granted under Article 6 of that Decision, to authorise the dispatch of pig meat products and other products containing pig meat from Sardinia to areas outside Sardinia.\n(6)\nDecision 2005/363/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Decision 2005/363/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2011.", "references": ["36", "65", "52", "94", "39", "80", "14", "60", "61", "42", "93", "53", "63", "34", "48", "56", "31", "76", "70", "86", "84", "46", "97", "4", "12", "95", "79", "38", "99", "11", "No Label", "22", "23", "66", "69", "72", "92"], "gold": ["22", "23", "66", "69", "72", "92"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 31/2012\nof 13 January 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 January 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 January 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 January 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 January 2012.", "references": ["79", "38", "23", "46", "24", "43", "69", "83", "40", "64", "63", "88", "61", "72", "14", "47", "81", "25", "52", "92", "8", "95", "32", "91", "26", "3", "48", "51", "2", "50", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 335/2012\nof 19 April 2012\namending for the 169th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a), 7a(1) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 12 April 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add one natural person to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. It also decided to amend two entries on the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["94", "51", "47", "53", "99", "17", "92", "64", "30", "63", "55", "41", "28", "46", "80", "79", "61", "14", "62", "90", "95", "22", "35", "57", "37", "31", "42", "43", "67", "39", "No Label", "1", "3"], "gold": ["1", "3"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/332/CFSP\nof 7 June 2011\namending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1).\n(2)\nDecision 2011/137/CFSP should be amended to take into account specific arrangements for restrictive measures applicable to port authorities.\n(3)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Libya, additional entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 6 of Decision 2011/137/CFSP, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20182a The prohibition on making funds, financial assets or economic resources available to persons or entities referred to in paragraph 1(b), in so far as it applies to port authorities, shall not prevent the execution, until 15 July 2011, of contracts concluded before the date of entry into force of this Decision, with the exception of contracts relating to oil, gas and refined products.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThe entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2011.", "references": ["41", "37", "22", "86", "35", "93", "42", "61", "58", "73", "17", "95", "84", "26", "12", "62", "78", "91", "75", "88", "46", "28", "60", "40", "51", "45", "54", "0", "30", "57", "No Label", "3", "11", "23", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "11", "23", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 309/2011\nof 30 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 31 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 March 2011.", "references": ["78", "91", "83", "41", "82", "22", "74", "70", "34", "95", "23", "40", "8", "19", "87", "42", "9", "96", "98", "45", "69", "97", "67", "4", "55", "11", "64", "50", "1", "62", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/72/EU\nof 4 November 2010\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include spinosad as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes spinosad.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, spinosad has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nThe Netherlands were designated as Rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 1 April 2008 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 27 May 2010, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the examinations made that biocidal products used as insecticides, acaricides or to control other arthropods and containing spinosad may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include spinosad in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at EU level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to the compartments and populations that have not been representatively addressed in the EU level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nIn the light of the findings of the assessment report, it is appropriate to require that risk mitigation measures are applied at product authorisation level. In particular, in the light of the identified adverse health effects for the unprotected professional user during application by spraying of biocidal products containing spinosad, it is appropriate to require at product authorisation level that products intended for professional use by spraying be used with appropriate personal protective equipment, unless it can be demonstrated that risks for industrial or professional users can be reduced by other means. Furthermore, in the light of the findings relating to possible indirect human exposure via consumption of food, it is appropriate to require, where relevant, verification of the need to set new or amended existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) and adoption of measures ensuring that the applicable MRLs are not exceeded.\n(8)\nIt is important that the provisions of this Directive be applied simultaneously in all the Member States in order to ensure equal treatment of biocidal products on the market containing the active substance spinosad and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(9)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(10)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(11)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 October 2011 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 November 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 November 2010.", "references": ["52", "91", "73", "78", "92", "55", "11", "49", "1", "44", "20", "10", "75", "6", "59", "53", "24", "57", "77", "42", "99", "12", "82", "30", "28", "26", "62", "39", "37", "72", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 125/2012\nof 14 February 2012\namending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (\u2018REACH\u2019)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Articles 58 and 131 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides that substances meeting the criteria for classification as carcinogenic (category 1A or 1B), mutagenic (category 1A or 1B) and toxic for reproduction (category 1A or 1B) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (2), substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, substances that are very persistent and very bioaccumulative, and substances for which there is scientific evidence of probable serious effects to human health or the environment giving rise to an equivalent level of concern may be subject to authorisation.\n(2)\nDiisobutyl phthalate (DIBP) meets the criteria for classification as toxic for reproduction (category 1B) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and therefore meets the criteria for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 set out in Article 57(c) of that Regulation. It has been identified and included in the candidate list in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(3)\nDiarsenic trioxide meets the criteria for classification as carcinogenic (category 1A) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and therefore meets the criteria for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 set out in Article 57(a) of that Regulation. It has been identified and included in the candidate list in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(4)\nDiarsenic pentaoxide meets the criteria for classification as carcinogenic (category 1A) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and therefore meets the criteria for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 set out in Article 57(a) of that Regulation. It has been identified and included in the candidate list in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(5)\nLead chromate meets the criteria for classification as carcinogenic (category 1B) and toxic for reproduction (category 1A) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and therefore meets the criteria for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 set out in Article 57(a) and (c) of that Regulation. It has been identified and included in the candidate list in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(6)\nLead sulfochromate yellow (C.I. Pigment Yellow 34) meets the criteria for classification as carcinogenic (category 1B) and toxic for reproduction (category 1A) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and therefore meets the criteria for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 set out in Article 57(a) and (c) of that Regulation. It has been identified and included in the candidate list in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(7)\nLead chromate molybdate sulphate red (C.I. Pigment Red 104) meets the criteria for classification as carcinogenic (category 1B) and toxic for reproduction (category 1A) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and therefore meets the criteria for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 set out in Article 57(a) and (c) of that Regulation. It has been identified and included in the candidate list in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(8)\nTris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) meets the criteria for classification as toxic for reproduction (category 1B) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and therefore meets the criteria for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 set out in Article 57(c) of that Regulation. It has been identified and included in the candidate list in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(9)\n2,4-Dinitrotoluene (2,4 DNT) meets the criteria for classification as carcinogenic (category 1B) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and therefore meets the criteria for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 set out in Article 57(a) of that Regulation. It has been identified and included in the candidate list in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(10)\nThe abovementioned substances have been prioritised for inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 by the European Chemicals Agency in its recommendation of 17 December 2010 (3) in accordance with Article 58 of that Regulation.\n(11)\nFor each substance listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, where the applicant wishes to continue to use the substance or place the substance on the market, it is appropriate to set a date by which applications must be received by the European Chemicals Agency, in accordance with Article 58(1)(c)(ii) of that Regulation.\n(12)\nFor each substance listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 it is appropriate to set a date from which the use and placing on the market is prohibited, in accordance with Article 58(1)(c)(i) of that Regulation.\n(13)\nThe European Chemicals Agency recommendation of 17 December 2010 has identified different latest application dates for the substances listed in the Annex to this Regulation. These dates should be set on the basis of the estimated time that would be required to prepare an application for the authorisation, taking into account the information available on the different substances and the information received during the public consultation carried out in accordance with Article 58(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. The Agency\u2019s capacity to handle applications in the time provided for in the Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 should also be taken into account.\n(14)\nIn accordance with Article 58(1)(c)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the latest application date is to be set at least 18 months before the sunset date.\n(15)\nDiisobutyl phthalate is an alternative substance to dibutyl phthalate which is already included in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. In order to avoid potential substitution between these two substances, the latest application date for diisobutyl phthalate should be set as close as possible to the latest application date set out for dibutyl phthalate.\n(16)\nArticle 58(1)(e) in conjunction with Article 58(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides for the possibility of exemptions of uses or categories of uses in cases where there is specific EU legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment that ensures proper control of the risks. In accordance with the information currently available it is not appropriate to set exemptions based on those provisions.\n(17)\nOn the basis of the information currently available it is not appropriate to set exemptions for product and process orientated research and development.\n(18)\nOn the basis of the information currently available it is not appropriate to set review periods for certain uses.\n(19)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established pursuant to Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 February 2012.", "references": ["66", "82", "3", "43", "67", "19", "36", "18", "57", "15", "63", "5", "10", "13", "89", "62", "39", "74", "50", "87", "77", "20", "52", "30", "26", "65", "17", "37", "54", "97", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "60"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 516/2011\nof 25 May 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 600/2005 as regards the use of the preparation of Bacillus licheniformis DSM 5749 and Bacillus subtilis DSM 5750 in feed containing formic acid\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the possibility to modify the authorisation of an additive further to an application from the holder of the authorisation and an opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019).\n(2)\nThe preparation of Bacillus licheniformis DSM 5749 and Bacillus subtilis DSM 5750, belonging to the group of \u2018micro-organisms\u2019, was authorised, without a time limit, in accordance with Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2) as a feed additive for use on sows by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1453/2004 (3), for use on turkeys for fattening and calves up to 3 months by Commission Regulation (EC) No 600/2005 (4) and for use on pigs for fattening and piglets by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2148/2004 (5).\n(3)\nThe Commission received an application requesting a modification of the conditions of the authorisation of the preparation of Bacillus licheniformis DSM 5749 and Bacillus subtilis DSM 5750 to allow its use in feed for turkeys for fattening containing formic acid. That application was accompanied by the relevant supporting data. The Commission forwarded that application to the Authority.\n(4)\nThe Authority concluded in its opinion of 7 December 2010 that the compatibility of the preparation of Bacillus licheniformis DSM 5749 and Bacillus subtilis DSM 5750, as set out in the Annex, with formic acid for use on turkeys for fattening was established (6).\n(5)\nThe conditions provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 are satisfied.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 600/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 600/2005 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2011.", "references": ["48", "52", "32", "19", "75", "16", "37", "94", "92", "3", "27", "85", "44", "97", "95", "55", "9", "77", "82", "64", "72", "29", "84", "53", "59", "60", "4", "73", "47", "58", "No Label", "38", "43", "66", "74"], "gold": ["38", "43", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 351/2010\nof 23 April 2010\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection as regards the definitions of the categories of the groups of country of birth, groups of country of previous usual residence, groups of country of next usual residence and groups of citizenship\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers (1), and in particular Article 10(2)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure that data from different statistical and administrative sources in the Member States are comparable, and to allow reliable Community-wide overviews to be drawn up, the categories of groups of country of birth, groups of country of previous usual residence, groups of country of next usual residence and groups of citizenship must be defined in the same way in all Member States. Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 therefore requires the Commission to define the above categories.\n(2)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation lays down the categories of groups of country of birth, groups of country of previous usual residence, groups of country of next usual residence and groups of citizenship as required by Regulation (EC) No 862/2007.\nArticle 2\nFor the above categories, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018country of previous usual residence\u2019 means the country in which a person was usually resident immediately prior to immigration, regardless of the person\u2019s citizenship or country of birth;\n(b)\n\u2018country of next usual residence\u2019 means the country in which a person becomes usually resident following an emigration, regardless of the person\u2019s citizenship or country of birth;\n(c)\n\u2018level of development\u2019 means the relative degree of development of a country as defined by statistical measures of life expectancy, literacy, educational attainment, and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita;\n(d)\n\u2018native-born\u2019 means a person who was born in the country of current usual residence, regardless of the person\u2019s citizenship;\n(e)\n\u2018foreign-born\u2019 means a person who was born outside of the country of current usual residence, regardless of the person\u2019s citizenship.\nArticle 3\nThe groups of country of birth, groups of country of previous usual residence, groups of country of next usual residence and groups of citizenship according to which Member States are required to transmit data to the Commission are listed in the Annex.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2010.", "references": ["98", "47", "92", "45", "1", "29", "61", "38", "67", "15", "10", "88", "9", "62", "80", "27", "77", "24", "51", "97", "56", "39", "23", "16", "36", "3", "46", "86", "50", "90", "No Label", "13", "19"], "gold": ["13", "19"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 290/2012\nof 30 March 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (1), and in particular Articles 7(6), 8(5) and 10(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 (2) lays down detailed rules for certain pilots\u2019 licences and for the conversion of national pilots\u2019 licences and of national flight engineers\u2019 licences into pilots\u2019 licences, as well as the conditions for the acceptance of licences from third countries. Rules for pilots\u2019 medical certificates, the conditions for the conversion of national medical certificates and the certification of aero-medical examiners are also set out in that Regulation. In addition, Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 includes provisions on medical fitness of the cabin crew.\n(2)\nAccording to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, pilot training organisations and aero-medical centres are to hold a certificate. The certificate is to be issued upon fulfilment of certain technical and administrative requirements. Rules on the administration and management system of these organisations should therefore be provided for.\n(3)\nFlight simulation training devices used for pilot training, testing and checking are to be certified against a set of technical criteria. Those technical requirements and administrative procedures should therefore be provided for.\n(4)\nAccording to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, cabin crew are to be continuously fit and competent to exercise their assigned safety duties. Those involved in commercial operations are to hold an attestation as initially set out in Annex III, Subpart O, point (d) of OPS 1.1005 to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (3). Rules on cabin crew qualifications and related attestations should therefore be provided for.\n(5)\nOversight capabilities of competent authorities are not provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011. This Regulation therefore amends Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 to include administration and management system of competent authorities and organisations. In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, rules on an information network between the Member States, the Commission and the Agency should also be included in Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011.\n(6)\nIt is necessary to provide sufficient time for the aeronautical industry and Member State administrations to adapt to the new regulatory framework and to recognise under certain conditions the validity of certificates, including attestations of safety training, issued before this Regulation applies.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure a smooth transition and a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in the Union, implementing measures should reflect the state of the art, including best practices, and scientific and technical progress in the field of aircrew training. Accordingly, Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 as well as technical requirements and administrative procedures agreed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (\u2018ICAO\u2019) and the Joint Aviation Authorities until 30 June 2009, and existing legislation pertaining to a specific national environment, should be considered.\n(8)\nRegulation (EU) No 1178/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures specified in Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 for the attestation of safety training of cabin crew are deleted in accordance with Article 69(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. The measures adopted by this Regulation are to be regarded as the corresponding measures.\n(10)\nThe European Aviation Safety Agency (\u2018the Agency\u2019) prepared draft implementing rules and submitted them as an opinion to the Commission in accordance with Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 1178/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, the following points are added:\n\u20186.\nthe conditions for issuing, maintaining, amending, limiting, suspending or revoking cabin crew attestations, as well as the privileges and responsibilities of the holders of cabin crew attestations;\n7.\nthe conditions for issuing, maintaining, amending, limiting, suspending or revoking certificates of pilot training organisations and of aero-medical centres involved in the qualification and aero-medical assessment of civil aviation aircrew;\n8.\nthe requirements for the certification of flight simulation training devices and for organisations operating and using those devices;\n9.\nthe requirements for the administration and management system to be fulfilled by the Member States, the Agency and the organisations in relation with the rules referred to in points 1 to 8.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 2, the following points (11), (12) and (13) are added:\n\u2018(11)\n\u201cCabin crew member\u201d means an appropriately qualified crew member, other than a flight crew or technical crew member, who is assigned by an operator to perform duties related to the safety of passengers and flight during operations;\n(12)\n\u201cAircrew\u201d means flight crew and cabin crew;\n(13)\n\u201cJAR-compliant certificate, approval or organisation\u201d means the certificate or approval issued or recognised or the organisation certified, approved, registered or recognised, in accordance with the national legislation reflecting JAR and procedures, by a Member State having implemented the relevant JAR and having been recommended for mutual recognition within the Joint Aviation Authorities\u2019 system in relation to such JAR.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 4(1):\n-\nthe expression \u20188 April 2012\u2019 is replaced by \u2018this Regulation applies\u2019;\n-\nthe expression \u20188 April 2017\u2019 is replaced by \u20188 April 2018\u2019;\n(4)\nthe following Articles 10a, 10b and 10c are inserted:\n\u2018Article 10a\nPilot training organisations\n1. Pilot training organisations shall comply with the technical requirements and administrative procedures laid down in Annexes VI and VII and shall be certified.\n2. Pilot training organisations holding JAR-compliant certificates issued or recognised by a Member State before this Regulation applies shall be deemed to hold a certificate issued in accordance with this Regulation.\nIn such case the privileges of these organisations shall be limited to the privileges included in the approval issued by the Member State.\nWithout prejudice to Article 2, pilot training organisations shall adapt their management system, training programmes, procedures and manuals to be compliant with Annex VII by 8 April 2014 at the latest.\n3. JAR-compliant training organisations registered in a Member State before this Regulation applies shall be allowed to provide training for a JAR-compliant private pilot licence (PPL).\n4. Member States shall replace the certificates referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 with certificates complying with the format laid down in Annex VI by 8 April 2017 at the latest.\nArticle 10b\nFlight simulation training devices\n1. Flight simulation training devices (FSTDs) used for pilot training, testing and checking, with the exception of developmental training devices used for flight test training, shall comply with the technical requirements and administrative procedures laid down in Annexes VI and VII and shall be qualified.\n2. JAR-compliant FSTD qualification certificates issued or recognised before this Regulation applies shall be deemed to have been issued in accordance with this Regulation.\n3. Member States shall replace the certificates referred to in paragraph 2 with qualification certificates complying with the format laid down in Annex VI by 8 April 2017 at the latest.\nArticle 10c\nAero-medical centres\n1. Aero-medical centres shall comply with the technical requirements and administrative procedures laid down in Annexes VI and VII and shall be certified.\n2. JAR-compliant aero-medical centre approvals issued or recognised by a Member State before this Regulation applies shall be deemed to have been issued in accordance with this Regulation.\nAero-medical centres shall adapt their management system, training programmes, procedures and manuals to be compliant with Annex VII by 8 April 2014 at the latest.\n3. Member States shall replace aero-medical centres\u2019 approvals referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 with certificates complying with the format laid down in Annex VI by 8 April 2017 at the latest.\u2019;\n(5)\nthe following Articles 11a, 11b and 11c are inserted:\n\u2018Article 11a\nCabin crew qualifications and related attestations\n1. Cabin crew members involved in commercial operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 shall be qualified and hold the related attestation in accordance with the technical requirements and administrative procedures laid down in Annexes V and VI.\n2. Cabin crew members holding, before this Regulation applies, an attestation of safety training issued in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (\u201cEU-OPS\u201d):\n(a)\nshall be deemed to be compliant with this Regulation if they comply with the applicable training, checking and recency requirements of EU-OPS; or\n(b)\nif they do not comply with the applicable training, checking and recency requirements of EU-OPS, they shall complete all required training and checking before being deemed to be compliant with this Regulation; or\n(c)\nif they have not operated in commercial operations by aeroplanes for more than 5 years, they shall complete the initial training course and shall pass the related examination as required in Annex V before being deemed to be compliant with this Regulation.\n3. The attestations of safety training issued in accordance with EU-OPS shall be replaced with cabin crew attestations complying with the format laid down in Annex VI by 8 April 2017 at the latest.\n4. Cabin crew members involved in commercial operations of helicopters on the date of application of this Regulation:\n(a)\nshall be deemed to be compliant with the initial training requirements of Annex V if they comply with the applicable training, checking and recency provisions of the JARs for commercial air transportation by helicopters; or\n(b)\nif they do not comply with the applicable training, checking and recency requirements of the JARs for commercial air transportation by helicopters, they shall complete all relevant training and checking required to operate on helicopter(s), except the initial training, before being deemed to be compliant with this Regulation; or\n(c)\nif they have not operated in commercial operations by helicopters for more than 5 years, they shall complete the initial training course and shall pass the related examination as required in Annex V before being deemed to be compliant with this Regulation.\n5. Without prejudice to Article 2, cabin crew attestations complying with the format laid down in Annex VI shall be issued to all cabin crew members involved in commercial operations by helicopters by 8 April 2013 at the latest.\nArticle 11b\nOversight capabilities\n1. Member States shall designate one or more entities as the competent authority within that Member State with the necessary powers and allocated responsibilities for the certification and oversight of persons and organisations subject to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its implementing rules.\n2. If a Member State designates more than one entity as competent authority:\n(a)\nthe areas of competence of each competent authority shall be clearly defined in terms of responsibilities and geographic limitation;\n(b)\ncoordination shall be established between those entities to ensure effective oversight of all organisations and persons subject to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its implementing rules within their respective remits.\n3. Member States shall ensure that the competent authority(ies) has/have the necessary capability to ensure the oversight of all persons and organisations covered by their oversight programme, including sufficient resources to fulfil the requirements of this Regulation.\n4. Member States shall ensure that competent authority personnel do not perform oversight activities when there is evidence that this could result directly or indirectly in a conflict of interest, in particular when relating to family or financial interest.\n5. Personnel authorised by the competent authority to carry out certification and/or oversight tasks shall be empowered to perform at least the following tasks:\n(a)\nexamine the records, data, procedures and any other material relevant to the execution of the certification and/or oversight task;\n(b)\ntake copies of or extracts from such records, data, procedures and other material;\n(c)\nask for an oral explanation on site;\n(d)\nenter relevant premises, operating sites or means of transport;\n(e)\nperform audits, investigations, assessments and inspections, including ramp inspections and unannounced inspections; and\n(f)\ntake or initiate enforcement measures as appropriate.\n6. The tasks under paragraph 5 shall be carried out in compliance with the legal provisions of the relevant Member State.\nArticle 11c\nTransitional measures\nAs regards organisations for which the Agency is the competent authority in accordance with Article 21(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008:\n(a)\nMember States shall transfer to the Agency all records related to the oversight of such organisations by 8 April 2013 at the latest;\n(b)\ncertification processes initiated before 8 April 2012 by a Member State shall be finalised by that Member State in coordination with the Agency. The Agency shall assume all its responsibilities as competent authority concerning such organisation after the issuance of the certificate by that Member State.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 12, the following paragraph shall be added:\n\u20181b. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of Annexes I to IV until 8 April 2013.\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 12(7), the expression \u2018paragraphs 2 to 6\u2019 is replaced by \u2018paragraphs 1b to 6\u2019;\n(8)\nnew Annexes V, VI and VII, the text of which is set out in the Annex to this Regulation, are added.\nArticle 2\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 8 April 2012.\n2. By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the following provisions:\n(a)\nAnnexes V to VII until 8 April 2013;\n(b)\npoint ORA.GEN.200(a)(3) of Annex VII to FSTD qualification certificate holders not being an approved training organisation and not holding an air operator certificate until 8 April 2014;\n(c)\nAnnexes VI and VII to non-JAR-compliant approved training organisations and aero-medical centres until 8 April 2014;\n(d)\npoint CC.GEN.030 of Annex V until 8 April 2015;\n(e)\nAnnex V to cabin crew members involved in commercial operations by helicopters until 8 April 2015;\n(f)\nAnnexes VI and VII to training organisations providing training only for the light aircraft pilot licence, private pilot licence, balloon pilot licence or sailplane pilot licence until 8 April 2015;\n(g)\nAnnexes VI and VII to training organisations providing training for flight test ratings in accordance with point FCL.820 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 until 8 April 2015.\n3. When a Member State makes use of the provisions of paragraph 2, it shall notify the Commission and the Agency. This notification shall describe the duration and the reasons for such derogation as well as the programme for implementation containing actions envisaged and related timing.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 30 March 2012.", "references": ["30", "31", "97", "91", "93", "85", "32", "95", "33", "38", "23", "0", "88", "36", "83", "72", "18", "61", "82", "39", "25", "63", "77", "34", "4", "17", "73", "8", "42", "24", "No Label", "50", "53", "54", "57"], "gold": ["50", "53", "54", "57"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 288/2011\nof 23 March 2011\nimplementing Article 16(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 16(1) and (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 2 March 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.\n(2)\nOn 17 March 2011, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution UNSCR 1973 (2011) which widened the scope of the restrictive measures imposed by Resolution UNSCR 1970 (2011) and introduced additional restrictive measures against Libya.\n(3)\nThe lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annexes II and III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 shall be replaced by the text set out in Annexes I and II respectively to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2011.", "references": ["28", "75", "46", "27", "71", "54", "48", "44", "24", "95", "19", "89", "40", "73", "0", "14", "22", "76", "80", "20", "91", "51", "90", "98", "74", "60", "92", "52", "58", "7", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 264/2012\nof 23 March 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (2) prohibits the sale, supply, transfer or export from the Union to Iran of equipment which may be used for internal repression.\n(2)\nThe measures adopted in Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 reflect the Council's concerns over the nature of Iran's nuclear programme, whereas the measures adopted in Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 (3) reflect its concerns about the deterioration of the human rights situation in Iran.\n(3)\nThe prohibition on the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment which may be used for internal repression is a measure taken primarily in view of the Council's concerns regarding the deterioration of the human rights situation in Iran, and as such, it should be included in Regulation (EU) No 359/2011. Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nAt the same time, Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 will be replaced by a new, consolidated Regulation which does not include the said measure to prevent internal repression.\n(5)\nIn view of the gravity of the human rights situation in Iran, Decision 2012/168/CFSP of 23 March 2012 amending Decision 2011/235/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran (4) provides for an additional measure, namely a prohibition on the export of telecommunications monitoring equipment for use by the Iranian regime.\n(6)\nThis measure falls within the scope of the Treaty and, therefore, notably with a view to ensuring its uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement it.\n(7)\nIn view of the gravity of the human rights situation in Iran and in accordance with Decision 2011/235/CFSP, additional persons should be included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011.\n(8)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 359/2011, listing the competent authorities to which specific functions relating to the implementation of that Regulation are attributed, should also be updated on the basis of the information most recently provided by Member States regarding the identification of competent authorities.\n(9)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force on the day of publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 359/2011 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nThe following Articles are inserted:\n\"Article 1a\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex III, whether or not originating in the Union, to any person, entity or body in Iran or for use in Iran;\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex III, to any person, entity or body in Iran or for use in Iran;\n(c)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex III, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for any provision of related technical assistance to any person, entity or body in Iran or for use in Iran;\n(d)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a), (b) and (c).\nArticle 1b\n1. It shall be prohibited to sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, equipment, technology or software identified in Annex IV, whether or not originating in the Union, to any person, entity or body in Iran or for use in Iran, unless the competent authority of the relevant Member State, as identified in the websites referred to in Annex II, has given prior authorisation.\n2. The competent authorities of the Member States, as identified in the websites referred to in Annex II, shall not grant any authorisation under paragraph 1 if they have reasonable grounds to determine that the equipment, technology or software in question would be used for monitoring or interception, by Iran's government, public bodies, corporations and agencies or any person or entity acting on their behalf or at their direction, of internet or telephone communications in Iran.\n3. Annex IV shall include equipment, technology or software which may be used for the monitoring or interception of internet or telephone communications.\n4. The Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this Article, within four weeks following the authorisation.\nArticle 1c\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to the equipment, technology and software identified in Annex IV, or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of the equipment and technology identified in Annex IV or to the provision, installation, operation or updating of any software identified in Annex IV, to any person, entity or body in Iran or for use in Iran;\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the equipment, technology and software identified in Annex IV, to any person, entity or body in Iran or for use in Iran;\n(c)\nto provide any telecommunication or internet monitoring or interception services of any kind to, or for the direct or indirect benefit of, Iran's government, public bodies, corporations and agencies or any person or entity acting on their behalf or at their direction; and\n(d)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in any activity the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in point (a), (b) or (c) above;\nunless the competent authority of the relevant Member State, as identified in the websites referred to in Annex II, has given prior authorisation, on the basis set out in Article 1b(2).\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1(c), \"telecommunication or internet monitoring or interception services\" means those services that provide, in particular using equipment, technology or software as identified in Annex IV, access to and delivery of a subject's incoming and outgoing telecommunications and call- associated data for the purpose of its extraction, decoding, recording, processing, analysis and storing or any other related activity.\".\n(2)\nThe persons listed in Annex I to this Regulation are added to the list set out in Annex I\n(3)\nThe text set out in Annex II to this Regulation is added as Annex III.\n(4)\nThe text set out in Annex III to this Regulation is added as Annex IV.\n(5)\nAnnex II is replaced by the text set out in Annex IV to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["30", "25", "19", "14", "65", "64", "68", "35", "81", "4", "5", "0", "55", "43", "94", "28", "67", "42", "90", "63", "56", "41", "44", "85", "70", "98", "48", "47", "59", "37", "No Label", "3", "23", "76", "95"], "gold": ["3", "23", "76", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 November 2010\namending Decisions 2005/692/EC, 2005/734/EC, 2006/415/EC, 2007/25/EC and 2009/494/EC as regards avian influenza\n(notified under document C(2010) 8282)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/734/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (3), and in particular Article 18(7) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (4), and in particular Article 22(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (5), and in particular Article 18 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and repealing Directive 92/40/EEC (6), and in particular Article 63(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission adopted several protection measures in relation to avian influenza, following the outbreaks of that disease in south-east Asia which started in December 2003 and was caused by the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus of the subtype H5N1.\n(2)\nThose measures are laid down, in particular, in Commission Decision 2005/692/EC of 6 October 2005 concerning certain protection measures in relation to avian influenza in several third countries (7), Commission Decision 2005/734/EC of 19 October 2005 laying down biosecurity measures to reduce the risk of transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza caused by Influenza virus A subtype H5N1 from birds living in the wild to poultry and other captive birds and providing for an early detection system in areas at particular risk (8) and in Commission Decision 2009/494/EC of 25 June 2009 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N1 in Croatia and Switzerland (9).\n(3)\nThe measures laid down in those Decisions are applicable until 31 December 2010. However, outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds and in poultry of the subtype H5N1 continue to occur in Member States and in third countries posing a risk to animal and human health.\n(4)\nGiven the epidemiological situation regarding avian influenza, it is appropriate to continue limiting the risks posed by imports of poultry, poultry products, pet birds and other consignments covered by those Decisions, as well as to maintain biosecurity measures, early detection systems and certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of the H5N1 subtype.\n(5)\nThe period of application of Decisions 2005/692/EC, 2005/734/EC, and 2009/494/EC should therefore be extended until 30 June 2012.\n(6)\nIn addition, Decision 2005/734/EC prohibits the use of decoy birds during bird-hunting in areas identified as being particularly at risk for the introduction of avian influenza. However, under certain conditions the competent authority may grant derogations for their use during bird-hunting and in the framework of Member States\u2019 programmes for avian influenza surveillance as provided for in Commission Decision 2005/732/EC of 17 October 2005 approving the programmes for the implementation of Member States\u2019 surveys for avian influenza in poultry and wild birds during 2005 and laying down reporting and eligibility rules for the Community financial contribution to the implementation costs of those programmes (10).\n(7)\nExperience has shown that decoy birds are not only used during bird-hunting but also in the framework of research projects, ornithological studies and other activities which may pose similar risks in relation to the spread of avian influenza. The biosecurity measures of Decision 2005/734/EC should therefore apply to a wider use of decoy birds provided that the activity has been authorised by the competent authority in accordance to Article 2b(1)(d).\n(8)\nDecision 2005/734/EC also refers to the use of decoy birds for sampling pursuant to Member States\u2019 programmes for avian influenza surveys as provided for in Decision 2005/732/EC. The surveys referred to in Decision 2005/732/EC have been completed within the given time period referred to in that Decision. Accordingly, Decision 2005/734/EC should be amended to refer to the surveillance programmes for avian influenza to be carried out by Member States under Directive 2005/94/EC.\n(9)\nCommission Decision 2006/415/EC of 14 June 2006 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5N1 in poultry in the Community and repealing Decision 2006/135/EC (11) lays down certain protection measures to be applied in the event of an outbreak of that disease. Pending a possible review of those measures, the period of application of that Decision should only be extended until 31 December 2011.\n(10)\nCommission Decision 2007/25/EC of 22 December 2006 as regards certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza and movements of pet birds accompanying their owners into the Community (12) lays down certain rules regarding the authorisation of the movement from third countries of live pet birds and refers to the list of third countries set out in Council Decision 79/542/EEC of 21 December 1976 drawing up a list of third countries or parts of third countries, and laying down animal and public health and veterinary certification conditions, for importation into the Community of certain live animals and their fresh meat (13).\n(11)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 of 12 March 2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements (14) replaces and repeals Decision 79/542/EEC. Accordingly, it is appropriate to update Decision 2007/25/EC by referring to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010.\n(12)\nIn addition, Article 1 of Decision 2007/25/EC and the model veterinary certificate set out in Annex II to that Decision, which refer to Chapter 2.1.14 of the Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), are out of date since the adoption of the revised Chapter on avian influenza in May 2009 and should be updated to refer to Chapter 2.3.4 of that manual. It is also necessary to make certain amendments to the owner\u2019s declaration set out in Annex III to that Decision in the light of experience. Decision 2007/25/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nTaking into account the animal health situation, it is also appropriate to extend the period of application of Decision 2007/25/EC until 30 June 2012.\n(14)\nDecisions 2005/692/EC, 2005/734/EC, 2006/415/EC, 2007/25/EC and 2009/494/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(15)\nIt is necessary to provide for a transitional period during which consignments of pet birds for which the necessary veterinary certificate and declaration of the owner have been issued in accordance with Decision 2007/25/EC, before the amendments made by this Decision, may continue to be introduced into the Union, in order to give the Member States and the industry time to adjust to the new rules.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 7 of Decision 2005/692/EC, the date \u201831 December 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u201830 June 2012\u2019.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2005/734/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 1, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Member States shall regularly review the measures they have taken pursuant to paragraph 1, and in the light of the surveillance programmes that they have carried out in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 2005/94/EC (15), in order to adjust to the changing epidemiological and ornithological situation, the areas of their territory that they have identified as being particularly at risk from the introduction of avian influenza.\n2.\nin Article 2a(1), point (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nthe use of birds of the orders Anseriformes and Charadriiformes as decoy birds (decoy birds).\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 2b(1), point (d) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe introductory phrase and (i) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nthe use of decoy birds:\n(i)\nby decoy bird holders registered with the competent authority, under the strict supervision of the competent authority for the attraction of wild birds intended for sampling pursuant to the Member States\u2019 programmes for avian influenza, research projects, ornithological studies or any other activity approved by the competent authority; or\u2019;\n(b)\nin (ii), the third indent is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nthe recording and reporting of the health status of decoy birds and laboratory testing for avian influenza in the case of deaths of such birds and at the end of the period of use in the area identified at particular risk for the introduction of avian influenza,\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 4, the date \u201831 December 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u201830 June 2012\u2019.\nArticle 3\nIn Article 12 of Decision 2006/415/EC, the date \u201831 December 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2011\u2019.\nArticle 4\nDecision 2007/25/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 1(1), point (b) is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (i) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(i)\nhave undergone isolation for 30 days prior to export at the place of departure in a third country listed in Part 1 of Annex I or Part 1 of Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 (16), or\n(b)\npoint (iv) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(iv)\nhave been in isolation for at least 10 days prior to export and have undergone a test to detect the avian influenza H5N1 antigen or genome as laid down in the Chapter on avian influenza of the Manual of Diagnostic tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals, as regularly updated by the OIE, carried out on a sample taken not earlier than the third day of isolation.\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 6, the date \u201831 December 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u201830 June 2012\u2019;\n3.\nAnnexes II and III are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 5\nIn Article 3 of Decision 2009/494/EC, the date \u201831 December 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u201830 June 2012\u2019.\nArticle 6\nThe Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to comply with this Decision and publish those measures. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.\nArticle 7\nFor a transitional period until 31 March 2011, pet birds for which the veterinary certificate and declaration of the owner have been issued in accordance with Decision 2007/25/EC, before the amendments made by this Decision, may continue to be introduced into the Union.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["16", "68", "40", "5", "51", "11", "0", "3", "70", "21", "58", "52", "74", "27", "77", "7", "81", "44", "69", "84", "24", "79", "78", "30", "73", "41", "43", "75", "26", "34", "No Label", "23", "38", "61", "66"], "gold": ["23", "38", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 933/2011\nof 19 September 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 921/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 September 2011.", "references": ["75", "40", "62", "64", "8", "15", "18", "53", "13", "79", "71", "85", "24", "83", "52", "65", "74", "50", "6", "33", "12", "25", "49", "98", "96", "82", "43", "88", "45", "20", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 533/2012\nof 21 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2012.", "references": ["82", "67", "88", "7", "2", "23", "64", "77", "40", "59", "53", "96", "25", "89", "47", "41", "5", "13", "34", "76", "69", "9", "11", "19", "32", "15", "20", "78", "85", "95", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 694/2012\nof 27 July 2012\nestablishing the fishing opportunities for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay for the 2012/13 fishing season\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt is incumbent upon the Council to establish the total allowable catches (TACs) 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\u2019s 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 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of suitable stock management and simplification, it is appropriate that a TAC and Member State quotas for the stock of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay (ICES subarea VIII) are 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, fishery should remain subject to the general provisions of Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 (2) concerning the conditions for the use of quotas.\n(3)\nThe Bay of Biscay anchovy TAC for the 2012/13 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.\n(4)\nIn order to provide for a multiannual plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay covering the fishing season and establishing the harvest control rule applying for the fixing of fishing opportunities, on 29 July 2009 the Commission presented a proposal for a Regulation establishing a long-term plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay and the fisheries exploiting that stock. Having regard to that proposal and considering that the impact assessment underlying that proposal provided for the most recent assessment of the impact of decisions on the fishing opportunities for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay, it is appropriate to fix a TAC for that stock accordingly. The advice issued by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) in July 2012 estimated the spawning stock biomass to be approximately 68 180 tonnes. Consequently, the TAC for the fishing season running from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 should be established at 20 700 tonnes.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (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.\n(6)\nIn view of the start of the 2012/13 fishing season and for the purpose of the annual reporting of catches, this Regulation should enter into force immediately and apply from 1 July 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFishing opportunities for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay\n1. The total allowable catch (TAC) and its allocation between Member States for the fishing season running from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2013 for the stock of anchovy in ICES Subarea VIII, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 218/2009 (4), shall be as follows (in tonnes live weight):\nSpecies\n:\nAnchovy\nEngraulis encrasicolus\nICES Zone\n:\nVIII\n(ANE/08.)\nSpain\n18 630\nAnalytical TAC\nFrance\n2 070\nEU\n20 700\nTAC\n20 700\n2. The allocation of the fishing opportunities as set out in paragraph 1 and the use thereof shall be subject to the conditions set out in Articles 8, 10 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 43/2012.\n3. The stock referred to in paragraph 1 shall be considered subject to an analytical TAC for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 847/96. Article 3(2) and (3) and Article 4 of that Regulation shall apply.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2012.", "references": ["61", "71", "1", "2", "85", "54", "60", "38", "69", "64", "65", "53", "31", "73", "7", "12", "98", "3", "19", "22", "45", "47", "92", "24", "81", "16", "48", "72", "14", "40", "No Label", "13", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 684/2010\nof 29 July 2010\nfixing the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EU) No 463/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAn invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Portugal from third countries was opened by Commission Regulation (EU) No 463/2010 (2).\n(2)\nUnder Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 of 18 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of tariff quotas for imports of maize and sorghum into Spain and imports of maize into Portugal (3) the Commission, in accordance the procedure laid down in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, may decide to fix a maximum reduction in the import duty. In fixing this maximum the criteria provided for in Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 must be taken into account.\n(3)\nA contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum reduction in the duty.\n(4)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor tenders lodged from 16 July to 29 July 2010 under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EU) No 463/2010, the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported shall be EUR 6,25/t for a total maximum quantity of 63 000 t.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2010.", "references": ["29", "36", "79", "22", "85", "67", "45", "13", "48", "69", "35", "49", "71", "88", "28", "39", "90", "3", "56", "47", "72", "66", "38", "1", "34", "32", "6", "57", "41", "99", "No Label", "4", "20", "21", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "20", "21", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 May 2012\non the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT)\n(2012/374/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraphs of Article 207(3) and (4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) and Article 218(7) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn May 2003 the European Commission adopted a Communication to the European Parliament and to the Council entitled \u2018Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT): Proposal for an EU Action Plan\u2019 which called for measures to address illegal logging through the development of voluntary partnership agreements with timber-producing countries. Council conclusions on that Action Plan were adopted in October 2003 (1) and Parliament adopted a resolution on the subject on 11 July 2005 (2).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2011/790/EU (3), the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union was signed on 28 November 2011, subject to its conclusion.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT) (hereinafter \u2018Agreement\u2019) is approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered on behalf of the European Union to make the notification provided for in Article 30 of the Agreement, in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe European Union shall be represented by representatives of the Commission in the Joint Agreement Implementation Committee set up in accordance with Article 19 of the Agreement.\nThe Member States may participate in meetings of the Joint Agreement Implementation Committee as members of the European Union delegation.\nArticle 4\nFor the purpose of amending the annexes to the Agreement in accordance with Article 26 thereof, the Commission is authorised, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 of 20 December 2005 on the establishment of a FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of timber into the European Community (4), to approve any such amendments on behalf of the European Union.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 May 2012.", "references": ["63", "12", "52", "47", "93", "78", "57", "62", "81", "53", "5", "51", "0", "68", "19", "41", "97", "21", "11", "72", "85", "36", "24", "16", "54", "75", "30", "13", "39", "50", "No Label", "9", "22", "88", "94"], "gold": ["9", "22", "88", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 207/2012\nof 9 March 2012\non electronic instructions for use of medical devices\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices (1), and in particular Article 9(10) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (2), and in particular Article 11(14) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor some medical devices the provision of instructions for use in electronic form instead of in paper form can be beneficial for professional users. It can reduce the environmental burden and improve the competitiveness of the medical devices industry by reducing costs, while maintaining or improving the level of safety.\n(2)\nSuch possibility of providing instructions for use in electronic form instead of in paper form should be limited to certain medical devices and accessories intended to be used in specific conditions. In any case, for reasons of safety and efficiency users should always have the possibility to obtain those instructions for use in paper form on request.\n(3)\nIn order to reduce potential risks as far as possible, the appropriateness of the provision of instructions for use in electronic form should be subject to a specific risk assessment by the manufacturer.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that users have access to the instructions for use, appropriate information about access to those instructions for use in electronic form and about the right to request the instructions for use in paper form, should be provided.\n(5)\nTo ensure unconditional access to the instructions for use in electronic form and to facilitate the communication of updates and of product alerts, the instructions for use in electronic form should also be available through a website.\n(6)\nRegardless of the language obligations imposed on manufacturers by the law of the Member States, manufacturers who provide instructions for use in electronic form should indicate on their website in which Union languages those instructions are available.\n(7)\nExcept for medical devices of Class I, as defined in Annex IX to Directive 93/42/EEC, the fulfilment of the obligations laid down in this Regulation should be reviewed by a notified body during the procedure applicable for conformity assessment based on a specific sampling method.\n(8)\nAs the protection of the right to privacy of natural persons with respect to the processing of personal data should be ensured by manufacturers and notified bodies as well, it is appropriate to provide that websites containing instructions for use of a medical device fulfil the requirements of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (3).\n(9)\nIn order to ensure safety and consistency, instructions for use in electronic form which are provided in addition to complete instructions for use in paper form should be covered by this Regulation as regards limited requirements in relation to their contents and websites.\n(10)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a deferred application of this Regulation so as to facilitate the smooth transition to the new system and to allow all operators and Member States time to adapt to it.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 6(2) of Directive 90/385/EEC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation establishes the conditions under which the instructions for use of medical devices referred to in point 15 of Annex 1 to Directive 90/385/EEC and in point 13 of Annex I to Directive 93/42/EEC may be provided in electronic form instead of in paper form.\nIt also establishes certain requirements concerning instructions for use in electronic form which are provided in addition to complete instructions for use in paper form relating to their contents and websites.\nArticle 2\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018instructions for use\u2019 means information provided by the manufacturer to inform the user of the device of its safe and proper use, of its expected performances and of any precautions to be taken as outlined in the relevant parts of point 15 of Annex 1 to Directive 90/385/EEC and of point 13 of Annex I to Directive 93/42/EEC;\n(b)\n\u2018instructions for use in electronic form\u2019 means instructions for use displayed in electronic form by the device, contained in portable electronic storage media supplied by the manufacturer together with the device, or instructions for use available through a website;\n(c)\n\u2018professional users\u2019 means persons using the medical device in the course of their work and in the framework of a professional healthcare activity;\n(d)\n\u2018fixed installed medical devices\u2019 means devices and their accessories which are intended to be installed, fastened or otherwise secured at a specific location in a healthcare facility so that they cannot be moved from this location or detached without using tools or apparatus, and which are not specifically intended to be used within a mobile healthcare facility.\nArticle 3\n1. Subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 2, manufacturers may provide instructions for use in electronic form instead of in paper form where those instructions relate to any of the following devices:\n(a)\nactive implantable medical devices and their accessories covered by Directive 90/385/EEC intended to be used exclusively for the implantation or programming of a defined active implantable medical device;\n(b)\nimplantable medical devices and their accessories covered by Directive 93/42/EEC intended to be used exclusively for the implantation of a defined implantable medical device;\n(c)\nfixed installed medical devices covered by Directive 93/42/EEC;\n(d)\nmedical devices and their accessories covered by Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC fitted with a built-in system visually displaying the instructions for use;\n(e)\nstand-alone software covered by Directive 93/42/EEC.\n2. Manufacturers may provide instructions for use in electronic form instead of in paper form for the devices listed in paragraph 1 under the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe devices and accessories are intended for exclusive use by professional users;\n(b)\nthe use by other persons is not reasonably foreseeable.\nArticle 4\n1. Manufacturers of devices referred to in Article 3 that provide instructions for use in electronic form instead of in paper form shall undertake a documented risk assessment which shall cover at least the following elements:\n(a)\nknowledge and experience of the intended users in particular regarding the use of the device and user needs;\n(b)\ncharacteristics of the environment in which the device will be used;\n(c)\nknowledge and experience of the intended user of the hardware and software needed to display the instructions for use in electronic form;\n(d)\naccess of the user to the reasonably foreseeable electronic resources needed at the time of use;\n(e)\nperformance of safeguards to ensure that the electronic data and content are protected from tampering;\n(f)\nsafety and back-up mechanisms in the event of a hardware or software fault, particularly if the instructions for use in electronic form are integrated within the device;\n(g)\nforeseeable medical emergency situations requiring the provision of information in paper form;\n(h)\nimpact caused by the temporary unavailability of the specific website or of the Internet in general, or of their access in the healthcare facility as well as the safety measures available to cope with such a situation;\n(i)\nevaluation of the time period within which the instructions for use shall be provided in paper form at the users request.\n2. The risk assessment for the provision of the instructions for use in electronic form shall be updated in view of the experience gained in the post-marketing phase.\nArticle 5\nManufacturers of devices referred to in Article 3 may provide instructions for use in electronic form instead of in paper form under the following conditions:\n(1)\nthe risk assessment referred to in Article 4 shall demonstrate that providing instructions for use in electronic form maintains or improves the level of safety obtained by providing the instructions for use in paper form;\n(2)\nthey shall provide instructions for use in electronic form in all Member States where the product is made available or put into service, unless duly justified in the risk assessment referred to in Article 4;\n(3)\nthey shall have a system in place to provide the instructions for use in printed paper form at no additional cost for the user, within the time period set out in the risk assessment referred to in Article 4 and at the latest within 7 calendar days of receiving a request from the user or at the time of delivery of the device if so requested at the time of order;\n(4)\nthey shall provide, on the device or on a leaflet, information on foreseeable medical emergency situations and, for devices fitted with a built-in system visually displaying the instructions for use, information on how to start the device;\n(5)\nthey shall ensure the proper design and functioning of the instructions for use in electronic form and provide verification and validation evidence to this effect;\n(6)\nfor medical devices fitted with a built-in system visually displaying the instructions for use, they shall ensure that displaying the instructions for use does not impede the safe use of the device, in particular life-monitoring or life-supporting functions;\n(7)\nthey shall provide, in their catalogue or in other appropriate device information support, information on software and hardware requirements needed to display the instructions for use;\n(8)\nthey shall have a system in place to clearly indicate when the instructions for use have been revised and to inform each user of the device thereof if the revision was necessary for safety reasons;\n(9)\nfor devices with a defined expiry date, except implantable devices, they shall keep the instructions for use available for the users in electronic form for at least 2 years after the end of the expiry date of the last produced device;\n(10)\nfor devices without a defined expiry date and for implantable devices, they shall keep the instructions for use available for the users in electronic form for a period of 15 years after the last device has been manufactured.\nArticle 6\n1. Manufacturers shall clearly indicate that the instructions for use of the device are supplied in electronic form instead of in paper form.\nThat information shall be provided on the packaging for each unit or, where appropriate, on the sales packaging. In the case of fixed installed medical devices, that information shall also be provided on the device itself.\n2. Manufacturers shall provide information on how to access the instructions for use in electronic form.\nThat information shall be provided as set out in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 or, if not practicable, in a paper document supplied with each device.\n3. The information on how to access the instructions for use in electronic form shall contain the following:\n(a)\nany information needed to view the instructions for use;\n(b)\na unique reference, giving direct access, and any other information needed by the user to identify and access the appropriate instructions for use;\n(c)\nrelevant manufacturer contact details;\n(d)\nwhere, how and within which time instructions for use in paper form can be requested and shall be obtained at no additional cost in conformity with Article 5.\n4. Where a part of the instructions for use is intended to be provided to the patient, that part shall not be provided in electronic form.\n5. The instructions for use in electronic form shall be available entirely as text which may contain symbols and graphics with at least the same information as the instructions for use in paper form. Video or audio files may be offered in addition to the text.\nArticle 7\n1. Where manufacturers provide the instructions for use in electronic form on an electronic storage medium together with the device or where the device itself is fitted with a built-in system visually displaying the instructions for use, the instructions for use in electronic form shall also be made accessible to the users through a website.\n2. Any website containing instructions for use of a device which are provided in electronic form instead of in paper form shall comply with the following requirements:\n(a)\nthe instructions for use shall be provided in a commonly used format that can be read with freely available software;\n(b)\nit shall be protected against hardware and software intrusion;\n(c)\nit shall be provided in such a way that the server downtime and display errors are reduced as far as possible;\n(d)\nit shall mention in which Union languages the manufacturer provides the instructions for use in electronic form;\n(e)\nit shall fulfil the requirements of Directive 95/46/EC;\n(f)\nthe Internet address as displayed in accordance with Article 6(2) shall be stable and directly accessible during the periods set out in points (9) and (10) of Article 5;\n(g)\nall previous versions of the instructions for use issued in electronic form and their date of publication shall be available on the website.\nArticle 8\nExcept for medical devices of Class I, as defined in Annex IX to Directive 93/42/EEC, the fulfilment of the obligations laid down in Articles 4 to 7 of this Regulation shall be reviewed by a notified body during the procedure applicable for conformity assessment as referred to in Article 9 of Directive 90/385/EEC or Article 11 of Directive 93/42/EEC. The review shall be based on a specific sampling method adapted to the class and the complexity of the product.\nArticle 9\nInstructions for use in electronic form which are provided in addition to complete instructions for use in paper form shall be consistent with the content of the instructions for use in paper form.\nWhere such instructions for use are provided through a website, this website shall fulfil the requirements set out in points (b), (e) and (g) of paragraph 2 of Article 7.\nArticle 10\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 March 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2012.", "references": ["97", "47", "98", "93", "40", "43", "2", "55", "85", "56", "59", "60", "53", "68", "90", "30", "18", "81", "61", "13", "64", "37", "58", "74", "28", "1", "35", "11", "15", "70", "No Label", "24", "38", "39"], "gold": ["24", "38", "39"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1019/2011\nof 12 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 October 2011.", "references": ["45", "40", "98", "51", "52", "24", "48", "64", "20", "35", "49", "4", "34", "89", "39", "80", "10", "2", "57", "68", "74", "72", "70", "27", "46", "66", "37", "25", "15", "47", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 759/2012\nof 20 August 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 739/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 August 2012.", "references": ["52", "90", "8", "47", "55", "16", "38", "3", "65", "92", "24", "31", "56", "95", "4", "26", "81", "11", "44", "30", "75", "87", "62", "14", "49", "91", "54", "39", "98", "46", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 21 December 2011\namending Annex I to Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU on emergency measures applicable to fenugreek seeds and certain seeds and beans imported from Egypt\n(notified under document C(2011) 9524)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/880/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1)(b)(i) and (iii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 178/2002 lays down the general principles governing food and feed in general, and food and feed safety in particular, at Union and national level. It provides for emergency measures to be taken by the Commission where it is evident that food or feed imported from a third country is likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment, and that such risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member State(s) concerned.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2) lays down general rules for food business operators on the hygiene of foodstuffs. Those rules include hygiene requirements to ensure that imported foods are of at least the same hygiene standards as food produced in the Union, or are of an equivalent standard.\n(3)\nCertain lots of fenugreek seeds imported from Egypt have been identified as the causative agent of an outbreak in the Union of Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli bacteria (STEC), serotype O104:H4. The origin of the outbreak was identified as fenugreek seeds from Egypt consumed as sprouts.\n(4)\nAccordingly, Commission Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU (3) introduced a ban on the release for free circulation in the Union of certain seeds and beans imported from Egypt that fall within the CN codes listed in the Annex thereto. That ban expires on 31 March 2012.\n(5)\nHowever, dried split leguminous vegetables, broken soya beans or broken oil seeds and oleaginous fruits are not used for sprouting purposes. Dried split leguminous vegetables, broken soya beans or broken oil seeds and broken oleaginous fruits imported from Egypt should no longer be considered as a food safety risk and should be reauthorised for import into the Union.\n(6)\nThe emergency measures laid down in Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU should therefore be amended on the basis on this new information.\n(7)\nThe Annex to Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["45", "56", "44", "92", "33", "89", "1", "8", "90", "9", "62", "72", "17", "54", "7", "35", "24", "4", "64", "77", "91", "6", "70", "63", "31", "75", "61", "49", "73", "32", "No Label", "21", "22", "38", "65", "68", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "38", "65", "68", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 88/2011\nof 2 February 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 452/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the production and development of statistics on education and lifelong learning, as regards statistics on education and training systems\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 452/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 concerning the production and development of statistics on education and lifelong learning (1), and in particular Article 6 (1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 452/2008 establishes a common framework for the systematic production of European statistics in the field of education and lifelong learning in three specified domains to be implemented by statistical actions.\n(2)\nIt is necessary to adopt measures to implement individual statistical actions for production of statistics on education and training systems as covered by Domain 1 in Regulation (EC) No 452/2008.\n(3)\nWhen producing and disseminating of European statistics on education and training systems, the national and European statistical authorities should take account of the principles set out in the European Statistics Code of Practice endorsed by the Commission Recommendation of 25 May 2005 on the independence, integrity and accountability of the national and Community statistical authorities (2).\n(4)\nImplementing measures for production of statistics on education and training systems should take account of the potential burden on educational institutions and individuals and of the latest agreement between the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Commission (Eurostat) on concepts, definitions, data processing, periodicity and deadlines for transmission of results. This includes the data transmission format on education systems as specified in the latest version of the detailed guidelines for the UNESCO/OECD/Eurostat data collection.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject-matter\nThis Regulation lays down rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 452/2008 as regards the collection, transmission and processing of statistical data in Domain 1 on education and training systems.\nArticle 2\nSubjects covered and their characteristics\nThe selection and specification of subjects to be covered by Domain 1 on education and training systems, as well as the detailed list of their characteristics and breakdowns, shall be as set out in Annex I.\nArticle 3\nReference periods and transmission of results\n1. Enrolments, entrants, personnel, foreign languages learned and class size data shall refer to the school/academic year as defined nationally (year t). Annual data on enrolments, entrants, personnel, foreign languages learned and class size data shall be transmitted to the Commission (Eurostat) annually by 30 September in year t+2. The first data transmission in September 2012 shall refer to the 2010-2011 school/academic year as defined nationally.\n2. Graduates/graduations shall refer to the school/academic year as defined nationally (year t) or to the calendar year (year t+1). Annual data on graduates/graduations shall be transmitted to the Commission (Eurostat) annually by 30 November in year t+2. The first data transmission in November 2012 shall refer to the 2010-2011 school/academic year as defined nationally or to the calendar year 2011.\n3. Education expenditure data shall refer to the financial year of the Member State as defined nationally (year t). Annual data on education expenditure shall be transmitted to the Commission (Eurostat) annually by 30 November in year t+2. The first data transmission in November 2012 shall refer to the 2010 financial year.\nArticle 4\nData quality requirements and quality reporting framework\n1. Data quality requirements and quality reporting framework on education and training systems shall be as set out in Annex II.\n2. Member States shall transmit to the Commission (Eurostat) a quality report in line with the requirements set out in Annex II every year. The first report shall refer to the 2012 data collection year. The quality report concerning the reference periods laid down in Article 3 shall be transmitted to the Commission by 31 January in year t+3. The first quality report regarding the 2012 data collection shall, exceptionally, be transmitted by 31 March in year t+3.\n3. Member States shall acquire the necessary data using a combination of different sources such as sample surveys, administrative data sources or other data sources.\n4. Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with information on the methods and the quality of the data from the sources used other than sample surveys and administrative data sources as referred to in paragraph 3.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 February 2011.", "references": ["47", "22", "0", "38", "9", "27", "32", "35", "65", "25", "11", "68", "56", "83", "29", "31", "18", "52", "71", "73", "14", "62", "51", "80", "67", "6", "8", "98", "44", "36", "No Label", "2", "19", "42", "49"], "gold": ["2", "19", "42", "49"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 644/2012\nof 16 July 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements, as regards Russia\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2004/68/EC of 26 April 2004 laying down animal health rules for the importation into and transit through the Community of certain live ungulate animals, amending Directives 90/426/EEC and 92/65/EEC and repealing Directive 72/462/EEC (1), and in particular the first and second subparagraphs of Article 3(1), the first subparagraph of Article 6(1), Article 7(e), Article 8(d), and Article 13(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2004/68/EC lays down the animal health requirements for the transit through the Union of live ungulates. It provides that specific provisions, including model veterinary certificates, may be laid down for the transit throught the Union of live ungulates from authorised third countries, provided that such animals transit the territory of the Union under customs and official veterinary approval and supervision through approved border inspection posts and without any stop on Union territory other than those necessary for animal welfare purposes.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 (2) lays down the veterinary certification requirements for the introduction into the Union of certain consignments of live animals, including ungulates. Annex I to that Regulation sets out a list of third countries, territories or parts thereof from which such consignments may be introduced into the Union, together with models of veterinary certificates to accompany those consignments.\n(3)\nOn request by Russia to authorise the transit of live bovine animals for breeding and production from the region of Kaliningrad (Kaliningradskaya oblast) through the territory of Lithuania, an inspection was carried out by the Commission in Kaliningrad. It concluded that the animal health situation in that region appears to be favourable. On that basis, the introduction into the Union of consignments of such animals for the sole purpose of transit from the region of Kaliningrad to other parts of the territory of Russia through the territory of Lithuania by means of road vehicles should be authorised.\n(4)\nIn addition, Lithuania can ensure the implementation of the measures provided for in Article 8(1) of Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (3) as regards those animals from the region of Kaliningrad that cannot complete the transit without unloading due to external circumstances.\n(5)\nRussia has also confirmed its agreement with Belarus under the customs union that includes both countries and which implies that the same standard veterinary-sanitary requirements on import apply in both countries.\n(6)\nTherefore, Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 should be amended to provide for the transit of live bovine animals for breeding and production from the region of Kaliningrad. The list of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the Union of certain animals set out in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 should be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nIt is also necessary to provide for a model veterinary certificate for the transit of those animals. Accordingly, a model veterinary certificate \"BOV-X-TRANSIT-RU\" should be inserted in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010.\n(8)\nRegulation (EU) No 206/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\"Article 12a\nDerogation for the transit of certain consignments of live bovine animals for breeding and production through Lithuania\n1. The transit by road through Lithuania of consignments of live bovine animals for breeding and production coming from the Russian region of Kaliningrad and consigned to a destination outside the Union shall be authorised subject to compliance with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe animals enter Lithuania at the border inspection post at Kybartai road and exit Lithuania at the border inspection post of Medininkai;\n(b)\nthe animals are transported in containers on road vehicles sealed with a serially numbered seal at the border inspection post of introduction into the Union at Kybartai road, by the veterinary services of the competent authority of Lithuania;\n(c)\nthe documents referred to in the third indent of Article 7 (1) of Council Directive 91/496/EEC, including the duly completed veterinary certificate in accordance with the model veterinary certificate \"BOV-X-TRANSIT-RU\" set out in Part 2 of Annex I to this Regulation, accompanying the animals from the border inspection post Kybartai road to the border inspection post Medininkai are stamped \u201cONLY FOR TRANSIT FROM THE RUSSIAN REGION OF KALININGRAD VIA LITHUANIA\" on each page by the official veterinarian of the competent authority responsible for the border inspection post at Kybartai road;\n(d)\nthe requirements provided for in Article 9 of Council Directive 91/496/EEC are complied with;\n(e)\nthe consignment is certified as acceptable for transit through Lithuania on the common veterinary entry document referred to in Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2004 (4) and signed by the official veterinarian of the border inspection post at Kybartai road;\n(f)\nthe animals are accompanied by a health certificate that allows unhindered entry into Belarus and a veterinary certificate issued for the place of destination of the animals in Russia.\n2. The consignment shall not be unloaded in the Union and shall be moved directly to the border inspection post of exit of Medininkai.\nThe official veterinarian at the border inspection post of Medininkai shall complete part 3 of the Common Veterinary Entry Document after the exit controls on the consignment have verified that it is the same consignment that entered Lithuania at the border inspection post at \u2027Kybartai road\u2027.\n3. In case of any irregularity or emergency during the transit, the Member State of transit shall apply the measures provided for in the second indent of Article 8(1) (b) of Directive 90/425/EEC (5) as appropriate.\n4. The competent authority of Lithuania shall verify regularly that the number of consignments entering and leaving the Union territory matches.\n(2)\nAnnex I is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["10", "12", "17", "98", "39", "88", "53", "67", "73", "15", "57", "95", "76", "29", "6", "66", "23", "45", "32", "93", "48", "82", "8", "71", "14", "62", "41", "9", "19", "86", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "65", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "65", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2013/60/EU\nof 27 November 2013\namending for the purposes of adapting to technical progress, Directive 97/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, Directive 2002/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles and Directive 2009/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on two- or three-wheel motor vehicles\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 97/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles (1) and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2002/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles (2) and in particular Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on two or three-wheel motor vehicles (3) and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union is a contracting party 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 used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions (\u2018Revised 1958 Agreement\u2019) (4). In order to simplify the type-approval legislation of the Union in line with the recommendations of the final report entitled \u2018CARS 21: A Competitive Automotive Regulatory System for the 21st century\u2019, it is appropriate to amend EU Directives by the incorporation into Union law and application of additional UNECE Regulations in current type-approval legislation of L-category vehicles without reducing the level of protection. To reduce the administrative burden associated with the type-approval procedures, vehicle manufacturers should be allowed to seek type-approval in accordance with the relevant UNECE regulations referred to in Article 1 of this Directive.\n(2)\nIn the transitional period until the date on which UNECE Regulation No 41 on noise emissions of motorcycles (5) is made obligatory in Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles (6), it is appropriate that, for new vehicle types, the sound requirements for motorcycles set out in Chapter 9 of Directive 97/24/EC and in the fourth series of amendments to UNECE Regulation No 41, including the associated sound limits set-out in Annex 6 to that UN Regulation, be regarded as equivalent.\n(3)\nIn view of the disproportionately high level of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions produced by vehicle categories L1e, L2e and L6e (two- and three-wheel mopeds, and light quadricycles) it is appropriate to revise environmental test type I (tailpipe emissions after cold start) by including emission measurements starting directly after cold start in order better to reflect real-world use and the significant proportion of pollutant emissions produced directly after cold start while the engine warms up. The changes in the emission laboratory test procedure should be reflected in the administrative provisions, in particular in the changes as regards to the entries on the Certificate of Conformity (CoC) and of the measurement test results sheet in Directive 2002/24/EC.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure a level playing field for all manufacturers and for the sake of equal environmental performance of L1e, L2e and L6e category vehicles in terms of crankcase gas emissions it is also appropriate to request the vehicle manufacturer, when applying for a new type approval, to state explicitly that zero emissions stem from the crankcase gas ventilation system for these vehicle categories, implying that the crankcase is properly sealed and that the crankcase gasses are not being discharged directly into the ambient atmosphere throughout the vehicle\u2019s useful life.\n(5)\nIn order to be coherent with UNECE lighting and light-signalling installation requirements for L-category vehicles and to improve their visibility, new types of such vehicles should be equipped with lights that switch on automatically in compliance with UNECE Regulations No 74 (L1e vehicles) (7) and No 53 (L3e motorcycles) (8) or with dedicated day-time running lights (DRL) complying with the relevant requirements of UNECE Regulation No 87 (9). For all other subcategories of L-category vehicles, an automatic switching on of lighting shall be installed or at the choice of the manufacturer, dedicated day-time running lights that automatically switch on.\n(6)\nThis Directive should explicitly introduce the Euro level for category L1e, L2e and L6e vehicles falling in the scope of Directive 2002/24/EC. Certificates of Conformity for vehicles with an emission approval in accordance with previous provisions should continue to be allowed to indicate the Euro level on a voluntary basis.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee for Adaptation to Technical Progress.\n(8)\nIn order to enable the adoption by Member States of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive within the deadline established therein, it should enter into force on the day following that of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nDirective 97/24/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 4(1) of Directive 97/24/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. In accordance with the provisions of Article 11 of Directive 2002/24/EC, the equivalence shall be recognised of the requirements of Chapter 1 (tyres), Chapter 2 (lighting and light-signalling devices), Chapter 4 (rear-view mirrors), Annex III to Chapter 9 (permissible sound level and exhaust system requirements for motorcycles) and Chapter 11 (safety belts) annexed to this Directive and those of UNECE Regulations Nos 30 (10), 54 (11), 64 (12) and 75 (13) in respect of tyres, 3 (14), 19 (15), 20 (16), 37 (17), 38 (18), 50 (19), 53 (20), 56 (21), 57 (22), 72 (23), 74 (24) and 82 (25) in respect of lighting and light-signalling devices, 81 (26) in respect of rear-view mirrors, 16 (27) in respect of safety belts and 41 (28) in respect of noise emissions from motorcycles.\n(10) E/ECE/TRANS/505/REV 1/ADD 29.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(11) E/ECE/TRANS/505/REV 1/ADD 53.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(12) E/ECE/TRANS/505/REV 1/ADD 63.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(13) E/ECE/TRANS/505/REV 1/ADD 74.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(14) E/ECE/TRANS/324/ADD 2.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(15) E/ECE/TRANS/324/REV 1/ADD 18.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(16) E/ECE/TRANS/324/REV 1/ADD 19.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(17) E/ECE/TRANS/505/REV 1/ADD 36.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(18) E/ECE/TRANS/324/REV 1/ADD 37.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(19) E/ECE/TRANS/505/REV 1/ADD 49.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(20) E/ECE/TRANS/505/REV 1/ADD52/Rev.2.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(21) E/ECE/TRANS/505/REV 1/ADD 55.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(22) E/ECE/TRANS/505/REV 1/ADD 56.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(23) E/ECE/TRANS/505/REV 1/ADD 71.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(24) E/ECE/TRANS/505/REV 1/ADD73/Rev.2/Amend.1.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(25) E/ECE/TRANS/505/REV 1/ADD 81.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(26) E/ECE/TRANS/505/REV 1/ADD 80.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(27) E/ECE/TRANS/505/REV 1/ADD 15.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(28) E/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.1/Add.40/Rev.2.\u2019;\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\n(2)\nAnnexes I, II and IV to Chapter 5 of Directive 97/24/EC are amended in accordance with Annex I to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nAnnexes IV and VII to Directive 2002/24/EC are amended in accordance with Annex II to this Directive.\nArticle 3\nAnnexes I to VI to Directive 2009/67/EC are amended in accordance with Annex III to this Directive.\nArticle 4\n1. With effect from 1 July 2014 Member States shall refuse, on grounds relating to measures to counter air pollution and functional safety, to grant for any EC type-approval for new types of a two or three-wheel motor vehicle which does not comply with Directives 2002/24/EC and 97/24/EC as amended by this Directive.\n2. With effect from 1 July 2014, Certificates of Conformity shall be issued for vehicles complying with the provisions of Directive 97/24/EC as amended by point 1 of Annex II to this Directive.\nArticle 5\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 June 2014 at the latest. They shall communicate to the Commission the relevant text of those provisions forthwith.\nWhen Member States adopt such measures, these shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on their official publication. Member States shall determine how such a reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 7\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 November 2013.", "references": ["46", "6", "10", "42", "24", "48", "87", "50", "66", "91", "15", "63", "20", "94", "59", "28", "12", "32", "62", "86", "17", "18", "14", "33", "49", "23", "85", "13", "96", "95", "No Label", "25", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["25", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1022/2011\nof 14 October 2011\nconcerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance cyclanilide in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 20 and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe active substance cyclanilide was included in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2) for a period expiring on 31 October 2011.\n(2)\nTo enable applicants to prepare their applications and to enable the Commission to evaluate and decide upon such applications, that inclusion was extended until 31 December 2015 by Commission Directive 2010/77/EU of 10 November 2010 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the expiry dates for inclusion in Annex I of certain active substances (3).\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 78(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 that substance was included in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (4) and is to be deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(4)\nThe Commission did not, however, receive any applications for the active substance concerned and the time period for the submission of such applications, as provided for in Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1141/2010 of 7 December 2010 laying down the procedure for the renewal of the inclusion of a second group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and establishing the list of those substances (5), has expired.\n(5)\nConsequently, the approval of that active substance should not be renewed and it should be removed from Part A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as from the date on which its approval would have expired had it not been extended by Directive 2010/77/EU.\n(6)\nMember States should be allowed the period necessary to withdraw authorisations granted for plant protection products containing cyclanilide.\n(7)\nThis Regulation does not prejudice the submission of an application for this substance pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nNon-renewal of approval\nThe approval of the active substance cyclanilide is not renewed.\nArticle 2\nTransitional measures\nMember States shall ensure that authorisations for plant protection products containing cyclanilide are withdrawn by 30 April 2012.\nArticle 3\nGrace periods\nAny grace period granted by a Member State for plant protection products containing cyclanilide shall expire on 31 October 2012 at the latest for the sale and distribution and on 31 October 2013 at the latest for the disposal, storage, and use of existing stocks.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nPart A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2011.", "references": ["38", "43", "63", "28", "70", "69", "23", "30", "13", "72", "24", "85", "76", "77", "17", "83", "80", "55", "45", "66", "39", "2", "60", "95", "57", "19", "86", "89", "49", "18", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 783/2011\nof 5 August 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 724/2010 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of real-time closures of certain fisheries in the North Sea and Skagerrak\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Article 51(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 724/2010 (2) provides for a catch trigger level of 15 % by weight of juveniles of cod, haddock, saithe and whiting or, if the quantity of cod in the sample exceeds 75 % as compared to the four species in a haul, for a catch trigger level of 10 % by weight of juveniles of those species.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 724/2010 a sample is to be taken when it is estimated that at least 300 kg of cod, haddock, saithe and whiting are present in one haul.\n(3)\nAs stated at the Fisheries Consultations for 2011 held on 4 December 2010 between the Union and Norway, it is appropriate for the Union to amend the main parameters of the real-time closure system in the North Sea and Skagerrak, i.e. the catch trigger level and the minimum estimated quantity of fish concerned in one haul, in order to render that system more effective.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 724/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture has delivered no opinion on the measures provided for in this Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 724/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nCatch trigger level\n1. The catch level which shall trigger real-time closures of fisheries, as referred to in Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, shall be 10 % by weight of juveniles as compared to the total of the four species referred to in Article 2, in a haul.\n2. However, if the quantity of cod in the sample exceeds 75 % as compared to the total of the four species in a haul, the catch trigger level shall be 7,5 % by weight of juveniles as compared to the total of the four species in a haul.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Annex I, point 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183.\nA sample shall be taken when it is estimated that at least 200 kg of any combination of cod, haddock, saithe or whiting are present in one haul.\n(a)\nThe minimum size of the sample shall be 200 kg of any combination of cod, haddock, saithe or whiting.\n(b)\nThe sample must be taken in such a way that it reflects the catch composition with respect to the four species.\n(c)\nWhen appropriate due to the size of the catch the sample shall be taken in the beginning, the middle and the end of the catch.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2011.", "references": ["68", "21", "70", "84", "86", "85", "29", "47", "32", "77", "42", "5", "80", "76", "7", "26", "58", "48", "63", "2", "12", "11", "54", "30", "60", "78", "98", "13", "20", "99", "No Label", "44", "59", "67"], "gold": ["44", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 311/2011\nof 31 March 2011\nreplacing Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 673/2005 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 673/2005 of 25 April 2005 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAs a result of the United States\u2019 failure to bring the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) in compliance with its obligations under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements, Regulation (EC) No 673/2005 imposed a 15 % ad valorem additional customs duty on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America as from 1 May 2005. In conformity with the WTO authorisation to suspend the application of concessions to the United States, the Commission shall adjust the level of suspension annually to the level of nullification or impairment caused by the CDSOA to the Community at that time.\n(2)\nThe CDSOA disbursements for the most recent year for which data are available relate to the distribution of anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected during the Fiscal Year 2010 (1 October 2009-30 September 2010). On the basis of the data published by the United States\u2019 Customs and Border Protection, the level of nullification or impairment caused to the European Union is calculated at USD 9,96 million.\n(3)\nSince the level of nullification or impairment and consequently of suspension has decreased, the 19 products of Annex II which were added in 2010 to the list in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 673/2005 should be removed first from the list in Annex I to that Regulation. Eleven products of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 673/2005 should then be withdrawn from Annex I to that Regulation following the order of that list.\n(4)\nThe effect of a 15 % ad valorem additional customs duty on imports from the United States of the products in the amended Annex I represents, over 1 year, a value of trade that does not exceed USD 9,96 million.\n(5)\nTo make sure that there are no delays in the customs clearance of goods removed from the scope of the 15 % ad valorem additional customs duty, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on trade retaliation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 673/2005 is replaced by the text of the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["40", "69", "51", "81", "99", "27", "53", "13", "74", "54", "67", "12", "72", "28", "4", "80", "38", "91", "85", "44", "90", "17", "95", "34", "57", "33", "62", "78", "61", "11", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "23", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "23", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 4 November 2010\nexcluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)\n(notified under document C(2010) 7555)\n(Only the Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2010/668/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving consulted the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 and Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the Commission is to carry out the necessary verifications, communicate to the Member States the results of these verifications, take note of the comments of the Member States, initiate a bilateral discussion so that an agreement may be reached with the Member States in question, and formally communicate its conclusions to them.\n(2)\nThe Member States have had an opportunity to request the launch of a conciliation procedure. That opportunity has been used in some cases and the reports issued on the outcome have been examined by the Commission.\n(3)\nUnder Regulations (EC) No 1258/1999 and (EC) No 1290/2005, only agricultural expenditure which has been incurred in a way that has not infringed European Union rules may be financed.\n(4)\nIn the light of the verifications carried out, the outcome of the bilateral discussions and the conciliation procedures, part of the expenditure declared by the Member States does not fulfil this requirement and cannot, therefore, be financed under the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the EAGF and the EAFRD.\n(5)\nThe amounts that are not recognised as being chargeable to the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the EAGF and the EAFRD should be indicated. Those amounts do not relate to expenditure incurred more than 24 months before the Commission\u2019s written notification of the results of the verifications to the Member States.\n(6)\nAs regards the cases covered by this decision, the assessment of the amounts to be excluded on grounds of non-compliance with European Union rules was notified by the Commission to the Member States in a summary report on the subject.\n(7)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to any financial conclusions that the Commission may draw from the judgments of the Court of Justice in cases pending on 31 August 2010 and relating to its content,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe expenditure itemised in the Annex hereto that has been incurred by the Member States\u2019 accredited paying agencies and declared under the EAGGF Guarantee Section, under the EAGF or under the EAFRD, shall be excluded from European Union financing because it does not comply with European Union rules.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 4 November 2010.", "references": ["73", "49", "21", "1", "12", "20", "46", "44", "47", "66", "51", "70", "3", "19", "15", "95", "88", "94", "11", "9", "85", "64", "13", "39", "96", "81", "77", "2", "48", "76", "No Label", "10", "61"], "gold": ["10", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 876/2011\nof 1 September 2011\namending for the 157th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a), 7a(1) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 19 August 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one natural person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. On 22 August 2011 it decided to add one natural person to the same list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 September 2011.", "references": ["87", "27", "46", "65", "42", "14", "40", "18", "16", "37", "70", "64", "55", "19", "60", "94", "23", "39", "96", "99", "12", "84", "63", "44", "15", "2", "4", "43", "31", "61", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1268/2011\nof 6 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 December 2011.", "references": ["13", "97", "80", "9", "89", "53", "95", "85", "36", "29", "4", "77", "73", "90", "26", "49", "6", "56", "51", "34", "82", "38", "18", "20", "33", "99", "23", "1", "86", "19", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2012/256/CFSP\nof 14 May 2012\nimplementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision 2011/782/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 21(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\n(3)\nIn addition, the information relating to three persons listed in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP should be updated, and the listing for one person should be removed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in Annex I to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nAnnex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP shall be amended as set out in Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 14 May 2012.", "references": ["81", "83", "34", "4", "2", "13", "76", "29", "58", "39", "1", "41", "63", "73", "23", "79", "45", "28", "61", "59", "57", "48", "89", "27", "10", "9", "33", "19", "36", "32", "No Label", "3", "12", "95"], "gold": ["3", "12", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 871/2011\nof 26 August 2011\nterminating the expiry and partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures concerning imports of certain castings originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and repealing those measures\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation) and in particular Articles 9 and 11(2), (3), (5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Measures in force\n(1)\nFollowing an anti-dumping investigation carried out pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1212/2005 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain castings originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China. That Regulation was last amended by Regulation (EC) No 500/2009 (3).\n(2)\nIndividual duty rates ranged from 0 % to 37,9 % depending on the manufacturer of the product concerned, and the residual duty level was set at 47,8 %.\n1.2. Requests for reviews\n(3)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain castings originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (4), the Commission received on 25 March 2010 a request for review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation and on 29 April 2010 another request for review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(4)\nThe request pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation was lodged by the Eurofonte, acting on behalf of seven of its members, and by Fundiciones de Odena (the applicants) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 % of the Union production of certain castings.\n(5)\nThe request contained prima facie evidence showing that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.\n(6)\nThe request pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation was lodged by Shandong Lulong Group Co. Ltd, an exporting producer from the People\u2019s Republic of China. The request was limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far Shandong Lulong Group Co. Ltd was concerned.\n1.3. Initiations\n(7)\nAccordingly, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, the Commission published a notice of initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (5) of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain castings currently falling within CN codes 7325 10 50, 7325 10 92, ex 7325 10 99 (TARIC code 7325109910), and ex 7325 99 10 (TARIC code 7325991010), originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n(8)\nThe Commission officially advised the exporting producers, importers concerned, the representatives of the People\u2019s Republic of China, the representative users and the Union producers of the initiation of the expiry review investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time-limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(9)\nThe Commission also published in the Official Journal of the European Union (6) a notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures referred to under recital (7), limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far as Shandong Lulong Group Co. Ltd was concerned.\n2. WITHDRAWAL OF THE REQUEST FOR EXPIRY REVIEW\n(10)\nBy a letter addressed to the Commission, dated 9 June 2011, the applicants formally withdrew their request. In their letter the applicants argued that, in view of the volatility of the relevant economic parameters, future injurious dumping could not be excluded. Under those circumstances they consider that a surge of Chinese imports could cast the viability of the Union industry into doubt and, on this basis, the applicants consider that the Commission should actively monitor imports of the product concerned and be ready to open a new proceeding at short notice.\n(11)\nThe Commission acknowledges that the castings market has been subject to significant changes in the last year, in particular due to the recent economic crisis which has had a significant impact on the construction industry and resulted in cuts in public spending for infrastructure projects. This has caused a general decline in demand, including for imports of certain castings. Since it is not clear how the market will develop in the short-to-medium term, the reappearance of injurious dumping can not be entirely excluded. It is therefore considered appropriate to monitor imports of the product concerned originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China. The monitoring period should not exceed 24 months from the publication of the termination of the present proceeding. Furthermore, the Commission does not rule out the opening of a new investigation concerning the same product if and when evidence is provided that points to injurious dumping, in line with the requirements of the basic Regulation.\n(12)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1) and Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, a proceeding may be terminated where the request for review is withdrawn unless such a termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(13)\nIt was considered that the present proceeding should be terminated since the investigation had not brought to light any consideration showing that its termination would not be in the Union interest. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to submit comments. However, no such comments were received as would give reason to reach a different conclusion.\n(14)\nIt was therefore concluded that the anti-dumping expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain castings originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China should be terminated and the existing measures should be repealed.\n(15)\nAs a consequence it was further concluded that the partial interim review limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far as Shandong Lulong Group Co. Ltd was concerned should also be terminated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe expiry and partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures concerning imports of castings of non-malleable cast iron and spheroidal graphite cast iron (ductile iron) of a kind used to cover and/or to give access to ground or sub-surface systems, and parts thereof, whether or not machined, coated or painted or fitted with other materials, excluding fire hydrants, currently falling within CN codes 7325 10 50, 7325 10 92, ex 7325 10 99 (TARIC code 7325109910) and ex 7325 99 10 (TARIC code 7325991010), and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, are hereby terminated and those measures repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 August 2011.", "references": ["29", "76", "86", "51", "19", "5", "65", "59", "31", "7", "17", "41", "12", "78", "46", "80", "50", "27", "93", "44", "33", "45", "38", "94", "90", "77", "67", "35", "89", "53", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "85", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "85", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1069/2010\nof 19 November 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1050/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 November 2010.", "references": ["64", "96", "52", "9", "21", "61", "8", "15", "25", "2", "12", "49", "56", "91", "38", "6", "67", "11", "42", "78", "66", "63", "34", "79", "37", "7", "48", "36", "20", "55", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 452/2011\nof 6 May 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-subsidy duty on imports of coated fine paper originating in the People's Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. INITIATION\n(1)\nOn 17 April 2010, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (\u2018Notice of initiation\u2019), on the initiation of anti-subsidy proceedings with regard to imports into the Union of coated fine paper originating in the People's Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019 or the \u2018country concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe anti-subsidy proceedings were initiated following a complaint lodged on 4 March 2010 by CEPIFINE, the European association of fine paper manufacturers, (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of coated fine paper. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of subsidisation of coated fine paper and of material injury resulting that subsidisation, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of proceedings.\n(3)\nPrior to the initiation of the proceedings and in accordance with Article 10(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission notified the Government of the PRC (\u2018the GOC\u2019) that it had received a properly documented complaint alleging that subsidised imports of coated fine paper originating in the PRC were causing material injury to the Union industry. The GOC was invited for consultations with the aim of clarifying the situation as regards the contents of the complaint and arriving at a mutually agreed solution. The GOC accepted the offer of consultations and consultations were subsequently held. During the consultations, no mutually agreed solution could be arrived at. However, due note was taken of comments made by the authorities of the GOC as regards the allegations contained in the complaint concerning the lack of countervailability of the schemes. Following the consultations, submissions were received from the GOC.\n1.2. ANTI-DUMPING PROCEEDING\n(4)\nOn 18 February 2010, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), on the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of coated fine paper originating in the PRC.\n(5)\nOn 17 November 2010, by Regulation (EU) No 1042/10 (4), the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of coated fine paper originating in the PRC.\n(6)\nThe injury analyses performed in the present anti-subsidy and the parallel anti-dumping investigation are identical, since the definition of the Union industry, the representative Union producers and the investigation period are the same in both investigations. For this reason, comments on injury aspects put forward in both these proceedings were taken into account in both proceedings.\n1.3. PARTIES CONCERNED BY THE PROCEEDING\n(7)\nThe Commission officially notified the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers in the PRC and an association of producers (a paper association), the representatives of the country concerned, known importers and known users of the initiation of the proceedings. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the Notice of initiation.\n(8)\nIn view of the apparent high number of exporting producers, Union producers and unrelated importers, sampling was envisaged in the Notice of initiation in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and if so, to select samples, all exporting producers and their known paper association, all Union producers and unrelated importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the Notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned (as defined in section 2.1 below) during the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009. The authorities of the PRC were also consulted.\n(9)\nAs explained in recital (51) below, two Chinese exporting producer groups provided the requested information and agreed to be included in a sample. On the basis of the above it was decided that sampling was not necessary for exporting producers in the PRC.\n(10)\nAs explained in recital (53) below, it was decided that sampling was not necessary for Union producers.\n(11)\nAs explained in recital (54) below, it was decided that sampling was not necessary for unrelated importers.\n(12)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to all other parties that so requested within the deadlines set out in the Notice of initiation, namely the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers in the PRC and an association of producers, the representatives of the country concerned, known importers and known users.\n(13)\nReplies to the questionnaires and other submissions were received from two groups of Chinese exporting producers, CEPIFINE, the four complainant Union producers and one additional Union producer, 13 unrelated importers and traders, 5 users and one association of the printing industry.\n(14)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary for the determination of subsidisation, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following State authority and companies:\n(a)\nGovernment of the People Republic of China\n-\nChinese Ministry of Commerce, Beijing, China\n(b)\nUnion producers and association\n-\nCEPIFINE, Brussels, Belgium\n-\nSappi Fine Paper Europe, Brussels, Belgium\n-\nLECTA Group (CARTIERE DEL GARDA SpA, Riva del Garda, Italy CONDAT SAS, Le Plessis Robinson, France and TORRASPAPEL, S.A., Barcelona, Spain), Barcelona, Spain\n-\nBurgo Group spa, Altavilla Vicentina, Italy and its related companies Burgo Distribuzione srl, Milan, Italy and Ebix sa, Barcelona, Spain\n-\nPapierfabriek Scheufelen GmbH, Lenningen, Germany\n(c)\nExporting producers in the PRC\n(1)\nSinar Mas Paper (China) Investment Co Ltd, the holding company of the Asia Pulp & Paper Group (\u2018APP\u2019)\n-\nGold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province, PRC\n-\nGold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, PRC\n-\nNingbo Zhonghua Paper Co., Ltd, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, PRC\n-\nNingbo Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province PRC\n(2)\nChenming Paper Group (\u2018Chenming\u2019)\n-\nShangdong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC\n-\nShouguang Chenming Art Paper Co., Ltd, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC\n(d)\nImporters in the Union\n-\nCartaria Subalpina, Turin, Italy\n-\nPaperlinx, Northampton, UK\n1.4. INVESTIGATION PERIOD AND PERIOD CONSIDERED\n(15)\nThe investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (the \u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (\u2018the period considered\u2019).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. PRODUCT CONCERNED\n(16)\nThe product concerned is coated fine paper which is paper or paperboard coated on one or both sides (excluding kraft paper or kraft paperboard), in either sheets or rolls, and with a weight of 70 g/m2 or more but not exceeding 400 g/m2 and brightness of more than 84 (measured according to ISO 2470-1), originating in the PRC (\u2018the product concerned\u2019 or \u2018CFP\u2019) currently falling within CN codes ex 4810 13 20, ex 4810 13 80, ex 4810 14 20, ex 4810 14 80, ex 4810 19 10, ex 4810 19 90, ex 4810 22 10, ex 4810 22 90, ex 4810 29 30, ex 4810 29 80, ex 4810 99 10, ex 4810 99 30 and ex 4810 99 90.\n(17)\nCFP is high quality paper and paperboard generally used for the printing of reading material such as magazines, catalogues, annual reports, yearbooks. The product concerned includes both sheets and rolls suitable for use in sheet-fed (\u2018cut star\u2019) printing machines. Rolls suitable for use in sheet-fed presses (\u2018cutter rolls\u2019) are designed to be cut into pieces before printing, and are thus considered to be substitutable and directly competitive with sheets.\n(18)\nThe product concerned does not include rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses. Rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses are defined as those rolls which, if tested according to the ISO test standard ISO 3783:2006 concerning the determination of resistance to picking - accelerated speed method using the IGT tester (electric model), give a result of less than 30 N/m when measuring in the cross-direction of the paper (CD) and a result of less than 50 N/m when measuring in the machine direction (MD). Also, in contrast to rolls used in sheet-fed printing machines, rolls for use in web-fed presses are normally directly fed into the printing machines and are not cut beforehand.\n(19)\nOne party claimed that the product scope of the investigation was too narrowly defined and that rolls of CFP suitable for web-fed printing should have been included. It was claimed that web-fed rolls and the ones included in the scope of the present investigation (cutter rolls and sheets) shared the same basic technical and physical characteristics and were not distinguishable from one another. Furthermore it was claimed that both were used for high quality printing and that they were therefore to some extent interchangeable.\n(20)\nHowever, contrary to the above claim, the investigation confirmed that there are indeed distinct technical and physical characteristics such as humidity and stiffness between paper used in web-fed and the one used in sheet-fed printing. The investigation further confirmed that the technical characteristics listed in recital (18) above are unique to rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses. Due to these differences paper used in web-fed or the one used in sheet-fed printing cannot be used in the same type of printing machine and they are therefore not interchangeable. It is noted that all parties agreed that the two types of paper are distinct as regards their surface strength and tensile strength.\n(21)\nFurthermore, the party in question claimed that customers view CFP in the form of sheets, cutter rolls and web rolls as a single market and thus distribution channels are the same. The different technical characteristics are only reflected in minor price differences among these product groups.\n(22)\nHowever, the investigation revealed that the two types of rolls are also non-interchangeable from an economic point of view because rolls for web-fed printing are used for mass-volume printing jobs and are generally made to order and require just-in-time delivery, therefore these products are not stocked by intermediaries but are shipped directly to the final users, i.e. they are also sold through a different distribution channel than rolls used in sheet-fed printing. The different production process and the different economies of scale in the printing process are reflected in distinct price differences.\n(23)\nFurthermore, no rolls for use in web-fed presses were imported from the PRC during the period considered. It may also be considered unlikely that these products would be imported in the future as sourcing these products from far away is economically not viable for the reasons mentioned in the previous recital.\n(24)\nOn this basis, these claims were rejected.\n(25)\nThe same party claimed that the resistance to picking was not a suitable technical characteristic for differentiating between products as this test would be of a general nature and test results may moreover be affected by the moisture content of the paper tested. The party further claimed that on the basis of some other tests conducted in its own laboratory measuring the resistance to picking of web rolls produced by the Union producers, it can be seen that these products would not fall into the current product definition which would show that the criterion of \u2018resistance to picking\u2019 for distinguishing CFP used in web-fed and sheet-fed printing is unsuitable. With this evidence the party alleged that the exclusion of web rolls was made on an arbitrary basis.\n(26)\nNo evidence was submitted with regard to the claim that the moisture content of the paper may render test results for ISO test standard ISO 3783:2006 unreliable.\n(27)\nThe test results presented by the exporting producer consisted of a summary of the test results performed in its own laboratory. Crucially, the results were not made available for inspection and comments by other interested parties, in particular the Union industry, nor did the exporting producer submit a meaningful non-confidential summary thereof despite repeated reminders.\n(28)\nAfter disclosure, no further detailed information was provided by the exporting producer which could help assess the reliability of the test. Since no non-confidential version of this test was provided, the companies whose web rolls were allegedly tested could not respond to the conclusions of the test. The Commission thus could not objectively check whether the test results submitted were reliable and correct and could be relied upon for the purposes of the investigation. On the basis of the facts available to the Commission, the objectivity and reliability of the test was found to be insufficient since the information submitted under confidentiality could not be counterchecked by any reliable sources.\n(29)\nAfter the disclosure of the findings, the same exporting producer presented the results of a further test conducted on its behalf by an external test laboratory and reiterated that CFP used in web-fed printing has been arbitrarily excluded from the scope of the investigation. The test reports stated that the resistance to picking has been measured on 25 samples of web-fed rolls provided and identified by the exporting producer to the laboratory as paper samples produced by Union producers. According to this report, none of the paper met both the criteria referred to in recital (18) above.\n(30)\nThe assessment of the test report brought to light that, first of all, the test report by the external laboratory related mostly to products for which these results were irrelevant as the vast majority of the samples tested were not in fact web rolls; secondly, the test report related to products which were not sufficiently identified, as it could not be ascertained from the test report whether the paper tested was for sheet-fed printing or web-fed printing as the paper brand described in the report existed in both formats. Furthermore the test report provided no assurance that the sample rolls indicated were indeed the ones that were tested.\n(31)\nIn response to the external laboratory's test report, the complainant provided the results of the testing performed by one of the Union producers on the same samples of web rolls that were allegedly tested by the external laboratory. This test showed different results. The complainant attributed the differences to possibly different test conditions and thus a potential non-compliance with the ISO 3783:2006 standard, i.e. the standard according to which resistance to picking set in recital (16) of the provisional Regulation should be measured.\n(32)\nAfter disclosing the definitive findings, the exporting producer questioned the Commission's objectivity in rejecting the test result of the external laboratory. It claimed that the testing was carried out blindly by the independent expert and in accordance with the relevant ISO standard. It provided an affidavit of its manager explaining the sourcing process of the samples used in the testing in order to prove the independence, correctness and representativeness of the testing.\n(33)\nFirstly, the objectivity of the external laboratory test report was never questioned by the Commission and in this regard it is irrelevant that the testing was carried out blindly. On the other hand, doubts were raised as to the assurances on the selection and origin of the samples tested and not on the test itself. The arguments of the exporting producer did not remove these doubts as these were not comprehensive and were unclear in several aspects, for example the inclusion of products other than web rolls were claimed to have been caused by administrative errors or were blamed on mistakes by the suppliers in providing possibly wrong samples.\n(34)\nSince both the source as well as the samples of the allegedly tested products were not clear and the results of the testing by the different parties were contradictory, it was considered that the submitted test report of the external laboratory acting on behalf of the Chinese exporting producer did not demonstrate conclusively that the resistance to picking test was not appropriate to distinguish between CFP suitable for use in web-fed printing on the one hand and CFP used in sheet-fed printing on the other hand. Consequently, the test report did not demonstrate that CFP used in web-fed printing had been arbitrarily excluded from the scope of the investigation.\n(35)\nAs regards the relevance of the resistance to picking as a distinguishing criterion for rolls suitable for web-fed printing, it is recalled that in the product definition the two product groups are distinguished from each other based on, among other things, the use of the products, i.e. whether the product is suitable for use in web-fed or sheet-fed printing as determined by the requirements of the presses on which they are used which is reflected in, inter alia, the characteristic of resistance to picking. Furthermore it is noted that resistance to picking is only one of the characteristics that distinguish CFP suitable for use in web-fed printing from CFP used in sheet fed printing; recitals (18) and (20) above set out additional criteria which have not been contested by the exporting producer concerned. One party claimed that humidity as defined in recital (20) was not a distinct basic characteristic to distinguish products. During the investigation however differing claims in this regard were made by other parties. In any event, it was found that stiffness and resistance to picking are the most relevant factors.\n(36)\nIn its responding submission, the complainant acknowledged that there might be rolls that do not fully meet all the criteria for resistance to picking referred to in recital (18) above, but which could still be used in web-fed printing. However, it maintained its view that resistance to picking is the only test that is able to identify with certainty that a roll is indeed suitable for web-fed printing, i.e. if a roll meets the criteria for resistance to picking referred to in recital (18) above, it is certainly a web roll.\n(37)\nIn support of the above claims concerning resistance to picking the exporting producer referred to arguments put forward by one of the complainant Union producers in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations in the USA in which the Union producer allegedly acknowledged that web rolls cannot be differentiated based on resistance to picking test or by any other measurement.\n(38)\nThe complainant contested these statements of the exporting producer and claimed that contrary to what has been claimed, it follows from the proceedings in the USA that there is a clear dividing line distinguishing web rolls from CFP.\n(39)\nFirstly, it should be noted that the statements referred to by the exporting producer were presented in investigations under other jurisdictions and by different parties than the ones in the current proceedings and thus are not relevant. Secondly, the US authorities in the mentioned investigations concluded that there was a clear distinction between on one hand CFP used in sheet-fed printing and on the other hand rolls suitable for use in web-fed printing. Cutter rolls were regarded as semi-finished products while rolls suitable for web fed printing were not considered as product concerned. The US authorities did not explicitly define web rolls in their definition of the product scope. For this reason, the criterion of resistance to picking was not relevant in the definition of the product scope in the mentioned investigations.\n(40)\nBased on the above comments, the technical characteristic \u2018resistance to picking\u2019 was confirmed as being a reliable characteristic to describe CFP suitable for use in web-fed printing.\n(41)\nThe comments put forward have however also revealed that there exist web rolls that can be used in web-fed printing even if they do not fully meet all the criteria for resistance to picking. For this reason it was considered necessary to further refine the definition of rolls suitable for web-fed printing.\n(42)\nIn order to provide a further criterion to distinguish web rolls which do not fully meet all the criteria for resistance to picking, the complainant suggested that a roll which does not fully sat the picking resistance test but has an internal core size of less than 80 mm, should be considered as a web roll.\n(43)\nThe GOC and the exporting producer claimed that the addition of core size as a new element into the product definition constituted a revision of the definition of web rolls and thus the product concerned. It also claimed that the internal core size is not a suitable criterion as there exist web rolls with higher than 80 mm core size and cutter rolls with lower than 80 mm core size.\n(44)\nThe Commission endeavoured to further refine the definition of rolls suitable for use in web-fed printing and to give further clarification in order to distinguish even more clearly between the product concerned and other products, also with a view to minimize the possibility of circumvention of the measures. The evidence submitted on the suitability of the core size as an alternative criterion in the definition however proved that this criterion would lead to the possible exclusion of product concerned, i.e. cutter rolls with a core size of less than 80 mm from the measures. Therefore this criterion to define rolls suitable for use in web-fed printing was abandoned.\n(45)\nThe above is without prejudice to the reliability of the method according to which rolls suitable for use in web-fed printing have been excluded from the scope of the investigation as it was claimed by the Chinese group of exporting producers.\n(46)\nDuring the course of the investigation, certain parties also claimed that multi-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard,as defined in the recital (47),should be excluded from the scope of the investigation. They claimed that multi-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard had different physical characteristics such as multiple plies, higher stiffness and lower density and that the final use of these products was different as these are usually used for folding carton and packaging applications. These parties finally claimed that single-ply and multi-ply paper and paperboard would be easily distinguished by their physical appearance.\n(47)\nMulti-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard, as defined in the Harmonised System Explanatory Notes to subheading 4805, are products obtained by pressing together two or more layers of moist pulps of which at least one characteristics different from the others. These differences may arise from the nature of pulps used (e.g. recycled waste), the method of production (e.g. mechanical or chemical) or, if the pulps are of the same nature and have been produced by the same method, the degree of processing (e.g. unbleached, bleached or coloured).\n(48)\nThe investigation showed that multi-ply paper and paperboard have indeed some different physical and technical characteristics; more specifically they are composed of several layers of pulp, which increases rigidity. Multi-ply paper and paperboard are produced by a different production method requiring a different paper machine than the one used for the production of CFP, as in the production process several layers of pulp are layered into a single product. Finally, multi-ply paper and paperboard serve different purposes (mainly packaging) compared to CFP, which is used for high quality printing of promotional material, magazines, etc. Multi-ply paper and paperboard as defined in recital (47) is therefore considered as not being the product concerned. Consequently, the CN codes mentioned covering imports of multi-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard are excluded from the scope of the investigation.\n(49)\nFinally, one Chinese producer claimed that so called \u2018paperboard\u2019 should be excluded from the scope of the investigation as it does not fall under the definition of fine paper (whether coated or not) because of alleged differences in its weight, thickness and rigidity. It was found that the term \u2018paperboard\u2019 is generally used for paper with high substances making the paper in general heavier, i.e. \u2018paperboard\u2019 is commonly defined as paper with a basis weight of above 224 g/m2. However, the investigation revealed that the difference in weight does not have a significant impact on the remaining physical and technical characteristic and end uses which would it make distinguishable from the product concerned. It is also noted that, as outlined in recital (16), all CFP with a weight of 70 g/m2 or more but not exceeding 400 g/m2 were explicitly included in the definition of the product concerned. Therefore paperboard is considered as being \u2018the product concerned\u2019.\n2.1.1. LIKE PRODUCT\n(50)\nThe product concerned, the product produced and sold on the domestic market of the PRC as well as the product manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers were found to have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses. They are therefore considered as \u2018alike\u2019 within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the basic Regulation.\n3. SAMPLING\n3.1. SAMPLING FOR EXPORTING PRODUCERS IN THE PRC\n(51)\nOnly two exporting producers groups in the PRC came forward and replied to the request for sampling data in the Notice of initiation. One group (Chenming) represents 2 related exporting producers while the other group (APP) represents 4 related exporting producers. The cooperating exporting producers represent the total exports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Union. In these circumstances, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary for exporting producers in the PRC.\n(52)\nTwo out of four related exporting producers of the APP group were found to produce only multi-ply paperboard referred to in recital (47) above. In this respect it is recalled that it was concluded that multi-ply paperboard should be excluded from the product scope of the current investigation. It is also recalled that the multi-ply paperboard was excluded from the product scope of the parallel anti-dumping proceedings. It is therefore concluded that the two related exporting producers found to produce only multi-ply paperboard are not concerned by the current proceedings. Thus the findings presented in this Regulation are not based on their information and data.\n3.2. SAMPLING OF UNION PRODUCERS\n(53)\nIn view of the potentially large number of Union producers, sampling was envisaged in the Notice of initiation in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation. However, after examination of the information submitted and given that only four Union producers came forward within the deadlines set in the Notice of initiation, it was decided that sampling was not necessary. Those four producers were considered to be representative (covering 61 % of total production) of the Union industry as defined in recital (372). The information provided by the four companies was verified on-the-spot and was used for the micro indicators as explained in recital (386).\n3.3. SAMPLING OF UNRELATED IMPORTERS\n(54)\nIn view of the potentially large number of importers, sampling was envisaged for importers in the Notice of initiation in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation. However, after examination of the information submitted and given by the small number of importers which indicated their willingness to co-operate, it was decided that sampling was not necessary.\n4. SUBSIDISATION\n4.1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS\n(55)\nIt is recalled that both the GOC and the four Chinese exporting producers submitted replies to the questionnaire and accepted on-the-spot visits in order to verify the replies.\n(56)\nWith respect to the GOC, following the submission of the reply to the questionnaire, the Commission sent to the Chinese side three deficiency letters and a pre-verification letter. The Commission provided to the GOC ample time for the preparation and submission of its representations whenever this was requested and justified. Indeed substantial deadline extensions were granted to the GOC, i.e. two weeks extension for the reply to the questionnaire which led to a total deadline of 49 days for the submission of the reply to the questionnaire and three weeks for the reply to the first deficiency letter which led to a total deadline of 40 days.\n(57)\nPrior to the on-the-spot verification visit, the GOC requested the Commission to provide further information in writing, in particular a list of all the questions that it intended to ask during the verification plus a list of the Government departments which were expected to participate in the on-the-spot verification visit. In the absence of these, it was argued that the Commission would not fulfil its obligations as an investigating authority set out in the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (\u2018SCM Agreement\u2019) and in particular those contained in paragraph 8 of Annex VI. The GOC also submitted that due to lack of such information it would not be in a position to guarantee the outcome of the verification.\n(58)\nThe Commission respectfully disagreed with GOC's request. In this respect it is noted that the Commission has fulfilled all the relevant conditions of paragraph 8 of Annex VI of the SCM Agreement as well as of Article 26 of the basic Regulation. A detailed pre-verification letter was sent to the GOC confirming the agenda (days and group of schemes to be discussed per verification day) and requesting the presence of the authorities responsible for the relevant schemes and of the officials involved in the preparation of the GOC submissions. The Commission also explained before the on-the-spot verification visits that only the GOC knows the authorities responsible for the schemes under investigation as well as those officials whose are best placed to take part in the verification and answer questions. As regards the list of specific questions, the Commission explained before and during the on-the-spot verification visit that such a list is not required by WTO or EU legislation and that the purpose of the investigation is to verify the GOC reply to the questionnaire and the relevant supplementary submissions; therefore the verification would follow the structure of those documents. The Commission would also seek to obtain and clarify further information necessary for the ongoing proceedings, but precise questions in this context would depend on the GOC's replies to the initial verification of its replies. It was also made clear to the GOC before the on-the-spot verification visit that refusals to provide necessary information or to assist the investigating authority in verifying information and data deemed necessary for the purposes of the proceedings may seriously undermine the investigation process. The GOC was also reminded of the consequences of the provisions of Article 28 of the basic Regulation.\n(59)\nDuring the on-the-spot verification visit to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce in Beijing, the Commission endeavoured to verify information provided on the basis of the supporting documents that were used to prepare the GOC's response, in line with the provisions of Articles 11 and 26 of the basic Regulation. In doing so, the Commission came to the preliminary conclusion that the lack of information and supporting documents available did not allow a proper verification of the reply to the questionnaire. Moreover, certain information was not submitted at all although it was specifically requested, and certain questions had not been answered. The GOC has been made aware of the consequences of non-cooperation in accordance with Article 28(1) and (6) of the basic Regulation.\n(60)\nThe GOC argued that the investigating authority should determine the necessity of information in a reasonable manner that would not amount to abuse of rights. It was also argued that even if information is considered not ideal in all aspects it should not be disregarded. On the basis of the above arguments the GOC submitted that it cooperated to the best of its ability and that its reply to the questionnaire was complete. It was also argued that the on-the-spot verification was poorly scheduled as the pre-verification letter failed to provide a reasonable understanding of what was to be verified and the Commission did not conduct specific on-the-spot visits at each government entity. It was also submitted that the Commission imposed an unreasonable burden on the GOC and requested irrelevant and unnecessary information.\n(61)\nWith respect to the scheduling of the on-the-spot verification, it is recalled that the GOC agreed to the timing, the schedule of visit and the venue. Indeed, discussions on the timing of the on-the-spot visit took place in August 2010. The Commission initially proposed the on-the-spot verification visit to take place on the first week of October 2010 and subsequently amended its proposal twice, on the basis of Chinese requests, first for the second week of October 2010 and finally for the third week of October 2010. Thus there is no basis to any complaints concerning scheduling of on-the-spot visits as the Commission did its utmost to accommodate any duly justified request from the GOC. With respect to the information requested, it is noted that the GOC has never disputed the format of the questionnaire or the way information was requested. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce submitted the reply to the questionnaire and subsequent representations on behalf of the GOC. The Commission requested information that was deemed necessary for the purposes of arriving at a representative finding and remained consistent in its requests by asking for the same data and information during the investigating process and requesting the GOC to explain the information submitted and the implications of that information for the schemes under investigation.\n4.2. SPECIFIC SCHEMES\n(62)\nOn the basis of the information contained in the complaint and the replies to the Commission's questionnaire, the following schemes, which allegedly involved the granting of subsidies by the Governmental authority, were investigated:\n(I)\nPreferential lending to the coated paper industry\n(II)\nIncome tax Programmes\n-\nPreferential tax policies for companies that are recognised as high or new technology enterprises\n-\nPreferential tax policies for Research & Development\n-\nDividend exemption between qualified resident enterprises\n(III)\nIndirect Tax and Import Tariff Programmes\n-\nVAT and Tariff exemption on imported equipment\n-\nVAT rebates on domestically produced equipment\n-\nCity maintenance and Construction Taxes and education surcharges for Foreign Invested Enterprises\n(IV)\nGrant Programmes\n-\nFamous Brands\n-\nSpecial Funds for Encouraging Foreign Investment Projects\n-\nAnti-dumping Respondent Assistance\n-\nShouguang Technology Renovation Grant\n-\nSuzhou Industrial park Intellectual Property Right Fund\n-\nSubsidy of High-Tech Industrial Development Fund\n-\nAward received from Suzhou Industrial Park for maintaining growth\n-\nSpecial fund for water pollution treatment of Taihu lake of Jiangsu province\n-\nSpecial funds for energy-saving of Suzhou Industrial Park\n-\nSpecial fund for reduction of total emissions of major pollutants at municipal level of Suzhou municipality\n-\nSubsidy for water-saving and emission reduction\n-\nEnvironmental Protection award received from Suzhou Environmental Protection Bureau\n-\nEnergy saving award in Shouguang\n(V)\nGovernment Provision of Goods and Services for Less than Adequate Remuneration (\u2018LTAR\u2019)\n-\nProvision of land-use rights\n-\nProvision of paper-making chemicals\n-\nProvision of electricity\n4.2.1. PREFERENTIAL LENDING TO THE COATED PAPER INDUSTRY\n(a) Introduction\n(63)\nIt is alleged that Chinese producers of the product concerned benefit from low-interest rate loans from government policy banks and state-owned commercial banks (\u2018SOCBs\u2019) pursuant to the GOC's policy to provide financial assistance in order to encourage and support the growth and development of the paper industry in China. As illustrated in the five-year plans and industrial policy, preferential financing initiatives were granted by the banking system to the papermaking industry.\n(b) Use of facts available\n(64)\nOn the basis of the information contained in the complaint, the Commission sought to investigate the bank which was lending to the coated paper industry. For these purposes it was considered necessary to ask the GOC to provide in its reply to the questionnaire and subsequent submissions specific information and data on a series of government plans and projects to encourage and support the development of China's paper sector. These plans and projects were:\n-\nChina Civilian Economy and Social Development 10th Five-Year Plan (\u2018The 10th Five Year Plan\u2019)\n-\nThe \u201810th Five year Plan\u2019 in the Papermaking Industry (\u2018Papermaking Plan\u2019)\n-\nThe 10th Five year and 2010 Special Plan for the Construction of a National Forestry and Papermaking Integration Project (\u2018Integration Project\u2019)\n-\nDecision No. 40 of the State Council on Promulgating and Implementing the \u2018Temporary Provisions on Promoting Industrial Structure Adjustment\u2019 (\u2018Decision No. 40\u2019)\n-\nDirectory Catalogue on Readjustment of Industrial Structure (\u2018Directory Catalogue\u2019)\n-\nGuidelines for the Eleventh Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development (2006-2010) (\u201811th Five-year Plan\u2019)\n-\nState Council Circular on Realizing the Major Targets in (The 11th Five Year-Year Plan) and the Division of Tasks (\u201811th five-year plan implementing circular\u2019)\n-\n2007 Development Policy for the Papermaking Industry (\u20182007 Papermaking Plan\u2019)\n-\nThe Guandong Development Plan\n-\nThe Zhanjiang City 11th Five-Year plan\n-\nThe 11th Five Year Plan of Jining Municipality\n(65)\nThe GOC only partially provided the information requested in relation to the plans. Only two of the plans requested were provided in full, i.e. in the Chinese version together with an English translation (Decision No. 40 and Directory Catalogue on Readjustment of Industrial Structure). For the three regional plans originally requested by the Commission, the Chinese authorities submitted that they were not relevant since the co-operating exporting producers are not located in these regions. They were thus not provided. The Commission accepted this but requested the development plans related to the areas (regions, provinces, municipalities) where the cooperating exporting producers are established. The GOC provided Chinese copies of the 11th Five year plan for Jiangsu Province and 11th Five year plan for Shandong Province, but no translation whatsoever, not even a translation of the table of contents. In relation to two plans that were not provided, the GOC submitted that they covered the period between 2000 and 2005 and were thus irrelevant. The Commission accepted this. The remaining plans were provided only in Chinese (Integration Project, 11th Five-year Plan, 11th five-year plan implementing circular, 2007 Papermaking Plan) together with English tables of the contents. The GOC claimed that the Commission's requests were too burdensome, that they only had limited resources and therefore could not translate the texts.\n(66)\nWith respect to the above it is noted that the Commission requested information that was deemed necessary for the investigation as the abovementioned documents had been identified in the complaint. Moreover the Commission had repeatedly emphasized the need to provide the requested documents in English. This is necessary for this type of significant document given that, on the basis of the index only, it was not possible to determine which part of the document is relevant for the investigation. Moreover, the plans provided in Chinese were not voluminous and it appears that copies in English of the relevant documentation exist either from independent sources (legal firms that specialize in Chinese law) or from anti-subsidy investigations conducted in China by the United States of America (\u2018USA\u2019).\n(67)\nConsequently, the Commission had the possibility to verify only the following documents: the Decision No. 40, the Directory Catalogue and the 2007 Papermaking Plan, an English version of which was in the complaint and it was also made available from an exporting producer.\n(68)\nIn order to investigate the level of government intervention in the Chinese financial market and obtain the necessary overview of the financial sector in the PRC, the Commission requested information on the percentage of government ownership of financial institutions and on the records of amounts/percentages of loans given by State owned banks. The GOC claimed that they did not have any records on the bank shareholding although Article 61 of the Law on Commercial Banks [2003] No. 13 provides that banks report these data \u2018to the banking regulatory organ of the State Council and People's Bank of China\u2019. As regards the amounts/percentages of loans given by State owned banks, the GOC confirmed that although relevant data was kept, it could not provide it. The Commission further facilitated the work of GOC by limiting the requested information on the percentage of government ownership only to such financial institutions that were found to provide loans to the co-operating exporting producers. Nevertheless, the GOC did not provide relevant data even for this restricted segment of financial institutions operating in China.\n(69)\nIn order to investigate the lending policies of the Chinese banks (e.g. methods used as regards the setting of the interest loan rates, assessment of loans etc), the GOC was asked to provide information with respect to the policies followed by the relevant state authorities namely the People's Bank of China (\u2018PBOC\u2019) and the Bank Regulatory Commission. The GOC did not provide any relevant information on the loan policies. No document, regulation or guidelines addressed to the banking system from the PBOC was provided in order to substantiate the role of the PBOC in setting interest rates and its relation with the banking system. Furthermore no explanation was given, although specifically requested, with respect to the application of the Law on Commercial Banks [2003] No. 13 and particularly Articles 34, 38 and 39 that set out the basic rules governing loans and other businesses of commercial banks.\n(70)\nIn order to investigate the lending policies of the Chinese banks that provided loans during the IP to the cooperating exporting producers, the Commission requested the GOC to arrange meetings with specific banks that have provided loans to the cooperating exporting producers in order to verify information concerning preferential lending to the CFP industry in China. The GOC claimed that it was unable to intervene with State-owned banks to arrange such meetings. Therefore, no evidence was collected from Chinese banks as to whether and, if so, how those banks evaluate credit risk when providing loans.\n(71)\nThe GOC was made aware of the consequences of non-cooperation in accordance with Article 28(1) and (6) of the basic Regulation. In view of this lack of cooperation, it has been necessary, in addition to taking account of relevant GOC documents submitted by other parties, to use information from secondary sources, including the complaint and publicly available information retrieved from internet. The GOC disputed the use of facts available but did not provide any further new evidence.\n(72)\nThe cooperating exporting producers were also asked to arrange meetings with specific banks that have provided loans to them during the IP in order to verify information concerning preferential lending to the CFP industry in China. However, no such meetings took place. The cooperating exporting producers communicated the repeated requests of the Commission for such meetings but the relevant banks refused to cooperate with the investigation. The co-operating exporting producers were made aware of the consequences of non-cooperation in accordance with Article 28(1) and (6) of the basic Regulation. In view of this lack of cooperation, it was considered necessary to base any findings with respect to the loans provided by banks to the co-operating exporting producers on facts available. The co-operating exporting producers disputed the use of facts available but did not provide any further evidence.\n(73)\nOne Chinese exporting producer was requested to provide specific information concerning a specific debt restructuring agreement with three Chinese banks. The aforesaid exporting producer refused to provide the necessary information. Consequently, it was not possible to verify the relevant overall agreement and corresponding contract loans as well as all specific points like duration of loans, repayment schedules and interest rates. The co-operating exporting producer was made aware of the consequences of non-cooperation in accordance with Article 28(1) and (6) of the basic Regulation. In view of this lack of cooperation, it was considered necessary to base any findings with respect to the relevant loans provided by banks to that producer on facts available. The co-operating exporting producer disputed the use of facts available but did not provide any further evidence.\n(c) Findings of the investigation\n(i) Government intervention in the financial banking system for a preferential lending to paper making industry\n- Role of government plans\n(74)\nThe investigation established the existence of specific policy plans with respect to the papermaking industry. These plans stipulate that the state authorities monitor closely the performance of the papermaking industry and implement special policies (e.g. implementing decrees) for the fulfilment of the goals of the policy plans. Furthermore, the investigation also established that the specific policy plans provide for preferential lending to the paper making industry.\n(75)\nIndeed, by examining Decision No 40 and the specific financing section of the 2007 Papermaking Plan, it is obvious that the Chinese state planning system directs banks to provide loans to the paper making industry.\n(76)\nWith reference to Decision No 40, it is noted that that act is an order from the State Council i.e. the highest administrative body in the PRC and so legally binding for other public bodies and the economic operators. It classifies the industrial sectors into \u2018Encouraged, Restrictive and Eliminated Projects\u2019. This Act represents an industrial policy guideline that along with the Directory Catalogue shows how the GOC maintains a policy of encouraging and supporting groups of enterprises or industries, such as the paper industry, classified by the Directory Catalogue as an \u2018Encouraged industry\u2019. With respect to the number of industries listed as \u2018Encouraged\u2019 it is noted that there are in total 26, representing only a portion of the Chinese economy. Furthermore, only certain activities within these 26 sectors are given \u2018encouraged\u2019 status. Decision No 40 also stipulates under Article 17 that the \u2018Encouraged investment projects\u2019 shall benefit from specific privileges and incentives (financial support, import duty exemption, VAT exemption, tax exemption). On the other hand, with reference to the \u2018Restrictive and Eliminated Projects\u2019, Decision No 40 empowers the state authorities to intervene directly to regulate the market. In fact, Articles 18 and 19 ask the relevant authority to stop financial institutions from supplying loans; they also order the State price administrative department to raise the electricity price and instruct the electricity supply companies to stop supplying electricity to such \u2018Restrictive and Eliminated Projects\u2019. It is obvious from the above that Decision No 40 provides binding rules to all the economic institutions in the form of directives on the promotion and support of encouraged industries, one of which is the paper making industry.\n(77)\nThe 2007 Papermaking Plan provides specific conditions, orientations and targets for the papermaking industry. It describes the state of the papermaking industry in China (e.g. number of enterprises, production, consumption and exports, statistics on the type of raw materials used). It sets out the policies and goals for the papermaking industry with respect to the industrial layout, the use of raw materials, the use of technology and equipment, the product structure and the organizational structure of the papermaking producers. The text also sets industry \u2018admission criteria\u2019, as it lays down specific assets/liability ratio requirements for the papermaking industry, sets specific credit ratings for the papermaking industry and specific targets for economies of scale, market share ratios, energy and water consumption to be achieved or attained by companies. It requests enterprises to formulate development plans based on the 2007 Papermaking Plan. It also instructs the local provinces and regions to participate in the implementation of the plan, while an entire chapter is devoted to \u2018Investment and Financing\u2019 of the papermaking industry. In this respect it is pertinent to note that the Plan clearly states that financial institutions shall not provide loans for any project which does not comply with its regulations. In sum it is clear from the reading of the text and the wording used that the 2007 Papermaking Plan is a specific state instrument aimed at regulating the papermaking industry in China and can only be considered as a compulsory industrial policy tool that has to be concretely implemented by relevant interested parties in China (state authorities, financial institutions and producers).\n(78)\nThe GOC argued that the 2007 Papermaking Plan is to be considered a guideline plan without binding force. It was also submitted that in the same context none of the government plans and projects are legally binding and as a result no financial contribution or benefit can be granted in the framework of such plans and projects. However, a simple reading of the text on the 2007 Papermaking Plan and its above-stated specific provisions reveals that the text cannot be considered as a non-binding guideline. In this respect it is noted that the 2007 Papermaking Plan text inter alia reads \u2018The industrial development policy is formulated based on the requirements of perfecting the reform of the socialist market economy and the related laws and regulations, so as to establish a fair market order and good development environment, solve the issues existing in the development of papermaking industry and direct the healthy development of the industry\u2019. With respect to the remaining plans and projects as listed under recital (64) above it is noted that at least one refers to an implementing circular of the 11th Five Year Plan. It is difficult to understand how an allegedly non-legally binding document (a government plan) can have a legally binding implementing act (in this case a circular of the State Council).\n(79)\nIn addition, Article 34 of the Law on Commercial Banks [2003] No. 13 states that banks \u2018carry out their loan business upon the needs of the national economy and the social development and under the guidance of the state industrial policy\u2019. In this particular case the relevant state industrial policy is the 2007 Papermaking Plan. Thus, it only logical to conclude that loans received by the CFP producers from SOCBs are made pursuant to government directives.\n(80)\nThe role of the National Development and Reform Commission (\u2018NDRC\u2019) was also investigated. It was submitted by the GOC that the NDRC is an agency of the State Council coordinating macro-economic policy and managing the Government investments. That state authority issued, inter alia, the 2007 Papermaking Plan. No available information was submitted, although explicitly requested, on the legal framework under which the NDRC was established and operates, e.g. its statute. The only explanation provided by the GOC was that the State Council, the highest governmental administrative body, gives the instructions which the NDRC has to follow and that in any event this information is irrelevant to the investigation. This argument cannot be accepted. The statutes of the authority that issues government plans are considered relevant to the investigation, in view of the fact that government plans and projects are under investigation in these proceedings. The Commission also enquired about the reasons why the NDRC collects, on a permanent basis, detailed information from companies. The GOC clarified that the information could be collected through industrial associations and other public sources. Nevertheless, the existence of a systematic mechanism to collect company related data to be used in government plans and projects reveals that these plans and project are considered as an important element of state industrial policy.\n(81)\nIt follows from the above that any decision taken by financial institutions with respect to the papermaking industry would have to take into consideration the need to fulfil the goals of the relevant policy plans. Indeed, companies qualified by these specific policy plans as \u2018Encouraged industries\u2019 are considered of high credit rating, something that has direct consequences on the assessment of the creditworthiness by the Chinese financial system. Furthermore, from examining the specific financing section of the 2007 Papermaking Plan and a credit rating note that was made available from one co-operating exporting producer it is obvious that the Chinese state planning system directs banks to provide loans to the papermaking industry and companies are considered of high credit rating because they qualify for specific policy plans. It is pertinent to note that the particular credit rating note obtained during the investigation directly links the positive future prospects of the company with the existence of the papermaking policy plans and the fulfilment of their objectives. There is also evidence that the State authorities monitor the performance of companies as they examine annually their business licenses and retain in this way financial and performance statistics. Furthermore, there is also evidence, derived from information submitted from co-operating exporting producers, that the PBOC monitors, in line with the provisions of Article 9 of the Regulation on Registration and Consultation of Banks, the loan situation of companies through the annual examination of the loans companies avail themselves of each year.\n(82)\nAll the above facts demonstrate the link between the specific policy plans and the financing of the papermaking industry.\n- Government intervention in the banking sector\n(83)\nWith respect to the co-operating exporting producers the investigation established that two of them were, in the majority of cases, automatically granted the lowest possible interest rate within the limits set out by the PBOC while other two co-operating exporting producers benefited from a substantial rescheduling of their loans that took place in 2008. Indeed, Chinese state-owned banks purchased all loans due to foreign banks and the rescheduled loans did not provide for a significant risk premium over the PBOC interest rate benchmark.\n(84)\nIn addition, the investigation has established that the Chinese financial market is characterised by government intervention because most of the major banks are state-owned. The Chinese authorities have provided only very limited information concerning shareholding/ownership of banks in China. However, as further outlined below, the Commission compiled available information in order to arrive at a representative finding. In performing its analysis whether banks are entities vested with or exercising government authority the Commission also sought information concerning not only the government ownership of the banks but also other characteristics such as the government presence on the board of directors, the government control over activities, the pursuit of government policies or interests and whether entities were created by statute.\n(85)\nFrom the available information it is concluded that the state-owned banks in China command the highest market share and are the predominant players in the Chinese financial market; according to the 2006 Deutsche Bank Research on China's banking sector, the state-owned banks\u2019 share may amount to more than 2/3 of the Chinese market. For the same matter the WTO Trade Policy Review of China noted that \u2018The high degree of state ownership is another notable feature of the financial sector in China\u2019 (5). It is pertinent to note that the four big state-owned banks (Agricultural Bank, Bank of China, Construction Bank and Industrial and Commercial Bank) appear to represent more than half of the Chinese banking sector. Policy banks and other state-owned banks are more than 50 % state-owned. The Commission also requested information concerning the structure of government control in those Chinese banks and the pursuit of government policies or interests with respect to the Papermaking industry (i.e. board of directors and board of shareholders, minutes of shareholders/directors meetings, nationality of shareholders/directors, lending policies and assessment of risk with respect to loans provided to the cooperating exporting producers). Nevertheless, neither the GOC nor the banks provided such information. They only repeatedly referred to information in the Annual reports of the banks they had submitted. However, the information in the Annual reports of banks did not (and cannot) contain the required level of detailed information.\nConsequently, the Commission had to use the information available. It concluded on the basis of the available data that those banks are controlled by the government and exercise government authority in a manner that their actions can be attributed to the State. The relevant data used in order to arrive at the aforesaid findings is derived from information submitted by the GOC, the annual reports of Chinese banks that were either submitted from GOC or publicly available, information retrieved from the 2006 Deutsche Bank Research on China's banking sector, information submitted from the co-operating exporting producers and information existing in the complaint. As for foreign banks, independent sources estimate that they represent a minor part of the Chinese banking sector and consequently play an insignificant role in policy lending; with relevant information suggesting that this may represent as little as 1 % of the Chinese market (6). Relevant public available information also confirms that Chinese banks, particularly the large commercial banks, still rely on state-owned shareholders and the government for replenishment of capital when there is a lack of capital adequacy as result of credit expansion (7). With respect to the banks that provided loans to the co-operating exporting producers, the great majority are state-owned banks. Indeed on the basis of the available information it was found that at least 13 out of the 19 reported banks are state-owned banks, including two Policy banks (Export-Import Bank of China, the China Development Bank) and the major Commercial banks in China like Agricultural Bank of China, Bank of China, China Construction Bank and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.\nWith respect to the remaining state-owned banks, again the Commission requested the same information mentioned above concerning the government control and the pursuit of government policies or interests with respect to the Papermaking industry. Again, no such detailed information was provided apart from a repeated claim to refer to information in the relevant Annual reports of the banks which in the majority of cases was only in Chinese and without any English translation. However, information in the Annual reports of banks cannot provide the required level of detailed information. With respect to the Policy banks, the investigation established that there are no clear legal provisions regulating their role and their relationship with the government. Nonetheless, according to statements made by the GOC during the on-the-spot verification it appears that Policy banks supported government policies in China and are not operating for profit. All the above points confirm that the four banks are controlled by the government and exercise government authority in a manner that their actions can be attributed to the State.\n(86)\nThe Commission also sought to investigate the difference between the Policy banks (according to available information these are the Export-Import Bank of China, the China Development Bank and the Agricultural Development Bank of China) and State Owned Commercial banks. The Commission requested clarifications on these two different types of financial institutions. The GOC submitted that the Policy banks do not have any written legal provisions regulating their sector, given that the Chinese authorities are currently drafting a law on Policy banks. It was also argued that one Policy bank (namely the China Development Bank) should not be considered as a Policy bank since it has become a shareholding company and is in a transitional period. Information submitted confirms that policy banks are treated differently to State Owned Commercial banks. Despite the lack of any rules governing the Policy banks sector or the way these banks act in the Chinese financial market, it appears from the PBOC circulars, where they are mentioned explicitly, that Policy banks have a special status as compared to the State Owned Commercial banks. As to the status of the China Development Bank, the Chinese State (through the Chinese Ministry of Finance) holds more than 50 % of the bank's shares and thus its transformation into a share-holding company has no impact on the government control.\n(87)\nAnother factor that creates a distortion on the Chinese financial market is the role played by the PBOC in setting the specific limits on the way interest rates are set and fluctuate. Indeed, the investigation established that the PBOC has specific rules regulating the way interest rates float in China. According to the information available, these rules are set out in the PBOC's Circular on the Issues about the Adjusting Interest Rates on Deposits and Loans-Yinfa (2004) No 251 (\u2018Circular 251\u2019). Financial institutions are requested to provide loan rates within a certain range of the benchmark loan interest rate of the PBOC. For commercial bank loans and policy bank loans managed commercially there is no upper limit range but only a lower limit range. For urban credit cooperatives and rural credit cooperatives there are both upper and lower limit ranges. For preferential loans and loans for which the State Council has specific regulations the interest rates do not float upwards. The Commission sought clarifications from the GOC on the definition and wording stated in the Circular 251 as well as to its preceding legislation (Circular of PBOC concerning expansion of Financial Institution's Loan Interest Rate Float Range - YinFa [2003] No. 250). The GOC explained that those Circulars formed part of the marketization reform of interest rates in China but gave no further explanation. The GOC was also asked to explain what are the preferential loans and other loans specified by the State Council.\nGOC argued that the wording of the relevant Chinese text refers to an assumption of other loans specified by the State Council. No other explanation or relevant documentation was provided by the GOC to explain why preferential loans are defined in the Chinese legislation. As to the other types of loan, even if one accepts the argument of the GOC, it is unclear why the legislator felt it necessary to introduce the possibility of other loans set out by the State Council. The Commission also requested clarifications on the existence of policy loans managed commercially, as mentioned in Circular 251. No explanation or any evidence was provided by the GOC on this matter. The GOC was also requested to provide any updates or subsequent legislation issued on the aforesaid Circulars in relation to the loan policy of commercial and policy banks but no such information was provided.\n(88)\nFinally it is noted that no other data or statistics concerning the structure of the Chinese banking system was provided by the GOC.\n(89)\nOn the basis of recitals (74) to (88) above and taking account of the lack of Chinese cooperation (and in the light of the considerations in recital (90) below), the Commission concludes that, the financing market in China is distorted by government intervention and interest rates charged by non-government banks and other financial institutions are likely to be aligned with government rates. Therefore, the interest rates charged by non-governmental banks and other financial institutions cannot be considered as appropriate commercial benchmarks when determining whether government loans confer a benefit.\n(ii) Financial Contribution\n(90)\nFurthermore, having regard to the totality of the evidence, it is concluded that the vast majority of loans to the two co-operating producers are provided by policy or other state-owned banks which are considered to be public bodies because of their close relationship to the government. They are more than 50 % state-owned and are thus considered controlled by the government. There is further evidence that these banks effectively exercise government authority since as it is explained in recital (65) there is a clear intervention by the State (i.e. PBOC) in the way commercial banks take decisions on interest rates for loans granted to Chinese companies while in some cases as explained in recital (83) companies were attributed quasi automatically the lowest possible rate within the limits set by the State. In these circumstances, the lending practices of these entities are directly attributable to the government. The fact that banks exercise government authority is also confirmed by the way the 2007 Papermaking Plan, Decision 40 and Article 34 of the Law on Commercial Banks act with respect to the fulfilment of the government industrial policies (see recitals (74) to (81) above). There is also a great deal of circumstantial evidence, supported by objective studies and reports, that a large amount of government intervention is still present in the Chinese financial system (see recital (312) below). Finally, China failed to provide information which would have enabled a greater understanding of the state-owned banks\u2019 relationship with government (see recitals (68) to (70) and recital (84) to (86) above) Thus, in the case of loans provided by policy or other state-owned banks, the Commission concludes that there is a financial contribution to the coated paper producers in the form of a direct transfer of funds from the government within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) of the basic Regulation.\n(iii) Benefit\n(91)\nThere is a benefit according to Articles 3(2) and 6(b) of the basic Regulation to the extent that the government loans are granted on terms more favourable than the recipient could actually obtain on the market. Since it has been established that non-government loans in China do not provide an appropriate market benchmark, this has been constructed using the method described in recitals (96) to (102) below.\n(iv) Specificity\n(92)\nThe GOC was asked to provide information on the eligibility criteria for obtaining this subsidy and on the use of the subsidy, in order to determine the extent to which access to the subsidy is limited to certain enterprises and whether it is specific according to Article 4 of the basic Regulation. The GOC provided no such information. The Commission, mindful of the requirement of Article 4(5) of the basic Regulation that any determination of specificity shall be \u2018clearly substantiated\u2019 on the basis of positive evidence, therefore had to base its findings on the facts available in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation. It is noted that Article 28(6) states that \u2018If an interested party does not cooperate, or cooperates only partially, so that relevant information is thereby withheld, the result may be less favourable to the party than if it had co-operated\u2019. The facts considered included the following:\n-\nThe evidence of specificity submitted by the complainant.\n-\nThe findings (see recitals (77) and (78)) that specific subsidies are channelled to the papermaking industry through a specific sectoral plan i.e. the Papermaking Plan.\n-\nThe evidence (see recital (76)) that the papermaking industry is an \u2018encouraged industry\u2019 (Decision No. 40).\n-\nThe provisions of Article 34 of the Law on Commercial Banks [2003] No. 13 (see recital (79)) stipulating that commercial banks shall carry out their loan business upon the needs of the national economy and the social development and in the spirit of the state industrial policies i.e. in this particular case in the spirit of the Papermaking Plan.\n-\nThe findings (see recital (81)) that the Chinese state planning system directs banks to provide loans to the papermaking industry and companies are considered of high credit rating because they qualify for specific policy plans.\n(93)\nIn the light of the above, and in the absence of any cooperation by the GOC, the available evidence indicates that subsidies granted to companies in the paper industry are not generally available and are therefore specific under Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation. In the light of the GOC's non-cooperation, there is nothing to suggest that eligibility for the subsidy is based on objective criteria or conditions under Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n(d) Conclusion\n(94)\nAccordingly, the financing of the papermaking industry should be considered a subsidy.\n(95)\nIn view of the existence of a financial contribution, a benefit to the exporting producers and specificity, this subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(96)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipients, which is found to exist during the IP. According to Article 6(b) of the basic Regulation, the benefit conferred on the recipients is considered to be the difference between the amount that the company pays on the government loan and the amount that the company would pay for a comparable commercial loan obtainable on the market.\n(97)\nAs explained above, since the loans provided by Chinese banks reflect substantial government intervention in the banking sector and do not reflect rates that would be found in a functioning market, an appropriate market benchmark has been constructed using the method described below. Furthermore, due to the lack of cooperation by the GOC, the Commission has also resorted to facts available in order to establish an appropriate benchmark interest rate.\n(98)\nWhen constructing an appropriate benchmark, it is considered reasonable to apply Chinese interest rates, adjusted to reflect normal market risk. Indeed, in a context where the exporters\u2019 current financial state has been established in a distorted market and there is no reliable information from the Chinese banks on the measurement of risk and the establishment of credit ratings, it is considered necessary not to take the creditworthiness of the Chinese exporters at face value, but to apply a mark-up to reflect the potential impact of the Chinese distorted market on their financial situation.\n(99)\nWith respect to the above as explained in recitals (68) to (72) both GOC and the cooperating exporting producers were requested to provide information on the lending policies of the Chinese banks and the way loans were attributed to the exporting producers. Parties failed to provide such information although repeatedly requested to do so. Accordingly in view of this lack of cooperation and the totality of facts available, and in line with the provisions of Article 28(6) of the basic Regulation, it is deemed appropriate to consider that all firms in China would be accorded the highest grade of \u2018Non-investment grade\u2019 bonds only (BB at Bloomberg) and apply the appropriate premium expected on bonds issued by firms with this rating to the standard lending rate of the People's Bank of China. For loans received in foreign currency, the Commission applies the appropriate premium expected on bonds issued by firms with this rating to the standard lending rate as mentioned in the relevant Chinese loan contracts (LIBOR rate). However, given the total non-cooperation of the GOC as regards providing information on, or access to, state-owned banks, it is considered appropriate, in accordance with Article 28(6) if the basic Regulation, to use a credit rating of BB (non-investment grade-speculative), in view of the totality of the facts available.\n(100)\nThe benefit to the exporting producers has been calculated by taking into consideration the interest rate differential, expressed as a percentage, multiplied by the outstanding amount of the loan, i.e. the interest not paid during the IP. This amount was then allocated over the total turnover of the co-operating exporting producers.\n(101)\nAs explained in recital (73), one exporting producer refused to provide an important debt restructuring agreement. As a consequence it was not possible to verify basic information reported in relation to the loans falling under this agreement, such as interest rate, maturity of the loan, repayment schedule etc. The exporting producer could also not prove that it repaid the principals of the loans falling under this agreement. Therefore in the calculation of benefit these loans were considered as a grant and were allocated over the IP in addition to the interest not paid during the IP as explained in recital (100) above.\n(102)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP amounts to 5,37 % for APP companies and 1,26 % for Chenming companies.\n4.2.2. INCOME TAX PROGRAMMES\n- Preferential tax policies for companies that are recognised as high and new technology enterprises\n(103)\nThis scheme allows a company that applies successfully for the Certificate of High and New Tech Enterprise to benefit from a reduced income tax rate of 15 %, compared to the normal rate of 25 %.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(104)\nThe scheme is provided as a preferential tax treatment by Article 28 of the Enterprise Income Tax Law of the PRC (n. 63 promulgated on 16 March 2007) along with Administrative Measures for the determination of High and New Tech Enterprises. The Notice of the State Administration of Taxation on the Issues concerning Enterprise Income Tax Payment of High & New Technology Enterprises (Guo Shui Han [2008] No. 985) also relates to this scheme, providing further details on its implementation.\n(b) Eligibility\n(105)\nArticle 10 of Administrative Measures for the determination of High and New Tech Enterprises lists the eligibility criteria for the companies to benefit from this scheme. If the company fulfils all the conditions set out in Article 10, it has to submit an application to the relevant authorities according to the procedure in Article 11 of the same Act.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(106)\nAny company that intends to apply for this scheme has to proceed to an on-line application to the local Science and Technology Bureau that will make a preliminary examination. Subsequently, the local Science and Technology Bureau will make a recommendation to the provincial Science and Technology department. Before taking any decision on the issuance of the certificate of High and New Tech Enterprise, the latter can also decide to carry out an investigation directly at the premises of the applicant.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(107)\nThis subsidy scheme was used by the 3 cooperating exporting producers who obtained benefits during the IP. Although no administrative rules were provided by the GOC, the exporting producers provided the available legal texts. Even from these texts, however, it is difficult to discern the application procedure which remains vague and non-transparent.\n(e) Conclusion\n(108)\nAccordingly, the scheme should be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of foregone government revenue which confers a benefit upon the recipient companies.\n(109)\nThe GOC was asked to provide information on the eligibility criteria for obtaining this subsidy and on the use of the subsidy, in order to determine to what extent access to the subsidy is limited to certain enterprises and whether it is specific according to Article 4 of the basic Regulation. The GOC provided no such information. The Commission, mindful of the requirement of Article 4(5) of the basic Regulation that any determination of specificity shall be \u2018clearly substantiated\u2019 on the basis of positive evidence, therefore had to base its findings on the facts available, as stated under Section 4.1, in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.\n(110)\nThis subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation given that the legislation itself, pursuant to which the granting authority operates, limited the access to this scheme only to certain enterprises and industries classified as encouraged, such as those belonging to the coated paper industry. Indeed, in chapter 4 of the Enterprise Income Tax Law of the PRC (No. 63 promulgated on 16 March 2007) devoted to \u2018Tax Incentive\u2019, Article 25 provides that \u2018the State grants enterprise income tax incentives to key industries and projects supported and encouraged by the State\u2019. According to the Commission's understanding, the State Council in its Decision 40 (Article 14) and in the Guiding Catalogue of the Industrial Restructuring offers the principles and the classification to consider an enterprise as encouraged. In addition, there are no objective criteria to determine eligibility and no conclusive evidence to conclude that the eligibility is automatic in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation. Indeed, although some administrative rules have been collected during the visit to the exporting producers, the lack of cooperation from the GOC authorities do not permit to assess the existence of such objective criteria.\n(111)\nAccordingly, this subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(112)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipients which is found to exist during the IP. The benefit conferred on the recipients is considered to be the amount of total tax payable according to the normal tax rate, after the deduction of what was paid with the reduced preferential tax rate. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total sales turnover of the cooperating exporting producers during the IP, because the subsidy is not contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(113)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the cooperating exporting producers amounts to 1,22 % for the APP Group and 0,58 % for the Chenming Group.\n- Preferential tax policies for Research & Development (R&D)\n(114)\nThis scheme provides a benefit to all companies that are recognized as carrying out R&D projects. This qualification permits that the corporate income tax is decreased by 50 % of the actual expenses for approved projects.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(115)\nThe scheme is provided as a preferential tax treatment by Article 30(1) of the Enterprise Income Tax Law of the PRC (n. 63 promulgated on 16 March 2007), Art. 95 of the Regulations on the Implementation of Enterprise Income Tax Law of the PRC, Decree n. 512 of the State Council of the PRC, promulgated in date on 6 December 2007 and the Guide to Key Fields (Notification n. 6, 2007).\n(b) Eligibility\n(116)\nThis scheme provides a benefit to companies that are recognized as carrying out R&D projects. Only R&D projects of the companies of New and High Tech Sectors Receiving Primary Support from the State and projects listed in the Guide to Key Fields of High Tech Industrialization under the current Development Priority promulgated by the National Development and Reform Commission are eligible for the scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(117)\nAny company that intends to apply for this scheme needs to file detailed information about the R&D projects with the local Science and Technology Bureau. After examination, the tax bureau will issue the notice of approval. The amount subject to the corporate income tax is decreased by 50 % of actual expenses for approved projects.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(118)\nThis scheme was used by the cooperating exporting producers who obtained benefits during the IP. Although no administrative rules were provided by the GOC, the exporting producers provided the available legal texts. Even from these texts, however, it is difficult to discern the application procedure - which remains vague and non-transparent.\n(e) Conclusion\n(119)\nAccordingly, the scheme should be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of foregone government revenue which confers a benefit upon the recipient companies.\n(120)\nThe GOC was requested to provide information on the eligibility criteria for obtaining this subsidy and on the use of the subsidy, in order to determine to what extent access to the subsidy is limited to certain enterprises and whether it is specific according to Article 4 of the basic Regulation. The GOC provided no such information. The Commission, mindful of the requirement of Article 4(5) of the basic Regulation that any determination of specificity shall be \u2018clearly substantiated\u2019 on the basis of positive evidence, therefore had to base its findings on the facts available, as stated under Section 4.1, in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.\n(121)\nThis subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation given that the legislation itself, pursuant to which the granting authority operates, limited the access to this scheme only to certain enterprises and industries classified as encouraged, such as those belonging to the coated paper industry. In addition, there are no objective criteria to limit eligibility and no conclusive evidence to conclude that the eligibility is automatic in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation. Indeed, although some administrative rules have been collected during the visit to the exporting producers, the lack of cooperation from the GOC authorities does not permit to assess the existence of such objective criteria.\n(122)\nAccordingly, this subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(123)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipients, which is found to exist during the IP. That benefit is considered to be the amount of total tax payable according to the normal tax rate, after the subtraction of what was paid with the additional 50 % deduction of the actual expenses on R&D for the approved projects. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total sales turnover of the cooperating exporting producers during the IP, because the subsidy is not contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(124)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the cooperating exporting producers amounts to 0,02 % for the APP Group and 0,05 % for the Chenming Group.\n- Dividend exemption between qualified resident enterprises\n(125)\nThe scheme concerns resident enterprises in China which are shareholders in other resident enterprises in China. The former are entitled to a tax exemption on income from certain dividends paid by the latter.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(126)\nThis scheme is provided as a preferential tax treatment by Article 26 of the Enterprise Income Tax Law of the PRC and further explained in Article 83 of the Regulations on the Implementation of Enterprise Income Tax Law of the PRC, Decree n. 512 of the State Council of the PRC, promulgated in date on 6 December 2007.\n(b) Eligibility\n(127)\nThis scheme provides a benefit to all resident companies which are shareholders in other resident enterprises in China.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(128)\nThe companies may make use of this scheme directly through their tax return.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(129)\nOn the income tax statement of the cooperating exporting producers there is an amount exempted from income tax. This amount is referred to as Dividends, bonuses and other equity investment income of eligible residents and enterprises in line with the conditions in Appendix 5 to the Income tax return (Annual Statement of Tax Preferences). No income tax was paid by the relevant companies on these amounts.\n(e) Conclusion\n(130)\nAccordingly, the scheme should be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of foregone government revenue which confers a benefit upon the recipient companies.\n(131)\nThe GOC was requested to provide information on the eligibility criteria for obtaining this subsidy and on the use of the subsidy, in order to determine to what extent access to the subsidy is limited to certain enterprises and whether it is specific according to Article 4 of the basic Regulation. The GOC provided no such information. The Commission, mindful of the requirement of Article 4(5) of the basic Regulation that any determination of specificity shall be \u2018clearly substantiated\u2019 on the basis of positive evidence, therefore had to base its findings on the facts available, as stated under Section 4.1, in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.\n(132)\nThis subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of the Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation given that the legislation itself, pursuant to which the granting authority operates, limited the access to this scheme only to resident enterprises in China receiving dividend income from other resident enterprises in China, as opposed to those enterprises which invest in foreign enterprises.\n(133)\nIn addition, since all the above tax schemes under Chapter 4 of the Enterprise Income Tax Law of the PRC are reserved exclusively to important industries and projects supported or encouraged by the State as stated in Article 25, also this scheme is specific because it is reserved only to certain enterprises and industries classified as encouraged, such as the coated paper industry. Indeed, according to the Commission's understanding, the State Council in its Decision No. 40 (Article 14) and in the Guiding Catalogue of the Industrial Restructuring offers the principles and the classification to consider an enterprise as encouraged. Furthermore, in that case there are no objective criteria to limit eligibility and no conclusive evidence to conclude that the eligibility is automatic in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation. Indeed, although some administrative rules have been collected during the visit to the exporting producers, the lack of cooperation from the GOC authorities does not permit to assess the existence of such objective criteria.\n(134)\nAccordingly, this subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(135)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipients, which is found to exist during the IP. That benefit is considered to be the amount of total tax payable with the inclusion of the dividend income coming from other resident enterprises in China, after the subtraction of what was actually paid with the dividend tax exemption. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total sales turnover of the co-operating exporting producers companies during the IP, because the subsidy is not contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(136)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the cooperating exporting producers amounts to 1,34 % for the APP Group and 0,21 % for the Chenming Group.\n4.2.3. INDIRECT TAX AND IMPORT TARIFF PROGRAMMES\n- VAT and Tariff exemption on imported equipment\n(137)\nThis scheme provides benefits in the form of VAT exemption and duty free imports of capital goods to the FIEs or domestic companies which are able to obtain the Certificate of State-Encouraged projects issued by the Chinese authorities in line with relevant investment, tax and customs-related legislation.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(138)\nThe scheme is based on a set of legal provisions i.e. the Circular of the State Council on Adjusting Tax Policies on Imported Equipment No. 37/1997, the Announcement of the Ministry of Finance, the General Administration of Customs and the State Administration of Taxation [2008] No. 43, the Notice of the NDRC on the relevant issues concerning the Handling of Confirmation letter on Domestic or Foreign-funded Projects encouraged to develop by the State, No. 316 2006, dated 22 February 2006 and on the Catalogue on non-duty-exemptible Articles of importation for either FIEs or domestic enterprises-2008.\n(b) Eligibility\n(139)\nEligibility is limited to applicants, either FIEs or domestic enterprises, which are able to obtain the Certificate of State-Encouraged projects.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(140)\nAccording to the Notice of the NDRC on the relevant issues concerning the Handling of Confirmation letter on Domestic or Foreign-funded Projects encouraged to develop by the State, No. 316 2006, dated 22 February 2006, Article I.1. the foreign investment projects complying \u2018with those of the encouraged category in the Catalogue of industries for Guiding Foreign Investment and the Catalogue of Priority Industries for Foreign Investment in Central-Western Region with technology transfer, the tariff and the VAT shall be exempted on the self-use equipment imported within the total investment and the technology, parts and components, and spare parts imported along with the equipment according to the contract; excluded are those commodities that are listed in the Catalogue of Import Commodities under Foreign Investment Projects not exempted from tax\u2019. The Projects Confirmation Letter for foreign investment projects of the encouragement category with the total investment of USD 30 million or more shall be issued by the NDRC. The Project Confirmation Letter for foreign investment projects of the encouragement category with the total investment of less than USD 30 million shall be issued by the commissions or economic municipalities at the provincial level. Once they have received the Project Confirmation Letter of the encouragement category, the companies present the certificates and other application documents to their local Customs authorities in order to be eligible for customs and VAT exemption on equipment imports.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(141)\nAll co-operating exporting producers benefited from this scheme.\n(e) Conclusion\n(142)\nAccordingly, the scheme should be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of foregone government revenue which confers a benefit upon the recipient companies.\n(143)\nThe GOC was requested to provide information on the eligibility criteria for obtaining this subsidy and on the use of the subsidy, in order to determine to what extent access to the subsidy is limited to certain enterprises and whether it is specific according to Article 4 of the basic Regulation. The GOC provided no such information. The Commission, mindful of the requirement of Article 4(5) of the basic Regulation that any determination of specificity shall be \u2018clearly substantiated\u2019 on the basis of positive evidence, therefore had to base its findings on the facts available, as stated under Section 4.1, in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.\n(144)\nThis subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of the Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation given that the legislation itself, pursuant to which the granting authority operates, limited the access to this scheme only to enterprises that invest under specific business categories defined exhaustively by law (i.e. catalogue for guidance of industries for foreign investment and catalogue of key industries, products and technologies which the state currently encourages development). In addition, there are no objective criteria to determine eligibility and no conclusive evidence to conclude that the eligibility is automatic in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation. Indeed, although some administrative rules have been collected during the visit to the exporting producers, the lack of cooperation from the GOC authorities does not permit to assess the existence of such objective criteria.\n(145)\nAccordingly, this subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(146)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipients, which is found to exist during the IP. That benefit is calculated by taking into consideration the VAT and duties exempted on imported equipment. In accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount (numerator) has been allocated to the IP using a useful life corresponding to the average depreciation period of the industry concerned (i.e. 15 years). The resulting amount was then allocated over the total sales turnover of the co-operating exporting producers during the IP, because the subsidy is not contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(147)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the cooperating exporting producers amounts to 1,17 % for the APP Group and 0,61 % for the Chenming Group.\n- VAT rebates on domestically produced equipment\n(148)\nThis scheme provides benefits in the form of VAT rebates paid for purchase of domestically produced equipment by FIEs.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(149)\nThe scheme is based on the Circular of State Administration of taxation on the release of the provisional measures for the Administration of tax refunds for purchases of Domestically-Manufactured Equipment by Foreign Invested Enterprises No. 171, 1999, 20.9.1999 and terminated by the Circular on Terminating Tax Refund Policies on Purchase of Domestically-Manufactured Equipment by FIEs [Caishui 2008, No. 176]. The latter provides for a transitional period after the termination of the programme as of 1 January 2009.\n(b) Eligibility\n(150)\nEligibility is limited to FIEs that purchase domestically-manufactured equipment.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(151)\nThe programme is aimed to refund VAT paid for purchase of domestically produced equipment by FIE if the equipment does not fall into the Non-Exemptible Catalogue and if the value of the equipment does not exceed the total investment limit on an FIE according to the \u2018trial Administrative measures on Purchase of Domestically Produced Equipment\u2019.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(152)\nAll co-operating exporting producers benefited from this scheme.\n(e) Conclusion\n(153)\nAccordingly, the scheme should be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of foregone government revenue which confers a benefit upon the recipient companies.\n(154)\nThe GOC was requested to provide information on the eligibility criteria for obtaining this subsidy and on the use of the subsidy, in order to determine to what extent access to the subsidy is limited to certain enterprises and whether it is specific according to Article 4 of the basic Regulation. The GOC provided no such information. The Commission, mindful of the requirement of Article 4(5) of the basic Regulation that any determination of specificity shall be \u2018clearly substantiated\u2019 on the basis of positive evidence, therefore had to base its findings on the facts available, as stated under Section 4.1 above, in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.\n(155)\nThis subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation given that the legislation itself, pursuant to which the granting authority operates, limited the access to this scheme to a certain type of enterprises (i.e. FIE\u2019s). In addition, there are no objective criteria to determine eligibility and no conclusive evidence to conclude that the eligibility is automatic in accordance with Article 4(2) (b) of the basic Regulation. Indeed, although some administrative rules have been collected during the visit to the exporting producers, the lack of cooperation from the GOC authorities does not permit to assess the existence of such objective criteria.\n(156)\nFurthermore, the scheme is specific within the meaning of Article 4(4)(b) of the basic Regulation, given that the subsidy is contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods.\n(157)\nConsequently, this subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(158)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipients, which is found to exist during the IP. The benefit conferred on the recipients is calculated by taking into consideration the VAT reimbursed on the purchase of domestically produced equipment. In accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount (numerator) has been allocated to the IP using a useful life corresponding to the average depreciation period of the industry concerned (i.e. 15 years). The resulting amount was then allocated over the total sales turnover of the co-operating exporting producers during the IP, because the subsidy is not contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(159)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the cooperating exporting producers amounts to 0,03 %.for the APP Group and 0,05 % for the Chenming Group.\n- City maintenance and Construction Taxes and education surcharges for FIEs\n(160)\nThis scheme provides an exemption to FIEs from paying the local city maintenance and construction tax and education surcharge.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(161)\nThe scheme is based on the Interim Rules on City Maintenance Tax of the People's Republic of China (Guo Fa published 8 February 1985, No 19) and the Regulations of the Ministry of Finance on Several Specific Issues concerning the implementation of Interim Rules on City Maintenance Tax of the People's Republic of China (Cai Shui Zi, published 22 March 1985, No 69).\n(b) Eligibility\n(162)\nEligibility is limited to the FIEs.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(163)\nAccording to the Interim Rules on City Maintenance Tax of the People's Republic of China the tax basis of the city maintenance and construction tax \u2018is the amount of product tax, VAT and business actually paid by the taxpayers, and it shall be paid at the same time respectively as the product tax, VAT and business tax\u2019.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(164)\nAs explained under recitals (347) and (348), tax obligations with respect to this scheme are applicable from 1 December 2010 to all companies operating in China.\n(e) Conclusion\n(165)\nAccordingly and on the basis of information up to 30 November 2010, the scheme should be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of foregone government revenue which confers a benefit upon the recipient companies.\n(166)\nThis subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation given that the legislation itself, pursuant to which the granting authority operates, excludes certain type of enterprises (i.e. FIE\u2019s) from the payment of the city maintenance and construction tax.\n(167)\nConsequently, this subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(168)\nNevertheless, in view of the information provided by the GOC and the relevant cooperating exporting producers it is concluded that the parties were in a position to demonstrate that this scheme no longer confers any benefit on the exporters involved.\n(169)\nThus the conditions lay down in Article 15 of the basic Regulation are fulfilled. It was therefore concluded that this scheme should not be countervailed.\n4.2.4. GRANT PROGRAMMES\n(170)\nFrom the various grant programmes mentioned in the complaint two were found to be used by co-operating exporting producers, i.e the Famous brands award and Special funds for encouraging foreign economic and trade development and for drawing significant foreign investment project in Shandong province. The remaining programmes found to be used were reported by the co-operating exporting producers. The GOC was made aware of the existence of these programmes and was requested to provide necessary information on them. The GOC submitted that any programme which was not included in the complaint cannot be investigated, as this is contrary to the WTO rules. It was thus argued by the GOC that the Commission request has to be considered inconsistent with the rules of evidence and consultation under the SCM Agreement. It was also submitted by the GOC that the information provided by the Commission with respect to these schemes was general and that, even assuming that these programs can be investigated, the Commission should send a new, sufficiently substantiated request to the GOC, requesting it to provide details on the newly-alleged subsidies that would be relevant to the investigation.\n(171)\nIn this respect it is noted that it is standard EU practice to inform the authorities of the investigating country of the existence of any alleged subsidy scheme used by the cooperating exporting producers, other than the ones mentioned in the complaint, and request information and clarification thereon. The practice followed is in line with the relevant WTO rules. The Commission informed the GOC on the existence of such schemes at the time that these schemes were made known and provided the GOC with the information it has received from the Chinese co-operating exporting producers. The Commission provided the GOC with the opportunity for consultations with respect to the relevant schemes and consultations were subsequently held. Consequently, the provisions of Articles 12.1, 13.1 and 13.2 of the SCM Agreement as well as of Article 11(10) of the basic Regulation were fully honoured. The findings presented hereunder take into consideration the information submitted by the GOC with respect to the relevant programmes.\n(i) Programmes mentioned in the complaint\n- Famous Brands\n(a) Legal Basis\n(172)\nThis scheme is implemented with the Notice of Shandong Province concerning the special award Fund Budget in 2008 for the Development of Self Exporting Brand [Lucaiqizhi (2008) No. 75]. This scheme provides grants to companies in order to boost exporting brands and increase the market share of famous brands.\n(b) Eligibility\n(173)\nOnly the exporting famous brand enterprises established in the Shandong Province are eligible to get the award. No legal or administrative acts were submitted to substantiate the eligibility criteria.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(174)\nThe scheme aims to award the enterprises which have been recognized as the exporting famous brand enterprises of Shandong Province, so as to improve their development and competitiveness. The enterprise does not need to apply for this programme, so there is no approval document.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(175)\nOne co-operating exporting producer benefited from this scheme.\n(e) Conclusion\n(176)\nAccordingly, the scheme should be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of direct transfer of funds which confers a benefit upon the recipient companies.\n(177)\nThe GOC was requested to provide information on the eligibility criteria for obtaining this subsidy and on the use of the subsidy, in order to determine to what extent access to the subsidy is limited to certain enterprises and whether it is specific according to Article 4 of the basic Regulation. The GOC provided no such information. The Commission, mindful of the requirement of Article 4(5) of the basic Regulation that any determination of specificity shall be \u2018clearly substantiated\u2019 on the basis of positive evidence, therefore had to base its findings on the facts available, as stated under Section 4.1 above, in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.\n(178)\nThis subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of the Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation as access to it is limited to certain enterprises i.e. exporting famous brand enterprises. In the light of the lack of any legal or administrative information on the eligibility criteria, there is nothing to suggest that eligibility for the subsidy is based on objective criteria and conditions under Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n(179)\nConsequently, this subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(180)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipients, which is found to exist during the IP. This amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total sales turnover of the co-operating exporting producer during the IP, because the subsidy is not contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(181)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the cooperating exporting producers is negligible (less than 0,01 %) for the Chenming group.\n- Special Funds for Encouraging Foreign Investment Projects\n(a) Legal Basis\n(182)\nThe official document on this scheme is the Announcement of Shouguang People's Government on Commendation of advanced enterprises in 2008. This scheme, established on 9 February 2008, gives commendation to the enterprises which achieved excellent performance during 2008.\n(b) Eligibility\n(183)\nCompanies which have been recognized as the \u2018advanced enterprise on foreign investment attraction\u2019 and the \u2018advanced enterprise on foreign trade business performance\u2019 with remarkable foreign trade business performance or significant foreign investment attractions are eligible for the scheme. No law or regulation concerning the policy or the definition of the \u2018advanced enterprise on foreign investment attraction\u2019 and the \u2018advanced enterprise on foreign trade business performance\u2019 was provided by the GOC.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(184)\nShouguang People's Government is responsible for awarding funds to enterprises which have been recognized as \u2018advanced enterprise on foreign investment attraction\u2019 and the \u2018advanced enterprise on foreign trade business performance\u2019.\n(185)\nAccording to the GOC, the enterprise does not need to apply for this scheme, so there is no approval document.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(186)\nOne co-operating exporting producer benefited from this scheme.\n(e) Conclusion\n(187)\nAccordingly, the scheme should be be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of direct transfer of funds which confers a benefit upon the recipient companies.\n(188)\nThe GOC was requested to provide information on the eligibility criteria for obtaining this subsidy and on the use of the subsidy, in order to determine to what extent access to the subsidy is limited to certain enterprises and whether it is specific according to Article 4 of the basic Regulation. The GOC provided no such information. The Commission, mindful of the requirement of Article 4(5) of the basic Regulation that any determination of specificity shall be \u2018clearly substantiated\u2019 on the basis of positive evidence, therefore had to base its findings on the facts available, as stated under Section 4.1 above, in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.\n(189)\nThis subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation as access to it is limited to certain enterprises i.e. to advanced enterprise on foreign investment attraction and advanced enterprise on foreign trade business performance. In the light of the lack of any legal or administrative information on the eligibility criteria, there is nothing to suggest that eligibility for the subsidy is based on objective criteria and conditions under Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n(190)\nConsequently, this subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(191)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipients, which is found to exist during the IP. This amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total sales turnover of the co-operating exporting producer during the IP, because the subsidy is not contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(192)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the cooperating exporting producers is negligible (less than 0,01 %) for the Chenming group.\n(ii) Programmes reported by the cooperating exporting producers\n- Anti-dumping Respondent Assistance\n(a) Legal Basis\n(193)\nThe official document on this scheme is the Rules for the Implementation of the Support Policy for the Anti-dumping, Anti-subsidy, Safeguard investigation Respondent. GOC claims that the scheme was terminated in 2008, but no relevant law legal notification was provided.\n(b) Eligibility\n(194)\nSubsidy provided by regional/provincial financial bureau in order to facilitate company's participation in the US anti-dumping investigation. Eligible companies must be registered in Shandong Province (excluding Qingdao City), and shall work in compliance with the instructions of the Ministry of Commerce and provincial authorities.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(195)\nThe scheme is regional specific (only available in Shandong Province but with the exception of its largest city Qingdao) with eligibility criteria that are not objective by law.\n(196)\nAccording to the relevant law, 40 % of the lawyer fees will be granted to the applicant.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(197)\nOne co-operating exporting producer benefited from this scheme.\n(e) Conclusion\n(198)\nAccordingly, the scheme should be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of a direct transfer of funds which confers a benefit upon the recipient companies.\n(199)\nThis subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the basic Regulation given that the legislation itself, pursuant to which the granting authority operates, limited the access to this scheme to companies within a designated geographical region.\n(200)\nConsequently, the subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(201)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipients, which is found to exist during the IP. This amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total sales turnover of the co-operating exporting producer during the IP, because the subsidy is not contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(202)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the cooperating exporting producers is negligible (less than 0,01 %) for the Chenming group.\n- Shouguang Technology Renovation Grant\n(a) Legal Basis\n(203)\nThe programme was implemented according to the Opinion to accelerate high-tech industry development (Trial Implementation) (Shoufa [2005] No. 37) issued by the Shouguang Municipal Government. The GOC claimed that relevant legal framework for the scheme exists but it did not provide a copy of it.\n(b) Eligibility\n(204)\nThe scheme is a subsidy provided to enhance competitiveness of enterprises. No legal or administrative acts were submitted to substantiate the eligibility criteria.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(205)\nAccording to GOC this programme is a local grant to encourage R&D, energy-saving and environmental protection. There is no application procedure. The regional Government issues form time to time notices informing the exporting producers that are awarded a grant of a certain amount.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(206)\nOne co-operating exporting producer benefited from the scheme.\n(e) Conclusion\n(207)\nAccordingly, the scheme should be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of a direct transfer of funds which confers a benefit upon the recipient companies.\n(208)\nThe GOC was requested to provide information on the eligibility criteria for obtaining this subsidy and on the use of the subsidy, in order to determine to what extent access to the subsidy is limited to certain enterprises and whether it is specific according to Article 4 of the basic Regulation. The GOC provided no such information. The Commission, mindful of the requirement of Article 4(5) of the basic Regulation that any determination of specificity shall be \u2018clearly substantiated\u2019 on the basis of positive evidence, therefore had to base its findings on the facts available, as stated in Section 4.1 above, in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.\n(209)\nThis subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of the Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation as access to it is limited to certain enterprises. In the light of the lack of any legal or administrative information on the eligibility criteria, there is nothing to suggest that eligibility for the subsidy is based on objective criteria and conditions under Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n(210)\nConsequently, the subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(211)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipients, which is found to exist during the IP. This amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total sales turnover of the co-operating exporting producer during the IP, because the subsidy is not contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(212)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the cooperating exporting producers amounts to 0,59 % for the Chenming group.\n- Suzhou Industrial Park Intellectual Property Right Fund\n(a) Legal Basis\n(213)\nThe scheme is implemented in accordance with the Interim Measures on Strengthening the Work of Suzhou Industrial Park Intellectual Property Right and the Administrative Rules on Suzhou Industrial Park Intellectual Property Right Fund.\n(b) Eligibility\n(214)\nThe scheme is provided only to company established in the Suzhou Industrial Park that have obtained Certificate of Registry of Computer Software Copyright, Certificate of Registry of Integrated Circuit Layout Design and has newly obtained famous brand products.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(215)\nAn eligible company to obtain a grant for patent application or trademark award has to fill in an application form for the Famous Brand Award of Suzhou Province or level-above and submit it to the Science and Technology Bureau of the Park. Grants are provided by the Suzhou Industrial Park. No information exists on the Park's financing and from which state authorities it receives the grants amounts.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(216)\nOne co-operating exporting producer benefited from the scheme. However, the Commission notes the total lack of any relevant documentation concerning the cooperating exporting producer as no application to the scheme or decision granting the award was provided.\n(e) Conclusion\n(217)\nAccordingly, the scheme should be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of a direct transfer of funds which confers a benefit upon the recipient companies.\n(218)\nThe GOC was requested to provide information on the eligibility criteria for obtaining this subsidy and on the use of the subsidy, in order to determine to what extent access to the subsidy is limited to certain enterprises and whether it is specific according to Article 4 of the basic Regulation. The GOC provided no such information. The Commission, mindful of the requirement of Article 4(5) of the basic Regulation that any determination of specificity shall be \u2018clearly substantiated\u2019 on the basis of positive evidence, therefore had to base its findings on the facts available, as stated under Section 4.1 above, in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.\n(219)\nThis subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation as access to it is limited to certain enterprises. In the light of the lack of any legal or administrative information on the eligibility criteria, there is nothing to suggest that eligibility for the subsidy is based on objective criteria and conditions under Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n(220)\nIn addition, the subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the basic Regulation given that the legislation itself, pursuant to which the granting authority operates, limited the access to this scheme to companies within a designated geographical region. The scheme is only available for companies established in the Suzhou Industrial Park.\n(221)\nConsequently, the subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(222)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipients, which is found to exist during the IP. This amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total sales turnover of the co-operating exporting producer during the IP, because the subsidy is not contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(223)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the cooperating exporting producers amounts to less than 0,01 % for the APP Group.\n- Subsidy of High-Tech Industrial Development Fund\n(a) Legal Basis\n(224)\nNo legal basis was provided by the GOC or by the exporting producers. The programme foresees financial assistance to companies in the Suzhou Industrial Park and according to the GOC, this scheme aims to accelerate the reforming and upgrading of Suzhou Industrial Park and to promote the improvement of scientific research quality of enterprises in the Park.\n(b) Eligibility\n(225)\nThe scheme is provided only to companies established in the Suzhou Industrial Park that comply with the requirements set out in a number of plans as well as the existence of relevant scientific research projects. The GOC submitted the description of the programme however did not provide copies of the relevant plans.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(226)\nAssistance is provided to companies that invest in the Park and request grants for specific types of action (research and development; new products assistance; intellectual property administration; overseas market development; project coordination with government; public technology service). Grants are provided by the Suzhou Industrial Park. No information exists on the Park's financing and from which state authorities it receives the grant amounts.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(227)\nOne co-operating exporting producer benefited from the scheme.\n(e) Conclusion\n(228)\nAccordingly, the scheme should be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of direct transfer of funds which confers a benefit upon the recipient companies.\n(229)\nThe GOC was requested to provide information on the eligibility criteria for obtaining this subsidy and on the use of the subsidy, in order to determine to what extent access to the subsidy is limited to certain enterprises and whether it is specific according to Article 4 of the basic Regulation. The GOC provided no such information. The Commission, mindful of the requirement of Article 4(5) of the basic Regulation that any determination of specificity shall be \u2018clearly substantiated\u2019 on the basis of positive evidence, therefore had to base its findings on the facts available, as stated under Section 4.1 above, in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.\n(230)\nThe subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation as access to it is limited to certain enterprises. In the light of the lack of any legal or administrative information on the eligibility criteria, there is nothing to suggest that eligibility for the subsidy is based on objective criteria and conditions under Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n(231)\nIn addition, the subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of the Article 4(3) of the basic Regulation given that the legislation itself, pursuant to which the granting authority operates, limited the access to this scheme to companies within a designated geographical region. The scheme is only available for companies established in the Suzhou Industrial Park.\n(232)\nConsequently, the subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(233)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipients, which is found to exist during the IP. This amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total sales turnover of the co-operating exporting producer during the IP, because the subsidy is not contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(234)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the cooperating exporting producers amounts to 0,03 % for the APP Group.\n- Award received from Suzhou Industrial Park for maintaining growth\n(a) Legal Basis\n(235)\nNo legal basis was provided by the GOC or by the exporting producers. The GOC states that the programme is implemented according to the Opinion of Suzhou Industrial Park on Promoting Smooth, Stable and Rapid Growth and its aim is to accelerate industrial structure growth and foreign trade.\n(b) Eligibility\n(236)\nThe scheme is provided only to companies established in the Suzhou Industrial Park. No eligibility criteria have been clearly set out by the Chinese authorities. However, in order to receive this grant, enterprises established in the park must reach a higher export performance in 2009 than the previous year's actual performance.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(237)\nAccording to the GOC the enterprises does not need to apply for this scheme, although the relevant cooperating exporting producer has submitted an application form of Suzhou Industrial Park for hi-tech Industrial Development Fund. As submitted by the GOC, the scheme is related to the export performance of the enterprises with companies receiving a set amount of RMB for every dollar of growth in increased export quantities and values. The RMB incentive is also differentiated on the basis of type of products and models. Grants are provided by the Suzhou Industrial Park. No information exists on the Park's financing and from which state authorities it receives the grants amounts.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(238)\nOne cooperating exporting producer benefited from the scheme.\n(e) Conclusion\n(239)\nAccordingly, the scheme should be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of a direct transfer of funds which confers a benefit upon the recipient companies.\n(240)\nThe GOC was requested to provide information on the eligibility criteria for obtaining this subsidy and on the use of the subsidy, in order to determine to what extent access to the subsidy is limited to certain enterprises and whether it is specific according to Article 4 of the basic Regulation. The GOC provided no such information. The Commission, mindful of the requirement of Article 4(5) of the basic Regulation that any determination of specificity shall be \u2018clearly substantiated\u2019 on the basis of positive evidence, therefore had to base its findings on the facts available, as stated under Section 4.1 above, in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.\n(241)\nThe subsidy scheme is specific within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the basic Regulation given that the legislation itself, pursuant to which the granting authority operates, limited the access to this scheme to companies within a designated geographical region. The scheme is only available for companies established in the Suzhou Industrial Park.\n(242)\nIn addition, the scheme is contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation. The grant is linked and calculated according to the export performance since benefit received is based on the increase of export quantities and values from one year to the next.\n(243)\nConsequently, the subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(244)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipients, which is found to exist during the IP. This amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total export turnover of the co-operating exporting producer during the IP, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance.\n(245)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the cooperating exporting producers amounts to 0,05 % for APP Group.\n- Programmes reported by the cooperating exporting producers but not assessed\n(246)\nThe following schemes and programmes related to energy saving and environment protection were reported from the cooperating exporting producers:\n-\nSpecial fund for water pollution treatment of Taihu lake of Jiangsu province\n-\nSpecial funds for energy-saving of Suzhou Industrial Park\n-\nSpecial fund for reduction of total emissions of major pollutants at municipal level of Suzhou municipality\n-\nSubsidy for water-saving and emission reduction\n-\nEnvironmental Protection award received from Suzhou Environmental Protection Bureau\n-\nEnergy saving award in Shouguang\n(247)\nIn view of the small amount of benefits involved, it was not considered necessary to pursue our investigation of these schemes and programmes.\n4.2.5. GOVERNMENT PROVISION OF GOODS AND SERVICES FOR LESS THAN ADEQUATE REMUNERATION (\u2018LTAR\u2019)\n(i) Programmes mentioned in the complaint and assessed\n- Provision of land-use rights\n(a) Legal Basis and Eligibility\n(248)\nThe allegation in the complaint was that the GOC had provided land-use rights to the cooperating exporters for less than adequate remuneration. In response to this, GOC provided the Land Administration Law and the Provisions on the Assignment of State-Owned Construction Land-Use Right through Bid Invitation, Auction and Quotation, No. 39, dated 28 September 2007. The GOC refused to provide any data with respect to actual land-use rights prices, minimum land price benchmarks that they claim that exist, the way of evaluating minimum land price benchmarks as well as the methodology followed when the State expropriates land from former users.\n(b) Practical implementation\n(249)\nAccording to Article 2 of the Land Administration Law, all land is government-owned since, according to the Chinese constitution and relevant legal provisions, land belongs collectively to the People of China. No land can be sold but land-use rights may be assigned according to the law: the State authorities assign it through public bidding, quotation or auction.\n(c) Findings of the investigation\n(250)\nThe cooperating exporting producers have reported information regarding the land they hold as well as the relevant land-use rights contracts/certificates, but no information was provided by the GOC about pricing of land-use rights.\n(d) Conclusion\n(251)\nAccordingly, the provision of land-use rights by the GOC should be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(iii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of provision of goods which confers a benefit upon the recipient companies. As explained in recitals (260) to (262) below, there is no functioning market for land in China and the use of an external benchmark demonstrates that the amount paid for land-use rights by the cooperating exporters is well below the normal market rate.\n(252)\nThe GOC was requested to provide information on the eligibility criteria for obtaining the subsidy and on the use of the subsidy, in order to determine to what extent access to the subsidy is limited to certain enterprises and whether it is specific according to Article 4 of the basic Regulation. The GOC provided no such information. The Commission, mindful of the requirement of Article 4(5) of the basic Regulation that any determination of specificity shall be \u2018clearly substantiated\u2019 on the basis of positive evidence, therefore had to base its findings on the facts available in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation. It is noted that Article 28(6) states that \u2018If an interested party does not cooperate, or cooperates only partially, so that relevant information is thereby withheld, the result may be less favourable to the party than if it had co-operated\u2019. The facts considered included the following:\n(253)\nThe evidence of specificity submitted by the complainants.\n(254)\nThe findings (see recitals (77) and (78)) that specific subsidies are channelled to the papermaking industry through a specific sectoral plan i.e. the Papermaking Plan. In this respect it is noted that Articles 7 to 11 of the aforesaid Plan set out specific rules on industrial layout by stating what type of papermaking industries shall be established in various geographical regions of the country.\n(255)\nThe evidence (see recital (76)) that the papermaking industry is an \u2018encouraged industry\u2019 (Decision No 40).\n(256)\nThe findings (see recitals (260) to (262)) that there is no functioning market for land in China.\n(257)\nThe findings from the cooperating exporting producers, as confirmed in the parallel anti-dumping investigation, that land was allocated to them in view of their papermaking projects (8).\n(258)\nIn the light of the above, and in the absence of any cooperation by the GOC, the available evidence indicates that subsidies granted to companies in the paper industry are not generally available and are therefore specific under Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation. In the light of the GOC's non-cooperation, there is nothing to suggest that eligibility for the subsidy is based on objective criteria and conditions under Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n(259)\nConsequently, this subsidy should be considered countervailable.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(260)\nAccordingly, it should be concluded that the situation in China with respect to land-use rights is not market-driven. Indeed, there appear to be no available private benchmarks at all in China. Therefore, an adjustment of costs or prices in China is not practicable. In these circumstances it is considered that there is no market in China and, in accordance with Article 6(d)(ii) of the basic Regulation, the use of an external benchmark for measuring the amount of benefit is warranted. Given that the GOC did not cooperate and failed to submit any proposal for an external benchmark the Commission had to resort to facts available in order to establish an appropriate external benchmark. In this respect it is considered appropriate to use information from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matscu (Chinese Taipei), hereafter mentioned as \u2018Taiwan\u2019, as an appropriate benchmark.\n(261)\nThe Commission considers that the land prices in Taiwan offers the best proxy to the areas in China where the cooperating exporting producers are based. All the exporting producers are located in the east part of China, in developed high-GDP areas in provinces with a high population density surrounding Shanghai. The amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipients, which is found to exist during the IP. The benefit conferred on the recipients is calculated by taking into consideration the difference between the amount paid by each company for land-use rights and the amount that should have been normally paid on the basis of the Taiwanese benchmark.\n(262)\nIn doing this calculation, the Commission used the average land price per square meter established in Taiwan corrected for currency depreciation as from the dates of the respective land-use right contracts. The information concerning industrial land prices was retrieved from the website of the Industrial Bureau of the Ministry of Economic Affairs of Taiwan. The currency depreciation was calculated on the basis of inflation rates for Taiwan as published by the IMF in its 2009 World Economic Outlook. In accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount (numerator) has been allocated to the IP using the normal life time of the land-use right for industrial use land in China, i.e. 50 years. This amount has then been allocated over the total sales turnover of the co-operating exporting producers during the IP, because the subsidy is not contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(263)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the cooperating exporting producers amounts to 2,81 % for APP companies and 0,69 % for Chenming companies.\n(ii) Schemes mentioned in the complaint but not assessed\n- Provision of electricity\n(264)\nIt was found that the cooperating exporting producers did not benefit from this scheme during the IP. Therefore there was no need to asses whether this scheme is countervailable or not.\n- Provision of paper-making chemicals\n(265)\nIt was found that the cooperating exporting producers did not benefit from this scheme during the IP. Therefore there was no need to asses whether this scheme is countervailable or not.\n4.3. COMMENTS OF PARTIES IN RELATION TO SUBSIDISATION\n4.3.1. INTRODUCTION\n(266)\nThe GOC, two groups of cooperating exporting producers (APP and Chenming) and the EU complainant submitted comments on the definitive disclosure.\n(267)\nThe EU complainant supported the findings of the Commission.\n(268)\nThe GOC, APP and Chenming disputed the findings of the Commission. To the extent that arguments have already been fully addressed in the definitive disclosure they are not repeated in this Regulation.\n4.3.2. ALLEGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO DOUBLE REMEDY\n(269)\nThe GOC argued that the proposal for countervailing measures amounts to a double remedy. It was submitted that under the EU practice in anti-dumping investigations against China normal value is determined by reference to data obtained from producers in a third market-economy country. Thus, in such cases countervailing duties would provide a double remedy to address the same matter since the anti-dumping duties effectively \u2018offset\u2019 any subsidy allegedly granted to Chinese companies.\n(270)\nAPP claimed that if the normal value is based on domestic sales in the analogue country, the rejection of the MET claim and the use of non-subsidised normal value have the effect of increasing the duty by the amount of subsidisation and the subsidies would be counted twice.\n(271)\nGOC submitted that the same alleged distortions have already been addressed in the parallel anti-dumping proceedings. GOC also submitted that that the practice of the Commission is in violation of EU and WTO law and that the Commission should either terminate the CVD proceedings or grant MET to the co-operating exporting producers in the parallel anti-dumping proceedings. The GOC also submitted that it does not accept the Commission's argument that there is no double counting by virtue of the injury margin that is lower than the dumping margin. Finally the GOC argued that on the basis of the findings of the WTO Appellate Body on the US - PRC dispute DS379 (9) with respect to double remedy the current proceedings should be terminated.\n(272)\nThose claims had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that double remedy does not play any role in these proceedings. Whether or not the simultaneous imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties in the case of a non-market economy can lead to a potential \u2018double remedy\u2019, this situation, by definition, could only occur where there is a cumulation of the dumping margin and the amount of subsidy i.e. where the combined level of two types of duty exceeds the higher of the dumping margin or the amount of subsidy. As will be explained below, this is not the case here.\n(273)\nFirst of all it is recalled that the EU is applying the lesser duty rule when imposing anti-dumping and countervailing duties on the same product. In other words in EU investigations the Commission establishes the level of dumping, subsidization and injury caused to the Union industry. The level of duties can never be higher than the injury margin and the injury margin here is the same for both proceedings. In the parallel anti-dumping proceedings the Commission established a margin of dumping that is much higher than the injury margin. In line with the lesser duty rule the Commission proposed the imposition of measures that are based on the injury margin (see Council Regulation (EU) No 451/2011 of 6 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of coated fine paper originating in the People's Republic of China (10)). Thus the subsidy margin found in the current ant-subsidy investigation will not provide any additional protection to the Union industry as compared to the dumping margin because the anti-dumping duty will already be capped by the injury margin. Therefore there is no overlap or cumulation of duties in the two parallel proceedings and consequently, even assuming that there is a potential for a double remedy as described in recital (269) above, there can be no requirement by law to \u2018offset\u2019 dumping against the subsidy. Indeed, the difference between the dumping and injury margins found in the anti-dumping proceedings was much higher than the amount of subsidization found in the present investigation. It should be also highlighted that when it comes to the actual composition of the duties to be paid the Commission has a practice to first impose the duty amount resulting from the CVD investigation. If there is still a gap between the aforementioned duty level and the injury margin, this gap can be filled with the duty resulting from the anti-dumping investigation. However, this does not mean that there is double counting because the combined level of duties could already have been justified as a result of the anti-dumping investigation alone.\n(274)\nSecondly, it should be noted that the remedies proposed by the GOC are not permitted by law since (i) the investigation established the existence of countervailing subsidies that caused material injury to the Union industry and imposition of measures was found to be in the Union interest thus these proceedings cannot be terminated, (ii) not all Chinese parties requested MET in the parallel anti-dumping proceedings, (iii) MET cannot be granted automatically to parties that have not requested and (iv) for those parties where MET was refused this was done because of the serious deficiencies found with respect to Criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.\n4.3.3. ALLEGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO USE OF ADVERSE INFERENCES\n(275)\nThe GOC also argued that the Commission used illegally adverse inferences as a result of the insufficient cooperation. In this context, they refer to Article 28(6) of the basic Regulation that inter alia mentions that if an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates partially the result may be less favourable to the party than if it had cooperated. According to the GOC the application of adverse inferences is in violation of Article 12(7) of the SCM Agreement as well as of Annex II of the WTO Anti Dumping Agreement.\n(276)\nWith respect to this point it is noted that the GOC understanding of Article 28(6) of the basic Regulation is groundless. The Commission did not impose any \u2018adverse inferences\u2019 to the GOC, in that the Commission did not deliberately choose a less favourable outcome for the exporters concerned, nor did it seek to impose a punitive option with regard to the existence of subsidies or amount of countervailing duties. The Commission as investigating authority requested a set of information from the GOC within a reasonable period of time. However, the GOC failed to provide the information deemed necessary for the investigation (e.g. copies of plans, information on banks, the assessment that banks carried out when attributing loans to the cooperating exporting producers, pricing of land-use rights). Under these circumstances the Commission was forced to use the provisions of Article 28 of the basic Regulation concerning facts available in order to arrive at a representative finding. It is pertinent to underline that this was not done by imposing punitive findings to the GOC. By way of example, it is noted that the Commission did not reject information concerning LUR; rather, the GOC did not submit all the required information on the pricing of LUR. In the same way the Commission did not apply any adverse inferences to the GOC with respect to preferential lending to the coated paper industry but had to find the missing information with respect to plans, the role of the banks and the lending policies of the banks to the cooperating exporting producers, since such information was simply not provided by the GOC. Thus the Commission used whatever information provided by the GOC. Whenever information submitted was not sufficient or not found to be probative the Commission had to complement it with other relevant data in order to make its findings. In some instances, it cannot be excluded that the result was less favourable to the GOC than if it had fully cooperated but this outcome was not sought by the Commission.\n(277)\nThe Commission's approach in this case can be contrasted with the manner in which the notion of \u2018adverse inferences\u2019 under paragraph 7 of Annex V of the SCM Agreement has been applied by WTO panels. For example, the EC-Aircraft panel applied adverse inferences on two occasions with regard to the Spanish \u2018PROFIT\u2019 R&D programme in cases where insufficient data was provided by the EU. With regard to both the amount of funding and the issue of de-facto specificity, the panel disregarded the evidence submitted by the EU and substituted the solution proposed by the complainant (the USA) for its findings (11). This was not the case in the present investigation as the Commission did not disregard any data provided by the GOC and simply substitute the solution proposed by the complainant but rather used the totality of information it had available to come to a conclusion. In view of the above it is concluded that the aforesaid claims had to be rejected.\n(278)\nAs the Commission did not use adverse inferences in relation to the GOC or any exporter, the claim that the application of adverse inferences to a government is in violation of the WTO legal provisions is devoid of any purpose.\n(279)\nThis had to be rejected as this allegation is not supported by the actual facts. The Commission informed the GOC on the provisions of Article 28 and on which cases these provisions may apply in the first letter the GOC received upon the initiation of these proceedings as well as in the last letter the GOC received before the on-the-spot verification visit. Furthermore the GOC was made aware of the consequences of non-cooperation as explained under recital (59) above.\n(280)\nThe GOC also claimed that the Commission never requested it to arrange meetings with state-owned banks.\n(281)\nThat claim had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that the Commission requested the direct involvement of the GOC when arranging meetings with those banks that have provided loans to the cooperating exporting producers. For this purpose, the GOC was also provided with a list of the banks that had provided such loans. The GOC was also requested to ensure that policy banks and other financial institutions would be present during the on-the-spot verification visit at the premises of the GOC in order to reply to questions referring to the part of the questionnaire intended for these parties. None of the above requests was ever acted upon by the GOC.\n(282)\nThe GOC argued that the use of adverse inferences is unjustified in the present case as the GOC provided to its best of its abilities the information it had available. GOC submitted that banks are third parties to these proceedings and not interested parties as defined in Article 12(9) of the SCM Agreement and thus there is no obligation for them to cooperate. It was also submitted that the Commission displayed arbitrariness and acted inconsistently to WTO rules since GOC provided sufficient information with respect to lending from banks and land-use rights.\n(283)\nThose claims had to be rejected. In this respect it is recalled that the Commission did not apply adverse inferences to the GOC. Furthermore, as it is stated under recital (276) above, the Commission used whatever information the GOC provided but since significant information was missing it had to complement data provided with other available sources in order to arrive at a representative finding.\n(284)\nWith respect to the claims made on interested parties it is recalled that Article 12(9) of the SCM Agreement clearly states that domestic or foreign parties other than the ones mentioned therein could be included as interested parties. With respect to these proceedings the Commission, on the basis of the complaint, requested information concerning the preferential lending to the coated paper industry. Moreover, such information is directly linked to banks that are majority State-owned. Both the cooperating exporting producers and the GOC were made aware of this. The fact that sufficient information with respect to lending from banks was simply not provided forced the Commission to resort in the application of facts available in line with the provisions of Article 28 of the basic Regulation.\n4.3.4. ALLEGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO USE OF BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE\n(285)\nAPP claimed that the Commission is prevented from discarding information that is not ideal in all respects if the interested party that supplied the information has, nevertheless, acted to the best of its ability. APP further claimed thatEeven in cases where a party failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, when using facts available to it, the Commission must take into account all the substantiated facts provided by an interested party even if those facts may not constitute the complete information requested of the party. The Commission is therefore compelled, under both the basic Regulation and the SCM Agreement, not to disregard such information.\n(286)\nThe GOC submitted that recourse to facts available is not permissible if an interested Member or interested party has demonstrated that it has acted to its best of its abilities and provided information that was verifiable, appropriately submitted so it can be used in the investigation, supplied in timely fashion and in a medium or computer language requested by the investigating authorities.\n(287)\nThis was not the case here. In this respect it is recalled that the Commission resorted to facts available in line with the provisions of Article 28 of the basic Regulation and Article 12(7) of the SCM Agreement because the GOC and exporting producers, although repeatedly requested to do so, did not provide information that was considered necessary for the investigation in order to arrive at a representative finding. Indeed, the Commission had to seek to repair the fundamental problem it encountered as investigating authority i.e. the fact that the GOC refused access or failed to provide actual information on plans, role of the banks, evaluation of credit risk when granting loans to cooperating exporting producers, pricing of LUR or legal documents referring to the various investigated schemes. In the same way the co-operating exporting producers failed to provide information concerning loans attributed by Chinese banks. Therefore, the way the GOC and the exporting producers cooperated does not meet the standards established by the WTO Appellate Body in United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, which concluded that the level of cooperation required of interested parties is a \u2018high\u2019 one and that interested parties must act to the \u2018best of their abilities\u2019 (12). The Commission fails to understand why it was not possible to the GOC and the exporting producers to submit/arrange the missing items and no credible explanation was provided by the GOC or the exporting prodcuers. The GOC also submitted that the conditions for resorting to the use of best information available were not fulfilled and that GOC may have failed to provide certain information simple because such information does not exist, is no longer relevant or is unavailable, it was not requested in the questionnaire or in advance before verification.\n(288)\nThat argument had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that as it has been clearly demonstrated under the Subsidisation section (recitals (64)-(73)) that the use of facts available was the only available option for the Commission as investigating authority in order to arrive at a representative finding. With respect to the type of information requested it is recalled that the Commission requested information that existed (e.g. information on plans, role of the banks, evaluation of credit risk when granting loans to cooperating exporting producers, pricing of LUR or legal documents referring to the various investigated schemes) and offered the possibility to the GOC to provide such information on numerous occasions following the initiation of these proceedings.\n(289)\nFurthermore, it should also be highlighted that the Commission, as investigating authority, had to investigate allegations made in the complaint and for which sufficient evidence had been provided to initiate an investigation (e.g. use of five-year plans and industrial policies for preferential lending to the coated paper industry, role of the banks as public bodies, existence of direct/indirect tax and grant programmes) and thus the GOC as interested party was requested to provide all the information deemed necessary. However, the GOC took a different approach that was tantamount to substituting themselves for the investigating authority. Indeed, the GOC wanted to judge for itself what they considered relevant and limit their submissions to documents that they considered relevant without allowing the investigating authority to examine these matters. This is perfectly illustrated by the GOC's approach to state-owned banks (see recital (282) above).\nThe GOC claimed that such banks were \u2018third parties\u2019: however, the complainant had provided sufficient evidence that they are \u2018public bodies\u2019 and the Commission was therefore entitled to require the GOC to provide the requested information on their activities. In response, the GOC took it upon itself to decide that these banks were not public bodies and to refuse to provide any information on them. However, this decision belongs to the investigating authority i.e. the Commission and not to the GOC. Such behaviour is clearly not in line with the abovementioned WTO case law stating that interested parties must act to the \u2018best of their abilities\u2019. It is hard to see how it fits with the Appellate Body's conclusion in United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan that \u2018\u2026 cooperation is a process, involving joint effort, whereby parties work together towards a common goal\u2019 (13). It should also be noted that the Commission provided ample time to any interested party to submit requested information and conducted the investigation in line with the provisions of Annex VI of the SCM Agreement setting out the rules for on-the-spot verifications which inter alia allow requests made on-the-spot for further details in light of the information obtained.\n(290)\nThe GOC argued that the requested Plans were voluminous as they contain 282 000 pages and thus it is an unreasonable extra burden to translate them. It also claimed that it is not aware of Plans appearing in independent translations and that it did not provide the National Five Year Plans in the U.S. proceedings.\n(291)\nThat argument had to be rejected. The plans mentioned in recital (65) above that the GOC provided in Chinese amounted to less than 300 pages. The claim of 282 000 pages is not confirmed by what the GOC submitted on record. The claim is nevertheless worrying because it may point to an even much more detailed government intervention than found in the current investigation and in the parallel anti-dumping investigation. With respect to plans appearing in independent translations it is noted that the Commission received such documentation from other interested parties and to the extent that such translated plans were received they were used for the purposes of this investigation. Finally, it should be clarified that the Commission did not wish to allege that the GOC had submitted plans to the USA proceedings. Recital (66) above only mentions that it appears that translated information exists in this respect.\n4.3.5. ALLEGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO USE OF INFORMATION NOT IDEAL IN ALL RESPECTS\n(292)\nThe GOC argued that the Commission, before applying best information available, must conduct an analysis as required by Article 28(3) of the basic Regulation and conclude whether the specific conditions set thereon are fulfilled.\n(293)\nIn this respect it is noted that the Commission resorted to the use of facts available in line with the provisions of Article 28 of the basic Regulation because the specific conditions set out under Article 28(3) were not fulfilled. As explained above, the GOC either provided information that was deficient or in many instances it did not even provide requested information. It is recalled that information on plans was either not provided at all or partially provided, information on the role of the banks was incomplete or non-conclusive, evaluation of credit risk by banks when granting loans to cooperating exporting producers was not provided, pricing of LUR was not provided and a number of legal documents referring to certain tax and grant programmes were also not provided. Account taken of the deficiencies or the non-existence of the information the Commission was not in a position to verify certain information submitted. Given the above, the fact that in these circumstances the GOC could not be considered as acting to the best of its abilities and the undue difficulties in arriving at a reasonably accurate finding, the Commission was forced to resort to the application of facts available.\n(294)\nThe GOC also argued that the Commission should have used as best information available the information already provided by the GOC.\n(295)\nIn this respect it is noted that the Commission used the totality of information provided by interested parties (including whatever information was submitted by the GOC) and found from publicly available sources in order to arrive at a representative finding.\n(296)\nWith respect to loans it was argued that in the absence of information from specific banks in order to evaluate credit risk when providing loans, the Commission should have resorted to the explanations provided by PBOC and the CBRC as well as the Annual Reports of the Commercial Banks.\n(297)\nThat argument had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that banks, although explicitly requested to do so, did not provide the necessary data. The information provided by PBOC and CBRC was only of a very general nature and was in no way directly linked to the loans provided to the co-operating exporting producers. The GOC placed on file a number of Annual Reports of Commercial Banks (some of which where only in Chinese) and claimed that Commercial Banks make their own decisions regarding their business operations in accordance with law without any interference from unit or individual. However, these are simple statements that do not allow to verify whether and how the banks evaluated the credit risk when providing loans to the co-operating exporting producers and must be set against specific instances encountered in the investigations where firms clearly obtained loans with no apparent assessment of their credit risk.\n(298)\nWith respect to LUR it was argued that the Commission should have used the information submitted by the GOC which, according to the GOC, demonstrates the existence of a functioning market. It was asserted that information required by the Commission on minimum prices of land-use rights was massive and it was not requested in the questionnaire or in advance before verification.\n(299)\nThat argument had to be rejected. In this respect it is recalled that without having information on pricing on LUR it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion with respect to the existence of a functioning land market in China that reflects supply and demand forces. It is also noted that the Commission has offered ample time to the GOC to provide such information for the areas where the co-operating exporting producers are established but the GOC failed to submit even a single figure in this respect. In any event the Commission followed the provisions of Annex VI of the SCM Agreement setting out the rules for on-the-spot verifications which inter alia allow requests made on-the-spot for further details in light of the information obtained.\n4.3.6. ALLEGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC BODIES\n(300)\nThe GOC argued that Government ownership is not a reasonable basis for finding a bank or a utility to be a public body and for such an analysis the Commission should use the EU State aid rules. The GOC also requested that on the basis of the findings of the WTO Appellate Body on the US - PRC dispute DS379 with respect to the definition of public body the current proceedings should be terminated.\n(301)\nThat argument had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that the Commission has explained under recital (90) above the definition of a public body. This definition is in line with the relevant WTO case law on anti-subsidy proceedings including the aforesaid Appellate Body report. Thus, there is no need to depart from what is generally accepted and use another benchmark (i.e. the EU State aid rules) that applies to a very different branch of the law. Note that State aid law operates in a completely different context, i.e. not in order to regulate international trade in goods but as a complement to the common market. Finally there is no legal or factual basis to confirm the claim that the current proceedings should be terminated.\n4.3.7. PREFERENTIAL LENDING TO THE COATED PAPER INDUSTRY\n(302)\nThe GOC submitted with respect to preferential lending to the coated paper industry that the Commission failed to provide sufficient evidence of specific subsidization as required by Article 2(1)(a) of SCM Agreement and Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation. It was submitted that the Commission analysis failed to fulfil its burden to establish de jure specificity of the alleged subsidy.\n(303)\nTwo cooperating exporting producers also claimed that the loans granted Chinese state owned banks were not specific.\n(304)\nThose claims had to be rejected. In this respect it is recalled that specificity was established on the totality of information on file, including the information provided by the GOC, as listed under recital (92) above. This information confirms the existence of de jure specificity in line with the provisions of Article 2(1)(a) of SCM Agreement and Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(305)\nThe GOC also argued that the Commission failed to provide positive evidence of subsidisation in line with the provisions of Article 2(4) of the SCM Agreement and Article 4(5) of the basic Regulation since the evidence used by the Commission cannot be considered as positive evidence as it is not of an affirmative, objective and verifiable character which is credible.\n(306)\nThat argument had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that the facts described under recital (92) above demonstrate positive evidence of specificity (i.e. specific subsidies granted through a sectoral industrial plan, the papermaking industry considered as an encouraged industry, the role of commercial banks and of the Chinese state planning system as well as the high credit rating of companies because they qualify for specific policy plans). This information is affirmative since it is clear, objective and convincing. It is derived from various sources and was provided by interested parties or found in the public domain.\n(307)\nWith respect to the 2007 Papermaking Plan it was argued that it does not provide specific subsidies or preferential treatment to the papermaking industry. According to the GOC the fact that this plan states that financial institutions shall not provide loans for any project which does not comply with its regulation is only a provision aimed to suspend projects which caused serious pollution.\n(308)\nThat argument had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that the wording used in the 2007 Papermaking Plan, as explained in detail in recital (77) above, leaves no doubt on the existence of specific subsidies and preferential treatment to the papermaking industry. The claim that the detailed rules referring to financial institutions exist only for environmental reasons is not borne out by the actual wording of the relevant texts.\n(309)\nWith respect to the policy plans as well as accompanying documents such as the Integration Project and the Directory Catalogue, GOC repeated again that they are not as such legally binding in line with the Chinese Law on Legislation. They rather needed a legally binding implementing act. It was also argued that plans are too vague to be considered for the determination of specificity and the mere fact that the papermaking industry is an encouraged industry does not prove that GOC explicitly limits access to a subsidy to certain enterprises.\n(310)\nThose claims had to be rejected. In this respect it is recalled that the investigation established that plans are legally binding for the reasons detailed in recital (78) above. The investigation also established that the status of \u2018encouraged industry\u2019 for the papermaking industry entails specific benefits to the relevant enterprises.\n(311)\nWith respect to the attribution of loans it was argued that the analysis of the Annual Reports of Chinese banks that provided loans to cooperating exporting producers does not reveal that loans were granted because of policy plans.\n(312)\nThat argument had to be rejected. As noted above the Annual Reports of banks do not provide specific information on loan attribution to cooperating exporting producers. Indeed Annual Reports are general documents that do not provide any information on the way Chinese banks attributed loans to the co-operating exporting producers and the way the banks evaluated credit risk for the co-operating exporting producers. This information was repeatedly requested from interested parties and is considered crucial inter alia account taken of the finding of the IMF 2006 report which suggested that the bank liberalisation in China is incomplete and credit risk is not properly reflected (14), the IMF 2009 report which highlighted the lack of interest rate liberalization in China (15), the IMF 2010 Country Report which stated that cost of capital in China is relatively low, credit allocation is sometimes determined by non-price means and high corporate saving is partly linked to low cost of various factor inputs (including capital and land) (16), the OECD 2010 Economic Survey of China (17) and OECD Economic Department Working Paper No. 747 on China's Financial Sector Reforms (18) which stated that ownership of financial institutions remains dominated by the State raising issues as the extent which banks\u2019 lending decisions are based purely on commercial considerations while banks\u2019 traditional role appears to be that of government agencies with ties to the government.\n(313)\nWith respect to the aforementioned credit rating note the GOC argued that a single credit rating note cannot be regarded as positive evidence on specificity. According to the GOC, unless most or even all of the loans granted to the cooperating exporting producers show that the industrial policy enables them to have higher credit rating during the IP, the Commission cannot apply the conditions of one specific instance to all loan decisions.\n(314)\nThat argument had to be rejected. In this respect it is recalled that the credit rating note mentioned in recital (81) above links directly the positive future prospects of a cooperating exporting producer with the existence of the papermaking policy plans and the fulfilment of their objectives. In order to arrive at its conclusions, the Commission placed considerable emphasis on this document in conjunction with the Papermaking plan because other information requested in this context, such as the risk assessment for loans, was not provided despite repeated requests, as described above.\n(315)\nThe GOC also argued that the Commission failed to take into account when analyzing allegations on preferential lending the PBOC Circular on Improving the Administration of Special Loans YINFA [1999] No. 228. According to the GOC the aforesaid circular confirms that preferential lending or special loans have been eliminated.\n(316)\nThat claim had to be rejected. In this respect it is recalled that as explained in recital (87) above the Commission found that more recent PBOC circulars than the 1999 circular exist that clearly mention the existence of preferential loans and other loans specified by State Council. Thus, the arguments of GOC on the abolition of preferential lending and special loans cannot be supported by the actual case facts. Notwithstanding the above, it is pertinent to note that the 1999 circular states that wholly State-owned banks shall actively communicate with the authorities in charge of the relevant industries with a view to gaining their understanding and support. This again is a statement that confirms the control that State authorities exercise over wholly State-owned banks.\n(317)\nWith respect to the evidence of specificity submitted by the complainant it was argued that this is only references of findings of the various U.S. investigations where specificity was established, inter alia, by reference to five-year plans.\n(318)\nIn this respect it is noted that the Commission used all the relevant information it had in its disposal in order to arrive at a representative finding. In this manner, the publicly available information stated in the complaint, even if referring to findings of other investigating authorities, was deemed to be relevant and its use was appropriate.\n(319)\nWith respect to Decision 40 and the Directory Catalogue it was argued that they do not explicitly define the coated fine paper industry as encouraged industry or encouraged projects. It was also argued that the term \u2018encouraged projects\u2019 in China spans broad sectors of economy activity, covering various industries.\n(320)\nThose claims had to be rejected. In this respect it is recalled that Decision 40 and the Directory Catalogue define the papermaking industry, to which the coated fine paper industry belongs, as an encouraged industry or encouraged projects. With respect to encouraged projects it is recalled that these cover only certain activities within 26 sectors and thus this categorisation, covering only a subset of enterprises in China, cannot be considered as of a general nature and non-specific. The Commission considered this as the most natural interpretation in the absence of any explanation (and corroborating documents) as to how the GOC precisely applied the notion of the \u2018papermaking industry\u2019 e.g. for the purposes of Decision 40 and the Directory Catalogue.\n(321)\nWith respect to the Law on Commercial Banks, the GOC argued that Article 34 is of a general nature and that, in line with the provisions of Article 41 of the same law, there is no mandatory obligation for commercial banks to provide loans based on the industrial policies.\n(322)\nThose claims had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that the wording of Article 34 links directly commercial banks\u2019 loan business with the State's industrial policies. Thus, it cannot be considered of a general and non-compulsory nature. With respect to Article 41 of the aforesaid law it is noted that this refers to the prerogative of a commercial bank to provide loans to parties but it does not refer to the conditions that banks will have to take into consideration when taking loan decisions.\n(323)\nAPP claimed it has provided the Commission with sufficient information and documents showing that APP was rated A-1 by Moody's in 2007 and 2008 and therefore it was not correct that the Commission disregarded this rating and applied Bloomberg's BB rating.\n(324)\nThe Commission closely analysed credit rating reports submitted by APP group. These credit rating reports are linking the promising future outlook of the paper industry to the promulgation of the Paper Industry Development Policy. Therefore information in these documents actually confirms the Commission's findings that the exporter's current financial state has been established in the distorted market and therefore the creditworthiness of Chinese exporters could not be taken at its face value. This claim had to be rejected.\n(325)\nAPP also claimed that the internal financial management reports mentioned under this point in APP's comments on general disclosure are \u2018far more satisfactory than the facts currently relied on\u2019.\n(326)\nThat claim had to be rejected. The figures calculated in these reports result from the financial situation of the company achieved on the distorted market which is of course affected by the preferential lending as established by the Commission. It is therefore a circular issue, i.e. the company receives preferential lending which has a positive impact on its financial indicators and subsequently these have positive impact on the conditions of future loans.\n(327)\nAPP claimed that the methodology used by the Commission in calculating benchmarks for loans in USD and EUR is wrong and claimed that the Commission double counted the spread over LIBOR and thereby inflated the benchmark interest rate.\n(328)\nThat claim has to be rejected. The Commission did not double count the spreads over the LIBOR. As explained in the definitive disclosure, in order to establish benchmarks for the USD and EUR loans with term exceeding 1 year the Commission added to the relevant 1 year LIBOR rate a spread between BB rated corporate bonds with maturity of 1 year and BB rated corporate bonds with maturity of n years, n being the number of years representing the term for which the \u2018long-term USD LIBOR\u2019 rate was calculated (i.e. 2, 3, \u2026, 15 years). It should be stressed that the spread as described above was added to \u2018clean\u2019 1 year LIBOR rates (i.e. not increased by x basis points as APP claimed).\n4.3.8. PREFERENTIAL TAX POLICIES FOR COMPANIES THAT ARE RECOGNIZED AS HIGH AND NEW TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES\n(329)\nWith respect to this scheme the GOC submitted that the Commission failed to established specificity on the basis of positive evidence. It was submitted that Article 25 of the Enterprise Income Tax Law is a general piece of legislation that applies across the entire Chinese economy and not only to coated fine paper producers.\n(330)\nGOC also argued that the eligibility criteria for this scheme are objective and defined in detail, that eligibility is automatic and thus the scheme cannot be considered specific in line with the provisions of Article 2(1) (b) of the SCM Agreement and Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n(331)\nThose claims had to be rejected. Thus the findings of the Commission were established on the basis of positive evidence. In this respect it is noted that Article 25 of the Enterprise Income Tax Law limits the access to this scheme only to certain enterprises and industries that are classified as \u2018encouraged\u2019 i.e. to a specific subset of enterprises in China. As noted above, the Commission concluded that the coated paper industry falls under this category and therefore benefits under this programme are specific under Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation. With respect to eligibility criteria it is noted that the relevant provisions mention inter alia the obligation that products are within the range described in the High and New Tech Fields under the Key Support of the State and that enterprises have been incessantly carrying out research and development activities for the purpose of acquiring new knowledge of science and technology, innovatively employing new knowledge or substantially improving technologies or products. These conditions, taken as a whole, cannot be considered as objective eligibility criteria that lead to automatic granting of the subsidy according to the provisions of Article 2(1) (b) of the SCM Agreement and Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n(332)\nAPP wondered whether the amount of countervailable subsidies resulting from these schemes should not rather be calculated on the basis of the tax return and payment of the year 2008 instead of 2009 (IP). They claimed that these two schemes are related to income tax, which is usually fully paid and settled in the following calendar year to the taxation period in China. Therefore the income tax of 2009 or any preferential treatment granted thereto was only decided in 2010.\n(333)\nThat claim had to be rejected. The actual amounts of benefits received were confirmed and verified with the tax returns for the year 2009, therefore they are benefits relating to sales and income generated in 2009, i.e. the IP.\n4.3.9. PREFERENTIAL TAX POLICIES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT\n(334)\nWith respect to this scheme the GOC submitted that the Commission failed to established specificity on the basis of positive evidence. It was thus submitted that the eligibility criteria for this scheme are objective and defined in detail and eligibility is automatic and thus the scheme cannot be considered specific in line with the provisions of Article 2(1)(b) of the SCM Agreement and Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n(335)\nThat claim had to be rejected. In this respect it is recalled that the investigation established the existence of preferential tax treatment for certain companies that are recognized as carrying out certain type of R&D projects i.e. to a specific subset of enterprises in China. As noted above these are companies falling under the New and High Tech Sectors Receiving Primary Support from the State and projects listed in the Guide to key Fields of High-Tech Industrialization, such as those belonging to the coated paper industry, and therefore benefits under this programme are specific under Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation. With respect to eligibility criteria it is noted that the relevant provisions submitted by the cooperating exporting producers are vague and non transparent and thus cannot be considered as objective eligibility criteria that lead to automatic granting of the subsidy. Thus the findings of the Commission were established on positive evidence in line with the provisions of Article 2(1)(b) of the SCM Agreement and Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n4.3.10. DIVIDEND EXEMPTION BETWEEN QUALIFIED RESIDENT ENTERPRISES\n(336)\nWith respect to this scheme the GOC submitted that the Commission failed to established specificity on the basis of positive evidence. It was argued that dividend exemption is not a subsidy under the SCM Agreement as dividend exemption is not a subsidy by nature and the relevant Chinese provisions aim to clarify tax basis so to avoid double taxation.\n(337)\nAPP claimed that this scheme is not specific it is generally and uniformly applied all over China on the basis of objective criteria, i.e. the source of dividend income. It also claimed that this scheme does not constitute a subsidy.\n(338)\nThose claims had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that income from dividends from resident enterprises is exempted from the corporate income tax obligations of resident enterprises. First of all it is recalled that the investigation established the existence of preferential tax treatment for certain companies, i.e. resident enterprises receiving dividend from other resident enterprises and in addition to important industries and projects supported or encouraged by the State such as the coated paper industry i.e. to a specific subset of enterprises in China. Therefore benefits under this programme are specific under Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation. Secondly, this is a tax incentive that leads to government revenue forgone in line with the definition of a subsidy as set out in Article 1(1)(a) of the SCM Agreement and Article 3(a) of the basic Regulation. As to the claim that this incentive aims at avoiding double taxation it is noted that although the SCM Agreement has recognized that WTO Members are not limited from taking measures to avoid double taxation (see SCM Agreement, Annex I, footnote 59), this provision is an \u2018affirmative defence\u2019 and no concrete evidence was provided to corroborate the claim that e.g. dividends from resident and non-resident enterprises are treated differently because of legal obligations that the PRC has undertaken under relevant bilateral double taxation agreements with third countries.\n(339)\nIt was also submitted that the scheme is totally irrelevant to enterprises and industries classified as encouraged but by definition applies to all resident companies. The GOC also submitted that Article 2(2) of the SCM Agreement provides that setting of generally applicable tax rates shall not be deemed a specific subsidy. It was thus submitted that the eligibility criteria for this scheme are objective and defined in detail and eligibility is automatic thus the scheme cannot be considered specific in line with the provisions of Article 2(1) (b) of the SCM Agreement and Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n(340)\nThose claims had to be rejected. In this respect it is recalled that the legal provisions setting out this scheme fall under Chapter 4 \u2018Preferential Tax Treatments\u2019 of the Enterprise Income Tax Law that foresees specific tax incentives for important industries and projects supported or encouraged by the State. As explained above under these conditions benefits under this programme are specific under Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation. The investigation did not find objective criteria to limit eligibility and conclusive evidence to conclude that the eligibility is automatic. With respect to the claim on the provisions of Article 2(2) of the SCM Agreement it is noted that the present scheme does not refer to the setting of a generally applicable tax rate but to the existence of an exemption from tax of a certain type of revenue stemming from a certain type of companies.\n4.3.11. VAT AND TARIFF EXEMPTION ON IMPORTED EQUIPMENT\n(341)\nWith respect to this scheme the GOC submitted that the Commission failed to establish specificity on the basis of positive evidence. It was argued that the specific business categories defined exhaustively by law are not specific because they span broad sectors of economic activity covering various industries. It was thus submitted that the eligibility criteria for this scheme are objective and defined in detail and eligibility is automatic thus the scheme cannot be considered specific in line with the provisions of Article 2(1) (b) of the SCM Agreement and Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n(342)\nThose claims had to be rejected. In this respect it is recalled that this scheme is only available to companies that invest under specific business categories defined exhaustively by law (i.e. catalogue for guidance of industries for foreign investment and catalogue of key industries, products and technologies which the state currently encourages development). The fact that eligibility is restricted to specific business categories confirms that the scheme is not generally available to broad economic sectors and therefore benefits under this programme are specific under Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore the investigation did not find objective criteria to limit eligibility and conclusive evidence to conclude that the eligibility is automatic. Thus the findings of the Commission were established on positive evidence in line with the provisions of Article 2(1)(b) of the SCM Agreement and Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n(343)\nAPP claimed that the depreciation period used by the Commission in the calculation of benefit resulting from this scheme attributable to the IP is not correct and the Commission should have used the depreciation period as reported by companies of APP Group. According to APP this methodology is in breach of Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(344)\nThat claim had to be rejected. The depreciation period reported by APP is determined for the accounting and financial purposes. Other cooperating exporting producers and the Union Industry reported different depreciation periods. Therefore the Commission, in line with its usual practice, and with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, used the period of 15 years as the useful life of the machinery for the purpose of this calculation, which is considered as the \u2018normal\u2019 depreciation period by the industry concerned.\n4.3.12. VAT REBATES ON DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED EQUIPMENT\n(345)\nWith respect to this scheme the GOC submitted that the Commission failed to establish specificity on the basis of positive evidence. It was argued that the GOC explained the eligibility criteria of this scheme and as a result there is no basis for the application of facts available.\n(346)\nThose claims had to be rejected. In this respect it is recalled that this scheme is reserved to FIEs that purchase certain type of domestically-manufactured equipment, i.e. to a specific subset of enterprises in China and therefore benefits under this programme are specific under Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore the investigation did not find objective criteria to limit eligibility and conclusive evidence to conclude that the eligibility is automatic. Thus the findings of the Commission were established, by using the submitted information and the provisions of Article 28 of basic Regulation, on positive evidence in line with the provisions of Article 2(1) (b) of the SCM Agreement and Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.\n4.3.13. CITY MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION TAXES AND EDUCATION SURCHARGES FOR THE FIES\n(347)\nBoth APP and Chenming claimed that since according to the Notice on Unifying the Urban Maintenance Construction Tax and Education Surcharges for Domestic and Foreign-invested Enterprises and Individuals issued by the State Council of China on 18 October 2010 and applicable from 1 December 2010 the above mentioned tax and surcharge are now universally applicable to all companies and individuals in China, without any exception. According to these claims this subsidy scheme is not longer countervailable.\n(348)\nThe arguments provided were analyzed in line with the submitted documentation and evidence provided by parties. The GOC was requested to confirm the aforesaid information. The GOC, an interested party in these proceedings and the granting authority for this programme, notify the Commission that this scheme was withdrawn and was not replaced by any other incentive referring to the same tax obligation. On the basis of information submitted by cooperating exporting producers it is concluded that both groups have demonstrated that they are no longer benefiting from any subsidy derived from this scheme. In this respect it is recalled that in line with Article 15 of the basic Regulation no measures shall be imposed if the subsidy is withdrawn or it has been demonstrated that the subsidy no longer confers any benefit on the exporters involved. Accordingly and on the basis of information on file it is concluded that the subsidy under this scheme no longer confers any benefit to the exporters involved. Thus the findings presented under recitals (160) to (169) above were amended accordingly.\n4.3.14. FAMOUS BRANDS AND SPECIAL FUNDS FOR ENCOURAGING FOREIGN INVESTMENT PROJECTS\n(349)\nWith respect to these schemes the GOC submitted that the Commission failed to establish specificity on the basis of positive evidence. It was argued that the GOC provided sufficient information with respect to these schemes and that there is no law or regulation concerning these schemes.\n(350)\nThose claims had to be rejected. In this respect it is recalled that these schemes were found specific and countervailable on the basis of information submitted by the GOC and the cooperating exporting producers notwithstanding the fact that no actual legal provisions were submitted. The fact that, as the GOC argued, there are no legal provisions for these schemes confirms beyond any doubt that objective criteria or conditions set by the law governing these schemes simply do not exist. Thus the findings of the Commission were established, by using the submitted information and the provisions of Article 28 of basic Regulation, on positive evidence in line with the provisions of Article 2(1)(b) of the SCM Agreement and Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation. In the absence of any criteria or conditions, the government appears to have wide discretion and access to the subsidy is considered to be limited to certain enterprises.\n4.3.15. SUBSIDY OF HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FUND AND AWARD RECEIVED FROM SUZHOU INDUSTRIAL PARK FOR MAINTAINING GROWTH\n(351)\nWith respect to these schemes the GOC argued that the Commission misinterpreted Article 2(2) of the SCM Agreement since Industrial Parks are not designated geographical regions.\n(352)\nThat argument had to be rejected. In this respect it is recalled that the Suzhou Industrial Park is clearly an economic and administrative subdivision within the jurisdiction of the PRC and thus a designated geographical region in line with the provisions of Article 2(2) of the SCM Agreement. Notwithstanding the above, it should also be noted that even if the above were not confirmed by the actual facts of the investigation, an industrial park by its very definition can only host a sub-set of enterprises within the territory of a country or the granting authority and thus in line with the provisions of Article 2(1)(a) of the SCM Agreement the subsidies provided by the industrial park would be considered as specific.\n4.3.16. PROVISIONS OF LAND-USE RIGHTS\n(353)\nWith respect to LUR the GOC argued that the use of an external benchmark is illegal by making reference to Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement and the Appellate Body in US - Softwood Lumber IV. It was submitted that EU and WTO law restricts the use of external benchmarks to very exceptional circumstances i.e. only when private market prices are distorted because of the government's predominant role as a provider of the good or service in question. According to the GOC the Commission has not proven that private market prices are distorted by the GOC's predominant role as a provider.\n(354)\nThose claims had to be rejected. First of all it is noted that WTO rules, as confirmed by the Appellate Body in US - Softwood Lumber IV (DS257) and the Panel in US - China countervailing duties (DS379) do not prohibit the use of external benchmarks. Secondly, the Commission approach took fully into account the special conditions requested by the WTO case law in order to resort to an external benchmark. Indeed, as it has been demonstrated under recitals (248) to (259) above, land is government-owned in China and provided by the government on a lease basis. Furthermore, the Chinese authorities control the supply and allocation of land to enterprises including in secondary markets and land assignment to enterprises is linked to a strict set of rules, while any type of change in land assignment, e.g. a transfer of a LUR contract from one enterprise to another enterprise, has to be approved by the State and recognized by a new LUR contract between the assignee with the relevant State authority. In view of the above, it is concluded that GOC has a predominant role in the distribution of LUR and that any Chinese \u2018private\u2019 market prices (to the extent that they exist, none have been provided in this investigation) are bound to be distorted because of the GOC's predominant role as a provider and its monopoly role as a regulator of land transactions. Consequently, the GOC's financial contribution would effectively determine the level of any private prices.\n(355)\nGOC also argued that by choosing Taiwan as an external benchmark the Commission failed to use an external benchmark which relates or refers to, or is connected with, the prevailing market conditions in China. It was submitted that the use of Taiwanese benchmark to offset differences in comparative advantages between countries is expressly prohibited by WTO rules.\n(356)\nThose claims had to be rejected. The Commission considers Taiwan (19) as an appropriate external benchmark because of the totality of the information on the file i.e. (i) the level of economic development and economic structure prevailing in Taiwan and the relevant Chinese provinces where the co-operating exporting producers are established, (ii) the physical proximity of these two Chinese provinces with Taiwan, (iii) the high degree of infrastructure that both Taiwan and these two Chinese provinces have, (iv) the strong economic ties and cross border trade between Taiwan and the PRC, (v) the similar density of population in the Chinese provinces concerned and in Taiwan, (vi) the similarity between the type of land and transactions used for constructing the relevant benchmark in Taiwan with those in the PRC and (vii) the common demographic, linguistic and cultural characteristics in both Taiwan and the PRC. Furthermore, Jiangsu and Shandong provinces are considered top manufacturing provinces in the PRC (20). Although the GDP per capita of Taiwan and the two Chinese provinces is not identical, the GDP of these Chinese provinces has grown rapidly in recent years i.e. they are catching up with Taiwan.\nIn addition, recent data suggest that the both PRC and Taiwan have similar real GDP growth rates (21). However, it is important to note that the exact comparison made between the GDP of a non-market economy (the PRC) and the GDP of a well established market economy (Taiwan) is not a decisive fact because it is normal for a non-market economy to lag behind a functioning market economy in terms of GDP. In addition, many other factors e.g. planning rules, environmental policy may affect the supply and demand of industrial land. The real issue is what would be the \u2018prevailing market conditions\u2019 with regard to LUR in the PRC if it was a functioning market economy and on the basis of all evidence they would be very similar to those of Taiwan.\n(357)\nBased on the totality of the above information it is considered that the benchmark chosen is in line with the requirements of the Appellate Body in US - Softwood Lumber IV (Para.103) which concluded that \u2018the benchmark chosen must, nevertheless, relate or refer to, or be connected with, the prevailing market conditions in that country, and must reflect price, quality, availability, marketability, transportation and other conditions of purchase or sale, as required by Article 14(d)\u2019. Indeed, the totality of conditions in Taiwan relate to the prevailing market conditions in the two Chinese provinces. Land is available in similarly dense areas, the physical proximity of the areas ensures that quality of land is similar while the fact that both Taiwan and the two Chinese provinces share the same language and culture, have export- oriented economies and important manufacturing sectors confirm that price, marketability and other conditions of purchase or sale of land are closely connected.\n(358)\nCooperating exporting producers claimed that the information available to the Commission was sufficient to conclude that there is a market for land in China.\n(359)\nThat claim had to be rejected. From the information made available to the Commission it was not possible to come to a conclusion that there is a functioning land market in China. From the legislation made available to the Commission by the GOC it is obvious that all of the land in PRC is government-owned and it is provided only on the lease basis. The Chinese authorities are in full control of the supply and allocation of land to enterprises, including transactions in the secondary market. No evidence was submitted that there is any market mechanism in the distribution of land-use rights, despite the Commission's requests to this effect. The situation is explained in detail in recital (354) addressing similar claims of the GOC.\n(360)\nAPP submitted that today's Chinese LUR prices should be used as benchmark or in the alternative today's land prices in the Indian state of Maharashtra. Chenming also suggested Indian state of Maharashtra for benchmark.\n(361)\nAs already described in the recital (359) above, there is no functioning land market in China. Therefore it is not appropriate to use today's Chinese LUR prices as a benchmark. Exporting producers based its claim that the land prices in Maharashtra could be used as a benchmark on the comparison of the Indian state of Maharashtra in terms of GDP per capita and the population density at the time of purchase of LURs. As explained above the Commission is of the opinion that the GDP per capita and the population density cannot be the only decisive factors when choosing a country/region for the purpose of application of external benchmark. In any event the methodology proposed by co-operating exporting producers is not consistent with their claims. In the IP, Mumbai, the capital of Maharashtra and by far the most developed area of the state had per capita income is USD 2 675 (Rs 1,28 lakh) which is in fact lower than the Chinese national average of USD 3 529 (22) let alone the GDP par capita in the highly developed regions of Shandong and Jiangsu (USD 5 255 and USD 6 550 respectively). As far as population density is concerned, this is also not by itself a decisive factor, but, for the record, the population density is 314/km2 in Maharashtra, 736/km2 in Jiangsu and 600/km2 in Shandong, i.e. not in the same level. Furthermore, other factors, such as the lack of physical proximity and common characteristics between India and China lead to the conclusion that the Maharashtra benchmark does not relate or refer to, and is not connected with, the prevailing market conditions in China. For the reasons explained in recital (357), Commission maintains the opinion that the prices of land in Taiwan are far more suitable external benchmark.\n(362)\nAPP claimed that some of the LUR taken in account by the Commission in the calculation of benefit resulting from this scheme are no longer held by APP. APP also argued that by using information from the website of the Industrial Bureau of the Ministry of Economics Affairs of Taiwan it has arrived in a different average land price per square meter and the Commission did not make any effort in order to find representative offers for the industrial land.\n(363)\nWith respect to the total surface of the land used by APP, the Commission took APP's claim into account and on the basis of information and evidence presented in the comments on definitive disclosure it was accepted. The corrected information was reflected in subsidy calculation. With respect to information derived from Taiwan it is noted that this claim had to be rejected. Although this party did not propose to use this price for the calculation of an appropriate benchmark the following should be highlighted. The Commission used the information that was available on file with respect to land prices in Taiwan and the methodology on how it arrived to the benchmark price was disclosed to parties and explained in the Note for the file of 11 February 2011. On the other hand the data presented by APP refer to February 2011 only, i.e. a different time period as used in the Commission's calculation and it appears that it refers only to a list of examples of some data derived from some areas in Taiwan. Furthermore, the Commission can not address the calculation of the benchmark performed by APP, as APP did not provide any details on the methodology it used for this calculation and did not substantiate why its calculation represents more accurately average land prices in Taiwan.\n(364)\nCooperating exporting producers claimed that any subsidy in the form of the provision of land-use right for less than adequate remuneration would not be specific.\n(365)\nThat argument had to be rejected. As already explained in the definitive disclosure document, the GOC provided insufficient information in relation to this scheme which had to be complemented with other information and facts in the record. Consequently, the findings were made on this basis and are explained and analysed in recitals (253)-(258).\n4.3.17. OTHER\n(366)\nAPP claimed that the interest rate used by the Commission in order to transform the face value of the subsidy into the value prevailing during the investigation period is not correct.\n(367)\nThe Commission took APP's claim in account and on the basis of information and evidence presented in the comments on definitive disclosure it was accepted. The interest rate suggested by APP was used in the subsidy calculations. This change is already reflected in the recitals dealing with the calculation of subsidy margins and in the resulting subsidy margins for the individual schemes concerned.\n(368)\nAPP claimed that the subsidy amounts must be expressed as a percentage of their reported CIF price and not as a percentage of the turnover and that the Commission should apply this methodology for the calculation of subsidy margins.\n(369)\nThe arguments provided were analyzed in line with the submitted documentation and evidence provided by the party. It is noted that, except for one of the subsidy schemes found to be countervailable, no other scheme was found to be contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. Therefore the amount of subsidy was allocated over the total sales turnover of the companies of APP group in line with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation which reads as follows: \u2018Where the subsidy is not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported, the amount of countervailable subsidy should be determined by allocating the value of the total subsidy, as appropriate, over the level of production, sales or exports of the products concerned during the investigation period for subsidisation\u2019. Since this subsidy is not linked to production of any particular product or exports, the total sales turnover of the company is the most appropriate denominator. In that respect, it should be noted that the relevant turnover has been determined on a basis which ensures that it reflects as closely as possible the sales value of the products sold by the recipient company. This change is already reflected in the recitals dealing with the calculation of subsidy margins and in the resulting subsidy margins for the individual schemes concerned. Any other proposed methodology in calculating the amount of countervailable subsidy would be contrary to the relevant provisions of the basic Regulation (Articles 7 and 15) and the administrative practice followed by the Commission in its anti-subsidy proceedings when selecting the appropriate numerator/denominator for the allocation of the amount of the countervailable subsidy.\nThe party also invoked the part of the Guidelines (23) referring to the calculation of the subsidy per unit as a basis for their claim. However, and for the same reasons as described before, aper unit approach was not considered appropriate in the circumstances of this case. Indeed the proposed methodology is considered non representative as it mixes turnover and units produced only for the product concerned while it disregards units of other products produced. No information was submitted or verified with respect to the total units produced for all products by the respective companies and subsidies where not granted in any event by reference to quantities. As to CIF prices, it is pertinent to note that evidence on file suggests that they vary within and between product types. In any event, the subsidies in question are not product-specific. Furthermore, the Commission established the amount of subsidization in the PRC and denominated it by allocating the value of the total subsidy over the turnover in China account taken of the specific modalities of the respective cooperating Chinese exporting producers. This ensures the use of the verified amount of subsidies and the most appropriate turnover. Finally it is noted that account taken of the practical circumstances of these proceedings, i.e. the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties at the level of the injury margin, it is concluded that there is no impact whatsoever to the APP's position irrespective of what methodology one chooses in allocating the amount of countervailable subsidy and the countervailing duty.\n4.4. AMOUNT OF COUNTERVAILABLE SUBSIDIES\n(370)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidies in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the investigated companies are set out in the table below:\nExporting Producer\nAnti-subsidy margin rate\nAPP Group\n12,04 %\nChenming Group\n4,06 %\n(371)\nBased on the information available from the complaint and the cooperating Chinese exporting producers, there are other known producers of the product concerned in the PRC. Nevertheless, given the fact that the reported export volume was found to be higher than the import data derived from Eurostat, the level of cooperation was considered high. It was therefore considered appropriate to set the subsidy level for the non-cooperating exporting producers at the level of the highest subsidisation found for the cooperating exporting producers i.e. 12,04 %, in order to ensure effectiveness of the measures.\n5. UNION PRODUCERS\n5.1. UNION PRODUCTION\n(372)\nDuring the IP, the like product was manufactured by 14 known and some other very small producers in the Union. The data provided by CEPIFINE is estimated to be covering 98 % of the production of Union producers. On this basis, the total Union production was estimated to be around 5 270 000 tonnes during the IP. The Union producers accounting for the total Union production constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(373)\nThe coated fine paper industry is energy and capital intensive. For this reason economies of scale apply that explain the concentration of the production within a few large players, complemented by smaller producers that focus on the geographically close markets. Five similarly large producers cover most of the Union market with production facilities spread over Europe. The large part of CFP is a commodity-type product and is mainly traded through paper merchants and wholesalers. These distribution channels are characterized by a high degree of concentration of buying power and price transparency through price quotations.\n(374)\nAs mentioned in recital (19) above, one interested party claimed that CFP suitable for web-fed printing should have been included in the scope of the present investigation. On this basis, the same party argued that the complainant Union industry would not have enough standing in the present proceedings. Based on the conclusions outlined above in recitals (22) and (25), however, i.e. that CFP suitable for web-fed printing and CPF for sheet-fed printing are two different products, this claim had to be rejected.\n(375)\nThe government of China commented that one of the representative producers was allegedly related to a Chinese company and thus should be excluded from the definition of the Union industry. The investigation however revealed that the products produced by the Chinese company referred to are not product concerned. Therefore the relationship does not have any impact on the injury analysis nor on the inclusion of this Union producer in the definition of Union industry.\n6. INJURY\n6.1. UNION CONSUMPTION\n(376)\nConsumption was established on the basis of the following:\n-\nEurostat for imports from third countries duly adjusted on the basis of information provided by the Union producers for products not covered by the proceedings. The investigation has found, based on evidence provided, that these assumptions were reasonable and justified;\n-\nthe verified total export volume of the cooperating exporting producers in the PRC to the Union market, as the reported export volume was found to be higher than the import data derived from Eurostat;\n-\nthe total sales on the Union market of all Union producers based on the information provided by CEPIFINE.\n(377)\nOn that basis, total Union consumption was established as follows:\nTable 1\nUnion consumption\nUnion consumption\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nTonnes\n5 308 275\n5 508 183\n5 384 770\n4 572 057\nIndex\n100\n104\n101\n86\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies, Eurostat adjusted and verified data provided by CEPIFINE.\n(378)\nOverall, Union consumption decreased by 14 % during the period considered. It was found that the consumption first increased by 4 % between 2006 and 2007, after which it dropped by 18 % between 2007 and the IP. The decline in consumption in 2008 and the IP was the result of a lower demand, especially in the first half of 2009, due to the economic downturn.\n6.1.1. IMPORTS INTO THE UNION FROM THE PRC\n(379)\nAs mentioned above in recital (376), the verified total sales volume of the product concerned of the Chinese cooperating exporting producers on the Union market was found to be higher than the import volumes reported by Eurostat. Since it was considered that the verified information is more accurate than the available statistics, total import volume from the PRC was established on the basis of the verified information provided by the cooperating companies. The sales volumes of the cooperating companies that were found to have been exporting only multi-ply paperboard during the period considered, were excluded from the total imports, because it was concluded, as explained in recital (47), that multi-ply paper and paperboard should not be considered as the product concerned. Since the import data relating to the product concerned only refer to two companies, it was considered appropriate for confidentiality reasons to show them in indexed form.\nTable 2\nTotal subsidised imports from the PRC\nTotal imports from the PRC\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nVolumes (index)\n100\n218\n212\n283\nMarket share (index)\n100\n210\n209\n329\nPrices (EUR/tonne)\n677\n661\n657\n621\nIndex\n100\n98\n97\n92\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies.\n(380)\nThe volume of total imports from the PRC increased dramatically, almost tripling over the period considered. As a result, their market share increased significantly from approx. 1 % in 2006 to over 4 % in the IP. This has to be seen against the background of a decreasing consumption which dropped by 14 % during the same period. Average prices of the subsidised imports from the PRC showed a decrease of 8 % during the period considered.\n6.1.2. PRICE UNDERCUTTING\n(381)\nFor the purposes of analysing price undercutting, the weighted average sales prices per product type of the Union producers to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports from the PRC to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a CIF basis with appropriate adjustments for the existing duties and post-importation costs.\n(382)\nAs explained in recital (51), cooperation from the Chinese exporters was very high and considered to be covering the total export volume from the PRC to the Union during the IP. Given the fact that two Chinese exporting producers who originally came forward were found not to be exporting the product concerned to the Union market, as explained in recital (52) their imports have not been taken into account for the purpose of the price undercutting analysis. Export sales of a company within the group of one cooperating exporting producer were also excluded from the comparison as none of the representative Union producers produced comparable product types. With respect to the export quantities of this particular company it is noted that they represented only a minor part of the total export sales of the group and their price levels appeared to be in line with the overall export sales price levels of the group.\n(383)\nThe comparison showed that during the IP, the subsidised product concerned originating in the PRC sold in the Union undercut the Union producers\u2019 sales prices on average by 7,6 %. The level of the undercutting margin is to be seen against the background of the high level of price transparency supported by price quotations that characterizes the CFP distribution market.\n6.2. ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY AND THE FOUR REPRESENTATIVE UNION PRODUCERS\n6.2.1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS\n(384)\nIn accordance with Article 8(4) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the subsidised imports on the Union producers included an evaluation of all economic indicators for an assessment of the state of the Union producers from 2006 to the end of the IP.\n(385)\nThe macroeconomic elements (production, capacity, capacity utilization, sales volume, market share, growth and magnitude of the amount of countervailable subsidies) were assessed at the level of the whole Union industry, on the basis of the information provided by CEPIFINE.\n(386)\nThe analysis of microeconomic elements was carried out at the level of the Union producers (average unit prices, employment, wages, productivity, stocks, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, ability to raise capital) on the basis of their information, duly verified.\n(387)\nIt was claimed that the injury analysis failed to analyze all injury indicators for the complainants and for the Union industry as a whole in a coherent and comprehensive fashion. Parties suggested that conclusions concerning material injury would be different, were some indicators such as market share established at the level of complainants.\n(388)\nFirstly it is noted that the statements of these parties seem to have been drawn on the basis of indicators calculated from different datasets and information than those established during the investigation and presented below. Consequently, these conclusions are factually wrong and are thus irrelevant.\n(389)\nSecondly, it is the Commission's practice to evaluate macroeconomic factors for the indication of the injury suffered at the level of the Union industry as a whole as explained above. In the present investigation the Union industry was defined at the level of Union producers accounting for the total Union production as explained in recital (372) above, regardless of whether producers supported the complaint or have been cooperating in the investigation.\n(390)\nMicroeconomic factors are analyzed at the level of the representative Union producers, regardless of whether these support the complaint or not. The representative producers covered 58 % of the Union production. None of the other Union producers came forward claiming that the Commission's conclusions on microeconomic factors would be unreliable or not substantiated. Therefore there is no reason to question the findings established based on the information provided by the representative Union producers only.\n(391)\nIt was claimed that one of the four representative producers failed to fully cooperate as it would be related to another producer in the European Union that did not cooperate in the investigation. The companies were alleged to be related as a consequence of transitional agreements concluded at the time of the acquisition by the cooperating Union producer of the CFP business segment of the other producer. It was alleged that through these transitional agreements the cooperating Union producer controls some of the mills which remained in the ownership of the partially acquired producer. To support its claim the exporting producer made reference to Commission Decision of 31.10.2008 (24) (\u2018Decision\u2019) examining at the time of the acquisition whether the transaction should be considered as an acquisition within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (25).\n(392)\nThe investigation on the other hand confirmed that the number of shares held by the EU producer in question was minor and below the threshold set in Article 143 of the IPCCC (26). Furthermore, the transitional agreements referred to did not show any relationship between the companies that would be extending beyond a normal business relationship between a buyer and a seller. In particular, the terms of the transitional agreements aim to administer the coated paper sales for a transitional period and according to these terms the Union producer only has functions comparable to a sales agent during the transitional period. Furthermore, in its consolidated audited accounts and in its reply to the questionnaire it reported commission income while acting as an agent for the mills concerned; no ownership and therefore no costs were recognized for these mills by the Union producer.\n(393)\nAccording to the Decision, the transaction between the companies was considered as an acquisition by the Union producer of part of the other companies\u2019 business, not the take-over of the company as such. The Decision does not suggest that the companies should be considered as one entity after the acquisition; in particular, there is no joint venture between the companies. It is also noted that the geographical scope examined in the above decision is EEA wide and not EU wide. To note is also that in Decision the Commission did not analyze the relationship between the companies in question within the meaning of Article 143 of the IPCCC.\n(394)\nIn view of the above, it was considered that the two companies are not related in the sense of Article 143 of the IPCCC and therefore the Union producer in question cooperated fully with the investigation.\n(395)\nIn the analysis of microeconomic indicators information about paper mills that have been acquired by the above mentioned Union producer were excluded for all years under examination in order to present a fully comparable trend over the years.\n(396)\nThe exporting producer also claimed that each affiliated company of the Union producers should have filled in a separate questionnaire reply as they were separate legal entities.\n(397)\nIn the case of the Union producer in question it was considered that one questionnaire reply would be sufficient for a meaningful reply and analysis of the injury aspects. In particular, the reply provided a detailed breakdown of information at individual paper mill level and all the necessary data relating to all of the related producers/sellers of the like product could be verified during the verification visits.\n(398)\nIn a subsequent submission the exporting producer also claimed that the same company failed to fully cooperate as it filed its questionnaire reply on behalf of a non-existing entity and that the audited accounts of the company do not reflect the data provided in its questionnaire reply. The conclusions in the preceding recital are relevant also in this regard.\n6.2.2. DATA RELATING TO THE UNION INDUSTRY (MACROECONOMIC INDICATORS)\n(399)\nAfter disclosure of the findings, the GOC and one Chinese exporting producer argued that the macro-economic data used for the analysis is incomplete and inaccurate thus cannot be used as a positive evidence of material injury.\n(400)\nThe on-the-spot verification at the complainant association confirmed that the data used to establish macroeconomic indicators are directly collected from Union producers covering around 98 % of the total Union production and are sufficiently detailed to identify information about the product concerned. Assumption and / or estimations used were made on a reasonable and justifiable basis, e.g. cutter rolls were not taken into account because of their clearly insignificant volumes as witnessed in their proportion in the total sales volume of the representative Union producers. Therefore this claim had to be rejected.\n6.2.2.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\nTable 3\nProduction, production capacity and capacity utilisation\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nProduction (tonnes)\n6 483 462\n6 635 377\n6 381 324\n5 164 475\nIndex\n100\n102\n98\n80\nCapacity (tonnes)\n7 032 734\n7 059 814\n6 857 226\n6 259 129\nIndex\n100\n100\n98\n89\nCapacity Utilisation\n92 %\n94 %\n93 %\n83 %\nIndex\n100\n102\n101\n90\nSource: Verified data provided by CEPIFINE.\n(401)\nAs shown in the above table, the production volume of the Union industry decreased by 20 % over the period considered. It should be noted that although Union consumption increased by around 1 % between 2006 and 2008, the production of the Union industry fell by 2 % during that period, while it decreased significantly between 2008 and the IP, following the drop in the Union consumption.\n(402)\nSince 2000, Union producers have undertaken major restructuring efforts aiming at addressing structural overcapacity. Through consolidations and mill closures the Union industry decreased its CFP production capacity by approximately 770 000 tonnes between 2006 and the IP, i.e. by 11 %.\n(403)\nDespite the drop in total capacity, utilisation rates still declined from 92 % in 2006 to 83 % in the IP. The main decrease occurred in the period between 2008 and the IP. It is noted that high capacity utilization is an important factor in the long-term viability of the paper producing producers because of high investment in fixed assets. Therefore, the capacity utilisation rate during the IP was considered to be low.\n6.2.2.2. Sales volume and market share\n(404)\nThe sales figures in the table below relate to the volume sold to the first independent customer on the Union market.\nTable 4\nSales volume and market share\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nSales volume (tonnes)\n4 921 141\n4 999 524\n4 875 841\n4 008 354\nIndex\n100\n102\n99\n81\nMarket share\n93 %\n91 %\n91 %\n88 %\nIndex\n100\n98\n98\n95\nSource: Verified data provided by CEPIFINE.\n(405)\nWhile Union consumption grew by 4 % between 2006 and 2007 (see recital (377) above), the sales volume of the product concerned by the Union industry to independent customers on the Union market only increased by 2 % during that same period. This means that the Union industry could not benefit fully from the increased consumption in that period. Moreover, between 2008 and the IP, whereas Union consumption decreased by 15 %, the sales volume of all Union producers decreased even more, by 18 %. Consequently the Union industry's sales volume, after a small increase in 2007, decreased continuously and significantly which translated in a loss in market share of 5 percentage points during the period considered.\n(406)\nOne group of Chinese exporting producers claimed that the market share of the Union producers should also include imports from Switzerland as these come from a mill owned by one of the representative Union producer.\n(407)\nThe geographical scope of anti-subsidy investigations is the European Union. Therefore this claim had to be rejected.\n(408)\nIt was also claimed that the complainants\u2019 market share increased remarkably during the period considered.\n(409)\nMarket share is a macro indicator analyzed at the level of the whole Union industry and not at the level of the complainants. Secondly, the statement concerning the complainant's market share is factually erroneous.\n6.2.2.3. Growth\n(410)\nWhen looking at the development over the period considered, the drop of 19 % in the sales volume of the Union industry was far more pronounced than the decrease of 14 % in Union consumption. As a consequence, the market share of the Union industry also decreased significantly by 5 percentage points during the same period.\n6.2.2.4. Magnitude of the amount of countervailable subsidies\n(411)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidies for the PRC, specified above in the subsidy section, is significant. Given the volumes and the prices of the subsidised imports, the impact of the actual subsidy margin cannot be considered to be negligible.\n6.2.3. DATA RELATING TO THE FOUR REPRESENTATIVE UNION PRODUCERS (MICROECONOMIC INDICATORS)\n6.2.3.1. Average unit prices of the four representative Union producers\n(412)\nOverall, average ex-works sales prices of the four representative Union producers to unrelated customers on the Union market remained stable over the years, except for the year of 2007 when they were slightly above this level.\nTable 5\nPrices of the Union producers\nPrices of the Union producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nAverage price (EUR/tonne)\n692\n717\n691\n699\nIndex\n100\n104\n100\n101\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies.\n6.2.3.2. Stocks\n(413)\nStocks represented around 10 % of the production volume in the IP. The four representative Union producers increased their stock levels by 10 % during the period considered, in particular between 2006 and 2007 and later between 2008 and the IP. Notably, this coincided with the surge in the low-priced subsidised imports from the PRC.\nTable 6\nStocks\nStocks\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nStocks (tonnes)\n278 265\n298 547\n296 387\n306 588\nIndex\n100\n107\n107\n110\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies.\n6.2.3.3. Employment, wages and productivity\nTable 7\nEmployment\nEmployment\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nEmployment - full-time equivalent (FTE)\n7 756\n7 487\n7 207\n6 197\nIndex\n100\n97\n93\n80\nLabour cost (EUR/FTE)\n54 053\n54 948\n57 026\n58 485\nIndex\n100\n102\n105\n108\nProductivity (unit/FTE)\n453\n478\n486\n484\nIndex\n100\n106\n107\n107\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies.\n(414)\nDue to the paper mill closures and consolidation of the four representative Union producers, the number of employees was reduced substantially by 20 % (almost 1 600 jobs) during the period considered.\n(415)\nEfficiency gains have been achieved by raising and maintaining a high output per employee even at a time of significant layoffs in 2007 and 2008. Labour costs increased steadily, totalling an 8 % increase over the period considered.\n6.2.3.4. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investment\nTable 8\nProfitability\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nProfitability\n-1,08 %\n-0,20 %\n-2,49 %\n2,88 %\nChange (100=2006)\n+0,88 %\n-1,41 %\n+3,95 %\nCash flow (EUR thousand)\n260 047\n211 036\n172 570\n336 753\nIndex\n100\n81\n66\n129\nInvestments (EUR thousand)\n151 900\n151 027\n127 845\n87 875\nIndex\n100\n99\n84\n58\nReturn on investments\n-0,73 %\n-0,54 %\n-2,73 %\n0,39 %\nChange (100=2006)\n+0,19 %\n-2,00 %\n+1,12 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies.\n(416)\nThe four representative Union producers incurred losses in the years 2006 to 2008 and the financial situation only turned positive in 2009 when the world price of pulp, the main raw material exceptionally decreased significantly as a result of the economic downturn. The drop in the price of pulp (20 %) was considered an abnormally large drop that directly contributed to the improved financial situation in the IP. It is to be noted that since the IP, pulp prices returned to their pre-IP levels.\n(417)\nThe trend shown by the cash flow, which is the ability of the producers to self-finance their activities, reflects to a large extent the evolution of profitability. Consequently, the cash flow shows an exceptional increase in the IP due to the falling pulp prices. Return on investments showed negative development in line with the negative profit results achieved by the four representative Union producers until 2008 and a positive trend in the IP due to the exceptional cost savings on pulp prices.\n(418)\nFollowing the above, the ability of the four representative Union producers to invest became limited as the cash flow significantly deteriorated during the period considered, except for the IP. As a consequence, the investments dropped by 35 % during the period considered and were limited to the installation of cogeneration plants that helped the Union producers to mitigate the effect of continuously raising energy costs.\n(419)\nOne exporting producer claimed that the improvement of profitability should not be considered as a limited instance based on an exceptional drop of raw material costs. The drop in costs benefited both: all local as well as Chinese producers, not only the complainants, therefore the breakthrough in profitability was not exclusively based on the drop in costs but was rather the result of a change in the pricing behaviour of the complainants.\n(420)\nFurthermore the exporting producer claimed that the profitability is driven by CFP prices, rather than the price of pulp. It was found, however, that when pulp prices sharply fell in 2009, CFP prices remained stable and profits rose as a consequence. Therefore given that prices remained stable, no correlation can be made between prices and profitability in this specific time period.\n(421)\nThe profitability rate is an indicator that is analysed at the level of the representative Union producers and not at the level of complainants as suggested by the party. The analysis of information gathered showed a direct link between the exceptional fall in pulp prices, the main raw material and the increased profitability; whereby stable prices of the finished products indeed played a role in the improvement of profitability. While this was probably the case for other producers on the market as well, this does not affect the conclusion that this temporary improvement of profitability is due to the exceptional drop in raw material prices in the IP.\n6.2.3.5. Ability to raise capital\n(422)\nThe paper industry in general is characterized by high indebtedness linked to the significant investment in fixed assets. As a consequence of the losses incurred in most of the period considered, the ability of the four representative Union producers to raise capital and to finance its activities at reasonable finance costs was also undermined. This was the case in particular in 2008 when one of the four representative Union producers had to be refinanced at a significant risk premium while the smallest representative producer went into insolvency in 2008 and was taken over by another Union producer.\n6.3. CONCLUSION ON INJURY\n(423)\nThe investigation has shown that most of the injury indicators such as production volume (- 20 %), capacity utilisation (- 10 %), sales volume to unrelated customers on the Union market (- 19 %), market share (- 5 percentage points) deteriorated during the period considered. In addition, the injury indicators related to the financial performance of the four representative Union producers such as return on investment and profitability were seriously affected until 2008. The sudden increase of the profitability in the IP was due purely to the temporary and exceptional drop of world pulp prices in the IP. It is noted that even during the IP the profitability rate was very low and was not considered to be altering the conclusion that the four representative Union producers were in a very weak financial position.\n(424)\nThe investigation also showed that the above injury picture can be mainly explained by the fact that despite its restructuring efforts and productivity improvements the four representative Union producers were not able to raise their CFP prices above cost-covering level or to a level of viable profitability. This is mainly due to the price undercutting practiced by the Chinese exporters during the IP which has a significant effect in a market where price transparency is high. During the IP, the four representative Union producers managed to reduce their cost of production through further productivity improvement and due to the decrease of pulp prices which mainly occurred in the second half of the IP. As demand and supply became more balanced on the market following the efforts of the producers to tackle structural overcapacity by means of consolidation and capacity closures, CFP prices could be kept at a stable level. However, the four representative Union producers were not in a position to increase their sales prices to a level that would have profitability rates necessary for long-term viability.\n(425)\nAs mentioned in recital (19), one party claimed that CFP used in web-fed printing should have been included in the scope of the present investigation. On this basis, the party claimed that the exclusion of this product from the determination of material injury and the analysis of trends would have distorted the injury picture. However, based on the conclusions presented in recitals (20) and (22) to (25), i.e. that CFP used in web-fed and sheet-fed printing are different products, this claim was rejected.\n(426)\nThe same party claimed that the acquisition of one Union producer by one of the four representative Union producers in 2008 was evidence that this four representative Union producer was in rather good health. It is first noted that material injury is assessed on the basis of the situation of the Union industry and not based on the particular situation of a single producer. As concluded in recital (423) above, most injury indicators have shown a negative trend evidencing the deterioration of the Union industry's situation over the period considered. The acquisition was furthermore considered as part of the restructuring efforts of the Union industry during the period considered. In any case, it is noted that when analysing macro indicators such as production volume, capacity, sales volume and market share the acquisition had a neutral effect since macro indicators are assessed with respect to all Union producers constituting the Union industry as defined in recital (372). In other words these factors should remain overall unchanged in case of a change in the ownership.\n(427)\nAfter disclosure, parties claimed that there was no positive evidence that the complaining Union producers suffered material injury. Contrarily, complainants presented overall stable economic results and increased profitability in the IP.\n(428)\nFirst of all, the state of the Union industry is analysed at the level of the representative Union producers and not at the level of complainants as suggested by the parties.\n(429)\nSecondly, as already pointed out in recital (409) above, the conclusions of these parties seem to have been drawn from indicators calculated on the basis of different datasets and information than what was established during the investigation and presented above. Consequently, these conclusions are factually wrong. Furthermore, the parties\u2019 analysis was not consistent in the use of two different datasets for macro and micro indicators.\n(430)\nIt was further claimed that the improvement of profitability should be regarded also as a consequence of the restructuring efforts of the industry including reduction of production, employment and increased productivity. In this case, the latter factors cannot be deemed to be the sole indicators of injury, but all injury indicators should be looked at together.\n(431)\nArticle 8(2) of the basic Regulation lists the economic factors and indices to be evaluated in the examination of the impact of the subsidised imports on the Union industry. Article 8(2) explicitly states that the list of factors is not exhaustive, nor can any one or more of these factors necessarily give decisive guidance. Thus, while indicators have to be assessed individually, conclusions should be reached through the analysis of all factors.\n(432)\nParties also commented on a possible threat of further material injury in view of the huge capacity build-up by Chinese producers supported by State policies and subsidies. The scope of the investigation was the existence of material injury and not the threat of further material injury. Therefore these comments could not affect the findings and had to be disregarded.\n(433)\nConsidering the above, it should be concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 8(4) of the basic Regulation.\n7. CAUSALITY\n7.1. INTRODUCTION\n(434)\nIn accordance with Articles 8(5) and (6) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the material injury suffered by the Union industry has been caused by the subsidised imports from the country concerned. Furthermore, known factors other than the subsidised imports, which might have injured the Union industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those other factors was not attributed to the subsidised imports.\n7.2. EFFECT OF THE SUBSIDISED IMPORTS\n(435)\nIt is to be noted that the Union CFP market is characterized by a high degree of concentration of buying power and price transparency through price quotations. Furthermore CFP is a commodity-type product and does not allow for significant price differences among different sources. A major part of the products is sold through merchants that force the Union industry to keep prices in line with low priced and subsidised imports. Therefore the prices of imported CFP, out of which 35 % originated in the PRC in the IP, have in general a significant effect on price levels on the Union market.\n(436)\nThe investigation showed that subsidised imports from the PRC increased dramatically (+ 183 %) over the period considered. The subsidised imports from the PRC first doubled from 2006 to 2007, while prices were in 2007 2 % lower than the year before. In 2008 imports from China remained stable while average prices fell by 1 more %. Chinese import volumes (+ 71 %) and market share (+ 120 %) increased again dramatically in the IP with falling prices (- 5 %) undercutting the prices of the four representative Union producers by 7,6 % thereby exerting price pressure on the Union market and preventing the Union producers from raising their prices to profitable levels.\n(437)\nIt is recalled that during the period considered the Union consumption decreased by about 14 %. The Union industry faced a significant drop in their sales volume (19 %). However this decrease of sales was much more pronounced than the drop in demand and led to a loss of market share of 5 percentage points. At the same time the market share of Chinese imports increased by 3 percentage points. This shows that the Union industry's market share has largely been taken over by the subsidised imports from the PRC.\n(438)\nIt is therefore considered that the continued pressure exercised by the low-priced subsidised imports from the PRC on the Union market did not allow the Union industry to adapt its sales prices to the increased raw material costs, in particular in 2008, when pulp prices peaked. This led to the loss in market share and the loss in profitability of the Union industry.\n(439)\nDuring the investigation and after disclosure, several parties brought forward the argument that Chinese imports did not have significant impact in terms of volume and prices. It was argued that there was no surge of Chinese imports but rather these grew gradually over the years and therefore their impact was quite limited which should not be exaggerated for the purpose of the injury determination. It was further argued that Chinese prices, even if they were below Union prices, did not have any impact on the relatively stable prices of the Union industry. One exporting producer questioned the Commission's finding that there would be price suppression caused by Chinese prices. It pointed out that in 2009 when the Chinese prices declined further, the Union industry's prices not only recorded an increase but in fact allowed the Union industry to make profits.\n(440)\nThe evolution of Chinese imports is analyzed in detail in recital (380) and it was concluded that the increase in the volume cannot be regarded as insignificant.\n(441)\nIn terms of prices Chinese imports undercut the prices of the representative Union producers by 7,6 % which is considered significant in a market where price transparency is high. As depicted in recital (412) above, indeed prices of the representative Union producers were stable over the period considered, with an exceptional increase in 2007, the year where Chinese exports did not grow. In 2009 the Union producers could keep their prices stable at the expense of losing further market share and their profitability derived from the combination of these stable prices and the decreased cost of raw material.\n(442)\nOne Chinese exporting producer claimed that CFP imports from China do not have an impact on the prices of the Union industry as these are not comparable to the CFP manufactured and sold by the representative Union producers as only 10 % of the sales of the representative Union producers were compared in the determination of the undercutting and non-injurious price level. It is noted that these determinations are made on the basis of fully comparable products that are directly matching in all characteristics so as to ensure a fair comparison. However, CFP produced by the Chinese and Union producers in general are comparable products as concluded in recital (50) and thus are competing with each other directly on the Union market.\n(443)\nIt was furthermore alleged that the finding that the CFP market is a commodity-market characterized by a high degree of transparency is incorrect as the Union producers sell around half of their products directly to end users. In contrast to this claim the representative Union producers sold the majority of their products through merchants either directly or indirectly (so called indent sales when products are directly shipped to the customer but ordering and invoicing process goes through merchants). Indeed merchants play a crucial role in both stocking products and providing price transparency to the market.\n(444)\nIn view of the established trend of imports form the PRC that cannot be regarded as insignificant, it was concluded that the surge of the low-priced subsidised imports from the PRC had a considerable negative impact on the economic situation of the Union industry.\n7.3. EFFECT OF OTHER FACTORS\n7.3.1. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONSUMPTION ON THE UNION MARKET AND THE ECONOMIC CRISIS\n(445)\nAs mentioned in recital (378) above, the Union consumption of CFP first increased in 2007, after which it decreased in 2008 and the IP. During the period considered, the Union industry lost market share. One of the cooperating exporters in the PRC and the government of China claimed that the decrease in sales volume, market share and production of the Union industry was due to the decrease in consumption which had been caused by the economic crisis and the expansion of electronic media and should not be attributed to Chinese imports. To support its claim, the GOC quoted a Manifesto for Competitiveness and Employment launched by the paper and pulp industry in June 2009 (\u2018Manifesto\u2019).\n(446)\nAlthough it cannot be disregarded that this negative evolution of the Union consumption, for whatever reason, between 2007 and the IP has had a negative impact on the situation of the Union industry in terms of sales volumes and production, it is noteworthy that the Chinese exporters managed at the same time and especially from 2008 to 2009 to increase their sales volumes and market share through the price pressure exerted on the market by the subsidised imports.\n(447)\nThe Manifesto quoted by the GOC covers the whole paper and pulp industries sectors and serves a general policy purpose. On the basis of the information included in this document, no separate conclusions could be drawn for the production and sales of the product concerned. It is therefore not possible to conclude whether the statements or findings of the Manifesto in fact apply one-to-one to the product concerned. Since, in addition, the investigation did not bring to light a strong link between the financial crisis and the material injury suffered by the Union industry, this argument had to be rejected.\n(448)\nAccordingly, it is considered that the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry is mainly caused by the surge in the subsidised imports from the PRC and the undercutting practised by the Chinese exporters and not by decreasing consumption. Even though the contraction in demand contributed to the injury, it could not break the causal link between the material injury suffered and the increase in subsidised imports.\n7.3.2. PRICES OF RAW MATERIAL\n(449)\nThe average cost of production of the four representative Union producers slightly increased (2 %) between 2006 and 2008 and fell by 5 % in the IP. The investigation showed that the cost of production of the four representative Union producers to produce CFP followed in general a similar trend as the evolution of the prices of the pulp, one of the main raw materials in paper production. The average price of pulp increased by 8 % between 2006 and 2008 after which it decreased sharply from the end of 2008 till the last month of the IP. The price of pulp was on average 19 % lower in 2009 than in the previous year.\n(450)\nIn the absence of subsidization causing injury to the Union industry, it could be expected that prices are regularly adapted to reflect the development of the various components of the cost of production. Up until 2008, this did, however, not take place. Indeed, the Union producers was forced to keep their sales prices low even when pulp prices were increasing in 2008 in order to compete against the low-priced subsidised imports from the PRC, which led to a significant drop in their profitability in that period. In the IP, the situation ameliorated due to the abnormal decrease in prices of pulp - while prices of CFP could be kept stable at the same time. However even in this exceptional period the still very low profit levels did not allow the four representative Union producers to recover from continued subsidisation. Indeed, despite the decrease in raw material costs the price levels could still not be increased to levels to achieve solid profit margins necessary for this capital intensive industry.\n(451)\nAccordingly, it is concluded that the subsidised imports from the PRC which undercut the four representative Union producers\u2019 prices depressed the prices on the Union market and prevented the four representative Union producers from increasing their sales prices to cover their costs or to achieve a reasonable profitability. Given that the raw material prices were significantly decreasing in the IP, it was concluded that they could not have had an impact on the material injury suffered by the Union industry during that same period.\n7.3.3. EXPORT PERFORMANCE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE UNION PRODUCERS\n(452)\nExport performance was also examined as one of the known factors other than the subsidised imports, which could at the same time have injured the Union industry, to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the subsidised imports. The analysis showed that the export sales to unrelated parties made by the four representative Union producers represented an important part of their sales (around 26 %) during the period considered. Even though export sales volumes also decreased in the period considered by 16 %, the loss of export sales volumes was less pronounced than the loss of sales volumes on the Union market (19 %). Hence, it was considered that the decrease in export volume cannot explain the level of injury suffered by the four representative Union producers. Since exports play an important role in keeping capacity utilization high to cover the high fixed costs of investments into machinery, it was considered that although the export performance was deteriorating it had an overall positive effect. Accordingly, it is considered that even if the decrease in export activities may have contributed to the overall deterioration of the situation of the Union industry, these activities were on the other hand still mitigating the losses suffered on the Union market and thus are not such as to break the causal link established between the subsidised imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(453)\nOne party claimed that the Union industry suffered a significant decline in exports because of the strength of the Euro versus the US dollar and that the injury caused by this factor should not be attributed to imports from the PRC. As concluded above, the deterioration of the export performance of the Union industry, regardless of the causes for such deterioration, is not the main reason for the injury suffered by the producers and thus does not break the causal link established in recital (444).\n7.3.4. IMPORTS FROM OTHER THIRD COUNTRIES\n(454)\nThe trends in import volumes and prices from other third countries between 2006 and the IP were as follows:\nTable 9\nImports from third countries\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009/IP\nSwitzerland\nImports (tonnes)\n194 748\n191 636\n226 736\n172 233\nIndex\n100\n98\n116\n88\nMarket share\n3,7 %\n3,5 %\n4,2 %\n3,8 %\nIndex\n100\n95\n115\n103\nPrice (EUR/tonne)\n787\n782\n758\n793\nIndex\n100\n99\n97\n105\nIndonesia\nImports (tonnes)\n19 834\n30 714\n27 178\n49 877\nIndex\n100\n155\n137\n251\nMarket share\n0,4 %\n0,6 %\n0,5 %\n1,1 %\nIndex\n100\n149\n135\n292\nPrice (EUR/tonne)\n855\n818\n845\n681\nIndex\n100\n96\n99\n80\nSouth Korea\nImports (tonnes)\n45 154\n65 251\n46 498\n46 068\nIndex\n100\n145\n103\n102\nMarket share\n0,9 %\n1,2 %\n0,9 %\n1,0 %\nIndex\n100\n139\n102\n118\nPrice (EUR/tonne)\n562\n669\n664\n618\nIndex\n100\n119\n118\n110\nAll other countries\nImports (tonnes)\n58 623\n70 984\n62 844\n100 711\nIndex\n100\n121\n107\n172\nMarket share\n1,1 %\n1,3 %\n1,2 %\n2,2 %\nIndex\n100\n117\n106\n199\nPrice (EUR/tonne)\n962\n860\n914\n824\nIndex\n100\n89\n95\n86\nSource: Eurostat.\n(455)\nThe main other third countries exporting CFP to the Union market are Switzerland, Indonesia and South Korea. From the trends of import volumes it can be seen that the increase of the imports from the PRC was more pronounced than from any of the other third countries. In case of imports from Switzerland, these were sold always at significantly higher prices than imported products from the PRC. The market share of Swiss products remained relatively stable, except for the year 2008 when they increased temporarily to above 4 % before falling back to close to the 2006 level in the IP. CFP imported from Switzerland constituted mainly the production of one company owned by one of the four representative Union producers and the higher unit prices may be linked to different product mixes and sales structures. As far as imports from Indonesia are concerned, these were also entering the Union at higher prices than the Chinese products, with the exception of the IP where prices fell, very likely in large part due to the decrease in pulp prices. The resulting increase of imports, which however remained in volume terms at a low level in the IP, led to a market share which also remained at a low level in that period. Imports from South Korea entered the Union in low quantities throughout the period considered and market share remained stable. Even though Korean import prices were comparable to import prices from the PRC, Korean prices were not showing a continuously decreasing trend as the Chinese imports did over the whole period considered. Imports from all other countries had significantly higher prices than the imports from the PRC and import volumes were low.\n(456)\nOn the basis of the above, it should be concluded that the imports from these third countries did not contribute to the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n7.3.5. STRUCTURAL OVERCAPACITY\n(457)\nOne cooperating exporter in the PRC argued that the injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by the Union industry's overcapacity. The reduction in capacity and consolidation of the Union industry were therefore not a consequence of the Chinese imports but should be seen as a measure against the overcapacity. However, the investigation showed that losses were incurred by the Union industry in the period considered, especially in 2008, despite the restructuring of the producers because, as outlined above in recitals (435) to (444), the Union industry was still not able to raise its prices to levels above costs. This situation was mainly caused by the price pressure exerted by the subsidised imports undercutting Union industry prices. This argument had therefore to be rejected.\n(458)\nIt was also argued that the restructuring efforts of the Union industry were completed in 2009 by the consolidation of two large producers that resulted in the immediate improvement of the situation of the Union industry. Restructuring efforts took place since 2000 up until the IP. The positive effect of the mentioned consolidation should have been reflected in the improvement of capacity utilisation and at least in stable sales volume but both these indicators deteriorated in the IP. On the other hand, it had been established that the improved profitability of the Union industry in the IP was caused primarily and directly by the exceptional one-off drop in pulp prices. Therefore this argument had to be rejected.\n7.4. CONCLUSION ON CAUSATION\n(459)\nThe above analysis demonstrated that there was a substantial increase in the volume and market share of the low-priced subsidised imports originating in the PRC over the period considered. In addition, it was found that these imports were made at subsidised prices which were below the prices charged by the Union industry on the Union market for similar product types.\n(460)\nThis increase in volume and market share of the low-priced subsidised imports from the PRC coincided with an overall decrease of the demand on the Union market during the period between 2006 and the IP and also with the negative development in the market share of the Union producers during the same period. At the same time a negative development in the main indicators of the economic and financial situation of the Union industry was observed as outlined in recital (423).\n(461)\nThe examination of the other known factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry revealed that these factors are not such as to break the causal link established between the subsidised imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(462)\nBased on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the subsidised imports, it should be concluded that the subsidised imports from the PRC have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 8(5) of the basic Regulation.\n8. UNION INTEREST\n8.1. PRELIMINARY REMARK\n(463)\nIn accordance with Article 31 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether, despite the above findings, compelling reasons existed for concluding that it was not in the Union interest to adopt countervailing measures in this particular case. For this purpose, and in accordance with Article 31(1) of the basic Regulation, the likely impact of possible measures on the Union producers, importers, merchants and distributors and users of the product concerned and also the likely consequences of not taking measures were considered on the basis of all evidence submitted.\n8.2. UNION INDUSTRY\n(464)\nThe Union industry as a whole is composed of 14 known producers estimated to represent around 98 % of the Union CFP production according to CEPIFINE. The producers are located in different Member States of the Union, employing directly over 11 000 people in relation to the product concerned.\n(465)\nTwo of the known producers opposed the initiation of the investigation but provided no further information and did not cooperate with the investigation. On the basis of the information available, however, and in particular on the basis of the data made available by CEPIFINE which showed a deterioration of the situation of the Union industry, it can be reasonably assumed that these two companies were also negatively affected by the subsidised imports. The non-cooperation was therefore not seen as an indication that their situation would be different from the one of the remaining Union producers.\n(466)\nThe Union industry has suffered material injury caused by the subsidised imports from the PRC. It is recalled that most injury indicators showed a negative trend during the period considered. In particular injury indicators related to the financial performance of the four representative Union producers, such as profitability and return on investments, despite a slight improvement in the IP, were seriously affected. In the absence of measures, a further deterioration in the Union industry's economic situation appears very likely.\n(467)\nIt is expected that the imposition of countervailing duties will restore effective and fair trade conditions on the Union market, allowing the Union industry to align the prices of CFP to reflect the costs of the various components. It can be expected that the imposition of measures would enable the Union industry to regain at least part of the market share lost during the period considered, with a further positive impact on its economic situation and profitability.\n(468)\nIt was therefore concluded that the imposition of definitive countervailing measures on imports of CFP originating in the PRC would be in the interest of the Union industry.\n8.3. IMPORTERS AND TRADERS\n(469)\nQuestionnaires were sent to fourteen known unrelated importers and traders in the Union that were listed in the complaint. During the investigation several other traders (called also \u2018merchants\u2019 in the industry) made themselves known. Finally thirteen companies cooperated in the investigation, even though some of these respondents provided only partial information. Importers were found to be acting also as traders on the market therefore all these parties will hereinafter be referred to as \u2018traders\u2019.\n(470)\nThe investigation showed that all traders purchased CFP from several sources and mainly from Union producers. Two traders did not purchase or only occasionally purchased the imported CFP from the PRC. The ten companies that provided quantitative information about their purchases of the product concerned represented in total 47 % of the total imports from the PRC. Imports, including imports from the PRC represented only a limited share of their total business and any negative impact of the proposed measures is thus likely to be negligible. All traders stated that CFP produced in the Union and the PRC were largely of a similar quality and were interchangeable. Furthermore the investigation confirmed that there exist a large number of other import sources and traders could revert to these other sources of supply, at least in the longer term.\n(471)\nTwo importing traders were relying mainly on Chinese sources for their purchases of CFP. Both companies stated that they would have difficulties in sourcing products from Union producers because there would be traditional sales channels due to minimum order volumes required by producers and distribution agreements to be respected. This did, however, not directly affect the availability of CFP from Union producers as they had sufficient spare capacity available. This argument had therefore to be rejected.\n(472)\nConcerning the possibility to pass on possible cost increases to their customers, all cooperating traders referred to the strong price transparency on the Union market and stated that they would only be able to increase their sales prices to the final customers in case the price level in the Union, in general, would increase. On this basis, and given that the intended effect of countervailing duties is, inter alia, to increase the price level in the Union to cost-covering levels, it is expected that importers would therefore be able to pass any price increases caused by the countervailing duty at least partly on to their customers. It should also be noted that as mentioned above, it was found that Chinese imports constitute only a very small part of the overall business of traders and that therefore, the effect of the countervailing duty, in general would be negligible. Finally it is also considered that importers achieve a higher profitability on their re-sales of CFP sourced from the producers in the PRC; therefore they would also be able to make less profit by absorbing at least a partial cost increase.\n(473)\nTherefore, the imposition of definitive measures should overall not have a significant negative impact on the importers and traders.\n8.4. USERS\n(474)\nQuestionnaires were sent to eight known users in the Union that were listed in the complaint. During the investigation several other users made themselves known. Altogether five companies provided a full or partial questionnaire reply. These companies are located throughout the Union and represent the printing and publishing sectors. Since market conditions and cost structures were found to be different for printers and publishers, the impact of measures was analysed separately for each group.\n8.4.1. PRINTERS\n(475)\nOnly one printer provided basic information. According to the information submitted by this printer, the share of the CFP in relation to the total cost of production of a printed material was relatively high. While the investigation has shown that printers are mainly sourcing CFP from Union producers, it was confirmed that CFP produced in the Union and the PRC are of similar quality and that there is a strong price competition between traders.\n(476)\nIt was stated that any price increase would have a significant negative effect on the profitability. It was claimed that the printing industry is already under pressure due to structural overcapacity and any increase in purchase prices of CFP would put further pressure on the printers. In this regard, it is noted that given the small quantities of Chinese CFP used by printers (who still source the majority of the CFP needed from Union producers) the direct impact of any duty was considered negligible. As far as a general price increase in the Union market is concerned, it was considered that since this price increase would impact on all economic players this would have a neutral effect.\n8.4.2. PUBLISHERS\n(477)\nRegarding the publishing sector, four questionnaire replies were received from companies. Only one company had a minor purchase of Chinese-origin CFP in the IP. Two of the companies provided quantitative data concerning their use of CFP.\n(478)\nOverall, it was found that on average the products where CFP is used represented 16 % of the total turnover of these companies and that the average profit achieved in this business was around 12 %. Furthermore, it was found that the six companies purchased CFP mainly from the Union producers, while only one of them used CFP imported from the PRC. Another one started to buy Chinese products only after the IP. Therefore, and in particular on the basis of the low volumes of Chinese-origin CFP used in this sector, the imposition of countervailing measures on imports from the PRC is unlikely to seriously affect the publishing sector overall. In addition, these companies were found to be profitable and could pass on price increases to the final customer more easily because the use of customer-directed and customer-nominated paper whereby the paper used in the production is purchased by the customer itself is more common. Finally, publishers have stronger purchasing power because of economies of scale.\n(479)\nTwo associations of the printing and publishing industry provided submissions. One opposed the imposition of duties, claiming that any price increases would lead to higher costs and consequently to loss of competitiveness and jobs in downstream industries. The other remained neutral but claimed that the measures could have negative effects on the downstream industries as price increases could lead to the relocation of the printing industry leading to increased imports of downstream printed matter.\n(480)\nThe investigation found that there exist several segments in paper products in terms of expected growth and that the segment of high quality printing paper, in which CFP is primarily used, is still growing. As regards the claim that losses would shift to the downstream market, this claim is vague and was not supported by any substantiating information or evidence.\n(481)\nAfter disclosure, the same claim about possible effects on the downstream industry was repeated and supported by the fact that imports of printed matter from China increased rapidly in recent years and apparently took a considerable market share within European consumption for all printed matter.\n(482)\nAs explained above, the cooperation of printers was limited and on the basis of the limited quantitative information received it was found that because of their profitability level and the share of CFP in their costs, printers are indeed sensitive to price increases. However, most printers had no or very limited direct purchases of Chinese paper in the IP and the amount of Chinese paper used by printers is in general low therefore the direct impact of the duty would be negligible. Most printers also stated that because of their need for short delivery times, the share of supplies directly from third countries would remain limited.\n(483)\nAs regards the claims concerning downstream printed matter from China it should be noted that the import statistics of printed matter cover a wide range of products that include final printed matter that is not printed on coated fine paper. Based on the information available it could not be assessed what part of the products imported from China is printed on the product concerned and what is printed on other types of paper. However, from information submitted it is known that printed matter originating is China is mostly comprised of some specific categories of books, children books, calendars, packaging and greeting cards. Products that are more \u2018time sensitive\u2019 such as weekly/monthly magazines and other newsprint are less susceptible to be imported from China because of the time needed for transportation. While the printing of some printed products may be more susceptible to relocation, on the other hand there exist product types for which proximity and service are crucial and therefore would not be affected by foreign competition. Furthermore, even though paper is an important cost element for the printing industry, it is also a labour-intensive industry and thus labour costs may be a more significant driver in relocation trends. In summary, it cannot be excluded that imports of printed products that are printed on CFP will increase but it is not possible to estimate with any accuracy what the level of increase might be and how far this would play a role in the competitiveness of printing producers and therefore and therefore what direct impact price increases might have on the downstream Union printing industry.\n(484)\nFrom information submitted, it is also known that the printing industry suffers from structural overcapacity that leads to the continuing restructuring of the sector. One of the driving forces towards the restructuring was also the consolidation of the paper manufacturers within the value chain. Any difficulty of the printing industry to increase prices is considered to be rather largely due to this structural overcapacity within the printing industry itself.\n8.4.3. CONCLUSIONS ON USERS\n(485)\nTaking the above into consideration, even if some of the users are likely to be negatively impacted by the measures on imports from the PRC, the impact on the users in the two distinctive sectors appears to be limited overall. Furthermore, the investigation did not bring to light any significant impact on users which purchased paper mainly from other sources than the PRC. On the contrary, most users stated that because of their need for short delivery times, the share of supplies from third countries remains limited. Finally, the difficulties of the printing industry to increase prices are considered to be rather due to the structural overcapacity within the printing industry itself.\n(486)\nIt was also claimed that measures would cause a shortage of supply on the market and longer delivery times for users.\n(487)\nThe interested parties claiming possible shortages of supply did not quantify or give an estimate of the possible shortages. These claims in any case do not seem to be supported by the capacity utilization rate of the Union producers that was 83 % in the IP leaving around one million tonnes of free capacity. On this basis, it is unlikely that shortages would occur.\n(488)\nTherefore, it was concluded that, on the basis of the information available, the effect of the countervailing measures against imports of CFP originating in the PRC will most likely not have a significant negative impact on the users of the product concerned.\n8.5. CONCLUSION ON UNION INTEREST\n(489)\nIn view of the above, it should be concluded that overall, based on the information available concerning the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of measures on imports of CFP originating in the PRC.\n9. COUNTERVAILING MEASURES\n9.1. INJURY ELIMINATION LEVEL\n(490)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to subsidization, injury, causation and Union interest, anti-subsidy measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union producers by the subsidised imports.\n(491)\nFor the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the subsidy margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Union producers, without exceeding the subsidy margin found.\n(492)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious subsidization, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of subsidised imports, on sales of the like product in the Union.\n(493)\nThe complainant requested that the target profit should be set at minimum 10 %, basing its arguments on the expected profit margin used by independent rating agencies in their classification methodology and the profitability achieved by a producer active in another paper production segment that is not affected by Chinese imports.\n(494)\nThe target profit as suggested in the complaint and the subsequent request of the complainant was examined based on the questionnaire replies and verification visits to the representative Union producers. It was considered that the target profit should reflect the high up-front investment needs and risk involved in this capital-intensive industry in the absence of dumped and or subsidised imports.Also the cost of investment into machinery was considered. It was considered that a profit margin of 8 % on turnover could be regarded as an appropriate minimum which the Union producers could have expected to obtain in the absence of injurious subsidisation.\n(495)\nOn this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union producers for the like product. The non-injurious price was obtained by adding the abovementioned profit margin of 8 % to the cost of production.\n(496)\nThe export sales of a company within the group of one cooperating exporting producer were excluded based on the reasons explained in recital (382).\n(497)\nThe necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison, per product type, of the weighted average import price of the exporting producers in the PRC, with the non-injurious price of the product types sold by the Union producers on the Union market during the IP. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the average CIF import value of the compared types.\n9.2. DEFINITIVE MEASURES\n(498)\nIn the light of the foregoing conclusions reached with regard to subsidisation, injury, causation and Union interests, and in accordance with Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that a definitive countervailing duty should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC at the level of the lower of the subsidy and the injury margins in line with the lesser duty rule. In this case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the subsidy margins found.\n(499)\nThe injury elimination margins and the subsidy margins and the proposed rates of the definitive countervailing duty for the PRC, expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, are as follows:\nExporting producer\nSubsidy margin\nInjury margin\nCountervailing duty rate\nGold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province, PRC\n12 %\n20 %\n12 %\nGold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, PRC\n12 %\n20 %\n12 %\nShangdong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC\n4 %\n39,1 %\n4 %\nShouguang Chenming Art Paper Co., Ltd, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC\n4 %\n39,1 %\n4 %\nAll other companies\n12 %\n39,1 %\n12 %\n(500)\nAs concerns the parallel anti-dumping investigation, pursuant to Article 24(1), second subparagraph of the basic Regulation and Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (27) no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with the one and the same situation arising from dumping and from export subsidisation. As concerns the subsidy schemes, as stated under recitals (235) to (245), only one scheme refers to export subsidisation. The relevant dumping margin of the cooperating exporting producer concerned will be adjusted accordingly in the parallel anti-dumping investigation. With respect to other subsidy schemes, in view of the use of the lesser duty rule in the anti-dumping investigation carried out in parallel and the amount of subsidisation found in the present investigation, it was not considered necessary to further examine whether and to what degree the same subsidies are being offset twice when anti-dumping and countervailing duties are simultaneously imposed on the same imported product.\n(501)\nThe individual company countervailing duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the country concerned and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in Article 1 with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(502)\nAny claim requesting the application of an individual company countervailing duty rate (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting-up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (28) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be amended accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(503)\nIn order to ensure proper enforcement of the countervailing duty, the residual duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.\n10. DISCLOSURE\n(504)\nInterested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive countervailing duty on imports of coated fine paper originating on the People's Republic of China. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. The comments submitted by the parties were duly considered, and, where appropriate, the findings were modified accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive countervailing duty is hereby imposed on coated fine paper, which is paper or paperboard coated on one or both sides (excluding kraft paper or kraft paperboard), in either sheets or rolls, and with a weight of 70 g/m2 or more but not exceeding 400 g/m2 and brightness of more than 84 (measured according to ISO 2470-1), currently falling within CN codes ex 4810 13 20, ex 4810 13 80, ex 4810 14 20, ex 4810 14 80, ex 4810 19 10, ex 4810 19 90, ex 4810 22 10, ex 4810 22 90, ex 4810 29 30, ex 4810 29 80, ex 4810 99 10, ex 4810 99 30 and ex 4810 99 90 (TARIC codes 4810132020, 4810138020, 4810142020, 4810148020, 4810191020, 4810199020, 4810221020, 4810229020, 4810293020, 4810298020, 4810991020, 4810993020 and 4810999020) and originating in the People's Republic of China.\nThe definitive countervailing duty does not concern rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses. Rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses are defined as those rolls which, if tested according to the ISO test standard ISO 3783:2006 concerning the determination of resistance to picking - accelerated speed method using the IGT tester (electric model), give a result of less than 30 N/m when measuring in the cross-direction of the paper (CD) and a result of less than 50 N/m when measuring in the machine direction (MD). The definitive countervailing duty does also not concern multi-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard.\n2. The rate of the definitive countervailing duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nCountervailing duty rate\nTARIC additional code\nGold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province, PRC; Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, PRC\n12 %\nB001\nShangdong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC; Shouguang Chenming Art Paper Co., Ltd, Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC\n4 %\nB013\nAll other companies\n12 %\nB999\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2011.", "references": ["41", "39", "76", "65", "5", "50", "94", "84", "51", "62", "47", "72", "55", "2", "80", "56", "9", "25", "27", "74", "40", "54", "85", "30", "32", "91", "20", "87", "61", "98", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "88", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "88", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 693/2010\nof 2 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 3 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2010.", "references": ["27", "8", "69", "23", "88", "1", "72", "70", "6", "89", "82", "45", "47", "96", "37", "16", "13", "40", "92", "3", "29", "44", "34", "78", "33", "38", "42", "80", "84", "95", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 655/2011\nof 28 June 2011\nterminating the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of coumarin originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Articles 9 and 11(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Measures in force\n(1)\nThe measures currently in force are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 654/2008 (2) on imports of coumarin originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, as extended to imports of coumarin consigned from India, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, whether declared as originating in India, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia or not, and an undertaking accepted from one Indian producer (Atlas Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd) (3).\n1.2. Grounds for the review\n(2)\nThe Commission was informed that the sole producer of coumarin, which constituted the Union industry in the investigation which led to the imposition of the existing measures, decided to discontinue production of coumarin within the Union at the end of August 2010.\n1.3. Initiation\n(3)\nAccordingly, the Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, initiated, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), a partial interim review limited to injury aspects of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of coumarin originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, as extended to imports of coumarin consigned from India, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, whether declared as originating in India, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia or not.\n(4)\nThe Commission advised officially the Union producers and the representatives of the People\u2019s Republic of China of the initiation of the review investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n1.4. Product under review\n(5)\nThe product under review is coumarin, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN code ex 2932 21 00 (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n2. FINDINGS AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(6)\nThe investigation has confirmed that the only Union producer of the product concerned has permanently closed its production facility in August 2010.\n(7)\nThe Commission considers that the present proceeding should be terminated since the review investigation has not brought to light any considerations showing that such termination would not be in the Union interest. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received indicating that such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(8)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of the the product concerned into the Union should be terminated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping measures concerning imports of coumarin currently falling within CN code ex 2932 21 00 and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, as extended to imports consigned from India, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, whether declared as originating in India, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia or not, are hereby repealed and the proceeding concerning these imports is terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 28 June 2011.", "references": ["51", "79", "55", "52", "30", "38", "69", "33", "57", "56", "53", "37", "78", "54", "98", "93", "39", "66", "15", "12", "46", "35", "82", "49", "81", "88", "13", "70", "24", "50", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 364/2012\nof 26 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2012.", "references": ["9", "76", "6", "98", "90", "86", "48", "27", "62", "8", "82", "1", "97", "33", "32", "21", "89", "30", "92", "4", "28", "88", "14", "10", "38", "13", "50", "47", "25", "53", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 725/2010\nof 12 August 2010\nadding to the 2010 fishing quotas certain quantities withheld in the year 2009 pursuant to Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (1), and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 847/96, Member States may ask the Commission, before 31 October, in the year of application of a fishing quota, to withhold a maximum of 10 % of that quota to be transferred to the following year. The Commission shall add to the relevant quota the quantity withheld.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (2), Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2009 (3), Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/2008 of 10 November 2008 fixing the fishing opportunities and the conditions relating thereto for certain fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea for 2009 (4) and Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 of 16 January 2009 fixing for 2009 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (5), fix quotas for certain stocks for 2009 and specify which stocks may be subject to the measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 847/96.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1359/2008, Council Regulation (EC) No 1226/2009 of 20 November 2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2010 (6), Council Regulation (EC) No 1287/2009 of 27 November 2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and the conditions relating thereto for certain fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea for 2010 (7) and Council Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (8), fix quotas for certain stocks for 2010.\n(4)\nCertain Member States have requested, before 31 October of 2009, pursuant to Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 847/96, that part of their quotas for 2009 be withheld and transferred to the following year. Within the limits indicated in that Regulation, the quantities withheld should be added to the quota for 2010.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe fishing quotas fixed for 2010 in Regulations (EC) No 1359/2008, (EC) No 1226/2009, (EC) No 1287/2009, and (EU) No 53/2010 are increased as set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 August 2010.", "references": ["57", "17", "66", "29", "63", "32", "31", "45", "0", "61", "80", "72", "60", "41", "54", "4", "75", "26", "73", "28", "21", "39", "24", "40", "14", "5", "64", "44", "1", "35", "No Label", "13", "42", "67"], "gold": ["13", "42", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 367/2010\nof 28 April 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 April 2010.", "references": ["98", "19", "55", "39", "46", "57", "97", "74", "33", "9", "25", "23", "22", "95", "13", "65", "5", "30", "31", "38", "1", "45", "48", "82", "78", "90", "96", "86", "72", "49", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 501/2011\nof 24 February 2011\non the allocation of fishing opportunities under the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Democratic Republic of S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 July 2007, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 894/2007 on the conclusion of a Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Democratic Republic of S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe and the European Community (1) (the \u2018Agreement\u2019). A Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Agreement (2) (the \u2018former Protocol\u2019) was attached thereto. The former Protocol expired on 31 May 2010.\n(2)\nA new Protocol (the \u2018Protocol\u2019) setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with the Democratic Republic of S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe was initialled on 15 July 2010. It provides Union vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which the Democratic Republic of S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe has sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries.\n(3)\nOn 24 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/296/EU (3) on the signing and provisional application of the Protocol.\n(4)\nThe method for allocating the fishing opportunities among the Member States should be defined for the duration of the Protocol.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 of 29 September 2008 concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters (4), if the fishing opportunities allocated to the Union under the Protocol are not fully utilised, the Commission shall inform the Member States concerned. The absence of a reply within the deadlines, to be set by the Council, shall be considered as confirmation that the vessels of the Member State concerned are not making full use of their fishing opportunities in the given period. Those deadlines should be fixed.\n(6)\nThis Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe fishing opportunities set out in the Protocol attached to Decision 2011/296/EU on the signing and provisional application shall be allocated among the Member States as follows:\n(a)\ntuna seiners:\nSpain\n16 vessels\nFrance\n12 vessels\n(b)\nsurface longliners:\nSpain\n9 vessels\nPortugal\n3 vessels\nWithout prejudice to the Agreement and the Protocol, Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 shall apply. If applications for fishing authorisations from the Member States referred to in the first paragraph do not cover all the fishing opportunities set by the Protocol, the Commission shall consider applications for fishing authorisations from any other Member State in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008. The deadlines referred to in Article 10(1) of that Regulation shall be set at 10 days.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2011.", "references": ["4", "46", "59", "68", "77", "73", "53", "2", "49", "51", "27", "9", "14", "78", "47", "29", "38", "75", "5", "7", "66", "56", "44", "48", "83", "97", "63", "76", "95", "42", "No Label", "3", "16", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "16", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 13 December 2011\namending Decision 2008/855/EC as regards the period of application of animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in certain Member States\n(notified under document C(2011) 9128)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/838/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2008/855/EC of 3 November 2008 concerning animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in certain Member States (3) lays down certain control measures applicable in relation to classical swine fever in the Member States or regions thereof as set out in the Annex to that Decision.\n(2)\nDecision 2008/855/EC is to apply until 31 December 2011. In the light of the disease situation, in particular as regard wild boar in certain regions of Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary and Romania, it is appropriate to extend the period of application of that Decision until 31 December 2013.\n(3)\nDecision 2008/855/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 15 of Decision 2008/855/EC, the date \u201831 December 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2013\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["75", "68", "15", "45", "82", "57", "63", "7", "61", "83", "31", "43", "13", "14", "22", "60", "32", "28", "98", "77", "16", "93", "53", "64", "3", "24", "12", "56", "76", "70", "No Label", "38", "59", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "59", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 11 April 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union\n(2011/255/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 January 2007, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with certain other Members of the World Trade Organization under Article XXIV:6 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 in the course of the accessions to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania.\n(2)\nNegotiations have been conducted by the Commission within the framework of the negotiating directives adopted by the Council.\n(3)\nThese negotiations have been concluded and the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (the Agreement) was initialled on 7 September 2010.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (the Agreement) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the Agreement (1).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["27", "13", "33", "73", "59", "43", "44", "55", "23", "22", "82", "66", "94", "28", "12", "52", "88", "67", "63", "30", "19", "54", "34", "8", "35", "91", "49", "87", "58", "64", "No Label", "9", "21", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "21", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 40/2011\nof 19 January 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of January 2011 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 January 2011 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 January 2011 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 84,156557 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 January 2011.", "references": ["85", "63", "82", "34", "44", "12", "53", "96", "71", "54", "35", "1", "28", "0", "55", "81", "52", "98", "95", "32", "4", "18", "73", "80", "17", "89", "64", "3", "30", "7", "No Label", "21", "23", "24", "69", "76"], "gold": ["21", "23", "24", "69", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1378/2011\nof 20 December 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Rheinisches Apfelkraut (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Rheinisches Apfelkraut\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["85", "77", "38", "81", "66", "41", "64", "32", "83", "2", "35", "93", "36", "13", "75", "23", "51", "59", "52", "70", "37", "43", "44", "58", "21", "80", "57", "56", "16", "27", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 754/2012\nof 14 August 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (D\u00fcsseldorfer Mostert/D\u00fcsseldorfer Senf Mostert/D\u00fcsseldorfer Urtyp Mostert/Aechter D\u00fcsseldorfer Mostert (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany\u2019s application to register the name \u2018D\u00fcsseldorfer Mostert\u2019/\u2018D\u00fcsseldorfer Senf Mostert\u2019/\u2018D\u00fcsseldorfer Urtyp Mostert\u2019/\u2018Aechter D\u00fcsseldorfer Mostert\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 August 2012.", "references": ["70", "23", "14", "63", "76", "13", "49", "61", "69", "54", "48", "89", "42", "10", "95", "90", "21", "19", "1", "20", "86", "57", "44", "39", "82", "30", "99", "35", "78", "93", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 575/2012\nof 28 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 as regards representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1484/95 should be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2012.", "references": ["72", "24", "2", "91", "8", "94", "50", "98", "15", "43", "59", "45", "93", "88", "90", "0", "27", "61", "75", "78", "67", "29", "46", "6", "11", "26", "77", "30", "14", "89", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "70"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 July 2010\nauthorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507x59122 (DAS-\u00d815\u00d87-1xDAS-59122-7) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 5131)\n(Only the Dutch, English and French texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/432/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Article 7(3) and Article 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 May 2005, Dow AgroSciences Europe on behalf of Dow AgroSciences Europe and Pioneer Overseas Corporation submitted to the competent authority of the Netherlands an application, in accordance with Article 5 and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from 1507x59122 maize (the application).\n(2)\nThe application also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of 1507x59122 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with Article 5(5) and Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.\n(3)\nOn 6 May 2009, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Article 6 and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It considered that 1507x59122 maize is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment. Therefore it concluded that it is unlikely that the placing on the market of the products containing, consisting of, or produced from 1507x59122 maize as described in the application (the products) will have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment in the context of their intended uses (3). In its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Article 6(4) and Article 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(4)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.\n(5)\nTaking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products.\n(6)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).\n(7)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from 1507x59122 maize. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(8)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).\n(9)\nThe EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in Article 6(5)(e) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(10)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(11)\nArticle 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (6), lays down labelling requirements for products consisting of, or containing GMOs.\n(12)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).\n(13)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(14)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman.\n(15)\nAt its meeting on 29 June 2010, the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal. The Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded. It is accordingly for the Commission to adopt the measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) 1507x59122, as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier DAS-\u00d815\u00d87-1xDAS-59122-7, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Article 4(2) and Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from DAS-\u00d815\u00d87-1xDAS-59122-7 maize;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from DAS-\u00d815\u00d87-1xDAS-59122-7 maize;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of DAS-\u00d815\u00d87-1xDAS-59122-7 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018maize\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of DAS-\u00d815\u00d87-1xDAS-59122-7 maize referred to in Article 2(b) and (c).\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nCommunity register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holders\n1. The authorisation holders shall be:\n(a)\nDow AgroSciences Europe, United Kingdom, representing Mycogen Seeds, United States; and\n(b)\nPioneer Overseas Corporation, Belgium, representing Pioneer Hi-Bred International, United States.\n2. Both authorisation holders shall be responsible for fulfilling the duties imposed on authorisation holders by this Decision and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to:\n(a)\nDow AgroSciences Europe, European Development Centre, 3 Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN, United Kingdom; and\n(b)\nPioneer Overseas Corporation, Avenue des Arts 44, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2010.", "references": ["62", "91", "83", "39", "52", "4", "41", "51", "55", "47", "93", "20", "32", "0", "54", "23", "88", "33", "17", "36", "57", "27", "92", "63", "61", "99", "35", "1", "42", "79", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 780/2011\nof 4 August 2011\nderogating from Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 and Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 as regards the reduction of the amounts of the aid for late submission of single applications in relation to mainland Portugal for 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1), and in particular Article 91 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (2), and in particular Article 142(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (3) provides, in its Article 23(1), for reductions to be applied in the case of late submission of an aid application as well as documents, contracts or declarations which are constitutive for the eligibility for the aid.\n(2)\nAccording to Article 8(3) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (4), Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 apply mutatis mutandis to payment claims under Title I of Part II of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011.\n(3)\nPortugal has implemented a system of single aid application which covers, pursuant to Article 19(3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, several support schemes. In particular, applications for single payment scheme under Title III of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, applications for ewe and goat premiums under Article 35 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the support schemes for farmers provided for in Titles IV and V thereof (5) and certain applications for aid granted under Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 form part of the single application.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 and Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, Portugal has fixed 15 May of the application year as the latest day until which single applications for 2011 can be submitted. As regards single applications including an application for the ewe and goat premium, Portugal has, in accordance with Article 35(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009, fixed 30 April of the application year as the latest day until which applications for the ewe and goat premium for 2011 can be submitted.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, where the latest date for the submission of an aid application or any supporting documents, contracts or declarations under Title II of Part II of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 is a public holiday, a Saturday or a Sunday, it shall be deemed to fall on the first following working day. It follows that in 2011 single applications can be submitted at the latest until 16 May 2011 which is the first working day following 15 May 2011. More specifically as regards single applications including an application for the ewe and goat premium, such applications can be submitted at the latest until 2 May 2011 which is the first working day following 30 April 2011.\n(6)\nArticle 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 requires Member States to ensure that agricultural parcels are reliably identified and requires the single application to be accompanied by documents identifying the parcels in order to enable the implementation of the control system.\n(7)\nIn response to deficiencies related to the identification of agricultural parcels, which were regularly detected in the past, Portugal implemented an \u2018Action Plan\u2019 in liaison with the Commission. This commitment includes in particular the update of the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) in Portugal.\n(8)\nIn relation to the implementation of these commitments, Portugal has increased its administrative capacity to receive aid applications and, compared to 2010, anticipated the starting date to receive aid applications to 1 February 2011.\n(9)\nHowever, Portugal has experienced exceptional circumstances in its administration of the single applications for 2011 as far as Mainland Portugal is concerned. In particular, due to a delayed finalisation of the photo-interpretation of 1 800 000 parcels by an external contractor, the LPIS could not be updated in line with the envisaged timetable. Farmers were thus only provided with the updated information about the parcels as of 21 February 2011.\n(10)\nGiven the existing technical capacity in Portugal, which had already been enlarged in anticipation of the implementation of the \u2018Action Plan\u2019, this situation has affected the ability of applicants to submit single aid applications for Mainland Portugal within the time limits provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 and Article 35(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009.\n(11)\nThese difficulties are reinforced by the fact that the application procedure in Portugal is particularly time-consuming given the corrections of reference parcels boundaries which need to be carefully checked by farmers following the update of the LPIS. Abiding by the deadlines of 16 May 2011 and 2 May 2011 respectively is therefore particularly difficult, given the overall context of the \u2018Action Plan\u2019 and the engagements taken by Portugal to improve its integrated administration and control system.\n(12)\nIt is therefore appropriate not to apply the reductions provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 on grounds of late submission of single applications in respect of those farmers who created their single applications for Mainland Portugal in the electronic application system at the latest by 16 May 2011 or, in the case of the ewe and goat premium at the latest by 2 May 2011, and who finalised and submitted their application at the latest 14 calendar days after 16 May 2011 or, respectively, 2 May 2011.\n(13)\nSimilarly, by way of derogation from Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 and in respect of payment claims in relation to Mainland Portugal under Title I of Part II of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, it is appropriate not to apply reductions on grounds of late submission of single applications which were created in the electronic application system at the latest by 16 May 2011 and were finalised and submitted at the latest 14 calendar days after 16 May 2011.\n(14)\nSince the proposed derogations should cover the single applications submitted for aid year 2011, it is appropriate that this Regulation applies retroactively.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Rural Development Committee and the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. By way of derogation from Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, in respect of the application year 2011, no reductions shall apply on grounds of late submission of single applications in respect of those farmers who created their single applications for Mainland Portugal in the electronic application system at the latest by 16 May 2011 and who finalised and submitted their applications at the latest 14 calendar days after 16 May 2011.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, where single applications for 2011 include an application for ewe and goat premium, no reductions on grounds of late submission of single applications shall apply in relation to that premium in respect of those farmers who created their single applications for Mainland Portugal in the electronic application system at the latest by 2 May 2011 and who finalised and submitted their applications at the latest 14 calendar days after 2 May 2011.\nArticle 2\nBy way of derogation from Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, in respect of the application year 2011, no reductions provided for in Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 shall apply in respect of payment claims in relation to Mainland Portugal under Title I of Part II of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 on grounds of late submission of single applications if those applications were created in the electronic application system at the latest by 16 May 2011 and were finalised and submitted at the latest 14 calendar days after 16 May 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply as from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 August 2011.", "references": ["31", "54", "2", "36", "93", "14", "45", "98", "71", "9", "41", "50", "21", "12", "82", "66", "33", "16", "7", "51", "58", "18", "13", "46", "22", "60", "56", "0", "25", "94", "No Label", "4", "15", "17", "40", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "15", "17", "40", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 808/2012\nof 11 September 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 September 2012.", "references": ["32", "50", "91", "38", "30", "31", "57", "18", "25", "97", "72", "2", "79", "7", "8", "73", "88", "69", "66", "84", "82", "96", "1", "65", "36", "64", "0", "56", "41", "76", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1202/2011\nof 18 November 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["24", "28", "1", "83", "4", "9", "95", "16", "60", "26", "0", "84", "90", "62", "64", "48", "89", "76", "29", "38", "85", "31", "61", "81", "12", "74", "80", "3", "11", "54", "No Label", "21", "40", "42"], "gold": ["21", "40", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 28 November 2011\namending Decision 2008/911/EC establishing a list of herbal substances, preparations and combinations thereof for use in traditional herbal medicinal products\n(notified under document C(2011) 7382)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/785/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1), and in particular Article 16f thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency, formulated on 15 July 2010 by the Committee for Herbal Medicinal Products,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nHamamelis virginiana L. can be considered as a herbal substance, a herbal preparation or a combination thereof within the meaning of Directive 2001/83/EC and complies with the requirements set out in that Directive.\n(2)\nIt is therefore appropriate to include Hamamelis virginiana L. in the list of herbal substances, preparations and combinations thereof for use in traditional herbal medicinal products established by Commission Decision 2008/911/EC (2).\n(3)\nDecision 2008/911/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II of Decision 2008/911/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 November 2011.", "references": ["61", "40", "42", "20", "67", "91", "29", "1", "99", "45", "59", "90", "80", "46", "74", "49", "6", "13", "19", "12", "77", "35", "65", "63", "58", "36", "54", "69", "7", "76", "No Label", "38", "68"], "gold": ["38", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1161/2011\nof 14 November 2011\namending Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 953/2009 as regards the lists of mineral substances that can be added to foods\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (1), and in particular Article 4(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (2), and in particular Article 3(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 May 2009 on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses (3), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex II to Directive 2002/46/EC establishes the list of vitamin and mineral substances which may be used for the manufacture of food supplements. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1170/2009 (4) has replaced Annexes I and II to Directive 2002/46/EC. Modifications to the list provided under Annex II to Directive 2002/46/EC as modified by that Regulation are to be adopted in compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 4 of that Directive and in accordance with the procedure referred to in its Article 13(3).\n(2)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 establishes the list of vitamin and mineral substances which may be added to food.\n(3)\nThe Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 953/2009 (5) establishes the list of substances that may be added for specific nutritional purposes in foods for particular nutritional uses.\n(4)\nNew mineral substances have been evaluated by the EFSA for use in food. The substances for which the EFSA expressed a favourable opinion should be added to the lists in those acts.\n(5)\nInterested parties were consulted through the Advisory Group on the Food Chain and Animal and Plant Health and the provided comments were taken into consideration.\n(6)\nDirective 2002/46/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 953/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPoint B of Annex II to Directive 2002/46/EC is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following entries are inserted after the entry \u2018ferrous phosphate\u2019:\n\u2018ferrous ammonium phosphate\nferric sodium EDTA\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following entries are inserted after the entry \u2018sodium salts of orthophosphoric acid\u2019:\n\u2018sodium sulphate\npotassium sulphate\u2019.\nArticle 2\nPoint 2 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following entries are inserted after the entry \u2018ferrous sulphate\u2019:\n\u2018ferrous ammonium phosphate\nferric sodium EDTA\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following entry is inserted after the entry \u2018chromium (III) sulphate and its hexahydrate\u2019:\n\u2018chromium picolinate\u2019.\nArticle 3\nCategory 2 (Minerals) of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 953/2009 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following entries are inserted after the entry \u2018ferrous sulphate\u2019:\n\u2018ferrous ammonium phosphate\nx\nferric sodium EDTA\nx\u2019\n(b)\nthe following entry is inserted after the entry \u2018chromium (III) sulphate and its hexahydrate\u2019:\n\u2018chromium picolinate\nx\u2019\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["89", "17", "16", "28", "20", "27", "77", "98", "51", "11", "91", "41", "85", "37", "43", "14", "87", "75", "67", "53", "65", "63", "35", "15", "90", "97", "64", "13", "71", "80", "No Label", "38", "72", "83"], "gold": ["38", "72", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 618/2010\nof 14 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 July 2010.", "references": ["6", "13", "26", "95", "50", "11", "12", "66", "37", "0", "53", "14", "8", "87", "33", "67", "82", "36", "20", "52", "24", "25", "47", "80", "1", "89", "63", "31", "17", "70", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/60/EU\nof 30 August 2010\nproviding for certain derogations for marketing of fodder plant seed mixtures intended for use in the preservation of the natural environment\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 66/401/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of fodder plant seed (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 13(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe questions of biodiversity and the conservation of plant genetic resources have grown in importance in recent years, as shown by different developments at international and EU level. Examples include Council Decision 93/626/EEC of 25 October 1993 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2), Council Decision 2004/869/EC of 24 February 2004 concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (3), Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004 of 26 April 2004 establishing a Community programme on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 (4) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (5). Specific conditions should be established under the EU legislation governing the marketing of fodder plant seed mixtures, namely Directive 66/401/EEC, in order to take account of these issues.\n(2)\nTo allow the marketing of fodder plant seed mixtures which are intended for use in the preservation of the natural environment in the context of the conservation of genetic resources (hereinafter preservation mixtures), even where the components of those mixtures do not comply with some of the general requirements for marketing provided for in Directive 66/401/EEC, it is necessary to provide for certain derogations.\n(3)\nTo ensure that mixtures marketed as preservation mixtures fulfil the requirements of those derogations, it is necessary to provide that marketing of such mixtures is subject to authorisation. Authorisation should be granted on application.\n(4)\nAs regards preservation mixtures containing conservation varieties within the meaning of Commission Directive 2008/62/EC of 20 June 2008 providing for certain derogations for acceptance of agricultural landraces and varieties which are naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and threatened by genetic erosion and for marketing of seed and seed potatoes of those landraces and varieties (6), this Directive should, however, be without prejudice to Directive 2008/62/EC.\n(5)\nSpecial areas of conservation designated by the Member States in accordance with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (7) host natural and semi-natural habitats worthy of conservation. Such areas should be considered as source areas for preservation mixtures. Member States should also have the possibility to designate other areas contributing to the conservation of plant genetic resources if they comply with comparable rules.\n(6)\nIt should be provided that the components of the preservation mixture are indicated as species and, where relevant, subspecies in the authorisation and on the label. The specific germination rate for components of the mixture covered by Directive 66/401/EEC which do not comply with the germination requirements set out in Annex II to that Directive should also be provided. As regards these requirements, for directly harvested preservation mixtures it is necessary to take into account the harvesting method.\n(7)\nIt is necessary to provide for derogations concerning the examination of the preservation mixture by the Member States before it is authorised for marketing. The manner in which these mixtures are examined should in certain cases also allow for the differences between the harvesting methods of crop-grown and of directly harvested preservation mixtures.\n(8)\nTo ensure that the marketing of preservation mixtures takes place in the context of the conservation of genetic resources, restrictions should be provided for, in particular, regarding the region of origin and the source area.\n(9)\nA maximum quantity should be fixed for the marketing of preservation mixtures. To make sure that this maximum quantity is respected, Member States should require producers to notify the quantities of preservation mixtures for which they intend to apply for authorisation, and Member States should allocate the quantities to producers if necessary.\n(10)\nThe traceability of preservation mixtures should be ensured through appropriate sealing and labelling requirements.\n(11)\nTo ensure that the rules laid down in this Directive are correctly applied, official monitoring should be carried out.\n(12)\nAfter an appropriate period the Commission should assess whether the measures provided for in this Directive are effective.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive the following definitions apply:\n(a)\n\u2018source area\u2019 means:\n(i)\nan area designated by a Member State as a special area of conservation in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC; or\n(ii)\nan area contributing to the conservation of plant genetic resources and which is designated by a Member State in accordance with a national procedure based on criteria comparable to those provided for in Article 4(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC in conjunction with Article 1(k) and (l) of that Directive, and which is managed, protected and under surveillance in a manner equivalent to Article 6 and Article 11 of that Directive;\n(b)\n\u2018collection site\u2019 means a part of the source area, where the seed has been collected;\n(c)\n\u2018directly harvested mixture\u2019 means a seed mixture marketed as collected at the collection site, with or without cleaning;\n(d)\n\u2018crop-grown mixture\u2019 means a seed mixture produced in accordance with the following process:\n(i)\nseed of individual species is taken at the collection site;\n(ii)\nthe seed referred to in point (i) is multiplied outside the collection site as single species;\n(iii)\nthe seeds of those species are then mixed to create a mixture which is composed of those genera, species and, where relevant, subspecies which are typical for the habitat type of the collection site.\nArticle 2\nPreservation mixtures\n1. By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 66/401/EEC, Member States may authorise marketing of mixtures of various genera, species and, where relevant, subspecies, intended for use in the preservation of the natural environment in the context of the conservation of genetic resources referred to in Article 22a(1)(b) of that Directive.\nSuch mixtures may contain seed of fodder plants covered by Directive 66/401/EEC and, in addition, seed of plants which are not fodder plants within the meaning of that Directive.\nSuch mixtures are hereinafter referred to as \u2018preservation mixtures\u2019.\n2. Where a preservation mixture contains a conservation variety, Directive 2008/62/EC shall apply.\n3. Unless otherwise provided in this Directive, Directive 66/401/EEC shall apply.\nArticle 3\nRegion of origin\nWhen a Member State authorises the marketing of a preservation mixture, it shall define the region with which that mixture is naturally associated, hereinafter referred to as \u2018region of origin\u2019. It shall take into account information from plant genetic resource authorities or organisations recognised for this purpose by the Member States. Where the region of origin is located in more than one Member State, it shall be identified by all Member States concerned by common accord.\nArticle 4\nAuthorisation\n1. Member States may authorise preservation mixtures for marketing in their region of origin provided those mixtures fulfil the requirements in Article 5 in the case of directly harvested preservation mixtures or the requirements in Article 6 in the case of crop-grown preservation mixtures.\n2. The authorisation shall include the following:\n(a)\nname and address of the producer;\n(b)\nharvesting method: whether directly harvested or crop-grown;\n(c)\npercentage by weight of the components as species and, where relevant, subspecies;\n(d)\nin the case of crop-grown preservation mixtures, a specific germination rate for components of the mixture covered by Directive 66/401/EEC which do not comply with the germination requirements set out in Annex II to that Directive;\n(e)\nquantity of the mixture to which the authorisation is to apply;\n(f)\nregion of origin;\n(g)\nrestriction to marketing in the region of origin;\n(h)\nsource area;\n(i)\ncollection site, and in the case of a crop-grown preservation mixture, in addition, the multiplication site;\n(j)\nhabitat type of the collection site; and\n(k)\nyear of collection.\n3. As regards paragraph 2(c), for directly harvested preservation mixtures it shall suffice to give those components as species and, where relevant, subspecies which are typical for the habitat type of the collection site and which are, as components of the mixture, of importance for the preservation of the natural environment in the context of the conservation of genetic resources.\nArticle 5\nAuthorisation requirements for directly harvested preservation mixtures\n1. A directly harvested preservation mixture shall have been collected in its source area at a collection site which has not been sown in the 40 years previous to the date of the application by the producer, referred to in Article 7(1). The source area shall be located in the region of origin.\n2. The percentage of the components of the directly harvested preservation mixture that are species and, where relevant, subspecies which are typical for the habitat type of the collection site and which are, as components of the mixture, of importance for the preservation of the natural environment in the context of conservation of genetic resources, shall be adequate for the purpose of recreating the habitat type of the collection site.\n3. The germination rate of the components referred to in paragraph 2 shall be sufficient for the purpose of recreating the habitat type of the collection site.\n4. The maximum content of species and, where relevant, subspecies which do not comply with paragraph 2 shall not exceed 1 % by weight. The directly harvested preservation mixture shall not contain Avena fatua, Avena sterilis and Cuscuta spp. The maximum content of Rumex spp. other than Rumex acetosella and Rumex maritimus shall not exceed 0,05 % by weight.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation requirements for crop-grown preservation mixtures\n1. As regards crop-grown preservation mixtures, the collected seed from which the crop-grown seed mixture is produced shall have been collected in its source area at a collection site which has not been sown in the 40 years previous to the date of the application by the producer, referred to in Article 7(1). The source area shall be located in the region of origin.\n2. The seed of the crop-grown preservation mixture shall be of species and, where relevant, subspecies which are typical for the habitat type of the collection site and which are, as components of the mixture, of importance for the preservation of the natural environment in the context of conservation of genetic resources.\n3. Components of a crop-grown preservation mixture which are seeds of fodder plants within the meaning of Directive 66/401/EEC shall, before mixing, comply with the requirements for commercial seed set out in Section III of Annex II to Directive 66/401/EEC as regards analytical purity, as set out in columns 4 to 11 of the table in Section I(2)A of that Annex, as regards maximum content of other plant species in a sample of the weight specified in column 4 of Annex III thereof (total per column), as set out in columns 12, 13 and 14 of the table in Section I(2)A of Annex II thereof, and as regards conditions concerning Lupin seeds, as set out in column 15 of the table in Section I(2)A of that Annex.\n4. Multiplication may take place for five generations.\nArticle 7\nProcedural requirements\n1. Authorisation shall be granted on application by the producer.\nThe application shall be accompanied by the information necessary to verify compliance with Articles 4 and 5 in the case of directly harvested preservation mixtures or with Articles 4 and 6 in the case of crop-grown preservation mixtures.\n2. As regards directly harvested preservation mixtures, the Member State in which the collection site is located shall carry out visual inspections.\nThose visual inspections shall be carried out on the collection site during the period of growth at intervals appropriate to ensure that the mixture complies, at least, with the authorisation requirements provided for in Article 5(2) and (4).\nThe Member State that carried out the visual inspections shall document the results thereof.\n3. As regards crop-grown preservation mixtures, when a Member State examines an application, it shall carry out tests or tests shall be carried out under official supervision of the Member State to check that the preservation mixture complies, at least, with the authorisation requirements provided for in Article 6(2) and (3).\nSuch tests shall be carried out in accordance with current international methods, or, where such methods do not exist, in accordance with any appropriate methods.\nFor those tests the Member State concerned shall ensure that samples are drawn from homogenous lots. It shall ensure that the rules on lot weight and sample weight provided for in Article 7(2) of Directive 66/401/EEC are applied.\nArticle 8\nQuantitative restriction\nEach Member State shall ensure that the total quantity of seed of preservation mixtures marketed each year does not exceed 5 % of the total weight of all fodder plant seed mixtures covered by Directive 66/401/EEC and marketed in the respective year in the Member State concerned.\nArticle 9\nApplication of quantitative restrictions\n1. In the case of directly harvested preservation mixtures, Member States shall ensure that producers notify before the beginning of each production season the quantity of seed of preservation mixtures for which they intend to apply for authorisation together with size and location of the intended collection site or sites.\nIn the case of crop-grown preservation mixtures, Member States shall ensure that producers notify before the beginning of each production season the quantity of seed of preservation mixtures for which they intend to apply for authorisation together with both, size and location of the intended collection site or sites and size and location of the intended multiplication site or sites.\n2. If, based on the notifications referred to in paragraph 1, the quantities laid down in Article 8 are likely to be exceeded, Member States shall allocate to each producer concerned the quantity it is allowed to market in the respective production season.\nArticle 10\nSealing of packages and containers\n1. Member States shall ensure that preservation mixtures may be marketed only in closed packages and containers bearing a sealing device.\n2. In order to ensure sealing, the sealing system shall comprise at least the label or the affixing of a seal.\n3. The packages and containers referred to in paragraph 1 shall be sealed in such a manner that they cannot be opened without damaging the sealing system or leaving evidence of tampering on the producer\u2019s label, or on the package or container.\nArticle 11\nLabelling\n1. Member States shall ensure that packages and containers of preservation mixtures bear a producer\u2019s label or a printed or stamped notice including at least the following information:\n(a)\nthe words \u2018EU rules and standards\u2019;\n(b)\nname and address of the person responsible for affixing the labels or his identification mark;\n(c)\nharvesting method: whether directly harvested or crop-grown;\n(d)\nyear of the sealing expressed as: \u2018sealed \u2026\u2019 (year);\n(e)\nregion of origin;\n(f)\nsource area;\n(g)\ncollection site;\n(h)\nhabitat type of the collection site;\n(i)\nthe words \u2018preservation fodder plant seed mixture, intended for use in an area of the same habitat type as the collection site, not considering the biotic conditions\u2019;\n(j)\nreference number of the lot given by the person responsible for affixing the labels;\n(k)\nthe percentage by weight of the components as species and, where relevant, subspecies;\n(l)\ndeclared net or gross weight;\n(m)\nwhere granulated pesticides, pelleting substances or other solid additives are used, the nature of the additive and also the approximate ratio between the weight of clusters or pure seeds and the total weight shall be indicated; and\n(n)\nin the case of crop-grown preservation mixtures, a specific germination rate for components of the mixture covered by Directive 66/401/EEC which do not comply with the germination requirements set out in Annex II to that Directive.\n2. As regards paragraph 1(k), it shall suffice to indicate the components of directly harvested preservation mixtures as provided for Article 4(3).\n3. As regards paragraph 1(n), it shall suffice to indicate an average of these required specific germination rates in case the number of required specific germination rates is more than five.\nArticle 12\nMonitoring\nMember States shall ensure by official monitoring that this Directive is complied with.\nArticle 13\nReporting\nMember States shall ensure that producers operating in their territory report for each production season the amount of preservation mixtures marketed.\nThe Member States shall report on request to the Commission and to the other Member States the amount of preservation mixtures marketed in their territory.\nArticle 14\nNotification of the recognised organisations of plant genetic resources\nMember States shall notify on request to the Commission the plant genetic resource authorities or organisations recognised for this purpose by the Member States.\nArticle 15\nEvaluation\nThe Commission shall evaluate the implementation of this Directive by 31 December 2014.\nArticle 16\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force, by 30 November 2011 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 17\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 18\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 August 2010.", "references": ["19", "0", "45", "69", "84", "28", "52", "23", "87", "67", "98", "41", "3", "82", "9", "37", "8", "49", "76", "12", "22", "36", "59", "95", "78", "43", "47", "75", "35", "70", "No Label", "25", "42", "58", "65", "68"], "gold": ["25", "42", "58", "65", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 September 2011\non the measure C 35/10 (ex N 302/10) which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gambling in the Danish Gaming Duties Act\n(notified under document C(2011) 6499)\n(Only the Danish text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/140/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions (1) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 6 July 2010, pursuant to Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) the Danish authorities notified the Legislative Proposal L 203 on Gaming Duties (the \u2018Gaming Duties Act\u2019 (2)), adopted on 25 June 2010, for the sake of legal certainty. The Commission requested further information by letters dated 11 August 2010 and 22 September 2010. The Danish authorities provided the requested information by letter dated 20 October 2010.\n(2)\nThe Commission also received two separate complaints with regard to the proposed Gaming Duties Act. The first was submitted by the Danish Amusement Machine Industry Association (\u2018DAB\u2019) on 23 July 2010. The second complaint was submitted by a land-based casino operator, \u2018the Royal Casino\u2019, on 6 August 2010. Both complaints were forwarded to the Danish authorities on 23 September 2010 for their comments. The Danish authorities submitted their comments in their letter of 20 October 2010.\n(3)\nA meeting with the Danish authorities to discuss the notification and the two complaints referred to above took place in Brussels on 10 November 2010. During the meeting the Danish authorities submitted a note entitled \u2018The dilemma created by the pending State aid case\u2019 in which they also announced their intention to delay the entry into force of the notified Act until the Commission had adopted a decision (3).\n(4)\nBy decision of 14 December 2010, the Commission informed Denmark that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the notified measure. The Commission decision to initiate the procedure (hereinafter the \u2018initiating decision\u2019) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4). The Commission invited interested parties to submit comments.\n(5)\nThe Danish authorities submitted their observations on the initiating decision by letter of 14 January 2011.\n(6)\nIn total, 17 interested third parties submitted comments between 11 February and 22 February 2011 (5). These comments were forwarded to Denmark on 16 March 2011, which was given the opportunity to respond. The Commission received Denmark\u2019s comments by letter dated 14 April 2011.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n(7)\nFollowing the initiation of infringement proceedings and the sending of a reasoned opinion on 23 March 2007 concerning obstacles to the free movement of sports betting services in Denmark (6), the Danish government had decided to reform the national legislation on gambling and betting services and to replace the existing monopoly regime with a regulated and partially liberalised one. The liberalisation was considered necessary, inter alia, to comply with EU law and to respond to the threat posed by illegal online gambling services provided by gaming service providers located in other jurisdictions.\n(8)\nThe notified Gaming Duties Act is part of a set of Acts introduced to liberalise the gambling sector (7). Under the terms of Article 1 of the Gaming Act, the overall objective of this new law reform for gambling services is:\n-\nto keep gambling consumption at a moderate level,\n-\nto protect young persons and other vulnerable persons from exploitation or from becoming addicted to gambling,\n-\nto protect gamblers by ensuring that gambling is supplied in a reasonable, reliable and transparent manner, and\n-\nto ensure public order and prevent gambling being used for criminal purposes.\n(9)\nUnder the Gaming Act, \u2018supplying or arranging gambling requires a licence unless this Act or other legislation provides otherwise\u2019. In addition, the provision or arranging of gambling is subject to the payment of duty (Article 1 of the Gaming Duties Act).\n(10)\nArticle 5 of the Gaming Act defines gaming as covering the following activities: (i) lotteries, (ii) combination gambling, and (iii) betting.\n(11)\nCombination gambling refers to \u2018activities where a participant has a chance to win a prize, and where the likelihood of winning depends on a combination of skill and chance\u2019. Combination gambling thus includes games that are often offered by casinos, such as roulette, poker, baccarat, blackjack, and gaming machines offering cash winnings.\n(12)\nArticle 5 of the Gaming Act defines online gambling as \u2018gambling entered into between a player and a gambling provider using remote communication\u2019. The same provision defines land-based gambling as \u2018gambling that is entered into by a player and a gambling supplier, or the suppliers\u2019 agent, meeting physically\u2019. Betting services are defined as \u2018activities where a participant has a chance of winning a prize and where a bet is placed on the result of a future event or the occurrence of a future event\u2019.\n(13)\nUnder the terms of Articles 2-17 of the Gaming Duties Act, the games subject to duty are (i) lotteries, including class lotteries and non-profit lotteries, (ii) betting, including local pool betting, (iii) land-based casinos, (iv) online casinos, (v) gaming machines offering cash winnings in amusement arcades or restaurants, and (vi) games without stakes.\n(14)\nThe Gaming Duties Act sets different tax rates, depending on whether the games are provided in online casinos or in land-based casinos.\n(15)\nUnder Article 10 of the Gaming Duties Act, holders of a licence to provide games in land-based casinos are subject to a basic charge of 45 per cent of their gross gaming revenues (\u2018GGR\u2019 - stakes minus winnings), less the value of the tokens in the tronc, and an additional charge of 30 per cent for GGR (less the value of the tokens in the tronc) which exceeds DKK 4 million (calculated on a monthly basis) (8).\n(16)\nUnder Article 11 of the Gaming Duties Act, holders of a licence to provide games in an online casino are subject to a charge of 20 per cent of their GGR.\n(17)\nHolders of a licence to provide gaming machines offering cash winnings (slot machines) in amusement arcades and restaurants are subject to a charge of 41 per cent of their GGR. An additional 30 per cent is paid on gaming machines in public houses, bars, etc. for GGR exceeding DKK 30 000, and on gaming machines in amusement arcades for GGR exceeding DKK 250 000 (9).\n(18)\nWith regard to the licence fees, the Gaming Act provides that anyone applying for a licence to offer betting or online casino games is liable to a fee of DKK 250 000 (DKK 350 000 if they apply for both betting and online casino games) and a yearly licence fee ranging from DKK 50 000 up to DKK 1 500 000 depending on the gaming revenues.\n(19)\nThe Gaming Act requires online gambling providers either to be established in Denmark, or if they are residents of another EU or EEA Member State, to nominate an approved representative (Article 27).\n3. REASONS FOR OPENING THE PROCEDURE\n(20)\nThe Commission opened the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU in respect of the measure at issue on the grounds that it might entail State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(21)\nIn particular, the Commission considered that the measure could be regarded as selective in the light of case law. It recalled that any assessment of the selectivity of a tax measure should involve examining whether a given measure favours certain undertakings in comparison with other undertakings whose legal and factual situation is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the scheme in question (10).\n(22)\nGiven the nature of the games offered online and in land-based establishments, the social experience provided by gaming of both types, and the socioeconomic profiles of the consumers, the Commission had doubts as to whether the differences between online and land-based gambling were substantial enough to consider them not to be comparable in law and in fact for the purposes of their tax treatment under the Gaming Duties Act.\n(23)\nFurthermore, at that stage of the procedure, the Commission took the view that should the measure be considered prima facie to be selective, the Danish authorities had failed to establish that the measure could be justified by the logic of the tax system.\n(24)\nIn this regard, the Danish authorities argued that the tax rate for online gambling reflected the necessary balance between meeting the aims of the Danish gambling legislation in order to protect players on the one hand, and being able to face the competition from online operators established in other countries with lower tax rates on the other.\n(25)\nIn addition, regarding the reference made by the Danish authorities to the overall objectives pursued by the Gaming Act (see paragraph 8), the Commission took the view that these objectives appeared to be of a general nature and external to the tax system. Since it is established case-law that only intrinsic objectives of the tax system are pertinent, the Commission considered that the Danish authorities had not sufficiently substantiated their claim that the selectivity of the tax measure at issue was required by the logic of the tax system.\n(26)\nMoreover, the Commission took the view that the notified Act involved a tax advantage conferred through the use of State resources since foregoing tax revenue gave online gambling operators an advantage in the form of a substantially lower rate of duty. In addition, to the extent that the measure provides a selective economic advantage to online operators operating in Denmark, it could affect trade in the internal market and distort competition.\n(27)\nFinally, the Commission expressed its doubts as to whether the notified measure could fall within the scope of any of the derogations laid down in Article 107(2) and 107(3) TFEU.\n4. COMMENTS FROM THE DANISH AUTHORITIES\n(28)\nBy letter dated 14 January 2011, the Danish authorities submitted their comments on Commission\u2019s decision to initiate proceedings.\n(29)\nThe Danish authorities, relying on a list of factual and economic differences between online and land-based gambling set out in their notification, reiterated the view that online gambling should be regarded as an activity that is different from land-based gambling.\n(30)\nAccording to the Danish authorities, the software used in certain electronic games offered in land-based casinos and those used in online casinos is not identical. Besides the fact that the platforms and suppliers are not the same, it was argued that there are major differences between these electronic games since the physical presence of gamblers is required in order to play them in land-based casinos. Physical presence entails various costs (e.g. for transportation, entrance fees, cloakroom fees, food or drink) which are not incurred in online gambling.\n(31)\nFor the Danish authorities, the fact that a number of Member States prohibit online gambling while allowing land-based gambling services reflected the differences involved in providing the two types of gaming.\n(32)\nFurthermore, the Danish authorities contended that the Commission had not taken account of the conclusions of its 2006 \u2018Study of Gambling Services in the Internal Market of the European Union\u2019 (11), according to which online and land-based casinos should be considered as being distinct markets.\n(33)\nThe Danish authorities also stressed that the Commission\u2019s assessment focused only on land-based casinos and did not take account of gambling machines (i.e. slot machines, but not roulette, blackjack, poker, etc.) located in land-based restaurants or amusement arcades and gaming halls.\n(34)\nWith regard to the justification for the measures by virtue of the logic of the tax system, the Danish authorities claim that the Commission might have misinterpreted the objective of the notified measure. This measure is not aimed at preserving the international competitiveness of the Danish gaming industry, but rather at pursuing the four objectives set out in the legislation (maintaining gambling at a moderate level; protecting young people or other vulnerable persons from being exploited through games or from developing an addiction of gambling; protecting players by ensuring that games are offered in a fair, responsible, and transparent manner; ensuring public order and preventing gaming being used for criminal purposes).\n(35)\nWith regard to the different tax rates for online and land-based gambling, the Danish authorities explained that they are confronted with a legislative and regulatory dilemma. On the one hand, they could no longer maintain the current monopolistic situation and delay liberalisation of the online gambling market. On the other hand, providing for a uniform tax level for online and land-based gambling activities would undermine the policy objectives pursued by the government in this field.\n(36)\nIn particular, the Danish authorities argued that setting a uniform tax level for all gambling activities would lead to inconsistent solutions, regardless of the tax model opted for. Opting for a model based on a lower, uniform 20 per cent tax rate would give a strong incentive to gamble in land-based casinos, which would be contrary to the general interest of consumer protection.\n(37)\nConversely, a model based on a higher uniform tax rate similar to that applied to land-based gambling would dissuade online operators from seeking a licence to provide services from Denmark, thus defeating the liberalisation objectives of the law. This would also be contrary to the general interest of consumer protection since no effective control of online gambling would be possible.\n(38)\nIn support of their position, the Danish authorities submitted a memorandum from the Ministry of Taxation of 6 March 2010 to the Policy Spokesmen of the political parties of the Danish Parliament concerning the level of duty to be set (12). The memorandum shows that the current differential tax treatment should be regarded as the result of a balancing exercise aimed, on the one hand, at ensuring that the law is upheld, while on the other hand maximising the tax revenue and keeping gambling to a moderate level.\n(39)\nIn this connection, the Danish authorities considered that international competition and the global nature of the online gambling industry should also be taken into account. In this regard, the Danish authorities referred to the \u2018Study of Gambling Services in the Internal Market of the European Union\u2019, according to which the costs of doing business onshore for suppliers should not exceed the costs of doing business offshore, in order to be more attractive for consumers and suppliers to operate within their jurisdictions than in other countries (13).\n(40)\nFurthermore, the Danish authorities argued that the principle laid down by the Court of Justice in the Salzgitter case, according to which the Commission should not compare the notified level of taxation with levels applicable in other Member States in order determine whether the notified measure constitutes State aid (14), does not apply to the notified Act, since the differential tax treatment between land-based and online gambling activities is based exclusively on internal tax considerations. In particular, the Danish government took no account of the tax rates applicable in other Member States so as to enhance the competitiveness of the Danish gaming industry, but merely sought to strike an appropriate balance with the four aforementioned policy objectives of the notified Act.\n(41)\nMoreover, the Danish authorities argued that the Commission had misinterpreted the Salzgitter case, as it had relied on it not in order to assess the selective nature of the notified measure but in order to examine whether the selectivity of the notified measure could be regarded as justified.\n(42)\nFor the above reasons, the Danish authorities consider that the notified tax measure, if it were found to be selective, should be regarded as justified by the logic of the tax system.\n5. COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES\n(43)\nThe Commission received comments from 17 interested third parties, including the complainants: seven of them were associations (15), seven were undertakings (16) and three were Member States (17).\n(44)\nWith regard to the selectivity of the measure, some of the interested parties claim that online and land-based casinos are not in a comparable legal and factual situation because these undertakings do not operate in the same market and, consequently, the tax measure does not depart from the generally applicable tax system. Hence, the tax measure should not be regarded as selective.\n(45)\nIn support of this position, the interested third parties claim that the products offered by land-based and online casinos differ substantially. The activities offered by land-based casinos constitute a social experience where, unlike online gambling, discussion, appearance, and physical environment are a central part of the gaming experience. Furthermore, land-based gambling should be regarded as part of the overall entertainment experience, which is complemented by other activities, such as are offered by restaurants, bars, convention facilities, and hotel services.\n(46)\nIn addition, those interested parties argue that online and land-based gambling activities do not present the same risks of addiction. Support for this position can be found in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which held that \u2018the offer of games of chance by the Internet may prove to be a source of risks of a different kind and a greater order in the area of consumer protection\u2019 (18). Reference is also made to the study on gambling published by the Institut National de la Sant\u00e9 et de la Recherche M\u00e9dicale (19), according to which online gambling presents an actual risk of addiction that needs, however, to be addressed by a regulated market for online gambling.\n(47)\nMoreover, some interested parties argued that there is a segmentation of the gambling market based on different distribution channels, which would constitute a pertinent element for distinguishing different relevant markets. In that respect, they refer to an opinion of the French competition authority of 20 January 2011, which noted that online gambling could be differentiated from gambling in clubs or outlets (20).\n(48)\nSome of the interested parties also pointed out that land-based gambling operators are subject to a limited competitive pressure in the specific geographic area where they offer their games. By contrast, online operators would face fierce competition from other online operators. In particular, since the gaming products in land-based casinos are bound to a physical location, customers need to physically move to get to the relevant location. For instance, in Denmark, there are only six locations where land-based casinos can operate. By contrast, online gambling activities allow players to access a great number of gaming line-ups offered by different international operators. Moreover, the strong competition for online casinos is all the more exacerbated by the existence of specialised websites that compare the offer of various online gambling providers, and by numerous blogs and forums that allow players to compare the products, prices and services offered by online operators.\n(49)\nAt the same time, these interested parties point out that profit margins associated with online gambling are significantly lower than those associated with land-based gambling, given the fierce competition among online operators and the absence of such competition between land-based casinos. Thus, online casinos would have significantly lower margins with regard to the payout ratio, i.e. the percentage of the wagered amounts that is credited back to customers. Moreover, land-based casinos can offer other side-products and so benefit from side-earnings such as casino hotels, bars, or restaurants, which are absent in an online environment. Consequently, since land-based gambling operators could generate higher gambling profit than online operators, the difference in tax rates would be justified by the principle of the \u2018financial capacity to pay\u2019, according to which those who can bear a higher tax burden should pay higher taxes.\n(50)\nBesides the aforementioned arguments, some interested parties also argued that even if the Danish measure were found to be selective, the selectivity criterion would be justified by the nature and general scheme of the tax system. The aim of the Danish differential tax rate was to ensure that online operators would apply for a Danish licence and thus pay Danish taxes in the future, whilst at the same time guaranteeing that the objectives of consumer protection, as laid down in the Danish gambling legislation, would be achieved.\n(51)\nIn this connection, some interested parties referred to the 1998 Commission Notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to business taxation (21), according to which the whole purpose of a tax system is the collection of revenue for State expenditure. On this basis, they take the view that the objective of optimising tax revenue from providing online gambling to Danish residents would otherwise not be achieved with a tax rate higher than the rate laid down for online gambling under the notified Act.\n(52)\nIn contrast to the aforementioned arguments, other third parties - mainly land-based operators - submitted comments against the stance adopted by the Danish authorities.\n(53)\nIn substance, these interested parties argued that the Danish tax regime should be regarded as selective since it introduces a difference in tax treatment between two groups of undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objectives of the measure. These parties allege that the online and land-based casinos carry out competing activities in the one and the same market and they are therefore in comparable situations.\n(54)\nIn support of this position, the interested parties claim that that the games provided by online and land-based casinos are similar. The rules of casino games should be regarded as the same, and virtual interactions with croupiers or other players online are comparable with real interactions in land-based casinos. Manufacturers of land-based gambling machines would produce the same models for online use as for land-based use. Hence, from a technical point of view, casino games offered online and offline were identical in terms of technological platforms, descriptions, features, formats and parameters.\n(55)\nFurthermore, the interested parties allege that the consumer profiles of online and land-based casinos are comparable. Hence, the consumer aspect should not be used as a pertinent argument to distinguish online gambling from land-based gambling.\n(56)\nSome interested parties did not think online gambling should be regarded as a different activity from land-based gambling, but simply as another channel through which games are offered to players.\n(57)\nIn addition to the aforementioned arguments, the interested parties take the view that the current gaming market should be viewed as a single market which is undergoing major change, marked by a substantial shift of players from land-based to online casinos. There are several possible reasons for this recent development, including the ever-increasing use of the Internet, the low operating costs of online casinos at all levels (facilities, staff, and fixed costs), the fact that online casinos can provide unlimited access to online gambling 24 hours per day anywhere given the ongoing development of new technologies.\n(58)\nThe interested parties predict that this shifting of the market share from land-based to online gambling will increase in the future, given the rapid pace of technological progress, commercial initiatives, and the market penetration typical of e-commerce, which have made this sector of the gambling industry extremely dynamic and transformative. In this regard, they also refer to the opinion delivered by Advocate General Bot in the Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional case (22) according to which, the impact of new means of communication is such that games of chance and gambling, which used to be available only in specific premises, could now be played at any time and any place, given the evolution of new technologies such as phones, interactive television and the Internet.\n(59)\nReference is also made to the 2006 Commission Study on Gambling Services in the Internal Market (23). Accordingly, \u2018the future of gambling in casinos is increasingly going to be server-based as gaming machines move increasingly to downloadable game software\u2019 (24). This development would be marked by the development of new hybrid gaming venues.\n(60)\nOn the basis of the foregoing argument the interested parties conclude that the measure is selective since online and land-based casinos carry out activities which are in a comparable situation in law and in fact. Nor could such selectivity be justified by the logic of the tax system. Moreover, they consider that imposing a higher tax rate would not discourage online providers to apply for a licence in Denmark.\n(61)\nMoreover, the Danish reference to other Member States\u2019 national tax systems to justify the need to attract providers of online casinos is not pertinent since it is settled case-law that any justification should be based exclusively on the national tax system (25). In addition, the Danish authorities\u2019 argument that lowering the tax rate applicable to certain undertakings is necessary in order to render the market more competitive, has consistently been rejected by the courts.\n6. COMMENTS FROM DENMARK ON THIRD-PARTY COMMENTS\n(62)\nWhile reiterating their views that the notified measure is not selective and does not constitute a State aid, the Danish authorities point out that all intervening governments support their position that there is a need, from a regulatory perspective, to draw a distinction between online and land-based casinos.\n(63)\nThey also point out that the methodology used to define the relevant market for the purposes of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU is intended for private undertakings and is based on an assessment of product substitutability from a demand and supply point of view, and therefore should not apply for the purpose of a State aid assessment. Applying this methodology would overstep the bounds of the State aid rules, which in the present case are being applied to a Member State\u2019s sovereign tax powers.\n(64)\nIn their view, online gambling should be set apart from land-based gambling. In this regard, they also refer to the Commission position adopted in merger proceedings, by virtue of which gambling machines (jackpot machines, token machines and all-cash or amusements with prizes (AWPs)) constitute a separate product market (26). They also mention, among others, the decision adopted by the French Competition Authority, according to which land-based poker does not form part of the same market as online poker, since land-based poker requires personal self-control, observation of the other players, often higher costs and a limitation from a geographic point of view (27). Reference is also made to a merger decision adopted by the British Office of Fair Trading, which draws a distinction between licensed betting offices on the one hand, and telephone or Internet betting, on the other hand (28).\n(65)\nWith regard to the differences in product markets, the Danish authorities point out that, according to many interveners, additional - and significantly more expensive - services are offered in gaming establishments. From a sociological point of view, the Danish authorities reiterated their view that remote and land-based players are different types of consumers, as also indicated in the Commission\u2019s recent Green Paper on Online Gambling in the Internal Market of 24 March 2011, which stated that the profile of online gamblers seems to be different from that of traditional casino or betting shop customers (29).\n(66)\nThe Danish authorities also reiterate that the payout ratio is significantly higher for online operators, given their lower operating costs. They also point out that disparities between online and land-based casinos can be found in the technical aspects of the software used, the different regulations for granting licences, and the position of local dominance for land-based casinos.\n(67)\nThe Danish authorities also contest the interpretation by certain interested parties of the above-mentioned opinion delivered by Advocate General Bot in the Liga Portuguesa case. They point out that this opinion, which was issued in the context of the freedom to provide services, accords with the idea that remote gambling operators should be regarded as being in a different legal and factual situation from land-based gambling operators.\n(68)\nHowever, the Danish authorities recognise that certain types of online gambling services could still constitute another form of sale, as in the case of betting services.\n(69)\nWith regard to the aims of the notified Act, the Danish authorities reject the argument of certain interested parties that the notified Act is aimed at attracting foreign gambling providers. Rather, the objectives pursued by the government are the those listed in the Gaming Act. In addition, the general purpose of the new Act would remain unchanged, that is to generate income on gambling like any similar system for collecting revenue to finance the public budget.\n(70)\nThe Danish authorities also agree with the view expressed by some interested parties that the taxable person\u2019s ability to pay could be regarded as a valid justification. In the present case, the financial capacity of online gambling operators would indeed be significantly lower.\n(71)\nFinally, the Danish authorities point out that their tax system on remote gambling is designed so as to ensure the best possible revenue yield. Thus, the lower tax rate for online gambling would reflect the need to balance the four objectives set out in the notified Act with the need to maximise tax revenue.\n7. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE\n7.1. Existence of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU\n(72)\nUnder Article 107(1) TFEU, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with the internal market if it affects trade between Member States.\n7.1.1. State resources\n(73)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU requires that the measure be granted by a Member State or through State resources. A loss of tax revenue is equivalent to consumption of State resources in the form of fiscal expenditure.\n(74)\nIn the case under review, the presence of State resources has not been contested by any of the parties, neither the Danish authorities, the complainants, nor third parties.\n(75)\nBy allowing online gambling operators to pay tax at the relatively low rate of 20 per cent of their GGR (30), the Danish authorities forego revenue which constitutes State resources. The Commission therefore takes the view that the measure at issue involves a loss of State resources and is therefore granted through State resources.\n7.1.2. Advantage\n(76)\nThe measure also has to confer a financial advantage on the recipient. The notion of advantage covers not only positive benefits but also interventions which, in various forms, mitigate the charges normally borne by an undertaking\u2019s budget (31).\n(77)\nIn the present case, the existence of an advantage has not been challenged by any of the parties, neither the Danish authorities, the complainants, nor third parties.\n(78)\nUnder the Gambling Duties Act, online gambling undertakings are liable to pay tax on their GGR at a rate 20 per cent. This rate is substantially lower than the rate applicable to land-based gambling operators. Therefore, online gambling undertakings benefit from an advantage in the shape of a lower tax burden. It follows that the measure under review involves an advantage for undertakings providing online gambling services.\n7.1.3. Distortion of competition and effect on trade\n(79)\nUnder the terms of Article 107(1) TFEU, the measure must affect intra-EU trade and distort, or threaten to distort competition. In the present case, online gambling providers who establish themselves in Denmark will be exposed to competition and will be involved in intra-community trade. Consequently, the Gaming Duties Act, which provides for favourable tax treatment of Danish undertakings supplying online gambling services, necessarily affects intra-Community trade and distorts or threatens to distort competition.\n7.1.4. Selectivity\n(80)\nIn order to be regarded as a State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the measure should be found selective inasmuch as it favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.\n(81)\nThe established interpretation of selectivity in case law is that a measure is selective if it is \u2018intended partially to exempt those undertakings from the financial charges arising from the normal application of the general system of compulsory contributions imposed by law\u2019 (32). It follows that the measure is selective if it constitutes a departure from the application of the general tax framework. According to existing case law, what has to be assessed is whether a given measure favours certain undertakings over other undertakings whose legal and factual situation is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the scheme in question (33).\n(82)\nUnder case law, if the measure is considered to depart from the general tax system, it has to be examined to determine whether that differentiation results from the nature or general scheme of the tax system of which it forms part (34). In other words, the question is whether the measure concerned, which appears prima facie to be selective, is justified in the light of the logic of the tax system (35).\n(83)\nIn the present case, the reference system should be defined as the taxation system for Danish gambling activities. The Gaming Duties Act aims at regulating the payment of duties on all gambling activities provided or arranged in Denmark, be it online or through land-based activities. It is therefore against this reference tax system that the measure at issue (i.e. the differential tax treatment in favour of online gambling activities) should be assessed.\n(84)\nSince the notified Act provides that holders of a licence to provide games in online casinos are subject to a charge of 20 per cent of the GGR, whereas holders of a licence to provide games in land-based casinos are subject to a basic charge of 45 per cent of GGR and an additional charge up to 30 per cent of GGR, the question arises as to whether online and land-based gambling operators, which are subject to different tax duties, should be regarded as being legally and factually comparable.\n(85)\nIn this regard, the Danish authorities have consistently argued that online and land-based gambling activities are not legally and factually comparable in terms of platforms, costs, financial margins, social experience, suppliers or products.\n(86)\nFurthermore, like other interested parties, they have emphasised the substantial difference between the two categories of operators by reference to the fierce competition faced by online casinos compared with the absence of competition encountered by land-based operators.\n(87)\nDespite a number of objective differences between online and land-based gambling operators (such as physical versus online presence), the Commission considers that the aforementioned differences between online and land-based gambling casinos are not sufficient to establish a substantial and decisive distinction in law and in fact between the two types of undertakings.\n(88)\nIn this regard, the Commission notes that the games offered by land-based and online gambling operators are equivalent. The games offered by both online and land-based operators - including roulette, baccarat, punto banco, blackjack, poker and gaming on gaming machines - form part of the same activity of gambling, regardless of their online or land-based settings. Moreover, from a technical point of view, casino games offered online and in land-based premises appear to be comparable in terms of the technological platforms, formats and parameters.\n(89)\nIn that respect, the Commission considers that, as far as the taxation of gambling activities is concerned, online gambling emerges as another distribution channel of a similar type of gaming activities. In support of this position, the Commission notes the substantial efforts carried out by online casinos to simulate the land-based casino experience in such a way that online players feel as if they were playing in land-based casino surroundings, rather than in virtual environments.\n(90)\nIn order to support their view that online and land-based gambling are legally and factually not comparable activities, the Danish authorities have referred, among others, to a decision by the British Office of Fair Trading drawing a distinction between licensed betting shops on the one hand and telephone or Internet betting on the other (36). However, this reference contradicts the Danish authorities\u2019 position that online and offline betting are identical services (37). In this regard, it is also contradictory that the Danish authorities should consider offline and online betting services to be similar activities and so subject them to the same tax treatment while regarding other types of online and land-based gambling activities as distinct activities and subjecting them to different tax rates.\n(91)\nThe Danish authorities also relied on the Candover-Cinven-Gala decision (38), which held that gambling machines (jackpot machines, token machines and all-cash or AWPs) constituted an independent product market (39). However, apart from the fact that this decision did not concern the application of State aid rules nor the issue of selectivity, it must be noted that although the decision states that \u2018gaming machines (jackpot machines, token machines and all-cash or amusement with prize (AWP) machines) constitute a separate product market, it also states that they can be regarded as integrated in the gambling package at the respective sites where they are situated, i.e. in casinos, bingo clubs, arcades, pubs, betting shops etc.\u2019 (40).\n(92)\nThe alleged differences in the socioeconomic profiles of consumers, addiction risks, or market evolution are likewise insufficient to demonstrate that online and land-based gambling constitute two different types of activities that are not legally and factually comparable. Some of the studies relied upon by the Danish authorities and the complainants alike, appear to contain enough findings to support opposing conclusions. Thus, with regard to the 2006 Commission Study on Gambling Services in the Internal Market (41), the Danish authorities claim that the study tends to show that online and land-based markets are separate (42). By contrast, the same report is cited by some interested parties (43) to show that the online gambling market should not be regarded as a new market but rather as the evolution of the same gambling market, marked by the development of new hybrid gaming venues (44).\n(93)\nLikewise, contradictory statements are found in the study carried out by the Danish National Centre for Social Research (45), which is cited by the Danish authorities and the complainants. Whereas the Danish authorities claim that gamblers in land-based casinos differ from those in online casinos in terms of age, gender and education level, the complainants, relying on the same study, come to the opposite conclusion, claiming that the study demonstrates that there are no major distinctions between the profiles of the consumers playing in land-based or online casinos. In their view, the study shows that gamblers playing games both in land-based and online casinos would typically be the same young men between 18 and 24 years old (46).\n(94)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that online and land-based casinos should be perceived as legally and factually comparable. As both online and land-based gambling pose the same risks, the notified measure addresses both online and land-based gambling. The measure at issue introduces differential tax treatment favouring online gambling operators to the detriment of land-based casinos. It follows that the measure under review should be regarded prima facie as selective within the meaning of article 107 TFEU, since it constitutes a departure from the general tax regime.\n(95)\nWhether a measure that appears prima facie to be selective can be justified by the nature and general scheme of the system has to be assessed in the light of existing case law. The guiding principles or rationales of the tax system can be relied upon to justify the selectivity of the measure.\n(96)\nIn this regard, the Danish authorities argued that, given the peculiarities of the sector involved, the differential tax treatment in favour of online gambling operators constitutes the only way to ensure the efficiency of their tax regime. Setting a higher tax rate would discourage online gambling operators from applying for a Danish licence, whereas introducing a lower tax burden for all operators concerned would be contrary to the overall objective of keeping gambling at a reasonable level.\n(97)\nThe Danish authorities have also asserted that the financial capacity of online gambling operators, being allegedly lower than that of land-based casino operators, justified the different tax rates between the two categories of operators.\n(98)\nIn the light of the foregoing arguments, the Commission recalls that, according to case law (47) and the Commission Notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (48), a Member State has to establish whether the measure under consideration derives from the basic or guiding principles of that system. A justification based on the nature or overall structure of the tax system in question constitutes an exception to the principle that State aid is prohibited. It must therefore be subject to a strict interpretation (49).\n(99)\nIt follows that it is incumbent upon the Danish authorities to prove that the tax measure in question is justified by the logic of the tax system. However, the Danish authorities did not adduce any sufficient and convincing evidence to support their assertion that lowering the tax rate for a particular segment (online operators) of a wider category (gambling operators) as a means to ensure that the former would apply for a license derives from the principles and the logic underpinning their tax system. In particular, the objective of attracting foreign online gambling service providers in Denmark and making them subject to the Danish rules should be regarded as a public policy objective that falls outside the logic of the tax system.\n(100)\nLikewise, with regard to online gambling operators\u2019 alleged lower capacity to pay, the Danish authorities failed to establish that there is a difference in profitability between online and land-based casino activities that would justify the differential tax treatment. Nor have the Danish authorities demonstrated that the financial capacity to pay is a principle embedded in their system of direct business taxation that could be relied upon in the present case as a justification for the differential tax treatment of online and land-based casinos.\n(101)\nIt follows from the foregoing that the Commission does not consider that the selectivity of the notified Act is justified in the light of the logic of the tax system.\n7.1.5. Conclusion\n(102)\nIn the light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the criteria set out in Article 107(1) TFEU are fulfilled and that the measure imposing a lower tax rate on online gambling constitutes State aid for the providers of online gambling services established in Denmark.\n7.2. Compatibility of the measure on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU\n(103)\nArticle 107(2) and (3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union lay down rules stipulating when certain aid measures are compatible with the internal market and what types of aid may be considered to be compatible with the internal market.\n(104)\nThe Commission considers that the measure at issue can be declared compatible with the internal market under the derogation provided for in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, which allows \u2018\u2026 aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.\u2019\n(105)\nThe Commission notes that the measure does not fall within the scope of existing guidelines for the application of Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU. It therefore has to be assessed directly under this Treaty provision. To be compatible under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, an aid measure must pursue an objective of common interest in a necessary and proportionate way. When assessing a measure\u2019s compatibility with the internal market, the Commission balances its positive impact in terms of attaining an objective of common interest against its potentially negative side effects, such as distortion of trade and competition. This test is based on a three-stage examination. The first two stages address the positive effects of the State aid and the third stage deals with the negative effects and the resulting balance of positive and negative effects (50). The test is structured as follows:\n(1)\nDoes the aid measure have a well-defined objective of common interest?\n(2)\nIs the aid well suited to attain the objective of common interest i.e. does the proposed aid address a market failure or other objective? In particular:\n(a)\nis the aid measure an appropriate instrument, i.e. are there other, better placed instruments?\n(b)\nis there an incentive effect, i.e. does the aid change the behaviour of potential beneficiaries?\n(c)\nis the aid measure proportional, i.e. could the same change in behaviour be obtained with less aid?\n(3)\nAre the distortions of competition and effect on trade limited, so that the overall balance is positive?\n7.2.1. Objective of common interest\n(106)\nThe Danish authorities explained that they decided to proceed with a reform of the existing legislation on gambling and betting services in order to replace the existing monopoly regime with a regulated and partially liberalised regime. Liberalisation was considered necessary, inter alia, to comply with EU law following the initiation of infringement proceedings and the issuing of a reasoned opinion on 23 March 2007 (51), and to respond to the threat posed by illegal online gambling services provided by gaming service providers located in other countries.\n(107)\nUp to now the Danish gambling sector has essentially been a State monopoly as only one licence has been issued to a state-controlled company, \u2018Danske Spil A/S\u2019. Despite the regulatory framework prohibiting foreign online gambling providers from marketing their services to consumers resident in Denmark, many online gambling providers established in other Member States and also in third countries have offered their services via channels not located in Denmark, such as satellite television channels broadcast from the UK. The Danish authorities stated in their notification that they could not in practice enforce the prohibition against other gaming service providers marketing their services in Denmark because of Danish court proceedings in which it was claimed that the current Danish gambling monopoly constituted a restriction of the free movement of services. As a result, an unsatisfactory situation persisted whereby the legality of the existing monopoly was challenged not only in administrative and judicial proceedings but also through the direct supply of online gambling services by unlicensed operators established in other jurisdictions.\n(108)\nAccording to explanatory memorandum accompanying the Gaming Act, the liberalisation process was justified by reference to the latest technological developments, which meant that Denmark was now part of a global communication society where consumers have access to a wide range of services from providers of various jurisdictions. Over the past 10 years, gaming has developed into a major sales product on the Internet, especially after the introduction of online poker. The Internet has provided Danish citizens with the opportunity to compare Danske Spil\u2019s products and product range with the products offered by online gambling providers established in the UK, Malta, Gibraltar and other countries. In recent years a rapidly growing number of Danes have begun to gamble with the international gaming providers. As explained by the Danish authorities, the government\u2019s fear was that the provision of gaming, if not regulated and controlled effectively, could be linked with negative effects on society in the form of crime and a breakdown of public order, and could cause vulnerable individuals to become addicted to gambling. At the same time, the profits of Danske Spil have been steadily declining. The Danish authorities therefore needed to be able to regulate and control the gaming offered to Danish citizens in order to channel gaming into a controlled framework and so prevent negative consequences for society.\n(109)\nIn this connection, the Commission recalls that the gambling sector has never been subject to any harmonisation within the European Union. Under Article 2 of the Services Directive, gambling is even explicitly excluded from the Directive\u2019s scope (52). However, despite the lack of any kind of secondary legislation in this field, cross-border gambling activities may fall within the scope of the fundamental freedoms of the Treaty, namely the freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU) and the freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU).\n(110)\nIn principle, Article 56 TFEU requires the abolition of all restrictions on the freedom to provide services, even if those restrictions apply without distinction to national providers of services and to providers from other Member States, if the restrictions are liable to prohibit, impede, or render less advantageous the activities of service providers established in another Member State where they lawfully provide similar services (53). It is also settled case law that legislation by a Member State prohibiting providers established in other Member States from offering services in the territory of that first Member State via the Internet constitutes a restriction of the freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 56 TFEU (54). Moreover, the freedom to provide services is for the benefit of both providers and recipients of services (55).\n(111)\nIn the present case, although the provision of gambling services primarily falls under the scope of the fundamental freedom of Article 56 TFEU, the Danish legislation also affects the freedom of establishment. Under Article 27 of the Gaming Act, Denmark requires online gambling providers either to be established in Denmark or, if they are residents of another EU or EEA Member State, to appoint an approved representative. The justifications for the restrictions are the same for the freedom of establishment as for the freedom to provide services.\n(112)\nRestrictions on these fundamental freedoms are only acceptable as exceptional measures expressly provided for in Article 52 TFEU or justified, in line with the case law of the Court, for reasons of overriding general interest. Article 52(1) TFEU allows restrictions justified on grounds of public policy (\u2018ordre public\u2019), public security, or public health.\n(113)\nIn so far as gambling activities are concerned, a certain number of reasons of overriding general interest have been recognised by the Court of Justice in its rulings, such as the objectives of consumer protection and the prevention of both fraud and incitement to squander on gaming, as well as the general need to preserve public order. In that context, moral, religious and cultural factors, and the morally and financially harmful consequences for the individual and society associated with gaming and betting, could serve to justify the existence on the part of the national authorities of a margin of appreciation sufficient to enable them to determine what consumer protection and the preservation of public order require. Accordingly, the restrictions must in any event be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest, must be suitable for achieving the objective they pursue, and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. They must also be applied without discrimination (56).\n(114)\nIt should be noted, however, that loss of tax revenue is not one of the grounds listed in Article 52 TFEU nor accepted in case law (57) and cannot therefore be regarded as an overriding reason in the public interest which could be relied upon to justify a measure which is, in principle, contrary to a fundamental freedom.\n(115)\nAs regards specifically the justification for restrictions on the provision of cross-border gambling, the Court of Justice has held as follows (58):\n\u201857.\nIn that context (\u2026) it also should be noted that the legislation on games of chance is one of the areas in which there are significant moral, religious and cultural differences between the Member States. In the absence of Community harmonization in this field, it is for each Member State to determine those areas, in accordance with its own scale of values, what is required in order to ensure that the interest in question are protected.\n58.\nThe mere fact that a Member State has opted for a system of protection which differs from that adopted by another Member State cannot affect the assessment of the need for, and proportionality of, the provisions enacted to that end. Those provisions must be assessed solely by reference to the objectives pursued by the competent authorities of the Member State concerned and the degree of protection which they seek to ensure.\n59.\nThe Member States are therefore free to set the objectives of their policy on betting and gambling and, where appropriate, to define in detail the level of protection sought. However, the restrictive measures that they impose must satisfy the conditions laid down in the case law of the Court as regards their proportionality (Placanica and Others, paragraph 48).\n(\u2026)\n69.\nIn that regard, it should be noted that the sector involving games of chance offered via the Internet has not been the subject of Community harmonisation. A Member State is therefore entitled to take the view that the mere fact that an operator (\u2026) lawfully offers services in that sector via the Internet in another Member State, in which it is established and where it is in principle already subject to statutory conditions and controls on the part of the competent authorities in that State, cannot be regarded as amounting to a sufficient assurance that national consumers will be protected against the risks of fraud and crime, in the light of the difficulties liable to be encountered in such a context by the authorities of the Member State of establishment in assessing the professional qualities and integrity of operators.\n70.\nIn addition, because of the lack of direct contact between consumer and operator, games of chance accessible via the Internet involve different and more substantial risks of fraud by operators against consumers compared with the traditional markets for such games.\u2019\n(116)\nIn a recent judgment, the Court also referred in detail to the risks of online gambling (59):\n\u2018103.\nIt should be noted that, in the same way, the characteristics specific to the offer of games of chance by the Internet may prove to be a source of risks of a different kind and a greater order in the area of consumer protection, particularly in relation to young persons and those with a propensity for gambling or likely to develop such a propensity, in comparison with traditional markets for such games. Apart from the lack of direct contact between the consumer and the operator, previously referred to, the particular ease and the permanence of access to games offered over the Internet and the potentially high volume and frequency of such an international offer, in an environment which is moreover characterised by isolation of the player, anonymity and an absence of social control, constitute so many factors likely to foster the development of gambling addiction and the related squandering of money, and thus likely to increase the negative social and moral consequences attaching thereto, as underlined by consistent case-law.\n104.\nMoreover, it should be noted that, having regard to the discretion which Member States enjoy in determining the level of protection of consumers and the social order in the gaming sector, it is not necessary, with regard to the criterion of proportionality, that a restrictive measure decreed by the authorities of one Member State should correspond to a view shared by all the Member States concerning the means of protecting the legitimate interest at issue (see, by analogy, Case C-518/06 Commission v Italy [2009] ECR I-3491, paragraphs 83 and 84).\n105.\nHaving regard to the whole of the above, it must be acknowledged that a prohibition measure covering any offer of games of chance via the Internet may, in principle, be regarded as suitable for pursuing the legitimate objectives of preventing incitement to squander money on gambling, combating addiction to the latter and protecting young persons, even though the offer of such games remains authorised through more traditional channels.\u2019\n(117)\nThe lack of harmonisation in the field of gambling and the Member States\u2019 different approaches regarding the range of games permitted and the operators authorised to offer them paints a picture of a very fragmented internal market for the provision of cross-border gambling services. While some Member States restrict or even ban the offer of certain games of chance, others have opted for more open markets. Many Member States have also recently reviewed their gambling legislation or are in the process of doing so in view of the growth of online gambling services.\n(118)\nThe Danish authorities did not provide detailed figures on the size of illegal gambling by Danish residents, but instead they pointed out that the development of the unregulated online gambling sector was a worrying aspect from a societal perspective.\n(119)\nThis trend is confirmed by the European Commission\u2019s Green Paper of March 2011 (60). The accompanying Commission Staff Working Paper cites a total Gross Gaming Revenue for Online Gambling in Denmark of EUR 250 m in 2008, of which 14 % (i.e. EUR 34 m) related to casino games and 22 per cent (i.e. EUR 56 m) to poker (61). By definition, both online casino games and online poker are prohibited activities.\n(120)\nThese figures are expected to increase. The Green Paper reports that online gambling is the fastest growing segment of the gambling market, accounting for 7,5 per cent of the annual revenues of the overall gambling market in 2008 (EU-27) and it is expected to double in size by 2013 (62). Second, the proportion of national gambling consumption attributable to online-gambling is estimated to be 21,9 per cent in Denmark, i.e. the second highest rate within the EU, which posts an average of 7,5 per cent (63).\n(121)\nTaking into consideration the above-mentioned case law, as well as the overall characteristics of the gambling market in the EU, the Commission takes the view that the arguments put forward by the Danish authorities to justify the adoption of the notified measure are well-founded. In particular, the Commission is aware of the peculiarities of the activities at issue: online gambling provided via the Internet has transformed the sector, bringing about a global marketplace where physical borders are blurred. In this context, as stated in the 2011 Green Paper (64), the Commission also notes the need to control the online gambling sector in order to prevent harmful negative consequences that online gambling can have on consumers. In addition to the significant risk of online gambling addiction that various social studies have established (65), special attention should be given to minors and other vulnerable persons, including players on low incomes, gamblers with previous gambling addiction and young adults unaware of the risks associated with gambling problems. In order to protect these categories of potential players, the Member States should be able to control the online gambling sector, amongst other things by imposing age limits or licence conditions, controlling payment processing systems and limiting marketing or promotion of online gambling.\n(122)\nThe reform undertaken in Denmark, resulting in the adoption of the notified Act, is therefore in line with the objective of the European Commission\u2019s Green Paper of 24 March 2011 on \u2018On-line gambling in the Internal Market\u2019, which was to contribute to the emergence in the Member States of a legal framework for online gambling providing for greater legal certainty for all stakeholders (66). The Green Paper was a response to the Council Conclusions of December 2010 welcoming a broad consultation by the European Commission on online gambling in the internal market which would allow for an in-depth discussion of the issues raised by online gambling services in particular (67) and to the resolution of the European Parliament adopted on 10 March 2009 that called on the Commission, working in close cooperation with national governments, to study the economic and non-economic effects of the provision of cross-border gambling services (68). It must be stressed that the legislative reform implemented through the notified Act is in line with the objectives advocated by the Commission which led to the initiation of infringement proceedings and the sending of a reasoned opinion to the Danish authorities in March 2007 (69).\n(123)\nFor these reasons, the Commission considers that the notified Gaming Duties Act, to the extent that it will liberalise the market and allow Danish and foreign online gambling operators to provide their services to Danish residents, while ensuring that they will they fulfil the necessary conditions to be licensed by the Danish authorities, serves a well-defined objective of common interest.\n7.2.2. Aid well suited for the desired objective\n(124)\nAn aid measure is considered necessary and proportional when it constitutes an appropriate instrument to achieve the identified objective of common interest, when it has an incentive effect on the beneficiaries and when it does not introduce unnecessary distortions of competition.\n(125)\nThe Danish government decided to liberalise the Danish online gambling market and to allow an unlimited number of online licences to be issued. However, the issue of such a licence is subject to a number of conditions relating, inter alia, to the trustworthiness of the managers of the company applying for a licence. To make the liberalisation successful, the Danish government also decided to lower the taxation for online operators, only leaving intact the tax rates applicable to land-based gambling operators. In this regard, the complainants argued that lowering the tax rate for online operators was not the most appropriate solution. For instance, blocking payment and communication (ring-fencing instruments) could still be used to achieve the objectives of the liberalisation process without a need to introduce lower tax rates for online operators. According to the complainants, Denmark could therefore have chosen to enforce the prohibition of illegal online gambling by resorting to \u2018payment and communication\u2019 blocking (domain name system filtering, Internet protocol blocking and payment blocking) or by limiting the number of licences to be issued.\n(126)\nWith regard to the use of \u2018blocking systems\u2019, the Commission Green Paper states that the efficiency of blocking systems depends on a pre-defined and updated list of items to block as well as efficient software systems. However, as the Danish authorities pointed out, it is questionable whether these blocking systems could produce the expected results, since online gamblers could circumvent Internet blocking by changing the \u2018ports\u2019 used and prohibiting certain payments could block perfectly lawful commercial transactions other than payments relating to stakes and prizes.\n(127)\nWith regard to the possibility of issuing a limited number of online licences, the effects depend on the numbers of licences to be issued. If the number is restricted to only a few licences, the small number of competitors will reduce competition and influence supply, which would mean a higher cost for consumers, in the form of a lower payout ratio, than with an unlimited number of licences. A reduced number of licences also limits the variety and quality of choice available to consumers in the marketplace and encourages producers to be less diligent in responding to consumer wants and needs (70). Limiting the number of licences also raises questions regarding the criteria for determining the number of licences in a non-arbitrary manner, how and by which institutions the licensing requirements are monitored, and how illegal provision is dealt with, i.e. who takes what measures against illegally provided gambling services (71).\n(128)\nIn view of these considerations, the Commission considers that the lower tax rate applicable to online gambling activities is an appropriate instrument to attain the liberalisation objectives of the new Gaming Act. The aid measure will ensure that online operators wishing to provide gambling services for Danish residents will apply for a licence and comply with the applicable national regulations.\n(129)\nThe Commission considers that the aid measure is capable of modifying the behaviour of foreign providers of online gambling services, since the lower tax rate constitutes an incentive for such operators to obtain a licence in Denmark and thus for the first time to provide online gambling services legally.\n(130)\nAid is deemed proportionate only if the same change in behaviour could not be achieved with less aid and less distortion. The amount of the aid must be limited to the minimum needed for the aided activity to take place. In the present case, the Commission considers that the Danish authorities have designed the measure in such a way as to diminish the possible amount of State aid involved and to minimise the distortions of competition arising from the measure.\n(131)\nIn the memorandum submitted by the Danish Ministry of Taxation of 6 March 2010 to the Policy Spokesmen of the political parties of the Danish Parliament on the level of duty to be set (72), the choice of the lower tax rate of 20 per cent of GGR for the online gambling was justified by reference to the following criteria:\n(a)\nGambling provided under Danish licences should be adapted to the current offering from online gambling providers abroad, i.e. the tax rate needs to be adjusted in order to match the high payout ratios offered by foreign online gambling providers, inducing them to actually apply for a licence.\n(b)\nThe total number of games offered should be increased, leading overall to an increase in turnover.\n(c)\nThe gambling products should be so attractive that players would not want to gamble on sites of foreign (illegal) operators.\n(d)\nBlocking instruments should be used to ensure, in combination with items (a)-(c), that gambling on the sites of illegal operators is reduced to a minimum.\n(132)\nIn this memorandum, the Danish authorities note that the legislation in the UK, which should be regarded as being very close to the Danish gambling regulation, provides for a tax rate of 15 per cent for online gambling. The Danish authorities considered that the tax rate for online gambling could be set higher than in the UK since Denmark, in contrast to the UK, will also introduce complementary blocking measures to make it more difficult for players to gamble on sites of foreign operators that have not obtained a Danish licence.\n(133)\nSimilarly, the Danish authorities cite the examples of France and Italy, which have liberalised their markets and imposed higher rates of duty than the UK. The Danish authorities note that these markets are significantly bigger than the Danish market. The size of a market can have a tangible impact on operators\u2019 willingness to enter a market even if there is a higher tax rate, as costs which are always associated with setting up operations in a new market tend to be comparatively higher for entry into smaller markets.\n(134)\nThe memorandum includes a simulation of the possible revenue effect of tax rates of 15, 20 and 25 per cent, also taking into account possible changes in gamblers\u2019 gambling patterns and operators\u2019 actions. The simulation exercise concludes that a tax rate of 20 per cent will presumably still make it sufficiently attractive for gambling providers to apply for a Danish licence and for gamblers to be offered attractive services. Setting a higher tax rate (i.e. 25 per cent) can be expected to increase pressure on payout ratios with the result that the positive revenue effect of a 25 per cent rate may turn out to be lower than with a 20 per cent rate.\n(135)\nThe Danish legislator therefore concluded that setting the tax rate for online gambling higher would most likely result in a gambling product that would not be attractive enough to gamblers, leading in turn to lower turnover, offsetting the immediate prospect of higher tax revenues.\n(136)\nThe conclusions reached by the Danish legislator as to the appropriate level of taxation for online gambling activities are also confirmed by a report from an industry consulting company, which found that a tax rate of 20 per cent would not mean that the State would forego revenue it would otherwise have received (73). According to that report, this was the highest rate economically feasible - a higher rate would be a \u2018rate of no return\u2019, i.e. a tax rate that was simply too high for there to be a valid business case for operators to enter the market. Above this rate, the tax revenue would start to fall.\n(137)\nIn view of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the tax rate of 20 per cent of GGR applicable to online operators is not lower than is necessary to ensure that the objectives of the Gaming Act are achieved. Therefore, the aid measure meets the proportionality requirement set out in the case law of the Court of Justice.\n7.2.3. Impact on competition and trade between Member States\n(138)\nWith regard to the impact of the aid measure on competition and trade, a distinction has to be made between possible distortions of the trade between Member States and distortions of competition within Denmark, especially with existing land-based gambling operators.\n(139)\nWith regard to trade between Member States, no negative impact is to be expected. The Gaming Act enables Danish residents to gamble legally on websites of licensed online gambling operators. Those websites are not restricted to Danish resident users but can be accessed by residents of all EU Member States, subject to the restrictions imposed by their national law. By setting the tax rate on online gambling operators at 20 per cent of GGR, the Danish aid measure is broadly in line with the rates of similar taxes applied by other Member States that have already reformed their online gambling legislation. For example, both Belgium and the UK apply a tax rate of 15 per cent of GGR to online gambling, whereas other Member States apply even lower rates (for example, Estonia 5 per cent of GGR, Latvia 10 per cent of GGR, Finland 8,25 per cent of GGR). Only Slovakia has set its a higher tax rate of 27 per cent of GGR.\n(140)\nWith regard to distortions of competition within Denmark, the measure will potentially benefit a considerable number of different Danish and foreign online gambling operators who up to now were prohibited from providing their services to Danish residents. Denmark submitted a list of online gambling providers who have already indicated their willingness to apply for a licence. As only the State- controlled company has hitherto been allowed to provide online gambling services, the liberalisation will increase overall competition in the market.\n(141)\nAlthough the measure constitutes a State aid and its implementation may not be without repercussions for existing land-based gambling operators, who are taxed at a tax rate of up to 75 per cent of GGR, the Commission considers that the overall balance of implementing the measure is positive.\n(142)\nAs shown above, setting the tax rate for online gambling at the same or a similar level as the rate for land-based gambling operators would have led to a situation where the industry and players would not have responded to the possibility of legally providing online gambling services on the Danish market, thus defeating the identified objectives of common interest pursued by the Gaming Act.\n(143)\nAccordingly, the Commission concludes that the measure is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\n8. CONCLUSION\n(144)\nThe Commission considers that the notified Act confers a tax advantage on online gambling operators that is granted through State resources. The measure is regarded prima facie as selective, since it differentiates between online gambling operators and land-based casino operators who, in the light of the objective pursued by the measure, are in a comparable factual and legal situation. The Danish authorities have failed to demonstrate that the prima facie selectivity of the notified act is justified by the logic of the tax system. Hence, the notified Act is regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(145)\nHowever, the Commission considers that the aid fulfils the conditions required for it to be regarded as compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe measure C 35/10 which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gambling in the Danish Gaming Duties Act is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nImplementation of the measure is accordingly authorised.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2011.", "references": ["85", "90", "99", "50", "78", "29", "81", "2", "25", "26", "63", "10", "60", "84", "4", "94", "13", "1", "54", "45", "70", "22", "59", "33", "77", "38", "23", "86", "66", "68", "No Label", "8", "15", "34", "36", "40", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "34", "36", "40", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 148/2011\nof 17 February 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 141/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2011.", "references": ["28", "51", "78", "58", "90", "46", "11", "74", "56", "67", "84", "80", "7", "20", "47", "76", "9", "86", "55", "70", "69", "4", "23", "41", "87", "12", "79", "54", "18", "96", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1081/2011\nof 25 October 2011\namending for the 160th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 17 October 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one natural person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["31", "68", "32", "87", "10", "72", "39", "7", "71", "38", "44", "5", "56", "76", "91", "70", "61", "14", "37", "35", "77", "34", "75", "62", "60", "27", "46", "20", "15", "33", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1164/2011\nof 15 November 2011\ninitiating a review of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 (extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not) for the purposes of determining the possibility of granting an exemption from those measures to one Malaysian exporting producer, repealing the anti-dumping duty with regard to imports from that exporting producer and making imports from that exporting producer subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic anti-dumping Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 11(4), 13(4) and 14(5) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. EXISTING MEASURES\n(1)\nThe Council, by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (2), imposed anti-dumping measures on certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the original measures\u2019). By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 (3), the Council extended these measures to certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia (\u2018the extended measures\u2019) with the exception of imports produced by certain companies specifically mentioned.\nB. REQUEST FOR A REVIEW\n(2)\nThe European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) has received a request for an exemption pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation from the anti-dumping measures extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia. The application was lodged by Andfast Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. (\u2018the applicant\u2019), a producer in Malaysia (\u2018the country concerned\u2019).\nC. PRODUCT\n(3)\nThe product under examination is certain iron or steel fasteners, other than of stainless steel, i.e. wood screws (excluding coach screws), self-tapping screws, other screws and bolts with heads (whether or not with their nuts or washers, but excluding screws turned from bars, rods, profiles or wire, of solid section, of a shank thickness not exceeding 6 mm and excluding screws and bolts for fixing railway track construction material), and washers, consigned from Malaysia, currently falling within CN codes ex 7318 12 90, ex 7318 14 91, ex 7318 14 99, ex 7318 15 59, ex 7318 15 69, ex 7318 15 81, ex 7318 15 89, ex 7318 15 90, ex 7318 21 00 and ex 7318 22 00 (\u2018product concerned\u2019).\nD. GROUNDS FOR THE REVIEW\n(4)\nThe applicant alleges that it did not export the product concerned to the European Union during the investigation period used in the investigation that led to the extended measures, i.e. 1 January 2008 to 30 September 2010.\n(5)\nFurthermore, the applicant alleges that it is not related to exporting producers subject to measures, and that it has not circumvented the measures applicable to certain iron or steel fasteners of Chinese origin.\n(6)\nThe applicant further alleges that it has begun exporting the product concerned to the Union after the end of the investigation period used in the investigation that led to the extended measures.\nE. PROCEDURE\n(7)\nUnion producers known to be concerned have been informed of the above application and have been given an opportunity to comment.\n(8)\nHaving examined the evidence available, the Commission concludes that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation for the purposes of determining the possibility of granting the applicant an exemption from the extended measures.\n(a) Questionnaires\nIn order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send a questionnaire to the applicant.\n(b) Collection of information and holding of hearings\nAll interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing showing that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\nF. REPEAL OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY IN FORCE AND REGISTRATION OF IMPORTS\n(9)\nPursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, the anti-dumping duty in force should be repealed with regard to imports of the product concerned which are produced and sold for export to the European Union by the applicant.\n(10)\nAt the same time, such imports should be made subject to registration in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, in order to ensure that, should the examination result in a finding of circumvention in respect of the applicant, anti-dumping duties can be levied retroactively from the date of the initiation of this examination. The amount of the applicant\u2019s possible future liabilities cannot be estimated at this stage of the proceeding.\nG. TIME LIMITS\n(11)\nIn the interest of sound administration, time limits should be stated within which:\n-\ninterested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit the replies to the questionnaire mentioned in recital 8(a) of this Regulation or provide any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,\n-\ninterested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.\nH. NON-COOPERATION\n(12)\nIn cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.\n(13)\nWhere it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, of the facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially, and findings are therefore based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.\nI. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\n(14)\nIt is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (4).\nJ. HEARING OFFICER\n(15)\nIt is also noted that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of the Directorate-General for Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views.\n(16)\nFor further information and contact details interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer\u2019s web pages on Directorate-General for Trade\u2019s website: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/hearing-officer/\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nA review of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 is hereby initiated pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 in order to establish whether the imports of certain iron or steel fasteners, other than of stainless steel, i.e. wood screws (excluding coach screws), self-tapping screws, other screws and bolts with heads (whether or not with their nuts or washers, but excluding screws turned from bars, rods, profiles or wire, of solid section, of a shank thickness not exceeding 6 mm and excluding screws and bolts for fixing railway track construction material), and washers, currently falling within CN codes ex 7318 12 90, ex 7318 14 91, ex 7318 14 99, ex 7318 15 59, ex 7318 15 69, ex 7318 15 81, ex 7318 15 89, ex 7318 15 90, ex 7318 21 00 and ex 7318 22 00 (TARIC codes 7318129011, 7318129091, 7318149111, 7318149191, 7318149911, 7318149991, 7318155911, 7318155961, 7318155981, 7318156911, 7318156961, 7318156981, 7318158111, 7318158161, 7318158181, 7318158911, 7318158961, 7318158981, 7318159021, 7318159071, 7318159091, 7318210031, 7318210095, 7318220031 and 7318220095), consigned from Malaysia and produced by Andfast Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. (TARIC additional code B265), should be subject to the anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011.\nArticle 2\nThe anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 is hereby repealed with regard to the imports identified in Article 1 of this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThe customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports identified in Article 1 of this Regulation. Registration shall expire 9 months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 4\n1. Interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit the replies to the questionnaire mentioned in recital 8(a) of this Regulation or any other information, unless otherwise specified, within 37 days of the entry into force of this Regulation. Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 depends on the party\u2019s making itself known within the aforementioned period.\nInterested parties may also apply in writing to be heard by the Commission within the same 37-day time limit.\n2. All written submissions, including the information requested in this Regulation, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties for which confidential treatment is requested shall be labelled \u2018Limited\u2019 (5).\nInterested parties providing \u2018Limited\u2019 information are required to furnish non-confidential summaries of it pursuant to Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, which will be labelled \u2018For inspection by interested parties\u2019. These summaries should be sufficiently detailed to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence. If an interested party providing confidential information does not furnish a non-confidential summary of it in the requested format and quality, such confidential information may be disregarded.\nInterested parties are required to make all submissions and requests in electronic format (the non-confidential submissions via e-mail, the confidential ones on CD-R/DVD), and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers of the interested party. However, any Powers of Attorney, signed certifications, and any updates thereof accompanying questionnaire replies shall be submitted on paper, i.e. by post or by hand, at the address below. Pursuant to Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation, if an interested party cannot provide its submissions and requests in electronic format, it must immediately inform the Commission. For further information concerning correspondence with the Commission, interested parties may consult the relevant web page on the website of Directorate-General for Trade: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/trade-defence/\nCommission address for correspondence:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N105 04/092\n1049 Bruxelles/Brussel\nBELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb\nFax +32 22956505\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2011.", "references": ["94", "7", "93", "2", "4", "97", "42", "70", "74", "53", "55", "72", "29", "12", "57", "33", "27", "26", "62", "58", "91", "15", "34", "0", "54", "5", "63", "13", "50", "77", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 759/2010\nof 24 August 2010\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance tildipirosin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the European Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nAn application for the establishment of maximum residue limits (hereinafter \u2018MRL\u2019) for tildipirosin in bovine and porcine species has been submitted to the European Medicines Agency.\n(4)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (hereinafter \u2018CVMP\u2019) recommended establishing a provisional MRL for tildipirosin for bovine species, applicable to muscle, fat, liver and kidney, excluding animals producing milk for human consumption. The provisional MRL set out for muscle should not apply to the injection site, where residue levels should not exceed 11 500 \u03bcg/kg.\n(5)\nAccording to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 the European Medicines Agency is to consider using MRLs established for a pharmacologically active substance in a particular foodstuff for another foodstuff derived from the same species, or MRLs established for a pharmacologically active substance in one or more species for another species. The CVMP recommended to extrapolate the provisional MRLs for tildipirosin from bovine to caprine species.\n(6)\nThe CVMP recommended establishing provisional MRLs for tildipirosin for porcine species, applicable to muscle, skin, fat, liver and kidney. The provisional MRL set out for muscle should not apply to the injection site, where residue levels should not exceed 7 500 \u03bcg/kg.\n(7)\nTable 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to include the substance tildipirosin for bovine, caprine and porcine species. The provisional MRLs set out in that table for tildipirosin for bovine, caprine and porcine species should expire on 1 January 2012.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period of time for the stakeholders concerned to take measures that may be required to comply with the newly set MRL.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 24 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 August 2010.", "references": ["25", "85", "99", "61", "12", "73", "77", "67", "94", "2", "89", "6", "46", "65", "47", "76", "0", "9", "10", "74", "48", "19", "49", "11", "57", "31", "97", "90", "54", "41", "No Label", "7", "24", "38", "69", "72"], "gold": ["7", "24", "38", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 June 2010\nauthorising Member States to ratify, in the interests of the European Union, the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007, of the International Labour Organisation (Convention No 188)\n(2010/321/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 48 in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nConvention No 188 of the International Labour Organisation (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Convention\u2019 and \u2018the ILO\u2019 respectively) on work in the fishing sector was adopted on 14 June 2007 at the International Labour Conference of the ILO, which convened in Geneva and at which all delegations of the European Union Member States voted in favour of adoption.\n(2)\nThe Convention represents a major input to the fishing sector at international level in promoting decent work for fishers and fairer competition conditions for fishing vessel owners and it is therefore desirable that its provisions should be implemented as soon as possible.\n(3)\nThe European Parliament, the Council and the Commission are promoting the ratification of international labour conventions that are classified by the ILO as up-to-date as a contribution to the European Union\u2019s efforts to promote decent work for all both inside and outside the Union.\n(4)\nIn accordance with the ILO Constitution, the adoption of any Convention or Recommendation by the Conference, or the ratification of any Convention by any Member, is deemed in no case to affect any law, award, custom or agreement which ensures more favourable conditions to the workers concerned than those provided for in the Convention or Recommendation.\n(5)\nSome provisions of the Convention fall within the exclusive competence of the Union as regards the coordination of social security schemes.\n(6)\nThe Union cannot ratify the Convention, as only states can be parties thereto.\n(7)\nThe Council should therefore authorise the Member States that are bound by the rules of the Union on the coordination of social security schemes based on Article 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to ratify the Convention in the interests of the Union, under the conditions laid down in this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States are hereby authorised to ratify, for the parts falling under the exclusive competence of the Union, the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007, of the International Labour Organisation, adopted on 14 June 2007.\nArticle 2\nMember States should make efforts to take the necessary steps to deposit their instruments of ratification of the Convention with the Director-General of the International Labour Office as soon as possible, preferably before 31 December 2012. The Council will review the progress of the ratification before January 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 June 2010.", "references": ["45", "50", "10", "12", "80", "7", "65", "79", "57", "71", "55", "27", "42", "59", "30", "92", "29", "88", "9", "41", "40", "47", "33", "15", "21", "74", "61", "81", "66", "73", "No Label", "3", "51", "67", "96", "99"], "gold": ["3", "51", "67", "96", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 498/2012\nof 12 June 2012\non the allocation of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation to the European Union\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2012/105/EU of 14 December 2011 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Russian Federation relating to the administration of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation to the European Union and the Protocol between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation on technical modalities pursuant to that Agreement (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nConsidering the economic importance for the European Union of imports of raw wood and the importance that the Russian Federation has for the Union as a supplier of raw wood, the Commission has negotiated with the Russian Federation commitments by the Russian Federation to reduce or eliminate its currently applied export duties, including on raw wood.\n(2)\nThese commitments, which will become part of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Schedule of Concessions of the Russian Federation upon its accession to the WTO, include tariff-rate quotas for the export of specified types of coniferous wood, a share of which has been allocated for exports to the Union.\n(3)\nIn the context of the negotiations regarding the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, the Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, with the Russian Federation, an agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters relating to the administration of those tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of certain coniferous wood from the Russian Federation to the Union (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(4)\nAs provided for in the Agreement, the Union and the Russian Federation have negotiated detailed technical modalities on the management of the tariff-rate quotas, which are contained in an agreement in the form of a Protocol negotiated between the Union and the Government of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019).\n(5)\nIn implementation of the Agreement and the Protocol, methods for allocating tariff quotas depending on the date of submission of applications by importers should be established and rules and methods for establishing rights of traditional importers for each quota period and for each product group should be laid down.\n(6)\nRules on business continuity for the determination of whether an importer claiming status of traditional importer is the same natural or juridical person that imported the covered products during the reference periods specified in this Regulation should be laid down.\n(7)\nRules and procedures related to unused quota authorisations should be laid down.\n(8)\nTransitional rules applicable during the first three quota periods of application of this Regulation should be established in connection with the choice of reference periods for the calculation of ceilings of quota authorisations for traditional importers.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Wood Committee established by Decision 2012/105/EU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER 1\nSCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation lays down detailed rules on the allocation of quota authorisations in accordance with Article 5(2) of the Protocol, and establishes other provisions necessary for the management by the Union of the quantities of the tariff-rate quotas allocated to exports to the Union in implementation of the Agreement and the Protocol.\nArticle 2\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the definitions set out in Article 1(3), Article 2 and Article 5(3) and (4) of the Protocol shall apply.\nIn addition, the following definition shall apply: \u2018product group\u2019 means each of the two categories of covered products according to the classification of such products under the tariff and statistical nomenclature applied in the Russian Federation, namely spruce (tariff lines 4403 20 110 and 4403 20 190) and pine (tariff lines 4403 20 310 and 4403 20 390). The relevant tariff codes applied in the Russian Federation and corresponding Combined Nomenclature (2) (\u2018CN\u2019) and TARIC codes are attached as Annex I.\nCHAPTER 2\nALLOCATION PRINCIPLES\nArticle 3\nThe method for allocating the tariff quota shall depend on the date of submission of the application by the importer, as follows:\n(a)\nfor any application submitted by 31 July of each year (hereinafter referred to as \u2018first part of the quota period\u2019), the Commission shall allocate tariff quotas in accordance with the \u2018traditional\u2019 or \u2018new\u2019 categories of importers, pursuant to Article 5(2)(b) of the Protocol; and\n(b)\nfor any application submitted from 1 August (hereinafter referred to as \u2018second part of the quota period\u2019), the Commission shall allocate the remaining quantities of the tariff quotas in accordance with the chronological order of receipt by the Commission of notifications from the competent authorities of Member States (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Licence Office(s)\u2019) of applications submitted by individual importers, pursuant to Article 5(2)(a) of the Protocol.\nArticle 4\n1. During the first part of the quota period:\n(a)\n70 % of each tariff quota per product group shall be allocated to traditional importers (hereinafter referred to as \u2018quota for traditional importers\u2019); and\n(b)\n30 % of each tariff quota per product group shall be allocated to new importers (hereinafter referred to as \u2018quota for new importers\u2019).\n2. The quota for new importers shall be allocated in accordance with the chronological order of receipt by the Commission of notifications from the Licence Offices of applications for a quota authorisation from such importers.\n3. Each new importer shall be granted a maximum of 1,5 % of the tariff quota for each product group in accordance with the allocation procedure referred to in paragraph 2.\nArticle 5\nDuring the second part of the quota period, each importer shall be granted a maximum of 5 % of the remaining tariff quota for each product group.\nArticle 6\n1. During the first part of the quota period, each traditional importer shall only be entitled to request quota authorisations for a specific share of the quota for traditional importers for each product group (hereinafter referred to as \u2018ceiling\u2019), calculated in accordance with paragraph 2. All the quota authorisations granted to a traditional importer during the first part of the quota period shall be counted against such importer\u2019s ceilings.\n2. The ceiling for each product group of a traditional importer applicable in a quota period (hereinafter referred to as \u2018quota period n+1\u2019) shall be calculated in accordance with the average of such importer\u2019s actual imports of covered products during the two quota periods preceding the year of calculation of such ceiling, on the basis of the following formula:\nCi = T * (\u012ai/\u03a3\u012ai)\nwhere:\n\u2018Ci\u2019 represents the ceiling for the product group concerned (spruce or pine) for importer i during quota period n+1;\n\u2018T\u2019 represents the quota for traditional importers available for the product group concerned during the year of calculation of the ceiling (hereinafter referred to as \u2018quota period n\u2019);\n\u2018\u012ai\u2019 represents the average of the actual imports by the traditional importer i of the product group concerned, in the two quota periods preceding the calculation (hereinafter referred to as \u2018quota period n-2\u2019 and \u2018quota period n-1\u2019, respectively), as follows:\n[(actual imports of importer i in quota period n-2) + (actual imports of importer i in quota period n-1)]/2\n\u2018\u03a3\u012ai\u2019 represents the sum of all traditional importers\u2019 average imports \u012ai for the product group concerned.\nArticle 7\n1. Every year, the Commission shall calculate the ceilings applicable to each traditional importer for the following quota period in accordance with the method established in Article 6(2).\n2. For the purpose of such calculation, the Licence Offices shall provide the Commission, by 31 March of quota period n at the latest, with a summary of actual imports of covered products in quota period n-1 notified to them in accordance with Article 11(1). Such summary shall be submitted in an electronic spreadsheet format, in conformity with the template set out in Annex IV.\n3. The Commission shall inform the Licence Offices of the updated ceilings resulting from the calculations made according to Article 6(2) by 30 April of quota period n at the latest.\nCHAPTER 3\nBUSINESS CONTINUITY\nArticle 8\n1. Where an importer claiming status of traditional importer under Article 5(4) of the Protocol (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the applicant\u2019) does not provide satisfactory evidence that it is the same natural or legal person that imported the covered products during the reference period retained pursuant to Article 17(2) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the predecessor\u2019), it shall provide the Licence Office with the necessary evidence to prove that it has business continuity with the activities of the predecessor.\n2. Business continuity as referred to in paragraph 1 shall be deemed to exist where:\n(a)\nthe applicant and the predecessor are under the control of the same legal entity within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (3); or\n(b)\nthe economic activity of the predecessor, as regards the covered products, has been legally transferred to the applicant, for instance as a result of a merger or acquisition within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.\n3. Importers that do not provide evidence of business continuity shall be considered as new importers.\nArticle 9\nThe provisions of Article 8 shall apply mutatis mutandis where an importer claims status of traditional importer under Article 5(3) of the Protocol.\nCHAPTER 4\nAPPLICATIONS FOR QUOTA AUTHORISATIONS\nArticle 10\n1. Applications for quota authorisations shall be submitted in the form established in Annex II. If information provided in the application is considered inadequate, the Licence Office may require additional details from the applicant.\n2. The granting of a quota authorisation shall be subject to the requirement that the corresponding products undergo processing, within the customs territory of the Union, conferring Union origin in accordance with Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (4).\n3. Applications for quota authorisations shall be accompanied by an affidavit by the applicant containing a commitment to:\n(a)\nassign the products concerned to the prescribed processing within one year from the date on which the customs declaration for release for free circulation, containing the exact description of the goods and the TARIC codes, was accepted by the competent customs authorities;\n(b)\nkeep adequate records in the Member State where the authorisation was granted enabling the Licence Office to carry out any checks which they consider necessary to ensure that the products are actually assigned to the prescribed processing, and to retain such records; for the purpose of this subparagraph, \u2018records\u2019 means the data containing all the necessary information and technical details on whatever medium, enabling the Licence Offices to supervise and control operations;\n(c)\nenable the Licence Office to trace the products concerned to their satisfaction in the premises of the undertaking concerned throughout their processing;\n(d)\nnotify the Licence Office of all factors which may affect the authorisation.\n4. Where the products concerned are transferred, the applicant shall provide sufficient evidence of their assignment to the prescribed processing in accordance with paragraph 3(a).\n5. Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (5) shall apply.\n6. Non-compliance with the commitment referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article, by the importer or by any natural or legal person to whom the importer subsequently transfers such products, shall be considered as equivalent to an unused quota authorisation, in accordance with Article 13, for the relevant amount of products.\n7. The Commission shall publish a list of the Licence Offices in the Official Journal of the European Union and update it as necessary.\nCHAPTER 5\nPROOF OF ACTUAL IMPORTS\nArticle 11\n1. Not later than 15 calendar days after the end of each third month, the importers shall inform the Licence Office of the Member State from which they received a quota authorisation of their actual imports of covered products into that Member State during the last three months. For that purpose, the importer shall provide the Licence Office with a copy of the customs declarations of the imports concerned.\n2. Where the quantity recorded in the customs declaration is measured free of bark and the quantity mentioned in entry 9 of the quota authorisation form includes bark, the importer shall provide the Licence Office, in addition to the information provided in paragraph 1, and within the same time limit, with correct import quantities for each customs declaration, that take account of the bark. The correct quantities shall be established by application of the correction coefficients set out in Annex III.\nCHAPTER 6\nUNUSED QUOTA AUTHORISATIONS\nArticle 12\n1. Where a quota authorisation remains unused after six months of its issuing, the importer shall either return it to the Licence Office, or shall notify the Licence Office of its intention to use it within the remainder of the quota period. Where a quota authorisation has been issued before the beginning of the quota period in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol, the six-month time limit shall be counted as from 1 January of the year corresponding to the quota period.\n2. The Licence Offices shall immediately notify the Commission of any quota authorisation returned by importers in accordance with paragraph 1. The balance of traditional importers\u2019 ceilings available for the product group concerned shall be modified for the corresponding amount.\nArticle 13\n1. Where the actual imports by a traditional importer of covered products during quota period n-1 are lesser than 85 % of the quantities covered by all quota authorisations granted to such importer during the same quota period, the importer\u2019s import ceilings for both product groups during quota period n+1 shall be reduced by an amount proportional to the size of missing actual imports.\n2. The reduction referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated as follows:\nri = (0,85 * \u03a3\u0391i - Ii)/\u03a3\u0391i\nwhere:\n\u2018ri\u2019 represents the reduction applicable to import ceilings of importer i, for both product groups, during the quota period n+1;\n\u2018\u03a3\u0391i\u2019 represents the sum of quota authorisations granted to the traditional importer i during the quota period n-1;\n\u2018Ii\u2019 represents the actual imports of covered products of importer i during the quota period n-1.\nArticle 14\n1. Where a quota authorisation that has not been returned after six months of its issuing pursuant to Article 12 remains unused at the end of quota period n-1, the importer\u2019s import ceilings for both product groups during quota period n+1 shall be reduced by twice the amount proportional to the size of the unused quota authorisation.\n2. The reduction referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated as follows:\nRi = 2 * (\u03a3Ui/\u03a3\u0391i)\nwhere:\n\u2018Ri\u2019 represents the reduction applicable to the import ceiling of importer i, for both product groups, during quota period n+1;\n\u2018\u03a3Ui\u2019 represents the sum of unused quota authorisations granted to importer i during the quota period n-1;\n\u2018\u03a3\u0391i\u2019 represents the sum of quota authorisations granted to importer i, for both product groups, during the quota period n-1.\nArticle 15\nShould the conditions for reduction of import ceilings provided for in Articles 13 and 14 be both met simultaneously, only the higher reduction (Ri or ri) shall be applied.\nCHAPTER 7\nTRANSITIONAL MEASURES APPLYING TO THE FIRST THREE QUOTA PERIODS\nArticle 16\n1. The allocation method set out in Article 4 of this Regulation shall apply to the entire first quota period of application of this Regulation. During this quota period, the provisions of Chapter 6 shall not apply.\n2. Articles 17 to 19 shall apply during the first three quota periods of application of this Regulation.\nArticle 17\n1. The reference period provided for in Article 5(4) of the Protocol shall be, at the choice of the importer, year 2004, year 2007, or the combination of both years.\n2. Importers claiming status of traditional importer shall specify which of the three options provided for in paragraph 1 is retained for the calculation of their ceilings, in accordance with Article 6, not later than 20 calendar days after the entry into force of this Regulation.\n3. The reference period retained by each importer in accordance with paragraph 2 shall apply to all the first three quota periods of application of this Regulation.\nArticle 18\n1. Importers claiming status of traditional importer shall inform the Licence Office(s) of the Member State(s) from which they intend to request quota authorisations, not later than 20 calendar days after the entry into force of this Regulation, of their actual imports of covered products into that Member State(s) during the reference period retained in accordance with Article 17(2). In order to substantiate such actual import claims, the importer shall provide the Licence Office with a copy of the customs declarations of the imports concerned.\n2. The Licence Offices shall provide the Commission, not later than 35 calendar days after the entry into force of this Regulation, with a summary of actual imports of covered products notified to them in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article. Such summary shall be submitted in an electronic spreadsheet format, in conformity with the template set out in Annex V.\nArticle 19\n1. Where a single year is retained pursuant to Article 17(2), the variable \u012ai referred to in Article 6(2) shall represent the importer\u2019s actual imports of the product group concerned during such year.\n2. Where the combination of both 2004 and 2007 is retained pursuant to Article 17(2), the variable \u012ai referred to in Article 6(2) shall represent the average of the importer\u2019s actual imports of the product group concerned in years 2004 and 2007, calculated as follows:\n[(Actual imports in 2004) + (Actual imports in 2007)]/2.\n3. The Commission shall inform the Licence Offices of the ceilings resulting from the calculations made according to Article 6(2) not later than 65 calendar days after the entry into force of this Regulation.\n4. In case the ceilings referred to in Article 6 have not been calculated by the time the Agreement and the Protocol are applied on a provisional basis, the tariff quotas per product group shall be allocated to all importers in accordance with the allocation procedure referred to in Article 3(b) until the Commission has notified the Licence Offices that the ceilings have been established and that the allocation procedure referred to in Article 3(b) has ended. For the purposes of this paragraph, each importer shall be granted a maximum of 2,5 % of the tariff quota for each product group.\nCHAPTER 8\nArticle 20\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall cease to apply on the date on which the Protocol ceases to be applied provisionally.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 June 2012.", "references": ["82", "51", "99", "29", "19", "3", "83", "62", "80", "33", "13", "76", "59", "61", "94", "85", "55", "89", "0", "71", "30", "81", "32", "73", "15", "25", "35", "14", "31", "75", "No Label", "21", "22", "88", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "88", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 16 September 2011\non establishing a common fiscal marker for gas oils and kerosene\n(notified under document C(2011) 6422)\n(2011/544/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 95/60/EC of 27 November 1995 on fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene (1), and in particular Article 2(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor the proper functioning of the internal market, and in particular to prevent tax evasion, Directive 95/60/EC provides for a common marking system to identify gas oils, falling within CN code 2710 00 69, and kerosene, falling within CN code 2710 00 55, which have been released for consumption exempt from excise duty, or subject to a reduced excise duty rate. Since 2002, the first code has been split into CN codes 2710 19 41, 2710 19 45 and 2710 19 49, in order to take into account the sulphur content of gas oil, and the second code has been transposed as CN code 2710 19 25.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2006/428/EC of 22 June 2006 establishing a common fiscal marker for gas oils and kerosene (2) established the product identified by the scientific name N-ethyl-N-[2-(1-isobutoxyethoxy)ethyl]-4-(phenylazo)aniline (Solvent Yellow 124) as the common fiscal marker provided for by Directive 95/60/EC, for the marking of gas oils and kerosene which have not borne duty at the full rate applicable to such energy products used as propellant.\n(3)\nArticle 2 of Decision 2006/428/EC requires that Decision 2006/428/EC be reviewed by 31 December 2011 at the latest, in the light of technical developments in the field of marking systems and taking into account the need to counteract fraudulent use of mineral oils exempt from excise duty, or subject to a reduced excise duty rate.\n(4)\nAs part of the review process, a consultation of the Member States was undertaken. Member States are generally satisfied that Solvent Yellow 124 has met its objectives of counteracting fraudulent use of mineral oils exempt from excise duty, or subject to a reduced excise duty rate.\n(5)\nNo problems have been reported with regard to the health and environmental effects of the use of Solvent Yellow 124.\n(6)\nNo alternative product, as a potential replacement for Solvent Yellow 124, meeting all the criteria under which Solvent Yellow 124 was selected as the common fiscal marker, has been presented or supported so far with the relevant scientific information.\n(7)\nSolvent Yellow 124 should continue to be used as the common fiscal marker within the meaning of Directive 95/60/EC and subject to the conditions set out in that Directive.\n(8)\nThis Decision does not release any undertaking from its obligations under Article 102 of the Treaty.\n(9)\nThe opportunities offered by future developments in science should be taken into account by setting a time limit for the review of this Decision.\n(10)\nHowever, a review of this Decision should be undertaken at any time prior to this time limit if Solvent Yellow 124 is found to be giving rise to increased tax evasion or to be causing additional health or environmental damage.\n(11)\nIn the interests of clarity and transparency, Decision 2006/428/EC should be replaced.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Excise Duty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe common fiscal marker provided for by Directive 95/60/EC for the marking of all gas oils falling within CN codes 2710 19 41, 2710 19 45, and 2710 19 49, as well as of kerosene falling within CN code 2710 19 25, shall be Solvent Yellow 124, as specified in the Annex to this Decision.\nMember States shall fix a marking level of at least 6 mg and not more than 9 mg of marker per liter of mineral oil.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be reviewed by 31 December 2016 at the latest, taking into account technical developments in the field of marking systems and the need to counteract fraudulent use of energy products exempt from excise duty or subject to a reduced excise duty rate.\nAn earlier review shall be undertaken if it is found that Solvent Yellow 124 is giving rise to increased tax evasion or causing additional health or environmental damage.\nArticle 3\nDecision 2006/428/EC is repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 September 2011.", "references": ["15", "23", "54", "93", "14", "91", "58", "10", "75", "71", "65", "48", "28", "18", "39", "25", "46", "8", "67", "6", "30", "66", "27", "32", "64", "73", "86", "22", "89", "79", "No Label", "12", "34", "76", "80"], "gold": ["12", "34", "76", "80"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 16/2012\nof 11 January 2012\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the requirements concerning frozen food of animal origin intended for human consumption\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business operators. Food business operators are required to comply with the requirements set out in Annex II thereto.\n(2)\nExperience gained since the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 has exposed certain difficulties as regards the storage of food of animal origin. If the date of initial freezing of such food was indicated, food business operators would be better able to judge the suitability of the food for human consumption.\n(3)\nDirective 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (2) concerns the labelling of foodstuffs to be delivered as such to the final consumer and certain aspects relating to the presentation and advertising thereof. However, that Directive does not apply to prior stages of food production.\n(4)\nIn addition, the enforcement of compliance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 by the competent authorities has revealed that more detailed requirements regarding the production and freezing of food of animal origin in the stages of production prior to its delivery as such to the final consumer are necessary.\n(5)\nAccordingly, Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 should be amended in order to include requirements applicable to frozen food of animal origin.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 January 2012.", "references": ["90", "46", "48", "85", "84", "82", "19", "0", "88", "57", "4", "30", "13", "61", "87", "92", "78", "58", "24", "99", "77", "79", "6", "80", "89", "52", "35", "40", "91", "11", "No Label", "38", "69", "72", "74"], "gold": ["38", "69", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 577/2010\nof 30 June 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 572/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 June 2010.", "references": ["17", "49", "85", "42", "75", "57", "58", "11", "29", "70", "7", "81", "66", "46", "80", "60", "0", "4", "90", "47", "45", "19", "79", "32", "94", "64", "86", "93", "15", "59", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 6 July 2011\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency measures taken to combat avian influenza in Italy in 2009\n(notified under document C(2011) 4774)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(2011/401/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3) first and second indents of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nArticle 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2010/148/EU of 5 March 2010 on a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France and Italy in 2009 (3) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Italy in 2009.\n(5)\nOn 24 March 2010, Italy submitted an official request for reimbursement in the amount of EUR 966 694,15 as set out in Article 7(1) and 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(6)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines. The Commission\u2019s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Italy by e-mail dated 14 February 2011. An amount of EUR 552 110,80 has been deemed non-eligible in accordance with the eligibility rules of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005. Italy agreed by e-mail dated 16 March 2011.\n(7)\nThe Italian authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(8)\nIn view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of avian influenza in Italy in 2009 should now be fixed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating avian influenza in Italy in 2009 is fixed at EUR 414 583,35.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision constituting a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2011.", "references": ["48", "5", "78", "30", "6", "70", "92", "34", "88", "16", "86", "25", "31", "85", "76", "74", "98", "13", "93", "36", "68", "87", "17", "75", "14", "69", "26", "2", "11", "23", "No Label", "4", "10", "38", "59", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "38", "59", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 117/2011\nof 9 February 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 108/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 February 2011.", "references": ["23", "16", "44", "30", "96", "7", "3", "65", "2", "39", "80", "88", "78", "51", "89", "32", "52", "25", "4", "13", "28", "91", "86", "57", "68", "5", "64", "98", "26", "84", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1016/2011\nof 23 September 2011\noperating deductions from fishing quotas available for certain stocks in 2011, on account of overfishing of those stocks in the previous year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Article 105(1) and (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFishing quotas for the year 2010 have been established by:\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (2),\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1226/2009 of 20 November 2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2010 (3),\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1287/2009 of 27 November 2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and the conditions relating thereto for certain fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea for 2010 (4), and\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required and amending Regulations (EC) No 1359/2008, (EC) No 754/2009, (EC) No 1226/2009 and (EC) No 1287/2009 (5).\n(2)\nFishing quotas for the year 2011 have been established by:\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 of 29 November 2010 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea (6),\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (7),\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1256/2010 of 17 December 2010 fixing the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea for 2011 (8), and\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (9).\n(3)\nAccording to paragraph 1 of Article 105 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, when the Commission has established that a Member State has exceeded the fishing quotas which have been allocated to it, it shall operate deductions from future fishing quotas of that Member State.\n(4)\nParagraphs 2 and 3 of Article 105 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 provide that such deductions shall be operated in the following year or years by applying certain multiplying factors as set out therein.\n(5)\nCertain Member States have exceeded their fishing quotas for the year 2010. It is therefore appropriate to operate deductions on the fishing quotas allocated to them in 2011 and, where appropriate, in subsequent years, for the overfished stocks.\n(6)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1004/2010 (10) has operated deductions from fishing quotas for 2010. However, for certain Member States the deductions to be applied were higher than their respective 2010 quota and could therefore not be operated entirely in that year. To ensure that also in such cases the full amount be deducted, the remaining quantities should be taken into account when establishing deductions from 2011 and, where appropriate, subsequent quotas.\n(7)\nDeductions provided for by this Regulation should apply without prejudice to deductions applicable to 2011 quotas pursuant to:\n-\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 147/2007 of 15 February 2007 adapting certain fish quotas from 2007 to 2012 pursuant to Article 23(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (11),\n-\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 635/2008 of 3 July 2008 adapting the cod fishing quotas to be allocated to Poland in the Baltic Sea (Subdivisions 25-32, EC Waters) from 2008 to 2011 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/2008 (12),\n-\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 165/2011 of 22 February 2011 providing for deductions from certain mackerel quotas allocated to Spain in 2011 and subsequent years on account of overfishing in 2010 (13), and\n-\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1021/2011 of 14 October 2011 operating deductions from fishing quotas available for certain stocks in 2011, on account of overfishing of other stocks in the previous year (14),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe fishing quotas fixed in Regulations (EU) No 1124/2010, (EU) No 1225/2010, (EU) No 1256/2010, and (EU) No 57/2011 for the year 2011 are reduced as shown in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThe fishing quotas that may be allocated to Member States in 2012 and, where appropriate, in subsequent years shall be reduced as shown in the Annex.\nArticle 3\nArticles 1 and 2 shall apply without prejudice to reductions provided for in Regulations (EC) No 147/2007, (EC) No 635/2008, (EU) No 165/2011 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1021/2011.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2011.", "references": ["27", "57", "91", "30", "44", "50", "52", "37", "18", "42", "82", "45", "10", "7", "51", "54", "13", "12", "40", "66", "36", "48", "29", "60", "59", "4", "6", "2", "41", "77", "No Label", "58", "67"], "gold": ["58", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1247/2010\nof 21 December 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1230/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2010.", "references": ["51", "24", "96", "52", "16", "84", "77", "65", "7", "9", "59", "81", "19", "25", "89", "82", "63", "30", "94", "68", "41", "4", "15", "97", "92", "48", "50", "76", "27", "46", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 31 December 2010\non the paying-up of capital, transfer of foreign reserve assets and contributions by Eesti Pank to the European Central Bank\u2019s reserves and provisions\n(ECB/2010/34)\n(2011/23/EU)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the \u2018Statute of the ESCB\u2019), and in particular Articles 30.1, 30.3, 48.1 and 48.2 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 1 of Council Decision 2010/416/EU of 13 July 2010 in accordance with Article 140(2) of the Treaty on the adoption by Estonia of the euro on 1 January 2011 (1), Estonia fulfils the necessary conditions for adoption of the euro and the derogation granted to it pursuant to Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession (2) will be abrogated with effect from 1 January 2011.\n(2)\nArticle 48.1 of the Statute of the ESCB provides that the national central bank (NCB) of a Member State whose derogation has been abrogated must pay up its subscribed share of the capital of the European Central Bank (ECB) to the same extent as the NCBs of the other Member States whose currency is the euro. The weighting of Eesti Pank in the ECB\u2019s capital key is 0,1790 %, pursuant to Article 2 of Decision ECB/2008/23 of 12 December 2008 on the national central banks\u2019 percentage shares in the key for subscription to the European Central Bank\u2019s capital (3). Eesti Pank has already paid up part of its share in the ECB\u2019s subscribed capital, pursuant to Article 1 of Decision ECB/2010/28 of 13 December 2010 on the paying-up of the European Central Bank\u2019s capital by the non-euro area national central banks (4).\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 1 of Decision ECB/2010/26 of 13 December 2010 on the increase of the European Central Bank\u2019s capital (5) the ECB\u2019s capital has been increased by EUR 5 000 000 000 from EUR 5 760 652 402,58 to EUR 10 760 652 402,58 with effect from 29 December 2010. Pursuant to Article 1 of Decision ECB/2010/27 of 13 December 2010 on the paying-up of the increase of the European Central Bank\u2019s capital by the national central banks of Member States whose currency is the euro (6) the increased capital must be paid up in three equal annual instalments.\n(4)\nAccordingly, Eesti Pank should pay up the remaining parts of its share in the ECB\u2019s subscribed capital, which correspond to EUR 18 539 259,01 as follows: on 3 January 2011 an amount of EUR 9 589 259,01 which results from multiplying the ECB\u2019s subscribed capital on 28 December 2010 (EUR 5 760 652 402,58) by the capital key weighting of Eesti Pank (0,1790 %), minus the part of its share in the ECB\u2019s subscribed capital that has already been paid up in accordance with Decision ECB/2010/27 and a further amount of EUR 8 950 000,00 which results from multiplying the amount of the increase of the ECB\u2019s subscribed capital (EUR 5 000 000 000) by the capital key weighting of Eesti Pank. Eesti Pank should pay the latter amount in three equal instalments. The first instalment is to be paid up together with the amount of EUR 9 589 259,01 and the other two instalments of EUR 2 983 333,33 each two business days before the last TARGET2 operating day of 2011 and 2012.\n(5)\nArticle 48.1, in conjunction with Article 30.1, of the Statute of the ESCB provides that the NCB of a Member State whose derogation has been abrogated must also transfer foreign reserve assets to the ECB. Pursuant to Article 48.1 of the Statute of the ESCB, the sum to be transferred is determined by multiplying the euro value at current exchange rates of the foreign reserve assets which have already been transferred to the ECB in accordance with Article 30.1 of the Statute of the ESCB, by the ratio between the number of shares subscribed by the NCB concerned and the number of shares already paid up by the NCBs of the other Member States whose currency is the euro. When determining the \u2018foreign reserve assets which have already been transferred to the ECB in accordance with Article 30.1\u2019, due account should be taken of previous capital key adjustments (7) pursuant to Article 29.3 of the Statute of the ESCB and the ECB capital key expansions pursuant to Article 48.3 of the Statute of the ESCB (8). As a result, pursuant to Decision ECB/2008/27 of 12 December 2008 laying down the measures necessary for the contribution to the European Central Bank\u2019s accumulated equity value and for adjusting the national central banks\u2019 claims equivalent to the transferred foreign reserve assets (9), the euro equivalent of the foreign reserve assets which have already been transferred to the ECB pursuant to Article 30.1 of the Statute of the ESCB is EUR 145 853 596,60.\n(6)\nThe foreign reserve assets to be transferred by Eesti Pank should be in or be denominated in Japanese yen and gold.\n(7)\nArticle 30.3 of the Statute of the ESCB provides that the ECB must credit each NCB of a Member State whose currency is the euro with a claim equivalent to the foreign reserve assets that it has transferred to the ECB. The provisions regarding the denomination and remuneration of the claims that have already been credited to the NCBs of the Member States whose currency is the euro (10) should also apply to the denomination and remuneration of the claims of Eesti Pank.\n(8)\nArticle 48.2 of the Statute of the ESCB provides that the NCB of a Member State whose derogation has been abrogated must contribute to the ECB\u2019s reserves, to those provisions equivalent to reserves, and to the amount still to be appropriated to the reserves and provisions corresponding to the balance of the profit and loss account as at 31 December of the year prior to abrogation of the derogation. The amount of this contribution is determined in accordance with Article 48.2 of the Statute of the ESCB.\n(9)\nBy analogy with Article 3.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank (11), the Governor of Eesti Pank has had the opportunity to make observations on this Decision before its adoption,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision:\n(a)\n\u2018foreign reserve assets\u2019 means gold or cash;\n(b)\n\u2018gold\u2019 means fine troy ounces of gold in the form of London Good Delivery bars, as specified by the London Bullion Market Association;\n(c)\n\u2018cash\u2019 means the lawful currency of Japan (Japanese yen).\nArticle 2\nExtent and form of paid-up capital\n1. Eesti Pank shall pay up the remaining parts of its share in the ECB\u2019s subscribed capital, which correspond to EUR 18 539 259,01.\n2. Eesti Pank shall pay to the ECB on 3 January 2011 a first instalment of EUR 12 572 592,35 by means of a separate transfer via the Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross settlement Express Transfer system (TARGET2). Eesti Pank shall pay two further instalments of EUR 2 983 333,33 each two business days before the last TARGET2 operating day of 2011 and 2012.\n3. Eesti Pank shall pay to the ECB on 3 January 2011, by a separate TARGET2 transfer, the interest accrued on 1 and 2 January 2011 on the amount due to the ECB under the first sentence of paragraph 2. This interest shall be calculated on a daily basis, using the actual over-360-day method of calculation, at a rate equal to the marginal interest rate used by the Eurosystem in its most recent main refinancing operation.\nArticle 3\nTransfer of foreign reserve assets\n1. Eesti Pank shall transfer to the ECB, with effect from 1 January 2011 and in accordance with this Article and the arrangements taken pursuant to it, an amount of foreign reserve assets denominated in Japanese yen and gold that is equivalent to EUR 145 853 596,60 as follows:\nEuro-equivalent amount of Japanese yen in cash\nEuro-equivalent amount of gold\nAggregate euro-equivalent amount\n123 975 557,11\n21 878 039,49\n145 853 596,60\n2. The euro-equivalent amount of foreign reserve assets to be transferred by Eesti Pank under paragraph 1 shall be calculated on the basis of the exchange rates between the euro and the Japanese yen established as a result of the 24-hour written consultation procedure on 31 December 2010 between the Eurosystem and Eesti Pank and, in the case of gold, on the basis of the US dollar price of gold per fine troy ounce established in the London gold fixing at 10.30 a.m., London time, on 31 December 2010.\n3. The ECB shall confirm to Eesti Pank as soon as possible the amount calculated in accordance with paragraph 2.\n4. Eesti Pank shall transfer to the ECB Japanese yen in cash.\n5. The transfer of cash shall take place to such accounts as are specified by the ECB. The settlement date for the cash to be transferred to the ECB shall be 4 January 2011. Eesti Pank shall give instructions to execute such transfer to the ECB.\n6. The value of the gold which Eesti Pank transfers to the ECB in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be as close as possible to, but no more than, EUR 21 878 039,49.\n7. Eesti Pank shall transfer the gold referred to in paragraph 1 in uninvested form to such accounts and such locations as are specified by the ECB. The settlement date for the gold to be transferred to the ECB shall be 6 January 2011. Eesti Pank shall give instructions to effect such transfer to the ECB.\n8. If Eesti Pank transfers gold to the ECB with a value of less than the amount specified in paragraph 1, then on 6 January 2011 it shall transfer an amount of Japanese yen cash equivalent to the shortfall to an account of the ECB as specified by the ECB. Any such Japanese yen cash shall not form part of the foreign reserve assets denominated in Japanese yen which Eesti Pank transfers to the ECB in accordance with the left column of the table included in paragraph 1.\n9. The difference, if any, between the aggregate euro-equivalent amount mentioned in paragraph 1 and the amount mentioned in Article 4(1) shall be settled in accordance with the Agreement of 31 December 2010 between Eesti Pank and the European Central Bank regarding the claim credited to Eesti Pank by the European Central Bank pursuant to Article 30.3 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (12).\nArticle 4\nDenomination, remuneration and maturity of the claims equivalent to the contributions\n1. With effect from 1 January 2011, and subject to the specifications in Article 3 regarding the settlement dates of the transfers of foreign reserve assets, the ECB shall credit Eesti Pank with a claim denominated in euro, equivalent to the aggregate euro amount of its contribution of foreign reserve assets. This claim corresponds to EUR 103 115 678,01.\n2. The claim credited by the ECB to Eesti Pank shall be remunerated from the settlement date. The interest accruing shall be calculated on a daily basis, using the actual over-360-day method of calculation, at a rate equivalent to 85 % of the marginal interest rate used by the Eurosystem in its most recent main refinancing operation.\n3. The claim shall be remunerated at the end of each financial year. Each quarter the ECB shall inform Eesti Pank of the cumulative amount.\n4. The claim shall not be redeemable.\nArticle 5\nContributions to the ECB\u2019s reserves and provisions\n1. With effect from 1 January 2011 and in accordance with Article 3(5) and (6), Eesti Pank shall contribute to the ECB\u2019s reserves, to those provisions equivalent to reserves, and to the amount still to be appropriated to the reserves and provisions corresponding to the balance of the profit and loss account at 31 December 2010.\n2. The amounts to be contributed by Eesti Pank shall be determined in accordance with Article 48.2 of the Statute of the ESCB. The references in Article 48.2 to \u2018the number of shares subscribed by the central bank concerned\u2019 and \u2018the number of shares already paid up by the other central banks\u2019 shall refer to the weighting of Eesti Pank, and the NCBs of the other Member States whose currency is the euro in the ECB\u2019s capital key, pursuant to Decision ECB/2008/23.\n3. For the purposes of paragraph 1, \u2018the ECB\u2019s reserves\u2019 and \u2018provisions equivalent to reserves\u2019 shall include the ECB\u2019s general reserve fund, balances on revaluation accounts and provisions for foreign exchange rate, interest rate, credit, market price and gold price risks.\n4. At the latest on the first working day following the Governing Council\u2019s approval of the ECB\u2019s annual accounts for the year 2010, the ECB shall calculate and confirm to Eesti Pank the amount to be contributed by Eesti Pank under paragraph 1.\n5. On the second working day following the Governing Council\u2019s approval of the ECB\u2019s annual accounts for the year 2010, Eesti Pank shall, via TARGET2, pay to the ECB:\n(a)\nthe amount due to the ECB under paragraph 4; and\n(b)\nthe interest accrued from 1 January 2011 until the payment date on the amount due to the ECB under paragraph 4.\n6. Any interest accruing under paragraph 5(b) shall be calculated on a daily basis, using the actual over-360-day method of calculation, at a rate equal to the marginal interest rate used by the Eurosystem in its most recent main refinancing operation.\nArticle 6\nCompetencies\n1. To the extent necessary, the ECB\u2019s Executive Board shall issue instructions to Eesti Pank to further specify and give effect to any provision of this Decision and to provide for appropriate remedies to address any problems that may arise.\n2. Any instruction issued by the Executive Board under paragraph 1 shall be promptly notified to the Governing Council, and the Executive Board shall comply with any decision of the Governing Council thereon.\nArticle 7\nFinal provision\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 31 December 2010.", "references": ["22", "24", "34", "38", "88", "35", "41", "76", "72", "91", "42", "85", "48", "71", "31", "67", "11", "55", "39", "56", "36", "92", "94", "32", "64", "75", "77", "86", "65", "37", "No Label", "7", "23", "28", "30", "44", "47"], "gold": ["7", "23", "28", "30", "44", "47"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 322/2011\nof 31 March 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for anglerfish in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["54", "26", "65", "35", "93", "39", "81", "98", "94", "64", "92", "99", "79", "29", "80", "7", "3", "36", "8", "27", "83", "74", "38", "60", "41", "82", "73", "86", "63", "19", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 967/2010\nof 27 October 2010\nclosing the sale provided for in Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 opening the sale of butter by a tendering procedure\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction of Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSales by a tendering procedure of butter entered into storage before 1 October 2009 were open by Commission Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 (2) in accordance with the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nGiven the current situation on the butter market and in particular the situation of the intervention stocks of butter and the fact that certain quantities of butter are reserved under the scheme for food distribution to the most deprived scheme in the Union, the sales open by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 should be closed.\n(3)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe sales by a tendering procedure of butter, open by Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 446/2010, are closed.\nOffers received by the intervention agencies of the Member States after 11.00 (Brussels time) on and after 19 October 2010 are rejected.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2010.", "references": ["89", "12", "68", "32", "84", "29", "96", "95", "5", "15", "47", "4", "93", "9", "64", "85", "62", "2", "57", "59", "81", "28", "60", "46", "66", "14", "88", "51", "67", "65", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 2 May 2011\nappointing one Bulgarian member of the European Economic and Social Committee\n(2011/268/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Bulgarian Government,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 13 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Jeliazko CHRISTOV,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nMr Ivan KOKALOV, Vice-President of \u041a\u041d\u0421\u0411 (CITUB, Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Bulgaria), is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which is until 20 September 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 2 May 2011.", "references": ["90", "36", "27", "81", "49", "71", "76", "89", "26", "60", "35", "77", "21", "28", "0", "74", "67", "66", "20", "46", "69", "2", "82", "25", "64", "58", "56", "16", "6", "59", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 7 September 2012\namending Decision 2008/899/EC accepting the undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of citric acid originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\n(2012/501/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. EXISTING MEASURES\n(1)\nThe Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1193/2008 (2), imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports into the Union of citric acid originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Commission, by Decision 2008/899/EC (3) (\u2018the Decision\u2019), accepted a price undertaking (\u2018the undertaking\u2019), inter alia, from Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co. Ltd (\u2018Laiwu Taihe\u2019) together with the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals & Chemicals Importers & Exporters (\u2018CCCMC\u2019).\n(3)\nThe undertaking accepted from Laiwu Taihe, the sole company which was accorded market economy treatment (\u2018MET\u2019), set the minimum import price (\u2018MIP\u2019) for the product covered on the basis of the normal value established during the investigation. In addition, the undertaking provided for the indexation of the MIP in accordance with public international quotations of corn, the main raw material used by the exporting producer.\n(4)\nThe company also undertook to report and to respect a certain price regime for all non-Union sales to those customers whose organisation or structure extends beyond the Union, should Laiwu Taihe sell to these customers in the Union.\n(5)\nFurthermore, Laiwu Taihe also agreed to provide the Commission with regular and detailed information concerning its exports to the Union as one of the means by which the undertaking can be monitored effectively by the Commission.\n(6)\nWhen accepting the undertaking, the Commission considered the risk of cross-compensation as limited.\nB. CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES\n(7)\nIn autumn 2011, Laiwu Taihe informed the Commission of its intention to start the production of additional types of the product concerned which are not covered by the undertaking and sell them on the Union market subject to anti-dumping duties.\n(8)\nThe Commission analysed the implications of this new pattern in trade and considered that there is a high risk of cross-compensation if the product covered and the additional types of the product concerned not covered by the undertaking are sold to the same customers.\n(9)\nIn addition, the Commission also learnt about a potential trading company, located at the same premises as Laiwu Taihe without being subject to reporting obligations, and considered it as a further difficulty in the effective monitoring of the undertaking. The Commission informed Laiwu Taihe accordingly and announced that it would be inclined to consider the withdrawal of the undertaking.\n(10)\nSubsequently, Laiwu Taihe offered to sell these additional types of the product concerned respecting the MIP of the product type covered by the undertaking. It also proposed to sell these product types directly to the Union and to extend the reporting obligations to these sales.\n(11)\nThe Commission considers that these commitments cannot alter its initial assessment for the following reasons. Firstly, setting a price discipline for the types of the product concerned that the company did not produce during the original investigation period would mean a revision of the scope of the product covered by the undertaking, which should be subject to an interim review to reset the MIP. Otherwise, the high risk of cross-compensation in relation to the product type covered by the undertaking and the other types of the product concerned, when sold to the same customers, would persist. Secondly, the sales to other traders and the increased amount of information to be received under the expanded reporting obligations resulting from the sales of the additional types of the product concerned would render the monitoring of the undertaking very burdensome.\n(12)\nBased on the above considerations, the Commission concluded that following the change in the product variety, the undertaking accepted from Laiwu Taihe becomes impracticable and should be withdrawn.\n(13)\nLaiwu Taihe was informed of the Commission\u2019s conclusions and given an opportunity to comment.\n(14)\nLaiwu Taihe was granted the opportunity to be heard and written submissions were also received in which Laiwu Taihe reiterated its commitments, namely to make all sales of the additional product types respecting the MIP set for the product type covered by the undertaking, only to sell directly to the EU customers without intermediary domestic trade companies in the People\u2019s Republic of China and to provide all export sales documents concerning the two additional product types. In addition, it claimed that the commitment to sell the new product types at or above the MIP of the product covered would not imply a revision of the scope of the product covered which is only possible through an interim review. Moreover, Laiwu Taihe suggested that the Commission services would carry out a verification visit at its premises, inter alia, to verify Laiwu Taihe\u2019s production cost data.\n(15)\nThe Commission considers that the submissions do not bring new elements to its assessment. In particular, it is assessed that setting a price for product types which had not been subject to the original investigation due to lack of production cannot eliminate the risk of cross-compensation as such a price had not been established or even verified. As regards the suggested verification of, inter alia, Laiwu Taihe\u2019s production cost structure, this was considered to be reserved to a possible interim review, if requested.\nC. AMENDMENT OF DECISION 2008/899/EC\n(16)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation and also in accordance with the relevant clauses of the undertaking authorising the Commission to unilaterally withdraw the undertaking, the Commission has concluded that the acceptance of the undertaking offered by Laiwu Taihe together with CCCMC should be withdrawn and Decision 2008/899/EC should be amended. Accordingly, the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1193/2008 on imports of the product concerned produced by Laiwu Taihe (Taric additional code A880) should apply,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAcceptance of the undertaking in relation to Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co. Ltd together with the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals and Chemicals Importers and Exporters (Taric additional code A880) is hereby withdrawn.\nArticle 2\nThe table of Article 1 in Decision 2008/899/EC is replaced by the following table:\n\u2018Country\nCompanies\nTaric additional code\nPeople\u2019s Republic of China\nCOFCO Biochemical (Anhui) Co., Ltd - No 73 Daquing Road, Bengbu City 233010, Anhui Province\nA874\nManufactured by RZBC Co., Ltd - No 9 Xinghai West Road, Rizhao, Shandong Province and sold by its related sales company RZBC Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd - No 66, Lvzhou South Road, Rizhao (Liangyou Grand View Hotel, 22nd Floor, Building A), Shandong Province\nA926\nManufactured by RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd - West Wing, Chengyang North Road, Ju County, Rizhao, Shandong Province and sold by its related sales company RZBC Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd - No 66, Lvzhou South Road, Rizhao (Liangyou Grand View Hotel, 22nd Floor, Building A), Shandong Province\nA927\nTTCA Co., Ltd - West, Wenhe Bridge North, Anqui City, Shandong Province\nA878\nYixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd - Economic Development Zone Yixing City 214203, Jiangsu Province\nA879\nWeifang Ensign Industry Co., Ltd, Changsheng Street No 1567, Changle, Weifang, Shandong Province\nA882\u2019\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 7 September 2012.", "references": ["28", "97", "21", "74", "53", "98", "41", "84", "65", "64", "34", "27", "17", "73", "16", "54", "29", "35", "92", "72", "86", "36", "31", "37", "18", "91", "45", "57", "39", "94", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 590/2010\nof 5 July 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2005 on the establishment of a Community list of air carriers subject to an operating ban within the European Union and on informing air transport passengers of the identity of the operating air carrier, and repealing Article 9 of Directive 2004/36/CE (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 of 22 March 2006 established the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the European Union referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 (2).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, some Member States communicated to the Commission information that is relevant in the context of updating the Community list. Relevant information was also communicated by third countries. On this basis, the Community list should be updated.\n(3)\nThe Commission informed all air carriers concerned either directly or, when this was not practicable, through the authorities responsible for their regulatory oversight, indicating the essential facts and considerations which would form the basis for a decision to impose on them an operating ban within the European Union or to modify the conditions of an operating ban imposed on an air carrier which is included in the Community list.\n(4)\nOpportunity was given by the Commission to the air carriers concerned to consult the documents provided by Member States, to submit written comments and to make an oral presentation to the Commission within 10 working days and to the Air Safety Committee established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (3).\n(5)\nThe authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight over the air carriers concerned have been consulted by the Commission as well as, in specific cases, by some Member States.\n(6)\nThe Air Safety Committee has heard presentations by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Commission about the technical assistance projects carried out in countries affected by Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005. It has been informed about the requests for further technical assistance and cooperation to improve the administrative and technical capability of civil aviation authorities with a view to resolving any non compliance with applicable international standards.\n(7)\nThe Air Safety Committee has also been informed about enforcement actions taken by EASA and Member States to ensure the continuing airworthiness and maintenance of aircraft registered in the European Union and operated by air carriers certified by civil aviation authorities of third countries.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 474/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nFollowing information resulting from SAFA ramp checks carried out on aircraft of certain European Union air carriers, as well as area specific inspections and audits carried out by their national aviation authorities, some Member States have taken certain enforcement measures. They informed the Commission and the Air Safety Committee about these measures: the competent authorities of the UK revoked the Air Operator Certificate (AOC) of the air carrier Trans Euro Air Limited on 6 April 2010 and suspended the AOC of MK Airlines on 12 April 2010; the competent authorities of Spain suspended the AOC and the operating licence of the air carrier Baleares Link Express on 9 June 2010; the competent authorities of Slovakia revoked the operating licence of the air carrier Seagle Air on 11 December 2009 and that of Air Slovakia on 3 May 2010.\n(10)\nOn the basis of an analysis of the results of SAFA inspections carried out on aircraft operated by Air Alg\u00e9rie into the EU since January 2009, the Commission entered into consultations with the competent authorities of Algeria on 7 December 2009 and 5 February 2010 in order to resolve the findings in the areas of safety of cargo on board, airworthiness and operations of the aircraft and flight crew licences.\n(11)\nIn their reply of 15 March 2010, the competent authorities of Algeria provided information concerning actions taken following ramp inspections in order to address the detected non-compliances.\n(12)\nThe Commission sent further requests for information on 6 May 2010. The competent authorities submitted additional information on 27 May 2010. Following a meeting with the competent authorities of Algeria, the air carrier as well as the competent authorities of France and EASA on 9 June 2010, the competent authorities of Algeria committed themselves to provide complementary information before the meeting of the Air Safety Committee, including a list of surveillance activities carried out by this authority on Air Alg\u00e9rie. Information was sent on 18 June 2010. Also, these authorities undertook to submit shortly a detailed corrective action plan including a time-table for its verification and completion. In parallel, upon request of the air carrier, the competent authorities of France have developed an initiative to raise awareness and provide training in the framework of the EU SAFA programme.\n(13)\nIn order to develop a continuous monitoring of the safety performance of the air carrier, the Commission requested the competent authorities of Algeria to also send monthly reports on their surveillance activities in the areas of continuing airworthiness, maintenance and operations on Air Alg\u00e9rie including on the verification of implementation of the corrective action plan which has to be submitted. The Commission encourages the competent authorities of Algeria to pursue their efforts to enhance compliance with the applicable safety standards.\n(14)\nIn the meantime, Member States shall verify the effective compliance with relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of this carrier pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008 to ensure that the number of inspections of Air Alg\u00e9rie will be intensified in order to provide the basis for reassessment of this case during the next Air Safety Committee meeting which is to take place in November 2010.\n(15)\nThe Commission informed the Air Safety Committee on the results of a technical assistance mission carried out by the European Aviation Safety Agency to the People's Republic of Bangladesh following the ICAO USOAP Audit, conducted in May 2009. The ICAO USOAP Audit resulted in a Significant Safety Concern regarding aircraft operations, certification, and supervision exercised by the Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh (CAAB). It was noted during the mission that the CAAB had made clear efforts at every level to implement a corrective action plan and had demonstrated a strong commitment to overcome the safety issues highlighted by the ICAO audit. Whilst the Commission welcomes these encouraging moves it will continue to closely monitor the progress the CAAB make with the implementation of their corrective action plan to ensure the current safety deficiencies are addressed without undue delay.\n(16)\nDuring the mission the CAAB informed that team that a B747-269B, with registration S2-ADT, had been removed from the Bangladeshi Register, and that the operator Air Bangladesh no longer existed. The CAAB officially communicated this fact to the Commission on 16 May 2010.\n(17)\nIn view of the above, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that the aforementioned air carrier should be removed from Annex B.\n(18)\nThere is verified evidence of serious deficiencies involving the air carrier Blue Wing Airlines certified in Suriname, as demonstrated by a series of recent accidents and deficiencies reported in ramp inspections carried out by Member States.\n(19)\nBlue Wing Airlines was involved in an accident on 3 April 2008 with 19 fatalities, another accident on 15 October 2009 which lead to injuries, and a last accident on 15 May 2010 with 8 fatalities. The overall number of accidents experienced by this air carrier in the last two years raises serious safety concerns whilst it has been impossible to learn the lessons of the previous accidents in the absence of any official accident investigation report.\n(20)\nIn addition, there is verified evidence of serious non-compliances with the specific safety standards established by the Chicago Convention, as revealed by the deficiencies observed by the competent authorities of France in a recent ramp inspection (4) carried out in the framework of the SAFA programme.\n(21)\nThe competent authorities of France (DGAC) invited the competent authorities of Suriname and Blue Wing Airlines to provide the necessary guarantees on the safety of the operations of this carrier. Since neither the response of the competent authorities of Suriname nor of Blue Wing Airlines permitted to identify the root cause of the accidents and the safety deficiencies observed in ramp inspections and to prevent their reoccurrence, the DGAC decided to impose exceptional measures banning all activities of Blue Wing Airlines over the French territory as from 1 June 2010 and undertook to inform immediately the Commission pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 473/2006.\n(22)\nThe Commission initiated immediately the consultations with the competent authorities of Suriname and Blue Wing Airlines with the view to decide urgently on the extension of the measures taken by France to the European Union at the meeting of the Air Safety Committee. The Commission and Member States heard Blue Wing Airlines assisted by its competent authority on 25 June 2010. Neither the responses of the competent authorities of Suriname nor that of Blue Wing Airlines enabled the identification of the root causes of the accidents, nor of the safety deficiencies observed in ramp inspections, nor the prevention of their reoccurrence.\n(23)\nGiven the prior performance of the air carrier, which had already been previously subject to a operating ban within the EU (5), (6), the number and gravity of accidents suffered by this air carrier, the safety deficiencies detected and their repetitiveness, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that the continuation of operations of this air carrier into the EU would constitute a serious risk to safety which cannot be satisfactorily resolved by the measures taken by a Member State pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 and that therefore the air carrier Blue Wing Airlines should be added to Annex A.\n(24)\nFurther to the presentations made by the competent authorities of Albania at the meeting of the Air Safety Committee in March 2010 and pursuant to the provisions of Regulation No 273/2010 (7), the Commission, assisted by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), continued actively the consultations with the competent authorities of Albania to follow-up the results of the comprehensive standardisation inspection of Albania made in January 2010. The final report of this inspection, issued on 7 March 2010, revealed significant deficiencies in all areas audited that needed to be immediately remedied.\n(25)\nEASA informed that the DGCA had presented a comprehensive action plan that was found acceptable and agreed on 29 April 2010. This plan foresees a series of remedial actions to be implemented progressively until the end of 2011, with immediate actions to address the safety deficiencies.\n(26)\nMoreover, the competent authorities of Italy have embarked on a comprehensive twinning project with the competent authorities of Albania which should start in September 2010 to assist these authorities to build its technical and administrative capacity.\n(27)\nThe consultations which were held on 28 May 2010 with the competent authorities of Albania and EASA with the participation of the competent authorities of Italy confirmed that the implementation of this action plan is in progress and in line with its schedule. A first series of actions was completed representing a major change to the previous system: an independent Albanian Civil Aviation Authority (ACAA) was established and is operational since May 2010; the newly established ACAA revoked all previous derogations granted to the industry and ascertained to the undertakings that failure to comply with the applicable legislation by 1 June 2010 would expose them to enforcement actions such as suspension, limitation or revocation of the approvals they held. The ACAA was invited to the Air Safety Committee to report on the recertification of air carriers.\n(28)\nThe ACAA was heard by the Air Safety Committee on 21 June 2010 and confirmed that Belle Air and Albanian Airlines were duly recertified in June 2010 in compliance with the applicable safety rules. They also informed that the AOC of Star Airways was suspended. Furthermore, ACAA committed to refrain from issuing further AOCs until further notice.\n(29)\nACAA is urged to take the necessary actions to continue to implement effectively and timely the action plan agreed with EASA, with priority to the resolution of the deficiencies identified that raise safety concerns if not promptly corrected. The ACAA is invited in particular to speed up its capacity building and to ensure the safety oversight of all air carriers certified in Albania in accordance with the applicable safety regulations and to take enforcement measures as necessary.\n(30)\nACAA committed to report periodically on the progress made in the implementation of its corrective action plan. The Commission, assisted by EASA, and with the support of Member States, will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the actions undertaken by ACAA and the safety performance of air carriers licensed in Albania.\n(31)\nThe competent authorities of Cambodia (SSCA) informed of further progress in the implementation of their corrective action plan established to remedy the deficiencies identified by ICAO during the audit carried out in 2007 in the framework of its Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme.\n(32)\nThe ICAO Coordinated Validation Mission (ICVM) which was conducted from 26 to 29 October 2009 confirmed some progress as the lack of effective implementation of ICAO Standards was evaluated in October 2009 at 58 % down from 71 % in 2007. However the mission also concluded on the need to continue the effective implementation of all corrective actions, notably with regard to the organisation of the SSCA and its capacity building.\n(33)\nThe SSCA reported that the remaining air carriers licensed in Cambodia have had their Air Operator Certificate (AOC) been either suspended or revoked. In particular, the AOC of Helicopter Cambodia expired on 15 October 2009 and was not renewed; the AOC of Sokha Airlines was revoked on 27 October 2009; the AOCs of Angkor Airways and PMT Air were revoked on 21 April 2010. As a consequence, ICAO removed the significant safety concern pertaining to the air carriers licensed in the Kingdom of Cambodia (8).\n(34)\nThe SSCA also informed that Siem Reap International Airways, whose AOC is suspended, has been engaged in a recertification process since January 2009. The SSCA stated that the air carrier was given an additional period of 4 months to complete the process, failing which its AOC should be revoked. Given the uncertainty about the situation of Siem Reap International Airways, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that this air carrier should remain in Annex A.\n(35)\nThe Commission takes note of the enforcement measures undertaken by the SSCA and of the progress in the implementation of the corrective action plan aiming at resolving the deficiencies identified by ICAO and is ready to support the capacity building of the competent authorities of the Kingdom of Cambodia through dedicated technical assistance.\n(36)\nAll air carriers certified in the Democratic Republic of Congo are subject to an operational ban within the EU and listed in Annex A. The Commission received information that the competent authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo have issued an Air Operator Certificate to the air carrier Congo Express. The Commission entered into consultations with the competent authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo to obtain confirmation of this information. These authorities did not reply.\n(37)\nAs there is no evidence of any change to the capacity of the competent authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo to ensure the oversight of air carriers licensed in that State in compliance with the applicable safety standards, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Congo Express should be added to Annex A.\n(38)\nOn request of the Commission, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) carried out a technical assistance mission to the Republic of Gabon from 11 to 15 January 2010. The report arising from this mission, issued on 6 April 2010, reveals that the competent authorities of Gabon (ANAC) are working towards the resolution of the deficiencies identified by ICAO in its audit carried out in May 2007 in the framework of the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme. However, the report also highlights the need to continue the capacity building of ANAC through adequate budget and further recruitment and training of qualified inspectors, as well as the need to ensure a robust continuing oversight of air carriers licensed in the Republic of Gabon. The report includes a roadmap, established together with ANAC, detailing the corrective actions necessary and useful in the resolution of ICAO findings. According to this roadmap, the completion of the necessary actions is not expected before the beginning of 2011.\n(39)\nThe competent authorities of Gabon (ANAC) requested to be heard by the Air Safety Committee to present the progress made to date and did so on 21 June 2010. ANAC informed that the legislative framework is currently being revised, with a reform of the civil aviation code, the adoption of which is expected by 31 December 2010, as well as the progressive establishment of a comprehensive set of Gabonese aeronautical regulations (RAG), which will be progressively entered into force by 2011. ANAC reported further progress in its capacity-building, with the recruitment of additional inspectors, 7 of whom are in the process of qualification. Moreover, ANAC reported progress in the oversight of the air carriers and the enforcement of the current safety regulations (RACAM), as demonstrated by the suspension of the AOC of SCD Aviation on 16 October 2009, the warnings addressed to the air carriers Air Service, Gabon Airlines, National Regional Transport, SN2AG and the fines imposed to the air carriers Allegiance and Sky Gabon. The number and the nature of some of the deficiencies identified reveal that further enforcement actions may be necessary, should the air carriers fail to implement the applicable safety standards.\n(40)\nAfrijet Business Services licensed in Gabon requested to be heard by the Air Safety Committee with the view of having the current restrictions imposed on the aircraft of type Falcon 900B with registration mark TR-AFR lifted, and made written submission in that respect. They provided assurance that the operations and the maintenance of the said aircraft are conducted in compliance with the applicable safety standards and this was confirmed by ANAC. Consequently, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that there is no reason to restrict the operations of Afrijet Business Services conducted with the aircraft of type Falcon 900B with registration mark TR-AFR and that this aircraft should be added to the aircraft with which the air carrier is allowed to operate into the EU as per Annex B.\n(41)\nNo evidence of the full implementation of appropriate remedial actions by the air carriers included in the Community list and by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of these air carriers has been communicated to the Commission so far. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these air carriers should continue to be subject to an operating ban (Annex A) or operating restrictions (Annex B), as the case may be.\n(42)\nThe Commission welcomes the progress in the implementation of the corrective action plan aiming at resolving the deficiencies identified by ICAO and in the capacity building of the competent authorities of Gabon and is ready to assist, including via an on-site mission to validate the achievements, once the legislative framework is in place.\n(43)\nThe competent authorities of Indonesia (DGCA) reported major progress towards the resolution of all findings identified by ICAO in its audit carried out in February 2007 in the framework of the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme. The ICAO Coordination and Validation Mission (ICVM) carried out in August 2009 confirmed substantial progress, as demonstrated by a lack of effective implementation of ICAO standards reduced to 20 %. DGCA reported to ICAO on 19 March 2010 the completion of the remaining corrective actions.\n(44)\nDGCA informed on the developments of its safety oversight capability, with a major increase in its budget in 2009 and 2010, the recruitment of 25 additional flight operations inspectors and 8 cabin safety inspectors, complemented by extensive technical assistance from ICAO and from the civil aviation authorities of Australia and of The Netherlands, which permitted to further update the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) and to strengthen the oversight of additional air carriers.\n(45)\nThe competent authorities of Indonesia (DGCA) requested to be heard by the Air Safety Committee with the view to lifting the current restrictions imposed on the following three air carriers: Indonesia Air Asia, Metro Batavia and Lion Air; they made written submissions as well as oral presentations on 22 June 2010.\n(46)\nThe presentations made by Indonesia Air Asia as well as by the DGCA confirmed that this air carrier was recertified on 30 September 2009 in accordance with the CASR and that this carrier is subject to an adequate oversight by the DGCA. The DGCA confirmed that this air carrier fully meets the applicable safety standards. Consequently, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Indonesia Air Asia should be removed from Annex A.\n(47)\nThe presentations made by Metro Batavia as well as by the DGCA confirmed that this air carrier was also recertified on 30 September 2009 in accordance with the CASR and that this carrier is subject to an adequate oversight by the DGCA. The DGCA confirmed that this air carrier fully meets the applicable safety standards. Consequently, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Metro Batavia should be removed from Annex A.\n(48)\nThe presentations made by Lion Air revealed that this air carrier, which is currently operating a fleet of 50 aircraft, experienced 2 accidents and 2 serious incidents since 2004. However, the carrier failed to provide sufficient information on these accidents and incidents and their causes and equally failed to demonstrate that adequate actions had been undertaken to prevent further reoccurrence, in particular in view of the significant development of the fleet which is expected in the coming years. In addition, it was not possible to conclude on an adequate oversight by the DGCA in the field of operations, as demonstrated by the absence of any recorded finding in the course of more than 100 flight operations inspections recorded in 2009 and 2010. Consequently, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Lion Air should remain in Annex A.\n(49)\nNo evidence of the full implementation of appropriate remedial actions by the other air carriers included in the Community list has been communicated to the Commission so far. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these air carriers should continue to be subject to an operating ban (Annex A).\n(50)\nThe Commission encourages the efforts and progress made by the competent authorities of Indonesia towards the sustainable resolution of safety deficiencies.\n(51)\nFurther to Regulation No 273/2010 (9), the Commission continued actively the consultations with the competent authorities of the Philippines (CAAP) on the actions undertaken by them to improve aviation safety in the Philippines and compliance with the applicable safety standards.\n(52)\nThe competent authorities of the Philippines (CAAP) informed that they launched a series of actions, entailing in particular: a re-writing of the current implementing rules and regulations, expected by the end of 2010; further capacity building of the CAAP via the transfer of qualified inspectors currently working for ICAO under the technical assistance project, expected to be finalised by the end of 2010, and the hiring of additional staff; the re-auditing and the re-certification of all air carriers, including those that had already been certified by the CAAP before March 2010; the establishment of continuous surveillance plans for all air carriers; and the strengthening of enforcement actions in the case of identified safety deficiencies.\n(53)\nThe CAAP informed that they suspended on 19 March 2010 the Air Operator Certificate (AOC) of Pacific East Asia Cargo Airlines (PEAC), a carrier which had continued operations without being adequately certified by the competent authorities of the Philippines.\n(54)\nThe air carrier Interisland Airlines Inc., which had been certified by the CAAP on 16 March 2010, experienced a fatal accident on 21 April 2010, involving an aircraft on its AOC of type Antonov 12BP with registration mark UP-AN216. The CAAP, which investigated the case after the accident, decided on 23 April 2010 to revoke the AOC of Interisland Airlines Inc, which consequently ceased completely its operations. On the basis of the common criteria, it is therefore assessed that Interisland Airlines Inc. should be removed from Annex A.\n(55)\nPhilippine Airlines requested to be heard by the Air Safety Committee to report on recent progress and did so on 22 June 2010. The air carrier confirmed it underwent a comprehensive recertification audit by the CAAP, that all corrective actions were appropriately closed and that a new AOC was issued on 17 June 2010. However, the recent conclusion of this recertification process and the late submission of the corresponding evidence did not permit to verify the situation on site as expected.\n(56)\nCebu Pacific Airlines requested to be heard by the Air Safety Committee to report on recent progress and did so on 22 June 2010. The air carrier confirmed it underwent a comprehensive recertification audit by the CAAP and that the necessary corrective actions were on-going, several of those being still open, although a new AOC had already been issued on 7 June 2010, with operational specifications restricted to exclude the carriage of dangerous goods and precision approaches in Cat II for ATR-72 fleet. However, the late submission of the corresponding evidence and the existence of open findings did not permit to verify the situation on site as expected.\n(57)\nThe significant safety concern notified by ICAO after its USOAP audit of the Philippines carried out in October 2009 to all States party to the Chicago Convention and affecting the safety oversight of carriers licensed in the Philippines (10) remains unresolved. The CAAP informed that they submitted to ICAO a comprehensive action plan to remedy the deficiencies identified by this organisation. However, they failed to communicate this corrective action plan and the assessment of ICAO on these. Also, the CAAP informed that the Philippines will not be in a position to apply for a revision of the current classification by the US FAA before the fourth quarter 2010.\n(58)\nThe Commission acknowledges the efforts undertaken by the competent authorities to reform the civil aviation system in the Philippines. However, pending the effective implementation of adequate corrective actions to remedy the deficiencies identified by the US FAA and ICAO, it is assessed that the competent authorities of the Philippines continue, at this stage, not to be able to implement and enforce effectively the relevant safety standards on all air carriers under their regulatory control. Therefore, in view of the common criteria, it is assessed that all air carriers certified in the Philippines, except Interisland Airlines Inc, should remain in Annex A.\n(59)\nThe Commission remains ready to support the efforts of the Philippines, through an assessment visit in close cooperation with ICAO, with the participation of Member States and the European Aviation Safety Agency, if practicable before the next Air Safety Committee, to verify the progress made by the CAAP including the safety performance of the operators.\n(60)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 273/2010 (11), the Commission, assisted by the European Aviation Safety Agency and with the support of Member States, carried out a safety assessment visit to the Islamic Republic of Iran between 29 May and 3 June 2010 in order to verify the satisfactory implementation of the measures announced by the competent authorities (CAO-IRI) and Iran Air.\n(61)\nDuring the visit, the CAO-IRI was able to demonstrate it had an oversight system in place in the field of air operations which complies with the intent of ICAO Document 8335 - Manual of Procedures for Operations Inspection, Certification and Continued Surveillance. In addition, the authority had corrected a previously identified weakness in their audit follow-up procedures by adopting a three tiered finding classification system which enabled urgent safety issues to be addressed without delay. Also, it showed that it had taken action to address safety concerns with Iranian carriers, and Iran Air in particular.\n(62)\nHowever, in the area of airworthiness and maintenance, several weaknesses in the CAO-IRI's oversight of Iran Air were evident, including a lack of a detailed review of the Maintenance Programmes and the Minimum Equipment Lists, leading to a failure to detect errors made by the air carrier.\n(63)\nIn addition, the CAO-IRI were unable to provide a consolidated list of incidents which had occurred to Iran Air flights and thus were not in a position to gauge the overall safety performance of the air carrier. However, the CAO-IRI was able to show that they conducted detailed investigations of all significant incidents and made recommendations.\n(64)\nThe verification visit noted the strong commitment by the CAO-IRI to adopting modern safety management techniques and to the significant advances made during the past six months. The team also noted the open, cooperative and constructive approach by the CAIO-IRI in addressing shortfalls identified in their procedures.\n(65)\nIn the case of Iran Air, the report points to significant deficiencies in the management of airworthiness and maintenance. In particular basic errors had been made in the Maintenance Programmes leading to significant omissions from the programmes for safety related equipment on the Airbus A-320 fleet and the Boeing 747-200 freighter. Furthermore the maintenance system for the Airbus A-320 fleet failed to ensure that deferred items had been rectified in the specified timescales. In addition, no Flight Data monitoring was taking place on the Airbus A-320 fleet, and the rate of data gathering for the other fleets was very low. Moreover, the report concludes that the company is failing to address the basics in terms of the continued airworthiness of its aircraft. This is particularly evident in the management of the Airbus A320 and Boeing 727 and 747 aircraft.\n(66)\nThe report also notes however, clear improvements in Iran Air's quality management system and safety management processes, in particular in the use of Line Oriented Safety Audits and the formation on a \u2018High Safety Council\u2019, chaired by the Managing Director, tasked with the coordination and supervision of activities directed at implementing sound safety standards in the operational departments. Furthermore, it notes the open and cooperative approach to solving the identified safety shortcomings and the air carrier's willingness to embrace modern safety management techniques.\n(67)\nIran Air made presentations to the Air Safety Committee and provided details of a corrective action plan to address the observations made during the on-site visit.\n(68)\nThe results of ramp checks conducted by the Member States under the auspices of the SAFA programme over the past 14 months show a steady improvement in performance; however the results concerning the A-320 aircraft are noticeably worse than other aircraft of the air carrier.\n(69)\nAs a result of the verified failings concerning continued airworthiness and maintenance, and the results of SAFA inspections, it is assessed that, on the basis of the common criteria, all aircraft of type A-320, Boeing B-727, B-747 series -100, Boeing B-747 series -200 and Boeing B-747-SP on the AOC of the air carrier should not be allowed to operate into the European Union and accordingly, these aircraft should be included in Annex B. The air carrier should be permitted to fly into the European Union provided that its operations are strictly limited to their present level (frequencies and destinations) with the aircraft allowed as per Annex B.\n(70)\nThe Commission will continue to closely monitor the performance of Iran Air. However, given the current situation of oversight exercised by the competent authorities of Iran the Air Safety Committee urges the Commission to intensify its consultations with these authorities with a view to providing for sustainable solutions to the identified safety deficiencies, the Commission requests the CAO-IRI to send monthly reports on the verification of the implementation of the corrective action plan and to provide information on all oversight activities in the area of continuing airworthiness, maintenance and operations carried out by the CAO-IRI on Iran Air.\n(71)\nMember States will continue to verify the effective compliance of Iran Air with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of this carrier pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008.\n(72)\nThe competent authorities of the Russian Federation informed the Air Safety Committee during its meeting on 22 June 2010 that they had taken a series of measures to enhance oversight on certain air carriers following information received by the Commission on 6 May about an increasing number of findings raised during ramp checks having an impact on safety.\n(73)\nIn particular they informed that following their decision, as from 18 May 2010, the air carrier YAK Service was not allowed to operate into the airspace of ECAC States. However, should this decision not be enforced, the Commission reserves the right to take appropriate measures in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 in relation to this air carrier.\n(74)\nAs during previous updates of Regulation (EC) No 474/2006, the competent authorities of the Russian Federation also informed the Air Safety Committee that as part of a process of continuing surveillance of the airworthiness of aircraft on their register, they modified their decision of 25 April 2008, whereby they excluded from operations into the European Union aircraft on the AOC of 13 Russian air carriers. These aircraft were not equipped to perform international flights as per ICAO standards (not equipped with TAWS/E-GPWS) and/or their certificate of airworthiness had expired and/or had not been renewed. Accordingly, the Air Safety Committee was provided with a list of all aircraft operating on AOCs in Russia, together with the associated equipment. Based upon this information the following aircraft are excluded from operations into, within and out of the European Union because they are not fitted with equipment required by ICAO Annex 6:\n(a)\nAircompany Yakutia: Antonov AN-140: RA-41250; AN-24RV: RA-46496, RA-46665, RA-47304, RA-47352, RA-47353, RA-47360; AN-26: RA-26660; AN-24-RB: RA-46470, RA-46496, RA-46510, RA-46665, RA-47304, RA-47352, RA-47353, RA-47360, RA-47363.\n(b)\nAtlant Soyuz: Tupolev TU-154M: RA-85672 and RA-85682 both aircraft are currently operated by other air carriers certified in the Russian Federation.\n(c)\nGazpromavia: Tupolev TU-154M: RA-85625 and RA-85774; Yakovlev Yak-40: RA-87511 and RA-88186; Yak-40K: RA-21505, RA-98109 and RA-88300; Yak-42D: RA-42437; all (22) helicopters Kamov Ka-26 (unknown registration); all (49) helicopters Mi-8 (unknown registration); all (11) helicopters Mi-171 (unknown registration); all (8) helicopters Mi-2 (unknown registration); all (1) helicopter EC-120B: RA-04116.\n(d)\nKavminvodyavia: Tupolev TU-154B: RA-85494 and RA-85457.\n(e)\nKrasnoyarsky Airlines: The aircraft of type TU-154M RA-85682 previously on the AOC of Krasnoyarsky Airlines, which was revoked in 2009 is currently operated by another air carrier certified in the Russian Federation.\n(f)\nKuban Airlines: Yakovlev Yak-42: RA-42331, RA-42336, RA-42350, RA-42538, and RA-42541.\n(g)\nOrenburg Airlines: Tupolev TU-154B: RA-85602; all TU-134 (unknown registration); all Antonov An-24 (unknown registration); all An-2 (unknown registration); all helicopters Mi-2 (unknown registration); all helicopters Mi-8 (unknown registration).\n(h)\nSiberia Airlines: Tupolev - no aircraft.\n(i)\nTatarstan Airlines: Yakovlev Yak-42D: RA-42374, RA-42433; all Tupolev TU-134A including: RA-65065 and RA-65102,; all Antonov AN-24RV including: RA-46625 and RA-47818; the aircraft of type AN24RV with registration marks RA-46625 and RA-47818 are currently operated by another Russian carrier.\n(j)\nUral Airlines: Tupolev TU-154B: RA-85508 (the aircraft RA-85319, RA-85337, RA-85357, RA-85375, RA-85374 and RA-85432 are currently not operated for financial reasons).\n(k)\nUTAir: Tupolev TU-154M: RA-85733, RA-85755, RA-85806, RA-85820; all (25) TU-134: RA-65024, RA-65033, RA-65127, RA-65148, RA-65560, RA-65572, RA-65575, RA-65607, RA-65608, RA-65609, RA-65611, RA-65613, RA-65616, RA-65620, RA-65622, RA-65728, RA-65755, RA-65777, RA-65780, RA-65793, RA-65901, RA-65902, and RA-65977; the aircraft RA-65143 and RA-65916 are operated by another Russian carrier; all (1) TU-134B: RA-65726; all (10) Yakovlev Yak-40: RA-87348 (currently not operated for financial reasons), RA-87907, RA-87941, RA-87997, RA-88209, RA-88227 and RA-88280; all helicopters Mil-26: (unknown registration); all helicopters Mil-10: (unknown registration); all helicopters Mil-8 (unknown registration); all helicopters AS-355 (unknown registration); all helicopters BO-105 (unknown registration); the aircraft of type AN-24B: RA-46388, the aircraft RA-46267 and RA-47289 and the aircraft of type AN-24RV RA-46509, RA-46519 and RA-47800 are operated by another Russian carrier.\n(l)\nRossija (STC Russia): Tupolev TU-134: RA-65979, the aircraft RA-65904, RA-65905, RA-65911, RA-65921 and RA-65555 are operated by another Russian carrier; Ilyushin IL-18: RA-75454 is operated by another Russian carrier; Yakovlev Yak-40: RA-87203, RA-87968, RA-87971, RA-87972 and RA-88200 are operated by another Russian carrier.\n(75)\nIn order to enhance cooperation with the Commission and Member States, the Air Safety Committee requested the competent authorities of the Russian Federation to appoint a focal point for all communication with the members of the Air Safety Committee on matters pertaining to results of ramp checks performed on Russian air carriers at EU airports and those performed on EU air carriers at airports in the Russian Federation as well as to work towards greater transparency through the use of safety data exchange.\n(76)\nMoreover, in the framework of enhanced cooperation and in order to ensure legal certainty and appropriate enforcement of measures taken to exclude air carriers and aircraft not complying with the relevant safety standards, it was agreed that the competent authorities of the Russian Federation shall review together with the Commission and Member States, before the next meeting of the Air Safety Committee, the Joint Decision of the European Commission and of these authorities of 24 April 2008. The Air Safety Committee agreed to evaluate the progress made at its next meeting and where appropriate, request the Commission to present the necessary measures in the framework of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005.\n(77)\nIn the meantime, Member States shall continue to verify the effective compliance with relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of this carrier pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008 to ensure that the number of inspections performed on Russian air carriers will be intensified in order to provide the basis for reassessment of their performance during the next Air Safety Committee meeting which is to take place in November 2010.\n(78)\nNo evidence of the full implementation of appropriate remedial actions by the other air carriers included in the EU list updated on 30 March 2010 and by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of these air carriers has been communicated to the Commission so far in spite of specific requests submitted by the latter. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these air carriers should continue to be subject to an operating ban (Annex A) or operating restrictions (Annex B), as the case may be.\n(79)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Air Safety Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 474/2006 is amended as follows:\n1.\nAnnex A is replaced by the text set out in Annex A to this Regulation.\n2.\nAnnex B is replaced by the text set out in Annex B to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2010.", "references": ["79", "15", "29", "20", "80", "24", "34", "26", "68", "46", "21", "6", "64", "72", "30", "70", "35", "94", "76", "22", "71", "18", "83", "81", "90", "33", "44", "5", "49", "92", "No Label", "13", "53", "54", "57"], "gold": ["13", "53", "54", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1171/2011\nof 16 November 2011\nrefusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children\u2019s development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 18(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on foods are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Authority\u2019.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission thereof and to deliver an opinion on the health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nFollowing an application from Yakult Europe BV, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of live Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota and maintenance of the upper respiratory tract defence against pathogens by maintaining immune defences (Question No EFSA-Q-2010-00137) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded, inter alia, as follows: \u2018Daily consumption of live Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota as present in a fermented milk product helps maintain the upper respiratory tract defences by helping to support immune functions\u2019.\n(6)\nOn 18 October 2010, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(7)\nFollowing an application from Piimandus\u00fchistu E-Piim (Dairy Cooperative E-Piim), submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Lactobacillus plantarum TENSIATM in the semi-hard Edam-type \u2018heart cheese\u2019 of HarmonyTM and maintenance of normal blood pressure (Question No EFSA-Q-2010-00950) (3). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Regular consumption (at least three weeks) of 50 g/day S\u00fcdamejuust (\u201cheart cheese\u201d) of HarmonyTM brand comprising probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum TENSIATM helps to maintain the cardio-vascular system/heart health through reduction of blood pressure/symbol of heart\u2019.\n(8)\nOn 14 February 2011, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Lactobacillus plantarum TENSIATM in the semi-hard Edam-type \u2018heart cheese\u2019 of HarmonyTM and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(9)\nThe health claims subject to this Regulation are health claim as referred to in point (a) of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and may benefit from the transitional period laid down in Article 28(5) of that Regulation. As the Authority concluded that cause and effect relationships have not been established between the foods and the claimed effects, the claims do not comply with Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and therefore they may not benefit from the transitional period provided for in that Article.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure that this Regulation is fully complied with, both food business operators and the national competent authorities should take the necessary actions to ensure that, at the latest 6 months following the entry into force of this Regulation, products bearing the health claims listed in its Annex are no longer present on the market.\n(11)\nThe comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(12)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The health claims listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall not be included in the Union list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\n2. However, products bearing these health claims placed on the market or labelled prior to the date of entry into force of this Regulation may remain on the market for a maximum period of 6 months after that date.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["4", "1", "65", "31", "12", "19", "97", "66", "10", "15", "53", "18", "42", "82", "78", "81", "40", "87", "2", "54", "75", "14", "55", "7", "36", "83", "91", "28", "37", "46", "No Label", "20", "24", "25", "38", "39", "43", "72"], "gold": ["20", "24", "25", "38", "39", "43", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 15/2011\nof 10 January 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 as regards recognised testing methods for detecting marine biotoxins in live bivalve molluscs\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (1), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (2), and in particular Article 18(13)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 lays down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin and Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific requirements concerning hygiene rules for food of animal origin. Implementing measures for those Regulations as regards recognised testing methods for marine biotoxins are set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down implementing measures for certain products under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and for the organisation of official controls under Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, derogating from Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations (EC) No 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004 (3). It is necessary to modify those implementing measures in the light of new scientific evidence.\n(2)\nIn July 2006 the Commission requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to provide a scientific opinion to assess the current limits and methods of analysis with regard to human health for various marine biotoxins as established in the Community legislation, including new emerging toxins. The last of a series of opinions was published on 24 July 2009.\n(3)\nThe mouse bioassay (MBA) and the rat bioassay (RBA) are the official methods for the detection of lipophilic biotoxins. The Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain of EFSA noted that these bioassays have shortcomings and are not considered an appropriate tool for control purposes because of the high variability in results, the insufficient detection capability and the limited specificity.\n(4)\nRecently developed alternatives to the biological methods for the determination of the marine biotoxins with lower limits of detection (LOD) have successfully been tested in prevalidation studies.\n(5)\nA liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method was validated under the coordination of the European Union Reference Laboratory on marine biotoxins (EU-RL) in an inter-laboratory validation study carried out by the Member States. This method is publicly available for consultation in the web page of the EU-RL (http://www.aesan.msps.es/en/CRLMB/web/home.shtml). This validated technique of liquid chromatography (LC) mass spectrometry (MS) should be applied as the reference method for the detection of lipophilic toxins and used as matter of routine, both for the purposes of official controls at any stage of the food chain and own-checks by food business operators.\n(6)\nAny other recognised method, different from the liquid chromatography (LC) mass spectrometry (MS), could be applied for the detection of lipophilic toxins provided that they fulfil the method performance criteria stipulated by the EU-RL. Such methods should be intra-laboratory validated and successfully tested under a recognised proficiency test scheme. If the results are challenged, the reference method shall be the EU-RL LC-MS/MS method.\n(7)\nTo allow Member States to adapt their methods to the chemical method, the biological methods should continue to be used for a limited period of time. After this period, the biological methods should be used not as a matter of routine and only during the periodic monitoring of production areas for detecting new or unknown marine toxins.\n(8)\nTherefore, Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 should be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 January 2011.", "references": ["18", "95", "46", "78", "92", "69", "65", "70", "62", "71", "79", "39", "81", "54", "57", "60", "4", "3", "90", "51", "43", "24", "35", "80", "49", "91", "15", "82", "40", "87", "No Label", "8", "21", "38", "67", "72", "73", "77"], "gold": ["8", "21", "38", "67", "72", "73", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2012/2/EU\nof 9 February 2012\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include copper (II) oxide, copper (II) hydroxide and basic copper carbonate as active substances in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes copper (II) oxide, copper (II) hydroxide and basic copper carbonate for use in product type 8, wood preservatives, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, copper (II) oxide, copper (II) hydroxide and basic copper carbonate have been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product type 8.\n(3)\nFrance was designated as rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority reports, together with recommendations, to the Commission in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 on 10 May 2007 for copper (II) oxide, on 19 February 2008 for copper (II) hydroxide, and on 10 May 2007 and 19 February 2008 for basic copper carbonate.\n(4)\nThe competent authority reports were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the reviews were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 22 September 2011, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as wood preservatives and containing copper (II) oxide, copper (II) hydroxide or basic copper carbonate may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include copper (II) oxide, copper (II) hydroxide and basic copper carbonate in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at Union level. It is therefore appropriate to require that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to human populations and to environmental compartments that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nIn view of the risks identified for human health, it is appropriate to require that safe operational procedures are established for products containing copper (II) oxide, copper (II) hydroxide or basic copper carbonate and authorised for industrial use, and that those products are used with appropriate personal protective equipment, unless it can be demonstrated in the application for product authorisation that risks to industrial users can be reduced to an acceptable level by other means.\n(8)\nCopper (II) hydroxide and basic copper carbonate were also evaluated for application by dipping, and should, in view of the risks identified for human health, not be authorised for that use, unless data is submitted to demonstrate that the product will meet the requirements of Article 5 and Annex VI, if necessary by the application of appropriate mitigation measures. For copper (II) oxide, application by dipping was not assessed, and it follows from the requirement referred to in recital 6 that products cannot be authorised for such application unless the authorising Member State assesses it.\n(9)\nUnacceptable risks for the environment were identified in the case of wood treated with copper (II) oxide, copper (II) hydroxide or basic copper carbonate and used for outdoor constructions near or above water (the \u2018bridge\u2019 scenario in use class 3, as defined by OECD (3)). For basic copper carbonate and copper (II) oxide, unacceptable risks were also found for in-service use of treated wood in contact with fresh water (use class 4b as defined by OECD). It is therefore appropriate to require that products are not authorised for the treatment of wood intended for those uses, unless data is submitted demonstrating that the product will meet the requirements of both Article 5 of and Annex VI to Directive 98/8/EC, if necessary by the application of appropriate risk mitigation measures. For copper (II) hydroxide, wood in contact with fresh water was not assessed, and it follows from the requirement referred to in recital 6 above that products cannot be authorised for that use unless the authorising Member State assesses it.\n(10)\nIn view of the risks identified for the aquatic and soil compartments, it is appropriate to require that freshly treated timber is stored after treatment under shelter or on impermeable hard standing, or both, and that any losses from the application of products used as wood preservatives and containing copper (II) oxide, copper (II) hydroxide or basic copper carbonate are collected for reuse or disposal.\n(11)\nThe provisions of this Directive should be applied at the same time in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment on the Union market of biocidal products containing the active substances copper (II) oxide, copper (II) hydroxide and basic copper carbonate, and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(12)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(13)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(14)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 January 2013 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 February 2014.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 February 2012.", "references": ["50", "6", "41", "5", "74", "61", "90", "94", "70", "28", "32", "92", "79", "81", "67", "84", "44", "18", "46", "23", "69", "31", "21", "59", "73", "17", "34", "16", "29", "30", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "83", "88"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "83", "88"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 361/2010\nof 27 April 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 recognising protected zones exposed to particular plant health risks in the Community\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 2(1)(h) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 (2) certain Member States or certain areas in Member States were recognised as protected zones in respect of certain harmful organisms. In some cases recognition was granted for a limited time to allow the Member State concerned to provide the full information necessary to show that the harmful organism in question was not present in the Member State or area concerned or to complete the efforts to eradicate the organism in question.\n(2)\nThe entire territory of Greece was recognised as a protected zone with respect to Dendroctonus micans Kugelan, Gilpinia hercyniae (Hartig), Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll., Ips amitinus Eichhof, Ips cembrae Heer and Ips duplicatus Sahlberg until 31 March 2010.\n(3)\nIn 2009 Greece conducted surveys and notified results to the Commission in accordance with the third and fifth subparagraph of Article 2(1)(h) of Directive 2000/29/EC. However, those results were not complete. A visit by Commission experts from 2 to 10 February 2010 confirmed that Greece had made significant progress with regard to organising and conducting those surveys and with regard to notifying the results thereof. In view of the fact that the results notified were not complete, the experts concluded that further progress would be necessary.\n(4)\nAccording to the results of the surveys there were no findings of the organisms concerned in Greece. Taking into account those results and the outcome of the visit of the Commission experts in Greece, it is appropriate to continue to recognise Greece as a protected zone with respect to those organisms for one more year, in order to give Greece the time necessary to submit information confirming that those organisms are not present on its territory.\n(5)\nIreland, Lithuania and certain regions and parts of regions in Italy, Slovakia and Slovenia were recognised as protected zones with respect to Erwinia amylovora (Burr.) Winsl. et al. until 31 March 2010. From the information received from those Member States on the results of surveys and from the reports by the Commission experts who visited Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2009, it appears that those protected zones should be recognised for two more years to give those Member States the time necessary to submit information showing that Erwinia amylovora (Burr.) Winsl. et al. is not present or, where necessary, to complete their efforts to eradicate that organism.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 690/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 is amended as follows:\n1.\nIn the second column of points 4, 5 and 7 to 10 of heading (a), after the word \u2018Greece,\u2019 the words \u2018(until 31 March 2010)\u2019 are replaced by \u2018(until 31 March 2011)\u2019.\n2.\nIn the second column of point 2 of heading (b), in the second indent the words \u2018until 31 March 2010\u2019 are replaced by \u2018until 31 March 2012\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2010.", "references": ["29", "97", "71", "75", "7", "14", "13", "49", "57", "62", "20", "91", "6", "99", "72", "26", "89", "48", "23", "16", "81", "46", "17", "84", "0", "22", "90", "67", "86", "10", "No Label", "43", "58", "61", "66", "96"], "gold": ["43", "58", "61", "66", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1102/2011\nof 31 October 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 November 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 November 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 November 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["30", "5", "26", "96", "23", "24", "83", "88", "51", "39", "41", "78", "66", "13", "28", "89", "71", "8", "45", "58", "91", "48", "86", "99", "49", "19", "20", "97", "82", "72", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 81/2012\nof 31 January 2012\nconcerning the denial of authorisation of Lactobacillus pentosus (DSM 14025) as a feed additive\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting or denying such authorisation. Article 10(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the evaluation of substances, micro-organisms and preparations used in the Union as silage additives at the date that Regulation became applicable. Silage additives were not subject to evaluation or authorisation under previous Union legislation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 10(1)(b) and Article 10(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, the preparation Lactobacillus pentosus (DSM 14025) was entered in the Register of feed additives as a silage additive for all animal species.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 10(2) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of Lactobacillus pentosus (DSM 14025) as a feed additive for all animal species, with the request to classify it in the category \u2018technological additives\u2019 and in the functional group \u2018silage additives\u2019. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 16 November 2011 (2) that Lactobacillus pentosus (DSM 14025) is resistant to three antibiotics used in human and veterinary medicine.\n(5)\nThe information available does not permit the risk to be excluded that Lactobacillus pentosus (DSM 14025) may spread resistance to those antibiotics to micro-organisms. Consequently, it has not been established that Lactobacillus pentosus (DSM 14025) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health and the environment, when used under the proposed conditions.\n(6)\nThe conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are therefore not satisfied. Accordingly, the authorisation of Lactobacillus pentosus (DSM 14025) as a feed additive should be denied.\n(7)\nSince further use of Lactobacillus pentosus (DSM 14025) as a feed additive may cause a risk to human and animal health, respective products should be withdrawn from the market as soon as possible.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAuthorisation of Lactobacillus pentosus (DSM 14025) as an additive in animal nutrition is denied.\nArticle 2\nExisting stocks of Lactobacillus pentosus (DSM 14025) and premixtures containing it shall be withdrawn from the market as soon as possible and at the latest by 22 April 2012. Silage produced with Lactobacillus pentosus (DSM 14025) before the date of entry into force of this Regulation may be used up until stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2012.", "references": ["16", "94", "84", "11", "87", "40", "57", "95", "46", "65", "80", "0", "70", "56", "85", "60", "24", "89", "15", "1", "98", "49", "64", "97", "92", "2", "30", "18", "10", "48", "No Label", "20", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["20", "25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 July 2011\non the safety requirements to be met by European standards for stationary training equipment pursuant to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/476/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (1), and in particular Article 4(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2001/95/EC provides for European standards to be established by European standardisation bodies. Such standards should ensure that products satisfy the general safety requirement of the Directive.\n(2)\nUnder Directive 2001/95/EC, a product is to be presumed safe when it conforms to voluntary national standards transposing European standards, the references of which have been published by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(3)\nArticle 4 of Directive 2001/95/EC lays down the procedure for drawing up European standards. Under that procedure, the Commission is to determine the specific safety requirements which European standards should satisfy and subsequently, on the basis of those requirements, to give mandates to the European standardisation bodies to draw up those standards.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to publish the references of the European standards adopted in this way in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nUnder the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC, the references of European standards, which have been adopted by the European standardisation bodies before the entry into force of that Directive, may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union even in the absence of a Commission mandate, if those standards ensure compliance with the general safety requirement laid down in that Directive.\n(6)\nBy its Decision 2006/514/EC (2) the Commission published the references of nine European standards concerning the safety of stationary training equipment in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe nine European standards on the safety of stationary equipment concerned by Decision 2006/514/EC are not supported by a Commission mandate adopted in accordance with Article 4(1).\n(8)\nThree of those standards, EN 957-4:1996, EN 957-5:1996, and EN 957-6:2001, have been replaced by new versions, EN 957-4+A1:2010, EN 957-5:2009, and EN 957-6:2010. These new versions were adopted after the entry into force of Directive 2001/95/EC and their references cannot, as a consequence, be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the absence of a Commission mandate laying down specific safety requirements.\n(9)\nIn order to assess the conformity of the new versions and of any subsequent versions of the European standards for stationary training equipment with the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC, it is necessary to reinstate the procedure laid down in Article 4 of that Directive.\n(10)\nThe Commission should therefore determine specific safety requirements for stationary training equipment with a view to mandating the European standardisation bodies to develop relevant European standards on the basis of those requirements.\n(11)\nOnce the relevant standards are available, and provided that the Commission decides to publish their reference in the Official Journal of the European Union, according to the procedure laid down in Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC, stationary training equipment which complies with those standards is to be presumed to conform to the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC, as far as the safety requirements covered by the standards are concerned.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up under Article 15 of Directive 2001/95/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Decision \u2018stationary training equipment\u2019 means a product driven or not by a motor, used for training, exercising, diagnostic or rehabilitation purposes, involving repetitive movements and which remains static during use. This equipment either stands on the floor, or is fixed to the ceiling or a wall or other fixed structure.\nArticle 2\nThe specific safety requirements for the products referred to in Article 1 to be met by European standards pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2001/95/EC are set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2011.", "references": ["92", "21", "57", "11", "69", "31", "26", "62", "58", "43", "88", "66", "39", "41", "61", "22", "9", "49", "16", "28", "83", "77", "51", "4", "68", "40", "38", "75", "98", "13", "No Label", "24", "36", "76"], "gold": ["24", "36", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 411/2012\nof 14 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 May 2012.", "references": ["26", "97", "56", "84", "37", "54", "31", "76", "90", "49", "1", "83", "2", "24", "75", "19", "18", "64", "5", "11", "82", "42", "41", "72", "88", "27", "86", "14", "25", "66", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 April 2012\ndetermining the date from which the Visa Information System (VIS) is to start operations in a second region\n(2012/233/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 48(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Commission Decision 2010/49/EC of 30 November 2009 determining the first regions for the start of operations of the Visa Information System (VIS) (2), the second region where the collection and transmission of data to the VIS for all applications should start comprises Israel, Jordan, the Lebanon and Syria.\n(2)\nThe Member States have notified the Commission that they have made the necessary technical and legal arrangements to collect and transmit the data referred to in Article 5(1) of the VIS Regulation to the VIS for all applications in that region, including arrangements for the collection and/or transmission of the data on behalf of another Member State.\n(3)\nThe condition laid down by the first sentence of Article 48(3) of the VIS Regulation thus being fulfilled, it is therefore necessary to determine the date from which the VIS is to start operations in a second region.\n(4)\nIn view of the need to set the date for the start of the VIS in the very near future this Decision should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nGiven that the VIS Regulation builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark notified the implementation of the VIS Regulation in its national law in accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community. Denmark is therefore bound under international law to implement this Decision.\n(6)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (3). The United Kingdom is therefore not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(7)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (4). Ireland is therefore not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(8)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (5), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (6) on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement.\n(9)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (7), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (8).\n(10)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (9).\n(11)\nAs regards Cyprus, this Decision constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession.\n(12)\nAs regards Bulgaria and Romania, this Decision constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Visa Information System shall start operations in the second region determined by Decision 2010/49/EC on 10 May 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall apply in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2012.", "references": ["27", "24", "91", "72", "97", "54", "14", "81", "35", "70", "7", "77", "75", "21", "20", "43", "19", "71", "53", "93", "89", "11", "2", "6", "8", "56", "64", "46", "25", "86", "No Label", "13", "40", "41", "42", "95", "96"], "gold": ["13", "40", "41", "42", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 709/2010\nof 22 July 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1), and in particular Article 19(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 338/97 lists animal and plant species in respect of which trade is restricted or controlled. Those lists incorporate the lists set out in the Appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, hereinafter \u2018the Convention\u2019. At the 15th session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, held in Doha, Qatar, in March 2010, certain amendments were made to the Appendices to the Convention.\n(2)\nThe species Anas oustaleti has been deleted from Appendix I.\n(3)\nThe species Euphorbia misera, Orothamnus zeyheri and Protea odorata have been deleted from Appendix II.\n(4)\nThe Egyptian population of Crocodylus niloticus has been transferred from Appendix I to Appendix II with a zero quota for wild specimens.\n(5)\nThe Mexican and Belize populations of Crocodylus moreletii have been transferred from Appendix I to Appendix II with a zero quota for wild specimens.\n(6)\nNeurergus kaiseri has been included in Appendix I.\n(7)\nThe species Ctenosaura bakeri, C. oedirhina, C. melanosterna, C. palearis, Agalychnis spp., Dynastes satanas, Operculicarya hyphaenoides, O. pachypus, Zygosicyos pubescens, Z. tripartitus, Aniba rosaeodora (with annotation), Adenia olaboensis, Cyphostemma elephantopus, C. montagnacii and Bulnesia sarmientoi (with annotation) have been included in Appendix II.\n(8)\nThe Appendix II listing of Beccariophoenix madagascariensis and Neodypsis decaryi was extended to include seeds from Madagascar.\n(9)\nThe following species have been deleted from Appendix III to the Convention at the request of Malaysia: Arborophila campbelli, Arborophila charltonii, Caloperdix oculeus, Lophura erythrophthalma, Lophura ignita, Melanoperdix niger, Polyplectron inopinatum, Rhizothera dulitensis, Rhizothera longirostris and Rollulus rouloul, and the species Haliotis midae has been deleted from Appendix III to the Convention at the request of South Africa.\n(10)\nThe annotations for the listings in Appendices I and II to the Convention of the species Canis lupus have been amended.\n(11)\nThe annotations for the listings in Appendix I to the Convention of the species Orchidaceae spp. have been amended.\n(12)\nThe annotations for the listings in Appendix II to the Convention of the species Cactaceae spp. and all plant taxa with annotation #1 have been amended.\n(13)\nNone of the Member States has entered a reservation in respect of any of those amendments.\n(14)\nThe amendments made to Appendices I, II and III to the Convention therefore necessitate amendments to Annexes A, B and C of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 338/97.\n(15)\nThe species Physignathus cocincinus, Abronia graminea and Ctenosaura quinquecarinata - which are currently not listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 - are being imported into the Union in such numbers as to warrant monitoring. Those species should therefore be included in Annex D of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 338/97.\n(16)\nAt the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention new nomenclatural references for animals were adopted.\n(17)\nRegulation (EC) No 338/97 should therefore be amended accordingly. In view of the extent of the amendments it is appropriate, for clarity purposes, to replace the Annex to that Regulation in its entirety.\n(18)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora established pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2010.", "references": ["70", "82", "71", "88", "50", "43", "86", "74", "85", "46", "69", "98", "16", "96", "19", "22", "64", "27", "38", "15", "26", "87", "40", "48", "90", "89", "94", "49", "62", "37", "No Label", "0", "20", "23", "25", "58", "59"], "gold": ["0", "20", "23", "25", "58", "59"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 135/2011\nof 15 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2011.", "references": ["13", "56", "28", "0", "82", "33", "20", "69", "40", "78", "47", "14", "10", "23", "76", "73", "2", "41", "96", "99", "88", "48", "94", "66", "55", "18", "63", "85", "95", "15", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/691/CFSP\nof 17 October 2011\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Kosovo (1)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 4 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (2), and Joint Action 2008/123/CFSP (3) appointing Mr Pieter FEITH European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Kosovo.\n(2)\nOn 5 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/270/CFSP (4) appointing Mr Fernando GENTILINI EUSR in Kosovo until 31 July 2011.\n(3)\nOn 28 July 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/478/CFSP (5) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 30 September 2011.\n(4)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 31 January 2012.\n(5)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2011/270/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nMr Fernando GENTILINI is hereby appointed as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Kosovo from 1 May 2011 until 31 January 2012. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 5(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 May 2011 to 30 September 2011 shall be EUR 690 000.\nThe financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 October 2011 to 31 January 2012 shall be EUR 770 000.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 17 October 2011.", "references": ["58", "38", "26", "87", "8", "30", "64", "99", "33", "7", "43", "49", "0", "84", "4", "10", "72", "61", "32", "16", "59", "2", "34", "60", "83", "62", "44", "36", "66", "6", "No Label", "3", "11", "52", "91", "96"], "gold": ["3", "11", "52", "91", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/488/CFSP\nof 1 August 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), and in particular Article 5(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/273/CFSP.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, additional persons should be added to the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/273/CFSP,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list of persons and entities set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/273/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 1 August 2011.", "references": ["83", "16", "87", "5", "63", "56", "89", "58", "1", "14", "34", "75", "45", "69", "68", "40", "39", "93", "25", "76", "42", "15", "91", "86", "53", "74", "65", "73", "21", "8", "No Label", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 403/2011\nof 26 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2011.", "references": ["74", "77", "72", "51", "16", "14", "79", "1", "17", "10", "23", "15", "90", "76", "27", "92", "58", "2", "96", "67", "11", "98", "69", "65", "21", "42", "13", "46", "45", "62", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 907/2012\nof 20 August 2012\nestablishing for 2012 the \u2018Prodcom list\u2019 of industrial products provided for by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3924/91\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3924/91 of 19 December 1991 on the establishment of a Community survey of industrial production (1), and in particular Article 2(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EEC) No 3924/91 requires Member States to carry out a Community survey of industrial production.\n(2)\nThe survey of industrial production must be based on a list of products identifying the industrial production to be surveyed.\n(3)\nA list of products is necessary to permit alignment between production statistics and external trade statistics and to afford comparison with the Community product nomenclature CPA.\n(4)\nThe list of products required by Regulation (EEC) No 3924/91, referred to as the \u2018Prodcom list\u2019, is common to all Member States, and is necessary in order to compare data across Member States.\n(5)\nThe Prodcom list needs to be updated; it is therefore necessary to establish the list for 2012.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee established by Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on European statistics (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Prodcom list for 2012 shall be as set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 August 2012.", "references": ["71", "60", "80", "50", "36", "21", "57", "31", "83", "56", "88", "95", "59", "68", "32", "97", "99", "58", "22", "10", "5", "38", "66", "37", "72", "7", "85", "79", "24", "30", "No Label", "19", "20", "25", "75", "82"], "gold": ["19", "20", "25", "75", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1149/2011\nof 21 October 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 100(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (1), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to maintain a high uniform level of aviation safety in Europe, it is necessary to introduce changes to the existing requirements and procedures on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks, in particular in order to update the training, examination, knowledge and experience requirements for the issuance of aircraft maintenance licences and to adapt these requirements to the complexity of the different categories of aircraft.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 (2) should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are based on the opinions (3) issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019) in accordance with Articles 17(2)(b) and 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n(4)\nIt is necessary to provide sufficient time for the personnel eligible to the new aircraft maintenance license category B3 introduced by this regulation, the training organisations and the maintenance organisations, as well as to the competent authorities of Member States, to adapt to the new regulatory framework.\n(5)\nGiven the lower complexity of light aircraft, it may be appropriate to define a simple and proportionate system for the licensing of the personnel involved in the maintenance of such aircraft. The Agency should be allowed to continue working on this matter and the Member States to continue using the corresponding national licenses.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 2042/2003 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 5, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u20183. Certifying staff holding a licence issued in accordance with Annex III (Part-66) in a given category/sub-category are deemed to have the privileges described in point 66.A.20(a) of this Annex corresponding to such a category/sub-category. The basic knowledge requirements corresponding to these new privileges shall be deemed as met for the purpose of extending such licence to a new category/sub-category.\n4. Certifying staff holding a licence including aircraft which do not require an individual type rating may continue to exercise his/her privileges until the first renewal or change, where the licence shall be converted following the procedure described in point 66.B.125 of Annex III (Part-66) to the ratings defined in point 66.A.45 of this Annex.\n5. Conversion reports and Examination credit reports complying with the requirements applicable before this Regulation applies shall be deemed to be in compliance with this Regulation.\n6. Until such time as this Regulation specifies requirements for certifying staff:\n(i)\nfor aircraft other than aeroplanes and helicopters;\n(ii)\nfor components;\nthe requirements in force in the relevant Member State shall continue to apply, except for maintenance organisations located outside the European Union where the requirements shall be approved by the Agency.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 6, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u20183. Basic training courses complying with the requirements applicable before this Regulation applies may be started until 1 year after date by which this Regulation applies. Basic knowledge examinations conducted as part of these courses may comply with the requirements applicable before this Regulation applies.\n4. Basic knowledge examinations complying with the requirements applicable before this Regulation applies and conducted by the competent authority or conducted by a maintenance training organisation approved in accordance with Annex IV (Part-147) while not being part of a basic training course, may be conducted until 1 year after the date by which this Regulation applies.\n5. Type training courses and type examinations complying with the requirements applicable before this Regulation applies shall be started and finished not later than 1 year after the date by which this Regulation applies.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 7 is modified as follows:\n(i)\nin paragraph 3, the following points (h) and (i) are added:\n\u2018(h)\nfor the maintenance of piston-engine non-pressurised aeroplanes of 2 000 kg MTOM and below not involved in commercial air transport:\n(i)\nuntil 28 September 2012, the requirement for the competent authority to issue aircraft maintenance licences in accordance with Annex III (Part-66), as new or as converted pursuant to point 66.A.70 of this Annex;\n(ii)\nuntil 28 September 2014, the requirement to have certifying staff qualified in accordance with Annex III (Part-66) contained in the following provisions:\n-\nM.A.606(g) and M.A.801(b)2 of Annex I (Part-M),\n-\n145.A.30(g) and (h) of Annex II (Part-145);\n(i)\nfor the maintenance of ELA1 aeroplanes not involved in commercial air transport, until 28 September 2015:\n(i)\nthe requirement for the competent authority to issue aircraft maintenance licences in accordance with Annex III (Part-66), as new or as converted pursuant to point 66.A.70 of this Annex;\n(ii)\nthe requirement to have certifying staff qualified in accordance with Annex III (Part-66) contained in the following provisions:\n-\nM.A.606(g) and M.A.801(b)2 of Annex I (Part-M),\n-\n145.A.30(g) and (h) of Annex II (Part-145).\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint 7(e) is deleted;\n(iii)\nthe following paragraphs 8 and 9 are added:\n\u20188. For the purpose of time limits contained in points 66.A.25, 66.A.30 and Appendix III of Annex III (Part-66) related to basic knowledge examinations, basic experience, theoretical type training and examinations, practical training and assessment, type examinations and on the job training completed before this Regulation applies, the origin of time shall be the date by which this Regulation applies.\n9. The Agency shall submit an opinion to the Commission including proposals for a simple and proportionate system for the licensing of certifying staff involved in the maintenance of ELA1 aeroplanes as well as aircraft other than aeroplanes and helicopters.\u2019;\n(4)\nthe following Article 8 is added:\n\u2018Article 8\nAgency measures\n1. The Agency shall develop acceptable means of compliance (hereinafter called \u201cAMC\u201d) that competent authorities, organisations and personnel may use to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the Annexes to this Regulation.\n2. The AMC issued by the Agency shall neither introduce new requirements nor alleviate the requirements of the Annexes to this Regulation.\n3. Without prejudice to Articles 54 and 55 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, when the acceptable means of compliance issued by the Agency are used, the related requirements of the Annexes to this Regulation shall be considered as met without further demonstration.\u2019;\n(5)\nAnnex I (Part-M), Annex II (Part-145), Annex III (Part-66) and Annex IV (Part-147) are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the first day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall apply from the first day of the ninth month following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, except for point 3(i) of Article 1 that shall apply on the first day following its publication.\nCertificates issued in accordance with Annex I (Part-M), Annex II (Part-145), Annex III (Part-66) or Annex IV (Part-147) before this Regulation applies shall remain valid until they are changed, suspended or revoked.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2011.", "references": ["58", "54", "46", "5", "16", "78", "44", "37", "95", "73", "9", "18", "43", "77", "82", "15", "96", "60", "79", "19", "27", "12", "56", "81", "74", "21", "80", "66", "2", "94", "No Label", "49", "50", "53", "57", "75"], "gold": ["49", "50", "53", "57", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 446/2012\nof 21 March 2012\nsupplementing Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on the content and format of ratings data periodic reporting to be submitted to the European Securities and Markets Authority by credit rating agencies\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies (1), and in particular point (e) of Article 21(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPoint (e) of Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 requires the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to submit by 2 January 2012 draft regulatory technical standards to be endorsed by the Commission concerning the content and format of the ratings data that credit ratings agencies should periodically report to ESMA. The purpose of this periodic reporting is to allow ESMA to discharge its responsibility with regard to the ongoing supervision of credit rating agencies, as established by Article 21(1) of that Regulation.\n(2)\nRatings data should allow ESMA to supervise closely the conduct and activities of credit rating agencies, so as to be able to react promptly in case of actual or potential breaches of the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. For this reason, ratings data should normally be reported to ESMA on a monthly basis. However, in order to ensure proportionality, credit rating agencies that have fewer than 50 employees and that are not part of a group should be able to submit ratings data every two months, instead of every month. ESMA should still be able to require those credit ratings agencies to carry out monthly reporting, in light of the number and type of their ratings, including the complexity of the credit analysis, the relevance of the rated instruments or issuers and the eligibility of the ratings to be used for purposes such as those of Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).\n(3)\nThe data to be reported should be compiled in a standard format to allow ESMA to receive and process the records automatically in its internal systems. Due to technical progress over time, a number of technical reporting instructions concerning the transmission or the format of the files to be submitted by credit rating agencies may have to be updated and communicated by ESMA through specific communications or guidelines.\n(4)\nWith a view to ensuring complete and correct reporting of ratings data, and to taking into account further developments in the financial markets, it is important to enable credit rating agencies to develop adequate systems and procedures following the technical specifications provided by ESMA. For this purpose, the Regulation shall only enter into force six months after its publication. Meanwhile, credit rating agencies should submit periodic ratings data in accordance with the existing guidelines issued by the Committee of European Securities Regulators.\n(5)\nCredit rating agencies that are part of a group should be able to either report their ratings data separately to ESMA, or mandate one of the other agencies within the group to submit the data on behalf of all group members that are subject to the reporting requirements.\n(6)\nThis Regulation is based on the draft regulatory technical standards submitted by ESMA to the Commission, in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).\n(7)\nESMA has conducted open public consultations on the draft regulatory technical standards on which this Regulation is based, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the opinion of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group established in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation sets out the content and format of ratings data periodic reporting to be requested from credit rating agencies for the purpose of ongoing supervision by the European Securities and Markets Authority (\u2018ESMA\u2019), in accordance with point (e) of Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nArticle 2\nReporting principles\n1. Credit rating agencies shall comply with the requirements established by this Regulation and shall be responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the data reported to ESMA.\n2. In the case of a group of credit rating agencies, the members of the group may mandate one member to submit reports required under this Regulation on its behalf and on behalf of the other members of the group. Each credit rating agency on whose behalf a report is submitted shall be identified in the data submitted to ESMA.\n3. Reports submitted in accordance with this Regulation shall be submitted on a monthly basis and shall provide rating data relating to the preceding calendar month.\n4. Credit rating agencies that have fewer than 50 employees and that are not part of a group of credit rating agencies may submit, every two months, reports that provide rating data relating to the preceding two calendar months, unless ESMA informs the credit rating agency that it requires monthly reporting in view of the nature, complexity and range of issue of its credit ratings.\n5. Reports shall be submitted to ESMA within 15 days of the end of the period which is the subject of the report.\n6. Credit rating agencies shall notify ESMA immediately of any exceptional circumstances that may temporarily prevent or delay their ability to report in accordance with this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nData to be reported\n1. At the end of the first reporting period, a credit rating agency shall include in its reporting to ESMA the qualitative data specified in Table 1 of the Annex. Where those data change during a subsequent reporting period, the new data shall be submitted to ESMA.\n2. Credit rating agencies shall provide the data set out in Table 2 of the Annex for each action carried out by a credit rating agency as specified in that Table and for each credit rating concerned by that action. The actions to be reported shall refer to credit ratings issued or endorsed by the credit rating agency.\n3. Where no action as specified in Table 2 has occurred during a reporting period, the credit rating agency shall not be obliged to submit notification in this respect.\n4. The data specified in Table 1 and Table 2 of the Annex shall be submitted to ESMA in separate files. The qualitative data set out in Table 1 shall be submitted prior to the submission of the data set out in Table 2.\nArticle 4\nRating types\n1. A credit rating agency shall classify the ratings to be reported in accordance with the following types:\n(a)\ncorporate ratings;\n(b)\nstructured finance ratings;\n(c)\nsovereign and public finance ratings;\n(d)\ncovered bond ratings.\n2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, structured finance ratings shall relate to a financial instrument or other assets resulting from a securitisation transaction or scheme referred to in Article 4(36) of Directive 2006/48/EC.\nWhen reporting structured finance ratings, a credit rating agency shall classify the rating within one of the following asset classes:\n(a)\nAsset-backed securities. This asset class includes auto/boat/airplane loans, student loans, consumer loans, health care loans, manufactured housing loans, film loans, utility loans, equipment leases, credit card receivables, tax liens, non-performing loans, credit-linked notes, recreational vehicle loans, and trade receivables.\n(b)\nResidential mortgage-backed securities. This asset class includes prime and non-prime residential mortgage-backed securities and home equity loans.\n(c)\nCommercial mortgage-backed securities. This asset class includes retail or office property loans, hospital loans, care residences, storage facilities, hotel loans, nursing facilities, industrial loans, and multifamily properties.\n(d)\nCollateralised debt obligations. This asset class includes collateralised loan obligations, collateralised bond obligations, collateralised synthetic obligations, single-tranche collateralised debt obligations, collateralised fund obligations, collateralised debt obligations of asset-backed securities, and collateralised debt obligations of collateralised debt obligations.\n(e)\nAsset-backed commercial papers.\n(f)\nOther structured finance instruments that are not included in the preceding asset classes, including structured covered bonds, structured investment vehicles, insurance-linked securities and derivative product companies.\n3. Covered bond ratings shall relate to covered bonds which are not included in the list of asset classes regarding structured finance ratings set out in paragraph 2.\nArticle 5\nReporting procedures\n1. Credit rating agencies shall submit data files in accordance with the XML schemes provided by ESMA and using the reporting system established by ESMA. They shall name the files according to the naming convention indicated by ESMA.\n2. Credit rating agencies shall store the files sent to and received by ESMA in electronic form for at least five years. These files shall be made available to ESMA on request.\n3. Where a credit rating agency identifies factual errors in data that has been reported, it shall cancel and replace the relevant data.\n4. To cancel data a credit rating agency shall send to ESMA a file including the fields specified in Table 3 of the Annex. Once the original records have been cancelled, the credit rating agency shall send the new version of the records by using a file that includes the fields specified in Table 1 or Table 2, as appropriate.\nArticle 6\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force six months following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2012.", "references": ["41", "24", "50", "33", "0", "57", "97", "27", "87", "22", "20", "44", "6", "25", "51", "63", "95", "48", "9", "3", "38", "49", "21", "54", "53", "12", "85", "37", "81", "10", "No Label", "2", "7", "19", "39", "42", "46", "47"], "gold": ["2", "7", "19", "39", "42", "46", "47"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 387/2010\nof 6 May 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 introducing detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, as regards the minimum area requirement for the transitional fruit and vegetable payments in Cyprus and the single area payment scheme for farmers in Poland and Slovakia\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular Article 142(c) and (e) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the support schemes for farmers provided for in Titles IV and V thereof (2), the transitional fruit and vegetable payments referred to in Article 1(1)(g) of that Regulation may be granted only for the areas which have been the subject of an aid application in respect of at least 0,3 hectares. By letters of 18 February 2010 and 1 March 2010, Cyprus has informed the Commission about specific size of agricultural holdings and the structure of aid applications in respect of transitional fruit and vegetable payments granted for citrus fruits. As a result, the minimum area for which this payment shall be granted needs to be decreased to 0,1 hectares.\n(2)\nArticle 124(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 lays down the rules fixing the agricultural area of the new Member States under the single area payment scheme provided for in Article 122 of that Regulation.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 89 of Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009, the agricultural areas for Poland and Slovakia are set out in Annex VIII to that Regulation.\n(4)\nBy letter of 1 December 2009, Poland has informed the Commission that it had reviewed its utilised agricultural area eligible for the single area payment scheme, as referred to in Article 124(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. The revision follows the updating of the identification system for agricultural parcels referred to in Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, which has shown that the part of the utilised agricultural area maintained in good agricultural condition on 30 June 2003 was less than previously estimated. The agricultural area for the single area payment scheme should therefore be reduced to 14 137 000 ha.\n(5)\nBy letter of 4 January 2010, Slovakia has informed the Commission that it had reviewed its utilised agricultural area eligible for the single area payment scheme, as referred to in Article 124(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. The revision is a consequence of the experience gained in recent years from the verification of the eligibility conditions for the single area payment under the single area payment scheme, which has shown that the utilised agricultural area maintained in good agricultural condition on 30 June 2003 is less than previously estimated. The agricultural area for the single area payment scheme should therefore be reduced to 1 865 000 ha.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 1121/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe amendment proposed by this Regulation should apply to premium periods starting from 1 January 2010.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1121/2009 is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 5(1), the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In the case of Greece and Cyprus, the transitional fruit and vegetable payments referred to in Article 1(1)(g) shall be granted only for the areas, per each type of crop, which have been the subject of application in respect of at least 0,1 hectares, where each cultivated parcel exceeds the minimum size set by the Member State within the limit provided for in Article 13(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.\u2019;\n2.\nAnnex VIII is amended as follows:\n(a)\nThe row concerning Poland is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Poland\n14 137\u2019\n(b)\nThe row concerning Slovakia is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Slovakia\n1 865\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply to aid applications relating to premium periods starting from 1 January 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2010.", "references": ["65", "46", "19", "66", "89", "92", "12", "44", "72", "52", "25", "36", "49", "75", "68", "37", "57", "31", "53", "24", "48", "60", "86", "51", "67", "81", "70", "39", "10", "38", "No Label", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1148/2010\nof 3 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in NAFO 3M by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 December 2010.", "references": ["30", "15", "1", "62", "11", "27", "52", "64", "92", "45", "9", "6", "83", "31", "88", "44", "55", "89", "43", "81", "82", "41", "72", "2", "33", "32", "38", "53", "58", "25", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 374/2010\nof 30 April 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 May 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 4 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 May 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 May 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 April 2010.", "references": ["75", "89", "55", "7", "9", "3", "11", "70", "66", "76", "52", "25", "39", "26", "91", "88", "18", "31", "83", "64", "71", "37", "81", "24", "48", "5", "40", "93", "0", "41", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1259/2010\nof 20 December 2010\nimplementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 81(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/405/EU of 12 July 2010 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (1),\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee,\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is assured. For the gradual establishment of such an area, the Union must adopt measures relating to judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications, particularly when necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, those measures are to include measures aimed at ensuring the compatibility of the rules applicable in the Member States concerning conflict of laws.\n(3)\nOn 14 March 2005 the Commission adopted a Green Paper on applicable law and jurisdiction in divorce matters. The Green Paper launched a wide-ranging public consultation on possible solutions to the problems that may arise under the current situation.\n(4)\nOn 17 July 2006 the Commission proposed a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (2) as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters.\n(5)\nAt its meeting in Luxembourg on 5 and 6 June 2008, the Council concluded that there was a lack of unanimity on the proposal and that there were insurmountable difficulties that made unanimity impossible both then and in the near future. It established that the proposal\u2019s objectives could not be attained within a reasonable period by applying the relevant provisions of the Treaties.\n(6)\nBelgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia subsequently addressed a request to the Commission indicating that they intended to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves in the area of applicable law in matrimonial matters. On 3 March 2010, Greece withdrew its request.\n(7)\nOn 12 July 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/405/EU authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation.\n(8)\nAccording to Article 328(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, when enhanced cooperation is being established, it is to be open to all Member States, subject to compliance with any conditions of participation laid down by the authorising decision. It is also to be open to them at any other time, subject to compliance with the acts already adopted within that framework, in addition to those conditions. The Commission and the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation shall ensure that they promote participation by as many Member States as possible. This Regulation should be binding in its entirety and directly applicable only in the participating Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\n(9)\nThis Regulation should create a clear, comprehensive legal framework in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation in the participating Member States, provide citizens with appropriate outcomes in terms of legal certainty, predictability and flexibility, and prevent a situation from arising where one of the spouses applies for divorce before the other one does in order to ensure that the proceeding is governed by a given law which he or she considers more favourable to his or her own interests.\n(10)\nThe substantive scope and enacting terms of this Regulation should be consistent with Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003. However, it should not apply to marriage annulment.\nThis Regulation should apply only to the dissolution or loosening of marriage ties. The law determined by the conflict-of-laws rules of this Regulation should apply to the grounds for divorce and legal separation.\nPreliminary questions such as legal capacity and the validity of the marriage, and matters such as the effects of divorce or legal separation on property, name, parental responsibility, maintenance obligations or any other ancillary measures should be determined by the conflict-of-laws rules applicable in the participating Member State concerned.\n(11)\nIn order to clearly delimit the territorial scope of this Regulation, the Member States participating in the enhanced cooperation should be specified.\n(12)\nThis Regulation should be universal, i.e. it should be possible for its uniform conflict-of-laws rules to designate the law of a participating Member State, the law of a non-participating Member State or the law of a State which is not a member of the European Union.\n(13)\nThis Regulation should apply irrespective of the nature of the court or tribunal seized. Where applicable, a court should be deemed to be seized in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003.\n(14)\nIn order to allow the spouses to choose an applicable law with which they have a close connection or, in the absence of such choice, in order that that law might apply to their divorce or legal separation, the law in question should apply even if it is not that of a participating Member State. Where the law of another Member State is designated, the network created by Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters (3), could play a part in assisting the courts with regard to the content of foreign law.\n(15)\nIncreasing the mobility of citizens calls for more flexibility and greater legal certainty. In order to achieve that objective, this Regulation should enhance the parties\u2019 autonomy in the areas of divorce and legal separation by giving them a limited possibility to choose the law applicable to their divorce or legal separation.\n(16)\nSpouses should be able to choose the law of a country with which they have a special connection or the law of the forum as the law applicable to divorce and legal separation. The law chosen by the spouses must be consonant with the fundamental rights recognised by the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.\n(17)\nBefore designating the applicable law, it is important for spouses to have access to up-to-date information concerning the essential aspects of national and Union law and of the procedures governing divorce and legal separation. To guarantee such access to appropriate, good-quality information, the Commission regularly updates it in the Internet-based public information system set up by Council Decision 2001/470/EC.\n(18)\nThe informed choice of both spouses is a basic principle of this Regulation. Each spouse should know exactly what are the legal and social implications of the choice of applicable law. The possibility of choosing the applicable law by common agreement should be without prejudice to the rights of, and equal opportunities for, the two spouses. Hence judges in the participating Member States should be aware of the importance of an informed choice on the part of the two spouses concerning the legal implications of the choice-of-law agreement concluded.\n(19)\nRules on material and formal validity should be defined so that the informed choice of the spouses is facilitated and that their consent is respected with a view to ensuring legal certainty as well as better access to justice. As far as formal validity is concerned, certain safeguards should be introduced to ensure that spouses are aware of the implications of their choice. The agreement on the choice of applicable law should at least be expressed in writing, dated and signed by both parties. However, if the law of the participating Member State in which the two spouses have their habitual residence at the time the agreement is concluded lays down additional formal rules, those rules should be complied with. For example, such additional formal rules may exist in a participating Member State where the agreement is inserted in a marriage contract. If, at the time the agreement is concluded, the spouses are habitually resident in different participating Member States which lay down different formal rules, compliance with the formal rules of one of these States would suffice. If, at the time the agreement is concluded, only one of the spouses is habitually resident in a participating Member State which lays down additional formal rules, these rules should be complied with.\n(20)\nAn agreement designating the applicable law should be able to be concluded and modified at the latest at the time the court is seized, and even during the course of the proceeding if the law of the forum so provides. In that event, it should be sufficient for such designation to be recorded in court in accordance with the law of the forum.\n(21)\nWhere no applicable law is chosen, and with a view to guaranteeing legal certainty and predictability and preventing a situation from arising in which one of the spouses applies for divorce before the other one does in order to ensure that the proceeding is governed by a given law which he considers more favourable to his own interests, this Regulation should introduce harmonised conflict-of-laws rules on the basis of a scale of successive connecting factors based on the existence of a close connection between the spouses and the law concerned. Such connecting factors should be chosen so as to ensure that proceedings relating to divorce or legal separation are governed by a law with which the spouses have a close connection.\n(22)\nWhere this Regulation refers to nationality as a connecting factor for the application of the law of a State, the question of how to deal with cases of multiple nationality should be left to national law, in full observance of the general principles of the European Union.\n(23)\nIf the court is seized in order to convert a legal separation into divorce, and where the parties have not made any choice as to the law applicable, the law which applied to the legal separation should also apply to the divorce. Such continuity would promote predictability for the parties and increase legal certainty. If the law applied to the legal separation does not provide for the conversion of legal separation into divorce, the divorce should be governed by the conflict-of-laws rules which apply in the absence of a choice by the parties. This should not prevent the spouses from seeking divorce on the basis of other rules in this Regulation.\n(24)\nIn certain situations, such as where the applicable law makes no provision for divorce or where it does not grant one of the spouses equal access to divorce or legal separation on grounds of their sex, the law of the court seized should nevertheless apply. This, however, should be without prejudice to the public policy clause.\n(25)\nConsiderations of public interest should allow courts in the Member States the opportunity in exceptional circumstances to disregard the application of a provision of foreign law in a given case where it would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the forum. However, the courts should not be able to apply the public policy exception in order to disregard a provision of the law of another State when to do so would be contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Article 21 thereof, which prohibits all forms of discrimination.\n(26)\nWhere this Regulation refers to the fact that the law of the participating Member State whose court is seized does not provide for divorce, this should be interpreted to mean that the law of this Member State does not have the institute of divorce. In such a case, the court should not be obliged to pronounce a divorce by virtue of this Regulation.\nWhere this Regulation refers to the fact that the law of the participating Member State whose court is seized does not deem the marriage in question valid for the purposes of divorce proceedings, this should be interpreted to mean, inter alia, that such a marriage does not exist in the law of that Member State. In such a case, the court should not be obliged to pronounce a divorce or a legal separation by virtue of this Regulation.\n(27)\nSince there are States and participating Member States in which two or more systems of law or sets of rules concerning matters governed by this Regulation coexist, there should be a provision governing the extent to which this Regulation applies in the different territorial units of those States and participating Member States or to different categories of persons of those States and participating Member States.\n(28)\nIn the absence of rules designating the applicable law, parties choosing the law of the State of the nationality of one of them should at the same time indicate which territorial unit\u2019s law they have agreed upon in case the State whose law is chosen comprises several territorial units each of which has its own system of law or a set of rules in respect of divorce.\n(29)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely the enhancement of legal certainty, predictability and flexibility in international matrimonial proceedings and hence the facilitation of the free movement of persons within the Union, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reasons of the scale and effects of this Regulation be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, by means of enhanced cooperation where appropriate, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(30)\nThis Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular by Article 21 thereof, which states that any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. This Regulation should be applied by the courts of the participating Member States in observance of those rights and principles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSCOPE, RELATION WITH REGULATION (EC) No 2201/2003, DEFINITIONS AND UNIVERSAL APPLICATION\nArticle 1\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply, in situations involving a conflict of laws, to divorce and legal separation.\n2. This Regulation shall not apply to the following matters, even if they arise merely as a preliminary question within the context of divorce or legal separation proceedings:\n(a)\nthe legal capacity of natural persons;\n(b)\nthe existence, validity or recognition of a marriage;\n(c)\nthe annulment of a marriage;\n(d)\nthe name of the spouses;\n(e)\nthe property consequences of the marriage;\n(f)\nparental responsibility;\n(g)\nmaintenance obligations;\n(h)\ntrusts or successions.\nArticle 2\nRelation with Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003\nThis Regulation shall not affect the application of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation:\n1.\n\u2018participating Member State\u2019 means a Member State which participates in enhanced cooperation on the law applicable to divorce and legal separation by virtue of Decision 2010/405/EU, or by virtue of a decision adopted in accordance with the second or third subparagraph of Article 331(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;\n2.\nthe term \u2018court\u2019 shall cover all the authorities in the participating Member States with jurisdiction in the matters falling within the scope of this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nUniversal application\nThe law designated by this Regulation shall apply whether or not it is the law of a participating Member State.\nCHAPTER II\nUNIFORM RULES ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO DIVORCE AND LEGAL SEPARATION\nArticle 5\nChoice of applicable law by the parties\n1. The spouses may agree to designate the law applicable to divorce and legal separation provided that it is one of the following laws:\n(a)\nthe law of the State where the spouses are habitually resident at the time the agreement is concluded; or\n(b)\nthe law of the State where the spouses were last habitually resident, in so far as one of them still resides there at the time the agreement is concluded; or\n(c)\nthe law of the State of nationality of either spouse at the time the agreement is concluded; or\n(d)\nthe law of the forum.\n2. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, an agreement designating the applicable law may be concluded and modified at any time, but at the latest at the time the court is seized.\n3. If the law of the forum so provides, the spouses may also designate the law applicable before the court during the course of the proceeding. In that event, such designation shall be recorded in court in accordance with the law of the forum.\nArticle 6\nConsent and material validity\n1. The existence and validity of an agreement on choice of law or of any term thereof, shall be determined by the law which would govern it under this Regulation if the agreement or term were valid.\n2. Nevertheless, a spouse, in order to establish that he did not consent, may rely upon the law of the country in which he has his habitual residence at the time the court is seized if it appears from the circumstances that it would not be reasonable to determine the effect of his conduct in accordance with the law specified in paragraph 1.\nArticle 7\nFormal validity\n1. The agreement referred to in Article 5(1) and (2), shall be expressed in writing, dated and signed by both spouses. Any communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement shall be deemed equivalent to writing.\n2. However, if the law of the participating Member State in which the two spouses have their habitual residence at the time the agreement is concluded lays down additional formal requirements for this type of agreement, those requirements shall apply.\n3. If the spouses are habitually resident in different participating Member States at the time the agreement is concluded and the laws of those States provide for different formal requirements, the agreement shall be formally valid if it satisfies the requirements of either of those laws.\n4. If only one of the spouses is habitually resident in a participating Member State at the time the agreement is concluded and that State lays down additional formal requirements for this type of agreement, those requirements shall apply.\nArticle 8\nApplicable law in the absence of a choice by the parties\nIn the absence of a choice pursuant to Article 5, divorce and legal separation shall be subject to the law of the State:\n(a)\nwhere the spouses are habitually resident at the time the court is seized; or, failing that\n(b)\nwhere the spouses were last habitually resident, provided that the period of residence did not end more than 1 year before the court was seized, in so far as one of the spouses still resides in that State at the time the court is seized; or, failing that\n(c)\nof which both spouses are nationals at the time the court is seized; or, failing that\n(d)\nwhere the court is seized.\nArticle 9\nConversion of legal separation into divorce\n1. Where legal separation is converted into divorce, the law applicable to divorce shall be the law applied to the legal separation, unless the parties have agreed otherwise in accordance with Article 5.\n2. However, if the law applied to the legal separation does not provide for the conversion of legal separation into divorce, Article 8 shall apply, unless the parties have agreed otherwise in accordance with Article 5.\nArticle 10\nApplication of the law of the forum\nWhere the law applicable pursuant to Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce or does not grant one of the spouses equal access to divorce or legal separation on grounds of their sex, the law of the forum shall apply.\nArticle 11\nExclusion of renvoi\nWhere this Regulation provides for the application of the law of a State, it refers to the rules of law in force in that State other than its rules of private international law.\nArticle 12\nPublic policy\nApplication of a provision of the law designated by virtue of this Regulation may be refused only if such application is manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the forum.\nArticle 13\nDifferences in national law\nNothing in this Regulation shall oblige the courts of a participating Member State whose law does not provide for divorce or does not deem the marriage in question valid for the purposes of divorce proceedings to pronounce a divorce by virtue of the application of this Regulation.\nArticle 14\nStates with two or more legal systems - territorial conflicts of laws\nWhere a State comprises several territorial units each of which has its own system of law or a set of rules concerning matters governed by this Regulation:\n(a)\nany reference to the law of such State shall be construed, for the purposes of determining the law applicable under this Regulation, as referring to the law in force in the relevant territorial unit;\n(b)\nany reference to habitual residence in that State shall be construed as referring to habitual residence in a territorial unit;\n(c)\nany reference to nationality shall refer to the territorial unit designated by the law of that State, or, in the absence of relevant rules, to the territorial unit chosen by the parties or, in absence of choice, to the territorial unit with which the spouse or spouses has or have the closest connection.\nArticle 15\nStates with two or more legal systems - inter-personal conflicts of laws\nIn relation to a State which has two or more systems of law or sets of rules applicable to different categories of persons concerning matters governed by this Regulation, any reference to the law of such a State shall be construed as referring to the legal system determined by the rules in force in that State. In the absence of such rules, the system of law or the set of rules with which the spouse or spouses has or have the closest connection applies.\nArticle 16\nNon-application of this Regulation to internal conflicts of laws\nA participating Member State in which different systems of law or sets of rules apply to matters governed by this Regulation shall not be required to apply this Regulation to conflicts of laws arising solely between such different systems of law or sets of rules.\nCHAPTER III\nOTHER PROVISIONS\nArticle 17\nInformation to be provided by participating Member States\n1. By 21 September 2011 the participating Member States shall communicate to the Commission their national provisions, if any, concerning:\n(a)\nthe formal requirements applicable to agreements on the choice of applicable law pursuant to Article 7(2) to (4); and\n(b)\nthe possibility of designating the applicable law in accordance with Article 5(3).\nThe participating Member States shall inform the Commission of any subsequent changes to these provisions.\n2. The Commission shall make all information communicated in accordance with paragraph 1 publicly available through appropriate means, in particular through the website of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters.\nArticle 18\nTransitional provisions\n1. This Regulation shall apply only to legal proceedings instituted and to agreements of the kind referred to in Article 5 concluded as from 21 June 2012.\nHowever, effect shall also be given to an agreement on the choice of the applicable law concluded before 21 June 2012, provided that it complies with Articles 6 and 7.\n2. This Regulation shall be without prejudice to agreements on the choice of applicable law concluded in accordance with the law of a participating Member State whose court is seized before 21 June 2012.\nArticle 19\nRelationship with existing international conventions\n1. Without prejudice to the obligations of the participating Member States pursuant to Article 351 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, this Regulation shall not affect the application of international conventions to which one or more participating Member States are party at the time when this Regulation is adopted or when the decision pursuant to the second or third subparagraph of Article 331(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is adopted and which lay down conflict-of-laws rules relating to divorce or separation.\n2. However, this Regulation shall, as between participating Member States, take precedence over conventions concluded exclusively between two or more of them in so far as such conventions concern matters governed by this Regulation.\nArticle 20\nReview clause\n1. By 31 December 2015, and every 5 years thereafter, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee a report on the application of this Regulation. The report shall be accompanied, where appropriate, by proposals to adapt this Regulation.\n2. To that end, the participating Member States shall communicate to the Commission the relevant information on the application of this Regulation by their courts.\nCHAPTER IV\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 21\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 21 June 2012, with the exception of Article 17, which shall apply from 21 June 2011.\nFor those participating Member States which participate in enhanced cooperation by virtue of a decision adopted in accordance with the second or third subparagraph of Article 331(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, this Regulation shall apply as from the date indicated in the decision concerned.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the participating Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["97", "58", "78", "11", "93", "39", "31", "55", "69", "17", "1", "34", "16", "83", "43", "72", "71", "65", "59", "42", "13", "14", "81", "6", "35", "63", "47", "21", "49", "60", "No Label", "4"], "gold": ["4"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 159/2011\nof 21 February 2011\nentering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Spi\u0161sk\u00e9 p\u00e1rky (TSG))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 9(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, and pursuant to Article 19(3) of the same Regulation, the Czech Republic and Slovakia\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Spi\u0161sk\u00e9 p\u00e1rky\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no objection pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register.\n(3)\nThe application also requested protection pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006. That protection should be granted to the name \u2018Spi\u0161sk\u00e9 p\u00e1rky\u2019 in so far as, in the absence of objections, it could not be demonstrated that the name is used in a lawful, renowned and economically significant manner for similar agricultural products or foodstuffs,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nProtection as referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2011.", "references": ["23", "55", "42", "70", "3", "93", "54", "16", "11", "34", "90", "81", "50", "8", "28", "65", "87", "4", "19", "68", "39", "35", "84", "9", "74", "43", "57", "63", "6", "2", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 July 2012\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles between the European Union and the Russian Federation\n(2012/429/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2012/106/EU (1), the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles between the European Union and the Russian Federation (\u2018the Agreement\u2019), was signed on 16 December 2011, subject to its conclusion.\n(2)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles between the European Union and the Russian Federation, is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to make the notification provided for in Article 13(2) of the Agreement in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the Agreement (3).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["72", "74", "37", "60", "8", "17", "26", "83", "89", "2", "61", "59", "79", "39", "53", "75", "68", "85", "69", "43", "93", "25", "13", "6", "12", "57", "63", "76", "67", "0", "No Label", "3", "9", "54", "55", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "54", "55", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 395/2010\nof 7 May 2010\namending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 as regards administrative arrangements on catch certificates\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 (1) of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, in particular Articles 12(4), 14(3), 20(4) and 52 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAdministrative arrangements by which catch certificates are established, validated or submitted by electronic means or replaced by electronic traceability systems ensuring the same level of control by authorities are to be listed in Annex IX to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 of 22 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 (2). Since new administrative arrangements on catch certificates have been agreed, that Annex should be updated.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1010/2009 should be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe administrative arrangements on catch certificates, set out in the Annex, are based on electronic traceability systems that have been in place prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 hence this Regulation should apply as from 1 January 2010.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1010/2009 is amended as follows:\nAnnex IX is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2010.", "references": ["17", "84", "34", "71", "77", "5", "62", "21", "45", "70", "6", "42", "19", "58", "46", "48", "66", "35", "98", "78", "32", "55", "80", "28", "61", "87", "30", "40", "14", "49", "No Label", "12", "41", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["12", "41", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 540/2012\nof 21 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nIn March 2005, the Commission initiated an investigation (2) with regards to imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes (SPT) originating, inter alia, in Ukraine (\u2018original investigation\u2019). In June 2006 definitive anti-dumping duties were imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 (3). In addition, on 30 November 2007, the Commission published a Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, reflecting a name change of two Ukrainian exporting producers (4).\n(2)\nOn 8 September 2006, Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (\u2018Interpipe group\u2019 or \u2018the applicants\u2019) lodged a request (5) before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (CFI) to annul Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 as far as it affects them.\n(3)\nWith regard to CJSC Nikopolosky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube and OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (NTRP) it is recalled that their company names changed in February 2007 to CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant, respectively (6). Subsequently, CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube has been discontinued as a legal entity and all its property and non-property rights and liabilities were taken over by LLC Interpipe Niko Tube, which was established in December 2007.\n(4)\nBy its judgment of 10 March 2009 (7), the CFI annulled Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 in so far as the anti-dumping duty fixed for exports by the applicants exceeds that which would have been applicable had the export price not been adjusted for a commission when sales took place through the related trading company.\n(5)\nThe Council of the European Union and the Commission, as well as the applicants, lodged appeals requesting the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) to set aside the CFI judgment of 10 March 2009. On 16 February 2012, the ECJ dismissed both the appeals and the cross-appeal (\u2018the Judgment\u2019) (8) and thus confirmed the CFI (now the General Court) judgment of 10 March 2009.\n(6)\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 was consequently annulled to the extent to which the anti-dumping duty imposed on exports into the European Union of goods produced and exported by the Interpipe group exceeded that which would be applicable if export price not been adjusted for a commission when sales took place through the related trading company.\n(7)\nIt is recognised by the Courts (9) that, in cases where a proceeding consists of several steps, the annulment of one of these steps does not annul the complete proceeding. The anti-dumping proceeding is an example of such a multi-step proceeding. Consequently, the annulment of parts of the definitive anti-dumping Regulation does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of the Regulation in question. On the other hand, according to Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Union institutions are obliged to comply with the Judgment of the Courts of the European Union. Accordingly, the Union Institutions, in so complying with the Judgment, have the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the Judgment (10).\n(8)\nThis Regulation seeks to correct the aspects of the Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 found to be inconsistent with the basic Regulation, and which thus led to the annulment of parts of that Regulation. All other findings made in Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 remain valid.\n(9)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the anti-dumping duty rate for the Interpipe group was recalculated on the basis of the Judgment.\nB. NEW ASSESSMENT OF THE FINDINGS BASED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE\n(10)\nIn this Regulation, the aspect of the Judgment that is addressed is the calculation of the dumping margin, more specifically the calculation of the adjustment made to the export price for differences in commissions in accordance with Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation.\n(11)\nAs outlined in recitals (131) and (134) of the Regulation (EC) No 954/2006, the export price was adjusted for commissions pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation for sales made via the related trading company.\n(12)\nThe CFI, in its Judgment, found, and the ECJ later confirmed, that the Union Institutions, in comparing the normal value and the export price, should not have made an adjustment for commissions in this particular case.\n(13)\nTherefore, the dumping margin was re-calculated without adjusting the export price for differences in commissions.\n(14)\nThe comparison of the thus re-calculated weighted average export price with the weighted average normal value as found during the original investigation by product type on an ex-factory basis showed the existence of dumping. The dumping margin established, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Union frontier, duty unpaid, is 17,7 %.\nC. DISCLOSURE\n(15)\nAll interested parties concerned by the implementation of the Judgment were informed of the proposal to revise the rates of anti-dumping duty applicable to the Interpipe group. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation.\nD. CONCLUSION\n(16)\nOn the basis of the above the duty rate applicable to the Interpipe group should be amended accordingly. The amended rate should also apply retroactively from 30 June 2006 (the date that Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 entered into force), in the following sense: repayment or remission must be requested from national customs authorities in accordance with applicable customs legislation. For instance, if that repayment or remission is asked on the basis of Article 236(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (11) it must, in principle, only be granted if the request was made by a submission of an application to the appropriate customs office within a period of three years from the date on which the amount of those duties was communicated to the debtor. (For example, if the duty was collected shortly after the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 954/2006, and the request for reimbursement was made within three years from the date on which the amount of duties was communicated to the debtor, normally, the request should be granted, provided that it also fulfils all other requirements),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entry concerning CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant, in the table in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006, shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Company\nAnti-dumping duty\nTARIC additional code\nLLC Interpipe Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP)\n17,7 %\nA743\u2019\nArticle 2\nTo the extent that products produced by the companies referred to in Article 1 are concerned, the amounts of duties paid or entered into the accounts pursuant to Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 in its initial version and which exceed those as established on the basis of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 as amended by this Regulation, shall be repaid or remitted. Repayment or remission must be requested from national customs authorities in accordance with applicable customs legislation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 21 June 2012.", "references": ["75", "24", "54", "34", "95", "85", "41", "32", "5", "6", "70", "57", "56", "39", "29", "98", "10", "64", "7", "58", "82", "53", "86", "72", "38", "35", "67", "49", "13", "60", "No Label", "8", "22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1262/2010\nof 22 December 2010\namending Regulations (EU) No 462/2010, (EU) No 463/2010 and (EU) No 464/2010 as regards the closing date of the invitations to tender for the reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain and Portugal and on sorghum imported into Spain, for the quota year 2010, and the dates of expiry of these Regulations\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EU) No 462/2010 (2), (EU) No 463/2010 (3) and (EU) No 464/2010 (4) opened invitations to tender for the reduction in the duty referred to in Article 136 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on maize imported into Spain, maize imported into Portugal and sorghum imported into Spain, respectively.\n(2)\nBetween the date of the opening of the invitations to tender and 28 October 2010 the quantity of maize imported into Spain which can be classified as part of the reduced import duty quota, less the quantities of cereal substitutes referred to in Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 of 18 December 2008 laying down the detailed rules for the application of tariff quotas for imports of maize and sorghum into Spain and imports of maize into Portugal (5), covers only 37 % of the quota. The quantity of maize imported into Portugal which can be classified as part of the reduced import duty quota covers 72 % of the quota. The quantity of sorghum imported into Spain which can be classified as part of the reduced import duty quota covers only 15 % of the quota. In view of the market conditions in Spain and Portugal, opening invitations to tender until 16 December 2010 is not likely to enable sufficient quantities to cover the quotas to be imported.\n(3)\nTherefore the invitations to tender for the reduction in the duty on maize and sorghum imported into Spain and maize imported into Portugal should be extended until the 2010 quotas are fully used up and at the latest until the end of May 2011, in accordance with Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008. Accordingly, the expiry dates of Regulations (EU) No 462/2010, (EU) No 463/2010 and (EU) No 464/2010 must be amended.\n(4)\nRegulations (EU) No 462/2010, (EU) No 463/2010 and (EU) No 464/2010 should be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment of Regulation (EU) No 462/2010\nRegulation (EU) No 462/2010 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe invitation to tender is open until the quota is used up and at the latest until 31 May 2011. During the tendering period partial invitations to tender shall be issued and the dates for submission of tenders shall be laid down in the notice of invitation to tender.\u2019;\n(b)\nin Article 5, the third paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 31 May 2011.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAmendment of Regulation (EU) No 463/2010\nRegulation (EU) No 463/2010 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe invitation to tender is open until the quota is used up and at the latest until 31 May 2011. During the tendering period partial invitations to tender shall be issued and the dates for submission of tenders shall be laid down in the notice of invitation to tender.\u2019;\n(b)\nin Article 5, the third paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 31 May 2011.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nAmendment of Regulation (EU) No 464/2010\nRegulation (EU) No 464/2010 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe invitation to tender is open until the quota is used up and at the latest until 31 May 2011. During the tendering period partial invitations to tender shall be issued and the dates for submission of tenders shall be laid down in the notice of invitation to tender.\u2019;\n(b)\nin Article 5, the third paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 31 May 2011.\u2019.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2010.", "references": ["27", "93", "52", "37", "26", "92", "41", "44", "51", "14", "12", "80", "3", "53", "7", "70", "25", "13", "83", "75", "63", "29", "55", "58", "0", "16", "34", "73", "89", "39", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 January 2011\nadopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region\n(notified under document C(2010) 9669)\n(2011/64/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Continental biogeographical region referred to in Article 1(c)(iii) of Directive 92/43/EEC comprises the territory of Luxembourg and parts of the territories of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden as specified in the biogeographical map approved on 25 April 2005 by the Committee set up by Article 20 of that Directive, hereinafter the \u2018Habitats Committee\u2019.\n(2)\nIt is necessary in the context of a process which was initiated in 1995 to make further progress in the actual establishment of the Natura 2000 network, which is an essential element of the protection of biodiversity in the Union.\n(3)\nThe initial list and the first three updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region, within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC, were adopted by Commission Decisions 2004/798/EC (2), 2008/25/EC (3), 2009/93/EC (4) and 2010/44/EU (5). On the basis of Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Member State concerned shall designate the sites included in the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region as special areas of conservation as soon as possible and within 6 years at most, establishing conservation priorities and the necessary conservation measures.\n(4)\nIn the context of a dynamic adaptation of the Natura 2000 network, the lists of sites of Community importance are reviewed. A fourth update of the Continental list is therefore necessary.\n(5)\nOn the one hand, the fourth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region is necessary in order to include additional sites that have been proposed since 2008 by the Member States as sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC. The obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC are applicable as soon as possible and within 6 years at most from the adoption of the fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region.\n(6)\nOn the other hand, the fourth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region is necessary in order to reflect any changes in site related information submitted by the Member States following the adoption of the initial and the first three updated Community lists. In that sense, the fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region constitutes a consolidated version of the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region. However, it should be stressed that the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC are applicable as soon as possible and within 6 years at most from the adoption of the initial or the first three updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region, depending on which list a site of Community importance was included as such for the first time.\n(7)\nFor the Continental biogeographical region, lists of sites proposed as sites of Community importance within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC have been transmitted to the Commission between November 2003 and November 2009 by the Member States concerned in accordance with Article 4(1) of that Directive.\n(8)\nThe lists of proposed sites were accompanied by information on each site, supplied in the format established by Commission Decision 97/266/EC of 18 December 1996 concerning a site information format for proposed Natura 2000 sites (6).\n(9)\nThat information includes the most recent and definitive map of the site transmitted by the Member States concerned, name, location and extent of the site, and the data yielded by application of the criteria specified in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(10)\nOn the basis of the draft list drawn up by the Commission in agreement with each of the Member States concerned, which also identifies sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, a fourth updated list of sites selected as sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region should be adopted.\n(11)\nKnowledge of the existence and distribution of the natural habitat types and species is constantly evolving, as a result of the surveillance in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, the evaluation and selection of sites at Community level was done using the best available information at present.\n(12)\nCertain Member States have not proposed sufficient sites to meet the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC for certain habitat types and species. For those habitat types and species it can therefore not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is complete. Taking into account the delay in receiving the information and reaching agreement with the Member States, it is necessary to adopt a fourth updated list of sites, which will need to be revised in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(13)\nGiven that knowledge on the existence and distribution of some of the natural habitat types of Annex I and species of Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC remains incomplete, it should not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is either complete or incomplete. The list should be revised, if necessary, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(14)\nIn the interests of clarity and transparency Decision 2010/44/EU should be repealed.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Habitats Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe fourth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2010/44/EU is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 January 2011.", "references": ["78", "9", "53", "74", "54", "89", "18", "21", "87", "42", "22", "12", "98", "84", "92", "95", "57", "91", "43", "6", "46", "10", "56", "28", "72", "81", "90", "83", "47", "36", "No Label", "2", "39", "58", "96"], "gold": ["2", "39", "58", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 May 2011\ngranting certain parties an exemption from the extension to certain bicycle parts of the anti-dumping duty on bicycles originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93, last maintained and amended by Regulation (EC) No 1095/2005, lifting the suspension and revoking the exemption of the payment of the anti-dumping duty extended to certain bicycle parts originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China granted to certain parties pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97\n(notified under document C(2011) 3543)\n(2011/304/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019),\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 (2) (the \u2018extending Regulation\u2019), extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 (3) on bicycles originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China to imports of certain bicycle parts from the People\u2019s Republic of China, and levying the extended duty on such imports registered under Regulation (EC) No 703/96,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 of 20 January 1997 on the authorisation of the exemption of imports of certain bicycle parts originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China from the extension by Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 (4) (the \u2018exemption Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAfter the entry into force of the exemption Regulation, a number of bicycle assemblers submitted requests pursuant to Article 3 of that Regulation for exemption from the anti-dumping duty as extended to imports of certain bicycle parts from the People\u2019s Republic of China by Regulation (EC) No 71/97 (the \u2018extended anti-dumping duty\u2019). The Commission has published in the Official Journal successive lists of bicycle assemblers (5) for which the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty in respect of their imports of essential bicycle parts declared for free circulation was suspended pursuant to Article 5(1) of the exemption Regulation.\n(2)\nFollowing the last publication of the list of parties under examination (6), a main period of examination has been selected. This period was defined as from 1 January 2010 to 31 August 2010. Further information from the years 2008 and 2009 were also requested. A questionnaire was sent to all parties which were to be evaluated, requesting information on the assembly operations conducted during the relevant period of examination.\n(3)\nThe Commission was also informed of the liquidation of two companies which were exempted from the extended anti-dumping duty on bicycle parts. Furthermore, a further company failed to comply with the conditions of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97. For these companies the exemption will be revoked.\nA. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION FOR WHICH SUSPENSION WAS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED\nA.1. Acceptable requests for exemption\n(4)\nThe Commission received from the parties listed in table 1 below all the information required for the determination of the admissibility of their requests. These parties had already received their suspension with effect from the day of arrival of a first complete application dossier at the Commission\u2019s premises. The newly requested and provided information was examined and verified, where necessary, at the premises of the parties concerned. Based on this information, the Commission found that the requests submitted by the parties listed in table 1 below are admissible pursuant to Article 4(1) of the exemption Regulation.\nTable 1\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nTARIC additional code\nSektor S.R.L.\nVia Don Peruzzi 27/B, 36027 Rosa\u2019 (VI)\nItaly\nA956\nSintema Sport S.R.L.\nVia delle Valli 7, 20042 Albiate (MB) (postal code will change to 20847)\nItaly\nA970\nWilier Triestina S.P.A.\nVia Fratel M. Venzo 11/1, 36028 Rossano Veneto (VI)\nItaly\nA963\n(5)\nThe facts as finally ascertained by the Commission show that for all of these applicants\u2019 bicycle assembly operations, the value of the parts originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China which were used in their assembly operations was lower than 60 % of the total value of the parts used in these assembly operations, and they, therefore, fall outside the scope of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(6)\nFor this reason, and in accordance with Article 7(1) of the exemption Regulation, the parties listed in the above table should be exempt from the extended anti-dumping duty.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) of the exemption Regulation, the exemption of the parties listed in table 1 from the extended anti-dumping duty should take effect as from the date of receipt of their requests. In addition, their customs debt in respect of the extended anti-dumping duty is to be considered void as from the date of receipt of their requests for exemption.\n(8)\nThe company Sintema Sport S.R.L. informed the Commission that the postal code of the company will change in April 2011 from 20042 to 20847 due to the change of district of Albiate from Milan district to Monza district.\nA.2. Unacceptable requests for exemption\n(9)\nThe parties listed in table 2 below also submitted a request for exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty.\nTable 2\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nTARIC additional code\nBicicletas JL\nC/Alhama No 64, 14900 Lucena\nSpain\nA982\nEddy Merckx Cycles N.V.\nBirrebeekstraat 1, 1860 Meise\nBelgium\nA954\nEuro-Bike Produktionsgesellschaft mbH\nBiaser Strasse 29, 39261 Zerbst\nGermany\nA873\nKHK Bike Handels GmbH\nIndustriestrasse 21a, 97483 Eltmann\nGermany\nA965\nS.C. Rich Euro Bike S.R.L.\nBucuresti-Urziceni Route, no 54A, 077010 Afumati, Ilfov County\nRomania\nA895\nTrade Invest spol. s r.o.\nTiska\u0159sk\u00e1 10/257, 108 00 Praha 10\nCzech Republic\nA962\n(10)\nTwo parties did not use bicycle parts subject to anti-dumping duty in their assembly operation during the examination period. One party informed the Commission that they do not need the exemption in the future. Two parties did not submit a questionnaire reply and claimed that they had not used bicycle parts subject to anti-dumping duty in their assembly operation. One party is in liquidation.\n(11)\nSince the parties listed in table 2 failed to meet the criteria for exemption, the Commission has to reject their request for exemption, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the exemption Regulation. In the light of this, the suspension of the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty referred to in Article 5 of the exemption Regulation must be lifted and the extended anti-dumping duty must be collected as from the date of receipt of the request submitted by this party.\nA.3 Revocations\n(12)\nFor the parties listed in table 3 below the exemption is to be revoked.\nTable 3\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nTARIC additional code\nBiria Bike GmbH\nHauptstrasse 37, 01904 Neukirch/Lausitz\nGermany\n8062\nMoore Large & Co.\nGramplan Buildings, Sinfin Lane, DE24 9GL Derby\nUnited Kingdom\n8963\nN&W Cycle GmbH\nM\u00fchlenhof 5, 51598 Friesenhagen\nGermany\nA852\n(13)\nThese parties were exempted from the extended anti-dumping duty on bicycle parts. The Commission was informed now that one of these parties has already been liquidated and one party is in liquidation. Evidence available to the Commission has shown that another company stopped its assembly operations and resold the imported parts to a not exempted party. Although those imports fall outside the scope of the exemption scheme, the company continued to declare those imports under it. Due to the fact that it has no own assembly operation, the company does not fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of the exemption Regulation, i.e. it does not ensure that its assembly operation remains outside the scope of Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and no conclusive records can be provided showing the use made of the deliveries received. Consequently, the exemption has to be revoked in accordance with Article 10 of the exemption Regulation.\nB. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION FOR WHICH SUSPENSION WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY GRANTED\n(14)\nInterested parties are hereby informed of the receipt of further requests for exemption, pursuant to Article 3 of the exemption Regulation, from parties listed in table 3. The suspension from the extended duty, following these requests, should take effect as shown in the column headed \u2018Date of effect\u2019:\nTable 4\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nDate of effect\nTARIC additional code\nBikeworks AC GmbH\nErnst-Abbe-Strasse 28, 52249 Eschweiler\nGermany\n11.6.2010\nA980\nBlue Factory Team S.L.\nElche Parque Industrial, C/Torres y Villarroel, 6, 03203 Elche\nSpain\n16.7.2010\nA984\nCode X Sp. z o.o.\nOlszanka 109, 33-386 Podegrodzie (initially ul. Krolewska nr 16, 00-103 Warszawa)\nPoland\n22.1.2010\nA966\nJETLANE SAS (initially JET\u2019LEAN)\n4, boulevard de Mons, 59650 Villeneuve d\u2019Ascq\nFrance\n18.2.2010\nA968\nMaxtec Ltd\n1, Goliamokonarsko Shosse, 4204 Tsaratsovo, Plovdiv\nBulgaria\n15.10.2010\nA991\nMetelli di Staffoni Mario & C.S.A.S.\nVia Trento 68, 25030 Trenzano (BS)\nItaly\n13.4.2010\nA979\nM\u00fcller GmbH\nRiedlerweg 7, 8054 Graz\nAustria\n30.3.2010\nA978 (initially A977)\nUnicykel AB\nAr\u00f6ds Industriev\u00e4g 14, 422 43 Hisings Backa\nSweden\n11.1.2010\nA967\n(15)\nThe company Code X Sp. z o.o. received its suspension on 22 January 2010. In the meantime the company changed its legal seat from ul. Krolewska nr 16, 00-103 Warszawa to Olszanka 109, 33-386 Podegrodzie. This change of legal seat does not affect the initial request for suspension. The company JET\u2019LEAN received its suspension on 18 February 2010. In the meantime the legal name of JET\u2019LEAN was changed into JETLANE. This change of name does not affect the initial request for suspension. The company M\u00fcller GmbH received its suspension on 30 March 2010. The additional TARIC code A977 initially given to the company M\u00fcller GmbH was erroneously attributed twice and was withdrawn. As of 3 June 2010 the company M\u00fcller GmbH received the additional TARIC code A978. This change of code does not affect the initial request for suspension.\n(16)\nAll companies listed in tables 1 - 4 above were informed and given the opportunity to comment. It was found that contrary to the original information at the Commission\u2019s disposal company IMACycles Bicicletas e Motociclos Lda was not in fact in liquidation. Consequently, the exemption for that company will not be revoked and the name of the company was removed from table 3. None of the other comments received were such as to alter the conclusions set out in this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe parties listed below in table 1 are hereby exempt from the extension to imports of certain bicycle parts from the People\u2019s Republic of China by Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of the definitive anti-dumping duty on bicycles originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93, last amended and maintained by Regulation (EC) No 1095/2005.\nThe exemption shall take effect in relation to each party as from the relevant date shown in the column headed \u2018Date of effect\u2019.\nTable 1\nList of parties to be exempt\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nExemption pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 88/97\nDate of effect\nTARIC additional code\nSektor S.R.L.\nVia Don Peruzzi 27/B, 36027 Rosa\u2019 (VI)\nItaly\nArticle 7\n27.5.2009\nA956\nSintema Sport S.R.L.\nVia delle Valli 7, 20042 Albiate (MB) (postal code will change to 20847)\nItaly\nArticle 7\n22.2.2010\nA970\nWilier Triestina S.P.A.\nVia Fratel M. Venzo 11/1, 36028 Rossano Veneto (VI)\nItaly\nArticle 7\n3.11.2009\nA963\nArticle 2\nThe requests for exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 88/97 by the parties listed below in table 2 are hereby rejected.\nThe suspension of payment of the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 88/97 is hereby lifted for the parties concerned as from the relevant date shown in the column headed \u2018Date of effect\u2019.\nTable 2\nList of parties for which the suspension is to be lifted\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nSuspension pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 88/97\nDate of effect\nTARIC additional code\nBicicletas JL\nC/Alhama No 64, 14900 Lucena\nSpain\nArticle 5\n5.7.2010\nA982\nEddy Merckx Cycles N.V.\nBirrebeekstraat 1, 1860 Meise\nBelgium\nArticle 5\n30.4.2009\nA954\nEuro-Bike Produktionsgesellschaft mbH\nBiaser Strasse 29, 39261 Zerbst\nGermany\nArticle 5\n15.10.2007\nA873\nKHK Bike Handels GmbH\nIndustriestrasse 21a, 97483 Eltmann\nGermany\nArticle 5\n3.12.2009\nA965\nS.C. Rich Euro Bike S.R.L.\nBucuresti-Urziceni Route, no 54A, 077010 Afumati, Ilfov County\nRomania\nArticle 5\n10.7.2008\nA895\nTrade Invest spol. s r.o.\nTiska\u0159sk\u00e1 10/257, 108 00 Praha 10\nCzech Republic\nArticle 5\n20.10.2009\nA962\nArticle 3\nThe exemptions from the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 88/97 for the parties listed below in table 3 are to be revoked pursuant to Article 10 of the exemption Regulation.\nThe exemption from the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty is hereby lifted for the parties concerned as from the relevant date shown in the column headed \u2018Date of effect\u2019.\nTable 3\nList of parties for which the exemption is to be lifted\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nExemption pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 88/97\nDate of effect\nTARIC additional code\nBiria Bike GmbH\nHauptstrasse 37, 01904 Neukirch/Lausitz\nGermany\nArticle 7\n1 day after publication of the present Decision\n8062\nMoore Large & Co.\nGramplan Buildings, Sinfin Lane, DE24 9GL Derby\nUnited Kingdom\nArticle 7\n1 day after publication of the present Decision\n8963\nN&W Cycle GmbH\nM\u00fchlenhof 5, 51598 Friesenhagen\nGermany\nArticle 7\n1 day after publication of the present Decision\nA852\nArticle 4\nThe parties listed in table 4 below constitute the updated list of parties under examination pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 88/97. The suspension from the extended duty, following these requests, took effect from the relevant date in the column headed \u2018Date of effect\u2019 in Table 4.\nTable 4\nList of parties under examination\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nSuspension pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 88/97\nDate of effect\nTARIC additional code\nBikeworks AC GmbH\nErnst-Abbe-Strasse 28, 52249 Eschweiler\nGermany\nArticle 5\n11.6.2010\nA980\nBlue Factory Team S.L.\nElche Parque Industrial, C/Torres y Villarroel, 6, 03203 Elche\nSpain\nArticle 5\n16.7.2010\nA984\nCode X Sp. z o.o.\nOlszanka 109, 33-386 Podegrodzie (initially ul Krolewska nr 16, 00-103 Warszawa)\nPoland\nArticle 5\n22.1.2010\nA966\nJETLANE SAS (initially JET\u2019LEAN)\n4, boulevard de Mons, 59650 Villeneuve d\u2019Ascq\nFrance\nArticle 5\n18.2.2010\nA968\nMaxtec Ltd\n1, Goliamokonarsko Shosse, 4204 Tsaratsovo, Plovdiv\nBulgaria\nArticle 5\n15.10.2010\nA991\nMetelli di Staffoni Mario & C.S.A.S.\nVia Trento 68, 25030 Trenzano (BS)\nItaly\nArticle 5\n13.4.2010\nA979\nM\u00fcller GmbH\nRiedlerweg 7, 8054 Graz\nAustria\nArticle 5\n30.3.2010\nA978 (initially A977)\nUnicykel AB\nAr\u00f6ds Industriev\u00e4g 14, 422 43 Hisings Backa\nSweden\nArticle 5\n11.1.2010\nA967\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States and to the parties listed in Article 1, 2, 3 and 4. It is also published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["49", "27", "14", "47", "29", "41", "68", "5", "94", "65", "73", "4", "61", "56", "80", "15", "2", "3", "98", "99", "6", "10", "26", "12", "0", "71", "74", "35", "93", "7", "No Label", "20", "22", "23", "48", "55", "85", "95", "96"], "gold": ["20", "22", "23", "48", "55", "85", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1035/2010\nof 15 November 2010\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of melamine originating in the People's Republic of China\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 4 January 2010, the Commission received a complaint concerning imports of melamine originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China lodged pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation by Borealis Agrolinz Melamine GmbH, DSM Melamine BV and Zak\u0142ady Azotowe Pu\u0142awy (\u2018the complainants\u2019), representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of melamine.\n(2)\nThis complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping and of material injury resulting there from, which was considered sufficient to justify the opening of a proceeding.\n(3)\nOn 17 February 2010, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (\u2018the notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of melamine originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the country concerned\u2019 or \u2018the PRC\u2019).\n2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(4)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainants, exporting producers in the PRC, importers, traders, users, suppliers and associations known to be concerned, and the representatives of the PRC of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(5)\nIn view of the apparent high number of exporting producers in the PRC sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping and injury in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers in the PRC were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the investigation period (1 January 2009-31 December 2009).\n(6)\nSeven replies were received to the sampling exercise from exporting producers or groups of exporting producers in the PRC. However two companies withdrew from further cooperation with the investigation at an early stage. Sampling was therefore no longer necessary and all parties were informed that a sample would not be selected.\n(7)\nIn order to allow exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the Chinese exporting producers known to be concerned, the Chinese authorities and to other Chinese exporting producers that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. Three Chinese exporting producer groups and one individual company requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, or IT should the investigation establish that they did not meet the conditions for MET. One further group requested IT only.\n(8)\nQuestionnaires were sent to all parties known to be concerned and to all other companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. Replies were received from five exporting producers and related companies in the PRC, one producer in the United States of America which was the proposed analogue country as mentioned in the notice of initiation, and one producer in another possible analogue country, Indonesia. Questionnaire replies were also received from three Union producers and seven users cooperated by submitting a questionnaire reply. None of the importers supplied the Commission with any information or made themselves known in the course of this investigation.\n(9)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest and carried out verifications at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nUnion producers\n-\nBorealis Agrolinz Melamine GmbH, Austria\n-\nDSM Melamine BV (now OCI Melamine BV), the Netherlands\n-\nZak\u0142ady Azotowe Pu\u0142awy, Poland\n(b)\nExporting producers in the PRC\n-\nSichuan Chemical Group: Sichuan Chemical Co., Ltd, Sichuan Jinhua Chemical Co., Ltd, New Tianfu Chemicals Co., Ltd and M&A Chemicals Corporation\n-\nSichuan Golden Elephant Group: Sichuan Golden Elephant Chemical Industry Group Co., Ltd and Sichuan Jade Elephant Melamine S&T Co., Ltd\n-\nShandong Liaherd Group: Shandong Liaherd Chemical Industry Co., Ltd, Shandong Lianhe Fengyuan Chemical Industry Co., Ltd and Yiyuan Lianhe Fertilizer Co., Ltd\n-\nTianjin Kaiwei Chemical Co., Ltd\n-\nHenan Junhua Group: Henan Junhua Chemical Company Ltd and Haohua-Junhua Group Zhengyang Chemical Co., Ltd\n(10)\nIn view of the need to establish a normal value for the exporting producer that requested only IT and exporting producers to which MET might not be granted, a verification to establish normal value on the basis of data from Indonesia as analogue country took place at the premises of the following company:\n(c)\nProducer in Indonesia\n-\nDSM Kaltim Melamine (DKM)\n3. Investigation period\n(11)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the investigation period (period considered).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(12)\nThe product concerned is melamine, currently falling within CN code 2933 61 00 and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n(13)\nMelamine is a white crystalline powder obtained from urea. Melamine is mainly used in laminates, moulding powders, wood based panels and coating resins.\n2. Like product\n(14)\nThe investigation has shown that melamine produced and sold by the Union industry in the Union, melamine produced and sold on the domestic market of the PRC and melamine imported into the Union from the PRC, as well as that produced and sold in Indonesia, which served as an analogue country, has essentially the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same basic end uses.\n(15)\nTherefore these products are provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n1. Market Economy Treatment\n(16)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. Briefly and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in summarised form below:\n-\nbusiness decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values,\n-\nfirms have one clear set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and are applied for all purposes,\n-\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system,\n-\nbankruptcy and Property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty, and\n-\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates.\n(17)\nThree exporting producer groups and one exporting producer from the PRC requested MET and replied to the MET claim form within the given deadline.\n(18)\nFor all these cooperating companies in the PRC, the Commission sought all information deemed necessary and verified information submitted in the MET claim at the premises of the companies in question.\n(19)\nAll of the cooperating exporting producers and groups in the PRC were found not to meet criteria to be granted MET. All companies involved in the production or commercialisation of melamine located in the PRC were invited to claim MET. Should one company in a group be denied MET then the group as a whole is also denied.\n(20)\nFor those companies producing urea from natural gas to manufacture melamine this denial was based on the grounds that the costs of the major input, natural gas, did not substantially reflect market values, as required by Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. The MET investigation determined that this was due to State interference in the natural gas market in the PRC.\n(21)\nThe natural gas market in the PRC is dominated by three State-owned companies. Companies that produce urea, which is then used by them to produce melamine, benefit from a low government fixed gas price for the production of urea. A company producing urea, which is a fertiliser and important for the Chinese agricultural and food industry, pays a significantly lower price for its gas compared to companies which need gas for other industrial uses. In addition to this dual-pricing mechanism, the price of natural gas for industrial use is itself distorted by State interference and is itself considerably lower than the world market price for gas.\n(22)\nThis low gas price allows these melamine producers to produce it at unnaturally reduced prices, taking advantage of the distorted low price of natural gas. Since natural gas forms a major part of the cost of urea (around 80 %) and that urea represents between 50 and 60 % of the cost of production of melamine, criterion 1 cannot be considered to be met for those companies in the PRC that produce urea from natural gas.\n(23)\nSome companies do not produce urea themselves but purchase it from unrelated suppliers. However the urea market itself is also distorted by three main types of State interference. Firstly the existence of strict import quotas for urea and export taxes of 110 % during mid-season and 10 % during off-season in the IP. Secondly the Chinese government has exempted the domestic sale of urea from VAT since 1 July 2005. Thirdly the Chinese government is directly involved in the market through the State Fertilizer System, operating since 2004, whereby the State purchases urea directly from producers to keep in a strategic reserve and can also release quantities of urea in the domestic market. Urea producers also benefit from preferential electricity rates, preferential railway freight rates and, as mentioned above, preferential natural gas prices.\n(24)\nThe restraints on exports, in combination with the benefits in the case of domestic sales, have the effect of reducing export volumes of urea, thereby diverting supplies to the domestic market and creating a downward pressure on the domestic price. This low domestic price is directly caused by State interference in the urea market in the PRC. Accordingly, criterion 1 cannot be considered to be met for those companies in the PRC that do not produce urea but purchase it from third parties.\n(25)\nIn addition to the general situation described above, one group of companies did not meet the other requirements of criterion 1 as the holding company is fully State-owned and the individual companies within the group are majority State-owned. Accordingly, this group is subject to significant State interference in relation to important business decisions.\n(26)\nTwo companies did not meet either criterion 2 or criterion 3. One of them was not able to show complete accounting records and received office space from a public body for free. The other company did not keep its accounts in line with international accounting standards and was not able to demonstrate that their take over of a State-owned company was done at a fair value.\n(27)\nOne company did not demonstrate that it met criterion 3 as no interest was paid on the debt regarding the sale of its shares emanating from the privatisation process. More specifically, at the beginning of the privatisation process a shareholder was loaned back the capital it had invested. At subsequent transfers of the shares, the liability of the debt was used as a payment. Only after 10 years was the loan repaid by the then privately-owned holder of those shares without any interest ever charged or paid on the amount.\n(28)\nOne company was refused MET as its related sales company, dealing with the product concerned as well, failed to complete a MET claim form.\n(29)\nThe Commission officially disclosed the results of the MET findings to the companies concerned in the PRC, the authorities of the PRC and the complainants. They were also given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing if there were particular reasons to be heard.\n(30)\nSeveral written submissions were provided and a hearing with some exporting producers took place. The exporting producers argued that in the PRC some 70 % of urea is mainly produced by using coal as the major input and only some 30 % of urea is produced from natural gas. However, as the State also interferes in the urea market, as set out in recitals 23 and 24, it does not change the conclusion that the costs of production of melamine are significantly distorted. The argument is therefore rejected.\n(31)\nOther arguments brought forward in the written submissions and the hearing following disclosure were not such as to change the proposal to refuse MET to all companies that requested so.\n(32)\nOn the basis of the above, none of the cooperating companies in the PRC that had requested MET could show that they fulfilled the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. It was therefore considered that MET should be refused for all these companies. The Advisory Committee was consulted and did not object to these conclusions.\n2. Individual Treatment\n(33)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation a countrywide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet the criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(34)\nAll of those companies and groups which requested MET also claimed IT in the event they would not be granted MET. In addition one group only claimed IT. On the basis of the information available, it was provisionally established that three of the five exporting producer companies or groups in the PRC met all the requirements for IT. One group of companies in the PRC was refused IT on the grounds that the holding is fully State-owned and the individual companies within the group are majority State-owned. Another company was refused IT as a related sales company failed to complete a MET/IT claim form. It was therefore not possible to assess the criteria for IT.\n3. Normal value\n(a) Choice of the analogue country\n(35)\nAccording to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for exporting producers not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the domestic prices or constructed normal value in an analogue country.\n(36)\nIn the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its intention to use the United States of America as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value and interested parties were invited to comment on this.\n(37)\nThe Commission examined whether other countries could be a reasonable choice of analogue country and questionnaires were sent to melamine producers in India, Iran, Indonesia and the United States of America. Only the melamine producers in the USA and Indonesia replied to the questionnaires.\n(38)\nFollowing the examination of the replies, Indonesia was chosen as an analogue country which appears to be an open market with a low import duty and with significant imports from several third countries. In addition, it was found that the cost structure of an Indonesian producer was more comparable to a Chinese producer than the cost structure of a US producer and would therefore result in a more realistic normal value. The investigation showed no reason to consider that Indonesia was not adequate for the purpose of establishing normal value.\n(39)\nEventually, no interested party, including the complainants, argued that the USA was to be used as an appropriate analogue country for the present investigation.\n(40)\nThe data submitted in the cooperating Indonesian producer\u2019s reply were verified in situ and found to be reliable information on which a normal value could be based.\n(41)\nIt is therefore provisionally concluded that Indonesia is an appropriate and reasonable analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.\n(b) Determination of normal value\n(42)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation normal value was established on the basis of verified information received from the producer in the analogue country.\n(43)\nThe product concerned was sold in representative quantities on the Indonesian domestic market.\n(44)\nAs sales on the domestic market to unrelated customers were not profitable during the investigation period, normal value was constructed using the cost of manufacturing of the Indonesian producer plus a reasonable amount for SG&A and for profit on the domestic market.\n(45)\nSG&A costs and profit were established pursuant to Article 2(6)c on the basis of another reasonable method by comparing the SG&A costs and profit to the Union industry. The amount for SG&A used was considered reasonable as it was in line with the SG&A for the Union industry. The amount for profit was close to that achieved by the Union industry in profitable years. There were no indications that such a profit would exceed the profit normally realised by other exporters or producers on sales of products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country or origin.\n(c) Export prices for the exporting producers granted IT\n(46)\nAs all cooperating exporting producers granted IT made export sales to the Union directly to independent customers in the Union, the export prices were based on the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n(d) Comparison\n(47)\nThe normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments were made, where appropriate, in respect of transport, insurance, handling and ancillary costs, packing, credit, bank charges and commissions in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.\n(48)\nIt is noted that normal value and export price were compared at the same level of indirect taxation, i.e. VAT included.\n4. Dumping margins\n(a) For the cooperating exporting producers granted IT\n(49)\nPursuant to Articles 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margins for the cooperating exporting producers granted IT were established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value established for the analogue country with each company\u2019s weighted average export price of the product concerned to the Union as established above.\n(50)\nOn this basis, the provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:\nCompany\nProvisional dumping margin\nSichuan Golden Elephant Chemical Industry Group Co., Ltd and its related company Sichuan Jade Elephant Melamine S&T Co., Ltd\n44,9 %\nShandong Liaherd Chemical Industry Co., Ltd and its related companies Shandong Lianhe Fengyuan Chemical Industry Co., Ltd and Yiyuan Lianhe Fertilizer Co., Ltd\n47,6 %\nHenan Junhua Chemical Company Ltd and its related company Haohua-Junhua Group Zhengyang Chemical Co., Ltd\n49,0 %\n(b) For all other exporting producers\n(51)\nIn order to calculate the countrywide dumping margin applicable to all other exporting producers in the PRC, the level of cooperation was first established by comparing the volume of exports to the Union reported by the cooperating exporting producers with the equivalent Eurostat statistics.\n(52)\nGiven that cooperation from the PRC was low, i.e. 30 %, the countrywide dumping margin applicable to all other exporters in the PRC was established by comparing the normal value as established for Indonesia with export price data of the cooperating exporting producers to which neither MET nor IT was granted.\n(53)\nOn this basis the countrywide level of dumping was provisionally established at 65,6 % of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid.\nD. INJURY\n1. Union production and Union industry\n(54)\nThe complaint was lodged by the three main Union producers of melamine, having production facilities in Austria, Germany and Italy (Borealis), The Netherlands (DSM) and Poland (Pu\u0142awy) which together accounts for over 90 % of total Union production during the IP. Two other producers with limited production did not object to the initiation of the investigation.\n(55)\nAll available information concerning Union producers, including information provided in the complaint and data collected from Union producers before and after the initiation of the investigation, was used in order to establish the total Union production.\n(56)\nOn that basis, the total Union production was estimated to be around 340 000 tonnes during the IP. This amount included the production of all Union producers that made themselves known and the estimated production of other producers which remained silent in the proceeding (\u2018silent producers\u2019). In the absence of any other information, the data indicated in the complaint in respect of the silent producers was used to establish the total Union production and consumption.\n2. Union consumption\n(57)\nConsumption was established on the basis of the total imports, derived from Eurostat, the total sales on the Union market of the Union industry, including an estimate of the sales of the producers that did not come forward. The estimate was based on the data provided in the complaint.\nTable 1\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolume (tons)\n367 476\n388 567\n323 638\n266 178\nIndexed\n100\n105\n88\n72\nSource: Eurostat and questionnaire replies.\n(58)\nConsumption increased by 5 % between 2006 and 2007 and then decreased by 17 % between 2007 and 2008, and by 16 % during the IP. Overall, consumption decreased by 28 % during the period considered.\n(59)\nThe fall in melamine consumption can be attributed to the conjuncture, and in particular to the temporary contraction of the housing and construction markets which are the main markets for the main applications of melamine. Melamine is an important input material in this sector and is not expected to be replaced by any other materials. Hence, melamine demand is expected to resume together with the overall economic recovery.\n3. Imports into the Union from the country concerned\n(a) Volume, price and market share of imports from the PRC\n(60)\nThe investigation showed that the imports of melamine from the PRC developed as follows:\nTable 2\nImports from the PRC\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolume (tonnes)\n26 565\n42 750\n34 595\n17 434\nIndexed\n100\n161\n130\n66\nSource: Eurostat.\n(61)\nChinese imports increased their presence in the Union market between 2006 and 2008. While the total consumption in the EU market has decreased by 12 % over the same period, Chinese exporters have increased the volume of their sales to the Union market by 30 %. As shown in the table below, there was also a gain in market share in that period.\n(62)\nThe situation reversed during the IP: whilst consumption decreased by 18 % the Chinese producers\u2019 volume of exports decreased even more. As with the export volume, the Chinese imports lost market share during the IP.\nTable 3\nMarket share of the imports from the PRC\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nMarket share\n7,2 %\n11,0 %\n10,7 %\n6,5 %\nIndexed\n100\n153\n148\n91\nBased on Eurostat, it would appear that the import price from China increased overall by 10 % during the period considered.\nTable 4\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nAverage price/tonne\nEUR 814\nEUR 802\nEUR 1 149\nEUR 896\nIndexed\n100\n99\n141\n110\nSource: Eurostat.\n(63)\nHowever, there was a high level of non-cooperation from Chinese exporters and the investigation showed that the average import price of the cooperating Chinese exporters, which represent around 30 % of total Chinese imports, was much lower than the Eurostat price and lower than the Union industry\u2019s price and was 806 EUR/tonne on average during the IP.\n(64)\nHence, at this stage of the investigation, it is considered that the verified price at the premises of the cooperating exporting producers in China should be taken into consideration for the injury and causality analysis.\n(65)\nDuring the investigation some parties claimed that the melamine imported from China was of a lower quality than that produced by the Union industry and that it could not be used for certain applications such as surface applications. Given that this claim could not be substantiated it was not taken into consideration at this stage of the investigation.\n(b) Price undercutting\n(66)\nFor the purposes of analysing price undercutting, the weighted average sales prices of the Union industry to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted, in particular for transport and handling costs, to an ex-works level, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the cooperating exporters from the PRC to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a cif basis.\n(67)\nThe comparison showed that during the IP, the dumped product concerned originating in the PRC sold in the Union undercut the Union industry\u2019s prices by 10,3 %.\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(a) Preliminary remarks\n(68)\nIn accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators for an assessment of the state of the Union industry from 2006 to the end of the IP.\n(b) Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\nTable 5\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProduction (tonnes)\n378 961\n371 564\n358 794\n304 028\nIndexed\n100\n98\n95\n80\nCapacity (tonnes)\n442 000\n442 000\n396 200\n396 200\nIndexed\n100\n100\n90\n90\nCapacity Utilisation\n86 %\n84 %\n91 %\n77 %\nIndexed\n100\n98\n106\n90\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(69)\nAs shown in the above table, the production of the Union industry decreased by 20 % during that period. The production capacity of the Union industry decreased by 10 % over the period considered.\n(70)\nThe Union industry decreased its production capacity to around 396 200 tonnes in 2008. However, in view of stagnating sales and decreasing production volumes, the utilisation of the available capacity decreased from 86 % in 2006 to 77 % in the IP. The main decrease occurred between 2008 and the IP.\n(c) Sales volume and market share\n(71)\nThe sales figures in the table below relate to the volume sold to the first independent customer on the Union market.\nTable 6\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolume (tonnes)\n254 707\n274 211\n241 867\n215 469\nIndexed\n100\n108\n95\n85\nMarket share\n74 %\n75 %\n80 %\n86 %\nIndexed\n100\n107\n107\n116\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(72)\nWhile Union consumption dropped by 28 % during 2006 and the IP, the sales volume of the like product by the Union industry to independent customers on the Union market dropped by 15 %. Hence, the Union industry was able to increase its market share from 74 % in 2006 to 86 % in the IP.\n(d) Average unit prices of the Union industry and cost of production\n(73)\nAverage ex-works sales prices of the Union industry to unrelated customers on the Union market decreased by 5 % over the period considered. A significant decrease in sales price by 26 % occurred between 2008 and the IP.\nTable 7(a)\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nAverage Price/tonne\nEUR 949\nEUR 998\nEUR 1 217\nEUR 898\nIndexed\n100\n105\n128\n95\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(74)\nIt was found that the average cost of production of the Union industry decreased by 2 % between 2006 and the IP. However, during the same period, the Union industry was forced to keep its sales prices down in order to compete with the low-priced dumped imports. Consequently, the sales prices of the Union industry were significantly below the cost of production during the IP.\n(75)\nThe cost of production (COP) of the Union industry developed as follows during the period considered:\nTable 7(b)\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nAverage COP/tonne\nEUR 1 076\nEUR 1 054\nEUR 1 229\nEUR 1 060\nIndexed\n100\n98\n114\n98\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(e) Stocks\n(76)\nStocks represented around 5 % of the production volume in the IP. The Union industry decreased its stock levels by 68 % during the period considered, in particular between 2008 and the IP. However, this decrease in stocks should be seen in light of the lower level of activity following the downsizing of the Union industry.\nTable 8\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nStocks (tonnes)\n51 650\n31 019\n48 732\n16 611\nIndexed\n100\n60\n94\n32\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(f) Employment, wages and productivity\nTable 9\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nEmployment - full-time equivalent (FTE)\n706\n688\n613\n606\nIndex\n100\n97\n87\n86\nLabour cost (EUR/FTE)\n57 736\n57 248\n63 273\n61 025\nIndex\n100\n99\n110\n106\nProductivity (unit/FTE)\n537\n540\n585\n502\nIndex\n100\n101\n109\n94\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(77)\nDue to the downsizing activities of the Union industry, the number of employees was reduced by 13 % in 2008, and by another 1 % during the IP. The decrease in the productivity should be seen in light of the general nature of downsizing activities, where the decrease in the number of employees follows the drop in production only after a certain delay. As regards labour costs, they increase slightly by 6 % over the period considered.\n(g) Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investment and ability to raise capital\nTable 10\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProfitability\n-9,9 %\n-2,4 %\n-1,3 %\n-18,0 %\nYear/year\n-7,5 %\n+1,1 %\n-16,7 %\nCash flow (EUR thousand)\n-5 091\n36 162\n19 682\n-20 847\nYear/year\n41 253\n-18 480\n-40 529\nInvestments (EUR thousand)\n29 070\n14 630\n32 540\n21 465\nIndex\n100\n50,3\n112\n74\nReturn on investments\n-10 %\n-3 %\n-2 %\n-25 %\nYear/year\n+7 %\n+1 %\n-23 %\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(78)\nProfitability of the Union industry was established by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product as a percentage of the turnover of these sales. Over the period considered the profitability of the Union industry decreased dramatically from a loss of 9,9 % in 2006 to a loss of 18 % in the IP. This situation occurred despite a decrease in the COP of the Union industry by 14 % between 2008 and the IP as shown in Table 7(b) above.\n(79)\nThe trend shown by the cash flow, which is the ability of the industry to self-finance its activities, reflects to a large extent the evolution of profitability. Consequently, the cash flow shows a substantial decrease during the period considered. The same can be said about the return on investments, which showed a similar development in line with the negative results achieved by the Union industry over the period considered.\n(80)\nFollowing the above, the ability of the Union industry to invest became limited as the cash flow significantly deteriorated during the period considered. As a consequence, the investments dropped by 26,2 % during the period considered.\n(h) Growth\n(81)\nWhile the Union consumption decreased by 28 % between 2006 and the IP, the Union industry decrease its sales volume on the Union market by 15 %. When looking at the development over the period considered, the drop of 15 % in the sales volume of the Union industry was less pronounced than the decrease of 28 % in Union consumption. As a consequence, the market share of the Union industry increased by 12 percentage points during the same period.\n(i) Magnitude of the actual margin of dumping\n(82)\nThe dumping margins for the PRC, specified above in the dumping section, are above de minimis. Given the volumes and the prices of the dumped imports, the impact of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.\n5. Conclusion on injury\n(83)\nThe investigation showed that a number of indicators pertaining to the economic situation of the Union industry significantly deteriorated during the period considered.\n(84)\nSales volume decreased by 15 %, production volume by 20 %, the utilisation of the production facilities dropped from 86 % to 77 %, employment had to be reduced by 14 %. In the same period prices were reduced by 5 %. A decrease in sales price by 26 % occurred between 2008 and the IP, hence profitability was dramatically low with negative consequences on investments and financial indicators such as cash flow and return on investment.\n(85)\nEven if, in the context of a declining consumption, the Union industry managed to increase its market share by 12 percentage points in the Union market, the low level of prices on the Union market in particular during the IP led to a significant deterioration during the IP in particular of the financial situation of the Union industry. Indeed, prices did not allow covering the cost of production and the losses incurred were as high as - 18 % on turnover.\n(86)\nOn that basis, it is considered that the Union industry suffered material injury during the IP.\nE. CAUSALITY\n1. Introduction\n(87)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the material injury suffered by the Union industry had been caused by the dumped imports from the country concerned. Furthermore, known factors other than the dumped imports, which might have injured the Union industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n2. Effect of the dumped imports\n(88)\nIt should be recalled that cooperation from Chinese exporting producers was very low in this investigation. The cooperating exporting producers represent around 29 % of the total imports of melamine during the IP.\n(89)\nThe Eurostat import statistics showed that overall, imports volume from China significantly decreased by 34 % during the period considered. In other words, these imports decreased relatively at a higher pace than consumption (- 28 %) during that period.\n(90)\nWith regards to prices, Eurostat indicate that the import price of Chinese melamine increased by 10 % during the period considered. It decreased significantly by 31 % in the period from 2008 to the IP. However, the verified information of the Chinese cooperating exporters which represent around 30 % of the total imports from China showed that the average Chinese import price was much lower than Eurostat. It was found that the cooperating producers were undercutting on average by 10,3 % the Union industry price during the IP.\n(91)\nGiven the high level of non-cooperation from the PRC it is considered that the verified price at the premises of the cooperating producers should prevail over the Eurostat price data.\n(92)\nAn analysis on a monthly basis of the import volume of melamine showed that the Chinese imports were massively present in the Union market in the first semester of the IP, when the crisis in the sector was at its peak, and held up to 15 % share of the Union market in the first semester of the IP. Given the structure and the production process of the Union industry, it had no choice other than lowering its sales price to keep market share. Even though the Chinese exporters had significantly reduced their exports to the Union in the second semester of the IP, the negative effect of their massive presence in the beginning of the IP and their low level of sales prices continued to affect the Union market and the Union industry in the remainder of the IP.\n(93)\nThe investigation showed that the Union industry suffered from serious cuts in production, a decrease in the rate of capacity utilisation, losses in sales volume and in employment in the period considered. The structure of the Union industry and the development of the above injury factors suggest that the deterioration in its economic situation was due to a certain extent to the crisis situation and the low demand on the market as explained in recitals 97 to 100 below. But it is also due to the low level of prices and the pressure exerted by the Chinese exports in particular between 2008 and the IP which did not allow it to cover its costs. As a result the losses accumulated during the IP were as high as - 18 % on turnover.\n(94)\nTaking into account the distortion encountered during the MET investigation in the PRC, the high level of dumping found, and in view of the findings made in particular in recital 92 above, it is considered that even with a decreasing market share, the presence of low-priced dumped imports undercutting the Union industry price by over 10 % on the Union market played a role in further exacerbating the negative trend on sales prices on the Union market during the whole IP.\n(95)\nOn this basis a causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry can be established.\n3. Effect of other factors\n(96)\nThe other factors which were examined in the context of the causality are the development of demand on the Union market, the economic crisis, the production cost of the Union industry, the export performance of the Union industry and the imports of melamine from other third countries.\n(a) Development of demand on the Union market and the economic crisis\n(97)\nIt should be recalled that the main applications of melamine are in the housing and construction markets. Following the economic crisis, the housing and construction markets contracted which also resulted in a contraction of consumption not only on the Union market but on a global scale. Given that the EU is by far the largest worldwide market for melamine; the crisis has had a negative impact on that market. This was illustrated by a 28 % decrease in consumption, stoppages in production by the Union industry and a decrease in sales prices.\n(98)\nThe above facts and considerations thus suggest that a part of the injury suffered by the Union industry could be attributed to the economic crisis.\n(99)\nHowever, as explained in recitals 88 to 95 above, it should be borne in mind that there were clear distortions on the Chinese market for melamine. Moreover, the dumped imports from the PRC were undercutting on average by 10 % the price of the Union industry during the IP thus further exacerbating the negative effects on the price level, in particular during the IP.\n(100)\nIn view of the undercutting practiced by the Chinese exporters and the selective increase of their presence during the IP as described in recital 92 above, even if it is considered that part of the material injury suffered by the Union industry can be attributed to the economic crisis, it is not such as to break the causal link between the dumped import and the material injury of the Union industry.\n(b) Production cost of the Union industry\n(101)\nThe investigation showed that the production of melamine is capital intensive with a high proportion of fixed costs. The cost of production of the Union industry to produce melamine remained stable over the period considered but decreased by 14 % between 2008 and the IP as shown in Table 7(b) above. This should have allowed for a certain recovery in the profitability of the Union industry but the low level of price in the Union market and the undercutting practiced by the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC did not allow this situation to materialise.\n(102)\nAccordingly, it is concluded that the cost of production is not a cause of the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(c) Export performance of the Union industry\n(103)\nAlthough the analysis of injury and causation focused on the situation of the Union industry in the Union market, its export performance was examined as a potential other factor that may explain the injury found.\nTable 11\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nExports (thousand tonnes)\n84 103\n78 956\n68 560\n85 146\nIndex\n100\n94\n82\n101\nSource: questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(104)\nThe analysis showed that the export sales to unrelated parties made by the Union industry remained stable at around 85 000 tonnes, or 28 % of production during the period considered. The export performance of the complainants has thus been very good even during the crisis. Hence the injurious situation of the Union industry cannot be explained or attributed to exports.\n(d) Imports from other third countries\n(105)\nThe trends in import volumes and prices from other third countries between 2006 and the IP were as follows:\nTable 12\nOther third countries\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nImports (tonnes)\n45 480\n41 060\n24 835\n16 473\nIndex\n100\n90\n55\n36\nMarket share\n12,3 %\n10,6 %\n7,7 %\n6,2 %\nIndex\n100\n86\n62\n50\nPrice (EUR/tonne)\n820\n941\n1 094\n895\nIndex\n100\n115\n133\n109\nSource: Eurostat.\n(106)\nApart from Iran and Saudi Arabia, imports from individual third countries were below the de minimis threshold of 1 % of market share of the Union market during the IP. The investigation showed that imports volume from third countries have decreased over the period considered. As regard to Iran and Saudi Arabia which accounted respectively for 4,4 % and 1,4 % of EU consumption during the IP, it was found that their pricing was higher that of the cooperating Chinese exporters. It is therefore considered that such quantities and prices would only have had a limited impact, if any, on the EU market.\n(107)\nOn the basis of the above, it was provisionally concluded that the imports from these third countries did not significantly contribute to the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n4. Conclusion on causation\n(108)\nThe above analysis showed that there was a substantial decrease in the volume of import and market share of the low-priced dumped imports originating in the PRC over the period considered. Nevertheless, these imports were made at significant dumped prices which were undercutting by 10 % the prices charged by the Union industry on the Union market during the IP. This negative effect on the sales price prevailing on the Union market lasted during the whole IP. Based on all facts and considerations, it was considered that there was a causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry during the IP.\n(109)\nThe examination of the other known factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry revealed that these factors did not appear to be such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the PRC and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(110)\nBased on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports, it was provisionally concluded that the dumped imports from the PRC have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n1. Preliminary remark\n(111)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether, despite the provisional conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed for concluding that it was not in the Union interest to adopt provisional anti-dumping measures in this particular case. The analysis of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and users of the product concerned.\n2. Interest of the Union industry\n(112)\nThe Union industry is composed of three producers with factories located in different Member States of the Union, employing directly over 600 people related to the like product.\n(113)\nThe Union industry has suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports from the PRC. It is recalled that most relevant injury indicators showed a negative trend during the period considered. In particular injury indicators related to the financial performance of the Union industry, such as profitability, cash flow and return on investments were seriously affected. In the absence of measures, it is considered that the recovery in the melamine sector will not be sufficient to allow the recovery of the Union industry\u2019s financial situation.\n(114)\nIt is expected that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties will restore effective trade conditions on the Union market, allowing prices of melamine to reflect the costs of the various components and the market conditions. It can be expected that the imposition of provisional measures and the recovery in the sector would enable the Union industry to make economies of scale in order to keep its market share with a positive impact on its economic situation and profitability.\n(115)\nIt was therefore concluded that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of melamine originating in the PRC would be in the interest of the Union industry.\n3. Interest of users\n(116)\nThe cooperation by the users was relatively low in this case. 44 questionnaires were sent to the known users in the Union market and only seven replies could be considered to be sufficiently meaningful to assess their economic situation and the possible impact of anti-dumping measures on their activity. The cooperating users represented around 10 % of the EU consumption.\n(117)\nAccording to the Union industry the share of melamine in the cost of production of the user\u2019s industry would be 3 % at most and 2 % on average. If this is confirmed by the further verification visits which will take place in the remainder of the investigation at the premises of the users, the impact of the proposed anti-dumping measures would be limited on the users\u2019 industry.\n(118)\nBased on the few meaningful replies received from users, it would appear that the share of melamine in the users cost of production would be around 10 %. The possible impact of measures may therefore be negative depending on the level of their profitability which was not clearly disclosed by the users. As mentioned above verification visits will take place at the main users\u2019 premises in the remainder of the investigation. The Commission will also seek for more cooperation from the user industry.\n(119)\nSome parties also suggested that because the market share held by the Union industry is very high a price increase which that industry will apply on melamine once measures are imposed may be the main impact of the imposition of anti-dumping measures in this case.\n(120)\nNevertheless, it is considered that not imposing measures on Chinese dumped imports may lead to further cuts in production by certain Union producers and then possible problems such as shortages of supply on the Union market, the largest market for melamine worldwide.\n(121)\nBased on the above facts and considerations, it is considered that at this stage there are no substantiated elements which show that the impact of the imposition of provisional measures would be disproportionate as regard the activity of the user industry. Hence, it is considered that there are no compelling reasons not to impose provisional measures.\n4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(122)\nIn view of the above, it was provisionally concluded that overall, based on the information available concerning the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of provisional measures on imports of melamine originating in the PRC.\nG. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n1. Injury elimination level\n(123)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.\n(124)\nFor the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the dumping margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Union industry.\n(125)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the Union. It is considered that the profit that could be achieved in the absence of dumped imports should be based on the year 2003 which is the only year where profits were achieved by the Union industry and when Chinese imports were less present on the Union market. It is thus considered that a profit margin of 5 % of turnover could be regarded as an appropriate minimum which the Union industry could have expected to obtain in the absence of injurious dumping.\n(126)\nOn this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry for the like product. The non-injurious price was obtained by adding the abovementioned profit margin of 5 % to the cost of production.\n(127)\nThe necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of the cooperating exporting producers in the PRC, duly adjusted for importation costs and customs duties with the non-injurious price of the Union industry on the Union market during the IP. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the average cif import value of the compared types.\n2. Provisional measures\n(128)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in respect of imports originating in the PRC at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(129)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(130)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (3) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(131)\nIn order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the residual duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.\n(132)\nThe dumping and injury margins established are as follows:\nCompany\nDumping margin\nInjury margin\nSichuan Golden Elephant\n44,9 %\n46,5 %\nShandong Liaherd\n47,6 %\n47,8 %\nHenan Junhua\n49,0 %\n53,9 %\nAll other companies\n65,6 %\n65,2 %\nH. DISCLOSURE\n(133)\nThe above provisional findings will be disclosed to all interested parties which will be invited to make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Their comments will be analysed and taken into consideration where warranted before any definitive determinations are made. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of anti-dumping duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purposes of any definitive findings,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of melamine, currently falling within CN code 2933 61 00 and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies below shall be:\nCompany\nDuty (%)\nTARIC additional code\nSichuan Golden Elephant\n44,9\nA986\nShandong Liaherd\n47,6\nA987\nHenan Junhua\n49,0\nA988\nAll other companies\n65,2\nA999\n3. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Without prejudice to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of 6 months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["21", "70", "14", "74", "97", "98", "54", "87", "38", "32", "58", "55", "63", "1", "31", "81", "59", "2", "19", "24", "18", "71", "90", "79", "53", "0", "17", "34", "62", "46", "No Label", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 484/2012\nof 7 June 2012\nfixing the maximum amount of aid granted for the private storage of olive oil under the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(d) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2012 of 22 May 2012 opening the tendering procedure for aid for private storage of olive oil (2) provides for two tendering sub-periods.\n(2)\nUnder Article 13(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 of 20 August 2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products (3), on the basis of the tenders notified by the Member States the Commission is to decide whether or not to fix a maximum amount of aid.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders submitted in response to the first partial invitation to tender, a maximum amount of aid for private storage of olive oil should be fixed for the tendering sub-period ending on 5 June 2012.\n(4)\nIn order to send the market a swift signal and ensure that the measure is managed efficiently, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the tendering sub-period ending on 5 June 2012 under the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2012, the maximum amount of aid for olive oil is hereby fixed in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["88", "39", "27", "8", "91", "32", "5", "96", "81", "69", "90", "93", "80", "23", "61", "37", "7", "98", "1", "71", "68", "85", "79", "50", "48", "10", "72", "13", "44", "43", "No Label", "15", "20", "26", "62", "70"], "gold": ["15", "20", "26", "62", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 30/2012\nof 13 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 January 2012.", "references": ["38", "91", "12", "11", "17", "10", "79", "13", "70", "32", "60", "80", "30", "16", "53", "78", "52", "95", "49", "55", "83", "5", "36", "92", "85", "34", "64", "40", "45", "84", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 630/2010\nof 16 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2010.", "references": ["74", "12", "52", "77", "71", "48", "81", "7", "20", "39", "42", "33", "84", "8", "79", "13", "51", "44", "5", "67", "9", "18", "16", "64", "55", "69", "83", "26", "70", "97", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/61/EU\nof 2 September 2010\nadapting for the first time the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the inland transport of dangerous goods to scientific and technical progress\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on the inland transport of dangerous goods (1), and in particular Article 8(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I, Section I.1, Annex II, Section II.1 and Annex III, Section III.1. to Directive 2008/68/EC refer to provisions set out in international agreements on the inland transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterways as defined in Article 2 of that Directive.\n(2)\nThe provisions of these international agreements are updated every two years. Consequently, amended versions of these agreements shall apply as from 1 January 2011, with a transitional period up to 30 June 2011.\n(3)\nAnnex I, Section I.1, Annex II, Section II.1 and Annex III, Section III.1. to Directive 2008/68/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the inland transport of dangerous goods,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Directive 2008/68/EC\nThe Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC are amended as follows:\n1.\nIn Annex I, Section I.1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018I.1. ADR\nAnnexes A and B to the ADR, as applicable with effect from 1 January 2011, it being understood that \u201ccontracting party\u201d is replaced by \u201cMember State\u201d as appropriate.\u2019\n2.\nIn Annex II, Section II.1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018II.1. RID\nAnnex to the RID, appearing in Appendix C to the COTIF, as applicable with effect from 1 January 2011, it being understood that \u201cRID Contracting State\u201d is replaced by \u201cMember State\u201d as appropriate.\u2019\n3.\nIn Annex III, Section III.1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018III.1. ADN\nAnnexed Regulations to the ADN, as applicable with effect from 1 January 2011, as well as Articles 3(f), 3(h), 8(1), 8(3) of the ADN, it being understood that \u201ccontracting party\u201d is replaced by \u201cMember State\u201d as appropriate.\u2019\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 June 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2010.", "references": ["40", "33", "42", "65", "19", "87", "85", "15", "74", "37", "23", "28", "20", "94", "30", "97", "18", "2", "93", "45", "7", "64", "32", "26", "98", "72", "81", "11", "79", "80", "No Label", "53", "54", "55", "56"], "gold": ["53", "54", "55", "56"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1104/2010\nof 29 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2010.", "references": ["9", "6", "53", "93", "52", "40", "20", "89", "98", "33", "51", "23", "41", "10", "31", "63", "67", "2", "38", "88", "60", "43", "34", "80", "13", "3", "58", "64", "85", "1", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1193/2011\nof 18 November 2011\nestablishing a Union Registry for the trading period commencing on 1 January 2013, and subsequent trading periods, of the Union emissions trading scheme pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Regulations (EC) No 2216/2004 and (EU) No 920/2010\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Article 19 thereof,\nHaving regard to Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (2), and in particular the first subparagraph, second sentence, Article 6(1) thereof,\nHaving consulted the European Data Protection Supervisor,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 19(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC requires that all allowances issued from 1 January 2012 onwards are held in a Union Registry on accounts managed by the Member States. Commission Regulation (EU) No 920/2010 of 7 October 2010 for a standardised and secured system of registries pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) provides for such a Union Registry.\n(2)\nDirective 2003/87/EC has been substantially amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), requiring major changes to the registries system. The amendments apply from the trading period starting in 2013. At present, there is no international agreement replacing the Kyoto Protocol that would apply to Member States after 2012. Aviation allowances will be auctioned from 2012 on the basis of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 (5), in the same way as general allowances. Therefore, in the interest of clarity and urgency, a new regulation should be adopted pursuant to Article 19 of Directive 2003/87/EC that should apply to the trading period of the Union emissions trading scheme commencing on 1 January 2013 and to subsequent periods. It should also apply to aviation allowances to be auctioned in 2012.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 of 21 December 2004 for a standardised and secured system of registries pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) and Regulation (EU) No 920/2010 should continue to apply in parallel to the trading period between 2008 and 2012 and to the obligations arising from the Kyoto Protocol. Regulations (EC) No 2216/2004 and (EU) No 920/2010 should be amended to implement urgent security provisions and other improvements, with immediate effect.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that Kyoto units and allowances can be held on the same Union Registry accounts, the Union Registry must conform to the functional and technical specifications for data exchange standards for registry systems under the Kyoto Protocol, adopted by Decision 12/CMP.1 of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.\n(5)\nArticle 20 of Directive 2003/87/EC requires that an independent transaction log, the European Union Transaction Log (EUTL) is established to record the issue, transfer and cancellation of allowances. Article 6(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC requires that information on the issue, holding, transfer, acquisition, cancellation and withdrawal of assigned amount units, removal units, emission reduction units and certified emission reductions and the carryover of assigned amount units, emission reduction units and certified emission reductions is made available to the transaction log.\n(6)\nArticle 6 of Decision No 280/2004/EC requires the Union and its Member States to apply the functional and technical specifications for data exchange standards for registry systems under the Kyoto Protocol, adopted by Decision 12/CMP.1, for the establishment and operation of registries and the EUTL.\n(7)\nThe Union Registry should contain the accounts required to implement the requirements of Directive 2003/87/EC. Each account should be created in accordance with standardised procedures to ensure the integrity of the registries system and public access to information held in this system. Allowances should be issued in the Union Registry.\n(8)\nTransactions with allowances within the Union Registry should be carried out through a communication link involving the EUTL, whereas transactions with Kyoto units should be carried out through a communication link involving both the EUTL and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) International Transaction Log (ITL).\n(9)\nThe EUTL should perform automated checks on all processes in the registries system concerning allowances, verified emissions, accounts and Kyoto units, and the ITL should perform automated checks on processes concerning Kyoto units to ensure that there are no irregularities. Processes that fail these checks should be terminated in order to ensure that transactions in the Union registries system comply with the requirements of Directive 2003/87/EC and the requirements elaborated pursuant to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.\n(10)\nAdequate and harmonised requirements on opening of accounts, authentication and access rights should be applied to protect the security of information held in the integrated registries system and to avoid fraud. The review of these requirements should be considered in the future with a view to ensuring their effectiveness while taking into account proportionality. Records concerning all processes, operators and persons in the registries system should be kept.\n(11)\nThe central administrator should ensure that interruptions to the operation of the registries system are kept to a minimum by taking all reasonable steps to ensure the availability of the Union Registry and the EUTL and by providing for robust systems and procedures to safeguard relevant information.\n(12)\nAs allowances and Kyoto units exist only in dematerialised form and are fungible, the title to an allowance or Kyoto unit should be established by their existence in the account of the Union Registry in which they are held. Moreover, to reduce the risks associated with the undoing of transactions entered in a registry, and the consequent disruption to the system and to the market that such undoing may cause, it is necessary to ensure that allowances and Kyoto units are fully fungible. In particular, transactions cannot be reversed, revoked or unwound, other than as defined by the rules of the registry, after a moment set out by those rules. Nothing in this Regulation should prevent an account holder or a third party from exercising any right or claim resulting from the underlying transaction that they may have in law to recovery or restitution in respect of a transaction that has entered a system, e.g. in case of fraud or technical error, as long as this does not lead to the reversal, revocation or unwinding of the transaction. Furthermore, the acquisition of an allowance or Kyoto unit in good faith should be protected.\n(13)\nSince it may be desirable to provide for additional account types or other means that would facilitate the holding of allowances or Kyoto units on behalf of third parties, or the taking of a security interest in them, these issues should be examined in the context of a future review of this Regulation.\n(14)\nIn accordance with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (7) and Decision 13/CMP.1, specific reports should be made public on a regular basis to ensure that the public has access to information held within the integrated system of registries, subject to certain confidentiality requirements.\n(15)\nUnion legislation concerning the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, in particular Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (8), Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (9) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (10), should be respected where these are applicable to information held and processed pursuant to this Regulation.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT MATTER, SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down general as well as operational and maintenance requirements concerning the Union Registry for the trading period commencing 1 January 2013 and subsequent periods, and concerning the independent transaction log provided for in Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\nIt also provides for a communication system between the Union Registry and the ITL.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThis Regulation concerns allowances created for the trading period of the Union emissions trading scheme commencing on 1 January 2013 and subsequent periods.\nIt also concerns aviation allowances to be auctioned that were created for the trading period running from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nUnless otherwise indicated, terms used in this Regulation shall have the same meaning as under Directive 2003/87/EC. Moreover, the definitions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 and in Article 3 of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU (11) shall apply. The following definitions shall also apply:\n(1)\n\u2018account holder\u2019 means a natural or legal person that holds an account in the registries system;\n(2)\n\u2018central administrator\u2019 means the person designated by the Commission pursuant to Article 20 of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n(3)\n\u2018competent authority\u2019 means the authority or authorities designated by a Member State pursuant to Article 18 of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n(4)\n\u2018external platform\u2019 is an external system securely connected to the Union Registry for the purposes of automating functions related to the Union Registry;\n(5)\n\u2018verifier\u2019 means a verifier as defined in Annex I, section 2, point 5(m) of Commission Decision 2007/589/EC (12);\n(6)\n\u2018assigned amount units\u2019 or \u2018AAUs\u2019 means units issued pursuant to Article 7(3) of Decision No 280/2004/EC;\n(7)\n\u2018aviation allowances\u2019 or \u2018aEUAs\u2019 means allowances created pursuant to Article 3c(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n(8)\n\u2018general allowances\u2019 or \u2018EUAs\u2019 means all other allowances created pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC;\n(9)\n\u2018long-term CERs\u2019 or \u2018lCERs\u2019 means units issued for an afforestation or reforestation project activity under the CDM which, subject to Decision 5/CMP.1 of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, expire at the end of the emission reduction crediting period of the afforestation or reforestation project activity under the CDM for which they were issued;\n(10)\n\u2018removal units\u2019 or \u2018RMUs\u2019 means units issued pursuant to Article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol;\n(11)\n\u2018temporary CERs\u2019 or \u2018tCERs\u2019 means units issued for an afforestation or reforestation project activity under the CDM which, subject to Decision 5/CMP.1, expire at the end of the Kyoto Protocol commitment period following the one during which they were issued;\n(12)\n\u2018Kyoto units\u2019 means AAUs, ERUs, CERs, RMUs, lCERs and tCERs;\n(13)\n\u2018process\u2019 means an automated technical means to carry out an action relating to an account or a unit in a registry;\n(14)\n\u2018transaction\u2019 means a process in the Union Registry that includes the transfer of an allowance or Kyoto unit from one account to another account;\n(15)\n\u2018surrender\u2019 means the accounting of an allowance or a Kyoto unit by an operator or aircraft operator against the verified emissions of its installation or aircraft;\n(16)\n\u2018cancellation\u2019 means the definitive disposal of a Kyoto unit by its holder without accounting it against verified emissions;\n(17)\n\u2018deletion\u2019 means the definitive disposal of an allowance by its holder without accounting it against verified emissions;\n(18)\n\u2018retirement\u2019 means the accounting of a Kyoto unit by a Party to the Kyoto Protocol against the reported emissions of that Party;\n(19)\n\u2018money laundering\u2019 means the same as defined in Articles 1(2) of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (13);\n(20)\n\u2018serious crime\u2019 means the same as defined in Article 3, point 5 of Directive 2005/60/EC;\n(21)\n\u2018terrorist financing\u2019 means the same as defined in Article 1(4) of Directive 2005/60/EC;\n(22)\n\u2018national administrator\u2019 means the entity responsible for managing on behalf of a Member State a set of user accounts under the jurisdiction of a Member State in the Union Registry, designated in accordance with Article 7;\n(23)\n\u2018directors\u2019 includes the persons effectively directing the day-to-day operations of a legal person\n(24)\n\u2018central European time\u2019 means central European summer time during the summer-time period as defined in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (14).\nCHAPTER II\nTHE REGISTRIES SYSTEM\nArticle 4\nUnion Registry\n1. A Union Registry for the trading period of the Union emissions trading scheme commencing on 1 January 2013 and subsequent periods is hereby established.\n2. The central administrator shall operate and maintain the Union Registry.\n3. Member States shall use the Union Registry for the purposes of meeting their obligations under Article 19 of Directive 2003/87/EC and to ensure accurate accounting with respect to allowances within the scope of this Regulation. The Union Registry shall provide national administrators and account holders with the processes set out in this Regulation.\n4. The Union Registry shall conform to the functional and technical specifications for data exchange standards for registry systems under the Kyoto Protocol elaborated pursuant to Decision 12/CMP.1 and comply with the hardware, network, software and security requirements set out in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 79.\nArticle 5\nEuropean Union Transaction Log\n1. An EUTL, to take the form of a standardised electronic database, is hereby established, pursuant to Article 20 of Directive 2003/87/EC, for transactions within the scope of this Regulation. The EUTL shall also serve to record all information relating to the holdings and transfers of Kyoto units made available in accordance with Article 6(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC.\n2. The central administrator shall operate and maintain the EUTL in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation.\n3. The EUTL shall be capable of checking and recording all processes referred to under this Regulation, and shall conform to the functional and technical specifications for data exchange standards for registry systems under the Kyoto Protocol elaborated pursuant to Decision 12/CMP.1 and comply with the hardware, network and software requirements set out in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 79.\n4. The EUTL shall be capable of recording all processes described in Chapters III to V.\nArticle 6\nCommunication links between registries, the ITL and the EUTL\n1. The Union Registry shall maintain a communication link with the ITL for the purposes of communicating transactions that transfer Kyoto units.\n2. The EUTL shall also maintain a communication link with the ITL for the purposes of recording and checking transfers referred to under paragraph 1.\n3. The Union Registry shall also maintain a direct communication link with the EUTL for the purposes of checking and recording transactions that transfer allowances and the account management processes set out in Chapter III. All transactions involving allowances shall take place within the Union Registry, and shall be recorded and checked by the EUTL.\n4. The central administrator may establish a restricted communication link between the EUTL and the registry of an Accession Country for the purposes of enabling such registries to communicate with the ITL through the EUTL and to record verified emissions data of operators in the EUTL. Those registries must successfully complete all testing and initialisation procedures required of registries before the establishment of this communication link.\nArticle 7\nAdministrators\n1. Each Member State shall designate a national administrator. The Member State shall access and manage its own accounts and the accounts in the Union Registry under its jurisdiction through its national administrator.\n2. The Member States and the Commission shall ensure that there is no conflict of interest amongst national administrators, the central administrator and holders of accounts.\n3. Each Member State shall notify the Commission of the identity and contact details of its national administrator, including an emergency telephone number to be used in the case of a security incident.\n4. The Commission shall coordinate the implementation of this Regulation with the national administrators of each Member State and the central administrator. In particular, the Commission shall consult the Administrators\u2019 Working Group of the Climate Change Committee on issues and procedures related to the operation of registries and the implementation of this Regulation. By 31 March 2012, the Administrators\u2019 Working Group shall agree on the terms of cooperation between the central administrator and the national administrators, which shall include common operational procedures for the implementation of this Regulation and change and incident management procedures for the Union Registry and technical specifications for the functioning and reliability of the Union Registry and the EUTL. Rules of procedure for the Administrators\u2019 Working Group shall be adopted by the Climate Change Committee.\n5. The central administrator, the competent authorities and national administrators shall only perform processes necessary to carry out their respective functions.\nCHAPTER III\nACCOUNTS\nSECTION 1\nProvisions applicable to all accounts\nArticle 8\nAccounts\n1. The Union Registry shall contain accounts as specified in Annex I.\n2. The unit types that may be held in each account type are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 9\nAccount status\n1. Accounts shall be in one of the following status: open, blocked, excluded or closed.\n2. No processes may be initiated from blocked accounts, except for the surrendering of units, the entering of verified emissions, and the updating of account details.\n3. No processes may be initiated from closed accounts. A closed account may not be reopened, and may not acquire units.\n4. Upon exclusion of an installation from the Union scheme pursuant to Article 27 of Directive 2003/87/EC, the national administrator shall set the corresponding operator holding account to excluded status for the duration of the exclusion.\n5. Upon notification from the competent authority that an aircraft operator\u2019s flights are no longer included in the Union scheme in accordance with Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC, the national administrator shall set the corresponding aircraft operator holding account to excluded status until notification from the competent authority that an aircraft operator\u2019s flights are again included in the Union scheme.\nArticle 10\nThe administering of accounts\n1. Every account shall have an administrator who shall be responsible for administering the account on behalf of a Member State or on behalf of the Union.\n2. The administrator of an account is determined for each account type as set out in Annex I.\n3. The administrator of an account shall be responsible for opening, suspending, limiting access to, or closing an account, approving authorised representatives, permitting changes to account details that require the approval of the administrator, and for initiating transactions as requested by the account holder in accordance with Article 21(5).\n4. The administrator may require the account holders and its representatives to agree to comply with reasonable terms and conditions consistent with this Regulation.\n5. Accounts shall be governed by the laws and fall under the jurisdiction of the Member State of their administrator and the units held in them shall be considered to be situated in that Member State\u2019s territory.\nArticle 11\nNotifications from the central administrator\nThe central administrator shall notify the account representatives and the administrator of the initiation and completion or termination of any process related to the account, and of the change of status of the account, through an automated mechanism described in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 79.\nSECTION 2\nOpening and updating accounts\nArticle 12\nOpening management accounts\nThe central administrator shall open all management accounts in the Union Registry within 20 working days of the receipt of the information set out in Annex II.\nArticle 13\nOpening an auction delivery account in the Union Registry\n1. An auctioneer, an auction platform, a clearing system or a settlement system as defined in the Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 may submit to a national administrator a request for an auction delivery account in the Union Registry. The person requesting the account shall provide the information set out in Annex III.\n2. Within 20 working days of the receipt of a complete set of information in accordance with paragraph 1 and in accordance with Article 22, the national administrator shall open the auction delivery account in the Union Registry or inform the person requesting the account of the refusal to open the account, pursuant to Article 20.\nArticle 14\nOpening operator holding accounts in the Union Registry\n1. Within 20 working days of the entry into force of a greenhouse gas emissions permit, the relevant competent authority or the operator shall provide the relevant national administrator with the information set out in Annex V and shall request the national administrator to open an operator holding account in the Union Registry.\n2. Within 20 working days of the receipt of a complete set of information in accordance with paragraph 1 and in accordance with Article 22, the national administrator shall open an operator holding account for each installation in the Union Registry or inform the prospective account holder of the refusal to open the account, pursuant to Article 20.\nArticle 15\nOpening aircraft operator holding accounts in the Union Registry\n1. Within 20 working days from the approval of the monitoring plan of an aircraft operator, the competent authority or aircraft operator shall provide the relevant national administrator with the information set out in Annex VI and shall request the national administrator to open an aircraft operator holding account in the Union Registry.\n2. Each aircraft operator shall have one aircraft operator holding account.\n3. Within 40 working days of the receipt of a complete set of information in accordance with paragraph 1 and in accordance with Article 22, the national administrator shall open an aircraft operator holding account for each aircraft operator in the Union Registry or inform the prospective account holder of the refusal to open the account, pursuant to Article 20.\n4. The status of aircraft operator holding accounts shall be changed from blocked to open following the entry of verified emissions pursuant to Article 32(1) to (5) and a compliance status figure greater than or equal to 0 calculated pursuant to Article 34(1). The status of the account shall also be changed to open at an earlier date following receipt by the national administrator of a request by the account holder to activate its account for trading, provided that such a request contains, at a minimum, any required elements specified in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 79.\nArticle 16\nOpening person holding and trading accounts in the Union Registry\n1. A request for a person holding account or trading account in the Union Registry shall be submitted to the national administrator by the prospective account holder. The prospective account holder shall provide information as required by the national administrator, which shall include, at a minimum, the information set out in Annex III.\n2. The Member State of the national administrator may require as a condition for opening a person holding or trading account that the prospective account holders have their permanent residence or registration in the Member State of the national administrator administering the account.\n3. The Member State of the national administrator may require as a condition for opening a person holding or trading account that prospective account holders are registered for VAT in the Member State of the national administrator of the account.\n4. Within 20 working days of the receipt of a complete set of information in accordance with paragraph 1 and in accordance with Article 22, the national administrator shall open a person holding account or trading account in the Union Registry or inform the prospective account holder of the refusal to open the account, pursuant to Article 20.\nArticle 17\nOpening national holding accounts in the Union Registry\nThe competent authority of a Member State shall instruct the national administrator to open a national holding account in the Union Registry within 20 working days of the receipt of the information set out in Annex II.\nArticle 18\nOpening external platform accounts in the Union Registry\n1. External platforms may submit a request for an external platform account in the Union Registry. This request shall be submitted to the national administrator. The person requesting the account shall provide information as required by the national administrator. This information shall include, at a minimum, the information set out in Annex III and evidence that the external platform ensures a level of security equivalent or higher than the security ensured by the Union Registry in accordance with this Regulation.\n2. National administrators shall ensure that external platforms conform to the technical and security requirements described in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 79.\n3. Within 20 working days of the receipt of a complete set of information in accordance with paragraph 1 and in accordance with Article 22, the national administrator shall open an external platform account in the Union Registry or inform the central administrator or the person requesting the account of the refusal to open the account, pursuant to Article 20.\n4. The approval of an additional authorised representative shall not be required pursuant to Article 21(3) to initiate a transaction for transactions initiated by exempted external platforms. An external platform may be exempted by the national administrator upon written request if the external platform provides evidence that it has security arrangements in place that offer at least a level of protection equivalent to that afforded by the requirement in Article 21(3). The minimum technical and security requirements shall be set out in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 79. The national administrator concerned shall notify the Commission of such requests without delay. Exemptions pursuant to this paragraph shall be made public by the Commission.\nArticle 19\nOpening verifier accounts in the Union Registry\n1. A request for a verifier account in the Union Registry shall be submitted to the national administrator. The person requesting the account shall provide information as required by the national administrator including the information set out in Annex II and Annex IV.\n2. Within 20 working days of the receipt of a complete set of information in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and in accordance with Article 22, the national administrator shall open the verifier account in the Union Registry or inform the prospective account holder of the refusal to open the account, pursuant to Article 20.\nArticle 20\nRefusal to open an account\n1. The national administrator shall verify whether the information and documents provided for account opening are complete, up to date, accurate and true.\n2. A national administrator may refuse to open an account:\n(a)\nif the information and documents provided are incomplete, out of date or otherwise inaccurate or false;\n(b)\nif the prospective account holder, or, if it is a legal person, any of the directors, is under investigation or has been convicted in the preceding five years for fraud involving allowances or Kyoto units, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crimes for which the account may be an instrument;\n(c)\nif the national administrator has reasonable grounds to believe that the accounts may be used for fraud involving allowances or Kyoto units, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crimes;\n(d)\nfor reasons set out in national law.\n3. If the national administrator refuses to open an account, the person requesting the account opening may object to the relevant authority under national law, who shall either instruct the national administrator to open the account or uphold the refusal in a reasoned decision, subject to requirements of national law that pursue a legitimate objective compatible with this Regulation and are proportionate.\nArticle 21\nAuthorised representatives\n1. Each account, with the exception of the verifier account, shall have at least two authorised representatives. A verifier account shall have at least one authorised representative. The authorised representatives shall initiate transactions and other processes on behalf of the account holder.\n2. In addition to the authorised representatives specified in paragraph 1, accounts may also have authorised representatives with view only access to the account.\n3. Accounts may have one or more additional authorised representatives. The approval of an additional authorised representative is required, in addition to the approval of an authorised representative, in order to initiate a transaction, except for:\n(a)\ntransfers to an account on the trusted account list in the Union Registry of the account holder; and\n(b)\ntransactions initiated by external platforms exempted pursuant to Article 18(4).\n4. Account holders may enable their accounts to be accessed through an external platform. Such account holders shall nominate as authorised representatives a person who is already the authorised representative of an external platform account.\n5. If an authorised representative cannot access the Union Registry for technical or other reasons, the national administrator may initiate transactions on behalf of the authorised representative upon request, provided that the national administrator allows such requests and that access was not suspended in accordance with this Regulation.\n6. The data exchange and technical specifications may set a maximum number of authorised representatives and additional authorised representatives for each account type.\n7. Authorised representatives and additional authorised representatives must be natural persons over 18 years of age. All authorised representatives and additional authorised representatives of a single account must be different persons but the same person can be an authorised representative or an additional authorised representative on more than one account. The Member State of the national administrator may require that at least one of the authorised representatives of an account must be a permanent resident in that Member State, except for verifier accounts.\nArticle 22\nNominating and approval of authorised representatives and additional authorised representatives\n1. When requesting an account, the prospective account holder shall nominate a number of authorised representatives and additional authorised representatives in accordance with Article 21.\n2. When nominating an authorised representative or additional authorised representative, the account holder shall provide information as required by the administrator. That information shall include, at a minimum, the information set out in Annex VII.\n3. Within 20 working days of the receipt of a complete set of information required in accordance with paragraph 2, the national administrator shall approve an authorised representative or additional authorised representative, or inform the account holder of its refusal. Where evaluation of the nominee information requires more time, the administrator may extend the evaluation process by up to 20 additional working days, and notify the extension to the account holder.\n4. The national administrator shall verify whether the information and documents provided for nominating an authorised representative or additional authorised representative are complete, up to date, accurate and true.\n5. A national administrator may refuse to approve an authorised representative or additional authorised representative:\n(a)\nif the information and documents provided are incomplete, out of date or otherwise inaccurate or false;\n(b)\nif the prospective representative is under investigation or has been convicted in the preceding five years for fraud involving allowances or Kyoto units, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crimes for which the account may be an instrument;\n(c)\nfor reasons set out in national law.\n6. If the national administrator refused to approve an authorised representative or additional authorised representative, the account holder may object through the relevant authority under national law, who shall either instruct the national administrator to approve the representative or uphold the refusal in a reasoned decision, subject to requirements of national law that pursue a legitimate objective compatible with this Regulation and are proportionate.\nArticle 23\nUpdating of account information and information on authorised representatives\n1. All account holders shall notify the national administrator within 10 working days of changes to the information submitted for the opening of an account. In addition, account holders shall confirm to the national administrator by 31 December each year that the information for their account remains complete, up to date and true.\n2. Aircraft operators shall notify the administrator of their account within 10 working days if they have undergone a merger involving two or more aircraft operators or if they have split into two or more aircraft operators.\n3. The notification of change shall be supported by information as required by the national administrator in conformity with this Section. Within 15 working days of the receipt of such a notification and supporting information, the relevant national administrator shall approve the update of the information. The administrator may refuse to update the information in accordance with Article 22(4) and (5). The account holder shall be notified of any such refusal. Objections to such refusals may be raised with the competent authority or the relevant authority under national law in accordance with Article 20.\n4. At least once every three years, the national administrator shall review whether the information submitted for the opening of an account remains complete, up to date, accurate and true, and shall request that the account holder notify any changes as appropriate.\n5. The account holder of an operator holding account may only sell or divest of its operator holding account together with the installation linked to the operator holding account.\n6. Subject to paragraph 5, no account holder may sell or divest of the ownership of its account to another person.\n7. An authorised representative or additional authorised representative may not transfer its status as such to another person.\n8. An account holder may request the removal of an authorised representative from an account. Upon receipt of the request the national administrator shall suspend the access of the authorised representative or additional authorised representative. Within 10 working days of the receipt of the request, the relevant administrator shall remove the authorised representative.\n9. An account holder may nominate new authorised representatives or additional authorised representatives in accordance with Article 22.\n10. If the administering Member State of an aircraft operator changes in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 18a of Directive 2003/87/EC or due to the enlargement of the Union, the central administrator shall update the national administrator of the corresponding aircraft operator holding account. Where the administrator of an aircraft operator holding account changes, the new administrator may require the aircraft operator to submit the account opening information that it requires in accordance with Article 15 and the information about authorised representatives that it requires in accordance with Article 21.\n11. Subject to paragraph 10, the Member State responsible for managing an account shall not change.\nArticle 24\nTrusted account list\n1. Auction delivery accounts, holding accounts and trading accounts may have a trusted account list in the Union Registry.\n2. Accounts held by the same account holder shall be automatically included on the trusted account list.\n3. Changes to the trusted account list shall be initiated and completed through the procedure set out in Article 36 for transfers specified in Section 6 of Chapter V. The change shall be confirmed by an additional authorised representative, or, if no additional authorised representative has been nominated, by another authorised representative. The delay specified in Article 36(4) shall not apply for the deletion of accounts from the trusted account list; for all other changes to the trusted account list the delay shall be seven days.\nSECTION 3\nClosure of accounts\nArticle 25\nClosure of accounts\nSubject to Article 29(1), within 10 working days of the receipt of a request from the account holder of an account other than those specified in Articles 26, 27, 28 the administrator shall close the account.\nArticle 26\nClosure of operator holding accounts\n1. The competent authority shall notify the national administrator within 10 working days of the revocation or suspension of a greenhouse gas emissions permit or knowledge of installation closure. Within 10 working days of such a notification, the national administrator shall record the relevant date in the Union Registry.\n2. The national administrator may close an operator holding account by 30 June of the year following the year of closure of the installation, revocation or suspension of the greenhouse gas emissions permit if the relevant installation has surrendered an amount of allowances equal to or greater than its verified emissions.\nArticle 27\nClosure of aircraft operator holding accounts\nAircraft operator holding accounts shall only be closed by the national administrator if instructed by the competent authority to do so because the competent authority has discovered that the aircraft operator merged into another aircraft operator or the aircraft operator has permanently ceased all its operations covered by Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC, either through a notification by the account holder or through other evidence.\nArticle 28\nClosure of verifier accounts\n1. Within 10 working days of the receipt of a request from a verifier to close its account, the national administrator shall close the verifier account.\n2. The competent authority may also instruct the national administrator to close a verifier account where one of the following conditions is fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe verifier\u2019s accreditation has expired or has been withdrawn;\n(b)\nthe verifier ceased operation.\nArticle 29\nPositive balance on accounts under closure\n1. If there is a positive balance of allowances or Kyoto units on an account which an administrator is to close in accordance with Articles 25, 26 and 27, the administrator shall first request the account holder to specify another account to which such allowances or Kyoto units shall be transferred. If the account holder has not responded to the administrator\u2019s request within 40 working days, the administrator shall transfer the allowances and Kyoto units to its national holding account.\n2. If there is a positive balance of allowances or Kyoto units on an account to which access was suspended in accordance with Article 31, the competent authority may require that the allowances and Kyoto units are transferred immediately to the relevant national account.\nArticle 30\nClosure of accounts and removal of authorised representative on the administrator\u2019s initiative\n1. If the situation giving rise to the suspension of access to accounts pursuant to Article 31 is not resolved within a reasonable period despite repeated notifications, the competent authority may instruct the national administrator to close, or in the case of operator holding accounts or aircraft operator holding accounts to set to blocked status, those accounts for which access is suspended until the competent authority determines that the situation giving rise to the suspension no longer subsists.\n2. If a person holding account or trading account has a zero balance and no transactions have been recorded for a period of one year, the national administrator may notify the account holder that the person holding account or trading account will be closed within 40 working days unless the national administrator receives a request that the account be maintained. If the national administrator does not receive any such request from the account holder, the national administrator may close the account.\n3. The national administrator shall close an operator holding account upon instruction from the competent authority on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of further allowances being surrendered.\n4. The national administrator may remove an authorised representative or an additional authorised representative if it considers that the approval of the authorised representative or an additional authorised representative should have been refused in accordance with Article 22(3), and in particular if it discovers that the documents and identification information provided upon nomination were incomplete, out of date or otherwise inaccurate or false.\n5. The account holder may object to the change of account status of an account in accordance with paragraph 1 or the removal of an authorised representative or additional authorised representative in accordance with paragraph 4 with the authority competent under national law within 30 calendar days, who shall either instruct the national administrator to reinstate the account or the authorised representative or additional authorised representative or uphold the change of account status or removal in a reasoned decision, subject to requirements of national law that pursue a legitimate objective compatible with this Regulation and are proportionate.\nSECTION 4\nSuspension of access to accounts\nArticle 31\nSuspension of access to accounts\n1. An administrator may suspend the access of an authorised representative or an additional authorised representative to any account in the registry or to processes to which that authorised representative would otherwise have access if the administrator has reasonable grounds to believe that the authorised representative has:\n(a)\nattempted to access accounts or processes for which he is not authorised;\n(b)\nrepeatedly attempted to access an account or a process using an incorrect username and password; or\n(c)\nattempted to compromise the security, the availability, the integrity or the confidentiality of the Union Registry or the EUTL, or of the data handled or stored therein.\n2. An administrator may suspend the access of all authorised representatives or additional authorised representatives of a specific account where one of the following conditions is fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe account holder died without a legal successor or ceased to exist as a legal person;\n(b)\nthe account holder did not pay fees;\n(c)\nthe account holder violated the terms and conditions applicable to the account;\n(d)\nthe account holder did not agree to changes in the terms and conditions set by the national administrator or the central administrator;\n(e)\nthe account holder did not notify changes to account information or provide evidence concerning the changes to account information, or evidence concerning new account information requirements;\n(f)\nthe account holder failed to maintain the required minimum number of authorised representatives for the account;\n(g)\nthe account holder failed to maintain compliance with the Member State requirement to have an authorised representative with a permanent residence in the Member State of the national administrator;\n(h)\nthe account holder failed to maintain compliance with the Member State requirement that the account holder have a permanent residence or registration in the Member State of the administrator of the account.\n3. An administrator may suspend the access of all authorised representatives or additional authorised representatives to a specific account and the possibility to initiate processes from that account:\n(a)\nfor a maximum period of two weeks if the administrator has reasonable grounds to believe that the account was used or will be used for fraud, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crimes; or\n(b)\non the basis of and in accordance with national law provisions that pursue a legitimate objective.\n4. The national administrator may suspend access to an account if it considers that the opening of the account should have been refused in accordance with Article 20 or that the account holder no longer meets the requirements for the opening of the account.\n5. The administrator of the account shall reverse the suspension immediately once the situation giving rise to the suspension is resolved.\n6. The account holder may object to the suspension of its access in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 3 to the competent authority or the relevant authority under national law within 30 calendar days, who shall either instruct the national administrator to reinstate access or uphold the suspension in a reasoned decision, subject to requirements of national law that pursue a legitimate objective compatible with this Regulation and are proportionate.\n7. The competent authority or the Commission may also instruct the national administrator or central administrator to implement a suspension.\n8. A national law enforcement authority of the Member State of the administrator may also request the administrator to implement a suspension on the basis of and in accordance with national law.\n9. When access to an external platform account is suspended, the administrator shall also suspend access enabled for the external platform to user accounts in accordance with Article 21(4). When access of authorised representatives and additional authorised representatives of an external platform account is suspended, the administrator shall also suspend the access of those representatives enabled by an account holder for the external platform in accordance with Article 21(4).\n10. Where the holder of an operator holding account or aircraft operator holding account is prevented from surrendering in the 10 working days preceding the surrender time-limit laid down in Article 12(2a) and (3) of Directive 2003/87/EC due to suspension in accordance with this Article, the national administrator shall, if so requested by the account holder, surrender the number of allowances specified by the account holder.\nCHAPTER IV\nVERIFIED EMISSIONS AND COMPLIANCE\nArticle 32\nVerified emissions data for an installation or aircraft operator\n1. Each operator and aircraft operator shall select a verifier from the list of verifiers registered with the national administrator administering its account. If an operator or aircraft operator is also a verifier, it may not select itself as verifier.\n2. The national administrator, the competent authority or, upon decision of the competent authority, the account holder or the verifier shall enter emissions data for the previous year by 31 March.\n3. Annual emissions data shall be submitted using the format set out in Annex VIII.\n4. Upon the satisfactory verification in accordance with Article 15, first paragraph of Directive 2003/87/EC of an operator\u2019s report on the emissions from an installation during a previous year, or of an aircraft operator\u2019s report on the emissions from all aviation activities it performed during a previous year, the verifier or the competent authority shall approve the annual verified emissions.\n5. The emissions approved in accordance with paragraph 4 shall be marked as verified in the Union Registry by the national administrator or the competent authority. The competent authority may decide that instead of the national administrator, the verifier shall be responsible for marking emissions as verified in the Union Registry.\n6. The competent authority may instruct the national administrator to correct the annual verified emissions for an installation or an aircraft operator to ensure compliance with Articles 14 and 15 of Directive 2003/87/EC, by entering the corrected verified or estimated emissions for that installation or an aircraft operator for a given year in the Union Registry.\n7. Where, on 1 May of each year, no verified emissions figure has been recorded in the Union Registry for an installation or an aircraft operator for a previous year or the verified emissions figure was proven to be incorrect, any substitute emissions figure estimate entered in the Union Registry shall be calculated as closely as possible in accordance with Articles 14 and 15 of Directive 2003/87/EC.\nArticle 33\nBlocking of accounts due to a failure to submit verified emissions\n1. If, on 1 April of each year, the annual verified emissions of an installation or aircraft operator for the preceding year have not been recorded in the Union Registry, the Union Registry shall set the corresponding operator holding account or aircraft operator holding account to a blocked status.\n2. When all overdue verified emissions of the installation or aircraft operator for the year have been recorded in the Union Registry, the Union Registry shall set the account to open status.\nArticle 34\nCalculation of compliance status figures\n1. On 1 May of each year, the Union Registry shall determine the compliance status figure for the preceding year for every installation and aircraft operator with an open or blocked operator or aircraft operator holding account by calculating the sum of all allowances surrendered for the current period minus the sum of all verified emissions in the current period up to and including the current year, plus a correction factor.\n2. The correction factor referred to in paragraph 1 shall be zero if the compliance status figure of the last year of the previous period was greater than zero, but shall remain as the compliance status figure of the last year of the previous period if this figure is less than or equal to zero.\n3. The Union Registry shall record the compliance status figure for every installation and aircraft operator for each year.\nCHAPTER V\nTRANSACTIONS\nArticle 35\nOnly transactions expressly provided for in this Regulation for each account type shall be initiated by that account type.\nArticle 36\nExecution of transfers\n1. For all transactions specified in Chapter V that are not initiated by an external platform, an out-of-band confirmation shall be required by the Union Registry before the transaction can be initiated. A transaction shall only be initiated where an additional authorised representative, whose approval is required pursuant to Article 21(3), has confirmed the transaction out of band.\n2. For all transfers specified in Article 59 and Section 6 of Chapter V, the transfer shall be initiated immediately if it is confirmed between 10:00 and 16:00 central European time between Monday and Friday inclusive, with the exception of public holidays in the Member States deciding to suspend the running of the delay pursuant to paragraph 3. A transfer confirmed at any other time shall be initiated on the next day, Monday to Friday, at 10:00 central European time.\n3. For all transfers of allowances and Kyoto units specified in Articles 59 and 60, and for all transfers specified in Article 61 to accounts not on the trusted list of the trading account holder, a delay of 26 hours shall apply between initiation and the transfer being communicated for finalisation pursuant to Article 78. The running of this delay shall be suspended between 00:00 and 24:00 central European time on Saturdays and Sundays. Member States may decide to also suspend the running of this delay between 00:00 and 24:00 central European time on national public holidays for a given year, subject to publication of that decision by 1 December of the previous year.\n4. If an account representative suspects that a transfer was initiated fraudulently, at the latest two hours before the end of the delay provided in paragraph 3 the account representative may request the national administrator to cancel the transfer on behalf of the account representative before the transfer is communicated for finalisation. The account holder shall report the suspected fraud to the competent national law enforcement authority immediately following the request. That report shall be forwarded to the national administrator within seven days.\n5. Upon initiation pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2, a notification shall be sent to all account representatives indicating the proposed initiation of the transfer.\nArticle 37\nNature of allowances and finality of transactions\n1. An allowance or Kyoto unit shall be a fungible, dematerialised instrument that is tradable on the market.\n2. The dematerialised nature of allowances and Kyoto units shall imply that the record of the Union Registry shall constitute prima facie and sufficient evidence of title over an allowance or Kyoto unit, and of any other matter which is by this Regulation directed or authorised to be recorded in the registry.\n3. The fungibility of allowances and Kyoto units shall imply that any recovery or restitution obligations that may arise under national law in respect of an allowance or Kyoto unit shall only apply to the allowance or Kyoto unit in kind. In particular:\n(a)\nsubject to Article 64 and the reconciliation process foreseen in Article 77 of this Regulation, a transaction shall become final and irrevocable upon its finalisation pursuant to Article 78. Without prejudice to any provision of or remedy under national law that may result in a requirement or order to execute a new transaction in the registry, no law, regulation, rule or practice on the setting aside of contracts or transactions shall lead to the unwinding in the registry of a transaction that has become final and irrevocable under this Regulation;\n(b)\nnothing within this Article shall prevent an account holder or a third party from exercising any right or claim resulting from the underlying transaction that they may have in law, including to recovery, restitution or damages, in respect of a transaction that has become final in the registry, for instance in case of fraud or technical error, as long as this does not lead to the reversal, revocation or unwinding of the transaction in the registry.\n4. A purchaser and holder of an allowance or Kyoto unit acting in good faith shall acquire title to an allowance or Kyoto unit free of any defects in the title of the transferor.\nSECTION 1\nCreation of allowances\nArticle 38\nCreation of allowances\n1. The central administrator may create an EU Total Quantity Account, an EU Aviation Total Quantity Account, an EU Auction Account and/or an EU Aviation Auction Account as appropriate, and shall create or cancel accounts and allowances as made necessary by acts of Union law, including as may be required by Article 10a(8) of Directive 2003/87/EC, Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, Article 41(1) of Regulation (EU) No 920/2010, or by acts adopted under Articles 3e(3), 9 and 9a of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n2. The Commission shall, at an appropriate time or at appropriate times, instruct the central administrator to create a number of general allowances in total equivalent to the number determined in accordance with Article 2(1) of Commission Decision 2010/670/EU (15) on, or for transfer to, accounts established for the purposes of Article 10a(8) of Directive 2003/87/EC (NER300 Account).\n3. The Union Registry shall assign each allowance a unique unit identification code upon its creation.\nSECTION 2\nAccount transfers before auctions and allocation\nArticle 39\nTransfer of general allowances to be auctioned\n1. The central administrator shall, in a timely manner, transfer on behalf of the relevant auctioneer appointed in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, general allowances from the EU Total Quantity Account into the EU Auction Account in a quantity corresponding to the annual volumes determined pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010.\n2. In case of adjustments to the annual volumes in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, the central administrator shall transfer a corresponding quantity of general allowances from the EU Total Quantity Account to the EU Auction Account, or from the EU Auction Account to the EU Total Quantity Account, as the case may be.\nArticle 40\nTransfer of general allowances to be allocated free of charge\nThe central administrator shall, in a timely manner, transfer general allowances from the EU Total Quantity Account into the EU Allocation Account in a quantity corresponding to the sum of the allowances allocated free of charge according to the national allocation tables of each Member State.\nArticle 41\nTransfer of general allowances for the new entrant reserve\n1. The central administrator shall, in a timely manner, transfer general allowances from the EU Total Quantity Account to the EU New Entrant Reserve Account in a quantity corresponding to five percent of the Union-wide quantity of allowances determined by decisions adopted pursuant to Articles 9 and 9a of Directive 2003/87/EC, decreased by the number to be created pursuant to Article 38(2).\n2. If the Union-wide quantity of allowances is increased by a decision adopted pursuant to Articles 9 and 9a of Directive 2003/87/EC, the central administrator shall transfer further general allowances from the EU Total Quantity Account to the EU New Entrant Reserve Account in a quantity corresponding to five percent of the increase of the Union-wide quantity of allowances.\n3. If the Union-wide quantity of allowances is decreased by a decision adopted pursuant to Articles 9 and 9a of Directive 2003/87/EC, the central administrator shall delete general allowances on the EU New Entrant Reserve Account in a quantity corresponding to five percent of the decrease of the Union-wide quantity of allowances.\n4. In the case of allocation to new entrants or allocation to new entrants following a significant capacity extension pursuant to Articles 19 and 20 of Decision 2011/278/EU, the resulting final amount of allowances allocated free of charge to the operator for the whole trading period, which is entered into the EUTL in accordance with Article 49(2), shall be transferred by the central administrator from the EU New Entrant Reserve Account to the EU Allocation Account.\nArticle 42\nTransfer of aviation allowances to be auctioned\n1. The central administrator shall, in a timely manner, transfer on behalf of the relevant auctioneer appointed in accordance with the Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, aviation allowances from the EU Aviation Total Quantity Account to the EU Aviation Auction Account in a quantity corresponding to the annual volumes determined pursuant to Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010.\n2. In case of adjustments to the annual volumes in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, the central administrator shall transfer a corresponding quantity of aviation allowances from the EU Aviation Total Quantity Account to the EU Aviation Auction Account, or from the EU Aviation Auction Account to the EU Aviation Total Quantity Account, as the case may be.\nArticle 43\nTransfer of aviation allowances to be allocated free of charge\n1. The central administrator shall, in a timely manner, transfer aviation allowances from the EU Aviation Total Quantity Account to the EU Aviation Allocation Account in a quantity corresponding to the number of aviation allowances to be allocated free of charge determined by the Commission\u2019s decision adopted on the basis of Article 3e(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n2. If the number of aviation allowances to be allocated free of charge is increased by a decision pursuant to Article 3e(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC, the central administrator shall transfer further aviation allowances from the EU Aviation Total Quantity Account to the EU Aviation Allocation Account in a quantity corresponding to the increase of the number of aviation allowances to be allocated free of charge.\n3. If the number of aviation allowances to be allocated free of charge is decreased by a decision pursuant to Article 3e(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC, the central administrator shall delete aviation allowances on the EU Aviation Allocation Account in a quantity corresponding to the decrease of the number of aviation allowances to be allocated free of charge.\nArticle 44\nTransfer of aviation allowances to the special reserve\n1. The central administrator shall, in a timely manner, transfer aviation allowances from the EU Aviation Total Quantity Account to the EU Special Reserve Account in a quantity corresponding to the number of aviation allowances in the special reserve determined by the decision adopted pursuant to Article 3e(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n2. If the number of aviation allowances in the special reserve is increased by a decision adopted pursuant to Article 3e(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC, the central administrator shall transfer further aviation allowances from the EU Aviation Total Quantity Account to the EU Special Reserve Account in a quantity corresponding to the increase of the number of aviation allowances in the special reserve.\n3. If the number of aviation allowances in the special reserve is decreased by a decision adopted on the basis of Article 3e(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC, the central administrator shall delete aviation allowances on the EU Special Reserve Account in a quantity corresponding to the decrease of the number of allowances in the special reserve.\n4. In the case of allocation from the special reserve pursuant to Article 3f of Directive 2003/87/EC, the resulting final amount of aviation allowances allocated free of charge to the aircraft operator for the whole trading period, entered into the EUTL in accordance with Article 53(2) of this Regulation, shall be automatically transferred from the EU Special Reserve Account to the EU Aviation Allocation Account.\nArticle 45\nTransfer of general allowances to the EU Total Quantity Account\nAt the end of each trading period, all allowances on the EU Allocation Account and on the EU New Entrant Reserve Account shall be transferred to the EU Total Quantity Account.\nArticle 46\nTransfer of aviation allowances to the EU Aviation Total Quantity Account\nAt the end of each trading period, all allowances remaining on the EU Special Reserve Account shall be transferred to the EU Aviation Total Quantity Account.\nArticle 47\nDeletion of aviation allowances\nThe central administrator shall ensure that, at the end of each trading period, all allowances remaining on the EU Aviation Allocation Account shall be transferred to the Union allowance deletion account.\nSECTION 3\nAllocation to stationary installations\nArticle 48\nNational allocation tables\nThe EUTL shall contain one national allocation table for each Member State for each trading period. National allocation tables shall include the information set out in Annex IX.\nArticle 49\nEntry of national allocation tables into the EUTL\n1. By 30 September 2012, each Member State shall notify its national allocation table to the Commission.\n2. The Commission shall instruct the central administrator to enter the national allocation table into the EUTL if it considers that the national allocation table is in conformity with Directive 2003/87/EC and the Decision 2011/278/EU. It shall otherwise reject the national allocation table within a reasonable period and inform the Member State without delay, stating its reasons and setting out criteria to be fulfilled for a subsequent notification to be accepted. A Member State shall submit a revised national allocation table to the Commission within three months.\nArticle 50\nChanges to the national allocation tables\n1. The national administrator shall carry out changes to the national allocation table in the EUTL where:\n(a)\nan installation\u2019s permit has been revoked or has otherwise expired;\n(b)\nan installation ceases or partially ceases operation;\n(c)\nan installation has had a significant capacity reduction;\n(d)\nan installation was split into two or more installations;\n(e)\ntwo or more installations were merged into one installation.\n2. A Member State shall notify the Commission of changes, other than those referred to in paragraph 1, to its national allocation table, including allocations to new entrants or allocations to a new entrant following significant capacity extensions. The Commission shall instruct the central administrator to make the corresponding changes to the national allocation table held in the EUTL if it considers that the changes to the national allocation table are in conformity with Directive 2003/87/EC and Decision 2011/278/EU. It shall otherwise reject the changes within a reasonable period and inform the Member State without delay, stating its reasons and setting out criteria to be fulfilled for a subsequent notification to be accepted.\nArticle 51\nFree allocation of general allowances\n1. The national administrator shall indicate in the national allocation table for each operator, for each year and for each legal basis set out in Annex IX, whether or not an installation should receive an allocation for that year.\n2. From 1 February 2013, pursuant to paragraph 1, general allowances shall be transferred daily automatically from the EU Allocation Account in accordance with the relevant national allocation table to the relevant open or blocked operator holding account.\nSECTION 4\nAllocation to aircraft operators\nArticle 52\nNational aviation allocation tables\nThe EUTL shall contain one national aviation allocation table for each Member State for each trading period. National aviation allocation tables shall include the information set out in Annex X.\nArticle 53\nEntry of national aviation allocation tables into the EUTL\n1. By 30 September 2012, each Member State shall notify to the Commission its national aviation allocation table.\n2. The Commission shall instruct the central administrator to enter the national aviation allocation table into the EUTL if it considers that the national aviation allocation table is in conformity with Directive 2003/87/EC, in particular with the allocations calculated and published by Member States under Article 3e(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC. It shall otherwise reject the national aviation allocation table within a reasonable period and inform the Member State without delay, stating its reasons and setting out criteria to be fulfilled for a subsequent notification to be accepted. A Member State shall submit a revised national aviation allocation table to the Commission within three months.\nArticle 54\nChanges to the national aviation allocation tables\n1. The national administrator shall carry out changes to the national aviation allocation table in the EUTL where:\n(a)\nan aircraft operator ceases operation;\n(b)\nan aircraft operator was split into two or more aircraft operators;\n(c)\ntwo or more aircraft operators have merged into a single aircraft operator.\n2. A Member State shall notify the Commission of changes, other than those referred to in paragraph 1, to its national aviation allocation table, including any allocation from the special reserve pursuant to Article 3f of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n3. The Commission shall instruct the central administrator to make the corresponding changes to the national aviation allocation table held in the EUTL if it considers that the change to the national aviation allocation table is in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC, in particular with the allocations calculated and published pursuant to Article 3f(7) of Directive 2003/87/EC in case of allocations from the special reserve. It shall otherwise reject the changes within a reasonable period and inform the Member State without delay, stating its reasons and setting out criteria to be fulfilled for a subsequent notification to be accepted.\n4. If a merger between aircraft operators involves aircraft operators that are administered by different Member States, the change under paragraph (1)(c) shall be initiated by the national administrator administering the aircraft operator whose allocation is to be merged into the allocation of another aircraft operator. Before carrying out the change, consent shall be obtained from the national administrator administering the aircraft operator whose allocation will incorporate the allocation of the merged aircraft operator.\nArticle 55\nFree allocation of aviation allowances\n1. The national administrator shall indicate for each aircraft operator and for each year whether or not the aircraft operator should receive an allocation for that year in the national aviation allocation table.\n2. From 1 February 2013, pursuant to paragraph 1, aviation allowances shall be transferred daily automatically from the EU Aviation Allocation Account to the relevant open or blocked aircraft operator holding account in accordance with the relevant allocation table.\nSECTION 5\nAuction\nArticle 56\nAuction tables\nThe EUTL shall contain two auction tables for each auction platform for each calendar year from 2012, one for the auction of general allowances and one for the auction of aviation allowances. Auction tables shall include the information set out in Annex XI.\nArticle 57\nEntry of auction tables into the EUTL\n1. Within one month of the determination and publication of an auction calendar pursuant to Articles 11(1), 13(1), 13(2) or 32(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, the relevant auction platform shall provide the Commission with the corresponding auction table pursuant to Article 56.\n2. The Commission shall instruct the central administrator to enter the auction table into the EUTL if it considers that the auction table is in conformity with Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010. It shall otherwise reject the auction table within a reasonable period and inform the auction platform without delay, stating its reasons and setting out criteria to be fulfilled for a subsequent notification to be accepted. The auction platform shall submit a revised auction table to the Commission within three months.\nArticle 58\nChanges to the auction tables\n1. The relevant auction platform shall immediately notify the Commission of any necessary amendment to the auction table.\n2. The Commission shall instruct the central administrator to enter the revised auction table into the EUTL if it considers that the revised auction table is in conformity with Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010. It shall otherwise reject the changes within a reasonable period and inform the auction platform without delay, stating its reasons and setting out criteria to be fulfilled for a subsequent notification to be accepted.\n3. The Commission may instruct the central administrator to suspend the transfer of allowances as specified in an auction table if it becomes aware of a necessary amendment to the auction table that the auction platform has failed to notify.\nArticle 59\nAuctioning of allowances\n1. The Commission shall instruct the central administrator, in a timely manner, to transfer on request of the relevant auctioneer, appointed in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, general allowances from the EU Auction Account, and/or aviation allowances from the EU Aviation Auction Account to the relevant auction delivery account in accordance with the auction tables. For allowances created in view of auctions pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, the Commission shall instruct the central administrator, in a timely manner, to transfer allowances, on request of the relevant auctioneer, from the account in which the allowances were created to the account established for auction delivery as indicated in the relevant auction table. The provision of the auction table in accordance with Article 57 shall constitute the request.\n2. The account holder of the relevant auction delivery account shall ensure the transfer of the auctioned allowances to the successful bidders or their successors in title in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010.\n3. In accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, the authorised representative of an auction delivery account may be required to transfer any allowances that were not delivered from the auction delivery account to the EU Auction Account.\nSECTION 6\nTrading\nArticle 60\nTransfers of allowances or Kyoto units initiated by a holding account\nUpon request of an account holder of a holding account, the Union Registry shall carry out a transfer of allowances or Kyoto units to an account on the trusted account list of the account holder unless such a transfer is prevented by the status of the initiating or receiving account.\nArticle 61\nTransfers of allowances or Kyoto units initiated by a trading account\nUpon request of an account holder of a trading account, the Union Registry shall carry out a transfer of allowances or Kyoto units to a holding or trading account in the Union Registry unless such a transfer is prevented by the status of the initiating account.\nSECTION 7\nSurrender of allowances\nArticle 62\nSurrender of allowances\n1. An operator or aircraft operator shall surrender allowances by proposing to the Union Registry to:\n(a)\ntransfer a specified number of allowances created for compliance in the same trading period from the relevant operator holding account or aircraft operator holding account into the Union allowance deletion account;\n(b)\nrecord the number and type of transferred allowances as surrendered for the emissions of the operator\u2019s installation or the emissions of the aircraft operator in the current period.\n2. Aviation allowances may only be surrendered by aircraft operators.\n3. An allowance that was already surrendered may not be surrendered again.\nSECTION 8\nDeletion of allowances\nArticle 63\nDeletion of allowances\n1. The Union Registry shall carry out any request from an account holder pursuant to Article 12(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC to delete allowances held in the accounts of the account holder by:\n(a)\ntransferring a specified number of allowances from the relevant account into the Union allowance deletion account; and\n(b)\nrecording the number of transferred allowances as deleted for the current year.\n2. Deleted allowances shall not be recorded as surrendered for any emissions.\nSECTION 9\nTransaction reversal\nArticle 64\nReversal of finalised processes initiated in error\n1. If an account holder or a national administrator acting on behalf of the account holder unintentionally or erroneously initiated one of the transactions listed in paragraph 2, the account holder may propose to the administrator of its account to carry out a reversal of the completed transaction in a written request. The request shall be duly signed by the authorised representative or representatives of the account holder that are authorised to initiate the type of transaction to be reversed and shall be posted within five working days of the finalisation of the process. The request shall contain a statement indicating that the transaction was initiated erroneously or unintentionally.\n2. Account holders may propose the reversal of the following transactions:\n(a)\nsurrender of allowances;\n(b)\ndeletion of allowances.\n3. If the administrator of the account establishes that the request fulfils the conditions under paragraph 1 and agrees with the request, it may propose the reversal of the transaction in the Union Registry.\n4. If a national administrator unintentionally or erroneously initiated one of the transactions listed in paragraph 5, it may propose to the central administrator to carry out a reversal of the completed transaction in a written request. The request shall contain a statement indicating that the transaction was initiated erroneously or unintentionally.\n5. National administrators may propose the reversal of the following transactions:\n(a)\nallocation of general allowances;\n(b)\nallocation of aviation allowances.\n6. The central administrator shall ensure that the Union Registry accepts the proposal for reversal made pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 4, blocks the units that are to be transferred by the reversal and forwards the proposal to the central administrator provided that all of the following conditions are met:\n(a)\na transaction surrendering or deleting allowance to be reversed was not completed more than 30 working days prior to the account administrator\u2019s proposal in accordance with paragraph 3;\n(b)\nno operator would become non-compliant for a previous year as a result of the reversal;\n(c)\nthe destination account of the transaction to be reversed still holds the amount of units of the type that were involved in the transaction to be reversed;\n(d)\nthe allocation of general allowances to be reversed was carried out after the expiry date of the installation\u2019s permit.\n7. The central administrator shall ensure that the Union Registry completes the reversal with different units of the same unit type on the destination account of the transaction that is being reversed.\nCHAPTER VI\nTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGISTRIES SYSTEM\nSECTION 1\nAvailability\nArticle 65\nAvailability and reliability of the Union Registry and the EUTL\n1. The central administrator shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that:\n(a)\nthe Union Registry is available for access by account representatives and national administrators 24 hours a day, seven days a week;\n(b)\nthe communication links referred to in Article 6 between the Union Registry, the EUTL and the ITL are maintained 24 hours a day, seven days a week;\n(c)\nbackup hardware and software necessary in the event of a breakdown in operations of the primary hardware and software is provided for;\n(d)\nthe Union Registry and the EUTL respond promptly to requests made by account representatives.\n2. The central administrator shall ensure that the Union Registry and EUTL incorporate robust systems and procedures to safeguard all relevant data and facilitate the prompt recovery of data and operations in the event of failure or disaster.\n3. The central administrator shall keep interruptions to the operation of the Union Registry and EUTL to a minimum.\nArticle 66\nHelpdesks\n1. National administrators shall provide assistance and support to holders of accounts and account representatives in the Union Registry that are administered by them through national helpdesks.\n2. The central administrator shall provide support to national administrators through a central helpdesk for the purposes of helping them to provide assistance in accordance with paragraph 1.\nSECTION 2\nSecurity and authentication\nArticle 67\nAuthentication of the Union Registry\nThe identity of the Union Registry shall be authenticated by the EUTL as indicated in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 79.\nArticle 68\nAccessing accounts in the Union Registry\n1. Account representatives shall be able to access their accounts in the Union Registry through the secure area of the Union Registry. The central administrator shall ensure that the secure area of the Union Registry website is accessible through the Internet. The website of the Union Registry shall be available in all official languages of the Union.\n2. The central administrator shall ensure that accounts in the Union Registry, where access through external platforms in accordance with Article 21(4) is enabled and one authorised representative is also the authorised representative of an external platform account, are accessible to the external platform operated by the holder of that external platform account.\n3. Communications between authorised representatives or external platforms and the secure area of Union Registry shall be encrypted in accordance with the security requirements set out in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 79.\n4. The central administrator shall take all necessary steps to ensure that unauthorised access to the secure area of the Union Registry website does not occur.\n5. If the security of the credentials of an authorised representative or additional authorised representative has been compromised, the authorised representative or additional authorised representative shall immediately suspend access to the relevant account, inform the administrator of the account thereof and request a replacement.\nArticle 69\nAuthentication and authorisation of authorised representatives in the Union Registry\n1. The Union Registry shall issue each authorised representative and additional authorised representative with a username and password to authenticate them for the purposes of accessing the registry.\n2. An authorised representative or additional authorised representative shall only have access to accounts in the Union Registry for which he is authorised and shall only be able to request the initiation of processes for which he is authorised pursuant to Article 21. That access or request shall take place through a secure area of the website of the Union Registry.\n3. In addition to the username and password referred to in paragraph 1, secondary authentication for the purpose of accessing the Union Registry shall be provided. The types of secondary authentication mechanisms that can be used to access the Union Registry shall be set out in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 79.\n4. The administrator of an account may assume that a user who was successfully authenticated by the Union Registry is the authorised representative or additional authorised representative registered under the provided authentication credentials, unless the authorised representative or additional authorised representative informs the administrator of the account that the security of his credentials has been compromised and requests a replacement of his credentials.\n5. The authorised representative shall take all necessary measures to prevent the loss, theft or compromise of its credentials. The authorised representative shall immediately report to the national administrator the loss, theft or compromise of its credentials.\nArticle 70\nSuspension of all access due to a security breach or a security risk\n1. The Commission may instruct the central administrator to suspend access to the Union Registry or the EUTL or any part thereof where it has a reasonable suspicion that there is a breach of security of the Union Registry or the EUTL or that there exists a serious security risk to the Union Registry or the EUTL that threatens the integrity of the system, which includes the back-up facilities referred to in Article 65.\n2. In the event of a breach of security or a security risk that may lead to suspension of access, an administrator who becomes aware of the breach or risk shall promptly inform the central administrator of any risks posed to other parts of the Union Registry. The central administrator shall inform all other administrators.\n3. If an administrator becomes aware of a situation that requires the suspension of all access to the accounts that it manages in accordance with this Regulation, it shall inform the central administrator and account holders with such prior notice of the suspension as is practicable. The central administrator shall inform all other administrators as soon as possible.\n4. The notice referred to in paragraph 3 shall include the likely duration of the suspension and shall be clearly displayed on the public area of the EUTL\u2019s website.\nArticle 71\nSuspension of access to allowances or Kyoto units in the case of a suspected fraudulent transaction\n1. An administrator or an administrator acting on request of the competent authority may suspend access to allowances or Kyoto units in the part of the Union Registry it administers:\n(a)\nfor a maximum period of two weeks if it suspects that the allowances or Kyoto units have been the subject of a transaction constituting fraud, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crime; or\n(b)\non the basis of and in accordance with national law provisions that pursue a legitimate objective.\n2. The Commission may instruct the central administrator to suspend access to allowances or Kyoto units in the Union Registry or the EUTL for a maximum period of two weeks if it suspects that the allowances or Kyoto units have been the subject of a transaction constituting fraud, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crime.\n3. The administrator or the Commission shall immediately inform the competent law enforcement authority of the suspension.\n4. A national law enforcement authority of the Member State of the national administrator may also instruct the administrator to implement a suspension on the basis of and in accordance with national law.\nArticle 72\nCooperation with competent authorities and notification of money laundering, terrorist financing or criminal activity\n1. The national administrator, its directors and its employees shall cooperate fully with the relevant competent authorities to establish adequate and appropriate procedures to forestall and prevent operations related to money laundering or terrorist financing.\n2. The national administrator, its directors and its employees, shall cooperate fully with the FIU referred to in Article 21 of Directive 2005/60/EC by promptly:\n(a)\ninforming the FIU, on their own initiative, where they know, suspect or have reasonable grounds to suspect that money laundering, terrorist financing or criminal activity is being or has been committed or attempted;\n(b)\nproviding the FIU, at its request, with all necessary information, in accordance with the procedures established by the applicable legislation.\n3. The information referred to in paragraph 2 shall be forwarded to the FIU of the Member State of the national administrator. The national measures transposing the compliance management and communication policies and procedures, referred to in Article 34(1) of Directive 2005/60/EC, shall designate the person or persons responsible for forwarding information pursuant to this Article.\n4. The Member State of the national administrator shall ensure that the national measures transposing Articles 26 to 29, 32, and Article 35 of Directive 2005/60/EC apply to the national administrator.\nArticle 73\nSuspension of processes\n1. The Commission may instruct the central administrator to temporarily suspend the acceptance by the EUTL of some or all processes originating from the Union Registry if it is not operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation. It shall immediately notify national administrators concerned.\n2. The central administrator may temporarily suspend the initiation or acceptance of some or all processes in the Union Registry for the purposes of carrying out scheduled or emergency maintenance on the Union Registry.\n3. A national administrator may request the Commission to reinstate processes suspended in accordance with paragraph 1 if it considers that the outstanding issues that caused the suspension have been resolved. If this is the case, the Commission shall instruct the central administrator to reinstate those processes. It shall otherwise reject the request within a reasonable period and inform the national administrator without delay, stating its reasons and setting out criteria to be fulfilled for a subsequent request to be accepted.\nSECTION 3\nAutomated checking, recording and completing of processes\nArticle 74\nAutomated checking of processes\n1. All processes must conform to the general IT requirements of electronic messaging that ensure the successful reading, checking and recording of a process by the Union Registry. All processes must conform to the specific process-related requirements set out in this Regulation.\n2. The EUTL shall conduct automated checks set out in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 79 for all processes to identify irregularities and discrepancies, whereby a proposed process does not conform to the requirements of Directive 2003/87/EC and of this Regulation.\nArticle 75\nDetection of discrepancies\n1. In the case of processes completed through the direct communication link between the Union Registry and the EUTL referred to in Article 6(3), the EUTL shall terminate any processes where it identifies discrepancies upon conducting the automated checks referred to in Article 76(2), and shall inform thereof the Union Registry and the administrator of the accounts involved in the terminated transaction by returning an automated check response code. The Union Registry shall immediately inform the relevant account holders that the process has been terminated.\n2. In case of transactions completed through the ITL referred to in Article 6(1), the ITL shall terminate any processes where discrepancies are identified either by the ITL or the EUTL upon conducting the automated checks referred to in Article 76(2). Following a termination by the ITL, the EUTL shall also terminate the transaction. The ITL informs the administrators of the registries involved of the termination of the transaction by returning an automated check response code. If one of the registries involved is the Union Registry, the Union Registry shall also inform the administrator of the Union Registry accounts involved in the terminated transaction by returning an automated check response code. The Union Registry shall immediately inform the relevant account holders that the process has been terminated.\nArticle 76\nDetection of discrepancies within the Union Registry\n1. The Union Registry shall contain check input codes and check response codes to ensure the correct interpretation of information exchanged during each process. The check codes shall correspond to those contained in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 79.\n2. Prior to and during the execution of all processes, the Union Registry shall conduct appropriate automated checks to ensure that discrepancies are detected and incorrect processes are terminated in advance of automated checks being conducted by the EUTL.\nArticle 77\nReconciliation - Detection of inconsistencies by the EUTL\n1. The EUTL shall periodically initiate data reconciliation to ensure that the EUTL\u2019s records of accounts, holdings of Kyoto units and allowances match the records of these holdings in the Union Registry. For that purpose the EUTL shall record all processes.\n2. If during the data reconciliation process referred to in paragraph 1, an inconsistency is identified by the EUTL, whereby the information regarding accounts, holdings of Kyoto units and allowances provided by the Union Registry as part of the periodic reconciliation process differs from the information contained in the EUTL, the EUTL shall ensure that no further processes may be completed with any of the accounts, allowances or Kyoto units which are the subject of the inconsistency. The EUTL shall immediately inform the central administrator and the administrators of the relevant accounts of any inconsistency.\nArticle 78\nFinalisation of processes\n1. All transactions communicated to the ITL in accordance with Article 6(1) shall be final when the ITL notifies the EUTL that it has completed the process.\n2. All transactions and other processes communicated to the EUTL in accordance with Article 6(3) shall be final when the EUTL notifies the Union Registry that it has completed the processes. The EUTL shall automatically abort the completion of a transaction or process if it could not be completed within 24 hours of its communication.\n3. The data reconciliation process referred to in Article 77(1) shall be final when all inconsistencies between the information contained in the Union Registry and the information contained in the EUTL for a specific time and date have been resolved, and the data reconciliation process has been successfully re-initiated and completed.\nSECTION 4\nSpecifications and change management\nArticle 79\nData exchange and technical specifications\n1. The Commission shall make available to national administrators data exchange and technical specifications necessary for exchanging data between registries and transaction logs, including the identification codes, automated checks and response codes, as well as the testing procedures and security requirements necessary for the launching of data exchange.\n2. The data exchange and technical specifications shall be drawn up in consultation with the Administrators\u2019 Working Group of the Climate Change Committee and shall be consistent with the functional and technical specifications for data exchange standards for registry systems under the Kyoto Protocol elaborated pursuant to Decision 12/CMP.1.\nArticle 80\nChange and release management\nIf a new version or release of the Union Registry software is required, the central administrator shall ensure that the testing procedures set out in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 79 are completed before a communication link is established and activated between the new version or release of that software and the EUTL or ITL.\nCHAPTER VII\nRECORDS, REPORTS, CONFIDENTIALITY AND FEES\nArticle 81\nRecords\n1. The Union Registry and every other KP registry shall store records concerning all processes, log data and account holders for 15 years or until any questions of implementation relating to them have been resolved, whichever is later.\n2. National administrators shall be able to access, query and export all records held in the Union Registry in relation to accounts that are or were administered by them.\n3. Records shall be stored in accordance with the data logging requirements described in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 79.\nArticle 82\nReporting\n1. The central administrator shall make available the information listed in Annex XII at the frequencies and to the recipients set out in Annex XII in a transparent and organised manner via the EUTL website. The central administrator shall not release additional information held in the EUTL or in the Union Registry unless this is permitted under Article 83.\n2. National administrators may also make available the part of the information listed in Annex XII that they have access to in accordance with Article 83 at the frequencies and to the recipients set out in Annex XII in a transparent and organised manner on a site publicly accessible via the Internet. National administrators shall not release additional information held in the Union Registry unless this is permitted under Article 83.\nArticle 83\nConfidentiality\n1. Information, including the holdings of all accounts, all transactions made, the unique unit identification code of the allowances and the unique numeric value of the unit serial number of the Kyoto units held or affected by a transaction, held in the EUTL and the Union Registry shall be considered confidential except as otherwise required by Union law, or by provisions of national law that pursue a legitimate objective compatible with this Regulation and are proportionate.\n2. The following entities may obtain data stored in the Union Registry and the EUTL:\n(a)\nthe law enforcement and tax authorities of a Member State;\n(b)\nthe European Anti-fraud Office of the European Commission;\n(c)\nthe European Court of Auditors;\n(d)\nEurojust;\n(e)\nthe competent authorities referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (16) and in Article 37(1) of Directive 2005/60/EC;\n(f)\ncompetent national supervisory authorities;\n(g)\nthe national administrators of Member States and the competent authorities referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n3. Data may be provided to the entities listed under paragraph 2 upon their request to the central administrator or to a national administrator if such requests are necessary for the performance of their tasks.\n4. An entity receiving data in accordance with paragraph 3 shall ensure that the data received is only used for the purposes stated in the request in accordance with paragraph 3 and is not made available deliberately or accidentally to persons not involved in the intended purpose of the data use. This provision shall not preclude these entities to make the data available to other entities listed in paragraph 2, if this is necessary for the purposes stated in the request made in accordance with paragraph 3.\n5. Upon their request, the central administrator may provide access to anonymous transaction data to the entities listed in paragraph 2 for the purpose of looking for suspicious transaction patterns. Entities with such access may notify suspicious transaction patterns to other entities listed in paragraph 2.\n6. Europol shall obtain permanent read-only access to data stored in the Union Registry and the EUTL for the purpose of the performance of its tasks in accordance with Council Decision 2009/371/JHA (17). Europol shall keep the Commission informed of the use it makes of the data.\n7. National administrators shall make available through secure means to all other national administrators and the central administrator the names and identities of persons for whom they refused to open an account in accordance with Article 20(2)(a) to (c), or whom they refused to nominate as an authorised representative or additional authorised representative in accordance with Article 22(5)(a) and (b), and the names and identities of the account holder, authorised representative or additional authorised representative of accounts to which access has been suspended in accordance with Article 31 or of accounts that have been closed in accordance with Article 30.\n8. National administrators may decide to notify to national law enforcement and tax authorities all transactions that involve a number of units above the number determined by the national administrator and to notify any account that is involved in a number of transactions within a period that is above a number determined by the national administrator.\n9. Account holders may request in writing from the national administrator that the public website of the Union Registry should not display some or all of the data items in Table V-II of Annex V.\n10. Account holders may request in writing from the national administrator that the public website of the Union Registry display some or all of the data items in rows 3 to 14 of Table VII-I of Annex VII.\n11. The EUTL and the Union Registry shall not require account holders to submit price information concerning allowances or Kyoto units.\n12. The auction monitor appointed pursuant to Article 24 of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 shall have access to all information concerning the auction delivery account held in the Union Registry.\nArticle 84\nFees\n1. The central administrator shall not charge any fees to holders of accounts in the Union Registry.\n2. National administrators may charge reasonable fees to holders of accounts administered by them.\n3. National administrators shall notify the central administrator of the fees charged and of any changes in the fees within 10 working days. The central administrator shall display fees on a public website.\nArticle 85\nInterruption of operation\nThe central administrator shall ensure that interruptions to the operation of the Union Registry are kept to a minimum by taking all reasonable steps to ensure the availability and security of the Union Registry and the EUTL and by providing for robust systems and procedures to safeguard all information.\nCHAPTER VIII\nTRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 86\nImplementation\nMember States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement this Regulation, and in particular for national administrators to comply with their obligations to verify and review information submitted pursuant to Articles 20(1), 22(4) and 23(4).\nArticle 87\nFurther use of accounts\nAccounts, as specified in Chapter III herein, opened or used pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 920/2010 shall remain in use for the purposes of this Regulation. Trading platform accounts opened pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 920/2010 shall remain in use as external platform accounts for the purposes of this Regulation.\nArticle 88\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004\nRegulation (EC) No 2216/2004 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 10, paragraphs 1 to 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Information, including the holdings of all accounts, all transactions made, the unique unit identification code of the allowances and the unique numeric value of the unit serial number of the Kyoto units held or affected by the transaction, held in the registries and the Community independent transaction log shall be considered confidential except as otherwise required by Union law, or by provisions of national law that pursue a legitimate objective compatible with this Regulation and are proportionate.\n2. The following entities may obtain data stored in the registries and the CITL:\n(a)\nthe law enforcement and tax authorities of a Member State;\n(b)\nthe European Anti-fraud Office of the European Commission;\n(c)\nthe European Court of Auditors;\n(d)\nEurojust;\n(e)\nthe competent authorities referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2003/6/EC and in Article 37(1) of Directive 2005/60/EC;\n(f)\nthe competent national supervisory authorities;\n(g)\nregistry administrators of Member States and the competent authorities referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2003/87/EC.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 10, the following paragraph 2f shall be inserted:\n\u20182f. Europol shall obtain permanent read-only access to data stored in the Union Registry and the CITL for the purpose of the performance of its tasks in accordance with Council Decision 2009/371/JHA. Europol shall keep the Commission informed of the use it makes of the data.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 21a, paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20183. If there is a positive balance of allowances or Kyoto units on an account which the registry administrator is to close after suspension in accordance with Article 67, the registry administrator shall first request the account holder to specify another account administered by the same administrator to which such allowances or Kyoto units shall then be transferred. If the account holder has not responded to the administrator\u2019s request within 40 working days, the administrator may transfer the allowances or Kyoto units to its national allowance holding account.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 69 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 69\nThe Commission may instruct the central administrator to suspend access to the Community independent transaction log and a registry administrator may suspend access to his registry where it has a reasonable suspicion that there is a breach of security of or that there exists a serious security risk to the Community independent transaction log or to a registry that threatens the integrity of the Community independent transaction log or of a registry or the integrity of the registries system, which includes the back-up facilities under Article 68.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 70, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. In the event of a breach of security of or a security risk to the Community independent transaction log that may lead to suspension of access, the central administrator shall promptly inform registry administrators of any risks posed to registries.\n2. In the event of a breach of security of or a security risk to a registry that may lead to suspension of access, the relevant registry administrator shall promptly inform the central administrator who shall, in turn, promptly inform other registry administrators of any risks posed to registries.\u2019;\n(6)\nthe following Article 70a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 70a\nSuspension of access to allowances or Kyoto units in case of a suspected fraudulent transaction\n1. An administrator or an administrator acting on request of the competent authority may suspend access to allowances or Kyoto units in the registry it administers:\n(a)\nfor a maximum period of two weeks if it suspects that the allowances or Kyoto units have been the subject of a transaction constituting fraud, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crime; or\n(b)\non the basis of and in accordance with national law provisions that pursue a legitimate objective.\n2. The administrator shall immediately inform the competent law enforcement authority of the suspension.\n3. A national law enforcement authority of the Member State of the administrator may also instruct the administrator to implement a suspension on the basis of and in accordance with national law.\u2019;\n(7)\npoints 3 to 7 of Annex IV are replaced by the following:\n\u20183.\nEvidence to support the identity of the natural person requesting the account opening, which may be a copy of one of the following:\n(a)\nan identity card issued by a State that is a member of the European Economic Area or the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development;\n(b)\na passport.\n4.\nEvidence to support the address of the permanent residence of the natural person account holder, which may be a copy of one of the following:\n(a)\nthe identity document submitted under point 3, if it contains the address of the permanent residence;\n(b)\nany other government-issued identity document that contains the address of permanent residence;\n(c)\nif the country of permanent residence does not issue identity documents that contain the address of permanent residence, a statement from the local authorities confirming the nominee\u2019s permanent residence;\n(d)\nany other document that is customarily accepted in the Member State of the administrator of the account as evidence of the permanent residence of the nominee.\n5.\nThe following documents in case of a legal person requesting the account opening:\n(a)\na copy of the instruments establishing the legal entity and a copy of a document proving the registration of the legal entity;\n(b)\nbank account details;\n(c)\na confirmation of VAT registration;\n(d)\ninformation on the legal entity\u2019s beneficial owner as defined in Directive 2005/60/EC;\n(e)\nlist of directors;\n(f)\na copy of the annual report or of the latest audited financial statements, or if no audited financial statements available, a copy of the financial statements stamped by the tax office or the financial director.\n6.\nEvidence to support the registered address of the legal person account holder, if this is not clear from the document submitted in accordance with point 5.\n7.\nThe criminal record of the natural person requesting the account opening or if it is a legal person, of its directors.\n8.\nAny copy of a document submitted as evidence under this Annex must be certified as a true copy by a notary public or other similar person specified by the national administrator. Regarding documents issued outside the Member State requesting a copy, the copy must be legalised. The date of the certification or legalisation must not be more than three months prior to the date of application.\n9.\nThe administrator of the account may require that the documents submitted are accompanied with a certified translation into a language specified by the administrator. Instead of obtaining paper documents, the administrator of the account may use electronic mechanisms to check the evidence to be submitted in accordance with this Annex.\u2019;\n(8)\npoints 3 to 7 of Annex IVa are replaced by the following:\n\u20183.\nEvidence to support the identity of the nominee, which may be a copy of one of the following:\n(a)\nan identity card issued by a State that is a member of the European Economic Area or the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development;\n(b)\na passport.\n4.\nEvidence to support the address of the permanent residence of the nominee, which may be a copy of one of the following:\n(a)\nthe identity document submitted under point 3, if it contains the address of the permanent residence;\n(b)\nany other government-issued identity document that contains the address of permanent residence;\n(c)\nif the country of permanent residence does not issue identity documents that contain the address of permanent residence, a statement from the local authorities confirming the nominee\u2019s permanent residence;\n(d)\nany other document that is customarily accepted in the Member State of the administrator of the account as evidence of the permanent residence of the nominee.\n5.\nAny copy of a document submitted as evidence under this Annex must be certified as a true copy by a notary public or other similar person specified by the national administrator. Regarding documents issued outside the Member State requesting a copy, the copy must be legalised. The date of the certification or legalisation must not be more than three months prior to the date of application.\n6.\nThe administrator of the account may require that the documents submitted are accompanied with a certified translation into a language specified by the administrator.\n7.\nInstead of obtaining paper documents, the administrator of the account may use electronic mechanisms to check the evidence to be submitted in accordance with this Annex.\u2019.\nArticle 89\nAmendments to Regulation (EU) No 920/2010\nRegulation (EU) No 920/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 920/2010 shall be renamed as follows:\n(2)\nin Article 1, the first sentence shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018This Regulation lays down general as well as operational and maintenance requirements for the periods ending 31 December 2012 concerning the standardised and secured registries system consisting of registries, and the independent transaction log provided for in Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC and Article 6 of Decision No 280/2004/EC.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe following Article 1a shall be inserted:\n\u2018Article 1a\nScope\nThis Regulation concerns allowances created in the Union emissions trading scheme for the periods ending 31 December 2012 and Kyoto units.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 2, the following points 25 and 26 shall be added:\n\u201825.\n\u201cdirectors\u201d includes the persons effectively directing the day-to-day operations of a legal person;\n26.\n\u201ccentral European time\u201d means central European summer time during the summer-time period as defined in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (18).\n(5)\nArticle 3(2) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20182. A Union Registry for the periods ending 31 December 2012 of the Union emissions trading scheme is hereby established. For the purposes of meeting their obligations under Article 19 of Directive 2003/87/EC to ensure the accurate accounting of allowances, from 1 January 2012 onwards Member States shall use the Union Registry, which shall also function as a KP registry for the European Community as a separate KP Party. The Union Registry shall provide to national administrators and account holders all the processes described in Chapters IV to VI.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 4, paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20181. A European Union Transaction Log (EUTL), to take the form of a standardised electronic database, is hereby established, pursuant to Article 20 of Directive 2003/87/EC, for transactions within the scope of this Regulation. The EUTL shall also serve to record all information relating to the holdings and transfers of Kyoto units in accordance with Article 6(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC.\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 13, paragraph 4 is deleted;\n(8)\nthe following Article 13a is added:\n\u2018Article 13a\nOpening of trading accounts in the Union Registry\nFrom 30 June 2012, the opening of trading accounts in the Union Registry may be requested. Subject to Articles 43 and 44, the rules set out in this Regulation for person holding accounts shall apply mutatis mutandis.\u2019;\n(9)\nin Article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Trading platforms may submit a request for a trading platform holding account in the Union Registry. This request shall be submitted to the national administrator. The person requesting the account shall provide information as required by the national administrator. This information shall include, at a minimum, the information set out in Annex III and evidence that the trading platform ensures a level of security equivalent or higher than the security ensured by the Union Registry in accordance with this Regulation.\n2. National administrators shall ensure that external platforms conform to the technical and security requirements described in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 71.\u2019;\n(10)\nin Article 14, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The approval of an additional authorised representative pursuant to Article 19(2) shall not be required for transactions initiated by exempted trading platforms. A trading platform may be exempted by the national administrator upon written request if the external trading platform provides evidence that it has security arrangements in place that offer at least a level of protection afforded by the requirement in Article 19(2). The minimum technical and security requirements shall be set out in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 71. The national administrator concerned shall notify the Commission of such requests without delay. Exemptions pursuant to this paragraph shall be made public by the Commission.\u2019;\n(11)\nin Article 16, the following paragraph 4 is added:\n\u20184. The status of aircraft operator holding accounts shall be changed from blocked to open following the entry of verified emissions pursuant to Article 29 and a compliance status figure greater than or equal to 0 calculated pursuant to Article 31 paragraph 1. The status of the account shall also be changed to open at an earlier date following receipt by the national administrator of a request by the account holder to activate its account for trading, provided that such a request contains, at a minimum, any required elements specified in the data exchange and technical specifications provided for in Article 71.\u2019;\n(12)\nArticle 18 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 18\nRefusal to open an account\n1. The national administrator shall verify whether the information and documents provided for account opening are complete, up to date, accurate and true.\n2. A national administrator may refuse to open an account:\n(a)\nif the information and documents provided are incomplete, out of date or otherwise inaccurate or false;\n(b)\nif the prospective account holder, or, if it is a legal person, any of the directors, is under investigation or has been convicted in the preceding five years for fraud involving allowances or Kyoto units, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crimes for which the account may be an instrument;\n(c)\nif the national administrator has reasonable grounds to believe that the accounts may be used for fraud involving allowances or Kyoto units, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crimes;\n(d)\nfor reasons set out in national law.\n3. If the national administrator refuses to open an account, the person requesting the account opening may object to the relevant authority under national law, who shall either instruct the national administrator to open the account or uphold the refusal in a reasoned decision, subject to requirements of national law that pursue a legitimate objective compatible with this Regulation and are proportionate.\u2019;\n(13)\nin Article 19, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Each account, with the exception of the verifier account, shall have at least two authorised representatives. A verifier account shall have at least one authorised representative. The authorised representatives shall initiate transactions and other processes on behalf of the account holder.\n2. Accounts may have one or more additional authorised representatives. The approval of an additional authorised representative is required in addition to the approval of an authorised representative, in order to initiate a transaction, except for:\n(a)\ntransfers to an account on the trusted account list in the Union Registry of the account holder;\n(b)\ntransactions initiated by trading platforms exempted pursuant to Article 14(4); and\n(c)\nsurrender of allowances, ERUs and CERs pursuant to Chapter VI, Section 3.\u2019;\n(14)\nin Article 19, paragraph 2a is inserted:\n\u20182a. In addition to the authorised representatives specified in paragraph 1, accounts may have authorised representatives with view only access to the account.\u2019;\n(15)\nin Article 20, the following paragraphs 3a and 3b are inserted:\n\u20183a. The national administrator shall verify whether the information and documents provided for nominating an authorised representative or additional authorised representative are complete, up to date, accurate and true.\n3b. A national administrator may refuse to approve an authorised representative or additional authorised representative:\n(a)\nif the information and documents provided are incomplete, out of date or otherwise inaccurate or false;\n(b)\nif the prospective representative is under investigation or has been convicted in the preceding five years for fraud involving allowances or Kyoto units, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crimes for which the account may be an instrument;\n(c)\nfor reasons set out in national law.\u2019;\n(16)\nthe following Article 21a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 21a\nTrusted account list\n1. From 30 June 2012, operator holding accounts, aircraft operator holding accounts, person holding accounts and trading accounts may have a trusted account list in the Union Registry.\n2. Accounts held by the same account holder shall be automatically included on the trusted account list.\n3. Changes to the trusted account list shall be initiated and completed through the procedure set out in Article 32a for transactions specified in Chapter VI. The change shall be confirmed by an additional authorised representative, or, if no additional authorised representative has been nominated, by another authorised representative. The delay specified in Article 32a(4) shall not apply for the deletion of accounts from the trusted account list; for all other changes to the trusted account list the delay shall be seven days.\u2019;\n(17)\nin Article 27, paragraph 2a is inserted:\n\u20182a. An administrator may suspend the access of all authorised representatives or additional authorised representatives to a specific account and the possibility to initiate processes from that account:\n(a)\nfor a maximum period of two weeks if the administrator has reasonable grounds to believe that the account was used or will be used for fraud, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crimes; or\n(b)\non the basis of and in accordance with national law provisions that pursue a legitimate objective.\u2019;\n(18)\nin Article 29, paragraphs 4 and 5 are replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Upon the satisfactory verification in accordance with Article 15, first paragraph of Directive 2003/87/EC of an operator\u2019s report on the emissions from an installation during a previous year, or of an aircraft operator\u2019s report on the emissions from all aviation activities it performed during a previous year, the verifier or the competent authority shall approve the annual verified emissions.\n5. The emissions approved in accordance with paragraph 4 shall be marked as verified in the Union Registry by the national administrator or the competent authority. The competent authority may decide that instead of the national administrator, the verifier shall be responsible for marking emissions as verified in the Union Registry.\u2019;\n(19)\nthe following Articles 32a and 32b are inserted under \u2018Chapter VI TRANSACTIONS\u2019:\n\u2018Article 32a\nExecution of transfers\n1. For all transactions specified in Chapter VI that are not initiated by a trading platform, an out-of-band confirmation shall be required by the Union Registry before the transaction can be initiated. A transaction shall only be initiated where an additional authorised representative whose approval is required pursuant to Article 19(2), has confirmed the transaction out of band.\n2. For all transfers of allowances and Kyoto units specified in Articles 43 and 44, the transfer shall be initiated immediately if it is confirmed between 10:00 and 16:00 central European time between Monday and Friday inclusive, with the exception of public holidays in the Member States deciding to suspend the running of the delay pursuant to paragraph 3. A transfer confirmed at any other time shall be initiated on the next day, Monday to Friday, at 10:00 central European time.\n3. For all transfers of allowances and Kyoto units specified in Articles 43 and 44, except for transfers from a trading account to an account on the trusted account list of that account, a delay of 26 hours shall apply between the initiation and the transfer being communicated for finalisation pursuant to Article 70. The running of this delay shall be suspended between 00:00 and 24:00 central European time on Saturdays and Sundays. Member States may decide to also suspend the running of this delay between 00:00 and 24:00 central European time on national public holidays for a given year, subject to publication of that decision by 1 December of the previous year.\n4. If an account representative suspects that a transfer was initiated fraudulently, at the latest two hours before the end of the delay provided in paragraph 3 they may request the national administrator to cancel the transfer on their behalf before the transfer is communicated for finalisation. The account holder shall report the suspected fraud to the competent national law enforcement authority immediately following the request. That report shall be forwarded to the national administrator within seven days.\n5. Upon initiation pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2, a notification shall be sent to all account representatives indicating the proposed initiation of the transfer.\nArticle 32b\nNature of allowances and finality of transactions\n1. An allowance or Kyoto unit shall be a fungible, dematerialised instrument that is tradable on the market.\n2. The dematerialised nature of allowances and Kyoto units shall imply that the record of the Union Registry shall constitute prima facie and sufficient evidence of title over an allowance or Kyoto unit, and of any other matter which is by this Regulation directed or authorised to be recorded in the registry.\n3. The fungibility of allowances and Kyoto units shall imply that any recovery or restitution obligations that may arise under national law in respect of an allowance or Kyoto unit shall only apply to the allowance or Kyoto unit in kind. In particular:\n(a)\nsubject to Article 51 and the reconciliation process foreseen in Article 69 of this Regulation, a transaction shall become final and irrevocable upon its finalisation pursuant to Article 70. Without prejudice to any provision of or remedy under national law that may result in a requirement or order to execute a new transaction in the registry, no law, regulation, rule or practice on the setting aside of contracts or transactions shall lead to the unwinding in the registry of a transaction that has become final and irrevocable under this Regulation;\n(b)\nnothing within this Article shall prevent an account holder or a third party from exercising any right or claim resulting from the underlying transaction that they may have in law, including to recovery, restitution, or damages, in respect of a transaction that has become final in the registry, for instance in case of fraud or technical error, as long as this does not lead to the reversal, revocation or unwinding of the transaction in the registry.\n4. A purchaser and holder of an allowance or Kyoto unit acting in good faith shall acquire title to an allowance or Kyoto unit free of any defects in the title of the transferor.\u2019;\n(20)\nin Article 34, paragraph 1 point (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nthe identity of the receivers of the allocation (in the case of allowances allocated through auction, the receiver shall be the account set up for that purpose by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1193/2011 (19)).\n(21)\nArticles 43 and 44 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 43\nTransfers of allowances by account holders\n1. Subject to paragraph 2, upon request of an account holder, the Union Registry shall carry out any transfer of allowances held in its Union Registry account to any other account in the Union Registry, unless such transfer is prevented by the status of the initiating account or the type of allowances that may be held in the acquiring account in accordance with Article 8(3).\n2. From 30 June 2012, the operator holding accounts, aircraft operator holding accounts, person holding accounts and trading platforms may only transfer allowances to an account on the trusted account list set up pursuant to Article 21a.\nArticle 44\nTransfers of Kyoto units by account holders\n1. Subject to paragraph 2, upon request of an account holder, the Union Registry shall carry out any transfer of Kyoto units held in a Union registry account to any other account in the Union Registry or in a KP registry, unless such transfer is prevented by the status of the initiating account or the Kyoto units that may be held in the acquiring account in accordance with Article 8(3).\n2. From 30 June 2012, the operator holding accounts, aircraft operator holding accounts, person holding accounts and trading platforms may only transfer Kyoto units to an account on the trusted account list set up pursuant to Article 21a.\u2019;\n(22)\nArticle 50 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 50\nCancellation of Kyoto units\nThe Union Registry shall carry out any request from an account holder pursuant to Article 12(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC to cancel Kyoto units held in the accounts of the account holder by transferring a specified type and number of Kyoto units from the relevant account into the cancellation account of the account administrator\u2019s KP registry or the cancellation account of the Union Registry.\u2019;\n(23)\nArticle 51, paragraph 4, point (a) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe transaction to be reversed was not completed more than 30 working days prior to the account administrator\u2019s proposal in accordance with paragraph 3, except for allocation of Chapter III allowances and allocation of Chapter II allowances;\u2019;\n(24)\nin Article 63, paragraph 4a is inserted:\n\u20184a. The authorised representative shall take all necessary measures to prevent the loss, theft or compromise of its credentials. The authorised representative shall immediately report to the national administrator the loss, theft or compromise of its credentials.\u2019;\n(25)\nArticle 64 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 64\nSuspension of all access due to a security breach or a security risk\n1. The Commission may instruct the central administrator to suspend access to the Union Registry or the EUTL or any parts thereof where it has a reasonable suspicion that there is a breach of security of the Union Registry or the EUTL or that there exists a serious security risk to the Union Registry or the EUTL that threatens the integrity of the system, which includes the back-up facilities referred to in Article 59.\n2. In the event of a breach of security or a security risk that may lead to suspension of access, an administrator who becomes aware of the breach or risk shall promptly inform the central administrator of any risks posed to other parts of the registries system. The central administrator shall then inform all other administrators.\n3. If an administrator becomes aware of a situation that requires the suspension of all access to its system, it shall inform the central administrator and account holders with such prior notice of the suspension as is practicable. The central administrator will then inform all other administrators as soon as possible.\n4. The notice referred to in paragraph 3 shall include the likely duration of the suspension and shall be clearly displayed on the public area of the EUTL\u2019s website.\u2019;\n(26)\nthe following Article 64a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 64a\nSuspension of access to allowances or Kyoto units in case of a suspected fraudulent transaction\n1. An administrator or an administrator acting on request of the competent authority may suspend access to allowances or Kyoto units in the registry it administers:\n(a)\nfor a maximum period of two weeks if it suspects that the allowances or Kyoto units have been the subject of a transaction constituting fraud, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crime; or\n(b)\non the basis of and in accordance with national law provisions that pursue a legitimate objective.\n2. The Commission may instruct the central administrator to suspend access to allowances or Kyoto units in the Union Registry or the EUTL for a maximum period of two weeks if it suspects that the allowances or Kyoto units have been the subject of a transaction constituting fraud, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crime.\n3. The administrator or the Commission shall immediately inform the competent law enforcement authority of the suspension.\n4. A national law enforcement authority of the Member State of the administrator may also instruct the administrator to implement a suspension on the basis of and in accordance with national law.\u2019;\n(27)\nArticle 71 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 71\nData exchange and technical specifications\n1. The Commission shall make available to administrators data exchange and technical specifications necessary for exchanging data between registries and transaction logs, including the identification codes, automated checks and response codes, as well as the testing procedures and security requirements necessary for the launching of data exchange.\n2. The data exchange and technical specifications shall be drawn up in consultation with the Administrators\u2019 Working Group of the Climate Change Committee and shall be consistent with the functional and technical specifications for data exchange standards for registry systems under the Kyoto Protocol elaborated pursuant to Decision 12/CMP.1.\u2019;\n(28)\nArticle 75 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraphs 1 to 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Information, including the holdings of all accounts, all transactions made, the unique unit identification code of the allowances and the unique numeric value of the unit serial number of the Kyoto units held or affected by the transaction, held in the EUTL, the Union Registry and every other KP registry shall be considered confidential except as otherwise required by Union law, or by provisions of national law that pursue a legitimate objective compatible with this Regulation and are proportionate.\n2. The following entities may obtain data stored in the Union Registry and the EUTL:\n(a)\nthe law enforcement and tax authorities of a Member State;\n(b)\nthe European Anti-fraud Office of the European Commission;\n(c)\nthe European Court of Auditors;\n(d)\nEurojust;\n(e)\nthe competent authorities referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2003/6/EC and in Article 37(1) of Directive 2005/60/EC;\n(f)\ncompetent national supervisory authorities;\n(g)\nthe national administrators of Member States and the competent authorities referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n3. Data may be provided to the entities listed under paragraph 2 upon their request to the central administrator or to a national administrator if such requests are necessary for the performance of their tasks.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph 5a shall be inserted:\n\u20185a. Europol shall obtain permanent read-only access to data stored in the Union Registry and the EUTL for the purpose of the performance of its tasks in accordance with Council Decision 2009/371/JHA. Europol shall keep the Commission informed of the use it makes of the data.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. National administrators shall make available through secure means to all other national administrators and the central administrator the names and identities of persons for whom they refused to open an account for in accordance with Article 13(3) or 14(3), or whom they refused to nominate as an authorised representative or additional authorised representative in accordance with Article 20(3) and the names and identities of the account holder, authorised representative or additional authorised representative of accounts to which access has been suspended in accordance with Articles 64 and 64a or of accounts that have been closed in accordance with Article 28.\u2019;\n(29)\nin Article 77, paragraph 2a is inserted:\n\u20182a. Before migration, person holding accounts shall be checked by national administrators to ensure that the information submitted for account opening are complete, up to date, accurate and true.\u2019;\n(30)\nAnnex IV shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018ANNEX IV\nInformation concerning person holding accounts and trading platform holding accounts to be provided to the national administrator\n1.\nThe information set out in Table III-I. (The account ID and the alphanumeric identifier are to be unique within the registry system.)\n2.\nWith the exception of aircraft operators, proof that the person requesting the account opening has an open bank account in a Member State of the European Economic Area.\n3.\nEvidence to support the identity of the natural person requesting the account opening, which may be a copy of one of the following:\n(a)\nan identity card issued by a State that is a member of the European Economic Area or the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development;\n(b)\na passport.\n4.\nEvidence to support the address of the permanent residence of the natural person account holder, which may be a copy of one of the following:\n(a)\nthe identity document submitted under point 3, if it contains the address of the permanent residence;\n(b)\nany other government-issued identity document that contains the address of permanent residence;\n(c)\nif the country of permanent residence does not issue identity documents that contain the address of permanent residence, a statement from the local authorities confirming the nominee\u2019s permanent residence;\n(d)\nany other document that is customarily accepted in the Member State of the administrator of the account as evidence of the permanent residence of the nominee.\n5.\nThe following documents in case of a legal person requesting the account opening:\n(a)\na copy of the instruments establishing the legal entity and a copy of a document proving the registration of the legal entity;\n(b)\nbank account details;\n(c)\na confirmation of VAT registration;\n(d)\ninformation on the legal entity\u2019s beneficial owner as defined in Directive 2005/60/EC;\n(e)\nlist of directors;\n(f)\na copy of the annual report or of the latest audited financial statements, or if no audited financial statements available, a copy of the financial statements stamped by the tax office or the financial director.\n6.\nEvidence to support the registered address of the legal person account holder, if this is not clear from the document submitted in accordance with point 5.\n7.\nThe criminal record of the natural person requesting the account opening or if it is a legal person, of its directors.\n8.\nAny copy of a document submitted as evidence under this Annex must be certified as a true copy by a notary public or other similar person specified by the national administrator. Regarding documents issued outside the Member State requesting a copy, the copy must be legalised. The date of the certification or legalisation must not be more than three months prior to the date of application.\n9.\nThe administrator of the account may require that the documents submitted are accompanied with a certified translation into a language specified by the administrator.\n10.\nInstead of obtaining paper documents, the administrator of the account may use electronic mechanisms to check the evidence to be submitted in accordance with this Annex.\u2019;\n(31)\nAnnex IX is replaced by the following:\n\u2018ANNEX IX\nInformation concerning authorised representatives and additional authorised representatives to be provided to the administrator of the account\n1.\nThe information set out in Table IX-I.\nTable IX-I: Authorised representative details\nA\nB\nC\nD\nE\nF\nItem No\nAccount detail item\nMandatory or optional?\nType\nCan be updated?\nIs approval from NA needed for update?\nDisplayed on UR public website?\n1\nPerson ID\nM\nFree\nNo\nn.a.\nNo\n2\nType of AR\nM\nChoice\nYes\nNo\nYes\n3\nFirst name\nM\nFree\nYes\nYes\nNo (20)\n4\nLast name\nM\nFree\nYes\nYes\nNo (20)\n5\nTitle\nO\nFree\nYes\nNo\nNo (20)\n6\nJob title\nO\nFree\nYes\nNo\nNo (20)\nCompany name\nO\nFree\nYes\nNo\nNo (20)\nCompany department\nO\nFree\nYes\nNo\nNo (20)\n7\nCountry\nM\nPreset\nNo\nn.a.\nNo (20)\n8\nRegion or State\nO\nFree\nYes\nYes\nNo (20)\n9\nCity\nM\nFree\nYes\nYes\nNo (20)\n10\nPostcode\nM\nFree\nYes\nYes\nNo (20)\n11\nAddress - line 1\nM\nFree\nYes\nYes\nNo (20)\n12\nAddress - line 2\nO\nFree\nYes\nYes\nNo (20)\n13\nTelephone 1\nM\nFree\nYes\nNo\nNo (20)\n14\nMobile phone\nM\nFree\nYes\nYes\nNo (20)\n15\nE-mail address\nM\nFree\nYes\nYes\nNo\n16\nDate of birth\nM\nFree\nNo\nn.a.\nNo\n17\nPlace of birth - city\nM\nFree\nNo\nn.a.\nNo\n18\nPlace of birth - country\nM\n18\nPreferred language\nO\nChoice\nYes\nNo\nNo\n19\nConfidentiality level\nO\nChoice\nYes\nNo\nNo\n20\nAARs rights\nM\nMultiple choice\nYes\nNo\nNo\n2.\nA signed statement from the account holder indicating that it wishes to nominate a particular person as authorised representative or additional authorised representative, confirming that the authorised representative has the right to initiate, or that additional authorised representative has the right to approve, transactions on behalf of the account holder and indicating any limitations to that right.\n3.\nEvidence to support the identity of the nominee, which may be a copy of one of the following:\n(a)\nan identity card issued by a State that is a member of the European Economic Area or the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development;\n(b)\na passport.\n4.\nEvidence to support the address of the permanent residence of the nominee, which may be a copy of one of the following:\n(a)\nthe identity document submitted under point 3, if it contains the address of the permanent residence;\n(b)\nany other government-issued identity document that contains the address of permanent residence;\n(c)\nif the country of permanent residence does not issue identity documents that contain the address of permanent residence, a statement from the local authorities confirming the nominee\u2019s permanent residence;\n(d)\nany other document that is customarily accepted in the Member State of the administrator of the account as evidence of the permanent residence of the nominee.\n5.\nCriminal record of the nominee.\n6.\nAny copy of a document submitted as evidence under this Annex must be certified as a true copy by a notary public or other similar person specified by the national administrator. Regarding documents issued outside the Member State requesting a copy, the copy must be legalised. The date of the certification or legalisation must not be more than three months prior to the date of application.\n7.\nThe administrator of the account may require that the documents submitted are accompanied with a certified translation into a language specified by the national administrator.\n8.\nInstead of obtaining paper documents, the administrator of the account may use electronic mechanisms to check the evidence to be submitted in accordance with this Annex.\u2019;\n(32)\nAnnex XIII is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint 4(c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nthe amount of allowances or Kyoto units involved in the transaction, without the unique unit identification code of the allowances and the unique numeric value of the unit serial number of the Kyoto units;\u2019;\n(b)\npoint 5(a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\ncurrent holdings of allowances and Kyoto units, without unique unit identification code of the allowances and the unique numeric value of the unit serial number of the Kyoto units;\u2019.\nArticle 90\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["15", "49", "86", "84", "9", "11", "24", "62", "10", "83", "6", "8", "53", "18", "38", "88", "69", "81", "59", "54", "91", "56", "70", "63", "89", "51", "35", "22", "46", "61", "No Label", "41", "42", "58", "60"], "gold": ["41", "42", "58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 317/2011\nof 31 March 2011\namending for the 147th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 23 March 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add one natural person to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["92", "9", "69", "0", "51", "66", "63", "38", "90", "15", "65", "8", "6", "2", "10", "58", "93", "44", "14", "75", "19", "17", "5", "23", "22", "47", "61", "37", "88", "40", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 November 2011\nestablishing rules and calculation methods for verifying compliance with the targets set in Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 8165)\n(2011/753/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (1), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure an effective implementation of the targets set in Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/98/EC, it is appropriate to define rules on the application of those targets.\n(2)\nIt is also necessary to determine methods for the calculation of the share of municipal waste and construction and demolition waste which is prepared for reuse, recycled or materially recovered in order to verify and monitor compliance with the targets set in Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/98/EC.\n(3)\nArticle 11(2)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC leaves a certain flexibility to Member States as regards the municipal waste streams to which the targets are being applied. However, it is appropriate to define a range of options for Member States in order to clarify the practical application of verifying compliance with those targets.\n(4)\nIn order to avoid additional administrative burden, data on waste statistics reported under Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2002 on waste statistics (2) should be used as far as possible to verify compliance with the targets set in Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/98/EC.\n(5)\nWhere waste is exported out of the Union and there is sound evidence that the preparation for reuse, recycling or recovery took place under conditions that are equivalent to those prescribed by the legislation of the Union, that waste should be taken into account when verifying compliance with the targets set in Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/98/EC.\n(6)\nA review of this Decision may be necessary, if measures are taken to reinforce the targets or targets for other waste streams are set.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 39 of Directive 2008/98/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions laid down in Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC, the following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this Decision:\n(1)\n\u2018household waste\u2019 means waste generated by households;\n(2)\n\u2018similar waste\u2019 means waste in nature and composition comparable to household waste, excluding production waste and waste from agriculture and forestry;\n(3)\n\u2018municipal waste\u2019 means household waste and similar waste;\n(4)\n\u2018construction and demolition waste\u2019 means waste corresponding to the waste codes in Chapter 17 of the Annex to Commission Decision 2000/532/EC (3), excluding hazardous waste and naturally occurring material as defined in Category 17 05 04;\n(5)\n\u2018material recovery\u2019 means any recovery operation, excluding energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials which are to be used as fuel;\n(6)\n\u2018backfilling\u2019 means a recovery operation where suitable waste is used for reclamation purposes in excavated areas or for engineering purposes in landscaping and where the waste is a substitute for non-waste materials.\nArticle 2\nGeneral requirements\nFor the purposes of verifying compliance with the targets set in Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/98/EC, the following rules shall apply:\n(1)\nMember States shall verify compliance with the targets set in Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/98/EC by calculating the weight of the waste streams which are generated and the waste streams which are prepared for reuse, recycled or have undergone other material recovery in 1 calendar year.\n(2)\nThe weight of the waste prepared for reuse, recycled or materially recovered shall be determined by calculating the input waste used in the preparation for reuse or the final recycling or other final material recovery processes. A preparatory operation prior to the submission of the waste to a recovery or disposal operation is not a final recycling or other final material recovery operation. Where waste is collected separately or the output of a sorting plant is sent to recycling or other material recovery processes without significant losses, that waste may be considered the weight of the waste which is prepared for reuse, recycled or has undergone other material recovery.\n(3)\nThe amount of waste prepared for reuse shall be included in the amount of recycled waste and shall not be reported separately.\n(4)\nWhere waste is sent for preparation for reuse, recycling or other material recovery in another Member State, it may only be counted toward the targets of the Member State in which it has been collected.\n(5)\nWhere waste is exported out of the Union for preparation for reuse, recycling or other material recovery, it shall be counted as prepared for reuse, recycled or having undergone other material recovery only where there is sound evidence showing compliance of the shipment with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), and in particular Article 49(2) thereof.\n(6)\nWhere the target calculation is applied to the aerobic or anaerobic treatment of biodegradable waste, the input to the aerobic or anaerobic treatment may be counted as recycled where that treatment generates compost or digestate which, following any further necessary reprocessing, is used as a recycled product, material or substance for land treatment resulting in benefit to agriculture or ecological improvement.\nArticle 3\nMunicipal waste\n1. For the purposes of verifying compliance with the target on municipal waste set in Article 11(2)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC, Member States shall apply the target to one of the following:\n(a)\nthe preparation for reuse and the recycling of paper, metal, plastic and glass household waste;\n(b)\nthe preparation for reuse and the recycling of paper, metal, plastic, glass household waste and other single types of household waste or of similar waste from other origins;\n(c)\nthe preparation for reuse and the recycling of household waste;\n(d)\nthe preparation for reuse and the recycling of municipal waste.\n2. The target applies to the total amount of waste of the waste streams in the option chosen by the Member State pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article.\n3. Member States shall apply the calculation method set out in Annex I to this Decision which corresponds to the option chosen by the Member State pursuant to paragraph 1.\n4. Member States\u2019 implementation reports on municipal waste shall comply with the specific requirements set out in Annexes I and II.\n5. Member States shall inform the Commission of the option chosen pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article in the first implementation report referred to in Article 37(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC.\n6. A Member State may change the option until the submission of the implementation report covering the year 2020 provided that it can ensure consistency in the data reported.\nArticle 4\nConstruction and demolition waste\n1. For the calculation of the target set in Article 11(2)(b) of Directive 2008/98/EC with regard to construction and demolition waste, Member States shall apply the calculation method set out in Annex III to this Decision.\n2. Member States\u2019 implementation reports on construction and demolition waste shall comply with the specific requirements in Annex III.\n3. The amount of waste used for backfilling operations shall be reported separately from the amount of waste prepared for reuse or recycled or used for other material recovery operations. The reprocessing of waste into materials that are to be used for backfilling operations is also to be reported as backfilling.\nArticle 5\nReporting by Member States\n1. Member States shall report their progress to the Commission with regard to meeting the targets set in Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/98/EC by means of the implementation report referred to in Article 37 thereof.\n2. Member States shall provide data in the implementation reports on the state of preparation for reuse, recycling and material recovery of the respective waste streams for either each year of the 3-year reporting period or for the years of the reporting periods laid down in Annex I, Section 5 to Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002.\n3. In the implementation report covering the year 2020, Member States shall demonstrate compliance with the targets set in Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/98/EC for the amounts of the respective waste streams generated and recycled or recovered in the year 2020.\n4. Member States shall transmit the data and metadata required by this Decision to the Commission in electronic form, by means of the interchange standard set up by Eurostat.\nArticle 6\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["68", "99", "2", "25", "91", "39", "93", "77", "59", "28", "16", "9", "61", "54", "49", "94", "97", "47", "30", "45", "7", "84", "27", "13", "14", "22", "1", "57", "44", "79", "No Label", "8", "42", "58", "60", "87"], "gold": ["8", "42", "58", "60", "87"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/88/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\namending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery (3) concerns exhaust emissions and emission limits of air pollutants from engines installed in non-road mobile machinery and contributes to the protection of human health and the environment. Directive 97/68/EC provided that emission limits applicable to type-approval of the majority of compression ignition engines under Stage III A were to be replaced by the more stringent limits under Stage III B. Those limits apply from 1 January 2010 as regards the type-approval for those engines and from 1 January 2011 with regard to the placing on the market of those engines.\n(2)\nThe revision of Directive 97/68/EC is currently being prepared by the Commission in line with the requirements of Article 2 of Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC (4). In order to ensure that the revised Directive is in line with Union standards for good air quality, and in the light of experience, scientific findings and available technologies, the Commission should, in the upcoming revision of Directive 97/68/EC and subject to impact assessment, consider:\n-\nestablishing a new emission stage - Stage V - that should be based, subject to technical feasibility, on the requirements of Euro VI standards for heavy-duty vehicles,\n-\nintroducing new requirements for the reduction of particulate matter, namely a particulate number limit that applies for all compression ignition engine categories, where technically feasible, so as to ensure an effective reduction of ultra-fine particles,\n-\ntaking a comprehensive approach to promoting emission-reducing provisions and retrofitting of after-treatment systems on the existing fleet of non-road mobile machinery on the basis of the currently ongoing discussions under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe regarding harmonised requirements for retrofit emission control devices; this approach should support Member States\u2019 efforts to improve air quality and to promote the protection of workers,\n-\nestablishing a method providing for the periodic testing of non-road mobile machinery and vehicles, in particular to establish whether their emissions performance complies with the values given at registration,\n-\nthe possibility of authorising, under certain conditions, replacement engines that do not comply with Stage III A requirements for railcars and locomotives,\n-\nthe possibility of harmonising the specific emission standards for rail with relevant standards at international level so as to ensure the availability of affordable engines that comply with the emission limits set.\n(3)\nThe transition to Stage III B involves a step change in technology requiring significant implementation costs for redesigning the engines and for developing advanced technical solutions. However, the current global financial and economic crisis or any conjunctural economic fluctuations should not lead to a lowering of environmental standards. This revision of Directive 97/68/EC should therefore be considered to be exceptional. Furthermore, investments in environmentally friendly technologies are important for the promotion of future growth, jobs and health security.\n(4)\nDirective 97/68/EC provides for a flexibility scheme to allow equipment manufacturers to purchase, in the period between two emission stages, a limited number of engines that do not comply with the emission limits applicable during that period, but which are approved in accordance with the requirements of the stage immediately preceding the applicable one.\n(5)\nPoint (b) of Article 2 of Directive 2004/26/EC provides for the evaluation of the possible need for additional flexibilities.\n(6)\nDuring Stage III B, the maximum number of engines used for applications other than the propulsion of railcars, locomotives and inland waterways vessels that may be placed on the market under the flexibility scheme should be increased, in each engine category, from 20 % to 37,5 % of the annual quantity of equipment with engines in that category that is placed on the market by the equipment manufacturer. An optional alternative of placing a fixed number of engines on the market under the flexibility scheme should be available. That fixed number of engines should also be revised and should not exceed the ceilings laid down in Section 1.2.2 of Annex XIII to Directive 97/68/EC.\n(7)\nThe rules applicable to the flexibility scheme should be adapted to extend the application of that scheme to engines for use in the propulsion of locomotives for a strictly limited period of time.\n(8)\nImproving air quality is a major Union goal pursued through Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (5). Tackling emissions at source is essential for meeting that goal, including reducing emissions from the non-road mobile machinery sector.\n(9)\nEnterprises operating with machines that fall within the scope of this Directive should benefit from European financial support programmes or any relevant support programmes provided by Member States. Those support programmes should be aimed at favouring the early introduction of the highest emission standards.\n(10)\nDirective 97/68/EC provides for an exemption for replacement engines, which does not apply to railcars and locomotives. However, considering weight and dimensional constraints, it is necessary to provide for a limited exemption also for replacement engines in railcars and locomotives.\n(11)\nThe measures set out in this Directive reflect a temporary difficulty faced by the manufacturing sector, resulting in no permanent adaptation, and as such, the application of those measures should be restricted to the duration of Stage III B or, where no subsequent stage exists, to 3 years.\n(12)\nTaking into account the special infrastructure of the United Kingdom rail network, which results in a different structural gauge and consequently weight and dimensional constraints, and therefore requires a longer adaptation period for the new emission limits, it is appropriate to provide for more flexibility for this particular market in engines for use in locomotives.\n(13)\nDirective 97/68/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Directive 97/68/EC\nDirective 97/68/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 4(6) is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. Compression ignition engines for use other than in the propulsion of railcars and inland waterway vessels may be placed on the market under a flexibility scheme in accordance with the procedure referred to in Annex XIII in addition to paragraphs 1 to 5.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 10 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1a, the second subparagraph is deleted;\n(b)\nthe following paragraphs are inserted:\n\u20181b. By way of derogation from Article 9(3g), (3i) and (4a), Member States may authorise the placing on the market of the following engines for railcars and locomotives:\n(a)\nreplacement engines that meet the Stage III A limits, where they are to replace engines for railcars and locomotives that:\n(i)\ndo not meet the Stage III A standard; or\n(ii)\nmeet the Stage III A standard but do not meet the Stage III B standard;\n(b)\nreplacement engines that do not meet Stage III A limits, where they are to replace engines for railcars without driving control and not capable of independent movement, so long as such replacement engines meet a standard no lower than the standard met by engines fitted to existing railcars of the same type.\nAuthorisations under this paragraph may be granted only in cases where the approval authority of the Member State is satisfied that the use of a replacement engine that meets the requirements of the latest applicable emissions stage in the railcar or locomotive in question will involve significant technical difficulties.\n1c. A label bearing the text \u201cREPLACEMENT ENGINE\u201d and bearing the unique reference of the associated derogation shall be affixed to engines covered by paragraph 1a or 1b.\n1d. The Commission shall assess the environmental impacts of, and possible technical difficulties in respect of compliance with, paragraph 1b. In the light of that assessment, the Commission shall, by 31 December 2016, submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report reviewing paragraph 1b accompanied, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal including an end date for the application of that paragraph.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. Member States shall permit the placing on the market of engines, as defined in points A(i), A(ii) and A(v) of Section 1 of Annex I, under the flexibility scheme in accordance with the provisions set out in Annex XIII.\u2019;\n(3)\nAnnex XIII is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 24 November 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those measures.\nWhen Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["15", "55", "5", "22", "73", "82", "69", "98", "59", "63", "40", "32", "87", "29", "39", "46", "53", "27", "48", "16", "99", "86", "34", "38", "35", "50", "78", "71", "23", "91", "No Label", "25", "54", "58", "60", "76", "85"], "gold": ["25", "54", "58", "60", "76", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 179/2012\nof 1 March 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 172/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2012.", "references": ["6", "65", "46", "5", "82", "52", "95", "13", "24", "48", "29", "70", "40", "59", "64", "21", "96", "68", "69", "45", "73", "87", "39", "27", "12", "80", "26", "88", "23", "75", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/447/CFSP\nof 11 August 2010\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for the Middle East peace process\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 21 July 2003, the Council adopted Joint Action 2003/537/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Marc OTTE European Union Special Representative (hereinafter the EUSR) for the Middle East peace process.\n(2)\nOn 22 February 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/107/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 31 August 2010.\n(3)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 28 February 2011 or until the Council decides, on a proposal by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter the HR), that appropriate corresponding functions to those under Decision 2010/107/CFSP have been established in the European External Action Service and terminates the mandate.\n(4)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the Common Foreign and Security Policy objectives set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/107/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Marc OTTE as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Middle East peace process is hereby extended until 28 February 2011 or until the Council decides, on a proposal by the High Representative, that appropriate corresponding functions to those under the current Decision have been established in the European External Action Service and terminates the mandate.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 March 2010 to 31 August 2010 shall be EUR 730 000.\n2. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 September 2010 to 28 February 2011 shall be EUR 585 000.\n3. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n4. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["18", "45", "61", "27", "68", "4", "79", "73", "51", "26", "52", "83", "69", "37", "77", "1", "92", "13", "94", "57", "31", "32", "46", "28", "17", "54", "20", "5", "86", "49", "No Label", "3", "9", "11", "95"], "gold": ["3", "9", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 834/2010\nof 21 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 September 2010.", "references": ["1", "14", "47", "13", "83", "64", "95", "48", "91", "70", "88", "87", "11", "16", "0", "25", "6", "37", "67", "49", "44", "63", "2", "58", "50", "85", "89", "32", "29", "20", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 February 2011\non State aid C 58/06 (ex NN 98/05) implemented by Germany for Bahnen der Stadt Monheim (BSM) and Rheinische Bahngesellschaft (RBG) in the Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr\n(notified under document C(2011) 632)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/501/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the above Articles (2), and having regard to these comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter dated 21 December 2006, the Commission informed Germany of its decision to consider that the \u2018old financing system\u2019 of the Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr (Rhine-Ruhr Transport Network - \u2018VRR\u2019) constituted existing aid and to open the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the \u2018new financing system\u2019 (3) of VRR, on the basis of which Rheinische Bahngesellschaft AG (\u2018RBG\u2019) and Bahnen der Stadt Monheim GmbH (\u2018BSM\u2019) receive compensation payments for public service obligations, and requested Germany to submit its comments. At Germany\u2019s request, a meeting took place on 1 February 2007. Germany transmitted its comments on 18 April and 4 May 2007.\n(2)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision to open the formal investigation procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 31 March 2007 (4). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures in question within 1 month of the publication date.\n(3)\nThe Commission received comments from one interested party. It transmitted the comments to Germany by letter dated 29 May 2007. Germany was given the opportunity to respond to them within 1 month. The Commission received Germany\u2019s observations by letter dated 29 June 2007.\n(4)\nAt Germany\u2019s request, an additional meeting took place on 31 January 2008. This meeting was followed by the dispatch of additional information by Germany, as requested by the Commission, on 5 May and 3 July 2008.\n(5)\nBy letters dated 2 October 2007, 30 January 2008 and 4 April 2008, the interested party provided further clarifications with regard to its initial observations.\n(6)\nBy letter dated 10 July 2008 the Commission requested further clarifications from Germany with regard to the submitted information; Germany was also given the opportunity to respond to the additional clarifications provided by the interested party within 1 month. Germany responded by letters dated 5 August and 30 September 2008.\n(7)\nBy letter dated 16 December 2009 the Commission requested Germany and the interested party to provide by 10 January 2010 their observations on the compatibility of the measures in question with Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 1191/69 and (EEC) No 1107/70 (5). Germany and the interested party requested prolongation of the deadline. The Commission prolonged the deadline for both parties until 12 January 2010. By letter dated 12 January 2010 the Commission received the observations from Germany. The interested party did not provide any observations within the deadline. By letter dated 13 January 2010 the interested party informed the Commission that it was no longer interested in participating in the procedure.\n(8)\nIn its letter of 12 January 2010, Germany informed the Commission as well that it had amended the acts of entrustment for RBG and BSM and the new financing system of VRR, with a view to complying with Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.\n2. THE PARTIES\n(9)\nVRR was established by various cities and districts in the Rhine-Ruhr area as a vehicle to fulfil the cities\u2019 and districts\u2019 task to plan and organise local public passenger transport within their respective territories, and to disburse public service compensation payments for the provision of public transport services. VRR consists of two legally distinct bodies governed by public law, namely the Zweckverband Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr (\u2018ZV VRR\u2019) (6) and the Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr A\u00f6R (\u2018VRR A\u00f6R\u2019) (7).\n(10)\nZV VRR is entitled to levy contributions from the cities and districts which are its members in order to finance the compensation of public service obligations. The legal basis for the levies are paragraphs 19 to 20 of the ordinance of ZV VRR (Zweckverbandssatzung f\u00fcr den Zweckverband Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr) of 21 June 2006, as amended on 10 December 2008 (\u2018the ZV VRR ordinance\u2019) (8).\n(11)\nRBG (9) and BSM (10), the alleged beneficiaries of the measures at issue, are both public transport undertakings (bus, tram and railway) in the D\u00fcsseldorf area. The routes they operate form part of the public transport network of VRR.\n(12)\nRBG and BSM operate their public passenger transport routes on the basis of licences which they have been granted by the competent regional government of D\u00fcsseldorf on the basis of the Passenger Transportation Act (Personenbef\u00f6rderungsgesetz - \u2018PBefG\u2019), and more specifically paragraph 13 of the PBefG. The licences grant an exclusive operating right to the holder; in return, the undertaking which holds a licence has to provide a public transport service in accordance with the conditions set out in the licence, which indicates in particular the frequency, kilometres operated and other quality parameters.\n3. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n3.1. TITLE, BUDGET, DURATION\n(13)\nTitle: Financial support for BSM and RBG.\n(14)\nThe budget is annually between [\u2026] (11) and [\u2026] million euros for BSM and between [\u2026] and [\u2026] million euros for RBG. The budget for compensation payments under financing guidelines and control and profit/loss transfer agreements stems from public resources. The financing guidelines and the control and profit/loss transfer agreements are of unlimited duration.\n3.2. RECIPIENTS AND OBJECTIVE\n(15)\nThe recipients of the compensation payments at issue are the two companies RBG and BSM.\n(16)\nThe objective of the measures is to provide the population with proportionate public passenger transport. The cooperation between the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, VRR and the transport providers aims, through coordinated planning and a coordinated transport system, by uniform and user-friendly tariffs, through coordinated information of passengers - also taking into account the needs of handicapped persons - and through uniform quality standards, to increase the attractiveness of public passenger transport, as set out in paragraph 4 of the ZV VRR ordinance.\n4. GROUNDS FOR OPENING THE PROCEDURE\n4.1. SCOPE OF THE PROCEDURE\n(17)\nThe decision to open the procedure concerns only compensation payments to RBG and BSM based on the new financing system put in place by Decision of VRR of 28 June 2005 and related to public service obligations in the bus and tram transport services. Therefore, the scope of this final Decision is also limited to those compensation payments for RBG and BSM.\n4.2. THE NEW FINANCING SYSTEM\n(18)\nThe Commission identified the following two sets of financing measures in respect of RBG and BSM in its decision to open the formal investigation procedure:\n-\nthe financing of transport undertakings in the Rhine-Ruhr area, such as RBG and BSM, by VRR, and,\n-\nthe cross subsidisation of RBG and BSM by the municipal holding companies of the city of D\u00fcsseldorf and the city of Monheim.\n(19)\nThe legal basis for both sets of measures is the Financing Guidelines for public transport in the VRR (Richtlinie zur Finanzierung des \u00d6SPV im Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr - \u2018the Financing Guidelines\u2019), adopted on 28 June 2005, and the annexes thereto (12).\n(20)\nFor the second set of financing measures, the legal basis is to be found in addition in bilateral contracts between RBG and BSM and the municipal holding companies of the cities of D\u00fcsseldorf and Monheim.\n4.2.1. THE FINANCING OF RBG AND BSM BY VRR\n(21)\nVRR makes payments to the undertakings which operate public transport services within its territory in order to cover part of their costs. By decision of 28 June 2005, the financing system which had applied since 1990 (the \u2018old financing system\u2019) was replaced by a new, substantially modified system (the \u2018new financing system\u2019).\n(22)\nThe new financing system was last modified on 10 September 2009 in order to adapt it to the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 on 3 December 2009.\n(23)\nThe reform of VRR\u2019s financing system of 28 June 2005 was brought about by the desire to bring the financing system into line with the Altmark ruling of the Court of Justice (13). Points 5.4.3 to 5.4.5 of the Financing Guidelines specify how the Altmark ruling, in particular the fourth criterion, has to be implemented. Point 5.4.3 provides that the amount of subsidies is defined on the basis of an analysis of the costs of a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport to be able to meet the imposed public service obligations. Point 5.4.4 provides that, on the basis of this analysis, VRR will develop parameters for calculating the compensation payments for each of the four categories described below on a yearly basis; a method for the updating (or indexation) of these parameters is laid down in Annex 9 to the Financing Guidelines. Point 5.4.5 provides that the subsidies for each undertaking are limited to the actual costs incurred by the undertaking in the discharge of its public service obligations taking into account the relevant receipts and that the parameters for the calculation of the compensation payments have to be examined and verified by an auditor at regular intervals.\n(24)\nThe new financing system is described in detail in the Financing Guidelines and the annexes thereto.\n(25)\nAccording to point 2.1 of the Financing Guidelines, VRR finances the discharge of public service obligations within its territory. Points 2.2.1 to 2.2.4 define the four different categories of costs which can be the subject of financing by VRR. These categories are then described in more detail in Annex 1 to the Financing Guidelines. The four categories are as follows (the abbreviations used correspond to the numbering of the cost categories in the Financing Guidelines):\n(26)\n(a)\nInfrastructure provision (hereinafter referred to as \u2018cost category 1\u2019): This category contains the costs resulting from the construction and maintenance of fixed installations, as well as the safety and navigation systems associated with those fixed installations. \u2018Infrastructure\u2019 includes tram tracks, bus lanes, park and ride stations, bus stops, stations, garages and maintenance stations, and navigation and safety systems. This category also includes the costs of the personnel required for carrying out these tasks.\n(27)\n(b)\nManagement and marketing tasks imposed by VRR or the competent local authority (hereinafter referred to as \u2018cost category 2\u2019): This category contains all the additional costs resulting for transport undertakings from their participation in VRR. The additional costs result from centralised planning and coordination, marketing and financial management, product sales and control of operations.\n(28)\n(c)\nVehicle quality standards imposed by VRR or the competent local authority (hereinafter referred to as \u2018cost category 3\u2019): This category contains all the additional costs due to vehicle and rolling stock requirements. The transport undertakings can apply for reimbursement of additional expenditure resulting from the purchase of vehicles with air conditioning, video surveillance, a low floor, a gas engine, a lift for handicapped persons or a more environmentally friendly engine.\n(29)\n(d)\nAdditional transport services or other services in connection with the operation imposed by VRR or the competent local authority. This category has three subcategories:\nI.\nadditional costs of unprofitable services in off-peak periods imposed directly by the competent local authority or by VRR (hereinafter referred to as \u2018cost category 4a\u2019);\nII.\nsocial obligations in connection with the activities imposed by the shareholder (14) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018cost category 4b\u2019); and\nIII.\nrequirements in connection with the operation or requirements inherent in the system imposed by the competent local authority or VRR which are justified individually and lead to an economic disadvantage (hereinafter referred to as \u2018cost category 4c\u2019).\n(30)\nAccording to the Financing Guidelines public transport operators may apply for compensation for discharging public transport services. The application needs to contain the mandatory elements as described in Sections 5, 7 and 8 of the Financing Guidelines such as the underlying calculations for discharging the public service obligation and possible payments from third parties. Transport undertakings need to submit their application for compensation at the latest on 31 October of the year that precedes the year for which they request compensation.\n(31)\nOn the basis of the information submitted by the transport undertakings pursuant to point 5.4.2 of, and Annex 2 to, the Financing Guidelines, VRR calculates the compensation, which must reflect the costs which an average, well-run undertaking would have incurred in discharging the same obligations. VRR then issues a financing notice (Finanzierungsbescheid). This legally binding act confirms the entrustment and establishes the compensation payments for each of the four categories of financing. At the end of each year the public service operator has to prove in writing its income and costs for discharging the public service obligations. This is examined by VRR. A second binding administrative decision will be then issued which establishes the precise sum the operator will receive as compensation.\n4.2.2. THE FINANCING OF RBG AND BSM THROUGH CROSS-SUBSIDISATION\n(32)\nThe ZV VRR ordinance provides for the possibility that cities and districts which own a transport undertaking compensate directly their transport undertaking and deduct the corresponding amount from their levy due to ZV VRR.\n(33)\nParagraph 19 of the ZV VRR ordinance envisages five different forms of such direct payments, namely:\n-\nvoluntary direct and indirect contributions by the city or district, including dividend payments on shares which the city or district places with the transport undertaking;\n-\nvoluntary contributions by third parties;\n-\ncross-subsidies in the form of a control and profit/loss transfer agreement, in situations where the transport undertaking forms part of a holding company and its losses are covered by the profits of other undertakings, for instance electricity and gas companies;\n-\ndividend payments from undertakings in which the transport undertaking holds participations or shares;\n-\nthe difference between the levy and the total losses of the transport undertaking.\n(34)\nThe sums paid under the provisions of paragraph 19 of the ZV VRR ordinance are taken into account in the calculation of the compensation that VRR pays to the transport undertakings. Point 8 of the Financing Guidelines provides that an application by a transport undertaking for financing by VRR must be rejected where the (municipal) shareholder has made use of one or more of the options provided for by paragraph 19 of the ZV VRR ordinance. This sum will be deducted from the payments to which the transport undertaking is entitled under the Financing Guidelines.\n(35)\nBoth the city of D\u00fcsseldorf and the city of Monheim have made use of the possibilities offered by paragraph 19 of the ZV VRR ordinance, concluding agreements with RBG and BSM respectively. These are described in the following recitals.\n(36)\nThe alleged cross-subsidisation of RBG by D\u00fcsseldorfer Stadtwerke Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Beteiligungen mbH: According to the information provided by the initial complainant, it appeared that on the basis of profit and loss transfer agreements D\u00fcsseldorfer Stadtwerke Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Beteiligungen mbH transfers the profits made by its profitable holdings - Stadtwerke D\u00fcsseldorf AG and Umschlagsgesellschaft f\u00fcr Kraftwerkbrennstoffe mbH - to its loss-making subsidiaries RBG and B\u00e4dergesellschaft D\u00fcsseldorf.\n(37)\nThe alleged cross-subsidisation of RBG by the City of D\u00fcsseldorf: In addition, according to the information provided by the initial complainant, the Commission also made reference to directly granted subsidies from the city of D\u00fcsseldorf to RBG. It appeared that these subsidies were granted from the dividends which D\u00fcsseldorf received from its 1,1 % shareholdings in RWE AG.\n(38)\nYearly payments from D\u00fcsseldorf to RBG: Germany stated in its reply to the opening decision that there has never been a control and profit/loss transfer agreement between Stadtwerke D\u00fcsseldorf AG and D\u00fcsseldorfer Stadtwerke Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Beteiligungen mbH (as of 18 June 2007: Holding der Landeshauptstadt D\u00fcsseldorf GmbH - \u2018the holding company\u2019). However, yearly payments to RBG were made by the holding company for the provision of the public service obligation, and such payments are taken into account for the calculation of compensation for the public service obligation by VRR. The German authorities further stated that the dividends from the shareholdings in RWE are paid to the budget of the city and not transferred to RBG.\n(39)\nThe cross-subsidisation of BSM: According to the information provided by the initial complainant, on the basis of a contract between Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH and Elektrizit\u00e4tswerke der Stadt Monheim GmbH the profits of the latter are used to finance BSM\u2019s annual losses. BSM is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH (15).\n(40)\nIn its reply to the opening decision, Germany stated that a control and profit/loss transfer agreement was concluded between BSM and Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH on 27 October 1987 and entered into force on 1 January 1988. Under the terms of paragraph 4(1) of this agreement, all profits made by BSM are to be transferred to Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH and, conversely, the latter is to compensate all losses incurred by BSM.\n4.3. DOUBTS EXPRESSED BY THE COMMISSION AS REGARDS COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO RBG AND BSM BASED ON THE NEW FINANCING SYSTEM\n4.3.1. EXISTENCE OF AID\n(41)\nWith regard to the existence of State aid, the Commission concluded in opening the formal investigation procedure that both of the measures in question involved state resources and were imputable to the State.\n(42)\nIn the decision opening the investigation, the Commission explained that Germany was of the opinion that the financing measures in question did not confer a selective economic advantage as they met all four Altmark criteria and as they were not likely to distort competition and affect trade between Member States. However, on the basis of the information provided by Germany in the course of the preliminary examination, the Commission expressed the following doubts in this regard:\n(43)\nWith regard to the first Altmark criterion, the Commission came to the preliminary conclusion that undertakings operating in VRR did have a public service obligation imposed by the means of licences for operating bus and tram routes, which were granted to them by the relevant regional authority.\n(44)\nIn relation to the second Altmark criterion, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether all four cost categories themselves indeed constituted a public service obligation, and whether the public service obligations had been clearly defined. It was also unclear as to whether at least a part of the costs of the measures in question should be paid by the undertakings in their own commercial interest, and therefore should be covered solely by ticket revenue. The Commission also noted that Germany had not transmitted detailed information on the parameters and method of calculating the compensation.\n(45)\nIn the opening decision the Commission was not in a position to exclude the possibility that the compensation might exceed what was necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging public service obligations (third Altmark criterion).\n(46)\nAs the licences for transport undertakings in VRR were awarded directly without a public tendering procedure, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the fourth Altmark criterion had been complied with. It did not have sufficient information to be able to evaluate whether the calculation of the compensation established on the basis of average costs of all undertakings subject to financing by VRR corresponded to the level of costs of a typical well-run undertaking providing means of transport.\n(47)\nIn the opening decision the Commission considered that the financing of the measures in question might affect inter-State trade and distort or threaten to distort competition within the internal market.\n4.3.2. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET\n(48)\nHaving concluded that it could not exclude the existence of State aid, the Commission examined its possible compatibility with the internal market on the basis of Article 93 TFEU.\n(49)\nAccording to the Altmark judgment, Article 93 TFEU could not be applied directly but only through the three Council Regulations adopted on the basis thereof (16). Accordingly, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligation inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (17) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 of 4 June 1970 on the granting of aids for transport by rail, road and inland waterway (18) were considered to form the legal framework applicable for the assessment of the compatibility of the public service obligations.\n(50)\nThe Commission considered in the decision opening the procedure that Germany had excluded the relevant transport services from the scope of application of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, and that therefore only Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 was the applicable legal framework.\n(51)\nIn relation to the compatibility of the aid on the basis of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the obligations for which BSM and RBG received compensation constituted public service obligations and whether the amounts paid corresponded to the costs incurred in discharging those obligations.\n5. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY (19)\n5.1. SCOPE OF THE PROCEDURE\n(52)\nGermany began its observations by providing background information on the implementation of the new financing system. It indicated in particular that the old financing system had remained in force until the end of 2005 (31 December 2005). The new financing system, which had been decided on 28 June 2005, had been put into effect as from 1 January 2006.\n(53)\nGermany emphasised that the complaint lodged at the beginning of the current procedure had been made by the city of Langenfeld by letter dated 27 January 1999 and that it had been renewed on 21 January 2004. Therefore, in Germany\u2019s view, the Commission\u2019s procedure should relate only to the old financing system which was in force until the end of 2005. Germany disputed the Commission\u2019s decision to open the formal investigation procedure regarding the new financing system. It argued that, in the absence of a complaint specifically pertaining to the new financing system applying from 2006 onwards, the Commission had not carried out a sufficiently detailed preliminary assessment and that, consequently, Germany had not had the opportunity to clarify the questions that were still open.\n5.2. THE NEW FINANCING SYSTEM APPLYING FROM 2006 ONWARDS\n(54)\nGermany explained that the new financing system was designed to ensure that the four Altmark criteria were respected. In order to do this, all financial flows - be they direct payments or cross-subsidies - were taken into account in the calculation of the public service compensation payments to the transport undertakings made by VRR.\n5.3. DEFINITION OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATIONS (FIRST ALTMARK CRITERION)\n(55)\nGermany replied to the Commission\u2019s doubts with regard to the definition of the public service obligations and the act of entrustment (recital 61 of the opening decision), and with regard to cost categories 1, 2, 3, and 4 (recitals 62 to 71 of the opening decision).\n5.3.1. ACT OF ENTRUSTMENT\n(56)\nWith regard to the question whether transport undertakings in VRR are actually required to discharge clearly defined public service obligations, Germany stated that the licences (20) issued for the operation of bus and tram routes under the terms of the Passenger Transportation Act (Personenbef\u00f6rderungsgesetz - PBefG) are not the sole legal basis in this respect. In addition, the respective Local Public Transport Scheme (Nahverkehrsplan) (21) or, for a transitional period after the entry into force of the new financing system (22), decisions of the respective city and district councils, and the respective financing notices by VRR based on VRR\u2019s Financing Guidelines further clarify the public service obligations. The public service obligations are therefore imposed by way of a threefold act of entrustment (i.e. by means of licences, the Local Public Transport Schemes and the respective financing notice by VRR based on VRR\u2019s Financing Guidelines).\n(57)\nIn respect of RBG, the city council of D\u00fcsseldorf approved VRR\u2019s new financing system by decision of 15 December 2005 in which it also decided to base its Local Public Transport Scheme on the Financing Guidelines which are part of the new financing system. The Local Public Transport Scheme 2002-07 was decided by the city council of D\u00fcsseldorf on 20 March 2003. RBG is also subject to the Local Public Transport Schemes of neighbouring cities and districts (the Rhine district in Neuss, the city of Neuss, the district of Mettmann). All of these Local Public Transport Schemes contain provisions on the network (services and infrastructure) to be provided by RBG. RBG holds licences under the PBefG for the bus and (overground and underground) tram routes operated by it.\n(58)\nIn respect of BSM, the city council of Monheim and the district council of Mettmann approved VRR\u2019s new financing system by decisions of 10 November and 19 December 2005, respectively. The latter decision also provides that the Local Public Transport Scheme for the district of Mettmann (23) is to be brought into line with the new financing system. The Local Public Transport Scheme 2004 for the district of Mettmann contains provisions on the network (services and infrastructure) to be provided by BSM. BSM holds licences under the PBefG for the bus routes operated by it.\n5.3.2. COST CATEGORY 1: INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION\n(59)\nGermany stated that, for the operation of public transport services, an undertaking has to be equipped with vehicles. It emphasised that in Germany and all other Member States the infrastructure used for the provision of public transport services is usually provided by the State. Therefore, Germany is of the opinion that the provision of infrastructure does not confer any economic advantage on the operators in question. In addition, it emphasised that VRR is financing only the maintenance and not the construction of infrastructure. Moreover, VRR does not finance the full maintenance costs, but only the fixed costs (the variable costs of infrastructure utilisation are not compensated). Germany provided an analysis of the additional burden deriving from the public service obligation, taking into account several criteria, in particular the utilisation of the capacity of the infrastructure. Any revenue deriving from the use of the infrastructure (e.g. advertising) was subtracted from the calculation of the additional costs.\n(60)\nUnder the terms of the PBefG and its implementing legislation (24), RBG and BSM are obliged to keep the infrastructure necessary for the operation of the transport services for which they hold licences ready for use according to certain quality standards (most importantly regarding the equipment of stops). They are both subject to additional requirements going beyond these legal requirements, which are contained in VRR\u2019s guidelines on the equipment of stops (Richtlinie Haltestellenausstattung im VRR 08/1991) and in the respectively applicable Local Public Transport Schemes. For RBG, this concerns for instance a dynamic passenger information system at 192 of the stops and a computerised operations control system. The additional requirements for BSM pertain to safety, information at stops, comfort and cleanliness.\n5.3.3. COST CATEGORY 2: MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING TASKS IMPOSED BY VRR OR THE COMPETENT LOCAL AUTHORITY\n(61)\nGermany provided additional clarifications with regard to this cost category, which contains in particular costs arising from retailing and marketing activities (e.g. support for ticket subscriptions, provision of facilities for commuters such as park and ride areas and their advertising, support for organisers of major events, call centres), allocation of the revenues and further coordination tasks. In this cost category the revenue attributable is deducted in order to calculate the costs related to the additional burden imposed by the public authorities.\n(62)\nNo legal requirements pertain to this category. RBG and BSM are required to discharge these tasks by virtue of a cooperation agreement and an allocation of revenue agreement which they have with VRR and which are a prerequisite for their participation in VRR\u2019s financing system. Guidelines to the cooperation agreement contain details of these tasks. Both RBG and BSM are subject to further tasks in this category under the terms of the Local Public Transport Plan of the district of Mettmann. The respective financing notice by VRR is to be regarded as the last step of the act of entrustment.\n5.3.4. COST CATEGORY 3: VEHICLE QUALITY STANDARDS IMPOSED BY VRR OR THE COMPETENT LOCAL AUTHORITY\n(63)\nAccording to the clarifications provided by Germany, the additional costs connected with vehicle quality standards derive from requirements set by VRR and/or local authorities. Such quality requirements are, for example, more environmentally friendly vehicles than legally necessary, or the use of air-conditioned or low-floor vehicles. These requirements can be set for the whole VRR area or at a local level by the respective cities or districts. The same principles as in the previous categories apply to the calculation of the additional burden for the public transport undertakings.\n(64)\nThe Local Public Transport Scheme of the city of D\u00fcsseldorf obliges RBG to invest in low-floor vehicles and enhanced environmentally friendly vehicles. Furthermore, the city council of D\u00fcsseldorf has obliged RBG to install particulate filters in its diesel-engined vehicles. Under the terms of the Local Public Transport Plan of the district of Mettmann, BSM is to invest in low-floor vehicles.\n5.3.5. COST CATEGORY 4: ADDITIONAL TRANSPORT SERVICES OR OTHER SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH OPERATION IMPOSED BY VRR OR THE COMPETENT LOCAL AUTHORITY\n(65)\nGermany stated that this category consists of three clearly defined subcategories:\n(66)\n(i)\nCost category 4a: Additional costs of unprofitable services in off-peak periods imposed by the competent local authority or by VRR: Germany explained that the public transport services provided during off-peak periods (25) requested by the public authorities are unprofitable. However, these services are required by the public authorities (VRR or the respective cities and districts) for reasons of accessibility of transport services. The obligations of RBG to provide transport services in off-peak periods are laid down by the Local Public Transport Schemes of the city of D\u00fcsseldorf, the Rhine district of Neuss and the district of Mettmann. BSM is obliged to provide off-peak transport services by virtue of the licences granted to it and the Local Public Transport Scheme of the district of Mettmann. The respective financing notice by VRR is to be regarded as the last step of the act of entrustment.\n(67)\n(ii)\nCost category 4b: Social obligations in connection with operation imposed by the shareholder: With regard to this category Germany explained that RBG and BSM are obliged to apply the collective agreement concluded by the Municipal Employers Association of North Rhine-Westphalia (Kommunaler Arbeitgeberverband Nordrhein-Westfalen), which results in a higher average pay scale. The municipal undertakings are also by virtue of collective agreements, which are not normally concluded by private undertakings in the sector, obliged to operate and/or contribute to company pension schemes. By virtue of its membership of a (public) supplementary pension fund, RBG has to make contributions for its employees to this fund. Equally, BSM is obliged to operate a company pension scheme on the basis of the specific collective agreement. The costs are calculated as the difference between the reference pay scale (the pay scale contained in the collective agreement TV-N, group V, step 2 usually applied by private undertakings) and the actual pay which also includes the actual extra costs of the company pension scheme.\n(68)\n(iii)\nCost category 4c: Other requirements in connection with operation or requirements inherent in the system imposed by the competent local authority or VRR which are justified individually and lead to an economic disadvantage: Germany explained that this is an open category under which, on the basis of individual proof, compensation can be granted for economic disadvantages stemming from requirements regarding the operations or requirements which pertain to the operation of a public transport system (e.g. special requirements with respect to environmental protection and the offer of additional services for major public events). Germany pointed out that RBG and BSM are not subject to such requirements.\n5.4. PARAMETERS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE COMPENSATION IS CALCULATED (SECOND ALTMARK CRITERION)\n(69)\nGermany began its observations by providing information on and describing the process for setting the parameters for the calculation of the compensation.\n(70)\nIn relation to the parameters applied for the calculation of the compensation, Germany made a distinction between the different cost categories.\n(71)\nRegarding infrastructure provision (cost category 1), Germany stated that VRR uses a certain amount - specific to each local network (Bedienungsgebiet) and to each mode of operation (Betriebszweig) - per kilometre of track or road used for transport services as parameter for the calculation of the compensation.\n(72)\nRegarding the management and marketing tasks imposed by VRR or the competent local authority (cost category 2), VRR uses - according to Germany - a certain amount of tariffs in relation to the net receipts of tariff increases which is specific to each local network and to each mode of operation as parameter for the calculation of the compensation.\n(73)\nRegarding the vehicle quality standards imposed by VRR or the competent local authority (cost category 3), Germany stated that the parameter for the calculation of the compensation consists of a certain amount based on a standard vehicle of minimum quality, the amount being specific to each local network and to each mode of operation.\n(74)\nRegarding the additional transport services or other services in connection with operation imposed by VRR or the competent local authority (cost category 4), Germany made a distinction between the three subcategories.\n(75)\nFor the first subcategory, namely the additional costs of unprofitable services in off-peak periods imposed by the competent local authority or by VRR (cost category 4a), VRR employs a parameter for the calculation of the compensation which is based on the difference between marginal revenue and marginal costs per kilometre. This is specific to each local network and to each mode of operation.\n(76)\nRegarding the second subcategory, the parameter consists in an amount which is established by comparing the higher pay with the provisions of a certain collective agreement (\u2018TV-N, group V, step 2\u2019) (cost category 4b), which is considered to contain almost the same pay scales, and then determining an amount per driver specific to each local network and each mode of operation.\n(77)\nFinally, according to Germany, other requirements in connection with the operation or requirements inherent in the system imposed by the competent local authority or VRR which are justified individually and lead to an economic disadvantage (cost category 4c) are always calculated on an individual basis, provided they are duly documented.\n5.5. NO OVERCOMPENSATION (THIRD ALTMARK CRITERION)\n(78)\nGermany explained that all transport undertakings in VRR are required by VRR to submit yearly reports on the expenditure of funds with a view to proving that no overcompensation in respect of the public service obligations occurs.\n(79)\nThese reports must contain the actual costs (expenditure minus earnings) incurred in the discharge of public service obligations and are then checked by a chartered accountant and VRR for accuracy and completeness. Should VRR find out that, on the basis of these reports, there is overcompensation, such overcompensation would, according to Germany, be recovered.\n(80)\nFor recovery, it is necessary to distinguish between compensation paid by VRR on the basis of an administrative decision and compensation paid directly to the transport undertaking based on paragraph 19 of the ZV VRR ordinance.\n(81)\nIn the former case, the administrative decision is called a \u2018positive financing notice\u2019 (positiver Finanzierungsbescheid) pursuant to the Financing Guidelines. Pursuant to point 7.4.1 of the Financing Guidelines, VRR itself orders recovery of any overcompensation.\n(82)\nIn the latter case, VRR initially issues a \u2018negative financing notice\u2019 (ablehnender Finanzierungsbescheid) pursuant to point 7.4.2 of the Financing Guidelines or a \u2018binding notice on the amount of permissible compensation\u2019. In such a situation, point 8.3 of the Financing Guidelines stipulates that VRR is to inform the city or district owning the transport undertaking that it is obliged to recover the overcompensation.\n5.6. TYPICAL UNDERTAKING, WELL RUN AND ADEQUATELY PROVIDED WITH MEANS OF TRANSPORT (FOURTH ALTMARK CRITERION)\n(83)\nGermany stated that, contrary to the Commission\u2019s observation in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the parameters for the calculation of the public service compensation are set out and take into account all available information from public and private transport undertakings within or outside the VRR area. VRR has established the costs (i.e. the target data) which result from activities discharging public service obligations in the first three categories by a typical undertaking which is well run with the collaboration of their own expert/auditor, Industrie- und Verkehrstreuhand GmbH (\u2018IVT\u2019 or \u2018the expert\u2019). IVT has at its disposal comparative data on a large number of transport undertakings established in Germany and Austria stemming from a comparative analysis. The target data were adjusted by VRR taking account of certain (e.g. regional) specificities. The target data for the fourth category are established by reference to certain regional market data.\n(84)\nAt the end of its analysis VRR defines a margin for average market prices of the various cost categories. These target data were established for the year 2003 and they are updated according to an index in accordance with Annex 9 to the Financing Guidelines (provisions concerning the \u2018evolution of the price level over time\u2019) and according to volume increases/decreases and changes in structures.\n(85)\nGermany emphasised in particular that, in its view, the fact that an undertaking is discharging a public service obligation (such as, for instance, paying employees higher than the normal rates due to social policy decisions) does not make it possible to conclude that such an undertaking is not well run.\n5.7. DISTORTION OF COMPETITION AND EFFECT ON TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES\n(86)\nGermany expressed the opinion that the public financing of infrastructure maintenance costs does not affect trade between Member States because this infrastructure is exclusively used by the beneficiary of such financing. Further, it argued that the financing of infrastructure maintenance costs does not affect a distinct market open to competition, namely the local regional transport market, because VRR\u2019s financing system prevents financing earmarked for infrastructure maintenance costs (where the market is closed to competition) from being used by transport undertakings in the market open to competition. Furthermore, public transport operators are required to provide separate accounts for the different cost categories.\n5.8. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET\n(87)\nGermany being of the opinion that there is no State aid in favour of RBG or BSM, it provided comments on the compatibility of the alleged aid only in respect of the second subcategory of the fourth category, namely the social obligations in connection with operation imposed by the shareholder (26). It argued that the compensation of the higher pay scale is, in any case, compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\n5.9. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID ON THE BASIS OF REGULATION (EC) No 1370/2007\n(88)\nAs Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 entered into force on 3 December 2009, the Commission requested Germany to provide its observations on the compatibility of the new financing system with the internal market on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.\n(89)\nGermany was in principle of the opinion that the Commission should assess the compatibility of the new financing system on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 only as from 3 December 2009.\n(90)\nFurthermore, Germany argued that the new financing system - if it involves State aid - is also compatible with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.\n(91)\nGermany also informed the Commission of the following adjustments to the new financing system in order to comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007:\n(92)\n(a)\nEntrustment with the public service mission: The imposed public service obligations for RBG (decision of the competent authority dated 25 June 2009) and BSM (decision of the competent authority dated 26 November 2009) have been summarised in a single public service contract with a limited duration of 10 years.\n(93)\n(b)\nApplication of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007: The net financial effect will be calculated in line with the provisions of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.\n6. COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES\n(94)\nThe Commission received comments from one interested party, which requested confidential treatment. The initial complainant, the city of Langenfeld, did not submit any observations.\n(95)\nThe interested party disputed the Commission\u2019s finding that the old financing system is existing aid.\n(96)\nAs regards the financing by cross-subsidisation, the third party submitted that this is a practice, usually termed \u2018kommunaler Querverbund\u2019, common to a great number of municipal holding companies in Germany, which according to the third party has been called into question by a judgment of the German Federal Finance Court (27). In the third party\u2019s opinion, where such cross-subsidisation occurs by way of a control and profit/loss transfer agreement, there is no way to prevent overcompensation in view of the automatic character of the transfer. The third party contested that VRR actually takes account of the cross-subsidisation when it applies its financing system in practice and that VRR consequently adjusts its financing amounts accordingly.\n(97)\nAs regards the financing by VRR, the third party argued that VRR\u2019s new financing system is not applied in practice as it is formulated in the Financing Guidelines, for the following reasons:\n(98)\nAccording to the third party the public service obligations are defined in a non-transparent way in collaboration with the transport undertakings themselves. It argued that a threefold act of entrustment needs to comply with the requirement of clarity in the same way as a single act. It considered that the licences under the PBefG are generally not capable of being regarded as the imposition of a public service obligation because they are granted on the initiative of the transport undertaking concerned, which therefore also defines the conditions of its service. In addition, the transport undertaking itself can ask for a later adjustment of the licence. The third party also considered the Local Public Transport Schemes not to be a suitable act of entrustment as they do not impose any obligations but rather only define - in a general manner - policy goals.\n(99)\nRegarding the infrastructure provision, the third party submitted that no precise definition of the obligations is given and that only a framework of measures generally capable of being financed is spelled out. Furthermore, the third party stated that the bulk of the investment in this category would normally be carried out by the transport undertakings in their own economic interest.\n(100)\nRegarding the management and marketing tasks imposed by VRR or the competent local authority, the third party argued that the management and marketing tasks connected with participation in a transport association such as VRR are an aspect of the general economic framework in the sector. In practice, no transport undertaking operates outside the system of a transport association. Therefore, according to the third party, compliance with management and marketing tasks imposed by a transport association is a necessary prerequisite to obtaining a licence which otherwise would be refused by the competent authority. Finally, participation in a transport association brings with it certain economic benefits, e.g. economies of scale.\n(101)\nIn relation to the vehicle quality standards imposed by VRR or the competent local authority, the third party submitted that VRR\u2019s new financing system does not define exactly which type of vehicle would be bought by the transport undertakings purely out of their own economic interest.\n(102)\nRegarding the additional costs of unprofitable services in off-peak periods imposed by the competent local authority or by VRR, the third party stated that such services can be operated at marginal cost when they are well planned, a transport undertaking having in its opinion to calculate its vehicle and personnel requirements according to peak-hour demand.\n(103)\nRegarding the social obligations in connection with the operation imposed by the shareholder, the third party submitted that bearing higher personnel costs cannot be regarded as a public service obligation or a service of general economic interest as it does not relate to the provision of transport services.\n(104)\nRegarding the other requirements in connection with the operation or requirements inherent in the system imposed by the competent local authority or VRR which are justified individually and lead to an economic disadvantage, the third party argued that they cannot be regarded as public service obligations and that they are not in fact imposed on the transport undertakings.\n(105)\nConcerning the second Altmark criterion, the third party emphasised that no common system for the definition of the parameters applies to the second and third subcategory of the fourth category of public service obligations in VRR\u2019s new financing system. According to the third party, the establishment of the parameters in all of the categories cannot be verified by competitors for their correctness as they are not published. Also, VRR\u2019s budget for 2006 was only voted on in February/March 2006. According to the third party, this indicates that the parameters for 2006 were not established in advance.\n(106)\nConcerning the third Altmark criterion, the third party submitted that the public service obligations cannot be assessed completely separately from the commercial activities of the transport undertakings. Moreover, overcompensation must be assessed separately for every single category. In the third party\u2019s opinion, the new financing system does not ensure that the relevant receipts or other economic advantages in relation to the public service obligation are taken into account in the various categories. The automatic character of the cross-subsidisation mechanism makes it impossible to prevent overcompensation in VRR\u2019s financing system.\n(107)\nConcerning the fourth Altmark criterion, the third party argued that, on the basis of the information at its disposal, it was not in a position to evaluate the appropriateness of the benchmarking method employed by VRR. It submitted that the total number of undertakings from which comparative data are examined is not decisive in determining whether these comparative data reflect the costs of an average, well-run undertaking. In its opinion, the correct selection of the undertakings and the correct weighting of the data stemming from different kinds of undertaking are what matter.\n(108)\nRegarding the effect on competition and on trade between Member States, the third party agreed with the Commission\u2019s preliminary assessment and consequently considered that the measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(109)\nIn the third party\u2019s opinion, Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 is applicable in the present case. Germany has not made use of the possibility of exempting the services at issue from the scope of that Regulation. The reasoning of the BVerwG, which has ruled in the opposite sense, is erroneous. In the third party\u2019s view, the measures in question do not comply with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and are therefore not compatible with the internal market.\n(110)\nOn a general note, the third party argued that VRR does not have the necessary means at its disposal for monitoring compliance with the provisions of the new financing system. VRR cannot therefore ensure compliance with the fourth Altmark criterion.\n(111)\nFinally, the third party commented extensively, especially in its later submissions, on the way in which VRR is financed by the contributions it levies from its member cities and districts.\n7. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY ON THE THIRD PARTY\u2019S COMMENTS\n(112)\nGermany began its observations by stating that it had provided the Commission with all necessary information and that it was therefore not necessary to comment on the aspects raised by the third party in its comments. At a later stage, Germany nevertheless replied to certain comments made by the third party.\n(113)\nGermany stated that VRR\u2019s budget is of no importance for the actual entrustment with public service obligations or the definition of the parameters. It explained that currently there is no obligation to publish data on the establishment of the parameters for the calculation of compensation.\n(114)\nGermany disputed the third party\u2019s contention that off-peak services can be operated at marginal cost. It further disputed that participation in a transport association is a general prerequisite for carrying on public transport activities.\n(115)\nGermany emphasised that earnings connected with activities discharging the public service obligations in the different categories are indeed attributed correctly to the respective categories and that, in any case, VRR would look into inappropriately high profits.\n(116)\nGermany made clear that the entrustment with the obligation to fulfil higher vehicle quality standards stems from Local Public Transport Schemes, decisions by the competent city or district council and the VRR\u2019s Financing Guidelines.\n(117)\nRegarding cross-subsidisation, Germany emphasised that the automatic element in a profit and loss transfer is reflected only in the accounting and that actual payment of the sums does not occur automatically.\n8. SCOPE OF THE PROCEDURE AND OF THE FINAL DECISION\n(118)\nIn the present case, Germany has argued that, because the complaint of the City of Langenfeld related to the old financing system, which was not subject to the formal investigation procedure at issue, the Commission is not entitled to issue a decision pursuant to Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 [now Article 108 TFEU] of the EC Treaty (28).\n(119)\nThe Commission notes that it has acted in line with the provisions of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 as it is requested to examine any information in its possession from whatever source regarding alleged unlawful State aid. Furthermore, it has also carried out a preliminary assessment according to the requirements of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.\n(120)\nHence the Commission is not precluded from taking a decision in the present case to close the formal investigation procedure in respect of the new financing system. The Commission also points out that the present investigation does not relate to the old financing system.\n(121)\nWith regard to the financing for discharging a public service obligation, the Commission assumed in the opening decision that the new financing system entered into force on 28 June 2005, i.e. the date on which the decision to implement it was adopted.\n(122)\nHowever, as Germany made clear during the formal investigation procedure, the new financing system entered into force, not when the decision was adopted on 28 June 2005, but only on 1 January 2006.\n(123)\nThe Commission can conclude therefore that the old financing system remained in force until 31 December 2005. As the Commission already explained in its decision of 20 December 2006, the old financing system is existing aid. Accordingly, the Commission will limit its assessment to the period from 1 January 2006.\n(124)\nGermany has informed the Commission that the new financing system was modified in September 2009 in the light of the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007. In particular, the acts of entrustment and the rules for compensation in the Financing Guidelines were modified.\n(125)\nThe Commission considers that it is not possible to take a final position on the existence of State aid and the possible compatibility of the thus modified new financing system with Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 without first giving Germany the opportunity to comment on possible concerns of the Commission with regard to the modifications.\n(126)\nHence, without taking a view on the Financing Guidelines as modified in 2009 in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 and the acts of entrustment as modified in 2009 in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, the Commission limits this final decision to compensation payments made to RBG and BSM on the basis of the new financing system and the revenue sharing agreements for the years 2006 to 2009. The Commission reserves the right to assess the Financing Guidelines as modified in 2009 in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 and the acts of entrustment as modified in 2009 in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 should doubts arise as to their compliance with the EU State aid rules.\n9. EXISTENCE OF STATE AID\n(127)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU provides that \u2018any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n9.1. STATE RESOURCES AND IMPUTABILITY TO THE STATE\n(128)\nFor the assessment of the presence of state resources and their imputability it is necessary to distinguish between the compensation payments made by VRR to transport undertakings on the basis of the Financing Guidelines, on the one hand, and direct payments made to transport undertakings on the basis of paragraph 19 of the ZV VRR ordinance, on the other.\n(129)\nWith regard to the compensation payments made by VRR to transport undertakings on the basis of the Financing Guidelines, the Commission observes that VRR is a public body which is financed by contributions levied from the cities and districts which are its members. Therefore, the Commission concludes that these amounts are paid from state resources. VRR forms part of the regional administration. Its financing decisions are therefore also imputable to the State.\n(130)\nWith regard to direct payments to transport undertakings on the basis of paragraph 19 of the ZV VRR ordinance in conjunction with the revenue sharing agreements, the Commission notes that all five options provided for by this rule originate from public undertakings or public bodies.\n(131)\nThe Commission observes that the payments made to RBG and BSM through revenue sharing agreements or shareholder agreements also stem from public undertakings. The City of D\u00fcsseldorf holds 100 % of the shares in Holding der Landeshauptstadt D\u00fcsseldorf GmbH and the City of Monheim holds 100 % of the shares in Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH. For this reason, irrespective of their corporate or other legal status, both are public undertakings within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as financial transparency within certain undertakings (29).\n(132)\nThe Commission concludes, therefore, that the funds paid to RBG and BSM through Holding der Landeshaupstadt D\u00fcsseldorf GmbH and Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH are financed from state resources.\n(133)\nHowever, the Court of Justice has also ruled that, even if the State is in a position to control a public undertaking and to exercise a dominant influence over its operations, actual exercise of that control in a particular case cannot be automatically presumed. A public undertaking may act with more or less independence, according to the degree of autonomy left to it by the State. Therefore, the mere fact that a public undertaking is under state control is not sufficient for measures taken by that undertaking, such as the financing to the undertakings in question, to be considered imputable to the State. It is also necessary to examine whether the public authorities must be regarded as having been involved, in one way or another, in the adoption of these measures. On that point, the Court indicated that the imputability to the State of a measure taken by a public undertaking may be inferred from a set of indicators arising from the circumstances of the case and the context in which that measure was taken (30).\n(134)\nSuch indicators can be the integration of the undertaking into the structures of the public administration, the nature of its activities and the exercise of the latter on the market in normal conditions of competition with private operators, the legal status of the undertaking (in the sense of its being subject to public law or ordinary company law), the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking, or any other indicator showing, in the particular case, an involvement by the public authorities in the adoption of a measure or the unlikelihood of their not being involved, having regard also to the compass of the measure, its content or the conditions which it contains (31).\n(135)\nThe Commission first notes that, in general, as regards the operation of public transport services, these are activities that play a fundamental role in several policies: transport policy, regional economic development policy or town and country planning policy. The public authorities are in general not \u2018absent\u2019 when decisions on the compensation of a public service obligation are taken.\n(136)\nSecond, as regards the supervision of the activities of Holding der Landeshauptstadt D\u00fcsseldorf GmbH and Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH by the State, the Commission observes that, according to the most recent information available, seven of the ten members of the supervisory board of Holding der Landeshauptstadt D\u00fcsseldorf GmbH are members of D\u00fcsseldorf city council (32) and that all seven members of the supervisory board of Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH are members of Monheim city council (33). In both cases, the mayor is one of these members.\n(137)\nThird, the Commission further notes that the payments disbursed through a control and profit/loss transfer agreement have been subject to the approval of the Supervisory Board of Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH. Equally, the capital transfers of Holding der Landeshauptstadt D\u00fcsseldorf GmbH require the approval of its Supervisory Board.\n(138)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission concludes that the decisions to disburse payments to RBG and BSM by the respective holding companies of the City of D\u00fcsseldorf and the City of Monheim are imputable to the State.\n(139)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission concludes that the measures are financed through state resources and are imputable to Germany.\n9.2. SELECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE\n(140)\nIt must next be established whether the measures grant a selective economic advantage to RBG and BSM.\n(141)\nIt follows from the Altmark judgment that \u2018where a State measure must be regarded as compensation for services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations, so that those undertakings do not enjoy a real financial advantage and the measure thus does not have the effect of putting them in a more favourable competitive position than the undertakings competing with them, such a measure is not caught by Article 92(1) of the Treaty [now Article 107(1) TFEU]. However, for such compensation to escape classification as State aid in a particular case, a number of conditions must be satisfied\u2019 (34).\n(142)\nIn this regard, the German authorities claim that the financing of RBG and BSM through the measures at issue - both the financing provided through cross-subsidisation or directly by the public shareholders of undertakings in question and the financing provided directly by VRR - respect the four criteria of the Altmark judgment and therefore cannot be regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n9.2.1. THE RECIPIENT UNDERTAKING IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE CLEARLY DEFINED PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATIONS\n(143)\nFirstly, according to the above-mentioned judgment, it has to be established whether \u2018the recipient undertaking is actually required to discharge public service obligations and (whether) those obligations have been clearly defined\u2019.\n(144)\nIn the present case, RBG and BSM are entrusted with discharging public service obligations by virtue of a so-called threefold act of entrustment, namely:\n-\nthe licences issued by the D\u00fcsseldorf Regional Government;\n-\nthe Local Public Transport Schemes of the cities of D\u00fcsseldorf and Neuss, the Rhine district of Neuss and the district of Mettmann; and,\n-\nthe respective positive and negative financing notices on the amount of permissible compensation, issued by VRR on the basis of point 7.2 of the Financing Guidelines.\n(145)\nThe German authorities provided the Commission with copies of these acts.\n(146)\nIn reply to the observations of the third party, the Commission considers that, although it would increase transparency if the public service obligation had been imposed by a single act, this is not strictly necessary in order to fulfil the first Altmark criterion.\n(147)\nIn its decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission considered that in the present case the public service obligation comprises the provision of public passenger transport services by bus, tram and rail on the basis of the licences pursuant to paragraphs 8 and 13 of the PBefG which RBG and BSM hold (see recital 61 of the opening decision).\n(148)\nIn addition, the Commission notes that the public service obligation of RBG and BSM to provide passenger transport services derives from the licences obtained together with the requirement to comply with the Local Public Transport Schemes as far as frequencies, routes served and other requirements are concerned; the financing notices of VRR based on the Financing Guidelines provide further details with regard to these conditions.\n(149)\nThe Commission concludes, therefore, that in the present case the public service obligation comprises the entire provision of public passenger transport services by bus, tram and rail on the basis of the licences pursuant to paragraphs 8 and 13 of the PBefG which RBG and BSM hold.\n(150)\nThis means that the public service obligations are not limited to the four cost categories for which transport undertakings can claim compensation, but also include the provision of transport services in peak periods. The definition of the four cost categories for which transport undertakings can claim compensation only comes into play for the assessment of compliance with the second Altmark criterion.\n(151)\nTherefore, the Commission concludes that the threefold act of entrustment clearly and specifically defines the public service obligations which RBG and BSM are required to discharge, namely all the transport services defined in the licences and the local public transport schemes.\n9.2.2. THE PARAMETERS ON WHICH THE COMPENSATION IS CALCULATED HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BEFOREHAND IN AN OBJECTIVE AND TRANSPARENT MANNER\n(152)\nSecondly, the Commission has to establish whether \u2018the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner\u2019.\n(153)\nThe Commission notes that it is not necessary in order to fulfil the second Altmark criterion that the exact overall amount of compensation is determined beforehand as long as the methodology and the relevant parameters for the calculation of that amount are established in advance in a way that leaves no room for later discretionary adjustments.\n(154)\nIn its decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether all of the four cost categories for which the Financing Guidelines provide for compensation payments indeed relate to a public service obligation, whether they have been clearly defined, and whether at least a part of the costs covered by the cost categories should not be paid by the undertakings in their own commercial interest (see recitals 61 to 75 of the opening decision). The German authorities and the third party have provided additional information on this point.\n(155)\nThe Commission first of all observes that the four cost categories, contrary to the wording of the Financing Guidelines, do not themselves constitute public service obligations (see also the previous section on fulfilment of the first Altmark criterion) (35). They rather define cost categories for which the transport undertakings can claim compensation. These cost categories do not cover all cost categories a transport undertaking has. In particular, they exclude the basic provision of transport vehicles (only additional quality requirements are covered) as well as competitive salaries paid during peak periods on routes which are commercially viable. This point will also be elaborated further in the sections assessing the third and fourth Altmark criteria.\n(156)\nThe Commission further needs to analyse each of the points on which it raised doubts, and assess them in the light of the comments received. The doubts of the Commission concerned the following points:\n-\nDo the cost categories correspond to costs which are costs of discharging public service obligations?,\n-\nIs it possible to include, as the Financing Guidelines do, an \u2018open cost category\u2019?,\n-\nHave the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner?,\n(157)\nCost category 1: Infrastructure provision\n(158)\nOn the basis of the additional information provided by Germany, the Commission can conclude that compensation paid under this heading is limited to infrastructure which is necessary for the provision of public passenger transport services by bus, tram and rail on the basis of the licences pursuant to paragraphs 8 and 13 of the PBefG which RBG and BSM hold. With regard to the precise definition of the infrastructure, it observes that the threefold act of entrustment clearly defines the infrastructure which the transport undertakings have to provide.\n(159)\nThe Commission had raised no doubts regarding cost category 2.\n(160)\nCost category 3: Vehicle quality standards imposed by VRR or the competent local authority\n(161)\nOn this point, the Commission concludes that Germany has demonstrated that the transport undertakings would not buy vehicles with the required level of quality, as any additional income generated by the better service quality would not be sufficient to offset the additional costs.\n(162)\nCost category 4: Additional transport services or other services in connection with operation imposed by VRR or the competent local authority\n(163)\nOn this point, the Commission concludes that, as far as services during off-peak periods are concerned, Germany has demonstrated that the transport undertakings would not provide them in their own commercial interest.\n(164)\nThe second doubt on this point concerned the fact that the third subcategory of cost category 4 was an open category which enabled transport undertakings to claim compensation for any other requirements in connection with operation or the system (imposed by the competent local authority or VRR) which are justified individually and lead to an economic disadvantage.\n(165)\nThe Commission observes in this regard that Germany has informed the Commission that RBG and BSM have not received any compensation payments under this subcategory.\n(166)\nThe method for calculating the compensation to which an individual transport undertaking is entitled is described in Annexes 2 and 8 to the Financing Guidelines.\n(167)\nAnnex 2 contains a detailed description of the four cost categories, as well as forms to be filled in in order to transmit to VRR the information on the basis of which VRR calculates the compensation for each of the four cost categories concerning each of the services rendered (bus, tram, railway). This includes a description of the information required for the infrastructure provided (cost category 1), for the calculation of costs for management and marketing tasks (cost category 2), for the calculation of costs for additional vehicle quality standards (cost category 3), for the calculation of costs for off-peak period services (cost category 4a) and for the calculation of costs for social obligations under collective agreements (cost category 4b).\n(168)\nThe costs which the transport undertakings incur for each of the possible measures accepted under the four cost categories have to be allocated. Annex 2 defines the applicable cost categories according to accounting standards and contains forms for the transport undertakings to report their current costs. It does not, however, contain any precise parameters expressed in terms of EUR. On the contrary, it stresses that the parameters need to be set individually for each local network and each mode of operation.\n(169)\nFor cost category 1, 2 and 3 the costs have to be calculated using accounting cost categories and costs for material and energy, costs for rent or leasing, overhead costs, depreciation and interest. For cost category 4, first subcategory, VRR employs a parameter for the calculation of the compensation which is based on the difference between marginal revenue and marginal costs per kilometre and which is specific to each local network and to each mode of operation. For the second subcategory of cost category 4, the social obligations imposed by the shareholder, the parameter consists of an amount which is established by comparing the higher pay with the provisions of a certain collective agreement (\u2018TV-N, group V, step 2\u2019). This amount is calculated per driver (adjusted for services subcontracted to outside undertakings and for drivers hired after 1 January 2006 or after the TV-N first became applicable) and is specific to each local network and to each mode of operation, as the different public transport undertakings have negotiated different collective agreements and additional social advantages.\n(170)\nThe base line data stem from 2003 and are updated according to an index in accordance with Annex 9 to the Financing Guidelines (provisions concerning \u2018evolution of the price level over time\u2019). Annex 9 contains a number of indexes, which are each linked to a specific kind of cost and are chosen so that they reflect closely the average increase in prices for a given cost category.\n(171)\nGermany has transmitted to the Commission the negative financing notices issued pursuant to point 7.4.2 of the Financing Guidelines by VRR to RBG and BSM. The financing notices contain for each cost category the following information: parameter in EUR per cost unit; number of cost units; compensation amount defined as the product of parameter per cost unit and the number of cost units.\n(172)\nBy way of illustration, in 2007 the parameters for RBG for operation of the \u2018Stadtbahn\u2019 (city railway) were as follows (36):\nBedienungsgebiet\nBaustein\nParameter in EUR je Leistungseinheit\nLeistungseinheit\nAusgleichsbetrag in EUR\nRheinbahn\nBS 1\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nBS 2\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nBS 3\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nBS 4a\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nBS 4b\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nBS 4c\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nSumme\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[Bedienungsgebiet = Local network Baustein = Component Parameter in EUR je Leistungseinheit = Parameter in EUR per cost unit Leistungseinheit = Cost unit Ausgleichsbetrag in EUR = Amount of compensation in EUR Summe = Sum]\n(173)\n\u2018BS 1-4c\u2019 refers to each of the four cost categories. For each of the four cost categories in each of the transport sectors (in this example, the Stadtbahn) carried out by BSM and RBG a parameter in euro is established. The parameter is then multiplied by the unit expected to be spent. The sum arrived at is the sum which is established as the ex ante amount of compensation.\n(174)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the financing notices issued by VRR to RBG and BSM contain a calculation of the compensation which is based on parameters that have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner.\n(175)\nTherefore, the Commission concludes that the second Altmark criterion is met.\n9.2.3. NO OVERCOMPENSATION\n(176)\nThe third condition mentioned in the Altmark judgment is that \u2018the compensation does not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations\u2019.\n(177)\nThe Commission considers that, with regard to fulfilment of this criterion, it is appropriate to verify first whether the negative financing notices issued by VRR to RBG and BSM make it possible, taken on their own, to exclude any overcompensation. Should this not be the case, the Commission assesses in a second step whether Germany has demonstrated that the concrete application for the years 2006 to 2009, in combination with the existing agreements between the undertakings and the municipalities owning them, suffice to exclude any overcompensation for RBG and BSM.\n(178)\nThe Commission notes that Sections 5, 7 and 8 of the Financing Guidelines describe in detail the procedure for granting compensation. Transport undertakings need to submit their application for compensation at the latest on 31 October of the year that precedes the year for which they request compensation. Point 5.4 of the Financing Guidelines sets out the maximum amount of compensation to which a transport undertaking is entitled. For this purpose, it defines three different ceilings: the amount of compensation; the amount of financing, and the available financial resources.\n(179)\nThe amount of compensation is calculated based on the information defined in Annex 2 to the Financing Guidelines for each of the four cost categories. On the basis of the information submitted by the transport undertakings pursuant to Annex 2, VRR calculates parameters which must reflect the costs which an average, well-run undertaking would have had to discharge the same obligations, and which are recorded in the financing notices.\n(180)\nThe amount of financing is defined as the amount of funds which are available for a given municipality. They are augmented by any profits of the transport undertaking resulting from activities outside the four compensation categories.\n(181)\nThe available financial resources are defined as the difference between the amount of compensation and the amount of financing.\n(182)\nVRR takes a preliminary decision on the compensation to which a transport undertaking is entitled, and disburses the compensation in four instalments on 15 February, 15 May, 15 August and 15 November. The disbursement of 15 February is based on the decision for the previous year; any changes are corrected in the instalment paid on 15 May (see point 7.3 of the Financing Guidelines).\n(183)\nFor undertakings such as RBG and BSM, which receive their compensation through a control and profit/loss transfer agreement or through an agreement with their holding company, special rules apply. In these cases, VRR will take a decision refusing the compensation payment. This decision states the compensation to which the undertaking is entitled. As an alternative, the Financing Guidelines provide that such undertakings can request a binding communication setting out the compensation to which they are entitled (see point 7.2 of the Financing Guidelines).\n(184)\nThe Financing Guidelines state for this latter case as well that, whenever the compensation constitutes State aid, the recipient undertaking, together with the municipality owning it needs to take in advance measures to avoid overcompensation. As Germany considers that the present measure does not constitute State aid, no such preventive measures have been implemented so far.\n(185)\nThe transport undertakings need to report each year the actual costs they have encountered for discharging the public service obligations. VRR verifies these reports and, should the compensation calculated in advance exceed the actual costs, orders the recovery of the amounts in excess.\n(186)\nThe Commission considers that, as they are currently worded, the Financing Guidelines are not sufficient to guarantee, on their own, the absence of overcompensation for RBG and BSM, for the following reasons:\n(a)\nNo consideration of profits from economically viable transport services in peak periods: As they are currently worded, the Financing Guidelines consider as public service obligations only the obligations imposed upon undertakings with respect to the four cost categories for which the Financing Guidelines provide for compensation. The calculation of the compensation takes into account revenues from services which are covered by the four cost categories, i.e. in particular services in off-peak periods and to remote areas, but they exclude profits from economically viable transport services provided in peak periods.\n(b)\nNo claw-back mechanism for overcompensation received under control and profit/loss transfer agreements and shareholder agreements: In their current form, the Financing Guidelines treat transport undertakings that receive compensation from VRR differently from transport undertakings that receive compensation in the form of control and profit/loss transfer agreements and shareholder agreements. Whereas the former have at their disposal only the amount corresponding to the compensation calculated according to the Financing Guidelines, the latter obtain complete coverage of their costs. They are entitled to keep any difference between their actual losses and the amount to which they are entitled on the basis of the Financing Guidelines, as there is no legally binding procedure that would allow VRR to claw back the difference.\n(187)\nThe public service compensations in the present case can be disbursed directly through contributions from the public shareholders of the undertakings in question, a control and profit/loss transfer agreement and/or by VRR. The Commission notes that, in order to fulfil the third Altmark criterion, there is no requirement according to which the payments have to be disbursed by the organising authority, such as VRR. However, it has to be ensured that the annual compensation does not exceed what is necessary to cover all actual costs in relation to the public service obligation.\n(188)\nThe financing notices state that the amount which is established in them constitutes the maximum amount to be paid subject to an ex post examination of the actual costs incurred. The maximum amount of financing is defined as the amount of funds which are available for a given municipality.\n(189)\nThe transport undertakings need to report each year the actual costs that they have incurred in discharging the public service obligations. The ex post assessment reflects the actual costs incurred for each of the four categories in each of the transport sectors. The sum of the ex post costs is then compared with the sum in the ex ante calculations. The ex post calculation is set out in a financing notice having the same structure as the ex ante financing notices in order to enable a comparison. According to Germany these financing notices are set up ex ante and ex post for RBG and BSM for each of the years under assessment. VRR verifies these reports and, should the compensation calculated in advance exceed the actual costs, orders the recovery of the amounts in excess. However, the Financing Guidelines do not contain any detailed rules on overcompensation or the method of clawing back any overpayment.\n(190)\nTherefore, for the period from 1 January 2006 until 31 December 2009, the Commission needs to verify whether BSM and RBG received any overcompensation. Germany has provided the Commission with information on the actual payments that BSM and RBG received. For this purpose, it has transmitted to the Commission the annual profit and loss statements of RBG and BSM. Earnings and costs for each of the companies are checked annually by certified public accountants who also certified the respective annual balance sheets.\n(191)\nIn 2006, RBG incurred losses of EUR 65 million (37). The losses were covered by loss assumption by the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia and VRR in the amount of EUR 64,1 million. This is EUR 7 million less than what RBG was entitled to according to VRR\u2019s financing notice. In 2007, the necessary overall compensation payments to RBG by the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia and VRR amounted to EUR 52,2 million. This is EUR 17,5 million less than what RBG was entitled to according to VRR\u2019s financing notice. RBG earned a net profit of zero in 2007. In 2008, RBG received compensation payments from the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia and VRR for discharging public service obligations in the amount of EUR 41,9 million, which covered its losses so that RBG earned a net profit of zero. This is EUR 14,1 million less than what RBG was entitled to according to VRR\u2019s financing notice. In 2009, RBG received compensation payments from the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia and VRR for discharging public service obligations in the amount of EUR 45,3 million, which covered its losses so that RBG earned a net profit of zero. This is EUR 11,4 million less than what RBG was entitled to according to VRR\u2019s financing notice.\n(192)\nIn the years 2006-09, BSM each year incurred the following losses in the public passenger transport sector: EUR [\u2026] (2006), EUR [\u2026] (2007), EUR [\u2026] (38) (2008) and EUR [\u2026] (2009). When comparing these losses with the amounts established in the financing notices, the Commission has found that the losses incurred by BSM in the public passenger transport exceeded the amounts established in the financing notices. The total losses, that is the sum of the amounts authorised in the financing notices and the additional losses, were covered by loss assumption through the existing control and profit/loss transfer agreement with Monheimer Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-GmbH leading to an annual profit/annual loss of zero.\n(193)\nWith regard to the assumption of the additional losses, the Commission notes that it is based, not on the new financing system, but solely on the control and profit/loss transfer agreement. This control and profit/loss transfer agreement was concluded prior to the opening of the market for bus transport by several Member States in 1995. As this market opening resulted from a spontaneous decision of the Member States, the control and profit/loss transfer agreement - if it were to constitute aid (39) - has become existing aid pursuant to Article 1(b)(v) of the Procedural Regulation.\n(194)\nThe Commission notes that the market for public passenger transport has been opened to competition by EU law as of 3 December 2009, when Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 entered into force. Pursuant to Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, as a result of the liberalisation of the activity by an act of the EU, all existing aid for public passenger transport has therefore become new aid as of that day. For the reasons set out above in recitals 114 to 124, the present Decision covers only the period until the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.\n(195)\nIn view of the above, the Commission can conclude that, for the period 2006 to 2009, BSM and RBG have not received any overcompensation based on the new financing system, and the third Altmark criterion is thus fulfilled with regard to payments based on the new financing system.\n9.2.4. TYPICAL UNDERTAKING, WELL RUN AND ADEQUATELY PROVIDED WITH MEANS OF TRANSPORT\n(196)\nLastly, the Altmark judgment states that \u2018where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations \u2026 is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure \u2026 the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligation\u2019.\n(197)\nNeither RBG nor BSM was entrusted with the public service obligations at issue in the course of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tendering procedure. Consequently, the Commission has to examine the second alternative stipulated in the fourth Altmark criterion, which provides that the level of compensation must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs of a typical, well run and adequately equipped undertaking.\n(198)\nGermany argues that the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated are established on the basis of the average costs of all the undertakings subject to VRR\u2019s financing system.\n(199)\nDuring the formal investigation procedure Germany submitted that VRR established the costs which are incurred by a typical undertaking which is well run and adequately provided with means of transport for the discharge of the activities covered by the four cost categories, on the basis of statistical data elaborated by its expert. These data were then adjusted by VRR taking account of certain (e.g. regional) specificities. At the end of the analysis VRR establishes a margin for average market prices in the various cost categories.\n(200)\nIn this context, the Commission firstly notes that the use of statistical data aims at ensuring that the compensation was established with reference to the costs of a typical undertaking.\n(201)\nSecondly, all the operators which provide public transport services have a licence and/or a public service contract and must fulfil certain requirements imposed on them by the licences and/or public service contracts (e.g. they must have been adequately provided with means of transport to meet the necessary quality requirements).\n(202)\nHowever, as mentioned in the decision to open the procedure, the use of the statistical transport cost cannot per se lead to the conclusion that operators who have agreed to provide services under these parameters should be considered well managed carriers. The statistical data which served as the basis for establishing this amount concern only the actual costs of transport services in the different regions (Germany and Austria) in 2003. Therefore, there is no proof that an average of these costs represents the costs of an efficient undertaking. The Commission also came to this conclusion in its final decisions in case C 3/08 Southern Moravia Bus Companies (40) and case C 16/07 Postbus AG (41). The reasons set out in recitals 85 and 86 of the latter Decision are also valid for the present Decision.\n(203)\nFurthermore, the Commission observes that the statistical data were established for the year 2003 and then updated annually according to an index in accordance with Annex 9 to the Financing Guidelines and according to volume increases/decreases and changes in structures. The index uses a statistical price index by applying a methodology based on a basket of goods used for the public transport service sector by the German Association of Transport Enterprises (Verband deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen) using data of the German Statistical Office. However, such an updating procedure cannot fully reflect efficiency gains realised in the meantime in the sector.\n(204)\nFinally, the Commission observes that very existence of cost category 4b of the Financing Guidelines (which allows for the compensation of additional costs resulting from the politically induced application of pay scales which are above the pay scales normally observed in the market) indicates that transport undertakings in VRR pay salaries which are above the salaries that are usually observed in the market. Germany has confirmed that RBG and BSM pay such salaries and receive compensation payments under cost category 4b.\n(205)\nIn conclusion, the evidence which the Commission has received does not show that the level of compensation has been calculated by comparing the costs incurred by RBG and BSM with a well run undertaking. The level of compensation therefore has not been calculated with reference to a well run undertaking.\n(206)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the fourth Altmark criterion is not satisfied in respect of the payments made to RBG and BSM as compensation for the discharge of public service obligations.\n9.2.5. CONCLUSION\n(207)\nAs the fourth Altmark criterion is not fulfilled, the Commission considers that the financing system in question has granted an economic advantage to RBG and BSM.\n9.3. DISTORTION OF COMPETITION\n(208)\nThe financing system might lead to a distortion of competition since the public financing strengthens the position of the operators entrusted with the public service obligation and allows them to use these advantages for a prolongation of the entrustment whereas competitors could not use these advantages when applying for an entrustment. The fact that the companies may be qualified as in-house companies does not impede a possible effect on competition since these companies act in a market together with other public and private companies.\n(209)\nIn addition, the operators which receive financing might use these advantages in order to compete with other companies in other markets.\n9.4. EFFECT ON TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES\n(210)\nAccording to settled case law, trade between the Member States must be regarded as affected when a measure constituting an advantage strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Union trade (42). Such strengthening of the position of the recipient undertaking compared with other competing undertakings in intra-Union trade will therefore not only (threaten to) distort competition but also affect trade between the Member States (43).\n(211)\nIt is consequently necessary to assess whether the financing granted to the transport undertakings RBG and BSM by VRR constitutes an economic advantage which strengthens the position of these undertakings compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Union trade.\n(212)\nAt the outset of the analysis, the Commission recalls that the market for the provision of local public transport services in Germany in which these undertakings are operating is a market opened up to competition from undertakings established in other Member States (44).\n(213)\nFurther, the Court of Justice stated in its Altmark judgment:\n\u201877.\nIn this respect it must be observed, first, that it is not impossible that a public subsidy granted to an undertaking which provides only local or regional transport services and does not provide any transport services outside its State of origin may none the less have an effect on trade between Member States.\n78.\nWhere a Member State grants a public subsidy to an undertaking, the supply of transport services by that undertaking may for that reason be maintained or increased with the result that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of providing their transport services in the market in that Member State \u2026\u2019 (45).\n(214)\nThe Commission further observes that the public financing granted to the transport undertakings RBG and BSM by VRR, which constitutes an economic advantage for them, strengthens their financial situation. This strengthened financial situation allows them to maintain the supply of transport services. It also has the result that other undertakings from Germany as well as from other Member States have less chance of providing their transport services in the market served by these two transport undertakings (the D\u00fcsseldorf area), although it is legally possible for them to do so.\n(215)\nTherefore, the Commission concludes that the financing of public service compensation for RBG and BSM strengthens their position compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Union trade and that it therefore affects trade between the Member States.\n9.5. CONCLUSION\n(216)\nFor the reasons set out above, the Commission concludes that the financing granted to RBG and BSM by VRR for discharging the public service obligation constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n10. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET\n(217)\nArticle 93 TFEU envisages conditions of compatibility of aid granted in the field of coordination of transport and public service obligation in transport.\n(218)\nThe Commission notes that, as Article 93 constitutes a lex specialis with regard to Article 106(2), Article 106(2) cannot therefore be applied to the public transport undertakings in question (46).\n(219)\nAccording to the Altmark judgment (47), Article 93 TFEU could not be applied directly but only by virtue of Council Regulations, in particular Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 or Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70.\n(220)\nOn 3 December 2009, Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 entered into force. This Regulation also repealed Regulations (EEC) No 1191/69 and (EEC) No 1107/70.\n(221)\nRegulation (EC) No 1370/2007 applies to the compensation of public service obligations concerning public passenger transport services by rail and other track-based modes and by road. Therefore, the Commission has to assess the compatibility of the measures in the present case with the internal market on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, the instrument in force at the time of the Commission\u2019s decision.\n(222)\nRegulation (EC) No 1370/2007 lays down the conditions under which competent authorities may compensate public service obligations for passenger transport rendered through public service contracts. In the present case, the public service obligations have been imposed by the so-called threefold act of entrustment (i.e. by means of licences, the Local Public Transport Schemes and the respective financing notice by VRR based on VRR\u2019s Financing Guidelines).\n(223)\nThe Commission notes further that the interested party has not contested the applicability of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in the present case. The Commission also notes that Germany is of the opinion that Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 should in principle apply only to payments disbursed as from 3 December 2009.\n(224)\nAfter examining the arguments advanced by Germany, the Commission has come to the conclusion, however, that they do not call into question the ratione temporis application of the State aid rules, according to which the Commission must base its reasoning on the law applicable at the time when it takes its decision. The Commission considers that the public service contracts must be examined on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 for the following reasons:\n(225)\nFirstly, the Commission points out that Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 itself provides for the procedures concerning its entry into force and its ratione temporis application. Pursuant to its Article 12, Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 entered into force on 3 December 2009. By virtue of Article 10(1), Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 was repealed on the same date. Hence the Commission can no longer base its assessment on Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, as it was no longer in force at the time when it adopted its decision; instead, it must base its assessment on Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.\n(226)\nSecondly, the Commission points out that Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 contains no indication that it does not apply to public service contracts concluded prior to its entry into force. Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 thus lays down transitional arrangements for contracts which were awarded before the Regulation entered into force. This provision is in reality an exception to the application of Article 8(2) of the Regulation, which concerns the application of the provisions of Article 5 on the award of contracts. It should be noted that these exceptional transitional arrangements for the award of contracts would not have been necessary if public service contracts awarded before the entry into force of the Regulation did not fall within its scope. On the contrary, Article 8 thus confirms that the other provisions of the Regulation apply to such contracts.\n(227)\nThirdly, the Commission points out that its notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid (48) is not applicable in the present case. The notice states expressly that it is without prejudice to the interpretation of Council and Commission regulations in the field of State aid. And Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 specifically lays down rules for its temporal application.\n(228)\nFourthly, the Commission points out that the Court of Justice has confirmed the principle that new rules apply immediately to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old rule. The Court has also held that the principle of legitimate expectations cannot be extended to the point of generally preventing a new rule from applying to the future effects of situations which arose under the earlier rule (49).\n(229)\nFifthly, the Court has held that the substantive rules of Community law must be interpreted as applying to situations existing before their entry into force only in so far as it clearly follows from their terms, their objectives or their general scheme that such effect must be given to them (50). As indicated in recital 228, this last condition is clearly fulfilled in the case of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.\n(230)\nSixthly, the Commission points out that, in the same judgment, the Court concluded that, where the law in force at the date on which the notification of a Member State\u2019s proposed aid scheme took place changes before the Commission takes its decision, the Commission must decide on the basis of the new rules (51). The Court has further held that the notification by a Member State of a proposed aid scheme does not give rise to a definitively established legal situation or a legitimate expectation which requires the Commission to rule on the compatibility of the aid with the internal market by applying the rules in force at the date on which that notification took place. Consequently, it would be contradictory to allow a Member State which has not complied with the obligation to notify to create a definitively established legal situation by granting unlawful aid.\n(231)\nConsequently, Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 is applicable in the present case (52).\n10.1. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET ON THE BASIS OF REGULATION (EC) No 1370/2007\n(232)\nAccording to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 \u2018public service compensation for the operation of public passenger transport services \u2026 paid in accordance with this Regulation shall be compatible with the common market.\u2019 In what follows, the Commission will examine whether the Financing Guidelines and the compensation paid on their basis to RBG and BSM fulfil the requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.\n(233)\nPursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, \u2018where a competent authority decides to grant the operator of its choice an exclusive right and/or compensation, of whatever nature, in return for the discharge of public service obligations, it shall do so within the framework of a public service contract.\u2019\n(234)\nIn the present case the public service obligations were imposed by the so-called threefold act of entrustment (i.e. by means of licences, the Local Public Transport Schemes and the respective financing notice by VRR based on VRR\u2019s Financing Guidelines). The Commission therefore concludes that Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 is complied with.\n(235)\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 establishes the following mandatory content of public service contracts:\n(236)\nArticle 4(1)(a) - Clearly defined public service obligation: As indicated in Section 8.2.1, RBG and BSM were entrusted with a clearly defined public service obligation.\n(237)\nArticle 4(1)(b) - The parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated has to be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner in a way that prevents overcompensation: As indicated in Section 9.2.2, the parameters for compensation are set out before discharging the public service obligation in the negative financing notice, in an objective and transparent manner, stating the maximum amount for each of the cost categories concerning each transport area.\n(238)\nArticle 4(1)(c) and Article 4(2) - Arrangements with regard to the allocation of costs and revenues: On the basis of the parameters referred to above, there are clear arrangements with regard to the allocation of costs and revenues that relate to the four cost categories for which compensation is paid. For each of the four different categories of public service obligations costs and revenues are allocated separately, in separate accounts, using standard accounting principles applicable under German law, with an annual examination by certified public accountants and VRR.\n(239)\nArticle 4(3) - Duration of public service contracts shall be limited to 10 years for bus and coach services and 15 years for passenger transport services by rail or other track-based modes: Originally, the public service obligations were imposed by the so-called threefold act of entrustment (i.e. by means of licences, the Local Public Transport Schemes and the respective financing notice by VRR based on VRR\u2019s Financing Guidelines). Following the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 they have been summarised in a single public service contract for each of the undertakings with a limited duration of 10 years. For public service contracts which were already in place when Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 entered into force, transitional provisions apply. According to Article 8(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, public service contracts concluded as from 26 July 2000 and before 3 December 2009 on the basis of a procedure other than a fair competitive tendering procedure may continue until they expire, provided they are of limited duration comparable to the durations specified in Article 4. In the present case, the contract was concluded in the period mentioned in Article 8(3)(d) without a tendering procedure. Therefore, the limited duration as set out in Article 4 applies. The duration of the contract is now limited to 10 years; it therefore complies with the requirements of Article 4(3).\n(240)\nArticle 4(5) - The requirement to comply with certain social standards: The applicable collective agreements are indicated in the respective acts since RBG and BSM are obliged to apply the collective agreement concluded by the Municipal Employers Association of North Rhine-Westphalia.\n(241)\nArticle 4(6) - The requirement to comply with certain quality standards: Provisions on the quality standards are indicated in the respective acts of entrustment.\n(242)\nIn the light of the considerations set out in recitals 54 et seq., the Commission considers that the threefold act of entrustment includes all mandatory provisions provided for by Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.\n(243)\nArticle 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 contains provisions on the award of public service contracts. However, according to the transitional provisions in Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 the award of public service contracts by rail and by road must comply with Article 5 only as from 3 December 2019. Thus, the provisions of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 are not applicable in the present case.\n(244)\nThe Commission would remind Germany that during this transitional period Member States must take measures to gradually comply with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.\n(245)\nAccording to Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, all compensation must comply with the provisions laid down in Article 4 and in the Annex to the Regulation.\n(246)\nFirst, the Commission recalls that, as explained above, all the provisions laid down in Article 4 were complied with in the present case.\n(247)\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 provides that the compensation may not exceed an amount corresponding to the financial amount composed of the following factors: costs incurred in relation to the public service obligation minus ticket revenue, minus any positive financial effects generated within the network operated under the public service obligation, plus a reasonable profit. In addition, the Annex requires that costs and revenue be calculated in accordance with the accounting and tax rules in force. Furthermore, for transparency reasons, there should be a separation of accounts.\n(248)\nIn the present case, the Commission notes that the public service compensation is calculated in line with the requirements of the Annex as described above in Section 9.2.3, and that the compensation payments did not lead to any overcompensation. After calculating receipts from tariffs, revenues, other positive financial effects and the costs connected with the public service obligation, the outcome was that BSM and RBG annually incurred a deficit in discharging the public service obligation. This deficit was in each of the years 2006-2009 covered by compensation payments which led to a net profit of zero.\n(249)\nThe Commission further observes that in the present case the undertakings in question do not receive a reasonable profit. The costs and revenues attributed to the public service obligation are also audited so that they comply with the accounting and tax rules in force. For transparency reasons the undertakings in question have separate accounts for activities which fall within the public service obligation and for those which are outside the scope of the public service obligation.\n(250)\nIn view of the above, the Commission concludes that the public service compensation avoids any overcompensation and is in line with the requirements of Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 and of the Annex to that Regulation.\n(251)\nThe Commission is therefore of the opinion that the general principles governing the assessment of compatibility of the aid are complied with in the present case. The Commission further notes that an assessment of the public service compensation in favour of RBG and BSM under Regulation (EC) No 1107/70 would lead to the same conclusion.\n(252)\nConsequently, the Commission concludes that the aid in favour of RBG and BSM is compatible with the internal market under Article 93 TFEU and Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.\n11. CONCLUSION\n(253)\nThe Commission finds that the aid is compatible with the internal market under Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 and Article 93 TFEU. The Commission points out that this Decision concerns the compatibility of the measures with the internal market as State aid and that this assessment does not prejudge the analysis by the Commission of the application in this case of the Union legislation on public contracts and concessions.\n(254)\nThe Commission points out that, according to the settled case law of the Court of Justice, it can assess the compatibility of State aid with the internal market independently of any infringement of another provision of Union law provided that the latter is not so indissolubly linked to the object of the aid that it is impossible to evaluate them separately.\n(255)\nIn the present case, the Commission notes that any infringement of the provisions on public contracts and concessions such as the granting of the licences at issue to BSM and RBG would not necessarily have a distorting effect on competition which further increases the distortion of competition resulting from the aid. This Decision therefore confines itself to examining the State aid,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid which Germany has implemented for Rheinbahn AG and Bahnen der Stadt Monheim in the years 2006-2009 on the basis of the Richtlinie zur Finanzierung des \u00d6SPV im Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr is compatible with the internal market under Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 and Article 93 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2011.", "references": ["23", "80", "32", "42", "68", "77", "72", "25", "82", "94", "76", "41", "11", "53", "70", "51", "98", "31", "18", "27", "16", "9", "85", "95", "12", "22", "89", "73", "1", "67", "No Label", "2", "8", "15", "48", "54"], "gold": ["2", "8", "15", "48", "54"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 22 November 2010\nappointing a Spanish member of the European Economic and Social Committee\n(2010/727/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal made by the Spanish Government,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 13 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr \u00c1ngel PANERO FL\u00d3REZ,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Alberto NADAL BELDA, Director Adjunto a la Secretar\u00eda General de la CEOE, is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the term of office, i.e. until 20 September 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["72", "36", "6", "68", "58", "25", "93", "33", "83", "88", "75", "0", "24", "54", "30", "85", "74", "98", "23", "9", "39", "35", "94", "56", "92", "86", "78", "64", "3", "29", "No Label", "7", "52", "96"], "gold": ["7", "52", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 944/2011\nof 22 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2011.", "references": ["51", "0", "38", "49", "50", "62", "64", "81", "76", "40", "8", "4", "90", "13", "39", "63", "24", "58", "85", "45", "66", "12", "36", "57", "93", "55", "95", "26", "3", "11", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 331/2012\nof 18 April 2012\non the issue of licences for the import of garlic in the subperiod from 1 June 2012 to 31 August 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 (3) opens and provides for the administration of tariff quotas and introduces a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and other agricultural products imported from third countries.\n(2)\nThe quantities for which \u2018A\u2019 licence applications have been lodged by traditional importers and by new importers during the first seven working days of April 2012, pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 exceed the quantities available for products originating in China, and all third countries other than China and Argentina.\n(3)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, it is now necessary to establish the extent to which the \u2018A\u2019 licence applications sent to the Commission by 14 April 2012 can be met in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApplications for \u2018A\u2019 import licences lodged pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 during the first seven working days of April 2012 and sent to the Commission by 14 April 2012 shall be met at a percentage rate of the quantities applied for as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2012.", "references": ["27", "40", "20", "46", "44", "50", "51", "16", "71", "72", "1", "35", "36", "23", "34", "0", "43", "88", "26", "87", "48", "85", "86", "4", "63", "75", "97", "77", "10", "11", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "68", "93", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "68", "93", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 September 2010\nauthorising the Republic of Poland to introduce a special measure derogating from Article 26(1)(a) and Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(2010/581/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 291(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter registered with the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 16 November 2009, Poland requested authorisation to introduce a special measure derogating from the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC governing the right to deduct input tax (\u2018the special measure\u2019).\n(2)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 395(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission informed the other Member States of the request made by Poland by letter dated 14 December 2009. By letter dated 17 December 2009, the Commission notified Poland that it had all the information that it considered necessary to consider the request.\n(3)\nPoland applies a limitation of the VAT deduction for passenger cars. However, some motor vehicles other than passenger cars are, by the nature of their design, also suited to use for both private and business purposes.\n(4)\nCurrently, where a taxable person intends to use for private purposes a vehicle other than a passenger car on which he has deducted the input tax in full or in part on the purchase, intra-Community acquisition, import, hire or lease, he is required to account for output tax on that use. However, the private use is difficult for the taxable person to establish with any degree of accuracy, and for the tax authorities to monitor.\n(5)\nIn order to simplify the procedure for collecting value added tax (VAT) and to prevent tax evasion and avoidance, Poland seeks a derogation in order to restrict the right of deduction of VAT with respect to motor vehicles other than passenger cars which may be used for both business and private purposes to 60 % of the VAT incurred on their purchase, intra-Community acquisition, import, hire or lease, up to a maximum of PLN 6 000, intended to prevent the excessive deduction of VAT with respect to luxury cars, which are more likely to be used for private purposes. The taxable person would subsequently no longer be required to account for output tax on the private use of the vehicle.\n(6)\nThe special measure should only apply to motor vehicles other than passenger cars with a maximum load capacity of over 500 kg and a maximum weight of 3,5 tonnes. Vehicles intended to perform a specific function such as roadside assistance vehicles, hearses, and loading vehicles, and vehicles for resale or hire should not fall under the derogation.\n(7)\nThe authorisation should be valid for a limited period and should therefore expire on 31 December 2013. In light of the experience gained up to that date an assessment may be made whether or not the derogation remains justified.\n(8)\nThe derogation has no negative impact on the Union\u2019s own resources accruing from value added tax,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Republic of Poland is hereby authorised to restrict to 60 % the right to deduct VAT on the purchase, intra-Community acquisition, import, hire or lease of motor vehicles other than passenger cars, up to a maximum of PLN 6 000.\nThis restriction shall only apply to motor vehicles other than passanger cars with a maximum authorised carrying capacity of over 500 kg and a maximum weight of 3,5 tonnes.\nArticle 2\nArticle 1 shall not apply to the following categories of vehicles:\n(a)\nvehicles purchased for resale, hire or lease;\n(b)\nvehicles, which in accordance with criteria established in fiscal provisions can be considered as vehicles intended in principle for the carriage of goods;\n(c)\nvehicles intended to perform a specific function;\n(d)\nvehicles designed for the carriage of at least 10 persons, including the driver.\nArticle 3\nBy way of derogation from Article 26(1)(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Republic of Poland is authorised not to treat as a supply of services for consideration the private use by a taxable person or his staff or, more generally, for purposes other than those of his business, of a vehicle for which the restriction referred to in Article 1 of this Decision applies.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2013.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Poland.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["78", "14", "18", "82", "72", "3", "85", "87", "2", "56", "37", "89", "27", "60", "65", "53", "62", "9", "36", "58", "40", "99", "73", "5", "86", "93", "77", "55", "90", "98", "No Label", "25", "26", "34", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "26", "34", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/48/EU\nof 15 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include bromadiolone as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 1112/2002 (2) and (EC) No 2229/2004 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included bromadiolone.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 24e of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/941/EC of 8 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of bromadiolone.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the application of the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Sweden, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/941/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nSweden evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 4 December 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on bromadiolone to the Commission on 15 September 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for bromadiolone.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing bromadiolone may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include bromadiolone in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit confirmatory information as regards: the specification of the technical material as commercially manufactured, in the form of appropriate analytical data, the relevance of the impurities, the determination of bromadiolone in water, the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures to reduce the risk to birds and non-target mammals and the groundwater exposure assessment in respect of metabolites.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing bromadiolone to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/941/EC provides for the non-inclusion of bromadiolone and the withdrawal of authorisation of plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning bromadiolone in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/941/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning bromadiolone in the Annex to Decision 2008/941/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing bromadiolone as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to bromadiolone are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing bromadiolone as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account Part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning bromadiolone. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing bromadiolone as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing bromadiolone as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 April 2011.", "references": ["14", "19", "85", "90", "40", "87", "13", "15", "49", "75", "18", "78", "37", "51", "72", "8", "63", "48", "21", "69", "55", "11", "88", "76", "66", "9", "31", "80", "59", "84", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 422/2010\nof 17 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 May 2010.", "references": ["87", "56", "29", "0", "25", "20", "82", "9", "99", "1", "17", "92", "73", "83", "85", "90", "41", "2", "59", "23", "45", "33", "4", "91", "6", "47", "21", "48", "75", "97", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 858/2010\nof 28 September 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 as regards out-of-quota exports and export licences\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Articles 134 and 161(3), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), establishes detailed rules for out-of-quota exports in the sugar sector.\n(2)\nArticle 4c of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 provides for documents constituting proofs of arrival at destination, which must be furnished in case certain destinations are not eligible for exports of out-of-quota sugar and/or isoglucose. However, the risks of eventual trade frauds are rather limited where the quantity of sugar is small. To simplify the necessary administrative work it is therefore appropriate to provide for derogation from this rule in the case of quantities not exceeding 25 tonnes.\n(3)\nArticle 7c of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 lays down provisions for communication on out-of-quota exports. In order to improve the management of the out-of-quota export regime it is appropriate to clarify that the communication of Member States on the applied quantities should be broken down by applicants as well.\n(4)\nFor the 2010/2011 marketing year Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 of 7 May 2010 fixing the quantitative limit for exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2010/2011 marketing year (3) fixed the quantitative limit at 650 000 tonnes for white sugar falling within CN code 1701 99, i.e. for 6-digit code. In the case where demand is strong for the export licences and the annual quantitative limit is rapidly used, operators who export white sugar under different CN codes might not be able to obtain sufficient licences to cover their traditional markets. In order to improve the flexibility of the out-of-quota regime it is appropriate to allow that export licences issued for a white sugar product falling within CN code 1701 99 can also be used for the exports of a different white sugar product falling within the same CN code.\n(5)\nAccording to Article 8a(b) of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 export licences for out-of-quota sugar or isoglucose issued as from 1 April 2010 are valid as of their date of issue until the end of the fifth month thereafter. However, that may cause serious difficulties for certain exporters, namely the ones that supply their traditional markets throughout the marketing year. It is therefore appropriate that the provisions for the marketing year 2009/2010 apply on a permanent basis.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 1(2)(b)(i) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (4) export licences shall be presented in the case of exports of sugar products falling under CN code 1701. Pursuant to Part II of Annex II to that Regulation the amount of security to be lodged is fixed at EUR 110 per tonne. For reasons of legal certainty and to ensure equal treatment of operators in each Member State it is appropriate to clarify in Article 12a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 that the security shall be lodged also in case of out-of-quota sugar exports.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 951/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 951/2006 is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 4c of Chapter IIa the following paragraph 4 is added:\n\u20184. In case of export declarations concerning a maximum quantity of 25 tonnes of sugar, and when the conditions referred to in Article 24(2)(a) and (b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 (5) are met, Member States shall exempt exporters from furnishing the proof provided in paragraph 1 and 2(b) and (c) of this Article. The transport document or its electronic equivalent as referred to in Article 17(3) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 shall be presented in any event.\n2.\nChapter III is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe second subparagraph of Article 7c(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The quantities applied for shall be broken down by applicant and by eight-digit CN code without indicating the name of the applicant. The Member States shall also inform the Commission if no applications for export licences have been submitted.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following Article 7f is inserted:\n\u2018Article 7f\nUse of export licences for out-of-quota sugar\nExport licences issued for out-of-quota white sugar falling within CN code 1701 99 shall indicate CN codes 1701 99 10 and 1701 99 90 and shall be valid for any of them.\u2019;\n(c)\nArticle 8a is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8a\nValidity of export licences for out-of-quota exports\nBy way of derogation from the provisions of Article 5 of this Regulation, export licences issued in respect of the quantitative limit fixed pursuant to Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be valid as follows:\n(a)\nlicences issued between 1 October and 30 April of the marketing year concerned shall be valid as of their date of issue until 30 September of the marketing year in question;\n(b)\nlicences issued between 1 May and 30 September of the marketing year concerned shall be valid as of their date of issue until the end of the fifth month thereafter.\u2019;\n3.\nin Chapter V Article 12a is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The applicant shall lodge a security of EUR 110 per tonne of out-of-quota sugar and EUR 42 per tonne of net dry matter in case of out-of-quota isoglucose.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Where certain destinations are excluded from exports of out-of-quota sugar and/or isoglucose, the security referred to in paragraph 1 shall be released once the requirements of paragraph 3 of this Article and the requirements of Article 4c of this Regulation are met.\u2019\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 September 2010.", "references": ["51", "38", "65", "6", "84", "10", "34", "13", "95", "48", "91", "75", "60", "18", "32", "87", "45", "57", "36", "40", "11", "92", "35", "12", "76", "58", "2", "55", "33", "0", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "25", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "25", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 784/2011\nof 5 August 2011\non advances to be paid from 16 October 2011 of the direct payments listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular Article 29(4)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 provides that payments under support schemes listed in Annex I to that Regulation are to be made within the period from 1 December to 30 June of the following calendar year. However, Article 29(4)(a) of that Regulation permits the Commission to provide for advances.\n(2)\nIn 2011 unfavourable weather conditions in Europe, with a very harsh winter and a late spring followed by an extreme drought and high temperatures, have caused serious damages on the crop and fodder production. Severe financial difficulties have been encountered by farmers as a result, in particular by cattle producers. These difficulties are compounded by the effects of the ongoing financial crisis which have caused many farmers to be confronted with serious liquidity problems. This already difficult situation has been worsened by the effects on the markets of the spread of E.coli bacteria which has lead to dramatic falls in the demand and prices of fruit and vegetables. In order to help to alleviate these difficulties it is appropriate to allow for farmers to receive advance payments of up to 50 % of the support schemes listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. Regarding the beef and veal payments provided for in Section 11 of Chapter 1 of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, Member States should also be authorised to increase the payment of advances as referred to in Article 82 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 (2), to up to 80 % of the payment.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure that the advance payments will be accounted for under the 2012 budget year, they should be made from 16 October 2011. The necessary verification of eligibility conditions under Article 29(3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 should nevertheless be carried out before payment of the advances in the interests of good financial management.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nMember States may pay, from 16 October 2011, advances to farmers of up to 50 % of the direct payments listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 in respect of applications made in 2011, provided that the verification of the eligibility conditions pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 has been finalised.\nRegarding the beef and veal payments provided for in Section 11 of Chapter 1 of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, Member States shall be authorised to increase the amount referred to in the first paragraph to up to 80 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2011.", "references": ["70", "96", "50", "18", "94", "34", "25", "42", "60", "72", "26", "29", "8", "56", "9", "24", "54", "85", "95", "90", "99", "75", "45", "58", "10", "31", "32", "3", "39", "7", "No Label", "15", "47", "61"], "gold": ["15", "47", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 384/2012\nof 4 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2012.", "references": ["84", "42", "65", "97", "10", "38", "99", "12", "90", "18", "77", "37", "69", "49", "30", "40", "5", "29", "43", "59", "21", "75", "93", "17", "36", "89", "57", "51", "16", "63", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 442/2010\nof 21 May 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Aglio di Voghiera (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Aglio di Voghiera\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2010.", "references": ["42", "52", "15", "12", "58", "18", "98", "72", "37", "57", "29", "49", "51", "94", "89", "41", "17", "76", "95", "63", "80", "75", "87", "1", "79", "35", "84", "69", "36", "46", "No Label", "23", "24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/001 AT/Nieder\u00f6sterreich-Ober\u00f6sterreich from Austria)\n(2011/770/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nAustria submitted an application on 3 January 2011 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 706 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 49 (\u2018Land transport and transport via pipelines\u2019) in the NUTS II regions of Nieder\u00f6sterreich (AT12) and Ober\u00f6sterreich (AT31) and supplemented it by additional information up to 9 June 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 3 643 770.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Austria,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 3 643 770 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["12", "31", "73", "30", "74", "45", "75", "47", "34", "0", "52", "29", "39", "85", "79", "9", "41", "43", "81", "66", "62", "86", "80", "82", "36", "17", "76", "24", "89", "50", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "54", "55", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "54", "55", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 777/2011\nof 3 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 August 2011.", "references": ["76", "15", "81", "89", "25", "49", "19", "3", "48", "46", "7", "57", "95", "77", "37", "63", "79", "86", "74", "85", "14", "53", "94", "16", "39", "58", "4", "96", "93", "24", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 257/2011\nof 16 March 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas in the sector of poultrymeat originating in Brazil, Thailand and other third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) and Article 148, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2007/360/EC of 29 May 2007 on the conclusion of Agreements in the form of Agreed Minutes between the European Community and the Federal Republic of Brazil, and between the European Community and the Kingdom of Thailand pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) relating to the modification of concessions with respect to poultry meat (2), and in particular Article 2 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 130(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, imports into the Union should be managed using import licences. However, in order to avoid speculative actions distorting the imports flow, it is appropriate to manage the quota opened by Commission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 (3) under order number 09.4215 and Group No 5 allocated to Thailand, by attributing import rights as a first step and issuing import licences as a second, as provided for in Article 6(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (4).\n(2)\nThe new conditions for attributing the import rights and issuing the subsequent import licences for the quota at issue should be established, as regards the eligibility of the applicants and the repartition of the imported volumes for the quota period as set out in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 616/2007.\n(3)\nIn order to avoid speculative activity and ensure that import rights are attributed to genuine importers, it is essential to set the historical reference quantity of poultrymeat imported established as a condition for the application for import rights at an appropriate level.\n(4)\nIn view of the new conditions applicable to imports of products originating in Thailand, the amount of the security relating to the import rights and licences should be set at an appropriate level to ensure proper management of the tariff quotas and satisfactory access to them for operators.\n(5)\nTo oblige operators to apply for import licences for all the import rights allocated, it should be established that such obligation constitutes a primary requirement within the meaning of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products (5).\n(6)\nThe notification period established in Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the national authorities to notify the Commission of the quantities covered by issued licences is scheduled at a late stage compared to the moment of issuing. For a good management of the quota, it is therefore advisable to advance this notification period in time.\n(7)\nTo allow operators and competent authorities to get used to the new management of Group No 5, it is appropriate to postpone the time period for submission of applications for import rights for the first subperiod commencing on 1 July 2011, from April 2011 to May 2011.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 616/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nSince the next quota period begins on 1 July 2011, this Regulation should apply as from that period.\n(10)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 616/2007 is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 3, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. The annual quantities established for Group No 5 shall be managed by attributing import rights as a first step and issuing import licences as a second.\u2019;\n2.\nArticles 4, 5 and 6 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\n1. For the purposes of applying Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 as regards groups other than Group No 5, import licence applicants shall, when presenting their first application as regards a given quota period, furnish proof that they imported, during each of the two periods referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 1301/2006, at least 50 tonnes of products covered by Annex I Part XX to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (6) or preparation of CN code 0210 99 39.\nFor the purposes of applying Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 as regards Group No 5, import rights applicants shall, when presenting their first application for a given quota year, furnish proof that they imported a quantity of at least 250 tonnes of products covered by Annex I Part XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 or preparations of CN code 0210 99 39 during each of the two periods referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006.\nLicence applications shall mention only one of the order-numbers indicated in Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 and from the first sub-paragraph of paragraph 1 of this Article, import licences applicants may, when presenting their first application as regards a given quota period furnish proof that they processed, during each of the two periods referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, at least 1 000 tonnes of poultrymeat of CN codes 0207 or 0210 to produce preparations of poultrymeat of CN code 1602 covered by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 or homogenised preparations of CN code 1602 10 00 containing no other meat than poultrymeat.\nFor the purposes of this paragraph, a \u201cprocessor\u201d shall be any person entered on the national VAT register of the Member State in which he is established, who provides proof of processing activity, in the form of any commercial document, to the satisfaction of the Member State concerned.\n3. A company formed by a merger of companies each having imported reference quantities may use those reference quantities as basis for its applications.\n4. By way of derogation from Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, as regards Groups Nos 3, 6 and 8, each applicant may lodge more than one application for import licences for products in one group where such products originate in more than one country. Separate applications for each country of origin must be submitted simultaneously to the competent authority of a Member State. They shall be regarded as a single application, for the purposes of the maximum quantity referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article.\n5. For groups other than Group No 5, licence applications must be for a minimum of 100 tonnes and a maximum of 10 % of the quantity available for the quota concerned in the period or subperiod in question.\nHowever:\n(a)\nfor Groups Nos 2 and 3, the maximum quantity for licence or import rights applications shall be 5 % of the quantity available for the quota concerned in the period or subperiod in question;\n(b)\nfor Groups Nos 3, 6 and 8 the minimum quantity for licence applications shall be reduced to 10 tonnes.\nFor Group No 5 import rights applications must be for a minimum of 100 tonnes and a maximum of 10 % of the quantity available for the quota concerned in the subperiod in question.\n6. Except for Groups Nos 3, 6 and 8, licences carry an obligation to import from the country that is specified. For the groups concerned by this obligation, the country of origin shall be entered in box 8 of the application and of the licence itself, and the word \u201cyes\u201d shall be marked with a cross.\n7. Box 20 of the licence application and the licence shall contain one of the entries given in Annex II, Part A.\nBox 24 of the licences shall contain one of the entries listed in Annex II, Part B.\nFor Groups Nos 3 and 6 products, box 24 of the licence shall contain one of the entries given in Annex II, Part C.\nFor Group No 8 products, box 24 of the licence shall contain one of the entries given in Annex II, Part D.\nArticle 5\n1. Applications for import rights for Group No 5 and for import licences for the other groups may be submitted only in the first seven days of the third month preceding each subperiod or, for Group No 3, in the first seven days of the third month preceding the quota period.\nHowever, applications for import rights for Group No 5 for the subperiod commencing on 1 July 2011 may be submitted only in the first seven days of May 2011.\n2. A security of EUR 50 per 100 kilograms shall be lodged at the time of submission of the licence application for groups other than Group No 5. However, for licence applications concerning Groups Nos 1, 4 and 7, the security shall be set at EUR 10 per 100 kilograms and for import rights applications for Group No 5 the security shall be set at EUR 6 per 100 kilograms.\n3. Member States shall notify the Commission, by the 14th day of the month in which applications are submitted, of the total quantities in kilograms requested, broken down by group and origin.\n4. Import rights shall be awarded and licences shall be issued from the 23rd day of the month in which applications are submitted and at the latest by the last day of that month. Import rights shall be valid from the first day of the subperiod for which the application has been lodged, and until 30 June of the same import period and they are not transferable.\n5. For Group No 5, import licence applications may be lodged solely in the Member State where the applicant has applied and obtained the import rights. For this group, licences shall be issued on application by and in the name of the operator who has obtained the import rights.\nFor Group No 5 a security of EUR 75 per 100 kilograms shall be lodged by the operator at the issuing of the import licence. Each issuing of import licence shall result in a corresponding reduction of the import rights obtained and the security lodged for import rights in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be released proportionally without delay.\n6. Import licences applications shall cover the total quantity of import rights allocated. This obligation shall constitute a primary requirement within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 (7).\nArticle 6\n1. By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, Member States shall notify the Commission:\n(a)\nfor all Groups except No 5 and not later than the 10th day of the month following the month in which applications were submitted, of the quantities covered by licences they have issued;\n(b)\nfor Group No 5 and not later than the 10th day of the month following each subperiod, of the quantities covered by licences they have issued during that subperiod.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission, by the end of the fourth month following the end of each annual period, of the quantities actually released for free circulation under this Regulation during the period concerned.\n3. By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantities covered by unused or partially used import licences and corresponding to the difference between the quantities entered on the back of the import licences and the quantities for which they were issued:\n(a)\na first time together with the notifications referred to in Article 5(3) of this Regulation regarding the applications submitted for the last subperiod of the annual quota period;\n(b)\na second and last time by the end of the fourth month following the end of each annual period for quantities not yet notified at the time of the first notification provided for in point (a).\nFor Group No 3, the notification referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph shall not apply.\n4. The quantities covered by paragraphs 1 and 3 shall be expressed in kilograms and broken down by group. The quantities covered by paragraph 2 shall be expressed in kilograms and broken down by group and origin.\n3.\nin Article 7, paragraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe second subparagraph is deleted;\n(b)\nthe following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018However, for Group No 5 licences shall be valid for 15 working days from the actual date of issuing of the licence, in accordance with Article 22(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 (8). Import rights shall be valid from the first day of the subperiod for which the application has been lodged, and until 30 June of the same quota period.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply as from the quota period commencing on 1 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 March 2011.", "references": ["47", "42", "45", "28", "3", "20", "41", "0", "62", "13", "91", "53", "85", "75", "12", "77", "17", "35", "30", "22", "56", "55", "82", "33", "44", "73", "74", "5", "18", "92", "No Label", "4", "21", "23", "66", "69", "93", "95", "96"], "gold": ["4", "21", "23", "66", "69", "93", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 57/2011\nof 18 January 2011\nfixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 43(3) of the Treaty, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1) requires that measures governing access to waters and resources and the sustainable pursuit of fishing activities be established taking into account available scientific, technical and economic advice and in particular reports drawn up by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).\n(3)\nIt is incumbent upon the Council to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities by fishery or by group of fisheries, including certain conditions functionally linked thereto, as appropriate. Fishing opportunities should be distributed among Member States in such a way as to assure each Member State relative stability of fishing activities for each stock or fishery and having due regard to the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy established in Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\n(4)\nWhere a total allowable catch (TAC) is allocated to one Member State only, it is appropriate to empower the Member State concerned in accordance with Article 2(1) of the Treaty to determine the level of such TAC. Provisions should be made to ensure that, when fixing that TAC level, the Member State concerned acts in a manner fully consistent with the principles and rules of the Common Fisheries Policy and ensures that the stock in question is exploited at levels that shall, with as high a probability as possible, produce maximum sustainable yield from 2015 onwards, including by taking the necessary measures to collect relevant data, assess the stock concerned and determine maximum sustainable yield levels of that stock.\n(5)\nThe TACs should be established on the basis of the available scientific advice, by taking into account the biological and socio-economic aspects whilst ensuring fair treatment between fishing sectors, as well as in the light of the opinions expressed during the consultation of stakeholders, in particular at the meetings with the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Regional Advisory Councils concerned.\n(6)\nFor stocks subject to specific multiannual plans, the TACs should be established in accordance with the rules laid down in those plans. Consequently, the TACs for stocks of hake, of Norway lobster, of sole in the Bay of Biscay, the Western Channel and the North Sea, of plaice in the North Sea, of herring to the west of Scotland and of cod in the Kattegat, North Sea, Skagerrak, eastern Channel, to the west of Scotland and in the Irish Sea should be established in accordance with the rules laid down in: Council Regulation (EC) No 811/2004 of 21 April 2004 establishing measures for the recovery of the northern hake stock (2); Council Regulation (EC) No 2166/2005 of 20 December 2005 establishing measures for the recovery of the Southern hake and Norway lobster stocks in the Cantabrian Sea and Western Iberian peninsula (3); Council Regulation (EC) No 388/2006 of 23 February 2006 establishing a multiannual plan for the sustainable exploitation of the stock of sole in the Bay of Biscay (4); Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2007 of 7 May 2007 establishing a multi-annual plan for the sustainable exploitation of the stock of sole in the Western Channel (5); Council Regulation (EC) No 676/2007 of 11 June 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea (6); Council Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a multi-annual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock (7); Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks (8) and Council Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 of 6 April 2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean (9).\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (10), the stocks that are subject to the various measures referred to therein should be identified.\n(8)\nFor certain species, such as certain species of sharks, even a limited fishing activity could result in a serious risk to their conservation. Fishing opportunities for such species should therefore be fully restricted through a general prohibition on fishing those species.\n(9)\nNorway lobster is caught in mixed demersal fisheries together with various other species. In a zone to the west of Ireland known as the Porcupine Bank there is an urgent conservation need to reduce catches of Norway lobster as much as possible. It is therefore appropriate to limit the fishing opportunities in this area only to the catching of pelagic species with which Norway lobster is not caught.\n(10)\nConsidering the recent developments in fisheries targeting boarfish in ICES subareas VI, VII and VIII and in order to ensure sustainable management of this stock, it is appropriate to provide for catch limits for this stock.\n(11)\nIt is necessary to establish the fishing effort ceilings for 2011 in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2166/2005, Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2007, Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 676/2007, Articles 11 and 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 and Articles 5 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009, while taking into account Council Regulation (EC) No 754/2009 of 27 July 2009 excluding certain groups of vessels from the fishing effort regime laid down in Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 (11).\n(12)\nA group of French vessels is excluded from the application of the fishing effort regime laid down in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 by virtue of Regulation (EC) 754/2009. On the basis of information provided by France in 2010, the exclusion of that group of vessels from the effort regime no longer constitutes a reduction of the administrative burden. Therefore one of the conditions for exclusion is no longer fulfilled. It is therefore appropriate to re-include that group of French vessels in the abovementioned fishing effort regime. Since the fishing management period established by Annex IIA to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 (12) ceases to apply on 31 January 2011, this re-inclusion should apply starting from 1 February 2011.\n(13)\nIt is necessary, following the advice from the ICES, to maintain and revise a system to manage sandeel in EU waters of ICES divisions IIa and IIIa and ICES subarea IV.\n(14)\nIn the light of the most recent scientific advice from the ICES and in accordance with the international commitments in the context of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Convention (NEAFC), it is necessary to limit the fishing effort on certain deep-sea species.\n(15)\nIn accordance with the procedure provided for in the agreements or protocols on fisheries relations with Norway (13), the Faroe Islands (14) and Greenland (15), the Union has held consultations on fishing rights with those partners. The consultations with the Faroe Islands have not been finalised and the arrangements for 2011 with that partner are expected to be concluded in early 2011. In order to avoid interruption of Union fishing activities whilst allowing for the necessary flexibility for the conclusion of those arrangements in early 2011, it is appropriate for the Union to establish the fishing opportunities for stocks subject to the agreement with the Faroe Islands on a provisional basis.\n(16)\nThe Union is a contracting party to several fisheries organisations and participates in other organisations as a cooperating non-party. Moreover, by virtue of the 2003 Act of Accession, fisheries agreements previously concluded by the Republic of Poland, such as the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock resources in the central Bering Sea, are as from the date of accession of Poland to the European Union managed by the Union. Those fisheries organisations have recommended the introduction for 2011 of a number of measures, including fishing opportunities for EU vessels. Those fishing opportunities should be implemented in the law of the Union.\n(17)\nAt its Annual Meeting in 2010, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) failed to reach consensus on the adoption of conservation measures for yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna and skipjack tuna. Nevertheless, the majority of Contracting Parties, including the Union, considered that the fishing opportunities for those three stocks should be regulated in order to ensure their sustainable management. It is therefore appropriate for the Union to adopt measures to that effect.\n(18)\nAt its Annual Meeting in 2010, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) adopted tables indicating the under-utilisation and over-utilisation of the fishing opportunities of the ICCAT Contracting Parties. In that context, ICCAT adopted a decision observing that, during the year 2009, the Union had under-exploited its quota for Northern and Southern swordfish, bigeye tuna and Northern albacore. In order to respect the adjustments to the Union quotas established by the ICCAT, it is necessary for the distribution of the fishing opportunities arising from this under-utilisation to be carried out on the basis of the respective contribution of each Member State towards the under-utilisation without modifying the distribution key established in this Regulation concerning the annual allocation of TACs. At the same meeting the recovery plan for bluefin tuna was amended. ICCAT further adopted recommendations on the conservation of bigeye thresher sharks, hammerhead sharks and oceanic whitetip sharks. In order to contribute to the conservation of fish stocks it is necessary to implement those measures in the law of the Union.\n(19)\nAt its Annual Meeting in 2010, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) revised the overall capacity of the fleets targeting tropical tunas between 2006-2008 as well as swordfish and albacore between 2007-2008. The IOTC also approved the implementation of fleet development plans. Furthermore, IOTC approved a Resolution on the conservation of thresher sharks (family Alopiidae) caught in association with fisheries in its area of competence.\n(20)\nDuring the Third International Meeting, held in May 2007, for the creation of a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) in the high seas of the South Pacific (SPRFMO), the participants adopted interim measures, including fishing opportunities, in order to regulate pelagic fishing activities as well as bottom fisheries in that area until the establishment of such RFMO. Those interim measures have been revised at the 8th International Consultations for the Establishment of the SPRFMO in November 2009 and are expected to be revised again at the forthcoming 2nd Preparatory Conference for the SPRFMO Commission in January 2011. According to the agreement reached by the participants, those interim measures are voluntary and are not legally binding under international law. It is nevertheless advisable, in the light of the related provisions of the United Nations Fish Stock Agreement, to implement those measures in the law of the Union.\n(21)\nAt its Annual Meeting in 2010, the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO) adopted catch limits for four fish stocks in the SEAFO Convention Area. It is necessary to implement those catch limits in the law of the Union.\n(22)\nIn accordance with Article 291 of the Treaty, the measures necessary for the fixing of the catch limits for certain short-lived stocks should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (16) for reasons of urgency.\n(23)\nCertain international measures which create or restrict fishing opportunities for the Union are adopted by the relevant RFMO at the end of the year and become applicable before the entry into force of this Regulation. It is therefore necessary for the provisions that implement such measures in the law of the Union to apply retroactively. In particular, since certain fishing opportunities in the CCAMLR Convention Area are laid down for a period of time starting from 1 December 2010, it is appropriate that the relevant provisions of this Regulation apply from that date. Such retroactive application would be without prejudice to the principle of legitimate expectations as CCAMLR members are forbidden to fish in the Convention Area without authorisation.\n(24)\nThe use of fishing opportunities set out in this Regulation is subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (17), and in particular to Articles 33 and 34 thereof concerning the recording of catches and fishing effort and the notification of data on the exhaustion of fishing opportunities. It is therefore necessary to specify the codes to be used by Member States when sending data to the Commission relating to landings of stocks subject to this Regulation.\n(25)\nIn order to avoid the interruption of fishing activities and to ensure the livelihood of the fishermen of the Union, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2011, except for the provisions concerning effort limits, which should apply from 1 February 2011, and specific provisions in particular regions, which should have a specific date of application as indicated in recital 23. For reasons of urgency, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication.\n(26)\nFishing opportunities should be used in full compliance with the applicable law of the Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nTITLE I\nSCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. This Regulation fixes the following fishing opportunities:\n(a)\nfor the year 2011, catch limits for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks;\n(b)\nfor the period from 1 February 2011 to 31 January 2012, certain effort limits;\n(c)\nfor the periods set out in Articles 20, 21 and 22 and in Annexes IE and V, fishing opportunities for certain stocks in the Convention Area of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR); and\n(d)\nfor the periods set out in Article 28, fishing opportunities for certain stocks in the Convention Area of the Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).\n2. This Regulation also fixes provisional fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks or groups of fish stocks which are the subject of bilateral fisheries consultations with the Faroe Islands. The definitive fishing opportunities shall be fixed by the Council on a proposal from the Commission.\n3. Certain fishing opportunities identified in Annex I remain unallocated and may not be fished by Member States until definitive fishing opportunities have been established in accordance with paragraph 2. Those fishing opportunities include additional fishing opportunities for mackerel resulting from uncaught quota in 2010.\nArticle 2\nScope\nIf not otherwise provided for, this Regulation shall apply to:\n(a)\nEU vessels; and\n(b)\nthird-country vessels in EU waters.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018EU vessel\u2019 means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State and registered in the Union;\n(b)\n\u2018third-country vessel\u2019 means a fishing vessel flying the flag of, and registered in, a third country;\n(c)\n\u2018EU waters\u2019 means waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of waters adjacent to the territories mentioned in Annex II to the Treaty;\n(d)\n\u2018total allowable catch\u2019 (TAC) means the quantity that can be taken and landed from each stock each year;\n(e)\n\u2018quota\u2019 means a proportion of the TAC allocated to the Union, a Member State or a third country;\n(f)\n\u2018international waters\u2019 means waters falling outside the sovereignty or jurisdiction of any State;\n(g)\n\u2018mesh size\u2019 means the mesh size as determined in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 517/2008 (18);\n(h)\n\u2018EU fishing fleet register\u2019 means the register set up by the Commission in accordance with Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;\n(i)\n\u2018fishing logbook\u2019 means the logbook referred to in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009;\nArticle 4\nFishing zones\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following zone definitions shall apply:\n(a)\nICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) zones are as defined in Regulation (EC) No 218/2009 (19);\n(b)\n\u2018Skagerrak\u2019 means the area bounded on the west by a line drawn from the Hanstholm lighthouse to the Lindesnes lighthouse and on the south by a line drawn from the Skagen lighthouse to the Tistlarna lighthouse and from this point to the nearest point on the Swedish coast;\n(c)\n\u2018Kattegat\u2019 means the area bounded on the north by a line drawn from the Skagen lighthouse to the Tistlarna lighthouse and from this point to the nearest point on the Swedish coast and on the south by a line drawn from Hasen\u00f8re to Gnibens Spids, from Korshage to Spodsbjerg and from Gilbjerg Hoved to Kullen;\n(d)\n\u2018VII (Porcupine Bank - Unit 16)\u2019 means the area bounded by rhumb lines sequentially joining the following positions:\n-\n53\u00b0 30\u2032 N 15\u00b0 00\u2032 W,\n-\n53\u00b0 30\u2032 N 11\u00b0 00\u2032 W,\n-\n51\u00b0 30\u2032 N 11\u00b0 00\u2032 W,\n-\n51\u00b0 30\u2032 N 13\u00b0 00\u2032 W,\n-\n51\u00b0 00\u2032 N 13\u00b0 00\u2032 W,\n-\n51\u00b0 00\u2032 N 15\u00b0 00\u2032 W,\n-\n53\u00b0 30\u2032 N 15\u00b0 00\u2032 W;\n(e)\n\u2018Gulf of C\u00e1diz\u2019 means the area of ICES division IXa east of longitude 7\u00b0 23\u2032 48\u2033 W;\n(f)\nCECAF (Eastern Central Atlantic or FAO major fishing zone 34) zones are as defined in Regulation (EC) No 216/2009 (20);\n(g)\nNAFO (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation) zones are as defined in Regulation (EC) No 217/2009 (21);\n(h)\nthe SEAFO (South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation) Convention Area is as defined in the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources in the South-East Atlantic Ocean (22);\n(i)\nthe ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) Convention Area is as defined in the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (23);\n(j)\nthe CCAMLR (Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) Convention Area is as defined in Regulation (EC) No 601/2004 (24);\n(k)\nthe IATTC (Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission) Convention Area is as defined in the Convention for the Strengthening of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission established by the 1949 Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Costa Rica (25);\n(l)\nthe IOTC (Indian Ocean Tuna Commission) Area is as defined in the Agreement for the establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (26);\n(m)\n\u2018SPRFMO (South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation) Convention Area\u2019 means the high seas area south of 10\u00b0 N, north of the CCAMLR Convention Area, east of the SIOFA Convention Area as defined in the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (27), and west of the areas of fisheries jurisdictions of South American States;\n(n)\nthe WCPFC (Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission) Convention Area is as defined in the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (28);\n(o)\n\u2018high seas of the Bering Sea\u2019 means the area of the high seas of the Bering Sea beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of the coastal States of the Bering Sea is measured.\nTITLE II\nFISHING OPPORTUNITIES FOR EU VESSELS\nCHAPTER I\nGeneral provisions\nArticle 5\nTACs and allocations\n1. The TACs for EU vessels in EU waters or in certain non-EU waters and the allocation of such TACs among Member States, and the conditions functionally linked thereto, where appropriate, are set out in Annex I.\n2. EU vessels are authorised to make catches, within the TACs set out in Annex I, in waters falling within the fisheries jurisdiction of the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland and Norway, and the fishing zone around Jan Mayen, subject to the conditions set out in Article 15 of and Annex III to this Regulation and in Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 (29) and its implementing provisions.\n3. The Commission shall fix TACs for capelin in Greenland waters of ICES subareas V and XIV available to the Union on the basis of the TAC and the allocation to the Union established by Greenland in accordance with the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand, and the Protocol thereto.\n4. In the light of scientific information collected during the first half of 2011, TACs set out in Annex I for the following stocks may be revised by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002:\n(a)\nsandeel in EU waters of ICES divisions IIa and IIIa and ICES subarea IV in accordance with Annex IID to this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe stock of Norway pout in EU waters of ICES divisions IIa and IIIa and ICES subarea IV and the stock of sprat in EU waters of ICES division IIa and ICES subarea IV.\nArticle 6\nSpecial provisions on certain TACs\n1. Certain TACs in Annex IA, identified by a footnote with a cross-reference to this Article, shall be determined by the Member State concerned, on the basis of data collected and assessed by that Member State, at a level that:\n(a)\nis consistent with the principles and rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular the principle of sustainable exploitation of the stock; and\n(b)\nshall, with as high probability as possible, result in the exploitation of the stock consistent with maximum sustainable yield from 2015 onwards.\n2. By 28 February 2011, the Member State concerned shall inform the Commission of the level adopted in accordance with paragraph 1 and of the measures it intends to take to comply with that provision. In the light of this information, and where the conditions set out in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 are met, the Commission may decide on emergency measures.\nArticle 7\nAdditional allocation for vessels participating in trials on fully documented fisheries\n1. For certain stocks listed in Annex IA and identified by a footnote with a cross-reference to this Article, a Member State may, under the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of this Article, grant to vessels participating in trials on fully documented fisheries additional allocation within an overall limit set out in Annex IA as a percentage of the quota allocated to that Member State.\n2. A Member State may grant additional allocation to vessels only in accordance with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe vessel makes use of a close circuit television cameras (CCTV), associated to a system of sensors that record all fishing and processing activities on board the vessel;\n(b)\nan amount of the additional allocation granted to an individual vessel that participates in fully documented fisheries shall be no more than 75 % of the discards predicted by that type of vessel, and in any case shall not represent more than a 30 % increase of the vessel\u2019s allocation;\n(c)\nall catches of the relevant stock by that vessel shall be counted against its allocation.\n3. Where a Member State detects that a vessel participating in trials on fully documented fisheries fails to comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of this Article, it shall immediately withdraw the additional allocation granted to the vessel concerned and exclude it from participation in these trials for the rest of the year 2011.\n4. A Member State intending to apply paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, shall, before any additional allocation is granted, submit to the Commission the following information:\n-\nthe list of vessels participating in the trials, and the specifications of the remote electronic monitoring equipment installed on board;\n-\nthe capacity, type and specification of gears used by those vessels;\n-\nthe estimated discard rates of those types of vessels; and\n-\nthe amount of catches of the stock subject to the relevant TAC made by those vessels in 2010.\nArticle 8\nProhibited species\n1. It shall be prohibited for EU vessels to fish for, to retain on board, to tranship or to land the following species:\n(a)\nbasking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) in all EU and non-EU waters;\n(b)\nangel shark (Squatina squatina) in all EU waters;\n(c)\ncommon skate (Dipturus batis) in EU waters of ICES division IIa and ICES subareas III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X;\n(d)\nundulate ray (Raja undulata) and white skate (Rostroraja alba) in EU waters of ICES subareas VI, VII, VIII, IX and X;\n(e)\nporbeagle (Lamna nasus) in international waters; and\n(f)\nguitarfishes (Rhinobatidae) in EU waters of ICES subareas I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XII.\n2. The species referred to in paragraph 1 shall be promptly released unharmed to the extent practicable.\nArticle 9\nSpecial provisions on allocations\n1. The allocation of fishing opportunities among Member States as set out in this Regulation shall be without prejudice to:\n(a)\nexchanges made pursuant to Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;\n(b)\nreallocations made pursuant to Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 or pursuant to Article 10(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008;\n(c)\nadditional landings allowed under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(d)\nquantities withheld in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(e)\ndeductions made pursuant to Articles 37, 105, 106 and 107 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\n2. Except where otherwise specified in Annex I to this Regulation, Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 shall apply to stocks subject to precautionary TAC and Article 3(2) and (3) and Article 4 of that Regulation shall apply to stocks subject to analytical TAC.\nArticle 10\nFishing effort limits\nFrom 1 February 2011 to 31 January 2012, the fishing effort measures laid down in:\n(a)\nAnnex IIA, shall apply for the management of certain stocks in the Kattegat, the Skagerrak, that part of ICES division IIIa not covered by the Skagerrak and the Kattegat, ICES subarea IV and ICES divisions VIa, VIIa and VIId and EU waters of ICES divisions IIa and Vb;\n(b)\nAnnex IIB, shall apply for the recovery of hake and Norway lobster in ICES divisions VIIIc and IXa, with the exception of the Gulf of C\u00e1diz;\n(c)\nAnnex IIC, shall apply for the management of the sole stock in ICES division VIIe.\nArticle 11\nCatch and effort limits for deep-sea fisheries\n1. Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 (30) shall apply to Greenland halibut. The catching, retaining on board, transhipping and landing of Greenland halibut shall be subject to the conditions referred to in that Article.\n2. Member States shall ensure that for 2011 the fishing effort levels, measured in kilowatt days absent from port, by vessels holding deep-sea fishing permits referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 do not exceed 65 % of the average annual fishing effort deployed by the vessels of the Member State concerned in 2003 on trips when deep-sea fishing permits were held or deep-sea species, as listed in Annexes I and II to that Regulation, were caught. This paragraph shall apply only to fishing trips on which more than 100 kg of deep-sea species, other than greater silver smelt, were caught.\nArticle 12\nConditions for landing catches and by-catches\nFish from stocks for which TACs are established shall be retained on board or landed only if:\n(a)\nthe catches have been taken by vessels of a Member State having a quota and that quota is not exhausted; or\n(b)\nthe catches consist of a share in a EU quota which has not been allocated by quota among Member States, and that EU quota has not been exhausted.\nArticle 13\nRestrictions on the use of certain fishing opportunities\n1. The fishing opportunities fixed in Annex I for tusk, cod, megrim, anglerfish, haddock, whiting, hake, blue ling, ling, Norway lobster, plaice, pollack, saithe, skates and rays, sole and spurdog in ICES subarea VII or relevant divisions thereof, shall be restricted by the prohibition to fish or retain onboard any such species during the period from 1 May to 31 July 2011 in the Porcupine Bank. The relevant Annex I entries are identified by cross-reference to this Article.\n2. For the purposes of this Article, the Porcupine Bank shall comprise the area bounded by rhumb lines sequentially joining the following positions:\nPoint\nLatitude\nLongitude\n1\n52\u00b0 27\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 19\u2032 W\n2\n52\u00b0 40\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 30\u2032 W\n3\n52\u00b0 47\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 39,600\u2032 W\n4\n52\u00b0 47\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 56\u2032 W\n5\n52\u00b0 13,5\u2032 N\n13\u00b0 53,830\u2032 W\n6\n51\u00b0 22\u2032 N\n14\u00b0 24\u2032 W\n7\n51\u00b0 22\u2032 N\n14\u00b0 03\u2032 W\n8\n52\u00b0 10\u2032 N\n13\u00b0 25\u2032 W\n9\n52\u00b0 32\u2032 N\n13\u00b0 07,500\u2032 W\n10\n52\u00b0 43\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 55\u2032 W\n11\n52\u00b0 43\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 43\u2032 W\n12\n52\u00b0 38,800\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 37\u2032 W\n13\n52\u00b0 27\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 23\u2032 W\n14\n52\u00b0 27\u2032 N\n12\u00b0 19\u2032 W\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, transit through the Porcupine Bank, carrying onboard the species referred to in that paragraph, shall be permitted in accordance with Article 50(3), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\nArticle 14\nData transmission\nWhen, pursuant to Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Member States send to the Commission data relating to landings of quantities of stocks caught, they shall use the stock codes set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nCHAPTER II\nFishing authorisation in third-country waters\nArticle 15\nFishing authorisations\n1. The maximum number of fishing authorisations for EU vessels fishing in waters of a third country is set out in Annex III.\n2. Where one Member State transfers quota to another Member State (swap) in the fishing areas set out in Annex III on the basis of Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, the transfer shall include an appropriate transfer of fishing authorisations and shall be notified to the Commission. However, the total number of fishing authorisations for each fishing area, as set out in Annex III, shall not be exceeded.\nCHAPTER III\nFishing opportunities in waters of regional fisheries management organisations\nSection 1\nICCAT Convention Area\nArticle 16\nFishing and farming and fattening capacity limitations for bluefin tuna\n1. The number of EU bait boats and trolling boats authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna between 8 kg/75 cm and 30 kg/115 cm in the Eastern Atlantic shall be limited as set out in point 1 of Annex IV.\n2. The number of EU coastal artisanal fishing vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna between 8 kg/75 cm and 30 kg/115 cm in the Mediterranean shall be limited as set out in point 2 of Annex IV.\n3. The number of EU vessels fishing for bluefin tuna in the Adriatic Sea for farming purposes authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna between 8 kg/75 cm and 30 kg/115 cm shall be limited as set out in point 3 of Annex IV.\n4. The number and total capacity in gross tonnage of fishing vessels authorised to fish for, retain on board, tranship, transport, or land bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean shall be limited as set out in point 4 of Annex IV.\n5. The number of traps engaged in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery shall be limited as set out in point 5 of Annex IV.\n6. The bluefin tuna farming capacity, the fattening capacity and the maximum input of wild caught bluefin tuna allocated to the farms in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean shall be limited as set out in point 6 of Annex IV.\nArticle 17\nAdditional conditions to the bluefin tuna quota allocated in Annex ID\nIn addition to the prohibition period provided for in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009, purse-seine fishing for bluefin tuna shall be prohibited in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean during the period from 15 April to 15 May 2011.\nArticle 18\nRecreational and sport fisheries\nMember States shall allocate a specific quota of bluefin tuna for recreational and sport fisheries from their quotas allocated in Annex ID.\nArticle 19\nSharks\n1. Retaining on board, transhipping or landing any part or whole carcass of bigeye thresher sharks (Alopias superciliosus) in any fishery shall be prohibited.\n2. It shall be prohibited to undertake a directed fishery for species of thresher sharks of the genus Alopias.\n3. Retaining on board, transhipping or landing any part or whole carcass of hammerhead sharks of the family Sphyrnidae (except for the Sphyrna tiburo) in association with fisheries in the ICCAT Convention Area shall be prohibited.\n4. Retaining on board, transhipping or landing any part or whole carcass of oceanic whitetip sharks (Carcharhinus longimanus) taken in any fishery shall be prohibited.\nSection 2\nCCAMLR Convention Area\nArticle 20\nProhibitions and catch limitations\n1. Direct fishing of the species set out in Annex V, Part A, shall be prohibited in the zones and during the periods set out in that Annex.\n2. For new and exploratory fisheries, the TACs and by-catch limits set out in Annex V, Part B, shall apply in the subareas set out in that Part.\nArticle 21\nExploratory fisheries\n1. Only those Member States which are members of the CCAMLR Commission may participate in longline exploratory fisheries for Dissostichus spp. in FAO Subareas 88.1 and 88.2 as well as in Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2 outside areas of national jurisdiction during the 2011 fishing season. If such a Member State intends to participate in such fisheries, it shall notify the CCAMLR Secretariat in accordance with Articles 7 and 7a of Regulation (EC) No 601/2004 and in any case no later than 24 July 2011.\n2. With regard to FAO Subareas 88.1 and 88.2 as well as Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2 TACs and by-catch limits per subarea and division, and their distribution among Small Scale Research Units (SSRUs) within each of them, shall be as set out in Annex V, Part B. Fishing in any SSRU shall cease when the reported catch reaches the specified TAC, and that SSRU shall be closed to fishing for the remainder of the season.\n3. Fishing shall take place over as large a geographical and bathymetric range as possible to obtain the information necessary to determine fishery potential and to avoid over-concentration of catch and fishing effort. However, fishing in FAO Subareas 88.1 and 88.2 as well as in Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2 shall be prohibited in depths less than 550 m.\nArticle 22\nKrill fishery during the 2011/2012 fishing season\n1. Only those Member States which are members of the CCAMLR Commission may fish for krill (Euphausia superba) in the CCAMLR Convention Area during the 2011/2012 fishing season. If such a Member State intends to fish for krill in the CCAMLR Convention Area, it shall notify the CCAMLR Secretariat, in accordance with Article 5a of Regulation (EC) No 601/2004, and the Commission, and in any case no later than 1 June 2011:\n(a)\nof its intention to fish for krill, using the format laid down in Annex V, Part C;\n(b)\nof the net configuration form, using the format laid down in Annex V, Part D.\n2. The notification referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall include the information provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 601/2004 for each vessel to be authorised by the Member State to participate in the krill fishery.\n3. Member States intending to fish for krill in the CCAMLR Convention Area shall only notify authorised vessels flying their flag at the time of the notification.\n4. Member States shall be entitled to authorise participation in a krill fishery by a vessel other than those notified to CCAMLR Secretariat in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article, if an authorised vessel is prevented from participation due to legitimate operational reasons or force majeure. In such circumstances the Member State concerned shall immediately inform the CCAMLR Secretariat and the Commission, providing:\n(a)\nfull details of the intended replacement vessel(s), including information provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 601/2004;\n(b)\na comprehensive account of the reasons justifying the replacement and any relevant supporting evidence or references.\n5. Member States shall not authorise a vessel on either of the CCAMLR IUU Vessel Lists to participate in krill fisheries.\nSection 3\nIOTC Area\nArticle 23\nLimitation of fishing capacity of vessels fishing in the IOTC Area\n1. The maximum number of EU vessels fishing for tropical tunas in the IOTC Area and the corresponding capacity in gross tonnage shall be as set out in point 1 of Annex VI.\n2. The maximum number of EU vessels fishing for swordfish (Xiphias gladius) and albacore (Thunnus alalunga) in the IOTC Area and the corresponding capacity in gross tonnage shall be as set out in point 2 of Annex VI.\n3. Member States may re-allocate vessels assigned to one of the two fisheries referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 to the other fishery, provided that they can demonstrate to the Commission that this change does not lead to an increase of fishing effort on the fish stocks involved.\n4. Member States shall ensure that, where there is a proposed transfer of capacity to their fleet, vessels to be transferred are on the IOTC Record of Vessels or on the record of vessels of other tuna regional fisheries organisations. No vessels featuring on the list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities (IUU vessels) of any RFMO may be transferred.\n5. In order to take into account the implementation of the development plans submitted to the IOTC, Member States may only increase their fishing capacity beyond the ceilings referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, within the limits set out in those plans.\nArticle 24\nSharks\n1. Retaining on board, transhipping or landing any part or whole carcass of thresher sharks of all the species of the family Alopiidae in any fishery shall be prohibited.\n2. The species referred to in paragraph 1 shall be promptly released unharmed to the extent practicable.\nSection 4\nSPRFMO Convention Area\nArticle 25\nPelagic fisheries - capacity limitation\nMember States having actively exercised pelagic fisheries activities in the SPRFMO Convention Area in 2007, 2008, or 2009 shall limit the total level of gross tonnage of vessels flying their flag and fishing for pelagic stocks in 2011 to the levels of total 78 610 gross tonnage in that Area in such manner that sustainable exploitation of the pelagic fishery resources in South Pacific is ensured.\nArticle 26\nPelagic fisheries - TACs\n1. Only Member States having actively exercised pelagic fisheries activities in the SPRFMO Convention Area in the years 2007, 2008 or 2009, as referred to in Article 25, may fish for pelagic stocks in that Area in accordance with the TACs set out in Annex IJ.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission on a monthly basis of the names and characteristics, including gross tonnage, of their vessels engaged in the fishery referred to in this Article.\n3. For the purpose of monitoring the fishery referred to in this Article, Member States shall send to the Commission, in order to communicate them to the SPRFMO Interim Secretariat, records from vessel monitoring systems (VMS), monthly catch reports and, where available, port calls at the latest by the fifteenth day of the following month.\nArticle 27\nBottom fisheries\nThe Member States referred to in Article 25 shall limit bottom fishing effort or catch in the SPRFMO Convention Area to the average annual levels over the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2006 in terms of the number of fishing vessels and other parameters that reflect the level of catch, fishing effort and fishing capacity and to only those parts of the SPRFMO Convention Area where bottom fisheries has occurred during the previous fishing season.\nSection 5\nIATTC Convention Area\nArticle 28\nPurse-seine fisheries\n1. The fishing by purse-seine vessels for yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) and skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) shall be prohibited:\n(a)\neither from 29 July to 28 September 2011 or from 18 November 2011 to 18 January 2012 in the area defined by the following limits:\n-\nthe Pacific coastlines of the Americas,\n-\nlongitude 150\u00b0 W,\n-\nlatitude 40\u00b0 N,\n-\nlatitude 40\u00b0 S;\n(b)\nfrom 29 September to 29 October 2011 in the area defined by the following limits:\n-\nlongitude 96\u00b0 W,\n-\nlongitude 110\u00b0 W,\n-\nlatitude 4\u00b0 N,\n-\nlatitude 3\u00b0 S.\n2. The Member States concerned shall notify the Commission of the selected period of closure referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 before 1 April 2011. All the purse-seine vessels of the Member States concerned shall stop purse-seine fishing in the areas defined in paragraph 1 during the period selected.\n3. Purse-seine vessels fishing for tuna in the IATTC Convention Area shall retain on board and then land all yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack tuna caught, except fish considered unfit for human consumption for reasons other than size. A single exception shall be the final set of a trip when there may be insufficient well space remaining to accommodate all the tuna caught in that set.\nSection 6\nSEAFO Convention Area\nArticle 29\nMeasures for the protection of deep water sharks\nDirected fishing for the following deep water sharks in the SEAFO Convention Area shall be prohibited:\n-\nskates (Rajidae),\n-\nspiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias),\n-\nblurred smooth lanternshark (Etmopterus bigelowi),\n-\nshorttail lanternshark (Etmopterus brachyurus),\n-\ngreat lanternshark (Etmopterus princeps),\n-\nsmooth lanternshark (Etmopterus pusillus),\n-\nghost catshark (Apristurus manis),\n-\nvelvet dogfish (Scymnodon squamulosus),\n-\nand deep-sea sharks of super-order Selachimorpha.\nSection 7\nWCPFC Convention Area\nArticle 30\nFishing effort limitations for bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, skipjack tuna and south Pacific albacore\nMember States shall ensure that the total fishing effort for bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) and south Pacific albacore (Thunnus alalunga) in the WCPFC Convention Area is limited to the fishing effort provided for in fisheries partnership agreements between the Union and coastal States in the region.\nArticle 31\nClosed area for FAD fishing\n1. In the part of the WCPFC Convention Area located between 20\u00b0 N and 20\u00b0 S, fishing activities of purse-seine vessels making use of fish aggregating devices (FADs) shall be prohibited between 00:00 hours on 1 July 2011 and 24:00 hours on 30 September 2011. During that period, a purse-seine vessel may only engage in fishing operations within that part of the WCPFC Convention Area if it carries onboard an observer to monitor that at no time does the vessel:\n(a)\ndeploy or service a FAD or associated electronic device;\n(b)\nfish on schools in association with FADs.\n2. All purse-seine vessels fishing in the part of the WCPFC Convention Area referred to in paragraph 1 shall retain onboard and land or tranship all bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna caught.\n3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply in the following cases:\n(a)\nin the final set of a trip, if the vessel has insufficient well space left to accommodate all fish;\n(b)\nwhere the fish is unfit for human consumption for reasons other than those connected with size; or\n(c)\nwhen a serious malfunction of freezer equipment occurs.\nArticle 32\nClosed areas for purse-seine fisheries\nThe fishing by purse-seine vessels for bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna shall be prohibited in the following high seas areas:\n(a)\nthe international waters enclosed by the boundaries of the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of Indonesia, Palau, Micronesia and Papua New Guinea;\n(b)\nthe international waters enclosed by the boundaries of the EEZ of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Fiji, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea.\nArticle 33\nLimitations to the number of EU vessels authorised to fish swordfish\nThe maximum number of EU vessels authorised to fish for swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in areas south of 20\u00b0 S of the WCPFC Convention Area shall be as indicated in Annex VII.\nSection 8\nBering Sea\nArticle 34\nProhibition on fishing in the high seas of the Bering Sea\nFishing for pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) in the high seas of the Bering Sea shall be prohibited.\nTITLE III\nFISHING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIRD-COUNTRY VESSELS IN EU WATERS\nArticle 35\nTACs\nFishing vessels flying the flag of Norway and fishing vessels registered in the Faroe Islands shall be authorised to make catches in EU waters within the TACs set out in Annex I to this Regulation and subject to the conditions provided for in this Title and in Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008.\nArticle 36\nFishing authorisations\n1. The maximum number of fishing authorisations for third-country vessels fishing in EU waters is laid down in Annex VIII.\n2. Fish from stocks for which TACs are fixed shall not be retained on board or landed unless the catches have been taken by third-country vessels having a quota and that quota is not exhausted.\nArticle 37\nProhibited species\n1. It shall be prohibited for third-country vessels to fish for, to retain on board, to tranship or to land the following species:\n(a)\nbasking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) in all EU waters;\n(b)\nangel shark (Squatina squatina) in all EU waters;\n(c)\ncommon skate (Dipturus batis) in EU waters of ICES division IIa and ICES subareas III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X;\n(d)\nundulate ray (Raja undulata) and white skate (Rostroraja alba) in EU waters of ICES subareas VI, VII, VIII, IX and X; and\n(e)\nguitarfishes (Rhinobatidae) in EU waters of ICES subareas I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XII.\n2. The species referred to in paragraph 1 shall be promptly released unharmed to the extent practicable.\nTITLE IV\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 38\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 754/2009\nPoint (h) of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 754/2009 is deleted.\nArticle 39\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nHowever, Article 38 shall apply from 1 February 2011.\nWhere the fishing opportunities for the CCAMLR Convention Area are set for periods starting before 1 January 2011, Articles 20, 21 and 22 and Annexes IE and V shall apply with effect from the beginning of the respective periods of application of those fishing opportunities.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Bruxelles, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["88", "44", "91", "11", "55", "17", "35", "3", "12", "54", "95", "51", "82", "62", "68", "76", "69", "98", "9", "71", "6", "53", "38", "64", "8", "61", "63", "84", "65", "14", "No Label", "13", "15", "58", "67"], "gold": ["13", "15", "58", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 711/2011\nof 20 July 2011\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["42", "13", "78", "66", "94", "8", "54", "20", "18", "61", "50", "76", "0", "27", "10", "57", "19", "98", "34", "3", "82", "15", "74", "31", "81", "14", "95", "43", "4", "56", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1163/2010\nof 9 December 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Agneau du P\u00e9rigord (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Agneau du P\u00e9rigord\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2010.", "references": ["28", "10", "4", "50", "14", "82", "55", "79", "30", "44", "66", "73", "85", "60", "93", "3", "36", "71", "23", "47", "83", "29", "61", "17", "31", "5", "76", "89", "40", "95", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 685/2012\nof 24 July 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for blue ling in EU waters and international waters of Vb, VI, VII by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["18", "14", "8", "50", "63", "29", "65", "41", "53", "95", "83", "48", "51", "16", "33", "34", "26", "43", "2", "70", "60", "77", "76", "74", "0", "69", "89", "81", "86", "17", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 July 2010\nauthorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation\n(2010/405/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 329(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the requests made by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, Malta, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, Romania and the Republic of Slovenia,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice in which the free movement of persons is ensured. For the progressive establishment of such an area, the Union is to adopt measures relating to judicial cooperation in civil matters with cross-border implications, particularly when necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, those measures are to include promoting the compatibility of the rules applicable in the Member States concerning conflict of laws, including measures concerning family law with cross-border implications.\n(3)\nOn 17 July 2006, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the proposed Regulation\u2019).\n(4)\nAt its meeting on 5 and 6 June 2008 the Council adopted political guidelines which recorded that there was no unanimity to go ahead with the proposed Regulation and insurmountable difficulties existed, making unanimity impossible at the time and in the foreseeable future. It established that the objectives of the proposed Regulation could not be attained within a reasonable period by applying the relevant provisions of the Treaties.\n(5)\nIn these circumstances, Greece, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Hungary, Austria, Romania and Slovenia addressed a request to the Commission by letters dated 28 July 2008 indicating that they intended to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves in the area of applicable law in matrimonial matters and that the Commission should submit a proposal to the Council to that end. Bulgaria addressed an identical request to the Commission by letter dated 12 August 2008. France joined the request by a letter dated 12 January 2009, Germany by a letter dated 15 April 2010, Belgium by a letter dated 22 April 2010, Latvia by a letter dated 17 May 2010, Malta by a letter dated 31 May 2010 and Portugal during the Council meeting of 4 June 2010. On 3 March 2010, Greece withdrew its request. In total, fourteen Member States have requested enhanced cooperation.\n(6)\nThe enhanced cooperation should provide a clear and comprehensive legal framework in the area of divorce and legal separation in the participating Member States and ensure adequate solutions for citizens in terms of legal certainty, predictability and flexibility and prevent a \u2018rush to court\u2019.\n(7)\nThe conditions laid down in Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union and in Articles 326 and 329 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are fulfilled.\n(8)\nThe area of the enhanced cooperation, namely the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, is identified by Article 81(2)(c) and Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as one of the areas covered by the Treaties.\n(9)\nThe requirement of last resort in Article 20(2) of the Treaty on European Union is fulfilled in that the Council established in June 2008 that the objectives of the proposed Regulation cannot be attained within a reasonable period by the Union as a whole.\n(10)\nEnhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation aims to develop judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications, based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments, and to ensure the compatibility of the rules applicable in the Member States concerning conflict of laws. Thus, it furthers the objectives of the Union, protects its interests and reinforces its integration process as required by Article 20(1) of the Treaty on European Union.\n(11)\nEnhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation complies with the Treaties and Union law, and it does not undermine the internal market or economic, social and territorial cohesion. It does not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between Member States and does not distort competition between them.\n(12)\nEnhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation respects the competences, rights and obligations of those Member States that do not participate in it. The common conflict-of-law rules in the participating Member States do not affect the rules of the non-participating Member States. The courts of the non-participating Member States continue to apply their existing domestic conflict-of-law rules to determine the law applicable to divorce or legal separation.\n(13)\nIn particular, enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation complies with Union law on judicial cooperation in civil matters, in that enhanced cooperation does not affect any pre-existing acquis.\n(14)\nThis Decision respects the rights, principles and freedoms recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Article 21 thereof.\n(15)\nEnhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation is open at any time to all Member States, in accordance with Article 328 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, Malta, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, Romania and the Republic of Slovenia are hereby authorised to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation by applying the relevant provisions of the Treaties.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2010.", "references": ["41", "5", "25", "36", "10", "31", "88", "19", "95", "86", "91", "55", "82", "78", "58", "51", "52", "12", "21", "45", "99", "30", "67", "94", "37", "98", "34", "46", "59", "97", "No Label", "4", "9", "13"], "gold": ["4", "9", "13"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 701/2010\nof 4 August 2010\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (PESCA e Nettarina di Romagna (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and in accordance with Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018PESCA e Nettarina di Romagna\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 134/98 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 August 2010.", "references": ["21", "81", "13", "18", "50", "72", "99", "88", "34", "80", "58", "51", "78", "56", "93", "19", "47", "20", "4", "69", "94", "28", "85", "33", "38", "15", "60", "14", "40", "44", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 61/2011\nof 24 January 2011\namending Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 113(1)(a) and 121(h) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 (2) defines the physical and chemical characteristics of olive oils and olive-residue oils and the methods of analysis of those characteristics. Those methods and the limit values for the characteristics of oils need to be updated on the basis of the opinion of chemical experts and in line with the work carried out within the International Olive Council.\n(2)\nIn particular, since the chemical experts have concluded that the content of fatty acid ethyl esters (FAEEs) and fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) is a useful parameter of quality for the extra virgin olive oils, it is appropriate to include limit values for those esters as well as a method for the determination of their content.\n(3)\nIn order to allow a period of adjustment to the new standards, to give time for introducing the means of applying them and to avoid disturbance to commercial transactions, the amendments made by this Regulation should apply as from 1 April 2011. For the same reasons, provision should be made for olive oil and olive-residue oils that are legally manufactured and labelled in the Union or legally imported into the Union and released for free circulation before that date to be marketed until all stocks are used up.\n(4)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2568/91 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EEC) No 2568/91 is amended as follows:\n1)\nIn Article 2(1), the following indent is added:\n\u2018-\nfor the determination of the content of waxes, fatty acid methyl esters and fatty acid ethyl esters by capillary gas chromatography, the method set out in Annex XX\u2019\n2)\nIn the summary of Annexes, the following is added:\n\u2018Annex XX:\nMethod for the determination of the content of waxes, fatty acid methyl esters and fatty acid ethyl esters by capillary gas chromatography\u2019.\n3)\nAnnex I is replaced by the text in Annex I to this Regulation.\n4)\nAnnex XX is added, as set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nProducts which have been legally manufactured and labelled in the Union or legally imported into the Union and released for free circulation before 1 April 2011 may be marketed until all stocks are used up.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 January 2011.", "references": ["35", "22", "60", "42", "51", "19", "46", "59", "20", "13", "82", "48", "37", "78", "79", "54", "31", "88", "93", "98", "89", "63", "14", "47", "66", "73", "27", "12", "3", "32", "No Label", "24", "25", "61", "70", "77"], "gold": ["24", "25", "61", "70", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1223/2011\nof 28 November 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1688/2005 as regards sampling of flocks of origin of eggs and the microbiological examination of such samples and samples of certain meat intended for Finland and Sweden\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (1), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 9 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business operators. That Regulation provides special guarantees for food of animal origin intended for the Finnish and Swedish markets. Accordingly, food business operators intending to place eggs on the market in those Member States are to comply with certain rules in respect of Salmonella.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1688/2005 of 14 October 2005 implementing Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards special guarantees concerning Salmonella for consignments to Finland and Sweden of certain meat and eggs (2) lays down rules on the sampling of flocks of origin of eggs intended for Finland and Sweden. It also lays down rules on the microbiological methods for the examination of those samples as well as samples of certain meat intended for those two Member States from bovine and porcine animals and from poultry.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the control of Salmonella and other specified food-borne zoonotic agents (3) lays down rules to ensure that effective measures are taken to control Salmonella and other zoontic agents. Those measures include minimum sampling requirements in all flocks of laying hens within the framework of national control programmes for Salmonella.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 517/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a Union target for the reduction of the prevalence of certain Salmonella serotypes in laying hens of Gallus gallus and amending Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 and Regulation (EU) No 200/2010 (4) lays down rules concerning a testing scheme to verify progress on the achievement of the Union target to reduce the prevalence of those serotypes in flocks of laying hens.\n(5)\nThe requirements laid down in Regulations (EC) No 2160/2003 and (EU) No 517/2011 apply to all flocks of laying hens in the Union. Accordingly, in the interests of simplification of Union legislation and to avoid the duplication of sampling, the sampling rules laid down in Regulations (EC) No 2160/2003, (EC) No 1688/2005 and (EU) No 517/2011 should be harmonised.\n(6)\nIn particular, the sampling rules applicable to flocks set out in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1688/2005 should be replaced by the corresponding rules laid down in Regulations (EC) No 2160/2003 and (EU) No 517/2011. As the rules laid down in those two Regulations are more stringent, the special guarantees to Finland and Sweden are not jeopardised by such amendment. Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1688/2005 should therefore be deleted.\n(7)\nIn addition, the International Organization for Standardization adopted a new standard specific for the detection of Salmonella spp. in animal faeces and in environmental samples from the primary production stage, in particular EN/ISO standard 6579-2002/Amd1:2007 Annex D: Detection of Salmonella spp. in animal faeces and in environmental samples from the primary production stage. That standard should be used for samples taken in flocks of origin of eggs in the Union. Accordingly, the sampling rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1688/2005 should be amended to refer to that standard.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 1688/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1688/2005 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticles 4 and 5 are replaced by the following:\n\"Article 4\nSampling of the flocks of origin of eggs\nThe sampling of flocks of origin of eggs intended for Finland and Sweden and subject to a microbiological test as provided for in Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 shall be carried out in accordance with:\n(a)\nthe minimum sampling requirements for laying flocks laid down in the table set out in point 1 of part B of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003;\n(b)\nthe requirements for monitoring in laying flocks set out in point 2 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 517/2011.\nArticle 5\nMicrobiological methods for the examination of the samples\n1. Microbiological testing for Salmonella of the samples taken in accordance with Articles 1 to 4 shall be carried out in accordance with the methods described in the following documents:\n(a)\nin case of samples of meat as referred to in Articles 1, 2 and 3:\n(i)\nEN/ISO 6579: Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs - Horizontal method for the detection of Salmonella spp;\n(ii)\nNMKL (Nordic Committee on Food Analysis) method No 71: Salmonella. Detection in food; or\n(iii)\nmethods validated for meat against the methods referred to in (i) and (ii) or other internationally accepted protocols, provided that they are:\n-\nused on meat from bovine and porcine animals and from poultry, and\n-\ncertified by a third party in accordance with the protocol set out in standard EN/ISO 16140 Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs - Protocol for the validation of alternative methods (EN/ISO 16140).\n(b)\nin case of samples of flocks as referred to in Article 4: EN/ISO 6579-2002/Amd1:2007 Annex D: Detection of Salmonella spp. in animal faeces and in environmental samples from the primary production stage.\n2. Where the results of the microbiological testing referred to paragraph 1(a) are contested between Member States, the most recent edition of EN/ISO 6579 shall be regarded as the reference method.\"\n(2)\nAnnex III is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 November 2011.", "references": ["63", "16", "30", "71", "52", "94", "85", "46", "37", "19", "1", "14", "56", "2", "78", "53", "87", "54", "61", "10", "26", "28", "75", "93", "47", "31", "98", "90", "34", "95", "No Label", "22", "38", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "38", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1234/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (Single CMO Regulation) as regards the aid granted in the framework of the German Alcohol Monopoly\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 42 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe specific rules on the aid that Germany may grant in the framework of the German Alcohol Monopoly (\u2018the Monopoly\u2019) as provided for in Article 182(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (3) will expire on 31 December 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the report submitted by the Commission pursuant to Article 184(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the importance of the Monopoly has decreased in recent years. Between 2001 and 2008, about 70 agricultural bonded distilleries (landwirtschaftliche Verschlussbrennereien) left the Monopoly. The volumes sold by the Monopoly have fallen since 2003 and the budget decreased from EUR 110 million in 2003 to EUR 80 million in 2008. Some distilleries have thus already made efforts to prepare for their entry into the free market by creating cooperatives, investing in less energy-consuming equipment to reduce production costs and increasingly marketing their alcohol directly. However, more time is needed to facilitate this adaptation process and to enable distillers to survive on the free market. An extension of several more years is deemed necessary to complete the process of abolishing the Monopoly, as well as the aid, and to allow for its definitive phasing-out.\n(3)\nIn some parts of Germany, alcohol distilleries are traditionally linked to small and medium-sized farms and play an important role for the farms to continue their activities by providing an additional income to farmers and securing employment in rural areas. Agricultural bonded distilleries processing mainly cereals and potatoes should therefore continue to be able to receive aid through the Monopoly until 31 December 2013. By that date, all bonded distilleries should have entered the free market. This deadline also coincides with the beginning of the new programming period for rural development 2014-2020, meaning, for Germany, the possibility of transferring parts of the funds used for the Monopoly into its rural development programme.\n(4)\nThe small-scale flat-rate distilleries (Abfindungsbrennereien), distillery users (Stoffbesitzer) and fruit cooperative distilleries (Obstgemeinschaftsbrennereien) contribute in particular to the preservation of traditional landscapes and biodiversity by helping to preserve orchards, which supply distillers with raw material. Taking this into account, as well as the fact that the production of those distilleries is local and very limited, they should continue to be able to benefit from the aid granted under the Monopoly for a final period until 31 December 2017. By this date, the Monopoly is to be abolished. In order to ensure that this aid is indeed in the course of being phased out, Germany should present, on a yearly basis, annual phasing-out plans, as from 2013.\n(5)\nThe production of ethyl alcohol in the framework of the Monopoly is limited and corresponds at present to less than 10 % of the total production of ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin in Germany. Since, in particular, all bonded distilleries will have entered the free market by 31 December 2013, that percentage will decrease considerably after that date.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure continuity in the granting of the aid, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2011.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1234/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 182 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The derogation contained in the second paragraph of Article 180 of this Regulation shall apply to aid payments granted by Germany in the existing national framework of the German Alcohol Monopoly (\u201cthe Monopoly\u201d) for products marketed after further transformation by the Monopoly as ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). That derogation shall operate only until 31 December 2017, shall be without prejudice to the application of Article 108(1) and the first sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU and shall be conditional upon compliance with the following provisions:\n(a)\nthe total production of ethyl alcohol under the Monopoly benefiting from the aid shall gradually decrease from the maximum of 600 000 hl in 2011 to 420 000 hl in 2012 and to 240 000 hl in 2013 and may amount to a maximum of 60 000 hl per year from 1 January 2014 until 31 December 2017, on which date the Monopoly shall cease to exist;\n(b)\nthe production by agricultural bonded distilleries benefiting from the aid shall gradually decrease from 540 000 hl in 2011 to 360 000 hl in 2012 and to 180 000 hl in 2013. By 31 December 2013, all agricultural bonded distilleries shall leave the Monopoly. Upon leaving the Monopoly, each agricultural bonded distillery shall be allowed to receive a compensatory aid of EUR 257,50 per hl of nominal distilling rights within the meaning of the applicable German legislation. This compensatory aid may be granted no later than 31 December 2013. It may, however, be paid in several instalments, of which the last shall be no later than 31 December 2017;\n(c)\nthe small-scale flat-rate distilleries, distillery users and fruit cooperative distilleries may benefit from the aid granted by the Monopoly until 31 December 2017, on condition that the production benefiting from the aid does not exceed 60 000 hl per year;\n(d)\nthe total amount of aid paid from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2013 shall not exceed EUR 269,9 million and the total amount of aid paid from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2017 shall not exceed EUR 268 million; and\n(e)\nbefore 30 June each year, Germany shall submit a report to the Commission on the functioning of the Monopoly and the aid granted in the framework thereof in the previous year. The Commission shall forward that report to the European Parliament and the Council. Moreover, the annual reports to be submitted in the years 2013 to 2016 shall include an annual phasing-out plan for the following year concerning the small-scale flat-rate distilleries, distillery users and fruit cooperative distilleries.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["9", "37", "74", "38", "71", "23", "0", "83", "43", "64", "75", "68", "40", "70", "65", "2", "58", "53", "31", "16", "85", "86", "3", "56", "87", "7", "82", "80", "62", "67", "No Label", "4", "15", "48", "61", "73", "78", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "15", "48", "61", "73", "78", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 9 November 2011\non a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria in 2011\n(notified under document C(2011) 7993)\n(Only the Bulgarian text is authentic)\n(2011/730/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 14 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFoot-and-mouth disease is a highly contagious viral disease in wild and domestic cloven-hoofed animals with a severe impact on the profitability of livestock farming causing disturbance to trade within the Union and export to third countries.\n(2)\nIn the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, there is a risk that the disease agent spreads to other holdings keeping animals of susceptible species within the affected Member State, but also to other Member States and to third countries through movements of live susceptible animals or their products.\n(3)\nCouncil Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC and Decisions 89/531/EEC and 91/665/EEC and amending Directive 92/46/EEC (2) sets out measures which in the event of an outbreak are to be implemented by Member States as a matter of urgency to prevent further spread of the virus.\n(4)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. Pursuant to Article 14(2) of that Decision, Member States shall obtain a financial contribution towards the costs of certain measures to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease.\n(5)\nArticle 14(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC lays down rules on the percentage of the costs incurred by the Member State that may be covered by the financial contribution from the Union.\n(6)\nThe payment of a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease is subject to the rules laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (3).\n(7)\nOutbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in Bulgaria in the first six months of 2011. Bulgaria took measures in accordance with Directive 2003/85/EC to combat those outbreaks.\n(8)\nThe authorities of Bulgaria were able to demonstrate through reports provided in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and continuous submission of information on the development of the disease situation that they have efficiently implemented the control measures provided for in Directive 2003/85/EC.\n(9)\nThe authorities of Bulgaria have therefore fulfilled their technical and administrative obligations with regard to the measures provided for in Article 14(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFinancial contribution from the Union to Bulgaria\n1. A financial contribution from the Union shall be granted to Bulgaria towards the costs incurred by this Member State in taking measures pursuant to Article 14(2) and (4) of Decision 2009/470/EC, to combat foot-and-mouth in Bulgaria in the first six months of 2011.\n2. The financial contribution from the Union shall be equal to 60 % (sixty percent) of the total eligible expenditure.\n3. The amount of the financial contribution mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be fixed in a subsequent decision to be adopted in accordance with the procedure established in Article 40(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC.\nArticle 2\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2011.", "references": ["10", "17", "45", "77", "13", "58", "67", "19", "43", "36", "84", "0", "57", "46", "9", "88", "69", "28", "16", "80", "42", "98", "23", "12", "78", "7", "6", "44", "38", "87", "No Label", "4", "15", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "15", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 1 October 2010\nappointing one Spanish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/599/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of mandate of Mr Gabriel AMER AMER,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as alternate member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nSr. D. Jordi BAYONA LLOPIS\nDirector General de Acci\u00f3n Exterior y Relaciones con la Uni\u00f3n Europea\nGobierno de las Illes Balears\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 1 October 2010.", "references": ["66", "69", "54", "2", "22", "19", "47", "78", "48", "58", "73", "90", "30", "61", "60", "32", "34", "85", "42", "0", "40", "12", "94", "14", "76", "50", "62", "21", "8", "75", "No Label", "7", "52", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "52", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1197/2010\nof 14 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in international waters of I and IIb by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["89", "25", "75", "44", "5", "40", "53", "83", "82", "69", "15", "61", "72", "62", "99", "77", "87", "23", "70", "34", "24", "68", "3", "21", "29", "88", "66", "2", "8", "98", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 780/2012\nof 28 August 2012\nproviding for allocation coefficients for the years 2012 to 2017 for the Union contribution towards the aid referred to in Article 103a of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for producer groups in the fruit and vegetables sector in respect of recognition plans notified by 1 July 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetable sectors (2), and in particular Article 47(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 provides for a ceiling for the expenditure to be financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (\u2018the Union contribution\u2019) in relation to the aid referred to in Article 103a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and sets up a notification system, under which the Member States inform the Commission of the financial implications of provisionally accepted recognition plans.\n(2)\nThe second subparagraph of Article 47(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 requires the Commission to set allocation coefficients on the basis of notifications made by the Member State in accordance with Article 38(4) of that Implementing Regulation and to establish the total available Union contribution per Member State per year.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the information notified by Member States by 1 July 2012 in accordance with Article 38(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, it appears that, for the years 2012 and 2013, the total amount of the Union contribution claimed has exceeded the maximum amount laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 47(4) of that Implementing Regulation and that, for the years 2014 to 2017, the total amount claimed has not reached that maximum amount. Accordingly, an allocation coefficient lower than 100 % has to be set for the years 2012 and 2013 and an allocation coefficient of 100 % for the years 2014 to 2017.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure the efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nOn the basis of the notifications made by Member States by 1 July 2012 in accordance with Article 38(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, the allocation coefficients and the resulting total available Union contribution per Member State for the years 2012 to 2017 shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 August 2012.", "references": ["95", "41", "62", "79", "27", "2", "77", "15", "81", "58", "11", "84", "42", "71", "24", "0", "43", "64", "53", "94", "38", "17", "54", "16", "49", "19", "37", "44", "20", "3", "No Label", "10", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 493/2012\nof 11 June 2012\nlaying down, pursuant to Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, detailed rules regarding the calculation of recycling efficiencies of the recycling processes of waste batteries and accumulators\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (1), and in particular Article 12(6)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRecycling processes which, as part of a sequence or as standalone processes, recycle waste lead-acid, nickel-cadmium and other batteries and accumulators should achieve the minimum recycling efficiencies set out in Annex III, Part B to Directive 2006/66/EC.\n(2)\nDetailed rules supplementing Annex III, Part B to Directive 2006/66/EC should be laid down for calculating recycling efficiencies.\n(3)\nIt is appropriate to define the recycling process as one which starts after collection and possible sorting and/or preparation for recycling of the waste batteries and accumulators received by a recycling facility and finishes when output fractions are produced to be used for their original purpose or for other purposes without undergoing further treatment and have ceased to be waste. In order to encourage the improvement of existing and development of new recycling and treatment technologies, the recycling efficiencies should be achieved by each recycling process.\n(4)\nIt is necessary to define the preparation for recycling as a preliminary operation prior to recycling in order to distinguish it from the recycling process of waste batteries and accumulators.\n(5)\nThe recycling efficiencies of the recycling processes of waste batteries and accumulators should be calculated by reference to the chemical composition of the input and output fractions and having regard to the latest technical and scientific developments and made publicly available.\n(6)\nIt is necessary to harmonise the information to be reported by recyclers in order to monitor compliance with the recycling efficiency requirements across the European Union.\n(7)\nRecyclers of waste batteries and accumulators need at least 18 months to adapt their technological processes to the new recycling efficiencies calculation requirements.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 39 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to the recycling processes carried out to waste batteries and accumulators from 1 January 2014.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018recycling process\u2019 means any reprocessing operation as referred to in Article 3(8) of Directive 2006/66/EC which is carried out on waste lead-acid, nickel-cadmium and other batteries and accumulators and results in the production of output fractions as defined in point 5 of this Article. The recycling process does not include sorting and/or preparation for recycling/disposal and may be carried out in a single facility or in several facilities;\n(2)\n\u2018preparation for recycling\u2019 means treatment of waste batteries and/or accumulators prior to any recycling process, which shall, inter alia, include storage, handling, dismantling of battery packs or separation of fractions that are not part of the battery or accumulator itself;\n(3)\n\u2018recycling efficiency\u2019 of a recycling process means the ratio obtained by dividing the mass of output fractions accounting for recycling by the mass of the waste batteries and accumulators input fraction expressed as a percentage;\n(4)\n\u2018input fraction\u2019 means the mass of collected waste batteries and accumulators entering the recycling process as defined in Annex I;\n(5)\n\u2018output fraction\u2019 means the mass of materials that are produced from the input fraction as a result of the recycling process, as defined in Annex I without undergoing further treatment, that have ceased to be waste or that will be used for their original purpose or for other purposes, but excluding energy recovery.\nArticle 3\nCalculation of recycling efficiency\n1. The method set out in Annex I shall be used to calculate the recycling efficiency of a process for recycling waste lead-acid, nickel-cadmium and other batteries and accumulators.\n2. The method set out in Annex II shall be used to calculate the rate of recycled lead content for any recycling process.\n3. The method set out in Annex III shall be used to calculate the rate of recycled cadmium content for any recycling process.\n4. Recyclers shall report the information shown in Annex IV, Annex V and Annex VI, as applicable, on an annual basis and shall send it to the Member State\u2019s competent authorities by no later than four months from the end of a calendar year concerned. Recyclers shall send their first annual reports no later than the 30 April 2015.\n5. Reporting on the recycling efficiency shall cover all individual steps of recycling and all corresponding output fractions.\n6. Where a recycling process is carried out at more than one facility, the first recycler is responsible for submitting the information required under point 4 to the Member State\u2019s competent authorities.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 June 2012.", "references": ["33", "64", "53", "90", "28", "78", "4", "88", "79", "34", "69", "67", "80", "18", "12", "77", "71", "54", "65", "32", "6", "97", "26", "21", "7", "96", "40", "62", "24", "76", "No Label", "58", "60", "86"], "gold": ["58", "60", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1140/2010\nof 7 December 2010\napportioning, for the 2010/2011 marketing year, 5 000 tonnes of short flax fibre and hemp fibre as national guaranteed quantities between Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Luxembourg\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 95 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 8(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2008 of 6 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1673/2000 on the common organisation of the markets in flax and hemp grown for fibre (2) lays down that the apportioning of 5 000 tonnes of short flax fibre and hemp fibre as national guaranteed quantities, as provided for in Article 94 (1a), of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for the marketing year 2010/2011, must be effected before 16 November of the marketing year in progress.\n(2)\nTo that end, Denmark has sent the Commission information relating to areas covered by sale/purchase contracts, processing commitments and processing contracts, and estimated flax and hemp straw and fibre yields.\n(3)\nConversely, no flax or hemp fibre will be produced for the 2010/2011 marketing year in Italy, Greece, Ireland or Luxembourg.\n(4)\nOn the basis of estimates of production resulting from the information provided, total production in the five Member States concerned will not reach the overall quantity of 5 000 tonnes allocated to them, and the national guaranteed quantities as set out below should be set.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 2010/2011 marketing year, the apportionment in national guaranteed quantities provided for in Article 94 (1a) in conjunction with Annex XI A.II.(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be as follows:\n-\nDenmark\n84 tonnes;\n-\nGreece\n0 tonnes;\n-\nIreland\n0 tonnes;\n-\nItaly\n0 tonnes;\n-\nLuxembourg\n0 tonnes.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 16 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2010.", "references": ["16", "63", "1", "88", "82", "53", "11", "13", "77", "49", "47", "80", "81", "24", "86", "93", "31", "37", "34", "27", "85", "39", "26", "22", "14", "87", "99", "52", "69", "54", "No Label", "25", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 448/2010\nof 21 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2010.", "references": ["46", "16", "6", "77", "94", "37", "65", "58", "25", "44", "74", "52", "73", "92", "48", "23", "43", "7", "71", "76", "97", "27", "38", "51", "0", "62", "91", "40", "24", "4", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 39/2012\nof 18 January 2012\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of January 2012 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 January 2012 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 January 2012 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 0,395364 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2012.", "references": ["27", "49", "70", "26", "53", "4", "35", "83", "61", "63", "76", "24", "8", "88", "59", "13", "57", "42", "11", "43", "48", "47", "98", "23", "62", "33", "68", "73", "17", "30", "No Label", "21", "22", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 179/2011\nof 24 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2011.", "references": ["75", "15", "99", "78", "56", "29", "94", "2", "46", "58", "69", "45", "91", "81", "13", "53", "84", "21", "80", "36", "40", "55", "11", "27", "47", "7", "4", "20", "82", "63", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 January 2012\non the technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystems of the trans-European rail system\n(notified under document C(2012) 172)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/88/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2006/679/EC of 28 March 2006 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system (2) laid down the technical specifications for interoperability (\u2018TSI\u2019) relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2006/860/EC of 7 November 2006 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European high speed rail system (3) lays down the TSI relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system.\n(3)\nThe essential requirements for both the conventional and the high-speed networks must be identical, as must their functional and technical specifications, their interoperability constituents and interfaces, and the procedures for assessing the conformity or the suitability for use of the interoperability constituents or the \u2018EC\u2019 verification of their control-command and signalling subsystems.\n(4)\nThe implementation strategies should remain specific to each type of network and the existing requirements for the conventional trans-European network and for the high-speed trans-European network should remain unchanged. The European railway agency (\u2018Agency\u2019) was given a framework mandate to perform certain activities.\n(5)\nOn 31 January 2011 the Agency gave its recommendation on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystems \u2018control-command and signalling\u2019 of the trans-European rail system (4). This Decision is based on that recommendation.\n(6)\nIn the interest of clarity, Decisions 2006/679/EC and 2006/860/EC should therefore be replaced by this Decision.\n(7)\nThe changes introduced regarding safety requirements (Section 4.2.1 of Annex III) are based on the analysis that the text in the CCS TSIs in force leaves room for interpretations. The introduced changes have no negative impact in the overall safety level.\n(8)\nThe fitting of ERTMS/ETCS should be mandatory in the case of new installations or upgrade of the train protection part of a CCS assembly for railway infrastructure projects benefiting from EU financial support. Such fitting should in principle be carried out in the frame of the EU funded project. In certain cases, it is however necessary to grant a derogation to this implementation rule. The scope of such derogation is limited to the implementation strategy of the \u2018control-command and signalling TSI\u2019.\n(9)\nThe Agency has listed in the technical document \u2018List of CCS Class B systems\u2019 the national legacy control-command and signalling systems (\u2018Class B systems\u2019). Those systems may still be requested on board locomotives and traction units to run on certain lines.\n(10)\nThe Class B systems significantly hamper the interoperability of locomotives and traction units but play an important role in maintaining the high level of safety of the trans-European network. For this reason, it is important to avoid creating additional obstacles to interoperability by, for example, altering these national legacy systems or by introducing new systems.\n(11)\nTo avoid creating additional obstacles to interoperability, Member States should ensure that the functionality of the legacy Class B systems and their interfaces remain as currently specified, except where modifications are needed to mitigate safety-related flaws in these systems. Member States should also ensure that systems not included in the list of Class B systems do not constitute additional barriers to interoperability.\n(12)\nThe availability of the GSM-R frequencies is essential for safe and interoperable railway operations.\n(13)\nDecisions 2006/679/EC and 2006/860/EC should therefore be repealed.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee, referred to in Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The technical specification for interoperability (\u2018TSI\u2019) relating to the \u2018track-side control-command and signalling\u2019 subsystem and \u2018on-board control-command and signalling subsystems\u2019 of the trans-European rail system, as set out in Annex III, is adopted.\n2. The TSI set out in Annex III to this Decision shall apply to the track-side control-command and signalling subsystem as described in point 2.3 and to the on-board control-command and signalling subsystem as described in point 2.4 of Annex II to Directive 2008/57/EC.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall ensure that, whenever a national protection control-command system is requested on board rolling stock to run on a given line or part of the trans-European network, this system is included in the list of Class B systems, having equal legal value as annexes to the TSI.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the functionality, performance and interfaces of the Class B systems remain as currently specified, except where modifications are needed to mitigate safety-related flaws in those systems.\nArticle 3\nEach Member State shall notify to the other Member States and to the Commission, with regard to Class B systems and to those issues identified as open points in Appendix G to the TSI adopted by this Decision, within 6 months of the notification of this Decision, the following:\n(a)\nthe list of applicable technical rules;\n(b)\nthe conformity assessment and checking procedures to be used for ensuring that the applicable technical rules are indeed applied;\n(c)\nthe bodies it appoints for carrying out those conformity-assessment and checking procedures.\nIf these elements have already been notified in the context of Decisions 2006/679/EC and 2006/860/EC this obligation is considered fulfilled.\nArticle 4\n1. The Commission may grant a derogation to the obligation laid down in Section 7.3.2.4 of Annex III concerning the mandatory equipment of lines with the European Train Control System (ETCS) in the context of EU funded projects (Section 7.3.2.4), when signalling is renewed on short (less than 150 km) and discontinuous sections of a line and provided that ETCS is installed before the earlier of these two dates:\n-\n5 years after the end of the project,\n-\nthe time by which the section of the line is connected to another ETCS equipped line.\n2. The Member State concerned shall forward a file concerning the project to the Commission. This file shall contain an economic analysis showing that there is a substantial economic and/or technical advantage in putting ERTMS into service at the earlier of the two dates mentioned in paragraph 1 rather than during the course of the EU-funded project.\n3. The Commission shall examine the file sent to it and the measures proposed by the Member State and shall notify the results of its examination to the Committee referred to in Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC. If a derogation is granted, the Member State shall ensure that ERTMS is installed before the earlier of the two dates mentioned in paragraph 1.\nArticle 5\nCommission Decision 2011/291/EU of 26 April 2011 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock sub-system - \u2018Locomotives and Passenger rolling stock\u2019 of the trans-European conventional rail system (5) is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe second indent under the headline \u2018Legislative measures in force\u2019 in Section 1.4 \u2018Referenced documents\u2019 of the Annex is replaced by \u2018Control-Command and Signalling TSI\u2019;\n(2)\nSection 4.2.3.3.1 is replaced by Annex I to this Decision;\n(3)\nTable 10 in Section 4.3.4 is replaced by Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 6\nThe ERA technical document ERTMS/ETCS System Requirement Specification (SRS), document reference \u2018subset-026\u2019 in version 3.2.0, dated 22 December 2010, can be used as a basis to tender the equipment of lines with ETCS and to carry out tests, but before the entry into force of the so-called baseline 3, the fitment of trains with baseline 3 cannot be requested.\nArticle 7\nDecisions 2006/679/EC and 2006/860/EC are hereby repealed. Their provisions shall however continue to apply in relation to maintenance of projects authorised in accordance with the TSIs annexed to those Decisions and, unless the applicant requests to apply this Decision, to projects for new, renewed or upgraded subsystems which are at an advanced stage of development or the subject of a contract in course of performance at the date of notification of the present Decision.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision shall apply 6 months after its notification to the Member States.\nArticle 9\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 January 2012.", "references": ["17", "41", "8", "50", "15", "21", "79", "28", "25", "4", "39", "38", "98", "10", "52", "2", "70", "3", "63", "54", "19", "35", "74", "96", "22", "83", "86", "84", "99", "12", "No Label", "9", "55", "76"], "gold": ["9", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1151/2011\nof 14 November 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria and in accordance with Council Implementing Decision 2011/736/CFSP of 14 November 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (2), additional persons should be included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["66", "98", "65", "47", "77", "82", "52", "38", "42", "41", "43", "23", "32", "8", "2", "28", "88", "21", "40", "7", "31", "72", "53", "86", "46", "36", "25", "54", "60", "64", "No Label", "3", "12", "95"], "gold": ["3", "12", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 25 October 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of an Agreement in the form of a Protocol between the European Union and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part\n(2011/87/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 24 February 2006 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with partners in the Mediterranean region in order to establish a dispute settlement mechanism related to trade provisions.\n(2)\nNegotiations have been conducted by the Commission in consultation with the committee appointed under Article 207 of the Treaty and within the framework of the negotiating directives issued by the Council.\n(3)\nThese negotiations have been concluded and an Agreement in the form of a Protocol (the Protocol) between the European Union and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part (1) was initialled on 9 December 2009.\n(4)\nThe Protocol should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement in the form of a Protocol between the European Union and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part (the Protocol) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Protocol (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol, on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 October 2010.", "references": ["50", "52", "63", "16", "86", "99", "7", "75", "72", "81", "43", "97", "17", "60", "34", "59", "93", "82", "51", "27", "84", "40", "4", "0", "48", "69", "15", "42", "6", "78", "No Label", "3", "5", "9", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 17/2012\nof 11 January 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 32/2000 as regards the extension of the tariff quotas of the Union for jute and coconut-fibre products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 32/2000 of 17 December 1999 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas bound in GATT and certain other Community tariff quotas and establishing detailed rules for adjusting the quotas, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1808/95 (1), and in particular the second indent of Article 9(1)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the offer it made within the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad) and alongside its scheme of generalised preferences (GSP), the Community introduced tariff preferences in 1971 for jute and coconut-fibre products originating in certain developing countries. Those preferences took the form of a gradual reduction of Common Customs Tariff duties and, from 1978 to 31 December 1994, the complete suspension of these duties.\n(2)\nSince the entry into force of the GSP scheme in 1995, the Community has, alongside the GATT, opened autonomous zero-duty Community tariff quotas for specific quantities of jute and coconut-fibre products. The tariff quotas opened for those products under Regulation (EC) No 32/2000 were extended until 31 December 2011 by Commission Regulation (EC) No 204/2009 (2).\n(3)\nAs the GSP scheme has been extended until 31 December 2013 by Regulation (EU) No 512/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 (3), the tariff quota arrangement for jute and coconut-fibre products should also be extended until 31 December 2013.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 32/2000 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor order numbers 09.0107, 09.0109 and 09.0111, in the fifth column (\u2018Quota period\u2019) of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 32/2000, the words \u2018from 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2009\u2019, \u2018from 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2010\u2019 and \u2018from 1.1.2011 to 31.12.2011\u2019 are replaced by \u2018from 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012\u2019 and \u2018from 1.1.2013 to 31.12.2013\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 January 2012.", "references": ["18", "61", "1", "98", "2", "0", "51", "16", "17", "48", "50", "72", "79", "57", "58", "56", "37", "4", "69", "36", "47", "55", "42", "12", "8", "83", "43", "7", "33", "41", "No Label", "21", "68", "82", "89"], "gold": ["21", "68", "82", "89"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 545/2010\nof 21 June 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 504/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2010.", "references": ["68", "33", "39", "11", "58", "31", "61", "43", "83", "69", "91", "23", "24", "65", "44", "12", "50", "47", "97", "80", "46", "41", "42", "56", "34", "70", "48", "15", "20", "28", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 16 July 2012\nextending the period of application of the appropriate measures laid down for the Republic of Guinea in Decision 2011/465/EU and amending that Decision\n(2012/404/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1), as last amended in Ouagadougou on 22 June 2010 (2) (\u2018the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement\u2019), and in particular Article 96 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Decision 2011/465/EU (4) lays down appropriate measures for the Republic of Guinea under Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement.\n(2)\nDecision 2011/465/EU requires that two benchmarks be achieved before cooperation with the Republic of Guinea under the 10th European Development Fund can be resumed; namely that a detailed timetable including preliminary dates and stages/preparatory operations be drawn up and adopted by the competent authorities for the holding of parliamentary elections by the end of 2011, and that free and transparent parliamentary elections be held.\n(3)\nTo date, neither of these benchmarks has been met.\n(4)\nIt is therefore necessary to extend the period of application of the appropriate measures laid down in Decision 2011/465/EU and to extend the time-limit set in those measures for the holding of parliamentary elections in the Republic of Guinea until the end of 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe period of validity of Decision 2011/465/EU is extended by 12 months. To that end, in Article 3 of the Decision 2011/465/EU, the date \u201819 July 2012\u2019 is replaced by the date \u201819 July 2013\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe time-limit for the holding of parliamentary elections in the Republic of Guinea, as laid down in the appropriate measures, specified in the Annex to the Decision 2011/465/EU, in the left column entitled \u2018Commitments by the Republic of Guinea\u2019 under \u2018Commitments by Partners\u2019, shall be extended until the end of 2012.\nArticle 3\nThe letter in the Annex to this Decision is addressed to the authorities of the Republic of Guinea.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["1", "72", "58", "97", "45", "13", "92", "52", "87", "88", "59", "38", "63", "62", "70", "89", "23", "10", "5", "8", "75", "68", "76", "26", "65", "99", "64", "34", "93", "80", "No Label", "0", "3", "9", "94", "96"], "gold": ["0", "3", "9", "94", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 804/2012\nof 7 September 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 September 2012.", "references": ["19", "92", "25", "60", "76", "11", "8", "33", "62", "58", "65", "67", "34", "26", "64", "48", "83", "14", "1", "94", "44", "96", "29", "80", "20", "27", "45", "39", "4", "51", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 June 2010\namending Decision 2004/211/EC as regards the entries for Bahrain and Brazil in the list of third countries and parts thereof from which the introduction into the European Union of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species are authorised\n(notified under document C(2010) 3665)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/333/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (1), and in particular Article 12(1) and (4), and the introductory phrase of Article 19 and Article 19(i) and (ii) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992, laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (2), and in particular Article 17(3)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 90/426/EEC lays down animal health conditions for the importation into the Union of live equidae. It provides that imports of equidae into the Union are only authorised from third countries or parts of the territory thereof, which have been free from glanders for a period of at least 6 months.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2004/211/EC of 6 January 2004 establishing the list of third countries and parts of territory thereof from which Member States authorise imports of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species (3) establishes a list of third countries, or parts thereof where regionalisation applies, from which Member States authorise the importation of equidae and semen, ova and embryos thereof, and indicates the other conditions applicable to such imports. That list is set out in Annex I to that Decision.\n(3)\nGlanders occurs in parts of the territory of Brazil and therefore imports of equidae, and, as a consequence, of their semen, ova and embryos, are only authorised from the disease-free parts of the territory of that third country listed in column 4 of Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC. The State of Goi\u00e1s is listed in that column. The Distrito Federal is a distinct administrative entity situated within the State of Goi\u00e1s. From an epidemiological point of view it has been considered part of the State of Goi\u00e1s and not been specifically mentioned in that column.\n(4)\nIn April 2010 Brazil notified the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) of the confirmation of a case of glanders in a horse in Distrito Federal. Since Distrito Federal is no longer free from glanders, Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC should be amended in order to indicate that the introduction into the Union of equidae and of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine species are no longer authorised from that region.\n(5)\nIn addition, the Commission has received a report about confirmed cases of glanders in Bahrain. The introduction of registered horses and of semen thereof from Bahrain should therefore no longer be authorised.\n(6)\nDecision 2004/211/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Decision 2004/211/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nthe entry for Bahrain is replaced by the following:\n\u2018BH\nBahrain\nBH-0\nWhole country\nE\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\u2019\n2.\nthe entry for Brazil is replaced by the following:\n\u2018BR\nBrazil\nBR-0\nWhole country\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nBR-1\nThe States of:\nRio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Paran\u00e1, S\u00e3o Paulo, Mato Grosso do Sul, Goi\u00e1s, Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, Esp\u00edritu Santo, Rond\u00f4nia, Mato Grosso\nD\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nBR-2\nDistrito Federal\nD\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 June 2010.", "references": ["58", "14", "44", "37", "80", "56", "4", "49", "96", "70", "19", "17", "64", "85", "46", "24", "42", "79", "3", "94", "52", "9", "12", "82", "5", "53", "74", "2", "63", "97", "No Label", "20", "22", "38", "65", "66", "93", "95"], "gold": ["20", "22", "38", "65", "66", "93", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/300/CFSP\nof 23 May 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Libya, an additional person and an additional entity should be included in the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annexes II and IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The person listed in Annex I to this Decision shall be added to the lists set out in Annexes II and IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP.\n2. The entity listed in Annex II to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["61", "47", "0", "62", "82", "27", "37", "81", "57", "18", "51", "53", "79", "17", "24", "23", "20", "16", "85", "56", "60", "45", "83", "7", "32", "97", "86", "42", "21", "75", "No Label", "3", "4", "6", "11", "12", "14", "76", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "6", "11", "12", "14", "76", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 432/2011\nof 4 May 2011\nrefusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children\u2019s development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 18(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on food are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Authority\u2019.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission and to deliver an opinion on a health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nFollowing an application from Gencor Pacific Inc, submitted on 10 November 2009 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of ethanol-water extract of Caralluma fimbriata (Slimaluma\u00ae) on help to reduce waist circumference (Question No EFSA-Q-2010-00027) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded, as follows: \u2018Slimaluma\u00ae helps to reduce waist circumference\u2019.\n(6)\nOn 12 May 2010 and on 18 May 2010, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority and its amendment respectively, which concluded that on the basis of the data submitted, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Slimaluma\u00ae and the beneficial physiological effect as defined by the Authority, namely, reduction of waist circumference leading to an improvement in adverse health effects associated with an excess abdominal fat. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(7)\nFollowing an application from Gencor Pacific Inc, submitted on 10 November 2009 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of ethanol-water extract of Caralluma fimbriata (Slimaluma\u00ae) on help to reduce body fat (Question No EFSA-Q-2010-00028) (3). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded, as follows: \u2018Slimaluma\u00ae helps to reduce body fat\u2019.\n(8)\nOn 12 May 2010, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data submitted, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Slimaluma\u00ae and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(9)\nFollowing an application from Gencor Pacific Inc, submitted on 10 November 2009 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of ethanol-water extract of Caralluma fimbriata (Slimaluma\u00ae) on help to reduce body weight (Question No EFSA-Q-2010-00029) (4). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded, as follows: \u2018Slimaluma\u00ae helps to reduce body weight\u2019.\n(10)\nOn 12 May 2010, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data submitted, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Slimaluma\u00ae and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(11)\nFollowing an application from Gencor Pacific Inc, submitted on 10 November 2009 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of ethanol-water extract of Caralluma fimbriata (Slimaluma\u00ae) on decreased energy intake (Question No EFSA-Q-2010-00030) (5). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded, as follows: \u2018Slimaluma\u00ae helps to reduce caloric intake\u2019.\n(12)\nOn 12 May 2010, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data submitted, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Slimaluma\u00ae and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(13)\nFollowing an application from Gencor Pacific Inc, submitted on 10 November 2009 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of ethanol-water extract of Caralluma fimbriata (Slimaluma\u00ae) on help to control hunger/appetite (Question No EFSA-Q-2010-00031) (6). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded, as follows: \u2018Slimaluma\u00ae helps to control hunger/appetite\u2019.\n(14)\nOn 12 May 2010, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data submitted, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Slimaluma\u00ae and the beneficial physiological effect as defined by the Authority, namely, reduction of appetite leading to a reduction in subsequent energy intake. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(15)\nFollowing an application from Leiber GmbH, submitted on 2 October 2009 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Yestimun\u00ae on immune responses (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-667) (7). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded, inter alia, as follows: \u2018Daily administration of Yestimun\u00ae strengthens the body\u2019s defence during the cold season\u2019.\n(16)\nOn 27 May 2010, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data submitted, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Yestimun\u00ae and the initiation of appropriate innate and adaptive immune responses. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(17)\nFollowing an application from Laboratoires inn\u00e9ov SNC, submitted on 30 December 2008 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of blackcurrant seed oil (Ribes nigrum), fish oil, lycopene from tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) extract, vitamin C and vitamin E on help to improve dry skin conditions (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00767) (8). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded, inter alia, as follows: \u2018Helps to improve dry skin condition\u2019.\n(18)\nOn 25 May 2010, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data submitted, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the intake of a combination of blackcurrant seed oil (Ribes nigrum), fish oil, lycopene from tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) extract, vitamin C and vitamin E and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(19)\nThe comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission, pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(20)\nThe health claims related to Slimaluma\u00ae are health claims as referred to in point (c) of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and are therefore subject to the transition period laid down in Article 28(6) of that Regulation. However, as the applications were not made before 19 January 2008, the requirement provided for in point (b) of Article 28(6) of that Regulation is not fulfilled, and therefore those claims may not benefit from the transition period provided for in that Article.\n(21)\nThe health claims related to Yestimun\u00ae, and to blackcurrant seed oil (Ribes nigrum), fish oil, lycopene from tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) extract, vitamin C and vitamin E, are health claims as referred to in point (a) of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and are therefore subject to the transition period laid down in Article 28(5) of that Regulation. As the Authority concluded that cause and effect relationships have not been established between the foods and the respective claimed effects, the two claims do not comply with Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and therefore they may not benefit from the transition period provided for in that Article.\n(22)\nIn order to ensure that this Regulation is fully complied with, both food business operators and the national competent authorities should take the necessary actions to ensure that, at the latest six months following the entry into force of this Regulation, products bearing the health claims listed in its Annex are no longer present on the market.\n(23)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe health claims set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall not be included in the Union list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nHowever, products bearing these health claims placed on the market or labelled prior to the date referred to in Article 2 may remain on the market for a maximum period of six months after that date.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2011.", "references": ["14", "86", "82", "37", "84", "80", "52", "1", "10", "88", "21", "26", "43", "23", "63", "42", "77", "4", "91", "15", "31", "2", "55", "11", "89", "36", "73", "93", "13", "85", "No Label", "24", "38", "72"], "gold": ["24", "38", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 91/2011\nof 2 February 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Hofer Rindfleischwurst (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany's application to register the name \u2018Hofer Rindfleischwurst\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 February 2011.", "references": ["55", "8", "21", "66", "89", "54", "56", "60", "58", "18", "76", "95", "31", "26", "22", "42", "16", "43", "67", "46", "90", "68", "47", "35", "2", "52", "87", "20", "65", "37", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 4 June 2012\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of tartaric acid originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, limited to one Chinese exporting producer, Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd\n(2012/289/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 15 June 2011 the European Commission (\u2018Commission\u2019) received a complaint concerning the alleged injurious dumping concerning imports of tartaric acid originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China limited to one Chinese exporting producer, Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (\u2018the company concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe complaint was lodged by the following producers (the complainants): Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Industria Chimica Valenzana SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA, Caviro Distillerie SRL and Comercial Quimica Sarasa SL representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 % of the total Union production of tartaric acid.\n(3)\nThe complaint contained prima facie evidence of the existence of dumping and of material injury resulting from the dumped imports, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding.\n(4)\nThe Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, in a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), initiated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of tartaric acid originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China limited to one Chinese exporting producer, Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (\u2018the company concerned\u2019).\n(5)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the Union industry, to the exporting producer in the People\u2019s Republic of China, to the importers, and to the authorities of the People\u2019s Republic of China. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(6)\nAll interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\nB. WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(7)\nBy letter of 14 February 2012 to the Commission, the complainants formally withdrew their complaint.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(9)\nThe Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated since the investigation had not brought to light any reasons or considerations showing that such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(10)\nInterested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received indicating that such a termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(11)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of tartaric acid originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China should be terminated without the imposition of measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of tartaric acid currently falling within CN Code ex 2918 12 00, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China limited to one Chinese exporting producer, Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 4 June 2012.", "references": ["77", "69", "2", "98", "32", "70", "44", "13", "55", "54", "68", "5", "99", "3", "9", "71", "38", "43", "30", "94", "74", "76", "80", "10", "31", "36", "93", "49", "62", "75", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 24 April 2012\ndetermining the second set of regions for the start of operations of the Visa Information System (VIS)\n(notified under document C(2012) 2505)\n(2012/274/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 48(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 48 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 provides for a progressive implementation of the VIS operations. The Commission in its Decision 2010/49/EC (2) determined the first regions for the start of operations of the VIS. Taking into account the start of operations of the VIS on 11 October 2011, it is necessary to determine a second set of regions where the data to be processed in the VIS, including photographs and fingerprint data, shall be collected and transmitted to the VIS for all visa applications in the region concerned.\n(2)\nArticle 48(4) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 provides for the determination of the sequence of the regions for the VIS deployment based on the following criteria: the risk of irregular immigration, threats to the internal security of the Member States and the feasibility of collecting biometrics from all locations in the region concerned.\n(3)\nThe Commission has made an assessment for the different regions taking into account, for the first criterion, elements such as the average visa refusal rates, the entry refusal rates and the rates of third country nationals detected as irregularly present in the territory of the Member States; for the second criterion, a threat assessment performed by Europol; and for the third criterion, the fact that the level of consular presence or representation has increased in all regions worldwide since the adoption of Decision 2010/49/EC.\n(4)\nAccording to this assessment, the subsequent regions where the collection and transmission of visa data to the VIS should start for all visa applications should be: West Africa, Central Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa, South America, Central Asia, South East Asia.\n(5)\nThe occupied Palestinian territory was excluded from the Near East region, which was covered by Decision 2010/49/EC, due to the technical difficulties that could be encountered in the equipping of the consular posts or offices concerned. To avoid a gap when fighting irregular immigration and protecting internal security and taking into account the time left to Member States to solve the technical difficulties, the occupied Palestinian territory should be the 11th region where the collection and transmission of visa data to the VIS should start for all visa applications.\n(6)\nThe starting date of the operations in each of these regions is to be determined by the Commission pursuant to Article 48(3) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008.\n(7)\nFor the determination of the further regions, subsequent decisions should be taken at a later stage on the basis of an additional and updated assessment of these other regions in accordance with the relevant criteria and the experience with the implementation in the regions determined by Decision 2010/49/EC and by the present Decision.\n(8)\nGiven that the VIS Regulation builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark notified the implementation of the VIS Regulation in its national law in accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community. Denmark is therefore bound under international law to implement this Decision.\n(9)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (3). The United Kingdom is therefore not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(10)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (4). Ireland is therefore not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(11)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (5), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (6) on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement.\n(12)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (7), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (8).\n(13)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (9).\n(14)\nAs regards Cyprus, this Decision constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession.\n(15)\nAs regards Bulgaria and Romania, this Decision constitutes an act building upon or otherwise related to the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (10),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe regions where the collection and transmission of data to the Visa Information System (VIS) shall start, after the regions determined by Decision 2010/49/EC, according to Article 48(3) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008, are the following:\n-\nThe fourth region:\n-\nBenin,\n-\nBurkina Faso,\n-\nCape Verde,\n-\nC\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire,\n-\nThe Gambia,\n-\nGhana,\n-\nGuinea,\n-\nGuinea-Bissau,\n-\nLiberia,\n-\nMali,\n-\nNiger,\n-\nNigeria,\n-\nSenegal,\n-\nSierra Leone,\n-\nTogo.\n-\nThe fifth region:\n-\nBurundi,\n-\nCameroon,\n-\nCentral African Republic,\n-\nChad,\n-\nCongo,\n-\nDemocratic Republic of the Congo,\n-\nEquatorial Guinea,\n-\nGabon,\n-\nRwanda,\n-\nS\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe.\n-\nThe sixth region:\n-\nComoros,\n-\nDjibouti,\n-\nEritrea,\n-\nEthiopia,\n-\nKenya,\n-\nMadagascar,\n-\nMauritius,\n-\nSeychelles,\n-\nSomalia,\n-\nSouth Sudan,\n-\nSudan,\n-\nTanzania,\n-\nUganda.\n-\nThe seventh region:\n-\nAngola,\n-\nBotswana,\n-\nLesotho,\n-\nMalawi,\n-\nMozambique,\n-\nNamibia,\n-\nSouth Africa,\n-\nSwaziland,\n-\nZambia,\n-\nZimbabwe.\n-\nThe eighth region:\n-\nArgentina,\n-\nBolivia,\n-\nBrazil,\n-\nChile,\n-\nColombia,\n-\nEcuador,\n-\nParaguay,\n-\nPeru,\n-\nUruguay,\n-\nVenezuela.\n-\nThe ninth region:\n-\nKazakhstan,\n-\nKyrgyzstan,\n-\nTajikistan,\n-\nTurkmenistan,\n-\nUzbekistan.\n-\nThe 10th region:\n-\nBrunei,\n-\nBurma/Myanmar,\n-\nCambodia,\n-\nIndonesia,\n-\nLaos,\n-\nMalaysia,\n-\nPhilippines,\n-\nSingapore,\n-\nThailand,\n-\nVietnam.\n-\nThe 11th region:\nThe occupied Palestinian territory.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.\nDone at Brussels, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["73", "52", "16", "59", "49", "99", "76", "86", "26", "25", "62", "81", "66", "63", "2", "82", "88", "69", "34", "10", "19", "92", "61", "55", "9", "57", "98", "53", "90", "5", "No Label", "13", "40", "41", "42", "93", "94", "95"], "gold": ["13", "40", "41", "42", "93", "94", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 3 September 2012\namending Decision 2000/96/EC as regards tick-borne encephalitis and the category of vector-borne communicable diseases\n(notified under document C(2012) 3241)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/492/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community (1), and in particular Article 3(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2000/96/EC of 22 December 1999, on the communicable diseases to be progressively covered by the Community network under Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), lists certain communicable diseases to be covered by epidemiological surveillance in the Community network set up by Decision No 2119/98/EC.\n(2)\nThe Annex to Decision No 2119/98/EC specifically mentions \u2018vector-borne diseases\u2019 as a category of communicable diseases to be selected in order to achieve uniform information for reporting purposes.\n(3)\nTick-borne encephalitis (TBE) is a tick-borne disease of humans that causes long-term neurological disabilities and up to 1,4 % fatal outcomes. The disease can be prevented by vaccination and during recent years it has increased in incidence and spread to new geographical areas in Europe. These developments are probably due to different causes, including climate change and modification of tick habitat.\n(4)\nTBE therefore fulfils the criteria set in Annex II to Decision 2000/96/EC for the selection of communicable diseases to be covered by epidemiological surveillance within the Community network set up by Decision No 2119/98/EC, and it is appropriate to add it to the list of communicable diseases to be covered by this epidemiological surveillance in Annex I to Decision 2000/96/EC.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Decision No 2119/98/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Decision 2000/96/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 September 2012.", "references": ["14", "92", "71", "24", "7", "54", "86", "2", "81", "10", "55", "68", "40", "19", "30", "89", "75", "65", "18", "57", "59", "13", "44", "61", "50", "98", "27", "29", "93", "90", "No Label", "38", "43"], "gold": ["38", "43"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 204/2011\nof 2 March 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, (1) adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with UN Council Security Resolution 1970 (2011) of 26 February 2011, Decision 2011/137/CFSP provides for an arms embargo, a ban on internal repression equipment, as well as restrictions on the admission and the freezing of funds and economic resources of certain persons and entities involved in serious human rights abuses against persons in Libya, including by being involved in attacks, in violation of international law, on civilian populations and facilities. Those natural or legal persons and entities are listed in the Annexes to the Decision.\n(2)\nSome of those measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(3)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the right to the protection of personal data. This Regulation should be applied in accordance with those rights.\n(4)\nThis Regulation also fully respects the obligations of Member States under the Charter of the United Nations and the legally-binding nature of United Nations Security Council Resolutions.\n(5)\nThe power to amend the lists in Annexes II and III to this Regulation should be exercised by the Council, in view of the specific threat to international peace and security posed by Libya, and to ensure consistency with the process for amending and reviewing Annexes III and IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP.\n(6)\nThe procedure for amending the lists in Annexes II and III to this Regulation should include providing designated natural or legal persons, entities or bodies with the grounds for listing, so as to give them an opportunity to submit observations. Where observations are submitted, or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in light of those observations and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n(7)\nFor the implementation of this Regulation, and in order to create maximum legal certainty within the Union, the names and other relevant data concerning natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources must be frozen in accordance with this Regulation, must be made public. Any processing of personal data should comply with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (2) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (3).\n(8)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, it should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018funds\u2019 means financial assets and benefits of every kind, including but not limited to:\n(i)\ncash, cheques, claims on money, drafts, money orders and other payment instruments;\n(ii)\ndeposits with financial institutions or other entities, balances on accounts, debts and debt obligations;\n(iii)\npublicly- and privately-traded securities and debt instruments, including stocks and shares, certificates representing securities, bonds, notes, warrants, debentures and derivatives contracts;\n(iv)\ninterest, dividends or other income on or value accruing from or generated by assets;\n(v)\ncredit, right of set-off, guarantees, performance bonds or other financial commitments;\n(vi)\nletters of credit, bills of lading, bills of sale;\n(vii)\ndocuments evidencing an interest in funds or financial resources;\n(b)\n\u2018freezing of funds\u2019 means preventing any move, transfer, alteration, use of, access to, or dealing with funds in any way that would result in any change in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination or other change that would enable the funds to be used, including portfolio management;\n(c)\n\u2018economic resources\u2019 means assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which are not funds but may be used to obtain funds, goods or services;\n(d)\n\u2018freezing of economic resources\u2019 means preventing their use to obtain funds, goods or services in any way, including, but not limited to, by selling, hiring or mortgaging them;\n(e)\n\u2018technical assistance\u2019 means any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance, or any other technical service, and may take forms such as instruction, advice, training, the transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services, including verbal forms of assistance;\n(f)\n\u2018Sanctions Committee\u2019 means the Committee of the United Nations Security Council which was established pursuant to paragraph 24 of United Nations Security Council Resolution (\u2018UNSCR\u2019) 1970 (2011);\n(g)\n\u2018territory of the Union\u2019 means the territories of the Member States to which the Treaty is applicable, under the conditions laid down in the Treaty, including their airspace.\nArticle 2\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex I, whether or not originating in the Union, to any person, entity or body in Libya or for use in Libya;\n(b)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in point (a).\n2. It shall be prohibited to purchase, import or transport from Libya equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex I, whether or not the item concerned originates in Libya.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and helmets, temporarily exported to Libya by United Nations personnel, personnel of the European Union or its Member States, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities in the Member States as listed in Annex IV may authorise the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment which might be used for internal repression, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, if they determine that such equipment is intended solely for humanitarian or protective use.\nArticle 3\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List of the European Union (4) (Common Military List) or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of goods included in that list, to any person, entity or body in Libya or for use in Libya;\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex I, to any person, entity or body in Libya or for use in Libya;\n(c)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List or in Annex I, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for any provision of related technical assistance to any person, entity or body in Libya or for use in Libya;\n(d)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) to (c).\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the prohibitions refered to therein shall not apply to the provision of technical assistance, financing and financial assistance related to non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian purposes or protective use, or to other sales and supply of arms and related material, as approved in advance by the Sanctions Committee.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities in the Member States, as listed in Annex IV, may authorise the provision of technical assistance, financing and financial assistance related to equipment which might be used for internal repression, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, if they determine that such equipment is intended solely for humanitarian or protective use.\nArticle 4\nTo prevent the transfer of goods and technology which are covered by the Common Military List or the supply, sale, transfer, export or import of which is prohibited by this Regulation, for all goods brought into or leaving the customs territory of the Union from or to Libya, in addition to the rules governing the obligation to provide pre-arrival and pre-departure information as determined in the relevant provisions concerning entry and exit summary declarations as well as customs declarations in Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (5), and in Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation thereof (6), the person who provides that information shall declare whether the goods are covered by the Common Military List or by this Regulation and, where their export is subject to authorisation, specify the particulars of the export licence granted. These additional elements shall be submitted to the competent customs authorities of the Member State concerned either in written form or using a customs declaration, as appropriate.\nArticle 5\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies listed in Annexes II and III shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annexes II and III.\n3. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited.\nArticle 6\n1. Annex II shall include the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies designated by the United Nations Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee in accordance with paragraph 22 of UNSCR 1970 (2011).\n2. Annex III shall consist of natural or legal persons, entities and bodies not covered by Annex II who, in accordance with Article 6(1) of Decision 2011/137/CFSP, have been identified by the Council as being persons and entities involved in or complicit in ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, the commission of serious human rights abuses against persons in Libya, including by being involved in or complicit in planning, commanding, ordering or conducting attacks, in violation of international law, including aerial bombardments, on civilian populations and facilities, or individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them.\n3. Annexes II and III shall include the grounds for the listing of listed persons, entities and bodies, as provided by the Security Council, or by the Sanctions Committee for Annex II.\n4. Annexes II and III shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies concerned, as provided by the Security Council, or by the Sanctions Committee for Annex II. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, entities and bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. Annex II shall also include the date of designation by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 7\n1. By way of derogation from Article 5, the competent authorities in the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex IV, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of persons listed in Annex II or III, and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees or the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources;\nprovided that, where the the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex II, the Member State concerned has notified the Sanctions Committee of that determination and its intention to grant an authorisation, and the Sanctions Committee has not objected to that course of action within five working days of notification.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 5, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex IV, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain frozen funds or economic resources, after having determined that the frozen funds or economic resources are. necessary for extraordinary expenses provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nwhere the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex II, the Sanctions Committee has been notified of that determination by the Member State concerned and the determination has been approved by that Committee; and\n(b)\nwhere the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex III, the competent authority has notified the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted to the other competent authorities of the Member States and to the Commission at least two weeks before the authorisation.\nArticle 8\nBy way of derogation from Article 5, the competent authorities in the Member States, as listed in Annex IV, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources in question are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the person, entity or body referred to in Article 5 was included in Annex II or III, or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources in question will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a person, entity or body listed in Annex II or III;\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgment is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned;\n(e)\nwhere the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex II, the Sanctions Committee has been notified by the Member State of the lien or judgment, and\n(f)\nwhere the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex III, the relevant Member State has informed the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted.\nArticle 9\n1. Article 5(2) shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 5 has been designated by the Sanctions Committee, the Security Council or by the Council,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments are frozen in accordance with Article 5(1).\n2. Article 5(2) shall not prevent financial or credit institutions in the Union from crediting frozen accounts where they receive funds transferred to the account of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, provided that any additions to such accounts will also be frozen. The financial or credit institution shall inform the relevant competent authority about any such transaction without delay.\nArticle 10\nBy way of derogation from Article 5, and provided that a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex II or III is due under a contract or agreement that was concluded by, or an obligation that arose for the person, entity or body concerned, before the date on which that person, entity or body had been designated, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex IV, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe competent authority concerned has determined that:\n(i)\nthe funds or economic resources shall be used for a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex II or III;\n(ii)\nthe payment is not in breach of Article 5(2);\n(b)\nwhere the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex II, the Sanctions Committee has been notified by the relevant Member State of the intention to grant an authorisation ten working days in advance;\n(c)\nwhere the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex III, the Member State concerned has, at least two weeks prior to the grant of the authorisation, notified the other Member States and the Commission of that determination and its intention to grant an authorisation.\nArticle 11\n1. The freezing of funds and economic resources or the refusal to make funds or economic resources available, carried out in good faith on the basis that such action is in accordance with this Regulation, shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal person or entity or body implementing it, or its directors or employees, unless it is proved that the funds and economic resources were frozen or withheld as a result of negligence.\n2. The prohibition set out in Article 5(2) shall not give rise to any liability of any kind on the part of the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies who made funds or economic resources available if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe the prohibition in question.\nArticle 12\nNo claims, including for compensation or any other claim of this kind, such as a claim of set-off or a claim under a guarantee, in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which was affected, directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, by reason of measures decided upon pursuant to UNSCR 1970 (2011), including measures of the Union or any Member State in accordance with, as required by or in any connection with, the implementation of the relevant decisions of the Security Council or measures covered by this Regulation, shall be granted to the Government of Libya, or any person or entity claiming through it or for its benefit.\nArticle 13\n1. Without prejudice to the applicable rules concerning reporting, confidentiality and professional secrecy, natural and legal persons, entities and bodies shall:\n(a)\nsupply immediately any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 4, to the competent authority in the Member State where they are resident or located, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex IV, and shall transmit such information, either directly or through the Member States, to the Commission; and\n(b)\ncooperate with that competent authority in any verification of this information.\n2. Any information provided or received in accordance with this Article shall be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.\nArticle 14\nMember States and the Commission shall immediately inform each other of the measures taken under this Regulation and shall supply each other with any other relevant information at their disposal in connection with this Regulation, in particular information in respect of violation and enforcement problems and judgments handed down by national courts.\nArticle 15\nThe Commission shall be empowered to amend Annex IV on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\nArticle 16\n1. Where the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee lists a natural or legal person, entity or body, the Council shall include such natural or legal person, entity or body in Annex II.\n2. Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to the measures referred to in Article 5(1), it shall amend Annex III accordingly.\n3. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\n4. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the natural or legal person, entity or body accordingly.\n5. Where the United Nations decides to delist a natural or legal person, entity or body, or to amend the identifying data of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, the Council shall amend Annex II accordingly.\n6. The list in Annex III shall be reviewed in regular intervals and at least every 12 months.\nArticle 17\n1. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules without delay after the entry into force of this Regulation and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment.\nArticle 18\nWhere there is, in this Regulation, a requirement to notify, inform or otherwise communicate with the Commission, the address and other contact details to be used for such communication shall be those indicated in Annex IV.\nArticle 19\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\nArticle 20\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2011.", "references": ["45", "98", "71", "21", "86", "56", "63", "54", "37", "74", "6", "73", "20", "87", "36", "75", "14", "42", "95", "64", "13", "32", "10", "30", "82", "67", "47", "78", "39", "44", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "76", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "76", "94"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1339/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 209(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, in the light of the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on 31 October 2011 (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA new framework for planning and delivering assistance was established in 2006 in order to make the Community\u2019s external assistance more effective and transparent. It contains Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (2), Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (3), Council Regulation (EC) No 1934/2006 of 21 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for cooperation with industrialised and other high-income countries and territories (4), Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability (5), Council Regulation (Euratom) No 300/2007 of 19 February 2007 establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (6), Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide (7), and Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8).\n(2)\nIn implementing Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006, inconsistencies have emerged regarding exceptions to the principle of non-eligibility for Union financing of costs related to taxes, duties and other charges. It is therefore proposed to amend the relevant provisions of that Regulation in order to align it with the other instruments.\n(3)\nThis Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued, in accordance with Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1905/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Union assistance shall not in principle be used for paying taxes, duties or charges in beneficiary countries.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["36", "69", "77", "29", "6", "38", "99", "83", "21", "45", "75", "56", "9", "59", "47", "63", "66", "40", "28", "43", "48", "70", "23", "55", "95", "81", "12", "93", "31", "50", "No Label", "4", "10", "16"], "gold": ["4", "10", "16"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 239/2012\nof 19 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 March 2012.", "references": ["25", "76", "58", "5", "7", "71", "26", "73", "40", "69", "24", "33", "43", "54", "13", "50", "84", "98", "79", "11", "2", "94", "90", "17", "55", "63", "21", "97", "28", "8", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 919/2012\nof 5 July 2012\nsupplementing Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps with regard to regulatory technical standards for the method of calculation of the fall in value for liquid shares and other financial instruments\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (1), and in particular Article 23(8) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe method of calculation of the significant fall in value of financial instruments contained in Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (2) should be adapted to the various ways in which that fall is reflected depending on the type of financial instrument concerned. That method can take the form of an actual fall in price of the financial instrument, of an increase in the yield of a debt instrument issued by a corporate issuer or an increase in the yield across the yield curve for debt instruments issued by sovereign issuers.\n(2)\nThis Regulation should be read in conjunction with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 918/2012 (3), which defines thresholds for the significant fall in value of illiquid shares, debt instruments issued by sovereign and corporate issuers, exchange-traded funds, money market instruments and derivatives whose sole underlying financial instrument is traded on a trading venue. This Regulation should therefore restrict itself to specifying the method of calculation of the significant fall in value of these instruments.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure consistency and legal certainty for market participants and competent authorities, the date of application of this Regulation should be the same as that of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 and Delegated Regulation (EU) No 918/2012.\n(4)\nSince Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 recognised that binding technical standards should be adopted before that Regulation can be usefully applied, and as it is essential to specify before 1 November 2012 the required non-essential elements to facilitate compliance by market participants with that Regulation and enforcement by competent authorities, it is necessary that this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication.\n(5)\nThis Regulation is based on the draft regulatory technical standards submitted by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to the Commission.\n(6)\nESMA has conducted open public consultations on the draft regulatory technical standards on which this Regulation is based, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the opinion of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group established in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (4),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. This Regulation specifies the method of calculation of the 10 % fall in value for liquid shares traded on a trading venue as set out in Article 23(5) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012.\n2. This Regulation also specifies the method of calculation of the fall in value for the following financial instruments traded on a trading venue as specified in Delegated Regulation (EU) No 918/2012 adopted pursuant to Article 23(7) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012:\n(a)\nilliquid shares;\n(b)\nthe following non-derivative financial instruments:\n(i)\ndebt instruments issued by sovereign and corporate issuers;\n(ii)\nexchange-traded funds;\n(iii)\nmoney market instruments;\n(c)\nderivatives whose sole underlying is a financial instrument traded on a trading venue.\nArticle 2\nMethod of calculation of a significant fall in value for liquid and illiquid shares\n1. For a share traded on a trading venue, the fall in value shall be calculated from the official closing price of the previous trading day at that trading venue defined according to the applicable rules of that trading venue.\n2. That method of calculation shall exclude any downward movement of a price resulting exclusively from a split or any corporate action or similar measures adopted by the issuer on its issued share capital which can result in an adjustment of the price by the relevant trading venue.\nArticle 3\nMethod of calculation of a significant fall in value for other non-derivative financial instruments\n1. A significant fall in value for financial instruments other than shares and not falling into the categories of derivatives listed in points (4) to (10) of Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC shall be calculated according to the method in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.\n2. For a financial instrument for which the significant fall in value referred to in Article 23(7) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 is measured in relation to a price on the relevant trading venue, that fall shall be calculated from the official closing price at the relevant trading venue defined according to the applicable rules of that trading venue.\n3. For a financial debt instrument issued by a sovereign issuer for which the significant fall in value referred to in Article 23(7) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 is measured in relation to a yield curve, that fall shall be calculated as an increase across the yield curve in comparison with the yield curve of the sovereign issuer at the close of trading of the previous trading day, as calculated based on data available for the issuer on that trading venue.\n4. For a financial instrument for which the significant fall in value referred to in Article 23(7) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 is measured in relation to a variation of the yield, that fall shall be calculated as an increase of the current yield as compared to the yield of that instrument at the close of trading of the previous trading day, as calculated based on data available for that instrument on that trading venue.\nArticle 4\nMethod of calculation of a significant fall in value for derivatives\nA significant fall in value for financial instruments falling under the categories of derivatives listed in points (4) to (10) of Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC and which have a sole underlying financial instrument that is traded on a trading venue and for which a significant fall in value has been specified in accordance with Article 2 or Article 3, shall be calculated by reference to the significant fall in value of the underlying financial instrument.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 November 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2012.", "references": ["23", "66", "47", "85", "38", "94", "73", "35", "43", "1", "25", "9", "15", "63", "88", "27", "8", "10", "49", "79", "34", "77", "68", "5", "54", "87", "96", "41", "6", "75", "No Label", "19", "30"], "gold": ["19", "30"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 October 2010\nconcerning the amounts transferred from the national support programmes in the wine sector to the Single Payment Scheme as provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007\n(notified under document C(2010) 7042)\n(Only the English, French, Greek, Maltese and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(2010/618/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), in particular Article 103za thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 103n of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the allocation of the available Community funds as well as the budgetary limits for the national support programmes in the wine sector are set out in Annex Xb to that Regulation.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 103o of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, some Member States have foreseen the transfer of funds to the Single Payment Scheme or have provided for subsequent changes to their national support programmes.\n(3)\nArticle 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 (2) provides that the Member States should notify any subsequent transfer to the Single Payment Scheme before 1 December preceding the calendar year in which it will be applicable.\n(4)\nFor the sake of clarity and in accordance with Article 103za of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the Commission should publish the amounts notified by the Member States concerned pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 555/2008.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe amounts transferred from the national support programmes to the Single Payment Scheme in respect of the 2010-2013 financial years are as set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Malta and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2010.", "references": ["28", "12", "96", "14", "30", "8", "17", "93", "53", "34", "72", "21", "94", "92", "89", "98", "2", "40", "35", "22", "99", "42", "65", "60", "77", "1", "3", "63", "51", "55", "No Label", "4", "61", "66", "71", "75"], "gold": ["4", "61", "66", "71", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\non a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Poland in 2007\n(notified under document C(2011) 8722)\n(Only the Polish text is authentic)\n(2011/799/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3) first and second indents of that Decision identifies the percentage of Union financial contributions can be paid to compensate the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nArticle 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2008/557/EC of 27 June 2008 on a financial contribution from the Community towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Poland in 2007 (3) provided for a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Poland in 2007.\n(5)\nPoland submitted an official request for reimbursement on 13 March 2008 as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(6)\nArticle 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 makes the payment of that financial contribution from the Union subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(7)\nDecision 2008/557/EC provided that a first tranche of EUR 845 000 should be paid as part of the Union\u2019s financial contribution.\n(8)\nAn audit according to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 carried out by the Commission\u2019s services did reveal only minor financial issues.\n(9)\nPoland has thus to this point complied with its technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(10)\nIn view of the above considerations, a second tranche of the financial support from the Union to Poland to the eligible expenditure incurred in association with the eradication of avian influenza in 2007 should now be fixed.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nA second tranche of EUR 750 000 shall be paid to Poland as part of the Union financial contribution.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision constituting a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation is addressed to the Republic of Poland.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["43", "27", "83", "77", "9", "67", "54", "65", "8", "1", "64", "85", "36", "44", "21", "0", "86", "35", "3", "23", "40", "73", "68", "76", "17", "81", "53", "60", "11", "46", "No Label", "4", "15", "33", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "15", "33", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 6 July 2010\non measure C 48/07 (ex NN 60/07) implemented by Poland for WRJ and WRJ-Serwis\n(notified under document C(2010) 4476)\n(Only the Polish text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/612/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to Protocol No 8 of the Accession Treaty on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry (1),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (2) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nThe Commission was made aware of irregularities in the Polish steel tubes sector during monitoring of the restructuring of the Polish steel industry. After the accession of Poland to the EU, checks were carried out ex officio on aid to Walcownia Rur Jedno\u015b\u0107 Sp. z.o.o. (\u2018WRJ\u2019) and WRJ-Serwis Sp. z.o.o. (\u2018WRJ-Serwis\u2019). The Commission requested information from the Polish authorities by letters dated 6 April 2005, 4 August 2005, 3 November 2005, 4 May 2006, 17 November 2006 and 11 July 2007. The Polish authorities replied by letters dated 7 June 2005, 29 September 2005, 2 December 2005, 18 May 2006, 31 May 2006, 10 January 2007 and 3 August 2007.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 23 October 2007 the Commission informed Poland that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (\u2018TFEU\u2019) (3) in respect of several measures awarded to WRJ and WRJ-Serwis.\n(3)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 24 November 2007 (4). The Commission invited interested parties to submit comments on the measures.\n(4)\nThe Commission received comments from one interested party. It forwarded them to Poland, which was given the opportunity to react; its comments were received by letter dated 16 February 2009. Poland\u2019s response to the initiation of the formal investigation procedure was submitted by letters dated 21 January and 1 February 2008.\n(5)\nThe Commission requested further information on 16 February 2009, which Poland submitted by letter dated 4 June 2009.\n2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES\n2.1. The beneficiaries\n2.1.1. WRJ\n(6)\nWRJ is based in Katowice and employs 12 persons for administrative purposes. 40,736 % of the shares in WRJ are held by Towarzystwo Finansowe Silesia Sp. z o.o. (\u2018TFS\u2019), a 99,6 % State-owned company. Another 7,235 % of shares are held by Walcownia Rur Silesia S.A. (\u2018Walcownia Rur Silesia\u2019), a 100 % subsidiary of TFS.\n(7)\nThe other shareholders are:\n-\nPIW Enpol Sp. z o.o. (share of 19,009 %),\n-\nPolskie G\u00f3rnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (share of 8,3 %),\n-\nKulczyk Privatstiftung (share of 4,533 %),\n-\nHuta Jedno\u015b\u0107 (share of 0,817 %),\n-\nseveral other minority shareholders, each holding shares ranging from 0,004 % to 3,4 %.\n(8)\nWRJ was created in 1995 in order to construct a new seamless tube rolling mill with a production capacity of 160 000 tonnes per year (\u2018the WRJ project\u2019).\n(9)\nAnother company named Huta Jedno\u015b\u0107 initially started construction of a 400 000 tonne seamless tube rolling mill in 1978, but work was stopped in 1980 when State subsidies were suspended. After various attempts to restart the project, Huta Jedno\u015b\u0107 filed a motion for bankruptcy including liquidation of assets, which was rejected by the court. Huta Jedno\u015b\u0107 is currently a company in liquidation with activities consisting in leasing out its production assets to other companies and acting as a utilities provider.\n(10)\nThe WRJ project comprised elements of the infrastructure as well as some of the machines and equipment collected earlier by Huta Jedno\u015b\u0107 for the original project and was to be built on a piece of land previously owned by Huta Jedno\u015b\u0107. New investors were invited to participate in the WRJ project, which started in 1997. Implementation of the project was stopped in 2001 and since then the investors have withdrawn from it. Although it seems that 86 % of the work has been realised, WRJ has never commenced production.\n(11)\nOn 4 September 2007 Walcownia Rur Silesia, a wholly-owned subsidiary of TFS set up to consolidate the Polish steel tube sector (see recitals 15 to 17 below), had filed for bankruptcy of WRJ including the liquidation of its assets. Katowice District Court declared WRJ bankrupt on 23 January 2008 and ordered the liquidation of its assets, for which it appointed a bankruptcy receiver. It seems that so far none of WRJ\u2019s assets have been sold under the bankruptcy proceedings.\n2.1.2. WRJ-Serwis\n(12)\nWRJ-Serwis was created in 2001 following the transformation of Zak\u0142ad Us\u0142ug Energomechanicznych \u2018Jedno\u015b\u0107\u2019 S.A., which had been established in 1999. Its shareholders are TFS (share of 54,66 %), PIW ENPOL Sp. z o.o. (share of 36,77 %), Commplex Sp. z o.o. (share of 8,29 %) and Huta Jedno\u015b\u0107 (share of 0,28 %).\n(13)\nThe original purpose of WRJ-Serwis was to implement part of the WRJ project and to provide WRJ with better credit opportunities. However, WRJ-Serwis has never commenced any investment activities, but has been producing seamless cold drawn steel tubes since May 2004, after Huta Jedno\u015b\u0107 stopped production at the drawing mill at the beginning of 2004. This activity is conducted on the basis of assets leased initially from Huta Jedno\u015b\u0107. These assets were subsequently taken over by ING Bank \u015al\u0105ski S.A. and finally by Walcownia Rur Silesia. In addition, WRJ-Serwis acquired 9/10 of the perpetual usufruct of the land on which the WRJ project is located as well as 9/10 ownership of the buildings erected on that land.\n(14)\nWRJ-Serwis ceased operating in April 2008, when Walcownia Rur Silesia took over production of steel tubes at the drawing mill.\n2.1.3. Consolidation of WRJ and WRJ-Serwis and attempts to privatise them\n(15)\nTFS started looking for a strategic investor for WRJ and WRJ-Serwis in 2004. In 2005, interested parties were invited to tender, and two submitted bids. Finally, a framework agreement was concluded with one of the bidders on the acquisition of the assets of WRJ and WRJ-Serwis, free of any encumbrances; however, this was terminated in October 2006 as the conditions had not been met. TFS launched a new tender procedure in December 2006 but did not receive any binding offers.\n(16)\nFollowing a new invitation to tender sent out in 2007, TFS decided to consolidate WRJ and WRJ-Serwis to make it easier to privatise them. To that end, TFS created two new companies, namely FEREX Sp. z o.o. (\u2018FEREX\u2019) and Walcownia Rur Silesia. TFS holds 100 % of shares in both companies. Through Walcownia Rur Silesia and FEREX, TFS acquired the assets required to implement the WRJ project and took over the debts of WRJ and WRJ-Serwis:\n(a)\nWalcownia Rur Silesia became a creditor of WRJ by acquiring receivables due from WRJ of PLN 168 940 469 and PLN 95 595 057 from the banking syndicate and Stalexport respectively. In addition, Walcownia Rur Silesia purchased the movable assets of the drawing mill from the banking syndicate led by ING Bank \u015al\u0105ski;\n(b)\nFEREX also became a creditor of WRJ by acquiring from the banks receivables due from WRJ of PLN 142 941 270,43 in total, secured by a mortgage on land owned by WRJ and WRJ-Serwis.\n(17)\nIn August 2008 another attempt was made by the Polish authorities to sell WRJ, WRJ-Serwis, FEREX and Walcownia Rur Silesia. TFS and Walcownia Rur Silesia invited interested parties to take part in negotiations for the joint purchase of Walcownia Rur Silesia\u2019s assets, the share capital of FEREX, TFS receivables due from FEREX and TFS shares in the capital of WRJ-Serwis. The procedure ended on 15 January 2009 and did not result in the sale of any of the assets offered.\n2.2. The measures under assessment\n(18)\nThe measures awarded to WRJ consist of capital investments by TFS (2.2.1), guarantees provided by TFS (2.2.2) and security provided by the Treasury (2.2.3). The measures awarded to WRJ-Serwis consist of capital investments by TFS (2.2.4).\n2.2.1. Capital investments in WRJ by TFS\n(19)\nThe first capital investment of TFS in WRJ took place on 26 June 2002, when WRJ\u2019s shareholders decided to increase the share capital. TFS was allocated shares with a nominal value of PLN 15 million in exchange for receivables. These receivables were owed to TFS by Huta Andrzej and Huta Katowice and amounted to PLN 15 million. The capital increase was registered and came into effect on 22 November 2002.\n(20)\nThe second increase in share capital took place on 17 January 2003, when WRJ\u2019s shareholders decided to increase the share capital of the company again. TFS was allocated shares with a nominal value of PLN 40 million in exchange for receivables owed to TFS by WRJ (debt for equity swap). The receivables had a nominal value of PLN 40 million and TFS had taken them over earlier, in December 2002, from ING Bank \u015al\u0105ski S.A. The capital increase was registered and came into effect on 25 August 2003.\n2.2.2. Provision of guarantees to WRJ by TFS\n(21)\nIn 2001 TFS granted a guarantee covering up to PLN 5 million of a loan amounting to PLN 20 million. The loan had been granted to WRJ in 1999 by the Regional Environmental and Water Management (WFO\u015aiGW).\n(22)\nIn 2001 TFS granted a guarantee covering up to PLN 50 million of a loan amounting to PLN 115 million. The loan had been granted to WRJ in 1996 by the National Environmental and Water Management (WFO\u015aiGW).\n2.2.3. Provision of security to WRJ by the Treasury\n(23)\nOn 14 October 1997 the Treasury granted a guarantee covering 45 % of principal and interest on two loans amounting to PLN 262,5 million in total. These loans consisted of a foreign-currency credit facility and a PLN credit facility, both granted by a banking syndicate in 1997.\n(24)\nOn 2 January 2003 the state guarantee was increased to 55 % by the Cabinet when it signed the relevant documents. The increase in the guarantee has not been implemented.\n2.2.4. Capital investments in WRJ-Serwis by TFS\n(25)\nTFS made capital interventions in WRJ-Serwis in December 2003 with the objective of obtaining a majority shareholding in the company in order to gain control over the WRJ project. By decision of December 2003, the shareholders of WRJ-Serwis agreed that TFS could acquire shares in the company. The shares had a nominal value of PLN 7 910 000. TFS acquired the shares mainly in exchange for receivables due to TFS from Huta Jedno\u015b\u0107. Those receivables were transferred to WRJ-Serwis. TFS also paid for the shares in cash (PLN 890 000) and with a contribution in kind (metal chips of Huta Jedno\u015b\u0107 for further processing; transfer value PLN 450 000). The share acquisition agreement was signed on 8 June 2004. The capital increase was not registered until 17 August 2007.\n(26)\nSimultaneously with TFS, shares in the increased share capital were taken up by one of the existing shareholders, PIW Enpol Sp. z o.o., and a new shareholder, Commplex Sp. z o.o. (both private companies). The companies acquired the shares by assigning receivables due from Huta Jedno\u015b\u0107 to WRJ-Serwis.\n3. GROUNDS FOR OPENING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION\n(27)\nAs described in recital 3, the Commission decided on 23 October 2007 to open a formal investigation procedure (\u2018the opening decision\u2019). In the opening decision the Commission first expressed its view that it was competent to decide on the case and that the measures in question constituted State aid that was not compatible with the Internal Market.\n3.1. Applicable law and Commission competence\n(28)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission took the view that Articles 107 and 108 TFEU (then Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty) did not normally apply to aid granted before accession which was no longer applied after accession. However, the provisions of Protocol No 8 of the Accession Treaty on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry (\u2018Protocol No 8\u2019) could be regarded as lex specialis in relation to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, which extended State aid monitoring under the TFEU to any aid granted for the restructuring of the Polish steel industry between 1997 and 2006. Accordingly, the Commission would in principle be competent to assess such aid.\n(29)\nAs regards whether tube producers such as WRJ and WRJ-Serwis are part of the \u2018steel industry\u2019 for the purposes of Protocol No 8, the Commission considered the following: Protocol No 8 was based on the national restructuring programme (Restructuring and Development Plan for the Polish Iron and Steel Industry, (\u2018the NRP\u2019)). The scope of the NRP and Protocol No 8 was not limited to the scope of Annex I of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (\u2018the ECSC Treaty\u2019), but also covered certain steel sectors such as seamless tubes and large welded tubes.\n(30)\nAccording to the opening decision, firstly, this interpretation was in line with the definition of the steel industry under the EU State aid rules, namely the definition in Annex B to the Multisectoral Framework (5). Secondly, this followed from the NRP, of which half of the beneficiaries were tube producers. Indeed, Huta Jedno\u015b\u0107, the predecessor of WRJ and WRJ-Serwis, participated in the restructuring programme process and was explicitly mentioned in the draft NRP several times, but was in the end not considered as a potential beneficiary, as at the time there were plans to wind it up following its bankruptcy in 2002.\n(31)\nAs a result, the Commission took the view that the prohibition on awarding aid not caught by the NRP and Protocol No 8 applied to Huta Jedno\u015b\u0107, WRJ and WRJ-Serwis.\n3.2. Existence of State aid\n(32)\nAs regards the investments made in WRJ by TFS and the security given to the company by TFS, the Commission expressed strong doubts that they would have met the requirements of the market economy investor principle. WRJ was facing difficulties at the time the measures were taken and would not have itself been able to raise the funds on the capital market. The Commission also doubted that there would have been a sufficient return on investment. Lastly, it took the view that the investments could hardly be justified by the fact that TFS intended to privatise WRJ at a later date.\n(33)\nAs regards the guarantee provided by the Treasury to WRJ, the Commission noted that it was not clear whether WRJ had been in difficulty at the time when the guarantee was granted, i.e. in 1997. On the other hand, as regards the increase of the guarantee in 2003, WRJ could be considered as being in difficulty and the Commission therefore expressed doubts as regards the compliance of this increase of the guarantee with the market economy investor principle.\n(34)\nAs regards the investments made in WRJ-Serwis by TFS, the Commission expressed doubts that they would have met the requirements of the market economy investor principle. The Commission noted that the company was in difficulty in 2003 and therefore considered it doubtful that the investments had promised a reasonable return.\n3.3. Compatibility of the State aid\n(35)\nThe Commission could not identify any grounds on which the potential State aid could have been declared compatible, as investment or restructuring aid to the steel sector between 1997 and 2006 was prohibited under Protocol No 8 and hence under the EU State aid rules.\n4. COMMENTS FROM POLAND ON THE OPENING DECISION\n(36)\nPoland submitted its comments on the opening decision by letters dated 21 January and 1 February 2008. In summary, Poland did not agree with the Commission\u2019s interpretation of Protocol No 8 and reiterated its view that the measures in question did not constitute State aid.\n4.1. Applicable law and Commission competence\n(37)\nPoland considers that generalisations should not be made on the basis of Protocol No 8, which constitutes an exception to the non-intervention rule concerning State aid before accession.\n(38)\nFirstly, it points out that tube producers and their products were not included in Annex I to Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part (6) (\u2018Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement\u2019) and therefore did not fall within the scope of its application.\n(39)\nSecondly, the prohibition on granting State aid to tube producers in the Member States was introduced on 24 July 2002, when Annex B to the Multisectoral Framework, which defined the scope of the term \u2018steel industry\u2019, entered into force. According to that definition, the seamless tube and large welded tube sector were part of the \u2018steel industry\u2019. Accordingly, the NRP approved by the Commission in 2003 and Protocol No 8 also included tube producers. Previously, when the ECSC Treaty was applicable, the tube sector had been excluded.\n(40)\nPoland concludes that Protocol No 8 has to be interpreted in such a way that before 24 July 2002 aid granted to tube producers was not subject to the Commission\u2019s control (as with any other interventions which occurred before the Accession Treaty entered into force). After that date, the tube producers were subject to the said restrictions.\n(41)\nAs regards the beneficiaries\u2019 awareness, Poland points out that WRJ-Serwis can be classified as a steel producer only as of 2004, when it started to use the drawing mill facilities, and that prior to that date, state interventions could not be regarded as constituting State aid to the steel industry.\n(42)\nLastly, Poland emphasises that the WRJ project is not a continuation of the fomer Huta Jedno\u015b\u0107 project.\n4.2. Existence of State aid\n(43)\nIn addition, Poland claims that TFS, although controlled by the Treasury, is operating on market terms to generate profits. The actions it took as regards WRJ and WRJ-Serwis did not result from any particular control or supervision by the state. Accordingly, the Treasury did not necessarily exercise control within the meaning of the Stardust Marine judgement (7).\n(44)\nAs regards the capital increases in WRJ and the guarantees provided by TFS, Poland considers that TFS did not inject any significant funds into the WRJ project. Indeed, the exchange of receivables in return for shares in WRJ was more economically rational than direct enforcement of those receivables. In addition, at the time of TFS\u2019 investment in WRJ, TFS was in possession of business plans that showed the profitability of the WRJ project. Lastly, the banking syndicate was also willing to provide further financing to WRJ at that time. Accordingly, TFS acted like a market economy investor.\n(45)\nPoland considers the increase of the state guarantee to WRJ to be in line with the market economy investor principle, as it was secured with valuable collateral and WRJ paid a market rate guarantee fee to the Treasury. In addition, the guarantee was contingent on the banks recommencing financing of the WRJ project, which did not take place. Accordingly, the increase in the guarantee was never implemented and Poland considers that no advantage accrued to WRJ.\n(46)\nThe capital intervention in WRJ-Serwis is considered to comply with the market economy investor principle. Firstly, private shareholders took up shares together with TFS. Secondly, WRJ-Serwis was not in a difficult financial situation and TFS took the decision in view of the profits to be generated in the future by WRJ-Serwis. Finally, TFS was able to assume control over WRJ-Serwis and the property on which the WRJ project was built.\n(47)\nAs regards the consolidation of WRJ and WRJ-Serwis, Poland argues that this was the only way of enabling the WRJ project to be rapidly taken over and completed by a private investor while also ensuring maximum recovery of the capital so far injected by the state.\n5. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(48)\nThe Commission received comments from one interested third party which strongly opposed the subsidies given by Poland. The party recalls that pipes were never products caught by the ECSC Treaty and that the pipe industry had to restructure at its own costs, without having been granted State aid. Acceptance of the aid in this case would harm the European pipe industry. The party also states that accepting the aid might jeopardise its attempts to demonstrate that some pipe-importing countries are importing into the EU at dumped or subsidised prices. Lastly, the party argues that the European seamless steel pipe industry was in a special economic situation, with overcapacity in Europe and a need to export large quantities, while imports from China increased in 2007.\n6. POLAND\u2019S COMMENTS ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE INTERESTED PARTY\n(49)\nThe observations of the interested party were forwarded to Poland, which submitted its comments on 16 February 2009. Poland supports the view that there should be transparent rules on fair competition in the tube market.\n(50)\nPoland agrees with the third party that pipes were never a product caught by the ECSC Treaty and reiterates that the \u2018steel sector\u2019 did not include tube producers until the Multisectoral Framework came into force on 24 July 2002. Accordingly, the ban on State aid in the tube sector has only applied since 24 July 2002, when the \u2018expanded\u2019 definition of the steel sector came into force.\n(51)\nLastly, Poland reiterates that WRJ never started production activities and WRJ-Serwis stopped production in 2008. Poland emphasises that it has never granted State aid to WRJ.\n7. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE\n7.1. Applicable law and Commission competence\n(52)\nThe measures in question were granted before the accession of Poland to the European Union (i.e. before 1 May 2004). In principle, Articles 107 and 108 TFEU do not apply to aid which was granted before accession and which no longer applies after accession (8). By derogation from this general rule, and therefore on an exceptional basis, the Commission is competent to review State aid granted by Poland in the context of the restructuring of its steel industry before accession on the basis of Protocol No 8 to the Accession Treaty.\n7.1.1. The lex specialis nature of Protocol No 8\n(53)\nProtocol No 8 contains provisions allowing Poland to conclude the restructuring of its steel industry initiated before accession. The pre-accession restructuring of the Polish steel sector was carried out on the basis of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement, as extended by a decision of the EU-Poland Association Council (\u2018the Decision of the Association Council\u2019) (9).\n(54)\nProtocol 2 to the Europe Agreement granted Poland a so-called \u2018grace period\u2019 of five years, from 1992 to end-1996, during which it was allowed to restructure its ECSC steel sector with State aid.\n(55)\nThis grace period was extended by the Decision of the Association Council for a further period of eight years starting on 1 January 1997, or until the accession of Poland to the EU. In this period, Poland could exceptionally, in respect of \u2018steel products\u2019, grant State aid for restructuring purposes under the terms and conditions enshrined in Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement (as extended by the Decision of the Association Council) and on the basis of the NRP, which Poland submitted to the Commission in April 2003. After assessment of the NRP by the Commission, the Member States approved the Polish proposal in July 2003 (10).\n(56)\nProtocol No 8 allows the Commission to monitor after Poland\u2019s accession State aid granted by Poland to the steel sector on the basis of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement (as extended by the Decision of the Association Council) and the NRP. In addition, Protocol No 8 empowers the Commission to recover aid given in breach of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement and the NRP. Accordingly, Protocol No 8 is lex specialis allowing, on an exceptional basis and by derogation from the general regime, the retroactive monitoring and review of State aid granted by Poland to the Polish steel industry before accession. This was confirmed by the Court, which held that Protocol No 8 is lex specialis in relation to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU which extends the review of State aid carried out by the Commission pursuant to the TFEU to aid granted for the reorganisation of the Polish steel industry during the period from 1997 to 2003 (11).\n7.1.2. Scope of the Commission\u2019s retroactive control competence under Protocol No 8\n(57)\nIn the context of this procedure, the Commission must assess whether the exceptional retroactive control competence described in recitals 53 to 56 above also covers measures granted before accession by Poland to tube producers. To this end, the legal bases applicable to this case, i.e. Protocol No 8, read in conjunction with Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement and the Decision of the Association Council, must be interpreted with a view to determining whether their provisions cover measures granted to Polish tube producers before accession.\n(58)\nIt is a generally-recognised principle of law that the provisions of lex specialis which derogates from the general regime must be interpreted stricto sensu. A strict interpretation of the above-mentioned legal bases (see recitals 59 to 65 below) leads to the conclusion that the exceptional retroactive control competence of the Commission is limited to pre-accession measures granted to ECSC producers, thereby excluding measures to tube producers.\n7.1.3. Interpretation of the legal bases\n(59)\nPoints 12 and 18 of Protocol No 8 lay down the monitoring and retroactive control competences of the Commission with respect to pre-accession aid to the Polish steel industry. Point 12 empowers the Commission and the Council to monitor the implementation of the NRP before and after accession, until 2006. Point 18 empowers the Commission to order recovery of State aid granted in breach of the conditions laid down in Protocol No 8.\n(60)\nPoint 1 of Protocol No 8 stipulates that State aid granted by Poland for the restructuring of \u2018specified parts of the Polish steel industry\u2019 shall be deemed compatible with the internal market provided that \u2018the period provided for in Article 8(4) of Protocol 2 on ECSC products to the Europe Agreement [\u2026] has been extended until the date of accession\u2019, the terms set out in the NRP are respected, the conditions set out in Protocol No 8 are met and \u2018no State aid for restructuring is to be paid to the Polish steel industry after the date of accession\u2019.\n(61)\nPoint 2 of Protocol No 8 stipulates that the restructuring of the Polish steel sector, as described in the individual business plans of the companies listed in Annex 1, shall be completed no later than 31 December 2006. Point 3 of Protocol No 8 indicates that only the companies listed in Annex 1 to the Protocol are eligible for State aid in the framework of the Polish steel restructuring programme.\n(62)\nPoint 1 of Protocol No 8 refers explicitly to Article 8(4) of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement, as extended by Decision of the Association Council. Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement only applied to \u2018ECSC steel products\u2019 (Article 8(4) of Protocol 2) and even listed the steel products in an Annex. The latter reproduced the list of ECSC products as laid down in Annex I to the ECSC Treaty, where the definition of \u2018ECSC steel products\u2019 expressly excludes tubes (\u2018steel tubes (seamless or welded) [\u2026] bright bars and iron castings (tubes, pipes and fittings, and other iron castings)\u2019).\n(63)\nThe ECSC Treaty expired on 23 July 2002. As of that date, State aid to the steel industry was brought under the general EC regime. On that occasion it was decided to broaden the definition of the European steel sector to include tube producers. This was codified in Article 27 and Annex B to the Multisectoral Framework, which defined the EU steel sector as including \u2018seamless tubes, pipes and hollow profiles\u2019 as well as \u2018welded iron or steel tubes and pipes\u2019. This extended definition of the steel sector was subsequently taken over in Annex I to the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 (12), and in Point 29 of Article 2 of the General Block Exemption Regulation (13).\n(64)\nHowever, neither Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement nor the Decision of the Association Council was explicitly amended to incorporate this broadened definition of the EU steel sector including tube producers. Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement had expired on 31 December 1996. The Decision of the Association Council extended the validity of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement from 1 January 1997 for eight years or until the date of Poland\u2019s accession (whichever came first). Article 1 of the Decision of the Association Council refers to \u2018steel products\u2019 in general, but its scope of application is also specifically linked to Article 8(4) of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement, which covered ECSC steel products only. In particular, the extension of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement was made conditional on the submission by Poland to the Commission of a NRP and business plans for its beneficiaries that both met \u2018the requirements listed in Article 8(4) of Protocol 2 and that have been assessed and agreed by its national State aid monitoring authority (the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection)\u2019 (Article 2 of the Decision of the Association Council).\n(65)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission concludes that point 18 of Protocol No 8, interpreted in the light of points 1 to 3 of Protocol No 8 together with Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement and the Decision of the Association Council, does not give the Commission competence to control aid granted to Polish tube producers prior to accession.\n7.1.4. Implementing Rules for the Europe Agreement as an interpretation instrument\n(66)\nIn addition to the legal interpretation of the scope of the relevant legal bases (i.e. Protocol No 8, Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement and the Decision of the Association Council - see recitals 59 to 65 above), the Commission also examined the question of whether the Implementing Rules for the application of the State aid provisions in the Europe Agreement and Protocol 2, as adopted by the EU-Poland Association Council in 2001 (\u2018the Implementing Rules\u2019) (14), are of relevance in order to determine the scope of the Commission\u2019s retroactive control competence with respect to pre-accession measures awarded to Polish tube producers.\n(67)\nAs a matter of general principle, the Implementing Rules contain rules of procedure to be distinguished from the substantive State aid provisions in the Europe Agreement and Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement. It must be noted however that the Implementing Rules also contain specific provisions on the criteria for assessing the compatibility of aid with the Europe Agreement and with Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement respectively.\n(68)\nThe first sentence of Article 2(1) of the Implementing Rules states: \u2018The assessment of compatibility of individual aid awards and programmes with the Europe Agreement, as provided for in Article 1 of these Rules, shall be made on the basis of the criteria arising from the application of the rules of Article 87 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, including the present and future secondary legislation, frameworks, guidelines and other relevant administrative acts in force in the Community, as well as the case law of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice of the European Communities and any decision taken by the Association Council pursuant to Article 4(3)\u2019. This phrase establishes the general principle that the substantive criteria for assessing compatibility of State aid in general with the Europe Agreement are \u2018evolutive\u2019 in the sense of incorporating along the way changes/developments in EU law and jurisprudence.\n(69)\nThe second sentence of Article 2(1) of the Implementing Rules refers in particular to the compatibility criteria under Protocol 2: \u2018Insofar as the aid awards or aid programmes are destined for products covered by Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement, the first sentence of this paragraph applies fully with the exception that the assessment shall not be made on the basis of the criteria arising from the application of the rules of Article 87 of the Treaty establishing the European Community but on the basis of the criteria arising from the application of the rules on State aid of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community\u2019. The wording of this sentence clearly indicates that, contrary to the situation of general aid covered by the first sentence of Article 2(1) (see recital 68 above), for the purposes of aid covered by Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement, the compatibility criteria evolve by reference to the ECSC Treaty. No specific indications are given as to the evolution of the compatibility criteria after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty in 2002.\n(70)\nArticles 2(2) and 2(3) of the Implementing Rules lay down the mechanism whereby changes to the EU compatibility criteria have to be incorporated by Poland. In particular, Poland shall be informed of any changes in the Community compatibility criteria which were not published, and \u2018[w]here such changes do not encounter objections from the Republic of Poland within three months from the date of receiving the official information about them, they shall become criteria of compatibility as provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article. Where such changes encounter objections from the Republic of Poland and having regard to the approximation of legislation as provided for in the Europe Agreement, consultations shall take place, in accordance with Articles 7 and 8 of these Rules\u2019.\n(71)\nEven if Poland did not object within three months to the change made in 2002 to the Community definition of the steel industry to include tube producers, these changes in Community law could not have become applicable to measures that fall outside of the scope of the Europe Agreement, i.e. those that were not covered by the ECSC Treaty. Furthermore, Protocol No 8 is lex specialis, and therefore, for determining its scope of application, the Commission cannot rely on the broadening of the definition of the EU steel sector following the expiry of the ECSC Treaty. It must therefore be concluded that a clear distinction must be made between, on the one hand, the \u2018evolutive\u2019 nature of the law applicable to State aid for the steel sector in Poland before accession under the Europe Agreement, and on the other hand, the necessarily strict interpretation of the scope of the Commission\u2019s retroactive control competence as stemming from Protocol No 8, Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement and the Decision of the Association Council.\n8. CONCLUSION\n(72)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission must conclude that it is not competent to review measures in favour of Polish tube producers before accession, and in particular over the period from 1997 to 2003, on the basis of Protocol No 8. This procedure is closed in view of the fact that the Commission is not competent to assess the measures caught by this procedure,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU initiated by letter addressed to Poland dated 23 October 2007, is closed in view of the fact that the Commission is not competent under the provisions of Protocol No 8 to the Accession Treaty of Poland to review the measures granted by Poland to WRJ and WRJ-Serwis in 2001, 2002 and 2003.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Poland.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2010.", "references": ["95", "28", "53", "51", "92", "3", "71", "34", "25", "56", "29", "9", "47", "69", "60", "38", "18", "12", "14", "24", "85", "7", "83", "19", "99", "78", "4", "46", "8", "88", "No Label", "15", "48", "77", "90", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "48", "77", "90", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 874/2012\nof 12 July 2012\nsupplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of electrical lamps and luminaires\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2010/30/EU requires the Commission to adopt delegated acts as regards the labelling of energy-related products having significant potential for energy savings and a wide disparity in performance levels with equivalent functionality.\n(2)\nProvisions on the energy labelling of household lamps were established by Commission Directive 98/11/EC (2).\n(3)\nThe electricity used by electrical lamps accounts for a significant share of total electricity demand in the Union. In addition to the energy efficiency improvements already achieved, the scope for further reducing the energy consumption of electrical lamps is substantial.\n(4)\nDirective 98/11/EC should be repealed and new provisions should be set out in this Regulation in order to ensure that the energy label provides dynamic incentives for suppliers further to improve the energy efficiency of electrical lamps and to speed up the market shift towards energy-efficient technologies. The scope of Directive 98/11/EC is limited to certain technologies within the category of household lamps. In order to use the label to improve the energy efficiency of other lamp technologies, including in professional lighting, this Regulation should also cover directional lamps, extra low voltage lamps, light-emitting diodes, and lamps used predominantly in professional lighting, such as high-intensity discharge lamps.\n(5)\nLuminaires are often sold with incorporated or accompanying lamps. This Regulation should ensure that consumers are informed about the compatibility of the luminaire with energy-saving lamps and about the energy efficiency of the lamps included with the luminaire. At the same time, this Regulation should not impose a disproportionate administrative burden on luminaire manufacturers and retailers, nor should it discriminate between luminaires as regards the obligation to provide consumers with information on energy efficiency.\n(6)\nThe information provided on the label should be obtained through reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement procedures, which take into account the recognised state-of-the-art measurement methods including, where available, harmonised standards adopted by the European standardisation bodies, as listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).\n(7)\nThis Regulation should specify a uniform design and content for the label for electrical lamps and luminaires.\n(8)\nIn addition, this Regulation should specify requirements for the technical documentation of electrical lamps and luminaires and for the fiche of electrical lamps.\n(9)\nMoreover, this Regulation should specify requirements for the information to be provided for any form of distance selling, advertisements and technical promotional materials for electrical lamps and luminaires.\n(10)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a review of the provisions of this Regulation taking into account technological progress.\n(11)\nIn order to facilitate the transition from Directive 98/11/EC to this Regulation, household lamps labelled in accordance with this Regulation should be considered compliant with Directive 98/11/EC.\n(12)\nDirective 98/11/EC should therefore be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation establishes requirements for labelling of and providing supplementary product information on electrical lamps such as:\n(a)\nfilament lamps;\n(b)\nfluorescent lamps;\n(c)\nhigh-intensity discharge lamps;\n(d)\nLED lamps and LED modules.\nThis Regulation also establishes requirements for labelling luminaires designed to operate such lamps and marketed to end users, including when they are integrated into other products that are not dependent on energy input in fulfilling their primary purpose during use (such as furniture).\n2. The following products shall be excluded from the scope of this Regulation:\n(a)\nlamps and LED modules with a luminous flux of less than 30 lumens;\n(b)\nlamps and LED modules marketed for operation with batteries;\n(c)\nlamps and LED modules marketed for applications where their primary purpose is not lighting, such as:\n(i)\nemission of light as an agent in chemical or biological processes (such as polimerisation, photodynamic therapy, horticulture, petcare, anti-insect products);\n(ii)\nimage capture and image projection (such as camera flashlights, photocopiers, video projectors);\n(iii)\nheating (such as infrared lamps);\n(iv)\nsignalling (such as airfield lamps).\nThese lamps and LED modules are not excluded when they are marketed for lighting;\n(d)\nlamps and LED modules marketed as part of a luminaire and not intended to be removed by the end-user, except when they are offered for sale, hire or hire purchase or displayed separately to the end user, for example as spare parts;\n(e)\nlamps and LED modules marketed as part of a product whose primary purpose is not lighting. However, if they are offered for sale, hire or hire purchase or displayed separately, for example as spare parts, they shall be included within the scope of this Regulation;\n(f)\nlamps and LED modules that do not comply with requirements becoming applicable in 2013 and 2014 according to Regulations implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4);\n(g)\nluminaires that are designed to operate exclusively with the lamps and LED modules listed in points (a) to (c).\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2010/30/EU, the following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this Regulation:\n(1)\n\u2018Light source\u2019 means a surface or object designed to emit mainly visible optical radiation produced by a transformation of energy. The term \u2018visible\u2019 refers to a wavelength of 380-780 nm;\n(2)\n\u2018Lighting\u2019 means the application of light to a scene, objects or their surroundings so that they may be seen by humans;\n(3)\n\u2018Accent lighting\u2019 means a form of lighting where light is directed so as to highlight an object or a part of an area;\n(4)\n\u2018Lamp\u2019 means a unit whose performance can be assessed independently and which consists of one or more light sources. It may include additional components necessary for starting, power supply or stable operation of the unit or for distributing, filtering or transforming the optical radiation, in cases where those components cannot be removed without permanently damaging the unit;\n(5)\n\u2018Lamp cap\u2019 means that part of a lamp which provides connection to the electrical supply by means of a lamp holder or lamp connector and may also serve to retain the lamp in the lamp holder;\n(6)\n\u2018Lamp holder\u2019 or \u2018socket\u2019 means a device which holds the lamp in position, usually by having the cap inserted in it, in which case it also provides the means of connecting the lamp to the electric supply;\n(7)\n\u2018Directional lamp\u2019 means a lamp having at least 80 % light output within a solid angle of \u03c0 sr (corresponding to a cone with angle of 120\u00b0);\n(8)\n\u2018Non-directional lamp\u2019 means a lamp that is not a directional lamp;\n(9)\n\u2018Filament lamp\u2019 means a lamp in which light is produced by means of a threadlike conductor which is heated to incandescence by the passage of an electric current. The lamp may contain gases influencing the process of incandescence;\n(10)\n\u2018Incandescent lamp\u2019 means a filament lamp in which the filament operates in an evacuated bulb or is surrounded by inert gas;\n(11)\n\u2018(Tungsten) halogen lamp\u2019 means a filament lamp in which the filament is made of tungsten and is surrounded by gas containing halogens or halogen compounds. They may be supplied with an integrated power supply;\n(12)\n\u2018Discharge lamp\u2019 means a lamp in which the light is produced, directly or indirectly, by an electric discharge through a gas, a metal vapour or a mixture of several gases and vapours;\n(13)\n\u2018Fluorescent lamp\u2019 means a discharge lamp of the low pressure mercury type in which most of the light is emitted by one or more layers of phosphors excited by the ultraviolet radiation from the discharge. Fluorescent lamps may be supplied with an integrated ballast;\n(14)\n\u2018Fluorescent lamp without integrated ballast\u2019 means a single- or double-capped fluorescent lamp without integrated ballast;\n(15)\n\u2018High-intensity discharge lamp\u2019 means an electric discharge lamp in which the light producing arc is stabilised by wall temperature and the arc has a bulb wall loading in excess of 3 watts per square centimetre;\n(16)\n\u2018Light-emitting diode (LED)\u2019 means a light source which consists of a solid state device embodying a p-n junction. The junction emits optical radiation when excited by an electric current;\n(17)\n\u2018LED package\u2019 means an assembly having one or more LED(s). The assembly may include an optical element and thermal, mechanical and electrical interfaces;\n(18)\n\u2018LED module\u2019 means an assembly having no cap and incorporating one or more LED packages on a printed circuit board. The assembly may have electrical, optical, mechanical and thermal components, interfaces and control gear;\n(19)\n\u2018LED lamp\u2019 means a lamp incorporating one or more LED modules. The lamp may be equipped with a cap;\n(20)\n\u2018Lamp control gear\u2019 means a device located between the electrical supply and one or more lamps, which provides a functionality related to the operation of the lamp(s), such as transforming the supply voltage, limiting the current of the lamp(s) to the required value, providing a starting voltage and preheating current, preventing cold starting, correcting the power factor or reducing radio interference. The device may be designed to connect to other lamp control gear to perform these functions. The term does not include:\n-\ncontrol devices,\n-\npower supplies converting the mains voltage to another supply voltage that are designed to supply in the same installation both lighting products and products whose primary purpose is not lighting;\n(21)\n\u2018Control device\u2019 means an electronic or mechanical device controlling or monitoring the luminous flux of the lamp by other means than power conversion for the lamp, such as timer switches, occupancy sensors, light sensors and daylight regulation devices. In addition, phase cut dimmers shall also be considered as control devices;\n(22)\n\u2018External lamp control gear\u2019 means non-integrated lamp control gear designed to be installed outside the enclosure of a lamp or luminaire, or to be removed from the enclosure without permanently damaging the lamp or the luminaire;\n(23)\n\u2018Ballast\u2019 means lamp control gear inserted between the supply and one or more discharge lamps which by means of inductance, capacitance or a combination of inductance and capacitance, serves mainly to limit the current of the lamp(s) to the required value;\n(24)\n\u2018Halogen lamp control gear\u2019 means lamp control gear that transforms mains voltage to extra low voltage for halogen lamps;\n(25)\n\u2018Compact fluorescent lamp\u2019 means a fluorescent lamp that includes all the components necessary for starting and stable operation of the lamp;\n(26)\n\u2018Luminaire\u2019 means an apparatus which distributes, filters or transforms the light transmitted from one or more lamps and which includes all the parts necessary for supporting, fixing and protecting the lamps and, where necessary, circuit auxiliaries together with the means for connecting them to the electric supply;\n(27)\n\u2018Point of sale\u2019 means a physical location where the product is displayed or offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase to the end-user;\n(28)\n\u2018End-user\u2019 means a natural person buying or expected to buy an electrical lamp or luminaire for purposes which are outside his trade, business, craft or profession;\n(29)\n\u2018Final owner\u2019 means the person or entity owning a product during the use phase of its life cycle, or any person or entity acting on behalf of such a person or entity.\nArticle 3\nResponsibilities of suppliers\n1. Suppliers of electrical lamps placed on the market as individual products shall ensure that:\n(a)\na product fiche, as set out in Annex II, is made available;\n(b)\nthe technical documentation as set out in Annex III is made available on request to the authorities of the Member States and to the Commission;\n(c)\nany advertisement, formal price quote or tender offer disclosing energy-related or price information for a specific lamp states the energy efficiency class;\n(d)\nany technical promotional material concerning a specific lamp which describes its specific technical parameters states the energy efficiency class of that lamp;\n(e)\nif the lamp is intended to be marketed through a point of sale, a label produced in the format and containing information as set out in Annex I.1 is placed or printed on, or attached to, the outside of the individual packaging, and the packaging displays the nominal power of the lamp outside the label.\n2. Suppliers of luminaires intended to be marketed to end-users shall ensure that:\n(a)\nthe technical documentation as set out in Annex III is made available on request to the authorities of the Member States and to the Commission;\n(b)\nthe information contained in the label according to Annex I.2 is provided in the following situations:\n(i)\nin any advertisement, formal price quote or tender offer disclosing energy-related or price information for a specific luminaire;\n(ii)\nin any technical promotional material concerning a specific lamp which describes its specific technical parameters.\nIn these cases the information may be provided in formats other than the one set out in Annex I.2, such as fully textual;\n(c)\nif the luminaire is intended to be marketed through a point of sale, a label produced in the format and containing information as set out in Annex I is made available free of charge to dealers in electronic or paper format. If the supplier chooses a delivery system in which labels are provided only on request from dealers, the supplier shall promptly deliver the labels on request;\n(d)\nif the luminaire is placed on the market in a packaging for end-users that includes electrical lamps which the end-user can replace in the luminaire, the original packaging of those lamps is included in the luminaire\u2019s packaging. If not, then the outside or inside of the luminaire packaging must present, in some other form, the information given on the lamps\u2019 original packaging and required by this Regulation and by Commission regulations setting ecodesign requirements for lamps pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC.\nSuppliers of luminaires intended to be marketed through a point of sale who provide information under this Regulation shall be considered to have fulfilled their responsibilities as distributors with respect to the product information requirements for lamps laid down in Commission regulations setting ecodesign requirements for lamps pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC.\nArticle 4\nResponsibilities of dealers\n1. Dealers of electrical lamps shall ensure that:\n(a)\neach model offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase where the final owner cannot be expected to see the product displayed is marketed with the information to be provided by suppliers in accordance with Annex IV;\n(b)\nany advertisement, formal price quote or tender offer disclosing energy-related or price information for a specific model states the energy efficiency class;\n(c)\nany technical promotional material concerning a specific model which describes its specific technical parameters states the energy efficiency class of that model.\n2. Dealers of luminaires marketed to end-users shall ensure that:\n(a)\nthe information contained in the label in accordance with Annex I.2 is provided in the following situations:\n(i)\nin any advertisement, formal price quote or tender offer disclosing energy-related or price information for a specific luminaire;\n(ii)\nin any technical promotional material concerning a specific luminaire which describes its specific technical parameters.\nIn these cases the information may be provided in formats other than the one set out in Annex I.2, such as fully textual;\n(b)\neach model presented at a point of sale is accompanied by the label as set out in Annex I.2. The label shall be displayed in one or both of the following ways:\n(i)\nin proximity to the displayed luminaire, so as to be clearly visible and identifiable as the label belonging to the model, without having to read the brand name and model number on the label;\n(ii)\nclearly accompanying the most directly-visible information about the displayed luminaire (such as price or technical information) in the point of sale;\n(c)\nif the luminaire is sold in a packaging for end-users that includes electrical lamps which the end-user can replace in the luminaire, the original packaging of those lamps is included in the luminaire\u2019s packaging. If not, then the outside or inside of the luminaire packaging must present, in some other form, the information given on the lamps\u2019 original packaging and required by this Regulation and by Commission regulations setting ecodesign requirements for lamps pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC.\nArticle 5\nMeasurement methods\nThe information to be provided under Articles 3 and 4 shall be obtained by reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement procedures, which take into account the recognised state-of-the-art measurement methods, as set out in Annex V.\nArticle 6\nVerification procedure for market surveillance purposes\nMember States shall apply the procedure laid down in Annex V when assessing the conformity of the declared energy efficiency class and energy consumption.\nArticle 7\nRevision\nThe Commission shall review this Regulation in the light of technological progress no later than three years after its entry into force. The review shall in particular assess the verification tolerances set out in Annex V.\nArticle 8\nRepeal\nDirective 98/11/EC shall be repealed with effect from 1 September 2013.\nReferences to Directive 98/11/EC shall be construed as references to this Regulation. References to Annex IV to Directive 98/11/EC shall be construed as references to Annex VI to this Regulation.\nArticle 9\nTransitional provisions\n1. Articles 3(2) and 4(2) shall not apply to luminaires before 1 March 2014.\n2. Article 3(1)(c-d) and Article 4(1)(a-c) shall not apply to printed advertisements and printed technical promotional material published before 1 March 2014.\n3. Lamps referred to in Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 98/11/EC placed on the market before 1 September 2013 shall comply with the provisions set out in Directive 98/11/EC.\n4. Lamps referred to in Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 98/11/EC which comply with the provisions of this Regulation and which are placed on the market or offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase before 1 September 2013 shall be regarded as complying with the requirements of Directive 98/11/EC.\nArticle 10\nEntry into force and application\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. It shall apply from 1 September 2013, except in the cases listed in Article 9.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2012.", "references": ["48", "27", "49", "92", "57", "14", "51", "61", "29", "58", "47", "34", "32", "83", "11", "38", "89", "33", "39", "43", "98", "10", "71", "54", "44", "40", "20", "53", "15", "9", "No Label", "24", "25", "76", "78", "81", "86"], "gold": ["24", "25", "76", "78", "81", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 744/2012\nof 16 August 2012\namending Annexes I and II to Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum levels for arsenic, fluorine, lead, mercury, endosulfan, dioxins, Ambrosia spp., diclazuril and lasalocid A sodium and action thresholds for dioxins\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed (1), and in particular Article 8(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2002/32/EC provides that the use of products intended for animal feed which contain levels of undesirable substances exceeding the maximum levels laid down in Annex I to that Directive is prohibited. Its Annex II sets action thresholds triggering investigations in cases of increased levels of such substances.\n(2)\nHigher maximum levels (MLs) of arsenic, fluorine, lead and mercury have been established for the feed material calcium carbonate and higher MLs of arsenic and fluorine for the feed material magnesium oxide but not for the feed material calcium and magnesium carbonate, which is the natural mixture of calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate. For reasons of consistency, it is appropriate to align the MLs for arsenic, fluorine, lead and mercury in the feed material calcium and magnesium carbonate with the existing MLs in calcium carbonate.\n(3)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded in its Scientific Opinion on safety and efficacy of di copper chloride trihydroxide (tribasic copper chloride, TBCC) as feed additive (2) that it would be appropriate to set the same ML of arsenic in this additive as the ML of arsenic in cupric sulphate pentahydrate and cupric carbonate. It is appropriate to modify the ML of arsenic in di copper chloride trihydroxide.\n(4)\nCertain compound feed for pet animals contain a significant proportion of the feed materials fish, other aquatic animals and products derived thereof and/or seaweed meal. These feed materials contain a high level of total arsenic. However the presence of arsenic in these feed materials is mainly as organic arsenic, which is the less toxic form. It is therefore appropriate to modify the ML of arsenic applicable to complementary and complete feed for pet animals, containing fish, other aquatic animals and products derived thereof and/or seaweed meal.\n(5)\nThe two zeolite minerals, natrolite and clinoptilolite are the active constituents of natrolite-phonolite (E566) and clinoptilolite of volcanic origin (E567). Therefore it is appropriate to apply the same ML for lead in natrolite-phonolite (E566) as in clinoptilolite of volcanic origin (E567).\n(6)\nIn view of increasing the sustainability of the Salmonids fish farming, fish oil is progressively replaced by the use of vegetable oils. However, this substitution, which would very favourable influence the sustainability of the marine environment, is in some cases not possible, because of the very low ML for endosulfan in complete feed for fish. At a request from the Commission the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) delivered a scientific opinion. In its statement on oral toxicity of endosulfan in fish (3), EFSA stated that no significant adverse effects were observed in fish (Atlantic salmon) exposed up to 0,1 mg/kg endosulfan in feed in open-sea cages and only minor adverse effects were observed in Salmon exposed to levels higher than the current ML in feed in tanks. From a limited study, there are some indications that exposure of Nile tilapia to endosulfan via feed in tanks caused adverse effects. Therefore it is appropriate to propose a higher ML for endosulfan in complete feed for Salmonids, to favour the evolution for increased sustainability of the fish farming without resulting in adverse effects for fish health and human health.\n(7)\nRecent data indicate that the dioxin levels in crustacea meal, which is a by-product from food production and is used mainly in feed for ornamental fish at a level of 1 % to 3 % in the feed, are higher than the current ML. In order to enable the use of this meal for feed and to reduce the quantity of food waste without endangering animal and public health, it is appropriate to slightly increase the ML for dioxins in crustacea meal.\n(8)\nDirective 2002/32/EC has the objective to avoid the dissemination of viable seeds of Ambrosia spp. in the environment. Since the milling or the crushing destroys the germination capacity of the seeds, there is no need to clean the grains and seeds containing non-compliant levels of seeds of Ambrosia spp. before milling or crushing, on the condition that prevention measures are taken to avoid dissemination of Ambrosia spp. seeds into the environment during transport, storage or processing.\n(9)\nAs regards the coccidiostats diclazuril and lasalocid A sodium, amendments should be made to take into account the recently granted authorisations of these substances provided for by Commission Regulation (EU) No 169/2011 of 23 February 2011 concerning the authorisation of diclazuril as a feed additive for guinea fowls (holder of authorisation Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V.) (4), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 888/2011 of 5 September 2011 concerning the authorisation of diclazuril as a feed additive for turkeys for fattening (holder of authorisation Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V.) and amending Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (5) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 900/2011 of 7 September 2011 concerning the authorisation of lasalocid A sodium as a feed additive for pheasants, guinea fowl, quails and partridges other than laying birds (holder of authorisation Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA) (6).\n(10)\nGiven that an increase of the ML for dioxins in crustacea meal is proposed, it is appropriate that also the action threshold applicable to crustacea meal provided for in Annex II to Directive 2002/32/EC is correspondingly increased.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and neither the European Parliament nor the Council has opposed them,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Directive 2002/32/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2012.", "references": ["37", "42", "57", "92", "45", "51", "50", "33", "54", "2", "99", "20", "68", "56", "7", "17", "72", "32", "67", "43", "18", "5", "14", "94", "84", "79", "77", "1", "76", "10", "No Label", "25", "38", "60", "66"], "gold": ["25", "38", "60", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 April 2011\non establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for laundry detergents\n(notified under document C(2011) 2815)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/264/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Union Eco-labelling Board,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, the EU Ecolabel may be awarded to those products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 66/2010 provides that specific EU Ecolabel criteria are to be established according to product groups.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 1999/476/EC (2) has established the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements for laundry detergents. Following the review of the criteria set out in that Decision, Commission Decision 2003/200/EC (3) has established revised criteria which are valid until 30 April 2011.\n(4)\nThose criteria have been further reviewed in the light of technological developments. It results from the review that it is necessary to modify the definition of the product group so as to include a new sub-product group and to establish new criteria. Those new criteria, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, should be valid for 4 years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\n(5)\nDecision 2003/200/EC should be replaced for reasons of clarity.\n(6)\nA transitional period should be allowed for producers whose products have been awarded the Ecolabel for laundry detergents on the basis of the criteria set out in Decision 2003/200/EC, so that they have sufficient time to adapt their products to comply with the revised criteria and requirements. Producers should also be allowed to submit applications based on the criteria set out in Decision 2003/200/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision until the lapse of validity of that Decision.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe product group \u2018Laundry Detergents\u2019 shall comprise: laundry detergents and pre-treatment stain removers whether in powder, liquid or any other form which are marketed and used for the washing of textiles principally in household machines but not excluding their use in launderettes and common laundries.\nPre-treatment stain removers include stain removers used for direct spot treatment of textiles (before washing in the machine) but do not include stain removers dosed in the washing machine and stain removers dedicated to other uses besides pre-treatment.\nThis product group shall not comprise products that are dosed by carriers such as sheets, cloths or other materials nor washing auxiliaries used without subsequent washing, such as stain removers for carpets and furniture upholstery.\nArticle 2\n1. For the purpose of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018heavy-duty detergents\u2019 means detergents used for ordinary washing of white textiles at any temperature;\n(2)\n\u2018colour-safe detergents\u2019 means detergents used for ordinary washing of coloured textiles at any temperature;\n(3)\n\u2018low-duty detergents\u2019 means detergents intended for delicate fabrics;\n(4)\n\u2018substance\u2019 means a chemical element and their compounds in the natural state or obtained by any production process, including any additive necessary to preserve the stability of the products and any impurity deriving from the process used, but excluding any solvent which may be separated without affecting the stability of the substance or changing its composition.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1(1) and (2), a detergent shall be considered either a heavy-duty detergent or a colour-safe detergent except where the detergent is predominantly intended and marketed for delicate fabrics.\nFor the purposes of paragraph 1(3), liquid detergents for ordinary washing of white and coloured textiles shall not be considered low-duty detergents.\nArticle 3\nIn order to be awarded the EU Ecolabel under Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, an item of laundry detergent or pre-treatment stain remover shall fall within the product group \u2018Laundry Detergents\u2019 as defined in Article 1 of this Decision and shall comply with the criteria as well as the related assessment and verification requirements set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThe criteria for the product group \u2018Laundry Detergents\u2019, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid for 4 years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 5\nFor administrative purposes the code number assigned to the product group \u2018Laundry Detergents\u2019 shall be \u20186\u2019.\nArticle 6\nDecision 2003/200/EC is repealed.\nArticle 7\n1. By derogation from Article 6, applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018Laundry Detergents\u2019 submitted before the date of adoption of this Decision shall be evaluated in accordance with the conditions laid down in Decision 2003/200/EC.\n2. Applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018Laundry Detergents\u2019 submitted from the date of adoption of this Decision but by 30 April 2011 at the latest may be based either on the criteria set out in Decision 2003/200/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision.\nThose applications shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria on which they are based.\n3. Where the Ecolabel is awarded on the basis of an application evaluated according to the criteria set out in Decision 2003/200/EC, that Ecolabel may be used for 12 months from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 April 2011.", "references": ["19", "98", "75", "57", "85", "37", "4", "79", "87", "63", "88", "3", "35", "59", "15", "48", "70", "95", "28", "10", "1", "42", "92", "36", "99", "77", "11", "81", "34", "54", "No Label", "9", "24", "25", "58", "76", "83"], "gold": ["9", "24", "25", "58", "76", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 35/2012\nof 17 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 January 2012.", "references": ["71", "39", "52", "90", "33", "26", "92", "82", "18", "75", "99", "50", "64", "59", "41", "12", "13", "15", "91", "87", "44", "20", "78", "34", "73", "16", "17", "9", "38", "98", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1194/2010\nof 14 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for spurdog/dogfish in EU and international waters of I, V, VI, VII, VIII, XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010. According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(2)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["81", "53", "38", "2", "72", "93", "70", "84", "87", "43", "51", "8", "25", "89", "0", "50", "35", "23", "78", "40", "33", "86", "77", "30", "32", "21", "18", "47", "42", "99", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 22 September 2011\ngranting a derogation for implementing Regulation (EC) No 762/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the submission by Member States of statistics on aquaculture with regard to the Czech Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Republic of Austria\n(notified under document C(2011) 6533)\n(Only the Czech, French and German texts are authentic)\n(2011/626/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 762/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on the submission by Member States of statistics on aquaculture and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 788/96 (1), and in particular Article 8(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 762/2008, where inclusion in the statistics of a particular sector of aquaculture activities would cause difficulties not commensurate with the importance of that sector, the Commission may permit a Member State to exclude data covering that sector from the national data submitted or to employ estimation methods used to provide data for more than 10 % of the total production.\n(2)\nRequests have been made from the Czech Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Republic of Austria for obtaining derogations.\n(3)\nThe information provided by the Czech Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Republic of Austria justifies that those derogation should be granted.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Statistics, instituted by Council Decision 72/279/EEC (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision complement Commission Decision 2010/76/EU of 9 February 2010 according a transitional period for implementing Regulation (EC) No 762/2008, of the European Parliament and of the Council on the submission by Member States of statistics on aquaculture with regard to the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Austria, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia (3),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Czech Republic may submit for the value of the production of each species other than Cyprinus carpio (Common carp) estimated data only, for a period ending on 31 December 2012.\n2. This derogation is granted for reference years 2009-2011.\nArticle 2\n1. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is granted derogation from its obligation to submit statistics on the entire aquaculture sector for a period ending on 31 December 2012.\n2. This derogation is granted for reference years 2008-2011.\nArticle 3\n1. The Republic of Austria may submit for the value of the production of each species and for the production of each species in the hatcheries and nurseries sector estimated data only, for a period ending on 31 December 2012.\n2. This derogation is granted for reference year 2011.\nArticle 4\n1. This Decision is addressed to the Czech Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Republic of Austria and shall be notified to them.\n2. This Decision shall take effect upon such notification.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2011.", "references": ["80", "18", "57", "10", "86", "56", "71", "48", "60", "23", "7", "14", "55", "65", "32", "99", "9", "36", "70", "44", "87", "6", "64", "39", "79", "25", "62", "51", "74", "91", "No Label", "8", "19", "42", "47", "67"], "gold": ["8", "19", "42", "47", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1354/2011\nof 20 December 2011\nopening annual Union tariff quotas for sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Articles 144(1) and 148 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnion tariff quotas for sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat should be opened as from 2012. The duties and quantities should be fixed in accordance with the respective international agreements in force in 2012. As a result of the negotiations which led to the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (2), the Union undertook to increase the annual volume of New Zealand by 400 tonnes and to incorporate in its schedule an erga omnes annual import tariff quota of meat of sheep and goats of 200 tonnes carcase weight.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 312/2003 of 18 February 2003 implementing for the Community the tariff provisions laid down in the Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part (3) has provided for an additional bilateral tariff quota of 2 000 tonnes and an additional 10 % annual increase of the original quantity to be opened for product code 0204 from 1 February 2003. Therefore, 200 tonnes shall be added to the GATT/WTO tariff quota for Chile annually and both quotas should continue to be managed together in the same way.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1245/2010 of 21 December 2010 opening Union tariff quotas for 2011 for sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat (4) opened for the year 2011 Union tariff quotas in accordance with the respective international agreements in force during the year 2011. Those tariff quotas should be maintained and opened annually while taking into account the provisions of the agreements with New Zealand and Chile referred to above. Regulation (EU) No 1245/2010 becomes also obsolete at the end of the year 2011 and should therefore be repealed. This Regulation should also be applicable for more than one year and respond to an objective of simplification by avoiding the adoption of a regulation every year.\n(4)\nImports under this Regulation should be managed on a calendar-year basis.\n(5)\nA carcase-weight equivalent needs to be fixed in order to ensure a proper functioning of the Union tariff quotas.\n(6)\nTariff quotas of the sheepmeat and goatmeat products should, by way of derogation from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1439/95 of 26 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 as regards the import and export of products in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector (5), be managed in conformity with Article 144(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. This should be done in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (6).\n(7)\nTariff quotas under this Regulation should be regarded initially as non-critical within the meaning of Article 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 when managed under the first-come, first-served system. Therefore, customs authorities should be authorised to waive the requirement for security in respect of goods initially imported under those tariff quotas in accordance with Articles 308c(1) and 248(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\n(8)\nIt should be clarified which kind of proof certifying the origin of products has to be provided by operators in order to benefit from the tariff quotas under the first-come, first-served system.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation opens, as from 1 January 2012, annual Union import tariff quotas for sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat.\nArticle 2\nThe customs duties applicable to the products under the tariff quotas referred to in Article 1, the CN codes, the countries of origin, the annual volume, and the order numbers are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 3\n1. The quantities, expressed in carcase-weight equivalent, for the import of products under the tariff quotas referred to in Article 1, shall be those as laid down in the Annex.\n2. For the purpose of calculating the quantities of \u2018carcase weight equivalent\u2019 referred to in paragraph 1 the net weight of sheep and goat products shall be multiplied by the following coefficients:\n(a)\nfor live animals: 0,47;\n(b)\nfor boneless lamb and boneless goatmeat of kid: 1,67;\n(c)\nfor boneless mutton, boneless sheep and boneless goatmeat other than of kid and mixtures of any of these: 1,81;\n(d)\nfor bone-in products: 1,00.\n\u2018Kid\u2019 shall mean goat of up to one year old.\nArticle 4\nBy way of derogation from Title II(A) and (B) of Regulation (EC) No 1439/95, the tariff quotas set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall be managed on a first-come, first-served basis in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93. No import licences shall be required.\nArticle 5\n1. In order to benefit from the tariff quotas set out in the Annex, a valid proof of origin issued by the competent authorities of the third country concerned together with a customs declaration for release for free circulation for the goods concerned shall be presented to the Union customs authorities.\nThe origin of products subject to tariff quotas other than those resulting from preferential tariff agreements shall be determined in accordance with the provisions in force in the Union.\n2. The proof of origin referred to in paragraph 1 shall be as follows:\n(a)\nin the case of a tariff quota which is part of a preferential tariff agreement, it shall be the proof of origin laid down in that agreement;\n(b)\nin the case of other tariff quotas, it shall be a proof established in accordance with Article 47 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 and, in addition to the elements provided for in that Article, the following data:\n-\nthe CN code (at least the first four digits),\n-\nthe order number or order numbers of the tariff quota concerned,\n-\nthe total net weight per coefficient category as provided for in Article 3(2) of this Regulation;\n(c)\nin the case of a country whose tariff quota falls under points (a) and (b) and are merged, it shall be the proof referred to in point (a).\nWhere the proof of origin referred to in point (b) is presented as supporting document for only one declaration for release for free circulation, it may contain several order numbers. In all other cases, it shall only contain one order number.\nArticle 6\nRegulation (EU) No 1245/2010 is repealed.\nArticle 7\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["56", "70", "88", "47", "50", "8", "99", "87", "77", "74", "4", "6", "9", "23", "72", "16", "89", "73", "90", "32", "83", "98", "7", "5", "37", "57", "82", "85", "29", "60", "No Label", "21", "22", "65", "66", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "65", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/173/CFSP\nof 23 March 2012\non the activation of the EU Operations Centre for the Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operation in the Horn of Africa\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 17 December 2004, the European Council endorsed the proposals allowing for the establishment of an operations centre and its terms of reference.\n(2)\nOn 18 June 2007, the Council approved the Guidelines for Command and Control Structure for the EU Civilian Operations in Crisis Management.\n(3)\nOn 7 April 2008, by Decision 2008/298/CFSP (1) the Council amended Decision 2001/80/CFSP of 22 January 2001 on the establishment of the Military Staff of the European Union (2) to specify, inter alia, the tasks of the Military Staff of the European Union (EUMS) in relation to the EU Operations Centre.\n(4)\nOn 10 November 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP (3) establishing operation Atalanta with the purpose of deterring piracy off the Somali coast.\n(5)\nOn 15 February 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/96/CFSP (4) on an EU military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia).\n(6)\nOn 14 November 2011, the Council adopted a Strategic Framework for the Horn of Africa to guide the EU\u2019s engagement in the region.\n(7)\nOn 1 December 2011, the Council agreed to accelerate planning for the activation of the EU Operations Centre for the Horn of Africa Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions and operation, in accordance with its terms of reference.\n(8)\nOn 16 December 2011, the Council agreed the Crisis Management Concept for the Regional Maritime Capacity Building (RMCB) mission, as a civilian CSDP mission with military expertise.\n(9)\nOn 23 January 2012, the Council agreed that the EU Operations Centre should be activated for the Horn of Africa CSDP missions and operation.\n(10)\nThe EU Operations Centre should facilitate coordination and improve synergies amongst the Horn of Africa CSDP missions and operation, in the context of the Strategic Framework for the Horn of Africa and in close liaison with the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Horn of Africa.\n(11)\nThe EU Operations Centre should be supported by the existing structures of the EUMS, reinforced by the EUTM Somalia Support Element and the Atalanta Liaison Team.\n(12)\nBearing in mind the requirement to optimise its support for all CSDP missions and operations, the EUMS should provide support to the EU Operations Centre within its means and capabilities,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nActivation of the EU Operations Centre\n1. The EU Operations Centre shall be activated in support of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions and operation in the Horn of Africa, namely Operation Atalanta, EUTM Somalia, and the planned civilian CSDP mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building (RMCB).\n2. The activation of the EU Operations Centre shall be without prejudice to the respective military and civilian chains of command of the missions and the operation, referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 2\nMandate and tasks\n1. The EU Operations Centre shall provide support in the field of operational planning and conduct of Operation Atalanta, EUTM Somalia, and the future civilian CSDP mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building (RMCB), with a view to increasing efficiency, coherence and synergies. In this framework the EU Operations Centre shall help facilitate information exchange and improve coordination and strengthen civil-military synergies.\n2. The EU Operations Centre shall perform the following tasks:\n(a)\nto provide, using its military expertise and specialised planning expertise, direct support to the Civilian Operations Commander for the operational planning and conduct of the RMCB mission;\n(b)\nto provide support to the EUTM Mission Commander and enhance strategic coordination between EUTM Somalia and the other CSDP mission and operation in the Horn of Africa;\n(c)\nto liaise with Operation Atalanta;\n(d)\nto provide support to the Crisis Management and Planning Directorate (CMPD), at its request, in its strategic planning for the CSDP missions and operation in the Horn of Africa;\n(e)\nto facilitate interaction between the Horn of Africa CSDP missions and operation and the Brussels-based structures;\n(f)\nto facilitate coordination and improve synergies amongst Operation Atalanta, EUTM Somalia, and RMCB, in the context of the Horn of Africa Strategy and in liaison with the European Union Special Representative for the Horn of Africa.\nArticle 3\nHead of the EU Operations Centre\n1. Captain (Navy) Ad VAN DER LINDE is hereby appointed Head of the EU Operations Centre for a period of two years, which may be renewed if the Council so decides.\n2. The Head of the EU Operations Centre shall carry out his functions under the political control and strategic direction of the Political and Security Committee (PSC), and, as appropriate, under the military direction of the European Union Military Committee (EUMC).\n3. The Head of the EU Operations Centre shall exercise authority over the staff of the EU Operations Centre for all issues related to the mandate and tasks of the EU Operations Centre.\n4. The Head of the EU Operations Centre shall be responsible for responding to the requests addressed to the EU Operations Centre by the Civilian Operation Commander, the Operation Commander for Operation Atalanta, the EUTM Mission Commander, and CMPD. He shall ensure the proper functioning of the EU Operations Centre and coordinate the efficient use of its capacities. The final responsibility for operational planning documents and decisions on the conduct of the missions and the operation shall remain respectively with the Civilian Operation Commander, the EUTM Mission Commander, and the Operation Commander for Operation Atalanta.\n5. Within the limits of his responsibility, the Head of the EU Operations Centre shall regularly report to EUMC and to PSC.\nArticle 4\nStaff\n1. The Human resources of the EU Operations Centre shall comprise:\n(a)\nstaff provided by the EUMS;\n(b)\nthe EUTM Support Element;\n(c)\nthe Atalanta Liaison Team;\n(d)\nstaff seconded by Member States.\n2. The human resources put at the disposal of the EU Operations Centre shall cover all military expertise required to implement its mandate and tasks properly on the basis of an implementation plan presented to the PSC and shall be subject to regular review. The precise definition of the expertise required shall be the responsibility of the Head of the EU Operations Centre, in close consultation with the Operation and Mission Commanders, the Civilian Operation Commander, and the EUMS.\n3. All staff shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (5).\nArticle 5\nOrganisation\nThe EU Operations Centre shall be organised along functional responsibilities corresponding to the requirements of the CSDP missions and operation which it supports.\nArticle 6\nSupport by the EUMS\nThe EUMS shall, within its means and capabilities, provide support to the EU Operations Centre in accordance with its terms of reference through:\n(a)\nensuring availability and readiness of the staff, facilities and equipment of the EU Operations Centre;\n(b)\nmaintaining, updating and replacing the equipment of the EU Operations Centre;\n(c)\nmaintaining the premises used by the EU Operations Centre.\nArticle 7\nFinancing\n1. The staff provided by EUMS shall be financed in accordance with the rules applicable to the EUMS.\n2. The staff provided by Member States shall be seconded national experts on free secondment.\n3. Travel and other costs not covered by the budgets of the respective CSDP mission and operation shall be borne by the budget of the European External Action Service, subject to the applicable financial rules.\nArticle 8\nReview\nThe mandate, tasks, functioning and financing of the EU Operations Centre, in the context of the overall EU crisis management structures, shall be reviewed on 24 September 2012 and thereafter at regular intervals. This Decision may be revised as appropriate.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force and duration\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply for an initial period of two years.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["60", "55", "82", "54", "69", "76", "51", "43", "92", "61", "66", "18", "67", "90", "99", "29", "40", "25", "46", "44", "50", "62", "79", "1", "73", "97", "4", "56", "59", "11", "No Label", "5", "9", "12", "13", "94"], "gold": ["5", "9", "12", "13", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 June 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean\n(2011/189/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union is competent to adopt measures for the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy and to enter into agreements with third countries and international organisations.\n(2)\nPursuant to Council Decision 98/392/EC (1), the Union is a Contracting Party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, which requires all members of the international community to cooperate in conserving and managing the biological resources of the sea.\n(3)\nPursuant to Council Decision 98/414/EC (2), the Union is a Contracting Party to the Agreement on the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.\n(4)\nOn 17 April 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate, on behalf of the Community, a Convention on a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) in the South Pacific for fishery resources not yet covered by an existing RFMO.\n(5)\nThe negotiations were successfully concluded in Auckland, New Zealand, on 14 November 2009 by the adoption of a draft text of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Convention\u2019), which, under its Article 36(1), is open for signature for a period of 12 months from 1 February 2010.\n(6)\nThe objective of the Convention is to ensure, through its effective implementation, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the fishery resources in the Convention area.\n(7)\nSince vessels flying the flags of Member States of the Union fish resources in the Convention area, it is in the Union's interest to play an effective role in the implementation of the Convention.\n(8)\nThe Convention should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Convention\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Convention (3).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Convention on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 June 2010.", "references": ["84", "97", "66", "62", "47", "28", "21", "17", "78", "48", "1", "55", "68", "57", "8", "99", "24", "94", "34", "0", "20", "81", "43", "11", "61", "63", "83", "39", "89", "38", "No Label", "3", "13", "15", "58", "59", "67"], "gold": ["3", "13", "15", "58", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 494/2010\nof 25 May 2010\namending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(d) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 15 December 2009 the European Union initialled the Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela regarding the structure and operation of the Union\u2019s trading regime for bananas of CN code 0803 00 19 (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019). The Agreement sets out the conditions for the final settlement of pending disputes and claims in the WTO regarding the bananas import regime in the Union.\n(2)\nIn accordance with paragraph 3(a) of the Agreement, the Union is to gradually reduce its tariff duty on bananas from EUR 176/1 000 kg/net to EUR 114/1 000 kg/net.\n(3)\nPending the entry into force of the Agreement, and in accordance with paragraph 8(b) of the Agreement, those tariff cuts are to be applied provisionally and retroactively, from the day of signature of the Agreement, provided that the other Parties to the Agreement comply with their respective obligations.\n(4)\nThe Council adopted its Decision on the signature and provisional application of the Agreement on 10 May 2010.\n(5)\nIt is therefore necessary to implement the first tariff cut provided for in the Agreement, which consists of a reduction of the rate of duty to EUR 148/1 000 kg/net and to provide that that rate is to apply retroactively from 15 December 2009 until 31 December 2010.\n(6)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 (3) should therefore be amended accordingly upon signature of the Agreement.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008, in the row for CN code 0803 00 19 for \u2018Bananas, other than plantains, fresh\u2019, the entry in column 3 (Conventional rate of duty) is replaced by \u2018148 \u20ac/1 000 kg/net\u2019.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 948/2009, in the row for CN code 0803 00 19 for \u2018Bananas, other than plantains, fresh\u2019 the entry in column 3 (Conventional rate of duty) is replaced by \u2018148 \u20ac/1 000 kg/net\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 shall apply from 15 December 2009.\nArticle 2 shall apply from 1 January 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2010.", "references": ["86", "72", "51", "87", "82", "15", "91", "13", "9", "4", "1", "48", "80", "65", "0", "46", "31", "33", "44", "18", "96", "38", "10", "39", "25", "45", "49", "95", "88", "81", "No Label", "7", "21", "68"], "gold": ["7", "21", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 523/2010\nof 17 June 2010\ngranting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 15 June 2010.\n(3)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 15 June 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the products and destinations referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 1 and in Article 2 of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2010.", "references": ["40", "79", "73", "96", "35", "12", "76", "75", "56", "71", "80", "63", "52", "65", "51", "4", "47", "95", "60", "72", "50", "97", "89", "49", "1", "99", "61", "46", "16", "88", "No Label", "20", "21", "70"], "gold": ["20", "21", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 924/2010\nof 14 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2010.", "references": ["24", "97", "42", "58", "8", "92", "94", "51", "53", "91", "10", "50", "21", "11", "17", "18", "23", "40", "81", "90", "38", "79", "47", "89", "0", "33", "41", "7", "34", "72", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 164/2012\nof 24 February 2012\namending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks (1), and in particular Article 26 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe United Kingdom applied for the registration of \u2018Somerset Cider Brandy\u2019, as a geographical indication, in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 17(1) of that Regulation. \u2018Somerset Cider Brandy\u2019 is a cider spirit traditionally produced in the county of Somerset of the United Kingdom. It constitutes a distinct cask aged product distilled from cider made exclusively from apples grown in that county.\n(2)\nThe application to register the name \u2018Somerset Cider Brandy\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) for the purposes of the objection procedure, in accordance with Article 17(6) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008.\n(3)\nSpain submitted an objection to the registration of \u2018Somerset Cider Brandy\u2019 on the ground that Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 provides that a spirit drink that meets the specifications for a product defined in categories 1 to 46 of Annex II to that Regulation has to bear the sales denomination assigned in that Annex. In particular, point 10 of Annex II defines \u2018cider spirit\u2019 as a spirit drink produced through distillation of cider, and point 5 of that Annex defines \u2018brandy\u2019 as a spirit drink produced from wine spirit. Further, it was claimed that the use of the term \u2018brandy\u2019 as part of a geographical indication related to a cider spirit would mislead the consumer as to the true nature of the product.\n(4)\n\u2018Somerset Cider Brandy\u2019 is well established in the United Kingdom and has been known to consumers as \u2018cider brandy\u2019 for a significant period of time. It enjoys a high reputation and forms an essential part of the heritage of the county of Somerset. To require producers to modify the use of the term would not be proportionate to the objective of reserving the term \u2018brandy\u2019 only to wine spirits because it would cause prejudice to the regional economy of the county of Somerset while it would not correspond to the expectations of the consumers concerned, who are familiar with that type of beverage.\n(5)\n\u2018Somerset Cider Brandy\u2019 is not well known in the rest of the Union. To make the consumer aware of the true nature of the product in all Member States, thus avoiding any risk of confusion, the obligation to put the corresponding sales denomination \u2018cider spirit\u2019 on the label should be laid down. In the light of the above, the name \u2018Somerset Cider Brandy\u2019 should be registered as a geographical indication in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008.\n(6)\nThe geographical indication \u2018Herbal vodka from the North Podlasie Lowland aromatised with an extract of bison grass/W\u00f3dka zio\u0142owa z Niziny P\u00f3\u0142nocnopodlaskiej aromatyzowana ekstraktem z trawy \u017cubrowej\u2019 is registered in product category 15 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, corresponding to \u2018vodka\u2019. However, the appropriate classification for this product, according to its specifications, should be \u2018flavoured vodka\u2019. Therefore, a new product category 31 \u2018flavoured vodka\u2019 should be inserted for this geographical indication in Annex III to that Regulation.\n(7)\nThe geographical indication \u2018Irish Cream\u2019 is registered in product category 32 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 as originating in Ireland. It is necessary to clarify that such geographical indication also covers the corresponding product manufactured in Northern Ireland.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 110/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nTo facilitate the transition from the rules provided for in Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 to those in this Regulation, the marketing of existing stocks should be foreseen until they run out and the use of labels printed before the date of entry into force of this Regulation should be allowed until 31 December 2012.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Spirit Drinks,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin product category 10 \u2018Cider spirit and perry spirit\u2019, the following entry is added:\n\u2018Somerset Cider Brandy (3)\nUnited Kingdom\n(2)\nin product category 15 \u2018Vodka\u2019, the following sixth entry is deleted:\n\u2018Herbal vodka from the North Podlasie Lowland aromatised with an extract of bison grass/W\u00f3dka zio\u0142owa z Niziny P\u00f3\u0142nocnopodlaskiej aromatyzowana ekstraktem z trawy \u017cubrowej\nPoland\u2019\n(3)\nafter product category 30 \u2018Bitter-tasting spirit drinks/bitter\u2019, the following entry related to product category 31 \u2018Flavoured vodka\u2019 is inserted:\n\u201831. Flavoured vodka\nHerbal vodka from the North Podlasie Lowland aromatised with an extract of bison grass/W\u00f3dka zio\u0142owa z Niziny P\u00f3\u0142nocnopodlaskiej aromatyzowana ekstraktem z trawy \u017cubrowej\nPoland\u2019\n(4)\nin product category 32, the entry related to \u2018Irish Cream\u2019 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Irish Cream (4)\nIreland\nArticle 2\nSpirit drinks not meeting the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 as amended by Article 1 of this Regulation may continue to be placed on the market until stocks run out.\nLabels printed before the date of entry into force of this Regulation may continue to be used until 31 December 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2012.", "references": ["35", "29", "48", "65", "99", "57", "64", "31", "84", "8", "4", "43", "69", "54", "52", "32", "12", "47", "6", "0", "44", "81", "9", "3", "16", "79", "39", "2", "73", "68", "No Label", "24", "25", "71", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "71", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 260/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 14 March 2012\nestablishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro and amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe creation of an integrated market for electronic payments in euro, with no distinction between national and cross-border payments is necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market. To that end, the single euro payments area (SEPA) project aims to develop common Union-wide payment services to replace current national payment services. As a result of the introduction of open, common payment standards, rules and practices, and through integrated payment processing, SEPA should provide Union citizens and businesses with secure, competitively priced, user-friendly, and reliable payment services in euro. This should apply to SEPA payments within and across national boundaries under the same basic conditions and in accordance with the same rights and obligations, regardless of location within the Union. SEPA should be completed in a way that facilitates access for new market entrants and the development of new products, and creates favourable conditions for increased competition in payment services and for the unhindered development and swift, Union-wide implementation of innovations relating to payments. Consequently, improved economies of scale, increased operating efficiency and strengthened competition should lead to downward price pressure in electronic payment services in euro on a \u2018best-of-breed\u2019 basis. The effects of this should be significant, in particular in Member States where payments are relatively expensive compared to other Member States. The transition to SEPA should therefore not be accompanied by overall price increases for payment service users (PSUs) in general and for consumers in particular. Instead, where the PSU is a consumer, the principle of not levying higher charges should be encouraged. The Commission will continue to monitor price developments in the payment sector and is invited to provide an annual analysis thereof.\n(2)\nThe success of SEPA is very important economically and politically. SEPA is fully in line with the Europe 2020 strategy which aims at a smarter economy in which prosperity results from innovation and from the more efficient use of available resources. Both the European Parliament, through its resolutions of 12 March 2009 (4) and of 10 March 2010 (5) on the implementation of SEPA, and the Council in its conclusions adopted on 2 December 2009, have underlined the importance of achieving rapid migration to SEPA.\n(3)\nDirective 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market (6) provides a modern legal foundation for the creation of an internal market for payments, of which SEPA is a fundamental element.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 924/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on cross-border payments in the Community (7) also provides a number of facilitating measures for the success of SEPA such as the extension of the principle of equal charges to cross-border direct debits and reachability for direct debits.\n(5)\nSelf-regulatory efforts of the European banking sector through the SEPA initiative have not proven sufficient to drive forward concerted migration to Union-wide schemes for credit transfers and direct debits on both the supply and the demand side. In particular, consumer and other user interests have not been taken into account in a sufficient and transparent way. The voice of all relevant stakeholders should be heard. Moreover, that self-regulatory process has not been subject to appropriate governance mechanisms, which may partly explain the slow uptake on the demand side. While the recent establishment of the SEPA Council represents a significant improvement of the governance of the SEPA project, fundamentally and formally governance still remains very much in the hands of the European Payments Council (EPC). The Commission should therefore review the governance arrangements of the whole SEPA project before the end of 2012 and, where necessary, make a proposal. That review should examine, inter alia, the composition of the EPC, the interaction between the EPC and an overarching governance structure, such as the SEPA Council, and the role of that overarching structure.\n(6)\nOnly rapid and comprehensive migration to Union-wide credit transfers and direct debits will generate the full benefits of an integrated payments market, so that the high costs of running both \u2018legacy\u2019 and SEPA products in parallel can be eliminated. Rules should therefore be laid down to cover the execution of all credit transfer and direct debit transactions denominated in euro within the Union. However, card transactions should not be covered at this stage, since common standards for Union card payments are still under development. Money remittance, internally processed payments, large-value payment transactions, payments between payment service providers (PSPs) for their own account and payments via mobile phone or any other means of telecommunication or digital or IT device should not fall within the scope of those rules since those payment services are not comparable to credit transfers or direct debits. Where a payment card at the point of sale or some other device such as a mobile phone is used as the means to initiate a payment transaction, either at the point of sale or remotely, which directly results in a credit transfer or a direct debit to and from a payment account identified by the existing national basic bank account number (BBAN) or the international bank account number (IBAN), that payment transaction should, however, be included. In addition, given the specific characteristics of payments processed through large-value payment systems, namely their high priority, urgency, and primarily large amount, it is not appropriate to cover such payments under this Regulation. That exclusion should not include direct debit payments, unless the payer has explicitly requested the payment be routed via a large-value payment system.\n(7)\nSeveral payment services currently exist, mostly for payments through the internet, which also use IBAN and the business identifier code (BIC) and are based on credit transfers or direct debits but have additional features. Those services are expected to extend beyond their current national borders and could fulfil a consumer demand for innovative, safe and cheap payment services. In order not to foreclose such services from the market, the regulation of the end-dates for credit transfers and direct debits provided for in this Regulation should apply only to the credit transfer or direct debit underlying those transactions.\n(8)\nIn the vast majority of payment transactions in the Union, it is possible to identify a unique payment account using only IBAN without additionally specifying BIC. Reflecting this reality, banks in a number of Member States have already established a directory, database or other technical means to identify the BIC corresponding to a specific IBAN. BIC is required only in a very small, residual number of cases. It seems unjustified and excessively burdensome to oblige all payers and payees throughout the Union always to provide BIC in addition to IBAN for the small number of cases where this is currently necessary. A much simpler approach would be for PSPs and other parties to solve and eliminate those cases where a payment account cannot be identified unambiguously by a given IBAN. Therefore the necessary technical means should be developed to enable all users to identify unambiguously a payment account by IBAN alone.\n(9)\nFor a credit transfer to be executed, the payee\u2019s payment account must be reachable. Therefore, in order to encourage the successful take-up of Union-wide credit transfer and direct debit services, a reachability obligation should be established across the Union. To improve transparency, it is furthermore appropriate to consolidate that obligation and the reachability obligation for direct debits already established under Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 in a single act. All payee payment accounts reachable for a national credit transfer should also be reachable via a Union-wide credit transfer scheme. All payers\u2019 payment accounts reachable for a national direct debit should also be reachable via a Union-wide direct debit scheme. This should apply whether or not a PSP decides to participate in a particular credit transfer or direct debit scheme.\n(10)\nTechnical interoperability is a prerequisite for competition. In order to create an integrated market for electronic payments systems in euro, it is essential that the processing of credit transfers and direct debits is not hindered by business rules or technical obstacles such as compulsory adherence to more than one system for settling cross-border payments. Credit transfers and direct debits should be carried out under a scheme, the basic rules of which are adhered to by PSPs representing a majority of PSPs within a majority of the Member States and constituting a majority of PSPs within the Union, and which are the same both for cross-border and for purely national credit transfer and direct debit transactions. Where there is more than one payment system for the processing of such payments, those payment systems should be interoperable through the use of Union-wide and international standards so that all PSUs and all PSPs can enjoy the benefits of seamless retail euro payments across the Union.\n(11)\nGiven the specific characteristics of the business market, whilst business-to-business credit transfer or direct debit schemes need to comply with all other provisions in this Regulation, including having the same rules for cross-border and national transactions, the requirement that participants represent a majority of PSPs within the majority of Member States should apply only to the extent that PSPs providing business-to-business credit transfer or direct debit services represent a majority of PSPs in the majority of Member States where such services are available, and constitute a majority of PSPs providing such services within the Union.\n(12)\nIt is crucial to identify technical requirements unambiguously determining the features which Union-wide payment schemes to be developed under appropriate governance arrangements have to respect in order to ensure interoperability between payment systems. Such technical requirements should not restrict flexibility and innovation but should be open to and neutral towards potential new developments and improvements in the payments market. Technical requirements should be designed taking into account the special characteristics of credit transfers and direct debits, in particular with regard to the data elements contained in the payment message.\n(13)\nIt is important to take measures to strengthen the confidence of PSUs in the use of such services, especially for direct debits. Such measures should allow payers to instruct their PSPs to limit direct debit collection to a certain amount or a certain periodicity and to establish specific positive or negative lists of payees. Within the framework of the establishment of Union-wide direct debit schemes, it is appropriate that consumers are able to benefit from such checks. Nevertheless for the practical implementation of such checks on payees, it is important that PSPs are able to check on the basis of IBAN, and, for a transitional period, but only where necessary, BIC, or some other unique creditor identifier of specified payees. Other relevant rights of users are already established in Directive 2007/64/EC and should be fully ensured.\n(14)\nTechnical standardisation is a cornerstone for the integration of networks, such as the Union payments market. The use of standards developed by international or European standardisation bodies should be mandatory as from a given date for all relevant transactions. In the payment context, such mandatory standards are IBAN, BIC, and the financial services messaging standard \u2018ISO 20022 XML\u2019. The use of those standards by all PSPs is therefore a requirement for full interoperability throughout the Union. In particular, the mandatory use of IBAN and BIC where necessary should be promoted through comprehensive communication and facilitating measures in Member States in order to allow a smooth and easy transition to Union-wide credit transfers and direct debits, in particular for consumers. PSPs should be able to agree, bilaterally or multilaterally, on the expansion of the basic Latin character set to support regional variations of SEPA standard messages.\n(15)\nIt is absolutely crucial that all actors, and particularly Union citizens, are properly informed, in a timely manner, so that they are fully prepared for the changes brought about by SEPA. Key stakeholders such as PSPs, public administrations and national central banks as well as other heavy users of regular payments should therefore carry out specific and extensive information campaigns, proportionate to the need and tailored to their audience as may be necessary, in order to raise public awareness and prepare citizens for SEPA migration. In particular, there is a need to familiarise citizens with migration from BBAN to IBAN. National SEPA coordination committees are best placed to coordinate such information campaigns.\n(16)\nIn order to allow a concerted transition process in the interests of clarity and simplicity for consumers, it is appropriate to set a single migration deadline by which all credit transfers and direct debit transactions should comply with those technical requirements, while leaving the market open for further development and innovation.\n(17)\nFor a transitional period, Member States should be able to permit PSPs to allow consumers to continue using BBAN for national payment transactions on condition that interoperability is ensured by converting BBAN technically and securely into the respective unique payment account identifier by the PSP concerned. The PSP should not levy any direct or indirect charges or other fees linked to that service.\n(18)\nAlthough the level of development of credit transfer and direct debit services differs from one Member State to another, a common deadline at the end of an adequate period for implementation, which allows for all the necessary processes to take place would contribute to a coordinated, coherent and integrated migration to SEPA and would help prevent a two-speed SEPA, which would cause greater confusion among consumers.\n(19)\nPSPs and PSUs should have sufficient time to adapt to the technical requirements. However, the adaptation period should not unnecessarily delay the benefits to consumers or penalise the efforts of proactive operators that have already moved towards SEPA. For national payment and cross-border payment transactions, the PSPs should provide their retail customers with the necessary technical services in order to ensure a smooth and secure conversion to the technical requirements laid down in this Regulation.\n(20)\nIt is important to provide legal certainty to the payments industry on business models for direct debits. Regulation of multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) for direct debits is essential to create neutral conditions of competition between PSPs and so to permit the development of a single market for direct debits. Such fees for transactions which are rejected, refused, returned or reversed because they cannot be properly executed or result in exception processing (so-called \u2018R-transactions\u2019 where the letter \u2018R\u2019 can signify \u2018reject\u2019, \u2018refusal\u2019, \u2018return\u2019, \u2018reversal\u2019, \u2018revocation\u2019 or \u2018request for cancellation\u2019), could help to allocate costs efficiently within the internal market. Therefore, it would appear beneficial for the creation of an effective European direct debit market to prohibit per transaction MIF. Nevertheless, R-transaction fees should be allowed, provided that they comply with certain conditions. PSPs must provide clear and understandable information to consumers on R-transaction fees in the interests of transparency and consumer protection. In any event, the R-transaction rules are without prejudice to the application of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Furthermore, it should be noted that in general direct debits and card payments have different characteristics, in particular in terms of the higher potential for payees to provide incentives for the use of a direct debit by payers through a pre-existing contract between the payee and the payer, whilst for card payments no such prior contract exists and the payment transaction is often an isolated and irregular event. Therefore, the provisions on MIFs for direct debits are without prejudice to the analysis under Union competition rules of MIFs for payment card transactions. Additional optional services are not covered by the prohibition under this Regulation where they are clearly and unequivocally distinct from the core direct debit services and where PSPs and PSUs are completely at liberty to offer or use such services. Nevertheless they remain subject to Union and national competition rules.\n(21)\nTherefore, the possibility to apply per transaction MIF for national and cross-border direct debits should be limited in time and general conditions should be laid down for the application of interchange fees for R-transactions.\n(22)\nThe Commission should monitor the level of R-transaction fees across the Union. R-transaction fees in the internal market should converge over time so that they do not vary across Member States to an extent to threaten the level playing field.\n(23)\nIn some Member States, there are certain legacy payment services which are credit transfers or direct debits but which have very specific functionalities, often due to historical or legal reasons. The transaction volume of such services is usually marginal. Such services could therefore be classified as niche products. A transitional period for such niche products, sufficiently long to minimise the impact of migration on PSUs, should help both sides of the market to focus first on the migration of the bulk of credit transfers and direct debits, thereby allowing the majority of the potential benefits of an integrated payments market in the Union to be reaped earlier. In some Member States, specific direct debit instruments exist which seem very similar to payment card transactions in that the payer uses a card at the point of sale to initiate the payment transaction but the underlying payment transaction is a direct debit. In such payment transactions the card is used only for a read-out in order to facilitate the electronic generation of the mandate, which has to be signed by the payer at the point of sale. Although such payment services cannot be classified as a niche product, there is a need for a transitional period in relation to such payment services because of the substantial transaction volume involved. In order to enable the stakeholders to implement an adequate SEPA substitute, that transitional period should be of sufficient length.\n(24)\nFor the proper functioning of the internal market for payments it is essential to ensure that payers such as consumers, businesses or public authorities are able to send credit transfers to payment accounts held by the payees with PSPs which are located in other Member States and which are reachable in accordance with this Regulation.\n(25)\nIn order to secure a smooth transition to SEPA, a valid payee authorisation to collect recurring direct debits in a legacy scheme should remain valid after the migration deadline established in this Regulation. Such an authorisation should be considered as representing consent to the payer\u2019s PSP to execute the recurring direct debits collected by the payee in compliance with this Regulation, in the absence of national law relating to the continued validity of the mandate or customer agreements changing direct debit mandates to allow their continuation. However, consumer rights must be protected and where existing direct debit mandates have unconditional refund rights, such rights should be maintained.\n(26)\nCompetent authorities should be empowered to fulfil their monitoring duties efficiently and to take all necessary measures including considering complaints to ensure that PSPs comply with this Regulation. Also, Member States should ensure that complaints against PSUs for not complying with this Regulation can be filed and that this Regulation can be enforced in an effective and efficient manner by administrative or judicial means. To foster compliance with this Regulation the competent authorities of different Member States should cooperate with each other and, where appropriate, with the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of the Member States and other relevant competent authorities, such as the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8) (EBA), designated under Union or national legislation applicable to PSPs.\n(27)\nMember States should lay down rules on the penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and should ensure that those penalties are effective, proportionate and dissuasive and that they are applied. Those penalties should not be applied to consumers.\n(28)\nIn order to ensure that redress is possible where this Regulation has been incorrectly applied, or where disputes occur between PSUs and PSPs concerning rights and obligations arising under this Regulation, Member States should establish adequate and effective out-of-court complaint and redress procedures. Member States should be able to decide that those procedures apply only to consumers or only to consumers and microenterprises.\n(29)\nThe Commission should submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, EBA and the ECB on the application of this Regulation. The report should be accompanied, where necessary, by a proposal for the amendment of this Regulation.\n(30)\nIn order to ensure that the technical requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro remain up to date, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of those technical requirements. In the Declaration (No 39) on Article 290 TFEU, annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, the Conference took note of the Commission\u2019s intention to continue to consult experts appointed by the Member States in the preparation of draft delegated acts in the financial services area, in accordance with its established practice. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate and transparent consultation during its preparatory work, including with the ECB and all relevant stakeholders. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and the Council.\n(31)\nSince PSPs located in Member States whose currency is not the euro would need to undertake special preparatory work outside the payments market for their national currency, such PSPs should be allowed to defer the application of the technical requirements for a certain period. Member States whose currency is not the euro should, however, comply with the technical requirements to create a true European payments area, which will strengthen the internal market.\n(32)\nIn order to ensure broad public support for SEPA, a high level of protection for payers is essential, particularly for direct debit transactions. The current and only pan-European direct debit scheme for consumers developed by the EPC provides for a \u2018no-questions-asked\u2019, unconditional refund right for authorised payments during a period of 8 weeks from the date on which the funds were debited, while that refund right is subject to several conditions under Articles 62 and 63 of Directive 2007/64/EC. In the light of the prevailing market situation and of the necessity to ensure a high level of consumer protection, the impact of those provisions should be assessed in the report that, in accordance with Article 87 of Directive 2007/64/EC, the Commission shall, no later than 1 November 2012, present to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the ECB accompanied, where appropriate, by a proposal for its revision.\n(33)\nDirective 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (9) governs the processing of personal data carried out pursuant to this Regulation. Migration to SEPA and the introduction of common standards and rules for payments should be based on compliance with national law on the protection of sensitive personal data in Member States and should safeguard the interests of Union citizens.\n(34)\nFinancial messages relating to payments and transfers in the SEPA are outside the scope of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America of 28 June 2010 on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (10).\n(35)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of its scale or effects, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.\n(36)\nPursuant to Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 924/2009, Member States are to remove settlement-based national reporting obligations on PSPs for balance of payments statistics relating to payment transactions of their customers of up to EUR 50 000. The collection of balance-of-payments statistics based on settlements emerged after the end of foreign exchange controls and until now, constitutes a major data source alongside others such as direct surveys, contributing to good quality statistics. From the beginning of the 1990s some Member States opted to rely more on information reported directly by companies and households than on data reported through banks on behalf of their customers. Although settlement-based reporting represents a solution that, in terms of society as a whole, reduces the cost of balance-of-payments compilation while assuring good-quality statistics, in strict terms of cross-border payments the maintenance of such reporting in some Member States might diminish efficiency and increases costs. Since one aim of SEPA is to reduce the costs of cross-border payments, settlement-based balance-of-payments reporting should be abolished completely.\n(37)\nIn order to enhance legal certainty it is appropriate to align the deadlines for interchange fees set out in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 with the provisions laid down in this Regulation.\n(38)\nRegulation (EC) No 924/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation lays down rules for credit transfer and direct debit transactions denominated in euro within the Union where both the payer\u2019s payment service provider and the payee\u2019s payment service provider are located in the Union, or where the sole payment service provider (PSP) involved in the payment transaction is located in the Union.\n2. This Regulation does not apply to the following:\n(a)\npayment transactions carried out between and within PSPs, including their agents or branches, for their own account;\n(b)\npayment transactions processed and settled through large-value payment systems, excluding direct debit payment transactions which the payer has not explicitly requested be routed via a large-value payment system;\n(c)\npayment transactions through a payment card or similar device, including cash withdrawals, unless the payment card or similar device is used only to generate the information required to directly make a credit transfer or direct debit to and from a payment account identified by BBAN or IBAN;\n(d)\npayment transactions by means of any telecommunication, digital or IT device, if such payment transactions do not result in a credit transfer or direct debit to and from a payment account identified by BBAN or IBAN;\n(e)\ntransactions of money remittance as defined in point (13) of Article 4 of Directive 2007/64/EC;\n(f)\npayment transactions transferring electronic money as defined in point (2) of Article 2 of Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions (11), unless such transactions result in a credit transfer or direct debit to and from a payment account identified by BBAN or IBAN.\n3. Where payment schemes are based on payment transactions by credit transfers or direct debits but have additional optional features or services, this Regulation applies only to the underlying credit transfers or direct debits.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:\n(1)\n\u2018credit transfer\u2019 means a national or cross-border payment service for crediting a payee\u2019s payment account with a payment transaction or a series of payment transactions from a payer\u2019s payment account by the PSP which holds the payer\u2019s payment account, based on an instruction given by the payer;\n(2)\n\u2018direct debit\u2019 means a national or cross-border payment service for debiting a payer\u2019s payment account, where a payment transaction is initiated by the payee on the basis of the payer\u2019s consent;\n(3)\n\u2018payer\u2019 means a natural or legal person who holds a payment account and allows a payment order from that payment account or, where there is no payer\u2019s payment account, a natural or legal person who makes a payment order to a payee\u2019s payment account;\n(4)\n\u2018payee\u2019 means a natural or legal person who holds a payment account and who is the intended recipient of funds which have been the subject of a payment transaction;\n(5)\n\u2018payment account\u2019 means an account held in the name of one or more payment service users which is used for the execution of payment transactions;\n(6)\n\u2018payment system\u2019 means a funds transfer system with formal and standardised arrangements and common rules for the processing, clearing or settlement of payment transactions;\n(7)\n\u2018payment scheme\u2019 means a single set of rules, practices, standards and/or implementation guidelines agreed between PSPs for the execution of payment transactions across the Union and within Member States, and which is separated from any infrastructure or payment system that supports its operation;\n(8)\n\u2018PSP\u2019 means a payment service provider falling under any of the categories referred to in Article 1(1) of Directive 2007/64/EC and the legal and natural persons referred to in Article 26 of Directive 2007/64/EC, but excludes the bodies listed in Article 2 of Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (12) benefiting from a waiver under Article 2(3) of Directive 2007/64/EC;\n(9)\n\u2018PSU\u2019 means a natural or legal person making use of a payment service in the capacity of payer or payee;\n(10)\n\u2018payment transaction\u2019 means an act, initiated by the payer or by the payee of transferring funds between payment accounts in the Union, irrespective of any underlying obligations between the payer and the payee;\n(11)\n\u2018payment order\u2019 means an instruction by a payer or payee to his PSP requesting the execution of a payment transaction;\n(12)\n\u2018interchange fee\u2019 means a fee paid between the payer\u2019s PSP and the payee\u2019s PSP for direct debit transactions;\n(13)\n\u2018MIF\u2019 means a multilateral interchange fee which is subject to an arrangement between more than two PSPs;\n(14)\n\u2018BBAN\u2019 means a payment account number identifier, which unambiguously identifies an individual payment account with a PSP in a Member State and which can only be used for national payment transactions while the same payment account is identified by IBAN for cross-border payment transactions;\n(15)\n\u2018IBAN\u2019 means an international payment account number identifier, which unambiguously identifies an individual payment account in a Member State, the elements of which are specified by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO);\n(16)\n\u2018BIC\u2019 means a business identifier code that unambiguously identifies a PSP, the elements of which are specified by the ISO;\n(17)\n\u2018ISO 20022 XML standard\u2019 means a standard for the development of electronic financial messages as defined by the ISO, encompassing the physical representation of the payment transactions in XML syntax, in accordance with business rules and implementation guidelines of Union-wide schemes for payment transactions falling within the scope of this Regulation;\n(18)\n\u2018large-value payment system\u2019 means a payment system the main purpose of which is to process, clear or settle single payment transactions of high priority and urgency, and primarily of large amount;\n(19)\n\u2018settlement date\u2019 means a date on which obligations with respect to the transfer of funds are discharged between the payer\u2019s PSP and the payee\u2019s PSP;\n(20)\n\u2018collection\u2019 means a part of a direct debit transaction starting from its initiation by the payee until its end through the normal debiting of the payer\u2019s payment account;\n(21)\n\u2018mandate\u2019 means the expression of consent and authorisation given by the payer to the payee and (directly or indirectly via the payee) to the payer\u2019s PSP to allow the payee to initiate a collection for debiting the payer\u2019s specified payment account and to allow the payer\u2019s PSP to comply with such instructions;\n(22)\n\u2018retail payment system\u2019 means a payment system the main purpose of which is to process, clear or settle credit transfers or direct debits, which are generally bundled together for transmission and are primarily of small amount and low priority, and that is not a large-value payment system;\n(23)\n\u2018microenterprise\u2019 means an enterprise, which at the time of conclusion of the payment service contract, is an enterprise as defined in Article 1 and Article 2(1) and (3) of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC (13);\n(24)\n\u2018consumer\u2019 means a natural person acting for purposes other than trade, business or profession in payment service contracts;\n(25)\n\u2018R-transaction\u2019 means a payment transaction which cannot be properly executed by a PSP or which results in exception processing, inter alia, because of a lack of funds, revocation, a wrong amount or a wrong date, a lack of mandate or wrong or closed account;\n(26)\n\u2018cross-border payment transaction\u2019 means a payment transaction initiated by a payer or by a payee where the payer\u2019s PSP and the payee\u2019s PSP are located in different Member States;\n(27)\n\u2018national payment transaction\u2019 means a payment transaction initiated by a payer or by a payee, where the payer\u2019s PSP and the payee\u2019s PSP are located in the same Member State;\n(28)\n\u2018reference party\u2019 means a natural or legal person on behalf of whom a payer makes a payment or a payee receives a payment.\nArticle 3\nReachability\n1. A payee\u2019s PSP which is reachable for a national credit transfer under a payment scheme shall be reachable, in accordance with the rules of a Union-wide payment scheme, for credit transfers initiated by a payer through a PSP located in any Member State.\n2. A payer\u2019s PSP which is reachable for a national direct debit under a payment scheme shall be reachable, in accordance with the rules of a Union-wide payment scheme, for direct debits initiated by a payee through a PSP located in any Member State.\n3. Paragraph 2 shall apply only to direct debits which are available to consumers as payers under the payment scheme.\nArticle 4\nInteroperability\n1. Payment schemes to be used by PSPs for the purposes of carrying out credit transfers and direct debits shall comply with the following conditions:\n(a)\ntheir rules are the same for national and cross-border credit transfer transactions within the Union and similarly for national and cross-border direct debit transactions within the Union; and\n(b)\nthe participants in the payment scheme represent a majority of PSPs within a majority of Member States, and constitute a majority of PSPs within the Union, taking into account only PSPs that provide credit transfers or direct debits respectively.\nFor the purposes of point (b) of the first subparagraph, where neither the payer nor the payee is a consumer, only Member States where such services are made available by PSPs and only PSPs providing such services shall be taken into account.\n2. The operator or, in the absence of a formal operator, the participants of a retail payment system within the Union shall ensure that their payment system is technically interoperable with other retail payment systems within the Union through the use of standards developed by international or European standardisation bodies. In addition, they shall not adopt business rules that restrict interoperability with other retail payment systems within the Union. Payment systems designated under Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems (14) shall only be obliged to ensure technical interoperability with other payment systems designated under the same Directive.\n3. The processing of credit transfers and direct debits shall not be hindered by technical obstacles.\n4. The payment scheme owner or, where there is no formal payment scheme owner, the leading participant of a new entrant retail payment scheme which has participants in at least eight Member States, may apply to the competent authorities in the Member State where the payment scheme owner or leading participant is located for a temporary exemption from the conditions set out in point (b) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1. Those competent authorities may grant, after consulting the competent authorities in the other Member States where the new entrant payment scheme has a participant, the Commission and the ECB, such an exemption for a maximum of 3 years. Those competent authorities shall base their decision on the potential of the new entrant payment scheme to develop into a fully fledged pan-European payment scheme and its contribution to improving competition or promoting innovation.\n5. With the exception of payment services benefiting from a waiver under Article 16(4), this Article shall be effective by 1 February 2014.\nArticle 5\nRequirements for credit transfer and direct debit transactions\n1. PSPs shall carry out credit transfer and direct debit transactions in accordance with the following requirements:\n(a)\nthey must use the payment account identifier specified in point (1)(a) of the Annex for the identification of payment accounts regardless of the location of the PSPs concerned;\n(b)\nthey must use the message formats specified in point (1)(b) of the Annex, when transmitting payment transactions to another PSP or via a retail payment system;\n(c)\nthey must ensure that PSUs use the payment account identifier specified in point (1)(a) of the Annex for the identification of payment accounts, whether the payer\u2019s PSP and the payee\u2019s PSP or the sole PSP in the payment transaction are located in the same Member State or in different Member States;\n(d)\nthey must ensure that where a PSU that is not a consumer or a microenterprise, initiates or receives individual credit transfers or individual direct debits which are not transmitted individually, but are bundled together for transmission, the message formats specified in point (1)(b) of the Annex are used.\nWithout prejudice to point (b) of the first subparagraph, PSPs shall, upon the specific request of a PSU, use the message formats specified in point (1)(b) of the Annex in relation to that PSU.\n2. PSPs shall carry out credit transfers in accordance with the following requirements, subject to any obligation laid down in the national law implementing Directive 95/46/EC:\n(a)\nthe payer\u2019s PSP must ensure that the payer provides the data elements specified in point (2)(a) of the Annex;\n(b)\nthe payer\u2019s PSP must provide the data elements specified in point (2)(b) of the Annex to the payee\u2019s PSP;\n(c)\nthe payee\u2019s PSP must provide or make available to the payee the data elements specified in point (2)(d) of the Annex.\n3. PSPs shall carry out direct debits in accordance with the following requirements, subject to any obligation laid down in national law implementing Directive 95/46/EC:\n(a)\nthe payee\u2019s PSP must ensure that:\n(i)\nthe payee provides the data elements specified in point (3)(a) of the Annex with the first direct debit and one-off direct debit and with each subsequent payment transaction,\n(ii)\nthe payer gives consent both to the payee and to the payer\u2019s PSP (directly or indirectly via the payee), the mandates, together with later modifications or cancellation, are stored by the payee or by a third party on behalf of the payee and the payee is informed of this obligation by the PSP in accordance with Articles 41 and 42 of Directive 2007/64/EC;\n(b)\nthe payee\u2019s PSP must provide the payer\u2019s PSP with the data elements specified in point (3)(b) of the Annex;\n(c)\nthe payer\u2019s PSP must provide or make available to the payer the data elements specified in point (3)(c) of the Annex;\n(d)\nthe payer must have the right to instruct its PSP:\n(i)\nto limit a direct debit collection to a certain amount or periodicity or both,\n(ii)\nwhere a mandate under a payment scheme does not provide for the right to a refund, to verify each direct debit transaction, and to check whether the amount and periodicity of the submitted direct debit transaction is equal to the amount and periodicity agreed in the mandate, before debiting their payment account, based on the mandate-related information,\n(iii)\nto block any direct debits to the payer\u2019s payment account or to block any direct debits initiated by one or more specified payees or to authorise direct debits only initiated by one or more specified payees;\nWhere neither the payer nor the payee is a consumer, PSPs shall not be required to comply with point (d)(i), (ii) or (iii).\nThe payer\u2019s PSP shall inform the payer of the rights referred to in point (d) in accordance with Articles 41 and 42 of Directive 2007/64/EC.\nUpon the first direct debit transaction or a one-off direct debit transaction and upon each subsequent direct debit transaction, the payee shall send the mandate-related information to his or her PSP and the payee\u2019s PSP shall transmit that mandate-related information to the payer\u2019s PSP with each direct debit transaction.\n4. In addition to the requirements referred to in paragraph 1, the payee accepting credit transfers shall communicate its payment account identifier specified in point (1)(a) of the Annex and, until 1 February 2014 for national payment transactions and until 1 February 2016 for cross-border payment transactions, but only where necessary, its PSP\u2019s BIC to its payers, when a credit transfer is requested.\n5. Before the first direct debit transaction, a payer shall communicate its payment account identifier specified in point (1)(a) of the Annex. The BIC of a payer\u2019s PSP shall be communicated until 1 February 2014 for national payment transactions and until 1 February 2016 for cross-border payment transactions by the payer but only where necessary.\n6. Where the framework agreement between the payer and the payer\u2019s PSP does not provide for the right to a refund, the payer\u2019s PSP shall, without prejudice to paragraph (3)(a)(ii), verify each direct debit transaction to check whether the amount of the submitted direct debit transaction is equal to the amount and periodicity agreed in the mandate before debiting the payer\u2019s payment account, based on the mandate-related information.\n7. After 1 February 2014 for national payment transactions and after 1 February 2016 for cross-border payment transactions PSPs shall not require PSUs to indicate the BIC of the PSP of a payer or of the PSP of a payee.\n8. The payer\u2019s PSP and the payee\u2019s PSP shall not levy additional charges or other fees on the read-out process to automatically generate a mandate for those payment transactions initiated through or by means of a payment card at the point of sale, which result in direct debit.\nArticle 6\nEnd-dates\n1. By 1 February 2014, credit transfers shall be carried out in accordance with the technical requirements set out in Article 5(1), (2) and (4) and points 1 and 2 of the Annex.\n2. By 1 February 2014, direct debits shall be carried out in accordance with Article 8(2) and (3) and with the requirements set out in Article 5(1), (3), (5), (6) and (8) and points 1 and 3 of the Annex.\n3. Without prejudice to Article 3, direct debits shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements set out in Article 8(1) by 1 February 2017 for national payments and by 1 November 2012 for cross-border payments.\n4. For national payment transactions a Member State or, with the approval of the Member State concerned, the PSPs of a Member State may, after taking into account and evaluating the state of preparedness and readiness of their citizens, set earlier dates than those referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.\nArticle 7\nValidity of mandates and right to a refund\n1. A valid payee authorisation to collect recurring direct debits in a legacy scheme prior to 1 February 2014 shall continue to remain valid after that date and shall be considered as representing the consent to the payer\u2019s PSP to execute the recurring direct debits collected by that payee in compliance with this Regulation in the absence of national law or customer agreements continuing the validity of direct debit mandates.\n2. Mandates as referred to in paragraph 1 shall allow for unconditional refunds and refunds backdated to the date of the refunded payment where such refunds have been provided for within the framework of the existing mandate.\nArticle 8\nInterchange fees for direct debit transactions\n1. Without prejudice to paragraph 2, no MIF per direct debit transaction or other agreed remuneration with an equivalent object or effect shall apply to direct debit transactions.\n2. For R-transactions a MIF may be applied provided that the following conditions are complied with:\n(a)\nthe arrangement aims at efficiently allocating costs to the PSP which, or the PSU of which, has caused the R-transaction, as appropriate, while taking into account the existence of transaction costs and ensures that the payer is not automatically charged and the PSP is prohibited from charging PSUs in respect of a given type of R-transaction fees that exceed the cost borne by the PSP for such transactions;\n(b)\nthe fees are strictly cost based;\n(c)\nthe level of the fees does not exceed the actual costs of handling an R-transaction by the most cost-efficient comparable PSP that is a representative party to the arrangement in terms of volume of transactions and nature of services;\n(d)\nthe application of the fees in accordance with points (a), (b) and (c) prevent the PSP from charging additional fees relating to the costs covered by those interchange fees to their respective PSUs;\n(e)\nthere is no practical and economically viable alternative to the arrangement which would lead to an equally or more efficient handling of R-transactions at equal or lower cost to consumers.\nFor the purposes of the first subparagraph, only cost categories directly and unequivocally relevant to the handling of the R-transaction shall be considered in the calculation of the R-transaction fees. Those costs shall be precisely determined. The breakdown of the amount of the costs, including separate identification of each of its components, shall be part of the arrangement to allow for easy verification and monitoring.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to unilateral arrangements by a PSP and to bilateral arrangements between PSPs that have an object or effect equivalent to that of a multilateral arrangement.\nArticle 9\nPayment accessibility\n1. A payer making a credit transfer to a payee holding a payment account located within the Union shall not specify the Member State in which that payment account is to be located, provided that the payment account is reachable in accordance with Article 3.\n2. A payee accepting a credit transfer or using a direct debit to collect funds from a payer holding a payment account located within the Union shall not specify the Member State in which that payment account is to be located, provided that the payment account is reachable in accordance with Article 3.\nArticle 10\nCompetent authorities\n1. Member States shall designate as the competent authorities responsible for ensuring compliance with this Regulation public authorities, bodies recognised by national law or public authorities expressly empowered for that purpose by national law, including national central banks. Member States may designate existing bodies to act as competent authorities.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of the competent authorities designated under paragraph 1 by 1 February 2013. They shall notify the Commission and the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (EBA) without delay of any subsequent change concerning those authorities.\n3. Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities referred to in paragraph 1 have all the powers necessary for the performance of their duties. Where there is more than one competent authority for matters covered by this Regulation on its territory, Member States shall ensure that those authorities cooperate closely so that they can discharge their respective duties effectively.\n4. The competent authorities shall monitor compliance by PSPs with this Regulation effectively and take all necessary measures to ensure such compliance. They shall cooperate with each other in accordance with Article 24 of Directive 2007/64/EC and with Article 31 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.\nArticle 11\nPenalties\n1. Member States shall, by 1 February 2013, lay down rules on the penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. Such penalties shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules and measures by 1 August 2013 and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.\n2. The penalties referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be applied to consumers.\nArticle 12\nOut-of-court complaint and redress procedures\n1. Member States shall establish adequate and effective out-of-court complaint and redress procedures for the settlement of disputes concerning rights and obligations arising from this Regulation between PSUs and their PSPs. For those purposes, Member States shall designate existing bodies or where appropriate, set up new bodies.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of the bodies referred to in paragraph 1 by 1 February 2013. They shall notify the Commission without delay of any subsequent change concerning those bodies.\n3. Member States may provide for this Article to apply only to PSUs that are consumers or only to those that are consumers and microenterprises. Member States shall inform the Commission of any such provision by 1 August 2013.\nArticle 13\nDelegation of power\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 14 to amend the Annex, in order to take account of technical progress and market developments.\nArticle 14\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 13 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 31 March 2012. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 9 months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than 3 months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 13 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect on the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or on a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 13 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 3 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 3 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.\nArticle 15\nReview\nBy 1 February 2017, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, ECB and EBA a report on the application of this Regulation accompanied, if appropriate, by a proposal.\nArticle 16\nTransitional provisions\n1. By way of derogation from Article 6(1) and (2), Member States may allow PSPs to provide PSUs, until 1 February 2016, with conversion services for national payment transactions enabling PSUs that are consumers to continue using BBAN instead of the payment account identifier specified in point (1)(a) of the Annex on condition that interoperability is ensured by converting the payer\u2019s and the payee\u2019s BBAN technically and securely into the respective payment account identifier specified in point (1)(a) of the Annex. That payment account identifier shall be delivered to the initiating PSU, where appropriate before the payment is executed. In such a case PSPs shall not levy any charges or other fees on the PSU directly or indirectly linked to those conversion services.\n2. PSPs that offer payment services denominated in euro and that are located in a Member State which does not have the euro as its currency shall comply with Article 3 when offering payment services denominated in euro by 31 October 2016. If, however, the euro is introduced as the currency of any such Member State before 31 October 2015, the PSP located in that Member State shall comply with Article 3 within 1 year of the date on which the Member State concerned joined the euro area.\n3. Member States may allow their competent authorities to waive all or some of the requirements referred to in Article 6(1) and (2) for those credit transfer or direct debit transactions with a cumulative market share, based on the official payment statistics published annually by the ECB, of less than 10 % of the total number of credit transfers or direct debit transactions respectively, in that Member State until 1 February 2016.\n4. Member States may allow their competent authorities to waive all or some of the requirements referred to in Article 6(1) and (2) for those payment transactions generated using a payment card at the point of sale which result in direct debit to and from a payment account identified by BBAN or IBAN until 1 February 2016.\n5. By way of derogation from Article 6(1) and (2), Member States may allow their competent authorities, until 1 February 2016, to waive the specific requirement to use the message formats specified in point (1)(b) of the Annex set out in Article 5(1)(d) for PSUs which initiate or receive individual credit transfers or direct debits that are bundled together for transmission. Notwithstanding a possible waiver, PSPs shall fulfil the requirements set out in Article 5(1)(d) where a PSU requests such a service.\n6. By way of derogation from Article 6(1) and (2), Member States may defer the requirements relating to provision of BIC for national payment transactions in Article 5(4), (5) and (7) until 1 February 2016.\n7. Where a Member State intends to make use of a derogation as provided for in paragraph 1, 3, 4, 5 or 6, that Member State shall notify the Commission accordingly by 1 February 2013, and shall subsequently allow its competent authority to waive, as relevant, some or all of the requirements set out in Article 5, Article 6(1) or (2) and the Annex, for the relevant payment transactions as referred to in the respective paragraphs or subparagraphs and for a period not exceeding that of the derogation. Member States shall notify the Commission of the payment transactions subject to the derogation and of any subsequent change.\n8. PSPs located in, and PSUs making use of a payment service in a Member State which does not have the euro as its currency shall comply with the requirements of Articles 4 and 5 by 31 October 2016. Operators of retail payment systems for a Member State which does not have the euro as its currency shall comply with the requirements of Article 4(2) by 31 October 2016.\nIf, however, the euro is introduced as the currency of any such Member State before 31 October 2015, the PSPs or where relevant operators of retail payment systems located and PSUs making use of a payment service, in that Member State shall comply with the respective provisions within 1 year of the date on which the Member State concerned joined the euro area, but not earlier than the respective dates specified for the Member States having the euro as their own currency on 31 March 2012.\nArticle 17\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 924/2009\nRegulation (EC) No 924/2009 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2, point (10) is replaced by the following:\n\u201810.\n\u201cfunds\u201d means banknotes and coins, scriptural money and electronic money as defined in Article 2(2) of Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions (15).\n(2)\nin Article 3, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Charges levied by a payment service provider on a payment service user in respect of cross-border payments shall be the same as the charges levied by that payment service provider on payment service users for corresponding national payments of the same value and in the same currency.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is deleted;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The payment service provider may levy charges additional to those levied in accordance with Article 3(1) on the payment service user where that user instructs the payment service provider to execute the cross-border payment without communicating IBAN and, where appropriate and in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro and amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 (16), the related BIC for the payment account in the other Member State. Those charges shall be appropriate and in line with the costs. They shall be agreed between the payment service provider and the payment service user. The payment service provider shall inform the payment service user of the amount of the additional charges in good time before the payment service user is bound by such an agreement.\n(4)\nin Article 5, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. With effect from 1 February 2016, Member States shall remove settlement-based national reporting obligations on payment service providers for balance of payments statistics relating to payment transactions of their customers.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 7 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the date \u20181 November 2012\u2019 is replaced by \u20181 February 2017\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the date \u20181 November 2012\u2019 is replaced by \u20181 February 2017\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, the date \u20181 November 2012\u2019 is replaced by \u20181 February 2017\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 8 is deleted.\nArticle 18\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 14 March 2012.", "references": ["19", "73", "20", "97", "46", "17", "36", "51", "87", "60", "35", "81", "42", "32", "54", "86", "39", "85", "98", "82", "48", "4", "38", "25", "62", "10", "6", "57", "59", "96", "No Label", "27", "28", "29", "30", "76"], "gold": ["27", "28", "29", "30", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 804/2011\nof 10 August 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 2 March 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Libya and in accordance with Council Implementing Decision 2011/500/CFSP of 10 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (2), two additional entities should be included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2011.", "references": ["87", "24", "65", "53", "9", "93", "74", "83", "79", "68", "27", "69", "13", "91", "64", "42", "6", "60", "70", "44", "77", "81", "23", "18", "30", "25", "51", "89", "35", "61", "No Label", "3", "5", "76", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "76", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1166/2011\nof 15 November 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1163/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2011.", "references": ["17", "12", "25", "82", "83", "34", "37", "56", "63", "36", "81", "84", "97", "94", "14", "33", "67", "50", "64", "11", "27", "45", "29", "4", "99", "78", "32", "79", "93", "0", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 September 2010\nappointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015\n(2010/570/EU, Euratom)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 300(2) and 302 thereof, in conjunction with Article 7 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,\nHaving regard to the proposals made by each Member State,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe term of office of the current members of the European Economic and Social Committee expires on 20 September 2010 (1). Members of that Committee should therefore be appointed for a period of 5 years as from 21 September 2010.\n(2)\nEach Member State has submitted a list containing a number of candidates equal to the number of seats allocated to it by the Treaty, all such candidates being representatives of organisations of employers, of the employed and of other parties representative of civil society, notably in socioeconomic, civic, professional and cultural areas. However, the Government of Romania will propose at a later stage one further candidate to complete the list according to the number of seats allocated by the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Decision are hereby appointed members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2010.", "references": ["29", "87", "65", "12", "67", "91", "79", "73", "84", "70", "11", "0", "68", "66", "81", "30", "44", "38", "17", "82", "39", "85", "22", "50", "28", "19", "41", "71", "76", "54", "No Label", "7", "52", "96"], "gold": ["7", "52", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 533/2011\nof 31 May 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Chorizo de Cantimpalos (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Chorizo de Cantimpalos\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2011.", "references": ["88", "60", "30", "29", "0", "41", "76", "78", "32", "31", "1", "14", "48", "84", "10", "39", "2", "86", "63", "5", "36", "9", "73", "83", "62", "98", "34", "64", "75", "89", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 122/2011\nof 11 February 2011\nfixing the Union withdrawal and selling prices for the fishery products listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 for the 2011 fishing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1), and in particular Article 20(3) and Article 22 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 104/2000 provides that the Union withdrawal and selling prices for each of the products listed in Annex I thereto are to be fixed on the basis of the freshness, size or weight, and presentation of the product by applying the conversion factor for the product category concerned to an amount not more than 90 % of the relevant guide price.\n(2)\nThe withdrawal prices may be multiplied by adjustment factors in landing areas which are very distant from the main centres of consumption in the Union. The guide prices for the 2011 fishing year were fixed for all the products concerned by Council Regulation (EU) No 1258/2010 (2).\n(3)\nIn order not to hinder the operation of the intervention system in the year 2011, this Regulation should apply retroactively from 1 January 2011.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe conversion factors used for calculating the Union withdrawal and selling prices, as referred to in Articles 20 and 22 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, for the 2011 fishing year for the products listed in Annex I to that Regulation, are set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe Union withdrawal and selling prices applicable for the 2011 fishing year and the products to which they relate are set out in Annex II.\nArticle 3\nThe withdrawal prices applicable for the 2011 fishing year in landing areas which are very distant from the main centres of consumption in the Union, the adjustment factors used for calculating those prices and the products to which those prices relate are set out in Annex III.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 February 2011.", "references": ["89", "90", "57", "27", "75", "4", "81", "99", "46", "9", "96", "62", "19", "63", "77", "54", "3", "23", "56", "28", "30", "38", "11", "48", "17", "84", "83", "18", "41", "0", "No Label", "35", "67"], "gold": ["35", "67"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 July 2012\nappointing a member of the Court of Auditors\n(2012/402/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe term of office of Ms Nadejda SANDOLOVA is due to expire on 31 December 2012.\n(2)\nA new appointment should therefore be made,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMs Iliana IVANOVA is hereby appointed member of the Court of Auditors for the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2018.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["35", "76", "88", "73", "13", "84", "40", "19", "81", "25", "11", "18", "30", "45", "65", "32", "41", "62", "27", "52", "99", "14", "12", "23", "1", "87", "71", "98", "8", "16", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 959/2010\nof 22 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 October 2010.", "references": ["20", "59", "25", "96", "81", "23", "73", "37", "86", "33", "14", "42", "53", "49", "90", "54", "71", "98", "70", "58", "93", "76", "18", "39", "94", "64", "17", "89", "88", "40", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 July 2012\nappointing a Spanish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/378/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Francisco DE LA TORRE PRADO,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed as alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr Fernando MART\u00cdNEZ MAILLO, Presidente de la Diputaci\u00f3n de Zamora.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["32", "13", "43", "3", "27", "2", "70", "35", "93", "44", "31", "45", "49", "90", "54", "23", "98", "16", "75", "64", "78", "77", "82", "47", "73", "88", "28", "57", "85", "17", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1174/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\non enforcement measures to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 136, in combination with Article 121(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe improved economic governance framework should rely on several interlinked and coherent policies for sustainable growth and jobs, in particular a Union strategy for growth and jobs, with particular focus upon developing and strengthening the internal market, fostering international trade and competitiveness, a European Semester for strengthened coordination of economic and budgetary policies, an effective framework for preventing and correcting excessive government deficits (the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)), a robust framework for preventing and correcting macroeconomic imbalances, minimum requirements for national budgetary frameworks, and enhanced financial market regulation and supervision, including macroprudential supervision by the European Systemic Risk Board.\n(2)\nReliable statistical data is the basis for the surveillance of macroeconomic imbalances. In order to guarantee sound and independent statistics, Member States should ensure the professional independence of national statistical authorities, consistent with the European statistics code of practice as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (4). In addition, the availability of sound fiscal data is also relevant for the surveillance of macroeconomic imbalances. This requirement should be guaranteed by the rules provided in this regard by Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area (5), in particular its Article 8.\n(3)\nThe coordination of the economic policies of the Member States within the Union should be developed in the context of the broad economic policy guidelines and the employment guidelines, as provided for by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and should entail compliance with the guiding principles of stable prices, sound and sustainable public finances and monetary conditions and a sustainable balance of payments.\n(4)\nExperience gained and mistakes made during the first decade of the economic and monetary union show a need for improved economic governance in the Union, which should be built on stronger national ownership of commonly agreed rules and policies and on a more robust framework at the level of the Union for the surveillance of national economic policies.\n(5)\nAchieving and maintaining a dynamic internal market should be considered an element of the proper and smooth functioning of the economic and monetary union.\n(6)\nIn particular, surveillance of the economic policies of the Member States should be broadened beyond budgetary surveillance to include a more detailed and formal framework to prevent excessive macroeconomic imbalances and to help the Member States affected to establish corrective plans before divergences become entrenched and before economic and financial developments take a durable turn in an excessively unfavourable direction. Such broadening of the surveillance of economic policies should take place in parallel with a deepening of fiscal surveillance.\n(7)\nTo help correct such excessive macroeconomic imbalances, it is necessary to lay down a detailed procedure in legislation.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate to supplement the multilateral surveillance procedure referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 121 TFEU with specific rules for the detection of macroeconomic imbalances as well as the prevention and correction of excessive macroeconomic imbalances within the Union. It is essential that the procedure be embedded in the annual multilateral surveillance cycle.\n(9)\nStrengthening economic governance should include a closer and more timely involvement of the European Parliament and the national parliaments. While recognising that the counterparts of the European Parliament in the framework of the dialogue are the relevant institutions of the Union and their representatives, the competent committee of the European Parliament may offer an opportunity to participate in an exchange of views to a Member State which is the subject of a Council decision imposing an interest-bearing deposit or an annual fine in accordance with this Regulation. The Member State's participation in such an exchange of views is voluntary.\n(10)\nThe Commission should have a stronger role in the enhanced surveillance procedure as regards assessments that are specific to each Member State, monitoring, on-site missions, recommendations and warnings.\n(11)\nEnforcement of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (6) should be strengthened by establishing interest-bearing deposits in case of non-compliance with the recommendation to take corrective action. Such deposits should be converted into an annual fine in the case of continued non-compliance with the recommendation to address excessive macroeconomic imbalances within the same imbalances procedure. Those enforcement measures should be applicable to Member States whose currency is the euro.\n(12)\nIn the case of failure to comply with Council recommendations, the interest-bearing deposit or the fine should be imposed until the Council establishes that the Member State has taken corrective action to comply with its recommendations.\n(13)\nMoreover, repeated failure of the Member State to draw up a corrective action plan to address the Council recommendation should also be subject to an annual fine as a rule, until the Council establishes that the Member State has provided a corrective action plan that sufficiently addresses its recommendation.\n(14)\nTo ensure equal treatment between Member States, the interest-bearing deposit and the fine should be identical for all Member States whose currency is the euro and equal to 0,1 % of the gross domestic product (GDP) of the Member State concerned in the preceding year.\n(15)\nThe Commission should be able to recommend reducing the amount of a sanction or cancelling it on grounds of exceptional economic circumstances.\n(16)\nThe procedure for applying sanctions to those Member States which fail to take effective measures to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances should be construed in such a way that the application of the sanctions to those Member States would be the rule and not the exception.\n(17)\nFines referred to in this Regulation should constitute other revenue, as referred to in Article 311 TFEU, and should be assigned to stability mechanisms to provide financial assistance, created by Member States whose currency is the euro in order to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole.\n(18)\nThe power to adopt individual decisions for the application of the sanctions provided for in this Regulation should be conferred on the Council. As part of the coordination of the economic policies of the Member States conducted within the Council as provided for in Article 121(1) TFEU, those individual decisions are an integral follow-up to the measures adopted by the Council in accordance with Article 121 TFEU and Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011.\n(19)\nSince this Regulation contains general rules for the effective enforcement of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, it should be adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure referred to in Article 121(6) TFEU.\n(20)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely the effective enforcement of the correction of excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States because of the deep trade and financial interlinks between Member States and the spill-over effects of national economic policies on the Union and the euro area as a whole, and can therefore be better achieved at the level of the Union, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation lays down a system of sanctions for the effective correction of excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area.\n2. This Regulation shall apply to Member States whose currency is the euro.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 shall apply.\nIn addition, the following definition shall apply:\n\u2018exceptional economic circumstances\u2019 means circumstances where an excess of a government deficit over the reference value is considered exceptional within the meaning of the second indent of point (a) of Article 126(2) TFEU and as specified in Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (7).\nArticle 3\nSanctions\n1. An interest-bearing deposit shall be imposed by a Council decision, acting on a recommendation from the Commission, if a Council decision establishing non-compliance is adopted in accordance with Article 10(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, where the Council concludes that the Member State concerned has not taken the corrective action recommended by the Council.\n2. An annual fine shall be imposed by a Council decision, acting on a recommendation by the Commission, where:\n(a)\ntwo successive Council recommendations in the same imbalance procedure are adopted in accordance with Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 and the Council considers that the Member State has submitted an insufficient corrective action plan; or\n(b)\ntwo successive Council decisions in the same imbalance procedure are adopted establishing non-compliance in accordance with Article 10(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011. In this case, the annual fine shall be imposed by means of converting the interest-bearing deposit into an annual fine.\n3. The decisions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be deemed adopted by the Council unless it decides, by qualified majority, to reject the recommendation within 10 days of its adoption by the Commission. The Council may decide, by qualified majority, to amend the recommendation.\n4. The Commission's recommendation for a Council decision shall be issued within 20 days of the conditions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 being met.\n5. The interest-bearing deposit or the annual fine recommended by the Commission shall be 0,1 % of the GDP in the preceding year of the Member State concerned.\n6. By derogation from paragraph 5, the Commission may, on grounds of exceptional economic circumstances or following a reasoned request by the Member State concerned addressed to the Commission within 10 days of the conditions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 being met, propose to reduce or cancel the interest-bearing deposit or the annual fine.\n7. If a Member State has constituted an interest-bearing deposit or has paid an annual fine for a given calendar year and the Council thereafter concludes, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 that the Member State has taken the recommended corrective action in the course of that year, the deposit paid for that year together with the accrued interest or the fine paid for that year shall be returned to the Member State pro rata temporis.\nArticle 4\nAllocation of the fines\nFines referred to in Article 3 of this Regulation shall constitute other revenue, as referred to in Article 311 TFEU, and shall be assigned to the European Financial Stability Facility. When the Member States whose currency is the euro create another stability mechanism to provide financial assistance in order to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole, those fines shall be assigned to that mechanism.\nArticle 5\nVoting in the Council\n1. For the measures referred to in Article 3, only members of the Council representing Member States whose currency is the euro shall vote, and the Council shall act without taking into account the vote of the member of the Council representing the Member State concerned.\n2. A qualified majority of the members of the Council referred to in paragraph 1 shall be defined in accordance with point (b) of Article 238(3) TFEU.\nArticle 6\nEconomic dialogue\nIn order to enhance the dialogue between the Union institutions, in particular the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and to ensure greater transparency and accountability, the competent committee of the European Parliament may invite the President of the Council, the Commission and, where appropriate, the President of the European Council or the President of the Eurogroup to appear before the committee to discuss decisions taken pursuant to Article 3.\nThe competent committee of the European Parliament may offer the opportunity to the Member State concerned by such decisions to participate in an exchange of views.\nArticle 7\nReview\n1. By 14 December 2014 and every 5 years thereafter, the Commission shall publish a report on the application of this Regulation.\nThat report shall evaluate, inter alia:\n(a)\nthe effectiveness of this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe progress in ensuring closer coordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of economic performances of the Member States in accordance with the TFEU.\n2. Where appropriate, that report shall be accompanied by a proposal for amendments to this Regulation.\n3. The Commission shall send the report and any accompanying proposals to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nArticle 8\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["17", "21", "99", "44", "75", "89", "2", "50", "54", "32", "62", "28", "98", "55", "85", "95", "35", "58", "88", "65", "74", "81", "93", "71", "94", "39", "84", "26", "41", "20", "No Label", "8", "12", "16", "19", "27", "33"], "gold": ["8", "12", "16", "19", "27", "33"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 245/2011\nof 11 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 March 2011.", "references": ["33", "15", "74", "79", "32", "62", "4", "72", "73", "8", "41", "44", "37", "59", "22", "25", "48", "27", "9", "23", "70", "29", "91", "36", "28", "55", "5", "17", "52", "0", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 531/2010\nof 18 June 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Csabai kolb\u00e1sz/Csabai vastagkolb\u00e1sz (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Hungary\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Csabai kolb\u00e1sz\u2019 or \u2018Csabai vastagkolb\u00e1sz\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2010.", "references": ["37", "58", "36", "43", "74", "45", "5", "17", "57", "23", "87", "50", "34", "35", "93", "2", "49", "0", "10", "85", "21", "70", "4", "30", "9", "66", "64", "48", "60", "40", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 97/2011\nof 3 February 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Welsh Beef (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined the United Kingdom\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Welsh Beef\u2019 registered in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2066/2002 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2011.", "references": ["71", "92", "34", "98", "13", "48", "7", "46", "15", "16", "73", "3", "14", "49", "53", "70", "39", "64", "29", "56", "17", "27", "84", "33", "9", "78", "31", "10", "79", "36", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 March 2012\non the measures SA. 26909 (2011/C) implemented by Portugal for the restructuring of Banco Portugu\u00eas de Neg\u00f3cios (BPN)\n(notified under document C(2012) 2043)\n(Only the Portuguese version is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/660/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments (1) pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. Procedure\n(1)\nOn 2 November 2008, the Portuguese Government approved a draft law to nationalise the shares representing the share capital of Banco Portugu\u00eas de Neg\u00f3cios, S.A. (\u2018BPN\u2019 or \u2018the bank\u2019). That law was published on 11 November 2008 as Law No 62-A/2008 (\u2018Nationalisation Law\u2019). The nationalisation of BPN took effect on 12 November at zero price.\n(2)\nOn 5 November 2008 the Portuguese authorities informed the Commission about the approval of the draft law by the Portuguese Government. On 11 and 13 November 2008 they informed the Commission of the publication of the Nationalisation Law.\n(3)\nThe Commission immediately requested further information concerning any state aid measures to be granted to BPN under the nationalisation procedure as well as the submission of a restructuring plan for BPN.\n(4)\nPortugal did not submit any prior notification of any of the measures granted to BPN by the State. It informed the Commission of those measures only with considerable delay and after having been repeatedly requested to do so.\n(5)\nIn this context, on 14 November 2008 the Commission made requests for information regarding the specific state aid measures provided to BPN as well as requesting a restructuring plan. The Commission then sent reminders on 5 January and 23 and 29 April 2009.\n(6)\nThe Portuguese authorities replied to the information requests on 8 January, 28 April and 23 June 2009, without providing information on specific state aid measures in favour of BPN or furnishing a restructuring plan. In their letter of 23 June 2009 the Portuguese authorities indicated that they were considering the option of segregating the assets of BPN and selling the bank.\n(7)\nThe Commission reiterated its requests for information on 17 July, 4 and 14 September, and 30 November 2009, and 5 February and 16 March 2010.\n(8)\nThe Portuguese authorities replied on 14 August 2009, indicating that commercial papers totalling up to EUR 2 billion were to be issued by BPN and subscribed by Caixa Geral de Dep\u00f3sitos (\u2018CGD\u2019) with a state guarantee. In their view the guarantee resulted directly from the Nationalisation Law and therefore could not constitute state aid. On 12 October 2009 the Portuguese authorities sent further information on intervention by CGD and the State. They submitted additional information on 21 November 2009, and 17 and 18 February and 31 March 2010.\n(9)\nFollowing a meeting held with the Portuguese authorities on 16 June 2010, on 12 August 2010 the Commission again asked the Portuguese authorities, inter alia, immediately to submit the restructuring plan for BPN. No plan was submitted and the Commission accordingly sent an official reminder on 31 August 2010 pursuant to Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) (2).\n(10)\nOn 14 September 2010, the Portuguese authorities sent a document entitled \u2018Memorando: a nacionaliza\u00e7\u00e3o, a reestrutura\u00e7\u00e3o e a reprivatiza\u00e7\u00e3o projectada do Banco Portugu\u00eas de Neg\u00f3cios, SA\u2019 (hereinafter \u2018the Memorandum of 14 September 2010\u2019) which outlined the restructuring plan of BPN and the main elements of the privatisation process.\n(11)\nHaving found that some information was still missing from the Memorandum of 14 September 2010, the Commission sent a letter on 29 September 2010 requesting additional information from the Portuguese authorities. By electronic mail of 15 November 2010 the Portuguese authorities sought an extension of the deadline for reply, which was granted by the Commission by letter of 18 November 2010. The Portuguese authorities provided additional clarifications by letter of 26 November 2010 and by electronic mail of 25 January 2011.\n(12)\nOn 16 February 2011 the Commission sought clarification on a number of points and requested further data. The Portuguese authorities replied on 16 March 2011.\n(13)\nIn the context of meetings preceding the signature on 17 May 2011 of the Memorandum of Understanding (the \u2018MoU\u2019) (3) between Portugal on the one hand and the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Commission on the other hand, the Commission had a meeting with the management of BPN on 27 April 2011. The MoU envisaged the sale of BPN by the end of July 2011. The Commission therefore sent on 20 May 2011 requests for information on the restructuring of the bank and on the planned sale process. Since no response was provided by the Portuguese authorities, a reminder was sent on 8 July 2011, together with an additional request for information following press reports on further state resources having been provided to BPN by means of a state guarantee. An overview of the privatisation process was provided by the Portuguese authorities on 5 August 2011.\n(14)\nThe Commission met with the Portuguese authorities on 10 August 2011. The Portuguese authorities provided additional information to the Commission during the meeting and subsequently on 28 August 2011. The Commission received further information on 14 September and 14 October 2011.\n(15)\nBy Decision of 24 October 2011 (\u2018the Decision of 24 October 2011\u2019), the Commission initiated the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty under case number SA.26909 with respect to alleged aid granted to BPN and Banco BIC Portugu\u00eas S.A. (\u2018BIC\u2019) (4).\n(16)\nThe Decision of 24 October 2011 was published on 20 December 2011. No third-party comments were received within the one-month deadline.\n(17)\nOn 9 December 2011, Portugal submitted to the Commission the Framework Agreement signed between BIC and the Portuguese authorities on that same day (the \u2018Framework Agreement\u2019).\n(18)\nOn 20 January 2012, Portugal submitted its reply to the observations raised in the Decision of 24 October 2011. On the same date, the Portuguese authorities also provided additional information, including a new restructuring plan for BPN (hereinafter the \u2018January 2012 Restructuring Plan\u2019) and a reply to additional questions which had been posed by the Commission on 21 December 2011 regarding the Framework Agreement. That information was supplemented on 3 February 2012 with a business and viability plan which had been prepared by BIC and which hereinafter for the purposes of this Decision is considered an integral part of the January 2012 Restructuring Plan. Further information was provided on 10, 17 and 23 February 2012, in reply to additional questions that the Commission had addressed to the Portuguese authorities on 8, 14 and 17 February 2012. On 16 March 2012, Portugal provided a series of commitments to the Commission.\n(19)\nDuring the procedure, numerous information exchanges, teleconferences and meetings took place between the Portuguese State, BPN and the Commission.\n2. Description of the beneficiaries and the measures\n2.1 The beneficiary and its difficulties\n(20)\nBPN is a financial institution based in Portugal providing a wide range of banking services. It was nationalised on 11 November 2008 at which time it had a network of 213 branches (4 of which were in France), approximately 2 200 employees and total assets of EUR 6,6 billion, accounting for around 2 % of the total assets of the Portuguese retail banking sector.\n(21)\nAccording to the Portuguese authorities (5), BPN had been facing liquidity issues since the summer of 2008, with the rating agency Moody\u2019s having downgraded BPN from Baa1 to Baa3 on 18 July 2008 (6). Whilst at the end of August BPN had a positive liquidity of EUR 316 million, by 22 October 2008 it had severe negative liquidity of EUR 831 million, with its deposit account with the Bank of Portugal (\u2018BdP\u2019) far from the average amounts it would have had to maintain in order to comply with the legal limits. At that stage, during the month of October 2008, several initiatives were undertaken in order to allow the bank to overcome the liquidity difficulties it was facing and to prevent default in payments, in particular through the provision of special liquidity aid in the form of loans, and through other operations by the BdP and by the state-owned CGD (7).\n(22)\nGiven the volume of the losses being accumulated by BPN, further liquidity support was not considered feasible by the Portuguese authorities, in light of the \u2018high risk to which [BdP and CGD] would be exposed\u2019 (8). A plan had been put forward by the shareholders of BPN, but the Government, based on an opinion of the BdP issued on 30 October 2008, did not consider the plan to be feasible. Given that BPN no longer complied with the solvency requirements because of the high level of impairments (9), the Government then proposed to Parliament the nationalisation of BPN at zero price (10). That proposal was approved on 11 November 2008 by Law 62-A/2008 (the \u2018Nationalisation Law\u2019).\n(23)\nAccording to the Portuguese authorities, the impairments resulted from irregularities and illegal practices detected by the BdP and external audits conducted during June 2008, which were later described in a 2009 BdP report as constituting \u2018fraudulent behaviour, persistent and deliberate, undertaken at the highest level of the management of the Group\u2019 (11). These practices led to investigations and to the launch of several administrative infringement proceedings (\u2018processos de contra-ordena\u00e7\u00e3o\u2019) and to the filing of a complaint with the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Republic.\n(24)\nUnder the Nationalisation Law, CGD was assigned the task of managing BPN, appointing the members of BPN\u2019s management bodies, and establishing the management objectives of BPN within 60 days of the nationalisation. Furthermore, the Nationalisation Law also set out the provision that any credit or liquidity assistance measures undertaken by CGD \u2018in favour of BPN within the context of the nationalisation or in substitution of the State \u2026 shall benefit from a state guarantee\u2019 (12).\n2.2 The financial support measures prior to nationalisation\n(25)\nPrior to its nationalisation in November 2008, BPN had already benefited from a number of financial support measures described by the Portuguese authorities as \u2018special liquidity support measures\u2019 (13). On 17 February 2010, the Portuguese authorities informed the Commission that in the period up to 30 October 2008, BPN had obtained special liquidity assistance measures from both CGD and the BdP for a total amount of EUR 501,6 million, consisting of four loans granted to BPN by CGD for a total amount of EUR 315 million (14) and emergency liquidity assistance (ELA) provided in October 2008 by the BdP for an amount of EUR 186,6 million (15).\n(26)\nWhilst the BdP was reimbursed after the nationalisation, the four loans granted by CGD were reimbursed only on 9 March 2009, with the issuance of the first commercial paper by BPN.\n2.3 The financial support measures after the nationalisation\n(27)\nIn March 2009, BPN issued commercial paper with guaranteed subscription by CGD and a state guarantee for a global amount of EUR 2 billion. The Commission was informed only on 14 August 2009 of these state guarantees.\n(28)\nBy letter of 17 February 2010, the Portuguese authorities also mentioned that CGD had been authorised on 27 October 2009 to subscribe a further EUR 1 billion of commercial papers with a state guarantee. Subsequently, by electronic mail of 14 June 2010, the Commission was further informed that the total of the state guarantees on commercial papers issued by BPN and subscribed by CGD had risen to EUR 4 billion, as in April 2010 a third issue of BPN commercial paper had been organised and was subscribed by CGD for an amount of EUR 1 billion.\n(29)\nIn this context, it should be noted that since its nationalisation in November 2008 and until June 2011, BPN had constantly made use of money market credit facilities given to it by CGD. The amounts owed by BPN to CGD under these short-term instruments reached approximately EUR 2,2 billion on 28 February 2009. According to the data provided by the Portuguese authorities, those amounts were reduced with the issue of the commercial paper referred to in paragraphs (27), and (28) (16).\n(30)\nBy June 2011, the exposure of BPN to CGD in money market instruments was approximately EUR 1 billion. Although the financing was being carried out on a daily basis, it was, according to the Portuguese authorities, of a structural nature with longer dates (17), and was also substituted by the fourth, and last, commercial paper issue of June 2011, with the launch of two issues of EUR 500 million each.\n(31)\nAccording to the figures supplied by the Portuguese authorities on 3 February 2012, the outstanding amount owed by BPN to CGD (apart from the commercial paper issues) was EUR 433,7 million on 31 December 2011 and EUR 232 million on 31 January 2012.\nTable 1\nOverview of liquidity obtained by BPN from CGD, as at 31 December 2011\nWith explicit state guarantee\nCGD Loans\n(without explicit state guarantee)\nTotal\nBPN\n1 400 000 000,00\n433 732 654,56\n1 833 732 654,56\nSpecial Purpose Vehicles (18)\n3 100 000 000,00\n795 111 660,00\n3 895 111 660,00\nTotal\n4 500 000 000,00\n1 228 844 314,56\n5 728 844 314,56\nSource: Portuguese authorities\n(32)\nIt should be noted that under Article 2(9) of the Nationalisation Law all credit or liquidity lines offered by CGD to BPN in the context of the nationalisation are to be guaranteed by the Portuguese State.\n(33)\nIt is therefore clear that all of the amounts described in Table 1 above benefited from a state guarantee pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Nationalisation Law and the various orders issued by the Secretary of State for the Treasury and Finance. The remuneration for the state guarantees was set at 0,2 % per year.\n2.4 The Restructuring of BPN\n(34)\nAn initial restructuring plan of 13 September 2010 (hereinafter \u2018the 2010 Restructuring Plan\u2019) was sent to the Commission by the Portuguese authorities on 16 September 2010.\n(35)\nIn that plan, the Portuguese authorities explained their intention to split BPN into a good bank and a bad bank and to then try to sell the good bank.\n(36)\nThe State wanted to proceed through an open tender process with the sale of the \u2018good bank\u2019, BPN S.A., which was to be exclusively a retail bank. That process was to be conducted on the basis of a call for expressions of interest, for which the specification (\u2018Caderno de Encargos\u2019) was approved on 16 August 2010 by the Portuguese authorities (19).\n(37)\nUnder the 2010 Restructuring Plan, a number of BPN\u2019s assets and liabilities were to remain outside the scope of the reprivatisation and transferred to three new Special Purpose Vehicles (\u2018SPVs\u2019), Parvalorem, Parups and Parparticipadas. These SPVs would initially remain within BPN and after the sale would be transferred to the State. Loans and credits would be transferred to Parvalorem, real estate and investment funds to Parups, and subsidiaries to Parparticipadas. The Portuguese authorities valued the total amount of assets to be transferred to the SPVs at EUR 3 885 million, with EUR 2 507 million transferred to Parvalorem, EUR 1 228 million to Parups and EUR 150 million to Parparticipadas.\n(38)\nLoans were transferred at nominal value; fund units, securities and real estate were to be transferred at purchase price, and companies owned by BPN at their book value. The Portuguese authorities estimated that the overall impairments as of December 2010 totalled EUR 1 798 million broken down as follows: i) loans: EUR 1 474 million; ii) real estate: EUR 16 million; iii) fund units: EUR 247 million; and iv) securities: EUR 61 million. According to the information provided by the Portuguese authorities on 20 January 2012, these assets were transferred to the SPVs on 23 and 30 December 2010 (20). However, the SPVs remained within BPN until 15 February 2012, when they were removed from BPN and transferred to another state-controlled company.\n(39)\nAccording to the Portuguese authorities, the transfer of assets to the SPVs was done on the basis of objective criteria, taking into account the volume of impairments as well as the fact that certain activities were not core for BPN after the nationalisation (consumer credit, investment bank, asset management, investment fund management, insurance and international business). BPN was to reposition itself as a pure retail bank with reduced exposure to the uncertainty of wholesale funding.\n(40)\nThe SPVs financed the acquisition of the assets through two financing lines for EUR 3 895 million, consisting of bonds with a state guarantee for EUR 3 100 million acquired by CGD and loans from CGD with pledged assets for an aggregated value of EUR 795 million. The revenues from the sale of the assets to the SPVs allowed BPN to pay back EUR 3 900 million of financing which it had obtained from CGD - EUR 3 600 billion of the initial EUR 4 billion of commercial paper (meaning that an amount of EUR 400 million of commercial paper guaranteed by the State would remain unpaid by BPN), as well as EUR 300 million of short-term money market loans.\n(41)\nFollowing the transfer of assets, BPN\u2019s balance sheet was reduced by around 30 %.\n(42)\nAccording to information received from the Portuguese authorities, in order to allow BPN to comply with legal and regulatory requirements (namely in order to reach the 9 % core tier 1 capital required for 2011 (21)), and given that the own capital of BPN would still be negative after the transfer of assets to the SPVs, the State would have had to recapitalise BPN by about EUR 417 million (22).\n(43)\nThe base price set for BPN (which excluded the assets to be transferred to the SPVs) in the tender published by Portugal was fixed at EUR 171,1 million based on the valuations of third party consultants Deloitte (EUR [\u2026] (23) million) and Deutsche Bank (EUR [\u2026] million). BPN\u2019s new CGD management had in the meantime started a restructuring process for the bank. Operational costs were reduced by [1-10] % from December 2008 to December 2010; BPN\u2019s activity was reduced in order to achieve a bank exclusively focused on retail commercial banking. That reduction in activity resulted partly from the drop in deposits following the nationalisation, but also from the transfer of assets to the three SPVs. These measures reduced losses in 2010 to EUR [50-150] million, compared with EUR [150-250] million in 2009. Since the beginning of 2009, in an attempt to improve the bank\u2019s image and range of products, the new management undertook the launch of [\u2026] new products and campaigns. Measures to improve the risk management and internal control systems of the bank were also implemented by the new management.\n(44)\nNo interested parties came forward in response to the first two calls for privatisation by 30 September and 30 November 2010.\n(45)\nFollowing the failure of the tender process, in January 2011 Portugal indicated its intention to restructure BPN, making it more independent of CGD by appointing a new board, independent of the latter. It also sought to accelerate the operational recovery of BPN, by redefining the bank\u2019s brand and corporate identity and by reinforcing the recovery plan through cost cuts and enhancing commercial dynamics. However, despite several requests, no updated restructuring plan was provided to the Commission.\n(46)\nIn the MoU of 17 May 2011, the Government gave an undertaking to launch a new privatisation process.\n(47)\nIn the MoU, the Portuguese authorities committed to \u2018launching a process to sell Banco Portugu\u00eas de Neg\u00f3cios (BPN) on an accelerated schedule and without a minimum price. To this end, a new plan is submitted to the EC for approval under competition rules. The target is to find a buyer by end-July 2011 at the latest. To facilitate the sale, the three existing special purpose vehicles holding its non-performing and non-core assets have been separated from BPN, and more assets could be transferred into these vehicles as part of the negotiations with prospective buyers. BPN is also launching another program of more ambitious cost cutting measures with a view to increase its attractiveness to investors. Once a solution has been found, CGD\u2019s state guaranteed claims on BPN and all related special purpose vehicles will be taken over by the state according to a timetable to be defined at that time\u2019 (24).\n(48)\nA third privatisation attempt was launched at the beginning of May 2011 without a minimum price in order to find a buyer for BPN by 31 July 2011, as agreed in the MoU.\n(49)\nA tender procedure was held during which contacts with potential interested buyers took place. An Investment Opportunity Overview (\u2018IOO\u2019) was also produced. According to the IOO, interested parties had to bid for up to 100 % of the shares of BPN, but could ask for additional assets and liabilities to be removed from BPN\u2019s balance sheet. They could also ask for higher recapitalisation scenarios. A memorandum governing the rules of the process was signed between BPN and the potential bidders allowing them to enter a data room, set up on 15 June 2011 for five weeks.\n(50)\nFour binding offers were submitted by 20 July 2011. These offers were analysed by the boards of CGD and BPN who submitted their opinion to the shareholder - the State - by 25 July 2011.\n(51)\nThree of the four bidders submitting binding offers were eliminated. According to the Portuguese authorities, two bidders (Montepio and An\u00edbal Ribeiro) did not fulfil the requirements of the memorandum signed with BPN (25). Montepio did not bid for the acquisition of the shares of BPN, but only for selected assets and liabilities, while An\u00edbal Ribeiro had not provided sufficient proof of managerial and financial capacities to run a bank. The third bid, from NEI (26), complied with the memorandum\u2019s requirements, but there was insufficient proof of its capabilities to run the bank and of its financial capacity to assume future capital needs of BPN.\n(52)\nBased on the only valid offer submitted under the tender procedure, which was made by BIC on 20 July 2011 (the \u2018BIC offer of 20 July 2011\u2019), the Government decided on 31 July 2011 to continue exclusive negotiations with BIC.\n(53)\nBIC was authorised by the BdP to exercise commercial banking activities on 9 October 2007 and actually started its activity in Portugal in May 2008, being active mainly in corporate banking and in private banking. BIC\u2019s main shareholders are a group of investors from Angola, and include Portuguese shareholders such as Amorim Projectos SGPS, SA (which has a 25 % shareholding). As at December 2010, it had a turnover of EUR 389 million, with total assets of EUR 1 billion, and at 31 March 2011 it had capital of EUR 32 million and 7 branches. According to the information provided by Portugal the market share of BIC in the market segments where it is active is less than 1 % (27).\n(54)\nAccording to the information provided by the Portuguese authorities, following the BIC offer of 20 July 2011 (28), the negotiations with BIC culminated with the signing on 9 December 2011 of a Framework Agreement for the sale of BPN to BIC (29).\n(55)\nThe BIC offer of 20 July 2011 set out only general terms, and provided for:\ni.\na recapitalisation by the State in order for BPN to reach a core tier 1 ratio of [between 9 and 18] % plus EUR [100-300] million;\nii.\nthe removal of part of the credit loans to be selected by BIC in order to achieve a loan-to-deposit ratio of [110-150] %;\niii.\nthe transfer out of BPN of all non-performing loans above the threshold of approximately EUR [\u2026] million (estimated level of provisioning of loans at BPN);\niv.\nthe right of BIC to remove from the balance sheet of BPN additional assets and liabilities (e.g. loans to credit institutions, financial assets, real estate assets, some provisions, other assets and other liabilities) that have been provided outside the scope of its normal activity;\nv.\nthe transfer out of BPN of deposits selected by BIC that are not offering market conditions;\nvi.\nthe granting of a money line to BIC from CGD for up to [150-650] million for a period of [\u2026] years, with a lending rate at [\u2026] months Euribor. That amount would be increased if deposits were to fall below EUR [\u2026] billion;\nvii.\nthe maintenance of 500 to 600 employees of BPN (out of approximately 1 600 employees) and of 160-170 branches which are in facilities belonging to the bank or with leasing contracts with a maturity up to 12 months.\nviii.\nthe transfer to the State of the costs linked to litigation; and\nix.\nan acquisition price of EUR 30 million to be paid by BIC.\n(56)\nFollowing the negotiations, that lasted approximately five months, the Framework Agreement provides for:\ni.\na recapitalisation by the State to reach the minimum capital level and the additional level required by BIC - BIC required a final capital level of EUR [200-400] million after the balance sheet adjustments it had proposed (30);\nii.\nthe removal of part of the loans in BPN, over and above those loans which had already been transferred to the SPVs as of 30 December 2010 (31). The removal of the additional loans would allow a loan-to-deposit (\u2018LTD\u2019) ratio of [110-150] % to be achieved. That ratio had been set at [110-150] % in the BIC offer of 20 July 2011;\niii.\nthe right of BIC to remove from the balance sheet additional assets and liabilities (e.g. loans to credit institutions, financial assets, real estate assets, some provisions, other assets and other liabilities);\niv.\nthe right of BIC to sell back within [\u2026] months loans that are non-performing for at least [\u2026] days (up to a maximum of [\u2026] of the nominal value of the total loan portfolio selected by BIC after compensation with existing deposits) and for the amount exceeding the level of provisioning (EUR [\u2026] million (32)) (33);\nv.\nthe right of BIC to transfer deposits with pricing at least [\u2026] basis points (\u2018bps\u2019) above the relevant reference rate (34) or to receive from the State the difference in remuneration (35);\nvi.\nthe right of BIC to request the transfer, before closing, of other assets and liabilities of BPN, such as loans to credit institutions, physical and financial assets, etc;\nvii.\nthe granting of a money line to BIC from CGD until [> 2013] for up to EUR [150-350] million, with a lending rate at [\u2026] months Euribor (36) plus a spread of [\u2026] bps. That money line would be made available if the level of deposits of BPN were to fall below EUR [\u2026] billion;\nviii.\nthe maintenance of a credit line of EUR [150-500] million with CGD until [> 2013] for the ongoing commercial paper programme bearing a state guarantee for three years but with a commitment from CGD that it would not call the loan before [\u2026];\nix.\nthe maintenance of approximately half of the employees of BPN (at least 750 out of approximately 1 600 employees). The State would cover the total cost of closing the branches not taken over by BIC and of paying compensation to dismissed employees or to employees whose place of employment would be changed;\nx.\nthe transfer to the State of the costs linked to litigation risks;\nxi.\nan acquisition price of EUR 40 million paid by BIC;\nxii.\na price clause for the sharing with the State of 20 % of net profits (after tax) for the earnings to be generated by BPN during the next five years, for earnings cumulatively exceeding EUR 60 million;\nxiii.\nthe commitment by BIC not to pay out dividends or any other equivalent benefits to shareholders in relation to BPN for a period of five years.\n(57)\nAccording to the January 2012 Restructuring Plan, the combined entity resulting from the sale of BNP to BIC (the \u2018combined entity\u2019) will be profitable after [\u2026] years in a base line scenario, as well as in a less favourable one. It is thus estimated that the core tier 1 capital ratio of the combined entity will drop from [10-15] % of the combined entity\u2019s risk-weighted assets (RWA) after the first year to [\u2026] % after the fifth year. The projected fall would be due to the negative results of the first years linked to the restructuring to be undertaken by BIC and the increase of the activity of the bank in terms of resizing it to return to viability by granting more credit to the economy. The restructuring will include investments in the bank\u2019s agencies and image, as well as in the integration of processes, procedures and organisation, and in IT. The return on equity (ROE) is expected to grow from - [1-5] % in year 1 to + [1-5] % in year 5, whereas the return on assets (ROA) is expected to grow from - [0-2] % in year 1 to + [0-2] % in year 5.\n(58)\nIn a less favourable scenario, characterised by a higher level of non-performing loans and by higher financing costs, the core tier 1 capital ratio is expected to drop to [8-12] % in year 5, from [10-15] % at the end of year 1.\n(59)\nFinally, the Portuguese State injected capital into BPN on 15 February 2012 for an amount of EUR 600 million (37).\n3. Grounds for initiating the formal investigation procedure\n(60)\nIn the Decision of 24 October 2011, the Commission expressed doubts on whether:\n-\nBPN, as a combined entity with the purchaser, was viable;\n-\nthe aid granted to BPN was limited to the minimum and the sale to BIC was the least expensive option compared with a liquidation scenario;\n-\nthe measures limiting distortions of competition were sufficient; and\n-\nthe sale process entailed aid to the buyer.\n4. Comments from interested parties\n(61)\nThe Commission received no comments from third parties.\n5. Position of the Portuguese State\n5.1 Position of the Portuguese State on the Decision of 24 October 2011 (Opening Decision)\n(62)\nThe Portuguese authorities claim that the January 2012 Restructuring Plan complies with the Restructuring Communication. In addition to that plan, the Portuguese authorities submitted by letter of 20 January 2012 a number of observations on the Decision of 24 October 2011.\n(63)\nThe Portuguese authorities consider that three types of measure in favour of BPN do not constitute state aid.\n(64)\nFirst, Portugal claims that there is no aid in the support measures granted to BPN before the nationalisation, namely the ELA and the four loans granted by CGD in October 2008. Portugal argues that the ELA was granted by the BdP in an independent manner, at a penal interest rate and with collateral from BPN. The loans by CGD in October 2008 were granted at market terms with a competitive interest rate and appropriate guarantees, and accordingly did not confer any economic advantage on BPN.\n(65)\nSecond, Portugal denies that state aid was involved in the financing granted to BPN by CGD after the former\u2019s nationalisation (interbank money market operations and underwriting of commercial paper by CGD). Portugal argues they were commercial transactions whose terms and conditions were equivalent to comparable transactions carried out by prudent investors in a market economy. They therefore conferred no economic advantage on BPN.\n(66)\nFinally, the Portuguese authorities also consider that no state aid was granted to BIC as a buyer of BPN. The Portuguese authorities argue that the sale process was transparent, objective and non-discriminatory. BIC\u2019s proposal was globally the best in economic terms and should therefore be regarded as reflecting the market price. The Framework Agreement signed on 9 December 2011 largely reflected the terms of the BIC offer of 20 July 2011. The Portuguese authorities also consider that despite the sale price being negative, the only alternative to the sale (a liquidation of BPN) would have obliged the State to support a higher financial burden and would have posed a threat to the stability of the national financial system.\n(67)\nAt the same time, Portugal acknowledges that some measures in favour of BPN constitute state aid. They are the state guarantee on commercial paper issued by BPN, the transfer of selected assets to the SPVs in 2010, the recapitalisation of BPN undertaken on 15 February 2012 in view of the sale, and some of the measures granted in the context of the projected sale to BIC (such as the state guarantee on the commercial paper programme which will be maintained after the sale).\n(68)\nFurthermore, Portugal argues that all the measures constituting state aid are compatible with EU law, as they address a serious disturbance in the Portuguese economy pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty.\n(69)\nAccording to Portugal, the January 2012 Restructuring Plan allows BPN to re-establish its long-term viability without the need of further aid. First, the State has restructured BPN through the separation of assets and the transfer of some assets to the SPVs, and through the reduction of its presence on the market by more than 50 % and the halting of activities that did not constitute the core of the retail bank, as well as through different risk control measures and a prudent commercial policy. Second, according to the BIC projections, when BPN is integrated into BIC the combined entity should reach positive results [\u2026] the restructuring plan, both in a base line scenario and in a less favourable one. Third, the negative sale price is acceptable because liquidation is more expensive for the State and would pose a threat to financial stability.\n(70)\nPortugal considers that the measures are restricted to the minimum necessary in order to guarantee the stability of the Portuguese financial sector and to re-establish the viability of BPN.\n(71)\nAdditionally, Portugal argues that the sale scenario was the only alternative to the more costly liquidation scenario. Other options (integration into CGD and stand-alone restructuring) would not allow sufficient resources in net present value terms to be generated to compensate for the initial investment that would have to be made. Portugal estimates the cost of the sale to BIC at around EUR [\u2026] million to [\u2026] million (excluding the potential impact of some future contingencies which Portugal considers will not materialise), which is lower than the cost of liquidation under a number of different scenarios.\n(72)\nFurthermore, according to Portugal, the liquidity granted to BPN through the guarantee on issuance of commercial paper by BPN following the nationalisation was necessary to ensure the continued activity of the bank during the restructuring.\n(73)\nRegarding the selection of assets transferred to the SPVs, Portugal considers that it was done based on objective criteria with the aim of promoting the long-term viability of BPN and of making potential buyers interested in the reprivatisation process. Portugal also claims that further transfers of assets within the framework of the sale to BIC are adequate to guarantee the future viability of BPN and are limited to the minimum necessary to allow the sale.\n(74)\nPortugal claims that the increase in the capital of BPN undertaken on 15 February 2012 is designed to ensure that BPN will not face a capital short-fall during the period covered by the January 2012 Restructuring Plan. According to the plan\u2019s projections for core tier 1 capital, that ratio is expected to decrease to [10-15] % in 2016 under the base case scenario and to [8-12] % in a less favourable scenario, compared to the minimum mandatory level of 10 % which will be effective as of the end of 2012. Portugal also states that the sale conditions offered by BIC within an open and transparent sale process without minimum price are the minimum necessary to ensure the future viability of BPN, as liquidation would be more expensive for the State and might threaten financial stability.\n(75)\nPortugal also claims that both the former shareholders of BPN and BPN itself have shared or will share sufficiently the costs of the restructuring process, ensuring adequate burden-sharing. BPN\u2019s previous shareholders had received no compensation as a result of the nationalisation and had lost the entirety of the capital they had invested in the bank.\n(76)\nHowever, Portugal considers that it is not appropriate to seek burden-sharing from clients who contributed subordinated debt to BPN, given the specific circumstances of the sale of those instruments [\u2026]. In some cases, the technical specifications of the products prevent BPN from refusing to pay clients interest to reimburse capital.\n(77)\nAccording to Portugal, BPN\u2019s contribution to the restructuring process is also significant as its management was replaced following the nationalisation, its commercial and risk management policies have been substantially altered and it will see its activity reduced by more than 50 %.\n(78)\nPortugal concedes that the transfer of assets to the SPVs at book value took place above the assets\u2019 real economic value and without remuneration for the State. However, Portugal considers that an own contribution by BPN is ensured through its nationalisation at zero price, which was followed by a deep restructuring. Portugal claims that any advantage that could result for BPN from the separation of assets into the SPVs would be partially recovered through the reprivatisation price for the bank, which was the highest possible. Portugal also considers that the state guarantee is properly remunerated. Despite the remuneration being lower (at 0,2 % per year) than is required for government guarantees (38), any potential additional income received by BPN (or any expense that does not materialise) during the restructuring process would benefit the State, which currently owns the entirety of BPN\u2019s shares.\n(79)\nConcerning the capital increase in BPN undertaken on 15 February 2012, Portugal comments that it will not alter the shareholder structure of BPN and that the capital will be at least partially recovered through the sale of BPN, as it contributes to avoiding the even higher cost of liquidation.\n(80)\nPortugal also considers that the measures adopted or to be adopted by the State do not distort competition. Portugal points out that the combined entity will have a market share lower than 1 % ([0-1] % of market share in the banking sector, 14th in terms of credit to clients and 15th in terms of deposits). Moreover, the measures are not likely to have a negative impact on the entry of foreign banks on the domestic market, as is evident from the fact that BIC itself is held by an Angolan financial group. Portugal also considers that there is no moral hazard as the bank has been nationalised, its management has been removed, its shareholders obtained no compensation and the bank has undergone a profound restructuring.\n(81)\nFurther, Portugal considers that a number of measures taken within the process would be adequate and sufficient to limit any distortion of competition. BPN had a reduced presence on the market before the nationalisation (9th largest bank in Portugal with market shares between [1-5] % and [1-5] % depending on the markets), it was restructured and its presence on the market was reduced by more than 50 % and was re-centred on retail banking. The nationalisation happened without compensation of previous shareholders, while the commercial strategy and the risk control policy of BPN were changed in its wake.\n(82)\nThe Portuguese authorities also claim that the sale process for BPN was open and transparent. Finally, BIC is prohibited from distributing dividends until 2016 in order to ensure that the financial support granted to BPN is used for ensuring the long-term viability of the bank. The profit-sharing agreement between the State and BIC for results above EUR [\u2026] million allows the State to recover part of the restructuring costs of the bank. BIC\u2019s commitment not to refer to state aid it has received in its commercial communication ensures, according to the Portuguese authorities, that the aid is not used to the detriment of competitors. Other possible commitments foreseen in the Commission guidance for bank restructuring (such as measures to foster market opening, market share limits or the divestment of additional assets and activities) are not appropriate in the context of BPN\u2019s restructuring.\n5.2 Commitments given by the Portuguese State\n(83)\nAs regards the implementation of the restructuring plan, the Portuguese authorities commit to the following:\n(84)\nThe core tier 1 capital ratio of BPN at the date of the sale to Banco BIC will not be higher than [10-18] %.\n(85)\nIf Banco BIC or the combined entity chooses to return loans to the State or any entity controlled by the State after the sale, it will pay back to the State the capital associated with those loans to the tune of [10-18] % of the loans\u2019 risk weighted assets.\n(86)\nBanco BIC and the combined entity will not be entitled to transfer non-performing loans to the State or any entity controlled by the State after [> 2013].\n(87)\nBanco BIC or the combined entity will transfer non-performing loans to the State or any entity controlled by the State under the conditions set out in paragraph (85) above only after having completely exhausted the provisions available at the date of the sale in the accounts of BPN.\n(88)\nThe existing credit line for EUR [150-500] million set out in the Framework Agreement in relation to BPN\u2019s commercial paper programme and guaranteed by the State, will not be extended beyond [\u2026] years from the date of sale.\n(89)\nThe remuneration of the EUR [200-400] million liquidity line to be granted by CGD to Banco BIC or the combined entity will be set as a minimum at Euribor +[\u2026] bps.\n(90)\nUntil 31 December 2016 Portugal will request the prior approval of the Commission in advance of any granting of credit lines or guarantees by CGD or the State to Banco BIC or the combined entity after the sale.\n(91)\nBanco BIC and the combined entity will not make any acquisition in undertakings until 31 December 2016 unless the total gross cumulative purchase price paid by Banco BIC and the combined entity for all acquisitions during a fiscal year is less than EUR [\u2026] million. The total gross cumulative purchase price of any such acquisitions will be calculated without including the assumption or transfer of debt in relation to such acquisitions.\n(92)\nBanco BIC, the combined entity and Portugal will not exercise until 31 December 2016 any call option rights in relation to subordinated debt issued by BPN prior to the date of the sale.\n(93)\nBanco BIC or the combined entity will not refer to the use of state aid in its marketing campaigns and communications to investors.\n6. Assessment\n6.1 Existence of aid\n(94)\nArticle 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market. It follows that a state measure qualifies as state aid if it meets the following four (cumulative) criteria:\n-\nstate resources;\n-\nselective advantage;\n-\ndistortive impact on competition; and\n-\nimpact on trade between Member States.\n6.1.1. Measures in favour of BPN and of the economic activity after the sale\n6.1.1.1 Measures granted before the nationalisation\n(95)\nPortugal argues that the measures granted to BPN before the nationalisation do not constitute state aid. The measures consist of the ELA and the four loans granted by CGD before the nationalisation of BPN in October and November 2008.\n(96)\nRegarding the ELA, as pointed out by the Portuguese authorities in their observations on the Decision of 24 October 2011, the emergency liquidity support granted to BPN before the nationalisation was decided upon independently by the BdP at a penalising interest rate and supported by guarantees provided by BPN, without a state guarantee.\n(97)\nAt the time of the attribution of the ELA facility (17 and 27 October 2008) no decision had been taken regarding the solvency and nationalisation of BPN (since those decisions were taken only in early November 2008). The ELA was not part of a larger aid package, but rather the offering of liquidity as part of the normal activities of the BdP.\n(98)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that there was no state aid in the provision of ELA by the BdP to BPN, in line with the Banking Communication (39).\n(99)\nConcerning the loans granted by CGD, the Commission notes that prior to the nationalisation of BPN, the bank received from CGD loans for a total of EUR 315 million and not EUR 235 million (40).\n(100)\nThe Commission notes that CGD is wholly owned by the State, which appoints the members of its Board. In order to establish whether the loans are imputable to the State, the specific circumstances under which they were granted need to be assessed in order to determine whether CGD acted for reasons differing from normal commercial practice. To that end, the following considerations are relevant.\n(101)\nFirst, at the time when the first three loans were granted in October 2008, BPN\u2019s difficulties were already widely known. According to the Portuguese authorities, BPN had been facing liquidity problems since the summer of 2008, as evidenced by significant changes in the top management of BPN (changed twice since the beginning of 2008), audits of BPN undertaken by the BdP in June and the downgrading of BPN by Moody\u2019s to Baa3 on 18 July 2008. Further, the second, third and fourth loans were granted after 22 October 2008, the date by which, according to Portugal, BPN was in a position of severe negative liquidity. Any lender acting under normal commercial practice would have requested from BPN the information necessary to understand its liquidity position and repayment capacity before extending an additional loan to it, and would therefore have become acquainted with BPN\u2019s precarious financial position.\n(102)\nSecond, the amounts of the loans were very significant compared with the size of BPN\u2019s balance sheet and liabilities at the time, constituting a significant individual exposure to a bank in difficulty for CGD.\n(103)\nThird, the loans were granted in October and November 2008, soon after the failure of Lehman Brothers, at a time when interbank markets were largely inaccessible even for the strongest international financial institutions, let alone banks facing significant liquidity challenges.\n(104)\nFourth, concerning the fourth loan, the Commission notes that CGD was not only managing BPN in the interests of the State pursuant to Article 2(7) of the Nationalisation Law but also obtained a state guarantee pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Nationalisation Law in respect of all credit and liquidity it might grant to BPN in the context of the nationalisation and \u2018in substitution of the State\u2019.\n(105)\nGiven the financial and economic situation in general, and the widely-known difficulties of BPN in particular, it would be highly unlikely that another institution would have provided the liquidity in question to BPN, which explains why the Portuguese authorities considered the CGD liquidity measures as being of a \u2018special\u2019 nature (see paragraph (25)).\n(106)\nBased on each of these considerations, the Commission concludes that the CGD\u2019s decision to grant the relevant loans to BPN before its nationalisation was not a normal commercial decision. The decision to do so must be considered as directly imputable to the State. The loans therefore constitute state resources.\n(107)\nAs the loans allowed BPN to obtain liquidity that it would otherwise not have been able to obtain on the market, they provided BPN with the liquidity it needed in order to continue to operate and to compete, inter alia, for loans and deposits on the banking markets in which it was active.\n(108)\nThe Commission therefore considers that BPN obtained an economic advantage.\n(109)\nThe measures concerned are selective as they solely benefit BPN.\n(110)\nDespite Portugal\u2019s comment to the effect that BPN ranked only ninth in the Portuguese banking sector before its nationalisation, the loans by CGD distorted or threatened to distort competition by placing BPN in a beneficial position vis-\u00e0-vis other competing banks, allowing it to obtain liquidity that it would not otherwise have obtained on the market.\n(111)\nGiven that BPN was active at national, European and international level at the time the loans were made, including for instance through its French subsidiary, the measures also threatened to affect trade between Member States.\n(112)\nThe Commission therefore considers that the four loans totalling EUR 315 million made by CGD to BPN in October and November 2008 constitute state aid.\n6.1.1.2. Measures granted after the nationalisation, not specifically linked to the sale to BIC\n(113)\nThe Commission has already established in the Decision of 24 October 2011 that the nationalisation does not constitute state aid in favour of BPN\u2019s shareholders.\n(114)\nThe following measures, which were not specifically linked to the sale to BIC, were granted after the nationalisation of BPN:\n(a)\nthe state guarantee on liabilities issued by BPN and funded by CGD, including both issuance of commercial paper subscribed by CGD and use of money market credit facilities provided by CGD;\n(b)\nthe transfer of assets and liabilities to three SPVs owned by the State.\n(115)\nThe state guarantee on commercial paper issued by BPN (and the SPVs) and subscribed by CGD, which was granted to BPN after the nationalisation, was directly financed by the Member State. Additionally, under Article 2(9) of the Nationalisation Law all credit or liquidity lines offered by CGD in favour of BPN (and of the SPVs) in the context of the nationalisation were to be guaranteed by the Portuguese State. It is therefore indisputable that all funding provided by CGD to BPN (or the SPVs) after nationalisation involves state resources.\n(116)\nAdditionally, it should be underlined that after the nationalisation CGD was the only entity providing funding to BPN or to the SPVs, and that its exposure increased over time as other liabilities matured and were not rolled over by the original lenders or substituted by lending from other institutions. The lack of alternative funding sources for BPN is not surprising, given that its financial difficulties and its precarious future were public knowledge.\n(117)\nThe state guarantees allowed BPN to obtain financial support in a situation where there were no alternatives for it on the market.\n(118)\nThey allowed BPN to continue activity on the market, competing for business (not only for the maintenance of business but also possibly for new business) as well as to meet its obligations towards clients and other market players.\n(119)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the state guarantees confer an economic advantage on BPN.\n(120)\nThe measures concerned are selective as they benefit a specific entity, BPN. Moreover, for the part of the liquidity line continuing after the sale, they also benefit the combined entity.\n(121)\nGiven the position of BPN in the Portuguese financial sector, and the fact that the financial sector is open to intense competition at Union level, as well as the fact that BPN is competing with a significant number of subsidiaries of foreign banks in Portugal, the Commission considers that any advantage from state resources would have the potential to affect intra-Union trade and to distort competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(122)\nThe state guarantees in favour of BPN allowed BPN to receive a large amount of funding which was not available on the market and provided BPN with a selective advantage. They allowed BPN to remain on the market and pursue its activities without further contamination from its previous situation. They constitute state aid.\n(123)\nThe removal of certain assets from BPN to the SPVs, which are wholly owned by the Member State, means that the Member State bears the entire financial responsibility for them and incurs all the risks for assets in the SPVs, at least some of which may be irrecoverable. The measure therefore involves state resources.\n(124)\nThe Commission considers that the transfer of assets to the SPVs before the sale, at book value for EUR 3,9 billion (with impairments estimated at EUR 1,8 billion) involves an advantage to BPN because there was no ex ante transparency, assets were not valued at market price and the State was not remunerated in the framework of the transfer.\n(125)\nThe Commission considers that the transfer of assets at book value and not at market value confers an economic advantage on BPN compared with its competitors.\n(126)\nThe measures concerned are selective as they benefit a specific entity, BPN.\n(127)\nGiven the position of BPN in the Portuguese financial sector, and the fact that the financial sector is open to intense competition at Union level, as well as the fact that BPN is competing with a significant number of subsidiaries of foreign banks in Portugal, the Commission considers that any advantage from state resources would have the potential to affect intra-Union trade and to distort competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n6.1.1.3. Measures granted after the nationalisation, linked to the sale to BIC\n(128)\nIn addition to the measures granted to BPN after the nationalisation that were unconnected to the sale to BIC, additional measures were granted in connection with the sale to BIC. They comprise:\na)\nthe recapitalisation of BPN with a view to the sale;\nb)\nthe transfer of additional assets and liabilities to BPN linked to the sale;\nc)\nthe right of BIC to transfer non-performing loans to the State, after the sale;\nd)\nthe transfer to the State, in view of the sale, of costs linked to litigation risks; and\ne)\nthe granting by CGD of a liquidity line to the combined entity after the sale and the maintenance of a credit line of commercial paper, after the sale, secured by the State, of EUR [150-500] million.\n(129)\nA EUR 600 million recapitalisation of BPN took place on 15 February 2012. That measure was carried out directly by the State and through state resources in view of the sale to BIC.\n(130)\nThe EUR 600 million recapitalisation of BPN on 15 February 2012 was calibrated to provide BPN with EUR [200-400] million of equity capital at the moment of the sale. The latter amount corresponded at the time of BIC\u2019s offer of 20 July 2011 to an estimated [10-18] % of core tier 1 capital. It is significantly in excess of the regulatory minimum (9 % of core tier 1 as of end 2011 and 10 % core tier 1 as of end of 2012) (41).\n(131)\nThe Commission considers that the capital injection confers an economic advantage on BPN and on the economic activity after the sale. The advantage stems from ensuring that the capital necessary to meet and exceed regulatory requirements is available to BPN following the recapitalisation and will also be available to the combined entity. That capital allows BPN, and will also allow the combined entity, to be active on the markets and to provide new credit, in an economic context in which other competitors must deleverage.\n(132)\nThe measures concerned are selective as they solely benefit a specific entity - BPN and the combined entity that will continue the economic activity after the sale.\n(133)\nPortugal claims that BPN continued reducing its market share following the nationalisation and that the combined entity will have a market share of less than 1 % in terms of credit to clients, client recourses or banking products and of less than 2 % on any of the relevant markets. Nevertheless, the measures distort or threaten to distort competition as they place BPN and the combined entity after the sale to BIC in a beneficial position vis-\u00e0-vis other competing banks. The capital in excess in the combined entity shields the economic activity from investment risks that other competitors face. It also increases the likelihood that additional liquidity will be available to both beneficiaries and could facilitate future expansion by BPN and the combined entity in an economic context where other competitors active in Portugal must deleverage.\n(134)\nGiven the position of BPN in the Portuguese financial sector, and the fact that the financial sector is open to intense competition at Union level, as well as the fact that BPN is competing with a significant number of subsidiaries of foreign banks in Portugal, the Commission considers that any advantage from state resources would have the potential to affect intra-Union trade and to distort competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(135)\nThe EUR 600 million recapitalisation of BPN which took place on 15 February 2012 constitutes state aid.\n(136)\nThe measures granted in connection with the sale to BIC include the right of BIC to request the transfer, before closing, of other assets and liabilities of BPN, such as loans to credit institutions, or physical and financial assets. They also include the right of BIC to transfer deposits with pricing [\u2026] bps above the relevant reference rate or to receive from the State the difference in remuneration for such deposits.\n(137)\nThe removal from BPN of certain loans and liabilities (including deposits) selected by BIC is directly financed by the Member State. Any items removed from BPN will either be transferred at book value to the SPVs, which are wholly owned by the Member State, or will in any case be under its financial responsibility. The Member State would thereby bear the financial burden of managing and disposing of those assets and liabilities. The Member State would also have to finance the difference between the applicable interest on deposits and the pricing threshold of [\u2026] bps above the reference rate.\n(138)\nThe Commission considers that the transfer of additional assets and liabilities to the SPVs before the sale involves an advantage to BPN and the combined entity, because there was no ex ante transparency, assets were not valued at market price and the State was not remunerated in the framework of the transfer.\n(139)\nThe Commission considers that the transfer of assets at book value and not at market value confers an economic advantage on BPN and the combined entity compared with its competitors. BIC could freely choose the assets to be removed under that condition of the Framework Agreement and those assets would be neither valued at market value, nor the State reimbursed for them. On the contrary, to the extent that this option reduces the RWA of BPN, it would result in an increase of the bank's capital ratio, and consequently of its capacity to extend new loans and to be active in the market. After the sale, that advantage would be carried over to the combined entity.\n(140)\nThe remuneration by the State of the difference between the applicable interest on deposits and the pricing threshold of [\u2026] bps above the reference rate removes a cost that BPN would have to bear in normal circumstances, and therefore confers an advantage on it.\n(141)\nThe measures concerned are selective as they solely benefit a specific entity - BPN - and the economic activity that will be continued after the sale.\n(142)\nThe measures distort or threaten to distort competition as they place BPN and the combined entity after the sale to BIC in a beneficial position vis-\u00e0-vis other competing banks by not requiring it to deleverage unlike other competitors and by allowing BPN and the combined entity to grant more credit to the economy.\n(143)\nGiven the position of BPN in the Portuguese financial sector, and the fact that the financial sector is open to intense competition at Union level, as well as the fact that BPN is competing with a significant number of subsidiaries of foreign banks in Portugal, the Commission considers that any advantage from state resources would have the potential to affect intra-Union trade and to distort competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(144)\nThe transfer of additional assets and liabilities (including deposits) from the balance sheet of BPN to the SPVs before the sale constitutes state aid.\n(145)\nBIC has the right to sell back within [\u2026] months loans that are non-performing for at least [\u2026] days (up to a maximum of [\u2026] % of the nominal value of the total loan portfolio selected by BIC after compensation with existing deposits) and for the amount exceeding the level of provisioning (EUR [\u2026] million).\n(146)\nThe right of BIC to remove additional assets and liabilities from the balance sheet after the sale is directly financed by the Member State. Any items removed from BPN will either be transferred at book value to the SPVs, which are wholly owned by the Member State, or will in any case be under its financial responsibility. The Member State would thereby bear the financial burden of managing and disposing of those assets.\n(147)\nThe Commission considers that the possibility of removing non-performing loans after the sale enables BPN and the combined entity to expand their activity and grant more credit in an economic context where other competitors active in Portugal must deleverage. Indeed, if the same level of equity were retained, the bank's capital ratio would increase through the removal of non-performing loans and the reduction of RWA. Consequently its capacity to extend new loans and to be active in the market would increase.\n(148)\nThe combined entity will also have an advantage over its competitors that are faced with impairments on lower quality assets, which they have to absorb, limiting the capital available to them for new lending. The combined entity, in contrast, will not have its capital base reduced by such impairments and the decreasing value of its loan portfolio.\n(149)\nIn addition, the option of BIC to give back non-performing loans to the State until no later than [\u2026] after the date of the sale could alter the RWA of the bank and result in a higher core tier 1 capital than the level of [10-18] % implied in the offer of BIC of 20 July 2011. The Commission notes Portugal's commitment in this respect that if Banco BIC or the combined entity chooses to return loans to the State or any entity controlled by the State after the sale, it will pay back to the State the capital associated with those loans to the tune of [10-18] % of the loans\u2019 risk weighted assets and will, in addition, transfer non-performing loans and pay back the capital associated with those loans to the State only after having completely exhausted the provisions available at the date of the sale in the accounts of BPN.\n(150)\nThe measure concerned is selective as it solely benefits a specific entity - BPN - and the economic activity that will be continued after the sale.\n(151)\nThe measure distorts or threatens to distort competition as it places BPN and the combined entity after the sale to BIC in a beneficial position vis-\u00e0-vis other competing banks by not requiring it to deleverage unlike other competitors and thus allowing BPN and the combined entity to grant more credit to the economy.\n(152)\nGiven the position of BPN in the Portuguese financial sector, and the fact that the financial sector is open to intense competition at Union level, as well as the fact that BPN is competing with a significant number of subsidiaries of foreign banks in Portugal, the Commission considers that any advantage from state resources would have the potential to affect intra-Union trade and to distort competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(153)\nThe measure could allow BPN and the combined entity, in the absence of a commitment to give back the capital linked to the loans, to retroactively modify the RWA of the bank after the sale. This would result in a higher proportional capitalisation of the bank. It thereby confers an advantage on the bank and distorts competition with other competitors. The measure constitutes state aid.\n(154)\nThe transfer of BPN\u2019s litigation risks to the State constitutes a liability which is taken over by the State.\n(155)\nBy taking over a liability from BPN, the State is granting an advantage to BPN and to the combined entity in comparison with their competitors who must incur equivalent liabilities on their own balance sheet.\n(156)\nThe measure concerned is selective as it solely benefits a specific entity (BPN and the combined entity resulting entity after the sale to BIC).\n(157)\nThe measure provides capital relief to BPN and the combined entity where no alternatives existed on the market and where other competitors must incur such liabilities on their balance sheet.\n(158)\nGiven the position of BPN in the Portuguese financial sector, and the fact that the financial sector is open to intense competition at Union level, as well as the fact that BPN is competing with a significant number of subsidiaries of foreign banks in Portugal, the Commission considers that any advantage from state resources would have the potential to affect intra-Union trade and to distort competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(159)\nThe measure provides a capital relief measure and constitutes state aid.\n(160)\nThe granting of a EUR [150-350] million liquidity line to the combined entity after the sale and the maintenance of a credit line of commercial paper of EUR [150-500] million by CGD in favour of BPN after the sale must be considered as imputable to the State taking into account the specific circumstances under which they occurred.\n(161)\nFirst, CGD is wholly owned by the State, which appoints the members of its Board. As noted in paragraph (100), CGD was appointed by law to manage BPN and also obtained a state guarantee pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Nationalisation Law in respect of all credit and liquidity it might grant to BPN in the context of the nationalisation and \u2018in substitution of the State\u2019. That guarantee continues to apply to the EUR [150-500] million credit line.\n(162)\nSecond, the decisions to grant the liquidity and credit lines were not taken independently by CGD, but were part of the conditions of the sale negotiated between BIC and the Portuguese authorities.\n(163)\nThe granting by CGD of a EUR [200-400] million liquidity line to the combined entity after the sale and the maintenance by CGD of a credit line of commercial paper of EUR [150-500] million after the sale are therefore both directly imputable to the Member State.\n(164)\nThe measures allow BPN and the combined entity to have easy and cheap access to liquidity.\n(165)\nConcerning the EUR [200-400] million credit line granted by CGD to BIC, the Commission notes that it will provide a cushion for the combined entity\u2019s funding position, should there be deposit outflows after the sale. No such credit line is granted by CGD to any entity other than the combined entity. The credit line therefore constitutes an economic advantage for the combined entity.\n(166)\nThe maintenance of a credit line, with state guarantee, of EUR [150-500] million until [\u2026] for the ongoing commercial paper programme also gives BPN and the combined entity an advantage over its competitors in terms of access to liquidity.\n(167)\nThe measures concerned are selective as they solely benefit a specific entity (BPN and the combined entity resulting from the sale to BIC).\n(168)\nThe advantage granted to BPN and the combined entity after the sale distorts competition, all the more so considering the current high cost of borrowing on the financial markets.\n(169)\nGiven the position of BPN in the Portuguese financial sector, and given that the financial sector is open to intense competition at Union level, and that BPN is competing with a significant number of subsidiaries of foreign banks in Portugal, the Commission considers that any advantage from state resources would have the potential to affect intra-Union trade and to distort competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(170)\nThe grant by CGD of a EUR [200-400] million liquidity line to the combined entity after the sale and the maintenance of a credit line of commercial paper of EUR [150-500] million in favour of BPN constitute state aid.\n6.1.1.4. Possible aid to the buyer\n(171)\nAccording to point 49 of the Banking Communication, in order to ensure that no aid is granted to the buyer of a financial institution sold by the State, it is important that certain requirements are respected and in particular that: the sale process is open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional, the sale takes place on market terms, and the State maximises the sale price for the assets and liabilities involved.\n(172)\nConcerning the first requirement, while the sale process started as an open and unconditional tender procedure, the binding offer submitted by BIC was not final as regards several material aspects of the proposed transaction, including the ultimate extent of BPN\u2019s assets and liabilities that BIC intended to acquire, and the exact number of branches and the number of staff to be taken over. All those aspects were discussed in subsequent bilateral negotiations between the Portuguese authorities and BIC, and culminated in the Framework Agreement of 9 December 2011. Even the Framework Agreement is not final as regards the exact extent of the bank being acquired. In particular, it does not determine the assets and liabilities that BIC will take over, despite clearly specifying that BPN will have equity of EUR [200-400] million at the moment of sale. In other words, neither the BIC offer of 20 July 2011 nor the Framework Agreement clearly specify what BIC is buying, but both fix a precise price for it.\n(173)\nIn this connection, it is important to note that the Framework Agreement should not deviate from the terms of BIC\u2019s binding offer of 20 July 2011 by providing additional advantages to BIC and/or the combined entity. Indeed, given the very loose terms of the 20 July 2011 binding offer, BIC could very well extract additional concessions from the State, e.g. by reducing the extent of the assets and liabilities it effectively acquires. Such additional concessions would result in a higher core tier 1 ratio than the BIC offer of 20 July 2011 implied, without contradicting the terms of the sale process.\n(174)\nThe Commission therefore welcomes Portugal\u2019s commitment to limit the level of capitalisation of BPN on the date of the sale to [10-18] % of core tier 1 capital, as implied in BIC\u2019s offer. The additional commitment of Portugal for BIC to give back the capital linked to any non-performing loans that it would return to the State or to a state -owned vehicle after the sale ensures that the level of core tier 1 capital will not be unduly increased after the sale.\n(175)\nAs demonstrated in section 6.1.1.3 all the measures linked to the sale to BIC involve state resources.\n(176)\nIn the absence of a determination of the core tier 1 capital of BPN in the BIC offer of 20 July 2011 or the Framework Agreement (both of which only indicate the absolute amount of capital to exist in BPN at the moment of the sale without taking into account the bank\u2019s RWA or the right to BIC to select assets and liabilities to be transferred to the SPVs prior to the sale), the Commission notes that it is possible that BPN may end up with a core tier 1 ratio in excess of what was implied in the offer. According to information submitted by the Portuguese authorities, [10-18] % of core tier 1 is the level of capital implied in BIC\u2019s offer of 20 July 2011.\n(177)\nThe Commission notes however that Portugal has undertaken to limit the level of capitalisation of BPN on the date of the sale to [10-18] % of core tier 1 capital, as implied by BIC\u2019s offer. This will allow the State to maximise the sale price for the assets and liabilities involved. This commitment is necessary to ensure that no advantage is granted to BIC.\n(178)\nMoreover, by exercising the right to transfer to the State further non-performing loans after the sale, BIC could reduce further the extent of the bank, thus increasing the core tier 1 ratio for the combined entity to a higher level than the one implied in BIC\u2019s offer of 20 July 2011. This could confer an additional advantage on BIC. The additional commitment of Portugal for BIC to give back the capital linked to any non-performing loans that it would return to the State or to a state-owned vehicle after the sale ensure that the level of core tier 1 capital will not be increased further after the sale. This additional commitment is necessary to avoid conferring an advantage on BIC.\n(179)\nThe measures concerned are selective as they benefit a specific entity, namely BIC, and implicitly also the combined entity.\n(180)\nGiven the position of BPN in the Portuguese financial sector, and the fact that the financial sector is open to intense competition at Union level, as well as the fact that BPN is competing with a significant number of subsidiaries of foreign banks in Portugal, the Commission considers that any advantage from state resources would have the potential to affect intra-Union trade and to distort competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(181)\nIn view of the commitments granted by Portugal, the Commission can conclude that the final results of the process, including the elements agreed upon with BIC in the Framework Agreement, would not have altered the outcome of the tendering procedure and no advantage is granted to BIC by the sale process.\n6.1.2 Quantification of the aid\n(182)\nBPN and the combined entity that will continue BPN\u2019s economic activities benefited from several state aid measures as summarised below:\nTable 1\nAid measures granted to BPN and the combined entity\nDescription\nAmount EUR million\na.\nLoans granted by CGD before nationalisation\n315\nb.\nTransfer of EUR 3,9 billion of assets to the SPVs before the tender process\nBetween 1 800 and 4 000\nc.\nCapital injection by the State of 15 February 2012\n600\nd.\nLiquidity lines granted by CGD to BPN (as of 31 December 2011)\n[150-500]\nof which covered by an explicit state guarantee\n[200-400]\ne. Liquidity lines requested by BIC for the combined entity\nof which maintenance of the existing commercial paper programme\n400\nof which new liquidity line\n300\n(183)\nFirst, it must be noted that these aid measures are not all to be considered as cumulative, as according to the Portuguese authorities, some measures replaced others (for example, the initial loans granted by CGD before nationalisation were replaced by the commercial paper issued by BPN after nationalisation).\n(184)\nMeasures b and c either involve capital injections or are equivalent to capital injections. They amount to at least EUR 3 billion, or around 50 % of BPN\u2019s balance sheet before nationalisation. In addition, the total amount of state guarantees on the commercial paper issuance programme granted by Portugal in favour of BPN since nationalisation amounts to EUR 5 billion, EUR 4,5 billion of which had been used as at 31 December 2011.\n(185)\nIn addition, there is the right for BIC to transfer deposits with a pricing above [\u2026] bps or to have the State remunerate the difference, with a cost estimated by Portugal as amounting to around EUR [\u2026]. Finally, the transfer to the State of costs linked to litigation, and the transfer in the context of the sale of additional assets and liabilities, including non-performing loans, from the balance sheet of BPN to the SPVs, involve additional aid, which was considered non quantifiable by Portugal.\n6.2 Compatibility of the various aid measures: application of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU\n(186)\nArticle 107(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union empowers the Commission to declare aid compatible with the internal market if it is intended \u2018to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State\u2019.\n(187)\nThe Commission has acknowledged that the global financial crisis can create a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State and that measures supporting banks may be apt to remedy that disturbance. That analysis has been confirmed in the Banking Communication, Recapitalisation Communication (42), the Impaired Assets Communication (43) (IAC) and the Restructuring Communication (44). The Commission continues to take the view that state aid may be approved pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty in view of the reappearance of stress in financial markets. The Commission confirmed that view by adopting the 2011 Prolongation Communication that prolongs beyond 31 December 2011 the application of state aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis (45).\n(188)\nPortugal in particular has been severely hit by the financial and economic crisis. Its effects have been confirmed in the Commission\u2019s various decisions (46) approving the measures taken by the Portuguese authorities to combat the financial crisis. In addition, account should be taken of the challenging economic and financial situation which led to an official request for international assistance from Portugal on 7 April 2011, leading to the signing of the MoU on 17 May 2011.\n(189)\nThe Commission considers that the disorderly failure of BPN would entail serious consequences for the Portuguese economy. The measures can therefore be assessed under Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty.\n6.3 Compatibility under the Restructuring Communication\n(190)\nThe Restructuring Communication sets out the state aid rules applicable to the restructuring of financial institutions in the current crisis. According to the Restructuring Communication, in order to be compatible with Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty, the restructuring of a financial institution in the context of the current financial crisis has to:\n(i)\nlead to a restoration of the viability of the bank;\n(ii)\ninclude sufficient own contribution by the beneficiary (burden-sharing);\n(iii)\ncontain sufficient measures limiting the distortion of competition.\n6.3.1 Viability\n(191)\nPoints 9 and 10 of the Restructuring Communication state that the Member State should provide a comprehensive and detailed restructuring plan which should provide complete information on the business model. The plan should also identify the causes of the difficulties faced by a financial institution and alternatives to the restructuring plan proposed.\n(192)\nThe restructuring plan should demonstrate that the bank\u2019s strategy is based on a coherent concept and show that the bank has restored long-term viability without reliance on state support.\n(193)\nThe Restructuring Communication in point 17 confirms that a sale of (part of) the financial institution to a third party can help to restore its long-term viability. In the present case the Commission observes that the Portuguese authorities have chosen to sell BPN through a tender process. As a result, the banking business will be sold to BIC after certain adjustments, and selected assets will be transferred to the SPVs with the goal of being liquidated over time. The Commission therefore has to assess whether the banking business of BPN which will be part of the business of the buyer (the combined entity), will be viable.\n(194)\nIn the Decision of 24 October 2011 the Commission indicated that it had not received a business plan effectively demonstrating the viability of BPN as an integrated entity with BIC and thus it could not reach a conclusion in that respect. Portugal submitted a detailed business plan for BPN integrated with BIC in the form of the January 2012 Restructuring Plan (including the additional information on the business and viability provided on 3 February 2012).\n(195)\nAccording to the January 2012 Restructuring Plan, the part of BPN which is sold to BIC has a considerably smaller balance sheet, of around EUR [\u2026] billion, in comparison with that of BPN at the moment of nationalisation.\n(196)\nTogether with BIC\u2019s assets, the combined entity will have total assets of around EUR [\u2026] billion.\n(197)\nThe balance sheet of BPN at the moment of the sale to BIC contains only the more viable activities and the best assets of the bank. In particular, the loan portfolio transferred to BIC has been cleaned and most of the illiquid assets have been transferred to the SPVs.\n(198)\nBPN\u2019s liabilities consist mainly of retail deposits totalling EUR 1 669 million and subordinated debts totalling EUR 246 million.\nTable 2\nBPN after the sale and after capital injection (Pro forma) (47)\nEUR Million\nCash, central banks and credit institutions\n[\u2026]\nNet credits to customers\n[\u2026]\nOther assets\n[\u2026]\nTOTAL ASSETS\n[\u2026]\nDeposits\n[\u2026]\nOther liabilities\n[\u2026]\nSubordinated debt\n[\u2026]\nTOTAL LIABILITIES\n[\u2026]\nOwn Capital\n[\u2026]\nTOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL\n[\u2026]\n(199)\nThe restructuring measures already initiated by the interim administrators will be continued by BIC, remedying the specific causes of BPN\u2019s problems.\n(200)\nAs indicated in paragraph (24) above, the management has been fully replaced. Taking into account the specific circumstances that led to the nationalization of BPN, and in particular numerous alleged cases of fraud committed by the former management of the bank, several legal proceedings (48) have been initiated by the new management to defend the interests of the bank. The bank\u2019s risk assessment procedures have been completely redesigned to implement best practices.\n(201)\nThe new administrators of BPN also concentrated on the optimisation of the cost structure and adopted a number of initiatives to reduce operational costs. Between December 2008 and December 2010 operational costs were reduced by around EUR [\u2026] million and personnel costs were reduced by around EUR [\u2026] million.\n(202)\nAccording to the January 2012 Restructuring Plan, BIC\u2019s strategy is to concentrate on the core retail business and to exploit BPN\u2019s network to become the reference bank to support trade and financial transactions between Portugal and Angola.\n(203)\nThat plan is based on reasonable underlying macroeconomic assumptions, when account is taken of the current situation of the markets in Portugal, with the economy forecast to remain in recession until 2014.\n(204)\nThe financial projections show that at the end of the restructuring period (31 December 2016) the combined entity is expected, even in a stress scenario, to be able to cover its costs and realise an ROE of approximately [1-10] %.\n(205)\nThe expected initial capital base is going to be well above the minimum capital requirements with a core tier 1 ratio of around [10-18] %, thanks to the capital injection by the State.\n(206)\nAs a result of the significant capital injection by the State, the projected capital ratios of the bank during and at the end of the restructuring period are expected to stay above the minimum requirements and thus to safeguard the solvency of the bank. According to the business plan provided by Portugal and reflected in the January 2012 Restructuring Plan, under a base case scenario the core tier 1 capital at the end of the restructuring period (31 December 2016) will be [8-12] %, slightly above the minimum regulatory requirements of 10 % established by the BdP as of December 2012 (49), and under a stressed scenario just below it ([7-11] %) as indicated in Graph 1 attached to paragraph (207).\n(207)\nThat evolution is expected to be mainly due to the need to implement the business plan set out in the January 2012 Restructuring Plan by granting a larger volume of credit to the economy, and to the impact of negative results in the first years of the restructuring plan. The negative results will mainly be due to the still high cost structure of the bank, when compared with its business volume, combined with the cost of the restructuring BIC will undertake.\nGraph 1\nProjections for the combined entity BPN/BIC under the base case scenario, 2012-2016\n[\u2026]\n(208)\nAs to liquidity, the business plan relies mainly on deposits, with a projected deposit growth of around [1-10] % per year. The Commission considers that a stable financing of the combined entity via deposits is an important feature of the restructuring plan. Considering the small size of the combined entity and its growth potential, the projections for deposit evolution are credible.\n(209)\nAt the same time, the Commission considers that in order to ensure the viability of the combined entity, there should be no incentive to replace deposits with wholesale funding. In that vein, it is important that the remuneration of the liquidity line requested by BIC to compensate for a possible deposit outflow is increased to at least Euribor +[\u2026] bps. Portugal\u2019s commitment in this respect is necessary to ensure the compatibility of the restructuring aid with the internal market, taking into account the fact that [\u2026] has a significant amount of deposits which are currently remunerated in excess of Euribor +[\u2026] bps, a level at which BIC can choose not to retain those deposits. If the remuneration on the new credit line were not set at a level which gives BIC an incentive to maintain the level of deposits in line with what is foreseen in the January 2012 Restructuring Plan, BIC could be induced to substitute deposits with cheaper funding from CGD. Such a substitution might improve the combined entity\u2019s short-term profitability, but at the same time it would damage its prospects of viability.\n(210)\nIn that respect, it is also important to note that at Euribor +[\u2026] bps, the credit line is still granted at more favourable terms than BIC is likely to obtain in the market. While no comparable benchmark has been provided to the Commission for similar transactions occurring in the market, the Commission notes that it would be unlikely that a credit line of that duration and size would be available on the market, even at higher interest levels. Additionally, the Commission considers it instructive that the remuneration on loans granted by CGD [\u2026] is fixed at Euribor [\u2026] months +[\u2026] bps.\n(211)\nOn the basis of the foregoing the Commission\u2019s doubts on the viability of BPN have been allayed.\n6.3.2 Aid limited to the minimum and burden-sharing\n(212)\nThe Restructuring Communication indicates that an appropriate contribution by the beneficiary is necessary in order to limit the aid to a minimum and to address distortions of competition and moral hazard. To that end: a) both the restructuring costs and the amount of aid should be limited and b) a significant own contribution is necessary.\n(213)\nThe principles on the own contribution of the beneficiary bank in the restructuring phase are laid down in section 3 of the Restructuring Communication. It requires (i) that the restructuring aid is limited to the minimum to cover costs necessary for restoring viability; (ii) that the beneficiary bank should use to the extent possible its own resources to finance restructuring, for example, through the sale of assets and (iii) that the costs associated with the restructuring are also adequately borne by those who invested in the bank by absorbing losses with available capital and by paying an adequate remuneration for state interventions. The objective of burden-sharing is twofold: to limit distortions of competition and to address moral hazard (50).\n(214)\nA restructuring plan should clearly show that the aid has been kept to the minimum necessary. Costs associated with the restructuring should be borne not only by the State but to a maximum extent also by those who invested in the bank. In other words, the bank and its capital holders should contribute to the restructuring as much as possible with their own resources. Restructuring aid should be limited to covering costs which are necessary for the restoration of viability. Accordingly, an undertaking should not be endowed with public resources which could be used to finance market-distorting activities not linked to the restructuring process, such as acquisitions (51).\n(215)\nAs regards the limitation of the aid to the minimum, the Restructuring Communication indicates in point 23 that the restructuring aid should be limited to covering the costs which are necessary for the restoration of viability.\n(216)\nTo that end, the Commission needs to assess: first, the claim of the Portuguese authorities that the costs associated with the sale of BPN to BIC are lower than the costs that would be incurred by Portugal if BPN were liquidated; and second, whether the aid granted for the restructuring of BPN has been kept to the minimum necessary.\n(217)\nIn the Decision of 24 October 2011 the Commission questioned several aspects of the quantitative comparison between the two scenarios as provided by Portugal at the time.\n(218)\nIn the January 2012 Restructuring Plan Portugal provided an updated comparison of the two scenarios and modified its initial assumptions to address the main concerns expressed by the Commission in the Decision of 24 October 2011, which related to the costs in the event of orderly liquidation. Specifically, Portugal addressed the haircut on loans and the treatment of subordinated bond holders.\n(219)\nIn particular, Portugal provided additional information and an alternative benchmark regarding its assumption in relation to the haircut to book value of 30-50 % on the sale of loans. Portugal also provided the final figures on the loans eventually taken over by BIC, whose amount was not known at the moment of the initial comparison, on 17 February 2012. It also removed from the orderly liquidation scenario costs associated with the reimbursement of certain subordinated bond holders, as specified in paragraph (221).\n(220)\nThe Commission considers that, when account is taken of the current economic situation and the substantial deleveraging of the banking sector, the application of a haircut on the sale of a loan portfolio is justifiable. Also, if the loans had to be held until maturity, the State would need to incur financing costs and bear the credit risk until maturity. The Commission therefore can accept the lower range estimate of a haircut provided by Portugal, i.e. a haircut of [20-50] %.\n(221)\nIn relation to subordinated bond holders, the Commission understands that the total amount of EUR 245 million is composed of various issuances. It may be possible [\u2026]. Portugal submitted that, after a legal assessment of the conditions of each issuance, [\u2026].\n(222)\nTable 3 provides an overview of the estimation of inflows/outflows, taking account of the revised assumptions mentioned in paragraphs (219)-(221) above. That estimation takes into account only the marginal costs linked to the two scenarios (and not the costs already incurred) and is based on the balance sheet data of BPN at the time of the sale to BIC (52).\nTable 3\nComparison of the sale to BIC and orderly liquidation scenarios (Data in EUR million)\nSale to BIC\nLiquidation\nOUTFLOWS\n1\nPayment of the funding to credit institutions\n[\u2026] (53)\n2\nPayment of deposits from clients\n[\u2026]\n3\nCapital increase\n[\u2026]\n4\nSubordinated bond holders excluding perpetual issuance TBC\n[\u2026]\nTotal Outflows\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nSale to BIC\nLiquidation\nINFLOWS\n5\nSale of client loans (EUR 2 114 million net of haircut 30 %)\n[\u2026]\n6\nReimbursement cash and loans to credit institutions\n[\u2026] (54)\n7\nPrice BPN sale\n[\u2026]\n8\nDeposits sale premium - 2 % of the deposit balance\n[\u2026]\nTotal Inflows\n[\u2026]\nESTIMATED DIFFERENCE\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(223)\nOverall the options of orderly liquidation whereby the State would pay all deposits (other than those of subordinated creditors holding perpetual bonds) and whereby the State would pay the whole exposure to credit institutions would be more costly than the sale to BIC.\n(224)\nThe Commission recognises the uncertainty linked to a number of assumptions, namely the possibility to recover the credits transferred to BIC. Account should also be taken of the fact that orderly liquidation could have negative spillovers on confidence in the whole banking sector and the sovereign rating of the Member State.\n(225)\nOn the basis of the available information, the Commission concludes that the option of restructuring of the bank, i.e. the sale to BIC, contributes to limiting the aid amount to the minimum.\n(226)\nBPN received a significant amount of aid before and after the nationalisation as indicated in paragraphs (182) to (185). The aid was necessary to keep the bank afloat for the period necessary to implement the chosen restructuring, which is the sale of its viable parts to BIC and the liquidation over time of the bad assets. As a result of the restructuring process, BPN will disappear as an independent bank. The retail banking business that will be taken over by BIC has a balance sheet of less than 35 % of the balance sheet of BPN before its nationalisation. In the prevailing market conditions, these measures (and in particular the separation of the non-retail banking assets in the SPVs) are intimately linked to the viability of the bank that remains on the market. The business and activities other than retail banking have been transferred to the SPVs to be liquidated over time. The Commission recognises that the significant delays in the implementation of the restructuring of BPN are connected to the exceptional circumstances that affected the Portuguese economy and led to the signing of the MoU of 17 May 2011.\n(227)\nAs indicated by the Commission in its Decision of 24 October 2011, in addition to the measures granted to BPN before its sale, BIC is requiring additional measures, which are indicated in paragraph (56).\n(228)\nIn its Decision of 24 October 2011 the Commission raised the question of whether the capital injection requested by BIC was the minimum amount necessary to ensure viability. Taking into account the balance sheet adjustments requested by BIC in its offer of 20 July 2011 and the June 2011 BPN financial statements, Portugal estimated that a level of capital of EUR [200-400] million represents a core tier 1 capital ratio of [10-18] %.\n(229)\nPortugal claims that level of capital is the result of the tender process, when account is also taken of the price BIC will pay to the State (EUR 40 million). It is justified by the costs of refocusing the bank on its core business and the need to maintain a sufficient buffer of additional capital. Portugal considers that the buffer is adequate to maintain a sufficient level of own capital, in particular in the initial years of the integration, when account is also taken of the negative reputation of BPN and the difficult economic situation of Portugal.\n(230)\nIt should be noted that according to the January 2012 Restructuring Plan the capital ratio is estimated to reach [8-12] % at the end of the fourth year after the sale and, under a stressed scenario, to reach [7-11] % (slightly lower than the minimum required by law in Portugal of 10 %).\n(231)\nThe Commission can therefore conclude that the capital level equivalent to a core tier 1 ratio of [10-18] % is the result of the tender process and is necessary to ensure the viability of the bank, based on the January 2012 Restructuring Plan.\n(232)\nThe Commission also regards as positive the fact that the Framework Agreement with BIC includes a commitment by BIC not to distribute dividends or other equivalent benefits to shareholders in relation to BPN for a period of five years. The purpose of that commitment is to ensure that the capital injected in BPN will not immediately leave the bank, in the form of resources distributed to shareholders.\n(233)\nHowever the final assets eventually taken over by BIC differ from the BIC offer of 20 July 2011 and BIC also reserves the right to give back loans that are non-performing. The Commission therefore considers that in order to maintain the aid to the minimum, any reduction in RWA resulting from the restitution of loans to the State should be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in capital, to the tune of [10-18] % of the reduction in the RWA. The reduction in capital could take the form of a haircut to the book value of the loans given back to the State.\n(234)\nThe Commission notes that BIC has suggested that the combined entity could maintain a core tier 1 ratio of [10-18] % in the event it were to give back non-performing loans, by extending new credit to the economy. The Commission considers that such a measure would not limit the aid to the minimum for the following reasons. First, BIC\u2019s own capital ratio before the sale will be inferior to [10-18] % at the date of the sale. Therefore as soon as BPN is merged with BIC, the level of core tier 1 in the combined entity will immediately decrease (as reflected in the January 2012 Restructuring Plan). Accordingly, if the combined entity were to maintain a core tier 1 ratio of [10-18] % after the merger, it would have a capitalisation above what BIC itself has forecast. Second, the January 2012 Restructuring Plan already factors in new lending to the economy, and for that purpose the (very high) [10-18] % core tier 1 level in BPN at the moment of the sale is considered sufficient. There is therefore no need to dedicate even more capital than is foreseen in the January 2012 Restructuring Plan to the production of new loans. In this respect, the Commission takes a positive view of the commitment given by Portugal that the core tier 1 capital ratio of BPN at the date of the sale to Banco BIC will not be higher than [10-18] % and that if non-performing loans are transferred to the State or any entity controlled by the State after the sale, Banco BIC or the combined entity will transfer to the State or any entity controlled by the State any capital associated with those loans to the tune of [10-18] % of the loans\u2019 risk weighted assets.\n(235)\nIn addition, the Restructuring Communication states that an acquisition ban is necessary to keep the aid limited to the minimum necessary. Point (23) of the Restructuring Communication mentions explicitly that \u2018an undertaking should not be endowed with public resources which could be used to finance market-distorting activities not linked to the restructuring process. For example, acquisitions of shares in other undertakings or new investments cannot be financed through State aid unless this is essential for restoring an undertaking\u2019s viability\u2019.\n(236)\nThe Commission observes that already in the January 2012 Restructuring Plan it was indicated that the combined entity will become a viable entity that should realise an acceptable ROE and is even expected to realise profits. That return to viability does not hinge on acquisitions. On the contrary, the Commission considers that an acquisition ban will ensure that the capital considered necessary for the restructuring remains in the bank, therefore aiding the return to viability. In this respect, the Commission considers that the commitment by Portugal to enforce an acquisition ban is necessary to ensure the compatibility of the restructuring aid with the internal market.\n(237)\nAs regards own contribution, the Restructuring Communication requires restructuring costs to be borne not only by the State but also by a bank\u2019s past investors and former shareholders. That requirement ensures that rescued banks bear adequate responsibility for the consequences of their past behaviour and creates appropriate incentives for their future behaviour.\n(238)\nIn the present case the Commission takes a positive view of the fact that the shareholders have lost their stake in the bank without any compensation. They are thus adequately participating in the burden-sharing for a bank whose value was negative according to the estimation of two independent entities appointed by Portugal. It also regards as positive the fact that the board of BPN has been changed and replaced in the context of the nationalisation process.\n(239)\nHowever, the Commission notes that subordinated bond holders, holding an amount of EUR 245 million, will be maintained in the bank that is being privatised and may continue to receive coupons.\n(240)\nAs stated in point 26 of the Restructuring Communication, \u2018banks should not use State aid to remunerate own funds (equity and subordinated debt) when its activities do not generate sufficient profits\u2019.\n(241)\nAs to the period under which BPN was in restructuring, BPN has not complied with the Commission\u2019s policy on hybrid instruments as set out in point 26 of the Restructuring Communication. The Commission clarified there that in a restructuring context the discretionary offset of losses (for example by releasing reserves or reducing equity) by beneficiary banks in order to guarantee the payment of dividends and coupons on outstanding subordinated debt, is in principle not compatible with the objective of burden-sharing. The Commission notes that the payment of coupons did not respect that principle and should be compensated for by a more in-depth restructuring (55).\n(242)\nThe Commission considers that the far-reaching restructuring of the bank can be sufficient to compensate for the lack of burden-sharing.\n(243)\nHowever, since the bank is now being sold, a ban on calls until 31 December 2016 is necessary to provide a minimum level of burden-sharing from the bank\u2019s capital holders.\n(244)\nIn this respect, the Commission takes stock of the commitment by Portugal that, in order to contribute to the restructuring process of BPN, Banco BIC, the combined entity and Portugal will not exercise until 31 December 2016 any call option rights in relation to subordinated debt issued by BPN prior to the date of the sale.\n(245)\nThe Commission notes that the remuneration for each of the aid measures listed in paragraphs (182) to (185) above, and in particular the guarantees, the capital injection and the transfer of assets to the SPVs, is not in line with the relevant Communications of the Commission.\n(246)\nThe state guarantees were priced at 20 bps, well below the level resulting from the application of the Commission\u2019s rules on the remuneration of state guarantees on liabilities issued by financial institutions.\n(247)\nThe EUR 600 million capital injection into BPN of February 2012 clearly does not bear a remuneration that is in line with the Recapitalisation Communication. Indeed, the Portuguese authorities expect no remuneration on the capital injected. As a matter of fact, the capital was injected with the purpose of allowing the sale of the bank at a negative price.\n(248)\nAs to the transfer of assets to the SPVs at book value, whilst the Commission acknowledges from a theoretical point of view that the transfer of assets to the three SPVs is intended to protect BPN\u2019s viability and to allow for its sale, the transfer at book value entails aid that is not in line with the main requirements of the IAC. In particular, the transfer is at book value, well above the real economic value and no remuneration for the State is contemplated. The IAC recognises that in-depth restructuring can compensate for potential misalignments with the main criteria of that Communication, including those on pricing. The existence of in-depth restructuring of BPN is an element that could allow the Commission to find that measure compatible with the Impaired Assets Communication. Thus, the transfer of assets to the SPVs could be assessed together with the rest of the measures in favour of BPN and as a part of the far-reaching restructuring.\n(249)\nPoint 25 of the Restructuring Communication sets out that any derogation from an adequate burden-sharing ex ante which may have been exceptionally granted in the rescue phase for reasons of financial stability should be compensated for by a further contribution at a later stage of the restructuring, for example in the form of claw-back clauses and/or by farther-reaching restructuring including additional measures to limit distortions of competition.\n(250)\nThe Commission considers that the restructuring of BPN is sufficiently far-reaching. It notes first that the bank is small in size. As a result of the restructuring process, BPN will disappear as an independent bank. The retail banking business that will be taken over by BIC has a balance sheet of less than 35 % of the balance sheet of BPN before its nationalisation. Businesses and activities other than retail banking have been exited for good.\n(251)\nTherefore, the Commission can conclude that burden-sharing is adequate in light of the far-reaching restructuring of BPN.\n6.3.3 Measures to limit distortions of competition\n(252)\nAs regards measures to limit distortions of competition, the Restructuring Communication provides that the nature and form of such measures will depend on the amount of aid and the conditions and circumstances under which it was granted and also on the characteristics of the market(s) on which the beneficiary bank will operate.\n(253)\nWhile the amount of aid received by BPN is significant, account should be taken of the limited size of BPN. As indicated in point 32 of the Restructuring Communication, the Commission will analyse the likely effects of the aid on the markets where the beneficiary bank operates after the restructuring. First of all, the size and the relative importance of the bank on its market, once it is made viable, will be examined.\n(254)\nIn that regard, the Commission notes that BPN will no longer continue as the same economic entity as before the state intervention. (56) It has undergone nationalisation and a profound in-depth restructuring. As a result, a much smaller bank will compete on the market.\n(255)\nBPN was the seventh-largest financial institution in Portugal by balance sheet size at the end of 2008. Since its nationalisation, it has been reduced in size, in particular as a result of a deposit outflow. It ranks 12th as of mid-2011 with a market share for both deposits and loans of less than 1 %. Deposits and loans nearly halved in the period 2008-2011.\n(256)\nIn its observations on the Decision of 24 October 2011, Portugal stated first that, already before the nationalisation, BPN had a market share of around [1-2] %. Second, after nationalisation, BPN was significantly restructured and its size continued to be reduced. Third, even after the integration with BIC, the new integrated entity will have less than [< 1] % of market share in Portugal, as the market share of BPN is currently around [< 1] % for both credit to customers and deposits and the market shares of BIC is in the order of [< 1] % for loans and [< 1] % for deposits.\n(257)\nThe Commission also notes that the sale of the banking business via a tender procedure gave competitors the opportunity to acquire the brand and business of BPN thereby limiting the distortions of competition.\n(258)\nThe Commission also takes a favourable view on the dividend policy as described in paragraph ((56) (xiii)).\n(259)\nIn addition, point 44 of the Restructuring Communication also mentions that banks should not cite state support as a competitive advantage when marketing their financial offers. The Commission regards as positive the commitment given by Portugal that BIC will not refer to the use of state aid in its marketing campaigns and communication to investors.\n(260)\nIn its Decision of 24 October 2011, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the envisaged measures were sufficient when account was taken of the significant amount of aid and the fact that BPN had received a recapitalisation, guarantees and impaired asset measures which were not remunerated in accordance with the requirements of the relevant Communications.\n(261)\nIn particular, the Commission noted that that the bank would operate in the market with an initial core tier 1 capital ratio of [10-18] %, far above the minimum levels of 9 % required at the end of 2011 and of 10 % at the end of 2012.\n(262)\nIn addition, BIC requested the right to sell back within [\u2026] months loans that were non-performing for at least [\u2026] days (up to [\u2026] % of the total nominal value of the loan portfolio). It also requested the maintenance of liquidity support from CGD in two forms. The first of them is the maintenance of the commercial paper programme line of credit for up to EUR [150-500] million with a state guarantee for three years and the commitment by CGD to maintain the terms of the credit line until [\u2026]. The second is a new credit line to be granted by CGD for up to EUR [150-350] million to compensate for a fall in deposits below EUR 1,8 billion, with a remuneration of Euribor +[\u2026] bps.\n(263)\nThis should ensure that the state aid is not used by the combined entity to grow at the expense of competitors and that the competition distortions caused by the aid are properly addressed.\n(264)\nGiven the tense situation in the market and the tight conditions imposed upon the banking sector by Portugal as a result of the events leading to the signature of the MoU, the Commission considers that these liquidity lines would significantly affect the extent to which the combined entity will be able to compete on the market with other players that have not received state aid.\n(265)\nThe state aid can therefore be declared compatible only if there are sufficient measures in place ensuring that the state aid is not used to the detriment of competitors, some of which have not received similar public support. A level playing-field should remain in place between banks which have received public support and those which have not. The state aid should not weaken incentives for non-beneficiaries to compete, invest and innovate, or create entry barriers which could undermine cross-border activity.\n(266)\nIt is necessary to ensure that the combined entity does not benefit from a competitive advantage arising from the shift of liquidity risk to the State and from the capital endowment.\n(267)\nFirstly, the Commission considers that in order to limit competition distortions resulting from the fact that the bank would have a capital level above the minimum requirement (see paragraph (261)), any reduction in RWA resulting from the restitution of loans to the State should be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in capital. Therefore, the commitment given by Portugal on the maximum capital level of BPN is necessary to ensure the compatibility of the restructuring aid with the internal market.\n(268)\nSecondly, the Commission considers that the duration of the credit line of EUR [150-500] million linked to BPN\u2019s commercial paper programme should be limited to a period of [\u2026] years. Moreover, the remuneration for the second liquidity line should be closer to market conditions and set at Euribor +[\u2026] bps. At the same time, Portugal should request the prior approval of the Commission in advance of any granting of credit lines or guarantees by CGD or the State until 31 December 2016, to ensure that those limitations are not circumvented. In that respect, the Commission takes note of the commitments given by Portugal on the liquidity lines; they are necessary to ensure the compatibility of the restructuring aid with the internal market.\n(269)\nThirdly, the Restructuring Communication also links an acquisition ban to distortions of competition. In points 39 and 40, the Communication explains that \u2018state aid must not be used to the detriment of competitors, which do not enjoy similar public support\u2019, and that \u2018banks should not use state aid for the acquisition of competing businesses\u2019. The Commission welcomes Portugal\u2019s commitment referred to in paragraph (236) to enforce an acquisition ban until 31 December 2016.\n(270)\nLastly, the entitlement for BIC to give back non-performing loans to the State should end as of [\u2026] and not [\u2026] months after the date of the sale. The Commission considers that BIC has had the opportunity to review BPN loans since the opening of the tender and in particular after the signing of the Framework Agreement on 9 December 2011. In addition the loan portfolio has already been cleaned twice: with the transfer of the least performing loans to the SPVs in December 2010 and subsequently by BIC as the buyer requested the right to give back to the State additional amounts of loans to meet the [110-150] % LTD ratio.\n(271)\nThe Commission notes that any further possibility of return offers BIC a protection against the risk of the worsening economic situation. Any subsequent \u2018non-performance\u2019 would in all likelihood reflect the worsening of the economic situation, and thus affect the entire banking sector. The entitlement for BIC to give back non-performing loans to the State distorts competition as no other banks will have that possibility. The window for returns should therefore be reduced until [\u2026] as a maximum. In this respect, the Commission welcomes the commitment given by Portugal to respect the [\u2026] deadline.\n6.3.4 Conclusion\n(272)\nIf all the commitments described in section 5.2 are correctly implemented, the January 2012 Restructuring Plan provides sufficient evidence that the long-term viability of the combined entity has been restored, that sufficient burden-sharing is achieved and that adequate measures to limit undue distortions of competition are taken. Therefore, the Commission can declare the January 2012 Restructuring Plan to be in line with the Restructuring Communication.\n6.3.5 Monitoring\n(273)\nPoint 46 of the Restructuring Communication indicates that, in order to verify that the restructuring plan is being implemented properly, detailed regular reports from the Member State are necessary. Accordingly, Portugal should provide the Commission with such reports every six months, starting from the date of this Decision.\n7. Conclusion\n(274)\nThe Commission regrets that Portugal unlawfully implemented the state aid listed in section 6.1.2 \u2018Quantification of the state aid\u2019 in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty. However, that aid, along with the other aid measures considered in this Decision, can be found compatible if the commitments described in section 5.2 are implemented,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The following measures granted by Portugal constitute state aid:\ni.\nLoans granted by CGD before nationalisation;\nii.\nLoans and liquidity lines granted by CGD to BPN after nationalisation and before the sale, with or without an explicit state guarantee;\niii.\nTransfer of assets from BPN to the SPVs at book value before and after the sale;\niv.\nCapital injection by the State of 15 February 2012;\nv.\nLiquidity lines to be granted by CGD requested by BIC for the combined entity;\nvi.\nRight for BIC to transfer deposits with a pricing above [\u2026] bps to the State, or to have the State remunerate the difference; and\nvii.\nTransfer to the State of costs linked to litigation.\n2. The aid measures set out in paragraph 1 are compatible with the internal market in light of the commitments set out in Section 5.2.\nArticle 2\nWithin two months of notification of this Decision, Portugal shall inform the Commission of the measures it has taken to comply with this Decision. Furthermore, Portugal shall submit detailed reports on the measures taken to comply with it, starting six months from the date of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 27 March 2012.", "references": ["31", "14", "81", "67", "57", "78", "60", "7", "12", "92", "59", "24", "76", "75", "18", "80", "44", "13", "3", "54", "93", "83", "89", "64", "33", "1", "69", "21", "85", "25", "No Label", "11", "15", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["11", "15", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1005/2011\nof 11 October 2011\nestablishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for export licences for cheese to be exported to the United States of America in 2012 under certain GATT quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (2), and in particular the first subparagraphs of Article 23(1) and (3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 789/2011 (3) opens the procedure for the allocation of export licences for cheese to be exported to the United States of America in 2012 under the GATT quotas listed in Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\n(2)\nThe export licence applications for certain quotas and product groups exceed the quantities available for the 2012 quota year. Allocation coefficients should therefore be established.\n(3)\nIn the case of product groups and quotas for which the applications lodged are for quantities smaller than those available, it is appropriate to provide for the allocation of the remaining quantities to the applicants in proportion to the quantities applied for. The allocation of such further quantities should be conditional upon the competent authority being notified of the quantities accepted by the operator concerned and upon the interested operators lodging a security.\n(4)\nGiven the time limit for implementing the procedure for determining those coefficients, as provided for in Article 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 789/2011, this Regulation should apply as soon as possible,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApplications for export licences lodged under Implementing Regulation (EU) No 789/2011 in respect of the product groups and quotas identified by 16-Tokyo, 16-, 17-, 18-, 20- and 21-Uruguay, and 22-Tokyo in column 3 of the Annex to this Regulation shall be accepted, subject to the application of the allocation coefficients laid down in column 5 of that Annex.\nArticle 2\nApplications for export licences lodged under Implementing Regulation (EU) No 789/2011 in respect of the product groups and quotas identified by 25-Tokyo, 22- and 25-Uruguay in column 3 of the Annex to this Regulation shall be accepted for the quantities requested.\nExport licences may be issued for further quantities distributed in accordance with the allocation coefficients in column 6 of the Annex, after acceptance by the operator within one week of publication of this Regulation and subject to the lodging of the security applicable.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 October 2011.", "references": ["30", "78", "88", "38", "3", "11", "50", "13", "12", "60", "37", "16", "18", "0", "31", "2", "52", "27", "20", "94", "80", "47", "68", "73", "17", "55", "14", "59", "32", "45", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "70", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "70", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 504/2010\nof 11 June 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 502/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 June 2010.", "references": ["9", "63", "50", "94", "60", "68", "31", "69", "53", "42", "7", "56", "25", "62", "17", "95", "61", "77", "80", "86", "32", "83", "76", "49", "93", "70", "45", "34", "43", "40", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 786/2010\nof 3 September 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 782/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 September 2010.", "references": ["8", "53", "17", "38", "34", "32", "31", "19", "95", "42", "2", "18", "55", "30", "9", "60", "67", "74", "47", "99", "73", "57", "87", "37", "24", "79", "39", "23", "62", "61", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 200/2011\nof 28 February 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 March 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 March 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 March 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["60", "13", "91", "37", "76", "21", "97", "50", "19", "12", "32", "35", "31", "61", "4", "54", "83", "3", "82", "80", "46", "15", "49", "17", "1", "95", "89", "53", "24", "27", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 73/2012\nof 27 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 January 2012.", "references": ["89", "95", "93", "9", "60", "25", "45", "53", "58", "17", "54", "5", "67", "1", "16", "23", "76", "31", "56", "80", "18", "82", "65", "4", "94", "3", "73", "49", "48", "51", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/857/CFSP\nof 19 December 2011\namending and extending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 December 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (1).\n(2)\nOn 26 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/312/CFSP (2) amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP and extending it until 31 December 2011.\n(3)\nOn 8 November 2011 the Political and Security Committee (PSC) recommended the technical extension of EU BAM Rafah for further 6 months.\n(4)\nEU BAM Rafah should be further extended from 1 January 2012 until 30 June 2012 on the basis of its current mandate.\n(5)\nIt is also necessary to lay down the financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EU BAM Rafah for the period from 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2012.\n(6)\nEU BAM Rafah will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nJoint Action 2005/889/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 12 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 12\nSecurity\n1. The Civilian Operation Commander shall direct the Head of Mission\u2019s planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation for EU BAM Rafah in accordance with Articles 5 and 9, in coordination with the Security Directorate of the European External Action Service (EEAS).\n2. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the security of EU BAM Rafah and for ensuring compliance with minimum security requirements applicable to EU BAM Rafah, in line with the policy of the Union on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty and its supporting instruments.\n3. The Head of Mission shall be assisted by a Senior Mission Security Officer (SMSO), who shall report to the Head of Mission and also maintain a close functional relationship with the Security Directorate of the EEAS.\n4. EU BAM Rafah staff shall undergo mandatory security training before taking up their duties, in accordance with the OPLAN. They shall also receive regular in-theatre refresher training organised by the SMSO.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 13, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EU BAM Rafah for the period from 25 November 2005 to 31 December 2011 shall be EUR 21 570 000.\nThe financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EU BAM Rafah for the period from 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2012 shall be EUR 970 000.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 16, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 30 June 2012.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["54", "6", "30", "52", "80", "33", "94", "51", "2", "99", "89", "18", "88", "45", "73", "92", "97", "0", "82", "16", "23", "22", "76", "98", "17", "69", "95", "39", "26", "59", "No Label", "1", "5", "9", "10"], "gold": ["1", "5", "9", "10"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 20 September 2011\nappointing a Luxembourg member and a Luxembourg alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/650/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Luxembourg Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Paul-Henri MEYERS. An alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Gilles ROTH as a member of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas member:\n-\nMr Gilles ROTH, Bourgmestre de la Commune de Mamer;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate member:\n-\nMr Pierre WIES, Bourgmestre de la Commune de Larochette.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2011.", "references": ["61", "20", "4", "90", "39", "3", "2", "73", "42", "51", "55", "77", "95", "45", "12", "69", "58", "64", "67", "80", "0", "62", "52", "88", "8", "79", "57", "32", "84", "34", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 January 2011\non a derogation from the rules of origin set out in Council Decision 2001/822/EC as regards sugar from the Netherlands Antilles\n(notified under document C(2011) 140)\n(2011/47/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community (\u2018Overseas Association Decision\u2019) (1), and in particular Article 37 of Annex III thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex III to Decision 2001/822/EC concerns the definition of the concept of \u2018originating products\u2019 and methods of administrative cooperation. Article 37 thereof provides that derogations from those rules of origin may be adopted where justified by the development of existing industries or the creation of new industries in a country or territory.\n(2)\nBy Commission Decision 2009/699/EC (2), the request submitted in 2009 for extension of the previous derogation was rejected whereas the requested new derogation was granted for the quantities for which import licences for sugar were allocated to the Netherlands Antilles for 2009 and 2010.\n(3)\nAccording to the quarterly statements of the quantities used under Decision 2009/699/EC forwarded by the Netherlands Antilles to the Commission, the consumption of the derogation granted in respect of 7 000 tonnes for 2010 is currently at around 2 500 tonnes in that year.\n(4)\nOn 24 August 2010 the Netherlands requested on behalf of the Netherlands Antilles a new derogation from the rules of origin set out in Annex III to Decision 2001/822/EC for the period from 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2013, date of expiry of Decision 2001/822/EC. On 8 September and 11 October 2010 additional information was provided by the Netherlands Antilles. The request covers a total annual quantity of 7 000 tonnes of sugar products originating in third countries and processed in the Netherlands Antilles for export to the Union.\n(5)\nThe request for a new derogation aims at allowing the use of raw sugar from third countries to be aromatized, coloured, milled and processed into sugar lumps in the Netherlands Antilles while conferring OCTs (Overseas Countries and Territories) origin. Moreover, the Netherlands Antilles request that for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 the yearly amount for which ACP/EU-OCTs cumulation may be temporarily allowed by virtue of Article 6 of Annex III to Decision 2001/822/EC would be set at 7 000 tonnes.\n(6)\nThe request for a new derogation is based on quality requirements stating that ACP sugar in the Caribbean region does not meet the criteria for a production of high quality sugar destined to Union customers, and on availability stating that ACP sugar from the Caribbean is subject to continuous shortfalls due to climatic conditions. Furthermore, ACP States are increasingly exporting their sugar production directly to the United States and the Union. Further, the Union does not produce raw cane sugar which is used for the end product. Therefore it would be justified that the Netherlands Antilles source raw sugar in neighbouring third countries that are not part of the ACP States, the OCTs or the Union.\n(7)\nIn its additional information, the Netherlands indicated that the sugar industry in the Netherlands Antilles, which should benefit from the requested derogation, aims to diversify into producing mixtures and \u2018biosugar\u2019, which both address distinctively different markets than the sugar products for which the requested derogation is submitted. At the moment diversification is still insufficient and the derogation would be needed to earn the necessary capital for the investments required for further diversification.\n(8)\nThe requested new derogation from the rules of origin set out in Annex III to Decision 2001/822/EC for a quantity of 7 000 tonnes for products falling within CN codes 1701 11 90, 1701 99 10 and 1701 91 00 is justified according to Article 37(1), (3) and (7) of that Annex under certain conditions, which aim at balancing the legitimate interests of the OCTs operators with the objectives of the external dimension of the Union\u2019s common market organisation on sugar.\n(9)\nIt is in favour of the legitimate interests of the Netherlands Antilles that the derogation concerns products which involve actual processing and the value added to the raw sugar is at least 45 % of the value of the finished product. Further, granting the derogation will contribute to the ability of the existing industry to continue its exports to the Union. The requested derogation is expected to generate the required turnover to finance further investments in diversification of products and activities, so that the industry concerned would no longer be required to request derogations of this kind.\n(10)\nAdditionally, the rules relating to cumulation of origin do not provide a solution for the sugar industry in the Netherlands Antilles. Article 6(4) of Annex III to Decision 2001/822/EC sets out the periods and the quantitative limits for which cumulation of origin has been temporarily allowed, and which are compatible with the objectives of the Union\u2019s common market organisation whilst taking due account of the legitimate interests of the OCTs operators. These quantities have been progressively reduced and will be finally phased out to zero tonnes on 1 January 2011.\n(11)\nThe phasing out of the ACP/EC-OCTs cumulation with regard to sugar, as provided for in Article 6(4) of Annex III to Decision 2001/822/EC, shows the Union\u2019s intention that specific origin rules are to be more restrictive as regards sugar in order to take due account of the Union\u2019s operators in the sugar market. That principle should be applied for the purpose of determining the quantities for which derogation is granted. The phasing out is also justified in view of the Union\u2019s envisaged negotiation of free trade agreements with Latin American countries, from which sugar may be usually sourced by the Netherlands Antilles. Taking into account the intention of the Netherlands Antilles\u2019 industry to diversify away from the sugar production requiring a derogation as the present one, the amounts for derogation should be phased out over time.\n(12)\nGiven the low utilisation of the quantities, provided for in the past derogations, it is appropriate to provide for the double amount of the current utilisation as an initial quantity, which respects the ability of the existing industry to continue its exports to the Union. In line with the envisaged phasing out, the amounts should be reduced progressively over the requested period. Such a phasing out should allow, at the same time, to generate the required turnover to finance further investments in the Netherlands Antilles and to give an incentive for the sugar industry concerned there to promote the intended diversification.\n(13)\nConsequently, subject to compliance with certain conditions relating to quantities, surveillance and duration, the derogation should be granted for 5 000 tonnes for 2011, 3 000 tonnes for 2012 and 1 500 tonnes for 2013.\n(14)\nSubject to these conditions the derogation is not such as to cause serious injury to an economic sector or an established industry in the Union.\n(15)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Common Customs Code (3) lays down rules for the management of tariff quotas. Those rules should be applied mutatis mutandis to the management of the quantity in respect of which the derogation in question is granted.\n(16)\nSince the current derogation expires on 31 December 2010, and a new derogation is requested for a period starting on 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2013, the requested derogation should apply from 1 January 2011 for that period.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Annex III to Decision 2001/822/EC, sugar products processed in the Netherlands Antilles falling within CN codes 1701 11 90, 1701 99 10 and 1701 91 00 shall be regarded as originating in the Netherlands Antilles where they are obtained from non-originating sugar, in accordance with the terms set out in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to the products and the quantities set out in the Annex which are declared for free circulation into the Union from the Netherlands Antilles during the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2013.\nArticle 3\nArticles 308a, 308b and 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 relating to the management of tariff quotas shall apply mutatis mutandis to the management of the quantity referred to in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 4\nThe customs authorities of the Netherlands Antilles shall take the necessary measures to carry out quantitative checks on exports of the products referred to in Article 2.\nAll the movement certificates EUR.1 they issue in relation to those products shall bear a reference to this Decision.\nThe competent authorities of the Netherlands Antilles shall forward to the Commission a quarterly statement of the quantities in respect of which EUR.1 movement certificates have been issued pursuant to this Decision and the serial numbers of those certificates.\nArticle 5\nBox 7 of EUR.1 movement certificates issued under this Decision shall contain one of the following entries:\n-\n\u2018Derogation - Decision 2011/47/EU\u2019,\n-\n\u2018D\u00e9rogation - D\u00e9cision 2011/47/UE\u2019.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2013.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2011.", "references": ["22", "34", "95", "29", "9", "66", "38", "30", "90", "5", "72", "53", "84", "99", "92", "88", "61", "78", "73", "37", "20", "58", "42", "51", "14", "13", "52", "69", "79", "35", "No Label", "8", "21", "23", "71", "93"], "gold": ["8", "21", "23", "71", "93"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2012/124/CFSP\nof 27 February 2012\nimplementing Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 15 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/101/CFSP.\n(2)\nThe information relating to one person on the list in Annex I to Decision 2011/101/CFSP should be updated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex I to Decision 2011/101/CFSP shall be amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 27 February 2012.", "references": ["7", "19", "14", "83", "21", "51", "66", "45", "1", "71", "37", "61", "42", "46", "73", "76", "65", "39", "69", "8", "55", "29", "98", "52", "24", "97", "11", "90", "92", "82", "No Label", "3", "12", "94"], "gold": ["3", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 February 2012\nauthorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean A5547-127 (ACS-GM\u00d8\u00d86-4) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2012) 691)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/81/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Article 7(3) and Article 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 31 March 2008, Bayer CropScience AG submitted to the competent authority of the Netherlands an application, in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from A5547-127 soybean (\u2018the application\u2019).\n(2)\nThe application also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of A5547-127 soybean for the same uses as any other soybean with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with Articles 5(5) and 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.\n(3)\nOn 10 May 2011, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It concluded that soybean A5547-127, as described in the application, is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment (3).\n(4)\nIn its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Articles 6(4) and 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(5)\nIn particular, EFSA concluded that soybean A5547-127 is compositionally and agronomically not different from its non-genetically modified counterpart and equivalent to commercial varieties, except for the introduced trait and as a consequence, that animal safety studies with the whole food/feed (e.g. a 90-day toxicity study in rats) are not needed.\n(6)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.\n(7)\nTaking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products containing, consisting of, or produced from A5547-127 soybean as described in the application (\u2018the products\u2019).\n(8)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).\n(9)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from A5547-127 soybean. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (5), lays down in Article 4(6) labelling requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs. Traceability requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs are laid down in paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article 4 and for food and feed produced from GMOs are laid down in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(11)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). The EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in point (e) of Article 6(5) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(12)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(13)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and point (c) of Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).\n(14)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(15)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman. An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation. The appeal committee did not deliver an opinion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified soybean A5547-127, as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier ACS-GM\u00d8\u00d86-4, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Article 4(2) and Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from ACS-GM\u00d8\u00d86-4 soybean;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from ACS-GM\u00d8\u00d86-4 soybean;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of ACS-GM\u00d8\u00d86-4 soybean for the same uses as any other soybean with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018soybean\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of ACS-GM\u00d8\u00d86-4 soybean referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 2.\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with the Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nCommunity register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Bayer CropScience AG.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Bayer CropScience AG, Alfred-Nobel-Strasse 50, 40789 Monheim am Rhein, GERMANY.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["98", "49", "64", "36", "44", "63", "83", "2", "22", "19", "30", "48", "55", "99", "40", "17", "39", "47", "31", "52", "71", "29", "77", "14", "93", "97", "43", "95", "16", "79", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/641/CFSP\nof 29 September 2011\namending Decision 2010/573/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/573/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nOn the basis of a review of Decision 2010/573/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be extended until 30 September 2012.\n(3)\nHowever, in order to encourage progress in reaching a political settlement to the Transnistrian conflict, addressing the remaining problems regarding the Latin-script schools and restoring the free movement of persons, those restrictive measures should be suspended until 31 March 2012. At the end of that period, the Council will review the restrictive measures in the light of developments, notably in the areas mentioned above. The Council may decide to reapply or lift travel restrictions at any time.\n(4)\nThe information relating to certain persons included in the lists in Annexes I and II to Decision 2010/573/CFSP should be updated.\n(5)\nDecision 2010/573/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/573/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 4(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. This Decision shall apply until 30 September 2012. It shall be kept under constant review. It may be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 4(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The restrictive measures provided for in this Decision shall be suspended until 31 March 2012. At the end of that period, the Council shall review the restrictive measures.\u2019.\nArticle 2\n1. In Annex I to Decision 2010/573/CFSP, the entries for the following persons:\n(1)\nOleg Igorevich SMIRNOV;\n(2)\nOleg Andreyevich GUDYMO,\nshall be replaced by the entries set out in Annex I to this Decision.\n2. In Annex II to Decision 2010/573/CFSP, the entry for the following person:\n(1)\nAlla Viktorovna CHERBULENKO,\nshall be replaced by the entry set out in Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 29 September 2011.", "references": ["4", "84", "58", "51", "43", "31", "2", "47", "78", "17", "55", "73", "29", "54", "90", "27", "66", "50", "16", "26", "49", "45", "41", "37", "87", "9", "64", "40", "67", "19", "No Label", "3", "12", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "12", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1073/2010\nof 22 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for saithe in IIIa; EU waters of IIa, IIIb, IIIc, IIId and IV by vessels flying the flag of Sweden\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["16", "11", "49", "62", "5", "61", "95", "51", "24", "98", "93", "12", "57", "34", "33", "81", "60", "69", "26", "89", "85", "8", "65", "23", "25", "28", "18", "43", "86", "74", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 490/2010\nof 3 June 2010\nnot fixing a minimum selling price in response to the first individual invitation to tender for the sale of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 477/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 477/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the first individual invitation to tender, no minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the first individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 477/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 1 June 2010, no minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be fixed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["53", "32", "28", "31", "73", "92", "43", "8", "36", "87", "95", "88", "33", "84", "99", "82", "90", "78", "42", "15", "81", "56", "47", "1", "16", "51", "6", "57", "14", "29", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 188/2012\nof 7 March 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Susina di Dro (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy's application to register the name \u2027Susina di Dro\u2027 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2012.", "references": ["75", "36", "42", "13", "73", "52", "83", "58", "94", "4", "41", "30", "76", "34", "47", "29", "92", "27", "19", "84", "3", "57", "51", "87", "82", "16", "8", "43", "50", "70", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 October 2010\nextending the period of validity of Decision 2002/887/EC in respect of naturally or artificially dwarfed plants of Chamaecyparis Spach, Juniperus L. and Pinus L., originating in Japan\n(notified under document C(2010) 7249)\n(2010/645/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2002/887/EC of 8 November 2002 authorising derogations from certain provisions of Council Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of naturally or artificially dwarfed plants of Chamaecyparis Spach, Juniperus L. and Pinus L., originating in Japan (2) authorises Member States to provide for derogations from Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of plants of Chamaecyparis Spach, Juniperus L. and Pinus L., other than fruits and seeds originating in Japan, for limited periods and subject to specific conditions.\n(2)\nThe derogations granted first by Commission Decision 93/452/EEC (3) and later by Decision 2002/887/EC were limited in time and the dates foreseen in these Decisions have been prolonged first, by Commission Decisions 94/816/EC (4), 96/711/EC (5), 98/641/EC (6) and 2001/841/EC (7) and later, by Commission Decisions 2004/826/EC (8), 2006/915/EC (9) and 2008/826/EC (10).\n(3)\nSince the circumstances justifying these derogations still apply and there is no new information giving cause for revision of the specific conditions, the authorisation for derogations should be extended. Moreover, experience has been gained from information collected by the Member States in accordance with Article 2 of Decision 2002/887/EC, as well as on the basis of contacts with Japan. Furthermore, appropriate mechanisms are established in this Decision to ensure the monitoring of the conditions of application of the derogations. Therefore it is appropriate to extend the authorisations for derogations granted in this Decision for a longer period than the ones granted by previous Decisions, and namely until 31 December 2020.\n(4)\nHowever, and due to phytosanitary reasons, the import of naturally or artificially dwarfed plants of Juniperus L. originating in Japan should take place only during a specific period of each year until 31 December 2020.\n(5)\nDecision 2002/887/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2002/887/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nIn the first and second paragraphs of Article 2, \u20181 August 2009 and 1 August 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u20181 August each year\u2019.\n2.\nThe table in Article 4 is replaced by the following table:\n\u2018Plants\nPeriod\nChamaecyparis\n1.1.2011-31.12.2020\nJuniperus\n1.11. to 31.3. of each year until 31.12.2020\nPinus\n1.1.2011-31.12.2020\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 October 2010.", "references": ["83", "26", "82", "74", "94", "70", "20", "73", "44", "39", "77", "60", "87", "2", "9", "90", "40", "76", "88", "42", "51", "84", "21", "10", "67", "64", "3", "23", "45", "97", "No Label", "8", "22", "43", "58", "61", "66", "95", "96"], "gold": ["8", "22", "43", "58", "61", "66", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/56/EU\nof 20 August 2010\namending Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC to renew the inclusion of prohexadione as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe inclusion of prohexadione (formerly prohexadione-calcium) in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC expires on 31 December 2011. A notification was submitted in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 of 27 June 2007 on laying down the procedure of the renewal of the inclusion of a first group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and establishing the list of those substances (2) for the renewal of the inclusion of prohexadione to as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within the time period provided for in that Article.\n(2)\nThat notification was found to be admissible by Commission Decision 2008/656/EC of 28 July 2008 on the admissibility of the notifications concerning the renewal of the inclusion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances azimsulfuron, azoxystrobin, fluroxypyr, imazalil, kresoxim-methyl, prohexadion-calcium and spiroxamin, and establishing the list of the notifiers concerned (3).\n(3)\nWithin the time period provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007, the notifier submitted the data required in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 together with an explanation as regards the relevance of each new study submitted.\n(4)\nThe rapporteur Member State prepared an assessment report in consultation with the co-rapporteur Member State and submitted it to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter: \u2018the Authority\u2019) and the Commission on 22 May 2009. In addition to the assessment of the substance, that report includes a list of the studies the rapporteur Member State relied on for its assessment.\n(5)\nThe Authority communicated the assessment report to the notifier and to all the Member States and forwarded the comments received to the Commission. The Authority also made the assessment report available to the public.\n(6)\nAt the request of the Commission, the assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority, the Authority presented its conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of prohexadione (considered variant prohexadione-calcium) (4) to the Commission on 6 April 2010. The assessment report and the conclusion from the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 9 July 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for prohexadione.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing prohexadione may be expected to continue to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to renew the inclusion of prohexadione in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, in order to ensure that plant protection products containing this active substance may continue to be authorised where they comply with that Directive.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is renewed in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the renewal.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of renewing the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I thereof, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after renewal to review authorisations of plant protection products containing prohexadione to make sure that the requirements laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13, and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I to that Directive, continue to be satisfied. As appropriate, Member States should renew, where appropriate with modifications, or refuse to renew authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31 January 2012 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 February 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing prohexadione as an active substance by 31 January 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to prohexadione are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing prohexadione as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances, all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 July 2011 at the latest, Member States shall, where necessary, re-evaluate the products, to take into account developments occurred in the scientific and technical knowledge and in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning prohexadione. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product still satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC. Following that determination Member States shall, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 July 2015.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, for each authorised plant protection product containing prohexadione as one of several active substances, all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 July 2011 at the latest, and at least one of which was included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC between 1 January 2009 and 31 July 2011, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning prohexadione. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 July 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 August 2011.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 August 2010.", "references": ["35", "16", "41", "15", "53", "3", "85", "29", "64", "37", "26", "99", "71", "0", "55", "59", "96", "5", "17", "69", "22", "87", "33", "36", "10", "19", "78", "50", "91", "51", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "42", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "42", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 725/2012\nof 8 August 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 720/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 August 2012.", "references": ["4", "73", "64", "41", "40", "6", "74", "49", "17", "92", "48", "43", "98", "32", "20", "94", "75", "3", "18", "59", "58", "96", "24", "0", "14", "91", "69", "62", "15", "38", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 242/2011\nof 11 March 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Chleb pr\u0105dnicki (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Chleb pr\u0105dnicki\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 March 2011.", "references": ["29", "55", "17", "71", "53", "87", "8", "88", "44", "19", "34", "51", "82", "86", "36", "45", "23", "65", "12", "78", "93", "69", "15", "32", "30", "67", "14", "22", "99", "58", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/858/CFSP\nof 19 December 2011\namending and extending Decision 2010/784/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 14 November 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/797/CFSP (1) on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) which was last extended by Council Decision 2009/955/CFSP (2) and expired on 31 December 2010.\n(2)\nOn 17 December 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/784/CFSP (3) continuing as from 1 January 2011 the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories, and expiring on 31 December 2011.\n(3)\nOn 8 November 2011, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) recommended the technical extension of EUPOL COPPS for further 6 months.\n(4)\nEUPOL COPPS should be further extended from 1 January 2012 until 30 June 2012 on the basis of its current mandate.\n(5)\nIt is also necessary to lay down the financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL COPPS for the period from 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2012.\n(6)\nEUPOL COPPS will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/784/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 12 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 12\nSecurity\n1. The Civilian Operation Commander shall direct the Head of Mission\u2019s planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation for EUPOL COPPS in accordance with Articles 5, 6 and 9, in coordination with the Security Directorate of the European External Action Service (EEAS).\n2. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the security of EUPOL COPPS and for ensuring compliance with minimum security requirements applicable to EUPOL COPPS, in line with the policy of the Union on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty and its supporting instruments.\n3. The Head of Mission shall be assisted by a Senior Mission Security Officer (SMSO), who shall report to the Head of Mission and also maintain a close functional relationship with the Security Directorate of the EEAS.\n4. EUPOL COPPS staff shall undergo mandatory security training before taking up their duties, in accordance with the OPLAN. They shall also receive regular in-theatre refresher training organised by the SMSO.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 13, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL COPPS for the period from 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011 shall be EUR 8 250 000.\nThe financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL COPPS for the period from 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2012 shall be EUR 4 750 000.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 16, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 30 June 2012.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["86", "8", "28", "44", "54", "70", "26", "98", "30", "56", "36", "94", "66", "48", "45", "99", "42", "85", "35", "40", "33", "20", "15", "93", "12", "37", "77", "19", "92", "78", "No Label", "1", "9", "10", "95"], "gold": ["1", "9", "10", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 December 2011\non a temporary derogation from rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 to take account of the special situation of Kenya with regard to tuna loins\n(notified under document C(2011) 9269)\n(2011/861/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements (1), and in particular Article 36(4) of Annex II thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 16 February 2011 Kenya requested, in accordance with Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007, a derogation from the rules of origin set out in that Annex for a period of one year. On 20 September 2011 Kenya submitted additional information relating to its request. The request covers a total quantity of 2 000 tonnes of tuna loins of HS heading 1604. The request is made because catches and supply of originating raw tuna have decreased and because of the problem of piracy.\n(2)\nAccording to the information provided by Kenya catches of raw originating tuna are unusually low even compared to the normal seasonal variations and have led to a decrease in production of tuna loins. In addition, Kenya has pointed out the risk involved due to piracy during the supply of raw tuna. This abnormal situation makes it impossible for Kenya to comply with the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 during a certain period.\n(3)\nTo ensure continuity of importations from the ACP countries to the Union as well as a smooth transition from the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement to the Agreement establishing a framework for an Interim Economic Partnership Agreement (EAC-EU Interim Partnership Agreement), a new derogation should be granted with retroactive effect from 1 January 2011.\n(4)\nA temporary derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 would not cause serious injury to an established Community industry taking into account the imports concerned, provided that certain conditions relating to quantities, surveillance and duration are respected.\n(5)\nIt is therefore justified to grant a temporary derogation under Article 36(1)(a) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007.\n(6)\nKenya will benefit from an automatic derogation from the rules of origin for tuna loins of HS heading 1604 pursuant to Article 41(8) of the Origin Protocol attached to the EAC-EU Interim Partnership Agreement, when that Agreement enters into force or is provisionally applied.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 the rules of origin set out in Annex II to that Regulation and the derogations from them are to be superseded by the rules of the EAC-EU Interim Partnership Agreement, the entry into force or provisional application of which is expected to take place in 2012. The derogation should therefore apply until 31 December 2011. Whilst a derogation is still to be granted in 2011, the overall situation, including the state of ratification of the EAC-EU Interim Partnership Agreement, will be reassessed in 2012.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 41(8) of the Origin Protocol attached to the EAC-EU Interim Partnership Agreement, the automatic derogation from the rules of origin is limited to an annual quota of 2 000 tonnes of tuna loins for the countries having initialled the EAC-EU Interim Partnership Agreement (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi). Kenya is the only country in the region that currently exports tuna loins to the Union. It is therefore appropriate to grant to Kenya a derogation under Article 36 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 in respect of 2 000 tonnes of tuna loins, quantity which does not exceed the full annual quota granted to the EAC region under the EAC-EU Interim Partnership Agreement.\n(9)\nAccordingly a derogation should be granted to Kenya in respect of 2 000 tonnes of tuna loins for a period of one year.\n(10)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (2) lays down rules relating to the management of tariff quotas. In order to ensure efficient management carried out in close cooperation between the authorities of Kenya, the customs authorities of the Member States and the Commission, those rules should apply mutatis mutandis to the quantities imported under the derogation granted by this Decision.\n(11)\nIn order to allow efficient monitoring of the operation of the derogation, the authorities of Kenya should communicate regularly to the Commission details of the EUR.1 movement certificates issued.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 and in accordance with Article 36(1)(a) of that Annex, tuna loins of HS heading 1604 manufactured from non-originating materials shall be regarded as originating in Kenya in accordance with the terms set out in Articles 2 to 6 of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to the products and the quantities set out in the Annex which are declared for free circulation into the Union from Kenya during the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 3\nThe quantities set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be managed in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\nArticle 4\nThe customs authorities of Kenya shall take the necessary measures to carry out quantitative checks on exports of the products referred to in Article 1.\nAll the EUR.1 movement certificates they issue in relation to those products shall bear a reference to this Decision.\nThe competent authorities of Kenya shall forward to the Commission a quarterly statement of the quantities in respect of which EUR.1 movement certificates have been issued pursuant to this Decision and the serial numbers of those certificates.\nArticle 5\nBox 7 of EUR.1 movement certificates issued under this Decision shall contain the following:\n\u2018Derogation - Implementing Decision 2011/861/EU\u2019.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["68", "84", "97", "38", "79", "74", "57", "30", "72", "50", "28", "47", "96", "52", "64", "83", "53", "88", "18", "16", "9", "25", "61", "35", "0", "45", "54", "69", "82", "71", "No Label", "8", "22", "23", "67", "94"], "gold": ["8", "22", "23", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 11 June 2012\namending Decision 2011/163/EU on the approval of plans submitted by third countries in accordance with Article 29 of Council Directive 96/23/EC\n(notified under document C(2012) 3723)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/302/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 29(1) and Article 29(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 96/23/EC lays down measures to monitor the substances and groups of residues listed in Annex I thereto. Pursuant to Directive 96/23/EC, the inclusion and retention on the lists of third countries from which Member States are authorised to import animals and animal products covered by that Directive are subject to the submission by the third countries concerned of a plan setting out the guarantees which they offer as regards the monitoring of the groups of residues and substances listed in that Annex. Those plans are to be updated at the request of the Commission, particularly when certain checks render it necessary.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2011/163/EU (2) approves the plans provided for in Article 29 of Directive 96/23/EC (\u2018the plans\u2019) submitted by certain third countries listed in the Annex thereto for the animals and animal products indicated in that list.\n(3)\nIn the light of the recent plans submitted by certain third countries and additional information obtained by the Commission, it is necessary to update the list of third countries from which Member States are authorised to import certain animals and animal products, as provided for in Directive 96/23/EC and currently listed in the Annex to Decision 2011/163/EU (\u2018the list\u2019).\n(4)\nBelize has submitted a plan for aquaculture to the Commission. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. An entry for Belize for aquaculture should therefore be included in the list.\n(5)\nChile is currently included in the list for ovine/caprine but with a reference to footnote 3 in the Annex to Decision 2011/163/EU. That footnote restricts such imports from Chile to ovine only. Chile has submitted a plan for caprine to the Commission. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. The reference to footnote 3 should therefore be removed in the list for Chile.\n(6)\nCura\u00e7ao is currently included in the list for milk. However, Cura\u00e7ao has not provided a plan as required by Article 29 of Directive 96/23/EC. The entry for Cura\u00e7ao should therefore be removed from the list.\n(7)\nHong Kong is currently included in the list for poultry and aquaculture. However, Hong Kong has not provided a plan as required by Article 29 of Directive 96/23/EC. Hong Kong should therefore be removed from the list.\n(8)\nGambia has submitted a plan for aquaculture to the Commission. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. An entry for Gambia for aquaculture should therefore be included in the list.\n(9)\nDecision of the EEA Joint Committee No 133/2007 of 26 October 2007 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement (3) extends the provisions of that Annex to Iceland. The entries for Iceland should therefore be removed from the list.\n(10)\nJamaica is currently included in the list for aquaculture and honey. However, Jamaica has not provided a plan as required by Article 29 of Directive 96/23/EC for aquaculture. The entry for Jamaica for aquaculture should therefore be removed from the list.\n(11)\nKenya has submitted a plan for camel milk to the Commission. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. An entry for Kenya for camel milk should therefore be included in the list.\n(12)\nLebanon has submitted a plan for honey to the Commission. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. An entry for Lebanon for honey should therefore be included in the list.\n(13)\nNamibia is currently included in the list for bovine, ovine/caprine, wild game and farmed game. However, Namibia has not provided a plan as required by Article 29 of Directive 96/23/EC for farmed game. The entry for Namibia for farmed game should therefore be removed from the list.\n(14)\nNew Caledonia is currently included in the list for bovine, aquaculture, wild game, farmed game and honey. That third country has informed the Commission that it is no longer interested to export fresh bovine meat to the Union. However, New Caledonia provided the guarantees requested to maintain the entry for bovine in the list but with the footnote indicating that third countries using only raw material either from Member States or from other third countries approved for imports of such raw material to the Union. The appropriate footnote reference should therefore be added for the entry for New Caledonia for bovine.\n(15)\nSint Maarten is currently included in the list for milk. However, Sint Maarten has not provided a plan as required by Article 29 of Directive 96/23/EC. Sint Maarten should therefore be removed from the list.\n(16)\nSan Marino is currently included in the list for bovine, porcine and honey. That third country has informed the Commission that it is no longer interested to export pig meat to the Union. The entry for San Marino for porcine should therefore be removed from the list.\n(17)\nIn order to avoid any disruption to trade, a transitional period should be laid down to cover the relevant consignments from Cura\u00e7ao, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Namibia and Sint Maarten, which were certified and dispatched to the Union before the date of application of this Decision.\n(18)\nDecision 2011/163/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(19)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/163/EU is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nFor a transitional period until 15 August 2012, Member States shall accept consignments from Cura\u00e7ao of milk, from Hong Kong of poultry and aquaculture, from Jamaica of aquaculture, from Namibia of farmed game and from Sint Maarten of milk provided that the importer of such products demonstrates that they had been certified and dispatched to the Union prior to 1 July 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 June 2012.", "references": ["53", "76", "44", "97", "57", "77", "13", "95", "52", "27", "85", "79", "89", "26", "88", "34", "12", "75", "18", "55", "60", "10", "9", "7", "4", "41", "38", "73", "42", "47", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "61", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "61", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 1/2010 OF THE EU-ALGERIA ASSOCIATION COUNCIL\nof 3 August 2010\namending Article 15(7) of Protocol 6 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the People\u2019s Democratic Republic of Algeria, of the other part, concerning the definition of the concept of \u2018originating products\u2019 and methods of administrative cooperation\n(2010/566/EU)\nTHE ASSOCIATION COUNCIL,\nHaving regard to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the People\u2019s Democratic Republic of Algeria, of the other part, and in particular Article 39 of Protocol 6 thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 15(7) of Protocol 6 (1) to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the People\u2019s Democratic Republic of Algeria, of the other part (2) (hereafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019), allows drawback of, or exemption from, customs duties or charges having an equivalent effect, subject to certain conditions, until 31 December 2009.\n(2)\nTo provide clarity, long-term economic predictability and legal certainty for economic operators, the Parties to the Agreement have agreed to extend the application period of Article 15(7) of Protocol 6 to the Agreement by three years, with effect from 1 January 2010.\n(3)\nMoreover, the rates of customs charges currently applicable in Algeria should be adjusted to bring them into line with those that apply in the European Union.\n(4)\nProtocol 6 to the Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nSince Article 15(7) of Protocol 6 to the Agreement no longer applies as of 31 December 2009, this Decision should apply from 1 January 2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 15(7) of Protocol 6 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the People\u2019s Democratic Republic of Algeria, of the other part, concerning the definition of the concept of \u2018originating products\u2019 and methods of administrative cooperation, is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Algeria may, except for products falling within Chapters 1 to 24 of the Harmonised System, apply arrangements for drawback of, or exemption from, customs duties or charges having an equivalent effect, applicable to non-originating materials used in the manufacture of originating products, subject to the following provisions:\n(a)\na 4 % rate of customs charge shall be retained in respect of products falling within Chapters 25 to 49 and 64 to 97 of the Harmonised System, or such lower rate as is in force in Algeria;\n(b)\nan 8 % rate of customs charge shall be retained in respect of products falling within Chapters 50 to 63 of the Harmonised System, or such lower rate as is in force in Algeria.\nThis paragraph shall apply until 31 December 2012 and may be reviewed by common accord.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2010.\nDone at Brussels, 3 August 2010.", "references": ["57", "25", "85", "55", "83", "43", "54", "24", "91", "10", "48", "40", "68", "38", "65", "22", "87", "16", "90", "76", "1", "5", "0", "61", "67", "77", "34", "66", "46", "39", "No Label", "2", "9", "21", "23", "94"], "gold": ["2", "9", "21", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 82/2012\nof 31 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2012.", "references": ["28", "85", "74", "59", "70", "9", "10", "7", "83", "77", "93", "8", "63", "42", "66", "72", "12", "52", "25", "58", "75", "30", "5", "1", "78", "99", "64", "48", "26", "37", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 510/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 11 May 2011\nsetting emission performance standards for new light commercial vehicles as part of the Union's integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 94/69/EC (3), seeks to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. In order to meet this objective, the overall global annual mean surface temperature increase should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) fourth Assessment Report shows that in order to reach that objective, global emissions of greenhouse gases must peak by 2020. At its meeting of 8-9 March 2007, the European Council made a firm commitment to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions of the Community by at least 20 % compared to 1990 levels by 2020 and by 30 % provided that other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions and economically more advanced developing countries contribute according to their respective capabilities.\n(2)\nIn 2009, the Commission completed a review of the Union's Sustainable Development Strategy focussing on the most pressing problems for sustainable development such as transport, climate change, public health and energy conservation.\n(3)\nPolicies and measures should be implemented at Member State and Union level across all sectors of the Union economy, and not only within the industrial and energy sectors, in order to achieve the necessary emissions reductions. Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community's greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020 (4) provides for an average reduction of 10 % compared to 2005 levels in the sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, established by Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (5), including road transport. Road transport is the second largest greenhouse gas emitting sector in the Union and its emissions, including those from light commercial vehicles, continue to rise. If road transport emissions continue to increase, it will significantly undermine efforts made by other sectors to combat climate change.\n(4)\nUnion targets for new road vehicles provide manufacturers with more planning certainty and more flexibility to meet the CO2 reduction requirements than would be provided by separate national reduction targets. In setting emission performance standards, it is important to take into account the implications for markets and for the competitiveness of manufacturers, the direct and indirect costs imposed on business and the benefits that accrue in terms of stimulating innovation and reducing energy consumption and fuel costs.\n(5)\nTo enhance the competitiveness of the European automotive industry, incentive schemes such as the offsetting of eco-innovations and the award of super-credits should be used.\n(6)\nIn its Communications of 7 February 2007 entitled \u2018Results of the review of the Community Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles\u2019 and \u2018A Competitive Automotive Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century (CARS 21)\u2019, the Commission underlined that the Community objective of average emissions for the new passenger car fleet of 120 g CO2/km would not be met by 2012 in the absence of additional measures.\n(7)\nIn those Communications an integrated approach was proposed with a view to reaching the Community target of average emissions of 120 g CO2/km from new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles registered in the Community by 2012 by focusing on mandatory reductions of emissions of CO2 to reach an objective of 130 g CO2/km for the average new car fleet by means of improvements in vehicle motor technology and a further reduction of 10 g CO2/km, or equivalent if technically necessary, by means of other technological improvements, including fuel efficiency progress in light commercial vehicles.\n(8)\nThe provisions implementing the objective concerning emissions from light commercial vehicles should be consistent with the legislative framework for implementing the objectives concerning emissions from the new passenger car fleet set out in Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community's integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (6).\n(9)\nThe legislative framework for achieving the fleet average emissions target for new light commercial vehicles should ensure that reduction targets are competitively neutral, socially equitable and sustainable and take account of the diversity of European automobile manufacturers and avoid any unjustified distortion of competition between them. The legislative framework should be compatible with the overall objective of reaching the Union's emission reduction targets and should be complemented by other more use-related instruments such as differentiated car and energy taxes or measures to limit the speed of light commercial vehicles.\n(10)\nIn order to maintain the diversity of the light commercial vehicle market and its ability to address different consumer needs, CO2 emission targets for light commercial vehicles should be defined according to the utility of the vehicle on a linear basis. Mass is an appropriate parameter to describe this utility as it provides a correlation with present emissions and therefore results in more realistic and competitively neutral targets. Moreover, data on mass is readily available. Data on alternative utility parameters such as footprint (average track width times wheelbase) and payload should be collected in order to facilitate longer-term evaluations of the utility-based approach.\n(11)\nThis Regulation actively promotes eco-innovation and takes into account future technological developments which can enhance the long-term competitiveness of the European automotive industry and create more high-quality jobs. As a means to assess systematically the emissions improvements of eco-innovations the Commission should consider the possibility of including eco-innovation measures in the review of test procedures pursuant to Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (7), taking into consideration the technical and economic impacts of such inclusion.\n(12)\nDirective 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars (8) already requires that promotional literature for cars provides end-users with the official CO2 emission data and the official fuel consumption of the vehicle. The Commission, in its Recommendation 2003/217/EC of 26 March 2003 on the application to other media of the provisions of Directive 1999/94/EC concerning promotional literature (9), has interpreted this as including advertising. The scope of Directive 1999/94/EC should therefore be extended to light commercial vehicles, so that advertisements for any light commercial vehicles should be required to provide end-users with the official CO2 emission data and official fuel consumption of the vehicle where energy- or price-related information is disclosed, at the latest by 2014.\n(13)\nIn recognition of the very high research and development and unit production costs of early generations of very low carbon vehicle technologies to be introduced into the marketplace following its entry into force, this Regulation seeks to accelerate and facilitate, on an interim basis, the process of introducing into the Union market ultra low carbon vehicles at their initial stages of commercialisation.\n(14)\nThe use of certain alternative fuels can offer significant CO2 reductions in well-to-wheel terms. This Regulation therefore incorporates specific provisions aimed at promoting further deployment of certain alternative-fuel vehicles in the Union market.\n(15)\nBy 1 January 2012 at the latest and with a view to improving data gathering on and measurement of fuel consumption, the Commission should consider whether to amend the relevant legislation in order to include an obligation for manufacturers seeking type approval for vehicles of category N1 as defined in Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (10) to equip every vehicle with a fuel consumption meter.\n(16)\nTo ensure consistency with Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and to avoid abuses, the target should be applied to new light commercial vehicles registered in the Union for the first time and that have not previously been registered outside the Union except for a limited period.\n(17)\nDirective 2007/46/EC establishes a harmonised framework containing the administrative provisions and general technical requirements for approval of all new vehicles within its scope. The entity responsible for complying with this Regulation should be the same as the entity responsible for all aspects of the type-approval process in accordance with Directive 2007/46/EC and for ensuring conformity of production.\n(18)\nManufacturers should have flexibility to decide how to meet their targets under this Regulation and should be allowed to average emissions over their new vehicle fleet rather than having to respect CO2 targets for each individual vehicle. Manufacturers should therefore be required to ensure that the average specific emission for all the new light commercial vehicles registered in the Union for which they are responsible does not exceed the average of the emissions targets for those vehicles. This requirement should be phased in between 2014 and 2017 in order to facilitate its introduction. This is consistent with the lead times given and the duration of the phase-in period set in Regulation (EC) No 443/2009.\n(19)\nIn order to ensure that targets reflect the particularities of small and niche manufacturers and are consistent with the manufacturer's reduction potential, alternative emission reduction targets should be set for such manufacturers, taking into account the technological potential of a given manufacturer's vehicles to reduce their specific emissions of CO2 and consistently with the characteristics of the market segments concerned. This derogation should be covered by the review of the specific emission targets in Annex I, to be completed by the beginning of 2013 at the latest.\n(20)\nThe Union strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles established an integrated approach with a view to reaching the Union target of 120 g CO2/km by 2012, while also presenting a longer-term vision of further emission reductions. Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 substantiates this longer-term view by setting a target of 95 g CO2/km as average emissions for the new car fleet. In order to ensure consistency with that approach and to provide planning certainty for the industry, a long-term target for the specific emissions of CO2 of light commercial vehicles in 2020 should be set.\n(21)\nIn order to provide flexibility for manufacturers in meeting their emission targets under this Regulation, manufacturers may agree to form a pool on an open, transparent and non-discriminatory basis. Where a pool is formed, individual manufacturer's targets should be replaced by a joint target for the pool which should be attained collectively by the members of the pool.\n(22)\nThe specific emissions of CO2 of completed vehicles should be allocated to the manufacturer of the base vehicle.\n(23)\nIn order to ensure that the values of CO2 emissions and fuel efficiency of completed vehicles are representative, the Commission should come forward with a specific procedure and consider, where appropriate, reviewing the type-approval legislation.\n(24)\nA robust compliance mechanism is necessary in order to ensure that the targets under this Regulation are met.\n(25)\nThe specific emissions of CO2 from new light commercial vehicles are measured on a harmonised basis in the Union according to the methodology laid down in Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. To minimise the administrative burden of the scheme, the compliance should be measured by reference to data on registrations of new vehicles in the Union collected by Member States and reported to the Commission. To ensure the consistency of the data used to assess compliance, the rules for the collection and reporting of this data should be harmonised as far as possible.\n(26)\nDirective 2007/46/EC requires that manufacturers issue a certificate of conformity for each new light commercial vehicle and that Member States permit the registration and entry into service of a new light commercial vehicle only if it is accompanied by a valid certificate of conformity. Data collected by Member States should be consistent with the certificate of conformity issued by the manufacturer of the light commercial vehicle and should be based on this document only. There should be a Union standard database for certificate of conformity data. It should be used as a single reference to enable Member Sates to maintain more easily their registration data when vehicles are newly registered.\n(27)\nManufacturers\u2019 compliance with the targets under this Regulation should be assessed at Union level. Manufacturers whose average specific emissions of CO2 exceed those permitted under this Regulation should pay an excess emissions premium with respect to each calendar year from 1 January 2014. The premium should be modulated as a function of the extent to which manufacturers fail to comply with their target. In order to ensure consistency, the premium mechanism should be similar to the one set in Regulation (EC) No 443/2009. The amounts of the excess emissions premium should be considered as revenue for the general budget of the European Union.\n(28)\nAny national measure that Member States may maintain or introduce in accordance with Article 193 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) should not, in consideration of the purpose of and procedures established in this Regulation, impose additional or more stringent penalties on manufacturers who fail to meet their targets under this Regulation.\n(29)\nThis Regulation should be without prejudice to the full application of Union competition rules.\n(30)\nNew modalities should be considered for reaching the long-term target, in particular the slope of the curve, the utility parameter and the excess emissions premium scheme.\n(31)\nThe speed of road vehicles has a strong influence on their fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. In addition, in the absence of speed limitation for light commercial vehicles, it is possible that there is an element of competition as regards top speed which could lead to oversized powertrains and associated inefficiencies in slower operating conditions. It is therefore appropriate to investigate the feasibility of extending the scope of Council Directive 92/6/EEC of 10 February 1992 on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community (11), with the aim of including light commercial vehicles covered in this Regulation.\n(32)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, in particular for the adoption of detailed rules for the monitoring and reporting of average emissions, namely the collection, registration, presentation, transmission, calculation and communication of data on average emissions, and the application of the requirements set out in Annex II, as well as for the adoption of detailed arrangements for the collection of excess emissions premiums and of detailed provisions for the procedure to approve innovative technologies, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (12).\n(33)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU to amend the monitoring and reporting requirements laid down in Annex II in the light of the experience of the application of this Regulation, to adjust the figure of M0 referred to in Annex I to the average mass of new light commercial vehicles in the previous three calendar years, to establish rules regarding the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for derogations, on the content of applications for a derogation and on the content and assessment of programmes for the reduction of specific emissions of CO2, as well as to adapt the formulae set out in Annex I in order to reflect any change in the regulatory test procedure for the measurement of specific CO2 emissions. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(34)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely the establishment of CO2 emissions performance requirements for new light commercial vehicles, cannot be achieved by the Member States, and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and objectives\n1. This Regulation establishes CO2 emissions performance requirements for new light commercial vehicles. This Regulation sets the average CO2 emissions for new light commercial vehicles at 175 g CO2/km, by means of improvements in vehicle technology, as measured in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and its implementing measures, and innovative technologies.\n2. From 2020, this Regulation sets a target of 147 g CO2/km for the average emissions of new light commercial vehicles registered in the Union subject to confirmation of its feasibility, as specified in Article 13(1).\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to motor vehicles of category N1 as defined in Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC with a reference mass not exceeding 2 610 kg and to vehicles of category N1 to which type-approval is extended in accordance with Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (\u2018light commercial vehicles\u2019) which are registered in the Union for the first time and which have not previously been registered outside the Union (\u2018new light commercial vehicles\u2019).\n2. A previous registration outside the Union made less than three months before registration in the Union shall not be taken into account.\n3. This Regulation shall not apply to special purpose vehicles as defined in point 5 of Part A to Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018average specific emissions of CO2\u2019 means, in relation to a manufacturer, the average of the specific emissions of CO2 of all light commercial vehicles of which it is the manufacturer;\n(b)\n\u2018certificate of conformity\u2019 means the certificate referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2007/46/EC;\n(c)\n\u2018completed vehicle\u2019 means a vehicle where type-approval is granted following completion of a process of multi-stage type-approval in accordance with Directive 2007/46/EC;\n(d)\n\u2018complete vehicle\u2019 means any vehicle which does not need to be completed in order to meet the relevant technical requirements of Directive 2007/46/EC;\n(e)\n\u2018base vehicle\u2019 means any vehicle which is used at the initial stage of a multi-stage type-approval process;\n(f)\n\u2018manufacturer\u2019 means the person or body responsible to the approval authority for all aspects of the EC type-approval procedure in accordance with Directive 2007/46/EC and for ensuring conformity of production;\n(g)\n\u2018mass\u2019 means the mass of the vehicle with bodywork in running order as stated in the certificate of conformity and defined in Section 2.6 of Annex I to Directive 2007/46/EC;\n(h)\n\u2018specific emissions of CO2\u2019 means the emissions of a light commercial vehicle measured in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and specified as the CO2 mass emission (combined) in the certificate of conformity of the complete or completed vehicle;\n(i)\n\u2018specific emissions target\u2019 means, in relation to a manufacturer, the average of the indicative specific emissions of CO2 determined in accordance with Annex I in respect of each new light commercial vehicle for which it is the manufacturer, or, if the manufacturer is granted a derogation in accordance with Article 11, the specific emissions target determined according to that derogation;\n(j)\n\u2018footprint\u2019 means the average track width multiplied by the wheelbase as stated in the certificate of conformity and defined in Sections 2.1 and 2.3 of Annex I to Directive 2007/46/EC;\n(k)\n\u2018payload\u2019 means the difference between the technically permissible maximum laden mass pursuant to Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC and the mass of the vehicle.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation \u2018a group of connected manufacturers\u2019 means a manufacturer and its connected undertakings. In relation to a manufacturer, \u2018connected undertakings\u2019 means:\n(a)\nundertakings in which the manufacturer has, directly or indirectly:\n(i)\nthe power to exercise more than half the voting rights; or\n(ii)\nthe power to appoint more than half the members of the supervisory board, board of management or bodies legally representing the undertaking; or\n(iii)\nthe right to manage the undertaking's affairs;\n(b)\nundertakings which directly or indirectly have, over the manufacturer, the rights or powers listed in point (a);\n(c)\nundertakings in which an undertaking referred to in point (b) has, directly or indirectly, the rights or powers listed in point (a);\n(d)\nundertakings in which the manufacturer together with one or more of the undertakings referred to in points (a), (b) or (c), or in which two or more of the latter undertakings, jointly have the rights or powers listed in point (a);\n(e)\nundertakings in which the rights or the powers listed in point (a) are jointly held by the manufacturer or one or more of its connected undertakings referred to in points (a) to (d) and one or more third parties.\nArticle 4\nSpecific emissions targets\nFor the calendar year commencing 1 January 2014 and each subsequent calendar year, each manufacturer of light commercial vehicles shall ensure that its average specific emissions of CO2 do not exceed its specific emissions target determined in accordance with Annex I or, where a manufacturer is granted a derogation under Article 11, in accordance with that derogation.\nWhere the specific emissions of the completed vehicle are not available, the manufacturer of the base vehicle shall use the specific emissions of the base vehicle for determining its average specific emissions of CO2.\nFor the purpose of determining each manufacturer's average specific emissions of CO2, the following percentages of each manufacturer's new light commercial vehicles registered in the relevant year shall be taken into account:\n-\n70 % in 2014,\n-\n75 % in 2015,\n-\n80 % in 2016,\n-\n100 % from 2017 onwards.\nArticle 5\nSuper-credits\nIn calculating the average specific emissions of CO2, each new light commercial vehicle with specific emissions of CO2 of less than 50 g CO2/km shall be counted as:\n-\n3,5 light commercial vehicles in 2014,\n-\n3,5 light commercial vehicles in 2015,\n-\n2,5 light commercial vehicles in 2016,\n-\n1,5 light commercial vehicles in 2017,\n-\n1 light commercial vehicle from 2018.\nFor the duration of the super-credits scheme, the maximum number of new light commercial vehicles, with specific emissions of CO2 of less than 50 g CO2/km, to be taken into account in the application of the multipliers set out in the first paragraph shall not exceed 25 000 light commercial vehicles per manufacturer.\nArticle 6\nSpecific emission target for alternative fuel light commercial vehicles\nFor the purpose of determining compliance by a manufacturer with its specific emissions target referred to in Article 4, the specific emissions of CO2 of each light commercial vehicle which is designed to be capable of running on a mixture of petrol with 85 % bioethanol (\u2018E85\u2019), and which complies with relevant Union legislation or European technical standards, shall be reduced by 5 % by 31 December 2015 in recognition of the greater technological and emission reduction capability when running on biofuels. This reduction shall apply only where at least 30 % of the filling stations in the Member State in which the light commercial vehicle is registered provide this type of alternative fuel complying with the sustainability criteria for biofuels set out in relevant Union legislation.\nArticle 7\nPooling\n1. Manufacturers of new light commercial vehicles, other than manufacturers which have been granted a derogation under Article 11, may form a pool for the purposes of meeting their obligations under Article 4.\n2. An agreement to form a pool may relate to one or more calendar years, provided that the overall duration of each agreement does not exceed five calendar years, and must be entered into on or before 31 December in the first calendar year for which emissions are to be pooled. Manufacturers which form a pool shall file the following information with the Commission:\n(a)\nthe manufacturers who will be included in the pool;\n(b)\nthe manufacturer nominated as the pool manager who will be the contact point for the pool and will be responsible for paying any excess emissions premium imposed on the pool in accordance with Article 9;\n(c)\nevidence that the pool manager will be able to fulfil the obligations under point (b).\n3. Where the proposed pool manager fails to meet the requirement to pay any excess emissions premium imposed on the pool in accordance with Article 9, the Commission shall notify the manufacturers.\n4. Manufacturers included in a pool shall jointly inform the Commission of any change of pool manager or of its financial status, in so far as this may affect its ability to meet the requirement to pay any excess emissions premium imposed on the pool in accordance with Article 9 and of any changes to the membership of the pool or the dissolution of the pool.\n5. Manufacturers may enter into pooling arrangements provided that their agreements comply with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and that they allow open, transparent and non-discriminatory participation on commercially reasonable terms by any manufacturer requesting membership of the pool. Without prejudice to the general applicability of Union competition rules to such pools, all members of a pool shall in particular ensure that neither data sharing nor information exchange may occur in the context of their pooling arrangement, except in respect of the following information:\n(a)\nthe average specific emissions of CO2;\n(b)\nthe specific emissions target;\n(c)\nthe total number of vehicles registered.\n6. Paragraph 5 shall not apply where all the manufacturers included in the pool are part of the same group of connected manufacturers.\n7. Except where notification is given under paragraph 3, the manufacturers in a pool in respect of which information is filed with the Commission shall be considered as one manufacturer for the purposes of meeting their obligations under Article 4. Monitoring and reporting information in respect of individual manufacturers as well as any pools will be recorded, reported and made available in the central register referred to in Article 8(4).\nArticle 8\nMonitoring and reporting of average emissions\n1. For the calendar year commencing 1 January 2012 and each subsequent calendar year, each Member State shall record information for each new light commercial vehicle registered in its territory in accordance with Part A of Annex II. This information shall be made available to the manufacturers and their designated importers or representatives in each Member State. Member States shall make every effort to ensure that reporting bodies operate in a transparent manner.\n2. By 28 February of each year, commencing in 2013, each Member State shall determine and transmit to the Commission the information listed in Part B of Annex II in respect of the preceding calendar year. The data shall be transmitted in accordance with the format specified in Part C of Annex II.\n3. On request from the Commission, a Member State shall also transmit the full set of data collected pursuant to paragraph 1.\n4. The Commission shall keep a central register of the data reported by Member States under this Article and this register shall be publicly available. By 30 June 2013 and each subsequent year, the Commission shall provisionally calculate for each manufacturer:\n(a)\nthe average specific emissions of CO2 in the preceding calendar year;\n(b)\nthe specific emissions target in the preceding calendar year;\n(c)\nthe difference between its average specific emissions of CO2 in the preceding calendar year and its specific emissions target for that year.\nThe Commission shall notify each manufacturer of its provisional calculation for that manufacturer. The notification shall include data per Member State on the number of new light commercial vehicles registered and their specific emissions of CO2.\n5. Manufacturers may, within three months of being notified of the provisional calculation under paragraph 4, notify the Commission of any errors in the data, specifying the Member State in which it considers that the error occurred.\n6. The Commission shall consider any notifications from manufacturers and shall, by 31 October, either confirm or amend the provisional calculations under paragraph 4.\n7. In relation to the calendar years 2012 and 2013 and on the basis of the calculations made pursuant to paragraph 5, the Commission shall notify a manufacturer where it appears to the Commission that the manufacturer's average specific emissions of CO2 exceed its specific emissions target.\n8. In each Member State, the competent authority for the collection and communication of the monitoring data in accordance with this Regulation shall be the one designated in accordance with Article 8(7) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009.\n9. The Commission shall adopt detailed rules for the monitoring and reporting of data under this Article and for the application of Annex II. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 14(2).\nIn order to take account of experience gained from the application of this Regulation, the Commission may amend Annex II by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 15, and subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 16 and 17.\n10. Member States shall also collect and report data, in accordance with this Article, on registrations of vehicles in categories M2 and N2 as defined in Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC with a reference mass not exceeding 2 610 kg and vehicles to which type approval is extended in accordance with Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007.\nArticle 9\nExcess emissions premium\n1. In respect of the period from 1 January to 31 December 2014 and every calendar year thereafter, the Commission shall impose an excess emissions premium on a manufacturer or pool manager, as appropriate, where a manufacturer's average specific emissions of CO2 exceed its specific emissions target.\n2. The excess emissions premium under paragraph 1 shall be calculated using the following formulae:\n(a)\nfrom 2014 until 2018:\n(i)\nfor excess emissions of more than 3 g CO2/km:\n((Excess emissions - 3 g CO2/km) \u00d7 EUR 95 + EUR 45) \u00d7 number of new light commercial vehicles;\n(ii)\nfor excess emissions of more than 2 g CO2/km but no more than 3 g CO2/km:\n((Excess emissions - 2 g CO2/km) \u00d7 EUR 25 + EUR 20) \u00d7 number of new light commercial vehicles;\n(iii)\nfor excess emissions of more than 1 g CO2/km but no more than 2 g CO2/km:\n((Excess emissions - 1 g CO2/km) \u00d7 EUR 15 + EUR 5) \u00d7 number of new light commercial vehicles;\n(iv)\nfor excess emissions of no more than 1 g CO2/km:\n(Excess emissions \u00d7 EUR 5) \u00d7 number of new light commercial vehicles;\n(b)\nfrom 2019:\n(Excess emissions \u00d7 EUR 95) \u00d7 number of new light commercial vehicles.\nFor the purposes of this Article the following definitions shall apply:\n-\n\u2018excess emissions\u2019 means the positive number of grams per kilometre by which a manufacturer's average specific emissions of CO2, taking into account CO2 emissions reductions due to innovative technologies approved in accordance with Article 12, exceeded its specific emissions target in the calendar year or part thereof to which the obligation under Article 4 applies, rounded to the nearest three decimal places, and\n-\n\u2018number of new light commercial vehicles\u2019 means the number of new light commercial vehicles of which it is the manufacturer and which were registered in that period according to the phase-in criteria as set out in Article 4.\n3. The Commission shall adopt detailed arrangements for the collection of excess emissions premiums under paragraph 1 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 14(2).\n4. The amounts of the excess emissions premium shall be considered as revenue for the general budget of the European Union.\nArticle 10\nPublication of performance of manufacturers\n1. By 31 October 2013 and 31 October of each subsequent year, the Commission shall publish a list indicating, for each manufacturer:\n(a)\nits specific emission target for the preceding calendar year;\n(b)\nits average specific emissions of CO2 in the preceding calendar year;\n(c)\nthe difference between its average specific emissions of CO2 in the preceding calendar year and its specific emissions target in that year;\n(d)\nthe average specific emissions of CO2 for all new light commercial vehicles registered in the Union in the previous calendar year;\n(e)\nthe average mass for all new light commercial vehicles registered in the Union in the preceding calendar year.\n2. From 31 October 2015, the list published under paragraph 1 shall also indicate whether the manufacturer has complied with the requirements of Article 4 with respect to the preceding calendar year.\nArticle 11\nDerogations for certain manufacturers\n1. An application for a derogation from the specific emissions target calculated in accordance with Annex I may be made by a manufacturer of fewer than 22 000 new light commercial vehicles registered in the Union per calendar year, and which:\n(a)\nis not part of a group of connected manufacturers; or\n(b)\nis part of a group of connected manufacturers that is responsible in total for fewer than 22 000 new light commercial vehicles registered in the Union per calendar year; or\n(c)\nis part of a group of connected manufacturers but operates its own production facilities and design centre.\n2. A derogation applied for under paragraph 1 may be granted for a maximum period of five calendar years. An application shall be made to the Commission and shall include:\n(a)\nthe name of, and contact person for, the manufacturer;\n(b)\nevidence that the manufacturer is eligible for a derogation under paragraph 1;\n(c)\ndetails of the light commercial vehicles which it manufactures including the mass and specific emissions of CO2 of those light commercial vehicles; and\n(d)\na specific emissions target consistent with its reduction potential, including the economic and technological potential to reduce its specific emissions of CO2 and taking into account the characteristics of the market for the type of light commercial vehicle manufactured.\n3. Where the Commission considers that the manufacturer is eligible for a derogation applied for under paragraph 1 and is satisfied that the specific emissions target proposed by the manufacturer is consistent with its reduction potential, including the economic and technological potential to reduce its specific emissions of CO2, and taking into account the characteristics of the market for the type of light commercial vehicle manufactured, the Commission shall grant a derogation to the manufacturer. The derogation shall apply from 1 January of the year following the date of granting of the derogation.\n4. A manufacturer which is subject to derogation in accordance with this Article shall notify the Commission immediately of any change which affects or may affect its eligibility for a derogation.\n5. Where the Commission considers, whether on the basis of a notification under paragraph 4 or otherwise, that a manufacturer is no longer eligible for the derogation, it shall revoke the derogation with effect from 1 January of the next calendar year and shall notify the manufacturer thereof.\n6. Where the manufacturer does not attain its specific emissions target, the Commission shall impose the excess emissions premium on the manufacturer, as set out in Article 9.\n7. The Commission shall adopt rules to supplement paragraphs 1 to 6 of this Article, inter alia, on the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for derogations, on the content of applications, and on the content and assessment of programmes for the reduction of specific emissions of CO2, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 15, and subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 16 and 17.\n8. Applications for a derogation, including the information supporting it, notifications under paragraph 4, revocations under paragraph 5 and any imposition of an excess emissions premium under paragraph 6 and acts adopted pursuant to paragraph 7, shall be made publicly available, subject to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (13).\nArticle 12\nEco-innovation\n1. Upon application by a supplier or a manufacturer, CO2 savings achieved through the use of innovative technologies shall be considered. The total contribution of those technologies to reducing the specific emissions target of a manufacturer may be up to 7 g CO2/km.\n2. The Commission shall adopt detailed provisions for a procedure to approve such innovative technologies by 31 December 2012. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 14(2) of this Regulation. Those detailed provisions shall be in accordance with the provisions established by Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, and be based on the following criteria for innovative technologies:\n(a)\nthe supplier or manufacturer must be accountable for the CO2 savings achieved through the use of the innovative technologies;\n(b)\nthe innovative technologies must make a verified contribution to CO2 reduction;\n(c)\nthe innovative technologies must not be covered by the standard test cycle CO2 measurement or by mandatory provisions due to complementary additional measures complying with the 10 g CO2/km reduction referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 or be mandatory under other provisions of Union law.\n3. A supplier or a manufacturer who applies for a measure to be approved as an innovative technology shall submit a report, including a verification report undertaken by an independent and certified body, to the Commission. In the event of a possible interaction of the measure with another innovative technology already approved, the report shall mention that interaction and the verification report shall evaluate to what extent that interaction modifies the reduction achieved by each measure.\n4. The Commission shall attest the reduction achieved on the basis of the criteria set out in paragraph 2.\nArticle 13\nReview and report\n1. By 1 January 2013, the Commission shall complete a review of the specific emissions targets in Annex I and of the derogations in Article 11, with the aim of defining:\n-\nsubject to confirmation of its feasibility on the basis of updated impact assessment results, the modalities for reaching, by the year 2020, a long-term target of 147 g CO2/km in a cost-effective manner, and\n-\nthe aspects of the implementation of that target, including the excess emissions premium.\nOn the basis of such a review and its impact assessment, which includes an overall assessment of the impact on the car industry and its dependent industries, the Commission shall, if appropriate, make a proposal to amend this Regulation, in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, in a way which is as neutral as possible from the point of view of competition, and which is socially equitable and sustainable.\n2. The Commission shall, if appropriate, submit a proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council by 2014, to include in this Regulation vehicles in category N2 and M2 as defined in Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC with a reference mass not exceeding 2 610 kg and vehicles to which type-approval is extended in accordance with Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, with a view to achieving the long-term target from 2020.\n3. The Commission shall by 2014, following an impact assessment, publish a report on the availability of data on footprint and payload and their use as utility parameters for determining specific emissions targets and, if appropriate, submit a proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council to amend Annex I in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.\n4. By 31 December 2011 the Commission shall set up a procedure to obtain representative values of CO2 emissions, fuel efficiency and mass of completed vehicles while ensuring that the manufacturer of the base vehicle has timely access to the mass and to the specific emissions of CO2 of the completed vehicle.\n5. By 31 October 2016, and every three years thereafter, the Commission shall amend Annex I by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 15, and subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 16 and 17, to adjust the figure M0, referred to therein, to the average mass of new light commercial vehicles in the previous three calendar years.\nThose adjustments shall take effect for the first time on 1 January 2018 and every three years thereafter.\n6. The Commission shall include light commercial vehicles in the review of the procedures for measuring CO2 emissions in accordance with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009.\nFrom the date of application of the revised procedure for the measuring of CO2 emissions, innovative technologies shall no longer be approved under the procedure set out in Article 12.\nThe Commission shall include light commercial vehicles in the review of Directive 2007/46/EC in accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009.\nIn order to reflect any change in the regulatory test procedure for the measurement of specific CO2 emissions, the Commission shall adapt the formulae set out in Annex I by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 15, and subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 16 and 17.\nArticle 14\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Climate Change Committee established by Article 9 of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (14). That committee is a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 15\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 8(9), Article 11(7), Article 13(5) and the fourth subparagraph of Article 13(6), shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from 3 June 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated power at the latest six months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 16.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 16 and 17.\nArticle 16\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 8(9), Article 11(7), Article 13(5) and the fourth subparagraph of Article 13(6) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke a delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 17\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of two months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by two months.\n2. If, on expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to the delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 18\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 11 May 2011.", "references": ["6", "10", "28", "59", "69", "78", "17", "56", "70", "54", "15", "16", "99", "41", "34", "39", "36", "11", "32", "96", "48", "45", "82", "90", "98", "25", "26", "40", "81", "66", "No Label", "55", "58", "60", "76"], "gold": ["55", "58", "60", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1170/2010\nof 10 December 2010\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pancetta Piacentina (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and in accordance with Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Pancetta Piacentina\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1263/96 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 December 2010.", "references": ["9", "7", "20", "36", "42", "15", "1", "52", "49", "48", "84", "58", "0", "37", "8", "47", "67", "81", "69", "54", "59", "77", "61", "44", "39", "32", "99", "73", "17", "70", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 305/2012\nof 10 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 April 2012.", "references": ["13", "94", "42", "5", "70", "0", "77", "92", "37", "82", "28", "24", "16", "7", "21", "74", "25", "49", "62", "72", "60", "55", "58", "11", "57", "83", "88", "91", "30", "6", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 January 2011\namending Decision 2010/89/EU as regards transitional measures concerning the application to establishments in Romania of certain structural requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 9695)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/9/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (1), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 12 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 9 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2010/89/EU of 9 February 2010 on transitional measures concerning the application of certain structural requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council to certain establishments for meat, fishery products and egg products and cold stores in Romania (3) limits the application of certain structural requirements laid down in those Regulations to certain establishments and cold stores in that Member State. Those transitional measures apply until 31 December 2010.\n(2)\nDecision 2010/89/EU also provides that products produced or stored in the establishments and stores listed in Annexes I to IV thereto are only to be placed on the domestic market or used for further processing in the establishments\n(3)\nIn October 2010, Romania informed the Commission that following an evaluation carried out by their veterinary services, certain establishments listed in that Decision finalised their upgrading programme and have been approved and some establishments have been closed. Accordingly, it is necessary to update the lists set out in the Annexes to Decision 2010/89/EU. The Annexes to that Decision should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nRomania estimates that of the 117 establishments concerned by the upgrading programmes, 36 of the meat establishments, three of the fishery product establishments and one cold store will not be able to complete their programmes before 31 December 2010, even though they are at an advanced level of compliance.\n(5)\nRomania estimates that the establishments concerned should be in full compliance with the relevant structural requirements laid down in Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 by 31 December 2011. In light of the ongoing structural improvements, it is necessary to prolong the period of application of the transitional measures provided for in Decision 2010/89/EU until that date.\n(6)\nThe situation in that Member State should be reviewed before 31 December 2011. Therefore, Romania should submit a report to the Commission by 31 October 2011 regarding progress made in the upgrading of the concerned establishments and cold stores.\n(7)\nAccordingly, the period of application of Decision 2010/89/EU should be prolonged until 31 December 2011.\n(8)\nIn addition, in order to ensure the continuity of the transitional measures and prevent any disruption in the industry, this Decision should apply from 1 January 2011.\n(9)\nDecision 2010/89/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/89/EU is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 2, the date \u201831 December 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2011\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the introductory phrase, the date \u201831 December 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2011\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (c) is deleted;\n3.\nin Article 4(1), the introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Products produced by the establishments listed in Annexes I or II or stored in the establishments listed in Annex IV shall only:\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 5(2), the date \u201831 October 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 October 2011\u2019;\n5.\nin Article 6, the date \u201831 December 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2011\u2019;\n6.\nthe Annexes are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 January 2011.", "references": ["4", "29", "54", "16", "66", "59", "95", "53", "50", "62", "11", "7", "80", "75", "44", "25", "92", "20", "34", "65", "1", "17", "39", "28", "32", "14", "98", "40", "23", "37", "No Label", "9", "38", "69", "72", "76", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "38", "69", "72", "76", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 571/2011\nof 15 June 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 June 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 June 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 June 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2011.", "references": ["64", "26", "84", "95", "40", "18", "31", "20", "0", "69", "1", "2", "16", "83", "9", "41", "32", "8", "6", "5", "28", "46", "52", "79", "61", "50", "43", "53", "72", "74", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 February 2011\namending Decision C(2008) 4617 related to the rules for proposals submission, evaluation, selection and award procedures for indirect actions under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) and under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007-2011)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/161/EU, Euratom)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of research results (2007-2013) (1), and in particular Article 16(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1908/2006 of 19 December 2006 laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community and for the dissemination of research results (2007 to 2011) (2), and in particular Article 15(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has drawn up rules governing the procedure for the submission of proposals, as well as related evaluation, selection and award procedures (\u2018the Rules\u2019).\n(2)\nThe purpose of the Rules is to establish a framework for the handling of proposals in the Seventh Framework Programme (EC and Euratom). They should ensure a coherent approach across all the specific Programmes (with the exception of IDEAS), while allowing a measure of flexibility where necessary.\n(3)\nThe Rules also specify the role and obligations of the independent experts who, in accordance with Regulations (EC) No 1906/2006 and (Euratom) No 1908/2006, will assist the Commission in the evaluation of proposals for indirect actions, including the model appointment letter which will be concluded with them.\n(4)\nThese rules were duly adopted by the Commission on 30 March 2007 (COM(2007) 1390), and revised, under a delegation procedure, on 13 February 2008 (DL(2008) 314), and again on 21 August 2008 (C(2008) 4617). It is now necessary to introduce certain further modifications, to clarify a number of points based on experience to date. At the same time, the text is brought in line with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision C(2008) 4617 is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Rules for the submission of proposals and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures of indirect actions under the Cooperation, Capacities, People and Euratom specific programmes of the Seventh Framework Programme (2007-2013) shall apply to all calls for proposals published from the date of entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["30", "21", "73", "65", "24", "54", "94", "90", "83", "78", "66", "39", "23", "95", "56", "22", "0", "49", "35", "64", "11", "37", "28", "63", "2", "74", "43", "87", "41", "18", "No Label", "9", "10", "76", "77", "81"], "gold": ["9", "10", "76", "77", "81"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 31 July 2012\non the conclusion of the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of the Republic of South Africa\n(2013/408/Euratom)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 101, the second paragraph thereof,\nHaving regard to the approval of the Council,\nWhereas:\nThe Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of the Republic of South Africa should be concluded,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement for cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of the Republic of South Africa is hereby approved on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community. The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nA Member of the Commission is hereby authorised to sign the Agreement and to carry out all necessary steps for the entry into force of this Agreement to be concluded on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community.\nDone at Brussels, 31 July 2012.", "references": ["13", "62", "96", "6", "50", "0", "77", "43", "19", "20", "37", "38", "51", "22", "46", "32", "18", "87", "12", "42", "8", "86", "4", "54", "23", "35", "66", "61", "5", "85", "No Label", "3", "9", "78", "81", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "78", "81", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 222/2011\nof 3 March 2011\nlaying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2010/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Article 64(2) and Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe world market prices for sugar have been at a constant high level since the beginning of the 2010/2011 marketing year. Forecasts of world market prices based on the New York's sugar futures exchange market for the terms of March, May and July 2011 further indicate a constant high world market price.\n(2)\nThe cumulated negative difference between availability and utilisation of sugar and isoglucose over the last two marketing years is estimated at 1,0 million tonnes, and would result in the lowest level of ending stocks in the EU since the implementation of the 2006 reform of the sugar sector. Any further shortfall of imports threatens to seriously disrupt the availability of supply on the Union sugar market and to further deteriorate in the absence of measures for the sector.\n(3)\nExports from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to the European Union are not expected to increase in the short run.\n(4)\nOn the other hand, a good harvest in some parts of the Union has led to the production of sugar in excess of the quota set out in Article 56 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. Part of this sugar should be made available to the sugar market of the Union in order to partially satisfy demand and to avoid excessive price increases. The available quantity of sugar in excess of the quota is estimated at 0,5 million tonnes. This estimate takes into account contractual commitments of sugar producers in respect of certain industrial uses provided for in Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and the quantities for which export licences have already been issued.\n(5)\nArticle 64(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 empowers the Commission to fix the surplus levy on sugar and isoglucose produced in excess of the quota at a sufficiently high level in order to avoid the accumulation of surplus quantities. Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards sugar production in excess of the quota (2) has fixed that levy at EUR 500 per tonne.\n(6)\nThe extraordinarily low supply of sugar on the internal market in the 2010/2011 marketing year may allow the Commission to exceptionally fix the surplus levy at zero for a limited quantity of sugar produced in excess of the quota, without any risk of accumulation of quantities.\n(7)\nAs Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 fixes quotas for both sugar and isoglucose, a similar measure should apply for an appropriate quantity of isoglucose produced in excess of the quota because the latter product is, to some extent, a commercial substitute for sugar. In order to preserve the balance between the two sweeteners, the appropriate quantity of out of quota isoglucose to be released on the internal market should be established on the basis of the relation of the quotas for each of the two products fixed in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(8)\nSugar and isoglucose producers should apply to the competent authorities of the Member States for certificates allowing them to sell certain quantities, produced above the quota limit, on the Union market.\n(9)\nFixing upper limits of the quantities for which each producer can apply in one application period and restricting the certificates to products of the applicant's own available production, should prevent speculative actions within the system created by this Regulation.\n(10)\nApplications should only be possible until the end of June and should only be valid for a short period of time. This should encourage a rapid availability of the quantities on the Union market.\n(11)\nWith their application, sugar producers should commit themselves to pay the minimum price for sugar beet used to produce the quantity of sugar for which they apply.\n(12)\nThe competent authorities of the Member States should notify the Commission of the applications received.\n(13)\nThe Commission should ensure that certificates are granted only within the quantitative limits fixed in this Regulation. Therefore, if necessary, the Commission should be able to fix an allocation coefficient applicable to the applications received.\n(14)\nMember States should immediately inform the applicants whether their application was fully or partially granted.\n(15)\nAccount taken that the release on the Union market of quantities in excess of the certificates delivered is subject the surplus levy set out in Article 64(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, it is appropriate to provide that any applicant not fulfilling his commitment to release on the Union market the quantity covered by a certificate delivered to him, should also pay an amount of EUR 500 per tonne, for reasons of consistency, and to prevent abuse of the exceptional release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market during marketing year 2010/2011.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nTemporary reduction of the surplus levy\nBy way of derogation from Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006, the amount of the surplus levy for a maximum quantity of 500 000 tonnes of sugar in white sugar equivalent and 26 000 tonnes of isoglucose in dry matter, produced in excess of the quota fixed in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and released on the Union market in the marketing year 2010/2011, shall be fixed at EUR 0 per tonne.\nArticle 2\nApplication for certificates\n1. In order to benefit from the conditions specified in Article 1, sugar and isoglucose producers shall apply for a certificate.\n2. Applicants may be only undertakings producing beet and cane sugar or isoglucose, which are approved in accordance with Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and have been allocated a production quota for the 2010/2011 marketing year, in accordance with Article 56 of that Regulation.\n3. Each applicant may submit one application for each product per week.\n4. Applications for certificates shall be submitted by fax or electronic mail to the competent authority in the Member State in which the undertaking was approved. The competent authorities of the Member States may require that electronic applications be accompanied by an advance electronic signature within the meaning of Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).\n5. To be admissible, the applications shall fulfil the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey shall indicate:\n(i)\nthe name, address and VAT number of the applicant; and\n(ii)\nthe quantities applied for, expressed in tonnes of white sugar equivalent and tonnes of isoglucose in dry matter;\n(b)\nthe quantity of sugar applied for shall not exceed the quantity of out-of-quota sugar production that the applicant declared in storage in his latest notification done in accordance with Article 21(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 (4). That quantity shall be reduced by the quantities covered by unused certificates and export licences that were already issued to the applicant under this Regulation or under Commission Regulation (EC) No 397/2010 (5). The quantity of isoglucose applied for shall not exceed 10 % of the isoglucose quota allocated to the applicant;\n(c)\nif the application concerns sugar, the applicant shall commit himself to pay the minimum beet price, set out in Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, for the quantity of sugar covered by certificates issued in accordance with Article 6 of this Regulation;\n(d)\nthe application shall be written in the official language or one of the official languages of the Member State in which the application is lodged.\n6. An application may not be withdrawn or amended after its submission, even if the quantity applied for is granted only partially.\nArticle 3\nSubmission of applications\nApplications for certificates shall be submitted each week, from Monday to Friday, 1 p.m. (Brussels time) starting from the first Monday after the entry into force of this Regulation until 24 June 2011.\nArticle 4\nTransmission of applications by the Member States\n1. The competent authorities of the Member States shall decide on the admissibility of applications on the basis of the conditions set out in Article 2. Where the competent authorities decide that an application is inadmissible, they shall inform the applicant without delay.\n2. The competent authority shall notify the Commission on Monday at the latest, by fax or electronic mail, of the admissible applications submitted during the preceding week. Member States that received no applications but have sugar or isoglucose quota allocated to them in marketing year 2010/2011, shall also send their nil returns notifications to the Commission within the same time limit.\n3. The form and content of the notifications shall be defined on the basis of models made available by the Commission to the Member States.\nArticle 5\nExceeded limits\nWhen the information notified by the competent authorities of the Member States pursuant to Article 4(2) indicates that the quantities applied for exceed the limits set out in Article 1, the Commission shall:\n(a)\nfix an allocation coefficient, which the Member States shall apply to the quantities covered by each notified certificate application;\n(b)\nreject applications not yet notified;\n(c)\nclose the period for submitting the applications.\nArticle 6\nIssue of certificates\n1. Without prejudice to Article 5, every week from Monday to Friday at the latest, the competent authorities of the Member States shall issue certificates for the applications notified to the Commission, in accordance with Article 4(2), during the preceding week.\nA template of the certificate is set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. Each Monday Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantities of sugar and/or isoglucose for which they issued certificates in the preceding week.\nArticle 7\nValidity of certificates\nCertificates shall be valid until the end of the month following the month of issue.\nArticle 8\nTransferability of certificates\nNeither the rights nor the obligations deriving from the certificates shall be transferable.\nArticle 9\nMonitoring\n1. Applicants shall add to their monthly notifications provided for in Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 the quantities for which they received certificates in accordance with Article 6 of this Regulation.\n2. Before the end of the second month following the month during which the certificate was issued, each applicant shall submit to the competent authorities of the Member States proof that all quantities covered by his certificate were released on the Union market. Quantities covered by the certificate but not released on the Union market for reasons other than force majeure, shall be subject to payment of an amount of EUR 500/tonne. Member States shall communicate the quantities released on the Union market to the Commission.\n3. Member States shall calculate and notify the Commission of the difference between the total quantity of sugar and isoglucose produced by each producer in excess of the quota and the quantities which have been disposed by the producers in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006. If the remaining quantities of out of quota sugar or isoglucose of a producer are less than the quantities for which that producer applied for under this Regulation, the producer shall pay an amount of EUR 500/tonne on that difference.\nArticle 10\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 30 June 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 March 2011.", "references": ["79", "40", "81", "59", "78", "5", "47", "38", "45", "97", "12", "88", "52", "43", "20", "92", "8", "34", "73", "96", "31", "98", "41", "4", "83", "93", "72", "56", "74", "17", "No Label", "25", "35", "61", "62", "71", "75"], "gold": ["25", "35", "61", "62", "71", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 136/2011\nof 15 February 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 February 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 February 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 February 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2011.", "references": ["72", "62", "51", "65", "73", "42", "87", "33", "54", "13", "23", "0", "30", "71", "28", "66", "84", "49", "3", "48", "8", "41", "6", "99", "29", "94", "35", "19", "38", "61", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 802/2011\nof 9 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 August 2011.", "references": ["75", "13", "2", "12", "76", "10", "26", "59", "83", "64", "32", "54", "33", "3", "55", "92", "77", "56", "81", "19", "73", "42", "98", "39", "45", "20", "28", "91", "47", "90", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 563/2012\nof 27 June 2012\namending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of EU reference laboratories\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 32(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 882/2004 lays down the general tasks, duties and requirements for European Union (EU) reference laboratories for food and feed and for animal health and live animals. EU reference laboratories for food and feed are listed in Part I of Annex VII to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCouncil Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (2) lays down measures to monitor the substances and groups of residues listed in Annex I to that Directive.\n(3)\nFollowing a reorganisation of laboratory activities in the Netherlands, all functions, including all infrastructure and staff, of the Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM), currently listed as the EU reference laboratory for residues of veterinary medicines and contaminants in food of animal origin, for residues listed in Annex I, Group A (1), (2), (3), (4), Group B (2)(d) and Group B (3)(d) to Directive 96/23/EC, were transferred to RIKILT - Institute of Food Safety. The tasks performed by RIVM were assigned to RIKILT under a framework contract which ended on 31 December 2011.\n(4)\nSince the contract of RIVM was coming to an end a call for selection for an EU reference laboratory to replace it was launched. RIKILT - Institute of Food Safety was selected as fulfilling all the required criteria and should be designated as such.\n(5)\nDue to the importance of the substances in the Groups A (1) to A (4) in Annex I to Directive 96/23/EC and the fact that RIKILT - Institute of Food Safety was selected as fulfilling all the required criteria, it should be designated as the competent EU reference laboratory for residues of veterinary medicines and contaminants in food of animal origin, for residues listed in Annex I, Group A (1), (2), (3), (4), Group B (2)(d) and Group B (3)(d) to Directive 96/23/EC as of 1 January 2012. This Regulation should apply with retroactive effect from 1 January 2012.\n(6)\nPart I of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Part I of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, point 12(a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2027(a)\nFor the residues listed in Annex I, Group A (1), (2), (3) and (4), Group B (2)(d) and Group B (3)(d) to Directive 96/23/EC\nRIKILT - Institute for Food Safety, part of Wageningen UR\nWageningen\nThe Netherlands\u2027\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2012.", "references": ["85", "47", "52", "29", "8", "64", "35", "4", "43", "79", "92", "82", "17", "10", "41", "5", "63", "25", "2", "23", "94", "7", "71", "51", "26", "98", "49", "50", "70", "87", "No Label", "38", "61", "66", "77", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "61", "66", "77", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 16 August 2012\nestablishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for printed paper\n(notified under document C(2012) 5364)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/481/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Union Eco-labelling Board,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, the EU Ecolabel may be awarded to those products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 66/2010 provides that specific EU Ecolabel criteria are to be established according to product groups.\n(3)\nSince the chemicals used in the printed paper products may hinder recyclability of printed paper products, and may be hazardous for the environment and for human health, it is appropriate to establish EU Ecolabel criteria for the product group \u2018printed paper\u2019.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The product group \u2018printed paper\u2019 shall comprise any printed paper product that consist of at least 90 % by weight of paper, paperboard or paper-based substrates, except for books, catalogues, pads, booklets or forms that shall consist of at least 80 % by weight of paper or paperboard or paper-based substrates. Inserts, covers and any printed paper part of the final printed paper shall be considered to form part of the printed paper product.\n2. Fixed inserts to the printed paper product (not intended to be removed) shall fulfil the requirements of the Annex to this Decision. Inserts that are not fixed to the printed paper (such as flyers, removable stickers) but sold or provided with it, shall fulfil the requirements of the Annex to this Decision only if the EU Ecolabel is intended to be placed on them.\n3. The product group \u2018printed paper\u2019 shall not include the following:\n(a)\nprinted tissue papers;\n(b)\nprinted paper products used for packaging and wrapping;\n(c)\nfolders, envelopes, ring binders.\nArticle 2\nFor the purpose of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018Books\u2019 means yarn-bound and/or glue-bound printed paper products with hard or soft covers, such as school books, fiction or non-fiction books, notebooks, exercise books, spiral-bound notebook, reports, calendars with covers, handbooks and paperbacks. \u2018Books\u2019 do not include journals, brochures, magazines, catalogues published on a regular basis and annual reports.\n(2)\n\u2018Consumables\u2019 means chemical products used during the printing, coating and finishing processes and capable of being consumed, destroyed, dissipated, wasted, or spent. Consumables include products such as printing inks and dyes, toners, overprinting varnishes, varnishes, adhesives, washing agents and damping solutions.\n(3)\n\u2018Folder\u2019 means a folding case or cover for loose papers. Folders include products such as indices dividers, document wallets, square cut folders, suspension files, cardboard boxes and 3-flap folders.\n(4)\n\u2018Halogenated organic solvent\u2019 means an organic solvent which contains at least one atom of bromine, chlorine, fluorine or iodine per molecule.\n(5)\nAn \u2018insert\u2019 means an extra leaf or section, printed independently from the printed paper product which is either placed within the pages of a printed paper product and may be removed (loose insert) or bound into the pages of the printed paper product and thus form an integral part thereof (fixed insert). Inserts include multipage advertisements, booklets, brochures, reply cards, or other promotional materials.\n(6)\n\u2018Newspapers\u2019 means a publication issued daily or weekly containing news and printed on newsprint paper grade that is made from pulp and/or recovered paper, the weight of which ranges between 40 and 65 g/m2.\n(7)\n\u2018Non-paper components\u2019 means all the parts of a printed paper product that do not consist of paper, paperboard or paper based substrates.\n(8)\n\u2018Packaging\u2019 means all products made of any materials of any nature to be used for the containment, protection, handling, delivery and presentation of goods, from raw materials to processed goods, from the producer to the user or the consumer.\n(9)\nA \u2018printed paper product\u2019 means the product resulting from the processing of a printing material. The processing consists of printing onto paper. In addition to printing, the processing may include finishing, for example folding, stamping and cutting or assembling, using glue, binding, yarn-binding. Printed paper products include newspapers, advertising materials and newssheets, journals, catalogues, books, leaflets, brochures, pads, posters, loose-leafs, business cards, and labels.\n(10)\n\u2018Printing\u2019 (or printing process) means a process whereby a printing material is processed into a printed paper product. Printing includes pre-press, press, and post-press operations.\n(11)\n\u2018Recycling\u2019 means any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original purpose or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations.\n(12)\n\u2018VOC\u2019 (Volatile Organic Compounds) means any organic compound as well as the fraction of creosote, having at 293,15 K a vapour pressure of 0,01 kPa or more, or having a corresponding volatility under the particular conditions of use.\n(13)\n\u2018Washing agents\u2019 (also sometimes known as cleaning agents or cleaners) means the following: (a) liquid chemicals used to wash printing forms, both separate (off-press) and integrated (in-press), and printing presses to remove printing inks, paper dust and similar products; (b) cleaners for finishing machines and printing machines, such as cleaners to remove adhesive and varnish residues; (c) printing inks removers used in washing off dried printing inks. Washing agents do not include cleaning agents for cleaning other parts of the printing machine or for cleaning other machines than printing machines and finishing machines.\n(14)\n\u2018Waste paper\u2019 means paper generated during printing and finishing processes, or while shaving or cutting paper or during starting runs in the print workshop and the bindery, which does not form part of the finished printed paper product.\nArticle 3\nIn order to be awarded the EU Ecolabel under Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, an item of printed paper shall fall within the product group \u2018Printed paper\u2019 as defined in Article 1 of this Decision and shall comply with the criteria as well as the related assessment and verification requirements set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThe criteria for the product group \u2018Printed paper\u2019, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid for three years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 5\nFor administrative purposes the code number assigned to \u2018printed paper\u2019 shall be \u2018028\u2019.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2012.", "references": ["61", "1", "76", "60", "66", "94", "69", "81", "24", "99", "4", "15", "7", "57", "41", "73", "50", "30", "96", "53", "93", "92", "52", "45", "97", "62", "16", "49", "79", "98", "No Label", "25", "58", "88"], "gold": ["25", "58", "88"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 602/2012/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 4 July 2012\non amendments to the Agreement Establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) extending the geographic scope of EBRD operations to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 212 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSince its establishment in 1991, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has assisted the Central and Eastern European countries in their transition towards open market economies and the promotion of private and entrepreneurial initiative. The geographic scope of EBRD operations should be extended to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean in order to promote similar objectives. In response to the economic and political situation in countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, the EBRD has developed a phased approach to starting its activities that will take into consideration the specificity of the region.\n(2)\nAccording to the Report of the Board of Directors to the Board of Governors on the geographic expansion of the Bank\u2019s region of operations to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean consists of the countries that have a shoreline on the Mediterranean, as well as Jordan which is closely integrated into this region.\n(3)\nIn response to the 2011 events in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, on 8 March 2011 the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy presented a Joint Communication entitled \u2018A Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity with the Southern Mediterranean\u2019 signalling the Union\u2019s strong political and economic support to the region. The Joint Communication included an option to extend the EBRD\u2019s mandate to cover the countries of the Southern Neighbourhood, building on the EBRD\u2019s experience over the last 20 years. The European Council of 24 and 25 March 2011 broadly endorsed the contents of that Joint Communication. In its Resolution of 7 April 2011 on the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy - Southern Dimension, the European Parliament invited the EBRD to change its statute in order to participate in the financial assistance process.\n(4)\nIn May 2011, the G8 leaders launched the Deauville Partnership to help the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean in their transition towards free, democratic and tolerant societies and called on the EBRD to extend its geographic scope in order to leverage its experience and support the transition of those countries to embrace the principles of multi-party democracy, pluralism and market economy.\n(5)\nThe expansion of EBRD operations to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean reflects support by the Union and the international community for the hope, encouraged by the Arab Spring, for a transition in that region towards market economies and pluralistic democratic societies.\n(6)\nBearing in mind the fragility of the economies in the EBRD\u2019s new countries of operation and the social inequalities which were one of the root causes of the turmoil of the Arab Spring, the representatives of the Union in the governing bodies of the EBRD should encourage the EBRD to broaden its focus on private-sector development, in order also to contribute, through its financing, to the achievement of socially and environmentally sustainable societies, as elaborated in the relevant Millennium Development Goals, and in line with Article 3(5) and Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union. In particular, the representatives of the Union in the governing bodies of the EBRD should encourage the EBRD\u2019s contribution to the transition towards energy-efficient, socially inclusive, open market economies while taking into account the social, poverty, civil and human rights context.\n(7)\nBy Resolutions 137 and 138, adopted on 30 September 2011, the Board of Governors of the EBRD voted in favour of the necessary amendments to the Agreement Establishing the EBRD (the \u2018Agreement\u2019), enabling it to expand the geographical scope of EBRD operations to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean while maintaining its commitment to its existing countries of operation. All EU Governors of the EBRD, including the Governor representing the Union, voted in favour of those amendments.\n(8)\nBy its Resolution 134, adopted on 21 May 2011, the Board of Governors of the EBRD stressed that the planned extension of the EBRD\u2019s mandate should be achieved without requiring additional capital contributions from its shareholders.\n(9)\nPursuant to Article 56 of the Agreement, the Board of Governors of the EBRD is to ask all members whether they accept the proposed amendments.\n(10)\nThe representatives of the Union in the governing bodies of the EBRD should use their best endeavours to encourage the EBRD to monitor its operations closely, particularly in countries where there is a lack of political accountability, where civil and human rights are infringed or where high levels of corruption persist. Furthermore, the representatives of the Union in the governing bodies of the EBRD should use their best endeavours to ensure that the principles of prudential banking, transparency and anti-fraud, as invoked in Decision No 1219/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 concerning the subscription by the European Union to additional shares in the capital of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) as a result of the decision to increase this capital (2), are taken into account in the activities of the EBRD in the new countries of operation.\n(11)\nIn carrying out its activities in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, the representatives of the Union in the governing bodies of the EBRD should encourage the EBRD to continue its close engagement with the Union and collaboration with civil society, as well as to develop further its close cooperation with the European Investment Bank and other European and international public financing institutions, in order to make full use of their comparative advantages. The EBRD should also avoid duplicating the activities of such other public financing institutions.\n(12)\nBefore the EBRD approves a potential new country of operation, it should make a detailed technical assessment of the economic and political conditions existing in the country concerned, including: an assessment of that country\u2019s commitment to principles of multi-party democracy, pluralism and market economics, as enshrined in Article 1 of the Agreement, an assessment of transition gaps, and a review of activities of other international financing institutions in that country and of the priorities in relation to which the EBRD could best make use of its unique knowledge and skills. In discussing those assessments, the representatives of the Union in the governing bodies of the EBRD should encourage the EBRD to take full account of the views of the Union.\n(13)\nIn the report that the Commission will present in accordance with Decision No 1219/2011/EU by the end of the fourth Capital Resources Review for the period of 2011-15, the Commission should take into account the extension of the EBRD\u2019s work in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean.\n(14)\nWith respect to the EBRD\u2019s contribution to the transition of the prospective countries of operation in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean towards well-functioning, sustainable, modern market economies, the representatives of the Union in the governing bodies of the EBRD should invite the EBRD to report on its performance annually and to conduct comprehensive assessments of its impact on building such economies in advance of its quinquennial capital resources reviews.\n(15)\nThe amendments to the Agreement should therefore be approved on behalf of the Union,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to Articles 1 and 18 of the Agreement, which extend the geographical scope of EBRD operations, are hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the amendments is set out in the Annex for informative purposes.\nArticle 2\nThe Governor of the EBRD representing the Union shall, on behalf of the Union, communicate to the EBRD the Declaration of Acceptance of the amendments.\nArticle 3\nAs part of the annual report to the European Parliament, the Governor of the EBRD representing the Union shall also report on the EBRD\u2019s activities and operations in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["66", "82", "64", "10", "93", "41", "4", "24", "85", "76", "75", "30", "97", "52", "71", "32", "34", "92", "19", "49", "1", "12", "25", "40", "59", "99", "48", "80", "57", "42", "No Label", "9", "15", "16", "96"], "gold": ["9", "15", "16", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 937/2011\nof 21 September 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 808/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning Community statistics on the information society\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 808/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 concerning Community statistics on the information society (1), and in particular Article 8 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 808/2004 established a common framework for the systematic production of European statistics on the information society.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 808/2004, implementing measures are necessary to determine the data to be supplied for preparation of the statistics referred to in Articles 3 and 4 of that Regulation and the deadlines for their transmission.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe data to be transmitted for the production of European statistics on the information society as referred to in Articles 3(2) and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 808/2004 shall be as specified in Annexes I and II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 September 2011.", "references": ["37", "63", "88", "27", "45", "48", "46", "73", "29", "7", "68", "53", "69", "35", "12", "52", "59", "16", "80", "60", "92", "75", "49", "99", "65", "40", "83", "58", "14", "21", "No Label", "19", "41", "42"], "gold": ["19", "41", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 884/2011\nof 22 August 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 August 2011.", "references": ["32", "15", "12", "66", "37", "7", "52", "46", "88", "84", "93", "99", "51", "47", "59", "38", "0", "14", "48", "63", "71", "25", "36", "30", "77", "10", "73", "72", "98", "49", "No Label", "21", "43"], "gold": ["21", "43"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 966/2011\nof 28 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 September 2011.", "references": ["1", "40", "91", "53", "36", "31", "80", "66", "24", "65", "27", "64", "56", "3", "46", "98", "83", "52", "23", "55", "49", "34", "73", "12", "14", "21", "13", "37", "79", "59", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 646/2012\nof 16 July 2012\nlaying down detailed rules on fines and periodic penalty payments pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (1), and in particular Article 25(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 216/2008 aims to establish and maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in Europe. That Regulation provides for the means of achieving that objective and other objectives in the field of civil aviation safety.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 the European Aviation Safety Agency (\u2018the Agency\u2019) is responsible for the certification of certain products, persons and undertakings. In those areas under its responsibility, the Agency has to oversee that those products, persons and undertakings comply with the applicable requirements including the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its implementing rules.\n(3)\nIn cases where identified potential shortcomings are not adequately resolved during the existing oversight process, Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 empowers the Commission, at the request of the Agency, to impose fines or periodic penalty payments on holders of certificates issued by the Agency for the intentional or negligent breach of any of the obligations laid down in Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 or its implementing rules.\n(4)\nThrough the introduction of fines and periodic penalty payments the Commission should have a supplementary tool, allowing it to give a more nuanced, flexible and graduated response to a breach of the rules, compared to the withdrawal of a certificate which the Agency has issued.\n(5)\nIt is necessary to lay down rules concerning procedures, inquiries, associated measures and reporting by the Agency as well as rules of procedure for decision-making, including provisions on the quantification and collection of fines and periodic penalty payments. It is also necessary to lay down detailed criteria for establishing the amount of the fines or periodic penalty payments.\n(6)\nThese rules and procedures should be guided by the need to ensure the highest possible safety and environmental protection standards, by the need to encourage an effective conduct of the inquiry and of the decision-making phases as well as by the need to guarantee the fairness and transparency of the procedures and the imposition of fines and periodic penalty payments.\n(7)\nThe provisions of this Regulation can be effectively enforced only in a framework of close cooperation between the Member States, the Commission and the Agency. For that purpose it is necessary to set up arrangements for consultation and cooperation between them in order to ensure the effective conduct of the inquiry and the decision-making process regarding alleged breaches.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate that, for the purposes of the initiation and conduct of the non-compliance procedure and the quantification of fines and periodic penalty payments, the Commission and the Agency should take into account other procedures against the same certificate holder which have been initiated or concluded by a Member State or by third countries.\n(9)\nThe Commission and the Agency should also take into account any pending procedure initiated, or decision taken, by the Agency regarding the amendment, limitation, suspension or revocation of the relevant certificate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n(10)\nWithout prejudice to Union law preventing the use of safety information for the purposes of blame or liability, in particular Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, Article 19(2) of Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation and repealing Directive 94/56/EC (2) and Article 7 of Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2003 on occurrence reporting in civil aviation (3), any oversight power conferred on the Commission or the Agency by Union law as regards certificates issued in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 may be used in the course of the investigation or during the decision-making stages of such a non-compliance procedure. The Commission's decision imposing fines or periodic penalty payments should be based on the inquiry by the Agency, the observations of the certificate holder subject to the non-compliance procedure and, where appropriate, other information submitted to the Agency and the Commission.\n(11)\nIt is appropriate to give certificate holders the opportunity, within a specified time-limit, to voluntarily comply with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its implementing rules, in which case no fines or periodic penalty payments should be imposed by the Commission. This possibility to demonstrate voluntary compliance should nonetheless be limited in time.\n(12)\nDecisions imposing fines or periodic penalty payments should be based exclusively on grounds on which the certificate holder concerned has been able to comment.\n(13)\nThe fines or periodic penalty payments imposed should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, having regard to the circumstances of the specific case.\n(14)\nIt appears appropriate to provide for a specific procedure in cases where the Commission intends to impose periodic penalty payments for failure by a certificate holder subject to a non-compliance procedure to cooperate with the Commission or the Agency with regard to measures of inquiry or other requests for information.\n(15)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular as regards the rights of defence and the principle of confidentiality in accordance with the general principles of law and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.\n(16)\nFor the purposes of ensuring legal certainty in the conduct of the non-compliance procedure, it is necessary to lay down detailed rules for the computation of time-limits and limitation periods for the imposition and enforcement of fines and periodic penalty payments.\n(17)\nDecisions imposing fines and periodic penalty payments should be enforceable in accordance with Article 299 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and should be subject to review by the Court of Justice of the European Union.\n(18)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 65(1) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject-matter and scope\n1. This Regulation lays down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 concerning the criteria for establishing the amount of fines or periodic penalty payments, procedures for inquiries, associated measures and reporting, as well as rules of procedure for decision-making, including provisions on rights of defence, access to the file, legal representation, confidentiality and temporal provisions and the quantification and collection of fines and periodic penalty payments.\n2. This Regulation applies to the imposition:\n(a)\nof fines on persons and undertakings to which the European Aviation Safety Agency (\u2018the Agency\u2019) has issued a certificate (\u2018certificate holder\u2019) where, intentionally or negligently, the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 or its implementing rules have been breached and where interests of the Union are involved;\n(b)\nof periodic penalty payments on certificate holders referred to in point (a) in order to compel them to comply with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 or its implementing rules.\nCHAPTER II\nNON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURE\nSECTION 1\nInquiry\nArticle 2\nThe non-compliance procedure\n1. The non-compliance procedure laid down in this Chapter covers all the administrative stages of investigation of possible breaches of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 or its implementing rules.\n2. The Agency may initiate the non-compliance procedure on its own initiative or following a request from the Commission or a Member State.\n3. Where the initiation of the non-compliance procedure follows a request from the Commission or a Member State, the Commission or the Member State shall be informed by the Agency of the course given to their request.\nArticle 3\nRequests for information\n1. For the purposes of initiating and conducting a non-compliance procedure the Agency may use any information obtained in the exercise of any oversight power conferred on it by Union law as regards certificates issued in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. This empowerment is without prejudice to Union law preventing the use of information for the purposes of attributing blame or liability.\n2. Prior to initiating a non-compliance procedure, the Agency may request from the certificate holder concerned information relating to the alleged breach.\nThe Agency shall state the purpose of the request and the fact that it is made under this Regulation, and set a time-limit for the submission of the information.\nArticle 4\nNotification\n1. The Agency shall send written notification of the initiation of a non-compliance procedure to the certificate holder, to the Commission and to the national aviation authorities of the Member State(s) or the third country or countries where the certificate holder has its principal place of business and where the breach has taken place as well as, where appropriate, to the aeronautical authorities of third countries and international organisations competent in matters covered by this Regulation.\n2. The notification shall:\n(a)\nset out the allegations against the certificate holder, specifying the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 or its implementing rules allegedly breached, and the evidence on which those allegations are founded; and\n(b)\ninform the certificate holder that a fine or a periodic penalty payment may be imposed.\nArticle 5\nInquiries\n1. Once the inquiry has been initiated, the Agency shall clarify the facts and allegations.\n2. The Agency may request the certificate holder to provide written or oral explanations, or particulars or documents.\nThe request shall be addressed in writing to the certificate holder. The Agency shall state the legal basis and the purpose of the request, set a time-limit by which the information is to be provided, and inform the certificate holder about the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 16(1)(a) and (b) for failing to comply with the request or for supplying incorrect or misleading information.\n3. The Agency may request national aviation authorities to cooperate in the investigation and, in particular, to provide any information relating to the alleged breach.\nThe request shall state the legal basis and the purpose of the request and shall set a time-limit for the submission of the reply or the conduct of the measure of inquiry.\n4. The Agency may ask any natural or legal persons or aeronautical authorities of third countries to provide information relating to the alleged breach.\nThe request shall state the legal basis and the purpose of the request, and shall set a time-limit by which the information is to be provided.\nArticle 6\nVoluntary compliance\n1. At the notification of the initiation of the non-compliance procedure or thereafter the Agency shall set a time-limit within which the certificate holder may indicate in writing that it has voluntarily complied, or, where appropriate, that it intends to comply, with the breached provisions. In case of voluntary compliance by the certificate holder within the time-limit set by the Agency, the Agency shall decide to close the initiated non-compliance procedure.\nThe Agency shall not be obliged to take into account replies received after the expiry of that time-limit.\n2. The time-limit provided for in paragraph 1 shall in no case expire later than the date on which the Agency notifies the statement of objections provided for in Article 7.\nArticle 7\nStatement of objections\n1. When the Agency has established the facts and found that there are grounds to continue the non-compliance procedure, it shall notify in writing a statement of objections to the certificate holder concerned. The statement of objections shall contain:\n(a)\nthe allegations against the certificate holder, specifying the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 or its implementing rules allegedly breached, and the evidence on which those allegations are founded;\n(b)\nthe information that a fine or a periodic penalty payment may be imposed.\n2. When notifying the statement of objections, the Agency shall invite the certificate holder to submit written observations in response. It shall do so in writing, indicating a time-limit for the submission of those observations.\nArticle 8\nOral hearing\n1. Where a certificate holder requests it, the Agency shall give them an opportunity to develop their arguments at an oral hearing.\n2. Where necessary, the Agency may invite the national aviation authorities or any other persons to take part in the oral hearing.\n3. The oral hearing shall not be public. Each person may be heard separately or in the presence of other persons invited to attend, having regard to the legitimate interest of certificate holders and other persons in the protection of their business secrets and other confidential information.\nArticle 9\nTime limits\nFor the purposes of ensuring legal certainty in the conduct of the inquiry procedure, the Agency shall lay down detailed rules for the setting of time-limits.\nArticle 10\nReport\n1. The Agency shall provide the Commission, the Member States and the certificate holder with a report summarising its findings in the light of the inquiry conducted in accordance with this Section. The Agency shall also submit to the Commission the file under inquiry.\n2. Where the report by the Agency concludes that the certificate holder has breached provisions of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 or its implementing rules, the report shall also include:\n(a)\nan assessment of the circumstances of the case in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 15 of this Regulation;\n(b)\na request to the Commission for imposition of a fine or a periodic penalty payment;\n(c)\na reasoned proposal containing the amount of the fine or periodic penalty payment.\n3. The Agency shall adopt its report no later than [12 months] after notification of initiation of the non-compliance procedure in accordance with Article 4 or [6 months] after notification by the Commission of the return of the file in accordance with Article 12.\nSECTION 2\nDecision-making\nArticle 11\nRequests for information\n1. Where, following a request from the Agency pursuant to Article 10 (2)(b), the Commission decides to further pursue the non-compliance procedure, it may request in writing the certificate holder to provide written or oral explanations, or particulars or documents. In such a case, the Commission shall inform the certificate holder of the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 16(1) (c) and (d) for failing to comply with the request or for supplying incorrect or misleading information.\nThe Commission may also request the Agency, national aviation authorities or any natural or legal persons to provide information relating to the alleged breach.\n2. The Commission shall ensure that the certificate holder can provide any written explanation or particular or documents in support of its case. Certificate holders may request an oral hearing but the Commission shall have the right to agree to such request only when it considers it necessary.\nArticle 12\nNew period of inquiry\nHaving regard to the report of the Agency, the observations of the certificate holder on the basis of that report, and other relevant information, the Commission may consider that additional information is needed. In that case it may return the file to the Agency. The Commission shall clearly indicate to the Agency the points of fact which the Agency needs to investigate further and, if appropriate, suggest possible measures of inquiry to that effect, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. Section 1 of Chapter II of this Regulation shall apply to the conduct of the new period of inquiry.\nSECTION 3\nDecisions on fines and periodic penalty payments\nArticle 13\nFines and periodic penalty payments and maximum amounts\n1. Where following the decision-making provided for in Section 2, the Commission finds that the certificate holder has intentionally or negligently breached Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 or its implementing rules, it may adopt a decision imposing a fine not exceeding 4 % of the annual income or turnover of the certificate holder in the preceding business year.\n2. Where the certificate holder has not terminated the breach at the time of the adoption of the decision referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission may, in that decision, impose periodic penalty payments per day not exceeding 2,5 % of the average daily income or turnover of the certificate holder in the preceding business year.\nThese periodic penalty payments may be imposed for a period running from the date of notification of the decision until the day on which the breach is brought to an end.\n3. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, the preceding business year refers to the business year preceding the date of the decision referred to in paragraph 1.\n4. Fines and periodic penalty payments shall be of an administrative nature.\n5. The decision imposing fines and periodic penalty payments shall be enforceable.\nArticle 14\nContents of decisions\n1. The decision provided for in Article 13 shall be based exclusively on grounds on which the certificate holder has been able to submit observations to the Commission.\n2. The Commission shall inform the certificate holder of the judicial remedies available.\n3. The Commission shall inform the Member States and the Agency about the adoption of the decision.\n4. When publishing details of its decision and informing the Member States, the Commission shall have regard to the legitimate interest of certificate holders and other persons in the protection of their business secrets.\nArticle 15\nCriteria governing the application and quantification of fines and periodic penalty payments\n1. In determining whether to impose fines and periodic penalty payments and the amount of those fines and payments, the Commission shall be guided by the principles of effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness.\n2. In each case, the Commission shall take into consideration, where relevant, the following circumstances:\n(a)\nthe seriousness and the effects of the breach and in particular, the implications and effects for safety and for the environment of such breach;\n(b)\nthe degree of diligence and cooperation shown by the certificate holder in the detection of the breach and the application of the corrective action, or during the course of the non-compliance procedure or, any obstruction by the certificate holder of the detection of a breach and the conduct of a non-compliance procedure, or any non-compliance by the certificate holder with requests made by the Agency, the Commission or a national aviation authority in application of this Regulation;\n(c)\nthe good faith of the certificate holder in the interpretation and fulfilment of the obligations connected with certificate holders in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 or its implementing rules, or any evidence of wilful deceit on the part of the certificate holder;\n(d)\nthe turnover involved in the case and the economic capacity of the certificate holder concerned;\n(e)\nthe need to adopt provisional or urgent measures;\n(f)\nthe repetition, frequency or duration of the breach by the certificate holder;\n(g)\nprior sanctions, including financial penalties, imposed on the same certificate holder.\n3. In determining the amount of the fine and the periodic penalty payment, the Commission shall take into account any enforcement measures already taken regarding the certificate holder at national level or by the Agency and based on the same legal grounds and the same facts.\nSECTION 4\nNon-cooperation\nArticle 16\nPeriodic penalty payments for non-cooperation\n1. At the Agency's request or at its own initiative, the Commission may by decision impose on certificate holders periodic penalty payments per day not exceeding [0,5] % of the average daily income or turnover of the certificate holders in the preceding business year where, intentionally or negligently:\n(a)\nthey do not comply with a measure of inquiry adopted pursuant to Article 5;\n(b)\nthey supply incorrect or misleading information in response to a measure of inquiry adopted pursuant to Article 5;\n(c)\nthey do not comply with a request for information pursuant to Article 11;\n(d)\nthey supply incorrect or misleading information in response to a request for information pursuant to Article 11.\nPeriodic penalty payments may be imposed for a period running from the date of notification of that decision until the non-cooperation has ceased.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the preceding business year refers to the business year preceding the date of the decision referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 17\nProcedure\nWhere the Commission intends to adopt a decision as referred to in Article 16(1), it shall first notify in writing the certificate holder, setting a time-limit within which the certicate holder may submit written observations to the Commission.\nThe Commission shall not be obliged to take into account written observations received after the expiry of that time-limit.\nArticle 18\nComplementarity of procedures\nFor the purposes of the initiation and conduct of the non-compliance procedure, the Commission and the Agency shall take into account:\n(a)\nany non-compliance procedures already initiated or concluded by a Member State or a third country against the same certificate holder and based on the same legal grounds and the same facts; and\n(b)\nany procedure initiated by the Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 against the same certificate holder and based on the same legal grounds and the same facts, with the view to amending, limiting, suspending or revoking the relevant certificate.\nSECTION 5\nArticle 19\nRecovery of fines and periodic penalty payments\nThe Commission shall proceed with the recovery of fines and periodic penalty payments by establishing a recovery order and issuing a debit note addressed to the certificate holder concerned in accordance with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (4) and Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 (5).\nCHAPTER III\nACCESS TO THE FILE, LEGAL REPRESENTATION, CONFIDENTIALITY AND TEMPORAL PROVISIONS\nSECTION 1\nRights of defence\nArticle 20\nAccess to the file\n1. Following notification under Article 4, the certificate holder shall have the right, on request, to access the documents and other materials compiled by the Commission and the Agency which serve as evidence of an alleged breach.\n2. Documents obtained through access to the file shall be used only for the purposes of judicial or administrative proceedings for the application of this Regulation.\nArticle 21\nLegal representation\nThe certificate holder shall have the right to legal representation during the non-compliance procedure.\nArticle 22\nConfidentiality, professional secrecy and right to remain silent\n1. Without prejudice to the exchange and use of information provided for in Articles 5(3) and 11(1), a non-compliance procedure shall be conducted subject to the principles of confidentiality and of professional secrecy.\nThe Commission, the Agency and the national aviation authorities, when involved under Articles 5(3) and 11(1), their officials and other persons working under their supervision shall not disclose information acquired or exchanged by them pursuant to this Regulation and of the kind covered by the obligation of confidentiality and professional secrecy.\n2. Without prejudice to the right to access the file, the certificate holder shall not have access to business secrets, confidential information or internal documents held by the Commission or the Agency.\n3. Any person who submits observations or information pursuant to this Regulation shall clearly identify any material considered to be confidential, giving reasons, and provide a separate non-confidential version by the date set by the Commission or the Agency. In the absence of such identification, the Commission may assume that the observations or information submitted do not contain confidential information.\n4. A certificate holder shall have the right to remain silent in situations where they would otherwise be compelled to provide answers which might involve an admission on their part of the existence of a breach.\nSECTION 2\nTemporal provisions\nArticle 23\nApplication of time-limits\n1. The time-limits laid down in this Regulation shall run from the day following receipt of a communication or delivery thereof by hand.\nWhere the certificate holder is required to submit observations or information within a time-limit, it shall be sufficient for the submission to have been dispatched by registered post before the expiry of the time-limit.\n2. Where a time-limit falls to expire on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, it shall be extended up to the end of the following working day.\n3. In setting the time-limits provided for in this Regulation, the Commission and the Agency, as the case may be, shall have regard both to the time required for preparation of the submission and to the urgency of the case.\n4. Where appropriate and upon reasoned request made before the expiry of the original time-limit, time-limits may be extended.\nArticle 24\nLimitation periods for the imposition of fines and periodic penalty payments\n1. The right of the Commission to adopt a decision imposing fines and periodic penalty payments pursuant to Article 13 shall expire after five years.\nIn the case of the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 16, the right of the Commission to adopt a decision imposing such a penalty shall expiry after three years.\nTime shall begin to run on the day on which the breach is committed. However, in case of continuing or repeated breaches, time shall begin to run on the day on which the breach ceases.\n2. Any action taken by the Commission or the Agency for the purpose of the investigation or non-compliance procedure shall interrupt the limitation periods provided for in paragraph 1. The limitation period shall be interrupted with effect from the date on which the action is notified to the certificate holder.\n3. Each interruption shall start time running afresh. The limitation period shall, however, not exceed a period equal to twice the initial limitation period, except where limitation is suspended pursuant to paragraph 4. In that case, the limitation period shall be extended by the time during which limitation is suspended.\n4. The limitation period for the imposition of periodic penalty payments shall be suspended for as long as the decision of the Commission is the subject of proceedings pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union.\nArticle 25\nLimitation periods for the collection of fines and periodic penalty payments\n1. The right to start a recovery procedure shall expire one year after the decision pursuant to Article 13 or 16 has become final.\n2. The limitation period for the recovery of fines and periodic penalty payments shall be interrupted by any action of the Commission or of a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission, designed to enforce payment of the fines or periodic penalty payments.\n3. Each interruption shall start time running afresh.\n4. The limitation period for the recovery of fines and periodic penalty payments shall be suspended for so long as:\n(a)\ntime to pay is allowed;\n(b)\nenforcement of payment is suspended pursuant to a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union.\nCHAPTER IV\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 26\nApplication\nIn the case of breaches which began before its entry into force, this Regulation shall apply to the part of the breach which takes places after that date.\nArticle 27\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["97", "0", "4", "67", "14", "39", "18", "56", "51", "1", "78", "66", "28", "54", "76", "53", "49", "52", "46", "69", "26", "6", "87", "23", "43", "25", "44", "74", "58", "35", "No Label", "2", "7", "12", "57"], "gold": ["2", "7", "12", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 134/2011\nof 14 February 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 129/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 February 2011.", "references": ["92", "23", "26", "96", "52", "4", "34", "60", "90", "63", "56", "81", "9", "66", "44", "76", "0", "28", "19", "73", "86", "58", "50", "94", "30", "93", "25", "84", "24", "55", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1126/2011\nof 7 November 2011\namending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 as regards the amounts for the funding of the specific support provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 69(7) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 49(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (2), Member States may request by 1 August in any given calendar year from 2010 a revision of the amounts referred to in Article 69(6)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 where the amount resulting from application of the calculation set out in the first subparagraph of Article 69(7) of that Regulation for the financial year in question differs by more than 20 % from the amount fixed in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009.\n(2)\nDenmark, Finland and Slovenia have addressed to the Commission a request for a revision of the amounts referred to in Article 69(6)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 with effect from 2012.\n(3)\nFollowing the requests submitted by Denmark, Finland and Slovenia, the Commission has made the necessary calculation in order to verify that the threshold of 20 % referred to in Article 49(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 was reached in the financial year 2010. For the purpose of applying Article 69(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 the Commission used the average rate of modulation estimated for Denmark, Finland and Slovenia respectively when fixing the net ceilings set out in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.\n(4)\nAccording to this calculation, in the case of Denmark, Finland and Slovenia, the amount resulting from application of the calculation set out in the first subparagraph of Article 69(7) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 for the financial year 2010 differs by 47 %, 29 % and 47 % respectively from the amount fixed in Annex III to Regulation (EC) 1120/2009.\n(5)\nThe amount fixed for Denmark, Finland and Slovenia in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 should therefore be revised. Such revised amounts should be applicable from the calendar year 2012, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 49(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe entry concerning Denmark is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Denmark\n23,25\u2019\n(b)\nthe entry concerning Finland is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Finland\n6,19\u2019\n(c)\nthe entry concerning Slovenia is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Slovenia\n3,52\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 November 2011.", "references": ["9", "93", "55", "26", "57", "16", "71", "28", "48", "54", "34", "23", "83", "60", "74", "0", "78", "64", "65", "41", "1", "49", "86", "39", "47", "13", "50", "8", "37", "31", "No Label", "15", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/261/CFSP\nof 29 April 2011\nimplementing Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d'Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d'Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof, in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Treaty on European Union,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\n(2)\nIn view of the developments in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 29 April 2011.", "references": ["30", "63", "21", "93", "26", "72", "83", "96", "6", "28", "35", "75", "67", "81", "46", "16", "92", "42", "39", "74", "41", "97", "64", "8", "49", "87", "1", "24", "12", "65", "No Label", "3", "11", "94"], "gold": ["3", "11", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 December 2011\nconcerning the Commission\u2019s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting with the effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pension of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto\n(2011/866/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68, and in particular Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and Annexes VII, XI and XIII thereto, and Article 20 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission for a Council Regulation adjusting with the effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pension of the officials and other servants of the Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn light of a serious and sudden deterioration in the economic and social situation within the Union, on 17 December 2010, the Council requested the Commission to implement Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations by presenting an appropriate proposal for the annual adjustment 2011. The Commission, on 13 July 2011, submitted to the Council the report on the exception clause (Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations) - (\u2018the report\u2019) covering the period from 1 July 2010 to mid-May 2011. On the basis of the report, the Commission concluded that the conditions for applying the exception clause were not met.\n(2)\nThe Council did not share the Commission\u2019s conclusions as they, in the Council\u2019s view, did not reflect the economic and social situation within the Union.\n(3)\nConsequently and in view of the financial and economic crisis currently taking place within the Union and resulting in substantial fiscal adjustments in a great number of Member States, on 4 November 2011, the Council repeated its request to the Commission to implement Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations on the basis of data reflecting the economic and social situation in autumn 2011 and to submit an appropriate remuneration adjustment proposal in good time to allow the European Parliament and the Council to examine and adopt it before the end of 2011.\n(4)\nThe Commission, on 25 November 2011, presented to the Council supplementary information on the Commission report on the exception clause of 13 July 2011 (\u2018the supplementary information\u2019). The conclusions drawn by the Commission remained that the conditions for triggering the exception clause were not met.\n(5)\nIn effect, the Commission\u2019s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting with the effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pension of the officials and other servants of the Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto follows the method set out in Annex XI to the Staff Regulations. The figure for the annual adjustment 2011 proposed by the Commission is 1,7 %.\n(6)\nThe Council considers that neither of the documents submitted by the Commission, namely, the \u2018report\u2019 and the \u2018supplementary information\u2019, provides for an accurate and comprehensive reflection of the current economic and social situation within the Union.\n(7)\nMoreover, in the view of the Council, the Commission made an error in defining the time span to be covered by its analysis too narrowly. That error prevented the Commission from making a proper assessment of the situation and therefore has significantly distorted the conclusions derived from both documents, namely that there was no sudden and serious deterioration of an economic and social situation within the Union.\n(8)\nThe Council does not share these conclusions. The Council is convinced that the financial and economic crisis currently taking place within the Union and resulting in substantial fiscal adjustments, inter alia, national officials\u2019 salary adjustments, in a great number of Member States constitutes a serious and sudden deterioration of the economic and social situation within the Union.\n(9)\nMoreover, in the Council\u2019s opinion, this serious and sudden deterioration of the economic and social situation could not be reflected quickly enough in the officials\u2019 remunerations through the application of the method.\n(10)\nWith respect to the economic situation, the forecast for growth in the Union has been substantially reduced for the year 2012 from + 1,9 % to + 0,6 %. EU quarterly growth is down from + 0,7 % in the first quarter of 2011 to + 0,2 % in the second and in the third quarters of that year. As for the fourth quarter of 2011 and first quarter of 2012, no growth of GDP is foreseen.\n(11)\nWhile assessing the current economic and social situation, more focus should have been put on the situation on the financial markets, in particular on distortions to credit supply and declines in asset prices, which are major determinants for the economic development.\n(12)\nWith respect to the social situation, job creation has been insufficient to remedy a major reduction in the unemployment rate. The EU unemployment rate in 2010 and 2011 fluctuated to reach 9,8 % in October 2011 and should remain constantly high.\n(13)\nIn the light of the above, the Council considers that the Commission\u2019s position as regards the existence of a serious and sudden deterioration in the economic and social situation and its refusal to submit a proposal under Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations is based on manifestly insufficient and erroneous grounds.\n(14)\nSince the European Court of Justice held in Case C-40/10 that, for the period of application of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations, the procedure laid down in Article 10 thereof, constitutes the only means of taking account of an economic crisis in the adjustment of remuneration, the Council was dependent on a proposal from the Commission to apply that Article in times of crisis.\n(15)\nThe Council is convinced that, in light of the wording of Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations and under the duty of sincere cooperation between the institutions as enshrined in the second sentence of Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission was obliged to submit an appropriate proposal to the Council. The Commission\u2019s conclusions and its failure to submit such a proposal are therefore in breach of that obligation.\n(16)\nAs the Council may act only on a proposal from the Commission, the Commission\u2019s failure to draw the correct conclusions from the evidence and to present a proposal under Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations has prevented the Council from reacting correctly to the serious and sudden deterioration in the economic and social situation through the adoption of an act under Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations,\nDECIDES NOT TO ADOPT THE COMMISSION\u2019S PROPOSAL for a Council Regulation adjusting with the effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pension of the officials and other servants of the Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["29", "20", "50", "11", "6", "87", "96", "1", "49", "21", "56", "67", "53", "18", "34", "83", "91", "32", "17", "72", "57", "26", "84", "79", "28", "40", "27", "33", "30", "51", "No Label", "7", "16", "37", "52"], "gold": ["7", "16", "37", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 635/2012\nof 27 June 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Vadehavsstude (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Denmark's application to register the name \u2027Vadehavsstude\u2027 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2012.", "references": ["58", "55", "36", "12", "46", "26", "79", "28", "67", "22", "78", "6", "33", "38", "87", "30", "74", "90", "92", "4", "13", "60", "99", "40", "51", "8", "19", "94", "49", "45", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 480/2011\nof 18 May 2011\namending for the 148th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and Article 7a thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 10 May 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add one natural person to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply and on 20 April and 4 May 2011 amended four entries on the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 May 2011.", "references": ["9", "38", "65", "5", "99", "52", "97", "40", "53", "13", "91", "42", "85", "66", "27", "77", "61", "75", "6", "4", "79", "7", "43", "21", "49", "86", "50", "20", "26", "74", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 981/2010\nof 29 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 October 2010.", "references": ["27", "75", "98", "25", "8", "40", "15", "45", "4", "91", "46", "26", "77", "90", "56", "39", "89", "33", "69", "67", "76", "93", "63", "28", "94", "42", "19", "70", "5", "60", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EU BAM Rafah/1/2010\nof 21 May 2010\nextending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Border Assistance Mission at the Rafah Crossing Point\n(2010/295/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP of 12 December 2005 on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission at the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (1), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 10(2) of Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC), in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EU BAM Rafah mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nOn 11 November 2008, upon a proposal by the Secretary General/High Representative, the PSC appointed by Decision EUBAM Rafah/1/2008 (2) Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah.\n(3)\nOn 20 May 2010, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed to the PSC that it extend the mandate of Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah until 24 May 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of the European Union Border Assistance Mission at the Rafah Crossing Point is hereby extended from 25 November 2009 until 24 May 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2010.", "references": ["19", "57", "95", "28", "97", "53", "4", "70", "90", "16", "29", "6", "65", "8", "26", "0", "85", "34", "45", "93", "52", "21", "75", "22", "36", "24", "17", "12", "87", "89", "No Label", "1", "5", "9"], "gold": ["1", "5", "9"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 February 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic, service or official passports\n(2011/157/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(a) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated on behalf of the European Union an Agreement with the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic, service or official passports.\n(2)\nThat Agreement was signed, on behalf of the European Union, on 8 November 2010 subject to its conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2010/621/EU (1).\n(3)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (2); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(4)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (3), Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic, service or official passports (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall give the notification provided for in Article 8(1) of the Agreement (4).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2011.", "references": ["14", "6", "19", "4", "88", "85", "83", "8", "15", "82", "69", "17", "71", "73", "89", "81", "91", "60", "0", "80", "1", "57", "54", "53", "95", "39", "77", "94", "97", "10", "No Label", "3", "9", "13", "93"], "gold": ["3", "9", "13", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 November 2010\nestablishing a questionnaire to be used for reporting on the implementation of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the incineration of waste\n(notified under document C(2010) 8279)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/731/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (1), and in particular Article 15 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA first questionnaire to be used for reporting on the implementation of Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste was established by Commission Decision 2006/329/EC (2). That questionnaire related to the reporting period 2006 to 2008 inclusive.\n(2)\nIn view of the experience gained in the implementation of Directive 2000/76/EC and in the use of the first questionnaire, a new questionnaire should be established for the period 2009 to 2011. For the sake of clarity, Decision 2006/329/EC should be replaced.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 6 of Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 standardising and rationalising reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment (3),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Member States shall use the questionnaire set out in the Annex for reporting on the implementation of Directive 2000/76/EC.\n2. The reports to be submitted shall cover the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2006/329/EC is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["41", "9", "83", "45", "64", "33", "71", "86", "80", "3", "65", "38", "82", "18", "63", "22", "48", "7", "19", "94", "73", "21", "90", "67", "20", "29", "17", "96", "40", "32", "No Label", "8", "42", "58"], "gold": ["8", "42", "58"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 417/2010\nof 12 May 2010\namending for the 127th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 5 May 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove three natural persons from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I should therefore be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2010.", "references": ["21", "81", "54", "24", "16", "73", "49", "36", "61", "98", "71", "18", "39", "10", "45", "2", "69", "37", "99", "51", "66", "68", "96", "22", "67", "11", "60", "42", "89", "59", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "23", "30", "57", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "23", "30", "57", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 402/2011\nof 20 April 2011\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to milk and milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(p) and listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nIn the case of certain milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, there is a danger that, if high refund rates are fixed in advance, the commitments entered into in relation to those refunds may be jeopardised. In order to avert that danger, it is therefore necessary to take appropriate precautionary measures, but without precluding the conclusion of long-term contracts. The fixing of specific refund rates for the advance fixing of refunds in respect of those products should enable those two objectives to be met.\n(6)\nArticle 15(2) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 provides that, when the rate of the refund is being fixed, account is to be taken, where appropriate, of aids or other measures having equivalent effect applicable in all Member States in accordance with the Regulation on the common organisation of the agricultural markets to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 or to assimilated products.\n(7)\nArticle 100(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides for the payment of aid for Union-produced skimmed milk processed into casein if such milk and the casein manufactured from it fulfil certain conditions.\n(8)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 52/2011 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Part XVI of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 52/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["68", "2", "76", "74", "86", "96", "80", "84", "59", "47", "66", "97", "14", "65", "46", "40", "17", "16", "88", "28", "91", "87", "38", "63", "53", "99", "49", "3", "8", "1", "No Label", "23", "70"], "gold": ["23", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 734/2012\nof 10 August 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for Atlantic salmon in EU waters of subdivisions 22-31 (Baltic Sea excl. Gulf of Finland) by vessels flying the flag of Sweden\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1256/2011 of 30 November 2011 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea and amending Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2012.", "references": ["43", "18", "37", "8", "94", "55", "84", "24", "77", "45", "30", "0", "2", "79", "70", "11", "53", "6", "33", "72", "38", "52", "31", "64", "27", "60", "51", "87", "26", "73", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 459/2012\nof 29 May 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (1), and in particular Article 5(3),\nHaving regard to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2), in particular Article 39(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 715/2007 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 of 18 July 2008 implementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (3) establish common technical requirements for the type approval of motor vehicles and replacement parts with regard to their emissions and lay down rules for in-service conformity, durability of pollution control devices, on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems, measurement of fuel consumption and accessibility of vehicle repair and maintenance information.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, a particle number (PN) standard is to be defined for vehicles equipped with a positive ignition engine to be approved according to Euro 6 standards.\n(3)\nParticles emitted by vehicles may be deposited in the alveoli of human lungs, potentially leading to respiratory and cardiovascular illness and increased mortality. Therefore it is in the public interest to have a high level of protection from those particles.\n(4)\nFor measuring the particle emissions of positive ignition vehicles, the Particulate Measurement Programme (PMP) measurement protocol developed for diesel vehicles is currently used. However, evidence exists that the size spectra and chemical compositions of particle emissions of positive ignition can differ from those of diesel vehicles. Particle size spectra and chemical composition, and the effectiveness of the current measurement technique in controlling harmful particle emissions, should be kept under review. A revision of that measurement protocol for positive ignition vehicles may be required in the future.\n(5)\nBased on today\u2019s knowledge, the level of particle emissions from conventional, port fuel injection (PFI) engines that inject the fuel into the intake manifolds or inlet ports rather than directly into the combustion chamber is low. Therefore, it appears to be justified to limit regulatory action for the moment to vehicles equipped with direct injection engines, without excluding further research and monitoring of the particle emission performance of all positive ignition engines, in particular with respect to the size spectrum and chemical composition of emitted particles as well as to the real driving emissions, and the Commission should propose further regulatory measures if necessary, also taking into account the future market share of PFI engines.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 692/2008 has set a particle number emission limit of 6 \u00d7 1011 #/km for Euro 6 diesel vehicles. In accordance with the principle of technology neutral legislation, a respective emission limit for Euro 6 positive ignition vehicles should be the same since there is no evidence suggesting that particles emitted by PI engines have a lower specific toxicity than particles emitted by diesel engines.\n(7)\nGasoline particle filters (GPF), an effective after-treatment technology for abating particles emitted by positive ignition vehicles, are expected to become available for integration into some Euro 6 vehicles at a reasonable cost. In addition, it appears likely that within a time frame of three years after the mandatory Euro 6 dates set out in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, a similar reduction of PN emissions can be achieved with internal engine measures at substantially lower costs for many applications. Any engine measure must be applicable to all engine working conditions to ensure that, in the absence of aftertreatment devices, emission levels in real life driving conditions are not worsened.\n(8)\nIn order to allow for all necessary technologies to be developed and to allow adequate lead time, a two step approach should be adopted, which would apply the Euro 6 diesel particle number limits also to direct injection positive ignition vehicles in its second phase.\n(9)\nAttention shall be given to the particle emissions of positive ignition vehicles under real driving conditions and the development of respective test procedures. The Commission should develop and introduce corresponding measurement procedures at the latest three years after the entry into force of Euro 6.\n(10)\nThe Commission should keep under review the impact of PN abatement measures on CO2 emissions of positive ignition vehicles.\n(11)\nPursuant to Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No 692/2008, vehicles falling under the scope of that Regulation may only be type-approved to Euro 6 emission standards once on-board-diagnostic (OBD) thresholds limits have been introduced. OBD is an important tool for identifying malfunctions of pollution control devices.\n(12)\nIn its Communication 2008/C 182/08 on the application and future development of Community legislation concerning vehicle emissions from light-duty vehicles and access to repair and maintenance information (Euro 5 and 6) (4) the Commission has suggested a series of OBD threshold limits, which broadly reflect the thresholds applied to most light duty vehicles in the United States and Canada from the year 2013 onwards, where the majority of vehicles\u2019 OBD systems are compliant with the legislation set by the Californian Air Resources Board (CARB). An alignment of the Union\u2019s requirements with those of the United States would be in accordance with the objectives of international harmonisation and would provide a high level of environmental protection.\n(13)\nHowever, the OBD requirements in the United States are technologically challenging for vehicle manufacturers not exporting into the United States. Therefore, an initial period of three years of more lenient OBD requirements should be adopted, providing more lead time to the industry.\n(14)\nThe final Euro 6 OBD threshold limits for CO, NMHC and PM provided by Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 should be more lenient than the values suggested in Communication 2008/C 182/08, reflecting particular technical difficulties in those areas. In addition, no Euro 6 OBD threshold limit for particle numbers should be adopted by this Regulation.\n(15)\nThe environmental need, technical feasibility and cost/benefit ratios of more stringent Euro 6 OBD threshold limits applicable to CO and NMHC and of setting a particle number Euro 6 OBD threshold limit should be evaluated at a later stage. Any resulting amendment of the regulatory requirements in that respect should only be introduced with appropriate lead time for industry. Given the complexity of OBD systems, such lead time is typically three to four years.\n(16)\nRegulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 692/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 715/2007 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 3, at the end of point 17, the full stop should be changed into a semicolon;\n(2)\nin Article 3, the following point 18 is added:\n\u201818.\n\u201cdirect injection engine\u201d means an engine which can operate in a mode where the fuel is injected into the intake air after the air has been drawn through the inlet valves.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 10, the following paragraph 7 is added:\n\u20187. Until three years after the applicable dates set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 for new type approvals and the registration, sale or entry into service of new vehicles and upon the choice of the manufacturer, a particle number emission limit of 6 \u00d7 1012 #/km shall apply to vehicles with a direct injection positive ignition engine.\u2019;\n(4)\nAnnex I is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 692/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 4, paragraph 7 is deleted;\n(2)\nAnnexes I, XI and XVI are amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 May 2012.", "references": ["0", "3", "14", "45", "66", "24", "25", "35", "46", "84", "44", "72", "18", "34", "20", "91", "76", "22", "95", "94", "68", "2", "9", "63", "55", "27", "8", "7", "5", "17", "No Label", "54", "58", "60", "85"], "gold": ["54", "58", "60", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 974/2010\nof 29 October 2010\nfixing the interest rates to be used for calculating the costs of financing intervention measures comprising buying-in, storage and disposal for the 2011 EAGF accounting year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 3(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) of intervention measures in the form of public storage operations and the accounting of public storage operations by the paying agencies of the Member States (2) provides that expenditure relating to the financial costs incurred by Member States in mobilising funds to buy in products is to be determined in accordance with the methods set out in Annex IV to that Regulation.\n(2)\nThe first paragraph of point I.1 of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 provides that the financial costs in question are to be calculated on the basis of a uniform interest rate for the Union fixed by the Commission at the beginning of every accounting year. That interest rate corresponds to the average of the 3-month and 12-month forward Euribor rates, recorded in the 6 months preceding the notification from the Member States provided for in the first paragraph of point I.1 of the aforementioned Annex IV, with a weighting of one third and two thirds respectively. That rate must be fixed at the beginning of each accounting year of the EAGF.\n(3)\nHowever, if the interest rate notified by a Member State is lower than the uniform interest rate fixed for the Union, in accordance with the second paragraph of point I.2 of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 884/2006, the interest rate is to be fixed at the level of the rate notified.\n(4)\nFurthermore, in accordance with the third paragraph of point I.2 of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 884/2006, in the absence of any notification from a Member State, in the form and by the deadline referred to in the first paragraph of point I.2 of the aforementioned Annex IV, the interest rate borne by that Member State is to be considered as being 0 %. In the situation where a Member State declares that it did not bear any interest costs because it did not have agricultural products in public storage during the reference period, the uniform interest rate fixed by the Commission applies to that Member State. Luxembourg, Malta and Portugal have declared that they did not bear any interest costs as they did not have any agricultural products in public storage during the reference period.\n(5)\nGiven the Member States\u2019 notifications to the Commission, the interest rates applicable for the 2011 EAGF accounting year should be fixed taking the various factors into account.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor expenditure relating to the financial costs incurred by Member States in mobilising funds to buy in products chargeable to the 2011 accounting year of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), the interest rates provided for in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 884/2006, in accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of that Regulation, shall be fixed at:\n(a)\n0,0 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Cyprus, Estonia and Latvia;\n(b)\n0,2 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Bulgaria;\n(c)\n0,3 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Sweden;\n(d)\n0,4 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Germany, Ireland and Finland;\n(e)\n0,5 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Austria and the United Kingdom;\n(f)\n0,6 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Italy;\n(g)\n0,7 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Greece;\n(h)\n1,0 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Belgium;\n(i)\n1,1 % in the case of the uniform interest rate for the Union applicable to the other Member States.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 October 2010.", "references": ["97", "9", "16", "62", "64", "81", "94", "22", "28", "63", "48", "57", "68", "79", "89", "21", "66", "14", "23", "4", "67", "92", "30", "32", "11", "18", "5", "36", "78", "25", "No Label", "10", "15", "20", "26", "29", "47", "61"], "gold": ["10", "15", "20", "26", "29", "47", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 382/2011\nof 18 April 2011\nentering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (\u2018Kie\u0142basa my\u015bliwska\u2019 (TSG))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 9(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Kie\u0142basa my\u015bliwska\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, a statement of objection was sent to the Commission, substantiated under Article 9(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006. In its letter dated 27 January 2010, the Commission invited the interested parties to hold appropriate consultations.\n(3)\nGiven that an agreement was reached within 6 months without modification of the details published in accordance with the provisions referred to in Article 8(2), the Commission must adopt a decision.\n(4)\nIn the light of the above, this name must therefore be registered.\n(5)\nThe protection referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has not been requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2011.", "references": ["28", "56", "15", "20", "59", "75", "26", "76", "90", "4", "14", "69", "17", "22", "47", "78", "65", "31", "46", "6", "1", "18", "98", "13", "8", "30", "60", "88", "79", "84", "No Label", "23", "24", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "24", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 November 2010\namending Part 1 of Annex E to Council Directive 92/65/EEC as regards the model health certificate for animals from holdings\n(notified under document C(2010) 7640)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/684/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 22 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 10 of Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in dogs, cats and ferrets.\n(2)\nPart 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC sets out the model health certificate for trade in animals from holdings, including dogs, cats and ferrets.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) lays down the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and the rules applying to checks on such movements. It applies to movements between Member States or from third countries of pet animals of the species listed in Annex I thereto. Dogs, cats and ferrets are listed in Parts A and B of that Annex.\n(4)\nThe requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 differ, depending on whether the pet animals are moved between Member States or from third countries to Member States. In addition, the requirements for such movements from third countries are further differentiated between third countries listed in Section 2 of Part B of Annex II to that Regulation and those third countries which are listed in Part C of that Annex.\n(5)\nIn order to avoid that commercial movements are fraudulently disguised as non-commercial movements of pet animals within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, Article 12 of that Regulation provides that the requirements and checks laid down in Directive 92/65/EEC are to apply to the movement of more than five pet animals where the animals are brought into the Union from a third country other than those listed in Section 2 of Part B of Annex II to that Regulation.\n(6)\nIn order to avoid the same practices and ensure a uniform application of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, Commission Regulation (EU) No 388/2010 of 6 May 2010 implementing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the maximum number of pet animals of certain species that may be the subject of non-commercial movement (3) provides that the same rules apply where more than five pet dogs, cats and ferrets are moved into a Member State from another Member State or a third country listed in Section 2 of Part B of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003.\n(7)\nThe certificate set out in Part 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC, as amended by Commission Decision 2010/270/EU (4), takes into account the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 388/2010.\n(8)\nExperience in the application of Regulation (EU) No 388/2010 has shown that in certain cases the provisions of that Regulation affect in a disproportionate manner the movement of a limited population of pet dogs, cats and ferrets that are frequently moved for non-commercial purposes in numbers higher than five to take part in certain sport events and shows.\n(9)\nFor those cases it is appropriate to introduce a period of validity of the health certificate which is longer than the period of validity of health certificates issued for other species covered by the certificate set out in Part 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC.\n(10)\nCommission Decision 2004/824/EC of 1 December 2004 establishing a model health certificate for non-commercial movements of dogs, cats and ferrets from third countries into the Community (5) provides that the certificate set out in the Annex thereto is valid for movements within the Union for a period of 4 months from the date of issue or until the date of expiry of the vaccination against rabies, whichever is earlier.\n(11)\nIn the interest of consistency of Union legislation, it is appropriate that the validity of certificates for pet dogs, cats and ferrets set out in Part 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC be the same as the one laid down for the certificate set out in the Annex to Decision 2004/824/EC.\n(12)\nDirective 92/65/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nPart 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2010.", "references": ["87", "75", "63", "37", "70", "8", "23", "17", "88", "25", "68", "14", "47", "41", "2", "40", "43", "45", "39", "49", "12", "77", "3", "4", "19", "53", "44", "36", "54", "69", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "38", "66"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "38", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/159/CFSP\nof 19 March 2012\namending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/172/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nOn the basis of a review of Decision 2011/172/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be extended until 22 March 2013.\n(3)\nDecision 2011/172/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 5 of Decision 2011/172/CFSP is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nThis Decision shall apply until 22 March 2013.\nThis Decision shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 March 2012.", "references": ["93", "66", "92", "40", "4", "20", "45", "90", "67", "87", "77", "13", "44", "98", "83", "62", "0", "37", "75", "81", "46", "32", "7", "34", "89", "30", "27", "33", "35", "72", "No Label", "3", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 825/2010\nof 20 September 2010\nlaying down form and content of the accounting information to be submitted to the Commission for the purpose of the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and EAFRD as well as for monitoring and forecasting purposes\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 42 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 8(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (2) provides that the form and content of the accounting information referred to in Article 7(1)(c) of that Regulation and the way it is to be forwarded to the Commission are to be established.\n(2)\nThe form and content of the accounting information to be submitted to the Commission for the purpose of the clearance of the accounts of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) as well as for monitoring and forecasting purposes are presently laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 884/2009 (3).\n(3)\nThe Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 884/2009 cannot be used for their intended purposes in the financial year 2011. Regulation (EC) No 884/2009 should therefore be repealed and replaced by a new regulation setting out the form and content of the accounting information for that financial year.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Agricultural Funds Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe form and content of the accounting information referred to in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 and the way it is to be forwarded to the Commission shall be as set out in Annexes I (X Table), II (Technical specifications for the transfer of computer files to the EAGF and EAFRD), III (Aide-m\u00e9moire) and IV (Structure of EAFRD budget codes [F109]) to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 884/2009 is repealed with effect from 16 October 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 16 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2010.", "references": ["99", "1", "46", "66", "51", "33", "54", "23", "44", "31", "30", "64", "14", "74", "97", "59", "52", "91", "65", "81", "4", "39", "35", "75", "13", "67", "72", "83", "82", "90", "No Label", "7", "10", "40", "41", "47", "61", "63", "76"], "gold": ["7", "10", "40", "41", "47", "61", "63", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 17 November 2010\nappointing a member of the Court of Auditors\n(2010/696/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMr Maarten B. ENGWIRDA, member of the Court of Auditors, has resigned with effect from 1 January 2011.\n(2)\nMr Maarten B. ENGWIRDA should therefore be replaced for the remainder of his term of office,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Gijs M. de VRIES is hereby appointed member of the Court of Auditors for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2013.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 17 November 2010.", "references": ["81", "2", "92", "59", "67", "70", "88", "29", "9", "79", "3", "71", "94", "75", "43", "95", "37", "74", "47", "90", "51", "11", "28", "68", "33", "25", "60", "19", "76", "13", "No Label", "7", "52"], "gold": ["7", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1016/2010\nof 10 November 2010\nimplementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for household dishwashers\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Ecodesign Consultation Forum,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Directive 2009/125/EC ecodesign requirements should be set by the Commission for energy-related products representing significant volumes of sales and trade, having significant environmental impact and presenting significant potential for improvement in terms of their environmental impact without entailing excessive costs.\n(2)\nArticle 16(2), first indent, of Directive 2009/125/EC provides that in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 19(3) and the criteria set out in Article 15(2), and after consulting the Ecodesign Consultation Forum, the Commission shall, as appropriate, introduce an implementing measure for domestic appliances, including household dishwashers.\n(3)\nThe Commission has carried out a preparatory study to analyse the technical, environmental and economic aspects of household dishwashers typically used in households. The study has been developed together with stakeholders and interested parties from the Union and third countries, and the results have been made publicly available.\n(4)\nThis Regulation should cover products designed for washing tableware in households.\n(5)\nThe environmental aspect of household dishwashers, identified as significant for the purposes of this Regulation, is energy consumption in the use phase. The annual electricity consumption of products subject to this Regulation was estimated to have been 24,7 TWh in the Union in 2005 corresponding to 13 million tonnes of CO2. Unless specific measures are taken, annual electricity consumption is estimated to increase to 35 TWh in 2020. The preparatory study shows that the electricity and water consumption of products subject to this Regulation can be significantly reduced.\n(6)\nThe preparatory study shows that requirements regarding other ecodesign parameters referred to in Annex I, Part 1 to Directive 2009/125/EC are not necessary as electricity consumption of household dishwashers in the use phase is by far the most important environmental aspect.\n(7)\nThe electricity consumption of products subject to this Regulation should be made more efficient by applying existing non-proprietary cost-effective technologies that can reduce the combined costs of purchasing and operating these products.\n(8)\nThe ecodesign requirements should not affect functionality from the end-user\u2019s perspective and should not negatively affect health, safety or the environment. In particular, the benefits of reducing electricity consumption during the use phase should more than offset any additional environmental impacts during the production phase.\n(9)\nThe ecodesign requirements should be introduced gradually in order to provide a sufficient time-frame for manufacturers to redesign products subject to this Regulation. The timing should be set in such a way as to avoid negative impacts on the functionalities of equipment on the market, and to take into account cost impacts for end-users and manufacturers, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, while ensuring timely achievement of the objectives of this Regulation.\n(10)\nMeasurements of the relevant product parameters should be performed using reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement methods, which take into account the recognised state-of-the-art measurement methods including, where available, harmonised standards adopted by the European standardisation bodies, as listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (2).\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Directive 2009/125/EC, this Regulation should specify the applicable conformity assessment procedures.\n(12)\nIn order to facilitate compliance checks, manufacturers should provide information in the technical documentation referred to in Annexes V and VI to Directive 2009/125/EC in so far as this information relates to the requirements laid down in this Regulation.\n(13)\nIn addition to the legally binding requirements laid down in this Regulation, indicative benchmarks for best available technologies should be identified to ensure the wide availability and easy accessibility of information on the lifecycle environmental performance of products subject to this Regulation.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 19(1) of Directive 2009/125/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\nThis Regulation establishes ecodesign requirements for the placing on the market of electric mains-operated household dishwashers and electric mains-operated household dishwashers that can also be powered by batteries, including those sold for non-household use and built-in household dishwashers.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2009/125/EC, the following definitions shall apply for the purpose of this Regulation:\n(1)\n\u2018household dishwasher\u2019 means a machine which cleans, rinses, and dries dishware, glassware, cutlery and cooking utensils by chemical, mechanical, thermal, and electric means and which is designed to be used principally for non-professional purposes;\n(2)\n\u2018built-in household dishwasher\u2019 means a household dishwasher intended to be installed in a cabinet, a prepared recess in a wall or a similar location, requiring furniture finishing;\n(3)\n\u2018place settings\u2019 means a defined set of crockery, glass and cutlery for use by one person;\n(4)\n\u2018rated capacity\u2019 means the maximum number of place settings together with the serving pieces, as stated by the manufacturer, which can be treated in a household dishwasher on the programme selected when loaded in accordance with the manufacturer\u2019s instructions;\n(5)\n\u2018programme\u2019 means a series of operations that are pre-defined and are declared as suitable by the manufacturer for specified levels of soil or types of load, or both, and together form a complete cycle;\n(6)\n\u2018programme time\u2019 means the time that elapses from the initiation of the programme until the completion of the programme, excluding any user-programmed delay;\n(7)\n\u2018cycle\u2019 means a complete cleaning, rinsing, and drying process, as defined for the selected programme;\n(8)\n\u2018off-mode\u2019 means a condition where the household dishwasher is switched off using appliance controls or switches accessible to and intended for operation by the end-user during normal use to attain the lowest power consumption that may persist for an indefinite time while the household dishwasher is connected to a power source and used in accordance with the manufacturer\u2019s instructions; where there is no control or switch accessible to the end-user, \u2018off-mode\u2019 means the condition reached after the household dishwasher reverts to a steady-state power consumption on its own;\n(9)\n\u2018left-on mode\u2019 means the lowest power consumption mode that may persist for an indefinite time after completion of the programme and unloading of the machine without any further intervention of the end-user;\n(10)\n\u2018equivalent dishwasher\u2019 means a model of household dishwasher placed on the market with the same rated capacity, technical and performance characteristics, energy and water consumption and airborne acoustical noise emissions as another model of household dishwasher placed on the market under a different commercial code number by the same manufacturer.\nArticle 3\nEcodesign requirements\nThe generic ecodesign requirements for household dishwashers are set out in point 1 of Annex I.\nThe specific ecodesign requirements for household dishwashers are set out in point 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 4\nConformity assessment\n1. The conformity assessment procedure referred to in Article 8 of Directive 2009/125/EC shall be the internal design control system set out in Annex IV to that Directive or the management system set out in Annex V to that Directive.\n2. For the purposes of conformity assessment pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2009/125/EC, the technical documentation file shall contain the results of the calculation set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nWhere the information included in the technical documentation for a particular household dishwasher model has been obtained by calculation on the basis of design, or extrapolation from other equivalent household dishwashers, or both, the technical documentation shall include details of such calculations or extrapolations, or both, and of tests undertaken by manufacturers to verify the accuracy of the calculations undertaken. In such cases, the technical documentation shall also include a list of all other equivalent household dishwasher models where the information included in the technical documentation was obtained on the same basis.\nArticle 5\nVerification procedure for market surveillance purposes\nMember States shall apply the verification procedure described in Annex III to this Regulation when performing the market surveillance checks referred to in Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/125/EC for compliance with the requirements set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 6\nBenchmarks\nThe indicative benchmarks for best-performing household dishwashers available on the market at the time of entry into force of this Regulation are set out in Annex IV.\nArticle 7\nRevision\nThe Commission shall review this Regulation in the light of technological progress no later than 4 years after its entry into force and present the result of this review to the Ecodesign Consultation Forum. The review shall in particular assess the verification tolerances set out in Annex III, the possibilities for setting requirements with regard to the water consumption of household dishwashers and the potential for hot water inlet.\nArticle 8\nEntry into force and application\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. It shall apply from 1 December 2011.\nHowever, the ecodesign requirements listed below shall apply in accordance with the following timetable:\n(a)\nthe generic ecodesign requirements set out in point 1(1) of Annex I shall apply from 1 December 2012;\n(b)\nthe generic ecodesign requirements set out in point 1(2) of Annex I shall apply from 1 June 2012;\n(c)\nthe specific ecodesign requirements set out in point 2(2) of Annex I shall apply from 1 December 2013;\n(d)\nthe specific ecodesign requirements set out in point 2(3) of Annex I shall apply from 1 December 2016;\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2010.", "references": ["79", "55", "62", "93", "7", "6", "42", "46", "98", "0", "48", "59", "29", "53", "24", "10", "28", "31", "39", "1", "43", "18", "56", "88", "63", "23", "27", "85", "61", "71", "No Label", "58", "76", "78", "86"], "gold": ["58", "76", "78", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 651/2011\nof 5 July 2011\nadopting the rules of procedure of the permanent cooperation framework established by Member States in cooperation with the Commission pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 2009/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Council Directive 1999/35/EC and Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2009/18/EC requires the establishment, by Member States, in close cooperation with the Commission, of a permanent cooperation framework enabling their respective investigative bodies to cooperate among themselves to the extent necessary to attain the objective of the Directive.\n(2)\nDirective 2009/18/EC requires the Commission to adopt the rules of procedure of this permanent cooperation framework.\n(3)\nBy letter of its Executive Director dated 20 December 2010 addressed to the European Commission services, the European Maritime Safety Agency has accepted to provide the secretariat for the permanent cooperation framework and to fund at least one meeting per year.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rules of procedure and organisation arrangements for the permanent cooperation framework referred to in Article 10(2) of Directive 2009/18/EC are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2011.", "references": ["6", "16", "17", "65", "80", "78", "22", "4", "86", "15", "32", "45", "91", "9", "10", "47", "74", "69", "11", "35", "38", "83", "5", "20", "24", "33", "89", "77", "87", "18", "No Label", "1", "7", "53", "56", "96"], "gold": ["1", "7", "53", "56", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 620/2011\nof 24 June 2011\namending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(d) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFurther to a complaint brought in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) by certain countries, a WTO panel report adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body on 21 September 2010 (2) concluded that the European Union had acted, inter alia, inconsistently with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) by according tariff treatment less favourable than that provided in the tariff bindings with regard to certain information technology products made by the European Union pursuant to the Information Technology Agreement (ITA). Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 should be amended in order to bring it into conformity with the international obligations of the European Union under the GATT 1994. The required amendments are in accordance with Council Decision 97/359/EC of 24 March 1997 concerning the elimination of duties on information technology products (3), which approved the ITA.\n(2)\nFollowing the WTO Panel Report, digital copying should not constitute photocopying under the GATT 1994 and copying speed should not be the sole classification criterion. Subheading 8443 31 of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 and the corresponding duty rate should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe wording of subheading 8528 71 15 of the CN (previously 8528 71 13) should be amended in order to include set-top boxes which, besides the function of communication, may be capable of performing the additional functions of recording or reproducing, provided that, as a result, they do not lose the essential character of a set-top box which has a communication function.\n(4)\nThis regulation should enter into force on 1 July 2011 at the end of the reasonable period of time agreed by the European Union with the complaining parties for the European Union to bring itself into conformity with its WTO obligations.\n(5)\nAs recommendations in reports adopted by the WTO\u2019s Dispute Settlement Body only have prospective effect, this regulation should not have retroactive effects nor provide interpretative guidance on a retroactive basis. Since it cannot operate to provide interpretative guidance for classification of goods which have been released for free circulation prior to 1 July 2011 it should not serve as a basis for the reimbursement of any duties paid prior to that date.\n(6)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart Two, Section XVI of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2011.\nIt shall have neither retroactive effect nor provide interpretative guidance on a retroactive basis.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 June 2011.", "references": ["60", "81", "24", "48", "19", "40", "51", "15", "69", "98", "80", "54", "79", "29", "43", "76", "4", "82", "52", "96", "7", "78", "65", "36", "67", "77", "66", "68", "33", "56", "No Label", "21", "22", "42", "86"], "gold": ["21", "22", "42", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 412/2010\nof 11 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 May 2010.", "references": ["46", "38", "2", "65", "87", "42", "26", "50", "16", "12", "58", "0", "95", "66", "92", "39", "8", "21", "86", "80", "9", "27", "51", "25", "45", "93", "3", "30", "97", "89", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EU BAM RAFAH/2/2012\nof 24 July 2012\nextending the mandate of the Head of the European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) ad interim\n(2012/437/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP of 25 November 2005 on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 10(1) of Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of the EU BAM Rafah mission, including in particular the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nOn 3 July 2012, by Decision 2012/382/CFSP (2), the PSC, on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), appointed Mr Davide PALMIGIANI Head of the EU BAM Rafah mission, ad interim, for the period from 1 July 2012 to 31 July 2012.\n(3)\nThe HR has proposed that the mandate of Mr Davide PALMIGIANI as Head of the EU BAM Rafah mission, ad interim, be extended for a further period of two months, from 1 August 2012 to 30 September 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Mr Davide PALMIGIANI as Head of the European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah), ad interim, is hereby extended until 30 September 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 August 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["57", "6", "58", "14", "99", "55", "49", "96", "52", "95", "64", "47", "25", "2", "62", "3", "16", "39", "60", "74", "22", "35", "84", "48", "17", "51", "50", "28", "8", "86", "No Label", "1", "4", "5", "7"], "gold": ["1", "4", "5", "7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 86/2012\nof 1 February 2012\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance lasalocid\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit (\u2027MRL\u2027) for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nLasalocid is currently included in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as an allowed substance for poultry species, applicable to muscle, skin and fat, liver, kidney and eggs.\n(4)\nAn application for the extension of the existing entry to include bovine species has been submitted to the European Medicines Agency.\n(5)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use has recommended the extension of that entry to cover bovine species, applicable to muscle, fat, liver and kidney, excluding animals producing milk for human consumption.\n(6)\nThe entry for lasalocid in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to include bovine species.\n(7)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period of time for the stakeholders concerned to take measures that may be required to comply with the newly set MRL.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 2 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 February 2012.", "references": ["79", "19", "54", "87", "77", "83", "93", "39", "94", "96", "89", "48", "27", "51", "42", "64", "6", "3", "98", "67", "40", "24", "28", "85", "80", "4", "84", "14", "32", "68", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65", "66", "69", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65", "66", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 721/2010\nof 11 August 2010\ninitiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of countervailing measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 598/2009 on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America by imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada and Singapore, whether declared as originating in Canada and Singapore or not and by imports of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel originating in the United States of America, and making such imports subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Articles 23(4), 24(3) and 24(5) thereof,\nAfter having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. REQUEST\nThe European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) has received a request pursuant to Article 23(4) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the countervailing measures imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America.\nThe request was lodged on 30 June 2010 by the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) on behalf of the Union producers of biodiesel.\nB. PRODUCT\nThe product concerned by the possible circumvention is fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, commonly known as \u2018biodiesel\u2019, in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, currently falling within CN codes ex 1516 20 98, ex 1518 00 91, ex 1518 00 99, ex 2710 19 41, 3824 90 91, ex 3824 90 97, and originating in the United States of America (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\nThe product under investigation is fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, commonly known as \u2018biodiesel\u2019, in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, consigned from Canada and Singapore and biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, originating in the United states of America (\u2018the product under investigation\u2019), currently falling within the same CN codes as the product concerned with the exception of CN code 3824 90 91 for which the investigation is limited to products consigned from Canada and Singapore.\nC. EXISTING MEASURES\nThe measures currently in force and possibly being circumvented are countervailing measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 598/2009 (2).\nD. GROUNDS\nThe request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the countervailing measures on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America are being circumvented by means of the transhipment of biodiesel via Canada and Singapore and by exports of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel.\nThe evidence submitted is as follows:\nThe request shows that a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the United States of America, Canada and Singapore to the Union has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned, and that there is insufficient due cause or justification other than the imposition of the duty for such a change.\nThis change in the pattern of trade appears to stem from the transhipment of biodiesel originating in the United States of America via Canada and Singapore.\nIt is also submitted that following the imposition of the measures, exports of biodiesel in blends containing 20 % or less of biodiesel from the United States of America begun to arrive into the Union, allegedly taking advantage of the biodiesel content threshold set in the description of the product concerned.\nFurthermore, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the remedial effects of the existing countervailing measures on the product concerned are being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. Significant volumes of imports of biodiesel from Canada and Singapore and of biodiesel in blends containing 20 % or less of biodiesel, appear to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, there is sufficient evidence that this increased volume of imports is made at prices well below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures.\nFinally, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the prices of the product under investigation continue to be subsidised as previously established.\nShould circumvention practices covered by Article 23 of the basic Regulation, other than the practices described above, be identified in the course of the investigation, the investigation may also cover these practices.\nE. PROCEDURE\nIn the light of the above, the Commission has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 23 of the basic Regulation and to make imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada and Singapore, whether declared as originating in Canada and Singapore or not, as well as imports from the United States of America of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, subject to registration, in accordance with Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(a) Questionnaires\nIn order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the exporters/producers and to the associations of exporters/producers in Canada and Singapore, to the exporters/producers and to the associations of exporters/producers in the United States of America, to the known importers and to the known associations of importers in the Union and to the authorities of the United States of America, Canada and Singapore. Information, as appropriate, may also be sought from the Union industry.\nIn any event, all interested parties should contact the Commission forthwith, but not later than the time limit set in Article 3 of this Regulation in order to find out whether they are listed in the request and request a questionnaire within the time limit set in Article 3(1) of this Regulation, given that the time limit set in Article 3(2) of this Regulation applies to all interested parties.\nThe authorities of the United States of America and Canada and Singapore will be notified of the initiation of the investigation.\n(b) Collection of information and holding of hearings\nAll interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\n(c) Exemption of registration of imports or measures\nIn accordance with Article 23(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation may be exempted from registration or measures if the importation does not constitute circumvention.\nSince the possible circumvention takes place outside the Union, exemptions may be granted, in accordance with Article 23(5) of the basic Regulation, to producers of the product under investigation that can show that they are not related (3) to any producer subject to the measures (4) and that are found not to be engaged in circumvention practices as defined in Article 23(3) of the basic Regulation. Producers wishing to obtain an exemption should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the time limit indicated in Article 3(3) of this Regulation.\nF. REGISTRATION\nPursuant to Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, countervailing duties of an appropriate amount can be levied retroactively from the date of registration of such imports consigned from Canada and Singapore as well as imports from the United States of America of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin.\nIn order that the registration is sufficiently effective in view of an eventual retroactive levying of a countervailing duty, the declarant should indicate on the customs declaration the proportion in the blend, by weight, of the total content of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin (biodiesel content).\nG. TIME LIMITS\nIn the interest of sound administration, time limits should be stated within which:\n-\ninterested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,\n-\nproducers in Canada Singapore and the United States of America may request exemption from registration of imports or measures,\n-\ninterested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.\nAttention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the time limits mentioned in Article 3 of this Regulation.\nH. NON-COOPERATION\nIn cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.\nWhere it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on facts available in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.\nI. SCHEDULE OF THE INVESTIGATION\nThe investigation will be concluded, according to Article 23(4) of the basic Regulation, within nine months of the date of the publication of this regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nJ. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\nIt is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5).\nK. HEARING OFFICER\nIt is also noted that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of Directorate-General for Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views. For further information and contact details, interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages on the website of the Directorate-General for Trade (http://ec.europa.eu/trade).\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAn investigation is hereby initiated pursuant to Article 23(4) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 in order to determine:\n(a)\nif imports into the Union of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, commonly known as \u2018biodiesel\u2019, in pure form or in a blend containing by weight more than 20 % of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, consigned from Canada and Singapore, whether declared as originating in Canada and Singapore or not, and currently falling within CN codes ex 1516 20 98 (TARIC code 1516209821), ex 1518 00 91 (TARIC code 1518009121), ex 1518 00 99 (TARIC code 1518009921), ex 2710 19 41 (TARIC code 2710194121), ex 3824 90 91 (TARIC code 3824909110) and ex 3824 90 97 (TARIC code 3824909701) are circumventing the measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 598/2009; and\n(b)\nif imports into the Union of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, originating in the United States of America, and currently falling within CN codes ex 1516 20 98 (TARIC code 1516209830), ex 1518 00 91 (TARIC code 1518009130), ex 1518 00 99 (TARIC code 1518009930), ex 2710 19 41 (TARIC code 2710194130) and ex 3824 90 97 (TARIC code 3824909704) are circumventing the measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 598/2009.\nArticle 2\nThe Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 23(4) and Article 24(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union identified in Article 1 of this Regulation.\nThe declarant shall indicate on the customs declaration the proportion in the blend, by weight, of the total content of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoil obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin (biodiesel content).\nRegistration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThe Commission, by Regulation, may direct Customs authorities to cease registration in respect of imports into the Union of products manufactured by producers having applied for an exemption of registration and having been found to fulfil the conditions for an exemption to be granted.\nArticle 3\n1. Questionnaires should be requested from the Commission within 15 days from publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. Interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 37 days from the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.\n3. Producers in Canada, Singapore and the United States of America requesting exemption from registration of imports or measures should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the same 37-day time limit.\n4. Interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 37-day time limit.\n5. Any information, any request for a hearing or for a questionnaire as well as any request for exemption from registration of imports or measures must be made in writing (not in electronic format, unless otherwise specified) and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers of the interested party. All written submissions, including the information requested in this Regulation, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labelled as \u2018Limited\u2019 (6) and, in accordance with Article 29(2) of the basic Regulation, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labelled \u2018For inspection by interested parties\u2019.\nCommission address for correspondence:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N-105 4/92\n1049 Bruxelles/Brussel\nBELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb\nFax +32 22956505\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["11", "98", "40", "64", "19", "80", "4", "78", "9", "36", "81", "69", "67", "66", "5", "76", "26", "59", "79", "55", "7", "32", "82", "20", "35", "48", "50", "86", "87", "73", "No Label", "8", "21", "22", "23", "93", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "21", "22", "23", "93", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 354/2010\nof 23 April 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2010.", "references": ["46", "79", "22", "75", "26", "15", "32", "13", "38", "4", "81", "82", "2", "16", "28", "47", "30", "21", "42", "69", "60", "5", "64", "34", "66", "27", "77", "70", "0", "91", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 May 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of Chromium Picolinate as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 3586)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(2011/320/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 6 April 2009 the company Cantox Health Sciences International, on behalf of Nutrition 21, made a request to the competent authorities of Ireland to place Chromium Picolinate on the market as a novel food ingredient.\n(2)\nOn 24 April 2009 the competent food assessment body of Ireland issued its initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that an additional assessment was required.\n(3)\nThe Commission informed all Member States about the request on 30 April 2009. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was requested to carry out the assessment on 12 August 2009.\n(4)\nOn 10 November 2010 following a request from the Commission, EFSA adopted an opinion (2) on the safety of Chromium Picolinate as a source of chromium added for nutritional purposes to foods for the general population and to foods for particular nutritional uses. In the opinion EFSA concluded that Chromium Picolinate is not of safety concern provided the amount of total chromium does not exceed 250 \u03bcg per day, the value established by the World Health Organisation for supplemental intake of chromium that should not be exceeded.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 953/2009 of 13 October 2009 on substances that may be added for specific nutritional purposes in foods for particular nutritional uses (3) and/or Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (4) lay down specific provisions for the use of vitamins, minerals and other substances in food. The use of Chromium Picolinate should be authorised without prejudice to the requirements of this legislation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nChromium Picolinate as a source of chromium as specified in the Annex may be placed on the market in the Union as a novel food ingredient to be used in food without prejudice to the specific provisions of Regulation (EC) No 953/2009 and/or Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006.\nArticle 2\nThe designation of the novel food ingredient authorised by this Decision on the labelling of the foodstuff containing it shall be \u2018Chromium Picolinate\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Nutrition 21, Inc., 4 Manhattanville Road, Purchase, New York 10577, USA.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2011.", "references": ["93", "12", "33", "97", "37", "85", "57", "44", "14", "4", "86", "59", "17", "36", "28", "56", "8", "76", "73", "96", "43", "60", "61", "29", "10", "77", "31", "53", "79", "58", "No Label", "25", "38", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 July 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the Administrative Committee of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe regarding the draft Regulation on Lane Departure Warning Systems and the draft Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/469/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114, in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 97/836/EC (1) the Community acceded to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (\u2018UNECE\u2019) 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 (\u2018Revised 1958 Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nThe harmonised requirements of the draft UNECE Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Lane Departure Warning System (2) and the draft UNECE Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (3) (\u2018UNECE draft Regulations\u2019) are intended to remove technical barriers to the trade in motor vehicles between the Contracting Parties to the Revised 1958 Agreement and to ensure that such vehicles offer a high level of safety and protection.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (4), mandates the installation of lane departure warning systems and advanced emergency braking systems on certain motor vehicles of categories M2, N2, M3 and N3.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to establish the position to be adopted on the Union\u2019s behalf in the Administrative Committee of the Revised 1958 Agreement concerning the adoption of the UNECE draft Regulations,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the Administrative Committee of the Revised 1958 Agreement shall be to vote in favour of the draft UNECE Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Lane Departure Warning System, as contained in documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/78, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/89 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/91.\nArticle 2\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the Administrative Committee of the Revised 1958 Agreement shall be to vote in favour of the draft UNECE Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems, as contained in documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 together with their amendments.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["38", "0", "78", "90", "50", "92", "71", "87", "13", "49", "2", "70", "21", "1", "9", "57", "44", "45", "33", "68", "17", "75", "4", "81", "82", "36", "74", "22", "6", "67", "No Label", "54", "76", "99"], "gold": ["54", "76", "99"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1137/2010\nof 7 December 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 147/2003 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Somalia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/231/CFSP of 26 April 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Somalia (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 147/2003 (2) imposes a general ban on the provision of technical advice, assistance, training, financing or financial assistance related to military activities, to any person, entity or body in Somalia.\n(2)\nBy paragraph 7 of Resolution 1907 (2009), the UN Security Council calls upon Member States to inspect all cargo going to or coming from Somalia, where they believe that the cargo contains items prohibited either by paragraphs 5 and 6 of that Resolution or the general and complete arms embargo to Somalia, for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions.\n(3)\nDecision 2010/231/CFSP provides for the inspection of certain cargoes to and from Somalia and, in the case of aircraft and vessels, for the supply of additional pre-arrival and pre-departure information in respect of goods brought into or out of the Union. That information must be provided in accordance with the provisions on entry and exit summary declarations of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(4)\nThis measure falls within the scope of the Treaty and, therefore, notably with a view to ensuring its uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, Union legislation is necessary in order to implement it.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 147/2003 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe following Article is inserted in Regulation (EC) No 147/2003:\n\u2018Article 3a\n1. In order to ensure the strict implementation of Articles 1 and 3 of Council Decision 2010/231/CFSP of 26 April 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Somalia (4), all goods brought into or leaving the customs territory of the Union to and from Somalia shall be made subject to pre-arrival or pre-departure information to be submitted to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.\n2. The rules governing the obligation to provide pre-arrival or pre-departure information, in particular regarding the person who provides that information, the time-limits to be respected and the data required, shall be as determined in the relevant provisions concerning entry and exit summary declarations as well as customs declarations in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (5) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (6).\n3. Furthermore, the person who provides the information referred to in paragraph 2, shall declare whether the goods are covered by the Common Military List of the European Union (7) and, if their export is subject to an exemption, specify the particulars of the export licence granted.\n4. Until 31 December 2010 the entry and exit summary declarations and the required additional elements as referred to in this Article may be submitted in written form using commercial, port or transport documentation, provided that it contains the necessary particulars.\n5. As from 1 January 2011 the required additional elements, as referred to in paragraph 3, shall be submitted either in written form or using a customs declaration as appropriate.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2010.", "references": ["2", "99", "90", "84", "86", "67", "23", "45", "4", "53", "64", "75", "1", "51", "72", "28", "62", "22", "35", "65", "24", "46", "59", "19", "10", "57", "55", "68", "66", "77", "No Label", "3", "6", "94"], "gold": ["3", "6", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 750/2011\nof 29 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2011.", "references": ["59", "47", "2", "79", "25", "24", "64", "57", "92", "84", "97", "65", "88", "73", "41", "43", "3", "38", "94", "77", "81", "50", "36", "32", "46", "15", "42", "26", "53", "0", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 July 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia on the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction\n(2011/56/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 168(5), in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1920/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (1) provides, in Article 21 thereof, that the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction shall be open to the participation of any third country that shares the interests of the Union and its Member States in the Centre\u2019s objectives and work.\n(2)\nOn 11 July 2006 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the Republic of Croatia for an Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia on the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019). The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia on the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion (2).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["27", "4", "81", "86", "46", "60", "0", "44", "36", "63", "72", "10", "83", "64", "5", "53", "52", "94", "92", "13", "99", "76", "61", "19", "14", "54", "2", "25", "69", "32", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "31", "41", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "31", "41", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 799/2010\nof 10 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 September 2010.", "references": ["98", "90", "47", "19", "93", "37", "64", "70", "26", "89", "97", "81", "74", "91", "42", "31", "21", "5", "62", "15", "20", "32", "99", "95", "44", "34", "8", "94", "45", "7", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 326/2010\nof 21 April 2010\namending Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 170 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (2) establishes an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds on the basis of the Combined Nomenclature.\n(2)\nThe refund nomenclature provides for cheeses to be eligible for an export refund if they meet minimum requirements as regards milk dry matter and milk fat. A particular type of cheese produced in some new Member States meets those necessary requirements but does not benefit from a refund since it is not covered by the present classification system of the export refund nomenclature. Given the importance of the particular cheese for the dairy industry, it is appropriate to add the product codes enabling that cheese to be classified under the export refund nomenclature.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (3) has repealed Regulation (EC) No 1282/2006 of 17 august 2006 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (4). The references made in footnotes 4 and 14 of Sector 9 of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 should therefore be updated.\n(4)\nRegulation (EEC) No 3846/87 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 April 2010.", "references": ["88", "7", "98", "78", "93", "91", "3", "68", "59", "67", "96", "17", "1", "82", "55", "86", "20", "74", "15", "51", "71", "83", "48", "53", "46", "77", "11", "85", "72", "32", "No Label", "23", "62"], "gold": ["23", "62"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 July 2012\non the State aid no SA.33114 (2012/C) (ex. 2011/NN) - Poland Alleged aid to Crist Shipyard\n(notified under document C(2012) 5057)\n(Only the Polish version is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2013/9/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1),\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 6 November 2008, the Commission adopted two recovery decisions (2) concerning unlawful State aid to the shipyards in Gdynia and Szczecin (hereinafter the \u201cGdynia Shipyard\u201d and the \u201cSzczecin Shipyard\u201d) allowing a special sales procedure. The Polish authorities were given the opportunity to sell the yards' assets in bundles in open, transparent, unconditional and non-discriminatory tenders.\n(2)\nThe Commission, while following up the recovery process, requested clarifications about the tender procedures mentioned above. Following press reports that the State-owned Industrial Development Agency (hereinafter \"IDA\") may have granted in September 2010 a loan (hereinafter \"the measure\", to Crist S.A. (hereinafter \"Crist\" or \"the company\") for the purchase of certain assets of the Gdynia Shipyard, the Commission requested clarifications on this issue at a meeting with the Polish authorities on 22 October 2010. The Polish authorities explained their position and undertook to submit all necessary information and corroborating documents regarding the transaction. The information was submitted on 25 November 2010 and on 5 December 2011.\n(3)\nThe Commission met with the Polish authorities on 6 December 2011.\n(4)\nA series of exchanges took place between Vice-President Almunia and the Polish Minister of Treasury, Mr Grad, culminating in a letter from Mr Grad dated 25 October 2011 and informing the Commission that the end of the liquidation procedure was planned for the end of 2011 for both the Gdynia Shipyard and the Szczecin Shipyard.\n(5)\nBy letter dated 25 January 2012, the Commission informed Poland that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter \"TFEU\") in respect of the measure at stake (hereinafter \u201cthe opening decision\u201d).\n(6)\nThe opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure.\n(7)\nPoland submitted its comments on 27 February 2012. No comments from third parties were received. Further information was provided by Poland on 4 and 5 June 2012.\nII. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE\n1. Description of the beneficiary\n(8)\nAccording to the Polish authorities, Crist, a private company located in Gda\u0144sk, was established in 1990 by its two current shareholders. It has about 150 employees and about 500 self-employed contractors providing services to the company. The main fields of Crist's activities are shipbuilding, ship repair and hydro-technical installations. In the period between 2004 and 2008, the company worked yearly on about 20 ships and other constructions. The company's customers are mainly ship owners from Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and Poland).\n(9)\nAccording to the Polish authorities, the company is active mainly in the three following market segments:\n-\nhydro-engineering construction market: steel constructions used as locks, barrages, caissons and other steel constructions for the construction of marine wharves and harbour jetties,\n-\nrenewable energy market: arrangements and/or elements used in the construction of marine wind power farms,\n-\noffshore market: survey, exploration and processing installations operating off shore used to support drilling platforms and construction modules of the steel drilling platforms.\n(10)\nThe structure of Crist\u2019s revenues broken down by market segment is illustrated in table 1 below. The Polish authorities informed the Commission that this revenue structure results from the implementation of the business plan according to which the focus of activities is to shift from traditional shipbuilding to the marine sector of renewable energy and hydro-engineering.\nTable 1\nCrist revenue structure by segment\nRevenue category\n2009\n2010 (4)\n2011\nhydro-engineering\n[17-23] (5) %\n[4-6] %\n[3-5] %\nrenewable energy\n[23-28] %\n[75-80] %\n[67-74] %\noffshore\n[21-26] %\n[6-8] %\n[6-8] %\nother (shipbuilding)\n[29-34] %\n[9-12] %\n[17-20] %\n(11)\nAccording to the Polish authorities, Crist increased its revenues by a multiple of 10 over the period 2002-2009, reaching PLN 383 million in 2009 (EUR 95,75 million (6). The revenue decreased in 2010 to PLN 236 million (EUR 59 million) but reached PLN 630 million (EUR 157,5 million) in 2011. The main financial results of Crist covering the period 2007-2009, that is prior the granting of the loan by IDA, and the period 2010-2011, that is after the granting of the loan, are summarised in table 2.\nTable 2\nMain financial results of Crist 2007-2011 (in million PLN)\n2007\n2008\n2009\n2010\n2011\nSales revenue\n323,41\n361,06\n383,77\n236,48\n630,29\nSales profit\n19,10\n20,80\n27,10\n5,5\n53,1\nOperating profit\n20,80\n19,50\n25,80\n15,37\n49,33\nNet profit\n22,20\n20,10\n15,50\n12,62\n31,66\nDepreciation\n2,40\n3,30\n4,20\n5,58\n10,75\nFinancial surplus\n24,60\n23,40\n19,70\n18,20\n42,41\n(12)\nAccording to the Polish authorities, in 2011, the company had credits and exposure limits of about PLN [\u2026]* million (EUR [\u2026]million), including the IDA loan (see Section 3 \"Description of the measure\") and financial support in various forms granted by four private banks. The company is currently engaged in the execution of 10 contracts with an aggregate value of about PLN [\u2026] million (EUR [\u2026]million) and is negotiating further contracts worth in total approximately PLN [\u2026] million (EUR [\u2026] million).\n2. Description of the Programme\n(13)\nOn 27 May 2010, Crist applied for the IDA loan (see Section 3 \"Description of the measure\") under the \"Programme of support by IDA of initiatives for the stimulation of the Polish economy\" (hereinafter \"the Programme\") in the programme subcategory of \"Support for undertakings in the most vulnerable regions affected by the economic crisis\".\n(14)\nThe companies eligible for the Programme are medium and large enterprises implementing projects which aim at stimulating demand in the Polish economy and are active in the most vulnerable districts affected by the economic crisis or by severe floods. Such districts are clearly defined by the Programme. The district of Gda\u0144sk is one of the vulnerable districts as defined by the Programme, while the district of Gdynia is not.\n(15)\nAccording to the Programme, IDA will participate in projects and ventures to stimulate economic demand and economic development. IDA should benefit from a reasonable return, i.e. participation should be on market terms. The maximum intensity of the financing provided by IDA cannot exceed 80 % of the net value of the planned investment.\n(16)\nAccording to the Polish authorities, IDA should not support projects that could contain elements of State aid, with the exception of projects related to national security and defence in line with Article 346 TFEU (7).\n(17)\nThe Programme constitutes a part of IDA\u2019s commercial activity aimed at profit making, and applies, according to the Polish authorities, standards relevant on the market for commercial financing services for enterprises. As explained by Poland, such activity is separate from the granting of State aid by IDA to large enterprises in difficulty.\n3. Description of the measure\n(18)\nThe measure under investigation is a loan of PLN 150 million (EUR 33,4 million) granted by IDA to Crist on 14 September 2010 (hereinafter \"the IDA loan\") for the purchase of an asset bundle including a dry dock, so called Crist Shipyard Area 2. According to the Polish authorities, at the time of granting, the loan represented less than [\u2026] % of the total amount of the company's credits and exposure limits.\n(19)\nPursuant to the Programme, the interest rate for the IDA loan should amount to the applicable base rate, increased by a net interest margin of 0,9 - 4 % per annum (hereinafter \"the interest margin\") according to the risk of the financing and the quality of the collateral provided by the beneficiary, as presented in table 3.\nTable 3\nInterest margin applicable to the measure according to the Programme\nfinancial risk\nstrong collateral\nmoderate collateral\nweak collateral\nlow\n0,9 %\n1,0 - 1,4 %\n1,5 - 1,8 %\nmoderate\n1,0 - 1,4 %\n1,5 - 1,8 %\n1,9 % - 3,3 %\nhigh\n1,5 - 1,8 %\n1,9 % - 3,3 %\n3,4 % - 4,0 %\n(20)\nThe interest margin for the IDA loan to Crist was set at 1,8 %. The overall interest rate of the loan received by Crist was 6,81 % (8). The interest rate was set at the level of the base rate defined as the 3-month WIBOR (9) (equal to 3,81 % when the loan was granted) plus 1,2 % to which an interest margin of 1,8 % was added. The interest margin was set by IDA at 1,8 % as both the financial risk of this transaction and the collateral were estimated as moderate, which, as shown in table 3, should result in a margin of between 1,5 % and 1,8 %. The maturity of the IDA loan is on 31 December 2015, i.e. a duration of approximately 5 years and 3 months since the measure was granted on 14 September 2010.\n(21)\nThe collateral for the IDA loan consists of:\n-\na registered pledge over 100 % of Crist shares,\n-\nmortgage on real estate (part of Shipyard Area 2),\n-\na registered pledge on a number of movables forming part of Shipyard Area 2,\n-\na blank bill signed by Crist,\n-\na statement by Crist on its voluntary submission to execution and\n-\nstatements of each shareholder of Crist on their voluntary submission to execution,\n(22)\nAccording to the Programme, the collateral must correspond to at least 150 % of the funding provided by IDA.\n(23)\nThe third tendering round for the sale of the Gdynia Shipyard's assets took place on 15 September 2010. According to the press, Crist was, as a result of the financing received from IDA, able to outbid another competitor, Patia (a company registered in Cyprus, connected with the Ukrainian company ISD - the owner of the Gda\u0144sk Shipyard). Crist bid PLN 175 million (EUR 43,75 million) to purchase the asset bundle on offer (hereinafter referred to as the \"dry dock\"). The floor price of the dry dock had been set at PLN 96,7 million (EUR 24,17 million).\nIII. REASONS FOR OPENING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(24)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission expressed its doubts as to whether Crist would have been able to obtain the necessary financing on similar terms on the market on the basis of the information available to IDA at the moment of the decision granting the loan.\n(25)\nAccording to the preliminary analysis of the measure on the basis of the information available to the Commission the IDA loan might have conferred an advantage on Crist through state resources. The Commission expressed its concerns as to: (i) the rate at which the credit was granted, (ii) the collateral that IDA accepted, (iii) the benchmark used by IDA, (iv) the business plan submitted by Crist and (v) a possible preferential treatment of Crist by IDA.\n(26)\nAs regards the rate, the Commission was not in a position to determine whether the interest rate of the IDA loan (assumed to be 7,02 % at the time of the opening decision) was in line with the market economy investor principle as the Polish authorities had not provided evidence on the company's rating and the level of collateral.\n(27)\nWith regard to the collateral, the underlying contract between IDA and Crist for the IDA loan and the expert evaluations of Crist's shares and of the dry dock given as collateral for the loan were not provided to the Commission. The Commission therefore considered that Poland had not demonstrated prima facie that the expert evaluations were done in a conservative manner and that a private investor would have accepted such collateral.\n(28)\nIn relation to the benchmark, the Commission had doubts as to whether the [\u2026] Bank loan could be used as a benchmark to assess whether the IDA loan complies with the private market investor principle. The Commission considered that the [\u2026] Bank loan was different from the IDA loan as: (i) it refinanced the transaction which Crist had initially financed from its own funds, (ii) the amount of the [\u2026] Bank loan was significantly lower, and (iii) the IDA loan entailed a higher risk compared to the [\u2026] Bank loan since its amount exceeded Crist's own funds and its duration was substantially longer (five years and three months compared to three years and eight months).\n(29)\nOn the business plan, the Commission noted that at the time the loan was granted, despite the company's overall sound financial condition, Crist was facing a three year trend of decreasing net results. Given the market risks involved, possible market overcapacity, and the fact that the financial crisis was far from over when the measure was taken the Commission had doubts as to whether a private investor would have provided the financing in question.\n(30)\nFinally, without prejudice to the question of whether the Programme as such constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Commission raised doubts as to whether Crist was eligible for the support provided by IDA pursuant to the Programme as the loan was granted for an investment in Gdynia, which not being a vulnerable district could not benefit from the Programme. The Commission also queried whether the intensity of IDA financing to Crist complied with the maximum intensity threshold defined by the Programme (see recital 15). The IDA loan amounts to PLN 150 million (EUR 37,5 million). Crist purchased the dry dock for a price of PLN 175 million (EUR 43,75 million). On the basis of those figures, the aid intensity of the IDA loan was 86 %, i.e. above the limit set out in the Programme. The Commission therefore considered that Crist might have received preferential treatment by being granted the IDA loan under the Programme.\n(31)\nIn light of the above, the Commission had doubts as to whether a private investor would have provided Crist with the relevant financing and decided to open the formal investigation procedure.\nIV. COMMENTS FROM POLAND\n(32)\nThe Polish authorities submitted that a comprehensive assessment of the economic and financial situation of the company, of its business plan and of possible market references preceded the decision to grant the loan to Crist and that it follows from the unambiguous results of this analysis that the loan in question corresponds to normal market conditions, understood as the conditions under which a private market operator would agree to finance a particular investment. Therefore, according to Poland, the IDA loan to Crist does not constitute Sate aid.\n1. The interest rate\n(33)\nPoland explained that the granting of the IDA loan was preceded by a three stage assessment of the company\u2019s economic and financial situation carried out according to standards relevant on the market of commercial financial services offered for enterprises. It included, at the first stage, an initial credit scoring by an independent external adviser, on the basis of which the company was marked for the purposes of qualifying for the next stage, i.e. a more detailed assessment. During the second stage, the last three accounting years were assessed together with the forecasted results, ratio analysis, quantitative measures such as liquidity ratio, asset turnover, capital structure, profitability and development as well as qualitative measures such as the quality of management, level of dependence on the market and quality of the proposed collaterals. At the last stage, the level of margin was set by applying a matrix taking into account the risks and the proposed level of collaterals established as a result of the expert analysis.\n(34)\nBy referring to the dynamics of Crist\u2019s results between 2006 and 2009 (see table 4) Poland stressed that the economic and financial situation of the company at the moment of applying for the loan, as established by the expert analysis, was good.\nTable 4\nDynamics of Crist results, 2006-2009 (in million PLN)\n2006\n2007\nDynamics\n2008\nDynamics\n2009\nDynamics\nProfit on sales\n21,20\n19,10\n90,09 %\n20,8\n108,90 %\n27,10\n130,29 %\nOperating profit\n20,90\n20,80\n99,52 %\n19,50\n93,75 %\n25,80\n132,31 %\nNet profit\n16,50\n22,20\n134,55 %\n20,10\n90,54 %\n15,50\n77,11 %\nDepreciation\n1,97\n2,40\n121,83 %\n3,30\n137,50 %\n4,20\n127,27 %\nFinancial surplus\n18,47\n24,60\n133,19 %\n23,40\n95,12 %\n19,70\n84,19 %\nRevenues from sales\n228,75\n323,41\n141,38 %\n361,06\n111,64 %\n383,77\n106,29 %\n(35)\nAs regards the decrease in the net financial result in 2008 and 2009, Poland explained that it was caused by a change in the business model, that is accepting contracts of a higher value and providing higher profitability but which are characterised by a long completion period reaching up to 12-15 months. This means that the highest financial gains come at the completion of the product and its transfer to the contractor.\n(36)\nThe assessment of the business plan presented by Crist was carried out by IDA on several levels. Poland explained that the plan was developed in cooperation with [\u2026], the analysis of it was made by [\u2026] (\"[\u2026]\") and a detailed examination of the document, including the assumptions and expected effects was made by IDA experts. The Polish authorities observed that, at each stage, the opinion on the document was positive and submitted that its accuracy has been confirmed by the real results achieved by Crist, which are in line with the forecast figures or even exceed them. Poland further explained that the favourable financial forecasts presented by Crist were credible and confirmed by the concluded contracts.\n(37)\nAs regards the profitability of the investment, Poland submitted a detailed explanation of the calculated ratios based on the cash flow, NPV (Net Present Value) ratio and IRR (Internal Rate of Return) ratio, which all proved high. The NPV value of the project covering purchase of the dry dock for the price of PLN 150 million was PLN [\u2026] million and the internal rate of return (IRR) was [\u2026] %. Poland added that although in the end the dry dock was purchased for PLN 175 million, the financial ratios are still very high for that transaction (NPV of PLN [\u2026] million and IRR of [\u2026] %).\n(38)\nOn the basis of the above-mentioned analysis IDA set the company\u2019s rating according to its three-level internal system of assessment. Crist was assessed as representing an average credit risk, good financial reliability and sufficient capability to repay liabilities in a longer period of time, and also an increased resistance to unfavourable economic conditions lasting for a longer period. Poland submitted that the result of the method used by IDA is in line with the Commission\u2019s Communication on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (10) (\u201cthe Reference Rate Communication\u201d). The data available to IDA was assessed to correspond to the rating category BBB (good), as defined by the rating agency EuroRating, but in order to err on the safe side Poland retained a BB rating for the purposes of checking the outcome of applying the Reference Rate Communication.\n(39)\nThe Polish authorities submitted that Crist had provided as collateral: a registered pledge over 100 % of Crist shares, mortgage on real estate (part of Shipyard Area 2), a registered pledge on a number of movables forming part of Shipyard Area 2, a blank bill signed by Crist, a statement by Crist on its voluntary submission to execution and statements of each shareholder of Crist on their voluntary submission to execution.\n(40)\nPoland submitted expert valuations of Crist\u2019s shares carried out by [\u2026] using two methods: the assets based valuation method (adjusted net assets method) dated 29 July 2010 and the income-based valuation method (discounted cash flow with an Adjusted Present Value approach) dated 1 August 2010. The results of these two valuations differed to a considerable degree. While the first method resulted in a value of PLN [\u2026]million, the second method showed almost PLN [\u2026]million. At the same time, in a separate document submitted by the Polish authorities, dated 3 August 2010, [\u2026] demonstrated that the adjusted net assets method was closer to the liquidation value of the company and did not reflect the real value of Crist (in particular the equity capital). [\u2026] concluded that PLN [\u2026]million should be taken as the real value.\n(41)\nAs regards the value of the second element of the collateral, i.e. the mortgage on the real estate, Poland provided an independent expert valuation of 4 March 2009 which estimated the market value of the asset bundle at PLN 169,5 million (or PLN 84,7 million in a forced sale). In addition, IDA requested a post-transaction independent expert valuation in January 2011, provided to the Commission, which set the value of the mortgaged real estate at PLN [\u2026] million.\n(42)\nIn response to the scepticism of the Commission as to whether the price paid by Crist in the third tendering round for the dry dock (PLN 175 million) can be taken as a proxy for the value of that collateral, Poland proposed to consider as a market value the counter offer of PLN 166 million which was made at the time by the other offering company - Patia.\n(43)\nFurthermore, according to Poland the collateral value is further strengthened by the varied nature of the collateral components (real property, moveable property and financial assets) and the fact that all elements constituting the collateral were free of any encumbrance prior to the granting of the loan.\n(44)\nThe Polish authorities summarised that, on the basis of the various valuations, the total value of collateral on the loan was situated somewhere between PLN [\u2026] million and PLN [\u2026] million (see table 5). For the purpose of its internal rating, IDA had assessed Crist\u2019s collateral to be moderate (see table 3). Referring to the Reference Rate Communication rules (see table 6), the Polish authorities submitted that the total value of the collateral, in line with the market value, is PLN [\u2026]million (11) and constitutes [\u2026] % of the loan granted. This level of collateral significantly exceeds the level of the amount of the loan and corresponds to the category of \u201chigh collateralisation\u201d, as defined in the Reference Rate Communication, since the expected loss resulting from default in the loan repayment (LGD) equals 0.\nTable 5\nThe values of the collaterals depending on the adopted methods of valuation\nCollateral object and method of valuation\nCrist shares\nAssets-based valuation method\n(Adjusted Net Assets Method)\nCrist shares\nIncome-based valuation method\n(Adjusted present Value)\nValue (PLN)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nCollateral object and method of valuation\nShipyard Area 2\n169 471 000\nTOTAL:\nTOTAL:\nMarket value method (income based)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nShipyard Area 2\n84 735 500\nTOTAL:\nTOTAL:\nForced value sales\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nShipyard Area 2\n180 439 000\nTOTAL:\nTOTAL:\nMarket value method (income based)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nShipyard Area 2\n166 000 000\nTOTAL:\nTOTAL:\nValue of the last counter-offer\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(45)\nThe Polish authorities also provided a [\u2026] report that was prepared in May 2012, i.e. after the transaction took place. It contains inter alia a verification of the [\u2026] valuations available to IDA at the time of the transaction. Poland highlights the criticism of the net asset valuation: [\u2026] did not include any valuation of intangible assets such as among others contract backlog, customer relationships and workforce, which could have significant values and would increase the valuation results. [\u2026] concludes that that valuation significantly underestimates the value of Crist equity. In relation to the income-based valuation method, Poland observes that [\u2026] arrives at similar values to those of [\u2026] (i.e. ca. PLN [\u2026] million).\n(46)\nFor the purposes of granting the loan, IDA assessed both the credit risk of the company and the level of collateral provided as moderate. As a consequence the loan was granted by IDA at an interest rate of 6,81 %, calculated as the sum of the base rate (three month WIBOR (3,81 %) plus 1,2 %) and the interest margin as it resulted from the matrix re-produced in table 3, i.e. 1,8 %.\n(47)\nIn addition to the calculations by IDA, based on its internal rules, Poland submitted further clarifications using the method for establishing a proxy set out in the Reference Rate Communication (see table 6).\nTable 6\nLoan margins in basis points according to the Reference Rate Communication\nCollateralisation\nRating category\nHigh\nNormal\nLow\nStrong (AAA-A)\n60\n75\n100\nGood (BBB)\n75\n100\n220\nSatisfactory (BB)\n100\n220\n400\nWeak (B)\n220\n400\n650\nBad/Financial difficulties (CCC and below)\n400\n650\n1 000\n(48)\nPoland submitted that taking into account the reference rate published by the Commission for Poland (4,49 %), Crist\u2019s rating category (BB), and the high level of collateral (see recital 44), the interest rate on the loan should not be lower than 5,49 %. Poland therefore stressed that the rate applied by IDA of 6,81 % is 132 basis points higher than the reference rate defined in the Reference Rate Communication, i.e. 5,49 %.\n(49)\nThe [\u2026] report provided by Poland contains a detailed estimate of Crist\u2019s credit rating at the time of the transaction based on two different expert approaches. The rating models were developed by [\u2026] based on scoring/rating models used by commercial banks. The report estimates Crist's rating to be within the (BB-B) range. [\u2026] nevertheless finds the interest rate to be sufficient in view of the high value of collaterals, which assessed together indicate a high collateralisation.\n2. The benchmark\n(50)\nThe Polish authorities informed the Commission that the [\u2026] Bank loan was not the sole basis for setting the final level of the interest rate for Crist, as this was done primarily on the basis of an internal assessment system. Irrespective of the differences in the loans, Poland noted that both institutions, IDA and [\u2026] Bank, reached similar conclusions with respect to the interest rates.\n(51)\nAlso, as a general remark, Poland submitted that in view of the high value of the loan at stake (PLN 150 million) it is practically impossible to find an ideal benchmark on the Polish market for the loan granted to Crist. With reference to the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-296/97 Commission v. Alitalia, Poland argued that a possible gain by Crist should be assessed by reference to a similar and not an identical loan.\n(52)\nPoland submitted a comparison of both credits (see table 7 below) and recalled that both loans were granted in 2010, that the [\u2026] Bank interest rate was even lower (6,68 % compared to IDA\u2019s 6,81 %) and that the [\u2026] Bank decision bore a higher risk. Consequently, in the opinion of the Polish authorities that transaction constitutes a valuable point of reference.\nTable 7\nComparison of [\u2026] Bank and IDA loans to Crist\n[\u2026] Bank loan\nIDA loan\nAmount\nPLN [\u2026]\nPLN 150 000 000\nDate of granting\n18.2.2010\n14.9.2010\nCredit duration\n3 years 10 months\n5 years 3 months\nInterest rate\n6,62 %\n6,81 %\nValue of collateral\nPLN [\u2026]\nPLN [\u2026]\nDevelopment prospects (12)\nPLN [\u2026]\nPLN [\u2026]\nAdditional risks\nLack of certainty that the dry dock (Shipyard Area 2) will be purchased and the production line will be complete\nLoan granted for the purchase of the dry dock (Shipyard Area 2) being a completion of the production line\n(53)\nAs regards the credit risk, Poland noted that both [\u2026] Bank and IDA based their decisions on the same business plan, which foresaw the purchase of both Shipyard Area 1 and 2. Therefore the risk of the completion of the plant was higher before the first transaction took place (even if [\u2026] Bank only refinanced the transaction which Crist originally covered from its own resources). In fact, the IDA loan decision allowing the purchase of the Shipyard Area 2 ensured the completion of Crist's new business strategy in which the company refocuses its business activity from traditional shipbuilding to the offshore renewable energy sector. In addition, Poland pointed out that the granting of the [\u2026] Bank credit to Crist occurred before Crist signed a very lucrative contract with Beluga Hochtief with the highest transaction value in Crist's history (of EUR [\u2026]million) which further improved the company\u2019s creditworthiness at the time of IDA\u2019s loan decision.\n(54)\nOn the other hand, the Polish authorities underlined that at the moment of granting the loan there was additional information that IDA gave serious consideration. For instance, Poland pointed out that apart from IDA and [\u2026] Bank, Crist enjoyed positive and long-lasting relations with a number of other financial institutions providing finance for the company\u2019s activities (13). This demonstrated Crist\u2019s ability to raise finance on the capital market, at the time of the loan decision. To this end, Poland submitted a list of credit and guarantee limits in individual financial institutions held by Crist at the time of the transaction.\n(55)\nFinally, the Polish authorities drew the Commission\u2019s attention to the National Bank of Poland interest rate table of September 2010 containing a periodically published list of average interest rates for new loans for businesses in PLN. It follows from that table that for credits over PLN 4 million with an interest rate variability not exceeding 3 months (as in the case of Crist), the average interest rate equalled 5,4 %, i.e. lower than the rate IDA charged Crist.\n3. The Business Plan\n(56)\nThe Polish authorities provided the Commission with Crist's business plan (\"the business plan\"). Poland informed the Commission that prior to granting the loan to Crist, IDA had consulted the commercial partners of the company ([\u2026] and [\u2026]) as well as private banks, and received answers confirming the financial stability of Crist. The Polish authorities provided the Commission with these confirmation letters from private banks and also an analysis by [\u2026] of the implementation of the business strategy by Crist covering the period prior to IDA's decision to grant the loan.\n(57)\nThe business plan assumed that the net present value of the investment project would amount to PLN [\u2026] million (EUR [\u2026]million) and the internal rate of return would be [\u2026] %. These estimations took as an assumption that the company would pay PLN 150 million for the dry dock. In response to the observation of the Commission in the opening decision that in the end the actual price paid was PLN 175 million, Poland submitted an analysis by [\u2026]. It shows that the NPV and IRR of the investment amounts to PLN [\u2026]million and [\u2026] % respectively on the basis of knowledge available at the time of transaction. [\u2026] adds that with the current knowledge, the NPV and IRR correspond to PLN [\u2026]million and [\u2026] % respectively.\n(58)\nThe same report contains an overview of the market situation and the development prospects of Crist. The report notes that Crist changed its production profile from traditional shipbuilding to tailor-made vessels, platforms and construction elements at sea. This business strategy gives Crist a niche position from which to participate in planned offshore projects in the North Sea and which provides ample opportunities for dynamic growth. [\u2026] concludes that the company is operating in a sector with significant growth potential.\n(59)\nPoland submitted that as a result of the expert analysis of the business plan IDA concluded that: despite the economic crisis in progress since 2008 the company had recorded positive financial results for the last three years, the value of the signed and negotiated contracts indicated a quick development of the company, the financial forecasts were assessed positively and showed the company\u2019s ability to repay the loan.\n(60)\nFinally, the Polish authorities observed that, with a net profit of PLN 12,6 million (EUR 2,8 million) in 2010 and PLN 31,6 million (EUR 7,03 million) in 2011, the company generated a net result which exceeded [\u2026]times the figures foreseen in the business plan. Similarly, it was noted that the company\u2019s total balance sheet at the end of 2011 was higher than planned by around [\u2026] %.\n4. Preferential treatment of the company\n(61)\nAs regards the alleged preferential treatment of Crist by IDA, the Polish authorities explained first that the company was eligible for Programme funds as Crist's headquarters and two of its centres of business are located in Gda\u0144sk. The investment in Gdynia, which otherwise does not qualify for such funds, did not result in the company\u2019s reallocation of activity but rather in a geographical extension of Crist's activity.\n(62)\nWith regard to the level of funding, Poland reaffirmed that the level of financing of Crist\u2019s investment from the IDA fund did not exceed the 80 % cap foreseen in the Programme. Poland stated that the total outlay of the investment programme planned by the company was PLN 188,2 million and encompassed Crist\u2019s purchase of not only the dry dock (Shipyard Area 2) but also the hull assemble area (Shipyard Area 1). Poland explained that both investments together belong to the same production line which allowed Crist to target effectively the renewable energy and off-shore construction markets. Only the complete investment programme enabled Crist to change its business model from traditional shipbuilding to tailor-made vessels, platforms and construction elements for off-shore wind farms.\n(63)\nTherefore the intensity ratio of the whole investment of Crist (PLN 213,2 million (14) to the IDA loan (PLN 150 million) corresponds to 70 % and is well below the 80 % cap established by the Programme.\n(64)\nFinally, Poland claimed that the Programme from which the loan for Crist was financed was a commercial programme and not of an aid nature. Poland noted that IDA\u2019s decisions to finance certain projects are assessed on a commercial basis by experts having experience from the largest financial institutions in Poland.\nV. ASSESSMENT\n1. Existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU\n(65)\nUnder Article 107(1) TFEU, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\n(66)\nThe classification of a national measure as State aid presupposes that the following cumulative conditions are met: (1) the measure confers an advantage through State resources; (2) the advantage is selective; and (3) the measure distorts or threatens to distort competition and is capable of affecting trade between Member States.\n1.1. Existence of an advantage\n(67)\nIn order to determine whether the measure under investigation constitutes aid, it is necessary to establish whether Crist received an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions, that is conditions on which a private investor would provide financing to Crist\n(68)\nIn order to determine whether the measure under examination is compatible with the private investor test, the Commission assessed whether, on the basis of the information available to IDA at the time the decision was taken, a private creditor would have granted Crist a similar credit.\n(69)\nAs outlined in recital 33 and following, Poland informed the Commission that prior to the granting of the loan, Crist was subject to a detailed assessment of its economic and financial situation performed by IDA in cooperation with external experts, which led to the determination of Crist\u2019s rating. According to its internal system, IDA qualified Crist\u2019s rating as moderate, which, according to Poland, corresponds at least to the category BB (satisfactory) for the purposes of applying the Reference Rate Communication.\n(70)\nWith regard to the collateral, Poland submitted all expert valuations and provided detailed explanations concerning each of the elements constituting the loan\u2019s collateral (see recitals 39 to 45). On the basis of those valuations, which indicated that PLN [\u2026]million should be retained as the value of the pledge on the shares and an amount in excess of PLN [\u2026] million could be attributed to the mortgage over the dry dock, and bearing in mind the Programme condition that collateral should represent at least 150 % of the funding, the value of Crist\u2019s collateral was qualified by IDA as moderate, providing good cover for the credit risk. Poland nevertheless submitted that this constituted a prudent approach and that the independent expert collateral valuations indicate the high value of the collateral.\n(71)\nFinally, on the basis of the moderate level of risk and collateral, the loan by IDA was granted at an interest rate of 6,81 %, calculated as a sum of the base rate (three month WIBOR plus 1,2 %) and an interest margin of 1,8 % (see table 3). Poland submitted that this rate exceeded the minimum interest rate as it would be calculated according to the Reference Rate Communication (see table 6 and recitals 46 to 49). The Commission notes that while Poland uses \u2027high collateralisation\u2027 for its calculations, the statement holds true even if IDAs assessment of \u2027moderate\u2027 (or normal) collateralisation is applied: base rate plus 220 basis points or 6,69 %.\n(72)\nAs a general remark, the Commission recalls that its preliminary doubts with regard to the interest rate level, contained in the opening decision, were primarily due to the lack of evidence on the company\u2019s rating and the level of collateral. In that regard, the Commission notes that in the reply to the opening decision Poland provided the relevant information, which IDA had at its disposal prior to the granting of the loan. In addition, Poland submitted an ex post valuation of the mortgaged real estate and a report drawn up by [\u2026] after the fact but based on the information available at the time the decision to grant the loan was taken.\n(73)\nAs regards the collateral, the Commission\u2019s assessment focused on whether the expert valuations were done in a conservative manner such that a private investor would have accepted the collateral on offer. In this respect, the Commission observes that, depending on the method used, the valuations of Crist\u2019s shares differ significantly (see recital 40). The Commission also notes the criticism by [\u2026] as regards the net asset value valuation of PLN [\u2026] million, which omits a number of important factors (see recital 45), which in turn result in the underestimation of the value of Crist equity. Finally, the Commission observes that the valuations of both [\u2026] and [\u2026] using the APV method arrive at the same conclusion (i.e. valuation of ca. PLN [\u2026]million) and that both independent experts are of the opinion that that method should be considered as more representative. In addition to providing these valuations to the Commission, Poland proposed to take as a proxy for the value of the collateral on the dry dock, the value of the counter offer by Patia of PLN 166 million, made at the time of the third tender. The Commission notes that such a proxy does appear to represents the value which a competitor of Crist was ready to pay for the dry dock in a situation of the forced sale of that asset.\n(74)\nWithout taking a position on which of the various reports should be retained, the Commission notes that IDA had a range of valuations as to the quality of the collateral on offer, only the most pessimistic of which represented less than 150 % of the loan to be granted, and expert recommendations indicating that the collateralwas sufficient to cover the credit risk.\n(75)\nOn the company\u2019s rating, the Commission critically assessed the contemporaneous evidence submitted by Poland, at the disposal of IDA prior to the decision to grant the loan. The Commission observes that within its internal rating expert analysis IDA carried out the full ratio analysis of Crist covering the liquidity ratio, turnover, asset-to capital structure and profitability ratios. In addition, IDA\u2019s assessment covered such elements as: cash flow analysis, financial forecasts, investment effectiveness, break-even point, vulnerability of the project to external factors such as interest rate or currency exchange rate.\n(76)\nThe Commission also takes note of the [\u2026] report. Although it post-dates the transaction, that report contains a detailed estimate of Crist\u2019s credit rating and the collateral on offer, on the basis of the same information that IDA had at its disposal at the time of the granting of the loan. The report estimates Crist\u2019s rating to be slightly lower than applied by IDA (BB-B range). As regard the collateral, the report considers that [\u2026] assets based valuation significantly underestimates the value of Crist equity. [\u2026] considers the APV method to be more consistent and commonly used. [\u2026] concludes on the basis of its analysis of Crist's rating and the value of the collateral on offer that the interest rate on the IDA loan was not lower than a market rate.\n(77)\nThe Commission also analysed whether the interest rate set by IDA corresponds to the methodology for setting reference rates, which the Commission can apply as a proxy for the market rate as contained in the Reference Rate Communication. According to the Reference Rate Communication, the reference rate results from the addition of a margin to a base rate corresponding to the 1-year IBOR (the 1-year money market rate in the Member State concerned). The margin to be applied depends on the rating of the undertaking concerned and the collateral (see table 6).\n(78)\nGiven that the base rate for September 2010 in Poland was 4,49 % (15), the rate of the IDA loan (6,81 %) would be higher than the applicable reference rate if, at the time of granting the loan:\n-\nthe rating of Crist was \u201dweak\u201d (B) and the collateral \u201chigh\u201d,\n-\nthe rating of Crist was \"satisfactory\" (BB) and the collateral at least \"normal\" or\n-\nthe collateral was \"low\" and the rating of Crist at least \"good\" (BBB).\nIn all three scenarios, the reference rate would be 6,69 % (4,49 % and 2,20 %) i.e. lower than the interest rate of the IDA loan (6,81 %).\n(79)\nOn the basis of the analysis above, the Commission considers that Crist's rating at the time of granting the loan was at worst \"weak\" (B). As regard the collateralisation, even the worst case scenario of collateral worth PLN [\u2026]million represents more than 100 % of the value of the loan and the Commission therefore considers that the expected loss resulting from default in the loan repayment (LGD) is in the range not exceeding 30 %, which corresponds to a high level of collateral as defined in the Reference Rate Communication. Taking into account the high collateralisation of the loan, the interest rate for the loan, in the worst case scenario, at the time of the transaction should have been not lower than 6,69 % (i.e. the reference rate for Poland 4,49 % plus 2,20 %, see table 6). The IDA loan was granted at a higher interest rate (6,81 %).\n(80)\nIn conclusion, the elements put before the Commission allow it to conclude that in deciding to grant the loan to Crist, IDA acted as a private creditor would have done on the basis of the information available and applied an interest rate that corresponded to a market rate.\n(81)\nIn the opening decision the Commission questioned the use of the [\u2026] Bank loan as a benchmark in this case. The Commission observed inter alia that the [\u2026] Bank loan was different from the IDA loan as it was for a much lower value and that [\u2026] Bank only refinanced the transaction which Crist had initially financed from its own funds. Moreover, The Commission's prima facie view was that the IDA loan entailed a higher risk compared to the [\u2026] Bank loan since its duration was substantially longer than the one provided by [\u2026] Bank.\n(82)\nAs outlined in recitals 50 to 55 the Polish authorities reaffirmed their position that it was appropriate to use the [\u2026] Bank loan as a benchmark for the IDA loan. Nevertheless, Poland underlined that other elements were taken into consideration prior to the decision to grant the loan.\n(83)\nThe Commission notes that IDA\u2019s decision to grant the loan to Crist was based on the complex expert analysis of the company\u2019s financial and economic situation which revealed the profitability of the planned investment and that the earlier decision of an independent financing institution, [\u2026] Bank, i.e. the benchmark in question, was an additional reference for IDA.\n(84)\nThe Commission also has regard to the fact that Crist\u2019s purchase of the dry dock constituted the completion of a production line and can therefore be regarded as a less risky step in the realisation of the business strategy than that in relation to which the [\u2026] Bank loan was granted. When the [\u2026] Bank loan was approved it could not be taken for granted that Crist would be able to complete the last step in the planned investment, i.e. the purchase of the dry dock. In addition, the Commission notes that the signature, in the period between the two loans, of the biggest contract in Crist\u2019s history (valued at EUR [\u2026] million) strengthens the position of the company as compared to the point in time at which the [\u2026] Bank loan was granted.\n(85)\nFinally, the Commission notes that, as demonstrated by the numerous external sources of financing enjoyed by the company at the moment the IDA loan was granted, the financial sector had a positive perception of Crist\u2019s financial potential and its capacity to generate income.\n(86)\nThe doubts expressed in the opening decision having been addressed, the Commission considers that the conditions of the [\u2026] Bank loan, as well as the fact that Crist had access to other sources of external financing, support the conclusion that a private creditor would have provided Crist with a loan on similar conditions to the IDA loan.\n(87)\nThe opening decision noted that although Crist was overall in a sound financial state when the IDA loan was granted, the accounts showed a three year trend of decreasing net results and the market was characterised by overcapacity. The Commission had prima facie doubts as to whether a private investor would have provided financing given the market risks involved and the fact that the financial crisis was far from over when the measure was taken.\n(88)\nAs outlined in recitals 56 to 60, Poland put forward additional explanations on the elements which led IDA to take the credit decision. This included inter alia a three-stage analysis of the financial condition of the company, which revealed a sound creditworthiness and an independent analysis by [\u2026]. Poland underlined that the return on investment based on NPV and IRR was high.\n(89)\nThe Commission has examined the assessment provided by Poland of the profitability of Crist's investment which demonstrates that even although in the end Crist had to pay a higher price than originally assumed for the dry dock (i.e. PLN 175 million), the relevant financial values remain high (NPV and IRR of the investment amount to PLN [\u2026]million and [\u2026] % respectively on the basis of knowledge at the time of transaction). From the perspective of a private investor these results indicate that Crist had a sound business plan and that thanks to its investment Crist gained a possibility to gain new contracts in the hydro-engineering sector. In fact, the value of signed contracts indicated a quick development of the company.\n(90)\nThe Commission notes that the company\u2019s sales and operational activities indicated a strong positive dynamic. In addition, the Polish authorities have explained that the fall in net results, which concerned only two years (2008 and 2009, see table 4) was linked to the new business strategy of Crist. The doubts in relation to the overall positive assessment of Crist\u2019s financial results are thereby alleviated.\n(91)\nConcerning the doubts raised as a result of market overcapacity, the Commission observes that while the traditional shipbuilding industry may face overcapacity, Crist, in line with its new strategy laid out in the business plan made available to IDA for the purposes of granting the loan, generated between [\u2026] % in 2009 and [\u2026] % in 2011 of its revenues on the markets other than traditional shipbuilding (see table 1). The structure of revenues of Crist and the information on the prospects of the development of marine wind power engineering where the company is primarily active indicate the potential for development and the relatively low risk associated for private investors.\n(92)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that the business information available at the time of the transaction contained sufficient elements to allow a private investor to come to the same decision as IDA.\n(93)\nThis assessment is corroborated by Crist's financial results for 2010-2011, which as an integral part of the business plan can be now assessed from an ex post perspective. Although in 2010 the company fulfilled only [\u2026] % of its sales forecasts, the planned return on sales and net profit margins were exceeded and the net profit generated by Crist amounted to PLN 12,6 million and was [\u2026]times higher than the net profit planned for that year. In 2011 the company\u2019s results further improved with the sales level higher by [\u2026] % than planned while the generated net profit exceeded the forecast by [\u2026] %. The company\u2019s total balance sheets at the end of 2010 and 2011 were higher than planned by [\u2026] % and [\u2026] % respectively.\n(94)\nIn the opening decision the Commission expressed doubts as to whether certain conditions set out in the Programme had been respected, and in particular whether Crist was eligible under the Programme and whether the loan respected the cap on intensity laid down in the Programme (see recital 15).\n(95)\nThe Commission notes the explanation of the Polish authorities to the effect that the company was entitled to financing under the Programme and the level of financing of Crist's investment from the IDA fund did not exceed the 80 % programme cap (see recitals 61 to 64). In relation to the second point, the Commission has checked that the cap, as described by the Polish authorities, was respected also on the basis of the information available to IDA at the time it took the decision to grant the loan: financing of PLN 150 million for a total investment of PLN 188,2 million (16) results in an aid intensity of 79,7 %.\n(96)\nOn the basis of these explanations the Commission considers that the doubts as to whether a private investor would have granted the loan have been alleviated.\n1.2 Conclusion on the advantage\n(97)\nOn the basis of the above findings the Commission concludes that the company did not derive any undue advantage from the conditions under which the IDA loan was granted. In particular the Commission considers that (i) the information in the possession of IDA was such that a private investor would have come to the same decision and that (ii) the interest rate on the IDA loan to Crist corresponds to a market rate.\n(98)\nIn view of the fact that the elements indicating the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU are cumulative, the absence of any one of them is decisive. There is therefore no need to analyse the other elements identified in recital 66 above.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe measure, which the Republic of Poland has implemented in favour of Crist S.A., in the form of a loan PLN 150 million at an interest rate of 6,81 %, does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Poland.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2012.", "references": ["73", "2", "76", "42", "33", "87", "25", "61", "50", "99", "74", "53", "89", "22", "68", "31", "41", "49", "35", "86", "37", "10", "58", "72", "36", "26", "80", "27", "77", "75", "No Label", "8", "15", "29", "48", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "29", "48", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 June 2010\ngranting a derogation from implementing Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning livestock and meat statistics with regard to Bulgaria and Germany\n(notified under document C(2010) 3617)\n(Only the Bulgarian and German texts are authentic)\n(2010/323/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 concerning livestock and meat statistics and repealing Council Directives 93/23/EEC, 93/24/EEC and 93/25/EEC (1), and in particular Article 20(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the request made by Bulgaria on 10 February 2009,\nHaving regard to the request made by Germany on 20 March 2009,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008, the Commission may grant Member States a derogation from implementing that Regulation in so far as applying it to their national statistical systems requires major adaptations and is likely to cause significant practical problems.\n(2)\nSuch derogations should be granted, at their request, to Bulgaria and Germany.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008, a Member State having been granted a derogation until 1 January 2010 shall continue to apply the provisions of Council Directives 93/23/EEC (2), 93/24/EEC (3) and 93/25/EEC (4) until that date.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008, a Member State having been granted a derogation until 1 January 2011 shall continue to apply the provisions of Council Directive 93/25/EEC until that date,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Bulgaria and Germany shall be granted a derogation from application of Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008 for a period ending on 1 January 2010.\n2. Germany shall be granted a derogation from application of Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008 concerning sheep and goats for a period ending on 1 January 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria and the Federal Republic of Germany.\nThis Decision shall apply as from 1 January 2009.\nDone at Brussels, 10 June 2010.", "references": ["23", "74", "47", "5", "61", "16", "24", "52", "50", "88", "54", "95", "6", "46", "81", "30", "37", "62", "36", "42", "60", "73", "49", "7", "27", "33", "82", "72", "53", "58", "No Label", "8", "19", "63", "65", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "19", "63", "65", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 July 2010\nconcerning the allocation of the funds decommitted from projects under the ninth and previous European Development Funds (EDF) for the purpose of addressing the needs of the most vulnerable population in Sudan\n(2010/406/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the financing of Community aid under the multi-annual financial framework for the period 2008 to 2013 in accordance with the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement and on the allocation of financial assistance for the Overseas Countries and Territories to which Part Four of the EC Treaty applies (1), and in particular Article 1(4) and Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Government of Sudan decided not to ratify the Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (2), as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (3), thereby losing access to the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) National Indicative Programme (NIP) with a total allocation of EUR 294,9 million, which is now kept in the 10th EDF.\n(2)\nThe current political situation in Sudan, as well as the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, South Sudan, East Sudan and the Transitional Areas, requires a strong engagement of the European Union, including through the provision of vital assistance to the Sudanese population. The gap left by the non-availability of the 10th EDF will seriously reduce the capacity of the Union to assist the population and to help stabilise the country, which could have consequences for the wider region.\n(3)\nIn order to bridge the financing gap which will occur, it is appropriate to use funds decommitted from the ninth and previous EDFs.\n(4)\nThe funds should be used to address the needs of the most vulnerable populations in Sudan, in particular in the conflict-affected areas, including Darfur, South Sudan, East Sudan and the Transitional Areas. They will be allocated on the basis of a financing decision to be adopted by the Commission. Provision should also be made to cover the cost of support measures.\n(5)\nThese funds should be managed through centralised and joint management and, for the purpose of simplification, according to the implementation arrangements for the 10th EDF,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. An amount of EUR 150 million from the funds decommitted from projects under the ninth and previous EDFs shall be allocated for the purpose of addressing the needs of the most vulnerable population in Sudan; 2 % of this amount shall be allocated for support expenditure by the Commission.\n2. These funds shall be managed through centralised and joint management in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable for the 10th EDF.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2010.", "references": ["10", "38", "62", "25", "72", "76", "18", "32", "95", "65", "13", "61", "99", "50", "81", "20", "90", "84", "92", "0", "19", "55", "8", "42", "26", "28", "44", "40", "11", "89", "No Label", "1", "4", "15", "33", "94"], "gold": ["1", "4", "15", "33", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 596/2010\nof 7 July 2010\nadapting Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 on marketing standards for olive oil on account of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania,\nHaving regard to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular Article 56 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt is necessary to make a technical adaptation to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 (1) on account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and of Romania to the European Union.\n(2)\nThe second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 requires Member States to notify the Commission of the measures taken to ensure compliance with that Regulation, including the system of penalties, no later than 31 December 2002. In order to allow Bulgaria and Romania to meet this requirement, a date after accession should be established for those Member States.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1019/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe following subparagraph is added to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002:\n\u2018Bulgaria and Romania shall communicate to the Commission the measures referred to in the first paragraph no later than 31 December 2010, and the amendments to those measures before the end of the month following that in which they are adopted.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 July 2010.", "references": ["53", "59", "84", "13", "32", "81", "1", "12", "65", "8", "31", "94", "10", "89", "73", "72", "34", "26", "98", "6", "40", "69", "90", "36", "51", "62", "17", "85", "60", "71", "No Label", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 331/2011\nof 6 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 as regards the use of land for the production of hemp within the framework of the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular Article 39(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 39, paragraph 1, of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishes that areas used for the production of hemp shall only be eligible for direct payments if the varieties used have a tetrahydrocannabinol content not exceeding 0,2 %.\n(2)\nArticle 124, paragraph 3, of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishes that Article 39 of that Regulation is applicable to areas under the single area payment scheme.\n(3)\nArticle 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (2) establishes that the payment of entitlements for areas on hemp shall be subject to the use of seed of the varieties listed in \u2018Common Catalogue of Varieties of Agricultural Plant Species\u2019, with exception of the varieties Finola and Tiborsz\u00e1ll\u00e1si, and provides for their certification.\n(4)\nFinland and Hungary have notified data to the Commission on the tetrahydrocannabinol content of varieties Finola, grown in Finland, and Tiborsz\u00e1ll\u00e1si, grown in Hungary, where it is shown that the said content in the past years was below the 0,2 % level.\n(5)\nOn the basis of this information, the Commission considers that these hemp varieties should be made eligible, respectively, in the Member States concerned.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 1120/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 is replaced as follows:\n\u2018Article 10\nProduction of hemp\nFor the purposes of Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the payment of the entitlements for areas on hemp shall be subject to the use of seed of the varieties listed in the \u201cCommon Catalogue of Varieties of Agricultural Plant Species\u201d on 15 March of the year in respect of which the payment is granted and published in accordance with Article 17 of Council Directive 2002/53/EC (3). However, areas using the variety Finola shall be eligible only in Finland and areas using the variety Tiborsz\u00e1ll\u00e1si shall be eligible only in Hungary. The seed shall be certified in accordance with Council Directive 2002/57/EC (4).\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 April 2011.", "references": ["29", "99", "11", "70", "86", "64", "28", "92", "17", "73", "85", "58", "48", "78", "76", "30", "77", "57", "54", "96", "33", "66", "19", "10", "87", "72", "74", "3", "7", "83", "No Label", "15", "61", "63", "68"], "gold": ["15", "61", "63", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 187/2011\nof 25 February 2011\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 15(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (2) lays down rules concerning the increased level of official controls to be carried out on imports of feed and food of non-animal origin listed in Annex I thereto (\u2018the list\u2019), at the points of entry into the territories referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\n(2)\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 provides that the list is to be reviewed on a regular basis, and at least quarterly, taking into account at least the sources of information referred to in that Article.\n(3)\nThe occurrence and relevance of food incidents notified through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), the findings of missions to third countries carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office, as well as the quarterly reports on consignments of feed and food of non-animal origin submitted by Member States to the Commission in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 indicate that the list should be amended.\n(4)\nIn particular, the list should be amended by deleting the entries for commodities for which those information sources indicate an overall satisfactory degree of compliance with the relevant safety requirements provided for in Union legislation and for which an increased level of official control is therefore no longer justified.\n(5)\nIn addition, certain other commodities for which the information sources indicate a degree of non-compliance with the relevant safety requirements, thereby warranting the introduction of increased level of official controls, should be included in the list.\n(6)\nSimilarly, the list should be amended by decreasing the frequency of official controls of the commodities for which the information sources indicate an overall improvement of compliance with the relevant requirements provided for in Union legislation and for which the current level of official control is therefore no longer justified.\n(7)\nThe entries in the list for certain imports from China, the Dominican Republic, India and South Africa should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nIn the interests of clarity of Union legislation, it is also necessary to make a small precision in the list regarding the entries for imports of peppers from the Dominican Republic and sweet peppers from Turkey.\n(9)\nThe amendment to the list concerning the deletion of the references to commodities, and the reduction in the frequency of controls, should apply as soon as possible, as the original safety concerns have been satisfied. Accordingly, those amendments should apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n(10)\nTaking into account the number of amendments that need to be made to Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009, it is appropriate to replace it by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 669/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 April 2011.\nHowever, the following amendments to Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation:\n(a)\nthe deletion of the following entries on:\n(i)\ntrace elements from China;\n(ii)\nmangoes from the Dominican Republic;\n(iii)\nthe following feed and food from Vietnam:\n-\ngroundnuts (peanuts), in shell,\n-\ngroundnuts (peanuts), shelled,\n-\npeanut butter,\n-\ngroundnuts (peanuts), otherwise prepared or preserved;\n(b)\nthe amendment on the frequency of physical and identity checks for the following food from all third countries:\n(i)\nchilli (Capsicum annuum), crushed or ground;\n(ii)\nchilli products (curry);\n(iii)\nCurcuma longa (turmeric);\n(iv)\nred palm oil.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 February 2011.", "references": ["74", "63", "19", "93", "24", "41", "53", "99", "87", "8", "46", "89", "85", "1", "45", "3", "14", "36", "55", "25", "15", "50", "34", "92", "84", "35", "10", "98", "61", "17", "No Label", "4", "20", "21", "22", "23", "38", "66", "72"], "gold": ["4", "20", "21", "22", "23", "38", "66", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/232/CFSP\nof 26 April 2010\nrenewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 April 2006, the Council adopted Common Position 2006/318/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar (1). Those measures replaced the previous measures, the first of which were adopted in 1996 in Common Position 96/635/CFSP (2).\n(2)\nCouncil Common Position 2009/351/CFSP (3) adopted on 27 April 2009 extended Common Position 2006/318/CFSP until 30 April 2010.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation in Burma/Myanmar, in particular the lack of improvement in the human rights situation and the absence of substantive progress towards an inclusive democratisation process, notwithstanding the promulgation of a new electoral law and the announcement by the Government of Burma/Myanmar of multi-party elections to be held in 2010, the restrictive measures provided for in Common Position 2006/318/CFSP should be extended for a further period of 12 months.\n(4)\nThe lists of persons and enterprises subject to the restrictive measures should be amended in order to take account of changes in the Government, the security forces, the State Peace and Development Council and the administration in Burma/Myanmar, as well as in the personal situations of the individuals concerned, and in order to update the list of enterprises that are owned or controlled by the regime in Burma/Myanmar or by persons associated with the regime.\n(5)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, as well as equipment which might be used for internal repression, to Burma/Myanmar by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States or using their flag vessels or aircraft shall be prohibited whether originating or not in their territories.\n2. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to military activities and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, as well as equipment which might be used for internal repression, directly or indirectly to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in Burma/Myanmar;\n(b)\nto provide financing or financial assistance related to military activities, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance for any sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related materiel, as well as equipment which might be used for internal repression, or for the provision of related technical assistance, brokering and other services directly or indirectly to any person, entity or body in, or for use in Burma/Myanmar;\n(c)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) or (b).\nArticle 2\n1. Article 1 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal military equipment, or of equipment which might be used for internal repression, intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, or for institution-building programmes of the UN and the EU, or of materiel intended for EU and UN crisis management operations;\n(b)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of demining equipment and materiel for use in demining operations;\n(c)\nthe provision of financing and financial assistance related to such equipment or to such programmes and operations;\n(d)\nthe provision of technical assistance related to such equipment or to such programmes and operations,\non condition that such exports have been approved in advance by the relevant competent authority.\n2. Article 1 shall not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to Burma/Myanmar by UN personnel, personnel of the EU or its Member States, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only.\nArticle 3\n1. The sale, supply, transfer or export of relevant equipment and technology destined for enterprises in Burma/Myanmar that are engaged in the following industries, by nationals of Member States, or from the territories of Member States, or using vessels or aircraft under the jurisdiction of Member States shall be prohibited whether or not originating in their territories:\n(a)\nlogging and timber processing;\n(b)\nmining of gold, tin, iron, copper, tungsten, silver, coal, lead, manganese, nickel and zinc;\n(c)\nmining and processing of precious and semi-precious stones, including diamonds, rubies, sapphires, jade and emeralds.\n2. It shall be prohibited to:\n(a)\nprovide technical assistance or training related to relevant equipment and technology destined for enterprises in Burma/Myanmar that are engaged in the industries referred to in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nprovide financing or financial assistance for any sale, supply, transfer or export of relevant equipment and technology destined for the enterprises in Burma/Myanmar listed in Annex I, that are engaged in the industries referred to in paragraph 1, or for the provision of related technical assistance or training.\nArticle 4\nThe purchase, import or transport from Burma/Myanmar into the Union, of the following products shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nround logs, timber and timber products;\n(b)\ngold, tin, iron, copper, tungsten, silver, coal, lead, manganese, nickel and zinc;\n(c)\nprecious and semi-precious stones, including diamonds, rubies, sapphires, jade and emeralds.\nArticle 5\nThe following shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nthe granting of any financial loan or credit to the enterprises in Burma/Myanmar, as listed in Annex I, that are engaged in the industries referred to in Article 3(1);\n(b)\nthe acquisition or extension of a participation in the enterprises in Burma/Myanmar, as listed in Annex I, that are engaged in the industries referred to in Article 3(1), including the acquisition in full of such enterprises and the acquisition of shares and securities of a participating nature;\n(c)\nthe creation of any joint venture with the enterprises in Burma/Myanmar, as listed in Annex I, that are engaged in the industries referred to in Article 3(1) and with any subsidiary or affiliate under their control.\nArticle 6\n1. The prohibition in Articles 3(1) and 4 shall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts relating to goods which were in the course of shipment before 19 November 2007.\n2. The prohibitions in Article 3 shall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts concluded before 19 November 2007 and relating to investments made in Burma/Myanmar before the same date by enterprises established in Member States.\n3. The prohibitions in Article 5(a) and (b) respectively:\n(i)\nshall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts or agreements concluded before the date of listing of the enterprise concerned, as indicated in Annex I;\n(ii)\nshall not prevent the extension of a participation in the enterprises listed in Annex I, if such extension is provided for under an agreement concluded with the enterprise concerned before the date of its listing as indicated in Annex I.\nArticle 7\nThe participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the provisions of Articles 3, 4 and 5 shall be prohibited.\nArticle 8\nNon-humanitarian aid or development programmes shall be suspended. Exceptions shall be made for projects and programmes in support of:\n(a)\nhuman rights, democracy, good governance, conflict prevention and building the capacity of civil society;\n(b)\nhealth and education, poverty alleviation and in particular the provision of basic needs and livelihoods for the poorest and most vulnerable populations;\n(c)\nenvironmental protection and, in particular, programmes addressing the problem of non-sustainable, excessive logging resulting in deforestation.\nThe projects and programmes should be implemented through UN agencies, non-governmental organisations, and through decentralised cooperation with local civilian administrations. In this context, the European Union will continue to engage with the government of Burma/Myanmar over its responsibility to make greater efforts to attain the UN Millennium Development Goals.\nProjects and programmes should, as far as possible, be defined, monitored, run and evaluated in consultation with civil society and all democratic groups, including the National League for Democracy.\nArticle 9\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of:\n(a)\nsenior members of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), Burmese authorities in the tourism sector, senior members of the military, the Government or the security forces who formulate, implement or benefit from policies that impede Burma/Myanmar's transition to democracy, and members of their families, being the natural persons listed in Annex II;\n(b)\nsenior serving members of the Burmese military and members of their families, being the natural persons listed in Annex II.\n2. Paragraph 1 will not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation of international law, namely:\n(a)\nas a host country of an international intergovernmental organisation;\n(b)\nas a host country to an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the United Nations;\n(c)\nunder a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities; or\n(d)\nunder the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran pact) concluded by the Holy See (State of the Vatican City) and Italy.\n4. Paragraph 3 shall be considered as applying also in cases where a Member State is host country of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).\n5. The Council shall be duly informed in all cases where a Member State grants an exemption pursuant to paragraphs 3 or 4.\n6. Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed in paragraph 1 where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the European Union, or hosted by a Member State holding the Chairmanship in office of the OSCE, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Burma/Myanmar.\n7. A Member State wishing to grant exemptions referred to in paragraph 6 shall notify the Council in writing. The exemption will be deemed to be granted unless one or more of the Council Members raises an objection in writing within two working days of receiving notification of the proposed exemption. In the event that one or more of the Council members raise an objection, the Council, acting by qualified majority, may decide to grant the proposed exemption.\n8. In cases where pursuant to paragraphs 3, 4, 6 and 7, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in Annex II, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\nArticle 10\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the individual members of the Government of Burma/Myanmar and belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them as listed in Annex II shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available directly or indirectly to or for the benefit of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex II.\n3. The competent authority may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources concerned are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of persons listed in Annex II and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources;\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the competent authority has notified the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted, to the other competent authorities and the Commission at least two weeks before the authorisation.\n4. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which those accounts became subject to restrictive measures,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to paragraph 1.\n5. The following shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nthe granting of any financial loan or credit to enterprises that are owned or controlled by the regime or by persons or entities associated with the regime, as listed in Annex III, or the acquisition of bonds, certificates of deposit, warrants or debentures, issued by these enterprises;\n(b)\nthe acquisition or extension of a participation in enterprises that are owned or controlled by the regime or by persons or entities associated with the regime, as listed in Annex III, including the acquisition in full of such enterprises and the acquisition of shares and securities of a participating nature;\n(c)\nthe creation of any joint venture with the enterprises as listed in Annex III, and with any subsidiary or affiliate under their control.\n6. The provisions of paragraph 5(a) shall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts or agreements concluded with the enterprise concerned before the date of its listing, as indicated in Annex III.\n7. The prohibition in paragraph 5(b) shall not prevent the extension of a participation in enterprises as listed in Annex III, if such extension is provided for under an agreement concluded before the date of listing of the enterprise concerned, as indicated in Annex III.\nArticle 11\nHigh-level bilateral governmental (Ministers and Officials at the level of Political Director and above) visits to Burma/Myanmar shall remain suspended. The Council may, in exceptional circumstances, decide to grant exceptions to this rule.\nArticle 12\nMember States shall not permit the attachment of military personnel to the diplomatic representations of Burma/Myanmar in Member States. All military personnel attached to diplomatic representations of the Member States in Burma/Myanmar shall remain withdrawn.\nArticle 13\nThe Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall adopt modifications to the list set out in Annex II as required.\nArticle 14\nThis Decision shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, in particular as regards the enterprises listed in Annexes I and III, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\nArticle 15\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply until 30 April 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["57", "1", "9", "73", "16", "85", "10", "54", "40", "69", "27", "88", "75", "70", "49", "48", "38", "90", "60", "67", "36", "68", "72", "51", "7", "20", "86", "58", "44", "21", "No Label", "3", "5", "12", "23", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "5", "12", "23", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 20 December 2011\nconfirming the provisional calculation of average specific CO2 emissions and specific emissions targets for manufacturers of passenger cars for the calendar year 2010 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/878/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community\u2019s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 8(5) and Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission is required, pursuant to Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, to confirm each year, the average specific emissions of CO2 and the specific emissions target for each manufacturer of passenger cars in the Union as well as for each pool of manufacturers formed in accordance with Article 7(7) of that Regulation. On the basis of that confirmation, the Commission is to determine whether manufacturers and pools have complied with the requirements of Article 4 of that Regulation. Where it is clear that a manufacturer or a pool has failed to meet its specific emissions target, the Commission is required, pursuant to Article 9(1) of that Regulation, to issue excess emissions premiums by way of individual decisions addressed to the manufacturers or pool managers concerned.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, the targets are binding on manufacturers and pools with effect from 2012. For the calendar years 2010 and 2011, the Commission should however calculate indicative targets and, pursuant to Article 8(6) of that Regulation, notify those manufacturers or pools whose average specific emissions exceed their indicative targets. As those targets for 2010 and 2011 will serve as indicators to manufacturers of the effort required to reach the mandatory target in 2012, it is appropriate to determine the average specific emissions of manufacturers for 2010 and 2011 in accordance with requirements set out in the second paragraph of Article 4 of that Regulation and take into account only the 65 % lowest emitting vehicles of each manufacturer.\n(3)\nThe data to be used for the calculation of the average specific emissions and the specific emissions targets is set out in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and is based on Member States\u2019 registrations of new passenger cars during the preceding calendar year. The data is taken from the certificates of conformity issued by the manufacturers or from documents providing equivalent information in accordance with Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1014/2010 of 10 November 2010 on monitoring and reporting of data on the registration of new passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).\n(4)\nThe data for 2010 was transmitted to the Commission by the deadline of 28 February 2011 specified in Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 by a majority of the Member States. The complete datasets for all Member States were only, however, finally made available to the Commission by mid April and were subsequently provisionally verified.\n(5)\nWhere, as a result of the initial verification, it was evident that certain data were missing or manifestly incorrect, the Commission contacted the Member States concerned and, subject to the agreement of those Member States, adjusted or completed the data accordingly. Where no agreement could be reached with a Member State, the provisional data of that Member State was not adjusted.\n(6)\nOn 29 June 2011, the Commission published, in accordance with Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, the provisional data and notified 89 manufacturers of the provisional calculations of their average specific emissions in 2010 and their specific emissions targets. Manufacturers were asked to verify the data and to notify to the Commission any errors within 3 months of receipt of the notification in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 8(5) of that Regulation.\n(7)\nOn 12 August, guidelines for the notification of errors in the CO2 data from cars were published on the Commission website. The guidelines provide a format for notification and indicate the information required from the manufacturers to enable the Commission to take those errors into account.\n(8)\nFifteen manufacturers submitted notifications of errors within the 3-month deadline. One manufacturer submitted a complete notification after the expiry of the deadline. Seven manufacturers out of those 15 submitted notifications that included detailed information on the errors and justifications for the corrections proposed. The remaining eight manufacturers submitted summary notifications that only partially complied with the Commission\u2019s recommendations as to the format and contents of the notifications. In addition to those manufacturers that submitted notifications of error, eight manufacturers informed the Commission that there were errors in the datasets without providing any further information or evidence as to the nature or reasons for those errors.\n(9)\nIn the case of the 73 manufacturers that did not notify any errors in the datasets or only informed the Commission of errors in the datasets without providing the necessary evidence, the provisional data and provisional calculations of the average specific emissions and the specific emissions targets should be confirmed without adjustments.\n(10)\nWhere manufacturers have provided the necessary information and evidence supporting the existence of errors in the datasets, the Commission should consider those notifications and, where appropriate, amend the provisional calculations of the average specific emissions and the targets.\n(11)\nMember States\u2019 registration authorities are solely responsible for the number of registrations reported to the Commission. As manufacturers\u2019 sales data do not necessarily accurately reflect the number of registrations in a given Member State for a given period of time, it is not possible to consider errors in the number of registrations for the calculation of the average specific emissions. Only errors relating to the contents of the datasets for registered vehicles should therefore be considered. However, in some cases, manufacturers have notified that registrations should be attributed to another manufacturer. Those re-attributions should be reflected in the final confirmed datasets.\n(12)\nIt results from the complete notifications that the manufacturers were able to identify a part of the datasets as correct and proposed corrections to those parts of the datasets that could be verified. Between 4 and 15 per cent of the datasets consist, however, of registrations referring to unidentifiable vehicles for which values such as CO2 emissions or mass cannot be verified by the manufacturer. This is usually due to missing information that is required in order for the manufacturer to identify the individual vehicles, more precisely the identification code composed of the type, variant and version of the vehicles concerned. In a small number of cases, registrations could be attributed to manufacturers, however, key data on CO2 emissions and mass were not available.\n(13)\nThe Commission has verified the corrections proposed by the manufacturers and the supporting evidence. Where entries have been corrected either by inserting a missing value or by replacing an incorrect value for those registrations that can be verified by the manufacturer and the corrected values are consistent with values resulting from reference data sources, such as data from type approval documents, such corrections are justified. However, where a manufacturer has notified errors but not proposed corrections, notwithstanding that those errors could have been verified and corrected and has not sufficiently demonstrated that those corrections could not be made within the 3-month verification period, those errors should not be considered for the final calculation.\n(14)\nIn the case of registrations that can be attributed to, but not verified by the manufacturers, the values for CO2 emissions and mass included in those registrations should still be used to calculate the average CO2 emissions and specific emissions target. It is however necessary to take into account the fact that manufacturers cannot verify those values and ensure that the inclusion does not have a negative impact on the final values determined for the manufacturers concerned. Accordingly, an error margin should be applied to that calculation reflecting the individual situation of the manufacturer as described and justified in the notification of errors. More precisely, an error margin should be calculated for the average specific emissions and the average mass, since those two parameters determine the distance to the specific emissions target of each manufacturer, i.e. how close a manufacturer is to achieving its specific emission target.\n(15)\nThe error margin should be determined as the difference between the distances to the specific emission target expressed as the average emissions subtracted from the specific emissions targets calculated including and excluding those registrations that cannot be verified by the manufacturers. Regardless of whether that difference is positive or negative the error margin should always reduce the distance to the target of the manufacturer.\n(16)\nIn the case of registrations where the values on CO2 emissions or mass are missing as well as the identification code, those registrations should not be taken into account for the final calculation of the average emissions.\n(17)\nSince the 2010 data verification exercise is the first to be carried out pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, it is appropriate to exceptionally consider also those notifications that did not include all the information required by the Commission for fully taking into account the errors. The error margins to be applied to the final calculations referred to in those notifications should however be calculated on the basis of the Commission\u2019s own assessment of the number of registrations that cannot be verified by those manufacturers. It is also appropriate, exceptionally, to take into account, for the confirmation of 2010 data, the notification of errors that was submitted shortly after the expiry of the deadline.\n(18)\nThe average specific emissions of CO2 from new passenger cars registered in 2010, the specific emissions targets and the difference between those two values should be confirmed accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following values specified in the Annex are confirmed for each manufacturer of passenger cars and for each pool of manufacturers in respect of the 2010 calendar year:\n(a)\nthe specific emissions target;\n(b)\nthe average specific emissions of CO2, where appropriate adjusted by the relevant error margin;\n(c)\nthe difference between the values referred to in points (a) and (b);\n(d)\nthe average specific emissions of CO2 for all new passenger cars;\n(e)\nthe average mass for all new passenger cars in the Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["72", "63", "45", "17", "49", "16", "42", "64", "96", "32", "75", "69", "21", "94", "25", "39", "66", "83", "47", "97", "20", "62", "65", "8", "27", "7", "22", "28", "23", "53", "No Label", "54", "58", "60", "85"], "gold": ["54", "58", "60", "85"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 17 February 2012\nadapting and extending the period of application of the appropriate measures first established by Decision 2002/148/EC concluding consultations with Zimbabwe under Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement\n(2012/96/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1), as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (2), and amended for the second time in Ouagadougou on 23 June 2010 (3), hereinafter referred to as \u2027the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement\u2027, and in particular Article 96 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (4), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Council Decision 2002/148/EC (5), the consultations with the Republic of Zimbabwe under Article 96(2)(c) of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement were concluded and appropriate measures, as specified in the Annex to that Decision, were taken. Those measures have been extended each year since then.\n(2)\nBy Council Decision 2011/106/EU (6), the period of application of the measures was extended for a further period of 12 months until 20 February 2012.\n(3)\nIn the meantime, the creation of the Government of National Unity (GNU) has been recognised as an opportunity to re-establish a constructive relationship between the European Union and Zimbabwe and to support the implementation of its reform programme.\n(4)\nWhile the overall situation has improved, the implementation of political reforms remains slow, and certain essential elements of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, to which the GNU had committed in the Global Political Agreement, still need to be implemented.\n(5)\nThe European Union recognises the efforts made by the Southern African Development Community and South Africa, as facilitators of the Global Political Agreement, to establish an environment conducive to credible elections. The completion of a peaceful referendum on the Constitution would represent an important part of this process,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe measures referred to in the letter annexed to this Decision are hereby maintained as appropriate measures within the meaning of Article 96(2)(c) of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement.\nThose measures shall apply for a period of 6 months from 20 February 2012 until 20 August 2012. They shall be kept under constant review and shall be reassessed in light of concrete progress in the implementation of the Global Political Agreement and the preparation of peaceful and credible elections.\nThe letter annexed to this Decision shall be addressed to the President of Zimbabwe, Mr Mugabe, and copied to Prime Minister Tsvangirai and Mr Welshman Ncube.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2012.", "references": ["87", "56", "62", "69", "81", "40", "89", "47", "7", "99", "71", "39", "42", "28", "33", "25", "19", "82", "38", "20", "48", "92", "66", "98", "95", "57", "21", "34", "79", "32", "No Label", "0", "4", "9", "10", "14", "94"], "gold": ["0", "4", "9", "10", "14", "94"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUPOL AFGHANISTAN/2/2010\nof 11 June 2010\nconcerning the appointment of the Head of Mission of EUPOL Afghanistan\n(2010/341/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/279/CFSP of 18 May 2010 on the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL Afghanistan) (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 10(1) of Decision 2010/279/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EUPOL AFGHANISTAN mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nThe High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Brigadier General Jukka Petri SAVOLAINEN as Head of Mission from 15 July 2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBrigadier General Jukka Petri SAVOLAINEN is hereby appointed Head of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan as from 15 July 2010.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 11 June 2010.", "references": ["27", "39", "55", "67", "70", "10", "62", "14", "25", "93", "75", "98", "96", "65", "43", "19", "31", "34", "12", "18", "83", "28", "56", "45", "51", "47", "74", "58", "68", "88", "No Label", "4", "7", "9", "95"], "gold": ["4", "7", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 28 February 2011\non the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cameroon on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT)\n(2011/201/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(3) and the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) and Article 218(7) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn May 2003, the European Commission adopted a Communication to the European Parliament and to the Council entitled \u2018Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT): Proposal for an EU Action Plan\u2019 which called for measures to address illegal logging through the adoption of voluntary partnership agreements with timber-producing countries. Council conclusions on that Action Plan were adopted in October 2003 (1) and the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the subject on 11 July 2005 (2).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2011/200/EU (3), the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cameroon on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was signed on 27 September 2010, subject to its conclusion.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cameroon on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered on behalf of the Union to make the notification provided for in Article 31 of the Agreement, in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe Union shall be represented by representatives of the Commission in the Joint Implementation Council and the Joint Monitoring Committee set up in accordance with Article 19 of the Agreement.\nThe Member States may participate in the meetings of the Joint Implementation Council and the Joint Monitoring Committee as members of the Union delegation.\nArticle 4\nFor the purpose of amending the Annexes of the Agreement, on the basis of Article 29 thereof, the Commission is authorised, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 of 20 December 2005 on the establishment of a FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of timber into the European Community (4), to approve such amendments on the Union\u2019s behalf.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["37", "56", "79", "25", "58", "11", "97", "4", "27", "46", "33", "72", "29", "66", "38", "40", "28", "31", "70", "32", "93", "34", "78", "12", "91", "98", "51", "64", "53", "8", "No Label", "9", "20", "22", "88", "94"], "gold": ["9", "20", "22", "88", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/206/CFSP\nof 23 April 2012\namending Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/782/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, the Council considers it necessary to impose additional restrictive measures against the Syrian regime.\n(3)\nIn this context, the sale, supply, transfer or export of further goods and technology which might be used for internal repression should be prohibited or subject to an authorisation.\n(4)\nIn addition, the sale, supply, transfer or export of luxury goods to Syria should be prohibited.\n(5)\nDecision 2011/782/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2011/782/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\"Article 1\n1. The sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related mat\u00e9riel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, as well as equipment which might be used for internal repression, to Syria by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States or using their flag vessels or aircraft, shall be prohibited, whether originating or not in their territories.\n2. The sale, supply, transfer or export of certain other equipment, goods and technology which might be used for internal repression or for the manufacture and maintenance of products which could be used for internal repression, to Syria by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States or using their flag vessels or aircraft, shall be prohibited, whether originating or not in their territories.\nThe Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this paragraph.\n3. It shall be prohibited to:\n(a)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance, brokering services or other services related to the items referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of such items, to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Syria;\n(b)\nprovide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the items referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for the provision of related technical assistance, brokering services or other services to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Syria.\";\n(2)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\"Article 1a\n1. The sale, supply, transfer or export of certain equipment, goods or technology other than those referred to in Article 1(2) which might be used for internal repression or for the manufacture and maintenance of products which could be used for internal repression, to Syria by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States or using their flag vessels or aircraft, shall be subject to authorisation on a case-by-case basis by the competent authorities of the exporting Member State.\nThe Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this paragraph.\n2. The provision of:\n(a)\ntechnical assistance, brokering services or other services related to the items referred to in paragraph 1 or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of such items, to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Syria;\n(b)\nfinancing or financial assistance related to the items referred to in paragraph 1, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for the provision of related technical assistance, brokering services or other services to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Syria.\nshall also be subject to an authorisation of the competent authority of the exporting Member State.\";\n(3)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\"Article 8b\nThe sale, supply, transfer or export of luxury goods to Syria by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States or using their flag vessels or aircraft, shall be prohibited, whether originating or not in their territories.\nThe Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this Article.\".\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 23 April 2012.", "references": ["14", "31", "36", "30", "93", "97", "81", "11", "86", "99", "54", "57", "32", "88", "94", "13", "63", "52", "80", "73", "21", "64", "69", "2", "42", "61", "35", "41", "49", "87", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "76", "90", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "76", "90", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/79/EU\nof 19 November 2010\non the adaptation to technical progress of Annex III to Directive 2004/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC (1), and in particular Article 11 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe analytical methods set out in Annex III to Directive 2004/42/EC should be used to determine, for the products contained in Annex I to the Directive, compliance with the limits for the maximum permitted content of volatile organic compounds (hereinafter, \u2018VOC\u2019) set out in Annex II to the Directive. Those methods should be adapted to technical progress.\n(2)\nThe ISO method 11890-2 was revised by the International Standards Organization in 2006 and the new version should be integrated into Annex III to Directive 2004/42/EC.\n(3)\nISO method 11890-2 states that where reactive diluents are not part of the formulation of the product and where the VOC content is equal to or greater than 15 % by mass, the simpler and less expensive ISO method 11890-1 is an acceptable alternative. That method should, therefore, be permitted by Directive 2004/42/EC so as to reduce the testing costs for the Member States and economic operators affected by that Directive.\n(4)\nDirective 2004/42/EC should be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 12(3) of Directive 2004/42/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Directive 2004/42/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 10 June 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 November 2010.", "references": ["73", "57", "80", "11", "47", "38", "50", "49", "94", "68", "44", "61", "79", "89", "6", "55", "39", "30", "7", "91", "12", "53", "65", "67", "34", "54", "24", "76", "46", "72", "No Label", "58", "60", "83"], "gold": ["58", "60", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1211/2011\nof 23 November 2011\noperating deductions from certain fishing effort for 2011 on account of overfishing by certain Member States in the previous year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 (1) establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006, and in particular Articles 106(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1415/2004 of 19 July 2004 fixing the maximum annual fishing effort for certain fishing areas and fisheries (2) establishes the maximum annual fishing effort for certain fishing areas and fisheries, in particular for scallops in certain areas of Ireland.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 (3) establishes a fishing effort limitation for four cod stocks in certain geographical areas.\n(3)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required and amending Regulations (EC) No 1359/2008, (EC) No 754/2009, (EC) No 1226/2009 and (EC) No 1287/2009 (4) establishes the maximum allowable fishing effort for the year 2010.\n(4)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (5) establishes the maximum allowable fishing effort for the year 2011.\n(5)\nAccording to Article 106(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, when the Commission has established that a Member State has exceeded the fishing effort which has been allocated to it, the Commission shall operate deductions from future fishing effort allocations to that Member State.\n(6)\nArticles 106(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establish the criteria and conditions for the operation of such deductions by the Commission.\n(7)\nCertain Member States have exceeded their fishing effort allocation for the year 2010. It is therefore appropriate to operate deductions from the fishing effort allocated to them in the year 2011.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe maximum allowable fishing effort fixed in Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 and, for certain fishing areas and fisheries in Council Regulation (EC) No 1415/2004, is reduced for 2011 for certain Member States as set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 November 2011.", "references": ["89", "40", "5", "68", "38", "63", "2", "21", "9", "70", "73", "52", "22", "25", "72", "0", "95", "99", "85", "80", "14", "90", "30", "88", "75", "7", "4", "98", "26", "35", "No Label", "13", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION\nof 29 October 2010\namending the status with regard to the European Union of the island of Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy\n(2010/718/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 355(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the initiative of the French Republic,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 355 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) allows the European Council, on the initiative of the Member State concerned and acting unanimously after consulting the Commission, to adopt a decision amending the status, with regard to the Union, of a Danish, French or Netherlands country or territory referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 355.\n(2)\nIn a letter from the French President dated 30 June 2010, the French Republic (hereinafter \u2018France\u2019) asked the European Council to take such a decision as regards the island of Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy which is referred to in Article 355(1) of the TFEU. France has requested that the status of this island should change from that of outermost region, covered by Article 349 of the TFEU, to that of overseas country or territory, covered by Part Four of the TFEU.\n(3)\nFrance\u2019s request reflects the desire expressed by the elected representatives of the island of Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy, which is a French overseas collectivity, governed by Article 74 of the French Constitution, with autonomy, to obtain a status with regard to the Union which would be better suited to its status under national law, particularly given its remoteness from the mainland, its small insular economy largely devoted to tourism and subject to difficulties in obtaining supplies which hamper the application of some Union standards.\n(4)\nFrance has undertaken to conclude the agreements necessary to ensure that the interests of the Union are preserved when this change takes place. These agreements should relate firstly to monetary matters, as France intends to retain the euro as the sole currency on Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy and it must be ensured that the application of the law of the Union in the essential fields of the good functioning of economic and monetary union is maintained. Secondly, such agreements should relate to taxation and aim to guarantee that the mechanisms of Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation and taxation of insurance premiums (1) and Council Directive 2003/48/EC of 3 June 2003 on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments (2), which aim in particular at combating fraud and cross-border tax evasion, will continue to apply in future to the territory of Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy. The citizens of Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy should remain citizens of the Union and should enjoy the same rights and freedoms within the Union as other French citizens, just as all citizens of the Union should continue to benefit from the same rights and freedoms in Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy as they do now.\n(5)\nAs a result, the change in the status with regard to the Union, of the island of Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy, in response to the democratically expressed request of its elected representatives, should not jeopardise the Union\u2019s interests and should be consistent with the access of the island to autonomous status under national law,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nWith effect from 1 January 2012, the island of Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy shall cease to be an outermost region of the Union and shall have the status of overseas country or territory referred to in Part Four of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).\nArticle 2\nThe TFEU shall consequently be amended as follows:\n1.\nin the first paragraph of Article 349, the words \u2018Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy\u2019 shall be deleted;\n2.\nin Article 355(1), the words \u2018Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy\u2019 shall be deleted;\n3.\nin Annex II, an indent shall be inserted, between that relating to \u2018Saint Pierre and Miquelon\u2019 and that relating to \u2018Aruba\u2019, which shall read as follows:\n\u2018-\nSaint-Barth\u00e9lemy,\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 29 October 2010.", "references": ["95", "87", "31", "65", "79", "63", "83", "40", "54", "38", "3", "46", "0", "98", "9", "22", "53", "29", "10", "66", "7", "67", "25", "44", "12", "74", "28", "11", "78", "64", "No Label", "2", "8", "27", "34", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "8", "27", "34", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 473/2010\nof 31 May 2010\nimposing a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) (1), and in particular Article 12 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 3 September 2009 the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (\u2018notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of certain polyethylene terephthalate (\u2018PET\u2019) originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (\u2018the countries concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nOn the same day, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates and commenced a separate investigation (\u2018AD proceeding\u2019).\n(3)\nThe anti-subsidy proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 20 July 2009 by the Polyethylene Terephthalate Committee of Plastics Europe (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain polyethylene terephthalate. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of subsidisation of the said product and material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding.\n(4)\nPrior to the initiation of the proceeding and in accordance with Article 10(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission notified the Governments of Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (\u2018UAE\u2019) that it had received a properly documented complaint alleging that subsidised imports of PET originating in Iran, Pakistan and the UAE were causing material injury to the Union industry. The respective Governments were invited for consultations with the aim of clarifying the situation as regards the contents of the complaint and arriving at a mutually agreed solution. All the Governments accepted the offer of consultations and consultations were subsequently held. During the consultations, no mutually agreed solution could be arrived at. However, due note was taken of comments made by the authorities of the countries concerned in regard to the allegations contained in the complaint regarding the lack of countervailability of the schemes. During or following the consultations, submissions were received from the governments of Pakistan and the UAE.\n1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(5)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant producers, other known Union producers, importers/traders and users known to be concerned, the exporting producers and the representatives of the exporting countries concerned, of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(6)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(7)\nIn view of the apparently large number of Union producers and importers, the use of sampling techniques for the investigation of injury was envisaged in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all Union producers and importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product under investigation during the investigation period (1 July 2008 - 30 June 2009).\n(8)\nFourteen Union producers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. On the basis of the information received from the cooperating Union producers, the Commission selected a sample of five Union producers representing 65 % of the sales by all cooperating Union producers.\n(9)\nEight importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. On the basis of the information received from the cooperating importers, the Commission selected a sample of two importers representing 83 % of imports by all cooperating importers and 48 % of all imports from the UAE, Iran and Pakistan.\n(10)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the authorities of the countries concerned, to the exporting producers, to the sampled Union producers, sampled importers and to all users and suppliers known to be concerned as well as to those that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation.\n(11)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from the authorities of the countries concerned, one exporting producer in Iran and its related trader, one exporting producer in Pakistan and one exporting producer in the United Arab Emirates, from five sampled Union producers, one sampled importer, ten users in the Union, three suppliers of raw materials. In addition, seven cooperating Union producers provided the requested general data for the injury analysis.\n(12)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary for the determination of subsidisation, resulting injury and Union interest.\n(13)\nVerification visits were carried out at the premises of the following State authorities:\nGovernment of Iran\n-\nIranian Ministry of Commerce, Trade Representation Office, Tehran, Iran;\n-\nIran Customs Office, Bandar Imam Khomeini, Iran;\nGovernment of the United Arab Emirates\n-\nMinistry of Economy and Industry of the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates;\n-\nRAK Investment Authority, Government of Ras Al Khaimah, Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates;\n(14)\nVerification visits were also carried out at the premises of the following companies:\nUnion producers\n-\nNovapet SA, Spain\n-\nEquipolymers Srl, Italy\n-\nUAB Orion Global PET (Indorama), Lithuania\n-\nUAB Neo Group, Lithuania\nExporting producer in Iran\n-\nShahid Tondguyan Petrochemical Co. (STPC) and its related companies, Bandar Imam Khomeini and Tehran;\nExporting producer in Pakistan\n-\nNovatex Limited, Karachi\nExporting producer in the United Arab Emirates\n-\nJBF RAK LLC, Ras Al Khaimah\n1.3. Investigation period\n(15)\nThe investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the investigation period (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(16)\nThe product concerned is polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, originating in Iran, Pakistan and the UAE (\u2018the product concerned\u2019), currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20.\n(17)\nPET is a chemical product which is normally used in the plastics industry, for the production of bottles and sheets. Since this grade of PET is a homogeneous product, it was not further subdivided into different product types.\n2.2. Like product\n(18)\nThe investigation showed that the PET produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry, and the PET produced and sold on the domestic markets of Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, and exported to the Union have essentially the same basic chemical and physical characteristics and the same basic uses. They are therefore provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the basic Regulation.\n3. SUBSIDISATION\n3.1. Iran\n3.1.1. Introduction\n(19)\nOn the basis of the information contained in the complaint and the replies to the Commission\u2019s questionnaire, the following schemes, which allegedly involved the granting of subsidies by a Governmental authority, were investigated:\n(I)\nMeasures connected to Special Economic Zones (\u2018SEZs\u2019) - Petrochemical SEZ\n(II)\nFinancing from National Petrochemical Company to the PET exporting producer\n3.1.2. Specific Schemes\nI. Measures connected to Special Economic Zones (SEZs) - Petrochemical SEZ\n(20)\nAccording to the legal provisions, a company established in an SEZ benefits from the duty-free import of input material under the condition that it is used in the production process of a product for subsequent exports. During the verification, it was also found that companies in SEZs also benefit from the duty-free import of capital goods.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(21)\nThe full legal description of the SEZs scheme is currently set out in the following laws and regulations: \u2018The Law for Establishment and Management of the Special Economic Zones in the Islamic Republic of Iran\u2019 No. 257/184168, enacted on May 19, 2005; Approval of Commission of Art. 138 of Constitutional Act Secretariat of High Council of Free Industrial-Trade Zones, dated May 27, 2007; Executive By-law for Establishment and Management of Special Economic Zone of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Approval of Board of Ministers dated April 29, 2006.\n(22)\nThe Petrochemical SEZ was founded on 30 April 1997 (year 1376 according to the Persian calendar) by Act No. 58548, published in the Official Gazette No. 15275 on 25 May 1997.\n(b) Eligibility\n(23)\nNo specific rule on eligibility has been found in the set of Legislative/Administrative Acts provided by the Iranian Government during the investigation. The sole Iranian cooperating exporting producer has its factory premises established in the Petrochemical SEZ of Mahshahr, Bandar Imam Khomeini. According to the information made available by the Iranian authorities, this zone is the only Petrochemical SEZ in Iran.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(24)\nEach SEZ is considered as being situated outside the country\u2019s Customs territory. Hence, all imports are exempted from duties under the condition that the imported input materials are used to produce the resulting export product.\n(25)\nIn order to monitor the amount of duty-free imported raw materials consumed in the production of the resultant export product, the Customs offices register both the import allowance and export obligation at the time of import and of export on the basis of standard input-output norms specified in a certificate entitled \u2018Production Permit\u2019 released by the Ministry of Health, General Department and which is valid for five years. For every transaction the Customs offices releases upon request a code-number (B-Jack) necessary for the company to clear goods through Customs.\n(26)\nIn addition, the company provides periodically to the relevant authority with the exports and domestic sales that it intends to carry out in the following year. On the basis of the aforesaid available information, the Customs offices supervise the correct use of the benefits availed by the company.\n(27)\nAs regards a domestic sale, i.e. a sale from the SEZ into the mainland, a customs duty will be imposed on the part of the imported duty-free input incorporated in the final product according to the standard input-output norms.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(28)\nDuring the verification visit, it has been found that there are no concrete, statutory and publicly available criteria that govern the decision of the granting authority on who is entitled to be established in the Petrochemical SEZ. A company willing to establish in that zone has to lodge an application to the relevant authority but no guidelines are available in order to show on what basis the request can be accepted or rejected. Moreover, the founding Act of the Petrochemical SEZ entrusts National Petrochemical Company (\u2018NPC\u2019) (shareholder of the sole cooperating exporting producer) to manage and organize this zone for the purpose of petrochemical activities.\n(29)\nSerious discrepancies and malfunctions of the system have been found. The Iranian authorities did not establish a proper verification system to monitor the amount of duty-free imported raw materials consumed in the production of the resultant export product. STPC, the sole cooperating producer in Iran, did not report the actual raw material yields and no verification system has been implemented in practice by NPC in order to confirm that the inputs for which exemption has been granted are consumed in the production of the exported product and their amounts. The standard input-output norms are production ratios proposed by the company and accepted by the Government that derive from the standard applied in the Petrochemical Industry.\n(30)\nThe sole cooperating exporting producer benefited from the above scheme and also from a duty-free import of capital goods.\n(e) Conclusion\n(31)\nAccount taken of all the above, the import of duty-free inputs in the SEZ has to be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. a financial contribution of the Iranian Government which conferred a benefit upon the investigated exporter.\n(32)\nMoreover, the scheme is specific within the meaning of the Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation, given that the legislation, pursuant to which the granting authority operates, explicitly limits access to this zone to certain enterprises belonging to the petrochemical sector of production.\n(33)\nIn addition, the scheme is contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation. Without an export commitment, a company cannot obtain benefits under this scheme.\n(34)\nThis scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation since it does not conform to the rules laid down in Annex I, in particular point (i), Annex II and Annex III of the basic Regulation.\n(35)\nSpecifically, the Iranian Government has no verification system or procedure in place to confirm whether and in what amounts inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (in accordance with Annex II, part (II), point (4) of the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III, part (II), point (2) of the basic Regulation). The standard input-output norms themselves cannot be considered company specific standards nor a verification system of actual consumption. This type of process does not enable the Government to verify with sufficient precision what amounts of inputs were consumed in the export production and under which standard input-output norm benchmark they should be compared. Furthermore, the Government did not perform an effective control based on a correctly kept actual consumption register. In fact, the Government of Iran did not carry out a further examination, based on actual inputs involved, although this would normally need to be carried out in the absence of an effectively applied verification system (in accordance with Annex II, part (II), point (5) and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III, part (II), point (3) of the basic Regulation).\n(36)\nIn addition, the benefit derived from the duty unpaid from the import of capital goods is also a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. a financial contribution of the Iranian Government which conferred a benefit upon the investigated exporter. In addition, the scheme is contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation. Without an export commitment, a company cannot obtain benefits under this scheme.\n(37)\nIt cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system because it concerns capital goods which are not consumed in the production process and thus are not covered by the scope of permissible duty drawback systems set out in Annex I, point (i) of the basic Regulation.\n(38)\nAccount taken of above, the subsidies in question are considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(39)\nIn the absence of permitted duty drawback systems or substitution drawback systems, the benefit consists in the remission of total import duties normally due upon importation of inputs. In this respect, it is noted that the basic Regulation does not only provide for the countervailing of an \u2018excess\u2019 remission of duties. According to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Annex I, point (i) of the basic Regulation, only an excess remission of duties can be countervailed, provided the conditions of Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation are met. However, these conditions were not fulfilled in the present case. Thus, if an absence of an adequate monitoring process is established, the above exception for drawback schemes is not applicable and the normal rule of countervailing of the amount of (revenue forgone) unpaid duties applies, rather than any purported excess remission.\n(40)\nThe subsidy amount for the exporter with regard to the duty-free import of input products was calculated on the basis of import duties forgone (basic customs duty) on the material imported for the product concerned during the IP (nominator). In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount has been allocated over the export turnover generated by the product concerned during the IP, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(41)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme during the IP for the exporting producer amounts to 1,13 %.\n(42)\nIn addition, the benefit derived from the unpaid duty from the import of capital goods cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system because it concerns capital goods which are not consumed in the production process. The subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods spread across a period of 15 years which reflects the minimum depreciation period that has been found in all the three countries involved in the current investigation in relation to the industry concerned. In accordance with the established practice, the amount so calculated, which is attributable to the IP, has been adjusted by adding interest during this period in order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. The commercial interest rate during the IP in Iran was considered appropriate for this purpose.\n(43)\nIn accordance with Articles 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount (as nominator) has been allocated over the total export turnover during the IP, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. The subsidy rate established in respect of this subsidy during the IP for the exporting producer amounts to 0,93 %.\n(44)\nThe total subsidy rate established in respect of the above measures during the IP for the exporting producer amounts to 2,06 %.\nII. Financing from National Petrochemical Company to the PET exporting producer\n(45)\nThis scheme consists of a direct transfer of non-repayable funds from NPC to the sole cooperating Iranian exporting producer.\n(a) Findings of the investigation\n(46)\nThe investigation established that NPC is the main shareholder of STPC, owning 75 % of its shares. The remaining shareholders are the Petroleum Ministry Retirement & Welfare Fund, which owns 15 % of shares and the Justice Shares Broker Co., which owns 10 % of shares. It was established during the verification visit that NPC has financed a substantial part of STPC\u2019s capital cost and its circulating/working capital as well as the instalments of bank loans of STPC on their due dates. Therefore, as the Audited Financial Statements for the financial year covering the IP clearly show, the continuation of the cooperating exporting producer\u2019s activity depends on the financial support of the main shareholder that is fully owned by National Iranian Oil Company, which belongs to the Iranian Ministry of Petroleum.\n(47)\nFurthermore, the liquidity injections to STPC are not reported in the company\u2019s accounts as loans provided.\n(48)\nSTPC\u2019s debt towards NPC, as clearly stated in the STPC Audited Financial Statements ending on March 20, 2009, equals to 51 % of its total assets. In this respect it is noted that Article 141 of the Iranian Amendment Bill of Commercial Code requires the shareholder to decide on the dissolution or continuation of the company whenever any company has to allocate at least half of its capital to cover losses occurred.\n(49)\nUntil now no action has been taken by NPC, as principal shareholder of STPC, in order to increase the STPC\u2019s capital against the financial situation, although on 3 June 2009 the General Assembly Meeting of STPC decided that the situation of the company\u2019s debts to NPC should be clarified.\n(50)\nThe investigation has also established that the transfer of funds described above is a recurring practice that has been taking place for a number of years. Indeed, STPC\u2019s relevant Audited Financial Statements reveal that non-repayable funds have been accumulated since the beginning of the company\u2019s activity, as certified in the Audited Financial Statements since the financial year 2004.\n(b) Conclusion\n(51)\nAccount taken of above, this financial support from NPC can be considered a subsidy because it is a government practice which provides a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) of the basic Regulation, i.e. a direct transfer of funds in the form of working capital infusion and grants to cover the repayment of loans. In addition, the fact that the non-repayable funds have been accumulated since at least 2004 confirms that this is a recurring subsidy, the purpose of which is to keep in operation the sole cooperating Iranian exporting producer.\n(52)\nFurthermore, NPC is to be considered a public body on the basis of the following factors: 1) Government ownership: NPC is 100 % state-owned, a subsidiary of National Iranian Oil Company which is fully owned by the Ministry of Petroleum; 2) The Articles of Association of the NPC have been enacted through a legislative procedure; 3) The general Assembly of Representatives of Shareholders is formed by six Ministers, including the Prime Minister, and two of the directors of National Iranian Oil Company, elected by Chairman of the Board of Directors and Managing Director of National Iranian Oil Company. In other words, the government exercises total control over NPC; 4) NPC is responsible for the development and operation of the country\u2019s petrochemical sector and for this reason has been entrusted to manage the Petrochemical Special Economic Zone.\n(53)\nAs regards the existence of a benefit conferred upon the recipient company, the investigation established that STPC, as currently constituted, could not continue to operate without the financial support of NPC. This practice is inconsistent with the usual investment practice of private investors since no commercial organisation would continue to inject such non-repayable funding.\n(54)\nThis NPC financing intervention is specific within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation, given that the granting authority explicitly limits access to that subsidy only to STPC, in line with its policy to develop the Petrochemical Sector.\n(55)\nAccount taken of above, this subsidy is considered countervailable.\n(c) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(56)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to exist during the IP. The benefit conferred on the recipient is considered to be the total amount of non-repayable funding, as reported by the cooperating exporting producer in its accounts. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount (nominator) has been allocated over the total sales turnover of the company during the IP, because the subsidy is not contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(57)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the cooperating exporting producer amounts to 51,02 %.\n3.1.3. Amount of countervailable subsidies\n(58)\nThe provisional amount of countervailable subsidies in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the sole cooperating Iranian exporting producer is 53,08 %.\n3.2. Pakistan\n(59)\nOn the basis of the information contained in the complaint and the replies to the Commission\u2019s questionnaire, the following schemes, which allegedly involved the granting of subsidies by a Governmental authority, were investigated:\n(I)\nManufacturing Bond Scheme\n(II)\nImports of plant, machinery and equipment in Manufacturing Bond\n(III)\nTariff protection on purchases of PTA in the domestic market\n(IV)\nFinal Tax Regime (FTR)\n(V)\nExport Long-Term Fixed Rate Financing Scheme (LTF-EOP)\n(VI)\nExport Finance Scheme from the State Bank of Pakistan (EFS)\n(VII)\nFinance under F.E. Circular No. 25 of the State Bank of Pakistan\n3.2.1. Specific Schemes\nI. Manufacturing Bond Scheme\n(60)\nThis scheme permits the import of duty-free input material under the condition that it is used for subsequent exports.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(61)\nThe scheme is based on the Customs Act 1969, as amended on 30 June 2008. Section 219 (Chapter XX) of this Customs Act authorises the Central Board of Revenue to issue Notifications regarding the export and import policy. Accordingly, Chapter XV of the Customs Rules 2001 (SRO 450(I)/2001, published on 18 June 2001) provides a detailed regulation for the duty exemption of goods imported in the manufacturing bond warehouse.\n(b) Eligibility\n(62)\nIn order to avail the Manufacturing Bond Scheme, it is necessary to obtain a license released by the Customs Collectorate to any applicant person or firm, as described in the Article 343 of the Customs Rules 2001, Chapter XV.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(63)\nAt the moment of import of input materials, the producing company has to mention the SRO number 450/(I)/2001 on the Customs prescribed declaration form, i.e. \u2018Goods Declaration\u2019. However, an Indemnity Bond and post dated cheques in the amount of customs duty and sales tax are deposited with Customs Department and are valid for a period of three years. This guarantee is released/discharged by the Customs upon evidence of the export of finished goods provided by the company.\n(64)\nFinished goods manufactured from imported input materials are recorded in the Bond Register and the raw materials are adjusted according to the input ratios certified in the Analysis Certificate. This certificate released by the Customs Department attests the input-output ratios of all raw materials for manufacturing 1 000 kg. of the product concerned. These input-out ratios are proposed by the company and accepted by the Government and derive from the standard applied in the industry concerned.\n(65)\nAt the time of export, a declaration is made on the Customs Goods Declaration that the exports are from the Manufacturing Bond and a consumption sheet of input materials used in the manufacturing of the finished goods for export is attached to the Customs Goods Declaration. After examining all the aspects of the Goods Declaration, the concerned Customs official allows the export of the finished goods.\n(66)\nWhen the imports of input materials are consumed against respective export of finished goods in the Bond Register, the company submit a letter to the Customs Department along with a copy of import Goods Declaration and export Shipping Bills along with a summary/reconciliation showing the consumption of raw materials and its export in the shape of finished goods under the Manufacturing Bond. Accordingly, the Customs official releases the Indemnity Bond and the post dated cheques deposited at the time of import of input materials.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(67)\nThe sole cooperating exporting producer obtained benefits under the Manufacturing Bond scheme.\n(68)\nThe verification visit established that, in practice, the Pakistani authorities did not apply a proper verification system to monitor the amount of duty-free imported raw materials and consumed in the production of the resultant export product. Serious discrepancies and malfunctions of the system have been found in comparison with the drawback system established in the legal provisions (Chapter XV of the Customs Rules 2001).\n(69)\nIn the manufacturing bond, the manufacturing area and separate stores of finished goods, rejects and waste, were not clearly ear-marked in the premises. Only the raw materials imported duty-free were separated from locally procured input goods. The premises of the warehouse, that is the bonded warehouse and the manufacturing bond, were not in an independent area having an independent entry or exit from a public area and having no other entry or exit, as prescribed in the Article 349 of the abovementioned Chapter XV.\n(70)\nThe relevant record of input goods received, manufactured and exported was not kept on the basis of actual consumption. Only the theoretical consumption was registered, according to an Analysis Certificate, with input-output ratios of all the raw materials for producing 1 000 kg of outputs. These input-output norms are set out by the authorities and periodically reviewed but there are no clear rules and no evidence of how these reviews are performed.\n(71)\nFurthermore, no effective verification system has been implemented in practice by the Government of Pakistan. The authorities claimed that they perform audits on the documentation kept by companies but this is done by looking at what the companies report per standard input-output norm and not on what were the actual production material yields.\n(72)\nThe authorities submitted that the relevant PET Analysis Certificate for the sole cooperating exporting producer was reviewed from 2002 (when the first submitted Analysis Certificate was issued) up to IP. In support of this claim, the authorities provided copy of one review performed in 2004. Nevertheless, although this review resulted in a restriction on the amount of raw materials allowed for duty-free import, no control of any excess remission investigation on the duties forgone was performed. From the moment of the adjustment of the Analysis Certificate and onwards, the cooperating exporting producer simply adjusted its registration quantities in the Bond Register as per the Analysis Certificate yields. Since 2004, despite the clear evidence that the production process could lead to better performing raw material yields (and thus excess remission of duties), no review of the Analysis Certificate and no investigation on the actual consumption of raw materials used by the cooperating exporting producer was performed.\n(e) Conclusion\n(73)\nAccount taken of all the above, the Manufacturing Bond Scheme has to be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of forgone government revenue which confers a benefit upon the recipient company.\n(74)\nIn addition, this subsidy scheme can be considered specific, since it is provided to companies that manufacture products in bond and further export goods and is therefore contingent in law on export performance in line with Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(75)\nFurthermore, this scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex I, in particular point (i), Annex II and Annex III of the basic Regulation.\n(76)\nSpecifically, the Pakistani Government did not effectively apply its verification system or procedure to confirm whether and in what amounts inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (in accordance with Annex II, part (II), point (4) of the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III, part (II), point (2) of the basic Regulation). The input-output ratios cannot be considered company-specific standards and not even a verification system of actual consumption. This type of process does not enable the Government to verify with sufficient precision what amounts of inputs were consumed in the export production. Furthermore, an effective control done by the Government based on a correctly kept actual consumption register did not take place. In addition, the Pakistani Government did not carry out a further examination based on actual inputs involved, although this would normally need to be carried out in the absence of an effectively applied verification system (Annex II, part (II), point(5) and Annex III, part (II), point (3) to the basic Regulation).\n(77)\nAccount taken of above, this subsidy is considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(78)\nIn the absence of permitted duty drawback systems or substitution drawback systems, the benefit consists in the remission of total import duties normally due upon importation of inputs. In this respect, it is noted that the basic Regulation does not only provide for the countervailing of an \u2018excess\u2019 remission of duties. According to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Annex I, point (i) of the basic Regulation, only an excess remission of duties can be countervailed, provided the conditions of Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation are met. However, these conditions were not fulfilled in the present case. Thus, if an absence of an adequate monitoring process is established, the above exception for drawback schemes is not applicable and the normal rule of countervailing of the amount of (revenue forgone) unpaid duties applies, rather than any purported excess remission.\n(79)\nThe subsidy amount for the exporter was calculated on the basis of import duties forgone (basic customs duty) on the material imported under the Manufacturing Bond scheme used for the product concerned during the IP (nominator). In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount has been allocated over the export turnover generated by the product concerned during the IP because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(80)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme during the IP for the exporting producer amounts to 2,57 %.\nII. Imports of plant, machinery and equipment in Manufacturing Bond\n(81)\nThis scheme allowed free of duty import of plant and machinery destined to Manufacturing Bond and imported by 30 June 2004. Machinery and spare parts not manufactured locally had to be imported for setting up a manufacturing unit or for the expansion, balancing, modernization and replacement of existing units in bond.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(82)\nThe scheme is provided by SRO No. 554(I)/98, dated 12 June 1998.\n(b) Eligibility\n(83)\nIn order to avail this scheme, the importer had to declare to the Customs authorities that the machinery has been duly installed or used in the bonded premises.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(84)\nThe importer, at the time of importation, had to satisfy the Collector of Customs that the machinery or spare parts had been imported for setting up a manufacturing unit in bond and furnish an indemnity bond in the amount of the customs duty. The said indemnity bond would have been discharged on production of a certificate of installation of the imported machinery.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(85)\nThis scheme was used up to June 2004 and the sole cooperating exporting producer availed benefits for the import of one portion of its plant between 2002 and 2003.\n(e) Conclusion\n(86)\nAccount taken of above, the scheme has to be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of foregone government revenue which confers a benefit upon the recipient company.\n(87)\nThis subsidy scheme can be considered specific, since it is provided to companies that manufacture products in bond and further export goods and is therefore contingent in law on export performance in line with Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(88)\nIn addition, the benefit derived from the duty unpaid from the import of capital goods cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system because it concerns capital goods which are not consumed in the production process and thus are not covered by the scope of permissible duty drawback systems set out in Annex I, point (i) of the basic Regulation.\n(89)\nAccount taken of above, this subsidy is considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(90)\nThe subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods spread across a period of 15 years which reflects the minimum depreciation period that has been found in all the three countries involved in the current investigation in relation to the industry concerned. In accordance with the established practice, the amount so calculated, which is attributable to the IP, has been adjusted by adding interest during this period in order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. The commercial interest rate during the IP in Pakistan was considered appropriate for this purpose.\n(91)\nIn accordance with Articles 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount (as numerator) has been allocated over the total export turnover during the IP, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(92)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme during the IP for the exporting producer amounts to 0,01 %.\nIII. Tariff protection on purchases of PTA in the domestic market\n(93)\nThe scheme provides a financial refund for domestic purchases of PTA (the main raw material used in the production of PET) produced in Pakistan at 7,5 % of the invoice selling price.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(94)\nThe scheme is based on the SRO No. 1045(I)/2008 dated September 19, 2008, amended by SRO No. 1299(I)/2008 dated December 22, 2008, and allows all PTA consumers and users to obtain a refund of 7,5 % of their purchases of locally procured PTA.\n(b) Eligibility\n(95)\nThis scheme is a Compensatory Support to PTA users or consumers listed in the aforesaid SRO and to any other user approved by the Ministry of Textile Industry who becomes eligible in the future. This Compensatory Support is provided to offset the impact of locally procured or imported PTA through the State Bank of Pakistan. Application forms to benefit from the scheme are set out as Annexure of the SROs. Furthermore, a list of recipient companies of the scheme is provided directly by the SRO No. 1045(I)/2008.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(96)\nThis refund is a compensatory support/tariff protection for the polyester industry and is administrated by the State Bank of Pakistan. If PTA is imported, an import duty of 7,5 % is levied.\n(97)\nIf PTA is purchased from a Pakistani manufacturer that locally produced PTA, a price component of 7,5 % is identified on the invoice sent by the domestic PTA producer to the buyer. Accordingly, the buyer obtains a refund of this 7,5 % upon request.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(98)\nThe investigation established that in practice the scheme provides a direct financing to the polyester industry of Pakistan. The SROs are intended to favour the procurement of domestically produced PTA. This support for the domestically procured PTA is considered a direct financing to the buyer. The investigation established that the sole cooperating exporting producer was explicitly listed in the relevant SRO as a beneficiary of this scheme. In fact, the relevant SRO only mentioned eight companies in Pakistan as parties entitled to this scheme. Thus, the cooperating exporting producer obtained benefits derived from the PTA Compensatory Support.\n(e) Conclusion\n(99)\nAccount taken of all the above, this scheme is considered to be a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation because it provides a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds that confers a clear benefit upon the recipient company.\n(100)\nIn addition, the scheme is specific within the meaning of Article 4(4)(b) of the basic Regulation, given that the subsidy is contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods.\n(101)\nFurthermore, this subsidy can also be considered specific within the meaning of Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation, given that the legislation itself explicitly limits access to this scheme to certain enterprises belonging to the polyester industry.\n(102)\nConsequently, this subsidy is considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(103)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to exist during the IP. The benefit conferred on the recipient is considered to be the total amount of the financial refund, as reported by the cooperating exporting producer in its accounts.\n(104)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount (nominator) has been allocated over the total sales turnover of the company during the IP because the subsidy is not contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(105)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the cooperating exporting producer amounts to 2,38 %.\nIV. Final Tax Regime (FTR)\n(106)\nUnder this scheme a company can benefit from a special tax regime on its export turnover.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(107)\nThe scheme is based on the Sections 154 and 169 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (ITO) and Division IV of Part III of the First Schedule to the ITO 2001.\n(b) Eligibility\n(108)\nThis scheme is a system to levy income on the basis of the export turnover and is accessible to every exporter at the time of realisation of the proceeds on account of a sale of goods.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(109)\nA withholding tax of 1 % is deducted by an authorized bank on the value of the export transaction at the time of the realization of foreign exchange proceeds, regardless of any profit of the company. On the other hand, the taxable income of companies on their domestic activities is subject to a 35 % income tax.\n(110)\nThis tax deduction, applied directly on the exchange proceeds, is to be considered a final tax on the income arising from the export transactions. No deduction is allowed for any expenditure pertaining to the realisation of the export turnover.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(111)\nThe investigation established that in practice the scheme provides a special and favourable tax treatment for the exporters. Although the portion of the expenses related to the export turnover cannot be deducted, the low tax rate at 1 % of the total export turnover represents an advantageous tax system in comparison with the normal tax regime where a higher rate at 35 % is applied on the normal income, provided that the profits from exports are taxed at a lower rate than those earned on domestic sales. The cooperating exporting producer obtained benefits derived from the FTR scheme.\n(e) Conclusion\n(112)\nTo the extent that this tax regime results in profits due to the fact that exports are taxed at a lower rate the domestic sales, this scheme is considered to be a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) (ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of forgone government revenue that confers a benefit upon the recipient company.\n(113)\nIn addition, this subsidy can be considered specific within the meaning of the Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation, given that the subsidy is contingent upon export performance.\n(114)\nConsequently, this subsidy is considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(115)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to exist during the IP. The benefit conferred on the recipient is considered to be the amount of total tax payable according to the income relating to the receipts subject to the FTR (exports), after the deduction of the FTR paid (1 % of the export turnover). In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount (nominator) has been allocated over the total export turnover of the company during the IP, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(116)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the IP for the exporting producer amounts to 1,95 %.\nV. Export Long-Term Fixed Rate Financing Scheme (LTF-EOP)\n(117)\nThe purpose of the Long-Term Financing for the Export Oriented Projects (LTF-EOP) is to enable eligible financial institutions to provide financing facilities on attractive terms and conditions to borrowers for import of machinery, plant, equipment and accessories thereof.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(118)\nThe legal bases are provided under Section 17(2)(a)/17(4)(c) and Section 22 read with 17(2)(d) respectively of the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956. Details of the scheme are set out in the State Bank of Pakistan (\u2018SBP\u2019) Circular No. 14, dated 18 May 2004.\n(b) Eligibility\n(119)\nAs expressly stated in the SBP Circular No. 14, dated 18 May 2004, companies which export directly or indirectly at least 50 % of their annual production are eligible for financing under the scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(120)\nParticipating financial institutions approved for FTF-EOP are those who comply with the capital adequacy requirement set by the SBP. Those institutions can provide a long-term financing of up to 7-1/2 years to their borrowers.\n(121)\nCredit provided to companies could then be used for various purposes (modernization of factories, purchase of locally manufactured plant and machinery, import of machinery etc.).\n(122)\nBanks are allowed to charge the borrower up to 3 % over and above the rates notified by the SBP. Interest rates for financing under LTF-EOP scheme are benchmarked with the weighted average yields of 12 months Treasury Bills and three and five years Pakistan Investment Bond, depending on the period of financing.\n(123)\nAfter the disbursement of the loan, the banks can approach the concerned office of the SBP for obtaining refinance in the amount of the loan disbursed.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(124)\nAlthough this scheme ceased in June 2007, the sole cooperating exporting producer is still benefiting the scheme, given that this is a long-term financing and the benefit was availed of in April 2005 for a period of 7-1/2 years.\n(125)\nUnder this scheme, the SBP mandatorily sets maximum ceiling interest rates applicable to long-term loans.\n(126)\nAs result, exporters can obtain long-term loans at preferential interest rates compared with the interest rates for ordinary commercial credits, which are set purely under market conditions.\n(e) Conclusion\n(127)\nThe scheme has to be considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of government practice which involves a public body (i.e., the SBP), which is therefore part of the government, instructing commercial banks to carry out functions illustrated under Article 3(1)(a)(i) (i.e. direct transfer of funds in the form of loans). A benefit is conferred upon the recipient company in the form of the preferential interest rate.\n(128)\nIn this context, it has to be highlighted that SBP falls under the definition of a \u2018government\u2019 as set out in Article 2(b) of the basic Regulation. It is 100 % government-owned and pursues public policy objectives. Indeed, SBP performs all the functions attributed to central banks, including the issue of notes, regulation and supervision of the financial system, acting as bankers\u2019 bank, lender of last resort, banker to the Government, conducting monetary policy, managing the public debt, managing the foreign exchange, developing the financial framework, institutionalising savings and investments, providing training facilities to bankers, and providing credit to priority sectors.\n(129)\nAccount taken of above, this subsidy can be considered specific pursuant to Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation because the legislation itself, on the part of the eligibility criteria, explicitly provides a subsidy contingent upon export performance.\n(130)\nConsequently, this subsidy is considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(131)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to exist during the IP. Pursuant to Article 6(b) of the basic Regulation, the benefit to the recipient is calculated by taking the difference between the central bank\u2019s (State Bank of Pakistan) imposed credit ceiling and the applicable commercial credit rates.\n(132)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the subsidy amount (nominator) has been allocated over the export turnover of the product concerned during the IP because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(133)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme for the IP for the exporting producer amounts to 0,60 %.\nVI. Export Finance Scheme from the State Bank of Pakistan (EFS)\n(134)\nUnder the EFS short-term financing, facilities are provided to the exporters through commercial banks for exports of all manufactured goods. This scheme is primarily a working capital facility of short-term nature for a maximum period of 180 days.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(135)\nThe legal bases are provided under Section 17(2)(a)/17(4)(c) and Section 22 read with 17(2)(d) respectively of the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956. Details of the scheme are set out in the SBP Circular No. 35, dated 28 September 2001 and Circular No. 44, dated 17 December 1998.\n(b) Eligibility\n(136)\nAny exporter can benefit from the EFS by applying to any commercial bank and by fulfilling the other requirements required by the financial institution. In fact, the decision to lend is taken by the bank under its own internally-approved credit policy.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(137)\nThis benefit can be granted both on export transactions and on export performance.\n(138)\nUnder the transaction-based facility, finance is granted by the bank to the exporter on the basis of a Firm Export Order/Export Letter of Credit for a maximum period of 180 days. The financing facility can be availed at pre-shipment stage for procuring inputs and manufacturing the goods to be exported. Financing at post-shipment stage is also granted for goods already shipped to the importer abroad for the period up to realization of export proceeds or 180 days, whichever is earlier.\n(139)\nUnder the performance-based facility, this revolving finance is granted to the exporter up to 50 % of his export performance realized during the previous year. Exporters can avail themselves of this financing facility for a period of 180 days. This facility, once availed, needs to be repaid in totality.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(140)\nThis scheme provides a short-term financing export credit from commercial banks at preferential interest rates prescribed by the State Bank of Pakistan. The sole cooperating exporting producer benefits from this scheme for both domestic and export sales.\n(141)\nEFS Mark-up rates are benchmarked with the weighted average yields of six months Pakistan Treasury Bills.\n(142)\nAs result, exporters can obtain financing facility at preferential interest rates compared with the interest rates for ordinary short-term commercial credits, which are set purely under market conditions.\n(e) Conclusion\n(143)\nThe scheme is considered to be a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation because it provides a financial contribution in the form of government practice which involves a public body (i.e. SBP) instructing commercial banks to carry out functions illustrated under Article 3(1)(a)(i) (i.e. direct transfer of funds in the form of loans). A benefit is conferred upon the recipient company in the form of the preferential interest rate.\n(144)\nFurthermore, account taken of above, this subsidy can be considered specific pursuant to Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation because the legislation itself, on the part of the eligibility criteria, explicitly provides a subsidy contingent upon export performance.\n(145)\nConsequently, this subsidy is considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(146)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to exist during the IP. Pursuant to Article 6(b) of the basic Regulation, the benefit to the recipient is calculated by taking the difference between the central bank\u2019s (State Bank of Pakistan) imposed credit ceiling and the applicable commercial credit rates.\n(147)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the subsidy amount (nominator) has been allocated over the export turnover during the IP because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(148)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme for the IP for the exporting producer amounts to 2,22 %.\nVII. Finance under F.E. Circular No. 25 of the State Bank of Pakistan\n(149)\nThis scheme is a short term financing facility for export and import provided by commercial banks at preferential interest rates prescribed by the State Bank of Pakistan.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(150)\nThis financing facility is governed under F.E. Circular No. 25 of June 20, 1998, further modified by F.E. Circular No. 05 of August 23, 2002.\n(b) Eligibility\n(151)\nAny exporter and importer can avail itself of this short-term financing.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(152)\nUnder this scheme banks have been allowed to use/invest their dollar deposits for financing importers and exporters. This loan is advanced out of the dollar deposits/interbank placements, nominated in dollar but disbursed in equivalent rupees. The financing made under F.E. Circular No. 25 (\u2018F.E. 25\u2019) is made by banks against relevant evidence of trade transactions.\n(153)\nAs illustrated by the F.E. Circular No. 05 of August 23, 2002 In the case of a loan to an exporter, it is possible to adjust the foreign currency proceeds of export in repayment of the loan and profit/interest thereon, only if the exporter has surrendered the full proceeds of the loan to a bank against payment in rupees. Trade loan facility under the F.E. 25 scheme is entirely on self-liquidating basis from export proceeds.\n(154)\nAs illustrated by the F.E. Circular No. 05 of August 23, 2002 the financing facility for imports can be allowed only from the date of actual execution of import payments in foreign currency by creating a foreign currency loan for the benefit of the importer. The maximum period of such loans should not exceed six months from the date of the disbursement to the importer.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(155)\nThis scheme provides short-term financing export credit from commercial banks at preferential interest rates prescribed by the State Bank of Pakistan.\n(156)\nThe interest/mark-up for this financing is benchmarked to LIBOR rate plus a spread charged by the banks.\n(157)\nAs result, exporters can obtain financing facility at preferential interest rates compared with the interest rates for ordinary short-term commercial credits, which are set purely under market conditions.\n(e) Conclusion\n(158)\nThe scheme is considered to be a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation because it provides a financial contribution in the form of government practice which involves a public body (i.e. SBP) instructing commercial banks to carry out functions illustrated under Article 3(1)(a)(i) (i.e. direct transfer of funds in the form of loans). A benefit is conferred upon the recipient company in the form of the preferential interest rate.\n(159)\nFurthermore, account taken of above, this subsidy can be considered specific pursuant to Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation because the legislation itself, on the part of the eligibility criteria, explicitly provides a subsidy contingent upon export performance.\n(160)\nConsequently, this subsidy is considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(161)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to exist during the IP. Pursuant to Article 6(b) of the basic Regulation, the benefit to the recipient is calculated by taking the difference between the central bank\u2019s (State Bank of Pakistan) imposed credit ceiling and the applicable commercial credit rates.\n(162)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the subsidy amount (nominator) has been allocated over the export turnover during the IP because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(163)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme for the IP for the exporting producer amounts to 0,06 %.\n3.2.2. Amount of countervailable subsidies\n(164)\nThe provisional amount of countervailable subsidies in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the sole cooperating Pakistani exporting producer is 9,79 %.\n3.3. United Arab Emirates (UAE)\n(165)\nOn the basis of the information contained in the complaint and the replies to the Commission\u2019s questionnaire, the following schemes, which allegedly involved the granting of subsidies by a Governmental authority, were investigated:\n(I)\nFederal Law No. 1 of 1979\n(II)\nFree Trade Zone\n3.3.1. Specific Schemes\nI. Federal Law No. 1 of 1979\n(166)\nThis scheme permits the import of duty-free raw materials, packing material and capital goods at zero-duty rates.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(167)\nThe scheme is based on the Federal Law No. 1 of 1979, Organising Industrial Affairs.\n(b) Eligibility\n(168)\nIn order to avail the benefits of the abovementioned Federal Law, it is necessary to obtain an Industrial License released by the Ministry of Finance and Industry.\n(169)\nAccording to Article 8 of the Federal Law, licences for the establishment of an industrial project may be granted only to UAE citizens, or to companies with local capital shares amount to 51 % minimum, and provided the manager in charge thereof is a local, or the board of directors is constituted in its majority by local citizens.\n(170)\nFurthermore, the same Federal Law provides a set of other eligibility requirements that parties should fulfil: fixed capital should not be lower than 250 000 Dirhams, the number of employees not lower than 10 persons, the use of motive power exceeding 5 horse powers (Article 2). Another requirement is that 25 % of the employees should be locals, but the Minister may decide to exempt or reduce this percentage (Article 33). According to Article 13, application for industrial projects has to be considered in light of the following: industrial project belonging to the industrial development program of the country and agreement made with Arab countries, local consumption requirements. To those projects that comply with the requirements set out in the Article 13 and that are competitive and export-oriented, Article 21 provides a special priority in the granting of privileges.\n(171)\nOn the basis of the application provided and the relevant documentation submitted, a relevant committee of the Ministry of Finance and Industry recommends to the Minister the approval or rejection of the application. In line with Article 12 of the Federal Law No. 1, the Minister may decide to grant or not the license.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(172)\nIn order to fall within the scope of application of this scheme, the applicant has to comply with the following procedure: application for Industrial Licence to be submitted to the Ministry of Finance and Industry; grant of Industrial Licence by the Ministry; approvals for duty-free imports through on-line application.\n(173)\nThe Ministry concerned has set up an Electronic Industrial System (\u2018EIS\u2019) for this scheme and issued a relevant User Manual to guide the user of the scheme. The EIS is an on-line system implemented by the Ministry. On the one hand, it allows users a direct access to their respective licence. On the other hand, it enables the Industrial Development Department of the Ministry overall control of the scheme and supervision of the use of the benefits availed by the companies.\n(174)\nEach user of the scheme has reserved access to the EIS where it is possible to view its respective raw materials list used in its factory production process (Item name, HS code, Measurement unit, Total balance - which means the item\u2019s quantity - and Remaining balance which means the remaining quantity of this item that the company can get a duty exemption for). An on-line application has to be filed for every import transaction in order to obtain a special code that permits to clear the goods duty-free through Customs. The Industrial Development Department can refuse applications for raw materials exemption if the quantity requested exceeds the Remaining balance of that item. It can also reject the exemption for capital goods that are not included in the industrial project. In this latter case, the decision is based on the information provided by the company during the first Registration to the scheme. Following a rejection, the company can view through the system all the details and the rejection reasons and can act accordingly in order to provide the requested clarifications.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(175)\nDuring the verification visit it has been found that the sole cooperating exporting producer benefits from a general duty exemption on imports of raw materials, packing material and capital goods without any condition such as a subsequent export of the final product. No Federal/local law or regulation obliges the company to keep any kind of register for subsequent control carried out by the competent authorities.\n(176)\nAlthough the company has to lodge applications through the on-line EIS to import free of duty, no guideline has been found in order to show on what basis the requests are accepted or rejected.\n(177)\nFurthermore, the granting authorities are not aware of the actual consumption of the duty-free input goods. Only the theoretical consumption is reported by the company into the EIS. In fact, from the moment of the first Registration into the system, the checks carried out by the granting authorities take place only electronically. No evidence has been provided that the first Registration input-output material yields are in all cases checked and verified. Furthermore, no effective verification system has been implemented in practice by the Government of the UAE. The authorities claimed that they perform audits via the EIS and on the basis of the documentation that all companies are requested to submit every year for the renewal of their licences (information referring to the local industrial licence, audited Accounts, production and sales data, etc.). Nevertheless, this is done by looking at what the companies report yearly and compared as per their first Registration and not the actual production. In fact, no information was provided to confirm that the authorities are aware at any stage of the procedure of what are the actual production material yields for the sole cooperating exporting producer availing benefits from this scheme.\n(e) Conclusion\n(178)\nAccount taken of all the above, this scheme is considered to be a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation because it provides a financial contribution in the form of government revenue forgone and confers a benefit upon the recipient company because it gives the possibility to be exempt from import duties. In this context it should be noted that this cannot not be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system since it does not conform to the rules laid down in Annex I, in particular point (i), Annex II and Annex III of the basic Regulation. In fact the Government of the UAE has submitted that there are no provisions for duty drawback rules in the UAE.\n(179)\nIn addition, the scheme is specific within the meaning of the Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation given that access is limited to certain enterprises and there are no objective criteria to limit eligibility in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation. Indeed, with regard to the on-line application, the eligibility criteria of the granting authority for choosing recipients of the scheme is a mixture of some clear and objective, although discriminatory, criteria (i.e. licences can be granted only to UAE citizens, or to companies with local capital shares amount to 51 % minimum, and provided the manager in charge thereof is a local, or the board of directors is constituted in its majority by local citizens, 25 % of the employees should be locals) and some conditions which are not clearly defined (i.e. established in areas determined by the government, fulfil the industrial development programme of the country and agreements made with Arab countries, fulfil local consumption requirements, be competitive and export-oriented). No rule clarifies the role of the Industrial Development Department mentioned only in the User Manual issued by the Ministry and not in the Federal Law establishing the scheme.\n(180)\nFurthermore, there is evidence that the allocation of the subsidies is not automatic. The legislation itself, pursuant to which the granting authority operates, empowers the Minister to make the final decision on the granting of Industrial License without any kind of evidence to show on what basis applications can be accepted or rejected. Furthermore, the authorities are always in a position to exercise discretion in granting or rejecting the requested duty exemptions.\n(181)\nAccount taken of above, this subsidy is considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(182)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidy is calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to exist during the IP, that is the total duties unpaid in the import of raw materials during the IP. This subsidy amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total sales turnover of the product concerned of the company during the IP.\n(183)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme during the IP for the exporting producer amounts to 5,02 %.\nII. Free Trade Zone (FTZ)\n(184)\nThe exporting producer was operating under the regime of the Free Trade Zone of Ras Al Khaimah from its establishment and up to May 2008 and availed the benefits of duty-free imports of capital goods.\n(a) Legal Basis\n(185)\nNo federal legislation regulating matters concerning the establishment and management of FTZ exits in the UAE. Each Emirate issues its own legislation and rules and has the responsibility to monitor via its Customs services the relevant FTZs.\n(b) Eligibility\n(186)\nNo specific rule or limit on eligibility exists in order to establish a company in the FTZ of Ras Al Khaimah: any national or fully owned foreign company can establish itself in the FTZ.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(187)\nThe most important benefits linked with the establishment in a FTZ are the ability to import duty-free all items (raw, essential, auxiliary materials, intermediate products, capital goods) and to decide without any State-imposed precondition on the shareholding structure of the company. Goods manufactured in FTZs are considered for origin purposes as originating in the UAE. Nevertheless, when taken out of the FTZ into the UAE domestic market they are treated as foreign goods, i.e. import duties apply when put into free circulation.\n(188)\nAlthough a company located in a FTZ benefits from duty-free imports and exports, customs declarations have to be filed at the relevant federal Customs at the moment of import. The company has to furnish a Bank Guarantee with Customs at the import entry point. The imported goods are cleared by Customs under an exit/entry declaration. On receipt of the goods at the FTZ entry/import location, the concerned Customs zone authority inspects the goods received and upon satisfaction endorses the exit/entry declaration. The latter, duly signed by the receiving Customs check point, is to be submitted back to the Customs authority at the import entry/point in order to release the Bank Guarantee.\n(d) Findings of the investigation\n(189)\nDuring the verification visit it has been found that there are no concrete, statutory and publicly available criteria that govern the decision of the granting authority on who is entitled to establish itself in the FTZ. A company willing to establish itself in that zone has to lodge an application to the authority of the Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah but no legislation or guidelines are available in order to show on what basis the request can be accepted or rejected.\n(190)\nAs to the existence of the various FTZ in the UAE, the investigation established that there are no unified statutory criteria that govern the set-up and management of FTZs in the UAE. No evidence was provided that all FTZs in the UAE perform under the same regulatory framework and follow the same operational rules. Serious doubts were also raised as to whether eligibility to being established in the FTZs could be restricted on the basis of certain type of business activity. Indeed, on the basis of information provided it appears that certain FTZs in the UAE are exclusively dedicated to specific types of business activities (e.g. Dudai Auto Free Zone, International Media Production Free Zone, Dubai Flower Centre Free Zone, etc.).\n(191)\nThe sole cooperating exporting producer benefited from a duty-free import of capital goods.\n(e) Conclusion\n(192)\nAccount taken of the above, the scheme has to be considered to be a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation because it provides a financial contribution in the form of government revenue forgone and confers a benefit upon the recipient company.\n(193)\nMoreover, the scheme is specific in the meaning of the Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation, since these benefits are only available to companies in FTZs i.e. therefore access to the subsidy is limited to companies in certain locations operating under the FTZ regime. Furthermore, the investigation has established that the granting of FTZ status in the UAE is discretionary and does not follow and neutral or objective criteria, as provided for in Article 4(2)(b). Given the lack of any federal legislation regulating the establishment and management of the FTZs in the UAE, every granting authority of the seven Emirates forming the UAE provides access to the FTZs according to its own rules. Since no legislation or guidelines are available in the Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah, the relevant authority decides on a discretionary basis which company can be entitled to enter the FTZ.\n(194)\nIn addition, the benefit derived from the duty unpaid from the import of capital goods cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system because it concerns capital goods which are not consumed in the production process and thus are not covered by the scope of permissible duty drawback systems set out in Annex I, point (i) of the basic Regulation.\n(195)\nAccount taken of above, this subsidy is considered countervailable.\n(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(196)\nConsidering that the company was established in the FTZ from its establishment up to May 2008 but the production process of PET started in September 2007 and the company was operating since January 2008 its production under a preliminary industrial license of Federal Law No. 1 of 1979, the subsidy availed during the IP has to be considered as being only the duty-free imports of capital goods.\n(197)\nIn accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, the subsidy amount was calculated on the basis of the unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods spread across a period of 15 years which reflects the minimum depreciation period that has been found in all the three countries involved in the current investigation in relation to the industry concerned. In accordance with the established practice, the amount so calculated, which is attributable to the IP, has been adjusted by adding interest during this period in order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. The commercial interest rate during the IP in the UAE was considered appropriate for this purpose.\n(198)\nIn accordance with Articles 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount (as nominator) has been allocated over the total sales turnover during the IP since the attribution of the benefit is not contingent on export performance.\n(199)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme during the IP for the exporting producer amounts to 0,11 %.\n3.3.2. Amount of countervailable subsidies\n(200)\nThe provisional amount of countervailable subsidies in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the sole cooperating United Arab Emirates exporting producer is 5,13 %.\n4. INJURY\n4.1. Union production and Union industry\n(201)\nDuring the IP, the like product was manufactured by 17 producers in the Union. The output of these producers is therefore deemed to constitute the Union production within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(202)\nOf these 17 producers, 12 producers cooperated with the investigation. These 12 producers were found to account for a major proportion, in this case more than 80 %, of the total Union production of the like product. The 12 cooperating producers therefore constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 9(1) and Article 10(6) of the basic Regulation and will be hereafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019. The remaining Union producers will be hereafter referred to as the \u2018other Union producers\u2019. These other Union producers have not actively supported or opposed the complaint.\n(203)\nIt is noted that the EU market for PET is characterised by a relatively high number of producers, belonging usually to bigger groups with headquarters outside the EU. The market is in a process of consolidation with a number of recent takeovers and closures. For instance, since 2009, PET production plants of Tergal Fibers (France), Invista (Germany) and Artenius (UK) closed while Indorama took over the former Eastman plants in UK and the Netherlands.\n(204)\nAs indicated above at recital (8), a sample of five individual producers was selected, representing 65 % of the sales by all cooperating Union producers. One company was not in a position to provide all data as requested and the sample consequently had to be reduced to four companies representing 47 % of the sales by all cooperating producers.\n4.2. Union consumption\n(205)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market, the import volumes data for the EU market obtained from EUROSTAT and, concerning the other Union producers, from estimations based on the complaint.\n(206)\nUnion consumption of the product under investigation increased between 2006 and the IP by 11 %. In detail, the apparent demand grew in 2007 by 8 %, decreased slightly between 2007 and 2008 (by 2 percentage points) and increased by further 5 percentage points between 2008 and the IP.\nTable 1\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nTotal EU consumption (tonnes)\n2 709 400\n2 936 279\n2 868 775\n2 996 698\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n108\n106\n111\nSource: questionnaire replies, Eurostat data and complaint.\n4.3. Imports from the countries concerned\n(a) Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned\n(207)\nThe Commission examined whether imports of PET from Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates should be assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 8(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(208)\nWith regard to the effects of the imports originating in the UAE, Iran and Pakistan, the investigation showed that the subsidy margins were above the de minimis threshold as defined in Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation and the volume of subsidised imports from these countries was not negligible in the sense of Article 10(9) of the basic Regulation.\n(209)\nWith regard to the conditions of competition between imports from Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates and the like product, the investigation revealed that the producers from these countries use the same sales channels and sell to similar categories of customers. Moreover, the investigation also revealed that the imports from all these countries had an increasing trend in the period considered.\n(210)\nIn view of the above, it is provisionally considered that all the criteria set out in Article 8(3) of the basic Regulation were met and that imports from Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates should be examined cumulatively.\n(b) Volume of the imports concerned\n(211)\nThe volume of subsidised imports of the product concerned into the EU rose by more than 5 times between 2006 and the IP and reached 304 202 tonnes in the IP. More specifically, imports from the countries concerned increased by 20 % between 2006 and 2007, before further increasing by 270 percentage points in 2008 compared to 2007, and again by 154 percentage points between 2008 and the IP.\nTable 2\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolume of subsidised imports (tonnes)\n55 939\n67 067\n218 248\n304 202\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n120\n390\n544\nMarket share of subsidised imports\n2,1 %\n2,3 %\n7,6 %\n10,2 %\nSource: Eurostat.\n(c) Market share of the imports concerned\n(212)\nThe market share held by subsidised imports from the countries concerned stood at 2,1 % during 2006 and increased steadily by 8 percentage points throughout the period considered. More specifically, it rose by 0,2 percentage points between 2006 and 2007, by further 5,3 percentage points between 2007 and 2008 and by 2,6 percentage points between 2008 and the IP. In the IP, the market share of subsidised imports from the countries concerned was 10,2 %.\n(213)\nIt is noted that the UAE entered the market only as of 2007, but managed quickly to gain a substantial market share.\n(d) Prices\n(i) Price evolution\n(214)\nThe average import price decreased by 14 % in the period considered with the sharpest decline between 2008 and the IP. More specifically, the average price decreased by 1 % in 2007 and stayed close to that level in 2008, before dropping by further 13 percentage points in the IP.\nTable 3\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nPrice of imports (EUR/ton)\n1 030\n1 023\n1 015\n882\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n99\n99\n86\nSource: Eurostat.\n(ii) Price undercutting\n(215)\nIn consideration of the fact that the prices and costs of the product concerned were subject to considerable fluctuations in the IP, selling prices and costs were collected by quarters and undercutting and underselling calculations were conducted on a quarterly basis.\n(216)\nFor the purpose of analysing price undercutting, the weighted average sales prices of the Union industry to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports from the countries concerned to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a CIF basis with appropriate adjustments for post-importation costs and differences in the level of trade.\n(217)\nThe comparison showed that during the IP, the subsidised imports originating in the UAE sold in the Union undercut the Union industry\u2019s prices by 3,9 %. The subsidised imports originating in Iran sold in the Union undercut the prices of the Union industry by 3,2 %. The subsidised imports originating in Pakistan sold in the Union undercut the prices of the Union industry by 1,4 %. The weighted average undercutting margin of the countries concerned during the IP is 3,2 %.\n4.4. Situation of the Union industry\n(218)\nPursuant to Article 8(4) of the basic Regulation, examination of the impact of the subsidised imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.\n(219)\nAs explained above, considering the large number of Union producers, sampling had to be used. For the purpose of the injury analysis, the injury indicators have been established at the following two levels:\n-\nThe macroeconomic elements (production, capacity, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity, average unit prices and magnitude of dumping margins and recovery from the effects of past dumping) were assessed at the level of the whole Union production, on the basis of the information collected from the cooperating producers and for the other Union producers an estimation based on the data from the complaint was used.\n-\nThe analysis of microeconomic elements (stocks, wages, profitability, return on investments, cash flow, ability to raise capital and investments) was carried out for the sampled Union producers on the basis of their information.\n4.4.1. Macroeconomic elements\n(a) Production\n(220)\nThe Union production decreased by 4 % between 2006 and the IP. More specifically, it increased by 5 % in 2007 to around 2 570 000 tonnes, but sharply decreased by 10 percentage points in 2008 compared to 2007 and slightly increased by 1 percentage point between 2008 and the IP, when it reached around 2 300 000 tonnes.\nTable 4\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProduction (tonnes)\n2 439 838\n2 570 198\n2 327 169\n2 338 577\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n105\n95\n96\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint.\n(b) Production capacity and capacity utilisation rates\n(221)\nThe production capacity of the Union producers increased by 15 % throughout the period considered. Specifically, it increased by 1 % in 2007, by further 5 percentage points in 2008 and by even further 9 percentage points in the IP.\nTable 5\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProduction capacity (tonnes)\n2 954 089\n2 971 034\n3 118 060\n3 385 738\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n101\n106\n115\nCapacity utilisation\n83 %\n87 %\n75 %\n69 %\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n105\n90\n84\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint.\n(222)\nCapacity utilisation was 83 % in 2006, increased to 87 % in 2007 but later dropped to 75 % in 2008 and to only 69 % in the IP. The dropping utilisation rate in 2008 and the IP reflects decreased production and increased production capacity in this period.\n(c) Sales volume\n(223)\nThe sales volume of the Union producers to unrelated customers on the EU market modestly decreased in the period considered. The sales increased by 5 % in 2007, but in the following year decreased slightly below the 2006 level, and in the IP they were 3 % lower that in 2006, at around 2 100 000 tonnes. Given the limited volume of stocks, the development of sales closely reflects the development in the production.\nTable 6\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nEU sales (tonnes)\n2 202 265\n2 318 567\n2 171 203\n2 133 787\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n105\n99\n97\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint.\n(d) Market share\n(224)\nDuring the period considered, the Union producers lost 10 percentage points of market share, which decreased from 85 % in 2006 to 75 % in the IP. This loss of market share reflects the fact that, despite an increase in consumption, the Union industry\u2019s sales dropped by 3 % in the period considered. It is noted that this decreasing trend was also found for the sampled Union producers.\nTable 7\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nMarket share of the Union producers\n84,9 %\n83,2 %\n79,8 %\n75,1 %\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n98\n94\n88\nSource: questionnaire replies, complaint and Eurostat.\n(e) Growth\n(225)\nBetween 2006 and the IP, whilst the Union consumption increased by 11 %, the volume of sales by the Union producers on the EU market decreased by 3 %, and the Union producers\u2019 market share decreased by 10 percentage points. On the other hand, the market share of the subsidised imports increased from 2,1 % to 10,2 % in the same period of time. It is thus concluded that the Union producers could not benefit from any growth of the market.\n(f) Employment\n(226)\nThe employment level of the Union producers shows a decrease of 15 % between 2006 and the IP. More specifically, the number of people employed decreased significantly from 2 400 in 2006 to 2 100 in 2007 or by 13 % and remained close to this level in 2008 and in the IP. The drop in 2007 is a reflection of the restructuring efforts by a number of EU producers.\nTable 8\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nEmployment (persons)\n2 410\n2 100\n2 060\n2 057\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n87\n85\n85\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint.\n(g) Productivity\n(227)\nProductivity of the Union producers\u2019 workforce, measured as output (tonnes) per person employed per year, increased by 12 % in the period considered. This reflects the fact that production decreased at a lower pace than the employment level and is an indication of increased efficiency by the Union producers. This is particularly obvious in 2007 when production increased while the employment level decreased and the productivity was 21 % higher than in 2006.\nTable 9\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProductivity (tonnes per employee)\n1 013\n1 224\n1 130\n1 137\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n121\n112\n112\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint.\n(h) Factors affecting sales prices\n(228)\nThe annual average sales prices of the Union producers on the EU market to unrelated customers remained stable between 2006 and 2008 at around 1 100 EUR per tonne. In the IP the annual average sale price decreased by 12 % and reached 977 EUR per tonne. The annual average sales price does not reflect the monthly or even daily price fluctuations of the PET on the European (and world) market, but is considered sufficient to show the trend during the period considered. The sales prices of PET normally follow the price trends of its main raw materials (mainly PTA and MEG) as they constitute up to 80 % of the total cost of PET.\nTable 10\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nUnit price EU market (EUR/ton)\n1 110\n1 105\n1 111\n977\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n100\n100\n88\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint.\n(229)\nAs indicated above, the sales prices of the Union industry were undercut by the subsidised imports from the countries concerned.\n(i) Magnitude of the subsidy margin and recovery from past dumping and subsidisation\n(230)\nGiven the volume, market share and prices of the imports from the countries concerned, the impact on the Union industry of the actual margins of subsidy cannot be considered to be negligible. It is important to recall that since 2000, there have been anti-dumping measures in force against imports of PET from India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and since 2004 against the People\u2019s Republic of China. There have also been countervailing measures against imports from India since 2000. Given that in the period considered by this investigation the Union industry lost market share and increased their losses, no actual recovery from the past dumping and subsidisation can be established and it is considered that Union production remains vulnerable to the injurious effect of any subsidised imports in the Union market.\n4.4.2. Microeconomic elements\n(a) Stocks\n(231)\nThe level of closing stocks of the sampled producers decreased between 2006 and the IP by 22 %. It is noted that the stocks represent less than 5 % of the annual production and therefore the relevance of this indicator in the injury analysis is limited.\nTable 11\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nClosing stock (tonnes)\n61 374\n57 920\n46 951\n47 582\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n94\n77\n78\nSource: questionnaire replies.\n(b) Wages\n(232)\nThe annual labour cost increased by 11 % between 2006 and 2007, before decreasing by 2 percentage points in 2008 compared to 2007 and further 9 percentage points in the IP compared to 2008 reaching the same level as in 2006. Overall, labour costs thus remained stable.\nTable 12\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nAnnual labour cost (EUR)\n27 671 771\n30 818 299\n30 077 380\n27 723 396\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n111\n109\n100\nSource: questionnaire replies.\n(c) Profitability and return on investments\n(233)\nDuring the period considered, the profitability of the sampled producers\u2019 sales of the like product on the EU market to unrelated customers, expressed as a percentage of net sales, remained negative and even dropped from - 6,9 % to - 7,5 %. More specifically, the situation with regard to profitability of the sampled producers improved in 2007 when net losses accounted only - 1,5 % of net sales, but losses increased sharply in 2008 to - 9,3 %. The situation slightly improved in the IP.\nTable 13\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProfitability of EU (% of net sales)\n-6,9 %\n-1,5 %\n-9,3 %\n-7,5 %\nIndex (2006=-100)\n- 100\n-22\n- 134\n- 108\nROI (profit in % of net book value of investments)\n-9,6 %\n-3,1 %\n-16,8 %\n-12,3 %\nIndex (2006=-100)\n- 100\n-32\n- 175\n- 127\nSource: questionnaire replies.\n(234)\nThe return on investments (\u2018ROI\u2019), expressed as the profit in percent of the net book value of investments, broadly followed the profitability trend. It increased from a level of - 9,6 % in 2006 to - 3,1 % in 2007. It decreased to - 16,8 % in 2008 and increased again in the IP to - 12,3 %. Overall, the return on investments remained negative and deteriorated by 2,7 percentage points over the period considered.\n(d) Cash flow and ability to raise capital\n(235)\nThe net cash flow from operating activities was negative at 18,5 million EUR in 2006. It improved significantly in 2007 when it became positive at 19,5 million EUR, but deteriorated massively in 2008 (- 42 million EUR) before reaching the negative - 11 million EUR in the IP. Overall, cash flow improved in the period considered although it remained negative.\n(236)\nThere were no indications that the Union industry encountered difficulties in raising capital, mainly due to the fact that some of the producers are incorporated in larger groups.\nTable 14\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nCash flow (EUR)\n-18 453 130\n19 478 426\n-42 321 103\n-11 038 129\nIndex (2006=100)\n- 100\n206\n- 229\n-60\nSource: questionnaire replies.\n(e) Investments\n(237)\nThe sampled companies\u2019 annual investments in the production of the like product decreased by 34 % between 2006 and 2007, by a further 59 percentage points between 2007 and 2008 and then it slightly decreased in the IP compared to 2008. Overall, investments decreased by 96 % in the period considered. This sharp drop in investments can be partially explained by the fact that in 2006 and 2007 new production lines were acquired aiming at increasing capacity.\nTable 15\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nNet investments (EUR)\n98 398 284\n64 607 801\n6 537 577\n4 298 208\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n66\n7\n4\nSource: questionnaire replies.\n4.5. Conclusion on injury\n(238)\nThe analysis of the macroeconomic data show that the Union producers decreased their production and sales during the period considered. Although the observed decrease was not dramatic as such, it needs to be seen in the context of increased demand between 2006 and the IP, which resulted in the Union producers\u2019 market share dropping by 10 percentage points to 75 %.\n(239)\nAt the same time the relevant microeconomic indicators show a clear deterioration of the economic situation of the sampled Union producers. The profitability and return on investment remained negative and they overall declined further between 2006 and the IP. The cash flow, despite an overall positive development, also remained negative in the IP.\n(240)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is provisionally concluded that the Union industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 8(4) of the basic Regulation.\n5. CAUSATION\n5.1. Introduction\n(241)\nIn accordance with Article 8(5) and Article 8(6) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the subsidised imports have caused injury to the Union industry to a degree that enables it to be classified as material. Known factors other than the subsidised imports, which could at the same time have injured the Union industry, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the subsidised imports.\n5.2. Effect of the subsidised imports\n(242)\nBetween 2006 and the IP, the volume of the subsidised imports of the product concerned increased by more than 5 times to 304 200 tonnes, and their market share increased by almost 8 percentage points (from 2,1 % to 10,2 %). At the same time, the Union industry lost some 10 percentage points of market share (from 84,9 % to 72,1 %). The average price of these imports decreased between 2006 and the IP and remained lower than the average price of Union producers.\n(243)\nAs indicated above at recital (217), price undercutting of the subsidised imports was on average 3,2 %. Even if the price undercutting was below 4 %, it cannot be considered as insignificant given that PET is a commodity and competition takes place mainly via price.\n(244)\nThe Iranian exporter claimed that Iranian PET imports could not have caused material injury to the Union industry in view of the fact that these import levels would only marginally exceed the de minimis threshold for imports. However, during the IP, imports from Iran, corresponding to a market share of 1.9 %, exceeded the de minimis threshold specified in the basic Regulation. In addition, Iranian import prices were undercutting the Union industry\u2019s sales prices. Against this background, the argument raised by the Iranian exporter is rejected.\n(245)\nIn view of the undercutting of Union industry\u2019s prices by imports from the countries concerned, it is considered that these subsidised imports exerted a downward pressure on prices, preventing the Union industry from keeping its sales prices to a level that would have been necessary to cover its costs and to realise a profit. Therefore, it is considered that a causal link exists between those imports and the Union industry\u2019s injury.\n5.3. Effect of other factors\n5.3.1. Export activity of the Union industry\n(246)\nOne interested party claimed that any injury was due to the poor export activity of the Union producers. As it can be seen from the table below, the volume of exports of the Union industry increased during the period considered by 11 %. The level of export prices over the same period decreased by 10 % which resulted in stable export sales value during the period considered. Consequently, there is no indication that the export performance contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\nTable 16\nUnion industry\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nExport sales (tonnes)\n25 677\n24 103\n23 414\n28 504\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n94\n91\n111\nExport sales (EUR)\n28 473 679\n27 176 204\n25 109 209\n28 564 676\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n95\n88\n100\nPrice of exports (EUR/ton)\n1 109\n1 128\n1 072\n1 002\nSource: questionnaire replies.\n(247)\nAnother interested party claimed that the prices of the Union industry on the EU market were artificially high. According to the interested party, this claim is evidenced by the fact that prices on the EU market remained stable whereas export sales prices have dropped. However, the investigation has shown that the annual average sales prices of the Union industry on the EU market decreased by 12 % over the period considered, in line with the decrease in export prices over the same period. The argument is thus rejected.\n5.3.2. Imports from third countries\n(a) Republic of Korea\n(248)\nThe Republic of Korea is subject to anti-dumping duties since 2000. However, two Korean companies are subject to a zero duty and the investigation established that imports from the Republic of Korea remain at a high level and increased significantly in the period considered. The Korean imports increased by almost 150 % between 2006 and the IP and their corresponding market share increased from 3,5 % in 2006 to 7,7 % in the IP.\nTable 17\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolume of imports from South Korea (tonnes)\n94 023\n130 994\n177 341\n231 107\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n139\n189\n246\nMarket share of imports from South Korea\n3,5 %\n4,5 %\n6,2 %\n7,7 %\nPrice of imports (EUR/ton)\n1 084\n1 071\n1 063\n914\nSource: Eurostat.\n(249)\nThe average price of the Korean imports remained in general slightly below the average prices of the Union producers. However, the Korean prices were higher than the average prices from the countries concerned. Consequently, although it cannot be excluded that imports from the Republic of Korea contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry, their contribution was only limited and they are considered not to have broken the causal link established as regards the subsidised imports from the countries concerned.\n(250)\nThe Iranian exporter claimed that any increase in Iranian imports was due to a decline in South Korean imports and therefore was not at the expense of European producers. However, Eurostat data show that, over the period considered, import volumes from both countries have been increasing steadily in parallel. Hence, it can not be concluded that imports from Iran merely substituted imports from South Korea.\n(b) Other countries\n(251)\nImports from other countries were, on average, at prices substantially higher than average sales prices of the Union producers. In addition, these imports have lost market share in the period considered. Consequently, these imports are not considered as being a possible cause of injury for the Union industry.\nTable 18\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolume of imports from other countries (tonnes)\n259 438\n296 418\n185 286\n210 772\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n114\n71\n81\nMarket share of imports from other countries\n9,6 %\n10,1 %\n6,5 %\n7,0 %\nPrice of imports (EUR/ton)\n1 176\n1 144\n1 194\n1 043\nSource: Eurostat.\n5.3.3. Competition from the non-cooperating producers in the Union\n(252)\nSome interested parties claimed that the injury suffered by the Union industry would be due to competition form the non-cooperating producers in the Union. Five Union producers did not cooperate in this proceeding. One of them stopped its production already in the IP while two other ones did so shortly thereafter. The sales volumes of non-cooperating producers have been estimated based on the information submitted in the complaint. Based on the information available it appears that these producers lost their market share during the period considered from 20,5 % in 2006 to 16 % in the IP. The investigation has not shown any evidence that the behaviour of these producers has broken the causal link between the subsidised imports and the injury established for the Union industry.\nTable 19\nNon-cooperating EU producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nEU sales (tonnes)\n554 329\n493 363\n356 581\n478 282\nIndex (2006=100)\n100\n89\n64\n86\nMarket share\n20,5 %\n16,8 %\n12,4 %\n16,0 %\nSource: complaint.\n5.3.4. Economic downturn\n(253)\nThe financial and economic crisis of 2008 led to a market growth that was slower than expected and unusual as compared to the beginning of the years 2000 where yearly growth rates around 10 % could be observed. For the first time, there was a contraction of demand for PET in 2008. This clearly had an effect on the overall performance of the Union industry.\n(254)\nHowever, the negative effect of the economic downturn and the contraction in demand was exacerbated by the increased subsidised imports from the countries concerned, which undercut the prices of the Union industry. Even if the economic downturn could therefore be considered as contributing to the injury for the period starting in the last quarter of 2008, this cannot in any way diminish the damaging injurious effects of low priced subsidised imports in the EU market over the whole period considered. Even in a situation of decreasing sales, the Union industry should be able to maintain an acceptable level of prices and therefore limit the negative effects of any decrease in the growth of consumption, but only in the absence of the unfair competition of low priced imports in the market.\n(255)\nThe economic downturn has also no impact whatsoever on the injury suffered and observed already before the last quarter of 2008.\n(256)\nConsequently, the economic downturn must be considered as an element contributing to the injury suffered by the Union industry as from last quarter of 2008 only and given its global character cannot be considered as a possible cause breaking the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the subsidised imports from the countries concerned.\n5.3.5. Geographical location\n(257)\nSome interested parties argued that any injury suffered by the Union industry would be caused in the first place by the unfavourable location of at least some Union producers (i.e. far away from a harbour thus incurring additional unnecessary transportation costs for the raw materials as well as for the final product).\n(258)\nAs regards the above argument, it is recognised that being located in a place not easily accessible by relatively cheaper means of transport has certain disadvantages in terms of cost for the delivery of both raw materials from the suppliers and the final product to the customers. However, the investigation and the verified data from the sampled Union producers (two of them located close to a harbour and two further inland) did not show any significant correlation between the geographical location and the economic performance of the Union producers. In fact, the injury found applied also to those producers located close to a harbour.\n(259)\nConsequently, it is concluded that geographical location did not materially contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry to a material extent.\n5.3.6. Vertical integration\n(260)\nSome interested parties argued that any injury suffered by the Union industry would be caused by the fact that many Union producers are not vertically integrated (in terms of production of PTA) and thus have a significant cost disadvantage vis-\u00e0-vis integrated exporters. The verified data from the sampled Union producers did not show any significant correlation between the vertical integration of the PTA production and the economic performance of the Union producers.\n(261)\nConsequently, it is concluded that lack of vertical integration of the PTA production did not contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n5.4. Conclusion on causation\n(262)\nThe coincidence in time between, on the one hand, the increase in subsidised imports from the countries concerned, the increase in market shares and the undercutting found and, on the other hand, the deterioration in the situation of the Union producers, leads to the conclusion that the subsidised imports caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 8(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(263)\nOther factors were analysed but were found not to break the causal link between the effects of the subsidised imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry. Imports from the Republic of Korea may have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry, but given the small price difference between these imports and the Union market, this is considered not to break the causal link established with the subsidised imports from the countries concerned. Due to the declining market share and their high price level, there is no evidence that imports from other third counties have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry. Moreover, no other known factor, i.e. the export performance of the Union industry, competition from the other Union producers, the economic downturn, the geographical location and lack of vertical integration, has contributed to the injury of the Union industry to an extent that it would break the causal link.\n(264)\nBased on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors having an effect on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effect of the subsidised imports, it is provisionally concluded that the imports from the countries concerned have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 8(5) of the basic Regulation.\n6. UNION INTEREST\n(265)\nIn accordance with Article 31 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether, despite the conclusions on subsidisation, injury, and causation, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this particular case. For this purpose and pursuant to Article 31(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission considered the likely impact of possible measures on all parties involved as well as the likely consequences of not taking measures.\n(266)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to independent importers, suppliers of raw materials, users and their associations. In total, over 50 questionnaires were sent out, but only 13 replies were received within the time limits set. In addition, 22 users came forward later in the proceeding with letters expressing opposition to any possible measures in this case.\n6.1. Interest of the Union industry and other Union producers\n(267)\nIt is expected that the imposition of measures on imports from the countries concerned would prevent further distortions of the market, suppression of prices and restore fair competition. This, in turn, would provide the Union industry with an opportunity to improve its situation due to increased prices, increased sales volumes and market share.\n(268)\nIn the absence of measures, it is expected that imports from the countries concerned would continue to increase at low prices undercutting the prices of the Union industry. In this case, the Union industry would not have the opportunity to improve its situation. Given the bad financial state of the Union industry, more closures would be expected with the resulting loss in employment.\n(269)\nThere is no indication that the interests of the other producers in the Union that have not actively cooperated with the investigation would be different from those indicated for the Union industry.\n(270)\nThe Iranian company argued that the imposition of measures would not help the Union industry because it would only lead to new investments in other exporting countries. This argument can not be accepted as it would mean, when pushed to its logical consequence, that countervailing measures could never be imposed on products for which investments can be shifted to other countries. It would also mean denying protection against unfair trade just because of the possibility of new competition from other third countries.\n(271)\nThe same interested party claimed that any measures could not remedy a structural competitive disadvantage of the EU PET production industry in comparison to the PET production industry in Asia and the Middle East. This argument, however, was not sufficiently substantiated. It is noted that some sampled Union producers which are vertically integrated are also in a difficult financial situation. In addition, even if there were possible competitive advantages (for example through cheaper access to raw materials), exporting producers were still found to receive countervailable subsidies.\n(272)\nAccordingly, it is provisionally concluded that the imposition of countervailing measures would clearly be in the interest of the Union industry.\n6.2. Interest of unrelated importers in the Union\n(273)\nAs indicated above, sampling was applied for the unrelated importers and out of two sampled companies only one importing agent (Global Services International, \u2018G.S.I\u2019.) has fully cooperated in this investigation by submitting a questionnaire reply. The imports declared by the cooperating agent represent a significant proportion of all imports from the countries concerned in the IP. Commissions for the imports of PET represent the majority of the G.S.I. business. Given that the agent works on a commission basis, imposition of any duties is not expected to have a significant impact on his performance as any actual import price increase would likely be borne by his clients.\n(274)\nNo other importer submitted relevant information. Given that imports from other countries where there are currently anti-dumping and/or countervailing measures in force did not stop and that imports are available from countries without any trade defence measures (e.g. Oman, USA, Brazil), it is considered that importers can import from these countries.\n(275)\nAccordingly, it is provisionally concluded that the imposition of provisional measures will not have negative effects on the interest of the EU importers to any significant extent.\n6.3. Interest of the raw material suppliers in the Union\n(276)\nThree raw material suppliers (two of PTA and one of MEG) cooperated with the investigation by submitting the questionnaire reply within the set time limit. The staff employed in their European facilities and involved in the production of PTA/MEG was around 700.\n(277)\nThe cooperating PTA producers represent around 50 % of the PTA purchases of the sampled Union producers. PTA producers are heavily dependant on the state of the PET producers that constitute their major clients. Low prices of PET translate into lower prices of PTA and lower margins for the PTA producers. It is noted that there is an ongoing anti-dumping and an anti-subsidy investigation concerning imports of PTA originating in Thailand, meaning that the EU PTA producers may also face unfair competition from Thai imports. Consequently, it is considered that the imposition of measures on the subsidised imports of PET would benefit the PTA producers.\n(278)\nFor the cooperating MEG supplier, MEG represents less than 10 % of its total turnover. It is noted that with regard to MEG, PET is not its only or even the major possible application and MEG producers are less dependent on the situation of the PET industry. Nonetheless, the difficulties of the PET industry may have some limited impact on the suppliers of MEG, at least in a short to medium term.\n(279)\nGiven the above, it is provisionally concluded that imposition of measures on the subsidised imports from the counties concerned would be in the interest of raw material suppliers.\n6.4. Interest of the users\n(280)\nPET subject to this proceeding (i.e. with the viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, so called \u2018bottle grade\u2019) is mostly used to produce bottles for water and other drinks. Its use for the production of other packages (solid foodstuff or detergents) and to produce sheet is developing, but it remains relatively limited. Bottles of PET are produced in two stages: (i) first a pre-form is made by mould injection of PET and (ii) later the pre-form is heated and blown into a bottle. Bottle making can be an integrated process (i.e. the same company buys PET, produces a pre-form and blows it into the bottle) or limited to the second stage (blowing the pre-form into a bottle). Pre-forms can be relatively easily transported as they are small and dense, while empty bottles are instable and due to their size very expensive to transport.\n(281)\nPET bottles are filled with water and/or other beverages by the bottling companies (\u2018bottlers\u2019). The bottling companies are often involved in the PET business either via integrated bottle making operations or via tolling agreements with subcontracted converters and/or bottle makers for whom they negotiate the PET price with the producer (soft tolling) or even buy the PET for their own bottles (hard tolling).\n(282)\nConsequently, two groups of users may be distinguished:\n-\nconverters and/or bottle makers - that buy PET directly from producers, convert it into pre-forms (or bottles) and sell it further for downstream processing (or filling), and\n-\nbottlers - that buy PET for their subcontracting bottle makers/converters (hard tolling) or negotiate the price for which the subcontracted converter and/or bottle maker will get the PET (soft tolling).\n(a) Converters\n(283)\nThe producers of pre-forms are the main users of the bottle grade PET. Four converters, representing 16 % of the Union consumption in the IP, fully cooperated with the investigation (i.e. submitted full questionnaire replies within the time limits). As mentioned above, a significant number of converters also came forward later in the proceeding stating their opposition, but did not provide any verifiable data with regard to their consumption. The cooperating import agent claimed during a hearing that over 80 % of the EU users are opposing the measures. This information was however not sufficiently substantiated and could not be verified.\n(284)\nAn association representing European plastic converters (EuPC) stated during a hearing that it takes a neutral stance towards this proceeding. Although some of its members would oppose any measures, the current level of PET prices on the European market is not sustainable for the PET recycling companies. PET recycling companies (also represented by EuPC) would be in favour of measures. However, at a later stage of the investigation, the association changed its position and expressed its opposition to the imposition of measures. The association claimed that the imposition of measures would bring excessive costs to the EU plastic converting industry, which is mainly composed of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The association argued that these SMEs would not be able to absorb higher PET prices, which would either force them to close their activities or encourage them to relocate outside the EU. These claims were not further substantiated at this stage.\n(285)\nThe total staff employed by the cooperating converters amounted to 1 300 people, while the declared staff employed by the converters that came forward later in the proceeding would amount to further 6 000 people. The import agent and his clients indicated during the hearing an employment level for converters of around 20 000 people. The employment information remains to be verified.\n(286)\nOn the basis of the information available, the PET used in the production of pre-forms amounts to between 70 % and 80 % of the total cost of production for converters. It is therefore a critical cost component for these companies. The investigation so far indicated that on average the cooperating converters are already making some losses. Given that the majority of converters are small and medium sized local companies, they may have in the short to medium term only limited possibilities to pass on any increase in their costs, in particular when their client (bottling companies) is a rather big player with a much better negotiating position. However, the contracts (normally negotiated every year) for selling pre-forms and/or bottles often include a mechanism for reflecting the variation of PET prices.\n(287)\nConverters and the cooperating import agent argued that measures would result in some bigger pre-form makers moving their standardised production lines to the countries neighbouring EU. Given that the cost of transportation of pre-forms over a limited distance is relatively low, this process is already happening to some extent. Still, for the moment, considerations like proximity to the client or flexibility of deliveries appear to compensate for the advantages the neighbouring countries may offer. Given that the proposed level of measures is moderate, it is provisionally considered that the advantages of producing the pre-forms outside the EU should not outweigh the current drawbacks. Moreover, given the transportation cost, the delocalisation is expected to be an alternative only for companies whose clients are located close to the EU borders, but not for converters that have their clients in other parts of the EU.\n(288)\nConverters and the cooperating import agent also argued that measures could only bring a short term relief to the PET producers. They claimed that in the medium to long term, once the pre-form makers move out of the EU, there would be insufficient demand on the EU market for PET producers and the falling prices would ultimately force the PET producers to closures or relocation out of the EU. Given the considerations in the preceding recital and given that it is provisionally considered not yet economically mandatory for the pre-form makers to move out of the EU, this scenario is unlikely to happen.\n(289)\nIt can, thus, provisionally not be excluded that the imposition of measures will have a significant impact on the production cost of converters. However, given the uncertainties as to the possibilities for the pre-form and/or bottle makers to pass on the increased costs to their customers, the impact on the profitability of converters and their overall performance cannot be clearly stated at this provisional stage.\n(b) Bottlers\n(290)\nSix bottling companies including branches of Coca-Cola Co., Nestle Waters, Danone and Orangina cooperated with the investigation, i.e. submitted full questionnaire replies within the time limits. They represent around 11 % of the Union consumption of PET in the IP. The format of the information provided does not allow identifying easily the number of staff directly involved in the production that uses PET. However, it is provisionally estimated at around 6 000 people. Based on the information available, it is estimated that the total bottling industry in the Union employs between 40 000 and 60 000 employees directly involved in the production using PET.\n(291)\nOn the basis of the information available, the cost of PET in the total cost of the cooperating bottlers vary between 1 % and 14 %, depending on the cost of other components used in the production of their respective products. The information available indicates that PET tends to be a more important cost item for the mineral water producers (especially not branded), while for some soft drink bottling companies it would be marginal. The information on the file shows that in some cases the PET cost may represent up to 20 % of the final price of the mineral water for the customers. It is estimated that on average the cost of PET can constitute up to 10 % of the total cost of the bottling companies.\n(292)\nGiven the above, it is considered that any increase in prices for PET following the imposition of the proposed measures will only have a limited (less than 2 % cost increase) impact on the overall situation of the bottling companies, even if, as claimed, they would have difficulties in passing on the increased cost to their customers, which in any case is unlikely at least in the mid-term perspective.\n6.5. Shortage of PET supply\n(293)\nSeveral interested parties argued that imposition of measures would result in a shortage of PET on the EU market and that the Union producers do not have sufficient capacities to meet the existing demand.\n(294)\nIt is noted in this respect that Union producers operated only at 69 % of their capacity in the IP and have sufficient spare capacity to replace the imports from the countries concerned, should this become necessary. However, the purpose of the duty should not be to discourage any imports but only to restore fair competition on the market. Moreover, other sources of supply are also available.\n(295)\nIn addition, it is expected that the PET recycling industry would increase production if the price of virgin PET in the EU is maintained at a reasonable level and not allowed to drop because of unfair competition.\n6.6. Other arguments\n(296)\nThe Iranian exporter argued that the imposition of measures against Iranian PET would have a disproportionate negative effect in view of the country\u2019s status as developing country and the fact that Iranian exporters already face serious disadvantages due to international sanctions. It is the Commission\u2019s constant practice to take anti-subsidy actions against developing and developed countries alike whenever the legal requirements warrant such action. Moreover, the fact that there are sanctions in place against Iran is an irrelevant consideration under the existing anti-subsidy rules.\n6.7. Conclusion on Union interest\n(297)\nTo conclude, it is expected that the imposition of measures on imports from the countries concerned would provide an opportunity for the Union industry, as well as the other Union producers, to improve their situation through increased sales volumes, sales prices and market share. While some negative effects may occur in the form of cost increases for users (mainly converters), they are likely to be outweighed by the expected benefits for the producers and their suppliers.\n(298)\nRestoring fair competition and maintaining a reasonable price level in the EU will encourage PET recycling, thus, assisting in the protection of the environment. In light of the above, it is provisionally concluded that on balance, no compelling reasons exist for not imposing measures in the present case. This preliminary assessment may need to be revised at final stage, after the verification of the user questionnaire replies and further investigation.\n7. PROVISIONAL COUNTERVAILING MEASURES\n(299)\nIn view of the provisional conclusions reached with regard to subsidisation, resulting injury and Union interest, provisional measures on imports of the product concerned from Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the subsidised imports.\n7.1. Injury elimination level\n(300)\nThe provisional measures on imports originating in the countries concerned should be imposed at a level sufficient to eliminate the injury caused to the Union industry by the subsidised imports, without exceeding the subsidy margin found. When calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious subsidisation, it is considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and obtain overall a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of subsidised imports.\n(301)\nThe Union claimed a 7,5 % target profit, as was used in the proceeding against the People\u2019s Republic of China. However, during the period considered the Union industry never achieved such a profit (in fact it was never profitable) and it generally commented that it usually operates on rather low margins. The highest profit achieved by two sampled companies during one year of the period considered was 3 %. In these circumstances, a 5 % was provisionally considered as the most appropriate target profit.\n(302)\nOn this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry of the like product. The non-injurious price has been established by deducting the actual profit margin from the ex-works price and adding to the so calculated break even price the above-mentioned target profit margin.\n(303)\nGiven that during the IP the raw material prices and consequently the PET prices on the Union market experienced significant variations, it was considered appropriate to calculate the injury elimination level based on quarterly data.\nCountry\nInjury elimination level\nIran\n17,0 %\nPakistan\n15,2 %\nUAE\n18,5 %\n7.2. Provisional measures\n(304)\nIn the light of the foregoing and pursuant to Article 12(1) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that a provisional countervailing duty should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates at the level of the lowest of the subsidisation and injury elimination level found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(305)\nIn the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Article 12(1) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that the provisional countervailing duty rate should be imposed on imports originating in Iran at the level of the injury margin found while for imports originating in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, the provisional countervailing duty rate should be imposed at the level of the subsidy margin found.\n(306)\nIt is noted that costs and prices of PET are subject to considerable fluctuations in relative short periods of time. It was therefore considered appropriate to impose duties in the form of a specific amount per tonne. This amount results from the application of the countervailing rate to the CIF export prices used for the calculations in the parallel anti-dumping proceeding.\n(307)\nOn the basis of the above, the proposed countervailing duty amounts, expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, are as follows:\nCountry\nTotal subsidy margin\nof which Export subsidy\nInjury margin\n(on quarterly basis)\nProvisional Countervailing duty rate\n%\nAmount\n(EUR/t)\nIran\n53 %\n2 %\n17,0 %\n17,0 %\n142,97\nPakistan\n9,7 %\n7,4 %\n15,2 %\n9,7 %\n83,64\nUAE\n5,1 %\n0 %\n18,5 %\n5,1 %\n42,34\n7.3. Final provision\n(308)\nIn the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional countervailing duty is hereby imposed on imports of polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.\n2. The rate of the provisional countervailing duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 shall be as follows:\nCountry\nCountervailing duty rate\n(EUR/tonne)\nIran: all companies\n142,97\nPakistan: all companies\n83,64\nUnited Arab Emirates: all companies\n42,34\n3. In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (4), the amount of provisional countervailing duty, calculated on the amounts set above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.\n4. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n5. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nWithout prejudice to Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nPursuant to Article 31(4) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of four months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2010.", "references": ["13", "25", "0", "9", "6", "51", "67", "57", "45", "52", "72", "20", "78", "66", "79", "43", "50", "59", "99", "68", "34", "87", "97", "27", "3", "94", "31", "32", "33", "82", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 988/2010\nof 3 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2010.", "references": ["48", "95", "77", "9", "78", "58", "99", "19", "3", "27", "80", "83", "52", "40", "11", "8", "81", "92", "10", "71", "29", "39", "98", "53", "93", "0", "65", "25", "88", "41", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/38/EU\nof 11 April 2011\namending Annex V to Directive 2004/33/EC with regards to maximum pH values for platelets concentrates at the end of the shelf life\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83/EC (1), and in particular point (f) of the second paragraph of Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPoint 2.4 of Annex V to Commission Directive 2004/33/EC of 22 March 2004 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components (2) sets minimum (6,4) and maximum (7,4) pH levels for units of platelets at the end of the shelf life. Therefore, platelet units that do not meet these minimum or maximum values have to be discarded.\n(2)\nRecent scientific evidence and field practice experience has demonstrated that values higher than pH 7,4 do not affect the quality and safety of stored platelets, contrary to pH levels below 6,4 that systematically result in damaging the platelets, and that a maximum pH value for platelet concentrates is thus not necessary.\n(3)\nDiscarding platelets that exceed the maximum pH value as set out in Annex V to Directive 2004/33/EC leads to considerable losses. These losses may increase in the future due to new collection methods and storage bags, which both generate higher pH values at the end of the shelf life.\n(4)\nTherefore the maximum (7,4) pH value for all platelet concentrates listed in Annex V to Directive 2004/33/EC should be removed.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 28 of Directive 2002/98/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex V to Directive 2004/33/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 June 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["9", "42", "45", "53", "95", "68", "63", "32", "49", "97", "33", "28", "94", "43", "90", "91", "40", "35", "48", "37", "8", "2", "88", "86", "50", "27", "96", "4", "85", "72", "No Label", "38", "76"], "gold": ["38", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 436/2011\nof 5 May 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 recognising protected zones exposed to particular plant health risks in the Community\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 2(1)(h) thereof,\nHaving regard to the requests submitted by the Czech Republic, Greece, France and Italy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 (2), certain Member States or certain areas in Member States were recognised as protected zones in respect of certain harmful organisms. In some cases recognition was granted for a limited period of time to allow the Member State concerned to provide the full information necessary to show that the harmful organisms in question did not occur in the Member State or area concerned or to complete the efforts to eradicate the organism in question.\n(2)\nThe entire territory of Greece was recognised as a protected zone with respect to Dendroctonus micans Kugelan, Gilpinia hercyniae (Hartig), Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll., Ips amitinus Eichhof, Ips cembrae Heer and Ips duplicatus Sahlberg until 31 March 2011.\n(3)\nIn 2010 Greece conducted surveys and notified results to the Commission in accordance with the third and fifth subparagraph of Article 2(1)(h) of Directive 2000/29/EC. A visit of Commission experts in Greece from 24 to 31 January 2011 confirmed that that Member State continued to make significant progress with regard to organising and conducting those surveys and with regard to notifying the results thereof. It is, nevertheless, necessary that Greece proves that the progress made is sustainable.\n(4)\nAccording to the results of the surveys carried out in Greece in 2010, there was only one finding of Ips cembrae Heer, there were no findings of the other five organisms concerned. Taking into account those results and the outcome of the visit of the Commission experts in Greece, it is appropriate to continue to recognise Greece as a protected zone with respect to those organisms for three more years, in order to give Greece the time necessary to collect and submit information confirming that those organisms, with the exception of Ips cembrae Heer, do not occur in its territory and, as regards Ips cembrae Heer, to complete the efforts to eradicate it and collect and submit the information confirming that that organism no more occurs in its territory.\n(5)\nThe entire territory of Greece was recognised as a protected zone with respect to citrus tristeza virus (European strains). In its annual report for 2010 on the official survey carried out for the presence of that harmful organism, Greece reported 104 trees tested positive for that harmful organism in the Prefecture of Argolida. Observations made by the Commission experts during their visit in Greece from 24 to 31 January 2011 confirmed that citrus tristeza virus (European strains) was present in that prefecture at least for the last three years in spite of the eradication measures taken by the Greek authorities which have proved to be ineffective. Consequently, citrus tristeza virus (European strains) has to be considered as established in the Prefecture of Argolida. That prefecture should therefore no longer be recognised as a protected zone in respect of that harmful organism.\n(6)\nThe entire territory of Spain was recognised as a protected zone with respect to Erwinia amylovora (Burr.) Winsl. et al. Spain has submitted information showing that Erwinia amylovora (Burr.) Winsl. et al. is now established in the autonomous community of Castilla y Le\u00f3n. The measures taken for a period of two successive years, 2009 and 2010, with a view to the eradication of that harmful organism have proved to be ineffective. Castilla y Le\u00f3n should therefore no longer be recognised as a protected zone in respect of that harmful organism.\n(7)\nThe entire territory of the Czech Republic, certain regions of France (Alsace, Champagne-Ardenne and Lorraine) and one region in Italy (Basilicata) were recognised as protected zones with respect to grapevine flavescence dor\u00e9e MLO until 31 March 2011. Information supplied by the Czech Republic, France and Italy since that recognition was granted, has provided evidence that that harmful organism does not occur in the protected zones concerned. Therefore the entire territory of the Czech Republic, the regions of Alsace, Champagne-Ardenne and Lorraine in France and the region of Basilicata in Italy should continue to be recognised as protected zones with respect to that organism.\n(8)\nItaly has requested that the region of Sardinia be recognised as a protected zone in respect of the harmful organism grapevine flavescence dor\u00e9e MLO. On the basis of surveys conducted in 2004-2010, Italy has submitted evidence that the harmful organism concerned does not occur in the region of Sardinia despite favourable conditions for that organism to establish itself there. It is, however, necessary that further surveys be carried out. Those surveys should be monitored by experts under the authority of the Commission. Therefore Sardinia should be recognised as a protected zone in respect of grapevine flavescence dor\u00e9e MLO for a period of three years only.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 690/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe current recognition of some of these protected zones expires on 31 March 2011. Therefore, this Regulation should apply from 1 April 2011 so as to allow an uninterrupted recognition of all protected zones.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin the second column of points 4, 5 and 7 to 10 of heading (a), after the word \u2018Greece\u2019 the words \u2018(until 31 March 2011)\u2019 are replaced by \u2018(until 31 March 2014)\u2019;\n(2)\nin the second column of point 2 of heading (b), after the word \u2018Spain\u2019 the words \u2018(except the autonomous community of Castilla y Le\u00f3n),\u2019 are added;\n(3)\nheading (d) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the second column of point 3, after the word \u2018Greece\u2019 the words \u2018(except the Prefecture of Argolida),\u2019 are added;\n(b)\npoint 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184.\nGrapevine flavescence dor\u00e9e MLO\nCzech Republic, France (Alsace, Champagne-Ardenne and Lorraine), Italy ((Basilicata) and (Sardinia, until 31 March 2014))\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 May 2011.", "references": ["60", "57", "30", "81", "59", "74", "42", "64", "18", "49", "50", "34", "51", "27", "90", "38", "46", "23", "32", "7", "47", "78", "14", "37", "86", "24", "53", "71", "52", "72", "No Label", "43", "58", "61", "66", "96"], "gold": ["43", "58", "61", "66", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1045/2010\nof 15 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in EU and international waters of Vb, VIb and VIaN by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["6", "93", "2", "15", "16", "40", "23", "25", "24", "7", "72", "1", "51", "71", "5", "80", "45", "9", "3", "19", "36", "66", "74", "48", "17", "68", "54", "10", "85", "21", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 673/2010\nof 27 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2010.", "references": ["20", "45", "82", "39", "9", "53", "84", "96", "67", "98", "56", "27", "8", "1", "16", "88", "46", "43", "29", "34", "17", "31", "37", "83", "74", "78", "19", "12", "47", "44", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 543/2010\nof 21 June 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Aceite Campo de Montiel (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Aceite Campo de Montiel\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2010.", "references": ["98", "33", "54", "9", "26", "71", "59", "95", "76", "83", "50", "34", "10", "39", "16", "92", "72", "46", "89", "17", "99", "7", "73", "48", "21", "61", "77", "27", "84", "43", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 871/2010\nof 1 October 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 October 2010.", "references": ["14", "40", "17", "21", "1", "81", "54", "48", "33", "51", "28", "91", "16", "15", "25", "4", "66", "94", "86", "68", "97", "58", "49", "56", "70", "0", "37", "76", "20", "89", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 214/2012\nof 13 March 2012\nderogating, for the marketing year 2011/2012, from Article 63(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the dates for communicating the carry forward of surplus sugar\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 85, point (c), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 63(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, undertakings which decide to carry forward all or part of their production in excess of quota have to inform Member States concerned about the decision. That information has to be submitted before the date which is to be determined by the Member States, within the time limits fixed by that Article.\n(2)\nIn order to facilitate the supply of the out-of-quota sugar on the Union market, thereby allowing undertakings to respond to unforeseen changes in demand in the early months of marketing year 2011/2012, it is necessary to give Member States the possibility to fix later dates than those provided in Article 63(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 63(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, for the marketing year 2011/2012, the undertakings having decided to carry forward quantities of sugar, in accordance with Article 63(1) of that Regulation, inform the Member State concerned before a date to be determined by Member States between 1 February and 15 August 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply until 30 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 March 2012.", "references": ["51", "60", "61", "86", "65", "26", "75", "78", "50", "33", "34", "84", "2", "36", "96", "95", "20", "9", "67", "76", "64", "72", "13", "16", "14", "19", "32", "66", "37", "53", "No Label", "8", "25", "42", "62", "71"], "gold": ["8", "25", "42", "62", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 832/2010\nof 17 September 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 setting out rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1), and in particular Articles 44, 66(3) and 76(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 (2), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1083/2006, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 539/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), simplifies and clarifies certain requirements as regards major projects, financial engineering instruments and reporting on financial progress of operational programmes. It is therefore necessary to align the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 (4) with Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as amended.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1080/2006, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 437/2010 (5) provides for eligibility of housing interventions in favour of marginalised communities. It is therefore necessary to align the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 with Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 as amended.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to clarify that the implementation of financial engineering also covers funds or other incentive schemes for energy efficiency and use of renewable energy in buildings, including existing housing.\n(4)\nIt is necessary to define the conditions for eligible housing interventions in favour of marginalised communities in the context of an integrated approach, with particular regard to the desegregation measures.\n(5)\nIn order to facilitate the provision of data by Member States and the processing of data by the Commission, it is necessary to simplify the requirements on financial information to be provided in the annual and final reports on the implementation of an operational programme.\n(6)\nThe threshold for projects to be considered major projects has been raised to EUR 50 million. In order to ensure appropriate monitoring of environmental projects with total investment costs between EUR 25 and 50 million, it is necessary to provide for an obligation to include information on those projects in the annual and final reports on implementation of an operational programme.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1083/2006 now allows a major project to cover more than one operational programme. It is therefore necessary to update the type of structured data to be provided on major projects and to update the forms for requests for assistance for major projects.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 1828/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nFor reasons of coherence it is appropriate that the amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 apply from the same date as Regulation (EU) No 539/2010 and Regulation (EU) No 437/2010.\n(10)\nIt is necessary that all the advantages to beneficiaries which result from Regulation (EU) No 539/2010 and Regulation (EU) No 437/2010 apply as soon as possible. Therefore, this Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Coordination Committee of the Funds,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1828/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 43 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Articles 43 to 46 shall apply to financial engineering instruments in the form of actions which make repayable investments, or provide guarantees for repayable investments, or both, in the following:\n(a)\nenterprises, primarily small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), including micro-enterprises, as defined in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC (6) as of 1 January 2005;\n(b)\npublic-private partnerships or other urban projects included in integrated plans for sustainable urban development, in the case of urban development funds;\n(c)\nfunds or other incentive schemes for energy efficiency and use of renewable energy in buildings, including in existing housing.\n(b)\nparagraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. Enterprises, public private partnerships and other projects included in an integrated plan for sustainable urban development, as well as operations for energy efficiency and use of renewable energy in buildings, including in existing housing which are supported by financial engineering instruments, may also receive a grant or other assistance from an operational programme.\u2019\n(2)\nIn Article 44, paragraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nas regards financial engineering instruments supporting enterprises, primarily SMEs, including micro-enterprises, the conclusions of an evaluation of gaps between supply of such instruments, and demand for such instruments;\u2019\n(b)\nthe following point (c) is added:\n\u2018(c)\nas regards funds or other incentive schemes for energy efficiency and use of renewable energy in buildings, including in existing housing the relevant Union and national regulatory frameworks and the relevant national strategies.\u2019\n(3)\nArticle 45 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Additional provisions applicable to financial engineering instruments for enterprises\u2019\n(b)\nthe first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Financial engineering instruments for enterprises referred to in Article 43(1)(a) shall invest only at the establishment, in the early stages, including seed capital, or on expansion of those enterprises, and only in activities which the managers of the financial engineering instruments judge potentially economically viable.\u2019\n(4)\nIn Article 47, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Having regard to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006, expenditure for housing in favour of marginalized communities shall be eligible only if the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nsuch housing investment is part of an integrated approach and support for housing interventions for marginalized communities takes place together with other types of interventions including interventions in the areas of education, health, social inclusion and employment;\n(b)\nthe physical location of such housing ensures spatial integration of these communities into mainstream society and does not contribute to segregation, isolation and exclusion.\u2019\n(5)\nAnnex XVIII is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\n(6)\nAnnexes XX, XXI and XXII are replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 25 June 2010.\nHowever, point (4) of Article 1 shall apply from 18 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 September 2010.", "references": ["11", "26", "25", "75", "99", "16", "90", "48", "15", "4", "33", "20", "34", "30", "77", "65", "68", "47", "22", "92", "96", "91", "1", "55", "54", "27", "19", "95", "85", "93", "No Label", "2", "9", "10", "17", "39", "46"], "gold": ["2", "9", "10", "17", "39", "46"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 587/2010\nof 2 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 3 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 July 2010.", "references": ["84", "85", "82", "6", "83", "77", "74", "94", "65", "10", "27", "86", "76", "34", "72", "11", "12", "98", "8", "63", "20", "67", "47", "96", "75", "33", "0", "48", "78", "87", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/156/CFSP\nof 10 March 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof, in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Treaty on European Union,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Libya, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex IV to that Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be included in Annex IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 March 2011.", "references": ["84", "17", "43", "55", "72", "21", "78", "37", "80", "15", "46", "97", "96", "30", "13", "12", "41", "8", "38", "51", "90", "10", "66", "33", "22", "95", "32", "81", "63", "61", "No Label", "3", "4", "11", "14", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "11", "14", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 525/2010\nof 17 June 2010\nfixing the export refunds on poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), last subparagraph, and Article 170 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in poultrymeat, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162 to 164, 167, 169 and 170 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely in the Union and bear the identification mark provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products should also comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3).\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The products on which the export refunds provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 may be paid, subject to the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 of this Article, and the amounts of those refunds are specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The products on which a refund may be paid under paragraph 1 shall meet the requirements under Regulations (EC) Nos 852/2004 and 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the identification marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2010.", "references": ["46", "24", "95", "19", "2", "66", "82", "1", "88", "30", "64", "59", "70", "8", "68", "81", "71", "11", "62", "26", "42", "10", "6", "87", "84", "40", "56", "58", "31", "97", "No Label", "20", "69"], "gold": ["20", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 438/2011\nof 5 May 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 430/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 May 2011.", "references": ["61", "54", "86", "57", "81", "13", "24", "18", "74", "43", "51", "70", "28", "19", "75", "31", "50", "77", "65", "32", "2", "21", "17", "92", "87", "15", "53", "98", "29", "63", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 474/2010\nof 31 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2010.", "references": ["29", "80", "42", "76", "12", "92", "21", "66", "15", "37", "3", "40", "83", "65", "74", "90", "19", "10", "93", "49", "69", "55", "86", "64", "98", "0", "97", "46", "7", "96", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 630/2011\nof 21 June 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 opening and providing for the management of autonomous tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and industrial products\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure sufficient and uninterrupted supplies of certain goods insufficiently produced in the Union and to avoid any disturbances on the market, for certain agricultural and industrial products, autonomous tariff quotas have been opened by Council Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 (1) within which those products can be imported at reduced or zero duty rates.\n(2)\nThe quota volumes, previously established, for autonomous tariff quotas of the Union with order numbers 09.2767, 09.2813, 09.2977, 09.2628, 09.2629 and 09.2635 are insufficient to meet the needs of the Union industry. Consequently, those quota volumes should be increased, from 1 July 2011 in the case of the tariff quotas with the order numbers 09.2767 and 09.2813, and from 1 January 2011 in the case of tariff quotas with the order numbers 09.2977, 09.2628, 09.2629 and 09.2635.\n(3)\nMoreover, for the autonomous tariff quota of the Union with the order number 09.2631 the product description should be revised.\n(4)\nIn addition, it is no longer in the interest of the Union to continue to grant a tariff quota for the second semester of 2011 in respect of the tariff quota with the order number 09.2947. That quota should therefore be closed with effect from 1 July 2011 and the corresponding row should be deleted from the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010.\n(5)\nRegulation (EU) No 7/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nSince some of the measures provided for in this Regulation should take effect from 1 January 2011 and others from 1 July 2011, this Regulation should apply from those dates respectively and enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe rows for the tariff quotas with order numbers 09.2767, 09.2813 and 09.2631 are replaced by the rows set out in Annex I to this Regulation;\n(2)\nthe rows for the tariff quotas with order numbers 09.2977, 09.2628, 09.2629 and 09.2635 are replaced by the rows set out in Annex II to this Regulation;\n(3)\nthe row for the tariff quota with order number 09.2947 is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nHowever, point (2) of Article 1 shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 21 June 2011.", "references": ["75", "46", "35", "2", "78", "65", "49", "93", "4", "85", "32", "12", "97", "19", "92", "31", "94", "54", "34", "81", "5", "70", "26", "30", "39", "56", "43", "62", "16", "14", "No Label", "21", "22", "82"], "gold": ["21", "22", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/54/EU\nof 20 August 2010\namending Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC to renew the inclusion of azimsulfuron as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe inclusion of azimsulfuron in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC expires on 31 December 2011. A notification was submitted in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 of 27 June 2007 on laying down the procedure of the renewal of the inclusion of a first group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and establishing the list of those substances (2) for the renewal of the inclusion of azimsulfuron as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within the time period provided for in that Article.\n(2)\nThat notification was found to be admissible by Commission Decision 2008/656/EC of 28 July 2008 on the admissibility of the notifications concerning the renewal of the inclusion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances azimsulfuron, azoxystrobin, fluroxypyr, imazalil, kresoxim-methyl, prohexadion-calcium and spiroxamin, and establishing the list of the notifiers concerned (3).\n(3)\nWithin the time period provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007, the notifier submitted the data required in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 together with an explanation as regards the relevance of each new study submitted.\n(4)\nThe rapporteur Member State prepared an assessment report in consultation with the co-rapporteur Member State and submitted it to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter: \u2018the Authority\u2019) and the Commission on 10 June 2009. In addition to the assessment of the substance, that report includes a list of the studies the rapporteur Member State relied on for its assessment.\n(5)\nThe Authority communicated the assessment report to the notifier and to all the Member States and forwarded the comments received to the Commission. The Authority also made the assessment report available to the public.\n(6)\nAt the request of the Commission, the assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority, and the Authority presented its conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of azimsulfuron (4) to the Commission on 12 March 2010. The assessment report and the conclusion from the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 9 July 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for azimsulfuron.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing azimsulfuron may be expected to continue to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to renew the inclusion of azimsulfuron in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, in order to ensure that plant protection products containing this active substance may continue to be authorised where they comply with that Directive.\n(8)\nBased on the review report which points out that the manufacturing impurity phenol is of toxicological concern a maximum level of 2 g/kg should, however, be set for that impurity in the technical material.\n(9)\nFrom the new data submitted, it appears that azimsulfuron and its degradation products in aqueous photolysis may cause risks for aquatic organisms. Without prejudice to the conclusion that the inclusion of azimsulfuron is to be renewed, it is therefore appropriate to obtain further information on those specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that the inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore it is appropriate to require that the notifier submit further information as regards the assessment of the risks azimsulfuron may pose for aquatic organisms and to complete the identification of its degradation products in aqueous photolysis.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is renewed in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the renewal.\n(11)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of renewing the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I thereto, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after renewal to review authorisations of plant protection products containing azimsulfuron to make sure that the requirements laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13, and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I to that Directive, continue to be satisfied. As appropriate, Member States should renew, where appropriate with modifications, or refuse to renew authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(12)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31 January 2012 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 February 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing azimsulfuron as an active substance by 31 January 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to azimsulfuron are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing azimsulfuron as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances, all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 July 2011 at the latest, Member States shall, where necessary, re-evaluate the products, to take into account developments occurred in the scientific and technical knowledge and in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning azimsulfuron. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product still satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC. Following that determination Member States shall, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 July 2015.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, for each authorised plant protection product containing azimsulfuron as one of several active substances, all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 July 2011 at the latest, and at least one of which was included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC between 1 January 2009 and 31 July 2011, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning azimsulfuron. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 July 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 August 2011.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 August 2010.", "references": ["80", "51", "29", "72", "97", "84", "50", "79", "19", "32", "47", "81", "54", "58", "15", "28", "26", "14", "13", "91", "16", "55", "69", "18", "4", "78", "33", "43", "45", "82", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "42", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "42", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 595/2012\nof 5 July 2012\napproving the active substance fenpyrazamine, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply, with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval, to active substances for which a decision has been adopted in accordance with Article 6(3) of that Directive before 14 June 2011. For fenpyrazamine the conditions of Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 are fulfilled by Commission Decision 2010/150/EU (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC Austria received on 3 September 2009 an application from Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS for the inclusion of the active substance fenpyrazamine in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Decision 2010/150/EU confirmed that the dossier was \u2018complete\u2019 in the sense that it could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annexes II and III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nFor that active substance, the effects on human and animal health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicant. The designated rapporteur Member State submitted a draft assessment report on 17 January 2011.\n(4)\nThe draft assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019). The Authority presented to the Commission its conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance fenpyrazamine (4) on 6 December 2011. This draft assessment report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and was finalised on 1 June 2012 in the format of the Commission review report for fenpyrazamine.\n(5)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing fenpyrazamine may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) and Article 5(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve fenpyrazamine.\n(6)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of six months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing fenpyrazamine. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(7)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (5) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (6) should be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance fenpyrazamine, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing fenpyrazamine as an active substance by 30 June 2013.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing fenpyrazamine as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances, all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2012 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing fenpyrazamine as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 June 2014 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing fenpyrazamine as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 June 2014 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2012.", "references": ["58", "2", "24", "0", "50", "82", "29", "46", "31", "52", "4", "32", "45", "71", "26", "77", "47", "75", "7", "64", "18", "67", "38", "96", "35", "28", "40", "14", "59", "83", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 243/2012/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 14 March 2012\nestablishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (3), the Commission may submit legislative proposals to the European Parliament and the Council for establishing multiannual radio spectrum policy programmes. Those programmes should set out policy orientations and objectives for the strategic planning and harmonisation of the use of spectrum in accordance with the directives applicable to electronic communications networks and services. Those policy orientations and objectives should refer to the availability and efficient use of the spectrum necessary for the establishment and functioning of the internal market. The Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (hereinafter \u2018the Programme\u2019) should support the goals and key actions outlined in the Commission Communication of 3 March 2010 on the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Commission Communication of 26 August 2010 on \u2018A Digital Agenda for Europe\u2019, and is included among the 50 priority actions of the Commission Communication of 11 November 2010, \u2018Towards a Single Market Act\u2019.\n(2)\nThis Decision should be without prejudice to existing Union law, in particular Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (4), Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (5), Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (6), Directive 2002/21/EC as well as Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (7). This Decision should also be without prejudice to measures taken at national level, in compliance with Union law, that pursue general interest objectives, in particular relating to content regulation and audiovisual policy, and to the right of Member States to organise and use their spectrum for public order and public security purposes and for defence.\n(3)\nSpectrum is a key public resource for essential sectors and services, including mobile, wireless broadband and satellite communications, television and radio broadcasting, transport, radiolocation, and applications such as alarms, remote controls, hearing aids, microphones, and medical equipment. It supports public services, such as security and safety services including civil protection, and scientific activities, such as meteorology, Earth observation, radio astronomy and space research. Easy access to spectrum also plays a role in the provision of electronic communications, in particular for citizens and businesses located in remote and sparsely populated areas, such as rural areas or islands. Regulatory measures on spectrum therefore have economic, safety, health, public interest, cultural, scientific, social, environmental and technical implications.\n(4)\nA renewed economic and social approach with regard to the management, allocation and use of spectrum should be adopted. That approach should have a particular focus directed towards spectrum policy, with the aim to ensure greater spectrum efficiency, better frequency planning and safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour.\n(5)\nThe strategic planning and harmonisation of spectrum use at Union level should enhance the internal market for wireless electronic communications services and equipment as well as other Union policies requiring spectrum use, thus creating new opportunities for innovation and employment creation, and simultaneously contributing to economic recovery and social integration across the Union, while at the same time respecting the important social, cultural and economic value of spectrum.\n(6)\nThe harmonisation of appropriate spectrum use can also be beneficial to the quality of the services provided through electronic communications, and is essential in order to create economies of scale, lowering both the cost of deploying wireless networks and the cost of wireless devices for consumers. To that end, the Union needs a policy programme that covers the internal market in all Union policy areas involving the use of spectrum, such as electronic communications, research, technological development and space, transport, energy and audiovisual policies.\n(7)\nThe Programme should promote competition and contribute to laying the foundation for a genuine single digital market.\n(8)\nThe Programme should, in particular, support the Europe 2020 Strategy, given the huge potential of wireless services to promote a knowledge-based economy, develop and assist sectors relying on information and communications technologies and overcome the digital divide. The growing use of, in particular, audiovisual media services and online content is increasing demand for speed and coverage. It is also a key action in the Digital Agenda for Europe, which aims to deliver fast broadband internet in the future network- and knowledge-based economy, with an ambitious target for universal broadband coverage. Providing the highest possible wired and wireless broadband speeds and capacity contributes to achieving the target of access to broadband at a speed of not less than 30 Mbps for all by 2020 with at least half of Union households having access to broadband at a speed of at least 100 Mbps, and is important for fostering economic growth and global competitiveness, and necessary to achieve the sustainable economic and social benefits of a single digital market. It should also support and promote other Union sectoral policies such as a sustainable environment and economic and social inclusion for all Union citizens. Given the importance of wireless applications for innovation, the Programme is also a key initiative in support of Union policies on innovation.\n(9)\nThe Programme should lay the foundations for a development whereby the Union can take the lead regarding wireless broadband speeds, mobility, coverage and capacity. Such leadership is essential in order to establish a competitive single digital market working to open up the internal market for all Union citizens.\n(10)\nThe Programme should specify guiding principles and objectives up to 2015 for Member States and institutions of the Union, and set out specific implementation initiatives. While spectrum management is still largely a national competence, it should be exercised in compliance with existing Union law and allow for action to pursue Union policies.\n(11)\nThe Programme should also take into account Decision No 676/2002/EC and the technical expertise of the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (hereinafter \u2018CEPT\u2019) so that Union policies which rely on spectrum and have been agreed by the European Parliament and the Council can be implemented by technical implementing measures, noting that such measures can be taken whenever necessary to implement already existing Union policies.\n(12)\nEasy access to spectrum may require innovative types of authorisation such as collective use of spectrum, or infrastructure sharing, the application of which in the Union could be facilitated by identifying best practices and encouraging information sharing, as well as by defining certain common or converging conditions for the use of spectrum. General authorisations, which are the least onerous type of authorisation, are of particular interest where interference does not risk hampering the development of other services.\n(13)\nWhile technologically still in development, so-called \u2018cognitive technologies\u2019 should already be further explored, including by facilitating sharing based on geolocalisation.\n(14)\nSpectrum rights trading combined with flexible usage conditions could substantially benefit economic growth. Therefore, bands where flexible use has already been introduced by Union law should immediately be made tradable pursuant to Directive 2002/21/EC. The sharing of best practices on authorisation conditions and procedures for such bands and common measures to prevent accumulation of rights of use of spectrum which may create dominant positions, as well as undue failure to use such rights, would facilitate the coordinated introduction by all Member States of these measures and facilitate acquisition of such rights anywhere in the Union. Collective (or shared) use of spectrum - as an undetermined number of independent users and/or devices to access spectrum in the same range of frequencies at the same time and in a particular geographic area under a well-defined set of conditions - should be fostered where applicable, without prejudice to the provisions of Directive 2002/20/EC with regard to electronic communications networks and services.\n(15)\nAs underlined in the Digital Agenda for Europe, wireless broadband is an important means to boost competition, consumer choice and access in rural and other areas where deployment of wired broadband is difficult or not economically viable. However, spectrum management may affect competition by changing the role and power of market players, for example if existing users receive undue competitive advantages. Limited spectrum access, in particular when appropriate spectrum becomes scarcer, can create a barrier to entry for new services or applications and hamper innovation and competition. Acquisition of new rights of use of spectrum, including through spectrum transfer or leasing or other transactions between users, and the introduction of new flexible criteria for spectrum use can have an impact on the existing competitive situation. Member States should therefore take appropriate ex ante or ex post regulatory measures (such as action to amend existing rights, to prohibit certain acquisitions of rights of use of spectrum, to impose conditions on spectrum hoarding and efficient use such as those referred to in Directive 2002/21/EC, to limit the amount of spectrum available for each undertaking, or to avoid excessive accumulation of rights of use of spectrum) to avoid distortions of competition in line with the principles underpinning Directive 2002/20/EC and Council Directive 87/372/EEC of 25 June 1987 on the frequency bands to be reserved for the coordinated introduction of public pan-European cellular digital land-based mobile communications in the Community (8) (the \u2018GSM\u2019 Directive).\n(16)\nThe establishment of an inventory of existing spectrum use together with an analysis of technology trends, future needs and demand for spectrum, in particular between 400 MHz and 6 GHz, should allow the identification of frequency bands in which efficiency could be improved, and of spectrum-sharing opportunities, to the benefit of both the commercial and public sectors. The methodology for establishing and maintaining an inventory of existing uses of spectrum should take due account of the administrative burden placed on the administrations and should aim to minimise that burden. Therefore, the information provided by the Member States pursuant to Commission Decision 2007/344/EC of 16 May 2007 on harmonised availability of information regarding spectrum use within the Community (9) should be taken fully into account when developing the methodology for establishing an inventory of existing uses of spectrum.\n(17)\nHarmonised standards under Directive 1999/5/EC are essential to achieve efficient use of spectrum and should take account of legally defined sharing conditions. European standards for non-radio electric and electronic equipment and networks should also avoid disturbance to spectrum use. The cumulative impact of the increasing volume and density of wireless devices and applications combined with the diversity of spectrum use presents a challenge to current approaches to interference management. These should therefore be examined and reassessed together with receiver characteristics and more sophisticated interference avoidance mechanisms.\n(18)\nMember States should be allowed, where appropriate, to introduce compensatory measures relating to migration costs.\n(19)\nIn line with the objectives of the Digital Agenda for Europe, wireless broadband could contribute substantially to economic recovery and growth if sufficient spectrum were made available, rights of use of spectrum were awarded quickly, and trading were allowed to adapt to market evolution. The Digital Agenda for Europe calls for all Union citizens to have access to broadband at a speed of at least 30 Mbps by 2020. Therefore, the spectrum that has already been covered by existing Commission Decisions should be made available under the terms and conditions of those Decisions. Subject to market demand, the authorisation process should be carried out in accordance with Directive 2002/20/EC by 31 December 2012 for terrestrial communications, to ensure easy access to wireless broadband for all, in particular within frequency bands designated by Commission Decisions 2008/411/EC (10), 2008/477/EC (11), and 2009/766/EC (12). In order to complement terrestrial broadband services and ensure the coverage of most remote Union areas, satellite broadband access could be a fast and feasible solution.\n(20)\nMore flexible arrangements governing the use of spectrum should be introduced, where appropriate, in order to foster innovation and high-speed broadband connections, which enable firms to reduce their costs and increase their competitiveness and make it possible to develop new interactive online services, for example in the fields of education, health and services of general interest.\n(21)\nHaving nearly 500 million people connected to high-speed broadband in Europe would contribute to the development of the internal market, creating a globally unique critical mass of users exposing all regions to new opportunities, giving each user increased value and giving the Union the capacity to be a world-leading knowledge-based economy. The rapid deployment of broadband is therefore crucial for the development of European productivity and for the emergence of new and small enterprises that can be leaders in different sectors, for example healthcare, manufacturing, and the services industry.\n(22)\nIn 2006, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) estimated that the future spectrum bandwidth requirements for the development of International Mobile Telecommunications-2000 (IMT-2000) and IMT-advanced systems (i.e. 3G and 4G mobile communications) would be between 1 280 and 1 720 MHz in 2020 for the commercial mobile industry for each ITU region including Europe. It should be noted that the lower figure (1 280 MHz) is higher than the requirements for some countries. In addition, there are some countries in which the requirement is larger than the higher figure (1 720 MHz). Both these figures include the spectrum already in use, or planned to be used, for Pre-IMT systems, IMT-2000 and its enhancements. Without freeing up the spectrum required, preferably in a harmonised way at global level, new services and economic growth will be hindered by capacity constraints in mobile networks.\n(23)\nThe 800 MHz band (790-862 MHz) is optimal for the coverage of large areas by wireless broadband services. Building on the harmonisation of technical conditions under Decision 2010/267/EU, and on the Commission Recommendation of 28 October 2009 facilitating the release of the digital dividend in the European Union (13) calling for analogue broadcasting to be switched off by 1 January 2012, and given rapid national regulatory developments, that band should in principle be made available for electronic communications services in the Union by 2013. In the longer term, additional spectrum could also be envisaged in the light of the results of an analysis of technology trends, future needs and demand for spectrum. Considering the capacity of the 800 MHz band to transmit over large areas, coverage obligations could be attached to rights, where appropriate.\n(24)\nIncreased wireless broadband opportunities are crucial to provide the cultural sector with new distribution platforms, thereby paving the way for the successful future development of that sector.\n(25)\nWireless access systems, including radio local area networks, may outgrow their current allocations on an unlicensed basis. The need for and feasibility of extending the allocations of unlicensed spectrum for wireless access systems, including radio local area networks, at 2,4 GHz and 5 GHz, should be assessed in relation to the inventory of existing uses of, and emerging needs for, spectrum, and depending on the use of spectrum for other purposes.\n(26)\nWhile broadcasting will remain an important platform for distributing content as it is still the most economical platform for mass-distribution, wired or wireless broadband and other new services provide new opportunities for the cultural sector to diversify its range of distribution platforms, to deliver on-demand services and to tap into the economic potential of the major increase in data traffic.\n(27)\nIn order to focus on the priorities of the multiannual Programme, Member States and the Commission should cooperate to support and achieve the objective of enabling the Union to take the lead in wireless electronic communication broadband services by freeing up sufficient spectrum in cost-efficient bands for those services to be widely available.\n(28)\nSince a common approach and economies of scale are key to developing broadband communications throughout the Union and to preventing competition distortion and market fragmentation among Member States, certain best practices on authorisation conditions and procedures should be identified in concerted action among Member States and with the Commission. Such conditions and procedures could include coverage obligations, spectrum block size, the timing of granting rights, access to mobile virtual network operators and the duration of rights of use of spectrum. Reflecting the importance of spectrum trading for increasing efficient use of spectrum and developing the internal market for wireless equipment and services, those conditions and procedures should apply to frequency bands that are allocated to wireless communications, and for which rights of use may be transferred or leased.\n(29)\nAdditional spectrum might be needed by other sectors such as transport (for safety, information and management systems), research and development (R&D), e-health, e-inclusion and, if necessary, public protection and disaster relief (PPDR), in view of their increased use of video and data transmission for a quick and efficient service. Optimising synergies between spectrum policy and R&D activities and carrying out studies of radio compatibility between different spectrum users should help innovation. Moreover, results of research under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007 to 2013) require the examination of the spectrum needs of projects that might have a large economic or investment potential, in particular for SMEs, such as cognitive radio or e-health. Adequate protection against harmful interference should also be ensured to sustain R&D and scientific activities.\n(30)\nThe Europe 2020 Strategy sets environmental objectives for a sustainable, energy-efficient and competitive economy, for example by improving energy efficiency by 20 % by 2020. The information and communication technology sector has a key role to play, as stressed in the Digital Agenda for Europe. Proposed actions include acceleration of the Union-wide deployment of intelligent energy management systems (smart grids and smart metering) using communication capabilities to reduce energy consumption, and the development of intelligent transport systems and intelligent traffic management to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by the transport sector. Efficient use of spectrum technologies could also help reduce energy consumption by radio equipment and limit the environmental impact in rural and remote areas.\n(31)\nA coherent approach to spectrum authorisation in the Union should take full account of the protection of public health against electromagnetic fields which is essential for citizens\u2019 well-being. While observing Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (14), it is essential to ensure constant monitoring of the ionising and non-ionising effects of spectrum use on health, including the real-life cumulative effects of spectrum use in various frequencies by an increasing number of equipment types.\n(32)\nEssential general interest objectives such as the safety of life call for coordinated technical solutions for the interworking of safety and emergency services between Member States. Sufficient spectrum should be made available on a coherent basis for the development and free movement of safety services and devices and the development of innovative pan-European or interoperable safety and emergency solutions. Studies have indicated the need for additional harmonised spectrum below 1 GHz to deliver mobile broadband services for PPDR across the Union in the next five to ten years.\n(33)\nSpectrum regulation has strong cross-border or international dimensions, due to propagation characteristics, the international nature of markets dependent on radio-based services, and the need to avoid harmful interference between countries.\n(34)\nAccording to the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, where the subject matter of an international agreement falls partly within the competence of the Union and partly within the competence of the Member States, it is essential to ensure close cooperation between the Member States and the institutions of the Union. That obligation to cooperate, as clarified in well established case law, flows from the principle of unity in the international representation of the Union and its Member States.\n(35)\nMember States might also need support on frequency coordination in bilateral negotiations with countries neighbouring the Union, including candidate and acceding countries, to meet their obligations under Union law on frequency coordination issues. This should also help avoid harmful interference and improve spectrum efficiency and convergence in spectrum use even beyond Union borders.\n(36)\nTo realise the objectives of this Decision it is important to enhance the current institutional framework for the coordination of spectrum policy and management at the level of the Union, including in matters directly affecting two or more Member States, while taking full account of the competence and expertise of national administrations. Cooperation and coordination are also essential between standardisation bodies, research institutions and CEPT.\n(37)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Decision, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (15).\n(38)\nSince the objective of this Decision, namely to establish a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale of the proposed action, be better achieved at the level of the Union, 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 Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.\n(39)\nThe Commission should report to the European Parliament and the Council on the results achieved under this Decision, as well as on planned future actions.\n(40)\nIn drawing up its proposal the Commission has taken utmost account of the opinion of the Radio Spectrum Policy Group established by Commission Decision 2002/622/EC (16),\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAim and scope\n1. This Decision establishes a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme for the strategic planning and harmonisation of the use of spectrum to ensure the functioning of the internal market in the Union policy areas involving the use of spectrum, such as electronic communications, research, technological development and space, transport, energy and audiovisual policies.\nThis Decision shall not affect the sufficient availability of spectrum for other Union policy areas such as civil protection and disaster relief, and the Common Security and Defence Policy.\n2. This Decision is without prejudice to existing Union law, in particular to Directives 1999/5/EC, 2002/20/EC and 2002/21/EC, and subject to Article 6 of this Decision, to Decision No 676/2002/EC, and to measures taken at national level, in compliance with Union law.\n3. This Decision is without prejudice to measures taken at national level in full compliance with Union law, which pursue objectives of general interest, in particular those relating to content regulation and audiovisual policy.\nThis Decision is without prejudice to the right of Member States to organise and use their spectrum for public order and public security purposes and for defence. Where this Decision or measures adopted thereunder in the frequency bands specified in Article 6 affect spectrum used by a Member State exclusively and directly for its public security or defence purposes, the Member State may, to the extent necessary, continue to use that frequency band for public security and defence purposes until the systems existing in the band at the date of the entry into force of this Decision or of a measure adopted thereunder, respectively, are phased out. That Member State shall duly notify the Commission of its decision.\nArticle 2\nGeneral regulatory principles\n1. Member States shall cooperate with each other and with the Commission in a transparent manner, in order to ensure the consistent application of the following general regulatory principles across the Union:\n(a)\napplying the most appropriate and least onerous authorisation system possible in such a way as to maximise flexibility and efficiency in spectrum use. Such an authorisation system shall be based on objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria;\n(b)\nfostering development of the internal market by promoting the emergence of future Union-wide digital services and by fostering effective competition;\n(c)\npromoting competition and innovation, taking account of the need to avoid harmful interference and of the need to ensure technical quality of service in order to facilitate the availability of broadband services and to respond effectively to increased wireless data traffic;\n(d)\ndefining the technical conditions of the use of spectrum, taking full account of relevant Union law, including on the limitation of the exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields;\n(e)\npromoting technology and service neutrality in the rights of use of spectrum, where possible.\n2. For electronic communications, in addition to the general regulatory principles defined in paragraph 1 of this Article, the following specific principles shall apply, in accordance with Articles 8a, 9, 9a and 9b of Directive 2002/21/EC and with Decision No 676/2002/EC:\n(a)\napplying technology and service neutrality in the rights of use of spectrum for electronic communications networks and services and the transfer or lease of individual rights of use of radio frequencies;\n(b)\npromoting the harmonisation of use of radio frequencies across the Union, consistent with the need to ensure effective and efficient use thereof;\n(c)\nfacilitating increased wireless data traffic and broadband services, in particular by fostering flexibility, and promoting innovation, taking account of the need to avoid harmful interference and ensure the technical quality of service.\nArticle 3\nPolicy objectives\nIn order to focus on the priorities of this Decision, Member States and the Commission shall cooperate to support and achieve the following policy objectives:\n(a)\nencourage efficient management and use of spectrum to best meet the increasing demand for use of frequencies reflecting the important social, cultural and economic value of spectrum;\n(b)\nseek to allocate sufficient and appropriate spectrum in a timely manner to support Union policy objectives and to best meet the increasing demand for wireless data traffic, thereby allowing the development of commercial and public services, while taking into account important general interest objectives such as cultural diversity and media pluralism; to that end, every effort should be made to identify, based on the inventory established pursuant to Article 9, at least 1 200 MHz of suitable spectrum by 2015. That figure includes spectrum already in use;\n(c)\nbridge the digital divide and contribute to the objectives of the Digital Agenda for Europe, fostering access to broadband at a speed of not less than 30 Mbps by 2020 for all Union citizens and making it possible for the Union to have the highest possible broadband speed and capacity;\n(d)\nenable the Union to take the lead in wireless electronic communication broadband services by freeing up sufficient spectrum in cost-efficient bands for those services to be widely available;\n(e)\nsecure opportunities for both the commercial as well as public sectors by means of increased mobile broadband capacities;\n(f)\npromote innovation and investment through enhanced flexibility in the use of spectrum, through a consistent application across the Union of the principles of technology and service neutrality between the technological solutions that may be adopted and through adequate regulatory predictability as provided for, inter alia, in the regulatory framework for electronic communications through the freeing up of harmonised spectrum for new advanced technologies, and through the possibility of trading rights of use of spectrum, thereby creating opportunities for future Union-wide digital services to be developed;\n(g)\nfacilitate easy access to spectrum by harnessing the benefits of general authorisations for electronic communications in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2002/20/EC;\n(h)\nencourage passive infrastructure sharing where this would be proportionate and non-discriminatory, as envisaged in Article 12 of Directive 2002/21/EC;\n(i)\nmaintain and develop effective competition, in particular in electronic communication services, by seeking to avoid, through ex ante measures or ex post remedies, the excessive accumulation of rights of use of radio frequencies by certain undertakings which results in significant harm to competition;\n(j)\nreduce the fragmentation and fully exploit the potential of the internal market in order to foster economic growth and economies of scale at the level of the Union by enhancing the coordination and harmonisation of technical conditions for the use and availability of spectrum, as appropriate;\n(k)\navoid harmful interference or disturbance by other radio or non-radio devices, inter alia, by facilitating the development of standards which contribute to the efficient use of spectrum, and by increasing immunity of receivers to interference, taking particular account of the cumulative impact of the increasing volumes and density of radio devices and applications;\n(l)\nfoster the accessibility of new consumer products and technologies so as to secure consumer endorsement for the transition to digital technology and to secure efficient use of the digital dividend;\n(m)\nreduce the Union\u2019s carbon footprint by enhancing the technical efficiency and energy efficiency of wireless communication networks and equipment.\nArticle 4\nEnhanced efficiency and flexibility\n1. Member States, in cooperation with the Commission, shall, where appropriate, foster the collective use of spectrum as well as shared use of spectrum.\nMember States shall also foster the development of current and new technologies, for example, in cognitive radio, including those using \u2018white spaces\u2019.\n2. Member States and the Commission shall cooperate to enhance flexibility in the use of spectrum, in order to promote innovation and investment, through the possibility of using new technologies and through the transfer or lease of rights of use of spectrum.\n3. Member States and the Commission shall cooperate to foster the development and harmonisation of standards for radio equipment and telecommunications terminals as well as for electric and electronic equipment and networks based, where necessary, upon standardisation mandates from the Commission to the relevant standardisation bodies. Special attention shall also be given to standards for equipment to be used by disabled people.\n4. Member States shall foster R&D activities in new technologies such as cognitive technologies and geolocation databases.\n5. Member States shall put in place, where appropriate, selection criteria and procedures for granting rights of use of spectrum that promote competition, investment and the efficient use of spectrum as a public good, as well as promoting coexistence between new and existing services and devices. Member States shall promote the ongoing efficient use of spectrum for networks, devices and applications.\n6. Where necessary in order to ensure the effective use of rights of use of spectrum and avoid spectrum hoarding, Member States may consider taking appropriate measures, such as financial penalties, incentive fees tools or the withdrawal of rights. Such measures shall be established and applied in a transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate manner.\n7. For electronic communications services, Member States shall, by 1 January 2013, adopt allocation and authorisation measures appropriate for the development of broadband services, in conformity with Directive 2002/20/EC, with the aim of achieving the highest possible capacity and broadband speeds.\n8. In order to avoid the possible fragmentation of the internal market due to divergent selection criteria and procedures for harmonised spectrum allocated to electronic communication services and made tradable in all Member States pursuant to Article 9b of Directive 2002/21/EC, the Commission shall, in cooperation with Member States and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, facilitate the identification and sharing of best practices on authorisation conditions and procedures and encourage sharing of information for such spectrum to increase consistency across the Union, achieved in line with the principles of technology and service neutrality.\nArticle 5\nCompetition\n1. Member States shall promote effective competition and shall avoid distortions of competition in the internal market for electronic communications services in accordance with Directives 2002/20/EC and 2002/21/EC.\nThey shall also take into account competition issues when granting rights of use of spectrum to users of private electronic communication networks.\n2. For the purposes of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 and without prejudice to the application of competition rules and to the measures adopted by Member States in order to achieve general interest objectives in accordance with Article 9(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC, Member States may adopt, inter alia, measures:\n(a)\nlimiting the amount of spectrum for which rights of use are granted to any undertaking, or attaching conditions to such rights of use, such as the provision of wholesale access, national or regional roaming, in certain bands or in certain groups of bands with similar characteristics, for instance the bands below 1 GHz allocated to electronic communication services. Such additional conditions may be imposed only by the competent national authority;\n(b)\nreserving, if appropriate in regard to the situation in the national market, a certain part of a frequency band or group of bands for assignment to new entrants;\n(c)\nrefusing to grant new rights of use of spectrum or to allow new spectrum uses in certain bands, or attaching conditions to the grant of new rights of use of spectrum or to the authorisation of new spectrum uses, in order to avoid the distortion of competition by any assignment, transfer or accumulation of rights of use;\n(d)\nprohibiting or imposing conditions on transfers of rights of use of spectrum, not subject to national or Union merger control, where such transfers are likely to result in significant harm to competition;\n(e)\namending the existing rights in accordance with Directive 2002/20/EC where this is necessary to remedy ex post the distortion of competition by any transfer or accumulation of rights of use of radio frequencies.\n3. Where Member States wish to adopt any measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, they shall act in conformity with the procedures for the imposition or variation of such conditions on the rights of use of spectrum laid down in Directive 2002/20/EC.\n4. Member States shall ensure that the authorisation and selection procedures for electronic communications services promote effective competition for the benefit of citizens, consumers and businesses in the Union.\nArticle 6\nSpectrum needs for wireless broadband communications\n1. Member States shall, in cooperation with the Commission, take all steps necessary to ensure that sufficient spectrum for coverage and capacity purposes is available within the Union, in order to enable the Union to have the fastest broadband speeds in the world, thereby making it possible for wireless applications and European leadership in new services to contribute effectively to economic growth, and to achieving the target for all citizens to have access to broadband speeds of not less than 30 Mbps by 2020.\n2. In order to promote wider availability of wireless broadband services for the benefit of citizens and consumers in the Union, Member States shall make the bands covered by Decisions 2008/411/EC (3,4-3,8 GHz), 2008/477/EC (2,5-2,69 GHz), and 2009/766/EC (900-1 800 MHz) available under terms and conditions described in those decisions. Subject to market demand, Member States shall carry out the authorisation process by 31 December 2012 without prejudice to the existing deployment of services, and under conditions that allow consumers easy access to wireless broadband services.\n3. Member States shall foster the ongoing upgrade, by providers of electronic communications, of their networks to the latest, most efficient technology, in order to create their own spectrum dividends in line with the principles of service and technology neutrality.\n4. By 1 January 2013, Member States shall carry out the authorisation process in order to allow the use of the 800 MHz band for electronic communications services. The Commission shall grant specific derogations until 31 December 2015 for Member States in which exceptional national or local circumstances or cross-border frequency coordination problems would prevent the availability of the band, acting upon a duly substantiated application from the Member State concerned.\nIf a Member State\u2019s substantiated cross-border frequency coordination problems with one or more countries, including candidate or acceding countries, persist after 31 December 2015 and prevent the availability of the 800 MHz band, the Commission shall grant exceptional derogations on an annual basis until such problems are overcome.\nMember States to which a derogation has been granted under the first or second subparagraph shall ensure that the use of the 800 MHz band does not prevent the availability of that band for electronic communications services other than broadcasting in neighbouring Member States.\nThis paragraph shall also apply to the spectrum coordination problems in the Republic of Cyprus arising from the fact that the Government of Cyprus is prevented from exercising effective control in part of its territory.\n5. Member States shall, in cooperation with the Commission, continuously monitor the capacity requirements for wireless broadband services. On the basis of the results of the analysis referred to in Article 9(4), the Commission shall assess and report to the European Parliament and the Council by 1 January 2015 on whether there is a need for action to harmonise additional frequency bands.\nMember States may, where appropriate and in conformity with Union law, ensure that the direct cost of migration or reallocation of spectrum usage is adequately compensated in accordance with national law.\n6. Member States shall, in cooperation with the Commission, promote access to broadband services using the 800 MHz band in remote and sparsely populated areas, where appropriate. In doing so, Member States shall examine ways and, where appropriate, take technical and regulatory measures, to ensure that the freeing of the 800 MHz band does not adversely affect programme making and special events (PMSE) users.\n7. The Commission shall, in cooperation with Member States, assess the justification and feasibility of extending the allocations of unlicensed spectrum for wireless access systems, including radio local area networks.\n8. Member States shall allow the transfer or leasing of rights of use of spectrum in the harmonised bands 790-862 MHz, 880-915 MHz, 925-960 MHz, 1 710-1 785 MHz, 1 805-1 880 MHz, 1 900-1 980 MHz, 2 010-2 025 MHz, 2 110-2 170 MHz, 2,5-2,69 GHz, and 3,4-3,8 GHz.\n9. In order to ensure that all citizens have access to advanced digital services including broadband, in particular in remote and sparsely populated areas, Member States and the Commission may explore the availability of sufficient spectrum for the provision of broadband satellite services enabling internet access.\n10. Member States shall, in cooperation with the Commission, examine the possibility of spreading the availability and use of picocells and femtocells. They shall take full account of the potential of those cellular base stations and of the shared and unlicensed use of spectrum to provide the basis for wireless mesh networks, which can play a key role in bridging the digital divide.\nArticle 7\nSpectrum needs for other wireless communication policies\nIn order to support the further development of innovative audiovisual media and other services to Union citizens, taking into account the economic and social benefits of a single digital market, Member States shall, in cooperation with the Commission, aim at ensuring there is sufficient spectrum available for satellite and terrestrial provision of such services, if the need is clearly substantiated.\nArticle 8\nSpectrum needs for other specific Union policies\n1. Member States and the Commission shall ensure spectrum availability and protect the radio frequencies necessary for monitoring the Earth\u2019s atmosphere and surface, allowing the development and exploitation of space applications and improving transport systems, in particular for the global civil navigation satellite system established under the Galileo programme (17), for the European Earth monitoring programme (GMES) (18), and for intelligent transport safety and transport management systems.\n2. The Commission shall, in cooperation with the Member States, conduct studies on saving energy in the use of spectrum in order to contribute to a low-carbon policy, and shall consider making spectrum available for wireless technologies with a potential for improving energy saving and efficiency of other distribution networks such as water supply, including smart energy grids and smart metering systems.\n3. The Commission shall, in cooperation with the Member States, seek to ensure that sufficient spectrum is made available under harmonised conditions to support the development of safety services and the free circulation of related devices as well as the development of innovative interoperable solutions for public safety and protection, civil protection and disaster relief.\n4. Member States and the Commission shall collaborate with the scientific and academic community to identify a number of research and development initiatives and innovative applications that may have a major socio-economic impact and/or potential for investment and consider the spectrum needs of such applications and, where necessary, consider the allocation of sufficient spectrum to such applications under harmonised technical conditions and with the least onerous administrative burden.\n5. Member States shall, in cooperation with the Commission, seek to ensure the necessary frequency bands for PMSE, in accordance with the Union\u2019s objectives to improve the integration of the internal market and access to culture.\n6. Member States and the Commission shall seek to ensure spectrum availability for radio-frequency identification (RFID) and other \u2018Internet of Things\u2019 (IoT) wireless communication technologies and shall cooperate to foster the development of standards and the harmonisation of spectrum allocation for IoT communication across Member States.\nArticle 9\nInventory\n1. An inventory of existing uses of spectrum, for both commercial and public purposes is hereby established.\nThe objectives of the inventory shall be:\n(a)\nto allow the identification of frequency bands in which the efficiency of existing spectrum uses could be improved;\n(b)\nto help identify frequency bands that could be suitable for reallocation and spectrum-sharing opportunities in order to support Union policies set out in this Decision, while taking into account future needs for spectrum based, inter alia, on consumers\u2019 and operators\u2019 demand, and of the possibility to meet such needs;\n(c)\nto help analyse the various types of use of the spectrum by both private and public users;\n(d)\nto help identify frequency bands that could be allocated or reallocated in order to improve their efficient use, promote innovation and enhance competition in the internal market, to explore new ways for sharing spectrum, to the benefit of both private and public users, while taking into account the potential positive and negative impact of allocation or reallocation of such bands and of adjacent bands on existing users.\n2. For the purposes of ensuring the uniform implementation of paragraph 1 of this Article, the Commission, taking utmost account of the views of the Radio Spectrum Policy Group, shall adopt implementing acts by 1 July 2013:\n(a)\nto develop practical arrangements and uniform formats for the collection and provision of data by the Member States to the Commission on the existing uses of spectrum, provided that the business confidentiality rules under Article 8 of Decision No 676/2002/EC and the right of Member States to withhold confidential information are observed, taking into account the aim of minimising the administrative burden and existing obligations on the Member States under other Union law, in particular obligations to provide specific information;\n(b)\nto develop a methodology for the analysis of technology trends, future needs and demand for spectrum in Union policy areas covered by this Decision, in particular for those services which could operate in the frequency range from 400 MHz to 6 GHz, in order to identify developing and potential significant uses of spectrum;\nThose implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 13(2).\n3. The Commission shall administer the inventory referred to in paragraph 1 in accordance with the implementing acts referred to in paragraph 2.\n4. The Commission shall conduct the analysis of technology trends, future needs and demand for spectrum in accordance with the implementing acts referred to in point (b) of paragraph 2. The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the results of that analysis.\nArticle 10\nInternational negotiations\n1. In international negotiations relating to spectrum matters, the following principles shall apply:\n(a)\nif the subject matter of the international negotiations falls within the competence of the Union, the Union position shall be established in accordance with Union law;\n(b)\nif the subject matter of the international negotiations falls partly within the competence of the Union and partly within the competence of the Member States, the Union and the Member States shall seek to establish a common position in accordance with the requirements of the principle of sincere cooperation.\nFor the purpose of applying point (b) of the first subparagraph, the Union and the Member States shall cooperate in accordance with the principle of unity in the international representation of the Union and its Member States.\n2. The Union shall, upon request, assist Member States with legal, political and technical support to resolve spectrum coordination issues with countries neighbouring the Union, including candidate and acceding countries, in such a way that the Member States concerned can observe their obligations under Union law. In the provision of such assistance, the Union shall use all its legal and political powers to promote the implementation of Union policies.\nThe Union shall also support efforts by third countries to implement spectrum management that is compatible with that of the Union, so as to safeguard the spectrum policy objectives of the Union.\n3. When negotiating bilaterally or multilaterally with third countries, Member States shall be bound by their obligations under Union law. When signing or otherwise accepting any international obligations regarding spectrum, Member States shall accompany their signature or any other act of acceptance by a joint declaration stating that they will implement such international agreements or commitments in accordance with their obligations under the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 11\nCooperation among various bodies\n1. The Commission and the Member States shall cooperate to enhance the current institutional setting, in order to foster coordination at the level of the Union of the management of spectrum, including in matters directly affecting two or more Member States, with a view to developing the internal market and ensuring that the Union\u2019s spectrum policy objectives are fully achieved.\n2. The Commission and Member States shall encourage standardisation bodies, CEPT, the Commission\u2019s Joint Research Centre and all relevant parties to cooperate closely in technical issues to promote the efficient use of spectrum. To that end, they shall maintain a coherent link between spectrum management and standardisation in such a way as to enhance the internal market.\nArticle 12\nPublic consultation\nWherever appropriate, the Commission shall organise public consultations to collect the views of all interested parties as well as the views of the public in general on the use of spectrum in the Union.\nArticle 13\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Radio Spectrum Committee established by Decision No 676/2002/EC. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply. Where the committee delivers no opinion, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act, and the third subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 14\nCompliance with policy orientations and objectives\nMember States shall apply the policy orientations and objectives set out in this Decision by 1 July 2015 unless otherwise specified herein.\nArticle 15\nReporting and review\nBy 10 April 2014, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the activities developed and the measures adopted pursuant to this Decision.\nMember States shall provide the Commission with all information necessary for the purpose of reviewing the application of this Decision.\nBy 31 December 2015, the Commission shall conduct a review of the application of this Decision.\nArticle 16\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 17\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 14 March 2012.", "references": ["12", "65", "34", "19", "3", "10", "97", "94", "76", "91", "26", "42", "38", "8", "5", "73", "18", "46", "92", "31", "82", "60", "37", "49", "56", "66", "77", "4", "79", "52", "No Label", "40"], "gold": ["40"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/440/CFSP\nof 25 July 2012\nappointing the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 December 2011, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) presented, also on behalf of the Commission, a joint communication to the European Parliament and the Council entitled \u2018Human Rights and Democracy at the heart of EU external action - towards a more effective approach\u2019.\n(2)\nOn 25 June 2012, the Council adopted the EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy and the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy.\n(3)\nA European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights should therefore be appointed to strengthen the effectiveness and the visibility of the Union\u2019s human rights policy and contribute to the implementation of its objectives, in support of and without prejudice to the role of the HR under the Treaty in representing the Union for matters relating to the Common Foreign and Security Policy,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAppointment\nMr Stavros LAMBRINIDIS is hereby appointed as the EUSR for Human Rights until 30 June 2014. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal from the HR.\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the Union regarding human rights as set out in the Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well as the EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy and the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy:\n(a)\nenhancing the Union\u2019s effectiveness, presence and visibility in protecting and promoting human rights, notably by deepening Union cooperation and political dialogue with third countries, relevant partners, business, civil society and international and regional organisations and through action in relevant international fora;\n(b)\nenhancing the Union\u2019s contribution to the strengthening of democracy and institution building, the rule of law, good governance, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide;\n(c)\nimproving the coherence of Union action on human rights and the integration of human rights in all areas of the Union\u2019s external action.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the policy objectives, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\ncontribute to the implementation of the Union\u2019s human rights policy, in particular the EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy and the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, including by formulating recommendations in this regard;\n(b)\ncontribute to the implementation of Union guidelines, toolkits and action plans on human rights and international humanitarian law;\n(c)\nenhance dialogue with governments in third countries and international and regional organisations on human rights as well as with civil society organisations and other relevant actors in order to ensure the effectiveness and the visibility of the Union\u2019s human rights policy;\n(d)\ncontribute to better coherence and consistency of the Union policies and actions in the area of protection and promotion of human rights notably by providing input to the formulation of relevant policies of the Union.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in full coordination with the European External Action Service (EEAS) and its relevant departments in order to ensure coherence and consistency in their respective work in the area of human rights.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR until 30 June 2013 shall be EUR 712 500.\n2. The financial reference amount for the subsequent period of the EUSR\u2019s mandate shall be decided by the Council.\n3. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n4. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of the EUSR\u2019s mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of the team.\n2. Member States, the institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, the sending institution of the Union or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (1).\nArticle 8\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission, the EEAS and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegations and the diplomatic representations of Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support to the EUSR.\nArticle 9\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with the mandate and on the basis of the security situation in the relevant country, for the security of all personnel under the EUSR\u2019s direct authority, in particular by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, providing for mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area and the management of security incidents, and providing for a contingency plan and a mission evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance, as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of the EUSR\u2019s team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the EEAS;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the HR, the Council and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 10\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report to the competent Council working parties, in particular the Working Party on Human Rights, as necessary. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports. In accordance with Article 36 of the Treaty, the EUSR may be involved in briefing the European Parliament.\nArticle 11\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall contribute to the unity, consistency and effectiveness of the Union\u2019s action and shall help ensure that all Union instruments and Member States\u2019 actions are engaged consistently, to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The EUSR shall work in coordination with the Member States and the Commission, as well as other European Union Special Representatives, as appropriate. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States\u2019 missions and Union delegations.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of Union delegations, Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission, as well as with Heads or Commanders of Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operations and other European Union Special Representatives as appropriate, who shall make every effort to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate.\n3. The EUSR shall also liaise and seek complementarity and synergies with other international and regional actors at Headquarters level and in the field. The EUSR shall seek regular contacts with civil society organisations both at Headquarters and in the field.\nArticle 12\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union in this domain shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the HR, the Council and the Commission with a six-monthly progress report and with a comprehensive implementation report on the mandate at the end thereof.\nArticle 13\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2012.", "references": ["84", "1", "35", "95", "13", "20", "80", "41", "47", "74", "32", "10", "61", "79", "67", "46", "65", "36", "21", "87", "0", "57", "22", "71", "37", "54", "69", "16", "5", "52", "No Label", "3", "7", "14"], "gold": ["3", "7", "14"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 23 February 2012\nestablishing a list of key decision points to evaluate the implementation of the Galileo programme with regard to the ground-based centres and stations to be created as part of the programme development and deployment\n(2012/117/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on the further implementation of the European satellite navigation programmes (EGNOS and Galileo) (1), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe financial and legal framework of the Galileo programme was created by Regulation (EC) No 683/2008. Under this Regulation, the European Union is the owner of all tangible and intangible assets created or developed under the programmes, and the Galileo system includes a set of satellites and a global network of ground-based stations.\n(2)\nIntegrated risk management for the evaluation of the implementation of the Galileo programme calls for the programme management to make certain key decisions, i.e. decisions with a major impact on the costs, timetable, performance and/or risks, at an appropriate time and to act transparently with regard to key decisions which remain to be taken and the implementation of those decisions. These key decisions include those relating to the setting-up of ground-based infrastructure in the development and validation phase and in the deployment phase.\n(3)\nThe global network of ground-based stations as part of the Galileo programme includes six centres and one station, on the one hand, and four series of \u2018remote\u2019 stations on the other.\n(4)\nThe six ground-based centres and the station comprise: two mutually redundant centres to control the general operation of the system (hereinafter referred to as \u2018control centres\u2019 or \u2018GCCs\u2019); the Galileo Security Centre mentioned in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008, which monitors the security of the system and the services provided and which is split in two for reasons of continuity of service (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Galileo Security Centre\u2019 or \u2018GSMC\u2019); the service centre which acts as the interface between the system, on the one side, and the users of the open service, the commercial service and the Safety of Life Service (hereinafter known as the \u2018GNSS service centre\u2019 or the \u2018GSC\u2019) on the other; the centre which controls the generation of the information necessary for the operation of the Search and Rescue Service and which provides the interface between the system and the COSPAS-SARSAT system (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018SAR service centre\u2019); the centre which, on behalf of the programme manager and independently of the user, evaluates the quality of the services provided and communicates time and geodetic references to the user communities (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Galileo performance centre\u2019); the station which allows the quality of the signals emitted by satellites in orbit immediately after their launch to be verified (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018in-orbit-testing station\u2019).\n(5)\nThe choice of location for these centres and stations must take into account the possible presence of existing installations and equipment suitable for the relevant tasks, and must respect the security needs of each centre and station, technical and budgetary constraints and the national security requirements of each Member State.\n(6)\nThe four series of \u2018remote\u2019 stations comprise: the remote control and telemetry stations which, by means of uplinks and downlinks, act as relays between the satellites and the two control stations (hereinafter known as \u2018TTC stations\u2019); the Galileo survey stations which, to allow the provision of services, carry out pseudo-distance measuring and collect the signals sent by the satellites to monitor their quality (hereinafter referred to as \u2018GSS stations\u2019); satellite upload stations, which upload to the satellites the data necessary for the provision of services (hereinafter referred to as \u2018ULS stations\u2019); stations to collect the data necessary for the operation of the Search and Rescue Service (hereinafter referred to as \u2018SaR stations\u2019).\n(7)\nThe choice of location for these remote stations must take into account geographical and technical limitations associated with their optimum distribution around the globe, the possible presence of existing installations and equipment suitable for the relevant tasks, and must respect the security needs of each station and the national security requirements of each Member State. As this choice is subject to change depending on progress made in the programmes, their needs and the development of political or logistical requirements, the stated number and location of the remote stations still to be set up can, at this stage, only be indicative.\n(8)\nIt is therefore important to set key decision points for the evaluation of progress made in the setting-up of the Galileo global network of ground-based stations.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe key decision points for evaluation of progress made in the development of the Galileo global network of ground-based stations and centres to be set up under the various development and deployment phases outlined in Article 3(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 are listed in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2012.", "references": ["51", "18", "38", "23", "80", "88", "13", "62", "97", "61", "49", "68", "86", "84", "14", "44", "66", "56", "73", "48", "5", "75", "22", "59", "35", "32", "76", "57", "2", "12", "No Label", "9", "40", "54", "77"], "gold": ["9", "40", "54", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 522/2010\nof 17 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2010.", "references": ["14", "75", "38", "86", "62", "46", "69", "60", "99", "12", "48", "11", "9", "39", "93", "94", "96", "13", "57", "1", "82", "89", "72", "73", "77", "80", "0", "41", "40", "20", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 953/2010\nof 21 October 2010\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to milk and milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(p) and listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nIn the case of certain milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, there is a danger that, if high refund rates are fixed in advance, the commitments entered into in relation to those refunds may be jeopardised. In order to avert that danger, it is therefore necessary to take appropriate precautionary measures, but without precluding the conclusion of long-term contracts. The fixing of specific refund rates for the advance fixing of refunds in respect of those products should enable those two objectives to be met.\n(6)\nArticle 15(2) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 provides that, when the rate of the refund is being fixed, account is to be taken, where appropriate, of aids or other measures having equivalent effect applicable in all Member States in accordance with the Regulation on the common organisation of the agricultural markets to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 or to assimilated products.\n(7)\nArticle 100(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides for the payment of aid for Union-produced skimmed milk processed into casein if such milk and the casein manufactured from it fulfil certain conditions.\n(8)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 660/2010 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(9)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Part XVI of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 660/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["49", "31", "60", "4", "94", "7", "28", "73", "46", "71", "43", "19", "41", "35", "81", "83", "17", "52", "69", "14", "40", "9", "89", "80", "0", "39", "63", "67", "79", "13", "No Label", "23", "70"], "gold": ["23", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 12 August 2010\non the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania\n(notified under document C(2010) 5524)\n(Only the Romanian text is authentic)\n(2010/454/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania,\nHaving regard to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular paragraph 4 of Chapter 3 of Annex V thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nParagraph 2 of Chapter 3 of Annex V to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania provides that any stock of product, private as well as public, in free circulation at the date of accession within the territory of Bulgaria and Romania (the new Member States) exceeding the quantity which could be regarded as constituting a normal carry-over of stock must be eliminated at the expense of the new Member States. The concept of normal carry-over stock shall be defined for each product on the basis of criteria and objectives specific to each common market organisation.\n(2)\nBoth the criteria and objectives particular to each market organisation and the relationship between prices in the new Member States before accession and Community prices mean that normal carry-over stock should be assessed in the light of factors varying from sector to sector.\n(3)\nThe basis for calculating levels of surplus stocks should be the variation in domestic production plus imports less exports in 2006, compared to the average of variation in domestic production plus imports less exports for the three previous years.\n(4)\nThe results of the calculation should be adjusted to take into consideration that some categories of products, such as butter and butter-oil, different qualities of rice, hops, seeds, wine alcohol, tobacco, and cereals are effectively interchangeable and could be considered as a group, so that an increase in stock levels of certain products in a group may be offset by a reduction in stock levels of other products in the group.\n(5)\nIn order to take into account economic growth during the period evaluated for the surplus stock exercise and the resulting possible increase in food consumption, a linear trend function has been introduced, using the production and trade figures of 2003-2005 as a baseline. In cases where linear trend function would have resulted in a higher surplus, the average of variation in domestic production plus imports less exports for the three previous years was used.\n(6)\nA threshold was used to eliminate minor surpluses: if the amount of surplus stock of a particular product was no more than 10 % of what could be regarded as a \u2018normal carry-over stock\u2019 for that product, it was considered that Member States should not be charged. This 10 % covers the margin of error of the statistical information gathered in the particular circumstances of the pre-accession period and the complexity and scope of this exercise.\n(7)\nThe Commission also invited the new Member States to present any arguments on specific situations which would justify higher than normal stocks and evaluated them. The latter did not result in changes to the figures established according to the methodology described in recitals 1 to 6.\n(8)\nThe calculation should be based on official Eurostat data transmitted by the Member States, where this is available. In cases where such data are not available due to statistical confidentiality, data sent officially to the Commission by the new Member States should be used.\n(9)\nAs regards Bulgaria, the mathematical application of the methodology described in recitals 1 to 6 to the statistical information referred to in recital 8 gives the result that no surplus stocks are found, without the need to consider any arguments on specific situations as described in recital 7.\n(10)\nFor calculating the financial consequences of the surplus stocks, the cost of their disposal should be calculated. In the absence of export refunds for preserved mushrooms for which significant levels of surplus stocks have been established, for an equivalent approach, it is appropriate to take as a basis the price differences between the average internal and external prices. In view of the temporary nature of the financial consequences arising from the establishment of surplus stocks, the corresponding amounts should be paid by the Member States concerned into the Union\u2019s budget. It is necessary to fix the date on which these payments should be made. Taking into account the current difficult economic circumstances pointed out by Romania, it has been considered appropriate to extend over four years the period for the payment of these amounts.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities of agricultural products in free circulation in Bulgaria and Romania at the date of accession exceeding the quantities which could be regarded as constituting a normal carry-over of stock at 1 January 2007, and the amounts to be charged to those new Member States in consequence of the expense of elimination of those quantities are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The amounts set out in the Annex shall be considered as revenue for the Union\u2019s budget.\n2. Romania may pay these amounts set out in the Annex to the Union\u2019s budget in four equal instalments. The first instalment shall be paid by the last day of the second month following the month in which this Decision is notified to that new Member State. Subsequent instalments shall be paid by 31 October 2011, 31 October 2012 and 31 October 2013 respectively.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Romania.\nDone at Brussels, 12 August 2010.", "references": ["42", "26", "22", "11", "89", "64", "37", "85", "73", "74", "98", "47", "0", "81", "18", "20", "59", "3", "52", "68", "1", "57", "31", "62", "39", "50", "58", "65", "77", "60", "No Label", "9", "16", "19", "61", "66", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "16", "19", "61", "66", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 312/2011\nof 30 March 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of 3 months, continue to be invoked by the holder, pursuant to Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of 3 months pursuant to Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 March 2011.", "references": ["95", "33", "1", "60", "37", "16", "28", "85", "47", "83", "36", "17", "82", "68", "38", "78", "92", "49", "57", "58", "7", "99", "52", "64", "91", "48", "77", "76", "43", "10", "No Label", "21", "86"], "gold": ["21", "86"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 17 May 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the International Cocoa Agreement 2010\n(2011/634/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(3) and (4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 June 2010 the negotiating conference, established under the auspices of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, approved the text of the International Cocoa Agreement 2010 (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Agreement was negotiated to replace the International Cocoa Agreement 2001 (\u2018the 2001 Agreement\u2019) which has been extended until 30 September 2012. The Union is a party to the 2001 Agreement and it is therefore in its interest to sign and conclude the Agreement which replaces it.\n(3)\nThe Agreement is open for signature from 1 October 2010 until 30 September 2012 and the instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval may be deposited during the same period.\n(4)\nThe aims of the Agreement fall under the common commercial policy.\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be signed and applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the International Cocoa Agreement 2010 (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby authorised on behalf of the European Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe Agreement shall be applied on a provisional basis (1), pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.\nArticle 4\nThe Union shall notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations of its intention to apply the Agreement provisionally, in accordance with Article 56 thereof.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 17 May 2011.", "references": ["50", "85", "63", "17", "27", "12", "8", "24", "81", "20", "40", "88", "19", "97", "22", "39", "10", "52", "46", "95", "47", "5", "11", "61", "62", "89", "78", "66", "94", "54", "No Label", "3", "9", "68"], "gold": ["3", "9", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 783/2010\nof 3 September 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Queso de Flor de Gu\u00eda/Queso de Media Flor de Gu\u00eda/Queso de Gu\u00eda (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Queso de Flor de Gu\u00eda/Queso de Media Flor de Gu\u00eda/Queso de Gu\u00eda\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 September 2010.", "references": ["18", "83", "7", "51", "44", "34", "56", "23", "22", "31", "41", "61", "92", "93", "0", "60", "3", "77", "88", "71", "76", "69", "30", "74", "36", "53", "48", "16", "87", "85", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 July 2012\nappointing a Lithuanian member of the European Economic and Social Committee\n(2012/439/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Lithuanian Government,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Zenonas Rokus RUDZIKAS,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Vitas MA\u010cIULIS, Business consultant at the Lithuanian Centre for Physical Sciences and Technology (CPST), member of the board at the Lithuanian Photovoltaic Technology and Business Association (PTBA) is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["33", "26", "27", "71", "68", "70", "38", "56", "40", "62", "54", "65", "11", "60", "19", "3", "97", "34", "15", "90", "61", "28", "5", "86", "84", "69", "67", "77", "14", "47", "No Label", "7", "91"], "gold": ["7", "91"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 13/2012\nof 6 January 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9(4) and Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Previous investigations and existing anti-dumping measures\n(1)\nIn August 2001, by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India. The measures consisted of an ad valorem anti-dumping duty ranging between 0 % and 62,6 % imposed on imports from individually named exporting producers, with a residual duty rate of 53,3 % on imports from all other companies.\n(2)\nIn August 2001, the Commission, by Decision 2001/645/EC (3), accepted price undertakings offered by five Indian producers. The acceptance of the undertakings was subsequently withdrawn (4) in March 2006.\n(3)\nIn March 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 (5), the Council amended the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001. The anti-dumping duty imposed ranged between 0 % and 18 %, taking into account the findings of the expiry review of the definitive countervailing duties which are detailed in Council Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 (6).\n(4)\nIn September 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1424/2006 (7), the Council, following a new exporting producer request, amended Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 in respect of one Indian exporter. The amended Regulation established a dumping margin of 15,5 % for cooperating companies not included in the sample and an anti-dumping duty rate of 3,5 % for the company concerned taking into account the company\u2019s export subsidy margin as ascertained in the anti-subsidy investigation which led to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006. Since the company did not have an individual countervailing duty, the rate established for all other companies was applied.\n(5)\nIn November 2007, by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 (8), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. By the same Regulation a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of one Indian exporting producer was terminated.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 1292/2007 also maintained the extension of the measures to Brazil and Israel with certain companies being exempted. The last amendment to Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 in this regard was made by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 806/2010 (9).\n(7)\nIn January 2009, by Regulation (EC) No 15/2009 (10), the Council, following a partial interim review initiated by the Commission on its own initiative concerning the subsidisation of five Indian PET film producers, amended the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 and the definitive countervailing duties imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.\n(8)\nIn May 2011, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 469/2011 (11), the Council amended Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 and thus adjusted the anti-dumping duty rates in view of the expiry on 9 March 2011 (12) of the countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.\n(9)\nThe applicant of this interim review - Ester Industries Limited - is currently subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty of 29,3 %.\n2. Request for a partial interim review\n(10)\nIn July 2010, the Commission received a request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. The request, limited in scope to the examination of dumping, was lodged by Ester Industries Limited, an exporting producer from India (\u2018Ester\u2019 or \u2018the applicant\u2019). In its request, the applicant claimed that the circumstances on the basis of which measures were imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. The applicant provided prima facie evidence that the continued imposition of the measure at its current level was no longer necessary to offset injurious dumping.\n3. Initiation of a review\n(11)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced by a notice published on 29 October 2010 in the Official Journal of the European Union (13) (\u2018the Notice of Initiation\u2019) the initiation of a partial interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of the applicant.\n(12)\nThe Notice of Initiation mentioned that the partial interim review would also assess the need, depending on the review findings, to amend the rate of duty applicable to imports of the product concerned from exporting producers in the country concerned not individually mentioned in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007, i.e. the anti-dumping duty rate as applying to \u2018all other companies\u2019 in India.\n4. Investigation\n(13)\nThe investigation of the level of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2010 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018the RIP\u2019).\n(14)\nThe Commission officially informed the applicant, the authorities of the exporting country and the Union industry of the initiation of the partial interim review investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard.\n(15)\nIn order to obtain the information necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant and received a reply within the deadline set for that purpose.\n(16)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the determination of dumping. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of the applicant.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(17)\nThe product concerned by this review is the same as that defined in Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007, as last amended, imposing the measures in force, namely polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, originating in India, currently falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90.\n2. Like product\n(18)\nAs in previous investigations, this investigation has shown that PET film produced in India and exported to the Union and the PET film produced and sold domestically on the Indian market, as well as the PET film produced and sold in the EU by the Union producers, have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same basic uses.\n(19)\nThese products are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n(a) Normal value\n(20)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined whether the applicant\u2019s domestic sales of the like product to independent customers were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was equal to at least 5 % of the total volume of the corresponding export sales to the Union.\n(21)\nThe Commission subsequently identified those types of the like product sold domestically by the company that were identical or directly comparable to the types sold for export to the Union.\n(22)\nIt was further examined whether the domestic sales of the applicant were representative for each product type, i.e. whether domestic sales of each product type constituted at least 5 % of the sales volume of the same product type to the Union. For the product types sold in representative quantities it was then examined whether such sales were made in the ordinary course of trade, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(23)\nThe examination as to whether the domestic sales of each product type, sold domestically in representative quantities, could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade was made by establishing the proportion of the profitable sales to independent customers of the type in question. In all cases where the domestic sales of the particular product type were made in sufficient quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of all the domestic sales of that type made during the RIP.\n(24)\nFor the remaining product types where domestic sales were not representative or not sold in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. Normal value was constructed by adding to the manufacturing costs of the exported types, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable percentage for selling, general and administrative expenses and a reasonable margin for profit, on the basis of actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer under investigation in accordance with the first sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.\n(b) Export price\n(25)\nIn the previous interim review leading to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 366/2006, it was determined that price undertakings influenced the past export prices and made them unreliable for the determination of future export behaviour. In that interim review, given that Ester was selling the product concerned in substantial quantities on the world market, it was decided to establish the export price on the basis of prices actually paid or payable to all third countries.\n(26)\nIt is recalled that the acceptance of price undertakings was withdrawn in March 2006, i.e. more than three years before the current RIP. Therefore, Ester\u2019s export prices to the Union in the current RIP were not influenced by any price undertakings. It can be thus concluded that they can be considered reliable for the determination of future export behaviour.\n(27)\nSince all export sales of the applicant to the Union were made directly to independent customers, the export price was established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n(c) Comparison\n(28)\nThe comparison between the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price was made on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and the export price, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which affected prices and price comparability. For this purpose, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made, where applicable and justified, for differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, commissions, financial costs and packing costs paid by the applicant.\n(29)\nThe applicant claimed that, compared to the previous interim review investigation, it is offering its customers a wider variation of chemical coatings and this aspect should be taken into account when classifying the product concerned into different product types. However, the company did not demonstrate that the different types of chemical coatings affected price comparability and, in particular, that the customers consistently paid different prices on the domestic market and on the EU export market depending on the type of chemical coating. Therefore, the product classification applied in the previous investigations should be maintained and the claim must be rejected.\n(30)\nThe applicant also claimed an adjustment on the export price, based on the benefits received upon exportation under the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB) on a post-export basis. In this respect, it was found that under this scheme, the credits received when exporting the product concerned could be used to offset customs duties due on imports of any goods or could be freely sold to other companies. In addition, there is no constraint that the imported goods should only be used in the production of the exported product concerned. Ester did not demonstrate that the benefit under the DEPB scheme affected price comparability and, in particular, that the customers consistently paid different prices on the domestic market because of the DEPB scheme benefits. Therefore, the claim was rejected.\n(31)\nThe applicant further claimed an adjustment on the export price, based on the benefits received under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG) and under \u2018Export Credits\u2019 Scheme. In this regard it has to be noted that, similarly as with the other schemes mentioned above, there is no constraint that the imported goods under the EPCG Scheme should only be used in the production of the exported product concerned. Secondly, the applicant did not submit any evidence of an explicit link between pricing of the exported goods and the benefits received under the EPCG and \u2018Export Credits\u2019 Schemes. Finally, the applicant did not demonstrate that the benefits under these two schemes affected price comparability and, in particular, that the customers consistently paid different prices on the domestic market because of the EPCG and \u2018Export Credits\u2019 Schemes benefits. Therefore, the claim has to be rejected.\n(d) Dumping margin\n(32)\nAs provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value by type was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned. Following the comments on disclosure set out in recitals 44 and 45 below, the dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 8,3 %.\nD. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES\n(33)\nIn accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, it was also examined whether the changed circumstances could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.\n(34)\nIn this regard the investigation showed that Ester indeed has taken a number of measures for cost reduction and efficiency improvements. Notably, the company modernised and built a new production line. Further, as a result of significant increase in production, the overhead costs substantially declined. The company also started sourcing its raw materials more efficiently (from a closer location) and managed thereby to considerably reduce freight costs. This cost reduction has a direct impact on the dumping margin. This change in circumstances can therefore be considered to be of a lasting nature.\n(35)\nAs regards export price, the investigation showed a certain stability in Ester\u2019s pricing policies over a long period, between 2006 (the year when the undertaking was repealed) and 2010 (almost the end of the RIP). Given that change in the methodology for the determination of Ester\u2019s export price to the Union as described in recitals 24 and 25 above and the above-mentioned stability in prices, the newly calculated dumping margin is likely to be of a lasting nature.\n(36)\nIt was therefore considered that the circumstances that led to the initiation of this interim review are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future in a manner that would affect the findings of the interim review. Therefore it was concluded that the changed circumstances are of a lasting nature and that the application of the measure at its current level is no longer justified.\nE. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(37)\nOne exporting producer argued that the average dumping margin of the sample should be recalculated, in case the current interim review resulted in a lower dumping margin for Ester (which was one of the companies in the sample) than previously established. It should be recalled that the scope of the current partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation is explicitly limited to the review of the margin of dumping of the applicant, an individual exporter, namely Ester. Therefore, the investigation was limited to the specific circumstances of the applicant, taking into account all relevant and duly documented evidence (14). The conclusions reached on this basis are not pertinent for the other companies in the sample or any other exporting producer in the country concerned.\n(38)\nIt is considered that the determination of a new sample average margin of dumping pursuant to Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation in such circumstances is neither legally possible nor economically appropriate for the following reasons. Indeed, it should be recalled that the calculation of a sample average margin of dumping will only resorted to when, in the context of one given investigation, it is considered that the number of exporters is so large that individually investigating all cooperating exporters would unduly burden the Institutions and jeopardise the completion of the investigation within the mandatory deadline laid out in the basic Regulation. It is then assumed that the computation of a weighted average margin on the basis of the margins of dumping of the sampled exporters is representative of the dumping margin of the non-sampled cooperating exporters. This can only be the case if such calculation is made on the basis of margins of dumping relating to the same period of time. None of the above circumstances are present in the context of a partial interim review limited to one company originally in the sample such as the current investigation. As a consequence, it is concluded that the factual circumstances of the current partial interim review are such that the disciplines of Article 9(6) clearly do not apply.\n(39)\nIt is to be recalled that the statement in the Notice of Initiation according to which \u2018if it is determined that measures should be removed or amended for the applicant, it may be necessary to amend the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the products concerned from other companies in India\u2019 means that, as result of the review, the residual duty may go up in order to avoid circumvention (15). Since the applicant\u2019s duty is revised downwards, the abovementioned provision of the Notice of Initiation is not relevant.\n(40)\nIn light of the reasons described in recitals 37 to 39, the claim that the average dumping margin of the sample should be recalculated has to be rejected.\n(41)\nInterested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose to amend the duty rate applicable to the applicant and were given the opportunity to comment.\n(42)\nThe applicant reiterated its claims concerning the product classification referred to in recital 29 as well as its claims concerning duty drawback adjustment on the export price due to the DEPB, EPCG and \u2018Export Credits\u2019 benefits as described in recitals 30 and 31. However, since no new elements have been provided that could alter the Commission\u2019s findings, the claims had to be rejected.\n(43)\nThe applicant further contested the method of calculating the cif value of those transactions which have been made on FOB basis. When establishing the unit cif value the Commission related the total freight cost paid by the company to all export transactions including the FOB transactions. The company claimed that the total freight cost should have been related to the cif transactions only. This claim has been accepted.\n(44)\nThe applicant finally claimed that not all sample sales have been excluded from the determination of the dumping margin. This claim has also been accepted.\n(45)\nFollowing the review investigation, the proposed revised dumping margin and anti-dumping duty rate that would be applicable to imports of the product concerned manufactured by Ester Industries Limited amounts to 8,3 %,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entry concerning Ester Industries Limited, in the table in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007, shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Ester Industries Limited, DLF City, Phase II, Sector 25, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122022, India\n8,3\nA026\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 January 2012.", "references": ["24", "16", "49", "50", "41", "88", "31", "85", "9", "71", "68", "25", "80", "73", "93", "45", "98", "57", "30", "37", "13", "86", "21", "90", "79", "74", "43", "19", "52", "42", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/414/CFSP\nof 26 July 2010\namending Decision 2010/127/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Eritrea\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 March 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/127/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Eritrea (1) and implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1907 (2009).\n(2)\nDecision 2010/127/CFSP provides for restrictions on the admission of, and financial restrictive measures against persons and entities designated by the United Nations Security Council or by the competent Sanctions Committee, as well as prohibitions on the supply, sale or transfer of weapons and military equipment to those designated persons and entities and on the provision of related assistance and services.\n(3)\nThe procedure for amending the Annex to Decision 2010/127/CFSP should include a requirement to communicate to the designated persons and entities the grounds for listing as provided by the Sanctions Committee, so as to give them an opportunity to present observations. Where observations are submitted or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in the light of those observations and inform the person or entity concerned accordingly.\n(4)\nThis Decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the right to property and the right to the protection of personal data. This Decision should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(5)\nThis Decision also fully respects the obligations of Member States under the United Nations Charter and the legally binding nature of United Nations Security Council Resolutions.\n(6)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/127/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 7\nThe Council shall establish the list contained in the Annex and amend it in accordance with determinations made by either the United Nations Security Council or the Sanctions Committee.\u2019;\n(2)\nThe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 7a\n1. Where the United Nations Security Council or the Sanctions Committee lists a person or entity, the Council shall include such person or entity in the Annex. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the person or entity concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person or entity an opportunity to present observations.\n2. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person or entity concerned accordingly.\nArticle 7b\n1. The Annex shall include the grounds for listing of listed persons and entities as provided by the United Nations Security Council or the Sanctions Committee.\n2. The Annex shall also include, where available, information provided by the United Nations Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee necessary to identify the persons or entities concerned. With regard to persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known and function or profession. With regard to entities, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. The Annex shall also include the date of designation by the United Nations Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["44", "33", "81", "38", "12", "25", "7", "64", "40", "53", "13", "58", "16", "2", "98", "26", "59", "96", "62", "76", "56", "32", "95", "85", "5", "86", "84", "0", "43", "22", "No Label", "3", "6", "9", "23", "94"], "gold": ["3", "6", "9", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 June 2010\nauthorising the placing on the market of Ferric Sodium EDTA as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 3729)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2010/331/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 4 September 2006 the company Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH made a request to the competent authorities of the United Kingdom to place Ferric Sodium EDTA on the market as a novel food ingredient.\n(2)\nOn 11 September 2006 the competent food assessment body of the United Kingdom issued its initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that an additional assessment was required.\n(3)\nThe Commission informed all Member States about the request on 27 November 2006. EFSA was requested to carry out the assessment on 22 December 2006.\n(4)\nOn 26 November 2009 following a request from the Commission, the Scientific Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) adopted an opinion on the safety of Ferric Sodium EDTA. In the opinion EFSA concluded that EDTA is of no safety concern as long as the intake of EDTA does not exceed 1,9 mg EDTA per kg bodyweight per day.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 953/2009 of 13 October 2009 on substances that may be added for specific nutritional purposes in foods for particular nutritional uses (2), Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (3) and/or Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (4) lay down specific provision for the use of vitamins, minerals and other substances in food. The use of Ferric Sodium EDTA should be authorised without prejudice to the requirements of this legislation. The limits set in Annex II of this Decision relate exclusively to EDTA as such and are without prejudice to any limits for the addition of iron to foods. On the basis of the scientific assessment it is established that Ferric Sodium EDTA complies with the criteria laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure that children will not exceed the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of EDTA it appears appropriate to set limits for the addition of EDTA to foods.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFerric Sodium EDTA as a source of iron as specified in the Annex I may be placed on the market in the Union as a novel food ingredient to be used in food without prejudice to the specific provisions of Regulation (EC) No 953/2009, Directive 2002/46/EC and/or Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006.\nThe maximum amount of Ferric Sodium EDTA (expressed as anhydrous EDTA) to be used in foods is set out in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThe designation of the novel food ingredient authorised by this Decision on the labelling of the foodstuff containing it shall be \u2018Ferric Sodium EDTA\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Kreuzauer Strasse 46, D - 52355 D\u00fcren.\nDone at Brussels, 14 June 2010.", "references": ["16", "64", "28", "29", "14", "78", "26", "9", "5", "99", "63", "22", "79", "12", "49", "47", "19", "61", "45", "21", "56", "37", "23", "86", "52", "30", "77", "2", "87", "55", "No Label", "25", "38", "72", "83", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "38", "72", "83", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 325/2011\nof 4 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 April 2011.", "references": ["88", "49", "32", "98", "90", "82", "2", "39", "46", "47", "19", "3", "70", "22", "33", "24", "0", "11", "56", "81", "96", "14", "50", "66", "12", "71", "51", "29", "38", "64", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency vaccination plans against bluetongue in Luxembourg in 2007 and 2008\n(notified under document C(2011) 8742)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(2011/806/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 3(3), (4) and second indent of (6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate bluetongue as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. The second indent of Article 3(6) of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2008/655/EC (3) as modified by Decision 2009/19/EC (4) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in Luxembourg in 2007 and 2008.\n(5)\nOn 27 March 2009, Luxembourg submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005. The Commission\u2019s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Luxembourg in a letter dated 30 March 2011.\n(6)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(7)\nThe Luxembourgish authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(8)\nIn view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of bluetongue in Luxembourg in 2007 and 2008 should now be fixed according to Article 3(2) of Decision 2008/655/EC.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating bluetongue in Luxembourg in 2007 and 2008 is fixed at EUR 471 212,25. It constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe balance of the financial contribution is fixed at EUR 18 202,25.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["52", "19", "77", "80", "26", "56", "54", "35", "37", "63", "74", "89", "39", "33", "17", "25", "95", "7", "93", "71", "11", "6", "5", "24", "46", "44", "51", "2", "68", "85", "No Label", "4", "10", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 November 2011\nin application of Article 7 of Directive 94/9/EC of the European Parliament and the Council as regards a prohibition measure adopted by the German authorities in respect of a mobile phone \u2018Expert XP-Ex-1\u2019 ATEX DE-01-11\n(notified under document C(2011) 8046)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/741/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 94/9/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 March 1994 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres (1) (the ATEX Directive), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 2(1) of Directive 94/9/EC states that Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the equipment, protective systems and devices to which the Directive applies, may be placed on the market and put into service only if, when properly installed and maintained and used for their intended purpose, they do not endanger the health and safety of persons and, where appropriate, domestic animals or property.\n(2)\nArticle 7(1) of Directive 94/9/EC provides that when a Member State ascertains that equipment, protective systems or devices bearing the CE conformity marking and used in accordance with its intended use are liable to endanger the safety of persons and, where appropriate, domestic animals or property, it shall take all appropriate measures to withdraw such equipment or protective systems from the market, to prohibit the placing on the market, putting into service or use thereof, or to restrict free movement thereof. The Member State shall immediately inform the Commission of any such measure, indicating the reason for its decision.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 7(2) of Directive 94/9/EC, the Commission is required, after entering into consultation with the parties concerned, to declare whether it finds such a measure justified or not. If the measure is found justified, the Commission shall inform the Member States so that they can take all appropriate measures with respect to the equipment or protective system concerned, in accordance with their obligations under Article 2(1) of Directive 94/9/EC.\n(4)\nOn 17 March 2011, the authorities of Germany formally notified to the European Commission a prohibition measure concerning the placing on the market and the withdrawal from the market/retailers of a Mobile Phone, mark and type XP-Ex-1, manufactured by Experts Intrinsic Safety Specialists, Groningsewet 7, 2994 LC Barendrecht, Netherlands. According to the documents submitted to the Commission, this product was subject to the conformity assessment procedure referred to in Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 94/9/EC, attested by the EC-Type Examination Certificate No BKI09ATEX0014 X issued by BKIEx - ExV\u00c1 Robban\u00e1sbiztos Berendez\u00e9sek Vizg\u00e1l\u00f3 \u00c1llom\u00e1sa Kft., Mikoviny Samuel u. 2-4, 1037 Hungary - Notified Body No 1418.\n(5)\nThe German authorities indicated that their measure was based on the non-conformity of the product with the essential health and safety requirements referred to in Article 3 of Directive 94/9/EC and set out in Annex II, in particular in points 1.0.5 (Marking) and 1.3 (Potential ignition sources), related to the incorrect application or shortcomings of the harmonised standard EN 60079-11:2007 Explosive atmospheres - Part 11 - Equipment protection by intrinsic safety \u2018i\u2019 (IEC 60079-11:2006), which is referred in the EC-Type Examination Certificate issued by BKIEx - ExV\u00c1:\n-\nparagraph 5.3 (energy and power limitation not in accordance)\n-\nparagraph 6.3.1.1 (minimum distances not kept: voltage 4,2 V needs a distance of 1,5 mm; the existing distance is about 0,2 mm)\n-\nparagraph 10.5.3 (power supply not in accordance)\n-\ndiagram/table (capacitance of the main circuit board without limiting elements; maximum amount 299 \u03bcF is a multiple of 3 000 of the permissible limit).\n(6)\nThe German authorities submitted the Order of Regierungspr\u00e4sidium Darmstadt Unit IV/Wiesbaden informing about sales ban concerning Mobile Phone Expert XP-Ex-1, with the related grounds, reports and letters, and a Quality report by KEMA No 211518000/A on Mobile Phone XP-Ex-1, to substantiate their findings.\n(7)\nAccording to the German authorities, the Mobile Phone does not meet the essential health and safety requirements of Directive 94/9/EC for electrical equipment of Category 2: it can produce hazardous sparks in case of faults, therefore the requirements of the intrinsic safety protection mode are not fulfilled. The German authorities conclude that this product is not safe for use in Zone 1 environments (Category 2G) and represents a real ignition danger in the case of intended use.\n(8)\nOn 8 April 2011, the Commission wrote to the manufacturer - Experts Intrinsic Safety Specialists - and to the Notified Body who issued the EC-Type Examination Certificate - BKIEx - ExV\u00c1 Robban\u00e1sbiztos Berendez\u00e9sek Vizg\u00e1l\u00f3 \u00c1llom\u00e1sa Kft. - inviting them to communicate their observations regarding the measure taken by the German authorities.\n(9)\nTo date, no reply has been received.\n(10)\nIn light of the documentation available, and the comments or the absence of comments of the parties concerned, the Commission considers that the Mobile Phone \u2018Expert XP-Ex-1\u2019 fails to comply with the essential health and safety requirements referred to in Article 3 of the Directive 94/9/EC and set out in Annex II, in particular in points 1.0.5 (Marking) and 1.3 (Potential ignition sources). These non-conformities and the related technical deficiencies give rise to serious risks for users,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe measure taken by the authorities of Germany prohibiting the placing on the market and the withdrawal from the market/retailers of a Mobile Phone, mark and type \u2018Expert XP-Ex-1\u2019, manufactured by Experts Intrinsic Safety Specialists, is justified.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["75", "61", "98", "1", "15", "55", "4", "79", "39", "74", "44", "82", "64", "17", "81", "13", "67", "19", "7", "65", "63", "3", "71", "28", "0", "47", "21", "62", "50", "41", "No Label", "24", "25", "40", "76", "83", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "40", "76", "83", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2011/70/EURATOM\nof 19 July 2011\nestablishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Articles 31 and 32 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission, drawn up after obtaining the opinion of a group of persons appointed by the Scientific and Technical Committee from among scientific experts in the Member States,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 2(b) of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (\u2018Euratom Treaty\u2019) provides for the establishment of uniform safety standards to protect the health of workers and of the general public.\n(2)\nArticle 30 of the Euratom Treaty provides for the establishment of basic standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiations.\n(3)\nArticle 37 of the Euratom Treaty requires Member States to provide the Commission with general data relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste.\n(4)\nCouncil Directive 96/29/Euratom (3) establishes basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. That Directive has been supplemented by more specific legislation.\n(5)\nAs recognised by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its case-law, the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty, on health and safety, form a coherent whole conferring upon the Commission powers of some considerable scope in order to protect the population and the environment against the risks of nuclear contamination (4).\n(6)\nCouncil Decision 87/600/Euratom of 14 December 1987 on Community arrangements for the early exchange of information in the event of a radiological emergency (5) established a framework for notification and provision of information to be used by the Member States in order to protect the general public in case of a radiological emergency. Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency (6) imposed obligations on the Member States to inform the general public in the event of a radiological emergency.\n(7)\nCouncil Directive 2003/122/Euratom (7) provides for the control of high-activity sealed radioactive sources and orphan sources, including disused sources. In accordance with the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (\u2018the Joint Convention\u2019) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources, and current industrial practices, disused sealed sources can be reused, recycled or disposed of. In many cases, this needs a return of the source or return of the equipment, including the source, to a supplier or a manufacturer, for requalification or processing.\n(8)\nDirective 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries (8) covers the management of waste from extractive industries which may be radioactive, but excluding such aspects as are specific to radioactivity, which are matters dealt with under the Euratom Treaty.\n(9)\nCouncil Directive 2006/117/Euratom (9) lays down a European Atomic Energy Community (\u2018Community\u2019) system of supervision and control of transboundary shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel. That Directive was supplemented by Commission Recommendation 2008/956/Euratom of 4 December 2008 on criteria for the export of radioactive waste and spent fuel to third countries (10).\n(10)\nCouncil Directive 2009/71/Euratom of 25 June 2009 establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations (11) imposes obligations on the Member States to establish and maintain a national framework for nuclear safety. While that Directive concerns principally the nuclear safety of nuclear installations, it states that it is also important to ensure the safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, including at storage and disposal facilities. Therefore, those facilities, addressed both in Directive 2009/71/Euratom and in this Directive, should not be subject to disproportionate or unnecessary obligations, especially as regards reporting.\n(11)\nDirective 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment (12) applies to certain plans and programmes within the scope of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (13).\n(12)\nCommission Recommendation 2006/851/Euratom of 24 October 2006 on the management of the financial resources for the decommissioning of nuclear installations, spent fuel and radioactive waste (14) focuses on the adequacy of funding, its financial security and its transparency in order to ensure that the funds are only used for the intended purposes.\n(13)\nUnder the specific terms of accession of Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria to the European Union, where certain nuclear power plants were subject to early shutdown, the Community has taken part in the raising of financial resources and provides financial support subject to certain conditions to various decommissioning projects, including management of radioactive waste and spent fuel.\n(14)\nThe Joint Convention, concluded under the auspices of the IAEA, represents an incentive instrument which aims at achieving and maintaining a high level of safety worldwide in spent fuel and radioactive waste management through the enhancement of national measures and international cooperation.\n(15)\nSome Member States have already participated and intend to participate further in the US-Russian driven programme, called the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, by shipping the spent fuel of research reactors to the United States of America and to the Russian Federation.\n(16)\nIn 2006, the IAEA updated the structure of standards and published the Fundamental Safety Principles, which were jointly sponsored by the Community, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency and other international organisations. Applying the Fundamental Safety Principles will facilitate the application of international safety standards and will make for greater consistency between the arrangements of different states.\n(17)\nFollowing the Council\u2019s invitation to set up a High Level Group at EU level, as recorded in its Conclusions of 8 May 2007 on Nuclear Safety and Safe Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste, the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) was set up by Commission Decision 2007/530/Euratom of 17 July 2007 on establishing the European High Level Group on Nuclear Safety and Waste Management (15) to contribute to the achievement of the Community objectives in the field of spent fuel and radioactive waste management. The conclusions and recommendations of ENSREG were reflected in the Council Resolution of 16 December 2008 on Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management and the Council Conclusions of 10 November 2009 on the report by the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group.\n(18)\nThe European Parliament adopted on 10 May 2007 a Resolution \u2018Assessing Euratom - 50 Years of European nuclear energy policy\u2019 where it called for harmonised standards for radioactive waste management and invited the Commission to review the relevant drafts of its legislative proposal and submit a new proposal for a directive on radioactive waste management.\n(19)\nWhile each Member State remains free to define its energy mix, all Member States generate radioactive waste from power generation or in the course of industrial, agricultural, medical and research activities, or through decommissioning of nuclear facilities or in situations of remediation and interventions.\n(20)\nThe operation of nuclear reactors generates spent fuel. Each Member State remains free to define its fuel cycle policy. The spent fuel can be regarded either as a valuable resource that may be reprocessed or as radioactive waste that is destined for direct disposal. Whatever option is chosen, the disposal of high-level waste, separated at reprocessing, or of spent fuel regarded as waste should be considered.\n(21)\nRadioactive waste, including spent fuel considered as waste, requires containment and isolation from humans and the living environment over the long term. Its specific nature, namely that it contains radionuclides, requires arrangements to protect human health and the environment against dangers arising from ionising radiation, including disposal in appropriate facilities as the end location point. The storage of radioactive waste, including long-term storage, is an interim solution, but not an alternative to disposal.\n(22)\nA national radioactive waste classification scheme should support those arrangements, taking fully into account the specific types and properties of radioactive waste.\n(23)\nThe typical disposal concept for low and intermediate-level waste is near-surface disposal. It is broadly accepted at the technical level that, at this time, deep geological disposal represents the safest and most sustainable option as the end point of the management of high-level waste and spent fuel considered as waste. Member States, while retaining responsibility for their respective policies in respect of the management of their spent fuel and low, intermediate or high-level radioactive waste, should include planning and implementation of disposal options in their national policies. Since the implementation and development of a disposal facility will take place over many decades, many programmes recognise the necessity of remaining flexible and adaptable, e.g. in order to incorporate new knowledge about site conditions or the possible evolution of the disposal system. The activities conducted under the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform (IGD-TP) could facilitate access to expertise and technology in this respect. To that end, reversibility and retrievability as operating and design criteria may be used to guide the technical development of a disposal system. However, those criteria should not be a substitute for a well designed disposal facility that has a defensible basis for closure. A compromise is needed as the management of radioactive waste and spent fuel is based on state-of-the-art science and technology.\n(24)\nIt should be an ethical obligation of each Member State to avoid any undue burden on future generations in respect of spent fuel and radioactive waste including any radioactive waste expected from decommissioning of existing nuclear installations. Through the implementation of this Directive Member States will have demonstrated that they have taken reasonable steps to ensure that that objective is met.\n(25)\nThe ultimate responsibility of Member States for the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management is a fundamental principle reaffirmed by the Joint Convention. That principle of national responsibility, as well as the principle of prime responsibility of the licence holder for the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management under the supervision of its competent regulatory authority, should be enhanced and the role and independence of the competent regulatory authority should be reinforced by this Directive.\n(26)\nIt is understood that the utilisation of radioactive sources by a competent regulatory authority for the purpose of carrying out its regulatory tasks does not affect its independence.\n(27)\nMember States should ensure that adequate funding is available for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste.\n(28)\nMember States should establish national programmes to ensure the transposition of political decisions into clear provisions for the timely implementation of all steps of spent fuel and radioactive waste management from generation to disposal. It should be possible for such national programmes to be in the form of a single reference document or a set of documents.\n(29)\nIt is understood that national arrangements for the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management will be applied through some form of legal, regulatory or organisational instrument, the choice of which rests within the competence of the Member States.\n(30)\nThe different steps in spent fuel and radioactive waste management are closely interrelated. Decisions taken in one individual step may affect a subsequent step. Therefore such interdependencies should be taken into account when developing national programmes.\n(31)\nTransparency is important in the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. Transparency should be provided by ensuring effective public information and opportunities for all stakeholders concerned, including local authorities and the public, to participate in the decision-making processes in accordance with national and international obligations.\n(32)\nCooperation between Member States and at an international level could facilitate and accelerate decision-making through access to expertise and technology.\n(33)\nSome Member States consider that the sharing of facilities for spent fuel and radioactive waste management, including disposal facilities, is a potentially beneficial, safe and cost-effective option when based on an agreement between the Member States concerned.\n(34)\nThe documentation of the decision-making process as it relates to safety should be commensurate with the levels of risk (graded approach) and should provide a basis for decisions related to the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. This should enable the identification of areas of uncertainty on which attention needs to be focused in an assessment of safety. Safety decisions should be based on the findings of an assessment of safety and information on the robustness and reliability of that assessment and the assumptions made therein. The decision-making process should therefore be based on a collection of arguments and evidence that seek to demonstrate that the required standard of safety is achieved for a facility or activity related to the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. In the particular case of a disposal facility, the documentation should improve understanding of those aspects influencing the safety of the disposal system, including natural (geological) and engineered barriers, and the expected development of the disposal system over time.\n(35)\nA Member State which has no spent fuel, no immediate prospect of having spent fuel and no present or planned activities related to spent fuel, would be under a disproportionate and unnecessary obligation if it had to transpose and implement the provisions of this Directive with regard to spent fuel. Therefore, such Member States should be exempted, for as long as they have not taken a decision to develop any activity related to nuclear fuel, from the obligation to transpose and implement the provisions related to spent fuel of this Directive.\n(36)\nA Treaty between the government of the Republic of Slovenia and the government of the Republic of Croatia on the regulation of the status and other legal relations regarding investment, exploitation and decommissioning of the Kr\u0161ko nuclear power plant governs the co-ownership of a nuclear power plant. That Treaty provides for shared responsibility for the management and disposal of radioactive waste and spent fuel. Therefore an exemption to certain provisions of this Directive should be laid down in order not to hinder the full implementation of that bilateral Treaty.\n(37)\nWhile recognising that radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with spent fuel and radioactive waste should be taken into account in the national framework, this Directive does not cover non-radiological hazards, which fall under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(38)\nMaintenance and further development of competences and skills in the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, as an essential element to ensure high levels of safety, should be based on learning through operational experience.\n(39)\nScientific research and technological development supported by technical cooperation between actors may open horizons to improve the safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, as well as contribute to reducing the risk of the radiotoxicity of high-level waste.\n(40)\nPeer review could serve as an excellent means of building confidence and trust in the management of radioactive waste and spent fuel in the European Union, with the aim of developing and exchanging experience and ensuring high standards,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER 1\nSCOPE, DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES\nArticle 1\nSubject-matter\n1. This Directive establishes a Community framework for ensuring responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste to avoid imposing undue burdens on future generations.\n2. It ensures that Member States provide for appropriate national arrangements for a high level of safety in spent fuel and radioactive waste management to protect workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation.\n3. It ensures the provision of necessary public information and participation in relation to spent fuel and radioactive waste management while having due regard to security and proprietary information issues.\n4. Without prejudice to Directive 96/29/Euratom, this Directive supplements the basic standards referred to in Article 30 of the Euratom Treaty as regards the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Directive shall apply to all stages of:\n(a)\nspent fuel management when the spent fuel results from civilian activities;\n(b)\nradioactive waste management, from generation to disposal, when the radioactive waste results from civilian activities.\n2. This Directive shall not apply to:\n(a)\nwaste from extractive industries which may be radioactive and which falls within the scope of Directive 2006/21/EC;\n(b)\nauthorised releases.\n3. Article 4(4) of this Directive shall not apply to:\n(a)\nrepatriation of disused sealed sources to a supplier or manufacturer;\n(b)\nshipment of spent fuel of research reactors to a country where research reactor fuels are supplied or manufactured, taking into account applicable international agreements;\n(c)\nthe waste and spent fuel of the existing Kr\u0161ko nuclear power plant, when it concerns shipments between Slovenia and Croatia.\n4. This Directive shall not affect the right of a Member State or an undertaking in that Member State to return radioactive waste after processing to its country of origin where:\n(a)\nthe radioactive waste is to be shipped to that Member State or undertaking for processing; or\n(b)\nother material is to be shipped to that Member State or undertaking with the purpose of recovering the radioactive waste.\nThis Directive shall not affect the right of a Member State or an undertaking in that Member State to which spent fuel is to be shipped for treatment or reprocessing to return to its country of origin radioactive waste recovered from the treatment or reprocessing operation, or an agreed equivalent.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018closure\u2019 means the completion of all operations at some time after the emplacement of spent fuel or radioactive waste in a disposal facility, including the final engineering or other work required to bring the facility to a condition that will be safe in the long term;\n(2)\n\u2018competent regulatory authority\u2019 means an authority or a system of authorities designated in a Member State in the field of regulation of the safety of spent fuel or radioactive waste management as referred to in Article 6;\n(3)\n\u2018disposal\u2019 means the emplacement of spent fuel or radioactive waste in a facility without the intention of retrieval;\n(4)\n\u2018disposal facility\u2019 means any facility or installation the primary purpose of which is radioactive waste disposal;\n(5)\n\u2018licence\u2019 means any legal document granted under the jurisdiction of a Member State to carry out any activity related to the management of spent fuel or radioactive waste, or to confer responsibility for siting, design, construction, commissioning, operation, decommissioning or closure of a spent fuel management facility or of a radioactive waste management facility;\n(6)\n\u2018licence holder\u2019 means a legal or natural person having overall responsibility for any activity or facility related to the management of spent fuel or radioactive waste as specified in a licence;\n(7)\n\u2018radioactive waste\u2019 means radioactive material in gaseous, liquid or solid form for which no further use is foreseen or considered by the Member State or by a legal or natural person whose decision is accepted by the Member State, and which is regulated as radioactive waste by a competent regulatory authority under the legislative and regulatory framework of the Member State;\n(8)\n\u2018radioactive waste management\u2019 means all activities that relate to handling, pretreatment, treatment, conditioning, storage, or disposal of radioactive waste, excluding off-site transportation;\n(9)\n\u2018radioactive waste management facility\u2019 means any facility or installation the primary purpose of which is radioactive waste management;\n(10)\n\u2018reprocessing\u2019 means a process or operation, the purpose of which is to extract fissile and fertile materials from spent fuel for further use;\n(11)\n\u2018spent fuel\u2019 means nuclear fuel that has been irradiated in and permanently removed from a reactor core; spent fuel may either be considered as a usable resource that can be reprocessed or be destined for disposal if regarded as radioactive waste;\n(12)\n\u2018spent fuel management\u2019 means all activities that relate to the handling, storage, reprocessing, or disposal of spent fuel, excluding off-site transportation;\n(13)\n\u2018spent fuel management facility\u2019 means any facility or installation the primary purpose of which is spent fuel management;\n(14)\n\u2018storage\u2019 means the holding of spent fuel or of radioactive waste in a facility with the intention of retrieval.\nArticle 4\nGeneral principles\n1. Member States shall establish and maintain national policies on spent fuel and radioactive waste management. Without prejudice to Article 2(3), each Member State shall have ultimate responsibility for management of the spent fuel and radioactive waste generated in it.\n2. Where radioactive waste or spent fuel is shipped for processing or reprocessing to a Member State or a third country, the ultimate responsibility for the safe and responsible disposal of those materials, including any waste as a by-product, shall remain with the Member State or third country from which the radioactive material was shipped.\n3. National policies shall be based on all of the following principles:\n(a)\nthe generation of radioactive waste shall be kept to the minimum which is reasonably practicable, both in terms of activity and volume, by means of appropriate design measures and of operating and decommissioning practices, including the recycling and reuse of materials;\n(b)\nthe interdependencies between all steps in spent fuel and radioactive waste generation and management shall be taken into account;\n(c)\nspent fuel and radioactive waste shall be safely managed, including in the long term with passive safety features;\n(d)\nimplementation of measures shall follow a graded approach;\n(e)\nthe costs for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste shall be borne by those who generated those materials;\n(f)\nan evidence-based and documented decision-making process shall be applied with regard to all stages of the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste.\n4. Radioactive waste shall be disposed of in the Member State in which it was generated, unless at the time of shipment an agreement, taking into account the criteria established by the Commission in accordance with Article 16(2) of Directive 2006/117/Euratom, has entered into force between the Member State concerned and another Member State or a third country to use a disposal facility in one of them.\nPrior to a shipment to a third country, the exporting Member State shall inform the Commission of the content of any such agreement and take reasonable measures to be assured that:\n(a)\nthe country of destination has concluded an agreement with the Community covering spent fuel and radioactive waste management or is a party to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (\u2018the Joint Convention\u2019);\n(b)\nthe country of destination has radioactive waste management and disposal programmes with objectives representing a high level of safety equivalent to those established by this Directive; and\n(c)\nthe disposal facility in the country of destination is authorised for the radioactive waste to be shipped, is operating prior to the shipment, and is managed in accordance with the requirements set down in the radioactive waste management and disposal programme of that country of destination.\nCHAPTER 2\nOBLIGATIONS\nArticle 5\nNational framework\n1. Member States shall establish and maintain a national legislative, regulatory and organisational framework (\u2018national framework\u2019) for spent fuel and radioactive waste management that allocates responsibility and provides for coordination between relevant competent bodies. The national framework shall provide for all of the following:\n(a)\na national programme for the implementation of spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy;\n(b)\nnational arrangements for the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management. The determination of how those arrangements are to be adopted and through which instrument they are to be applied rests within the competence of the Member States;\n(c)\na system of licensing of spent fuel and radioactive waste management activities, facilities or both, including the prohibition of spent fuel or radioactive waste management activities, of the operation of a spent fuel or radioactive waste management facility without a licence or both and, if appropriate, prescribing conditions for further management of the activity, facility or both;\n(d)\na system of appropriate control, a management system, regulatory inspections, documentation and reporting obligations for radioactive waste and spent fuel management activities, facilities or both, including appropriate measures for the post-closure periods of disposal facilities;\n(e)\nenforcement actions, including the suspension of activities and the modification, expiration or revocation of a licence together with requirements, if appropriate, for alternative solutions that lead to improved safety;\n(f)\nthe allocation of responsibility to the bodies involved in the different steps of spent fuel and radioactive waste management; in particular, the national framework shall give primary responsibility for the spent fuel and radioactive waste to their generators or, under specific circumstances, to a licence holder to whom this responsibility has been entrusted by competent bodies;\n(g)\nnational requirements for public information and participation;\n(h)\nthe financing scheme(s) for spent fuel and radioactive waste management in accordance with Article 9.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the national framework is improved where appropriate, taking into account operating experience, insights gained from the decision-making process referred to in Article 4(3)(f), and the development of relevant technology and research.\nArticle 6\nCompetent regulatory authority\n1. Each Member State shall establish and maintain a competent regulatory authority in the field of safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the competent regulatory authority is functionally separate from any other body or organisation concerned with the promotion or utilisation of nuclear energy or radioactive material, including electricity production and radioisotope applications, or with the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, in order to ensure effective independence from undue influence on its regulatory function.\n3. Member States shall ensure that the competent regulatory authority is given the legal powers and human and financial resources necessary to fulfil its obligations in connection with the national framework as described in Article 5(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e).\nArticle 7\nLicence holders\n1. Member States shall ensure that the prime responsibility for the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management facilities and/or activities rest with the licence holder. That responsibility can not be delegated.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the national framework in place require licence holders, under the regulatory control of the competent regulatory authority, to regularly assess, verify and continuously improve, as far as is reasonably achievable, the safety of the radioactive waste and spent fuel management facility or activity in a systematic and verifiable manner. This shall be achieved through an appropriate safety assessment, other arguments and evidence.\n3. As part of the licensing of a facility or activity the safety demonstration shall cover the development and operation of an activity and the development, operation and decommissioning of a facility or closure of a disposal facility as well as the post-closure phase of a disposal facility. The extent of the safety demonstration shall be commensurate with the complexity of the operation and the magnitude of the hazards associated with the radioactive waste and spent fuel, and the facility or activity. The licensing process shall contribute to safety in the facility or activity during normal operating conditions, anticipated operational occurrences and design basis accidents. It shall provide the required assurance of safety in the facility or activity. Measures shall be in place to prevent accidents and mitigate the consequences of accidents, including verification of physical barriers and the licence holder\u2019s administrative protection procedures that would have to fail before workers and the general public would be significantly affected by ionising radiation. That approach shall identify and reduce uncertainties.\n4. Member States shall ensure that the national framework require licence holders to establish and implement integrated management systems, including quality assurance, which give due priority for overall management of spent fuel and radioactive waste to safety and are regularly verified by the competent regulatory authority.\n5. Member States shall ensure that the national framework require licence holders to provide for and maintain adequate financial and human resources to fulfil their obligations with respect to the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management as laid down in paragraphs 1 to 4.\nArticle 8\nExpertise and skills\nMember States shall ensure that the national framework require all parties to make arrangements for education and training for their staff, as well as research and development activities to cover the needs of the national programme for spent fuel and radioactive waste management in order to obtain, maintain and to further develop necessary expertise and skills.\nArticle 9\nFinancial resources\nMember States shall ensure that the national framework require that adequate financial resources be available when needed for the implementation of national programmes referred to in Article 11, especially for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, taking due account of the responsibility of spent fuel and radioactive waste generators.\nArticle 10\nTransparency\n1. Member States shall ensure that necessary information on the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste be made available to workers and the general public. This obligation includes ensuring that the competent regulatory authority inform the public in the fields of its competence. Information shall be made available to the public in accordance with national legislation and international obligations, provided that this does not jeopardise other interests such as, inter alia, security, recognised in national legislation or international obligations.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the public be given the necessary opportunities to participate effectively in the decision-making process regarding spent fuel and radioactive waste management in accordance with national legislation and international obligations.\nArticle 11\nNational programmes\n1. Each Member State shall ensure the implementation of its national programme for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste (\u2018national programme\u2019), covering all types of spent fuel and radioactive waste under its jurisdiction and all stages of spent fuel and radioactive waste management from generation to disposal.\n2. Each Member State shall regularly review and update its national programme, taking into account technical and scientific progress as appropriate as well as recommendations, lessons learned and good practices from peer reviews.\nArticle 12\nContents of national programmes\n1. The national programmes shall set out how the Member States intend to implement their national policies referred to in Article 4 for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste to secure the aims of this Directive, and shall include all of the following:\n(a)\nthe overall objectives of the Member State\u2019s national policy in respect of spent fuel and radioactive waste management;\n(b)\nthe significant milestones and clear timeframes for the achievement of those milestones in light of the over-arching objectives of the national programme;\n(c)\nan inventory of all spent fuel and radioactive waste and estimates for future quantities, including those from decommissioning, clearly indicating the location and amount of the radioactive waste and spent fuel in accordance with appropriate classification of the radioactive waste;\n(d)\nthe concepts or plans and technical solutions for spent fuel and radioactive waste management from generation to disposal;\n(e)\nthe concepts or plans for the post-closure period of a disposal facility\u2019s lifetime, including the period during which appropriate controls are retained and the means to be employed to preserve knowledge of that facility in the longer term;\n(f)\nthe research, development and demonstration activities that are needed in order to implement solutions for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste;\n(g)\nthe responsibility for the implementation of the national programme and the key performance indicators to monitor progress towards implementation;\n(h)\nan assessment of the national programme costs and the underlying basis and hypotheses for that assessment, which must include a profile over time;\n(i)\nthe financing scheme(s) in force;\n(j)\na transparency policy or process as referred to in Article 10;\n(k)\nif any, the agreement(s) concluded with a Member State or a third country on management of spent fuel or radioactive waste, including on the use of disposal facilities.\n2. The national programme together with the national policy may be contained in a single document or in a number of documents.\nArticle 13\nNotification\n1. Member States shall notify to the Commission their national programmes and any subsequent significant changes.\n2. Within 6 months of the date of notification, the Commission may request clarification and/or express its opinion on whether the content of the national programme is in accordance with Article 12.\n3. Within 6 months of receiving the Commission\u2019s reaction Member States shall provide the requested clarification and/or inform the Commission of any revision of the national programmes.\n4. The Commission, when deciding on the provision of Community financial or technical assistance for spent fuel and radioactive waste management facilities or activities, shall take into account the Member States\u2019 clarifications and progress regarding the national programmes.\nArticle 14\nReporting\n1. Member States shall submit a report to the Commission on the implementation of this Directive for the first time by 23 August 2015, and every 3 years thereafter, taking advantage of the review and reporting under the Joint Convention.\n2. On the basis of the Member States\u2019 reports, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council the following:\n(a)\na report on progress made with the implementation of this Directive; and\n(b)\nan inventory of radioactive waste and spent fuel present in the Community\u2019s territory and the future prospects.\n3. Member States shall periodically, and at least every 10 years, arrange for self-assessments of their national framework, competent regulatory authority, national programme and its implementation, and invite international peer review of their national framework, competent regulatory authority and/or national programme with the aim of ensuring that high safety standards are achieved in the safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. The outcomes of any peer review shall be reported to the Commission and the other Member States, and may be made available to the public where there is no conflict with security and proprietary information.\nCHAPTER 3\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 15\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 23 August 2013. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nWhen Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.\n2. The obligations for transposition and implementation of provisions related to spent fuel of this Directive shall not apply to Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg and Malta for as long as they decide not to develop any activity related to nuclear fuel.\n3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive and of any subsequent amendments to those provisions.\n4. Member States shall for the first time notify to the Commission the content of their national programme covering all the items provided for in Article 12 as soon as possible, but not later than 23 August 2015.\nArticle 16\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 17\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["49", "56", "50", "95", "32", "59", "6", "48", "91", "42", "18", "3", "57", "79", "19", "26", "23", "16", "0", "75", "93", "83", "76", "46", "55", "39", "47", "5", "88", "1", "No Label", "58", "60", "81"], "gold": ["58", "60", "81"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/50/EU\nof 10 August 2010\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include dazomet as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes dazomet.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, dazomet has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 8, wood preservatives, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nBelgium was designated as Rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission by 16 April 2007 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 11 March 2010, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the examinations made that biocidal products used as wood preservatives and containing dazomet may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include dazomet in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at EU level. The EU level risk assessment addresses only professional use outdoors for the remedial treatment of wooden poles, such as transmission poles, by insertion of granules. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to the compartments and populations that have not been representatively addressed in the EU level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nIn the light of the findings of the assessment report, it is appropriate to require that risk mitigation measures are applied at product authorisation level to products containing dazomet and used as wood preservatives to ensure that risks are reduced to an acceptable level in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC and Annex VI thereto.\n(8)\nIn particular, it is appropriate to require that products intended for industrial or professional use be used with appropriate personal protective equipment, unless it can be demonstrated that risks for industrial or professional users can be reduced by other means.\n(9)\nIt is important that the provisions of this Directive be applied simultaneously in all the Member States in order to ensure equal treatment of biocidal products on the market containing the active substance dazomet and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(11)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(12)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 July 2011 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 August 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2010.", "references": ["12", "78", "21", "18", "7", "6", "2", "13", "72", "40", "65", "45", "32", "39", "82", "9", "52", "89", "27", "17", "81", "35", "86", "59", "1", "34", "56", "60", "80", "10", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "66", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "66", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 22 December 2011\non emergency measures regarding unauthorised genetically modified rice in rice products originating from China and repealing Decision 2008/289/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/884/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticles 4(2) and 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (2) provide that no genetically modified food or feed is to be placed on the Union market unless it is covered by an authorisation granted in accordance with that Regulation. Articles 4(3) and 16(3) of the same Regulation lay down that no genetically modified food and feed may be authorised unless it has been adequately and sufficiently demonstrated that it does not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment, that it does not mislead the consumer or the user, and that it does not differ from the food or feed it is intended to replace to such an extent that its normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for humans or animals.\n(2)\nIn September 2006, rice products originating in or consigned from China, contaminated with the unauthorised genetically modified rice Bt 63, were discovered in the United Kingdom, France and Germany and were notified to the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). Notwithstanding the measures announced by the Chinese authorities to control the presence of that unauthorised Genetically Modified Organism (GMO), several other alerts concerning the presence of the unauthorised genetically modified rice Bt 63 were subsequently reported.\n(3)\nConsidering the continuing alerts and the lack of sufficient guarantees from the Chinese competent authorities concerning the absence of the unauthorised genetically modified rice Bt 63 in products originating in or consigned from China, Commission Decision 2008/289/EC (3) was adopted which introduced emergency measures regarding the unauthorised GMO Bt 63 in rice products. That Decision required that prior to placing on the market, operators should submit an analytical report to the relevant Member State competent authorities demonstrating that the consignment of rice products was not contaminated with genetically modified rice Bt 63. Additionally, that Decision provided for Member States to take appropriate measures, including random sampling and analysis carried out using a specific method described therein, concerning products presented for importation or already on the market.\n(4)\nIn March 2010, Germany notified the RASFF with regard to the presence of new rice varieties carrying unauthorised genetic elements encoding insect resistance which had characteristics similar to the GMO Kefeng 6. Subsequently, several additional similar alerts were notified, which in addition to Kefeng 6, also included the presence of another insect resistant rice line which contained genetic elements similar to the GMO Kemingdao 1 (KMD1). Kefeng 6 and KMD1 are not authorised either in the Union or China.\n(5)\nAll RASFF notifications were notified to the relevant Chinese authorities and additionally the Commission wrote to the authorities both in June 2010 and February 2011 requesting action to address the increasing number of alerts.\n(6)\nThe Food and Veterinary Office conducted an inspection in China in October 2008 with the objective of evaluating the implementation of Decision 2008/289/EC, which was subsequently followed up with another mission in March 2011. The conclusions of the 2008 mission and the initial findings of the 2011 mission indicated uncertainty as to the level, type and number of genetically modified rice varieties which may have contaminated rice products originating in or consigned from China, and that therefore there was a high risk of further introductions of unauthorised GMOs in such rice products.\n(7)\nIn light of the findings of the 2008 and 2011 missions of the Food and Veterinary Office, and the numerous RASFF notifications concerning unauthorised genetically modified rice events, the measures provided by Decision 2008/289/EC should be enhanced accordingly so as to prevent any contaminated product being placed on the Union market. Therefore it is necessary to replace Decision 2008/289/EC by means of this Decision.\n(8)\nTaking into account the fact that no genetically modified rice products are authorised in the Union, it is appropriate to extend the scope of measures provided for by Decision 2008/289/EC, which is limited to genetically modified rice Bt 63, and to broaden it to all genetically modified organisms found in rice products originating in or consigned from China. The obligation to provide an analytical report on sampling and analysis demonstrating the absence of genetically modified rice events, established by Decision 2008/289/EC, should be maintained. However, it is appropriate to reinforce Member State controls through enhanced frequency of sampling and analysis which should be set at 100 % of all consignments of rice products originating from China, and to introduce the obligation for food and feed operators to give prior notification of the estimated date, time and place of the physical arrival of the consignment.\n(9)\nSampling methodologies play a crucial role in obtaining representative and comparable results; it is therefore appropriate to define a common protocol for sampling and analysis for the control of the absence of genetically modified rice in imports originating from China. The principles for reliable sampling procedures for bulk agricultural commodities are laid down in Commission Recommendation 2004/787/EC of 4 October 2004 on technical guidance for sampling and detection of genetically modified organisms and material produced from genetically modified organisms as or in products in the context of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 (4) and for prepacked food in CEN/TS 15568 or equivalent. With regard to feed, such principles laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 of 27 January 2009 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of feed (5) shall apply.\n(10)\nDue to the number of potential genetically modified rice events, the lack of validated detection methods and control samples of adequate quality and quantity, and in order to facilitate controls, it is appropriate to replace the method for sampling and analysis provided for in the Decision 2008/289/EC with the analytical screening methods provided in Annex II.\n(11)\nThe new proposed screening methods for analysis should be based on Recommendation 2004/787/EC. It particularly takes into account that currently available methods are qualitative and should address the detection of a unauthorised GMO for which there is no tolerance threshold for sampling and analysis.\n(12)\nThe European Reference Laboratory for Genetically Modified Food and Feed (EU-RL GMFF) within the Joint Research Centre (JRC) verified and confirmed the suitability of the proposed screening methods for the detection of genetically modified rice.\n(13)\nFor the purpose of the sampling and detecting activities required in order to prevent that products containing unauthorised rice events are placed on the market, it is necessary that both operators and official services follow such methods of sampling and analysis provided for in Annex II. In particular it is necessary that account is taken of the guidance provided by the EU-RL GMFF concerning the application of these methods.\n(14)\nRice products, as listed in Annex I, originating in or consigned from China, should be released for free circulation only if they are accompanied by an analytical report and health certificate issued by the Entry Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau of the People\u2019s Republic of China (AQSIQ) in accordance with the models laid down in Annex III and IV to this Decision.\n(15)\nIn order to be able to have a continuous assessment of the control measures, it is appropriate to introduce an obligation for Member States to report regularly to the Commission concerning official controls on consignments of rice products originating or consigned from China.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision should be proportionate and no more restrictive of trade than is required and should therefore cover only products originating in or consigned from China and considered likely to be contaminated with unauthorised genetically modified rice events. Given the range of products that could be contaminated with such unauthorised genetically modified rice events, it seems appropriate to target all food and feed products which have rice listed as an ingredient. Some products, however, may or may not be containing, consisting or produced from rice. It seems therefore proportionate to allow operators to issue a simple declaration when the product is not containing, consisting or produced from rice, thus avoiding the compulsory analysis and certification.\n(17)\nThe situation concerning the possible contamination of rice product with unauthorised genetically modified rice lines should be reviewed within 6 months in order to assess whether the measures provided for in this Decision are still necessary.\n(18)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Decision shall apply to rice products listed in Annex I, originating in or consigned from China.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Decision, the definitions laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (6) and Article 3(b) and (c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (7) on increased controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin shall apply.\n2. The following definitions shall also apply:\n(a) Lot: a distinct and specified quantity of material.\n(b) Increment sample: small equal quantity of product taken from each individual sampling point in the lot through the full depth of the lot (static sampling), or taken from the product stream during a stated portion of time (flowing commodities sampling).\n(c) Bulk sample: quantity of product obtained by combining and mixing the increments taken from a specific lot.\n(d) Laboratory sample: quantity of product taken from the bulk sample intended for laboratory inspection and testing.\n(e) Analytical sample: homogenised laboratory sample, consisting either of the whole laboratory sample or a representative portion thereof.\nArticle 3\nPrior notification\nFeed and food business operators or their representatives shall give adequate prior notification of the estimated date and time at the designated point of entry of the physical arrival of the consignment and of the nature of the consignment. Operators must also indicate the designation of the product as to whether it is food or feed.\nArticle 4\nImport conditions\n1. Each consignment of products referred to in Article 1 shall be accompanied by an analytical report for each lot, and by a health certificate in accordance with the models set out in Annexes III and IV, completed, signed and verified by an authorised representative of the \u2018Entry Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau of the People\u2019s Republic of China\u2019 (AQSIQ).\n2. Where a product referred to in Annex I is not containing, consisting of or produced from rice, the analytical report and the health certificate may be replaced by a statement from the operator responsible for the consignment indicating that the food or feed is not containing, consisting or produced from rice.\n3. Sampling and analysis for the purposes of the analytical report referred to in paragraph 1 shall be performed in accordance with Annex II.\n4. Each consignment shall be identified with the code appearing on the health certificate. Each individual bag, or other packaging form, of the consignment shall be identified with that code.\nArticle 5\nOfficial controls\n1. The competent authority of a Member State shall ensure that all the products referred to in Article 1 are subject to documentary checks to ensure that the import conditions provided for in Article 4 are complied with.\n2. Where a consignment of products other than those described in Article 4(2) is not accompanied by a health certificate and the analytical report provided for in Article 4, the consignment shall be re-dispatched to the country of origin or destroyed.\n3. Where a consignment is accompanied by the health certificate and the analytical report provided for in Article 4 the competent authority shall take a sample for analysis in accordance with Annex II for the presence of unauthorised GMOs with a frequency of 100 %. If the consignment consists of several lots, each lot shall be submitted to sampling and analysis.\n4. The competent authority may authorise onward transportation of the consignment pending the results of the physical checks. In such a case the consignment shall remain under the continuous control of the competent authorities pending the results of the physical checks.\n5. The release for free circulation of consignments shall only be allowed when, following sampling and analyses performed in accordance with Annex II, all lots of that consignment are considered compliant with Union Law.\nArticle 6\nReporting to the Commission\n1. Member States shall prepare a report every 3 months, giving an account of all the results of all analytical tests carried out in the previous 3 months on consignments of the products referred to in Article 1.\nThose reports shall be submitted to the Commission during the month following each three-month period, in April, July, October, and January.\n2. The report shall include the following information:\n(a)\nthe number of consignments subjected to sampling for analysis;\n(b)\nthe results of the checks as provided for in Article 5;\n(c)\nthe number of consignments which have been rejected due to the absence of a health certificate or an analytical report.\nArticle 7\nSplitting of a consignment\nConsignments shall not be split until all official controls have been completed by the competent authorities.\nIn the case of subsequent splitting following official control, an authenticated copy of the health certificate and the analytical report shall accompany each part of the split consignment.\nArticle 8\nCosts\nAll costs resulting from the official controls including sampling, analysis, storage and any measures taken following non-compliance, shall be borne by the food and feed business operators.\nArticle 9\nTransitional provisions\nBy way of derogation from Article 4(1), Member States shall authorise the imports of consignments of products referred to in Article 1 which left China prior to 1st of February 2012 provided that sampling and analysis has been conducted in accordance with the Article 4.\nArticle 10\nReview of the measure\nThe measures provided for in this Decision shall be reviewed by the 6 months following adoption at the latest.\nArticle 11\nRepeal\nDecision 2008/289/EC is hereby repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Decision shall be construed as references to this Decision.\nArticle 12\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2011.", "references": ["44", "31", "88", "49", "8", "63", "52", "74", "61", "60", "10", "41", "0", "92", "27", "73", "59", "18", "15", "4", "12", "3", "79", "82", "48", "83", "87", "26", "70", "30", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "23", "38", "68", "72", "76", "95", "96"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "23", "38", "68", "72", "76", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 5 August 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of phosphated maize starch as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 5550)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/494/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 August 2005 the company National Starch Food Innovation made a request to the competent authorities of the United Kingdom to place phosphated distarch phosphate (phosphated maize starch) on the market as a novel food ingredient.\n(2)\nOn 27 April 2009 the competent food assessment body of the United Kingdom issued its initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that phosphated distarch phosphate was acceptable as a novel food ingredient.\n(3)\nThe Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to all Member States on 4 May 2009.\n(4)\nWithin the 60-day period laid down in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 reasoned objections to the marketing of the product were raised in accordance with that provision.\n(5)\nTherefore the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was consulted on 10 February 2010.\n(6)\nOn 10 September 2010, EFSA in the \u2018Scientific opinion on the safety of \u201cphosphated distarch phosphate\u201d as a novel food ingredient\u2019 (2) came to the conclusion that phosphated distarch phosphate was safe under the proposed conditions of use and the proposed levels of intake.\n(7)\nOn the basis of the scientific assessment, it is established that phosphated distarch phosphate complies with the criteria laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nPhosphated distarch phosphate as specified in the Annex may be placed on the market in the Union as a novel food ingredient for the uses in baked bakery products, pasta, breakfast cereals and cereal bars with a maximum content of 15 %.\nArticle 2\nThe designation of phosphated distarch phosphate authorised by this Decision on the labelling of the foodstuff containing it shall be \u2018phosphated maize starch\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to National Starch Food Innovation, Corn Products UK Ltd, Prestbury Court, Greencourts Business Park, 333 Styal Road, Manchester M22 5LW, England.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2011.", "references": ["39", "80", "58", "74", "64", "36", "65", "87", "50", "7", "11", "82", "42", "46", "10", "23", "16", "96", "49", "34", "69", "37", "97", "77", "76", "31", "83", "20", "35", "92", "No Label", "25", "38", "68", "72", "73"], "gold": ["25", "38", "68", "72", "73"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 16 June 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the EU-ICAO Joint Committee, concerning the Decision on the adoption of an Annex on aviation safety to the Memorandum of Cooperation between the European Union and the International Civil Aviation Organization providing a framework for enhanced cooperation\n(2011/531/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 100(2) and 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Council Decision 2011/530/EU of 31 March 2011 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application, of a Memorandum of Cooperation between the European Union and the International Civil Aviation Organization providing a framework for enhanced cooperation (1) (Memorandum of Cooperation),\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\nIt is appropriate to establish the position to be adopted on the Union\u2019s behalf within the EU-ICAO Joint Committee, set up under the Memorandum of Cooperation with regard to the adoption of an Annex on aviation safety to be added to that Memorandum of Cooperation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the EU-ICAO Joint Committee, as referred to in Article 7.3(c) of the Memorandum of Cooperation between the European Union and the International Civil Aviation Organization providing a framework for enhanced cooperation (the Memorandum of Cooperation), with regard to the adoption of an Annex on aviation safety to the Memorandum of Cooperation, shall be based on the draft Decision of the EU-ICAO Joint Committee, attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 16 June 2011.", "references": ["72", "20", "92", "77", "99", "29", "31", "38", "2", "54", "7", "26", "66", "63", "67", "0", "75", "44", "9", "78", "30", "89", "85", "97", "28", "15", "83", "22", "96", "17", "No Label", "3", "53", "57"], "gold": ["3", "53", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 974/2011\nof 29 September 2011\napproving the active substance acrinathrin, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Acrinathrin is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included acrinathrin.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (6) the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from entry into force of that Regulation. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (7) was adopted on the non-inclusion of acrinathrin.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to France, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nFrance evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 14 January 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on acrinathrin to the Commission on 21 October 2010 (8). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for acrinathrin.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing acrinathrin may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve acrinathrin in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that acrinathrin should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(11)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of the approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing acrinathrin. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw existing authorisations. By way of derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(12)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (9) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(13)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (10) should be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of acrinathrin and the withdrawal of authorisations for plants protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning acrinathrin in the Annex to that Decision. It is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance acrinathrin, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing acrinathrin as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing acrinathrin as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Following that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing acrinathrin as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing acrinathrin as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2008/934/EC\nThe line concerning acrinathrin in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 September 2011.", "references": ["66", "38", "85", "5", "35", "36", "33", "81", "58", "83", "26", "49", "19", "87", "97", "52", "63", "23", "2", "99", "39", "51", "32", "13", "72", "43", "57", "53", "91", "55", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 224/2011\nof 7 March 2011\non fixing the standard fee per farm return from the 2011 accounting year of the farm accountancy data network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 of 30 November 2009 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Community (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 of 13 July 1983 on certain detailed implementing rules concerning the keeping of accounts for the purpose of determining the incomes of agricultural holdings (2), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 provides that a standard fee shall be paid by the Commission to the Member States for each duly completed farm return and forwarded to it within the period prescribed in Article 3 of that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1264/2008 of 16 December 2008 fixing the standard fee per farm return from the 2009 accounting year of the farm accountancy data network (3) fixed the amount of the standard fee for the 2009 accounting year at EUR 155 per farm return. The trend in costs and its effects on the cost of completing the farm return justify a revision of the fee.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard fee provided for in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 shall be fixed at EUR 157.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the 2011 accounting year.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["58", "20", "76", "71", "0", "53", "80", "50", "6", "69", "56", "96", "13", "84", "46", "92", "62", "60", "85", "82", "65", "10", "64", "49", "59", "74", "79", "23", "66", "89", "No Label", "33", "47", "63"], "gold": ["33", "47", "63"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 877/2010\nof 5 October 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 869/2010 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 October 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 October 2010 were fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 869/2010 (3).\n(2)\nAs the average of the import duties calculated differs by more than EUR 5/tonne from that fixed, a corresponding adjustment must be made to the import duties fixed by Regulation (EU) No 869/2010.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 869/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 869/2010 are hereby replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 6 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 October 2010.", "references": ["47", "65", "16", "80", "34", "25", "28", "59", "36", "8", "50", "96", "4", "61", "88", "89", "95", "14", "24", "11", "2", "32", "17", "51", "41", "85", "72", "79", "84", "82", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 382/2010\nof 5 May 2010\nrefusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children\u2019s development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 18(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on food are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as the Authority.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission and to deliver an opinion on a health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nFollowing an application from The Natural Push-Up Company, submitted on 28 November 2008 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Natural Push-Up\u00ae Tablets and Natural Push-Up\u00ae Capsules on female breast enhancement (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-784) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018NPU Tablets imitate female breasts enhancement process by 8-PN (8-Prenylnaringenin)\u2019.\n(6)\nOn 5 June 2009, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Natural Push-Up\u00ae Tablets and Natural Push-Up\u00ae Capsules and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(7)\nFollowing an application from Clasado Ltd., submitted on 29 December 2008 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of BimunoBT (BGOS) Prebiotic on maintaining a healthy gastro-intestinal function (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00231) (3). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Helps maintain a healthy gastro-intestinal (GI) function\u2019.\n(8)\nOn 7 July 2009, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of BimunoBT (BGOS) Prebiotic and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(9)\nFollowing an application from Clasado Ltd., submitted on 15 July 2008 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of BimunoBT (BGOS) Prebiotic on support of the immune system (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00230) (4). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Supports your natural defences\u2019.\n(10)\nOn 7 July 2009, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of BimunoBT (BGOS) Prebiotic and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(11)\nFollowing an application from Sunstar Suisse S.A., submitted on 4 February 2009 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Gum PeriobalanceTM tablets and chewing gum on oral health (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00373) (5). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Gum PeriobalanceTM, combined with a correct oral hygiene, helps re-balancing the oral microflora and improving oral health\u2019.\n(12)\nOn 20 July 2009, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Gum PeriobalanceTM tablets and chewing gum and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(13)\nThe comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission, pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(14)\nHealth claims referred to in Article 13(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 are subject to the transition measures laid down in Article 28(5) of that Regulation only if they comply with the conditions therein mentioned, among which that they have to comply with the Regulation. As for the four claims subject to the present Regulation, the Authority concluded that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of the foods and the claimed effects and thus they do not comply with the Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, they could not benefit from the transition period foreseen in Article 28(5) of that Regulation. A transition period of six months is provided for to enable food business operators to adapt to the requirements laid down in this Regulation.\n(15)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nHealth claims set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall not be included in the Community list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nHowever, they may continue to be used for six months after the entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 May 2010.", "references": ["41", "28", "97", "82", "95", "4", "86", "70", "37", "45", "60", "67", "2", "75", "78", "9", "44", "11", "22", "81", "33", "76", "21", "85", "23", "63", "12", "0", "69", "77", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "39", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "39", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 890/2010\nof 8 October 2010\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance derquantel\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the European Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nAn application for the establishment of maximum residue limits (hereinafter \u2018MRL\u2019) for derquantel in ovine species has been submitted to the European Medicines Agency.\n(4)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use recommended establishing MRLs for derquantel for ovine species, applicable to muscle, fat, liver and kidney, excluding animals producing milk for human consumption.\n(5)\nTable 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to include MRLs for the substance derquantel for ovine species.\n(6)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period of time for the stakeholders concerned to take measures that may be required to comply with the newly set MRL.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 9 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["48", "91", "61", "51", "55", "14", "76", "15", "26", "57", "78", "4", "5", "70", "54", "62", "11", "37", "97", "65", "95", "94", "73", "86", "50", "23", "84", "0", "99", "87", "No Label", "7", "24", "38", "69", "72"], "gold": ["7", "24", "38", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2012/9/EU\nof 7 March 2012\namending Annex I to Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/37/EC provides that each unit packet of tobacco products, except for tobacco for oral use and other smokeless tobacco products, and any outside packaging, with the exception of additional transparent wrappers, must carry an additional warning from the list set out in Annex I to that Directive.\n(2)\nThose additional warnings have been mandatory on all packages of smoking tobacco since September 2003 and on packages of other tobacco products since September 2004.\n(3)\nEvidence suggests that the impact of current additional warnings set out in Annex I to Directive 2001/37/EC has decreased over time as the novelty effect of the warning messages has worn off.\n(4)\nIn addition, new scientific evidence on the health effects of tobacco use and the principles of effective tobacco labelling has emerged since the adoption of Directive 2001/37/EC. In particular, there is evidence that smoking plays a causal role in mouth and throat cancer, visual impairments as well as dental and gum disease. There is also evidence that parental smoking is a major risk factor for smoking initiation.\n(5)\nArticle 9(2) of Directive 2001/37/EC provides that the Commission shall adapt to scientific and technical progress the health warnings set out in Annex I of the same Directive. Furthermore, guidelines on tobacco packaging and labelling (2) adopted by the Third Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in November 2008 recommend that legal measures for packaging and labelling of tobacco products should be reviewed periodically and updated as new evidence emerges and as specific health warnings and messages wear out.\n(6)\nA revision of the current additional warnings set out in Annex I to Directive 2001/37/EC is therefore needed in order to maintain and increase their impact, and to take into account the new scientific developments.\n(7)\nThis revision should be based on the results of the review of existing knowledge on tobacco labelling and the health effects of tobacco use and of testing of the warnings made in all Member States.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Regulatory Committee established under Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/37/EC and neither the European Parliament nor the Council has opposed them,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 2001/37/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 28 March 2014 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nMember States may decide to allow the continuation of marketing of products not complying with the provisions of this Directive until 28 March 2016.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2012.", "references": ["27", "60", "97", "64", "51", "44", "84", "59", "0", "99", "39", "33", "8", "34", "90", "93", "49", "22", "19", "98", "94", "29", "26", "55", "41", "3", "79", "82", "5", "80", "No Label", "24", "25", "36", "38", "73"], "gold": ["24", "25", "36", "38", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 473/2011\nof 16 May 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 463/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2011.", "references": ["28", "31", "39", "1", "69", "94", "26", "25", "66", "27", "86", "61", "58", "17", "93", "83", "8", "23", "12", "42", "7", "96", "77", "62", "37", "33", "24", "21", "9", "65", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 984/2011\nof 30 September 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Vinagre del Condado de Huelva (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Vinagre del Condado de Huelva\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 September 2011.", "references": ["52", "49", "48", "21", "95", "33", "64", "18", "70", "42", "90", "88", "10", "61", "74", "85", "20", "46", "16", "43", "69", "37", "27", "57", "5", "2", "68", "11", "79", "65", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 394/2012\nof 8 May 2012\nfixing the quantitative limit for exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2012/2013 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 61, first paragraph, point (d), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the sugar or isoglucose produced in excess of the quota referred to in Article 56 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed.\n(2)\nDetailed implementing rules for out-of-quota exports, in particular concerning the issue of export licences are laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 (2). However, the quantitative limit should be fixed per marketing year in view of the possible opportunities on the export markets.\n(3)\nFor certain Union producers of sugar and isoglucose, exports from the Union represent an important part of their economic activities and they have established traditional markets outside the Union. Exports of sugar and isoglucose to those markets could be economically viable also without granting export refunds. To that end it is necessary to fix a quantitative limit for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose exports so that the EU producers concerned may continue to supply their traditional markets.\n(4)\nFor the 2012/2013 marketing year it is estimated that fixing the quantitative limit initially at 650 000 tonnes, in white sugar equivalent, for out-of-quota sugar exports and 70 000 tonnes, in dry matter, for out-of-quota isoglucose would correspond to the market demand.\n(5)\nExports of sugar from the Union to certain close destinations and to third countries granting Union products a preferential import treatment are currently in a particularly favourable competitive position. In view of the absence of appropriate instruments of mutual assistance to fight against irregularities and in order to minimise the risk of fraud and to prevent any abuse associated with the reimport or reintroduction into the Union of out-of-quota sugar, certain close destinations should be excluded from the eligible destinations.\n(6)\nIn view of the estimated lower risks for eventual frauds regarding isoglucose due to the nature of the product it is not necessary to restrict the eligible destinations for the export of out-of-quota isoglucose.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFixing the quantitative limit for out-of-quota sugar exports\n1. For the 2012/2013 marketing year, running from 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013, the quantitative limit referred to in Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be 650 000 tonnes for exports without refund of out-of-quota white sugar falling within CN code 1701 99.\n2. Exports within the quantitative limit fixed in paragraph 1 shall be allowed for all destinations excluding:\n(a)\nthird countries: Andorra, Liechtenstein, the Holy See (Vatican City State), San Marino, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia (3), Montenegro, Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;\n(b)\nterritories of Member States not forming part of the customs territory of the Union: the Faeroe Islands, Greenland, Heligoland, Ceuta, Melilla, the communes of Livigno and Campione d\u2019Italia, and the areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control;\n(c)\nEuropean territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible, not forming part of the customs territory of the Union: Gibraltar.\nArticle 2\nFixing the quantitative limit for out-of-quota isoglucose exports\n1. For the 2012/2013 marketing year, running from 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013, the quantitative limit referred to in Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be 70 000 tonnes, in dry matter, for exports without refund of out-of-quota isoglucose falling within CN codes 1702 40 10, 1702 60 10 and 1702 90 30.\n2. Exports of the products referred to in paragraph 1 shall only be allowed where they comply with the conditions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2012.\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 May 2012.", "references": ["55", "12", "57", "82", "95", "76", "84", "48", "59", "98", "26", "99", "49", "37", "28", "19", "6", "20", "81", "94", "92", "0", "29", "38", "74", "67", "61", "40", "11", "70", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "25", "71", "75"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "25", "71", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 120/2011\nof 11 February 2011\nfixing the reference prices for certain fishery products for the 2011 fishing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1), and in particular Article 29(1) and (5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 104/2000 provides that reference prices valid for the Union may be fixed each year, by product category, for products that are the subject of a tariff suspension under Article 28(1). The same holds for products which, by virtue of being either the subject of a binding tariff reduction under the WTO or some other preferential arrangements, must comply with a reference price.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 29(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, the reference price for the products listed in Annex I, Parts A and B to that Regulation, is to be the same as the withdrawal price fixed in accordance with Article 20(1) of that Regulation.\n(3)\nThe Union withdrawal prices for the products concerned are fixed for the 2011 fishing year by Commission Regulation (EU) No 122/2011 (2).\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 29(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, the reference price for products other than those listed in Annexes I and II to that Regulation is to be established in particular on the basis of the weighted average of customs values recorded on the import markets or in the ports of import in the 3 years immediately preceding the date on which the reference price is fixed.\n(5)\nThere is no need to fix reference prices for those products falling under the criteria laid down in Art. 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 which are imported from third countries in insignificant volumes.\n(6)\nIn order to allow a swift application of the reference prices in the year 2011, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe reference prices for the 2011 fishing year of fishery products, as referred to in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 February 2011.", "references": ["83", "95", "49", "73", "15", "87", "53", "61", "59", "14", "38", "28", "33", "34", "37", "7", "88", "62", "36", "16", "10", "19", "4", "42", "55", "66", "75", "32", "78", "8", "No Label", "35", "67"], "gold": ["35", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 April 2010\namending Decision 2009/379/EC setting the amounts which, pursuant to Council Regulations (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 378/2007, (EC) No 479/2008 and (EC) No 73/2009 are made available to the EAFRD and the amounts available for EAGF expenditure\n(2010/237/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 12(2) and (3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/379/EC (2) sets the amounts which, pursuant to Articles 10(2) and 143d of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (3), Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 (4), Article 190a of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (5) and Articles 9(1), 10(3), 134 and 135 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (6), are made available to the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), as well as the amounts available for the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) expenditure.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2009/780/EC of 22 October 2009 fixing the net amounts resulting from the application of voluntary modulation in Portugal for calendar years 2010, 2011 and 2012 (7) has been repealed by Commission Decision 2010/235/EU (8) in order to take into account the decision taken by Portugal not to apply voluntary modulation at all.\n(3)\nDecision 2009/1005/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (9) as regards the financing of the European Economic Recovery Plan has further reduced the net amount available for EAGF expenditure in line with the provisions of Article 12(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(4)\nDecision 2009/379/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nThe Annex to Decision 2009/379/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2010.", "references": ["11", "81", "53", "6", "63", "37", "50", "44", "27", "96", "45", "91", "85", "80", "41", "77", "31", "84", "39", "79", "58", "82", "46", "21", "94", "42", "75", "56", "35", "73", "No Label", "10", "17", "61"], "gold": ["10", "17", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 7 December 2011\namending Council Directive 2002/56/EC as regards the date laid down in Article 21(3) until which Member States are authorised to extend the validity of decisions concerning equivalence of seed potatoes from third countries\n(notified under document C(2011) 8929)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/820/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/56/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of seed potatoes (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 21(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2002/56/EC provides that, with effect from certain dates, Member States may no longer determine for themselves the equivalence of seed potatoes harvested in third countries with seed potatoes harvested within the Union and complying with that Directive.\n(2)\nHowever, as work to establish a Union equivalence for seed potatoes from all the third countries concerned had not been completed, Directive 2002/56/EC permitted Member States to extend until 31 March 2011 the validity of equivalence decisions which they had already taken for seed potatoes from certain third countries not covered by a Union equivalence. This date was chosen by reference to the end of the period where seed potatoes are placed on the market.\n(3)\nSince this work still has not been completed and a new marketing season will start by the end of the year 2011, it is necessary to authorise Member States to extend the validity of their national equivalence decisions.\n(4)\nDirective 2002/56/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn the first subparagraph of Article 21(3) of Directive 2002/56/EC, \u201831 March 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 March 2014\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2011.", "references": ["97", "96", "37", "25", "21", "75", "69", "22", "57", "40", "99", "59", "79", "12", "55", "17", "3", "15", "38", "51", "43", "24", "20", "91", "48", "0", "70", "5", "62", "35", "No Label", "4", "23", "65", "68"], "gold": ["4", "23", "65", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 651/2010\nof 22 July 2010\ngranting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 20 July 2010.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 20 July 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the products and destinations referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 1 and in Article 2 of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2010.", "references": ["31", "52", "13", "14", "37", "12", "74", "35", "45", "40", "93", "22", "76", "86", "23", "38", "73", "2", "88", "50", "69", "51", "3", "28", "78", "29", "0", "47", "18", "66", "No Label", "20", "21", "70"], "gold": ["20", "21", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 May 2011\nestablishing, pursuant to Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a symbol for information to the public on bathing water classification and any bathing prohibition or advice against bathing\n(2011/321/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC (1), and in particular point (a) of Article 15(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 12(1)(a) of Directive 2006/7/EC provides for an obligation to inform the public on the current bathing water classification and any bathing prohibition or advice against bathing by means of a clear and simple sign or symbol.\n(2)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16(1) of Directive 2006/7/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purpose of actively disseminating and promptly making available the information on bathing water classification and on any bathing prohibition or advice against bathing referred to in Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2006/7/EC, the following symbols are hereby established:\n1.\nSymbols for informing on bathing prohibition or advice against bathing are set out in Part 1 of the Annex to this Decision.\n2.\nSymbols for informing on bathing water classification are set out in Part 2 of the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the first day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2011.", "references": ["42", "20", "49", "17", "57", "11", "82", "72", "77", "88", "81", "83", "75", "48", "90", "54", "0", "73", "89", "36", "66", "24", "21", "69", "38", "80", "61", "41", "35", "76", "No Label", "53", "58", "59"], "gold": ["53", "58", "59"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 April 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement\n(2012/229/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43, Article 168(4)(b) and Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning technical regulations, standards, testing and certification.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin (3) should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 repealed Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 (4) and amended Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (7), as corrected in OJ L 293, 11.11.2010, p. 72, should also be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(3)\nAnnex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should therefore be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["16", "8", "86", "27", "94", "39", "57", "15", "25", "97", "96", "21", "67", "53", "34", "74", "51", "55", "64", "45", "63", "5", "19", "65", "91", "47", "0", "13", "52", "6", "No Label", "3", "9", "38", "69", "72"], "gold": ["3", "9", "38", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 381/2011\nof 18 April 2011\nderogating from Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 as regards the deadlines for communicating sugar quantities carried forward from marketing year 2010/11\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Article 85, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 17 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards sugar production in excess of the quota (2), lays down deadlines within which Member States have to communicate to the Commission the quantities of sugar carried forward to the next marketing year.\n(2)\nBy way of derogation from Article 63(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 848/2010 (3) extended, for the marketing year 2010/2011, the time-limits within which Member States determine the deadline within which operators have to communicate to Member States their decision to carry forward surplus sugar production.\n(3)\nConsequently, deadlines within which Member States have to communicate to the Commission the quantities to be carried forward pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 should shift accordingly.\n(4)\nIt is therefore necessary to derogate, for marketing year 2010/2011, from the deadlines fixed in points (a) and (b) of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from points (a) and (b) of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006, Member States shall communicate to the Commission not later than 1 September 2011, the quantities of beet and cane sugar from the 2010/2011 marketing year that are to be carried forward to the next marketing year.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2011.", "references": ["33", "89", "2", "91", "30", "26", "24", "36", "77", "95", "70", "59", "39", "13", "75", "92", "69", "66", "28", "48", "56", "87", "8", "7", "46", "44", "82", "15", "90", "85", "No Label", "61", "62", "71", "72"], "gold": ["61", "62", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 December 2011\namending Decision 2002/364/EC on common technical specifications for in vitro diagnostic medical devices\n(notified under document C(2011) 9398)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/869/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 5(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe common technical specifications for in vitro diagnostic medical devices are laid down in Commission Decision 2002/364/EC (2).\n(2)\nIn the interest of public health it is appropriate, where possible, to draw up common technical specifications for the devices listed in List A of Annex II to Directive 98/79/EC.\n(3)\nVariant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) assays for blood screening, diagnosis and confirmation have been added to List A of Annex II to Directive 98/79/EC by Commission Directive 2011/100/EU (3).\n(4)\nTaking into account the state of the art and the current scientific knowledge on Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, common technical specifications can be drawn up for vCJD blood screening assays.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the committee set up by Article 6(2) of Council Directive 90/385/EEC (4) and referred to in Article 7(1) of Directive 98/79/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2002/364/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1st of July 2012.\nHowever, Member States shall allow manufacturers to apply the requirements set out in the Annex before the date set out in the first paragraph of this Article.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["41", "43", "28", "51", "49", "60", "87", "74", "91", "13", "73", "75", "57", "6", "94", "67", "18", "66", "46", "36", "4", "72", "12", "9", "11", "92", "97", "37", "2", "99", "No Label", "25", "38", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 827/2012\nof 29 June 2012\nlaying down implementing technical standards with regard to the means for public disclosure of net position in shares, the format of the information to be provided to the European Securities and Markets Authority in relation to net short positions, the types of agreements, arrangements and measures to adequately ensure that shares or sovereign debt instruments are available for settlement and the dates and period for the determination of the principal venue for a share according to Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 of 14 March 2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on short selling and certain aspect of credit default swaps (1) and in particular Articles 9(6), 11(4), 12(2), 13(5) and 16(4) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Data Protection Supervisor,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThis Regulation aims to determine the list of exempted shares as a necessary step for the disclosure to the public of short positions in all non-exempted shares and the conditions under which that information should be sent to the European Securities and Markets Authority (hereinafter \u201cESMA\u201d). It is therefore essential that rules also be laid down regarding arrangements and measures to be adopted with respect to those non-exempted shares. To ensure coherence between those provisions on short selling which should enter into force at the same time, and to facilitate a comprehensive view and compact access to them by persons subject to those obligations, it is appropriate to include all the implementing technical standards required by Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 in a single Regulation.\n(2)\nTo ensure the uniform application of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 in relation to the information to be provided to ESMA by competent authorities and to achieve the efficient processing of that information, it should be exchanged electronically in a secure way using a standard template.\n(3)\nIt is important to allow easy access to and re-use of the data on net short positions that is disclosed to the market through central websites operated or supervised by a competent authority. To this end, these data should be provided in a format that allows for flexible use of data and that does not offer only the possibility of static, facsimile documents. Wherever technically possible, machine-readable formats should be used to enable users to process the information in a structured and cost-efficient way.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure the publicity of this information to the market, in addition to disclosure on the central website operated or supervised by a competent authority, it should be possible to make available the details of a net short position to the public in other ways.\n(5)\nIt is essential for users to have two basic outputs when making public individual net short positions in shares above the relevant publication threshold. These should comprise a compact list or table of the net short positions above the publication threshold that are outstanding at the time of consultation of the central website and a list or table with historical data on all individual net short positions published.\n(6)\nWhen a net short position in shares falls below a relevant disclosure threshold, the details, including the actual size of the position, should be published. In order to avoid confusion for users consulting the central websites, disclosures of positions that have fallen below 0,5 % of the issued share capital of the company concerned should not remain indefinitely alongside the live positions but should be available as historical data after being displayed for 24 hours.\n(7)\nIn order to provide for a consistent and clear framework which is nevertheless flexible, it is important to specify the types of agreement to borrow and other enforceable claims having similar effect and the types of arrangement with a third party that adequately ensure that shares or sovereign debt instruments will be available for settlement, and specify the criteria such agreements and arrangements must fulfil.\n(8)\nThe use of rights to subscribe for new shares in relation to a short sale may adequately ensure availability for settlement only where the arrangement is such that settlement of the short sale is ensured when it is due. Therefore, it is essential to specify rules to ensure that the shares resulting from the subscription rights are available on or before the settlement date and in a quantity at least equivalent to the number of shares intended to be sold short.\n(9)\nIn defining time limited confirmation arrangements, it is important to specify the timeframe for covering a short sale through purchases in a way compatible with different settlement cycles in different jurisdictions.\n(10)\nIn order to adequately ensure that instruments are available for settlement where a natural or legal person entering into a short sale has an arrangement with a third party under which that third party has confirmed that the instrument has been located, it is essential that there be confidence that the third party is, when established in a third country, subject to appropriate supervision and that there are appropriate arrangements for exchange of information between supervisors. Such appropriate arrangements could include being a signatory of a memorandum of understanding established by the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO).\n(11)\nTo ensure proper implementation of the requirement to determine whether the principal trading venue of a share is located outside the Union, transitional arrangements should be put in place for determining for the first time the list of exempted shares under Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012. In addition, although the list of exempted shares is effective for a two year period, it is necessary to provide some flexibility as there are cases where a review of that list might be necessary during the two-year period.\n(12)\nIn order to ensure consistency, the date of application of this Regulation should be the same as that of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012. However, in order to allow sufficient time for natural and legal persons to process the list of shares exempted pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, the preparation of that list and its subsequent publication on the ESMA website should take place sufficiently in advance before the application date of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012. Therefore, the provisions concerning the date and period for principal trading venue calculations, the date of notification to ESMA of shares with a principal trading venue outside the Union and the effectiveness of the list of exempted shares should apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n(13)\nSince Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 recognised that binding technical standards should be adopted before that Regulation can be usefully applied, and as it is essential to specify before 1 November 2012 the required non-essential elements to facilitate compliance by market participants with that Regulation and enforcement by competent authorities, it is necessary that this Regulation enter into force on the day following its publication.\n(14)\nThis Regulation is based on the draft implementing technical standards submitted by ESMA to the Commission.\n(15)\nESMA has conducted open public consultations on the draft implementing technical standards on which this Regulation is based, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the opinion of the Securities Markets Stakeholder Group established in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject Matter\nThis Regulation lays down implementing technical standards specifying the following:\n(a)\nthe means by which information on net short positions may be disclosed to the public by natural or legal persons as well as the format of information to be provided to the European Securities and Markets Authority (hereinafter \u201cESMA\u201d) by competent authorities pursuant to Article 9(6) and Article 11(4) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012;\n(b)\nthe types of agreements, arrangements and measures that adequately ensure that the shares are available for settlement and the types of agreements or arrangements that adequately ensure that the sovereign debt is available for settlement pursuant to Article 12(2) and 13(5) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012;\n(c)\nthe date and period for principal trading venue calculations, notification to ESMA and the effectiveness of the relevant list pursuant to 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012.\nCHAPTER II\nMEANS FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF SIGNIFICANT NET SHORT POSITIONS IN SHARES\n[ARTICLE 9 OF REGULATION (EU) No 236/2012]\nArticle 2\nMeans by which information may be disclosed to the public\nInformation on net short positions in shares shall be disclosed to the public by posting it on a central website operated or supervised by the relevant competent authority pursuant to Article 9(4) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012. The information shall be disclosed to the public through means which:\n(a)\npublish it in the format specified in Annex I in such a way as to allow the public consulting the website to access one or more tables offering all the relevant information on positions per share issuer;\n(b)\nallow users to identify and filter on whether the net short positions in a share issuer at the time of accessing the website has reached or exceeded the relevant publication threshold;\n(c)\nprovide for historical data on the published net short positions in a share issuer;\n(d)\ninclude, whenever technically possible, downloadable files with the published and historical net short positions in a machine-readable format, meaning that the files are sufficiently structured for software applications to identify reliably individual statements of fact and their internal structure;\n(e)\nshow for one day, together with the information specified in point (b), the net short positions that are published because they have fallen below the publication threshold of 0,5 % of the issued share capital, before removing and transferring the information to a historical data section.\nCHAPTER III\nFORMAT OF THE INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO ESMA BY COMPETENT AUTHORITIES IN RELATION TO NET SHORT POSITIONS\n[ARTICLE 11 OF REGULATION (EU) No 236/2012]\nArticle 3\nFormat of the periodic information\n1. The information to be provided on a quarterly basis to ESMA on net short positions in shares, sovereign debt and credit default swaps pursuant to Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 shall be provided by relevant competent authorities in the format specified in Annex II to this Regulation.\n2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be sent to ESMA electronically through a system established by ESMA that ensures that the completeness, integrity and confidentiality of the information are maintained during its transmission.\nArticle 4\nFormat of the information to be provided upon request\n1. A relevant competent authority shall provide the information on net short positions in shares and sovereign debt or on uncovered positions relating to sovereign credit default swaps pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 in the format specified by ESMA in its request.\n2. Where information requested relates to information contained in the notification received by the competent authority pursuant to Articles 5, 7 and 8 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, that information shall be provided in accordance with the requirements established in Article 2 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 826/2012 (3).\n3. Information requested shall be sent by the competent authority in electronic format, using a system established by ESMA for exchanging information that ensures that the completeness, integrity and confidentiality of the information are maintained during its transmission.\nCHAPTER IV\nAGREEMENTS, ARRANGEMENTS AND MEASURES TO ADEQUATELY ENSURE AVAILABILITY FOR SETTLEMENT\n[ARTICLES 12 AND 13 OF REGULATION (EU) No 236/2012]\nArticle 5\nAgreements to borrow and other enforceable claims having similar effect\n1. An agreement to borrow or other enforceable claim referred to in Article 12(1)(b) and Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 shall be made by means of the following types of agreement, contract or claim which are legally binding for the duration of the short sale:\n(a)\nfutures and swaps: futures and swap contracts leading to a physical settlement of the relevant shares or sovereign debt and covering at least the number of shares or amount of sovereign debt proposed to be sold short by the natural or legal person, entered into prior to or at the same time as the short sale and specifying a delivery or expiration date that ensures settlement of the short sale can be effected when due;\n(b)\noptions: options contracts leading to a physical settlement of the relevant shares or sovereign debt and covering at least the number of shares or amount of sovereign debt proposed to be sold short by the natural or legal person, entered into prior to or at the same time as the short sale and specifying an expiration date that ensures settlement of the short sale can be effected when due;\n(c)\nrepurchase agreements: repurchase agreements covering at least the number of shares or amount of sovereign debt proposed to be sold short by the natural or legal person, entered into prior to or at the same time as the short sale and specifying a repurchase date that ensures settlement of the short sale can be effected when due;\n(d)\nstanding agreements or rolling facilities: an agreement or facility which is entered into prior to or at the same time as the short sale, of a predefined amount of specifically identified shares or sovereign debt, which for the duration of the short sale, covers at least the number of shares or amount of sovereign debt proposed to be sold short by the natural or legal person and specifies a delivery or execution date that ensures settlement of the short sale can be effected when due;\n(e)\nagreements relating to subscription rights: agreements relating to subscription rights where the natural or legal person is in possession of rights to subscribe for new shares of the same issuer and of the same class and covering at least the number of shares proposed to be sold short provided that the natural or legal person is entitled to receive the shares on or before settlement of the short sale;\n(f)\nother claims or agreements leading to delivery of the shares or sovereign debt: agreements or claims which cover at least the number of shares or amount of sovereign debt proposed to be sold short by the natural or legal person, entered into prior to or at the same time as the short sale, and specifying a delivery or an execution date that ensures settlement can be effected when due.\n2. The agreement, contract or claim shall be provided in a durable medium by the counterparty to the natural or legal person as evidence of the existence of the agreement to borrow or other enforceable claim.\nArticle 6\nArrangements and measures to be taken in relation to short sales of a share admitted to trading on a trading venue\n[Article 12(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012]\n1. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 shall determine the arrangements and measures to be taken in relation to short sales of a share admitted to trading on a trading venue pursuant to Article 12(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012.\n2. Standard locate arrangements and measures shall mean arrangements, confirmations and measures that include each of the following elements:\n(a)\nfor locate confirmations: a confirmation provided by the third party, prior to the short sale being entered into by a natural or legal person, that it considers that it can make the shares available for settlement in due time taking into account the amount of the possible sale and market conditions and which indicates the period for which the share is located;\n(b)\nfor put on hold confirmations: a confirmation by the third party, provided prior to the short sale being entered into, that it has at least put on hold the requested number of shares for that person.\n3. Standard same day locate arrangements and measures shall mean arrangements, confirmations and measures that include each of the following elements:\n(a)\nfor requests for confirmation: a request for confirmation from the natural or legal person to the third party which states that the short sale will be covered by purchases during the day on which the short sale takes place;\n(b)\nfor locate confirmations: a confirmation provided by the third party prior to the short sale being entered into that it considers that it can make the shares available for settlement in due time taking into account the amount of the possible sale and market conditions, and which indicates the period for which the shares are located;\n(c)\nfor easy to borrow or purchase confirmations: a confirmation by the third party, provided prior to the short sale being entered into, that the share is easy to borrow or purchase in the relevant quantity taking into account the market conditions and other information available to that third party on the supply of the shares or, in the absence of this confirmation by the third party, that it has at least put on hold the requested number of shares for the natural or legal person;\n(d)\nfor monitoring: an undertaking by the natural or legal person to monitor the amount of the short sale not covered by purchases;\n(e)\nfor instructions in the event of failure to cover: an undertaking from the natural or legal person that in the event that executed short sales are not covered by purchases in the same day, the natural or legal person will promptly send an instruction to the third party to procure the shares to cover the short sale to ensure settlement in due time.\n4. Easy to borrow or purchase arrangements and measures shall mean arrangements, confirmations and measures when the natural or legal person enters into a short sale of shares that meet the liquidity requirements established in Article 22 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006 (4), or other shares that are included in the main national equity index as identified by the relevant competent authority of each Member State and are the underlying financial instrument for a derivative contract admitted to trading on a trading venue, that include the following elements:\n(a)\nfor locate confirmations: a confirmation provided by the third party prior to the short sale being entered into that it considers that it can make the shares available for settlement in due time taking into account the amount of the possible sale and market conditions and indicating the period for which the share is located;\n(b)\nfor easy to borrow or purchase confirmations: a confirmation by the third party, provided prior to the short sale being entered into, that the share is easy to borrow or purchase in the relevant quantity taking into account the market conditions and other information available to that third party on the supply of the shares, or in the absence of this confirmation by the third party, that it has at least put on hold the requested number of shares for the natural or legal person; and\n(c)\nfor instructions to cover: when executed short sales will not be covered by purchases or borrowing, a undertaking that a prompt instruction will be sent by the natural or legal person instructing the third party to procure the shares to cover the short sale to ensure settlement in due time.\n5. The arrangements, confirmations and instructions referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 shall be provided in a durable medium by the third party to the natural or legal person as evidence of the existence of the arrangements, confirmations and instructions.\nArticle 7\nArrangements with third parties to be taken in relation to sovereign debt\n[Article 13(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012]\n1. Paragraphs 2 to 5 shall determine the arrangements with third parties to be taken in relation to sovereign debt pursuant to Article 13(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012.\n2. Standard sovereign debt locate arrangement shall mean a confirmation from the third party, prior to the short sale being entered into, that it considers that it can make the sovereign debt available for settlement in due time, in the amount requested by the natural or legal person, taking into account market conditions and indicating the period for which the sovereign debt is located.\n3. Time limited confirmation arrangement shall mean an arrangement where the natural or legal person states to the third party that the short sale will be covered by purchases during the same day of the short sale and the third party confirms, prior to the short sale being entered into, that it has a reasonable expectation that the sovereign debt can be purchased in the relevant quantity taking into account the market conditions and other information available to that third party on the supply of the sovereign debt instruments on the day of entering into the short sale.\n4. Unconditional repo confirmation shall mean a confirmation where the third party confirms, prior to the short sale being entered into, that it has a reasonable expectation that settlement can be effected when due as a result of its participation in a structural based arrangement, organised or operated by a central bank, a debt management office or a securities settlement system that provides unconditional access to the sovereign debt in question for a size consistent with the size of the short sale.\n5. Easy to purchase sovereign debt confirmation shall mean a confirmation by the third party, provided prior to the short sale being entered into, that it has a reasonable expectation that settlement can be effected when due on the basis that the sovereign debt in question is easy to borrow or purchase in the relevant quantity taking into account the market conditions and any other information available to that third party on the supply of the sovereign debt.\n6. The arrangements, confirmations and instructions referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5 shall be provided in a durable medium by the third party to the natural or legal person as evidence of the existence of the arrangements, confirmations and instructions.\nArticle 8\nThird parties with whom arrangements are made\n1. Where an arrangement referred to in Articles 6 and 7 is made with a third party, the third party shall be one of the following types:\n(a)\nin the case of an investment firm: an investment firm which meets the requirements set out in paragraph 2;\n(b)\nin the case of a central counterparty: a central counterparty which clears the relevant shares or sovereign debt;\n(c)\nin the case of a securities settlement system: a securities settlement system as defined under Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) which settles payments in respect of the relevant shares or sovereign debt;\n(d)\nin the case of a central bank: a central bank that accepts the relevant shares or sovereign debt as collateral or conducts open market or repo transactions in relation to the relevant shares or sovereign debt;\n(e)\nin the case of a national debt management entity: the national debt management entity of the relevant sovereign debt issuer;\n(f)\nany other person who is subject to authorisation or registration requirements in accordance with Union law by a member of the European System of Financial Supervision and meets the requirements set out in paragraph 2;\n(g)\na person established in a third country who is authorised or registered, and is subject to supervision by an authority in that third country and who meets the requirements set out in paragraph 2, provided that the third country authority is a party to an appropriate cooperation arrangement concerning exchange of information with the relevant competent authority.\n2. For the purposes of points (a), (f) and (g) of paragraph 1, the third party shall meet the following requirements:\n(a)\nparticipate in the management of borrowing or purchasing of relevant shares or sovereign debt;\n(b)\nprovide evidence of such participation;\n(c)\nbe able, on request, to provide evidence of its ability to deliver or process the delivery of shares or sovereign debt on the dates it commits to do so to its counterparties including statistical evidence.\nCHAPTER V\nDETERMINATION OF THE PRINCIPAL TRADING VENUE FOR THE EXEMPTION\n[ARTICLE 16 OF REGULATION (EU) No 236/2012]\nArticle 9\nDate and period for principal trading venue calculations\n1. Relevant competent authorities shall make any calculations determining the principal trading venue for a share by at least 35 calendar days before the date of application of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 in respect of the period between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2011.\n2. Subsequent calculations shall be made before 22 February 2014 in respect of the period between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2013, and every two years thereafter in respect of the subsequent two year period.\n3. Where the share concerned was not admitted to trading during the whole two-year period on the trading venue in the Union and the third country trading venue, the period for calculation shall be the period during which the share was admitted to trading on both venues concurrently.\nArticle 10\nDate of notification to ESMA\nRelevant competent authorities shall notify ESMA of those shares for which the principal trading venue is outside the Union at least 35 calendar days before the date of application of the Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 and thereafter on the day before the first trading day in March every second year commencing from March 2014.\nArticle 11\nEffectiveness of the list of exempted shares\nThe list of shares for which the principal trading venue is located outside the Union shall be effective as of 1 April following its publication by ESMA, except that the first list published by ESMA shall be effective from the date of entry into application of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012.\nArticle 12\nSpecific cases of review of exempted shares\n1. A relevant competent authority which determines whether the principal trading venue for a share is located outside the Union following one of the circumstances set out in paragraph 2 shall ensure that:\n(a)\nany calculations determining the principal trading venue are made as soon as possible after the relevant circumstances arise and in respect of the two year period preceding the date of calculation;\n(b)\nit notifies ESMA of its determination as soon as possible and, where relevant, before the date of admission to trading on a trading venue in the Union.\nAny revised list shall be effective from the day following that of its publication by ESMA.\n2. The provisions of paragraph 1 apply when:\n(a)\nthe shares of a company are removed from trading on a permanent basis on the principal venue located outside the Union;\n(b)\nthe shares of a company are removed from trading on a permanent basis on a trading venue in the Union;\n(c)\nthe shares of a company that was previously admitted to trading in a trading venue outside the Union are admitted to trading on a trading venue in the Union.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 13\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 November 2012, except for Articles 9, 10 and 11 which shall apply from the date referred to in the first paragraph.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2012.", "references": ["28", "17", "93", "45", "58", "86", "31", "22", "4", "79", "97", "77", "96", "91", "59", "54", "49", "24", "84", "51", "48", "69", "92", "44", "11", "78", "26", "61", "50", "71", "No Label", "27", "30", "32", "39", "41", "76"], "gold": ["27", "30", "32", "39", "41", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/67/EU\nof 20 October 2010\namending Directive 2008/84/EC laying down specific purity criteria on food additives other than colours and sweeteners\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Article 30(5) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Scientific Committee on Food and the European Food Safety Authority,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Directive 2008/84/EC of 27 August 2008 laying down specific purity criteria on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (2) sets out the purity criteria for the additives mentioned in European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (3).\n(2)\nUnder Article 30(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 specifications of the food additives covered under paragraphs 1 to 3 of that Article, including additives authorised under Directive 95/2/EC, shall be adopted, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (4), at the moment when those food additives are entered in the respective Annexes in accordance with those paragraphs.\n(3)\nSince the lists have not yet been drawn up, and in order to ensure that the modification of the Annexes to Directive 95/2/EC pursuant to Article 31 is effective, and to ensure that additives so authorised comply with safe conditions of use, Directive 2008/84/EC should therefore be amended.\n(4)\nThe entry related to carbon dioxide (E 290) should be revised with respect to the concentration level of \u2018oil content\u2019 to take into account Codex Alimentarius specifications drafted by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the documents of the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) (e.g. ISO 6141).\n(5)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter the Authority) has assessed the information on the safety of extracts of rosemary when used as an antioxidant in foodstuffs. Extracts of rosemary are derived from Rosmarinus officinalis L. and contain several compounds which exert antioxidative functions (mainly phenolic acids, flavonoids, diterpenoids and triterpenes). It is considered appropriate to adopt specifications for extracts of rosemary which is authorised as a new food additive for use in foodstuffs under Directive 95/2/EC and assigned E 392 as its E number. Several types of production process are described, using solvent extraction (ethanolic, acetone and hexane) and supercritical carbon dioxide extraction.\n(6)\nSoybean hemicellulose (E 426) was evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food in 2003 (5) and is currently authorised within the EU under Directive 95/2/EC. A new variety of soybean hemicellulose is now produced and complies with all specifications set out in Directive 2008/84/EC for E 426 except that ethanol is technologically needed as precipitant for purifying the extract solution of that new variety of soybean hemicellulose. In consequence, the final E 426, which feature differs from a spray dried white powder, may also contain some ethanol as a residue at the maximum concentration of 2 %. Ethanol is authorised by Directive 2009/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) as extraction solvent during the processing of raw materials, foodstuffs, food components, or food ingredients in compliance with good manufacturing practice.\n(7)\nThe Authority assessed the information on the safety of cassia gum as a new food additive acting as gelling agent and thickener and expressed its opinion on 26 September 2006 (7). The Authority found the use of cassia gum as indicated under the conditions specified of no safety concern. It is therefore appropriate to adopt specifications for that new food additive which is assigned E number 427.\n(8)\nThe entry relating to hydroxypropyl cellulose (E 463) should be modified in order to correct an error of the specifications in relation to the assay. Instead of \u2018Content not less than 80,5 % of hydroxypropoxyl groups\u2019, it should read \u2018Content not more than 80,5 % of hydroxypropoxyl groups\u2019. It is therefore appropriate to update the current specifications.\n(9)\nThe entry relating to hydrogen (E 949) should be corrected so that the concentration levels indicated in the assay and purity sections can be compatible. Consequently, the concentration of nitrogen should be corrected.\n(10)\nThe Authority assessed the information on the safety of the new food additive, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), as a film-coating agent for food supplements and expressed its opinion on 5 December 2005 (8). The Authority found the use of PVA of no safety concern in the coating of food supplements that are in the form of capsules and tablets. It is therefore appropriate to adopt specifications for polyvinyl alcohol which is assigned E number 1203, and which is authorised as a food additive under Directive 95/2/EC.\n(11)\nThe Authority assessed the information on the safety of six grades of polyethylene glycols (PEG 400, PEG 3000, PEG 3350, PEG 4000, PEG 6000, PEG 8000) as film coating agents for use in food supplement products and expressed its opinion on 28 November 2006 (9). The Authority found the use of those grades of polyethylene glycol as glazing agent in film-coating formulations of no safety concern for food supplement tablets and capsules under the intended conditions of use. All those grades of polyethylene glycols have been assigned a new E number, namely E 1521. It is therefore appropriate to adopt specifications for those six grades of polyethylene glycols and to group them together under a single entry. Consequently, it is necessary to update the current specifications already laid down in Directive 2008/84/EC for polyethylene glycol 6000.\n(12)\nEFSA assessed the safety of use of an enzyme preparation based on thrombin with fibrinogen derived from cattle and/or pigs as a food additive for reconstituting food and concluded in its opinion on 26 April 2005 that this use of the enzyme preparation when produced as outlined in the opinion is of no safety concern (10). However, the European Parliament in its Resolution of 19 May 2010 on the draft Commission Directive amending the Annexes to the European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC on food additives other than colours and sweeteners, considered that the inclusion in Annex IV to Directive 95/2/EC of this enzyme preparation as a food additive for reconstituting food was not compatible with the aim and content of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, as it does not meet the general criteria of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, especially in paragraph 1(c) of Article 6.\n(13)\nIt is necessary to take into account the specifications and analytical techniques for additives as set out in the Codex Alimentarius drafted by the JECFA. In particular where appropriate, the specific purity criteria need to be adapted to reflect the limits for individual heavy metals of interest.\n(14)\nDirective 2008/84/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 2008/84/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 March 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["50", "22", "28", "84", "40", "59", "21", "2", "79", "5", "78", "39", "43", "7", "62", "25", "58", "81", "27", "26", "83", "33", "55", "88", "82", "93", "4", "19", "18", "95", "No Label", "8", "24", "38", "73", "74"], "gold": ["8", "24", "38", "73", "74"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 540/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 June 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 212 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1085/2006 (2) provides for assistance to candidate and potential candidate countries in their progressive alignment with the standards and policies of the European Union, including, where appropriate, the acquis communautaire, with a view to membership of the Union.\n(2)\nArticle 49 of the Treaty on European Union states that any European State which respects and is committed to promoting the values referred to in Article 2 of that Treaty, namely human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, may apply to become a member of the Union.\n(3)\nThe European Council of 14 December 2006 expressed in its conclusions a renewed consensus on enlargement, including the principle that each applicant country is to be assessed on its own merits.\n(4)\nFollowing the submission on 16 July 2009 of the application by the Republic of Iceland (hereafter referred to as \u2018Iceland\u2019) for membership of the European Union, the Council has invited the Commission to submit to the Council its opinion on Iceland\u2019s application. Iceland can therefore be considered as a potential candidate country.\n(5)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 assistance to potential candidate countries and candidate countries from the Western Balkans and Turkey is provided, inter alia, in accordance with the European and Accession Partnerships.\n(6)\nIceland is a member of the European Economic Area. Consequently, assistance under Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 is to be provided taking due account of the Reports and the Strategy Paper comprised in the annual Enlargement package of the Commission,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1085/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following paragraph is added to Article 4:\n\u2018For Iceland assistance shall be provided in particular subject to the Reports and the Strategy Paper of the Enlargement package.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following is inserted after \u2018Bosnia and Herzegovina\u2019 in Annex II:\n\u2018-\nIceland\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 June 2010.", "references": ["57", "0", "25", "51", "53", "34", "30", "2", "94", "45", "12", "26", "81", "1", "23", "11", "4", "75", "22", "55", "41", "64", "56", "7", "77", "83", "86", "19", "27", "79", "No Label", "9", "10", "15"], "gold": ["9", "10", "15"]}
-{"input": "Council Decision\nof 27 October 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Australia pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union\n(2011/768/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1) On 29 January 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with certain other Members of the World Trade Organisation under Article XXIV:6 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 in the course of the accessions to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania.\n(2) Negotiations have been conducted by the Commission within the framework of the negotiating directives adopted by the Council.\n(3) These negotiations have been concluded and the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Australia pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (the Agreement) was initialled on 15 June 2010.\n(4) The Agreement was signed on behalf of the Union on 24 May 2011, subject to its conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2011/247/EU [1].\n(5) The Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Australia pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (the Agreement) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to give, on behalf of the Union, the notification provided for in the Agreement [2].\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 27 October 2011.\nFor the Council\nThe President\nJ. Miller\n[1] OJ L 104, 20.4.2011, p. 1.\n[2] The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.\n--------------------------------------------------\nAgreement\nin the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Australia pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union\nA. Letter from the Union\nDone at Geneva, 24 May 2011\nSir,\nFollowing negotiations under Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of the Schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union, I have the honour to propose the following:\n1. The European Union will incorporate in its schedule, for the customs territory of the EU 27, the concessions granted and applied for the EU 25 with the following modifications:\nAdd 400 tonnes (carcase weight) to the allocation for Australia under the EU tariff rate quota \"meat of sheep or goats, fresh, chilled or frozen\", maintaining the present in-quota rate of 0 %;\nCreate an erga omnes allocation of 200 tonnes (carcase weight) under the EU tariff rate quota \"meat of sheep or goats, fresh, chilled or frozen\", maintaining the present in-quota rate of 0 %;\nAdjust the EU tariff rate quota \"live sheep, other than pure-bred breeding animals\", with an in-quota rate 10 %, by removing the allocations of 1010 tonnes (Romania) and 4255 tonnes (Bulgaria);\nAdjust the EU tariff rate quota \"meat of sheep or goats, fresh, chilled or frozen\", with an in-quota rate 0 %, by removing the allocations of 75 tonnes (Romania) and 1250 tonnes (Bulgaria).\n2. The European Union will ensure that the full additional allocation of 400 tonnes for Australia under the EU tariff rate quota \"meat of sheep or goats, fresh, chilled or frozen\", is available in the first annual quota period which applies on the date of entry into force of the agreement, and in each annual quota period thereafter.\n3. Australia accepts the European Union's approach to netting-out of tariff rate quotas as a way of adjusting the GATT obligations of the EU 25 and those of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania following the recent enlargement of the European Union.\n4. Consultations may be held at any time with regard to any of the above matters at the request of either Party.\nI should be obliged if you would confirm that your Government is in agreement with the content of this letter. Should this be the case, this letter and your confirmation will together constitute an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Australia.\nThe European Union and Australia will notify to each other the completion of their internal procedures for the entry into force of the Agreement. The Agreement will enter into force 14 days after the date of the latest notification.\nPlease accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.\nFor the European Union\n+++++ TIFF +++++\nB. Letter from Australia\nDone at Geneva, 24 May 2011\nS", "references": ["8", "52", "28", "18", "85", "63", "26", "7", "59", "79", "67", "64", "77", "46", "51", "60", "71", "98", "50", "84", "81", "55", "48", "40", "69", "61", "19", "72", "42", "99", "No Label", "3", "9", "21", "22", "23", "91", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "21", "22", "23", "91", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 69/2012\nof 26 January 2012\non the issue of licences for importing rice under the tariff quotas opened for the January 2012 subperiod by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 of 7 December 2011 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (3), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nJanuary is the first subperiod for the quotas provided for under Article 1(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011.\n(3)\nThe 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 - 09.4112 - 09.4116 - 09.4117 - 09.4118 - 09.4119 - 09.4166, the applications lodged in the first 10 working days of January 2012 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.\n(4)\nThose notifications also show that, for the quotas with order number 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4148 - 09.4149 - 09.4150 - 09.4152 - 09.4153, the applications lodged in the first 10 working days of January 2012 under Article 4(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) no 1273/2011 cover a quantity less than that available.\n(5)\nThe total quantity available for the following subperiod should also be fixed for the quotas with order number 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4148 - 09.4149 - 09.4150 - 09.4152 - 09.4153 - 09.4154 - 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.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. For import licence applications for rice under the quotas with order number 09.4154 - 09.4112 - 09.4116 - 09.4117 - 09.4118 - 09.4119 - 09.4166 referred to in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 lodged in the first 10 working days of January 2012, licences shall be issued for the quantity requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficient set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The total quantity available for the following subperiod under the quotas with order number 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4148 - 09.4149 - 09.4150 - 09.4152 - 09.4153 - 09.4154 - 09.4112 - 09.4116 - 09.4117 - 09.4118 - 09.4119 - 09.4166, referred to in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011, is set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 January 2012.", "references": ["87", "60", "6", "48", "38", "25", "89", "93", "59", "94", "40", "62", "76", "91", "63", "71", "95", "29", "1", "82", "35", "78", "92", "46", "15", "53", "43", "4", "99", "26", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 462/2011\nof 12 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2011.", "references": ["74", "97", "49", "92", "39", "45", "78", "88", "43", "90", "63", "51", "84", "60", "19", "36", "1", "6", "14", "70", "85", "37", "93", "99", "22", "58", "29", "54", "67", "12", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 July 2011\non the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Seychelles\n(2011/474/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43, in conjunction with point (a) of Article 218(6), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 5 October 2006 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1562/2006 concerning the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Seychelles (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Partnership Agreement\u2019). A Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Partnership Agreement was attached thereto. That Protocol expires on 17 January 2011.\n(2)\nThe European Union negotiated with the Republic of Seychelles (hereinafter \u2018Seychelles\u2019) a new Protocol to the Partnership Agreement, providing EU vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which Seychelles have sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019).\n(3)\nOn conclusion of those negotiations, the Protocol was initialled on 3 June 2010 and was amended by an Exchange of Letters on 29 October 2010.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2010/814/EU (2), the Protocol was signed on 20 December 2010 on behalf of the Union and is being provisionally applied.\n(5)\nThe Protocol should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Seychelles is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (3).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 14 of the Protocol (4).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["11", "0", "5", "12", "69", "27", "9", "73", "2", "98", "15", "30", "18", "20", "92", "57", "77", "34", "46", "39", "72", "7", "43", "42", "31", "45", "41", "38", "25", "61", "No Label", "3", "13", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "13", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 470/2012\nof 4 June 2012\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use of polydextrose (E 1200) in beer\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Article 10(3) and Article 30(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 lays down a Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and their conditions of use.\n(2)\nThat list may be amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (2).\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, the Union list of food additives may be updated either on the initiative of the Commission or following an application.\n(4)\nAn application for authorisation of the use of polydextrose (E 1200) as a stabiliser in beer was submitted and has been made available to the Member States.\n(5)\nEnergy-reduced and low-alcohol beers have a generally low acceptance because of their lack of body and mouthfeel. Addition of polydextrose (E 1200) can contribute to the body and mouthfeel and at the same time can provide the necessary foam stability. In addition, polydextrose (E 1200) has a low caloric value and its addition will have a limited contribution to the total calorie content of the beer.\n(6)\nPolydextrose (E 1200) belongs to the group of additives for which no acceptable daily intake has been specified (3). This implies that it does not represent a hazard to health at the levels necessary to achieve the desired technological effect. It is therefore appropriate to allow the use of polydextrose (E 1200) in energy-reduced and low-alcohol beers.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, the Commission is to seek the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority in order to update the Union list of food additives set out in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, except where the update in question is not liable to have an effect on human health. Since the authorisation of use of polydextrose (E 1200) in energy-reduced and low-alcohol beers constitutes an update of that list which is not liable to have an effect on human health, it is not necessary to seek the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority.\n(8)\nPursuant to the transitional provisions of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1129/2011 of 11 November 2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing a Union list of food additives (4), Annex II establishing the Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and conditions of use applies from 1 June 2013. In order to allow the use of polydextrose (E 1200) in beer before that date, it is necessary to specify an earlier date of application with regard to this use of that food additive.\n(9)\nTherefore, Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 should be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 June 2012.", "references": ["93", "55", "77", "6", "27", "61", "37", "84", "24", "60", "97", "98", "79", "47", "52", "63", "87", "66", "44", "1", "94", "46", "43", "7", "21", "58", "26", "17", "59", "54", "No Label", "25", "38", "71", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "71", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 20 June 2011\nappointing a Spanish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/370/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Albert MORENO HUMET,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as an alternate member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr Sen\u00e9n FLORENSA I PALAU, Secretario de Asuntos Exteriores, Generalitat de Catalu\u00f1a.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["28", "83", "95", "4", "43", "60", "39", "17", "40", "30", "58", "79", "26", "75", "99", "45", "76", "24", "25", "49", "57", "98", "72", "36", "87", "71", "38", "35", "23", "94", "No Label", "7", "52", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "52", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 15 December 2011\nlaying down the list of third countries and territories authorised for imports of dogs, cats and ferrets and for non-commercial movements of more than five dogs, cats and ferrets into the Union and the model certificates for imports and non-commercial movements of those animals into the Union\n(notified under document C(2011) 9232)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/874/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), and in particular the introductory phrase and point (b) of Article 17(2) and point (a) of Article 17(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (2), and in particular Article 8(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 lays down the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals into the Union. Dogs, cats and ferrets are among the pet animals covered by that Regulation.\n(2)\nDirective 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Union of dogs, cats and ferrets. It provides that the import conditions for those animals are to be at least equivalent to those laid down in Regulation (EC) No 998/2003.\n(3)\nThe animal health requirements governing such imports and non-commercial movements differ depending on the rabies situation in the third country of origin and on the Member State of destination.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that dogs, cats and ferrets entering Member States other than Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom from third countries listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II thereto are to be vaccinated against rabies, while those entering from other third countries are also to be subjected to a pre-entry rabies blood testing.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that until 31 December 2011, dogs, cats and ferrets entering Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom from third countries listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II thereto are to be vaccinated and subject to a pre-entry rabies blood testing in accordance with national rules, while those coming from other third countries are to be placed in post-arrival quarantine in accordance with national rules.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 also provides that until 31 December 2011, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom, as regards echinococcosis, and Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom as regards ticks, may make the entry of dogs, cats and ferrets into their territory subject to compliance with certain additional national requirements.\n(7)\nCommission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011 of 14 July 2011 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards preventive health measures for the control of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in dogs (3), was adopted in order to ensure the continuous health protection of Ireland, Malta, Finland and the United Kingdom from Echinococcus multilocularis. It is to apply from 1 January 2012.\n(8)\nCommission Decision 2004/595/EC of 29 July 2004 establishing a model health certificate for the importation into the Community for trade of dogs, cats and ferrets (4) provides that imports of those animals are to be authorised from third countries listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 or in Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 of 12 March 2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements (5). Decision 2004/595/EC also provides that such animals are to be accompanied by a certificate in accordance with the model set out in the Annex thereto.\n(9)\nThe model set out in the Annex to Decision 2004/595/EC is an individual certificate to be issued for the entry into Member States of each dog, cat or ferret coming from a third country listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003.\n(10)\nWhile that certificate is sufficient for the entry into Member States other than Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom of those animals coming from third countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010, it is not accepted for such animals destined for Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom where they are placed in post-arrival quarantine in accordance with national legislation.\n(11)\nTaking into account the problems encountered by certain importers with the use of the individual model certificate laid down in Decision 2004/595/EC, it is necessary to replace that model certificate by one that may cover a consignment consisting of more than one animal.\n(12)\nPursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 and to Commission Regulation (EU) No 388/2010 of 6 May 2010 implementing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the maximum number of pet animals of certain species that may be the subject of non-commercial movement (6), non-commercial movements into the Union of more than five dogs, cats or ferrets from a third country are to comply with the animal health requirements and checks laid down in Directive 92/65/EEC.\n(13)\nTaking into account the fact that the risks posed by imports of dogs, cats and ferrets and by non-commercial movements into the Union of more than five of those animals are not different, it is appropriate to establish a common health certificate for imports into the Union of such animals and for non-commercial movements of more than five of those animals from third countries listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 or in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010.\n(14)\nIn the interests of consistency and simplification of Union legislation, the model health certificates for imports into the Union of dogs, cats and ferrets should take account of the requirements of Commission Decision 2007/240/EC (7), which provides that the various veterinary, public and animal health certificates required for imports into the Union of live animals are to be based on the standard models for veterinary certificates set out in Annex I thereto.\n(15)\nCommission Decision 2004/824/EC of 1 December 2004 establishing a model health certificate for non-commercial movements of dogs, cats and ferrets from third countries into the Community (8) establishes a model certificate for non-commercial movements of those animals into Member States other than Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom from third countries. That model certificate may also be used for the entry into those three Member States where such animals come from countries listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003. In addition, this certificate is to be issued individually for the entry into Member States of each dog, cat or ferret.\n(16)\nIn accordance with Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, pet animals are to be accompanied by a passport in accordance with the model laid down in Commission Decision 2003/803/EC of 26 November 2003 establishing a model passport for the intra-Community movements of dogs, cats and ferrets (9) when they enter a Member State, after temporary movement from a Member State to a third country or territory.\n(17)\nIn accordance with point (a) of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, pet animals coming from the countries and territories listed in Section 2 of Part B of Annex II thereto, for which it has been established that such countries and territories apply rules at least equivalent to Union rules for movements from third countries, are to be subject to the rules laid down for the non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets between Member States.\n(18)\nIt is appropriate that this Decision should apply without prejudice to Commission Decision 2004/839/EC of 3 December 2004 establishing conditions for non-commercial movements of young dogs and cats from third countries into the Community (10) which gives the Member States the possibility to authorise the movement into their territory of dogs and cats less than 3 months of age and not vaccinated against rabies from third countries listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 under conditions equivalent to those laid down in Article 5(2) of that Regulation.\n(19)\nIn order to facilitate the access to multilingual certificates, the health certificate required for non-commercial movements into the Union of five or less dogs, cats or ferrets should be based on the standard models laid down in Decision 2007/240/EC.\n(20)\nCouncil Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on the certification of animals and animal products (11) lays down the rules to be observed in issuing the certificates required by veterinary legislation to prevent misleading or fraudulent certification. It is appropriate to ensure that rules and principles at least equivalent to those laid down in that Directive are applied by official veterinarians of third countries.\n(21)\nIt is appropriate to introduce a transitional period to allow Member States to take the necessary measures to comply with the requirements laid down in this Decision.\n(22)\nDecisions 2004/595/EC and 2004/824/EC should be repealed accordingly.\n(23)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Decision establishes:\n(a)\nthe list of third countries and territories authorised for imports of dogs, cats and ferrets and for non-commercial movements into the Union of more than five dogs, cats or ferrets, in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC, and the health certificate for such imports and non-commercial movements;\n(b)\nthe health certificate for non-commercial movements into the Union of five or less dogs, cats or ferrets, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 998/2003.\n2. This Decision shall apply without prejudice to Decision 2004/839/EC.\nArticle 2\nThird countries and territories authorised for imports of dogs, cats and ferrets and for non-commercial movements into the Union of more than five dogs, cats or ferrets and the health certificate for such imports and non-commercial movements\n1. Member States shall authorise imports of consignments of dogs, cats and ferrets and non-commercial movements into the Union of more than five dogs, cats or ferrets provided that the third countries or territories they come from and any third countries or territories they transit are:\n(a)\neither listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003; or\n(b)\nlisted in Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010.\n2. Dogs, cats and ferrets, as referred to in paragraph 1, shall:\n(a)\nbe accompanied by a health certificate drawn up in accordance with the model set out in Annex I and completed by an official veterinarian with due account of the notes for guidance in Part II of that certificate;\n(b)\ncomply with the requirements of the health certificate set out in Annex I for the third countries or territories that they come from, as referred to in paragraph 1(a) and (b) respectively of this Article.\nArticle 3\nHealth certificate for non-commercial movements into the Union of five or less dogs, cats or ferrets\n1. Member States shall authorise the non-commercial movement of five or less dogs, cats or ferrets into their territory provided that they come from or transit through third countries or territories which are:\n(a)\neither listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003; or\n(b)\nnot listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003.\n2. Dogs, cats, and ferrets, as referred to in paragraph 1, shall:\n(a)\nbe accompanied by a health certificate drawn up in accordance with the model set out in Annex II and issued by an official veterinarian with due account of the notes for guidance in Part II of that certificate;\n(b)\ncomply with the requirements of the health certificate set out in Annex II for the third countries or territories that they come from, as referred to in paragraph 1(a) and (b) respectively of this Article.\nArticle 4\nTransitional provisions\nFor a transitional period until 30 June 2012, Member States shall authorise imports and non-commercial movements into the Union of dogs, cats and ferrets which are accompanied by a veterinary certificate issued not later than 29 February 2012 in accordance with the models set out in the Annex respectively to Decisions 2004/595/EC and 2004/824/EC.\nArticle 5\nRepeals\nDecisions 2004/595/EC and 2004/824/EC are repealed.\nArticle 6\nApplicability\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nArticle 7\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2011.", "references": ["53", "96", "46", "86", "35", "56", "91", "8", "83", "32", "19", "65", "13", "3", "45", "40", "28", "14", "5", "60", "59", "77", "36", "98", "69", "49", "85", "58", "76", "30", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "61", "66"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 25 May 2010\non the signing of the Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States\n(2011/94/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy its Decision of 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with an agreement at Union level.\n(2)\nOn behalf of the Union, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement on certain aspects of air services (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) with the United Mexican States in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision of 5 June 2003.\n(3)\nThe Agreement negotiated by the Commission should be signed, subject to its conclusion at a later date,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the Agreement.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2010.", "references": ["13", "60", "22", "49", "64", "40", "0", "81", "1", "80", "54", "2", "55", "11", "19", "34", "10", "35", "4", "91", "63", "69", "14", "82", "32", "6", "47", "44", "77", "83", "No Label", "3", "9", "53", "57", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "53", "57", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1195/2011\nof 16 November 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["67", "55", "97", "36", "40", "82", "3", "58", "91", "68", "30", "1", "10", "85", "37", "24", "78", "31", "99", "22", "87", "53", "69", "56", "12", "54", "92", "32", "41", "14", "No Label", "21", "38"], "gold": ["21", "38"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 764/2010\nof 26 August 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 755/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 August 2010.", "references": ["74", "20", "17", "61", "39", "79", "93", "42", "40", "56", "67", "33", "23", "90", "28", "81", "54", "49", "29", "86", "70", "43", "37", "77", "45", "59", "52", "9", "16", "88", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 722/2012\nof 8 August 2012\nconcerning particular requirements as regards the requirements laid down in Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC with respect to active implantable medical devices and medical devices manufactured utilising tissues of animal origin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the approximation of laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices (1), and in particular Article 10c thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (2), and in particular Article 14b thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSpecific rules for medical devices manufactured utilising tissues of animal origin were initially adopted by Commission Directive 2003/32/EC of 23 April 2003 introducing detailed specifications as regards the requirements laid down in Council Directive 93/42/EEC with respect to medical devices manufactured utilising tissues of animal origin (3). This Directive was applicable only to medical devices falling within the scope of Directive 93/42/EEC.\n(2)\nIn order to maintain a high level of safety and health protection against the risk of transmitting animal spongiform encephalopathies to patients or other persons via medical devices manufactured utilising non-viable animal tissues or derivatives rendered non-viable, including custom-made devices and devices intended for clinical investigation, it is necessary to update the rules laid down in Directive 2003/32/EC on the basis of the experience with the application of this Directive and to apply them also to active implantable medical devices manufactured utilising tissues of animal origin that fall within the scope of Directive 90/385/EEC.\n(3)\nTaking into account that this measure lays down clear and detailed rules that do not give room for diverging transposition by Member States, a Regulation is the appropriate legal instrument which shall replace Directive 2003/32/EC.\n(4)\nPrior to being placed on the market or put into service, active implantable medical devices and medical devices of class III in accordance with the classification rules set out in Annex IX to Directive 93/42/EEC, whether they originate in the European Union or are imported from third countries, are subject to the conformity assessment procedures laid down in Article 9(1) of Directive 90/385/EEC and in Article 11(1) of Directive 93/42/EEC, respectively. Annex 1 to Directive 90/385/EEC and Annex I to Directive 93/42/EEC, respectively, set out the essential requirements that active implantable medical devices and other medical devices must meet in this regard.\n(5)\nWith regard to active implantable medical devices and other medical devices manufactured utilising tissues of animal origin it is necessary to adopt more detailed specifications in relation to the requirements set out in point 6 of Annex 1 to Directive 90/385/EEC and points 8.1 and 8.2 of Annex I to Directive 93/42/EEC. Moreover, it is appropriate to specify certain aspects relating to the risk analysis and risk management in the framework of the conformity assessment procedures referred to in Article 9 of Directive 90/385/EEC and Article 11 of Directive 93/42/EEC, respectively.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (4) sets out provisions on the sourcing of materials used in medical devices. It is appropriate to lay down additional provisions on the use of such materials as starting tissue for the manufacture of medical devices.\n(7)\nEuropean and international scientific bodies, such as the European Medicines Agency (5), the European Food Safety Agency (6), the former Scientific Steering Committee (7) and the former Scientific Committee on Medicinal Products and Medical Devices (8), adopted several opinions on specified risk materials and on minimising the risk of transmitting animal spongiform encephalopathy agents which are of relevance to the safety of medical devices.\n(8)\nThe Member States should verify that the notified bodies designated to assess the conformity of medical devices manufactured utilising animal tissues have the necessary expertise and up-to-date knowledge to perform this task.\n(9)\nThe period for scrutiny granted to the competent authorities of the Member States in relation to the notified bodies\u2019 summary evaluation report should be shorter for medical devices manufactured using starting material which is certified by the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines than in cases where uncertified material is used. In both cases, there should be a possibility to shorten the standstill period.\n(10)\nTo facilitate the smooth transition to the new requirements it is appropriate to provide for an adequate transitional period allowing for active implantable medical devices already covered by an EC design-examination certificate or by an EC type examination certificate to continue to be placed on the market and put into service.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Medical Devices set up by Article 6(2) of Directive 90/385/EEC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. This Regulation lays down particular requirements in relation to the placing on the market and/or putting into service of medical devices, including active implantable medical devices, manufactured utilising animal tissue which is rendered non-viable or non-viable products derived from animal tissue.\n2. This Regulation shall apply to animal tissues, as well as their derivatives, originating from bovine, ovine and caprine species, deer, elk, mink and cats.\n3. Collagen, gelatine and tallow used for the manufacturing of medical devices shall meet at least the requirements as fit for human consumption laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009.\n4. This Regulation shall not apply to any of the following:\n(a)\nTallow derivatives, processed under conditions at least as vigorous as those laid down in Section 3 of Annex I;\n(b)\nmedical devices referred to in paragraph 1, which are not intended to come into contact with the human body or which are intended to come into contact with intact skin only.\nArticle 2\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply in addition to the definitions set out in Directive 90/385/EEC and Directive 93/42/EEC:\n(a)\n\u2018cell\u2019 means the smallest organised unit of any living form which is capable of independent existence and of replacement of its own substance in a suitable environment;\n(b)\n\u2018tissue\u2019 means an organisation of cells, extra-cellular constituents or both;\n(c)\n\u2018derivative\u2019 means a material obtained from animal tissue through one or more treatments, transformations or steps of processing;\n(d)\n\u2018non-viable\u2019 means having no potential for metabolism or multiplication;\n(e)\n\u2018TSEs\u2019 means all transmissible spongiform encephalopathies as defined in Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9);\n(f)\n\u2018TSE infectious agents\u2019 means unclassified pathogenic agents which are capable of transmitting TSEs;\n(g)\n\u2018reduction, elimination or removal\u2019 means a process by which the number of TSE infectious agents is reduced, eliminated or removed in order to prevent infection or pathogenic reaction;\n(h)\n\u2018inactivation\u2019 means a process by which the ability to cause infection or pathogenic reaction by TSE infectious agents is reduced;\n(i)\n\u2018source country\u2019 means the country or countries in which the animal was born, has been reared and/or has been slaughtered;\n(j)\n\u2018starting materials\u2019 means raw materials or any other product of animal origin out of which, or with the help of which, the devices referred to in Article 1(1) are produced.\nArticle 3\n1. Before lodging an application for a conformity assessment pursuant to Article 9(1) of Directive 90/385/EEC or Article 11(1) of Directive 93/42/EEC, the manufacturer of medical devices referred to in Article 1(1) of this Regulation or his authorised representative shall carry out the risk analysis and risk management scheme set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. For custom-made devices and devices intended for clinical investigation which fall under Article 1(1), the statement of the manufacturer or his authorised representative and the documentation in accordance with Annex 6 to Directive 90/385/EEC or Annex VIII to Directive 93/42/EEC, respectively, shall also address compliance with the particular requirements set out in section 1 of Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall verify that bodies notified under Article 11 of Directive 90/385/EEC or Article 16 of Directive 93/42/EEC have up-to-date knowledge of the medical devices referred to in Article 1(1), in order to assess the conformity of those devices with the provisions of Directive 90/385/EEC or Directive 93/42/EEC, respectively, and with the particular requirements laid down in Annex I to this Regulation. Member States shall regularly verify that those bodies maintain the required up-to-date knowledge and expertise.\nWhere, on the basis of that verification, it is necessary for a Member State to amend the tasks of a notified body, that Member State shall notify the Commission and the other Member States accordingly.\n2. The Member States shall inform the Commission and the other Member States regarding the outcome of the verification referred to in the first sentence of paragraph 1 by 28 February 2013.\nArticle 5\n1. Conformity assessment procedures for medical devices referred to in Article 1(1) shall include the evaluation of compliance of the devices with the essential requirements of Directive 90/385/EEC or Directive 93/42/EEC, respectively, and the particular requirements laid down in Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. Notified bodies shall assess the documentation submitted by the manufacturer to verify that the benefits of the device outweigh the residual risks. Particular account shall be taken of:\n(a)\nthe manufacturer\u2019s risk analysis and risk management process;\n(b)\nthe justification for the use of animal tissues or derivatives, taking into consideration lower risk tissues or synthetic alternatives;\n(c)\nthe results of elimination and inactivation studies or results of the analysis of relevant literature;\n(d)\nthe manufacturer\u2019s control of the sources of raw materials, finished products, production process, testing, and subcontractors;\n(e)\nthe need to audit matters related to the sourcing and processing of animal tissues and derivatives, processes to eliminate or inactivate pathogens, including those activities carried out by suppliers.\n3. Notified bodies shall, during the evaluation of the risk analysis and risk management in the framework of the conformity assessment procedure, take account of the TSE certificate of suitability issued by the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines, hereinafter \u2018TSE certificate of suitability\u2019, for starting materials, where available.\nWhere additional information is necessary to assess the suitability of the starting material for a given medical device, notified bodies may require submission of additional information to allow the evaluation as set out in paragraphs 1 and 2.\n4. Before issuing an EC design-examination certificate or an EC type-examination certificate, the notified bodies shall, through their competent authority, hereinafter \u2018coordinating competent authority\u2019, inform the competent authorities of the other Member States and the Commission of their assessment carried out pursuant to paragraph 2 by means of a summary evaluation report in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\n5. The competent authorities of the Member States may submit comments on the summary evaluation report referred to in paragraph 4 within the following deadlines:\n(a)\nin relation to medical devices using starting materials for which a TSE certificate of suitability as referred to in paragraph 3 has been submitted, within four weeks from the date on which the notified body informed the coordinating competent authority pursuant to paragraph 4;\n(b)\nin relation to medical devices using starting materials for which a TSE certificate of suitability has not been submitted, within 12 weeks from the date on which the notified body informed the coordinating competent authority pursuant to paragraph 4.\nThe competent authorities of the Member States and the Commission may agree on shortening the time periods set out in points (a) and (b).\n6. The notified bodies shall give due consideration to any comments received in accordance with paragraph 5. They shall convey an explanation as regards this consideration, including any due justification not to take account of one or more of the comments received, and their final decisions to the coordinating competent authority, which shall then make these available to the Commission and the competent authorities from which comments were received.\n7. The manufacturer shall collect, evaluate and submit to the notified body information regarding changes with regard to the animal tissue or derivatives used for the device or with regard to the TSE risk in relation to the device. Where such information leads to an increase of the overall TSE risk, the provisions of paragraphs 1-6 are applicable.\nArticle 6\nWithout prejudice to Article 7(2), Member States shall take all necessary steps to ensure that medical devices referred to in Article 1(1) are placed on the market and/or put into service only if they comply with the provisions of Directive 90/385/EEC or Directive 93/42/EEC, respectively, and the particular requirements laid down in this Regulation.\nArticle 7\n1. Holders of EC design-examination certificates or EC type-examination certificates issued before 29 August 2013 for active implantable medical devices referred to in Article 1(1) shall apply to their notified body for a complementary EC design-examination certificate or EC type-examination certificate attesting compliance with the particular requirements laid down in Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. Until 29 August 2014, Member States shall accept the placing on the market and the putting into service of active implantable medical devices referred to in Article 1(1) which are covered by an EC design-examination certificate or an EC type-examination certificate issued before 29 August 2013.\nArticle 8\nDirective 2003/32/EC is repealed with effect from 29 August 2013.\nReferences to the repealed Directive are to be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 9\nThis Regulation enters into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 29 August 2013 except for Article 4 which shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThis Regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 August 2012.", "references": ["24", "37", "42", "73", "85", "65", "70", "98", "97", "68", "18", "58", "34", "57", "15", "4", "36", "52", "99", "84", "21", "90", "93", "3", "53", "28", "27", "54", "83", "49", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "69", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "69", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 22 May 2012\namending Decision 2008/425/EC as regards standard requirements for the submission by Member States of national programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses for Union financing\n(notified under document C(2012) 3193)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/282/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 27(10) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the Union financial contribution for programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC provides that each year, by 30 April at the latest, Member States are to submit to the Commission the annual or multiannual programmes starting in the following year for which they wish to receive a financial contribution from the Union. Pursuant to that Decision, a Union financial measure is to be introduced to reimburse the expenditure incurred by the Member States for the financing of national programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of the animal diseases and zoonoses listed in the Annex to that Decision.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2008/425/EC of 25 April 2008 laying down standard requirements for the submission by Member States of national programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses for Community financing (2) provides that Member States seeking a financial contribution from the Union for national programmes for the eradication, monitoring and control of certain animal diseases are to submit applications containing certain information set out in Annexes I to V to that Decision.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (3) provides for annual monitoring programmes by Member States for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in bovine, ovine and caprine animals. That Regulation has been amended several times since the adoption of Decision 2008/425/EC as regards rules relating to monitoring and eradication activities co-financed under the programmes.\n(5)\nCommission Decision 2010/367/EU of 25 June 2010 on the implementation by Member States of surveillance programmes for avian influenza in poultry and wild birds (4) was adopted in the light of experience and scientific insight gained since the adoption of Commission Decision 2007/268/EC (5). Decision 2007/268/EC was repealed by Decision 2010/367/EU. Decision 2008/425/EC should be updated to take into account these changes, in particular those related to the objectives of surveillance programmes.\n(6)\nIn addition, in order to further improve the submission process, assessment and approval of the national programmes, Member States should submit the applications online from 1 January 2013 onwards for programmes falling under the requirements of Annexes I to IV to Decision 2008/425/EC. The structure of those Annexes should therefore be adapted for the electronic submission and processing of data.\n(7)\nTherefore, the standard requirements for the submission by Member States of applications for Union financing for the national programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses set out in Annexes I to IV to Decision 2008/425/EC should be amended and made consistent with the amendments to relevant Union legislation and compatible with the online submission system. For the sake of clarity, Annexes I to IV to Decision 2008/425/EC should be replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\n(8)\nDecision 2008/425/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2008/425/EC shall be amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following Article 1a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 1a\nFrom 1 January 2013, the applications provided for in Article 1 paragraphs (a) to (d) shall be submitted online by Member States using the corresponding standard electronic templates provided by the Commission.\u2019;\n(2)\nAnnexes I to IV are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 May 2012.", "references": ["24", "32", "58", "47", "86", "29", "68", "19", "97", "12", "53", "55", "69", "92", "14", "35", "90", "49", "56", "67", "18", "5", "3", "63", "0", "94", "26", "51", "65", "91", "No Label", "4", "10", "38", "39", "61", "66"], "gold": ["4", "10", "38", "39", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1118/2010\nof 2 December 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of diclazuril as a feed additive for chickens for fattening (holder of authorisation Janssen Pharmaceutica NV) and amending Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).\n(2)\nDiclazuril, CAS No 101831-37-2, was authorised for 10 years in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC as a feed additive for use on chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying up to 16 weeks and turkeys up to 12 weeks by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (3). That additive was subsequently entered in the Community Register of feed additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 of that Regulation, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of diclazuril as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, requesting that additive to be classified in the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019. The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 23 June 2010 that, under the proposed conditions of use, diclazuril does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer health or the environment, and that that additive is effective in controlling coccidiosis in chickens for fattening (4). It concluded that no safety concerns would arise provided that appropriate protective measures are taken. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of diclazuril shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nAs a consequence of the granting of a new authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, the provisions on diclazuril for chickens for fattening in Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 should be deleted.\n(7)\nSince the modifications on the conditions of the authorisation are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for the disposal of existing stocks of the premixtures and compound feed.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019 is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999, the entry under the registration number of additive E 771, concerning diclazuril for chickens for fattening, is deleted.\nArticle 3\nPremixtures and compound feed containing diclazuril labelled in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC may continue to be placed on the market and used until stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["43", "67", "8", "36", "7", "6", "1", "58", "23", "42", "72", "57", "32", "59", "81", "82", "0", "45", "28", "96", "34", "56", "11", "4", "35", "16", "18", "15", "48", "22", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1034/2010\nof 15 November 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 as regards checks concerning the requirements for the identification and registration of bovine animals\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (1), and in particular the introductory phrase and Article 10(d) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 of 23 June 2003 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the minimum level of controls to be carried out in the framework of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals (2) lays down minimum requirements for such controls.\n(2)\nExperience gained following the implementation of the on-the-spot inspection laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 as reported in the annual reports and the implementation of the on-the-spot check in ovine and caprine animals laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1505/2006 (3) supports a reduction in the percentage of holdings to be inspected each year and on the animals to be checked. As a general rule, all animals on a holding should be covered by the checks. However, for holdings with more than 20 animals the competent authority should be permitted to restrict the checks to an appropriate representative sample of the animals.\n(3)\nIn addition, Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 provides that Member States are to submit an annual report to the Commission, in accordance with the model set out in Annex I thereto, giving details of the implementation of those controls.\n(4)\nThe collection of the data for the annual report should be adequate and proportionate to the objectives pursued. For the sake of a more targeted and proportionate reporting, certain requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003, as well as the model set out in Annex I thereto, should be simplified to better provide with the relevant information of the implementation of the controls.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1082/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Agricultural Funds,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1082/2003 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The competent authority shall carry out checks each year which shall cover at least 3 % of holdings.\n2. Where the checks provided for in paragraph 1 reveal a significant degree of non-compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, the minimum rate of checks shall be increased in the following annual inspection period.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\nThe competent authority shall check the identification of all animals on the holding.\nHowever, where the number of animals on the holding exceeds 20, the competent authority may decide to check the means of identification of a representative sample of those animals in accordance with internationally recognised standards provided that the number of animals checked is sufficient to detect 5 % of cases of non-compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 by the keepers of such animals at a 95 % confidence level.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 5(1), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nthe number of holdings that have been checked;\u2019;\n(4)\nAnnex I is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["64", "92", "19", "37", "87", "84", "93", "72", "36", "7", "91", "57", "44", "58", "2", "63", "69", "12", "20", "48", "86", "95", "73", "43", "9", "96", "28", "74", "70", "3", "No Label", "38", "61", "65", "66"], "gold": ["38", "61", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 591/2012\nof 4 July 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 574/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["75", "56", "42", "45", "93", "36", "37", "1", "70", "87", "77", "18", "43", "58", "12", "16", "59", "92", "14", "78", "49", "98", "82", "73", "57", "31", "20", "27", "84", "23", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 694/2010\nof 2 August 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 689/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 3 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2010.", "references": ["57", "39", "20", "50", "92", "3", "77", "43", "68", "82", "70", "0", "67", "21", "23", "34", "69", "73", "27", "38", "8", "29", "80", "98", "61", "4", "58", "79", "2", "37", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1207/2010\nof 16 December 2010\nfixing the export refunds on poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in poultrymeat, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely in the Union and bear the identification mark provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products should also comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 841/2010 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements under Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the identification marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 841/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2010.", "references": ["31", "24", "95", "30", "34", "68", "21", "64", "6", "54", "57", "46", "29", "67", "92", "16", "79", "91", "71", "37", "93", "78", "39", "77", "19", "94", "75", "83", "7", "15", "No Label", "20", "38", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "38", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 330/2012\nof 18 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2012.", "references": ["56", "44", "32", "79", "39", "15", "50", "86", "4", "14", "91", "69", "51", "66", "77", "49", "70", "10", "27", "99", "65", "72", "48", "5", "93", "67", "53", "96", "30", "7", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1133/2010\nof 30 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in EC waters of subdivisions 22-24 by vessels flying the flag of Finland\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1226/2009 of 20 November 2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2010 (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["92", "86", "15", "60", "24", "8", "76", "57", "59", "63", "94", "38", "12", "54", "11", "65", "78", "23", "73", "77", "28", "21", "98", "74", "75", "25", "69", "9", "52", "53", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 401/2010\nof 7 May 2010\namending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 on the common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 121 first paragraph points (k), (l) and (m) and Article 203b, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 25(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 (2), annual verification of wines bearing protected designation of origin or geographical indication shall be carried out either through random check, sampling or systematic check, bearing in mind that only random checks can be combined with sampling. Some Member States who until now have privileged systematic checks are evolving and wish to be able to combine all three forms of checks. Therefore, as regards annual verification systems, more flexibility should be offered to Member States.\n(2)\nAfter Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 had been adopted, it was found to contain some technical errors, which should be corrected. In particular, the wine grape variety name \u2018Montepulciano\u2019 was erroneously mentioned in Part B of Annex XV and should therefore be moved to Part A of that Annex. The spelling of some provisions should also be improved in order to gain clarity.\n(3)\nFor the sake of clarity and consistency, some provisions of Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 should be redrafted or specified. This is in particular the case of provisions applying to third countries, to whom the use of certain optional particulars should be opened provided that they fulfil equivalent conditions to those required from Member States. It is also the case of Annex XII, where the terminology should be in line with the list of protected designation of origin as listed in the Register. New provisions should also be introduced in order to gain precision in terms of labelling and presentation.\n(4)\nAustralia has requested to include new names of wine grape varieties in Annex XV, Part B to Regulation (EC) No 607/2009. The Commission, after having satisfactorily examined the request as regards the conditions laid down in Article 62(1)(b) and Article 62(4) of that Regulation, should include Australia in the column corresponding to the names of those wine grape varieties in that Annex.\n(5)\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine (3) contains a list of vine variety names that may be used as labelling particulars. Thus, United States should be included in Annex XV, Part B to Regulation (EC) No 607/2009, in the column corresponding to the names of those wine grape varieties.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 607/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nTo avoid administrative burdens associated with certification costs, and trade difficulties, the amendments proposed by this Regulation should apply from the same date as Regulation (EC) No 607/2009, that is from 1 August 2009.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 607/2009 is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 18(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The \u201cRegister of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications\u201d maintained by the Commission as provided for in Article 118n of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (4), hereinafter referred to as \u201cthe Register\u201d, is included in the electronic database \u201cE-Bacchus\u201d.\n2.\nArticle 24 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 24\nNotification of operators\nEach operator wishing to participate in all or part of the production or packaging of a product with a protected designation of origin or geographical indication shall be notified to the competent control authority referred to in Article 118o of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 25 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1,\n(i)\nthe second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The annual verification shall be conducted in the Member State in which production took place in accordance with the product specification and shall be carried out either through:\n(a)\nrandom checks based on a risk analysis; or\n(b)\nsampling; or\n(c)\nsystematically; or\n(d)\na combination of any of the above.\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe fifth subparagraph is deleted;\n(b)\nparagraph 4, point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe results of the testing referred to in paragraph 1, first subparagraph, points (a) and (b) and in paragraph 2 prove that the product in question complies with the conditions in the specification and possesses all the appropriate characteristics of the designation of origin or geographical indication concerned;\u2019;\n4.\nIn Article 56, paragraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\n\u201cbottler\u201d means a natural or legal person or a group of such persons established in the European Union and carrying out bottling or having bottling carried out on their behalf.\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (f) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(f)\n\u201caddress\u201d means the indications of the local administrative area and the Member State or third country in which the head office of the bottler, producer, vendor or importer is situated.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 63 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, the fourth subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The costs of the certification shall be borne by the operators subject to it, save where Member States decide otherwise.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 7 the following fourth subparagraph is added:\n\u2018In the case of United Kingdom, the name of the Member State may be replaced by the name of an individual country forming part of United Kingdom.\u2019;\n6.\nIn Article 64, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to products referred to in paragraphs 3, 8 and 9 of Annex XIb to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provided that the conditions of the use of the indication of the sugar content are regulated by the Member State or established in rules applicable in the third country concerned, including, in the case of third countries, rules emanating from representative professional organisations.\u2019;\n7.\nIn Article 67, paragraph 2, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018For the use of the name of a smaller geographical unit than the area underlying the designation of origin or geographical indication the area of the geographical unit in question shall be well defined. Member States may establish rules concerning the use of these geographical units. At least 85 % of the grapes from which the wine has been produced shall originate in that smaller geographical unit. This does not include:\n(a)\nany quantity of products used in sweetening, \u201cexpedition liqueur\u201d or \u201ctirage liqueur\u201d; or\n(b)\nany quantity of product as referred to in Annex XIb (3) points (e) and (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nThe remaining 15 % of the grapes shall originate in the geographical demarcated area of the designation of origin or geographical indication concerned.\u2019;\n8.\nAnnex XII is replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this Regulation;\n9.\nAnnex XV is replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Regulation;\n10.\nIn Annex XVII, paragraph (b) of Point 4, the first and the second indents are replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nTokaj,\n-\nVinohradn\u00edcka oblas\u0165 Tokaj\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 August 2009.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2010.", "references": ["77", "7", "84", "51", "72", "11", "61", "90", "19", "18", "73", "2", "38", "96", "28", "30", "26", "52", "16", "59", "56", "68", "54", "6", "55", "79", "8", "20", "13", "88", "No Label", "23", "24", "25", "62", "66", "71", "74"], "gold": ["23", "24", "25", "62", "66", "71", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1388/2011\nof 16 December 2011\nfixing for the 2012 fishing year the guide prices and Union producer prices for certain fishery products pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 104/2000\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 43(3) of the Treaty provides that the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, is to adopt measures on the fixing of prices.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1) requires that guide prices and Union producer prices for each fishing year be fixed in order to determine price levels for intervention on the market for certain fisheries products.\n(3)\nIt is incumbent upon the Council to fix the guide prices for each of the products and groups of products listed in Annexes I and II to Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, and the Union producer prices for the products listed in Annex III to that Regulation.\n(4)\nOn the basis of the data currently available on the prices for the products concerned and the criteria laid down in Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, the guide prices should be increased, maintained or reduced for the 2012 fishing year depending on the species.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to establish the Union producer price for one of the products listed in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 and to calculate the Union producer prices for the others by means of the conversion factors established by Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2006 of 30 May 2006 fixing the conversion factors applicable to fish of the genera Thunnus and Euthynnus (2).\n(6)\nOn the basis of the criteria laid down in the first and second indents of Article 18(2) and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 26(1) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, the Union producer price for the 2012 fishing year should be fixed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the fishing year from 1 January to 31 December 2012, the guide prices as provided for in Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 shall be as set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nFor the fishing year from 1 January to 31 December 2012, the Union producer prices as provided for in Article 26(1) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 shall be as set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["71", "93", "26", "81", "75", "87", "99", "96", "11", "13", "42", "22", "38", "37", "1", "88", "59", "45", "17", "32", "55", "52", "98", "47", "8", "69", "66", "65", "90", "40", "No Label", "35", "67"], "gold": ["35", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 823/2010\nof 17 September 2010\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 452/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the production and development of statistics on education and lifelong learning, as regards statistics on the participation of adults in lifelong learning\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 452/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 concerning the production and development of statistics on education and lifelong learning (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 452/2008 establishes a common framework for the systematic production of European statistics in the field of education and lifelong learning.\n(2)\nAccording to Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 452/2008, the Commission should adopt certain implementing measures in view of ensuring the transmission of high quality data.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to adopt measures for the implementation of individual statistical actions for the production of statistics on the participation of adults in lifelong learning as covered by Domain 2 of Regulation (EC) No 452/2008.\n(4)\nIn the production and dissemination of European statistics in the field of education and lifelong learning, the national and European statistical authorities should take account of the principles set out in the European Statistics Code of Practice endorsed by the Commission in its Recommendation of 25 May 2005 on the independence, integrity and accountability of the national and Community statistical authorities (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe data collection for the first survey on the participation and non-participation of adults in lifelong learning (Adult Education Survey) shall take place between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2012. The reference period for which the data on participation in lifelong learning activities are collected shall be the 12 months prior to the data collection period.\nData shall be collected every five years.\nArticle 2\nThe population age range covered by the survey shall be 25-64. The age groups 18-24 and 65-69 shall be covered on an optional basis.\nArticle 3\nThe variables concerning the subjects covered by the survey as specified under Domain 2 of Regulation (EC) No 452/2008 and their breakdowns shall be as set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nThe data sources and sample size concerning Domain 2 are specified in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 452/2008. Sampling and precision requirements needed to meet these requirements are detailed in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 5\nMember States shall transmit to the Commission (Eurostat) a quality report on the survey on the participation and non-participation of adults in lifelong learning according to the quality criteria referred to in Article 4(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 452/2008 and the further requirements specified in Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 6\nWith a view to achieving a high level of harmonisation of the survey results across countries, the Commission (Eurostat), in close cooperation with Member States, shall propose methodological and practical recommendations and guidelines for the implementation of the survey in the form of an \u2018Adult Education Survey Manual\u2019 including a standard questionnaire.\nArticle 7\nMember States shall transmit to the Commission (Eurostat) clean micro-data files within 6 months after the end of the national data collection period.\nMember States shall transmit the quality report to the Commission (Eurostat) within 3 months after the delivery of the micro-data files.\nArticle 8\nThe requirements as specified in this Regulation are minimum requirements. Member States can specify further requirements at national level given that the quality requirements following this Regulation are not compromised.\nArticle 9\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 September 2010.", "references": ["31", "34", "35", "4", "39", "48", "75", "94", "97", "3", "28", "61", "80", "17", "11", "44", "20", "74", "5", "13", "41", "65", "86", "15", "6", "7", "95", "69", "21", "55", "No Label", "2", "19", "42", "49"], "gold": ["2", "19", "42", "49"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 852/2010\nof 27 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["57", "95", "29", "43", "92", "81", "25", "87", "33", "90", "71", "91", "67", "62", "41", "52", "34", "23", "3", "74", "60", "98", "63", "5", "76", "22", "78", "70", "13", "28", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 3 August 2010\nestablishing guidelines concerning the conditions of inspections and control measures, and on the training and qualification of officials, in the field of human tissues and cells provided for in Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 5278)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/453/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (1), and in particular Article 7(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2004/23/EC lays down standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells intended for human applications and of manufactured products derived from human tissues and cells intended for human applications only as far as donation, procurement and testing are concerned, so as to ensure a high level of human health protection.\n(2)\nIn order to prevent the transmission of diseases by human tissues and cells for human applications and to ensure an equivalent level of quality and safety, Article 7 of Directive 2004/23/EC provides that competent authorities of the Member States shall organise inspections and shall carry out appropriate control measures in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of this Directive.\n(3)\nArticle 7(5) of Directive 2004/23/EC provides that the Commission shall establish guidelines concerning the conditions of the inspections and control measures, and on the training and qualification of the officials involved in order to reach a consistent level of competence and performance. The guidelines are not legally binding but serve to provide useful guidance to the Member States in the implementation of Article 7 of Directive 2004/23/EC.\n(4)\nThe Commission should review and update the guidelines set out in the Annex to this Decision on the basis of the reports transmitted by the Member States to the Commission in accordance with Article 26(1) of Directive 2004/23/EC.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 29 of Directive 2004/23/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe guidelines concerning the conditions of the inspections and control measures, and on the training and qualification of officials, in the field of human tissues and cells provided for in Article 7(5) of Directive 2004/23/EC are set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 August 2010.", "references": ["45", "15", "25", "49", "98", "89", "36", "97", "55", "19", "71", "83", "86", "93", "61", "16", "78", "91", "56", "53", "67", "14", "33", "37", "84", "51", "35", "4", "44", "62", "No Label", "38", "43", "50", "76"], "gold": ["38", "43", "50", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/376/CFSP\nof 27 June 2011\nimplementing Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d'Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d'Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof, in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Treaty on European Union,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\n(2)\nIn view of the developments in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2011.", "references": ["35", "42", "82", "54", "79", "2", "24", "46", "48", "86", "84", "39", "91", "41", "19", "45", "28", "97", "66", "29", "18", "8", "99", "22", "98", "34", "30", "21", "17", "25", "No Label", "3", "11", "23", "94"], "gold": ["3", "11", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 372/2010\nof 30 April 2010\namending for the 126th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 22 April 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add two natural persons to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply and to remove one natural person from the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 April 2010.", "references": ["50", "14", "47", "53", "22", "56", "29", "74", "41", "33", "71", "32", "78", "73", "92", "89", "16", "81", "46", "66", "4", "75", "21", "58", "77", "28", "2", "70", "12", "15", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "11", "23", "30", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "11", "23", "30", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 456/2010\nof 26 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 May 2010.", "references": ["93", "32", "44", "21", "45", "22", "48", "53", "94", "97", "4", "0", "80", "72", "51", "10", "71", "3", "64", "12", "83", "65", "19", "43", "40", "17", "89", "79", "47", "34", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 17 June 2011\non extension of the joint-undertaking status of Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG)\n(2011/362/Euratom)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 49 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision 74/295/Euratom (1), the Council established Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG) as a joint undertaking for a period of 25 years as from 1 January 1974.\n(2)\nThe objectives of HKG were to construct, equip and operate a nuclear power station with a capacity of approximately 300 MWe at Uentrop (Unna district) in the Federal Republic of Germany.\n(3)\nAfter being in operation from 1987 to 1988, the nuclear power station was finally shut down on 1 September 1989 as a result of technical and economic difficulties.\n(4)\nSince 1 September 1989 the objective of HKG has been to implement a programme for decommissioning the nuclear power station up to the safe enclosure stage and, thereafter, to carry out a programme of surveillance of the enclosed nuclear installations.\n(5)\nIn its Decision 92/547/Euratom of 16 November 1992 extending the status of Kernkraftwerk Lingen GmbH as a joint undertaking (2), the Council recognised that there was no equivalent to these programmes in the Community, that implementation thereof was important and that they provided useful experience for the nuclear industry and the future development of nuclear energy in the Community.\n(6)\nIn order to achieve its objective, HKG requested the extension of its joint-undertaking status with effect from 1 January 1999.\n(7)\nBy Decision 2002/355/Euratom (3), the Council extended the status of HKG as a joint undertaking until 31 December 2009 to enable HKG to complete its decommissioning and surveillance programmes, in particular by lightening the financial burden.\n(8)\nThe extension period corresponded to the duration of arrangements concluded between the German Federal Republic, the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, HKG and its members for financing HKG\u2019s activities.\n(9)\nBy letter, dated 26 April 2010, HKG asked for the further extension of the joint-undertaking status for another 25 years in order to achieve its objectives.\n(10)\nExtension of its joint-undertaking status should enable HKG to complete its decommissioning and surveillance programmes, in particular by lightening the financial burden.\n(11)\nThe arrangements concluded between the German Federal Republic, the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, HKG and its members for financing HKG\u2019s activities apply only for a period up to 31 December 2017.\n(12)\nHKG\u2019s joint-undertaking status should therefore be extended for the same period,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The joint-undertaking status, within the meaning of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, granted to Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG) is hereby extended for eight years with effect from 1 January 2010.\n2. The objective of HKG shall be to implement a programme for decommissioning the nuclear power station located at Uentrop (Unna district) in the Federal Republic of Germany, up to the safe enclosure stage and, thereafter, to carry out a programme of surveillance of the enclosed nuclear installations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States and to HKG.\nDone at Luxembourg, 17 June 2011.", "references": ["17", "34", "8", "16", "68", "6", "3", "51", "85", "86", "66", "69", "93", "98", "75", "50", "28", "90", "59", "39", "14", "11", "15", "80", "67", "70", "44", "33", "0", "5", "No Label", "45", "78", "81", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["45", "78", "81", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 514/2011\nof 25 May 2011\nlaying down the detailed rules for implementing the preferential trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products, as provided for in Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1460/96 (2) establishes the detailed rules for implementing the preferential trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products, as provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009. In view of developments in preferential trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products, it is necessary to replace that Regulation.\n(2)\nCertain preferential agreements concluded by the Union with third countries provide for the application of agricultural components or additional duties which are lower than the agricultural components or additional duties fixed by the Common Customs Tariff. It is therefore necessary to lay down detailed rules for implementing the reductions granted.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to lay down a list of the basic products for which reduced agricultural components may be established pursuant to preferential agreements with third countries.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 the reductions granted should be established either by reducing the basic amounts used to calculate the agricultural components or by reducing the agricultural components applicable to certain specific goods.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009, where necessary to determine the reduced agricultural components applicable in preferential trade, the characteristics of the basic products and the quantities of the basic products considered to have been used should be laid down.\n(6)\nIt is appropriate to lay down rules for calculating reductions in the additional duties applicable in respect of the cereal and sugar content of certain goods where in the framework of preferential agreements provision is made for the reduction of such additional duties.\n(7)\nEligibility for the reduced rates of duty is generally granted within the limits of tariff quotas as provided for by the relevant preferential agreement. To ensure the efficient management of those tariff quotas, they should be managed in accordance with the rules on the management of tariff quotas laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(8)\nIn the interest of clarity and transparency the list of goods covered by reduced agricultural components or reduced additional duties, whether or not within a tariff quota, should be provided for in the relevant preferential agreement.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 it should be permitted to replace the part of the ad valorem duties corresponding to the agricultural component by a specific amount where provided for by a preferential agreement. However this amount should not exceed the charge applicable in respect of non-preferential trade.\n(10)\nSince eligibility for reduced rates of duty is conditional on the goods originating in the countries with which a preferential agreement has been concluded, it is necessary to specify the rules of origin to be applied.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for horizontal questions concerning trade in processed agricultural products not listed in Annex I to the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation lays down the rules for determining the reduced agricultural components referred to in Article 7(2), and the related additional duties referred to in Article 5(2), of Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009, and for managing quotas opened pursuant to preferential agreements applicable to goods and products covered by Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009.\nArticle 2\nFor the purpose of establishing reduced agricultural components in the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009, the following basic products shall be considered:\n-\nCN code ex 1001 90 99 common wheat,\n-\nCN code 1001 10 00 durum wheat,\n-\nCN code 1002 00 00 rye,\n-\nCN code 1003 00 90 barley,\n-\nCN code 1005 90 00 maize, other than maize for sowing,\n-\nCN codes 1006 20 96 and 1006 20 98 long grain husked rice, hereinafter referred to as \u2018rice\u2019,\n-\nCN code 1701 99 10 white sugar,\n-\nCN codes 1703 10 00 and 1703 90 00 molasses,\n-\nCN code ex 0402 10 19 milk powder with a fat content by weight not exceeding 1,5 %, with no sugar or other sweetener added and in immediate packing with a net content greater than 2,5 kg, hereinafter referred to as \u2018PG 2\u2019,\n-\nCN code ex 0402 21 19 milk powder with a milkfat content by weight of 26 %, with no sugar or other sweetener added and in immediate packing with a net content greater than 2,5 kg, hereinafter referred to as \u2018PG 3\u2019,\n-\nN code ex 0405 10 butter, with a fat content by weight of 82 %, hereinafter referred to as \u2018PG 6\u2019.\nArticle 3\n1. The reduced agricultural components applicable in the framework of preferential trade shall be calculated on the basis of the quantities of basic products considered to have been used in the manufacture of the goods covered by this Regulation.\n2. The quantities of basic products referred to in paragraph 1 shall be those set out in Annex I for the goods listed therein by Combined Nomenclature (CN) codes.\n3. For the goods listed by CN codes for which Annex I refers to Annex II, the quantities referred to in paragraph 1 shall be as set out in Annex II.\n4. For the goods referred to in paragraph 3, additional codes shall apply, according to the composition of the goods, as set out in Annex III.\n5. Where provided for in a preferential agreement, by derogation from paragraphs 1 to 4, the reduced agricultural components, and, where appropriate, the reduced additional duties, applicable to each good eligible for a reduction of duty, shall be obtained by applying a reduction coefficient to the agricultural components and the related additional duties fixed in the Common Customs Tariff.\nArticle 4\n1. For goods listed in Annex II, the quantities of sugar and cereals to be taken into consideration in calculating the reduced additional duties on sugar (AD S/Z) and on flour (AD F/M) shall be as set out in points B and C of Annex II, for the given contents of sucrose, invert sugar and/or isoglucose, and of starch and/or glucose, respectively.\n2. For goods not listed in Annex II, the additional duties referred to in paragraph 1 shall be obtained by taking in consideration only the quantities of basic products falling within either the cereals sector or the sugar sector as set out in Parts I and III respectively of Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234 /2007 (4).\nArticle 5\n1. In accordance with Article 3(1) the reduced agricultural components, and, where appropriate, the reduced additional duties, applicable to each good eligible for such a reduction in duty, shall be obtained by multiplying the quantities of the relevant basic products used by the basic amount referred to in paragraph 2 and by adding these amounts for all the relevant basic products used in the manufacture of the good.\n2. The basic amount to be taken into account for calculating the reduced agricultural components and, where appropriate, the reduced additional duties, shall be the amount fixed in euro provided for by the relevant preferential agreement or determined pursuant to that agreement.\n3. Where a preferential agreement provides for a reduction in the rates of the agricultural components per good instead of a reduction in the basic amounts, the reduced agricultural components shall be calculated by applying the reduction provided for in the agreement to the agricultural components fixed by the Common Customs Tariff.\n4. In cases where the reduced agricultural component and, where appropriate, the reduced additional duties, determined pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, would be less than EUR 2,4/100 kg, the component or duty shall be fixed at zero.\nArticle 6\n1. The amounts of the reduced agricultural components and, where appropriate, the reduced additional duties, established pursuant to Article 5 will be published by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. Save as otherwise provided in the agreement with the relevant third country, the amounts published in accordance with paragraph 1 shall apply from 1 July to 30 June of the year following the publication.\nHowever, where both the reduced agricultural components and the reduced additional duties applicable to the basic products remain unchanged, the agricultural components and additional duties established pursuant to Article 5 shall continue to apply until such time as replacement agricultural components and additional duties are published.\nArticle 7\nThe preferential agreement shall lay down or permit the determination of the following:\n(a)\nthe goods eligible for a reduced agricultural component;\n(b)\nthe goods eligible for a reduced additional duty;\n(c)\nthe reduction or reductions granted;\n(d)\nthe tariff quota applicable, where reductions are granted within such a quota.\nArticle 8\nWhere, in the case of processed agricultural products listed in Table 2 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009, a preferential agreement provides for the application of an agricultural component in the form of a specific amount, whether or not subject to a reduction under a tariff quota, and where the Common Customs Tariff provides for the application of an ad valorem duty for non-preferential imports of such goods, the amount payable shall not exceed the latter rate.\nArticle 9\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, \u2018originating goods\u2019 means goods that meet the conditions for obtaining the status of originating goods established by the preferential agreement concerned.\nArticle 10\n1. The agricultural components of the Common Customs Tariff shall apply in the following cases:\n(a)\nthe agricultural components relate to goods covered by Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 which are not covered by the preferential arrangements relating to trade in such goods with the country concerned;\n(b)\nthe agricultural components apply to goods which exceed the tariff quota.\n2. Where the tariff quota concerns a reduction in ad valorem duties corresponding to the agricultural component thereof in the form referred to in Article 8, the duties applicable for quantities exceeding the tariff quotas shall be those of the Common Customs Tariff or those otherwise provided for in the agreement.\nArticle 11\nThe tariff quotas covered by this Regulation shall be managed in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\nArticle 12\nRegulation (EC) No 1460/1996 is repealed.\nArticle 13\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2011.", "references": ["45", "10", "55", "88", "75", "84", "60", "6", "27", "48", "30", "35", "32", "56", "24", "87", "74", "28", "72", "98", "57", "1", "79", "71", "38", "89", "66", "58", "63", "64", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "73"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 April 2010\non the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovakia concerning expenditure in the field of rural development measures financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2009 financial year\n(notified under document C(2010) 2825)\n(Only the Estonian, English, Greek, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish and Slovak texts are authentic)\n(2010/257/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 39 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn the basis of the annual accounts submitted by Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovakia concerning expenditure in the field of rural development measures, accompanied by the information required, the accounts of the paying agencies referred to in Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 are to be cleared. The clearance covers the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the accounts transmitted in the light of the reports established by the certification bodies.\n(2)\nThe time limits granted to Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovakia referred to in Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (2) for the submission to the Commission of the documents referred to in Article 8(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and in Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (3), have expired.\n(3)\nThe Commission has checked the information submitted and communicated to Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovakia before 31 March 2010 the results of its verifications, along with the necessary amendments.\n(4)\nFor the rural development expenditure covered by Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 27/2004 of 5 January 2004 laying down transitional detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 as regards the financing by the EAGGF Guarantee Section of rural development measures in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (4) the outcome of the clearance of accounts decision is to be deducted from or added to subsequent payments made by the Commission.\n(5)\nIn the light of the verifications made, the annual accounts and the accompanying documents permit the Commission to take, for certain paying agencies, a decision on the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted. The details of these amounts were described in the Summary Report that was presented to the Fund Committee at the same time as this Decision.\n(6)\nIn the light of the verifications made, the information submitted by certain paying agencies requires additional inquiries and their accounts cannot be therefore cleared in this Decision.\n(7)\nFor the rural development expenditure covered by Regulation (EC) No 27/2004, the amounts recoverable or payable under the clearance of accounts decision are to be deducted from or added to subsequent payments.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from European Union financing expenditure not effected in accordance with European Union rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nWithout prejudice to Article 2, the accounts of the paying agencies of the Member States concerning expenditure in the field of rural development financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) in respect of the 2009 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State pursuant to this Decision in the field of rural development measures applicable in Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovakia are set out in Annex I and Annex II.\nArticle 2\nFor the 2009 financial year, the accounts of the Member States\u2019 paying agencies in the field of rural development measures applicable in Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovakia, set out in Annex III, are disjoined from this Decision and shall be the subject of a future clearance Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland and the Slovak Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 30 April 2010.", "references": ["40", "29", "2", "60", "75", "57", "4", "86", "31", "68", "56", "35", "65", "89", "12", "36", "15", "26", "20", "23", "19", "78", "1", "11", "6", "5", "39", "24", "94", "22", "No Label", "10", "17", "47", "61", "96"], "gold": ["10", "17", "47", "61", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 February 2012\nas regards the renewal of the authorisation for continued marketing of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean 40-3-2 (MON-\u00d84\u00d832-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2012) 700)\n(Only the Dutch and the French texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/82/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 7(3), 11(3), 19(3) and 23(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Decision 96/281/EC of 3 April 1996 concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified soya beans (Glycine max L.) with increased tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, pursuant to Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) the United Kingdom gave its consent for placing on the market genetically modified soybean 40-3-2.\n(2)\nFood produced from genetically modified soybean 40-3-2, including food additives, feed materials and feed additives produced from genetically modified soybean 40-3-2 were placed on the market before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(3)\nArticles 8(1) and 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 allow the products which have been lawfully placed on the market before the date of application of that Regulation to continue to be placed on the market, provided that a notification is made to the Commission.\n(4)\nArticles 8(4) and 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 require the operators responsible for placing on the market those products to submit an application for renewal of authorisation within certain time limits.\n(5)\nOn 16 April 2007, Monsanto Europe SA submitted to the Commission an application, in accordance with Articles 11 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 for renewal of the authorisation for continued marketing of existing food additives, feed materials and feed additives produced from 40-3-2 soybean which were previously notified according to Articles 8(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of that Regulation.\n(6)\nOn 18 April 2007, Monsanto Europe SA submitted to the Commission an application, in accordance with Articles 11 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for renewal of the authorisation of food containing, consisting of, or produced from 40-3-2 soybean, feed containing or consisting of 40-3-2 soybean and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of 40-3-2 soybean with the exception of cultivation which were previously notified according to Articles 8(1)(a) and 20(1)(a) of that Regulation.\n(7)\nOn 1 December 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave two favourable opinions in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and concluded that the new information provided in the applications and the review of the literature published since the previous scientific assessment of 40-3-2 soybean (3) do not require changes of the previous scientific opinions on 40-3-2 soybean and reiterated the previous conclusions that 40-3-2 soybean is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment. Therefore, it concluded that it is unlikely that the placing on the market of the products containing, consisting of, or produced from 40-3-2 soybean as described in the applications (\u2018the products\u2019) will have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment in the context of its proposed uses (4).\n(8)\nIn its opinions, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Articles 6(4) and 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(9)\nIn its opinions, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.\n(10)\nTaking into account those considerations, renewal of the authorisation should be granted for the products.\n(11)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (5).\n(12)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinions, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from 40-3-2 soybean. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which renewal of the authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(13)\nRegulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (6), lays down in Article 4(6) labelling requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs. Traceability requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs are laid down in paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article 4 and for food and feed produced from GMOs are laid down in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(14)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7). The EFSA opinions do not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in point (e) of Article 6(5) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(15)\nAll relevant information on the renewal of the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(16)\nIn the interest of clarity and consistency, Decision 96/281/EC should be repealed and replaced by this Decision.\n(17)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and point (c) of Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (8).\n(18)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(19)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman. An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation. The appeal committee did not deliver an opinion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified soybean 40-3-2, as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier MON-\u00d84\u00d832-6, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Articles 4(2) and 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-\u00d84\u00d832-6 soybean;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-\u00d84\u00d832-6 soybean;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of MON-\u00d84\u00d832-6 soybean for the same uses as any other soybean with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018soybean\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of MON-\u00d84\u00d832-6 soybean referred to in Article 2(b) and (c).\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements set in Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nCommunity register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Monsanto Europe SA, Belgium, representing Monsanto Company, United States.\nArticle 7\nRepeal\nDecision 96/281/EC shall be repealed from 13 February 2012.\nArticle 8\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 9\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Monsanto Europe SA, Avenue de Tervuren/Tervurenlaan 270-272, 1150 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["37", "4", "43", "27", "6", "97", "21", "14", "99", "90", "39", "70", "41", "67", "55", "36", "81", "46", "10", "83", "28", "12", "50", "56", "49", "23", "30", "5", "80", "2", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 345/2012\nof 19 April 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 324/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["33", "32", "53", "78", "26", "80", "38", "86", "15", "60", "4", "24", "51", "70", "75", "2", "68", "99", "17", "90", "96", "66", "46", "74", "12", "34", "65", "87", "83", "59", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 June 2010\non mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management\n(2010/338/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nSpain submitted an application on 9 October 2009 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in 36 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 division 16 (\u2018Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture; manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting materials\u2019) sector in a single NUTS II region, Castilla-La Mancha (ES42) and supplemented it by additional information until 22 February 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 950 000.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Spain,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 950 000 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 June 2010.", "references": ["64", "74", "55", "53", "65", "32", "50", "78", "48", "73", "47", "45", "8", "33", "44", "28", "71", "58", "99", "17", "70", "19", "31", "63", "3", "60", "43", "62", "13", "26", "No Label", "15", "49", "88", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "49", "88", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/237/CFSP\nof 3 May 2012\nconcerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn view of the seriousness of the current situation in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, the Council considers it necessary to adopt measures targeting those who seek to prevent or block a peaceful political process or who take action that undermines stability in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, in particular those who played a leading role in the mutiny of 1 April 2010 and the coup d\u2019\u00e9tat of 12 April 2012 and who aim, through their actions, at undermining the rule of law, curtailing the primacy of civilian power and furthering impunity and instability in the country.\n(2)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of persons engaging in or providing support for acts that threaten the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau and persons associated with them, as listed in the Annex.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation of international law, namely:\n(a)\nas a host country of an international intergovernmental organisation;\n(b)\nas a host country to an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the United Nations;\n(c)\nunder a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities; or\n(d)\nunder the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran pact) concluded by the Holy See (State of the Vatican City) and Italy.\n4. Paragraph 3 shall be considered as applying also in cases where a Member State is host country of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).\n5. The Council shall be duly informed in all cases where a Member State grants an exemption pursuant to paragraphs 3 or 4.\n6. Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed under paragraph 1 where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the Union, or hosted by a Member State holding the Chairmanship in office of the OSCE, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau.\n7. A Member State wishing to grant exemptions referred to in paragraph 6 shall notify the Council in writing. The exemption shall be deemed to be granted unless one or more of the Council members raises an objection in writing within two working days of receipt of the notification of the proposed exemption. Should one or more Council members raise an objection, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to grant the proposed exemption.\n8. In cases where, pursuant to paragraphs 3, 4, 6 and 7, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in the Annex, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\nArticle 2\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by natural or legal persons, entities or bodies engaging in or providing support for acts that threaten the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in the Annex, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in the Annex.\n3. The competent authority of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources concerned are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of the persons listed in the Annex and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources;\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the competent authority has notified the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted to the other competent authorities and the Commission at least two weeks prior to the authorisation.\nMember States shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this paragraph.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources in question are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 1 was included in the Annex or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a natural or legal person, entity or body listed in the Annex;\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgement is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\nMember States shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this paragraph.\n5. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to the provisions of this Decision,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to paragraph 1.\nArticle 3\n1. The Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall adopt amendments to the list contained in the Annex as required.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for the listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the natural or legal person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\nArticle 4\nIn order to maximise the impact of the measures set out in this Decision, the Union shall encourage third States to adopt restrictive measures similar to those contained in this Decision.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Decision shall apply until 5 May 2013. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\nDone at Brussels, 3 May 2012.", "references": ["98", "82", "36", "77", "81", "84", "97", "33", "57", "30", "0", "91", "42", "92", "27", "14", "71", "47", "68", "38", "23", "80", "86", "39", "32", "44", "35", "34", "78", "45", "No Label", "3", "12", "94"], "gold": ["3", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 515/2012\nof 18 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2012.", "references": ["30", "78", "8", "23", "31", "11", "99", "58", "43", "69", "34", "14", "89", "41", "65", "12", "42", "3", "17", "88", "90", "53", "21", "92", "38", "62", "73", "82", "86", "45", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/585/CFSP\nof 27 September 2010\non support for IAEA activities in the areas of nuclear security and verification and in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 26(2) and Article 31(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 December 2003, the European Council adopted the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (\u2018the Strategy\u2019), Chapter III of which contains a list of measures to combat such proliferation and which need to be taken both within the Union and in third countries.\n(2)\nThe Union is actively implementing the Strategy and is giving effect to the measures listed in Chapter III thereof, in particular through releasing financial resources to support specific projects conducted by multilateral institutions, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).\n(3)\nOn 17 November 2003, the Council adopted Common Position 2003/805/CFSP on the universalisation and reinforcement of multilateral agreements in the field of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery (1). That Common Position calls, inter alia, for the promotion of the conclusion of IAEA comprehensive safeguards agreements and Additional Protocols and commits the Union to work towards making the Additional Protocol and comprehensive safeguards agreements the standard for the IAEA verification system.\n(4)\nOn 17 May 2004, the Council adopted Joint Action 2004/495/CFSP on support for IAEA activities under its Nuclear Security Programme and in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (2).\n(5)\nOn 18 July 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/574/CFSP on support for IAEA activities in the areas of nuclear security and verification and in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (3).\n(6)\nOn 12 June 2006, the Council adopted Joint Action 2006/418/CFSP on support for IAEA activities in the areas of nuclear security and verification and in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (4).\n(7)\nOn 14 April 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/314/CFSP on support for IAEA activities in the areas of nuclear security and verification and in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (5).\n(8)\nThe strengthening of the control of high-activity radioactive sources in accordance with the G-8 statement and Action Plan on securing radioactive sources, adopted at the 2003 Evian Summit, remains an important objective for the Union, which will be pursued through outreach to third countries.\n(9)\nIn July 2005, the States Parties and the European Atomic Energy Community agreed by consensus to amend the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) with a view to expanding its scope to encompass nuclear material and facilities in peaceful domestic use and storage, as well as in transport, and to oblige States Parties to make violations subject to criminal sanctions.\n(10)\nIn September 2005, the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism was opened for signature. Upon its entry into force, it will require States Parties to enact legislation to criminalise these offences.\n(11)\nThe IAEA pursues the same objectives as set out in Recitals (3) to (10). This is done through the implementation of its Nuclear Security Plan, which is financed entirely through voluntary contributions to the IAEA Nuclear Security Fund.\n(12)\nOn 12-13 April 2010, the Union participated in the Nuclear Security Summit, convened by the President of the United States of America, and committed to further enhancing its efforts aimed at strengthening nuclear security and to assist third countries in this regard.\n(13)\nIn order to help address the specific challenges in the field of nuclear security and non-proliferation in Asian countries, due in particular to the growing number of nuclear applications in the region, inter alia in the field of medicine, agriculture and water, as well as nuclear research, this Decision should specifically support IAEA activities in South East Asia. This should take into account the increasing role of Asia as a partner to the Union in the field of security. Particular emphasis should be given to the strengthening of nuclear safety and security in non-energy nuclear applications in eligible countries,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. For the purposes of giving immediate and practical implementation to certain elements of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (\u2018the Strategy\u2019), the Union shall support the IAEA\u2019s activities in the areas of nuclear security and verification in order to further the following objectives:\n(a)\nto achieve progress towards the universalisation of international non-proliferation and nuclear security instruments, including comprehensive safeguards agreements and the Additional Protocol;\n(b)\nto enhance the protection of proliferation-sensitive materials and equipment and the relevant technology, providing legislative and regulatory assistance in the area of nuclear security and safeguards;\n(c)\nto strengthen the detection of and response to illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials.\n2. The projects of the IAEA, corresponding to measures of the Strategy, are the projects which aim at:\n(a)\nstrengthening national legislative and regulatory infrastructures for the implementation of relevant international instruments in the areas of nuclear security and verification, including comprehensive safeguards agreements and the Additional Protocol;\n(b)\nassisting States in strengthening the security and control of nuclear and other radio-active materials;\n(c)\nstrengthening States\u2019 capabilities for the detection of and response to illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials.\nThose projects shall be carried out in countries needing assistance in those areas after an initial assessment carried out by an expert team.\nA detailed description of the projects is set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (the \u2018HR\u2019) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.\n2. The projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be carried out by the IAEA as implementing entity. It shall perform this task under the control of the HR. For this purpose, the HR shall enter into the necessary arrangements with the IAEA.\nArticle 3\n1. The financial reference amount for the implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be EUR 9 966 000, to be funded from the general budget of the Union.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 1, which shall take the form of a grant. For this purpose, it shall conclude a financing agreement with the IAEA. The financing agreement shall stipulate that the IAEA is to ensure visibility of the Union\u2019s contribution, appropriate to its size.\n4. The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the financing agreement.\nArticle 4\nThe HR shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular reports prepared by the IAEA. These reports shall form the basis for the evaluation by the Council. The Commission shall provide information on the financial aspects of the implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall expire 24 months after the date of the conclusion of the financing agreement between the Commission and the IAEA or 12 months after the date of its adoption if no financing agreement has been concluded before that date.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["93", "17", "44", "91", "37", "24", "53", "34", "98", "26", "42", "64", "13", "50", "85", "67", "32", "88", "0", "54", "63", "56", "97", "87", "82", "33", "72", "92", "23", "18", "No Label", "5", "6", "9", "10", "81"], "gold": ["5", "6", "9", "10", "81"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 612/2011\nof 23 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 June 2011.", "references": ["42", "3", "19", "96", "21", "5", "27", "24", "94", "47", "9", "41", "28", "38", "65", "43", "97", "53", "23", "54", "17", "30", "75", "81", "15", "83", "33", "6", "86", "14", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 7 December 2010\namending Annexes I and II to Decision 2010/221/EU as regards approved national measures by Hungary and the United Kingdom for spring viraemia of carp\n(notified under document C(2010) 8617)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/761/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (1), and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2010/221/EU of 15 April 2010 approving national measures for limiting the impact of certain diseases in aquaculture animals and wild aquatic animals in accordance with Article 43 of Council Directive 2006/88/EC (2) allows certain Member States to apply placing on the market and import restrictions on consignments of those animals in order to prevent the introduction of certain diseases, including spring viraemia of carp (SVC), provided that the Member States have either demonstrated that they, or certain demarcated areas, are free of the disease in question (\u2018disease-free areas\u2019) or that they have established an eradication programme to obtain such freedom.\n(2)\nAnnex I to Decision 2010/221/EU lists the disease-free areas and Annex II thereto lists the areas with approved eradication programmes.\n(3)\nAnnex II to Decision 2010/221/EU currently lists Great Britain as an area of the United Kingdom with approved eradication programme for SVC. That Member State has now submitted information demonstrating that its eradication programme has been successfully completed and that Great Britain should be regarded as free of SVC and listed in Annex I, instead of in Annex II, to that Decision as regards that disease.\n(4)\nHungary has submitted to the Commission applications for the approval of national measures as regards SVC. Hungary has also conducted targeted surveillance of SVC for the last two years which has demonstrated that its entire territory is free of SVC. Hungary should therefore be listed in Annex I to Decision 2010/221/EU as free of SVC.\n(5)\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2010/221/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2010/221/EU are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2010.", "references": ["42", "45", "9", "91", "74", "15", "33", "40", "2", "27", "23", "53", "85", "56", "30", "31", "29", "83", "79", "20", "37", "63", "55", "70", "44", "90", "7", "87", "17", "12", "No Label", "22", "25", "38", "66", "67"], "gold": ["22", "25", "38", "66", "67"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 20 October 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States\n(2011/709/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy its Decision of 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with an agreement at Union level.\n(2)\nOn behalf of the Union, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement on certain aspects of air services with the United Mexican States (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision of 5 June 2003.\n(3)\nThe Agreement was signed on behalf of the Union on 15 December 2010, subject to its conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2011/94/EU (1).\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States (the Agreement) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to make the notification provided for in Article 7(1) of the Agreement.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["0", "15", "70", "30", "37", "12", "92", "36", "45", "75", "28", "86", "5", "61", "59", "84", "34", "81", "38", "49", "19", "20", "67", "78", "87", "77", "99", "2", "79", "35", "No Label", "3", "9", "57", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "57", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 May 2011\nconcerning the allocation of funds decommitted from projects under the ninth and previous European Development Funds for development cooperation in Southern Sudan\n(2011/315/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the Financing of Community Aid under the Multiannual Financial Framework for the period 2008 to 2013 in accordance with the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement and on the allocation of financial assistance for the Overseas Countries and Territories to which Part Four of the EC Treaty applies (1), and in particular Article 1(4) and Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSouthern Sudan is expected to formally declare its independence from the North on 9 July 2011, as a result of a self-determination referendum held in application of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement.\n(2)\nIn the post-independence phase, the newly created State of South Sudan (\u2018South Sudan\u2019) will have to cope with numerous humanitarian and socioeconomic challenges in a context of reduced governance capacity and political fragility. In these circumstances, external aid is likely to become all the more important to assist South Sudan in fighting extreme poverty, empowering local communities and delivering early peace dividends to the population.\n(3)\nSouth Sudan is expected to request accession, soon after its independence, to the Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (2), as last amended in Ouagadougou on 23 June 2010 (3). However, it will take time before the tenth European Development Fund (\u2018EDF\u2019) funding becomes effectively available following accession, thus entailing the risk of a financing gap during that period.\n(4)\nIn its Decision 2010/406/EU of 12 July 2010 concerning the allocation of the funds decommitted from projects under the ninth and previous European Development Funds (EDF) for the purpose of addressing the needs of the most vulnerable population in Sudan (4), the Council decided on a first allocation of EUR 150 million for the purpose of addressing the needs of the most vulnerable populations in Sudan. Of that amount, EUR 85 million has been earmarked already for Southern Sudan. Such an amount is however considered insufficient to cope with the immense needs of state- and capacity-building, as well as the development needs for the majority of the population.\n(5)\nIn order to bridge the remaining financing gap, it is appropriate to allocate for the benefit of the population and public institutions in Southern Sudan more funds decommitted from the ninth and previous EDFs.\n(6)\nThose decommitted funds should be used to support the implementation of the Three Year Southern Sudan Development Plan (2011 to 2013), on the basis of financing decisions to be adopted by the Commission. Provision should also be made to cover the cost of support measures.\n(7)\nFor the purpose of simplification, the funds should be managed in accordance with the implementation arrangements applicable for the tenth EDF,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. An amount of EUR 200 million of funds decommitted from projects under the ninth and previous European Development Funds (\u2018EDF\u2019) shall be allocated for development cooperation in Southern Sudan and 3 % of that amount shall be allocated for support expenditure by the Commission.\n2. The funds set out in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the implementation arrangements applicable for the tenth EDF.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["26", "78", "97", "54", "89", "34", "9", "76", "50", "33", "70", "61", "98", "0", "99", "27", "79", "87", "84", "60", "36", "65", "75", "85", "17", "72", "2", "15", "83", "91", "No Label", "4", "94"], "gold": ["4", "94"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1341/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 209(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, in the light of the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on 31 October 2011 (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union\u2019s development policy aims to reduce and ultimately eradicate poverty.\n(2)\nThe Union, as a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), is committed to mainstreaming trade in development strategies and to promoting international trade in order to advance development and reduce - and, in the long term, eradicate - poverty worldwide.\n(3)\nThe Union supports the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States on their path to poverty reduction and to sustainable economic and social development, and recognises the importance of their commodity sectors.\n(4)\nThe Union is committed to supporting the smooth and gradual integration of developing countries into the world economy with a view to sustainable development. The main ACP banana-exporting countries may face challenges in the context of changing trade arrangements, notably liberalisation of the most-favoured nation (MFN) tariff in the framework of the WTO and the bilateral and regional agreements concluded, or in the process of being concluded, between the Union and Latin American countries. Therefore, an ACP banana accompanying measures programme (the BAM programme) should be added to Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).\n(5)\nThe financial assistance measures to be adopted under the BAM programme should aim at improving the living standards and living conditions of people in banana-growing areas and in banana value chains, specifically small farmers and small entities, as well as ensuring compliance with labour and occupational health and safety standards, and environmental standards, notably those regarding the use of and exposure to pesticides. Those measures should therefore support adaptation and include, when relevant, the reorganisation, of areas dependent upon banana exports to the European Union through sector-specific budget support or project-specific interventions. The measures should take into consideration the expected development of the banana export sector and aim to provide for social resilience policies, economic diversification or investment to improve competitiveness, where this is viable, taking into account the results of and experiences gained through the Special System of Assistance (SSA) to traditional ACP suppliers of bananas established in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2686/94 (3) and the Special Framework of Assistance (SFA) for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas established in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 856/1999 (4) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 (5). The Union acknowledges the importance of promoting a more equitable distribution of banana revenues.\n(6)\nThe BAM programme should accompany the adaptation process in ACP countries which have exported significant volumes of bananas to the Union in recent years and which may be affected by liberalisation in the framework of the Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas (6) and by the bilateral and regional agreements concluded, or in the process of being concluded, between the Union and Latin American countries. The BAM programme builds on the SFA for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas. It is in conformity with the Union\u2019s international obligations in the framework of the WTO, focuses on restructuring and boosting competitiveness, and is consequently temporary in nature, with a duration of three years (2011 to 2013).\n(7)\nThe conclusions of the Commission Communication of 17 March 2010 entitled \u2018Biennial Report on the Special Framework of Assistance for Traditional ACP Suppliers of Bananas\u2019 indicate that past assistance programmes made substantial contributions to achieving improved capacity for successful economic diversification, although the full impact cannot be quantified, and that the sustainability of ACP banana exports remains fragile.\n(8)\nThe Commission has carried out an evaluation of the SFA programme and has not carried out an impact assessment of the banana accompanying measures.\n(9)\nThe Commission should ensure proper coordination of this programme with the regional and national indicative programmes operating in the beneficiary countries, in particular as regards the achievement of economic, agricultural, social and environmental objectives.\n(10)\nAlmost 2 % of the world\u2019s trade in bananas is endorsed by fair trade producers\u2019 organisations. The minimum fair trade prices are set on the basis of a calculation of the \u2018sustainable production costs\u2019, established following consultations with stakeholders, with a view to internalising the costs of meeting decent social and environmental standards and generating a reasonable profit, enabling producers to safeguard their livelihoods in the long term.\n(11)\nTo prevent the exploitation of local workers, actors in the production chain in the banana industry should agree to ensure that the revenue generated by the industry is allocated fairly.\n(12)\nRegulation (EC) No 1905/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1905/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nImplementation of Union assistance\nConsistent with the overall purpose and scope, objectives and general principles of this Regulation, Union assistance shall be implemented through the geographic and thematic programmes set out in Articles 5 to 16 and the programmes set out in Articles 17 and 17a.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 17a\nMain ACP banana-supplying countries\n1. The ACP banana-supplying countries listed in Annex IIIa shall benefit from the banana accompanying measures programme (BAM programme).\n(a)\nGeneral objectives:\nUnion assistance shall aim at:\n(i)\nsupporting the adjustment process following liberalisation of the Union market for bananas in the framework of the WTO;\n(ii)\ncombating poverty by improving the living standards and conditions of farmers and persons concerned.\n(b)\nGeneral priorities:\nUnion assistance shall take into account the countries' policies and adaptation strategies, as well as their regional environment (in terms of proximity to outermost regions of the Union and overseas countries and territories) and shall focus on one or more of the following areas of cooperation:\n(i)\naddressing broader impacts generated by the adaptation process, particularly in local communities and the most vulnerable groups therein, related but not restricted to employment and social services, land use and environmental restoration;\n(ii)\npromoting the economic diversification of banana-dependent areas, where such a strategy is viable;\n(iii)\nenhancing the competitiveness of the banana export sector, where this is sustainable, taking into account the situation of different stakeholders in the chain.\nProgrammes shall promote compliance with labour and safety standards, as well as environmental standards, including the use of and exposure to pesticides.\n(c)\nGeneral expected results:\nThe results of the assistance shall be in line with the objectives as set out in point (a) of this paragraph. In particular, and in cooperation with the beneficiary countries, Union assistance shall pursue results to be achieved in social, environmental and economic areas.\n2. Within the amount referred to in Annex IV, the Commission shall fix the maximum indicative amount available to each eligible ACP banana-supplying country referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article on the basis of the following criteria:\n(a)\nlevel of trade in bananas with the Union, whereby higher Union imports from the ACP country concerned will reflect positively on the allocation. This criterion is based on the size of the banana export sector to the Union in the different countries. The average of the three highest annual tonnages of bananas imported by the Union from each eligible beneficiary country over the last five years preceding 2010 will be taken into account;\n(b)\nimportance of banana exports to the Union in the economy, whereby higher levels of importance in the ACP country concerned will reflect positively on the allocation. This criterion will be measured by taking the value of Union banana imports from each eligible beneficiary country as a percentage of the country\u2019s gross national income (GNI) over the last three years preceding 2010 for which data are available;\n(c)\nlevel of development, whereby lower levels of development as recorded in the UN\u2019s human development index (HDI) in the ACP country concerned will reflect positively on the allocation. This criterion will be measured by the average HDI over the period 2005-2007, for which the same methodology was used by the UN.\nThe measurement of the allocation criteria shall be based on representative data preceding 2011 and covering a period not longer than five years. The indicative country allocations will take account in the same way of the three criteria across all eligible beneficiary countries.\nOn the basis of the application of the criteria referred to above, the Commission will inform the European Parliament and Council about the intended use of the indicative financial allocation referred to in Annex IV before the adoption of the multiannual support strategies mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Article. That information will set out, for each eligible ACP banana-supplying country, the indicative amount available.\n3. The Commission shall adopt multiannual support strategies by analogy to Article 19, and in accordance with Article 21. It shall ensure that such strategies complement the geographic strategy papers of the countries concerned, and the temporary nature of the banana accompanying measures.\nThe multiannual support strategies for banana accompanying measures shall include:\n(a)\nan updated environmental profile paying due attention to the country\u2019s banana sector, inter alia, focusing on pesticides;\n(b)\ninformation on the achievements of past banana support programmes;\n(c)\nindicators to assess progress in relation to disbursement conditions, when budget support will be chosen as the form of financing;\n(d)\nthe expected results of the assistance;\n(e)\na time schedule of support activities and of expected disbursements;\n(f)\nthe ways in which progress will be achieved and monitored in meeting internationally agreed ILO core labour standards and appropriate occupational safety and health conventions as well as relevant internationally agreed core environmental standards.\nIn the framework of the multiannual financial framework for 2007-2013, established by Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission in budgetary discipline and sound financial management (7), the BAM programme and the progress made by the countries concerned shall be the subject of an assessment, which shall include recommendations on any measures to be taken and the nature thereof.\n(3)\nArticle 21 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 21\nAdoption of strategy papers and multiannual indicative programmes\nStrategy papers and multiannual indicative programmes referred to in Articles 19 and 20, and any reviews thereof referred to in Article 19(2) and Article 20(1), as well as accompanying measures referred to in Articles 17 and 17a respectively, shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2).\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 29(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Budget commitments shall be made on the basis of decisions taken by the Commission in accordance with Articles 17a(3), 22(1), 23(1) and 26(1).\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 31(1), the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Participation in the award of procurement or grant contracts financed under a thematic programme as defined in Articles 11 to 16, and the programmes set out in Articles 17 and 17a, shall be open to all natural persons who are nationals of, or legal persons who are established in, a developing country, as specified by the OECD/DAC and in Annex II, in addition to natural or legal persons eligible by virtue of the thematic programme or the programmes set out in Articles 17 and 17a. The Commission shall publish and update Annex II in accordance with regular reviews of the list of aid recipients of the OECD/DAC, and inform the Council thereof.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 38, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount for the implementation of this Regulation over the period 2007-2013 is EUR 17 087 million.\n2. The indicative amounts allocated to each programme referred to in Articles 5 to 10, 11 to 16 and 17 to 17a are laid down in Annex IV. These amounts are established for the period 2007-2013.\u2019;\n(7)\nAnnex IIIa, as contained in Annex I to this Regulation, is inserted;\n(8)\nAnnex IV is replaced by the contents of Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["1", "51", "70", "80", "62", "64", "28", "73", "20", "23", "48", "42", "84", "36", "30", "33", "31", "25", "35", "39", "63", "78", "65", "47", "40", "56", "99", "27", "86", "3", "No Label", "4", "10", "15", "16", "18", "22", "26", "68", "96"], "gold": ["4", "10", "15", "16", "18", "22", "26", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 804/2010\nof 13 September 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 800/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2010.", "references": ["13", "65", "14", "28", "84", "53", "37", "93", "54", "32", "41", "79", "50", "27", "1", "70", "63", "36", "31", "6", "51", "38", "25", "2", "78", "80", "47", "4", "46", "69", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 18 July 2012\namending Implementing Decision 2011/630/EU as regards animal health requirements relating to bluetongue and Simbu viruses\n(notified under document C(2012) 4882)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/415/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 88/407/EEC of 14 June 1988 laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 10(2) and Article 11(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Decision 2011/630/EU of 20 September 2011 on imports into the Union of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species (2) lays down the list of third countries from which Member States are to authorise imports of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species and additional guarantees as regards specific animal diseases to be provided by certain third countries listed in Annex I thereto. It also lays down certification requirements for the imports of such semen into the Union.\n(2)\nThe model animal health certificate in Section A of Part 1 of Annex II to Implementing Decision 2011/630/EU includes the animal health requirements for imports into the Union of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species collected, processed and stored in accordance with Directive 88/407/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 2003/43/EC (3).\n(3)\nThe current animal health requirements for bluetongue in the model health certificate in Section A of Part 1 of Annex II to Implementing Decision 2011/630/EU provide that donor animals must fulfil the import conditions for bovine semen laid down in the Bluetongue Chapter of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). That Chapter recommends a whole range of risk mitigating measures aiming at either protecting the mammalian host from exposure to the infectious vector or at inactivating the virus by antibodies. In the interest of legal certainty, it is appropriate that that model health certificate sets out clearly the relevant requirements and the guarantees to be provided by the exporting third country, depending on the epidemiological situation.\n(4)\nIn addition, the OIE has laid down a chapter on Surveillance for arthropod vectors of animal diseases in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Those recommendations do not include the monitoring of ruminants for antibodies to Simbu viruses, such as the Akabane and Aino viruses of the Bunyaviridae family, which in the past was considered an economical method for determining the distribution of bluetongue competent vectors until more information on the spread of those diseases became available.\n(5)\nAlso, the OIE does not list Akabane and Aino diseases in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Consequently, the requirement for annual testing for those diseases to prove the absence of the vector should be deleted from Annex I to Implementing Decision 2011/630/EU and from the model health certificate in Section A of Part 1 of Annex II thereto.\n(6)\nImplementing Decision 2011/630/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nTo avoid any disruption of trade, the use of animal health certificates issued in accordance with Implementing Decision 2011/630/EU in its version prior to the amendments introduced by this Decision should be authorised during a transitional period subject to certain conditions.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annexes to Implementing Decision 2011/630/EU are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nFor a transitional period until 30 June 2013, Member States shall authorise imports of semen and stocks of semen from third countries which are accompanied by an animal health certificate issued not later than 31 May 2013 in accordance with the model set out in Section A of Part 1 of Annex II to Implementing Decision 2011/630/EU before the amendments introduced by this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2013.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2012.", "references": ["8", "75", "59", "72", "99", "54", "84", "32", "42", "77", "74", "70", "40", "55", "90", "43", "78", "50", "29", "87", "13", "27", "28", "86", "63", "33", "11", "48", "3", "71", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "66", "91", "93", "95", "96", "97", "98"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "66", "91", "93", "95", "96", "97", "98"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 491/2012\nof 7 June 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["29", "49", "64", "30", "18", "95", "34", "33", "20", "68", "80", "52", "35", "73", "59", "0", "94", "16", "7", "11", "62", "19", "25", "85", "17", "26", "47", "37", "22", "79", "No Label", "21", "90"], "gold": ["21", "90"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 902/2010\nof 8 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["92", "72", "27", "79", "2", "38", "8", "23", "17", "15", "1", "53", "66", "47", "30", "7", "88", "44", "70", "56", "29", "25", "32", "52", "26", "4", "78", "3", "43", "82", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 235/2011\nof 10 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 March 2011.", "references": ["37", "54", "45", "39", "80", "47", "85", "89", "95", "67", "86", "46", "76", "71", "60", "6", "44", "0", "26", "27", "21", "4", "38", "69", "70", "57", "9", "11", "1", "93", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 729/2011\nof 20 July 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for tusk in EU and international waters of V, VI and VII by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["3", "35", "7", "18", "84", "59", "74", "48", "55", "82", "68", "38", "27", "9", "90", "6", "31", "98", "86", "57", "52", "65", "1", "63", "81", "40", "8", "5", "87", "25", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 666/2012\nof 20 July 2012\namending Regulations (EC) No 2092/2004, (EC) No 793/2006, (EC) No 1914/2006, (EC) No 1120/2009, (EC) No 1121/2009, (EC) No 1122/2009, (EU) No 817/2010 and (EU) No 1255/2010 as regards the notification obligations within the common organisation of agricultural markets and the direct support schemes for farmers\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 192(2), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (2), and in particular Article 142(q) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 of 31 August 2009 laying down detailed rules for the Member States' notification to the Commission of information and documents in implementation of the common organisation of the markets, the direct payments\u2032 regime, the promotion of agricultural products and the regimes applicable to the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean islands (3), lays down common rules for notifying information and documents by the competent authorities of the Member States to the Commission. Those rules cover in particular the obligation for the Member States to use the information systems made available by the Commission and the validation of the access rights of the authorities or individuals authorised to send notifications. In addition, that Regulation sets common principles applying to the information systems so that they guarantee the authenticity, integrity and legibility over time of the documents and provides for personal data protection.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 792/2009, the obligation to use the information systems in accordance with that Regulation has to be provided for in the Regulations establishing a specific notification obligation.\n(3)\nThe Commission has developed an information system that allows managing documents and procedures electronically in its own internal working procedures and in its relations with the authorities involved in the common agricultural policy.\n(4)\nIt is considered that several notification obligations can be fulfilled via that system in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009, in particular those provided for in Commission Regulations (EC) No 2092/2004 of 8 December 2004 laying down detailed rules of application for an import tariff quota of dried boneless beef originating in Switzerland (4), (EC) No 793/2006 of 12 April 2006 laying down certain detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) 247/2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (5), (EC) No 1914/2006 of 20 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1405/2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in favour of the smaller Aegean islands (6), (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (7), (EC) No 1121/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the support schemes for farmers provided for in Titles IV and V thereof (8), (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (9), (EU) No 817/2010 of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (10), (EU) No 1255/2010 of 22 December 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of the import tariff quotas for \u2018baby beef\u2019 products originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia (11).\n(5)\nIn the interest of efficient administration and taking account of the experience, some notifications should be either simplified and specified or deleted in those Regulations.\n(6)\nRegulations (EC) No 2092/2004, (EC) No 793/2006, (EC) No 1914/2006, (EC) No 1120/2009, (EC) No 1121/2009, (EC) No 1122/2009, (EU) No 817/2010 and (EU) No 1255/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments and the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 2092/2004 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 7a, paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\"2. Member States shall notify the Commission of the details of the quantities of products put into free circulation in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006.\n3. The notifications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (12) and the product categories indicated in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 shall be used.\n(2)\nAnnexes IV, V and VI are deleted.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 793/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 47, the following paragraph 3 is added:\n\"3. The communications referred to in this Article shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (13).\n(2)\nIn Article 48, the following paragraph 3 is added:\n\"3. The communications and reports referred to in Article 28(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 shall be made and submitted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009.\"\nArticle 3\nRegulation (EC) No 1914/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 32, the following paragraph 3 is added:\n\"3. The communications referred to in this Article shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (14).\n(2)\nIn Article 33, the following paragraph 3 is added:\n\"3. The communications and reports referred to in Article 17 (1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1405/2006 shall be made in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009.\"\nArticle 4\nIn Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009, the following Article 51a is inserted:\n\"Article 51a\nThe notifications referred to in this Regulation, with the exception of Article 51(4) shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (15).\nThe notifications referred to in Article 51(3) shall be made in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 only as from 1 January 2013.\nArticle 5\nRegulation (EC) No 1121/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 4(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (a)(i), the first, second and third indents are deleted,\n(b)\npoint (b) is deleted,\n(c)\npoint (c) is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin point (i), the first and second indents are deleted,\n(ii)\npoint (ii) is deleted,\n(d)\npoints (d) and (e) are deleted.\n(2)\nThe following Article 94a is inserted.\n\"Article 94a\nThe notifications referred to in this Regulation shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (16).\nArticle 6\nIn Article 84 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\"6. The notifications referred to in Article 40 and paragraphs 2 and 5 of this Article shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (17).\nArticle 7\nIn Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 817/2010, the following paragraph is added:\n\"The communications referred to in this Article shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (18);\nArticle 8\nRegulation (EU) No 1255/2010 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 8, paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\"2. Member States shall notify the Commission of the details of the quantities of products put into free circulation in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006.\n3. The notifications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (19) and the product categories indicated in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 shall be used.\n(2)\nAnnexes VIII, IX and X are deleted.\nArticle 9\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 16 August 2012. However, Articles 1 and 8 shall apply from 1 January 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2012.", "references": ["58", "22", "82", "6", "26", "70", "12", "95", "23", "88", "80", "5", "0", "16", "29", "87", "96", "48", "27", "55", "59", "57", "68", "15", "98", "56", "3", "11", "90", "52", "No Label", "2", "8", "41", "42", "61", "63"], "gold": ["2", "8", "41", "42", "61", "63"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 739/2011\nof 27 July 2011\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific rules for the organisation of officials controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of 29 April 2004 of the European Parliament and the Council laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 17(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 lays down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption. In particular, a number of provisions relating to meat inspections in Parts B, D and F of Chapter II of Section I, and in Chapters I and V of Section II as well as in Chapter II of Section III of Annex I to that Regulation refer to, diseases on Lists A or B of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).\n(2)\nThe OIE system categorising and listing of diseases has changed. A single OIE list replaces Lists A and B. In addition, Union legislation is now in line with OIE recommendations. As a result, most references to those lists are superfluous. It is therefore appropriate to amend the relevant provisions in Sections I, II and III of Annex I to that Regulation and instead refer to animal diseases covered by Union legislation when carrying out ante-mortem or post-mortem inspection or any other inspection activity, unless reference is made to currently unknown diseases originating in third countries.\n(3)\nCouncil Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (2) provides that products of animal origin are to be obtained from animals which do not come from a holding, establishment, territory or part of territory subject to relevant animal health restrictions. Annex I of that Directive lists Union legislation containing control measures for certain animal diseases of relevance to trade in products of animal origin. For reasons of consistency, the trade in products of animal origin should only be restricted for animal health reasons based on Union legislation listed in the Annex I.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Part E of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the control of salmonella and other specified food-borne zoonotic agents (3), salmonella is to be absent in 25 grams of fresh poultry meat to be placed on the market for human consumption. However, pursuant to that Part, that criterion does not apply to fresh poultry meat destined for industrial heat treatment or other treatment to eliminate salmonella. Point 2 of Chapter V of Section II of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 provides that the official veterinarian may impose requirements concerning the use of certain meat. In order to allow the official veterinarian to impose industrial heat treatment or other treatment to eliminate salmonella, Section II, chapter V point 2 should be amended.\n(5)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 should be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2011.", "references": ["24", "4", "53", "93", "8", "81", "43", "94", "33", "7", "98", "42", "89", "71", "49", "28", "78", "29", "6", "20", "74", "86", "99", "97", "9", "15", "25", "60", "10", "26", "No Label", "38", "61", "66", "69"], "gold": ["38", "61", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 5 November 2010\nallowing Member States to extend provisional authorisations granted for the new active substance spirotetramat\n(notified under document C(2010) 7437)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/671/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in October 2006 Austria received an application from Bayer CropScience AG for the inclusion of the active substance spirotetramat in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2007/560/EC (2) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(2)\nConfirmation of the completeness of the dossier was necessary in order to allow it to be examined in detail and to allow Member States the possibility of granting provisional authorisations, for periods of up to three years, for plant protection products containing the active substance concerned, while complying with the conditions laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and, in particular, the condition relating to the detailed assessment of the active substances and the plant protection products in the light of the requirements laid down by that Directive.\n(3)\nFor this active substance, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicant. The rapporteur Member State submitted its respective draft assessment report to the Commission on 29 April 2008.\n(4)\nFollowing submission of the draft assessment report by the rapporteur Member State, it has been found to be necessary to request further information from the applicant and to have the rapporteur Member State examine that information and submit its assessment. Therefore, the examination of the dossier is still ongoing and it will not be possible to complete the evaluation within the time-frame provided for in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(5)\nAs the evaluation so far has not identified any reason for immediate concern, Member States should be given the possibility of prolonging provisional authorisations granted for plant protection products containing the active substance concerned for a period of 24 months in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of Directive 91/414/EEC so as to enable the examination of the dossier to continue. It is expected that the evaluation and decision-making process with respect to a decision on a possible inclusion in Annex I to that Directive for spirotetramat will have been completed within 24 months.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States may extend provisional authorisations for plant protection products containing spirotetramat for a period ending on 31 December 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall expire on 31 December 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 November 2010.", "references": ["84", "55", "89", "30", "60", "75", "57", "92", "7", "10", "96", "27", "37", "77", "85", "54", "50", "44", "32", "48", "24", "87", "4", "1", "5", "8", "49", "45", "40", "36", "No Label", "2", "25", "41", "65", "76"], "gold": ["2", "25", "41", "65", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 April 2010\nappointing nine members of the Court of Auditors\n(2010/246/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinions of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe terms of office of Mr Jan KIN\u0160T, Ms Kersti KALJULAID, Mr Igors LUDBOR\u017dS, Ms Irena PETRU\u0160KEVI\u010cIEN\u0116, Mr Gejza HAL\u00c1SZ, Mr Josef BONNICI, Mr Jacek UCZKIEWICZ, Mr Vojko Anton ANTON\u010cI\u010c and Mr J\u00falius MOLN\u00c1R expire on 6 May 2010.\n(2)\nNew appointments should therefore be made,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nThe following are hereby appointed members of the Court of Auditors for the period from 7 May 2010 to 6 May 2016:\n-\nMr Jan KIN\u0160T,\n-\nMs Kersti KALJULAID,\n-\nMr Igors LUDBOR\u017dS,\n-\nMs Rasa BUDBERGYT\u0116,\n-\nMr Szabolcs FAZAKAS,\n-\nMr Louis GALEA,\n-\nMr Augustyn KUBIK,\n-\nMr Milan Martin CVIKL,\n-\nMr Ladislav BALKO.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["50", "29", "16", "9", "28", "70", "27", "64", "52", "83", "63", "62", "67", "80", "46", "71", "39", "24", "96", "92", "18", "32", "37", "91", "81", "12", "60", "21", "0", "41", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 November 2010\non the position of the European Union on the amendment to Annex 6 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products\n(2010/724/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven agreements with the Swiss Confederation (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (2) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Agriculture Agreement\u2019) entered into force on 1 June 2002.\n(2)\nArticle 6 of the Agriculture Agreement sets up a Joint Committee on Agriculture responsible for administering the Agriculture Agreement and ensuring that it operates smoothly.\n(3)\nArticle 11 of the Agriculture Agreement allows the Joint Committee to amend the Annexes and Appendices to the Annexes to the Agreement by means of a decision.\n(4)\nThe Joint Committee has recently decided to amend Articles 2 and 3 and Appendices 1, 2, 3 and 4 to Annex 6 of the Agriculture Agreement.\n(5)\nArticle 5(2) of Decision 2002/309/EC provides that in adopting the Union position on a decision of the Joint Committee to amend Annex 6 of the Agricultural Agreement, the Commission shall follow the procedure laid down in Articles 4 and 7 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC (3). It is to be assisted by the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry set up by Article 1 of Council Decision 66/399/EEC (4).\n(6)\nThe position of the European Union to be taken by the Commission in the Joint Committee on Agriculture regarding the amendments to Annex 6 of the Agriculture Agreement must be defined by this Decision.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nThe position of the European Union to be adopted by the Commission in the Joint Committee on Agriculture set up by Article 6 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products shall be based on the draft Decision of the Joint Committee on Agriculture annexed to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe decision of the Joint Committee on Agriculture shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union after adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 26 November 2010.", "references": ["12", "27", "80", "37", "13", "28", "4", "56", "86", "41", "90", "22", "65", "10", "43", "24", "15", "77", "2", "42", "59", "31", "49", "67", "23", "30", "99", "0", "74", "63", "No Label", "9", "20", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "20", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 662/2012\nof 19 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2012.", "references": ["66", "81", "16", "92", "39", "86", "8", "9", "28", "43", "83", "20", "93", "94", "87", "31", "60", "79", "37", "69", "97", "29", "32", "14", "62", "96", "89", "85", "18", "57", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 472/2010\nof 31 May 2010\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran and the United Arab Emirates\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 3 September 2009, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (\u2018notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of certain polyethylene terephthalate (\u2018PET\u2019) originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (\u2018the countries concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 20 July 2009 by the Polyethylene Terephthalate Committee of Plastics Europe (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain polyethylene terephthalate. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the product concerned originating in the countries concerned and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant producers, other known Union producers, importers/traders and users known to be concerned, exporting producers and representatives of the exporting countries concerned, of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(4)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(5)\nIn view of the apparent high number of Union producers and importers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all Union producers and importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product under investigation during the investigation period (1 July 2008-30 June 2009).\n(6)\nFourteen Union producers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. On the basis of the information received from the cooperating Union producers, the Commission selected a sample of five Union producers representing 65 % of the sales by all cooperating Union producers.\n(7)\nEight importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. On the basis of the information received from the cooperating importers, the Commission selected a sample of two importers representing 83 % of imports by all cooperating importers and 48 % of all imports from the UAE, Iran and Pakistan.\n(8)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to exporting producers, sampled Union producers, sampled importers and to all users and suppliers known to be concerned as well as to those that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation.\n(9)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from five sampled Union producers, one sampled importer, ten users in the Union, three suppliers of raw materials, one exporting producer in Iran and its related trader, one exporting producer in Pakistan and one exporting producer in the United Arab Emirates. In addition, seven cooperating Union producers provided the requested general data for the injury analysis.\n(10)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a preliminary determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nUnion producers\n-\nNovapet SA, Spain,\n-\nEquipolymers srl, Italy,\n-\nUAB Orion Global PET (Indorama), Lithuania,\n-\nUAB Neo Group, Lithuania;\n(b)\nExporting producer in Iran\n-\nShahid Tondguyan Petrochemical Co. and its related companies, Bandar Imam Khomeini and Tehran;\n(c)\nExporting producer in Pakistan\n-\nNovatex Limited, Karachi;\n(d)\nExporting producer in the United Arab Emirates\n-\nJBF RAK LLC, Ras Al Khaimah.\n1.3. Investigation period\n(11)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (\u2018the investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the investigation period (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(12)\nThe product concerned is polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (\u2018the product concerned\u2019), currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20.\n(13)\nPET is a chemical product which is normally used in the plastics industry, for the production of bottles and sheets. Since this grade of PET is a homogeneous product, it was not further subdivided into different product types.\n2.2. Like product\n(14)\nThe investigation showed that the PET produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry, and the PET produced and sold on the domestic markets of Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, and exported to the Union have essentially the same basic chemical and physical characteristics and the same basic uses. They are therefore provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n3. DUMPING\n(15)\nGiven the considerable fluctuations in raw material costs and PET market prices observed during the IP, it was considered appropriate to make use of quarterly data in establishing the normal value and export price. However, this methodology could not be applied for Iran, since the sole Iranian producer was unable to provide full quarterly cost data.\n3.1. Iran\n3.1.1. Normal Value\n(16)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first established whether the domestic sales of the sole Iranian producer were sufficiently representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of its total volume of export sales of the product concerned to the Union. The domestic sales of the sole Iranian producer were considered sufficiently representative during the investigation period.\n(17)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of the like product could be regarded as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for the like product sold on the Iranian market the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers during the IP.\n(18)\nSince the volume of profitable sales of the like product represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of the like product normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales.\n3.1.2. Export price\n(19)\nSince export sales to the Union were made through a related trading company located in Iran, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the prices of this related trader to independent customers in the Union.\n3.1.3. Comparison\n(20)\nThe normal value and the export price of the sole exporting producer were compared on an ex-works basis.\n(21)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments for differences in level of trade, transport costs, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs, and other factors (bank charges) have been made where applicable and justified.\n(22)\nThe company claimed an adjustment for differences in level of trade due to different sales patterns between its customers in its domestic and EU market. This was granted to the extent that the company could substantiate its claim.\n(23)\nThe Iranian exporting producer furthermore submitted a particular claim regarding the alleged impact of the international sanctions against Iran. The company claimed that, due to the sanctions, certain big US based PET customers like Coca-Cola and Pepsi are not allowed to buy PET from Iran and consequently do not issue quality certificates for PET coming from Iran. This allegedly also has an impact on other European customers who require lower prices for PET that has not been certified by Coca Cola or Pepsi. However, the Iranian exporting producer was not able to quantify the alleged impact of the sanctions in a way that could be supported by any evidence. Finally, the company encountered similar problems on the domestic market where local Coca-Cola and Pepsi licensees were not allowed to source PET from Iranian producers and have to rely on imports from other countries. Consequently, the sanctions should also exert a downward pressure on domestic prices and, thus, there is no apparent difference for price comparison purposes. It was therefore concluded that there were no grounds to make an allowance in the form of an adjustment for the impact of sanctions on Iran.\n3.1.4. Dumping margin\n(24)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin for the sole Iranian producer was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price.\n(25)\nBased on information available from the complaint and the cooperating Iranian exporting producer, there are no other known producers of the product concerned in Iran. Therefore, the country-wide dumping margin to be established for Iran should be equal to the dumping margin established for the sole cooperating exporting producer in Iran.\n(26)\nThe provisional dumping margin for Iran, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 28,6 %.\n3.2. Pakistan\n3.2.1. Normal value\n(27)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first established whether the domestic sales of the sole Pakistani producer were sufficiently representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of its total volume of export sales of the product concerned to the Union. The domestic sales of the sole Pakistani producer were considered sufficiently representative during the investigation period.\n(28)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of the like product could be regarded as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for the like product sold on the Pakistani market the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers during the IP.\n(29)\nSince the volume of profitable sales of the like product represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of the like product on the domestic market, normal value was calculated as the weighted average of all domestic sales prices of the like product.\n3.2.2. Export price\n(30)\nThe sole exporting producer in Pakistan exported the product concerned directly to independent customers in the Union. Export prices were therefore established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable by these independent customers for the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n3.2.3. Comparison\n(31)\nThe normal values and the export price of the sole exporting producer were compared on an ex-works basis.\n(32)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments for differences in import charges, discounts, rebates, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs, after-sales costs (technical assistance and services), commissions, and other factors (bank charges) have been made where applicable and justified.\n3.2.4. Dumping margin\n(33)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin for the sole Pakistani producer was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price.\n(34)\nThe provisional dumping margin for the sole Pakistani exporting producer, Novatex Limited, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 1,5 % for, i.e. below de minimis in the sense of Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(35)\nSince there are no other producers of the product concerned in Pakistan, no provisional measures should be imposed.\n3.3. United Arab Emirates\n3.3.1. Normal value\n(36)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first established whether the domestic sales of the sole producer in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were sufficiently representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of its total volume of export sales of the product concerned to the Union. The domestic sales of the sole UAE producer were considered sufficiently representative during the investigation period.\n(37)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of the like product could be regarded as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for the like product sold on the UAE market the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers during the IP.\n(38)\nSince the volume of profitable sales of the like product represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of the like product, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales.\n3.3.2. Export price\n(39)\nThe sole exporting producer in the United Arab Emirates exported the product concerned directly to independent customers in the Union. Export prices were therefore established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable by these independents customers for the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n3.3.3. Comparison\n(40)\nThe normal values and the export prices of the sole exporting producer were compared on an ex-works basis.\n(41)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments for differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, credit costs and commissions have been made where applicable and justified.\n3.3.4. Dumping margin\n(42)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin for the sole UAE producer was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price.\n(43)\nBased on information available from the complaint and the cooperating UAE exporting producer, there are no other known producers of the product concerned in the United Arab Emirates. Therefore, the country-wide dumping margin to be established for the United Arab Emirates should be equal to the dumping margin established for the sole cooperating exporting producer in the United Arab Emirates.\n(44)\nThe provisional dumping margin for the United Arab Emirates, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 6,6 %.\n4. INJURY\n4.1. Union production and Union industry\n(45)\nDuring the IP, the like product was manufactured by 17 producers in the Union. The output of these producers (established on the basis of the information collected from the cooperating producers and for the other Union producers on the data from the complaint) is therefore deemed to constitute the Union production within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation\n(46)\nOf these 17 producers, 12 producers cooperated with the investigation. These 12 producers were found to account for a major proportion, in this case more than 80 %, of the total Union production of the like product. The 12 cooperating producers therefore constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will be hereafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019. The remaining Union producers will be hereafter referred to as the \u2018other Union producers\u2019. These other Union producers have not actively supported or opposed the complaint.\n(47)\nIt is noted that the EU market for PET is characterised by a relatively high number of producers, belonging usually to bigger groups with headquarters outside the EU. The market is in a process of consolidation with a number of recent takeovers and closures. For instance, since 2009, PET production plants of Tergal Fibers (France), Invista (Germany) and Artenius (UK) closed while Indorama took over the former Eastman plants in UK and the Netherlands.\n(48)\nAs indicated above at recital (6), a sample of five individual producers was selected, representing 65 % of the sales by all cooperating Union producers. One company was not in a position to provide all data as requested and the sample consequently had to be reduced to four companies representing 47 % of the sales by all cooperating producers.\n4.2. Union consumption\n(49)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market, the import volumes data for the EU market obtained from EUROSTAT and, concerning the other Union producers, from estimations based on the complaint.\n(50)\nUnion consumption of the product under investigation increased between 2006 and the IP by 11 %. In detail, the apparent demand grew in 2007 by 8 %, decreased slightly between 2007 and 2008 (by 2 percentage points) and increased by further 5 percentage points between 2008 and the IP.\nTable 1\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nTotal EU consumption (tonnes)\n2 709 400\n2 936 279\n2 868 775\n2 996 698\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n108\n106\n111\nSource: questionnaire replies, Eurostat data and complaint.\n4.3. Imports from the countries concerned\n(a) Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned\n(51)\nThe Commission examined whether imports of PET in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates should be assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(52)\nAs the dumping margin found for Pakistan is de minimis, it is considered that the effect of those imports cannot be assessed together with dumped imports from Iran and the UAE.\n(53)\nWith regard to the effects of the imports originating in the UAE and Iran, the investigation showed that the dumping margins were above the de minimis threshold as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation and the volume of dumped imports from these two countries was not negligible in the sense of Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation.\n(54)\nWith regard to the conditions of competition between imports from Iran and the United Arab Emirates and the like product, the investigation revealed that the producers from these countries use the same sales channels and sell to similar categories of customers. Moreover, the investigation also revealed that the imports from both these countries had an increasing trend in the period considered.\n(55)\nIn view of the above, it is provisionally considered that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met and that imports from Iran and the United Arab Emirates should be examined cumulatively.\n(b) Volume of the imports concerned\n(56)\nThe volume of dumped imports of the product concerned into the EU rose by almost 20 times between 2006 and the IP and reached 212 198 tonnes in the IP. More specifically, imports from the UAE and Iran almost tripled between 2006 and 2007, before further increasing by 4 times in 2008 compared to 2007 and almost doubling between 2008 and the IP.\nTable 2\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolume of dumped imports from the UAE and Iran (tonnes)\n11 752\n33 812\n133 389\n212 198\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n288\n1 135\n1 806\nMarket share of dumped imports from the UAE and Iran\n0,4 %\n1,2 %\n4,6 %\n7,1 %\nSource: Eurostat.\n(c) Market share of the imports concerned\n(57)\nThe market share held by dumped imports from the UAE and Iran stood at 0,4 % during 2006 and increased steadily by almost 7 percentage points throughout the period considered. More specifically, it rose by 0,8 percentage points between 2006 and 2007, by further 3,4 percentage points between 2007 and 2008 and by 2,5 percentage points between 2008 and the IP. In the IP, the market share of dumped imports from the UAE and Iran was 7,1 %.\n(58)\nIt is noted that the UAE entered the market only as of 2007, but managed quickly to gain a substantial market share.\n(d) Prices\n(i) Price evolution\n(59)\nThe average import price decreased by 15 % in the period considered with the sharpest decline between 2008 and the IP. More specifically, the average price decreased by 1 % in 2007 and by another percentage point in 2008, before dropping by further 13 percentage points in the IP.\nTable 3\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nPrice of imports from the UAE and Iran (EUR/ton)\n1 033\n1 023\n1 010\n874\nIndex\n100\n99\n98\n85\nSource: Eurostat.\n(ii) Price undercutting\n(60)\nIn consideration of the fact that the prices and costs of the product concerned were subject to considerable fluctuations in the IP, selling prices and costs were collected by quarters and undercutting and underselling calculations were conducted on a quarterly basis.\n(61)\nFor the purpose of analysing price undercutting, the weighted average sales prices of the Union industry to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports from the UAE and Iran to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a CIF basis with appropriate adjustments for post-importation costs and differences in the level of trade.\n(62)\nThe comparison showed that during the IP, the dumped product concerned originating in the UAE sold in the Union undercut the Union industry's prices by 3,9 %. The dumped products originating in Iran sold in the Union undercut the prices of the Union industry by 3,2 %. The weighted average undercutting margin of both countries during the IP is 3,8 %.\n4.4. Situation of the Union industry\n(63)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered has been conducted.\n(64)\nAs explained above, considering the large number of Union producers, sampling had to be used. For the purpose of the injury analysis, the injury indicators have been established at the following two levels:\n-\nThe macroeconomic elements (production, capacity, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity, average unit prices and magnitude of dumping margins and recovery from the effects of past dumping) were assessed at the level of the whole Union production, on the basis of the information collected from the cooperating producers and for the other Union producers an estimation based on the data from the complaint was used.\n-\nThe analysis of microeconomic elements (stocks, wages, profitability, return on investments, cash flow, ability to raise capital and investments) was carried out for the sampled Union producers on the basis of their information.\n4.5. Macroeconomic elements\n(a) Production\n(65)\nThe Union production decreased by 4 % between 2006 and the IP. More specifically, it increased by 5 % in 2007 to around 2 570 000 tonnes, but sharply decreased by 10 percentage points in 2008 compared to 2007 and slightly increased by 1 percentage point between 2008 and the IP, when it reached around 2 300 000 tonnes.\nTable 4\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProduction (tonnes)\n2 439 838\n2 570 198\n2 327 169\n2 338 577\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n105\n95\n96\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint.\n(b) Production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(66)\nThe production capacity of the Union producers increased by 15 % throughout the period considered. Specifically, it increased by 1 % in 2007, by further 5 percentage points in 2008 and by even further 9 percentage points in the IP.\nTable 5\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProduction capacity (tonnes)\n2 954 089\n2 971 034\n3 118 060\n3 385 738\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n101\n106\n115\nCapacity utilisation\n83 %\n87 %\n75 %\n69 %\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n105\n90\n84\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint.\n(67)\nCapacity utilisation was 83 % in 2006, increased to 87 % in 2007 but later dropped to 75 % in 2008 and to only 69 % in the IP. The dropping utilisation rate in 2008 and the IP reflects decreased production and increased production capacity in this period.\n(c) Sales volume\n(68)\nThe sales volume of the Union producers to unrelated customers on the EU market modestly decreased in the period considered. The sales increased by 5 % in 2007, but in the following year decreased slightly below the 2006 level, and in the IP they were 3 % lower that in 2006, at around 2 100 000 tonnes. Given the limited volume of stocks, the development of sales closely reflects the development in the production.\nTable 6\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nEU sales (tonnes)\n2 202 265\n2 318 567\n2 171 203\n2 133 787\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n105\n99\n97\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint.\n(d) Market share\n(69)\nDuring the period considered, the Union producers lost 10 percentage points of market share, which decreased from 85 % in 2006 to 75 % in the IP. This loss of market share reflects the fact that, despite an increase in consumption, the Union industry's sales dropped by 3 % in the period considered. It is noted that this decreasing trend was also found for the sampled Union producers.\nTable 7\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nMarket share of the Union producers.\n84,9 %\n83,2 %\n79,8 %\n75,1 %\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n98\n94\n88\nSource: questionnaire replies, complaint and Eurostat.\n(e) Growth\n(70)\nBetween 2006 and the IP, whilst the Union consumption increased by 11 %, the volume of sales by the Union producers on the EU market decreased by 3 %, and the Union producers\u2019 market share decreased by 10 percentage points. On the other hand, the market share of the dumped imports increased from 0,4 % to 7,1 % in the same period of time. It is thus concluded that the Union producers could not benefit from any growth of the market.\n(f) Employment\n(71)\nThe employment level of the Union producers shows a decrease of 15 % between 2006 and the IP. More specifically, the number of people employed decreased significantly from 2 400 in 2006 to 2 100 in 2007 or by 13 % and remained close to this level in 2008 and in the IP. The drop in 2007 is a reflection of the restructuring efforts by a number of EU producers.\nTable 8\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nEmployment (persons)\n2 410\n2 100\n2 060\n2 057\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n87\n85\n85\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint.\n(g) Productivity\n(72)\nProductivity of the Union producers\u2019 workforce, measured as output (tonnes) per person employed per year, increased by 12 % in the period considered. This reflects the fact that production decreased at a lower pace than the employment level and is an indication of increased efficiency by the Union producers. This is particularly obvious in 2007 when production increased while the employment level decreased and the productivity was 21 % higher than in 2006.\nTable 9\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProductivity (tonnes per employee)\n1 013\n1 224\n1 130\n1 137\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n121\n112\n112\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint.\n(h) Factors affecting sales prices\n(73)\nThe annual average sales prices of the Union producers on the EU market to unrelated customers remained stable between 2006 and 2008 at around 1 100 EUR per tonne. In the IP the annual average sale price decreased by 12 % and reached 977 EUR per tonne. The annual average sales price does not reflect the monthly or even daily price fluctuations of the PET on the European (and world) market, but is considered sufficient to show the trend during the period considered. The sales prices of PET normally follow the price trends of its main raw materials (mainly PTA and MEG) as they constitute up to 80 % of the total cost of PET.\nTable 10\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nUnit price EU market (EUR/ton)\n1 110\n1 105\n1 111\n977\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n100\n100\n88\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint.\n(74)\nAs indicated above, the sales prices of the Union industry were undercut by the dumped imports from UAE and Iran.\n(i) Magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping\n(75)\nGiven the volume, market share and prices of the imports from the UAE and Iran, the impact on the Union industry of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible. It is important to recall that since 2000, there have been anti-dumping measures in force against imports of PET from India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and since 2004 against the People's Republic of China. Given that in the period considered by this investigation the Union industry lost market share and increased their losses, no actual recovery from the past dumping can be established and it is considered that Union production remains vulnerable to the injurious effect of any dumped imports in the Union market.\n4.6. Microeconomic elements\n(a) Stocks\n(76)\nThe level of closing stocks of the sampled producers decreased between 2006 and the IP by 22 %. It is noted that the stocks represent less than 5 % of the annual production and therefore the relevance of this indicator in the injury analysis is limited.\nTable 11\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nClosing stock (tonnes)\n61 374\n57 920\n46 951\n47 582\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n94\n77\n78\nSource: questionnaire replies.\n(b) Wages\n(77)\nThe annual labour cost increased by 11 % between 2006 and 2007, before decreasing by 2 percentage points in 2008 compared to 2007 and further 9 percentage points in the IP compared to 2008 reaching the same level as in 2006. Overall, labour costs thus remained stable.\nTable 12\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nAnnual labour cost (EUR)\n27 671 771\n30 818 299\n30 077 380\n27 723 396\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n111\n109\n100\nSource: questionnaire replies.\n(c) Profitability and return on investments\n(78)\nDuring the period considered, the profitability of the sampled producers\u2019 sales of the like product on the EU market to unrelated customers, expressed as a percentage of net sales, remained negative and even dropped from - 6,9 % to - 7,5 %. More specifically, the situation with regard to profitability of the sampled producers improved in 2007 when net losses accounted only - 1,5 % of net sales, but losses increased sharply in 2008 to - 9,3 %. The situation slightly improved in the IP.\nTable 13\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProfitability of EU (% of net sales)\n-6,9 %\n-1,5 %\n-9,3 %\n-7,5 %\nIndex (2006 = - 100)\n- 100\n-22\n- 134\n- 108\nROI (profit in % of net book value of investments)\n-9,6 %\n-3,1 %\n-16,8 %\n-12,3 %\nIndex (2006 = - 100)\n- 100\n-32\n- 175\n- 127\nSource: questionnaire replies.\n(79)\nThe return on investments (\u2018ROI\u2019), expressed as the profit in percent of the net book value of investments, broadly followed the profitability trend. It increased from a level of - 9,6 % in 2006 to - 3,1 % in 2007. It decreased to - 16,8 % in 2008 and increased again in the IP to - 12,3 %. Overall, the return on investments remained negative and deteriorated by 2,7 percentage points over the period considered.\n(d) Cash flow and ability to raise capital\n(80)\nThe net cash flow from operating activities was negative at - 18,5 million EUR in 2006. It improved significantly in 2007 when it became positive at 19,5 million EUR, but deteriorated massively in 2008 (- 42 million EUR) before reaching the negative - 11 million EUR in the IP. Overall, cash flow improved in the period considered although it remained negative.\n(81)\nThere were no indications that the Union industry encountered difficulties in raising capital, mainly due to the fact that some of the producers are incorporated in larger groups.\nTable 14\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nCash flow (EUR)\n-18 453 130\n19 478 426\n-42 321 103\n-11 038 129\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n- 100\n206\n- 229\n-60\nSource: questionnaire replies.\n(e) Investments\n(82)\nThe sampled companies\u2019 annual investments in the production of the like product decreased by 34 % between 2006 and 2007, by a further 59 percentage points between 2007 and 2008 and then it slightly decreased in the IP compared to 2008. Overall, investments decreased by 96 % in the period considered. This sharp drop in investments can be partially explained by the fact that in 2006 and 2007 new production lines were acquired aiming at increasing capacity.\nTable 15\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nNet investments (EUR)\n98 398 284\n64 607 801\n6 537 577\n4 298 208\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n66\n7\n4\nSource: questionnaire replies.\n4.7. Conclusion on injury\n(83)\nThe analysis of the macroeconomic data show that the Union producers decreased their production and sales during the period considered. Although the observed decrease was not dramatic as such, it needs to be seen in the context of increased demand between 2006 and the IP, which resulted in the Union producers\u2019 market share dropping by 10 percentage points to 75 %.\n(84)\nAt the same time the relevant microeconomic indicators show a clear deterioration of the economic situation of the sampled Union producers. The profitability and return on investment remained negative and they overall declined further between 2006 and the IP. The cash flow, despite an overall positive development, also remained negative in the IP.\n(85)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is provisionally concluded that the Union industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\n5. CAUSATION\n5.1. Introduction\n(86)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports originating in Iran and the United Arab Emirates have caused injury to the Union industry to a degree that enables it to be classified as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time have injured the Union industry, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n5.2. Effect of the dumped imports\n(87)\nBetween 2006 and the IP, the volume of the dumped imports of the product concerned originating in the UAE and Iran increased by almost 20 times to 212 200 tonnes, and their market share increased by almost 7 percentage points (from 0,4 % to 7,1 %). At the same time, the Union industry lost some 10 percentage points of market share (from 84,9 % to 75,1 %). The average price of these imports decreased between 2006 and the IP and remained lower than the average price of Union producers.\n(88)\nAs indicated above at recital (62), price undercutting of the dumped imports was 3,9 % in case of the UAE and 3,2 % for Iran. Even if the price undercutting was below 4 %, it cannot be considered as insignificant given that PET is a commodity and competition takes place mainly via price.\n(89)\nThe Iranian exporter claimed that Iranian PET imports could not have caused material injury to the Union industry in view of the fact that these import levels would only marginally exceed the de minimis threshold for imports. However, during the IP, imports from Iran, corresponding to a market share of 1.9 %, exceeded the de minimis threshold specified in the basic Regulation. In addition, Iranian import prices were undercutting the Union industry's sales prices. Against this background, the argument raised by the Iranian exporter is rejected.\n(90)\nIn view of the undercutting of Union industry's prices by imports from the UAE and Iran, it is considered that these dumped imports exerted a downward pressure on prices, preventing the Union industry from keeping its sales prices to a level that would have been necessary to cover its costs and to realise a profit. Therefore, it is considered that a causal link exists between those imports and the Union industry's injury.\n5.3. Effect of other factors\n5.3.1. Export activity of the Union industry\n(91)\nOne interested party claimed that any injury was due to the poor export activity of the Union producers. As it can be seen from the table below, the volume of exports of the Union industry increased during the period considered by 11 %. The level of export prices over the same period decreased by 10 % which resulted in stable export sales value during the period considered. Consequently, there is no indication that the export performance contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\nTable 16\nUnion industry\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nExport sales (tonnes)\n25 677\n24 103\n23 414\n28 504\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n94\n91\n111\nExport sales (EUR)\n28 473 679\n27 176 204\n25 109 209\n28 564 676\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n95\n88\n100\nPrice of exports (EUR/ton)\n1 109\n1 128\n1 072\n1 002\nSource: questionnaire replies.\n(92)\nAnother interested party claimed that the prices of the Union industry on the EU market were artificially high. According to the interested party, this claim is evidenced by the fact that prices on the EU market remained stable whereas export sales prices have dropped. However, the investigation has shown that the annual average sales prices of the Union industry on the EU market decreased by 12 % over the period considered, in line with the decrease in export prices over the same period. The argument is thus rejected.\n5.3.2. Imports from third countries\n(a) Pakistan\n(93)\nConsidering that the imports from Pakistan were found not to be dumped, it is necessary to analyse if they nevertheless contributed to the injury suffered by the Union producers. The volume of imports from Pakistan increased twofold in the period considered. More specifically, they decreased between 2006 and 2007 by 25 % but then increased significantly in 2008 compared to 2007 by 117 percentage points and in the IP by a further 16 percentage points compared to 2008 reaching 92 000 tonnes. The corresponding market share held by these imports increased from 1,6 % in 2006 to 3,1 % in the IP.\nTable 17\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolume of imports from Pakistan (tonnes)\n44 187\n33 255\n84 859\n92 004\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n75\n192\n208\nMarket share of imports from Pakistan\n1,6 %\n1,1 %\n3,0 %\n3,1 %\nPrice of imports (EUR/ton)\n1 030\n1 022\n1 023\n900\nSource: Eurostat.\n(94)\nThe average price of the Pakistani imports remained in general below the average prices of the Union producers. However, the detailed analysis of the price information provided by the cooperating exporter in Pakistan showed that its prices undercut the Union prices by less than 1,5 %, i.e. less than half the undercutting established for dumped imports from Iran and the UAE. Consequently, although it cannot be excluded that imports from Pakistan contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry, their contribution was only limited and could not have broken the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(b) Republic of Korea\n(95)\nThe Republic of Korea is subject to anti-dumping duties since 2000. However, two Korean companies are subject to a zero duty and the investigation established that imports from the Republic of Korea remain at a high level and increased significantly in the period considered. The Korean imports increased by almost 150 % between 2006 and the IP and their corresponding market share increased from 3,5 % in 2006 to 7,7 % in the IP.\nTable 18\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolume of imports from South Korea (tonnes)\n94 023\n130 994\n177 341\n231 107\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n139\n189\n246\nMarket share of imports from South Korea\n3,5 %\n4,5 %\n6,2 %\n7,7 %\nPrice of imports (EUR/ton)\n1 084\n1 071\n1 063\n914\nSource: Eurostat.\n(96)\nThe average price of the Korean imports remained in general slightly below the average prices of the Union producers. However, the Korean prices were higher than the average prices from the UAE and Iran, and they were also higher than the average prices from Pakistan. Consequently, although it cannot be excluded that imports from the Republic of Korea contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry, their contribution was only limited and they are considered not to have broken the causal link established as regards the dumped imports from the UAE and Iran.\n(97)\nThe Iranian exporter claimed that any increase in Iranian imports was due to a decline in South Korean imports and therefore was not at the expense of European producers. However, Eurostat data show that, over the period considered, import volumes from both countries have been increasing steadily in parallel. Hence, it can not be concluded that imports from Iran merely substituted imports from South Korea.\n(c) Other countries\n(98)\nImports from other countries were, on average, at prices substantially higher than average sales prices of the Union producers. In addition, these imports have lost market share in the period considered. Consequently, these imports are not considered as being a possible cause of injury for the Union industry.\nTable 19\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolume of imports from other countries (tonnes)\n259 438\n296 418\n185 286\n210 772\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n114\n71\n81\nMarket share of imports from other countries\n9,6 %\n10,1 %\n6,5 %\n7,0 %\nPrice of imports (EUR/ton)\n1 176\n1 144\n1 194\n1 043\nSource: Eurostat.\n5.3.3. Competition from the non-cooperating producers in the Union\n(99)\nSome interested parties claimed that the injury suffered by the Union industry would be due to competition form the non-cooperating producers in the Union. Five Union producers did not cooperate in this proceeding. One of them stopped its production already in the IP while two other ones did so shortly thereafter. The sales volumes of non-cooperating producers have been estimated based on the information submitted in the complaint. Based on the information available, it appears that these producers lost their market share during the period considered from 20,5 % in 2006 to 16 % in the IP. The investigation has not shown any evidence that the behaviour of these producers has broken the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury established for the Union industry.\nTable 20\nNon-cooperating EU producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nEU sales (tonnes)\n554 329\n493 363\n356 581\n478 282\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n89\n64\n86\nMarket share\n20,5 %\n16,8 %\n12,4 %\n16,0 %\nSource: Eurostat.\n5.3.4. Economic downturn\n(100)\nThe financial and economic crisis of 2008 led to a market growth that was slower than expected and unusual as compared to the beginning of the years 2000 where yearly growth rates around 10 % could be observed. For the first time, there was a contraction of demand for PET in 2008. This clearly had an effect on the overall performance of the Union industry.\n(101)\nHowever, the negative effect of the economic downturn and the contraction in demand was exacerbated by the increased dumped imports from Iran and the UAE, which undercut the prices of the Union industry. Even if the economic downturn could therefore be considered as contributing to the injury for the period starting in the last quarter of 2008, this cannot in any way diminish the damaging injurious effects of low priced dumped imports in the EU market over the whole period considered. Even in a situation of decreasing sales, the Union industry should be able to maintain an acceptable level of prices and therefore limit the negative effects of any decrease in the growth of consumption, but only in the absence of the unfair competition of low priced dumped imports in the market.\n(102)\nThe economic downturn has also no impact whatsoever on the injury suffered and observed already before the last quarter of 2008.\n(103)\nConsequently, the economic downturn must be considered as an element contributing to the injury suffered by the Union industry as from last quarter of 2008 only and given its global character cannot be considered as a possible cause breaking the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from the UAE and Iran.\n5.3.5. Geographical location\n(104)\nSome interested parties argued that any injury suffered by the Union industry would be caused in the first place by the unfavourable location of at least some Union producers (i.e. far away from a harbour thus incurring additional unnecessary transportation costs for the raw materials as well as for the final product).\n(105)\nAs regards the above argument, it is recognised that being located in a place not easily accessible by relatively cheaper means of transport has certain disadvantages in terms of cost for the delivery of both raw materials from the suppliers and the final product to the customers. However, the investigation and the verified data from the sampled Union producers (two of them located close to a harbour and two further inland) did not show any significant correlation between the geographical location and the economic performance of the Union producers. In fact, the injury found applied also to those producers located close to a harbour.\n(106)\nConsequently, it is concluded that geographical location did not materially contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n5.3.6. Vertical integration\n(107)\nSome interested parties argued that any injury suffered by the Union industry would be caused by the fact that many Union producers are not vertically integrated (in terms of production of PTA) and thus have a significant cost disadvantage vis-\u00e0-vis integrated exporters. The verified data from the sampled Union producers did not show any significant correlation between the vertical integration of the PTA production and the economic performance of the Union producers.\n(108)\nConsequently, it is concluded that lack of vertical integration of the PTA production did not contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n5.4. Conclusion on causation\n(109)\nThe coincidence in time between, on the one hand, the increase in dumped imports from the UAE and Iran, the increase in market shares and the undercutting found and, on the other hand, the deterioration in the situation of the Union producers, leads to the conclusion that the dumped imports caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\n(110)\nOther factors were analysed but were found not to break the causal link between the effects of the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry. As concerns Pakistan, since the undercutting is very low, it is considered that its imports did not contribute to the injury of the Union industry to any material extent. Imports from the Republic of Korea may have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry, but given the small price difference between these imports and the Union market, this is considered not to break the causal link established with the dumped imports from the UAE and Iran. Due to the declining market share and their high price level, there is no evidence that imports from other third counties have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry. Moreover, no other known factor, i.e. the export performance of the Union industry, competition from the other Union producers, the economic downturn, the geographical location and lack of vertical integration, has contributed to the injury of the Union industry to an extent that it would break the causal link.\n(111)\nBased on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors having an effect on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effect of the dumped imports, it is provisionally concluded that the imports from the UAE and Iran have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\n6. UNION INTEREST\n(112)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether, despite the conclusions on dumping, injury, and causation, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this particular case. For this purpose and pursuant to Article 21(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission considered the likely impact of possible measures on all parties involved as well as the likely consequences of not taking measures.\n(113)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to independent importers, suppliers of raw materials, users and their associations. In total, over 50 questionnaires were sent out, but only 13 replies were received within the time limits set. In addition, 22 users came forward later in the proceeding with letters expressing opposition to any possible measures in this case.\n6.1. Interest of the Union industry and other Union producers\n(114)\nIt is expected that the imposition of measures on imports from the UAE and Iran would prevent further distortions of the market, suppression of prices and restore fair competition. This, in turn, would provide the Union industry with an opportunity to improve its situation due to increased prices, increased sales volumes and market share.\n(115)\nIn the absence of measures, it is expected that imports from the UAE and Iran would continue to increase at low prices undercutting the prices of the Union industry. In this case, the Union industry would not have the opportunity to improve its situation. Given the bad financial state of the Union industry, more closures would be expected with the resulting loss in employment.\n(116)\nThere is no indication that the interests of the other producers in the Union that have not actively cooperated with the investigation would be different from those indicated for the Union industry.\n(117)\nThe Iranian company argued that the imposition of measures would not help the Union industry because it would only lead to new investments in other exporting countries. This argument can not be accepted as it would mean, when pushed to its logical consequence, that anti-dumping measures can never be imposed on products for which investments can be shifted to other countries. It would also mean denying protection against unfair trade just because of the possibility of new competition from other third countries.\n(118)\nThe same interested party claimed that any measures could not remedy a structural competitive disadvantage of the EU PET production industry in comparison to the PET production industry in Asia and the Middle East. This argument, however, was not sufficiently substantiated. It is noted that some sampled Union producers which are vertically integrated are also in a difficult financial situation. In addition, even if there were possible competitive advantages (for example through cheaper access to raw materials), exporting producers were still found to dump.\n(119)\nAccordingly, it is provisionally concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would clearly be in the interest of the Union industry.\n6.2. Interest of unrelated importers in the Union\n(120)\nAs indicated above, sampling was applied for the unrelated importers and out of two sampled companies only one importing agent (Global Services International, \u2018G.S.I\u2019.) has fully cooperated in this investigation by submitting a questionnaire reply. The imports declared by the cooperating agent represent a significant proportion of all imports from the countries concerned in the IP. Commissions for the imports of PET represent the majority of the G.S.I. business. Given that the agent works on a commission basis, imposition of any duties is not expected to have a significant impact on his performance as any actual import price increase would likely be borne by his clients.\n(121)\nNo other importer submitted relevant information. Given that imports from other countries where there are currently anti-dumping measures in force did not stop and that imports are available from countries without any anti-dumping measures (e.g. Oman, USA, Brazil), it is considered that importers can import from these countries.\n(122)\nAccordingly, it is provisionally concluded that the imposition of provisional measures will not have negative effects on the interest of the EU importers to any significant extent.\n6.3. Interest of the raw material suppliers in the Union\n(123)\nThree raw material suppliers (two of PTA and one of MEG) cooperated with the investigation by submitting the questionnaire reply within the set time limit. The staff employed in their European facilities and involved in the production of PTA / MEG was around 700.\n(124)\nThe cooperating PTA producers represent around 50 % of the PTA purchases of the sampled Union producers. PTA producers are heavily dependant on the state of the PET producers that constitute their major clients. Low prices of PET translate into lower prices of PTA and lower margins for the PTA producers. It is noted that there is an ongoing anti-dumping and an anti-subsidy investigation concerning imports of PTA originating in Thailand, meaning that the EU PTA producers may also face unfair competition from Thai imports. Consequently, it is considered that the imposition of measures on the dumped imports of PET would benefit the PTA producers.\n(125)\nFor the cooperating MEG supplier, MEG represents less than 10 % of its total turnover. It is noted that with regard to MEG, PET is not its only or even the major possible application and MEG producers are less dependent on the situation of the PET industry. Nonetheless, the difficulties of the PET industry may have some limited impact on the suppliers of MEG, at least in a short to medium term.\n(126)\nGiven the above, it is provisionally concluded that imposition of measures on the dumped imports from the UAE and Iran would be in the interest of raw material suppliers.\n6.4. Interest of the users\n(127)\nPET subject to this proceeding (i.e. with the viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, so called \u2018bottle grade\u2019) is mostly used to produce bottles for water and other drinks. Its use for the production of other packages (solid foodstuff or detergents) and to produce sheet is developing, but it remains relatively limited. Bottles of PET are produced in two stages: (i) first a pre-form is made by mould injection of PET and (ii) later the pre-form is heated and blown into a bottle. Bottle making can be an integrated process (i.e. the same company buys PET, produces a pre-form and blows it into the bottle) or limited to the second stage (blowing the pre-form into a bottle). Pre-forms can be relatively easily transported as they are small and dense, while empty bottles are instable and due to their size very expensive to transport.\n(128)\nPET bottles are filled with water and/or other beverages by the bottling companies (\u2018bottlers\u2019). The bottling companies are often involved in the PET business either via integrated bottle making operations or via tolling agreements with subcontracted converters and/or bottle makers for whom they negotiate the PET price with the producer (soft tolling) or even buy the PET for their own bottles (hard tolling).\n(129)\nConsequently, two groups of users may be distinguished:\n-\nconverters and/or bottle makers - that buy PET directly from producers, convert it into pre-forms (or bottles) and sell it further for downstream processing (or filling), and\n-\nbottlers - that buy PET for their subcontracting bottle makers/converters (hard tolling) or negotiate the price for which the subcontracted converter and/or bottle maker will get the PET (soft tolling).\n(a) Converters\n(130)\nThe producers of pre-forms are the main users of the bottle grade PET. Four converters, representing 16 % of the Union consumption in the IP, fully cooperated with the investigation (i.e. submitted full questionnaire replies within the time limits). As mentioned above, a significant number of converters also came forward later in the proceeding stating their opposition, but did not provide any verifiable data with regard to their consumption. The cooperating import agent claimed during a hearing that over 80 % of the EU users are opposing the measures. This information was however not sufficiently substantiated and could not be verified.\n(131)\nAn association representing European plastic converters (EuPC) stated during a hearing that it takes a neutral stance towards this proceeding. Although some of its members would oppose any measures, the current level of PET prices on the European market is not sustainable for the PET recycling companies. PET recycling companies (also represented by EuPC) would be in favour of measures. However, at a later stage of the investigation, the association changed its position and expressed its opposition to the imposition of measures. The association claimed that the imposition of measures would bring excessive costs to the EU plastic converting industry, which is mainly composed of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The association argued that these SMEs would not be able to absorb higher PET prices, which would either force them to close their activities or encourage them to relocate outside the EU. These claims were not further substantiated at this stage.\n(132)\nThe total staff employed by the cooperating converters amounted to 1 300 people, while the declared staff employed by the converters that came forward later in the proceeding would amount to further 6 000 people. The import agent and his clients indicated during the hearing an employment level for converters of around 20 000 people. The employment information remains to be verified.\n(133)\nOn the basis of the information available, the PET used in the production of pre-forms amounts to between 70 % and 80 % of the total cost of production for converters. It is therefore a critical cost component for these companies. The investigation so far indicated that on average the cooperating converters are already making some losses. Given that the majority of converters are small and medium sized local companies, they may have in the short to medium term only limited possibilities to pass on any increase in their costs, in particular when their client (bottling companies) is a rather big player with a much better negotiating position. However, the contracts (normally negotiated every year) for selling pre-forms and/or bottles often include a mechanism for reflecting the variation of PET prices.\n(134)\nConverters and the cooperating import agent argued that measures would result in some bigger pre-form makers moving their standardised production lines to the countries neighbouring EU. Given that the cost of transportation of pre-forms over a limited distance is relatively low, this process is already happening to some extent. Still, for the moment, considerations like proximity to the client or flexibility of deliveries appear to compensate for the advantages the neighbouring countries may offer. Given that the proposed level of measures is moderate, it is provisionally considered that the advantages of producing the pre-forms outside the EU should not outweigh the current drawbacks. Moreover, given the transportation cost, the delocalisation is expected to be an alternative only for companies whose clients are located close to the EU borders, but not for converters that have their clients in other parts of the EU.\n(135)\nConverters and the cooperating import agent also argued that measures could only bring a short term relief to the PET producers. They claimed that in the medium to long term, once the pre-form makers move out of the EU, there would be insufficient demand on the EU market for PET producers and the falling prices would ultimately force the PET producers to closures or relocation out of the EU. Given the considerations in the preceding recital and given that it is provisionally considered not yet economically mandatory for the pre-form makers to move out of the EU, this scenario is unlikely to happen.\n(136)\nIt can, thus, provisionally not be excluded that the imposition of measures will have a significant impact on the production cost of converters. However, given the uncertainties as to the possibilities for the pre-form and/or bottle makers to pass on the increased costs to their customers, the impact on the profitability of converters and their overall performance cannot be clearly stated at this provisional stage.\n(b) Bottlers\n(137)\nSix bottling companies including branches of Coca-Cola Co., Nestle Waters, Danone and Orangina cooperated with the investigation, i.e. submitted full questionnaire replies within the time limits. They represent around 11 % of the Union consumption of PET in the IP. The format of the information provided does not allow identifying easily the number of staff directly involved in the production that uses PET. However, it is provisionally estimated at around 6 000 people. Based on the information available, it is estimated that the total bottling industry in the Union employs between 40 000 and 60 000 employees directly involved in the production using PET.\n(138)\nOn the basis of the information available, the cost of PET in the total cost of the cooperating bottlers vary between 1 % and 14 %, depending on the cost of other components used in the production of their respective products. The information available indicates that PET tends to be a more important cost item for the mineral water producers (especially not branded), while for some soft drink bottling companies it would be marginal. The information on the file shows that in some cases the PET cost may represent up to 20 % of the final price of the mineral water for the customers. It is estimated that on average the cost of PET can constitute up to 10 % of the total cost of the bottling companies.\n(139)\nGiven the above, it is considered that any increase in prices for PET following the imposition of the proposed measures will only have a limited (less than 2 % cost increase) impact on the overall situation of the bottling companies, even if, as claimed, they would have difficulties in passing on the increased cost to their customers, which in any case is unlikely at least in the mid-term perspective.\n6.5. Shortage of PET supply\n(140)\nSeveral interested parties argued that imposition of measures would result in a shortage of PET on the EU market and that the Union producers do not have sufficient capacities to meet the existing demand.\n(141)\nIt is noted in this respect that Union producers operated only at 69 % of their capacity in the IP and have sufficient spare capacity to replace the imports from the UAE and Iran, should this become necessary. However, the purpose of the duty should not be to discourage any imports but only to restore fair competition on the market. Moreover, other sources of supply are also available.\n(142)\nIn addition, it is expected that the PET recycling industry would increase production if the price of virgin PET in the EU is maintained at a reasonable level and not allowed to drop because of unfair competition.\n6.6. Other arguments\n(143)\nThe Iranian exporter argued that the imposition of measures against Iranian PET would have a disproportionate negative effect in view of the country's status as developing country and the fact that Iranian exporters already face serious disadvantages due to international sanctions. It is the Commission's constant practice to take anti-dumping actions against developing and developed countries alike whenever the legal requirements warrant such action. Moreover, the fact that there are sanctions in place against Iran is an irrelevant consideration under the existing anti-dumping rules.\n6.7. Conclusion on Union interest\n(144)\nTo conclude, it is expected that the imposition of measures on imports from the UAE and Iran would provide an opportunity for the Union industry, as well as the other Union producers, to improve their situation through increased sales volumes, sales prices and market share. While some negative effects may occur in the form of cost increases for users (mainly converters), they are likely to be outweighed by the expected benefits for the producers and their suppliers.\n(145)\nRestoring fair competition and maintaining a reasonable price level in the EU will encourage PET recycling, thus, assisting in the protection of the environment. In light of the above, it is provisionally concluded that on balance, no compelling reasons exist for not imposing measures in the present case. This preliminary assessment may need to be revised at final stage, after the verification of the user questionnaire replies and further investigation.\n7. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(146)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional measures should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in the Iran and the United Arab Emirates in order to prevent further injury to the Union industry by the dumped imports.\n(147)\nAs far as imports of the product concerned originating in Pakistan are concerned, no dumping was provisionally found, as indicated above. Consequently, no provisional measures should be imposed.\n7.1. Injury elimination level\n(148)\nThe provisional measures on imports originating in the UAE and Iran should be imposed at a level sufficient to eliminate the injury caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports, without exceeding the dumping margin found. When calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it is considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and obtain overall a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports.\n(149)\nThe Union claimed a 7,5 % target profit, as was used in the proceeding against the People's Republic of China. However, during the period considered the Union industry never achieved such a profit (in fact it was never profitable) and it generally commented that it usually operates on rather low margins. The highest profit achieved by two sampled companies during one year of the period considered was 3 %. In these circumstances, a 5 % was provisionally considered as the most appropriate target profit.\n(150)\nOn this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry of the like product. The non-injurious price has been established by deducting the actual profit margin from the ex-works price and adding to the so calculated break even price the above-mentioned target profit margin\n(151)\nGiven that during the IP the raw material prices and consequently the PET prices on the Union market experienced significant variations, it was considered appropriate to calculate the injury elimination level based on quarterly data.\nCountry\nInjury elimination level\nIran\n17,0 %\nPakistan\n15,2 %\nUAE\n18,5 %\n7.2. Provisional measures\n(152)\nIn the light of the foregoing and pursuant to Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that a provisional anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in Iran and the United Arab Emirates at the level of the lowest of the dumping and injury elimination level found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(153)\nOn the basis of the above, and in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that the proposed duty rate for the product concerned originating in Iran should be based on the injury elimination level 17 %. Moreover, the proposed duty rate for the product concerned originating in the United Arab Emirates should based on dumping 6,6 %. No provisional measures should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in Pakistan.\n(154)\nIn noted that an anti-subsidy investigation was carried out in parallel with the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of PET for Iran, Pakistan and United Arab Emirates. Since, pursuant to Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation, no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with one and the same situation arising from dumping or from export subsidisation, it was considered necessary to determine whether, and to what extent, the subsidy amounts and the dumping margins arise from the same situation.\n(155)\nAs concerns the subsidy schemes that constituted export subsidies within the meaning of Article 4(4)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (3), the provisional dumping margins established for the exporting producer in Iran are partly due to the existence of countervailable export subsidies. However, since the same injury elimination level applies for both the anti-dumping and the anti-subsidy investigations, no provisional anti-dumping duty is proposed against Iran.\n(156)\nAs already mentioned at recital (15) above costs and prices of PET are subject to considerable fluctuations in relative short periods of time. It was therefore considered appropriate to impose duties in the form of a specific amount per tonne. This amount results from the application of the anti-dumping rate to the CIF export prices used for the calculation of the dumping margin.\n(157)\nOn the basis of the above, and taking into account the findings set out in the Regulation imposing a provisional countervailing duty (Commission Regulation (EU) No 473/2010) (4), the proposed anti-dumping duty amounts, expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, are provisionally as follows:\nCountry\nTotal subsidy margin\nof which Export subsidy\nDumping margin\nInjury margin (on quarterly basis)\nProvisional CV duty\nProvisional AD duty\n%\nAmount\n(EUR/t)\n%\nAmount\n(EUR/t)\nIran\n53 %\n2 %\n28,6 %\n17,0 %\n17,0 %\n142,97\n0 %\n0\nUAE\n5,1 %\n0 %\n6,6 %\n18,5 %\n5,1 %\n42,34\n6,6 %\n54,80\n7.3. Final Provision\n(158)\nIn the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in Iran and the United Arab Emirates.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 shall be as follows:\nCountry\nAnti-Dumping duty rate (EUR/tonne)\nIran: all companies\n0\nUnited Arab Emirates: all companies\n54,80\n3. In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (5), the amount of anti-dumping duty, calculated on the amounts set above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.\n4. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n5. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nWithout prejudice to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nPursuant to Article 21(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2010.", "references": ["62", "53", "90", "33", "45", "75", "80", "50", "76", "43", "10", "55", "11", "97", "37", "0", "58", "64", "38", "52", "88", "57", "49", "94", "86", "30", "36", "8", "56", "61", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 709/2011\nof 20 July 2011\nfixing the export refunds on milk and milk products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in milk and milk products, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that export refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that comply with the requirements of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (2).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 400/2011 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nExport refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation, subject to the conditions provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 400/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["12", "31", "53", "38", "44", "59", "91", "25", "41", "65", "79", "30", "28", "51", "7", "67", "75", "40", "56", "46", "71", "57", "69", "49", "54", "33", "72", "17", "94", "18", "No Label", "20", "22", "70"], "gold": ["20", "22", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1073/2011\nof 20 October 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Fasola Pi\u0119kny Ja\u015b z Doliny Dunajca/Fasola z Doliny Dunajca (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Fasola Pi\u0119kny Ja\u015b z Doliny Dunajca/Fasola z Doliny Dunajca\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["3", "11", "60", "14", "74", "92", "23", "79", "44", "86", "13", "87", "46", "73", "76", "37", "70", "51", "20", "57", "72", "40", "78", "42", "7", "19", "67", "75", "69", "80", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 29 March 2011\non the compliance of standard EN 14682:2007 on cords and drawstrings on children\u2019s clothing with the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and publication of the reference of the standard in the Official Journal\n(notified under document C(2011) 1860)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/196/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (1), and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee set up in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(1) of Directive 2001/95/EC obliges producers to place only safe products on the market.\n(2)\nUnder Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC, a product is presumed to be safe, as far as the risks and risk categories covered by the relevant national standards are concerned, when it conforms to voluntary national standards transposing European standards, the references of which have to be published by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Union, in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Directive.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 4(1) of the Directive, European standards should be established by European standardisation bodies under mandates drawn up by the Commission. The Commission shall publish the references of such standards.\n(4)\nArticle 4(2) of the Directive lays down a procedure for the publication of references of standards adopted by the European standardisation bodies before the entry into force of the Directive. Where such standards ensure compliance with the general safety requirement, the Commission shall decide to publish their references in the Official Journal of the European Union. In such cases, the Commission, acting on its own initiative or at the request of a Member State, shall decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15(2) of the Directive, whether the standard in question meets the general safety requirement. The Commission shall decide to publish the reference of the standard after consulting the Committee established by Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC. The Commission shall notify the Member States of its decision.\n(5)\nIn November 2000, the Commission sent Mandate M/309 to CEN (European Committee for Standardisation) to draft European safety standards to address the risks of strangulation, injury and entrapment posed by cords and drawstrings on children\u2019s clothes.\n(6)\nCEN adopted standard EN 14682:2004 in response to the Commission\u2019s Mandate. The Commission published its reference in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).\n(7)\nIn September 2007, standard EN 14682:2004 was superseded by a new version adopted by CEN. This version clarifies the requirements for cords and drawstrings in children\u2019s garments and includes explanatory drawings. The reference of standard EN 14682:2007 is not published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(8)\nBetween November 2008 and February 2010, the market surveillance authorities of 11 Member States jointly investigated the compliance of children clothes in their markets with the requirements of EN 14682:2007. The project was co-financed by the Commission (4).\n(9)\nThe national market surveillance authorities participating in the project submitted more than 400 RAPEX notifications of garments which did not comply with the requirements of standard EN 14682:2007. These notifications accounted for a significant share of the total of RAPEX notifications received in 2009 (5).\n(10)\nThis joint project also promoted a more widespread knowledge and raised awareness of the requirements of standard EN 14682:2007 for economic operators along the supply chain.\n(11)\nThe Commission considers that standard EN 14682:2007 fulfils its Mandate M/309, complies with the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC, and that its reference should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 4(2), first subparagraph.\n(12)\nThis Decision on the compliance of standard EN 14682:2007 with the general safety requirement is taken at the initiative of the Commission.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee of Directive 2001/95/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nStandard EN 14682:2007 \u2018Safety of children\u2019s clothing - Cords and drawstrings on children\u2019s clothing - Specifications\u2019 meets the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC for the risks it covers.\nArticle 2\nThe reference of standard EN 14682:2007 shall be published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union and shall replace the reference of standard EN 14682:2004.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 March 2011.", "references": ["39", "75", "28", "51", "62", "99", "14", "64", "94", "80", "85", "5", "42", "6", "77", "68", "72", "61", "49", "84", "93", "22", "13", "18", "23", "57", "60", "73", "11", "43", "No Label", "24", "76", "89"], "gold": ["24", "76", "89"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1195/2010\nof 14 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in Norwegian waters of I and II by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["47", "76", "21", "37", "93", "92", "64", "38", "52", "16", "88", "75", "43", "1", "19", "70", "68", "32", "71", "28", "63", "89", "80", "42", "24", "3", "61", "8", "11", "58", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED DECISION\nof 3 February 2012\namending Directive 2009/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on statistical returns in respect of carriage of goods and passengers by sea\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/186/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on statistical returns in respect of carriage of goods and passengers by sea (1), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn the production of European statistics there should be a balance between the needs of the users and the burden on respondents.\n(2)\nA technical analysis of the existing data collected under the Union legislation on statistical returns in respect of carriage of goods and passengers by sea, and of the dissemination policy, has been carried out at European level in order to propose possible technical solutions to simplify, as much as possible, the various activities necessary for the production of statistics, while keeping the final output in line with present and foreseeable needs of users.\n(3)\nAs a result of this analysis, the variable \u2018direction\u2019 in the existing quarterly statistics on vessel traffic in the main European ports should be simplified, while the legal status (mandatory vs voluntary) of the corresponding data sets F1 and F2 should be clarified.\n(4)\nIn addition, a harmonised legal framework should be established for a voluntary collection of statistics on Ro-Ro containers. Moreover, the type of cargo classification should be extended.\n(5)\nThe nomenclature on the maritime coastal areas needs to be adapted to technical developments.\n(6)\nDirective 2009/42/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I, II, IV and VIII to Directive 2009/42/EC are replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThe first reference year for the application of this Decision shall be 2012, covering the data for 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2012.", "references": ["25", "37", "86", "76", "84", "73", "1", "31", "43", "74", "71", "70", "2", "15", "68", "13", "7", "0", "17", "5", "65", "97", "10", "9", "21", "98", "40", "36", "66", "61", "No Label", "19", "53", "54", "56"], "gold": ["19", "53", "54", "56"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1050/2011\nof 20 October 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Darjeeling (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 7(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, an application from India received on 12 November 2007 to register the name \u2018Darjeeling\u2019 as a protected geographical indication was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nGermany, France, Italy, Austria, the United Kingdom and a citizen of India lodged objections to such registration under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. The objections were deemed admissible under points (a), (c), and (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 7(3) thereof. By letter dated 11 June 2010, the Commission asked the Parties concerned to seek agreement among them.\n(3)\nAn agreement was reached between France and India, which resulted in introducing clarifications to the Single Document to the effect that only bulk packaging is required to take place in the geographical area and that consumer packaging may take place within or outside the geographical area. Consequently, it should be made clear in relation to labelling that the obligatory presence of a licence number and a specified logo is only required in respect of products in bulk shipped from the geographical area.\n(4)\nAgreement was only partially reached between Germany, Italy, Austria, the United Kingdom and the citizen of India on the one hand, and India on the other hand, within the designated timeframe. Following the agreement the botanical name \u2018Camellia sinensis M Kuntz\u2019, should be correctly referred to as \u2018Camellia sinensis L.O. Kuntze\u2019, and bulk packaging of \u2018Darjeeling\u2019 tea should be restricted to the geographical area. Any other kind of packaging or repackaging, including packaging intended for the final consumer, may take place within or outside the geographical area.\n(5)\nThe objectors further alleged failure of compliance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(6)\nConcerning the alleged absence of a link between the reputation and renown of the product and the area of production, it has been found that the product specification shows that the product is specific, and that the savoir-faire and acquired skills employed by producers as well as the pedo-climatic features and geographical environment of the geographical area (natural drainage of the soils, complex combination of very high rainfall and continuous low temperature) significantly affect the product\u2019s characteristics which constitute the core of its reputation.\n(7)\nAs for the objection regarding the alleged irrelevance of the analysis data cited in the Single Document, this data does not have an impact on the link which is based on reputation but merely serves to describe the product as such. Yet, to reveal the source of the analysis is not required by Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(8)\nThe name \u2018Darjeeling\u2019 should only be used as a sales designation for tea that is wholly produced in the geographical area in accordance with the specification, although blending of such tea may take place within or outside the geographical area. Blends of Darjeeling and other teas should not bear the name \u2018Darjeeling\u2019 as the sales designation and should otherwise be labelled in conformity with the Union\u2019s rules on labelling in particular to avoid that consumers are misled to a material degree.\n(9)\nThe statements of objection showed that the name \u2018Darjeeling\u2019 is used to designate certain products that are not in conformity with the specification, but which are comparable to such products. The continued use of the name on these products is found to jeopardise the existence of the name \u2018Darjeeling\u2019. Therefore the producers of such products should be granted a transitional period of 5 years to use the said name, pursuant to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, in so far as these products have been legally marketed for at least 5 years prior to 14 October 2009, and provided that the Union\u2019s legal order, in particular with respect to Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (3), is respected.\n(10)\nConcerning the alleged generic character of the name proposed for registration, no proof of generic status has been established.\n(11)\nIn the light of the above, the name \u2018Darjeeling\u2019 should be entered in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications and the Single Document should be updated accordingly and published.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Protected Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe designation contained in Annex I to this Regulation shall be entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nRegistration is subject to a 5-year transitional period during which names including \u2018Darjeeling\u2019 may be used on products produced not in conformity with the specification, in so far as these products have been legally marketed for at least 5 years prior to 14 October 2009, and provided that the Union\u2019s legal order, in particular with respect to misleading of consumers to a material degree pursuant to Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC, is respected.\nArticle 3\nThe updated Single Document is contained in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["81", "87", "62", "80", "70", "1", "6", "79", "44", "97", "36", "5", "74", "50", "75", "11", "39", "34", "40", "53", "35", "98", "86", "31", "41", "45", "93", "91", "26", "10", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "95", "96"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 811/2011\nof 11 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2011.", "references": ["96", "6", "21", "81", "94", "9", "53", "46", "36", "40", "43", "71", "28", "92", "19", "77", "72", "80", "58", "14", "44", "60", "85", "56", "26", "3", "64", "0", "17", "97", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 499/2011\nof 18 May 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 945/2010 adopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 2011 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the EU and derogating from certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular points (f) and (g) of Article 43, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro (2), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA number of Member States have informed the Commission in accordance with Article 3(5) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 of 14 September 2010 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Union (3) that they shall not be able to use certain quantities of products allocated to them under the 2011 plan adopted by Commission Regulation (EU) No 945/2010 (4).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 3(5) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 the Commission may allocate the available resources to other Member States on the basis of their applications and their actual use of products made available and allocations made during previous financial years.\n(3)\nThis revision of the plan for 2011 being made at a time when national administrative arrangements for the implementation of the plan should be approaching completion, it is appropriate that the reallocated quantities are not taken into account for calculating whether Member States have respected their obligation laid down in the first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 945/2010 and in the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 to have withdrawn 70 % of cereals by the deadlines fixed therein.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 945/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organization of the Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 945/2010 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nIn Article 5, the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018For the 2011 distribution plan, the first paragraph of this Article and the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 shall not apply to the following quantities of cereals stored in Finland:\n-\n12 856 tonnes allocated to Italy and\n-\n306 tonnes allocated to Slovenia.\u2019\n(b)\nAnnex I and III are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 May 2011.", "references": ["49", "61", "47", "27", "18", "79", "26", "8", "60", "46", "75", "17", "63", "21", "7", "25", "76", "89", "53", "50", "0", "3", "58", "81", "88", "68", "97", "1", "34", "36", "No Label", "4", "15", "20", "37", "72", "96"], "gold": ["4", "15", "20", "37", "72", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1082/2011\nof 26 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 October 2011.", "references": ["9", "70", "72", "53", "32", "63", "38", "14", "74", "36", "52", "6", "59", "37", "65", "69", "47", "91", "34", "97", "64", "2", "98", "62", "26", "78", "39", "15", "92", "19", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 April 2011\nappointing one Spanish member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/245/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nOne member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Jos\u00e9 MONTILLA AGUILERA,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as a member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr Artur MAS GAVARR\u00d3, Presidente de la Generalitat de Catalunya,\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 14 April 2011.", "references": ["82", "47", "63", "38", "65", "73", "5", "27", "28", "81", "1", "84", "26", "34", "80", "56", "61", "36", "62", "31", "18", "6", "9", "35", "15", "74", "76", "41", "69", "95", "No Label", "7", "52", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "52", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 606/2012\nof 4 July 2012\nprohibiting fishing activities for traps and longliners flying the flag of or registered in Italy, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and in the Mediterranean Sea\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules on the common fisheries policy, (1) and in particular Article 36, paragraph 2 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements fixes the amount of bluefin tuna which may be fished in 2012 in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 of 6 April 2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, amending Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1559/2007, (2) requires Member States to inform the Commission of the individual quota allocated to their vessels over 24 metres and, for catching vessels less than 24 metres and for traps, at least of the quota allocated to producer organisations or groups of vessels fishing with similar gear.\n(3)\nThe Common Fisheries Policy is designed to ensure the long-term viability of the fisheries sector through sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources based on the precautionary approach.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, where the Commission finds that, on the basis of information provided by Member States and of other information in its possession fishing opportunities available to the European Union, a Member State or group of Member States are deemed to have been exhausted for one or more gears or fleets, the Commission shall inform the Member States concerned thereof and shall prohibit fishing activities for the respective area, gear, stock, group of stocks or fleet involved in those specific fishing activities.\n(5)\nThe information in the Commission's possession indicates that the fishing opportunities for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea allocated to traps and longliners flying the flag of or registered in Italy are deemed to have been exhausted.\n(6)\nOn 20 June 2012 Italy informed the Commission of the fact that it had imposed a stop on the fishing activities of its traps and longline vessels active in the 2012 bluefin tuna fishery, with effect from 20 June at 13:00 for longliners and with effect from 22 June at 17:00 for traps.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to the action taken by Italy mentioned above, it is necessary that the Commission confirms the prohibition of fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W and the Mediterranean Sea, as from 20 June 2012 at 13:00 for longliners flying the flag of or registered in Italy and as from 22 June 2012 at 17:00 for traps registered in Italy.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean by longliners flying the flag of or registered in Italy shall be prohibited as from 20 June 2012 at 13:00.\nIt shall also be prohibited to retain on board, place in cages for fattening or farming, tranship, transfer or land such stock caught by those vessels as from that date.\nArticle 2\nFishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean by traps registered in Italy shall be prohibited as from 22 June 2012 at 17:00.\nIt shall also be prohibited to retain on board, place in cages for fattening or farming, tranship, transfer or land such stock caught by those traps as from that date.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["5", "64", "36", "7", "44", "30", "46", "10", "77", "26", "94", "63", "75", "50", "0", "31", "11", "65", "25", "40", "43", "37", "19", "73", "38", "68", "18", "34", "47", "23", "No Label", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 20 July 2011\ncorrecting Decision 2010/152/EU excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)\n(notified under document C(2011) 5139)\n(Only the Polish text is authentic)\n(2011/447/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving consulted the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision 2010/152/EU (3) the Commission excluded from European Union financing a total amount of PLN 279 794 442,15 and EUR 25 583 996,81 including in particular PLN 180 448 032,62 incurred by Poland for area-related rural development measures in the 2000-2006 programming period. However, the Annex to that Decision erroneously identified that amount to be charged to budget item 6701\u2018Clearance of EAGF accounts - assigned revenue\u2019. Rather, as that correction concerned the expenditures under the Temporary Rural Development Instrument (TRDI), it should have been charged to budget item 6500\u2018Financial corrections in connection with the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund and the European Fisheries Fund\u2019.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 11(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (4), sums excluded from Union financing are deducted from the monthly payments relating to the expenditure effected in the second month following the Decision with respect to the EAGF. Therefore, the amount of PLN 180 448 032,62 was converted into euro applying the exchange rate of 29 April 2010, amounting to EUR 46 087 919,86.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 27/2004 of 5 January 2004 laying down transitional detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 as regards the financing by the EAGGF Guarantee Section of rural development measures in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (5), Commission decisions concerning rural development in Poland are to be expressed in euro. The corrections concerning TRDI which are expressed in the national currencies in the decisions should therefore be converted into euro. The conversion is made using the average exchange rate of the financial year of TRDI expenditure subject to correction. Following this methodology the amount of PLN 180 448 032,62 being a correction for TRDI expenses in the financial years 2005, 2006 and 2007 amounts to EUR 46 430 682,69.\n(4)\nDecision 2010/152/EU should therefore be corrected accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAll entries in the Annex to Decision 2010/152/EU concerning Poland shall be replaced by those set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nFor bookkeeping reasons, Poland shall declare the amount of EUR 46 087 919,86 for reimbursement on budget item 6701\u2018Clearance of EAGF accounts - assigned revenue\u2019.\nA recovery order with the amount of EUR 46 430 682,69 shall be issued by the Commission in order to execute the financial corrections concerning TRDI from budget item 6500\u2018Financial corrections in connection with the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund and the European Fisheries Fund\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Poland.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["35", "65", "27", "81", "54", "66", "22", "47", "26", "88", "50", "36", "61", "29", "5", "99", "70", "59", "92", "31", "63", "38", "72", "62", "19", "71", "48", "8", "30", "34", "No Label", "10", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 405/2011\nof 19 April 2011\nimposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel bars and rods originating in India\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Provisional measures\n(1)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 1261/2010 (2) (the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel bars originating in India.\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 15 February 2010 by the European Federation of Iron and Steel Industries (Eurofer) (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of total Union production of certain stainless steel bars.\n(3)\nAs set out in recital 23 of the provisional regulation, the investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 2007 to the end of the investigation period (period considered).\n1.2. Subsequent procedure\n(4)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional countervailing measures (provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard. The Commission continued to seek information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account, where appropriate.\n(5)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel bars originating in India and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. The parties were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this final disclosure.\n1.3. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(6)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the parties concerned by the proceeding, recitals 5 to 22 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND THE LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(7)\nIt is recalled that, as stated in recital 24 of the provisional Regulation, \u2018the product concerned\u2019 was defined as stainless steel bars and rods, not further worked than cold-formed or cold-finished, other than bars and rods of circular cross-section of a diameter of 80 mm or more, originating in India currently falling within CN codes 7222 20 21, 7222 20 29, 7222 20 31, 7222 20 39, 7222 20 81 and 7222 20 89.\n(8)\nOne exporting producer in India claimed that SSB of a circular cross section of a diameter of less than 80 mm but outside the tolerance range of H6 to H11 should be excluded from the investigation because it does not fall within the product scope.\n(9)\nThis argument was rejected since the product scope does not refer to tolerances. The product control number (PCN) in the questionnaire does contain a field for tolerances limited to range H6 to H11 but this is only for comparison purposes and has no binding consequences for the product under investigation. It is therefore concluded that products outside the tolerance range of H6 to H11 should not be excluded.\n(10)\nIt should be noted that for the calculation of the provisional subsidy and injury margins, the products outside the tolerance range of H6 to H11 were taken into account.\n2.2. Like product\n(11)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the like product, recital 25 of the provision Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n3. SUBSIDISATION\n3.1. Introduction\n(12)\nIn recital 26 of the provisional Regulation, reference was made to the following schemes, which allegedly involve the granting of subsidies:\n(a)\nduty entitlement passbook scheme;\n(b)\nadvance authorisation scheme;\n(c)\nexport promotion capital goods scheme;\n(d)\nexport oriented units scheme;\n(e)\nexport credit scheme.\n(13)\nThe Union industry questioned whether the Commission failed to take into account a number of subsidy schemes, and as a result believed that the subsidies found to be received by Indian producers were underestimated.\n(14)\nIn reply to this, it should be noted that the complaint contained a great number of national and local subsidy schemes, which were included in the questionnaire to exporting producers in India and investigated by the Commission. However, only for the schemes listed in recital 12 above, it was found that the investigated exporting producers in the sample had received subsidies.\n(15)\nThe Union industry also argued that the Commission findings contradict a US Department of Commence (US DOC) finding in a recent countervailing proceedings concerning certain steel exports from India where much higher subsidies were found. However, it should be noted that this finding relates to a different product and cover a different investigation period. Consequently, this argument is hereby rejected.\n(16)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals 26 to 28 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.2. Duty entitlement passbook scheme (DEPBS)\n(17)\nSeveral parties argued that the DEPBS should not be considered as a countervailable subsidy, since the purpose of the scheme is to offset customs duties on imports. As explained in recital 38 of the provisional Regulation this scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation since it does not conform to the rules laid down in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) to the basic Regulation. In particular, an exporter is under no obligation to actually consume the goods imported free of duty in the production process and the amount of credit is not calculated in relation to actual inputs used. Moreover, there is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production process of the exported product or whether an excess payment of import duties occurred within the meaning of item (i) of Annex I, and Annexes II and III to the basic Regulation. Lastly, an exporter is eligible for the DEPBS benefits regardless of whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported. Thus, even exporters which procure all of their inputs locally and do not import any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled to benefit from the DEPBS. Therefore, these arguments are hereby rejected.\n(18)\nIn case of sales of the DEPB licence, one party argued that the actual selling price was below the licence value and therefore the benefit was less. In this regard, it should be noted that the benefit under this scheme was calculated on the basis of the amount of credit granted in the licence regardless of whether the licence was used to offset customs duties on imports or whether the licence was actually sold. It is considered that any sale of a licence at a price less the face value is a pure commercial decision which does not alter the amount of benefit received under this scheme. Therefore, this argument is hereby rejected.\n(19)\nOne party further argued that even if the DEPBS was considered countervailable, the benefit received under the scheme should not be based on export value, but rather the actual use of the DEPB licence. In this respect, it should be recalled that in accordance with Articles 3(2) and 5 of the basic Regulation, the amount of countervailable subsidies was calculated in terms of benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to exist during the IP. In this regard, it was considered that the benefit is conferred on the recipient at the point of time when an export transaction is made under this scheme. At that moment, the Government of India (GOI) is liable to forego the customs duties, which constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) of the basic Regulation. Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill which shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction, the GOI has no discretion as to whether or not to grant the subsidy. By virtue of the fact that a company is aware that it will receive a subsidy under DEPBS, the company is in a more advantageous position, because it can reflect the subsidies through offering lower prices. The moment of export is decisive in order to establish conferral of a benefit, not the subsequent usage, because an exporter already with such vested right is \u2018better off\u2019 in financial terms. Consequently, this claim is hereby rejected.\n(20)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning this scheme, recitals 29 to 41 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.3. Advance authorisation scheme (AAS)\n(21)\nOne party argued that the AAS should be considered as a duty drawback system, because the imported materials are used to produce exported goods. In reply to this argument, it was explained in recital 54 of the provisional Regulation that the sub-scheme used in the present case cannot be considered permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the rules laid down in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) to the basic Regulation. The GOI did not effectively apply a verification system or a procedure to confirm whether and in what amounts inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) to the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) to the basic Regulation). It is also considered that the standard input-output norms (SIONs) for the product concerned were not sufficiently precise and that themselves cannot constitute a verification system of actual consumption because the design of those standard norms does not enable the GOI to verify with sufficient precision what amounts of inputs were consumed in the export production. In addition, the GOI did not carry out a further examination based on actual inputs involved, although this would normally need to be carried out in the absence of an effectively applied verification system (Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) to the basic Regulation). The sub-scheme is therefore countervailable, and the argument is hereby rejected.\n(22)\nRegarding the calculation of the subsidy amount, and contrary to the submission by one party, AAS benefit generated by other than the product concerned had to be considered when establishing the amount of countervailable benefit. No obligation exists under AAS which limits the use of the benefit to the importation of duty-free input material linked to a particular product. Consequently, the product concerned can benefit from all AAS benefit generated.\n(23)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning this scheme, recitals 42 to 58 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed\n3.4. Export promotion capital goods scheme (EPCGS)\n(24)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning this scheme, recital 59 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n3.5. Export oriented units scheme (EOUS)\n(25)\nBefore addressing a number of comments from the company in the sample which had the status of an EOU, it should be recalled that a crucial obligation of an EOU as set out in the FT-policy 2004-2009 and FT-policy 2009-2014 is to achieve net foreign exchange (NFE) earnings, that is in a reference period (5 years) the total value of exports has to be higher than the total value of imported goods. All enterprises which, in principle, undertake to export their entire production of goods or services may be set up under the EOUS.\n(26)\nIn return, export oriented units are entitled to a number of concessions listed under recital 66 of the provisional Regulation. They are contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation. The export objective of an EOU as set out in Chapter 6.1 of the FT-policy 2009-2014 is a conditio sine qua non to obtain the subsidies.\n(27)\nThe exemptions an EOU enjoys are all contingent in law upon export performance. The EOUS cannot be considered as a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex I (items (H) and (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) to the basic Regulation.\n(28)\nIn addition, it has not been confirmed that the GOI has a verification system or procedure in place to confirm whether and in what amounts duty and or sales tax free procured inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) to the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) to the basic Regulation). The verification system in place aims at monitoring the NFE earning obligation and not the consumption of imports in relation to the production of exported goods.\n(29)\nIn the view of the party with the status of an EOU, countervailability of any benefit is subject to two conditions: (i) lack of a verification system; and (ii) that there is excess remission. In reply to this, it should be noted that it is vital for the GOI to demonstrate that it has put in place a proper verification system to determine which inputs were consumed in the production process and in what amounts. The lack of a proper verification system will be further addressed below. Regarding the issue of excess remission, this is only relevant in a case where it has determined that a scheme, in this cases the EOUS, is a bona fide duty drawback scheme which fulfils the requirements of Annexes I, II and III to the basic Regulation. As already explained in recital 27 above, the EOUS cannot be considered as a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation.\n(30)\nThe party further underlined the default character of the EOU system as one that allows duty-free imports of raw material for exports of finals goods. The party argued that the EOU system may be assimilated with the special customs procedure of inward processing relief, not duty drawback. It claimed that irrespective of whether the outcome of these two systems is theoretically the same (export of goods that incorporate raw materials for which duty upon importation is foregone), there are substantial differences between them. In support for the claim, the party argued that in a duty drawback system, the exporter has the right to claim the refund or duties for raw material incorporated in the final goods. In the inward processing system, the exporter is exempted from any import duty but has the legal obligation to pay duty for any final goods sold domestically. The party argued that there cannot be any excess remission under the latter system.\n(31)\nIn reply to this, it should first of all be noted that it can only be determined whether excess payment has taken place in cases where there is a verification system in place aiming to monitor the consumption of imports in relation to the production of exported goods. Regarding the party\u2019s claim that the EOU is not a duty drawback scheme, it should be noted that footnote 2 of Annex I to the basic Regulation clearly stipulates that for the purpose of the basic Regulation \u2018remission or drawback\u2019 includes the full or partial exemption or deferral of import charges. It should be clear that the basic concept applying to duty drawback refund or exemption schemes are the same, i.e. that import duties on imports of raw materials are either not payable or refundable on the condition that such raw materials are used in the manufacture of products, which are consequently exported. Finally, it should be clear that, in order to determine whether the EOUS is to be considered as a bona fide duty drawback scheme, it has to meet the requirements of Annexes I, II and III to the basic Regulation.\n(32)\nThe party further claimed that an EOU is subject to a proper verification system and further verification steps regarding both its export and domestic sales. It claimed that not only the foreign trade policy (FTP) and the Handbook of procedures (HOP), which establishes the laws and procedures to EOU, were relevant. It should also be investigated whether there are other Indian laws and Regulations in place which establish a reasonable and effective verification system. In support for its claim, the party argued that, according to Section 6.10.1 of the HOP, it is legally obliged to maintain proper accounts and shall file digitally signed quarterly and annual progress reports concerning imports, domestic purchases, export and domestic sales. The party further argued that, according to the Central Excise Act, 1944, when making domestic sales, it is under the legal obligation to issue a tax invoice on which, for example, the payable taxes clearly are indicated. The Central Excise Act also establishes monthly requirements according to which the party must submit to the authorities full details of its domestic sales. Also, under the Companies Act, 1956, and the applicable accounting standards, the party is legally obliged to provide detailed information on imports and domestic procurement, as well as export and domestic sales in its audited financial statements.\n(33)\nIn reply to this, it is not disputed that the Companies Act may provide the framework for accounting standards in India. However, when accessing the countervailability of the EOU, the relevant issue is whether the GOI has a system in place which can confirm whether and in what amounts inputs free of duty or tax were consumed in the production of the exported goods.\n(34)\nThe requirements under the Central Excise Act serve a completely different purpose, i.e. to ensure that applicable taxes are paid in case of sales on the domestic market in India. It does not verify the duty-free imported materials, and it does not control the nexus between duty-free inputs and resultant export products in order to qualify as duty drawback schemes.\n(35)\nConcerning further verification steps installed, it should be recalled, as mentioned under recital 69 of the provisional Regulation, that an EOU is at no point in time required to co-relate every import consignment with the destination of the corresponding resulting product. Only such consignment controls, however, would provide the Indian authorities with sufficient information about the final destination of inputs to check that duty/sales tax exemptions do not exceed inputs for export production.\n(36)\nConsequently, despite careful consideration of the submission made by this party, it was confirmed that the GOI has no effective verification system or procedure in place to confirm whether and in what amounts duty and sales tax-free procured inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) to the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) to the basic Regulation). Also the GOI did not carry out a further examination based on actual inputs involved, although this would be normally required in the absence of an effective verification system (Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) to the basic Regulation). Furthermore no evidence was provided by the GOI that no excess remission took place.\n(37)\nThe party argued that for the purpose of the subsidy calculation the Commission should have taken into account customs duties paid on domestic sales of finished products. In reply to this argument, it should be noted that though the purpose for setting up an EOU unit is to achieve NFE earning, the EOU unit has the possibility to sell part of its production on the domestic market. Under the EOUS, the goods will be treated as imported goods though only a concessional duty rate of 50 % has to be paid. As such, an EOU is not in a different situation than other companies operating on the domestic market, i.e. applicable duties/taxes would have to be paid on purchased goods. In this context, it should be clear that a decision of the GOI to tax goods for consumption on the domestic market does not mean that the exemption of an EOU unit from import duties and reimbursement of sales taxes is not a benefit in relation to the export sales of the product concerned. Moreover, the sales on the domestic market have no impact on the more general assessment of the adequacy of whether there is an appropriate verification system in place.\n(38)\nThe party also argued that the Commission uses the wrong denominator when calculating the subsidy amount. It claimed that the correct denominator is the entire sales turnover and not the export sales turnover. This claim has to be rejected. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the subsidy amount (numerator) calculated under the scheme was allocated over total export turnover during the IP as appropriate denominator because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance. The possibility for an EOU to sell part of its production on the domestic market does not alter the fact that EOUS has a clear export objective.\n(39)\nLastly, the party argued that the benefit conferred upon the company should be equal to the credit costs foregone by the GOI between the time the raw materials are imported and the final stainless steel bars are exported from India. In support for its claim, the party referred to a recent preliminary finding of the US DOC in an anti-subsidy new shipper review where unpaid duties were considered to be interest-free loan made to the company at the time of the importation. In reply to this, it is noted that the Commission is not bound by any calculation methodology applied by the US DOC but by the provisions of the basic Regulation. In the present case, the calculation methodology used is explained in recitals 75 and 76 of the provisional Regulation. In any event, this argument would only work if the duties were merely deferred (footnote 3 of Annex I to the basic Regulation) rather than exempted, as is the case here.\n(40)\nIn the light of the above, recitals 60 to 77 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.6. Export credit scheme (ECS)\n(41)\nOne party acknowledged that it had received a preferential credit for its export but argued that this rate was considerably higher than the prevailing credit rates in the EU and therefore should not be considered as a benefit.\n(42)\nIn reply to this, it should be noted that the subsidy amount was calculated on the basis of the difference between the interest paid for export credits and the amount that would have been payable for ordinary commercial credits used by the company concerned in India. In this case, a domestic benchmark was used to calculate the amount of subsidy. Therefore, this argument is hereby rejected.\n(43)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning this scheme, recitals 78 to 86 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.7. Amount of countervailable subsidies\n(44)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidies in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, ranges from 3,3 % to 4,3 %. As these are at the same level as set out in recital 87 of the provisional Regulation, that recital is therefore confirmed.\nSCHEME\u2192\nDEPBS (3)\nAAS (3)\nEOU (3)\nECS (3)\nTotal\nCompany\nChandan Steel Ltd\n1,5 %\n1,5 %\n0,4 %\n3,4 %\nVenus group\n2,6 % to 3,4 %\n0 to 0,8 %\n3,3 % (4)\nViraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd\n4,3 %\n4,3 %\n(45)\nThe methodology for establishing the subsidy margin for the cooperating companies not included in the sample was set out in recital 88 of the provisional Regulation. In line with Article 15(3) of the basic Regulation, the subsidy margin for the cooperating companies not included in the sample, calculated on the basis of the weighted average subsidy margin established for the cooperating companies in the sample, is 4,0 %. Hence, recital 88 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n(46)\nThe basis for establishing the country-wide subsidy margin was set out in recital 89 of the provisional Regulation. In the absence of any comments in this regard, recital 89 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n4. UNION INDUSTRY\n(47)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning Union industry, recitals 90 to 93 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5. INJURY\n(48)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning injury, recitals 94 to 122 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6. CAUSATION\n(49)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning causation, recitals 123 to 136 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n7. UNION INTEREST\n(50)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning Union interest, the conclusions in recitals 137 to 148 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n8. DEFINITIVE COUNTERVAILING MEASURES\n8.1. Injury elimination level\n(51)\nOne party claimed that the average pre-tax profit margin of 9,5 %, which was based on the situation in the year 2007, used to calculate the non-injurious price to establish the injury margin, was not representative for the industry\u2019s long-term pre-tax profit margin. It was argued that the year on which this profit was based counted as an exceptional year and that the years 2005-2006 would be more representative since these were normal business years with profit margins ranging from 4 to 6 %.\n(52)\nThe target profit used at provisional stage was based on the weighted average profit margin realised by the sampled Union producers in 2007. This year was considered to be the most recent representative year when the Union producers did not suffer from injurious subsidisation. The comment is therefore rejected, the profit margin used at provisional stage is hereby confirmed.\n(53)\nIn the absence of other comments received concerning the injury elimination level, recitals 149 to 153 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n8.2. Conclusion on injury elimination level\n(54)\nThe methodology used in the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n8.3. Level of the duties\n(55)\nIn the light of the foregoing and in accordance with Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, a definitive countervailing duty should be imposed at a level sufficient to eliminate the injury caused by the subsidised imports without exceeding the subsidy margin found.\n(56)\nOn the basis of the above, the countervailing duty rates were established by comparing the injury elimination margins and the subsidy margins. Consequently, the proposed countervailing duty rates are as follows:\nCompany\nSubsidy margin\nInjury margin\nCountervailing duty rate\nChandan Steel Ltd\n3,4 %\n28,6 %\n3,4 %\nVenus Group\n3,3 %\n45,9 %\n3,3 %\nViraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd\n4,3 %\n51,5 %\n4,3 %\nCooperating non-sampled companies\n4,0 %\n44,4 %\n4,0 %\nAll other companies\n4,3 %\n51,5 %\n4,3 %\n(57)\nThe individual company countervailing duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in India and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(58)\nAny claim requesting the application of an individual company countervailing duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (5) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n8.4. Definitive collection of provisional duties\n(59)\nIn view of the magnitude of the subsidy margins found and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of the provisional countervailing duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation, be definitively collected,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive countervailing duty is hereby imposed on imports of stainless steel bars and rods, not further worked than cold-formed or cold-finished, other than bars and rods of circular cross-section of a diameter of 80 mm or more, currently falling within CN codes 7222 20 21, 7222 20 29, 7222 20 31, 7222 20 39, 7222 20 81 and 7222 20 89 and originating in India.\n2. The rate of the definitive countervailing duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies below shall be:\nCompany\nDuty (%)\nTARIC additional code\nChandan Steel Ltd, Mumbai\n3,4\nB002\nVenus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai;\nPrecision Metals, Mumbai;\nHindustan Inox Ltd, Mumbai;\nSieves Manufacturer India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai\n3,3\nB003\nViraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd, Thane\n4,3\nB004\nCompanies listed in the Annex\n4,0\nB005\nAll other companies\n4,3\nB999\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nAmounts secured by way of provisional countervailing duties pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1261/2010 on imports of stainless steel bars and rods, not further worked than cold-formed or cold-finished, other than bars and rods of circular cross-section of a diameter of 80 mm or more, currently falling within CN codes 7222 20 21, 7222 20 29, 7222 20 31, 7222 20 39, 7222 20 81 and 7222 20 89, and originating in India, shall be definitively collected.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2011.", "references": ["86", "39", "21", "40", "79", "34", "32", "49", "65", "99", "77", "73", "33", "2", "0", "53", "35", "74", "90", "44", "57", "75", "7", "81", "70", "46", "12", "69", "66", "9", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 655/2010\nof 22 July 2010\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Community,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2010.", "references": ["40", "24", "25", "31", "17", "23", "63", "0", "89", "8", "46", "72", "99", "21", "70", "29", "80", "58", "84", "14", "74", "83", "66", "94", "9", "76", "52", "57", "10", "79", "No Label", "22", "69"], "gold": ["22", "69"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 1/2011 OF THE EU-CROATIA STABILISATION AND ASSOCIATION COUNCIL\nof 5 May 2011\namending Protocol 4 to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part, concerning the definition of the concept of \u2018originating products\u2019 and methods of administrative cooperation\n(2011/340/EU)\nTHE EU-CROATIA STABILISATION AND ASSOCIATION COUNCIL,\nHaving regard to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part (1) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019), and in particular Article 39 of Protocol 4 thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticles 3 and 4 of Protocol 4 to the Agreement provide for bilateral cumulation of origin in the European Union or in Croatia.\n(2)\nCroatia requested to cumulate origin when incorporating materials originating in the Union, in Croatia or in any country or territory participating in the Union\u2019s Stabilisation and Association process (2) or incorporating the materials originating in Turkey to which the Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union (3) applies (4).\n(3)\nIn order to allow the Union and Croatia to benefit from the extended cumulation zone, the provisions of Protocol 4 to the Agreement should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nProtocol 4 to the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following is added to the Table of Contents:\n\u2018Annex V:\nProducts excluded from the cumulation provided for in Article 3 and Article 4\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\nCumulation in the Community\n1. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 2(1), products shall be considered as originating in the Community if such products are obtained there, incorporating materials originating in Croatia, in the Community or in any country or territory participating in the European Union\u2019s Stabilisation and Association process (5), or incorporating the materials originating in Turkey to which the Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 applies (6), provided that the working or processing carried out in the Community goes beyond the operations referred to in Article 7. It shall not be necessary for such materials to have undergone sufficient working or processing.\n2. Where the working or processing carried out in the Community does not go beyond the operations referred to in Article 7, the product obtained shall be considered as originating in the Community only where the value added there is greater than the value of the materials used originating in any one of the other countries or territories referred to in paragraph 1. If this is not so, the product obtained shall be considered as originating in the country which accounts for the highest value of originating materials used in the manufacture in the Community.\n3. Products, originating in one of the countries or territories referred to in paragraph 1, which do not undergo any working or processing in the Community, retain their origin if exported into one of these countries or territories.\n4. The cumulation provided for in this Article may be applied only provided that:\n(a)\na preferential trade agreement in accordance with Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is applicable between the countries or territories involved in the acquisition of the originating status and the country of destination;\n(b)\nmaterials and products have acquired originating status by the application of rules of origin identical to those given in this Protocol;\nand\n(c)\nnotices indicating the fulfilment of the necessary requirements to apply cumulation have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (C series) and in Croatia according to its own procedures.\nThe cumulation provided for in this Article shall apply from the date indicated in the notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (C series).\nThe Community shall provide Croatia, through the European Commission, with details of the Agreements and their corresponding rules of origin, which are applied with the other countries or territories referred to in paragraph 1.\nThe products in Annex V shall be excluded from the cumulation provided for in this Article.\n(3)\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nCumulation in Croatia\n1. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 2(2), products shall be considered as originating in Croatia if such products are obtained there, incorporating materials originating in the Community, Croatia or in any country or territory participating in the European Union\u2019s Stabilisation and Association process (7), or incorporating the materials originating in Turkey to which the Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 applies (8), provided that the working or processing carried out in Croatia goes beyond the operations referred to in Article 7. It shall not be necessary for such materials to have undergone sufficient working or processing.\n2. Where the working or processing carried out in Croatia does not go beyond the operations referred to in Article 7, the product obtained shall be considered as originating in Croatia only where the value added there is greater than the value of the materials used originating in any one of the other countries or territories referred to in paragraph 1. If this is not so, the product obtained shall be considered as originating in the country which accounts for the highest value of originating materials used in the manufacture in Croatia.\n3. Products, originating in one of the countries or territories referred to in paragraph 1, which do not undergo any working or processing in Croatia, retain their origin if exported into one of these countries or territories.\n4. The cumulation provided for in this Article may be applied only provided that:\n(a)\na preferential trade agreement in accordance with Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is applicable between the countries or territories involved in the acquisition of the originating status and the country of destination;\n(b)\nmaterials and products have acquired originating status by the application of rules of origin identical to those given in this Protocol;\nand\n(c)\nnotices indicating the fulfilment of the necessary requirements to apply cumulation have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (C series) and in Croatia according to its own procedures.\nThe cumulation provided for in this Article shall apply from the date indicated in the notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (C series).\nCroatia shall provide the Community, through the European Commission, with details of the Agreements, including their dates of entry into force, and their corresponding rules of origin, which are applied with the other countries or territories referred to in paragraph 1.\nThe products in Annex V shall be excluded from the cumulation provided for in this Article.\n(4)\nArticle 7(1)(m) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(m)\nsimple mixing of products, whether or not of different kinds; mixing of sugar with any other material;\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 13(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The preferential treatment provided for under the Agreement applies only to products, satisfying the requirements of this Protocol, which are transported directly between the Community and Croatia or through the territories of the other countries or territories referred to in Articles 3 and 4. However, products constituting one single consignment may be transported through other territories with, should the occasion arise, trans-shipment or temporary warehousing in such territories, provided that they remain under the surveillance of the customs authorities in the country of transit or warehousing and do not undergo operations other than unloading, reloading or any operation designed to preserve them in good condition.\nOriginating products may be transported by pipeline across territory other than that of the Community or Croatia.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 14(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Originating products, sent for exhibition in a country or territory other than those referred to in Articles 3 and 4 and sold after the exhibition for import into the Community or into Croatia shall benefit on import from the provisions of the Agreement provided it is shown to the satisfaction of the customs authorities that:\n(a)\nan exporter has consigned these products from the Community or from Croatia to the country in which the exhibition is held and has exhibited them there;\n(b)\nthe products have been sold or otherwise disposed of by that exporter to a person in the Community or in Croatia;\n(c)\nthe products have been consigned during the exhibition or immediately thereafter in the state in which they were sent for exhibition;\nand\n(d)\nthe products have not, since they were consigned for exhibition, been used for any purpose other than demonstration at the exhibition.\u2019;\n(7)\nArticle 15(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Non-originating materials used in the manufacture of products originating in the Community, in Croatia or in one of the other countries or territories referred to in Articles 3 and 4 for which a proof of origin is issued or made out in accordance with the provisions of Title V shall not be subject in the Community or in Croatia to drawback of, or exemption from, customs duties of whatever kind.\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 17(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. A movement certificate EUR.1 shall be issued by the customs authorities of a Member State of the Community or of Croatia if the products concerned can be considered as products originating in the Community, in Croatia or in one of the other countries or territories referred to in Articles 3 and 4 and fulfil the other requirements of this Protocol.\u2019;\n(9)\nArticle 22(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. An invoice declaration may be made out if the products concerned can be considered as products originating in the Community, in Croatia or in one of the other countries or territories referred to in Articles 3 and 4 and fulfil the other requirements of this Protocol.\u2019;\n(10)\nArticle 28 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 28\nSupporting documents\nThe documents referred to in Articles 17(3) and 22(3) used for the purpose of proving that products covered by a movement certificate EUR.1 or an invoice declaration can be considered as products originating in the Community, in Croatia or in one of the other countries or territories referred to in Articles 3 and 4 and fulfil the other requirements of this Protocol may consist, inter alia, of the following:\n(a)\ndirect evidence of the processes carried out by the exporter or supplier to obtain the goods concerned, contained for example in the accounts or internal book-keeping of the exporter or supplier;\n(b)\ndocuments proving the originating status of materials used, issued or made out in the Community or in Croatia where these documents are used in accordance with domestic law;\n(c)\ndocuments proving the working or processing of materials in the Community or in Croatia, issued or made out in the Community or in Croatia, where these documents are used in accordance with domestic law;\n(d)\nmovement certificates EUR.1 or invoice declarations proving the originating status of materials used, issued or made out in the Community or in Croatia in accordance with this Protocol, or in one of the other countries or territories referred to in Articles 3 and 4, in accordance with rules of origin which are identical to the rules in this Protocol;\n(e)\nappropriate evidence concerning working or processing undergone outside the Community or Croatia by application of Article 12, proving that the requirements of that Article have been satisfied.\u2019;\n(11)\nArticle 31(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. For the application of the provisions of Article 22(1)(b) and Article 27(3) in cases where products are invoiced in a currency other than euro, amounts in the national currencies of the Member States of the Community, of Croatia and of the other countries or territories referred to in Articles 3 and 4 equivalent to the amounts expressed in euro shall be fixed annually by each of the countries concerned.\u2019;\n(12)\nThe Annex to this Decision is added to Protocol 4 of the Agreement as Annex V.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the first day of the first month following the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 5 May 2011.", "references": ["81", "22", "86", "6", "95", "21", "98", "35", "15", "87", "28", "27", "59", "12", "63", "78", "94", "5", "11", "1", "70", "84", "19", "8", "85", "68", "62", "13", "16", "7", "No Label", "2", "9", "23", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "9", "23", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 16 June 2011\non the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2013/103/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91, in conjunction with Articles 218(5) and 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe development of rail interoperability, both within the Union and between the Union and neighbouring countries, is a key component of the common transport policy, targeted in particular at establishing a better balance between the various modes of transport.\n(2)\nThe Union has exclusive competence or shared competence with its Member States in the areas covered by the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Convention\u2019).\n(3)\nThe Union\u2019s accession to the Convention for the purpose of exercising its competence is permitted by virtue of Article 38 of the Convention.\n(4)\nOn behalf of the Union, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) with the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (hereinafter referred to as \u2018OTIF\u2019) on the Accession of the Union to the Convention.\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nWhen signing the Agreement a declaration, as set out in Annex I to this Decision, shall be made by the Union concerning the exercise of its competence and a declaration, as set out in Annex II to this Decision, shall be made by the Union in respect of Article 2 of the Agreement.\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union and to make the declarations referred to in Article 2.\nArticle 4\nThe Commission shall represent the Union at OTIF meetings.\nArticle 5\nThe internal arrangements for the preparation for OTIF meetings and for the representation and voting at such meetings are set out in Annex III to this Decision.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 16 June 2011.", "references": ["27", "87", "80", "28", "76", "63", "94", "40", "38", "49", "96", "57", "42", "41", "6", "78", "15", "82", "69", "10", "62", "33", "37", "21", "70", "71", "13", "32", "67", "58", "No Label", "3", "9", "54", "55"], "gold": ["3", "9", "54", "55"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 528/2010\nof 17 June 2010\nnot fixing a minimum selling price in response to the second individual invitation to tender for the sale of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the second individual invitation to tender, no minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the second individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 15 June 2010, no minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be fixed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2010.", "references": ["9", "39", "12", "82", "8", "79", "61", "15", "56", "68", "81", "36", "99", "42", "59", "92", "57", "95", "72", "60", "86", "18", "53", "29", "84", "45", "76", "23", "80", "16", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 8 December 2011\namending Decision 2006/771/EC on harmonisation of the radio spectrum for use by short-range devices\n(notified under document C(2011) 9030)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/829/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2006/771/EC (2) harmonises the technical conditions for use of spectrum for a wide variety of short-range devices, including applications such as alarms, local communications equipment, door openers, medical implants and for intelligent transport systems. Short-range devices are typically mass-market and/or portable products which can easily be taken and used across borders; differences in spectrum access conditions therefore prevent their free movement, increase their production costs and create risks of harmful interference with other radio applications and services.\n(2)\nHowever, due to rapid changes in technology and societal demands, new applications for short-range devices can emerge. These require regular updates of spectrum harmonisation conditions.\n(3)\nOn 5 July 2006, the Commission issued a permanent mandate to the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT), pursuant to Article 4(2) of Decision No 676/2002/EC, to update the Annex to Decision 2006/771/EC in response to technological and market developments in the area of short-range devices.\n(4)\nCommission Decisions 2008/432/EC (3), 2009/381/EC (4) and 2010/368/EU (5) already amended the harmonised technical conditions for short-range devices contained in Decision 2006/771/EC by replacing its Annex.\n(5)\nIn its March 2011 report (6) submitted in response to the abovementioned mandate, the CEPT advised the Commission to amend a number of technical aspects in the Annex to Decision 2006/771/EC.\n(6)\nThe Annex to Decision 2006/771/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nEquipment operating within the conditions set in this Decision should also comply with Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (7) in order to use the spectrum effectively so as to avoid harmful interference, demonstrated either by meeting harmonised standards or by fulfilling alternative conformity assessment procedures.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Radio Spectrum Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2006/771/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2011.", "references": ["8", "32", "6", "36", "19", "27", "13", "28", "96", "2", "61", "12", "39", "9", "55", "34", "89", "5", "31", "86", "10", "7", "54", "64", "14", "95", "74", "21", "79", "30", "No Label", "40", "76"], "gold": ["40", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 834/2011\nof 19 August 2011\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals (1), and in particular Article 22(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 689/2008 implements the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade, signed on 11 September 1998 and approved, on behalf of the Community, by Council Decision 2003/106/EC (2).\n(2)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 should be amended to take into account regulatory action in respect of certain chemicals taken pursuant to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (3), Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (4) and Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (5).\n(3)\nThe substances ethalfluralin, indolylacetic acid and thiobencarb have not been included as active substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, with the effect that those active substances are banned for pesticide use and thus should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(4)\nThe substance guazatine has not been included as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and guazatine, as referred to as guazatine triacetate, has not been included as an active substance in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC, with the effect that guazatine is banned for pesticide use and thus should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008. The addition of guazatine to Annex I was suspended due to a new application for inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC submitted pursuant to Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (6). This new application has been withdrawn by the applicant with the effect that the reason for suspending the addition to Annex I disappeared. Therefore, the substance guazatine should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(5)\nThe substance 1,3-dichloropropene has not been included as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, with the effect that 1,3-dichloropropene is banned for pesticide use and thus should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008. The addition of 1,3-dichloropropene to Part 2 of Annex I was suspended due to a new application for inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC submitted pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008. This new application resulted again in the decision not to include the substance 1,3-dichloropropene as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC with the effect that 1,3-dichloropropene remains banned for pesticide use and that the reason for suspending the addition to Part 2 of Annex I disappeared. Therefore, the substance 1,3-dichloropropene should be added to the list of chemicals contained in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(6)\nThe substance haloxyfop-P has been included as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, with the effect that haloxyfop-P is no longer banned for pesticide use. Consequently the active substance, as referred to as haloxyfop-R, should be deleted from Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(7)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nIn order to allow enough time for Member States and industry to take the measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation, its application should be deferred.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 August 2011.", "references": ["83", "7", "44", "9", "18", "17", "0", "73", "30", "91", "34", "69", "96", "58", "79", "35", "95", "10", "20", "53", "21", "50", "59", "49", "12", "80", "67", "72", "40", "98", "No Label", "22", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["22", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 December 2010\ngranting derogations for implementing Regulation (EC) No 452/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the production and development of statistics on education and lifelong learning with regard to Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Finland and the United Kingdom\n(notified under document C(2010) 9126)\n(Only the Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(2010/786/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 452/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 concerning the production and development of statistics on education and lifelong learning (1), and in particular Article 6(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the requests made by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 452/2008, it applies to the production of statistics in three specific domains.\n(2)\nArticle 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 452/2008 provides for, if necessary, limited derogations and transition periods for one or more Member States, both to be based upon objective grounds.\n(3)\nIt emerges from the information provided to the Commission that the Member States\u2019 requests for derogations are due to the need for major adaptations to national statistical systems in order to comply in full with Regulation (EC) No 452/2008.\n(4)\nSuch derogations should be therefore granted as requested to Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Finland and the United Kingdom.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDerogations are hereby granted to the Member States as set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 17 December 2010.", "references": ["41", "83", "82", "44", "51", "64", "43", "68", "74", "90", "58", "55", "24", "76", "57", "65", "17", "5", "53", "25", "79", "6", "99", "16", "89", "60", "8", "73", "20", "80", "No Label", "2", "19", "42", "49"], "gold": ["2", "19", "42", "49"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 495/2012\nof 11 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 June 2012.", "references": ["5", "40", "21", "29", "95", "82", "67", "16", "1", "37", "10", "14", "93", "72", "27", "42", "32", "19", "96", "58", "9", "30", "31", "77", "6", "94", "90", "4", "24", "78", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 January 2011\nappointing one Austrian member and two Austrian alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/39/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Austrian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Franz VOVES.\n(3)\nTwo alternate members\u2019 seats have become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Hermann SCH\u00dcTZENH\u00d6FER and Mr Walter PRIOR,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas a member:\n-\nHerr Landesrat Dr Christian BUCHMANN, Landesrat in der Steierm\u00e4rkischen Landesregierung;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nFrau Landesr\u00e4tin Mag. Elisabeth GROSSMANN, Landesr\u00e4tin in der Steierm\u00e4rkischen Landesregierung,\n-\nHerr Klubobmann Christian ILLEDITS, Abgeordneter zum Burgenl\u00e4ndischen Landtag; Klubobmann der SP\u00d6-Fraktion.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["53", "90", "3", "88", "20", "45", "12", "73", "10", "81", "63", "13", "41", "31", "37", "28", "59", "64", "29", "93", "76", "94", "27", "16", "89", "1", "48", "84", "6", "49", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1123/2011\nof 31 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in I and IIb by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["21", "37", "89", "72", "17", "76", "34", "66", "77", "15", "88", "79", "7", "51", "10", "3", "33", "60", "39", "71", "6", "74", "80", "68", "82", "0", "95", "20", "5", "18", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 11 October 2011\namending Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU on granting Union financial assistance to Ireland\n(2011/682/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUpon a request by Ireland, the Council granted financial assistance to it (Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU (2)) in support of a strong economic and financial reform programme aiming at restoring confidence, enabling the return of the economy to sustainable growth, and safeguarding financial stability in Ireland, the euro area and the Union.\n(2)\nAn extension of maturities and a reduction in the interest rate margin would be beneficial to secure the objectives of the programme, in line with the conclusions of the Heads of State or Government of the euro area and Union institutions of 21 July 2011 regarding European Financial Stability Facility lending.\n(3)\nIn order to enhance liquidity and sustainability objectives, the extension of maturities and the reduction in the interest rate margin should also apply to the tranches that have already been disbursed.\n(4)\nIn light of these developments, Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1 of Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU is amended as follows:\n(1)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Union shall make available to Ireland a loan amounting to a maximum of EUR 22,5 billion, with a maximum average maturity of 12,5 years. The maturity of individual tranches of the loan facility may be of up to 30 years.\u2019;\n(2)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. Ireland shall pay the cost of funding of the Union for each tranche.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nArticle 1(1), first sentence and Article 1(5) of Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU, as amended by this Decision, shall also apply to the tranches of the loan that have been disbursed before the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Ireland.\nDone at Luxembourg, 11 October 2011.", "references": ["36", "63", "85", "59", "67", "65", "72", "64", "50", "54", "71", "35", "42", "83", "25", "9", "74", "98", "41", "43", "86", "66", "61", "20", "45", "27", "87", "12", "57", "88", "No Label", "4", "10", "15", "16", "29", "30", "32", "47", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "15", "16", "29", "30", "32", "47", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 24/2011\nof 13 January 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 22/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 January 2011.", "references": ["81", "39", "28", "29", "87", "61", "21", "44", "73", "46", "9", "94", "63", "62", "24", "78", "66", "41", "17", "52", "31", "15", "96", "79", "27", "3", "74", "76", "5", "77", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 688/2010\nof 30 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 31 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 July 2010.", "references": ["63", "87", "99", "74", "37", "18", "16", "9", "59", "12", "10", "19", "52", "25", "97", "49", "26", "53", "32", "31", "57", "44", "3", "7", "89", "41", "24", "42", "77", "81", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 January 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement\n(2012/54/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 100(2) and 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning transport.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 laying down common rules on air traffic flow management (3) should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(3)\nAnnex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe position of the Union to be taken within the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the Union within the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["18", "93", "33", "92", "40", "29", "6", "83", "49", "4", "76", "43", "7", "97", "90", "96", "20", "12", "61", "16", "31", "5", "91", "23", "25", "98", "67", "89", "74", "54", "No Label", "3", "9", "13", "53", "57"], "gold": ["3", "9", "13", "53", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 522/2012\nof 19 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 June 2012.", "references": ["50", "27", "12", "54", "90", "92", "41", "19", "71", "47", "2", "76", "81", "51", "28", "0", "98", "74", "9", "72", "15", "89", "40", "32", "59", "88", "10", "5", "97", "99", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 849/2010\nof 27 September 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste statistics\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2002 on waste statistics (1), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe evaluation of the first two data deliveries in 2006 and 2008 revealed the need for a review of certain conceptual shortcomings of the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002.\n(2)\nThe Commission has informed the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 (2) and has proposed a number of changes.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 2150/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee, established by Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (3),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I, II and III to Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 are replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["15", "35", "12", "31", "90", "32", "61", "53", "37", "79", "7", "11", "34", "98", "75", "49", "6", "33", "80", "29", "87", "81", "22", "27", "46", "44", "66", "72", "74", "95", "No Label", "2", "19", "42", "58"], "gold": ["2", "19", "42", "58"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 18 April 2011\namending Decision 2009/766/EC on the harmonisation of the 900 MHz and 1 800 MHz frequency bands for terrestrial systems capable of providing pan-European electronic communications services in the Community\n(notified under document C(2011) 2633)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/251/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/766/EC (2) aims to harmonise the technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of the 900 MHz band, in accordance with Council Directive 87/372/EEC of 25 June 1987 on the frequency bands to be reserved for the coordinated introduction of public pan-European cellular digital land-based mobile communications in the Community (3), and of the 1 800 MHz band for terrestrial systems capable of providing electronic communications services.\n(2)\nThe efficient use of the 900 MHz and 1 800 MHz bands has been kept under review by the Member States with a view to covering additional technologies while ensuring technical compatibility with the GSM system and the UMTS system as defined in Directive 87/372/EEC by appropriate means.\n(3)\nOn 15 June 2009 the Commission gave a mandate to the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (\u2018the CEPT\u2019) pursuant to Article 4(2) of Decision No 676/2002/EC to define the technical conditions for allowing LTE and possibly other technologies into the 900 MHz and 1 800 MHz bands.\n(4)\nCEPT\u2019s response to the mandate is set out in CEPT Reports 40 and 41. Those Reports concluded that the LTE (Long Term Evolution) and WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) systems can be introduced in the 900 MHz and 1 800 MHz bands using appropriate values for the separation between the channel edges of the respective carriers.\n(5)\nAs regards coexistence between UMTS, LTE and WiMAX and aeronautical systems above 960 MHz, CEPT Reports 41 and 42 provide information and recommendations on how to mitigate interference.\n(6)\nThe results of the work carried out pursuant to the mandate issued to CEPT should be applied in the Union and Member States should be required to implement as soon as possible given the increasing market demand for the introduction of LTE and WiMAX in these bands. In addition, Member States should ensure that UMTS, LTE and WiMAX give appropriate protection to existing systems in adjacent bands.\n(7)\nHarmonised standards EN 301908-21 and EN 301908-22 are being finalised by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) in order to give presumption of conformity with Article 3(2) of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (4).\n(8)\nThe Annex to Decision 2009/766/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Radio Spectrum Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2009/766/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2011.", "references": ["27", "64", "72", "74", "97", "55", "34", "36", "6", "0", "48", "84", "56", "11", "82", "28", "86", "68", "91", "25", "52", "71", "78", "54", "90", "21", "89", "88", "79", "67", "No Label", "9", "40", "76"], "gold": ["9", "40", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1216/2010\nof 17 December 2010\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Welsh Lamb (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined the United Kingdom\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Welsh Lamb\u2019 registered in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1257/2003 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 December 2010.", "references": ["40", "80", "6", "35", "4", "7", "19", "45", "74", "28", "0", "43", "5", "64", "23", "71", "55", "77", "85", "94", "3", "26", "72", "22", "87", "51", "95", "11", "90", "76", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 867/2011\nof 30 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 31 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 August 2011.", "references": ["19", "89", "77", "16", "85", "58", "31", "69", "98", "84", "12", "59", "20", "23", "37", "3", "55", "25", "15", "70", "0", "71", "72", "88", "90", "49", "39", "13", "41", "54", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 630/2012\nof 12 July 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008, as regards type-approval requirements for motor vehicles fuelled by hydrogen and mixtures of hydrogen and natural gas with respect to emissions, and the inclusion of specific information regarding vehicles fitted with an electric power train in the information document for the purpose of EC type-approval\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (1), and in particular article 5(3)(a)(f) and (i) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee - A European strategy on clean and energy efficient vehicles (2), recognizes the existence of a wide range of technologies (electricity, hydrogen, biogas, and liquid biofuels) that are likely to contribute significantly to the Europe 2020 priorities of developing an economy based on knowledge and innovation (smart growth) and promoting a more resource efficient, greener an more competitive economy (sustainable growth).\n(2)\nThe internal combustion engine (ICE) is likely to remain dominant in road vehicles in the short and medium term perspective; therefore, a smooth transition from ICE to other kinds of power-trains based on electricity (electric battery, fuel cell) could be facilitated by adapting ICE to clean fuels, such as hydrogen (H2) or mixtures of hydrogen and natural gas (H2NG).\n(3)\nGiven the uncertainty surrounding the future of power-train technology and the likelihood that new technologies will represent an increasingly large share of the market, it is necessary to adapt current European type-approval legislation to those technologies.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 of 18 July 2008 implementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (3) does not currently include H2 and H2NG among the type of fuels considered. Therefore, it is appropriate to extend the type-approval procedure established in that Regulation to cover those fuels.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 79/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on type-approval of hydrogen-powered motor vehicles, and amending Directive 2007/46/EC (4) established safety requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to hydrogen propulsion. Environmental protection must also be achieved as nitrogen oxide emissions from hydrogen used as a fuel in ICEs may have an impact on the environment.\n(6)\nH2NG mixtures release into the atmosphere a certain amount of pollutants, mainly hydrocarbons, carbon monoxides, nitrogen oxides and particulate matters; these emissions have to be addressed.\n(7)\nThe different formulae and parameters used for the determination of the results of the emission tests should be adapted for the specific cases of H2 and H2NG used in ICEs, as those formulae and parameters are strongly dependent on the type and characteristics of the fuel used.\n(8)\nThe documents provided by the manufacturer to the national approval authorities should be updated in order to incorporate the relevant information concerning H2, H2NG and electric vehicles.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 692/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 692/2008 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nPoint 16 is replaced by the following:\n\"16.\n\u2027hybrid electric vehicle\u2027 (HEV) means a vehicle, including vehicles which draw energy from a consumable fuel only for the purpose of re-charging the electrical energy/power storage device, that, for the purpose of mechanical propulsion, draws energy from both of the following on-vehicle sources of stored energy/power:\n(a)\na consumable fuel;\n(b)\na battery, capacitor, flywheel/generator or other electrical energy/power storage device;\"\n(b)\nThe following points are added:\n\"33.\n\u2027Electric power train\u2027 means a system consisting of one or more electric energy storage devices, one or more electric power conditioning devices and one or more electric machines that convert stored electric energy to mechanical energy delivered at the wheels for propulsion of the vehicle;\n34.\n\u2027Pure electric vehicle\u2027 means a vehicle powered by an electric power train only;\n35.\n\u2027flex fuel H2NG vehicle\u2027 means a flex fuel vehicle that can run on different mixtures of hydrogen and NG/biomethane;\n36.\n\u2027Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle\u2027 means a vehicle powered by a fuel cell that converts chemical energy from hydrogen into electric energy, for propulsion of the vehicle.\"\n2.\nThe annexes are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2012.", "references": ["12", "72", "59", "51", "85", "18", "81", "41", "36", "89", "91", "50", "43", "20", "28", "8", "35", "29", "16", "17", "39", "67", "87", "53", "30", "13", "82", "69", "97", "27", "No Label", "24", "25", "54", "58", "60", "76"], "gold": ["24", "25", "54", "58", "60", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/72/CFSP\nof 31 January 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 31 January 2011, the Council reaffirmed its full solidarity and support with Tunisia and its people in their efforts to establish a stable democracy, the rule of law, democratic pluralism and full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.\n(2)\nThe Council further decided to adopt restrictive measures against persons responsible for misappropriation of Tunisian State funds and who are thus depriving the Tunisian people of the benefits of the sustainable development of their economy and society and undermining the development of democracy in the country.\n(3)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by persons responsible for misappropriation of Tunisian State funds, and natural or legal persons or entities associated with them, as listed in the Annex, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of, natural or legal persons or entities listed in the Annex.\n3. The competent authority of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources concerned are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of the persons listed in the Annex and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for the routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the competent authority has notified the competent authority of the other Member States and the Commission of the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted, at least 2 weeks prior to the authorisation.\nA Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation it grants under this paragraph.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 1(1) was included in the Annex, or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a natural or legal person, entity or body listed in the Annex; and\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgement is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\nA Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this paragraph.\n5. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to this Decision,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments remain subject to paragraph 1.\nArticle 2\n1. The Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall establish and amend the list in the Annex.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for the listing, to the person or entity concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person or entity with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person or entity concerned accordingly.\nArticle 3\n1. The Annex shall include the grounds for listing the persons and entities.\n2. The Annex shall also contain, where available, the information necessary to identify the persons or entities concerned. With regard to persons, such information may include names, including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address if known, and function or profession. With regard to entities, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\nArticle 4\nIn order to maximise the impact of the abovementioned measures, the Union shall encourage third States to adopt restrictive measures similar to those contained in this Decision.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 12 months. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2011.", "references": ["90", "99", "31", "17", "19", "80", "68", "72", "28", "98", "16", "61", "7", "97", "32", "58", "55", "37", "96", "29", "13", "18", "10", "39", "73", "81", "82", "52", "14", "63", "No Label", "0", "3", "11", "12", "94"], "gold": ["0", "3", "11", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 237/2012\nof 19 March 2012\nconcerning the authorisation of alpha-galactosidase (EC 3.2.1.22) produced by Saccharomyces cerevisiae (CBS 615.94) and endo-1,4-beta-glucanase (EC 3.2.1.4) produced by Aspergillus niger (CBS 120604) as a feed additive for chickens for fattening (holder of authorisation Kerry Ingredients and Flavours)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of alpha-galactosidase (EC 3.2.1.22) produced by Saccharomyces cerevisiae (CBS 615.94) and endo-1,4-beta-glucanase (EC 3.2.1.4) produced by Aspergillus niger (CBS 120604). That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of alpha-galactosidase (EC 3.2.1.22) produced by Saccharomyces cerevisiae (CBS 615.94) and endo-1,4-beta-glucanase (EC 3.2.1.4) produced by Aspergillus niger (CBS 120604) as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 17 November 2011 (2) that, under the proposed conditions of use, the preparation of alpha-galactosidase (EC 3.2.1.22) produced by Saccharomyces cerevisiae (CBS 615.94) and endo-1,4-beta-glucanase (EC 3.2.1.4) produced by Aspergillus niger (CBS 120604) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use can improve the final body weight in chickens for fattening. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of the preparation of alpha-galactosidase (EC 3.2.1.22) produced by Saccharomyces cerevisiae (CBS 615.94) and endo-1,4-beta-glucanase (EC 3.2.1.4) produced by Aspergillus niger (CBS 120604) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018digestibility enhancers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 March 2012.", "references": ["28", "6", "84", "58", "12", "11", "26", "30", "17", "57", "93", "73", "48", "87", "62", "31", "24", "49", "60", "36", "54", "98", "52", "10", "61", "19", "34", "45", "20", "7", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 409/2012\nof 14 May 2012\nsuspending certain restrictive measures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2012/225/CFSP of 26 April 2012 amending Decision 2010/232/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 (2) provides for certain measures, including restrictions on certain imports from and exports to Burma/Myanmar, a freezing of the funds and economic resources of certain individuals and entities and restrictions on financing of certain enterprises.\n(2)\nResponding to recent developments in Burma/Myanmar, Decision 2012/225/CFSP modified Decision 2010/232/CFSP (3) in order to provide for the suspension, until 30 April 2013, of all restrictive measures except the arms embargo and the embargo on equipment which might be used for internal repression.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 194/2008 should therefore be modified accordingly to suspend most of the restrictive measures.\n(4)\nThe suspension of the freezing of funds and economic resources should be construed as allowing the release, without prior authorisation by the competent authorities, of funds and economic resources that were frozen pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe measures referred to in Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7(3), 8, 9(2), 11, 12, 13 and 15(2) to (8) of Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 shall be suspended until 30 April 2013.\nArticle 7(5) of Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 shall be suspended until 30 April 2013 in so far as it refers to Article 7(3).\nArticle 2\nThe persons listed in the Annex shall be removed from the list of persons in Part J of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 May 2012.", "references": ["16", "50", "94", "59", "24", "37", "91", "74", "0", "71", "48", "64", "6", "51", "67", "41", "92", "93", "36", "15", "49", "4", "77", "2", "62", "73", "22", "58", "12", "34", "No Label", "3", "23", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "23", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 796/2010\nof 9 September 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 794/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 September 2010.", "references": ["49", "31", "21", "78", "13", "50", "16", "79", "1", "90", "73", "99", "77", "14", "46", "56", "53", "96", "86", "70", "69", "88", "37", "42", "12", "7", "34", "85", "66", "2", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 624/2011\nof 27 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2011.", "references": ["82", "45", "2", "11", "30", "43", "91", "89", "37", "70", "19", "54", "49", "33", "18", "39", "79", "48", "72", "46", "47", "28", "36", "87", "6", "68", "56", "96", "97", "57", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 63/2012\nof 24 January 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 January 2012.", "references": ["16", "53", "23", "51", "44", "43", "8", "79", "9", "52", "69", "21", "40", "42", "4", "57", "49", "64", "34", "45", "80", "97", "72", "20", "47", "59", "29", "95", "33", "5", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 616/2011\nof 21 June 2011\nterminating the expiry review and \u2018the new exporter\u2019 review of the anti-dumping measures concerning imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE OPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9 and Article 11(2), (4), (5) and (6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Measures in force\n(1)\nIn October 2005, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 (2), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties ranging from 2,7 % to 39,9 % on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the PRC\u2019). Following two interim reviews requested by Chinese exporting producers, the Regulation was amended in 2009 by Council Regulations (EC) No 825/2009 (3) and (EC) No 826/2009 (4). Following the reviews, the anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 currently range from 0 % to 39,9 %.\n1.2. Request for an expiry review\n(2)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry (5) of the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the PRC, the Commission received on 9 July 2010 a request for review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged by the Magnesia Bricks Production Defence Coalition (\u2018MBPDC\u2019) (\u2018the applicant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of certain magnesia bricks.\n(3)\nThe request contained prima facie evidence of the likelihood of continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an expiry review proceeding. The applicant also claimed that an Austrian-based company, RHI AG (\u2018RHI\u2019), should be excluded from the definition of the Union industry on the grounds that it had shifted its core business activities to the PRC, where it has a related company producing the product concerned and increased its business activities relating to the product concerned in the PRC.\n1.3. Initiation of the expiry review\n(4)\nOn 8 October 2010 the Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (\u2018the notice of initiation\u2019) (6), the initiation of an expiry review proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain magnesia bricks originating in the PRC.\n1.4. Investigation period of the expiry review\n(5)\nIn view of the apparent large number of parties involved in the proceeding, the Commission announced in the notice of initiation that it may apply sampling in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable it to decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, exporting producers, importers and Union producers were required to provide certain information for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 (\u2018the investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(6)\nThe product concerned is chemically bonded, unfired magnesia bricks, whose magnesia component contains at least 80 % MgO, whether or not containing magnesite, currently falling within CN codes ex 6815 91 00 and ex 6815 99 00.\n(7)\nThe like product is defined as chemically bonded, unfired magnesia bricks, whose magnesia component contains at least 80 % MgO, whether or not containing magnesite, produced and sold in the Union market.\n(8)\nMagnesia bricks are manufactured using magnesite minerals as the main raw material. They are normally produced to standard chemical specifications which are then altered to fit the demands of the end-user. Magnesia bricks are normally used in steel production as a lining for the vessels in which the steel is melted.\n3. PARTIES CONCERNED BY THE INVESTIGATION\n(9)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicant, other known producers in the Union, the known exporting producers in the PRC, the representatives of the exporting country concerned and known importers and users of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation. All interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\n(10)\nIn view of the large number of parties involved sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the Chinese exporting producers, unrelated Union importers and Union producers. Of the seventy-eight exporting producers contacted at initiation only four provided the information for the selection of the sample requested in the notice of initiation.\n(11)\nWith regard to Union producers, a total of ten companies, including the producers on behalf of whom MBPDC requested the review, submitted the requested information. The Union producers requesting the review are heavily dependent on the supply of a major raw material from the PRC and have requested confidential treatment for their company names in view of possible retaliatory action.\n(12)\nThe Commission services had contacted all Union producers of magnesia bricks prior to initiation to obtain information on their production levels and to determine their support or opposition to the investigation. One of the companies that replied, RHI AG, expressed its opposition to the expiry review prior to initiation.\n(13)\nFollowing initiation, RHI claimed that the facts presented by the applicant in the request for review, especially in regard to RHI\u2019s production volume, were not accurate and that, on the contrary, RHI should be included in the definition of the Union industry as had been done in the original proceeding in 2005. It consequently disputed the definition of the Union industry which had led to the initiation of the proceeding on the grounds that the requirements of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation were not met, since it is the largest Union producer, accounting for more than 50 % of total Union production, and is opposed to the initiation.\n4. INVESTIGATION\n(14)\nAs mentioned in recital 3 above, the applicant had considered that RHI AG should be excluded from the definition of the Union industry on the grounds that it had shifted its core business activities to the PRC. In view of this and the fact that RHI AG expressed opposition to the review, the Commission asked RHI to provide additional information in order to examine whether or not it should be included in the definition of the Union industry. The requested information concerned the company\u2019s business activities both in the EU and in the PRC and included data on its production capacity, production volumes, sales value and volumes in and outside the EU and the PRC and imports value and volume of the product concerned in the Union market. The company provided the additional information and an on-spot verification visit took place at the company\u2019s headquarters in Vienna.\n(15)\nIn the original investigation initiated in July 2004, RHI was one of the complainant Union producers. At that time RHI was also importing the product concerned from its related company in the PRC and it was examined whether the company should be excluded from the definition of the Union industry pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(16)\nIt is recalled that the assessment of RHI\u2019s situation was made in Commission Regulation (EC) No 552/2005 of 11 April 2005 imposing a provisional duty on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (7) and confirmed by Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005. For the purpose of the assessment, the following criteria were examined:\n-\nthe location of the company\u2019s headquarters, research and development (R & D) centre and main production sites,\n-\nthe volume/value of the product concerned imported from the PRC compared to the total sales volume and value,\n-\nthe impact the imported sales had on the company\u2019s total Union sales, in particular by comparing the profitability of RHI\u2019s sales in the EU of the imported product concerned with the profitability rates of the cooperating Union producers.\n(17)\nAt that time it was found that the company\u2019s core business was situated in the Union as regards the product concerned (its headquarters, R & D centre and biggest production sites were all located in the Union). Moreover, the vast majority of RHI\u2019s sales on the Union market were produced in the Union and only a minor part was produced in the PRC (5 % of its total sales volume in the Union) as the production of the related company in the PRC was mainly aimed at the fast-growing Asian market. In addition, it was found that these imports were resold at prices comparable to those of the Union industry and therefore the company was not enjoying substantial beneficial effects, in terms of profitability, by reselling the imported product. Finally, it was explicitly mentioned that RHI\u2019s Union production company was a separate legal entity from its Chinese production company. It was found that, although RHI AG was a global group with a production site in the PRC constituting a separate legal entity, it still produced the vast majority of its magnesia bricks, which were subsequently sold on the Union market, at its Union production sites. On these grounds it was concluded that RHI AG, which supported the imposition of measures at that time, formed part of the Union industry.\n(18)\nDuring the on-spot verification in the course of the current proceeding, it was found that the company\u2019s core business was still situated in the Union. The company\u2019s headquarters, shareholders and R & D centre were located in the Union. The company has five plants in the Union producing the product concerned and during the period 2005 to 30 June 2010, the end of the investigation period, the production capacity in these plants increased. The figures provided by RHI concerning its production capacity in the Union of the like product and the production volumes per plant in the investigation period were verified and found to be correct.\n(19)\nThe company also continued to invest in its EU plants and, for the period 2007 to the end of the investigation period, the investments relating to the like product represented a significant portion of the company\u2019s total investments in the EU.\n(20)\nRHI has several related companies in the PRC involved in the production and trading of refractory products including magnesia bricks of which RHI Refractories Liaoning Co. Ltd, a separate legal entity, produces the product concerned. This company is a joint venture with a Chinese company and started production in 1997. It has only one plant. Although the plant\u2019s production capacity increased substantially during the period from 2005 to the end of the investigation period, it still does not represent a major proportion of the RHI\u2019s total production capacity (EU and Chinese plants combined).\n(21)\nWith regard to the imports volume of the product concerned, following the imposition of the measures in 2005, the company imported only one small shipment from its related company in the PRC in the investigation period, as it is subject to the highest anti-dumping duty rate of 39,9 %.\n(22)\nRHI provided its sales value and volume for the like product produced in the Union and for the product concerned produced in the PRC. The company demonstrated that the majority of the sales of its related company in the PRC during the investigation period were for export to countries other than the EU, with the remainder being sold on the Chinese market.\n(23)\nConcerning the impact the sales of the imported product concerned had on the company\u2019s total Union sales, the volume of these imports compared to the company\u2019s total sales volume in the Union market was insignificant and thus the impact on the company\u2019s sales negligible.\n(24)\nBased on the data verified on-spot it is concluded that RHI should not be excluded from the definition of the Union industry. The company\u2019s situation has not changed substantially since the original investigation, when it was found that the three criteria were met and concluded that the company was part of the Union industry.\n(25)\nThe findings confirm that the company still has its core business activities (headquarters, R & D centre and main production sites) in the EU. The increase in the production capacity of the plant in the PRC in the period 2005 to the end of the investigation period cannot be considered as a shift of the company\u2019s core activities to the PRC. Therefore the applicant\u2019s argument that RHI should be excluded on the basis that it has a related company in the PRC producing the product concerned and increasing business activities in the PRC is rejected.\n(26)\nThe information supplied by the applicant did not accurately reflect the situation of RHI as a Union producer, in particular with regard to its production volume and production capacity in the Union, and its production capacity in the PRC. Thus, by including RHI\u2019s production volume in the total Union production figure the applicant\u2019s output constitutes less than 50 % of the total Union production. Furthermore, as explained above, (i) RHI should be considered as part of the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4 of the basic Regulation; (ii) RHI produces over 50 % of total Union production within the meaning of Article 5(4), second sentence, of the basic Regulation; and (iii) RHI is opposed to the expiry review. Therefore, the proceeding should be terminated.\n5. TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(27)\nIn the light of the above, it is considered that the present proceeding should be terminated in accordance with Article 9 and Article 11(2), (5) and (6) of the basic Regulation.\n(28)\nThe applicant was informed accordingly and was given the opportunity to comment. The applicant strongly contested the conclusions of the Commission and expressed doubts that RHI\u2019s production during the investigation period exceeded the production of the remaining Union producers supporting the complaint. In particular the applicant provided various press releases concerning RHI\u2019s activities to substantiate its claims that the company no longer views the production in the Union as its core business and that there is a clear shift in the group\u2019s strategy as it announced massive extensions of its production capacities in the PRC. However, it was found that such press releases refer to the company\u2019s general overall business activities and do not relate specifically to the product investigated. The applicant did not provide any other evidence of any shift in RHI\u2019s core activities with regard to the period from 2005 to the end of the investigation period that would lead to the conclusion that RHI should be excluded from the definition of the Union industry.\n(29)\nIt is therefore considered that the expiry review proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain magnesia bricks originating in the PRC should be terminated.\n(30)\nDue to the precise circumstances explained in recital 26 above, the definitive anti-dumping duties paid or entered in the accounts pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China released for free circulation as from 14 October 2010, the date of expiry of the anti-dumping measures, should exceptionally be repaid or remitted.\n(31)\nRepayment or remission must be requested from national customs authorities in accordance with applicable customs legislation.\n(32)\nIn the view of the circumstances described above in particular in recital 21, the Commission will monitor the export and import flows of the product concerned as well as the relevant CN Codes. Should the flows appear to change, the Commission will give consideration to the action to be taken.\n6. TERMINATION OF THE \u2018NEW EXPORTER\u2019 REVIEW\n(33)\nOn 27 May 2010 the Commission received an application for a \u2018new exporter\u2019 review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. The application was lodged by TRL China Ltd (\u2018TRL\u2019), an exporting producer in the PRC.\n(34)\nTRL claimed that it operated under market economy conditions as defined in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation or alternatively claimed individual treatment in conformity with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. It further claimed that it did not export the product concerned to the Union during the period of investigation on which the anti-dumping measures were based, i.e. the period from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 (\u2018the original investigation period\u2019) and that it was not related to any of the exporting producers of the product which are subject to the anti-dumping measures mentioned above in recital 1.\n(35)\nTRL further claimed that it had begun exporting the product concerned to the Union after the end of the original investigation period.\n(36)\nOn 28 September 2010 the Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, announced, by Regulation (EU) No 850/2010 (8), the initiation of a \u2018new exporter\u2019 review of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005, the repeal of the duty with regard to imports from TRL and the subjection of these imports to registration.\n(37)\nThe investigation period for the \u2018new exporter\u2019 review was from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010.\n(38)\nIn view of the termination of the expiry review and given the fact that TRL did not import the product concerned between the date of the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 850/2010 and the date of expiry of the anti-dumping measures (13 October 2010), it is considered that the \u2018new exporter\u2019 review concerning imports into the Union of certain magnesia bricks originating in the PRC should therefore also be terminated.\n(39)\nInterested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping measures concerning imports of chemically bonded, unfired magnesia bricks, whose magnesia component contains at least 80 % MgO, whether or not containing magnesite, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 6815 91 00 and ex 6815 99 00, are hereby repealed and the proceeding concerning these imports is terminated.\nArticle 2\nThe definitive anti-dumping duties paid or entered in the accounts pursuant to Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China released for free circulation as from 14 October 2010 shall be repaid or remitted.\nRepayment and remission shall be requested from national customs authorities in accordance with applicable customs legislation.\nArticle 3\nThe \u2018new exporter\u2019 review initiated by Regulation (EU) No 850/2010 is hereby terminated.\nArticle 4\nThe customs authorities are hereby directed to cease the registration of imports carried out pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 850/2010.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 21 June 2011.", "references": ["84", "8", "58", "55", "71", "53", "36", "91", "93", "46", "89", "13", "63", "60", "12", "66", "45", "29", "9", "79", "10", "98", "30", "17", "11", "20", "64", "15", "56", "85", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "87", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "87", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 213/2011\nof 3 March 2011\namending Annexes II and V to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (1), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 11 and the second paragraph of Article 26,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAustria has requested the insertion in Annex II to Directive 2005/36/EC of 10 training programmes related to healthcare. These training programmes are regulated by the Healthcare and Nursing Special Task Ordinance (GuK-SV BGBl II No 452/2005) and the Healthcare and Nursing Teaching and Management Duties Ordinance (GuK-LFV BGBl II No 453/2005).\n(2)\nAs these Austrian training programmes are of an equivalent level of training to that provided for under Article 11(c)(i) of Directive 2005/36/EC and provide a comparable professional standard and prepare the trainee for a comparable level of responsibilities and functions, their inclusion on the basis of Article 11(c)(ii) in Annex II to Directive 2005/36/EC is justified.\n(3)\nPortugal has submitted a reasoned request to include in point 5.1.3 of Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC specialist medical training in medical oncology.\n(4)\nMedical oncology aims at offering a systemic treatment of cancer. The treatment of cancer patients has undergone major changes over the last decade due to scientific progress. Specialist medical training in medical oncology is not listed in point 5.1.3 of Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC. However, medical oncology has developed into a separate and distinct specialist medical training in more than two fifths of the Member States, which justifies its inclusion into point 5.1.3 of Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure a sufficiently high level of specialist medical training, the minimum period of training required for the medical specialty of medical oncology to be automatically recognised should be five years.\n(6)\nFrance has submitted a reasoned request to include in point 5.1.3 of Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC specialist medical training in medical genetics.\n(7)\nMedical genetics is a specialty that responds to the rapid development of knowledge in the field of genetics and its implication in numerous specialised fields, such as oncology, foetal medicine, paediatrics, chronic diseases. Medical genetics plays a growing role in screening and in the prevention of numerous pathologies. Specialist medical training in medical genetics is not listed in point 5.1.3 of Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC. However, it has developed into a separate and distinct specialist medical training in more than two fifths of the Member States, which justifies its inclusion into point 5.1.3 of Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure a sufficiently high level of specialist medical training, the minimum period of training required for the medical specialty of medical genetics to be automatically recognised should be four years.\n(9)\nDirective 2005/36/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and V to Directive 2005/36/EC are amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 March 2011.", "references": ["8", "67", "99", "32", "79", "19", "71", "60", "16", "59", "96", "34", "52", "47", "45", "46", "77", "15", "26", "42", "93", "25", "53", "1", "20", "18", "24", "31", "83", "37", "No Label", "38", "49", "50"], "gold": ["38", "49", "50"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/77/EU\nof 10 November 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the expiry dates for inclusion in Annex I of certain active substances\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances listed in the Annex to this Directive expire between 31 May 2011 and 31 December 2012.\n(2)\nArticle 5(5) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that the inclusion of an active substance can be renewed, upon request, provided an application is made at the latest two years before the inclusion period is due to lapse. The Commission has received requests regarding renewals of inclusions for all the substances referred to in recital 1.\n(3)\nDetailed rules will be needed concerning the submission and evaluation of further information necessary for the renewal of Annex I inclusion. Therefore, it is justified to renew the inclusion of the active substances referred to in recital 1 for a period necessary to enable the applicants to prepare their applications and to enable the Commission to evaluate and decide upon such applications.\n(4)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish, by 31 March 2011 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 April 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2010.", "references": ["67", "31", "58", "91", "9", "0", "86", "10", "33", "99", "7", "50", "85", "3", "56", "97", "87", "96", "94", "52", "55", "18", "89", "57", "66", "88", "27", "51", "11", "98", "No Label", "2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 11 January 2012\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of vinyl acetate originating in the United States of America and releasing the amounts secured by way of the provisional duties imposed\n(2012/24/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Initiation of the proceeding and imposition of provisional measures\n(1)\nOn 22 October 2010, the Commission received a complaint pursuant to Article 5 of the Basic Regulation, concerning alleged injurious dumping by imports of vinyl acetate (hereinafter \u2018the product concerned\u2019) origination in the United States of America (USA).\n(2)\nThe complaint was lodged by Ineos Oxide Ltd (the complainant) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 % of the total Union industry production of the product concerned.\n(3)\nOn 4 December 2010, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of vinyl acetate originating in the USA.\n(4)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 821/2011 (3) (the provisional Regulation), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of vinyl acetate currently falling within CN code 2915 32 00 and originating in the USA.\nB. WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEDING\n(5)\nBy a letter of 4 November 2011 to the Commission, the complainant formally withdrew its complaint.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(7)\nThe Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated since the investigation had not brought to light any considerations showing that such termination would not be in the Union interest. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received indicating that such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(8)\nFollowing disclosure, one party argued that it should not have been excluded from the definition of the Union industry or that, alternatively, the provisional Regulation should be amended so as to include the party in that definition. In this respect, it should be pointed out that the findings of the provisional Regulation, on the basis of information obtained in the course of the investigation, were only provisional, as stated in recital 31 of the provisional Regulation itself. As the anti-dumping proceedings are terminated without the imposition of definitive measures, following the withdrawal of the complaint, it is not appropriate, in a terminating decision, neither to provide definitive determinations nor to amend a provisional Regulation.\n(9)\nIt is recalled that the findings at hand were provisional in nature. It follows that any future case relating to the product or the parties concerned by this proceeding will be assessed on its own merits.\n(10)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of the product concerned originating in the USA should be terminated without the imposition of anti-dumping measures.\n(11)\nAny duties provisionally secured on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 821/2011 should be released,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of vinyl acetate, currently falling within CN code 2915 32 00 and originating in the United States of America, is hereby terminated without the imposition of anti-dumping measures.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 821/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThe amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 821/2011 on imports of vinyl acetate currently falling within CN code 2915 32 00 and originating in the United States of America shall be released.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 11 January 2012.", "references": ["17", "12", "52", "84", "85", "68", "32", "79", "91", "2", "75", "74", "19", "78", "64", "76", "55", "40", "77", "58", "4", "35", "59", "51", "71", "73", "89", "63", "82", "72", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 762/2010\nof 25 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 August 2010.", "references": ["62", "94", "7", "72", "2", "60", "92", "21", "30", "57", "54", "56", "77", "37", "5", "90", "40", "22", "6", "45", "65", "69", "82", "99", "20", "76", "71", "36", "18", "58", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1178/2011\nof 3 November 2011\nlaying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (1), and in particular Articles 7(6), 8(5) and 10(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 216/2008 aims at establishing and maintaining a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in Europe. That Regulation provides for the means of achieving that objective and other objectives in the field of civil aviation safety.\n(2)\nPilots involved in the operation of certain aircraft, as well as flight simulation training devices, persons and organisations involved in training, testing or checking of those pilots, have to comply with the relevant essential requirements set out in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. According to that Regulation pilots as well as persons and organisations involved in their training should be certified once they have been found to comply with essential requirements.\n(3)\nSimilarly, pilots should be issued with a medical certificate and aero-medical examiners, responsible for assessing the medical fitness of pilots, should be certified once they have been found to comply with the relevant essential requirements. However, Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 envisages the possibility of general medical practitioners to act as aero-medical examiners under certain conditions and if permitted under national law.\n(4)\nCabin crew involved in the operation of certain aircraft have to comply with the relevant essential requirements set out in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. According to that Regulation, cabin crew should be periodically assessed for medical fitness to safely exercise their assigned safety duties. Compliance must be shown by an appropriate assessment based on aero-medical best practice.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 216/2008 requires the Commission to adopt the necessary implementing rules for establishing the conditions for certifying pilots as well as persons involved in their training, testing or checking, for the attestation of cabin crew members and for the assessment of their medical fitness.\n(6)\nThe requirements and procedures for the conversion of national pilot licences and national flight engineer licences into pilot licences should be laid down, to ensure that they are allowed to perform their activities under harmonised conditions; flight test qualifications should also be converted in accordance with this Regulation.\n(7)\nIt should be possible for Member States to accept licences issued by third countries where a level of safety equivalent to that specified by Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 can be guaranteed; Conditions for the acceptance of licences issued by third countries should be laid down.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure that training commenced before the application of this Regulation may be taken into account for the purposes of obtaining pilots\u2019 licences, the conditions for recognising training already completed should be laid down; the conditions for recognising military licences should also be laid down.\n(9)\nIt is necessary to provide sufficient time for the aeronautical industry and Member State administrations to adapt to the new regulatory framework, to allow Member States the time to issue specific types of pilot licences and medical certificates not covered by the \u2018JAR\u2019, and to recognise under certain conditions the validity of licences and certificates issued, as well as aero-medical assessment performed, before this Regulation applies.\n(10)\nCouncil Directive 91/670/EEC of 16 December 1991 on mutual acceptance of personnel licences for the exercise of functions in civil aviation (2) is repealed in accordance with Article 69(2) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. The measures adopted by this Regulation are to be regarded as the corresponding measures.\n(11)\nIn order to ensure a smooth transition and a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in the Union, implementing measures should reflect the state of the art, including best practices, and scientific and technical progress in the field of pilot training and aircrew aero-medical fitness. Accordingly, technical requirements and administrative procedures agreed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the Joint Aviation Authorities until 30 June 2009 as well as existing legislation pertaining to a specific national environment, should be considered.\n(12)\nThe Agency prepared draft implementing rules and submitted them as an opinion to the Commission in accordance with Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down detailed rules for:\n(1)\ndifferent ratings for pilots\u2019 licences, the conditions for issuing, maintaining, amending, limiting, suspending or revoking licences, the privileges and responsibilities of the holders of licences, the conditions for the conversion of existing national pilots\u2019 licences and of national flight engineers\u2019 licences into pilots\u2019 licences, as well as the conditions for the acceptance of licences from third countries;\n(2)\nthe certification of persons responsible for providing flight training or flight simulation training and for assessing pilots\u2019 skills;\n(3)\ndifferent medical certificates for pilots, the conditions for issuing, maintaining, amending, limiting, suspending or revoking medical certificates, the privileges and responsibilities of the holders of medical certificates as well as the conditions for the conversion of national medical certificates into commonly recognised medical certificates;\n(4)\nthe certification of aero-medical examiners, as well as the conditions under which general medical practitioners may act as aero-medical examiners;\n(5)\nthe periodical aero-medical assessment of cabin crew members, as well as the qualification of persons responsible for this assessment.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018Part-FCL licence\u2019 means a flight crew licence which complies with the requirements of Annex I;\n(2)\n\u2018JAR\u2019 means joint aviation requirements adopted by the Joint Aviation Authorities as applicable on 30 June 2009;\n(3)\n\u2018Light aircraft pilot licence (LAPL)\u2019 means the leisure pilot licence referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008;\n(4)\n\u2018JAR-compliant licence\u2019 means the pilot licence and attached ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications, issued or recognised, in accordance with the national legislation reflecting JAR and procedures, by a Member State having implemented the relevant JAR and having being recommended for mutual recognition within the Joint Aviation Authorities\u2019 system in relation to such JAR;\n(5)\n\u2018Non-JAR-compliant licence\u2019 means the pilot licence issued or recognised by a Member State in accordance with national legislation and not having been recommended for mutual recognition in relation to the relevant JAR;\n(6)\n\u2018Credit\u2019 means the recognition of prior experience or qualifications;\n(7)\n\u2018Credit report\u2019 means a report on the basis of which prior experience or qualifications may be recognised;\n(8)\n\u2018Conversion report\u2019 means a report on the basis of which a licence may be converted into a Part-FCL licence;\n(9)\n\u2018JAR-compliant pilots\u2019 medical certificate and aero-medical examiners\u2019 certificate\u2019 means the certificate issued or recognised, in accordance with the national legislation reflecting JAR and procedures, by a Member State having implemented the relevant JAR and having been recommended for mutual recognition within the Joint Aviation Authorities\u2019 system in relation to such JAR;\n(10)\n\u2018Non-JAR-compliant pilots\u2019 medical certificate and aero-medical examiners\u2019 certificate\u2019 means the certificate issued or recognised by a Member State in accordance with national legislation and not having been recommended for mutual recognition in relation to the relevant JAR.\nArticle 3\nPilot licensing and medical certification\nWithout prejudice to Article 7, pilots of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) and Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 shall comply with the technical requirements and administrative procedures laid down in Annex I and Annex IV to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nExisting national pilots\u2019 licences\n1. JAR-compliant licences issued or recognised by a Member State before 8 April 2012 shall be deemed to have been issued in accordance with this Regulation. Member States shall replace these licences with licences complying with the format laid down in Part-ARA by 8 April 2017 at the latest.\n2. Non-JAR-compliant licences including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications issued or recognised by a Member State before the applicability of this Regulation shall be converted into Part-FCL licences by the Member State that issued the licence.\n3. Non-JAR-compliant licences shall be converted into Part-FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates in accordance with:\n(a)\nthe provisions of Annex II; or\n(b)\nthe elements laid down in a conversion report.\n4. The conversion report shall:\n(a)\nbe established by the Member State that issued the pilot licence in consultation with the European Aviation Safety Agency (the Agency);\n(b)\ndescribe the national requirements on the basis of which the pilot licences were issued;\n(c)\ndescribe the scope of the privileges that were given to the pilots;\n(d)\nindicate for which requirements in Annex I credit is to be given;\n(e)\nindicate any limitations that need to be included on the Part-FCL licences and any requirements the pilot has to comply with in order to remove those limitations.\n5. The conversion report shall include copies of all documents necessary to demonstrate the elements set out in points (a) to (e) of paragraph 4, including copies of the relevant national requirements and procedures. When developing the conversion report, Member States shall aim at allowing pilots to, as far as possible, maintain their current scope of activities.\n6. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 3, holders of a class rating instructor certificate or an examiner certificate who have privileges for single-pilot high performance complex aircraft shall have those privileges converted into a type rating instructor certificate or an examiner certificate for single-pilot aeroplanes.\n7. A Member State may authorise a student pilot to exercise limited privileges without supervision before he/she meets all the requirements necessary for the issuance of an LAPL under the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe privileges shall be limited to its national territory or a part of it;\n(b)\nthe privileges shall be restricted to a limited geographical area and to single-engine piston aeroplanes with a maximum take-off mass not exceeding 2 000 kg, and shall not include the carriage of passengers;\n(c)\nthose authorisations shall be issued on the basis of an individual safety risk assessment carried out by an instructor following a concept safety risk assessment carried out by the Member State;\n(d)\nthe Member State shall submit periodical reports to the Commission and the Agency every 3 years.\nArticle 5\nExisting national pilots\u2019 medical certificates and aero-medical examiners certificates\n1. JAR-compliant pilots\u2019 medical certificates and aero-medical examiners\u2019 certificates issued or recognised by a Member State before this Regulation applies shall be deemed to have been issued in accordance with this Regulation.\n2. Member States shall replace pilots\u2019 medical certificates and aero-medical examiners\u2019 certificates with certificates complying with the format laid down in Part-ARA by 8 April 2017 at the latest.\n3. Non-JAR-compliant pilot medical certificates and aero-medical examiners\u2019 certificates issued by a Member State before this Regulation applies shall remain valid until the date of their next revalidation or until 8 April 2017, whichever is the earlier.\n4. The revalidation of the certificates referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall comply with the provisions of Annex IV.\nArticle 6\nConversion of flight test qualifications\n1. Pilots who before this Regulation applies conducted category 1 and 2 flight tests as defined in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 (3), or who provided instruction to flight test pilots, shall have their flight test qualifications converted into flight test ratings in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation and, where applicable, flight test instructor certificates by the Member State that issued the flight test qualifications.\n2. This conversion shall be carried out in accordance with the elements established in a conversion report that complies with the requirements set out in Article 4(4) and (5).\nArticle 7\nExisting national flight engineers\u2019 licences\n1. In order to convert flight engineer licences, issued in accordance with Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention, into Part-FCL licences, holders shall apply to the Member State that issued the licences.\n2. Flight engineer licences shall be converted into Part-FCL licences in accordance with a conversion report that complies with the requirements set out in Article 4(4) and (5).\n3. When applying for the airline transport pilot licence (ATPL) for aeroplanes, the provisions on credit in FCL.510.A(c)(2) of Annex I shall be complied with.\nArticle 8\nConditions for the acceptance of licences from third countries\n1. Without prejudice to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and where there are no agreements concluded between the Union and a third country covering pilot licensing, Member States may accept third country licences, and associated medical certificates issued by or on behalf of third countries, in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to this Regulation.\n2. Applicants for Part-FCL licences already holding at least an equivalent licence, rating or certificate issued in accordance with Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country shall comply with all the requirements of Annex I to this Regulation, except that the requirements of course duration, number of lessons and specific training hours may be reduced.\n3. The credit given to the applicant shall be determined by the Member State to which the pilot applies on the basis of a recommendation from an approved training organisation.\n4. Holders of an ATPL issued by or on behalf of a third country in accordance with Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention who have completed the experience requirements for the issue of an ATPL in the relevant aircraft category as set out in Subpart F of Annex I to this Regulation may be given full credit as regards the requirements to undergo a training course prior to undertaking the theoretical knowledge examinations and the skill test, provided that the third country licence contains a valid type rating for the aircraft to be used for the ATPL skill test.\n5. Aeroplane or helicopter type ratings may be issued to holders of Part-FCL licences that comply with the requirements for the issue of those ratings established by a third country. Such ratings will be restricted to aircraft registered in that third country. This restriction may be removed when the pilot complies with the requirements in point C.1 of Annex III.\nArticle 9\nCredit for training commenced prior to the application of this Regulation\n1. In respect of issuing Part-FCL licences in accordance with Annex I, training commenced prior to the application of this Regulation in accordance with the Joint Aviation Authorities requirements and procedures, under the regulatory oversight of a Member State recommended for mutual recognition within the Joint Aviation Authorities\u2019 system in relation to the relevant JAR, shall be given full credit provided that the training and testing were completed by 8 April 2016 at the latest.\n2. Training commenced prior to the application of this Regulation in accordance with Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention shall be given credit for the purposes of issuing Part-FCL licences on the basis of a credit report established by the Member State in consultation with the Agency.\n3. The credit report shall describe the scope of the training, indicate for which requirements of Part-FCL licences credit is given and, if applicable, which requirements applicants need to comply with in order to be issued with Part-FCL licences. It shall include copies of all documents necessary to demonstrate the scope of the training and of the national regulations and procedures in accordance with which the training was commenced.\nArticle 10\nCredit for pilot licences obtained during military service\n1. In order for holders of military flight crew licences to obtain Part-FCL licences, they shall apply to the Member State where they served.\n2. The knowledge, experience and skill gained in military service shall be given credit for the purposes of the relevant requirements of Annex I in accordance with the elements of a credit report established by the Member State in consultation with the Agency.\n3. The credit report shall:\n(a)\ndescribe the national requirements on the basis of which the military licences, ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications were issued;\n(b)\ndescribe the scope of the privileges that were given to the pilots;\n(c)\nindicate for which requirements of Annex I credit is to be given;\n(d)\nindicate any limitations that need to be included on the Part-FCL licences and indicate any requirements pilots have to comply with to remove those limitations;\n(e)\ninclude copies of all documents necessary to demonstrate the elements above, accompanied by copies of the relevant national requirements and procedures.\nArticle 11\nCabin crew medical fitness\n1. Cabin crew members involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 shall comply with the technical requirements and administrative procedures laid down in Annex IV.\n2. The medical examinations or assessments of cabin crew members that were conducted in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (4) and which are still valid at the date of application of this Regulation shall be deemed to be valid according to this Regulation until the earlier of the following:\n(a)\nthe end of the validity period determined by the competent authority in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91; or\n(b)\nthe end of the validity period provided for in point MED.C.005 of Annex IV.\nThe validity period shall be counted from the date of the last medical examination or assessment.\nBy the end of the validity period any subsequent aero-medical re-assessment shall be conducted in accordance with Annex IV.\nArticle 12\nEntry into force and application\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 8 April 2012.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the following provisions of Annex I until 8 April 2015:\n(a)\nthe provisions related to pilot licences of powered-lift aircraft, airships, balloons and sailplanes;\n(b)\nthe provisions of Subpart B;\n(c)\nthe provisions of points FCL.800, FCL.805, FCL.815 and FCL.820;\n(d)\nin the case of helicopters, the provisions of Section 8 of Subpart J;\n(e)\nthe provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of Subpart J.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to convert non-JAR-compliant aeroplane and helicopter licences that they have issued until 8 April 2014.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of this Regulation to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in the non-commercial operation of aircraft specified in Article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 until 8 April 2014.\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of Section 3 of Subpart B of Annex IV until 8 April 2015.\n6. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of Subpart C of Annex IV until 8 April 2014.\n7. When a Member State makes use of the provisions of paragraphs 2 to 6 it shall notify the Commission and the Agency. This notification shall describe the reasons for such derogation as well as the programme for implementation containing actions envisaged and related timing.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2011.", "references": ["62", "43", "84", "92", "28", "80", "67", "46", "85", "99", "11", "86", "69", "36", "66", "3", "98", "20", "41", "32", "81", "71", "35", "50", "22", "77", "25", "12", "52", "16", "No Label", "38", "53", "54", "57", "76"], "gold": ["38", "53", "54", "57", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 534/2011\nof 31 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2011.", "references": ["21", "77", "19", "96", "67", "74", "20", "68", "13", "60", "62", "93", "90", "51", "0", "5", "84", "7", "57", "97", "56", "88", "80", "14", "12", "24", "43", "71", "37", "94", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 March 2011\non the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, relating to the abolition of checks at internal borders and movement of persons\n(2011/350/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 16 and 74, Article 77(2) and Article 79(2)(a) and (c), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFollowing the authorisation given to the Commission on 27 February 2006, negotiations with the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Swiss Confederation of a Protocol on the accession of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis have been finalised.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decisions 2008/261/EC (1) and 2008/262/JHA (2), and subject to its conclusion at a later date, the Protocol was signed on behalf of the European Community on 28 February 2008.\n(3)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nThis Protocol should be approved.\n(5)\nAs far as the development of the Schengen acquis is concerned, which falls under Part Three, Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, it is appropriate to make Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the association of those two States with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (3) applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the relations with Liechtenstein.\n(6)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (4); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(7)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (5); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(8)\nThis Decision does not prejudice the position of Denmark under the Protocol on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis and related documents are hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.\nThe texts of the Protocol and the related documents are attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision applies to the fields covered by the provisions listed in Article 2(1) and (2) of the Protocol and to their development to the extent that such provisions are not listed in Decisions 2000/365/EC and 2002/192/EC.\nArticle 3\nThe provisions of Articles 1 to 4 of Decision 1999/437/EC shall apply, in the same way, to the association of Liechtenstein with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis.\nArticle 4\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to deposit on behalf of the European Union the Instrument of approval provided for in Article 9 of the Protocol, in order to express the consent of the European Union to be bound, and make the following notification:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d in the Protocol as well as in the agreement are, where appropriate, to be understood as to \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["18", "28", "75", "50", "49", "93", "87", "99", "7", "26", "89", "43", "62", "11", "65", "85", "92", "14", "48", "47", "21", "36", "1", "35", "88", "64", "80", "73", "81", "44", "No Label", "3", "9", "13", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "13", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1360/2011\nof 20 December 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/867/CFSP of 20 December 2011 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 2 March 2011, and further to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (2), the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (3). Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 provides in particular for the freezing of funds and economic resources of the Central Bank of Libya as well as those of the Libyan Arab Foreign Bank.\n(2)\nIn light of UNSCR 2009 (2011), and further to Decision 2011/625/CFSP of 22 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP (4), Regulation (EU) No 965/2011 provides in particular for adjustments to the assets freeze of certain Libyan entities in order to support Libya\u2019s economic recovery.\n(3)\nOn 16 December 2011, the Security Council Committee established pursuant to UNSCR 1970 (2011) decided that the measures concerning the Central Bank of Libya and Libyan Arab Foreign Bank should be terminated. In line with Decision 2011/867/CFSP, Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 should therefore be amended.\n(4)\nThese measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement them.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 is hereby replaced by the following:\n\u20184. All funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by the following on 16 September 2011:\n(a)\nLibyan Investment Authority; and\n(b)\nLibyan Africa Investment Portfolio,\nand located outside Libya on that date shall remain frozen.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["98", "92", "47", "12", "57", "34", "17", "18", "0", "67", "28", "70", "91", "24", "85", "21", "77", "79", "63", "78", "83", "33", "51", "59", "20", "99", "90", "89", "65", "97", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 506/2012\nof 14 June 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Kra\u0161ki pr\u0161ut (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovenia\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Kra\u0161ki pr\u0161ut\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, a statement of objection was sent to the Commission by Italy on 29 March 2010, substantiated under Article 7(3)(a) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. In its letter dated 14 June 2010, the Commission invited the interested parties to hold appropriate consultations.\n(3)\nAn agreement, notified to the Commission on 9 November 2010, was reached between Slovenia and Italy within six months, containing amendments to the initial specification, specifically the removal of the reference to the village of \u0160tanjel.\n(4)\nThis removal affects the defined geographical area and cannot therefore be regarded as a minor change.\n(5)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 7(5) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission should once again perform the examination referred to in Article 6(1) of that Regulation.\n(6)\nThe application for the registration of the name \u2018Kra\u0161ki pr\u0161ut\u2019, amended following the agreement between Slovenia and Italy, was therefore republished in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).\n(7)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 June 2012.", "references": ["28", "44", "86", "83", "2", "79", "87", "53", "23", "36", "12", "42", "15", "95", "20", "73", "26", "45", "18", "0", "76", "56", "61", "19", "57", "32", "81", "82", "27", "51", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 October 2010\nauthorising a method for grading pig carcases in Greece\n(notified under document C(2010) 7230)\n(Only the Greek text is authentic)\n(2010/642/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(m), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPoint B.IV, paragraph 1, of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that, for the classification of pig carcases, the lean-meat content has to be assessed by means grading methods authorised by the Commission, which methods may only be statistically proven assessment methods based on the physical measurement of one or more anatomical parts of the pig carcase. The authorisation of grading methods is subject to compliance with a maximum tolerance for statistical error in assessment. This tolerance is defined in Article 23(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/2008 of 10 December 2008 laying down detailed rules on the implementation of the Community scales for the classification of beef, pig and sheep carcases and the reporting of prices thereof (2).\n(2)\nGreece has asked the Commission to authorise one method for grading dehided pig carcases. This Member State has presented a detailed description of the uniform manner of dehiding carcases in part one of the protocol provided for in Article 23(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/2008 and the results of its dissection trial in part two of that protocol. Both protocols were presented to the other Member States in the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets in 2008, 2009 and 2010.\n(3)\nExamination of this request has revealed that the conditions for authorising this grading method are fulfilled. This grading method should therefore be authorised in Greece.\n(4)\nIn accordance with the second paragraph of point B.III of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 Member States may be authorised to provide for a presentation of pig carcases different from the standard presentation defined in the first paragraph of that point, inter alia, where normal commercial practice in their territory differs from that standard presentation.\n(5)\nGreece has specified to the Commission that, in some slaughterhouses in Greece, commercial practice requires also the removal of the skin from the pig carcases, in addition to the removal of the tongue, bristles, hooves, genital organs, flare fat, kidneys and diaphragm as required by that first paragraph. This presentation that differs from the standard presentation should therefore be authorised in Greece.\n(6)\nNo modification of the apparatus or grading method may be authorised except by means of a new Commission Decision adopted in the light of experience gained. For this reason, the present authorisation may be revoked.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe use of the following method is hereby authorised for grading dehided pig carcases pursuant to point B.IV, paragraph 1, of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in Greece: the apparatus termed \u2018Hennessy Grading Probe (HGP 4)\u2019 and the assessment method related thereto, details of which are given in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nNotwithstanding the standard presentation laid down in the first paragraph of point B.III of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, pig carcases in Greece may be dehided in a uniform manner before being weighed and graded. In order to establish quotations for pig carcases on a comparable basis, the recorded hot carcase weight shall be adjusted according to the following formula:\nhot carcase weight = 1,05232 \u00d7 weight of the dehided carcase\nArticle 3\nModifications of the apparatus or the assessment method shall not be authorised.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 25 October 2010.", "references": ["14", "51", "43", "9", "81", "0", "64", "60", "78", "76", "5", "28", "49", "74", "82", "37", "7", "4", "53", "95", "24", "62", "38", "23", "21", "11", "84", "22", "47", "42", "No Label", "19", "69", "73", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["19", "69", "73", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 819/2012\nof 12 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for Norway lobster in areas VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2012.", "references": ["39", "15", "6", "16", "94", "66", "25", "70", "86", "87", "2", "50", "7", "47", "89", "5", "42", "65", "0", "75", "28", "49", "77", "73", "71", "52", "23", "60", "8", "35", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 11 July 2011\non a Union financial contribution towards Member States\u2019 fisheries control, inspection and surveillance programmes for 2011\n(notified under document C(2011) 4852)\n(Only the Bulgarian, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2011/431/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea (1), and in particular Article 21 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMember States have submitted to the Commission their fisheries control programmes for 2011, in accordance with Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006, inclusive of the applications for a Union financial contribution towards the expenditure to be incurred in carrying out the projects contained in such programme.\n(2)\nApplications concerning actions listed in Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 may qualify for Union funding.\n(3)\nThe applications for Union funding have been assessed with regard to their compliance with the rules set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 391/2007 (2).\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to fix the maximum amounts and the rate of the Union financial contribution within the limits set by Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and to lay down the conditions under which such contribution may be granted.\n(5)\nIn order to encourage investment in the priority actions defined by the Commission in its letter of 6 December 2010 (3), which announced that priority and higher contribution rates would be given to projects required by the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (4), and in view of the negative impact of the financial crisis on Member States\u2019 budgets, expenditure related to automation and management of data, electronic recording and reporting systems, electronic recording and reporting devices (ERS) and vessel monitoring systems (VMS), as well as to traceability and control of engine power should benefit from a high co-financing rate, within the limits laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006.\n(6)\nIn order to encourage investments in the priorities defined by the Commission and given budgetary constraints, all the Member States\u2019 applications for a Union financial contribution towards projects related to training, to initiatives raising awareness of CFP rules as well as to the purchase and modernisation of fisheries patrol vessels and aircraft were rejected.\n(7)\nIn order to qualify for the contribution, automatic localisation devices should satisfy the requirements fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2244/2003 of 18 December 2003 laying down detailed provisions regarding satellite-based Vessel Monitoring Systems (5).\n(8)\nIn order to qualify for the contribution, electronic recording and reporting devices on board fishing vessels should satisfy the requirements laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1077/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1966/2006 on electronic recording and reporting of fishing activities and on means of remote sensing and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1566/2007 (6).\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision provides for a Union financial contribution towards expenditure incurred by Member States in 2011 in implementing the monitoring and control systems applicable to the common fisheries policy (CFP), as referred to in Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006.\nArticle 2\nClosure of outstanding commitments\nAll payments in respect of which a reimbursement is claimed shall be made by the Member State concerned by 30 June 2015. Payments made by a Member State after that deadline shall not be eligible for reimbursement. The budgetary appropriations related to this Decision shall be decommitted at the latest by 31 December 2016.\nArticle 3\nNew technologies & IT networks\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex I, on the setting up of new technologies and IT networks in order to allow efficient and secure collection and management of data in connection with monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries activities, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\n2. Any other expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred in Annex I, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 4\nAutomatic localisation devices\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex II, on the purchase and fitting on board of fishing vessels of automatic localisation devices enabling vessels to be monitored at a distance by a fisheries monitoring centre through a vessel monitoring system (VMS) shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits established in that Annex.\n2. The financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated on the basis of a price capped at EUR 2 500 per vessel.\n3. In order to qualify for the financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1, automatic localisation devices shall satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2244/2003.\nArticle 5\nElectronic recording and reporting systems\nExpenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex III, on the development, purchase, and installation of, as well as technical assistance for, the components necessary for electronic recording and reporting systems (ERS), in order to allow efficient and secure data exchange related to monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries activities, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 6\nElectronic recording and reporting devices\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex IV, on the purchase and fitting on board of fishing vessels of ERS devices enabling vessels to record and report electronically to a Fisheries Monitoring Centre data on fisheries activities, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits established in that Annex.\n2. The financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated on the basis of a price capped at EUR 3 000 per vessel, without prejudice of paragraph 4.\n3. In order to qualify for a financial contribution, ERS devices shall satisfy the requirements established pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1077/2008.\n4. In case of devices combining ERS and VMS functions, and fulfilling the requirements laid down in Regulations (EC) No 2244/2003 and (EC) No 1077/2008, the financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be calculated on the basis of a price capped at EUR 4 500 per vessel.\nArticle 7\nPilot projects\nExpenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex V, on pilot projects on new control technologies shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 8\nTotal maximum Union contribution per Member State\nThe planned expenditure, the eligible share thereof, and the maximum Community contribution per Member State are as follows:\n(EUR)\nMember State\nExpenditure planned in the national fisheries control programme\nExpenditure for projects selected under this Decision\nMaximum Union contribution\nBelgium\n1 362 000\n212 000\n190 800\nBulgaria\n79 251\n53 686\n48 318\nCyprus\n555 000\n130 000\n105 000\nDenmark\n8 657 750\n5 057 415\n4 546 308\nGermany\n2 967 500\n1 771 500\n1 575 950\nEstonia\n459 584\n448 280\n400 140\nIreland\n55 448 000\n3 405 000\n2 824 500\nGreece\n7 150 000\n4 100 000\n3 690 000\nSpain\n1 351 154\n890 751\n801 675\nFrance\n7 145 920\n6 591 920\n4 906 008\nItaly\n25 012 000\n5 590 000\n3 367 000\nLatvia\n140 885\n140 885\n126 796\nLithuania\n360 966\n149 887\n134 899\nMalta\n159 693\n97 885\n86 497\nNetherlands\n932 500\n632 500\n569 250\nPoland\n381 565\n338 686\n304 817\nPortugal\n5 661 152\n1 758 079\n1 582 271\nRomania\n597 000\n136 000\n94 000\nSlovenia\n597 800\n591 400\n531 900\nFinland\n2 470 000\n2 055 000\n1 729 500\nSweden\n6 574 335\n3 847 033\n3 284 814\nUnited Kingdom\n8 119 733\n4 916 541\n4 327 317\nTotal\n136 183 788\n42 914 447\n35 227 760\nArticle 9\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, The Republic of Slovenia, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 11 July 2011.", "references": ["4", "32", "99", "34", "51", "71", "23", "53", "65", "36", "0", "15", "69", "13", "87", "49", "58", "41", "43", "92", "47", "38", "9", "57", "61", "14", "12", "16", "31", "89", "No Label", "10", "42", "67", "76", "96"], "gold": ["10", "42", "67", "76", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\namending Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU on granting Union financial assistance to Ireland\n(2011/827/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUpon a request by Ireland, the Council granted financial assistance to it (Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU (2)) in support of a strong economic and financial reform programme aiming at restoring confidence, enabling the return of the economy to sustainable growth, and safeguarding financial stability in Ireland, the euro area and the Union.\n(2)\nIn line with Article 3(9) of Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU, the Commission, together with the International Monetary Fund and in liaison with the European Central Bank (ECB), conducted the fourth review of the Irish authorities\u2019 progress in implementing the agreed measures as well as of the effectiveness and economic and social impact of those measures.\n(3)\nBank of Ireland\u2019s remaining outstanding capital requirement has decreased from EUR 500 million to EUR 350 million due to further liability management exercises and gains from closing out of hedging contracts attached to the subordinated debt instruments.\n(4)\nThe Irish authorities have requested moving until the end of the second quarter of 2012 the deadline to prepare the legislation to strengthen the regulatory framework for the credit unions sector, to enable thorough consultation of stakeholders. In the meantime, the authorities will address the weaknesses in the most troubled credit unions while protecting deposits to ensure financial stability.\n(5)\nThe Irish authorities have requested moving until the end of the first quarter of 2012 the deadline to prepare the envisaged fiscal responsibility legislation, which will give enactment to the recent enhancements of the Stability and Growth Pact, to enable thorough discussion with stakeholders.\n(6)\nIn the light of these developments and considerations, Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 3 of Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin paragraph 7, point (g) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(g)\nthe recapitalisation of the domestic banks by the end of July 2011 (subject to appropriate adjustment for expected asset sales and liability management exercises in the cases of Irish Life & Permanent and Bank of Ireland) in line with the findings of the 2011 Prudential Liquidity Assessment Review (PLAR) and Prudential Capital Assessment Review (PCAR), as announced by the Central Bank of Ireland on 31 March 2011. To allow further burden sharing, the final EUR 0,35 billion step in recapitalising Bank of Ireland shall be completed by the end of 2011 and any further recapitalisation of Irish Life & Permanent shall be completed following the disposal of the insurance arm;\u2019;\n(2)\nin paragraph 7, points (e) and (p) are deleted;\n(3)\nin paragraph 8, the following points are added:\n\u2018(d)\nthe submission of legislation to the Oireachtas to assist the credit unions with a strengthened regulatory framework including more effective governance and regulatory requirements;\n(e)\nthe adoption of measures reinforcing a credible budgetary strategy and strengthening the budgetary framework. Ireland shall adopt and implement the fiscal rule that any additional unplanned revenues in 2011-2015 will be allocated to deficit and debt reduction. Ireland shall introduce a Fiscal Responsibility Bill including provisions for a medium-term budgetary framework with binding multiannual ceilings on expenditure in each area, fiscal rules and assure the Fiscal Advisory Council\u2019s independence. This shall be made taking into account the revised economic governance reforms at Union level and build on reforms already in place.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to Ireland.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["12", "40", "46", "0", "74", "89", "48", "47", "5", "39", "37", "23", "31", "90", "8", "83", "70", "72", "65", "28", "62", "17", "19", "1", "61", "55", "93", "3", "43", "73", "No Label", "15", "16", "27", "29", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "16", "27", "29", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 728/2012\nof 7 August 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ser koryci\u0144ski swojski (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Ser koryci\u0144ski swojski\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 August 2012.", "references": ["66", "16", "14", "18", "92", "95", "9", "15", "51", "60", "4", "0", "54", "72", "67", "83", "12", "34", "21", "28", "20", "26", "93", "27", "61", "2", "58", "99", "59", "49", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 475/2010\nof 31 May 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 470/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2010.", "references": ["75", "28", "53", "58", "17", "59", "45", "67", "18", "91", "79", "98", "11", "77", "20", "64", "88", "51", "23", "24", "8", "61", "93", "27", "33", "16", "76", "84", "49", "30", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 546/2010\nof 22 June 2010\nderogating from Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 for the 2009/2010 marketing year as regards the obligation to submit an export licence with import licence applications for CXL concessions sugar with order numbers 09.4317, 09.4318 and 09.4319\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 148 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), import licence applications for CXL concessions sugar with order numbers 09.4317, 09.4318, 09.4319 and 09.4321 and for Balkan sugar are to be accompanied by the original of the export licences issued by the competent authorities of the third country concerned. Imports of CXL concessions sugar with order numbers 09.4317, 09.4318 and 09.4319 are subject to the payment of an in-quota rate of EUR 98 per tonne. Given the high world market prices for raw cane sugar which prevailed during the first months of the marketing year, which led to an underutilisation of the CXL concessions sugar, it is important to facilitate those imports by simplifying the administrative procedure. Therefore, a derogation should be provided for allowing import licence applications for CXL concessions sugar with those three order numbers to be submitted without the relevant export licence.\n(2)\nThat derogation will have the effect of widening the access to the relevant import quotas to a larger number of operators. Operators who already obtained export licences should, however, be able to continue to apply for import licences during a short period of time before this Regulation becomes applicable.\n(3)\nThe derogation provided for in this Regulation should only apply until the end of the 2009/2010 marketing year.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, import licence applications for CXL concessions sugar with order numbers 09.4317, 09.4318 and 09.4319 shall not be accompanied by the original of the export licences issued by the competent authorities of Australia, Brazil or Cuba.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall expire on 30 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2010.", "references": ["45", "78", "25", "3", "15", "52", "14", "2", "47", "51", "31", "68", "54", "84", "60", "7", "39", "80", "11", "61", "74", "29", "70", "98", "10", "46", "85", "37", "87", "34", "No Label", "4", "21", "71"], "gold": ["4", "21", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 4/2011\nof 4 January 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for saithe in VI; EU and international waters of Vb, XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 January 2011.", "references": ["84", "51", "80", "59", "40", "19", "17", "62", "18", "76", "21", "24", "61", "43", "63", "33", "48", "32", "60", "36", "15", "77", "85", "99", "64", "58", "82", "93", "72", "68", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 656/2012\nof 13 July 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for sandeel in EU waters of IIa, IIIa and IV excluding waters within six miles of UK baselines at Shetland, Fair Isle and Foula by vessels flying the flag of Denmark\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 368/2012 of 27 April 2012 amending Council Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down sandeel quotas in EU waters of IIa, IIIa and IV excluding waters within six miles of UK baselines at Shetland, Fair Isle and Foula for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2012.", "references": ["79", "99", "84", "26", "17", "74", "47", "12", "22", "54", "49", "72", "16", "1", "15", "63", "85", "7", "61", "94", "33", "52", "18", "40", "9", "89", "70", "57", "90", "35", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 12 December 2011\non an additional Union financial contribution for 2006 and 2007 to cover expenditure incurred by Portugal for the purpose of combating Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Steiner et Buhrer) Nickle et al. (pinewood nematode)\n(notified under document C(2011) 9247)\n(Only the Portuguese text is authentic)\n(2011/851/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 23(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2006/923/EC (2) approved a financial contribution from the Union for a programme of measures introduced by Portugal aiming in 2006 and 2007 at controlling the spread of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Steiner et Buhrer) Nickle et al. (pinewood nematode) to other Member States. The measures consisted of the creation of a barrier free from all host trees of the pinewood nematode vector, hereinafter the \u2018clear cut belt\u2019.\n(2)\nThe financial contribution granted by Decision 2006/923/EC was based on the programme for further actions for pinewood nematode (hereinafter: PWN) and the budget estimation referring to this programme as submitted by Portugal to the Commission on 28 July 2006.\n(3)\nThe final payments to Portugal connected to the actions laid down in Decision 2006/923/EC occurred in June 2008.\n(4)\nPortugal informed the Commission on 28 September 2007 and submitted supporting evidence on 30 June 2009 that the expenditure related to the creation of the clear cut belt exceeded by far the estimation presented in July 2006. In this regard it submitted a further request for a Union financial contribution to an additional expenditure of EUR 10 230 256,59. The initial under-estimate was due to several factors, including an under-estimate of the number of big PWN host trees, the small percentage of PWN host trees cut by their owners and the non-inclusion of costs to be incurred for cutting the young PWN host trees.\n(5)\nIn July 2010, the Commission carried out an audit on the information communicated by Portugal on 30 June 2009. After examination of all supporting documents for the additional claim, the audit report concluded that an eligible amount of EUR 5 314 851,15 of paid invoices (including coordination costs) could be validated.\n(6)\nAs the measures including in that additional claim are of the same nature and target the same purpose as the measures of Decision 2006/923/EC, it is appropriate to allocate the same Union financial contribution rate as in that Decision, namely a rate of 75 %.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (3), plant-health measures are financed from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. For the purpose of financial control of these measures, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of the above Regulation should apply.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4) and Article 90(1) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision adopted by the institution to which powers have been delegated, setting out the essential elements of the action involving the expenditure.\n(9)\nThe present Decision constitutes a financing decision for the expenditure provided in the co-financing requests presented by Member States.\n(10)\nThe measures provided in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nPrinciple\nThe allocation of a supplementary Union financial contribution to cover expenditure incurred by Portugal in 2006 and 2007 relating to the creation of a clear cut belt and taken for the purpose of combating pinewood nematode, is hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nAmount of Union financial contribution\nThe maximum supplementary Union financial contribution referred to in Article 1 is EUR 3 986 138,36.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 12 December 2011.", "references": ["98", "93", "54", "37", "70", "56", "20", "49", "60", "38", "30", "40", "18", "63", "88", "57", "52", "47", "27", "9", "45", "24", "15", "12", "42", "34", "90", "72", "94", "86", "No Label", "4", "10", "31", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "31", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 August 2011\non amending Decision 2007/589/EC as regards the inclusion of monitoring and reporting guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions from new activities and gases\n(notified under document C(2011) 5861)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/540/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1) as amended by Directive 2004/101/EC (2), Directive 2008/101/EC (3) and Regulation (EC) No 219/2009 (4), and in particular Articles 14(1) and 24(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2003/87/EC establishes a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union (hereinafter \u2018the ETS\u2019).\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 14(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC as amended by Directive 2004/101/EC, Directive 2008/101/EC and Regulation (EC) No 219/2009, the Commission adopted Decision 2007/589/EC (5) establishing guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 24(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC as amended by Directive 2004/101/EC, Directive 2008/101/EC and Regulation (EC) No 219/2009, the Commission may, on its own initiative, adopt monitoring and reporting guidelines for emissions from activities, installations and greenhouse gases which are not listed in Annex I if the monitoring and reporting of those emissions can be carried out with sufficient accuracy.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 3 of Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community (6), Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2003/87/EC as amended by Directive 2004/101/EC, Directive 2008/101/EC and Regulation (EC) No 219/2009, continue to apply until 31 December 2012.\n(5)\nDirective 2009/29/EC includes new gases and activities in the ETS as of 2013. The Commission should adopt guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from new activities and new gases with a view to the inclusion of such activities in the ETS from 2013 and their possible unilateral inclusion in the ETS before 2013.\n(6)\nDecision 2007/589/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 23 of Directive 2003/87/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2007/589/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThe guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from the activities listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC, and of activities included pursuant to Article 24(1) of that Directive, are set out in Annexes I to XIV and XVI to XXIV to this Decision.\nThe guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of tonne-kilometre data from aviation activities for the purpose of an application pursuant to Article 3e or 3f of Directive 2003/87/EC are set out in Annex XV. Those guidelines are based on the principles set out in Annex IV to that Directive.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe Table of Annexes and the following Annexes are amended as follows:\n(a)\nThe Table of Annexes is amended according to Annex I to this Decision;\n(b)\nAnnex I is amended according to Annex II to this Decision;\n(c)\nAnnex II is amended according to Annex III to this Decision;\n(d)\nAnnex IV is amended according to Annex IV to this Decision;\n(e)\nAnnex V is amended according to Annex V to this Decision;\n(f)\nAnnex VI is amended according to Annex VI to this Decision;\n(g)\nAnnex VII is amended according to Annex VII to this Decision;\n(h)\nAnnex VIII is amended according to Annex VIII to this Decision;\n(i)\nAnnex IX is amended according to Annex IX to this Decision;\n(j)\nAnnex X is amended according to Annex X to this Decision;\n(k)\nAnnex XI is amended according to Annex XI to this Decision;\n(l)\nAnnex XII is amended according to Annex XII to this Decision;\n(m)\nAnnex XVI is amended according to Annex XIII to this Decision;\n(3)\nthe following Annexes are added:\n(a)\nAnnex XIX is added according to Annex XIV to this Decision;\n(b)\nAnnex XX is added according to Annex XV to this Decision;\n(c)\nAnnex XXI is added according to Annex XVI to this Decision;\n(d)\nAnnex XXII is added according to Annex XVII to this Decision;\n(e)\nAnnex XXIII is added according to Annex XVIII to this Decision;\n(f)\nAnnex XXIV is added according to Annex XIX to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 August 2011.", "references": ["98", "56", "10", "4", "31", "20", "17", "88", "68", "91", "26", "9", "89", "61", "67", "11", "97", "75", "52", "21", "33", "71", "72", "35", "93", "23", "46", "81", "51", "0", "No Label", "58", "60"], "gold": ["58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 August 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of Phosphatidylserine from soya phospholipids as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 5897)\n(2011/513/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 September 2009 the company Cantox Health Science International on behalf of the company Enzymotec Ltd made a request to the competent authorities of Finland to place Phosphatidylserine from soya phospholipids on the market as novel food ingredient.\n(2)\nOn 14 April 2010 the competent food assessment body of Finland issued its initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that the company Enzymotec has provided sufficient information to authorise the placing on the market of Phosphatidylserine from soya phospholipids as a novel food ingredient.\n(3)\nThe Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to all Member States on 21 April 2010.\n(4)\nWithin the 60 days-period laid down in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97, one reasoned objection to the marketing of the product, which concerns the maximum daily intake, was raised in accordance with that provision. In accordance with the provisions of Article 6(4) a Commission implementing Decision is required that takes into account the reasoned objection raised.\n(5)\nPhosphatidylserine from soya phospholipids complies with the criteria laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nPhosphatidylserine from soya phospholipids as specified in Annex I may be placed on the market in the Union as a novel food ingredient for the uses specified in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThe designation of Phosphatidylserine from soya phospholipids authorised by this Decision on the labelling of the foodstuff containing it shall be \u2018Soya phosphatidylserine\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Enzymotec Ltd, P.O. Box 6, Migdal HaEmeq, 23106 Israel.\nDone at Brussels, 19 August 2011.", "references": ["9", "19", "69", "61", "2", "76", "8", "17", "51", "79", "31", "6", "77", "85", "59", "86", "24", "50", "10", "41", "93", "37", "75", "84", "33", "18", "65", "94", "29", "14", "No Label", "25", "68", "72", "73", "95", "96"], "gold": ["25", "68", "72", "73", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 688/2012\nof 26 July 2012\non the issue of licences for importing rice under the tariff quotas opened for the July 2012 subperiod by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 of 7 December 2011 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (3), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nJuly 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.\n(3)\nThe 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 2012 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.\n(4)\nThose 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 2012 under Article 4(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 cover a quantity less than that available.\n(5)\nThe 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.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. For import licence applications for rice under the quotas with order number 09.4154 - 09.4166 referred to in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 lodged in the first 10 working days of July 2012, licences shall be issued for the quantity requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficient set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The total quantity available for the following subperiod under 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 referred to in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 is set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2012.", "references": ["20", "23", "85", "67", "26", "19", "29", "52", "86", "6", "70", "15", "4", "83", "16", "64", "78", "77", "13", "45", "65", "95", "89", "92", "94", "48", "40", "76", "36", "54", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 757/2012\nof 20 August 2012\nsuspending the introduction into the Union of specimens of certain species of wild fauna and flora\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1), and in particular Article 19(1) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Scientific Review Group,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 provides that the Commission may establish restrictions to the introduction of certain species into the Union in accordance with the conditions laid down in points (a) to (d) thereof. Furthermore, implementing measures for such restrictions have been laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 of 4 May 2006 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (2).\n(2)\nA list of species for which the introduction into the Union is suspended was established in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 828/2011 of 17 August 2011 suspending the introduction into the Union of specimens of certain species of wild fauna and flora (3).\n(3)\nOn the basis of recent information, the Scientific Review Group has concluded that the conservation status of certain species listed in Annexes A and B to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 will be seriously jeopardised if their introduction into the Union from certain countries of origin is not suspended. The introduction of the following species should therefore be suspended:\nCanis lupus (hunting trophies) from Mongolia and Tajikistan;\nUrsus arctos (hunting trophies) from Kazakhstan;\nProfelis aurata, Polemaetus bellicosus, Terathopius ecaudatus and Varanus albigularis from Tanzania;\nCallosciurus erythraeus, Sciurus carolinensis and Sciurus niger (live specimens) from all States;\nChamaeleo gracilis (wild specimens) from Ghana and Togo;\nChamaeleo senegalensis (wild specimens) from Benin, Ghana and Togo;\nChamaeleo senegalensis (ranched specimens with snout to vent length greater than 6 cm) from Benin;\nVaranus spinulosus from Solomon Islands;\nKinixys belliana (wild specimens) from Benin and Ghana;\nKinixys erosa (wild specimens) from Togo;\nKinixys homeana (wild specimens), Pandinus imperator and Scleractinia spp. from Ghana;\nKinixys homeana (ranched specimens greater than 8 cm straight carapace length) from Togo;\nMantella cowani from Madagascar;\nHippocampus erectus from Brazil;\nHippocampus kuda from China;\nTridacna crocea, Tridacna derasa, Tridacna maxima and Tridacna squamosa from Solomon Islands;\nEuphyllia paraancora, Euphyllia paradivisa, Euphyllia picteti, Euphyllia yaeyamaensis, Eguchipsammia fistula and Heliofungia actiniformis from Indonesia;\nRauvolfia serpentina from Myanmar;\nPterocarpus santalinus from India;\nChristensonia vietnamica from Vietnam;\nMyrmecophila tibicinis from Belize.\n(4)\nThe Scientific Review Group has also concluded that, on the basis of the most recent available information, the suspension of the introduction into the Union of the following species should no longer be required:\nFalco cherrug from Armenia, Iraq, Mauretania and Tajikistan;\nSaiga tatarica from Kazakhstan and Russia;\nCallithrix geoffroyi from Brazil;\nAmazona autumnalis from Ecuador;\nAra chloropterus from Argentina and Panama;\nAra severus from Guyana;\nAratinga acuticaudata from Uruguay;\nCyanoliseus patagonus from Chile and Uruguay;\nDeroptyus accipitrinus from Peru;\nTriclaria malachitacea from Argentina and Brazil;\nCaiman crocodilus from El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico;\nCalumma andringitraense, Calumma boettgeri, Calumma fallax, Calumma gallus, Calumma glawi, Calumma globifer, Calumma guillaumeti, Calumma malthe, Calumma marojezense, Calumma oshaughnessyi, Calumma vencesi, Furcifer bifidus, Furcifer petteri, Furcifer rhinoceratus, Furcifer willsii, Cycadaceae spp., Stangeriaceae spp. and Zamiaceae spp. from Madagascar;\nHeloderma suspectum from Mexico and the United States;\nIguana iguana and Boa constrictor from El Salvador;\nEunectes murinus from Paraguay;\nChelonoidis denticulata from Bolivia and Ecuador;\nTridacna gigas from Fiji, Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu;\nAnacamptis pyramidalis, Himantoglossum hircinum, Ophrys sphegodes, Orchis coriophora, Orchis laxiflora, Orchis provincialis, Orchis purpurea, Orchis simia, Serapias vomeracea and Spiranthes spiralis from Switzerland;\nCephalanthera rubra, Dactylorhiza latifolia, Dactylorhiza russowii, Nigritella nigra and Ophrys insectifera from Norway;\nDactylorhiza traunsteineri, Ophrys insectifera and Spiranthes spiralis from Liechtenstein.\n(5)\nThe countries of origin of the species which are subject to new restrictions to introduction into the Union pursuant to this Regulation have all been consulted.\n(6)\nThe list of species for which the introduction into the Union is suspended should therefore be amended and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 828/2011 should, for reasons of clarity, be replaced.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject to the provisions of Article 71 of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, the introduction into the Union of specimens of the species of wild fauna and flora listed in the Annex to this Regulation is suspended.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 828/2011 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 August 2012.", "references": ["41", "13", "49", "76", "31", "9", "92", "93", "94", "91", "28", "89", "69", "25", "3", "73", "84", "72", "50", "30", "99", "57", "80", "79", "86", "85", "15", "35", "14", "54", "No Label", "4", "22", "23", "58"], "gold": ["4", "22", "23", "58"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 243/2011\nof 11 March 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Oravsk\u00fd korb\u00e1\u010dik (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovakia's application to register the name \u2018Oravsk\u00fd korb\u00e1\u010dik\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 March 2011.", "references": ["52", "3", "40", "27", "0", "61", "44", "47", "41", "11", "14", "87", "21", "99", "46", "15", "78", "39", "13", "65", "86", "7", "2", "89", "90", "81", "20", "80", "23", "88", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 174/2011\nof 23 February 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 of 19 February 2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (1), and in particular Article 11(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 lists the persons covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nCouncil Decision 2011/101/CFSP of 15 February 2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe identifies the natural and legal persons to whom restrictions are to apply as provided for in Article 5 of that Decision, and Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 gives effect to that Decision to the extent that action at Union level is required. Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 should, therefore, be amended to ensure consistency with this Council Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2011.", "references": ["16", "13", "83", "73", "82", "67", "26", "32", "72", "98", "70", "80", "76", "45", "93", "50", "84", "79", "10", "12", "61", "57", "15", "19", "74", "58", "2", "34", "99", "42", "No Label", "3", "4", "6", "11", "14", "25", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "6", "11", "14", "25", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 March 2011\non the publication and management of the reference document referred to in Article 27(4) of Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community\n(notified under document C(2011) 1536)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/155/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 27(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation of the European Railway Agency of 15 April 2010 on the reference document as specified in Article 27(3) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2009/965/EC of 30 November 2009 on the reference document referred to in Article 27(4) of Directive 2008/57/EC (2) set out in its Annex the list of parameters to be used for classifying national rules in the reference document referred to in Article 27 of Directive 2008/57/EC.\n(2)\nIt is important that national rules to be covered by the reference document are clearly defined so as to determine to which extent they can be declared as equivalent thus maximising the number of rules belonging to group A in accordance with Section 2 of Annex VII to Directive 2008/57/EC.\n(3)\nMember States are responsible for the update of their national rules. Updates of national rules may affect rules\u2019 classification in respect of other Member States\u2019 rules for a specific parameter set out in Section 1 of Annex VII to Directive 2008/57/EC.\n(4)\nIt is necessary that the database cross-referencing national rules and classifying their equivalence is kept up-to-date.\n(5)\nThe European Railway Agency (\u2018the Agency\u2019) should, in respect of each Member State, be responsible for the compilation, publication and maintenance of a list of national vehicle authorisation rules that references the national rule for each parameter and the classification of other Member States rules for this parameter. These lists should form a part of the reference document.\n(6)\nConsistency between the rules listed in the reference document and the rules notified pursuant to Article 17 of Directive 2008/57/EC should be ensured by Member States. To this end Member States should have a sufficient time for updating the reference document or for notifying/amend/withdraw rules under the procedure of Article 17. Until both sets of rules are aligned and a single data entry for national rules is available, National Safety Authorities (NSAs) may use the rules listed in the reference document for the purpose of granting authorisations for placing vehicles in service, in the case of any discrepancy between the two set of rules.\n(7)\nMoreover, as regards the notification of national safety rules in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), they are not relevant for the reference document. Indeed, Directive 2008/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) amended that Directive so as to remove from Annex II to Directive 2004/49/EC the national safety rules related to requirements for the authorisation of placing in service and maintenance of vehicles.\n(8)\nWhen compiling national reference documents, NSAs should determine priorities according to the objectives of Directive 2008/57/EC, taking account of the resources available within the NSAs after discussion in the relevant working parties.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 27(4) of Directive 2008/57/EC the Commission should be allowed at any time to adopt a measure addressed to the Agency with a view to modifying the reference document.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The content of the reference document referred to in Article 27(4) of Directive 2008/57/EC is specified in the Annex to this Decision.\n2. The Agency shall publish and maintain the reference document. Free access to it shall be made available via the website of the Agency. The Agency shall publish the first version of the reference document within 4 months of entry into force of this Decision.\n3. At least once per year, the Agency shall make a report to the Commission and the Committee referred to in Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC on progress made with the publication and management of the reference document.\n4. The Commission may at any time, upon request of the Agency, a Member State, or on its own initiative, adopt any decision to modify the reference document published by the Agency, in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 27(4) of Directive 2008/57/EC.\nArticle 2\nFor the purpose of the reference document:\n(a)\n\u2018rule\u2019 shall mean a requirement applicable in a Member State and to be complied with by the applicant for the authorisation of placing in service of vehicles, where the requirement is related to:\n-\na parameter of the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2009/965/EC, and/or\n-\nverification and testing requirements, and/or\n-\na process to be used to gain authorisation for placing in service of vehicles;\n(b)\n\u2018classification\u2019 means the attribution given by one Member State to another Member State\u2019s national rule covering a particular parameter according to one of the three groups A, B or C, which are defined in Section 2 of Annex VII to Directive 2008/57/EC.\nArticle 3\n1. For each Member State the national reference document shall contain, for each parameter of the list provided in the Annex to Decision 2009/965/EC:\n(a)\na reference to the relevant national rules applied in that Member State for authorising placing vehicles in service or a statement that there is no requirement in respect of this parameter;\n(b)\nthe classification, in accordance with Section 2 of Annex VII to Directive 2008/57/EC, of the rules applied in other Member States.\n2. The Agency shall facilitate the classification of national vehicle authorisation rules by the respective National Safety Authorities (NSAs) through, where appropriate, arranging meetings.\nArticle 4\n1. Each NSA shall supply the Agency with the information necessary to compile the national reference document. In particular the NSA shall:\n(a)\nsupply the Agency with references to national rules for each parameter and their classification;\n(b)\nadvise the Agency of changes to the rules at the time of publication of the change of rule;\n(c)\nnominate a person or a department which will be responsible for the supply of this information to the Agency;\n(d)\nconduct an active exchange of views and experiences with other NSAs in order to be able to classify the rules in accordance with Article 3(1)(b). NSAs shall cooperate with a view to eliminating unnecessary requirements and redundant verifications.\n2. Each Member State shall approve its national reference document.\n3. Within 1 year of the publication of the relevant national reference document, Member States shall ensure consistency between the requirements contained in the reference document and the requirements contained in rules notified pursuant to Article 17 of Directive 2008/57/EC. Once a single data entry for the notification of national rules and for the reference document is available, the deadline to ensure consistency between them shall be 6 months. The Commission shall inform Member States of the date by which the single data entry for notification of national rules is available. After this period if the Agency becomes aware of an inconsistency it shall advise the relevant Member State. Where a rule of the reference document is not yet notified either that rule shall be notified or the reference document shall be updated.\n4. Member States shall notify to the Commission within 2 months of entry into force of this Decision the competent department which will be in charge of validating and approving their national reference document and changes thereto.\nArticle 5\n1. Further to Article 4(1)(b), if a change to a rule may affect the classification of this rule in any other Member State, the Agency shall advise the NSAs of the affected Member States so that they may review the classification.\n2. If the Agency becomes aware of a rule proposed to be classified under group B or C by a Member State that in its opinion shall be classified under group A, it shall raise and discuss the matter with the relevant NSA in order that an agreement may be reached on the correct classification.\n3. If after discussion with the relevant NSAs the Agency considers that a classification under group B or C by an NSA is not justified according to the provisions of Directive 2008/57/EC and that the classification under group B or C represents an unnecessary requirement or unnecessary verification that has a disproportionate impact upon the cost or timescale for authorisation for placing in service of vehicles, the Agency shall inform the Commission thereof and provide a technical opinion to the Commission and the relevant Member State.\n4. Where appropriate, the Commission shall adopt a decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 27(4) of Directive 2008/57/EC. That decision is addressed to the Agency in order to update the reference document and to the relevant Member State with a view to approve the national reference document as provided in Article 4(2).\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall not apply to the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Malta for as long as no railway system is established within their territory.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 April 2011.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States and to the European Railway Agency.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2011.", "references": ["15", "99", "37", "71", "23", "25", "16", "11", "35", "94", "33", "12", "40", "19", "87", "45", "2", "98", "64", "84", "21", "51", "81", "26", "32", "4", "8", "42", "5", "14", "No Label", "9", "39", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["9", "39", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 26 January 2012\nextending the validity of Decision 2009/251/EC requiring Member States to ensure that products containing the biocide dimethylfumarate are not placed or made available on the market\n(notified under document C(2012) 321)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/48/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/251/EC (2) requires Member States to ensure that products containing the biocide dimethylfumarate (DMF) are not placed or made available on the market.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/251/EC was adopted in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of Directive 2001/95/EC, which restricts the validity of the Decision to a period not exceeding 1 year, but allows it to be confirmed for additional periods none of which shall exceed 1 year.\n(3)\nThe validity of Decision 2009/251/EC was extended by Commission Decisions 2010/153/EU (3) and 2011/135/EU (4) for additional periods of 1 year each. A permanent restriction on DMF in articles is currently being considered to be incorporated in Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5). As that measure will address the same concerns as Decision 2009/251/EC, for legal certainty, Decision 2009/251/EC should apply until the permanent restriction under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 enters into force.\n(4)\nIn the light of the experience acquired so far and the absence of a permanent measure addressing consumer products containing DMF, it is necessary to extend the validity of Decision 2009/251/EC for a further 12 months.\n(5)\nDecision 2009/251/EC should be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15 of Directive 2001/95/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 4 of Decision 2009/251/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nPeriod of application\nThis Decision shall apply until entry into force of the Commission Regulation amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning DMF or 15 March 2013, whichever is the earlier.\u2019\nArticle 2\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to comply with this Decision by 15 March 2012 at the latest and shall publish those measures. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 January 2012.", "references": ["76", "74", "19", "11", "90", "46", "77", "62", "89", "48", "64", "66", "95", "63", "75", "67", "45", "86", "92", "3", "31", "38", "12", "5", "69", "79", "56", "44", "0", "34", "No Label", "20", "24", "25", "83"], "gold": ["20", "24", "25", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 December 2010\non State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines\n(2010/787/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular point (e) of Article 107(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002 on State aid to the coal industry (2) expires on 31 December 2010.\n(2)\nThe small contribution of subsidised coal to the overall energy mix no longer justifies the maintenance of such subsidies for securing the supply of energy in the Union.\n(3)\nThe Union\u2019s policy of encouraging renewable energy sources and a sustainable and safe low-carbon economy does not justify the indefinite support for uncompetitive coal mines. The categories of aid permitted by Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 should therefore not be continued indefinitely.\n(4)\nHowever, in the absence of sector-specific State aid rules, only the general State aid rules apply to coal. In this context, uncompetitive coal mines, currently benefiting from aid under Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002, may no longer be eligible for aid and may be forced to close.\n(5)\nWithout prejudice to the general State aid rules, Member States should be able to take measures to alleviate the social and regional consequences of the closure of those mines, that is to say the orderly winding down of activities in the context of an irrevocable closure plan and/or the financing of exceptional costs, in particular inherited liabilities.\n(6)\nThis Decision marks the transition, for the coal sector, from the application of sector-specific rules to the application of general State aid rules which are applicable to all sectors.\n(7)\nIn order to minimise the distortion of competition in the internal market resulting from State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines, such aid should be degressive and strictly limited to coal production units that are irrevocably planned for closure.\n(8)\nIn order to mitigate the environmental impact of the production of coal by coal production units to which closure aid is granted, the Member States should establish a plan of appropriate measures, for example in the field of energy efficiency, renewable energy or carbon capture and storage.\n(9)\nUndertakings should be eligible for aid to cover costs which, in accordance with normal accounting practice, do not directly affect the cost of production. Such aid is intended to cover exceptional costs that arise from the closure of their coal production units. In order to avoid such aid from unduly benefiting undertakings that close only some of their production sites, the undertakings concerned should keep separate accounts for each of their coal production units.\n(10)\nIn accomplishing its task under this Decision, the Commission should ensure that normal conditions of competition are established, maintained and complied with. With regard, more especially, to the electricity market, aid to the coal industry should not be such as to affect electricity producers\u2019 choice of sources of primary energy supply. Consequently, the prices and quantities of coal should be freely agreed between the contracting parties in the light of prevailing conditions on the world market.\n(11)\nThe application of this Decision should not exclude that aid to the coal industry may be found compatible with the internal market on other grounds. In this context, other specific rules, in particular those concerning aid for research, development and innovation, aid for environmental protection and aid for training activities, continue to apply within the limits of the maximum aid intensities, unless they provide otherwise.\n(12)\nThe Commission should assess the measures notified on the basis of this Decision and take decisions in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (3).\n(13)\nTo avoid any discontinuity between measures envisaged in Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 and the measures foreseen in this Decision, this Decision should apply from 1 January 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nCHAPTER 1\nINTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018coal\u2019 means high-grade, medium-grade and low-grade category A and B coal within the meaning of the international codification system for coal laid down by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (4);\n(b)\n\u2018closure\u2019 means the permanent cessation of production and sale of coal;\n(c)\n\u2018closure plan\u2019 means a plan drawn up by a Member State providing for measures culminating in the definitive closure of coal production units;\n(d)\n\u2018coal production unit\u2019 means underground or opencast coal workings and related infrastructure capable of producing raw coal independently of other parts of the undertaking;\n(e)\n\u2018coal year\u2019 means calendar year or another 12-month period used as a reference for contracts in the coal industry;\n(f)\n\u2018production costs\u2019 means total costs related to current production, including mining operations, operations for the dressing of coal, in particular washing, sizing and sorting, and transport to the utilization point, normal depreciation and market-based interest charges on borrowed capital;\n(g)\n\u2018current production losses\u2019 means the positive difference between the coal production cost and the selling price at utilisation point freely agreed between the contracting parties in the light of the conditions prevailing on the world market.\nCHAPTER 2\nCOMPATIBILITY OF AID\nArticle 2\nPrinciple\n1. In the context of closure of uncompetitive mines, aid to the coal industry may be considered compatible with the proper functioning of the internal market if it complies with the provisions of this Decision.\n2. Aid shall cover only costs in connection with coal for the production of electricity, the combined production of heat and electricity, the production of coke and the fuelling of blast furnaces in the steel industry, where such use takes place in the Union.\nArticle 3\nClosure aid\n1. Aid to an undertaking intended specifically to cover the current production losses of coal production units may be considered compatible with the internal market only if it satisfies the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe operation of the coal production units concerned must form part of a closure plan the deadline of which does not extend beyond 31 December 2018;\n(b)\nthe coal production units concerned must be closed definitively in accordance with the closure plan;\n(c)\nthe aid notified must not exceed the difference between the foreseeable production costs and the foreseeable revenue for a coal year. The aid actually paid must be subject to annual correction, based on the actual costs and revenue, at the latest by the end of the coal production year following the year for which the aid was granted;\n(d)\nthe amount of aid per tonne coal equivalent must not cause prices for Union coal at utilisation point to be lower than those for coal of a similar quality from third countries;\n(e)\nthe coal production units concerned must have been in activity on 31 December 2009;\n(f)\nthe overall amount of closure aid granted by a Member State must follow a downward trend: by the end of 2013 the reduction must not be less than 25 %, by the end of 2015 not less than 40 %, by the end of 2016 not less than 60 % and by the end of 2017 not less than 75 % of the aid granted in 2011;\n(g)\nthe overall amount of closure aid to the coal industry of a Member State must not exceed, for any year after 2010, the amount of aid granted by that Member State and authorised by the Commission in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 for the year 2010;\n(h)\nthe Member States must establish a plan to take measures aimed at mitigating the environmental impact of the production of coal by production units to which aid is granted pursuant to this Article, for example in the field of energy efficiency, renewable energy or carbon capture and storage.\n2. The inclusion of measures constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty in a plan as referred to in point (h) of paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the notification and standstill obligations imposed on Member States with respect to such measures by Article 108(3) of the Treaty, and to the compatibility of such measures with the internal market.\n3. If the coal production units to which aid is granted pursuant to paragraph 1 are not closed at the date fixed in the closure plan as authorised by the Commission, the Member State concerned shall recover all aid granted in respect of the whole period covered by the closure plan.\nArticle 4\nAid to cover exceptional costs\n1. State aid granted to undertakings which carry out or have carried out an activity in connection with coal production to enable them to cover the costs arising from or having arisen from the closure of coal production units and which are not related to current production, may be considered compatible with the internal market provided that the amount paid does not exceed such costs. Such aid may be used to cover:\n(a)\nthe costs incurred and cost provisions made only by undertakings which are closing or have closed coal production units, including undertakings benefiting from closure aid;\n(b)\nthe costs incurred by several undertakings.\n2. The categories of costs covered by paragraph 1 are defined in the Annex. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to costs resulting from non-compliance with environmental regulations.\nArticle 5\nCumulation\n1. The maximum amount of aid authorised under this Decision shall apply regardless of whether the aid is financed entirely by Member States or is partly financed by the Union.\n2. Aid authorised under this Decision shall not be combined with other State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty or with other forms of Union financing for the same eligible costs if such overlapping results in an aid amount higher than that authorised under this Decision.\nArticle 6\nSeparation of accounts\nAll aid received by undertakings shall be shown in the profit-and-loss accounts as a separate item of revenue distinct from turnover. Where undertakings benefiting from aid under this Decision continue trading or operating after closing down some or all of their coal production units they shall keep precise and separate accounts for each of their coal production units and for other economic activities which are not related to coal mining. The aid granted under this Decision shall be managed in such a way that there is no possibility of it being transferred to other coal production units which are not part of the closure plan or to other economic activities of the same undertaking.\nCHAPTER 3\nPROCEDURES\nArticle 7\nInformation to be provided by Member States\n1. In addition to Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, aid as referred to in this Decision shall be subject to the special rules laid down in paragraphs 2 to 6.\n2. Member States which intend to grant closure aid as referred to in Article 3 shall notify a closure plan for the coal production units concerned to the Commission. The plan shall contain at least the following:\n(a)\nidentification of the coal production units;\n(b)\nthe real or estimated production costs for each coal production unit per coal year;\n(c)\nestimated coal production, per coal year, of coal production units forming the subject of a closure plan;\n(d)\nthe estimated amount of closure aid per coal year.\n3. Member States shall notify any amendments to the closure plan to the Commission.\n4. Member States shall notify all the aid which they intend to grant to the coal industry under this Decision during a coal year. They shall submit to the Commission all details relevant to the calculation of the foreseeable production costs and their relationship to the closure plans notified to the Commission pursuant to paragraph 2.\n5. Member States shall inform the Commission of the amount, and of the calculation of the aid actually paid during a coal year, no later than six months after the end of the year in question. Where any corrections are made to the amounts originally paid during a given coal year, Member States shall inform the Commission before the end of the following coal year.\n6. When notifying aid as referred to in Articles 3 and 4 and when informing the Commission on aid actually paid, Member States shall supply all the information necessary for the Commission to verify that the provisions of this Decision are complied with.\nCHAPTER 4\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 8\nImplementing measures\nThe Commission shall take all necessary measures for the implementation of this Decision. It may, within the limits laid down by this Decision, establish a joint framework for communication of the information referred to in Article 7.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2027.\nDone at Brussels, 10 December 2010.", "references": ["43", "54", "0", "41", "21", "37", "85", "31", "75", "83", "96", "8", "73", "74", "24", "51", "68", "63", "2", "67", "35", "82", "99", "56", "93", "81", "55", "78", "49", "66", "No Label", "15", "44", "48", "50", "58", "76", "79"], "gold": ["15", "44", "48", "50", "58", "76", "79"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1248/2010\nof 21 December 2010\nopening the tariff quota for the year 2011 for the importation into the European Union of certain goods originating in Norway resulting from the processing of agricultural products covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2004/859/EC of 25 October 2004 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway on Protocol 2 to the bilateral Free Trade Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway (2), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nProtocol 2 to the bilateral Free Trade Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway (3), and Protocol 3 to the EEA Agreement (4), determine the trade arrangements for certain agricultural and processed agricultural products between the Contracting Parties.\n(2)\nProtocol 3 to the EEA Agreement, as amended by Decision 138/2004 of the EEA Joint Committee (5), provides for a zero duty applying to certain waters containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured, classified under CN code 2202 10 00 and certain other non-alcoholic beverages containing sugar, classified under CN code ex 2202 90 10.\n(3)\nThe zero duty for the waters and other beverages in question has been temporarily suspended for Norway by the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway concerning Protocol 2 to the bilateral Free Trade Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway (6), hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019, approved by Decision 2004/859/EC. According to point IV of the Agreed Minutes of the Agreement, duty free imports of goods of the CN codes 2202 10 00 and ex 2202 90 10 originating in Norway are to be permitted only within the limits of a duty free quota while a duty is to be paid for imports outside the quota allocation.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1255/2009 (7) withdrew the temporary suspension of the duty free regime for the period 1 January to 31 December 2010 for the importation into the Union of the waters and beverages in question.\n(5)\nIt is necessary to open the tariff quota for 2011 for the waters and beverages in question. The last annual quota for those products was opened for 2009 by Commission Regulation (EC) No 89/2009 (8). As no annual quota was opened for 2010, the quota volume for 2011 should remain the same as for 2009.\n(6)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (9), lays down rules for the management of tariff quotas. It is appropriate to provide that the tariff quota opened by this regulation is to be managed in accordance with those rules.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for horizontal questions concerning trade in processed products not listed in Annex I,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. From 1 January to 31 December 2011, the Union tariff quota set out in the Annex is opened for the goods originating in Norway which are listed in that Annex under the conditions specified therein.\n2. The rules of origin mutually applicable to the goods set out in the Annex shall be as set out in Protocol 3 of the bilateral Free Trade Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway.\n3. For quantities imported above the quota volume, a preferential duty of EUR 0,047/litre shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThe Union tariff quota referred to in Article 1(1) shall be managed by the Commission in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\nArticle 3\nRegulation (EU) No 1255/2009 is repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2010.", "references": ["32", "74", "41", "90", "62", "73", "53", "19", "72", "36", "1", "35", "34", "20", "83", "47", "69", "95", "52", "15", "93", "6", "60", "67", "48", "51", "58", "10", "11", "12", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "59", "71", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "59", "71", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 December 2010\nconcerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the establishment of a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice\n(2010/779/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Article 4 of Protocol (No 19) on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter \u2018the Schengen Protocol\u2019),\nHaving regard to the request by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by its letter to the President of the Council of 5 October 2010, to participate in certain provisions of the Schengen acquis, as specified in that letter,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision 2000/365/EC (1) the Council authorised the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis, in accordance with the conditions set out in that Decision.\n(2)\nOn 24 June 2009 the European Commission presented a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom security and justice (hereinafter \u2018the proposed Regulation\u2019).\n(3)\nAccording to the proposed Regulation, the European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom security and justice (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019) is to be made responsible for the operational management of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS) and Eurodac and it may be made responsible for the preparation, development and operational management of other large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, on the basis of a relevant legislative instrument, based on Title V of Part three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(4)\nSIS II is part of the Schengen acquis. Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and Council Decision 2007/533/JHA (3) govern the establishment, operation and use of SIS II. However, the United Kingdom has only taken part in the adoption of Decision 2007/533/JHA which develops the provisions of the Schengen acquis referred to in Article 1(a)(ii) of Decision 2000/365/EC.\n(5)\nVIS is also part of the Schengen acquis. The United Kingdom did not take part in the adoption of, and is not bound by Decision 2004/512/EC (4), Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 (5) and Decision 2008/633/JHA (6) which govern the establishment, operation or use of VIS.\n(6)\nEurodac is not part of the Schengen acquis. The United Kingdom has taken part in the adoption of, and is bound by Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 (7) which governs the establishment, operation and use of Eurodac.\n(7)\nGiven its participation in Eurodac and its partial participation in SIS II, the United Kingdom has the right to participate in the activities of the Agency, to the extent that the Agency will be responsible for the operational management of SIS II as governed by Decision 2007/533/JHA, and Eurodac.\n(8)\nThe proposed Agency should have a single legal personality and be characterised by the unity of its organisational and financial structure. To this end, the Agency should be established by means of a single legislative instrument which must be voted on within the Council in its entirety. Moreover, once adopted, the proposed Regulation should become applicable in its entirety in the Member States bound by it. This excludes the possibility of partial applicability for the United Kingdom.\n(9)\nIn order to ensure compliance with the Treaties and the applicable Protocols, and at the same time to safeguard the unity and consistency of the proposed Regulation, the United Kingdom has requested to take part in the proposed Regulation under Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol to the extent that the Agency will be responsible for the operational management of SIS II as governed by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and of VIS.\n(10)\nThe Council recognizes the right of the United Kingdom to make, in accordance with Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol, a request for participation in the proposed Regulation, to the extent that the United Kingdom will not participate in the proposed Regulation on other grounds.\n(11)\nParticipation of the United Kingdom in the proposed Regulation would be without prejudice to the fact that at present the United Kingdom does not and cannot participate in the provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the free movement of third country nationals, visa policy and the crossing by persons of the external borders of the Member States. This would justify the inclusion of specific provisions in the proposed Regulation reflecting this special position of the United Kingdom, in particular as regards limited voting rights in the Management Board of the Agency.\n(12)\nThe Mixed Committee, established pursuant to Article 3 of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application, and development of the Schengen acquis (8), has been informed about the preparation of this Decision in accordance with Article 5 of that Agreement.\n(13)\nThe Mixed Committee, established pursuant to Article 3 of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (9), has been informed about the preparation of this Decision in accordance with Article 5 of that Agreement,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFurther to Council Decision 2000/365/EC, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall take part in the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice to the extent that it relates to the operational management of the Visa Information System (VIS) and the parts of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), in which the United Kingdom does not participate.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["22", "51", "47", "68", "27", "15", "38", "32", "59", "18", "25", "44", "65", "43", "54", "69", "31", "72", "17", "71", "62", "83", "55", "88", "89", "2", "34", "56", "37", "70", "No Label", "7", "8", "9", "13", "42", "46", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "8", "9", "13", "42", "46", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 841/2010\nof 23 September 2010\nfixing the export refunds on poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in poultrymeat, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely in the Union and bear the identification mark provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products should also comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 525/2010 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements under Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the identification marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 525/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2010.", "references": ["22", "70", "89", "32", "43", "17", "31", "1", "50", "99", "13", "79", "64", "55", "49", "94", "44", "24", "54", "4", "60", "37", "87", "8", "0", "33", "78", "27", "3", "73", "No Label", "20", "38", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "38", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 796/2011\nof 8 August 2011\namending for the 155th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Articles 7(1)(a), 7a(1) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 29 July 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add two legal persons, groups or entities to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. It also decided to amend two entries on the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 August 2011.", "references": ["92", "21", "26", "4", "22", "23", "30", "18", "60", "51", "93", "27", "63", "19", "73", "88", "33", "80", "5", "79", "71", "67", "90", "66", "40", "2", "11", "87", "85", "38", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 12 July 2012\nestablishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for newsprint paper\n(notified under document C(2012) 4693)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/448/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Union Eco-labelling Board,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, the EU Ecolabel may be awarded to those products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 66/2010 provides that specific EU Ecolabel criteria are to be established according to product groups.\n(3)\nSince the production of newsprint paper consumes significant amounts of energy, wood and chemicals, and may lead to environmental damage or risks related to the use of the natural resources, it is appropriate to establish EU Ecolabel criteria for the product group \u2018newsprint paper\u2019.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The product group \u2018newsprint paper\u2019 shall comprise paper made from pulp and used for printing newspapers and other printed products.\n2. The product group \u2018Newsprint paper\u2019 shall not include copying and graphic paper, thermally sensitive paper, photographic and carbonless paper, packaging and wrapping paper as well as fragranced paper.\nArticle 2\nFor the purpose of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018newsprint paper\u2019 means paper mainly used for printing newspapers and made from pulp and/or recovered paper the weight of which ranges between 40 and 65 g/m2;\n(2)\n\u2018recovered fibres\u2019 means fibres diverted from the waste stream during a manufacturing process or generated by households or by commercial, industrial and institutional facilities in their role as end-users of the product which can no longer be used for their intended purpose.\nArticle 3\nIn order to be awarded the EU Ecolabel under Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, an item of newsprint paper shall fall within the product group \u2018Newsprint paper\u2019 as defined in Article 1 of this Decision and shall comply with the criteria as well as the related assessment and verification requirements set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThe criteria for the product group \u2018Newsprint paper\u2019, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid for three years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 5\nFor administrative purposes the code number assigned to \u2018Newsprint paper\u2019 shall be \u2018037\u2019.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2012.", "references": ["13", "3", "9", "55", "98", "33", "64", "27", "87", "75", "84", "72", "23", "18", "59", "54", "86", "11", "29", "60", "51", "74", "16", "20", "22", "36", "81", "78", "28", "82", "No Label", "25", "39", "58", "88"], "gold": ["25", "39", "58", "88"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1114/2010\nof 1 December 2010\nlaying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 as regards minimum standards for the quality of HICP weightings and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2454/97\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 (1) of 23 October 1995 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nHarmonised Indices of Consumer Prices (HICP) are harmonised inflation measures required by the Commission and the European Central Bank for the performance of their functions pursuant to Article 140 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. HICPs are designed to facilitate international comparisons of consumer price inflation. They serve as important indicators for the management of monetary policy.\n(2)\nArticle 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 requires that the weightings of the HICP are updated with a frequency sufficient to meet the comparability and reliability requirements. HICPs based on weightings that are updated at different frequencies may fail to meet the comparability and the reliability requirements.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2454/97 (2) of 10 December 1997 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 as regards minimum standards for the quality of HICP weightings laid down rules to ensure that HICPs were constructed using weightings which were sufficiently reliable and relevant for the purpose of international comparisons. Those rules should now be modified taking into account developments in the HICP domain. Therefore, the measures set out in this Regulation should replace those in Regulation (EC) No 2454/97, which should be repealed.\n(4)\nArticle 9 of Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 requires HICPs to be price indices of the Laspeyres-type. When relative prices of different goods and services change, consumers\u2019 expenditure patterns can change to an extent that makes it necessary for the weights of the corresponding expenditure groups, and in particular their underlying quantities, to be updated in order to ensure their relevance.\n(5)\nBy virtue of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1749/96 (3) of 9 September 1996 on initial implementing measures for Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, the HICP should be compiled to include the price changes of newly significant goods or services and their relative expenditures.\n(6)\nThis Regulation should apply without prejudice to the minimum standards for the treatment of insurance weights in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1617/1999 (4) of 23 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 as regards minimum standards for the treatment of insurance in the HICP.\n(7)\nWeights at the level of COICOP/HICP (5) divisions, groups and classes are required not to vary between months during the year unless under the provisions of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 330/2009 (6) of 22 April 2009 regarding minimum standards for the treatment of seasonal products in the HICP.\n(8)\nThis Regulation should not require Member States to carry out new statistical surveys or to carry out family budget surveys more frequently than once every 5 years, taking into consideration that Member States are required to compile national accounts in accordance with the European System of Accounts (ESA 1995) (7) and that the country weights, which are necessary for producing euro area, EU and other HICP aggregates, are based on national accounts data.\n(9)\nThe principle of cost-effectiveness has been taken into account in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 2494/95.\n(10)\nThe European Central Bank has been consulted in accordance with Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2494/95.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThe aim of this Regulation is to establish minimum standards for the quality of HICP weightings of the Harmonised Indices of Consumer Prices (HICPs).\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\nthe \u2018weighting reference period\u2019 of an HICP means the 12-month period of consumption or expenditure from which the weights are estimated for the compilation of the latest HICP index figures;\n(2)\n\u2018sub-indices\u2019 mean the sub-indices laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2214/96 (8) of 20 November 1996 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices: transmission and dissemination of sub-indices of the HICP.\nArticle 3\nMinimum standards for HICP weightings\n(1) Each month, in current year t, Member States shall produce HICPs using sub-index weights which reflect the consumers\u2019 expenditure pattern in the weighting reference period and aim to be as representative as possible for consumers\u2019 expenditure patterns in the previous calendar year.\n(2) Each year, Member States shall therefore review and update HICP sub-index weights taking into account preliminary national accounts data on consumption patterns of year t-2, except in exceptional and in duly motivated circumstances, as well as any available and relevant information from household budget surveys and other data sources which are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the HICP.\n(3) As regards weights below sub-index level, including those for Elementary Product Groups as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1749/96, Member States shall use weights which are in no case more than 7 years old.\n(4) Member States shall review annually whether or not there have been any important and sustained market developments affecting quantities in the sub-divisions of COICOP/HICP, between the periods as described in paragraphs 2 and 3 and period t-1, in order to estimate weights that are as up-to-date as possible. Especially, consumption expenditure for sub-divisions of COICOP/HICP with known changes following administrative decisions and for products in fast-evolving markets shall be reviewed.\n(5) Any adjustments made to weightings pursuant to this Article shall take effect with the index for January of year t. HICP weights for previous years shall be not revised, without prejudice to the possibility to correct mistakes in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1921/2001 (9) of 28 September 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 as regards minimum standards for revisions of the HICP and amending Regulation (EC) No 2602/2000. In any case, HICP weights shall take effect with the index for January each year and be price-updated to prices of the preceding December.\nArticle 4\nQuality control\nMember States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) at its request with sufficient information on the weights used to construct the HICP, including the weighting reference period used, the outcome of the annual review and the adjustments made, for compliance with this Regulation to be evaluated.\nArticle 5\nApplication\nThe provisions of this Regulation shall take effect with the index for January 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 6\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 2454/97 is repealed, as from January 2012. References to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2010.", "references": ["15", "43", "6", "89", "37", "39", "86", "46", "63", "80", "73", "61", "5", "14", "25", "72", "68", "47", "11", "10", "90", "54", "65", "74", "59", "95", "55", "87", "48", "82", "No Label", "16", "24", "28", "35", "76"], "gold": ["16", "24", "28", "35", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 101/2011\nof 4 February 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2011/72/CFSP provides for the freezing of funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by certain persons responsible for the misappropriation of Tunisian State funds, and persons associated with them, who are thus depriving the Tunisian people of the benefits of the sustainable development of their economy and society and undermining the development of democracy in the country. Those natural or legal persons, entities and bodies are listed in the Annex to the Decision.\n(2)\nThose measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(3)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the right to the protection of personal data. This Regulation should be applied in accordance with those rights.\n(4)\nThe power to amend the list in Annex I to this Regulation should be exercised by the Council, in view of the specific threat to international peace and security posed by the situation in Tunisia, and to ensure consistency with the process for amending and reviewing the Annex to Decision 2011/72/CFSP.\n(5)\nThe procedure for amending the lists in Annex I to this Regulation should include providing designated natural or legal persons, entities or bodies with the grounds for the listing, so as to give them an opportunity to submit observations. Where observations are submitted, or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in light of those observations and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n(6)\nFor the implementation of this Regulation, and in order to create maximum legal certainty within the Union, the names and other relevant data concerning natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources must be frozen in accordance with this Regulation, must be made public. Any processing of personal data should respect Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (2) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (3).\n(7)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, it should enter into force immediately upon its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018funds\u2019 means financial assets and benefits of every kind, including but not limited to:\n(i)\ncash, cheques, claims on money, drafts, money orders and other payment instruments;\n(ii)\ndeposits with financial institutions or other entities, balances on accounts, debts and debt obligations;\n(iii)\npublicly- and privately-traded securities and debt instruments, including stocks and shares, certificates representing securities, bonds, notes, warrants, debentures and derivatives contracts;\n(iv)\ninterest, dividends or other income on or value accruing from or generated by assets;\n(v)\ncredit, right of set-off, guarantees, performance bonds or other financial commitments;\n(vi)\nletters of credit, bills of lading and bills of sale;\n(vii)\ndocuments evidencing an interest in funds or financial resources;\n(b)\n\u2018freezing of funds\u2019 means preventing any move, transfer, alteration, use of, access to, or dealing with funds in any way that would result in any change in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination or other change that would enable the funds to be used, including portfolio management;\n(c)\n\u2018economic resources\u2019 means assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which are not funds but may be used to obtain funds, goods or services;\n(d)\n\u2018freezing of economic resources\u2019 means preventing their use to obtain funds, goods or services in any way, including, but not limited to, by selling, hiring or mortgaging them;\n(e)\n\u2018territory of the Union\u2019 means the territories of the Member States to which the Treaty is applicable, under the conditions laid down in the Treaty, including their airspace.\nArticle 2\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies who, in accordance with Article 1(1) of Decision 2011/72/CFSP, have been identified by the Council as being responsible for the misappropriation of Tunisian State funds, and natural or legal persons, entities and bodies associated with them, as listed in Annex I shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I.\n3. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited.\nArticle 3\n1. Annex I shall include the grounds for the listing of listed persons, entities and bodies.\n2. Annex I shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies concerned. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, entities and bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\nArticle 4\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities in the Member States, as listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of persons listed in Annex I, and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees or the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided in this case that the Member State has notified the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted to all other Member States and to the Commission at least 2 weeks prior to authorisation.\n2. The relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraph 1.\nArticle 5\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities in the Member States as listed in Annex II may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources in question are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the person, entity or body referred to in Article 2 was included in Annex I, or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources in question will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a person, entity or body listed in Annex I; and\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgment is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\n2. The relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraph 1.\nArticle 6\n1. Article 2(2) shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 2 has been included in Annex I,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments are frozen in accordance with Article 2(1).\n2. Article 2(2) shall not prevent financial or credit institutions in the Union from crediting frozen accounts where they receive funds transferred to the account of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, provided that any additions to such accounts will also be frozen. The financial or credit institution shall inform the relevant competent authority about any such transaction without delay.\nArticle 7\nBy way of derogation from Article 2 and provided that a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex I is due under a contract or agreement that was concluded by, or an obligation that arose for the person, entity or body concerned, before the date on which that person, entity or body had been designated, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe competent authority concerned has determined that:\n(i)\nthe funds or economic resources shall be used for a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex I;\n(ii)\nthe payment is not in breach of Article 2(2);\n(b)\nthe Member State concerned has, at least 2 weeks prior to the grant of the authorisation, notified the other Member States and the Commission of that determination and its intention to grant an authorisation.\nArticle 8\n1. The freezing of funds and economic resources or the refusal to make funds or economic resources available, carried out in good faith on the basis that such action is in accordance with this Regulation, shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal person or entity or body implementing it, or its directors or employees, unless it is proved that the funds and economic resources were frozen or withheld as a result of negligence.\n2. The prohibition set out in Article 2(2) shall not give rise to any liability of any kind on the part of the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies who made funds or economic resources available if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe the prohibition in question.\nArticle 9\n1. Without prejudice to the applicable rules concerning reporting, confidentiality and professional secrecy, natural and legal persons, entities and bodies shall:\n(a)\nsupply immediately any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 2, to the competent authority in the Member State where they are resident or located, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II, and shall transmit such information, either directly or through the Member States, to the Commission; and\n(b)\ncooperate with that competent authority in any verification of this information.\n2. Any information provided or received in accordance with this Article shall be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.\nArticle 10\nThe Commission and Member States shall immediately inform each other of the measures taken under this Regulation and shall supply each other with any other relevant information at their disposal in connection with this Regulation, in particular information in respect of violation and enforcement problems and judgments handed down by national courts.\nArticle 11\nThe Commission shall be empowered to amend Annex II on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\nArticle 12\n1. Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to the measures referred to in Article 2(1), it shall amend Annex I accordingly.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for the listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 1, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the natural or legal person, entity or body accordingly.\n4. The list in Annex I shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months.\nArticle 13\n1. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules without delay after the entry into force of this Regulation and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment.\nArticle 14\nWhere there is, in this Regulation, a requirement to notify, inform or otherwise communicate with the Commission, the address and other contact details to be used for such communication shall be those indicated in Annex II.\nArticle 15\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\nArticle 16\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 February 2011.", "references": ["43", "33", "26", "20", "9", "73", "25", "78", "74", "14", "66", "30", "40", "10", "72", "37", "1", "2", "79", "90", "27", "49", "45", "62", "47", "24", "39", "56", "64", "63", "No Label", "0", "3", "11", "94"], "gold": ["0", "3", "11", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 455/2011\nof 11 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 May 2011.", "references": ["1", "14", "18", "55", "58", "9", "87", "33", "60", "70", "59", "2", "96", "94", "39", "24", "99", "88", "84", "75", "10", "62", "51", "3", "85", "67", "82", "44", "71", "91", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 518/2011\nof 23 May 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for megrims in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["1", "43", "9", "11", "69", "95", "66", "27", "62", "99", "41", "15", "94", "93", "92", "54", "50", "89", "76", "33", "47", "2", "14", "35", "60", "81", "25", "83", "44", "17", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 574/2012\nof 28 June 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 550/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2012.", "references": ["21", "52", "75", "55", "34", "54", "69", "73", "90", "46", "59", "68", "16", "43", "40", "98", "60", "76", "79", "48", "89", "44", "47", "19", "93", "88", "36", "41", "33", "39", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/328/CFSP\nof 25 June 2012\nappointing the European Union Special Representative for Central Asia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 5 October 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/670/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Pierre MOREL as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Central Asia. The EUSR\u2019s mandate is to expire on 30 June 2012.\n(2)\nA EUSR for Central Asia should be appointed for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013.\n(3)\nThe EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nMrs Patricia FLOR is hereby appointed as the EUSR for Central Asia for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe EUSR\u2019s mandate shall be based on the Union\u2019s policy objectives in Central Asia. These objectives include:\n(a)\npromoting good and close relations between the Union and the countries of Central Asia on the basis of common values and interests as set out in relevant agreements;\n(b)\ncontributing to strengthening the stability and cooperation between the countries in the region;\n(c)\ncontributing to strengthening democracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Central Asia;\n(d)\naddressing key threats, especially specific problems with direct implications for Europe;\n(e)\nenhancing the Union\u2019s effectiveness and visibility in the region, including through a closer coordination with other relevant partners and international organisations, such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the United Nations.\nArticle 3\nMandate\n1. In order to achieve the policy objectives, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\npromote overall Union political coordination in Central Asia and help to ensure consistency of the external actions of the Union in the region;\n(b)\nmonitor, on behalf of the HR, together with the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the Commission, the implementation process of the EU Strategy for a New Partnership with Central Asia, complemented by subsequent progress reports on the implementation of the EU Strategy for Central Asia, make recommendations and report to relevant Council bodies on a regular basis;\n(c)\nassist the Council in further developing a comprehensive policy towards Central Asia;\n(d)\nfollow closely political developments in Central Asia by developing and maintaining close contacts with governments, parliaments, the judiciary, civil society and mass media;\n(e)\nencourage Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to cooperate on regional issues of common interest;\n(f)\ndevelop appropriate contacts and cooperation with the main interested actors in the region, and all relevant regional and international organisations, including the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the Eurasian Economic Community (EURASEC), the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA), the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Program (CAREC) and the Central Asian Regional Information and Coordination Centre (CARICC);\n(g)\ncontribute to the implementation of the Union\u2019s human rights policy and EU Guidelines on Human Rights, in particular with regard to women and children in conflict-affected areas, especially by monitoring and addressing developments in this regard;\n(h)\ncontribute, in close cooperation with the OSCE, to conflict prevention and resolution by developing contacts with the authorities and other local actors such as non-governmental organisations, political parties, minorities, religious groups and their leaders;\n(i)\nprovide input to the formulation of energy security, border security, including anti-narcotics, and water resource management, environment and climate change aspects of the common foreign and security policy with respect to Central Asia;\n(j)\npromote regional security within Central Asian borders as International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops begin to draw down.\n2. The EUSR shall support the work of the HR and maintain an overview of all activities of the Union in the region.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the EEAS and its relevant departments.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 shall be EUR 1 120 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of the EUSR\u2019s mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of the team.\n2. Member States, institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, the sending institution of the Union or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and the staff of the EUSR\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s staff shall be agreed with the host party/parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegations and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with the mandate and the security situation in the geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under the EUSR\u2019s direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as management of security incidents and a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of the team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the EEAS;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the HR, the Council and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the progress and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report to Council working parties as necessary. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall contribute to the unity, consistency and effectiveness of the Union\u2019s action and shall help ensure that all Union instruments and Member States\u2019 actions are engaged consistently, to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as those of the EUSR for Afghanistan. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States\u2019 missions and the Union\u2019s delegations.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of Union delegations and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make every effort to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the HR, the Council and the Commission with a progress report by the end of December 2012, and, at the end of the EUSR\u2019s mandate, with a comprehensive report on the implementation of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["74", "51", "10", "77", "19", "20", "84", "68", "9", "73", "88", "78", "41", "83", "80", "37", "56", "90", "46", "32", "13", "67", "17", "65", "97", "53", "63", "29", "60", "75", "No Label", "3", "7", "95"], "gold": ["3", "7", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 8 November 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde on certain aspects of air services\n(2011/732/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with point (a) of Article 218(6) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn its Decision of 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with an agreement at Union level.\n(2)\nOn behalf of the Union, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement on certain aspects of air services with the Republic of Cape Verde (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision of 5 June 2003.\n(3)\nThe Agreement was signed on behalf of the Union on 23 March 2011 subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Council Decision 2011/228/EU (1).\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde on certain aspects of air services (the Agreement) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is authorised to designate the person empowered to make the notification provided in Article 8(1) of the Agreement.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2011.", "references": ["72", "43", "38", "54", "69", "81", "75", "89", "98", "20", "92", "40", "90", "26", "56", "37", "70", "16", "97", "78", "28", "17", "21", "33", "83", "63", "61", "30", "32", "68", "No Label", "3", "9", "57", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "57", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 789/2011\nof 5 August 2011\nopening the procedure for the allocation of export licences for cheese to be exported to the United States of America in 2012 under certain GATT quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 171(1), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSection 2 of Chapter III of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (2) provides that export licences for cheese exported to the United States of America as part of the quotas under the agreements concluded during multilateral trade negotiations may be allocated according to a special procedure by which preferred importers in the USA may be designated.\n(2)\nThat procedure should be opened for exports during 2012 and the additional rules relating to it should be determined.\n(3)\nIn administering imports the competent authorities in the USA make a distinction between the additional quota granted to the European Union under the Uruguay Round and the quotas resulting from the Tokyo Round. Export licences should be allocated taking into account the eligibility of those products for the USA quota in question as described in the Harmonised Tariff Schedule of the United States of America.\n(4)\nWith a view to exporting the maximum quantity under the quotas for which there is moderate interest, applications covering the whole quota quantity should be allowed.\n(5)\nThe Commission has developed an information system that allows managing documents and procedures electronically in its own internal working procedures and in its relations with the authorities involved in the common agricultural policy. It is considered that the notifications provided for in Section 2 of Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 and in this Regulation can be fulfilled via that system in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 of 31 August 2009 laying down detailed rules for the Member States' notification to the Commission of information and documents in implementation of the common organisation of markets, the direct payments' regime, the promotion of agricultural products and the regimes applicable to the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean islands (3). In the interests of efficient administration, Member States should use that information system, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009.\n(6)\nFor reasons of legal certainty and clarity, it should be laid down that the measures provided for in this Regulation cease to apply at the end of 2012.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nExport licences for products falling within CN code 0406 and listed in Annex I to this Regulation to be exported to the United States of America in 2012 under the quotas referred to in Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 shall be issued in accordance with Section 2 of Chapter III of that Regulation and with the provisions of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\n1. Applications for licences referred to in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018applications\u2019) shall be lodged with the competent authorities from 1 to 9 September 2011 at the latest.\n2. Applications shall be admissible only if they contain all the information referred to in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 and if they are accompanied by the documents referred to therein.\nWhere, for the same group of products referred to in column 2 of Annex I to this Regulation the available quantity is divided between the Uruguay Round quota and the Tokyo Round quota, licence applications may cover only one of those quotas and shall indicate the quota concerned, specifying the identification of the group and of the quota indicated in column 3 of that Annex.\nInformation referred to in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 shall be presented in accordance with the model set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\n3. As regards the quotas identified by 22-Tokyo, 22-Uruguay, 25-Tokyo and 25-Uruguay in column 3 of Annex I, applications shall cover at least 10 tonnes and shall not exceed the quantity available under the quota concerned as set out in column 4 of that Annex.\nAs regards the other quotas indicated in column 3 of Annex I, applications shall cover at least 10 tonnes and no more than 40 % of the quantity available under the quota concerned as set out in column 4 of that Annex.\n4. Applications shall be admissible only if applicants declare in writing that they have not lodged other applications for the same group of products and the same quota and undertake not to do so.\nIf an applicant lodges several applications for the same group of products and the same quota in one or more Member States, all his applications shall be deemed inadmissible.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall notify the Commission, by 16 September at the latest, of the applications lodged for each of the groups of products and, where applicable, the quotas indicated in Annex I.\nAll notifications, including \u2018nil\u2019 notifications, shall be made in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009.\n2. Notification shall comprise for each group and, where applicable, for each quota:\n(a)\na list of applicants, their name, address and reference (number);\n(b)\nthe quantities applied for by each applicant broken down by the product code of the Combined Nomenclature and by their code in accordance with the Harmonised Tariff Schedule of the United States of America (2011);\n(c)\nthe name, address and reference (number) of the importer designated by the applicant.\nArticle 4\nThe Commission shall, pursuant to Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009, determine the allocation of licences without delay and shall notify the Member States thereof by 31 October 2011 at the latest.\nMember States shall notify the Commission, within five working days after publication of the allocation coefficients, for each group and, where applicable, for each quota, the quantities allocated by applicant, the product code, the applicant reference (number) and the designated importer reference (number) in accordance with Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\nQuantities allocated by drawing lots in accordance with Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 shall be distributed among the individual CN codes in proportion to the quantities of product by CN code applied for.\nThe notification shall be made in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009.\nArticle 5\nThe information notified under Article 3 of this Regulation and under Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 shall be verified by the Member States before the licences are issued and by 15 December 2011 at the latest.\nWhere it is found that incorrect information has been supplied by an operator to whom a licence has been issued, the licence shall be cancelled and the security forfeited. The Member States shall notify the Commission without any delay. The notification shall be made in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 and shall comprise for each group and, where applicable, for each quota:\n(a)\nthe applicant reference (number);\n(b)\nthe quantities applied for by each applicant broken down by the product code of the Combined Nomenclature and by their code in accordance with the Harmonised Tariff Schedule of the United States of America (2011);\n(c)\nthe designated importer reference (number).\nArticle 6\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2011.", "references": ["34", "13", "20", "71", "33", "94", "74", "63", "64", "56", "55", "31", "54", "83", "38", "44", "25", "22", "9", "80", "36", "17", "72", "68", "4", "92", "29", "76", "37", "59", "No Label", "21", "23", "70", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "23", "70", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/51/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 11 May 2011\namending Council Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(2)(a) and (b) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (2) does not apply to beneficiaries of international protection as defined in Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (3).\n(2)\nThe prospect of obtaining long-term resident status in a Member State after a certain time is an important element for the full integration of beneficiaries of international protection in the Member State of residence.\n(3)\nLong-term resident status for beneficiaries of international protection is also important in promoting economic and social cohesion, which is a fundamental objective of the Union as stated in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(4)\nBeneficiaries of international protection should therefore be able to obtain long-term resident status in the Member State which granted them international protection, subject to the same conditions as other third-country nationals.\n(5)\nIn view of the right of beneficiaries of international protection to reside in Member States other than the one which granted them international protection, it is necessary to ensure that those other Member States are informed of the protection background of the persons concerned to enable them to comply with their obligations regarding the principle of non-refoulement.\n(6)\nBeneficiaries of international protection who are long-term residents should, under certain conditions, enjoy equality of treatment with citizens of the Member State of residence in a wide range of economic and social matters so that long-term resident status constitutes a genuine instrument for the integration of long-term residents into the society in which they live.\n(7)\nThe equality of treatment of beneficiaries of international protection in the Member State which granted them international protection should be without prejudice to the rights and benefits guaranteed under Directive 2004/83/EC and under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as amended by the Protocol signed in New York on 31 January 1967 (\u2018the Geneva Convention\u2019).\n(8)\nThe conditions set out in Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the right of a long-term resident to reside in another Member State and obtain long-term resident status there should apply in the same way to all third-country nationals who have obtained long-term resident status.\n(9)\nTransfer of responsibility for protection of beneficiaries of international protection is outside the scope of this Directive.\n(10)\nWhere a Member State intends to expel, on a ground provided for in Directive 2003/109/EC, a beneficiary of international protection who has acquired long-term resident status in that Member State, that person should enjoy the protection against refoulement guaranteed under Directive 2004/83/EC and under Article 33 of the Geneva Convention. For that purpose, where the person enjoys international protection in a Member State other than the one in which that person is currently residing as a long-term resident, it is necessary to provide, unless refoulement is permitted under Directive 2004/83/EC, that that person may be expelled only to the Member State which granted international protection and that that Member State is obliged to readmit that person. The same safeguards should apply to a beneficiary of international protection who has taken up residence but has not yet obtained long-term resident status in a second Member State.\n(11)\nWhere the expulsion of a beneficiary of international protection outside the territory of the Union is permitted under Directive 2004/83/EC, Member States should be obliged to ensure that all information is obtained from relevant sources, including, where appropriate, from the Member State that granted international protection, and that it is thoroughly assessed with a view to guaranteeing that the decision to expel that beneficiary is in accordance with Article 4 and Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.\n(12)\nThis Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular in Article 7 thereof.\n(13)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (4), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Union, their own tables, illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n(14)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 21) on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(15)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2003/109/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2, point (f) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(f)\n\u201cinternational protection\u201d means international protection as defined in Article 2(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (5);\n(2)\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, points (c) and (d) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nare authorised to reside in a Member State on the basis of a form of protection other than international protection or have applied for authorisation to reside on that basis and are awaiting a decision on their status;\n(d)\nhave applied for international protection and whose application has not yet given rise to a final decision;\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, point (c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nthe European Convention on Establishment of 13 December 1955, the European Social Charter of 18 October 1961, the amended European Social Charter of 3 May 1987, the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers of 24 November 1977, paragraph 11 of the Schedule to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as amended by the Protocol signed in New York on 31 January 1967, and the European Agreement on Transfer of Responsibility for Refugees of 16 October 1980.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20181a. Member States shall not grant long-term resident status on the basis of international protection in the event of the revocation of, ending of or refusal to renew international protection as laid down in Articles 14(3) and 19(3) of Directive 2004/83/EC.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Regarding persons to whom international protection has been granted, at least half of the period between the date of the lodging of the application for international protection on the basis of which that international protection was granted and the date of the grant of the residence permit referred to in Article 24 of Directive 2004/83/EC, or the whole of that period if it exceeds 18 months, shall be taken into account in the calculation of the period referred to in paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 8, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u20184. Where a Member State issues a long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permit to a third-country national to whom it granted international protection, it shall enter the following remark in that long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permit, under the heading \u201cRemarks\u201d: \u201cInternational protection granted by [name of the Member State] on [date]\u201d.\n5. Where a long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permit is issued by a second Member State to a third-country national who already has a long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permit issued by another Member State which contains the remark referred to in paragraph 4, the second Member State shall enter the same remark in the long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permit.\nBefore the second Member State enters the remark referred to in paragraph 4, it shall request the Member State mentioned in that remark to provide information as to whether the long-term resident is still a beneficiary of international protection. The Member State mentioned in the remark shall reply no later than 1 month after receiving the request for information. Where international protection has been withdrawn by a final decision, the second Member State shall not enter that remark.\n6. Where, in accordance with the relevant international instruments or national law, responsibility for the international protection of the long-term resident was transferred to the second Member State after the long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permit referred to in paragraph 5 was issued, the second Member State shall amend accordingly the remark referred to in paragraph 4 no later than 3 months after the transfer.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 9, the following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20183a. Member States may withdraw the long-term resident status in the event of the revocation of, ending of or refusal to renew international protection as laid down in Articles 14(3) and 19(3) of Directive 2004/83/EC if the long-term resident status was obtained on the basis of international protection.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 11, the following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20184a. As far as the Member State which granted international protection is concerned, paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be without prejudice to Directive 2004/83/EC.\u2019;\n(7)\nArticle 12 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following paragraphs are inserted:\n\u20183a. Where a Member State decides to expel a long-term resident whose long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permit contains the remark referred to in Article 8(4), it shall request the Member State mentioned in that remark to confirm whether the person concerned is still a beneficiary of international protection in that Member State. The Member State mentioned in the remark shall reply no later than 1 month after receiving the request for information.\n3b. If the long-term resident is still a beneficiary of international protection in the Member State mentioned in the remark, that person shall be expelled to that Member State, which shall, without prejudice to the applicable Union or national law and to the principle of family unity, immediately readmit, without formalities, that beneficiary and his/her family members.\n3c. By way of derogation from paragraph 3b, the Member State which adopted the expulsion decision shall retain the right to remove, in accordance with its international obligations, the long-term resident to a country other than the Member State which granted international protection where that person fulfils the conditions specified in Article 21(2) of Directive 2004/83/EC.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20186. This Article shall be without prejudice to Article 21(1) of Directive 2004/83/EC.\u2019;\n(8)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 19a\nAmendments of long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permits\n1. Where a long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permit contains the remark referred to in Article 8(4), and where, in accordance with the relevant international instruments or national law, responsibility for the international protection of the long-term resident is transferred to a second Member State before that Member State issues the long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permit referred to in Article 8(5), the second Member State shall ask the Member State which has issued the long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permit to amend that remark accordingly.\n2. Where a long-term resident is granted international protection in the second Member State before that Member State issued the long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permit referred to in Article 8(5), that Member State shall ask the Member State which has issued the long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permit to amend it in order to enter the remark referred to in Article 8(4).\n3. Following the request referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the Member State which has issued the long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permit shall issue the amended long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permit no later than 3 months after receiving the request from the second Member State.\u2019;\n(9)\nin Article 22, the following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20183a. Unless, in the meantime, the international protection has been withdrawn or the person falls within one of the categories specified in Article 21(2) of Directive 2004/83/EC, paragraph 3 of this Article shall not apply to third-country nationals whose long-term resident\u2019s EU residence permit issued by the first Member State contains the remark referred to in Article 8(4) of this Directive.\nThis paragraph shall be without prejudice to Article 21(1) of Directive 2004/83/EC.\u2019;\n(10)\nin Article 25, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Member States shall appoint contact points who will be responsible for receiving and transmitting the information and documentation referred to in Articles 8, 12, 19, 19a, 22 and 23.\u2019.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 20 May 2013. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nWhen Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 11 May 2011.", "references": ["29", "22", "19", "92", "90", "50", "4", "52", "93", "31", "43", "3", "33", "68", "25", "56", "97", "5", "86", "66", "41", "82", "71", "73", "67", "57", "60", "39", "35", "80", "No Label", "11", "13"], "gold": ["11", "13"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 276/2011\nof 21 March 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 262/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["68", "96", "4", "12", "7", "53", "97", "33", "44", "49", "61", "14", "76", "16", "56", "95", "70", "42", "91", "79", "84", "99", "2", "29", "26", "85", "73", "60", "37", "43", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 459/2010\nof 27 May 2010\namending Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for certain pesticides in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 5(1) and Article 14(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor azoxystrobin, cypermethrin, indoxacarb, isoxaflutole, ethephon fenitrothion, lambda-cyhalothrin, methomyl, profenofos, pyraclostrobin, thiacloprid, triadimefon, triadimenol and trifloxystrobin maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Annex II and part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For aminopyralid, boscalid, buprofezin, chlorantraniliprole, cyprodinil, difenoconazole, flusilazole, fosetyl, imidacloprid, mandipropamid, metazachlor, prothioconazole, spinetoram, spirotetramat, sulphur and tebuconazole MRLs were set in part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(2)\nIn the context of a procedure, in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2), for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance azoxystrobin on swedes an application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing MRL.\n(3)\nAs regards aminopyralid, such an application was made for the use on pastures. In view of that application, it is necessary to modify the existing MRL for bovine kidney because through grazing the pesticide is ingested by cattle. As regards boscalid, such an application was made for the use on gherkins and courgettes. As regards cyprodinil, such an application was made for the use on celeriac. As regards difenoconazole, such an application was made for the use on fennel, parsley, celery leaves and chervil. As regards indoxacarb, such an application was made for the use on cherries and sugar beets. As regards isoxaflutole, such an application was made to change the residue definition. As regards fosetyl, such an application was made for the use on radishes. As regards lambda-cyhalothrin, such an application was made for the use on globe artichokes and currants. As regards metazachlor, such an application was made for the use on rapeseed, kale, cabbage, swedes, turnips, and cereals. In view of that application, it is necessary to modify the existing MRLs for liver from bovines, sheep and goats, since rapeseed, kale, cabbage, swedes, turnips, and cereals are used as feed, and residues may end up on forage for these animals. In addition, it is necessary to modify the residue definition on animal products. As regards pyraclostrobin, such an application was made for the use on beetroot, gherkin and courgettes. As regards spirotetramat, such an application was made for the use on plums and cherries. As regards tebuconazole, such an application was made for the use on swedes and turnips. As regards thiacloprid, such an application was made for the use on lambs lettuce, celery and fennel. As regards trifloxystrobin, such an application was made for the use on parsnips, parsley root, salsify, swedes and turnips.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 applications were made for spinetoram on peaches (including nectarines) and apricots. The authorised use of spinetoram on peaches, nectarines and apricots in South Africa, Argentina, Chile, New Zealand and Israel lead to higher residues than the MRL in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. To avoid trade barriers for the importation of peaches, nectarines and apricots, a higher MRL is necessary.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, these applications were evaluated by the Member States concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission.\n(6)\nThe European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, assessed the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs (3). It forwarded these opinions to the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public.\n(7)\nThe Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs needed by the applicants were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime exposure to these substances via consumption of all food products that may contain these substances, nor the short term exposure due to extreme consumption of the relevant crops showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference dose (ARfD) is exceeded. In some cases the Authority considered that a higher MRL was necessary than the MRL proposed by the evaluating Member State. In those cases it is appropriate to allow the higher MRL, as proposed by the Authority, provided that the Authority considered this MRL safe. In other cases the Authority considered that a lower MRL than the MRL proposed by the evaluating Member State was sufficient. In those cases it is appropriate to set the lower MRL.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 the Authority evaluated the safety of existing MRLs for ethephon (4) and concluded that the MRLs for 12 crops could be set higher to take account of existing CXLs.\n(9)\nAs regards fenitrothion, the validity of MRLs for cereals expired on 1 June 2009. For the sake of clarity it is appropriate to indicate the lowest limit of analytical determination (LOD) for that pesticide on cereals in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(10)\nAs regards sulphur, the Authority recommended in its conclusion (5) not to continue to set MRLs for that pesticide because of its low toxicity. In view of that conclusion it is appropriate to delete the existing MRLs for that pesticide and to include it in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(11)\nBased on the reasoned opinions of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 5(1) and Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(12)\nOn 4 July 2009 the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) adopted CXLs for azoxystrobin, buprofezin, chlorantraniliprole, cypermethrin, flusilazole, imidacloprid, lambda-cyhalothrin, mandipropamid, methomyl, profenofos, prothioconazole, spinetoram, spirotetramate, tebuconazole, triadimefon and triadimenol. These CXLs should be included in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as MRLs, with the exception of those CXLs which are not safe for a European consumer group and for which the Union presented a reservation to the CAC.\n(13)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThe MRLs for ethephon shall apply from 8 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2010.", "references": ["68", "51", "18", "54", "25", "21", "7", "83", "4", "90", "3", "56", "55", "78", "16", "64", "9", "71", "6", "39", "1", "34", "81", "58", "53", "59", "12", "2", "43", "23", "No Label", "38", "65", "66", "69", "72", "76"], "gold": ["38", "65", "66", "69", "72", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 633/2011\nof 29 June 2011\ntemporarily suspending customs duties on imports of certain cereals for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to support the supply of cereals on the Community market in the last few months of the 2010/11 marketing year, Commission Regulation (EU) No 177/2011 (2) suspended customs duties for the import tariff quotas for common wheat of low and medium quality and feed barley opened by Regulations (EC) No 1067/2008 (3) and (EC) No 2305/2003 (4) respectively, until 30 June 2011.\n(2)\nThe outlook for the cereals market for the start of the next marketing year (2011/12) would suggest that prices will remain high, given the low stock levels and the Commission\u2019s current estimates regarding the quantities which will actually be available from the 2011 harvest. In order to make it easier to maintain a flow of imports conducive to EU market equilibrium, there is a need to ensure continuity in cereal imports policy by keeping the temporary suspension of customs duties on imports during the 2011/12 marketing year until 31 December 2011 for the import tariff quotas to which this measure currently applies.\n(3)\nMoreover, traders should not be penalised in cases where cereals are en route for importation into the Union. Therefore, transport times should be taken into account and traders allowed to release cereals for free circulation under the customs-duty suspension arrangements provided for in this Regulation, for all products the direct transport of which to the Union started at the latest on 31 December 2011. The evidence to be provided showing direct transport to the Union and the date on which the transport commenced should also be established.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure for issuing import licences as from 1 July 2011, this Regulation should enter into force on the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The application of customs duties on imports of products of CN code 1001 90 99, of a quality other than high quality as defined in Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/1010 (5), and CN code 1003 00 is suspended for the 2011/12 marketing year for all imports under the reduced-duty tariff quotas opened by Regulations (EC) No 1067/2008 and (EC) No 2305/2003.\n2. Where the cereals referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article undergo direct transport to the Union and such transport began at the latest by 31 December 2011, the suspension of customs duties under this Regulation shall continue to apply for the purposes of the release into free circulation of the products concerned.\nProof of direct transport to the Union and of the date on which the transport commenced shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities, by the original transport document.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2011 to 31 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2011.", "references": ["34", "61", "1", "46", "20", "85", "3", "69", "8", "30", "91", "10", "53", "54", "4", "92", "27", "95", "56", "0", "63", "29", "87", "79", "41", "74", "58", "32", "81", "47", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 April 2010\nrecognising in principle the completeness of the dossiers submitted for detailed examination in view of the possible inclusion of 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene and cyflumetofen in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC\n(notified under document C(2010) 2518)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/244/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 91/414/EEC provides for the development of a European Union list of active substances authorised for incorporation in plant protection products.\n(2)\nThe dossier for the active substance 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene was submitted by DormFresh Ltd to the authorities of the Netherlands on 25 June 2009 with the application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nThe dossier for the active substance cyflumetofen was submitted by Otsuka Chemical Co. Ltd to the authorities of the Netherlands on 21 July 2009 with the application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(4)\nThe Dutch authorities have indicated to the Commission that, on preliminary examination, the dossiers for the active substances concerned appear to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC. The dossiers submitted appear also to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substances concerned. In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, the dossiers were subsequently forwarded by the respective applicants to the Commission and other Member States, and were referred to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.\n(5)\nBy this Decision it should be formally confirmed at European Union level that the dossiers are considered as satisfying in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II and, for at least one plant protection product containing the active substances concerned, the requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe dossiers concerning the active substances identified in the Annex to this Decision, which were submitted to the Commission and the Member States with a view to obtaining the inclusion of those substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, satisfy in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to that Directive.\nThe dossiers also satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substance, taking into account the uses proposed.\nArticle 2\nThe rapporteur Member State shall pursue the detailed examination for the dossiers referred to in Article 1 and shall communicate to the Commission the conclusions of its examinations accompanied by any recommendations on the inclusion or non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances referred to in Article 1 and any conditions for those inclusions as soon as possible and by 30 April 2011 at the latest.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["74", "16", "18", "24", "1", "51", "36", "98", "85", "46", "5", "45", "89", "31", "26", "73", "39", "95", "91", "6", "3", "70", "79", "88", "82", "11", "71", "44", "19", "76", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "41", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "41", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/391/CFSP\nof 16 July 2012\namending Decision 2010/279/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 May 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/279/CFSP (1) extending EUPOL AFGHANISTAN until 31 May 2013.\n(2)\nThe current financial reference amount covers the period until 31 July 2012.\n(3)\nDecision 2010/279/CFSP should therefore be amended to include a financial reference amount for the period from 1 August 2012 to 31 May 2013,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 13 of Decision 2010/279/CFSP is replaced by the following:\n\"Article 13\nFinancial arrangements\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN until 31 July 2011 shall be EUR 54 600 000.\nThe financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN for the period from 1 August 2011 to 31 July 2012 shall be EUR 60 500 000.\nThe financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN for the period from 1 August 2012 to 31 May 2013 shall be EUR 56 870 000.\n2. All expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\n3. The Head of Mission shall report fully to, and be supervised by, the Commission on the activities undertaken in the framework of his contract.\n4. Nationals of third States shall be allowed to tender for contracts. Subject to the Commission's approval, the Head of Mission may conclude technical arrangements with Regional Command/PRT lead nations and international actors deployed in Afghanistan regarding the provision of equipment, services and premises to the Mission, in particular where security conditions so require.\n5. The financial arrangements shall respect the operational requirements of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN, including compatibility of equipment and interoperability of its teams, and shall take into consideration the deployment of staff in Regional Commands and PRTs.\".\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["32", "11", "34", "73", "57", "30", "2", "64", "6", "77", "37", "17", "12", "71", "76", "53", "4", "92", "14", "84", "54", "22", "23", "45", "21", "40", "29", "13", "28", "42", "No Label", "9", "33", "95"], "gold": ["9", "33", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 July 2012\nestablishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union with regard to the amendments to Annexes II and III to the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, adopted by the seventeenth meeting of the Contracting Parties (Paris, France, 8-10 February 2012)\n(2012/510/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union is a Contracting Party to the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution, subsequently renamed Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (1) (\u2018the Barcelona Convention\u2019) and a Party to the Protocol concerning specially protected areas and biological diversity in the Mediterranean and the annexes thereto (2) (\u2018the Protocol\u2019). Annex II to the Protocol contains the list of endangered and threatened species and Annex III to the Protocol contains the list of species whose exploitation is regulated.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 18 of the Barcelona Convention, the meeting of the Contracting Parties is the decision-making body of the Convention, and the powers conferred upon it include the capacity to amend the annexes to the Convention and to its protocols, as required. In accordance with Article 23(2) of the Barcelona Convention and Article 14(1) of the Protocol, an amendment to the Annexes to the Protocol shall become effective for all Contracting Parties to the Protocol on the expiry of a period determined by the respective Contracting Parties when adopting the amendment, except for those that have notified in writing the Depositary that they are unable to approve the amendment within this period of time.\n(3)\nOn 8 February 2012, the Commission transmitted to the Council a Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union with regard to the proposals for amending Annexes II and III to the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean at the seventeenth meeting of the Contracting Parties (Paris, 8-10 February 2012). Due to the timing of the arrival of the Commission proposal, the Council was not able to consider it or act upon it prior to the Meeting of the Contracting Parties and hence the Union position and interests could not be expressed or defended in a timely and appropriate manner.\n(4)\nThe seventeenth meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention and its Protocols adopted amendments to Annexes II and III to the Protocol by Decision IG.20/5 to provide for greater protection to ten shark species.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 23(2)(vi) of the Barcelona Convention, an amendment to the Annexes becomes effective for all Contracting Parties on the expiry of a period determined by the Contracting Parties concerned when adopting the amendment, except for those Contracting Parties which notify the Depository that they are unable to approve the amendment. The seventeenth meeting of the Contracting Parties determined this period to be 180 days; the deadline for submitting a notification expires on 8 August 2012. The Union should therefore communicate to the Depositary of the Protocol the amendments it does not approve within that deadline.\n(6)\nThe amendments to the Protocol would not require any change in Union law.\n(7)\nThe amendments on the addition of ten species to Annex II and their corresponding deletion from Annex III, adopted by the seventeenth meeting of the Contracting Parties, are scientifically sound, consistent with Union legislation and with the Union\u2019s commitment to international cooperation for the protection of biodiversity, and in accordance with both Article 5 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (3) and the target agreed at the Conference of the Parties to that Convention in 2010 to significantly reduce the current rate of biodiversity loss by 2020. The Union should therefore approve these amendments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Union shall approve the amendments to add the following species to Annex II to the Protocol and to delete them from Annex III:\n(a)\nGaleorhinus galeus (Linnaeus, 1758);\n(b)\nIsurus oxyrinchus (Rafinesque, 1810);\n(c)\nLamna nasus (Bonnaterre, 1788);\n(d)\nLeucoraja circularis (Couch, 1838);\n(e)\nLeucoraja melitensis (Clark, 1926);\n(f)\nRhinobatos cemiculus (Saint-Hilaire, 1817);\n(g)\nRhinobatos rhinobatos (Linnaeus, 1758);\n(h)\nSphyrna lewini (Griffith & Smith, 1834);\n(i)\nSphyrna mokarran (R\u00fcppell, 1837);\n(j)\nSphyrna zygaena (Linnaeus, 1758).\nArticle 2\nThe Commission is hereby authorised to notify the Depositary of the Protocol, in writing, that the Union approves the amendments specified in Article 1, in accordance with Article 23(2)(iv) of the Barcelona Convention. It shall do so before the expiry of the 180-day period from the adoption of the amendments by the seventeenth meeting of the Contracting Parties.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["97", "73", "53", "45", "63", "81", "55", "74", "46", "36", "32", "51", "98", "48", "78", "1", "69", "11", "7", "79", "91", "67", "6", "92", "4", "54", "16", "40", "41", "75", "No Label", "3", "58", "59"], "gold": ["3", "58", "59"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 3 December 2010\nlaying down the final balance to be paid or recovered at programme closure in the field of transitional rural development programmes financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) by Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovakia\n(notified under document C(2010) 8471)\n(Only the Estonian, Greek, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish and Slovak texts are authentic)\n(2010/750/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 27/2004 of 5 January 2004 laying down transitional detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 as regards the financing by the EAGGF Guarantee Section of rural development measures in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (1) and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the structural funds (2), and in particular Article 32(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (3), and in particular 47(3) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/984/EU (4) laid down the final balance to be paid or recovered at programme closure in the field of transitional rural development financed by the EAGGF of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia.\n(2)\nOn the basis of the annual accounts submitted by Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovakia concerning expenditure in the field of rural development measures, accompanied by the information required, the accounts of the paying agencies referred to in Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (5), have been cleared for the financial years 2005 (6), 2006 (7), 2007 (8), 2008 (9) and 2009 (10). The respective clearance decisions have been adopted.\n(3)\nThe final eligibility date for TRDI programmes was set to 31 December 2008. An extension of the final eligibility date was granted to Estonia, Malta and Slovakia. The expenses incurred between 16 October 2008 and 30 June 2009 were declared in the 2009 annual accounts; thus, the clearance of accounts decisions referred to above clear the full expenditure incurred under these programmes.\n(4)\nArticle 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 provides that the combined total payments which are made in respect of the programme, prior to the payment of the final balance, shall not exceed 95 % of the Community commitment for the programme.\n(5)\nFor the rural development expenditure covered by Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 27/2004, the final balance to be paid or recovered shall be calculated on the basis of the latest clearance of accounts decision and additional information provided by Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovakia as per recital (6) hereafter.\n(6)\nIn the light of the closure of the Transitional Rural Development programmes, the Member States concerned were requested to provide information on the outstanding debts in respect of the programmes. The debt data were verified and taken into consideration by the Commission when calculating the final balance.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from European Union financing expenditure not effected in accordance with European Union rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe amounts of the final balance which is, recoverable from or payable to, each Member State pursuant to this Decision in the field of rural development measures applicable in Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovakia are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis decision determines the final balances of the remaining Transitional Rural Development programmes financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland and the Slovak Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 3 December 2010.", "references": ["37", "82", "19", "65", "62", "1", "95", "48", "29", "14", "0", "36", "67", "54", "71", "39", "94", "87", "74", "68", "99", "5", "11", "46", "80", "55", "38", "45", "41", "7", "No Label", "10", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/71/EU\nof 4 November 2010\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include metofluthrin as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe United Kingdom received on 23 December 2005 an application from Sumitomo Chemical (UK) Plc, in accordance with Article 11(1) of Directive 98/8/EC, for the inclusion of the active substance metofluthrin in its Annex I for use in product-type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to Directive 98/8/EC. Metofluthrin was not on the market on the date referred to in Article 34(1) of Directive 98/8/EC as an active substance of a biocidal product.\n(2)\nAfter carrying out an evaluation, the United Kingdom submitted its evaluation report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 19 June 2008.\n(3)\nThe report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 27 May 2010, and the findings of the review were incorporated in an assessment report.\n(4)\nIt appears from the examinations made that biocidal products used as insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods and containing metofluthrin may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include metofluthrin in Annex I to that Directive.\n(5)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at the European level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to the compartments and populations that have not been representatively addressed in the European level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(6)\nIt is important that the provisions of this Directive be applied simultaneously in all the Member States in order to ensure equal treatment of biocidal products on the market containing the active substance metofluthrin and to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal market in general.\n(7)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\n(8)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 April 2011 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 May 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 November 2010.", "references": ["75", "92", "14", "76", "40", "26", "67", "98", "90", "22", "89", "70", "18", "23", "12", "50", "20", "99", "96", "19", "97", "48", "3", "2", "4", "71", "10", "94", "72", "43", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 223/2012\nof 14 March 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to fertilisers for the purposes of adapting Annexes I and IV thereto to technical progress\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 relating to fertilisers (1), and in particular Article 31(1) and (3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 provides that a fertiliser belonging to a type of fertiliser listed in Annex I thereto and complying with the conditions laid down in that Regulation may be designated EC fertiliser.\n(2)\nThe fertiliser types listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 include some types that may be sold only in the form of fine powders, and other types that may also be sold in the form of suspensions. Fertilisers in the form of suspensions pose less risk to the health of farmers when used in conditions under which the use of fine powders would result in the inhalation of dusts. To reduce the exposure of farmers to dusts, the option of using suspensions should be extended to include manganese micronutrient fertiliser types, and the range of ingredients permitted in existing boron and copper fertiliser suspensions should also be extended.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 2003/2003 foresees the use of complexing agents as ingredients in micro-nutrient fertilisers. However, no such fertilisers have been designated EC fertiliser because no list of authorised complexing agents has yet been established in Annex I to that Regulation and because there are no type designations for fertiliser containing complexing agents. Given that suitable complexing agents (lignosulfonic acid salts - hereinafter \u2018LS\u2019) are now available, they should be added to the list of authorised complexing agents and corresponding type designations should be created. Existing type designations for fertiliser solutions should also be adapted to allow the use of complexing agents, but each such solution should not contain more than one complexing agent to facilitate official controls.\n(4)\nThe new rules for micronutrient solutions and suspensions require relabelling of those fertiliser types. However, fertilisers labelled according to the old rules will remain in stock for some time. Manufacturers should therefore be allowed sufficient time to prepare new labels and to sell off all existing stocks.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 2003/2003 provides a set of rules for the labelling of mixed micro-nutrient fertilisers but does not provide for the corresponding type designations in its Annex I. Regulation (EU) No 137/2011 introduced Table E.2.4 in Section E.2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 containing the corresponding type designations and clearer rules for mixtures of micro-nutrient fertilisers. However, Table E.2.4 requires some labelling information, which in certain cases would not be in conformity with that required by Articles 6(6) and 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003. Table E.2.4 should therefore be amended accordingly. A transitional period should be granted to allow economic operators to adapt to the new rules and sell off their stocks of mixed micro-nutrient fertilisers.\n(6)\nN,N\u2019-di(2-hydroxybenzyl)ethylenediamine-N,N\u2019-diacetic acid (hereinafter \u2018HBED\u2019) is an organic chelating agent for micro-nutrients. In particular, iron chelated with HBED is used to correct iron shortages and to remedy ferric chlorosis for a large variety of fruit trees. The elimination of ferric chlorosis and its symptoms ensures green foliage, good growth and development of the fruit. The iron chelated form of HBED has been authorised in Poland without any damage for the environment. HBED should therefore be added to the list of authorised organic chelating agents for micro-nutrients in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003. However, it is appropriate to provide for a transitional period so that HBED is authorised after the publication of the corresponding EN Standard.\n(7)\nDicyandiamide/1,2,4 triazole (hereinafter \u2018DCD/TZ\u2019) and 1,2,4 triazole/3-methylpyrazole (hereinafter \u2018TZ/MP\u2019) are nitrification inhibitors that are used in combination with fertilisers containing the nutrient nitrogen in the form of urea and/or ammonium salts. Those inhibitors prolong the availability of nitrogen to crops, reduce nitrate leaching, and reduce emissions of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere.\n(8)\nN-(2-nitrophenyl)phosphoric triamide (hereinafter \u20182-NPT\u2019) is a urease inhibitor designed for urea-containing nitrogen fertilisers to increase the availability of nitrogen to plants while reducing emissions of ammonia to the atmosphere.\n(9)\nDCD/TZ, TZ/MP and 2-NPT have been used in Germany and DCD/TZ and TZ/MP in the Czech Republic for many years where they have been shown to be efficient and to pose no risk to the environment. DCD/TZ, TZ/MP and 2-NPT should therefore be added to the list of authorized nitrification and urease inhibitors in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 to make them more widely available to farmers throughout the Union.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 2003/2003 requires the control of EC fertilisers in accordance with the methods of sampling and analysis that are described in Annex IV thereto. However, some of those methods are not internationally recognised and should be replaced by EN standards recently developed by the European Committee for Standardisation.\n(11)\nEN standards are usually validated by means of an inter-laboratory comparison to quantify the reproducibility and repeatability of the analytical methods. A distinction between validated EN Standards and non-validated methods should therefore be made to identify those EN Standards which have proven statistical reliability.\n(12)\nTo simplify legislation and facilitate future revision, it is appropriate to replace the full text of the analytical methods in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 with references to the EN standards published by the European Committee for Standardisation.\n(13)\nRegulation (EC) No 2003/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments\n1. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nPoint (1)(a), points (b)(i), (c)(i), (c)(ii), (d)(i), (e)(i), (f)(i) and point (2) of Annex I shall apply by 4 April 2013.\nAnnex I, point (3) entry 11 shall apply from 4 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 March 2012.", "references": ["18", "59", "50", "37", "63", "9", "1", "89", "91", "70", "52", "58", "67", "0", "17", "34", "60", "41", "81", "88", "90", "51", "40", "29", "8", "6", "46", "48", "87", "32", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUPM/1/2010\nof 30 November 2010\nconcerning the extension of the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina\n(2010/754/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP of 8 December 2009 on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 10(1) of Decision 2009/906/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purposes of political control and strategic direction of the European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUPM BiH), including, in particular, the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nOn 15 December 2009, upon a proposal of the Secretary-General/High Representative, the PSC, by its Decision EUPM/1/2009 (2), extended the mandate of Mr Stefan FELLER as Head of Mission of EUPM BiH until 31 December 2010.\n(3)\nOn 15 November 2010, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed to the PSC to extend the mandate of Mr Stefan FELLER as Head of Mission of EUPM BiH for an additional year, until 31 December 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Mr Stefan FELLER as Head of Mission of the European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina is hereby extended until 31 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply until 31 December 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["12", "76", "60", "20", "43", "1", "7", "34", "88", "49", "41", "31", "18", "79", "56", "55", "75", "10", "86", "74", "40", "95", "58", "82", "26", "66", "39", "45", "78", "51", "No Label", "5", "9", "52", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["5", "9", "52", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION\nof 17 June 2010\non the examination by a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States of the amendments to the Treaties proposed by the Spanish Government concerning the composition of the European Parliament and not to convene a Convention\n(2010/350/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 48(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal for amendments to the Treaties submitted to the Council by the Spanish Government on 4 December 2009 and submitted to the European Council by the Council on 7 December 2009,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament not to convene a Convention (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),\nAfter notification of the proposal to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 4 December 2009, following the conclusions of the European Council at its meetings on 11 and 12 December 2008 and on 18 and 19 June 2009, the Spanish Government submitted, in accordance with Article 48(2), first sentence, of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), a proposal for the amendment of the Treaties concerning the composition of the European Parliament.\n(2)\nOn 7 December 2009, in accordance with Article 48(2), third sentence, of the TEU, the said proposal was submitted by the Council to the European Council. It was also notified to the national Parliaments.\n(3)\nAt its meeting on 10 and 11 December 2009, the European Council decided, in accordance with Article 48(3), first subparagraph, of the TEU, to consult the European Parliament and the Commission on the proposed amendments. It also decided, in accordance with Article 48(3), second subparagraph, of the TEU, to request the consent of the European Parliament on its intention not to convene a Convention given that, in its view, this was not justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. Letters to those ends were sent by the President of the European Council on 18 December 2009.\n(4)\nOn 6 May 2010, the European Parliament adopted a favourable opinion on the proposed amendments. It also gave its consent on the decision not to convene a Convention as this is not justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. On 28 April 2010, the Commission adopted a favourable opinion on the proposed amendments.\n(5)\nTherefore, it is appropriate that, in accordance with Article 48(3) of the TEU, the European Council decide that a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States should examine the amendments proposed by the Spanish Government, define the terms of reference of the conference and decide not to convene a Convention,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe European Council hereby decides that a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall examine the amendments to Article 2 of the Protocol on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, regarding the composition of the European Parliament, as proposed by the Spanish Government on 4 December 2009, in the wording as annexed to this Decision, which will constitute the terms of reference of the said conference. In view of the extent of the proposed amendments, a Convention under Article 48(3) of the Treaty on European Union shall not be convened.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2010.", "references": ["52", "11", "66", "27", "39", "29", "97", "63", "91", "42", "18", "43", "6", "48", "26", "46", "70", "87", "44", "99", "4", "16", "23", "81", "60", "5", "61", "49", "62", "37", "No Label", "7", "8"], "gold": ["7", "8"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 854/2012\nof 18 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in areas VIId and VIIe by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 September 2012.", "references": ["37", "46", "88", "79", "21", "86", "40", "76", "42", "8", "6", "68", "47", "30", "4", "75", "28", "64", "22", "24", "87", "12", "98", "10", "48", "39", "38", "14", "85", "41", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 239/2011\nof 11 March 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Tekovsk\u00fd sal\u00e1mov\u00fd syr (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovakia\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Tekovsk\u00fd sal\u00e1mov\u00fd syr\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20eth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 March 2011.", "references": ["74", "38", "43", "56", "98", "59", "15", "22", "60", "34", "69", "23", "36", "52", "20", "35", "83", "87", "53", "58", "10", "84", "57", "2", "1", "6", "94", "7", "95", "13", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 467/2010\nof 25 May 2010\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, as extended to imports of silicon consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation) and in particular Articles 9 and 11(2) and 11(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nIn March 2004, following an expiry review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 398/2004 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC). The rate of the definitive duty applicable to the net free-at-Union frontier price, before duty, was 49 %. The original measures had been imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 2200/90 (3).\n(2)\nIn January 2007, by Council Regulation (EC) No 42/2007 (4) the definitive anti-dumping duty was extended to imports of silicon consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not.\n2. Request for an expiry review and a partial interim review\n(3)\nFollowing the publication, in October 2008, of a notice of impending expiry of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of silicon originating in the PRC (5), the Commission received on 1 December 2008 a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. In addition, the Commission received on 18 December 2008 a request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(4)\nThe expiry review request was lodged by Euroalliages (Liaison Committee of the Ferro-Alloy Industry) on behalf of the producers in the Union representing a major proportion, in this case 100 %, of the total Union production of silicon. The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Union industry.\n(5)\nThe partial interim review request was lodged by EUSMET (European Users of Silicon Metal) and is limited in scope to the examination of dumping. The request was based on prima facie evidence that the circumstances on the basis of which the measures were established had changed and that the new circumstances were of a lasting nature.\n(6)\nHaving determined, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review and an interim review pursuant to Article 11(2) and 11(3) respectively of the basic Regulation, the Commission published a notice of initiation of these reviews in the Official Journal of the European Union (6) (notice of initiation).\n3. Investigation\n(7)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicant Union producers, the exporting producers in the PRC, importers/traders, users in the Union known to be concerned and their associations as well as the authorities of the PRC of the initiation of the reviews.\n(8)\nIn view of the apparently large number of Chinese exporting producers listed in the requests, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping and the likelihood of recurrence or continuation dumping, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(9)\nIn order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008.\n(10)\nThe Commission received replies from 11 companies or company groups in the PRC. However, after examination of the information submitted by these companies, it became apparent that only a small number of replies were made by companies that exported own-produced silicon to the European Union. It was therefore decided that sampling was not necessary in respect of Chinese exporting producers.\n(11)\nAll the abovementioned companies or company groups in the PRC also stated their intention to request individual examination in application of Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(12)\nThe Commission sent market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT) claim forms to the Chinese exporting producers known to be concerned. Claims for MET, or for IT in case the investigation would establish that the exporting producers did not meet the conditions for MET, were received from three Chinese exporters. However, one of these exporters withdrew its claim subsequently, while the other two were found not to be exporting own-produced silicon to the European Union during the IP. The claims of these two companies were therefore not assessed.\n(13)\nIn addition, six other Chinese companies or company groups submitted claim forms for IT. However, in the course of the investigation, three companies ceased cooperation. Of the three remaining company groups, one sold the product concerned to an unrelated trader. The investigation could not establish with certainty whether the Union market was the final destination of the sales. As this company group cannot, therefore, be regarded as an exporting producer, the claim for individual treatment had to be rejected. As indicated in recital 30, for one company where cooperation was insufficient within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation, findings were based on facts available. The IT claim of the remaining company was found to be admissible.\n(14)\nFinally, out of the two remaining companies requesting to be included in the sample and claiming individual examination, only one submitted a questionnaire reply within the deadlines set in the notice of initiation. This company did not, however, export the product concerned to the Union market.\n(15)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to those who requested a questionnaire within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(16)\nThe Commission also gave interested parties the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(17)\nReplies to the questionnaire were received from the applicant Union producers, 12 users, two associations of users, six exporters/producers in China and three producers in the analogue country.\n(18)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of the determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and for the determination of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\nApplicant Union producers:\n-\nFerroatlantica SL, Madrid, Spain\n-\nFerropem SAS, Chambery, France\n-\nRW Silicium GmbH, Pocking, Germany\nExporting producers in the PRC:\n-\nJinneng Group\n-\nDatong Jinneng Industrial Silicon Co., Datong\n-\nShanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd, Shanghai\n-\nChongqing Trust-Glory New Metal Group\n-\nSichuan Dechang County Guo Yan Silicon Co. Ltd, Dechang\n-\nChongqing Trust-Glory New Metal Co., Ltd, Chongqing\n-\nBluestar Group\n-\nBluestar Silicon Materials Co., Ltd, Lanzhou\n-\nChina Bluestar International Chemical Co., Ltd, Beijing\n-\nJingyu Sunny Silicon Co., Ltd, Jingyu\n-\nMudanjiang Group\n-\nMudanjiang Shunda Chemical Co., Ltd, Mudanjiang\n-\nDongning Xinshun Guangfu Material Co., Ltd, Dongning\n-\nDC/JYKN group\n-\nDalian DC Silicon Co., Ltd, Dalian- Sichuan Jinyang Kangning Silicon Co. Ltd, Leshan\nProducers in the analogue country (Brazil):\n-\nGlobe Metais Industria e Comercio S.A., Breu Branco\n-\nCompanhia Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio, Santos Dumont\n-\nRima Industrial S/A, Belo Horizonte\nUsers:\nAluminium industry\n-\nTrimet Aluminium AG, Essen, Germany\n-\nRaffmetal S.p.A., Brescia, Italy\n-\nVedani Carlo Metalli S.p.A., Milan, Italy\nChemical industry\n-\nMomentive Performance Materials GmbH, Leverkusen, Germany\n-\nWacker Chemie AG, Munich, Germany\n-\nDow Corning Ltd, Cardiff, United Kingdom\n4. Review investigation period and period considered\n(19)\nThe investigation regarding the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008 (\u2018RIP\u2019 or \u2018Review Investigation Period\u2019).\n(20)\nThe examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2005 up to the end of the RIP (period considered).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. The product concerned\n(21)\nThe product concerned is the same as that in the previous investigations, i.e. silicon metal originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN code 2804 69 00 (silicon content less than 99,99 % by weight). Purely by reason of the current classification set out in the Combined Nomenclature, it should read \u2018silicon\u2019. Silicon with a higher purity, that is containing by weight not less than 99,99 % of silicon, used mostly in the electronic semi-conductor industry, falls under a different CN code and is not covered by this proceeding.\n(22)\nSilicon is produced in electric submerged arc furnaces with carbothermic reduction of quartz (silica) in the presence of various types of carbon reductants. It is marketed in the form of lumps, grains, granules or powder according to internationally accepted technical specifications as regards its purity.\n(23)\nSilicon is used primarily by two industries: the chemical industry for the production of methylchlorosilanes or trichlorosilanes and tetrachlorosilicon, and the aluminium industry for the production of aluminium alloys, primary and secondary smelters, intended for the production of casting alloys for different industries, in particular the automotive and building industries.\n2. Like product\n(24)\nAs in the previous expiry reviews, this investigation has shown that silicon produced in the PRC and exported to the Union, the silicon produced and sold on the domestic market of the analogue country (Brazil) and that manufactured and sold in the Union by the applicant Union producers have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same basic uses.\n(25)\nIt was therefore concluded that these products must be considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n1. Market economy treatment\n(26)\nAs mentioned in recital 12, in the course of the investigation, the three companies claiming MET either did not export own-produced silicon to the European Union or dropped their MET claim. MET was not, therefore, granted to any company.\n2. Individual treatment (IT)\n(27)\nAs a general rule, pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a countrywide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and therefore qualify to be granted IT.\n(28)\nBriefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in a summarised form below:\n(a)\nin the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;\n(b)\nexport prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sales are freely determined;\n(c)\nthe majority of the shares belong to private persons, and it must be demonstrated that the company is sufficiently independent from State interference;\n(d)\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate;\n(e)\nState interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.\n(29)\nIt is first noted that the company mentioned in recital 12 that first claimed MET but then withdrew its MET claim also withdrew its claim for IT. This claim was therefore not examined further.\n(30)\nOf the six companies or company groups which claimed only IT, three ceased cooperation and one did not supply the necessary information within the time limits set and therefore significantly impeded the investigation within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation. They were therefore regarded as non-cooperating and findings with regard to them were based on the facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(31)\nThe four companies or company groups concerned were notified of the likely application of facts available and the reasons thereof and given an opportunity to provide further explanations in accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation. However, no new evidence or information was received from any of the four companies that could have repaired the deficiencies of the replies submitted or changed the conclusion that Article 18 of the basic Regulation should apply to them.\n(32)\nOf the two remaining company groups, and as indicated in recital 13, one company group cannot be regarded as an exporting producer of the product concerned and its claim for individual treatment was therefore not assessed.\n(33)\nThe remaining exporter was found to fulfil all criteria set in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(34)\nFrom the above, it is concluded that IT should be granted to the Jinneng Group.\n3. Normal value\n3.1. Analogue country\n(35)\nAccording to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the prices or constructed value in an analogue country. Although Norway was used as an analogue country in the original investigation and in the following expiry reviews, the current investigation revealed that circumstances with regard to the Norwegian market had since changed significantly. Thus, domestic production in Norway decreased by around 20 % between 2005 and 2008 and imports of silicon in Norway represented 97 % of the domestic consumption. During the IP, there was only one domestic producer supplying the domestic market.\n(36)\nTherefore, Brazil, as suggested by both applicants, was envisaged as an appropriate market economy third country in the notice of initiation. Indeed, the investigation revealed that Brazil is the second largest world producer of silicon after the PRC and that the Brazilian market is highly competitive with 7 silicon producers present, producing several different grades of silicon. Brazil was also considered to be an open market with significant import volumes mostly from the PRC. Although invited to do so, none of the interested parties commented on the choice of Brazil.\n(37)\nConsidering the above, on the basis of the information available at the time of selection, it was concluded that Brazil was the most appropriate analogue country.\n3.2. Determination of normal value in the analogue country\n(38)\nThree producers in Brazil cooperated by submitting information concerning cost and sales of silicon on the Brazilian domestic market. Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers not granted MET was established on the basis of verified information received from these producers as set out below.\n(39)\nIt was examined whether each type of the product concerned sold in representative quantities on the Brazilian domestic market could be considered as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for each product type the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market during the investigation period.\n(40)\nWhere the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price. This price was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that type made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not.\n(41)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of that type only.\n(42)\nDepending on the product type, normal value was established based on weighted average sales prices of all sales or weighted average sales prices of profitable sales only, on the domestic market of the analogue country based on the verified data of three producers in that country.\n4. Export price\n(43)\nAll export sales to the European Union by the sole exporting producer granted IT were made through a related trader located in the PRC and subsequently resold to unrelated customers in the Union. In this case the export price was established on the basis of Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n(44)\nThe Union industry claimed that export prices were not freely determined within the meaning of Article 9(5)(b) of the basic Regulation. In particular, it was claimed that price \u2018negotiations\u2019 were ongoing between the Chinese customs authorities and the exporters in view of the determination of a \u2018reasonable\u2019 price level. However, the evidence submitted in this respect did not relate to silicon and it was also considered that these alleged \u2018negotiations\u2019 did not have an impact on the price charged to the final customer, which was the result of free negotiation between the parties. This claim had therefore to be rejected.\n(45)\nThe Union industry further claimed that the company to which IT was granted was State-owned, received input subsidies and had significant trading activities which would permit circumvention of the measures. However, the investigation revealed that the exporter in question was no longer State-owned during the RIP and therefore there was no State interference in its trading activities such as to permit circumvention of the measures. As far as input subsidies are concerned, the claim was found to be unsubstantiated. These claims had therefore to be rejected.\n5. Comparison\n(46)\nThe normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Claimed adjustments were made in respect of transport, physical characteristics, inspection costs, handling and packing where applicable and justified. An adjustment was also made under Article 2(10)(i) given that the related trader was found to have functions of an agent working on a commission basis.\n(47)\nThe investigation revealed that export duties were levied on export sales of silicon during the IP. As the duties had an effect on price comparability, it was considered appropriate to adjust the export price in accordance with Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation for other factors affecting price comparability.\n(48)\nIt is noted that normal value and export price were compared at the same level of indirect taxation, i.e. VAT included.\n(49)\nIt was claimed that the fact that the VAT paid on purchases of raw material of silicon was refundable should be reflected in the calculation of the normal value. However, the VAT paid on such purchases was found to be deductible regardless of the export VAT refund regime of the exported goods and regardless of the destination of the goods. The fact that the VAT paid on purchases of raw material of silicon was refundable is thus a neutral factor which has no impact on the comparability of export price and normal value. Therefore, this claim had to be rejected.\n(50)\nIt was also claimed that the methodology used to take account of indirect taxation was different from the one used in other cases and that the VAT on export sales should have been deducted from the export price. It is noted that Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation provides that an adjustment for indirect taxation may only be made to the normal value and in the circumstances described in the abovementioned Article, which are not present in the current case. The claim was therefore rejected.\n6. Dumping margin\n6.1. For the IT company\n(51)\nThe dumping margin for the sole exporting producer to whom IT was granted was established by comparing the weighted average ex-works export prices, by PCN to the respective normal value of the analogue country as established above.\n(52)\nThe dumping margin for the sole exporting producer granted IT, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Union border, duty unpaid, is 16,3 %.\n6.2. For all other exporters/producers\n(53)\nIn order to calculate the countrywide dumping margin applicable to all other non-cooperating exporters/producers in the PRC, the level of cooperation was first established. The degree of cooperation was low, i.e. less than 1 % of total imports from the PRC. Therefore, the dumping margin for the non-cooperating companies was established by comparing the average import value of silicon from China, as recorded in Eurostat, duly adjusted after excluding sales made by the IT company with the respective normal value of the analogue country as established above.\n(54)\nOne party claimed that the level of cooperation was not correctly assessed as one cooperating exporter had exported significant quantities of silicon to the Union. In those circumstances, it was claimed that the information from this exporter should have been used to calculate the countrywide dumping margin as was done in the review mentioned in recital 1. These claims had to be rejected on the grounds that the prices this company charged to its related company in the Union were found not to be made at arm\u2019s length.\n(55)\nAlternatively, it was argued that data provided by the cooperating importers should have been used to determine the countrywide dumping margin. As mentioned in recital 54, a large part of the quantities imported by these cooperating parties were not made at arm\u2019s length and therefore the prices were considered unreliable. The remaining imports were considered insufficiently representative in terms of quantities as to base the countywide duty upon. This argument was therefore rejected.\n(56)\nFollowing the disclosure, comments received with regard to the product mix of the normal value were taken into account in establishing the countrywide dumping margin. The comparison was thus made using the information submitted by the cooperating importers as regards product types.\n(57)\nOn this basis, the countrywide dumping margin amounts to 19,0 % of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.\nD. LASTING NATURE OF THE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES AND LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF DUMPING\n1. Lasting nature of the changed circumstances\n(58)\nIn accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the changed circumstances regarding dumping could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.\n(59)\nIn order to examine whether the level of the dumping margin found during the RIP is of a lasting nature, the development of export prices and normal value has been considered.\n(60)\nIt is first noted that the dumping margin found in the last review (7); i.e. 12,5 %, is closer to the level found in the current proceeding than to the existing level of measures.\n(61)\nAs far as post RIP export prices are concerned, Eurostat data show that they have decreased by around 15 % over the first 9 months of 2009.\n(62)\nAs far as normal value is concerned, the investigation revealed that normal value had decreased in similar proportions over the same period. As a consequence, the dumping margin for exports of silicon over the first 9 months of 2009 would be of a similar level as the one found in the RIP.\n(63)\nThe above demonstrates that Chinese export prices are closer to world prices than when measures were originally imposed (8).\n(64)\nOn the above basis, it was concluded that the level of dumping found during the RIP is of a lasting nature.\n2. Likelihood of continuation of dumping at the levels found in the interim review\n(65)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether it was likely that dumping at the level found in the interim review would continue should measures be repealed.\n(66)\nWith regard to the likelihood of continuation of dumping, the development of production and production capacity was examined as well as the likely development of export sales to the European Union and to other third country markets.\n3. Production capacity, production volume and consumption in the PRC\n(67)\nTotal production capacity of silicon in the PRC had to be estimated. While statistics (9) provided by the parties concerned indicated a total capacity of 2,2 million tonnes in 2008, the investigation revealed that this figure was clearly overestimated because it did not take into account a significant number of furnace closures (due to, for example, the restructuring of the silicon industry, the economic crisis and the earthquake in the Sichuan province in 2008) and also did not take into account the unstable energy supply in some regions leading factually to a lower capacity than the one recorded in the available statistics. After appropriate adjustments, the actual production capacity was therefore estimated to be around 1,5 million tonnes which corresponded to an increase of at least 25 % in comparison to the capacity in 2002 (the investigation period of the previous expiry review mentioned in recital 1) where it was estimated between 600 000 tonnes and 1,2 million tonnes (10).\n(68)\nEUSMET claimed that it had submitted a detailed calculation of the production capacity in China using an operating rate of 40 %. Its capacity estimate amounted to 1,16 million tonnes. This claim was however found to be unsubstantiated since in particular no supporting document was provided concerning the operating rate used. The operating rate used by the Commission stems from verified data provided by the main cooperating producers in the PRC and was therefore considered the most reliable information available in this respect. This claim had therefore to be rejected.\n(69)\nThe same party also argued that furnaces equal to or below a certain capacity threshold would be shut down as a result of a government decision which would reduce even further the total capacity in China. However, the investigation revealed that the government policy in question did not apply to the whole of China. EUSMET did not provide any evidence showing the number of furnaces concerned and the impact on the total capacity. The investigation also did not bring to light any significant reduction of capacity on this basis. Therefore, this claim had to be rejected.\n(70)\nEUSMET further alleged that production capacity would be close to the PRC sales volume in 2008; i.e. 960 000 tonnes without, however, substantiating this statement with any evidence. In addition, various factors had an impact on sales volume (such as production for stock, supply of raw materials and logistical problems due to the Olympic Games) and therefore it was considered that sales volume cannot be considered to be equal to the production capacity. This argument had therefore to be rejected.\n(71)\nAs far as production volume of silicon is concerned, on the basis of the information available, the investigation revealed that production volume increased significantly by 79 % from 535 000 tonnes in 2002 to 960 000 tonnes in the RIP. Spare capacities were therefore conservatively estimated to be around 540 000 tonnes in the RIP which is close to the total EU consumption during the RIP and which represented almost double the Chinese domestic consumption of silicon during the same period (see recital 72).\n(72)\nThe investigation revealed at the same time that the Chinese consumption, which represented around 280 000 tonnes in the RIP, is likely to increase in the coming years as indicated in recital 73. The increase in consumption has to be seen as a combination of factors and policy measures in the silicon industry and its downstream industry. The downstream industry in the PRC is growing and several investments have been made and are planned in the near future to satisfy the growing need for downstream products. In addition, the Chinese authorities have introduced import restrictions for several sources (e.g. Germany, United Kingdom, Japan and USA) with regard to an important downstream product (siloxane) which was sourced in significant quantities from these countries.\n(73)\nWhile it is difficult to estimate the precise impact of the policy measures including the restructuring of the silicon industry, several interested parties indicated that demand in the PRC would reach around 580 000 tonnes by the end of 2011. This estimate was considered to be reasonable.\n(74)\nNevertheless, even if considering the abovementioned forecast of the domestic demand and even if Chinese exports to other markets would reach their high levels of 2008 (see recital 79) overcapacity would still be significant (around 240 000 tonnes in 2011). It is also noted that given the ongoing restructuring process not only demand is likely to increase in the PRC but also production capacities and volumes.\n(75)\nIn regard to the likely increase in production capacity in the PRC, EUSMET provided information on several planned silicon production plants and alleged that most of these plants will not materialise. Their allegation was merely based on comments provided by its members and was not substantiated. It also claimed that if Chinese production capacity is likely to increase, it would be mainly on account of a project planned by one Union producer that would add 100 000 MT/year to the production capacity of the PRC. The information provided by EUSMET was not substantiated and therefore its claim was rejected.\n(76)\nIn this regard EUSMET claimed that Chinese domestic consumption had far outpaced the increase in production and would continue to increase. Therefore, the production volume in the PRC cannot meet adequately the demand on the Chinese domestic market. As stated above, it is undisputed that Chinese domestic demand is likely to increase in the future. However, as also outlined above, the findings of the investigation did not confirm the allegations made by EUSMET. EUSMET neither quantified the increase in demand nor the future production volumes in China nor did it provide any other information or evidence in support of its claim which had therefore to be disregarded.\n4. Volume and price of imports from the PRC to the EU and other third country markets\n(77)\nDuring the period considered, Chinese exports to the EU increased by 113 % despite the measures in force. As far as prices are concerned and despite an increasing trend during the RIP, they were, throughout the period considered, below the Union industry\u2019s sales prices in the EU. As indicated in recitals 54 and 62, silicon export prices to the EU were also at significantly dumped levels both during and after the RIP.\n(78)\nThe price level in the EU was still at higher levels than in other third country markets. This explains partly the high interest of the Chinese exporters in the Union market despite the anti-dumping measures in force. In this context, it is also noted that Chinese exporters were circumventing the anti-dumping measures in force by transhipment via the Republic of Korea (11) which further reinforces the conclusion that the Chinese exporters have a high interest in the Union market.\n5. Volume and prices of Chinese exports to third countries\n(79)\nChinese exports to other third country markets were significant in volume, exceeding the volumes exported to the European Union. However, it should also be noted that the FOB prices to third countries were on average between 4 % and 14 % lower than the export price to the EU in 2008 and the first 9 months of 2009 (12) respectively.\n(80)\nEUSMET claimed that the Commission\u2019s finding of higher average Chinese export prices to the Union did not take account of the product mix in other markets. It is noted that EUSMET did not submit any evidence in support of this claim. It did not provide any information or explanation to what extent the product mix of exports to other third counties would indeed be different. The evidence provided concerning price differences between product types related furthermore to the EU market only and to a period largely before the RIP, i.e. 2001/2002. Therefore, it could not be considered as a sufficiently accurate basis to determine price differences between product types during and after the RIP. In any event, the information available relating to the RIP did not alter the conclusions in recital 79. This claim was therefore rejected.\n(81)\nWith the exception of the USA, which is protected by high anti-dumping duties (139,49 %) against silicon originating in the PRC, Chinese exports had free access to other major third country markets.\n(82)\nEUSMET submitted that the Asian market would be the main destination for Chinese silicon and that the growth in the Japanese and Korean markets would be significant. It is not contested that Asia is the main destination for Chinese silicon. However, even though consumption may increase in the coming years in the Japanese and South Korean markets, this consumption increase is not expected to be such as to be able to absorb the significant Chinese overcapacities. In addition, the investigation has shown that the Japanese market, which is the main export market for China, is saturated with Chinese silicon.\n(83)\nEUSMET alleged that, if measures were allowed to lapse, supply patterns for the chemical users would not be affected. However, the investigation did not confirm this allegation since various users (chemical and aluminium applications) stated that they would indeed source increased quantities from China would the measures be allowed to lapse. Therefore, this argument was rejected.\n(84)\nConsidering the above, it is expected that Chinese spare capacities will be shipped to the Union market should measures be allowed to lapse.\n(85)\nGiven that imports into the EU during the RIP were dumped, it is very likely that dumping will also continue should the measures be allowed to lapse. This is borne out by the development after the RIP where imports of silicon from the PRC continued to be at price levels below the ones during the RIP (see recital 131).\n6. Conclusion\n(86)\nThe investigation showed that export volumes of the product concerned to the EU increased significantly over the period considered and that the level of dumping found for these imports was significant in the RIP.\n(87)\nIn view of the spare capacities available in the PRC during the RIP and despite the increasing domestic demand, there is a strong likelihood that large quantities of silicon will be exported to the EU at dumped prices should measures be allowed to lapse. Indeed, domestic demand in the PRC will not be able to absorb the spare capacities and the EU market is the only significant market where overcapacities could be exported. The EU market is indeed an attractive market for Chinese exports since prices charged to EU customers are on average higher than those charged to third country customers. The interest of Chinese exporters in the EU market is also confirmed by circumvention practices in the past.\n(88)\nIt is therefore concluded that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping.\nE. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(89)\nThe three complainant Union producers replied to the questionnaires and cooperated fully in the investigation. The complainants\u2019 production constitutes the total Union production within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.\nF. SITUATION OF THE UNION MARKET\n1. Preliminary remark\n(90)\nSpecific data relating to the Union industry and consumption had to be indexed, in accordance with Article 19 of the basic Regulation, as the Union industry comprises only three producers, two of which belong to the same group. Eurostat data had to be adjusted to take account of the data for which confidential treatment was requested by Member States regarding their imports of silicon, and for this reason also had to be indexed.\n2. Union consumption\nTable 1\nUnion consumption (based on sales volume)\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n115\n118\n121\nY/Y trend\n-\n15 %\n3 %\n3 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry and adjusted Eurostat statistics.\n(91)\nUnion consumption was based on the combined volume of sales by the Union industry in the Union and the volume of imports from third countries, based on adjusted Eurostat data.\n(92)\nOn this basis and as shown in Table 1 above, Union consumption increased significantly during the period considered, i.e. by 21 %.\n3. Volume, market share and prices of imports from the PRC\nTable 2\nImports from the PRC in volume, market share and import price\nIndices\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nImports volume\n100\n183\n168\n213\nMarket share\n100\n159\n143\n176\nCIF Import price Eur/tonnes\n100\n106\n120\n188\nSource: Adjusted Eurostat statistics.\n(93)\nDuring the period considered the import volumes from the PRC increased by 113 % while the consumption in the Union increased by 21 %. The figures include imports of silicon from the Republic of Korea, as in 2007 measures were extended to that country following an anti-circumvention proceeding. Despite the anti-dumping measures in place the Chinese market share increased by seventy six percentage points during the period considered and it is well above the 3,9 % market share held in 2002, the RIP of the previous investigation. However, the vast majority, i.e. around 90 % of the quantities imported from the PRC, were placed under the Inward Processing Regime with suspended payment of duties.\n(94)\nAverage import prices from the PRC increased by 88 % over the period considered. However the higher increase in prices occurred between 2007 and the RIP.\n(95)\nThe Union industry\u2019s average ex-works price was compared with the Chinese CIF average import prices at the Union frontier. These prices were derived from adjusted Eurostat figures and included post-importation costs, customs and anti-dumping duties. The comparison showed that Chinese import prices did not undercut the Union industry\u2019s sales price during the RIP. The Chinese average import prices included also the sales of Chinese silicon destined for Inward Processing. It should be noted that prices of silicon destined for Inward Processing, which represented the vast majority of Chinese imports, were found, on average, to be 15 % higher during the RIP than prices of silicon for free circulation.\n(96)\nBased on the above it was found that if measures had not been in place Chinese import prices for quantities destined for free circulation would have undercut those of the Union industry by 12 %.\n4. Volume, market share and prices of imports from other third countries\nTable 3\nImports from other third countries (volume)\nIndices\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nNorway\n100\n114\n100\n113\nBrazil\n100\n113\n123\n93\nRussia\n100\n39\n114\n116\nBosnia Herzegovina\n100\n202\n165\n174\nOther third countries\n100\n110\n101\n118\nTotal\n100\n112\n112\n110\nMarket share\n100\n97\n95\n91\nSource: Eurostat.\nTable 4\nImports from other third countries (average prices)\nIndices\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nNorway\n100\n93\n101\n128\nBrazil\n100\n98\n108\n149\nRussia\n100\n130\n116\n170\nBosnia Herzegovina\n100\n102\n116\n163\nOther third countries\n100\n112\n116\n119\nTotal\n100\n100\n108\n145\nSource: Eurostat.\n(97)\nWhilst the total import volumes of silicon from third countries other than the PRC and the Republic of Korea increased by 10 % during the period considered, the market share of these imports fell by nine percentage points in the RIP. The major exporters to the Union were Brazil, Norway and Russia, while Bosnia Herzegovina was a new source of supply.\n(98)\nPrices of imports from these countries increased by 45 % over the period considered. They were on average 15 % above the Chinese prices except in the RIP when they were 5 % lower.\n5. Economic situation of the Union industry\n5.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\nTable 5\nUnion production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\nIndex\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nProduction\n100\n94\n108\n107\nY/Y trend\n-\n-6 %\n14 %\n0 %\nProduction capacity\n100\n102\n112\n114\nY/Y trend\n-\n2 %\n11 %\n2 %\nCapacity utilisation\n100\n92\n96\n94\nY/Y trend\n-\n-8 %\n3 %\n-2 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(99)\nThe Union industry\u2019s production increased by 7 % during the period considered. The production capacity of the Union industry showed an overall increase of 14 % in the period considered as a result of investments. However capacity utilisation decreased by 6 % during the period considered. This development has to be seen against the background of the significant increase in Union consumption by 21 % during the same period.\n5.2. Inventories\nTable 6\nInventories\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n91\n82\n82\nY/Y trend\n-\n-9 %\n-9 %\n0 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(100)\nStocks decreased by 18 % during the period considered. This was due to high demand, in particular during 2007 and the RIP which were exceptionally favourable periods in the economic cycle. Stocks in 2005 represented around 27 % of the Union industry\u2019s EU sales volume while they fell to 19 % of EU sales volume during the RIP.\n5.3. Sales, market share and prices\nTable 7\nSales volumes and values\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nSales in volume (index)\n100\n103\n116\n118\nY/Y trend\n-\n3 %\n13 %\n2 %\nSales in value (index)\n100\n105\n132\n178\nY/Y trend\n-\n5 %\n27 %\n45 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\nTable 8\nUnion industry\u2019s market share\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n89\n98\n98\nY/Y trend\n-\n-11 %\n9 %\n-1 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry, adjusted Eurostat statistics.\nTable 9\nUnion industry unit sales prices\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n102\n114\n150\nY/Y trend\n-\n2 %\n12 %\n37 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(101)\nThe Union industry sales volume increased by 18 % during the period considered. At the same time, sales value increased by 78 %, with major increases occurring in 2007 and the RIP, as a result of the increased demand on the silicon market. However, the market share of the Union industry decreased by two percentage points in the RIP. The decrease in the Union industry\u2019s market share as well as the decrease in its capacity utilisation over the period considered as mentioned in recital 99 showed that the Union industry did not manage to fully take advantage of the increased demand and consumption in the silicon market, in terms of market share in particular.\n(102)\nUnit selling prices of the Union industry increased substantially in 2007 and in the RIP as during these 2 years there was a strong demand in the silicon market which led to exceptionally high prices. Over the period considered average prices of the Union industry increased by 50 %. The substantial increase in selling prices combined with a lower increase in costs of production played a major role in the significant improvement of the financial situation of the Union industry.\n5.4. Factors affecting Union prices\n(103)\nThe high demand throughout the period considered led to a significant increase in prices. Price levels of imports from third countries, including the PRC, followed the same increasing trend as the Union industry\u2019s prices.\n(104)\nDuring the period considered average unit costs of production increased by 21 % while the corresponding increase in the average unit selling price was 50 %.\n5.5. Employment, productivity and wages\nTable 10\nEmployment\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n93\n91\n100\nY/Y trend\n-\n-7 %\n-2 %\n9 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\nTable 11\nProductivity\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n101\n119\n108\nY/Y trend\n-\n1 %\n18 %\n-11 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\nTable 12\nWages (EUR/employee)\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n94\n107\n117\nY/Y trend\n-\n-6 %\n13 %\n10 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(105)\nEmployment remained stable overall during the period considered, while average wages increased by 17 %. Productivity increased by 8 % during the same period as a result of the increase in production volume.\n5.6. Profitability\nTable 13\nProfitability\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n161\n389\n671\nY/Y trend\n-\n61 %\n228 %\n282 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(106)\nThe profitability of the Union industry increased almost six fold from 2005 to the RIP reaching a high level during the RIP. These increased profits in 2007 and the RIP resulted from increased selling prices due to a strong demand in the silicon market as a result of the prevailing, exceptionally favourable, economic conditions. This was despite a 21 % increase in the costs of production over the period.\n5.7. Investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital\nTable 14\nInvestments and return on investments\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n135\n310\n717\nY/Y trend\n-\n35 %\n174 %\n408 %\nROI\n7 %\n14 %\n47 %\n96 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(107)\nInvestments increased significantly during the period considered, i.e. by six times, corresponding to around 30 % of the profits obtained. The Union industry demonstrated its commitment to the Union silicon market as the investments related to increases in production capacity, either by installing new machinery or by the upgrading of existing machinery. Additionally, they invested in the metallurgical process of the high purity silicon for use in the solar energy industries. This new product has very good prospects in the future.\n(108)\nThe investigation also showed that the return on investments, i.e. pre-tax net profit of the product expressed as a percentage of the net book value of fixed assets allocated to the product, increased notably during the period considered. The investigation did not bring to light any evidence that the Union industry had any major problems in raising capital.\n5.8. Cash flow\nTable 15\nCash flow\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n114\n348\n672\nY/Y trend\n-\n14 %\n233 %\n325 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(109)\nCash flow followed a similar positive trend to profitability, increasing significantly during the period considered.\n5.9. Growth\n(110)\nDuring the period considered the Union industry did not manage to fully take advantage of the significant growth in consumption while producing at 80 % of its capacity and lost two percentage points of its market share. Despite the measures in force, the Chinese imports mainly took over the increase in consumption with the vast quantities placed under the Inward Processing Regime.\n5.10. Magnitude of the dumping margin\n(111)\nDuring the RIP, despite the measures in force substantial dumping continued albeit at lower levels than those established in the original investigation, based both on the data obtained from the sole cooperating exporting producer granted IT and the calculations based on facts available.\n5.11. Recovery from the effects of past dumping\n(112)\nThe Union industry, in a positive economic context, managed to recover from past dumping, in particular in terms of sales volume, sales prices and profitability. It is recalled, however that dumping margins remained significant.\n5.12. Export activity of the Union industry\nTable 16\nExport volume of the Union industry\n2005\n2006\n2007\nRIP\nIndex\n100\n72\n168\n27\nY/Y trend\n-\n-28 %\n96 %\n- 141 %\nSource: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union industry.\n(113)\nUnion industry exports of silicon fell by more than half over the period considered, mainly in the RIP. Whilst in comparative terms this fall might appear dramatic, in absolute terms it is less significant, as the Union industry is not export oriented. The Union producers are strongly committed to the Union market. It should be noted, however, that some of the Union producers have related companies outside the Union producing and selling for these markets, thus decreasing the need for export from the Union.\n5.13. Conclusion on the situation of the Union industry\n(114)\nThe anti-dumping measures had a clear positive impact on the situation of the Union industry. During the period considered, all main injury indicators, such as production, productivity, stocks, sales volume, sales prices, investments, profitability and cash flow, showed positive developments. The profit achieved in the RIP reflects the fact that this was during an exceptionally favourable period in the economic cycle.\n(115)\nAs far as the market share of the Union industry is concerned, the slight decreasing trend could be considered as pointing to injury in the sense that, despite available production capacity, the Union industry did not manage to take advantage of the increased consumption.\n(116)\nIn conclusion, in view of the positive development of the indicators pertaining to the Union industry, it is considered that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the period concerned. It was therefore examined whether there was a likelihood of recurrence of injury should measures be allowed to lapse.\nG. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY\n1. Summary of the analysis of the likelihood of the continuation of dumping and the recurrence of injurious dumping\n(117)\nIt is recalled that despite the measures in force, Chinese imports increased substantially and took over the major part of the market share lost by the imports from third countries. The exporting producers in the PRC continued to dump at significant levels. Based on this, there is no reason to believe that the Chinese will not continue to dump. In addition, during the RIP, if measures had not been in place Chinese import prices for quantities destined for free circulation would have undercut those of the Union industry by 12 %.\n(118)\nIt is also noted that in 2007, following an anti-circumvention proceeding, the measures were extended to imports of silicon consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not. The extension of measures had a positive effect as imports of silicon from the Republic of Korea fell sharply.\n(119)\nThe investigation showed that the Chinese producers had significant spare capacities during the RIP i.e. around 540 000 tonnes. Despite the expected increase in demand in the PRC overcapacity is, as explained in recital 74, expected to persist in the coming years.\n(120)\nAs mentioned earlier, the Union market is a major outlet for the PRC, since the other major export market, the USA, has high anti-dumping measures in place against the PRC which is therefore practically inaccessible to Chinese exports.\n(121)\nChinese import prices were found to be lower than the third country import prices by 15 % on average and only in the RIP were higher by 5 %. In view of the Chinese exporting producers\u2019 interest for the Union market, it is expected, if measures were repealed, that a huge volume of exports at prices below those of the third countries would be directed to the Union market, with a strong overall depressing effect on prices.\n(122)\nEUSMET claimed that the 56 % market share held by third country imports compared to the relatively low market share held by the Chinese imports would have had a more decisive impact on Union producers\u2019 market share in the RIP particularly since the third country imports were 5 % lower priced than the Chinese. In this regard, it was found that, despite the prices of third country imports being 5 % lower in the RIP than those of imports from the PRC, the market share of the former imports fell by 4 % between 2007 and the RIP compared to a gain in market share of imports from the PRC of 34 % (see Tables 2 and 3 above). Over the same period, the market share of the Union industry was stable. In these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that third country imports had a decisive impact on the market share of the Union industry in the RIP.\n(123)\nIt was claimed that the Commission did not take into consideration the likely increase of the cost of production, based namely on higher electricity cost, shortage of power supply, increased investment cost, high inflation, increase in raw material prices and international transportation costs, when evaluating the likely development of Chinese export prices. Even if electricity costs would increase in China this is not the sole significant cost element. Furthermore, no indication was provided concerning the extent of such increase and its precise impact on the total cost and resulting sales prices. As far as the other elements are concerned, they are either purely speculative and/or were not sufficiently substantiated or quantified as to draw any meaningful conclusions thereon. It should also be noted that it is erroneous to assume that export prices are necessarily based on the level of the cost of production, since various other factors may also have an impact on the price level such as government policies or questions of supply and demand.\n(124)\nIt was also found that in third country markets where anti-dumping duties are not in force, Chinese export prices during the RIP were at levels lower than those to the Union.\n(125)\nIt was therefore concluded that there was a continuation of dumping and a likelihood of an increased volume of dumped imports exerting a downward pressure on prices in the Union, at least in the short term, if measures were repealed. Based on the above, there is no reason to believe that PRC prices will increase. Consequently, there is a likelihood of recurrence of injury as this would negatively affect the Union industry\u2019s profitability as well as its financial recovery observed during the RIP.\n2. Impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry - indications and likely development during the post RIP period\n(126)\nDuring a period of increasing consumption, the market share of the Union industry and the market share of imports from third countries decreased, while the market share of the Chinese imports increased significantly. In view of these mixed indicators (i.e. overall recovery by the Union industry, but loss of market share) and the fact that the RIP was an exceptionally favourable period in the economic cycle, the post-RIP developments were examined in order to get a clearer picture of likely future trends. It should also be recalled that the likelihood of recurrence of injury caused by downward pressure on prices may also be accentuated by the evolution of the global economy and its effects on demand and consumption.\n(127)\nBased on adjusted Eurostat data and the information provided by the Union industry on the development of sales volumes and prices in the Union for the period from January 2009 to September 2009, a clear and continuous downward trend in the Union industry\u2019s sales volume on the Union market could be observed. Sales volume amounted to 52 % of the quantity sold in the corresponding 9 months of 2008 although average selling prices remained at the same level as in 2008 due to long-term contracts and production cuts.\n(128)\nAs far as the Union industry\u2019s profitability was concerned the negative development was significant. Profit levels shrank continuously and fell to low levels and even below the 6,5 % target profit set during the original investigation.\n(129)\nIt is noted that due to the global economic crisis, demand in the Union decreased significantly. This had a negative impact on sales volumes and profitability on the Union market. The financial position of the Union industry deteriorated, making the Union industry more vulnerable. Under these circumstances the Union industry would not be in a position to overcome the negative impact of increased dumped imports from the PRC. This situation is likely to deteriorate further due to the pressure of such imports.\n(130)\nChinese imports decreased both in terms of volumes and prices with the former being more substantial. In terms of prices Chinese imports prices decreased more than the Union industry prices (8 % over 2 % respectively). No undercutting or underselling was found for the post RIP period. However, if measures had not been in place Chinese import prices would have undercut those of the Union industry by 3 % and there would have been an underselling of 11 %. In addition, it was found that if measures were lifted, import prices for quantities destined for the free market would have undercut those of the Union industry by 22 % and the underselling would have been up to 38 %.\n(131)\nIt was also found that Chinese export prices in third country markets not protected by anti-dumping duties were at much lower levels than those to the Union compared with those found during the RIP, as mentioned in recital 123. This shows that in times of economic downturn the downward pressure on prices increases.\n(132)\nOn the basis of the above, and given the clear downward trend of the Union industry\u2019s financial situation, it was concluded that a recurrence of injury was likely should measures be allowed to lapse.\n3. Conclusions on the likelihood of recurrence of injury\n(133)\nIt is considered that if measures were repealed, there would be a likelihood of a significant increase in dumped imports from the PRC to the Union, with downward pressure on prices. Such a situation would not only endanger the substantial investments made by the Union industry to develop and upgrade its production but also the development of a new production for solar silicon which is a future market. Furthermore, the likelihood of the recurrence of injury is magnified by the recent economic downturn.\nH. UNION INTEREST\n1. Preliminary remark\n(134)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation it was examined whether the continuation of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of Union interest was based on an appreciation of the various interests involved, i.e. those of the Union industry, importers/traders and users of the product concerned.\n(135)\nIt is recalled that in the previous reviews the adoption of measures was not considered to be against the Union interest. Furthermore, as the present investigation is an expiry review, it requires analysis of a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place and the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.\n(136)\nOn this basis it was examined whether there were compelling reasons which would lead to the conclusion that it was not in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case, despite the above conclusions on the likelihood of continuation of dumping and the likelihood of recurrence of injury.\n2. Interests of the Union industry\n(137)\nIt is recalled that the high profit margins achieved in 2007 and the RIP were the result of the increase in selling prices. This factor was not expected to continue in the coming years.\n(138)\nThe Union industry has proven to be a viable and competitive industry, able to adapt to the changing conditions of the market. This was confirmed in particular by the positive development of all main injury indicators during the period considered. The continuation of measures since the last expiry review had contributed to the restoration of the financial situation of the Union industry and in particular of the price levels on the Union market.\n(139)\nDuring the period considered the Union industry demonstrated its commitment to the Union silicon market and improved its efficiency significantly. The Union industry made substantial investments in increasing not only its production capacity but also in developing research and technology in the metallurgical process for the production of high purity silicon for the solar energy industries.\n(140)\nThe solar silicon market is a new market with excellent future prospects due to the expected increase in the use of solar energy in the coming years. It is therefore vital for the Union industry to participate in this new market. In this respect, two of the Union producers have plans to construct two new plants for solar silicon in the Union to cover part of the Union market\u2019s needs. It should be noted that the investments made in this new niche market are highly dependent on the existence of the traditional production of silicon in the EU which is the main raw material used in the production of solar silicon.\n(141)\nMoreover, one of the Union producers has announced its plans to invest in new facilities in the PRC to cover the expected increased needs of the Chinese market for both traditional silicon and solar silicon.\n(142)\nAs mentioned above, if measures were allowed to lapse the risk of recurrence of injury is very likely and would endanger the recent investments made by the Union industry. It is therefore in the interests of the Union industry that measures against the dumped imports from the PRC be maintained.\n3. Interests of unrelated importers/traders\n(143)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all known unrelated importers/traders. Replies were received from two unrelated importers which were also users of the product concerned. These companies\u2019 comments are dealt with under the section on interests of users below. One importer/trader made itself known but did not reply to the questionnaire.\n(144)\nIn view of the fact that, aside from sourcing from the PRC, the importers also have access to a supply of silicon from both Union producers and third country sources free of anti-dumping duties, such as Norway and Brazil, which have more than 56 % of the Union market share, it is considered that competition on the Union market is ensured.\n(145)\nOn the basis of the above and given the lack of cooperation by any trader or any indication to the contrary, it was concluded that the current measures in force had no substantial negative effect on their financial situation and that the continuation of the measures would not affect the importers.\n4. Interests of users\n(146)\nIt is recalled that EUSMET, an association of users in the chemical sector, lodged the current interim review limited to dumping. The Commission sent questionnaires to all known unrelated users and their associations. Twelve users cooperated in the investigation, some of them being the main importers of Chinese silicon placed under the Inward Processing Regime. Additionally one other user association cooperated by submitting comments.\n(147)\nThe main industrial users of silicon in the Union are the chemical and aluminium industries which represent 60 % and 40 % of Union consumption respectively.\n(148)\nFor the chemical industry silicon is the main raw material for the production of both silicones used in a plethora of applications, in particular in the automotive and construction industries and polysilicon used in the electronics and solar energy industries. The proportion of silicon in the cost of production of the various types of silicones and polysilicon varied from 2 to 35 % depending on the production process of each type of downstream product. On average, however, the proportion of silicon in the total cost of production of silicones ranged between 11 and 21 % while for polysilicons it ranged between 2 and 10 %. With an anti-dumping duty of 19 %, the impact on the cost of production of those chemical users that source all of their silicon from the PRC is estimated to be between 2 and 4 %. For other chemical users the impact will be lower.\n(149)\nSome of the chemical companies cooperating in the investigation were the major importers of Chinese silicon placed under the Inward Processing Regime and thus free of anti-dumping duties. However, they argued that they could not absorb the duty or pass it on to their customers and that the Inward Processing Regime did not remove the burden created by the measures in force as they had to devote significant resources in burdensome customs and other administrative procedures. Moreover, they considered that they were driven to invest in new facilities in the PRC in order to be close to the source of cheap raw materials and become more competitive on the Asian market.\n(150)\nFor the aluminium industry silicon is also an important raw material for the production of casting alloys by the aluminium refiners. These alloys are used mainly by the automotive and construction industries. The proportion of silicon in their cost of production varied from 8 to 10 % depending on the quality of scrap they used which already contained silicon. Most of the aluminium refiners cooperating in the investigation purchased silicon from other third countries not subject to anti-dumping duties due to the fact that their products are destined mainly for the Union market and they cannot, therefore, make use of the Inward Processing Regime. With an anti-dumping duty of 19 %, the impact on the cost of production of the aluminium users that source all their silicon from the PRC is estimated to be around 2 %. For other aluminium users the impact will be lower. The investigation showed that aluminium refiners\u2019 profitability was not particularly high and thus, increases in silicon prices have a negative impact on their profits due to their limited margin.\n(151)\nThe chemical industry had around 14 000 employees and the aluminium industry 6 000. During the period considered employment in the chemical industry increased by 8 % while in the aluminium industry it remained stable.\n(152)\nAll users strongly opposed the continuation of measures on the grounds that measures had been in force for too long, that they artificially increased the price levels of silicon in the Union market irrespective of origin and that the Union industry had not suffered injury during the RIP. However, in view of the extremely high market share held by the Chinese exporters for silicon destined for inward processing and the competition for silicon destined for free circulation, this statement is not substantiated. Whilst it was indeed found that for the most part the Union industry did not suffer injury, the question of the likelihood of recurrence of injury also has to be considered in an expiry review. As stated above (see recital 133 in particular), such likelihood was found in this case.\n(153)\nEUSMET has alleged there was a shortage of silicon in the RIP on the Union market as demonstrated by its claim that orders of some of its members had not been met by third countries\u2019 producers. However, this claim was not substantiated. In assessing available capacity on the market, EUSMET only took account of the Union producers\u2019 capacity without taking into account imports from third countries including China placed under the Inward Processing Regime. In conclusion, therefore, it is maintained that there was no shortage and that the demand on the market could be met on the basis of the sales of the Union industry and the volume of imports.\n(154)\nEUSMET claimed also that the Union industry deliberately limits production through seasonal shutdowns and therefore limits sales on the Union market in order to control sales prices. One Union producer has resorted to production shutdowns but during these periods, they had sufficient stock to supply their customers according to their long term contracts in place. Another Union producer had some production cuts but only in the post-RIP and these were not repeated. Therefore, EUSMET claim that shutdowns were intended to control prices was considered to be unfounded.\n(155)\nUsers, understandably, want to have free access to cheap raw materials in order to be more competitive. They consider freedom of sourcing essential since unrestricted access to silicon will in their view, become more important in the future due to the expected increase in demand for silicon by 2013, largely linked to the solar-related projects. EUSMET argued that with the expected increased demand in the Union silicon market in the years to 2013, the alleged shortage will increase. Nevertheless, the figures provided on which the assumptions have been based, show that the Union consumption even in 2013 will be at lower level than the one existing during the period considered. There is therefore no reason why the future silicon demand could not be met. In addition, freedom of sourcing cannot by itself justify the acceptance of dumping practices. Competition on the Union market requires a level playing field for all operators.\n(156)\nThe chemical users also pointed out that the Union industry would remain an important source of supply as a guarantee for short-term availability of the product concerned, reliability of supply and a higher quality product than the Chinese one.\n(157)\nNevertheless, the investigation showed that the measures in force did not have any significant negative effects on their business. In particular some users in the chemical industry considerably increased their imports of silicon from the PRC during the period concerned and most of them were in a healthy financial situation. In summary, it was considered that, as in the previous expiry reviews, the continuation of the measures would not have a significantly negative effect on the industrial users, bearing also in mind that the level of the measures proposed would be significantly reduced.\n5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(158)\nGiven the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the prolongation of the anti-dumping measures.\n\u0399. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(159)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the measures be maintained but at lower levels. They were also granted a period to submit comments and claims subsequent to disclosure. Relevant representations submitted were analysed but have not led to the alteration of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to maintain the anti-dumping measures.\n(160)\nAs a result of the interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, an anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in PRC at the level of the lesser of the injury margin on which the measures in force are based and the dumping margins found in the current review.\n(161)\nConsequently, measures will be set at the level of the dumping margins found; i.e. 16,3 % for the sole company group granted IT and to 19,0 % for all other companies.\n(162)\nOn this basis, the measures extended by Council Regulation (EC) No 42/2007 (13) to imports of silicon consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not, following an investigation in accordance with Article 13 of the basic Regulation should be maintained but at the levels set out in recital 161.\n(163)\nExporters in the Republic of Korea which intend to lodge a request for an exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation will be required to complete a questionnaire in order to enable the Commission to determine whether an exemption may be warranted. Such exemption may be granted after the assessment of the market situation of the product concerned, production capacity and capacity utilisation, procurement and sales and the likelihood of continuation of practices for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification and the evidence of dumping. The Commission would normally also carry out an on-the-spot verification visit. The request would have to be addressed to the Commission, with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production and export sales of the product under consideration,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of silicon, currently falling within CN code 2804 69 00, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union frontier price, before duty, for the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below, shall be as follows:\nCompany\nDuty rate\nTARIC additional code\nDatong Jinneng Industrial Silicon Co., Pingwang Industry Garden, Datong, Shanxi\n16,3 %\nA971\nAll other companies\n19 %\nA999\n3. The extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to imports from \u2018all other companies\u2019 in the People\u2019s Republic of China (i.e. 19 %) to imports of the product described in paragraph 1 consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not, is hereby maintained (TARIC code 2804690010).\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Requests for exemption from the extended duty, mentioned in Article 1(3), shall be made in writing in one of the official languages of the Union and must be signed by a person authorised to represent the applicant.\n2. The request must be sent to the following address:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate B\nOffice: N-105 04/17\n1049 Bruxelles/Brussel\nBELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb\nFax +32 22956505\n3. In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, may authorise, by decision, the exemption of imports from companies, which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by the current regulation, from the extended duty mentioned in Article 1(3).\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall be in force for a period of 5 years.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2010.", "references": ["16", "50", "2", "18", "62", "93", "60", "67", "75", "27", "49", "58", "76", "32", "28", "61", "85", "74", "98", "82", "13", "90", "94", "71", "24", "66", "65", "4", "68", "43", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/449/CFSP\nof 11 August 2010\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for the South Caucasus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 20 February 2006, the Council adopted Joint Action 2006/121/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Peter SEMNEBY European Union Special Representative (hereinafter \u2018the EUSR\u2019) for the South Caucasus.\n(2)\nOn 22 February 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/109/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 31 August 2010.\n(3)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 28 February 2011 or until the Council decides, on a proposal by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter \u2018the HR\u2019), that appropriate corresponding functions to those under Decision 2010/109/CFSP have been established in the European External Action Service and terminates the mandate.\n(4)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/109/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Peter SEMNEBY as the EUSR for the South Caucasus is hereby extended until 28 February 2011 or until the Council decides, on a proposal by the HR, that appropriate corresponding functions to those under the current Decision have been established in the European External Action Service and terminates the mandate.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 March 2010 to 31 August 2010 shall be EUR 1 855 000.\n2. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 September 2010 to 28 February 2011 shall be EUR 1 410 000.\n3. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n4. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["84", "18", "85", "14", "33", "23", "53", "55", "16", "87", "68", "30", "10", "12", "27", "71", "20", "21", "89", "52", "4", "48", "31", "83", "45", "0", "40", "92", "63", "72", "No Label", "3", "9", "11", "91"], "gold": ["3", "9", "11", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 20 September 2011\non imports into the Union of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species\n(notified under document C(2011) 6426)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/630/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 88/407/EEC of 14 June 1988 laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species (1), and in particular Article 8(1), the first subparagraph of Article 10(2), and Article 11(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 88/407/EEC lays down the animal health conditions applicable to imports from third countries into the Union of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species. It provides that only semen that comes from a third country included on a list of third countries drawn up in accordance with that Directive and accompanied by an animal health certificate corresponding to a model also drawn up in accordance with that Directive, is to be imported into the Union. The animal health certificate is to certify that semen comes from semen collection and storage centres offering guarantees provided for in Article 9(1) of that Directive.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2004/639/EC of 6 September 2004 laying down the importation conditions of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species (2) currently sets out the list of third countries from which Member States are to authorise imports of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species in Annex I thereto.\n(3)\nUnder Article 8(2) of Directive 88/407/EEC, a Member State may authorise imports of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species only from those third countries which appear on a list to be drawn up in accordance with that Directive. In deciding whether a third country may appear on such a list, particular account is to be taken of various conditions, such as the state of health of the livestock.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 of 12 March 2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements (3) repealed and replaced Council Decision 79/542/EEC of 21 December 1976 drawing up a list of third countries or parts of third countries, and laying down animal and public health and veterinary certification conditions, for importation into the Community of certain live animals and their fresh meat (4). Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 sets out a list of third countries authorised for the introduction of ungulates into the Union in Annex I thereto. The conditions for the introduction of ungulates, laid down in that Regulation, are similar to the conditions for imports of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species laid down in Directive 88/407/EEC.\n(5)\nThere is no scientific evidence suggesting that, with regard to major exotic contagious diseases, the risks arising from the health status of the donor bovine male could be mitigated by treatment of the semen. Accordingly, the list of third countries from which Member States are to authorise imports of semen should be based on the animal health status of the third countries from which imports of live domestic animals of the bovine species are authorised. The list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 includes Chile, Iceland and Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Therefore, those third countries should also be included in the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2004/639/EC.\n(6)\nThe model animal health certificate in Part 1 of Annex II to Decision 2004/639/EC includes the animal health conditions for imports of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species into the Union. Currently, the conditions for enzootic bovine leukosis and epizootic haemorrhagic disease in that certificate are not entirely consistent with those set out respectively in Chapter I(1)(c) of Annex B to Directive 88/407/EEC and in the Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). As a result, that model animal health certificate should be amended to take account of that provision of that Directive and that Manual.\n(7)\nThe model animal health certificate in Part 3 of Annex II to Decision 2004/639/EC applies to imports and transits of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species dispatched from a semen storage centre or a semen collection centre either collected and processed in accordance with the conditions of Directive 88/407/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 2003/43/EC (5), or collected processed and stored before 31 December 2004 in conformity with the provisions of Directive 88/407/EEC applying until 1 July 2003, and imported after 31 December 2004 in accordance with Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/43/EC.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure full traceability of the semen, the model animal health certificate in Part 3 of Annex II to Decision 2004/639/EC should be supplemented by additional certification requirements and only used for trade in semen of domestic animals of the bovine species collected in the semen collection centres and dispatched from a semen storage centre, whether or not the latter constitute part of a semen collection centre approved under a different approval number. As a result, the model animal health certificate in Part 3 of Annex II to Decision 2004/639/EC should be adapted accordingly by this Decision.\n(9)\nIt is also necessary to adapt by this Decision the dates in the titles of model health certificates in Part 2 and Part 3 of Annex II to Decision 2004/639/EC related to the stocks of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species collected, processed and stored before 31 December 2004 to reflect the provisions of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/43/EC.\n(10)\nThere are bilateral agreements concluded between the Union and certain third countries containing specific conditions for the imports into the Union of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species. Therefore, where the bilateral agreements contain specific conditions and model animal health certificates for imports, those conditions and models should apply instead of the conditions and models set out in this Decision.\n(11)\nOn the basis of Directive 88/407/EEC, Canada was recognised as a third country with an animal health status equivalent to that of Member States for imports into the Union of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species.\n(12)\nIt is therefore appropriate that semen of domestic animals of the bovine species collected in Canada and imported into the Union from that third country is accompanied by a simplified certificate drawn up in accordance with the model set out in Commission Decision 2005/290/EC of 4 April 2005 on simplified certificates for the importation of bovine semen and fresh pig meat from Canada and amending Decision 2004/639/EC (6) laid down in accordance with 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 (7), as approved by Council Decision 1999/201/EC (8).\n(13)\nSwitzerland is a third country with an animal health status equivalent to that of Member States. It is therefore appropriate that semen of domestic animals of the bovine species imported into the Union from Switzerland is accompanied by an animal health certificate drawn up in accordance with the models used for trade within the Union in semen of domestic animals of the bovine species set out in Annex D to Directive 88/407/EEC, with the adaptations set out in point 4 of Chapter VII(B) of Appendix 2 of Annex 11 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Trade in Agricultural Products, as approved by Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council, and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation (9).\n(14)\nIn the interest of clarity and consistency of Union legislation, Decision 2004/639/EC should be repealed and replaced by this Decision.\n(15)\nTo avoid any disruption of trade, the use of animal health certificates issued in accordance with Decision 2004/639/EC should be authorised during a transitional period subject to certain conditions.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision lays down a list of third countries or parts thereof from which Members States shall authorise imports into the Union of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species (semen).\nIt also lays down certification requirements for the imports of semen into the Union.\nArticle 2\nImports of semen\n1. Member States shall authorise imports of semen provided that it complies with the following conditions:\n(a)\nit comes from a third country or part thereof listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nit comes from a semen collection or storage centre listed in accordance with Article 9(2) of Directive 88/407/EEC;\n(c)\nit is accompanied by an animal health certificate drawn up in accordance with the following model animal health certificates set out in Part 1 of Annex II, and completed in accordance with the explanatory notes set out in Part 2 of that Annex:\n(i)\nModel 1 as set out in Section A, for semen collected, processed and stored in accordance with Directive 88/407/EEC, as amended by Directive 2003/43/EC, dispatched from a semen collection centre where the semen was collected;\n(ii)\nModel 2 as set out in Section B, for stocks of semen collected, processed and stored before 31 December 2004 in conformity with the provisions of Directive 88/407/EEC applying until 1 July 2004, and imported after 31 December 2004 in accordance with Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/43/EC, dispatched from a semen collection centre where the semen was collected;\n(iii)\nModel 3 as set out in Section C, for semen and stocks of semen referred to in (i) and (ii), dispatched from a semen storage centre;\n(d)\nit complies with the requirements set out in the animal health certificates referred to in point (c).\n2. Where specific animal health and certification conditions are laid down in bilateral agreements between the Union and third countries, those conditions shall apply instead of the conditions in paragraph 1.\nArticle 3\nConditions concerning the transport of semen to the Union\n1. The semen and stocks of semen referred to in Article 2 shall not be transported in the same container as other consignments of semen that:\n(a)\nare not intended for introduction into the Union; or\n(b)\nare of a lower health status.\n2. During transport to the Union, semen and stocks of semen shall be placed in closed and sealed containers and the seal shall not be broken during transport.\nArticle 4\nRepeal\nDecision 2004/639/EC is repealed.\nArticle 5\nTransitional provision\nFor a transitional period until 30 April 2012, Member States shall authorise imports of semen and stocks of semen from third countries which are accompanied by an animal health certificate issued not later than 31 March 2012 in accordance with the models set out in Annex II to Decision 2004/639/EC.\nArticle 6\nApplicability\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 November 2011.\nArticle 7\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2011.", "references": ["69", "62", "1", "13", "36", "60", "74", "77", "82", "41", "87", "89", "85", "40", "43", "67", "81", "28", "5", "29", "96", "34", "38", "10", "54", "59", "46", "37", "15", "79", "No Label", "21", "22", "65", "66"], "gold": ["21", "22", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 April 2012\nappointing a Finnish member and a Finnish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/216/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Finnish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Folke SJ\u00d6LUND.\n(3)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Britt LUNDBERG,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas member:\n-\nMs Gun-Mari LINDHOLM, Kansliminister, \u00c5land;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate member:\n-\nMr Wille VALVE, Ledamot av \u00c5lands lagting.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["24", "18", "29", "8", "87", "46", "77", "32", "78", "2", "59", "50", "99", "73", "16", "35", "0", "9", "66", "4", "26", "33", "65", "75", "95", "44", "68", "67", "6", "27", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 469/2011\nof 13 May 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic anti-dumping Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 9(4) and 14(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (2) (\u2018the basic anti-subsidy Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 18(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 10 December 1999 and following an investigation (\u2018the original anti-subsidy investigation\u2019), the Council imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999, a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India (3). Following an anti-dumping investigation (\u2018the original anti-dumping investigation\u2019) and after imposition, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 367/2001, of a provisional anti-dumping duty on 24 February 2001 (4), a definitive anti-dumping duty on PET film originating in India was imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (5).\n(2)\nOn 8 March 2006, two Council Regulations concerning imports of PET film originating in India were published: Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 (6) which followed an expiry review investigation and maintained the definitive countervailing duty (\u2018the expiry review anti-subsidy Regulation\u2019); and Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 (7) (\u2018the amending anti-dumping Regulation\u2019) which followed a partial interim review investigation and amended the definitive anti-dumping duty on such imports.\n(3)\nOn 6 November 2007, following an expiry review, a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in India was imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 (8).\n(4)\nOn 20 May 2010, a notice (9) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. In that notice, parties were informed that, in view of the judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2009 in Case T-143/06 (10) (\u2018the judgement\u2019), imports into the European Union of PET film manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms Limited (\u2018MTZ Polyfilms\u2019) are no longer subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by the amending anti-dumping Regulation and Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 and that definitive anti-dumping duties paid pursuant to these Regulations on imports of MTZ Polyfilms should be repaid or remitted. The notice also partially reopened the relevant anti-dumping review investigation concerning imports of PET film originating, inter alia, in India in order to implement the above judgment of the General Court as far as MTZ Polyfilms is concerned.\n(5)\nThe countervailing duty imposed by the expiry review anti-subsidy Regulation expired on 9 March 2011 (11) according to Article 18(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. In line with the principle that no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with one and the same situation arising from dumping or from export subsidisation, the level of the anti-dumping duty rates imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 was set taking into account the amount of the countervailing duty imposed by the expiry review anti-subsidy Regulation, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. In view of the expiry of the countervailing duty, the anti-dumping duty rates now have to be adjusted.\n2. ANTI-DUMPING DUTY RATES AFTER EXPIRY OF THE COUNTERVAILING DUTY ON THE SAME IMPORTS\n(6)\nAs indicated in recital 5, the expiry of the countervailing duty on PET film originating in India, on 9 March 2011, requires an adjustment of the anti-dumping duty rates. Indeed, the anti-dumping duty established by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 consists of the dumping margin minus the subsidisation margin relating to export subsidies. As the countervailing duty has now expired, the level of the anti-dumping duty rates has to be redetermined.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 9(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, the amount of the anti-dumping duty shall not exceed the margin of dumping established but should be less than that margin if such lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry. Consequently, the duty level should be established at the lowest level of the dumping margin and injury elimination level.\n(8)\nIn this respect, it is recalled that, in the original anti-dumping investigation, the injury elimination level was in all cases above the dumping margins, as laid out in recital 195 of Regulation (EC) No 367/2001 and confirmed by recital 74 of Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001. Therefore, the anti-dumping duty should be set at the level of the dumping margins established in respect of the various Indian manufacturers, which are as follows:\nCompany\nDumping margin and AD duty rate\nReference\nEster Industries Limited\n29,3 %\nRegulation (EC) No 366/2006\nGarware Polyester Limited\n0 %\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 38/2011 (12)\nJindal Poly Films Limited\n0 %\nRegulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (15)\nPolyplex Corporation Limited\n3,7 %\nRegulation (EC) No 366/2006\nSRF Limited\n15,5 %\nRegulation (EC) No 1424/2006 (13)\nUflex Limited\n3,2 %\nRegulation (EC) No 366/2006 (16)\nVacmet India Limited\n0 %\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 205/2011 (14)\nAll other companies (except MTZ Polyfilms)\n29,3 %\nRegulation (EC) No 366/2006\n(9)\nAll known Indian exporting producers of PET film, the Indian authorities and the Union industry of PET film have received disclosure of the above course of action.\n(10)\nFollowing this disclosure, several Indian companies argued that, as no expiry review was requested for the countervailing measures, the Union industry was apparently in good shape and, therefore, the anti-dumping measures should be terminated as well. In addition, one exporting producer argued that the average dumping margin of the sample should be recalculated since, following an interim review, Garware Polyester Limited, which was one of the companies in the sample, had recently been made subject to a revised individual dumping margin. It should be noted that both claims go beyond the limited scope of the current Regulation which only aims at adjusting the level of the existing anti-dumping duty rates following the expiry of the concurrent countervailing measures on the same imports. Any request to amend the level of the anti-dumping duty rates following an alleged change in circumstances should be presented pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, these claims have to be rejected.\n(11)\nOne Indian exporting producer argued that, as the countervailing duties had expired, the Commission should now grant a price adjustment to the Indian exporters using the DEPB scheme, which it had refused during the original investigation and interim review investigation. Without prejudice to whether such claim could be examined in the context of the current amending Regulation, it should be noted that, as summarised in recital 50 of Regulation (EC) No 367/2001 and recital 47 of the amending anti-dumping Regulation, the price adjustment claim for DEPB had not been accepted as the producers concerned had not demonstrated that price comparability between domestic and EU sales prices had been affected by the DEPB benefits. That situation has not changed with the expiry of the countervailing duty and this claim, therefore, has to be rejected.\n(12)\nNo further substantive comments were received. Consequently, the duty rates should be revised to the levels of the dumping margin, as indicated in the table under recital 8 above,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nDefinitive Duty\n(%)\nTARIC Additional Code\nEster Industries Limited\n75-76, Amrit Nagar,\nBehind South Extension Part-1,\nNew Delhi - 110 003,\nIndia\n29,3\nA026\nGarware Polyester Limited\nGarware House,\n50-A, Swami Nityanand Marg,\nVile Parle (East),\nMumbai 400 057,\nIndia\n0\nA028\nJindal Poly Films Limited\n56 Hanuman Road,\nNew Delhi 110 001,\nIndia\n0\nA030\nPolyplex Corporation Limited\nB-37, Sector-1,\nNoida 201 301,\nDist. Gautam Budh Nagar,\nUttar Pradesh,\nIndia\n3,7\nA032\nSRF Limited\nBlock C, Sector 45,\nGreenwood City,\nGurgaon 122 003, Haryana,\nIndia\n15,5\nA753\nUflex Limited\nA-1, Sector 60,\nNoida 201 301, (U.P.),\nIndia\n3,2\nA027\nVacmet India Limited\nAnant Plaza, IInd Floor, 4/117-2A,\nCivil Lines, Church Road,\nAgra 282 002, Uttar Pradesh,\nIndia\n0\nA992\nAll other companies (except MTZ Polyfilms Limited - TARIC additional code A031 (17))\n29,3\nA999\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 May 2011.", "references": ["4", "49", "27", "73", "72", "66", "74", "29", "14", "42", "7", "16", "92", "94", "86", "45", "28", "84", "91", "87", "55", "43", "53", "82", "1", "93", "59", "70", "5", "76", "No Label", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 460/2010\nof 27 May 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on tomatoes, apricots, lemons, plums, peaches, including nectarines, pears and table grapes\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2) provides for surveillance of imports of the products listed in Annex XVII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of the application of Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest figures available for 2007, 2008 and 2009, the trigger levels for additional duties on tomatoes, apricots, lemons, plums, peaches, including nectarines, pears and table grapes should be amended.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2010.", "references": ["43", "56", "52", "87", "94", "35", "31", "30", "90", "54", "5", "51", "89", "74", "91", "96", "1", "11", "6", "88", "85", "84", "48", "78", "82", "61", "22", "7", "37", "32", "No Label", "4", "10", "17", "21", "25", "62"], "gold": ["4", "10", "17", "21", "25", "62"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 915/2011\nof 13 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2011.", "references": ["25", "11", "8", "21", "4", "23", "18", "56", "50", "44", "98", "76", "41", "88", "63", "2", "12", "7", "38", "77", "6", "89", "91", "37", "71", "14", "90", "29", "36", "27", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 837/2010\nof 23 September 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste to certain non-OECD countries\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 37(2) thereof,\nAfter consultation of the countries concerned,\nWhereas:\nThe Commission has received a reply from Liberia to its written requests seeking confirmation in writing that certain waste which is listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 and the export of which is not prohibited under its Article 36 may be exported from the European Union for recovery in that country and requesting an indication from it as to which control procedure, if any, would be followed there. The Commission has also received further information relating to Andorra, China, Croatia and India. The Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 (2) should therefore be amended to take this into account,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the fourteenth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the date of entry into force.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2010.", "references": ["87", "8", "48", "65", "67", "81", "59", "43", "2", "17", "23", "99", "37", "46", "19", "18", "45", "83", "64", "11", "68", "14", "54", "76", "16", "4", "62", "3", "5", "28", "No Label", "20", "25", "58", "60", "91", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "25", "58", "60", "91", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 800/2010\nof 10 September 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 796/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 September 2010.", "references": ["81", "59", "87", "61", "73", "51", "93", "40", "85", "86", "74", "37", "28", "79", "43", "91", "60", "33", "39", "68", "4", "82", "58", "5", "64", "18", "20", "54", "55", "25", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 500/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 June 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union is a Party to the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (hereinafter \u2018the Convention\u2019).\n(2)\nAt its 16th Special Meeting in 2008, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (hereinafter \u2018ICCAT\u2019), established by the Convention, adopted Recommendation 08-05 to establish a new recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and in the Mediterranean, replacing the previous recovery plan adopted in 2006. In anticipation of Recommendation 08-05 becoming effective, Council Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 was adopted (3).\n(3)\nAt its 17th Special Meeting in 2010, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 10-04 amending the multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna. In order to rebuild the stock, Recommendation 10-04 provides for a further reduction of the total allowable catch, for the strengthening of measures to reduce the fishing capacity and for the reinforcement of the control measures, in particular concerning the transfer and the caging operations, and foresees additional advice by the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) in 2012 on the identification of spawning grounds and on the creation of sanctuaries.\n(4)\nRecommendation 10-04 is binding on the Union.\n(5)\nIn addition, certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 have become obsolete and should be deleted. Other provisions should be updated in order to reflect changes in legislation, in particular those resulting from the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (4).\n(6)\nIn order to provide for uniform conditions pertaining to transfer operations, caging operations and recording and reporting of tuna trap activities, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (5).\n(7)\nThe term \u2018Community\u2019 used in the enacting terms of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 should be changed in order to take into account the entry into force, on 1 December 2009, of the Treaty of Lisbon.\n(8)\nRecommendation 10-04 became effective on 13 August 2011. However, all Contracting Parties to the Convention, including the Union, agreed to apply those of its provisions applicable to the observer coverage, in the case of the Union to be ensured by the Member States, from 1 January 2011. Consequently, it is appropriate for the corresponding provisions of this Regulation to apply retroactively from 1 January 2011.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 302/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 302/2009 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, Article 4(13), Article 9(3), (4), (5), (8), (9) and (10), Article 11(1), Article 14(4), Article 15(3), Article 18(2), Article 21(1) and (4), Article 23(6), Article 29(1), (3), (4) and (5), Article 31(4) and Article 34(2) and (3), the noun \u2018Community\u2019, or the corresponding adjective, is replaced by the noun \u2018Union\u2019, or the corresponding adjective, and any grammatical adjustments needed as a consequence of this replacement shall be made;\n(2)\nin Article 1, the third paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The objective of the recovery plan that is in force from 2007 to the end of 2022 shall be to achieve a biomass corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield with at least 60 % probability.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\n\u201cauxiliary vessel\u201d means any vessel used to transport dead bluefin tuna (not processed) from a cage or a tuna trap to a designated port or to a processing vessel;\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (h) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(h)\n\u201ctransfer operations\u201d means:\n(i)\nany transfer of live bluefin tuna from the catching vessel\u2019s net to the transport cage;\n(ii)\nany transfer of live bluefin tuna from the transport cage to another transport cage;\n(iii)\nany transfer of a cage with bluefin tuna from a towing vessel to another towing vessel;\n(iv)\nany transfer of dead bluefin tuna from the transport cage to an auxiliary vessel;\n(v)\nany transfer from a bluefin tuna farm or a tuna trap to a processing vessel or to a transport vessel, or any transfer of a cage containing bluefin tuna from one farm to another;\n(vi)\nany transfer of live bluefin tuna from a tuna trap to a transport cage.\u2019;\n(c)\npoint (l) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(l)\n\u201cfarming\u201d means the caging of bluefin tuna for a period longer than six months, with the aim of increasing the biomass;\u2019;\n(d)\nthe following point is added:\n\u2018(q)\n\u201cresponsible Member State\u201d and \u201cMember State responsible\u201d mean the flag Member State or the Member State in whose jurisdiction the tuna trap or farm is located or, if the farm or tuna trap is located on the high seas, the Member State where the tuna trap or farm operator is established;\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. No later than 30 September each year, Member States shall transmit to the Commission the provisional annual fishing plan relating to the following year. The Commission shall compile the provisional annual national fishing plans and integrate them into the Union fishing plan that is to be transmitted to the ICCAT Secretariat for endorsement by ICCAT.\nNo later than 31 January each year, Member States shall transmit the final annual fishing plan to the Commission. The Commission shall compile the final annual national fishing plans and integrate them into the Union fishing plan that is to be transmitted to the ICCAT Secretariat by 1 March of each year.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraphs 12 and 14 are deleted;\n(5)\nArticle 5 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. Without prejudice to paragraph 6, the fishing capacity referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 and Article 9 shall be reduced, so as to eliminate:\n(a)\nby the beginning of 2010, for each Member State, at least 25 % of the discrepancy between its fishing capacity and its fishing capacity commensurate with its quota;\n(b)\nby the beginning of 2011, for each Member State, at least 75 % of the discrepancy between its fishing capacity and its fishing capacity commensurate with its quota;\n(c)\nby the beginning of 2012, for each Member State, at least 95 % of the discrepancy between its fishing capacity and its fishing capacity commensurate with its quota;\n(d)\nby the beginning of 2013, for each Member State, 100 % of the discrepancy between its fishing capacity and its fishing capacity commensurate with its quota.\nThe calculation of the fishing capacity reduction shall be based on the catch rates for categories of vessels in accordance with the methodology approved at the 2009 ICCAT annual meeting.\nThis reduction requirement shall not apply to a Member State which demonstrates that its fishing capacity is commensurate with its quota.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 9 is replaced by the following:\n\u20189. Each Member State shall establish a management plan in respect of fishing capacity for 2010-2013. That plan shall be submitted to the Commission by 15 August 2009, and shall include the information referred to in paragraphs 2, 4, 6 and 7. Furthermore, the plan shall include detailed information concerning the ways used, in addition to scrapping, by the Member State in order to eliminate overcapacity. If necessary, the plan shall be revised and submitted on an annual basis to the Commission by 15 August of each year.\nThe Commission shall compile the national management plans and integrate them into the Union management plan of fishing capacity that is to be submitted to ICCAT for discussion and approval.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 7 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Purse seine fishing for bluefin tuna shall be prohibited in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean during the period from 15 June to 15 May.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 6 is deleted;\n(7)\nin Article 14, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. No retroactive submissions shall be accepted. Subsequent changes to the lists referred to in paragraph 1 during a calendar year shall only be accepted if the notified fishing vessel is prevented from participating due to legitimate operational reasons or force majeure. In such circumstances the Member State concerned shall immediately inform the Commission of that fact, and shall provide:\n(a)\nfull details of the fishing vessel(s) intended to replace a vessel referred to in paragraph 1; and\n(b)\na comprehensive account of the reasons justifying the replacement and any relevant supporting evidence or references.\u2019;\n(8)\nin Article 18, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. In addition to complying with Articles 14, 15, 23 and 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (6), the master of an EU catching vessel shall, if applicable, enter in the logbook the information listed in Annex II to this Regulation.\n(9)\nin Article 19(1), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Joint fishing operations with other CPCs shall not be permitted.\u2019;\n(10)\nArticle 22 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 22\nTransfer operations\n1. Before any transfer operation, the master of a catching or towing vessel or the operator of the farm or tuna trap where the transfer in question originates shall send to the competent authorities of the respective responsible Member State a prior notification of transfer indicating:\n(a)\nthe name of the catching vessel, farm or tuna trap and the ICCAT register number;\n(b)\nthe estimated time of transfer;\n(c)\nthe estimate of the quantity of bluefin tuna to be transferred;\n(d)\ninformation on the position (latitude/longitude) where the transfer will take place as well as the identifiable cage numbers;\n(e)\nthe name of the receiving towing vessel, the number of cages towed and, where appropriate, the ICCAT register number;\n(f)\nthe port, farm or cage of destination of the bluefin tuna.\n2. The authorities of the responsible Member State shall decide for each transfer operation whether to grant authorisation. For this purpose, a unique identification number shall, for each transfer operation, be assigned and communicated to the master of the fishing vessel, the tuna trap operator or the farm operator, as appropriate. Where authorisation is granted, that number shall comprise the three-letter CPC code, the four numbers indicating the year, and the three letters \u201cAUT\u201d, (authorisation), followed by sequential numbers. Where authorisation is refused, the number shall comprise the three letters of the CPCs code, the four numbers indicating the year, and the three letters \u201cNEG\u201d (non-authorisation), followed by sequential numbers. Transfer operations shall not begin without a prior authorisation.\nThe transfer shall be authorised or not authorised by the Member State responsible for the catching vessel, towing vessel, farm or tuna trap, as appropriate, within 48 hours following the submission of the prior notification of transfer. The Member State shall not authorise the transfer if, on receipt of the prior notification of transfer, it considers that:\n(a)\nthe catching vessel or the tuna trap that is declared to have caught the fish does not have sufficient quota;\n(b)\nthe quantity of fish has not been duly reported by the catching vessel or the tuna trap operator or has not been authorised to be caged, and has not been taken into account for the consumption of the quota that may be applicable;\n(c)\nthe catching vessel that is declared to have caught the fish is not authorised to fish for bluefin tuna; or\n(d)\nthe towing vessel declared to be the one to receive the transfer of fish is not registered in the ICCAT record of all other fishing vessels (catching vessels excluded) authorised to operate for bluefin tuna, referred to in Article 14(3), or is not equipped with a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS).\n3. If the transfer is not authorised:\n(a)\nthe Member State responsible for the catching vessel shall issue a release order and inform the master of the catching vessel that the transfer is not authorised and that the fish have to be released into the sea;\n(b)\nthe master of the catching vessel, the farm operator or the tuna trap operator, as appropriate, shall release the fish into the sea;\n(c)\nthe release of bluefin tuna into the sea shall be recorded by video camera and observed by an ICCAT regional observer who shall draft and submit a report together with the video recording to the ICCAT Secretariat.\n4. The master of a catching or towing vessel, the tuna trap operator or the farm operator shall, at the end of the transfer operation, complete and transmit to the competent authorities of the responsible Member State the ICCAT transfer declaration, in accordance with the format set out in Annex VIIIa.\nTransfer declaration forms shall be numbered by the competent authorities of the Member State responsible for the vessel, farm or tuna trap where this transfer originates. The numbering system shall include the three-letter CPC code, followed by the four numbers indicating the year and three sequential numbers followed by the three letters \u201cITD\u201d (CPC-20**/xxx/ITD).\nThe original transfer declaration shall accompany the transfer of the fish. A copy of the declaration shall be kept by the master of the catching vessel, the tuna trap operator, the master of the towing vessel or the farm operator.\n5. Masters of vessels carrying out transfer operations (including towing vessels), shall record daily in their logbook both the weight and number of fish transferred, as well as the name, flag and ICCAT register number of the catching vessel, the name and ICCAT register number of any other vessels involved, the date and position of the transfer and the farm of destination. The logbook shall contain the details of all transfers carried out during the fishing season. It shall be kept on board and shall be accessible at any time for control purposes.\n6. The authorisation for transfer by the responsible Member State shall not prejudge the authorisation of the caging operation.\n7. The master of the catching vessel, farm operator or tuna trap operator that transfers bluefin tuna shall ensure that the transfer operations are monitored by video camera in the water.\nTwo copies of each video record of the transfers shall be produced. One copy shall be transmitted to the regional observer and one to the CPC or national observer, as appropriate, on board the towing vessel. The copy that is transmitted to the CPC or national observer shall accompany the transfer declaration and the associated catches to which it relates. The ICCAT transfer declaration number shall be displayed at the beginning or at the end of each video record, which shall continuously display the time and date. The Member States shall provide copies of video records to the ICCAT Scientific Committee at the request of the Commission.\n8. The ICCAT regional observer on board the catching vessel, as referred to in the ICCAT Regional Observer Programme set out in Annex VII, shall record and report on the transfer operations carried out, verify the position of the catching vessel when it is engaged in transfer operations, observe and estimate catches transferred and verify entries made in the prior transfer authorisation referred to in paragraph 2 and in the ICCAT transfer declaration referred to in paragraph 4.\nWhere the estimation of catch by the regional observer is at least 10 % higher by number and/or average weight than declared by the master of the catching vessel, the Member State responsible for the catching vessel shall initiate an investigation which shall be concluded prior to the time of caging at the farm. Pending the results of this investigation, caging shall not be authorised and the catch section of the bluefin tuna catch document shall not be validated.\n9. The ICCAT regional observers shall sign the ICCAT transfer declaration and clearly write their name and their ICCAT number. They shall verify that the ICCAT transfer declaration has been correctly filled in and duly transmitted to the master of the towing vessel.\nThe tuna trap operator shall complete and send the ICCAT transfer declaration to the competent authorities of its Member State at the end of the transfer to the fishing vessel, in accordance with the format set out in Annex IV.\n10. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down detailed rules pertaining to transfer operations under paragraphs 2 and 7 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 38a.\u2019;\n(11)\nArticle 24 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 24\nCaging operations\n1. Within one week of the completion of the caging operation, the Member State responsible for the farm shall submit to the Member State or CPC whose flag vessels have fished the tuna, and to the Commission, a caging report that has been validated by an observer. The Commission shall promptly forward that information to the ICCAT Secretariat. The report shall contain the information included in the caging declaration as set out in the ICCAT Recommendation 06-07 on bluefin tuna farming.\n2. Before any caging operation, the competent authority of the Member State responsible for the farm shall inform the responsible Member State or the flag CPC of the catching vessel of the caging of quantities caught by catching vessels flying its flag.\n3. The Member State responsible for the catching vessel shall request the Member State or CPC responsible for the farm to seize the catches and release the fish into the sea in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 22(3), if it considers, on receipt of the information referred to in paragraph 2, that:\n(a)\nthe catching vessel that is declared to have caught the fish did not have sufficient quota for the bluefin tuna that were put into the cage;\n(b)\nthe quantity of fish has not been duly reported by the catching vessel and has not been taken into account for the calculation of the quota applicable;\n(c)\nthe catching vessel that is declared to have caught the fish is not authorised to fish for bluefin tuna.\n4. The caging operation shall not begin without the prior authorisation of the flag CPC or Member State responsible for the catching vessel.\nBluefin tuna shall be caged before 31 July unless the Member State or CPC responsible for the farm receiving the fish provides valid reasons, including force majeure. Such reasons shall be submitted with the caging report.\n5. The Member State responsible for the farm shall take the necessary measures to prohibit any placing in cages for the purpose of farming or fattening bluefin tuna that is not accompanied by the documentation required by ICCAT, including that required by this Regulation and by Regulation (EU) No 640/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 establishing a catch documentation programme for bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus (7). Such documentation must be accurate and complete and have been validated.\n6. The caging shall be authorised or not authorised by the responsible Member State or responsible CPC, as appropriate, within 48 hours following the submission of the information referred to in paragraph 2. If the caging is not authorised, the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel shall issue a release order to the Member State or CPC responsible for the towing vessel and/or to the Member State or CPC responsible for the farm, as appropriate, in accordance with Article 22(3).\n7. The Member State responsible for the farm shall ensure that caging operations are monitored by video camera in the water.\nOne video record shall be produced for each caging operation. The ICCAT transfer declaration number shall be displayed at the beginning or at the end of each video record, which shall continuously display the time and the date.\n8. Where there is a difference of more than 10 %, by average weight or by number, between the estimate by the regional observer and the farm operator, the Member State responsible for the farm shall, in cooperation with the flag State of the catching vessel, initiate an investigation. Pending the results of this investigation, harvesting shall not take place and the farming section of the bluefin tuna catch document shall not be validated.\nIf the investigation is not concluded within 10 working days or if the outcome of the investigation indicates that the number or the average weight of bluefin tuna is more than 10 % higher than that declared by the farm operator, the flag CPC or Member State responsible for the catching vessel shall issue a release order in respect of the number or weight in excess.\nThe Member State responsible for the farm shall ensure that the farm operator complies with the release order within 48 hours following the arrival of a regional observer. The release shall be carried out in accordance with Article 22(3).\nIf the final estimation at the time of caging in the farm is greater than the final estimation at the time of first transfer from the catching vessel, the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel shall decide on the final quota uptake to be validated in the bluefin tuna catch document(s) concerned.\n9. Member States shall initiate pilot studies on how to better estimate both the number and weight of bluefin tuna at the point of capture and caging, including through the use of stereoscopical systems, and shall report the results thereof to the ICCAT Scientific Committee. A sampling programme and/or an alternative programme shall be established at the time of caging in order to improve the counting of the caged fish and the estimations of their weight.\n10. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down detailed rules pertaining to the caging operations under paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 38a.\n(12)\nin Article 25(1), the following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018Fishing vessels that are included in the ICCAT record of catching vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna, referred to in Article 14(3), shall begin to transmit VMS data to ICCAT at least 15 days before the opening of the fishing season and shall continue to transmit that data for at least 15 days after the closure of the fishing season unless a request is sent in advance to the Commission for the vessel to be removed from the ICCAT record of vessels.\nFor control purposes, the transmission of VMS data from catching vessels that are authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna shall not be interrupted when vessels are in port unless a system of hailing in and out of port is in operation.\nFishing vessels that are included in the ICCAT record of all other fishing vessels (catching vessels excluded) authorised to operate for bluefin tuna, referred to in Article 14(3), shall transmit VMS data to ICCAT throughout the whole period of authorisation.\u2019;\n(13)\nArticle 26 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 26\nRecording and reporting of tuna trap activities\n1. Within 48 hours of the end of every fishing operation using tuna traps, catches shall be recorded and the data transmitted, by electronic or other means, to the competent authority of the Member State responsible for the tuna trap concerned. This record shall include details of the estimated quantities remaining in the tuna trap.\n2. Each Member State shall, upon receipt of the record referred to in paragraph 1, forward it by electronic means to the Commission. In turn, the Commission shall promptly forward the information to the ICCAT Secretariat.\n3. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down detailed rules pertaining to the recording and reporting of tuna trap activities under paragraph 1 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 38a.\u2019;\n(14)\nin Article 29(2), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018If, at any time, more than 15 fishing vessels of a Member State are engaged in bluefin tuna fishing activities in the Convention area, that Member State shall deploy an inspection vessel for the purposes of inspection and control at sea in the Convention area throughout the period that those vessels are there. This obligation shall be deemed to have been complied with where Member States cooperate to deploy an inspection vessel or where an EU inspection vessel is deployed in the Convention area.\u2019;\n(15)\nin Article 30, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. In respect of vessels active in the bluefin tuna fishery, each Member State shall ensure at least the following percentage levels of national observer coverage:\n(a)\n100 % of its active purse seine catching vessels equal to or less than 24 m in 2011;\n(b)\n100 % of its active purse seine catching vessels equal to or less than 20 m in 2012;\n(c)\n20 % of its active pelagic trawlers (over 15 m);\n(d)\n20 % of its active longline catching vessels (over 15 m);\n(e)\n20 % of its active baitboats (over 15 m);\n(f)\n100 % of its tuna traps during the harvesting process;\n(g)\n100 % of its towing vessels.\u2019;\n(16)\nArticle 31 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Each Member State shall ensure that an ICCAT regional observer is present on:\n(a)\nall purse seine vessels over 24 m during the entire 2011 fishing season;\n(b)\nall purse seine vessels over 20 m during the entire 2012 fishing season;\n(c)\nall purse seine vessels, irrespective of their length, during the entire fishing season, from 2013 onward.\nPurse seine vessels referred to in (a), (b) and (c) without an ICCAT regional observer shall not be authorised to fish or to operate in the bluefin tuna fishery.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018If bluefin tuna is harvested from the cage and traded as fresh products, the ICCAT regional observer that observes the harvest may be a national of the Member State responsible for the farm.\u2019;\n(17)\nArticle 32 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 32\nAccess to video records\n1. Each Member State shall ensure that the video records referred to in Article 22(7) and Article 24(7) are made available to the ICCAT inspectors and observers.\n2. Each Member State responsible for a farm shall ensure that the video records referred to in Article 22(7) and Article 24(7) are made available to Union inspectors and observers.\n3. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to avoid any replacement, editing or manipulation of the original video record.\u2019;\n(18)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 33a\nTransmission of inspection plans\nNo later than 30 September each year, Member States shall transmit to the Commission their inspection plan for the following year. The Commission shall compile the national inspection plans and integrate them into the Union inspection plan that is to be transmitted to the ICCAT Secretariat for endorsement by ICCAT.\u2019;\n(19)\nin Article 34, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Union trade, landing, imports, exports, placing in cages for fattening or farming, re-exports and transhipments of eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna that are not accompanied by accurate, complete and validated documentation required by this Regulation and by Regulation (EU) No 640/2010 shall be prohibited\u2019;\n(20)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 38a\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture established by Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. That Committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\u2019;\n(21)\nAnnex III is replaced by the text in Annex I to this Regulation;\n(22)\nAnnex VI is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the following point is added:\n\u2018(q)\ntranshipment at sea.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182.\nIn the case of any boarding and inspection of a fishing vessel during which the authorised inspectors observe an activity or condition that would constitute a serious violation, as defined in paragraph 1, the authorities of the flag State of the inspection vessels shall immediately notify the flag State of the fishing vessel, directly as well as through the ICCAT Secretariat. In such situations the inspectors shall, where possible, also inform the competent authorities of the flag State of the fishing vessel, as notified to the ICCAT Secretariat, and any inspection ship of the flag State of the fishing vessel known to be in the vicinity.\nICCAT inspectors shall register the inspections undertaken and any infringements detected in the fishing vessel\u2019s logbook.\u2019;\n(c)\nin the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 the word \u2018immediately\u2019 is replaced by \u2018within 72 hours\u2019;\n(d)\nparagraph 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20187.\nSubject to the arrangements agreed under paragraph 12 of this Annex, a vessel employed for the time being in fishing for tuna or tuna-like fishes in the Convention area outside the waters within its national jurisdiction shall stop when given the appropriate signal in the International Code of Signals by a ship carrying an inspector unless it is actually carrying out fishing operations, in which case it shall stop immediately that it has finished such operations. The master of the vessel shall permit the inspector, who may be accompanied by a witness, to board it and, in this respect, shall provide a boarding ladder. The master shall enable the inspector to make such examination of catch or gear and any relevant documents as the inspector deems necessary to verify the observance of the ICCAT Commission\u2019s recommendations in force in relation to the flag State of the vessel concerned and the inspector may ask for any explanations that are deemed necessary.\nAn inspector party shall consist of a maximum of two ICCAT inspectors unless additional inspectors are warranted by circumstances. An assistant may accompany the inspector party for trainee purposes only.\u2019;\n(23)\nin Annex VII, paragraph 1 is deleted;\n(24)\nthe text in Annex II to this Regulation is inserted as Annex VIIIa.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 June 2012.", "references": ["0", "43", "6", "57", "50", "21", "94", "16", "13", "97", "91", "11", "46", "85", "51", "36", "77", "24", "64", "96", "88", "33", "84", "32", "3", "20", "41", "83", "5", "71", "No Label", "42", "59", "67"], "gold": ["42", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1001/2010\nof 5 November 2010\namending for the 138th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) and 7a(5) (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 20 October 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add two natural persons to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply and to amend eleven entries on the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 November 2010.", "references": ["31", "70", "92", "61", "93", "9", "73", "8", "26", "97", "98", "76", "60", "90", "28", "48", "35", "66", "30", "84", "57", "2", "52", "58", "47", "83", "21", "7", "27", "77", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 686/2012\nof 26 July 2012\nallocating to Member States, for the purposes of the renewal procedure, the evaluation of the active substances whose approval expires by 31 December 2018 at the latest\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 19, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor active substances whose approval expires by 31 December 2018 at the latest, it is appropriate to allocate the evaluation for the purposes of the renewal procedures to the Member States, naming for each active substance a rapporteur and a co-rapporteur. That allocation should be made in such a way that a balance is achieved as regards the distribution of the responsibilities and the work between Member States.\n(2)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of the renewal procedure, the evaluation of each active substance set out in the first column of the Annex, is allocated to a rapporteur Member State, as set out in the second column of that Annex, and to a co-rapporteur Member State, as set out in the third column of that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2012.", "references": ["86", "11", "42", "81", "39", "3", "49", "58", "69", "75", "34", "50", "17", "14", "99", "29", "82", "66", "71", "8", "45", "28", "98", "48", "35", "89", "96", "56", "41", "73", "No Label", "25", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 505/2012\nof 14 June 2012\namending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (1), and in particular Article 14(2), Article 16(1)(d), Article 16(3)(a), Article 21(2), Article 22(1), Article 26(a) and Article 38(a) and (b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 14(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 lays down general production rules for organic feed as regards sourcing. In that approach, feed produced on the own holding completes the organic on-farm production cycle. On-farm feed production and/or using feed resources from the region reduces transport and is beneficial to the environment and nature. Consequently, in order to better meet the organic objectives of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and in the light of the experience, it is appropriate to set a minimum share of feed produced in the own holding for porcine and poultry species and to increase the minimum share for herbivores.\n(2)\nThe horizontal legislation for feed materials and compound feed and feed additives contained therein has been revised by Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the placing on the market and use of feed, amending European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 and repealing Council Directive 79/373/EEC, Commission Directive 80/511/EEC, Council Directives 82/471/EEC, 83/228/EEC, 93/74/EEC, 93/113/EC and 96/25/EC and Commission Decision 2004/217/EC (2). The relevant Articles of and Annexes to Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 (3) should therefore be adapted.\n(3)\nThe development of harmonised organic production rules for young poultry at Union level is complex as the viewpoints on technical requirements vary widely between the parties concerned. In order to allow more time to develop detailed rules for the production of organic pullets, the exceptional rule for using non-organic pullets should be prolonged.\n(4)\nThe production of organic protein crops lags behind demand. In particular organic protein supply is still not sufficiently available in qualitative and quantitative terms on the Union market to meet the nutritional requirements of porcine and poultry animals raised on organic farms. It is therefore appropriate to allow for a minor proportion of non-organic protein feed as an exceptional rule for a limited time period.\n(5)\nIn order to further specify and clarify the use of the term \u2018organic\u2019 and of the Organic logo of the EU in the labelling of feed produced form organic ingredients, the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 should be reworded.\n(6)\nThe use of feed additives may be allowed in the production of organic feed under certain conditions. Member States made applications for a number of new substances, which need to be authorised pursuant to Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. Based on the recommendations of the Expert group for technical advice for organic production (EGTOP) (4), which concluded that the feed additives sodium formate, sodium ferrocyanide, natrolite-phonolite and clinoptilolite comply with the organic objectives and principles, those substances should be included in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 889/2008.\n(7)\nAn error in the requirements for using extracts of rosemary as organic food additive appeared in Section A of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 and should therefore be corrected.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 889/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nIn order to allow continuity for operators to use the exceptional production rules in relation to non-organic feed and non-organic pullets after the present expiry date of those rules, the amendments to the exceptional rules made by this Regulation should apply as from 1 January 2012 with a view to avoid obstacles or disruption of organic production.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the regulatory Committee on organic production,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmending provisions\nRegulation (EC) No 889/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 19 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 19\nFeed from own holding and other sources\n1. In case of herbivores, except during the period each year when the animals are under transhumance subject to Article 17(4), at least 60 % of the feed shall come from the farm unit itself or in case this is not feasible, be produced in cooperation with other organic farms in the same region.\n2. In case of pigs and poultry, at least 20 % of the feed shall come from the farm unit itself or in case this is not feasible, be produced in the same region in cooperation with other organic farms or feed business operators.\n3. In the case of bees, at the end of the production season hives shall be left with sufficient reserves of honey and pollen to survive the winter.\nThe feeding of bee colonies shall only be permitted where the survival of the hives is endangered due to climatic conditions. Feeding shall be with organic honey, organic sugar syrups, or organic sugar.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 22 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 22\nUse of certain products and substances in feed\nFor the purposes of Article 14(1)(d)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 only the following substances may be used in the processing of organic feed and feeding organic animals:\n(a)\nnon-organic feed materials of plant or animal origin, or other feed materials that are listed in Section 2 of Annex V, provided that:\n(i)\nthey are produced or prepared without chemical solvents; and\n(ii)\nthe restrictions laid down in Article 43 or Article 47(c) are complied with;\n(b)\nnon-organic spices, herbs, and molasses, provided that:\n(i)\ntheir organic form is not available;\n(ii)\nthey are produced or prepared without chemical solvents; and\n(iii)\ntheir use is limited to 1 % of the feed ration of a given species, calculated annually as a percentage of the dry matter of feed from agricultural origin;\n(c)\norganic feed materials of animal origin;\n(d)\nfeed materials of mineral origin that are listed in Section 1 of Annex V;\n(e)\nproducts from sustainable fisheries, provided that:\n(i)\nthey are produced or prepared without chemical solvents;\n(ii)\ntheir use is restricted to non-herbivores; and\n(iii)\nthe use of fish protein hydrolysate is restricted solely to young animals;\n(f)\nsalt as sea salt, coarse rock salt;\n(g)\nfeed additives listed in Annex VI.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 24, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Phytotherapeutic products, trace elements and products listed in Section 1 of Annex V and in Section 3 of Annex VI shall be used in preference to chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary treatment or antibiotics, provided that their therapeutic effect is effective for the species of animal, and the condition for which the treatment is intended.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 25k(1), point (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\norganic feed materials of plant or animal origin.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 25m, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Feed materials of mineral origin may be used in organic aquaculture only if listed in Section 1 of Annex V.\u2019;\n(6)\nin point (b) of Article 42, the date of \u201831 December 2011\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2014\u2019;\n(7)\nArticle 43 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 43\nUse of non-organic protein feed of plant and animal origin for livestock\nWhere the conditions laid down in Article 22(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 apply and where farmers are unable to obtain protein feed exclusively from organic production, the use of a limited proportion of non-organic protein feed is allowed for porcine and poultry species.\nThe maximum percentage of non-organic protein feed authorised per period of 12 months for those species shall be 5 % for calendar years 2012, 2013 and 2014.\nThe figures shall be calculated annually as a percentage of the dry matter of feed from agricultural origin.\nThe operator shall keep documentary evidence of the need for the use of this provision.\u2019;\n(8)\nArticles 59 and 60 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 59\nScope, use of trade marks and sales descriptions\nThis Chapter shall not apply to pet food and feed for fur animals.\nThe trade marks and sales descriptions bearing an indication referred to in Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 may be used only if all ingredients of plant or animal origin are from the organic production method and at least 95 % of the product\u2019s dry matter is comprised of such ingredients.\nArticle 60\nIndications on processed feed\n1. The terms referred to in Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and the Organic logo of the EU may be used on processed feed provided that all the following requirements are complied with:\n(a)\nthe processed feed complies with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and in particular with Article 14(1)(d)(iv) and (v) for livestock or with Article 15(1)(d) for aquaculture animals and Article 18 thereof;\n(b)\nthe processed feed complies with the provisions of this Regulation and in particular with Articles 22 and 26 thereof;\n(c)\nall ingredients of plant or animal origin contained in the processed feed are from the organic production method;\n(d)\nat least 95 % of the product\u2019s dry matter is comprised of organic agricultural products.\n2. Subject to the requirements laid down in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1, the following statement is permitted in the case of products comprising variable quantities of feed materials from the organic production method and/or feed materials from products in conversion to organic farming and/or products as referred to in Article 22 of this Regulation:\n\u201cmay be used in organic production in accordance with Regulations (EC) No 834/2007 and (EC) No 889/2008\u201d.\u2019;\n(9)\nAnnexes V and VI are replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nCorrecting provisions\nIn Section A of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 889/2008, the row relating to the food additive E 392 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018B\nE 392*\nExtracts of rosemary\nX\nX\nOnly when derived from organic production\u2019\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nHowever, points (6) and (7) of Article 1 shall apply as from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 June 2012.", "references": ["83", "44", "40", "53", "9", "12", "14", "93", "24", "95", "16", "31", "47", "62", "3", "99", "15", "10", "5", "48", "26", "55", "23", "97", "57", "73", "56", "35", "84", "22", "No Label", "25", "63", "64", "66", "72", "74"], "gold": ["25", "63", "64", "66", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1348/2011\nof 13 December 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for boarfish in EU and international waters of VI, VII and VIII by vessels flying of the flag the United Kingdom\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["60", "78", "44", "70", "68", "21", "33", "6", "3", "65", "16", "89", "84", "28", "72", "93", "55", "73", "19", "0", "22", "46", "98", "69", "7", "51", "61", "52", "88", "5", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/367/CFSP\nof 23 June 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), and in particular Article 5(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/273/CFSP,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/273/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 June 2011.", "references": ["34", "20", "67", "31", "13", "22", "89", "90", "51", "87", "38", "56", "74", "33", "76", "75", "65", "43", "72", "39", "96", "8", "30", "45", "62", "25", "60", "48", "2", "68", "No Label", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 November 2010\ndesignating the European Capital of Culture for the year 2015 in Belgium\n(2010/757/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019 (1), and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the Selection Panel reports of February 2010 regarding the selection process of the European Capitals of Culture in Belgium,\nWhereas:\nConsidering that the criteria referred to in Article 4 of Decision No 1622/2006/EC are entirely fulfilled,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMons is designated as \u2018European Capital of Culture 2015\u2019 in Belgium.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2010.", "references": ["82", "7", "30", "52", "98", "12", "27", "5", "42", "38", "88", "99", "35", "33", "78", "83", "10", "74", "62", "93", "22", "67", "85", "81", "19", "95", "86", "11", "8", "0", "No Label", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 947/2011\nof 22 September 2011\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2011.", "references": ["45", "10", "77", "43", "75", "97", "81", "94", "60", "95", "15", "58", "71", "68", "38", "27", "84", "54", "99", "56", "83", "52", "6", "20", "33", "25", "13", "7", "0", "80", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 January 2012\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique\n(2012/91/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43, in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 November 2007, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1446/2007 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique (1) (the Agreement). A Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement (2) was attached thereto. That Protocol expired on 31 December 2011.\n(2)\nThe Union negotiated with Mozambique a new Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique (the Protocol), providing EU vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which Mozambique have sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries.\n(3)\nAs a result of those negotiations, the Protocol was initialled on 2 June 2011.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure the continuation of fishing activities of EU vessels, the Protocol should be applied provisionally from the date of its signature, as provided for in Article 15 thereof.\n(5)\nThe Protocol should be signed and applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Protocol.\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe Protocol shall be applied on a provisional basis as from the signature thereof (3), pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["2", "37", "39", "46", "93", "28", "12", "19", "50", "60", "76", "83", "32", "10", "70", "18", "55", "65", "81", "85", "38", "43", "71", "92", "75", "68", "24", "82", "53", "29", "No Label", "3", "9", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1099/2011\nof 27 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in VIIf and VIIg by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["76", "70", "24", "57", "2", "17", "84", "25", "65", "49", "27", "44", "53", "15", "63", "26", "68", "89", "66", "64", "54", "51", "5", "71", "52", "37", "3", "14", "62", "59", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 100/2011\nof 3 February 2011\nfixing the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 15th individual invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the 15th individual invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 15th individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 1 February 2011, the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be EUR 240,00/100 kg.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2011.", "references": ["85", "46", "75", "51", "71", "16", "95", "9", "36", "6", "25", "2", "8", "92", "94", "97", "45", "40", "74", "1", "10", "52", "21", "14", "78", "30", "96", "12", "88", "37", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 June 2012\non the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique\n(2012/306/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 November 2007 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1446/2007 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique (1) (the \u2018Agreement\u2019). A Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement (2) was attached thereto. That protocol expired on 31 December 2011.\n(2)\nThe Union negotiated with Mozambique a new Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique (the \u2018Protocol\u2019), providing EU vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which Mozambique have sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries.\n(3)\nAs a result of those negotiations, the Protocol was initialled on 2 June 2011.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2012/91/EU (3), the Protocol was signed and is being applied provisionally.\n(5)\nThe Protocol should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique (4) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to the notification provided for in Article 16 of the Protocol, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the Protocol (5).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 12 June 2012.", "references": ["31", "43", "35", "73", "52", "7", "91", "79", "36", "30", "40", "11", "48", "83", "38", "19", "78", "4", "20", "62", "45", "51", "28", "80", "64", "72", "95", "54", "60", "53", "No Label", "3", "9", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1228/2010\nof 15 December 2010\namending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 established the Combined Nomenclature (CN) to meet the requirements of the Common Customs Tariff, the external trade statistics of the Union, and other Union policies concerning the imports or exports of goods.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (2) applies to cases where taxation is not justified.\n(3)\nIn certain circumstances, taking into account the special nature of some of the movements of goods mentioned in Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, it seems appropriate to reduce the administrative burden when declaring such movements, by assigning them a specific CN code. It is the case, in particular, when the classification of each type of goods in a movement for the purpose of drawing up the customs declaration would entail a workload and expense disproportionate to the interests at stake.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 113/2010 \u03bff 9 February 2010 implementing Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics relating to external trade with non-member countries, as regards trade coverage, definition of the data, compilation of statistics on trade by business characteristics and by invoicing currency, and specific goods or movements (3) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1982/2004 of 18 November 2004 implementing Regulation (EC) No 638/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States and repealing Commission Regulations (EC) No 1901/2000 and (EEC) No 3590/92 (4) allow the Member States to use a simplified coding system for certain goods in the extra-EU and intra-EU trade statistics.\n(5)\nThose regulations provide for specific goods codes to be used under special conditions. For the sake of transparency as well as for information purposes, such codes should be mentioned in the CN.\n(6)\nFor these reasons, it is appropriate to insert Chapter 99 in the CN.\n(7)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["41", "60", "27", "58", "34", "5", "19", "18", "86", "12", "24", "90", "29", "54", "69", "61", "13", "47", "66", "55", "70", "44", "36", "76", "17", "64", "53", "72", "51", "77", "No Label", "10", "21", "22"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2011/16/EU\nof 15 February 2011\non administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 113 and 115 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Member States\u2019 need for mutual assistance in the field of taxation is growing rapidly in a globalised era. There is a tremendous development of the mobility of taxpayers, of the number of cross-border transactions and of the internationalisation of financial instruments, which makes it difficult for Member States to assess taxes due properly. This increasing difficulty affects the functioning of taxation systems and entails double taxation, which itself incites tax fraud and tax evasion, while the powers of controls remain at national level. It thus jeopardises the functioning of the internal market.\n(2)\nTherefore, a single Member State cannot manage its internal taxation system, especially as regards direct taxation, without receiving information from other Member States. In order to overcome the negative effects of this phenomenon, it is indispensable to develop new administrative cooperation between the Member States\u2019 tax administrations. There is a need for instruments likely to create confidence between Member States, by setting up the same rules, obligations and rights for all Member States.\n(3)\nTherefore, a completely new approach should be taken by creating a new text to give Member States the power to efficiently cooperate at international level to overcome the negative effects of an ever-increasing globalisation on the internal market.\n(4)\nIn such a context, the existing Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation and taxation of insurance premiums (3) no longer provides for appropriate measures. Its deep weaknesses have been looked into by the Ad hoc Council Working Party on Tax Fraud in its report of 22 May 2000 and more recently by the Commission Communication on Preventing and Combating Corporate and Financial Malpractice of 27 September 2004 and the Commission Communication concerning the need to develop a coordinated strategy to improve the fight against fiscal fraud of 31 May 2006.\n(5)\nDirective 77/799/EEC, even with its later amendments, was designed in a different context to current internal market requirements and is no longer able to meet the new requirements of administrative cooperation.\n(6)\nDue to the number and the importance of adaptations to be made to Directive 77/799/EEC, a mere amendment thereof would not be sufficient to fulfil the objectives described above. Directive 77/799/EEC should therefore be repealed and replaced by a new legal instrument. That instrument should apply to direct taxes and indirect taxes that are not yet covered by other Union legislation. To this end, this new Directive is considered to be the proper instrument in terms of effective administrative cooperation.\n(7)\nThis Directive builds on the achievements of Directive 77/799/EEC but provides for clearer and more precise rules governing administrative cooperation between Member States where necessary, in order to establish, especially as regards the exchange of information, a wider scope of administrative cooperation between Member States. Clearer rules should also make it possible in particular to cover all legal and natural persons in the Union, taking into account the ever-increasing range of legal arrangements, including not only traditional arrangements such as trusts, foundations and investment funds, but any new instrument which may be set up by taxpayers in the Member States.\n(8)\nThere should be more direct contact between Member States\u2019 local or national offices in charge of administrative cooperation, with communication between central liaison offices being the rule. The lack of direct contacts leads to inefficiency, under-use of the arrangements for administrative cooperation and delays in communication. Provision should therefore be made to bring about more direct contacts between services with a view to making cooperation more efficient and faster. The assignment of competences to the liaison departments should be deferred to the national provisions of each Member State.\n(9)\nMember States should exchange information concerning particular cases where requested by another Member State and should make the necessary enquiries to obtain such information. The standard of \u2018foreseeable relevance\u2019 is intended to provide for exchange of information in tax matters to the widest possible extent and, at the same time, to clarify that Member States are not at liberty to engage in \u2018fishing expeditions\u2019 or to request information that is unlikely to be relevant to the tax affairs of a given taxpayer. While Article 20 of this Directive contains procedural requirements, those provisions need to be interpreted liberally in order not to frustrate the effective exchange of information.\n(10)\nIt is recognised that the mandatory automatic exchange of information without preconditions is the most effective means of enhancing the correct assessment of taxes in cross-border situations and of fighting fraud. To that end, a step-by-step approach should therefore be followed starting with the automatic exchange of available information on five categories and reviewing the relevant provisions after a report by the Commission.\n(11)\nThe spontaneous exchange of information between Member States should also be strengthened and encouraged.\n(12)\nTime limits for the provision of information under this Directive should be laid down in order to ensure that the information exchange is timely and thus effective.\n(13)\nIt is important that officials of the tax administration of one Member State are allowed to be present in the territory of another Member State.\n(14)\nSince the tax situation of one or more persons liable to tax established in several Member States is often of common or complementary interest, it should be made possible for simultaneous controls to be carried out on such persons by two or more Member States, by mutual agreement and on a voluntary basis.\n(15)\nIn view of the legal requirement in certain Member States that a taxpayer be notified of decisions and instruments concerning his tax liability and of the ensuing difficulties for the tax authorities, including cases where the taxpayer has relocated to another Member State, it is desirable that, in such circumstances, the tax authorities should be able to call upon the cooperation of the competent authorities of the Member State to which the taxpayer has relocated.\n(16)\nFeedback on information sent will encourage administrative cooperation between Member States.\n(17)\nCollaboration between the Member States and the Commission is necessary for the permanent study of cooperation procedures and the sharing of experience and best practices in the fields considered.\n(18)\nIt is important for the efficiency of administrative cooperation that information and documents obtained under this Directive could, subject to the restrictions laid down in this Directive, be used by the Member State that received them also for other purposes. It is also important that Member States could transmit that information to a third country, under certain conditions.\n(19)\nThe situations in which a requested Member State may refuse to provide information should be clearly defined and limited, taking into account certain private interests which should be protected as well as the public interest.\n(20)\nHowever, a Member State should not refuse to transmit information because it has no domestic interest or because the information is held by a bank, other financial institution, nominee or person acting in an agency or fiduciary capacity or because it relates to ownership interests in a person.\n(21)\nThis Directive contains minimum rules and should therefore not affect Member States\u2019 right to enter into wider cooperation with other Member States under their national legislation or in the framework of bilateral or multilateral agreements concluded with other Member States.\n(22)\nIt should also be made clear that where a Member State provides a wider cooperation to a third country than is provided for under this Directive, it should not refuse to provide such wider cooperation to other Member States wishing to enter into such mutual wider cooperation.\n(23)\nThe exchange of information should be made through standardised forms, formats and channels of communication.\n(24)\nAn evaluation of the effectiveness of administrative cooperation should be made, especially on the basis of statistics.\n(25)\nThe measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (4).\n(26)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making, Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n(27)\nAll exchange of information referred to in this Directive is subject to the provisions implementing Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (5) and to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (6). However, it is appropriate to consider limitations of certain rights and obligations laid down by Directive 95/46/EC in order to safeguard the interests referred to in Article 13(1)(e) of that Directive. Such limitations are necessary and proportionate in view of the potential loss of revenue for Member States and the crucial importance of information covered by this Directive for the effectiveness of the fight against fraud.\n(28)\nThis Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles which are recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.\n(29)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely the efficient administrative cooperation between Member States to overcome the negative effects of the increasing globalisation on the internal market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the uniformity and effectiveness required, be better achieved at the level of the Union, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. This Directive lays down the rules and procedures under which the Member States shall cooperate with each other with a view to exchanging information that is foreseeably relevant to the administration and enforcement of the domestic laws of the Member States concerning the taxes referred to in Article 2.\n2. This Directive also lays down provisions for the exchange of information referred to in paragraph 1 by electronic means, as well as rules and procedures under which the Member States and the Commission are to cooperate on matters concerning coordination and evaluation.\n3. This Directive shall not affect the application in the Member States of the rules on mutual assistance in criminal matters. It shall also be without prejudice to the fulfilment of any obligations of the Member States in relation to wider administrative cooperation ensuing from other legal instruments, including bilateral or multilateral agreements.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Directive shall apply to all taxes of any kind levied by, or on behalf of, a Member State or the Member State\u2019s territorial or administrative subdivisions, including the local authorities.\n2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, this Directive shall not apply to value added tax and customs duties, or to excise duties covered by other Union legislation on administrative cooperation between Member States. This Directive shall also not apply to compulsory social security contributions payable to the Member State or a subdivision of the Member State or to social security institutions established under public law.\n3. In no case shall the taxes referred to in paragraph 1 be construed as including:\n(a)\nfees, such as for certificates and other documents issued by public authorities; or\n(b)\ndues of a contractual nature, such as consideration for public utilities.\n4. This Directive shall apply to the taxes referred to in paragraph 1 levied within the territory to which the Treaties apply by virtue of Article 52 of the Treaty on the European Union.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018competent authority\u2019 of a Member State means the authority which has been designated as such by that Member State. When acting pursuant to this Directive, the central liaison office, a liaison department or a competent official shall also be deemed to be competent authorities by delegation according to Article 4;\n2.\n\u2018central liaison office\u2019 means the office which has been designated as such with principal responsibility for contacts with other Member States in the field of administrative cooperation;\n3.\n\u2018liaison department\u2019 means any office other than the central liaison office which has been designated as such to directly exchange information pursuant to this Directive;\n4.\n\u2018competent official\u2019 means any official who is authorised to directly exchange information pursuant to this Directive;\n5.\n\u2018requesting authority\u2019 means the central liaison office, a liaison department or any competent official of a Member State who makes a request for assistance on behalf of the competent authority;\n6.\n\u2018requested authority\u2019 means the central liaison office, a liaison department or any competent official of a Member State who receives a request for assistance on behalf of the competent authority;\n7.\n\u2018administrative enquiry\u2019 means all controls, checks and other action taken by Member States in the performance of their duties with a view to ensuring the proper application of tax legislation;\n8.\n\u2018exchange of information on request\u2019 means the exchange of information based on a request made by the requesting Member State to the requested Member State in a specific case;\n9.\n\u2018automatic exchange\u2019 means the systematic communication of predefined information to another Member State, without prior request, at pre-established regular intervals. In the context of Article 8, available information refers to information in the tax files of the Member State communicating the information, which is retrievable in accordance with the procedures for gathering and processing information in that Member State;\n10.\n\u2018spontaneous exchange\u2019 means the non-systematic communication, at any moment and without prior request, of information to another Member State;\n11.\n\u2018person\u2019 means:\n(a)\na natural person;\n(b)\na legal person;\n(c)\nwhere the legislation in force so provides, an association of persons recognised as having the capacity to perform legal acts but lacking the status of a legal person; or\n(d)\nany other legal arrangement of whatever nature and form, regardless of whether it has legal personality, owning or managing assets, which, including income derived therefrom, are subject to any of the taxes covered by this Directive;\n12.\n\u2018by electronic means\u2019 means using electronic equipment for the processing, including digital compression, and storage of data, and employing wires, radio transmission, optical technologies or other electromagnetic means;\n13.\n\u2018CCN network\u2019 means the common platform based on the common communication network (CCN), developed by the Union for all transmissions by electronic means between competent authorities in the area of customs and taxation.\nArticle 4\nOrganisation\n1. Each Member State shall inform the Commission, within one month from 11 March 2011, of its competent authority for the purposes of this Directive and shall inform the Commission without delay of any change thereto.\nThe Commission shall make the information available to the other Member States and publish a list of the authorities of the Member States in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. The competent authority shall designate a single central liaison office. The competent authority shall be responsible for informing the Commission and the other Member States thereof.\nThe central liaison office may also be designated as responsible for contacts with the Commission. The competent authority shall be responsible for informing the Commission thereof.\n3. The competent authority of each Member State may designate liaison departments with the competence assigned according to its national legislation or policy. The central liaison office shall be responsible for keeping the list of liaison departments up to date and making it available to the central liaison offices of the other Member States concerned and to the Commission.\n4. The competent authority of each Member State may designate competent officials. The central liaison office shall be responsible for keeping the list of competent officials up to date and making it available to the central liaison offices of the other Member States concerned and to the Commission.\n5. The officials engaged in administrative cooperation pursuant to this Directive shall in any case be deemed to be competent officials for that purpose, in accordance with arrangements laid down by the competent authorities.\n6. Where a liaison department or a competent official sends or receives a request or a reply to a request for cooperation, it shall inform the central liaison office of its Member State under the procedures laid down by that Member State.\n7. Where a liaison department or a competent official receives a request for cooperation requiring action which falls outside the competence it is assigned according to the national legislation or policy of its Member State, it shall forward such request without delay to the central liaison office of its Member State and inform the requesting authority thereof. In such a case, the period laid down in Article 7 shall start the day after the request for cooperation is forwarded to the central liaison office.\nCHAPTER II\nEXCHANGE OF INFORMATION\nSECTION I\nExchange of information on request\nArticle 5\nProcedure for the exchange of information on request\nAt the request of the requesting authority, the requested authority shall communicate to the requesting authority any information referred to in Article 1(1) that it has in its possession or that it obtains as a result of administrative enquiries.\nArticle 6\nAdministrative enquiries\n1. The requested authority shall arrange for the carrying out of any administrative enquiries necessary to obtain the information referred to in Article 5.\n2. The request referred to in Article 5 may contain a reasoned request for a specific administrative enquiry. If the requested authority takes the view that no administrative enquiry is necessary, it shall immediately inform the requesting authority of the reasons thereof.\n3. In order to obtain the requested information or to conduct the administrative enquiry requested, the requested authority shall follow the same procedures as it would when acting on its own initiative or at the request of another authority in its own Member State.\n4. When specifically requested by the requesting authority, the requested authority shall communicate original documents provided that this is not contrary to the provisions in force in the Member State of the requested authority.\nArticle 7\nTime limits\n1. The requested authority shall provide the information referred to in Article 5 as quickly as possible, and no later than six months from the date of receipt of the request.\nHowever, where the requested authority is already in possession of that information, the information shall be transmitted within two months of that date.\n2. In certain special cases, time limits other than those provided for in paragraph 1 may be agreed upon between the requested and the requesting authorities.\n3. The requested authority shall confirm immediately and in any event no later than seven working days from receipt, if possible by electronic means, receipt of a request to the requesting authority.\n4. Within one month of receipt of the request, the requested authority shall notify the requesting authority of any deficiencies in the request and of the need for any additional background information. In such a case, the time limits provided for in paragraph 1 shall start the day after the requested authority has received the additional information needed.\n5. Where the requested authority is unable to respond to the request by the relevant time limit, it shall inform the requesting authority immediately and in any event within three months of the receipt of the request, of the reasons for its failure to do so, and the date by which it considers it might be able to respond.\n6. Where the requested authority is not in possession of the requested information and is unable to respond to the request for information or refuses to do so on the grounds provided for in Article 17, it shall inform the requesting authority of the reasons thereof immediately and in any event within one month of receipt of the request.\nSECTION II\nMandatory automatic exchange of information\nArticle 8\nScope and conditions of mandatory automatic exchange of information\n1. The competent authority of each Member State shall, by automatic exchange, communicate to the competent authority of any other Member State, information regarding taxable periods as from 1 January 2014 that is available concerning residents in that other Member State, on the following specific categories of income and capital as they are to be understood under the national legislation of the Member State which communicates the information:\n(a)\nincome from employment;\n(b)\ndirector\u2019s fees;\n(c)\nlife insurance products not covered by other Union legal instruments on exchange of information and other similar measures;\n(d)\npensions;\n(e)\nownership of and income from immovable property.\n2. Before 1 January 2014, Member States shall inform the Commission of the categories listed in paragraph 1 in respect of which they have information available. They shall inform the Commission of any subsequent changes thereto.\n3. The competent authority of a Member State may indicate to the competent authority of any other Member State that it does not wish to receive information on the categories of income and capital referred to in paragraph 1, or that it does not wish to receive information on income or capital not exceeding a threshold amount. It shall also inform the Commission thereof. A Member State may be considered as not wishing to receive information in accordance with paragraph 1, if it does not inform the Commission of any single category in respect of which it has information available.\n4. Before 1 July 2016, Member States shall provide the Commission on an annual basis with statistics on the volume of automatic exchanges and, to the extent possible, with information on the administrative and other relevant costs and benefits relating to exchanges that have taken place and any potential changes, for both tax administrations and third parties.\n5. Before 1 July 2017, the Commission shall submit a report that provides an overview and an assessment of the statistics and information received, on issues such as the administrative and other relevant costs and benefits of the automatic exchange of information, as well as practical aspects linked thereto. If appropriate, the Commission shall present a proposal to the Council regarding the categories of income and capital and/or the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, including the condition that information concerning residents in other Member States has to be available.\nWhen examining a proposal put forward by the Commission, the Council shall assess further strengthening of the efficiency and functioning of the automatic exchange of information and raising the standard thereof, with the aim of providing that:\n(a)\nthe competent authority of each Member State shall, by automatic exchange, communicate to the competent authority of any other Member State, information regarding taxable periods as from 1 January 2017 concerning residents in that other Member State, on at least three of the specific categories of income and capital listed in paragraph 1, as they are to be understood under the national legislation of the Member State communicating the information; and\n(b)\nthe list of categories in paragraph 1 be extended to include dividends, capital gains and royalties.\n6. The communication of information shall take place at least once a year, within six months following the end of the tax year of the Member State during which the information became available.\n7. The Commission shall adopt the practical arrangements for the automatic exchange of information, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 26(2), before the dates referred to in Article 29(1).\n8. Where Member States agree on the automatic exchange of information for additional categories of income and capital in bilateral or multilateral agreements which they conclude with other Member States, they shall communicate those agreements to the Commission which shall make those agreements available to all the other Member States\nSECTION III\nSpontaneous exchange of information\nArticle 9\nScope and conditions of spontaneous exchange of information\n1. The competent authority of each Member State shall communicate the information referred to in Article 1(1) to the competent authority of any other Member State concerned, in any of the following circumstances:\n(a)\nthe competent authority of one Member State has grounds for supposing that there may be a loss of tax in the other Member State;\n(b)\na person liable to tax obtains a reduction in, or an exemption from, tax in one Member State which would give rise to an increase in tax or to liability to tax in the other Member State;\n(c)\nbusiness dealings between a person liable to tax in one Member State and a person liable to tax in the other Member State are conducted through one or more countries in such a way that a saving in tax may result in one or the other Member State or in both;\n(d)\nthe competent authority of a Member State has grounds for supposing that a saving of tax may result from artificial transfers of profits within groups of enterprises;\n(e)\ninformation forwarded to one Member State by the competent authority of the other Member State has enabled information to be obtained which may be relevant in assessing liability to tax in the latter Member State.\n2. The competent authorities of each Member State may communicate, by spontaneous exchange, to the competent authorities of the other Member States any information of which they are aware and which may be useful to the competent authorities of the other Member States.\nArticle 10\nTime limits\n1. The competent authority to which information referred to in Article 9(1) becomes available, shall forward that information to the competent authority of any other Member State concerned as quickly as possible, and no later than one month after it becomes available.\n2. The competent authority to which information is communicated pursuant to Article 9 shall confirm, if possible by electronic means, the receipt of the information to the competent authority which provided the information immediately and in any event no later than seven working days.\nCHAPTER III\nOTHER FORMS OF ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION\nSECTION I\nPresence in administrative offices and participation in administrative enquiries\nArticle 11\nScope and conditions\n1. By agreement between the requesting authority and the requested authority and in accordance with the arrangements laid down by the latter, officials authorised by the requesting authority may, with a view to exchanging the information referred to in Article 1(1):\n(a)\nbe present in the offices where the administrative authorities of the requested Member State carry out their duties;\n(b)\nbe present during administrative enquiries carried out in the territory of the requested Member State.\nWhere the requested information is contained in documentation to which the officials of the requested authority have access, the officials of the requesting authority shall be given copies thereof.\n2. In so far as this is permitted under the legislation of the requested Member State, the agreement referred to in paragraph 1 may provide that, where officials of the requesting authority are present during administrative enquiries, they may interview individuals and examine records.\nAny refusal by the person under investigation to respect the inspection measures of the officials of the requesting authority shall be treated by the requested authority as if that refusal was committed against officials of the latter authority.\n3. Officials authorised by the requesting Member State present in another Member State in accordance with paragraph 1 shall at all times be able to produce written authority stating their identity and their official capacity.\nSECTION II\nSimultaneous controls\nArticle 12\nSimultaneous controls\n1. Where two or more Member States agree to conduct simultaneous controls, in their own territory, of one or more persons of common or complementary interest to them, with a view to exchanging the information thus obtained, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 shall apply.\n2. The competent authority in each Member State shall identify independently the persons for whom it intends to propose a simultaneous control. It shall notify the competent authority of the other Member States concerned of any cases for which it proposes a simultaneous control, giving reasons for its choice.\nIt shall specify the period of time during which those controls are to be conducted.\n3. The competent authority of each Member State concerned shall decide whether it wishes to take part in simultaneous controls. It shall confirm its agreement or communicate its reasoned refusal to the authority that proposed a simultaneous control.\n4. The competent authority of each Member State concerned shall appoint a representative with responsibility for supervising and coordinating the control operation.\nSECTION III\nAdministrative notification\nArticle 13\nRequest for notification\n1. At the request of the competent authority of a Member State, the competent authority of another Member State shall, in accordance with the rules governing the notification of similar instruments in the requested Member State, notify the addressee of any instruments and decisions which emanate from the administrative authorities of the requesting Member State and concern the application in its territory of legislation on taxes covered by this Directive.\n2. Requests for notification shall indicate the subject of the instrument or decision to be notified and shall specify the name and address of the addressee, together with any other information which may facilitate identification of the addressee.\n3. The requested authority shall inform the requesting authority immediately of its response and, in particular, of the date of notification of the instrument or decision to the addressee.\n4. The requesting authority shall only make a request for notification pursuant to this Article when it is unable to notify in accordance with the rules governing the notification of the instruments concerned in the requesting Member State, or where such notification would give rise to disproportionate difficulties. The competent authority of a Member State may notify any document by registered mail or electronically directly to a person within the territory of another Member State.\nSECTION IV\nFeedback\nArticle 14\nConditions\n1. Where a competent authority provides information pursuant to Articles 5 or 9, it may request the competent authority which receives the information to send feedback thereon. If feedback is requested, the competent authority which received the information shall, without prejudice to the rules on tax secrecy and data protection applicable in its Member State, send feedback to the competent authority which provided the information as soon as possible and no later than three months after the outcome of the use of the requested information is known. The Commission shall determine the practical arrangements in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 26(2).\n2. Member States\u2019 competent authorities shall send feedback on the automatic exchange of information to the other Member States concerned once a year, in accordance with practical arrangements agreed upon bilaterally.\nSECTION V\nSharing of best practices and experience\nArticle 15\nScope and conditions\n1. Member States shall, together with the Commission, examine and evaluate administrative cooperation pursuant to this Directive and shall share their experience, with a view to improving such cooperation and, where appropriate, drawing up rules in the fields concerned.\n2. Member States may, together with the Commission, produce guidelines on any aspect deemed necessary for sharing best practices and sharing experience.\nCHAPTER IV\nCONDITIONS GOVERNING ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION\nArticle 16\nDisclosure of information and documents\n1. Information communicated between Member States in any form pursuant to this Directive shall be covered by the obligation of official secrecy and enjoy the protection extended to similar information under the national law of the Member State which received it. Such information may be used for the administration and enforcement of the domestic laws of the Member States concerning the taxes referred to in Article 2.\nSuch information may also be used for the assessment and enforcement of other taxes and duties covered by Article 2 of Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures (7), or for the assessment and enforcement of compulsory social security contributions.\nIn addition, it may be used in connection with judicial and administrative proceedings that may involve penalties, initiated as a result of infringements of tax law, without prejudice to the general rules and provisions governing the rights of defendants and witnesses in such proceedings.\n2. With the permission of the competent authority of the Member State communicating information pursuant to this Directive, and only in so far as this is allowed under the legislation of the Member State of the competent authority receiving the information, information and documents received pursuant to this Directive may be used for other purposes than those referred to in paragraph 1. Such permission shall be granted if the information can be used for similar purposes in the Member State of the competent authority communicating the information.\n3. Where a competent authority of a Member State considers that information which it has received from the competent authority of another Member State is likely to be useful for the purposes referred to in paragraph 1 to the competent authority of a third Member State, it may transmit that information to the latter competent authority, provided that transmission is in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in this Directive. It shall inform the competent authority of the Member State from which the information originates about its intention to share that information with a third Member State. The Member State of origin of the information may oppose such a sharing of information within 10 working days of receipt of the communication from the Member State wishing to share the information.\n4. Permission to use information pursuant to paragraph 2, which has been transmitted pursuant to paragraph 3, may be granted only by the competent authority of the Member State from which the information originates.\n5. Information, reports, statements and any other documents, or certified true copies or extracts thereof, obtained by the requested authority and communicated to the requesting authority in accordance with this Directive may be invoked as evidence by the competent bodies of the requesting Member State on the same basis as similar information, reports, statements and any other documents provided by an authority of that Member State.\nArticle 17\nLimits\n1. A requested authority in one Member State shall provide a requesting authority in another Member State with the information referred to in Article 5 provided that the requesting authority has exhausted the usual sources of information which it could have used in the circumstances for obtaining the information requested, without running the risk of jeopardising the achievement of its objectives.\n2. This Directive shall impose no obligation upon a requested Member State to carry out enquiries or to communicate information, if it would be contrary to its legislation to conduct such inquiries or to collect the information requested for its own purposes.\n3. The competent authority of a requested Member State may decline to provide information where the requesting Member State is unable, for legal reasons, to provide similar information.\n4. The provision of information may be refused where it would lead to the disclosure of a commercial, industrial or professional secret or of a commercial process, or of information whose disclosure would be contrary to public policy.\n5. The requested authority shall inform the requesting authority of the grounds for refusing a request for information.\nArticle 18\nObligations\n1. If information is requested by a Member State in accordance with this Directive, the requested Member State shall use its measures aimed at gathering information to obtain the requested information, even though that Member State may not need such information for its own tax purposes. That obligation is without prejudice to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 17, the invocation of which shall in no case be construed as permitting a requested Member State to decline to supply information solely because it has no domestic interest in such information.\n2. In no case shall Article 17(2) and (4) be construed as permitting a requested authority of a Member State to decline to supply information solely because this information is held by a bank, other financial institution, nominee or person acting in an agency or a fiduciary capacity or because it relates to ownership interests in a person.\n3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, a Member State may refuse the transmission of requested information where such information concerns taxable periods prior to 1 January 2011 and where the transmission of such information could have been refused on the basis of Article 8(1) of Directive 77/799/EEC if it had been requested before 11 March 2011.\nArticle 19\nExtension of wider cooperation provided to a third country\nWhere a Member State provides a wider cooperation to a third country than that provided for under this Directive, that Member State may not refuse to provide such wider cooperation to any other Member State wishing to enter into such mutual wider cooperation with that Member State.\nArticle 20\nStandard forms and computerised formats\n1. Requests for information and for administrative enquiries pursuant to Article 5 and their replies, acknowledgements, requests for additional background information, inability or refusal pursuant to Article 7 shall, as far as possible, be sent using a standard form adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 26(2).\nThe standard forms may be accompanied by reports, statements and any other documents, or certified true copies or extracts thereof.\n2. The standard form referred to in paragraph 1 shall include at least the following information to be provided by the requesting authority:\n(a)\nthe identity of the person under examination or investigation;\n(b)\nthe tax purpose for which the information is sought.\nThe requesting authority may, to the extent known and in line with international developments, provide the name and address of any person believed to be in possession of the requested information as well as any element that may facilitate the collection of information by the requested authority.\n3. Spontaneous information and its acknowledgement pursuant to Articles 9 and 10 respectively, requests for administrative notifications pursuant to Article 13 and feedback information pursuant to Article 14 shall be sent using the standard form adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 26(2).\n4. The automatic exchange of information pursuant to Article 8 shall be sent using a standard computerised format aimed at facilitating such automatic exchange and based on the existing computerised format pursuant to Article 9 of Council Directive 2003/48/EC of 3 June 2003 on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments (8), to be used for all types of automatic exchange of information, adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 26(2).\nArticle 21\nPractical arrangements\n1. Information communicated pursuant to this Directive shall, as far as possible, be provided by electronic means using the CCN network.\nWhere necessary, the Commission shall adopt practical arrangements necessary for the implementation of the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 26(2).\n2. The Commission shall be responsible for whatever development of the CCN network is necessary to permit the exchange of that information between Member States.\nMember States shall be responsible for whatever development of their systems is necessary to enable that information to be exchanged using the CCN network.\nMember States shall waive all claims for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in applying this Directive except, where appropriate, in respect of fees paid to experts.\n3. Persons duly accredited by the Security Accreditation Authority of the Commission may have access to that information only in so far as it is necessary for the care, maintenance and development of the CCN network.\n4. Requests for cooperation, including requests for notification, and attached documents may be made in any language agreed between the requested and requesting authority.\nThose requests shall be accompanied by a translation into the official language or one of the official languages of the Member State of the requested authority only in special cases when the requested authority states its reason for requesting a translation.\nArticle 22\nSpecific obligations\n1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to:\n(a)\nensure effective internal coordination within the organisation referred to in Article 4;\n(b)\nestablish direct cooperation with the authorities of the other Member States referred to in Article 4;\n(c)\nensure the smooth operation of the administrative cooperation arrangements provided for in this Directive.\n2. The Commission shall communicate to each Member State any general information concerning the implementation and application of this Directive which it receives and which it is able to provide.\nCHAPTER V\nRELATIONS WITH THE COMMISSION\nArticle 23\nEvaluation\n1. Member States and the Commission shall examine and evaluate the functioning of the administrative cooperation provided for in this Directive.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission any relevant information necessary for the evaluation of the effectiveness of administrative cooperation in accordance with this Directive in combating tax evasion and tax avoidance.\n3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission a yearly assessment of the effectiveness of the automatic exchange of information referred to in Article 8 as well as the practical results achieved. The form and the conditions of communication of that yearly assessment shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 26(2).\n4. The Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 26(2), determine a list of statistical data which shall be provided by the Member States for the purposes of evaluation of this Directive.\n5. Information communicated to the Commission under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 shall be kept confidential by the Commission in accordance with the provisions applicable to Union authorities.\n6. Information communicated to the Commission by a Member State under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, as well as any report or document produced by the Commission using such information, may be transmitted to other Member States. Such transmitted information shall be covered by the obligation of official secrecy and enjoy the protection extended to similar information under the national law of the Member State which received it.\nReports and documents produced by the Commission referred to in this paragraph may only be used by the Member States for analytical purposes but shall not be published or made available to any other person or body without express agreement of the Commission.\nCHAPTER VI\nRELATIONS WITH THIRD COUNTRIES\nArticle 24\nExchange of information with third countries\n1. Where the competent authority of a Member State receives from a third country information that is foreseeably relevant to the administration and enforcement of the domestic laws of that Member State concerning the taxes referred to in Article 2, that authority may, in so far as this is allowed pursuant to an agreement with that third country, provide that information to the competent authorities of Member States for which that information might be useful and to any requesting authorities.\n2. Competent authorities may communicate, in accordance with their domestic provisions on the communication of personal data to third countries, information obtained in accordance with this Directive to a third country, provided that all of the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe competent authority of the Member State from which the information originates have consented to that communication;\n(b)\nthe third country concerned has given an undertaking to provide the cooperation required to gather evidence of the irregular or illegal nature of transactions which appear to contravene or constitute an abuse of tax legislation.\nCHAPTER VII\nGENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 25\nData protection\nAll exchange of information pursuant to this Directive shall be subject to the provisions implementing Directive 95/46/EC. However, Member States shall, for the purpose of the correct application of this Directive, restrict the scope of the obligations and rights provided for in Article 10, Article 11(1), Articles 12 and 21 of Directive 95/46/EC to the extent required in order to safeguard the interests referred to in Article 13(1)(e) of that Directive.\nArticle 26\nCommittee\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee referred to as the \u2018Committee on Administrative Cooperation for Taxation\u2019.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply.\nThe period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.\nArticle 27\nReporting\nEvery five years after 1 January 2013, the Commission shall submit a report on the application of this Directive to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nArticle 28\nRepeal of Directive 77/799/EEC\nDirective 77/799/EEC is repealed with effect from 1 January 2013.\nReferences made to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive.\nArticle 29\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive with effect from 1 January 2013.\nHowever, they shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 8 of this Directive with effect from 1 January 2015.\nThey shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nWhen Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 30\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 31\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2011.", "references": ["39", "96", "94", "79", "41", "9", "59", "90", "53", "47", "91", "31", "35", "66", "10", "21", "26", "36", "93", "49", "75", "62", "72", "92", "95", "19", "87", "29", "32", "45", "No Label", "2", "12", "20"], "gold": ["2", "12", "20"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/71/CFSP\nof 31 January 2011\namending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire. (1)\n(2)\nIn view of the seriousness of the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, other persons and entities should be included in the list set out in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 7(2) of Decision 2010/656/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Where the Council decides to subject a person or entity to the measures referred to in Articles 4(1)(b) and 5(1)(b), it shall amend Annex II accordingly.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe persons and entities appearing in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2011.", "references": ["65", "54", "92", "38", "27", "60", "59", "44", "6", "41", "66", "83", "78", "29", "22", "49", "95", "68", "76", "81", "58", "67", "40", "32", "12", "36", "55", "87", "80", "62", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "79", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "79", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 869/2011\nof 31 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 August 2011.", "references": ["72", "10", "56", "54", "75", "20", "6", "15", "14", "23", "95", "86", "1", "60", "63", "43", "69", "70", "74", "37", "5", "67", "50", "62", "94", "57", "52", "85", "98", "38", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1331/2011\nof 14 December 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation) and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROVISIONAL MEASURES\n(1)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 (2) (the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 16 August 2010 (the complaint) by the Defence Committee of the Seamless Stainless Steel Tubes Industry of the European Union (the Defence Committee) on behalf of two groups of Union producers (the complainants) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 % of the total Union production of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel.\n(3)\nIt is recalled that, as set out in recital 14 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 (\u2018the investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (the period considered).\nB. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE\n(4)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional measures (provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard. The Commission continued to seek information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.\n(5)\nWith regard to the three claims for individual examination, it has been definitively decided that they could not be granted as they would render the investigation unduly burdensome and would prevent the completion of the investigation in good time. As stated in recital 6 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission had selected a representative sample, covering 25 % of the total imports recorded in Eurostat during the IP and over 38 % of the total volume of the cooperating exporters in the IP. As indicated in recital 13 of the provisional Regulation, two of the three sampled exporting producers constitute large groups. The size of the groups amounted to a particular burden for the present investigation in terms of both the investigative effort as well as analysis. In these circumstances, it was not possible to accommodate the claims for individual examination from additional exporting producers.\nC. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(6)\nIt is recalled that, as set out in recital 15 of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned is seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel (excluding such pipes and tubes with attached fittings suitable for conducting gases or liquids for use in civil aircraft), originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes 7304 11 00, 7304 22 00, 7304 24 00, ex 7304 41 00, 7304 49 10, ex 7304 49 93, ex 7304 49 95, ex 7304 49 99 and ex 7304 90 00 (the product concerned).\n(7)\nIn the absence of any comment with regard to the product concerned following provisional disclosure, recitals 15 to 19 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Like product\n(8)\nIn the absence of any comment, recital 20 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\nD. DUMPING\n1. Market economy treatment\n(9)\nFollowing provisional disclosure, some parties contested some of the findings related to the MET determination as set out in recitals 21 to 43 of the provisional Regulation.\n(10)\nOne party claimed that the Commission did not disclose the price difference of raw materials between the EU and the PRC market. In this respect, it has to be noted that both the MET disclosure, as well as the provisional Regulation, disclose the nominal price difference between the EU, USA and PRC prices of raw materials. As stated in recital 27 of the provisional Regulation, this difference, on average and depending on the steel grade, amounts to around 30 %. As far the sources of information that formed the basis for this comparison are concerned, the Commission used data available from cooperating Union producers and exporting producers in the PRC. These data have been cross-checked with some publicly available sources (3).\n(11)\nIt was further claimed that the Commission conducted no comparison of prices of iron ore imported into the PRC and international market prices. A related claim was that no data have been provided concerning the impact of iron ore on the cost of the raw material (billet, ingot, round bars) purchased by the producers of the product concerned. The reference to iron ore in recital 28 of the provisional Regulation was made in the context of comparative advantage to analyse a possible explanation for the low prices of billets, ingots and round bars in the PRC. Iron ore as well as nickel and chromium are main cost drivers in the production of stainless steel billets, ingots and round bars. But, due to the fact that the prices of iron ore, nickel and chromium are in general based on international market prices, their impact on the price difference between EU and PRC billets, ingots and round bars and finally on stainless seamless pipes and tubes can only be limited. Therefore, the findings that led to the rejection of criterion 1 of the MET claim were not based on iron ore prices but on the price difference between the raw materials, i.e. billets, ingots and round bars, directly used in the production of the product concerned; this price difference combined with the established State interference (export tax and no VAT refund) led to the conclusion that it has not been shown that criterion 1 for granting MET was fulfilled.\n(12)\nOne party reiterated on several occasions the same claim related to the procedural aspects of MET determination. The claim related to consultations with the Advisory Committee of Member States, namely the information transmitted to that committee in the course of the current investigation. The issue has been explained in two letters sent to the party and it was subject to several exchanges with the Hearing Officer. In this respect it has to be noted that pursuant to Article 19(5) of the basic Regulation exchanges of information relating to consultations made with the Advisory Committee of Member States shall not be divulged except as specifically provided for in the basic Regulation. Consequently, the provisions in force do not allow granting parties any access to the exchanges between the Commission and the Member States.\n(13)\nThe same party made certain claims related mainly to the issue of distortions on the market of raw materials. It was claimed that the stainless steel billets purchased on the PRC domestic market accounted for a portion only of the purchases of raw materials during the IP. In this regard, it is noted first and foremost that Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation does not establish any threshold with regard to the proportion of raw materials purchases that would have to be affected by distortions. Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation stipulates that costs of major inputs have to substantially reflect market values. Most importantly, however, the Commission explained that the distortions on the raw material market in the PRC concerned the main raw materials used in the production of seamless stainless steel pipes and tubes and not only billets. The main raw materials used in the production of seamless stainless steel pipes and tubes are stainless steel billets, ingots and round bars which represent more than 50 % of the cost of production of the product concerned. Those raw materials collectively fall under HS Code 7218 10 (ingots and other primary forms of stainless steel). They are all subject to a 15 % export tax and are not subject to any refund of the 17 % VAT when exported. It is in this regard that distortions have been established leading to the conclusion that criterion 1 of the MET evaluation was not met by any of the sampled PRC exporting producers. For the company concerned, the raw materials used for the production of the product concerned purchased on the PRC domestic market account for a substantial part - around 30 % of purchases. It should be noted in addition that another major part is imported from related companies.\nWhen focussing specifically on purchases from unrelated suppliers, even 56 % have been purchased domestically. Consequently, contrary to the party\u2019s claim, there was no misrepresentation of facts as far as the MET determination was concerned, neither in the communication with that party nor in the consultation process with the Advisory Committee, which was informed about all the arguments submitted. Consequently, the claim has to be rejected.\n(14)\nOne company claimed that the decision to deny MET should be individual and company specific whereas in the present case the institutions extended the general findings at the country level to individual producers. This argument cannot be accepted; indeed the analysis made by the institutions has been made individually for each sampled producer. It is true that the institutions have reached the same conclusion for the three of them but this is due to the fact that there is State interference in the decision-making process of each of them, as explained in the provisional Regulation.\n(15)\nHaving regard to the above, the finding that all MET claims should be denied, as established in recitals 21 to 43 of the provisional Regulation, is hereby confirmed.\n2. Normal value\n(a) Analogue country\n(16)\nOne party claimed that the USA should have been used as an analogue country. In this respect it has to be noted that the grounds for the decision not to use USA as an analogue country have been thoroughly laid down in recitals 46 to 48 of the provisional Regulation. In view of the fact that the party did not substantiate its claim and did not provide any additional arguments which could alter the findings with regard to the USA as a possible analogue country, the claim has to be rejected.\n(17)\nAt the same time it has to be stressed that the Commission continued efforts to obtain cooperation from an appropriate analogue country. Further to efforts referred to in recital 47 of the provisional Regulation the Commission contacted producers in Brazil, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and Ukraine. Altogether 46 companies have been contacted, but no cooperation could be obtained.\n(18)\nHaving regard to the above, the provisional conclusion that the normal value should be based on prices actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit, as set out in recital 51 of the provisional Regulation, is hereby confirmed.\n(b) Determination of normal value\n(19)\nAs detailed in recitals 49 to 51 of the provisional Regulation the normal value is based on prices actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit, of the closest resembling product types having the same diameter, steel grade and product type (e.g. cold or hot drawn).\n(20)\nParties\u2019 comments relating to prices actually paid or payable in the Union and well as those concerning adjustments (such as level of trade and quality perception) have been addressed in recitals 45 and 46 below.\n(21)\nOne company claimed that the normal value could be constructed on the basis of import prices of the stainless steel hollows into the US from the EU or into the EU by the Union producers. This claim has not been further substantiated. The company presented no arguments with regard to how such construction would be better suited for the determination of the normal value than the method used in the provisional Regulation. In particular it has not been substantiated why it would be more suitable to construct normal value on the basis of prices of hollows rather than basing it on prices of the Union industry for the like product.\n(22)\nFurthermore, it has not been substantiated why the EU exports to the US should be considered. This alternative appears not suitable in particular in view of the fact that all cooperating US producers rely on imports from their EU parent companies as already mentioned in recital 48 of the provisional Regulation. Further, the high processing cost in the USA as stated in recital 48 of the provisional Regulation - the very reason why USA has been considered inappropriate as an analogue country - would make the method suggested not suitable.\n(23)\nAs far as exports from the US to the EU are concerned, this question has been dealt with explicitly in recital 49 of the provisional Regulation. It was considered that the US export prices would be tainted by the high production costs and that the volumes of such exports were very limited.\n(24)\nThe same company proposed to construct the normal value on the basis of the actual import prices of the stainless steel hollows by Union producers. However, the EU producer importing hollows from India into the EU, as mentioned in the complaint, does not cooperate in the current investigation. Neither do any of the sampled Union producers import hollows from any country outside the EU. Therefore, the proposed methodology cannot be used.\n(25)\nHaving regard to the above, the determination of normal value as set out in recitals 49 to 51 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n3. Export price\n(26)\nOne party reiterated its claim that the date of order rather than the date of invoicing should be considered as being the date of sale to ensure a fair comparison. This claim has been made with reference to Article 2(10)(j) of the basic Regulation. As already explained to the party concerned during the hearing with the Hearing Officer held on 11 March 2011, the provision in question specifically refers to currency conversions, i.e. exchange rates applicable when the price comparison requires a conversion of currencies. Consequently, the reference to the dates of purchase orders concerns currency conversions in the framework of fair comparison between export price and normal value and does not relate to the turnover and the volume of export sales to the EU during the IP.\n(27)\nIn all cases the product concerned was exported to independent customers in the Union and, therefore, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable. Therefore, recital 52 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n4. Comparison\n(28)\nAs stated in recital 20 above, the parties\u2019 comments relating to the prices actually paid or payable in the Union as well as those concerning adjustments (such as level of trade and quality perception) have been addressed in recitals 45 and 46 below.\n(29)\nOne party contested the method of comparing the export price and normal value based on three specific parameters (diameter, steel grade and product type (e.g. cold or hot drawn)). The party claimed that comparisons should have been conducted at the level of greater detail, i.e. taking into other parameters as well, notably wall thickness, length and testing.\n(30)\nThe Commission services indeed collected information in relation to a number of parameters including the length, wall thickness and testing.\n(31)\nAccording to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin is normally established on the basis of a comparison of weighted average normal value with a weighted average of prices of all export transactions. Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation requires that dumping calculations should be based on \u2018all export transactions to the Community\u2019 but they should be \u2018subject to the relevant provisions governing fair comparison\u2019. The company referred to the so-called product control number and the parameters contained therein. In this regard, it has to be noted that the product control number is a tool used in the investigation in order to structure and organise the substantial amounts of very detailed data submitted by the companies. It is an aid to conduct a more detailed analysis of different product characteristics within the category of the product concerned and the like product. The comparison was based on the most pertinent characteristics in order to ensure a fair comparison.\n(32)\nFollowing the company\u2019s claim, the Commission explained in a letter that the wall thickness of a pipe was proportionally linked to its weight and was thus indirectly covered by the comparison. Other characteristics, such as testing, have minor effects on the comparison. For example, nearly all products concerned are subject to standard test applications.\n(33)\nIt has to be stressed that, contrary to that party\u2019s claims, the Commission did not disregard any information. However, it is not uncommon that certain parameters used in the product control number have a lesser weight and that specific parameters more than others form a better basis for fair comparison. No pipes have been disregarded from the comparison on the basis of physical differences or for any other reasons nor have any new product types been created. On the contrary, all sales were included in the comparison, regardless of the diameter or length of the pipe.\n(34)\nThe company further submitted that the approach used by the Commission prevented it from making a claim for adjustments for physical characteristics. This claim, again, has been based on the fact that the Commission conducted the comparison on the basis of three parameters and not more and has already been addressed above in recitals 31 et seq.\n(35)\nAs far as the procedural angle of the issue of comparison is concerned, also raised by the same party, it has to be noted that the company had full opportunity to comment on the calculations performed in its individual case. Full details of those calculations have been disclosed on the day of publication of the provisional Regulation. The company commented on the issue of parameters used in comparison in a letter of 11 July 2011 requesting further clarifications. A reply has been provided by the Commission services on 19 July 2011. The company then reiterated its arguments in a letter of 29 July 2011. While the company disagreed with the basis for comparison, it repeatedly claimed that parameters like wall thickness, length or testing had an impact on prices. As stated above, the Commission acknowledges that those parameters had some impact on prices. However, it was found more appropriate, that the calculations should be based on three most important parameters as this leads to the highest level of matching and at the same time to the possibility to find matching sales for all export transactions.\n(36)\nThe company claimed that it was prevented from presenting claims for adjustment. This argument has to be rejected. The opportunities to present claims existed throughout the course of the proceeding, not least at the time of disclosure of provisional findings when the company became fully aware of all the details of the calculations.\n(37)\nOne party claimed that applying production costs of smaller diameters to the larger ones did not reflect the actual costs, because the costs for larger diameter were much higher. However, the party did not provide any alternative nor did it substantiate its claim. Consequently, in view of the fact that no alternative method has been presented, the method used is considered to be the most reasonable.\n(38)\nOne company claimed that the number of adjustments (the fact that the Commission used three parameters and not more, the quality perception and level of trade adjustments) suggest that the products of the Union producers are hardly comparable to the imported PRC products. In this regard it is noted that the mere fact that the institutions perform adjustments is an inherent part of any dumping calculation. Those adjustments are foreseen in the basic Regulation and therefore as such do not call into question the comparability between product concerned and the like product. In fact the high matching ratio confirms that the product concerned and the like product are fully comparable.\n(39)\nHaving regard to the above, the findings in recitals 53 and 54 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5. Dumping margins\n(40)\nOne party claimed that due to a high fluctuation of the nickel price, the dumping margin should have been calculated on a quarterly basis. In this respect it is noted that in the present case the comparison between export price and normal value is not a comparison between prices and costs, but only between weighted average sales prices (normal value was established on the basis of the sales prices of EU industry). Furthermore, the increase in nickel prices was an increase in world market prices and therefore was not an isolated PRC phenomenon. The increase affected at most 3 months of the IP, while the sales of the product concerned took place throughout the full IP. Furthermore, changes in raw material prices must be considered as a normal part of the business operations. The increasing nickel prices should be affecting both the Union and PRC producers equally, as nickel is quoted on the London Metal Exchange. Any differences would be due to the distortion on raw material prices in the PRC and should therefore not be taken into account in the calculation. Consequently, the claim has to be rejected and comparison based on the annual average PRC export prices with annual average EU prices, duly adjusted to include a reasonable profit margin. This claim was therefore rejected.\n(41)\nOne PRC producer made a substantiated claim that the computation of adjustments in its individual dumping calculation was inaccurate. The Commission accepted this claim and performed a new calculation, which resulted in a dumping margin of 83,7 %. Apart from this change the findings in recitals 55 to 61 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. The revised dumping margins are as follows:\nDefinitive dumping margins\nChangshu Walsin Specialty Steel, Co. Ltd, Haiyu\n83,7 %\nShanghai Jinchang Stainless Steel Tube Manufacturing, Co. Ltd, Situan\n62,6 %\nWenzhou Jiangnan Steel Pipe Manufacturing, Co. Ltd, Yongzhong\n67,1 %\nSample weighted average for the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample and listed in Annex I\n71,5 %\nAll other companies\n83,7 %\nE. INJURY\n1. Union industry\n(42)\nWith regard to the definition of the Union industry and the representativity of the sample of Union producers, no claims have been received following provisional disclosure. Therefore, recitals 62 and 63 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Union consumption\n(43)\nIn respect of the Union consumption, no claims have been received. Therefore, recitals 64 to 66 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. Imports from the country concerned\n(44)\nConcerning the provisional findings relating to volume, market share and price evolution of dumped imports, no claims have been submitted by the interested parties. Therefore, recitals 67 to 69 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(45)\nWith regard to the calculation of price undercutting by imports from the PRC, both the PRC exporting producers and the Union industry requested further information concerning the method of determining certain adjustments (such as post importation costs, level of trade and market perception of quality) that had been applied in the calculation. The Commission accommodated these requests by disclosing how those adjustments were determined while at the same time ensuring compliance with the rules of confidentiality.\n(46)\nFollowing the comments of a PRC producer, a minor correction was made in the calculation of price undercutting, as in the provisional calculation the level of trade adjustment included also a part of post importation costs which had at the same time been covered by a separate adjustment for all post importation costs. The correction resulted in a change of less than one percentage point in the undercutting margins and injury elimination level (for the revision of the injury elimination level see recitals 82 and 83 below) in comparison to the provisional stage.\n(47)\nApart from the changes mentioned above and in the absence of any comments, recitals 70 and 71 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(48)\nFollowing provisional disclosure, some PRC exporting producers claimed that certain indicators should be excluded from the injury analysis. Notably, they stated that production and capacity utilisation fell at the same rate as did Union consumption, alleging that for this reason those indicators should not be considered as factors in the material injury analysis. A similar claim was made with regard to the drop in Union sales which allegedly occurred also at a rate comparable to the reduction of consumption.\n(49)\nIn this context it should first be noted that according to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, \u2018all economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry\u2019 should be examined in an injury analysis. As regards the potential effects of any other factors than dumped imports that may have contributed to the injury, those are addressed under Chapter F. Causation, in particular under the point concerning the effects of any other factors (see recitals 59 to 69 below).\n(50)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals 72 to 89 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5. Conclusion on injury\n(51)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals 90 to 92 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\nF. CAUSATION\n1. Effects of the dumped imports and of the economic downturn\n(52)\nSome parties reiterated their claims submitted during the provisional stage that a substantial part of the material injury experienced by the Union industry should be attributed to factors other than dumped imports.\n(53)\nIn this context, following the provisional disclosure, some PRC exporting producers alleged in particular that a substantial part of the loss of sales volume and market share was due to falling demand resulting from the economic crisis rather than to dumped imports from the PRC. They further alleged that the comparable decrease in the prices of PRC imports and of the Union industry during the period considered (by 9 % and 8 %, respectively) also indicated that the falling prices of the Union industry was purely due to the reduced market demand rather than to the effect of dumped imports.\n(54)\nFirstly, it should be noted that it is recognised in recitals 103 to 106 of the provisional Regulation that the economic downturn and the resulting contraction in demand had a negative effect on the state of the Union industry and that, as such, may have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry. However, this does not diminish the injurious effect of the low priced and dumped PRC imports which have considerably increased their share in the Union market during the period considered.\n(55)\nAs explained in recitals 104 and 105 of the provisional Regulation, the effect of dumped imports is actually much more detrimental in a period of falling demand than during years of rapid growth. PRC imports appear to have continuously undercut the Union prices throughout the period considered. In addition, in the IP the price undercutting was in the range of between 21 % and 32 %, and PRC imports represented more than 18 % of the Union market share, as a result of a substantial gain of 7,9 percentage points over the period considered. Therefore, while PRC imports exerted an evident price pressure that prevented the Union industry from setting cost-covering (not to mention profitable prices), at the same time the increased volume and market share of those imports also made it impossible for the Union industry to aim at higher volumes of production, capacity utilisation and sales, particularly with regard to more commodity-type products mainly sold via distributors.\n(56)\nSecondly, drawing conclusions solely based on selected injury indicators such as sales volume and market share, or sales prices only, would distort the analysis in this case. For instance, the losses in sales volume and market share were combined, inter alia, with severe profitability deterioration and were due, to a large extent, to the price pressure from the dumped imports. As concerns specifically the question of market share, the Union industry lost 3,6 percentage points to the PRC imports during the period considered. Finally, again in view of the rate of undercutting and the increase of PRC imports in both relative and absolute terms, by no means can be concluded that the reduction of the prices of Union producers was unrelated to the price levels of the dumped imports.\n(57)\nIn the light of the above, the causal link between dumped imports and the material injury found is herewith confirmed on the basis of the combined existence of substantial volume and price pressure exerted by the PRC imports on the Union industry.\n(58)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals 94 to 96 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Effects of any other factors\n(59)\nWith regard to the effect of other third country imports to the Union, some PRC exporting producers claimed that 1,0 of the 3,6 percentage points of market share loss of the Union industry should have been attributed to imports from Japan and India. However, as a matter of fact the PRC imports gained market share at the expenses of both other imports and the Union industry. The increase of PRC market share of 7,9 percentage points can be divided into the 3,6 percentage points loss of Union industry market share and the 4,3 percentage points loss of market share of other imports.\n(60)\nThe same PRC exporting producers stated that the average prices of imports of some selected other third countries, notably Ukraine, India and the USA, had also seriously decreased which could have caused injury to the Union industry. In this regard it is noted, however, that overall, the average price of imports from all countries other than the PRC have actually increased by 34 % during the period considered. As already stated in recital 100 of the provisional Regulation, the average import price from the USA had largely exceeded the prices on the Union market. As also emphasised in that same recital, the market share of imports from Ukraine lessened while the American and Indian market shares remained basically stable. Nevertheless, on the basis of Eurostat data on those imports, it cannot be concluded that imports from other third countries would have played a significant role in the deterioration of the state of the Union industry, thereby breaking the causal link established between the dumped PRC imports and the injury.\n(61)\nIn the absence of any other comments regarding the findings set out in recitals 97 to 102 of the provisional Regulation, those findings are hereby confirmed.\n(62)\nAs concerns the effect of the economic downturn, the reasons why the economic downturn cannot be considered an element to break the causal link are analysed in recitals 52 to 58 above. As none of the submitted comments indicated the opposite, the findings set out in recitals 103 to 106 of the provisional Regulation are hereby maintained.\n(63)\nAs for the export performance of the Union industry, in the absence of any comments regarding the findings in recitals 107 and 108 of the provisional Regulation, those findings are hereby confirmed.\n(64)\nA number of PRC exporting producers claimed that the 18 % increase in the unit cost of production described in recital 109 of the provisional Regulation played an important role in the deterioration of the profitability of the Union industry rather than dumped imports, and requested a more detailed analysis of the effect of that unit cost increase.\n(65)\nThe Commission examined the issue and found that the increase in the unit cost of production can be attributed to: higher manufacturing costs as a result of higher raw material prices, as well as to fixed costs such as direct labour, depreciation, manufacturing overheads and SG&A costs, and also to the rapid drop in production.\n(66)\nGiven that the raw material cost fluctuation is to a large extent covered by the price setting mechanism of the Union industry - the so-called \u2018alloy surcharge\u2019 mechanism directly links prices to the quotation of the most important raw materials such as nickel, molybdenum and chromium - its impact on the profitability is unlikely to be significant. However, the other elements, related to the insufficient production and sales volumes, had a direct effect on the profitability levels. As the production and sales volumes of the Union industry would have been significantly higher in the absence of dumped imports, it cannot be concluded that the increase in the unit cost of production in itself is a major factor leading to the injury rather than dumped imports, as it is inextricably linked to the augmented volume of dumped imports.\n(67)\nSome PRC exporting producers also submitted that the Union industry\u2019s failure to restructure despite the falling consumption may have been an important factor leading to the injury established.\n(68)\nIn this respect it should first be noted that the Union industry had to cope with not only the effect of falling consumption in itself but with the impact of dumped imports in a period of falling consumption. Nonetheless, the investigation has shown that the Union industry (i) maintained its production capacity in the expectation of the temporary nature of the crisis and of a forthcoming recovery, and cannot be expected to adapt capacity because of the increasing volumes of PRC imports made at abnormally low, dumped prices, (ii) continuously developed its product mix with a focus on higher value specialised products where PRC competition is less prominent and (iii) reduced its workforce by 8 % and cut the average labour cost per employee by 2 % in the period considered (if these reductions are viewed only in the crisis period, i.e. between 2008 and the IP, they amount to as much as 19 and 11 percentage points, respectively). All these elements show that the Union industry was very active in taking measures in an attempt to respond to the negative effects deriving from the injury suffered. However, the above steps proved to be insufficient to counteract the injurious effects of dumped imports in a period of weak demand.\n(69)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals 109 and 110 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. Conclusion on causation\n(70)\nNone of the arguments submitted by the interested parties demonstrates that the impact of factors other than dumped imports from the PRC is such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury established. In the light of the foregoing it is concluded that the dumped imports from the PRC caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\n(71)\nTherefore the conclusions on causation in the provisional Regulation, as summarised in the recitals 111 to 113 thereof, are hereby confirmed.\nG. UNION INTEREST\n(72)\nIn view of parties\u2019 comments, the Commission continued its analysis pertaining to the Union interest.\n1. Interest of the Union industry\n(73)\nRegarding the interest of the Union industry, no further comments or information was received. Therefore the findings in recitals 116 to 120 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Interest of unrelated importers in the Union\n(74)\nIn the absence of any comments on this point, recitals 121 to 123 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. Interest of the users\n(75)\nAfter the imposition of provisional measures, a user company that had not cooperated submitted comments with regard to the Union interest. Notably, the user argued that the impact of the anti-dumping measures will be significant on the company. It stated that stainless steel tubes are a critical component for several downstream products including those manufactured by that user (e.g. heat exchangers), and that there was also an additional concern of security of supply in view of the delays the company had experienced in respect of certain deliveries made by Union producers.\n(76)\nHowever, given that this user only purchases 5 % of their stainless steel pipes and tubes from China, the possible impact on this company would appear limited, both in terms of costs and security of supply.\n(77)\nAs concerns the alleged cost impact in particular, the company failed to substantiate this claim with actual data. Furthermore, it is recalled that, as set out in recitals 124 and 125 of the provisional Regulation, the cost impact on the sole fully cooperating user was considered to be insignificant, both with regard to the whole company and to its division using stainless steel tubes.\n(78)\nAs regards the issue of security of supply raised by the user, it should be recalled that there is a large number of third countries other than the PRC that continue to import stainless steel tubes into the Union. In addition, as the Union industry remains the most important supplier of the product, their continued existence is critical also for the user industry.\n(79)\nAlthough at provisional stage it was also considered that the anti-dumping measures may have a more serious impact on those users that use substantial quantities of stainless steel tubes imported from the PRC for manufacturing their downstream products (see recital 126 of the provisional Regulation), in view of the lack of any substantiated claim or any new information following provisional disclosure, it can be concluded that the essential benefits of the Union industry from the imposition of anti-dumping measures appear to outweigh the expected negative impacts on such users. Therefore the findings with regard to the interest of users as laid down in recitals 124 to 130 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(80)\nOn the basis of the above, it is definitively concluded that on balance, no compelling reasons exist against the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC. Therefore the conclusions in recitals 131 and 132 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\nH. DEFINITIVE MEASURES\n1. Injury elimination level\n(81)\nThe complainants argued that the 5 % target profit, as established at the provisional stage, was excessively low and it reiterated the view that a level of 12 % would be justified, in view of the fact that the industry at hand is capital intensive and necessitates permanent technical improvements and innovation updates, consequently substantial investments. The complainants argued that such a profitability level would be needed to generate sufficient return on capital and allow for those investments. However, the above claim was not convincingly substantiated by actual figures. Therefore it is concluded that the 5 % profit margin established at the provisional stage should be maintained.\n(82)\nAs regards the determination of the injury elimination level, as already stated in recital 45 above, the small correction with regard to the adjustment for the level of trade that affected the calculation of price undercutting was also applied in the calculation of the injury elimination level.\n(83)\nThe above change led to a minor revision of the injury elimination level. As a result, the injury elimination level is in the range between 48,3 % and 71,9 %, as shown in the table below:\nCompany/companies\nInjury elimination level\nChangshu Walsin Specialty Steel, Co. Ltd, Haiyu\n71,9 %\nShanghai Jinchang Stainless Steel Tube Manufacturing, Co. Ltd, Situan\n48,3 %\nWenzhou Jiangnan Steel Pipe Manufacturing, Co. Ltd, Yongzhong\n48,6 %\nSample weighted average for the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample and listed in Annex I\n56,9 %\nAll other companies\n71,9 %\n(84)\nOne PRC exporting producer claimed that due to the injury caused by the economic crisis, the injury margin should be based on price undercutting rather than price underselling, claiming that this method had been followed in a number of anti-dumping proceedings (4). However, in all the investigations cited by the exporting producer, there were particular reasons regarding the industry or the economic sector (such as the threat of creating a monopoly, a substantial capacity increase of the Union industry in a mature market, the long-term absence of profits of the industry on a global scale) which supported the exceptional application of this particular methodology. In the current investigation this is not the case, as the economic crisis affected the global economy as such, and can therefore not be considered to be specific to the industry producing seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel.\n2. Definitive measures\n(85)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed on the product concerned at the level of the lower of the dumping and injury margins found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule. In this case, as the injury elimination levels are lower than the dumping margins established, the definitive measures should be based on the injury elimination levels.\n(86)\nOn the basis of the above, the duty rates, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:\nCompany/companies\nDefinitive anti-dumping duty rate\nChangshu Walsin Specialty Steel, Co. Ltd, Haiyu\n71,9 %\nShanghai Jinchang Stainless Steel Tube Manufacturing, Co. Ltd, Situan\n48,3 %\nWenzhou Jiangnan Steel Pipe Manufacturing, Co. Ltd, Yongzhong\n48,6 %\nSample weighted average for the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample and listed in Annex I\n56,9 %\nAll other companies\n71,9 %\n(87)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to the companies concerned. These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the PRC and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(88)\nIn order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in the duty rates, it is considered that special measures are needed in this case to ensure the proper application of the anti-dumping duties. These special measures include the presentation to the Customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in Annex II to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all other exporters.\n(89)\nShould the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances and provided the conditions are met, an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rate(s) and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.\n(90)\nAny claim requesting the application of an individual company anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (5) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be accordingly amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(91)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the PRC. They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to the final disclosure.\n(92)\nThe comments submitted by the interested parties were duly considered. None of the comments was such as to alter the findings of the investigation.\n(93)\nIn order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the country-wide duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.\n(94)\nIn order to ensure equal treatment between any new exporters and the cooperating companies not included in the sample, mentioned in Annex I to this Regulation, provision should be made for the weighted average duty imposed on the latter companies to be applied to any new exporters which would otherwise be entitled to a review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation as that Article does not apply where sampling has been used.\n3. Definitive collection of provisional duties\n(95)\nIn view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and given the level of the injury caused to the Union industry (the definitive duty imposed by this Regulation having been set at a level higher than the provisional duty imposed by the provisional Regulation), it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by the provisional Regulation should be definitively collected,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel (excluding such pipes and tubes with attached fittings suitable for conducting gases or liquids for use in civil aircraft), currently falling within CN codes 7304 11 00, 7304 22 00, 7304 24 00, ex 7304 41 00, 7304 49 10, ex 7304 49 93, ex 7304 49 95, ex 7304 49 99 and ex 7304 90 00 (TARIC codes 7304410090, 7304499390, 7304499590, 7304499990 and 7304900091), and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC).\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCompany/companies\nDefinitive anti-dumping duty rate\nTARIC additional code\nChangshu Walsin Specialty Steel, Co. Ltd, Haiyu\n71,9 %\nB120\nShanghai Jinchang Stainless Steel Tube Manufacturing, Co. Ltd, Situan\n48,3 %\nB118\nWenzhou Jiangnan Steel Pipe Manufacturing, Co. Ltd, Yongzhong\n48,6 %\nB119\nCompanies listed in Annex I\n56,9 %\nAll other companies\n71,9 %\nB999\n3. The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in Annex II. If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall apply.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThe amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 on imports of seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel (excluding such pipes and tubes with attached fittings suitable for conducting gases or liquids for use in civil aircraft), currently falling within CN codes 7304 11 00, 7304 22 00, 7304 24 00, ex 7304 41 00, 7304 49 10, ex 7304 49 93, ex 7304 49 95, ex 7304 49 99 and ex 7304 90 00 and originating in the PRC, shall be definitively collected.\nArticle 3\nWhere any new exporting producer in the PRC provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:\n-\nit did not export to the Union the product described in Article 1(1) during the investigation period (1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010),\n-\nit is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the PRC which are subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation,\n-\nit has actually exported to the Union the product concerned after the investigation period on which the measures are based, or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union,\nthe Council, acting by simple majority on a proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, may amend Article 1(2) by adding the new exporting producer to the cooperating companies not included in the sample and thus subject to the weighted average duty rate of 56,9 %.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Geneva, on 14 December 2011.", "references": ["42", "94", "17", "21", "10", "85", "53", "66", "81", "39", "7", "35", "28", "43", "15", "87", "47", "1", "20", "24", "60", "80", "88", "57", "40", "75", "99", "50", "38", "29", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EULEX/2/2011\nof 16 December 2011\nextending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (1), EULEX KOSOVO\n(2011/849/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP of 4 February 2008 on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (2), and in particular Article 12(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX KOSOVO), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nOn 8 June 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/322/CFSP (3) extending the duration of EULEX KOSOVO until 14 June 2012.\n(3)\nBy Decision 2010/431/CFSP (4), following a proposal by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), the PSC appointed Mr Xavier BOUT DE MARNHAC as Head of Mission of EULEX KOSOVO with effect from 15 October 2010.\n(4)\nBy Decision 2011/688/CFSP (5), the PSC extended the mandate of Mr Xavier BOUT DE MARNHAC as Head of Mission of EULEX KOSOVO until 14 December 2011.\n(5)\nOn 9 December 2011, the HR proposed the extension of the mandate of Mr Xavier BOUT DE MARNHAC as Head of Mission of EULEX KOSOVO until 14 June 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Mr Xavier BOUT DE MARNHAC as Head of Mission of EULEX KOSOVO is hereby extended until 14 June 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 15 December 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["1", "76", "23", "78", "84", "92", "35", "53", "67", "85", "27", "17", "28", "41", "42", "4", "19", "2", "73", "57", "48", "30", "71", "47", "97", "31", "45", "79", "80", "93", "No Label", "0", "3", "7", "91", "96"], "gold": ["0", "3", "7", "91", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 572/2012\nof 28 June 2012\nmaking imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People's Republic of China subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the judgment of the European Court of Justice (\u2027ECJ\u2027) of 22 March 2012 in Case C-338/10,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 10(4) and 14(5) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nThe European Commission (\u2027the Commission\u2027) has received a request, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, to make imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China subject to registration.\nA. PRODUCT CONCERNED\n(1)\nThe product concerned by this registration is prepared or preserved mandarins (including tangerines and satsumas), clementines, wilkings and other similar citrus hybrids, not containing added spirit, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, and as defined under CN heading 2008, currently falling within CN codes 2008 30 55, 2008 30 75 and ex 2008 30 90 (TARIC codes 2008309061, 2008309063, 2008309065, 2008309067, 2008309069) originating in the People's Republic of China.\nB. THE COURT JUDGEMENT\n(2)\nOn 22 March 2012, in Case C-338/10, the European Court of Justice (\u2027ECJ\u2027) declared Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People's Republic of China (2) (\u2027definitive anti-dumping Regulation\u2027 or \u2027the contested Regulation\u2027) invalid.\n(3)\nThe ECJ judgment was based on the ground that the Commission had not taken all due care to determine the normal value on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country as prescribed by Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(4)\nAs a consequence of that judgment, imports into the European Union of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) are no longer subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008.\n(5)\nFollowing the ECJ judgment, the Commission has thus decided to reopen the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People's Republic of China initiated pursuant to the basic Regulation. The reopening is limited in scope to the implementation of the finding of the ECJ as recalled above. (3)\nC. REQUEST\n(6)\nFollowing the ECJ judgement, the Spanish National Federation of Associations of Processed Fruit and Vegetables (\u2027FENAVAL\u2027, previously named \u2027FNACV\u2027) (\u2027the applicant\u2027) requested that imports of the product concerned are made subject to registration pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports from the date of such registration.\nD. GROUNDS FOR THE REGISTRATION\n(7)\nThe applicant submitted that the declaration of invalidity by the ECJ of the anti-dumping measures concerned more than one and a half year before their envisaged expiry, for reasons other than the absence of dumping and subsequent injury, heavily jeopardizes its viability. In this respect it pointed in particular at the immediate risk of significant stockpiling of imports concerned, as had already been seen in the past. It therefore requested the registration of such imports.\n(8)\nAccording to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission may, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, direct the customs authorities to take the appropriate steps to register imports, so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports from the date of such registration. Imports may be made subject to registration following a request from the Union industry which contains sufficient evidence to justify such action.\n(9)\nThe request contains sufficient evidence to justify registration. It should be recalled that the the product is seasonal and fungible, that it is normally canned and that it can easily be stored for extended periods and easily transported. All this makes it possible to rapidly build-up inventories.\n(10)\nIn Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2008, which imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of the product concerned, it was already described that, prior to the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures, imports of the product concerned had also increased very sharply within a relatively short period (4). The applicant's fear that a surge of imports is to reoccur now that the measures have been found to be invalid is therefore considered justified. It is corroborated by statistical data from Member States which already reported a very sharp increase in imports in March 2012, to levels twice as high as in March 2011 and 3-4 times higher than in any other preceding month in 2011 and 2012.\n(11)\nThe ECJ judgement is limited to the determination of the normal value on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country. Therefore, the existence of injury is not challenged. In its request, the applicant also pointed at the immediate risk of severe injury to the EU industry as importers would still be able to switch from EU products to Chinese products, leaving EU industry with massive stocks in their warehouses.\n(12)\nIn view of the above it is considered that the remedial effect of any definitive anti-dumping duties is likely to be seriously undermined, unless such duties would be applied retroactively. Accordingly, the conditions for registration in this case are met.\nE. PROCEDURE\n(13)\nIn view of the above, the Commission has concluded that the applicant's request contains sufficient evidence to make imports of the product concerned subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(14)\nAll interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\nF. REGISTRATION\n(15)\nPursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product concerned should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the reopened investigation result in findings leading to the re-imposition of anti-dumping duties, those duties can, if the necessary conditions are fulfilled, be levied retroactively in accordance with applicable legal provisions. Any future liability would emanate from the findings of the reopened anti-dumping investigation.\nG. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\n(16)\nAny personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the European Union of prepared or preserved mandarins (including tangerines and satsumas), clementines, wilkings and other similar citrus hybrids, not containing added spirit, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, and as defined under CN heading 2008, currently falling within CN codes 2008 30 55, 2008 30 75 and ex 2008 30 90 (TARIC codes 2008309061, 2008309063, 2008309065, 2008309067, 2008309069) originating in the People's Republic of China. Registration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. All interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing, to provide supporting evidence or to request to be heard within 20 days from the date of publication of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2012.", "references": ["5", "56", "16", "38", "97", "52", "74", "88", "81", "71", "98", "77", "39", "54", "0", "30", "86", "66", "15", "29", "1", "36", "87", "51", "94", "85", "76", "70", "67", "11", "No Label", "21", "22", "48", "68", "72", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "48", "68", "72", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 195/2011\nof 28 February 2011\ncancelling the registration of a name in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (G\u00f6gginger Bier (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, and pursuant to Article 17(2) of the same Regulation, the application submitted by Germany to cancel the name \u2018G\u00f6gginger Bier\u2019 in the Register was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, registration of this name must therefore be cancelled.\n(3)\nIn light of the above, this name must therefore be removed from the \u2018Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications\u2019.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Protected Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegistration of the name listed in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby cancelled.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["16", "1", "84", "55", "70", "12", "23", "90", "83", "75", "68", "22", "43", "17", "34", "93", "36", "85", "41", "51", "40", "42", "10", "57", "26", "94", "14", "82", "61", "20", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "71", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "71", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 717/2011\nof 20 July 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Cornish Pasty (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Cornish Pasty\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no objections within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 were received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register.\n(3)\nHowever, by virtue of the second subparagraph of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, a transitional period may be set for undertakings established in the Member State in which the geographical area is located, provided that the undertakings concerned have legally marketed the products in question, using the names concerned continuously for at least 5 years preceding the date of the publication referred to in Article 6(2) of that Regulation, and have noted that point in the national objection procedure referred to in Article 5(5) thereof.\n(4)\nIn a letter received on 25 March 2011, the UK authorities confirmed to the Commission that the following undertakings established on their territory met the conditions set out in the second subparagraph of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006: Pukka Pies Ltd, Pork Farms Ltd, Shire Foods Ltd, Northern Foods plc, Greggs plc, Peter\u2019s Food Service Ltd and Kerry Group plc.\n(5)\nThose undertakings should therefore be allowed to continue to use the registered name \u2018Cornish Pasty\u2019 during a transitional period of 3 years from the entry into force of this Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nPukka Pies Ltd, Pork Farms Ltd, Shire Foods Ltd, Northern Foods plc, Greggs plc, Peter\u2019s Food Service Ltd and Kerry Group plc may, however, continue to use that name for a period of 3 years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["79", "37", "41", "11", "15", "94", "35", "20", "3", "57", "66", "99", "70", "10", "45", "2", "68", "71", "44", "76", "40", "59", "64", "74", "61", "60", "85", "28", "17", "53", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 614/2010\nof 12 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2010.", "references": ["78", "17", "46", "20", "83", "27", "86", "72", "37", "32", "8", "71", "69", "58", "95", "47", "43", "22", "92", "84", "97", "40", "77", "70", "4", "80", "88", "99", "2", "10", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 22 September 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service\n(2012/380/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 2 December 2010, the Council adopted a Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations on behalf of the Union with Australia for the transfer and use of passenger name record (PNR) data to prevent and combat terrorism and other serious transnational crime.\n(2)\nThe Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (the Agreement) has been negotiated. The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be signed subject to its conclusion at a later date, and the Declaration attached to the Final Act of the Agreement should be approved.\n(4)\nThe Agreement respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), notably the right to respect for private and family life, recognised in Article 7 of the Charter, the right to the protection of personal data, recognised in Article 8 of the Charter and the right to effective remedy and fair trial recognised in Article 47 of the Charter. The Agreement should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, those Member States have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by the Agreement or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (the Agreement) is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (1).\nArticle 2\nThe Declaration attached to the Final Act of the Agreement shall be approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2011.", "references": ["20", "63", "28", "21", "76", "49", "13", "14", "32", "72", "85", "74", "17", "47", "19", "2", "44", "34", "86", "45", "53", "10", "26", "23", "56", "25", "54", "15", "39", "30", "No Label", "9", "36", "40", "42", "57", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "36", "40", "42", "57", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 596/2012\nof 5 July 2012\ninitiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China by imports of silicon consigned from Taiwan whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not, and making such imports subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Articles 13(3) and 14(5) thereof,\nAfter having consulted the Advisory Committee in accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation,\nWhereas:\nA. REQUEST\n(1)\nThe European Commission (\u2027the Commission\u2027) has received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China and to make imports of silicon consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not, subject to registration.\n(2)\nThe request was lodged on 15 May 2012 by Euroalliages (Liaison Committee of the Ferro-Alloy Industry) (\u2027the applicant\u2027) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, namely 100 %, of the Union production of silicon.\nB. PRODUCT\n(3)\nThe product concerned by the possible circumvention is silicon metal originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN code 2804 69 00 (silicon content less than 99,99 % by weight) (\u2018the product concerned\u2019). Purely by reason of the current classification set out in the Combined Nomenclature, it should read \u2018silicon\u2019. Silicon with a higher purity, that is containing by weight not less than 99,99 % of silicon, used mostly in the electronic semi-conductor industry, falls under a different CN code and is not covered by this proceeding.\n(4)\nThe product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not, currently falling within the same CN code as the product concerned (\u2018the product under investigation\u2019).\nC. EXISTING MEASURES\n(5)\nThe measures currently in force and possibly being circumvented are anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 (2) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, as extended to imports of silicon consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.\n(6)\nAn anti-circumvention investigation concerning imports of silicon was also carried out in 2006-2007 which led to Council Regulation (EC) No 42/2007 (3) extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 398/2004 on imports of silicon originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China to imports of silicon consigned from the Republic of Korea whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not.\nD. GROUNDS\n(7)\nThe request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China are being circumvented by means of transhipment via Taiwan.\n(8)\nThe prima facie evidence at the Commission's disposal is as follows:\n(9)\nThere is a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan to the Union which has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned, without sufficient due cause or justification for such a change other than the imposition of the duty.\n(10)\nThis change appears to stem from the transhipment of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China via Taiwan to the Union.\n(11)\nFurthermore, the evidence points to the fact that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned are being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. Significant volumes of imports of the product under investigation appear to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, there is sufficient evidence that imports of the product under investigation are made at prices well below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures, adjusted for the increase in the costs of the raw material.\n(12)\nFinally, the Commission has sufficient prima facie evidence that the prices of the product under investigation are dumped in relation to the normal value previously established for the product concerned, adjusted for the increase in the costs of the raw material.\n(13)\nShould circumvention practices via Taiwan covered by Article 13 of the basic Regulation, other than transhipment, be identified in the course of the investigation, the investigation may also cover these practices.\nE. PROCEDURE\n(14)\nIn light of the above, the Commission has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation and to make imports of the product under investigation, whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not, subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(a) Questionnaires\n(15)\nIn order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the known exporters/producers and to the known associations of exporters/producers in Taiwan, to the known exporters/producers and to the known associations of exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China, to the known importers and to the known associations of importers in the Union and to the authorities of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. Information, as appropriate, may also be sought from the Union industry.\n(16)\nIn any event, all interested parties should contact the Commission forthwith, but not later than the time-limit set in Article 3 of this Regulation, and request a questionnaire within the time-limit set in Article 3(1) of this Regulation, given that the time-limit set in Article 3(2) of this Regulation applies to all interested parties.\n(17)\nThe authorities of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan will be notified of the initiation of the investigation.\n(b) Collection of information and holding of hearings\n(18)\nAll interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\n(c) Exemption of registration of imports or measures\n(19)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation may be exempted from registration or measures if the importation does not constitute circumvention.\n(20)\nSince the possible circumvention takes place outside the Union, exemptions may be granted, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, to producers of silicon in Taiwan that can show that they are not related (4) to any producer subject to the measures (5) and that are found not to be engaged in circumvention practices as defined in Articles 13(1) and 13(2) of the basic Regulation. Producers wishing to obtain an exemption should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the time-limit indicated in Article 3(3) of this Regulation.\nF. REGISTRATION\n(21)\nPursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied from the date on which registration of such imports consigned from Taiwan was imposed.\nG. TIME-LIMITS\n(22)\nIn the interest of sound administration, time-limits should be stated within which:\n-\ninterested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,\n-\nproducers in Taiwan may request exemption from registration of imports or measures,\n-\ninterested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.\n(23)\nAttention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the time-limits indicated in Article 3 of this Regulation.\nH. NON-COOPERATION\n(24)\nIn cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time-limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.\n(25)\nWhere it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of facts available.\n(26)\nIf an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.\nI. SCHEDULE OF THE INVESTIGATION\n(27)\nThe investigation will be concluded, pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, within nine months of the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nJ. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\n(28)\nIt is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (6).\nK. HEARING OFFICER\n(29)\nInterested parties may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of the Directorate-General for Trade. The Hearing Officer acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission investigation services. The Hearing Officer reviews requests for access to the file, disputes regarding the confidentiality of documents, requests for extension of time limits and requests by third parties to be heard. The Hearing Officer may organise a hearing with an individual interested party and mediate to ensure that the interested parties' rights of defence are being fully exercised.\n(30)\nA request for a hearing with the Hearing Officer should be made in writing and should specify the reasons for the request. The Hearing Officer will also provide opportunities for a hearing involving parties to take place which would allow different views to be presented and rebuttal arguments offered.\n(31)\nFor further information and contact details interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages on the Directorate-General for Trade's website: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/hearing-officer/index_en.htm.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAn investigation is hereby initiated pursuant to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, in order to determine if imports into the Union of silicon (silicon content less than 99,99 % by weight) consigned from Taiwan whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not, currently falling within CN code ex 2804 69 00 (TARIC code 2804690020), are circumventing the measures imposed by Regulation (EU) No 467/2010.\nArticle 2\nThe Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 13(3) and Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union identified in Article 1 of this Regulation.\nRegistration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThe Commission, by regulation, may direct Customs authorities to cease registration in respect of imports into the Union of products manufactured by producers having applied for an exemption of registration and having been found to fulfil the conditions for an exemption to be granted.\nArticle 3\n1. Questionnaires must be requested from the Commission within 15 days from publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. Interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 37 days from the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.\n3. Producers in Taiwan requesting exemption from registration of imports or measures must submit a request duly supported by evidence within the same 37-day time-limit.\n4. Interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 37-day time-limit.\n5. Interested parties are required to make all submissions and requests in electronic format (non-confidential submissions via e-mail, confidential ones on CD-R/DVD), and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers. However, any Powers of Attorney, signed certifications, and any updates thereof, accompanying questionnaire replies must be submitted on paper, i.e. by post or by hand, at the address below. If an interested party cannot provide its submissions and requests in electronic format, it must immediately inform the Commission in compliance with Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation. For further information concerning correspondence with the Commission, interested parties may consult the relevant web page on the website of the Directorate-General for Trade: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/trade-defence.\nAll written submissions, including the information requested in this Regulation, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis must be labelled as \u2027Limited\u2027 (7) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, must be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which must be labelled \u2027For inspection by interested parties\u2027.\nCommission address for correspondence:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N105 4/92\n1049 Bruxelles/Brussel\nBELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb\nFax +32 229 52372\nE-mail: trade-silicon-circumvention@ec.europa.eu\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2012.", "references": ["77", "79", "47", "55", "20", "24", "26", "66", "92", "43", "71", "25", "10", "46", "3", "67", "2", "36", "94", "6", "1", "21", "31", "28", "32", "51", "85", "8", "98", "33", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/499/CFSP\nof 1 August 2011\namending and extending Decision 2010/450/CFSP appointing the European Union Special Representative for Sudan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 11 August 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/450/CFSP (1) appointing Mrs Rosalind MARSDEN as European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Sudan from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011.\n(2)\nOn 9 July 2011, the Republic of South Sudan declared its independence and the EUSR henceforth covers two independent countries.\n(3)\nMrs Rosalind MARSDEN should be appointed as EUSR for the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan from 9 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. Decision 2010/450/CFSP should therefore be amended and extended.\n(4)\nThe EUSR will implement her mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/450/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n(2)\nArticles 1, 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nMrs Rosalind MARSDEN is hereby appointed as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Republic of Sudan (Sudan) and the Republic of South Sudan (South Sudan) from 9 July 2011 until 30 June 2012. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the European Union (\u2018the EU\u2019 or \u2018the Union\u2019) in relation to Sudan and South Sudan, working with the Sudanese parties, the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN) and other national, regional and international stakeholders, to achieve a peaceful co-existence between Sudan and South Sudan following the expiry of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and South Sudan\u2019s independence on 9 July 2011. The Union\u2019s policy objectives include actively contributing to the resolution of any outstanding CPA and post-CPA issues and helping the parties to implement what has been agreed; supporting efforts to stabilise the volatile north-south border area; promoting institution building and fostering stability, security and development in South Sudan; facilitating a political solution to the conflict in Darfur; promoting democratic governance, accountability and respect for human rights, including cooperation with the International Criminal Court; maintaining engagement in eastern Sudan; and improving humanitarian access throughout Sudan and South Sudan.\nIn addition, the mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the Union\u2019s policy objective to contribute to the mitigation and elimination of threats to the stability of South Sudan and the wider region posed by the Lords Resistance Army (LRA).\nArticle 3\nMandate\n1. In order to achieve the policy objectives, the EUSR\u2019s mandate shall be to:\n(a)\nliaise with the Government of Sudan, the Government of South Sudan, Sudanese and South Sudanese political parties, the Darfur armed movements, civil society and non-governmental organisations, with the aim of pursuing the Union\u2019s policy objectives;\n(b)\nmaintain close cooperation with the UN, the AU and in particular the AU High-Level Implementation Panel for Sudan (AUHIP), the League of Arab States, the Inter-Governmental Agency for Development and other leading regional and international stakeholders including the US Special Envoy;\n(c)\nparticipate in relevant international and public forums to promote the Union\u2019s policy objectives and the coherence of international efforts towards Sudan;\n(d)\ncontribute to international efforts to facilitate a comprehensive, inclusive and durable peace agreement for Darfur working closely with the UN, the AU, the Governments of Qatar and other international stakeholders;\n(e)\npromote respect for human rights by maintaining regular contacts with the relevant authorities in Sudan and South Sudan, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the human rights observers active in the region;\n(f)\ncontribute to the implementation of the Union\u2019s human rights policy, including the Union Guidelines on human rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and the Union policy regarding UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security, including by monitoring and reporting on developments as well as formulating recommendations in this regard;\n(g)\nactively contribute to the implementation of a comprehensive Union approach to Sudan and South Sudan as agreed by the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 June 2011;\n(h)\nhave oversight of and coordinate Union engagement with all relevant stakeholders to support efforts to mitigate and eliminate the threat to civilians and stability in South Sudan and the wider region posed by the LRA.\n2. For the purpose of the fulfilment of her mandate, the EUSR shall, inter alia:\n(a)\nadvise and report on the definition of Union positions in international forums in order to proactively promote and strengthen a consistent Union policy approach towards Sudan and South Sudan;\n(b)\nmaintain an overview of all activities of the Union and cooperate closely with the Union delegations in Khartoum, Juba and the Union delegations to the AU in Addis Ababa and to the UN in New York;\n(c)\ncontribute to the political process and activities relating to the resolution of any outstanding CPA and post-CPA issues and help the parties to implement what has been agreed as well as support efforts in the area of institution-building in South Sudan;\n(d)\ncontribute to the implementation of the Union\u2019s human rights policy, including the Union Guidelines on Human Rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and the Union policy regarding UNSCR 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security, including by monitoring and reporting on developments in this regard; and\n(e)\nfollow up and report on compliance by the Sudanese and South Sudanese parties with the relevant UNSCRs, in particular 1556 (2004), 1564 (2004), 1590 (2005), 1591 (2005), 1593 (2005), 1612 (2005), 1663 (2006), 1672 (2006), 1679 (2006), 1769 (2007), 1778 (2007), 1881 (2009), 1882 (2009), 1891 (2009), 1919 (2010).\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 4 the following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (EEAS).\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 5(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount of EUR 1 820 000 shall be increased by EUR 955 000 to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 September 2010 to 30 June 2012.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of her mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting her team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of her team.\n2. Member States, institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of personnel who are seconded by a Member State or an institution of the Union to the EUSR shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, institution of the Union or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\n4. Offices of the EUSR shall be maintained in Brussels, Khartoum and Juba with the necessary political, administrative and logistic support staff.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of her team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2).\n(7)\nArticle 10 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with her mandate and the security situation in her geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under her direct authority, in particular by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan, including physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as management of security incidents and including a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of her team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 11(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The EUSR shall regularly report to the PSC on the situation in Darfur and on the situation in Sudan and South Sudan.\u2019;\n(9)\nArticle 12(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegations, including in Khartoum, Juba, Addis Ababa and New York and with Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\u2019;\n(10)\nArticle 13 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the Council, the HR and the Commission with a progress report before the end of January 2012 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 9 July 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 1 August 2011.", "references": ["8", "28", "89", "78", "92", "48", "59", "68", "31", "17", "15", "84", "41", "39", "23", "1", "70", "32", "63", "36", "40", "73", "71", "61", "58", "20", "10", "88", "42", "12", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "94"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 575/2011\nof 16 June 2011\non the Catalogue of feed materials\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the placing on the market and use of feed, amending European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 and repealing Council Directive 79/373/EEC, Commission Directive 80/511/EEC, Council Directives 82/471/EEC, 83/228/EEC, 93/74/EEC, 93/113/EC and 96/25/EC and Commission Decision 2004/217/EC (1), and in particular Article 26(2) and (3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 242/2010 of 19 March 2010 creating the Catalogue of feed materials (2) established the first version of the Catalogue of feed materials. It consists of the list of feed materials already listed in Part B of the Annex to Directive 96/25/EC and columns 2, 3 and 4 of the Annex to Directive 82/471/EEC and of a glossary taking over point IV of Part A of the Annex to Directive 96/25/EC.\n(2)\nThe appropriate representatives of the European feed business sectors have, in consultation with other concerned parties, in collaboration with the competent national authorities and taking into account relevant experience from opinions issued by the European Food Safety Authority and scientific or technological developments, developed amendments to Regulation (EU) No 242/2010. These amendments concern new entries and improvements of existing entries.\n(3)\nThe Commission has assessed the submitted amendments, verified that the procedure and conditions foreseen in Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 has been followed and are fulfilled and agrees to the amendments as modified during the assessment.\n(4)\nGiven the very high number of amendments to be made to Regulation (EU) No 242/2010, it is appropriate, for reasons of coherence, clarity and simplification, to repeal and replace that Regulation.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Catalogue of feed materials referred to in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 is established, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 242/2010 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 June 2011.", "references": ["51", "37", "40", "3", "74", "28", "24", "87", "96", "31", "62", "93", "89", "17", "99", "54", "30", "76", "47", "49", "34", "86", "2", "43", "16", "77", "56", "10", "91", "98", "No Label", "23", "39", "66", "73"], "gold": ["23", "39", "66", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1291/2011\nof 9 December 2011\ndetermining the extent to which the import licence applications submitted in November 2011 for certain milk products under certain tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 can be accepted\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImport licence applications lodged from 20 to 30 November 2011 for certain tariff quotas referred to in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 of 14 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas (3) relate to quantities greater than those available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor import licence applications lodged from 20 to 30 November 2011 for the tariff quotas referred to in parts I.A, I.F, I.H, I.I, and I.J of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, licences shall be issued for the quantities requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficient(s) set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["95", "63", "54", "43", "47", "9", "86", "6", "87", "44", "84", "20", "75", "55", "19", "85", "34", "99", "12", "0", "78", "89", "31", "17", "93", "52", "77", "60", "51", "40", "No Label", "21", "22", "70"], "gold": ["21", "22", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 281/2011\nof 21 March 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of March 2011 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for certain products in the egg sector and for egg albumin\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 of 15 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the egg sector and for egg albumin (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 539/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of egg products and egg albumin.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of March 2011 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["36", "47", "50", "56", "23", "61", "29", "31", "44", "48", "60", "38", "34", "92", "1", "81", "13", "62", "58", "97", "57", "89", "41", "96", "53", "80", "40", "5", "27", "67", "No Label", "21", "69", "72"], "gold": ["21", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 855/2012\nof 18 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock inVIIb-k, VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 September 2012.", "references": ["50", "78", "19", "64", "3", "17", "57", "66", "70", "1", "40", "76", "34", "68", "22", "45", "43", "31", "5", "47", "72", "88", "99", "11", "18", "37", "35", "16", "80", "42", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 680/2012\nof 24 July 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Uva di Puglia (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy's application to register the name \u2027Uva di Puglia\u2027 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["79", "77", "70", "19", "71", "49", "48", "92", "61", "10", "65", "74", "16", "94", "45", "15", "36", "69", "62", "31", "67", "1", "46", "52", "82", "12", "3", "44", "57", "33", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1109/2010\nof 30 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["47", "60", "64", "42", "87", "66", "7", "31", "16", "73", "9", "53", "86", "5", "11", "37", "38", "15", "89", "59", "55", "76", "88", "34", "49", "24", "8", "10", "85", "52", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 16 September 2010\non the authenticity and fitness checking and recirculation of euro banknotes\n(ECB/2010/14)\n(2010/597/EU)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 128(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the Statute of the ESCB), and in particular Article 16 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 128(1) of the Treaty and Article 16 of the Statute of the ESCB provide that the European Central Bank (ECB) has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of euro banknotes within the Union. This right includes the competence to take measures to protect the integrity of euro banknotes as a means of payment.\n(2)\nTo protect the integrity of euro banknotes and enable a proper detection of counterfeits, euro banknotes in circulation must be maintained in good condition to ensure that they can be easily and reliably checked for genuineness, and therefore euro banknotes must be checked for fitness. Furthermore, suspect counterfeit euro banknotes must be quickly detected and handed over to the competent national authorities.\n(3)\nArticle 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (1) originally obliged credit and other relevant institutions to withdraw from circulation all euro banknotes received by them which they know or have sufficient reason to believe to be counterfeit.\n(4)\nTo establish harmonised standards on euro banknote recirculation, in 2005 the ECB published the banknote recycling framework which laid down common rules and procedures on authenticity and fitness checking of euro banknotes (2), including operational standards for banknote handling machines. Subsequently, the ECB adopted common procedures for the testing of banknote handling machines by NCBs.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1338/2001 has been amended (3) to the effect that the scope of its addressees has been extended and that they are now obliged to ensure that euro banknotes they have received and which they intend to put back into circulation are checked for authenticity and that counterfeits are detected. In this respect Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 stipulates that, for euro notes, this check shall be carried out in line with the procedures defined by the ECB. It is therefore appropriate to lay down those procedures in a legal act.\n(6)\nWithout prejudice to the Member States\u2019 competence to establish sanctions against the institutions referred to in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 that fail to discharge their obligations thereunder, the Eurosystem must be able to take appropriate administrative measures to ensure that the procedures defined by the ECB are complied with and that the rules and procedures established under this Decision are not circumvented with the consequent risk of counterfeit and unfit banknotes not being detected or being put back into circulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Decision lays down common rules and procedures on the authenticity and fitness checking and recirculation of euro banknotes under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision:\n1.\n\u2018NCB\u2019 means the national central bank of a Member State whose currency is the euro.\n2.\n\u2018Cash handlers\u2019 means the institutions and economic agents referred to in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001.\n3.\n\u2018Recirculation\u2019 means the action, by cash handlers, of putting back into circulation, directly or indirectly, euro banknotes that they have received, either from the public as payment or as a deposit in a bank account, or from another cash handler.\n4.\n\u2018Banknote handling machine\u2019 means a customer-operated or staff-operated machine as defined in Annex I.\n5.\n\u2018Type of banknote handling machine\u2019 means a banknote handling machine that can be distinguished from other banknote handling machines as described in Annex I.\n6.\n\u2018Common test procedures\u2019 means the test procedures, as specified by the ECB, to be applied by NCBs in order to test types of banknote handling machine.\n7.\n\u2018Trained staff members\u2019 means employees of cash handlers who have: (a) knowledge of the different public security features of euro banknotes, as specified and published by the Eurosystem, and the ability to check them; and (b) knowledge of the sorting criteria listed in Annex IIIb and the ability to check euro banknotes in accordance with them.\n8.\n\u2018Counterfeit euro banknotes\u2019 means counterfeit banknotes as defined in Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001.\n9.\n\u2018Cash dispenser\u2019 means a self-service machine which, through the use of a bank card or other means, dispenses euro banknotes to the public, debiting a bank account, such as an automated teller machine (ATM) dispensing cash. Self-checkout terminals (SCoTs) with which the public can pay for goods or services either by bank card, cash or other payment instruments, having a cash-withdrawal function, are also considered cash dispensers.\n10.\n\u2018Competent national authorities\u2019 means authorities as defined in Article 2(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001.\n11.\n\u2018Unfit euro banknotes\u2019 means euro banknotes which are evaluated as unsuitable for recirculation following the fitness checking referred to in Article 6.\n12.\n\u2018Credit institution\u2019 means a credit institution as defined in Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (4).\nArticle 3\nGeneral principles\n1. The obligation of cash handlers to check euro banknotes for authenticity and fitness shall be carried out in line with procedures laid down in this Decision.\n2. If two or more cash handlers are involved in the recirculation of the same euro banknotes, the cash handler responsible for the authenticity and fitness checking of these euro banknotes shall be designated in accordance with national regulations or, in the absence of such regulations, in contractual arrangements between the relevant cash handlers.\n3. The authenticity and fitness checking shall be carried out either by a type of banknote handling machine successfully tested by an NCB, or manually by a trained staff member.\n4. Euro banknotes may only be recirculated via customer-operated machines or cash dispensers if they have been checked for authenticity and fitness by a type of banknote handling machine successfully tested by an NCB and classified as genuine and fit. However, this requirement shall not apply to euro banknotes that have been delivered directly to a cash handler by an NCB or by another cash handler that has already checked the euro banknotes for authenticity and fitness in this manner.\n5. Staff-operated machines, when used for the purpose of authenticity and fitness checking, and customer-operated machines may only be put into operation by cash handlers if they have been successfully tested by an NCB and listed on the ECB\u2019s website as laid down in Article 9(2). The machines shall be used with the standard factory settings, including any updates thereof, that have been successfully tested unless stricter settings are agreed between the NCB and the cash handler.\n6. Euro banknotes which have been checked for authenticity and fitness and classified as genuine and fit by trained staff members but not by a type of banknote handling machine successfully tested by an NCB may only be recirculated over the counter.\n7. This Decision shall not apply to the authenticity and fitness checking of euro banknotes carried out by NCBs.\nArticle 4\nClassification and treatment of euro banknotes by banknote handling machines\n1. Euro banknotes checked by a customer-operated machine shall be classified and treated in accordance with Annex IIa.\n2. Euro banknotes checked by a staff-operated machine shall be classified and treated in accordance with Annex IIb.\nArticle 5\nDetection of counterfeit euro banknotes\nBanknotes that are not authenticated as genuine euro banknotes following classification carried out in accordance with Annex IIa or IIb or following manual authenticity checking by a trained staff member shall immediately, in line with national regulations and in any case within a maximum of 20 working days, be handed over by cash handlers to the competent national authorities.\nArticle 6\nDetection of unfit euro banknotes\n1. Fitness checking shall be carried out in accordance with the minimum standards laid down in Annexes IIIa and IIIb.\n2. An NCB may, after informing the ECB, lay down stricter standards for one or more denominations of euro banknotes if this is justified, for example by a deterioration in the quality of the euro banknotes in circulation in its Member State.\n3. Unfit euro banknotes shall be handed over to an NCB in consideration of national regulations.\nArticle 7\nExceptions\n1. NCBs may grant remote branches of credit institutions with a low level of cash operations permission for trained staff members to carry out manual fitness checking of euro banknotes to be recirculated via customer-operated machines or cash dispensers, provided that authenticity checking is carried out by a type of banknote handling machine successfully tested by an NCB. To apply for this permission, credit institutions shall provide the NCB of their Member State with evidence of the remoteness of the branch in question and the low level of its cash operations. Each NCB shall ensure that the volume of euro banknotes manually checked in this manner does not exceed a maximum of 5 % of the overall volume of euro banknotes which are distributed annually via customer-operated machines or cash dispensers. NCBs shall decide whether the 5 % threshold shall apply at the level of each credit institution or at that of all credit institutions at national level.\n2. Where an exceptional event occurs as a result of which the euro banknote supply in a Member State is significantly impaired, cash handlers\u2019 trained staff members may, on a temporary basis, and subject to the relevant NCB\u2019s agreement that the event is exceptional, carry out manual authenticity and fitness checking of euro banknotes to be recirculated via customer-operated machines or cash dispensers.\nArticle 8\nEurosystem commitments\n1. The information, as specified by the Eurosystem, on euro banknotes and their machine-readable security features shall be provided to manufacturers by the Eurosytem in advance of the issue of a new banknote series and thereafter to enable them to build banknote handling machines that are able to pass the common test procedures and to adapt to new requirements.\n2. The information, as specified by the Eurosystem, on euro banknotes and their public security features shall be provided by the Eurosystem to cash handlers in advance of the issue of a new euro banknote series and thereafter to enable their staff members to be given any training required.\n3. Training by cash handlers of their staff members to ensure that trained staff members are competent to check euro banknotes for authenticity and fitness shall be supported by the Eurosystem.\n4. Cash handlers shall be informed by the Eurosystem of counterfeit threats when appropriate and may be required by the Eurosystem for action to be taken, including a temporary prohibition on the recirculation of the banknote denomination(s) concerned.\n5. Manufacturers of banknote handling machines shall be informed by the Eurosystem of counterfeit threats as appropriate.\nArticle 9\nEurosystem\u2019s common test procedures for banknote handling machines\n1. Types of banknote handling machines shall be tested by NCBs in accordance with the common test procedures.\n2. All successfully tested types of banknote handling machines shall be listed on the ECB\u2019s website during the periods of validity of the test results, as referred to in paragraph 3. A type of banknote handling machine that becomes unable during this period to detect all counterfeit euro banknotes known to the Eurosystem shall be removed from the list in accordance with a procedure specified by the ECB.\n3. Where a type of banknote handling machine is successfully tested, the test results shall be valid throughout the euro area for one year from the end of the month of their publication on the ECB\u2019s website, provided that it remains capable of detecting all counterfeit euro banknotes known to the Eurosystem during this period.\n4. The Eurosystem shall not be held liable if a successfully tested type of banknote handling machine is unable to classify and treat euro banknotes in accordance with Annex IIa or IIb.\nArticle 10\nEurosystem monitoring activities and corrective measures\n1. Subject to national law requirements, NCBs are authorised (i) to carry out on-site inspections, including unannounced ones, at cash handlers\u2019 premises to monitor their banknote handling machines, in particular the machines\u2019 capacity to check for authenticity and fitness and to trace suspect counterfeit euro banknotes and euro banknotes that are not clearly authenticated to the account holder; and (ii) to verify the procedures governing the operation and control of the banknote handling machines, the treatment of checked euro banknotes and any manual authenticity and fitness checking.\n2. Subject to national law requirements, NCBs are authorised to take samples of processed euro banknotes to check them at their own premises.\n3. When in the course of an on-site inspection an NCB detects non-compliance with the provisions of this Decision, it shall require the adoption by the cash handler of corrective measures within a specified time limit. Until the non-compliance is rectified, the requiring NCB may, on behalf of the ECB, prohibit the cash handler from recirculating the banknote denomination(s) concerned. If the non-compliance is due to a failure of the type of banknote handling machine, this may lead to its removal from the list referred to in Article 9(2).\n4. Where a cash handler does not cooperate with an NCB with regard to an inspection, this shall be considered as non-compliance.\nArticle 11\nReporting obligations\nIn order for the ECB and the NCBs to monitor the compliance of cash handlers with this Decision and to oversee developments in the cash cycle, NCBs shall be (i) informed in writing, including by electronic means, by cash handlers before a type of banknote handling machine is put into operation; and (ii) provided by cash handlers with the information specified in Annex IV.\nArticle 12\nCosts\n1. The Eurosystem shall not reimburse to cash handlers the costs incurred by them in the fulfilment of this Decision.\n2. The Eurosystem shall not compensate for additional costs incurred by cash handlers due to the issue of euro banknotes with changed or new security features.\nArticle 13\nFinal provisions\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. It shall apply from 1 January 2011. Each NCB may decide to offer cash handlers of their Member States a transitional period for the reporting of statistical data according to Annex IV. Annex IV shall apply at the latest from 1 January 2012.\n2. Cash handlers of Member States that adopt the euro on or after 1 January 2011 shall have a one-year transitional period from the date of adoption of the euro to apply this Decision.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 16 September 2010.", "references": ["96", "90", "10", "39", "57", "64", "37", "93", "9", "63", "65", "79", "51", "34", "87", "31", "25", "2", "60", "4", "43", "45", "68", "71", "49", "3", "86", "38", "17", "73", "No Label", "7", "12", "27", "28", "36"], "gold": ["7", "12", "27", "28", "36"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 930/2011\nof 16 September 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of September 2011 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for certain products in the egg sector and for egg albumin\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 of 15 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the egg sector and for egg albumin (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 539/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of egg products and egg albumin.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of September 2011 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 September 2011.", "references": ["43", "6", "68", "7", "63", "85", "20", "74", "52", "57", "46", "48", "99", "44", "34", "14", "70", "35", "40", "66", "55", "86", "83", "95", "31", "8", "12", "90", "67", "82", "No Label", "21", "22", "69", "72"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 687/2012\nof 26 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2012.", "references": ["75", "97", "58", "90", "50", "47", "78", "12", "5", "25", "51", "45", "41", "54", "62", "40", "17", "2", "29", "48", "92", "4", "81", "3", "49", "77", "73", "87", "0", "9", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1156/2011\nof 10 November 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ko\u010devski gozdni med (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovenia\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Ko\u010devski gozdni med\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2011.", "references": ["1", "67", "42", "10", "46", "63", "35", "83", "53", "15", "73", "36", "82", "13", "32", "58", "5", "45", "94", "75", "28", "43", "19", "59", "66", "47", "57", "17", "88", "18", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/705/CFSP\nof 27 October 2011\nrepealing Decision 2010/145/CFSP renewing measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 8 March 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/145/CFSP (1) renewing measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). That Decision expires on 16 March 2012.\n(2)\nThe aim of Decision 2010/145/CFSP is to prevent the entry into, or the transit through the territories of the Member States by persons who are engaged in activities which help persons at large to continue to evade justice for crimes for which the ICTY has indicted them or are otherwise acting in a manner which could obstruct the ICTY\u2019s effective implementation of its mandate.\n(3)\nOn 22 July 2011, Goran HADZIC was transferred into the custody of the ICTY. He was the last ICTY indictee still at large.\n(4)\nDecision 2010/145/CFSP should therefore be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/145/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["37", "58", "17", "88", "93", "69", "77", "95", "0", "48", "38", "80", "81", "11", "6", "86", "35", "59", "13", "85", "74", "8", "53", "18", "63", "64", "87", "28", "92", "34", "No Label", "3", "14", "97", "99"], "gold": ["3", "14", "97", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 7 December 2011\nconcerning a guide on EU corporate registration, third country and global registration under Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS)\n(notified under document C(2011) 8896)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/832/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) (1), and in particular Articles 3 and 46(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1221/2009 establishes the possibility for organisations with multiple sites located in one or more Member States or third countries to register under EMAS.\n(2)\nCompanies and other organisations with sites located in different Member States or third countries should receive additional information and guidance about the possibilities to register themselves under EMAS.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established pursuant to Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purpose of Article 46(4) and for the purpose of providing additional clarifying information on Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009, the Commission adopts this guide on EU corporate, third country and corporate registration under EMAS.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2011.", "references": ["76", "38", "61", "27", "22", "3", "26", "7", "11", "5", "68", "23", "85", "63", "57", "82", "99", "70", "59", "97", "47", "15", "8", "75", "2", "90", "60", "28", "91", "93", "No Label", "39", "41", "58"], "gold": ["39", "41", "58"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1139/2011\nof 10 November 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/729/CFSP of 10 November 2011 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Resolution 1973 (2011) of 17 March 2011, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decided that a ban should be imposed on flights in the airspace of Libya.\n(2)\nIn application of Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP (2), that ban was given effect in the European Union by Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (3).\n(3)\nBy Resolution 2016 (2011) of 27 October 2011, the UNSC decided that the ban should be terminated.\n(4)\nFollowing Decision 2011/729/CFSP, the provision of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 imposing the ban on flights should therefore be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 4b of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 is hereby deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2011.", "references": ["21", "9", "88", "22", "83", "55", "43", "95", "30", "34", "2", "6", "99", "10", "75", "97", "19", "96", "11", "82", "70", "68", "54", "81", "92", "89", "50", "33", "0", "87", "No Label", "3", "53", "57", "94"], "gold": ["3", "53", "57", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 592/2012\nof 4 July 2012\namending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for bifenazate, captan, cyprodinil, fluopicolide, hexythiazox, isoprothiolane, metaldehyde, oxadixyl and phosmet in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor bifenazate and captan maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Annex II and Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For cyprodinil, fluopicolide, hexythiazox, metaldehyde, oxadixyl and phosmet MRLs were set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For isoprothiolane no MRLs were set before in any of the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(2)\nIn the context of a procedure for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance bifenazate on currants (red, black and white), raspberries and blackberries an application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing MRLs.\n(3)\nAs regards captan, such an application was made on blackberries, raspberries, blueberries, currants (red, black and white) and gooseberries. As regards cyprodinil, such an application was made in fresh herbs, spinach and beet leaves, lettuce, lamb's lettuce, cress, scarole, rocket/rucola and leaves and sprouts of Brassica spp. As regards fluopicolide, such an application was made for in radishes, onions, potatoes and kale. As regards hexythiazox, such an application was made for tea. As regards metaldehyde such an application was made for strawberries, potatoes, kohlrabi, lettuce and other salad plants, the whole group of spinach and similar, the whole group of herbs and rape seed. As regards phosmet, such an application was made for potatoes, apricots, peaches, table olives, olives for oil production and rape seed.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 an application was made for isoprothiolane on rice. The authorised use of isoprothiolane on rice in Japan leads to a higher residue than the MRL in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. To avoid trade barriers for the importation of this crop, a higher MRL are necessary.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, these applications were evaluated by the Member States concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission.\n(6)\nThe Commission received information from Belgium about residues of oxadixyl on parsley, celery and leeks which exceed the current MRLs. According to the Belgium authorities, the unexpected presence of oxadixyl in these crops is due to the persistence of the active substance in soil. Belgium submitted an application in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modifications to those MRLs.\n(7)\nThe European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \"the Authority\", assessed the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs (2). It forwarded these opinions to the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public.\n(8)\nThe Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that, as regards use of fluopicolide in onion, the submitted data are not sufficient to derive a new MRL. As regards use of metaldehyde in strawberries and kohlrabi, the submitted data are not sufficient to derive a new MRL. As regards phosmet in apricots, the submitted data is not sufficient to derive a new MRL.\n(9)\nAs regards use of bifenazate on raspberries and blackberries, no modification of the MRLs is necessary, since the MRLs set out in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are identical with those requested.\n(10)\nAs regards all other applications, the Authority concluded that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs requested by the applicants were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime exposure to these substances via consumption of all food products that may contain these substances, nor the short term exposure due to extreme consumption of the relevant crops and products showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference dose (ARfD) is exceeded.\n(11)\nBased on the reasoned opinions of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(12)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["95", "1", "14", "96", "94", "88", "15", "89", "51", "29", "28", "39", "10", "56", "33", "77", "42", "19", "69", "87", "63", "37", "30", "41", "82", "40", "45", "72", "57", "49", "No Label", "24", "38", "60", "65", "66", "83"], "gold": ["24", "38", "60", "65", "66", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 9 March 2012\napproving certain amended programmes for the eradication and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses for the year 2012 and amending Implementing Decision 2011/807/EU as regards the measures eligible for Union financial contribution in programmes for the eradication of scrapie and the advance payment by the Union in programmes for the eradication of rabies for the year 2012\n(notified under document C(2012) 1406)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/147/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 27(5) and (6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution by the Union for programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2008/341/EC of 25 April 2008 laying down Community criteria for national programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses (2) provides that in order to be approved under the Union financial measures, programmes submitted by the Member States to the Commission for the eradication, control and monitoring of the animal diseases and zoonoses must meet at least the criteria set out in the Annex to that Decision.\n(3)\nPortugal has submitted an amended programme for the monitoring and eradication of bluetongue, Greece has submitted an amended programme for the monitoring of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE), and for the eradication of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and of scrapie and Bulgaria has submitted and amended programme for the eradication of rabies.\n(4)\nThe Commission has assessed those amended programmes from both the veterinary and the financial point of view. They were found to comply with relevant Union veterinary legislation and in particular with the criteria set out in the Annex to Decision 2008/341/EC. The amended programmes submitted by those Member States should therefore be approved.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (3) lays down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of TSEs in animals. Annex VII to that Regulation lays down the eradication measures to be carried out following the confirmation of an outbreak of TSE in bovine, ovine and caprine animals.\n(6)\nPoint 2.3(d) of Chapter A of that Annex, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 727/2007 (4), provided that Member States may decide to replace by slaughtering for human consumption the killing and complete destruction of certain ovine and caprine animals on the holding of the animal in which TSE was confirmed, provided that certain conditions were complied with.\n(7)\nOn 17 July 2007, in Case T-257/07, France brought an action against the European Commission before the General Court, applying for the partial annulment of certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 727/2007, in particular point 2.3(d) of Chapter A of Annex VII to that Regulation.\n(8)\nIn its Order of 28 September 2007 (5), the General Court suspended the application of point 2.3(b)(iii), point 2.3(d) and point 4 of Chapter A of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 727/2007, until judgment would be given in the main action. In that Order, the General Court questioned the Commission\u2019s assessment of the scientific available data on the possible risks.\n(9)\nThe Commission subsequently asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to assist it in clarifying the main premises on which Regulation (EC) No 727/2007 was based. In view of the EFSA clarifications, Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 was amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 (6), which reinstated the provisions the application of which had been suspended by the General Court.\n(10)\nIn its Order of 30 October 2008 (7), the General Court suspended the application of point 2.3(b)(iii), point 2.3(d) and point 4 of Chapter A of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 746/2008, until judgment would be given in the main action in Case T-257/07.\n(11)\nIn its judgment of 9 September 2011 (8) the General Court dismissed the action of France. In view of that judgment, the application of point 2.3(b)(iii), point 2.3(d) and point 4 of Chapter A of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 is no longer suspended.\n(12)\nCommission Implementing Decision 2011/807/EU of 30 November 2011 approving annual and multiannual programmes and the financial contribution from the Union for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses presented by the Member States for 2012 and following years (9) approves certain national programmes and lays down the rate and maximum amount of the financial contribution by the Union for each programme submitted by the Member States and the rules for the payment of eligible amounts.\n(13)\nCertain Member States have expressed their intention to apply, as part of their programmes approved under Implementing Decision 2011/807/EU, the possibility of replacing the killing and complete destruction of ovine and caprine animals by slaughtering for human consumption, as provided for in point 2.3(d) of Chapter A of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.\n(14)\nThe Union financial contribution for the programmes for the eradication of scrapie, as laid down in Implementing Decision 2011/807/EU does not currently cover the compensation paid to owners of compulsorily slaughtered ovine and caprine animals pursuant to point 2.3(d) of Chapter A of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.\n(15)\nIt is therefore appropriate to enable the funding of compulsorily slaughtered ovine and caprine animals programmes as an alternative to culling and destruction in the framework of scrapie eradication programmes. This requires no increase to the amounts allocated by Implementing Decision 2011/807/EU to the Member State programmes for the monitoring and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.\n(16)\nIn addition, Implementing Decision 2011/807/EU provides that only costs incurred in the carrying out of the approved annual or multiannual programmes paid before the submission of the final report by the Member States are eligible for co-financing by means of a Union financial contribution. However, for certain costs, the Commission, upon the request of the concerned Member State, is to pay an advance of up to 60 % of the specified maximum amount within the 3 months following the receipt of the request. The costs for oral vaccination campaigns against rabies are not fully covered by that advance payment possibility.\n(17)\nThe programmes for the eradication of rabies in the Member States through oral vaccination have been successful in previous years and lead to the eradication of the disease from a large part of the Union. Such programmes should therefore continue to be pursued in the parts of the Union where rabies is endemic.\n(18)\nCertain Member States have informed the Commission that they are experiencing difficulties in securing advance financing for their oral vaccination campaigns against rabies. In the last years, the lack of advance financing resulted, in some cases, in the cancellation of planned campaigns in rabies-infected areas.\n(19)\nInterruptions to the regular implementation of oral vaccination campaigns against rabies severely affect the effectiveness of the programmes and would prolong the time needed to finally eradicate the disease.\n(20)\nIt is therefore appropriate to extend the possibility for advance payment to all costs incurred by Member States under the programmes for the eradication of rabies approved by Implementing Decision 2011/807/EU.\n(21)\nThe Annex to Implementing Decision 2011/807/EU should be amended as regards the definition of eligible costs for the compensation of owners of slaughtered animals to include compulsory slaughter in the framework of scrapie eradication programmes.\n(22)\nImplementing Decision 2011/807/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(23)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of the amended programme for the monitoring and eradication of bluetongue submitted by Portugal\nThe amended programme for the monitoring and eradication of bluetongue submitted by Portugal on 31 January 2012 is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\nArticle 2\nApproval of the amended programmes for the monitoring and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies submitted by Greece\nThe amended programmes for the monitoring of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, and for the eradication of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and of scrapie submitted by Greece on 21 December 2011 are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\nArticle 3\nApproval of the amended programme for the eradication of rabies submitted by Bulgaria\nThe amended programme for the eradication of rabies submitted by Bulgaria on 23 December 2011 is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Implementing Decision 2011/807/EU\nImplementing Decision 2011/807/EU in amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 9(2), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nshall be at the rate of 50 % of the cost incurred by each Member State for the compensation to be paid to owners for the value of their animals:\n(i)\nculled and destroyed in accordance with their BSE and scrapie eradication programmes;\n(ii)\ncompulsorily slaughtered in accordance with Annex VII, Chapter A, point 2.3(d) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001;\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 9(3), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nfor culled and destroyed sheep or goats:\nEUR 70 per animal;\n(c)\nfor slaughtered sheep or goats:\nEUR 50 per animal.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 13, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2, for the programmes referred to in Articles 10 and 11, the Commission, upon the request of the concerned Member State, shall pay an advance of up to 60 % of the specified maximum amount within the 3 months following the receipt of the request.\u2019;\n(4)\nin the Annex, point 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182.\nCompensation to owners for the value of their animals slaughtered or culled.\nThe compensation shall not exceed the market value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered or culled.\nFor slaughtered animals, the salvage value, if any, shall be deducted from the compensation.\u2019.\nArticle 5\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2012.", "references": ["48", "40", "92", "41", "42", "21", "73", "3", "44", "15", "67", "45", "49", "36", "77", "75", "85", "84", "29", "33", "80", "51", "46", "47", "4", "72", "17", "83", "50", "22", "No Label", "10", "38", "61", "66", "74", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "38", "61", "66", "74", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 October 2010\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation\n(2010/649/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(3), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated on behalf of the European Community an Agreement with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (hereinafter the Agreement).\n(2)\nThe Agreement has been signed, on behalf of the European Community, on 26 October 2009 subject to its conclusion.\n(3)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be approved.\n(5)\nThe Agreement establishes a Joint Readmission Committee which may adopt its rules of procedure. It is appropriate to provide for a simplified procedure for the establishment of the European Union position in this case.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of the said Protocol, Ireland is not participating in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by or subject to its application.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (hereinafter the Agreement) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall give the notification provided for in Article 20(2) of the Agreement, in order to bind the Union (1), and shall make the following declaration:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d or to \u201cthe Community\u201d in the text of the Agreement are, where appropriate, to be read as to \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019\nArticle 3\nThe Commission, assisted by experts from Member States invited at the Commission\u2019s request, shall represent the Union in the Joint Readmission Committee established by Article 16 of the Agreement.\nArticle 4\nThe position of the Union within the Joint Readmission Committee with regard to the adoption of its rules of procedure as required under Article 16(2) of the Agreement shall be taken by the Commission after consultation with a special committee designated by the Council.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 October 2010.", "references": ["35", "98", "17", "60", "4", "18", "93", "14", "57", "44", "55", "25", "66", "90", "81", "76", "63", "26", "5", "59", "80", "24", "15", "37", "85", "83", "71", "54", "78", "20", "No Label", "3", "9", "12", "13", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "12", "13", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 489/2011\nof 19 May 2011\non the allocation of import rights for applications lodged during the first seven days of May 2011 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 (3) opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products originating in Brazil, Thailand and other third countries.\n(2)\nThe applications for import rights lodged during the first seven days of May 2011 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2011 in respect of Group No 5 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import rights may be allocated should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import rights applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2011 in respect of Group No 5 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficient set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 May 2011.", "references": ["5", "10", "24", "20", "95", "8", "37", "93", "30", "50", "16", "23", "32", "65", "87", "71", "22", "13", "92", "66", "53", "43", "52", "27", "15", "41", "44", "98", "19", "83", "No Label", "21", "61", "69"], "gold": ["21", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 62/2011\nof 26 January 2011\nexcluding ICES Subdivisions 27 and 28.2 from certain fishing effort limitations for 2011, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 establishing a multiannual plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 779/97 (1), in particular Article 29(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the reports submitted by Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nProvisions for setting fishing effort limitations for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea are set out in Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007.\n(2)\nOn the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007, Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 of 29 November 2010 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea (2) has established fishing effort limitations for 2011 in the Baltic Sea.\n(3)\nAccording to Article 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 the Commission may exclude Subdivisions 27 and 28.2 from the scope of certain fishing effort limitations when the catches of cod were below a certain threshold in the last reporting period.\n(4)\nTaking into account the reports submitted by Member States and the advice from the STECF, Subdivisions 27 and 28.2 should be excluded in 2011 from the scope of those fishing effort limitations.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1124/2010 applies from 1 January 2011. In order to ensure coherence with that Regulation, this Regulation should apply retroactively from that date.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 8(1)(b) and Article 8(3), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 shall not apply to ICES Subdivisions 27 and 28.2 in the year 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 January 2011.", "references": ["78", "85", "63", "65", "83", "1", "25", "11", "26", "64", "17", "93", "34", "90", "98", "45", "47", "76", "92", "54", "18", "72", "5", "50", "81", "31", "9", "84", "28", "35", "No Label", "59", "67"], "gold": ["59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 110/2012\nof 9 February 2012\namending Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC and Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the entries for South Africa in the lists of third countries or parts thereof\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1) and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first subparagraph of point 1 of Article 8 and point 4 of Article 8 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (2), and in particular Articles 23(1) and 24(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2007/777/EC of 29 November 2007 laying down the animal and public health conditions and model certificates for imports of certain meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption from third countries and repealing Decision 2005/432/EC (3) lays down rules on imports into the Union and the transit and storage in the Union of consignments of meat products, and of consignments of treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (4).\n(2)\nDecision 2007/777/EC also lays down lists of third countries and parts thereof from which such imports into, transit and storage within the Union are to be authorised, sets out the model public and animal health certificates, and the rules on the origin and treatments required for those imported products.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (5) lays down veterinary certification requirements for imports into and transit, including storage during transit, through the Union of poultry, hatching eggs, day-old chicks, specified pathogen-free eggs, meat, minced meat and mechanically separated meat of poultry, including ratites and wild game birds, eggs and egg products. That Regulation provides that those commodities are only to be imported into the Union from the third countries, territories, zones or compartments listed in Part 1 of Annex I thereto.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 798/2008 also sets out the conditions for a third country, territory, zone or compartment to be considered as free from highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and the requirements for the veterinary certification in that respect for commodities destined for imports into the Union.\n(5)\nIn April 2011, South Africa notified the Commission of an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) on its territory. As a consequence, Decision 2007/777/EC and Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 were amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 536/2011 (6), in order to provide for certain specific treatments for imports from that third country of meat products, treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption obtained from meat of farmed ratites and of biltong/jerky and pasteurised meat products consisting of, or containing meat of farmed feathered game, ratites and wild game birds.\n(6)\nIn addition, imports into the Union of breeding and productive ratites and of day-old chicks, hatching eggs and meat of ratites were no longer authorised from the whole territory of South Africa covered by Regulation (EC) No 798/2008, as from the date of confirmation of the outbreak of HPAI, on 9 April 2011.\n(7)\nAfter the entry into force of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 536/2011, South Africa submitted information to the Commission on the control measures taken and the development of the epidemiological situation in relation to the outbreak of HPAI. The disease control and surveillance efforts undertaken by South Africa were considered sufficient to ensure that South Africa was able to limit the spread of disease and contain it to a defined area.\n(8)\nAs a consequence, Decision 2007/777/EC and Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 were amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 991/2011 (7). By that amendment, imports into the Union of ratite meat and of certain meat products from the part of South Africa which was not placed under animal health restrictions (territory ZA-2) were again authorised. Implementing Regulation (EU) No 991/2011 entered into force on 9 October 2011.\n(9)\nFollowing the two successive amendments, the different Parts of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC currently list territory ZA-2 of South Africa as authorised for imports into the Union of consignments of certain meat products, treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption and of biltong/jerky and pasteurised meat products of poultry, farmed feathered game, including ratites, and wild game birds which undergo specific treatments set out in that Annex.\n(10)\nIn addition, territory ZA-2 is currently listed in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as authorised for imports into the Union of meat of ratites, as from the entry into force of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 991/2011.\n(11)\nOn 13 October 2011, South Africa informed the Commission of a suspected outbreak of HPAI in the area that had earlier been considered as free of that disease. South Africa also informed the Commission that, in view of that suspicion, it has prohibited the dispatch of consignments of ratite meat and certain ratite meat products bound for the Union.\n(12)\nOn 14 November 2011, South Africa notified outbreaks of HPAI to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) that are located outside of the disease-affected area established by South Africa and as recognised by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 991/2011. The whole territory of that third country may therefore no longer be considered as free from HPAI.\n(13)\nGiven the unfavourable development of the disease situation in South Africa and in order to avoid misunderstandings concerning commodities produced before the confirmation of the recent outbreak of HPAI, it is appropriate to amend the entry for South Africa in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 to prohibit imports into the Union of meat of ratites and to indicate the date of the confirmation of the initial outbreak of HPAI, on 9 April 2011 as \u2027closing date\u2027 in column 6A in that Part.\n(14)\nIn addition, as a consequence of the outbreak of HPAI, territory ZA-2 of South Africa no longer complies with the animal health conditions for applying \u2027treatment A\u2027 to commodities consisting of, or containing meat of farmed ratites or treated stomachs, bladders and intestines of ratites for human consumption listed in Part 2 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC and for applying \u2027treatment E\u2027 to biltong/jerky and pasteurised meat products consisting of, or containing meat of poultry, farmed feathered game, ratites and wild game birds, listed in Part 3 of that Annex. Those treatments are insufficient to eliminate animal health risks linked to those commodities. The entry for South Africa as regards territory ZA-2 in Part 1 Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC and the entries for South Africa in Parts 2 and 3 of that Annex should therefore be amended, in order to provide for an adequate treatment thereof.\n(15)\nDecision 2007/777/EC and Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Decision 2007/777/EC is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 February 2012.", "references": ["16", "58", "62", "2", "41", "95", "49", "46", "25", "98", "11", "84", "27", "70", "76", "81", "53", "14", "87", "31", "19", "64", "86", "93", "1", "24", "29", "13", "75", "92", "No Label", "22", "23", "38", "59", "61", "66", "69", "94"], "gold": ["22", "23", "38", "59", "61", "66", "69", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 76/2011\nof 28 January 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for black scabbardfish in Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of VIII, IX and X by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (2) lays down quotas for 2009 and 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 January 2011.", "references": ["68", "10", "58", "99", "59", "80", "89", "21", "11", "14", "48", "73", "46", "30", "36", "81", "23", "69", "82", "94", "66", "55", "64", "93", "6", "16", "4", "77", "1", "98", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 12 May 2011\non the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards power, control and communication cables\n(notified under document C(2011) 3107)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/284/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1), and in particular Article 13(4) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee on Construction,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegarding the two procedures for attesting the conformity of a product pursuant to Article 13(3) of Directive 89/106/EEC, the Commission is required to select the least onerous possible procedure consistent with safety. This means that it is necessary to decide whether, for a given product or family of products, the existence of a factory production control system under the responsibility of the manufacturer is a necessary and sufficient condition for an attestation of conformity, or whether, for reasons related to compliance with the criteria mentioned in Article 13(4) of that Directive, the intervention of an approved certification body is required.\n(2)\nArticle 13(4) of Directive 89/106/EEC requires that the procedure thus determined must be indicated in the mandates and in the technical specifications. It is therefore desirable to define the concept of products or family of products as used in the mandates and in the technical specifications.\n(3)\nThe two procedures provided for in Article 13(3) of Directive 89/106/EEC are described in detail in Annex III to that Directive. It is therefore necessary to specify clearly the methods by which the two procedures must be implemented, by reference to Annex III, for each product or family of products, since Annex III gives preference to certain systems.\n(4)\nThe procedure referred to in point (a) of Article 13(3) of Directive 89/106/EEC corresponds to the systems set out in the first possibility, without continuous surveillance, and the second and third possibilities of point (ii) of Section 2 of Annex III to Directive 89/106/EEC. The procedure referred to in point (b) of Article 13(3) corresponds to the systems set out in point (i) of Section 2 of Annex III, and in the first possibility, with continuous surveillance, of point (ii) of Section 2 of Annex III,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe products and families of products set out in Annex I shall have their conformity attested by a procedure whereby the manufacturer has under its sole responsibility a factory production control system ensuring that the product is in conformity with the relevant technical specifications.\nArticle 2\nThe products and families of products set out in Annex II shall have their conformity attested by a procedure whereby, in addition to a factory production control system operated by the manufacturer, an approved certification body is involved in the assessment and surveillance of the production control or of the product itself.\nArticle 3\nThe choice of procedure for attesting conformity as set out in Annex III shall be indicated in the relevant technical specifications.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2011.", "references": ["53", "97", "98", "49", "9", "58", "52", "92", "6", "91", "73", "55", "56", "72", "13", "40", "66", "10", "67", "71", "78", "5", "59", "83", "50", "94", "90", "75", "26", "27", "No Label", "25", "76", "86"], "gold": ["25", "76", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 279/2011\nof 21 March 2011\nfixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 March 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (3), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 1 to 7 March 2011 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, exceed the quantity available under order number 09.4320.\n(2)\nIn these circumstances, an allocation coefficient for licences to be issued regarding order number 09.4320 should be fixed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006. Submission of further applications for licences for that order number should be suspended until the end of the marketing year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 from 1 to 7 March 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. Submission of further applications for licences, which correspond to the order numbers indicated in the Annex, shall be suspended until the end of the marketing year 2010/11.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["49", "86", "58", "46", "94", "66", "64", "30", "40", "87", "90", "72", "83", "42", "56", "27", "24", "84", "88", "57", "60", "13", "43", "82", "35", "1", "59", "15", "38", "61", "No Label", "4", "21", "23", "25", "71"], "gold": ["4", "21", "23", "25", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1064/2011\nof 18 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for blue whiting in EU and international waters of I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId, VIIIe, XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 October 2011.", "references": ["93", "83", "92", "33", "43", "31", "35", "68", "54", "66", "14", "15", "10", "24", "81", "4", "51", "90", "5", "3", "86", "80", "20", "61", "62", "95", "21", "42", "85", "63", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 428/2012\nof 22 May 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 121, first paragraph, point (m), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine (2), the United States has asked that the name of the country be entered in Part B of Annex XV to Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 (3) in the column indicating the countries that may use the name of one of the wine grape varieties that may appear on the labelling of wines in accordance with Article 62(4) of the Regulation. Following checks that the conditions laid down in Article 62(1)(b) and Article 62(4) of the Regulation are satisfied, the United States should be entered in the relevant column in that Annex against the name of the wine grape variety to which the request refers.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 607/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Part B of Annex XV to Regulation (EC) No 607/2009, row 58 is replaced by the following:\n\u201858\nVermentino di Gallura (IT)\nVermentino di Sardegna (IT)\nVermentino\nItaly, Australia, United States of America\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 May 2012.", "references": ["37", "27", "61", "43", "60", "65", "4", "53", "14", "63", "3", "28", "36", "34", "81", "40", "32", "26", "84", "24", "70", "42", "22", "95", "17", "91", "86", "55", "94", "62", "No Label", "25", "68", "71", "74", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "68", "71", "74", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 558/2010\nof 24 June 2010\namending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. It provides, inter alia, that food business operators may place products of animal origin on the market only if they have been prepared and handled exclusively in establishments that meet the relevant requirements of Annex III thereto.\n(2)\nChapter VII of Section I of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 provides that meat of domestic ungulates may be transported before the temperature required under that Regulation is attained, if the competent authority so authorises to enable the production of specific products, subject to certain conditions.\n(3)\nAccepted knowledge concerning appropriate microbiological and temperature criteria show that a similar provision would be beneficial for the production of foie gras to enable the use of traditional methods of production.\n(4)\nFreezing carried out immediately after slaughter and chilling minimises the growth of bacteria and therefore the microbiological load upon thawing. Similarly to the provisions already established for meat of domestic ungulates, meat derived from poultry and lagomorphs intended for freezing should be frozen without undue delay after slaughter and chilling. Consequently, it is appropriate to amend Chapter V of Section II of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 accordingly.\n(5)\nThe rules laid down in Chapter II, of Section VII of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 include specific requirements for live bivalve molluscs, live echinoderms, live tunicates and live marine gastropods, as regards the microbiological classification of production areas.\n(6)\nArticle 6 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) provides that the Member States are to ensure that the production and placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs, live echinoderms, live tunicates and live marine gastropods undergo official controls as provided for in Annex II thereto.\n(7)\nAnnex II to that Regulation provides that production areas are to be classified according to the level of faecal contamination. Filter feeder animals, such as bivalve molluscs, can accumulate micro-organisms representing a risk for public health.\n(8)\nMarine gastropods are generally not filter feeder animals. Consequently, the risk of accumulation of micro-organisms related to faecal contamination may be considered to be remote. In addition, no epidemiological information has been reported to link the provisions for classification of production areas with risks for public health associated with marine gastropods which are not filter feeders. For this reason, such marine gastropods, should be excluded from provisions on the classification of production areas as laid down in Chapter II, of Section VII of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\n(9)\nChapter VI of Section VII of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 only provides that individual consumer-sized packages of live bivalve molluscs must be closed and remain closed when transported after leaving the dispatch centre until presented for sale to the final consumer. Accordingly, other packages of live bivalve molluscs are not covered by that requirement. In the interest of public health, it is appropriate to amend that requirement so that all such packages must remain closed until presented to the final consumer.\n(10)\nChapter IX of Section VII of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 establishes specific requirements for pectinidae harvested outside classified production areas. Such requirements should also apply to live marine gastropods which are not filter feeders. Point 4 of that Chapter establishes specific rules for the packaging of pectinidae. It is appropriate that the requirements for packages of live bivalve molluscs when transported from the dispatch centre to retail sale be applicable also to pectinidae and marine gastropods which are not filter feeders harvested outside classified production areas.\n(11)\nPoint A of Chapter III of Section VIII of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down requirements for handling of fresh fishery products. The definition of fresh fishery products set out in point 3.5 of Annex I to that Regulation does not include thawed unprocessed fishery products and fresh fishery products to which food additives have been added in accordance with the appropriate legislation to ensure preservation. For consistency of Union legislation, the same requirements as for fresh fishery products should apply to those products.\n(12)\nPoint 2 of Chapter VII and Point 1(b) of Chapter VIII of Section VIII of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 refers to a derogation for whole frozen fish in brine intended for canning from the general temperature requirement for frozen fishery products of not more than - 18 \u00b0C. For fish frozen in brine a temperature of not more than - 9 \u00b0C must be achieved for the product.\n(13)\nWhen the whole fish frozen in brine intended for canning is removed from the brine solution used for the freezing process, it is unnecessary that the temperature must be further reduced by other means to not more than - 18 \u00b0C according with the common practice applied when using the brine method to freeze whole fish intended for canning.\n(14)\nPoint 1 of Chapter 1 of Section XIV and point 1 of Chapter I of Section XV of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 lay down requirements for raw material used for the production of gelatine and collagen intended for use in food.\n(15)\nIn January 2005, the European Food Safety Authority published a scientific opinion on the safety of collagen and a processing method for the production of collagen (3). According to this opinion, the use of bones for the production of collagen should not to be considered as a risk for public health It is therefore appropriate to lay down processing requirements in accordance with the opinion of EFSA and specify that the bones used as raw material have to be other than specified risk material as defined in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (4). Point 1 of Chapter I of Section XV of Annex III should be amended accordingly.\n(16)\nFor consistency of Union legislation, point 1 of Chapter I, point 1 of Chapter III of Section XIV of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 regarding raw materials for the production of gelatine should be amended accordingly.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 June 2010.", "references": ["26", "49", "47", "80", "87", "54", "52", "6", "59", "19", "89", "44", "8", "86", "68", "84", "78", "28", "21", "63", "35", "51", "9", "5", "40", "93", "82", "30", "31", "10", "No Label", "38", "69", "72"], "gold": ["38", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 158/2012\nof 22 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 February 2012.", "references": ["77", "72", "75", "81", "52", "65", "13", "94", "14", "45", "23", "67", "73", "89", "41", "25", "95", "71", "97", "27", "93", "98", "28", "85", "50", "82", "8", "10", "86", "88", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 541/2010\nof 3 June 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1104/2008 on migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 74 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) was established by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (1) and by Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (2).\n(2)\nThe conditions, procedures and responsibilities applicable to the migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II are laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1104/2008 (3) and Decision 2008/839/JHA of 24 October 2008 on migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (4). However, those instruments will expire at the latest on 30 June 2010.\n(3)\nThe preconditions for migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II will not be met by 30 June 2010. In order for SIS II to become operational as required by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Decision 2007/533/JHA, Regulation (EC) No 1104/2008 and Decision 2008/839/JHA should therefore continue to apply until migration has been completed.\n(4)\nThe Commission and the Member States should continue to cooperate closely during all steps of the development and the migration in order to complete the process. In the Council conclusions on the SIS II of 26-27 February 2009 and 4-5 June 2009, an informal body consisting of the experts of the Member States and designated as the Global Programme Management Board, was established to enhance the cooperation and to provide direct Member States support to the central SIS II project. The positive result of the work of the group and the necessity to further enhance the cooperation and the transparency of the project justify the formal integration of the group into the SIS II management structure. A group of experts, called the Global Programme Management Board should therefore be formally established to complement the current organisational structure. In order to ensure efficiency as well as cost effectiveness the number of experts should be limited. This group of experts should be without prejudice to the responsibilities of the Commission and of the Member States.\n(5)\nThe Commission should remain responsible for the Central SIS II and its communication infrastructure. It is necessary to maintain and, where appropriate, further develop the Central SIS II and its communication infrastructure. Additional development of the Central SIS II should at all times include the correction of errors. The Commission should provide coordination and support for the joint activities.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Decision 2007/533/JHA provide that the best available technology, subject to a cost-benefit analysis, should be used for Central SIS II. The Annex to the Council Conclusions on the further direction of SIS II from 4-5 June 2009 laid down milestones which should be met in order to continue with the current SIS II project. In parallel, a study has been conducted concerning the elaboration of an alternative technical scenario for developing SIS II based on SIS 1+ evolution (SIS 1+ RE) as the contingency plan, in case the tests demonstrate non-compliance with the milestone requirements. Based on these parameters, the Council may decide to invite the Commission to switch to the alternative technical scenario.\n(7)\nThe description of the technical components of the migration architecture therefore should be adapted to allow for another technical solution, and in particular the SIS 1+ RE regarding the development of Central SIS II. SIS 1+ RE is a possible technical solution to develop Central SIS II and to achieve the objectives of the SIS II laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Decision 2007/533/JHA.\n(8)\nThe SIS 1+ RE is characterised by uniqueness of means between SIS II development and SIS 1+ . The references in this Regulation to the technical architecture of SIS II and to the migration process should therefore, in case of implementation of an alternative technical scenario, be read as the references to SIS II based on another technical solution, as applied mutatis mutandis to the technical specificities of this solutions, in keeping with the objective to develop Central SIS II.\n(9)\nAs regards the financing of the development of the Central SIS II based on an alternative technical solution, it should be covered by the general budget of the Union while respecting the principle of sound financial management. In accordance with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), the Commission may delegate budget implementation tasks to national public sector bodies. Following the political orientation and subject to the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, the Commission would be invited, in case of switchover to the alternative solution, to delegate the budget implementation tasks related to the development of the SIS II based on SIS 1+ RE to France.\n(10)\nIn any technical scenario, the result of migration at central level should be availability of the SIS 1+ database and new SIS II functionalities, including additional data categories, in the Central SIS II.\n(11)\nThe Member States should remain responsible for their national systems (N.SIS II). It is still necessary to maintain and, where appropriate, further develop the N.SIS II.\n(12)\nFrance should remain responsible for technical support function (C.SIS).\n(13)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely setting up the interim migration architecture and migrating the data from SIS 1+ to SIS II, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the 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 the European Union. 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.\n(14)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Regulation builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of six months after the Council has decided on this Regulation whether it will implement it in its national law.\n(15)\nThis Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (6); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(16)\nThis Regulation 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 of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (7); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(17)\nThis Regulation is without prejudice to the arrangements for the United Kingdom\u2019s and Ireland\u2019s partial participation in the Schengen acquis as determined by Decision 2000/365/EC and Decision 2002/192/EC respectively.\n(18)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latter\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (8) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point G of Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement (9).\n(19)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (10), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point G of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (11).\n(20)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol signed between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point G of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/261/EC (12),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1104/2008 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nthe following paragraph is added to Article 1:\n\u20183. The development of SIS II may be achieved by implementing an alternative technical scenario characterised by its own technical specifications.\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 4 the introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In order to ensure the migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II, the following components shall be made available to the extent necessary:\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 10(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. To the extent necessary, the converter shall convert data in two directions between the C.SIS and Central SIS II and keep C.SIS and Central SIS II synchronised.\u2019;\n4.\nArticle 11(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The Member States participating in SIS 1+ shall migrate from N.SIS to N.SIS II using the interim migration architecture, with the support of France and of the Commission.\u2019;\n5.\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 17a\nGlobal Programme Management Board\n1. Without prejudice to the respective responsibilities and activities of the Commission, the Committee referred to in Article 17, France and the Member States participating in SIS 1+, a group of technical experts, called the Global Programme Management Board (hereinafter the Board), is hereby set up. The Board shall be an advisory body for assistance to the central SIS II project and shall facilitate consistency between central and national SIS II projects. The Board shall have no decision-making power nor any mandate to represent the Commission or Member States.\n2. The Board shall be composed of a maximum of 10 members, meeting on a regular basis. A maximum of 8 experts and an equal number of alternates shall be designated by the Member States acting within the Council. A maximum of two experts and two alternates shall be designated by the Director-General of the responsible Directorate-General of the Commission from among the Commission officials.\nThe meetings of the Board may be attended by other Member States\u2019 experts and Commission officials directly involved in the development of the SIS II projects, at the expense of their respective administration or institution.\nThe Board may invite other experts to participate in the Board\u2019s meetings as defined in the terms of reference referred to in paragraph 5, at the expense of their respective administration, institution or company.\n3. Experts designated by the Member States acting as Presidency and incoming Presidency shall always be invited to participate in the Board\u2019s meetings.\n4. The Board\u2019s secretariat shall be ensured by the Commission.\n5. The Board shall draw up its own terms of reference which shall include in particular procedures on:\n-\nalternative chairmanship between the Commission and the Presidency,\n-\nmeeting venues,\n-\npreparation of meetings,\n-\nadmission of other experts,\n-\ncommunication plan ensuring full information to non-participating Member States.\nThe terms of reference shall take effect after a favourable opinion has been given by the Director-General of the responsible Directorate-General of the Commission and by Member States meeting within the framework of the Committee referred to in Article 17.\n6. The Board shall regularly submit written reports about the progress of the project including advice which has been given, and its justification, to the Committee referred to in Article 17 or, as appropriate, to the relevant Council preparatory bodies.\n7. Without prejudice to Article 15(2), the administrative costs and travel expenses arising from the activities of the Board shall be borne by the general budget of the Union, to the extent that they are not reimbursed from other sources. As regards travel expenses of the members in the Board designated by the Member States acting within the Council and experts invited pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article which arise in connection with the work of the Board, the Commission\u2019s \u201cRules on the reimbursement of expenses incurred by people from outside the Commission invited to attend meetings in an expert capacity\u201d shall apply.\u2019;\n6.\nin Article 19 the last sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on a date to be fixed by the Council, acting in accordance with Article 55(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006, and in any case no later than on 31 March 2013 or on 31 December 2013 in case of a switchover to an alternative technical scenario as referred to in Article 1(3).\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["79", "27", "37", "52", "45", "31", "26", "57", "16", "39", "8", "66", "12", "4", "48", "49", "15", "68", "86", "71", "81", "10", "32", "33", "87", "67", "89", "85", "64", "2", "No Label", "1", "13", "40", "41", "46", "76", "96"], "gold": ["1", "13", "40", "41", "46", "76", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1147/2010\nof 3 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in NAFO 3M by vessels flying the flag of Estonia\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 December 2010.", "references": ["77", "52", "85", "40", "49", "22", "54", "86", "32", "33", "28", "92", "65", "3", "64", "69", "76", "42", "81", "39", "94", "36", "21", "60", "35", "51", "37", "55", "72", "99", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 273/2012\nof 27 March 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 297/95 as regards the adjustment of the fees of the European Medicines Agency to the inflation rate\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 297/95 of 10 February 1995 on fees payable to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (1), and in particular Article 12 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 67(3) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (2), the revenue of the European Medicines Agency (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019) consists of a contribution from the Union and fees paid by undertakings to the Agency. Regulation (EC) No 297/95 lays down the categories and levels of such fees.\n(2)\nThose fees should be updated by reference to the inflation rate of 2011. The inflation rate in the Union, as published by the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat), was 3,1 % in 2011.\n(3)\nFor the sake of simplicity, the adjusted levels of the fees should be rounded to the nearest EUR 100.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 297/95 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nFor reasons of legal certainty, this Regulation should not apply to valid applications which are pending on 1 April 2012.\n(6)\nPursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 297/95, the update has to be made with effect from 1 April 2012. It is therefore appropriate that this Regulation enters into force as a matter of urgency and applies from that date,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 297/95 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(i)\npoint (a) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 259 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 267 400\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 26 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 26 800\u2019,\n-\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 700\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (b) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 100 700\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 103 800\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 167 600\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 172 800\u2019,\n-\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 10 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 10 300\u2019,\n-\nin the fourth subparagraph, \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 700\u2019;\n(iii)\npoint (c) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 77 900\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 80 300\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 19 500 to EUR 58 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 20 100 to EUR 60 200\u2019,\n-\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 700\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nthe first subparagraph of point (a) is amended as follows:\n-\n\u2018EUR 2 800\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 2 900\u2019,\n-\n\u2018EUR 6 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 700\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (b) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 77 900\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 80 300\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 19 500 to EUR 58 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 20 100 to EUR 60 200\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, \u2018EUR 12 900\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 13 300\u2019;\n(d)\nin paragraph 4, \u2018EUR 19 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 20 100\u2019;\n(e)\nin paragraph 5, \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 700\u2019;\n(f)\nparagraph 6 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 93 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 95 900\u2019;\n(ii)\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 23 200 to EUR 69 700\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 23 900 to EUR 71 900\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 4, \u2018EUR 64 700\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 66 700\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 5 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(i)\npoint (a) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 129 800\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 133 800\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 12 900\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 13 300\u2019,\n-\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 700\u2019,\n-\nthe fourth subparagraph is amended as follows:\n-\n\u2018EUR 64 700\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 66 700\u2019,\n-\n\u2018EUR 6 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 700\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (b) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 64 700\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 66 700\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 109 700\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 113 100\u2019,\n-\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 12 900\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 13 300\u2019,\n-\nin the fourth subparagraph, \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 700\u2019,\n-\nthe fifth subparagraph is amended as follows:\n-\n\u2018EUR 32 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 33 400\u2019,\n-\n\u2018EUR 6 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 700\u2019;\n(iii)\npoint (c) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 32 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 33 400\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 8 100 to EUR 24 200\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 8 400 to EUR 25 000\u2019,\n-\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 700\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(i)\npoint (a) is amended as follows:\n-\n\u2018EUR 2 800\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 2 900\u2019,\n-\n\u2018EUR 6 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 700\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (b) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 38 900\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 40 100\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 9 700 to EUR 29 200\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 10 000 to EUR 30 100\u2019,\n-\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 700\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 700\u2019;\n(d)\nin paragraph 4, \u2018EUR 19 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 20 100\u2019;\n(e)\nin paragraph 5, \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 700\u2019;\n(f)\nparagraph 6 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 31 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 32 000\u2019;\n(ii)\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 7 800 to EUR 23 200\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 8 000 to EUR 23 900\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 6, \u2018EUR 38 900\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 40 100\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 7 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the first paragraph, \u2018EUR 64 700\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 66 700\u2019;\n(b)\nin the second paragraph, \u2018EUR 19 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 20 100\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 8 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 77 900\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 80 300\u2019;\n(ii)\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 38 900\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 40 100\u2019;\n(iii)\nin the fourth subparagraph, \u2018EUR 19 500 to EUR 58 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 20 100 to EUR 60 200\u2019;\n(iv)\nin the fifth subparagraph, \u2018EUR 9 700 to EUR 29 200\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 10 000 to EUR 30 100\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 259 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 267 400\u2019;\n(ii)\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 129 800\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 133 800\u2019;\n(iii)\nin the fifth subparagraph, \u2018EUR 2 800 to EUR 223 600\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 2 900 to EUR 230 500\u2019;\n(iv)\nin the sixth subparagraph, \u2018EUR 2 800 to EUR 111 900\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 2 900 to EUR 115 400\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 700\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall not apply to valid applications pending on 1 April 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 March 2012.", "references": ["3", "80", "84", "49", "11", "27", "68", "8", "39", "76", "6", "83", "58", "72", "44", "21", "5", "36", "69", "55", "16", "98", "54", "70", "64", "96", "26", "41", "48", "30", "No Label", "7", "38", "47"], "gold": ["7", "38", "47"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1196/2011\nof 17 November 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 November 2011.", "references": ["72", "85", "97", "41", "31", "29", "50", "23", "27", "54", "1", "65", "96", "14", "8", "35", "69", "32", "16", "37", "77", "58", "84", "26", "4", "91", "74", "87", "81", "99", "No Label", "21", "40", "42"], "gold": ["21", "40", "42"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 21 October 2010\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the Association Council set up by the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, with regard to the adoption of provisions on the coordination of social security systems\n(2010/700/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(2)(b) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 65 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part (1) (\u2018the Agreement\u2019), provides that the Association Council shall, by decision, adopt the appropriate provisions to implement the objectives set out in Article 64 of the Agreement.\n(2)\nObjective 2.3.3, first indent, of the EU-Israel Action Plan adopted by the Association Council in the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy on 11 April 2005 calls for the adoption by the Association Council of a decision implementing Article 65 of the Agreement.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it nor subject to its application.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 21) on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the Association Council set up by the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part (\u2018the Agreement\u2019), concerning the implementation of Article 64 of the Agreement, shall be based on the draft decision of the Association Council attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["44", "97", "47", "56", "41", "28", "18", "31", "62", "82", "11", "79", "57", "42", "70", "78", "13", "74", "0", "84", "26", "85", "21", "98", "66", "71", "76", "60", "63", "10", "No Label", "2", "9", "37", "95", "96"], "gold": ["2", "9", "37", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 362/2010\nof 27 April 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2010.", "references": ["44", "40", "58", "47", "25", "96", "17", "69", "41", "57", "37", "9", "89", "54", "29", "16", "97", "86", "73", "55", "21", "20", "52", "5", "94", "91", "23", "85", "15", "4", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 April 2011\nconcerning State aid C 19/09 (ex N 64/09) which Denmark intends to implement regarding the restructuring of TV2 Danmark A/S\n(notified under document C(2011) 2614)\n(Only the Danish text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/109/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to these provisions (2), and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 4 August 2008, the Commission notified Denmark of its decision not to raise objections to the rescue aid to be granted to TV2 Danmark A/S in the form of a credit facility totalling DKK 1 000 million (hereinafter \u2018the rescue aid decision\u2019) (3). That decision found that the planned aid was compatible with Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty, now Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and, in particular, with the rules laid down in the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (4) (hereinafter \u2018the Guidelines\u2019).\n(2)\nPursuant to the rescue aid decision and the Guidelines, the Commission had to be provided with a restructuring plan or a liquidation plan, or proof that the loan had been reimbursed in full not later than 6 months after authorisation of the rescue aid measure, i.e. by 4 February 2009 at the latest.\n(3)\nOn 4 February 2009, Denmark notified to the Commission, pursuant to Article 88(3) EC, now Article 108(3) TFEU, a restructuring plan regarding TV2 Danmark A/S.\n(4)\nBy letter dated 2 July 2009, the Commission informed Denmark that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC, now Article 108(2) TFEU, in respect of the aid.\n(5)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments.\n(6)\nThe Commission received the following comments from interested parties.\n-\n1.10.2009\nTDC A/S and You see\n-\n1.10.2009\nCanal Digital Danmark\n-\n1.10.2009\nMTV Networks\n-\n2.10.2009\nNiels Jorgen Langkilde\n-\n2.10.2009\nBoxer TV\n-\n2.10.2009\nDiscovery Networks Nordic\n-\n2.10.2009\nTV2 Danmark (aid beneficiary)\n-\n2.10.2009\nMTG Viasat (which submitted further annexes by letter of 15 October 2009)\n-\n2.10.2009\nDanish Cable Television Association\n-\n2.10.2009\nSBS Broadcasting Networks Ltd and SBS TV A/S\n-\n7.10.2009\nTelia Stofa A/S\n(7)\nIt forwarded them to Denmark on 27 October 2009. The late comment by Telia Stofa was forwarded to Denmark on 30 November 2009. Denmark was given the opportunity to respond and its comments were received by two letters dealing with different aspects of the third party comments: by letter from the Danish Government dated 29 January 2010, received via the Permanent Representation and registered as received on 23 February 2010, and by letter dated 29 March 2010 and registered as received on 30 March 2010, with the Annexes to that letter later being registered as received on 14 April 2010. On 8 June 2010, the Danish Government provided some further information on the adoption of a new Media Policy Agreement for 2011-2014.\n(8)\nOn 9 June 2010, TV2 Danmark A/S submitted an information memorandum on the sale of the TV2 broadcasting network.\n(9)\nThe Commission had a meeting with the aid beneficiary TV2 Danmark A/S on 8 June 2010. As a follow-up to the meeting, the Commission sent questions on 30 June 2010 to Denmark, to which Denmark submitted answers on 9 July 2010.\n(10)\nViasat submitted further information by e-mail of 26 May 2010 and by letters registered as received on 1 June 2010 and 6 July 2010.\n(11)\nFollowing additional questions by the Commission on 23 and 28 July 2010, Denmark submitted answers to these questions on 17 August 2010. The Commission had a meeting with Denmark on 14 September 2010, after which Denmark provided further comments in a submission dated 15 October 2010.\n(12)\nViasat submitted more information to the Commission on 22 December 2010 and SBS did so on 7 February 2011.\n(13)\nOn 14 January 2011, the Commission sent a request for information to Denmark, to which Denmark replied by letter of 3 February 2011. Denmark requested a further meeting by letter of 28 January 2011. This meeting took place on 7 February 2011. Further information was submitted on 24 February 2011.\n(14)\nAt the request of the Danish authorities, a further meeting took place on 4 March 2011. Denmark then submitted more information by letters registered as received on 11, 17 and 18 March 2011 and on 6 and 14 April 2011. In its letter of 11 March 2011, Denmark informed the Commission that parts of the restructuring plan (the \u2018TV2 Alene card\u2019, explained further below) would not be implemented. On 17 and 18 March and on 6 and 14 April 2011, Denmark provided amended financial data taking this amendment into account.\n(15)\nIt should further be noted that on 24 March 2009, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd brought an application for annulment of the rescue aid decision before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (now the General Court) (6). Moreover, on 15 May 2009, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd requested that the Commission initiate proceedings under Article 108(2) TFEU with a view to revoking the rescue aid decision (7). These filings concern a different decision and do not prevent the Commission from taking a view on the restructuring plan. However, by order dated 17 May 2010, the proceedings in the court case were stayed until the Commission\u2019s adoption of a final decision in the restructuring case (8).\n(16)\nOn 14 December 2009, MTG/Viasat submitted a complaint alleging that Denmark is infringing inter alia Articles 106 and 102 TFEU by the introduction of user charges for TV2.\nII. THE BENEFICIARY: TV2 DANMARK A/S\n(17)\nTV2 Danmark A/S was incorporated in 2003 as a private limited liability company wholly owned by the Danish State. The company took over the activities of the autonomous public institution TV2, which was created in 1986. Danmark A/S has interests in several different companies, involving wholly-owned subsidiaries, associates, joint ventures and minority holdings. TV2 Danmark A/S (hereinafter \u2018TV2\u2019) is the parent company of the TV2 Group and operates the public service television channel TV2 (below also called the \u2018main channel\u2019).\n(18)\nCurrent business model: Historically, the TV2 main channel was funded by television licence fees and advertising revenues. However, although the regional channels are still partly funded this way, television licence funding for the main channel ended in July 2004 and only financing via advertising revenues remained. These advertising revenues are currently the only source of income for the main channel, apart from the profits from the commercial channels. TV2 is currently not allowed to charge subscription fees for its main channel.\n(19)\nPublic service obligations: Section 38a(1) of the Danish Broadcasting Act establishes a public service obligation for TV2 and states that \u2018the public service programming activities shall be provided to the general public in accordance with the principles referred to in Section 10\u2019. These overall obligations are supplemented by more detailed descriptions in the public service licence and addenda thereto.\n(20)\nThe Commission accepted (9), and was upheld on this point by the General Court (10), that TV2\u2019s main channel fulfils a public service obligation. TV 2\u2019s public service activity accounts for more than [\u2026] (11) of its costs (12).\n(21)\nThe TV2 main channel is further under a public service obligation to broadcast regional programmes according to point 2.5 of the TV2 public service licence (13). The regional content is produced by TV2 regional stations. The eight regional stations are independent from TV2. They are governed by Sections 31 et seq. of the Danish Broadcasting Act (14). The eight regional TV 2 stations each have a Board of Representatives, the composition of which reflects a wide variety of aspects of the regional culture and community. TV2 may not sit on these Boards of Representatives. The regional operations are entrusted with public service activities under Sections 31 et seq. of the Danish Broadcasting Act and their programming must emphasise regional affiliation. Their activities are primarily financed by licence fees (15). TV2 is under an obligation to transmit these regional programmes in \u2018windows\u2019 in TV2\u2019s normal programme flow (16). TV2 has no influence on the chosen TV format, e.g. to ensure coherence with general TV programming on the main channel. Between the national and regional programmes, TV2 transmits advertisements which are directed towards the regional market, and it retains the revenues from advertising.\n(22)\nMust-carry obligation: Currently, the main channel is covered by a \u2018must-carry\u2019 obligation pursuant to Section 6 of the Danish Broadcasting Act, according to which SMATV distributors (including commercial cable distributors) must give access to the channels mentioned in the provision (i.e. TV2 and DR) in all their packages (17).\nTV distributors using satellite as a distribution platform were not obliged to include the TV2 main channel in the programme packages, but chose to do so, since the channel is very popular (18).\n(23)\nDistribution of television in Denmark: Television in Denmark is distributed in five different ways, based on alternative means of receiving the TV signal. These are distribution by cable (distributors YouSee and Stofa), SMATV (local cable distribution), distribution via satellite dish (Viasat and Canal Digital), distribution by broadband (IPTV) and terrestrial distribution. As of 1 November 2009, the analogue terrestrial signal was switched off and Danish terrestrial TV signals were digitised. The company Boxer won the tender to act as the commercial gatekeeper and is responsible for the transmission of subscription-based channels through the terrestrial network. Currently, the TV2 main channel is broadcast \u2018Free to air\u2019 (FTA) without any subscription fees being charged for its viewing (19).\n(24)\nTV2\u2019s activities: TV2 is primarily active in broadcasting and in selling TV advertising. It also acquires and sells audiovisual rights on international markets (e.g. Euro 2008 or the Olympic Games) which it can broadcast itself or resell. TV2 operates almost exclusively on the TV broadcasting market and other media-related markets in Denmark. The TV2 main channel, along with Danmarks Radio (a public undertaking which is exclusively financed by a licence fee and operates two public service channels), is the biggest TV channel.\nThe TV2 main channel currently competes on the TV advertising market with e.g. Viasat\u2019s channels TV3 and TV3+. Viasat is owned by the Swedish Modern Times Group A/S (MTG), which is also active as a distributor in the satellite segment. TV2 also competes for advertising revenue with SBS A/S, which is owned by the German ProSiebenSat. TV2\u2019s pay-TV channels, such as TV2 Zulu and TV2 Charlie, compete with other commercial channels on the wholesale market for distribution in pay-TV packages.\n(25)\nCommercial operations: TV2 operates a number of non-public-service commercial channels, including TV2 Zulu, TV2 Charlie, TV2 Film and TV2 News. It also owns 50 % of TV2 Sports. TV2 Zulu, TV2 Charlie and TV2 News are financed through subscriptions and advertising, whereas TV2 Film is exclusively financed through subscriptions.\n(26)\nAs acknowledged by Denmark (20) and TV2 Danmark A/S and its competitor Viasat (21), operation of the main channel is vital for achieving the revenues generated by the commercial channels.\n(27)\nTV2 has been obliged since 2001 to keep the accounts of its commercial and public service activities separate, see Order No 740 (22). The accounts are monitored by external auditors.\n(28)\nOther business: In addition, TV2 Danmark A/S owns several subsidiaries or is part of a number of TV-related joint ventures in content and radio, and previously also had a broadcasting transmission network (Broadcast Service Denmark (BDS), DTT/Digi-TV, 4M and Fordelingsnet) with DR. According to information furnished by Denmark, Broadcast Service Denmark is the leading Danish broadcaster provider in relation to the planning, construction, operation and service of transmission networks. The transmission network was jointly owned by Danske Radio and TV2 directly or via co-owned partnerships (Fordelingsnet, 4M, Digi-TV). TV2, however, has sold its shares in this network as part of its restructuring.\n(29)\nNational antitrust cases concerning TV2: The Commission notes that TV2\u2019s behaviour in the advertising market is under investigation by the Danish competition authorities. On 21 December 2005, a decision was taken by the Danish Competition Council that TV2 had infringed Article 102 TFEU, and the corresponding national legislative provisions, by using loyalty-enhancing rebates on the advertising market. This decision was annulled by the Competition Appeals Tribunal on 1 November 2006, but then upheld on appeal to the High Court of Eastern Denmark on 22 June 2009. An appeal against the latter judgment was lodged with the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court judgment on 18 March 2011. The case followed a previous case dating from 29 November 2000 in which the Danish Competition Council had found that TV2\u2019s rebates in 2000 were an abuse of a dominant position.\nIII. OTHER PENDING LEGAL CASES INVOLVING TV2\n(30)\nSupport for the operations of TV2 from public funds prior to its incorporation and subsequent recapitalisation was the subject of Commission decisions of 19 May 2004 and of 2 February 2005, respectively (23). In the first decision, the Commission ordered the recovery of incompatible aid to TV2 of an amount of DKK 628,1 million. Denmark ordered recovery from the aid beneficiary with interest, and recovered an amount of DKK 1 050 million from TV2. The second decision raised no objections to the recapitalisation, which consisted of a capital injection of DKK 440 million and a further debt-equity swap of DKK 394 million, in terms of its compatibility with the common market.\n(31)\nOn 22 October 2008, the General Court annulled the Commission\u2019s recovery decision (24). On 24 September 2009 (25) the General Court issued an order regarding the recapitalisation decision, declaring that there was no need to give a decision, since the recapitalisation decision - which was based on the recovery decision - was based on premises which no longer existed and was therefore deprived of any substance and meaning. The Court considered that the two decisions constituted two aspects of the same legal issue.\n(32)\nThe Commission\u2019s investigation with regard to the above case has been carried out in parallel with this procedure, and the Commission\u2019s decision in the above case will be adopted at the same time as the present Decision.\nIV. THE RESTRUCTURING PLAN\n1. Context of the original restructuring plan\n(33)\nAs outlined in the Commission\u2019s decision authorising the rescue aid of DKK 1 000 million during 2008, TV2 Danmark faced serious liquidity problems as a result of heavy investments, in particular in a radio operation, lower than expected advertising revenues and higher interest charges. These liquidity needs could not be met by securing loans from private creditors (banks). Following the rescue aid decision, Denmark notified a restructuring plan within the six-month limit stipulated in the Guidelines.\n(34)\nThe restructuring plan submitted to the Commission on 4 February 2009 followed an agreement among a large majority of Danish political parties on an addendum to the Media Policy Agreement for 2007-2010, which was made public on 9 January 2009.\n(35)\nIn its notification of 4 February 2009, Denmark notified various restructuring aid measures, because, according to Denmark, the short-term liquidity and indebtedness problems identified in the Commission rescue aid decision still existed. Those problems prompted the qualification of TV2 Danmark A/S as a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines (26), which the Commission, in the opening decision, had no reason to deviate from and which, according to Denmark, remains valid even after TV2\u2019s having received the rescue aid. This can be demonstrated by the data mentioned in the Commission\u2019s decision opening the formal investigation procedure (27).\n(36)\nLater in the proceedings, and in particular as a reaction to the third-party comments, Denmark provided another updated PWC study on TV2\u2019s financial situation. The updated data are summarised in the table below (28).\nDevelopment of TV2 Danmark A/S\nKey figures\n(million DKK)\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nProfit before tax\n142\n- 213\n18\n-28\nTurnover\n1 980\n2 251\n2 206\n2 029\nNet cash flow\n79\n- 550\n-73\n-60\nNet interest-bearing debt\n232\n564\n622\n659\nNet interest charges\n10\n19\n41\n31\nNet asset value\n815\n598\n616\n601\nAccording to Denmark, the problems of TV2 result, inter alia, from an increasingly unprofitable public service channel (29) without a sustainable business model and some losses resulting from unsuccessful investments.\n(37)\nLosses: Due to advertising revenues being lower than budgeted, in combination with a series of bad investments (most notably TV2 Radio), TV2 Danmark A/S realised a significant loss in 2007 (DKK 214 million, return on equity - 36 %). Furthermore, at the end of March 2008, the 2008 financial result projection was another pre-tax loss of up to DKK [\u2026] million, albeit that the projection was deemed highly sensitive to advertising market developments. Likewise, the company made losses in 2009.\n(38)\nTurnover/market share: TV2\u2019s main channel experienced a falling market share for years prior to the rescue aid, and continues to do so. The removal of TV2\u2019s historical business advantage with the switch-off of analogue terrestrial TV and the introduction of DTT (digital terrestrial television) has led to more equal distribution of opportunities since November 2009. The removal of the must-carry obligation (see recital 52 below) is expected to lead to further market share losses. From 2003 to 2009, the TV2 main channel\u2019s \u2018commercial\u2019 market share (21-50 year olds, which is the commercially most interesting viewer group) had already declined by 19 % from 56,2 % to 45,6 % (30). TV2\u2019s commercial market share is expected to [\u2026] % in 2013 (31).\n(39)\nMounting debt/cash flow/interest charges: As can be seen from the table, TV2 Danmark A/S\u2019s net interest-bearing debt steadily increased from DKK 232 million in 2006 to DKK 622 million in 2008 (prior to the sale of the network and the repayment of most of the debt, the net interest-bearing debt was budgeted at DKK [\u2026] million in 2010). The table further demonstrates that TV2 Danmark A/S had negative cash flows, mounting debts, increasing interest charges, and a falling net asset value over the period from 31 December 2006 to 31 December 2009.\n(40)\nBest case/worst case analysis: The original restructuring plan contains a base-case, worst-case and best-case scenario with sensitivity calculations. It draws upon market forecasts which are exogenous to the company (as compiled by PriceWaterhouseCoopers). The scenarios forecast real GDP growth, and from that derive an estimated growth (or decline) in the TV advertising market which, in combination with market share projections, yields TV2 advertisement revenue projections. In the base case, there is a modest increase in GDP ([\u2026] % for 2009 and 2010, [\u2026] % for 2011 and [\u2026] % for 2012). The TV advertising market was forecast to [\u2026] between 2009 and 2012 from DKK [\u2026] million to DKK [\u2026] million in that period ([\u2026] %). The worst-case scenario saw a less positive growth in real GDP (zero in 2009 and 2010 and a [\u2026] % and [\u2026] % increase in 2011 and 2012 respectively), and [\u2026] in advertising expenditure from DKK [\u2026] million in 2009 to DKK [\u2026] million in 2012 ([\u2026] %). The best-case scenario forecast a slightly higher GDP growth than the base scenario and thus a slight increase in the TV advertising market from DKK [\u2026] million in 2009 to DKK [\u2026] million in 2012 ([\u2026] %). In combination with a projected loss of market share, TV2\u2019s advertisement revenues were projected to [\u2026] by [\u2026] %, [\u2026] % and [\u2026] % for the base, worst-case and best-case scenarios over the 2009-2012 period, equivalent to [\u2026] of [\u2026] %, [\u2026] % and [\u2026] %.\n(41)\nTV2\u2019s advertising revenues have grown at a 1,9 % (geometric) average rate over the period 1999-2009 with a 12 % standard deviation (32). Hence, given the business-cycle sensitivity of TV2\u2019s advertising revenues and the general economic outlook at the time of the assessment, the PWC projections for the 2009-2012 period cannot be rejected as unreasonable.\n(42)\nThe PWC report was updated in September 2009 to take account of more recent expectations regarding advertising revenues, and provided for a worse scenario than expected in the base scenario (33). The TV advertising market dropped in 2009 by 18,7 % compared with 2008 (34). TV2\u2019s advertising revenues fell by 4 % in 2008 (DKK 1 667 million to DKK 1 597 million) and a further 24 % in 2009 (DKK 1 597 million to DKK 1 220 million) (35).\n(43)\nDenmark submits that TV2\u2019s difficulties are a result of debt caused by large investments in the preceding years, uncertainty as to the outcome of the pending State aid case concerning TV2 and, not least, a business model for the public service channel which is based on advertising revenue only. The radio operations in particular have caused significant losses since the start-up in 2007. In April 2008, it was decided to close down the radio operations.\n(44)\nLack of external funding from banks: The restructuring plan takes into account the doubts TV2\u2019s bankers have about the main channel\u2019s current business model and about the possible outcome of ongoing legal cases regarding past aid to TV2. The restructuring plan limits the banks\u2019 risk exposure to the company through further reductions of current loans or credit facilities. Denmark has provided evidence that on 22 April 2009, following the publication of the company accounts, the company\u2019s main bank [\u2026] asked to reduce its loan and credit facility vis-\u00e0-vis the company (36).\n(45)\nTV2 experienced difficulties in mortgaging its premises in Odense and reported that not only the value of the buildings, but also the potential mortgage, had decreased (37). In the end, TV2 secured a loan of DKK 80 million from Nordea bank, which was less than expected. Denmark later provided updated information regarding the banks\u2019 lack of interest in providing commercial loans. From this information it can be seen that none of the banks contacted ([\u2026], [\u2026], [\u2026] and [\u2026]) considered TV2 creditworthy. This was due to expectations regarding the development of the advertising market, which is TV2\u2019s only source of income. TV2\u2019s earning ability was questioned, and pending legal cases were considered a further risk factor (38).\n2. Description of the originally notified restructuring plan and its amendments\n(46)\nThe restructuring plan as notified for TV2 runs between 4 February 2009 and 31 December 2012. It aimed to address TV2\u2019s business weaknesses, notably an imbalance towards short-term debt in the balance sheet and a business model for the public service channel that is deemed unsustainable due to its reliance on funding via cycle-sensitive advertising revenues. The plan had the following five main components: (i) financial restructuring affecting the balance sheet, (ii) operational restructuring, (iii) new financing of the public service channel TV2 by introducing a new business model, (iv) aid measures and (v) compensatory measure(s).\n(47)\nThe financial restructuring measures were to consist primarily of the following four elements: sale of the 50 % ownership interest in the broadcast transmission network BSD (39), mortgaging of the business premises in Odense (Kvaegtorvet), which was expected to generate DKK [\u2026] million, postponement and scaling down of planned capital investments and divestment of minority interests held in certain companies active in adjacent media sectors, [\u2026], Momondo, [\u2026] and [\u2026]. Those measures were expected to bring proceeds in excess of DKK [\u2026] million, part of which was to be used to reduce short-term borrowing.\n(48)\nThe operational restructuring measures expand on the cost-saving measures worth DKK 280 million already initiated in 2008, and include the closing down of East Production and its integration into TV2, the closing down or downsizing of TV2\u2019s interest in [\u2026] and further cost savings of an amount of DKK 40 million. Moreover, TV2 has, after the notification, managed to introduce further cost savings in a plan adopted on 30 March 2009, which includes reductions in capital investments for 2009 by DKK 30 million, as well as further recurrent cost reductions amounting to DKK 97 million (40).\n(49)\nA new financing measure (the end-user charge) (41) is intended to broaden the sources of stable revenue for the public service channel TV2. The decision regarding this was adopted in an agreement of 9 January 2009 between the main political parties concerning an amendment to the Media Policy Agreement for 2007-2010.\n(50)\nLevying of subscription fees: The business model for the main channel is to be rendered sustainable by allowing TV2 to introduce end-user charges, i.e. subscription fees, to fund the public service channel as from 1 January 2012. In addition, TV2 will continue to receive advertising revenues.\n(51)\nThe fees will be charged by the distributors to the end users. The charge to be paid by the end user will not be set by the Government, but agreed upon through normal commercial negotiations between TV2 and the distributors (i.e. for DTT Boxer). TV2 expects the monthly price charged by TV2 to the distributor to be around DKK 10-12 (excl. VAT) per household (42). The introduction of user charges from 2012 aims to allow sufficient time for households currently equipped with MPEG 2 technology equipment capable of receiving \u2018free-to-air\u2019 digital terrestrial TV (DR1, DR2 and TV2) to switch to MPEG 4-format equipment. Denmark expects that the introduction of this element of the restructuring plan will restore the long-term viability of TV2. TV2 expects an estimated DKK [\u2026] million net increase in revenues from the user charges in 2012 (43).\n(52)\nThere will be no legislative act forcing distributors to include TV2 in their packages. On the contrary, the existing \u2018must-carry\u2019 obligation will be repealed upon the introduction of the user charges (44). This follows from the wording of Chapter 6, Section 38a(2) of the current Danish Broadcasting Act, which states that if the Minister of Culture allows TV 2 to charge user fees, the must-carry status shall cease to exist. In other words, the must-carry obligation ceases automatically with the introduction of user charges. It is expected that the TV2 main channel will de facto be distributed by the cable networks and antenna associations in the same way as today. The package structure might be altered by the distributors, with TV2 replacing an existing pay channel.\n(53)\nIt was originally anticipated that exceptions would be made to the possibility of levying end-user charges and that TV2 would not charge end users who did not receive any other pay-TV channel (known as the TV2 Alone card system). This would have meant that end users who only receive free-to-air (FTA) channels could still view TV2 free of charge. This possibility, which was contained in a draft proposal by the Ministry of Culture of 18 November 2010, will not, however, be implemented. TV2 will consequently, as of 2012, charge all end users who wish to receive TV2 to view the public service channel. The possibility of charging end-user fees requires a change in TV2\u2019s licence conditions, which will be carried out by the Ministry of Culture.\n(54)\nThe originally notified aid measures: As originally notified, three aid measures totalling a maximum of DKK 1 375 million were envisaged to accompany the restructuring. These were:\n-\na DKK 300 million subordinated loan,\n-\nthe issue of a guarantee for the sale of the broadcast transmission network for an expected sale amount of DKK 475 million, and\n-\na temporary credit facility of an initial amount of DKK 600 million if TV2 is unable to secure external financing.\n(55)\nDenmark stated that interest rates and guarantee fees would be similar to those for healthy firms. These measures were never put into place. Further details can be found in the Commission\u2019s decision opening the formal investigation procedure (45).\n(56)\nThe rescue aid credit facility of DKK 1 000, as authorised by the Commission decision of 4 August 2008, remains in place.\n(57)\nDenmark submitted information on the restructuring costs and offers two different calculation options in that regard. Firstly, it argues that the restructuring of TV2 is a financial restructuring in which the costs for filling the liquidity gap are in fact restructuring costs, i.e. the costs for ensuring long-term viability. Denmark considers that whatever these costs are, they will have been paid entirely by TV2 itself. The reason for this is that Denmark assumes that by the time of the Commission\u2019s decision, all aid measures will either not have been implemented, or will have been repaid in full (46). Denmark also states that in the special case of the TV2 restructuring, cost savings should also be acceptable as restructuring costs, since the cost savings are intended not only to increase competitiveness, but also ensure TV2\u2019s financial viability from a purely commercial point of view (47). In the alternative, a more traditional calculation of restructuring costs, in which cost savings are not included, would lead to focus on the one-off extraordinary costs incurred, which Denmark lists as DKK [\u2026] million for transaction costs for the transmission network, the costs associated with the transfer to pay-TV (user charges) and legal and consultancy costs as well as costs for ending staff contracts (48).\n(58)\nAs a compensatory measure, TV2 originally undertook not to open new TV broadcasting channels throughout the restructuring period, i.e. until 31 December 2012. Denmark points out that this is a sacrifice by the company, as new channels would make TV2 less dependent on advertising revenues. In the digital world, viewers are more frequently addressed via specialised viewer channels, and TV2 points out that its competitors are opening new channels during this period.\n(59)\nRegarding the duration of the restructuring plan, which was notified as being until 31 December 2012, the Danish authorities submitted that it is in TV2\u2019s interest to replace all State aid at an earlier point in time, thus enabling the restructuring period to end at an earlier date if possible (49).\n3. Further developments during the restructuring process\n(60)\nAs stipulated in the restructuring plan, TV2 sold its broadcasting network on 30 September 2010 to the Swedish company Teracom AB, the owner of Boxer. The sale proceeds for TV2 are approximately DKK 640 million before tax, which has been used to reduce TV2\u2019s debt.\n(61)\nTV2 was also able to mortgage its business premises in Odense, but at a lower rate than originally anticipated. Instead of [\u2026] million DKK, it obtained a mortgage of only DKK 80 million.\n(62)\nOn 4 October 2010, TV2 repaid all its withdrawals from the temporary credit facility, which was authorised in the Commission\u2019s rescue aid decision. In total, TV2 had drawn DKK 223 million from the rescue aid facility. By the end of 2008, i.e. during the 6 months of the rescue aid period, TV2 had drawn 208 million (50). In light of the sale of the transmission network, which was more successful than estimated in the restructuring plan, Denmark sent the following amended figures on TV2\u2019s financial situation (based on subscriptions to the main channel) (51).\n(million DKK)\nRealised\n2009\nEstimate\n2010\nForecast\n2011\nForecast\n2012\nForecast\n2013\nRevenues\n2 029\n2 147\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nCosts\n-1 910\n-1 974\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nEBIT\n-2\n25\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nProfit before tax, continuing activities\n-28\n42\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nProfit before tax, discontinuing activities\n1\n397\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nProfit after tax\n-14\n353\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nEquity end of year\n601\n952\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nNet interest-bearing debt end of year\n659\n-84\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(63)\nOn 13 October 2010, [\u2026] offered to provide TV2 with additional credit facilities worth DKK [\u2026] million. This would increase TV2\u2019s long-term facilities at [\u2026] from [\u2026] million to DKK [\u2026] million (52). The offer is however subject to the following two conditions:\n(a)\n[\u2026];\n(b)\n[\u2026].\n(64)\nOn that basis, TV2 expects to have financial facilities in the range of around DKK [\u2026]-[\u2026] million until the end of 2012. This consists of DKK [\u2026]-[\u2026] million and the additional external credit facilities of DKK [\u2026] million (53).\n(65)\nDenmark also provided data on TV2\u2019s capital structure. Due to problems in receiving external financing, in turn due to uncertainty surrounding the pending legal cases and TV2\u2019s business model which is sensitive to advertising revenues, Denmark argued that TV2 should rely less on debt than on equity. The Commission also observes discrepancies between the degree of equity funding of TV2 compared with its peers.\n(66)\nMore specifically, the capital structure can be assessed in terms of solvency ratio, i.e. the ratio of book equity to balance sheet total. PWC (Denmark\u2019s financial consultancy firm) demonstrates that the average (median) solvency ratio of TV2\u2019s peers is approximately [\u2026] % ([\u2026] % at the end of 2009) (54). The average solvency ratio of TV2\u2019s peers is significantly lower than the solvency ratio that TV2 is expected to have at the end of the restructuring period. After the sale of the transmission network, the TV2 solvency ratio is [\u2026] % at the end of 2010. It is projected to reach [\u2026] % at the end of 2011 and [\u2026] % at the end of 2012. According to the latest forecasts submitted by TV2, the net debt ratio (net interest-bearing debt over EBITDA) should be approximately [\u2026] at the end of 2010, [\u2026] at the end of 2011 and [\u2026] in 2012. The average (median) net debt over equity ratio at the end of 2009 is [\u2026] ([\u2026]) for a sample of TV2\u2019s peers (55).\n4. Impact of the new financial parameters on the notified restructuring plan\n(67)\nDenmark confirmed that none of the originally proposed three aid measures in the restructuring plan has ever been put into place, but that Denmark awaited the Commission\u2019s decision in accordance with the standstill obligation of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (56). In light of recent developments, however, only the loan and the credit facility under the restructuring plan as it currently stands are relevant (57). The notified aid measure of a proposed guarantee in relation to the sale of the broadcasting network has become irrelevant and inoperable (58), since the sale has been carried out successfully without a guarantee in place (59). In the meantime, only the temporary credit facility is in place.\nIn view of the improved financial position of TV2 after the sale of the broadcasting network, Denmark stated that all aid measures can be abolished on the sole condition that the restructuring plan is approved (including the possibility of implementing end-user charges) and that the Commission adopts a decision in the \u2018old\u2019 State aid cases that does not involve any additional repayment of State aid to the Danish Government (60). In such a scenario, TV2 says it will have sufficient financing until 2012, when the subscription payments on the main channel will be implemented (61). The restructuring plan as such is not withdrawn. Regarding the rescue aid facility still in place, TV2 is currently unable to draw any money from it, because the conditions (certified liquidity need confirmed by an expert) are not met (62).\n(68)\nIn the original restructuring plan, Denmark had given a commitment that TV2 would not open any new TV broadcasting channels. That commitment was later clarified to also cover radio channels, but the Danish authorities take the view that this compensatory measure should end when all aid measures are repealed, as they consider this to be the end of the restructuring period (63). During the Commission\u2019s investigation, the Danish Government decided to put a public service radio channel out to tender (64). The objective of this new radio channel is to establish competition on the Danish radio market for public service programming which, presently, is dominated by the public broadcaster DR with an almost 80 % audience share. TV2 originally intended to participate in such a tender, in which a bid could be submitted only after aid measures had come to an end. However, during the investigation Denmark confirmed that TV2 will not participate in this tender, due to the Commission\u2019s ongoing investigation (65).\n(69)\nTV2 states that as long as legal cases are pending, only earning ratios are an adequate benchmark for assessing TV2\u2019s financial position in relation to its competitors. However, TV2 acknowledges that capital ratios (like the solvency ratio) will become meaningful only when the uncertainties of business model and the legal disputes have been resolved (66). The Danish Government expressed its intention that TV2 should not be overcapitalised and is willing to introduce measures to ensure that this objective will be achieved once the end-user charges are introduced in 2012. The Danish Government, as the owner of TV2, will ensure that once the user charge has been introduced and the financial situation normalised, TV2 will have a capital structure in line with normal market conditions.\n(70)\nTo that end, Denmark has committed to instructing an independent financial expert at the end of 2012 or early 2013 to conduct an analysis of TV2\u2019s capital structure, comparing it with the capital structure of other relevant media companies. If TV2\u2019s capital structure deviates markedly from the median or average of the relevant peer group, the Danish Government has made a commitment to adjust the capital structure at the meeting of the General Assembly in April 2013, to rectify the situation. If there are substantial reasons not to adjust the capital structure, the Danish Government will notify the Commission of an amendment to the restructuring plan. The Danish Government undertakes to achieve restructuring of the capital base by dividend payments to be adopted at the General Assembly in April 2013, and not by increasing TV2\u2019s debt, thereby expanding the balance sheet.\n(71)\nDenmark has also undertaken to submit the analysis to the Commission, along with the Government\u2019s plans for acting in accordance with the analysis, in good time before the April 2013 meeting.\nV. SUMMARY OF THE COMMISSION\u2019S OPENING DECISION OF 2 JULY 2009\n(72)\nIn the decision to initiate the formal investigation, the Commission found that the notified loans and guarantee in the restructuring plan constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, now 107(1) TFEU, and examined the compatibility of the restructuring plan under Article 87(3)(c) EC, now 107(3)(c) TFEU, in conjunction with the Commission\u2019s restructuring Guidelines (67). The Commission, however, invited comments on whether the application of Article 87 of the EC Treaty (107 TFEU) would obstruct the performance of the public service broadcasting task entrusted to TV2.\n(73)\nThe Commission raised doubts about the compatibility of the notified restructuring plan in the following respects:\n-\nWhile accepting for the time being that TV2 Danmark A/S was a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines, the Commission invited comments given that competitors of TV 2 had pointed out that the cash flow problems were self-inflicted, easily solved and without bearing on the fundamental viability of the company. Competitors also claimed that TV2 was profitable in 2008.\n-\nIn addition, taking into account that a restructuring plan must involve the abandonment of activities which would remain structurally loss-making even after restructuring (68), the Commission questioned whether the measures in the restructuring plan were able to render TV2 profitable on a stand-alone basis. Nor was the Commission in a position to corroborate the validity of the general market assumptions underlying the plan (e.g. developments in the advertising market, GDP growth, TV2\u2019s maintenance of audience shares).\n-\nGiven the economic situation in which the restructuring plan is launched, its long duration was questioned.\n-\nMoreover, since a successful implementation of the financial and operational restructuring measures included in the restructuring plan by 2010-2011 could render the introduction of user charges on the TV2 channel unnecessary for ensuring the long-term viability of TV2 Danmark A/S, and because there was no assessment of the effects of these charges on competition, the question was raised as to whether the automatic phasing-in of these charges by 2012, which has already been decided, is appropriate.\n-\nThe Commission raised concerns as to whether the sole compensatory measure of a stand-still on launching new TV channels is proportionate to the aid, size and relative importance of TV2 Danmark A/S on the markets on which it is active (69).\n-\nThe Commission raised the issue of whether the aid, beyond the contribution to restructuring costs, could be used to finance aggressive market behaviour.\nVI. SUMMARY OF THE VIEWS OF THE DANISH AUTHORITIES\n(74)\nIt should be noted that in the following summary of the comments of Denmark and third parties, no comments have been reproduced which relate to the operation of the TV2 Alene card system, as this part of the restructuring plan will not be implemented.\n(75)\nThe Danish authorities claim that TV2 is a firm in difficulty, as shown by a PWC report (70), which was later updated (71). That view was also maintained in reaction to third-party comments (72).\n(76)\nAccording to a PWC report carried out shortly before the restructuring notification, TV2 cannot recover through its own resources or by market financing. Denmark also claims that the restructuring plan submitted to the Commission is based on realistic assumptions and scenarios, while showing that the company\u2019s long-term viability will be restored. The advertising market has deteriorated, however, relative to the base scenario of the restructuring plan. The advertising market dropped by 19 % in the first half of 2009 and TV2\u2019s advertising revenues fell by 24 % in 2009. The restructuring measures will be implemented as soon as possible, except for the introduction of user charges, where operational and technical difficulties require postponement until 2012. Moreover, in a later submission, Denmark, again basing itself on PWC projections, claimed that the forecast had in fact deteriorated since the original restructuring plan and that TV2\u2019s EBIT in 2009 was DKK [\u2026] million lower than estimated in the restructuring plan (73). Denmark also points out that, as proven by statements from various banks, the company is not able to obtain external funds because the banks doubt the business model for the main channel, are critical of cyclical advertising revenues as a source of income and view the uncertainties stemming from pending legal cases as problematic.\n(77)\nThe operational and financial restructuring measures are analysed as being the maximum that can be undertaken without compromising the quality of programming in the public service channel TV2. The measures will force TV2 to better exploit its assets, thus reducing the aid to the minimum necessary.\n(78)\nSince the sale of the broadcasting network had proven to be more successful than anticipated, the Government later gave assurances that all aid measures could be repealed and not implemented once the Commission approved the restructuring plan and the pending State aid case of 19 May 2004 has been settled without higher repayments (74).\n(79)\nUser charges, which do not qualify as State aid, provide a more stable operating income and will reassure banks as to TV2\u2019s business model. As a result of the restructuring, the EBIT margin of the company as a whole would allegedly be between [\u2026] and [\u2026] %, which would allow it to manage on its own funds.\n(80)\nAlthough changes in the pricing and structure of the distributor packages are impossible to predict, the introduction of user charges for TV2 should not lead to indirect financing from, or capacity reduction for, TV2\u2019s competitors. This new financing is regarded as a change in TV2\u2019s baseline long-term financing conditions which will put TV2 on equal footing with its private competitors (75).\n(81)\nFinally, the Danish authorities claim that the proposed compensatory measure of a standstill on launching new TV broadcasting channels (now also radio channels) constitutes a real sacrifice for TV2 Danmark A/S, owing to its interest in a diversification strategy to maintain its overall market share, the loss of revenue incurred and the first-mover advantage that it will confer on competitors, which are currently launching new channels and will continue to do so. Denmark later took the view that the measure should end when all aid measures have been repealed, i.e. as of the date of this Decision.\n(82)\nAs to the idea suggested in the opening decision - of amending TV2\u2019s capacity to broadcast premium content - Denmark points out that TV2\u2019s public service obligation covers sports, including major sporting events, and aid to film production. In addition, Denmark argues that the standard contracts preclude TV2 from assigning rights to third parties, which stands in the way of auctioning.\n(83)\nDenmark considers that the restructuring process complies with the provisions of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. However, Denmark acknowledges that according to the PWC income projections, the main channel would still be loss-making after the end of the restructuring period (76). Denmark points out that TV2 is obliged to fulfil a public service mission, which it cannot fail to discharge. This special situation of TV2, due to its public service mission, should be taken into account when assessing the case under the rescue and restructuring Guidelines or Article 106(2) TFEU. It would be commercially pointless to close the public service channel, as it provides for significant synergies between the main and the niche channels.\nVII. SUMMARY OF THE VIEWS OF INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES\n(84)\nIn its comments, TV2 first refers in general to what it considers to be key points in the assessment of the restructuring plan.\n(85)\nTV2 claims that its principal activity lies in extensive and expensive public service obligations that govern the enterprise\u2019s main channel. TV2 states that such activity currently accounts for more than [\u2026] % of the costs of the main channel.\n(86)\nTV2 refers to the political decision that led to the current situation. The Danish Government and the parties that supported the current Media Policy Agreement agreed that under the restructuring plan, public compensation would not be reintroduced for expenses that TV2 bears in discharging its public service obligations. It was decided, on the other hand, to introduce a sustainable market-based business model for TV2 which would ensure that the enterprise could compete on the relevant markets despite its public service obligations, a decision welcomed by TV2. TV2 argues that the most important element in this context is the removal of the previous ban on the levying of user charges for the main public service channel, effective from 1 January 2012. TV2 claims that the aid does not entail operational or commercial advantages, but simply ensures that TV 2 will be able to use financing options open to its competitors. TV2 argues that its main channel cannot be seen in isolation, as both the main channel and the niche channels underpin the group\u2019s financial result. TV2 cannot, in any case, fail to discharge its public service mission, which should be acknowledged when applying the Guidelines or Article 106(2) TFEU.\n(87)\nTV2 notes that despite the fact that it dominates the Danish television advertising market, competition in this market is strong and is characterised by the presence of financially robust multinational groups. TV2 also claims that its main competitors are not prevented from entering the market, since they have launched a number of new channels in the Danish television market (e.g. SBS 6 (Pro 7), TV3 Puls (MTG) and Canal 9 (Bonnier)).\n(88)\nMoreover, in relation to the competition situation within the Danish television market, TV2 claims that it has experienced significant reductions in both market and audience shares (77), which [\u2026], inter alia because of the switching-off of the analogue signal in November 2009. TV2 also argues that the ban on launching new television channels until 2012 will further reduce TV2\u2019s competitiveness and thus weaken the enterprise.\n(89)\nAs regards the pay-TV market, TV2 points out that the group does not have a dominant position on this market, while also noting that the only major Danish commercial TV channel not operating on the market is TV2\u2019s public service channel. Furthermore, TV2 estimates that the niche channels currently have a share of approximately [\u2026] % of the pay-TV market, and expect the station\u2019s total market share to rise to around [\u2026]-[\u2026] % once TV2 can start levying user charges for the main public service channel in 2012.\n(90)\nTV2 points out that it was not able to obtain any loans from banks and that it was not even easy to get a mortgage for its property in Kvaegtorvet. TV2 points out that the uncertainty resulting inter alia from the open State aid cases has deterred banks from providing the necessary financing. TV2 considers the duration of the restructuring plan to be appropriate and points out that any improvement in its financial situation will only affect its draws on the credit facility, and not its business model, which should ensure TV2\u2019s profitability in the medium and long term.\n(91)\nTV2 argues that the introduction of end-user charges for the main public service channel does not entail State aid, but merely gives the channel the same opportunities as its competitors to use the market\u2019s most conventional means of operating on the market, namely charging users who choose to use its services. Distortion of competition could be remedied by applying Article 101 or 102 TFEU. According to TV2, the end-user charge, among other elements of the restructuring plan, does not entail any distortion of competition on the relevant markets. TV2 argues in this respect that the plan will ensure that the TV2 group, particularly the main public service channel, will have the necessary liquidity until the introduction of end-user charges. TV2 also states that an alternative re-introduction of non-market based funding as public service compensation would not be preferable to the introduction of end-user charges, in terms of State aid law.\n(92)\nTV2 stresses that being prevented from launching new channels is a real sacrifice. It points out that with the digital switchover and sale of its network, it loses the advantage it has hitherto enjoyed via its co-ownership of the network. In response to the opening decision\u2019s question of whether the sale of certain programmes to third parties or restrictions on broadcasting (e.g. sports) should be considered, TV2 responds that the standard contracts bar TV2 from assigning rights to third parties. Danish fiction and sports are part of TV2\u2019s public service programming.\n(93)\nSBS sees no reason why a series of possibly bad management decisions should lead to a change in the financing model with significant distortive effects on competition. SBS asserts that leaving bad investment decisions aside, TV2 had positive results in the 2004-2008 period and enjoys a dominant position on the TV advertising market. It is furthermore of the opinion that the restructuring plan goes far beyond what is necessary. The net present value of the right to charge end-user fees is much greater than the estimated optimal equity as identified in the recapitalisation decision. SBS also raises the point that aid granted to the regional channels in the form of licence fees of some DKK 400 million annually should be included in the assessment of the impact of the restructuring plan.\n(94)\nSBS claims that neither TV2, nor any of its subsidiaries, is eligible for aid under the restructuring guidelines. In this respect, SBS points out that TV2 Denmark, in its first half-yearly report for 2009, had a net equity of DKK 644,9 million, and that the company does not fulfil the criteria for insolvency proceedings. Any loss resulting from the public service obligation should be analysed under Article 106(2) TFEU, which has not been invoked by the Danish Government.\n(95)\nSBS argues that the cost allocation between the different parts of the TV2 group must be properly assessed, especially since the costs of the niche channels are very low compared to those of competitors. The main channel was regarded as a stand-alone operation which could be made profitable by proper pricing standards.\n(96)\nSBS asserts that the TV2 Group was profitable in the 2004-2008 period, if the now abandoned loss-making activities such as TV2 Radio and the impact of the Commission\u2019s recovery decision are taken out of the equation. In any event, TV2 could become profitable, e.g. by reducing costs.\n(97)\nSBS furthermore takes issue with the market analysis supplied by Denmark. SBS particularly disagrees with the outlook for the advertising market, which it expects to grow from 2010 (78).\n(98)\nSBS states that the restructuring plan, if it is to be approved at all, should be limited to the time it would take to sell off assets to address liquidity issues.\n(99)\nSBS states that the introduction of end-user charges will in practice have the same effect as an increase in licence fees, and should be classified as State aid in line with Case C-206/06 Essent Netwerk Noord BV. There are significant differences from Case C-345/02 (Pearle), because the measure was introduced on the sole initiative of Denmark and TV2, and because user fees are not earmarked for specific purposes chosen by the viewers.\n(100)\nSBS stresses the importance of analysing end-user charges within the framework of the restructuring aid. An agreement to introduce end-user charges is likely to affect TV2\u2019s market behaviour and that of relevant third parties such as banks, as of the date of approval of the restructuring plan rather than the date of implementation of the end-user charges. It further criticised the fact that there is no cap on the amount of end-user charges which TV2 is able to levy, nor any conditions regarding its use. End-user charges can also be used to finance commercial activities.\n(101)\nSBS states further that the introduction of end-user charges cannot be reconciled with the concept of public service. This means that the restructuring aid as such cannot be justified under Article 106(2) TFEU unless the plans for user charges are dropped. SBS also states that the anticompetitive effects of the user charges are clear, and particularly that it may lead to some operators having to leave the market and that it will also allow TV2 to invest even more aggressively in new content. This is a bad thing, particularly because TV2 is exceptional in that it holds a dominant position on the advertising market.\n(102)\nSBS claims that there is a need for sufficiently strict compensatory measures. It therefore suggests that TV2, firstly, should not be allowed to introduce user charges. Secondly, public tendering should be introduced to ensure more correct internal transfer pricing when programmes are sold from TV2 to its subsidiaries. Thirdly, TV2 regional channels could be transferred to Danmarks Radio, since the regional channels receive substantial amounts of State aid and because households paying a licence fee and also receiving pay-TV would be paying twice for the TV2 regional channels. Fourthly, TV2 should be required not only to not launch new commercial channels, but also to sell at least some of the existing channels. Lastly, TV2 should be obliged to allow advertising from competing operators on its network.\n(103)\nSBS also suggests that a number of safeguards should be put in place so as to ensure that TV2 does not use the aid and/or user charges to distort competition. Firstly, Denmark should not be allowed to apply discriminatory user charges. Secondly, TV2 should not be allowed to bundle the main channel with the other channels on the distribution market, and TV2 should be obliged to supply TV2 as a stand-alone channel. Thirdly, TV2 should be barred from using the aid or user charges for any activity other than the main channel, and from dumping prices in the advertising market. Fourthly, TV2 should be obliged to give an undertaking that it will not use non-transparent rebates.\n(104)\nViasat asserts that TV2 is not a firm in difficulty, pointing in particular to the profit in 2008. It claimed that TV2 would be profitable in the future, referring, inter alia, to TV2\u2019s profit for the first half of 2009 (which forecast a profit of DKK 249 million before tax). In view of the later information that TV2 in fact made a loss for 2009, Viasat considers this minor loss to be associated with an overall drop in the advertising market of 18,7 % compared to 2008. It shows that TV2 has now managed to adjust its costs to the current commercial and financial environment. As concerns the losses in 2007, Viasat points out that these are mainly due to TV2 Radio, which has subsequently been sold off. TV2 did have a decrease in turnover in 2008, but so did most firms, and TV2 still managed to increase its pre-tax profits.\n(105)\nViasat claims that there is no evidence of short-term cash flow needs. TV2 has, on the contrary, recently spent a considerable amount on new film acquisitions, and has also increased its costs, which according to Viasat is due to an increase in its programming stock, a cost increase in the area of general fiction and over-investment in expensive Danish fiction (79).\n(106)\nIn more detail, Viasat stresses that even though a large part of TV2\u2019s interest-bearing debt is still short-term, this is not a problem as long as TV2 can refinance it. TV2\u2019s financial costs dropped in 2009 from DKK 49,2 million to DKK 19 million. TV2 has also spent substantial funds on new content acquisition. Furthermore, the negative cash flow in the 2006-2008 period was mainly due to unusually large investment activities, and not costs related to TV2\u2019s operating activities. The negative cash flow could thus have been eliminated by postponing or reducing investments. In the same vein, the reason why TV2 had an increase in its debt was that TV2 invested heavily during 2006-2008.\n(107)\nViasat also points out that the interest burden seems to have decreased as of 2008. Viasat also questions whether TV2 has problems in obtaining loans, since it seems that TV2 sought to obtain loans from Danske Bank only. Moreover, this took place at a time when it was more difficult to obtain a loan than it is now.\n(108)\nRegarding the exogenous factors, Viasat agrees with the assumption in the opening decision of a 1,02 % GDP growth per year. Viasat especially notes that the forecasts concerning the growth of the advertising market made by PWC, on which the Danish Government relies, are substantially more conservative than those by others, especially forecasts made by firms that are active on the market. In its comments on the opening decision, Viasat provides its own forecast for the TV2 group for the 2009-2019 period (report Audon Partners), which shows that TV2 will not be condemned to going out of business in the short or medium term.\n(109)\nAs regards the profitability of the public service channel, Viasat stresses that the TV2 Group consist of such synergies that it is impossible to consider the profitability of each activity in isolation. The main channel should thus not be assessed in a stand-alone perspective. Notwithstanding this, the transfer pricing between TV2 and the niche channels is flawed as the price is significantly less than cost. Viasat supplies calculations of profitability in which costs are split according to the channels\u2019 turnover. Viasat also states that when compared to the performance of comparable media companies, the niche channels\u2019 financial performance strongly suggests that the segmented reporting in the TV2 group should be disregarded. Viasat finally remarks that TV2 could auction the right to retransmit its most attractive programmes, excluding sporting events, e.g. drama, fiction and documentaries, to boost profits for the main channel. Viasat also fears that the aid could be used for aggressive market behaviour and states that TV2 in the past invested in drama series acquisitions by outbidding competitors, raised prices for TV2 news and granted rebates.\n(110)\nShould the Commission come to the conclusion that there is a need for aid, that aid should target the immediate problem, i.e. the cash flow, rather than operations. This means that TV2 should not be allowed to become a pay-TV channel, as it would be sufficient to supply it with a credit facility. Moreover, the introduction of user charges will supply TV2 with funds with which it will be able to continue abusive behaviour in the advertising market, and risk eliminating competitors from the market. Viasat also questions whether the scheme is in line with TV2\u2019s universal public service obligation.\n(111)\nViasat primarily emphasises the anticompetitive impact of user charges, because these will push other operators\u2019 programmes towards more expensive programme packages, leading them to lose revenue from subscriptions and advertising.\n(112)\nViasat moreover claims that the compensatory measures suggested are in fact not a sacrifice, as there is no room for further channels anyway. As stated above, Viasat remarks that TV2 could auction the right to retransmit its most attractive programmes (excluding sporting events), e.g. drama, fiction and documentaries, to boost profits for the main channel.\n(113)\nFinally, Viasat also states that it is unlikely that Article 106(2) could be invoked by the Danish Government.\n(114)\nBoxer states that the introduction of the user charges will partly remedy the current anticompetitive situation in which Boxer, unlike any other platform provider, cannot commercially utilise the fact that it broadcasts TV2. Boxer suggests that the pricing of TV2 should be made subject to control, either political or by the competition authorities.\n(115)\nRegarding the restructuring aid, some parties question whether TV2 is in difficulty (ASK) and whether the compensatory measures in a saturated market are not too weak (FDA). Some state, however, that if the company is in difficulty, user charges could be considered (DI, TDC). Some consider the restructuring period to be too long (Discovery). Others state that if TV2 will be an economically stable company by 2012, it should not be allowed to introduce the user charges.\n(116)\nOn the end-user charges: Some parties (Langkilde, MTV Networks AB, FDA, Discovery, Stofa) submit that the user charges will lead to small channels being pushed out of the existing pay-TV packages or to customers having to pay more.\n(117)\nSome parties think that an end-user charge of DKK 25 is too high (FDA, TDC). FDA also thinks that the levy of such end-user charges is not compatible with TV2\u2019s role as a public service broadcaster.\nVIII. ASSESSMENT UNDER THE STATE AID RULES\n1. Scope of the assessment\n(118)\nAs can be seen from the submission of Denmark, the notified restructuring plan has not been withdrawn. Denmark states that there is no need for aid measures and that all aid measures will be repealed once the restructuring plan, including the end-user charges, has been approved and TV2 is not required to make additional payments resulting from the Commission\u2019s two previous investigations involving TV2 (80). In other words, the Commission has not yet received unconditional confirmation from Denmark that these measures are no longer part of the restructuring plan and thus no longer within the scope of the Commission\u2019s formal investigation.\n(119)\nThe only exception is the proposed guarantee of the broadcasting network sale, which will not materialise since this sale has already taken place and is therefore no longer relevant to the case. The Commission no longer considers this measure to be notified.\n(120)\nIn the following, therefore, the Commission will still assess the remaining notified measures (loan and temporary and restructuring credit facilities) as well as the credit facility from the rescue aid authorisation, which remains in place.\n2. Presence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU\n(121)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU states:\n\u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\u2019\n(122)\nIn order for Article 107(1) TFEU to be applicable, there needs to be an aid measure imputable to the State which is granted by state resources, affects trade between Member States and distorts competition in the common market by conferring a selective economic advantage to certain undertakings. The application of these conditions to the measures at hand is examined below.\n2.1. State resources\n(123)\nThe subordinated loan and the temporary credit facilities from the original rescue aid and under the restructuring plan (81) involve funds released by the Government with the agreement of the Folketinget from the general budget of Denmark, thus constituting state resources.\n(124)\nDenmark submits that the interest rates and charges are those applied on the market for healthy firms. In applying the same conditions to a firm in difficulty such as TV2, Denmark is foregoing state resources. The reason is that a private creditor would take into account the financial difficulties of TV2 and would either not grant a loan or credit facility at all, or do so at rates which are higher than for healthy companies.\n(125)\nThe Commission finds that the right granted to TV2 to charge end-user charges as of 2012 does not constitute state resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The end-user charges are of private origin (82) and are paid directly by consumers to the distributor as remuneration for viewing the TV2 channel. TV2 has to enter into normal commercial negotiations with the distributor to have its channel included in a digital package and to agree on an acceptable remuneration. There is no legal provision which forces the distributor to carry the TV2 main channel in its package, since the current must-carry obligation laid down in Article 6 of the Danish Broadcasting Act will be repealed upon the introduction of the end-user charges system. Nor are the end-user charges, or their amount, under the permanent control of the Government, or available to it (83). The Government is not involved in any price setting, which is a commercial decision by TV2, nor does it collect the charges for TV2 or control or dispose of them in any way.\n(126)\nThe user charges cannot be equated with the charging of the licence fee, as claimed by SBS. SBS argues that the user charges will in practice have the same effect for households as an increase in the licence fee, since distributors\u2019 operating packages will always include TV2 Danmark. This compulsory element, Together with the fact that user charges can only be amended through a legislative amendment (84), should qualify them as State aid (85). In this regard, SBS cites the Court\u2019s case-law in Essent Netwerks (86).\n(127)\nHowever, contrary to the previous licence fee arrangement in Denmark, which the Commission indeed regarded as State aid (87), end users are not legally obliged to pay the charges, but pay the remuneration as part of a contractual arrangement into which they enter voluntarily. Nor are the charges collected by a public institution as was the case for the licence fee, but by the private operator Boxer and other private distributors on the other platforms. The State will not be involved in any enforcement action in cases where users do not pay the charges; the distributor would have to bring a civil action to obtain payment.\n(128)\nThe fact that TV2 is granted the right to charge subscription fees by a change in the licence granted by the Ministry of Culture is not sufficient to find that state resources are involved. It is not a case of state intervention leading to a loss of state resources. In that regard, the reference by SBS to the Essent Netwerks case is not relevant. Paragraph 73 of the quoted judgment establishes a distinction between the situation in Essent and that of the Pearle case (88), by stating that in the former, the charge in question was embedded in a policy determined by the authorities. In order to distinguish the cases, the Court refers in Essent to the introduction of the charge by legislature, but does not stipulate that any state intervention by legislation automatically leads to an involvement of state resources. This is clear from the cited Essent judgment itself, since paragraph 75 of that judgment further distinguishes the case from the Preussen Elektra case, which did involve a legislative act (and in which no State aid was found to be involved) obliging electricity suppliers to purchase electricity produced in their area of supply from renewable sources at a minimum price. The Court states that in Essent, the undertakings in question had been appointed to \u2018manage a state resource\u2019, contrary to the situation in Preussen Elektra (89). In the case in question, TV2 is not called upon by the State to manage a state resource. The change in the licence implements only an already existing right to an additional source of income (for the legislation, see Section 38a(2) of the Danish Broadcasting Act).\n(129)\nThe Commission therefore finds that the end-user charges do not involve state resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n2.2. Selective advantage\n(130)\nThe state resources involved confer an economic advantage on TV2 in that the same financial instruments at market conditions would attract a higher borrowing cost, or higher fees, if any market operators agreed to make further funds available to the beneficiary at the amount envisaged. According to the evidence submitted by Denmark, none were willing to do so.\n2.3. Distortion of competition and effect on trade\n(131)\nThese resources will allow TV2 to continue operating on markets on which it is currently active. These markets include the market(s) for sale and purchase of broadcasting rights, the market(s) for pay-TV services and the market for TV advertising in Denmark. On those markets, TV2 competes with other broadcasters such as SBS or Viasat, among others. It follows that by favouring TV2, the aid in question distorts or threatens to distort competition on those markets.\n(132)\nThe affected markets, such as the purchase and sale of broadcasting rights and TV advertising for products from other Member States intended for sale in Denmark, are subject to trade between Member States (90). Moreover, some competitors of TV2 Danmark A/S broadcast their channels from the United Kingdom and/or are subsidiaries of groups incorporated in other Member States, whose decision to remain or increase their activity on the Danish market may be influenced by the planned aid. The State aid in question therefore affects, or risks affecting, patterns of trade between Member States.\n(133)\nSince Article 107(1) TFEU applies, the restructuring aid package needs to be assessed in terms of its compatibility with the internal market.\n3. Standstill obligation\n(134)\nDenmark has respected the standstill obligation mentioned in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (91), since it notified the aid measures under the restructuring plan and has to date not implemented them. Implementation of the rescue aid was authorised by the Commission decision of 4 August 2008.\n4. Compatibility of the State aid with the internal market\n4.1. Legal basis\n(135)\nThe compatibility of the measures will be assessed under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU in conjunction with the Guidelines. The application of Article 106(2) TFEU to the measures in question in relation to financing of public service broadcasting is not analysed. While the financial difficulties of TV2 mainly originate from the provision of the public service channel and the absence of a business model with stable revenue sources, the State aid measures are not limited to public service provision, but are directed at TV2 as a group, i.e. including its commercial activities. Furthermore, the Danish authorities have not argued in detail that the State aid measures were compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU and the Commission has not received sufficient information which would enable it to carry out the assessment under Article 106(2) TFEU in conjunction with the Broadcasting Communication (92).\n(136)\nThe Guidelines provide for the possibility of granting rescue aid as a temporary assistance for firms in difficulty pending the preparation of a restructuring plan or to address an acute liquidity crisis. According to point 26 of the Guidelines, the deadline for putting an end to the aid is extended until the Commission has reached its decision on the plan. The fact that the rescue aid facility is still in place for TV2 is in line with that stipulation, as TV2 has submitted a restructuring plan within the deadline.\n(137)\nRestructuring aid must be based on a feasible, coherent and far-reaching plan to restore the firm\u2019s long term viability within a reasonable time frame. Restructuring usually involves the following elements: the restructuring of all aspects of the functioning of the company, the reorganisation and rationalisation of the firm\u2019s activities, including the withdrawal from loss-making activities and financial restructuring. Restructuring operations, if benefiting from State aid, cannot be limited, however, to making good past losses without tackling the reasons. Furthermore, the restructuring has to be financed at least partially by the own resources of the company. Finally, compensatory measures must be adopted to minimise the distortive effects of the aid. The Commission will in the following examine whether these conditions are met.\n4.2. Eligibility - Firm in difficulty\n(138)\nAccording to point 9 of the Guidelines, a firm is in difficulty where it is unable, whether through its own resources or with funds it is able to obtain from its owners/shareholders, to stem losses, which, without outside intervention by public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to going out of business. Point 11 of the Guidelines mentions certain criteria according to which a firm is in difficulty, even where none of the criteria of point 10 of the Guidelines are present. Point 11 stipulates that \u2018in any event, a firm in difficulty is eligible only where, demonstrably, it cannot recover through its own resources or with the funds it obtains from its owners/shareholders or from market sources\u2019.\n(139)\nThe Commission comes to the conclusion that at the time of the notification of the restructuring plan, TV2 constituted such a firm in difficulty. This can be seen from the figures in the Commission\u2019s decision opening the formal investigation procedure, and more importantly from the figures produced in recitals 36-42 of this Decision, which were submitted at a later point in January 2010 and which describe a company with losses, declining market shares, mounting debt and in particular negative cash flows due to declining advertising revenues, bad investments and increasing interest charges. While it turned out later that the company had indeed, as competitors estimated, made a profit in 2008 (the estimate at the end of March 2008 still pointed to [\u2026] of DKK [\u2026] million), this profit was small, and does not in itself alter the finding that the company could not continue its operations without external financing. The private credit facilities at the company\u2019s disposal were short term and could be withdrawn any time. The company had an acute liquidity need which it could not overcome by its own resources.\n(140)\nNor could it obtain external financing. There was a danger that short-term credits would be withdrawn. As already stated in the opening decision, the main financing bank of TV2, [\u2026], asked to reduce its loan and credit facilities in 2008. In addition to TV2\u2019s problems, which even included mortgaging its own premises in Odense, Denmark produced evidence that other banks had also refused to provide TV2 with long-term loans (see recitals 44 et seq. of this Decision). The banks pointed to the weaknesses in TV2\u2019s cyclical income stream based on advertising revenues, which as a business model was considered unsustainable. Pending legal cases added to the problems. As a result, TV2\u2019s funding became increasingly tilted towards short-term liabilities, and thus fragile. In other words, TV2 was unable, within the meaning of point 11 of the Guidelines, to recover from the situation using funds obtainable from market sources.\n(141)\nThese findings are not called into question by the submissions from competitors. For completeness, it should be mentioned that the Guidelines do not require the company to be in actual insolvency proceedings. On the contrary, aid can be given - under strict conditions - to prevent precisely that.\n(142)\nAs to the arguments of the competitors that TV2 is a profitable company, or could become profitable, the above-mentioned results for TV2 show that the company realised a profit in 2008, but contrary to what Viasat had estimated, it incurred a loss for 2009 of DKK 27 million, which deviated significantly from the Viasat forecast of DKK 249 million in profit. The profit for 2010 is also estimated to be much smaller than that assumed by Viasat. The Commission has not found any errors in the methodologies used by TV2 and its consultant PWC (see also recital 41 of this Decision).\n(143)\nAs to the study of TV2\u2019s credit rating submitted by Viasat and carried out by Audon partners (93), according to which TV2 could have obtained credit, the reactions of banks show that the real picture is a different one. The analysis is furthermore based only on figures and assumptions which have not been checked with TV2. Some of the figures are divorced from reality, as can be seen from the figures for 2009 and 2010. The report itself stresses that this is not a full-scale analysis (because for obvious reasons no contact with TV2 was established) and the model used has its limitations for that reason (94).\n(144)\nThe fact that the company has drawn much less on the rescue aid credit facility than it could have does not mean that it cannot be regarded as a firm in difficulty. It would be an absurd finding to disqualify a beneficiary of rescue and restructuring aid from eligibility for the aid if cost-saving measures and other measures envisaged in the restructuring plan later prove to be successful, and help the company to deal with its financing problems largely using its own resources. This might, however, lead to the result that at a certain point in time ongoing State aid is no longer necessary, which will be discussed below (see recital 149). In any event, the credit facility was always constructed in such a way that the company could only get access to it in the event of a certified need. This was done in order to keep the aid to the minimum, and TV2\u2019s behaviour in trying to achieve the restructuring process as much as possible using its own resources is in line with that requirement.\n(145)\nIt should furthermore be underlined that the numerous allegations by Viasat and SBS that TV2\u2019s weak financial situation is self-inflicted through poor management decisions or bad investments is irrelevant for its eligibility under the Guidelines, which do not ask for the cause of the financial problems of the aid beneficiary, but only seek to ascertain that the aid beneficiary is indeed a firm in difficulty.\n(146)\nCompetitors have also, in this respect, asserted that TV2\u2019s problems largely stem from the public service channel and that internal cost and transfer pricing adjustments could remedy this situation. However, the Commission does not consider this argument relevant in a situation in which the aid goes to the group as such, including the commercial operations. The Commission notes, however, that TV2 has separate and audited accounts for the public service and other activities, and a fully documented and audited transfer pricing policy, which is relatively simple, transparent and aims to give an accurate picture of the different activities based on transfer prices on market terms.\n(147)\nOn the exogenous factors, Viasat agrees with the assumption of a GDP growth of 1,02 %. On the development of the advertising market, the parties agree that TV2\u2019s advertising revenues decreased by 19 % in 2008. However, Viasat and SBS wrongly interpret Denmark\u2019s forecast on the future development of the advertising market. Contrary to their understanding, Denmark did not forecast that the advertising market would drop by 10 % each year in the 2009-2013 period, but simply stated that [\u2026].\n(148)\nRegarding the argument that licence fees granted to the regional broadcasting stations should have been included in the assessment of TV2\u2019s financial situation, the Commission finds that the licence fees finance the programme production of regional broadcasters and are relevant only in relation to that. In this regard, the Commission notes that the regional TV2 stations are independent from TV2 and subject to their own public service obligations under the Danish Broadcasting Act, for which they receive licence financing. As to SBS\u2019s argument that viewers will pay twice for the programme, it should be stressed that one of the payments - the subscription fees for TV2 main channel - result from the customer\u2019s choice and have been found not to involve any State aid. In any event, it has been shown above that TV2 as a group was a firm in difficulty suffering from acute financing needs, since it could not obtain any external financing from banks. This included any potential benefits resulting from its obligation to broadcast these programmes.\n(149)\nTV2\u2019s dire situation changed, however, with the sale of the broadcasting transmission network. Using the proceeds from the sale of the broadcasting network, TV2 was able to pay back part of its debt, and the financial outlook became much more positive, as can be seen from the figures in recitals 62-64 of this Decision. Trends in the advertising market are also more positive (95). TV2 was able to repay its state loan drawn from the rescue aid facility. Subject to the outcome of the pending State aid cases and the approval of the restructuring plan, TV2 expects to have sufficient financing until January 2012 when the subscription charges will be implemented (96).\n(150)\nGiven that new situation, the Commission does not find that TV2 can still currently be classified as a firm in difficulty. There is therefore no need for any aid measure beyond the approval of this Decision, and the notified, non-implemented loan and credit facility contained in the restructuring plan should be repealed. For the same reason, the existing aid facility under the rescue aid decision should also come to an end.\n4.3. Restoration of long-term viability\n(151)\nPursuant to point 34 of the Guidelines, the grant of the aid must be conditional on implementation of a restructuring plan which must restore viability to the company within a reasonable timescale. The restructuring plan describes the circumstances that led to the company\u2019s difficulties as having been caused by new activities which did not turn out to be profitable, and the increasingly unprofitable public service channel. In the Commission\u2019s view, the restructuring plan adequately addresses these issues.\n(152)\nThe Commission notes that the restructuring plan provides for financial and operational restructuring measures which, together with an amended business model, will enable the company to stand on its own feet. In this regard, the Commission firstly notes that the requirement in the restructuring plan to sell assets resulted in the successful sale of the broadcasting network, which provided TV2 with sufficient funds to repay its debts. It also repaid the aid drawn from the rescue aid facility on 4 October 2010. The company itself states that it has now sufficient means to bridge the period until the end-user charges will be adopted (97). Other measures in the form of cost savings will also contribute to the long-term viability of the firm (see recitals 47 and 48 above).\n(153)\nThe company is also giving up loss-making activities; in 2008, it sold its loss-making radio operation to the SBS group.\n(154)\nThe company is expected to solve the structural problems leading to its liquidity needs by being permitted to charge subscription fees as of January 2012. The lack of profitability of the public service channel is due to its reliance on one source of income in the form of advertising revenue, which is cyclical and sensitive to the economic climate. This is also demonstrated by the reactions of banks, which refused to provide funding due to their concerns about trends on the advertising market and doubts as to TV2\u2019s earning ability. The new business model will provide TV2 with a more stable income base by charging subscription fees for the viewing of its main channel. TV2 has forecast additional income from the end-user charges of DKK [\u2026] million in 2012. It also forecasts [\u2026] for the group in 2012. The Commission notes that besides [\u2026], the second source of revenue in the form of end-user charges will also make the company less vulnerable to downturns in cyclical activities. The Commission notes that the measures to achieve the turnaround originate in the restructuring plan itself and not from external factors.\n(155)\nThe originally notified duration of the restructuring plan until 31 December 2012 spans a period of almost 4 years. This period was chosen because the Danish Government believed that with the introduction of a new business model and its first experiences in practice, banks would again be willing to lend money to TV2, i.e. the period was chosen to be long enough to amass this experience. However, given that all aid will be repealed with the adoption of this Decision (see above), the Danish Government now considers that the restructuring period should end on the repeal of all aid measures.\n(156)\nThe Commission takes a different view. According to the Guidelines, restructuring should result in the company\u2019s return to long-term viability. The Commission considers that the restructuring period lasts until the moment when the company has implemented all restructuring measures, ensuring such long-term viability. While all State aid measures will cease immediately on adoption of this Decision, the restoration of long-term viability to TV2 is not guaranteed as of this moment as long as TV2 still lacks a sustainable business model. Such a business model will only be established with the introduction of the end-user charges. The introduction of end-user charges is also the main restructuring measure directly addressing the most serious cause of TV2\u2019s financial difficulties. The Commission therefore concludes that the restructuring period comes to an end on 31 December 2012, or at the point in time when TV2 is able to charge subscription fees from the end user, should this event takes place before 31 December 2012. It currently seems that TV2 is legally entitled to charge user fees only when its licence has been changed (while the current Danish Broadcasting Act already provides a possibility for TV2 to charge end-user fees, it is not allowed in the current licence).\n4.4. Avoidance of undue distortions of competition\n(157)\nAccording to point 38 of the Guidelines, in order to ensure that the adverse effects of the aid on trading conditions are minimised as much as possible, so that the positive effects pursued outweigh the adverse ones, compensatory measures must be taken. These measures may comprise divestment of assets or reductions in capacity or market presence. According to point 40 of the Guidelines, they must be in proportion to the distortive effects of the aid and the relative importance of the firm on its markets.\n(158)\nIn principle, the commitment not to open any new channels (i.e. limiting market presence), can be seen as a compensatory measure, as it excludes TV2 from competing for new customers and therefore benefits its competitors. The opening of new commercial channels would be beneficial to TV2 because the channels would be financed by a steady revenue source based on non-cyclical subscription fees, and because they would provide the necessary income to the group, partially counterbalancing the negative results from the public service channel. According to the market analysis provided in the restructuring plan, the pay-TV market is growing (98). TV2\u2019s competitors, however, argue that the option of opening new commercial channels was not available to TV2 anyway, since the market was saturated.\n(159)\nIn this regard, the Commission notes that TV2\u2019s competitors themselves launched channels in 2009 (SBS launched 6erene, Canal Digital will launch a sports channel, Viasat launched a channel on 23 March 2009, and the TV4 group launched Canal 9 in July 2009).\n(160)\nDenmark has also confirmed that due to the restructuring, TV2 will also be prevented from launching radio channels (99). This commitment is highly relevant in that there is an upcoming tender procedure for the operating licence for the new FM 4 radio station. Denmark originally expressed an interest in TV2\u2019s possible participation in this tender, but later confirmed that such a bid would not take place in view of the Commission\u2019s ongoing investigation of the restructuring plan, despite the fact that plans for this had already been made. In other words, contrary to what the competitors claim, the commitment not to open new channels had proven to have a real meaning and constitutes a sacrifice for the company. The Commission considers this commitment to be important in light of point 46 of the Guidelines, according to which aid should not go to finance new investment that is not essential for restoring the firm\u2019s viability.\n(161)\nThe Commission also considers the proposed compensatory measures to be in proportion to the distortive effects of the aid measures. It should be pointed out that these measures all end on the date of adoption of this Decision. In that regard, the Commission would point out that none of the notified restructuring aid measures has been, or will be, implemented. As can be seen from recitals 150 et seq. the rescue aid facility will also be repealed on adoption of this Decision. This means that the company will not receive any State aid. The actual payments made under the rescue aid facility were, however, limited (DKK 223 million drawn of DKK 1 000 million available). Most of the aid was actually drawn as rescue aid (DKK 208 out of 223 million were drawn until end 2008, i.e. within the six-month rescue period) and all the funds actually drawn from the credit facility have already been repaid to the State. Nor is the actual amount drawn from the credit facility - DKK 223 million - excessive in light of TV2\u2019s 2008 turnover ([\u2026] %). In light of this, the Commission does not consider it necessary to demand further compensatory measures from Denmark and the aid beneficiary. For that reason, the Commission does not see any need for further compensatory measures, as suggested by the competitors.\n(162)\nHowever, the Commission does not agree with the proposal by Denmark that the commitment should cease when all aid measures have come to an end (100). Firstly, Denmark itself had stipulated a longer restructuring period, until 31 December 2012. Secondly, the Guidelines nowhere stipulate that the length of the compensatory measure must be identical to the presence of ongoing aid measures. Thirdly, the restructuring plan is based on the premise that it is only when the end-user charges are introduced in 2012 that the company will have access to external financing; only then will long-term viability be restored. Denmark itself has argued that the aid measures, including the rescue aid facility which is still in place, would be needed to fill the liquidity gap until a more stable business model for the public service channel was in place. The rescue aid facility thus had the function of keeping the company afloat until a new business model had begun to apply. Against this background, the Commission does not find that the compensatory measure commitment can come to an end with the end of the aid or the date of this Decision. The Commission considers it feasible, however, that the obligation not to launch new channels may end at an earlier date than the end of the period of the restructuring plan (31 December 2012), namely when the end-user charges have been introduced (via the change in the licence) and TV2 will be able to levy them.\n4.5. Aid limited to the minimum\n(163)\nAccording to point 43 of the Guidelines, the amount and intensity of the aid must be limited to the strict minimum of the restructuring costs necessary to enable restructuring to be undertaken. The idea behind this provision is that the company, at the end of restructuring, is not equipped with surplus liquidity that it could use for aggressive market behaviour. Beneficiaries are expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources, including the sale of assets that are not essential to the firm\u2019s survival. Such a contribution must be real, and may not include expected future profits such as cash flow. It must be as high as possible, at least 50 % for large firms. The Commission considers TV2 to be a large firm in the meaning of the Guidelines.\n(164)\nThe Commission does not share the view of the Danish Government that any costs at all, in particular cost-saving measures, automatically qualify as restructuring measures. A company might incur expenditure in pursuing cost savings. Cost savings as described by Denmark in the present case do not, in themselves, represent a restructuring cost. Denmark provided a list of \u2018classical\u2019 restructuring costs, which consist of DKK [\u2026] million and which cover transaction costs related to the sale of the transmission network (DKK [\u2026] million), costs associated with the transfer to the new business model (DKK [\u2026]-[\u2026] million) and staff costs for termination of contracts, legal and consultancy fees (DKK [\u2026] million). The Commission accepts these costs as restructuring costs.\n(165)\nAccording to the Commission\u2019s case practice, restructuring costs include all extraordinary costs incurred in order for the firm to return to viability, but not regular operating costs incurred in the restructuring period. However, the present case concerns a company\u2019s need of liquidity to bridge a transitional period until a new sustainable business model is in place. As outlined above, TV2 had a genuine financing need, since it did not have access to external financing. In this special case involving purely financial restructuring until the company changes to a more stable business plan, the Commission can also accept this need of financing as constituting a restructuring cost. It was the credit facility of the rescue aid decision (DKK 1 000 million) which provided the necessary temporary buffer to cover the financial gap. However, this facility was only transitional and could only be accessed when TV2 could demonstrate a financing need as certified by an external auditor. In the end, TV2 did not draw much from the credit facility (only [\u2026] % of it). In addition, most of the credit drawn (DKK [\u2026] million) was drawn during the period covered by the Commission\u2019s rescue aid decision, i.e. within the six-month rescue period before the restructuring plan was submitted.\n(166)\nTV2 has contributed towards the above restructuring costs through the sale of assets, with the sale of the broadcasting network for the amount of DKK 640 million, and through external financing by mortgaging its premises in Odense at DKK 80 million. The contribution of DKK 720 million is well beyond the 50 % threshold for large firms. As stated above, TV2 used the proceeds from the sale of the network to reduce its debt. The money thus spent cannot be used for other purposes. In addition, as is clear from the above, all aid measures will end as of the date of this Decision and no new aid measures as notified under the restructuring plan will be introduced (see recital 150 of this Decision). There is therefore no danger, in terms of point 45 of the Guidelines, of any aid in excess of what was needed staying in the company.\n4.6. Other conditions\n(167)\nAccording to point 46 of the Guidelines, the Commission may require additional measures from the Member State in order to ensure that the aid does not distort competition contrary to the common interest.\n(168)\nThe Commission takes note of the arguments put forward by Denmark throughout the formal investigation, and the intention expressed by the aid beneficiary in supporting documents that the restructuring plan should enable TV2 to use business opportunities in line with its peers and to charge subscription charges. Denmark and TV2 further point out that the currently high equity buffer of TV2 with solvency (and net interest-bearing debt) ratios which are significantly higher (lower) than those of competitors, is only necessary because of the uncertainties of the pending State aid cases and the business model. Both TV2 and Denmark express a general willingness to bring the capital structure back in line with TV2\u2019s peers once the State aid investigations are closed.\n(169)\nThe Commission does not, on its part, see any need for TV2 to have a capital structure that is different from that of its peers once the business model and the pending legal cases have been resolved. Capital structures based on (artificially) high equity are advantageous for the company, because it will be able to attract funding at relatively low rates. Equally important, TV2 should bring its capital structure back to a level that ensures that competition is not distorted. The Commission would like TV2 to revert back to a normal capital structure by making dividend payments to the State, rather than by aggressively expanding its balance sheet by debt financing.\n4.7. Monitoring and annual report\n(170)\nIn line with points 49 and 50 of the Guidelines, Denmark has committed to submitting reports to the Commission no later than 6 months after the approval of the aid.\n4.8. Antitrust issues\n(171)\nThe Commission notes that one of TV2\u2019s competitors has filed an anti-trust complaint regarding the planned introduction of the end-user charges. The Commission is aware that aspects of an aid which contravene specific provisions of the Treaty other than the State aid provisions may be so indissolubly linked to the object of the aid that it is impossible to evaluate them separately (101). The Court has stressed that the obligation to ensure that the State aid rules are applied consistently with other provisions of the Treaty is all the more necessary where those provisions also pursue the objective of undistorted competition. However, the case-law of the Court acknowledges that the State aid and antitrust procedures are independent procedures governed by specific rules. The Court has stated that \u2018when taking a decision on the compatibility of State aid with the common market, the Commission is not obliged to await the outcome of a parallel procedure initiated under Regulation No [1], once it has reached the conclusion, based on an economic analysis of the situation and without any manifest error in the assessment of the facts, that the recipient of the aid is not in breach of Articles [101 and 102 TFEU]\u2019 (102). The antitrust case therefore does not have to be formally closed for the Commission to take a decision in the State aid case.\n(172)\nThe Commission would underline that in the current case it is not the aid itself (the rescue aid facility), but another element of the restructuring plan (the end-user charges), which is the cause of the antitrust complaint. The end-user charges will be introduced in early 2012, i.e. after the aid facility has been repealed, via an amendment in the terms of TV2\u2019s licence. It should also be taken into consideration that most of the aid actually drawn was during the rescue period and was authorised in the Commission\u2019s rescue aid decision of 4 August 2008, and that all aid will be repealed when this Decision comes into force.\n(173)\nIf the antitrust complaint, or third party comments in this proceeding, is to be understood also as a complaint against TV2 becoming a pay-TV channel, suffice to say that the mere introduction of user charges for the main channel cannot constitute an infringement of antitrust legislation. When TV2\u2019s main channel becomes a pay-TV channel, this will lead to the entry into the pay-TV market of that channel. The entry of TV2\u2019s main channel will most likely affect only competitors active in that market, and e.g. lead to the exit of some players from that market (the respective pay-TV packages), or to their having to lower their prices. These effects, however, are normal effects of entry into the market of a viable competitor. The mere fact that user charges are introduced, and that this will bring about increased competition, does not, therefore, contravene Articles 102 and 106 TFEU.\n(174)\nThe complainant, and some other competitors in the third party comments, argue that the planned introduction of the \u2018TV2 Alene\u2019 card would have anticompetitive effects, also favouring the distributor Boxer. In short, the TV2 Alene model meant that customers would receive TV2 free if the customer did not buy other pay-TV services. According to the complainant, the TV2 Alene card would thus have a disincentive effect on customers planning to buy pay-TV, to the detriment of TV2\u2019s competitors. As Denmark has withdrawn the suggested TV2 Alene-card, arguments as to whether it would have infringed the antitrust rules are devoid of relevance and do not, therefore, have bearing on the legality of the restructuring plan.\n(175)\nAs to the fears of some competitors that the aid as such might be used for aggressive market behaviour, the Commission would point out that there are no indications that the State aid itself entails a breach of other provisions of the TFEU or leads TV2 to automatically engage in anticompetitive behaviour.\n(176)\nThe Commission finds that the notified restructuring plan complies with the internal market according to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU in conjunction with the Commission\u2019s rescue and restructuring Guidelines, subject to the following conditions.\n(177)\nSince the company is in a better financial condition following the sale of the broadcasting network, the Commission finds that no aid measures from the restructuring plan (loan and credit facility) should be implemented and that the credit facility in place (as authorised in Commission Decision No 287/08 of 4 August 2008) should be repealed with immediate effect from the date of this Decision. The Commission notes that the originally notified guarantee for the sale of the broadcasting network is no longer relevant, due to the completed sale of the network without the guarantee.\n(178)\nThe Commission further takes note of the commitment by Denmark that the compensatory measure of not launching any new broadcasting channels covers both television and radio channels. This measure should remain in place until 31 December 2012 or, if the aid recipient is able to levy end-user charges before that date, until the introduction of the end-user charges. The introduction of the end-user charges is considered to be the point in time at which TV2 is legally entitled to ask for such remuneration.\n(179)\nThe Commission takes note of the commitment by Denmark to instruct an independent financial expert to compare TV2\u2019s capital structure with those of other media companies and to adjust the capital structure if it deviates markedly from the median or average of the relevant peer group. If there are substantial reasons not to adjust the capital, the Danish Government may notify an alteration of the restructuring plan to the Commission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject to full compliance with the restructuring plan as notified on 4 February 2009 and to the conditions set out in Articles 2, 3 and 4, the facility which Denmark granted to TV2 and which was authorised as rescue aid by the Commission in its decision of 4 August 2008 is compatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\nAs of the date of this Decision, the rescue aid facility which Denmark granted to TV2 and which was authorised by the Commission in its decision of 4 August 2008 shall be repealed. None of the other aid measures notified by Denmark to the Commission on 4 February 2009 may be implemented.\nArticle 3\nThe compensatory measure proposed by Denmark that prohibits TV2 from opening new television or radio broadcasting channels shall remain in place until the notified end of the restructuring period, 31 December 2012. However, if TV2 is allowed to raise subscription fees (end-user charges) before that date, the obligation not to open new radio and television channels ceases to exist as of that date.\nArticle 4\nThe Danish Government shall instruct an independent financial expert at the end of 2012 or early in 2013 to conduct an analysis of TV2\u2019s capital structure, comparing it with the capital structure of other relevant media companies. If TV2\u2019s capital structure deviates markedly from the median or average of the relevant peer group, the Danish Government shall adjust the capital structure at the meeting of the General Assembly in April 2013, in order to rectify any such deviation.\nArticle 5\nDenmark shall inform the Commission, within 2 months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["10", "58", "51", "14", "47", "1", "33", "70", "82", "95", "66", "88", "38", "52", "22", "32", "80", "31", "11", "78", "36", "67", "17", "53", "50", "16", "76", "90", "19", "0", "No Label", "8", "15", "40", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "40", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/781/CFSP\nof 1 December 2011\non the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, Article 28, Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 8 December 2009, the Council adopted Decision 2009/906/CFSP (1) on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). That Decision expires on 31 December 2011.\n(2)\nEUPM should be continued until 30 June 2012.\n(3)\nThe command and control structure of EUPM should be without prejudice to the contractual responsibilities of the Head of Mission towards the Commission for implementing the budget of EUPM.\n(4)\nThe Watch-Keeping Capability should be activated for EUPM.\n(5)\nEUPM will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMission\n1. The European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), established by Joint Action 2002/210/CFSP (2), shall be continued from 1 January 2012 until 30 June 2012.\n2. EUPM shall operate in accordance with the mission statement as set out in Article 2 and shall carry out the key tasks as set out in Article 3.\nArticle 2\nMission statement\nAs part of the broader rule of law approach in BiH and in the region, EUPM shall support BiH relevant Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) and the criminal justice system in the fight against organised crime and corruption, in enhancing the interaction between police and prosecutors and in fostering regional and international cooperation.\nEUPM shall provide operational advice to the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) to support him in his role. Through its work and its network within the country, EUPM shall contribute to overall efforts to ensure that the Union is fully informed of developments in BiH.\nWith a view to the closure of the mission, EUPM shall prepare a hand-over of the remaining key tasks to the EUSR Office.\nEUPM shall support the temporary arrangements for Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) warehousing pending the formation of permanent warehousing arrangements.\nArticle 3\nMission key tasks\nIn order to accomplish its mission, the key tasks of EUPM shall be to:\n(1)\nprovide strategic advice to LEAs and political authorities in BiH on combating organised crime and corruption;\n(2)\npromote and facilitate coordination and cooperation mechanisms vertically as well as horizontally between relevant LEAs, with a particular focus on State level agencies;\n(3)\nensure a successful hand-over between EUPM and the EUSR Office;\n(4)\ncontribute to the coordination of Union and Member States' efforts in the field of the rule of law.\nArticle 4\nStructure of the Mission\n1. EUPM shall consist of the following elements:\n(a)\nmain headquarters in Sarajevo, composed of the Head of the Mission and staff as defined in the Operation Plan (OPLAN);\n(b)\nfour Field Offices in Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Mostar and Tuzla.\n2. These elements shall be subject to further detailed arrangements in the OPLAN.\nArticle 5\nCivilian Operation Commander\n1. The Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability Director shall be the Civilian Operation Commander for EUPM.\n2. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and the overall authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), shall exercise command and control of EUPM at the strategic level.\n3. The Civilian Operation Commander shall ensure proper and effective implementation of the Council's decisions as well as the PSC's decisions, including by issuing instructions at the strategic level as required to the Head of Mission and providing him with advice and technical support.\n4. All seconded staff shall remain under the full command of the national authorities of the seconding State or Union institution concerned. National authorities shall transfer Operational Control of their personnel, teams and units to the Civilian Operation Commander.\n5. The Civilian Operation Commander shall have overall responsibility for ensuring that the Union's duty of care is properly discharged.\n6. The Civilian Operation Commander and the EUSR shall consult each other as required.\nArticle 6\nHead of Mission\n1. The Head of Mission shall assume responsibility for, and exercise command and control of, EUPM at theatre level.\n2. The Head of Mission shall exercise command and control over personnel, teams and units from contributing States as assigned by the Civilian Operation Commander together with administrative and logistic responsibility including over assets, resources and information placed at the disposal of EUPM.\n3. The Head of Mission shall issue instructions to all EUPM staff for the effective conduct of EUPM in theatre, assuming its coordination and day-to-day management, and following the instructions at the strategic level of the Civilian Operation Commander.\n4. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the implementation of EUPM's budget. For this purpose, the Head of Mission shall sign a contract with the Commission.\n5. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for disciplinary control over staff. For seconded staff, disciplinary action shall be exercised by the national or Union authority concerned.\n6. The Head of Mission shall represent EUPM in the operations area and shall ensure its appropriate visibility.\n7. The Head of Mission shall coordinate, as appropriate, with other Union actors on the ground. The Head of Mission shall, without prejudice to the chain of command, receive local political guidance from the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nEUPM Staff\n1. The numbers and competence of EUPM staff shall be consistent with the mission statement set out in Article 2, the mission key tasks set out in Article 3 and the structure set out in Article 4.\n2. EUPM shall consist primarily of staff seconded by Member States or Union institutions. Each Member State or Union institution shall bear the costs relating to any of the staff seconded by it, including travel expenses to and from the place of deployment, salaries, medical coverage and allowances other than applicable daily allowances, as well as hardship and risk allowances.\n3. International civilian staff and local staff may also be recruited by EUPM, as required, on a contractual basis, if the functions required are not provided by personnel seconded by Member States. Exceptionally, in duly justified cases, where no qualified applications from Member States are available, nationals from participating third States may be recruited on a contractual basis, as appropriate.\n4. All staff shall abide by the Mission-specific minimum security operating standards and the Mission security plan supporting the Union field security policy. As regards the protection of EU classified information with which staff are entrusted in the course of their duties, all staff shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (3).\nArticle 8\nStatus of Mission and EUPM staff\n1. The necessary arrangements shall be made regarding the continuation of the Agreement between the Union and BiH of 4 October 2002 on the activities of EUPM in BiH for the duration of EUPM.\n2. The State or Union institution having seconded a staff member shall be responsible for answering any claims linked to the secondment, from or concerning the staff member. The State or Union institution in question shall be responsible for bringing any action against the seconded person.\n3. The conditions of employment and the rights and obligations of international and local civilian staff shall be laid down in the contracts between the Head of Mission and the staff member.\nArticle 9\nChain of command\n1. EUPM shall have a unified chain of command, as a crisis management operation.\n2. Under the responsibility of the Council and the HR, the PSC shall exercise political control and strategic direction of EUPM.\n3. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the PSC and the overall authority of the HR, shall be the commander of EUPM at the strategic level and, as such, shall issue instructions to the Head of Mission and provide him with advice and technical support.\n4. The Civilian Operation Commander shall report to the Council through the HR.\n5. The Head of Mission shall exercise command and control of EUPM at theatre level and shall be directly responsible to the Civilian Operation Commander.\nArticle 10\nPolitical control and strategic direction\n1. The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and the HR, political control and strategic direction of EUPM. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions for this purpose in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 TEU. This authorisation shall include the powers to appoint a Head of Mission, upon a proposal by the HR, and to amend the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and the OPLAN. The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of EUPM shall remain vested in the Council.\n2. The PSC shall report to the Council at regular intervals.\n3. The PSC shall receive, on a regular basis and as required, reports by the Civilian Operation Commander and the Head of Mission on issues within their areas of responsibility.\nArticle 11\nParticipation of third States\n1. Without prejudice to the decision-making autonomy of the Union and its single institutional framework, third States may be invited to contribute to EUPM, provided that they bear the cost of the staff seconded by them, including salaries, all risk insurance cover, daily subsistence allowances and travel expenses to and from BiH, and that they contribute to the running costs of EUPM, as appropriate.\n2. Third States contributing to EUPM shall have the same rights and obligations in terms of day-to-day management of EUPM as Member States.\n3. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions and to establish a Committee of Contributors.\n4. Detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States shall be covered by agreements concluded pursuant to Article 37 TEU and in accordance with Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The HR may negotiate such agreements. Where the Union and a third State conclude an agreement establishing a framework for the participation of that third State in Union crisis-management operations, the provisions of that agreement shall apply in the context of EUPM.\nArticle 12\nFinancial arrangements\n1. The financial reference amount to cover the expenditure related to EUPM for the period from 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2012 shall be EUR 5 250 000.\n2. All expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable to the general budget of the Union. In accordance with the Financial Regulation, the Head of Mission may conclude technical arrangements with Member States, participating third States, and other international actors regarding the provision of equipment, services and premises to EUPM. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the management of a warehouse stocking used equipment that may also be used to respond to urgent requirements in CSDP deployments. Nationals of participating third States and host country nationals shall be allowed to tender for contracts.\n3. The Head of Mission shall report fully to, and be supervised by, the Commission regarding the activities undertaken in the framework of his contract.\n4. The financial arrangements shall respect the operational requirements of EUPM, including compatibility of equipment and interoperability of its teams.\n5. The expenditure related to EUPM shall be eligible as of 1 January 2012.\nArticle 13\nSecurity\n1. The Civilian Operation Commander shall direct the Head of Mission's planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation for EUPM in accordance with Articles 5 and 9, in coordination with the Security Directorate of the European External Action Service (EEAS).\n2. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the security of EUPM and for ensuring compliance with minimum security requirements applicable to EUPM, in line with the policy of the Union on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the TEU, and its supporting instruments.\n3. The Head of Mission shall be assisted by a Senior Mission Security Officer (SMSO), who shall report to the Head of Mission and also maintain a close functional relationship with the Security Directorate of the EEAS.\n4. The Head of Mission, in consultation with the Security Directorate of the EEAS, shall appoint Area Security Officers in the four field offices, who, under the authority of the SMSO, shall be responsible for the day-to-day management of all security aspects of the respective EUPM elements.\n5. EUPM staff shall undergo mandatory security training before taking up their duties, in accordance with the OPLAN. They shall also receive regular in-theatre refresher training organised by the SMSO.\nArticle 14\nCoordination\n1. Without prejudice to the chain of command, the Head of Mission shall act in close coordination with the Union Delegation in BiH to ensure consistency of Union action in support of BiH.\n2. The Head of Mission shall coordinate closely with the Union Heads of Missions in BiH.\n3. The Head of Mission shall cooperate with the other international actors present in the country, in particular Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Council of Europe and the International Criminal Investigation Training Assistance Programme.\nArticle 15\nRelease of classified information\n1. The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States associated with this Decision, as appropriate and in accordance with the needs of EUPM, EU classified information and documents up to \u2018RESTREINT UE\u2019 level generated for the purposes of EUPM, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU.\n2. In the event of a specific and immediate operational need, the HR shall also be authorised to release to the host State any EU classified information and documents up to \u2018RESTREINT UE\u2019 level which are generated for the purposes of EUPM, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU. In all other cases, such information and documents shall be released to the host State in accordance with the appropriate procedures for cooperation by the host State with the Union.\n3. The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States associated with this Decision any EU non-classified documents connected with the deliberations of the Council relating to EUPM and covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council's Rules of Procedure (4).\nArticle 16\nWatch-Keeping Capability\nThe Watch-Keeping Capability shall be activated for EUPM.\nArticle 17\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012 until 30 June 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2011.", "references": ["52", "71", "49", "92", "79", "51", "90", "55", "85", "10", "35", "70", "63", "94", "84", "7", "99", "62", "50", "86", "21", "1", "11", "72", "48", "40", "53", "44", "29", "25", "No Label", "0", "9", "12", "36", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["0", "9", "12", "36", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 27 July 2009\non the signing, on behalf of the Community, of the Arrangement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein, of the other part, on the modalities of the participation by those States in the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union\n(2010/491/EC)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 62(2)(a) and Article 66 in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 21(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (1) provides for countries associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis to participate in that Agency. The modalities of their participation are to be specified in further arrangements to be concluded between the Community and those countries.\n(2)\nFollowing the authorisation given to the Commission on 11 March 2008, negotiations with the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein for an Arrangement on the modalities of the participation by those States in the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union have been concluded.\n(3)\nSubject to its possible conclusion at a later date, the Arrangement initialled on 19 January 2009 should be signed and the attached Joint Declarations approved.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it, or subject to its application. Given that this Decision builds upon the Schengen acquis under the provisions of Title IV of Part Three of the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 5 of that Protocol, decide within a period of six months after the date of adoption of this Decision whether it will implement it in its national law.\n(5)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (2). The United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(6)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (3). Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to application thereof,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Arrangement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein, of the other part, on the modalities of the participation by those States in the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union and the attached Joint Declarations are hereby approved on behalf of the Community, subject to the conclusion of the Arrangement.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Arrangement on behalf of the Community, subject to its conclusion.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2009.", "references": ["75", "76", "52", "24", "55", "98", "57", "46", "20", "37", "2", "77", "19", "43", "34", "95", "40", "78", "84", "93", "83", "70", "18", "25", "85", "5", "16", "54", "62", "45", "No Label", "4", "7", "13", "21", "33", "47"], "gold": ["4", "7", "13", "21", "33", "47"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 719/2010\nof 10 August 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 705/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2010.", "references": ["55", "18", "78", "52", "43", "41", "59", "37", "14", "69", "73", "21", "56", "25", "81", "61", "80", "1", "84", "57", "33", "3", "46", "95", "31", "65", "42", "97", "62", "99", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 November 2011\namending Decisions 2006/799/EC, 2007/64/EC, 2007/506/EC, 2007/742/EC, 2009/543/EC and 2009/544/EC in order to prolong the validity of the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to certain products\n(notified under document C(2011) 8041)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/740/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular point (c) of Article 8(3) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Union Eco-Labelling Board,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2006/799/EC of 3 November 2006 establishing revised ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements for the award of the Community eco-label to soil improvers (2) expires on 31 December 2011.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2007/64/EC of 15 December 2006 establishing revised ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements for the award of the Community eco-label to growing media (3) expires on 31 December 2011.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2007/506/EC of 21 June 2007 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to soaps, shampoos and hair conditioners (4) expires on 31 December 2011.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2007/742/EC of 9 November 2007 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to electrically driven, gas driven or gas absorption heat pumps (5) expires on 31 December 2011.\n(5)\nCommission Decision 2009/543/EC of 13 August 2008 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to outdoor paints and varnishes (6) expires on 18 August 2012.\n(6)\nCommission Decision 2009/544/EC of 13 August 2008 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to indoor paints and varnishes (7) expires on 18 August 2012.\n(7)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 a timely review has been carried out of the ecological criteria, as well as of the related assessment and verification requirements, established by those Decisions.\n(8)\nGiven the different stages of the revision process for those Decisions, it is appropriate to prolong the periods of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements which they set out. The period of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements set out in Decisions 2006/799/EC and 2007/64/EC should be prolonged until 31 December 2013. The period of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements set out in Decision 2007/506/EC should be prolonged until 31 March 2013. The period of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements set out in Decision 2007/742/EC should be prolonged until 31 March 2013, while the period of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements set out in Decisions 2009/543/EC and 2009/544/EC should be prolonged until 30 June 2013.\n(9)\nDecisions 2006/799/EC, 2007/64/EC, 2007/506/EC, 2007/742/EC, 2009/543/EC and 2009/544/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 6 of Decision 2006/799/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\nThe ecological criteria for the product group \"soil improvers\" and the related assessment and verification requirements shall be valid until 31 December 2013.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nArticle 5 of Decision 2007/64/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nThe ecological criteria for the product group \"growing media\" and the related assessment and verification requirements shall be valid until 31 December 2013.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nArticle 4 of Decision 2007/506/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nThe ecological criteria for the product group \"soaps, shampoos and hair-conditioners\" as well as the related assessment and verification requirements shall be valid until 31 March 2013.\u2019.\nArticle 4\nArticle 4 of Decision 2007/742/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nThe ecological criteria for the product group \"electrically driven, gas driven or gas absorption heat pumps\", as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 31 March 2013.\u2019.\nArticle 5\nArticle 3 of Decision 2009/543/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\nThe ecological criteria for the product group \"outdoor paints and varnishes\", as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 June 2013.\u2019.\nArticle 6\nArticle 3 of Decision 2009/544/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\nThe ecological criteria for the product group \"indoor paints and varnishes\", as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 June 2013.\u2019.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["66", "32", "98", "23", "39", "10", "29", "38", "59", "9", "19", "31", "73", "42", "14", "16", "74", "75", "63", "17", "12", "94", "2", "33", "55", "11", "44", "36", "70", "48", "No Label", "25", "65", "83", "86", "87"], "gold": ["25", "65", "83", "86", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 835/2010\nof 22 September 2010\namending for the 135th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Articles 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 9 September 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2010.", "references": ["12", "53", "30", "70", "71", "84", "25", "90", "7", "44", "63", "2", "28", "74", "36", "76", "31", "52", "4", "49", "79", "89", "57", "17", "0", "67", "33", "40", "43", "92", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "11"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "11"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 704/2012\nof 31 July 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 August 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 August 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 August 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 July 2012.", "references": ["51", "4", "11", "24", "69", "59", "94", "86", "23", "8", "66", "87", "35", "31", "34", "63", "33", "81", "57", "72", "76", "52", "77", "54", "67", "60", "82", "78", "47", "26", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 April 2012\nappointing a German alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/214/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the German Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Heino VAHLDIECK,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed as alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr Heiko HECHT, Mitglied des Europa-ausschusses der Hamburgischen B\u00fcrgerschaft.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["94", "41", "30", "84", "1", "81", "13", "23", "86", "9", "15", "38", "50", "62", "4", "67", "25", "31", "51", "16", "28", "11", "40", "83", "95", "90", "80", "35", "29", "3", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1377/2011\nof 20 December 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Salva Cremasco (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy's application to register the name \u2018Salva Cremasco\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["20", "43", "39", "22", "46", "32", "4", "1", "38", "72", "59", "69", "16", "84", "5", "94", "27", "76", "3", "10", "98", "82", "34", "18", "65", "60", "62", "0", "8", "15", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 November 2010\namending Decision 97/555/EC on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards cements, building limes and other hydraulic binders\n(notified under document C(2010) 7603)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/683/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988, on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1), and in particular Article 13(4)(a) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee on Construction,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has adopted Decision 97/555/EC of 14 July 1997 on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards cements, building limes and other hydraulic binders (2).\n(2)\nFollowing a review of the product family \u2018building limes\u2019 the Member States and the Commission considered necessary to strengthen the role of the third party involved in the certification of the factory production control.\n(3)\nDecision 97/555/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Decision 97/555/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2010.", "references": ["11", "47", "49", "30", "63", "17", "13", "18", "83", "65", "80", "42", "91", "70", "44", "60", "62", "9", "55", "81", "71", "93", "33", "98", "0", "23", "74", "86", "66", "31", "No Label", "25", "76", "87"], "gold": ["25", "76", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1275/2011\nof 7 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2011.", "references": ["5", "56", "59", "81", "54", "21", "90", "92", "43", "36", "88", "87", "3", "41", "37", "82", "23", "67", "79", "42", "20", "52", "57", "72", "18", "71", "45", "11", "75", "10", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 605/2010\nof 2 July 2010\nlaying down animal and public health and veterinary certification conditions for the introduction into the European Union of raw milk and dairy products intended for human consumption\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first subparagraph of point (1) and point (4) of Article 8 and Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2), and in particular Article 12 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4), and in particular Articles 11(1) and 14 (4) and Article 16 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (5), and in particular Article 48 (1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products (6) provided for a list to be drawn up of third countries or parts thereof from which Member States were to authorise the introduction of milk or milk-based products and for such commodities to be accompanied by a health certificate and comply with certain requirements, including heat treatment requirements, and guarantees.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Commission Decision 2004/438/EC of 29 April 2004 laying down animal and public health and veterinary certifications conditions for introduction in the Community of heat-treated milk, milk-based products and raw milk intended for human consumption (7) was adopted.\n(3)\nSince the date of adoption of that Decision, a number of new animal health and public health requirements have been laid down, constituting a new regulatory framework in this area, which should be taken into account in this Regulation. In addition, Directive 92/46/EEC was repealed by Directive 2004/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 repealing certain Directive concerning food hygiene and health conditions for the production and placing on the market of certain products of animal origin intended for human consumption (8).\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (9) lays down the general principles governing food and feed in general, and food and feed safety in particular, at European Union and national level.\n(5)\nDirective 2002/99/EC lays down rules governing the introduction from third countries of products of animal origin intended for human consumption. It provides that such products are only to be introduced into the European Union if they comply with the requirements applicable to all stages of the production, processing and distribution of those products in the European Union or if they offer equivalent animal health guarantees.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 852/2004 lays down the general rules for food business operators on the hygiene of foodstuffs at all stages of the food chain, including at primary production level.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific rules for food business operators on the hygiene of food of animal origin. That Regulation provides that food business operators producing raw milk and dairy products intended for human consumption are to comply with the relevant provisions of Annex III thereto.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 lays down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin.\n(9)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs (10) lays down the microbiological criteria for certain micro-organisms and the implementing rules to be complied with by food business operators when implementing the general and specific hygiene measures referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004. Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 provides that food business operators are to ensure that foodstuffs comply with the relevant microbiological criteria set out in that Regulation.\n(10)\nUnder the scope of Council Directive 92/46/EEC, raw milk and products thereof could only be obtained from cows, ewes, goats or buffaloes. However, the definitions of raw milk and dairy products set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 broadens the scope of milk hygiene rules to all mammalian species and defines raw milk as milk produced by the secretion of the mammary gland of farmed animals that has not been heated to more than 40 \u00b0C or undergone any treatment that has an equivalent effect. In addition, it defines dairy products as processed products resulting from the processing of raw milk or from further processing of such processed products.\n(11)\nIn view of the entry into application of Regulations (EC) Nos 852/2004, 853/2004 and 854/2004 and the acts implementing those Regulations, it is necessary to amend and update European Union public and animal health conditions and certification requirements for the introduction into the European Union of raw milk and dairy products intended for human consumption.\n(12)\nIn the interests of consistency of Union law, this Regulation should also take into account the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11) and its implementing rules laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (12) and Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (13).\n(13)\nCouncil Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on the certification of animals and animal products (14) lays down the rules to be observed in issuing certificates required by veterinary legislation to prevent misleading or fraudulent certification. It is appropriate to ensure that certification requirements at least equivalent to those laid down in that Directive are applied by the competent authorities of exporting third countries.\n(14)\nIn addition, Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the intenal market (15), provides for a computerized system linking veterinary authorities which has been developed in the Europena Union. The format of all model health certificates need to be amended to take into account their compatibility with possible electronic certification under the Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES) provided for in Directive 90/425/EEC. According, the rules laid down in this Regulation should take account of TRACES.\n(15)\nCouncil Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (16) lays down rules concerning veterinary checks on products of animal origin introduced into the European Union from third countries for their importation or transit, including certain certification requirements. Those rules are applicable to the commodities covered by this Regulation.\n(16)\nSpecific conditions for transit via the European Union of consignments to and from Russia should be provided for, owing to the geographical situation of Kaliningrad, which only concerns Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.\n(17)\nIn the interests of clarity of European law, Commission Decision 2004/438/EC should be repealed and replaced by this Regulation.\n(18)\nTo avoid any disruption in trade, the use of health certificates issued in accordance with Decision 2004/438/EC should be authorised during a transitional period.\n(19)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\nThis Regulation lays down:\n(a)\nthe public and animal health conditions and certification requirements for the introduction into the European Union of consignments of raw milk and dairy products;\n(b)\nthe list of third countries from which the introduction into the European Union of such consignments is authorised.\nArticle 2\nImports of raw milk and dairy products from third countries or parts thereof listed in column A of Annex I\nMember States shall authorise the importation of consignments of raw milk and dairy products from the third countries or parts thereof listed in column A of Annex I.\nArticle 3\nImports of certain dairy products from third countries or parts thereof listed in column B of Annex I\nMember States shall authorise the importation of consignments of dairy products derived from raw milk of cows, ewes, goats or buffaloes from the third countries or parts thereof not at risk from foot-and-mouth disease listed in column B of Annex I, provided that such dairy products have undergone, or been produced from raw milk which has undergone a pasteurisation treatment involving a single heat treatment:\n(a)\nwith a heating effect at least equivalent to that achieved by a pasteurisation process of at least 72 \u00b0C for 15 seconds;\n(b)\nwhere applicable, sufficient to ensure a negative reaction to an alkaline phosphatase test applied immediately after the heat treatment.\nArticle 4\nImports of certain dairy products from third countries or parts thereof listed in column C of Annex I\n1. Member States shall authorise the importation of consignments of dairy products derived from raw milk of cows, ewes, goats or buffaloes from the third countries or parts thereof at risk of foot-and-mouth disease listed in column C of Annex I, provided that such dairy products have undergone, or been produced from raw milk which has undergone, a heat treatment involving:\n(a)\na sterilisation process, to achieve an F0 value equal to or greater than three;\n(b)\nan ultra high temperature (UHT) treatment at not less than 135 \u00b0C in combination with a suitable holding time;\n(c)\n(i)\na high temperature short time pasteurisation treatment (HTST) at 72 \u00b0C for 15 seconds applied twice to milk with a pH equal to or greater than 7.0 achieving, where applicable, a negative reaction to a alkaline phosphatase test, applied immediately after the heat treatment; or\n(ii)\na treatment with an equivalent pasteurisation effect to point (i) achieving, where applicable, a negative reaction to an alkaline phosphatase test, applied immediately after the heat treatment;\n(d)\na HTST treatment of milk with a pH below 7.0; or\n(e)\na HTST treatment combined with another physical treatment by either:\n(i)\nlowering the pH below 6 for one hour, or\n(ii)\nadditional heating equal to or greater than 72 \u00b0C, combined with desiccation.\n2. Member States shall authorise the importation of consignments of dairy products derived from raw milk of animals other than those referred to in paragraph 1, from the third countries or parts thereof at risk of foot-and-mouth disease listed in column C of Annex I, provided that such dairy products have undergone, or been produced from raw milk which has undergone a treatment involving:\n(a)\na sterilisation process, to achieve an F0 value equal to or greater than three; or\n(b)\nan ultra high temperature (UHT) treatment at not less than 135 \u00b0C in combination with a suitable holding time.\nArticle 5\nCertificates\nConsignments authorised for importation in accordance with Articles 2, 3 and 4 shall be accompanied by a health certificate drawn up in accordance with the appropriate model set out in Part 2 of Annex II for the commodity concerned and completed in accordance with the explanatory notes set out in Part 1 of that Annex.\nHowever, the requirements laid down in this Article shall not preclude the use of electronic certification or of other agreed systems, harmonised at European Union level.\nArticle 6\nTransit and storage conditions\nThe introduction into the European Union of consignments of raw milk and dairy products not intended for importation into the European Union but destined for a third country either by immediate transit or after storage in the European Union, in accordance with Articles 11, 12 or 13 of Council Directive 97/78/EC, shall only be authorised if the consignments comply with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey come from a third country or part thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of consignments of raw milk or dairy products and comply with the appropriate heat treatment conditions for such consignments, as provided for in Articles 2, 3 and 4;\n(b)\nthey comply with the specific animal health conditions for importation into the European Union of the raw milk or dairy product concerned, as laid down in the animal health attestation in Part II.1 of the relevant model health certificate set out Part 2 of Annex II;\n(c)\nthey are accompanied by a health certificate drawn up in accordance with the appropriate model set out in Part 3 of Annex II for the consignment concerned and completed in accordance with the explanatory notes set out in Part 1 of that Annex.\n(d)\nthey are certified as acceptable for transit, including for storage as appropriate, on the common veterinary entry document referred to in Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 (17), signed by the official veterinarian of the border inspection post of introduction into the European Union.\nArticle 7\nDerogation concerning transit and storage conditions\n1. By way of derogation from Article 6, the transit by road or by rail through the European Union, between designated border inspection posts in Latvia, Lithuania and Poland listed in Commission Decision 2009/821/EC (18), of consignments coming from and destined to Russia directly or via another third country shall be authorised provided that the following conditions are complied with:\n(a)\nthe consignment is sealed with a serially numbered seal at the border inspection post of introduction into the European Union by the veterinary services of the competent authority;\n(b)\nthe documents accompanying the consignment and referred to in Article 7 of Directive 97/78/EC are stamped \u2018ONLY FOR TRANSIT TO RUSSIA VIA THE EU\u2019 on each page by the official veterinarian of the competent authority responsible for the border inspection post of introduction into the European Union;\n(c)\nthe procedural requirements provided for in Article 11 of Directive 97/78/EC are complied with;\n(d)\nthe consignment is certified as acceptable for transit on the common veterinary entry document by the official veterinarian of the border inspection post of introduction into the European Union.\n2. Unloading or storage, as defined in Article 12(4) or in Article 13 of Directive 97/78/EC, of such consignments on European Union territory shall not be allowed.\n3. Regular audits shall be made by the competent authority to ensure that the number of consignments and the quantities of products leaving the European Union territory matches the number and quantities entering the European Union.\nArticle 8\nSpecific treatment\nConsignments of dairy products authorised for introduction into the European Union in accordance with Articles 2, 3, 4, 6 or 7 from third countries or parts thereof where an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred within the period of 12 months preceding the date of the health certificate, or which have carried out vaccination against that disease during that period, shall only be authorised for introduction into the European Union if such products have undergone one of the treatments listed in Article 4.\nArticle 9\nRepeal\nDecision 2004/438/EC is repealed.\nReferences to Decision 2004/438/EC shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 10\nTransitional provisions\nFor a transitional period until 30 November 2010, consignments of raw milk and milk-based products as defined in Decision 2004/438/EC in respect of which the relevant health certificates have been issued in accordance Decision 2004/438/EC may continue to be introduced into the European Union.\nArticle 11\nEntry into force and applicability\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 July 2010.", "references": ["77", "58", "9", "37", "31", "12", "19", "0", "11", "73", "78", "89", "67", "60", "79", "8", "59", "90", "28", "92", "98", "64", "55", "20", "48", "53", "52", "18", "40", "94", "No Label", "4", "21", "22", "61", "70"], "gold": ["4", "21", "22", "61", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 844/2010\nof 20 September 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy statistics, as regards the establishment of a set of annual nuclear statistics and the adaptation of the methodological references according to NACE Rev. 2\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on energy statistics (1), and in particular Articles 4(3) and 8 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1099/2008 establishes a common framework for the production, transmission, evaluation and dissemination of comparable energy statistics in the Union.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008, the Commission (Eurostat), in cooperation with the European Union nuclear energy sector, should define a set of annual nuclear statistics to be reported and disseminated from 2009 onwards, that year being the first reported period.\n(3)\nThe Commission has developed the required dataset and discussed feasibility, production costs, confidentiality and reporting burden with the Member States.\n(4)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the statistical classification of economic activities NACE Revision 2 and amending Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 as well as certain EC Regulations on specific statistical domains (2), energy statistics should be produced in accordance with NACE Rev. 2 from 1 January 2009 onwards.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1099/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes A and B to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 are replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2010.", "references": ["80", "14", "35", "95", "94", "54", "71", "33", "3", "1", "36", "67", "27", "92", "55", "70", "5", "76", "85", "72", "50", "93", "51", "97", "65", "32", "88", "30", "9", "47", "No Label", "19", "78"], "gold": ["19", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 629/2010\nof 16 July 2010\nsetting the final amount of aid for dried fodder for the 2009/2010 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 90(c), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 88(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 sets the amount of aid to be paid to processors for dried fodder up to the maximum guaranteed quantity laid down in Article 89 of that Regulation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 33(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 382/2005 of 7 March 2005 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1786/2003 on the common organisation of the market in dried fodder (2), the Member States have notified the Commission of the quantities of dried fodder in respect of which entitlements to aid have been recognised for the 2009/2010 marketing year. These notifications indicate that the maximum guaranteed quantity for dried fodder has not been exceeded.\n(3)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 88(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the amount of the aid for dried fodder is EUR 33 per tonne.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe final amount of the aid for dried fodder for the 2009/2010 marketing year shall be EUR 33 per tonne.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2010.", "references": ["98", "26", "33", "50", "97", "86", "99", "71", "65", "4", "36", "70", "38", "14", "64", "60", "27", "23", "42", "63", "74", "18", "82", "81", "78", "28", "94", "37", "3", "0", "No Label", "15", "25", "61", "66", "72", "73"], "gold": ["15", "25", "61", "66", "72", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/30/EU\nof 7 March 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include fenbutatin oxide as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included fenbutatin oxide.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of fenbutatin oxide.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Belgium, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nBelgium evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 1 December 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on fenbutatin oxide to the Commission on 23 August 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for fenbutatin oxide.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing fenbutatin oxide may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include fenbutatin oxide in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information confirming the results of the risk assessment, on the basis of most recent scientific knowledge; as regards the relevant impurity bis[hydroxybis(2-methyl-2-phenylpropyl)tin]oxide (SD 31723). That information should concern the following points: genotoxicological potential, ecotoxicological relevance, as well as spectra, storage stability of the impurity and methods of analysis in plant protection products.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing fenbutatin oxide to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of fenbutatin oxide and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning fenbutatin oxide in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning fenbutatin oxide in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing fenbutatin oxide as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to fenbutatin oxide are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing fenbutatin oxide as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning fenbutatin oxide. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing fenbutatin oxide as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing fenbutatin oxide as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["87", "42", "8", "27", "41", "12", "13", "22", "88", "58", "11", "52", "30", "98", "20", "72", "78", "9", "7", "0", "35", "81", "32", "59", "84", "14", "29", "63", "82", "45", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1172/2010\nof 6 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in VIa; EU and international waters of Vb east of 12\u00b0 00\u2032 W by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 December 2010.", "references": ["2", "57", "87", "60", "17", "76", "90", "18", "36", "20", "6", "72", "98", "9", "12", "16", "11", "25", "48", "59", "63", "77", "93", "5", "49", "26", "54", "88", "0", "74", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1012/2010\nof 9 November 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1007/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2010.", "references": ["15", "63", "90", "18", "51", "56", "42", "98", "64", "36", "30", "85", "97", "43", "75", "9", "86", "41", "7", "94", "14", "46", "39", "45", "92", "31", "74", "70", "58", "68", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 3 March 2011\namending Decision 2008/22/EC laying down rules for the implementation of Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme \u2018Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows\u2019 as regards Member States\u2019 management and control systems, the rules for administrative and financial management and the eligibility of expenditure on projects co-financed by the Fund\n(notified under document C(2011) 1290)\n(Only the Bulgarian, Czech, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2011/152/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme \u2018Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows\u2019 and repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC (1), and in particular Article 23 and Article 35(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn the light of the experience gained since the launch of the European Refugee Fund, it is appropriate to clarify the obligations in Commission Decision 2008/22/EC (2) relating to transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination when implementing projects.\n(2)\nMember States are required to report on the implementation of the annual programmes. It is therefore appropriate to clarify which information Member States have to provide.\n(3)\nIn order to reduce the administrative burden on the Member States and to provide greater legal certainty, the rules on the eligibility of expenditure of actions co-financed by the European Refugee Fund should be simplified and clarified.\n(4)\nMost of the changes introduced by this Decision should apply immediately. However, since the 2009 and 2010 annual programmes are ongoing, the revised rules on the eligibility of expenditure of actions co-financed by the European Refugee Fund should apply from the 2011 annual programme. Member States should none the less be given the possibility to apply those rules earlier under certain conditions.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom is bound by the basic act and, as a consequence, by this Decision.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Ireland is bound by the basic act and, as a consequence, by this Decision.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not bound by this Decision or subject to the application thereof.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the common Committee \u2018Solidarity and management of Migration Flows\u2019 established by Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing the External Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows (3).\n(9)\nDecision 2008/22/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2008/22/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 9(1), the second sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Any substantial change to the content of the calls for proposals shall also be published under the same conditions.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\nImplementation contracts\nWhen awarding contracts for the implementation of the projects, the State, regional or local authorities, bodies governed by public law, associations formed by one or several of such authorities or several of such bodies governed by public law shall act in accordance with the applicable Union and national public procurement law and principles.\nEntities other than those referred to in the first paragraph shall award contracts for the implementation of the projects following appropriate publicity in order to ensure compliance with the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment. Contracts with a value of less than EUR 100 000 may be awarded provided the concerned entity requests at least three offers. Without prejudice to national rules, contracts with a value of less than EUR 5 000 shall not be subject to any procedural obligations.\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 21, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n1. The responsible authority shall notify the Commission by formal letter of any substantial change in the management and control system and shall send a revised description of the management and control system to the Commission as soon as possible and at the latest at the time any such change takes effect.\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 24, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n3. The financial tables linked to the progress reports and final reports shall present a breakdown of the amounts both by priority and by specific priority, as defined in the strategic guidelines.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 25 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1 the following sentences are added:\n\u2018Any changes to the audit strategy submitted in respect of Article 30(1)(c) of the basic act and accepted by the Commission shall be sent to the Commission as soon as possible. The revised audit strategy shall be established in accordance with the model in Annex 6, marking the revisions introduced.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n2. Except when each of the last two annual programmes adopted by the Commission corresponds to an annual Community contribution of less than EUR 1 million, the audit authority shall submit an annual audit plan before 15 February each year, as from 2010. The audit plan shall be established in accordance with the model in Annex 6. Member States are not required to resubmit the audit strategy when submitting the annual audit plans. In the case of a combined audit strategy, as provided for in Article 30(2) of the basic act, a combined annual audit plan may be submitted.\u2019;\n6.\nArticle 26 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 26\nDocuments established by the certifying authority\n1. The certification relating to the request for a second prefinancing payment referred to in Article 39(4) of the basic act shall be drawn up by the certifying authority and transmitted by the Responsible Authority to the Commission in the format in Annex 8.\n2. The certification relating to the request for a final payment referred to in Article 40(1)(a) of the basic act shall be drawn up by the certifying authority and transmitted by the responsible authority to the Commission in the format in Annex 9.\u2019;\n7.\nArticle 37 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 37\nElectronic exchange of documents\nIn addition to the duly signed paper versions of the documents referred to in Chapter 3, the information shall also be sent by electronic means.\u2019;\n8.\nthe Annexes are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\n1. Points 1 to 7 of Article 1 and points 1 to 5 of the Annex shall apply from the date of adoption of this Decision.\n2. Point 6 of the Annex shall apply from the implementation of the 2011 annual programmes at the latest.\n3. Member States may decide to apply point 6 of the Annex in respect of ongoing or future projects as from the 2009 and 2010 annual programmes in full respect of the principles of equal treatment, transparency and non-discrimination. In that case Member States shall apply the new rules in their entirety to the project concerned and, where necessary, shall amend the grant agreement. In respect of technical assistance expenditure only, Member States may decide to apply point 6 of the Annex as from the 2008 annual programme.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 3 March 2011.", "references": ["42", "53", "88", "68", "92", "22", "86", "40", "52", "12", "69", "61", "34", "87", "28", "77", "63", "2", "25", "20", "80", "47", "18", "8", "38", "15", "14", "82", "74", "96", "No Label", "4", "5", "9", "10", "13", "31", "46"], "gold": ["4", "5", "9", "10", "13", "31", "46"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 12 July 2012\namending Decision 2009/12/EC authorising methods for grading pig carcasses in Denmark\n(notified under document C(2012) 4712)\n(Only the Danish text is authentic)\n(2012/385/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(m), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Decision 2009/12/EC (2), the use of six methods for grading pig carcasses in Denmark was authorised.\n(2)\nDenmark has stated that the development of the automatic equipment, AutoFOM, in a version called \u2018version III\u2019 makes its use and calibration aimed at Danish slaughterhouses desirable. It is therefore necessary to obtain the formula for this new method.\n(3)\nDenmark has requested the Commission to authorise that new method for grading pig carcasses on its territory and has presented a detailed description of the dissection trial, indicating the principles on which this method is based, the results of its dissection trial and the equation used for assessing the percentage of lean meat in the protocol provided for in Article 23(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/2008 of 10 December 2008 laying down detailed rules on the implementation of the Community scales for the classification of beef, pig and sheep carcasses and the reporting of prices thereof (3).\n(4)\nExamination of that request has revealed that the conditions for authorising that grading method are fulfilled. That grading method should therefore be authorised in Denmark.\n(5)\nDecision 2009/12/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nModifications of the apparatus or grading methods should not be allowed, unless they are explicitly authorised by Commission Implementing Decision.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2009/12/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, the following point (g) is added:\n\u2018(g)\nthe \u201cAutomatic ultrasound instrument (AutoFOM III)\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 7 of the Annex.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe Annex is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2012.", "references": ["78", "89", "23", "43", "5", "25", "90", "57", "56", "11", "53", "68", "6", "93", "71", "29", "55", "88", "85", "95", "17", "87", "3", "45", "75", "61", "83", "33", "44", "80", "No Label", "39", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["39", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 31 March 2011\nin application of Article 7 of Council Directive 89/686/EEC as regards a prohibition measure adopted by the UK authorities in respect of guided type fall arrester, of the type HACA Leitern 0529.7102\n(notified under document C(2011) 2010)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/211/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 7(1) of Directive 89/686/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (PPE) provides that where a Member State ascertains that personal protective equipment bearing the CE marking and used in accordance with its intended purpose could compromise the safety of persons, domestic animals or property, it shall take all necessary measures to remove such personal protective equipment from the market and to prohibit the placing on the market or free movement thereof.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 7(2) of Directive 89/686/EEC, the Commission is required, after consulting the parties concerned, to declare whether it finds such a measure justified or not. If the measure is found justified, the Commission shall inform the Member States so that they can take all appropriate measures with respect to the equipment concerned, in accordance with their obligations under Article 2(1) of Directive 89/686/EEC.\n(3)\nOn 31 January 2008, the UK authorities notified to the European Commission a measure prohibiting the placing on the market of a guided type fall arrester, of the type HACA Leitern 0529.7102, manufactured by HACA Leitern - Lorenz Hasenbach GmbH u. Co. KG, Diesselstrasse 12, 65520 Bad Camberg, Germany (HACA). According to the documents submitted to the Commission this protective equipment was subject to the conformity assessment procedure set out in Article 11A of the Directive, attested by the following documents issued by EXAM BBG Pr\u00fcf- und Zertifizier GmbH (since become DEKRA EXAM GmbH) - notified body No 0158):\n-\nNo ZQ/B 212/06,\n-\nNo ZQ/B 212/07.\n(4)\nThe UK authorities indicated that their measure was based on the fact that the guided type fall arrester concerned failed to comply with the basic health and safety requirements (BHSR) referred to in Article 3 of Directive 89/686/EEC and, in particular, with BHSR 3.1.2.2 and BHSR 1 and 1.1.1 in Annex II to Directive 89/686/EEC. The UK authorities submitted a test report by TUV NEL Ltd to substantiate their findings.\n(5)\nAccording to the UK authorities, in particular in the foreseeable situation where a person fell backwards before falling down (the \u2018fall-back\u2019 situation), the protective equipment did not provide adequate protection against all risks encountered as required by BHSR 1 (2). As a result, the guided type fall arrester did not comply with BHSR 1.1.1 (3), which requires a user to be able to perform a risk-related activity normally whilst enjoying appropriate protection to the highest possible level. Further the UK authorities explained that the protective equipment did not comply with BHSR 3.1.2.2 (4) because tests showed that, under foreseeable conditions of use, the vertical drop of the user was not minimised to prevent collision with obstacles and the braking force exceeded the threshold value at which physical injury might occur.\nThe UK authorities further indicated that they intended to launch a formal objection pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive against standard EN 353-1 - Personal protective equipment against falls from a height - Part 1: Guided type fall arresters including a rigid anchor line, which refers to standard EN 364 - Personal protective equipment against falls from a height - test methods.\n(6)\nOn 1 August 2008, the Commission wrote to the manufacturer and, on 26 September 2008, to the notified body that had intervened in the production control phase according to Article 11A of Directive 89/686/EEC, inviting them to communicate their observations regarding the measure taken by the UK authorities.\n(7)\nIn their reply dated 28 October 2008, HACA contested the findings of the tests carried out for the UK authorities by TUV NEL. In particular, they emphasised that their equipment was safe to use and prevented falls from a height, including \u2018fall-back\u2019, if used with the correct types of belt. HACA further pointed out that the test carried out by TUV NEL did not comply with the requirements of standard EN 364 which did not foresee the use of an anthropomorphic dummy.\n(8)\nIn their reply dated 15 October 2008, DEKRA EXAM confirmed that they had issued the relevant Article 11A documents. DEKRA EXAM emphasised that tests had been carried out according to standard EN 353-1 and that the samples tested had fulfilled all the requirements of that standard. They explained that the test standard EN 364 allowed the use of a steel weight or a sand bag for the dynamic performance test. During testing, they had used a sand bag for measuring the braking force which was always below the allowed value. They observed that TUV NEL had used a steel weight which - in their opinion - would give higher braking forces than a sand bag.\nAs regards the \u2018fall-back\u2019 tests using an anthropomorphic dummy, DEKRA EXAM recalled that such a test was not foreseen by EN 353-1. They agreed that the \u2018fall-back\u2019 situation was indeed a foreseeable condition of use of such guided type fall arresters. However, this situation was not addressed in standard EN 353-1. Depending on the kind of fall arrester used and the model of full body harness worn by the user, accidents could occur. It was therefore necessary to pay attention to the right combination of fall arrester and full body harness, which should be specified by the manufacturer in the information given to the user.\n(9)\nDue to the complexity of the file, the Commission obtained the assistance of an independent expert. The Commission met the UK authorities. The UK authorities explained the exact test methods it relied upon and showed a video of the tests.\nTUV NEL had carried out two series of tests for the UK authorities. During the second series of tests, a representative of the manufacturer had been present. Each series included a dynamic performance test using a steel weight and \u2018fall-back\u2019 tests using an anthropomorphic dummy. The HACA fall arrester had failed all of these tests.\nThe UK considered that the use of a steel weight for the dynamic performance test gave more reliable results than a sand bag and could explain the difference between the results obtained by TUV NEL and those obtained by DEKRA EXAM.\nConcerning the \u2018fall-back\u2019 test, the UK had carried out tests using an anthropomorphic dummy in order to simulate as closely as possible the foreseeable \u2018fall-back\u2019 situation. The results of these tests had shown that the HACA fall arrester did not adequately prevent a fall in that situation. These results also revealed a deficiency in the relevant harmonised standard EN 353-1 since the standard did not take account of the \u2018fall-back\u2019 situation. This was the main grounds for the formal objection lodged by the UK against the standard.\n(10)\nThe report of the independent expert (5) concluded that \u2018fall-back\u2019, either from a standing or sitting position, is a foreseeable situation which is not taken into account in standard EN 353-1.\n(11)\nFollowing the positive opinion of the Standing Committee set up by Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) on 19 March 2010, the Commission decided to withdraw the reference of standard EN 353-1 from the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(12)\nIn light of the documentation available, the comments of the parties concerned and the report of the independent expert, the Commission considers that the guided type fall arrester of the type HACA Leitern 0529.7102 fails to comply with BHSRs 1, 1.1.1 and 3.1.2.2 of Annex II to Directive 89/686/EEC, since it does not adequately prevent falls in a \u2018fall-back\u2019 situation, and that this non-conformity gives rise to a serious risk for users,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe measure taken by the UK authorities prohibiting the placing on the market of a guided type fall arrester, of the type HACA Leitern 0529.7102, manufactured by HACA Leitern - Lorenz Hasenbach GmbH, is justified.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["79", "93", "6", "23", "29", "55", "36", "66", "57", "69", "72", "39", "42", "35", "22", "32", "83", "80", "49", "43", "77", "68", "30", "71", "74", "87", "33", "47", "82", "94", "No Label", "48", "51", "76", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["48", "51", "76", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 759/2011\nof 1 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 August 2011.", "references": ["34", "98", "67", "44", "83", "18", "3", "76", "40", "81", "31", "99", "26", "47", "49", "86", "9", "80", "73", "58", "15", "64", "2", "66", "50", "16", "1", "56", "12", "69", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 July 2012\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Hungary\n(2012/446/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2), in particular Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1, of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(5)\nHungary has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on dactyloscopic data exchange.\n(6)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by Hungary with Austria.\n(7)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in Hungary and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the Austrian evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(8)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning dactyloscopic data exchange has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching of dactyloscopic data, Hungary has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Article 9 of that Decision as from the date of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["98", "56", "86", "57", "0", "88", "11", "22", "83", "1", "12", "34", "49", "68", "10", "76", "51", "8", "19", "32", "48", "15", "50", "14", "25", "95", "44", "47", "69", "64", "No Label", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 April 2010\non the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2009 financial year\n(notified under document C(2010) 2828)\n(2010/258/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 32 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the Commission, on the basis of the annual accounts submitted by the Member States, accompanied by the information required for the clearance of accounts and a certificate regarding the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts and the reports established by the certification bodies, clears the accounts of the paying agencies referred to in Article 6 of the said Regulation.\n(2)\nPursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the keeping of accounts by the paying agencies, declarations of expenditure and revenue and the conditions for reimbursing expenditure under the EAGF and the EAFRD (2), account is taken for the 2009 financial year of expenditure incurred by the Member States between 16 October 2008 and 15 October 2009.\n(3)\nThe Commission has checked the information submitted by the Member States and it has communicated to the Member States before 31 March 2010 the results of its verifications, along with the necessary amendments.\n(4)\nThe annual accounts and the accompanying documents permit the Commission to take, for certain paying agencies, a decision on the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts submitted. Annex I lists the amounts cleared by Member State and the amounts to be recovered from or paid to the Member States.\n(5)\nThe information submitted by certain other paying agencies requires additional inquiries and their accounts cannot be cleared in this Decision. Annex II lists the paying agencies concerned.\n(6)\nUnder Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2006, any overrun of deadlines during August, September and October is to be taken into account in the clearance of accounts decision. Some of the expenditure declared by certain Member States during these months in the year 2009 was effected after the applicable deadlines. This Decision should therefore fix the relevant reductions.\n(7)\nThe Commission, in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2006, has already reduced or suspended a number of monthly payments on entry into the accounts of expenditure for the 2009 financial year. In order to avoid any premature, or temporary, reimbursement of the amounts in question, they should not be recognised in this Decision and they should be further examined under the conformity clearance procedure pursuant to Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(8)\nPursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities shall be borne by the Member State concerned if the recovery of those irregularities has not taken place within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within eight years if the recovery is taken to the national courts. Article 32(3) of the said Regulation obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, together with the annual accounts, a summary report on the recovery procedures undertaken in response to irregularities. Detailed rules on the application of the Member States\u2019 reporting obligation of the amounts to be recovered are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (3). Annex III to the said Regulation provides the table that had to be provided in 2010 by the Member States. On the basis of the tables completed by the Member States, the Commission should decide on the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities older than four or eight years respectively. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(9)\nPursuant to Article 32(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. Such a decision may only be taken if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered or if the recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. If that decision has been taken within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding or within eight years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, 100 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery should be borne by the Community budget. In the summary report referred to in Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the amounts for which the Member State decided not to pursue recovery and the grounds for the decision are shown. These amounts are not charged to the Member States concerned and are consequently borne by the Community budget. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of the said Regulation.\n(10)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from European Union financing expenditure not effected in accordance with European Union rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nWith the exception of the paying agencies referred to in Article 2, the accounts of the paying agencies of the Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) in respect of the 2009 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 2\nFor the 2009 financial year, the accounts of the Member States\u2019 paying agencies in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGF, set out in Annex II, are disjoined from this Decision and shall be the subject of a future clearance of accounts Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 April 2010.", "references": ["20", "41", "63", "33", "51", "60", "7", "82", "24", "70", "77", "45", "48", "75", "14", "84", "58", "72", "64", "39", "36", "18", "8", "35", "98", "53", "71", "26", "59", "3", "No Label", "10", "17", "47", "61", "96"], "gold": ["10", "17", "47", "61", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 241/2012\nof 19 March 2012\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of March 2012 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for certain products in the egg sector and for egg albumin\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 of 15 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the egg sector and for egg albumin (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 539/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of egg products and egg albumin.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of March 2012 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2012 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2012 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 March 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 March 2012.", "references": ["57", "47", "73", "5", "1", "31", "74", "97", "15", "8", "49", "27", "23", "65", "35", "10", "6", "52", "58", "7", "56", "94", "50", "81", "62", "63", "60", "9", "33", "70", "No Label", "21", "22", "69", "72"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 903/2011\nof 7 September 2011\nfixing the import duties applicable to certain husked rice from 8 September 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 137 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBased on the information provided by the competent authorities, the Commission notes that import licences for husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20, other than import licences for basmati rice, were issued in respect of 438 104 tonnes for the period from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011. The import duty for husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20 other than basmati rice should therefore be adjusted.\n(2)\nThe applicable duty must be fixed within 10 days of the end of the period mentioned above. This Regulation should therefore come into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe import duty for husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20 shall be EUR 42,5 per tonne.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 September 2011.", "references": ["99", "78", "25", "20", "30", "79", "29", "44", "14", "57", "34", "0", "83", "70", "94", "37", "11", "80", "46", "91", "9", "38", "49", "45", "7", "18", "88", "87", "43", "13", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 645/2010\nof 20 July 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 639/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2010.", "references": ["56", "30", "67", "82", "63", "43", "15", "95", "54", "58", "81", "28", "40", "33", "70", "23", "38", "57", "7", "32", "94", "79", "18", "19", "86", "85", "76", "2", "41", "11", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 28 February 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Memorandum of Cooperation NAT-I-9406 between the United States of America and the European Union\n(2011/209/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated on behalf of the Union a Memorandum of Cooperation NAT-I-9406 between the United States of America and the European Union (hereinafter the \u2018Memorandum\u2019) in civil aviation research and development and Annex 1 thereto on SESAR-NEXTGEN cooperation for global interoperability, in accordance with the Council Decision of 9 October 2009 authorising the Commission to open negotiations.\n(2)\nThe Memorandum and Annex 1 were initialled on 18 June 2010.\n(3)\nThe Memorandum and Annex 1 should be signed and applied provisionally, pending the completion of the procedures for the conclusion of the Memorandum.\n(4)\nIt is necessary to lay down procedural arrangements for the participation of the Union in the Joint Committee established by the Memorandum, the resolution of disagreements and the termination of Annexes and Appendices to the Memorandum,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Memorandum of Cooperation NAT-I-9406 between the United States of America and the European Union and its Annex 1 is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the Memorandum.\nThe texts of the Memorandum and Annex 1 are attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Memorandum and its Annex 1 on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nPending its entry into force, the Memorandum shall be applied on a provisional basis by the Union from the date of its signature.\nArticle 4\n1. The Union shall be represented in the Joint Committee established under Article III of the Memorandum by the Commission, assisted by representatives of the Member States.\n2. The Commission, after consultation with the Special Committee appointed by the Council, shall determine the position to be taken by the Union in the Joint Committee, including with respect to:\n(a)\nthe adoption of additional Annexes to the Memorandum and Appendices thereto;\n(b)\nthe adoption of amendments to Annexes to the Memorandum and Appendices thereto.\nArticle 5\nThe Commission may take any appropriate action under Articles IIB, IV, V, VII and VIII of the Memorandum.\nArticle 6\nThe Commission shall represent the Union in consultations under Article XI of the Memorandum.\nArticle 7\nThe Commission shall regularly inform the Council of the implementation of the Memorandum.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["70", "76", "94", "53", "81", "1", "58", "61", "28", "85", "92", "54", "52", "29", "49", "30", "51", "27", "60", "34", "99", "22", "62", "66", "90", "55", "84", "72", "9", "35", "No Label", "3", "4", "57", "77", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "4", "57", "77", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 591/2011\nof 16 June 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for northern prawn in the NAFO 3L zone by vessels flying the flag of any Member State, except Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member States referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member States referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member States referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 June 2011.", "references": ["69", "70", "15", "4", "76", "89", "86", "21", "23", "57", "72", "46", "2", "43", "19", "73", "36", "84", "74", "62", "13", "53", "99", "24", "14", "29", "0", "40", "63", "48", "No Label", "56", "67", "96"], "gold": ["56", "67", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 854/2010\nof 27 September 2010\nfixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 8 to 14 September 2010 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (3), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 8 to 14 September 2010 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, exceed the quantity available under order number 09.4320.\n(2)\nIn these circumstances, an allocation coefficient for licences to be issued regarding order number 09.4320 should be fixed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006. Submission of further applications for licences for that order number should be suspended until the end of the marketing year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 from 8 to 14 September 2010 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. Submission of further applications for licences, which correspond to the order numbers indicated in the Annex, shall be suspended until the end of the marketing year 2010/11.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["5", "47", "54", "52", "94", "59", "18", "13", "79", "38", "92", "46", "28", "3", "1", "53", "15", "29", "32", "50", "99", "78", "42", "62", "76", "56", "10", "16", "2", "82", "No Label", "4", "21", "23", "25", "71"], "gold": ["4", "21", "23", "25", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 776/2011\nof 2 August 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2011.", "references": ["59", "98", "92", "57", "62", "54", "17", "13", "26", "64", "0", "12", "95", "20", "10", "68", "33", "37", "38", "44", "19", "32", "40", "5", "43", "27", "39", "48", "70", "41", "No Label", "21", "85"], "gold": ["21", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\non the recognition of the \u2018Round Table on Responsible Soy EU RED\u2019 scheme for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria under Directives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(2011/440/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1), and in particular Article 18(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels (2) as amended by the Directive 2009/30/EC (3), and in particular Article 7c(6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee established by Article 25, paragraph 2 of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC both lay down sustainability criteria for biofuels. When reference is made to the provisions of Articles 17 and 18 of and Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC this should be construed as the reference also to the similar provisions of Articles 7a, 7b, 7c of and Annex IV to Directive 2009/30/EC.\n(2)\nWhere biofuels and bioliquids are to be taken into account for the purposes referred to in Article 17(1)(a), (b) and (c), Member States shall require economic operators to show the compliance of biofuels and bioliquids with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(2) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(3)\nRecital 76 of Directive 2009/28/EC states that the imposition of an unreasonable burden on industry should be avoided and voluntary schemes can help creating efficient solutions for proving compliance with these sustainability criteria.\n(4)\nThe Commission may decide that a voluntary national or international scheme demonstrates that consignments of biofuel comply with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(3) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC or that voluntary national or international scheme to measure greenhouse gas emission saving contains accurate data for the purposes of Article 17(2) of this Directive.\n(5)\nThe Commission may recognise such a voluntary scheme for a period of five years.\n(6)\nWhen an economic operator provides proof or data obtained in accordance with a scheme that has been recognised by the Commission, to the extent covered by that recognition decision, a Member State shall not require the supplier to provide further evidence of compliance with the sustainability criteria.\n(7)\nThe \u2018Round Table on Responsible Soy EU RED\u2019 (hereafter \u2018RTRS EU RED\u2019) scheme was submitted on 11 May 2011 to the Commission with the request for recognition. The scheme covers soy based products. The recognised scheme will be made available at the transparency platform established under Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission will take into account considerations of commercial sensitivity and may decide to only partially publish the scheme.\n(8)\nAssessment of the RTRS EU RED scheme found it to adequately cover the sustainability criteria of Directive 2009/28/EC, as well as applying a mass balance methodology in line with the requirements of Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(9)\nThe evaluation of the RTRS EU RED scheme found that it meets adequate standards of reliability, transparency and independent auditing and also complies with the methodological requirements in Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(10)\nAny additional sustainability elements covered by the RTRS EU RED scheme are not part of the consideration of this Decision. These additional sustainability criteria are not mandatory to show compliance with sustainability requirements set up in Directive 2009/28/EC. The European Commission may at a later stage take a view on whether the scheme also contains accurate data for the purpose of information on measures taken for issues referred to in the second paragraph, second sentence of Article 18(4) of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018Round Table on Responsible Soy EU RED\u2019, for which the request for recognition was submitted to the Commission on 11 May 2011, demonstrates that consignments of biofuels comply with the sustainability criteria as laid down in Article 17(3)(a), (b) and (c), (4) and (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(3)(a), 7b (3) b, 7b (3) c, 7b(4) and 7b(5) of Directive 98/70/EC. The scheme also contains accurate data for purposes of Article 17(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(2) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nFurthermore, it may be used for demonstrating compliance with Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC and of Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nArticle 2\n1. The Decision is valid for a period of five years after it enters into force. If the scheme, after adoption of Commission decision, undergoes changes to its contents in a way that might affect the basis of this Decision, such changes shall be notified to the Commission without delay. The Commission will assess the notified changes with a view to establish whether the scheme is still adequately covering the sustainability criteria for which it is recognised.\n2. If it has been clearly demonstrated that the scheme has not implemented elements considered to be decisive for this Decision and if severe and structural breach of those elements has taken place, the Commission reserves the right to revoke its Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision enters into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["61", "37", "55", "16", "87", "14", "94", "91", "97", "24", "3", "72", "66", "28", "56", "0", "43", "81", "20", "59", "13", "67", "23", "1", "84", "53", "71", "86", "82", "52", "No Label", "58", "76", "77", "78"], "gold": ["58", "76", "77", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/6/EU\nof 20 January 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include buprofezin as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included buprofezin. By Commission Decision 2008/771/EC (4) it was decided not to include buprofezin in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(3)\nThe application was submitted to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 33/2008. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as those that were the subject of Decision 2008/771/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(4)\nThe United Kingdom evaluated the new information and data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report in August 2009. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 21 August 2009.\n(5)\nThe Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the additional report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority. The Authority then presented its conclusion on buprofezin to the Commission on 21 May 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 23 November 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for buprofezin.\n(6)\nThe additional report by the rapporteur Member State and the new conclusion by the Authority concentrate on the concerns that lead to the non-inclusion. Those concerns were, in particular, the impossibility to perform a reliable consumer exposure assessment because of lack of data to determine an appropriate residue definition.\n(7)\nThe new information submitted by the applicant enabled a consumer exposure assessment. The information currently available indicates that the risk to consumers is acceptable.\n(8)\nConsequently, the additional data and information provided by the applicant permit to eliminate the specific concerns that led to the non-inclusion. No other open scientific questions have arisen.\n(9)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing buprofezin may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include buprofezin in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance may be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(10)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain confirmatory information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that the inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information to confirm the processing and conversion factors in the consumer risk assessment.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 July 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 February 2011.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2011.", "references": ["13", "36", "96", "10", "76", "58", "16", "93", "64", "40", "52", "90", "35", "48", "11", "55", "73", "86", "50", "28", "61", "95", "70", "21", "80", "30", "72", "31", "22", "54", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "41", "65"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "41", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1155/2010\nof 1 December 2010\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2010.", "references": ["94", "77", "87", "69", "18", "70", "45", "65", "49", "1", "4", "71", "29", "68", "55", "35", "93", "53", "36", "64", "15", "23", "28", "67", "20", "50", "3", "83", "13", "57", "No Label", "21", "90"], "gold": ["21", "90"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 13 December 2011\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Oman and Saudi Arabia\n(2011/835/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 3 January 2011, the European Commission (Commission) received a complaint concerning the alleged dumping of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in Oman and Saudi Arabia (the countries concerned), thereby causing injury to the Union Industry.\n(2)\nThe complaint was lodged by the Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME) (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain PET pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation.\n(3)\nThe complaint contained prima facie evidence of the existence of dumping, and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding.\n(4)\nThe Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) on 16 February 2011, initiated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the European Union of certain PET originating in Oman and Saudi Arabia.\n(5)\nOn the same day, the Commission initiated an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain PET originating in the countries concerned (3).\n(6)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the Union industry, to the exporters/producers in the countries concerned, to the importers, to any association known to be concerned, and to the authorities of the countries concerned. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(7)\nAll interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\nB. WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(8)\nBy a letter of 12 October 2011 to the Commission, the CPME formally withdrew its complaint.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(10)\nIn this respect it is noted that the Commission did not identify any reason to indicate that termination would not be in the Union interest, nor was any such reason raised by interested parties. Therefore, the Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment.\n(11)\nSome interested parties expressed support for the termination of the proceeding. Other interested parties, although supporting the termination of the proceeding, requested a disclosure of the findings of the investigation.\n(12)\nIt is noted in this regard that the Commission did not reach a conclusion on its findings and is therefore not in a position to disclose data gathered prior to the withdrawal of the complaint.\n(13)\nIn view of the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against terminating this proceeding.\n(14)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in Oman and Saudi Arabia should be terminated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, originating in Oman and Saudi Arabia, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["76", "25", "15", "17", "89", "4", "37", "85", "12", "29", "72", "68", "63", "96", "67", "73", "50", "79", "16", "2", "19", "43", "28", "54", "81", "33", "53", "24", "45", "66", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 175/2012\nof 29 February 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 March 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 March 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 March 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 February 2012.", "references": ["6", "25", "78", "50", "24", "99", "69", "55", "35", "13", "43", "60", "33", "36", "63", "74", "79", "96", "80", "3", "77", "4", "65", "72", "5", "97", "28", "82", "21", "46", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "IMPLEMENTING REGULATION OF THE COUNCIL (EU) No 400/2010\nof 26 April 2010\nextending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 on imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in the People\u2019s Republic of China to imports of steel ropes and cables consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not, and terminating the investigation in respect of imports consigned from Malaysia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 13 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Existing measures and former investigations\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1796/1999 (2), (the \u2018original Regulation\u2019), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties of 60,4 % on imports of steel ropes and cables (SWR) originating, inter alia, in the People\u2019s Republic of China (the \u2018PRC\u2019 or \u2018China\u2019). These measures will hereinafter be referred to as \u2018the original measures\u2019 and the investigation that led to the measures imposed by the original Regulation will be hereinafter referred to as \u2018the original investigation\u2019.\n(2)\nIn 2004, after it was found that the original measures were circumvented by the transhipment of Chinese-origin SWR via Morocco in accordance with Article 13 of the basic Regulation, the measures were extended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1886/2004 (3) to imports of the same SWR consigned from Morocco. Similarly, after it was found the circumvention of the original measures on imports from Ukraine took place via Moldova following an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation, the measures were extended by Council Regulation (EC) No 760/2004 (4) to imports of the same steel ropes and cables consigned from Moldova.\n(3)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 (5) the Council, following an expiry review (the \u2018expiry review\u2019), imposed, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of SWR originating, inter alia, in the People\u2019s Republic of China, at the level of the original measures. The duty thus imposed remains in force and will hereinafter be referred to as \u2018the measures in force\u2019.\n1.2. Request\n(4)\nOn 29 June 2009, the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on SWR originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China. The request was submitted by the Liaison Committee of the EU Wire Rope Industries (EWRIS) on behalf of the Union producers of steel ropes and cables (the \u2018applicant\u2019).\n(5)\nThe request alleged that, following the imposition of the anti-dumping measures, a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the PRC and the Republic of Korea and Malaysia to the Union took place, for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the measures in force. This change in the pattern of trade stemmed allegedly from the transhipment of SWR originating in the PRC via the Republic of Korea and Malaysia.\n(6)\nThe request further alleged that the remedial effects of the measures in force were being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. In addition, there was sufficient evidence that these increased imports from the Republic of Korea and Malaysia were made at prices well below the non-injurious price established in the original investigation.\n(7)\nFinally, the applicant alleged that the prices of SWR consigned from the Republic of Korea and Malaysia were dumped in relation to the normal value established for the like product during the original investigation.\n1.3. Initiation\n(8)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated an investigation by Regulation (EC) No 734/2009 (6) (the \u2018initiating Regulation\u2019). Pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission, by the initiating Regulation, also directed the customs authorities to register imports of SWR consigned from the Republic of Korea and Malaysia.\n1.4. Investigation\n(9)\nThe Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC, the Republic of Korea and Malaysia, the producers/exporters and the traders in those countries, as well as the importers in the Union known to be concerned and the applicant Union industry of the initiation of the investigation. Questionnaires were sent to the known producers/exporters in the PRC, the Republic of Korea and Malaysia known to the Commission from the request or through the Missions of the Republic of Korea and Malaysia to the European Union or which made themselves known within the deadlines specified in Article 3(1) of the initiating Regulation. Questionnaires were also sent to traders in the Republic of Korea and Malaysia and to the importers in the Union named in the request. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation.\n(10)\nFifteen producers/exporters and two traders in the Republic of Korea, two producers/exporters in Malaysia, five producers/exporters in China, two related importers, ten unrelated importers in the Union and the European Wire Rope Importers Association made themselves known. Several other companies claimed that they are not involved in the production or export of the product under investigation.\n(11)\nThe following companies submitted replies to the questionnaires and verification visits were subsequently carried out at their premises:\nProducers/exporters in the Republic of Korea:\n-\nBosung Wire Rope Co., Ltd, Kimhae-Si,\n-\nChung Woo Rope Co., Ltd, Busan,\n-\nCS Co., Ltd, Yangsan-City,\n-\nCosmo Wire Ltd, Ulsan,\n-\nDae Heung Industrial Co., Ltd, Haman - Gun,\n-\nDSR Wire Corp., Suncheon-City and its related company DSR Corp., Busan,\n-\nGoodwire Mfg., Co., Ltd, Yangsan-city,\n-\nKiswire Ltd, Seoul,\n-\nLine Metal Co., Ltd, Changnyoung-Gun,\n-\nManho Rope & Wire Ltd, Busan,\n-\nShin Han Rope Co., Ltd, Incheon,\n-\nSsang Yong Cable Mfg. Co., Ltd, Busan,\n-\nYoung Heung Iron & Steel Co., Changwon City\nTrader in the Republic of Korea:\n-\nTrion Co. Ltd, Busan\nProducers/exporters in Malaysia:\n-\nKiswire Sdn. Bhd., Johor Bahru,\n-\nSouthern Wire Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd., Shah Alam, Selangor\nProducers/exporters in the PRC:\n-\nQingdao DSR, Qingdao,\n-\nKiswire Qingdao Ltd, Qingdao,\n-\nYoung Heung (Taicang) Steel Wire Rope Co., Ltd, Tai Cang City\nRelated importers:\n-\nKiswire Europe, the Netherlands,\n-\nVerope AG, Switzerland.\n1.5. Investigation period\n(12)\nThe investigation period covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (the \u2018IP\u2019). Data was collected for the period from 1999 up to the end of the IP to investigate the alleged change in the pattern of trade.\n2. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n2.1. General considerations\n(13)\nIn accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the existence of circumvention was made by analysing successively whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between third countries and the Union, if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty, if there was evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the like product, and whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product, if necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regulation.\n2.2. Product concerned and the like product\n(14)\nThe product concerned is, as defined in the original investigation, steel ropes and cables, including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm (in industry terminology often referred to as SWR), originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 7312 10 81, ex 7312 10 83, ex 7312 10 85, ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 10 98 (the product concerned).\n(15)\nThe product under investigation is steel ropes and cables including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm, consigned from the Republic of Korea and Malaysia, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea and Malaysia or not (the product under investigation), currently falling within the same CN codes as the product concerned.\n(16)\nThe investigation showed that the SWR exported to the Union from the PRC and those consigned from the Republic of Korea and Malaysia to the Union have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and have the same uses, and are therefore to be considered as like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n2.3. Degree of cooperation and determination of the trade volumes\n(17)\nAs stated above in recital 11, fourteen exporters/producers in the Republic of Korea, one Korean trader, two exporting producers in Malaysia and three exporting producers in China cooperated by submitting questionnaire replies.\n(18)\nAfter the submission of its questionnaire reply, one Korean company notified the Commission that it went bankrupt and therefore it withdrew its cooperation.\n(19)\nIn the case of another Korean company the application of Article 18(1) was found to be warranted for the reasons set out in recital 47.\n(20)\nThe cooperating Korean exporting producers covered 81 % of the total Korean exports to the Union in the IP as reported in Comext. Therefore, even though cooperation was high, the cooperating producers/exporters did not completely cover the overall export volume of SWR from the Republic of Korea. The overall export volumes were thus based on Comext.\n(21)\nThere are two known producers in Malaysia. The total export quantities of the two cooperating companies in Malaysia exceeded the import volume of the product under investigation recorded in Comext. Therefore the exporting producers were considered to be reflecting the total exports of SWR from Malaysia to the Union.\n(22)\nThe applicant claimed that Comext data were unreliable and therefore total export volumes from Malaysia to the Union should not be determined on this basis. However, during the investigation, import data were counter checked with Malaysian official statistics and with the verified questionnaire replies. This analysis did not reveal that actual exports from Malaysia exceeded the exports reported by the cooperating Malaysian companies. The applicant\u2019s argument had therefore to be rejected.\n(23)\nThere was a low level of cooperation by producers/exporters in the PRC, with only three exporters/producers submitting a questionnaire reply. Moreover, none of those companies exported the product concerned to the Union and only in very minor quantities to Malaysia. The exports of the cooperating companies covered 41 % of the total Chinese exports to the Republic of Korea. Therefore, on the basis of the information submitted by the cooperating parties no reasonable determination could be made as to export volumes of SWR from the PRC.\n(24)\nGiven the above, findings in respect of imports of SWR into the Union and exports of SWR from the PRC to the Republic of Korea and Malaysia had to be made partially on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. Comext data was used to determine overall import volumes from the PRC to the Union. Chinese, Korean and Malaysian national statistics were used for the determination of the overall imports to the Republic of Korea and Malaysia from the PRC. Data were cross-checked among the different statistical sources and confirmed by other statistical databases such as the Global Trade Atlas, China Export Database and the data provided by the customs authorities of the Republic of Korea and Malaysia.\n(25)\nThe import volume recorded in Korean, Malaysian and Chinese statistics covered a larger product group than the product concerned or the product under investigation. Therefore, the statistics were adjusted accordingly based on the findings of the present investigation.\n2.4. Change in the pattern of trade\n(26)\nImports of SWR from China to the Union had first dropped close to zero subsequent to the imposition of the measures in 1999. After a gradual increase between 2003 and 2006 - with imports peaking in the latter year at the level of 8 656 tonnes - the trend has reversed and imported amounts have fallen again by more than 40 % between 2006 and the IP.\n(27)\nOn the other hand, total imports of Korean SWR to the Union have increased significantly between 1999 and 2008 from approximately 11 123 tonnes to 48 214 tonnes. The yearly increase in absolute terms was the most significant in the years 2002 and 2003 and more recently in 2006 and 2007.\n(28)\nBased on information in the complaint and that provided by the Mission of the Republic of Korea to the European Union, the present investigation is considered to have covered the vast majority, if not all, of the genuine producers of the product under investigation in Korea. Therefore it was considered that the exports by non-cooperating Korean companies to the Union, which represented approximately 19 % of the total exports in terms of quantity from the Republic of Korea, are, apart from the producers mentioned in recitals 18 and 47, mainly exported by traders.\n(29)\nThese companies have visibly increased their exports to the Union in 2006 and 2007. Exports in these years were about 20 % higher than in 2005, the first year for which data at this level is available. Exports of the non-cooperating companies have been diminishing as from 2008 which is to be seen in light of the investigation of the Korean authorities in this period as described in recital 52.\n(30)\nAs far as Malaysia is concerned, both Comext data and the total export of the cooperating companies show that exports from Malaysia to the Union have also been continuously increasing in the past. The increase was the most significant and steady between 2005 and the IP when Malaysian exports to the Union doubled.\n(31)\nTable 1 shows import quantities of SWR from the abovementioned countries into the Union since the imposition of the measures in 1999 until the IP:\nTable 1\nEvolution of imports of SWR to the Union since the imposition of the measures\nSource: Comext, Korean statistics (KITA)\nImport volumes given in tonnes\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\n2003\n2004\nPRC\nN/A\n414\n283\n394\n913\n2 809\nShare of total imports\n-\n1 %\n1 %\n1 %\n2 %\n5 %\nRepublic of Korea\n11 122\n12 486\n13 280\n16 223\n22 302\n31 862\nShare of total imports\n-\n29 %\n32 %\n37 %\n47 %\n52 %\nMalaysia\n2 989\n2 366\n4 171\n3 371\n4 836\n4 426\nShare of total imports\n-\n5 %\n10 %\n8 %\n10 %\n7 %\nImport volumes given in tonnes\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nPRC\n4 945\n8 656\n6 219\n6 795\n4 987\nShare of total imports\n7 %\n11 %\n7 %\n7 %\n6 %\nRepublic of Korea\n34 536\n39 128\n45 783\n48 213\n43 185\nShare of total imports\n50 %\n50 %\n55 %\n53 %\n50 %\nKorean non-cooperating companies\n11 577\n14 042\n14 160\n10 287\n8 391\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n121\n122\n89\n72\nMalaysia\n5 123\n7 449\n8 142\n9 685\n10 116\nShare of total imports\n7 %\n10 %\n10 %\n11 %\n12 %\nMalaysian cooperating companies (index, 2006 = 100)\n-\n100\n102\n148\n144\n(32)\nLooking at the pattern of the above three trade flows, it can be observed that particularly since 2005, Korean exporters and partly Malaysian exporters have significantly outsold and to some extent replaced Chinese exporters on the Union market in terms of volume.\n(33)\nDue to the global economic slowdown which coincides with the IP, traded volumes of SWR have decreased or the increase has slowed down between all countries concerned. The decrease was however the most significant in the case of imports from the PRC to the Union (- 27 %).\n(34)\nA dramatic increase of exports of steel wire ropes and cables (all diameters) can also be observed from China to the Republic of Korea within the same period: from a relatively insignificant amount in 1999 (2 519 tonnes) they increased to 78 822 tonnes in 2008. The increase was most significant between 2005 and 2008 when imports quadrupled. In recent years China was the largest exporter of SWR to Korea representing 89 % of the total imports of SWR in 2008. The estimated import for the product concerned only (products with a diameter above 3 mm), in 2008, was 58 885 tons.\n(35)\nLooking at imports of the non-cooperating Korean companies only, the same dramatic increase can be observed, i.e. imports from China by these companies have quadrupled by 2007 and 2008. Although imports have started to decrease afterwards, they remained well above the level of imports in 2005 continuing to represent very significant amounts.\nTable 2\nImport of Chinese products into the Republic of Korea between 1999 and the IP\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\n2003\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nImport (tonnes, all diameters)\n2 519\n6 764\n6 044\n7 740\n11 421\n14 120\n19 933\n36 531\n69 620\n78 822\n66 099\nYearly change (%)\n-\n169\n-11\n28\n48\n24\n41\n83\n91\n13\n-16\nImports by Korean non-cooperating companies (tonnes, product concerned only)\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\n7 166\n18 053\n33 907\n29 717\n22 004\nIndex (2005 = 100)\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\n100\n252\n473\n415\n307\nSource: Korean statistics (KITA), data provided by the Korean Customs Services, verified information provided by the cooperating producers\n(36)\nTo establish the trend of the China to Malaysia trade flow of SWR, both Malaysian and Chinese statistics were considered. Both of these data are only available at a higher product group level than the product concerned. Furthermore they showed considerable differences. Therefore, no reliable data could be established in this regard.\n(37)\nThe applicant claimed that the fact that no reliable data could be established would not be sufficient to conclude that no circumvention took place. As outlined in recitals 38 and 55, the evidence available in the current investigation, i.e. in particular production volume of the cooperating Malaysian exporting producers as well as their export sales to the Union showed that exports of SWR from Malaysia were of genuine Malaysian origin and therefore did not constitute circumvention. In this case, it was therefore irrelevant whether or not there were imports from China to Malaysia. The applicant\u2019s claim was therefore rejected.\n(38)\nThe evolution of the total production volume of cooperating producers in the Republic of Korea had remained stable between 2006 and the IP. Malaysian producers however have considerably increased their output during the same period.\nTable 3\nProduction of SWR of the cooperating companies in the Republic of Korea and Malaysia\nProduction volumes given in tonnes\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nRepublic of Korea\n152 657\n159 584\n160 113\n142 413\nIndex\n100\n105\n105\n93\nMalaysia (indexed)\n100\n164\n171\n157\nSource: Verified information provided by the cooperating producers\n2.5. Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade\n(39)\nThe overall decrease of Chinese exports to the Union as from 2006 and the parallel increase of exports from the Republic of Korea and Malaysia and of exports from the PRC to the Republic of Korea after the imposition of the original measures and in particular until 2008 constituted a change in the pattern of trade between the abovementioned countries on the one hand and the Union on the other. In the case of the Republic of Korea, this conclusion could be reached both globally and, for the period between 2005 and 2007, also separately for the non-cooperating companies.\n(40)\nComments were received claiming that the increase of exports of Korean SWR to the Union was stable over the years without any sudden increase; such an increase allegedly being a precondition to establishing a change in the pattern of trade. Furthermore, it was claimed that the increase should be regarded rather as the natural development of the Korean SWR industry.\n(41)\nFirstly, in accordance with Article 13 of the basic Regulation, a change in the pattern in trade is not exclusively defined as a sudden increase of imports of a country under investigation. Secondly, the investigation has shown that while Korean exports to the Union in 2006 and 2007 increased substantially, the output by Korean producers in those years was stable. It thus could not be concluded that the development of the Korean export volumes was solely due to the natural development of the Korean SWR industry. Finally, for the most part opposite trends between the China to Union trade flows and China to Korea and Korea to Union trade flows since 2006 clearly showed a change in the pattern of trade between the Union and third countries. These arguments therefore had to be rejected.\n2.6. Nature of the circumvention practice\n(42)\nArticle 13(1) requires that the change in the pattern of trade stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or work includes, inter alia, the consignment of the product subject to measures via third countries and the assembly of parts by an assembly operation in the Union or a third country. For this purpose the existence of assembly operations was determined in accordance with Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(43)\nThe global analysis of the final destinations of steel ropes and cables produced or imported to and from Korea by the cooperating and non-cooperating companies - including imports to and from countries other than the PRC and the Union - showed that a certain amount of exports from Korea to the Union were Chinese-origin imports into Korea, because these imports were not sourced from other third countries or produced by the domestic producers in Korea.\n(44)\nMoreover, the comparison of the total Korean export of SWR - as recorded in Korean statistics - and the verified information of the cooperating exporting producers concerning their production showed that production destined for export by Korean producers (118 856 tonnes) was significantly lower than the total exports from Korea (156 440 tonnes) in the IP. Given the high cooperation of Korean companies in this investigation, this difference cannot be explained by producers that may not have been cooperating in the investigation.\n(45)\nThe investigation also revealed that some importers in the Union sourced Chinese origin SWR from Korean exporters not cooperating during the present investigation. This information was counter-checked with Korean trade databases which showed that at least some of the SWR exported by these non-cooperating companies was indeed sourced in China.\n(46)\nAs for the cooperating companies it could be established that none of them transhipped the product concerned via the Republic of Korea in the IP. Some of them imported SWR from the PRC, but these were found to be exclusively sold on the domestic and other export markets.\n(47)\nIn the case of one company it was found that it submitted false information in its questionnaire reply. Furthermore, during the verification visit access to information was partially denied. Therefore in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, findings with regard to this company were based on facts available. In accordance with Article 18(4), the company was informed of the intention to disregard the information submitted by it and was granted a time limit to provide further explanations.\n(48)\nSubsequent to disclosure, the company admitted that it had circumvented the measures in the past by falsifying the origin of products purchased from the PRC. On the other hand the company claimed that it submitted sufficient information regarding the production, sales and purchases during the IP which was verified on-spot. It further argued that this should be sufficient to determine that it had not circumvented the measures in force in the IP.\n(49)\nHowever, in view of the fact that circumvention by the company admitted to have engaged in circumvention practices and furthermore tried to mislead the investigation, it is considered appropriate to disregard the entirety of the company\u2019s submission and not to exempt this company from the extended measures, as further outlined below in recital 77.\n(50)\nAs explained in recital 18, one company notified the Commission that it went bankrupt and withdrew its cooperation. As above, findings with regard to this company had to be based on the facts available within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(51)\nOn the basis of these facts it was concluded that although none of the cooperating Korean producers were found to be involved, transhipment was taking place during the IP and the preceding years. This is also confirmed by the findings with regard to the change of the pattern in trade as described above in recital 39.\n(52)\nIt has to be noted that in 2007 OLAF started an investigation into transhipment of the same product through Korea. The Korean authorities are known to have carried out investigations into alleged circumvention practices at the same time and concluded that several companies, mainly traders, committed fraud by falsifying the origin of SWR imported from the PRC to Korea when re-exporting the product.\n(53)\nThe existence of transhipment of Chinese-origin products via the Republic of Korea was therefore confirmed.\n(54)\nThe sources of raw materials and the cost of production was analysed for each cooperating company in order to establish whether any assembly operation in the Republic of Korea was circumventing the measures according to the criteria of Article 13(2). In all cases the Chinese-origin raw material (wire rod or semi finished product) did not constitute 60 % or more of the total value of the parts of the final product. It was therefore not necessary to examine whether or not the 25 % threshold of value added was reached or not.\n(55)\nThe investigation established that none of the cooperating producers in Malaysia imported the product concerned from China during the IP.\n(56)\nBased on the share of the exports by the cooperating companies to the Union within the total exports from Malaysia to the Union as recorded in Comext, it could be concluded that the increase of imports from Malaysia shown in the statistics can be explained fully by the increase of the cooperating companies\u2019 exports. This conclusion is reinforced by the increase of the total production volume of the genuine Malaysian producers during the same period as described in recital 38.\n(57)\nThe applicant questioned this finding without providing any further reason or evidence. This argument had therefore to be rejected.\n(58)\nThe sources of raw materials and the cost of production was analysed for each cooperating company to establish whether any assembly operation in Malaysia is circumventing the measures according to the criteria of Article 13(2). In all cases the Chinese-origin raw material (wire rod or semi finished product) did not constitute 60 % or more of the total value of the parts of the final product. It was not necessary, therefore, to examine whether or not the 25 % threshold of value added was reached.\n(59)\nIt could therefore be concluded that the change in the pattern of trade observed between the PRC, Malaysia and the Union did not stem from circumvention practices in Malaysia. Consequently, the investigation concerning imports of SWR consigned from Malaysia should be terminated.\n2.7. Insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-dumping duty (Republic of Korea)\n(60)\nThe investigation did not bring to light any other due cause or economic justification for the transhipment than the avoidance of the anti-dumping duty in force on SWR originating in China.\n2.8. Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty (non-cooperating Korean companies)\n(61)\nTo assess whether the imported products had, in terms of quantities and prices, undermined the remedial effects of the measures in force on imports of SWR from China, Comext data was used as the best data available concerning quantities and prices of exports by non-cooperating companies. The prices so determined were compared to the injury elimination level established for Union producers in the expiry review.\n(62)\nThe increase of imports from Korea was considered to be significant in terms of quantities bearing in mind the size of the market as determined in the expiry review (recital 99 of Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005). The estimated Union consumption in the current investigation period gives a similar indication about the significance of these imports. The comparison of the injury elimination level as established in the expiry review and the weighted average export price showed significant underselling. It was therefore concluded that the measures are being undermined in terms of quantities and prices.\n2.9. Evidence of dumping (non-cooperating Korean companies)\n(63)\nFinally, in accordance with Article 13(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value previously established for the like or similar products.\n(64)\nIn the expiry review the normal value was established on the basis of prices in Turkey, which in that investigation was found to be an appropriate market economy analogue country for the PRC. In the present investigation, it was established that the price of wire rod, the main input used in the production of SWR increased significantly since the expiry review. In addition, considering that the price developments of the raw materials were reflected in the export price during the IP, it was therefore deemed appropriate to up date the normal value as previously established by the development of raw material prices.\n(65)\nA significant part of Korean exports were found to be genuine Korean production. For this reason, in order to establish the export prices from the Republic of Korea which are affected by circumvention, only the exports of the non-cooperating producers/exporters was considered which was based on best facts available, i.e. on the average export price of SWR during the IP as reported in Comext.\n(66)\nFor the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance, in the form of adjustments, was made for differences which affect prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in indirect taxes, transport and insurance costs based on the average costs of the cooperating Korean producers/exporters in the IP.\n(67)\nIn accordance with Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the weighted average normal value as established in the expiry review and the weighted average export prices during this investigation\u2019s IP, expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid.\n(68)\nThe comparison of the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export prices so established showed dumping.\n3. MEASURES\n(69)\nGiven the above, it was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of SWR originating in China was circumvented by transhipment via the Republic of Korea pursuant to Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(70)\nIn accordance with the first sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the measures in force on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC, should be extended to imports of the same product consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not.\n(71)\nThe measures to be extended should be the ones established in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005, which are a definitive anti-dumping duty of 60,4 % applicable to the CIF net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before customs duty.\n(72)\nIn accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provides that any extended measure should apply to imports which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties should be collected on those registered imports of SWR consigned from Korea.\n4. TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION AGAINST MALAYSIA\n(73)\nIn view of the findings regarding Malaysia, the investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures by imports of SWR consigned from Malaysia should be terminated and the registration of imports of SWR consigned from Malaysia,introduced by the initiation Regulation, should be discontinued.\n(74)\nThe applicant contested the proposal to terminate the investigation against Malaysia. Having already addressed all its arguments above, there was no other reason to reconsider the proposal.\n5. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION\n(75)\nThe fourteen companies in the Republic of Korea submitting a questionnaire reply requested an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(76)\nAs explained in recital 18, one of these companies subsequently ceased cooperation. Its request for exemption in accordance with Article 13(4) had therefore to be rejected.\n(77)\nAnother company as outlined in recital 47 submitted false information and denied access to information requested. Its request for exemption in accordance with Article 13(4) could therefore not be granted.\n(78)\nA third company in the Republic of Korea did not export the product either during the IP or after that period and no conclusions could be drawn as to the nature of its operations. Therefore, an exemption to this company could not be granted. However, should it appear, after extension of the anti-dumping measures in force, that the conditions in Article 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation are fulfilled; the company\u2019s situation may be reviewed upon request.\n(79)\nThat third company has objected and reiterated its request for an exemption. However, it did not come forward with new information and evidence that could have altered the above decision. Therefore, its request could not be accepted.\n(80)\nNone of the other cooperating companies in the Republic of Korea were found circumventing the measures. Furthermore, none of the companies requesting exemption are related to companies engaged in circumvention practices. In particular, it is noted that four of the producers concerned are related to PRC companies that are subject to the original measures. However, there is no evidence that such relationship was established or used to circumvent the measures in place on imports originating in China. Exemptions should thus be granted to all other cooperating companies not mentioned in recitals 76 to 78.\n(81)\nIt is considered that special measures are needed in this case in order to ensure the proper application of such exemptions. These special measures are the requirement of the presentation to the Customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the extended anti-dumping duty applicable to all the companies in the Republic of Korea that are not exempted.\n(82)\nOther exporters concerned which were not contacted by the Commission in the framework of this proceeding and which intend to lodge a request for an exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation will be required to complete a questionnaire in order to enable the Commission to determine whether an exemption may be warranted. The Commission would normally also carry out an on-spot verification visit. The request would have to be addressed to the Commission with all relevant information.\n(83)\nWhere an exemption is warranted, the Commission will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, propose the amendment of this Regulation accordingly. Subsequently, any exemption granted will be monitored to ensure compliance with the conditions set therein.\n6. DISCLOSURE\n(84)\nAll interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were invited to comment. The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered. None of the arguments presented gave rise to a modification of the definitive findings,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 on imports of steel ropes and cables including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, is hereby extended to imports of steel ropes and cables including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm, consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 7312 10 81, ex 7312 10 83, ex 7312 10 85, ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 10 98 (TARIC codes 7312108113, 7312108313, 7312108513, 7312108913 and 7312109813), with the exception of those produced by the companies listed below:\nCountry\nCompany\nTARIC additional code\nThe Republic of Korea\nBosung Wire Rope Co., Ltd, 972-5, Songhyun-Ri, Jinrae-Myeun, Kimhae-Si, Gyeungsangnam-Do\nA969\nChung Woo Rope Co., Ltd 1682-4, Songjung-Dong, Gangseo-Gu, Busan\nA969\nCS Co., Ltd, 287-6 Soju-Dong Yangsan-City, Kyoungnam\nA969\nCosmo Wire Ltd, 447-1, Koyeon-Ri, Woong Chon-Myon Ulju-Kun, Ulsan\nA969\nDae Heung Industrial Co., Ltd, 185 Pyunglim - Ri, Daesan-Myun, Haman - Gun, Gyungnam\nA969\nDSR Wire Corp., 291, Seonpyong-Ri, Seo-Myon, Suncheon-City, Jeonnam\nA969\nKiswire Ltd, 20t h Fl. Jangkyo Bldg., 1, Jangkyo-Dong, Chung-Ku, Seoul\nA969\nManho Rope & Wire Ltd, Dongho Bldg, 85-2, 4 Street Joongang-Dong, Jong-gu, Busan\nA969\nShin Han Rope Co., Ltd, 715-8, Gojan-dong, Namdong-gu, Incheon\nA969\nSsang Yong Cable Mfg. Co., Ltd, 1559-4 Song-Jeong Dong, Gang-Seo Gu, Busan\nA969\nYoung Heung Iron & Steel Co., Ltd, 71-1 Sin-Chon Dong, Changwon City, Gyungnam\nA969\n2. The application of exemptions granted to the companies specifically mentioned in paragraph 1 or authorised by the Commission in accordance with Article 3(2) shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the anti-dumping duty as imposed by paragraph 1 shall apply.\n3. The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 734/2009 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, with the exception of those produced by the companies listed in paragraph 1.\n4. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThe investigation initiated by Regulation (EC) No 734/2009 concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 on imports of steel ropes and cables, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China by imports of steel ropes and cables consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, and making such imports subject to registration, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 3\n1. Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1 shall be made in writing in one of the official languages of the European Union and must be signed by a person authorised to represent the entity requesting the exemption. The request must be sent to the following address:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N-105 04/92\n1049 Brussels\nBELGIUM\nFax +32 22956505\n2. In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, may authorise, by decision, the exemption of imports from companies which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005, from the duty extended by Article 1.\nArticle 4\nCustoms authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 734/2009.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["49", "4", "85", "5", "68", "24", "39", "57", "35", "11", "63", "51", "45", "47", "7", "61", "72", "28", "26", "16", "60", "90", "19", "81", "78", "62", "29", "2", "67", "43", "No Label", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 3 August 2011\non the aid SA. 26980 (C 34/09 (ex N 588/08)) which Portugal is planning to grant to Petrogal\n(notified under document C(2011) 5546)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/466/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions (1) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter dated 19 November 2009, the Commission informed Portugal of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty in respect of regional ad hoc aid in favour of an investment project by Petroleos de Portugal, Petrogal S.A. (\u2018Petrogal\u2019), concerning its refinery activities in Sines and Matosinhos (the \u2018investment project\u2019). By letter dated 9 December 2009, Portugal provided the non-confidential version of the opening decision for its publication.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 17 December 2009, Portugal asked for an extension of the delay to submit its comments by one month. On 22 December 2009, the Commission accepted this request. By letter dated 21 January 2010, the Portugal submitted its comments.\n(3)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments.\n(4)\nThe Commission received comments from the Associa\u00e7\u00e3o das Ind\u00fastrias da Petroqu\u00edmica, Qu\u00edmica e Refina\u00e7\u00e3o (3), from the Confedera\u00e7\u00e3o da Ind\u00fastria Portuguesa (4), from Associa\u00e7\u00e3o para a efici\u00eancia energ\u00e9tica (5), from Competitor No 2 (6), a competitor undertaking of Petrogal (7), from Competitor No 1 (8) (9), from Uni\u00e3o Geral de trabalhadores (10), from the Municipality of Sines (11), from Confedera\u00e7\u00e3o Geral dos Trabalhadores Portugueses (12) and from the Associa\u00e7\u00e3o Industrial Portuguesa (13).\n(5)\nBy letters dated 9 March, 10 March, 17 March and 19 March 2010 the Commission forwarded these comments to Portugal, which was given the opportunity to react; its observations were received by letter dated 8 April 2010.\n(6)\nBy letters dated 15 and 28 July 2010 (14), the Commission requested further information, which was provided by Portugal by letters dated 16 and 23 August 2010, respectively.\n(7)\nBy letters dated 4 and 5 August 2010, the Commission asked Competitors No 1 and No 2 for clarifications, which were provided by letters dated 10 and 15 September 2010. By letter dated 20 September 2010, these clarifications were submitted to Portugal for comments.\n(8)\nBy letters dated 17 September and 1 October 2010, the Commission requested further information from Portugal. Portugal replied on 18 and 29 October 2010.\n(9)\nBy letters dated 13 October 2010, Competitors No 1 and No 2 were asked specific details regarding their replies dated 10 and 15 September 2010, respectively.\n(10)\nBy letters dated 21 and 28 October 2010, the Commission asked Portugal for additional information. By letters dated 12 November, Portugal replied.\n(11)\nBy letter dated 10 November 2010, Competitor No 1 submitted clarifications to its letter dated 15 September 2010. On 12 November 2010, these clarifications were submitted to Portugal for comments, which were replied on 19 November 2010.\n(12)\nBy letter of 30 November 2010, the Commission asked Portugal for additional information. By letter of 20 December 2010 Portugal submitted its reply.\n(13)\nBy letter dated 11 November 2010, the Commission asked Portugal to submit a cost-benefit analysis of the investment project. On 1 December 2010, Portugal submitted the requested information.\n(14)\nBy letter dated 6 January 2011, Portugal submitted information regarding Petrogal\u2019s shareholders.\n(15)\nOn 12 January 2011, a meeting was held between the Portuguese authorities, Petrogal\u2019s representatives and the Commission. By letter dated 25 January 2011, Portugal submitted information regarding some of the issues raised during the meeting (e.g. market assessment, incentive effect of the aid).\n(16)\nBy letters dated 24 January, 16 March and 12 April 2011, the Commission requested additional information on the potential counterfactual scenario to the investment project, to which Portugal replied by letters dated 7 February, 4 April and 29 April 2011 respectively. By email dated 7 June 2011, the Commission requested information not submitted by Portugal in previous letters. By email dated 9 June 2011 and letters dated 11 and 17 June 2011, Portugal submitted information regarding some of these issues.\n(17)\nBy letter dated 24 June 2011, the Commission asked Portugal to clarify outstanding information regarding the diesel fuel market. By letters dated 30 June and 14 July 2011, Portugal submitted this information. By letter dated 20 July 2011, the Portuguese authorities submitted their agreement that the Commission adopts this decision in the English language.\n2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE AID\n2.1. The beneficiary\n(18)\nThe beneficiary of the State aid, Petr\u00f3leos de Portugal - Petrogal, S.A. (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Petrogal\u2019), is a 100 % subsidiary of Galp Energia, SGPS, S.A. (\u2018Galp Energia\u2019). The main shareholders of Galp Energia are ENI SpA (15) (33,34 %), Amorim Energia BV (\u2018Amorim Energia\u2019) (16) (33,34 %), Parp\u00fablica Participa\u00e7\u00f5es P\u00fablicas (\u2018Parp\u00fablica\u2019)(SGPS) (17) (7 %), Fidelity International Limited (2,01 %), Caixa Geral de Dep\u00f3sitos SA (\u2018CGD\u2019) (18) (1 %), and others (23,31 %). Galp Energia is the holding company of the Galp Energia Group (\u2018Galp\u2019). Galp Energia is active in the petroleum product market (which includes refining and marketing activities, such as non-retail and retail sales) as well as in the gas market.\n(19)\nThe holding company was originally set up on 22 April 1999 under the name of GALP - Petr\u00f3leos e G\u00e1s de Portugal SGPS, S.A., mainly for the purpose of trading in oil and natural gas, bringing together two pre-existing Portuguese government owned companies which were placed under Galp Energia\u2019s control namely Petrogal, focusing on petroleum products, and GDP - Gas de Portugal, SGPS, S.A., focusing on natural gas (19).\n(20)\nGalp Energia\u2019s business also includes retail and wholesale marketing of refined petroleum products in the Iberian Peninsula. It is the market leader in Portugal (20), and has a growing presence in Spain.\n(21)\nPetrogal owns the sole two refineries in Portugal. The refineries are in Sines and Matosinhos. The refining business comprises all refining, supply and logistics activities. Petrogal is the largest marketer of petroleum products in Portugal, as well as one of the largest in the Iberian Peninsula. It effectively manages all the imports of crude oil, and a part of the imports of refined products into Portugal; it also manages 80 % of the storage capacity of crude oil and refined products (21) and has an important position in Portugal\u2019s logistics infrastructure for oil products.\n(22)\nPetrogal has an extensive product range that includes gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, fuel oil, naphtha, LPG, bitumen and several aromatic products. The refining business is responsible for the supply of oil products to Petrogal\u2019s retail, wholesale and LPG marketing divisions, to competitors and foreign customers, and for the operation of their refining assets and logistics tools. Petrogal stores and transports its products using either its wholly-owned storage assets, or affiliated logistics companies.\n(23)\nFigure 1 presents Petrogal\u2019s ownership and controlling rights:\n(24)\nA shareholder agreement was signed on 29 December 2005 between Amorim Energia, ENI and Rede El\u00e9ctrica Nacional de Portugal (REN), with CGD joining the agreement on 28 March 2006 (the \u2018Shareholders\u2019 Agreement\u2019). The Shareholders\u2019 Agreement entered into force on 29 March 2006 for a period of eight years. According to Article 20, first paragraph c) of the Portuguese Securities Code, voting rights attached to Galp Energia shares owned by parties to the Shareholder\u2019s Agreement are reciprocally assigned to the other parties. Consequently, Galp Energia is considered to be jointly controlled by the shareholders that are parties to the Shareholders\u2019 Agreement.\n(25)\nAccording to Portugal, it results from the Shareholders\u2019 Agreement that shareholders and, in particular, ENI, cannot control and solely define strategies between their own refining activities and Petrogal\u2019s refining activities.\n2.2. The Petrogal investment project\n(26)\nThe investment project serves to reconfigure and expand the existing refinery units in Sines and Matosinhos, the only two existing refineries in Portugal. In addition, the investment project aims at improving integration and synergy effects between the two refineries. It opens the possibility of using heavier crudes.\n(27)\nThe investment project aims mainly at increasing the production of diesel fuel to the detriment of gasoline. The investment project concludes that the increased use of heavy crude oil will reduce raw materials cost and will lend flexibility to the origin of crude oils to be processed.\n(28)\nThe investment project for the conversion of the Matosinhos refinery consists more precisely in the construction of a new vacuum distillation unit for obtaining vacuum gas oil (VGO) and a new visco-reduction unit (visbreaker) for the soft thermal cracking of the resulting vacuum residue.\n(29)\nThe investment project for conversion of the Sines refinery aims at the construction of a new hydrocracker, namely a unit for hydrocracking vacuum gas oil, for the production of diesel and jet fuel. According to the investment project, the hydrocracker unit will use, as feedstock, vacuum gas oil and visbreaker gas oil produced both at the Matosinhos and Sines refineries, thereby making full use of the processing capacity of the national refining equipment. It will treat around [ ] barrels per day, using around [ ] Ktonnes/annum of atmospheric residue as primary feedstock.\n(30)\nThe products obtained by hydrocracking (LPG, heavy naphtha (22) and diesel) are [ ] hydrogenated, which gives them a superior quality. As a result of the investment project, it is expected that only the production of diesel and heavy naphtha will increase.\n(31)\nAccording to the investment project, part of the heavy naphtha produced in the Sines refinery will be shipped to Matosinhos as raw material for Petrogal\u2019s aromatics plant (23), which will be a further step to increased integration of both refineries. The increased production of heavy naphtha is an inevitable technical consequence of the conversion project in Sines.\n(32)\nThe works on the investment project started in 2008 (the first order was issued on 14 March 2008 as a result of the decision taken by the Board of Directors on 5 March 2008) and were due by 31 December 2010. Full production capacity is expected to be reached by 2011.\n2.3. Single investment project\n(33)\nPortugal suggests that despite the geographic distance between the two refineries (some 450 km to be covered by sea transport), the investment project should be considered as a single investment project (SIP) within the meaning of paragraph 60 of the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 (24) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018RAG\u2019). The Portuguese authorities confirm that Petrogal has not received State aid in the three years previous to the start of the notified investment project.\n2.4. Costs of the investment project\n(34)\nThe investment in Sines represents investment costs of EUR [ ] in nominal value. The Sines refinery is to receive aid worth EUR [ ] (nominal value), resulting in an aid intensity of 16 %. Regarding the Matosinhos refinery, the investment amounts to EUR [ ] (nominal value) and the refinery is to benefit of aid worth EUR [ ] (nominal value), corresponding to an aid intensity of 13 %.\n(35)\nThe eligible expenditures of the investment project are EUR 974 064 894 at present value (EUR 1 058 934 146 in nominal value) and consist exclusively of equipment (no land or buildings). The aid amount for both refineries amounts to EUR 121 091 314 in present value (EUR 160 484 007 in nominal value), corresponding to an aid intensity of 12,43 %. The breakdown per year of eligible expenditures is presented in the Table 1:\nTable 1\nEligible costs (in EUR)\n2007\n2008\n2009\n2010\nTotal\nTangible fixed assets\n[ ] (25)\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n1 058 934 146\n2.5. Financing of the investment project\n(36)\nPetrogal plans to finance this investment project from using its own resources, in addition to the State aid it has applied for (EUR 160 484 007 in nominal value). There are no other State aid sources of financing foreseen. The investment project benefits also from European Investment Bank loans totalling EUR 500 million, approved in 2009. The beneficiary\u2019s own contribution to eligible expenditure accounts for 36 %.\n2.6. Regional aid ceiling\n(37)\nIn accordance with the Portuguese regional aid map for 2007-2013 (26), the regions of Alentejo and Norte, in which the Sines and Matosinhos refineries are respectively located, are eligible for regional aid under the derogation foreseen by Article 107(3)(a) of the Treaty with ceilings for regional investment aid to large enterprises of respectively 40 % and 30 % gross grant equivalent (GGE).\n2.7. Contribution to regional development\n(38)\nThe investment project is supposed to lead to the creation of approximately 150 direct jobs and of 450 indirect jobs in both regions. Moreover, according to the information submitted by Portugal, approximately 3 000 temporary jobs will be created during the construction period.\n2.8. Form of aid\n(39)\nThe State aid is to be granted as ad hoc aid which was designed in applying the provisions of an expired aid scheme (N 97/99) based on Decree law No 409/99 of 15 October 1999.\n(40)\nFollowing the Resolution of the Portuguese Council of Ministers of 6 March 2008, two contracts were signed on 10 March 2008 between the Portuguese Government, Petrogal and Galp Energia, for the purpose of granting the State aid. The two contracts were: \u2018contract for the granting of tax benefits\u2019 and the \u2018investment contract\u2019 (the \u2018aid contracts\u2019).\n(41)\nThe signed aid contracts foresaw the concession of the tax credit linked to the completion investment project. The aid would be a tax credit to be deducted from future payments of corporate income tax. The amount of the tax credit would be calculated by the Portuguese authorities as a percentage of the eligible investment. The tax credit would only be used for taxes generated by the investment project. In the event that tax credit could not be fully deducted, any pending tax credit could still be deducted, until the expiry of the contract (namely 31 December 2016).\n2.9. Aid amount\n(42)\nPortugal intends to grant regional aid amounting to EUR 160 484 007 in nominal value to be awarded as from 2011. Table 2 below, provided by the Portuguese authorities, details the schedule of the granting of the aid:\nTable 2\nYear\nestimated taxable Income\nTaxes\nUtilisation of the tax credit (27)\n2008\n2009\n2010\n2011\n[ ]\n[ ]\n2012\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n2013\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n2014\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n2015\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n2016\n[ ]\n[ ]\n160 484 007\n(43)\nPortugal confirmed that the aid for the investment project would not be cumulated with aid received for the same eligible costs from other local, regional, national or EU sources.\n(44)\nIn addition, the aid is granted under the condition that Petrogal will maintain the investments in the assisted regions for a minimum period of five years after completion of the investment project.\n(45)\nPortugal confirmed that the granting of the aid was subject to the Commission\u2019s clearance.\n(46)\nPetrogal applied for State aid with regard to the investment project on 22 January 2007. On 23 January 2007, the Portuguese authorities confirmed in writing to Petrogal that, subject to detailed verification, the investment project met the conditions of eligibility laid down in the \u2018fiscal scheme\u2019 before the start of work on the project.\n(47)\nPortugal committed itself not to exceed the maximum aid amount and the maximum aid intensity as laid down in this Decision, even in the case of lower or increased eligible expenditures.\n2.10. General provisions\n(48)\nPortugal committed itself to submit:\n-\nwithin two months of granting the aid, a copy of the document sent to Petrogal notifying the entry into force of the aid contracts;\n-\non a five-yearly basis, starting from the date of approval of the aid by the Commission, an intermediary report (including information on the aid amounts being paid, on the execution of the aid contract and on any other investment projects started at the same establishment/plant);\n-\nwithin six months after the grant of the last tranche of the aid, based on the notified granting schedule, a detailed final report.\n3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(49)\nIn its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty (\u2018the opening decision\u2019), the Commission expressed doubts as regards the compatibility of the aid with the provisions of the RAG. In this respect, the Commission expressed doubts in the opening decision regarding the issues mentioned in recitals 50 to 64.\n3.1. Compatibility with the general provisions of the RAG\n(50)\nParagraph 34 of the RAG describes the standard categories of an initial investment \u2018an investment in tangible and intangible assets\u2019 relating to:\n-\nthe setting up of a new establishment;\n-\nthe extension of an existing establishment;\n-\ndiversification of the output of an establishment into new, additional products;\n-\na fundamental change in the overall production process of an existing establishment.\nReplacement investment which does not meet any of these conditions is explicitly excluded from the scope of the definition of initial investment.\n(51)\nIn this respect, the Commission expressed doubts in the opening decision as to whether the investment project, which aims at modernising and better integrating the two refineries, increasing the production of diesel (and collaterally naphtha) while at the same time reducing the production of gasoline, could be considered as initial investment. The Commission considered that the investment project did not constitute an investment into a new establishment, nor a diversification of the output of an existing establishment into new, additional products. It could however be considered to include certain \u2018extension\u2019 and \u2018fundamental change of the production process\u2019 aspects.\n(52)\nThe Commission pointed out in the opening decision that, as the aid measure has to be assessed as an ad hoc aid, Portugal needed to demonstrate that the investment project contributes towards a coherent regional development strategy within the meaning of paragraph 10 of the RAG.\n(53)\nIn particular, the Commission expressed doubts in the opening decision as to whether the expected contribution to regional development really outbalances the sectoral effects resulting from the aid (EUR 160 million aid, creating only 150 direct jobs).\n(54)\nIn this context, the Commission pointed out that there were grounds to doubt the necessity of the aid, as is apparent from the Petrogal\u2019s 2008 financial accounts, the investment project is part of its industrial strategy and is likely to be carried out in a counter-factual scenario analysis without aid. The Commission indicated that the aid did not seem necessary for the implementation of the investment (for which works started in 2008) and that Petrogal could have considered other locations for the investment. Unnecessary aid is unlikely to contribute to regional development and might result in unacceptable distortions of competition.\n(55)\nThe Commission in the opening decision doubted whether the formal incentive effect requirements laid down in paragraph 38 of the RAG were met. In case of ad hoc aid, the competent authority should have issued a letter of intent, conditional on the Commission\u2019s approval, to award aid before works started on the project.\n(56)\nIn this respect, the Commission expressed doubts in the opening decision as to whether Portugal\u2019s written confirmation that, subject to detailed verification, the investment project was eligible for State aid did indeed meet the requirements of paragraph 38 of the RAG.\n3.2. Assessment of the aid under the provisions for aid to large investment projects\n(57)\nPortugal notified the investment project in the two refineries as a single investment project (\u2018SIP\u2019). According to paragraph 60 of the RAG, an initial investment is deemed to be a SIP when it is economically indivisible, taking into account the technical, functional and strategic links and the immediate proximity.\n(58)\nIn this respect, the Commission expressed doubts in the opening decision considering the distance between the two refineries. Besides, the consideration of the investment project as a SIP would imply the application of an adjusted regional ceiling, on the basis of the scaling down percentage in accordance with paragraph 67 of the RAG.\n(59)\nThe Commission raised doubts in the opening decision as regards the assessment of the aid under the provisions of these two paragraphs of the RAG.\n(60)\nMore specifically, the Commission was unable to conclude on the relevant products concerned by the investment project. It remains unclear whether the products are exclusively diesel and naphtha, as claimed by Portugal, or whether other products from the refining activity should be taken into account. The potential substitutability of refinery products from the supply side has to be considered along with the fact that naphtha may be considered an intermediate product within the meaning of paragraph 69 of the RAG.\n(61)\nThe Commission raised doubts as regards the relevant product market and whether it is to be considered being at ex-refinery level for both diesel and naphtha, as claimed by Portugal.\n(62)\nThe Commission raised doubts as to whether the relevant geographic markets for the products concerned should be defined at national, regional (Iberian Peninsula) or the European Economic Area (\u2018EEA\u2019) level.\n(63)\nMoreover, the Commission raised doubts as to whether Petrogal, and the Galp Energia and ENI groups to which Petrogal belongs, had a market share below 25 % of the relevant market, in accordance with paragraph 68(a) of the RAG.\n(64)\nFinally, in accordance with paragraph 68(b) of the RAG, the Commission raised doubts, in respect of all the products concerned, as to whether the production capacity created by the investment project exceeds 5 % of each relevant market, measured using apparent consumption data, and in that case, whether the average annual growth rate of that product\u2019s apparent consumption over the last five years is above the average annual growth rate of the European Economic Area\u2019s GDP.\n4. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n4.1. Comments from the Associa\u00e7\u00e3o das Ind\u00fastrias da Petroqu\u00edmica, Qu\u00edmica e Refina\u00e7\u00e3o (AIPQR)\n(65)\nAIPQR considers the investment project as essential for boosting the Portuguese economy and as a way to strengthen the European competitiveness in the petrochemical and refining sector. If the investment project could not be finalised or if it lacked the support necessary for its completion, this could have serious consequences regarding the autonomy and support for the petrochemical chain.\n(66)\nThe new PTA (Purified Terephthalic Acid) production unit planned by Artensa (Artenius - Produ\u00e7\u00e3o e Comercializa\u00e7\u00e3o de \u00c1cido Tereft\u00e1lico Purificado e Produtos Conexos, S.A. which is a Spanish subsidiary of La Seda de Barcelona S.A) in Sines will substantially increase La Seda\u2019s naphtha requirements. Consequently, the increased production of naphtha by Petrogal\u2019s hydrocracking unit is crucial for the realisation of La Seda\u2019s investment, estimated at around EUR 400 million.\n(67)\nAccording to AIPQR, the investment project will reduce the diesel deficit at European level.\n(68)\nAIPQR considers Petrogal\u2019s contribution essential for making feasible and promoting the development of the Competitiveness and Technology Centre of the Refining, Petrochemical and Industrial Industries, as part of the Portugal strategy for the promotion of key industries for the national and regional economies.\n(69)\nAccording to AIPQR, the diesel fuel obtained by hydrocracking is of superior quality, ensuring more efficient combustion and minimisation of contaminants in exhaust emissions. The quality of the diesel fuel products and also, the energy efficiency which should be achieved with the investment project, will permit to fulfil Petrogal\u2019s 2008-11 energy efficiency plan.\n(70)\nFurthermore, AIPQR considers that the investment project will contribute to social and economic sustainability of Matosinhos and Sines regions and to national social and economic sustainability, if considered as a whole.\n4.2. Comments from the Associa\u00e7\u00e3o para a efici\u00eancia energ\u00e9tica (COGEN)\n(71)\nThe investment project is relevant: more flexibility of supply and increased autonomy in diesel-oil.\n(72)\nAccording to COGEN, the investment project will create a major opportunity in terms of technological innovation and create around 150 direct jobs and around 500 indirect medium-level jobs, all permanent.\n(73)\nFrom an energy point of view, COGEN considers that the conversion projects for both refineries will allow 14 % energy savings. Furthermore, COGEN highlight that the investment project will also make feasible another type of investment not covered by the investment project - the installation of two 82 MW cogeneration units, one at each refinery - resulting in an increased capacity of around 12 % in this technology in Portugal.\n4.3. Comments from the Confedera\u00e7\u00e3o da Ind\u00fastria Portuguesa (\u2018CIP\u2019)\n(74)\nCIP considers that the investment project addresses the Portuguese situation which is characterised by:\n(i)\na discrepancy between vehicle diesel consumption and Portugal\u2019s existing processing capacity, the result of which is a chronic need for large imports of diesel fuel and the sale abroad of excess gasoline;\n(ii)\nfuture fuel oil surpluses caused by the fact that fuel oil is no longer used in electricity generation and that there are disincentives to use fuel oil in industry in general, which are set out in the Portuguese National Climate Change Programme;\n(iii)\ninternational market trends related to an increase in purchases of heavier and more acidic fractions of crude oils, which would provide more flexibility in terms of the choice of crude oils;\n(iv)\ncontribution to security of supplies.\n(75)\nCIP considers that the investment project will significantly increase the energy efficiency of both refineries, in line with the commitments made by Portugal to the EU as regards increasing European energy efficiency by 10 %.\n(76)\nCIP considers that the envisaged job creation of about 150 highly skilled posts and 450 indirect permanent jobs will significantly contribute to Portugal\u2019s economic development. It will boost the local economy in the regions concerned where the GDP per capita is lower than the national average and it will result in the creation of roughly 5 000 temporary jobs during the construction period.\n4.4. Comments from the Uni\u00e3o Geral de Trabalhadores (\u2018UGT\u2019)\n(77)\nUGT considers that the investment project will promote regional development and have a positive impact on the economic development and social and territorial cohesion of the regions concerned. The regions concerned are characterised by high unemployment levels, by a business structure that shows little diversity and by a GDP per capita that lies below the national average. The investment project will have a significant impact on the industrial fabric of both regions and Portugal as a whole, since both upstream and downstream activities will be developed, in particular in areas such as mechanical and civil engineering, electricity or even, commerce and catering.\n(78)\nUGT considers that the investment project will create more and better jobs, particularly at a time when unemployment is growing rapidly due to the economic and social crisis. The investment project is designed to create 150 jobs directly in both refineries, many of them highly skilled. A further 450 jobs are expected to be created indirectly, while 5 000 temporary jobs will be created during the construction period. The investment project will contribute to maintain some of the 2 050 existing jobs which could be jeopardised without the investment project.\n(79)\nFurthermore, UGT considers that the investment project will help meeting rigorous environmental and safety standards as the refineries will be equipped with more environmentally friendly technology.\n(80)\nAccording to UGT, the investment project is very important to improve Portugal\u2019s insufficient diesel fuel refining and production capacity. The existing refining capacity is clearly too small to cover domestic demand, which makes Portugal more dependent on diesel fuel imports from other countries (thus increasing strategic risks). A decrease of diesel fuel imports would also reduce the current trade deficit, which derives to a large extent from the energy accounts.\n(81)\nFinally, UGT notes that the investment project is important not only in national terms, but also for the EU, as it is designed to help develop a greener and more sustainable economy.\n4.5. Comments by the Municipality of Matosinhos (CMM)\n(82)\nThe CMM considers that the creation of jobs has a great impact on the area. Thanks to the creation of qualified jobs with salaries above the regional average, the Matosinhos refinery will contribute to the increase of the purchasing power of the area and of the region. It will continue the significant impact on the regional Gross Added-Value, resulting from the refinery\u2019s activity and from the activity of hundreds of commercial and industrial small and medium-sized enterprises, especially because the region has an unemployment rate of around 13 % (above the national average). The CMM considers that the investment project is crucial for the region, both in economic and social terms.\n4.6. Comments by the Municipality of Sines (CMS)\n(83)\nThe CMS is convinced of the importance of the Sines refinery\u2019s new units of production for the development of the local and regional economy. This will impact positively on the region\u2019s social development, due to the creation of qualified jobs and the creation of more and better small and medium-sized enterprises.\n4.7. Comments by the Confedera\u00e7\u00e3o Geral dos Trabalhadores Portugueses (\u2018CGTP\u2019)\n(84)\nThe CGTP considers that the investment project produces very positive environmental effects and is important for Portugal\u2019s regional development as:\n(i)\nit will make it possible to offer a larger diversification of products of better quality to the national organic chemical industry, as well as for exports. Therefore the investment project will positively contribute to the valorisation of the specialisation profile of the manufacturing industry;\n(ii)\nit will generate hundreds of permanent jobs and some thousands temporary jobs in the construction phase, mainly in regions that have some of the largest unemployment rates in Portugal;\n(iii)\nit will develop the local economy at the level of housing, commerce and hotels, among other economic activities.\n4.8. Comments by the Associa\u00e7\u00e3o Industrial Portuguesa (\u2018AIP\u2019)\n(85)\nThe AIP indicates that the investment project will decisively contribute to the increased wealth of the Northern and Alentejo regions.\n(86)\nThe Norte region, with an unemployment rate of 11,6 % compared with the national average of 9,8 % (data from the third quarter of 2009), is currently the Portuguese region with the highest level of unemployment, and particularly high unemployment of long duration (half of the unemployed population has been job-searching for a year or more). In the current social crisis context, the creation of 500 direct jobs and 200 permanent indirect jobs and also of, around, 2 000 temporary jobs during the construction phase represents a huge contribution for the region.\n(87)\nThe Alentejo region is currently one of the Portuguese regions with the highest unemployment rate - 10,2 % as compared with the national average of 9,8 % (data from the third quarter of 2009) - and particularly high unemployment of long duration (half of the unemployed population has been job-searching for a year or more). In this context, the creation of 100 direct jobs and of 250 permanent indirect jobs plus around 3 000 jobs during the construction phase will represent an important contribution for the region.\n4.9. Comments from Competitor No 1\n4.9.1. Comments on the opening decision\n(88)\nAccording to Competitor No 1, the investment project can be considered a mere \u2018extension of an existing establishment\u2019 within the meaning of paragraph 34 of the RAG. The investment project cannot be considered to be a SIP because the fixed assets of the investment would be \u2018economically divisible\u2019 within the meaning of paragraph 60 of the RAG. Indeed, the Sines and Matosinhos refineries are geographically distant from each other. The investment project clearly defines a separate investment for each refinery. The refineries can choose to have vacuum and visbreaking units but no hydrocracker unit, or vice versa. The investments for the refineries are not therefore necessarily directly connected. In any event, the refineries could operate on their own without requiring any integration. Moreover, the Matosinhos refinery could sell its production of vacuum gas oil on international markets and the hydrocracker unit located in Sines could be fed with imported vacuum gas oil.\n(89)\nPortugal only mentioned direct and indirect job creation as a contribution of the investment project to regional development. It is therefore impossible to demonstrate that the investment project contributes towards a coherent regional development strategy and that it addresses the economic cohesion objective (28). It is difficult to accept that spending more than one million euro per direct job created can be considered as an exceptional contribution to regional development. In this respect, the ratio of aid amount to direct jobs for the investment project is compared to previous Commission\u2019s decisions (presented in a table reviewing this ratio in previous Commission\u2019s decisions). Furthermore, Competitor No 1 considers that the investment project is not connected with any alleged market failure.\n(90)\nAs to the formal incentive effect requirement, Petrogal never received a letter of intent from Portugal before the works started. Therefore, Competitor No 1 concludes that the aid is not in conformity with paragraph 38 of the RAG.\n(91)\nFrom an economic assessment point of view, Competitor No 1 considers that the aid does not satisfy the criteria of necessity and does not produce any incentive effect. The investment project is a productive investment economically driven by the imbalance between supply and demand, and the opportunity to have access to heavier and cheaper crude oil. It is an investment in response to the natural evolution of demand for diesel fuel. All other operators across Europe are carrying out similar investments in refineries without State aid. Therefore, facts indicate that the investment project would have been carried out anyway which is not in line with paragraph 22 of the Communication of the Commission of 24 June 2009 (29) (the \u2018In-Depth Assessment Communication\u2019).\n(92)\nCompetitor No 1 considers that the products concerned are:\n-\ndiesel fuel (which is an end product),\n-\nnaphtha (which is an intermediate product within the meaning of paragraph 69 of the RAG), therefore petrochemical products derived from naphtha must also have to be considered as products (deemed) concerned,\n-\nhydrocracking residues (where the hydrocracker unit is not equipped with a recycler).\n- Diesel\n(93)\nAccording to Competitor No 1, Petrogal is the sole market operator with a refining capacity for crude oil in Portugal. Petrogal supplies its competitors on this market. Petrogal controls the largest import and storage facilities for gasoline and diesel fuel. Petrogal has the largest service station network in Portugal. Petrogal has a dominant position or, at the very least, has significant market power in a large number of petroleum products markets in Portugal. Competitor No 1 considers that the assessment of the relevant market should not only address the ex-refinery level, but should also assess the competitive situation at the level of retail and non-retail market of diesel fuel.\n- Naphtha\n(94)\nWith regard to naphtha, Competitor No 1 also considers that the relevant product market to be assessed should not be limited to ex-refinery sales but should take into account downstream activities.\n(95)\nAs regards the relevant geographic market, the ratio of total diesel fuel imports and exports in relation to the total diesel fuel sales in Portugal is too low to justify choosing the regional market as the relevant market. Competitor No 1 considers that the Portuguese market is the relevant geographic market.\n(96)\nCompetitor No 1 considers that ENI\u2019s activities in the affected product markets should be taken into account as, where a company can exercise decisive influence over the sales policy of another company, it is necessary to look at the combined market share of both in the relevant markets.\n(97)\nCompetitor No 1 concludes that for diesel fuel the 25 % market threshold established in paragraph 68 of the RAG is significantly exceeded. Therefore, the aid granted by the investment project is designed to subsidise the dominant market operator, enabling it to maintain and to increase its market power. Competition will be seriously affected and the aid will distort significantly the relevant markets.\n(98)\nIn conclusion, Competitor No 1 considers that the aid constitutes operating aid that strengthens the market position of a dominant operator in the relevant markets. The aid does not contribute to produce any incentive effect. In any event, the negative effects of the aid outweigh any positive effects it may have.\n4.9.2. Comments submitted by letters dated 15 September and 10 November 2010 (in reply to Commission questions of 5 August and 13 October 2010)\n(99)\nSimilar investment projects were conducted in four refineries (La Rabida, Castell\u00f3n, Cartagena and Bilbao), with the same objective, to increase assets profitability through the installation of new conversion units which maximise the yield of medium distillates, reduce the production of fuel oil and process heavier crude oil. Competitor No 1 refers also to similar investment projects in Italy (refineries of Sannazzaro and Taranto, by ENI), in Germany (Bayernoil), in Lithuania (Mazeikiu Nafta) and in Belorussia (Slavneft).\n(100)\nAs regards a potential benchmark rate of return for such investments in the sector, Competitor No 1 states that it is unaware of a benchmark: investment project profitability depends normally in the cost of capital of each company and other aspects. Competitor No 1 considers that, for the period during which the investment project was decided, the proxy return rate in the refining sector should be at least 10 %.\n(101)\nCompetitor No 1 refers in general terms to the existence of import barriers in relation to the relevant geographic market. It considers the main problem in Portugal to be Petrogal\u2019s dominant position on the market, controlling 100 % of the refining capacity in Portugal and hence the most important import and export terminals. It further claims that Petrogal has a dominant position in terms of product storage capacity, which some independent sources (30) put at 90 % of the market. This allows Petrogal to have a retail sales share of about 45 % and a non-retail sales share of 80 % of the Portuguese market.\n(102)\nAs regards the Commission\u2019s question as to the existence of a refusal to grant access to Petrogal\u2019s capacity storage, Competitor No 1 was unable to describe such a situation.\n(103)\nCompetitor No 1 considers that there are storage capacity limitations in Portugal and that storage costs are higher in Portugal than in other countries, such as Spain and Italy, for similar facilities or operations (approximately 25 % higher).\n(104)\nCompetitor No 1 considers that there are no significant differences between the prices for imported diesel and price for diesel acquired from Petrogal, as prices are indexed to international prices plus logistics cost.\n4.10. Comments from Competitor No 2\n4.10.1. Comments to the opening decision\n(105)\nCompetitor No 2 considers that the investment project will increase Petrogal\u2019s diesel production capacity by some 2,5 million tonnes, transforming Portugal from a small importer into a major exporter of diesel.\n(106)\nCompetitor No 2 expresses doubts as to the necessity of the aid, as Petrogal belongs to a major company, held and controlled by ENI. Petrogal is a profitable company, which has conducted substantial investments both upstream to refining in Brazil and Angola and downstream to enlarge its distribution network in Spain. It enjoys a privileged position in Portugal, being the owner of the only two refineries.\n(107)\nPetrogal is vertically integrated and the largest company marketing petroleum products in Portugal and the third largest competitor in the Iberian Peninsula.\n(108)\nCompetitor No 2 considers that the State aid does not meet the formal requirements of the incentive effect of aid as set out in paragraph 38 of the RAG. The investment project is a profitable transaction in itself that satisfies the medium long-term strategic goals of Petrogal, which will thus be carried through in any event.\n(109)\nAccording to Competitor No 2, the investment project will contribute to satisfying the increasing internal demand for diesel, will allow Petrogal to become a net exporter to other markets (France and Spain for example), and will increase Petrogal\u2019s refining margin.\n(110)\nCompetitor No 2 considers that the necessity of the aid has to be assessed on the basis of the provisions of Section 2.3 of the In-Depth Assessment Communication.\n(111)\nCompetitor No 2 refers to the PFC Energy report mentioned in footnote 31, in which it is mentioned that Petrogal\u2019s investment project was already a reality in 2006. The investment project could only be carried out in Matosinhos and Sines regions (not because these are assisted areas, but because the refineries are located there).\n(112)\nFinally, Competitor No 2 considers that there could not be, by definition, another location to invest into the reconfiguration of the existing refineries.\n(113)\nCompetitor No 2 only submitted comments regarding diesel fuel.\n- Ex-refinery level\n(114)\nCompetitor No 2 explains that, although there are no legal barriers to imports, these are highly conditioned (if not limited) by a range of physical factors (lack of import storage locations, their location and ownership, the limitations of the secondary logistical network) and market structure factors (ability to set the ex-refinery prices).\n- Non-retail level\n(115)\nThe other Portuguese market players import 90 % of the total diesel imported, on which they face substantial difficulties, as mentioned in the Portuguese Competition Authority report entitled \u2018Relat\u00f3rio final sobre os sectores dos combust\u00edveis l\u00edquidos e do g\u00e1s engarrafado em Portugal\u2019 (31) (the \u2018Authority report\u2019). Competitor No 2 considers that all these factors make the Portuguese market more closed than comparable markets in other countries.\n(116)\nCompetitor No 2 considers that the assessment of the relevant market should not be limited to the ex-refinery level, but should also cover distribution and sales channels (retail and non-retail). The investment project will increase the production by 2,5 million tonnes per annum, transforming Portugal into a country with an annul surplus of 1,6 million tonnes of diesel, plus annual 0,5 million tonnes of bio-diesel from the Sines refinery.\n- Non-retail and retail sales\n(117)\nAccording to the Authority report, this level of sales is considered as a second level in the diesel distribution structure. The diesel price will depend on the purchase price at the refinery or on import, to which transport and storage costs are added, and the sales margin.\n(118)\nCompetitor No 2 considers that Petrogal competes also at distribution level, with a clear competitive advantage: any aid granted to reduce Petrogal\u2019s cost in the production of diesel would strengthen its current dominant position in the Portuguese market (51 % in the non-retail market and 37 % in the retail market).\n(119)\nCompetitor No 2 considers that the relevant geographic market should be, at most, the Iberian market. The relevant geographic market could only be at EEA level if diesel imports effectively compete with diesel refined in Portugal (namely assuming there are no legal or economic barriers to entry).\n(120)\nAid to the investment will affect Petrogal\u2019s competitors on the Iberian market, as refineries located in Spain made similar investments (with very similar strategic goals) without aid.\n(121)\nShould non-retail and retail sales be deemed part of the relevant product market, Petrogal\u2019s market share in the national and local markets is well above the 25 % threshold set out in paragraph 68 of the RAG, and aid should not be granted.\n(122)\nCompetitor No 2 considers that, on the supply side, the non-retail gasoline and diesel markets are highly concentrated (the top four market players enjoy over 95 % market share), as indicated by the Portuguese Competition Authority in its report.\n(123)\nPetrogal has an estimated share of the non-retail diesel market in Portugal in volume terms between 35 % and 45 %. Competitor No 2 considers that the investment project will result in an additional production capacity 2,5 Mtonnes and taking this project in conjunction with this others that Petrogal has undertaken, Petrogal will be in position to meet the internal demand in the Portuguese diesel market but also to export close to 2 Mtonnes of diesel to neighbouring countries (Spain and France).\n4.10.2. Comments submitted by letter dated 10 September 2010, in reply to the Commission\u2019s request for information dated 4 August 2010.\n(124)\nCompetitor No 2 indicates that there is no rate of return benchmark established at sectoral level, since companies have their own target rate and target rates could differ depending on the characteristics of each investment project. Competitor No 2 gives a list of five refineries which undertook similar investment projects, amounting to more than EUR 6 billion in total, without State aid.\n(125)\nCompetitor No 2 points out that storage capacities and port facilities are limited. Therefore, shipments to Portugal take place in smaller quantities, which leads to higher distribution costs that affect the final retail and non-retail sales margins.\n(126)\nAs regards storage facilities, Competitor No 2 indicates that the installations are normally used by the owner (such as Petrogal), for its own purposes. In cases of storage facilities belonging to third parties, little storage is available due to existing long term contracts already signed with other operators.\n(127)\nCompetitor No 2 considers Petrogal has an advantage in its diesel sale price towards its competitors estimated around 3 to 5 USD/tonne due to its dominant position in the storage facilities.\n5. COMMENTS FROM PORTUGAL\n5.1. Comments on the opening decision\n(128)\nPortugal rectifies that the meeting between the Portuguese authorities and the Commission services took place on 11 March 2009. Portugal specifies that the investment project is not a replacement or an upgrading project; it is a conversion project implying effective change of the refining process with a view to better serve the increasing demand for diesel. Portugal adds that the EIB will provide funding and that the aid, in the form of a tax credit, will be granted as from 2011. Portugal also considers that assessing the investment project as an ad hoc aid should not lead to a tightening of the assessment rules. Indeed, the investment project contract and the aid contract concluded between Portugal and the beneficiary are conditional on the Commission\u2019s positive decision. Since the investment project and aid contracts were already submitted to the Commission during the notification phase, Portugal suggests submitting an administrative letter - with the investment project and aid contracts referred to in page 8 of the opening decision in annex to this administrative letter - indicating the entry into force of these contracts.\n5.1.1. Comments regarding the investment project\n(129)\nPortugal considers that the investment project constitutes an initial investment falling into the following categories: extension of an existing establishment or fundamental change of the production process.\n(130)\nAccording to Portugal, the new vacuum distillation unit and the new hydrocracker unit will allow the production of higher quantities of diesel and thus to adjust the diesel production to market needs. Such adjustment is not possible with the existing configuration of the refining system that offers very little flexibility to shift production from gasoline to diesel.\n(131)\nThe new vacuum distillation unit and visbreaker in Matosinhos, the new hydrocracker unit in Sines and the original pre-existing refining units will function simultaneously. Therefore, Portugal considers the investment project to be an extension of the production system with a fundamental change of the production process.\n(132)\nThe Portuguese authorities explain that the new process configuration will reinforce the operational and functional complementary links between the two refineries: vacuum gas oil [ ] will be transported from Matosinhos to Sines and, heavy naphtha [ ] will be transported from Sines to Matosinhos. The investment project is taking place in an integrated refining system: Sines and Matosinhos refineries are inseparable, in particular to optimise diesel production. Only the geographic criterion (\u2018immediate geographic proximity\u2019) is not respected. However, splitting the investment project into two parts would be artificial since it is technically, functionally and strategically indivisible (32).\n5.1.2. Comments regarding the characterisation of the market and the relevant products\n(133)\nPortugal considers that the relevant products are diesel and heavy naphtha, with diesel being the economic driver for the investment and heavy naphtha being a technically inevitable by-product of the production in Sines.\n(134)\nAs regards the heavy naphtha produced by the reconfigured refineries, it will be used domestically, in Petrogal\u2019s aromatics production in Matosinhos, and it will substitute imports (92 % of which are originated from outside the EU). The investment project will increase only the production of heavy naphtha in Sines (by [200-250] Ktonnes yearly) (33). The increased production of heavy naphtha in Sines will replace the quantities currently imported in Matosinhos and will not be sold to third parties.\n(135)\nPortugal clarified that no investment in the Matosinhos refinery relates to the specific units processing heavy naphtha into reformer, an intermediate product for the aromatics (namely naphtha derivatives) production, and subsequently processing reformer in Petrogal\u2019s Matosinhos based aromatics plant into naphtha derivatives (which are sold on the market at market prices to the second generation petrochemical industry). The price of reformer charged to the aromatic plant will remain unchanged as it is indexed to [10-20] % of the import parity of naphtha and [80-90] % of the gasoline export parity.\n(136)\nPortugal considers its relevant national market to be open and competitive without barriers to trade. Diesel prices are based on the price for crude oil and refining costs. Refiners have to compete with imports. Portugal considers the relevant geographic market to be Northwest Europe.\n(137)\nPrevious Commission decisions state that naphtha is an internationally traded product and the relevant product market is at least Western Europe.\n(138)\nAt group level (not including ENI figures since it does not have refining or retailing activities in the Iberian market and the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) shows low concentration level at European level), the market share is below 25 % at regional level.\n5.1.3. Comments regarding the project within a European, national and regional strategy\n(139)\nPortugal underlines that the investment project is in line with strategic objectives taken at national or European level. The maximisation of diesel production - estimated at [1-3] Mtonnes/year from 2011 - will allow a better use of the processing capacity of the national refining system. It will allow to better match supply and demand and to counteract the serious deficit of diesel and to reduce surplus gasoline production.\n(140)\nAccording to Portugal, the investment project will reduce the dependency on Russian diesel imports - which is an objective adopted by the Commission (in its 2008 Second Strategic Energy Review: an EU energy security and solidarity action plan (34)) and the Member States.\n(141)\nThe demand for diesel has increased and will increase between 2000 and 2025 but refineries in their existing configurations can only adapt marginally to the evolution of demand without major investment into reconfigurations. Petrogal\u2019s investment foresees to the increased demand and reduces dependency on imports and associated supply risks.\n(142)\nThe investment project will promote the reduction of the atmospheric emissions and the energy efficiency of the installations will be optimised. The energy rationalisation measures foreseen allow reducing the current energy consumption in the refineries by [ ] %.\n(143)\nWhen production begins at the reconfigured refineries, the same cargo will be processed, but with a considerably higher conversion capacity, with lower energy consumptions, and with emissions reduction.\n(144)\nAccording to Portugal, the impact on air pollution has a significant importance, as the investment project will reduce the refineries\u2019 fixed-source emissions and thus contribute towards the achievement of the regional and national air quality objectives.\n(145)\nAt regional level, the importance of the investment project is recognised in so far as it also includes the introduction of natural gas in the refineries\u2019 fuel portfolio and in the replacement of the current steam production plant by a cogeneration unit.\n(146)\nAt national level, the environmental benefits can be assessed with regard to the contribution to the achievement of goals established in the National Program for the Reducing of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides Pollutants Emissions (35).\n(147)\nThe investment project will improve diesel quality, and consequently, reduce polluting emissions from vehicles. The investment project will also have a positive impact on biological factors (flora and fauna) and on the landscape.\n5.1.4. Comments regarding the contribution to regional development\n(148)\nPortugal underlines the investment project\u2019s important contribution to regional development, given its location in two disadvantaged regions, both suffering from high unemployment. Both regions are areas eligible under Article 107(3)(a) of the Treaty, with standard regional aid ceilings for large enterprises of 40 % (for Sines, in the Alentejo region) and 30 % (for Matosinhos, in the Norte region), according to the Portuguese regional aid map. Both regions are Convergence Objective (as defined in the EU regional policy) regions, with a GDP per capita below 75 % of the European average.\n(149)\nPortugal considers that the Sines and Matosinhos refineries constitute fundamental pillars of the regional economies. Portugal expects the investment project to produce extremely positive effects on employment and, more generally, on the economic fabric of the Norte and Alentejo regions.\n(i) Sines\n(150)\nThe refinery in Sines is located in Alentejo, a region with a GDP 6 % below the national average. The region is characterised by a reduced business density and a shortage of advanced services for development support and innovation. In the third quarter of 2009, the unemployment rate was 10,2 %, namely 0,4 % above the national average, and has increased since then to 11,6 % in the third quarter of 2010 (0,7 % above the national average).\n(ii) Matosinhos\n(151)\nThe refinery in Matosinhos is located in the Oporto area in the Norte region. The Norte region is currently the poorest NUTS II (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) region of Portugal, with a GDP per capita about 20 % below the national average in 2008. The region has an economic growth rate below the EU and Portuguese average and suffers from low levels of qualified human resources. The unemployment rate grew from 11,6 % in the third quarter of 2009 to 13,2 % in the same quarter of 2010, which is significantly above the national average (respectively 9,8 % in 2009 and 10,9 % in 2010).\n5.1.5. Jobs and Training\n(152)\nAccording to Portugal, in the operation stage, the investment project will create an estimated 150 new jobs directly related to running the processing units at the two refineries.\n(153)\nThe ratio between the investment expenditure and the number of created direct jobs shows that the refining sector is very capital intensive. Moreover, the sector requires specific and qualified training.\n(154)\nThe investment project has a significant potential to create indirect jobs, as the new units will increase the technological complexity of the refineries, and require more maintenance interventions. As a result of the refineries\u2019 subcontracting policy, there will be an increasing demand for the provision of services by specialised workers. Portugal considers that the \u2018reconfiguration of the refining units will have a marked effect on the national industrial fabric, particularly in the mechanical engineering, electricity and building industries. It is estimated that during the busiest period of construction, around 3 000 workers will be involved in the construction of both refineries\u2019 and \u2018around 450 indirect permanent jobs are expected to be created\u2019. These jobs require qualified personnel, normally paid above the market average, with an expected significant social and economic impact on the surrounding community, particularly in the Sines area.\n(155)\nAs to whether the ratio of three indirect jobs for each direct job presented for the investment project - and the methodology applied - is justified, Portugal replied that this ratio should be compared to those for other investment projects in the same sector. Referring to two other State aid measures approved by the Commission (Commission Decisions N 898/06 and N 899/06, respectively for the Repsol Polimeros and the Artensa petrochemical projects) (36), Portugal considers that the direct/indirect jobs ratio proposed for the investment project is more conservative and realistic than the Repsol Polimeros ratio (15 indirect jobs for each direct job), even though both projects are brownfield. Portugal also noted that the amounts for the investment project are close to those of the Artensa project, which is a root project (greenfield). Portugal also takes into account the benchmark established by HSB Solomon Associates LLC concerning the petroleum industry: the PEI (Personnel Efficiency Index). This indicator shows the number of hours worked per EDC (Equivalent Distillation Capacity), that is, in general terms, the number of jobs generated per processed barrel of crude. In the latest available report (2008 figures), the beneficiary presented a global index of [50-70], which compares with a value of 113,7 for the study average and, 206,8 for the Southern and Central European average. This reflects the number of workers involved internally in the refinery, [ ]; and the existence of a group of support activities based on external services which are continually provided. Portugal considers that this recourse to external services ensures the creation of indirect jobs and justifies the expectation of a higher ratio of indirect jobs to direct jobs than in the case of Artensa. Therefore, when compared with the Commission Decisions described in this recital, Portugal concludes that this strategy is taken to the extreme in the Repsol Polimeros Project (minimum utilisation of internal resources and maximum utilisation of external resources). The Artensa\u2019s case demonstrates the opposite, namely a balance in the utilisation of internal and external resources. Portugal considers the proposed ratio 3:1 to be in line with the refining industry\u2019s ratio and correctly reflects the degree of externalisation of Petrogal\u2019s activities (as in the area of maintenance).\n(156)\nIn a later submission, Portugal strengthens this statement by quoting a more recent document (37) released by the Commission that, in Portugal\u2019s opinion, would indicate a ratio between 4:1 and 6:1: \u2018thus while the industry employs directly only 100 000 people in the EU, it can be considered that as much as 400 000 to 600 000 jobs are directly dependent on the EU refining industry\u2019. The same document, at footnote 41, mentions \u2018further 600 000 jobs in logistics and marketing\u2019, which would even allow a 12:1 ratio.\n(157)\nDuring the formal investigation phase, in a further document (a cost-benefit analysis) provided to the Commission Portugal quantifies the number of jobs safeguarded by the investment project, as it was clear that in a counterfactual no-investment scenario Petrogal would have introduced some restructuring measures, including downsizing of labour force. If the investment project were not carried out, there would have been a \u2018total loss of 1 240 jobs - 150 direct jobs + 450 indirect jobs (direct result of the project) in addition to the estimated loss of 160 direct jobs + 480 indirect jobs due to the cost reduction measures that would be implemented to face the reduced refining margins of the refineries in their current configuration\u2019.\n(158)\nPortugal underlines that the investment project will mainly use qualified workers, paid [ ] the average salary in the relevant local market. The resulting socio-economic impact on the surrounding communities will contribute to the development of other businesses and activities. The investment project will therefore be of benefit to the establishment and renewal of the infrastructures and facilities in the regions of Oporto and Sines, providing the conditions necessary for these regions to progress to a new stage in terms of quality of life and competitiveness.\n(159)\nIn its reply, Portugal stresses also that \u2018during the construction phase, the project will have a significant impact on the national industrial fabric, in promoting the creation and development of local businesses. When fully operational, the project will encourage the development of new maintenance-related businesses, and thus it will continue to consolidate the regional dynamic\u2019. Therefore, \u2018with this initiative, Petrogal will help to balance the competitiveness of less developed regions vis-\u00e0-vis the national average. Finally, the project will have a positive impact on business in Alentejo region and on its exposure to foreign markets\u2019.\n(160)\nFurthermore, by increasing the flow of raw and manufactured products between the two refineries, the investment project is expected to produce a very positive effect on the port infrastructures of Sines and Leix\u00f5es (38), by significantly increasing their activity and utilisation and therefore also their operating results.\n(161)\nFinally, Portugal considers that Petrogal foresees that the investment project will have an exploitation period of not less than 30 years, which shows the long term commitment to regional, national and European objectives.\n(162)\nThe investment project will also contribute to enhance the regional human capital potential. To train the staff involved in the investment project, whether newly recruited or current staff, professional qualification and training structures will be created, in cooperation with the Alentejo Litoral Technical College (39) in the business centre of the Industrial and Logistics Zone of Sines (40) (ZILS).\n(163)\nIn term of links with R&D projects and cooperation with universities, Portugal mentions that the two refineries represent regional development centres in terms of research and training. According to Portugal, the investment project is expected to have a positive effect and the potential to attract new agreements between Petrogal and education centres in the scientific and engineering area.\n(164)\nPortugal comments on the investment/number of created jobs ratio, which would show the complete reasonableness of the proportion, specifically considering that the refining sector is very capital intensive and requires highly qualified labour and high levels of investment in training a skilled workforce. Similarly high aid per created jobs ratios were approved by the Commission in the Repsol Polimeros and Artensa petrochemical projects (41).\n(165)\nFollowing a Commission request to produce a cost-benefit analysis and project appraisal comparable to that requested for major projects co-financed by Structural Funds (42), Portugal submitted a document mainly aimed at quantifying the social and economic benefits deriving from the investment project. The document points to an economic impact due to positive contributions resulting from the investment, such as: project\u2019s tax payable; direct employment (taxes); indirect employment (taxes); avoided unemployment aid; consumption tax (VAT); CO2 emission savings in transportation and industry sectors; avoided interests in Portuguese Government External Debt Interests; freight and demurrage (taxes); Additional revenue for Leix\u00f5es Port; and support for local community development.\n(166)\nThe local benefits of the investment project consist in: consumption tax (VAT); additional revenue for Leix\u00f5es Port; and support for local community development (accounting all together for EUR 49 million in net present value), while the remaining benefits are to be considered a national amenity (accounting all together for EUR 454 million in net present value), benefiting the whole national economy and can be therefore only partially allocated to the concerned regions. Under the assumption that this national amenity is proportionally spread over the Portuguese regions according to their respective economic weight, as Norte and Alentejo regions represent 34,8 % of Portuguese national GDP in 2007, the total regional benefit (accounting for EUR 195 million in net present value) largely exceeds the cost of the aid granted to the investment project (accounting for EUR 121 million in net present value).\n5.1.6. Comments regarding the necessity of the aid\n(167)\nPortugal underlined that the aid effectively and decisively contributed to Petrogal\u2019s decision to invest, as it was necessary to ensure its profitability. On 5 March 2008, Galp\u2019s Board of Directors approved the investment project, after having received the letter of eligibility from the national authorities, issued on 23 January 2007. The first commitment to order equipment dates back to 14 March 2008, namely after the signature of the aid contracts with the Portuguese Government on 10 March 2008.\n(168)\nWithout the aid, the investment project would not have been implemented as its profitability would not have been justified.\n(169)\nIn 2001, Galp\u2019s Board of Directors decided against an earlier plan into upgrading the refinery of Matosinhos, as the project\u2019s return on capital employed (ROCE) was below Galp Energia\u2019s weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for its refining sector.\n(170)\nIn 2005, Galp\u2019s Board of Directors reconsidered the strategic opportunity to undertake a conversion project of the two refineries. After internally studying alternative investment projects, the Sines and Matosinhos Conversion Project was submitted to the Board of Directors for approval in March 2008. The internal rate of return associated with the reviewed investment of EUR [ ] million was calculated at [8-10] % without any incentive, namely [ ] percentage points above Galp Energia\u2019s WACC for refining activities (set at [7-9] %).\n(171)\nThe decision of Galp\u2019s Board of Directors in March 2008 was based on the following analysis of the sensibility of the Internal Return Rate (IRR) of the investment project\nTable 3\nWith the aid\nNet Present Value\nEUR [100-150] M\nReturn Rate/IRR\n[9-11] %\nWithout the id\nNet Present Value\nEUR [1-50] M\nReturn Rate/IRR\n[8-10] %\nSource: GALP\n(172)\nAccording to Galp Energia\u2019s Executive Committee\u2019s deliberations of 10 January 2008, the company\u2019s WACC and internal \u2018hurdle rate\u2019 (a risk premium added to the cost of capital (43)) for the Supply, Refining and Logistic Area were at [7-9] % and [10-12] %, respectively.\n(173)\nPortugal indicated that both WACC and internal hurdle rate set by Galp Energia were in line with the standard practice in the refining sector and that the use of these economic criteria is commonly accepted by all large companies in the sector. To support these statements, Portugal provided the Commission with a table elaborated by Citigroup, Bloomberg and Broker Research in 2010 comparing the WACC of significant companies operating in the sector.\n(174)\nPortugal maintains that the investment decision was and is consistent with the practice and the normal requirements of profitability that the beneficiary demands in all of its projects. To assess the profitability, besides the concept of WACC, the hurdle rate is used as additional criteria. Forecasts of future cash flows are not, generally, infallible. There is always uncertainty (risk) associated with the forecast of cash flows; the more distant in time they are, the greater the chance that the estimation is rough and contains errors. The most common way to deal with the uncertainty is to add a risk premium to the cost of capital (WACC) and using its rate as a minimum profitability rate required for the investment (hurdle rate). The difference between the value of the hurdle rate and the value of the WACC is, therefore, the extra profit expected when deciding whether to invest because it accepts additional risk found in the forecasted future cash flows. Portugal submitted that the insertion of the hurdle rate in the analysis and decision of Galp Energia\u2019s investment projects - exists since 2002. It was established, in that year, that the hurdle rate applying to the projects would be the WACC increased by a [1-5] percentage points (pp) spread. In 2006, Galp Energia decided to calculate the hurdle rate in a slightly different way, namely, instead of adding [1-5] pp to the WACC, it opted to increase the WACC by [10-50] % (WACC2006 + hurdle rate2006 = [1,1-1,5] \u00d7 WACC2006). This new criteria was a result of the internal weighting that, given the different levels of WACC of each business sector, the use of a percentage on the base seemed to be more suitable and coherent than using an absolute value. As a further explanation, Portugal provided the Commission with the different WACC and hurdle rates applied by Galp Energia between 2002 and 2006 for each business sector: supply and refining, marketing of petroleum products, exploration and production, gas and power.\n(175)\nPortugal argued that according to the internationally recognised standards for projects of this type, because the level of variation in the investment is still significant in that phase of engineering development (Front End Engineering Design), Galp\u2019s Board of Directors did not consider a project of this importance with a rate of return so close to the WACC to be viable, as it could easily end up in a return less than that reference value.\n(176)\nHowever, taking into consideration the granting of the tax incentive in the investment project, the investment project\u2019s return would be [9-11] %, which, in light of the investment project\u2019s strategic nature, was considered an acceptable minimum for the start and approval of the execution of commitments with equipment suppliers.\n(177)\nPortugal has submitted a list of alternative investment projects that Petrogal could have undertaken at the time the investment project was decided. Due to the limitation of available financial resources for new investment, several Galp Energia business areas compete with each other for those limited resources and there is a strict selection policy.\n(178)\nHowever, had the aid contract with the Portuguese State not been signed and the investment project not taken place, the competitiveness of both refineries would have inevitably deteriorated. According to Portugal, had the investment project not been undertaken, the refineries\u2019 capacity utilisation would have been cut down to [80-90] % to respond to a downward market trend demand for gasoline and fuel oil (as studies foresee a significant decrease in demand, from 2008 to 2020, with reductions of the demand between [20-30] % and [40-50] %). The refineries would have maintained only a very limited refining margin. To offset this situation, a drastic restructuring program involving job cuts would have been implemented.\n(179)\nAs the Commission doubted that in their decision Galp\u2019s Board of Directors had not taken into account changes in the business environment, Portugal were requested to provide a detailed analysis of the counterfactual scenario without the investment project. For this purpose, Portugal was asked to submit the investment project\u2019s IRR considering the refineries\u2019 potential profitability had the investment project not taken place and taking into account the reduction in refining margins.\n(180)\nPortugal\u2019s counterfactual scenario is summarised in Table 4:\nTable 4\nBusiness case\nNew Final Investment Value\nWith the Aid\nNPV\nEUR [200-250] M\nEUR [150-200] M\nReturn Rate/IRR\n[10-12] %\n[10-12] %\nWithout the Aid\nNPV\nEUR [100-150] M\nEUR [100-150] M\nReturn Rate/IRR\n[9-11] %\n[9-11] %\n(181)\nAccording to Portugal, \u2018the fact that a project may be very relevant to a company, even strategic, does not mean that it is the only project or unquestionable project, if the IRR does not rise up to meet the minimum admissible requirements\u2019 (as it was the case in 2001).\n5.2. Observations submitted by Portugal on comments by third parties\n(182)\nPortugal underlines the high level of participation from various entities (municipalities, unions and sectoral and industrial associations) and lists all the comments supporting the value of the investment project in terms of regional development and energy efficiency.\n5.2.1. Observations on comments by Competitors No 1 and No 2\n(183)\nCompleting its submission of 21 January 2010, Portugal explains that the vacuum feedstock market is highly volatile and does not offer the required stable supply of vacuum gas oil needed to feed a hydrocracker of the size of the one in Sines. Regarding the production of hydrocracker residues, Portugal confirms that it is almost insignificant since the hydrocracker will use iso-cracking technology.\n(184)\nPortugal repeat that the investment project will stimulate regional development in disadvantaged regions (creation and maintenance of jobs, training of workers, economies of scale, technology transfers, spill-over effects, etc.) even if located in pre-existing refineries and this point is confirmed by all the positive comments received. They also underline the strategic importance and the environmental value of the investment project to counter the comments according to which employment is the only regional benefit.\n(185)\nConcerning the Table prepared by the third party Competitor No 1 comparing the ratio \u2018aid per created jobs\u2019 in other regional ad hoc aid projects (see recital 89), Portugal pointed out that it does not include other projects in refining or any other capital intensive industry. For this reason, the investment project must not be compared to those presented in the Table, but ought to be compared to the aid to large investment projects in the same economic sector (see the Commission Decisions of 10 July 2007 on State aid case N 898/06 - Repsol Polimeros and of 10 July 2007 on State aid case N 899/06 - Artensa (Artenius) - Produ\u00e7\u00e3o e Comercializa\u00e7\u00e3o de \u00c1cido Tereft\u00e1lico Purificado e Produtos Conexos, SA, where the ratio \u2018aid/jobs created\u2019 would be in a comparable range as for Petrogal\u2019s project).\n(186)\nSimilarly, if the ratio \u2018indirect jobs/direct jobs\u2019 is compared with comparable projects (such as the projects mentioned in recital 185), equivalent figures are obtained.\n(187)\nPortugal reiterate that Galp\u2019s Board of Directors validated the investment project - in March 2008 - after having received - in January 2007 - a written confirmation from the Portuguese authorities that the investment project was eligible for aid. Therefore, the aid was conditionally (in particular the Commission\u2019s approval was needed) granted before the start of the work. The first firm order took place in March 2008, after aid contracts were signed by Petrogal.\n(188)\nPortugal refutes third party comments according to which Petrogal had already decided to launch the investment project in 2006.\n(189)\nPortugal admits that feasibility studies were conducted before taking the definitive decision. While such information is absolutely necessary for Galp\u2019s Board of Directors to take a decision, it does not imply that Galp\u2019s Board of Directors had already decided.\n(190)\nPortugal maintains that the investment project would not have been implemented without aid.\n(191)\nPortugal explains that the investment project had an insufficient IRR compared to the level of risk taken and the attractiveness of other projects ([ ]) which are crucial for Galp Energia\u2019s development. It results that the investment project would not have gone ahead without aid.\n(192)\nPortugal concludes from the comments received from third parties that the relevant geographic market is not the Portuguese market but, at the very least, the Iberian market.\n(193)\nPortugal specifies that Petrogal\u2019s market shares for diesel (at ex-refinery, non-retail and retail levels) will never exceed 25 % if the relevant geographic market is the Iberian Peninsula or wider.\n(194)\nPortugal reasserts that, in any event, the investment project will not impact on the diesel non-retail and retail markets since the price at ex-refinery level is set under market conditions: Petrogal behaves as a price taker. If that were not the case, Petrogal\u2019s clients would easily switch to imports, as according to Portugal, there are no obstacles (technical, tariff, logistics (44), etc.) to diesel imports from other Member States. Portuguese import requirements are in line with EU requirements.\n(195)\nPortugal provided figures of the aggregate data on diesel imports (maritime and land) in Portugal.\nTable 5\nDiesel imports & exports\nYear\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIMPORTS\nTotal (Ktonne)\n638\n776\n1 011\n1 478\nPetrogal\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\nOthers\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\nEXPORTS\nTotal (Ktonne)\n314\n192\n164\n95\nPetrogal\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\nOthers\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\nSource: DGEG (italic) and Petrogal\u2019s data\n(196)\nFurthermore, Portugal has enough storage capacity: Portugal provided data showing that the different operators have taken different strategic options (invest in storage capacity or lease facilities) and that both alternatives are possible and viable. The main operators have not increased their storage capacity, despite the opportunities that appeared in the market, indication that their storage resources are enough to support their marketing activities. Portugal indicates that there has been a continuous growth of the total diesel imports as well as a slight decrease of exports. This results from the continuous growth of the market and the increasing deficit the local production capacity. However, 2009 figures reflect the impact of an accident at the Sines refinery that limited for a period of several weeks the running of the refinery and the production. Operators had to increase their imports during that year, thus demonstrating the existence of alternative supply options.\n(197)\nImport of diesel in Portugal in 2009 represented 27,2 % of the total consumption of diesel in that year. In the previous years, the average diesel imports in relation to annual diesel consumption in Portugal (around 5,4 Mtonnes) were about 14 %.\n(198)\nTherefore, Portugal considers the Portuguese diesel market as an open and competitive market where trade is facilitated and where prices are based on the price of crude oil, on the refining costs and defined by the alternative of importing at Platts prices.\n(199)\nAs regards heavy naphtha, Portugal considers that the market is, at least, the EEA, as naphtha is an internationally traded product.\n6. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID MEASURE\n6.1. Existence of State aid\n(200)\nAccording to Article 107(1) of the Treaty, save as otherwise provided in the Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever, which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall be incompatible with the internal market, in so far as it affects trade between Member States.\n(201)\nPortugal\u2019s aid to Petrogal will take the form of a tax credit. The support can thus be considered as given by the Member State and through State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(202)\nThe aid is granted to a single company, Petrogal, and is therefore selective.\n(203)\nThe aid is granted for an investment resulting in the increased production of diesel and heavy naphtha. Since these products are the subject of trade between Member States, the measure is therefore likely to affect trade between Member States. The aid granted to Petrogal will relieve the company from costs which it normally would have had to bear itself. Consequently, Petrogal will benefit from an economic advantage over its competitors. By favouring Petrogal and its production in this way, the aid therefore distorts or threatens to distort competition.\n(204)\nConsequently, the Commission considers that the aid constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(205)\nHaving established that the aid constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, it is necessary to consider whether the measure can be found to be compatible with the internal market.\n6.2. Legality of the aid measure\n(206)\nBy notifying the aid before putting it into effect, Portugal respected the notification obligation resulting from Article 108(3) of the Treaty.\n6.3. Legal basis for the assessment\n(207)\nAs the objective of the aid is to promote regional development, the basis for assessing the compatibility of the aid with the internal market are the RAG and, in particular, the provisions of Section 4.3 of the RAG relating to large investment projects, and the criteria for the in-depth assessment of regional aid to large investment projects laid out in the In-Depth Assessment Communication), unless the formal investigation leads to the result that the thresholds laid down in paragraph 68(a) (\u2018market share test\u2019) and paragraph 68(b) (\u2018capacity increase and market performance tests\u2019) of the RAG are not exceeded.\n(208)\nThe Commission needs to conduct its assessment in three steps:\n-\nfirst, it has to assess the compatibility with the general provisions of the RAG;\n-\nsecond, it has to verify whether the market share test and capacity increase and market performance tests under paragraph 68(a) and (b) (the \u2018paragraph 68(a) and (b) tests\u2019) are definitively not met;\n-\nthird, depending on the outcome of the assessment in the second step, it may proceed to an in-depth assessment.\n6.4. Compatibility with the general provisions of the RAG - verification of the doubts expressed in the opening decision\n(209)\nThe Commission verified whether the granted aid was in conformity with the general provisions of the RAG. This assessment led to the following observations:\n(210)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the investment project constitutes an initial investment or could be considered as replacement investment.\n(211)\nThe Commission took account of the comments of Portugal presented in recitals 130 and 131 that the investments lead to an extension of an existing establishment and a fundamental change in the overall production process of an existing establishment and that therefore, the investment can be considered as an initial investment as defined in paragraph 34 of the RAG.\n(212)\nIndeed, the new vacuum distillation unit and the visbreaker in Matosinhos, and the new hydrocracker unit in Sines will be functioning simultaneously with the original pre-existing refining units; therefore, the investment project does not constitute a replacement but an extension of the production system. Besides, the investment project will transform the refineries providing them with new technologic infrastructures for the conversion of heavier fractions of crude into gasoline and diesel.\n(213)\nCompetitor No 1 does not object to the initial investment character of the investment; but it considers that the investment constitutes the mere extension of an existing establishment.\n(214)\nConsequently, the Commission finds that, the investment project constitutes as an initial investment within the meaning of paragraph 34 of the RAG, and therefore, the doubts as regards the initial investment character of the investment project are removed.\n(215)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission doubted that the formal incentive effect requirements applicable to ad hoc aid, as laid down in paragraph 38 of the RAG were fulfilled. In particular, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether Portugal\u2019s written confirmation that, subject to detailed verification, the investment project met the conditions of eligibility laid down in the scheme (45) could replace the required letter of intent.\n(216)\nParagraph 38 of the RAG reads as follows: \u2018It is important to ensure that regional aid produces a real incentive effect to undertake investments which would not otherwise be made in the assisted areas. Therefore aid may only be granted under aid schemes if the beneficiary has submitted an application for aid and the authority responsible for administering the scheme has subsequently confirmed in writing that, subject to detailed verification, the project in principle meets the conditions of eligibility laid down by the scheme before the start of work on the project. (\u2026). In the case of ad hoc aid, the competent authority must have issued a letter of intent, conditional on Commission approval of the measure, to award aid before work starts on the project. If work begins before the conditions laid down in this paragraph are fulfilled, the whole project will not be eligible for aid.\u2019\n(217)\nThe \u2018start of works\u2019 is defined by footnote 40 of the RAG either as start of construction works, or first binding order of equipment.\n(218)\nThe Commission took into account the following factual information submitted by Portugal:\n-\nPetrogal applied for the aid on 22 January 2007;\n-\nPortugal confirmed the eligibility in principle of the aid project on 23 January 2007.\n-\nThe aid was approved by the Portuguese Council of Ministers on 6 March 2008 but the granting of the aid is subject to Commission approval and Petrogal will not benefit from the aid before 2011 (once the investment is completed).\n-\nPetrogal\u2019s Board of Directors authorised to proceed to orders of equipment on 8 March 2008.\n-\nThe first binding order was placed on 14 March 2008. Construction works on the investment were effectively started in November 2008 in Sines and in January 2009 in Matosinhos.\n(219)\nThe Commission considers that the aid contracts signed on 10 March 2008 between Portugal and Petrogal, and the publication of the Resolutions of the Council of Minister, adopted on 6 March 2008, in the Portuguese Official Journal (46) are at least equivalent to a letter of intent, and have to be considered as a stricter proof of the formal incentive effect than the letter of intent required by paragraph 38 of the RAG. These aid contracts were signed before the start of works on the investment project.\n(220)\nTherefore, the Commission finds that the doubts as regards the formal incentive effect are removed.\n(221)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission expressed doubts as to the contribution of the investment to regional development. In this context, the Commission also raised doubts as to the necessity of the aid and emphasised that an \u2018unnecessary aid is unlikely to contribute to regional development and might result in unacceptable distortions of competition\u2019 (47).\n(222)\nCompetitors No 1 and No 2 indicated that Petrogal would have gone ahead with the investment project even without aid. In their view, it is a productive investment economically driven by the imbalance between diesel supply and demand and the opportunity to have access to heavier and cheaper crude. All operators across Europe are carrying out similar investments in their refineries without State aid.\n(223)\nTherefore, it has to be assessed whether the aid is necessary to produce a real incentive effect to undertake an investment which otherwise would not take place in these two assisted regions or whether the investment project would, in any event, have been undertaken. In this respect, the Commission needs to establish whether the aid changed Petrogal\u2019s behaviour, so that it would have undertaken additional investment in the regions concerned.\n(224)\nIt appears that the strategic decision to invest was taken in 2006. This is reflected in a document published by Galp Energia in October 2006 (48). As stated in Galp Energia\u2019s annual report for 2006, the Board of Directors took the executive decision concerning the investment project on 23 January 2007 (49) and on 5 March 2008 (that is after receiving the letter of eligibility from the national authorities dated 23 January 2007). The Board of Directors took the operational decision to order the first equipment related to the investment project on 14 March 2008.\n(225)\nPortugal stated that Petrogal had not undertaken the investment until 2008 due to its insufficient financial viability and that Galp\u2019s Board of Directors finally decided to proceed with orders of equipment and constructions only after the Portuguese government adopted the relevant Resolution of the Council of Ministers.\n(226)\nPortugal claims that the availability of State aid was decisive for Petrogal\u2019s decision to invest. Without the aid, the investment project would have been abandoned. Petrogal would have implemented an alternative restructuring plan to adjust its refining activities to changed market and crude oil supply conditions. Furthermore, the available financial resources would have been used to invest into alternative projects outside the refining activity.\n(227)\nPortugal submitted documents belonging to Petrogal which contain an analysis of the investment project\u2019s expected IRR, the cost of capital (WACC), as well as a list of possible alternative investments that Galp Energia could have undertaken with the available capital.\n(228)\nThe Commission considers that the documents submitted to Galp\u2019s Board of Directors on 23 January 2007 and 5 March 2008 were decisive for the assessment of the necessity of the aid, as the Board\u2019s decision was based on those documents.\n(229)\nAccording to Portugal, the calculations submitted to the Galp\u2019s Board of Directors in 2008 showed an IRR of the investment project, in the absence of the aid, of [8-10] %. This IRR is well above Petrogal\u2019s WACC of [7-9] %.\n(230)\nPortugal explained however that the decisions of Galp\u2019s Board of Directors were based on a hurdle rate approach introduced already in 2002. The hurdle rate, or minimum acceptable rate of return (MARR), is the minimum rate of return on a project a decision-maker is willing to accept before starting a project, given its risk and the opportunity cost of forgoing other projects. Other expressions used for \u2018hurdle rate\u2019 are \u2018cut-off rate\u2019 or \u2018benchmark rate\u2019.\n(231)\nAs from 2006, for the refinery activities, the internal hurdle rate was set at [110-150] % of the WACC, namely at [10-12] %. Normally, no investment decision would be taken if the calculated IRR did not exceed this threshold. In this case, the aid increases the IRR by [1-3] percentage points, from [8-10] % to [9-11] %, as presented in Table 3 in recital 171 for the calculations submitted to the Board of Directors in 2008. Though the aid adjusted IRR remains significantly below the internal hurdle rate, the additional safety margin created by the aid was considered sufficient by Galp\u2019s Board of Director to finally approve the investment project.\n(232)\nThe hurdle rate is an instrument used by companies in decisional situations involving major levels of risk and it may therefore vary depending on the risk associated with projects. The hurdle rate may also be influenced by the currency in which it is calculated: in currency areas with high levels of inflation, the hurdle rate is higher than in areas with price stability.\n(233)\nSo far, State aid decisions in the area of regional aid did not use the \u2018hurdle rate\u2019 concept to decide on issues of necessity and incentive effect of aid. Neither is the concept of \u2018hurdle rate\u2019 mentioned in the In-Depth Assessment Communication. However, the \u2018hurdle rate\u2019 concept was already used in a limited number of State aid decisions (such in the Commission Decision of 23 February 2011 on State aid case N 204/10 - Sweden - R&D aid to Volvo Aero for Trent XWB ICC, yet to be published in the OJ), mainly adopted under the Community framework for State aid for research and development and innovation (50), for projects involving high levels of risk.\n(234)\nPortugal underlines that the investment project is characterised by multiple risks that justify the use of the hurdle rate approach. The investment project is the largest productive investment ever carried out in Portugal. The implementation of the investment project will take several years. Cost estimates for the investment project are extremely difficult: in fact, Portugal submitted figures showing that the initial cost estimates were very seriously overrun in reality. As the investment project has a long-term orientation, long-term forecasts of refinery margins are extremely difficult, in particular in situations where, in the long-term, traditional combustion cars may be replaced by electric and other cars.\n(235)\nAn empirical study (51) of 2006, analysing more than 100 self-reported hurdle rates (mainly for North American companies), report an average hurdle rate of 14,1 %, and an absolute difference between WACC and hurdle rate of 5 % points, namely about 155 % of WACC. Taking account of this information, the hurdle rate applied by Petrogal and Galp Energia for the refinery sector does not appear prima facie excessive.\n(236)\nIn view of these elements, and in particular taking into account the specific characteristics of the sector and of the case (namely the importance of the risks involved given the magnitude of the investment project and its long-term exploitation period), the Commission considers that the hurdle rate can be taken into account to decide whether the aid was necessary as an incentive to carry out the investment project or not.\n(237)\nCompetitors No 1 and No 2 confirmed that for refinery activities, there are no sectoral benchmark. However, Competitor No 1 indicated that it would consider a benchmark (namely rate of return) of 10 % as sufficient to carry out the investment project. The Commission notes that this benchmark rate of 10 % is very similar to the post-aid IRR submitted in 2008 to Galp\u2019s Board of Directors of [9-11] %. The Commission therefore considers that the aid does not exceed the amount that would be considered as necessary by a competitor to reach an acceptable IRR.\n(238)\nThus, it appears that the aid measure brings the calculated IRR closer to the Petrogal\u2019s hurdle rate and to the Competitor No 1 indicated benchmark rate. Post-aid, the IRR neither exceeds Petrogal\u2019s hurdle, nor the competitor\u2019s benchmark rate, which suggests that the aid was not excessive. The fact that the investment decision was taken in 2008 in a situation where the aid-adjusted IRR was still considerably below the declared hurdle rate alone is not sufficient doubt the importance of the hurdle rate. It is obvious from earlier statements of Galp\u2019s Board of Directors that it was aware of the investment project\u2019s strategic importance to stop declining refining margins. Even though the hurdle rate was not fully reached, this strategic element appears to have been sufficient to justify a limited deviation from the hurdle rate.\n(239)\nAs a result, the Commission considers that the aid was necessary as an investment incentive and did not exceed the amount necessary for that purpose. In this respect, it is not entirely correct to affirm that all operators across Europe have carried out similar investments in their refineries without State aid. For instance, the Commission has analysed other aid measures for similar investments. This was notably the case in Commission Decision N 283/04 (52) concerning a distillate hydrocracking unit.\n(240)\nIn the opening decision, referring to paragraph 10 of the RAG, the Commission expressed doubts regarding the contribution of the aid and the investment project to regional development, emphasising the limited number (150) of jobs created when compared with the amount of aid (EUR 160 million), and whether the expected contribution to regional development really outbalanced the sectoral effects resulting from the aid.\n(241)\nThe Commission notes that, as was also emphasised by Competitor No 1, the amount of aid per job created indeed significantly exceeds the level of aid per job in previous recent ad hoc aid cases (see recital 89). Several negative decisions (53) concluded on an insufficient regional contribution based on the number of jobs created.\n(242)\nPortugal accepts that the amount of aid per direct job created is very high; however, this is explained by the capital intensive character of the investment project which is characteristic for investments in the sector: individually notifiable applications of aid schemes for this sector with an even higher aid amount per job created were approved by the Commission in the past (54). Portugal considers that other factors than the aid per direct job should be taken into account, such as the importance of indirect job creation, of temporary job creation, and other related aspects.\n(243)\nIn previous decisions, the Commission has always taken account of direct job creation. In addition, indirect job creation was taken in consideration in a number of decisions (55).\n(244)\nPortugal initially claimed that each direct job created (or lost) would result also in three indirect jobs. The 3:1 ratio was justified by referring to other Portuguese cases in the same industry (56) for which the Commission accepted similar or higher ratios in the past. The potential to create indirect jobs results from maintenance activity, which is probably the market niche that will benefit the most from the project. This would be the effect of the increased technological complexity of the refineries that will result in subcontracting services requiring increasingly specialised employees and technicians.\n(245)\nPortugal reinforced its argument by referring to a recent Commission working document concerning the petrochemical sector (57) which states that while the industry employs directly only 100 000 people in the EU, it can be considered that as much as 400 000 to 600 000 jobs are directly dependent on the EU refining industry. The same document, at footnote 41, mentions further 600 000 jobs in logistics and marketing. On the basis of these statements, a higher ratio than 3:1, namely 4:1 to 6:1, and taking into account job creation in logistics and marketing, even of 12:1, could be justified.\n(246)\nPortugal indicated also that, in a \u2018no-aid and no-project\u2019 counterfactual scenario, Petrogal would have restructured its refineries and downsized its workforce, with a loss of 160 direct jobs. Therefore, the Commission should take account, in its assessment of the contribution of the aid to regional development, of 310 direct jobs created or maintained (58), and of approximately 930 (59) to 3 720 indirect jobs eventually resulting from the investment project, which would mitigate the excessive amount of aid per direct job.\n(247)\nIn addition, Portugal emphasised that the investment project constitutes the largest single investment ever undertaken in Portugal and will create 3 000 temporary jobs in the regions concerned during the construction phase.\n(248)\nFurthermore, in previous decisions (60) approving ad hoc regional aid, the Commission referred to the importance of the following factors:\n-\nincreasing employees\u2019 income (creation of better paid direct and indirect jobs),\n-\nthe social wellbeing in the region (through improved environmental and living conditions, sponsorship of local events),\n-\nthe enhancement of human capital potential (through training, education, PhD programmes),\n-\nthe contribution to R&D, technology and know-how transfer (as a result of the upgrading investment),\n-\nthe increased activity for subcontractors in the areas concerned,\n-\nthe better use of the existing port facilities.\nThese factors are certainly positive elements that could be taken into account in the assessment of the contribution of the aid and the investment project to regional development in Portugal.\n(249)\nThus, comments from Portugal and several interested parties refer to other important contributions to regional development in terms of social and environmental impact, increased training, and protocols with higher education institutions.\n(250)\nPortugal also referred to the development of the supply chain and the impact of the construction of the new units on the national industrial fabric, with an impact on civil engineering works, building works and mechanical engineering assembly. This is certainly a positive impact, but it is either only temporary or of general nature (see recital 154).\n(251)\nThe Commission takes into account the non-temporary positive spill-over effects of the investment project in the regions concerned as presented by Portugal. In particular, the expected long life of the refineries (expected to be operational at least for 30 years), the positive impact on the subcontracting industry, the significant amount of training and the number of protocols with schools and universities point to the importance of the refineries in the concerned regions. Even if a large part of these positive spill-over effects are already present as a consequence of the long time existence of the refineries, it can be agreed that the investments certainly enhance the role of Petrogal\u2019s presence both in Sines and in the Oporto area.\n(252)\nPortugal also submitted a cost-benefit analysis of the aid project. A cost-benefit analysis aims to go beyond an analysis of the viability of the project by the investor, and to take into account all the (discounted) social costs and benefits deriving from the project. In this context, a cost-benefit analysis quantifies the expected benefits, including the amount of taxes from direct and indirect employment, the avoided unemployment contribution (by safeguarding jobs), the amount of consumption taxes, the additional revenues for the port of Leix\u00f5es, direct support for local communities, etc.\n(253)\nThe cost-benefit analysis concludes that the aid is highly beneficial for Portugal. Of course, the geographic scope of the cost-benefit analysis goes beyond regions of Norte and Alentejo directly concerned by the investment project. However, if the national benefit is proportionally transferred to the regions concerned according to their respective economic weight, the Norte and Alentejo regions will capture 34,8 % of this national benefit.\n(254)\nPortugal also emphasised that the aid and the resulting investment had beneficial effects in other policy areas than regional development. Portugal insisted on the strategic importance of the investment project at national level and in terms of importance for European energy supply security. These beneficial effects include the reduced dependence on imports, a response to the increasing demand of diesel, the improvement of the energy efficiency in both refineries, and the positive environmental impact. These arguments cannot be taken into account for the assessment of the contribution of the aid to regional development.\n(255)\nDespite the apparent prima facie disproportional amount of aid per direct job created, the positive indirect effects (indirect jobs, spill-over effects, creation of high income jobs, enhancement of human capital, improvement of social wellbeing) point to a regional contribution to Alentejo and Norte that cannot be considered negligible. The Commission therefore considers its initial doubt as to the contribution of the aid to regional development removed.\n(256)\nFurthermore, subsequent sections on the application of the paragraph 68(a) and (b) show that the negative sectoral effects of the aid are limited as the markets concerned by the investment project are not underperforming, that is they are not in absolute or relative decline. In addition, Petrogal does not have a high market share in the relevant ex-refinery market that could be abused by anti-competitive behaviour. The substitution of heavy naphtha imports for the aromatics industry has limited effects on EEA suppliers. The Commission therefore considers its initial doubt that the negative sectoral effects of the aid are not outbalanced by its expected contribution to regional development as removed.\n(257)\nIn accordance with paragraph 9 of the RAG, Petrogal is not a company in difficulty within the meaning of the Communication from the Commission on Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (61).\n(258)\nIn accordance with paragraph 39 of the RAG, Petrogal\u2019s own contribution to eligible expenditure is above 25 % (see recital 36 above).\n(259)\nIn accordance with paragraph 50 of the RAG, the eligible expenditure of the investment project is calculated on the basis of the eligible investment costs (see recital 35 above).\n(260)\nIn accordance with paragraphs 71-75 of the RAG, the rules on cumulation of aid are respected (see recital 43 above).\n(261)\nIn accordance with paragraph 40 of the RAG, the aid is granted under the condition that Petrogal maintains the investment project in the regions concerned for a minimum period of five years after its completion.\n(262)\nThe Commission therefore considers that the aid complies with the general provisions of the RAG.\n6.5. Compatibility with the criteria for large investment projects - verification of the doubts expressed in the opening decision\n(263)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the investment project can be considered to be a SIP within the meaning of paragraph 60 of the RAG, despite the fact that the refineries are not in immediate geographic proximity to each other.\n(264)\nAlthough there is no geographic proximity between the two refineries, Portugal considers that there are strong economic, functional and strategic links between them. Without the investment into the vacuum distillation unit in Matosinhos, the related investment into the hydrocracker in Sines would not be possible, due to the risk of frequent shortfalls on the market of vacuum gas oil (feedstock for the hydrocracker). Portugal therefore considers that the strong functional links make the refineries economically indivisible.\n(265)\nCompetitor No 1 contests this approach as it considers that the fixed assets of the investment project are economically divisible.\n(266)\nOne of the comments from third parties received in reply to the opening decision indicated that the increase in the production of heavy naphtha is crucial for the realisation of an investment by the group La Seda in Sines. The Commission has verified whether the investment by La Seda could constitute a SIP together with the investment in Matosinhos. Portugal has confirmed that the increase of the production of heavy naphtha will be exclusively used by Petrogal internally and that heavy naphtha will not be sold to third parties. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the investment project does not constitute a SIP with La Seda\u2019s investment project.\n(267)\nParagraph 60 of the RAG targets investment projects that are artificially divided into subprojects to avoid the scaling down mechanism that reduces the maximum aid intensity that can be applied to investment projects above EUR 50 million. In this particular case, the Commission has verified that the aid intensity applied (12,43 % NPV) is below the maximum aid intensity that should have been applied in case the investment project is considered as a SIP (14,28 % NPV) and therefore, lower than the maximum aid intensity of which the two projects, separately, could have benefited. Therefore, the maximum aid intensity, even in the case of a SIP, has been respected, and the Commission concludes that it is not necessary to decide whether the two projects in Sines and Matosinhos constitute a SIP or not despite their geographic distance, since the issue does not prejudice the compatibility assessment of the aid under the RAG.\n(268)\nThe calculation of the aid intensity under paragraph 67 of the RAG depends on whether the investment project is considered a SIP or rather two separate investment projects. In the latter case, if the investments in the two locations are taken separately, then the calculation of the aid intensity would take into account the two different standard regional aid ceilings applicable for Sines (40 %) and for Matosinhos (30 %).\n(269)\nAs notified by Portugal, the total planned eligible costs for the investment project amount to EUR 1 058 934 146 (EUR [ ] for the investment in Sines and EUR [ ] for Matosinhos) in nominal value.\n(270)\nThe net present value of the investment in Sines amounts to EUR [ ] for a planned aid amount of EUR [ ] in net present value, corresponding to an aid intensity for this refinery of 13,12 % gross grant equivalent (GGE), which is below the adjusted maximum aid intensity of 15,94 %.\n(271)\nThe net present value of the investment in Matosinhos amounts to EUR [ ] for a planned aid amount of EUR [ ] in net present value, corresponding to an aid intensity for this refinery of 10,66 %, gross grant equivalent (GGE), which is below the adjusted maximum aid intensity of 14,68 %.\n(272)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission checked the aid intensity in the two regions, which is different, being 40 % in Sines and 30 % in Matosinhos, and recalculated the maximum aid intensity by weighing the aid intensities taking proportionally into account the investment (in net present value) in the corresponding region over the total investment. The result would be an aid intensity of 37,18 %, corresponding to an adjusted maximum aid intensity of 14,21 %.\n(273)\nEven if the investment project had been considered a SIP, the net present value of the total investment costs would amount to EUR 974 064 894. The total planned aid would amount to EUR 121 091 314 in net present value, corresponding to an aid intensity of 12,43 % GGE, which is below the previously calculated adjusted maximum aid intensity of 14,21 %.\n(274)\nTherefore, as the aid intensity in GGE would result below the adjusted maximum aid intensity considering the scaling down rules, the Commission considers that the proposed aid intensity for the investment project complies with paragraph 67 of the RAG.\n(275)\nPortugal has given assurances that the maximum aid amount and the maximum aid intensity as laid down in this Decision will not be exceeded, even in the case of lower or increased eligible expenditure.\n(276)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission raised doubts regarding certain issues relating to the aid assessment in accordance with the rules laid down in paragraph 68(a) and (b) of the RAG. These issues were as follows:\n-\nwhether the products concerned by the investment project were exclusively diesel and heavy naphtha, as claimed by Portugal, or also include other refinery-related products, given the potential substitutability of refinery products from the supply side and the fact that heavy naphtha may be considered an intermediate product within the meaning of paragraph 69 of the RAG;\n-\nwhether the relevant product market is at ex-refinery level for both diesel and heavy naphtha, as claimed by Portugal;\n-\nwhether the relevant geographic market for the products concerned must be defined at national, regional (Iberian Peninsula) or EEA level;\n-\nwhether the beneficiary, Petrogal, and the Galp Energia and ENI groups to which Petrogal belongs, have a market share above 25 % of any of the relevant markets (paragraph 68(a) of the RAG);\n-\nfor all the products concerned, whether the production capacity created by the investment project is more than 5 % of any relevant market measured using apparent consumption data and, if so, whether the average annual growth rate of the product concerned apparent consumption over the last five years is below the average annual growth rate of the EEA\u2019s GDP.\n(277)\nIn recitals 278 to 311, the Commission reassesses whether the thresholds of the paragraph 68(a) and (b) tests are exceeded in order to decide whether an in-depth assessment of the investment project is necessary. First, the products concerned and deemed concerned by the investment project are examined. Second, the resulting relevant product markets are identified. Third, whether the assessment should take place ex-refinery, retail or non-retail market level is analysed. In recitals 312 to 344, the product market and the relevant geographic market are established, following which the product market concerned is assessed with regard to Petrogal\u2019s relevant market share. Finally, the analysis focuses on whether the product-capacity increase exceeds 5 % of the relevant EEA apparent consumption on a market where the growth of the EEA apparent consumption for the products concerned is underperforming.\n(278)\nParagraph 69 of the RAG reads as follows: \u2018The product concerned is normally the product covered by the investment project. When the project concerns an intermediate product and a significant part of the output is not sold on the market, the product concerned may be the downstream product \u2026.\u2019 Footnote 64 of that paragraph specifies that \u2018Where an investment project involves the production of several different products, each of the products needs to be considered.\u2019\n(279)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission identified diesel and heavy naphtha as products directly concerned by the investment project. Since apparently the whole heavy naphtha production was used by Petrogal\u2019s naphtha\u2019s derivatives production, naphtha derivatives were also deemed a product concerned. The Commission also accepted Portugal\u2019s assertion that the other horizontally related products produced by the refineries (gasoline, LPG, fuel oil, jet fuel, and bitumen) were not affected by the investment project.\n(280)\nThe Commission notes Portugal\u2019s explanation that refineries operate on the basis of a multi-product-production function where the input, crude oil, is transformed into a multitude of intermediate (for instance, heavy naphtha, vacuum gas oil) and final (for instance, gasoline, diesel) products. Many of the intermediate products are immediately reused within the different steps of the refining process as inputs (\u2018feedstocks\u2019), whereas others are sold on the market or used as input for the first generation petrochemical industry, for instance, heavy naphtha for the aromatics production. The technical production function depends in particular on the type of crude oil used (not all types of crude oil can be processed in given installations), and the exact technical configuration of the refinery. A profit maximising refinery tries to optimise its profits over the whole range of products, the so-called \u2018refining margin\u2019, by adjusting the production of the different outputs, taking into account the technical restrictions resulting from the production function (and the type of crude oil used) and the input and output prices. However, the possibilities to adjust the configuration of an existing refinery without additional investments are extremely limited.\n(281)\nThe refinery sector has faced structural changes over the last decade. The lighter types of crude oil have become more and more rare and are increasingly substituted by heavier types of crude oil. At the same time, market demand for diesel (an increasingly common substitute for gasoline as a propellant) has grown quickly. On the contrary the demand for fuel oil, used in electricity generation and maritime transport, is decreasing and expected to decrease further (due to its substitution in these uses through more environmentally-friendly technologies). The EU is a net importer of diesel and an exporter of gasoline (mainly to the US market which is expected to shrink).\n(282)\nAs explained by Portugal, and confirmed by the Competitors No 1 and No 2, the economic driver for the investment project is, on the one hand, to allow the refineries to process heavier types of crude oil and, on the other, to change its configuration in a way that allows the refineries to produce more diesel and less fuel oil.\n(283)\nAs described in Section 2.2, diesel and heavy naphtha are the products directly concerned by the investment project. Indeed, the investment project will increase the production of diesel (to the detriment of fuel oil) as well as the production of heavy naphtha, which according to Portugal is an inevitable technically caused side-effect. The Commission notes Portugal\u2019s assertion that the other horizontally-related products produced by the refineries (gasoline, LPG, fuel oil, jet fuel, and bitumen) are not affected by the investment project.\n(284)\nHowever, the Commission ascertained in the formal investigation that the investment in Matosinhos into the new vacuum distillation unit and the new visbreaker will also lead to the production of vacuum gas oil. The increased production of diesel will take place in Sines, where the new hydrocracker unit will use as feedstock the vacuum gas oil produced in the refineries of Matosinhos and Sines. As a consequence, vacuum gas oil also has to be deemed a product directly concerned by the investment, since the investment project will lead to a significant increase of its production in Matosinhos refinery.\n(285)\nPortugal submitted that vacuum gas oil will be used exclusively as feedstock for the hydrocracker in Sines. Therefore, it should be considered as an intermediate product for the increased production of diesel and not be assessed separately. Portugal also stated that the necessary stable and secure supply of feedstock for a hydrocracker of the size of the one in Sines could not be ensured by purchasing the necessary quantities on the market. This is due to the very limited size and the high volatility in the open vacuum feedstock market, a spot market. As a consequence, no potential third party supply is excluded by the supplies of vacuum gas oil from Matosinhos to Sines.\n(286)\nThe Commission accepts that vacuum gas oil is considered an intermediate product and that a significant part of the output of vacuum gas oil is not sold on the market (whilst no potential third party supplies are excluded). In this case, as laid down in paragraph 69 of the RAG, it can be concluded that with regard to the new vacuum distillation unit and the new visbreaker in Matosinhos, the product concerned is the downstream product, namely diesel.\n(287)\nThe Commission also notes that Competitor No 1 considers that hydrocracking residues could be deemed a product concerned by the investment project (see recital 92). As Portugal explained that, due to the use of iso-cracking technology, the production of these residues is almost insignificant (see recital 183), the Commission does not take hydrocracking residues into account as a product concerned.\n(288)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether diesel and naphtha were the only products concerned, pointing to the fact that naphtha may be considered an intermediate product within the meaning of paragraph 69 of the RAG, and that naphtha derivatives could be products deemed concerned for which the tests under paragraph 68(a) and (b) might have to be carried out.\n(289)\nPortugal submitted the following explanations:\n-\nThe term naphtha covers both heavy and light naphtha; heavy and light naphtha are not substitutable, neither in their production, nor in their uses.\n-\nHeavy naphtha is a product which is used as feedstock in refining processes and in the production of a very wide range of chemical products, not only in the production of aromatics.\n-\nThe investment project leads to the additional production of heavy naphtha in Sines: the Sines refinery heavy naphtha production is increased by [200-250] Ktonnes per year.\n-\nThe largest part of the heavy naphtha produced in the Sines refinery is transported to Petrogal\u2019s refinery in Matosinhos where it is processed, together with heavy naphtha imported from other countries and heavy naphtha produced in Matosinhos itself ([650-700] Ktonne on average in 2007-09), to reformer (62). The total heavy naphtha volume used in the Matosinhos refinery to produce reformer is [1 000-1 050] tonnes (on average in 2007-09).\n-\nOf the total additional production of [200-250] Ktonne of heavy naphtha in Sines, [100-150] Ktonne on are transported to Matosinhos (the remainder is reused as feedstock in the Sines hydrocracking process) to replace [100-150] Ktonne of imported heavy naphtha; the import volume of [250-300] Ktonne before the investment is reduced to [100-150] Ktonne, namely by [50-60] %.\n-\n92 % of imports of heavy naphtha in 2009 originated from outside the EEA, 8 % from the EEA (63).\n-\nThe own production capacity of the Matosinhos refinery of heavy naphtha (average production 2007-09: [650-700] Ktonne) is not changed by the investment project.\n-\nReformer is an intermediate product for the production of aromatics.\n-\nThe production capacity of reformer is not changed by the investment.\n-\nThe reformer produced in Matosinhos is used as feedstock to Petrogal\u2019s Matosinhos aromatics plant.\n-\nThe aromatics plant produces a wide range of primary aromatics or naphtha derivatives, in particular benzene, toluene, orthoxylene, paraxylene and solvents.\n-\nThe production capacity of the aromatics plant (sales average in 2007-09: [400-450] Ktonne) is not changed by the investment project and no extension is planned.\n-\nThe aromatics plant is an independent business unit; the internal price for heavy naphtha is, and will be after the investment, the import price of heavy naphtha. The sales price of the reformer to the aromatics plant is, and will be after the investment, calculated as [10-20] % of import parity of naphtha (CIF NEW) and [80-90] % of gasoline export parity (RBOB USA), and transport costs of Sines to Porto.\n-\nThe raw material costs (heavy naphtha) represented some [90-100] % of the total production costs of the aromatics production. The additional production of heavy naphtha in Sines represents some 14 % of the total heavy naphtha processed to reformer.\n-\nThe primary aromatics are sold on the market to the petrochemical industry, at market prices; Petrogal, with a market share below [0-5] %, is a price taker on the EEA aromatics market. The total turnover of Petrogal\u2019s aromatics plant amounted to some EUR [ ] million in 2009. After the completion of the investment, [ ] % of the turnover (some EUR [ ] million on the basis of the 2009 turnover) would result from heavy naphtha additionally produced in Sines.\n(290)\nThe Commission notes that Competitor No 1 considers that heavy naphtha is an intermediate product and that the assessment should include naphtha derivatives as products concerned.\n(291)\nTo decide whether the paragraph 68(a) and (b) test have to be carried out for the naphtha derivatives, it is necessary to give an interpretation to the wording of paragraph 69 of the RAG. Paragraph 69 stipulates that the product concerned may be the downstream product when the product of the investment is an intermediate product, and a significant part of its output is not sold on the market. This wording aims at situations where the distortive effect of the aid on competitors is not felt, or only partially felt, on the market of the intermediate product, and is transferred to the final product market. On the basis of the information given by Portugal on the definition of the products concerned, the Commission considers that the aid neither affects the production volumes, nor the production costs, nor the price setting behaviour of Petrogal\u2019s aromatics plant. In addition, the quantity of additional heavy naphtha produced in Sines is only of minor importance, compared to the overall quantity of heavy naphtha used to produce reformer. The Commission therefore considers that the aromatics markets are not, or only indirectly very insignificantly (via an indirect reduction of the naphtha import price, see subsequent section) affected by the aid for the investment project.\n(292)\nThe Commission, therefore, considers that it is not appropriate to carry out the paragraph 68(a) and (b) tests for the aromatics markets.\n(293)\nAt the same time, the Commission considers that the aid may affect the naphtha market, in so far as the investment project allows substituting imports and forces suppliers to find other outlets on the heavy naphtha market. The Commission therefore carried out the paragraph 68(a) and (b) tests with regard to heavy naphtha as a product concerned.\n(294)\nParagraph 69 of the RAG specifies that the relevant product market includes the product concerned and its substitutes considered to be such either by the consumer (by reason of the product\u2019s characteristics, prices and intended use) or by the producer (through flexibility of the production installations).\n(295)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission could not conclude on the relevant market for the product(s) concerned, due to difficulties to identify definitely the list of products concerned.\n(296)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission concluded that there were no substitutes for diesel from the consumer side. However, there were doubts on the supply side as to substitutability in the production of diesel, as flexibility of the production installations could lead to produce other types of products (mainly gasoline) by changing the refineries\u2019 configurations.\n(297)\nIn order to dispel these doubts, Portugal argued that the Commission merger decision (64) quoted by the Commission, referred to a different context when the unbalance between the supply and the demand in the gasoline and the diesel markets was much less important than it is nowadays and because of that the level of flexibility at the switch level between the production of these two products was still available. However, according to Portugal from 2000, with the important increase of diesel demand those choice levels ended and nowadays there is no additional capacity to meet the demand.\n(298)\nWhilst this explanation does not entirely exclude the possibility that diesel production facilities could be used for the production of gasoline, it seems unrealistic to assume that an undertaking could spend more than EUR 1 billion to increase its capacity to produce gasoline whilst an oversupply exists in Europe for the production of this commodity. Various studies (65) point to the decline in the demand for gasoline and residual fuel oil and an increase in the demand for diesel in the European motor fuel market. This shift in demand patterns has left refineries producing excess volumes of products which are declining in demand, and value, and insufficient volumes of product with growing demand and value (66). The consumption of gasoline in Europe is projected to fall significantly over the period 2010 to 2030, as a result of the switch from gasoline cars to diesels cars and the introduction of alternative sources of energy. Available studies indicate also that the demand for gasoline will decrease due to the use of more energy efficient cars in the USA (main export market for the European surplus) and the expected future role of electric cars.\n(299)\nTherefore, the Commission considers that in this specific case, for the type of investment and in light of the medium-term trend of the product market, the product concerned, also from the supply side, should be considered to be diesel.\n(300)\nIn line with the discussion of the products concerned, the second relevant product market to be discussed is the market for heavy naphtha. In the Sines refinery, heavy naphtha production is a by-product of the diesel production, the driver of the investment. Heavy naphtha is used in the production of a very wide range of chemical products, not only in the production of aromatics. In its general uses, it cannot be replaced by any substitutes. The Commission therefore considers the market of heavy naphtha to be the relevant product market with regard to paragraph 68(a) and (b) tests.\n(301)\nTherefore, the Commission considers that the relevant product markets with regard to paragraph 68(a) and (b) tests, are the product markets for diesel and heavy naphtha. For information purposes, data will also be given for naphtha derivatives.\n(302)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission could not conclude on the question of whether these markets should be assessed at the level of ex-refinery, non-retail or retail.\n(303)\nCompetitors No 1 and No 2 consider that the relevant product market should be extended to retail and non-retail diesel sales (see recitals 93 and 116). Portugal considers that, for State aid cases, the correct level of assessment is the ex-refinery level. The provisions of the RAG do not specify at which level the paragraph 68(a) and (b) tests, and in particular the test under paragraph 68(a) of the RAG, should be carried out.\n(304)\nDepending on the issue to be analysed, and the underlying theory of harm, competition policy assesses the competitive situation of markets at different levels, manufacturing, distribution (non-retail) and retail. Market players are, for example for the car sector, consumers and individual car traders for the retail level, car traders and distributors for the non-retail level, and distributors and manufacturers for the manufacturing level. For the products concerned by this Decision, market players are, for example, car owners and petrol stations for the retail market, petrol stations and distributors for the non-retail market, and refineries and distributors for the ex-refinery market.\n(305)\nThe manufacturing level corresponds in this Decision to the ex-refinery level. Portugal confirmed that the ex-refinery market is equivalent to the total diesel market. According to Portugal, the notion of \u2018ex-refinery sales\u2019 includes all sales made in large lots on a spot basis (directly at the refinery gate) to oil companies (including Galp Energia\u2019s own companies), traders, resellers or large industrial consumers, including imports of diesel (67). Ex-refinery sales in Portugal correspond to all ex-refinery sales of Petrogal minus exports plus imports into Portugal. The supply side of the ex-refinery market in Portugal therefore includes Petrogal and non-Portuguese refineries exporting their products to Portugal and, for instance, for the demand side of the diesel market, different chains of petrol distributors, as Petrogal, Repsol, CEPSA, and BP that either buy or are supplied from Petrogal, or import diesel from outside Portugal.\n(306)\nThe main purpose of the control of investment aid is not to protect consumers (or traders) against undesirable consequences of anti-competitive behaviour, such as the reduction of consumer rents through monopolistic pricing by cartels or market players abusing their dominant market position. In fact, the investment aid allows increasing output on the market, and thus leads to a price reduction that is prima facie, at least in the short and medium term, beneficial to consumers.\n(307)\nThe objective pursued by the control of investment aid is rather to protect other producers and the economies of other Member States against excessive (namely going beyond the level of distortion that is considered compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3) of the Treaty) distortive effects of the aid on competition and trade. This competition between manufacturers takes place at manufacturing level, and in this case, the competition between refineries takes place at the level of ex-refinery sales.\n(308)\nWhilst the standard regional aid ceilings laid down in the regional aid maps and the scaling down of aid intensities for large investment projects pursuant to paragraph 60 of the RAG are meant to impose a standard (and for large projects) progressive level of protection against such distortion of competition and effect on trade, the paragraph 68(a) and (b) tests are designed to filter out, for subsequent in-depth assessment, situations where competition between manufacturers may be particularly affected. The paragraph 68(b) test examines to what extent the investment aid involves a major capacity increase allowing the aid beneficiary to bring quantities on a market in absolute or relative decline under more favourable conditions than those faced by non-aided competitors. The paragraph 68(a) test examines to what extent the investment aid will maintain, reinforce, or create a strong market position for the aid beneficiary that could be abused by a dominant market player, by foreclosing the market for instance. In both situations, competitors may lose market shares on the market at manufacturing level, see their profitability reduced, or may be excluded of the market, whereas potential competitors may be prevented from market access.\n(309)\nThe Commission therefore considers that the tests have to be carried out at manufacturing level. Indeed, the market situation at manufacturing level is decisive as State aid decisions on aid to production facilities assess the effects of aid on competition distortions between manufacturers and on trade between Member States. Moreover, it can be presumed that when the beneficiary\u2019s market share upstream (ex-refinery) is high, this creates in itself a sufficiently high likelihood of finding a significant distortion of competition, irrespective of the market share downstream. Therefore, sales of diesel at retail and non-retail level, even if they were included in the relevant product markets definitions in previous Commission merger cases (68), do not need to be taken into account for the purpose of the paragraph 68(a) and (b) tests.\n(310)\nThe paragraph 68(a) and (b) tests are simple filters that are meant to identify mechanically situations of risk to competition and trade. However, the detailed assessment of these risks is the purpose of the subsequent in-depth assessment. Whilst this in-depth assessment will normally address the situation of the market at manufacturing level, it may be necessary, for instance in case of market foreclosure, to analyse the impact of the aid in the downstream markets.\n(311)\nTherefore, taking into account the Commission\u2019s decisional practice on State aid cases in other economic sectors, in particular the car sector (69), and the fact that the investment project exclusively concerns expenditure in Petrogal\u2019s refining activity, for the purpose of applying the paragraph 68(a) and (b) tests, the ex-refinery level is the only relevant level for this Decision.\n(312)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the relevant geographic market for diesel should be considered as being EEA-wide, regional (Iberian Peninsula) or national.\n(313)\nPortugal considers that the relevant market for diesel should be wider than the national market, preferably the Western European market or EEA market. Competitors No 1 and No 2 do not differentiate between the level of the market to be assessed. They argue that the relevant geographic market should be the Portuguese market or, at the utmost, the Iberian market.\n(314)\nThe Commission adopted in 1997 its Notice on the definition of the relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law (the \u2018Notice\u2019) (70). The Notice stipulates that the relevant geographic market comprises the area in which the undertakings concerned are involved in the supply and demand of products or services, in which the conditions of competition are sufficiently homogeneous and which can be distinguished from neighbouring areas because the conditions of competition are appreciably different in those areas.\n(315)\nThe Notice is conceived as an assessment instrument for antitrust and merger control policies. It relies on the investigative powers available under such policies and is not directly applicable to State aid. The Notice explicitly recognises that \u2018the focus of assessment in State aid cases is the aid recipient and the industry/sector concerned rather than the identification of competitive constraints faced by the aid recipient\u2019. Nonetheless, the Notice states that elements of the approach developed therein \u2018might serve as basis for the assessment of State aid cases\u2019.\n(316)\nSo far, the Commission has not yet published a notice on the principles and approach for the definition of the relevant product and geographic market for State aid cases. The RAG themselves do not give guidance on how the relevant geographic market should be defined. However, paragraph 70 of the RAG includes wording that seems to give some preference to the assessment at EEA level: \u2018For the purpose of applying points (a) (\u2026), sales (\u2026) will be defined (\u2026), normally in the EEA, or if such information is not available or relevant, on the basis of any other generally accepted market segmentation for which statistical data are readily available\u2019.\n(317)\nThe appropriate definition of a geographic market has to be seen in the light of the underlying theory of harm. However, it seems safe to assume that the test found in paragraph 68(a) of the RAG, regarding market shares exceeding 25 %, is meant to protect EEA competitors from being excluded from the market on which they operate or prevented access to that market (crowded out) by the anti-competitive behaviour of an aid beneficiary with market power.\n(318)\nFor the purpose of this Decision, it is not relevant to define the exact geographic delimitation of the market at manufacturing level; as Petrogal\u2019s market share exceeds the 25 % threshold on the national market only. It is sufficient to verify whether the national market constitutes the relevant geographic market. The arguments presented by the competitors, on which Portugal has commented, in particular regarding import barriers and limited storage capacity, were considered. It was concluded that a geographic market definition deviating from the default approach which defines markets for the purpose of the paragraph 68(a) and (b) tests as EEA market, and lays down the national market as relevant geographic market, can only be justified if there are clear indications that the market is largely closed. It is therefore necessary to assess whether there are barriers to trade that would impede undertakings competing with Petrogal on the non-retail market from importing diesel from non-Portuguese refineries if prices that are applied on the Portuguese ex-refinery market exceed those observed on the larger market.\n(319)\nIn this context, the following was noted:\n-\nThe diesel sold on the Portuguese market has the same technical characteristics as the diesel sold in neighbouring markets.\n-\nThere are no import duties for intra-EEA trade.\n-\nThere are no regulatory or administrative restrictions limiting imports to Portugal.\n-\nStatistical data provided by Portugal (see recital 195) show the existence of trade flows, both imports into Portugal, and exports from Portugal to neighbouring countries. Exports have decreased due to the increased need for diesel in Portugal.\n-\nImports take place both via maritime and road transport; import volumes over the last years were highly reactive to external events, and increased significantly over the last years. The increase in imports shows that other operators have alternative supply options, and have a capability to replace direct supplies from Petrogal refineries with imports. From the information submitted by Portugal (see recital 195), it shows this is particularly evident for the year 2009, when production was stopped during several weeks following an accident at the Sines refinery.\n-\nPortugal rejects allegations that Petrogal controls more than 90 % of the existing storage capacity and clarifies that third parties\u2019 storage capacity represents a delivery capacity of 2,9 Mtonnes per year, representing more than 50 % of the national market. No third party competitor was interested in buying additional storage capacity when it was offered for sale.\n-\nThe competitors were invited by the Commission to give concrete examples confirming the existence of these barriers to trade or descriptions of situations in which they have suffered difficulties in importing diesel, but they did not submit such information.\n(320)\nIn the absence of concrete examples and on the basis of the information provided by Portugal on storage capacities and imports, it is concluded that there is no evidence that restrictions on the availability of storage capacities and other barriers to import diesel de facto exist.\n(321)\nAs for the prices of diesel acquired by third parties from Petrogal at ex-refinery level, they appear to be similar to the cost of importing diesel to Portugal. As suggested by Portugal during the notification and stated in Part 3.4.3 of the opening decision, prices at ex-refinery level are set to international product price quotations and, in the case of refinery products in Portugal, at Platts (Rotterdam) prices for the North-Western European region plus spreads (transport, freight, insurance, losses, and other). This points to a wider market than the national (Portuguese) one. Third party competitors did not put forward arguments regarding the ex-refinery prices applied by Petrogal, but limited their comments to Petrogal\u2019s market power and position. Competitor No 1 remarked that the ratio of total diesel imports and exports was too low to justify a regional market, but did not indicate any shortage of diesel, or situation in which the control of storage capacity would have led competitors into difficulties.\n(322)\nCompetitor No 2 rather remarked (see recital 109) that the investment project would transform Petrogal into a net exporter to other markets and would strengthen its market position on the Iberian Peninsula.\n(323)\nTherefore, it cannot be concluded that the relevant geographic market for diesel is national, as there appear to be no limitations to imports of diesel into Portugal, nor to exports to neighbouring countries. Thus, the relevant geographic market is at least the regional market, namely the Iberian Peninsula.\n(324)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the relevant geographic market for heavy naphtha should be considered as being EEA-wide, regional (Iberian Peninsula) or national.\n(325)\nPortugal considered that the relevant geographic market for heavy naphtha and naphtha derivatives was at least EEA, if not worldwide. The competitors did not object to this relevant geographic market definition.\n(326)\nPortugal\u2019s comments were not rejected by interested parties and, given that heavy naphtha is a commodity which is easily transportable over long distances at low transport cost, the relevant geographic market is at least the EEA (71).\n(327)\nParagraph 68(a) of the RAG stipulates that the Commission proceeds to an in-depth assessment if \u2018the aid beneficiary accounts for more than 25 % of the sales of the product(s) concerned on the market(s) concerned before the investment or will account for more than 25 % after the investment\u2019.\n(328)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission was unable to confirm whether the threshold laid down in paragraph 68(a) of the RAG were exceeded due to doubts as to the appropriate definition of the relevant product and geographic market and the relevant level of assessment (ex-refinery, retail, non-retail). In addition, no data were available at group level (including ENI market shares). Data for naphtha derivatives was also unavailable.\n(329)\nData provided by Portugal show that Petrogal\u2019s ex-refinery diesel market share would be below 25 % in the regional market (Iberian Peninsula), as already stated in the opening decision and confirmed by Portugal during the formal investigation phase. This information refers only to Petrogal\u2019s production capacity, given that Portugal declared that the ENI is not present at ex-refinery level in the Iberian Peninsula. Also for Western Europe and the EEA, Petrogal\u2019s ex-refinery diesel market share at group level (including ENI\u2019s market shares) is below 25 %, as is apparent from data provided by Portugal (see Tables 6 and 7 below).\nTable 6\nCombined market shares of Petrogal and ENI on the Western European market (in Mtonnes/year)\nProduct concerned\n2007\n2012\nPetrogal and ENI sales\nWestern Europe market\nPetrogal and ENI market shares\nPetrogal and ENI sales\nWestern Europe market\nPetrogal and ENI market shares\nDiesel\n[ ]\n243,6\n[5-10] %\n[ ]\n252\n[5-10] %\nTable 7\nCombined market shares of Petrogal and ENI on the EEA market (in Mtonnes/year)\nProduct concerned\n2007\n2012\nPetrogal and ENI sales\nEEA market\nPetrogal and ENI market shares\nPetrogal and ENI sales\nEEA market\nPetrogal and ENI market shares\nDiesel\n[ ]\n323,5\n[5-10] %\n[ ]\n334,6\n[5-10] %\n(330)\nOn the basis of the figures in Tables 6 and 7 above, it is concluded that Petrogal does not account for more than 25 % of the sales of the product concerned on the relevant market at regional (Iberian Peninsula) level, as well as at Western European and EEA level, including the ex-refinery market shares at ENI\u2019s group level. Therefore, for diesel, the threshold laid down in paragraph 68(a) of the RAG is not exceeded.\n(331)\nAs the combined ENI-Petrogal market share does not exceed 25 %, it is not necessary to consider whether Petrogal\u2019s market share is controlled by ENI to an extent which requires their combined market share to be taken into account.\n(332)\nAccording to information provided by Portugal, most refineries producing heavy naphtha, process it in-house in captive production. The data on market shares provided by Portugal for the purpose of the paragraph 68(a) test refer, as required by the test, to sales on the EEA, namely to the merchant market.\n(333)\nTo examine whether the investment project is compatible with paragraph 68(a) of the RAG, Petrogal\u2019s market share before and after the investment project has to be analysed and verified whether it exceeds 25 %.\nTable 8\nMarket shares of Petrogal on the EEA market (in Ktonne)\nProducts concerned\n2007\n2012\nPetrogal sales\nEEA market\nPetrogal market shares\nPetrogal sales\nEEA market\nPetrogal market shares\nHeavy Naphtha\n[ ]\n49 172\n[0-5] %\n[ ]\n49 769\n[0-5] %\nNaphtha derivatives:\n[ ]\n16 045\n[0-5] %\n[ ]\n15 640\n[0-5] %\n-\nBenzene\n[ ]\n10 093\n[0-5] %\n[ ]\n10 093\n[0-5] %\n-\nOrthoxylene\n[ ]\n681\n[5-10] %\n[ ]\n606\n[5-10] %\n-\nParaxylene\n[ ]\n2 169\n[5-10] %\n[ ]\n2 169\n[5-10] %\n-\nToluene\n[ ]\n2 503\n[5-10] %\n[ ]\n2 173\n[5-10] %\n-\nSolvents\n[ ]\n599\n[5-10 ] %\n[ ]\n599\n[5-10] %\nTable 9\nMarket shares of ENI on the EEA market (in Ktonne)\nProducts concerned\n2007\n2012\nENI sales\nEEA market\nENI market shares\nENI sales\nEEA market\nENI market shares\nHeavy Naphtha\n[ ]\n49 172\n[0-5] %\n[ ]\n49 769\n[0-5] %\nNaphtha derivatives:\nn.a.\n16 045\nn.a.\n15 640\n-\nBenzene\n[ ]\n10 093\n[5-10] %\n[ ]\n10 093\n[0-5] %\n-\nOrthoxylene\n[ ]\n681\n[5-10] %\n[ ]\n606\n[10-20] %\n-\nParaxylene\n[ ]\n2 169\n[0-5] %\n[ ]\n2 169\n[0-5] %\n-\nToluene\n[ ]\n2 503\n[5-10] %\n[ ]\n2 173\n[5-10 ] %\n-\nSolvents\nn.a.\n599\nn.a.\n599\nTable 10\nCombined market shares of Petrogal and ENI on EEA market (in Ktonne)\nProducts concerned\n2007\n2012\nPetrogal and ENI sales\nEEA market\nPetrogal and ENI market shares\nPetrogal and ENI sales\nEEA market\nPetrogal and ENI market shares\nHeavy Naphtha\n[ ]\n49 172\n[0-5] %\n[ ]\n49 769\n[0-5] %\nNaphtha derivatives:\nn.a.\n16 045\nn.a.\n15 640\n-\nBenzene\n[ ]\n10 093\n[5-10] %\n[ ]\n10 093\n[5-10] %\n-\nOrthoxylene\n[ ]\n681\n[10-20] %\n[ ]\n606\n[10-20] %\n-\nParaxylene\n[ ]\n2 169\n[5-10] %\n[ ]\n2 169\n[5-10] %\n-\nToluene\n[ ]\n2 503\n[10-20]%\n[ ]\n2 173\n[10-20] %\n-\nSolvents\n[ ]\n599\n[5-10] %\n[ ]\n599\n[0-5 ] %\n(334)\nOn the basis of the figures in Tables 8 to 10, it is concluded that Petrogal, alone, and in combination with ENI, has market shares below 25 % for the product concerned on the relevant product market for heavy naphtha at EEA level. Petrogal\u2019s market share does not exceed 25 % on the derivatives markets either.\n(335)\nIn addition, the total in-house production of heavy naphtha used by Petrogal in captive production, which is not reflected in the above market share data in Table 8, amounts to less than [<5] % of the size of the EEA retail market. The additional production in the Sines refinery amounts to some [<5] %.\n(336)\nOn the basis of these considerations, it is concluded that, for heavy naphtha, the threshold laid down in the paragraph 68(a) test is not exceeded.\n(337)\nParagraph 68(b) of the RAG provides that the Commission proceeds to the in-depth assessment if \u2018the capacity created by the project is less than 5 % of the size of the market measured using apparent consumption data of the product concerned, unless the average annual growth rate of its apparent consumption over the last five years is above the average annual growth rate of the EEA\u2019s GDP.\u2019\n(338)\nParagraph 70 of the RAG clarifies that \u2018\u2026 For the purpose of applying points 68 (a) and (b), sales and apparent consumption will be defined at the appropriate level of the Prodcom classification, normally in the EEA, or, if such information is not available or relevant, on the basis of any other generally accepted market segmentation for which statistical data are readily available\u2019.\n(339)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission raised doubts, for all the products concerned, as to whether the production capacity created by the investment project was more than 5 % of each market measured using apparent consumption data and, if so, whether the average annual growth rate of the product\u2019s apparent consumption over the last five years (before the start of the works) was below the average annual growth rate of the EEA\u2019s GDP.\n(340)\nThe Compound Annual Growth Rate (\u2018CAGR\u2019) of the apparent consumption of diesel in the EEA for the years 2001 to 2006 is around 2,12 % in volume terms or 15,38 % in value terms. The corresponding CAGR of the EEA\u2019s GDP for the years 2001 to 2006 reached 2,06 % in real terms (to be equated to volume terms) and 4,12 % in nominal terms (to be equated to value terms).\n(341)\nIt results that the market for diesel cannot be considered underperforming if takes into account the CAGR, both in volume and in value terms, is compared respectively to the GDP growth rate in nominal and real terms. Therefore, it is not necessary to check whether the capacity generated by the investment project is more than 5 % of the market concerned.\n(342)\nTo examine whether the investment project complies with paragraph 68(b) of the RAG, the Commission needs to verify whether the capacity created by the investment project is less than 5 % of the size of the market measured using apparent consumption data of the product concerned, unless the average annual growth rate of its apparent consumption over the last five years is above the average annual growth rate of the EEA\u2019s GDP.\n(343)\nPortugal provided the following data presented in Tables 11 to 13 below. The figures in the column for the EEA market are identical to those in the market share tables indicated as EEA market (sales). Since the size of the retail market (sales) is smaller than the size of the apparent consumption including captive production, the data on production capacity increase over-estimate the importance of the increase. It can thus be said to constitute a worst-case scenario.\nTable 11\nThe ratio of production capacity increase in the Sines refinery over the products concerned markets in the EEA (in Ktonne)\nProducts concerned\nProduction capacity in 2007\nProduction capacity in 2012\nIncrease in production capacity\nEEA market in 2007\nShare of capacity increase to EEA market\nCAGR of the apparent consumption\nHeavy naphtha\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n49 172\n[0-5] %\n-\nNaphtha derivatives:\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n16 045\n[0-5] %\n-\n-\nBenzene\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n10 093\n[0-5] %\n-\n-\nOrthoxylene\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n681\n[0-5] %\n-\n-\nParaxylene\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n2 169\n[0-5] %\n-\n-\nToluene\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n2 503\n[0-5] %\n-\n-\nSolvents\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n599\n[0-5] %\n-\nTable 12\nThe ratio of production capacity increase in Matosinhos over the products concerned markets in the EEA (in Ktonne)\nProducts concerned\nProduction capacity in 2007\nProduction capacity in 2012\nIncrease in production capacity\nEEA market in 2007\nShare of capacity increase to EEA market\nCAGR of the apparent consumption\nHeavy naphtha\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n49 172\n[0-5] %\n-\nNaphtha derivatives:\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n16 045\n[0-5] %\n-\n-\nBenzene\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n10 093\n[0-5] %\n-\n-\nOrthoxylene\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n681\n[0-5] %\n-\n-\nParaxylene\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n2 169\n[0-5] %\n-\n-\nToluene\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n2 503\n[0-5] %\n-\n-\nSolvents\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n599\n[0-5] %\n-\nTable 13\nThe ratio of the combined production capacity increase (in the Sines and Matosinhos refineries) over the products concerned markets in the EEA (in Ktonne)\nProducts concerned\nProduction capacity in 2007\nProduction capacity in 2012\nIncrease in production capacity\nEEA market in 2007\nShare of capacity increase to EEA market\nCAGR of the apparent consumption\nHeavy naphtha\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n49 172\n[0-5] %\n-\nNaphtha derivatives:\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n16 045\n[0-5] %\n-\n-\nBenzene\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n10 093\n[0-5] %\n-\n-\nOrthoxylene\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n681\n[0-5] %\n-\n-\nParaxylene\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n2 169\n[0-5] %\n-\n-\nToluene\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n2 503\n[0-5] %\n-\n-\nSolvents\n[ ]\n[ ]\n[ ]\n599\n[0-5] %\n-\n(344)\nIn all cases, the production capacity increase for the products listed in Tables 11 to 13 is below 5 % on the relevant product markets at EEA level. Thus, it is considered that the investment project does not exceed the threshold laid down in the first part of paragraph 68(b) of the RAG.\n7. CONCLUSION\n(345)\nOn the basis of the data presented in recitals 278 to 344, the investment project does not exceed the thresholds laid down in paragraph 68(a) and (b) of the RAG for the products concerned. Therefore, it is not necessary to conduct an in-depth assessment of the aid following the opening of the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty.\n(346)\nTo conclude, the proposed regional investment aid in favour of Petrogal fulfils all the conditions set out in the RAG to be considered compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(a) of the Treaty. It is therefore not necessary to assess whether the aid could be approved on the basis of other Treaty derogations.\n(347)\nPortugal has exceptionally agreed that this Decision be adopted in English as its only authentic language,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The State aid which Portugal plans to grant to Petrogal, amounting to EUR 160 484 007 in nominal value (EUR 121 091 314 in discounted prices) and representing a maximum aid intensity of 12,43 % in discounted prices, is compatible with the internal market in accordance with Article 107(3)(a) of the Treaty.\n2. Implementation of the State aid referred to in Article 1(1) is accordingly authorised. In case of deviations from the planned eligible expenditure and from the notified granting schedule of the State aid, Portugal shall not exceed the maximum aid amount in discounted prices of EUR 121 091 314 nor the maximum aid intensity in discounted prices of 12,43 %.\nArticle 2\n1. Portugal shall submit interim reports to the Commission every five years as from the date of this Decision. The interim reports shall provide updated information on the State aid amounts granted, on the execution of the aid contracts and on any other investment projects started at the Sines or Matosinhos refineries.\n2. In addition, Portugal shall submit, within six months of the grant of the last tranche of the State aid, based on the notified granting schedule, a detailed final report including information on the State aid amounts paid, on the execution of the aid contracts and on any other investment projects started at the Sines or Matosinhos refineries.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 3 August 2011.", "references": ["78", "88", "58", "75", "74", "40", "60", "25", "2", "38", "90", "77", "59", "1", "52", "92", "44", "71", "99", "34", "50", "17", "18", "54", "51", "24", "57", "84", "82", "11", "No Label", "15", "31", "48", "80", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "31", "48", "80", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 375/2010\nof 3 May 2010\nrefusing to authorise a health claim made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children\u2019s development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 18(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on food are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as the Authority.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission and to deliver an opinion on a health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nFollowing an application from PROBI AB, submitted on 22 December 2008 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v on improved iron absorption (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-785) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843) improves iron absorption\u2019.\n(6)\nOn 6 April 2009, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843) and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(7)\nThe comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission, pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(8)\nHealth claims referred to in Article 13(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 are subject to the transition measures laid down in Article 28(5) of that Regulation only if they comply with the conditions therein mentioned, among which that they have to comply with the Regulation. As the Authority concluded that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843) and the claimed effect, the claim does not comply with Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and therefore the transition period foreseen in Article 28(5) of that Regulation is not applicable. A transition period of six months is provided for, to enable food business operators to adapt to the requirements laid down in this Regulation.\n(9)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe health claim set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall not be included in the Community list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nHowever, it may continue to be used for six months after the entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 May 2010.", "references": ["92", "16", "90", "23", "91", "12", "11", "18", "7", "41", "3", "55", "76", "27", "46", "34", "44", "56", "83", "97", "57", "10", "87", "29", "54", "43", "0", "95", "80", "73", "No Label", "8", "24", "25", "38", "72"], "gold": ["8", "24", "25", "38", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 669/2012\nof 20 July 2012\nfixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 July 2012 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (3), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 1 to 7 July 2012 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, exceed the quantity available under order number 09.4321.\n(2)\nIn these circumstances, an allocation coefficient for licences to be issued regarding order number 09.4321 should be fixed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006. Submission of further applications for licences for that order number should be suspended until the end of the marketing year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 from 1 to 7 July 2012 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. Submission of further applications for licences, which correspond to the order numbers indicated in the Annex, shall be suspended until the end of the marketing year 2011/2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2012.", "references": ["97", "47", "2", "28", "91", "36", "67", "46", "84", "29", "16", "58", "44", "54", "15", "37", "31", "98", "20", "64", "55", "45", "82", "65", "56", "38", "85", "48", "5", "10", "No Label", "21", "22", "72"], "gold": ["21", "22", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 479/2012\nof 6 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 June 2012.", "references": ["0", "62", "59", "73", "66", "32", "19", "58", "36", "7", "20", "99", "10", "31", "39", "40", "5", "74", "6", "50", "49", "13", "57", "55", "72", "78", "65", "89", "29", "17", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 June 2010\non mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management\n(2010/337/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nSpain submitted an application on 2 September 2009 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in 181 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 division 23 (\u2018Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products\u2019) sector in a single NUTS II region, Comunidad Valenciana (ES52), and supplemented it by additional information until 22 February 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 6 598 735.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Spain,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 6 598 735 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 June 2010.", "references": ["86", "10", "87", "52", "58", "71", "74", "54", "39", "62", "85", "24", "50", "2", "92", "7", "90", "21", "51", "20", "61", "16", "4", "44", "77", "98", "38", "33", "94", "9", "No Label", "15", "49", "79", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "49", "79", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 May 2010\namending Annexes I and II to Decision 2009/861/EC on transitional measures under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the processing of non-compliant raw milk in certain milk processing establishments in Bulgaria\n(notified under document C(2010) 2953)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/276/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (1), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 9 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business operators. Those rules include hygiene requirements for raw milk and dairy products.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2009/861/EC (2) provides for certain derogations from the requirements set out in Subchapters II and III of Chapter I of Section IX of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 for the milk processing establishments in Bulgaria listed in that Decision. That Decision is to apply from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011.\n(3)\nAccordingly, certain milk processing establishments listed in Annex I to Decision 2009/861/EC may, by way of derogation from the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, process compliant and non-compliant milk provided that the processing of compliant and non-compliant milk is carried out on separate production lines. In addition, certain milk processing establishments listed in Annex II to that Decision may process non-compliant milk without separate production lines.\n(4)\nBulgaria sent the Commission a revised and updated list of those milk processing establishments on 20 November 2009. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the lists of establishments in the Annexes to Decision 2009/861/EC.\n(5)\nAs Decision 2009/861/EC is to apply from 1 January 2010, this Decision should also apply from that date.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2009/861/EC are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2010.", "references": ["16", "13", "23", "95", "4", "66", "46", "77", "26", "0", "63", "19", "94", "43", "10", "30", "92", "35", "41", "64", "75", "37", "51", "5", "62", "27", "83", "67", "34", "74", "No Label", "9", "25", "38", "70", "73", "76", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "25", "38", "70", "73", "76", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 734/2011\nof 22 July 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (\u0391\u03c1\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9 \u0395\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 (Arnaki Elassonas) (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Greece\u2019s application to register the name \u2018\u0391\u03c1\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9 \u0395\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 (Arnaki Elassonas)\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2011.", "references": ["94", "42", "10", "98", "41", "59", "30", "27", "62", "15", "77", "93", "21", "12", "60", "29", "22", "75", "2", "31", "33", "9", "65", "20", "43", "99", "83", "8", "66", "17", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 616/2012\nof 9 July 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 591/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 July 2012.", "references": ["8", "2", "27", "28", "49", "64", "86", "30", "47", "23", "54", "82", "26", "14", "73", "93", "42", "76", "97", "91", "1", "50", "34", "0", "81", "11", "43", "80", "19", "36", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2012/10/EU\nof 22 March 2012\namending Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of defence-related products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products within the Community (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2009/43/EC covers all defence-related products which correspond to those listed in the Common Military List of the European Union, adopted by the Council on 19 March 2007.\n(2)\nOn 21 February 2011 the Council adopted an updated Common Military List of the European Union (2).\n(3)\nTherefore, Directive 2009/43/EC should be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nFor reasons of coherence, Member States should apply the provisions necessary to comply with this Directive from the same date as those provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2009/43/EC.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on EU Transfers of Defence-related Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Directive 2009/43/EC is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 24 June 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 30 June 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 March 2012.", "references": ["29", "56", "60", "44", "24", "94", "41", "95", "13", "66", "96", "97", "87", "26", "65", "34", "1", "15", "35", "80", "45", "73", "28", "61", "2", "81", "69", "85", "7", "23", "No Label", "6", "20", "76"], "gold": ["6", "20", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EURATOM) No 139/2012\nof 19 December 2011\nlaying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in indirect actions under the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community and for the dissemination of research results (2012-2013)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Articles 7 and 10 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission submitted after consultation of the Scientific and Technical Committee,\nHaving regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nHaving regard to the Opinion of the Court of Auditors,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013) (hereinafter \u2018the Framework Programme\u2019), was adopted by Council Decision 2012/93/Euratom (3). It is the responsibility of the Commission to ensure the implementation of the Framework Programme and its specific programmes, including the related financial aspects.\n(2)\nThe Framework Programme should be implemented in accordance with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4) (hereinafter \u2018the Financial Regulation\u2019) and Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5).\n(3)\nThe Framework Programme should also be implemented in accordance with the State aid rules, in particular the rules on State aid for research and development, currently the Community framework for state aid for research and development and innovation (6).\n(4)\nThe Framework Programme retains the overall scope and principles as regards the Seventh Framework Programme of the Community adopted by Council Decision 2006/970/Euratom of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007 to 2011) (7).\n(5)\nThe rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities should provide a coherent, comprehensive and transparent framework to ensure the most efficient implementation possible, taking into account the need for easy access for all participants through simplified procedures, in accordance with the principle of proportionality.\n(6)\nThe Framework Programme should benefit from the Commission initiative to simplify the implementation of the research framework programmes included in the Commission Decision C(2011) 174 of 24 January 2011 on three measures for simplifying the implementation of Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Decision 2006/970/Euratom. This Commission Decision modifies the model grant agreement adopted under Decision 2006/970/Euratom.\n(7)\nThese rules should continue to facilitate the exploitation of intellectual property developed by participants, also taking into account the way in which the participant may be organised internationally, while protecting legitimate interests of the other participants and the Community.\n(8)\nThe Framework Programme should promote participation from the outermost regions of the Union, as well as from a wide range of undertakings, research centres and universities.\n(9)\nThe definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) given in the Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (8) should apply to ensure coherence and transparency.\n(10)\nThe minimum conditions for participation need to be established, both as a general rule and for specific indirect actions under the Framework Programme.\n(11)\nAny legal entity should be free to participate once the minimum conditions have been satisfied. Participation over and above the minimum should ensure the efficient implementation of the indirect action concerned.\n(12)\nInternational organisations dedicated to developing cooperation in the field of nuclear research and training in Europe and largely made up of Member States or associated countries should be encouraged to participate in the Framework Programme.\n(13)\nThe participation of legal entities established in third countries and the participation of international organisations should also be envisaged, as enshrined in Article 101 of the Treaty. However, such participation should be justified in terms of the enhanced contribution made to the objectives of the Framework Programme.\n(14)\nIn accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty, legal entities of Member States\u2019 non-European territories under their jurisdiction are eligible for the Framework Programme.\n(15)\nIt is necessary to establish the terms and conditions for providing Community funding to participants in indirect actions.\n(16)\nIt is necessary for the Commission to establish further rules and procedures, in addition to those provided for in the Financial Regulation and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 and in this Regulation, to govern the submission, evaluation and selection of proposals and the award of grants, as well as redress procedures for participants. In particular, rules should be established for the use of independent experts.\n(17)\nThe duration of the Framework Programme is limited to 2 years, whereas the Seventh Framework Programme of the Union, adopted by Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) (9), with similar rules to the Seventh Framework Programme of the Community, will be in force in parallel until the end of 2013. It is thus appropriate to apply similar rules to those for the Seventh Framework Programme of the Union and avoid major changes for participants.\n(18)\nThe Commission should establish further rules and procedures under the Framework Programme in addition to those provided for in the Financial Regulation and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, to govern the assessment of the legal and financial viability of participants in indirect actions under the Framework Programme. Such rules should strike the right balance between protecting the Union\u2019s financial interests and simplifying and facilitating the participation of legal entities in the Framework Programme. In order to ensure consistent verification of the existence and legal status of participants, as well as their operational and financial capacities, in indirect actions and to avoid major changes for the participants it is advisable to apply to the Framework Programme the Rules to ensure consistent verification of the existence and legal status of participants, as well as their operational and financial capacities, in indirect actions supported through the form of a grant under the Seventh Framework Programme of the Union and the Seventh Framework Programme of the Community, adopted by Commission Decision C(2007) 2466 of 13 June 2007.\n(19)\nIn this context, the Financial Regulation and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities\u2019 financial interests (10), govern, inter alia, the protection of the Union\u2019s financial interests, the fight against fraud and irregularity, the procedures for the recovery of sums owed to the Commission, exclusion from contract and grant procedures and related penalties, and audits, checks, and inspections by the Commission and the Court of Auditors.\n(20)\nThe Community financial contribution should reach participants without undue delay.\n(21)\nThe agreements concluded for each action should provide for supervision and financial control by the Commission, or any representative authorised by the Commission, as well as audits by the Court of Auditors and on-the-spot checks carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), in accordance with the procedures laid down in Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities\u2019 financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (11).\n(22)\nThe Commission should monitor both the indirect actions carried out under the Framework Programme and the Framework Programme and its specific programmes. With a view to ensuring efficient and coherent monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of indirect actions, the Commission should set-up and maintain an appropriate information system.\n(23)\nThe Framework Programme should reflect and promote the general principles laid down in Commission Recommendation 2005/251/EC of 11 March 2005 on the European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers (12), while respecting their voluntary character.\n(24)\nThe rules governing the dissemination of research results should ensure that, where appropriate, the participants protect the intellectual property generated in actions, and use and disseminate those results.\n(25)\nWhile respecting the rights of the owners of intellectual property, those rules should be designed to ensure that participants and, where appropriate their affiliated entities established in a Member State or associated country, have access to information they bring to the project and to knowledge arising from research work carried out in the project to the extent necessary to conduct the research work or to use the resulting knowledge.\n(26)\nThe \u2018Participants Guarantee fund\u2019, set-up under the Seventh Framework Programme of the Community and managed by the Commission, should continue to operate and should cover amounts due and not reimbursed by defaulting partners under the Framework Programme. The creation of such a fund has promoted the simplification and facilitated the participation while safeguarding the Union\u2019s financial interests in a manner that is also appropriate for the Framework Programme.\n(27)\nCommunity contributions to a joint undertaking set up pursuant to Articles 45 to 51 of the Treaty do not fall within the scope of this Regulation.\n(28)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.\n(29)\nThe Community should provide financial support, in accordance with the Financial Regulation, inter alia, by means of public procurements, in the form of a price for goods or services established by contract and selected on the basis of calls for tender, grants, subscriptions to an organisation in the form of a membership fee, and honorarium for independent experts,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nINTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and other legal entities in actions undertaken by one or more participants under funding schemes identified in the Annex II to Decision 2012/93/Euratom (hereinafter \u2018indirect actions\u2019).\nIt also lays down rules, in accordance with those in the Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (hereinafter the \u2018Financial Regulation\u2019) and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, concerning the Community financial contribution to participants in indirect actions under the Framework Programme.\nAs regards the results of research carried out under the Framework Programme, this Regulation lays down rules for the disclosure of foreground by any appropriate means other than those resulting from the formalities for protecting it, including the publication of foreground in any medium (hereinafter \u2018dissemination\u2019).\nIn addition, it lays down rules for the direct or indirect use of foreground in further research activities other than those covered by the indirect action concerned, including developing, creating and marketing a product or process, creating and providing a service (hereinafter \u2018use\u2019).\nIn respect of both foreground and background, this Regulation lays down rules concerning licences and user rights thereto (hereinafter \u2018access rights\u2019).\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018legal entity\u2019 means any natural person, or any legal person created under the national law of its place of establishment, or under Union law or international law, which has legal personality and which may, acting under its own name, exercise rights and be subject to obligations;\n(2)\n\u2018affiliated entity\u2019 means any legal entity that is under the direct or indirect control of a participant, or under the same direct or indirect control as the participant, control taking any of the forms set out in Article 7(2);\n(3)\n\u2018fair and reasonable conditions\u2019 means appropriate conditions including possible financial terms taking into account the specific circumstances of the request for access, for example the actual or potential value of the foreground or background to which access is requested and/or the scope, duration or other characteristics of the use envisaged;\n(4)\n\u2018foreground\u2019 means the results, including information, whether or not they can be protected, which are generated by the indirect action concerned, including rights related to copyright, design rights, patent rights, plant variety rights or similar forms of protection;\n(5)\n\u2018background\u2019 means information which is held by participants prior to their accession to the grant agreement, including copyright or other intellectual property rights pertaining to such information, for which they have filed applications before acceding to the grant agreement, and which is needed for carrying out the indirect action or for using the results of the indirect action;\n(6)\n\u2018participant\u2019 means a legal entity contributing to an indirect action and having rights and obligations with regard to the Community;\n(7)\n\u2018research organisation \u2018 means a legal entity established as a non-profit organisation which carries out research or technological development as one of its main objectives;\n(8)\n\u2018third country\u2019 means a country that is not a Member State;\n(9)\n\u2018associated country\u2019 means a third country that is party to an international agreement with the Community, under the terms of which or on the basis of which it makes a financial contribution to all or part of the Framework Programme;\n(10)\n\u2018international organisation\u2019 means an intergovernmental organisation, which has legal personality under international public law, other than the Union, as well as any specialised agency set up by such an international organisation;\n(11)\n\u2018international European interest organisation\u2019 means an international organisation, the majority of whose members are Member States or associated countries, and whose principal objective is to promote scientific and technological cooperation in Europe;\n(12)\n\u2018public body\u2019 means any legal entity established as such by national law, and international organisations;\n(13)\n\u2018SMEs\u2019 mean micro, small and medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of Recommendation 2003/361/EC;\n(14)\n\u2018work programme\u2019 means a plan adopted by the Commission for the implementation of a specific programme as identified in Article 6 of Council Decision 2012/94/Euratom of 19 December 2011 concerning the specific programme, to be carried out by means of indirect actions, implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013) (13);\n(15)\n\u2018funding schemes\u2019 mean the mechanisms for Community funding of indirect actions as established in the Annex II to Decision 2012/93/Euratom.\nFor the purposes of point (1) of the first paragraph, in the case of natural persons, references to establishment are deemed to refer to habitual residence.\nArticle 3\nConfidentiality\nSubject to the conditions established in the model grant agreement, the model appointment letter or contract, the Commission and the participants shall keep confidential any data, knowledge and documents communicated to them as confidential.\nCHAPTER II\nPARTICIPATION\nArticle 4\nSpecific rules for fusion energy research\nThe rules set out in this Chapter apply without prejudice to specific rules for activities under the thematic area \u2018Fusion energy research\u2019 set out in Chapter IV.\nSECTION 1\nMinimum conditions\nArticle 5\nGeneral principles\n1. Any undertaking, university or research centre or other legal entity, whether established in a Member State, an associated country, or a third country, may participate in an indirect action provided that the minimum conditions laid down in this Chapter are met, including any conditions specified pursuant to Article 11.\n2. However, in the case of an indirect action as referred to in Article 6 or 8, under which the minimum conditions may be met without the participation of a legal entity established in a Member State, participation shall be subject to the further condition that the attainment of the objectives laid down in Articles 1 and 2 of the Treaty is thereby enhanced.\n3. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) may participate in indirect actions on the same footing and with the same rights and obligations as a legal entity established in a Member State.\nArticle 6\nMinimum conditions\n1. The minimum conditions for indirect actions shall be the following:\n(a)\nat least three legal entities shall participate, each of which is established in a Member State or associated country, and no two of which are established in the same Member State or associated country;\n(b)\nall three legal entities shall be independent of each other in accordance with Article 7.\n2. For the purposes of point (a) of paragraph 1, where one of the participants is the JRC, or an international European interest organisation or an entity created under Union law, these participants shall be deemed to be established in a Member State or an associated country other than a Member State or associated country in which is established another participant in the same action.\nArticle 7\nIndependence\n1. Two legal entities shall be regarded as independent of each other where neither is under the direct or indirect control of the other or under the same direct or indirect control as the other.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, control may in particular take either of the following forms:\n(a)\nthe direct or indirect holding of more than 50 % of the nominal value of the issued share capital in the legal entity concerned, or of a majority of the voting rights of the shareholders or associates of that entity;\n(b)\nthe direct or indirect holding, in fact or in law, of decision-making powers in the legal entity concerned.\n3. However, the following relationships between legal entities shall not in themselves be deemed to constitute controlling relationships:\n(a)\nthe same public investment corporation, institutional investor or venture-capital company has a direct or indirect holding of more than 50 % of the nominal value of the issued share capital or a majority of voting rights of the shareholders or associates;\n(b)\nthe legal entities concerned are owned or supervised by the same public body.\nArticle 8\nCoordination and support actions, and training and career development of researchers\nFor coordination and support actions, and actions for the training and career development of researchers, the minimum condition shall be the participation of one legal entity.\nThe first paragraph shall not apply to actions with the aim of coordinating research activities.\nArticle 9\nSole participants\nWhere the minimum conditions for an indirect action are satisfied by a number of legal entities that together form one legal entity, the latter may be the sole participant in an indirect action, provided that it is established in a Member State or an associated country.\nArticle 10\nInternational organisations and legal entities established in third countries\nParticipation in indirect actions shall be open to international organisations and legal entities established in third countries once the minimum conditions laid down in this Chapter are met, as well as any conditions specified in the specific programmes or relevant work programmes.\nArticle 11\nAdditional conditions\nIn addition to the minimum conditions laid down in this Chapter, specific programmes or work programmes may lay down conditions regarding the minimum number of participants.\nThey may also lay down, according to the nature and objectives of the indirect action, additional conditions to be met as regards type of participant and, where appropriate, place of establishment.\nSECTION 2\nProcedures\nSubsection 1\nCalls for proposals\nArticle 12\nCalls for proposals\n1. The Commission shall issue calls for proposals for indirect actions in accordance with the requirements laid down in the relevant specific programmes and work programmes.\nIn addition to the publicity specified in Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, the Commission shall publish calls for proposals on the website of the European Commission for the Framework Programme, through specific information channels, and at the national contact points set up by the Member States and the associated countries.\n2. Where appropriate, the Commission shall specify in the call for proposals that the participants need not establish a consortium agreement.\n3. Calls for proposals shall have clear objectives so as to ensure that applicants do not respond needlessly.\nArticle 13\nExceptions\nThe Commission shall not issue calls for proposals for the following:\n(a)\ncoordination and support actions to be carried out by legal entities identified in the specific programmes or in the work programmes when the specific programme permits the work programmes to identify beneficiaries, in accordance with Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002;\n(b)\ncoordination and support actions consisting of the purchase of goods or services subject to the rules on public procurement set out in the Financial Regulation;\n(c)\ncoordination and support actions relating to the appointment of independent experts;\n(d)\nother actions, where so provided for by the Financial Regulation or Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002.\nSubsection 2\nEvaluation and selection of proposals and award of grants\nArticle 14\nEvaluation, selection and award\n1. The Commission shall evaluate all the proposals submitted in response to a call for proposals on the basis of the evaluation principles and the selection and award criteria.\nThe criteria shall be those of excellence, impact and implementation. Within these conditions, the work programme shall further specify the evaluation and selection criteria and may add additional requirements, weightings and thresholds, or set out further details on the application of the criteria.\n2. A proposal that contravenes fundamental ethical principles or which does not fulfil the conditions set out in the specific programme, the work programme or in the call for proposals shall not be selected. Such a proposal may be excluded from the evaluation, selection and award procedures at any time.\n3. Proposals shall be ranked according to the evaluation results. Funding decisions shall be made on the basis of that ranking.\nArticle 15\nSubmission, evaluation, selection and award procedures\n1. Where a call for proposals specifies a two-step evaluation procedure, only those proposals that pass the first step, based on an evaluation against a limited set of criteria, shall go forward for further evaluation.\n2. Where a call for proposals specifies a two-stage submission procedure, only those applicants whose proposals pass the evaluation for the first stage shall be requested to submit a complete proposal in the second stage.\nAll applicants shall be swiftly informed of the results of the first stage evaluation.\n3. The Commission shall adopt and publish rules governing the procedure for the submission of proposals, as well as the related evaluation, selection and award procedures, and shall publish guides for applicants, including guidelines for evaluators. In particular, it shall lay down detailed rules for the two-stage procedure for submission (including as regards the scope and nature of the first-stage proposal and the complete second-stage proposal) and rules for the two-step evaluation procedure.\nThe Commission shall provide information and set out redress procedures for applicants.\n4. The Rules to ensure consistent verification of the existence and legal status of participants, as well as their operational and financial capacities, in indirect actions supported through the form of a grant under the Seventh Framework Programme of the Union and under the Seventh Framework Programme of the Community, adopted by Commission Decision C(2007) 2466 of 13 June 2007, shall apply under the Framework Programme.\nThe Commission shall refrain from repeating such verification unless the situation of the participant concerned has changed.\nArticle 16\nAppointment of independent experts\n1. The Commission shall appoint independent experts to assist with evaluations of proposals.\nFor coordination and support actions, as referred to in Article 13, independent experts shall be appointed only if the Commission deems it appropriate.\n2. Independent experts shall be chosen on the basis of skills and knowledge appropriate to the tasks assigned to them. In cases where independent experts have to deal with classified information, they shall be required to have the appropriate security clearance for nomination.\nIndependent experts shall be identified and selected on the basis of calls for applications from individuals and calls addressed to relevant organisations such as national research agencies, research institutions or enterprises with a view to establishing lists of suitable candidates.\nThe Commission may, if deemed appropriate, select any individual with the appropriate skills from outside the lists.\nAppropriate measures shall be taken to ensure a reasonable gender balance when appointing groups of independent experts.\n3. When appointing an independent expert, the Commission shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the expert is not faced with a conflict of interests in relation to the matter on which the expert is required to provide an opinion.\n4. The Commission shall sign an appointment letter between the Community and each independent expert based on the model appointment letter adopted by the Commission Decision C(2008) 4617 of 21 August 2008.\n5. The Commission shall publish once a year in any appropriate medium the list of the independent experts that have assisted it for the Framework Programme and each specific programme.\nSubsection 3\nImplementation and grant agreements\nArticle 17\nGeneral\n1. The participants shall implement the indirect action and shall take all necessary and reasonable measures to that end. Participants in the same indirect action shall implement the work jointly and severally vis-\u00e0-vis the Community.\n2. The Commission shall draw up, on the basis of the model grant agreement referred to in Article 18 and taking into account the characteristics of the funding scheme concerned, a grant agreement between the Community and the participants.\n3. Participants shall make no commitments incompatible with the grant agreement.\n4. Where a participant fails to comply with its obligations regarding the technical implementation of the indirect action, the other participants shall comply with the grant agreement without any complementary Community contribution unless the Commission expressly relieves them of that obligation.\n5. If the implementation of an action becomes impossible or if the participants fail to implement it, the Commission shall ensure the termination of the action.\n6. Participants shall ensure that the Commission is informed of any event that might affect the implementation of the indirect action or the interests of the Community.\n7. Where provided for in the grant agreement, the participants in the indirect action may subcontract certain elements of the work to be carried out to third parties.\n8. The Commission shall set out redress procedures for participants.\nArticle 18\nGeneral provisions of the grant agreement\n1. The model grant agreement adopted by the Commission Decision C(2007) 1509 of 10 April 2007 shall apply under the Framework Programme.\nThe grant agreement shall establish the rights and obligations of the participants with regard to the Community, in accordance with Decision 2006/970/Euratom, this Regulation, the Financial Regulation and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, and in accordance with the general principles of Union law.\nIt shall also establish, in accordance with the same conditions, the rights and obligations of legal entities who become participants when the indirect action is ongoing.\n2. Where appropriate, the grant agreement shall specify which part of the Community financial contribution is based on the reimbursement of eligible costs, and which part is based on flat rates (including scale of unit costs) or lump sums.\n3. The grant agreement shall specify which changes in the composition of the consortium are to require the prior publication of a competitive call.\n4. The grant agreement shall require the submission to the Commission of periodic progress reports concerning the implementation of the indirect action concerned.\n5. Where appropriate, the grant agreement shall provide that the Commission is to be notified in advance of any intended transfer of ownership of foreground to a third party.\n6. Where the grant agreement requires participants to carry out activities that benefit third parties, the participants shall advertise this widely and identify, evaluate and select third parties transparently, fairly and impartially. If provided for in the work programme, the grant agreement shall establish criteria for the selection of such third parties. The Commission reserves the right to object to the selection of the third parties.\n7. If a significant modification of the model grant agreement referred to in paragraph 1 proves necessary, the Commission shall, in close cooperation with Member States, revise it as appropriate.\n8. The model grant agreement shall reflect the general principles laid down in the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers. It shall address, as appropriate, synergies with education at all levels; readiness and capacity to foster dialogue and debate on scientific issues and research results with a broad public beyond the research community; activities to increase the participation and role of women in research; and activities addressing socioeconomic aspects of the research.\n9. The model grant agreement shall provide for supervision and financial control by the Commission or any representative authorised by it, and the Court of Auditors.\n10. The grant agreement shall lay down time limits for participants to give the various notifications referred to in this Regulation.\nArticle 19\nProvisions concerning access rights use and dissemination\n1. The grant agreement shall establish the respective rights and obligations of the participants with regard to access rights, use and dissemination, in so far as those rights and obligations have not been laid down in this Regulation.\nFor those purposes, it requires the submission to the Commission of a plan for the use and dissemination of foreground.\n2. The grant agreement shall specify the conditions under which the participants may object to a technological audit of the use and dissemination of the foreground being carried out by certain authorised representatives of the Commission.\nArticle 20\nProvisions concerning termination\nThe grant agreement shall specify the grounds for its termination, in whole or in part, in particular for non-compliance with this Regulation, non-performance or breach, as well as the consequences for participants of any non-compliance on the part of another participant.\nArticle 21\nSpecific provisions\n1. In the case of indirect actions to support existing research infrastructures and, where applicable, new research infrastructures, the grant agreement shall lay down specific provisions relating to confidentiality, publicity and access rights and commitments that might affect users of the infrastructure.\n2. In the case of indirect actions to support training and career development of researchers, the grant agreement shall lay down specific provisions on confidentiality, access rights and commitments relating to the researchers benefiting from the action.\n3. To safeguard the defence interests of the Member States within the meaning of Article 24 of the Treaty, the grant agreement shall lay down, where appropriate, specific provisions on confidentiality, classification of information, access rights, transfer of ownership of foreground and the use thereof.\nArticle 22\nSignature and accession\nThe grant agreement shall enter into force upon signature by the coordinator and the Commission.\nIt shall apply to each participant that has formally acceded thereto.\nSubsection 4\nConsortia\nArticle 23\nConsortium agreements\n1. Save where otherwise provided in the call for proposals, all participants in an indirect action shall conclude an agreement, hereinafter \u2018the consortium agreement\u2019, to govern, inter alia, the following:\n(a)\nthe internal organisation of the consortium;\n(b)\nthe distribution of the Community financial contribution;\n(c)\nrules additional to those in Chapter III as well as to related provisions in the grant agreement;\n(d)\nthe settlement of internal disputes, including the cases of abuses of power;\n(e)\nliability, indemnification and confidentiality arrangements between the participants.\n2. The Commission shall establish and publish guidelines on the main issues that may be addressed by participants in their consortium agreements.\nArticle 24\nCoordinator\n1. The legal entities wishing to participate in an indirect action shall appoint one of their number to act as coordinator to carry out the following tasks in accordance with this Regulation, the Financial Regulation, Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, and the grant agreement:\n(a)\nmonitoring compliance by participants in the indirect action with their obligations;\n(b)\nverifying whether the legal entities identified in the grant agreement complete the necessary formalities for accession to the grant agreement;\n(c)\nreceiving the Community financial contribution and distributing it in accordance with the consortium and grant agreement;\n(d)\nkeeping the records and financial accounts relevant for the Community financial contribution and informing the Commission of its distribution in accordance with Article 23(1)(b) and Article 35;\n(e)\nacting as an intermediary for efficient and correct communication between the participants and reporting regularly to the participants and to the Commission on the progress of the project.\n2. The coordinator shall be identified in the grant agreement.\nThe appointment of a new coordinator shall require the written approval of the Commission.\nArticle 25\nChanges in the consortium\n1. The participants in an indirect action may agree to add a new participant or to remove an existing participant in accordance with the provisions established to this effect in the consortium agreement.\n2. Any legal entity that joins an ongoing action shall accede to the grant agreement.\n3. In specific cases, where provided for in the grant agreement, the consortium shall publish a competitive call and advertise it widely using specific information support, particularly Internet sites for the Framework Programme, the specialist press and brochures, and the national contact points set up by the Member States and associated countries for information and support.\nThe consortium shall evaluate offers in the light of the criteria governing the initial action and with the assistance of independent experts appointed by the consortium, in accordance with the principles laid down in Articles 14 and 16.\n4. The consortium shall notify any proposed change in its composition to the Commission, which may object within 45 days of the notification.\nChanges in the composition of the consortium associated with proposals for other changes to the grant agreement which are not directly related to the change in composition shall be subject to written approval by the Commission.\nSubsection 5\nMonitoring and evaluation of programmes and indirect actions and communication of information\nArticle 26\nMonitoring and evaluation\n1. The Commission shall monitor the implementation of indirect actions on the basis of the periodic progress reports submitted in accordance with the model grant agreement referred to in Article 18.\nIn particular, the Commission shall monitor the implementation of the plan for the use and dissemination of foreground, submitted in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 19(1).\nFor those purposes, the Commission may be assisted by independent experts appointed in accordance with Article 16.\n2. The Commission shall set up and maintain an information system to enable the monitoring referred to in paragraph 1 to be carried out in an efficient and coherent manner across the Framework Programme.\nSubject to Article 3, the Commission shall publish on any appropriate medium information on the funded projects.\n3. The monitoring and evaluation referred to in Article 6 of Decision 2012/93/Euratom shall include aspects relating to the application of this Regulation and shall address the budgetary impact of the changes in the cost calculation regime as compared to the Seventh Framework Programme of the Community and its effects on the administrative burden for participants.\n4. The Commission shall appoint, in accordance with Article 16, independent experts to assist with evaluations required under the Framework Programme and its specific programme, and, as deemed necessary, for the evaluation of previous framework programmes.\n5. In addition, the Commission may set up groups of independent experts appointed in accordance with Article 16, to advise on the design and implementation of Community research policy.\nArticle 27\nInformation to be made available\n1. Subject to Article 3, the Commission shall, upon request, make available to any Member State or associated country any useful information in its possession on foreground arising from work carried out in the context of an indirect action, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe information concerned is relevant to public policy;\n(b)\nthe participants have not provided sound and sufficient reasons for withholding the information concerned.\n2. Under no circumstances shall the provision of information pursuant to paragraph 1 be deemed to transfer to the recipient any rights or obligations of the Commission or of the participants.\nHowever, the recipient shall treat any such information as confidential unless it becomes public or is made available publicly by the participants, or unless it was communicated to the Commission without restrictions on its confidentiality.\nSECTION 3\nCommunity financial contribution\nSubsection 1\nEligibility for funding and forms of grants\nArticle 28\nEligibility for funding\n1. The following legal entities participating in an indirect action may receive a Community financial contribution:\n(a)\nany legal entity established in a Member State or an associated country, or created under Union law;\n(b)\nany international European interest organisation.\n2. In the case of a participating international organisation, other than an international European interest organisation, or a legal entity established in a third country other than an associated country, a Community financial contribution may be granted provided that at least one of the following conditions is met:\n(a)\nprovision is made to that effect in the specific programmes or in the relevant work programme;\n(b)\nthe contribution is essential for carrying out the indirect action;\n(c)\nthe contribution is provided for in a bilateral scientific and technological agreement or any other arrangement between the Community and the country in which the legal entity is established.\nArticle 29\nForms of grants\nThe Community financial contribution for grants identified in the Annex II to the Decision 2012/93/Euratom shall be based on the reimbursement, in whole or in part, of eligible costs.\nHowever, the Community financial contribution may take the form of flat rate financing, including scale of unit costs, or lump sum financing, or it may combine the reimbursement of eligible costs with flat rates and lump sums. The Community financial contribution may also take the form of scholarships or prizes.\nThe work programmes and calls for proposals shall specify the forms of grants to be used in the actions concerned.\nArticle 30\nReimbursement of eligible costs\n1. Indirect actions financed by grants shall be co-financed by the participants.\nThe Community financial contribution to reimburse eligible costs shall not give rise to a profit.\n2. Receipts shall be taken into consideration for the payment of the grant at the end of the implementation of the action.\n3. In order to be considered eligible, costs incurred for the implementation of an indirect action shall meet the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey must be actual;\n(b)\nthey must have been incurred during the duration of the action, with the exception of final reports when provided for in the grant agreement;\n(c)\nthey must have been determined in accordance with the usual accounting and management principles and practices of the participant and used for the sole purpose of achieving the objectives of the indirect action and its expected results, in a manner consistent with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness;\n(d)\nthey must be recorded in the accounts of the participant and, in the case of any contribution from third parties, they must be recorded in the accounts of the third parties;\n(e)\nthey must be exclusive of non-eligible costs, in particular identifiable indirect taxes including value added tax, duties, interest owed, provisions for possible future losses or charges, exchange losses, cost related to return on capital, costs declared or incurred, or reimbursed in respect of another Union project, debt and debt service charges, excessive or reckless expenditure, and any other cost that does not meet the conditions referred to in points (a) to (d).\nFor the purposes of point (a) of the first subparagraph, average personnel costs may be used if they are consistent with the management principles and accounting practices of the participant and do not differ significantly from actual costs.\n4. While the Community financial contribution shall be calculated by reference to the cost of the indirect action as a whole, its reimbursement shall be based on the reported costs of each participant.\nArticle 31\nDirect eligible costs and indirect eligible costs\n1. Eligible costs shall be composed of costs attributable directly to the action (hereinafter \u2018direct eligible costs\u2019) and, where applicable, of costs that are not attributable directly to the action, but which have been incurred in direct relationship with the direct eligible costs attributed to the action (hereinafter \u2018indirect eligible costs\u2019).\n2. The reimbursement of participants\u2019 costs shall be based on their eligible direct and indirect costs.\nIn compliance with Article 30(3)(c), a participant may use a simplified method for calculating its indirect eligible cost at the level of its legal entity if this method is in accordance with its usual accounting and management principles and practices. Principles to be followed in this respect shall be set out in the model grant agreement.\n3. The grant agreement may provide that the reimbursement of indirect eligible costs is to be limited to a maximum percentage of the direct eligible costs, excluding the direct eligible costs for subcontracting, in particular in the case of coordination and support actions, and, where appropriate, actions for the training and career development of researchers.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, for the coverage of indirect eligible costs a participant may opt for a flat rate of its total direct eligible costs, excluding its direct eligible costs for subcontracting or reimbursement of third parties\u2019 costs.\nThe Commission shall establish appropriate flat rates based on a close approximation of the real indirect costs concerned, in accordance with the Financial Regulation and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002.\n5. Non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs that are unable to identify with certainty their real indirect costs for the action concerned, when participating in funding schemes which include research and technological development and demonstration activities, as referred to in Article 32, may opt for a flat rate equal to 60 % of the total direct eligible costs.\n6. All flat rates shall be set out in the model grant agreement.\nArticle 32\nUpper funding limits\n1. For research and technological development activities, the Community financial contribution may reach a maximum of 50 % of the total eligible costs.\nHowever, in the case of non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs, it may reach a maximum of 75 % of the total eligible costs.\n2. For demonstration activities, the Community financial contribution may reach a maximum of 50 % of the total eligible costs.\n3. For activities supported by coordination and support actions, and actions for the training and career development of researchers, the Community financial contribution may reach a maximum of 100 % of the total eligible costs.\n4. For management activities, including certificates for the financial statements, and other activities not covered by paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, the Community financial contribution may reach a maximum of 100 % of the total eligible costs.\nThe other activities referred to in the first subparagraph include, inter alia, training in actions that do not fall under the funding scheme for the training and career development of researchers, coordination, networking, and dissemination.\n5. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 to 4, eligible costs and receipts shall be taken into consideration in order to determine the Community financial contribution.\n6. Paragraphs 1 to 5 shall apply, as appropriate, to indirect actions where flat rate financing or lump sum financing is used for the whole indirect action.\nArticle 33\nReporting and audit of eligible costs\n1. Periodic reports shall be submitted to the Commission regarding eligible costs, financial interest yielded by pre-financing, and receipts in relation to the indirect action concerned and, where appropriate, a certificate for the financial statements, in accordance with the Financial Regulation and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002.\nAny co-financing of the action concerned shall be reported and, where appropriate, certified at the end of the action.\n2. Notwithstanding the Financial Regulation and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, a certificate for the financial statements shall be compulsory only whenever the cumulative amount of interim payments and balance payments made to a participant is equal to EUR 375 000 or more for an indirect action.\nHowever, for indirect actions of duration of 2 years or less, not more than one certificate on the financial statements shall be requested from the participant, at the end of the project.\nCertificates for the financial statements shall not be required for indirect actions entirely reimbursed by means of lump sums or flat rates.\n3. In the case of public bodies, research organisations, and higher and secondary education establishments, a certificate for the financial statements as required under paragraph 1 may be established by a competent public officer.\nArticle 34\nNetworks of excellence\n1. The work programme shall provide for the forms of grants to be used for networks of excellence.\n2. Where the Community financial contribution to networks of excellence takes the form of a lump sum, it shall be calculated according to the number of researchers to be included in the network of excellence and the duration of the action. The unit value for lump sums paid shall be EUR 23 500 per year and per researcher.\nThat amount shall be adjusted by the Commission in accordance with the Financial Regulation and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002.\n3. The work programme shall establish the maximum number of participants and, where appropriate, the maximum number of researchers that may be used as the basis for the calculation of the maximum lump sum. However, participants over and above the maximum number for the establishment of the financial contribution may participate as appropriate.\n4. The payment of the financial contribution shall be effected by means of periodic releases.\nThose periodic releases shall be made according to the assessment of the progressive implementation of the Joint Programme of Activities through measurement of the integration of research resources and capacities based on the basis of performance indicators negotiated with the consortium and specified in the grant agreement.\nSubsection 2\nPayment, distribution, recovery and guarantees\nArticle 35\nPayment and distribution\n1. The Community financial contribution shall be paid to the participants via the coordinator without undue delay.\n2. The coordinator shall keep records making it possible to determine at any time what portion of the Community funds has been distributed to each participant.\nThe coordinator shall communicate that information to the Commission upon request.\nArticle 36\nRecovery\nThe Commission may adopt a recovery decision in accordance with the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 37\nRisk avoidance mechanism\n1. The financial responsibility of each participant shall be limited to its own debt, subject to paragraphs 2 to 5.\n2. In order to manage the risk associated with the non-recovery of sums due to the Community, the Commission has established and operates the Participant Guarantee Fund (hereinafter \u2018the Fund\u2019) in accordance with the Annex.\nFinancial interests generated by the Fund shall be added to the Fund and shall serve exclusively for the purposes set out in point 3 of the Annex, without prejudice to point 4 thereof.\n3. The contribution to the Fund by a participant to an indirect action taking the form of a grant shall not exceed 5 % of the Community financial contribution due to the participant. At the end of the action the amount contributed to the Fund shall be returned to the participant, via the coordinator, subject to paragraph 4.\n4. If the interests generated by the Fund are insufficient to cover sums due to the Community, the Commission may deduct from the amount to be returned to a participant a maximum of one per cent of the Community financial contribution to it.\n5. The deduction referred to in paragraph 4 shall not apply to public bodies, legal entities whose participation in the indirect action is guaranteed by a Member State or an associated country, and higher and secondary education establishments.\n6. The Commission shall only verify ex ante the financial capacity of coordinators, and of participants other than those referred to in paragraph 5 applying for a Community financial contribution in an indirect action in excess of EUR 500 000, unless there are exceptional circumstances when, on the basis of information already available, there are justified grounds to doubt the financial capacity of these participants.\n7. The Participant guarantee fund shall be considered as a sufficient guarantee under the Financial Regulation. No additional guarantee or security may be requested from participants or imposed on them.\nCHAPTER III\nDISSEMINATION AND USE, AND ACCESS RIGHTS\nSECTION 1\nForeground\nArticle 38\nSpecific rules for fusion energy research\nThe rules set out in this Chapter shall apply without prejudice to the specific rules for activities under the thematic area \u2018Fusion energy research\u2019 set out in Chapter IV.\nSubsection 1\nOwnership\nArticle 39\nOwnership of foreground\n1. Foreground arising from work carried out under indirect actions other than those referred to in paragraph 3 shall be the property of the participant carrying out the work generating that foreground.\n2. If employees or other personnel working for a participant are entitled to claim rights to foreground, the participant shall ensure that it is possible to exercise those rights in a manner compatible with its obligations under the grant agreement.\n3. Foreground shall be the property of the Community in the following cases:\n(a)\ncoordination and support actions consisting in the purchase of goods or services subject to the rules on public procurement set out in the Financial Regulation;\n(b)\ncoordination and support actions relating to independent experts.\nArticle 40\nJoint ownership of foreground\n1. Where several participants have jointly carried out work generating foreground and where their respective share of the work cannot be ascertained, they shall have joint ownership of such foreground.\nThey shall establish an agreement regarding the allocation and terms of exercising that joint ownership in accordance with the terms of the grant agreement.\n2. Where no joint ownership agreement has yet been concluded, each of the joint owners shall be entitled to grant non-exclusive licences to third parties, without any right to sub-licence, subject to the following conditions:\n(a)\nprior notice must be given to the other joint owners;\n(b)\nfair and reasonable compensation must be provided to the other joint owners.\n3. Upon request, the Commission shall give guidance on possible aspects to be included in the joint ownership agreement.\nArticle 41\nTransfer of foreground\n1. The owner of the foreground may transfer it to any legal entity, subject to paragraphs 2 to 5 of this Article and Article 42.\n2. Where a participant transfers ownership of foreground, it shall pass on its obligations regarding that foreground to the assignee, including the obligation to pass them on to any subsequent assignee, in accordance with the grant agreement.\n3. Subject to its obligations concerning confidentiality, where the participant is required to pass on access rights, it shall give prior notice to the other participants in the same action, together with sufficient information concerning the new owner of the foreground to permit them to exercise their access rights under the grant agreement.\nHowever, the other participants may, by written agreement, waive their right to individual prior notice in the case of transfers of ownership from one participant to a specifically identified third party.\n4. Following notification in accordance with the first subparagraph of paragraph 3, any other participant may object to any transfer of ownership on the ground that it would adversely affect its access rights.\nWhere any of the other participants demonstrate that their rights would be adversely affected, the intended transfer shall not take place until agreement has been reached between the participants concerned.\n5. Where appropriate, the grant agreement may provide, that the Commission is to be notified in advance of any intended transfer of ownership or any intended grant of a licence to a third party established in a third country not associated with the Framework Programme.\nArticle 42\nPreservation of European competitiveness, defence interest of Member States and ethical principles\nThe Commission may object to the transfer of ownership of foreground, or to the granting of a licence regarding foreground, to third parties established in a third country not associated with the Framework Programme, if it considers that this is not in accordance with the interests of developing the competitiveness of the European economy or with the defence interests of the Member States within the meaning of Article 24 of the Treaty or is inconsistent with ethical principles.\nIn such cases, the transfer of ownership or granting of a licence shall not take place unless the Commission is satisfied that appropriate safeguards are put in place.\nSubsection 2\nProtection, publication, dissemination and use\nArticle 43\nProtection of foreground\nWhere foreground is capable of industrial or commercial application, its owner shall provide for its adequate and effective protection, having due regard to its legitimate interests and the legitimate interests, particularly the commercial interests, of the other participants in the indirect action concerned.\nWhere a participant that is not the owner of the foreground invokes its legitimate interests, it shall, in any given instance, show that it would suffer disproportionately great harm.\nWhere the foreground is capable of industrial or commercial application and its owner does not protect it, and does not transfer it to another participant, to an affiliated entity established in a Member State or associated country or to any other third party established in a Member State or associated country along with the associated obligations in accordance with Article 41, no dissemination activities may take place before the Commission has been informed.\nIn such cases, the Commission may, with the consent of the participant concerned, assume ownership of that foreground and adopt measures for its adequate and effective protection. The participant concerned may refuse consent only if it can demonstrate that its legitimate interests would suffer disproportionately great harm.\nArticle 44\nStatement relating to Community financial support\nAll publications, patent applications filed by or on behalf of a participant, or any other dissemination relating to foreground shall include a statement, which may include visual means, that the foreground concerned was generated with the assistance of financial support from the Community.\nThe terms of that statement shall be established in the grant agreement.\nArticle 45\nUse and dissemination\n1. The participants shall use the foreground that they own, or ensure that it is used.\n2. Each participant shall ensure that the foreground of which it has ownership is disseminated as swiftly as possible. If it fails to do so the Commission may disseminate that foreground in accordance with Article 12 of the Treaty.\nThe grant agreement may set out time limits in this respect.\n3. Dissemination activities shall be compatible with the protection of intellectual property rights, confidentiality obligations, and the legitimate interests of the owner of the foreground and the defence interests of the Member States within the meaning of Article 24 of the Treaty.\n4. Prior notice of any dissemination activity shall be given to the other participants concerned.\nFollowing notification, any of those participants may object if they consider that their legitimate interests in relation to their foreground or background could suffer disproportionately great harm. In such cases, the dissemination activity may not take place unless appropriate steps are taken to safeguard these legitimate interests.\nSECTION 2\nAccess rights to background and foreground\nArticle 46\nBackground covered\nParticipants may define the background needed for the purposes of the indirect action in a written agreement and, where appropriate, may exclude specific background.\nArticle 47\nPrinciples\n1. All requests for access rights shall be made in writing.\n2. Unless otherwise agreed by the owner of the foreground or background, access rights shall confer no entitlement to grant sub-licences.\n3. Exclusive licences for foreground or background may be granted, subject to written confirmation by all the other participants that they waive their access rights thereto.\n4. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, any agreement providing access rights to foreground or background to participants or third parties shall be such as to ensure that potential access rights for other participants are maintained.\n5. Without prejudice to Articles 48 and 49 and the grant agreement, participants in the same action shall inform each other as soon as possible of any limitation on the granting of access rights to background, or of any other restriction that might substantially affect the granting of access rights.\n6. The termination of its participation in an indirect action shall in no way affect the obligation of that participant to grant access rights to the remaining participants in the same action under the terms and conditions established by the grant agreement.\nArticle 48\nAccess rights for the implementation of indirect actions\n1. Access rights to foreground shall be granted to the other participants in the same indirect action, if this is needed to enable those participants to carry out their own work under that indirect action.\nSuch access rights shall be granted on a royalty-free basis.\n2. Access rights to background shall be granted to the other participants in the same indirect action, if this is needed to enable those participants to carry out their own work under that indirect action provided that the participant concerned is entitled to grant them.\nSuch access rights shall be granted on a royalty-free basis, unless otherwise agreed by all participants before their accession to the grant agreement.\nArticle 49\nAccess rights for use\n1. Participants in the same indirect action shall enjoy access rights to foreground, if this is needed to use their own foreground.\nSubject to agreement, such access rights shall be granted either under fair and reasonable conditions or be royalty-free.\n2. Participants in the same indirect action shall enjoy access rights to background, if this is needed to use their own foreground provided that the participant concerned is entitled to grant them.\nSubject to agreement, such access rights shall be granted either under fair and reasonable conditions or royalty-free.\n3. An affiliated entity established in a Member State or associated country shall also have access rights, as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, to foreground or background under the same conditions as for the participant to which it is affiliated, unless otherwise provided for in the grant agreement or consortium agreement.\n4. A request for access rights under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 may be made up to 1 year after either of the following events:\n(a)\nthe end of the indirect action;\n(b)\ntermination of its participation by the owner of the background or foreground concerned.\nHowever, the participants concerned may agree on a different time limit.\nCHAPTER IV\nSPECIFIC RULES FOR PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES UNDER THE THEMATIC AREA \u2018FUSION ENERGY RESEARCH\u2019\nArticle 50\nScope\nThe rules set out in this Chapter apply to activities under the thematic area \u2018Fusion energy research\u2019 as set out in the specific programme. In the event of any conflict between the rules set out in this Chapter and those set out in Chapters II and III, the rules set out in this Chapter shall apply.\nArticle 51\nImplementation of fusion energy research\nActivities under the thematic area \u2018Fusion energy research\u2019 may be implemented on the basis of procedures and rules for dissemination and use as set out in the following frameworks:\n(a)\nthe Contracts of Association, concluded between the Community and Member States or associated third countries or legal entities within Member States or associated third countries;\n(b)\nthe European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA), concluded between the Community and organisations in, or acting for, Member States and associated countries;\n(c)\nthe European Joint Undertaking for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), based on the provisions of Title II, Chapter 5 of the Treaty;\n(d)\ninternational agreements relating to cooperation with third countries, or with any legal entity which may be established by such an agreement, in particular the ITER and the Broader Approach agreements;\n(e)\nany other multilateral agreement concluded between the Community and associated organisations, in particular the Agreement on Staff Mobility;\n(f)\ncost sharing actions to promote and contribute to fusion energy research with bodies in Member States or countries associated with the Framework Programme with which there is no Contract of Association.\nArticle 52\nCommunity financial contribution\n1. The Contracts of Association referred to in point (a) of Article 51 and cost sharing actions referred to in point (f) of Article 51 shall establish the rules relating to the Community financial contribution to the activities concerned.\nThe annual rate for the Community financial contribution, established in the Contracts of Association, shall not exceed 20 % of the expenditure of the Associations on activities specified in their Annual Work Programmes over the total duration of the Seventh Framework Programme of the Community and this Framework Programme.\n2. After consultation of the consultative committee for the fusion programme referred to in Article 7 of Decision 2012/94/Euratom, the Commission may finance:\n(a)\nunder the Contracts of Association at a rate not exceeding 40 %: expenditure of specific cooperative projects between the Associates which have been recommended for priority support by the consultative committee and approved by the Commission; priority support shall concentrate on actions of relevance to the ITER/DEMO, except in the case of projects already awarded priority status in earlier framework programmes;\n(b)\nactions carried out under the European Fusion Development Agreement including procurements, or under the Joint Undertaking referred to in point (c) of Article 51;\n(c)\nactions carried out under the Agreement on Staff Mobility.\n3. In the case of projects and actions receiving a financial contribution according to points (a) or (b) of paragraph 2, all the legal entities referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 51 shall have the right to take part in the experiments carried out on the equipment concerned.\n4. The Community financial contribution to actions carried out under an international cooperation agreement as referred to in point (d) of Article 51 shall be determined in accordance with the terms of this agreement or by any legal entity established by the agreement. The Community may manage its participation and its financial contribution to such an agreement through any appropriate legal entity.\nCHAPTER V\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 53\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["14", "71", "7", "20", "66", "40", "69", "30", "6", "3", "25", "21", "99", "95", "59", "63", "32", "57", "36", "1", "41", "29", "78", "64", "37", "18", "70", "31", "34", "24", "No Label", "4", "9", "10", "39", "45", "77", "81"], "gold": ["4", "9", "10", "39", "45", "77", "81"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1061/2011\nof 20 October 2011\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to milk and milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(p) and listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nIn the case of certain milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, there is a danger that, if high refund rates are fixed in advance, the commitments entered into in relation to those refunds may be jeopardised. In order to avert that danger, it is therefore necessary to take appropriate precautionary measures, but without precluding the conclusion of long-term contracts. The fixing of specific refund rates for the advance fixing of refunds in respect of those products should enable those two objectives to be met.\n(6)\nArticle 15(2) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 provides that, when the rate of the refund is being fixed, account is to be taken, where appropriate, of aids or other measures having equivalent effect applicable in all Member States in accordance with the Regulation on the common organisation of the agricultural markets to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 or to assimilated products.\n(7)\nArticle 100(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides for the payment of aid for Union-produced skimmed milk processed into casein if such milk and the casein manufactured from it fulfil certain conditions.\n(8)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 713/2011 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Part XVI of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 713/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["57", "91", "74", "94", "92", "7", "3", "50", "36", "23", "72", "8", "69", "51", "88", "67", "59", "97", "82", "95", "66", "13", "12", "77", "32", "19", "76", "34", "52", "68", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "70"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 1 March 2011\namending Decision 2007/76/EC implementing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws as regards mutual assistance\n(notified under document C(2011) 1165)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/141/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation) (1), and in particular Articles 6(4), 7(3), 8(7), 9(4), 10(3), 12(6), 13(5) and 15(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2006 (2), the Commission adopted Decision 2007/76/EC implementing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws as regards mutual assistance.\n(2)\nDecision 2007/76/EC was amended by Commission Decision 2008/282/EC (3) to establish the principles governing the notification of enforcement measures, the information to be supplied in notifications following the notification of an alert and the coordination of market surveillance and enforcement activities.\n(3)\nThe requirements laid down by Decision 2007/76/EC in respect of deletions in the database provided for in Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and in respect of regular notifications need to be reviewed on the basis of the experience gained with the operation of the enforcement cooperation network.\n(4)\nIt is also appropriate to clarify rules governing the obligations of the coordinating competent authority, the participation in coordinated enforcement activities, and the minimum information to be supplied in the framework of such activities.\n(5)\nIt is necessary to align Decision 2007/76/EC with opinion 6/2007 (4) of the Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data set up by Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) and the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (6).\n(6)\nDecision 2007/76/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2007/76/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2011.", "references": ["79", "93", "10", "6", "81", "34", "16", "47", "17", "21", "43", "36", "99", "70", "86", "51", "68", "91", "14", "80", "92", "15", "72", "19", "74", "30", "23", "37", "88", "96", "No Label", "2", "8", "24", "41", "42"], "gold": ["2", "8", "24", "41", "42"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 6 December 2010\non the conclusion of a Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Solomon Islands\n(2010/763/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn the basis of the Council Decision of 22 September 2009 authorising the Commission to open negotiations on behalf of the Community with a view to concluding a Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Solomon Islands, the Community has negotiated with Solomon Islands a Fisheries Partnership Agreement providing EU vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which Solomon Islands has sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries.\n(2)\nAs a result of those negotiations, a new Fisheries Partnership Agreement was initialled on 26 September 2009.\n(3)\nBy Council Decision No 2010/397/EU of 3 June 2010 (1), the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Solomon Islands has been signed and provisionally applied since 9 October 2009.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Solomon Islands is hereby approved (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to the notification provided for in Article 18 of the Agreement, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the Agreement (3).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 6 December 2010.", "references": ["99", "53", "47", "10", "21", "23", "76", "24", "57", "6", "60", "37", "90", "1", "5", "32", "68", "64", "93", "65", "92", "22", "79", "41", "39", "26", "11", "77", "80", "3", "No Label", "9", "15", "58", "67", "95"], "gold": ["9", "15", "58", "67", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 9 June 2011\non the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance\n(2011/432/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 81(3), in conjunction with point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 218(6) and the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union is working towards the establishment of a common judicial area based on the principle of mutual recognition of decisions.\n(2)\nThe Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (\u2018the Convention\u2019) constitutes a good basis for a worldwide system of administrative cooperation and for recognition and enforcement of maintenance decisions and maintenance arrangements, providing for free legal assistance in virtually all child support cases and for a streamlined procedure for recognition and enforcement.\n(3)\nArticle 59 of the Convention allows Regional Economic Integration Organisations such as the Union to sign, accept, approve or accede to the Convention.\n(4)\nMatters governed by the Convention are also dealt with in Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (2). As agreed when Council Decision 2011/220/EU (3) on the signing of the Convention was adopted, the Union should approve the Convention alone and exercise its competence over all the matters governed by it. Consequently, the Member States should be bound by the Convention by virtue of its approval by the Union.\n(5)\nWhen approving the Convention, the Union should therefore make the declaration of competence pursuant to Article 59(3) of the Convention.\n(6)\nMoreover, the Union should, when approving the Convention, make all the appropriate reservations and declarations allowed under Articles 62 and 63 respectively of the Convention that it deems necessary.\n(7)\nIn this respect, the Union should declare, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Convention, that it will extend the application of Chapters II and III of the Convention to spousal support. It should at the same time make a unilateral declaration in which it undertakes to examine, at a later stage, the possibility of further extending the scope of application.\n(8)\nThe Union should make the reservation provided for in Article 44(3) of the Convention concerning the languages accepted in communications between Central Authorities. Member States that wish the Union to make that reservation with regard to them should notify the Commission thereof in advance, indicating the content of the reservation to be made.\n(9)\nThe Union should make the declarations provided for in point (g) of Article 11(1) and Article 44(1) and (2) of the Convention. Member States that wish the Union to make such declarations with regard to them should notify the Commission thereof in advance, indicating the content of the declarations to be made.\n(10)\nA Member State that subsequently needs to withdraw the reservation regarding it set out in Annex II or to modify or withdraw the declaration regarding it set out in Annex III or to add a declaration regarding it in Annex III should inform the Council and the Commission thereof. On that basis, the Union should notify the depositary accordingly.\n(11)\nMember States should inform the Commission of the Central Authorities designated in accordance with Article 4(3) of the Convention and should notify the Commission of the information concerning laws, procedures and services referred to in Article 57 of the Convention. The Commission should forward that information to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (\u2018the Permanent Bureau\u2019) at the time when the Union deposits its instrument of approval, as required by the Convention.\n(12)\nWhen notifying the Commission of the relevant information on their Central Authorities and on their laws, procedures and services, Member States should use the Country Profile Form recommended and published by the Hague Conference on Private International Law, if possible, in electronic format.\n(13)\nA Member State that subsequently needs to modify the information on its Central Authority or on its laws, procedures and services should inform the Permanent Bureau thereof directly and at the same time notify the Commission of the change.\n(14)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom and Ireland are taking part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(15)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (\u2018the Convention\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.\nThe text of the Convention is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit, on behalf of the Union, the instrument referred to in Article 58(2) of the Convention.\nArticle 3\nWhen depositing the instrument referred to in Article 58(2) of the Convention, the Union shall make the declaration of competence pursuant to Article 59(3) of the Convention.\nThe text of that declaration is attached as part A of Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. When depositing the instrument referred to in Article 58(2) of the Convention, the Union shall declare, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Convention, that it will extend the application of Chapters II and III of the Convention to spousal support.\nThe text of that declaration is attached as part B of Annex I to this Decision.\n2. When depositing the instrument referred to in Article 58(2) of the Convention, the Union shall make the unilateral declaration the text of which is attached as Annex IV to this Decision.\nArticle 5\nWhen depositing the instrument referred to in Article 58(2) of the Convention, the Union shall make the reservation provided for in Article 44(3) of the Convention concerning the Member States that object to the use of either English or French in communications between Central Authorities.\nThe text of that reservation is attached as Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 6\nWhen depositing the instrument referred to in Article 58(2) of the Convention, the Union shall make the declarations provided for in point (g) of Article 11(1) of the Convention concerning the information or documents required by the Member States and in Article 44(1) of the Convention concerning the languages accepted by the Member States other than their official languages, and the declaration provided for in Article 44(2) of the Convention.\nThe text of those declarations is attached as Annex III to this Decision.\nArticle 7\n1. Member States shall notify the Commission, no later than 10 December 2012, of:\n(a)\nthe contact details of the Central Authorities designated in accordance with Article 4(3) of the Convention; and\n(b)\nthe information concerning laws, procedures and services referred to in Article 57 of the Convention.\n2. When forwarding the information set out in paragraph 1 to the Commission, Member States shall use the Country Profile Form recommended and published by the Hague Conference on Private International Law, if possible, in electronic format.\n3. The Commission shall forward the individual Country Profile Forms completed by the Member States to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (\u2018the Permanent Bureau\u2019) at the time when the Union deposits the instrument referred to in Article 58(2) of the Convention.\nArticle 8\nA Member State that wishes to withdraw the reservation regarding it set out in Annex II or to modify or withdraw the declaration regarding it set out in Annex III or to add a declaration regarding it in Annex III shall inform the Council and the Commission of the desired withdrawal, modification or addition.\nThe Union shall subsequently notify the depositary accordingly pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention.\nArticle 9\nA Member State that wishes to modify the information given in its Country Profile Form after the initial forwarding of that form by the Commission shall inform the Permanent Bureau directly thereof or shall make the necessary change directly, if the electronic format of the Country Profile Form is being used. It shall inform the Commission at the same time.\nArticle 10\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 9 June 2011.", "references": ["24", "51", "89", "0", "32", "28", "63", "82", "17", "10", "56", "38", "83", "71", "50", "23", "30", "45", "85", "49", "95", "80", "73", "93", "52", "26", "92", "72", "53", "20", "No Label", "3", "8", "9"], "gold": ["3", "8", "9"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 982/2011\nof 30 September 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [\u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9 \u0395\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 (Katsikaki Elassonas) (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Greece\u2019s application to register the name \u2018\u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9 \u0395\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 (Katsikaki Elassonas)\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 September 2011.", "references": ["67", "81", "40", "53", "61", "52", "77", "49", "42", "83", "99", "71", "94", "75", "28", "17", "29", "36", "30", "76", "70", "4", "43", "32", "2", "6", "58", "64", "37", "84", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 16 September 2011\nrepealing Implementing Decision 2011/508/EU concerning certain protection measures relating to classical swine fever in Lithuania\n(notified under document C(2011) 6443)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/546/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2001/89/EC of 23 October 2001 on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever (3) and in particular Article 11(1)(f) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (4), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Decision 2011/508/EU (5) lays down the protection measures relating to classical swine fever which are to be applied in the parts of the territory of Lithuania set out in Annex I thereto.\n(2)\nLithuania has taken measures to eradicate that disease in the areas listed in Annex I to Implementing Decision 2011/508/EU. According to the information provided by that Member State, those measures have been successful.\n(3)\nImplementing Decision 2011/508/EU should therefore be repealed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nImplementing Decision 2011/508/EU is hereby repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 September 2011.", "references": ["22", "43", "57", "92", "32", "8", "4", "31", "1", "56", "25", "52", "3", "82", "67", "64", "62", "11", "94", "96", "17", "14", "21", "97", "7", "10", "24", "13", "18", "83", "No Label", "38", "61", "66", "91"], "gold": ["38", "61", "66", "91"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 673/2012\nof 23 July 2012\nimplementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (1), and in particular Article 32(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 January 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, and in accordance with Council Implementing Decision 2012/424/CFSP of 23 July 2012 implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (2), additional persons and entities should be included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\nArticle 2\nThe Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["28", "5", "94", "80", "71", "58", "57", "92", "29", "63", "81", "62", "4", "82", "48", "96", "46", "90", "53", "14", "51", "13", "68", "56", "86", "79", "39", "20", "65", "45", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 6 July 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/025 DK/Odense Steel Shipyard from Denmark)\n(2011/468/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nDenmark submitted an application on 6 October 2010 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard and supplemented it by additional information up to 8 March 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 14 181 901.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Denmark,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 14 181 901 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 6 July 2011.", "references": ["46", "92", "95", "99", "17", "6", "24", "18", "29", "80", "64", "87", "12", "65", "61", "25", "14", "85", "8", "19", "10", "58", "1", "27", "23", "63", "73", "74", "42", "26", "No Label", "15", "16", "49", "50", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "16", "49", "50", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 May 2010\non the conclusion of an Implementing Arrangement between the European Commission and the Government of the United States of America for cooperative activities in the field of homeland/civil security research\n(2010/293/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America (1), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 5(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) was approved by Council Decision 98/591/EC (2), and entered into force on 14 October 1998. It is renewable for periods of five years (3), and was extended and amended on 14 October 2008 (4).\n(2)\nTransatlantic cooperation in the field of homeland/civil security research is desirable and of mutual benefit.\n(3)\nThe consensus view emerging from exploratory discussions was that an Implementing Arrangement would constitute a mechanism for simplifying joint technical and scientific activity.\n(4)\nAn Implementing Arrangement to cover cooperative activities in the interdisciplinary field of homeland/civil security research (\u2018the Implementing Arrangement\u2019) has been successfully established between the Commission and the Government of the United States of America.\n(5)\nThe Implementing Arrangement has no direct financial implications. Joint projects will compete for funding through normal RTD and support measures in the relevant research programmes of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (5). In accordance with the Agreement, European Union funding will be limited to the European partners.\n(6)\nThe Implementing Arrangement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Implementing Arrangement between the European Commission and the Government of the United States of America for cooperative activities in the field of homeland/civil security research is approved.\nThe text of the Implementing Arrangement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Commissioner responsible for DG Enterprise and Industry is authorised to sign the Implementing Arrangement on behalf of the Commission.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the first day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2010.", "references": ["33", "80", "3", "69", "36", "46", "21", "43", "8", "94", "84", "32", "28", "41", "9", "13", "10", "70", "51", "68", "45", "37", "95", "35", "6", "25", "74", "16", "56", "82", "No Label", "1", "4", "5", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["1", "4", "5", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 906/2010\nof 11 October 2010\namending for the 137th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Articles 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 27 and 29 September 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to amend the identifying data concerning two natural persons on its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 October 2010.", "references": ["56", "99", "18", "86", "38", "19", "50", "20", "62", "30", "9", "47", "91", "48", "58", "68", "84", "25", "5", "12", "37", "31", "93", "88", "92", "16", "35", "96", "51", "13", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 826/2012\nof 29 June 2012\nsupplementing Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on notification and disclosure requirements with regard to net short positions, the details of the information to be provided to the European Securities and Markets Authority in relation to net short positions and the method for calculating turnover to determine exempted shares\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (1), and in particular Articles 9(5), 11(3) and 16(3) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Data Protection Supervisor,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThis Regulation aims to establish a uniform regime for the submission of notifications and information by investors to national competent authorities or by those competent authorities to the European Securities and Markets Authority (hereinafter \u2018ESMA\u2019). Since the turnover calculation to determine exempted shares is also closely linked to the giving of information concerning shares where their principal trading venue is in the Union, it should also be covered by this Regulation. To ensure coherence between such provisions, which should enter into force at the same time, and to facilitate a comprehensive view and compact access to them by persons subject to those obligations it is desirable to include all the regulatory technical standards required by Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 in a single Regulation.\n(2)\nIn relation to the notifications of net short positions on shares, sovereign debt and uncovered sovereign credit default swaps and to the public disclosure of significant net short positions on shares, uniform rules regarding the details of the information including the common standard to be used in the notification should be specified to ensure consistency in the application of the notification requirements across the Union, to foster efficiency in the reporting process and to provide comparable information to the public.\n(3)\nTo ensure the proper identification of the position holders, notification should, where available, include a code that can complement the name of the position holder. Until a single, robust and publicly recognised global legal entity identifier is available, it is necessary to rely on existing codes that some position holders may have, such as the Bank Identifier Code.\n(4)\nFor the purpose of carrying out its duties under this Regulation and under Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (2), ESMA is to be provided with information by competent authorities on a quarterly basis in relation to notification of net short positions on shares, sovereign debt and uncovered sovereign credit default swaps, as well as with additional information on net short positions upon its request.\n(5)\nIn order to efficiently use such information, in particular with respect to the objective of ensuring the orderly functioning and integrity of the financial markets and the stability of the financial system in the Union, the quarterly information should be standardised, stable over time and of sufficient granularity, in the form of some daily aggregated data, to allow ESMA to process it and to conduct research and analyses.\n(6)\nESMA is not in a position to determine beforehand the specific information it may require from a competent authority, as that information may only be determined on a case-by-case basis and may include input as diverse as individual or aggregated data on the net short positions or uncovered positions in credit default swaps. Nonetheless, it is important to establish the general information to be provided in this respect.\n(7)\nFor the purposes of calculating turnover, both in the Union and in trading venues outside the Union, to determine the principal trading venue of a share, each relevant competent authority needs to determine the relevant sources of information to identify and measure the trading on a specific share. There are currently neither harmonised transaction reporting requirements in the Union for shares admitted only on multilateral trading facilities nor international standards with regard to trading statistics on individual shares on trading venues, which may show relevant variations. Thus, it is necessary to allow some flexibility to competent authorities to carry out that calculation.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure consistency, the date of application of this Regulation should be the same as that of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012. However, in order to allow sufficient time for natural and legal persons to process the list of shares exempted pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, the preparation of that list and its subsequent publication on the ESMA website should take place sufficiently in advance before the application date of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012. Therefore, the method set out for turnover calculation to determine the principal venue for the trading of a share should apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n(9)\nSince Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 recognised that binding technical standards should be adopted before that Regulation can be usefully applied, and as it is essential to specify before 1 November 2012 the required non-essential elements to facilitate compliance by market participants with that Regulation and enforcement by competent authorities, it is necessary that this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication.\n(10)\nThis Regulation is based on the draft regulatory technical standards submitted by ESMA to the Commission.\n(11)\nESMA has conducted open public consultations on the draft regulatory technical standards on which this Regulation is based, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the opinion of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group established in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down regulatory technical standards specifying the following:\n(a)\nthe details of the information on net short positions to be provided to the competent authorities and disclosed to the public by a natural or legal person pursuant to Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012;\n(b)\nthe details of the information to be provided to the European Securities and Markets Authority (hereinafter \u2018ESMA\u2019) by the competent authority pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012;\n(c)\nthe method for calculation of turnover to determine the principal venue for the trading of a share pursuant to Article 16(3) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012.\nCHAPTER II\nDETAILS OF THE INFORMATION ON NET SHORT POSITIONS TO BE NOTIFIED AND DISCLOSED\n(ARTICLE 9 OF REGULATION (EU) No 236/2012)\nArticle 2\nNotification of net short positions in shares, sovereign debt and uncovered sovereign credit default swaps to competent authorities\n1. A notification made under Article 5(1), Article 7(1) or Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 shall contain the information specified in Table 1 of Annex I to this Regulation.\nThe notification shall be made using a form issued by the relevant competent authority which shall take the format set out in Annex II.\n2. Where the competent authority has secure systems in place that allow it to fully identify the person filing the notification and the position holder, including all the information contained in fields 1 to 7 of Table 1 of Annex I, the corresponding fields in the form may be left blank in the notification format.\n3. A natural or legal person who has submitted a notification referred to in paragraph 1 which contains an error shall send, on becoming aware of the error, a cancellation to the relevant competent authority.\nThe cancellation shall be made using a form issued by that competent authority which shall take the format set out in Annex III.\nThe natural or legal person concerned shall submit a new notification in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 if necessary.\nArticle 3\nPublic disclosure of information on net short positions in shares\nAny public disclosure of a net short position in shares that reaches, or upon having reached, subsequently falls below, a relevant publication threshold in accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 shall contain the information specified in Table 2 of Annex I to this Regulation.\nCHAPTER III\nDETAILS OF THE INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO ESMA IN RELATION TO NET SHORT POSITIONS\n(ARTICLE 11 OF REGULATION (EU) No 236/2012)\nArticle 4\nPeriodic information\nPursuant to Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, competent authorities shall provide ESMA with the following information on a quarterly basis:\n(a)\nthe daily aggregated net short position on each individual share in the main national equity index as identified by the relevant competent authority;\n(b)\nthe end of quarter aggregated net short position for each individual share which is not in the index referred to in point (a);\n(c)\nthe daily aggregated net short position on each individual sovereign issuer;\n(d)\nwhere applicable, daily aggregated uncovered positions on credit default swaps of a sovereign issuer.\nArticle 5\nInformation upon request\nInformation to be provided by a relevant competent authority on an ad hoc basis pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 shall include all requested information specified by ESMA that has not previously been submitted by the competent authority in accordance with Article 4 of this Regulation.\nCHAPTER IV\nMETHOD OF CALCULATION OF TURNOVER TO DETERMINE THE PRINCIPAL TRADING VENUE FOR A SHARE\n(ARTICLE 16 OF REGULATION (EU) No 236/2012)\nArticle 6\nTurnover calculation to determine the principal venue for the trading of a share\n1. When calculating turnover pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, a relevant competent authority shall use the best available information, which may include:\n(a)\npublicly available information;\n(b)\ntransaction data obtained under Article 25(3) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3);\n(c)\ninformation from trading venues where the relevant share is traded;\n(d)\ninformation provided by another competent authority, including a competent authority of a third country;\n(e)\ninformation provided by the issuer of the relevant share;\n(f)\ninformation from other third parties, including data providers.\n2. In determining what constitutes the best available information, a relevant competent authority shall ensure so far as reasonably possible that:\n(a)\nit uses publicly available information in preference to other sources of information;\n(b)\nthe information covers all trading sessions during the relevant period, irrespective of whether the share traded during all of the sessions;\n(c)\ntransactions received and included in the calculations are counted only once;\n(d)\ntransactions reported through a trading venue but executed outside it are not counted.\n3. The turnover of a share on a trading venue shall be deemed to be zero where the share is no longer admitted to trading on that trading venue even if the share was admitted to trading on the trading venue during the relevant calculation period.\nCHAPTER V\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 November 2012, except for Article 6 which shall apply from the date referred to in the first paragraph.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2012.", "references": ["33", "91", "82", "86", "72", "16", "80", "31", "37", "85", "97", "77", "88", "81", "2", "59", "58", "89", "56", "94", "79", "71", "44", "5", "48", "67", "35", "96", "57", "45", "No Label", "30", "32", "39", "41", "76"], "gold": ["30", "32", "39", "41", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 May 2011\non granting Union financial assistance to Portugal\n(2011/344/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPortugal has recently come under increasing pressure in financial markets, creating rising concerns about the sustainability of its public finances. Indeed, the current crisis has had a dramatic impact also on public finances, which ultimately led to a sharp increase in sovereign spreads. Amidst consecutive downgradings by credit rating agencies of Portuguese bonds, the country became unable to refinance itself at rates comptabile with long-term fiscal sustainability. In parallel, the banking sector, which is heavily dependent on external financing, particularly within the euro area, was increasingly cut off from market funding.\n(2)\nIn view of this severe economic and financial disturbance caused by exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the government, Portugal officially requested financial assistance from the European Union, the Member States whose currency is the euro, and the International Monetary Fund (\u2018IMF\u2019) on 7 April 2011 with a view to supporting a policy programme to restore confidence and enable the return of the economy to sustainable growth, and to safeguarding financial stability in Portugal, the euro area and the Union. On 3 May 2011, an agreement was reached between the Government and the joint Commission/IMF/ECB mission in respect of a comprehensive three-year policy programme for the period up to mid-2014, to be laid down in a Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies (\u2018MEFP\u2019) and a Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality (\u2018MoU\u2019) This policy programme was supported by the two largest opposition parties.\n(3)\nThis draft economic and financial adjustment programme (\u2018the Programme\u2019) submitted by Portugal to the Commission and the Council aims at restoring confidence in the sovereign and in the banking sector and supporting growth and employment. It foresees comprehensive action on three fronts. First, deep and frontloaded structural reforms to boost potential growth, create jobs, and improve competitiveness (including through fiscal devaluation). In particular, the Programme contains reforms of the labour market, the judicial system, network industries, and housing and services sectors, with a view to strengthening the economy\u2019s growth potential, improving competitiveness and facilitating economic adjustment. Second, a credible and balanced fiscal consolidation strategy, supported by structural fiscal measures and better fiscal control over Public-Private-Partnerships (\u2018PPPs\u2019) and state-owned enterprises (\u2018SOEs\u2019), aiming at putting the gross public debt-to-GDP ratio on a firm downward path in the medium term. The authorities are committed to reducing the deficit to 3 % of GDP by 2013. Third, a financial sector strategy based on recapitalisation and deleveraging, with efforts to safeguard the financial sector against disorderly deleveraging through market-based mechanisms supported by back-up facilities.\n(4)\nUnder the Commission\u2019s current projections for nominal GDP growth (- 1,2 % in 2011, - 0,5 % in 2012, 2,5 % in 2013 and 3,9 % in 2014), the fiscal targets are consistent with a path for the debt-to-GDP ratio of 101,7 % in 2011, 107,4 % in 2012, 108,6 % in 2013 and 107,6 % in 2014. The debt-to-GDP ratio would therefore be stabilised in 2013 and be placed on a declining path thereafter, assuming further progress in the reduction of the deficit. Debt dynamics are affected by several below-the-line operations, which are projected to increase the debt-to-GDP ratio by 1\u00be percentage points (\u2018pps\u2019) of GDP in 2011 and by \u00be pps per year between 2012 and 2014. These include sizeable acquisitions of financial assets, notably for possible bank recapitalisation and financing to SOEs amounting to \u00bd % of GDP per year between 2011 and 2014. On the other hand, privatisation proceeds totalling around 3 % of GDP up to the year 2013 will support debt reduction efforts.\n(5)\nThe assessment by the Commission, in liaison with the European Central Bank (\u2018ECB\u2019) and together with the IMF, is that Portugal needs financing of a total amount of EUR 78 billion (78 000 million) over the period from June 2011 to mid 2014. Notwithstanding the significant fiscal adjustment, the financing gap for the sovereign may amount to EUR 63 billion over the period of the Programme. This assumes no access to the medium- and long-term debt market until the first half of 2013. Portugal is assumed to be able to roll-over part of its existing stock of short-term debt, while the programme also provides for a financing buffer in case of unexpected deviations from the Commission\u2019s baseline financing scenario. Portugal is encouraged to maintain and adjust its financial market operations, seeking to develop market access and confidence. The financial sector strategy contained in the programme to restore confidence in the Portuguese banking system on a sustainable basis requires banking groups to bring their core tier 1 capital ratio to 9 % by the end of 2011 and to 10 % by the end of 2012 and to maintain it thereafter. The programme contains a banking support scheme of up to EUR 12 billion to provide the necessary capital in case market solutions cannot be found. Actual funding needs may, however, be substantially lower, in particular if market conditions improve significantly and no severe unexpected banking losses materialise during the period of the Programme.\n(6)\nThe Programme would be financed through contributions from external sources. The Union\u2019s assistance to Portugal would reach up to EUR 52 billion under the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (\u2018EFSM\u2019) established by Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 and from contributions from the European Financial Stability Facility. In addition, Portugal has requested a loan of SDR 23,742 billion (equivalent to EUR 26 billion at the exchange rate of 5 May 2011) from the IMF under an Extended Fund Facility. The support from the EFSM needs to be supplied on terms and conditions similar to those of the IMF. The Union financial assistance should be managed by the Commission.\n(7)\nThe Council should review on a regular basis the economic policies implemented by Portugal.\n(8)\nThe specific economic policy conditions agreed with Portugal should be laid down in a Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality (the \u2018Memorandum of Understanding\u2019). The detailed financial terms should be laid down in a Loan Facility Agreement.\n(9)\nThe Commission, in liaison with the ECB, should verify at regular intervals that the economic policy conditions attached to the assistance are fulfilled, through missions and regular reporting by the Portuguese authorities.\n(10)\nThroughout the implementation of the Programme, the Commission should provide additional policy advice and technical assistance in specific areas.\n(11)\nThe operations which the Union financial assistance helps to finance must be compatible with Union policies and comply with Union legislation. Interventions in support of financial institutions must be carried out in accordance with Union rules on competition.\n(12)\nThe assistance should be provided with a view to supporting the successful implementation of the Programme,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Union shall make available to Portugal a loan amounting to a maximum of EUR 26 billion, with a maximum average maturity of 7,5 years.\n2. The financial assistance shall be made available during three years starting from the first day after the entry into force of this Decision.\n3. The Union financial assistance shall be made available by the Commission to Portugal in a maximum of 14 instalments. An instalment may be disbursed in one or several tranches. The maturities of the tranches under the first instalment may be longer than the maximum average maturity referred to in paragraph 1. In such cases, the maturities of further tranches shall be set so that the maximum average maturity referred to in paragraph 1 be achieved once all instalments have been disbursed.\n4. The first instalment shall be released subject to the entry into force of the Loan Facility Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding. Any subsequent loan releases shall be conditional upon a favourable review by the Commission, in consultation with the ECB, of Portugal\u2019s compliance with the general economic policy conditions as defined by this Decision and the Memorandum of Understanding.\n5. Portugal shall pay the cost of funding of the Union for each tranche plus a margin of 215 basis points, which results in conditions similar to those of the IMF support.\n6. In addition, the costs referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 shall be charged to Portugal.\n7. If required in order to finance the loan, the prudent use of interest rate swaps with counterparties of the highest credit quality and advanced borrowing shall be permitted.\n8. The Commission shall decide on the size and release of further instalments. The Commission shall decide on the size of the tranches.\nArticle 2\n1. The assistance shall be managed by the Commission in a manner consistent with Portugal\u2019s undertakings.\n2. The Commission, in consultation with the ECB, shall agree with the Portuguese authorities the specific economic policy conditions attached to the financial assistance as set out in Article 3. Those conditions shall be laid down in a Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by the Commission and the Portuguese authorities consistent with the undertakings referred to in paragraph 1. The detailed financial terms shall be laid down in a Loan Facility Agreement to be concluded with the Commission.\n3. The Commission, in liaison with the ECB, shall verify at regular intervals (at least quarterly) that the economic policy conditions attached to the assistance are fulfilled, and report to the Economic and Financial Committee before disbursement of each instalment. To this end, the Portuguese authorities shall cooperate in full with the Commission and the ECB, and shall place all the necessary information at their disposal. The Commission shall keep the Economic and Financial Committee informed of possible refinancing of the borrowings, or changes to the financial conditions.\n4. Portugal shall adopt and implement additional consolidation measures to ensure macro-financial stability, in case such measures will be necessary during the programme of assistance. The Portuguese authorities shall consult the Commission and the ECB in advance of the adoption of any such additional measures.\nArticle 3\n1. The draft economic and financial adjustment programme (the \u2018Programme\u2019) prepared by the Portuguese authorities is hereby approved.\n2. The disbursement of each instalment after the first one shall be made on the basis of a satisfactory implementation of the Programme and, more particularly, the specific economic policy conditions laid down in the Memorandum of Understanding. These shall include, inter alia, the measures provided for in paragraphs 4 to 8 of this Article.\n3. The general government deficit shall not exceed EUR 10 068 million (equivalent to 5,9 % of GDP based on current projections) in 2011, EUR 7 645 million (4,5 % of GDP) in 2012 and EUR 5 224 million (3,0 % of GDP) in 2013, in line with the excessive deficit procedure (EDP) requirements. For the calculation of this deficit, the possible budgetary costs of bank support measures in the context of the government\u2019s financial sector strategy shall not be taken into account. Consolidation shall be achieved by means of high-quality permanent measures and minimising the impact on vulnerable groups.\n4. Portugal shall adopt the measures specified in paragraphs 5 to 8 before the end of the indicated year, with exact deadlines for the years 2011-2014 being specified in the Memorandum of Understanding. Portugal shall stand ready to take additional consolidation measures to reduce the deficit to below 3 % of GDP by 2013 in case of deviations from targets.\n5. Portugal shall adopt the following measures before the end of 2011, in line with specifications in the Memorandum of Understanding:\n(a)\nPortugal shall implement fully the fiscal consolidation measures foreseen in the 2011 budget amounting to around EUR 9 billion and additional measures introduced before May 2011 worth more than EUR 400 million. These measures aim at a reduction of the general government deficit within the time-frame referred to in paragraph 3. The revenue measures foreseen in the 2011 budget, worth EUR 3,4 billion, shall be complemented by an increase in social contributions via stricter inspection and compulsory contribution of trainees. In addition to the expenditure measures foreseen in the 2011 budget, additional measures including savings in the health sector, lower subsidies for state-owned enterprises (\u2018SOEs\u2019), and reductions in social transfers shall be implemented.\n(b)\nPortugal shall adopt measures reinforcing a credible budgetary strategy and strengthening the budgetary framework. Portugal shall fully implement the measures foreseen in the new Budgetary Framework Law, including setting up a medium-term budgetary framework, prepare a thorough fiscal strategy analysis and establish an independent Fiscal Council. The local and regional financing frameworks shall be aligned to the new Budgetary Framework Law. Portugal shall step up reporting and monitoring of public finances, including, in particular, of arrears. Portugal shall start the systematic and regular analysis of fiscal risks as part of the budget process, including the risks stemming from Public Private Partnerships (\u2018PPPs\u2019) and SOEs.\n(c)\nPortugal shall adopt the first batch of measures aimed at strengthening labour market functioning by limiting severance payments and making working time arrangements more flexible.\n(d)\nIn the energy sector, Portugal shall take measures to facilitate entry, promote the establishment of the Iberian gas market and review the support and compensation schemes for the production of electricity. For other network industries, in particular transport, telecommunications and postal services, Portugal shall adopt additional measures to promote competition and flexibility.\n(e)\nPortugal shall take urgently action to foster competition and the economy\u2019s adjustment capacity. This includes the abolition of special rights of the State in companies, a revision of competition law to make it more effective, lighter requirements for establishment and cross-border provision in services sectors.\n(f)\nPortugal shall improve practices and rules for public procurement contributing to a more competitive business environment and to more efficient public spending.\n6. Portugal shall adopt the following measures during 2012, in line with specifications in the Memorandum of Understanding:\n(a)\nThe 2012 budget shall include a budget neutral recalibration of the tax system with a view to lowering labour costs and boosting competitiveness.\n(b)\nThe budget for 2012 shall include fiscal consolidation measures amounting to at least EUR 5,1 billion and aiming at a reduction of the general government deficit within the time-frame referred to in Article 3(3).\n(c)\nThe budget shall provide for a reduction of expenditure in 2012 of at least EUR 3,5 billion including: a comprehensive reorganisation of the central administration eliminating duplicities and other inefficiencies; cuts in education and health; lower transfers to regional and local authorities; a reduction in public sector employment; adjustments in pensions; and reductions in capital expenditure and in other expenditure as set out in the Programme.\n(d)\nOn the revenue side, the budget shall include revenue measures totalling around EUR 1,5 billion in a full year including, inter alia: broadening the corporate and personal income tax bases by reducing tax deductions and special regimes; ensuring the convergence of personal income tax deductions applied to pensions and labour income; changes in property taxation by substantially reducing exemptions; broadening VAT bases by reducing exemptions and rearranging the lists of goods and services subject to reduced, intermediate and higher rates; and, an increase in excises. These measures shall be complemented by action to fight tax evasion, fraud and informality.\n(e)\nPortugal shall put in place a strengthened legal and institutional framework for assessing fiscal risks prior to engaging in a PPP contract. Similarly, Portugal shall adopt a law to regulate the creation and the functioning of SOEs at the central, regional and local levels. Portugal shall not engage in any new PPP contract or create an SOE until the reviews and the new legal structure are in place.\n(f)\nLocal government administration in Portugal has currently 308 municipalities and 4 259 parishes. Portugal shall develop a consolidation plan to reorganise and significantly reduce the number of such entities. These changes will come into effect by the beginning of the next local election cycle.\n(g)\nPortugal shall modernise the revenue administration by creating a single entity, reducing the number of municipal offices and addressing remaining bottlenecks in the tax appeal system.\n(h)\nPortugal shall introduce legislation to reform the unemployment insurance system, including a reduction of the maximum duration of unemployment insurance benefits to 18 months, a cap on unemployment benefits to 2,5 times the social support index, a reduction in benefits over the unemployment spell, a reduction of the minimum contributory period, and an extension to certain categories of self-employed. Active labour market policies shall be strengthened after a review of current practices and an agreed action plan.\n(i)\nThe system of severance payments shall be brought in line with practices in other EU Member States, based on the specification in the Memorandum of Understanding.\n(j)\nRegulations on overtime pay shall be eased and increased flexibility of working time arrangements introduced in line with the Memorandum of Understanding.\n(k)\nPortugal shall promote wage developments consistent with the objectives of fostering job creation and improving firms\u2019 competitiveness with a view to correcting macroeconomic imbalances. Any increase in minimum wages will take place only if justified by economic and labour market developments. Measures shall be taken to address weaknesses in the current wage bargaining schemes, including legislation to redefine the criteria and modalities of the extension of collective agreements and to facilitate firm-level agreements.\n(l)\nAn action plan shall be prepared to improve the quality of secondary and vocational education.\n(m)\nThe functioning of the judicial system shall be improved by implementing the measures proposed under the Judicial Reform Map and by conducting and auditing of the backlog cases in order to target measures to eliminate court backlog and foster alternative dispute settlements.\n(n)\nThe competition framework shall be improved by reinforcing the independence and resources of the national regulator authorities. Professional services shall be liberalised by improving the professional qualification framework and by eliminating restrictions on regulated professions.\n(o)\nRegulated tariffs in electricity and gas retail markets shall be eliminated.\n7. Portugal shall adopt the following measures during 2013, in line with specifications in the Memorandum of Understanding:\n(a)\nThe 2013 budget shall include fiscal consolidation measures amounting to at least EUR 3,2 billion aiming at a reduction of the general government deficit within the time-frame referred to in Article 3(3). In particular, on the expenditure side the budget shall provide for a reduction in expenditure in 2013 of at least EUR 2,5 billion, including: reducing expenditures in the central administration, education and health; transfers to local and regional authorities; reducing the number of employees in the public sector; and, lowering costs by SOEs.\n(b)\nThe budget shall include revenue measures including notably further broadening of corporate and personal income tax bases, higher excises taxes and changes in property taxation, yielding close to EUR 0,8 billion of additional revenue. Portugal shall improve the business environment by reducing administrative burden through the extension to all sectors of the economy of simplification reforms (Points of Single Contact and Zero authorisation projects) and by alleviating SME\u2019s credit constraints including with the implementation of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (2).\n(c)\nPortugal shall complete the elimination of the court backlog.\n8. With a view to restoring confidence in the financial sector, Portugal shall adequately recapitalise and orderly deleverage its banking sector and bring closure to the Banco Portugu\u00eas de Neg\u00f3cios case. In that regard, Portugal shall develop and agree with the Commission, the ECB and the IMF a strategy for the future structure and functioning of the Portuguese banking groups so that financial stability is preserved. In particular, and in line with exact deadlines for the years 2011-2014 being specified in the Memorandum of Understanding, Portugal shall:\n(a)\namend legislation in order to facilitate the issuance of government guaranteed bank bonds for an appropriate amount in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding;\n(b)\nadopt the necessary regulatory requirements by end-May 2011 regarding increases in minimum core tier 1 capital adequacy ratio to 9 % by end-2011 and 10 % by end-2012 (to be maintained thereafter);\n(c)\nensure that banks by end-June 2011 devise institution-specific medium-term funding plans to achieve a stable market-based funding position in line with periodic target leverage ratios established by the Bank of Portugal and the ECB. The feasibility of these funding plans and their implications for leverage ratios will be examined by the Bank of Portugal and the ECB, in consultation with the Commission and the IMF staff on quarterly basis.\n(d)\nindicate clear periodic target leverage ratios for banks and step up the solvency and deleveraging assessment framework during 2011;\n(e)\nensure that the state-owned Caixa Geral de Dep\u00f3sitos will be streamlined to increase the capital base of its core banking arm as needed and launch a process to sell Banco Portugu\u00eas de Neg\u00f3cios on an accelerated schedule. To this end, Portugal shall submit a new plan to the Commission for approval under State aid control rules;\n(f)\namend by end-2011 legislation concerning early intervention and resolution of banks as well as legislation concerning the Deposit Guarantee Fund and the Guarantee Fund for Mutual Agricultural Credit Institutions, with a view to protecting depositors and facilitate restructuring. In particular, these funds should retain the ability to fund the resolution of distressed credit institutions, but not to recapitalise them. Such funding shall be capped at the amount of guaranteed deposits that would have to be paid out in liquidation and be permissible only if it does not prejudice the ability of these funds to perform their primary function;\n(g)\namend by end-November 2011 the Insolvency Law to provide that guaranteed depositors and/or the funds (directly or through subrogation) will be granted a priority ranking over unsecured creditors in the credit institution\u2019s insolvent estate and to better support effective rescue of viable firms;\n(h)\nundertake to encourage private investors to maintain their overall exposures on a voluntary basis.\n9. In order to ensure the smooth implementation of the Programme\u2019s conditionality, and to help to correct imbalances in a sustainable way, the Commission shall provide continued advice and guidance on fiscal, financial market and structural reforms. Within the framework of the assistance to be provided to Portugal, together with the IMF and in liaison with the ECB, it shall periodically review the effectiveness and economic and social impact of the agreed measures, and shall recommend necessary corrections with a view to enhancing growth and job creation, securing the necessary fiscal consolidation and minimising harmful social impacts, particularly regarding the most vulnerable members of Portuguese society.\nArticle 4\nPortugal shall open a special account with the Bank of Portugal for the management of the Union financial assistance.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 30 May 2011.", "references": ["56", "89", "66", "82", "54", "14", "76", "4", "38", "36", "50", "18", "68", "64", "99", "94", "1", "71", "83", "62", "79", "21", "51", "41", "12", "59", "37", "78", "11", "93", "No Label", "7", "9", "10", "15", "30", "32", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "9", "10", "15", "30", "32", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/670/CFSP\nof 10 October 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/235/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP of 12 April 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran (1), and in particular Article 3(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 April 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/235/CFSP.\n(2)\nIn view of the ongoing human rights abuses in Iran, additional persons should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/235/CFSP,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/235/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 10 October 2011.", "references": ["61", "1", "45", "82", "19", "70", "64", "76", "94", "75", "88", "97", "47", "8", "48", "0", "16", "7", "13", "59", "25", "96", "84", "21", "9", "87", "33", "32", "41", "39", "No Label", "3", "12", "14", "95"], "gold": ["3", "12", "14", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 133/2012\nof 15 February 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 February 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 February 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 February 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2012.", "references": ["11", "87", "48", "27", "45", "92", "75", "88", "34", "90", "72", "60", "55", "6", "98", "47", "93", "52", "99", "5", "94", "41", "46", "21", "64", "50", "32", "24", "66", "65", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1111/2011\nof 3 November 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of Lactobacillus plantarum (NCIMB 30236) as a feed additive for all animal species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of Lactobacillus plantarum (NCIMB 30236). That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of Lactobacillus plantarum (NCIMB 30236) as a feed additive for all animal species, to be classified in the additive category \u2018technological additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 14 June 2011 (2) that Lactobacillus plantarum (NCIMB 30236), under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that this preparation has the potential to improve the production of silage from all forages by reducing the pH and increasing the preservation of dry matter and protein. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additives in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of Lactobacillus plantarum (NCIMB 30236) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex belonging to the additive category \u2018technological additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018silage additives\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2011.", "references": ["36", "41", "92", "27", "86", "32", "81", "49", "50", "54", "67", "2", "72", "21", "80", "90", "73", "19", "22", "5", "62", "23", "63", "96", "12", "9", "30", "70", "45", "39", "No Label", "25", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 968/2011\nof 29 September 2011\nimplementing Article 11(1) and (4) of Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 753/2011 of 1 August 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 11(1) and (4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 August 2011, the Council adopted Council Regulation (EU) No 753/2011.\n(2)\nOn 15 August 2011, the Security Council Committee, established pursuant to paragraph 30 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1988 (2011), updated the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures and therefore Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 shall be replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 September 2011.", "references": ["77", "16", "10", "67", "24", "86", "9", "89", "29", "31", "51", "74", "17", "78", "1", "30", "0", "68", "47", "49", "32", "55", "33", "50", "38", "65", "93", "4", "60", "40", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 7 May 2012\namending Decisions 2005/692/EC, 2005/734/EC, 2007/25/EC and 2009/494/EC as regards avian influenza\n(notified under document C(2012) 2947)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/248/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (2), and in particular Article 18(7) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (3), and in particular Article 22(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (4), and in particular Article 18 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission adopted several protection measures in relation to avian influenza, following the outbreaks of that disease in south-east Asia which started in mid-2003 and was caused by the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus of the subtype H5N1.\n(2)\nThose measures are laid down, in particular, in Commission Decision 2005/692/EC of 6 October 2005 concerning certain protection measures in relation to avian influenza in several third countries (5), Commission Decision 2005/734/EC of 19 October 2005 laying down biosecurity measures to reduce the risk of transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza caused by Influenza virus A subtype H5N1 from birds living in the wild to poultry and other captive birds and providing for an early detection system in areas at particular risk (6), Commission Decision 2007/25/EC of 22 December 2006 as regards certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza and movements of pet birds accompanying their owners into the Community (7) and Commission Decision 2009/494/EC of 25 June 2009 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N1 in Croatia and Switzerland (8).\n(3)\nThe measures laid down in those Decisions are applicable until 30 June 2012. However, outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds and in poultry of the subtype H5N1 continue to occur in third countries thereby also posing a risk to animal and human health within the Union.\n(4)\nGiven the epidemiological situation regarding avian influenza, it is appropriate to continue limiting the risks posed by imports of poultry, poultry products, pet birds and other products covered by those Decisions, as well as to maintain biosecurity measures, early detection systems and certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of the H5N1 subtype.\n(5)\nThe period of application of Decisions 2005/692/EC, 2005/734/EC, 2007/25/EC and 2009/494/EC should therefore be extended until 31 December 2013.\n(6)\nIn 2004, outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza were detected in Thailand. Therefore, protection measures concerning imports of certain commodities originating from poultry and birds in Thailand were adopted by the Commission.\n(7)\nAccordingly, Article 1 of Decision 2005/692/EC provides that Member States are to suspend the importation from Thailand of certain products including meat of poultry, farmed ratites and wild game-birds, and eggs.\n(8)\nThailand has implemented a rigorous stamping-out policy in order to eradicate highly pathogenic avian influenza from its territory. The last outbreak of that disease was reported in November 2008 and Thailand declared itself free from highly pathogenic avian influenza with effect from 11 February 2009.\n(9)\nCommission experts have carried out several inspection missions in Thailand to assess the animal health situation and the disease control systems in place in that third country. The conclusion drawn from the last mission carried out in Thailand is that the overall system gives sufficient guarantees that the concerned products fulfil the relevant Union requirements.\n(10)\nIn view of the favourable animal health situation, in particular as regards the control of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry and the guarantees provided by Thailand, the suspension of imports provided for in Article 1 of Decision 2005/692/EC should no longer apply.\n(11)\nDecisions 2005/692/EC, 2005/734/EC, 2007/25/EC and 2009/494/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2005/692/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is deleted;\n(2)\nin Article 7, the date \u201830 June 2012\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2013\u2019.\nArticle 2\nIn Article 4 of Decision 2005/734/EC, the date \u201830 June 2012\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2013\u2019.\nArticle 3\nIn Article 6 of Decision 2007/25/EC, the date \u201830 June 2012\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2013\u2019.\nArticle 4\nIn Article 3 of Decision 2009/494/EC, the date \u201830 June 2012\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2013\u2019.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2012.", "references": ["70", "32", "55", "68", "17", "7", "41", "18", "99", "33", "6", "74", "62", "0", "21", "91", "63", "48", "54", "1", "72", "80", "34", "24", "85", "94", "47", "3", "57", "82", "No Label", "22", "23", "61", "66", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "61", "66", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 November 2010\non the clearance of the accounts of the paying agency of Estonia concerning expenditure in the field of rural development measures financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2009 financial year\n(notified under document C(2010) 8275)\n(Only the Estonian text is authentic)\n(2010/729/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 39 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2010/257/EU (2) cleared, for the 2009 financial year, the accounts of all the paying agencies except for the Estonian paying agency \u2018PRIA\u2019.\n(2)\nFollowing the transmission of new information and after additional checks, the Commission can now take a decision concerning expenditure in the field of rural development measures on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the Estonian paying agency \u2018PRIA\u2019.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from Community financing expenditure not effected in accordance with Community rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accounts of the Estonian paying agency \u2018PRIA\u2019 concerning expenditure in the field of rural development measures financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in respect of the 2009 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, the Member State pursuant to this Decision in the field of rural development measures applicable in Estonia are set out in Annex I and Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Estonia.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["32", "12", "14", "63", "39", "94", "80", "2", "99", "38", "30", "35", "5", "96", "6", "77", "76", "90", "37", "49", "29", "60", "48", "71", "59", "7", "64", "88", "9", "69", "No Label", "10", "17", "33", "47", "61", "91"], "gold": ["10", "17", "33", "47", "61", "91"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 913/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 22 September 2010\nconcerning a European rail network for competitive freight\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nWithin the framework of the European Union new Strategy for jobs and growth, the creation of an internal rail market, in particular with regard to freight transport, is an essential factor in making progress towards sustainable mobility.\n(2)\nCouncil Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways (4) and Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure (5) have been important steps in the creation of the internal rail market.\n(3)\nIn order to be competitive with other modes of transport, international and national rail freight services, which have been opened up to competition since 1 January 2007, must be able to benefit from a good quality and sufficiently financed railway infrastructure, namely, one which allows freight transport services to be provided under good conditions in terms of commercial speed and journey times and to be reliable, namely, that the service it provides actually corresponds to the contractual agreements entered into with the railway undertakings.\n(4)\nAlthough the opening of the rail freight market has made it possible for new operators to enter the rail network, market mechanisms have not been and are not sufficient to organise, regulate and secure rail freight traffic. To optimise the use of the network and ensure its reliability it is useful to introduce additional procedures to strengthen cooperation on allocation of international train paths for freight trains between infrastructure managers.\n(5)\nIn this context, the establishment of international rail corridors for a European rail network for competitive freight on which freight trains can run under good conditions and easily pass from one national network to another would allow for improvements in the conditions of use of the infrastructure.\n(6)\nIn order to establish international rail corridors for a European rail network for competitive freight, the initiatives already taken in terms of railway infrastructure show that the establishment of international corridors, which meet specific needs in one or more clearly identified segments of the freight market, is the most appropriate method.\n(7)\nThis Regulation should, unless otherwise provided, be without prejudice to the rights and obligations of infrastructure managers set out in Directive 91/440/EEC and Directive 2001/14/EC and, where relevant, allocation bodies as referred to in Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC. Those acts remain in force, including in respect of provisions which affect freight corridors.\n(8)\nThe establishment of a freight corridor should take into account, where appropriate, the need for better interconnections with the rail infrastructure of European third countries.\n(9)\nThe design of freight corridors should seek to ensure continuity along the corridors by enabling the required interconnections between existing railway infrastructure.\n(10)\nThe implementation of international rail freight corridors forming a European rail network for competitive freight should be conducted in a manner consistent with the trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) and/or the European Railway Traffic Management System (ERTMS) corridors. To that end, the coordinated development of the networks is necessary, and in particular as regards the integration of the international corridors for rail freight into the existing TEN-T and the ERTMS corridors. Furthermore, harmonising rules relating to those freight corridors should be established at Union level. Projects aimed at reducing noise from freight trains should be encouraged. If necessary, the establishment of those corridors should be supported financially within the framework of the TEN-T, research and Marco Polo programmes, and other Union policies and funds, such as the European Regional Development Fund or the Cohesion Fund as well as the European Investment Bank.\n(11)\nWithin the framework of a freight corridor, good coordination between the Member States and the infrastructure managers concerned should be ensured, sufficient priority should be given to rail freight traffic, effective and adequate links to other modes of transport should be set up and conditions should be created which are favourable to the development of competition between rail freight service providers.\n(12)\nFurther to the freight corridors set up in accordance with Article 3, the establishment of additional freight corridors should be examined and approved at Union level in accordance with clearly defined transparent procedures and criteria which allow Member States and infrastructure managers sufficient decision-making and management scope so that they can take into account existing initiatives for special corridors, e.g. ERTMS, RailNetEurope (RNE) and TEN-T, and take measures adapted to their specific needs.\n(13)\nIn order to stimulate coordination between the Member States and the infrastructure managers and to provide continuity along the corridor, an appropriate governance structure for each freight corridor should be established, taking into account the need to avoid duplication with already existing governance structures.\n(14)\nIn order to meet market needs, the methods for establishing a freight corridor should be presented in an implementation plan, which should include identifying and setting a schedule for measures which would improve the performance of rail freight. Furthermore, to ensure that planned or implemented measures for the establishment of a freight corridor meet the needs or expectations of all of the users of the freight corridor, the applicants likely to use the freight corridor must be regularly consulted in accordance with procedures defined by the management board.\n(15)\nThe development of intermodal freight terminals should also be considered necessary to support the establishment of rail freight corridors in the Union.\n(16)\nIn order to guarantee the consistency and continuity of the infrastructure capacities available along the freight corridor, investment in the freight corridor should be coordinated between Member States and the infrastructure managers concerned, as well as, where appropriate, between Member States and European third countries, and planned in a way which meets, subject to economic viability, the needs of the freight corridor. The schedule for carrying out the investment should be published to ensure that applicants who may operate in the corridor are well informed. The investment should include projects relating to the development of interoperable systems and the increase in capacity of the trains.\n(17)\nFor the same reasons, all the works on infrastructure and its equipment that would restrict available capacity on the freight corridor should also be coordinated at the level of the freight corridor and be the subject of updated publications.\n(18)\nIn order to facilitate requests for infrastructure capacities for international rail freight services, it is appropriate to designate or establish a one-stop shop for each freight corridor. For this, existing initiatives should be built upon, in particular those undertaken by RNE, a body which acts as a coordination tool for the infrastructure managers and provides a number of services to international freight undertakings.\n(19)\nThe management of freight corridors should also include procedures for the allocation of the infrastructure capacity for international freight trains running on such corridors. Those procedures should recognise the need for capacity of other types of transport, including passenger transport.\n(20)\nTo ensure that the railway infrastructure is better used, the operation of that infrastructure and the terminals along the freight corridor need to be coordinated.\n(21)\nPriority rules may also mean priority targets depending on the situation in the respective Member State.\n(22)\nFreight trains running on the freight corridor should be able to enjoy, as far as possible, sufficient punctuality in the event of disturbance with regard to the needs of all types of transport.\n(23)\nIn order to promote the development of competition between providers of rail freight services on the freight corridor, applicants other than railway undertakings or their groupings should be allowed to request infrastructure capacity on the freight corridors.\n(24)\nIn order to evaluate objectively the benefits of the measures aimed at the establishment of the freight corridor, the performance of the rail freight services along the freight corridor should be monitored and quality reports should be published regularly. The evaluation of the performance should include the outcome of satisfaction surveys of the users of the freight corridor.\n(25)\nIn order to ensure non-discriminatory access to international rail services, it is necessary to ensure efficient coordination between the regulatory bodies with regard to the different networks covered by the freight corridor.\n(26)\nTo facilitate access to information concerning the use of all the main infrastructure on the freight corridor and to guarantee non-discriminatory access to that corridor, the management board should draw up, regularly update and publish a document containing all of this information.\n(27)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely the establishment of a European rail network for competitive freight made up of freight corridors, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States alone and can therefore by reason of its scale and effects 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.\n(28)\nFair rules based on cooperation between the infrastructure managers, who must provide a quality service to freight undertakings within the framework of an international rail corridor, should be introduced in respect of the coordination of investment and the management of capacities and traffic.\n(29)\nAs international trains need to run itineraries combining several corridors, as defined in this Regulation, the infrastructure managers of several corridors may also coordinate their activities in order to ensure, on the corridors concerned, the availability of capacity, fluid movements and a coherent application of priority rules to the different types of traffic in the event of disturbance.\n(30)\nThe aim of this Regulation is to improve the efficiency of rail freight transport relative to other modes of transport. Coordination should be ensured between Member States and infrastructure managers in order to guarantee the most efficient functioning of freight corridors. To allow this, operational measures should be taken in parallel with investments in infrastructure and in technical equipment such as ERTMS that should aim at increasing rail freight capacity and efficiency.\n(31)\nThe implementation of the rules on the establishment and modification of the freight corridors and on the exemptions granted to the Member States needs to be achieved under uniform conditions in order to ensure the compliance of the proposals for the establishment of freight corridors with the criteria set out in this Regulation and should therefore be conferred upon the Commission. In accordance with Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers shall be laid down in advance by means of a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (6) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL\nArticle 1\nPurpose and scope\n1. This Regulation lays down rules for the establishment and organisation of international rail corridors for competitive rail freight with a view to the development of a European rail network for competitive freight. It sets out rules for the selection, organisation, management and the indicative investment planning of freight corridors.\n2. This Regulation shall apply to the management and use of railway infrastructure included in freight corridors.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2001/14/EC shall apply.\n2. In addition to the definitions referred to in paragraph 1:\n(a)\n\u2018freight corridor\u2019 means all designated railway lines, including railway ferry lines, on the territory of or between Member States, and, where appropriate, European third countries, linking two or more terminals, along a principal route and, where appropriate, diversionary routes and sections connecting them, including the railway infrastructure and its equipment and relevant rail services in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2001/14/EC;\n(b)\n\u2018implementation plan\u2019 means the document presenting the means and the strategy that the parties concerned intend to implement in order to develop over a specified period the measures which are necessary and sufficient to establish the freight corridor;\n(c)\n\u2018terminal\u2019 means the installation provided along the freight corridor which has been specially arranged to allow either the loading and/or the unloading of goods onto/from freight trains, and the integration of rail freight services with road, maritime, river and air services, and either the forming or modification of the composition of freight trains; and, where necessary, performing border procedures at borders with European third countries.\nCHAPTER II\nDESIGNATION AND GOVERNANCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL RAIL CORRIDORS FOR COMPETITIVE FREIGHT\nArticle 3\nDesignation of initial freight corridors\nThe Member States referred to in the Annex shall make operational by the dates set out therein the initial freight corridors set out in the Annex. The Member States concerned shall inform the Commission about the establishment of the freight corridors.\nArticle 4\nCriteria for further freight corridors\nThe selection of further freight corridors referred to in Article 5 and the modification of freight corridors referred to in Article 6 shall take account of the following criteria:\n(a)\nthe crossing by the freight corridor of the territory of at least three Member States, or of two Member States if the distance between the terminals served by the freight corridor is greater than 500 km;\n(b)\nthe consistency of the freight corridor with the TEN-T, the ERTMS corridors and/or the corridors defined by RNE;\n(c)\nthe integration of TEN-T priority projects (7) into the freight corridor;\n(d)\nthe balance between the socio-economic costs and benefits stemming from the establishment of the freight corridor;\n(e)\nthe consistency of all of the freight corridors proposed by the Member States in order to set up a European rail network for competitive freight;\n(f)\nthe development of rail freight traffic and major trade flows and goods traffic along the freight corridor;\n(g)\nif appropriate, better interconnections between Member States and European third countries;\n(h)\nthe interest of the applicants in the freight corridor;\n(i)\nthe existence of good interconnections with other modes of transport, in particular due to an adequate network of terminals, including in maritime and inland ports.\nArticle 5\nSelection of further freight corridors\n1. Each Member State with a rail border with another Member State shall participate in the establishment of at least one freight corridor, unless this obligation has already been met under Article 3.\n2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States shall, upon request from a Member State, participate in the establishment of the freight corridor as referred to in that paragraph or the prolongation of an existing corridor, in order to allow a neighbouring Member State to fulfil its obligation under that paragraph.\n3. Without prejudice to the obligations of Member States under Article 7 of Directive 91/440/EEC, where a Member State considers, after having provided a socio-economic analysis, that the establishment of a freight corridor would not be in the interest of the applicants likely to use the freight corridor or would not bring significant socio-economic benefits or would cause a disproportionate burden, the Member State concerned shall not be obliged to participate as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, subject to a decision of the Commission acting in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 21(2).\n4. A Member State shall not be obliged to participate as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 if it has a rail network which has a track gauge which is different from that of the main rail network within the Union.\n5. The establishment of a freight corridor shall be proposed by the Member States concerned. For this purpose they shall send jointly to the Commission a letter of intent including a proposal drawn up after consultation of the infrastructure managers and applicants concerned, taking into account the criteria set out in Article 4.\nIn order to meet the obligation under paragraphs 1 and 2, the Member States concerned shall send jointly to the Commission a letter of intent by 10 November 2012.\n6. The Commission shall examine the proposals for the establishment of a freight corridor as referred to in paragraph 5 and, in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 21(3), adopt a decision on the compliance of such a proposal with this Article at the latest 9 months after submission of the proposal.\n7. The Member States concerned shall establish the freight corridor at the latest two years after the decision of the Commission referred to in paragraph 6.\nArticle 6\nModification of further freight corridors\n1. The freight corridors referred to in Article 5 may be modified on the basis of a joint proposal by the Member States concerned to the Commission after consulting the infrastructure managers and applicants concerned.\n2. The Commission shall, in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 21(3), adopt a decision on the proposal taking into account the criteria set out in Article 4.\nArticle 7\nReconciliation\nWhen two or more Member States concerned do not agree on the establishment or modification of a freight corridor, and with regard to the railway infrastructure located on their territory, the Commission, at the request of one of the Member States concerned, shall consult the Committee referred to in Article 21 on this matter. The opinion of the Commission shall be sent to the Member States concerned. The Member States concerned shall take this opinion into account in order to find a solution and shall take a decision on the basis of mutual consent.\nArticle 8\nGovernance of freight corridors\n1. For each freight corridor, Member States concerned shall establish an executive board responsible for defining the general objectives of the freight corridor, supervising and taking the measures as expressly provided for in paragraph 7 of this Article, and in Articles 9 and 11, Article 14(1) and Article 22. The executive board shall be composed of representatives of the authorities of the Member States concerned.\n2. For each freight corridor, the infrastructure managers concerned and, where relevant, the allocation bodies as referred to in Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC, shall establish a management board responsible for taking the measures as expressly provided for in paragraphs 5, 7, 8 and 9 of this Article, and in Articles 9 to 12, Article 13(1), Article 14(2), (6) and (9), Article 16(1), Article 17(1) and Articles 18 and 19 of this Regulation. The management board shall be composed of the representatives of the infrastructure managers.\n3. The Member States and infrastructure managers concerned by a freight corridor shall cooperate within the boards referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 to ensure the development of the freight corridor in accordance with its implementation plan.\n4. The executive board shall take its decisions on the basis of mutual consent of the representatives of the authorities of the Member States concerned.\n5. The management board shall take its decisions, including decisions regarding its legal status, the establishment of its organisational structure, resources and staffing, on the basis of mutual consent of the infrastructure managers concerned. The management board may be an independent legal entity. It may take the form of a European economic interest grouping within the meaning of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) (8).\n6. The responsibilities of the executive and management boards shall be without prejudice to the independence of infrastructure managers as provided for in Article 4(2) of Directive 91/440/EEC.\n7. The management board shall set up an advisory group made up of managers and owners of the terminals of the freight corridor including, where necessary, sea and inland waterway ports. This advisory group may issue an opinion on any proposal by the management board which has direct consequences for investment and the management of terminals. It may also issue own-initiative opinions. The management board shall take any of these opinions into account. In the event of disagreement between the management board and the advisory group, the latter may refer the matter to the executive board. The executive board shall act as an intermediary and provide its opinion in due time. The final decision however shall be taken by the management board.\n8. The management board shall set up a further advisory group made up of railway undertakings interested in the use of the freight corridor. This advisory group may issue an opinion on any proposal by the management board which has consequences for these undertakings. It may also issue own-initiative opinions. The management board shall take any of these opinions into account.\n9. The management board shall coordinate in accordance with national and European deployment plans the use of interoperable IT applications or alternative solutions that may become available in the future to handle requests for international train paths and the operation of international traffic on the freight corridor.\nArticle 9\nMeasures for implementing the freight corridor plan\n1. The management board shall draw up an implementation plan at the latest 6 months before making the freight corridor operational and shall submit it for approval to the executive board. This plan shall include:\n(a)\na description of the characteristics of the freight corridor, including bottlenecks, and the programme of measures necessary for creating the freight corridor;\n(b)\nthe essential elements of the study referred to in paragraph 3;\n(c)\nthe objectives for the freight corridors, in particular in terms of performance of the freight corridor expressed as the quality of the service and the capacity of the freight corridor in accordance with the provisions of Article 19;\n(d)\nthe investment plan referred to in Article 11; and\n(e)\nthe measures to implement the provisions of Articles 12 to 19.\n2. The management board shall periodically review the implementation plan taking into account progress made in its implementation, the rail freight market on the freight corridor and performance measured in accordance with the objectives referred to in point (c) of paragraph 1.\n3. The management board shall carry out and periodically update a transport market study relating to the observed and expected changes in the traffic on the freight corridor, as a consequence of its being established, covering the different types of traffic, both regarding the transport of freight and the transport of passengers. This study shall also review, where necessary, the socio-economic costs and benefits stemming from the establishment of the freight corridor.\n4. The implementation plan shall take into account the development of terminals to meet the needs of rail freight running on the freight corridor, in particular by acting as intermodal nodes along the freight corridors.\n5. The management board shall, as appropriate, take measures to cooperate with regional and/or local administrations in respect of the implementation plan.\nArticle 10\nConsulting applicants\nThe management board shall introduce consultation mechanisms with a view to the proper participation of the applicants likely to use the freight corridor. In particular, it shall ensure that applicants are consulted before the implementation plan referred to in Article 9 is submitted to the executive board.\nCHAPTER III\nINVESTMENT IN THE FREIGHT CORRIDOR\nArticle 11\nInvestment planning\n1. The management board shall draw up and periodically review an investment plan, which includes details of indicative medium and long-term investment for infrastructure in the freight corridor, and shall submit it for approval to the executive board. This plan shall include:\n(a)\nthe list of the projects foreseen for the extension, renewal or redeployment of railway infrastructure and its equipment along the freight corridor and the relevant financial requirements and sources of finance;\n(b)\na deployment plan relating to the interoperable systems along the freight corridor which satisfies the essential requirements and the technical specifications for interoperability which apply to the network as defined in Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (9). This deployment plan shall be based on a cost-benefit analysis of the use of interoperable systems;\n(c)\na plan for the management of the capacity of freight trains which may run on the freight corridor, which includes removing the identified bottlenecks. This plan may be based on improving speed management and on increasing the length, loading gauge, and load hauled or axle load authorised for the trains running on the freight corridor; and\n(d)\nwhere applicable, reference to the contribution of the Union envisaged under financial programmes of the Union.\n2. The application of this Regulation shall be without prejudice to the competence of the Member States regarding planning of and funding for rail infrastructure.\nArticle 12\nCoordination of works\nThe management board shall coordinate and ensure the publication in one place, in an appropriate manner and timeframe, of their schedule for carrying out all the works on the infrastructure and its equipment that would restrict available capacity on the freight corridor.\nCHAPTER IV\nMANAGEMENT OF THE FREIGHT CORRIDOR\nArticle 13\nOne-stop shop for application for infrastructure capacity\n1. The management board for a freight corridor shall designate or set up a joint body for applicants to request and to receive answers, in a single place and in a single operation, regarding infrastructure capacity for freight trains crossing at least one border along the freight corridor (hereinafter referred to as a \u2018one-stop shop\u2019).\n2. The one-stop shop shall, as a coordination tool, also provide basic information concerning the allocation of the infrastructure capacity, including the information referred in Article 18. It shall display infrastructure capacity available at the time of request and its characteristics in accordance with pre-defined parameters, such as speed, length, loading gauge or axle load authorised for trains running on the freight corridor.\n3. The one-stop shop shall take a decision with regard to applications for pre-arranged train paths specified in Article 14(3) and for the reserve capacity specified in Article 14(5). It shall allocate the capacity in line with rules regarding capacity allocation as set out in Directive 2001/14/EC. It shall inform the competent infrastructure managers of these applications and the decision taken without delay.\n4. For any request of infrastructure capacity which cannot be met pursuant to paragraph 3, the one-stop shop shall forward the application for infrastructure capacity without any delay to the competent infrastructure managers and, where relevant, the allocation bodies as referred to in Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC, who shall take a decision on that application in accordance with Article 13 and Chapter III of that Directive and communicate this decision to the one-stop shop for further processing.\n5. The activities of the one-stop shop shall be carried out in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner. To this end a register shall be kept which shall be made freely available to all interested parties. It shall contain the dates of the requests, names of the applicants, details of documentation supplied and of incidents which have occurred. These activities shall be subject to the control of the regulatory bodies in accordance with Article 20.\nArticle 14\nCapacity allocated to freight trains\n1. The executive board shall define the framework for the allocation of the infrastructure capacity on the freight corridor in accordance with Article 14(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC.\n2. The management board shall evaluate the need for capacity to be allocated to freight trains running on the freight corridor taking into account the transport market study referred to in Article 9(3) of this Regulation, the requests for infrastructure capacity relating to the past and present working timetables and the framework agreements.\n3. On the basis of the evaluation specified in paragraph 2 of this Article, infrastructure managers of the freight corridor shall jointly define and organise international pre-arranged train paths for freight trains following the procedure referred to in Article 15 of Directive 2001/14/EC recognising the need for capacity of other types of transport, including passenger transport. They shall facilitate journey times, frequencies, times of departure and destination and routings suitable for freight transport services with a view to increasing the transport of goods by freight trains running on the freight corridor. These pre-arranged train paths shall be published not later than 3 months before the final date for receipt of requests for capacity referred to in Annex III to Directive 2001/14/EC. The infrastructure managers of several freight corridors may, if necessary, coordinate international prearranged train paths offering capacity on the freight corridors concerned.\n4. These pre-arranged train paths shall be allocated first to freight trains which cross at least one border.\n5. Infrastructure managers shall, if justified by market need and the evaluation as referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, jointly define the reserve capacity for international freight trains running on the freight corridors recognising the need for capacity of other types of transport, including passenger transport and keep this reserve available within their final working timetables to allow for a quick and appropriate response to ad hoc requests for capacity as referred to in Article 23 of Directive 2001/14/EC. This capacity shall be reserved until the time limit before its scheduled time as decided by the management board. This time limit shall not exceed 60 days.\n6. The management board shall promote coordination of priority rules relating to capacity allocation on the freight corridor.\n7. Infrastructure managers may include in their conditions of use a fee for train paths that are allocated but ultimately not used. The level of this fee shall be appropriate, dissuasive and effective.\n8. Save in the case of force majeure, including urgent and unforeseeable safety-critical work, a train path allocated to a freight operation pursuant to this Article may not be cancelled less than 2 months before its scheduled time in the working timetable if the applicant concerned does not give its approval for such cancellation. In such a case the infrastructure manager concerned shall make an effort to propose to the applicant a train path of an equivalent quality and reliability which the applicant has the right to accept or refuse. This provision shall be without prejudice to any rights the applicant may have under an agreement as referred to in Article 19(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC. In any case, the applicant may refer the matter to the regulatory body referred to in Article 20 of this Regulation.\n9. The management board of the freight corridor and the advisory group referred to in Article 8(7) shall put in place procedures to ensure optimal coordination of the allocation of capacity between infrastructure managers, both for requests as referred to in Article 13(1) and for requests received by infrastructure managers concerned. This shall also take account of access to terminals.\n10. In paragraphs 4 and 9 of this Article, references to infrastructure managers shall include, where relevant, allocation bodies as referred to in Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC.\nArticle 15\nAuthorised applicants\nNotwithstanding Article 16(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC, applicants other than railway undertakings or the international groupings that they make up, such as shippers, freight forwarders and combined transport operators, may request international pre-arranged train paths specified in Article 14(3) and the reserve capacity specified in Article 14(5). In order to use such a train path for freight transport on the freight corridor these applicants shall appoint a railway undertaking to conclude an agreement with the infrastructure manager in accordance with Article 10(5) of Directive 91/440/EEC.\nArticle 16\nTraffic management\n1. The management board of the freight corridor shall put in place procedures for coordinating traffic management along the freight corridor. The management boards of connected freight corridors shall put in place procedures for coordinating traffic along such freight corridors.\n2. The infrastructure managers of the freight corridor and the advisory group referred to in Article 8(7) shall put in place procedures to ensure optimal coordination between the operation of the railway infrastructure and the terminals.\nArticle 17\nTraffic management in the event of disturbance\n1. The management board shall adopt common targets for punctuality and/or guidelines for traffic management in the event of disturbance to train movements on the freight corridor.\n2. Each infrastructure manager concerned shall draw up priority rules for the management between the different types of traffic in the part of the freight corridors within the responsibility of that infrastructure manager in accordance with the common targets and/or guidelines referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. Those priority rules shall be published in the network statement referred to in Article 3 of Directive 2001/14/EC.\n3. The principles for establishing the priority rules shall at least provide that the train path referred to in Article 14(3) and (4) allocated to freight trains which comply with their scheduled time in the working timetable shall not be modified, as far as possible. The principles for establishing the priority rules shall aim at minimising the overall network recovery time with regard to the needs of all types of transport. For this purpose, infrastructure managers may coordinate the management between the different types of traffic along several freight corridors.\nArticle 18\nInformation on the conditions of use of the freight corridor\nThe management board shall draw up, regularly update and publish a document containing:\n(a)\nall the information contained in the network statement for national networks regarding the freight corridor, drawn up in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 3 of Directive 2001/14/EC;\n(b)\nthe list and characteristics of terminals, in particular information concerning the conditions and methods of accessing the terminals;\n(c)\nthe information concerning the procedures referred to in Articles 13 to 17 of this Regulation; and\n(d)\nthe implementation plan.\nArticle 19\nQuality of service on the freight corridor\n1. The management board of the freight corridor shall promote compatibility between the performance schemes along the freight corridor, as referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC.\n2. The management board shall monitor the performance of rail freight services on the freight corridor and publish the results of this monitoring once a year.\n3. The management board shall organise a satisfaction survey of the users of the freight corridor and shall publish the results of it once a year.\nArticle 20\nRegulatory bodies\n1. The regulatory bodies referred to in Article 30 of Directive 2001/14/EC shall cooperate in monitoring the competition in the rail freight corridor. In particular, they shall ensure non-discriminatory access to the corridor and shall be the appeal bodies provided for under Article 30(2) of that Directive. They shall exchange the necessary information obtained from infrastructure managers and other relevant parties.\n2. Member States, in order to foster free and fair competition on the freight corridors, shall endeavour to establish a comparable regulatory level. Regulatory bodies shall be easily accessible to the market players, and shall be able to take decisions independently and efficiently.\n3. In the event of a complaint to a regulatory body from an applicant regarding international rail freight services, or within the framework of an own-initiative investigation by a regulatory body, this regulatory body shall consult the regulatory bodies of all other Member States through which the international train path for freight train concerned runs and request all necessary information from them before taking its decision.\n4. The regulatory bodies consulted under paragraph 3 shall provide all the information that they themselves have the right to request under their national legislation to the regulatory body concerned. This information may only be used for the purpose of the handling of the complaint or the investigation referred to in paragraph 3.\n5. The regulatory body receiving the complaint or having initiated the own-initiative investigation shall transfer relevant information to the regulatory body responsible in order for that body to take measures regarding the parties concerned.\n6. Any associated representatives of infrastructure managers as referred to in Article 15(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC shall ensure provision, without delay, of all the information necessary for the purpose of the handling of the complaint or the investigation referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article and requested by the regulatory body of the Member State in which the associated representative is located. This regulatory body shall be entitled to transfer such information regarding the international train path concerned to the regulatory bodies mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Article.\nCHAPTER V\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 21\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee referred to in Article 11a of Directive 91/440/EEC.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 3 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\n3. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\nThe period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at 3 months.\nArticle 22\nMonitoring implementation\nEvery two years from the time of the establishment of a freight corridor, the executive board referred to in Article 8(1) shall present to the Commission the results of the implementation plan for that corridor. The Commission shall analyse those results and notify the Committee referred to in Article 21 of its analysis.\nArticle 23\nReport\nThe Commission shall periodically examine the application of this Regulation. It shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council, for the first time by 10 November 2015, and every three years thereafter.\nArticle 24\nTransitional measures\nThis Regulation shall not apply to the Republic of Cyprus and Malta for as long as no railway system is established within their territory.\nArticle 25\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 22 September 2010.", "references": ["90", "63", "3", "38", "9", "99", "66", "29", "49", "35", "51", "95", "24", "98", "87", "12", "71", "91", "28", "44", "14", "32", "62", "84", "21", "43", "93", "17", "79", "48", "No Label", "53", "54", "55"], "gold": ["53", "54", "55"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 637/2012\nof 13 July 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances iron sulphate, repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/tall oil crude and repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/tall oil pitch\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2)(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe active substances iron sulphate, repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/tall oil crude and repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/tall oil pitch were included in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) by Commission Directive 2008/127/EC (3) in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 24b of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 of 3 December 2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4). Since the replacement of Directive 91/414/EEC by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, these substances are deemed to have been approved under that Regulation and are listed in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (5).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 25a of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004, the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, presented to the Commission its views on the draft review reports for iron sulphate (6), repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/tall oil crude (7) and repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/tall oil pitch (8) on 16 December 2011. The draft review reports and the views of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 1 June 2012 in the format of the Commission review reports for iron sulphate, repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/tall oil crude and repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/tall oil pitch.\n(3)\nThe Authority communicated its views on iron sulphate, repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/tall oil crude and repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/tall oil pitch to the notifiers, and the Commission invited them to submit comments on the review reports.\n(4)\nIt is confirmed that the active substances iron sulphate, repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/tall oil crude and repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/tall oil pitch are to be deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is necessary to amend the conditions of approval of iron sulphate, repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/tall oil crude and repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/tall oil pitch. It is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information as regards those active substances.\n(6)\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nA reasonable period of time should be allowed before the application of this Regulation in order to allow Member States, notifiers and holders of authorisations for plant protection products to meet the requirements resulting from amendment to the conditions of the approval.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/tall oil crude as active substances in order to comply with the Annex to this Regulation by 1 May 2013.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 November 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2012.", "references": ["8", "9", "61", "68", "81", "87", "66", "42", "63", "27", "18", "71", "15", "24", "7", "4", "23", "76", "84", "96", "37", "13", "86", "12", "53", "80", "1", "11", "46", "55", "No Label", "25", "65"], "gold": ["25", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 246/2011\nof 11 March 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 236/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 March 2011.", "references": ["39", "99", "20", "86", "74", "37", "64", "7", "9", "78", "51", "24", "60", "48", "83", "6", "25", "45", "11", "69", "23", "28", "0", "53", "30", "12", "70", "89", "80", "67", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 116/2011\nof 9 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 February 2011.", "references": ["28", "3", "85", "59", "44", "69", "74", "62", "7", "9", "82", "36", "17", "95", "92", "53", "29", "65", "46", "50", "31", "60", "93", "14", "19", "72", "84", "41", "10", "1", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 341/2010\nof 22 April 2010\nfixing the export refunds on eggs\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), last subparagraph, and Article 170 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Community for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in eggs, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162 to 164, 167, 169 and 170 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely within the Community and comply with requirements under Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2) and of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3), as well as marking requirements under point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The products on which the export refunds provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 may be paid, subject to the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 of this Article, and the amounts of those refunds are specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The products on which a refund may be paid under paragraph 1 shall meet the requirements under Regulations (EC) Nos 852/2004 and 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 and those defined in point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 April 2010.", "references": ["1", "86", "7", "89", "75", "94", "73", "88", "52", "56", "68", "13", "6", "5", "22", "40", "97", "2", "93", "25", "59", "60", "57", "0", "19", "38", "54", "84", "34", "65", "No Label", "20", "69", "72"], "gold": ["20", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 408/2010\nof 11 May 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/232/CFSP of 26 April 2010 renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar (1),\nHaving regard to a joint proposal from the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4 of Decision 2010/232/CFSP provides that the purchase, import and transport from Burma/Myanmar into the Union of certain specified categories of goods are to be prohibited.\n(2)\nArticle 8 of Decision 2010/232/CFSP provides that non-humanitarian aid or development programmes are to be suspended, but that exceptions are to be made for projects and programmes in support of certain specified objectives.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 194/2008 (2) gives effect to the prohibition on the purchase, import and transport of the categories of goods specified in Article 2(2) thereof. It should, however, be clarified that the prohibition on the purchase of those goods in Burma/Myanmar should not apply where that purchase is made as part of a humanitarian aid project or programme, or a non-humanitarian development project or programme which supports the objectives described in Article 8(a), (b) and (c) of Decision 2010/232/CFSP.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 194/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 194/2008, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. The prohibition on the purchase of restricted goods in paragraph (2)(b) shall not apply to humanitarian aid projects or programmes, or to non-humanitarian development projects and programmes, conducted in Burma/Myanmar, in support of:\n(a)\nhuman rights, democracy, good governance, conflict prevention and building the capacity of civil society;\n(b)\nhealth and education, poverty alleviation and in particular the provision of basic needs and livelihoods for the poorest and most vulnerable populations; or\n(c)\nenvironmental protection and, in particular, programmes addressing the problem of non-sustainable, excessive logging resulting in deforestation.\nThe relevant competent authority, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex IV, shall authorise in advance the purchase of the restricted goods in question. The relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this paragraph.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 May 2010.", "references": ["75", "1", "50", "62", "31", "88", "13", "89", "66", "59", "44", "58", "43", "64", "56", "17", "73", "92", "86", "19", "94", "32", "74", "60", "6", "71", "72", "63", "79", "21", "No Label", "3", "9", "12", "14", "23", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "12", "14", "23", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/230/CFSP\nof 8 April 2011\nimplementing Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof, in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Treaty on European Union,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\n(2)\nIn view of the developments in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 April 2011.", "references": ["85", "28", "7", "42", "13", "51", "39", "38", "74", "35", "11", "63", "96", "25", "32", "84", "71", "44", "19", "12", "91", "31", "20", "77", "48", "99", "60", "59", "21", "58", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "79", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "79", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 958/2010\nof 22 October 2010\nrefusing to authorise a health claim made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children\u2019s development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 18(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on food are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Authority\u2019.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission and to deliver an opinion on a health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nFollowing an application from Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG, submitted on 10 June 2008 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Immune Balance Drink on strengthening body\u2019s defences (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00517) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded, inter alia, as follows: \u2018The Immune Balance Drink activates body\u2019s defence\u2019.\n(6)\nOn 4 November 2009, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Immune Balance Drink and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(7)\nThe comments from the applicant and the members of the public received by the Commission, pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(8)\nHealth claims referred to in Article 13(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 are subject to the transition measures laid down in Article 28(5) of that Regulation only if they comply with the conditions therein mentioned, among which that they have to comply with the Regulation. As for the claim subject to the present Regulation, the Authority concluded that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of the food and the claimed effect and thus it does not comply with the Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and it could not benefit from the transition period foreseen in Article 28(5) of that Regulation. A transition period of six months is provided for to enable food business operators to adapt to the requirements laid down in this Regulation.\n(9)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe health claim set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall not be included in the Union list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nHowever, it may continue to be used for six months after the entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 October 2010.", "references": ["26", "76", "89", "73", "41", "97", "27", "80", "69", "50", "83", "1", "49", "61", "82", "71", "4", "22", "55", "19", "35", "46", "90", "59", "99", "30", "7", "67", "93", "20", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "39", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "39", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1021/2011\nof 14 October 2011\noperating deductions from fishing quotas available for certain stocks in 2011, on account of overfishing of other stocks in the previous year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Article 105(1), (2) and (5) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Member States concerned in accordance with Article 105(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFishing quotas for the year 2010 have been established by:\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (2),\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1226/2009 of 20 November 2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2010 (3),\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1287/2009 of 27 November 2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and the conditions relating thereto for certain fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea for 2010 (4), and\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required and amending Regulations (EC) No 1359/2008, (EC) No 754/2009, (EC) No 1226/2009 and (EC) No 1287/2009 (5).\n(2)\nFishing quotas for the year 2011 have been established by:\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 of 29 November 2010 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea (6),\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (7),\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1256/2010 of 17 December 2010 fixing the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea for 2011 (8), and\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (9).\n(3)\nAccording to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 105 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, when the Commission has established that a Member State has exceeded the fishing quotas which have been allocated to it, it shall operate deductions from future fishing quotas of that Member State by applying certain multiplying factors as set out therein.\n(4)\nParagraph 5 of Article 105 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 provides that, if a deduction cannot be operated pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of that Article on the quota of the stock that was overfished because that quota is not sufficiently available to the Member State concerned, the Commission, after consultation of the Member State concerned, may deduct in the following year or years quotas for other stocks or groups of stocks available to that Member State in the same geographical area, or with the same commercial value.\n(5)\nCertain Member States have no quota available in 2011 for some stocks which they overfished in 2010. In such cases, it is appropriate to operate such deductions on quotas available to those Member States for other stocks in the same geographical area, taking into account the need to avoid discards in mixed fisheries.\n(6)\nConcerned Member States have been consulted with regard to proposed deductions and suggested certain changes which should be taken into account by the Commission to the extent justified.\n(7)\nDeductions provided for by this Regulation should apply without prejudice to deductions applicable to 2011 quotas pursuant to:\n-\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 147/2007 of 15 February 2007 adapting certain fish quotas from 2007 to 2012 pursuant to Article 23(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (10),\n-\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1016/2011 of 23 September 2011 operating deductions from fishing quotas available for certain stocks in 2011, on account of overfishing of those stocks in the previous year (11),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe fishing quotas fixed in Regulations (EU) No 1124/2010, (EU) No 1225/2010, (EU) No 1256/2010, and (EU) No 57/2011 for the year 2011 are reduced as shown in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nArticle 1 shall apply without prejudice to reductions provided for in Regulations (EC) No 147/2007 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1016/2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 October 2011.", "references": ["27", "37", "48", "56", "65", "62", "44", "21", "52", "17", "47", "95", "16", "88", "35", "1", "43", "46", "71", "0", "38", "14", "60", "74", "87", "86", "8", "68", "61", "99", "No Label", "58", "67"], "gold": ["58", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 749/2011\nof 29 July 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 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\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (1), and in particular Article 5(2), Article 15(1)(c), the second subparagraph of Article 15(1), Article 20(10) and (11), the first and third subparagraphs of Article 41(3), Article 42(2) and Article 45(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 lays down public and animal health rules for animal by-products and derived products, in order to prevent and minimise risks to public and animal health arising from those products. It also provides for the determination of an end point in the manufacturing chain for certain derived products beyond which they are no longer subject to the requirements of that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission 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), lays down implementing rules for Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, including rules on the determination of end points for certain derived products.\n(3)\nDenmark has submitted a request for the determination of an end point for fish oil which is used for the production of medicinal products. Since such fish oil is derived from Category 3 material and is processed under strict conditions, an end point for that oil should be determined. Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 and Annex XIII thereto should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 142/2011 carried on provisions introduced to implement Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 and Commission Decision 2003/324/EC (3) in particular allowing Estonia, Latvia and Finland the feeding of certain fur animals with processed animal protein derived from the bodies or parts of bodies of animals of the same species, in particular foxes. Annex II should be amended to allow feeding of such material to both commonly kept species, the Red fox (Vulpes vulpes), currently listed, and the Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus), as Decision 2003/324/EC has been repealed by Regulation (EU) No 142/2011.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 lays down certain rules for pressure sterilisation and provides for implementing measures to be adopted for other processing methods, which have to be applied to animal by-products or derived products, so that no unacceptable risks to public and animal health arise when such products are used or disposed of. Accordingly, Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 sets out standard processing methods for processing plants and certain other plants and establishments.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 allows for the disposal or use of animal by-products or derived products by way of alternative methods, provided that such methods have been authorised on the basis of an assessment of the capacity of those methods to reduce risks to public and animal health to a degree which is at least equivalent, for the relevant category of animal by-products, to the standard processing methods. Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 also provides for a standard format for applications for alternative methods to be adopted. Accordingly, Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 sets out alternative processing methods for processing plants and certain other plants and establishments.\n(7)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has adopted three opinions in relation to such alternative methods: a scientific opinion adopted on 21 January 2009 on the Project to study alternatives to carcass destruction systems using the bunker system (4) (the bunker system project); a scientific opinion adopted on 8 July 2010 on Lime Treatment of Solid Pig and Poultry Manure (5); and a scientific opinion adopted 22 September 2010 on the Neste Oil Application for a new alternative method of disposal or use of Animal By-Products (6).\n(8)\nThe bunker system project proposes the hydrolysis of pig cadavers and of other animal by-products from farmed pigs in a closed container on the site of a farm. After a defined period of time, the hydrolysed materials obtained are to be disposed of by incineration or by processing, in accordance with the health rules on animal by-products as a first option.\n(9)\nThe bunker system project also proposes the crushing and the subsequent pasteurization of pig cadavers and of other animal by-products from farmed pigs as a second option, prior to their disposal.\n(10)\nIn its opinion of 21 January 2009 on the bunker system project, EFSA concluded that the information provided was not a sufficient basis for considering the second option as a safe means of disposal of animal by-products from pigs. Regarding the first option, based on hydrolysis, EFSA was also not able to deliver a final assessment. However, EFSA indicated that the hydrolysed material would not pose an additional risk, provided it was further processed according to the health rules for Category 2 materials.\n(11)\nTherefore, the hydrolysis of animal by-products on the site of a holding should be permitted under conditions which prevent the transmission of diseases communicable to humans or animals and which avoid adverse effects to the environment. In particular, the hydrolysis should take place in a closed, leak-proof container which is separated from any farmed animals on the same site as a third option. However, since the hydrolysis methodology does not constitute a processing method, the specific conditions for the processing of animal by-products in such plants should not apply. The container should be regularly checked for the absence of corrosion, under official supervision, so that leakage of materials into the ground is prevented.\n(12)\nThe ability of the hydrolysis methodology to reduce potential health risks has not yet been demonstrated. Therefore, any handling or use of the hydrolysed material, other than incineration or co-incineration, with or without prior processing, or disposal in an authorised landfill, composting or transformation into biogas, where the latter three options are each to be preceded by pressure sterilisation, should be prohibited.\n(13)\nSpain, Ireland, Latvia, Portugal and the United Kingdom have indicated an interest to allow their operators to use of the hydrolysis methodology. The competent authorities of those Member States have confirmed that strict controls over such operators are to be carried out in order to prevent potential health risks.\n(14)\nIn its opinion of 8 July 2010 on a Lime Treatment of Solid Pig and Poultry Manure, EFSA concluded that the proposed mixing of lime with manure could be considered as a safe process for the inactivation of relevant bacterial and viral pathogens, in view of the intended application of the derived product, namely the mixture of lime with manure, to land. Since the application demonstrated the efficiency of the process only for a particular mixing device, EFSA recommended that when a different mixing device is to be used for the process, a validation should be carried out, on the basis of measurements of pH, time and temperature, to demonstrate that by using the different mixing device, an equivalent inactivation of pathogens is achieved.\n(15)\nA validation according to those principles should be carried out when quick lime (CaO), which was used for the process assessed by EFSA, is replaced by dolime (CaOMgO).\n(16)\nIn its opinion of 22 September 2010 concerning a multi-step catalytic process for the production of renewable fuels, EFSA concluded that the process can be considered as safe, when rendered fats derived from Category 2 and Category 3 materials are used as starting materials and those rendered fats have been processed in accordance with the standard processing methods for animal by-products. However, the evidence presented did not allow a conclusion that the process is also capable of mitigating potential TSE risks which may be present in rendered fats derived from Category 1 materials. Therefore, the multi-step catalytic process should be authorised for rendered fats derived from Category 2 and Category 3 materials, while it should be rejected for rendered fats derived from Category 1 material. While such rejection does not prevent the applicant from submitting further evidence to EFSA for a new assessment, the use of rendered fats derived from Category 1 material for the process should be prohibited, pending such assessment.\n(17)\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 should be amended to take account of the conclusions of the three scientific opinions of the EFSA.\n(18)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 provides for the adoption of implementing measures for the transformation of animal by-products into biogas or compost. When animal by-products are mixed in a biogas plant or in a composting plant with materials of non-animal origin or with other materials which are not covered by that Regulation, the competent authority should be allowed to authorise the taking of representative samples after pasteurisation and before the mixing takes place, in order to test their compliance with microbiological criteria. The taking of such samples should demonstrate whether the pasteurisation of animal by-products has mitigated microbiological risks in the animal by-products to be transformed.\n(19)\nAnnex V of Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(20)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 provides for the adoption of a standard format for applications for alternative methods of use or disposal of animal by-products or derived products. That format is to be used by interested parties when they submit an application for the authorisation of such methods.\n(21)\nOn request of the Commission, EFSA adopted a scientific opinion on 7 July 2010 on a statement on technical assistance on the format for applications for new alternative methods for animal by-products (7). In that statement, EFSA recommends, in particular, further clarifications regarding the information which interested parties should supply when they submit an application for the authorisation of a new alternative method.\n(22)\nTaking account of the recommendations of that scientific opinion, the standard format for applications for new alternative methods set out in Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 should be amended.\n(23)\nSince renewable fuels from the multi-step catalytic process may also be produced from imported rendered fats, the import requirements for such fats and the conditions set out in the health certificate which must accompany consignments of rendered fats at the point of entry into the Union where the veterinary checks take place should be clarified. Annexes XIV and XV to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(24)\nAccordingly, Article 3 and Annexes II, IV, V, VII, VIII, XI and Annexes XIII to XVI should therefore be amended.\n(25)\nA transitional period should be provided for after the entry into force of this Regulation, in order to allow for the continued importation into the Union of rendered fats not intended for human consumption for certain purposes outside the feed chain, as provided for in Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 before the amendments introduced by this Regulation.\n(26)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 142/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 3, point (g) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(g)\nfur which fulfils the special requirements for the end point for that product set out in Chapter VIII of Annex XIII;\n(h)\nfish oil for the production of medicinal products which fulfils the special requirements for the end point for that product set out in Chapter XIII of Annex XIII;\n(i)\ngasoline and fuels which fulfil the specific requirements for products from the multi-step catalytic process for the production of renewable fuels set out in point 2(c) of Section 3 of Chapter IV of Annex IV.\u2019\n(2)\nAnnexes II, IV, V, VII, VIII, XI and Annexes XIII to XVI are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nFor a transitional period until 31 January 2012, consignments of rendered fats not intended for human consumption to be used for certain purposes outside the feed chain which are accompanied by a health certificate which has been signed and completed in accordance with the model set out in Chapter 10(B) of Annex XV to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 before the date of entry into force of this Regulation, shall continue to be accepted for importation into the Union, provided that such certificates were completed and signed before 30 November 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2011.", "references": ["64", "39", "98", "44", "16", "97", "85", "89", "62", "17", "94", "63", "19", "31", "95", "12", "28", "20", "26", "65", "5", "92", "70", "15", "80", "3", "2", "33", "8", "87", "No Label", "38", "66", "69", "82"], "gold": ["38", "66", "69", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 330/2010\nof 20 April 2010\non the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation No 19/65/EEC of the Council of 2 March 1965 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements and concerted practices (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,\nHaving published a draft of this Regulation,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation No 19/65/EEC empowers the Commission to apply Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2) by regulation to certain categories of vertical agreements and corresponding concerted practices falling within Article 101(1) of the Treaty.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (3) defines a category of vertical agreements which the Commission regarded as normally satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 101(3) of the Treaty. In view of the overall positive experience with the application of that Regulation, which expires on 31 May 2010, and taking into account further experience acquired since its adoption, it is appropriate to adopt a new block exemption regulation.\n(3)\nThe category of agreements which can be regarded as normally satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 101(3) of the Treaty includes vertical agreements for the purchase or sale of goods or services where those agreements are concluded between non-competing undertakings, between certain competitors or by certain associations of retailers of goods. It also includes vertical agreements containing ancillary provisions on the assignment or use of intellectual property rights. The term \u2018vertical agreements\u2019 should include the corresponding concerted practices.\n(4)\nFor the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty by regulation, it is not necessary to define those vertical agreements which are capable of falling within Article 101(1) of the Treaty. In the individual assessment of agreements under Article 101(1) of the Treaty, account has to be taken of several factors, and in particular the market structure on the supply and purchase side.\n(5)\nThe benefit of the block exemption established by this Regulation should be limited to vertical agreements for which it can be assumed with sufficient certainty that they satisfy the conditions of Article 101(3) of the Treaty.\n(6)\nCertain types of vertical agreements can improve economic efficiency within a chain of production or distribution by facilitating better coordination between the participating undertakings. In particular, they can lead to a reduction in the transaction and distribution costs of the parties and to an optimisation of their sales and investment levels.\n(7)\nThe likelihood that such efficiency-enhancing effects will outweigh any anti-competitive effects due to restrictions contained in vertical agreements depends on the degree of market power of the parties to the agreement and, therefore, on the extent to which those undertakings face competition from other suppliers of goods or services regarded by their customers as interchangeable or substitutable for one another, by reason of the products' characteristics, their prices and their intended use.\n(8)\nIt can be presumed that, where the market share held by each of the undertakings party to the agreement on the relevant market does not exceed 30 %, vertical agreements which do not contain certain types of severe restrictions of competition generally lead to an improvement in production or distribution and allow consumers a fair share of the resulting benefits.\n(9)\nAbove the market share threshold of 30 %, there can be no presumption that vertical agreements falling within the scope of Article 101(1) of the Treaty will usually give rise to objective advantages of such a character and size as to compensate for the disadvantages which they create for competition. At the same time, there is no presumption that those vertical agreements are either caught by Article 101(1) of the Treaty or that they fail to satisfy the conditions of Article 101(3) of the Treaty.\n(10)\nThis Regulation should not exempt vertical agreements containing restrictions which are likely to restrict competition and harm consumers or which are not indispensable to the attainment of the efficiency-enhancing effects. In particular, vertical agreements containing certain types of severe restrictions of competition such as minimum and fixed resale-prices, as well as certain types of territorial protection, should be excluded from the benefit of the block exemption established by this Regulation irrespective of the market share of the undertakings concerned.\n(11)\nIn order to ensure access to or to prevent collusion on the relevant market, certain conditions should be attached to the block exemption. To this end, the exemption of non-compete obligations should be limited to obligations which do not exceed a defined duration. For the same reasons, any direct or indirect obligation causing the members of a selective distribution system not to sell the brands of particular competing suppliers should be excluded from the benefit of this Regulation.\n(12)\nThe market-share limitation, the non-exemption of certain vertical agreements and the conditions provided for in this Regulation normally ensure that the agreements to which the block exemption applies do not enable the participating undertakings to eliminate competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.\n(13)\nThe Commission may withdraw the benefit of this Regulation, pursuant to Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (4), where it finds in a particular case that an agreement to which the exemption provided for in this Regulation applies nevertheless has effects which are incompatible with Article 101(3) of the Treaty.\n(14)\nThe competition authority of a Member State may withdraw the benefit of this Regulation pursuant to Article 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in respect of the territory of that Member State, or a part thereof where, in a particular case, an agreement to which the exemption provided for in this Regulation applies nevertheless has effects which are incompatible with Article 101(3) of the Treaty in the territory of that Member State, or in a part thereof, and where such territory has all the characteristics of a distinct geographic market.\n(15)\nIn determining whether the benefit of this Regulation should be withdrawn pursuant to Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the anti-competitive effects that may derive from the existence of parallel networks of vertical agreements that have similar effects which significantly restrict access to a relevant market or competition therein are of particular importance. Such cumulative effects may for example arise in the case of selective distribution or non compete obligations.\n(16)\nIn order to strengthen supervision of parallel networks of vertical agreements which have similar anti-competitive effects and which cover more than 50 % of a given market, the Commission may by regulation declare this Regulation inapplicable to vertical agreements containing specific restraints relating to the market concerned, thereby restoring the full application of Article 101 of the Treaty to such agreements,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018vertical agreement\u2019 means an agreement or concerted practice entered into between two or more undertakings each of which operates, for the purposes of the agreement or the concerted practice, at a different level of the production or distribution chain, and relating to the conditions under which the parties may purchase, sell or resell certain goods or services;\n(b)\n\u2018vertical restraint\u2019 means a restriction of competition in a vertical agreement falling within the scope of Article 101(1) of the Treaty;\n(c)\n\u2018competing undertaking\u2019 means an actual or potential competitor; \u2018actual competitor\u2019 means an undertaking that is active on the same relevant market; \u2018potential competitor\u2019 means an undertaking that, in the absence of the vertical agreement, would, on realistic grounds and not just as a mere theoretical possibility, in case of a small but permanent increase in relative prices be likely to undertake, within a short period of time, the necessary additional investments or other necessary switching costs to enter the relevant market;\n(d)\n\u2018non-compete obligation\u2019 means any direct or indirect obligation causing the buyer not to manufacture, purchase, sell or resell goods or services which compete with the contract goods or services, or any direct or indirect obligation on the buyer to purchase from the supplier or from another undertaking designated by the supplier more than 80 % of the buyer's total purchases of the contract goods or services and their substitutes on the relevant market, calculated on the basis of the value or, where such is standard industry practice, the volume of its purchases in the preceding calendar year;\n(e)\n\u2018selective distribution system\u2019 means a distribution system where the supplier undertakes to sell the contract goods or services, either directly or indirectly, only to distributors selected on the basis of specified criteria and where these distributors undertake not to sell such goods or services to unauthorised distributors within the territory reserved by the supplier to operate that system;\n(f)\n\u2018intellectual property rights\u2019 includes industrial property rights, know how, copyright and neighbouring rights;\n(g)\n\u2018know-how\u2019 means a package of non-patented practical information, resulting from experience and testing by the supplier, which is secret, substantial and identified: in this context, \u2018secret\u2019 means that the know-how is not generally known or easily accessible; \u2018substantial\u2019 means that the know-how is significant and useful to the buyer for the use, sale or resale of the contract goods or services; \u2018identified\u2019 means that the know-how is described in a sufficiently comprehensive manner so as to make it possible to verify that it fulfils the criteria of secrecy and substantiality;\n(h)\n\u2018buyer\u2019 includes an undertaking which, under an agreement falling within Article 101(1) of the Treaty, sells goods or services on behalf of another undertaking;\n(i)\n\u2018customer of the buyer\u2019 means an undertaking not party to the agreement which purchases the contract goods or services from a buyer which is party to the agreement.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation, the terms \u2018undertaking\u2019, \u2018supplier\u2019 and \u2018buyer\u2019 shall include their respective connected undertakings.\n\u2018Connected undertakings\u2019 means:\n(a)\nundertakings in which a party to the agreement, directly or indirectly:\n(i)\nhas the power to exercise more than half the voting rights, or\n(ii)\nhas the power to appoint more than half the members of the supervisory board, board of management or bodies legally representing the undertaking, or\n(iii)\nhas the right to manage the undertaking's affairs;\n(b)\nundertakings which directly or indirectly have, over a party to the agreement, the rights or powers listed in point (a);\n(c)\nundertakings in which an undertaking referred to in point (b) has, directly or indirectly, the rights or powers listed in point (a);\n(d)\nundertakings in which a party to the agreement together with one or more of the undertakings referred to in points (a), (b) or (c), or in which two or more of the latter undertakings, jointly have the rights or powers listed in point (a);\n(e)\nundertakings in which the rights or the powers listed in point (a) are jointly held by:\n(i)\nparties to the agreement or their respective connected undertakings referred to in points (a) to (d), or\n(ii)\none or more of the parties to the agreement or one or more of their connected undertakings referred to in points (a) to (d) and one or more third parties.\nArticle 2\nExemption\n1. Pursuant to Article 101(3) of the Treaty and subject to the provisions of this Regulation, it is hereby declared that Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply to vertical agreements.\nThis exemption shall apply to the extent that such agreements contain vertical restraints.\n2. The exemption provided for in paragraph 1 shall apply to vertical agreements entered into between an association of undertakings and its members, or between such an association and its suppliers, only if all its members are retailers of goods and if no individual member of the association, together with its connected undertakings, has a total annual turnover exceeding EUR 50 million. Vertical agreements entered into by such associations shall be covered by this Regulation without prejudice to the application of Article 101 of the Treaty to horizontal agreements concluded between the members of the association or decisions adopted by the association.\n3. The exemption provided for in paragraph 1 shall apply to vertical agreements containing provisions which relate to the assignment to the buyer or use by the buyer of intellectual property rights, provided that those provisions do not constitute the primary object of such agreements and are directly related to the use, sale or resale of goods or services by the buyer or its customers. The exemption applies on condition that, in relation to the contract goods or services, those provisions do not contain restrictions of competition having the same object as vertical restraints which are not exempted under this Regulation.\n4. The exemption provided for in paragraph 1 shall not apply to vertical agreements entered into between competing undertakings. However, it shall apply where competing undertakings enter into a non-reciprocal vertical agreement and:\n(a)\nthe supplier is a manufacturer and a distributor of goods, while the buyer is a distributor and not a competing undertaking at the manufacturing level; or\n(b)\nthe supplier is a provider of services at several levels of trade, while the buyer provides its goods or services at the retail level and is not a competing undertaking at the level of trade where it purchases the contract services.\n5. This Regulation shall not apply to vertical agreements the subject matter of which falls within the scope of any other block exemption regulation, unless otherwise provided for in such a regulation.\nArticle 3\nMarket share threshold\n1. The exemption provided for in Article 2 shall apply on condition that the market share held by the supplier does not exceed 30 % of the relevant market on which it sells the contract goods or services and the market share held by the buyer does not exceed 30 % of the relevant market on which it purchases the contract goods or services.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, where in a multi party agreement an undertaking buys the contract goods or services from one undertaking party to the agreement and sells the contract goods or services to another undertaking party to the agreement, the market share of the first undertaking must respect the market share threshold provided for in that paragraph both as a buyer and a supplier in order for the exemption provided for in Article 2 to apply.\nArticle 4\nRestrictions that remove the benefit of the block exemption - hardcore restrictions\nThe exemption provided for in Article 2 shall not apply to vertical agreements which, directly or indirectly, in isolation or in combination with other factors under the control of the parties, have as their object:\n(a)\nthe restriction of the buyer's ability to determine its sale price, without prejudice to the possibility of the supplier to impose a maximum sale price or recommend a sale price, provided that they do not amount to a fixed or minimum sale price as a result of pressure from, or incentives offered by, any of the parties;\n(b)\nthe restriction of the territory into which, or of the customers to whom, a buyer party to the agreement, without prejudice to a restriction on its place of establishment, may sell the contract goods or services, except:\n(i)\nthe restriction of active sales into the exclusive territory or to an exclusive customer group reserved to the supplier or allocated by the supplier to another buyer, where such a restriction does not limit sales by the customers of the buyer,\n(ii)\nthe restriction of sales to end users by a buyer operating at the wholesale level of trade,\n(iii)\nthe restriction of sales by the members of a selective distribution system to unauthorised distributors within the territory reserved by the supplier to operate that system, and\n(iv)\nthe restriction of the buyer's ability to sell components, supplied for the purposes of incorporation, to customers who would use them to manufacture the same type of goods as those produced by the supplier;\n(c)\nthe restriction of active or passive sales to end users by members of a selective distribution system operating at the retail level of trade, without prejudice to the possibility of prohibiting a member of the system from operating out of an unauthorised place of establishment;\n(d)\nthe restriction of cross-supplies between distributors within a selective distribution system, including between distributors operating at different level of trade;\n(e)\nthe restriction, agreed between a supplier of components and a buyer who incorporates those components, of the supplier\u2019s ability to sell the components as spare parts to end-users or to repairers or other service providers not entrusted by the buyer with the repair or servicing of its goods.\nArticle 5\nExcluded restrictions\n1. The exemption provided for in Article 2 shall not apply to the following obligations contained in vertical agreements:\n(a)\nany direct or indirect non-compete obligation, the duration of which is indefinite or exceeds five years;\n(b)\nany direct or indirect obligation causing the buyer, after termination of the agreement, not to manufacture, purchase, sell or resell goods or services;\n(c)\nany direct or indirect obligation causing the members of a selective distribution system not to sell the brands of particular competing suppliers.\nFor the purposes of point (a) of the first subparagraph, a non-compete obligation which is tacitly renewable beyond a period of five years shall be deemed to have been concluded for an indefinite duration.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1(a), the time limitation of five years shall not apply where the contract goods or services are sold by the buyer from premises and land owned by the supplier or leased by the supplier from third parties not connected with the buyer, provided that the duration of the non-compete obligation does not exceed the period of occupancy of the premises and land by the buyer.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1(b), the exemption provided for in Article 2 shall apply to any direct or indirect obligation causing the buyer, after termination of the agreement, not to manufacture, purchase, sell or resell goods or services where the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe obligation relates to goods or services which compete with the contract goods or services;\n(b)\nthe obligation is limited to the premises and land from which the buyer has operated during the contract period;\n(c)\nthe obligation is indispensable to protect know-how transferred by the supplier to the buyer;\n(d)\nthe duration of the obligation is limited to a period of one year after termination of the agreement.\nParagraph 1(b) is without prejudice to the possibility of imposing a restriction which is unlimited in time on the use and disclosure of know-how which has not entered the public domain.\nArticle 6\nNon-application of this Regulation\nPursuant to Article 1a of Regulation No 19/65/EEC, the Commission may by regulation declare that, where parallel networks of similar vertical restraints cover more than 50 % of a relevant market, this Regulation shall not apply to vertical agreements containing specific restraints relating to that market.\nArticle 7\nApplication of the market share threshold\nFor the purposes of applying the market share thresholds provided for in Article 3 the following rules shall apply:\n(a)\nthe market share of the supplier shall be calculated on the basis of market sales value data and the market share of the buyer shall be calculated on the basis of market purchase value data. If market sales value or market purchase value data are not available, estimates based on other reliable market information, including market sales and purchase volumes, may be used to establish the market share of the undertaking concerned;\n(b)\nthe market shares shall be calculated on the basis of data relating to the preceding calendar year;\n(c)\nthe market share of the supplier shall include any goods or services supplied to vertically integrated distributors for the purposes of sale;\n(d)\nif a market share is initially not more than 30 % but subsequently rises above that level without exceeding 35 %, the exemption provided for in Article 2 shall continue to apply for a period of two consecutive calendar years following the year in which the 30 % market share threshold was first exceeded;\n(e)\nif a market share is initially not more than 30 % but subsequently rises above 35 %, the exemption provided for in Article 2 shall continue to apply for one calendar year following the year in which the level of 35 % was first exceeded;\n(f)\nthe benefit of points (d) and (e) may not be combined so as to exceed a period of two calendar years;\n(g)\nthe market share held by the undertakings referred to in point (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(2) shall be apportioned equally to each undertaking having the rights or the powers listed in point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(2).\nArticle 8\nApplication of the turnover threshold\n1. For the purpose of calculating total annual turnover within the meaning of Article 2(2), the turnover achieved during the previous financial year by the relevant party to the vertical agreement and the turnover achieved by its connected undertakings in respect of all goods and services, excluding all taxes and other duties, shall be added together. For this purpose, no account shall be taken of dealings between the party to the vertical agreement and its connected undertakings or between its connected undertakings.\n2. The exemption provided for in Article 2 shall remain applicable where, for any period of two consecutive financial years, the total annual turnover threshold is exceeded by no more than 10 %.\nArticle 9\nTransitional period\nThe prohibition laid down in Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply during the period from 1 June 2010 to 31 May 2011 in respect of agreements already in force on 31 May 2010 which do not satisfy the conditions for exemption provided for in this Regulation but which, on 31 May 2010, satisfied the conditions for exemption provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999.\nArticle 10\nPeriod of validity\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 June 2010.\nIt shall expire on 31 May 2022.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2010.", "references": ["83", "94", "74", "6", "50", "76", "81", "47", "39", "54", "46", "5", "73", "68", "24", "45", "97", "38", "75", "18", "25", "72", "70", "33", "88", "52", "60", "22", "95", "69", "No Label", "8", "44", "48", "77"], "gold": ["8", "44", "48", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1038/2010\nof 15 November 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 November 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 November 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 November 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["57", "19", "78", "27", "13", "88", "21", "20", "38", "55", "1", "70", "6", "4", "47", "59", "53", "77", "24", "33", "67", "14", "89", "97", "52", "96", "74", "63", "3", "64", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 781/2012\nof 28 August 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on apples and tomatoes\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2) provides for the surveillance of the imports of the products listed in Annex XVIII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2009, 2010 and 2011, the trigger levels for additional duties should be adjusted from 1 September 2012 for apples and from 1 October 2012 for tomatoes.\n(3)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVIII to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 August 2012.", "references": ["21", "31", "4", "74", "64", "83", "97", "9", "56", "27", "58", "7", "41", "78", "30", "23", "3", "45", "91", "65", "80", "24", "33", "20", "39", "81", "79", "25", "69", "26", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 18 June 2012\napproving restrictions of authorisations of biocidal products containing difethialone notified by Germany in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2012) 4026)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2012/317/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular Article 4(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC contains the list of active substances approved at Union level for inclusion in biocidal products. The active substance difethialone was approved for inclusion in products belonging to product-type 14, rodenticides, as defined in Annex V to Directive 98/8/EC, by Commission Directive 2007/69/EC of 29 November 2007 amending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include difethialone as an active substance in Annex I thereto (2).\n(2)\nDifethialone is an anticoagulant rodenticide known to pose risks of accidental incidents with children, as well as risks for animals and the environment. It has been identified as potentially persistent, liable to bioaccumulate and toxic (\u2018PBT\u2019), or very persistent and very liable to bioaccumulate (\u2018vPvB\u2019).\n(3)\nFor reasons of public health and hygiene, it was nevertheless found to be justified to include difethialone and other anticoagulant rodenticides in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC, thus allowing Member States to authorise difethialone-based products. However, Directive 2007/69/EC obliges Member States to ensure, when granting authorisation of products containing difethialone, that primary as well as secondary exposure of humans, non-target animals and the environment is minimised, by considering and applying all appropriate and available risk mitigation measures.\n(4)\nThe scientific evaluation leading to the adoption of Directive 2007/69/EC concluded that the most significant reductions in exposure to and risks posed by difethialone are achieved by restricting its use to treatment campaigns of limited duration, limiting access of non-target animals to the bait and removing unused bait and dead and moribund rodents during a baiting campaign in order to minimise the opportunity of primary or secondary exposure of non-target animals. The evaluation also concluded that only professional users are expected to follow such instructions. The risk mitigation measures mentioned in Directive 2007/69/EC therefore include restriction to professional use only.\n(5)\nThe company LiphaTech S.A.S. (\u2018the applicant\u2019) has, in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 98/8/EC, submitted an application to the United Kingdom for authorisation of six rodenticides containing difethialone (\u2018the products\u2019). The products\u2019 names and reference numbers in the Register for Biocidal Products (\u2018R4BP\u2019) are indicated in the Annex to this Decision.\n(6)\nThe United Kingdom granted the authorisations on 20 April 2011 (Generation Pat\u2019), on 26 April 2011 (Generation Block, Generation B\u2019Block and Generation S\u2019Block) and on 27 April 2011 (Generation Grain\u2019Tech and Rodilon Trio) (\u2018the first authorisations\u2019). The products were authorised with restrictions to ensure the conditions of Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC were met in the United Kingdom. Those restrictions did not include restriction to trained or licensed professional users.\n(7)\nOn 6 November 2009, the applicant submitted a complete application to Germany for mutual recognition of the first authorisations in respect of the products.\n(8)\nOn 22 November 2011, Germany notified the Commission, the other Member States and the applicant of its proposal to restrict the first authorisations in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive 98/8/EC. Germany proposed to impose a restriction on the products to use by trained or licensed professionals.\n(9)\nThe Commission invited the other Member States and the applicant to submit comments to the notification in writing within 90 days in accordance with Article 27(1) of Directive 98/8/EC. Only the applicant submitted comments within that deadline. The notification was also discussed between Commission representatives, representatives of Member States\u2019 Competent Authorities for biocidal products and the applicant in the meeting of the Product Authorisation and Mutual Recognition Facilitation Group of 6-7 December 2011, in which the applicant participated, and in the meeting of the Competent Authorities for Biocidal Products of 29 February to 2 March 2012.\n(10)\nThe applicant has argued that the restriction to use by trained or licensed professionals is unjustified and should not be accepted, since its products are also suitable for rodent control by non-trained professionals and non-professionals. Furthermore, the applicant has put forward the arguments that the products are ready-to-use products; that the active ingredient content in the products is low; that an antidote exists; that the products can easily be kept out of the reach of children and non-target animals; that non-professional users are likely to remove dead rodents; and that non-professional users can be trained.\n(11)\nThe Commission notes that, in accordance with Directive 2007/69/EC, authorisations of biocidal products containing difethialone are to be subject to all appropriate and available risk mitigation measures, including the restriction to professional use only. The scientific evaluation leading to the adoption of Directive 2007/69/EC concluded that only professional users could be expected to follow the instructions leading to the most significant reductions in exposure and risk. A restriction to professional users should therefore in principle be considered to be an appropriate risk mitigation measure. The arguments put forward by the applicant do not undermine that conclusion.\n(12)\nIn the absence of any indication to the contrary, the Commission therefore considers that restriction to professional users is an appropriate and available risk mitigation measure for the authorisation of products containing difethialone in Germany. The fact that the United Kingdom did not consider such a restriction to be appropriate and available for an authorisation in its territory is immaterial for that conclusion. The decision of the United Kingdom to authorise non-professional use was based in particular on the risk of a delay in treatment of household infestations due to the costs involved in hiring trained professionals, and the associated risks to public hygiene. Germany, however, has explained that that risk is less prevalent in Germany thanks to Germany\u2019s well functioning infrastructure of trained pest control operators and licensed professionals, such as farmers, gardeners and foresters, together with the availability of alternative methods for pest control within buildings, especially for control of mice.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGermany may restrict the authorisations granted in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 98/8/EC for the products mentioned in the Annex to this Decision to use by trained or licensed professionals.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2012.", "references": ["12", "95", "19", "51", "43", "66", "52", "62", "87", "75", "92", "35", "10", "82", "73", "67", "8", "65", "15", "18", "85", "14", "22", "60", "1", "32", "24", "63", "40", "56", "No Label", "25", "61", "83", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "61", "83", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1165/2011\nof 15 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2011.", "references": ["51", "47", "87", "23", "12", "21", "74", "38", "86", "1", "2", "73", "52", "82", "60", "99", "34", "56", "31", "29", "89", "42", "15", "59", "0", "53", "54", "70", "13", "19", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 16 July 2012\nappointing three Italian members and an Italian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/405/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Italian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nThree members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Graziano MILIA, Mr Riccardo VENTRE and Ms Marta VINCENZI. An alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Laura ARDITO,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMr Piero LACORAZZA, Presidente della Provincia di Potenza,\n-\nMr Piero FASSINO, Sindaco del Comune di Torino,\n-\nMr Mauro D\u2019ATTIS, Consigliere del Comune di Brindisi;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate member:\n-\nMs Lucia LIBERTINO, Consigliere del Comune di Formicola.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["90", "38", "27", "32", "20", "67", "43", "93", "37", "77", "13", "19", "0", "82", "1", "80", "4", "62", "9", "89", "69", "5", "84", "47", "87", "35", "31", "3", "64", "11", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 13 December 2011\non the Union financial contribution to national programme of the Kingdom of Spain in 2011 for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector\n(notified under document C(2011) 9318)\n(Only the Spanish text is authentic)\n(2011/843/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea (1), and in particular Article 24(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 861/2006 lays down the conditions whereby Member States may receive a contribution from the European Union for expenditure incurred in their national programmes of collection and management of data.\n(2)\nThose programmes are to be drawn up in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 of 14 July 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 (3).\n(3)\nThe Kingdom of Spain has submitted the national programme for 2011-2013 as provided for in Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. This programme was approved in 2011 in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008.\n(4)\nThis Member State has submitted annual budget forecasts covering the period 2011-2013 according to Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States for the collection and management of the basic fisheries data (4). The Commission has evaluated Member States\u2019 annual budget forecasts, as laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008, by taking into account the approved national programme.\n(5)\nArticle 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 establishes that the Commission is to approve the annual budget forecast and is to decide on the annual Union financial contribution to each national programme in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and on the basis of the outcome of the evaluation of the annual budget forecasts as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008.\n(6)\nArticle 24(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 establishes that a Commission Decision is to fix the rate of the financial contribution. Article 16 of that Regulation provides that Union financial measures in the area of basic data collection are not to exceed 50 % of the costs incurred by Member State in carrying out the programme of collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector.\n(7)\nThis Decision constitutes the financing decision within the meaning of Article 75(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5).\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe maximum global amount of the Union financial contribution to be granted to the Kingdom of Spain for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for 2011 and the rate of the Union financial contribution, are established in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["57", "71", "0", "31", "90", "83", "14", "24", "50", "53", "47", "80", "62", "92", "69", "25", "22", "27", "56", "1", "13", "98", "93", "89", "58", "45", "63", "3", "84", "29", "No Label", "10", "42", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "42", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 16/2011\nof 10 January 2011\nlaying down implementing measures for the Rapid alert system for food and feed\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 51 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 178/2002 establishes a Rapid alert system for food and feed (hereinafter - \u2018RASFF\u2019), managed by the Commission and involving the Member States, the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority, to provide the control authorities with an effective tool for the notification of risks to human health deriving from food or feed. Article 50 of that Regulation sets out the scope and requirements for the RASFF to operate.\n(2)\nArticle 51 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 requires the Commission to establish implementing measures for Article 50 of that Regulation, in particular as regards the specific conditions and procedures applicable to the transmission of notifications and supplementary information.\n(3)\nMember States are primarily responsible for the enforcement of the EU legislation. They perform official controls, the rules for which are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (2). The RASFF supports the Member States\u2019 actions by allowing the rapid exchange of information on risks posed by food or feed and on measures taken or to be taken to counter such risks.\n(4)\nArticle 29 of Regulation EC No 183/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 January 2005 laying down requirements for feed hygiene (3) extends the scope of the RASFF to serious risks to animal health and to the environment. Therefore, the term \u2018risk\u2019 used in this Regulation is to be understood as a direct or indirect risk to human health in connection with food, food contact material or feed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 or as a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment in connection with feed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 183/2005.\n(5)\nRules should be established to allow the RASFF to operate correctly both in relation to cases where a serious risk within the meaning of Article 50(2) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 is identified and in relation to other cases where, even though a risk of lesser gravity or urgency is identified, an efficient exchange of information is necessary between and among the members of the RASFF network. Notifications are classified into alert, information and border rejection notifications to allow for a more efficient handling by members of the network.\n(6)\nFor the RASFF to operate efficiently, requirements should be formulated for the procedure for transmission of the different types of notifications. Alert notifications should be transmitted and treated with priority. Border rejection notifications are particularly relevant to controls carried out at border inspection posts and designated points of entry along the European Economic Area border. Templates and data dictionaries enhance the legibility and understanding of the notifications. Flagging members of the network for certain notifications draws their attention to particular notifications ensuring thereby that they are handled quickly.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, the Commission, the Member States and EFSA have designated contact points, which represent the members of the network in order to benefit from a correct and fast communication. In application of Article 50 of that Regulation and in order to avoid possible mistakes in the transmission of the notifications, only one designated contact point should exist for each member of the network. This contact point should facilitate the rapid transmission to a competent authority inside a member country.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure the correct and efficient functioning of the network between its members, common rules for duties of the contact points should be established. Provisions concerning the coordinating role of the Commission should also be set out, including the verification of the notifications. In this respect, the Commission should also assist members of the network in taking appropriate measures by identifying recurrent hazards and operators reported in the notifications.\n(9)\nIn case that, notwithstanding the checks carried out by the notifying member and by the Commission, a transmitted notification turns out to be erroneous or unfounded, then a procedure providing for either its amendment or its withdrawal from the system should be laid down.\n(10)\nAccording to paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 the Commission is required to inform third countries of certain RASFF notifications. Therefore, without prejudice to specific provisions in agreements concluded pursuant to Article 50.6 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, the Commission should ensure direct contact with food safety authorities in third countries in order to send out notifications to these third countries and at the same time ensure the exchange of relevant information with regard to these notifications and any direct or indirect risk to human health deriving from food or feed.\n(11)\nArticle 10 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 requires the public authorities to inform the public of risks to human health inter alia. The Commission should provide summary information about the RASFF notifications transmitted and annual reports highlighting the trends in food safety issues notified through RASFF and the evolution of the network itself to inform members, stakeholders and the general public.\n(12)\nThis Regulation has been discussed with the European Food Safety Authority.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply in addition to those set out in Regulations (EC) No 178/2002 and (EC) No 882/2004:\n1.\n\u2018network\u2019 means the rapid alert system for the notification of a direct or indirect risk to human health deriving from food or feed, as established by Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002;\n2.\n\u2018member of the network\u2019 means a Member State, the Commission, the European Food Safety Authority and any applicant country, third country or international organisation having concluded an agreement with the European Union in accordance with Article 50(6) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002;\n3.\n\u2018contact point\u2019 means the designated contact point that represents the member of the network;\n4.\n\u2018alert notification\u2019 means a notification of a risk that requires or might require rapid action in another member country;\n5.\n\u2018information notification\u2019 means a notification of a risk that does not require rapid action in another member country;\n(a)\n\u2018information notification for follow-up\u2019 means an information notification related to a product that is or may be placed on the market in another member country;\n(b)\n\u2018information notification for attention\u2019 means an information notification related to a product that:\n(i)\nis present only in the notifying member country; or\n(ii)\nhas not been placed on the market; or\n(iii)\nis no longer on the market;\n6.\n\u2018border rejection notification\u2019 means a notification of a rejection of a batch, container or cargo of food or feed as referred to in Article 50(3)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002;\n7.\n\u2018original notification\u2019 means an alert notification, an information notification or a border rejection notification;\n8.\n\u2018follow-up notification\u2019 means a notification that contains additional information in relation to an original notification;\n9.\n\u2018professional operators\u2019 means food business operators and feed business operators as defined in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 or business operators as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4).\nArticle 2\nDuties of members of the network\n1. Members of the network shall ensure the efficient functioning of the network within their jurisdiction.\n2. Members of the network shall each designate one contact point and communicate that designation to the Commission contact point, as well as detailed information regarding the persons operating it and their contact details. For that purpose they shall use the contact point information template to be provided by the Commission contact point.\n3. The Commission contact point shall maintain and update the list of contact points and make it available to all members of the network. Members of the network shall inform the Commission contact point immediately of any changes in their contact points and contact details.\n4. The Commission contact point shall provide members of the network with templates to be used for notification purposes.\n5. Members of the network shall ensure effective communication between their contact points and competent authorities within their jurisdiction on the one hand and between their contact points and the Commission contact point on the other hand for the purposes of the network. In particular they shall:\n(a)\nset up an effective communication network between their contact points and all relevant competent authorities within their jurisdiction allowing immediate transmission of a notification to the competent authorities for appropriate action, and maintain it in permanent good order;\n(b)\ndefine the roles and responsibilities of their contact points and those of the relevant competent authorities within their jurisdiction, as regards the preparation and transmission of notifications sent to the Commission contact point, as well as the assessment and distribution of notifications received from the Commission contact point.\n6. All contact points shall ensure the availability of an on-duty officer reachable outside office hours for emergency communications on a 24-hour/7-day-a-week basis.\nArticle 3\nAlert notifications\n1. Members of the network shall send alert notifications to the Commission contact point without undue delay and in any event within 48 hours from the moment the risk was reported to them. Alert notifications shall include all information available regarding, in particular, the risk and the product from which the risk derives. However, the fact that not all relevant information has been collected shall not unduly delay transmission of alert notifications.\n2. The Commission contact point shall transmit alert notifications to all members of the network within 24 hours after reception, upon verification as referred to in Article 8.\n3. Outside office hours, members of the network shall announce the transmission of an alert notification or follow-up to an alert notification by a telephone call to the emergency phone number of the Commission contact point. The Commission contact point shall inform the members of the network flagged for follow-up by a telephone call to their emergency phone numbers.\nArticle 4\nInformation notifications\n1. Members of the network shall send information notifications to the Commission contact point without undue delay. The notification shall include all information available regarding, in particular, the risk and the product from which the risk derives.\n2. The Commission contact point shall transmit information notifications to all members of the network without undue delay upon verification as referred to in Article 8.\nArticle 5\nBorder rejection notifications\n1. Members of the network shall send border rejection notifications to the Commission contact point without undue delay. The notification shall include all information available regarding, in particular, the risk and the product from which the risk derives.\n2. The Commission contact point shall transmit border rejection notifications to border inspection posts as defined in Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (5) and to designated points of entry as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\nArticle 6\nFollow-up notifications\n1. Whenever a member of the network has any additional information relating to the risk or product referred to in an original notification, it shall immediately transmit a follow-up notification through its contact point to the Commission contact point.\n2. When follow up information relating to an original notification has been requested by a member of the network, such information shall be provided to the extent possible and without undue delay.\n3. When action is taken upon receipt of an original notification as referred to in Article 50(5) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, the member which took the action shall immediately transmit detailed information thereof to the Commission contact point by way of a follow-up notification.\n4. If the action referred to in paragraph 3 consists of a product being detained and returned to a dispatcher residing in another member country:\n(a)\nthe member taking the action shall provide relevant information about the returned product by way of a follow-up notification unless that information was already included in full in the original notification;\n(b)\nthe member country to which the products were returned shall inform on the action taken on the returned products, by way of a follow-up notification.\n5. The Commission contact point shall transmit follow-up notifications to all members of the network without undue delay and within 24 hours for follow-up notifications to alerts.\nArticle 7\nNotification submission\n1. Notifications shall be submitted using the templates provided by the Commission contact point.\n2. All relevant fields of the templates shall be completed to enable clear identification of the product(s) and risk(s) involved and to provide the traceability information. Data dictionaries provided by the Commission contact point shall be used to the maximum extent possible.\n3. Notifications shall be classified according to the definitions provided in Article 1 in one of the following categories:\n(a)\noriginal notification\n(i)\nalert notification;\n(ii)\ninformation notification for follow-up;\n(iii)\ninformation notification for attention;\n(iv)\nborder rejection notifications;\n(b)\nfollow-up notification\n4. Notifications shall identify members of the network that are asked to provide follow-up to the notification.\n5. All relevant documents shall be added to the notification and sent to the Commission contact point without undue delay.\nArticle 8\nVerification of the notification\nBefore transmitting a notification to all members of the network, the Commission contact point shall:\n(a)\nverify the completeness and legibility of the notification, including whether the appropriate data from the dictionaries referred to in Article 7(2) were selected;\n(b)\nverify the correctness of the legal basis given for the cases of non-compliance found; however an incorrect legal basis shall not prevent transmission of the notification if a risk was identified;\n(c)\nverify that the subject of the notification falls within the scope of the network as laid down in Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002;\n(d)\nensure that the essential information in the notification is provided in a language easily understandable by all members of the network;\n(e)\nverify compliance with the requirements laid down in this Regulation;\n(f)\nidentify recurrences of the same professional operator and/or hazard and/or country of origin in notifications.\nIn order to respect the delay for transmission, the Commission can make small changes to the notification provided that they are agreed with the notifying member prior to transmission.\nArticle 9\nNotification withdrawal and amendments\n1. Any member of the network may request that a notification transmitted through the network be withdrawn by the Commission contact point upon agreement from the notifying member if the information upon which the action to be taken is based appears to be unfounded or if the notification was transmitted erroneously.\n2. Any member of the network may request amendments to a notification upon agreement from the notifying member. A follow-up notification shall not be considered an amendment to a notification and may therefore be transmitted without the agreement of any other member of the network.\nArticle 10\nExchange of information with third countries\n1. If the notified product originates from or is distributed to a third country, the Commission shall inform the third country without undue delay.\n2. Without prejudice to specific provisions in agreements concluded pursuant to Article 50(6) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, the Commission contact point shall establish contact with a designated single contact point in the third country, if any, with a view to reinforce communication, including through the use of information technology. The Commission contact point shall send notifications to that contact point in the third country for attention or for follow-up based on the seriousness of the risk.\nArticle 11\nPublications\nThe Commission may publish:\n(a)\na summary of all alert, information and border rejection notifications, providing information on the classification and the status of the notification, the products and risks identified, the country of origin, the countries where the products were distributed, the notifying member of the network, the basis for the notification and the measures taken;\n(b)\nan annual report on the notifications transmitted through the network.\nArticle 12\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 January 2011.", "references": ["53", "85", "25", "90", "22", "65", "88", "18", "3", "89", "44", "76", "54", "15", "73", "2", "27", "62", "49", "19", "8", "51", "0", "10", "99", "46", "9", "98", "71", "12", "No Label", "7", "38", "41", "66", "72"], "gold": ["7", "38", "41", "66", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 547/2011\nof 8 June 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards labelling requirements for plant protection products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 65(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the labelling requirements set out in Article 16 of Directive 91/414/EEC of the Council of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2) and in Annexes IV and V thereto, are to continue to apply under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(2)\nIt is therefore necessary for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to adopt a regulation incorporating those labelling requirements for plant protection products with any necessary modifications, such as updating references.\n(3)\nProvisions should be included concerning re-use of packaging and concerning plant protection products which are to be used for experiments or tests for research or development purposes.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe labelling of plant protection products shall comply with the requirements, as set out in Annex I, and contain, where approriate, the standard phrases for special risks to human or animal health or to the environment, as set out in Annex II, and the standard phrases for safety precautions for the protection of human or animal health or of the environment, as set out in Annex III.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 14 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 June 2011.", "references": ["44", "89", "43", "90", "49", "84", "63", "80", "50", "41", "82", "35", "24", "1", "72", "16", "75", "2", "32", "79", "6", "58", "94", "45", "55", "81", "29", "7", "5", "78", "No Label", "25", "65"], "gold": ["25", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 121/2011\nof 11 February 2011\nfixing the standard values to be used in calculating the financial compensation and the advance pertaining thereto in respect of fishery products withdrawn from the market during the 2011 fishing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1), and in particular Article 21(5) and (8) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 104/2000 provides for financial compensation to be paid to producer organisations which withdraw on certain conditions the products listed in points (A) and (B) of Annex I to that Regulation. The amount of such financial compensation should be reduced by standard values in the case of products intended for purposes other than human consumption.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2493/2001 of 19 December 2001 on the disposal of certain fishery products which have been withdrawn from the market (2) specifies the ways of disposing of the products withdrawn from the market. The value of such products should be fixed at a standard level for each of these modes of disposal, taking into account the average revenues which may be obtained from such disposal in the various Member States.\n(3)\nUnder Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2509/2000 of 15 November 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards granting financial compensation for withdrawals of certain fishery products (3), special rules provide that, where a producer organisation or one of its members puts its products up for sale in a Member State other than the country in which it is recognised, that body responsible for granting the financial compensation must be informed. This body is the one in the Member State in which the producer organisation is recognised. The standard value deductible should therefore be the value applied in that Member State.\n(4)\nThe same method of calculation should be applied to advances on financial compensation as provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2509/2000.\n(5)\nIn order not to hinder the operation of the intervention system in the year 2011, this Regulation should apply retroactively from 1 January 2011.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 2011 fishing year, the standard values to be used in calculating financial compensation and associated advances for fishery products withdrawn from the market by producer organisations and intended for purposes other than human consumption, as referred to in Article 21(5) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe standard value to be deducted from financial compensation and associated advances shall be that applied in the Member State in which the producer organisation is recognised.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 February 2011.", "references": ["30", "26", "12", "87", "17", "98", "10", "22", "27", "23", "14", "31", "44", "91", "54", "60", "9", "3", "50", "90", "52", "58", "88", "75", "56", "72", "51", "47", "19", "82", "No Label", "15", "20", "62", "67", "74"], "gold": ["15", "20", "62", "67", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 550/2011\nof 7 June 2011\non determining, pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, certain restrictions applicable to the use of international credits from projects involving industrial gases\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Article 11a(9) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was approved by Council Decision 94/69/EC of 15 December 1993 concerning the conclusion of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (2) is to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. In order to meet that objective, the overall global annual mean surface temperature increase should not exceed 2 \u00b0C above pre-industrial levels as endorsed by the Cancun Climate Change Conference in December 2010 and the \u2018Copenhagen Accord\u2019. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report shows that, in order to reach this objective, global emissions of greenhouse gases must peak by 2020. This implies an increase in global efforts by all major emitting countries.\n(2)\nIf we are to live up to this challenge, carbon markets will have to play a key role. They will allow us to meet our targets at a lower cost and also promote greater ambition. In addition, carbon markets can be an effective way to transfer finance to developing countries and help us meet the USD 100 billion international finance package agreed in Copenhagen. This will require substantial scaling up of existing mechanisms, including the reform of the clean development mechanism (CDM) to increase the use of standardised baselines and the creation of new market mechanisms.\n(3)\nThe Kyoto Protocol, which was approved by Council Decision 2002/358/EC of 25 April 2002 concerning the approval, on behalf of the European Community, of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the joint fulfilment of commitments thereunder (3), set emission reduction targets for 39 Parties for the period 2008-2012, and established two mechanisms for the creation of international credits that Parties may use to offset emissions. Joint implementation (JI) provides for the creation of emission reduction units (ERUs), whereas the clean development mechanism (CDM) provides for the creation of certified emission reductions (CERs).\n(4)\nJI and CDM are so-called pure offsetting mechanisms, whereby a tonne of greenhouse gas emissions reduced creates the right to emit a tonne of greenhouse gas elsewhere. While such systems generally help to reduce the cost of global abatement enabling action in countries where it is more cost-efficient, they do not assist in the reduction efforts necessary to progress towards the 2 \u00b0C target.\n(5)\nTo keep global warming below 2 \u00b0C, the Union has taken the position that commitments by industrialised countries should be complemented by appropriate mitigation action by developing countries, in particular the most advanced. In parallel, a broad international carbon market should gradually develop that can deliver the necessary global reductions in an efficient manner, where international credits are generated for emission reductions achieved below a benchmark that is set below projected emissions in the absence of abatement measures. This requires appropriate mitigation action by developing countries. While the participation of least developed countries in the CDM should be strengthened, more advanced developing countries should gradually move towards participation in sectoral market mechanisms and ultimately in cap-and-trade systems (4).\n(6)\nParticipation in the JI and CDM is voluntary, as are decisions to allow the use of credits in emission trading systems. There is therefore a distinction between credits that may be generated, and credits that signatories to the Kyoto Protocol may have decided to allow for use under their domestic legislation. To this effect, Directive 2003/87/EC already excluded the use of assigned amount units, and Directive 2004/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) allowed the use of certain JI and CDM credits, with harmonised restrictions on the use of international credits from nuclear, land-use and forestry projects, and provided that Member States may allow operators to use certain quantities of other types of international credits. Directive 2003/87/EC provides for harmonised implementing provisions to be adopted for restrictions on the use of international credits.\n(7)\nThe use of international credits from projects involving trifluoromethane (HFC-23) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from adipic acid production (hereafter \u2018industrial gas projects\u2019) should be restricted. This is consistent with the October 2009 European Council conclusions urging developing countries, especially the more advanced, to take appropriate mitigation action. The vast majority of industrial gas projects are located in advanced developing countries with sufficient capabilities to finance those cheap reductions themselves, and the revenues gained from those projects in the past should suffice to finance them. The introduction of use restrictions for industrial gas credits, in particular if followed by respective decisions at international levels, should contribute to reaching a more balanced geographical distribution of the benefits of the mechanisms established under the Kyoto Protocol.\n(8)\nIndustrial gas projects raise environmental concerns. Exceptionally high rates of return from the destruction of HFC-23 has the consequence of stimulating the continued production and use of chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22), a potent ozone depleting and greenhouse gas substance, in registered plants at the maximum level allowed by the project activity methodology. As a result, the production of HCFC-22 could be higher than what it would have been in the absence of project activities. This in turn undermines the \u20182007 Montreal Adjustment on Production and Consumption of HCFCs\u2019 under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (6), to establish the accelerated phase-out of HCFC-22 for non-feedstock use. It is also inconsistent with Member State financing of the phase-out of HCFC-22 production through contributions to the multilateral fund under the Montreal Protocol. These high rates of return result in distortions of economic incentives and competition and in shifts in production from adipic acid producers established in the Union to registered producers in third countries. The much more favourable treatment of adipic acid producers participating in the Kyoto mechanisms than those entering the Union scheme as of 2013 will increase the risks of similar shifts in production, and a net increase in global emissions. To reduce distortions of economic incentives and competition and avoid greenhouse gas emission leakage, restrictions on the use of these international credits are justified.\n(9)\nInternational credits from industrial gas projects do not contribute to technology transfer or to the necessary long-term transformation of energy systems in developing countries. Abating these industrial gases through JI or the CDM does not contribute to reducing global emissions in the most efficient manner, because the high returns by project developers are not used for emission reductions.\n(10)\nThe application of full use restrictions of specific credits is provided for in Article 11a(9) of Directive 2003/87/EC. It is appropriate to apply such a restriction in the case of industrial gas projects. A full restriction of use best eliminates undesirable competitive and environmental consequences of those credits, improves the cost-efficiency of global emission reductions and the environmental performance of the carbon market by encouraging low-carbon investments.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 11a(9) of Directive 2003/87/EC, the measures provided for in this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2013, which in accordance with that Article is more than six months and less than three years from its date of adoption. The use of industrial gas credits for compliance obligations during 2012 is not affected by these measures.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 January 2013, the use of international credits from projects involving the destruction of trifluoromethane (HFC-23) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from adipic acid production for the purposes of Article 11a of Directive 2003/87/EC is prohibited, except for the use of credits in respect of emission reductions before 2013 from existing projects of these types for use in respect of emissions from EU ETS installations that took place during 2012 which shall be allowed until 30 April 2013 inclusive.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2011.", "references": ["63", "27", "74", "43", "83", "33", "47", "34", "54", "99", "24", "22", "79", "78", "14", "96", "16", "80", "81", "3", "42", "70", "53", "20", "35", "72", "59", "89", "69", "93", "No Label", "58", "60"], "gold": ["58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 7 July 2010\nreleasing Estonia from certain obligations to apply Council Directives 66/402/EEC and 2002/57/EC in respect of Avena strigosa Schreb., Brassica nigra (L.) Koch and Helianthus annuus L.\n(notified under document C(2010) 4526)\n(Only the Estonian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/377/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 66/402/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of cereal seed (1), and in particular Article 23a thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/57/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of seed of oil and fibre plants (2), and in particular Article 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to the application submitted by Estonia,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 66/402/EEC and 2002/57/EC set out certain provisions for the marketing of cereal seed and seed of oil and fibre plants. Those Directives also provide that, subject to certain conditions, Member States may be wholly or partially released from the obligation to apply the provisions of those Directives in respect of certain species.\n(2)\nEstonia has applied for release from their obligations in respect of Avena strigosa Schreb., Brassica nigra (L.) Koch and Helianthus annuus L.\n(3)\nThe seed of Avena strigosa Schreb., Brassica nigra (L.) Koch and Helianthus annuus L. is not normally reproduced or marketed in Estonia. In addition, the economic importance of this seed is not significant in this Member State.\n(4)\nTherefore, as long as those conditions remain, this Member State should be released from the obligation to apply the provisions of Directives 66/402/EEC and 2002/57/EC to the species in question.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEstonia is released from the obligation to apply Directive 66/402/EEC, with the exception of Article 14(1), in respect of the species of Avena strigosa Schreb.\nArticle 2\nEstonia is released from the obligation to apply Directive 2002/57/EC, with the exception of Article 17, in respect of the species of Brassica nigra (L.) Koch and Helianthus annuus L.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Estonia.\nDone at Brussels, 7 July 2010.", "references": ["32", "51", "22", "86", "23", "20", "54", "12", "33", "72", "85", "62", "77", "15", "37", "21", "50", "11", "75", "26", "87", "9", "6", "59", "82", "98", "84", "60", "64", "46", "No Label", "25", "65", "68", "76", "91"], "gold": ["25", "65", "68", "76", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 April 2012\namending Decision 2004/452/EC laying down a list of bodies whose researchers may access confidential data for scientific purposes\n(notified under document C(2012) 2291)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/200/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (1) and in particular Article 23 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 831/2002 of 17 May 2002 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 322/97 on Community statistics, concerning access to confidential data for scientific purposes (2) establishes, for the purpose of enabling statistical conclusions to be drawn for scientific purposes, the conditions under which access to confidential data transmitted to the Union authority may be granted and the rules of cooperation between the Union and national authorities in order to facilitate such access.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2004/452/EC (3) has laid down a list of bodies whose researchers may access confidential data for scientific purposes.\n(3)\nUniversity of Johannesburg, South Africa; University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts, United States of America; President & Fellows of Harvard College, Massachusetts, United States of America; Economics of Climate Change, Energy and Transport Unit, Directorate-General Joint Research Centre of the European Commission; Information Society Unit, Directorate-General Joint Research Centre of the European Commission; Agriculture and Life Sciences in the Economy Unit, Directorate-General Joint Research Centre of the European Commission; Sustainable Production and Consumption Unit, Directorate-General Joint Research Centre of the European Commission; Social Analysis Unit, Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion of the European Commission have to be regarded as bodies fulfilling the required conditions and should therefore be added to the list of agencies, organisations and institutions referred to in Article 3(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 831/2002.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2004/452/EC is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2012.", "references": ["8", "17", "48", "81", "84", "92", "29", "26", "3", "21", "76", "91", "35", "0", "80", "32", "9", "24", "39", "46", "60", "7", "99", "13", "51", "28", "23", "43", "14", "50", "No Label", "19", "41", "77"], "gold": ["19", "41", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 332/2010\nof 22 April 2010\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the entry for Israel in the list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1) and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first paragraph of point 1 of Article 8 and point 4 of Article 8 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (2), and in particular Article 24(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2002/99/EC lays down the general animal health rules governing all stages of the production, processing and distribution within the Union and the introduction from third countries of products of animal origin and products obtained therefrom intended for human consumption. That Directive provides that special import conditions are to be established for each third country or group of third countries, having regard to their animal health situation.\n(2)\nDirective 2009/158/EC lays down the animal health conditions governing trade within the Union and imports from third countries of poultry and hatching eggs. That Directive provides that poultry is to come from third countries free of avian influenza or which, although they are not free from that disease, apply measures to control it which are at least equivalent to those laid down by the relevant Union legislation.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (3) provides that the commodities covered by it are only to be imported into and transited through the Union from the third countries, territories, zones or compartments listed in the table in Part 1 of Annex I thereto.\n(4)\nPursuant to that Regulation, where an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) occurs in a third country, territory, zone or compartment previously free of that disease, that third country, territory, zone or compartment is to again be considered as free of HPAI, provided that certain conditions are met; said conditions concern the implementation of a stamping out policy to control the disease, including adequate cleansing and disinfection carried out on all previously infected establishments. In addition, avian influenza surveillance must have been carried out in accordance with Part II of Annex IV to that Regulation during a three-month period following completion of the stamping out policy and cleansing and disinfection.\n(5)\nIsrael is currently listed in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as a third country free from highly pathogenic avian influenza. Imports of poultry commodities to which that Regulation applies are therefore authorised from the whole territory of that third country.\n(6)\nIsrael has notified to the Commission an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza of the H5N1 subtype on its territory.\n(7)\nDue to the confirmed outbreak of HPAI, the territory of Israel may no longer be considered as free from that disease and the veterinary authorities of Israel have suspended issuing veterinary certificates for consignments of certain poultry commodities accordingly. Israel has also implemented a stamping out policy in order to control the disease and limit its spread.\n(8)\nThe information on the control measures taken has been submitted to the Commission. That information and the epidemiological situation in Israel have been evaluated by the Commission.\n(9)\nThe prompt and decisive action taken by Israel to confine the disease and the positive outcome of the evaluation of the epidemiological situation allows limiting the restrictions on imports into the Union for certain poultry commodities to the zones affected by the disease, which the veterinary authorities of Israel have placed under restrictions due to the outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza.\n(10)\nIn addition, Israel is carrying out surveillance activities for avian influenza which appear to meet the requirements laid down in Part II of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008.\n(11)\nTaking into account the favourable development of the epidemiological situation and related surveillance activities for avian influenza in resolving the outbreak, it is appropriate to limit the time period during which the authorisation for imports into the Union is suspended until 1 May 2010.\n(12)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nIn order to implement the zoning requirements and thereby allowing trade to resume as soon as possible this Regulation should enter into force the day after publication.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 26 January 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 April 2010.", "references": ["97", "32", "62", "20", "54", "59", "79", "89", "98", "10", "52", "31", "85", "16", "27", "39", "48", "63", "50", "24", "34", "29", "51", "56", "49", "1", "77", "36", "44", "35", "No Label", "8", "21", "22", "38", "61", "66", "69", "95", "96"], "gold": ["8", "21", "22", "38", "61", "66", "69", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 262/2012\nof 23 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["60", "95", "98", "27", "89", "58", "40", "67", "80", "85", "30", "45", "64", "70", "50", "93", "2", "63", "59", "16", "3", "88", "94", "11", "83", "47", "20", "49", "13", "65", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 12 September 2012\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/017 ES/Arag\u00f3n Construction from Spain)\n(2012/536/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened, for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to 30 December 2011, to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nSpain submitted an application on 28 December 2011 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 377 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (\u2018Construction of buildings\u2019) in the NUTS II region of Arag\u00f3n (ES24) and supplemented it by additional information up to 23 March 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 300 000.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Spain,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 300 000 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 12 September 2012.", "references": ["57", "4", "88", "20", "12", "19", "48", "94", "84", "67", "61", "13", "43", "81", "26", "82", "47", "25", "62", "5", "17", "0", "70", "65", "30", "99", "3", "79", "66", "95", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "87", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "87", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 21 December 2011\non the capability with EU law of measures to be taken by Italy pursuant to Article 14 Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive)\n(2012/394/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (1), and in particular Article 14(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter of 20 September 2011, received by the Commission on 21 September 2011, Italy notified to the Commission measures to be taken pursuant to Article 14(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU, aimed at integrating, updating and amending the measures currently in force, approved by the Commission by its Decision of 25 June 2007 (2).\n(2)\nThe Commission verified, within a period of three months from this notification, that such measures are compatible with Community law, in particular with regard to the proportionality of the measures and the transparency of the national consultation procedure.\n(3)\nIn its examination, the Commission took into consideration the available data on the Italian media landscape.\n(4)\nThe amended list of events of major importance for society included in the Italian measures was drawn up in a clear and transparent manner, and a far-reaching consultation had been launched in Italy on the amendment of the previous list.\n(5)\nThe Commission was satisfied that the new events listed in the Italian measures met at least two of the following criteria considered to be reliable indicators of the importance of events for society: (i) a special general resonance within the Member State, and not simply a significance to those who ordinarily follow the sport or activity concerned; (ii) a generally recognised, distinct cultural importance for the population in the Member State, in particular as a catalyst of cultural identity; (iii) involvement of the national team in the event concerned in the context of a competition or tournament of international importance; and (iv) the fact that the event has traditionally been broadcast on free television and has commanded large television audiences.\n(6)\nMotoGP Grand Prix is an event that enjoys particular popularity which is widespread throughout Italy and also interests audiences who would not normally follow it, precisely because of the involvement of Italian riders and manufacturers in an international tournament of major importance. It has also been traditionally broadcast on free-to-air television and commanded high viewing figures.\n(7)\nThe finals and semi-finals of the world championships for basketball, water polo and volleyball featuring the Italian national team, apart from fulfilling the criterion of a national team involved in an international tournament of major importance, generate a particular and widespread interest in Italy, even for audiences that do not usually follow these disciplines, and they have traditionally been broadcast on free-to-air television with a wide television audience.\n(8)\nThe Rugby World Cup matches which feature the Italian national team, apart from fulfilling the criterion of a national team involved in an international tournament of major importance, have a special and widespread resonance in Italy and also interest an audience that does not normally follow this sport.\n(9)\nSix Nations rugby matches played by the Italian national team, apart from fulfilling the criterion of a national team involved in an international tournament of major importance, have a special and widespread resonance in Italy and also interest an audience that does not normally follow this sport, and they have traditionally been broadcast on free-to-air television with increasingly significant audience figures.\n(10)\nThe semi-finals and final of the Davis Cup and of the Fed Cup which feature the Italian national team, apart from fulfilling the criterion of a national team involved in an international tournament of major importance, have a particular and widespread resonance in Italy and interest audiences that would not normally follow this sport.\n(11)\nThe final and semi-finals of the Internazionali d\u2019Italia tennis tournament which feature Italian tennis players, apart from involving Italians in an international tournament of major importance, have a particular and widespread resonance in Italy and interest audiences that would not normally follow this sport, partly because of where it takes place. The special resonance of this event is confirmed by the viewing figures, which show an apparent increase in the public\u2019s interest and passion for the sporting discipline in recent years.\n(12)\nThe Road Cycling World Championships (men\u2019s professional race) have a particular and widespread resonance in Italy and interest people other than those who normally follow this type of event, also because of the involvement of Italian athletes, and they have traditionally been broadcast on free-to-air television with high viewing figures.\n(13)\nThe first performance of the opera season at the La Scala Theatre in Milan enjoys a special and widespread resonance in Italy and interests people other than those who would normally follow this type of event, and it has a generally recognised particular cultural importance in Italy, and acts as a catalyst of Italian cultural identity.\n(14)\nThe New Year\u2019s Concert broadcast from the La Fenice Theatre in Venice has a particular and widespread resonance in Italy and interests people other than those who would normally follow this type of event, it has a generally recognised particular cultural importance in Italy, acts as a catalyst of Italian cultural identity, and it has traditionally been broadcast on free-to-air television with high viewing figures.\n(15)\nThe Italian measures appear proportionate to justify, by the overriding reason of public interest in ensuring wide public access to broadcasts of events of major importance for society, the derogation from the fundamental freedom to provide services laid down in Article 56 TFEU.\n(16)\nThe Italian measures are also compatible with EU competition rules in so far as the definition of the qualifying broadcasters for the broadcasting of listed events relies on objective criteria (required coverage), which allow actual and potential competition for the acquisition of the rights to broadcast these events. In addition, the number of listed events is not so disproportionate as to distort competition on the downstream free television and pay television markets.\n(17)\nThe general proportionality of the Italian measures is supported by several factors. First, the lowering of the threshold of the required coverage of the population for qualifying broadcasters from 90 % to 80 % increases the proportionality of the measures, in so far as it increases the number of broadcasters who potentially qualify. Secondly, a voluntary mechanism has been introduced for the resolution of disputes between broadcasters as regards the definition of the technical broadcasting modalities and the payment of fair compensation for the sub-licensing of exclusive broadcasting rights. Thirdly, the entry into force of the final Italian measures will be postponed to 1 September 2012, in order to ensure that any ongoing negotiations are not adversely affected. Finally, the Italian measures make provision for situations in which the rights to the events listed are purchased by non-qualifying broadcasters, in order to ensure appropriate arrangements for sub-licensing of rights to qualifying broadcasters, and for situations in which there might be no qualifying buyers for the events listed, in order to ensure that the non-qualifying broadcaster is able to exercise its rights so as to avoid a situation in which the event listed would not be broadcast at all.\n(18)\nThe Commission communicated the measures to be taken notified by Italy to the other Member States and presented the results of this verification at the meeting of the Committee established pursuant to Article 29 of Directive 2010/13/EU. The Committee adopted a favourable opinion at this meeting,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nSole Article\n1. The measures to be taken by Italy, pursuant to Article 14(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU, and notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 14(2) of Directive 2010/13/EU on 21 September 2011, are compatible with Union law.\n2. The measures, as finally taken by Italy, will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union as soon as they are adopted at national level and notified to the Commission. This shall constitute the publication provided for in Article 14(2) of Directive 2010/13/EU.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["45", "25", "56", "8", "72", "14", "18", "22", "78", "88", "54", "83", "7", "66", "93", "11", "31", "17", "63", "57", "53", "73", "5", "94", "85", "98", "74", "67", "86", "58", "No Label", "24", "36", "40", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "36", "40", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 8 October 2010\nderogating from Decisions 92/260/EEC and 2004/211/EC as regards the temporary admission of certain male registered horses participating in the equestrian events of the pre-Olympic test event in 2011, the Olympic Games or the Paralympic Games in 2012 in the United Kingdom\n(notified under document C(2010) 6854)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/613/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (1), and in particular Article 19(ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 92/260/EEC of 10 April 1992 on animal health conditions and veterinary certification for temporary admission of registered horses (2) assigns third countries from which the temporary admission into the Union of registered horses is to be authorised to specific sanitary groups for the use of the corresponding specimen health certificates set out in Annex II to that Decision. This Decision provides for guarantees that uncastrated male horses older than 180 days do not pose a risk as regards equine viral arteritis.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2004/211/EC of 6 January 2004 establishing the list of third countries and parts of territory thereof from which Member States authorise imports of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species (3) establishes such a list of third countries and parts of territories thereof from which Member States are to authorise the temporary admission of registered horses and sets out the conditions for the importation of equidae from third countries.\n(3)\nThe summer games of the XXX Olympiad (\u2018Olympic Games\u2019) will be held in London, the United Kingdom, from 27 July to 12 August 2012, followed by the XIV summer Paralympic Games (\u2018Paralympics\u2019) between 29 August and 9 September 2012. The equestrian events of the Olympic Games and of the Paralympics, forming an integral part of the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympics, will be preceded by equestrian events within the framework of the pre-Olympic test event, which is planned to be a two-star International Eventing Competition from 4 to 10 July 2011.\n(4)\nRegistered horses participating in the equestrian events of the pre-Olympic test event, the Olympic Games and the Paralympics will be under the veterinary supervision of the competent authorities of the United Kingdom and the organising World Equestrian Federation (FEI).\n(5)\nCertain male registered horses, which have qualified for participation in those high level equestrian events may not comply with the requirements as regards equine viral arteritis laid down in Decisions 92/260/EEC and 2004/211/EC. A derogation from those requirements should therefore be provided for uncastrated male registered horses temporarily admitted to participate in those sporting events. That derogation should set out the animal health and veterinary certification requirements to exclude the risk of spreading equine viral arteritis through breeding or semen collection.\n(6)\nBecause equine viral arteritis is a notifiable disease in South Africa, has not been reported since 2001 and is subject to controls in that country, it is unnecessary to extend the derogation to horses accompanied by a health certificate in accordance with specimen \u2018F\u2019 in Annex II to Decision 92/260/EEC.\n(7)\nThe requirements for veterinary checks on imports from third countries are laid down in Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries (4).\n(8)\nThe development of the integrated computerised veterinary system Traces, provided for by Commission Decision 2003/623/EC of 19 August 2003 concerning the development of an integrated computerised veterinary system known as Traces (5), involves the standardisation of documents relating to the declaration and checks so that the data gathered can be properly managed and processed in order to improve health safety in the European Union. The Commission therefore adopted Regulation (EC) No 282/2004 of 18 February 2004 introducing a document for the declaration of, and veterinary checks on, animals from third countries entering the Community (6).\n(9)\nCommission Decision 2004/292/EC of 30 March 2004 on the introduction of the Traces system (7) created a single electronic database (\u2018TRACES\u2019) for monitoring the movement of animals within the European Union and from third countries, as well as providing all the reference data relating to trade in such goods.\n(10)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 599/2004 of 30 March 2004 concerning the adoption of a harmonised model certificate and inspection report linked to intra-Community trade in animals and products of animal origin (8) provides a format for the identification of the consignment which allows to establish a link to animal health documents which accompanied the animal to the border inspection post at the point of entry into the European Union.\n(11)\nCommission Decision 2009/821/EC of 28 September 2009 drawing up a list of approved border inspection posts, laying down certain rules on the inspections carried out by Commission veterinary experts and laying down the veterinary units in Traces (9) provides details of a communication network connecting veterinary units in Member States in order to follow-up movements of, for example, temporarily admitted registered horses.\n(12)\nThe common veterinary entry document issued in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 282/2004 in conjunction with certification for the movement of such horses from the Member State of first destination to other Member States (\u2018onward certification\u2019), is the most suitable instrument to ensure that uncastrated male registered horses temporarily admitted under specific conditions as regards equine viral arteritis leave the European Union within a period of less than 90 days following their entry and without delay following the end of the equestrian events in which they participated.\n(13)\nHowever, because the onward certification in Section VII of the specimen health certificate in accordance with Decision 92/260/EEC is not implemented in TRACES, it is necessary to connect this onward certification through the common veterinary entry document with a health attestation in accordance with Annex B to Directive 90/426/EEC.\n(14)\nWith a view to the importance of the event and the limited number of well-known individual horses entering the European Union under the specific conditions provided for in this Decision, the additional administrative procedures appear to be appropriate.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 1 of Decision 92/260/EEC and Article 6(a) of Decision 2004/211/EC, Member States shall authorise the temporary admission of uncastrated male registered horses which do not meet the requirement for equine viral arteritis provided for in point (e)(v) of Section III of the specimen certificates \u2018A\u2019 to \u2018E\u2019 set out in Annex II to Decision 92/260/EEC, provided these horses are:\n(a)\nintended to participate in the following equestrian events in London, the United Kingdom:\n(i)\nthe pre-Olympic test event from 4 to 10 July 2011;\n(ii)\nthe XXX Olympiad (\u2018Olympic Games\u2019) from 27 July to 12 August 2012;\n(iii)\nthe XIV summer Paralympic Games (\u2018Paralympics\u2019) from 29 August to 9 September 2012; and\n(b)\nin compliance with the conditions set out in Article 2 of this Decision.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall ensure that the horses referred to in Article 1 (\u2018the horses\u2019) are accompanied by a health certificate corresponding to the appropriate specimen \u2018A\u2019 to \u2018E\u2019 set out in Annex II to Decision 92/260/EEC which has been amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following is added to point (e)(v) of Section III relating to equine viral arteritis:\n\u2018or\n-\nthe registered horse is to be admitted in accordance with Commission Decision 2010/613/EU.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following indents are added to the part of Section IV to be completed by the official veterinarian:\n\u2018-\nthe horse is intended to participate in the equestrian events of the pre-Olympic test event in July 2011/Olympic Games in July and August 2012/Paralympics in August and September 2012 (underline applicable and delete non-applicable),\n-\narrangements have been made to transport the horse out of the European Union without delay after the end of the equestrian event of the pre-Olympic test event/Olympic Games/Paralympics (underline applicable and delete non-applicable) on \u2026 (insert date) through the exit point \u2026 (insert name of exit point),\n-\nthe horse is not intended for breeding or for the collection of semen during its residence of less than 90 days in a Member State of the European Union.\u2019\n2. Member States shall not implement an alternative control system, as provided for in Article 6 of Directive 90/426/EEC, for the horses.\n3. The status of the horses cannot be converted from temporary entry into permanent entry.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall ensure that in addition to the veterinary checks on the horses in accordance with Directive 91/496/EEC, the veterinary authorities issuing the common veterinary entry document (\u2018CVED\u2019) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 282/2004 also:\n(a)\nnotify the exit point indicated in Section IV of the certificate referred to in Article 2(b) of the scheduled export from the European Union by completing point 20 of the CVED; and\n(b)\ncommunicate by FAX or e-mail the arrival of the horses to the local veterinary unit (GB04001) as defined in Article 2(b)(iii) of Decision 2009/821/EC responsible for the venue designated for the equestrian event as referred to in Article 1 (\u2018the venue\u2019).\n2. Member States shall ensure that the horses on their way from the Member State of first destination indicated in the CVED to a subsequent Member State, or to the venue, are accompanied by the following health documents:\n(a)\nthe health certificate completed in accordance with Article 2(1) in which the dedicated Section VII for certification of movements between Member States is completed; and\n(b)\nthe health attestation in accordance with Annex B to Directive 90/426/EEC, which must be notified to the place of destination in the format prescribed by Regulation (EC) No 599/2004 and bear a cross reference to the certificate mentioned in point (a) in Section I.6 of Part I of that format.\n3. Member States being notified of the movement of the horses in accordance with paragraph 2 shall confirm the arrival of the horses in point 45 of Part 3 of the CVED.\nArticle 4\nThe United Kingdom shall ensure that the competent authority, in collaboration with the organiser of the events referred to in Article 1 and the appointed transport company, take the necessary measures to ensure that the horses:\n(a)\nare only admitted to the venue if their movements from the Member State of first destination indicated in the CVED to the United Kingdom is documented as provided for in Article 3(2); and\n(b)\nleave the European Union without delay following the end of the event.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["50", "28", "6", "55", "72", "18", "60", "81", "39", "29", "40", "31", "66", "94", "10", "64", "70", "57", "61", "13", "52", "19", "90", "54", "71", "80", "27", "46", "34", "75", "No Label", "21", "38", "65", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "38", "65", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 327/2011\nof 30 March 2011\nimplementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for fans driven by motors with an electric input power between 125 W and 500 kW\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (1) and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Ecodesign Consultation Forum,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Directive 2009/125/EC ecodesign requirements are to be set by the Commission for energy-related products representing significant volumes of sales and trade, having a significant environmental impact and presenting significant potential for improvement in terms of their environmental impact without entailing excessive costs.\n(2)\nArticle 16(2) of Directive 2009/125/EC provides that in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 19(3) and the criteria set out in Article 15(2), and after consulting the Consultation Forum, the Commission will, as appropriate, introduce an implementing measure for products using electric motor systems.\n(3)\nFans driven by motors with an electric input power between 125 W and 500 kW are an important part of various gas handling products. Minimum energy efficiency requirements have been established for electric motors in Commission Regulation (EC) No 640/2009 of 22 July 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for electric motors (2), including electric motors equipped with variable speed drives. They also apply to those motors which are part of a motor-fan system. However, many fans covered by this Regulation are used in combination with motors not covered by Regulation (EC) No 640/2009.\n(4)\nTotal electricity consumption of fans driven by motors with an electric input power between 125 W and 500 kW is 344 TWh per year, rising to 560 TWh in 2020 if current Union market trends persist. The cost-efficient improvement potential through design is about 34 TWh per year in 2020, which corresponds to 16 Mt of CO2 emissions. Consequently, fans with an electric input power between 125 W and 500 kW represent a product for which ecodesign requirements should be established.\n(5)\nMany fans are integrated in other products without being separately placed on the market or put into service within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/125/EC and of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (3). To achieve most of the cost-efficient energy-saving potential and facilitate enforcement of the measure, fans between 125 W and 500 kW integrated in other products should also be subject to the provisions of this Regulation.\n(6)\nMany fans are part of ventilation systems installed in buildings. National legislation based on Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (4), may set new stricter energy efficiency requirements on those ventilation systems, using the calculation and measurement methods defined in this regulation as regards the efficiency of the fan.\n(7)\nThe Commission has carried out a preparatory study which analysed the technical, environmental and economic aspects of fans. The study was developed together with stakeholders and interested parties from the Union and third countries, and the results have been made publicly available. Further work and consultations showed that the scope could be further extended subject to exemptions being made for particular applications where the requirements would not be appropriate.\n(8)\nThe preparatory study showed that fans driven by motors with an input power between 125 W and 500 kW are placed on the Union market in large quantities, with their use-phase energy consumption being the most significant environmental aspect of all life-cycle phases.\n(9)\nThe preparatory study shows that electricity consumption in use is the only significant ecodesign parameter relating to product design as laid down in Directive 2009/125/EC.\n(10)\nImprovements in the energy efficiency of fans driven by motors with an electric input power between 125 W and 500 kW should be achieved by applying existing non-proprietary cost-effective technologies that can reduce the total combined costs of purchasing and operating them.\n(11)\nEcodesign requirements should harmonise the energy efficiency requirements for fans driven by motors with an electric input power between 125 W and 500 kW throughout the Union, thus contributing to the functioning of the internal market and to the improvement of the environmental performance of these products.\n(12)\nSmall fans (indirectly) driven by an electric motor between 125 W and 3 kW which primarily serves other functionalities are not within the scope. For illustration a small fan to cool the electric motor in a chain saw is not within the scope, even if the motor of the chain saw itself (which is also driving the fan) is above 125 W.\n(13)\nAn appropriate timeframe should be provided for manufacturers to redesign products and to adapt production lines. The timing should be such that negative impacts on the supply of fans driven by motors with an electric input power between 125 W and 500 kW are avoided, and cost impacts for manufacturers, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, are taken into account, while ensuring timely achievement of the objectives of this Regulation.\n(14)\nA review of this Regulation is foreseen no later than 4 years after its entry into force. The review process may be initiated earlier if evidence reaches the Commission that warrants this. The review should in particular assess the setting of technology independent requirements, the potential of the use of variable speed drives (VSD) and the necessity of the number and scope of exemptions as well as the inclusion of fans below 125 W electric input power.\n(15)\nThe energy efficiency of fans driven by motors with an electric input power between 125 W and 500 kW should be determined through reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement methods, which take into account the recognised state of the art, including, where available, harmonised standards adopted by the European standardisation bodies, as listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (5).\n(16)\nThis Regulation should increase the market penetration of technologies that limit the life-cycle environmental impact of fans driven by motors with an electric input power between 125 W and 500 kW, leading to annual estimated electricity savings of 34 TWh by 2020, compared to the situation where no measures are taken.\n(17)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Directive 2009/125/EC, this Regulation should specify the applicable conformity assessment procedures.\n(18)\nIn order to facilitate compliance checks, manufacturers should be requested to provide information in the technical documentation referred to in Annexes IV and V to Directive 2009/125/EC.\n(19)\nIn order to further limit the environmental impact of fans driven by motors with an electric input power between 125 W and 500 kW, manufacturers should provide relevant information on disassembly, recycling or disposal at end-of-life of such fans.\n(20)\nBenchmarks for currently available fan types with high energy efficiency should be identified. This will help to ensure the wide availability and easy accessibility of information, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises and very small firms, which will further facilitate the integration of best design technologies and facilitate the development of more efficient products for reducing energy consumption.\n(21)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 19(1) of Directive 2009/125/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation establishes ecodesign requirements for the placing on the market or putting into service of fans, including those integrated in other energy-related products as covered by Directive 2009/125/EC.\n2. The Regulation shall not apply to fans integrated in:\n(i)\nproducts with a sole electric motor of 3 kW or less where the fan is fixed on the same shaft used for driving the main functionality;\n(ii)\nlaundry and washer dryers \u2264 3 kW maximum electrical input power;\n(iii)\nkitchen hoods < 280 W total maximum electrical input power attributable to the fan(s).\n3. This Regulation shall not apply to fans which are:\n(a)\ndesigned specifically to operate in potentially explosive atmospheres as defined in Directive 94/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6);\n(b)\ndesigned for emergency use only, at short-time duty, with regard to fire safety requirements set out in Council Directive 89/106/EC (7);\n(c)\ndesigned specifically to operate:\n(i)\n(a)\nwhere operating temperatures of the gas being moved exceed 100 \u00b0C;\n(b)\nwhere operating ambient temperature for the motor, if located outside the gas stream, driving the fan exceeds 65 \u00b0C;\n(ii)\nwhere the annual average temperature of the gas being moved and/or the operating ambient temperature for the motor, if located outside the gas stream, are lower than - 40 \u00b0C;\n(iii)\nwith a supply voltage > 1 000 V AC or > 1 500 V DC;\n(iv)\nin toxic, highly corrosive or flammable environments or in environments with abrasive substances;\n(d)\nplaced on the market before 1 January 2015 as replacement for identical fans integrated in products which were placed on the market before 1 January 2013; except that the packaging, the product information and the technical documentation must clearly indicate regarding (a), (b) and (c) that the fan shall only be used for the purpose for which it is designed and regarding (d) the product(s) for which it is intended.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions set out in Directive 2009/125/EC, the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018Fan\u2019 means a rotary bladed machine that is used to maintain a continuous flow of gas, typically air, passing through it and whose work per unit mass does not exceed 25 kJ/kg, and which:\n-\nis designed for use with or equipped with an electrical motor with an electric input power between 125 W and 500 kW (\u2265 125 W and \u2264 500 kW) to drive the impeller at its optimum energy efficiency point,\n-\nis an axial fan, centrifugal fan, cross flow fan or mixed flow fan,\n-\nmay or may not be equipped with a motor when placed on the market or put into service;\n2.\n\u2018Impeller\u2019 means the part of the fan that is imparting energy into the gas flow and is also known as the fan wheel;\n3.\n\u2018Axial fan\u2019 means a fan that propels gas in the direction axial to the rotational axis of one or more impeller(s) with a swirling tangential motion created by the rotating impeller(s). The axial fan may or may not be equipped with a cylindrical housing, inlet or outlet guide vanes or an orifice panel or orifice ring;\n4.\n\u2018Inlet guide vanes\u2019 are vanes positioned before the impeller to guide the gas stream towards the impeller and which may or may not be adjustable;\n5.\n\u2018Outlet guide vanes\u2019 are vanes positioned after the impeller to guide the gas stream from the impeller and which may or may not be adjustable;\n6.\n\u2018Orifice panel\u2019 means a panel with an opening in which the fan sits and which allows the fan to be fixed to other structures;\n7.\n\u2018Orifice ring\u2019 means a ring with an opening in which the fan sits and which allows the fan to be fixed to other structures;\n8.\n\u2018Centrifugal fan\u2019 means a fan in which the gas enters the impeller(s) in an essentially axial direction and leaves it in a direction perpendicular to that axis. The impeller may have one or two inlets and may or may not have a housing;\n9.\n\u2018Centrifugal radial bladed fan\u2019 means a centrifugal fan where the outward direction of the blades of the impeller(s) at the periphery is radial relative to the axis of rotation;\n10.\n\u2018Centrifugal forward curved fan\u2019 means a centrifugal fan where the outward direction of the blades of the impeller(s) at the periphery is forward relative to the direction of rotation;\n11.\n\u2018Centrifugal backward curved fan without housing\u2019 means a centrifugal fan where the outward direction of the blades of the impeller(s) at the periphery is backward relative to the direction of rotation and which does not have a housing;\n12.\n\u2018Housing\u2019 means a casing around the impeller which guides the gas stream towards, through and from the impeller;\n13.\n\u2018Centrifugal backward curved fan with housing\u2019 means a centrifugal fan with an impeller where the outward direction of the blades at the periphery is backward relative to the direction of rotation and which has a housing;\n14.\n\u2018Cross flow fan\u2019 means a fan in which the gas path through the impeller is in a direction essentially at right angles to its axis both entering and leaving the impeller at its periphery;\n15.\n\u2018Mixed flow fan\u2019 means a fan in which the gas path through the impeller is intermediate between the gas path in fans of centrifugal and axial types;\n16.\n\u2018Short-time duty\u2019 means working of a motor at a constant load, which is not long enough to reach temperature equilibrium;\n17.\n\u2018Ventilation fan\u2019 means a fan that is not used in the following energy-related products:\n-\nlaundry and washer dryers > 3 kW maximum electrical input power,\n-\nindoor units of household air-conditioning products and indoor household air-conditioners, \u2264 12 kW maximum airco output power,\n-\ninformation technology products;\n18.\nThe \u2018specific ratio\u2019 means the stagnation pressure measured at the fan outlet divided by the stagnation pressure at the fan inlet at the optimal energy efficiency point of the fan.\nArticle 3\nEcodesign requirements\n1. The ecodesign requirements for fans are set out in Annex I.\n2. Each fan energy efficiency requirement of Annex I Section 2 shall apply in accordance with the following timetable:\n(a) first tier: from 1 January 2013, ventilation fans shall not have a lower target energy efficiency than as defined in Annex I, Section 2, Table 1;\n(b) second tier: from 1 January 2015, all fans shall not have a lower target energy efficiency than as defined in Annex I, Section 2, Table 2.\n3. The product information requirements on fans and how they must be displayed are as set out in Annex I, Section 3. These requirements shall apply from 1 January 2013.\n4. The fan energy efficiency requirements of Annex I Section 2 shall not apply to fans which are designed to operate:\n(a)\nwith an optimum energy efficiency at 8 000 rotations per minute or more;\n(b)\nin applications in which the \u2018specific ratio\u2019 is over 1,11;\n(c)\nas conveying fans used for the transport of non-gaseous substances in industrial process applications.\n5. For dual use fans designed for both ventilation under normal conditions and emergency use, at short-time duty, with regard to fire safety requirements as set out in Directive 89/106/EC, the values of the applicable efficiency grades set out in Annex I Section 2 will be reduced by 10 % for Table 1 and by 5 % for Table 2.\n6. Compliance with ecodesign requirements shall be measured and calculated in accordance with requirements set out in Annex II.\nArticle 4\nConformity assessment\nThe conformity assessment procedure referred to in Article 8 of Directive 2009/125/EC shall be the internal design control system set out in Annex IV to that Directive or the management system for assessing conformity set out in Annex V to that Directive.\nArticle 5\nVerification procedure for market surveillance purposes\nWhen performing the market surveillance checks referred to in Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/125/EC, the authorities of the Member States shall apply the verification procedure set out in Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 6\nIndicative benchmarks\nThe indicative benchmarks for the best-performing fans available on the market at the time of entry into force of this Regulation are set out in Annex IV.\nArticle 7\nRevision\nThe Commission shall review this Regulation no later than 4 years after its entry into force and present the result of this review to the Ecodesign Consultation Forum. The review shall in particular assess the feasibility of reducing the number of fan types in order to reinforce competition on grounds of energy efficiency for fans which can fulfil a comparable function. The review shall also assess whether the scope of exemptions can be reduced, including allowances for dual use fans.\nArticle 8\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 March 2011.", "references": ["38", "20", "95", "16", "11", "62", "79", "28", "39", "26", "91", "92", "13", "10", "8", "57", "99", "31", "24", "41", "87", "77", "53", "43", "96", "27", "59", "82", "30", "9", "No Label", "25", "58", "76", "78", "86"], "gold": ["25", "58", "76", "78", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1154/2010\nof 8 December 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties for pears, lemons, apples and courgettes\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2) provides for surveillance of imports of the products listed in Annex XVII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of applying Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded as part of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2007, 2008 and 2009, the trigger levels for additional duties on pears, lemons, apples and courgettes should be adjusted.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2010.", "references": ["72", "7", "73", "78", "69", "8", "18", "47", "32", "94", "56", "71", "79", "34", "50", "9", "82", "31", "38", "81", "63", "40", "61", "60", "80", "76", "12", "87", "75", "74", "No Label", "4", "10", "17", "21", "25", "68"], "gold": ["4", "10", "17", "21", "25", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/627/CFSP\nof 22 September 2011\nimplementing Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof, in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Treaty on European Union,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\n(2)\nIn view of the developments in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2011.", "references": ["33", "63", "96", "97", "54", "0", "75", "66", "65", "62", "93", "26", "8", "73", "21", "89", "78", "46", "68", "47", "10", "50", "18", "28", "5", "31", "90", "52", "16", "76", "No Label", "3", "12", "94"], "gold": ["3", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/34/EU\nof 31 May 2010\namending Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards an extension of the use of the active substance penconazole\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Directive 2009/77/EC (2) penconazole was included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, with the specific provision that Member States may only authorise uses in greenhouses and that the notifier is to submit further information on the fate and behaviour of the soil metabolite U1 by 31 December 2011.\n(2)\nOn 6 May 2009 the notifier submitted the required information to Germany, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 (3). Germany evaluated the additional information and submitted to the Commission on 6 November 2009 an addendum to the draft assessment report on penconazole, which was circulated for comments to the other Member States and to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In the comments received no major concerns were raised and the other Member States and EFSA did not raise any point which would exclude the extension of the use. The draft assessment report together with that addendum was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 May 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for penconazole.\n(3)\nThe new information on the fate and behaviour of the metabolite U1 submitted by the notifier and the new assessment carried out by the rapporteur Member State indicate that plant protection products containing penconazole may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the intended uses as set out in the original dossier which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. Consequently, it is no longer necessary to restrict the use of penconazole to greenhouses, as laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC as amended by Directive 2009/77/EC.\n(4)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the notifier submit further information on the fate and behaviour of the soil metabolite CGA179944 in acidic soils.\n(5)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 June 2010 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 July 2010.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2010.", "references": ["63", "78", "77", "7", "42", "62", "98", "83", "69", "28", "56", "79", "3", "91", "84", "17", "87", "35", "0", "94", "4", "14", "33", "68", "88", "61", "48", "55", "82", "1", "No Label", "2", "25", "41", "65", "76"], "gold": ["2", "25", "41", "65", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 175/2011\nof 23 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2011.", "references": ["75", "59", "4", "55", "36", "54", "21", "23", "78", "56", "57", "70", "53", "51", "98", "95", "65", "49", "31", "87", "94", "1", "62", "11", "44", "50", "19", "80", "3", "15", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 789/2012\nof 31 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 August 2012.", "references": ["5", "46", "92", "65", "58", "48", "41", "1", "43", "27", "56", "29", "85", "13", "28", "31", "73", "93", "2", "76", "54", "8", "94", "75", "38", "62", "11", "49", "52", "36", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 89/2012\nof 1 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 February 2012.", "references": ["95", "40", "10", "67", "55", "46", "59", "34", "78", "76", "42", "2", "47", "80", "82", "62", "3", "53", "28", "20", "7", "26", "52", "0", "85", "25", "65", "13", "91", "15", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 March 2012\non the conclusion of the International Cocoa Agreement 2010\n(2012/189/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(3) and (4), in conjunction with Article 218(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 June 2010 the negotiating conference, established under the auspices of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, approved the text of the International Cocoa Agreement 2010 (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Agreement was negotiated to replace the International Cocoa Agreement 2001 (\u2018the 2001 Agreement\u2019), which has been extended until 30 September 2012.\n(3)\nThe Agreement is open for signature from 1 October 2010 until 30 September 2012 and the instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval may be deposited during the same period.\n(4)\nThe aims of the Agreement fall under the common commercial policy.\n(5)\nThe European Union is a party to the 2001 Agreement, and the signature of the Agreement and the deposit of its instrument of provisional application have already been authorised by Council Decision 2011/634/EU (1). It is therefore in the interest of the Union to conclude the Agreement,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe International Cocoa Agreement 2010 (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, deposit the acts provided for in Article 54 of the Agreement (3).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 26 March 2012.", "references": ["62", "56", "71", "38", "49", "94", "45", "30", "76", "98", "51", "87", "89", "29", "58", "57", "63", "24", "65", "54", "75", "61", "2", "43", "48", "73", "10", "25", "37", "53", "No Label", "3", "9", "68"], "gold": ["3", "9", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 154/2011\nof 18 February 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 148/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 February 2011.", "references": ["16", "92", "5", "94", "64", "25", "75", "43", "85", "61", "46", "82", "76", "14", "87", "39", "78", "96", "41", "63", "30", "31", "97", "7", "37", "26", "47", "54", "27", "67", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 71/2011\nof 28 January 2011\non selling prices for cereals in response to the fifth individual invitations to tender within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 (2) has opened the sales of cereals by tendering procedures, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission has to fix for each cereal and per Member State a minimum selling price or to decide not to fix a minimum selling price.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the fifth individual invitations to tender, it has been decided that a minimum selling price should be fixed for the cereals and for the Member States.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the fifth individual invitations to tender for selling of cereals within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 26 January 2011, the decisions on the selling price per cereal and Member State are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 January 2011.", "references": ["12", "75", "47", "84", "37", "86", "80", "97", "13", "3", "55", "11", "34", "48", "53", "51", "62", "15", "28", "50", "16", "30", "93", "2", "99", "46", "87", "65", "60", "70", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1334/2011\nof 19 December 2011\npublishing, for 2012, the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds (2), and in particular the fourth paragraph of Article 3 thereof,\nWhereas:\nThe full version of the refund nomenclature valid at 1 January 2012, as it ensues from the regulatory provisions on export arrangements for agricultural products, should be published.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EEC) No 3846/87 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nAnnex I is replaced by the text in Annex I to this Regulation.\n(2)\nAnnex II is replaced by the text in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2012.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["5", "15", "86", "66", "79", "94", "75", "3", "19", "63", "73", "13", "78", "80", "88", "8", "22", "43", "58", "24", "83", "45", "34", "61", "56", "33", "4", "87", "99", "85", "No Label", "20", "21", "62"], "gold": ["20", "21", "62"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 813/2012\nof 12 September 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 718/2007 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 establishing an instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (1) (\u2018the IPA Regulation\u2019) and in particular Article 3(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 718/2007 of 12 June 2007 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 establishing an instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA) (2) provides for detailed rules for the implementation of the IPA Regulation.\n(2)\nBy Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1292/2011 (3), Regulation (EC) No 718/2007 was amended, inter alia, in order to increase the pre-financing paid by the Commission to the countries benefiting from the human resources development and the rural development components.\n(3)\nAlthough it was the intention of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1292/2011 to align the specific pre-financing rules for the regional development, the human resources development and the rural development components, a textual error occurred when amending Article 160(3) of Regulation (EC) No 718/2007. This error should be corrected.\n(4)\nIn addition to the correction of the textual error, the specific pre-financing rules for the regional development, the human resources development and the rural development components should be aligned further by removing the reference to Article 42(1) in Article 160(3) of Regulation (EC) No 718/2007, which is redundant.\n(5)\nThe provisions laid down in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the IPA Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 160 of Regulation (EC) No 718/2007, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. In addition to the provisions of Article 42, payments for the pre-financing may amount to 30 % of the European Union contribution for the three most recent years of the programme concerned. Where necessary, with regard to the availability of budgetary commitment, the pre-financing may be paid in two instalments.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2012.", "references": ["95", "6", "71", "91", "53", "45", "32", "39", "54", "35", "42", "16", "70", "52", "37", "99", "41", "33", "64", "26", "20", "57", "34", "43", "88", "18", "72", "7", "29", "60", "No Label", "9", "17"], "gold": ["9", "17"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1043/2010\nof 15 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing forkbeards in Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (2) lays down quotas for 2009 and 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["89", "87", "46", "63", "60", "4", "31", "77", "38", "2", "24", "53", "92", "49", "23", "47", "66", "78", "33", "58", "61", "84", "71", "79", "99", "32", "73", "19", "42", "35", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 731/2012\nof 10 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2012.", "references": ["0", "62", "36", "29", "8", "72", "64", "47", "33", "83", "7", "90", "66", "27", "53", "80", "52", "14", "78", "58", "96", "74", "43", "49", "12", "45", "15", "97", "5", "50", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1303/2011\nof 9 December 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["82", "41", "19", "37", "10", "87", "99", "97", "45", "4", "56", "69", "77", "33", "25", "94", "67", "34", "86", "24", "15", "75", "6", "39", "61", "49", "30", "20", "35", "2", "No Label", "21", "83"], "gold": ["21", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1213/2010\nof 16 December 2010\nestablishing common rules concerning the interconnection of national electronic registers on road transport undertakings\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (1), and in particular Article 16 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to facilitate the interconnection of the national electronic registers as required by Article 16(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009, the Commission should adopt common rules for the implementation of this interconnection in accordance with Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009.\n(2)\nThe provisions on personal data protection, as laid down in particular by Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (2), apply to the processing of any personal data pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009. In particular, Member States should implement appropriate security measures to prevent misuse of personal data.\n(3)\nWhere applicable, the provisions on personal data protection, as laid down by Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3) apply to the processing of any personal data pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 (4),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe common rules to enable the interconnection of the national electronic registers shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 31 December 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2010.", "references": ["15", "90", "51", "72", "63", "64", "97", "67", "60", "45", "50", "59", "76", "98", "68", "54", "91", "94", "19", "24", "81", "80", "85", "33", "65", "66", "61", "46", "1", "43", "No Label", "2", "40", "42", "55"], "gold": ["2", "40", "42", "55"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/59/EU\nof 26 August 2010\namending Directive 2009/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States on extraction solvents used in the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States on extraction solvents used in the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients (1) and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2009/32/EC applies to extraction solvents used or intended for use in the production of foodstuffs or food ingredients. That Directive does not apply to extraction solvents used in the production of food additives, vitamins and other nutritional additives, unless such food additives, vitamins or nutritional additives are listed in its Annex I. The European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) evaluated the safety of dimethyl ether as an extraction solvent to remove fat from animal protein raw materials and expressed its opinion of 29 January 2009 (2). The Authority concluded that there is no safety concern provided that the maximum residual limit of dimethyl ether is 9 \u03bcg/kg of extracted animal proteins. Therefore the use of dimethyl ether as an extraction solvent to remove fat from animal protein raw materials should be authorised under the condition of a maximum residual limit of dimethyl ether of 9 \u03bcg/kg in the defatted protein product.\n(2)\nPart III of Annex I to Directive 2009/32/EC does not establish specific residue limits in foodstuffs for methanol and propan-2-ol resulting from the preparation of flavourings. Member States and the Commission pointed out that the general residue limit of 10 mg/kg for methanol and propane-2-ol, as set out in Part II of Annex I to Directive 2009/32/EC, is too strict if applied directly to flavourings.\n(3)\nTherefore specific limits should be set in foodstuffs for methanol and propan-2-ol resulting from their use for the preparation of flavourings from natural flavouring materials. Those limits should be lower than the limit of 10 mg/kg assessed as safe by the Scientific Committee for Food (3), in order to be considered as safe.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 2009/32/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 15 September 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 August 2010.", "references": ["87", "97", "49", "78", "66", "42", "89", "98", "7", "46", "81", "73", "56", "18", "94", "4", "47", "64", "59", "14", "10", "43", "12", "13", "90", "9", "44", "84", "53", "96", "No Label", "8", "25", "38", "72", "74", "83"], "gold": ["8", "25", "38", "72", "74", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 11 June 2012\namending Decision 2003/467/EC as regards the declaration of Lithuania as officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free Member State\n(notified under document C(2012) 3729)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/303/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), and in particular Annex D(I)(E) thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 64/432/EEC applies to trade within the Union in bovine animals and swine. It lays down the conditions whereby a Member State or region of a Member State may be declared officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free as regards bovine herds.\n(2)\nAnnex III to Commission Decision 2003/467/EC of 23 June 2003 establishing the official tuberculosis, brucellosis and enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free status of certain Member States and regions of Member States as regards bovine herds (2) lists the Member States and regions thereof which are declared officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free.\n(3)\nLithuania has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions for the officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free status laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC for its whole territory.\n(4)\nFollowing the evaluation of the documentation submitted by Lithuania, that Member State should be declared as officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free.\n(5)\nDecision 2003/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Decision 2003/467/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 June 2012.", "references": ["49", "44", "81", "20", "52", "26", "23", "27", "68", "29", "41", "63", "88", "79", "56", "84", "89", "0", "47", "74", "40", "17", "2", "48", "59", "92", "94", "19", "38", "30", "No Label", "61", "66", "91"], "gold": ["61", "66", "91"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/82/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 25 October 2011\nfacilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 87(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImproving road safety is a prime objective of the Union's transport policy. The Union is pursuing a policy to improve road safety with the objective of reducing fatalities, injuries and material damage. An important element of that policy is the consistent enforcement of sanctions for road traffic offences committed in the Union which considerably jeopardise road safety.\n(2)\nHowever, due to a lack of appropriate procedures and notwithstanding existing possibilities under Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (2) and Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (3) (the \u2027Pr\u00fcm Decisions\u2027), sanctions in the form of financial penalties for certain road traffic offences are often not enforced if those offences are committed with a vehicle which is registered in a Member State other than the Member State where the offence took place. This Directive aims to ensure that even in such cases, the effectiveness of the investigation of road safety related traffic offences should be ensured.\n(3)\nThe Commission, in its Communication of 20 July 2010 entitled \u2027Towards a European road safety area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020\u2027, emphasised that enforcement remains a key factor in creating the conditions for a considerable reduction in the number of deaths and injuries. The Council, in its conclusions of 2 December 2010 on road safety, called also for consideration of the need for further strengthening of enforcement of road traffic rules by Member States and, where appropriate, at Union level. It invited the Commission to examine the possibilities of harmonising traffic rules at Union level where appropriate. The Commission should therefore assess the need to propose in the future further measures on facilitating cross-border enforcement with regard to road traffic offences, in particular those related to serious traffic accidents.\n(4)\nGreater convergence of control measures between Member States should also be encouraged and the Commission should examine in this respect the need for developing common standards for automatic checking equipment for road safety controls.\n(5)\nThe awareness of Union citizens should be raised as regards the road safety traffic rules in force in different Member States and as regards the implementation of this Directive, in particular through appropriate measures guaranteeing the provision of sufficient information on the consequences of not respecting the road safety traffic rules when travelling in a Member State other than the Member State of registration.\n(6)\nIn order to improve road safety throughout the Union and to ensure equal treatment of drivers, namely resident and non-resident offenders, enforcement should be facilitated irrespective of the Member State of registration of the vehicle. To this end, a system of cross-border exchange of information should be put in place for certain identified road safety related traffic offences, regardless of their administrative or criminal nature under the law of the Member State concerned, granting the Member State of the offence access to vehicle registration data (VRD) of the Member State of registration.\n(7)\nA more efficient cross-border exchange of VRD, which should facilitate the identification of persons suspected of committing a road safety related traffic offence, may increase the deterrent effect and induce more cautious behaviour by the driver of a vehicle that is registered in a Member State other than the Member State of the offence, thereby preventing casualties due to road traffic accidents.\n(8)\nThe road safety related traffic offences covered by this Directive are not subject to homogeneous treatment in the Member States. Some Member States qualify such offences under national law as \u2027administrative\u2027 offences while others qualify them as \u2027criminal\u2027 offences. This Directive should apply regardless of how those offences are qualified under national law.\n(9)\nIn the framework of the Pr\u00fcm Decisions, Member States grant each other the right of access to their VRD in order to improve the exchange of information and to speed up the procedures in force. The provisions concerning the technical specifications and the availability of automated data exchange set out in the Pr\u00fcm Decisions should, as far as possible, be included in this Directive.\n(10)\nExisting software applications should be the basis for the data exchange under this Directive and should, at the same time, also facilitate the reporting by Member States to the Commission. Such applications should provide for the expeditious, secure and confidential exchange of specific VRD between Member States. Advantage should be taken of the European Vehicle and Driving Licence Information System (Eucaris) software application, which is mandatory for Member States under the Pr\u00fcm Decisions as regards VRD. The Commission should report on an assessment of the functioning of the software applications used for the purposes of this Directive.\n(11)\nThe scope of the above-mentioned software applications should be limited to the processes used in the exchange of information between the national contact points in the Member States. Procedures and automated processes in which the information is to be used are outside the scope of such applications.\n(12)\nThe Information Management Strategy for EU internal security aims at finding the simplest and most easily traceable and cost-effective solutions for data exchange.\n(13)\nMember States should be able to contact the owner, the holder of the vehicle or the otherwise identified person suspected of committing the road safety related traffic offence in order to keep the person concerned informed of the applicable procedures and the legal consequences under the law of the Member State of the offence. In doing so, Member States should consider sending the information concerning road safety related traffic offences in the language of the registration documents or the language most likely to be understood by the person concerned, to ensure that that person has a clear understanding of the information which is being shared with the person concerned. Member States should apply the appropriate procedures to ensure that only the person concerned is informed and not a third party. To that effect, Member States should use detailed arrangements similar to those adopted for following up such offences including means such as, where appropriate, registered delivery. This will allow that person to respond to the information in an appropriate way, in particular by asking for more information, settling the fine or by exercising his/her rights of defence, in particular in the case of mistaken identity. Further proceedings are covered by applicable legal instruments, including instruments on mutual assistance and on mutual recognition, for example Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (4).\n(14)\nMember States should consider providing equivalent translation with respect to the information letter sent by the Member State of the offence, as provided for in Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (5).\n(15)\nWith a view to pursuing a road safety policy aiming for a high level of protection for all road users in the Union and taking into account the widely differing circumstances pertaining within the Union, Member States should act, without prejudice to more restrictive policies and laws, in order to ensure greater convergence of road traffic rules and of their enforcement between Member States. In the framework of its report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Directive, the Commission should examine the need to develop common standards in order to establish comparable methods, practices and minimum standards at Union level taking into account international cooperation and existing agreements in the field of road safety, in particular the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic of 8 November 1968.\n(16)\nIn the framework of its report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Directive by the Member States, the Commission should examine the need for common criteria for follow-up procedures by the Member States in the event of non-payment of a financial penalty, in accordance with Member States' laws and procedures. In this report, the Commission should address issues such as the procedures between the competent authorities of the Member States for the transmission of the final decision to impose a sanction and/or financial penalty as well as the recognition and enforcement of the final decision.\n(17)\nIn preparing the review of this Directive, the Commission should consult the relevant stakeholders, such as road safety and law enforcement authorities or bodies, victims' associations and other non-governmental organisations active in the field of road safety.\n(18)\nCloser cooperation between law enforcement authorities should go hand in hand with respect for fundamental rights, in particular the right to respect for privacy and to protection of personal data, guaranteed by special data protection arrangements which should take particular account of the specific nature of cross-border online access to databases. It is necessary that the software applications to be set up enable the exchange of information to be carried out in secure conditions and ensure the confidentiality of the data transmitted. The data gathered under this Directive should not be used for purposes other than those of this Directive. Member States should comply with the obligations on the conditions of use and of temporary storage of the data.\n(19)\nSince the data relating to the identification of an offender are personal data, Member States should take the measures necessary to ensure that the relevant provisions of Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (6) are applied. Without prejudice to the observance of the procedural requirements for appeal and the redress mechanisms of the Member State concerned, the data subject should be informed accordingly, when notified of the offence, of the right to access, the right to rectification and deletion of personal data as well as of the maximum legal storage period of the data and should have the right to obtain the correction of any inaccurate personal data or the immediate deletion of any data recorded unlawfully.\n(20)\nIt should be possible for third countries to participate in the exchange of VRD provided that they have concluded an agreement with the Union to this effect. Such an agreement would have to include necessary provisions on data protection.\n(21)\nThis Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as referred to in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.\n(22)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 21) on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(23)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(24)\nIn order to achieve the objective of exchange of information between Member States through interoperable means, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of taking into account relevant changes to Decision 2008/615/JHA and Decision 2008/616/JHA or where required by legal acts of the Union directly relevant for the update of Annex I. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council.\n(25)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (7), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Union, their own tables, which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n(26)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely to ensure a high level of protection for all road users in the Union by facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences, where they are committed with a vehicle registered in a Member State other than the Member State where the offence took place, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore by reason of the scale and effects of the 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. 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.\n(27)\nThe European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted and adopted an opinion (8),\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nObjective\nThis Directive aims to ensure a high level of protection for all road users in the Union by facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences and thereby the enforcement of sanctions, where those offences are committed with a vehicle registered in a Member State other than the Member State where the offence took place.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThis Directive shall apply to the following road safety related traffic offences:\n(a)\nspeeding;\n(b)\nnon-use of a seat-belt;\n(c)\nfailing to stop at a red traffic light;\n(d)\ndrink-driving;\n(e)\ndriving under the influence of drugs;\n(f)\nfailing to wear a safety helmet;\n(g)\nuse of a forbidden lane;\n(h)\nillegally using a mobile telephone or any other communication devices while driving.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2027vehicle\u2027 means any power-driven vehicle including motorcycles, which is normally used for carrying persons or goods by road;\n(b)\n\u2027Member State of the offence\u2027 means the Member State where the offence has been committed;\n(c)\n\u2027Member State of registration\u2027 means the Member State where the vehicle with which the offence has been committed is registered;\n(d)\n\u2027speeding\u2027 means exceeding the speed limits in force in the Member State of the offence for the road and the type of vehicle concerned;\n(e)\n\u2027non-use of a seat-belt\u2027 means failing to comply with the requirement to wear a seat-belt or use a child restraint in accordance with Council Directive 91/671/EEC of 16 December 1991 relating to the compulsory use of safety belts and child-restraint systems in vehicles (9) and the law of the Member State of the offence;\n(f)\n\u2027failing to stop at a red traffic light\u2027 means driving through a red traffic light or any other relevant stop signal, as defined in the law of the Member State of the offence;\n(g)\n\u2027drink-driving\u2027 means driving while impaired by alcohol, as defined in the law of the Member State of the offence;\n(h)\n\u2027driving under the influence of drugs\u2027 means driving while impaired by drugs or other substances having a similar effect, as defined in the law of the Member State of the offence;\n(i)\n\u2027failing to wear a safety helmet\u2027 means not wearing a safety helmet, as defined in the law of the Member State of the offence;\n(j)\n\u2027use of a forbidden lane\u2027 means illegally using part of a road section, such as an emergency lane, public transport lane or temporary closed lane for reasons of congestion or road works, as defined in the law of the Member State of the offence;\n(k)\n\u2027illegally using a mobile telephone or any other communication devices while driving\u2027 means illegally using a mobile telephone or any other communication devices while driving, as defined in the law of the Member State of the offence;\n(l)\n\u2027national contact point\u2027 means a designated competent authority for the exchange of VRD;\n(m)\n\u2027automated search\u2027 means an online access procedure for consulting the databases of one, several, or all of the Member States or of the participating countries;\n(n)\n\u2027holder of the vehicle\u2027 means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered, as defined in the law of the Member State of registration.\nArticle 4\nProcedure for the exchange of information between Member States\n1. For the investigation of the road safety related traffic offences referred to in Article 2, the Member States shall allow other Member States' national contact points, as referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article, access to the following national VRD, with the power to conduct automated searches on:\n(a)\ndata relating to vehicles; and\n(b)\ndata relating to owners or holders of the vehicle.\nThe data elements referred to in points (a) and (b) which are necessary to conduct the search shall be in compliance with Annex I.\n2. Any searches in the form of outgoing requests shall be conducted by the national contact point of the Member State of the offence using a full registration number.\nThose searches shall be conducted in compliance with the procedures as described in Chapter 3 of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, except for point 1 of Chapter 3 of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, for which Annex I to this Directive shall apply.\nThe Member State of the offence shall, under this Directive, use the data obtained in order to establish who is personally liable for road safety related traffic offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3.\n3. For the purposes of the exchange of data as referred to in paragraph 1, each Member State shall designate a national contact point. The powers of the national contact points shall be governed by the applicable law of the Member State concerned.\n4. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that the exchange of information is carried out by interoperable electronic means without exchange of data involving other databases. Member States shall ensure that this exchange of information is conducted in a cost efficient and secure manner and ensure the security and protection of the data transmitted, as far as possible using existing software applications such as the one especially designed for the purposes of Article 12 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, and amended versions of those software applications, in compliance with Annex I to this Directive and with points 2 and 3 of Chapter 3 of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA. The amended versions of the software applications shall provide for both online real-time exchange mode and batch exchange mode, the latter allowing for the exchange of multiple requests or responses within one message.\n5. Each Member State shall bear its costs arising from the administration, use and maintenance of the software applications referred to in paragraph 4.\nArticle 5\nInformation letter on the road safety related traffic offence\n1. The Member State of the offence shall decide whether to initiate follow-up proceedings in relation to the road safety related traffic offences referred to in Article 2 or not.\nIn the event that the Member State of the offence decides to initiate such proceedings, that Member State shall, in conformity with its national law, inform the owner, the holder of the vehicle or the otherwise identified person suspected of committing the road safety related traffic offence accordingly.\nThis information shall, as applicable under national law, include the legal consequences thereof within the territory of the Member State of the offence under the law of that Member State.\n2. When sending the information letter to the owner, the holder of the vehicle or the otherwise identified person suspected of committing the road safety related traffic offence, the Member State of the offence shall, in accordance with its law, include any relevant information, notably the nature of the road safety related traffic offence referred to in Article 2, the place, date and time of the offence, the title of the texts of the national law infringed and the sanction and, where appropriate, data concerning the device used for detecting the offence. For that purpose, the Member State of the offence may use the template as set out in Annex II.\n3. Where the Member State of the offence decides to initiate follow-up proceedings in relation to the road safety related traffic offences referred to in Article 2, the Member State of the offence, for the purpose of ensuring the respect of fundamental rights, sends the information letter in the language of the registration document, if available, or in one of the official languages of the Member State of registration.\nArticle 6\nReporting by Member States to the Commission\nMember States shall send a preliminary report to the Commission by 7 November 2014. They shall also send a comprehensive report to the Commission by 6 May 2016 and every two years thereafter.\nThe comprehensive report shall indicate the number of automated searches conducted by the Member State of the offence addressed to the national contact point of the Member State of registration following offences committed on its territory, together with the type of offences for which requests were addressed and the number of failed requests.\nThe comprehensive report shall also include a description of the situation at national level in relation to the follow-up given to the road safety related traffic offences, based on the proportion of such offences which have been followed up by information letters.\nArticle 7\nData protection\n1. The provisions on data protection set out in Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA shall apply to personal data processed under this Directive.\n2. In particular, each Member State shall ensure that personal data processed under this Directive are, within an appropriate time period, rectified if inaccurate, or erased or blocked when they are no longer required, in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, and that a time limit for the storage of data is established in accordance with Article 9 of that Framework Decision.\nMember States shall ensure that all personal data processed under this Directive are only used for the objective set out in Article 1, and that the data subjects have the same rights to information to access, to rectification, erasure and blocking, to compensation and to judicial redress as those adopted under national law in implementation of relevant provisions of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.\nAll relevant provisions on data protection set out in the Pr\u00fcm Decisions shall also apply to personal data processed under this Directive.\n3. Any person concerned shall have the right to obtain information on which personal data recorded in the Member State of registration were transmitted to the Member State of the offence, including the date of the request and the competent authority of the Member State of the offence.\nArticle 8\nInformation for road users in the Union\n1. The Commission shall make available on its website a summary in all official languages of the institutions of the Union of the rules in force in Member States in the field covered by this Directive. Member States shall provide information on these rules to the Commission.\n2. Member States shall provide road users with the necessary information about the rules applicable in their territory and the measures implementing this Directive in association with, among other organisations, road safety bodies, non-governmental organisations active in the field of road safety and automobile clubs.\nArticle 9\nDelegated acts\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 10 concerning the update of Annex I in the light of technical progress to take into account relevant changes to Decision 2008/615/JHA and Decision 2008/616/JHA or where required by legal acts of the Union directly relevant for the update of Annex I.\nArticle 10\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The delegation of power referred to in Article 9 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from 6 November 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 9 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect on the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 9 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 11\nRevision of the Directive\nBy 7 November 2016, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive by the Member States. In its report, the Commission shall focus in particular on the following aspects and shall, as appropriate, make proposals to cover those aspects:\n-\nan assessment of whether other road safety related traffic offences should be added to the scope of this Directive,\n-\nan assessment of the effectiveness of this Directive on the reduction in the number of fatalities on Union roads, in particular whether the effectiveness of this Directive is affected by its territorial scope,\n-\nan assessment of the need for developing common standards for automatic checking equipment and for procedures. In this context, the Commission is invited to develop at Union level road safety guidelines within the framework of the common transport policy in order to ensure greater convergence of the enforcement of road traffic rules by Member States through comparable methods and practices. These guidelines may cover at least the non-respect of speed limits, drink-driving, non-use of seat belts and failure to stop at a traffic red light,\n-\nan assessment of the need to strengthen the enforcement of sanctions with regard to road safety related traffic offences and to propose common criteria concerning the follow-up procedures in the case of non-payment of a financial penalty, within the framework of all relevant EU policies, including the common transport policy,\n-\npossibilities to harmonise traffic rules where appropriate,\n-\nan assessment of the software applications as referred to in Article 4(4), with a view to ensuring proper implementation of this Directive as well as guaranteeing an effective, expeditious, secure and confidential exchange of specific VRD.\nArticle 12\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 7 November 2013. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 13\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 14\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Strasbourg, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["21", "16", "5", "55", "96", "47", "72", "49", "62", "87", "91", "69", "54", "75", "22", "48", "7", "14", "80", "15", "46", "58", "4", "52", "88", "32", "99", "92", "61", "36", "No Label", "12", "40", "42", "53"], "gold": ["12", "40", "42", "53"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 153/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 February 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 212(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (2) provides for assistance to candidate countries and potential candidate countries in their progressive alignment with the standards and policies of the Union, including where appropriate the acquis, with a view to membership.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1085/2006 draws a clear distinction between candidate countries and potential candidate countries.\n(3)\nThe European Council of 17 June 2010 welcomed the Commission opinion on Iceland's application for membership of the Union, noted that Iceland met the political criteria set by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 and decided that accession negotiations with Iceland should be opened. Iceland is therefore a candidate country.\n(4)\nThe European Council of 17 December 2010 endorsed the Council's conclusions of 14 December 2010 on enlargement and agreed to grant Montenegro the status of a candidate country.\n(5)\nThe Council has invited the Commission to propose an amendment to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 with a view to clarifying the rules regarding participation in the award of grant contracts financed under the IPA Cross-Border Cooperation Component and ensuring coherence with other external aid instruments, in particular the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument.\n(6)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 389/2006 of 27 February 2006 establishing an instrument of financial support for encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community (3) designates the committee provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89 of 18 December 1989 on economic aid to certain countries of Central and Eastern Europe (4) (the \u2027Phare committee\u2027) to assist the Commission in the management of the assistance to the Turkish Cypriot community. In accordance with Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006, Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89 has been repealed; however, it continues to apply for legal acts and commitments implementing the budget years preceding 2007. Since Regulation (EC) No 389/2006 continues to be the basic act for financial support to the Turkish Cypriot community beyond those budget years, the Phare committee should also be continued for that purpose.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1085/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1085/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 19, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20189. Paragraphs 1 to 8 shall be without prejudice to the participation of categories of eligible organisations by nature or by localisation in regard to the objectives of the action.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 25(1), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Those Regulations, as well as Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000, shall continue to apply for legal acts and commitments implementing the budget years preceding 2007, for the implementation of Article 31 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (5) and for the implementation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 389/2006 of 27 February 2006 establishing an instrument of financial support for encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community (6).\n(3)\nin Annex I, the following entries are inserted after the entry concerning Croatia:\n\u2018-\nIceland\n-\nMontenegro\u2019;\n(4)\nin Annex II, the following entries are deleted:\n\u2018-\nIceland\n-\nMontenegro\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 February 2012.", "references": ["93", "8", "53", "44", "65", "13", "52", "34", "14", "18", "38", "6", "83", "63", "73", "50", "82", "72", "81", "25", "43", "0", "49", "24", "21", "87", "32", "39", "27", "19", "No Label", "4", "9", "15", "16", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "9", "15", "16", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 907/2011\nof 6 September 2011\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of high tenacity yarn of polyesters originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, and terminating the proceeding concerning imports of high tenacity yarn of polyesters originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2010 of 29 November 2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of high tenacity yarn of polyesters originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and terminating the proceeding concerning imports of high tenacity yarn of polyesters originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. MEASURES IN FORCE\n(1)\nBy Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2010, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of high tenacity yarn of polyesters (other than sewing thread), not put up for retail sale, including monofilament of less than 67 decitex, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC), currently falling within CN code 5402 20 00 (the product concerned).\n(2)\nGiven the large number of cooperating exporting producers in the investigation that led to the imposition of the anti-dumping duty (the original investigation) in the PRC, a sample of Chinese exporting producers was selected and individual duty rates ranging from 0 % to 5,5 % were imposed on the companies included in the sample, while other cooperating companies not included in the sample were attributed a duty rate of 5,3 %. Two cooperating non-sampled companies were granted individual examination within the meaning of Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation, they received duties of 0 % and 9,8 %. A duty rate of 9,8 % for the PRC was imposed on all other companies.\n(3)\nArticle 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2010 gives the possibility to new Chinese exporting producers which meet the criteria set out in that Article to be granted the duty rate applicable to the cooperating companies not included in the sample, i.e. 5,3 %.\nB. NEW EXPORTING PRODUCERS\u2019 REQUESTS\n(4)\nTwo companies (the applicants) have requested to be granted \u2018new exporting producer treatment\u2019 (NEPT).\n(5)\nAn examination has been carried out to determine whether each of the applicants fulfils the criteria for being granted NEPT as set out in Article 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2010, by verifying that the applicant:\n-\nis a producer of the product concerned in the PRC,\n-\ndid not export the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period on which the measures are based (1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009),\n-\nis not related to any of the exporters or producers in the PRC which are subject to the measures imposed by that Regulation,\n-\nhas actually exported to the Union the product concerned after the investigation period on which the measures are based, or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union.\n(6)\nQuestionnaires were sent to the applicants who were asked to supply evidence to demonstrate that they met the criteria mentioned above.\n(7)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of determining whether the criteria set out in Article 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2010 had been fulfilled. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the two applicants:\n-\nJiangsu Hengli Chemical Fibre Co. Ltd,\n-\nAmann Twisting Yancheng Co. Ltd.\nC. FINDINGS\n(8)\nConcerning one applicant, Jiangsu Hengli Chemical Fibre Co. Ltd, the examination of the information submitted showed that it had provided sufficient evidence to prove that it meets the criteria set out in Article 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2010. Therefore, this applicant could be granted the weighted average duty rate for the cooperating companies not included in the sample (i.e. 5,3 %) in accordance with Article 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2010, and should be added to the list of exporting producers of Article 1(2) of that Regulation.\n(9)\nConcerning the other applicant, Amann Twisting Yancheng Co. Ltd, the examination of the information submitted showed that it had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that it meets the criteria set out in Article 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2010. In particular, the investigation revealed that the main raw material used in the manufacturing process, high tenacity yarn of polyesters, is not produced by the applicant but purchased from unrelated suppliers. The filament is processed by the applicant through different production steps, including twisting, and finally exported under the definition of the product concerned. As the applicant did not produce the product concerned but actually merely processed it, it was concluded that Amann Twisting Yancheng Co. Ltd cannot be considered to be a producer of the product concerned. It therefore does not fulfil the requirement for NEPT that the company requesting it must be a \u2018producer\u2019 of the product concerned.\n(10)\nIts request for NEPT was therefore rejected.\nD. MODIFICATION OF THE LIST OF COMPANIES BENEFITING FROM INDIVIDUAL DUTY RATES\n(11)\nIn consideration of the findings of the investigation as indicated in recital 8, it is concluded that the company Jiangsu Hengli Chemical Fibre Co. Ltd should be added to the list of individual companies mentioned under Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2010 with a duty rate of 5,3 %.\n(12)\nThe applicants and the Union industry have been informed of the findings of the investigation and were given the opportunity to submit their comments.\n(13)\nAll arguments and submissions made by interested parties were analysed and duly taken into account where warranted,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex referred to in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2010 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018ANNEX\nCHINESE COOPERATING EXPORTING PRODUCERS NOT SAMPLED\nTARIC Additional Code A977\nCompany name\nCity\nHeilongjiang Longdi Co. Ltd\nHarbin\nJiangsu Hengli Chemical Fibre Co. Ltd\nWujiang\nHyosung Chemical Fiber (Jiaxing) Co. Ltd\nJiaxing\nShanghai Wenlong Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd\nShanghai\nShaoxing Haifu Chemistry Fibre Co. Ltd\nShaoxing\nSinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company\nShanghai\nWuxi Taiji Industry Co. Ltd\nWuxi\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 September 2011.", "references": ["57", "32", "55", "25", "66", "53", "33", "46", "61", "18", "17", "52", "13", "99", "59", "34", "70", "91", "62", "74", "24", "16", "39", "2", "21", "37", "67", "28", "4", "71", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 815/2011\nof 12 August 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 782/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 August 2011.", "references": ["77", "74", "36", "84", "76", "29", "80", "2", "27", "25", "46", "62", "15", "7", "42", "0", "54", "52", "95", "75", "69", "49", "58", "48", "20", "73", "61", "81", "82", "41", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 8 May 2012\namending Decision 2008/855/EC as regards animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in Germany\n(notified under document C(2012) 2992)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/250/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2008/855/EC of 3 November 2008 concerning animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in certain Member States (3) lays down certain control measures in relation to classical swine fever in the Member States or regions thereof listed in the Annex thereto. That list includes parts of the territory of the federal States Rhineland-Palatinate and North Rhine-Westfalia in Germany.\n(2)\nGermany has informed the Commission about recent developments with regard to classical swine fever in feral pigs in the regions of the federal States Rhineland-Palatinate and North Rhine-Westfalia listed in the Annex to Decision 2008/855/EC.\n(3)\nThat information indicates that classical swine fever in feral pigs has been eradicated in the federal States Rhineland-Palatinate and North Rhine-Westfalia. Accordingly, the measures provided for in Decision 2008/855/EC should no longer apply to those regions and the entry for Germany in the list set out in Part I of the Annex thereto should be deleted.\n(4)\nDecision 2008/855/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn the Annex to Decision 2008/855/EC, point 1 of Part I is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 May 2012.", "references": ["81", "78", "19", "77", "90", "2", "23", "40", "73", "52", "21", "26", "38", "60", "17", "41", "36", "11", "8", "49", "87", "94", "86", "79", "24", "29", "69", "44", "13", "76", "No Label", "59", "61", "65", "66", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["59", "61", "65", "66", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 163/2012\nof 23 February 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 as regards representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1484/95 should be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2012.", "references": ["47", "9", "27", "45", "82", "21", "79", "33", "63", "5", "50", "93", "19", "91", "54", "77", "94", "31", "59", "29", "12", "48", "98", "20", "86", "37", "78", "81", "42", "14", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION\nof 29 February 2012\non the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain trade proceedings\n(2012/199/EU)\nTHE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission (1), and in particular Article 22 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe right to good administration constitutes an established principle of European Union law, which includes the procedural rights of interested parties involved in administrative proceedings, the result of which may affect their interests.\n(2)\nThis principle of European Union law is set out in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2). The rights set out in Article 41(1) and (2) of the Charter of a person whose interests are affected by a trade proceeding are also either explicitly set out or should, since they are general principles of law, be applied in Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (3), Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (4), Council Regulation (EC) No 260/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the common rules for imports (5), Council Regulation (EC) No 625/2009 of 7 July 2009 on common rules for imports from certain third countries (6), Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community\u2019s rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (7), Council Regulation (EC) No 385/96 of 29 January 1996 on protection against injurious pricing of vessels (8), Regulation (EC) No 868/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 concerning protection against subsidisation and unfair pricing practices causing injury to Community air carriers in the supply of air services from countries not members of the European Community (9), Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007 (10), Council Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 of 23 July 2001 on the measures that may be taken by the Community following a report adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy matters (11) and in Council Regulation (EC) No 427/2003 of 3 March 2003 on a transitional product-specific safeguard mechanism for imports originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and amending Regulation (EC) No 519/94 on common rules for imports from certain third countries (12).\n(3)\nSince 1 January 2007, the task to safeguard the effective exercise of the procedural rights of the interested parties and ensure that trade proceedings provided in the regulations listed above are handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time has been entrusted to an official of the Directorate-General for Trade experienced in trade defence issues, entitled \u2018Hearing Officer\u2019.\n(4)\nIn order to strengthen this role and reinforce the transparency and the procedural fairness of the relevant proceedings, it is now appropriate to strengthen this function of hearing officer inside the Commission and to lay down his attributions.\n(5)\nThis function should be attributed to an independent person experienced in trade proceedings. The hearing officer should be appointed by the Commission in accordance with the rules laid down in the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure the independence of the hearing officer, he should be attached, for administrative purposes, to the member of the Commission responsible for trade policy.\n(7)\nThe main attributions of the hearing officer provided for in this decision are to advise the Commissioner responsible for trade policy and the Director-General of Trade DG; to guarantee procedural rights; to allow access to the file; to take a decision on the confidential nature of a document; to review the position of the administration on the extension of deadlines. The hearing officer should seek to ensure that in the preparation of draft Commission legal acts or proposals, due account is taken of all the relevant facts, whether favourable or unfavourable to the parties concerned.\n(8)\nIn order to enhance the procedural guarantees for the exercise of the procedural rights of interested parties, it is necessary to determine the types of hearings and to fix the rules for the organisation, conduct and follow-up on hearings with the hearing officer.\n(9)\nThe power of the hearing officer to decide on issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality and deadlines should provide the parties involved in a trade proceeding with an additional procedural guarantee without prejudice to the time constraints of the proceeding.\n(10)\nThe reports should ensure that the main issues dealt with by the hearing officer and his main recommendations are brought to the attention of the decision-makers and thus provide an additional guarantee for the respect of the rights of parties affected by a trade proceeding. The annual reports should also inform the EU Member States, the European Parliament and the public about the activities of the hearing officer.\n(11)\nWhen disclosing information on natural persons, particular attention should be paid to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (13).\n(12)\nThis Decision should be without prejudice to the general rules granting or excluding access to Commission documents,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Hearing officer\n1. A specific function of hearing officer in trade proceedings is created inside the Commission.\n2. The task of the hearing officer is to safeguard the effective exercise of the procedural rights of the interested parties provided for in the regulations listed below (hereinafter the \u2018basic Regulations\u2019) and ensure that the trade proceedings under those regulations are handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time. Those basic Regulations are the following:\n(a)\nRegulation (EC) No 1225/2009, and notably Articles 5(10 and 11), 6(5, 6, 7 and 8), 8(3, 4 and 9), 18, 19, 20 and 21;\n(b)\nRegulation (EC) No 597/2009, and notably Articles 10(12 and 13), 11(5, 6, 7, 8 and 10), 13(3, 4 and 9), 28, 29, 30 and 31;\n(c)\nRegulation (EC) No 260/2009, and notably Articles 6 and 9;\n(d)\nRegulation (EC) No 625/2009, and notably Articles 5 and 7;\n(e)\nRegulation (EC) No 3286/94, and notably Articles 8 and 9;\n(f)\nRegulation (EC) No 385/96, and notably Articles 5(12 and 13), 6(5, 6, 7 and 8), 12, 13 and 14;\n(g)\nRegulation (EC) No 868/2004, and notably Articles 7 and 8;\n(h)\nRegulation (EC) No 732/2008, and notably Articles 18, 19 and 20;\n(i)\nRegulation (EC) No 1515/2001, and notably Articles 1(2) and 2(2);\n(j)\nRegulation (EC) No 427/2003, and notably Articles 5(5), 6(4, 5 and 6), 17(2 and 3) and 18.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018trade proceeding\u2019 means any investigation or an administrative procedure performed by the Commission services under any of the basic Regulations;\n(b)\n\u2018interested party\u2019 means any person whose interests are affected by a trade proceeding, as defined in the applicable basic Regulation;\n(c)\n\u2018rights of the interested parties\u2019 means the procedural rights and the right of every person to have its affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time in trade proceedings.\nArticle 3\nAppointment - Termination of appointment and Deputising\n1. The hearing officer shall be appointed by the Commission in accordance with the rules laid down in the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.\n2. The appointment of the hearing officer shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Any interruption, termination of appointment or transfer of the hearing officer by whatever procedure shall be the subject of a reasoned decision of the Commission. That decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n3. The hearing officer shall be attached, for administrative purposes, to the member of the Commission responsible for trade policy.\n4. Where the hearing officer is unable to act, the member of the Commission responsible for trade policy, where possible after consultation with the hearing officer, shall designate another official, who is not involved in the case concerned and has sufficient experience in trade proceedings, to carry out the hearing officer\u2019s duties.\nArticle 4\nPrinciples of intervention of the hearing officer\n1. In performing his duties, the hearing officer shall act independently. The hearing officer shall not take instructions in fulfilling his tasks.\n2. In performing his duties, the hearing officer shall take account of the need for effective application of the basic Regulations in accordance with the Union legislation in force and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union.\n3. In the exercise of his function, the hearing officer shall have access without restriction and undue delay to any files pertaining to a trade proceeding at any time of the proceeding.\n4. The hearing officer shall make decisions as provided for in this Decision and may make recommendations to the Commission services responsible for the investigation on any issue concerning the rights of the interested parties who requested his intervention. The hearing officer shall seek to ensure that in the preparation of draft Commission legal acts or proposals, due account is taken of all the relevant facts, whether favourable or unfavourable to the parties concerned.\n5. The hearing officer shall be kept informed by the Director responsible or his delegate about the development of the procedure in which the hearing officer has intervened until the adoption of a final legal act by the Commission or the Council, as applicable. The hearing officer shall be informed without delay of any substantial change of the Commission\u2019s position at the definitive stage of the trade proceedings in order to assess any potential impact on the rights of the interested parties.\n6. The hearing officer shall advise the member of the Commission responsible for trade policy and where appropriate the Director-General concerning the follow-up on his recommendations and, when necessary, on possible remedies.\n7. The hearing officer shall be consulted by the Director responsible on changes or updates of policy regarding procedural matters and substantive issues having an impact on the rights of interested parties as defined in Article 2 of this Decision. The hearing officer may be consulted on any other issue arising from a trade proceeding.\n8. The hearing officer may present to the member of the Commission responsible for trade policy, and the Director-General for Trade where necessary, observations and recommendations on any matter arising out of a trade proceeding.\nArticle 5\nConditions of intervention of the hearing officer - Timing - Information\n1. The hearing officer shall act on request by interested parties, the member of the Commission responsible for trade policy, the Director-General, the Director responsible of a trade proceeding or his delegate, or a Director of other services consulted on a trade proceeding.\n2. The hearing officer may intervene at any moment of a trade proceeding with due regard to the time constraints of such a proceeding.\n3. The hearing officer shall be bound by the deadlines applied in trade proceedings in accordance with the basic Regulations.\n4. Any final legal act or proposal of the Commission shall be accompanied by a note from the hearing officer stating whether he intervened in the proceeding concerned and what was the nature of his intervention.\nArticle 6\nHearings\n1. The hearing officer may upon request or in the cases and under the conditions set out in the basic Regulations, organise and conduct two types of hearings: hearings between an individual interested party or a group of interested parties with similar interests and the Commission services responsible for the investigation, and hearings among interested parties with different interests.\n2. A hearing can cover any issue which arises at any moment of a trade proceeding and could affect the rights of the interested parties.\n3. Natural persons invited to attend a hearing shall either appear in person or be represented by a legal representative. Legal persons invited to attend a hearing shall be represented by a duly authorised agent appointed from among their permanent staff.\n4. Natural or legal persons invited to attend a hearing organised by the hearing officer may be assisted by a legal adviser or another qualified person outside their permanent staff admitted by the hearing officer.\n5. This Article is without prejudice to the right to a hearing under the basic Regulations.\nArticle 7\nHearings with an individual interested party or a group of interested parties with similar interests\n1. The hearing officer may organise and conduct a hearing between an individual interested party or a group of interested parties with similar interests and the Commission services responsible for the investigation and where necessary other services, upon a reasoned request of the interested party or the group of interested parties with similar interests.\n2. A hearing with a group of interested parties with similar interests on a specific issue may be requested by an individual interested party and shall take place provided that at least another individual interested party with similar interests agrees to participate.\nArticle 8\nHearings among interested parties with different interests\n1. A hearing among interested parties with different interests may be organised and chaired by the hearing officer to allow opposing views to be presented and rebuttal arguments offered. The period within which such a hearing should be held shall be specified in the Notice of Initiation of the trade proceeding.\n2. A hearing among interested parties with different interests may be organised in each trade defence proceeding after hearing the Commission services responsible for the investigation.\n3. A hearing among interested parties with different interests on a specific issue may also be requested by an individual interested party and shall take place provided that at least another individual interested party with different interests agrees to participate.\n4. The Commission services responsible for the investigation and where necessary other services shall attend the hearing.\n5. The competent representatives of the Member States may attend any hearing among interested parties with different interests as observers.\nArticle 9\nPreparation of hearings\n1. After hearing the Director responsible or his delegate, the hearing officer shall determine the date, the duration and the place of the hearing. Where a postponement is requested by the interested parties or the Commission services, the hearing officer shall decide whether or not to allow it.\n2. Where appropriate, the hearing officer may hold a preparatory meeting with the interested parties or with the Commission services responsible for the investigation and other services in order to identify and clarify, as far as possible, any questions of fact or law to be addressed during the hearing. To this effect, the hearing officer may request from the participants in a hearing any information necessary for the preparation of the hearing.\n3. The hearing officer shall prepare the agenda of each hearing which shall be made available to all participants prior to the hearing.\n4. The hearing officer may, within a reasonable time after the deadline for the submission of comments on a disclosure and before a hearing among parties, invite the participants to submit questions on the information provided by other interested parties.\n5. Where appropriate, in view of the need to ensure that the hearing among parties is properly prepared and particularly that questions of fact are clarified as far as possible, the hearing officer may, after hearing the Director responsible or his delegate, supply in advance to the parties invited to the hearing a list of the questions on which he wishes them to make known their views.\n6. The hearing officer may also ask for prior written notification of the essential contents of the intended statement of the participants in any hearing.\n7. The Hearing Officer may invite external experts to the hearings. Interested parties and the Commission services may request the hearing officer to admit external experts to hearings. The hearing officer shall decide on such requests. The external experts invited to a hearing shall be required to sign a confidentiality agreement.\n8. The external experts may be asked to provide any relevant analysis, reports or publications which shall be included in the file and made available to all participants whenever possible prior to the hearing.\nArticle 10\nConduct of hearings\n1. The hearing officer shall be fully responsible for the conduct of the hearing. The hearing officer shall ensure that the hearing is properly conducted in order to contribute to the fairness of the hearing itself and of any decision taken subsequently.\n2. Hearings shall not be public. The hearing officer shall decide which persons should be heard on behalf of an interested party and whether the persons concerned should be heard separately or in the presence of other persons invited to attend. In the latter case, regard shall be had to the legitimate interest of the interested parties in the protection of their business secrets and other confidential information.\n3. The hearing officer may allow the participants to pose and answer questions during the hearing.\n4. If the hearing officer has admitted external experts, he shall ensure that these experts have the opportunity to present their views and answer to questions of other participants in the hearing.\n5. Where appropriate after a hearing, in view of the need to ensure the right to be heard, after hearing the Director responsible or his delegate, the hearing officer may afford interested parties the opportunity of submitting further written comments. The hearing officer shall fix a date by which such submissions may be made. Written comments received after that date may not be taken into account.\nArticle 11\nFollow-up on hearings\n1. The hearing officer shall produce a transcript or a meaningful summary of the hearings:\n(a)\nwhere hearings among interested parties with different interests are organised, a transcript or a meaningful summary shall be made available to all participants in the hearing and shall be included in the file open for consultation by interested parties;\n(b)\nwhere hearings between an individual interested party or a group of interested parties with similar interests and the Commission services are organised, a transcript or a meaningful summary shall be made available to all participants in the hearing. These participants may submit a reasoned request for confidentiality of certain information contained in the transcript or the summary. The hearing officer shall decide on these requests after hearing the Commission services responsible for the investigation and where necessary other services. The non-confidential version of the transcript or summary of the hearing shall be included in the file for consultation by interested parties.\n2. The hearing officer may convey recommendations to the Commission services responsible for the investigation in accordance with Article 4(4) of this Decision. The Commission services responsible for the investigation shall inform the hearing officer within a reasonable period of time before the adoption of a final legal act whether and how they have taken these recommendations into account and shall provide the hearing officer with a copy of the draft legal act.\n3. The hearing officer shall submit regular reports to the member of the Commission responsible for trade policy with a copy to the Director-General on hearings with individual parties or a group of interested parties with similar interests as provided for in Article 18 of this Decision, unless the case requires an immediate recommendation to the member of the Commission responsible for trade policy or the Director-General.\n4. Any recommendations made to the Commission services responsible for the investigation and the reports and observations to the member of the Commission responsible for trade policy and the Director-General made by the hearing officer shall be considered confidential internal documents.\n5. If a hearing among parties is organised, the hearing officer shall prepare a written final report on the respect of the rights of the interested parties. This report may be modified by the hearing officer in the light of any amendments to the draft legal act up to the time of a final legal act.\nArticle 12\nAccess to file\n1. A party that claims to be an interested party may request the hearing officer to review any refusal of the Commission services responsible for the investigation to provide that party, within a reasonable time, with access to the file open for consultation or to a particular document in the possession of the Commission. The hearing officer shall examine the case and shall make a decision on whether to grant partial or full access or refuse access to the file or the requested document.\n2. The hearing officer shall set the time limits within which such access shall be provided by the Commission services responsible for the investigation.\nArticle 13\nConfidentiality\n1. The hearing officer shall be bound by the general rules regarding the confidentiality of information submitted by interested parties in administrative proceedings before the Commission.\n2. The hearing officer may be requested by an interested party or the Commission services responsible for the investigation to make a decision on the confidential nature of a document in the possession of the Commission services responsible for the investigation.\nArticle 14\nNon-confidential summaries of confidential information\n1. An interested party may request the hearing officer to review the assessment of the Commission services responsible for the investigation on whether a non-confidential summary of confidential information submitted in the course of an investigation is in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence.\n2. If the Commission services responsible for the investigation intend to disregard a document or information for which an interested party has refused to provide a meaningful non-confidential summary, the latter may request the hearing officer to decide on the matter.\n3. The hearing officer shall examine the request. If he considers that the non-confidential summary is not sufficiently detailed, the hearing officer shall give the interested party that provided the summary an opportunity to comment and improve its summary within a reasonable time.\n4. If the interested party that submitted the confidential information provides a deficient summary, provides justifications that cannot be accepted, or does not act, the hearing officer shall decide whether or not to disregard confidential information for which no meaningful non-confidential summary has been provided in accordance with the relevant provisions of the basic Regulations.\nArticle 15\nAccess to information confidential by nature, not susceptible to summary information\nAt the request of an interested party the hearing officer can examine information that is confidential by nature and not susceptible to summary, to which that party has no access, in order to verify how that information was used by the Commission services responsible for the investigation.\nThe hearing officer shall inform the requesting interested party of whether, in his view:\n(a)\nthe information withheld from the party is relevant to that party\u2019s defence; and\n(b)\nwhere relevant, the investigation services have correctly reflected the information in the facts and considerations on which they have based their conclusions.\nArticle 16\nExtension of deadlines\n1. A request for extension of time limits or postponement of the dates for replying to questionnaires, to submitting additional information, for on-the-spot visits, or for comments on disclosures shall first be addressed by any interested party to the Commission services responsible for the investigation. Such a request must be made in due time before the expiry of the original time limit. Where such a request is rejected or where the interested party considers that the extension given is too short, it may submit, before the expiry of the original time limit, a reasoned request to the hearing officer to review the matter. After hearing the Director responsible or his delegate, the hearing officer may extend the time limits or reject the request.\n2. The Commission services shall not act in the matter referred before the hearing officer has decided.\n3. The hearing officer shall decide with due regard to the specific circumstances of the request concerned and the time constraints of the proceeding.\nArticle 17\nParticipation in the meetings of committees\nThe hearing officer may attend the committee meetings. Where appropriate, the hearing officer may reply to questions of Member States as far as these questions concern the nature of his intervention in the proceedings.\nArticle 18\nReports of the hearing officer\n1. At the end of each year, the hearing officer shall prepare an Annual Report. The Annual Report shall contain information on the cases in which the hearing officer intervened, the type of decisions and recommendations he made and any recommendation for improving the trade proceedings. The Report shall be addressed to the member of the Commission responsible for trade policy. The Director-General for Trade and the Directorates concerned shall receive a copy of the Report.\n2. Summaries of the Annual Report shall be communicated to the Member States and the European Parliament and published on the website of the hearing officer.\n3. The hearing officer shall prepare regular reports for the member of the Commission responsible for trade policy summarising his activities and the issues which arose during these activities. The report shall outline the main policy issues, the decisions and the recommendations made by the hearing officer and how these recommendations were taken into account by the Commission services responsible for the investigation. A copy of this report shall be addressed to the Director-General for Trade.\n4. The hearing officer shall report on any hearing among interested parties with different interests and, in the fulfilment of his advisory role, may report to the member of the Commission responsible for trade policy and the Director-General on any other issue arising out of a trade proceeding or otherwise relevant for the effective application of European Union law principles in trade proceedings.\n5. The final report of the hearing officer in hearings among parties shall be submitted to the member of the Commission responsible for trade policy, the Director-General for Trade and the Director responsible. It shall be communicated to the competent representatives of the Member States and the interested parties.\nArticle 19\nTransitional provisions\nThis Decision shall apply to proceedings which are ongoing at the time of its entry into force but in which no final disclosure has been made.\nProcedural steps taken before the entry into force of this Decision shall continue to have effect.\nArticle 20\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 29 February 2012.", "references": ["25", "94", "93", "59", "60", "67", "70", "21", "47", "66", "45", "3", "98", "9", "64", "83", "69", "46", "88", "90", "0", "86", "87", "18", "95", "51", "97", "35", "76", "4", "No Label", "2", "7", "14", "20", "48"], "gold": ["2", "7", "14", "20", "48"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 2 May 2011\nrecognising in principle the completeness of the dossier submitted for detailed examination in view of the possible inclusion of beta-cypermethrin, eugenol, geraniol and thymol in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC\n(notified under document C(2011) 2776)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/266/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 91/414/EEC provides for the development of a list of active substances authorised for incorporation in plant protection products in the European Union.\n(2)\nThe dossier for the active substance beta-cypermethrin was submitted by Cerexagri SAS to the authorities of the United Kingdom on 13 November 2009 with the application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nThe dossiers for the active substances eugenol, geraniol and thymol were submitted by Eden Research plc to the authorities of the United Kingdom on 7 March 2008 with the application to obtain their inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(4)\nThe authorities of the United Kingdom have indicated to the Commission that, on preliminary examination, the dossiers for the active substances concerned appear to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC. The dossiers submitted appear also to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substances concerned. In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, the dossiers were subsequently forwarded by the applicants to the Commission and the other Member States, and were referred to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.\n(5)\nBy this Decision it should be formally confirmed at Union level that the dossiers are considered as satisfying in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II and, for at least one plant protection product containing one of the active substances concerned, the requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe dossiers concerning the active substances identified in the Annex to this Decision, which were submitted to the Commission and the Member States with a view to obtaining the inclusion of those substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, satisfy in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to that Directive.\nThe dossiers also satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substance, taking into account the uses proposed.\nArticle 2\nThe rapporteur Member State shall pursue the detailed examination for the dossiers referred to in Article 1 and shall communicate to the Commission the conclusions of their examination accompanied by any recommendations on the inclusion or non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances referred to in Article 1 and any conditions for those inclusions as soon as possible and by 31 May 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 May 2011.", "references": ["52", "7", "95", "84", "6", "91", "80", "20", "87", "51", "81", "76", "98", "71", "3", "74", "85", "77", "56", "93", "94", "63", "23", "90", "12", "8", "39", "82", "22", "47", "No Label", "2", "38", "41", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "38", "41", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 6 July 2010\non the measure C 40/07 (ex NN 48/07) implemented by Romania for ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman S.A. (formerly Petrotub Roman S.A.)\n(notified under document C(2010) 4492)\n(Only the Romanian version is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2013/516/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the provisions of Annex VII, and Appendix A to Annex VII, to the Protocol on Transitional Measures to the Accession Treaty of Romania,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision(s) cited above (1), and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter dating from 2 February 2007, the Commission requested Romania to provide information regarding public debt waivers and the rescheduling of public debt for Petrotub Roman S.A. (hereinafter \u2018Petrotub\u2019) in the context of its privatisation in 2003 (following privatisation, the company was re-named Mittal Steel Roman, and subsequently ArcelorMittal Tubular Products S.A. (2) - hereinafter \u2018AM Roman\u2019).\n(2)\nBy letter dated 25 September 2007, the Commission informed Romania that it decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (3) in respect of possible aid involved in the privatisation of Petrotub. The Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure.\n(3)\nRomania submitted its comments by letter of 26 November 2007, registered on the same date. By letters dated 28 January 2008, registered on 29 January 2008, ArcelorMittal (the parent company) and AM Roman (the subsidiary concerned) submitted their comments, which were communicated to Romania on 12 February 2008. Romania reacted by letter of 11 March 2008, registered on the same date.\n(4)\nThe Commission requested additional information by letters of 26 February 2009, 8 October 2009 and 29 January 2010. Romania replied by letters of 27 April 2009, 19 October 2009 and 3 February 2010, all registered on the same dates.\nII. DESCRIPTION OF THE FACTS\n1. The company\n(5)\nAM Roman is a seamless steel tubes producer located in Roman, a Romanian region receiving assistance under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU (5). Before privatisation in 2003, the company, then named Petrotub, was a producer of seamless steel tubes, whose production consisted of hot-rolled and cold-rolled steel tubes with diameters between 6 and 620 mm and wall width between 0,5 and 70 mm. These products have various applications in energy industries (oil, gas, chemicals, nuclear and conventional energy) and in the machinery and construction industries. After privatisation, the company continued to operate on the same product market. At present ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Holding B.V. Rotterdam NLD (of the ArcerlorMittal group) holds a 69,76 % stake in the company (6).\n2. The measure at stake\n(6)\nOn 23 July 2003 the Romanian privatisation agency APAPS (now AVAS) (7) made public its intention to sell its 70 % stake in Petrotub. The privatisation took place through public tender. A sale agreement was signed with LNM Holdings NV (now ArcelorMittal) on 28 October 2003, for the purchase price of USD 6 million (EUR 5,1 million (8)).\n(7)\nIn the context of privatisation, APAPS agreed on behalf of the Romanian state to write off public debt totalling EUR 22,5 million, and to reschedule the remaining public debt.\n(8)\nIn 1998 Petrotub had contracted a commercial loan of DEM [30-50] (9) million [EUR 15-25 million] with duration until 2011 from the German development bank Kreditanstalt f\u00fcr Wiederaufbau (hereinafter \u2018KfW\u2019), in order to purchase a new mill from Mannesmann AG. The KfW financing package was secured on its different segments with State guarantees granted by Germany and Austria and a bank guarantee from the Romanian bank Banca Comercial\u0103 Rom\u00e2n\u0103 (BCR). The German State guarantee was counter-guaranteed by the Romanian State. The Romanian counter-guarantee covered 85 % of the total KfW loan of DEM 30-50 million. Romania charged Petrotub a one-off fee of [3-7 %].\nIII. THE OPENING DECISION\n(9)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission informed Romania that the basis for opening the formal investigation procedure was Annex VII Section B on Steel Restructuring to the Protocol to the Accession Treaty of Romania (hereinafter \u2018Annex VII\u2019); and that, in the absence of specific provisions in Annex VII with respect to the legal situation of Romanian tube producers at the time of the privatisation, the Commission would investigate the existence and compatibility of State aid to AM Roman on that basis.\n(10)\nThe Commission noted that the acquisition price (EUR 5,1 million) did not cover the loss incurred by the State in the form of the waiver of EUR 22,5 million of public debt to which the Romanian privatisation agency APAPS agreed in the context of privatisation.\n(11)\nBefore the opening of the formal investigation procedure, Romania had provided a report by an external consultant (10) to show that privatisation on the given terms had been the most advantageous solution for the State.\n(12)\nThe report identified privatisation as leading to the most advantageous situation for the Romanian State. The table below compares the sums estimated to be obtained by each of the creditor public institutions in the privatisation and the liquidation scenarios (11).\nPrivatisation\nLiquidation\nSocial Security Fund\nEUR [\u2026] million\nEUR [\u2026] million\nUnemployment Fund\nEUR [\u2026] million\nEUR [\u2026] million\nHealth Fund\nEUR [\u2026] million\nEUR [\u2026] million\nAPAPS\nEUR [\u2026] million\n(including the sale price of EUR 5,1 million)\n0\nTotal State\nEUR [4-9] million\nEUR [19-26] million\n(13)\nThe report was based on the assumption that, in the event of liquidation, the 1998 guarantee would have been triggered, and the State (through the Ministry of Finance) would have become liable for the outstanding amount of the 1998 KfW loan taken by Petrotub, i.e. for EUR [15-25] million. In other words, in the liquidation scenario, the State would have eventually received only EUR [2-9] million, which is lower by comparison to the total of EUR [4-9] million received through privatisation.\n(14)\nIn the opening Decision, the Commission questioned whether the outcomes of the privatisation and liquidation scenarios should have been estimated for the State as a whole, as the expert report suggested, or separately for each of the public creditors, in line with the HAMSA jurisprudence (12).\n(15)\nInter alia, the Commission also doubted that the loss of EUR [15-25] million as a result of the triggering of the 1998 guarantee could be taken into account in estimating the outcome of liquidation. In line with the HYTASA (13) and Gr\u00f6ditzer (14) cases, a distinction should be made between the obligations which the State must assume as shareholder of the company and the obligations it must assume as public authority. It follows that the costs assumed in relation to a public authority act cannot be taken into account for the purpose of estimating the costs that a private shareholder would have been in the position to, and willing to incur. The Commission regards the fact that in 1998 the Romanian Ministry of Finance issued a sovereign guarantee for Petrotub as an indication that a private shareholder would not have been in the position to issue such a guarantee. Another indication in this sense is the fact that the 1998 guarantee was granted on terms and conditions that a private operator might not have accepted.\nIV. COMMENTS FROM ROMANIA AND INTERESTED PARTIES\n(16)\nIn its submission of 27 November 2007, Romania argued mainly that the privatisation of Petrotub in October 2003 had not involved an advantage to Petrotub or the buyer, and therefore the operation had not involved State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(17)\nRomania first underlined that Petrotub had been sold through an open, transparent and unconditional tender procedure - a fact which, in the opinion of the Romanian authorities, showed that Petrotub had been sold at the market price and that the buyer did not derive any advantage from the purchase. Second, Romania considered that it had acted in the same way as any private vendor would have acted: in choosing between the privatisation and liquidation scenarios, the State opted for the scenario that was most advantageous exclusively on financial terms, without taking into account non-commercial or policy considerations of the kind that by their nature are characteristic of the exercise of public authority.\n(18)\nIn relation to this second argument, Romania showed that, under national law, the privatisation agency AVAS was required and empowered to estimate and compare the overall outcomes of privatisation and liquidation by reference to the State budget as a whole. In other words, the privatisation agency chooses the scenario that is most advantageous for the State budget as a whole, in the same way in which a large holding company comprising several creditors would do. From this perspective, contrary to the Commission's views, the State could not and did not have to estimate the outcomes of privatisation and liquidation separately for each of the public bodies concerned.\n(19)\nIn addition, in estimating the outcomes of liquidation, the State was entitled to take into account the loss associated with the triggering of the 1998 guarantee, because, under the given conditions, such guarantee would have been granted to Petrotub also by a private investor. The company was not in difficulty at the time when the guarantee was granted, and the risk premium charged to Petrotub for the guarantee was an appropriate remuneration for a shareholder guarantee issued in favour of a company which was in good condition at the time.\n(20)\nMoreover, the 1998 guarantee must be assessed from the perspective of the relevant State aid rules in force at that time. The Commission Communication on short-term export credit guarantees applicable at the time excluded long-term export credit guarantees from the scope of scrutiny under Article 107(1) TFEU (then Article 87(1) TEC) (15). Romania also stressed that in 1998, when the guarantee was granted, Petrotub was a tube producer, and as such was not covered by the ECSC definition of steel or by the provisions of Protocol 2 on ECSC steel in the Europe Agreement.\n(21)\nAM Roman and its parent company ArcelorMittal fully endorsed Romania's argumentation. The companies also underlined that, under the Romanian legislation applicable at the time, and under the Europe Agreement rules on State aid, the State guarantee issued in favour of Petrotub in 1998 did not involve State aid. Furthermore, the 1998 guarantee constituted a clear enforceable commercial obligation undertaken by the State as majority shareholder of the company concerned, and can therefore be included in the estimate of the liquidation costs. ArcelorMittal also stressed that it had paid a market price for the acquisition of Petrotub, and therefore any possible advantage resulting from privatisation, quod non, would at any rate have remained with the State as a seller.\nV. ASSESSMENT\n1. Applicable law and Commission competence\n(22)\nThis procedure addresses events which took place before Romania\u2019s accession to the European Union (1 January 2007). Petrotub was privatised in October 2003. Also, in 1998 the Romanian State had issued a guarantee in favour of Petrotub in relation to a loan of DEM [30-50] million from KfW to purchase a new mill. The 1998 guarantee is linked to the 2003 privatisation insofar as Romania argued that its costs in case of liquidation must be taken into account when assessing the 2003 privatisation operation under the market economy operator test.\n(23)\nAs a general rule, Articles 107-108 TFEU do not apply to measures granted before accession which are no longer applicable thereafter (16). By derogation from this general rule, and therefore on an exceptional basis, the Commission has the competence to review State aid granted by Romania in the context of the restructuring of its steel industry before accession on the basis of Annex VII to the Accession Treaty of Romania (17).\n(24)\nAnnex VII contains provisions allowing Romania to conclude the restructuring of its steel industry as initiated before accession. The pre-accession restructuring of the Romanian steel sector was carried out on the basis of Protocol 2 on ECSC Steel annexed to the Europe Agreement (hereinafter \u2018Protocol 2\u2019), as extended by the Additional Protocol signed on 23 October 2002 (hereinafter \u2018the Additional Protocol\u2019).\n(25)\nProtocol 2 granted to Romania a \u2018grace period\u2019 of 5 years, from 1993 until the end of 1998, to restructure its ECSC steel industry in view of accession. The \u2018grace period\u2019 was extended until the end of 2004 by an Additional Protocol approved by Council Decision of 29 July 2002 and signed on 23 October 2002. During the resulting total \u2018grace period\u2019, i.e. from 1993 until the end of 2004, Romania was allowed to give restructuring aid to the steel sector on terms and conditions resulting from Protocol 2 (as extended by the Additional Protocol) and on the basis of a National Restructuring Program (hereinafter \u2018NRP\u2019) agreed by the Community. The Romanian NRP was approved by the Council on 18 July 2005 (18).\n(26)\nAnnex VII is a \u2018safeguard mechanism\u2019 allowing the Commission to monitor after 1 January 2007 (the accession date) aid granted by Romania to the steel sector before accession on the basis of Protocol 2 (as extended by the Additional Protocol) and the NRP. Furthermore, Annex VII empowers the Commission to recover aid given in breach of Protocol 2 and the NRP. Thus Annex VII is a lex specialis allowing on an exceptional basis and by derogation from the general regime the retroactive monitoring and review of State aid granted by Romania to its steel industry before accession. In recent judgments concerning pre-accession State aid granted to Polish steel companies (19) the General Court confirmed the lex specialis character of Protocol 8 to the Accession Treaty of Poland, which contains equivalent provisions to those set out in Annex VII.\n(27)\nIn the context of this procedure, the Commission must assess whether the exceptional retroactive control competence described in recitals (23)-(26) above also covers measures granted by Romania to tube producers before accession. To this end, the legal bases applicable to this case, consisting of Annex VII in conjunction with Protocol 2 and the Additional Protocol, have to be interpreted with a view to determining whether their provisions cover measures granted to Romanian tube producers before accession.\n(28)\nIt is a generally-recognised principle of law that the provisions of a lex specialis, which derogates from the general regime, must be interpreted in a strict sense. A strict interpretation of the above-mentioned legal bases (see recitals (29)-(43) below) leads to the conclusion that the Commission\u2019s exceptional retroactive control competence is limited to (potential) pre-accession aid to ECSC producers, thereby excluding (potential) aid to tube producers.\n(29)\nParagraphs (12) and (17) of Annex VII lay down the Commission\u2019s monitoring and retroactive control competences with respect to pre-accession aid to the Romanian steel industry. Paragraph (12) empowers the Commission and the Council to monitor the implementation of the Romanian NRP before and after accession, until 2009. Paragraph (17) empowers the Commission to order recovery of State aid granted in breach of paragraphs (1) to (3) of Annex VII (as indicated in recitals (30)-(32) below).\n(30)\nParagraph (1) of Annex VII stipulates that State aid granted by Romania for the restructuring of \u2018specified parts of its steel industry\u2019 from 1993 to 2004 shall be deemed compatible with the internal market provided that: \u2018[\u2026] the period provided for in Article 9(4) of Protocol 2 on ECSC products to the Europe Agreement [\u2026] has been extended until 31 December 2005\u2019; the terms and conditions set out in the NRP have been complied with; no further State aid is granted or paid to beneficiaries of the NRP after 1 January 2005; and \u2018[\u2026] no State aid for restructuring is paid to the Romanian steel sector after 31 December 2004\u2019. It also stipulates that: \u2018For the purpose of these provisions and Appendix A, State aid for restructuring is to be understood as any measure concerning steel companies that constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and that cannot be held to be compatible with the internal market in accordance with the normal rules applied in the Community\u2019.\n(31)\nParagraph (2) of Annex VII provides that only the companies listed as beneficiaries of the NRP (also listed in Appendix A to Annex VII) are eligible for receiving State aid over the period 1993 to 2004.\n(32)\nParagraph (6) of Annex VII provides that companies not listed as beneficiaries of the NRP \u2018shall not benefit from aid for restructuring or any other aid\u2019, and shall not be required to reduce their capacity either.\n(33)\nThe first subparagraph of paragraph (1) of Annex VII refers explicitly to Article 9(4) of Protocol 2, as extended by the Additional Protocol signed on 23 October 2002. Protocol 2 covered only ECSC steel, and even listed the ECSC steel products in an Annex. The latter contained the same list of ECSC products as that in Annex I to the ECSC Treaty, where the definition of \u2018ECSC steel\u2019 specifically excluded steel tubes (\u2018tubes (seamless or welded) [\u2026] bright bars and iron castings (tubes, pipes and fittings, and other iron castings\u2019).\n(34)\nThe ECSC Treaty expired on 23 July 2002. As of that date, State aid to the steel industry was brought under the general EC regime. On that occasion it was decided to broaden the definition of the European steel sector to include tube producers. This was codified in Article 27 and Annex B of the Multisectoral Framework on regional aid for large investment projects (20), which defined the EU steel sector so as to include seamless tubes and large welded tubes (with a diameter greater than 406,4 mm). The extended definition of the steel sector was thereafter taken over in Annex I to the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 (21), and in Point 29 under Article 2 of the General Block Exemption Regulation (22).\n(35)\nNevertheless, neither Protocol 2 nor the Additional Protocol were explicitly amended to include this broadened definition of the EU steel sector as including tube producers. Protocol 2 expired on 31 December 1997. The Additional Protocol extended the validity of Protocol 2 from 1 January 1998 for another 8 years or until the date of Romania's accession (whichever came first). The Additional Protocol refers to \u2018steel products\u2019 in general, but its scope is also specifically linked to Article 9(4) of Protocol 2, which covered ECSC products only. In particular, under Article 2 of the Additional Protocol, the extension of Protocol 2 was made conditional on the submission by Romania to the Commission of an NRP and company restructuring plans, for beneficiaries of the NRP, both meeting \u2018the requirements of Article 9(4) of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement and assessed and agreed by its national State aid authority (the Competition Council)\u2019.\n(36)\nIt should therefore be concluded that Paragraph 17 of Annex VII, as interpreted in the light of paragraphs (1)-(2) and (6) of Annex VII, together with Protocol 2 and the Additional Protocol, do not give the Commission competence to control aid granted to Romanian tube producers prior to accession, in particular over the period 1993 to 2004.\n(37)\nIn addition to the legal interpretation of the scope of the relevant legal bases (i.e. Annex VII, Protocol 2 and the Additional Protocol - see recitals (29)-(36) above), the Commission also examined the question of whether the implementing rules for the application of the State aid provisions in the Europe Agreement and Protocol 2, as adopted by the Community and Romania in 2001 (hereinafter \u2018the Implementing Rules\u2019 (23)), are relevant when determining the scope of the Commission's retroactive control competence with respect to (potential) pre-accession aid to Romanian tube producers.\n(38)\nAs a general rule, the Implementing Rules contain rules of procedure, to be distinguished from the substantive State aid provisions in the Europe Agreement and Protocol 2. It must be noted however that the Implementing Rules also contain specific provisions on the criteria for assessing the compatibility of aid with the Europe Agreement, and with Protocol 2, respectively.\n(39)\nThe first sentence of Article 2(1) of the Implementing Rules provides as follows: \u2018The assessment of compatibility of individual aid awards and programmes with the Europe Agreement, as provided for in Article 1 of these Rules, shall be made on the basis of the criteria arising from the application of the rules of Article 87 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, including the present and future secondary legislation, frameworks, guidelines and other relevant administrative acts in force in the Community, as well as the case law of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice of the European Communities and any decision taken by the Association Council pursuant to Article 4(3).\u2019 This sentence lays down the general principle that the substantive criteria for assessing compatibility of State aid in general with the Europe Agreement are \u2018evolutive\u2019, in the sense that they incorporate any new changes/developments in EU law and case law.\n(40)\nThe second sentence of Article 2(1) refers in particular to the compatibility criteria laid down in Protocol 2: \u2018Insofar as the aid awards or aid programmes are destined for products covered by Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement, the first sentence of this paragraph applies fully with the exception that the assessment shall not be made on the basis of the criteria arising from the application of the rules of Article 87 of the Treaty establishing the European Community but on the basis of the criteria arising from the application of the rules on State aid of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community.\u2019 It must be noted that the wording of this sentence clearly indicates that, by contrast to the situation of general aid covered by the first sentence of Article 2(1) (see recital (41) above), in the case of aid covered by Protocol 2 the compatibility criteria evolve by reference to the ECSC Treaty. No specific indications are given as to the evolution of the compatibility criteria after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty in 2002.\n(41)\nArticles 2(2) and 2(3) of the Implementing Rules set out the mechanism whereby Romania must incorporate changes in the EU compatibility criteria. In particular, Romania shall be informed of any changes in the Community compatibility criteria which are not published, and \u2018where such changes do not encounter objections from Romania within three months from the date of receiving the official information about them, they shall become criteria of compatibility as provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article. Where such changes encounter objections from Romania and having regard to the approximation of legislation as provided for in the Europe Agreement, consultations shall take place, in accordance with Articles 7 and 8 of these Rules\u2019.\n(42)\nAlthough Romania did not object within three months to the change in 2002 of the Community definition of the steel industry to also cover tube producers, those changes in Community law could not have become applicable to measures that fall outside the scope of the Europe Agreement, namely those that were not covered by the ECSC Treaty. Moreover, since Annex VII is a lex specialis, when determining its scope the Commission cannot rely on broadening the definition of EU steel following the expiry of the ECSC Treaty. It must therefore be concluded that a clear distinction must be made between, on the one hand, the \u2018evolutive\u2019 nature of the law applicable to State aid for the steel sector in Romania before accession, under the Europe Agreement, and on the other hand the necessarily strict interpretation of the scope of the Commission's retroactive control competence as stemming from Annex VII, Protocol 2 and the Additional Protocol.\nVI. CONCLUSION\n(43)\nOn the basis of the aforementioned considerations (see in particular recitals (36) and (42) above), the Commission concludes that it does not have competence to review measures granted to Romanian tube producers before accession, in particular over the period 1993-2004, on the basis of Annex VII. This procedure is closed, taking note of the Commission\u2019s lack of competence to assess the acts concerned,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nThe formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU initiated by letter addressed to Romania of 25 September 2007, is closed for lack of Commission competence under the provisions of Annex VII Section B to the Accession Treaty of Romania to review the measures granted by Romania in the context of the privatisation of Petrotub Roman S.A in 2003.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to Romania.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2010.", "references": ["44", "4", "81", "85", "6", "5", "35", "72", "24", "58", "92", "1", "16", "56", "90", "34", "87", "99", "78", "45", "27", "55", "63", "9", "69", "25", "57", "29", "36", "70", "No Label", "8", "11", "15", "48", "76", "84", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "11", "15", "48", "76", "84", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 471/2012\nof 4 June 2012\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use of lysozyme (E 1105) in beer\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Article 10(3) and Article 30(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 lays down a Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and their conditions of use.\n(2)\nThat list may be amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (2).\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, the Union list of food additives may be updated either on the initiative of the Commission or following an application.\n(4)\nAn application for authorisation of the use of lysozyme (E 1105) as a preservative in beer was submitted and has been made available to the Member States.\n(5)\nMost breweries use sterile filtration or pasteurisation of their beers to prevent bacterial spoilage during storage of the beer before consumption. For some specialty beers, like the top-fermenting beers with re-fermentation, for instance cask-conditioned beer and bottle-conditioned beer, such treatments are not possible because the present viable micro-organisms are part of the production process of those beers. Lysozyme (E 1105) has been proven to be a suitable antibacterial agent for brewing purposes and it is effective in inhibiting lactic acid bacteria added to finished beers.\n(6)\nLysozyme (E 1105) belongs to the group of additives for which no acceptable daily intake has been specified (3). This implies that it does not represent a hazard to health at the levels necessary to achieve the desired technological effect. It is therefore appropriate to allow the use of lysozyme (E 1105) for the preservation of beers that will not receive either pasteurisation or sterile filtration.\n(7)\nAccording to Commission Directive 2008/84/EC of 27 August 2008 laying down specific purity criteria on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (4), lysozyme (E 1105) is obtained from hen\u2019s eggs whites. Eggs and products thereof are listed in Annex IIIa to Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (5). The presence of this enzyme in beers needs to be indicated on the labelling in accordance with the requirements of the said Directive.\n(8)\nPursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, the Commission is to seek the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority in order to update the Union list of food additives set out in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, except where the update in question is not liable to have an effect on human health. Since the authorisation of use of lysozyme (E 1105) as a preservative in beer constitutes an update of that list which is not liable to have an effect on human health, it is not necessary to seek the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority.\n(9)\nPursuant to the transitional provisions of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1129/2011 of 11 November 2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing a Union list of food additives (6), Annex II establishing the Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and conditions of use applies from 1 June 2013. In order to allow the use of lysozyme (E 1105) in beers before that date, it is necessary to specify an earlier date of application with regard to that food additive.\n(10)\nTherefore, Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 should be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 June 2012.", "references": ["34", "50", "94", "37", "95", "70", "21", "22", "75", "82", "99", "10", "73", "92", "49", "19", "30", "13", "26", "32", "76", "44", "17", "67", "15", "56", "91", "12", "33", "23", "No Label", "25", "38", "71", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "71", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1277/2011\nof 8 December 2011\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 15(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (2) lays down rules concerning the increased level of official controls to be carried out on imports of feed and food of non-animal origin listed in Annex I thereto (the list), at the points of entry into the territories referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\n(2)\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 provides that the list is to be reviewed on a regular basis, and at least quarterly, taking into account at least the sources of information referred to in that Article.\n(3)\nThe occurrence and relevance of food incidents notified through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), the findings of missions to third countries carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office, as well as the quarterly reports on consignments of feed and food of non-animal origin submitted by Member States to the Commission in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 indicate that the list should be amended.\n(4)\nIn particular, the list should be amended by deleting the entries for commodities for which those information sources indicate an overall satisfactory degree of compliance with the relevant safety requirements provided for in Union legislation and for which an increased level of official control is therefore no longer justified.\n(5)\nIn addition, the list should be amended by decreasing the frequency of official controls of the commodities for which the information sources indicate an overall improvement of compliance with the relevant requirements provided for in Union legislation and for which the current level of official control is therefore no longer justified.\n(6)\nThe entries in the list for certain imports from Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Egypt and India should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nIn the interest of clarity of Union legislation, it is also necessary in the list to specify the entries for imports of fresh peppers from Thailand and feed additives and pre-mixtures from India, and to clarify the nature of peppers from the Dominican Republic, Egypt and Thailand.\n(8)\nThe amendment to the list concerning the deletion of the references to commodities, and the reduction in the frequency of controls, should apply as soon as possible, as the original safety concerns have been satisfied. Accordingly, those amendments should apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n(9)\nTaking into account the number of amendments that need to be made to Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009, it is appropriate to replace it by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 669/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nHowever, the amendments to the following entries in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation:\n(a)\nThe deletion of the following entries on:\n(i)\ngroundnuts (in shell or shelled), peanut butter and groundnuts otherwise prepared and preserved (food and feed) from Argentina;\n(ii)\nlauki (food) from the Dominican Republic;\n(iii)\ngreen beans (food) from Egypt;\n(b)\nthe decrease in frequency of physical and identity checks for dried spices (food) from India.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2011.", "references": ["43", "92", "57", "76", "3", "86", "90", "79", "40", "31", "27", "33", "20", "37", "83", "74", "53", "51", "11", "88", "12", "45", "44", "67", "42", "26", "19", "24", "18", "78", "No Label", "4", "21", "22", "23", "38", "60", "66", "72"], "gold": ["4", "21", "22", "23", "38", "60", "66", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1384/2011\nof 22 December 2011\non the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the third partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/12 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, the Commission is to decide, in the light of the tenders received in response to a partial invitation to tender, either to fix a minimum customs duty or not to fix a minimum customs duty per eight digit CN code.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the third partial invitation to tender, a minimum customs duty should be fixed for certain eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701 and no minimum customs duty should be fixed for the other eight digit codes for sugar falling within that CN code.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the third partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 21 December 2011, a minimum customs duty has been fixed, or has not been fixed, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation for the eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2011.", "references": ["16", "64", "50", "41", "4", "44", "42", "2", "77", "43", "96", "17", "45", "28", "72", "9", "91", "19", "98", "38", "18", "51", "11", "97", "76", "30", "1", "7", "29", "33", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "71", "73"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "71", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 482/2011\nof 18 May 2011\nsuspending submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 1 to 7 May 2011 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, are equal to the quantity available under order number 09.4319.\n(2)\nSubmission of further applications for licences for order number 09.4319 should be suspended until the end of the marketing year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubmission of further applications for licences, which correspond to the order numbers indicated in the Annex, shall be suspended until the end of the marketing year 2010/11.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 May 2011.", "references": ["81", "43", "98", "47", "19", "11", "23", "77", "3", "29", "53", "63", "45", "15", "49", "31", "34", "36", "62", "41", "86", "93", "90", "32", "20", "13", "40", "37", "96", "73", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 348/2010\nof 23 April 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of L-isoleucine as a feed additive for all animal species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of L-isoleucine produced by Escherichia coli (FERM ABP-10641) as a feed additive for all animal species, to be classified in the additive category \u2018nutritional additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 9 December 2009 (2) that L-isoleucine does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that this preparation can be considered a source of available isoleucine for all animal species. The Authority recommends appropriate measures for user safety. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of L-isoleucine shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this additive should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018nutritional additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018amino acids, their salts and analogues\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2010.", "references": ["33", "36", "37", "98", "9", "4", "35", "54", "44", "56", "17", "93", "59", "86", "19", "45", "32", "14", "58", "16", "68", "92", "6", "60", "97", "55", "10", "75", "5", "90", "No Label", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 21 October 2010\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the Association Council set up by the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, with regard to the adoption of provisions on the coordination of social security systems\n(2010/697/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(2)(b) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 67 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (1) (the Agreement), provides that the Association Council shall adopt provisions to implement the principles on the coordination of social security systems as set out in Article 65 of the Agreement before the end of the first year following its entry into force.\n(2)\nObjective 29, third indent, of the EU-Morocco Action Plan adopted by the Association Council in the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy on 27 July 2005 calls for the adoption by the Association Council of a decision implementing Article 65 of the Agreement.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 21) on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of the said Protocol, these Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the Association Council set up by the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, concerning the implementation of Article 67 of the Agreement, shall be based on the draft decision of the Association Council attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["57", "20", "69", "58", "60", "91", "27", "82", "30", "34", "97", "55", "56", "8", "95", "4", "25", "38", "85", "75", "53", "80", "61", "32", "12", "28", "87", "5", "76", "41", "No Label", "2", "9", "37", "94", "96"], "gold": ["2", "9", "37", "94", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 453/2010\nof 20 May 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Article 131 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSafety data sheets have been a well-accepted and effective method for the provision of information on substances and mixtures in the Community and have been made an integral part of the system of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(2)\nWith a view to facilitating worldwide trade while protecting human health and the environment, harmonised criteria for classification and labelling and rules for safety data sheets have been carefully developed over a period of more than 10 years within the United Nations (UN) structure, resulting in the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (hereinafter referred to as the GHS).\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (2) harmonises the provisions and criteria for the classification and labelling of substances, mixtures and certain specific articles within the Community, taking into account the classification criteria and labelling rules of the GHS.\n(4)\nCouncil Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (3) and Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (4) were amended several times. Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC will be replaced over a transitional period according to which substances must be classified, labelled and packaged according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 from 1 December 2010 and mixtures from 1 June 2015, although from 1 December 2010 until 1 June 2015 classification of substances according to both Directive 67/548/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 is required. Both Directives will be repealed in full by Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 with effect from 1 June 2015.\n(5)\nTherefore Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 should be amended to adapt it to the criteria for classification and other relevant provisions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.\n(6)\nThe requirements for safety data sheets laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 should moreover be adapted taking into account the rules for safety data sheets of the GHS, in order to allow the threefold mechanism of classification, labelling and safety data sheets to fulfil its role through interaction of its component parts.\n(7)\nSafety data sheets thus amended should continue to be an important element of hazard communication and provide a mechanism for transmitting appropriate safety information on substances and mixtures meeting the criteria for classification in accordance with applicable Community legislation, as well as certain substances and mixtures not meeting those criteria, taking into account information from any relevant chemical safety report, down the supply chain to the immediate downstream user.\n(8)\nThe application of the requirement to include classification and labelling according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 for substances and mixtures into the safety data sheet, as amended by this Regulation, should follow the staggered application of the classification and labelling provisions for substances and mixtures in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. Therefore, and because the classification and hazard communication for mixtures depends on the classification and hazard communication for substances, the requirement to include classification and labelling according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 for mixtures should only be applied after the requirement to include classification and labelling according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 for substances.\n(9)\nSuppliers of mixtures choosing to rely on the possibility to apply, on a voluntary basis, both the classification and the labelling in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 earlier than 1 June 2015 should provide in the relevant safety data sheet the classification in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 together with the classification in accordance with Directive 1999/45/EC.\n(10)\nSafety data sheets for substances providing classification and labelling information in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 should, before 1 June 2015, be required to provide classification information in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC as well, in order to allow suppliers of mixtures not relying on the possibility to apply both the classification and the labelling in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 earlier, to classify and label those mixtures correctly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1907/2006 is amended as follows:\n1.\nwith effect from 1 December 2010:\n(a)\nAnnex II is replaced by Annex I to this Regulation;\n(b)\nin Section 3.7 of Annex VI, in the title, the words \u2018(see Safety Data Sheet heading 16)\u2019 are replaced by \u2018(see Section 1 of the safety data sheet)\u2019;\n2.\nwith effect from 1 June 2015, Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 is replaced by Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\n1. Until 1 December 2010, suppliers of substances applying Article 61(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 may apply Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, as amended by point 1 of Article 1 of this Regulation.\n2. Until 1 December 2010, suppliers of mixtures may apply Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, as amended by point 1 of Article 1 of this Regulation.\n3. Until 1 June 2015, suppliers of mixtures applying Article 61(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 may apply Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, as amended by point 2 of Article 1 of this Regulation.\n4. Until 1 June 2015, suppliers of mixtures applying paragraph 3 shall provide in subsection 3.2 of the relevant safety data sheets the classification of the substances indicated in that subsection in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC, including indication of danger, symbol letter(s) and R phrases, in addition to the classification including hazard statements in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.\n5. Until 1 June 2015, suppliers of mixtures applying paragraph 3 shall provide in subsection 2.1 of the relevant safety data sheets the classification of the mixture in accordance with Directive 1999/45/EC in addition to the classification including hazard statements in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.\nUntil 1 June 2015, suppliers of mixtures meeting the criteria for classification in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 shall, when applying paragraph 3, indicate the substances presenting a health or environmental hazard within the meaning of Directive 67/548/EEC in subsection 3.2 of the relevant safety data sheets if those substances are present in concentrations equal to or greater than the lowest of the values listed in point 3.2.1(a) of Annex II to this Regulation in addition to the substances mentioned in point 3.2.1 of that Annex.\nUntil 1 June 2015, suppliers of mixtures not meeting the criteria for classification in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 shall, when applying paragraph 3, indicate the substances presenting a health or environmental hazard within the meaning of Directive 67/548/EEC in subsection 3.2 of the relevant safety data sheets if those substances are present in an individual concentration equal to or greater than 1 % by weight in non-gaseous mixtures and 0,2 % by volume in gaseous mixtures in addition to the substances mentioned in point 3.2.2 of Annex II to this Regulation.\n6. Without prejudice to Article 31(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, for substances which are placed on the market before 1 December 2010 and which are not required to be relabelled and repackaged in accordance with Article 61(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, the safety data sheet need not be replaced with a safety data sheet complying with Annex I to this Regulation before 1 December 2012.\nWithout prejudice to Article 31(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, for mixtures which are placed on the market before 1 June 2015 and which are not required to be relabelled and repackaged in accordance with Article 61(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, the safety data sheet need not be replaced with a safety data sheet complying with Annex II to this Regulation before 1 June 2017.\n7. Without prejudice to Article 31(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, safety data sheets for mixtures provided to any recipient at least once before 1 December 2010 may continue to be used and need not comply with Annex I to this Regulation until 30 November 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2010.", "references": ["10", "66", "43", "63", "15", "88", "16", "5", "42", "90", "53", "9", "44", "35", "61", "33", "54", "93", "32", "41", "26", "19", "99", "22", "74", "49", "20", "75", "6", "76", "No Label", "2", "24", "25", "39", "58", "83"], "gold": ["2", "24", "25", "39", "58", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 549/2011\nof 6 June 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 523/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 June 2011.", "references": ["16", "7", "73", "28", "89", "38", "85", "5", "67", "4", "90", "55", "65", "69", "59", "20", "36", "25", "86", "31", "81", "82", "97", "76", "58", "6", "39", "87", "49", "23", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/312/CFSP\nof 26 May 2011\namending and extending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28 and 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 November 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (1).\n(2)\nOn 12 May 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/274/CFSP (2) amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP and extending it until 24 May 2011.\n(3)\nOn 16 February 2011 the Political and Security Committee (PSC) endorsed recommendations on the Strategic Concept for Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) training of PA border and crossing management staff for Gaza crossings.\n(4)\nEU BAM Rafah should be further extended from 25 May 2011 until 31 December 2011 on the basis of its current mandate.\n(5)\nIt is also necessary to lay down the financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EU BAM Rafah for the period from 25 May 2011 to 31 December 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nJoint Action 2005/889/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nIn Article 2, second paragraph, the following point shall be added:\n\u2018(d)\nassist EUPOL COPPS in its additional tasks in the area of training of PA border and crossing management staff for Gaza crossings.\u2019.\n2.\nArticle 10(1) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and the HR, political control and strategic direction of the mission. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions for this purpose in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty. This authorisation shall include the powers to appoint a Head of Mission, upon a proposal from the HR, and to amend the OPLAN. It shall also include powers to take subsequent decisions regarding the appointment of the Head of Mission. The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of the mission shall remain vested in the Council.\u2019.\n3.\nArticle 13(1) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mission for the period from 25 May 2011 to 31 December 2011 shall be EUR 1 400 000.\u2019.\n4.\nIn Article 16, the second paragraph shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 31 December 2011.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 25 May 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 26 May 2011.", "references": ["63", "36", "42", "90", "43", "99", "0", "94", "84", "3", "47", "72", "32", "12", "78", "92", "73", "68", "6", "31", "75", "74", "95", "11", "35", "26", "7", "61", "39", "46", "No Label", "1", "5", "9"], "gold": ["1", "5", "9"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/74/EU\nof 9 November 2010\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to extend the inclusion in Annex I thereto of the active substance carbon dioxide to product type 18\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes carbon dioxide.\n(2)\nCommission Directive 2008/75/EC of 24 July 2008 amending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include carbon dioxide as an active substance in Annex I thereto (3) included carbon dioxide as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC for use in product type 14, rodenticides, as defined in Annex V to Directive 98/8/EC.\n(3)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, carbon dioxide has now been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(4)\nFrance was designated as Rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 19 February 2008 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(5)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 27 May 2010, in an assessment report.\n(6)\nIt appears from the examinations made that biocidal products used as insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods and containing carbon dioxide may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to extend the inclusion of carbon dioxide in Annex I to that Directive to such products.\n(7)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at the European level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to the compartments and populations that have not been representatively addressed in the European level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(8)\nIn the light of the findings of the assessment report, it is appropriate to require that risk mitigation measures are applied at product authorisation level to products containing carbon dioxide and used as insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods to ensure that risks are reduced to an acceptable level in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC and Annex VI thereto. In particular, it is appropriate to require that products are only sold to and used by trained professionals, that appropriate measures to protect operators are taken to ensure minimum risk, including the availability of personal protective equipment if necessary, and that appropriate measures are taken to protect bystanders, such as exclusion from the treatment area during fumigation.\n(9)\nIt is important that the provisions of this Directive be applied simultaneously in all the Member States in order to ensure equal treatment of biocidal products on the market containing the active substance carbon dioxide and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(11)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(12)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 October 2011 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 November 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2010.", "references": ["68", "81", "92", "62", "86", "26", "95", "44", "88", "14", "99", "54", "73", "78", "21", "42", "79", "41", "76", "31", "49", "30", "45", "4", "98", "59", "51", "27", "0", "9", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "66", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "66", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 735/2012\nof 14 August 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance potassium hydrogen carbonate\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2)(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe active substance potassium hydrogen carbonate was included in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) by Commission Directive 2008/127/EC (3) in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 24b of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 of 3 December 2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4). Since the replacement of Directive 91/414/EEC by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, this substance is deemed to have been approved under that Regulation and is listed in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (5).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 25a of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004, the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, presented to the Commission its view on the draft review report for potassium hydrogen carbonate (6) on 16 December 2011. The draft review report and the view of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 13 July 2012 in the format of the Commission review report for potassium hydrogen carbonate.\n(3)\nThe Authority communicated its view on potassium hydrogen carbonate to the notifier, and the Commission invited it to submit comments on the review report.\n(4)\nIt is confirmed that the active substance potassium hydrogen carbonate is to be deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is necessary to amend the conditions of approval of potassium hydrogen carbonate. Taking into account the fact that the use of potassium hydrogen carbonate as insecticide was assessed by Belgium and has not shown additional risks, it is appropriate to allow this use in addition to the use as fungicide.\n(6)\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nA reasonable period of time should be allowed before the application of this Regulation in order to allow Member States, the notifier and holders of authorisations for plant protection products containing potassium hydrogen carbonate to meet the requirements resulting from amendment to the conditions of the approval.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 February 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 August 2012.", "references": ["1", "7", "40", "91", "55", "95", "31", "2", "99", "88", "15", "84", "14", "39", "28", "54", "70", "11", "63", "69", "72", "8", "5", "74", "17", "73", "98", "18", "4", "49", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 11 July 2011\non the Union financial contribution to national programmes of 15 Member States (Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Finland) in 2011 for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector\n(notified under document C(2011) 4918)\n(Only the Bulgarian, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovenian, and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2011/446/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea (1), and in particular Article 24(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 861/2006 lays down the conditions whereby Member States may receive a contribution from the European Union for expenditure incurred in their national programmes of collection and management of data. Those programmes are to be drawn up in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 of 14 July 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 (3).\nBulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Finland have submitted national programmes for 2011-2013 as provided for in Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. These programmes were approved in 2011 in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008.\nThose Member States have submitted annual budget forecasts covering the period 2011-2013 according to Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States for the collection and management of the basic fisheries data (4). The Commission has evaluated Member States\u2019 annual budget forecasts, as laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008, by taking into account the approved national programmes.\n(2)\nArticle 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 establishes that the Commission is to approve the annual budget forecast and is to decide on the annual Union financial contribution to each national programme in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and on the basis of the outcome of the evaluation of the annual budget forecasts as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008.\nArticle 24(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 establishes that a Commission Decision is to fix the rate of the financial contribution. Article 16 of that Regulation provides that Union financial measures in the area of basic data collection are not to exceed 50 % of the costs incurred by Member States in carrying out the programme of collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector.\n(3)\nThis Decision constitutes the financing decision within the meaning of Article 75(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5).\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe maximum global amounts of the Union financial contribution to be granted to each Member State for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for 2011 and the rate of the Union financial contribution, are established in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Finland.\nDone at Brussels, 11 July 2011.", "references": ["5", "33", "84", "11", "31", "4", "99", "15", "77", "59", "68", "86", "46", "58", "93", "56", "53", "57", "65", "12", "23", "71", "50", "1", "73", "85", "98", "95", "17", "3", "No Label", "10", "42", "67", "96"], "gold": ["10", "42", "67", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 131/2012\nof 15 February 2012\nconcerning the authorisation of a preparation of caraway oil, lemon oil with certain dried herbs and spices as a feed additive for weaned piglets (holder of authorisation Delacon Biotechnik GmbH)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of a preparation of caraway oil, lemon oil with certain dried herbs and spices. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of the preparation of caraway oil, lemon oil with certain dried herbs with spices, as specified in the Annex, as a feed additive for weaned piglets, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 7 April 2011 (2) that, under the proposed conditions of use, the preparation of caraway oil, lemon oil with certain dried herbs and spices, as specified in the Annex, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use can improve the growth rate of weaned piglets. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure efficacy and safety and accordance with the characterisation provided by the applicant for the active substances, the maximum levels of natural substances laid down in Annex III, Part B to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91, Regulations (EC) No 2232/96 and (EC) No 110/2008 and Directive 2000/13/EC (3) should be respected as regards dried herbs and spices used in the preparation, as specified in the Annex, and the product characterisations laid down in the European Pharmacopoeia should apply to caraway oil and lemon oil, respectively.\n(6)\nThe assessment of the preparation of caraway oil, lemon oil and dried herbs with spices, as specified in the Annex, shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018other zootechnical additives\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2012.", "references": ["30", "7", "32", "22", "41", "13", "0", "48", "38", "16", "84", "69", "59", "1", "4", "62", "33", "90", "83", "35", "92", "8", "76", "64", "68", "47", "28", "37", "9", "89", "No Label", "25", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/573/CFSP\nof 27 September 2010\nconcerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 February 2008, the Council adopted Common Position 2008/160/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova (1). By Council Decision 2010/105/CFSP, (2) those restrictive measures were extended until 27 February 2011 but their application suspended until 30 September 2010.\n(2)\nOn the basis of a re-examination of Common Position 2008/160/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be extended until 30 September 2011.\n(3)\nHowever, in order to encourage progress in reaching a political settlement to the Transnistrian conflict, addressing the remaining problems of the Latin-script schools and restoring free movement of persons, the restrictive measures should be suspended until 31 March 2011. At the end of that period, the Council will review the restrictive measures in the light of developments, notably in the areas mentioned above. The Council may decide to reapply or lift travel restrictions at any time,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the persons who are responsible:\n(i)\nfor preventing progress in arriving at a political settlement of the Transnistrian conflict in the Republic of Moldova, as listed in Annex I;\n(ii)\nfor the design and implementation of the campaign of intimidation and closure against Latin-script Moldovan schools in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova, as listed in Annex II.\n2. Paragraph 1 will not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation of international law, namely:\n(i)\nas a host country of an international intergovernmental organisation;\n(ii)\nas a host country to an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the United Nations;\n(iii)\nunder a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities;\nor\n(iv)\nunder the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran pact) concluded by the Holy See (State of the Vatican City) and Italy.\n4. Paragraph 3 shall be considered as applying also in cases where a Member State is host country of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).\n5. The Council shall be duly informed in all cases where a Member State grants an exemption pursuant to paragraphs 3 or 4.\n6. Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed in paragraph 1 where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the European Union, or hosted by a Member State holding the Chairmanship in office of the OSCE, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the Republic of Moldova.\n7. A Member State wishing to grant exemptions referred to in paragraph 6 shall notify the Council in writing. The exemption shall be deemed to be granted unless one or more of the Council Members raises an objection in writing within two working days of receiving notification of the proposed exemption. In the event that one or more of the Council members raises an objection, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to grant the proposed exemption.\n8. In cases where pursuant to paragraphs 3, 4, 6 and 7, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in Annexes I and II, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\nArticle 2\nThe Council, acting upon a proposal by a member state or the High representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall adopt modifications to the lists contained in Annex I and Annex II as required by political developments in the Republic of Moldova.\nArticle 3\nCouncil Decision 2010/105/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 4\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall apply until 30 September 2011. It shall be kept under constant review. It may be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\n3. The restrictive measures provided for in this Decision shall be suspended until 31 March 2011. At the end of that period, the Council shall review the restrictive measures.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["13", "22", "55", "48", "37", "19", "25", "0", "71", "54", "87", "9", "4", "7", "86", "94", "74", "98", "14", "65", "50", "59", "27", "34", "56", "40", "85", "46", "21", "88", "No Label", "1", "3", "12", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["1", "3", "12", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 792/2012\nof 23 August 2012\nlaying down rules for the design of permits, certificates and other documents provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein and amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1), and in particular Article 19(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nProvisions are required to implement Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), hereinafter \u2018the Convention\u2019.\n(2)\nIn order to ensure the uniform implementation of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 of 4 May 2006 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (2), it is necessary to lay down models to which permits, certificates and other documents foreseen in those Regulations must correspond.\n(3)\nAt the 15th session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, held in Doha (Qatar) from 13 to 25 March 2010, a number of Resolutions were modified concerning, inter alia, the harmonisation in permits and certificates and amendments of source codes. It is therefore necessary to take those Resolutions into account and amend the models accordingly. Changes are also required in order to render those documents clearer for their users and national administrations.\n(4)\nUniform conditions for the use of those forms therefore need to be defined through models, instructions and explanations, to be used in conjunction with Regulation (EC) No 865/2006.\n(5)\nThose uniform conditions should be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (3). It is therefore necessary that they are included in an Implementing Regulation that is distinct from Regulation (EC) No 865/2006.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 865/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nGeneral provision\nThe design and technical specifications with regard to forms for permits, certificates and other documents provided for in Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 are described in this Regulation. The design and technical specifications are specified for the following documents:\n(1)\nimport permits;\n(2)\nexport permits;\n(3)\nre-export certificates;\n(4)\npersonal ownership certificates;\n(5)\nsample collection certificates;\n(6)\nimport notifications;\n(7)\ntravelling exhibition certificates;\n(8)\ncontinuation sheets for personal ownership certificates and for travelling exhibition certificates;\n(9)\ncertificates provided for in paragraphs 2(b), 3 and 4 of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, and in Articles 8(3) and 9(2)(b) thereof;\n(10)\nlabels referred to in Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97.\nArticle 2\nForms\n1. The forms on which import permits, export permits, re-export certificates, personal ownership certificates and sample collection certificates and applications for such documents are drawn up shall conform, except as regards spaces reserved for national use, to the model set out in Annex I.\n2. The forms on which import notifications are drawn up shall conform, except as regards spaces reserved for national use, to the model set out in Annex II. They may contain a serial number.\n3. The forms on which travelling exhibition certificates and applications for such documents are drawn up shall conform, except as regards spaces reserved for national use, to the model set out in Annex III.\n4. The forms on which continuation sheets for personal ownership certificates and for travelling exhibition certificates are drawn up shall conform to the model set out in Annex IV.\n5. The forms on which the certificates provided for in paragraphs 2(b), 3 and 4 of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and in Articles 8(3) and 9(2)(b) thereof and applications for such certificates are drawn up shall conform to the model set out in Annex V to this Regulation, except as regards spaces reserved for national use.\nMember States may, however, provide that, instead of the pre-printed text, boxes 18 and 19 are to contain only the relevant certification or authorisation, or both.\n6. The form of the labels referred to in Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 shall conform to the model set out in Annex VI to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nTechnical specifications with regard to forms\n1. The paper used for the forms referred to in Article 2 shall be free of mechanical pulp and dressed for writing purposes, and shall weigh at least 55 g/m2.\n2. The size of the forms referred to in Article 2(1) to (5) shall be 210 x 297 mm (A4) with a maximum tolerance as to length of 18 mm less and 8 mm more.\n3. The colour of the paper used for the forms referred to in Article 2(1) shall be as follows:\n(a)\nwhite for form 1, the original, with a guilloche pattern background, printed in grey on the front, so as to reveal any falsification by mechanical or chemical means;\n(b)\nyellow for form 2, the copy for the holder;\n(c)\npale green for form 3, the copy for the exporting or re-exporting country in the case of an import permit, or the copy for return by customs to the issuing management authority in the case of an export permit or re-export certificate;\n(d)\npink for form 4, the copy for the issuing management authority;\n(e)\nwhite for form 5, the application.\n4. The colour of the paper used for the forms referred to in Article 2(2) shall be as follows:\n(a)\nwhite for form 1, the original;\n(b)\nyellow for form 2, the copy for the importer.\n5. The colour of the paper used for the forms referred to in Article 2(3) and (5) shall be as follows:\n(a)\nyellow for form 1, the original, with a guilloche pattern background, printed in grey on the front, so as to reveal any falsification by mechanical or chemical means;\n(b)\npink for form 2, the copy for the issuing management authority;\n(c)\nwhite for form 3, the application.\n6. The colour of the paper used for the continuation sheets and labels referred to in Article 2(4) and (6) respectively shall be white.\n7. The forms referred to in Article 2 shall be printed and completed in one of the official Union languages as specified by the management authorities of each Member State. They shall, where necessary, contain a translation of their contents in one of the official working languages of the Convention.\n8. Member States shall be responsible for the printing of the forms referred to in Article 2, which, in the case of the forms referred to in Article 2(1) to (5), may be part of a computerised permit/certificate issuing process.\nArticle 4\nRegulation (EC) No 865/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticles 2 and 3 are deleted;\n(2)\nAnnexes I to VI are deleted.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 27 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 August 2012.", "references": ["91", "71", "98", "43", "77", "33", "13", "60", "26", "65", "80", "22", "27", "30", "93", "16", "12", "96", "74", "49", "64", "84", "62", "78", "47", "54", "90", "55", "34", "5", "No Label", "21", "39", "58", "59", "76"], "gold": ["21", "39", "58", "59", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 715/2012\nof 30 July 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 42/2010 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the second paragraph of column (3) of the table set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 42/2010 (2) the edible product in tablet form described in column (1) of that table does not meet the requirements of Note 2(b)(2) to Chapter 19 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) because of its composition, presentation and use as a food supplement. Classification of the product under Chapter 19 is therefore excluded.\n(2)\nIn the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 17 December 2009 in joined cases C-410/08 to C-412/08, Swiss Caps (3), and in particular paragraph 33, classification of edible goods intended to be used as food supplements under heading 2106 of the CN can be envisaged only if the food preparations in question are not specified or included elsewhere. Food preparations intended to be used as food supplements may therefore be classified under other headings of the CN where the description of those headings is more specific.\n(3)\nAs a consequence, the presentation and use of an edible product as a food supplement cannot be the reason for the exclusion from Chapter 19 of the CN. It is therefore necessary to state that the reason why the product does not meet the requirements of Note 2(b)(2) of Chapter 19 of the CN lies solely in its composition.\n(4)\nThe reasons set out in the second paragraph of column (3) of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 42/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly. However, for reasons of clarity the whole Annex to Regulation (EU) No 42/2010 should be replaced.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 42/2010 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018ANNEX\nDescription of goods\nClassification\n(CN Code)\nReasons\n(1)\n(2)\n(3)\nProduct consisting of (% by weight):\n-\nbarley grass, powdered\n28,8\n-\nhoney\n27,5\n-\nwheatgrass, powdered\n21,5\n-\nalfalfa, powdered\n21,5\n-\nstearic acid\n0,4\n-\npepper\n0,25\n-\nchromium picolinate\n0,01\n(corresponds to 8,7 \u03bcg Cr per tablet)\nThe product is presented for retail sale, in tablet form and used as a food supplement (one tablet twice a day).\n2106 90 98\nClassification is determined by General Rules 1 and 6 for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature and the wording of CN codes 2106, 2106 90 and 2106 90 98.\nSince the product does not meet the requirements of Note 2(b)(2) to Chapter 19 because of its composition, classification under Chapter 19 is excluded.\nThe product does not meet the requirements of Additional Note 1 to Chapter 30 as no statements on the use for specific diseases or the concentration of active substances are given. It should therefore not be considered as herbal medicinal preparation within the meaning of heading 3004.\nThe product is therefore considered to be covered by the terms of heading 2106 as a food preparation not elsewhere specified or included and is used as dietary supplement indicated to maintain general health or well-being (see also HSEN to heading 2106, second paragraph, number (16)).\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 July 2012.", "references": ["32", "84", "43", "77", "35", "61", "88", "63", "58", "25", "3", "83", "53", "36", "14", "66", "31", "76", "73", "94", "37", "54", "96", "98", "45", "62", "87", "68", "44", "67", "No Label", "21", "72"], "gold": ["21", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 986/2011\nof 30 September 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Queso Cas\u00edn (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Queso Cas\u00edn\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 September 2011.", "references": ["38", "80", "4", "69", "79", "65", "21", "47", "55", "64", "15", "5", "0", "37", "35", "42", "20", "41", "13", "62", "61", "98", "1", "16", "34", "7", "40", "58", "44", "86", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 986/2010\nof 3 November 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Szegedi f\u0171szerpaprika-\u0151rlem\u00e9ny/Szegedi paprika (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and in accordance with Article 17(2) thereof, Hungary\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Szegedi f\u0171szerpaprika-\u0151rlem\u00e9ny\u2019/\u2018Szegedi paprika\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 November 2010.", "references": ["84", "46", "27", "70", "76", "15", "99", "78", "39", "83", "47", "7", "6", "92", "52", "67", "58", "71", "65", "2", "43", "82", "18", "69", "90", "26", "3", "19", "72", "73", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/69/EU\nof 22 October 2010\namending the Annexes to European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC on food additives other than colours and sweeteners\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (2), and in particular Article 53 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Scientific Committee on Food and the European Food Safety Authority,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nEuropean Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (3) lays down a list of food additives that may be used in the European Union and the conditions for their use.\n(2)\nThere have been technical developments in the field of food additives since the adoption of Directive 95/2/EC. This Directive should be adapted to take into account those developments.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 until the establishment of the Union lists of food additives as provided for in Article 30 of that Regulation is completed, the Annexes to Directive 95/2/EC shall be amended, where necessary, by measures adopted by the Commission.\n(4)\nThe following stabilisers agar (E 406), carrageenan (E 407), locust bean gum (E 410), guar gum (E 412), xanthan gum (E 415), pectins (E 440), cellulose (E 460), carboxy methyl cellulose (E 466), oxidised starch (E 1404), monostarch phosphate (E 1410), distarch phosphate (E 1412), phosphated distarch phosphate (E 1413), acetylated distarch phosphate (E 1414), acetylated starch (E 1420), acetylated distarch adipate (E 1422), hydroxyl propyl starch (E 1440), hydroxy propyl distarch phosphate (E 1442), starch sodium octenyl succinate (E 1450), acetylated oxidised starch (E 1451) and emulsifier mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 471) are currently authorised under Directive 95/2/EC for a variety of uses. These food additives have been allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) \u2018not specified\u2019 by the Scientific Committee on Food (hereinafter SCF) and therefore do not present any hazard to the health of consumers. There is a technological need to extend their uses to unflavoured live fermented cream products and substitute products with a fat content of less than 20 % to ensure the stability and integrity of the emulsion. This use would benefit the consumer by providing the choice of reduced fat fermented cream products with similar properties as to the ordinary product. It is therefore appropriate to authorise this additional use.\n(5)\nIn 1990, the SCF evaluated sodium and potassium salts of lactate (E 325 and E 326), potassium acetate (E 261), sodium acetate (E 262i) and sodium hydrogen acetate (E 262ii) and came to the conclusion that they are all naturally present as constituents in food and estimates of their intake are likely to be insignificant compared to the intake from natural sources. Therefore they were all allocated a \u2018group ADI not specified\u2019. Consequently, these food additives are generally permitted for use in all foodstuffs, other than those referred to in Article 2(3) of Directive 95/2/EC. There is a proposal to extend the use of these food additives into pre-packed preparations of fresh minced meat to control the growth of microbial pathogens, e.g. Listeria, E. coli O157. Based on this technological justification, and taking into account that this use raises no safety concern, it is appropriate to permit the additional use of these food additives in pre-packed preparations of fresh minced meat.\n(6)\nSorbates (E 200, E 202, E 203) and benzoates (E 210, E 211, E 212, E 213) are currently permitted as food additives under Directive 95/2/EC. An additional use as preservative of these food additives is proposed in seaweed-based fish product analogues (caviar analogues made of seaweed) as topping on various foods in order to prevent the growth of moulds and yeasts and the formation of mycotoxins. These salts are allocated an ADI of 0-25 mg/kg bw and 0-5 mg/kg/ bw respectively. On the basis of a worst case scenario where the maximum concentrations were used, the intake estimates are very low compared to the ADI. The exposure of the consumer as a result of this use does not give rise to safety concern. It is therefore appropriate to permit the additional use of sorbates and benzoates in seaweed based fish analogue products, bearing in mind the technological justification and the fact that this new product represents a niche market.\n(7)\nThe use of sorbates (E 200, E 202, E 203) and benzoates (E 210, E 211, E 212, E 213) is requested for beers in keg to which more than 0,5 % fermentable sugars and/or fruit juices or concentrates have been added and which are directly served on draft. These beers in keg may stay connected to the beer tap for a longer time. As the connection of the keg to the tap cannot be performed under sterile conditions, microbiological contamination of the keg is possible. This is a problem for beers which still contain fermentable sugars because this may lead to the growth of hazardous microorganisms. Therefore antimicrobial agents are required in draft beers and to which fermentable sugars and/or fruit juices or concentrates have been added. From an intake point of view, the consumption on draft of such fruit beers remains marginal and the intake estimates for sorbates and benzoates, on the grounds of a \u2018worst case approach\u2019, should be below their respective ADIs. Therefore it is appropriate to permit the additional use of sorbates and benzoates in beer in kegs containing more than 0,5 % added fermentable sugar and/or fruit juices or concentrates.\n(8)\nTo prevent the development of moulds on citrus fruit, their post harvest treatment with pesticides such as imazalil and thiabendazole is authorised. Sorbates (E 200, E 202, E 203) could be used to replace these pesticides partly or completely for the treatment of citrus fruit. Sorbates can be applied on the surface of the unpeeled fresh citrus fruit via the authorised waxes: beeswax, candelilla wax, carnauba wax and shellac (E 901, E 902, E 903 and E 904 respectively). The exposure of the consumer to these additives due to this use is not a cause of safety concern. It is therefore appropriate to authorise its additional use.\n(9)\nConsumers may choose to supplement their intake of some nutrients with food supplements. For that purpose, vitamin A and combinations of vitamins A and D can be added to food supplements, as defined by Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4). For reasons of safe handling, vitamin A and combinations of vitamins A and D have to be formulated into preparations that may require high humidity and high temperature, in the presence of starches and sugars. Such processing may favour the development of microorganisms. In order to prevent the growth of these microorganisms, the addition of sorbates (E 200, E 202, E 203) and benzoates (E 210, E 211, E 212 and E 213) should be authorised in vitamin A and in combinations of vitamins A and D when used in food supplements supplied in dried form.\n(10)\nSulphur dioxide and sulphites (E 220, E 221, E 222, E 223, E 224, E 226, E 227, E 228) are food additives authorised under Directive 95/2/EC which act primarily as antimicrobial agents and controlling chemical spoilage. Nowadays, transport of fresh fruit has become very important, in particular by sea freight. Such transport may be several weeks. The use of sulphur dioxide and sulphites will protect fresh blueberries against fungi growth. The additional use of sulphur dioxide and sulphites should be authorised in order to help preserve fresh blueberries against fungi growth, bearing in mind that this is likely to represent a niche market. Taking also into consideration the sound technological reasons for including these new authorisations, the need to facilitate worldwide trade and its negligible impact in term of sulphur and sulphite intake, it is therefore appropriate to authorise the additional use of sulphur dioxide in blueberries at the concentration level indicated in the Annex to this Directive.\n(11)\nFor the production of cinnamon sticks (Cinnamomum ceylanicum only), also known as \u2018quills\u2019, the fresh peels of the inner bark of the cinnamon tree is used. The peel is exposed to microbial contamination and insect attacks, particularly under tropical and humid climatic conditions, in the producing country. Sulphur dioxide fumigation is an appropriate treatment against such microbial contamination and insect attacks. In 1994, the SCF established an ADI of 0-0,7 mg/kg bw and considered that the use of sulphur dioxide and other sulphiting agents should be limited in order to limit the occurrence of severe asthmatic reactions. Although the use of sulphur dioxide and sulphites should be limited, this specific use represents a negligible contributor in relation to the intake of sulphur dioxide and sulphites. It is therefore appropriate to authorise the additional use of sulphur dioxide and sulphites (E 220, E 221, E 222, E 223, E 224, E 226, E 227, E 228) only in this particular type of cinnamon.\n(12)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter EFSA) assessed the information on the safety of use of nisin in an additional food category of liquid eggs, and on the safety of nisin produced using a modified production process. The EFSA confirmed in its opinion on 26 January 2006 (5) the previously established ADI of 0-0,13 mg/kg for the nisin produced using a new manufacturing and extraction process based on fermentation of a sugar medium as a replacement for the traditionally milk-based medium. In this opinion, the EFSA also confirmed that the development of antibiotic resistance should not be expected from the use of nisin in food. According to the EFSA, there are no reports of nisin resistant bacterial mutants showing cross-resistance to therapeutic antibiotic. It considered that this is probably due to the differences between therapeutic antibiotics and nisin in terms of the antimicrobial mode of action. The EFSA furthermore confirmed in its opinion issued on 20 October 2006 (6) that the additional use of nisin in pasteurised liquid eggs under the intended conditions of use (maximum limit at 6,25 mg/l) is not a safety concern and is justified from a technological point of view to extend the shelf life of the product and also to prevent the growth of food poisoning spore-forming species, like Bacillus cereus, which may survive from pasteurisation treatment. It is therefore appropriate to authorise this additional use of nisin in pasteurised liquid egg.\n(13)\nDimethyl dicarbonate (DMDC, E 242) is a food additive permitted under Directive 95/2/EC which acts as a preservative in non-alcoholic flavoured drinks, alcohol-free wine and liquid-tea concentrate. The authorisation of this additive was decided on the basis of a positive opinion issued by the SCF in 1990 and confirmed in 1996. The SCF was unable to set an ADI, as DMDC rapidly decomposes into carbon dioxide and methanol. In 2001, the SCF was requested to investigate the safety of use of DMDC in wine. At that time the SCF considered that the formation of methanol and other reaction products, such as methylcarbamate resulting from the use of DMDC for the treatment of alcoholic beverages and wine is similar to that formed in non-alcoholic beverages, and even a heavy consumption of wine would not pose any hazard from methanol and methylcarbamate. The use of DMDC has been requested in order to prevent spoilage as a result of fermentation in unopened non-sterile filled bottles of cider, perry and fruit wines, alcohol-reduced wine, wine-based drinks and all other products covered by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91 (7). These additional uses are not considered as being of safety concern for the consumer. Moreover, the use of DMDC could contribute to the reduction of the sulphur dioxide exposure. It is therefore appropriate to authorise the additional uses of DMDC in cider, perry and fruit wines, alcohol-reduced wine, wine-based drinks and other products covered by Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91.\n(14)\nThe EFSA assessed the information on the safety of use of extracts of rosemary when used as an antioxidant in foodstuffs. Extracts of rosemary are derived from Rosmarinus officinalis L. and contain several compounds which exert antioxidative functions (mainly phenolic acids, flavonoids, diterpenoids and triterpenes). Although the toxicological data on extracts of rosemary were insufficient for the EFSA to establish a numerical ADI, the EFSA considered in its opinion on 7 March 2008 (8) that the margin of safety was high enough to conclude that dietary exposure resulting from the proposed uses and use levels were of no safety concern. Extracts of rosemary can therefore be authorised where there is a technological justification for their use. The proposed uses of extracts of rosemary as antioxidant should be authorised and E 392 should be assigned as E number for extracts of rosemary.\n(15)\nWhey is a by-product of cheese manufacturing. Some whey protein containing drinks have been developed in order to provide a diet sufficiently rich in proteins. To keep the proteins in suspension during the heat treatment of such drinks, the phosphates must be at levels that are higher than for normal non-alcoholic flavoured drinks. Phosphates should be authorised in whey protein containing sport drinks.\n(16)\nBeeswax (E 901) is currently authorised as a glazing agent for use in small products of fine bakery wares coated with chocolate. This authorisation does not cover ice cream wafers that are not coated with chocolate. In addition to the fact that beeswax can be considered as an alternative to chocolate in pre-packed ice cream wafers, the coating of the wafers with beeswax would prevent the migration of water to the wafer and ensure its crunchiness and the extension of the shelf life of the product and is therefore considered technologically justified. Therefore beeswax should be authorised as a glazing agent to replace fully or partly the in-layer chocolate in pre-packed wafers containing ice-cream.\n(17)\nThe EFSA assessed the information on the safety of use of beeswax considering its additional use as a carrier of flavourings in non-alcoholic flavoured drinks. Although the available data on beeswax itself were insufficient to establish an ADI, the EFSA came to the conclusion that, due to the low toxicological profile of beeswax, the existing food uses and the proposed new use of beeswax do not raise safety concern. It is therefore appropriate to authorise this additional use of beeswax as a carrier of flavourings in non-alcoholic flavoured drinks.\n(18)\nTriethyl citrate (E 1505) is currently authorised within the EU under Directive 95/2/EC as a carrier in flavourings, and in dried egg white. Its ADI was established by the SCF in 1990 at 0-20 mg/kg. An extension of use of triethyl citrate has been proposed as glazing agent of food supplement tablets. Triethyl citrate would increase the film resistance of the coating, protecting the tablet from external environment and also increase the duration of release of the product. According to the worst case scenario, this additional source of triethyl citrate intake is negligible (0,25 % of the ADI) compared to the full ADI. Therefore it is appropriate to authorise the additional use of triethyl citrate at EU level as a glazing agent for food supplement tablets.\n(19)\nThe EFSA assessed the information on the safety of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) as a film-coating agent for food supplements and expressed its opinion on 5 December 2005 (9). The EFSA found the use of PVA in the coating of food supplements that are in the form of capsules and tablets to be of no safety concern. The EFSA considered that the potential human exposure to PVA under the intended conditions of use is expected to be low. PVA is reported to be minimally absorbed following oral administration. The maximum limit of use has been fixed at 18 g/kg based on the worst case scenario and on the basis of which the EFSA has undertaken its risk assessment. Due to the good adhesion qualities and film strength of polyvinyl alcohol, this new food additive is expected to play a technological role as film coating agent for food supplements, in particular in applications where moisture barrier and moisture protection properties are required. It is therefore appropriate to authorise this use at EU level. This new food additive should be assigned the E number E 1203.\n(20)\nThe EFSA assessed the information on the safety of use of six grades of polyethylene glycols (PEG 400, PEG 3000, PEG 3350, PEG 4000, PEG 6000, PEG 8000) as film coating agents for use in food supplement products and expressed its opinion on 28 November 2006 (10). The EFSA found the use of these grades of polyethylene glycol as a glazing agent in film-coating formulations for food supplement tablets and capsules under the intended conditions of use of no safety concern. The EFSA has also taken into consideration in its risk assessment the additional source of exposure to these PEGs originating from the use of pharmaceutical products and considered that only a limited additional intake may result from the already approved use of PEG 6000 as carrier for sweeteners, as well as from the use of PEG in food contact materials. It is therefore appropriate to authorise this new use at EU level. In addition, due to the limited intake from PEG 6000 as carrier of sweeteners and its similar toxicological profile with respect to the other PEG grades (the six PEGs have been allocated a group tolerable daily intake (TDI), it is also appropriate to authorise the use of the PEGs evaluated by the EFSA as an alternatives to PEG 6000 as carrier of sweeteners. All these PEGs should be assigned E 1521 as E number.\n(21)\nThe EFSA assessed the information on the safety of use of cassia gum as a new food additive acting as gelling agent and thickener and expressed its opinion on 26 September 2006 (11). The EFSA found the use of cassia gum as indicated under the conditions specified raised no safety concern. Although the EFSA considered the available toxicological data on cassia gum as insufficient to derive an ADI, they did not consider that the existing data gave cause for concern. In particular the EFSA highlighted the specific low absorption of cassia gum and the fact that, if hydrolysed at all, cassia gum would be degraded to compounds that will enter the normal metabolic pathways. There is a technological justification for the use of cassia gum through its synergistic gelling effects when added to other regular food gums. It is therefore appropriate to authorise these uses at EU level and to assign E 427 as E number for cassia gum.\n(22)\nThe EFSA evaluated the safety of neotame as a flavour enhancer and expressed its opinion on 27 September 2007 (12). The EFSA concluded that neotame is of no safety concern with respect to the proposed uses as a flavour enhancer and established an ADI of 0-2 mg/kg bw/day. Therefore it is necessary to authorise the use of neotame as a flavour enhancer.\n(23)\nThe EFSA assessed the information on the safety of use of L-cysteine (E 920) in certain foodstuffs intended for infants and young children. The EFSA concluded in its opinion on 26 September 2006 (13) that its proposed use in processed cereal-based foods and foods (specifically baby biscuits) for infants and young children is of no safety concern. Biscuits for infants and young children are required to have a suitable composition, including a controlled content of sugar and fat. However, biscuits with a low fat content have increased brittleness with an associated risk of choking and suffocation due to the biscuit breaking in the child\u2019s mouth. The function of the L-cysteine is to act as a dough improver to control the texture of the final product. It is therefore appropriate to authorise the use of L-cysteine in biscuits for infants and young children at EU level.\n(24)\nEFSA assessed the safety of use of an enzyme preparation based on thrombin with fibrinogen derived from cattle and/or pigs as a food additive for reconstituting food and concluded in its opinion on 26 April 2005 that this use of the enzyme preparation when produced as outlined in the opinion is of no safety concern (14). However, the European Parliament in its Resolution of 19 May 2010 on the draft Commission Directive amending the Annexes to the European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC on food additives other than colours and sweeteners, considered that the inclusion in Annex IV to Directive 95/2/EC of this enzyme preparation as a food additive for reconstituting food was not compatible with the aim and content of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, as it does not meet the general criteria of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, especially in paragraph 1(c) of Article 6.\n(25)\nCommission Decision 2004/374/EC (15) suspended the placing on the market and import of jelly mini-cups containing gel-forming food additives derived from seaweed and certain gums (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403, E 404, E 405, E 406, E 407, E 407a, E 410, E 412, E 413, E 414, E 415, E 417, E 418) due to the risk of choking posed by these products. Directive 95/2/EC was amended accordingly by Directive 2006/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (16). Commission Decision 2004/374/EC should therefore be repealed as its provisions have been included in Directive 95/2/EC.\n(26)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II to VI to Directive 95/2/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 March 2011 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1 of this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 April 2011 at the latest.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nCommission Decision 2004/374/EC is repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 October 2010.", "references": ["91", "52", "14", "27", "79", "16", "33", "47", "94", "64", "35", "22", "34", "26", "18", "0", "13", "49", "63", "48", "76", "1", "56", "80", "46", "54", "89", "78", "19", "36", "No Label", "8", "24", "25", "38", "72", "74"], "gold": ["8", "24", "25", "38", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 587/2012\nof 7 June 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for blue marlin in the Atlantic Ocean by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["78", "2", "29", "25", "9", "4", "51", "39", "45", "63", "40", "7", "85", "87", "98", "0", "68", "5", "64", "82", "93", "94", "21", "90", "43", "37", "86", "20", "35", "19", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/461/CFSP\nof 26 July 2010\non support for activities of the Preparatory Commission of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) in order to strengthen its monitoring and verification capabilities and in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 26(2) and 31(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 December 2003, the European Council adopted the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (the Strategy), Chapter III of which contains a list of measures that need to be taken both within the European Union and in third countries to combat such proliferation.\n(2)\nThe Union is actively implementing the Strategy and is giving effect to the measures listed in Chapter III thereof, in particular through releasing financial resources to support specific projects conducted by multilateral institutions, such as the Provisional Technical Secretariat of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO).\n(3)\nOn 17 November 2003, the Council adopted Common Position 2003/805/CFSP on the universalisation and reinforcement of multilateral agreements in the field of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery (1). That Common Position calls, inter alia, for the promotion of the signature and ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).\n(4)\nThe States Signatories of the CTBT have decided to establish a Preparatory Commission, endowed with legal capacity, and which has standing as an international organisation, for the purpose of carrying out the effective implementation of the CTBT, pending the establishment of the CTBTO.\n(5)\nThe early entry into force and universalisation of the CTBT and the strengthening of the monitoring and verification system of the Preparatory Commission of the CTBTO are important objectives of the Strategy. In this connection, the nuclear tests carried out by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in October 2006 and May 2009 further underlined the importance of the early entry into force of the CTBT and the need for an accelerated building-up and strengthening of the CTBT monitoring and verification system.\n(6)\nThe Preparatory Commission of the CTBTO is engaged in identifying how its verification system could best be strengthened, including through the development of noble gas monitoring capabilities and efforts aimed at fully involving States Signatories in the implementation of the verification regime.\n(7)\nIn the framework of the implementation of the Strategy, the Council adopted three Joint Actions on support for activities of the Preparatory Commission of the CTBTO: Joint Action 2006/243/CFSP of 20 March 2006 (2) in the area of training and capacity building for verification and Joint Actions 2007/468/CFSP of 28 June 2007 (3) and 2008/588/CFSP of 15 July 2008 (4) in order to strengthen the Preparatory Commission's monitoring and verification capabilities.\n(8)\nThis support of the Union should be continued.\n(9)\nThe technical implementation of this Decision should be entrusted to the Preparatory Commission of the CTBTO,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. For the purposes of ensuring the continuous and practical implementation of certain elements of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (the Strategy), the Union shall support the activities of the Preparatory Commission of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) in order to further the following objectives:\n-\nto strengthen the capabilities of the CTBT monitoring and verification system, including in the field of radionuclide detection,\n-\nto strengthen the capabilities of the States Signatories of the CTBT to fulfil their verification responsibilities under the CTBT and to enable them to benefit fully from participation in the CTBT regime.\n2. The projects to be supported by the Union shall have the following specific objectives:\n(a)\nto improve the operation and sustainability of the monitoring and verification system of the Preparatory Commission of the CTBTO;\n(b)\nto strengthen the verification capabilities of the Preparatory Commission of the CTBTO in the areas of on-site inspections and noble gas monitoring and verification for the detection and identification of possible nuclear explosions;\n(c)\nto provide technical assistance to countries in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean aimed at fully integrating States Signatories into the CTBT monitoring and verification system.\nThese projects shall be carried out for the benefit of all States Signatories of the CTBT.\nA detailed description of the projects is set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (the HR) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.\n2. The technical implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be entrusted to the Preparatory Commission of the CTBTO.\n3. The Preparatory Commission of the CTBTO shall perform its tasks under the responsibility of the HR. For this purpose, the HR shall enter into the necessary arrangements with the Preparatory Commission of the CTBTO.\nArticle 3\n1. The financial reference amount for the implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be EUR 5 280 000.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount stipulated in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The European Commission shall supervise the proper implementation of the Union's contribution referred to in paragraph 1. For this purpose, it shall conclude a financing agreement with the Preparatory Commission of the CTBTO. The financing agreement shall stipulate that the Preparatory Commission of the CTBTO is to ensure visibility of the Union contribution, commensurate with its size.\n4. The European Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the financing agreement.\nArticle 4\nThe HR shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular reports to be prepared by the Preparatory Commission of the CTBTO. These reports shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council. The European Commission shall provide information on the financial aspects of the projects as referred to in Article 3(3).\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall expire 18 months after the date of the conclusion of the financing agreement referred to in Article 3(3) or six months after the date of its adoption if no financing agreement has been concluded within that period.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["20", "33", "61", "54", "47", "87", "98", "25", "83", "17", "73", "50", "36", "78", "92", "89", "64", "4", "74", "65", "94", "66", "15", "39", "96", "70", "44", "62", "31", "45", "No Label", "3", "5", "6", "9", "10", "81"], "gold": ["3", "5", "6", "9", "10", "81"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 July 2012\namending Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU on granting Union financial assistance to Portugal\n(2012/409/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn line with Article 3(9) of Council Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU (2), the Commission, together with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and in liaison with the European Central Bank (ECB), has conducted the fourth review of the Portuguese authorities\u2019 progress on the implementation of the agreed measures under the economic and financial adjustment programme (Programme) as well as of their effectiveness and economic and social impact.\n(2)\nThe review has found that Portugal\u2019s compliance with the conditionality for the first quarter of 2012 was satisfactory. In 2011, the general government deficit was 4,2 % of GDP. The fiscal target for 2012 of 4,5 % of GDP remains within reach. The rebalancing of the economy has continued at a swift pace and exports have outperformed expectations and more than offset weaker domestic demand. However, risks to the fiscal objectives related to the rebalancing of the macroeconomic outlook have started to materialise, with the growth composition tilting more strongly towards net exports and away from domestic demand and in view of the substantial worsening of the labour market situation. Progress has been made with reforms to raise the long-term growth potential of the economy. Reform of the labour market aimed at removing rigidities and improving productivity has already been legislated for and need to be sustained. Severance payments should be aligned with the Union average and a fund to finance part of severance payments should be created. A proposal to revise the mechanism for extending collective agreements is under preparation. Policy efforts to support financial system stability continue. The sale of Banco Portugu\u00eas de Neg\u00f3cios (BPN) has been concluded and the management of the special purpose vehicles should be optimised to maximise the recovery of the assets transferred from BPN.\nThe deleveraging of the financial sector is evolving in an orderly fashion. The recapitalisation of the banking system is on target to ensure by June 2012 a minimum Core Tier 1 capital ratio of 9 %, including the European Banking Authority requirements and the capital needs related to the partial transfer of pension funds and special on-site inspections. The early intervention, resolution and deposit insurance framework has been strengthened and the Portuguese authorities are asked to prepare the implementing measures. Product market reforms, in particular in sheltered services, are essential to restore competitiveness and promote growth and employment. The Portuguese government is implementing a strategy to restructure state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to reduce their indebtedness and to insure improved conditions for market financing. A study to assess the costs and benefits of renegotiating any public-private partnerships (PPPs) or concession contracts to reduce the government financial obligations is being prepared by an international auditing firm. The Portuguese government is committed to ensuring an effective competition enforcement regime. Housing market regulations are being modernised with a view to promoting geographical mobility and the reform of the judicial system is making good progress. The privatisation programme is being implemented under the new framework law.\n(3)\nIn the light of these developments, Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 3 of Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nparagraph 6 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nThe general government deficit shall not exceed 4,5 % of GDP in 2012. Portugal shall continue to closely monitor fiscal developments and assess whether further policy adjustments are necessary to achieve the 2012 target;\u2019;\n(b)\npoints (d), (e) and (f) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nPortugal shall continue adopting measures to reinforce public finance management. Portugal shall implement the measures provided for in the new Budgetary Framework Law, including setting up a medium-term budgetary framework. The local and regional budgetary frameworks shall be considerably strengthened, in particular by aligning the respective financing laws with the requirements of the Budgetary Framework Law. Portugal shall step up the reporting and monitoring of public finances and reinforce budgetary execution rules and procedures. The Portuguese Government shall reinforce the implementation of the strategy for the validation and settlement of arrears. That strategy lays out the prioritisation criteria for paying creditors, as well as governance arrangements to ensure a fair and transparent settling process across all sectors. Portugal shall implement the new legal and institutional PPPs framework. Based on the results of a study on PPPs renegotiations, the Portuguese government shall renegotiate the relevant contracts. Portugal shall adopt a law to regulate the creation and the functioning of SOEs at the central, regional and local levels;\n(e)\nPortugal shall reorganise and significantly reduce the number of local government entities. These changes shall come into effect by the beginning of the next local election cycle;\n(f)\nPortugal shall modernise the revenue administration by completing the implementation of the Autoridade Tribut\u00e1ria e Aduaneira, reinforcing the links with the revenue collection units of the Social Security, reducing the number of municipal offices and addressing remaining bottlenecks in the tax appeal system;\u2019;\n(c)\npoints (h) and (i) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(h)\nPortugal shall adopt measures to improve the efficiency and sustainability of SOEs at central, regional and local level. Portugal shall implement a strategy to restructure and reduce the indebtedness of SOEs, including Parp\u00fablica, and to ensure improved conditions for market financing. Portugal shall implement this strategy to reach operational balance at sector level by the end of 2012;\n(i)\nPortugal shall continue implementing the privatisation programme. The direct sale of the Caixa Geral de Dep\u00f3sitos (CGD) insurance arm, Caixa Seguros, shall take place in 2012. The privatisation process of the national air carrier TAP, of the airport operator ANA - Aeroportos de Portugal, of the freight branch of CP - Comboios de Portugal, CP Carga, and of CTT - Correios de Portugal shall start in 2012 with a view of finalising it in 2013;\u2019;\n(d)\npoint (j) is deleted;\n(e)\npoint (k) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(k)\nThe Portuguese Government shall submit draft legislation to the Portuguese Parliament to align severance payments with the Union average of 8-12 days per year of work and to create a compensation fund for severance payments;\u2019;\n(f)\npoint (l) is deleted;\n(g)\npoint (o) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(o)\nPortugal shall implement the measures set out in its action plan to improve the quality of secondary and vocational education and training;\u2019;\n(h)\npoints (p) and (r) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(p)\nThe functioning of the judicial system shall be improved by implementing the measures proposed under the Judicial Reform Map and by applying targeted measures to progressively eliminate the court backlog and to foster alternative dispute resolution;\n(r)\nThe competition and regulatory framework shall be improved. Portugal shall reinforce the independence and resources of the main national regulatory authorities; implement the Competition Law with a view to improving the speed and effectiveness of the enforcement of competition rules; and monitor the inflow of new cases and report on the functioning of the specialised court for competition, regulation and supervision;\u2019;\n(i)\npoints (u) and (v) are deleted;\n(2)\nparagraph 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u20188. With a view to restoring confidence in the financial sector, Portugal shall adequately recapitalise its banking sector and ensure an orderly deleveraging process. In that regard, Portugal shall implement the strategy for the Portuguese banking sector agreed with the Commission, the ECB and the IMF so that financial stability is preserved. In particular, Portugal shall:\n(a)\nadvise banks to strengthen their collateral buffers on a sustainable basis and monitor the issuance of the government guaranteed bank bonds, which has been authorised up to EUR 35 billion in line with Union State aid rules;\n(b)\nensure that banks reach the Programme target of the Core Tier 1 ratio of 10 % at the latest by the end of 2012. The capital requirements stemming from valuing sovereign debt based on market prices according to the Union wide recapitalisation exercise coordinated by the European Banking Authority shall be met in June 2012 together with the capital implications resulting from the special on-site inspections programme and the transfer of the banks\u2019 pension funds to the State social security system. If banks cannot reach the capital requirement thresholds within the deadlines set, the EUR 12 billion bank solvency support facility established under the Programme shall be made available;\n(c)\nensure a balanced and orderly deleveraging of the banking sector, which remains critical to eliminating funding imbalances on a permanent basis. Banks\u2019 funding plans aim at reducing the loan-to-deposit ratio to an indicative value of around 120 % by the end of the Programme and potentially reducing the reliance on Eurosystem funding for the duration of the Programme. Those funding plans shall be reviewed quarterly;\n(d)\nensure that the state-owned CGD is streamlined to increase the capital base of its core banking arm as needed. The sale of its insurance and health arms shall take place before the end of 2012, while the sale of non-strategic equity stakes is ongoing. In so far as these needs cannot be met from internal group sources by the end of June 2012, CGD shall be provided with government capital support from cash buffers outside the bank solvency support facility;\n(e)\noptimise the process for recovering the assets transferred from BPN to the three state-owned special purpose vehicles through the outsourcing to a professional third party of the management of the assets, with a mandate to gradually recover the assets over time. The Portuguese government shall select the party managing the assets through a competitive bidding process and include proper incentives to optimise the recoveries into the mandate;\n(f)\ncomplete a proposal for encouraging the diversification of financing alternatives to the corporate sector by the end of July 2012;\n(g)\nimplement measures to conclude the setting-up of the Resolution Fund with a view to ensuring that it is fully operational by July 2012; adopt the supervisory notices on recovery plans by the end of July 2012; adopt the regulation on resolution plans by the end of October 2012; and adopt the rules applicable to the setting-up and operation of bridge banks in line with Union competition rules by the end of September 2012. Priority shall be given to the review of the recovery and subsequent resolution plans of the banks that are of systemic importance;\n(h)\nestablish a framework for financial institutions to engage in out-of-court debt restructuring for households and SMEs.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["6", "57", "78", "88", "85", "76", "80", "35", "68", "11", "98", "40", "25", "41", "47", "67", "63", "27", "20", "50", "53", "44", "4", "58", "62", "51", "72", "45", "83", "61", "No Label", "2", "10", "15", "16", "29", "32", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "10", "15", "16", "29", "32", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 558/2012\nof 26 June 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 102/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in the People\u2019s Republic of China as extended to imports of steel ropes and cables consigned from, inter alia, the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 9(4) and 13(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. EXISTING MEASURES\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 (2), the Council imposed anti-dumping measures on steel ropes and cables including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm (\u2018certain steel ropes and cables\u2019 or \u2018the product concerned\u2019), currently falling within CN codes ex 7312 10 81, ex 7312 10 83, ex 7312 10 85, ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 10 98 and originating, inter alia, in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the original measures\u2019). The measures with regard to these imports consisted of a duty rate applicable to the CIF net, free-at-Union frontier price, before duty, of 60,4 %.\n(2)\nOn 12 August 2009 and following a request lodged by the Liaison Committee of the EU Wire Rope Industries, the Commission initiated an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation. That investigation was concluded by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 400/2010 (3), through which the Council extended the definitive anti-dumping duty against certain steel ropes and cables originating in the People\u2019s Republic in China (PRC) to imports of the same product consigned from the Republic of Korea (\u2018the extended measures\u2019). By the same Regulation, imports of the product concerned consigned by certain specifically mentioned Korean companies were excluded from these measures as the companies concerned were not found to be circumventing the measures. Moreover, even though some of the Korean companies concerned were related to PRC companies that are subject to the original measures, there was no evidence that such relationship was established or used to circumvent the measures in place on imports originating in the PRC (4).\n(3)\nBy Implementing Regulation (EU) No 102/2012 (5) and following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Council maintained these measures.\nB. INITIATION OF A REVIEW\n(4)\nBy Regulation (EU) No 969/2011 (6), the Commission opened a review of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 400/2010 for the purpose of determining the possibility of granting an exemption from those measures to one Korean exporter, Seil Wire & Cable (\u2018the applicant\u2019), repealed the anti-dumping duty with regard to imports from the applicant and made imports from it subject to registration.\n(5)\nThe review was opened as the Commission considered that there was sufficient prima facie evidence for the applicant\u2019s allegations that it was a new exporting producer according to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation and that it could meet the criteria for being granted an exemption to the extension of the measures as per Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(6)\nAn examination has therefore been carried out to determine whether the applicant fulfils the criteria for being granted an exemption to the extended measures as set out in recitals 5 to 7 of Regulation (EU) No 969/2011, by verifying that:\n(i)\nit did not export the product concerned to the European Union during the investigation period used in the investigation that led to the extended measures, i.e. 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009;\n(ii)\nit has not circumvented the measures applicable to certain steel ropes and cables of PRC origin; and\n(iii)\nit began exporting the product concerned to the European Union after the end of the investigation period used in the investigation that led to the extended measures.\n(7)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of the determination of the fulfilment of the above criteria. This process included an on-spot verification at the premises of the applicant.\nC. FINDINGS\n(8)\nThe applicant provided sufficient evidence to prove that it meets all the three criteria mentioned at recital 6 above. Indeed, it could prove that: (i) it did not export to the Union the product concerned during the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009; (ii) it has not circumvented the measures applicable to certain steel ropes and cables of PRC origin; and (iii) it began exporting the product concerned to the European Union after 30 June 2009. Therefore, an exemption should be granted to the company concerned.\nD. MODIFICATION OF THE LIST OF COMPANIES BENEFITING FROM AN EXEMPTION TO THE EXTENDED MEASURES\n(9)\nIn consideration of the findings of the investigation as indicated in recital 8 above, it is concluded that the company Seil Wire & Cable should be added to the list of companies which are exempted from the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 102/2012 on imports of certain steel ropes and cables originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China as extended to imports of certain steel ropes and cables consigned from the Republic of Korea. Therefore, Seil Wire & Cable should be added to the list of individually mentioned companies under Article 1(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 102/2012. As stipulated in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 400/2010, the application of the exemption shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to that Regulation. If no such invoice is presented, the anti-dumping duty should continue to apply.\n(10)\nThe applicant and the Union Industry have been informed of the findings of the investigation and have had the opportunity to submit their comments. Their comments were taken into account where appropriate,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe table in Article 1(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 102/2012 shall be replaced by the following table:\n\u2018Country\nCompany\nTARIC additional code\nThe Republic of Korea\nBosung Wire Rope Co., Ltd, 568,Yongdeok-ri, Hallim-myeon, Gimae-si, Gyeongsangnam-do, 621-872\nA969\nChung Woo Rope Co., Ltd, 1682-4, Songjung-Dong, Gangseo-Gu, Busan\nA969\nCS Co., Ltd, 287-6 Soju-Dong Yangsan-City, Kyoungnam\nA969\nCosmo Wire Ltd, 4-10, Koyeon-Ri, Woong Chon-Myon Ulju-Kun, Ulsan\nA969\nDae Heung Industrial Co., Ltd, 185 Pyunglim - Ri, Daesan-Myun, Haman - Gun, Gyungnam\nA969\nDSR Wire Corp., 291, Seonpyong-Ri, Seo-Myon, Suncheon-City, Jeonnam\nA969\nKiswire Ltd, 20th Fl. Jangkyo Bldg, 1, Jangkyo-Dong, Chung-Ku, Seoul\nA969\nManho Rope & Wire Ltd, Dongho Bldg, 85-2 4 Street Joongang-Dong, Jong-gu, Busan\nA969\nSeil Wire and Cable, 47-4, Soju-Dong, Yangsan-Si, Kyungsangnamdo\nA994\nShin Han Rope Co., Ltd, 715-8, Gojan-Dong, Namdong-gu, Incheon\nA969\nSsang YONG Cable Mfg. Co., Ltd, 1559-4 Song-Jeong Dong, Gang-Seo Gu, Busan\nA969\nYoung Heung Iron & Steel Co., Ltd, 71-1 Sin-Chon Dong, Changwon City, Gyungnam\nA969\u2019\nArticle 2\nCustoms authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports established in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 969/2011. No anti-dumping duty shall be collected on the imports thus registered.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 June 2012.", "references": ["50", "49", "80", "38", "99", "42", "89", "36", "11", "17", "92", "12", "66", "18", "40", "6", "90", "21", "7", "33", "10", "14", "88", "27", "2", "57", "39", "65", "73", "58", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "82", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "82", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 368/2011\nof 12 April 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for northern prawn in Norwegian waters south of 62\u00b0 N by vessels flying the flag of Sweden\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 April 2011.", "references": ["70", "6", "12", "34", "39", "11", "10", "79", "4", "5", "24", "36", "21", "33", "64", "58", "89", "63", "46", "18", "43", "42", "65", "31", "72", "44", "7", "80", "83", "84", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 324/2011\nof 1 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 April 2011.", "references": ["97", "44", "10", "63", "14", "46", "87", "78", "23", "18", "38", "76", "84", "5", "60", "98", "20", "92", "42", "24", "58", "17", "40", "30", "8", "9", "96", "3", "89", "28", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 663/2012\nof 19 July 2012\nfixing the export refunds on poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in poultrymeat, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely in the Union and bear the identification mark provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products should also comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 341/2012 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nIn order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the identification marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 341/2012 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2012.", "references": ["55", "11", "67", "6", "52", "96", "80", "26", "91", "50", "39", "93", "56", "41", "77", "40", "19", "89", "82", "81", "24", "57", "86", "34", "1", "90", "95", "45", "73", "32", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 20 October 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/002 ES/Catalu\u00f1a automoci\u00f3n)\n(2010/663/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nSpain submitted an application on 29 January 2010 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in 23 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 29 (manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers) sector in a single NUTS II region, Catalu\u00f1a (ES51), and supplemented it by additional information up to 26 April 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 752 935.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Spain,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 752 935 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["54", "73", "59", "61", "83", "8", "69", "2", "1", "79", "36", "12", "87", "37", "11", "57", "90", "45", "32", "24", "92", "67", "94", "5", "80", "78", "66", "41", "25", "62", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 795/2012\nof 28 August 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9(4) and Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Measures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 (2) the Council, following an investigation (\u2018the original investigation\u2019), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia, Russia and Ukraine. The measures consisted of an ad valorem anti-dumping duty ranging between 12,3 % and 25,7 % imposed on imports from individually named exporting producers in Ukraine, with a residual duty rate of 25,7 % on imports from all other companies in Ukraine. The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on the exporter subject to the current review investigation, CJSC Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube and OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant, now named LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (\u2018the applicant\u2019 or \u2018Interpipe\u2019), was 25,1 %.\n(2)\nFollowing an application by Interpipe for the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 954/2006, on 10 March 2009 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities annulled Article 1 of that Regulation in so far as the anti-dumping duty fixed for Interpipe exceeded that which would have been applicable had the export price not been adjusted for a commission when sales took place through the intermediary of the affiliated trader, Sepco SA (3). On 16 February 2012 the Court of Justice of the European Union upheld the judgment of the Court of First Instance (4).\n(3)\nFollowing these judgments, the Council amended Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 by means of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2012 (5) to correct the anti-dumping duty imposed on Interpipe in so far as it had been erroneously established. Accordingly, the anti-dumping duty currently in force for Interpipe is 17,7 %.\n(4)\nBy Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 (6) the Council, following an expiry review, maintained the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 on imports of seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine (\u2018the expiry review investigation\u2019).\n(5)\nAccordingly, the measures currently in force are those established by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012, i.e. between 24,1 % and 35,8 % for imports from Russia and between 12,3 % and 25,7 % for imports from Ukraine, with Interpipe having an anti-dumping duty of 17,7 %.\n1.2. Request for a partial interim review\n(6)\nOn 29 July 2011, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union the initiation (\u2018Notice of initiation\u2019) (7) of a partial interim review, pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Ukraine.\n(7)\nThe review, which is limited in scope to the examination of dumping, was initiated following a substantiated request lodged by Interpipe. In the request, Interpipe provided prima facie evidence that the continued imposition of the measures at the current level is no longer necessary to offset injurious dumping.\n1.3. Investigation\n(8)\nThe investigation of the level of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019).\n(9)\nThe Commission officially informed the applicant, the authorities of the exporting country and the Union industry of the initiation of the partial interim review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the Notice of initiation.\n(10)\nIn order to obtain the information necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant, which responded within the given deadline.\n(11)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of determining the level of dumping. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the applicant and at its related trading companies LLC Interpipe Ukraine and Interpipe Europe SA.\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(12)\nThe product concerned is the same as that defined in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 which imposed the measures currently in force, namely seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel (SPT), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm with a Carbon Equivalent Value (CEV) not exceeding 0,86 according to the International Institute of Welding (IIW) formula and chemical analysis (8), originating in Ukraine, currently falling within CN codes ex 7304 11 00, ex 7304 19 10, ex 7304 19 30, ex 7304 22 00, ex 7304 23 00, ex 7304 24 00, ex 7304 29 10, ex 7304 29 30, ex 7304 31 80, ex 7304 39 58, ex 7304 39 92, ex 7304 39 93, ex 7304 51 89, ex 7304 59 92 and ex 7304 59 93 (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n2.2. Like product\n(13)\nAs established in the original investigation as well as in the expiry review investigation, the current investigation confirmed that the product produced in Ukraine and exported to the Union, the product produced and sold on the domestic market of Ukraine and the product produced and sold in the Union by the Union producers have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and end uses. These products are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n3. DUMPING\n3.1. Preliminary remarks\n(14)\nInterpipe has two fully owned and controlled exporting producers, LLC Interpipe Niko Tube (Niko Tube) and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP). In line with the Union institutions\u2019 standard practice, one common dumping margin was calculated for the two exporting producers. The amount of dumping was first calculated for each individual exporting producer before determining a single weighted average rate of dumping for both companies.\n(15)\nThis methodology, however, was different from the methodology applied in the original investigation, where the common dumping margin was calculated by collapsing all data relating to production, profitability and sales in the Union of the two producing entities. The change in circumstances that warrants this change in methodology consists in a marked change in the corporate structure of the group enabling the identification of the relevant production company with respect to sales and production, which was not possible in the original investigation.\n(16)\nFurthermore, in the original investigation, an adjustment pursuant to Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation was made in respect of Interpipe\u2019s energy costs in order to reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of electricity and gas in Ukraine. This adjustment was deemed necessary due to the fact that Ukrainian gas and electricity prices, at the time, were significantly lower than the average price paid in the Union and did not reflect international market prices. The adjustment was based on the average prices observed in Romania, which at that time formed part of the investigation.\n(17)\nHowever, contrary to the original investigation, it is considered that an energy adjustment is not deemed necessary for the purpose of the current interim review. The investigation has shown that the average Ukrainian energy prices have increased steadily since the original investigation, at a much higher rate than the average prices in the European Union, thus gradually bridging the gap between them. The considerable price difference in energy costs that was found during the original investigation and warranted an adjustment is therefore currently not present.\n(18)\nAccordingly, it is not considered appropriate to make an energy adjustment in this interim review.\n3.2. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n3.2.1. Normal value\n(19)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation it was first examined whether each exporting producers\u2019 total volume of domestic sales of the like product to independent customers was representative in comparison with its total volume of export sales to the Union, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the product concerned to the Union. The examination established that the domestic sales were representative for both exporting producers.\n(20)\nIt was further examined whether each product type of the like product sold by the exporting producers on its domestic market were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total volume of that product type sold by the applicant on the domestic market to independent customers during the RIP represented at least 5 % of its total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Union.\n(21)\nIn accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation it was subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each product type that had been sold in representative quantities could be regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade. This was done by establishing the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers on the domestic market for each exported type of the product concerned during the RIP.\n(22)\nFor those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market of the product type were above cost and for which the weighted average sales price was equal to, or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not.\n(23)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or for which the weighted average price was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during the RIP.\n(24)\nThe normal value for the non-representative types (i.e. those of which domestic sales constituted less than 5 % of export sales to the Union or were not sold at all in the domestic market) was calculated on the basis of the cost of manufacturing per product type plus an amount for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits. In case of existing domestic sales, the profit of transactions in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market per product type for the product types concerned was used. Where there were no domestic sales, an average profit was used. This change in methodology was due to the fact that, following the original investigation, a WTO Panel issued, and the WTO Dispute Settlement Body adopted a report in the case European Communities - Anti-dumping Measure on Farmed Salmon from Norway (9), which provides that the actual profit margin established for the transactions in the ordinary course of trade of the relevant product types for which normal value has to be constructed cannot be disregarded.\n(25)\nAfter disclosure of the final conclusions, the two exporting producers argued that idle costs should not have been included in their total manufacturing costs of the product concerned during the RIP, claiming that this was in breach of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation and in contradiction with the accounting principles set out under the International Accounting Standards (IAS) and IAS 2 in particular. With regard to Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation it should be noted that under that Article, when it is considered that costs associated with the production of the product concerned are not reasonably reflected in the records of the party concerned, they are to be adjusted. The fact that the company did not operate at its full capacity implied that costs were, however, incurred. Indeed, such costs were recorded as a cost in the income statement of the two exporting companies and could directly be linked to the like product. Furthermore, reference to IAS 2 was found to be irrelevant because the objective of IAS 2 is to prescribe the accounting treatment for inventories and does not determine what should be considered as cost of manufacturing. The claim was therefore rejected.\n(26)\nThe same exporting producers also claimed that certain financial expenses resulting from loans, which were included in the Selling, General and Administrative expenses, should have been excluded. They claimed that these loans were taken to satisfy the needs for liquidity and short-term financing of the company and they were not related to the production of the product concerned. During the verification visit it was indeed found that the interest expenses were mainly related to finance the working capital. Therefore, interest costs were allocated to all products. The exporting producers could not demonstrate that the interest expenses were specifically made for other purposes than to finance the working capital. The two exporting producers could not provide any further evidence to substantiate their claim and this claim was therefore rejected.\n3.2.2. Export price\n(27)\nAll exports of the product concerned by the two exporting producers to the Union were made through a related trading company located in Switzerland directly to independent customers in the Union. The export price was therefore established on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n3.2.3. Comparison\n(28)\nIt is recalled that in the original investigation an adjustment was made to the export price under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation in the cases where sales were made through related traders. However, in line with the judgment of the Court of Justice mentioned in recital 2, which held that the adjustment was not warranted, no such adjustment has been made in this interim review.\n(29)\nThe normal value and the export price of the two exporting producers were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments were made in respect of transport costs, rebates and discounts, commissions and credit costs.\n3.2.4. Dumping margin\n(30)\nPursuant to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value was compared with the weighted average export price per product type on an ex-work basis separately for each of the two exporting producers. As mentioned in recital 14, one common dumping margin is subsequently established for Interpipe by calculating a single weighted average rate of dumping for both exporting producers within Interpipe.\n(31)\nOn this basis, the dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 13,8 %.\n4. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES\n(32)\nIn its request for a partial interim review, the applicant claimed that changes in the corporate structure and production organisation, as well as a restructuring of the sales organisation on both the domestic and export markets, had had an impact on its cost structure and that, therefore, the existing level of the anti-dumping duty was no longer necessary in order to offset injurious dumping.\n(33)\nAccordingly, it was investigated whether the change in circumstances that led to the initiation of the interim review and the result thereof can reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.\n(34)\nThe investigation established that the main factors leading to the lower dumping margin found in the review investigation are changes in the corporate organisation, which include a merger between two production companies, and a restructuring of the sales organisation, which has been streamlined. These changes, which have affected the cost structure of the applicant for the production and selling of the product concerned, are of a structural nature and thus unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Moreover, there were no indications of significant volatility in the applicant\u2019s prices.\n(35)\nIt was therefore concluded that the changes are of a lasting nature and that the application of the existing measures at their current level is no longer necessary,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entry concerning LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP) in the table of Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 is hereby replaced by the following:\nLLC Interpipe Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP)\n13,8 %\nA743\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 August 2012.", "references": ["99", "9", "12", "43", "42", "72", "6", "46", "49", "29", "39", "33", "60", "5", "77", "61", "18", "78", "75", "54", "0", "19", "74", "50", "13", "73", "30", "88", "93", "4", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 746/2012\nof 16 August 2012\napproving the active substance Adoxophyes orana granulovirus, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply, with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval, to active substances for which a decision has been adopted in accordance with Article 6(3) of that Directive before 14 June 2011. For Adoxophyes orana granulovirus the conditions of Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 are fulfilled by Commission Decision 2007/669/EC (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC Germany received on 29 November 2004 an application from Andermatt Biocontrol GmbH for the inclusion of the active substance Adoxophyes orana granulovirus in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Decision 2007/669/EC confirmed that the dossier was \u2018complete\u2019 in the sense that it could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annexes II and III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nFor that active substance, the effects on human and animal health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicant. The designated rapporteur Member State submitted a draft assessment report on 13 August 2008.\n(4)\nThe draft assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019). The Authority presented to the Commission its conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Adoxophyes orana granulovirus (4) on 4 April 2012. The draft assessment report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and was finalised on 13 July 2012 in the format of the Commission review report for Adoxophyes orana granulovirus.\n(5)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing Adoxophyes orana granulovirus may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) and Article 5(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve Adoxophyes orana granulovirus.\n(6)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of six months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing Adoxophyes orana granulovirus. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(7)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (5) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (6) should be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance Adoxophyes orana granulovirus, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing Adoxophyes orana granulovirus as an active substance by 31 July 2013.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing Adoxophyes orana granulovirus as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances, all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 January 2013 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing Adoxophyes orana granulovirus as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 July 2014 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing Adoxophyes orana granulovirus as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 July 2014 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 February 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2012.", "references": ["89", "69", "95", "45", "11", "37", "79", "24", "91", "88", "72", "49", "41", "2", "46", "35", "29", "36", "59", "22", "99", "28", "17", "81", "50", "85", "87", "34", "66", "73", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1283/2011\nof 5 December 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in EU waters of VIId by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 December 2011.", "references": ["53", "48", "2", "52", "22", "40", "18", "6", "87", "15", "73", "69", "32", "0", "65", "30", "47", "19", "70", "92", "84", "57", "38", "51", "95", "71", "45", "39", "64", "36", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 January 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein amending the Additional Agreement between the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein extending to the Principality of Liechtenstein the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products\n(2011/52/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(4), first subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (1) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Agricultural Agreement\u2019) entered into force on 1 June 2002.\n(2)\nAn Additional Agreement between the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein extending to the Principality of Liechtenstein the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (2) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Additional Agreement\u2019) entered into force on 13 October 2007.\n(3)\nThe Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the European Union, an Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs, which amends the Agricultural Agreement by inserting a new Annex 12.\n(4)\nThe European Union, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Swiss Confederation have agreed that the Additional Agreement should also be amended in order to take into account the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications.\n(5)\nThe Agreement between the European Union, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein amending the Additional Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Agreement\u2019) should be signed on behalf of the Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein amending the Additional Agreement between the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein extending to the Principality of Liechtenstein the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (3).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign, on behalf of the Union, the Agreement between the European Union, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein amending the Additional Agreement between the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein extending to the Principality of Liechtenstein the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["33", "11", "7", "47", "81", "46", "0", "76", "88", "86", "61", "75", "50", "63", "44", "84", "85", "69", "55", "43", "62", "82", "53", "16", "54", "17", "15", "99", "31", "48", "No Label", "9", "20", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "20", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 260/2011\nof 16 March 2011\namending for the 146th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 10 March 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add one natural person to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 March 2011.", "references": ["45", "67", "27", "92", "28", "29", "33", "18", "13", "88", "25", "65", "81", "64", "77", "0", "10", "19", "49", "8", "56", "52", "61", "97", "32", "62", "76", "12", "16", "51", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 700/2012\nof 30 July 2012\noperating deductions from fishing quotas available for certain stocks in 2012 on account of overfishing in the previous years\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Article 105(1), (2) and (3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFishing quotas for the year 2011 have been established by:\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 of 29 November 2010 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea (2),\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (3),\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1256/2010 of 17 December 2010 fixing the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea for 2011 (4) and,\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (5).\n(2)\nFishing quotas for the year 2012 have been established by:\n-\nRegulation (EU) No 1225/2010,\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 716/2011 of 19 July 2011 establishing the fishing opportunities for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay for the 2011/2012 fishing season (6),\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1256/2011 of 30 November 2011 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea and amending Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 (7),\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 5/2012 of 19 December 2011 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea (8),\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (9) and,\n-\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (10).\n(3)\nAccording to Article 105(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, when the Commission has established that a Member State has exceeded the fishing quotas which have been allocated to it, the Commission is to operate deductions from future fishing quotas of that Member State.\n(4)\nArticle 105(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 provide that such deductions shall be operated in the following year or years by applying certain multiplying factors as set out therein.\n(5)\nCertain Member States have exceeded their fishing quotas for the year 2011. It is therefore appropriate to operate deductions on the fishing quotas allocated to them in 2012 and, where appropriate, in subsequent years, for the overfished stocks.\n(6)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1016/2011 of 23 September 2011 operating deductions from fishing quotas available for certain stocks in 2011, on account of overfishing of those stocks in the previous year (11) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1021/2011 of 14 October 2011 operating deductions from fishing quotas available for certain stocks in 2011, on account of overfishing of other stocks in the previous year (12) have operated deductions from fishing quotas for certain countries and species for 2011. However, for certain Member States the deductions to be applied were higher than their respective 2011 quota and could therefore not be operated entirely in that year. To ensure that also in such cases the full amount be deducted, the remaining quantities should be taken into account when establishing deductions from 2012 and, where appropriate, subsequent quotas.\n(7)\nDeductions provided by this Regulation should apply without prejudice to deductions applicable to 2012 quotas pursuant to:\n-\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 147/2007 of 15 February 2007 adapting certain fish quotas from 2007 to 2012 pursuant to Article 23(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (13), and\n-\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 165/2011 of 22 February 2011 providing for deductions from certain mackerel quotas allocated to Spain in 2011 and subsequent years on account of overfishing in 2010 (14).\n(8)\nWhere the deductions cannot be applied because the quota is not or not sufficiently available to the Member State concerned, the provisions of Article 105(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 will apply,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The fishing quotas fixed in Regulations (EU) No 1225/2010, (EU) No 716/2011, (EU) No 1256/2011, (EU) No 5/2012, (EU) No 43/2012 and (EU) No 44/2012 for the year 2012 are reduced as shown in the Annex.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall apply without prejudice to reductions provided for in Regulations (EC) No 147/2007 and (EU) No 165/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 July 2012.", "references": ["17", "32", "46", "87", "79", "33", "18", "95", "16", "28", "62", "19", "75", "12", "34", "77", "60", "27", "71", "23", "14", "2", "42", "5", "29", "6", "41", "31", "78", "72", "No Label", "58", "67"], "gold": ["58", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 July 2012\namending Decision 2003/467/EC as regards the declaration of Latvia as officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free Member State\n(notified under document C(2012) 5185)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/449/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), and in particular Annex D(I)(E) thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 64/432/EEC applies to trade within the Union in bovine animals and swine. It lays down the conditions whereby a Member State or region of a Member State may be declared officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free as regards bovine herds.\n(2)\nAnnex III to Commission Decision 2003/467/EC of 23 June 2003 establishing the official tuberculosis, brucellosis and enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free status of certain Member States and regions of Member States as regards bovine herds (2) lists the Member States and regions thereof which are declared officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free.\n(3)\nLatvia has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions for the officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free status laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC for its whole territory.\n(4)\nFollowing the evaluation of the documentation submitted by Latvia, that Member State should be declared as officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free.\n(5)\nDecision 2003/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Decision 2003/467/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2012.", "references": ["85", "39", "77", "73", "62", "80", "98", "53", "83", "70", "76", "94", "8", "46", "96", "57", "15", "52", "11", "56", "16", "99", "30", "68", "50", "86", "25", "1", "32", "19", "No Label", "61", "65", "66", "91"], "gold": ["61", "65", "66", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1053/2011\nof 20 October 2011\non the issue of import licences and the allocation of import rights for applications lodged during the first seven days of October 2011 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 (3) opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products originating in Brazil, Thailand and other third countries.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged in respect of Groups Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 during the first seven days of October 2011 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2012 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested.\n(3)\nThe applications for import rights lodged during the first seven days of October 2011 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2012 in respect of Group No 5 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import rights may be allocated should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2012 in respect of Groups Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\n2. The quantities for which import rights applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2012 in respect of Group No 5 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficient set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["79", "27", "61", "48", "81", "39", "36", "2", "82", "41", "56", "31", "16", "84", "71", "23", "63", "45", "53", "38", "30", "65", "58", "19", "4", "17", "6", "97", "76", "85", "No Label", "21", "22", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/380/CFSP\nof 28 June 2011\namending Decision 2010/330/CFSP on the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28 and 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 14 June 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/330/CFSP (1) which extended the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ (\u2018the Mission\u2019) for a further 24 months until 30 June 2012. The financial reference amount for the period from 1 July 2011 until 30 June 2012 is to be decided by the Council.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the Mission is being carried out in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty.\n(3)\nDecision 2010/330/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/330/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The training activities shall take place in Iraq and in the region as well as in the Union. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall have offices in Brussels and Baghdad, including an antenna in Basra, in preparation for a possible office opening, subject to an appropriate decision to that effect. EUJUST LEX-IRAQ shall also have an office in Erbil (Kurdistan Region).\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 11, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the Mission between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2012 shall be EUR 27 250 000.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 28 June 2011.", "references": ["0", "55", "51", "70", "93", "80", "77", "18", "30", "89", "45", "62", "25", "31", "40", "47", "68", "98", "8", "76", "41", "83", "46", "86", "88", "74", "6", "64", "13", "16", "No Label", "4", "9", "10", "95"], "gold": ["4", "9", "10", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/625/CFSP\nof 22 September 2011\namending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/137/CFSP (1), implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1970 (2011).\n(2)\nOn 23 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/178/CFSP amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP (2) and implementing UNSCR 1973 (2011).\n(3)\nOn 16 September 2011, the United Nations Security Council adopted UNSCR 2009 (2011) which amended, among others, the restrictive measures imposed by UNSCR 1970 (2011) and UNSCR 1973 (2011).\n(4)\nDecision 2011/137/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2011/137/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. Article 1 shall not apply to the supply, sale or transfer of:\n(a)\narms and related materiel of all types, including technical assistance, training, financial and other assistance, intended solely for security or disarmament assistance to the Libyan authorities;\n(b)\nsmall arms, light weapons and related materiel, temporarily exported to Libya for the sole use of United Nations personnel, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel,\nnotified to the Committee in advance and in the absence of a negative decision by the Committee within 5 working days of such a notification.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 4a(1) is deleted;\n(3)\nin Article 6:\n(a)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20181a All funds, other financial assets and economic resources, owned or controlled, directly or indirectly by the:\n(a)\nCentral Bank of Libya;\n(b)\nLibyan Arab Foreign Bank;\n(c)\nLibyan Investment Authority; and\n(d)\nLibyan Africa Investment Portfolio,\nthat are frozen as of 16 September 2011 shall remain frozen.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20184b With regard to entities referred to in paragraph 1a, exemptions may also be made for funds, financial assets and economic resources provided that:\n(a)\nthe Member State concerned has provided notice to the Committee of its intent to authorise access to funds, other financial assets, or economic resources, for one or more of the following purposes and in the absence of a negative decision by the Committee within 5 working days of such a notification:\n(i)\nhumanitarian needs;\n(ii)\nfuel, electricity and water for strictly civilian uses;\n(iii)\nresuming Libyan production and sale of hydrocarbons;\n(iv)\nestablishing, operating, or strengthening institutions of civilian government and civilian public infrastructure; or\n(v)\nfacilitating the resumption of banking sector operations, including to support or facilitate international trade with Libya;\n(b)\nthe Member State concerned has notified the Committee that those funds, other financial assets or economic resources shall not be made available to or for the benefit of the persons referred to in paragraph 1;\n(c)\nthe Member State concerned has consulted in advance with the Libyan authorities about the use of such funds, other financial assets, or economic resources; and\n(d)\nthe Member State concerned has shared with the Libyan authorities the notification submitted pursuant to this paragraph and the Libyan authorities have not objected within 5 working days to the release of such funds, other financial assets, or economic resources.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20185a Paragraph 1a shall not prevent an entity referred to therein from making payment due under a contract entered into before the listing of such an entity under this Decision, provided that the relevant Member State has determined that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraphs 1 and 1a and after notification by the relevant Member State to the Committee of the intention to make or receive such payments or to authorise the unfreezing of funds or other financial assets or economic resources for this purpose, 10 working days prior to such authorisation.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe entries for the entities set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be deleted from the lists set out in Annexes III and IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2011.", "references": ["11", "54", "77", "38", "35", "47", "64", "15", "12", "80", "27", "57", "25", "79", "75", "93", "83", "70", "55", "66", "46", "30", "65", "33", "56", "32", "2", "61", "34", "86", "No Label", "3", "5", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 February 2011\namending Decision 2008/620/EC establishing a specific control and inspection programme related to the cod stocks in the Kattegat, the North Sea, the Skagerrak, the eastern Channel, the waters west of Scotland and the Irish Sea\n(notified under document C(2011) 899)\n(2011/112/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Article 95 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2008/620/EC (2) establishes a specific control and inspection programme applicable for a period of 3 years to ensure the harmonised implementation of the measures laid down for the recovery of cod stocks in the Kattegat, the North Sea, the Skagerrak, the eastern Channel, the waters west of Scotland and the Irish Sea.\n(2)\nThe specific control and inspection programme is necessary for the organisation of operational cooperation between Member States concerned and to allow the Community Fisheries Control Agency to organise joint deployment plans in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 (3).\n(3)\nIn order to ensure the continued harmonised implementation of the measures established for the recovery of the cod stocks, the specific control and inspection programme should be extended for a period of 1 year.\n(4)\nDecision 2008/620/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 2 of Decision 2008/620/EC, the introductory phrase is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The specific control and inspection programme referred to in Article 1 shall apply for 4 years and cover:\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 February 2011.", "references": ["46", "79", "77", "99", "34", "20", "68", "64", "80", "10", "31", "51", "56", "90", "35", "45", "54", "26", "49", "71", "15", "22", "0", "50", "58", "87", "76", "74", "83", "8", "No Label", "67"], "gold": ["67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 12 December 2011\nlaying down rules for Directives 2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the reciprocal exchange of information and reporting on ambient air quality\n(notified under document C(2011) 9068)\n(2011/850/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/107/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 relating to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air (1), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (2), and in particular Article 28(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2004/107/EC lays down target values to be met by a certain date, determines common methods and criteria for the assessment of the listed pollutants, lays down the information that needs to be transmitted to the Commission and ensures that adequate information on concentration levels of those pollutants is made available to the public. It requires that detailed arrangements for forwarding the ambient air quality information are adopted.\n(2)\nDirective 2008/50/EC establishes the framework for the assessment and management of ambient air quality. It provides that the information on ambient air quality and the timescales in which such information is to be made available by Member States are to be laid down for the reporting and the reciprocal exchange of information on air quality. It also requires that ways are identified to streamline how such information are reported and exchanged.\n(3)\nCouncil Decision 97/101/EC of 27 January 1997 establishing a reciprocal exchange of information and data from networks and individual stations measuring ambient air pollution within the Member States (3) lists the information on air quality which Member States are to provide in view of the reciprocal exchange.\n(4)\nDirective 2008/50/EC provides that Decision 97/101/EC is to be repealed with effect from the end of the second calendar year following the entry into force of the implementing measures on transmission of information and reporting. Accordingly, the provisions of Decision 97/101/EC should be reflected in this Decision.\n(5)\nThe scope of this Decision covers the annual reporting on ambient air quality assessment and the submission of information on plans and programmes in relation to limit values for certain pollutants in ambient air currently covered by Commission Decision 2004/224/EC of 20 February 2004 laying down arrangements for the submission of information on plans or programmes required under Council Directive 96/62/EC in relation to limit values for certain pollutants in ambient air (4) and Commission Decision 2004/461/EC of 29 April 2004 laying down a questionnaire to be used for annual reporting on ambient air quality assessment under Council Directives 96/62/EC and 1999/30/EC and under Directives 2000/69/EC and 2002/3/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5). Accordingly, in the interest of clarity and consistency of Union legislation, those Decisions should be repealed.\n(6)\nAn Internet interface called the ambient air quality portal should be created by the Commission, assisted by the European Environment Agency, where Member States should make the air quality information available and where the public has access to the environmental information made available by Member States.\n(7)\nTo streamline the amount of information made available by Member States, to maximise the usefulness of such information and to reduce the administrative burden, Member States should be required to make the information available in a standardised, machine-readable form. The Commission, assisted by the European Environment Agency, should develop such a standardised machine-readable form in line with the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (6). It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(8)\nTo reduce the administrative burden and the scope for errors, Member States should use an electronic, Internet-based tool accessible through the ambient air quality portal when making information available. That tool should be used to check the consistency of the information, the data quality and to aggregate the primary data. Where this Decision requires information to be made available in aggregate form, the tool should therefore undertake this aggregation. Member States should be able to use the tool independently from making available the ambient air quality information to the Commission to fulfil a reporting obligation or to exchange ambient air quality data.\n(9)\nThe European Environment Agency should assist the Commission, as appropriate, with the management of the ambient air quality portal and the development of the tool for information consistency, data quality and aggregation of primary data. The European Environment Agency should in particular assist the Commission in the monitoring of the data repository, as well as the analysis relating to fulfilment by the Member States of their obligations under Directives 2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC.\n(10)\nIt is necessary for the Member States and the Commission to collect, exchange and assess up-to-date air quality information in order to understand better the impacts of air pollution and develop appropriate policies. In order to facilitate the handling and comparison of up-to-date air quality information, the up-to-date information should be made available to the Commission in the same standardised form as validated data within a reasonable timeframe after it has been made available to the public.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Ambient Air Quality Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision establishes rules implementing Directives 2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC as regards:\n(a)\nMember States obligations to report on the assessment and management of ambient air quality;\n(b)\nMember States reciprocal exchange of information concerning networks and stations, and the measurements of air quality obtained from those stations that are selected by Member States for the purpose of reciprocal exchange from amongst existing stations.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision, and in addition to the definitions laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2004/107/EC, Article 3 of Directive 2007/2/EC, and Article 2 of and Annex VII to Directive 2008/50/EC, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018station\u2019 means a location where measurements or samples are taken at one or more sampling points at the same site within an area of approximately 100 m2;\n(2)\n\u2018network\u2019 means an organisational structure performing assessment of ambient air quality by measuring at one or more stations;\n(3)\n\u2018measurement configuration\u2019 means the technical facilities used for the measurement of one pollutant or one of its compounds at a certain station;\n(4)\n\u2018measurement data\u2019 means information on the concentration or deposition level of a specific pollutant obtained by measurements;\n(5)\n\u2018modelling data\u2019 means information on the concentration or deposition level of a specific pollutant obtained through numerical simulation of physical reality;\n(6)\n\u2018objective estimation data\u2019 means information on the concentration or deposition level of a specific pollutant obtained through expert analysis and may include use of statistical tools;\n(7)\n\u2018primary data\u2019 means information on the concentration or deposition level of a specific pollutant at the highest time resolution considered in this Decision;\n(8)\n\u2018primary up-to-date assessment data\u2019 means primary data collected with the frequency appropriate to each pollutant assessment method and made available to the public without delay;\n(9)\n\u2018ambient air quality portal\u2019 means a webpage managed by the Commission assisted by the European Environment Agency, through which information related to the implementation of this Decision including the data repository is provided;\n(10)\n\u2018data repository\u2019 means an information system, linked to the ambient air quality portal and managed by the European Environment Agency, containing air quality information and data made available through national data reporting and exchange nodes under the control of the Member States;\n(11)\n\u2018data type\u2019 means a descriptor by which similar data to be used for different purposes is categorised as set out in Part A of Annex II to this Decision;\n(12)\n\u2018environmental objective\u2019 means an ambient air quality objective to be attained within a given period, or where possible over a given period respectively or in the long term as laid down in Directives 2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC.\nCHAPTER II\nCOMMON PROVISIONS ON THE PROCESS FOR TRANSMITTING INFORMATION AND ON QUALITY CONTROL\nArticle 3\nAmbient air quality portal and data repository\n1. The Commission, assisted by the European Environment Agency, shall establish a data repository and make it accessible through the ambient air quality portal (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the portal\u2019).\n2. Member States shall make available the information used for reporting and reciprocal exchange of information to the data repository in accordance with Article 5.\n3. The European Environment Agency shall manage the data repository.\n4. The public shall have access to the data repository free of charge.\n5. Each Member State shall nominate a person or persons responsible for the delivery on its behalf to the data repository of each reported and exchanged information. Only nominated persons shall make available the information to be reported or exchanged.\n6. Each Member State shall communicate the name of the person or persons referred to in paragraph 5 to the Commission.\nArticle 4\nEncoding of information\nThe Commission, assisted by the European Environment Agency, shall on the portal make available to Member States the standardised machine-readable description of how to encode the information required by this Decision.\nArticle 5\nProcedure for making information available\n1. Member States shall make available to the data repository the information required by this Decision in accordance with the data requirements set out in Part A of Annex I. That information shall be automatically processed by an electronic tool.\n2. The tool referred to in paragraph 1 shall be used to perform the following functions:\n(a)\na consistency check of the information which is to be made available;\n(b)\na check of the primary data relative to the specific data quality objectives specified in Annex IV to Directive 2004/107/EC and Annex I to Directive 2008/50/EC;\n(c)\nthe aggregation of primary data according to the rules set out in Annex I to this Decision and Annexes VII and XI to Directive 2008/50/EC.\n3. Where aggregated data is to be made available pursuant to Articles 6 to 14, they shall be generated by the tool referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.\n4. The Commission shall acknowledge the receipt of the information.\n5. In case a Member State wants to update information, it shall describe the differences between the updated and original information and the reasons for the update when making the updated information available in the data repository.\nThe Commission shall acknowledge the receipt of the updated information. After that acknowledgment, the updated information shall be considered as the official information.\nCHAPTER III\nMAKING AVAILABLE MEMBER STATES\u2019 INFORMATION ON AMBIENT AIR QUALITY\nArticle 6\nZones and agglomerations\n1. In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5 of this Decision, Member States shall make available the information set out in Part B of Annex II to this Decision on the delimitation and type of zones and agglomerations established in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 2004/107/EC and Article 4 of Directive 2008/50/EC and in which the assessment and management of air quality is to be carried out in the following calendar year.\nFor zones and agglomerations to which an exemption or a postponement applies pursuant to Article 22 of Directive 2008/50/EC, the information made available shall include an indication thereof.\n2. Member States shall make the information referred to in paragraph 1 available to the Commission no later than 31 December of each calendar year. Member States may indicate that there have been no changes to the information previously made available.\n3. Where changes are made to the delimitation and type of zones and agglomerations, the Member States shall inform the Commission thereof no later than 9 months after the end of the calendar year the changes were made.\nArticle 7\nAssessment regime\n1. In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5 of this Decision, Member States shall make available the information set out in Part C of Annex II on the assessment regime to be applied in the following calendar year for each pollutant within individual zones and agglomerations in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2004/107/EC and Articles 5 and 9 of Directive 2008/50/EC.\n2. Member States shall make the information referred to in paragraph 1 available to the Commission no later than 31 December of each calendar year. Member States may indicate that there have been no changes to the information previously made available.\nArticle 8\nMethods for the demonstration and subtraction of exceedances attributable to natural sources or to winter-sanding or -salting\n1. In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5 of this Decision, Member States shall make available the information set out in Part D of Annex II on the methods used for the demonstration and subtraction of exceedances attributable to natural sources or to winter-sanding or -salting applied within individual zones and agglomerations according to Articles 20 and 21 of Directive 2008/50/EC.\n2. Member States shall make the information referred to in paragraph 1 available to the Commission for a full calendar year no later than 9 months after the end of each calendar year.\nArticle 9\nAssessment methods\n1. In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5 of this Decision, Member States shall make available the information set out in Part D of Annex II on the quality and traceability of the assessment methods applied.\n2. Member States shall make the information referred to in paragraph 1 available to the Commission for a full calendar year no later than 9 months after the end of each calendar year.\n3. Where in a particular zone or agglomeration fixed measurement is mandatory according to Article 4 of Directive 2004/107/EC and Articles 6 and 9 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2008/50/EC, the information shall include at least the following:\n(a)\nthe measurement configuration;\n(b)\nthe demonstration of equivalence where a non-reference method is used;\n(c)\nthe sampling point location, its description and classification;\n(d)\nthe documentation of data quality.\n4. Where in a particular zone or agglomeration indicative measurement is applied in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2004/107/EC and Articles 6 and 9 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2008/50/EC, the information shall include at least the following:\n(a)\nthe measurement method applied;\n(b)\nthe sampling points and the coverage area;\n(c)\nthe validation method;\n(d)\nthe documentation of data quality.\n5. Where in a particular zone or agglomeration modelling techniques are applied in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2004/107/EC and Articles 6 and 9 of Directive 2008/50/EC, the information shall include at least the following:\n(a)\nthe description of the modelling system and its inputs;\n(b)\nthe model validation through measurements;\n(c)\nthe coverage area;\n(d)\nthe documentation of data quality.\n6. Where in a particular zone or agglomeration objective estimation is applied in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2004/107/EC and Articles 6 and 9 of Directive 2008/50/EC, the information shall include at least the following:\n(a)\nthe description of the estimation method;\n(b)\nthe documentation of data quality.\n7. Member States shall also make available the information set out in Part D of Annex II on the quality and traceability of the assessment methods applied, for the networks and stations selected by the Member States for the purpose of the reciprocal exchange of information as referred to in point (b) of Article 1 for the pollutants listed in Part B of Annex I and where available for the additional pollutants listed in Part C of Annex I and for the additional pollutants listed on the portal for that purpose. Paragraphs 1 to 6 of this Article shall apply to the exchanged information.\nArticle 10\nPrimary validated assessment data and primary up-to-date assessment data\n1. In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5 of this Decision, Member States shall make available the information set out in Part E of Annex II on primary validated assessment data for all sampling points where measurement data is collected for the purpose of the assessment as indicated by Member States according to Article 9 for the pollutants listed in Parts B and C of Annex I.\nWhere in a particular zone or agglomeration modelling techniques are applied, Member States shall make available the information set out in Part E of Annex II at the highest time resolution available.\n2. The primary validated assessment data shall be made available to the Commission for a full calendar year as complete time series no later than 9 months after the end of each calendar year.\n3. Member States shall, where they make use of the possibility provided for in Articles 20(2) and 21(3) of Directive 2008/50/EC, make available information on the quantification of the contribution from natural sources pursuant to Article 20(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC or from the winter-sanding or -salting of roads pursuant to Article 21(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/50/EC.\nThe information shall include:\n(a)\nthe spatial extent of the subtraction;\n(b)\nthe quantity of the primary validated assessment data made available according to paragraph 1 of this Article that can be attributed to natural sources or winter-sanding or -salting;\n(c)\nthe results of the application of the methods reported according to Article 8.\n4. Member States shall also make available the information set out in Part E of Annex II on primary up-to-date assessment data for the networks and stations selected by the Member States for the specific purpose of making available up-to-date information amongst the networks and stations selected by the Member States for the purpose of the reciprocal exchange of information as referred to in point (b) of Article 1 for the pollutants listed in Part B of Annex I and where available for the additional pollutants listed in Part C of Annex I and for the additional pollutants listed on the portal for that purpose.\n5. Member States shall also make available the information set out in Part E of Annex II on primary validated assessment data for the networks and stations selected by the Member States for the purpose of the reciprocal exchange of information as referred to in point (b) of Article 1 for the pollutants listed in Part B of Annex I and where available for the additional pollutants listed in Part C of Annex I and for the additional pollutants listed on the portal for that purpose. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall apply to the exchanged information.\n6. The primary up-to-date assessment data pursuant to paragraph 4 shall be made available to the Commission on a provisional basis with the frequency appropriate to each pollutant assessment method and within a reasonable timeframe after the data has been made available to the public according to Article 26 of Directive 2008/50/EC, for the pollutants specified for that purpose in Part B of Annex I to this Decision.\nThe information shall include:\n(a)\nassessed concentration levels;\n(b)\na status indication on the quality control.\n7. The primary up-to-date information made available pursuant to paragraph 4 shall be coherent with the information made available pursuant to Articles 6, 7 and 9.\n8. Member States may update the primary up-to-date assessment data made available pursuant to paragraph 4 following further quality control. The updated information shall replace the original information and its status shall be clearly indicated.\nArticle 11\nAggregated validated assessment data\n1. The tool referred to in Article 5(1) shall generate the information set out in Part F of Annex II on aggregated validated assessment data, on the basis of the information made available by Member States on primary validated assessment data according to Article 10.\n2. For pollutants with mandatory monitoring requirements, the information generated by the tool shall consist of aggregated measured concentration levels for all sampling points on which the Member States shall make information available pursuant to Article 9(3)(c).\n3. For pollutants with defined environmental objectives, the information generated by the tool shall consist of the concentration levels expressed in the metric associated with the defined environmental objective set out in Part B of Annex I and shall include:\n(a)\nthe annual average, where an annual average target or limit value is defined;\n(b)\nthe total hours in exceedance where an hourly limit value is defined;\n(c)\nthe total days in exceedance where a daily limit value is defined, or the percentile 90,4 for PM10 in the particular case when random measurements are applied instead of continuous measurements;\n(d)\nthe total days in exceedance where a maximum daily eight-hour mean target or limit value is defined;\n(e)\nthe AOT40 as defined in Part A of Annex VII to Directive 2008/50/EC in case of the ozone target value for the protection of vegetation;\n(f)\nthe Average Exposure Indicator in case of the PM2,5 exposure reduction target and the exposure concentration obligation.\nArticle 12\nAttainment of environmental objectives\n1. In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5 of this Decision, Member States shall make available the information set out in Part G of Annex II on the attainment of environmental objectives set by Directives 2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC.\n2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made available to the Commission for a full calendar year no later than 9 months after the end of each calendar year.\nThe information shall include the following:\n(a)\na declaration of attainment of all environmental objectives in each specific zone or agglomeration, including information on the exceedance of any applicable margin of tolerance;\n(b)\nwhere relevant, a declaration that the exceedance in the zone is attributable to natural sources;\n(c)\nwhere relevant, a declaration that the exceedance of a PM10 air quality objective in the zone or agglomeration is due to the re-suspension of particulate matter following the winter-sanding or -salting of roads;\n(d)\ninformation on the attainment of the PM2,5 exposure concentration obligation.\n3. Where an exceedance has occurred, the information made available shall also include information on the area of exceedance and the number of people exposed.\n4. The information made available shall be coherent with the zone delimitation made available pursuant to Article 6 for the same calendar year and the aggregated validated assessment data made available pursuant to Article 11.\nArticle 13\nAir quality plans\n1. In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5 of this Decision, Member States shall make available the information set out in Parts H, I, J and K of Annex II to this Decision on air quality plans as required by Article 23 of Directive 2008/50/EC including:\n(a)\nthe mandatory elements of the air quality plan as listed pursuant to Article 23 of Directive 2008/50/EC in Section A of Annex XV to Directive 2008/50/EC;\n(b)\nreferences to where the public can have access to regularly updated information on the implementation of the air quality plans.\n2. The information shall be made available to the Commission without delay, and no later than 2 years after the end of the calendar year in which the first exceedance was observed.\nArticle 14\nMeasures to comply with the target values of Directive 2004/107/EC\n1. In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5 of this Decision, Member States shall make available the information set out in Part K of Annex II to this Decision on measures taken to comply with the target values as required pursuant to Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/107/EC.\n2. The information shall be made available to the Commission no later than 2 years after the end of the year in which the exceedance triggering the measure was observed.\nCHAPTER IV\nTRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 15\nRepeal\nDecisions 2004/224/EC and 2004/461/EC are repealed with effect from 1 January 2014.\nArticle 16\nApplicability\n1. This Decision shall apply from 1 January 2014.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, Member States shall make available the information required pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 for the first time no later than 31 December 2013.\nArticle 17\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 December 2011.", "references": ["63", "19", "72", "2", "76", "64", "68", "88", "24", "65", "97", "79", "3", "10", "75", "87", "70", "69", "55", "9", "36", "74", "98", "27", "7", "8", "30", "93", "37", "82", "No Label", "4", "40", "41", "42", "58", "60"], "gold": ["4", "40", "41", "42", "58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 21 December 2011\nas regards a Union financial aid for the year 2012 to European Union reference laboratories\n(notified under document C(2011) 9521)\n(Only the Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2011/889/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 31(1) and (2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (2), and in particular Article 32(7) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nEuropean Union reference laboratories may be granted a Union financial aid in accordance with Article 31 of Decision 2009/470/EC.\n(2)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 926/2011 of 12 September 2011 for the purposes of Council Decision 2009/470/EC as regards Union financial aid to the EU reference laboratories for feed and food and the animal health sector (3) provides that the financial aid from the Union is to be granted if the approved work programmes are implemented effectively and that the beneficiaries supply all the necessary information within certain time limits.\n(3)\nThe Commission has assessed the work programmes and corresponding budget estimates submitted by the European Union reference laboratories for the year 2012.\n(4)\nAccordingly, a Union financial aid should be granted to the European Union reference laboratories designated in order to co-finance their activities to carry out the functions and duties provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. The Union\u2019s financial aid should be at the rate of 100 % of eligible costs as defined in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 926/2011.\n(5)\nFor the six European Union reference laboratories designated within the Joint Research Centre, the relationship is laid down in an annual administrative arrangement supported by a work programme and its budget as the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers are both services of the Commission.\n(6)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 926/2011 lays down eligibility rules for the workshops organised by the European Union reference laboratories. It also limits the financial aid to a maximum of 32 participants, 3 invited speakers and 10 representatives of third countries in workshops. Derogations to that limitation should be provided in accordance with Article 15(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 926/2011 to some European Union reference laboratories that need support for attendance by more than 32 participants in order to achieve the best outcome of its workshops. Derogations can be obtained in case a European Union reference laboratory takes the leadership and responsibility when organising a workshop with another European Union reference laboratory.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (4), animal disease eradication and control programmes (veterinary measures) shall be financed from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF). Furthermore, Article 13, second paragraph of that regulation foresees that in duly justified exceptional cases, for measures and programmes covered by Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (5), expenditure relating to administrative and personnel costs incurred by Member States and beneficiaries of aid from the EAGF shall be borne by the Fund. For financial control purposes, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 are to apply.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches sur la qualit\u00e9 des aliments et sur les proc\u00e9d\u00e9s agroalimentaires (Lerqap), of the Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (ANSES), Maisons-Alfort, France, for the analysis and testing of milk and milk products.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 328 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 23 000.\nArticle 2\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands, for the analysis and testing of zoonoses (Salmonella).\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 375 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 35 000.\nArticle 3\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Laboratorio de Biotoxinas Marinas, Agencia Espa\u00f1ola de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrici\u00f3n (Ministerio de Sanidad y Pol\u00edtica Social), Vigo, Spain, for the monitoring of marine biotoxins.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 283 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 20 000.\nArticle 4\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the laboratory of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Weymouth, United Kingdom, for the monitoring of viral and bacteriological contamination of bivalve molluscs.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 284 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 23 000.\nArticle 5\n1. The European Union grants a financial aid to the Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches sur la qualit\u00e9 des aliments et sur les proc\u00e9d\u00e9s agroalimentaires (Lerqap), of the Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (ANSES), Maisons-Alfort, France, for the analysis and testing of Listeria monocytogenes.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 458 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 23 000.\nArticle 6\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches sur la qualit\u00e9 des aliments et sur les proc\u00e9d\u00e9s agroalimentaires (Lerqap), of the Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (ANSES), 23 avenue du G\u00e9n\u00e9ral-de-Gaulle, Maisons-Alfort Cedex, France, for the analysis and testing of Coagulase positive Staphylococci, including Staphylococcus aureus.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 356 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 23 000.\nArticle 7\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Istituto Superiore di Sanit\u00e0 (ISS), Rome, Italy, for the analysis and testing of Escherichia coli, including Verotoxigenic E. Coli (VTEC).\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 285 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 22 000.\nArticle 8\n1. The European Union grants financial contribution to the Statens Veterin\u00e4rmedicinska Anstalt (SVA), Uppsala, Sweden, for the monitoring of Campylobacter.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 310 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 40 000.\nArticle 9\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Istituto Superiore di Sanit\u00e0 (ISS), Rome, Italy, for the analysis and testing of parasites (in particular Trichinella, Echinococcus and Anisakis).\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 336 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 30 000.\nArticle 10\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the F\u00f8devareinstituttet, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (DTU), Copenhagen, Denmark, for the monitoring of antimicrobial resistance.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 390 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 36 000.\nArticle 11\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to. the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (ex-VLA), Addlestone, United Kingdom, for the monitoring of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 600 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 30 000.\n3. By way of derogation from Article 15(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 926/2011, the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 shall be entitled to claim financial aid for attendance by a maximum of 50 participants at one of its workshops referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article.\nArticle 12\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Centre wallon de recherches agronomiques (CRA-W), Gembloux, Belgium, for the analysis and testing of animal proteins in feedingstuffs.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 575 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 30 000.\nArticle 13\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches sur les m\u00e9dicaments v\u00e9t\u00e9rinaires et les d\u00e9sinfectants de L\u2019Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (ANSES), Foug\u00e8res, France for residues of certain substances referred to by Annex VII, Section I(12)(b) to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 470 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 25 000.\nArticle 14\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Bundesamt f\u00fcr Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (BVL), Berlin, Germany, for residues of certain substances referred to by Annex VII, Section I(12)(c) to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 470 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 25 000.\nArticle 15\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Istituto Superiore di Sanit\u00e0, Rome, Italy, for residues of certain substances referred to by Annex VII, Section I(12)(d) to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 285 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 22 000.\nArticle 16\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Chemisches und Veterin\u00e4runtersuchungsamt (CVUA) Freiburg, Germany, for the analysis and testing of residues of pesticides in food of animal origin and commodities with high fat content.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 200 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 22 000.\nArticle 17\nThe European Union grants financial aid to the F\u00f8devareinstituttet, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (DTU), Copenhagen, Denmark, for the analysis and testing of residues of pesticides in cereals and feedingstuffs.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 200 000.\nArticle 18\nThe European Union grants financial aid to the Laboratorio Agrario de la Generalitat Valenciana (LAGV)/Grupo de Residuos de Plaguicidas de la Universidad de Almer\u00eda (PRRG), Spain for the analysis and testing of residues of pesticides in fruits and vegetables, including commodities with high water and high acid content.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 447 000.\nArticle 19\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Chemisches und Veterin\u00e4runtersuchungsamt (CVUA) Stuttgart, Germany, for the analysis and testing of residues of pesticides by single residue methods.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 370 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 70 000.\n3. By way of derogation from Article 15(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 926/2011, the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 shall be entitled to claim financial aid for attendance by a maximum of 80 participants at one of its workshops referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article.\nArticle 20\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Chemisches und Veterin\u00e4runtersuchungsamt (CVUA) Freiburg, Germany, for the analysis and testing of dioxins and PCBs in feed and food.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 450 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 60 000.\nArticle 21\nThe European Union grants financial aid to the Laboratorio Central de Sanidad Animal de Algete, Algete (Madrid), Spain, for African horse sickness.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 110 000.\nArticle 22\nThe European Union grants financial contribution to the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (ex-VLA), New Haw, Weybridge, United Kingdom, for Newcastle disease.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 85 000.\nArticle 23\nThe European Union grants financial aid to the AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright Laboratory, Pirbright, United Kingdom, for swine vesicular disease.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 90 000.\nArticle 24\nThe European Union grants financial aid to the Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, Veterin\u00e6rinstituttet, Afdeling for Fjerkr\u00e6, Fisk og Pelsdyr, \u00c5rhus, Denmark, for fish diseases.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 280 000.\nArticle 25\nThe European Union grants financial aid to the Ifremer, La Tremblade, France, for diseases of bivalve molluscs.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 130 000.\nArticle 26\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright Laboratory, Pirbright, United Kingdom, for bluetongue.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 259 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 60 000.\nArticle 27\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Institut f\u00fcr Virologie der Tier\u00e4rztlichen Hochschule, Hannover, Germany, for classical swine fever.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 295 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 50 000.\nArticle 28\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Centro de Investigaci\u00f3n en Sanidad Animal, Valdeolmos, Madrid, Spain, for African swine fever.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 185 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 40 000.\nArticle 29\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright Laboratory, of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Pirbright, United Kingdom, for foot-and-mouth disease.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 360 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 40 000.\nArticle 30\nThe European Union grants financial aid to the Interbull Centre, Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, for collaborating in rendering uniform the testing methods and the assessment of the results for pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 150 000.\nArticle 31\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the ANSES, Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches en pathologie animale et zoonoses, Maisons-Alfort, France, for brucellosis.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 280 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 18 000.\nArticle 32\nThe European Union grants financial aid to the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (ex-VLA), New Haw, Weybridge, United Kingdom, for avian influenza.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 380 000.\nArticle 33\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Weymouth Laboratory, United Kingdom, for crustacean diseases.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 105 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 22 000.\nArticle 34\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the ANSES, Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherches en pathologie animale et zoonoses/Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes et de recherche en pathologie \u00e9quine, France, for equine diseases other than African Horse Sickness.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 525 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 30 000.\nArticle 35\n1. The European Union grants financial aid to the ANSES, Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes sur la rage et la pathologie des animaux sauvages, Nancy, France, for rabies.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 250 000.\n2. In addition to the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 1, the Union grants financial aid to the laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 for the organisation of workshops. That aid shall not exceed EUR 22 000.\nArticle 36\nThe European Union grants financial aid to the Laboratorio de Vigilancia Veterinaria (Visavet) of the Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, for tuberculosis.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 285 000.\nArticle 37\nThe European Union grants financial aid to the ANSES, Laboratoire de recherches sur la pathologie des abeilles, Sophia-Antipolis, France, for bee health.\nFor the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, that financial aid shall not exceed EUR 300 000.\nArticle 38\nThe European Union grants financial aid to the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Geel, Belgium, for the following activities regarding the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012:\n(1)\nThe activities related to heavy metals in feed and food; this aid shall not exceed EUR 237 000.\n(2)\nThe organisation of the workshops by that laboratory, concerning the activities referred to in point 1; this aid shall not exceed EUR 22 000.\n(3)\nThe activities related to Mycotoxins; this aid shall not exceed EUR 238 000.\n(4)\nThe organisation of the workshops by that laboratory, concerning the activities referred to in point 3; this aid shall not exceed EUR 22 000.\n(5)\nThe activities related to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH); this aid shall not exceed EUR 227 000.\n(6)\nThe organisation of the workshops by that laboratory, concerning the activities referred to in point 5; this aid shall not exceed EUR 22 000.\n(7)\nThe activities related to additives for use in animal nutrition; this aid shall not exceed EUR 44 000.\n(8)\nThe organisation of the workshops by that laboratory, concerning the activities referred to in point 7; this aid shall not exceed EUR 25 000.\nArticle 39\nThe European Union grants financial aid to the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra, Italy, for the following activities regarding the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012:\n(1)\nThe activities related to material in contact with foodstuffs; this aid shall not exceed EUR 220 000.\n(2)\nThe organisation of the workshops by that laboratory, concerning the activities referred to in point 1; this aid shall not exceed EUR 40 000.\n(3)\nThe activities related to GMOs; this aid shall not exceed EUR 233 000.\n(4)\nThe organisation of the workshops by that laboratory, concerning the activities referred to in point 3; this aid shall not exceed EUR 36 000.\nArticle 40\nThe Union\u2019s financial aid referred to in Articles 1 to 39 shall be at the rate of 100 % of eligible costs as defined in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 926/2011.\nArticle 41\nThis Decision is addressed to the laboratories specified in the Annex.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["51", "69", "64", "85", "94", "13", "28", "78", "32", "93", "91", "70", "57", "88", "59", "47", "52", "62", "90", "96", "20", "43", "80", "25", "36", "45", "75", "29", "11", "95", "No Label", "4", "10", "38", "61", "66", "77"], "gold": ["4", "10", "38", "61", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 767/2010\nof 27 August 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 764/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 August 2010.", "references": ["11", "82", "95", "64", "1", "87", "55", "60", "7", "27", "66", "33", "76", "54", "88", "15", "51", "24", "57", "19", "3", "50", "97", "41", "85", "49", "75", "28", "94", "90", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1129/2010\nof 30 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for forkbeards in Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (2) lays down quotas for 2009 and 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["49", "3", "0", "77", "52", "62", "65", "47", "73", "44", "81", "35", "74", "54", "38", "11", "29", "99", "39", "80", "10", "87", "71", "57", "93", "75", "82", "50", "69", "15", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 932/2011\nof 19 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 September 2011.", "references": ["89", "95", "49", "18", "90", "2", "48", "69", "58", "3", "14", "79", "5", "51", "19", "59", "65", "52", "0", "60", "10", "44", "85", "42", "25", "40", "57", "29", "30", "26", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1359/2011\nof 19 December 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 opening and providing for the management of autonomous tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and industrial products\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure sufficient and uninterrupted supplies of certain goods insufficiently produced in the Union and to avoid any disturbances on the market for certain agricultural and industrial products, autonomous tariff quotas have been opened by Council Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 (1). Products within those tariff quotas can be imported at reduced or zero duty rates. For the same reasons it is necessary to open, with effect from 1 January 2012, new tariff quotas at a zero duty rate for an appropriate volume for the products with order numbers 09.2928 and 09.2929, by inserting those products in the list in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010.\n(2)\nThe quota volumes for autonomous tariff quotas with order numbers 09.2624 and 09.2640 are insufficient to meet the needs of the industry of the Union for the current quota period ending on 31 December 2011. Consequently, those quota volumes should be increased with effect from 1 July 2011.\n(3)\nThe quota volumes for autonomous tariff quotas with order numbers 09.2603, 09.2629, 09.2632, 09.2816 and 09.2977 should be replaced by the volumes set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(4)\nIt is no longer in the interest of the Union to continue to grant tariff quotas in 2012 for the products with order numbers 09.2815, 09.2841 and 09.2992, for which such quotas were established for 2011. Those quotas should therefore be closed with effect from 1 January 2012 and the corresponding products should be deleted from the list in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010.\n(5)\nIn view of the many changes to be made, the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 should be replaced in its entirety in the interest of clarity.\n(6)\nRegulation (EU) No 7/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nSince the tariff quotas have to take effect from 1 January 2012, this Regulation should apply from the same date and enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nWith effect from 1 July 2011, in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010:\n-\nthe quota volume for the autonomous tariff quota with order number 09.2624 is fixed at 950 tonnes,\n-\nthe quota volume for the autonomous tariff quota with order number 09.2640 is fixed at 11 000 tonnes.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012, except for Article 2 which shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["65", "75", "47", "63", "8", "72", "4", "56", "93", "92", "39", "30", "81", "49", "12", "60", "85", "32", "45", "13", "18", "53", "9", "97", "95", "28", "11", "19", "77", "62", "No Label", "21", "22", "66", "82"], "gold": ["21", "22", "66", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 21 December 2011\namending Annex I to Decision 2007/275/EC concerning the lists of animals and products to be subject to controls at border inspection posts under Council Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC\n(notified under document C(2011) 9517)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/31/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (1), and in particular Article 4(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (2), and in particular Article 3(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 91/496/EEC provides for veterinary checks in respect of animals from third countries entering the Union to be carried out by the Member States in accordance with that Directive.\n(2)\nDirective 97/78/EC provides for veterinary checks on certain products of animal origin and certain plant products introduced into the Union from third countries.\n(3)\nThose Directives provide that the customs authorities of the Member States are not to allow the importation into the Union of the animals and products concerned unless those veterinary checks have been carried out with satisfactory results at border inspection posts.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2007/275/EC (3) provides that the animals and products of animal origin listed in Annex I thereto are to be subjected to veterinary checks at border inspection posts in accordance with Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC (the veterinary checks).\n(5)\nThe animals and products required to undergo the veterinary checks should be clearly identifiable. Accordingly, the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2007/275/EC should be brought into line with the terminology and references laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (4) and 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 (5).\n(6)\nThe list set out in Annex I to Decision 2007/275/EC sets out animals and products according to the Combined Nomenclature (CN), as provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (6), as a first reference to select consignments that are to be submitted to the veterinary checks.\n(7)\nThe CN codes laid down in that Regulation have been updated several times since the date of adoption of Decision 2007/275/EC. Considerable changes were introduced to CN codes for products of animal origin. In addition, Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1228/2010 (7) introduced CN codes for the movements of specific goods, such as for ship supply. As those CN codes might concern products of animal origin, they should be added to the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2007/275/EC.\n(8)\nThe Union\u2019s Trade Control and Expert System (Traces) set up by Commission Decision 2004/292/EC of 30 March 2004 on the introduction of the Traces system and amending Decision 92/486/EEC (8) initially identified animals and products of animal origin with the four digit headings of the CN. Traces has subsequently been updated and certain animals and products of animal origin can be identified by their six or eight digit subheadings of the CN codes to avoid misclassification of goods. Relevant references in the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2007/275/EC should be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nFor certain CN codes, Decision 2007/275/EC is only concerned with a fraction of the scope of the relevant Chapter or heading of the CN. In such cases, column 3 of the list set out in Annex I to that Decision refers to the applicable Union veterinary legislation and provides details of the animals and products which are to be subjected to veterinary checks. Taking account of the terminology and references now provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and in Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, those references in Decision 2007/275/EC should be updated to take account of current Union legislation.\n(10)\nIn the interest of consistency of Union legislation, the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2007/275/EC should be updated to take account of the recent amendments to the CN codes and to the necessary references in column 3 of the list.\n(11)\nThe list set out in Annex I to Decision 2007/275/EC should therefore be replaced by the list in the Annex to this Decision. Decision 2007/275/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Decision 2007/275/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["97", "53", "55", "99", "45", "31", "9", "32", "3", "52", "8", "42", "23", "94", "13", "83", "64", "29", "35", "57", "51", "87", "71", "25", "63", "49", "17", "11", "18", "60", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "66", "69", "72"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "66", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 March 2012\non the conclusion of the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin\n(2013/94/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 November 2009 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the EFTA States, the participants in the Barcelona Process, the participants in the Stabilisation and Association Process and the Faroe Islands on the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin, hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Convention\u2019.\n(2)\nOn 9 December 2009 the text of the Convention was endorsed by the Euromed Trade Ministers at their Conference held in Brussels.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2013/93/EU (1), and subject to its conclusion at a later date, the Convention was signed on behalf of the European Union on 14 April 2011.\n(4)\nThe Convention should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.\nThe text of the Convention is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person empowered, on behalf of the European Union, to deposit the instrument of acceptance provided for in Article 10 of the Convention.\nArticle 3\nThe Commission shall represent the European Union in the Joint Committee established by Article 3 of the Convention. Representatives of Member States may attend the Joint Committee meetings.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 26 March 2012.", "references": ["43", "38", "5", "77", "50", "62", "83", "20", "82", "95", "81", "28", "92", "56", "86", "74", "33", "88", "39", "29", "49", "93", "65", "48", "69", "42", "2", "70", "31", "68", "No Label", "3", "9", "23", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "23", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/315/CFSP\nof 19 December 2011\non the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand establishing a framework for the participation of New Zealand in European Union crisis management operations\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 37 thereof, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 218(5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (\u2018the HR\u2019),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nConditions regarding the participation of third States in European Union crisis management operations should be laid down in an agreement establishing a framework for such possible future participation, rather than defining those conditions on a case-by-case basis for each operation concerned.\n(2)\nFollowing the adoption of a Decision by the Council on 26 April 2010 authorising the opening of negotiations, the HR negotiated an Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand establishing a framework for the participation of New Zealand in European Union crisis management operations (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand establishing a framework for the participation of New Zealand in European Union crisis management operations is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 16(1) of the Agreement.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["19", "76", "50", "6", "65", "62", "40", "86", "59", "81", "8", "35", "25", "27", "64", "52", "92", "71", "42", "85", "18", "79", "80", "98", "58", "91", "83", "93", "26", "94", "No Label", "3", "5", "9", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "5", "9", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 29 November 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the European Convention on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access\n(2011/853/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 114 thereof, in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal by the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 16 July 1999, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate within the Council of Europe, on behalf of the European Community, a convention concerning the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access.\n(2)\nThe European Convention on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access (\u2018the Convention\u2019) was adopted by the Council of Europe on 24 January 2001.\n(3)\nThe Convention establishes a regulatory framework which is almost identical to that set out in Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access (1).\n(4)\nThe Convention entered into force on 1 July 2003 and is open for signing by the Union and its Member States.\n(5)\nThe signing of the Convention would help to extend the application of provisions similar to those in Directive 98/84/EC beyond the borders of the Union and establish a law on services based on conditional access which would be applicable throughout the European continent.\n(6)\nBy adopting Directive 98/84/EC, the Union has exercised its internal competence in the fields covered by the Convention except as regards Articles 6 and 8 thereof, insofar as Article 8 relates to the measures under Article 6. The Convention should be therefore signed both by the Union and its Member States.\n(7)\nThe Convention should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the European Convention on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the Convention.\nThe text of the Convention is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign, on behalf of the Union, the Convention.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2011.", "references": ["8", "19", "44", "60", "45", "58", "36", "46", "77", "86", "87", "7", "35", "55", "2", "92", "64", "28", "76", "94", "22", "88", "51", "16", "26", "20", "85", "31", "15", "37", "No Label", "3", "24", "40", "41", "42"], "gold": ["3", "24", "40", "41", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 May 2011\non partial privatisation measure C 15/10 (ex NN 21/10) implemented by Greece for Mont Parn\u00e8s casino\n(notified under document C(2011) 3505)\n(Only the Greek text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/647/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to their comments (1),\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter of 23 June 2002, Egnatia AE, which following a merger has since been taken over by Athinaiki Techniki and which is a member of the Casino Attikis consortium (\u2018CA\u2019 or \u2018the complainant\u2019), submitted a complaint to the European Commission about an alleged breach of EU internal market rules, concerning an allegedly non-transparent and discriminatory tender procedure followed by the Greek authorities in the sale of 49 % of the capital of Elliniko Kazino Parnithas AE (\u2018Mont Parn\u00e8s casino\u2019) to the successful bidder, the Hyatt Regency consortium (\u2018HR\u2019 or \u2018the alleged beneficiary\u2019) (2).\n(2)\nBy letter of 3 October 2002 the European Commission\u2019s Internal Market Directorate-General (\u2018DG Internal Market\u2019) transferred a copy of the file to the Competition Directorate-General (\u2018DG Competition\u2019) for a parallel analysis of the case under EU State aid rules.\n(3)\nBy e-mail of 9 December 2002 the legal representative of the complainant provided the relevant Commission departments with additional explanations on the case.\n(4)\nBy letter of 24 January 2003 the Commission communicated the State aid complaint to the Greek authorities and invited Greece to clarify the issues it brought forward. The Greek authorities replied on 4 March 2003.\n(5)\nOn 27 January 2003 Commission staff met the legal representative of the complainant.\n(6)\nOn 12 February 2003 and 22 August 2003 the legal representative of the alleged beneficiary submitted supporting documents to the Commission services.\n(7)\nBy letters of 31 March 2003 and 16 May 2003 the complainant submitted supplementary information to DG Competition.\n(8)\nOn 10 April 2003 Commission staff met the representative of the alleged beneficiary.\n(9)\nDuring the period between 15 July 2003 and 16 September 2003 the Commission had several exchanges with the complainant regarding the separate assessment of the State aid issues, and it drew the attention of the complainant to its decision-making practice according to which the disposal of a public asset in the context of a tendering procedure does not constitute State aid where the procedure has been carried out transparently and without discrimination. Consequently, the Commission informed the complainant that it would not take a position until DG Internal Market had completed its examination of the procedure for the award of the public contract.\n(10)\nBy letters of 22 January 2004 and 4 August 2004 DG Internal Market closed the investigation, considering that there was no defect in the procedure for awarding the contract. By letter of 2 June 2004 DG Competition informed the complainant that it had closed the State aid complaint pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (3).\n(11)\nOn 18 February 2005 the complainant brought an action for annulment of the Commission\u2019s decision to close the case before the Court of First Instance (now the General Court).\n(12)\nBy order of 26 September 2006, the Court of First Instance dismissed the action as inadmissible since it considered that the letter did not constitute an act open to challenge under Article 230 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) (now Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)) (4).\n(13)\nOn 18 December 2006 the complainant brought an appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Justice.\n(14)\nBy judgment of 17 July 2008 (5), the Court of Justice set aside the order; it found that the contested act did constitute an act open to challenge that was not in conformity with the Commission\u2019s obligations under the Procedural Regulation, and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance.\n(15)\nBy letter of 26 September 2008 DG Competition withdrew the closure letter of 2 June 2004 and reopened the case.\n(16)\nBy order of 29 June 2009 the Court of First Instance found that since the letter had been withdrawn there was no longer any need to issue a decision (6). This order of the Court of First Instance was appealed by the complainant on 7 September 2009, on the grounds that the Court should have deemed the withdrawal of the letter unlawful and should have annulled it.\n(17)\nBy e-mail of 11 September 2009 the complainant supplied further information to the Commission.\n(18)\nOn 14 October 2009 Commission staff met representatives of the complainant. After this meeting, the complainant supplied further information to the Commission in several exchanges.\n(19)\nBy letter dated 21 October 2009 the Commission requested additional information from Greece. By letter of 13 November 2009 Greece asked for more time to respond, which was granted by the Commission by e-mail of 18 November 2009. On 11 and 14 January 2010 Greece replied to the Commission.\n(20)\nBy judgment of 6 May 2010 the Court of Justice responded to a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC (now Article 267 TFEU) from the Simvoulio tis Epikreatias (\u2018Council of State\u2019), in particular concerning the application of the EU public procurement rules to the tendering procedure in question. The Court of Justice concluded, inter alia, that, taken as a whole, a contract such as the one to be awarded following the tender in question did not fall within the scope of the Directives on public contracts (7). In addition, the Court noted that this conclusion did not preclude the fact that such a contract must observe the basic rules and general principles of the Treaty, in particular those on freedom of establishment and free movement of capital.\n(21)\nBy letter of 6 July 2010 the Commission informed Greece that it had decided to open the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the measure (the \u2018opening decision\u2019).\n(22)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision to open the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (8). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure.\n(23)\nFollowing the opening of the procedure, the Commission received comments from two interested parties, namely the representatives of the alleged beneficiary (Athens Resort Casino Holdings (9), on behalf of HR) (10) and from representatives of the complainant (Club Hotel Casino Loutraki, on behalf of CA) (11). By letter of 6 August 2010, Greece submitted its comments. The comments of both interested parties were sent by letter of 29 October 2010 to Greece, which reacted by letter of 25 November 2010.\n(24)\nOn 16 December 2010 (12), the Court of Justice ruled that the General Court (formerly the Court of First Instance) had been wrong in determining that there was no case to answer in the original challenge to the Commission\u2019s \u2018administrative closure\u2019 of the case.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n(25)\nIn October 2001 the Greek authorities initiated a procedure for the award of a public contract with a view to disposing of 49 % of the capital of Mont Parn\u00e8s casino (13). There were two competing applicants, namely \u2018Kazino Attikis\u2019 (Casino Attikis or CA) and the consortium named Hyatt Regency - Elliniki Technodomiki (the Hyatt Regency consortium or HR), both of which were selected to participate in the second stage of the tendering procedure (14), under the terms of the relevant national provisions. Following proceedings which it is alleged were invalid, the contract was awarded to HR. The following paragraphs 26 to 29 describe the events leading to this award, according to the information available to the Commission.\n(26)\nAccording to the applicable national provisions, the winning candidate would be declared through bidding (ascending price auction), the initial sale price having been set at EUR 80 million. The Tender Committee would unseal the envelopes submitted by the candidates, containing each candidate\u2019s financial bid, and would announce each bid in turn. The candidate having tendered the lower bid would be entitled to submit their new bid, enclosed in a sealed envelope, in the next round. Such a new bid would have to be at least equal to the initially higher bid increased by 1 % (15). This subsequent bidding would carry on indefinitely in separate rounds, until one of the bidders withdrew, in which case the last bidder would be declared the provisional highest bidder. The minutes naming the provisional highest bidder would be submitted by the Tender Committee to the Board of Directors of the Hellenic Tourism Development Authority (ETA).\n(27)\nDuring the first round, the two candidates submitted their bids at the same time, in sealed envelopes, on 31 May 2002, at the headquarters of ETA. CA\u2019s bid was EUR 91 183 652, whereas the HR\u2019s bid was EUR 80 075 000. However, the envelope of the latter contained, apart from its bid, a statement disputing the lawfulness of the participation by the CA consortium in the tendering procedure. CA objected to this statement, claiming that the formulation of reservations rendered HR\u2019s financial bid inadmissible. CA\u2019s objection was rejected by the Objections Committee, which considered that HR\u2019s statement did not affect the validity of its bid.\n(28)\nIn the second round, HR submitted in a sealed envelope its bid of EUR 92 105 888, again accompanied by the same written statement. After the completion of the second round, the legal representative of CA submitted an envelope with the financial bid for the third round, and also submitted a separate statement to the Board of Directors of ETA on violation of the terms of the tender with regard to the validity requirements of the tender. The Tender Committee rejected this submission on the grounds that it would be admissible only if submitted in the form of an objection, falling within the competence of the Objections Committee. The legal representative of CA then asked the Committee for a 5-minute extension in order to decide upon their next actions. The extension was granted and they removed from the Committee\u2019s table both the written statement and the bid envelope. When they returned within the 5 minutes, they stated that they did not intend to submit an objection and they submitted their bid. Subsequently, HR submitted an objection and requested that the third round of bids be deemed inadmissible on the grounds that CA had submitted a bid which they had withdrawn and then re-submitted. HR\u2019s objection was accepted by the Objections Committee and CA\u2019s bid (16) was excluded from the procedure.\n(29)\nAfter excluding CA\u2019s third-round bid, the Tender Committee forwarded (17) to the Board of Directors of ETA a copy of the minutes of its eighth meeting, at which it had named HR first provisional highest bidder (with a bid of EUR 92 105 888) and CA second provisional highest bidder. The Tender Committee appears not to have unsealed the third round bid of CA and did not return the sealed envelope to the latter, but delivered it to ETA to be kept in its safe (18). The Board of Directors of ETA convened an extraordinary general meeting. Thereafter, on 5 June 2002, the Managing Director of ETA and the legal representative of Kantor Capital, economic adviser in charge of the proceedings, were authorised to ask HR to improve its bid. HR subsequently raised the proposed amount to EUR 110 million. On 12 June 2002, CA submitted to the Board of Directors of ETA a letter containing a bid of EUR 162 million, but it was subsequently rejected because it was made after the tender procedure had closed. Finally, the HR bid was improved still further, rising to the sum of EUR 120 million (19).\n3. DECISION TO OPEN THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION\n(30)\nThe Commission opened the formal investigation because it was not able to allay its doubts as to whether the stake of 49 % in the capital of Mont Parn\u00e8s casino was sold by the Greek State to the highest bidder in a sale procedure that met the requirements of openness, transparency and non-discrimination. In particular, the Commission was not sure whether or not during the sale procedure there was any preferential treatment unlawfully granted to the buyer and consequently whether a market price was or was not paid. The Commission considered that the exclusion of CA from the tender, and of CA\u2019s bid of EUR 162 million made after the tender procedure, might be evidence of a sale below value and therefore of the existence of aid in the form of foregone State resources.\n4. COMMENTS FROM GREECE\n(31)\nBy letter of 6 August 2010 Greece submitted its observations. Greece contests the existence of State aid on the grounds that the tender procedure for the sale of its stake in the capital of Mont Parn\u00e8s casino was run in accordance with the applicable legislation, and that the 49 % stake in the casino was sold at market price.\n(32)\nThe Greek authorities first of all emphasise that the selection of the participants in the tender and the whole tendering procedure was entirely lawful and conducted in accordance with the rules on invitations to tender (20), which are governed by the legislation in force, and that those invitations to tender had been accepted by both candidates in the tender without reservation.\n(33)\nThe Greek authorities also explain that the statement by HR, contained in the envelope of HR\u2019s financial bid in both the first and second rounds of the bidding procedure, did not affect the validity of its financial bids, but concerned only the participation per se of CA in the tender procedure, and thus HR\u2019s financial bids were quite rightly deemed lawful by the Objections Committee.\n(34)\nThe Greek authorities further argue in more detail that the bid submitted by CA in the third round of the tendering procedure, which the complainant claims was EUR 107 million, was excluded because the envelope had been removed from sight of the Tender Committee. In these circumstances, the Committee could not be sure that the bid had not been changed. In any case, the re-submission of the bid would mean a second submission in the same round, which was against the rules.\n(35)\nThe Greek authorities explain that the second-round bid made by HR of EUR 92 105 888, up from the initial bid of EUR 91 183 652 made by CA in the first round, was in line with the tender rules, since according to the terms of the invitations to tender, each new bid had to be increased by 1 %, not 10 % as was assumed in the Commission\u2019s opening decision. Therefore, the rules of the tender were respected in this regard.\n(36)\nThe Greek authorities also argue that CA\u2019s last bid of EUR 162 million - the amount which the CA claimed it was prepared to pay - is invalid, because it was made after and outside the tender procedure. To accept this bid would have meant breaching the principle of legality, given that the purpose of a public bidding procedure is not only to serve the financial interest of the State, but also to serve the broader public interest, i.e. to secure the highest possible price while observing the principle of legality (i.e. the rules of law laid down in the rules on invitations to tender and tender dossiers and other applicable legislation).\n(37)\nThe Greek authorities further explain that they did not simply cancel the tender and start a new one because to do so would have meant re-running the whole procedure for the fourth time in 8 years, which would have damaged Greece\u2019s international reputation, with no certainty that a re-running of the tender procedure would have secured a price of EUR 162 million. In this respect, Greece even questions the credibility of the EUR 162 million bid, since CA was aware that its acceptance would only have triggered the cancellation of the procedure and the launch of a new one.\n(38)\nFurthermore, the Greek authorities confirm (21) that the price finally paid (EUR 120 million) was reasonable as it was 25,5 % higher than the expert valuation of EUR 95,4 million that had been made prior to the tendering procedure by the independent appraiser and kept sealed until the end of the procedure. They state that this valuation - even though not necessary because of the tendering procedure - was requested to safeguard Greece\u2019s interests even further (22).\n(39)\nAs regards the assertions by the complainant that the original terms of the invitations to tender were improved by the subsequent Law No 3139/2003 confirming the privatisation, the Greek authorities explain that the notices of invitation to tender were not amended either by Law 3139/2003 or in any other way. According to Greece, that Law simply regulates various authorisations linked to the investment and to the running of the casino, and includes measures for the protection of workers after the privatisation. HR was not relieved by that Law of the obligation to invest EUR 44 million in Mont Parn\u00e8s casino, and the contractual clause in the contract on the return to HR of 70 % of the price in the event of an operating licence being granted to another casino before 2012 was already an explicit provision of the invitations to tender.\n(40)\nThe Greek authorities therefore observe that the sale price represents the market value of the 49 % stake in the capital of Mont Parn\u00e8s casino.\n(41)\nTo reinforce their claim that no irregularities occurred in the tender procedure, the Greek authorities point to several rulings by national courts which analysed the lawfulness of the tender procedure under national law. To date, the national courts have found no irregularities in the tender and have therefore rejected the various applications made by CA on the subject (23). Among the findings of the national courts, confirming the correctness of the tender, the Greek authorities refer more particularly to the following:\n(a) Litigation before the civil courts:\n(42)\nIn its judgement 8118/2002 (24), the Athens Court of First Instance rejected an application made by CA and ruled that:\n-\nThe Tender Committee and the Objections Committee rightly held that HR\u2019s first- and second-round bids were in conformity with the invitations to tender. HR\u2019s statement attached to its bids had not affected the unconditional nature of its bids,\n-\nCA submitted a bid at 15.30, i.e. at the beginning of the third round, as laid down by the Tender Committee at the end of the second round. The bid was taken back by CA\u2019s representative, of his own will and motion, even though the chairman of the Tender Committee tried to deter him from doing so. If the chairman of the Tender Committee had explicitly warned CA\u2019s representative about taking back the bid, this would have resulted in discriminatory treatment in favour of CA and against HR.\n-\nCA\u2019s second bid in the third round was rightly considered inadmissible by the Objections Committee. Each bidder could tender only one bid in each round. Moreover, if CA\u2019s second bid in the third round had been deemed admissible, this would have resulted in a violation of the principle of transparency. CA\u2019s representative took back CA\u2019s first sealed envelope, left the venue where the tender was taking place and on his return presented a sealed envelope, which could not be verified as being the same as the first envelope (25).\n(b) Litigation before the administrative courts\n(43)\nAccording to the Greek authorities, a case is currently before the Council of State (Supreme Administrative Court) concerning another application made by CA alleging the unlawfulness of the tender procedure (26). The final judgment is currently pending; however the Greek authorities observe that the Judge Rapporteur has proposed that CA\u2019s application should be dismissed as inadmissible on grounds of jurisdiction and unfounded on grounds of substance (27).\n(c) Criminal litigation\n(44)\nFollowing an action filed in 2002 by CA against members of the Tender Committee, the Objections Committee, ETA, the evaluation consultant (American Appraisal Hellas Ltd) and the financial advisor (Kantor), concerning their behaviour during the tender procedure, the Council of Court of Appeals Judges, to which the case was forwarded for adjudication, issued an acquitting order (28) and found, more particularly, that:\n-\nNeither the first nor the second decision of the Objections Committee were unlawful and no adequate evidence was found of any misconduct on the part of its members. The members of the Objections Committee, by overruling CA\u2019s objection in the first and second round and accepting on the other hand HR\u2019s objection in the third round, did not infringe the terms of the invitations to tender and did not treat the two bidders differently.\n-\nThe decisions of the Tender Committee were not unlawful and the members of the Tender Committee did not treat the two bidders differently; furthermore the Tender Committee was obliged, according to the terms of the invitations to tender, to adhere to the findings of the Objections Committee.\n-\nETA\u2019s representative did not infringe the relevant national provisions by asking the first provisional highest bidder (HR) to increase its financial bid; ETA\u2019s representative was not authorised to enter into negotiations and did not have the power to cancel or call off the bidding procedure.\n(45)\nThe above acquitting order was further challenged before the national courts (29) and very recently the Appeal Court of Athens delivered a judgment acquitting all the persons charged (judgment 466/2011). The full text of this judgment is not yet available.\n(46)\nIn conclusion, in consideration of all the above observations, the Greek authorities maintain that the measure under assessment does not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.\n5. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(47)\nBy letter of 4 August 2010, representatives of the alleged beneficiary (i.e. Athens Resort Casino Holdings on behalf of HR) intervened in the Commission proceedings as an interested party. The alleged beneficiary submitted the same comments as Greece, which are summarised in the Section 4.\n(48)\nIn addition, the alleged beneficiary states that the price actually paid for the stake in the casino was EUR 120 million, EUR 10 million higher than previously understood (30). It was also therefore even further above the professional valuation of EUR 95,4 million that had been made (but not made known) before the tendering procedure was launched.\n(49)\nThe alleged beneficiary further argues that ETA was not only not obliged, but also had no right to call on the provisional second highest bidder, because that would have meant beginning new rounds of bidding, in breach of the terms of the invitations to tender. It further claims that the bid of EUR 162 million by CA outside the tendering procedure was at no risk of being taken seriously, and was submitted only to trigger the cancellation of the tender procedure. It confirms that it would certainly have contested any decision to accept this bid, risking the cancellation of the entire procedure. In this respect, it also points to the opinion of the Legal Council of State, which confirmed that the CA bid could not be taken into account or be accepted (31).\n(50)\nThe alleged beneficiary also calls into question the supposition made by the Commission in the opening decision, regarding distortion of competition and effect on trade, that gambling is a worldwide business and the companies in this field exercise an economic activity in an international market. The alleged beneficiary claims that Mont Parn\u00e8s is not active internationally but operates only locally and is therefore not in competition with casinos abroad.\n(51)\nBy letter of 29 September 2010, Club Hotel Casino Loutraki AE (on behalf of CA) (32) intervened in the Commission proceedings as an interested party. In that letter it argues that, as regards the quantification of the alleged aid, account should also have been taken of the difference between the bids and the impact of the ratifying law on the obligations of the purchaser under the terms of the public tender procedure.\n6. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE\n6.1. The existence of State aid in the disposal of shares by trade sale\n(52)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU states that, save as otherwise provided in the Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with the internal market, in so far as it affects trade between Member States.\n(53)\nIn accordance with the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (33) and Commission rules and practice on State aid in the context of privatisations (34), when a Member State purchases or sells shares of undertakings, no advantage is present if the Member State\u2019s behaviour is consistent with that of a private market economy investor.\n(54)\nIn particular, when the sale of shares takes place on the stock exchange, it is generally assumed to be on market conditions and not to involve any advantage. However, when the disposal is carried out through a trade sale, it can be assumed that no advantage is involved if the following conditions are fulfilled: first, the shareholding is sold by a competitive tender that is open to all comers, transparent and non-discriminatory; second, no conditions are attached which are not customary in comparable transactions between private parties and which are capable of potentially reducing the sales price; third, the shareholding is sold to the highest bidder; and fourth, bidders must be given enough time and information to carry out a proper valuation of the assets at the basis of their bid.\n(55)\nIn other words, when the privatisation is carried out by trade sale, the benchmark for assessing whether a transaction concerning State assets involves an advantage is whether a market economy operator placed in a similar situation would have behaved in the same way, i.e. would have sold the company at the same price. Non-economic considerations, such as for example industrial policy reasons, employment considerations or regional development objectives, which would not be entertained by a market economy operator, cannot be taken into account as reasons for accepting a lower price and, on the contrary, point to the existence of an advantage. This principle has been repeatedly explained by the Commission and consistently confirmed by the Court (35).\n(56)\nTherefore, if any of the above requirements are not met, the Commission considers that the public sale must be examined for possible aid implications and, thus, must be notified. By respecting these requirements, it is possible to ensure that the State obtains the highest price, i.e. the market price for its assets and therefore that no advantage is involved.\n6.2. The sale of the 49 % stake in the capital of Mont Parn\u00e8s casino\n(57)\nWhen opening the proceedings under Article 108(2) TFEU, the Commission had doubts whether the sale of Mont Parn\u00e8s casino was conducted within an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tender procedure. According to the information available at that stage, the Commission considered that there were significant difficulties in determining whether any preferential treatment was unlawfully granted and also whether a market price was or was not paid. The Commission was concerned that irregularities in the tendering procedure might have resulted in State aid.\n(58)\nThe Commission then carried out an assessment of the relevant facts within the framework of the formal investigation. This assessment is based on the body of evidence available in respect of the measure.\n(59)\nDuring the various stages of the procedure, the Commission has received information about the many legal actions at national level that vindicate the original tendering procedure. The Commission notes that, to date, the various court rulings at national level do not appear to support the observations made by the complainant about irregularities and unequal treatment in the tender procedure (see also paragraphs 41 to 46 above). The national courts rather appear to have so far confirmed the lawfulness and the non-discriminatory nature of the tender procedure, based on national rules.\n(60)\nAlthough the Commission\u2019s assessment is not dependent on the findings of national courts, it may take such findings into consideration as one factor in its analysis. The Commission however notes that the present assessment is not in any way intended to interpret national law, which is solely the competence of the Member State.\n(61)\nIn this context, the Commission considers that the lawfulness of the tender procedure under national law, as described and justified through the extensive in-depth examination performed by the various national courts so far, constitutes a significant indication of the correctness and the non-discriminatory nature of the tender procedure. This apparent validation of the tender under national rules can be taken into account by the Commission, among other factors, in its assessment under EU State aid rules that the bidding procedure was open, unconditional and non-discriminatory.\n(62)\nAs regards the question raised in the opening decision that one of the bids seemed to breach the rule in the invitation to tender concerning the minimum increase over the previous bid, the Commission notes that this issue has been resolved, since the required increase was 1 % and not 10 % as the Commission had been given to understand. Therefore the Commission considers that the rules of the tender procedure were complied with in this regard.\n(63)\nAs regards the alleged different treatment of the various objections made during the tender procedure, the Commission also notes that the Greek authorities have given an acceptable explanation for the exclusion of CA\u2019s bid from the tender procedure in light of the applicable rules that forbid a second submission in the same bidding round.\n(64)\nAs regards the alleged unequal treatment of the various bids made after the tender procedure, the Commission considers that the difference in treatment between negotiating the price upwards with the successful bidder while refusing to consider the complainant\u2019s bid of EUR 162 million may, given the existing doubts about the latter\u2019s legality, be accepted as permissible practice in a tender procedure. Furthermore, the Commission cannot lend credibility to the complainant\u2019s inadmissible bid of EUR 162 million because it was made only after the tender procedure and in breach of its procedural rules.\n(65)\nAs regards the suggestion that the whole procedure could have been cancelled, it has been stated by the Greek authorities that this would have meant re-running the procedure, potentially risking a further reduction in the price to be obtained.\n(66)\nThe Greek authorities have also stated that the terms of reference of the public procurement contract were not amended by Law 3139/2003 or in any other way.\n(67)\nAs regards the price obtained, the Commission notes that the price finally paid for the casino of EUR 120 million (36), while still short of the inadmissible bid of EUR 162 million that the complainant claims to have been ready to make after its exclusion from the procedure, is however higher than both the highest bid of EUR 107 million the complainant appears to have tendered and, by an even greater margin (25,5 %), the expert valuation of the stake at EUR 95,4 million made in advance of the procedure.\n6.3. Conclusion\n(68)\nFollowing the opening of the formal investigation, the Greek authorities addressed the preliminary doubts expressed by the Commission in the opening decision in a satisfactory manner. In particular, the Commission has not found evidence that allows the conclusion that preferential treatment was given to the alleged beneficiary leading to the granting of any advantage. By selling its share in the casino to the highest bidder in an open, unconditional and non-discriminatory bidding procedure, Greece is assumed to have obtained the highest price on the market and not to have foregone State resources. The Commission can therefore accept that, under similar circumstances, a market economy operator would have sold the relevant stake in the Casino at a similar price. Consequently, the Commission considers that the sale by the Greek State of its 49 % stake in the capital of Mont Parn\u00e8s casino does not entail any advantage and hence does not constitute State aid.\n7. CONCLUSION\n(69)\nThe Commission finds that the sale by the Greek State of its 49 % stake in the capital of Mont Parn\u00e8s casino does not constitute aid,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe sale by the Greek State of its 49 % stake in the capital of Mont Parn\u00e8s casino does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 24 May 2011.", "references": ["59", "24", "0", "87", "69", "76", "63", "14", "18", "51", "81", "62", "47", "5", "42", "32", "33", "43", "1", "65", "93", "9", "21", "52", "16", "55", "94", "29", "92", "15", "No Label", "11", "36", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["11", "36", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 186/2011\nof 25 February 2011\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals (1), and in particular Article 22(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 689/2008 implements the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and pesticides in International Trade, signed on 11 September 1998 and approved, on behalf of the Community, by Council Decision 2003/106/EC (2).\n(2)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 should be amended to take into account regulatory action in respect of certain chemicals taken pursuant to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (3), Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (4) and Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (5).\n(3)\nThe substance chlorate has not been included as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and the substance chlorate has not been included as an active substance in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC, with the effect that chlorate is banned for pesticide use and thus should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(4)\nThe substances benfuracarb, cadusafos, carbofuran and tricyclazole have not been included as active substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, with the effect that those active substances are banned for pesticide use and thus should be added to the lists of chemicals contained in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008. The addition of those substances to Part 2 of Annex I was suspended due to the new application for approval under Directive 91/414/EEC submitted pursuant to Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (6). This new application has been withdrawn by the applicants with the effect that the reason for suspending the addition to Part 2 of Annex I has disappeared. Therefore, the substances benfuracarb, cadusafos, carbofuran and tricyclazole should be added to the list of chemicals contained in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008.\n(5)\nThe substance methomyl has been included as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC with the effect that methomyl is no longer banned for use in the subcategory \u2018pesticide in the group of plant protection products\u2019. Consequently the entry in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 should be amended to reflect that change.\n(6)\nThe substance malathion has been included as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC with the effect that malathion is no longer banned for use in the subcategory \u2018pesticide in the group of plant protection products\u2019; the substance malathion has not been included as an active substance in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC with the effect that malathion is banned for use in the subcategory \u2018other pesticide including biocides\u2019. Consequently the entry in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 should be amended to reflect those changes.\n(7)\nA new application pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 was submitted for the active substance flurprimidol that will require a new decision on inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and thus flurprimidol should be deleted from the list of chemicals contained in Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008. The decision on the addition to the list of chemicals in Part 2 of Annex I should not be taken before the new decision on the status of the substance under Directive 91/414/EEC is available.\n(8)\nThe entries in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 relating to the substance paraquat are not coherent and sufficiently clear as regards code numbers and should thus be amended by inserting the most relevant code numbers.\n(9)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nIn order to allow enough time for Member States and industry to take the necessary measures, the application of this Regulation should be deferred.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 February 2011.", "references": ["98", "24", "95", "69", "86", "63", "6", "43", "53", "21", "96", "51", "0", "84", "31", "8", "97", "20", "39", "12", "13", "79", "68", "3", "27", "40", "16", "49", "5", "52", "No Label", "22", "60", "83"], "gold": ["22", "60", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 817/2011\nof 11 August 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for tusk in EU and international waters of V, VI and VII by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2011.", "references": ["94", "88", "48", "69", "28", "74", "54", "77", "39", "58", "68", "84", "37", "6", "15", "31", "32", "35", "53", "92", "89", "18", "2", "62", "61", "45", "9", "17", "50", "8", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 888/2010\nof 7 October 2010\nnot fixing a minimum selling price in response to the eighth individual invitation to tender for the sale of butter within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 (2) has opened the sales of butter by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the eighth individual invitation to tender, no minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the eighth individual invitation to tender for selling of butter within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 5 October 2010, no minimum selling price for butter shall be fixed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 October 2010.", "references": ["14", "38", "45", "0", "65", "25", "43", "91", "29", "44", "67", "59", "17", "98", "90", "83", "55", "71", "69", "68", "75", "18", "41", "13", "79", "40", "54", "42", "27", "62", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 102/2012\nof 27 January 2012\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and Ukraine as extended to imports of steel ropes and cables consigned from Morocco, Moldova and the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in these countries or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of steel ropes and cables originating in South Africa pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 9(2), 9(4) and 11(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Previous investigations and existing measures\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1796/1999 (2) (\u2018the original Regulation\u2019), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables (\u2018SWR\u2019) originating, inter alia, in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the PRC\u2019), India, South Africa and Ukraine. These measures will hereinafter be referred to as \u2018the original measures\u2019 and the investigation that led to the measures imposed by the original Regulation will hereinafter be referred to as \u2018the original investigation\u2019.\n(2)\nIn 2001, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1601/2001 (3), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty ranging from 9,7 % to 50,7 % on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in the Russian Federation. The same level of duties was imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 (4) following partial interim and expiry reviews. In April 2004, by Regulation (EC) No 760/2004 (5), the Council extended the original measures to imports of SWR consigned from Moldova following an investigation on the circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on SWR of Ukrainian origin via Moldova. Similarly, in October 2004, by Regulation (EC) No 1886/2004 (6), the Council extended the original measures against the PRC to imports of SWR consigned from Morocco.\n(3)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 (7) the Council, following an expiry review, maintained the original measures in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. These measures will hereinafter be referred to as \u2018the measures in force\u2019 and the expiry review investigation will be hereinafter referred to as \u2018the last investigation\u2019. In May 2010, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 400/2010 (8), the Council extended the original measures to imports of SWR consigned from the Republic of Korea following an investigation on the circumvention of the anti-dumping measures on SWR of PRC origin via the Republic of Korea.\n2. Request for an expiry review\n(4)\nOn 13 November 2010, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union the initiation of an expiry review (\u2018notice of initiation\u2019) (9) of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of SWR originating in the PRC, South Africa and Ukraine pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(5)\nThe review was initiated following a substantiated request lodged by the Liaison Committee of European Union Wire Rope Industries (EWRIS) (\u2018the applicant\u2019) on behalf of Union producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 60 %, of the total Union production of SWR. The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union Industry (\u2018UI\u2019).\n(6)\nIn the absence of such evidence concerning imports originating in India, the applicant did not request the initiation of an expiry review concerning imports originating in India. Consequently, the measures applicable to imports originating in India expired on 17 November 2010 (10).\n3. Investigation\n(7)\nThe Commission officially advised the exporting producers, importers, known users and their associations, the representatives of the exporting countries, the applicant and the Union producers mentioned in the request of the initiation of the review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(8)\nIn view of the large number of exporting producers in the PRC, of Union producers and of importers involved in the investigation, sampling was initially envisaged in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would indeed be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested to make themselves known within 2 weeks of the initiation of the proceeding and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation.\n(9)\nGiven that only one exporting producer in the PRC provided the information requested in the notice of initiation and expressed its willingness to further cooperate with the Commission, it was decided not to apply sampling in the case of the exporting producers in the PRC, and to send a questionnaire to the aforementioned producer.\n(10)\nTwenty Union producers/producer groups provided the information requested in the notice of initiation and expressed their willingness to cooperate with the Commission. On the basis of the information received from the Union producers/producer groups, the Commission selected a sample of three producers/groups of producers, which were found to be representative of the UI in terms of volume of production and sales of the like product in the Union.\n(11)\nEight importers provided the information requested in the notice of initiation and expressed their willingness to cooperate with the Commission. However, since only two importers had actually imported the product concerned, the Commission decided not to apply sampling and to send a questionnaire to the aforementioned importers.\n(12)\nQuestionnaires were therefore sent to the three sampled Union producers/producer groups, to two importers and to all known exporting producers in the three countries concerned.\n(13)\nThe exporting producer in the PRC that answered to the sampling form subsequently failed to submit the questionnaire reply. It is therefore considered that no exporting producers in the PRC cooperated in the investigation.\n(14)\nOne exporting producer in Ukraine provided a limited submission at the time of the initiation of the investigation. The producer was invited to fill in a questionnaire, however it failed to submit the questionnaire reply. It is therefore considered that no exporting producers in Ukraine cooperated in the investigation.\n(15)\nOne exporting producer in South Africa provided a reply to the questionnaire.\n(16)\nReplies to the questionnaires were further received from the three sampled Union producers/producer groups, two importers and one user.\n(17)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of determining the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nUnion producers:\n-\nCASAR Drahtseilwerk Saar GmbH, Germany,\n-\nBRIDON Group composed of two companies: Bridon International Ltd, United Kingdom, and BRIDON International GmbH, Germany,\n-\nREDAELLI Tecna SpA, Italy;\n(b)\nexporting producer in South Africa:\n-\nSCAW South Africa Ltd, South Africa;\n(c)\nimporters:\n-\nHEKO Industrieerzeugnisse GmbH, Germany,\n-\nSENTECH International, France;\n(d)\nuser:\n-\nASCENSORES ORONA S coop, Spain.\n(18)\nThe investigation regarding the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2010 (\u2018review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 up to the end of the RIP (\u2018period considered\u2019).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(19)\nThe product concerned is the same as that in the original investigation and the last investigation which led to the imposition of measures currently in force, i.e. steel ropes and cables, including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm (in industry terminology often referred to as \u2018SWR\u2019), currently falling within CN codes ex 7312 10 81, ex 7312 10 83, ex 7312 10 85, ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 10 98 (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n2. Like product\n(20)\nAs established in the original and last investigations, this review investigation confirmed that SWR produced in the PRC and Ukraine and exported to the Union, SWR produced and sold on the domestic market of South Africa and exported to the Union, SWR produced and sold on the domestic market of the analogue country, Turkey, and SWR produced and sold in the Union by the Union producers have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and end uses and are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(21)\nAn importer put forward an argument that was also raised in the last investigation by the European Wire Rope Importers Association (EWRIA). It alleged that the product concerned and the products manufactured and sold in the Union differ substantially and that a distinction should be made between general and special purpose ropes. These arguments were addressed in depth in the original and last Regulations imposing provisional and definitive measures on imports of the product concerned. Furthermore, in the court case T-369/08 EWRIA v European Commission the General Court held that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment in not differentiating between general and special purpose ropes in the investigations on the basis of the available evidence (11).\n(22)\nAs the importer did not bring any new element showing that the basis on which these original findings were made had changed, the conclusions reached in the original and last Regulations are confirmed.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n(23)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether dumping was likely to continue or recur upon a possible expiry of the measures in force.\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(24)\nAs regards the PRC and Ukraine, none of the exporting producers cooperated fully. One exporting producer in Ukraine and one exporting producer in the PRC came forward and a questionnaire intended for exporting producers was sent to them. Their replies to the questionnaire were considered as incomplete and inconsistent and no verification visits could be held at their premises. The companies concerned have been duly informed in writing that under these circumstances use would have to be made of facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. In South Africa, the sole known exporting producer submitted information on its export sales to the Union during the RIP, which represented all export sales of South Africa to the Union during the same period.\n(25)\nDuring the RIP, the total import volume, as recorded in Eurostat, of SWR from the PRC, South Africa and Ukraine amounted to 4 833 tonnes, representing 2,4 % of the Union market share. During the last investigation total imports of the countries concerned amounted to 3 915 tonnes, representing 2,2 % of the Union market share.\n2. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n(26)\nIn accordance with Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation, the same methodology was used as in the original investigation, whenever circumstances have not changed or whenever the information was available. In case of non-cooperation, such as in the case of the PRC and Ukraine, use had to be made of facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.\n2.1. The PRC\n(27)\nDuring the RIP, the total import volume, as recorded in Eurostat, of SWR from the PRC amounted to 4 530 tonnes, representing 2,2 % of the Union market share.\n2.1.1. Analogue country\n(28)\nSince the PRC is an economy in transition, normal value had to be based on information obtained in an appropriate market economy third country in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(29)\nIn the last investigation, Turkey was used as an analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value. For the present investigation the applicant proposed to use again Turkey. No one objected to the choice of an analogue country.\n(30)\nThe investigation showed that Turkey had a competitive market for SWR with three domestic producers supplying around 53 % of the market and competition from imports from other third countries. There are no import duties to Turkey on the product concerned and there are no other restrictions for imports of SWR into Turkey. Finally, as mentioned in recital (20), the product produced and sold on the Turkish domestic market was alike to the product exported by the PRC exporting producer to the Union.\n(31)\nIt is therefore concluded that Turkey constitutes an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n2.1.2. Normal value\n(32)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value was established on the basis of information received from the cooperating producer in the analogue country, i.e. on the basis of the price paid or payable on the domestic market of Turkey by unrelated customers. The information provided by the producer was analysed and these sales were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade and to be representative.\n(33)\nAs a result, normal value was established as the weighted average domestic sales price to unrelated customers by the cooperating producer in Turkey.\n2.1.3. Export price\n(34)\nIn the absence of cooperation from PRC producers, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the export price was determined on the basis of publicly available information. Information collected on the basis of Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation was found to be more appropriate for the calculation of the dumping margin than Eurostat as the relevant CN codes cover a broader scope of products than the product concerned, defined in recital (19) above.\n2.1.4. Comparison\n(35)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison on an ex-factory basis and at the same level of trade between the normal value and the export price, due allowance was made for differences which were found to affect price comparability. These adjustments were made in respect of transportation costs and insurance costs in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.\n2.1.5. Dumping margin\n(36)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price to the Union. This comparison showed the existence of significant dumping of around 38 %.\n2.2. South Africa\n(37)\nDuring the RIP, as recorded in Eurostat, the total import volume of SWR from South Africa amounted to 281 tonnes, representing 0,1 % of the Union market share, i.e. at a de minimis level. The sole known exporting producer represented 100 % of these imports.\n2.2.1. Normal value\n(38)\nPursuant to Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation, normal value was established on the basis of the price paid or payable on the domestic market of South Africa by unrelated customers, since these sales were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade and to be representative.\n2.2.2. Export price\n(39)\nSince all export sales of the product concerned were made directly to independent customers in the Union, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable.\n2.2.3. Comparison\n(40)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison at the same level of trade, on an ex-factory basis, between the normal value and the export price, due allowance was made for differences which were claimed and demonstrated to affect price comparability. These adjustments were made in respect of transportation costs, insurance costs and credit costs in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.\n2.2.4. Dumping margin\n(41)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price to the Union, by product type. This comparison showed the existence of dumping amounting to 17 %, which is lower than the dumping margin of 38,6 % found in the original investigation.\n2.3. Ukraine\n(42)\nDuring the RIP, as recorded in Eurostat, the total import volume of SWR from Ukraine amounted to 22 tonnes, representing less than 0,1 % of the Union market share, i.e. at a de minimis level.\n2.3.1. Normal value\n(43)\nPursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, normal value was established on the basis of the information found in the applicant\u2019s review request, which correspond to price paid or payable on the domestic market of Ukraine by unrelated customers.\n2.3.2. Export price\n(44)\nIn the absence of cooperation from Ukrainian producers, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the export price was determined on the basis of publicly available information. Information collected on the basis of Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation was found to be the most appropriate for the calculation of the dumping margin as this information cover precisely the product concerned defined in recital (19).\n2.3.3. Comparison\n(45)\nTo ensure a fair comparison the export price was adjusted for ocean freight and insurance in the applicant\u2019s review request in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. As a result, a dumping margin of more than 80 % was established for the RIP.\n3. Likely developments of imports should measures be repealed\n3.1. Preliminary remarks\n(46)\nNone of the 28 known PRC exporting producers cooperated.\n(47)\nThe two South African exporting producers named in the request for review replied to the Commission\u2019s inquiries, but only the one with exporting interest to the Union cooperated by filling in a questionnaire. There are no other known producers in South Africa.\n(48)\nAs far as Ukraine is concerned, the known exporting producer stopped cooperation as explained in recital (14). No other producers are known in Ukraine.\n3.2. The PRC\n3.2.1. Preliminary remarks\n(49)\nIn the original investigation all PRC companies were made subject to a single anti-dumping duty at the rate of 60,4 %. Import volumes from the PRC decreased significantly, from 11 484 tonnes during the IP of the original investigation (EU-15) to 1 942 tonnes during the RIP of the last investigation (EU-25) but then increased to 4 530 tonnes in the current RIP. It is, however, noted that PRC imports have, since 2001, an increasing trend. The current market share of the PRC is around 2,2 %.\n(50)\nIn order to establish whether dumping would be likely to continue should the measures be repealed, the pricing behaviour of the exporting producers to other export markets, export prices to the Union, production capacities and circumvention practices were examined. Information relating to the import prices from exporters was determined on the basis of Eurostat, to export volumes and prices on the basis of PRC statistical information and information relating to capacity based on information included in the request. Eurostat data was found to be best suitable for the comparison with PRC statistical information as the comparison was only possible for a broader product scope, as explained in the next recital.\n3.2.2. Relationship between export prices to third countries and export prices to the Union\n(51)\nThe statistical information available from the PRC public databases covers a broader product scope than the product concerned. Therefore no meaningful analysis of quantities exported to other markets could be made on the basis of this information. The price analysis for which the PRC database could be used is based on reasonable estimations given the similar characteristics of the other products possibly included in the analysis.\n(52)\nOn the basis of the available information, as explained in the above recital, it was found that export prices from the PRC to other export markets were, on average, significantly below the export prices to the Union (by around 30 % not taking into account anti-dumping duties paid). Since, as concluded in recital (36), export sales from the PRC to the Union were made at dumped levels, this indicated that exports to other third country markets were likely dumped at even higher levels than the export sales to the Union. It was also considered that the export price level to other third countries can be seen as an indicator as to the likely price level for export sales to the Union should measures be repealed. On this basis, and given the low price levels to third country markets, it was concluded that there is a considerable margin to reduce export prices to the Union, which as a consequence would also increase the dumping.\n3.2.3. Relationship between export prices to third countries and the price level in the Union\n(53)\nIt was also found that the price level of sales by the UI in the Union was on average considerably higher than the export price level of the PRC exporter\u2019s prices to other third country markets. The fact that the generally prevailing price level for the product concerned in the Union market makes the Union market a very attractive one applies also for the PRC. The higher price level on the Union market is an incentive for increasing exports to the Union.\n3.2.4. Dumping margin\n(54)\nAs concluded in recital (36), export sales from the PRC to the Union were made at significantly dumped levels based on the normal value of the analogue country. In the absence of measures, there is no reason to consider that imports would not be made at similar dumped prices and in higher quantities.\n3.2.5. Unused capacity and stocks\n(55)\nAccording to the review request and as cross-checked on the basis of publicly available information (i.e. information published by the companies on their websites), capacities of all exporting producers in the PRC were estimated at 1 355 000 tonnes. The applicant\u2019s estimation of the capacity utilisation of PRC producers is around 63 % giving an unused capacity of more than 500 000 tonnes. The applicant also provided information about further production facilities that are being set up and the size of the domestic market. PRC producers thus have significant spare capacities largely exceeding not only the export quantity to the Union during the RIP but the total Union consumption. Thus, the capacity to vastly increase export quantities to the Union exists, in particular, because there are no indications that third country markets or the domestic market could absorb any additional production in such quantities. In this regard it should be noted that it is very unlikely that the domestic market in the PRC, due to the presence of a considerable number of competing producers, would be able to absorb significant volumes of these spare capacities.\n3.2.6. Circumvention practices\n(56)\nThe measures in force on imports of the product concerned from the PRC were found to have been circumvented by means of imports transhipped via Morocco in 2004 and via the Republic of Korea in 2010. This indicates the clear interest in the Union market of sellers of PRC SWR and their unwillingness to compete on the Union market at non-dumped levels. This is considered as a further indication that PRC exports would likely increase in volume and enter the Union market at dumped prices, should measures be repealed.\n3.3. South Africa\n3.3.1. Preliminary remarks\n(57)\nThere are two known producers in South Africa. As explained above, one exporting producer cooperated in this review investigation.\n(58)\nThe other known producer showed no interest in exporting to the Union stating its production capacities are fully utilised and sold on the domestic South African market.\n(59)\nImports from South Africa dropped considerably since the imposition of the original measures. The market share of imports from South Africa (0,1 %) was below the de minimis threshold during the RIP, amounting in total to 281 tonnes. Moreover, most of these imports were eventually destined for offshore use, which has developed considerably since the previous investigation and were not customs cleared in the EU. Only minor quantities of the product concerned were released for free circulation in the EU.\n(60)\nIn order to establish whether dumping would continue should measures be repealed, information provided by the cooperating exporter relating to export volumes and prices to the Union and to third countries, unused capacity and stocks and the situation of the South African domestic market were examined.\n3.3.2. Relationship between export prices to third countries and export prices to the Union\n(61)\nThe cooperating exporter of the product concerned provided information regarding volumes and prices in export markets other than the Union. The exporting producer sells a considerable part of its production on exports markets even though export volumes decreased during the period under consideration. The company\u2019s export activity is focused mostly on two specific segments of the market: ropes for deep shaft mining and offshore drilling related applications.\n(62)\nThe company\u2019s export prices to third countries compared to the export prices to the Union including the applicable anti-dumping duty were overall significantly higher in all years in the period under consideration (30 % to 70 %). The price advantage reached by the exporter on other third country markets in comparison to prices on the Union market suggests that the exporter would not enter the Union market with significant quantities in the future, should measures be repealed. In this regard, it was also considered that, as explained in recital (61) above, the export activities of the company are focused on products that are not primarily demanded on the Union market.\n3.3.3. Unused capacity and stocks\n(63)\nSince the last investigation, the cooperating exporting producer kept stocks at a stable level. The capacity utilisation (around 70-75 %) was also at customary levels given the technical constraints in the production process. The maximum available spare capacity is in the range 1 500-3 500 tonnes. The exporting producer does not plan to expand its production capacities by significant amounts. The capacity to increase export quantities to the Union seems very limited in view of the fact that third country markets or the domestic market could absorb any additional production.\n(64)\nIt is furthermore noted that production goes mainly to domestic market where high profits are achieved, therefore the company has no interest to export significant quantities to the Union.\n3.4. Ukraine\n3.4.1. Preliminary remarks\n(65)\nGiven the absence of cooperation from the known Ukrainian exporting producer, as explained in recital (14) above, findings were based on facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. Since little information is known about the Ukrainian industry, the following conclusions rely on the information provided in the applicant\u2019s review request and publicly available trade statistics. It is noted that there are no other known producers in Ukraine and that the following considerations regarding in particular production capacities, relate to the known exporting producer.\n(66)\nIn order to establish whether dumping would be likely to continue should measures be repealed, the export prices to third countries and to the Union, unused capacities and circumvention practices were examined.\n3.4.2. Relationship between export prices to third countries and export prices to the Union\n(67)\nIn the absence of any other more reliable information, the information provided for in the request with regard to other export markets, based on publicly available statistics, has been taken into account. An analysis of the figures available showed that the average export prices to these countries were significantly below the average export prices to the Union. As already explained above, in the case of the PRC and South Africa, export prices to other third countries were considered as an indicator for the likely price level for export sales to the Union, should measures be repealed. On this basis, it was concluded that there is a considerable margin to reduce export prices to the Union, and very likely at dumped levels.\n3.4.3. Unused capacity\n(68)\nIn recent years the two previously known exporting producers merged their activities. As a result, the production capacity as established in the last investigation was downsized. According to the evidence available in the request and as stated by the known exporting producer, the estimated production capacity in Ukraine is in the range 35 000-40 000 tonnes, of which around 70 % is used for actual production. The spare capacity, which is in the range 10 500-12 000 tonnes, thus indicates that the capacity to significantly increase export quantities to the Union does exist. The apparent consumption in Ukraine calculated on the basis of the known production and statistical information about imports and exports indicates that the domestic market cannot absorb any additional capacities. Ukraine thus remains the country from where the redirection of the unused capacities to the Union market is the most imminent from all countries concerned, in particular because there are no indications that third country markets or the domestic market could absorb any additional production.\n3.4.4. Circumvention practices\n(69)\nFollowing the imposition of the existing measures on imports of SWR from Ukraine, it was found that these measures were being circumvented by imports of SWR from Moldova. It was considered that the circumvention practice detected was an additional factor indicating the interest in entering the Union market and the inability to compete on the Union market at non-dumped levels.\n3.5. Conclusion\n(70)\nContinuation of significant dumping was found for the PRC and Ukraine and of a reduced level for South Africa, albeit import volumes from South Africa and Ukraine were at low levels.\n(71)\nFor the examination as to whether it would be likely that dumping would continue should the anti-dumping measures be repealed, spare capacities and unused stocks as well as pricing and export strategies in different markets were analysed. This examination showed that there were important spare capacities and accumulated stocks in the PRC and to a lesser degree in Ukraine. No significant spare capacities or abnormal stocks were observed in South Africa. It was further found that export prices to other third countries were generally lower than those to the Union market in case of the PRC and Ukraine and that the Union therefore remained an attractive market for the exporting producers from these countries. South African exports to other countries were however at significantly higher levels than exports to the Union and appeared not to be at dumped prices. It was therefore concluded that exports from the PRC and Ukraine to third countries would very likely be redirected to the Union should the access to the Union market be without anti-dumping measures. The available spare production capacities would also likely lead to increased imports from these countries. An analysis of the pricing strategies revealed furthermore that these exports from Ukraine and the PRC would most likely be made at dumped prices. These conclusions were reinforced by the fact that for both the PRC and Ukraine the existing measures were found to have been circumvented by imports via other countries which indicated that exporting countries were not able to compete in the Union market at fair prices. Conversely, the South African producer was considered able to compete with other producers, including the Union producers, on other third country markets at fair prices. Considering the above, it is established for the PRC and Ukraine that dumping would likely continue in significant quantities, should measures be allowed to expire. On the contrary, taking into account the decreased level of dumping since the original investigation, the fact that exports to other countries were made at significantly higher prices than to the EU and the predictably low demand for South African products, it is considered that the continuation of dumped imports in significant quantities would not be likely with regard to imports from South Africa.\n(72)\nThe Ukrainian Government commented on the above findings arguing that the allegation that the repeal of anti-dumping measures would lead to a switch by the Ukrainian producer to the Union market is exaggerated and unreasonable. To support its claim the Government argued that the measures in force resulted in the loss of customer contacts in the EU and thus the end of exports to the Union and that Ukrainian exports are now focused on the CIS and Asian markets instead. The Government however failed to comment on the attractiveness of the Union market resulting from the considerable price difference on these markets as mentioned in recital (67) above, and thus missed the point that there is indeed a likelihood that Ukrainian exports would be redirected to the Union should measures be allowed to expire.\n(73)\nAfter disclosure, the applicant argued that the decreasing volume of exports by the South African producer to other markets is predicted to lead to increased spare capacities that will not be absorbed by the domestic market and thus will lead to increasing imports to the Union. These arguments were however not substantiated by evidence. On the contrary, it was observed that the cooperating exporter\u2019s falling export sales during the period considered were mitigated by domestic sales that decreased to a lesser extent during the same period. Also, the overall sales volume of the company increased between 2009 and the IP. Thus there is no indication that the applicant\u2019s argumentation could be justified.\n(74)\nThe applicant further criticised the Commission for not taking into account the non-cooperation of the other South African producer and that the fact that this company did not export in the past is not a reason that it will not export in the future. In this respect it is noted that over the period considered this company did not export to the Union. Anti-dumping measures do not serve as an instrument to prohibit legitimate imports to the Union. This claim thus had to be rejected.\nD. UNION PRODUCTION AND UNION INDUSTRY\n(75)\nWithin the Union, SWR are manufactured by over 25 producers/producer groups, which constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(76)\nAs indicated under recital (10), a sample consisting of 3 producers/producer groups companies was selected out of the following 20 Union producers which submitted the required information:\n-\nBRIDON Group composed of Bridon International Ltd (United Kingdom) and Bridon International GmbH (Germany),\n-\nCASAR Drahtseilwerk Saar GmbH (Germany),\n-\nPfeifer Drako Drahtseilwerk GmbH (Germany),\n-\nDrahtseilwerk Hemer GmbH and Co. KG (Germany),\n-\nWestf\u00e4lische Drahtindustrie GmbH (Germany),\n-\nTeufelberger Seil GmbH (Germany),\n-\nZBD Group A.S. (Czech Republic),\n-\nCables y Alambres especiales, SA (Spain),\n-\nManuel Rodrigues de Oliveira Sa & Filhos, SA (Portugal),\n-\nD. Koronakis SA (Greece),\n-\nN. Leventeris SA (Greece),\n-\nDrumet SA (Poland),\n-\nMetizi JSC (Bulgaria),\n-\nArcelor Mittal Wire France (France),\n-\nBrunton Shaw UK Limited (United Kingdom),\n-\nSirme Si Cabluri S.A./CORD S.A. (Romania),\n-\nRedaelli Tecna SpA (Italy),\n-\nRemer SRL (Italy),\n-\nMetal Press SRL (Italy),\n-\nRanders Reb International A/S (Denmark).\n(77)\nIt is noted that the 3 sampled Union producers accounted for 40 % of the total Union production during the RIP, whilst the above 20 Union producers accounted for 96 % of the total Union production during the RIP which is considered to be representative of the entire Union production.\nE. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Consumption in the Union market\n(78)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the UI on the Union market, and Eurostat data for all EU imports.\n(79)\nUnion consumption decreased by 21 % from 255 985 tonnes to 203 331 tonnes between 2007 and the RIP. Specifically, after increasing slightly by 1 % in 2008, it dropped significantly by 22 percentage points in 2009 as a consequence of the economic downturn and remained at a similar level in the RIP.\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nUnion consumption\n(in tonnes)\n255 986\n257 652\n201 975\n203 331\nindex\n100\n101\n79\n79\n2. Imports from the countries concerned\n2.1. Cumulation\n(80)\nIn the previous investigations, imports of SWR originating in the PRC, South Africa and Ukraine were assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation. It was examined whether a cumulative assessment was also appropriate in the current investigation.\n(81)\nIn this respect, it was found that the margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country was more than de minimis. As regards the quantities, a prospective analysis of the likely export volumes by each country, should measures be repealed, was performed. It revealed that imports from the PRC and Ukraine, unlike South Africa, would be likely to increase to levels significantly above those reached in the RIP and certainly exceed the negligibility threshold, if measures were repealed. As to South Africa, it was found that the capacity to increase export quantities to the Union was very limited in view of the low spare capacity and the fact that third country markets or the domestic market could absorb additional production, if any.\n(82)\nWith regard to the conditions of competition between the imported products, it was found that imports from South Africa were not directly competing with imports from the other two countries. In this regard, the prices of the product types imported from South Africa were considerably higher, as shown in recitals (87) and (91) below, than the imports from the other two countries. Indeed, these higher prices led to the absence of price undercutting by imports from South Africa contrary to the finding of significant price undercutting by imports from the other two countries.\n(83)\nRegarding imports from the three countries concerned, the investigation has found that the imported SWR from these countries were alike in their basic physical and technical characteristics. Furthermore, the various types of imported SWR were interchangeable with types produced in the Union and they were marketed in the Union during the same period. In light of the above, it was considered that the imported SWR originating in the countries concerned competed with the SWR produced in the Union.\n(84)\nOn the basis of the above, it was therefore considered that the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met with regard to the PRC and Ukraine. Imports from these two countries were therefore examined cumulatively. Since the criteria set in Article 3(4), and in particular the conditions of competition between imported products thereof, were not met with regard to South Africa, imports originating in this country were examined individually.\n2.2. Imports from the PRC and Ukraine\n2.2.1. Volume, market share and prices of imports\n(85)\nAccording to Eurostat data, the volume of imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC and Ukraine decreased by 54 % during the period considered. A considerable drop by 43 percentage points was observed in 2009 then followed by a further decrease by 13 percentage points in the RIP.\n(86)\nThe market share of PRC and Ukrainian imports decreased from 3,8 % to 2,2 % during the period considered.\n(87)\nAs far as import prices are concerned, they increased by 29 % over the period considered. After increasing by 11 % in 2008, they increased further in 2009 and remained stable in the RIP.\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nImport\n(in tonnes)\n9 844\n10 081\n5 830\n4 553\nindex\n100\n102\n59\n46\nMarket share (%)\n3,8\n3,9\n2,9\n2,2\nindex\n100\n102\n75\n58\nPrice of import\n1 073\n1 195\n1 394\n1 388\nindex\n100\n111\n130\n129\n2.2.2. Price undercutting\n(88)\nIn view of the absence of cooperation by the PRC and Ukrainian exporting producers, price undercutting had to be established on import statistics by CN code-using information collected on the basis of Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation. In the RIP, the undercutting margin for imports of SWR originating in the PRC and Ukraine ranged, anti-dumping duty excluded, from 47,4 % to 58,2 %.\n2.3. Imports from South Africa\n2.3.1. Volume, market share and prices of imports from South Africa\n(89)\nAccording to Eurostat data, the volume of imports of the product concerned originating in South Africa decreased by 77 % during the period considered. A considerable drop by 94 percentage points was observed in 2009 then followed by a small increase of 17 percentage points in the RIP.\n(90)\nThe market share of South African imports has decreased from 0,5 % to 0,1 % during the period considered.\n(91)\nAs far as import prices are concerned, they have increased steadily by 52 % over the period considered.\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nImport\n(in tonnes)\n1 229\n846\n73\n281\nindex\n100\n69\n6\n23\nMarket share (%)\n0,5\n0,3\n0,0\n0,1\nindex\n100\n68\n7\n29\nPrice of import\n1 504\n1 929\n2 217\n2 280\nindex\n100\n128\n147\n152\n2.3.2. Price undercutting\n(92)\nPrice undercutting was established using the export prices of the cooperating South African producer, without anti-dumping duty, and was found to be negative. In view of the absence of any other exporting producer in South Africa, this conclusion is also valid for the country as a whole.\n3. Imports from countries to which the measures were extended\n3.1. Republic of Korea\n(93)\nAs mentioned in recital (3) above, it was found that circumvention of the original measures concerning the PRC took place via the Republic of Korea (South Korea). Consequently, the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports originating in the PRC was extended to imports of the same SWR consigned from South Korea, with the exception of those produced by 11 genuine South Korean producers.\n(94)\nFollowing the anti-circumvention investigation and the extension of the anti-dumping duty to imports consigned from South Korea, imports decreased significantly and the market share decreased from 18,7 % in 2007 to 12,8 % in the RIP. This percentage appears to correspond to the share of genuine Korean exporting producers which were granted each an exemption.\n3.2. Moldova\n(95)\nImports originating in or consigned from Moldova were found to be close to zero during the period considered. Hence, no further analysis was deemed necessary.\n3.3. Morocco\n(96)\nImports originating in or consigned from Morocco declined by 51 % during the period considered. Their market share represented less than 0,5 % during the period considered.\n4. Other country concerned by anti-dumping measures\n(97)\nAccording to Eurostat data, the volume of imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Russian Federation as defined in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1601/2001 (12) decreased by 41 % during the period considered.\n(98)\nThe market share of Russian imports decreased from 1,5 % in 2007 to 1,1 % in the RIP.\n5. Economic Situation of the UI\n(99)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the UI.\n5.1. Preliminary remarks\n(100)\nIn view of the fact that sampling was used with regard to the UI, the injury was assessed both on the basis of information collected at the level of the entire UI as defined in recital (75) and on the basis of information collected at the level of the sampled Union producers.\n(101)\nWhere recourse is made to sampling, in accordance with established practice, certain injury indicators (production, capacity, productivity, stocks, sales, market share, growth and employment) are analysed for the UI as a whole, while those injury indicators relating to the performance of individual companies, i.e. prices, costs of production, profitability, wages, investments, return on investment, cash flow and ability to raise capital are examined on the basis of the information collected at the level of the sampled Union producers.\n(102)\nOne of the producers of the sampled group Bridon, Bridon International Limited, kept its accounts in GBP during the period considered. As a result, certain injury indicators were influenced by the fluctuation of the exchange rate between GBP and EUR during the period considered.\n5.2. Data relating to the UI\n(a) Production\n(103)\nThe UI\u2019s production decreased by 9 % between 2007 and the RIP, i.e. from 182 681 tonnes to 165 394 tonnes. Production volume remained unchanged in 2008 before dropping significantly by 13 % in 2009 as a consequence of the global economic downturn. It recovered in the RIP and increased by 4 percentage points. The production volume decreased less than the consumption on the Union market as a consequence of the demand on non-EU markets.\nUI\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProduction volume\n(in tonnes)\n182 681\n182 691\n159 266\n165 394\nindex\n100\n100\n87\n91\n(b) Capacity and capacity utilisation rates\n(104)\nProduction capacity decreased by 6 % during the period considered. In 2009, it decreased by 10 % before increasing by 4 percentage points in the RIP. As production declined relatively more than capacity, the resulting capacity utilisation declined, from 69 % in 2007 to 66 % in the RIP.\nUI\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nCapacity\n265 779\n261 383\n239 312\n249 254\nindex\n100\n98\n90\n94\nCapacity utilisation (%)\n69\n70\n67\n66\nindex\n100\n102\n97\n97\n(c) Stocks\n(105)\nThe level of closing stocks of the UI increased in 2008 and 2009 but decreased in the RIP to the 2007 level.\nUI\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nClosing stock\n(in tonnes)\n12 656\n13 254\n12 790\n12 651\nindex\n100\n105\n101\n100\n(d) Sales volume\n(106)\nThe sales by the UI on the Union market decreased by 20 % between 2007 and the RIP. After decreasing by 5 % in 2008, sales volume further decreased by 24 percentage points in 2009 as a consequence of the economic downturn. This development is in line with the evolution of the Union market, which declined by 21 % between 2007 and the RIP as a result of the economic downturn.\nUI\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nSales to unrelated parties in the Union (in tonnes)\n112 387\n106 431\n80 340\n89 551\nindex\n100\n95\n71\n80\n(e) Market share\n(107)\nThe UI managed to keep its market share unchanged at 44 % between 2007 and the RIP. The years 2008 and 2009 however showed a drop in market share down to respectively 41 % and 40 % of the Union consumption.\nUI\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nMarket share (%)\n44\n41\n40\n44\nindex\n100\n94\n91\n100\n(f) Growth\n(108)\nBetween 2007 and the RIP, when the Union consumption decreased by 21 %, the sales volume of the UI decreased by only 20 %. The UI thus slightly gained market share, whereas the imports from the countries concerned lost almost 2 percentage points during the same period.\n(g) Employment\n(109)\nThe level of employment of the UI declined by 12 % between 2007 and the RIP. The main decrease took place in 2009 when employment decreased by 8 percentage points. This shows that the UI was able to adapt to the new market situation.\nUI\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nEmployment\n3 052\n2 978\n2 752\n2 694\nindex\n100\n98\n90\n88\n(h) Productivity\n(110)\nProductivity of the UI\u2019s workforce, measured as output per full time equivalent (\u2018FTE\u2019) employed per year, was volatile over the period considered as it increased by 2 percentage points in 2008 then decreased by 5 percentage points in 2009 before increasing by 6 percentage points in the RIP.\nUI\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProductivity\n59,9\n61,3\n57,9\n61,4\nindex\n100\n102\n97\n103\n(i) Magnitude of dumping margin\n(111)\nAs concerns the impact on the UI of the magnitude of the actual margins of dumping found which were high, given the overall volume of the imports from the countries concerned and the existence of anti-dumping duties, this impact cannot be considered to be significant.\n5.3. Data relating to the sampled Union producers\n(j) Sales prices and factors affecting domestic prices\n(112)\nUnit sales prices of the UI increased by 11 % between 2007 and the RIP. Prices increased progressively by 16 % until 2009 before dropping by 5 percentage points in the RIP. This price development is linked to the fact that the UI was able to spread highly priced orders taken before the economic downturn over to 2009. It is also linked to the progressive migration of the UI towards more highly priced SWR, namely larger diameter SWR.\nSampled producers\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nAverage unit sales price in the EU (EUR/tonne)\n3 219\n3 492\n3 720\n3 560\nindex\n100\n108\n116\n111\n(k) Wages\n(113)\nBetween 2007 and the RIP, the average wage per FTE decreased by 12 % during the period considered. No meaningful conclusion should however be drawn from the below table as wages per employee were heavily influenced by the fluctuation of the GBP - EUR exchange rate during the period considered.\nSampled producers\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nWages per FTE (EUR)\n55 062\n50 570\n46 638\n48 329\nindex\n100\n92\n85\n88\n(l) Investments and ability to raise capital\n(114)\nAlthough investments in SWR decreased by 32 % over the period considered, they were significant and amounted to over EUR 35 million. Investments mainly concentrated on high margin SWR. The sampled producers did not face difficulty to raise capital over the period considered as the investments could usually be paid back within a few years.\nSampled producers\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nInvestments\n(EUR 1 000)\n12 331\n9 038\n6 283\n8 406\nindex\n100\n73\n51\n68\n(m) Profitability on the Union market\n(115)\nThe sampled producers managed to achieve profits over the whole period considered. The profits achieved from 2008 to the RIP were above the target profit of 5 % set in the original investigation. The results achieved by the sampled producers are mainly explained by the price development between 2007 and the RIP and by the sustained global demand for the sampled producers that enabled them to dilute fix costs. The drop in profitability in the RIP is explained by a drop in prices and by a decrease in production volume which had a negative impact on cost of production.\nSampled producers\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nProfitability on the Union market (%)\n3,6\n5,7\n11,1\n6,5\nindex\n100\n158\n307\n179\n(n) Return on investments\n(116)\nThe return on investments (ROI), expressed as the total profit generated by the SWR activity in percent of the net book value of assets directly and indirectly related to the production of SWR, broadly followed the above profitability trends over the whole period considered.\nSampled producers\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nROI (%)\n24,5\n45\n76,4\n69,6\nindex\n100\n184\n312\n284\n(o) Cash flow\n(117)\nThe cash-flow situation improved between 2007 and the RIP, it followed the above profitability trends over the whole period considered.\nSampled producers\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRIP\nCash Flow\n(EUR 1 000)\n20 255\n38 579\n60 276\n45 841\nindex\n100\n190\n298\n226\n(p) Recovery from the effects of past dumping\n(118)\nWhile the indicators examined above show that the UI suffered from the economic downturn as sales volume, production volume, employment and investments went down, they also indicate that the UI adapted its production equipment to better face the new economic environment and be able to seize opportunities on EU and non-EU markets in segments where high margins can be achieved. The improvement in the economic and financial situation of the UI, further to the imposition of anti-dumping measures in 1999, is evidence that the measures are effective and that the UI recovered from the effects of past dumping practices.\n(119)\nThe Ukrainian Government indicated that it failed to understand how the lifting of anti-dumping duties against Ukrainian imports could injure the UI when its injury indicators mostly showed positive trends in a period of economic crisis and especially between 2009 and the RIP. This analysis was however based on a limited period of time and not the whole period considered. It should be noted that this period is not representative of the overall trend, which started from a situation where the target profit was not even achieved and was eventually reached in spite of the economic crisis which affected the UI and its indicators at the end of the period considered. Indeed, as indicated in recitals (112) and (115), the relatively positive overall picture showed by the UI is explained on the one hand by the heavy order book at the end of 2008 that was spread over 2009 and by the increase in consumption on non-EU markets which contributed to overall positive trends with regard to profit-related indicators.\n5.4. Conclusion\n(120)\nAlthough consumption decreased by 21 %, the UI managed to maintain its market share, prices increased by 11 %, and stocks remained at a reasonable level while production volume decreased less than consumption. In terms of profitability, the UI was profitable throughout the period considered. Considering the above, it can be concluded that the UI did not suffer material injury over the period considered.\nF. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY\n(121)\nAs explained in recitals (55) and (68), the exporting producers in the PRC and Ukraine have the potential to substantially raise their exports volume to the Union by using the available spare capacities. Indeed, significant capacities are available reaching more than 500 000 tonnes which represents the entire Union consumption. It is therefore likely that substantial quantities of PRC and Ukrainian SWR will penetrate the Union market to regain lost market share and increase it further should measures be repealed.\n(122)\nAs highlighted in recital (88), prices of imports from PRC and Ukraine were found to be low and to undercut EU prices. These low prices would most likely continue to be charged. Indeed, in the case of Ukraine, as indicated in recital (67), prices may even drop further. Such a price behaviour, coupled with the ability of the exporters in these countries to deliver significant quantities of the product concerned on the Union market, would in all likelihood have a downward effect on prices in the Union market, with an expected negative impact on the economic situation of the UI. As shown above, the financial performance of the UI is closely linked to the price level on the Union market. It is therefore likely that if the UI were exposed to increased volumes of imports from the PRC and Ukraine at dumped prices it would result in a deterioration of its financial situation as found in the original investigation. On this basis, it is therefore concluded, that the repeal of the measures against imports originating in the PRC and Ukraine would in all likelihood result in the recurrence of injury to the UI.\n(123)\nAs far as South Africa is concerned and as indicated in recital (63), spare capacities appear to be limited. As highlighted in recital (92), South African export prices to the EU were found not to undercut the UI prices. Given the low volume exported to the EU that entered the Union market, exports prices of South African SWR to the five main non-EU markets were also compared to the UI prices on a product type basis. These prices were found not to undercut the UI prices either.\n(124)\nConsidering the limited spare capacities and the absence of price undercutting, it is concluded that the repeal of the measures on imports originating in South Africa would in all likelihood not result in the recurrence of injury to the UI.\nG. UNION INTEREST\n1. Introduction\n(125)\nIn compliance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures against the PRC and Ukraine would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved. It should be recalled that, in the previous investigations, the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place, allows the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.\n(126)\nOn this basis, it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures against imports originating in the PRC and Ukraine in this particular case.\n2. Interest of the UI\n(127)\nThe UI has proven to be a structurally viable industry. This was confirmed by the positive development of its economic situation observed during the period considered. In particular, the fact that the UI maintained its market share over the period considered contrasts sharply with the situation preceding the imposition of the measures in 1999. Also, it is noted that the UI improved its profit situation between 2007 and the RIP. It is further recalled that circumvention had been found by imports from Morocco, Moldova and South Korea. Had this development not occurred, the situation of the UI could have been even more favourable.\n(128)\nIt can reasonably be expected that the UI will continue to benefit from the measures to be maintained. Should the measures against imports originating in the PRC and Ukraine not be maintained, it is likely that the UI will start again to suffer injury from increased imports at dumped prices from these countries and that its financial situation will deteriorate.\n3. Interest of importers\n(129)\nIt is recalled that in the previous investigations it was found that the impact of the imposition of measures would not be significant. As indicated in recital (11), two importers replied to the questionnaire and cooperated fully in this proceeding. They indicated that measures were pushing prices up. The investigation however revealed that other sources of supply existed and that import prices from other countries were at similar levels as the PRC ones.\n(130)\nOn the basis of the above, it was concluded that the current measures in force had no substantial negative effect on their financial situation and that the continuation of the measures would not unduly affect the importers.\n4. Interest of users\n(131)\nSWR are used in a wide variety of applications and therefore a large number of user industries might be concerned, such as fishing, maritime/shipping, oil and gas industries, mining, forestry, aerial transport, civil engineering, construction, and elevator. The above list of user industries is only indicative.\n(132)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all known users. As mentioned in recital (16), only one user cooperated in this proceeding. It indicated that it did not suffer from the existence of the measures as other sources were available and that SWR did not represent a significant share of its cost of production. In this context, it was concluded that given the negligible incidence of the cost of SWR on the user industries and the existence of other available sources of supply, the measures in force do not have a significant effect on the user industry.\n5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(133)\nGiven the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.\nH. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(134)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC and Ukraine and be terminated with regard to imports originating in South Africa. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure. No comments were received which were of a nature to change the above conclusions.\n(135)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of SWR, originating in the PRC and Ukraine should be maintained. In opposition, the measures applicable to imports from South Africa should be allowed to lapse.\n(136)\nAs outlined under recitals (2) and (3) above, the anti-dumping duties in force on imports of the product concerned from Ukraine and the PRC were extended to cover, in addition, imports of SWR consigned from Moldova, Morocco and the Republic of Korea respectively, whether declared as originating in Moldova, Morocco or the Republic of Korea or not. The anti-dumping duty to be maintained on imports of the product concerned, as set out in recital (2), should continue to be extended to imports of SWR consigned from Moldova, Morocco and the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in Moldova, Morocco and the Republic of Korea or not. The exporting producer in Morocco who was exempted from the measures as extended by Regulation (EC) No 1886/2004 should also be exempted from the measures as imposed by this Regulation. The 11 exporting producers in South Korea who were exempted from the measures as extended by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 400/2010 should also be exempted from the measures as imposed by this Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of steel ropes and cables including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm, currently falling within CN codes ex 7312 10 81, ex 7312 10 83, ex 7312 10 85, ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 10 98 (TARIC codes 7312108111, 7312108112, 7312108113, 7312108119, 7312108311, 7312108312, 7312108313, 7312108319, 7312108511, 7312108512, 7312108513, 7312108519, 7312108911, 7312108912, 7312108913, 7312108919, 7312109811, 7312109812, 7312109813 and 7312109819) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and Ukraine.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the CIF net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China shall be 60,4 %.\n3. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the CIF net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and originating in Ukraine shall be 51,8 %.\n4. The definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to imports originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, as set out in paragraph 2, is hereby extended to imports of the same steel ropes and cables consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not (TARIC codes 7312108112, 7312108312, 7312108512, 7312108912 and 7312109812) with the exception of those produced by Remer Maroc SARL, Zone Industrielle, Tranche 2, Lot 10, Settat, Morocco (TARIC additional code A567) and to imports of the same steel ropes and cables consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not (TARIC codes 7312108113, 7312108313, 7312108513, 7312108913 and 7312109813), with the exception of those produced by the companies listed below:\nCountry\nCompany\nTARIC additional code\nThe Republic of Korea\nBosung Wire Rope Co., Ltd, 568, Yongdeok-ri, Hallim-myeon, Gimhae-si, Gyeongsangnam-do, 621-872\nA969\nChung Woo Rope Co., Ltd, 1682-4, Songjung-Dong, Gangseo-Gu, Busan\nA969\nCS Co., Ltd, 287-6 Soju-Dong Yangsan-City, Kyoungnam\nA969\nCosmo Wire Ltd, 4-10, Koyeon-Ri, Woong Chon-Myon Ulju-Kun, Ulsan\nA969\nDae Heung Industrial Co., Ltd, 185 Pyunglim - Ri, Daesan-Myun, Haman - Gun, Gyungnam\nA969\nDSR Wire Corp., 291, Seonpyong-Ri, Seo-Myon, Suncheon-City, Jeonnam\nA969\nKiswire Ltd, 20th Fl. Jangkyo Bldg., 1, Jangkyo-Dong, Chung-Ku, Seoul\nA969\nManho Rope & Wire Ltd, Dongho Bldg, 85-2, 4 Street Joongang-Dong, Jong-gu, Busan\nA969\nShin Han Rope Co., Ltd, 715-8, Gojan-dong, Namdong-gu, Incheon\nA969\nSsang Yong Cable Mfg. Co., Ltd, 1559-4 Song-Jeong Dong, Gang-Seo Gu, Busan\nA969\nYoung Heung Iron & Steel Co., Ltd, 71-1 Sin-Chon Dong, Changwon City, Gyungnam\nA969\n5. The definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to imports originating in Ukraine, as set out in paragraph 3, is hereby extended to imports of the same steel ropes and cables consigned from Moldova, whether declared as originating in Moldova or not (TARIC codes 7312108111, 7312108311, 7312108511,7312108911 and 7312109811).\n6. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\n7. The review proceeding concerning imports of steel ropes and cables including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm, originating in South Africa and currently falling within CN codes ex 7312 10 81, ex 7312 10 83, ex 7312 10 85, ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 10 98, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 January 2012.", "references": ["25", "47", "51", "41", "74", "36", "1", "71", "11", "92", "80", "43", "24", "2", "0", "35", "8", "46", "32", "19", "6", "7", "81", "88", "54", "66", "49", "62", "56", "87", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "82", "84", "91", "94", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "82", "84", "91", "94", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 568/2010\nof 29 June 2010\namending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the prohibition to place on the market or use for animal nutritional purposes protein products obtained from yeasts of the Candida variety cultivated on n-alkanes\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the placing on the market and use of feed, amending European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 and repealing Council Directive 79/373/EEC, Commission Directive 80/511/EEC, Council Directives 82/471/EEC, 83/228/EEC, 93/74/EEC, 93/113/EC and 96/25/EC and Commission Decision 2004/217/EC (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 6(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 767/2009 lays down general safety and marketing requirements for feed. In particular it contains a list of materials whose placing on the market or use for animal nutritional purposes is restricted or prohibited.\n(2)\nCouncil Directive 82/471/EEC (2) and Commission Decision 85/382/EEC of 10 July 1985 prohibiting the use in feedingstuffs of protein products obtained from Candida yeasts cultivated on n-alkanes (3) prohibit the placing on the market and the use in feed of protein products obtained from Candida yeasts cultivated on n-alkanes. The reason for this prohibition is that certain strains of yeast of the Candida variety cultivated on n-alkanes are pathogenic and, in some circumstances, may give rise to hypersensitivity reactions, thus presenting potential hazards to animal or human health.\n(3)\nSince there are neither new technical developments nor new evidence establishing that the use of such protein products for animal nutritional purposes is safe, the placing on the market and the use of those products should continue to be prohibited and Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 should establish that prohibition.\n(4)\nThe list of materials whose placing on the market for animal nutritional purposes is prohibited, previously provided for in Commission Decision 2004/217/EC (4), had to be included in Chapter 1 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 767/2009, in order to manage feed safety risks.\n(5)\nPoints 5 and 6 of Chapter 1 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 should be aligned with Decision 2004/217/EC.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 767/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nIn the interests of clarity, Decision 85/382/EEC should be repealed.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nChapter 1 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 is amended as follows:\n1.\npoints 5 and 6 are replaced by the following:\n\u20185.\nAll waste obtained from the various phases of the treatment of the urban, domestic and industrial waste water, as defined in Article 2 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (5), irrespective of any further processing of that waste and irrespective of the origin of the waste waters (6).\n6.\nSolid urban waste (7), such as household waste.\n2.\nthe following point 8 is added:\n\u20188.\nProtein products obtained from yeasts of the Candida variety cultivated on n-alkanes.\u2019\nArticle 2\nDecision 85/382/EEC is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2010.", "references": ["48", "56", "35", "97", "55", "53", "89", "26", "59", "60", "96", "6", "17", "39", "16", "79", "61", "2", "30", "57", "3", "29", "33", "88", "86", "15", "7", "14", "93", "87", "No Label", "21", "23", "25", "38", "66", "77"], "gold": ["21", "23", "25", "38", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 915/2010\nof 12 October 2010\nconcerning a coordinated multiannual control programme of the Union for 2011, 2012 and 2013 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of and to assess the consumer exposure to pesticide residues in and on food of plant and animal origin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 1213/2008 (2) a first coordinated multiannual Community programme, covering the years 2009, 2010 and 2011, was established. That programme continued under Commission Regulation (EC) No 901/2009 of 28 September 2009 concerning a coordinated multiannual Community control programme for 2010, 2011 and 2012 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of and to assess the consumer exposure to pesticide residues in and on food of plant and animal origin (3).\n(2)\nThirty to forty foodstuffs constitute the major components of the diet in the Union. Since pesticide uses show significant changes over a period of 3 years, pesticides should be monitored in those foodstuffs over a series of 3-year cycles to allow consumer exposure and the application of European Union legislation to be assessed.\n(3)\nOn the basis of a binomial probability distribution, it can be calculated that examination of 642 samples allows, with a certainty of more than 99 %, the detection of a sample containing pesticide residues above the limit of determination (LOD), provided that not less than 1 % of the products contain residues above that limit. Collection of these samples should be apportioned among Member States according to population numbers, with a minimum of 12 samples per product and per year.\n(4)\nWhere the residue definition of a pesticide includes other active substances, metabolites or breakdown products, those metabolites should be reported separately where relevant.\n(5)\nGuidance concerning \u2018Method Validation and Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis in food and feed\u2019 is published on the Commission website (4). Member States should be allowed, under certain conditions, to use qualitative screening methods.\n(6)\nFor the sampling procedures Commission Directive 2002/63/EC of 11 July 2002 establishing Community methods of sampling for the official control of pesticide residues in and on products of plant and animal origin and repealing Directive 79/700/EEC (5) which incorporates the sampling methods and procedures recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission should apply.\n(7)\nIt is necessary to assess whether maximum residue levels for baby food provided for in Article 10 of Commission Directive 2006/141/EC of 22 December 2006 on infant formulae and follow-on formulae and amending Directive 1999/21/EC (6) and Article 7 of Commission Directive 2006/125/EC of 5 December 2006 on processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children (7) are respected, taking into account only the residue definitions as they are set out in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(8)\nIt is also necessary to assess possible aggregate, cumulative and synergistic effects of pesticides. This assessment should start with some organophosphates, carbamates, triazoles and pyrethroides, as set out in Annex I.\n(9)\nMember States should submit by 31 August of each year the information concerning the previous calendar year.\n(10)\nIn order to avoid any confusion due to an overlap between consecutive multiannual programmes, Regulation (EC) No 901/2009 should be repealed in the interest of legal certainty. It should, however, continue to apply to samples tested in 2010.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nMember States shall, during the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 take and analyse samples for the product/pesticide residue combinations, as set out in Annex I.\nThe number of samples of each product shall be as set out in Annex II.\nArticle 2\n1. The lot to be sampled shall be chosen randomly.\nThe sampling procedure, including the number of units, shall comply with Directive 2002/63/EC.\n2. Samples shall be analysed in accordance with the residue definitions set out in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall submit the results of the analysis of samples tested in 2011, 2012 and 2013 by 31 August 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively.\nIn addition to those results, Member States shall provide the following information:\n(a)\nthe analytical methods used and reporting levels achieved, in accordance with the guidance on Method Validation and Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis in food and feed; where qualitative screening is employed, results below the screening reporting level should be reported as not detected;\n(b)\nlimit of determination applied in the national control programmes and in the control programmes of the Union;\n(c)\nwhere permitted by national legislation, details of enforcement measures taken;\n(d)\nwhere maximum residue levels (MRLs) are exceeded, a statement of the possible reasons thereof, together with any appropriate observations regarding risk management options.\n2. Where the residue definition of a pesticide includes active substances, metabolites and/or breakdown or reaction products, Member States shall report the analysis results in accordance with the legal residue definition. Where relevant, the results of each of the main isomers or metabolites mentioned in the residue definition shall be submitted separately.\nArticle 4\nRegulation (EC) No 901/2009 is repealed.\nHowever, it shall continue to apply to samples tested in 2010.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 October 2010.", "references": ["91", "4", "5", "76", "79", "13", "1", "8", "96", "7", "32", "97", "43", "82", "46", "71", "15", "30", "50", "83", "22", "89", "52", "31", "6", "53", "37", "47", "17", "45", "No Label", "9", "24", "38", "60", "61", "72"], "gold": ["9", "24", "38", "60", "61", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 558/2011\nof 9 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 June 2011.", "references": ["78", "2", "85", "70", "79", "16", "54", "86", "68", "41", "60", "98", "45", "44", "19", "92", "20", "81", "49", "15", "84", "56", "90", "40", "96", "0", "48", "62", "88", "55", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/639/CFSP\nof 29 September 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/486/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/486/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 5 thereof, in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Treaty on European Union,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 August 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/486/CFSP.\n(2)\nOn 15 August 2011, the Security Council Committee, established pursuant to paragraph 30 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1988 (2011), updated the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures. The Annex to Decision 2011/486/CFSP should be amended accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/486/CFSP shall be replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 29 September 2011.", "references": ["27", "28", "26", "52", "2", "62", "81", "73", "94", "71", "55", "65", "48", "70", "30", "29", "4", "44", "24", "51", "49", "41", "13", "86", "87", "93", "0", "56", "6", "88", "No Label", "3", "5", "12", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "12", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 July 2010\non the signature of an Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil on civil aviation safety\n(2010/489/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) and Article 207(4) in conjunction with Article 218(5) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the European Union, an Agreement on civil aviation safety with the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil in accordance with the Council Decision of 9 October 2009 authorising the Commission to open negotiations.\n(2)\nThe Agreement negotiated by the Commission should be signed, subject to its possible conclusion at a later stage.\n(3)\nThe Member States should take the necessary measures to ensure that their bilateral agreements with Brazil on the same subject are terminated as of the date of the entry into force of the Agreement,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil on civil aviation safety (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the Agreement (1).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2010.", "references": ["20", "34", "18", "33", "63", "24", "43", "77", "35", "87", "45", "85", "68", "16", "80", "71", "36", "5", "10", "83", "21", "23", "48", "50", "62", "29", "7", "46", "44", "41", "No Label", "3", "9", "53", "57", "76", "93"], "gold": ["3", "9", "53", "57", "76", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 812/2012\nof 12 September 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 as regards tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and processed agricultural products originating in Morocco\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 of 9 April 2001 providing for the management of Community tariff quotas and of reference quantities for products eligible for preferences by virtue of agreements with certain Mediterranean countries and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1981/94 and (EC) No 934/95 (1), and in particular Article 5(1)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAn Agreement has been concluded in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols 1, 2 and 3 and their Annexes and amendments to the euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) (2). The Agreement was approved on behalf of the Union by Council Decision 2012/497/EU (3).\n(2)\nThe Agreement provides for new tariff quotas for agricultural and processed agricultural products originating in Morocco. It also provides for changes to existing tariff quotas for those products that are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 747/2001.\n(3)\nFurthermore, the Agreement no longer provides for tariff concessions applicable in the framework of reference quantities that are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 747/2001.\n(4)\nIt is necessary to implement the new tariff quotas, the changes to the existing tariff quotas and the end of reference quantities, as provided for in the Agreement. Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nFor the purpose of calculating the tariff quotas for the first year of application, provision should be made, in accordance with the Agreement, that the volumes of the tariff quotas for which the quota period began prior to the date of entry into force of the Agreement should be reduced by a proportion relating to that part of the period which had elapsed before that date.\n(6)\nThe monthly use of the additional tariff quota that applies from 1 November to 31 May for imports into the European Union of fresh or chilled tomatoes originating in Morocco should, in accordance with the Agreement, be limited to 30 % of its initial volume of 28 000 tonnes net weight.\n(7)\nAs the Agreement enters into force on 1 October 2012, this Regulation should apply from that date.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 747/2001 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 3a is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3a\nSpecial provisions for the tariff quotas for tomatoes originating in Morocco\n1. For tomatoes of CN code 0702 00 00 placed into free circulation in every period from 1 October to 31 May (hereinafter \u201cmarketing year\u201d), drawings on the monthly tariff quotas laid down in Annex II under order number 09.1104 from 1 October to 31 December and from 1 January to 31 March respectively, shall be stopped each year on 15 January and on the second working day in the Commission following 1 April. On the following working day in the Commission, the Commission services will determine the unused balance of each of these tariff quotas and will make available that unused balance within the additional tariff quota applicable for that marketing year under the order number 09.1112.\nFrom the dates on which the monthly tariff quotas are stopped, any retroactive drawings from any of the stopped monthly tariff quotas applicable during the months of November, December and January to March, and any returns of unused volumes to any of the stopped monthly tariff quotas shall be made on the additional tariff quota applicable under the order number 09.1112 for that marketing year. Detailed provisions for the management of the tariff quota under order number 09.1112 are included under paragraph 2.\n2. The monthly use of the additional tariff quota laid down in Annex II under order number 09.1112 for the period from 1 November to 31 May for tomatoes of CN code 0702 00 00 originating in Morocco placed into free circulation in the European Union shall be limited to 30 % of its initial volume of 28 000 tonnes net weight.\nThe tariff quota under order number 09.1112 shall be managed as a parent tariff quota with seven monthly sub-tariff quotas applicable under the order number 09.1193.\nThe benefit from this tariff concession can be granted only by declaring the order number 09.1193.\u2019;\n(2)\nAnnex II is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2012.", "references": ["2", "66", "8", "41", "39", "63", "27", "57", "67", "43", "42", "18", "53", "38", "51", "31", "75", "28", "82", "33", "34", "47", "11", "98", "9", "12", "95", "44", "17", "46", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "68", "71", "94"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "68", "71", "94"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1169/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 25 October 2011\non the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 169 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that the Union is to contribute to the attainment of a high level of consumer protection by the measures it adopts pursuant to Article 114 thereof.\n(2)\nThe free movement of safe and wholesome food is an essential aspect of the internal market and contributes significantly to the health and well-being of citizens, and to their social and economic interests.\n(3)\nIn order to achieve a high level of health protection for consumers and to guarantee their right to information, it should be ensured that consumers are appropriately informed as regards the food they consume. Consumers\u2019 choices can be influenced by, inter alia, health, economic, environmental, social and ethical considerations.\n(4)\nAccording to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (3) it is a general principle of food law to provide a basis for consumers to make informed choices in relation to food they consume and to prevent any practices that may mislead the consumer.\n(5)\nDirective 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (4) covers certain aspects of the provision of information to consumers specifically to prevent misleading actions and omissions of information. The general principles on unfair commercial practices should be complemented by specific rules concerning the provision of food information to consumers.\n(6)\nUnion rules on food labelling applicable to all foods are laid down in Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (5). The majority of the provisions laid down in that Directive date back to 1978 and should therefore be updated.\n(7)\nCouncil Directive 90/496/EEC of 24 September 1990 on nutrition labelling for foodstuffs (6) lays down rules on the content and presentation of nutrition information on prepacked foods. According to those rules, the inclusion of nutrition information is voluntary unless a nutrition-related claim is made concerning the food. The majority of the provisions laid down in that Directive date back to 1990 and should therefore be updated.\n(8)\nThe general labelling requirements are complemented by a number of provisions applicable to all foods in particular circumstances or to certain categories of foods. In addition, there are a number of specific rules which are applicable to specific foods.\n(9)\nWhile the original objectives and the core components of the current labelling legislation are still valid, it is necessary to streamline it in order to ensure easier compliance and greater clarity for stakeholders and to modernise it in order to take account of new developments in the field of food information. This Regulation will both serve the interests of the internal market by simplifying the law, ensuring legal certainty and reducing administrative burden, and benefit citizens by requiring clear, comprehensible and legible labelling of foods.\n(10)\nThe general public has an interest in the relationship between diet and health and in the choice of an appropriate diet to suit individual needs. The Commission White Paper of 30 May 2007 on a Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related health issues (the \u2018Commission White Paper\u2019) noted that nutrition labelling is one important method of informing consumers about the composition of foods and of helping them to make an informed choice. The Commission Communication of 13 March 2007 entitled \u2018EU Consumer Policy strategy 2007-2013 - Empowering consumers, enhancing their welfare, effectively protecting them\u2019 underlined that allowing consumers to make an informed choice is essential both to effective competition and consumer welfare. Knowledge of the basic principles of nutrition and appropriate nutrition information on foods would contribute significantly towards enabling the consumer to make such an informed choice. Education and information campaigns are an important mechanism for improving consumer understanding of food information.\n(11)\nIn order to enhance legal certainty and ensure rationality and consistency of enforcement, it is appropriate to repeal Directives 90/496/EEC and 2000/13/EC and to replace them by a single regulation which ensures certainty for consumers and other stakeholders and reduces the administrative burden.\n(12)\nFor the sake of clarity, it is appropriate to repeal and include in this Regulation other horizontal acts, namely Commission Directive 87/250/EEC of 15 April 1987 on the indication of alcoholic strength by volume in the labelling of alcoholic beverages for sale to the ultimate consumer (7), Commission Directive 1999/10/EC of 8 March 1999 providing for derogations from the provisions of Article 7 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC as regards the labelling of foodstuffs (8), Commission Directive 2002/67/EC of 18 July 2002 on the labelling of foodstuffs containing quinine, and of foodstuffs containing caffeine (9), 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 (10) and Commission Directive 2008/5/EC of 30 January 2008 concerning the compulsory indication on the labelling of certain foodstuffs of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (11).\n(13)\nIt is necessary to set common definitions, principles, requirements and procedures so as to form a clear framework and a common basis for Union and national measures governing food information.\n(14)\nIn order to follow a comprehensive and evolutionary approach to the information provided to consumers relating to food they consume, there should be a broad definition of food information law covering rules of a general and specific nature as well as a broad definition of food information covering information provided also by other means than the label.\n(15)\nUnion rules should apply only to undertakings, the concept of which implies a certain continuity of activities and a certain degree of organisation. Operations such as the occasional handling and delivery of food, the serving of meals and the selling of food by private persons, for example at charity events, or at local community fairs and meetings, should not fall within the scope of this Regulation.\n(16)\nFood information law should provide sufficient flexibility to be able to keep up to date with new information requirements of consumers and ensure a balance between the protection of the internal market and the differences in the perception of consumers in the Member States.\n(17)\nThe prime consideration for requiring mandatory food information should be to enable consumers to identify and make appropriate use of a food and to make choices that suit their individual dietary needs. With this aim, food business operators should facilitate the accessibility of that information to the visually impaired.\n(18)\nIn order to enable food information law to adapt to consumers\u2019 changing needs for information, any considerations about the need for mandatory food information should also take account of the widely demonstrated interest of the majority of consumers in the disclosure of certain information.\n(19)\nNew mandatory food information requirements should however only be established if and where necessary, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and sustainability.\n(20)\nFood information law should prohibit the use of information that would mislead the consumer in particular as to the characteristics of the food, food effects or properties, or attribute medicinal properties to foods. To be effective, that prohibition should also apply to the advertising and presentation of foods.\n(21)\nIn order to prevent a fragmentation of the rules concerning the responsibility of food business operators with respect to food information it is appropriate to clarify the responsibilities of food business operators in this area. That clarification should be in accordance with the responsibilities regarding the consumer referred to in Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.\n(22)\nA list should be drawn up of all mandatory information which should in principle be provided for all foods intended for the final consumer and mass caterers. That list should maintain the information that is already required under existing Union legislation given that it is generally considered as a valuable acquis in respect of consumer information.\n(23)\nIn order to take account of changes and developments in the field of food information, provisions should be made to empower the Commission to enable certain particulars to be made available through alternative means. Consultation with stakeholders should facilitate timely and well-targeted changes of food information requirements.\n(24)\nWhen used in the production of foods and still present therein, certain ingredients or other substances or products (such as processing aids) can cause allergies or intolerances in some people, and some of those allergies or intolerances constitute a danger to the health of those concerned. It is important that information on the presence of food additives, processing aids and other substances or products with a scientifically proven allergenic or intolerance effect should be given to enable consumers, particularly those suffering from a food allergy or intolerance, to make informed choices which are safe for them.\n(25)\nIn order to inform consumers of the presence of engineered nanomaterials in food, it is appropriate to provide for a definition of engineered nanomaterials. Taking into account the possibility of food containing or consisting of engineered nanomaterials being a novel food, the appropriate legislative framework for that definition should be considered in the context of the upcoming review of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (12).\n(26)\nFood labels should be clear and understandable in order to assist consumers who want to make better-informed food and dietary choices. Studies show that easy legibility is an important element in maximising the possibility for labelled information to influence its audience and that illegible product information is one of the main causes of consumer dissatisfaction with food labels. Therefore, a comprehensive approach should be developed in order to take into account all aspects related to legibility, including font, colour and contrast.\n(27)\nIn order to ensure the provision of food information, it is necessary to consider all ways of supplying food to consumers, including selling food by means of distance communication. Although it is clear that any food supplied through distance selling should meet the same information requirements as food sold in shops, it is necessary to clarify that in such cases the relevant mandatory food information should also be available before the purchase is concluded.\n(28)\nThe technology used in the freezing of foods has developed significantly during recent decades and has become widely used both to improve the circulation of goods on the Union internal market, and to reduce food safety risks. However, the freezing and later defrosting of certain foods, especially meat and fishery products, limits their possible further use and may also have an effect on their safety, taste and physical quality. Conversely, for other products, especially butter, freezing has no such effects. Therefore, where a product has been defrosted, the final consumer should be appropriately informed of its condition.\n(29)\nThe indication of the country of origin or of the place of provenance of a food should be provided whenever its absence is likely to mislead consumers as to the true country of origin or place of provenance of that product. In all cases, the indication of country of origin or place of provenance should be provided in a manner which does not deceive the consumer and on the basis of clearly defined criteria which ensure a level playing field for industry and improve consumers\u2019 understanding of the information related to the country of origin or place of provenance of a food. Such criteria should not apply to indications related to the name or address of the food business operator.\n(30)\nIn some cases, food business operators may want to indicate the origin of a food on a voluntary basis to draw consumers\u2019 attention to the qualities of their product. Such indications should also comply with harmonised criteria.\n(31)\nThe indication of origin is currently mandatory for beef and beef products (13) in the Union following the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis and it has created consumer expectations. The impact assessment of the Commission confirms that the origin of meat appears to be consumers\u2019 prime concern. There are other meats widely consumed in the Union, such as swine, sheep, goat and poultrymeat. It is therefore appropriate to impose a mandatory declaration of origin for those products. The specific origin requirements could differ from one type of meat to another according to the characteristics of the animal species. It is appropriate to provide for the establishment through implementing rules of mandatory requirements that could vary from one type of meat to another taking into account the principle of proportionality and the administrative burden for food business operators and enforcement authorities.\n(32)\nMandatory origin provisions have been developed on the basis of vertical approaches for instance for honey (14), fruit and vegetables (15), fish (16), beef and beef products (17) and olive oil (18). There is a need to explore the possibility to extend mandatory origin labelling for other foods. It is therefore appropriate to request the Commission to prepare reports covering the following foods: types of meat other than beef, swine, sheep, goat and poultrymeat; milk; milk used as an ingredient in dairy products; meat used as an ingredient; unprocessed foods; single-ingredient products; and ingredients that represent more than 50 % of a food. Milk being one of the products for which an indication of origin is considered of particular interest, the Commission report on this product should be made available as soon as possible. Based on the conclusions of such reports, the Commission may submit proposals to modify the relevant Union provisions or may take new initiatives, where appropriate, on a sectoral basis.\n(33)\nThe Union\u2019s non-preferential rules of origin are laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (19) and its implementing provisions in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (20). Determination of the country of origin of foods will be based on those rules, which are well known to food business operators and administrations and should ease their implementation.\n(34)\nThe nutrition declaration for a food concerns information on the presence of energy and certain nutrients in foods. The mandatory provision of nutrition information on packaging should assist nutrition actions as part of public health policies which could involve the provision of scientific recommendations for nutrition education for the public and support informed food choices.\n(35)\nTo facilitate the comparison of products in different package sizes, it is appropriate to retain the requirement that the mandatory nutrition declaration should refer to 100 g or 100 ml amounts and, if appropriate, to allow additional portion-based declarations. Therefore, where food is prepacked and individual portions or consumption units are identified, a nutrition declaration per portion or per consumption unit, in addition to the expression per 100 g or per 100 ml, should be allowed. Furthermore, in order to provide comparable indications relating to portions or consumption units, the Commission should be empowered to adopt rules on the expression of the nutrition declaration per portion or per consumption unit for specific categories of food.\n(36)\nThe Commission White Paper highlighted certain nutritional elements of importance to public health such as saturated fat, sugars or sodium. Therefore, it is appropriate that the requirements on the mandatory provision of nutrition information should take into account such elements.\n(37)\nSince one of the objectives pursued by this Regulation is to provide a basis to the final consumer for making informed choices, it is important to ensure in this respect that the final consumer easily understands the information provided on the labelling. Therefore it is appropriate to use on the labelling the term \u2018salt\u2019 instead of the corresponding term of the nutrient \u2018sodium\u2019.\n(38)\nIn the interest of consistency and coherence of Union law the voluntary inclusion of nutrition or health claims on food labels should be in accordance with the 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 (21).\n(39)\nTo avoid unnecessary burdens on food business operators, it is appropriate to exempt from the mandatory provision of a nutrition declaration certain categories of foods that are unprocessed or for which nutrition information is not a determining factor for consumers\u2019 purchasing decisions, or for which the packaging is too small to accommodate the mandatory labelling requirements, unless the obligation to provide such information is provided for under other Union rules.\n(40)\nTaking into account the specific nature of alcoholic beverages, it is appropriate to invite the Commission to analyse further the information requirements for those products. Therefore, the Commission should, taking into account the need to ensure coherence with other relevant Union policies, produce a report within 3 years of the entry into force of this Regulation concerning the application of the requirements to provide information on ingredients and nutrition information to alcoholic beverages. In addition, taking into account the resolution of the European Parliament of 5 September 2007 on an European Union strategy to support Member States in reducing alcohol-related harm (22), the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (23), the work of the Commission, and general public concern about alcohol-related harm especially to young and vulnerable consumers, the Commission, after consultation with stakeholders and the Member States, should consider the need for a definition of beverages such as \u2018alcopops\u2019, which are specifically targeted at young people. The Commission should also, if appropriate, propose specific requirements relating to alcoholic beverages in the context of this Regulation.\n(41)\nTo appeal to the average consumer and to serve the informative purpose for which it is introduced, and given the current level of knowledge on the subject of nutrition, the nutrition information provided should be simple and easily understood. To have the nutrition information partly in the principal field of vision, commonly known as the \u2018front of pack\u2019, and partly on another side on the pack, for instance the \u2018back of pack\u2019, might confuse consumers. Therefore, the nutrition declaration should be in the same field of vision. In addition, on a voluntary basis, the most important elements of the nutrition information may be repeated in the principal field of vision, in order to help consumers to easily see the essential nutrition information when purchasing foods. A free choice as to the information that could be repeated might confuse consumers. Therefore it is necessary to clarify which information may be repeated.\n(42)\nIn order to encourage food business operators to provide on a voluntary basis the information contained in the nutrition declaration for foods such as alcoholic beverages and non-prepacked foods that may be exempted from the nutrition declaration, the possibility should be given to declare only limited elements of the nutrition declaration. It is nevertheless appropriate to clearly establish the information that may be provided on a voluntary basis in order to avoid misleading the consumer by the free choice of the food business operator.\n(43)\nThere have been recent developments in the expression of the nutrition declaration, other than per 100 g, per 100 ml or per portion, or in its presentation, through the use of graphical forms or symbols, by some Member States and organisations in the food sector. Such additional forms of expression and presentation may help consumers to better understand the nutrition declaration. However, there is insufficient evidence across all the Union on how the average consumer understands and uses the alternative forms of expression or presentation of the information. Therefore, it is appropriate to allow for different forms of expression and presentation to be developed on the basis of criteria established in this Regulation and to invite the Commission to prepare a report regarding the use of those forms of expression and presentation, their effect on the internal market and the advisability of further harmonisation.\n(44)\nIn order to assist the Commission in producing that report, Member States should provide the Commission with the relevant information on the use of additional forms of expression and presentation of the nutrition declaration on the market in their territory. In order to do so, Member States should be empowered to request food business operators placing on the market in their territory foods bearing additional forms of expression or presentation to notify national authorities of the use of such additional forms and of the relevant justifications regarding the fulfilment of the requirements set out in this Regulation.\n(45)\nIt is desirable to ensure a certain level of consistency in the development of additional forms of expression and presentation of the nutrition declaration. It is therefore appropriate to promote the constant exchange and sharing of best practices and experience between Member States and with the Commission and to promote the participation of stakeholders in such exchanges.\n(46)\nThe declaration in the same field of vision of the amounts of nutritional elements and comparative indicators in an easily recognisable form to enable an assessment of the nutritional properties of a food should be considered in its entirety as part of the nutrition declaration and should not be treated as a group of individual claims.\n(47)\nExperience shows that in many cases voluntary food information is provided to the detriment of the clarity of the mandatory food information. Therefore, criteria should be provided to help food business operators and enforcement authorities to strike a balance between the provision of mandatory and voluntary food information.\n(48)\nMember States should retain the right, depending on local practical conditions and circumstances, to lay down rules in respect of the provision of information concerning non-prepacked foods. Although in such cases the consumer demand for other information is limited, information on potential allergens is considered very important. Evidence suggests that most food allergy incidents can be traced back to non-prepacked food. Therefore information on potential allergens should always be provided to the consumer.\n(49)\nAs regards the matters specifically harmonised by this Regulation, Member States should not be able to adopt national provisions unless authorised by Union law. This Regulation should not prevent Member States from adopting national measures concerning matters not specifically harmonised by this Regulation. However, such national measures should not prohibit, impede or restrict the free movement of goods that are in conformity with this Regulation.\n(50)\nUnion consumers show an increasing interest in the implementation of the Union animal welfare rules at the time of slaughter, including whether the animal was stunned before slaughter. In this respect, a study on the opportunity to provide consumers with the relevant information on the stunning of animals should be considered in the context of a future Union strategy for the protection and welfare of animals.\n(51)\nFood information rules should be able to adapt to a rapidly changing social, economic and technological environment.\n(52)\nMember States should carry out official controls in order to enforce compliance with this Regulation in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (24).\n(53)\nReferences to Directive 90/496/EEC in Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and in Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (25) should be updated to take this Regulation into account. Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(54)\nIrregular and frequent updating of food information requirements may impose considerable administrative burdens on food businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. It is therefore appropriate to ensure that measures that may be adopted by the Commission in exercising the powers conferred by this Regulation apply on the same day in any calendar year following an appropriate transitional period. Derogations from this principle should be permitted in cases of urgency where the purpose of the measures concerned is the protection of human health.\n(55)\nIn order to enable food business operators to adapt the labelling of their products to the new requirements introduced by this Regulation, it is important to provide for appropriate transitional periods for the application of this Regulation.\n(56)\nGiven the substantial changes in the requirements related to nutrition labelling introduced by this Regulation, in particular changes in relation to the content of the nutrition declaration, it is appropriate to authorise food business operators to anticipate the application of this Regulation.\n(57)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(58)\nThe power to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of, inter alia, the availability of certain mandatory particulars by means other than on the package or on the label, the list of foods not required to bear a list of ingredients, the re-examination of the list of substances or products causing allergies or intolerances, or the list of nutrients that may be declared on a voluntary basis. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(59)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt implementing acts in relation to, inter alia, the modalities of expression of one or more particulars by means of pictograms or symbols instead of words or numbers, the manner of indicating the date of minimum durability, the manner of indicating the country of origin or place of provenance for meat, the precision of the declared values for the nutrition declaration, or the expression per portion or per consumption unit of the nutrition declaration. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (26),\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation provides the basis for the assurance of a high level of consumer protection in relation to food information, taking into account the differences in the perception of consumers and their information needs whilst ensuring the smooth functioning of the internal market.\n2. This Regulation establishes the general principles, requirements and responsibilities governing food information, and in particular food labelling. It lays down the means to guarantee the right of consumers to information and procedures for the provision of food information, taking into account the need to provide sufficient flexibility to respond to future developments and new information requirements.\n3. This Regulation shall apply to food business operators at all stages of the food chain, where their activities concern the provision of food information to consumers. It shall apply to all foods intended for the final consumer, including foods delivered by mass caterers, and foods intended for supply to mass caterers.\nThis Regulation shall apply to catering services provided by transport undertakings when the departure takes place on the territories of the Member States to which the Treaties apply.\n4. This Regulation shall apply without prejudice to labelling requirements provided for in specific Union provisions applicable to particular foods.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\nthe definitions of \u2018food\u2019, \u2018food law\u2019, \u2018food business\u2019, \u2018food business operator\u2019, \u2018retail\u2019, \u2018placing on the market\u2019 and \u2018final consumer\u2019 in Article 2 and in points (1), (2), (3), (7), (8) and (18) of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002;\n(b)\nthe definitions of \u2018processing\u2019, \u2018unprocessed products\u2019 and \u2018processed products\u2019 in points (m), (n) and (o) of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (27);\n(c)\nthe definition of \u2018food enzyme\u2019 in point (a) of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1332/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food enzymes (28);\n(d)\nthe definitions of \u2018food additive\u2019, \u2018processing aid\u2019 and \u2018carrier\u2019 in points (a) and (b) of Article 3(2) of, and in point 5 of Annex I to, Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (29);\n(e)\nthe definition of \u2018flavourings\u2019 in point (a) of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods (30);\n(f)\nthe definitions of \u2018meat\u2019, \u2018mechanically separated meat\u2019, \u2018meat preparations\u2019, \u2018fishery products\u2019 and \u2018meat products\u2019 in points 1.1, 1.14, 1.15, 3.1 and 7.1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (31);\n(g)\nthe definition of \u2018advertising\u2019 in point (a) of Article 2 of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (32).\n2. The following definitions shall also apply:\n(a)\n\u2018food information\u2019 means information concerning a food and made available to the final consumer by means of a label, other accompanying material, or any other means including modern technology tools or verbal communication;\n(b)\n\u2018food information law\u2019 means the Union provisions governing the food information, and in particular labelling, including rules of a general nature applicable to all foods in particular circumstances or to certain categories of foods and rules which apply only to specific foods;\n(c)\n\u2018mandatory food information\u2019 means the particulars that are required to be provided to the final consumer by Union provisions;\n(d)\n\u2018mass caterer\u2019 means any establishment (including a vehicle or a fixed or mobile stall), such as restaurants, canteens, schools, hospitals and catering enterprises in which, in the course of a business, food is prepared to be ready for consumption by the final consumer;\n(e)\n\u2018prepacked food\u2019 means any single item for presentation as such to the final consumer and to mass caterers, consisting of a food and the packaging into which it was put before being offered for sale, whether such packaging encloses the food completely or only partially, but in any event in such a way that the contents cannot be altered without opening or changing the packaging; \u2018prepacked food\u2019 does not cover foods packed on the sales premises at the consumer\u2019s request or prepacked for direct sale;\n(f)\n\u2018ingredient\u2019 means any substance or product, including flavourings, food additives and food enzymes, and any constituent of a compound ingredient, used in the manufacture or preparation of a food and still present in the finished product, even if in an altered form; residues shall not be considered as \u2018ingredients\u2019;\n(g)\n\u2018place of provenance\u2019 means any place where a food is indicated to come from, and that is not the \u2018country of origin\u2019 as determined in accordance with Articles 23 to 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92; the name, business name or address of the food business operator on the label shall not constitute an indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of food within the meaning of this Regulation;\n(h)\n\u2018compound ingredient\u2019 means an ingredient that is itself the product of more than one ingredient;\n(i)\n\u2018label\u2019 means any tag, brand, mark, pictorial or other descriptive matter, written, printed, stencilled, marked, embossed or impressed on, or attached to the packaging or container of food;\n(j)\n\u2018labelling\u2019 means any words, particulars, trade marks, brand name, pictorial matter or symbol relating to a food and placed on any packaging, document, notice, label, ring or collar accompanying or referring to such food;\n(k)\n\u2018field of vision\u2019 means all the surfaces of a package that can be read from a single viewing point;\n(l)\n\u2018principal field of vision\u2019 means the field of vision of a package which is most likely to be seen at first glance by the consumer at the time of purchase and that enables the consumer to immediately identify a product in terms of its character or nature and, if applicable, its brand name. If a package has several identical principal fields of vision, the principal field of vision is the one chosen by the food business operator;\n(m)\n\u2018legibility\u2019 means the physical appearance of information, by means of which the information is visually accessible to the general population and which is determined by various elements, inter alia, font size, letter spacing, spacing between lines, stroke width, type colour, typeface, width-height ratio of the letters, the surface of the material and significant contrast between the print and the background;\n(n)\n\u2018legal name\u2019 means the name of a food prescribed in the Union provisions applicable to it or, in the absence of such Union provisions, the name provided for in the laws, regulations and administrative provisions applicable in the Member State in which the food is sold to the final consumer or to mass caterers;\n(o)\n\u2018customary name\u2019 means a name which is accepted as the name of the food by consumers in the Member State in which that food is sold, without that name needing further explanation;\n(p)\n\u2018descriptive name\u2019 means a name providing a description of the food, and if necessary of its use, which is sufficiently clear to enable consumers to know its true nature and distinguish it from other products with which it might be confused;\n(q)\n\u2018primary ingredient\u2019 means an ingredient or ingredients of a food that represent more than 50 % of that food or which are usually associated with the name of the food by the consumer and for which in most cases a quantitative indication is required;\n(r)\n\u2018date of minimum durability of a food\u2019 means the date until which the food retains its specific properties when properly stored;\n(s)\n\u2018nutrient\u2019 means protein, carbohydrate, fat, fibre, sodium, vitamins and minerals listed in point 1 of Part A of Annex XIII to this Regulation, and substances which belong to or are components of one of those categories;\n(t)\n\u2018engineered nanomaterial\u2019 means any intentionally produced material that has one or more dimensions of the order of 100 nm or less or that is composed of discrete functional parts, either internally or at the surface, many of which have one or more dimensions of the order of 100 nm or less, including structures, agglomerates or aggregates, which may have a size above the order of 100 nm but retain properties that are characteristic of the nanoscale.\nProperties that are characteristic of the nanoscale include:\n(i)\nthose related to the large specific surface area of the materials considered; and/or\n(ii)\nspecific physico-chemical properties that are different from those of the non-nanoform of the same material;\n(u)\n\u2018means of distance communication\u2019 means any means which, without the simultaneous physical presence of the supplier and the consumer, may be used for the conclusion of a contract between those parties.\n3. For the purposes of this Regulation the country of origin of a food shall refer to the origin of a food as determined in accordance with Articles 23 to 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\n4. The specific definitions set out in Annex I shall also apply.\nCHAPTER II\nGENERAL PRINCIPLES ON FOOD INFORMATION\nArticle 3\nGeneral objectives\n1. The provision of food information shall pursue a high level of protection of consumers\u2019 health and interests by providing a basis for final consumers to make informed choices and to make safe use of food, with particular regard to health, economic, environmental, social and ethical considerations.\n2. Food information law shall aim to achieve in the Union the free movement of legally produced and marketed food, taking into account, where appropriate, the need to protect the legitimate interests of producers and to promote the production of quality products.\n3. When food information law establishes new requirements, a transitional period after the entry into force of the new requirements shall be granted, except in duly justified cases. During such transitional period, foods bearing labels not complying with the new requirements may be placed on the market, and stocks of such foods that have been placed on the market before the end of the transitional period may continue to be sold until exhausted.\n4. An open and transparent public consultation shall be conducted, including with stakeholders, directly or through representative bodies, during the preparation, evaluation and revision of food information law, except where the urgency of the matter does not allow it.\nArticle 4\nPrinciples governing mandatory food information\n1. Where mandatory food information is required by food information law, it shall concern information that falls, in particular, into one of the following categories:\n(a)\ninformation on the identity and composition, properties or other characteristics of the food;\n(b)\ninformation on the protection of consumers\u2019 health and the safe use of a food. In particular, it shall concern information on:\n(i)\ncompositional attributes that may be harmful to the health of certain groups of consumers;\n(ii)\ndurability, storage and safe use;\n(iii)\nthe health impact, including the risks and consequences related to harmful and hazardous consumption of a food;\n(c)\ninformation on nutritional characteristics so as to enable consumers, including those with special dietary requirements, to make informed choices.\n2. When considering the need for mandatory food information and to enable consumers to make informed choices, account shall be taken of a widespread need on the part of the majority of consumers for certain information to which they attach significant value or of any generally accepted benefits to the consumer.\nArticle 5\nConsultation of the European Food Safety Authority\nAny Union measure in the field of food information law which is likely to have an effect on public health shall be adopted after consultation of the European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019).\nCHAPTER III\nGENERAL FOOD INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF FOOD BUSINESS OPERATORS\nArticle 6\nBasic requirement\nAny food intended for supply to the final consumer or to mass caterers shall be accompanied by food information in accordance with this Regulation.\nArticle 7\nFair information practices\n1. Food information shall not be misleading, particularly:\n(a)\nas to the characteristics of the food and, in particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition, quantity, durability, country of origin or place of provenance, method of manufacture or production;\n(b)\nby attributing to the food effects or properties which it does not possess;\n(c)\nby suggesting that the food possesses special characteristics when in fact all similar foods possess such characteristics, in particular by specifically emphasising the presence or absence of certain ingredients and/or nutrients;\n(d)\nby suggesting, by means of the appearance, the description or pictorial representations, the presence of a particular food or an ingredient, while in reality a component naturally present or an ingredient normally used in that food has been substituted with a different component or a different ingredient.\n2. Food information shall be accurate, clear and easy to understand for the consumer.\n3. Subject to derogations provided for by Union law applicable to natural mineral waters and foods for particular nutritional uses, food information shall not attribute to any food the property of preventing, treating or curing a human disease, nor refer to such properties.\n4. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall also apply to:\n(a)\nadvertising;\n(b)\nthe presentation of foods, in particular their shape, appearance or packaging, the packaging materials used, the way in which they are arranged and the setting in which they are displayed.\nArticle 8\nResponsibilities\n1. The food business operator responsible for the food information shall be the operator under whose name or business name the food is marketed or, if that operator is not established in the Union, the importer into the Union market.\n2. The food business operator responsible for the food information shall ensure the presence and accuracy of the food information in accordance with the applicable food information law and requirements of relevant national provisions.\n3. Food business operators which do not affect food information shall not supply food which they know or presume, on the basis of the information in their possession as professionals, to be non-compliant with the applicable food information law and requirements of relevant national provisions.\n4. Food business operators, within the businesses under their control, shall not modify the information accompanying a food if such modification would mislead the final consumer or otherwise reduce the level of consumer protection and the possibilities for the final consumer to make informed choices. Food business operators are responsible for any changes they make to food information accompanying a food.\n5. Without prejudice to paragraphs 2 to 4, food business operators, within the businesses under their control, shall ensure compliance with the requirements of food information law and relevant national provisions which are relevant to their activities and shall verify that such requirements are met.\n6. Food business operators, within the businesses under their control, shall ensure that information relating to non-prepacked food intended for the final consumer or for supply to mass caterers shall be transmitted to the food business operator receiving the food in order to enable, when required, the provision of mandatory food information to the final consumer.\n7. In the following cases, food business operators, within the businesses under their control, shall ensure that the mandatory particulars required under Articles 9 and 10 shall appear on the prepackaging or on a label attached thereto, or on the commercial documents referring to the foods where it can be guaranteed that such documents either accompany the food to which they refer or were sent before or at the same time as delivery:\n(a)\nwhere prepacked food is intended for the final consumer but marketed at a stage prior to sale to the final consumer and where sale to a mass caterer is not involved at that stage;\n(b)\nwhere prepacked food is intended for supply to mass caterers for preparation, processing, splitting or cutting up.\nNotwithstanding the first subparagraph, food business operators shall ensure that the particulars referred to in points (a), (f), (g) and (h) of Article 9(1) also appear on the external packaging in which the prepacked foods are presented for marketing.\n8. Food business operators that supply to other food business operators food not intended for the final consumer or to mass caterers shall ensure that those other food business operators are provided with sufficient information to enable them, where appropriate, to meet their obligations under paragraph 2.\nCHAPTER IV\nMANDATORY FOOD INFORMATION\nSECTION 1\nContent and presentation\nArticle 9\nList of mandatory particulars\n1. In accordance with Articles 10 to 35 and subject to the exceptions contained in this Chapter, indication of the following particulars shall be mandatory:\n(a)\nthe name of the food;\n(b)\nthe list of ingredients;\n(c)\nany ingredient or processing aid listed in Annex II or derived from a substance or product listed in Annex II causing allergies or intolerances used in the manufacture or preparation of a food and still present in the finished product, even if in an altered form;\n(d)\nthe quantity of certain ingredients or categories of ingredients;\n(e)\nthe net quantity of the food;\n(f)\nthe date of minimum durability or the \u2018use by\u2019 date;\n(g)\nany special storage conditions and/or conditions of use;\n(h)\nthe name or business name and address of the food business operator referred to in Article 8(1);\n(i)\nthe country of origin or place of provenance where provided for in Article 26;\n(j)\ninstructions for use where it would be difficult to make appropriate use of the food in the absence of such instructions;\n(k)\nwith respect to beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol, the actual alcoholic strength by volume;\n(l)\na nutrition declaration.\n2. The particulars referred to in paragraph 1 shall be indicated with words and numbers. Without prejudice to Article 35, they may additionally be expressed by means of pictograms or symbols.\n3. Where the Commission adopts delegated and implementing acts referred to in this Article, the particulars referred to in paragraph 1 may alternatively be expressed by means of pictograms or symbols instead of words or numbers.\nIn order to ensure that consumers benefit from other means of expression of mandatory food information than words and numbers, and provided that the same level of information as with words and numbers is ensured, the Commission, taking into account evidence of uniform consumer understanding, may establish, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 51, the criteria subject to which one or more particulars referred to in paragraph 1 may be expressed by pictograms or symbols instead of words or numbers.\n4. For the purpose of ensuring the uniform implementation of paragraph 3 of this Article, the Commission may adopt implementing acts on the modalities of application of the criteria defined in accordance with paragraph 3 to express one or more particulars by means of pictograms or symbols instead of words or numbers. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).\nArticle 10\nAdditional mandatory particulars for specific types or categories of foods\n1. In addition to the particulars listed in Article 9(1), additional mandatory particulars for specific types or categories of foods are laid down in Annex III.\n2. In order to ensure consumer information with respect to specific types or categories of foods and to take account of technical progress, scientific developments, the protection of consumers\u2019 health or the safe use of a food, the Commission may amend Annex III by means of delegated acts, in accordance with Article 51.\nWhere, in the case of the emergence of a risk to consumers\u2019 health, imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 52 shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this Article.\nArticle 11\nWeights and measures\nArticle 9 shall be without prejudice to more specific Union provisions regarding weights and measures.\nArticle 12\nAvailability and placement of mandatory food information\n1. Mandatory food information shall be available and shall be easily accessible, in accordance with this Regulation, for all foods.\n2. In the case of prepacked food, mandatory food information shall appear directly on the package or on a label attached thereto.\n3. In order to ensure that consumers benefit from other means of provision of mandatory food information better adapted for certain mandatory particulars, and provided that the same level of information as by means of the package or the label is ensured, the Commission, taking into account evidence of uniform consumer understanding and of the wide use of these means by consumers, may establish, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 51, criteria subject to which certain mandatory particulars may be expressed by means other than on the package or on the label.\n4. For the purposes of ensuring the uniform implementation of paragraph 3 of this Article, the Commission may adopt implementing acts on the modalities of application of the criteria referred to in paragraph 3 in order to express certain mandatory particulars by means other than on the package or on the label. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).\n5. In the case of non-prepacked food, the provisions of Article 44 shall apply.\nArticle 13\nPresentation of mandatory particulars\n1. Without prejudice to the national measures adopted under Article 44(2), mandatory food information shall be marked in a conspicuous place in such a way as to be easily visible, clearly legible and, where appropriate, indelible. It shall not in any way be hidden, obscured, detracted from or interrupted by any other written or pictorial matter or any other intervening material.\n2. Without prejudice to specific Union provisions applicable to particular foods, when appearing on the package or on the label attached thereto, the mandatory particulars listed in Article 9(1) shall be printed on the package or on the label in such a way as to ensure clear legibility, in characters using a font size where the x-height, as defined in Annex IV, is equal to or greater than 1,2 mm.\n3. In case of packaging or containers the largest surface of which has an area of less than 80 cm2, the x-height of the font size referred to in paragraph 2 shall be equal to or greater than 0,9 mm.\n4. For the purpose of achieving the objectives of this Regulation, the Commission shall, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 51, establish rules for legibility.\nFor the same purpose as referred to in the first subparagraph, the Commission may, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 51, extend the requirements under paragraph 5 of this Article to additional mandatory particulars for specific types or categories of foods.\n5. The particulars listed in points (a), (e) and (k) of Article 9(1) shall appear in the same field of vision.\n6. Paragraph 5 of this Article shall not apply in the cases specified in Article 16(1) and (2).\nArticle 14\nDistance selling\n1. Without prejudice to the information requirements laid down in Article 9, in the case of prepacked foods offered for sale by means of distance communication:\n(a)\nmandatory food information, except the particulars provided in point (f) of Article 9(1), shall be available before the purchase is concluded and shall appear on the material supporting the distance selling or be provided through other appropriate means clearly identified by the food business operator. When other appropriate means are used, the mandatory food information shall be provided without the food business operator charging consumers supplementary costs;\n(b)\nall mandatory particulars shall be available at the moment of delivery.\n2. In the case of non-prepacked foods offered for sale by means of distance communication, the particulars required under Article 44 shall be made available in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article.\n3. Point (a) of paragraph 1 shall not apply to foods offered for sale by means of automatic vending machines or automated commercial premises.\nArticle 15\nLanguage requirements\n1. Without prejudice to Article 9(3), mandatory food information shall appear in a language easily understood by the consumers of the Member States where a food is marketed.\n2. Within their own territory, the Member States in which a food is marketed may stipulate that the particulars shall be given in one or more languages from among the official languages of the Union.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not preclude the particulars from being indicated in several languages.\nArticle 16\nOmission of certain mandatory particulars\n1. In the case of glass bottles intended for reuse which are indelibly marked and which therefore bear no label, ring or collar only the particulars listed in points (a), (c), (e), (f) and (l) of Article 9(1) shall be mandatory.\n2. In the case of packaging or containers the largest surface of which has an area of less than 10 cm2 only the particulars listed in points (a), (c), (e) and (f) of Article 9(1) shall be mandatory on the package or on the label. The particulars referred to in point (b) of Article 9(1) shall be provided through other means or shall be made available at the request of the consumer.\n3. Without prejudice to other Union provisions requiring a mandatory nutrition declaration, the declaration referred to in point (l) of Article 9(1) shall not be mandatory for the foods listed in Annex V.\n4. Without prejudice to other Union provisions requiring a list of ingredients or a mandatory nutrition declaration, the particulars referred to in points (b) and (l) of Article 9(1) shall not be mandatory for beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol.\nBy 13 December 2014, the Commission shall produce a report concerning the application of Article 18 and Article 30(1) to the products referred to in this paragraph, and addressing whether alcoholic beverages should in future be covered, in particular, by the requirement to provide the information on the energy value, and the reasons justifying possible exemptions, taking into account the need to ensure coherence with other relevant Union policies. In this context, the Commission shall consider the need to propose a definition of \u2018alcopops\u2019.\nThe Commission shall accompany that report by a legislative proposal, if appropriate, determining the rules for a list of ingredients or a mandatory nutrition declaration for those products.\nSECTION 2\nDetailed provisions on mandatory particulars\nArticle 17\nName of the food\n1. The name of the food shall be its legal name. In the absence of such a name, the name of the food shall be its customary name, or, if there is no customary name or the customary name is not used, a descriptive name of the food shall be provided.\n2. The use in the Member State of marketing of the name of the food under which the product is legally manufactured and marketed in the Member State of production shall be allowed. However, where the application of the other provisions of this Regulation, in particular those set out in Article 9, would not enable consumers in the Member State of marketing to know the true nature of the food and to distinguish it from foods with which they could confuse it, the name of the food shall be accompanied by other descriptive information which shall appear in proximity to the name of the food.\n3. In exceptional cases, the name of the food in the Member State of production shall not be used in the Member State of marketing when the food which it designates in the Member State of production is so different, as regards its composition or manufacture, from the food known under that name in the Member State of marketing that paragraph 2 is not sufficient to ensure, in the Member State of marketing, correct information for consumers.\n4. The name of the food shall not be replaced with a name protected as intellectual property, brand name or fancy name.\n5. Specific provisions on the name of the food and particulars that shall accompany it are laid down in Annex VI.\nArticle 18\nList of ingredients\n1. The list of ingredients shall be headed or preceded by a suitable heading which consists of or includes the word \u2018ingredients\u2019. It shall include all the ingredients of the food, in descending order of weight, as recorded at the time of their use in the manufacture of the food.\n2. Ingredients shall be designated by their specific name, where applicable, in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 17 and in Annex VI.\n3. All ingredients present in the form of engineered nanomaterials shall be clearly indicated in the list of ingredients. The names of such ingredients shall be followed by the word \u2018nano\u2019 in brackets.\n4. Technical rules for applying paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article are laid down in Annex VII.\n5. For the purposes of achieving the objectives of this Regulation, the Commission shall, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 51, adjust and adapt the definition of engineered nanomaterials referred to in point (t) of Article 2(2) to technical and scientific progress or to definitions agreed at international level.\nArticle 19\nOmission of the list of ingredients\n1. The following foods shall not be required to bear a list of ingredients:\n(a)\nfresh fruit and vegetables, including potatoes, which have not been peeled, cut or similarly treated;\n(b)\ncarbonated water, the description of which indicates that it has been carbonated;\n(c)\nfermentation vinegars derived exclusively from a single basic product, provided that no other ingredient has been added;\n(d)\ncheese, butter, fermented milk and cream, to which no ingredient has been added other than lactic products, food enzymes and micro-organism cultures essential to manufacture, or in the case of cheese other than fresh cheese and processed cheese the salt needed for its manufacture;\n(e)\nfoods consisting of a single ingredient, where:\n(i)\nthe name of the food is identical to the ingredient name; or\n(ii)\nthe name of the food enables the nature of the ingredient to be clearly identified.\n2. In order to take into account the relevance for the consumer of a list of ingredients for specific types or categories of foods, the Commission may, in exceptional cases, by means of delegated acts, in accordance with Article 51, supplement paragraph 1 of this Article, provided that omissions do not result in the final consumer or mass caterers being inadequately informed.\nArticle 20\nOmission of constituents of food from the list of ingredients\nWithout prejudice to Article 21, the following constituents of a food shall not be required to be included in the list of ingredients:\n(a)\nthe constituents of an ingredient which have been temporarily separated during the manufacturing process and later reintroduced but not in excess of their original proportions;\n(b)\nfood additives and food enzymes:\n(i)\nwhose presence in a given food is solely due to the fact that they were contained in one or more ingredients of that food, in accordance with the carry-over principle referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, provided that they serve no technological function in the finished product; or\n(ii)\nwhich are used as processing aids;\n(c)\ncarriers and substances which are not food additives but are used in the same way and with the same purpose as carriers, and which are used in the quantities strictly necessary;\n(d)\nsubstances which are not food additives but are used in the same way and with the same purpose as processing aids and are still present in the finished product, even if in an altered form;\n(e)\nwater:\n(i)\nwhere the water is used during the manufacturing process solely for the reconstitution of an ingredient used in concentrated or dehydrated form; or\n(ii)\nin the case of a liquid medium which is not normally consumed.\nArticle 21\nLabelling of certain substances or products causing allergies or intolerances\n1. Without prejudice to the rules adopted under Article 44(2), the particulars referred to in point (c) of Article 9(1) shall meet the following requirements:\n(a)\nthey shall be indicated in the list of ingredients in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 18(1), with a clear reference to the name of the substance or product as listed in Annex II; and\n(b)\nthe name of the substance or product as listed in Annex II shall be emphasised through a typeset that clearly distinguishes it from the rest of the list of ingredients, for example by means of the font, style or background colour.\nIn the absence of a list of ingredients, the indication of the particulars referred to in point (c) of Article 9(1) shall comprise the word \u2018contains\u2019 followed by the name of the substance or product as listed in Annex II.\nWhere several ingredients or processing aids of a food originate from a single substance or product listed in Annex II, the labelling shall make it clear for each ingredient or processing aid concerned.\nThe indication of the particulars referred to in point (c) of Article 9(1) shall not be required in cases where the name of the food clearly refers to the substance or product concerned.\n2. In order to ensure better information for consumers and to take account of the most recent scientific progress and technical knowledge, the Commission shall systematically re-examine and, where necessary, update the list in Annex II by means of delegated acts, in accordance with Article 51.\nWhere, in the case of the emergence of a risk to consumers\u2019 health, imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 52 shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this Article.\nArticle 22\nQuantitative indication of ingredients\n1. The indication of the quantity of an ingredient or category of ingredients used in the manufacture or preparation of a food shall be required where the ingredient or category of ingredients concerned:\n(a)\nappears in the name of the food or is usually associated with that name by the consumer;\n(b)\nis emphasised on the labelling in words, pictures or graphics; or\n(c)\nis essential to characterise a food and to distinguish it from products with which it might be confused because of its name or appearance.\n2. Technical rules for applying paragraph 1, including specific cases where the quantitative indication shall not be required in respect of certain ingredients, are laid down in Annex VIII.\nArticle 23\nNet quantity\n1. The net quantity of a food shall be expressed using litres, centilitres, millilitres, kilograms or grams, as appropriate:\n(a)\nin units of volume in the case of liquid products;\n(b)\nin units of mass in the case of other products.\n2. In order to ensure a better understanding by the consumer of the food information on the labelling, the Commission may establish for certain specified foods, by means of delegated acts, in accordance with Article 51, a manner for the expression of the net quantity other than the one laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article.\n3. Technical rules for applying paragraph 1, including specific cases where the indication of the net quantity shall not be required, are laid down in Annex IX.\nArticle 24\nMinimum durability date, \u2018use by\u2019 date and date of freezing\n1. In the case of foods which, from a microbiological point of view, are highly perishable and are therefore likely after a short period to constitute an immediate danger to human health, the date of minimum durability shall be replaced by the \u2018use by\u2019 date. After the \u2018use by\u2019 date a food shall be deemed to be unsafe in accordance with Article 14(2) to (5) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.\n2. The appropriate date shall be expressed in accordance with Annex X.\n3. In order to ensure a uniform application of the manner of indicating the date of minimum durability referred to in point 1(c) of Annex X, the Commission may adopt implementing acts setting out rules in this regard. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).\nArticle 25\nStorage conditions or conditions of use\n1. In cases where foods require special storage conditions and/or conditions of use, those conditions shall be indicated.\n2. To enable appropriate storage or use of the food after opening the package, the storage conditions and/or time limit for consumption shall be indicated, where appropriate.\nArticle 26\nCountry of origin or place of provenance\n1. This Article shall apply without prejudice to labelling requirements provided for in specific Union provisions, in particular Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialties guaranteed (33) and Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (34).\n2. Indication of the country of origin or place of provenance shall be mandatory:\n(a)\nwhere failure to indicate this might mislead the consumer as to the true country of origin or place of provenance of the food, in particular if the information accompanying the food or the label as a whole would otherwise imply that the food has a different country of origin or place of provenance;\n(b)\nfor meat falling within the Combined Nomenclature (\u2018CN\u2019) codes listed in Annex XI. The application of this point shall be subject to the adoption of implementing acts referred to in paragraph 8.\n3. Where the country of origin or the place of provenance of a food is given and where it is not the same as that of its primary ingredient:\n(a)\nthe country of origin or place of provenance of the primary ingredient in question shall also be given; or\n(b)\nthe country of origin or place of provenance of the primary ingredient shall be indicated as being different to that of the food.\nThe application of this paragraph shall be subject to the adoption of the implementing acts referred to in paragraph 8.\n4. Within 5 years from the date of application of point (b) of paragraph 2, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council to evaluate the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for products referred to in that point.\n5. By 13 December 2014, the Commission shall submit reports to the European Parliament and the Council regarding the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for the following foods:\n(a)\ntypes of meat other than beef and those referred to in point (b) of paragraph 2;\n(b)\nmilk;\n(c)\nmilk used as an ingredient in dairy products;\n(d)\nunprocessed foods;\n(e)\nsingle ingredient products;\n(f)\ningredients that represent more than 50 % of a food.\n6. By 13 December 2013, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council regarding the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for meat used as an ingredient.\n7. The reports referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 shall take into account the need for the consumer to be informed, the feasibility of providing the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance and an analysis of the costs and benefits of the introduction of such measures, including the legal impact on the internal market and the impact on international trade.\nThe Commission may accompany those reports with proposals to modify the relevant Union provisions.\n8. By 13 December 2013, following impact assessments, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts concerning the application of point (b) of paragraph 2 of this Article and the application of paragraph 3 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).\n9. In the case of foods referred to in point (b) of paragraph 2, in point (a) of paragraph 5 and in paragraph 6, the reports and the impact assessments under this Article shall consider, inter alia, the options for the modalities of expressing the country of origin or place of provenance of those foods, in particular with respect to each of the following determining points in the life of the animal:\n(a)\nplace of birth;\n(b)\nplace of rearing;\n(c)\nplace of slaughter.\nArticle 27\nInstructions for use\n1. The instructions for use of a food shall be indicated in such a way as to enable appropriate use to be made of the food.\n2. The Commission may adopt implementing acts setting out detailed rules concerning the implementation of paragraph 1 for certain foods. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).\nArticle 28\nAlcoholic strength\n1. The rules concerning indication of the alcoholic strength by volume shall, in the case of products classified in CN code 2204, be those laid down in the specific Union provisions applicable to such products.\n2. The actual alcoholic strength by volume of beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol other than those referred to in paragraph 1 shall be indicated in accordance with Annex XII.\nSECTION 3\nNutrition declaration\nArticle 29\nRelationship with other legislation\n1. This Section shall not apply to foods falling within the scope of the following legislation:\n(a)\nDirective 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (35);\n(b)\nDirective 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (36).\n2. This Section shall apply without prejudice to Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses (37) and specific Directives as referred to in Article 4(1) of that Directive.\nArticle 30\nContent\n1. The mandatory nutrition declaration shall include the following:\n(a)\nenergy value; and\n(b)\nthe amounts of fat, saturates, carbohydrate, sugars, protein and salt.\nWhere appropriate, a statement indicating that the salt content is exclusively due to the presence of naturally occurring sodium may appear in close proximity to the nutrition declaration.\n2. The content of the mandatory nutrition declaration referred to in paragraph 1 may be supplemented with an indication of the amounts of one or more of the following:\n(a)\nmono-unsaturates;\n(b)\npolyunsaturates;\n(c)\npolyols;\n(d)\nstarch;\n(e)\nfibre;\n(f)\nany of the vitamins or minerals listed in point 1 of Part A of Annex XIII, and present in significant amounts as defined in point 2 of Part A of Annex XIII.\n3. Where the labelling of a prepacked food provides the mandatory nutrition declaration referred to in paragraph 1, the following information may be repeated thereon:\n(a)\nthe energy value; or\n(b)\nthe energy value together with the amounts of fat, saturates, sugars, and salt.\n4. By way of derogation from Article 36(1), where the labelling of the products referred to in Article 16(4) provides a nutrition declaration, the content of the declaration may be limited to the energy value only.\n5. Without prejudice to Article 44 and by way of derogation from Article 36(1), where the labelling of the products referred to in Article 44(1) provides a nutrition declaration, the content of that declaration may be limited only to:\n(a)\nthe energy value; or\n(b)\nthe energy value together with the amounts of fat, saturates, sugars, and salt.\n6. In order to take account of the relevance of particulars referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5 of this Article for the information of consumers, the Commission may, by means of delegated acts, in accordance with Article 51, amend the lists in paragraphs 2 to 5 of this Article, by adding or removing particulars.\n7. By 13 December 2014, the Commission, taking into account scientific evidence and experience acquired in Member States, shall submit a report on the presence of trans fats in foods and in the overall diet of the Union population. The aim of the report shall be to assess the impact of appropriate means that could enable consumers to make healthier food and overall dietary choices or that could promote the provision of healthier food options to consumers, including, among others, the provision of information on trans fats to consumers or restrictions on their use. The Commission shall accompany this report with a legislative proposal, if appropriate.\nArticle 31\nCalculation\n1. The energy value shall be calculated using the conversion factors listed in Annex XIV.\n2. The Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts, in accordance with Article 51, conversion factors for the vitamins and minerals referred to in point 1 of Part A of Annex XIII, in order to calculate more precisely the content of such vitamins and minerals in foods. Those conversion factors shall be added to Annex XIV.\n3. The energy value and the amounts of nutrients referred to in Article 30(1) to (5) shall be those of the food as sold.\nWhere appropriate, the information may relate to the food after preparation, provided that sufficiently detailed preparation instructions are given and the information relates to the food as prepared for consumption.\n4. The declared values shall, according to the individual case, be average values based on:\n(a)\nthe manufacturer\u2019s analysis of the food;\n(b)\na calculation from the known or actual average values of the ingredients used; or\n(c)\na calculation from generally established and accepted data.\nThe Commission may adopt implementing acts setting out detailed rules for the uniform implementation of this paragraph with regard to the precision of the declared values such as the differences between the declared values and those established in the course of official checks. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).\nArticle 32\nExpression per 100 g or per 100 ml\n1. The energy value and the amount of nutrients referred to in Article 30(1) to (5) shall be expressed using the measurement units listed in Annex XV.\n2. The energy value and the amount of nutrients referred to in Article 30(1) to (5) shall be expressed per 100 g or per 100 ml.\n3. When provided, the declaration on vitamins and minerals shall, in addition to the form of expression referred to in paragraph 2, be expressed as a percentage of the reference intakes set out in point 1 of Part A of Annex XIII in relation to per 100 g or per 100 ml.\n4. In addition to the form of expression referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, the energy value and the amounts of nutrients referred to in Article 30(1), (3), (4) and (5) may be expressed, as appropriate, as a percentage of the reference intakes set out in Part B of Annex XIII in relation to per 100 g or per 100 ml.\n5. Where information is provided pursuant to paragraph 4, the following additional statement shall be indicated in close proximity to it: \u2018Reference intake of an average adult (8 400 kJ/2 000 kcal)\u2019.\nArticle 33\nExpression on a per portion basis or per consumption unit\n1. In the following cases, the energy value and the amounts of nutrients referred to in Article 30(1) to (5) may be expressed per portion and/or per consumption unit, easily recognisable by the consumer, provided that the portion or the unit used is quantified on the label and that the number of portions or units contained in the package is stated:\n(a)\nin addition to the form of expression per 100 g or per 100 ml referred to in Article 32(2);\n(b)\nin addition to the form of expression per 100 g or per 100 ml referred to in Article 32(3) regarding the amounts of vitamins and minerals;\n(c)\nin addition to or instead of the form of expression per 100 g or per 100 ml referred to in Article 32(4).\n2. By way of derogation from Article 32(2), in the cases referred to in point (b) of Article 30(3) the amount of nutrients and/or the percentage of the reference intakes set out in Part B of Annex XIII may be expressed on the basis of per portion or per consumption unit alone.\nWhen the amounts of nutrients are expressed on the basis of per portion or per consumption unit alone in accordance with the first subparagraph, the energy value shall be expressed per 100 g or per 100 ml and on the basis of per portion or per consumption unit.\n3. By way of derogation from Article 32(2), in the cases referred to in Article 30(5) the energy value and the amount of nutrients and/or the percentage of the reference intakes set out in Part B of Annex XIII may be expressed on the basis of per portion or per consumption unit alone.\n4. The portion or unit used shall be indicated in close proximity to the nutrition declaration.\n5. In order to ensure the uniform implementation of the expression of the nutrition declaration per portion or per unit of consumption and to provide for a uniform basis of comparison for the consumer, the Commission shall, taking into account actual consumption behaviour of consumers as well as dietary recommendations, adopt, by means of implementing acts, rules on the expression per portion or per consumption unit for specific categories of foods. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).\nArticle 34\nPresentation\n1. The particulars referred to in Article 30(1) and (2) shall be included in the same field of vision. They shall be presented together in a clear format and, where appropriate, in the order of presentation provided for in Annex XV.\n2. The particulars referred to in Article 30(1) and (2) shall be presented, if space permits, in tabular format with the numbers aligned. Where space does not permit, the declaration shall appear in linear format.\n3. The particulars referred to in Article 30(3) shall be presented:\n(a)\nin the principal field of vision; and\n(b)\nusing a font size in accordance with Article 13(2).\nThe particulars referred to in Article 30(3) may be presented in a format different from that specified in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n4. The particulars referred to in Article 30(4) and (5) may be presented in a format different from that specified in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n5. In cases where the energy value or the amount of nutrient(s) in a product is negligible, the information on those elements may be replaced by a statement such as \u2018Contains negligible amounts of \u2026\u2019 and shall be indicated in close proximity to the nutrition declaration when present.\nIn order to ensure the uniform implementation of this paragraph, the Commission may adopt implementing acts regarding the energy value and amounts of nutrients referred to in Article 30(1) to (5) which can be regarded as negligible. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).\n6. In order to ensure a uniform application of the manner of presenting the nutrition declaration under the formats referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article, the Commission may adopt implementing acts in this regard. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).\nArticle 35\nAdditional forms of expression and presentation\n1. In addition to the forms of expression referred to in Article 32(2) and (4) and Article 33 and to the presentation referred to in Article 34(2), the energy value and the amount of nutrients referred to in Article 30(1) to (5) may be given by other forms of expression and/or presented using graphical forms or symbols in addition to words or numbers provided that the following requirements are met:\n(a)\nthey are based on sound and scientifically valid consumer research and do not mislead the consumer as referred to in Article 7;\n(b)\ntheir development is the result of consultation with a wide range of stakeholder groups;\n(c)\nthey aim to facilitate consumer understanding of the contribution or importance of the food to the energy and nutrient content of a diet;\n(d)\nthey are supported by scientifically valid evidence of understanding of such forms of expression or presentation by the average consumer;\n(e)\nin the case of other forms of expression, they are based either on the harmonised reference intakes set out in Annex XIII, or in their absence, on generally accepted scientific advice on intakes for energy or nutrients;\n(f)\nthey are objective and non-discriminatory; and\n(g)\ntheir application does not create obstacles to the free movement of goods.\n2. Member States may recommend to food business operators the use of one or more additional forms of expression or presentation of the nutrition declaration that they consider as best fulfilling the requirements laid down in points (a) to (g) of paragraph 1. Member States shall provide the Commission with the details of such additional forms of expression and presentation.\n3. Member States shall ensure an appropriate monitoring of additional forms of expression or presentation of the nutrition declaration that are present on the market in their territory.\nTo facilitate the monitoring of the use of such additional forms of expression or presentation, Member States may require food business operators placing on the market in their territory foods bearing such information to notify the competent authority of the use of an additional form of expression or presentation and to provide them with the relevant justifications regarding the fulfilment of the requirements laid down in points (a) to (g) of paragraph 1. In such cases, information on the discontinuation of the use of such additional forms of expression or presentation may also be required.\n4. The Commission shall facilitate and organise the exchange of information between Member States, itself and stakeholders on matters relating to the use of any additional forms of expression or presentation of the nutrition declaration.\n5. By 13 December 2017, in the light of the experience gained, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the use of additional forms of expression and presentation, on their effect on the internal market and on the advisability of further harmonisation of those forms of expression and presentation. For this purpose, Member States shall provide the Commission with relevant information concerning the use of such additional forms of expression or presentation on the market in their territory. The Commission may accompany this report with proposals to modify the relevant Union provisions.\n6. In order to ensure the uniform application of this Article, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts setting out detailed rules concerning the implementation of paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).\nCHAPTER V\nVOLUNTARY FOOD INFORMATION\nArticle 36\nApplicable requirements\n1. Where food information referred to in Articles 9 and 10 is provided on a voluntary basis, such information shall comply with the requirements laid down in Sections 2 and 3 of Chapter IV.\n2. Food information provided on a voluntary basis shall meet the following requirements:\n(a)\nit shall not mislead the consumer, as referred to in Article 7;\n(b)\nit shall not be ambiguous or confusing for the consumer; and\n(c)\nit shall, where appropriate, be based on the relevant scientific data.\n3. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts on the application of the requirements referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article to the following voluntary food information:\n(a)\ninformation on the possible and unintentional presence in food of substances or products causing allergies or intolerances;\n(b)\ninformation related to suitability of a food for vegetarians or vegans; and\n(c)\nthe indication of reference intakes for specific population groups in addition to the reference intakes set out in Annex XIII.\nThose implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).\n4. In order to ensure that consumers are appropriately informed, where voluntary food information is provided by food business operators on a divergent basis which might mislead or confuse the consumer, the Commission may, by means of delegated acts, in accordance with Article 51, provide for additional cases of provision of voluntary food information to the ones referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article.\nArticle 37\nPresentation\nVoluntary food information shall not be displayed to the detriment of the space available for mandatory food information.\nCHAPTER VI\nNATIONAL MEASURES\nArticle 38\nNational measures\n1. As regards the matters specifically harmonised by this Regulation, Member States may not adopt nor maintain national measures unless authorised by Union law. Those national measures shall not give rise to obstacles to free movement of goods, including discrimination as regards foods from other Member States.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 39, Member States may adopt national measures concerning matters not specifically harmonised by this Regulation provided that they do not prohibit, impede or restrict the free movement of goods that are in conformity with this Regulation.\nArticle 39\nNational measures on additional mandatory particulars\n1. In addition to the mandatory particulars referred to in Article 9(1) and in Article 10, Member States may, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 45, adopt measures requiring additional mandatory particulars for specific types or categories of foods, justified on grounds of at least one of the following:\n(a)\nthe protection of public health;\n(b)\nthe protection of consumers;\n(c)\nthe prevention of fraud;\n(d)\nthe protection of industrial and commercial property rights, indications of provenance, registered designations of origin and the prevention of unfair competition.\n2. By means of paragraph 1, Member States may introduce measures concerning the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of foods only where there is a proven link between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance. When notifying such measures to the Commission, Member States shall provide evidence that the majority of consumers attach significant value to the provision of that information.\nArticle 40\nMilk and milk products\nMember States may adopt measures derogating from Article 9(1) and Article 10(1) in the case of milk and milk products presented in glass bottles intended for reuse.\nThey shall communicate to the Commission the text of those measures without delay.\nArticle 41\nAlcoholic beverages\nMember States may, pending the adoption of the Union provisions referred to in Article 16(4), maintain national measures as regards the listing of ingredients in the case of beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol.\nArticle 42\nExpression of the net quantity\nIn the absence of Union provisions referred to in Article 23(2) concerning the expression of net quantity for specified foods in a different manner to that provided for in Article 23(1), Member States may maintain national measures adopted before 12 December 2011.\nBy 13 December 2014, Member States shall inform the Commission about such measures. The Commission shall bring them to the attention of the other Member States.\nArticle 43\nVoluntary indication of reference intakes for specific population groups\nPending the adoption of the Union provisions referred to in point (c) of Article 36(3), Member States may adopt national measures on the voluntary indication of reference intakes for specific population groups.\nMember States shall communicate to the Commission the text of those measures without delay.\nArticle 44\nNational measures for non-prepacked food\n1. Where foods are offered for sale to the final consumer or to mass caterers without prepackaging, or where foods are packed on the sales premises at the consumer\u2019s request or prepacked for direct sale:\n(a)\nthe provision of the particulars specified in point (c) of Article 9(1) is mandatory;\n(b)\nthe provision of other particulars referred to in Articles 9 and 10 is not mandatory unless Member States adopt national measures requiring the provision of some or all of those particulars or elements of those particulars.\n2. Member States may adopt national measures concerning the means through which the particulars or elements of those particulars specified in paragraph 1 are to be made available and, where appropriate, their form of expression and presentation.\n3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the measures referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 and in paragraph 2 without delay.\nArticle 45\nNotification procedure\n1. When reference is made to this Article, the Member State which deems it necessary to adopt new food information legislation shall notify in advance the Commission and the other Member States of the measures envisaged and give the reasons justifying them.\n2. The Commission shall consult the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health set up by Article 58(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 if it considers such consultation to be useful or if a Member State so requests. In that case, the Commission shall ensure that this process is transparent for all stakeholders.\n3. The Member State which deems it necessary to adopt new food information legislation may take the envisaged measures only 3 months after the notification referred to in paragraph 1, provided that it has not received a negative opinion from the Commission.\n4. If the Commission\u2019s opinion is negative, and before the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article, the Commission shall initiate the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2) in order to determine whether the envisaged measures may be implemented subject, if necessary, to the appropriate modifications.\n5. Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (38) shall not apply to the measures falling within the notification procedure specified in this Article.\nCHAPTER VII\nIMPLEMENTING, AMENDING AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 46\nAmendments to the Annexes\nIn order to take into account technical progress, scientific developments, consumers\u2019 health, or consumers\u2019 need for information, and subject to the provisions of Article 10(2) and Article 21(2) relating to the amendments to Annexes II and III, the Commission may, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 51, amend the Annexes to this Regulation.\nArticle 47\nTransitional period for and date of application of implementing measures or delegated acts\n1. Without prejudice to paragraph 2 of this Article, in exercising the powers conferred by this Regulation to adopt measures by means of implementing acts in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2) or by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 51 the Commission shall:\n(a)\nestablish an appropriate transitional period for application of the new measures, during which foods bearing labels not complying with the new measures may be placed on the market and after which stocks of such foods that have been placed on the market before the end of the transitional period may continue to be sold until exhausted; and\n(b)\nensure that those measures apply as from 1 April in any calendar year.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply in cases of urgency where the purpose of the measures referred to in that paragraph is the protection of human health.\nArticle 48\nCommittee\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health established by Article 58(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. That Committee is a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nWhere the Committee delivers no opinion, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act and the third subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 49\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006\nThe first and second paragraphs of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Nutrition labelling of products on which a nutrition and/or health claim is made shall be mandatory, with the exception of generic advertising. The information to be provided shall consist of that specified in Article 30(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers (*1). Where a nutrition and/or health claim is made for a nutrient referred to in Article 30(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 the amount of that nutrient shall be declared in accordance with Articles 31 to 34 of that Regulation.\nThe amount(s) of the substance(s) to which a nutrition or health claim relates that does not appear in the nutrition labelling shall be stated in the same field of vision as the nutrition labelling and be expressed in accordance with Articles 31, 32 and 33 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011. The units of measurement used to express the amount of the substance shall be appropriate for the individual substances concerned.\nArticle 50\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006\nParagraph 3 of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Nutrition labelling of products to which vitamins and minerals have been added and which are covered by this Regulation shall be compulsory. The information to be provided shall consist of that specified in Article 30(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers (*2) and of the total amounts present of the vitamins and minerals when added to the food.\nArticle 51\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 9(3), Article 10(2), Article 12(3), Article 13(4), Article 18(5), Article 19(2), Article 21(2), Article 23(2), Article 30(6), Article 31(2), Article 36(4) and Article 46 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years after 12 December 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 9 months before the end of the 5-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than 3 months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 9(3), Article 10(2), Article 12(3), Article 13(4), Article 18(5), Article 19(2), Article 21(2), Article 23(2), Article 30(6), Article 31(2), Article 36(4) and Article 46 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or on a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 9(3), Article 10(2), Article 12(3), Article 13(4), Article 18(5), Article 19(2), Article 21(2), Article 23(2), Article 30(6), Article 31(2), Article 36(4) and Article 46 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 52\nUrgency procedure\n1. Delegated acts adopted under this Article shall enter into force without delay and shall apply as long as no objection is expressed in accordance with paragraph 2. The notification of a delegated act to the European Parliament and to the Council shall state the reasons for the use of the urgency procedure.\n2. Either the European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 51(5). In such a case, the Commission shall repeal the act without delay following the notification of the decision to object by the European Parliament or by the Council.\nArticle 53\nRepeal\n1. Directives 87/250/EEC, 90/496/EEC, 1999/10/EC, 2000/13/EC, 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 are repealed as from 13 December 2014.\n2. References to the repealed acts shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 54\nTransitional measures\n1. Foods placed on the market or labelled prior to 13 December 2014 which do not comply with the requirements of this Regulation may be marketed until the stocks of the foods are exhausted.\nFoods placed on the market or labelled prior to 13 December 2016 which do not comply with the requirement laid down in point (l) of Article 9(1) may be marketed until the stocks of the foods are exhausted.\nFoods placed on the market or labelled prior to 1 January 2014 which do not comply with the requirements laid down in Part B of Annex VI may be marketed until the stocks of the foods are exhausted.\n2. Between 13 December 2014 and 13 December 2016, where the nutrition declaration is provided on a voluntary basis, it shall comply with Articles 30 to 35.\n3. Notwithstanding Directive 90/496/EEC, Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006, foods labelled in accordance with Articles 30 to 35 of this Regulation may be placed on the market before 13 December 2014.\nNotwithstanding Commission Regulation (EC) No 1162/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down transitional measures for the implementation of Regulations (EC) No 853/2004, (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (39), foods labelled in accordance with Part B of Annex VI to this Regulation may be placed on the market before 1 January 2014.\nArticle 55\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 13 December 2014, with the exception of point (l) of Article 9(1), which shall apply from 13 December 2016, and Part B of Annex VI, which shall apply from 1 January 2014.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["26", "42", "55", "16", "85", "65", "29", "3", "13", "97", "8", "12", "86", "63", "35", "78", "62", "94", "14", "33", "34", "87", "19", "0", "95", "9", "76", "79", "58", "15", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 May 2011\non State aid C 88/97 implemented by France in favour of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\n(notified under document C(2011) 3436)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/747/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 108(2), first subparagraph, thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving given interested parties notice to submit their comments pursuant to those Articles (1), and having regard to those comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 25 January 1991 the Association fran\u00e7aise des banques (AFB), the Chambre syndicale des banques populaires and Cr\u00e9dit Agricole lodged a complaint alleging that France had granted State aid to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel.\n(2)\nThe Commission first requested information concerning the Livret bleu in a letter dated 27 May 1991.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 6 February 1998, the Commission informed the French authorities that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 108(2) TFEU) in respect of the potential aid measures contained in the Livret bleu savings vehicle (2).\n(4)\nOn 8 April 1998 the French authorities replied to the questions raised by the Commission in its opening Decision.\n(5)\nCr\u00e9dit Mutuel sent a letter to the Commission on 18 June 1998 setting out arguments to reject the description of the measures covered by the opening Decision as State aid, together with a cost account files concerning the Livret bleu. A number of interested parties also submitted their comments to the Commission (see Sections 3 and 4, recitals 48 to 59), which forwarded them to the French authorities on 3 September 1998.\n(6)\nThe complainants sent four additional written statements to the Commission by letters dated 29 October 1999, 16 May 2000, 16 October 2000 and 19 January 2001, which the Commission forwarded to the French authorities on 21 February 2000 and 3 November 2000.\n(7)\nOn 5 February 2001, the Commission forwarded to France the documents received from the AFB.\n(8)\nFrom November 1998 to December 1999, at the Commission\u2019s request, a consultant (3) (hereinafter: \u2018the Commission\u2019s consultant\u2019) carried out an audit of the cost accounts of the Livret bleu. The consultant\u2019s report was submitted to the French authorities and to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel for examination on 10 January 2000. A technical meeting on the report was organised on 7 February 2000 for the Commission, assisted by its consultant, the French authorities and Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel.\n(9)\nBy letter dated 14 September 1999, the Commission asked the French authorities to explain the general interest tasks entrusted to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel. On 21 February 2000, 3 November 2000 and 5 February 2001, the Commission sent to the French authorities for comment various documents (4) submitted to the file by the complainants concerning the potential \u2018pull effect\u2019 of the Livret bleu (see subsection 7.2.3, recitals 110-118). The French authorities presented their comments on 1 February 2001.\n(10)\nOn 11 April 2000, the European Banking Federation (EBF) lodged a complaint with the Commission against the aid granted by the French State to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel in the form of exclusive rights to distribute the Livret bleu.\n(11)\nIn May 2000 the Conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration nationale du Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel commissioned the Arthur Andersen accountancy firm to review the methodology used in the Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel cost accounts and to draw up the operating statement for the Livret bleu. This task was completed in September 2000 with the submission of a detailed report on the Livret bleu operating statement, which assessed the result of the Livret bleu cost accounts at a pre-tax loss of FRF 498 million. This conclusion was based on the taking into account of \u2018adjustments\u2019. A meeting on this report was organised on 2 February 2001 for the Commission and Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel. Following observations by the Commission, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel asked Arthur Andersen to forward a memo dated 8 February 2001 justifying the method used, namely \u2018correction of the excess weighting granted to the IARD insurance activity (Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s general insurance business (5))\u2019, which had been criticised by the Commission.\n(12)\nIn April 2001 the Commission asked its consultant to identify the differences between its report and that of Arthur Andersen and to determine the changes to data or methodology that could, if necessary, be included in its previous report. A new final report from the Commission consultant was handed over on 23 July 2001. It evaluates the result of the Livret bleu cost accounts at a cumulated non-capitalised profit of FRF 1,074 billion (EUR 163,7 million). The report was sent to the French authorities on the same day. At a meeting on 26 July 2001 between the Commission, the French authorities, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel and Arthur Andersen, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel and Arthur Andersen announced that they disagreed with the final conclusions of the Commission\u2019s consultant. Arthur Andersen defended its earlier conclusions in a document dated 13 September 2001, forwarded as an annex to a memo by the French authorities dated 15 September 2001. The French authorities sent the Commission a new memo on 26 October 2001 containing a legal analysis of the Livret bleu from the perspective of Community competition law, as well as a memo of 7 January 2002 concerning the cost of the public-service task, reiterating the figures already presented by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel without providing any new information.\n(13)\nThe memo sent to the Commission by the French authorities on 26 October 2001 explained why, according to them, (i) the Livret bleu scheme did not constitute State aid; (ii) if the Commission did classify the scheme as aid, it could only be existing aid, and (iii) in any event it was compatible aid.\n(14)\nBy Decision of 15 January 2002 (6) (hereinafter: \u2018the annulled Decision\u2019), the Commission declared the State aid granted by France to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel incompatible with the common market.\n(15)\nThe Decision of 15 January 2002 was annulled by judgment of the Court of First Instance on 18 January 2005 (7).\n(16)\nThe Commission did not appeal against the judgment. In accordance with Article 266(1) TFEU, the Commission is required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment. With regard to State aid, this means that, following the annulment of the Decision, the procedure is returned to the formal investigation stage.\n(17)\nBy Decision of 7 June 2006 (8) (hereinafter: \u2018the extension Decision\u2019), the Commission extended the formal investigation procedure and clarified the purpose of its assessment of potential aid.\n(18)\nFrance submitted its comments on the extension Decision to the Commission by letters dated 1 September 2006 and 7 September 2006.\n(19)\nOn 19 September 2006 the Commission received a complaint from the Association des Victimes du Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel (Association of Victims of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel).\n(20)\nThe Commission received the comments of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel by letter dated 13 October 2006.\n(21)\nBy letter dated 31 October 2006, the Commission forwarded the observations by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel to the French authorities.\n(22)\nFollowing two requests for further information from the Commission dated 22 September 2006 and 28 November 2006, France submitted additional comments by letters dated 8 November 2006 and 28 February 2007.\n(23)\nThe Commission met the French authorities on 19 December 2006 and Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel on 15 January 2007.\n(24)\nOn 10 May 2007 the Commission adopted a decision pursuant to Article 86(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 106(3) TFEU) in conjunction with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 49 and 56 TFEU) requiring France to put an end to the special rights (9) of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel, Caisses d\u2019\u00c9pargne and Banque Populaire for the distribution of the Livret bleu (Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel) and Livret A (Caisses d\u2019\u00c9pargne and Banque Postale) (10).\n(25)\nSince France did not put an end to the special rights for the distribution of the Livret A and Livret bleu within the nine-month deadline set by the Decision of 10 May 2007, the Commission opened infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty (now Article 258 TFEU) by sending France on 5 June 2008 a letter of formal notice for not complying with the Decision.\n(26)\nOn 19 September 2009 the Commission asked France for more information, which was provided on 13 October 2009.\n(27)\nOn 8 October 2009 the Commission terminated the infringement proceedings because France, by adopting the reform of 1 January 2009 liberalising the distribution of the Livret A and Livret bleu (11), had complied with its obligation to put an end to the special rights for the distribution of the livrets (12).\n(28)\nOver the course of 2010 the Commission sent e-mails with several questions to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel, to which e-mailed replies were received.\n(29)\nThis Decision closes, pursuant to Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (13), the procedure relating to the potential aid contained in the Livret bleu savings vehicle.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE LIVRET BLEU SAVINGS VEHICLE\n2.1. Description of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\n(30)\nCr\u00e9dit Mutuel is a decentralised banking and insurance group consisting of a national network of branches with the status of cooperative companies with open-ended capital. Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel is governed by the law of 10 September 1947, which laid down the principles of cooperation. It is organised on three levels: local, regional and national.\n(31)\nThe Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel group, under the group\u2019s two trade names (Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel and Cr\u00e9dit Industriel et Commercial (hereinafter: \u2018CIC\u2019)), has almost 6 000 outlets and more than 72 000 employees. Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s local branches are attached to 18 regional federations that are members of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s national confederation, the central body of the network. The CIC federates 6 regional banks and specialised subsidiaries in France and abroad.\n(32)\nCr\u00e9dit Mutuel is a group with a single management that pursues a global policy. It maintains internal financial solidarity at the level of the confederation, which ensures the liquidity of the regional federations. The group has the features of a single undertaking from the perspective of competition law because is has a single decision-making body at central level.\n2.2. Description of the Livret bleu\n(33)\nThe Livret bleu was a savings product regulated by the State and distributed exclusively by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel.\n(34)\nThe product was partially tax-exempt under the terms of the Amending Finance Act for 1975 (14). The interest on sums deposited paid to savers qualified for a tax exemption to the tune of two thirds. The State set the gross interest rate on the Livret bleu for savers in such a way that, after deduction of tax (15), the net rate was identical to that earned on the Livret A, which was fully tax-exempt.\n(35)\nThe State set the interest rate on the Livret bleu at a level above inflation, indexed to the money market. The last net rate of remuneration on the Livret bleu before this savings product was discontinued by the reform of 1 January 2009 (see recital 41) was 4 % (16). The maximum amount that savers could deposit in their Livret bleu account was EUR 15 300. The amount invested in the Livret bleu rose from EUR 13 billion (FRF 85 billion) in 1991 to EUR 22 billion in 2008.\n(36)\nThe Livret bleu\u2019s features - immediate availability of funds, minimum initial deposit authorised from EUR 15, no costs (in particular on opening the account), etc. - led to great liquidity. In addition, it was possible to set up direct debits from the Livret bleu account to the national exchequer or public companies such as EDF or France T\u00e9l\u00e9com. The Livret bleu, which was a savings product aimed at the general public, was therefore similar in some respects to a current account.\n(37)\nThe obligations associated with the use of the funds collected through the Livret bleu changed over time.\n(38)\nInitially Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel was obliged to allocate 50 % of the resources (in 1983 (17) this proportion was increased to 65 % of the resources and 80 % for new deposits) to general-interest uses (notably the financing of local authorities and other public bodies), with the balance being left to the bank to dispose of freely (hereinafter: \u2018non-earmarked uses\u2019).\n(39)\nThe system was radically reformed by a Decree of 27 September 1991 (18) to bring the Livret bleu gradually into line with the Livret A system. After the Decree was adopted, all new deposits (19) were centralised with the Caisse des D\u00e9p\u00f4ts et Consignations (hereinafter: \u2018CDC\u2019) which, in return, paid Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel a brokerage commission. This commission, which was initially set at 1,3 % of the Livret bleu deposits allocated to the CDC, was reduced to 1,2 % on 1 January 2005, then to 1,1 % on 1 November 2005. The CDC uses the funds collected by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel mainly to finance social housing.\n(40)\nMoreover, this radical reform of the system was reflected in a gradual reallocation of existing deposits (20). Since the Decree of 27 September 1991 until the end of the first half of 1999, the share of existing \u2018general-interest uses\u2019 and \u2018non-earmarked uses\u2019 fell until all the deposits were allocated to the CDC.\nFRF billion and %\n1991\n1992\n1993\n1994\n1995\n1996\n1997\n1998\n1999\nAnnual average deposits\n85,5\n83\n80,2\n83,4\n88,7\n91,5\n92,7\n98,1\n98,7\nCentralised allocation CDC\n1 %\n7 %\n12 %\n24 %\n39 %\n46 %\n51 %\n69 %\n100 %\nGeneral-interest uses\n67 %\n54 %\n46 %\n35 %\n27 %\n20 %\n15 %\n10 %\n0 %\nNon-earmarked uses\n32 %\n39 %\n42 %\n41 %\n35 %\n34 %\n34 %\n21 %\n0 %\nSource: Littlejohn Frazer.\n(41)\nOn 1 January 2009 a reform of the Livret A and Livret bleu came into force that granted all banking institutions the right to distribute Livret A accounts and ended the distinction between the Livret A and Livret bleu accounts. Since 1 January 2009, the Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel Livret bleu has simply been a Livret A marketed under a different name. On that date the Livret bleu ceased to exist, and so did the exclusive right of distribution by the Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel.\n2.3. Reasons for initiating the procedure/extending the procedure\n(42)\nAs set out in the extension Decision (21), the Commission took the view that it was possible that France had granted aid to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel through the brokerage commission.\n(43)\nThe Altmark case-law of the Court of Justice holds that public-service compensation does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU if it satisfies certain cumulative conditions referred to in the Altmark judgment of 24 July 2003 (22).\n(44)\nIn its extension Decision, the Commission took the view that the fourth condition under the Altmark case-law might not be satisfied where the State did not assign this public-service task of collecting deposits intended for social rented housing to the highest bidder in a tendering procedure, but entrusted it directly through negotiations with Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel, which does not allow for any guarantee, by deduction, that the remuneration awarded to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel is not higher than the amount required by a well-run undertaking. The Commission also took the view that the French authorities had not demonstrated that the level of compensation had been determined by reference to the costs of a typical, well-run undertaking in the banking sector. It is not enough for the French authorities to highlight that Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel is a well-run undertaking to establish that the level of compensation has been determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, within the meaning of the Altmark case-law, would have incurred.\n(45)\nThe Commission\u2019s view is that the brokerage commission was a state resource that could constitute a selective advantage likely to distort competition and affect trade between Member States, which had not been notified. The brokerage commission could therefore contain elements of unlawful aid.\n(46)\nIn its extension Decision, the Commission thought it possible that the measure was not compatible with Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 106(2) TFEU) and took the view that none of the exceptions referred to in Article 87(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU) seemed to apply.\n(47)\nIt seemed possible to the Commission, on the basis of the calculations by its consultant, that the amount of the compensation had exceeded what was necessary to cover the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations (the collection of deposits intended for social rented housing), taking into account the related income and a reasonable profit for discharging that obligation. The Commission, having reiterated that the amount of the compensation had to include all the advantages granted by the State or through state resources in any form whatsoever, took account in the calculation of the compensation not only of the net cost of collecting the deposits centralised with the CDC, but also of the net result (cost or profit) of the general-interest uses and non-earmarked uses. The report by the Commission\u2019s consultant revealed over-compensation to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel for the years 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1998.\n3. THE COMPLAINANTS\u2019 ARGUMENTS\n(48)\nThe complainants\u2019 arguments were presented by the Commission in its Decision of 6 February 1998 on the initiation of proceedings pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 108(2) TFEU). The additional written statements submitted since then contain the following new arguments.\n(49)\nA paper (updated at the end of February 1999 and communicated to the Commission in October 1999) on the pull effect of the Livret bleu assessed the net banking income generated by this effect at FRF 17 billion (EUR 2,6 billion), assuming that the increase in Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s market shares in every segment over the period 1986 to 1997 was exclusively the result of distributing the Livret bleu.\n(50)\nA study conducted by Caisse Nationale du Cr\u00e9dit Agricole, submitted in May 2000, analysed developments in the number of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel branches. It emerges that the overall number of permanent branches fell between 1991 and 1994, and then increased gradually to reach, in 1998, the same level as in 1990. This trend differed according to the regions: the number of permanent, and subsequently non-permanent, branches of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel dropped in the regions in which Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel was traditionally very strong (Loire Region, Brittany and Alsace), while the number of branches in other regions grew. It is therefore likely that Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel reduced its establishments in rural areas in order to concentrate on urban areas. These figures appear to refute Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s allegations that it was obliged to maintain a large number of branches in rural areas in the 1990s. They also tend to show that Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel is capable of maintaining an exceptionally dense network of branches even after the removal of all controls by the authorities.\n(51)\nOn 4 June 1998 the AFB sent the Commission a letter stating that the commission of 1,3 % on Livret bleu deposits centralised with the CDC was excessive given that, at the same time, the Caisses d\u2019\u00c9pargne and la Poste received 1,2 % and 1,5 % respectively on Livret A savings, which were also held centrally by the CDC. The AFB pointed out in this letter that it proposed to the French authorities in 1997 that it would ensure the collection of Livret bleu deposits for a charge of only 1 %, but that the Government had not replied to this offer. The AFB underlined in particular that the April 1998 report by Mr Douy\u00e8re, a member of parliament, on the modernisation of the Caisses d\u2019\u00e9pargne indicated that the cost of collecting savings for an average Caisse d\u2019\u00e9pargne such as that of Burgundy was 0,96 % of its total funds, and that there was no reason why Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s management costs should be higher.\n(52)\nA memorandum produced by the Glais consultancy dated August 2000, submitted at the request of the AFB, contains statistics concerning the competitive advantage thought to be enjoyed by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel as a result of the exclusive rights to distribute the Livret bleu. An examination of time-series data shows the total amount of Livret bleu deposits and the total amount of other deposits increased considerably until a turning point in 1985 to 1987. The growth in loans to households continues after that date and remains stronger for Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel than for its main competitors. The Glais consultancy expert deduced that \u2018the Livret bleu effect therefore seems to have worked by attracting customers and, from the mid-1980s, the positive effect seems to have continued without an increase in deposits. Thus the customers who remained loyal appear to have been the ones who financed Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s expansionist strategy from that period on\u2019. The expert concluded that Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s (essentially credit) activities appear to have been unrelated to average developments in the banking market, notably on the basis of an indicator of the persistence of random economic shocks on activity variables and by creating a model based on a simple credit-demand equation. The expert explains this phenomenon by the fact that Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s customers remain much more loyal than those of other banking networks, for example because of the Livret bleu.\n(53)\nIn a second memorandum (December 2000), the Glais consultancy proposed a new econometric analysis of the degree of loyalty of each set of customers to each banking network. According to the expert, the figures corroborate the hypothesis that Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel and Caisses d\u2019\u00c9pargne have much better means of retaining their customers\u2019 loyalty than other banks. But it is impossible to determine whether the offer of a tax-free savings account or the use of a dense network of branches in different regions (two instruments shared by these networks) is the reason for the greater customer loyalty.\n(54)\nOn a matter incidental to these proceedings, the Commission also received an additional statement from the complainants which stated that the purchase by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel in April 1997 of Cr\u00e9dit Industriel et Commercial (CIC), when the latter was being privatised (it had previously been owned by the public insurance group GAN), had been possible because of the aid it had received for the Livret bleu, which increased its market share of savings from 2 % in 1969 to approximately 6,9 % in 1997. According to the complainants, the undertaking\u2019s own funds had increased rapidly because of the aid in question, rising from FRF 650 million (EUR 99 million) in 1974 to FRF 47,3 billion (EUR 7,2 billion) in 1997.\n(55)\nFinally, the complaint by the Association of Victims of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel dated 19 September 2006 contains a simple allegation of \u2018diversion of public savings for private and commercial ends [\u2026] to the detriment of savers and of the French economy\u2019, which is not backed up by any serious arguments or evidence relating to potential unlawful State aid.\n4. COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES\n(56)\nFollowing the publication of the opening Decision of 6 February 1998, the Commission received comments from numerous third parties.\n(57)\nSome of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s competitors cited the damage they had suffered as a result of exclusive distribution rights for the Livret bleu being granted to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel. These banks generally argued that the Livret bleu generated a pull factor making them lose clients to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel and they wanted to see the end of this exclusive right. The following establishments sent comments to this effect to the Commission:\nBanque Dupuy de Parseval\nBanque Natexis\nBanque de Picardie\nBanque Populaire de Bourgogne\nBanque Populaire Bretagne Atlantique\nBanque Populaire du Centre\nBanque Populaire Centre-Atlantique\nBanque Populaire de Champagne\nBanque Populaire de la C\u00f4te d\u2019Azur\nBanque Populaire du Dauphin\u00e9 et des Alpes du Sud\nBanque Populaire de Franche-Comt\u00e9, du Maconnais et de l\u2019Ain\nBanque Populaire du Haut-Rhin\nBanque Populaire de La Loire\nBanque Populaire de Lorraine\nBanque Populaire de Lyon\nBanque Populaire du Midi\nBanque Populaire du Massif Central\nBanque Populaire de l\u2019Ouest\nBanque Populaire Proven\u00e7ale et Corse\nBanque Populaire des Pyr\u00e9n\u00e9es Orientales, de l\u2019Aude et de l\u2019Ari\u00e8ge\nBanque Populaire du Quercy et de l\u2019Agenais\nBanque Populaire Savoisienne\nBanque Populaire de la R\u00e9gion \u00c9conomique de Strasbourg\nBanque Populaire du Sud-Ouest\nBanque Populaire du Tarn et de l\u2019Aveyron\nB.P.ROP Banque Populaire\nBanque de Savoie\nCr\u00e9dit Commercial de France\nCr\u00e9dit Commercial du Sud-Ouest\nCr\u00e9dit Lyonnais\nSoci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale\nUnion des Banques \u00e0 Paris.\n(58)\nAt the same time, in addition to the comments in defence of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel, presented in Section 4, the Commission received comments from the following third parties which were in favour of the Livret bleu vehicle:\nM. Mr Bertholet, MP (Dr\u00f4me Department)\nMr Blondel, Member of the General Council of the Nord Department\nMr Cabot, Director of the Regional Youth Information Centre of Toulouse\nMr Cormor\u00e8che, Mayor of Montluel\nMr Cornelis, Member of the General Council of the Nord Department\nMr Chavannes, Mayor of Angoul\u00eame\nMr Cr\u00e9peau, MP (Charente Maritime Department)\nMr Debavelaere, Senator (Pas-de-Calais Department)\nMr Decool, Mayor of Brouckerque\nMr Delevoye, Senator (Pas-de-Calais Department)\nMr Delnatte, MP (Nord Department)\nM. Mr Dolez, MP (Nord Department)\nM. Mr Ewald, Regional Delegate of the Association pour le Droit \u00e0 l\u2019Initiative Economique\nMr Fronton, Union D\u00e9partementale des Associations Familiales de Haute-Garonne\nMr Foy, Senator (Nord Department)\nMr Gali\u00e8gue, President of the Solesmes Caisse de Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\nMs Gournay, Mayor of Ca\u00ebstre\nMs Armelle Guineberti\u00e8re, Member of the European Parliament\nMr Herv\u00e9, Mayor of Rennes\nMr Humez, President of the Pas-de-Calais Comit\u00e9 d\u00e9partemental de lutte contre la mucoviscidose\nMs Ingelaere, President of Flandr\u2019action\nMr Jupp\u00e9, Mayor of and MP for Bordeaux\nMr Lapalu, President of the Association Animation et Gestion d\u2019Organismes Priv\u00e9s\nMr Lazaro, MP (Nord Department)\nMr Lebreton, President of the General Council of C\u00f4tes d\u2019Armor Department\nM. Mr Ledieu, Mayor of Le Cateau-Cambr\u00e9sis\nMr Leleu, Director of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel Nord\nMr Maille, President of the Brest urban area\nMr Masclet, Member of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Regional Council\nMr M\u00e9haignerie, President of the General Council of the Ille et Vilaine Department\nMr Mio, Member of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Regional Council\nMs Novak, President of the Association pour le Droit \u00e0 l\u2019Initiative Economique\nMs Permuy, Member of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Regional Council\nM. Mr Albert Rivaux, Member of the General Council of the Pas-de-Calais Department\nMr de Rohan, President of the Brittany Regional Council\nMr Valla, Member of the General Council of the Ard\u00e8che Department\nMr Vanlerenberghe, Mayor of Arras\nMr Villain, Mayor of Cambrai\nMr de Villiers, MP (Vend\u00e9e Department).\n(59)\nThe vast majority of third parties underlined the role played by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel, particularly at regional level, in financing the social economy, especially non-profit-making organisations. They also stressed the supporting role it plays with respect to people in lower income groups, from which a large part of its customers come. Several local elected representatives emphasised Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s role in setting up undertakings and creating jobs, and in developing local initiatives in conjunction with the local authorities. Others considered that because of its decentralised structures, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel was better able than centralised institutions to meet local needs and respond to the requirement of balanced regional development.\n5. CR\u00c9DIT MUTUEL\u2019S COMMENTS\n(60)\nCr\u00e9dit Mutuel criticises the Commission for having taken a particularly long time in dealing with the case.\n(61)\nFurthermore, according to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel, the judgment by the Court of First Instance, in addition to stressing the failure to state valid grounds, contained criticism of the argument presented by the Commission, which was not taken into account in the extension Decision, in particular as far as the calculation of any overcompensation was concerned. In this respect, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel accuses the Commission of adding together the positive full-year amounts without deducting the figure for the negative full-year amounts, contrary to the method put forward in the Community framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (hereafter \u2018the 2005 Community framework\u2019) (23).\n(62)\nAccording to the bank, the brokerage commission fulfils the four conditions of the Altmark case-law:\n(a)\nWith respect to the first condition, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel was engaged in the provision of two services of general economic interest, firstly by maintaining a significant branch presence in rural areas for regional development purposes and secondly by gathering deposits intended to finance social housing. As far as maintaining branches in rural areas is concerned, it disputes the Commission\u2019s conclusion that French laws and regulations remain too vague to entrust Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel with any such role and thus for the first condition of the Altmark case-law to be fulfilled. According to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel, the Commission draws this conclusion from the fact that this legislation did not place any specific constraints on Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel since it applied to the banking sector as a whole. Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel also holds that the Commission is trying to transfer to it the burden of proof that the first condition of the Altmark case-law has been met, which is not what is laid down in the case-law in question.\n(b)\nWith respect to the second condition, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel stresses that the brokerage commission was created at the same time as the obligation to centralise to centralise deposits with the CDC and that the conditions for calculating the commission were drawn up in an objective and transparent manner.\n(c)\nAs for the third condition, the bank states that the compensation was not sufficient to cover the costs of gathering deposits, since the activity relating to the funds transferred to the CDC posted a loss over the whole of the 1991-2005 period.\n(d)\nCr\u00e9dit Mutuel further holds that the fourth condition was met. The level of the brokerage commission was based on the costs actually incurred by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel in distributing the Livret blue. Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel is a well-run undertaking within the meaning of the Altmark case-law, since its administrative costs are amongst the lowest. The Commission is, moreover, said to have acknowledged this in its extension Decision (24); It is of the opinion that the Commission has not provided sufficient grounds to underpin its view that this condition has not been met.\n(63)\nIn any event, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel holds that the measure is compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU. Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel criticises, inter alia, the method used to calculate the overcompensation to which reference was made in the extension Decision. In its view, the Commission made calculation errors in its assessment of gross operating profit for the Livret bleu by making its own the mistaken conclusions of its consultant, despite the areas of disagreement outstanding between the Commission\u2019s consultant and Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s consultant (25).\n(64)\nCr\u00e9dit Mutuel also disagrees with the annual approach used by the Commission (that is the fact of taking into account only the amounts relating to years of overcompensation, without offsetting them with the amounts for years of undercompensation), which it believes runs counter to a number of precedents, the annulled Decision and, in its view, the Community framework of 2005 (26). The Commission should adopt an overall approach (that is offsetting all of the amounts relating to years of overcompensation by those for years of undercompensation) for the whole of the 1991-98 period, on the one hand, and for the whole of the period beginning in 1999, on the other.\n(65)\nIn addition, in its extension Decision the Commission did not take reasonable profit into account properly. It based its assessment of reasonable profit on the costs of regulatory capital, estimated at 6 %, whereas these costs represent a cost accounting expense, not a margin. The Commission should have taken into account the return on equity recommended by Arthur Andersen (27). Moreover, the calculation of reasonable profit was made on the basis of a rapidly diminishing base, which falls to zero on the complete centralisation of deposits with the CDC, since such deposits incur no cost in terms of regulatory capital. Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel emphasises that the indicator used by the Commission leads to it being deprived of any normal margin on the Livret bleu. In its view, any bank must be able to generate a normal margin, even on a centralised use incurring no cost of capital within the strict regulatory meaning of the solvency ratio.\n(66)\nNor did the Commission correctly take into account the expenses arising from the other service of general economic interest which Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel regards itself as providing, that is maintaining a branch presence in rural areas with a view to encouraging saving by the general public throughout the country\u2019s territory by facilitating access to banking services to the greatest number of people.\n(67)\nCr\u00e9dit Mutuel also denies that there was ever any pull factor. It notes that the Commission had acknowledged in its annulled Decision that there was no formal evidence attesting to a pull factor and is of the view that no new evidence has appeared since then.\n(68)\nWith respect to the proceedings, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel relies on a number of general principles of Community law to dispute the recovery of potential aid, inter alia, the principle of legitimate expectation and the duty to act within a reasonable time.\n6. COMMENTS BY FRANCE\n(69)\nFrance is of the opinion that the conditions of the Altmark case-law have been met:\n(a)\nWith respect to the first condition, it emphasises that the Commission has acknowledged that Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel was attributed the task of providing a service of general economic interest by gathering deposits to finance social housing. It recalls that the Commission stated in its extension Decision that maintaining branches in rural areas for regional development purposes could also be regarded as a service of general economic interest (28), but does not react to the arguments raised by the Commission in its extension Decision that the first condition of the Altmark case-law has not been met because there is no national legislation or regulations requiring, in a sufficiently clear manner, the institution to perform this task pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU (29).\n(b)\nWith respect to the second condition, France is of the opinion that the parameters for calculating the compensation were established in advance in an objective and transparent manner.\n(c)\nAs for the third condition, it argues that the amount of compensation (the brokerage commission) did not exceed what was necessary to cover the costs of the system and refers in this respect to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s detailed profit-and-loss accounts for the Livret bleu for the years 1999 to 2005.\n(d)\nThe fourth condition is also fulfilled, with France stating that Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s management meets the efficiency requirements (30).\n(70)\nWith respect to the conditions relating to the existence of aid, France refers to the arguments it put forward before the annulment of the 2002 Decision:\n(a)\nThe state resources condition is not fulfilled since the income derived by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel from the deposits not centralised with the CDC (non-earmarked uses and general-interest uses) arose from resources of private origin (monies deposited by savers) which were not at the disposal of the public authorities.\n(b)\nTrade between Member States could not have been affected before completion of the single market for banking and financial activities on 1 January 1993, following the adoption of Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December 1989 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions and amending Directive 77/780/EEC (hereinafter \u2018the Second Banking Directive\u2019) (31) The French authorities considered that, after that date, given the absence of an official European statute for cooperative societies and the constraints that this situation produced in terms of the cross-border expansion of cooperative societies such as Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel, the latter\u2019s constituent regional entities did not operate across national borders. Moreover, the Livret bleu accounts opened for non-residents represented less than 0,1 % of the total. The French authorities also stated that foreign banks in France were targeting a very different market to that of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel.\n(c)\nThe brokerage commission paid by the CDC to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel on the total Livret bleu deposits centralised with it did not constitute aid, but rather remuneration for a service rendered by the bank, the price of which had been set in 1991 at 1,3 %. The French authorities underlined the scale of the management costs for the Livret bleu because of the number of accounts with deposits totalling less than FRF 5 000 (EUR 762). They referred to the cost accounts produced by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel (after the measure at hand was adopted), concluding that this level of remuneration was fully justified. The French authorities argued that the advantages which Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel received from the Livret bleu should be examined in the light of the costs relating to a general economic interest objective. In this respect, they drew the attention of the Commission to the increase in the attribution of the deposits to financing objectives of general interest, for which the proportion rose from 50 % of Livret bleu deposits between 1975 and 1983, to 65 % between 1983 and 1991, to 100 % of deposits centralised with the CDC from 1998 onwards.\n(d)\nEven assuming that there had been aid, it would have been existing aid as the Livret bleu scheme was set up before the liberalisation of the banking sector on 1 January 1993 (the deadline for transposing the Second Banking Directive).\n(71)\nIn their letter of 26 October 2001, the French authorities provided the reason why, were the Commission to conclude the existence of aid, that aid would in any event be compatible with the internal market in accordance with Article 106(3) TFEU. They criticise the Commission for making mistakes in its calculation of the gross operating profit from the Livret bleu by not following the method put forward by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s consultant (32). They also contend that the Commission should take into account a reasonable profit, which they estimate at [\u2026] (33).\n(72)\nIn their comments on the extension Decision, the French authorities also criticise the Commission for its \u2018asymmetrical reasoning\u2019, in that it did not offset the amounts for years in which overcompensation was found (1991, 1992, 1993 and 1998) by those for years of undercompensation (1994 to 1997) and for repeating in their entirety in Annex 1 to the extension Decision the conclusions of its consultant on the three areas of disagreement between France and the Commission. France specified that for the whole of the 1999-2005 period the system relating to the Livret bleu was undercompensated by the state. The amount of the brokerage commission did not exceed what was required to cover the distribution costs of the Livret bleu as reflected in the cost accounts for the Livret bleu, which were drawn up in partnership with the Commission (subject to two adaptations (34)) and meet the requirements of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (35). France also explained that the recent reductions in the brokerage commission were made to meet the requirements of those engaged in financing social housing (36).\n(73)\nThe French authorities explained that a mechanism for the repayment of any overcompensation has existed since 1999.\n(74)\nFrance also explained that the risk of a lack of liquidity for the first month was borne by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel and the risk of a lack of liquidity beyond that was borne by the CDC. With respect to deposits collected for Livret bleu accounts, France further explained that the risk-weighting percentage for the calculation of capital requirements needed for the solvency margin was zero. It pointed out that the risk weighting for Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s capital requirements for other savings products and resources other than the Livret bleu ranged from [\u2026]% to [\u2026]% from 1999 to 2005. The French authorities specified that, given the irrelevance of applying the European solvency ratio after the complete transfer of the deposits to the CDC in 1999, in order to calculate the reasonable profit corresponding to the Livret bleu, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel factored in a cost of capital in reference to its other savings products and resources, which it capped ([\u2026]% to [\u2026]% between 1999 and 2005). At the Commission\u2019s request, France also provided precise information on the margin of compensation relating to the establishment of a compulsory reserve fund with the Banque de France.\n7. ASSESSMENT\n7.1. Existence of aid\n(75)\nIn the extension Decision the Commission considered that the only measure at issue likely to contain aid elements was the brokerage commission paid to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel by the CDC (37).\n(76)\nSuch aid as may be hidden in the brokerage commission was introduced on 27 September 1991 by the Order of the same date and, in the present Decision, is analysed up to the liberalisation of the distribution of the Livret A and the harmonisation of the Livret bleu with it on 1 January 2009 (38).\n7.1.1. The conditions of the Altmark judgment are not met\n(77)\nAccording to the Altmark case law (39) compensation paid in consideration of public-service tasks does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if four cumulative conditions are met.\n(78)\nIn their comments in response to the extension Decision the French authorities and Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel invoke the existence of two services of general economic interest, namely the maintenance of a significant branch presence in rural areas for regional development purposes and the gathering of deposits intended for social housing financing.\n(79)\nHowever, even before the measure at issue was introduced, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel was no longer under any obligation to maintain rural branches since the 1987 repeal of the Bank Branches (opening and closing) Act (loi relative \u00e0 l\u2019ouverture et \u00e0 la fermeture des agences bancaires) and the abolition on 1 July 1991 of the supervision arrangements (which were kept in place with respect to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel from 1987 to 1991) (40). Moreover, neither the French authorities nor Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel challenged the conclusion in the extension Decision that, after 1991 (or, to be precise, 1 July 1991), there was no longer any instrument in force on the basis of which Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel might have been entrusted, within the meaning of Article 86 EC (now Article 106 TFEU), with the task mentioned in paragraph 24, point (iii) of the extension Decision (maintenance of branches in rural areas for regional development purposes) (41).\n(80)\nIt is therefore only as regards the task of gathering deposits with a view to financing social housing that it falls to be examined whether the Altmark case law applies.\n(81)\nThe Commission would recall that Member States have a wide margin of discretion as to the nature of services which may be classified as services of general economic interest. It considers that the Decrees implementing the provisions of Article 9 of the Amending Finance Act for 1975 (42) and of Article 24 of the Amending Finance Act for 1982 (43), and in particular the Order of 27 September 1991, clearly entrust to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel the task (as defined in Articles R 323-10 and R 331-14 of the Construction and Housing Code) of gathering funds for transfer to the CDC in order that the latter might finance social housing. The Commission is of the opinion that, in classifying this task as a service of general economic interest, France has not committed a manifest error of assessment.\n(82)\nAccording to the fourth condition of the Altmark judgment, \u2018where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations, in a specific case, is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run [\u2026] so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations\u2019 (44).\n(83)\nThe Commission considers that the fourth condition is not met in the case of the task of gathering deposits to be centralised with the CDC for the purpose of financing social housing. It should be noted that the State assigned this task, not to the highest bidder via a public procurement procedure, but directly by negotiation with Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel. The level of brokerage commission was not determined by reference to the costs connected with the performance of the service of general economic interest incurred by a typical, well-run undertaking. The brokerage commission of 1,3 % could not be based on the actual costs incurred by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel in performing the service of general economic interest because there was no separate accounting for the Livret bleu in September 1991 making it possible to trace the costs linked specifically to the Livret bleu in the bank\u2019s accounts. The separate accounting for the Livret bleu was developed several years later and applied retroactively for the years up to 1991. There is therefore nothing to indicate that the level of brokerage commission was determined by reference to the costs of a typical, well-run undertaking performing the general-interest task in question. The French authorities argue that Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel is, on the whole, well run. However, they do not really back up this claim, but instead refer mainly to paragraph 13 of the extension Decision, where the Commission simply mentions the overall financial results (balance-sheet size, net profit or loss, cost/income ratio, equity capital and solvency ratio) of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel in 2004. At all events, if a Member State has determined the level of compensation on the basis of an analysis of the costs of a typical, well-run undertaking, it should have no difficulty proving it to the Commission and outlining the methodology followed - something which France has not done in this case. Finally, the fact that, as soon as the distribution of Livrets A and Livrets bleus was liberalised on 1 January 2009, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s brokerage commission went down from 1,1 % to 0,6 % seems to indicate that the level of that commission was higher than it would have been had it been based on the costs of a typical, well-run undertaking performing the same general-interest task.\n(84)\nIn so far as the conditions of the Altmark judgment are cumulative, it is enough that only one of the conditions is not met for the case law not to apply and for the measure at issue to be able to constitute State aid. It follows from the above that the measure at issue does not meet the fourth condition of the Altmark judgment. The Altmark case law therefore does not apply and it needs to be considered whether the measure does in fact constitute State aid (45) (46).\n7.1.2. The conditions relating to the existence of aid are met\n(85)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU provides that any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\n7.1.2.1. Imputability to the State and state resources\n(86)\nThe brokerage commission was paid annually (47) to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel by the CDC under an agreement between the State and Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel laying down detailed rules for implementing the Order of 27 September 1991. The amount of brokerage commission is set by the State to compensate for the public service obligations. Moreover, the CDC is a public undertaking the conduct of which is imputable to the State (48). The condition concerning imputability to the State and state resources is therefore met.\n7.1.2.2. Selectivity\n(87)\nThe brokerage commission was granted exclusively to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel in return for its gathering savings, to be centralised with the CDC for the purpose of financing social housing, by means of the Livret bleu, for which Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel held an exclusive right of distribution. This measure is therefore selective in nature.\n7.1.2.3. The conditions of the Altmark judgment being inapplicable, examination as to the existence of an advantage distorting competition\n(88)\nGiven that it constituted a transfer of state resources for the benefit of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel alone, the brokerage commission improved the competitive position of that bank compared with its competitors. According to the case law of the Court of Justice, an improvement in the competitive position of an undertaking as a result of State aid generally constitutes proof that competition with other undertakings which have not received similar aid is being distorted (49).\n7.1.2.4. Effect on trade between Member States\n(89)\nMoreover, according to settled case law, there is an effect on trade between Member States where the undertaking in receipt of aid carries on its activities in a sector which is open to competition and in which there is trade between Member States (50). From 1979, the share of the market held by foreign banks reached 8 % in the case of lending business (4 % for branches without legal personality, 4 % for subsidiaries constituted under French law) and 4,5 % in the case of deposit business (2 % and 2,5 % respectively). The share held by non-French European banks compared with all foreign banks was 50 % in the case of loans and 70 % for deposits. Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel has therefore been faced since the 1970s with competition from foreign networks on French soil. Moreover, the liquid bank savings market to which the Livret bleu belonged, and which also includes the Codevi, the LEP, the Livret jeune, ordinary savings accounts and the CEL (51), was already open to competition during the period considered.\n(90)\nThe Commission concludes, therefore, that the four necessary preconditions for the existence of aid are met.\n7.1.2.5. Unlawfulness of the aid measure\n(91)\nLastly, the aid measure is unlawful because it was not notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU and was implemented after the entry into force in France of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community.\n(92)\nIn answer to the French authorities\u2019 argument that the aid is existing aid since it was adopted before the expiry of the time limit for transposal of the second Banking Directive, namely 1 January 1993, the Commission would point out that that Directive sought to complete the internal market in the area of credit institutions from the point of view of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. It does not imply that the relevant market was closed to competition before the brokerage commission was adopted, but simply that there were still certain obstacles to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in the banking sector. The Decision of 10 May 2007 states that the Livret bleu belongs to a \u2018market\u2019 for liquid bank savings, which implies that the activity in question is open to competition and in no way supports the French authorities\u2019 argument that that activity was not opened to competition until 1993. On the contrary, the Decision refers to the existence of a \u2018mature\u2019 market (52).\n7.2. Compatibility of the aid with the internal market\n(93)\nSince the measure at issue contains elements of State aid, the Commission must analyse the compatibility of the said measure with the internal market.\n(94)\nArticle 106(2) TFEU provides that: \u2018Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest [\u2026] shall be subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union\u2019.\n(95)\nAccording to the case law of the Court of Justice, the decision-making practice of the Commission and the 2005 Community framework, Article 106(2) TFEU signifies that State aid to an undertaking entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest may be declared compatible with the internal market if the aid measure fulfils the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe service provided has the features of a service of general economic interest;\n(b)\nthe undertaking is actually required to perform this service of general economic interest by the State by means of one or more official acts;\n(c)\nthe principles of necessity and proportionality are respected; and\n(d)\nthe development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the Union\u2019s interests.\n(96)\nConditions (a) and (b) are fulfilled for the reasons set out in recital 81.\n(97)\nAs far as condition (d) is concerned, there is no evidence in the Commission\u2019s possession to suggest that intra-Community trade has been affected to such an extent that the aid does not satisfy this condition. In particular, the Decision of 10 May 2007 asked for an end to the exclusivity of the right of distribution of the Livret bleu since the special rights connected with the distribution of the Livret bleu constituted a restriction on freedom to provide services within the Community (53). Nevertheless, provided that it has not overcompensated the general interest service entrusted to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel, the brokerage commission cannot be considered as affecting the development of trade to an extent contrary to the Union\u2019s interests.\n(98)\nThe Commission examines, therefore, below whether the principles of necessity and proportionality have in fact been respected, that is to say, whether the amount of the compensation which the brokerage commission constitutes has not exceeded what is necessary to cover the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations (54).\n(99)\nIn verifying the absence of any overcompensation (see subsection 7.2.5), the Commission follows - for the period from 27 September 1991 (see subsection 7.2.1) to 31 December 2005 - a global approach (see subsection 7.2.2). It takes account of all the advantages connected with the Livret bleu, without, however, including a possible pull effect whose scope could not be established (see subsection 7.2.3). A reasonable profit is taken into account (see subsection 7.2.4), including for deposits centralised with the CDC.\n7.2.1. Beginning of the period considered (27 September 1991)\n(100)\nIn the extension Decision, the calculation of the net results of the Livret bleu for the purpose of assessing whether there was any overcompensation included the results for the whole of 1991 (55). In other words, the net revenue from non-earmarked uses and general-interest uses was factored in as of 1 January 1991.\n(101)\nAs stated in recitals 75 and 76, the only measure at issue in the present case is the brokerage commission, the principle of which was established on 27 September 1991, at the same time as Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel was tasked with centralising its deposits with the CDC with a view to financing social housing. Before that date, neither the brokerage commission nor the centralisation with the CDC existed. Consequently, the Commission must begin its assessment of the proportionality of the aid as from that date.\n(102)\nThe costs and revenues connected with the performance of the service of general economic interest cannot therefore predate 27 September 1991. In other words, it is only as from the creation of the aid measure at issue (the brokerage commission) that account can be taken of the costs and revenues connected with the performance of the general economic interest service financed by that aid. The Commission considers in conclusion that its extension Decision was inconsistent in limiting the aid measure to the brokerage commission created on 27 September 1991 while continuing to take into account the net revenue from Livret bleu accounts during the period from 1 January 1991 to 27 September 1991.\n(103)\nIn view of the fact that Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel is able to communicate the net results of general-interest uses and non-earmarked uses only on an annual basis, the Commission considers that, for the year 1991, account must be taken only of the net results corresponding to the period from 27 September 1991 to 31 December 1991, based on the proportion between the number of relevant days and the net results for the whole of 1991, i.e. 96/365. The net results for deposits centralised with the CDC for the year 1991 can be taken into account in their entirety since, as explained in recital 101, such centralisation was in fact introduced after 27 September 1991, with the result that, by definition, no part of these results relates to the period from 1 January 1991 to 27 September 1991.\n7.2.2. Global approach up to the end of 2005 and each year thereafter\n(104)\nIn its extension Decision, the Commission advocated the adoption of an annual approach to assessing the existence of any overcompensation. This approach stems from the 2005 Community framework and represents a change compared with its previous practice. When, prior to the adoption of the 2005 Community framework, the Commission had to assess the existence of any overcompensation, it followed an approach which may be described as \u2018global\u2019 whereby the amounts relating to the years of overcompensation could, without limit, be offset by the amounts for the years of undercompensation (56).\n(105)\nPursuant to point 26 of the 2005 Community framework, the Commission will apply the framework\u2019s provisions to non-notified aid if the aid was granted after publication of the framework in the Official Journal of the European Union and the provisions in force at the time the aid was granted, in all other cases. The aid at issue was granted annually (57) and was not notified. The 2005 Community framework was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 29 November 2005. It is therefore necessary to apply the rules in force at the time the aid was granted with respect to the period before 2006 and the 2005 Community framework with respect to the period from 1 January 2006 to the measure\u2019s termination on 31 December 2008.\n(106)\nThe 2005 Community framework advocates an \u2018annual\u2019 approach inasmuch as the calculation of any overcompensation has to be done annually without it being possible to carry forward the amount of any annual overcompensation to the next year, save where that amount does not exceed 10 % of the amount of annual compensation (58).\n(107)\nOn the other hand, prior to the adoption of the 2005 Community framework, where the Commission checked whether the undertaking had not been overcompensated for the performance of the public-service task, it followed a \u2018global\u2019 approach (see recital 104) (59).\n(108)\nIn the global approach, the net results for each year, cumulated year on year, are discounted by applying the reference rate for France on 1 January of each year (60).\n7.2.3. Advantages taken into account\n(109)\nAccording to the first sentence of point 17 of the 2005 Community framework, \u2018The revenue to be taken into account must include at least the entire revenue earned from the service of general economic interest\u2019. When checking for the absence of any overcompensation, it is necessary, therefore, to take account of the net result of general-interest uses and non-earmarked uses during the investigation period. The Commission considers that these results are revenue introduced by France as from 27 September 1991 in favour of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel for its performing the general-interest service of financing social housing through the CDC. These uses are, in cost accounting, backed by a specific resource, the deposits gathered thanks to the distribution of the Livret bleu. In competitive market conditions (without the special right to distribute a tax-free savings product), Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel might not have been able to procure that resource at the same cost, with the result that the corresponding uses and resources must be taken into account in the overall structure of the Livret bleu system. Moreover, France has itself confirmed the existence of a link between these uses, the Livret bleu and the task of financing social housing by redirecting the amounts relating to these uses to the CDC as from 1991 (61). In other words, when on 27 September 1991 it entrusted to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel the general economic interest service consisting in gathering deposits centralised with the CDC and intended for financing social housing, France confirmed the entrustment to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel of the distribution of the Livret bleu. The profit resulting from the use of funds deposited on the latter must therefore be considered as from that date to be revenue granted to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel for the provision of the service of general economic interest.\n(110)\nThe complainants and other authorities or bodies (the Competition Council and reports by parliamentarians or research organisations (62) consider that the exclusive right to distribute the Livret bleu has had a \u2018pull effect\u2019 by enabling Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel to attract and retain customers to whom it has sold banking products other than the Livret bleu. In its extension Decision the Commission did not rule out the possibility that the Livret bleu may have generated indirect revenue via the pull effect (63), but it pointed out that such revenue had so far not been quantified (64).\n(111)\nFollowing its investigation into this case, the Commission would observe that, while the existence of a pull effect cannot be ruled out, the data it has collected do not enable it in this case to quantify the potential pull effect in a sufficiently precise manner.\n(112)\nThe documents submitted by the complainants presume the existence of pull effects but do not formally prove their existence and succeed even less in precisely determining the financial impact of such effects.\n(113)\nAs for the studies by the Glais consultancy (see recitals 52 and 53), the Commission would observe that Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel is right to assert that these statistical analyses provide no certain proof of a quantifiable pull effect.\n(114)\nThree subjective evaluations have been proposed in the complainants\u2019 comments. First of all, in view of the fact that other banks had offered to distribute the Livret bleu in return for a 1 % commission, the complainants proposed an approximate order of magnitude for the pull effect by calculating the difference between the level of commission charged by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel and this rate of 1 %, i.e. 0,3 %, which corresponds to approximately FRF 300 million a year. However, there is no evidence to suggest that, during the period considered, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s competitors could have performed this task under the same conditions at this level of remuneration of 1 %. Moreover, this first argument does not demonstrate the pull effect but seems to amount to alleging that Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel was overcompensated, which, as will be shown, is not the case. There is no evidence to suggest that the pull effect corresponds to the difference between the brokerage commission and a hypothetical lower commission which Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s competitors proposed to charge in return for their distributing the Livret bleu.\n(115)\nAccording to the second method proposed by the complainants, the pull effect would be measured by reference to the growth in Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s market share. Such an evaluation method cannot be adopted as it is based on the assumption that the gains in market share are due solely to the Livret bleu, whereas there is no objective basis for this assumption.\n(116)\nThe third evaluation of the exclusive distribution right is based on the tax revenue loss due to the tax exemption allowed under the Livret bleu. If Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel had wished to distribute a savings account without any tax exemption by offering, irrespective of the saver\u2019s tax position, the same net yield as the Livret bleu, it would in fact have incurred an opportunity cost equal to the amount of the notional tax (potentially) payable by the saver. According to the complainants, the cumulated tax advantage of the order of FRF 4,5 billion over the period 1991-97 must be considered as having accrued to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel advantages worth the same amount. This reasoning cannot be accepted as Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel would probably not have distributed the Livret bleu under the same conditions if it had had to bear the full cost of the tax exemption, which, besides, benefits members directly.\n(117)\nThe advantages in question, if any, are difficult to prove and to quantify. The direct financial advantage deriving from the operation of the Livret bleu is directly measurable from the Livret bleu\u2019s accounts. However, the financial advantage arising from the sale of other products or services to customers who remained loyal because of the Livret bleu would be observable in the cost accounts of these other products if it were possible to distinguish immediately between what was sold to customers who remained because of, or were attracted by, the Livret bleu, and what was sold to customers who came to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel for other reasons, which is not the case. For these reasons, the Commission\u2019s consultant was unable to evaluate the potential pull effect using the accounting method applied to assess all the direct financial advantages deriving from the Livret bleu.\n(118)\nThe more sophisticated attempts by the Commission\u2019s consultant at evaluating the pull effect were unsuccessful. Consequently, the Commission considers that it cannot take into account the advantage, if any, due to the pull effect in the calculation of whether or not there is any overcompensation.\n7.2.4. Calculation of a reasonable profit\n(119)\nWhen checking for the absence of overcompensation of an undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest, account must be taken of a reasonable profit (65). The 2005 Community framework states that \u2018 \u201creasonable profit\u201d should be taken to mean a rate of return on own capital that takes account of the risk, or absence of risk, incurred by the undertaking [\u2026] This rate must normally not exceed the average rate for the sector concerned in recent years\u2019 (66).\n(120)\nThe Commission considered in the extension Decision (67) that there should be applied to general-interest uses and non-earmarked uses a reasonable profit amounting to on average 6 % of the capital devoted to those uses. This rate, which varies from year to year and averages 6 %, corresponds to the rate of return originally advocated by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel: Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel had taken as the cost of capital the amount of the dividends actually distributed during the year in question. In this Decision, as regards the taking into account of a reasonable profit when checking for the absence of any overcompensation, the Commission does not deviate, in the case of non-earmarked uses and general-interest uses, from the approach already followed in the extension Decision, described in Section 7.2.5.\n(121)\nIn its extension Decision (68), the Commission considered, however, that it did not have to apply this reasonable profit to deposits centralised with the CDC in so far as they have no cost of capital from the point of view of the prudential rules, such deposits being not so much invested by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel as simply assigned to the CDC. From a prudential point of view, the credit risk connected with deposits centralised with the CDC is considered equal to the exposure vis-\u00e0-vis the State (the French Republic), i.e. a risk weighting equal to zero and hence requiring no capital.\n(122)\nIf it were to be assumed that no reasonable profit is to be derived from deposits centralised with the CDC, this would mean that the total reasonable profit (that relating to general-interest uses and non-earmarked uses and that relating to deposits centralised with the CDC) decreased from 1991 to 1999, disappearing altogether from 2000 following the centralisation with the CDC of the entire stock of deposits in 1999 (69).\n(123)\nIn their letter of 1 September 2006 presenting their comments in reply to the extension Decision, the French authorities confirmed that the funds centralised with the CDC consumed no regulatory capital. Nevertheless, according to the French authorities, \u2018in view of the lack of relevance of the application of the European solvency ratio from the time of full centralisation with the CDC in 1999, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel [proposes to] include, in order to calculate the reasonable profit in the Livret bleu, a cost of capital obtained by reference to that of the other savings products and other resources\u2019. The Commission does not consider such an approach to be satisfactory as it results in applying artificially to the resources centralised with the CDC a regulatory capital need dependent on the average capital need of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s other assets, which are completely independent of the Livret bleu.\n(124)\nThe absence of a regulatory capital need illustrates the absence of a credit loss risk, which is the case with the deposits centralised with the CDC. The activity of gathering deposits on behalf of the CDC likewise does not present a liquidity risk (apart from the intra-month risk) or a risk of maturity transformation, since the amount made over to the CDC is adjusted each month in the light of the trend in deposits and the interest paid by the CDC is immediately transferred to depositors. It is therefore certain that this general economic interest service presents a low level of risk to Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel. However, some other types of risk, such as the operational risk, the economic risk (the risk that the level of remuneration will not cover the costs incurred), the legal risk and the risk to reputation, do exist. Moreover, other banking activities such as the distribution of mutualised funds, asset management or the selling of financial products (such as shares and bonds) do not consume any regulatory capital but are nonetheless highly profitable. There is therefore no direct link between the consumption of regulatory capital - calculated on the basis of prudential rules the specific aim of which is in no way to evaluate the profitability of an activity - and the profit expected from an activity.\n(125)\nIn the present case, while the Commission authorises Cr\u00e9dit mutuel to earn a reasonable profit in respect of that part of deposits which is centralised with the CDC, it acknowledges that determining the appropriate level of that profit is an exercise which involves a complex economic assessment. The Livret bleu is an atypical banking product with the mixed characteristics of a savings product and a current account, the gathered deposits of which are centralised with a public authority. There are therefore no directly comparable products as such which might give an indication of a reasonable profit for a similar activity.\n(126)\nFor want of a product sufficiently comparable to the Livret bleu, the Commission considers that it can in the present case use two indicators making it possible to evaluate whether, with respect to deposits centralised with the CDC, a given profit may be considered reasonable. The two indicators are:\n(a)\nthe profit margin of the French banking sector, that is, the profit before tax divided by turnover (in the present case, the banks\u2019 turnover is represented by their operating results). Using the French banking sector\u2019s figures for the period considered (from 27 September 1991 to the end of 2008), the profit margin is on average 23 % a year;\n(b)\nthe rate of return of the French banking sector, that is, the profit before tax divided by assets. The average annual rate of return throughout the period considered is 45 basis points (0,45 %).\n(127)\nThe following table (70) shows the profit margin and the rate of return of the French banking sector for the period 1993-2008 (pre-1993 data are unavailable):\n1993\n1994\n1995\n1996\n1997\n1998\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\n2003\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008 (72)\nProfit before tax (71)\n15,2\n2,7\n25,0\n41,0\n67,5\n14,4\n19,8\n22,5\n24,6\n23,5\n23,4\n29,6\n31,3\n46,2\n34,3\n-4,4\nOperating profit (71)\n362,4\n335,4\n345,6\n356,1\n375,3\n60,8\n64,6\n70,5\n74,9\n77,0\n80,6\n83,5\n89,5\n104,1\n98,0\n79,1\nProfit margin\n4,2 %\n0,8 %\n7,2 %\n11,5 %\n18 %\n23,7 %\n30,6 %\n31,9 %\n32,8 %\n30,6 %\n29,0 %\n35,5 %\n35,0 %\n44,4 %\n35,1 %\n-5,6 %\nAverage profit margin\n22,8 %\nAssets (71)\nUnavailable\n16 333\n17 216\n18 291\n19 894\n3 052\n3 394\n3 452\n3 783\n3 793\n3 960\n4 390\n5 275\n6 041\n7 061\n7 699\nRate of return\nUnavailable\n0,02 %\n0,15 %\n0,22 %\n0,34 %\n0,47 %\n0,58 %\n0,65 %\n0,65 %\n0,62 %\n0,59 %\n0,68 %\n0,59 %\n0,77 %\n0,49 %\n-0,05 %\nAverage rate of return\n0,45 %\n(128)\nTo calculate Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel\u2019s profit margin and rate of return in respect of the activity of gathering deposits centralised with the CDC, the Commission uses the following values:\n(a)\nfor the profit margin denominator, the revenue earned from the activity of gathering deposits centralised with the CDC, that is to say, the annual amount of the brokerage commission;\n(b)\nfor the rate of return denominator, the deposits transferred to the CDC;\n(c)\nfor the numerator, that is to say, the profit before tax, the Commission considers that, by taking into account as a reasonable profit a margin of 4,2 % on the activity of gathering deposits centralised with the CDC, that is to say, a pre-tax profit amounting to 4,2 % of the brokerage commission received from the CDC, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel does not receive any overcompensation (see the table in recital 132).\n(129)\nAs regards the second indicator (the rate of return), the Commission would point out that, if a rate of return of 5 basis points is taken as a reasonable profit from the activity of gathering deposits centralised with the CDC, that is to say, if account is taken of a pre-tax profit equivalent to 0,05 % of the total amount of deposits transferred to the CDC, then Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel did not receive any overcompensation for administering the Livret bleu during the period considered.\n(130)\nAccording to the 2005 Community framework, the reasonable profit must not exceed the average rate for the sector concerned during the relevant period. A profit margin of 4,2 % represents less than one fifth of the average profit margin of the banking sector (22,8 %). Since, as was stated in recital 124, the activity of gathering deposits centralised with the CDC is a low-risk, and hence low-return, activity, the Commission considers that a profit margin of 4,2 % is not manifestly excessive and may be deemed in this case to be a reasonable profit.\n(131)\nSimilarly, the Commission considers that a profit of 5 basis points for deposits centralised with the CDC is reasonable in the light of the average return of 45 basis points of the French banking sector for the relevant period and represents a low, conservative threshold for what may be considered a profit which is not manifestly unreasonable in this case. Moreover, this low profit level reflects appropriately the level of risk incurred by Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel on its activity of gathering deposits for the CDC, which, as indicated in recital 124, is low.\n7.2.5. Verification of the absence of overcompensation\n(132)\nOn the basis of the above considerations the Commission has carried out a verification - set out in the table below - of the absence of overcompensation in accordance with the method outlined in subsections 7.2.1 to 7.2.4 (73):\n(EUR million)\nCOMPENSATION\nOVER- OR UNDERCOMPENSATION\nYear\n(Annual) brokerage commission\nGlobal approach (74)\n(up to the end of 2005)\nAnnual approach (75)\n(from 2006)\n1991 (from 27.9.1991 to 31.12.1991)\n1,5\n43,8\nNot applicable\n(the global approach was applied until 2005, see subsection 7.2.2)\n1992\n9,1\n125,1\n1993\n16,8\n184,0\n1994\n36,6\n127,3\n1995\n59,5\n114,5\n1996\n74,7\n107,8\n1997\n82,3\n88,4\n1998\n118,9\n92,0\n1999\n188,9\n98,3\n2000\n188,2\n106,3\n2001\n181,9\n91,3\n2002\n187,8\n76,3\n2003\n197,7\n61,2\n2004\n204,4\n45,7\n2005\n196,7\n15,0\n2006\n[\u2026]\n-39,1\n2007\n[\u2026]\n-24,3\n2008\n[\u2026]\n-6,1\n(133)\nIt can be seen that the overcompensation at the end of 2005 (EUR 15 million) is less than 10 % of the compensation for 2005 (EUR 196,7 million). By virtue of point 21 of the 2005 framework this amount may be carried forward to the next year. The final result is undercompensation of EUR - 6,1 million at the end of 2008 for the whole of the period considered.\n(134)\nThe Commission can therefore conclude that the brokerage commission has not overcompensated Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel for the service of general economic interest which was entrusted to it from 27 September 1991 until the end of 2008.\n8. CONCLUSION\n(135)\nThe Commission finds that France has unlawfully implemented the measure at issue in infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU. However, the aid may be considered compatible with the internal market under Article 106(2) TFEU, inasmuch as the compensation paid by the State has not exceeded what is necessary to cover the costs occasioned by the discharge of public service obligations, having regard to the revenues relating thereto and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid implemented by France in favour of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel on the basis of the Decree of 27 September 1991 defining the general-interest uses of Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel is compatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 24 May 2011.", "references": ["20", "41", "11", "63", "8", "39", "50", "78", "68", "14", "94", "43", "45", "56", "27", "42", "60", "59", "86", "30", "9", "33", "93", "83", "3", "37", "55", "98", "40", "0", "No Label", "15", "18", "29", "34", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "18", "29", "34", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 3 August 2012\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency measures taken to combat avian influenza in Cloppenburg, Germany in December 2008 and January 2009\n(notified under document C(2012) 5289)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2012/460/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3) first and second indents of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nArticle 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2009/581/EC of 29 July 2009 on a financial contribution from the Community towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Cloppenburg, Germany in December 2008 and January 2009 (3) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Cloppenburg, Germany in December 2008 and January 2009. An official request for reimbursement was submitted by Germany on 3 September 2009, as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(5)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union is to be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines. Decision 2009/581/EC provided that a first tranche of EUR 2 000 000,00 be paid as part of the Union\u2019s financial contribution. Commission Implementing Decision 2011/796/EU (4) provided that a second tranche of EUR 4 000 000,00 be paid as part of the Union\u2019s financial contribution.\n(6)\nGermany has in accordance with Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC without delay informed the Commission and the other Member States of the measures applied in accordance with Union legislation on notification and eradication and the results thereof. The request for reimbursement was, as required in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005, accompanied by a financial report, supporting documents, an epidemiological report on each holding where the animals have been slaughtered or destroyed and the results of respective audits.\n(7)\nAn audit according to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 was carried out by the Commission\u2019s services. The Commission\u2019s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Germany on 17 April 2012. Germany agreed by e-mail dated 9 May 2012.\n(8)\nConsequently the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred in connection with the eradication of avian influenza in Cloppenburg, Germany in December 2008 and January 2009 can now be fixed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating avian influenza in Cloppenburg, Germany in December 2008 and January 2009 is fixed at EUR 6 592 151,55.\nArticle 2\nThe balance of the financial contribution is fixed at EUR 592 151,55.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision constituting a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 3 August 2012.", "references": ["0", "47", "45", "89", "28", "22", "18", "90", "11", "44", "15", "21", "26", "69", "86", "16", "60", "52", "36", "88", "34", "55", "72", "9", "73", "79", "65", "84", "50", "93", "No Label", "4", "10", "33", "61", "66", "92"], "gold": ["4", "10", "33", "61", "66", "92"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 505/2010\nof 14 June 2010\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific rules for the organisation of officials controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 17(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 lays down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 provides that Member States are to ensure that the production and placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs and, by analogy, live echinoderms, live tunicates and live marine gastropods undergo official controls as described in Annex II. Chapter II of that Annex sets out provisions concerning classification of production areas and monitoring of such areas.\n(3)\nProduction areas are classified according to the level of faecal contamination. Filter feeders animals, as bivalve molluscs, can accumulate micro-organisms representing a risk for public health. This is the reason why the classification of production areas is based on the presence of certain microorganisms related to faecal contamination.\n(4)\nMarine gastropods are generally not filter feeding animals, consequently the risk to accumulate microorganisms related to faecal contamination should be considered as remote. Moreover, no epidemiological information has been reported to link the provisions for classification of production areas with risks for public health associated with not filter feeding marine gastropods.\n(5)\nTaking into account this scientific progress, such marine gastropods, which are not filter feeders, should be excluded from provisions on the classification of production areas.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 June 2010.", "references": ["45", "50", "24", "40", "39", "12", "7", "48", "94", "28", "83", "30", "55", "33", "74", "92", "80", "59", "6", "58", "36", "81", "21", "23", "10", "26", "57", "53", "56", "62", "No Label", "38", "67", "69"], "gold": ["38", "67", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 22 February 2012\nproviding for the temporary marketing of seed of the species Triticum durum Desf. belonging to the variety Marialva not satisfying the requirements of Council Directive 66/402/EEC as regards the maximum content of seeds of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)\n(notified under document C(2012) 1114)\n(2012/116/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 66/402/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of cereal seed (1), and in particular Article 17(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn Portugal the quantity of available seed of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) of the category \u2018certified seed\u2019, second generation, of the variety Marialva, which is suitable for the national environmental conditions and which satisfies the requirements of Directive 66/402/EEC in respect of the maximum content of seeds of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is insufficient and is therefore not adequate to meet the needs of that Member State.\n(2)\nThe demand for such seed cannot be satisfied by seed from other Member States or from third countries fulfilling all the requirements laid down in Directive 66/402/EEC.\n(3)\nConsequently, Portugal should be authorised to permit the marketing of seed of that variety, subject to less stringent requirements than apply to certified seed, second generation, for a period expiring on 29 February 2012 and up to a maximum quantity of 130 tonnes.\n(4)\nIn addition, other Member States which are in a position to supply Portugal with seed of this variety, irrespective of whether it was harvested in a Member State or in a third country, should be authorised to permit the marketing of such seed.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate that Portugal act as a coordinator in order to ensure that the total amount of seed authorised pursuant to this Decision does not exceed the maximum quantity covered by this Decision.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The marketing in the Union of seed of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) of the category \u2018certified seed\u2019, second generation, belonging to the variety Marialva which does not satisfy the requirements set out in point (2)(A) of Annex II to Directive 66/402/EEC in respect of the maximum content of seeds of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) shall be permitted.\nHowever, the maximum content of seeds of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) allowed in the seed of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) specified in the first subparagraph shall be 45 seeds in a sample of the weight specified in column 4 of Annex III to Directive 66/402/EEC.\nThis permission shall be granted for a total quantity of up to 130 tonnes and for a period ending on 29 February 2012.\n2. In addition to fulfilling the labelling requirements of Directive 66/402/EEC, the official label shall state that the seed does not satisfy the requirements of point (2)(A) of Annex II to that Directive in respect of maximum content of seeds of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.).\nArticle 2\n1. Any supplier wishing to place on the market seed, as referred to in Article 1, shall apply for authorisation to the Member State in which it is established or importing. The application shall specify the quantity of seed that the supplier wishes to place on the market.\n2. The Member State concerned shall authorise the supplier to place seed, as referred to in Article 1, on the market, unless:\n(a)\nthere is sufficient evidence to doubt whether the supplier is able to place on the market the amount of the seed for which he has applied for authorisation;\n(b)\nhaving regard to the information provided by the coordinating Member State, as referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 3, granting the authorisation would result in the total maximum quantity of seed referred to in Article 1(1) being exceeded.\nAs regards point (b), in case the total maximum quantity would only allow for authorisation of part of the quantity specified in the application, the Member State concerned may authorise the supplier to place that lesser quantity on the market.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall assist each other administratively in the application of this Decision.\nPortugal shall act as coordinating Member State in order to ensure that the quantity of seed authorised for marketing in the Union by the Member States pursuant to this Decision does not exceed the total maximum quantity of seed referred to in Article 1(1).\nAny Member State receiving an application under Article 2 shall immediately notify the coordinating Member State of the amount covered by the application. The coordinating Member State shall immediately inform that Member State as to whether authorisation would result in the maximum quantity being exceeded.\nArticle 4\nMember States shall immediately notify to the Commission and the other Member States the quantities in respect of which they have granted marketing authorisation pursuant to this Decision.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 February 2012.", "references": ["32", "19", "93", "42", "43", "45", "54", "16", "22", "9", "97", "11", "89", "90", "94", "24", "33", "73", "12", "53", "27", "87", "31", "40", "81", "61", "52", "62", "35", "80", "No Label", "23", "25", "65", "68"], "gold": ["23", "25", "65", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 497/2010\nof 8 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 June 2010.", "references": ["71", "87", "97", "73", "1", "22", "5", "50", "33", "27", "53", "23", "7", "10", "43", "57", "13", "85", "69", "30", "26", "28", "2", "93", "63", "41", "70", "29", "38", "92", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 25 October 2011\non mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/026 PT/Rohde from Portugal)\n(2011/726/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nPortugal submitted an application on 26 November 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Rohde and supplemented it by additional information up to 19 May 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 449 500.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Portugal,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 449 500 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["44", "68", "2", "28", "79", "9", "75", "37", "73", "74", "51", "46", "60", "18", "10", "17", "23", "59", "72", "54", "64", "39", "89", "0", "24", "62", "85", "88", "86", "47", "No Label", "15", "16", "40", "49", "84", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "16", "40", "49", "84", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION\nof 25 March 2011\nappointing a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank\n(2011/195/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 283(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 11.2 thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation of the Council of the European Union (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (3),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Peter PRAET is hereby appointed member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank for a term of office of 8 years, as from 1 June 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 25 March 2011.", "references": ["34", "15", "66", "49", "16", "87", "18", "98", "99", "77", "84", "45", "82", "53", "4", "6", "95", "94", "27", "65", "44", "90", "17", "56", "29", "46", "11", "9", "50", "38", "No Label", "7", "52"], "gold": ["7", "52"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 July 2012\non the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation relating to the preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement\n(2012/434/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91 and Article 100(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2012/107/EU (1), the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation relating to the preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (\u2018the Agreement\u2019), was signed on 16 December 2011, subject to its conclusion.\n(2)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation relating to the preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (2).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to make the notification provided for in the Agreement in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the Agreement (3).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["88", "52", "19", "38", "41", "37", "81", "73", "23", "17", "6", "28", "89", "8", "32", "12", "43", "33", "59", "58", "49", "54", "30", "36", "78", "70", "71", "67", "21", "26", "No Label", "3", "9", "25", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "25", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 877/2011\nof 1 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 September 2011.", "references": ["80", "97", "23", "31", "88", "82", "27", "65", "12", "29", "44", "38", "40", "76", "25", "52", "37", "4", "5", "92", "43", "45", "19", "74", "14", "8", "56", "70", "73", "77", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 819/2011\nof 11 August 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for saithe in VI; EU and international waters of Vb, XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2011.", "references": ["39", "55", "58", "94", "89", "40", "8", "22", "90", "12", "36", "11", "88", "45", "27", "75", "43", "30", "81", "5", "57", "10", "32", "78", "83", "18", "35", "99", "46", "1", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 3 July 2012\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency measures taken to combat avian influenza in Germany in November 2010\n(notified under document C(2012) 4359)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2012/358/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3) first and second indents of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nArticle 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Implementing Decision 2011/404/EU of 7 July 2011 on a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Germany in November 2010 (3) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Germany in November 2010. An official request for reimbursement was submitted by Germany on 5 September 2011, as set out in Article 7(1) and 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(5)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union is to be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(6)\nGermany has in accordance with Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC without delay informed the Commission and the other Member States of the measures applied in accordance with Union legislation on notification and eradication and the results thereof. The request for reimbursement was, as required in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005, accompanied by a financial report, supporting documents, an epidemiological report on each holding where the animals have been slaughtered or destroyed and the results of respective audits.\n(7)\nThe Commission\u2019s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Germany on 16 March 2012.\n(8)\nConsequently the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred in connection with the eradication of avian influenza in Germany in November 2010 can now be fixed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating avian influenza in Germany in 2010 is fixed at EUR 177 181,83.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision constituting a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 3 July 2012.", "references": ["32", "17", "86", "19", "2", "55", "50", "39", "25", "57", "72", "87", "75", "41", "54", "21", "73", "47", "24", "29", "12", "35", "63", "59", "65", "26", "42", "62", "46", "15", "No Label", "4", "10", "33", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "33", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 845/2011\nof 19 August 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for hake in VI and VII; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 August 2011.", "references": ["74", "7", "98", "2", "46", "24", "14", "38", "59", "89", "69", "8", "82", "40", "76", "95", "81", "66", "47", "68", "9", "34", "10", "36", "72", "12", "54", "88", "32", "73", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1244/2010\nof 9 December 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004\n(Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1),\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (2), and in particular Article 92 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nTwo Member States or their competent authorities have requested amendments to Annexes VIII and IX to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.\n(2)\nSome Member States or their competent authorities have requested amendments to Annexes 1 and 2 to Regulation (EC) No 987/2009.\n(3)\nAnnexes VIII and IX to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Annexes 1 and 2 to Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 need to be adapted in order to take into account recent developments in national legislation and to guarantee transparency and legal certainty for stakeholders.\n(4)\nThe Administrative Commission on Coordination of Social Security Systems has agreed to the amendments.\n(5)\nRegulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 883/2004 is amended as follows:\n1.\nAnnex VIII is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin Part 1, section \u2018PORTUGAL\u2019 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018PORTUGAL\nAll applications for invalidity, old-age and survivors\u2019 pension claims, except for the cases where the totalised periods of insurance completed under the legislation of more than one Member State are equal to or longer than 21 calendar years but the national periods of insurance are equal or inferior to 20 years, and the calculation is made under Articles 32 and 33 of Decree-Law No 187/2007 of 10 May 2007.\u2019;\n(b)\nin Part 2, the following new section is added after section \u2018POLAND\u2019:\n\u2018PORTUGAL\nSupplementary pensions granted pursuant to Decree-Law No 26/2008 of 22 February 2008 (public capitalisation scheme).\u2019;\n2.\nin Annex IX, Part I, section \u2018NETHERLANDS\u2019, is amended as follows:\n(a)\n\u2018The law of 18 February 1966 on invalidity insurance for employees, as amended (WAO)\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Disability Insurance Act of 18 February 1966, as amended (WAO)\u2019;\n(b)\n\u2018The law of 24 April 1997 on invalidity insurance for self-employed persons, as amended (WAZ)\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Self-employed Persons Disablement Benefits Act of 24 April 1997, as amended (WAZ)\u2019;\n(c)\n\u2018The law of 21 December 1995 on general insurance for surviving dependants (ANW)\u2019 is replaced by \u2018General Surviving Relatives Act of 21 December 1995 (ANW)\u2019;\n(d)\n\u2018The law of 10 November 2005 on work and income according to labour capacity (WIA)\u2019 is replaced by \u2018The Work and Income according to Labour Capacity Act of 10 November 2005 (WIA)\u2019.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 987/2009 is amended as follows:\n1.\nAnnex 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin section \u2018BELGIUM-NETHERLANDS\u2019 point (a) is deleted;\n(b)\nsection \u2018GERMANY-NETHERLANDS\u2019 is deleted;\n(c)\nsection \u2018NETHERLANDS-PORTUGAL\u2019 is deleted;\n(d)\nsection \u2018DENMARK-LUXEMBOURG\u2019 is deleted;\n2.\nin Annex 2, header, \u2018Articles 31 and 41\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Articles 32(2) and 41(1)\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2010.", "references": ["27", "58", "86", "72", "62", "46", "32", "17", "76", "39", "40", "61", "34", "10", "9", "44", "19", "88", "0", "14", "70", "16", "98", "78", "49", "95", "6", "23", "47", "38", "No Label", "2", "21", "36", "37", "41"], "gold": ["2", "21", "36", "37", "41"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 818/2010\nof 16 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 September 2010.", "references": ["60", "14", "87", "10", "32", "12", "65", "51", "24", "22", "64", "34", "69", "52", "44", "82", "75", "16", "53", "18", "57", "43", "88", "86", "45", "48", "62", "97", "50", "1", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 618/2012\nof 10 July 2012\namending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1), and in particular Article 37(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPart 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 contains two lists of harmonised classification and labelling of hazardous substances. Table 3.1 lists the harmonised classification and labelling of hazardous substances based on the criteria set out in Parts 2 to 5 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. Table 3.2 lists the harmonised classification and labelling of hazardous substances based on the criteria set out in Annex VI to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (2). Those two lists need to be amended to include updated classifications for substances already subject to those harmonised classifications and to include new harmonised classifications.\n(2)\nThe Committee for Risk Assessment of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has issued opinions on proposals for harmonised classification and labelling of substances which had been submitted to ECHA pursuant to Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. Based on those opinions, as well as on the comments received from the parties concerned, it is appropriate to amend Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 in order to harmonise the classification and labelling of certain substances.\n(3)\nThe harmonised classifications set out in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, as amended by this Regulation, should not apply immediately, as a certain period of time will be necessary to allow operators to adapt the labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures to the new classifications and to sell existing stocks. In addition, a certain period of time will be necessary to allow operators to comply with the registration obligations resulting from the new harmonised classifications for substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction, categories 1A and 1B (Table 3.1) and categories 1 and 2 (Table 3.2), or as very toxic to aquatic organisms which may cause long term effects in the aquatic environment, in particular with those set out in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (3).\n(4)\nIn line with the transitional provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 which allow the application of the new provisions at an earlier stage on a voluntary basis, suppliers should have the possibility of applying the harmonised classifications set out in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, as amended by this Regulation, and of adapting the labelling and packaging accordingly on a voluntary basis before 1 December 2013.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nTable 3.1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nThe entries corresponding to the entries set out in Annex I are replaced by the entries set out in that Annex;\n(b)\nThe entries set out in Annex II are inserted in accordance with the order of the entries set out in Table 3.1.\n(2)\nTable 3.2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nThe entries corresponding to the entries set out in Annex III are replaced by the entries set out in that Annex;\n(b)\nThe entries set out in Annex IV are inserted in accordance with the order of the entries set out in Table 3.2.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 shall apply from 1 December 2013.\nThe harmonised classifications set out in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, as amended by this Regulation, may be applied before 1 December 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["44", "92", "72", "37", "74", "34", "86", "52", "87", "89", "97", "47", "43", "61", "19", "5", "93", "99", "77", "14", "50", "94", "30", "59", "75", "69", "23", "83", "18", "11", "No Label", "25", "39", "60"], "gold": ["25", "39", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 October 2011\non modalities for coordinated application of the rules on enforcement with regard to mobile satellite services (MSS) pursuant to Article 9(3) of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 7001)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/667/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (1), and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision No 626/2008/EC aims to facilitate the development of a competitive internal market for MSS across the Union and to ensure gradual coverage in all Member States by the operators selected to provide these services.\n(2)\nIn particular, it creates a procedure for the common selection of operators of mobile satellite systems that use the 2 GHz frequency band, comprising radio spectrum from 1 980 to 2 010 MHz for earth to space communications, and from 2 170 to 2 200 MHz for space to earth communications.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2009/449/EC of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (2) lists the selected operators and corresponding frequencies.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 7(1) of Decision No 626/2008/EC Member States should ensure that the selected applicants have the right to use the specific radio frequency identified in Decision 2009/449/EC and the right to operate a mobile satellite system according to the time-frame and in the service area to which the selected applicants have committed themselves.\n(5)\nThe rights to use the specific radio frequency and to operate a mobile satellite system are subject to common conditions laid down in Article 7(2) of Decision No 626/2008/EC. In particular the selected operators must use the assigned radio spectrum for the provision of MSS, they must have met milestones six to nine set out in the Annex to this latter Decision by 13 May 2011 and they must honour any commitments they gave in their applications.\n(6)\nMonitoring of compliance with these common conditions and enforcement should be undertaken at national level, including the final assessment of any breach of common conditions.\n(7)\nNational rules on enforcement should be in accordance with Union law, in particular Article 10 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (3).\n(8)\nThe cross-border nature of the common conditions provided for in Article 7(2) of Decision No 626/2008/EC requires coordination at Union level of the national procedures leading to enforcement by Member States. Inconsistencies in the application of national enforcement procedures, in particular regarding the investigation, the timing and the nature of any measures taken, would result in a patchwork of enforcement measures in contradiction to the pan-European nature of MSS.\n(9)\nThis Decision should not cover enforcement of purely national conditions nor apply to enforcement measures concerning conditions other than common conditions referred to in Article 7(2) of Decision No 626/2008/EC. In view of the essentially national dimension of any specific conditions in relation to complementary ground components of mobile satellite systems, enforcement of common conditions referred to in Article 8(3) of Decision No 626/2008/EC should not be included in the scope of this Decision.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure compliance with the common conditions embedded in the general authorisation and/or the rights to use the frequencies granted, enforcement measures may be adopted, pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 2002/20/EC, by Member States that authorised the selected operators.\n(11)\nArticle 10 of Directive 2002/20/EC provides for a graduated approach to enforcement, envisaging a first phase where the alleged breach is investigated and measures aimed at ensuring compliance are adopted, if applicable. In accordance with Article 10(3) of Directive 2002/20/EC, such measures should stipulate a reasonable period for the operator to comply with the measure. In general, the determination of a reasonable time to comply should take into account the specific nature of the satellite industry, of the breach concerned, and of the remedy envisaged. In particular, where the launch of a satellite would be necessary to achieve compliance with any of the common conditions concerned, measures adopted may provide for a roadmap including intermediate steps and corresponding time limits. A second phase triggered by the failure to address serious and repeated breaches can then lead to withdrawal of the rights of use.\n(12)\nThis Decision should be without prejudice to the power of the relevant national authorities to adopt interim measures, subject to the conditions provided for in Article 10(6) of Directive 2002/20/EC.\n(13)\nNotifications to the Commission of any findings made by authorising Member States in accordance with this Decision are without prejudice to the possibility for any Member State to submit written observations in view of discussions at the Communications Committee.\n(14)\nWhile the common conditions provided for in Article 7(2) of Decision No 626/2008/EC form an integral part of the national legal framework regulating the activity of the authorised operators, the monitoring of compliance in each Member State, and in particular the analysis of the facts underlying any alleged breach of those common conditions, requires knowledge of all the factual elements of a cross-border nature and effects, and may require information on the provision of the service in other Member States. Sharing the findings of the various competent national authorities and the views stated by the authorised operators concerned would help achieve more consistent and effective enforcement throughout the Union. In addition, a coordinated timescale for enforcement should increase legal certainty for the authorised operators concerned.\n(15)\nIn accordance with Article 10(5) of Directive 2002/20/EC a prohibition to provide the services and the suspension or withdrawal of the right to use the specific radio frequency may be decided in cases of serious or repeated breaches where measures aimed at ensuring compliance within a reasonable period of time have failed. In the specific case of the provision of MSS, the decision to withdraw or suspend the rights of use has relevant cross-border effects. Moreover, depending on the national procedure, appropriate measures leading to the definitive withdrawal of the authorisation might be needed, such as suspension. Therefore withdrawal or suspension measures should be adopted only after the views of Member States have been shared and discussed within the Communications Committee.\n(16)\nSince the objective of this Decision, namely to define the modalities for the coordinated application, across the European Union, of the rules on enforcement of the common conditions attached to the authorisation to provide MSS services and/or the right to use the selected frequencies, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States alone and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the 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. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Communications Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter, objective and scope\n1. This Decision lays down the modalities for the coordinated application of Member States\u2019 rules on enforcement applicable to an authorised operator of mobile satellite systems in the event of an alleged breach of the common conditions attached to its authorisation.\n2. Taking into account the cross-border nature of MSS, coordination with the assistance of the Communications Committee shall aim in particular at facilitating a common understanding of the facts underlying any alleged breach and its gravity, leading to consistent application of national enforcement rules across the European Union, including coordinated timing of any measures taken, in particular where breaches are similar in nature.\n3. This Decision does not apply to enforcement measures concerning conditions other than the common conditions referred to in Article 7(2) of Decision No 626/2008/EC.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\n1. The definitions laid down in Decision No 626/2008/EC shall apply for the purposes of this Decision.\n2. The following definitions shall also apply:\n-\n\u2018authorised operator\u2019 shall mean an operator selected pursuant to Decision 2009/449/EC which has been granted the right under general authorisation or individual rights of use to use the specific radio frequencies identified in Decision 2009/449/EC and/or the right to operate a mobile satellite system,\n-\n\u2018common conditions\u2019 shall mean the common conditions to which the rights of an authorised operator are subject in accordance with Article 7(2) of Decision No 626/2008/EC,\n-\n\u2018authorising Member State\u2019 shall mean a Member State which has granted authorised operators rights under general authorisation or individual rights of use to use the specific radio frequencies identified in Decision 2009/449/EC and/or the right to operate a mobile satellite system.\nArticle 3\nCoordination of enforcement of common conditions\n1. Where an authorising Member State finds that an authorised operator does not comply with one or more of the common conditions and informs that operator of its findings pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/20/EC, it shall at the same time inform the Commission which shall in turn inform the other Member States.\n2. Following the transmission by the Commission to the Member States of the information as referred to in paragraph 1, the other authorising Member States shall investigate whether there is a breach of the relevant common conditions within their jurisdiction and give the authorised operator concerned the opportunity to state its views.\n3. Within 5 months of the transmission by the Commission to the Member States of the information as referred to in paragraph 1, the authorising Member States shall notify a summary of their findings and of the views submitted by the authorised operator concerned to the Commission, which shall inform all the other Member States. Within 8 months from the transmission by the Commission to the Member States of the information as referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall convene a meeting of the Communications Committee in order to examine the alleged breach and, if applicable, to discuss any appropriate measures aimed at ensuring compliance, in line with the objectives referred to in Article 1(2).\n4. Member States shall refrain from adopting any final decision on the alleged breach before the meeting of the Communications Committee as referred to in paragraph 3.\n5. After the meeting of the Communications Committee as referred to in paragraph 3, each authorising Member State which has notified the authorised operator concerned of its findings pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/20/EC and concludes that one or more common conditions have been breached shall take appropriate and proportionate measures, including financial penalties, aimed at ensuring compliance by the authorised operator concerned with the common conditions, with the exception of withdrawal, or suspension if applicable in accordance with their national law, of any authorisation or right of use held by the authorised operator concerned.\n6. In the event of serious or repeated breaches of the common conditions, any authorising Member State which after having taken the measures referred to in paragraph 5 intends to adopt a decision to withdraw the authorisation pursuant to Article 10(5) of Directive 2002/20/EC shall inform the Commission of its intention and provide a summary of any measure taken by the authorised operator concerned to comply with the enforcement measures. The Commission shall communicate this information to the other Member States.\n7. Within 3 months of the transmission by the Commission to the Member States of the information as referred to in paragraph 6, a meeting of the Communications Committee shall be convened with the objective to coordinate any withdrawal of an authorisation in line with the objectives referred to in Article 1(2). In the meantime all authorising Member States shall refrain from adopting decisions entailing withdrawal, or suspension if applicable in accordance with their national law, of any authorisation or right of use held by the authorised operator concerned.\n8. Following the meeting of the Communications Committee as referred to in paragraph 7, the authorising Member States may adopt appropriate decisions with a view to withdrawing the authorisation granted to the authorised operator concerned.\n9. Any enforcement decision referred to in paragraphs 5 and 8 and the reasons on which it is based shall be communicated to the authorised operator concerned within 1 week from its adoption, as well as to the Commission, which shall inform the other Member States.\nArticle 4\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 October 2011.", "references": ["79", "27", "98", "75", "65", "59", "49", "52", "50", "58", "63", "94", "39", "56", "69", "34", "61", "16", "1", "36", "41", "82", "91", "62", "3", "64", "7", "4", "95", "5", "No Label", "2", "9", "40", "45"], "gold": ["2", "9", "40", "45"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1380/2011\nof 21 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the specific conditions for breeding and productive ratites\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (1), and in particular Article 25(1)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex VIII to Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (2) sets out the specific conditions which apply to imports of breeding and productive poultry other than ratites and to imports of hatching eggs and day-old chicks other than ratites.\n(2)\nPoint 2 of Part II of that Annex provides that, where day-old chicks are not reared in the Member State which imported the hatching eggs, they are to be transported directly to the final destination and kept there for at least three weeks from the date of hatching. That requirement is reflected in Part I of the relevant model veterinary certificate for day-old chicks laid down in Annex IV to Directive 2009/158/EC.\n(3)\nAnnex IX to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 sets out the specific conditions which apply to imports of ratites for breeding and production, hatching eggs and day-old chicks thereof. Those specific conditions do not currently include a similar provision concerning ratites as the one included for poultry in point 2 of Part II of Annex VIII to that Regulation.\n(4)\nExperience in the application of that provision concerning poultry shows that it is appropriate to extend it also to day-old chicks of ratites.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008, in Part II, point 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183.\nRatites which have hatched from imported hatching eggs shall be kept for a period of at least three weeks from the date of hatching in the hatchery or for at least three weeks on the establishment(s) to which they have been sent after hatching.\nWhere day-old chicks of ratites are not reared in the Member State which imported the hatching eggs, they shall be transported directly to the final destination (as specified in points I.10 and I.11 of the health certificate, Model 2, in Annex IV to Council Directive 2009/158/EC (3)) and kept there for at least three weeks from the date of hatching.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 February 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["98", "33", "95", "9", "42", "75", "99", "40", "13", "46", "35", "91", "85", "26", "78", "96", "1", "49", "5", "90", "16", "51", "43", "52", "67", "87", "60", "93", "4", "47", "No Label", "22", "54", "66", "69"], "gold": ["22", "54", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/89/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\namending Directives 98/78/EC, 2002/87/EC, 2006/48/EC and 2009/138/EC as regards the supplementary supervision of financial entities in a financial conglomerate\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 53(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate (3) provides competent authorities in the financial sector with supplementary powers and tools for the supervision of groups composed of many regulated entities, which are active in different sectors of the financial markets. Such groups (financial conglomerates), are exposed to risks (group risks) which include: the risks of contagion, where risks spread from one end of the group to another; risk concentration, where the same type of risk materialises in various parts of the group at the same time; the complexity of managing many different legal entities; potential conflicts of interest; and the challenge of allocating regulatory capital to all the regulated entities which are part of the financial conglomerate, thereby avoiding the multiple use of capital. Financial conglomerates should therefore be subject to supervision supplementary to supervision on a stand alone, consolidated or group basis, without duplicating or affecting the group and regardless of the legal structure of the group.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to ensure consistency between the aims of Directive 2002/87/EC, on the one hand, and Council Directives 73/239/EEC (4) and 92/49/EEC (5) and Directives 98/78/EC (6), 2002/83/EC (7), 2004/39/EC (8), 2005/68/EC (9), 2006/48/EC (10), 2006/49/EC (11), 2009/65/EC (12), 2009/138/EC (13) and 2011/61/EU (14) of the European Parliament and of the Council, on the other, in order to enable appropriate supplementary supervision of insurance and banking groups, including where they are part of a mixed financial holding structure.\n(3)\nIt is necessary that financial conglomerates are identified throughout the Union according to the extent to which they are exposed to group risks, on the basis of common guidelines to be issued by the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (15) (EBA), the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (16) (EIOPA) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (17) (ESMA) in accordance with Article 56 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, through the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (Joint Committee). It is also important that the requirements regarding the waiving of the application of supplementary supervision are applied in a risk-based manner in accordance with those guidelines. This is of particular importance in the case of the larger, internationally operating financial conglomerates.\n(4)\nThe comprehensive and adequate monitoring of group risks in large, complex, internationally operating financial conglomerates, as well as the supervision of the group-wide capital policies of such groups, is only possible when competent authorities gather supervisory information and plan supervisory measures beyond the national scope of their mandate. It is therefore necessary that competent authorities coordinate supplementary supervision on internationally operating financial conglomerates among the competent authorities which are regarded as most relevant for the supplementary supervision of a financial conglomerate. The colleges of financial conglomerates\u2019 relevant competent authorities should act in accordance with the supplementary nature of Directive 2002/87/EC, and as such should not duplicate or replace but should, rather, add value to the activities of existing colleges relevant to the banking and insurance subgroups within those financial conglomerates. A college should be set up for a financial conglomerate only where neither a banking nor an insurance sectoral college is in place.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure appropriate regulatory oversight, it is necessary that the legal structure and the governance and organisational structure, including all regulated entities, non-regulated subsidiaries and significant branches of banks, insurance undertakings and financial conglomerates with cross-border activities, are monitored by EBA, EIOPA, ESMA (hereinafter collectively referred to as \u2018the ESAs\u2019) and the Joint Committee, as appropriate, and that information is made available to the relevant competent authorities.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure effective supplementary supervision of regulated entities in a financial conglomerate, in particular where the head office of one of its subsidiaries is in a third country, the undertakings to which this Directive applies should include any undertaking, in particular any credit institution which has its registered office in a third country and which would require authorisation if its registered office were in the Union.\n(7)\nThe supplementary supervision of large, complex, internationally operating financial conglomerates requires coordination throughout the Union, in order to contribute to the stability of the internal market for financial services. To that end, competent authorities need to agree upon the supervisory approaches to be applied to those financial conglomerates. The ESAs should issue, in accordance with Article 56 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, through the Joint Committee, common guidelines for those common supervisory approaches, thus ensuring a comprehensive prudential framework of the supervisory tools and powers available in the banking, insurance, securities and financial conglomerates directives. The guidelines provided for in Directive 2002/87/EC should reflect the supplementary nature of supervision thereunder, and complement the sector-specific supervision as provided for by Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 98/78/EC, 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2006/48/EC, 2006/49/EC, 2009/138/EC and 2011/61/EU.\n(8)\nThere is a genuine need to monitor and control potential group risks, posed to the financial conglomerate, arising from participations in other companies. For those cases where the specific supervisory powers provided for by Directive 2002/87/EC appear to be insufficient, the supervisory community should develop alternative methods to address and appropriately take into account these risks, preferably by work conducted by the ESAs through the Joint Committee. If a participation is the only element of identification of a financial conglomerate, supervisors should be allowed to assess whether the group is exposed to group risks and waive the need for supplementary supervision, if appropriate.\n(9)\nWith regard to certain group structures, supervisors have been left without powers in the current crisis since the regimes provided for in the relevant directives have forced them to choose either sector-specific or supplementary supervision. While a complete review of Directive 2002/87/EC should be undertaken in the context of the G20 work on financial conglomerates, the necessary supervisory powers should be provided for as soon as possible.\n(10)\nIt is appropriate to ensure consistency between the aims of Directive 2002/87/EC and Directive 98/78/EC. Directive 98/78/EC should therefore be amended to define and include mixed financial holding companies. In order to ensure timely coherent supervision, Directive 98/78/EC should be amended, notwithstanding the imminent application of Directive 2009/138/EC, which should be amended to the same effect.\n(11)\nWhile stress testing should occur regularly for the banking and insurance subgroups of a financial conglomerate, it is the role of the coordinator appointed in accordance with Directive 2002/87/EC to decide the appropriateness, parameters and timing of a stress test for an individual financial conglomerate as a whole. For Union-wide stress tests, carried out by the ESAs in a sector-specific context, the role of the Joint Committee should be to ensure that such stress tests occur in a consistent manner across sectors. For these reasons, the ESAs, through the Joint Committee, should be able to develop supplementary parameters for Union-wide stress tests, capturing the specific group risks that typically materialise in financial conglomerates and should be able to publish the results of those tests, where permitted by sectoral legislation. Experience from previous Union-wide stress tests should be taken into account. For example, stress tests should take account of liquidity and solvency risks of financial conglomerates.\n(12)\nThe Commission should further develop a coherent and conclusive system of supervision of financial conglomerates. The upcoming complete review of Directive 2002/87/EC should cover non-regulated entities, in particular special purpose vehicles, and should develop a risk-based application of the waivers available to supervisors in determining a financial conglomerate while limiting the use of such waivers. Having regard to the sectoral Directives, the review should also consider systemically relevant financial conglomerates, the size, inter-connectedness or complexity of which make them particularly vulnerable. Such conglomerates should be identified by analogy with the evolving standards of the Financial Stability Board and of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The Commission should consider proposing regulatory action in this field.\n(13)\nIt is appropriate to ensure consistency between the aims of Directive 2002/87/EC and Directive 2006/48/EC. Directive 2006/48/EC should therefore be amended to define and include mixed financial holding companies.\n(14)\nThe restored availability of powers at the mixed financial holding company level implies that certain provisions of Directives 98/78/EC, 2002/87/EC, 2006/48/EC or 2009/138/EC apply simultaneously at that level. Those provisions may be equivalent to each other, especially as regards the qualitative elements of the supervisory review processes. For example, identical fit and proper requirements for the management of holding companies are provided for by Directives 98/78/EC, 2002/87/EC, 2006/48/EC and 2009/138/EC. To avoid an overlap between those provisions and to ensure the effectiveness of top-level supervision, supervisors should be able to apply a particular provision only once, while complying with the equivalent provision in all other applicable directives. Where provisions do not have identical wording, they should be regarded as equivalent if they are similar in substance, in particular in terms of risk-based supervision. When assessing equivalence, supervisors should check, within colleges, whether, in regard to each applicable directive, the scope is covered and the objectives are achieved, without lowering supervisory standards. It should be possible for equivalence assessments to evolve in the course of changing supervisory frameworks and practices. Equivalence assessments should therefore be subject to an open, evolutionary process. That process should allow for case-by-case solutions so that all the relevant features of a particular group are taken into account. To ensure consistency within the supervisory framework for a particular group and to obtain a level playing field among all financial conglomerates within the Union, appropriate supervisory cooperation is necessary. To that end, the ESAs, through the Joint Committee, should develop guidelines aimed at the convergence of equivalence assessments and work towards issuing binding technical standards.\n(15)\nIn order to improve the supplementary supervision of financial entities in a financial conglomerate, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) should be delegated to the Commission in respect of technical adaptations to be made to Directive 2002/87/EC as regards the definitions, the alignment of terminology and the calculation methods set out in that Directive. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and the Council.\n(16)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely improving the supplementary supervision of financial entities in a financial conglomerate, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of this Directive, 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.\n(17)\nDirectives 98/78/EC, 2002/87/EC, 2006/48/EC and 2009/138/EC should therefore be amended,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Directive 98/78/EC\nDirective 98/78/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (j) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(j)\n\u201cmixed-activity insurance holding company\u201d means a parent undertaking, other than an insurance undertaking, a non-member-country insurance undertaking, a reinsurance undertaking, a non-member-country reinsurance undertaking, an insurance holding company or a mixed financial holding company, which includes at least one insurance undertaking or a reinsurance undertaking among its subsidiary undertakings;\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following point is added:\n\u2018(m)\n\u201cmixed financial holding company\u201d means a mixed financial holding company as defined in Article 2(15) of Directive 2002/87/EC;\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 2(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Every insurance undertaking or reinsurance undertaking the parent undertaking of which is an insurance holding company, a mixed financial holding company, a non-member-country insurance or a non-member-country reinsurance undertaking shall be subject to supplementary supervision in the manner prescribed in Article 5(2) and Articles 6, 8 and 10.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 2a\nLevel of application with regard to mixed financial holding companies\n1. Where a mixed financial holding company is subject to equivalent provisions under this Directive and under Directive 2002/87/EC, in particular in terms of risk-based supervision, the competent authority responsible for exercising supplementary supervision may, after consulting the other competent authorities concerned, apply only the relevant provision of Directive 2002/87/EC to that mixed financial holding company.\n2. Where a mixed financial holding company is subject to equivalent provisions under this Directive and under Directive 2006/48/EC, in particular in terms of risk-based supervision, the competent authority responsible for exercising supplementary supervision may, in agreement with the consolidating supervisor in the banking and investment services sector, apply only the provision of the directive relating to the most significant sector as determined in accordance with Article 3(2) of Directive 2002/87/EC.\n3. The competent authority responsible for exercising supplementary supervision shall inform the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (18) (EBA), and the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (19) (EIOPA) of the decisions taken under paragraphs 1 and 2. EBA, EIOPA and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (20) shall, through the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (Joint Committee), develop guidelines aimed at converging supervisory practices and shall develop draft regulatory technical standards, which they shall submit to the Commission within three years of the adoption of those guidelines.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively.\n(4)\nArticle 3(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The exercise of supplementary supervision in accordance with Article 2 shall in no way imply that the competent authorities are required to play a supervisory role in relation to the non-member-country insurance undertaking, non-member-country reinsurance undertaking, insurance holding company, mixed financial holding company or mixed-activity insurance holding company taken individually.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 4(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Where insurance undertakings or reinsurance undertakings authorised in two or more Member States have as their parent undertaking the same insurance holding company, non-member-country insurance undertaking, non-member-country reinsurance undertaking, mixed financial holding company or mixed-activity insurance holding company, the competent authorities of the Member States concerned may reach an agreement as to which of them is to be responsible for exercising supplementary supervision.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 10 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 10\nInsurance holding companies, mixed financial holding companies, non-member-country insurance undertakings and non-member-country reinsurance undertakings\n1. In relation to Article 2(2), Member States shall require the method of supplementary supervision to be applied in accordance with Annex II. The calculation shall include all related undertakings of the insurance holding company, mixed financial holding company, non-member-country insurance undertaking or non-member-country reinsurance undertaking.\n2. If, on the basis of the calculation referred to in paragraph 1, the competent authorities conclude that the solvency of a subsidiary insurance or reinsurance undertaking of the insurance holding company, mixed financial holding company, non-member-country insurance undertaking or non-member-country reinsurance undertaking is, or may be, jeopardised, they shall take appropriate measures at the level of that insurance or reinsurance undertaking.\u2019;\n(7)\nAnnexes I and II are amended in accordance with Annex I to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nAmendments to Directive 2002/87/EC\nDirective 2002/87/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticles 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nSubject matter\nThis Directive lays down rules for supplementary supervision of regulated entities which have obtained an authorisation in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 73/239/EEC, Article 4 of Directive 2002/83/EC (21), Article 5 of Directive 2004/39/EC (22), Article 3 of Directive 2005/68/EC (23), Article 6 of Directive 2006/48/EC (24), Article 5 of Directive 2009/65/EC (25), Article 14 of Directive 2009/138/EC (26) or Articles 6 to 11 of Directive 2011/61/EU (27), and which are part of a financial conglomerate.\nThis Directive also amends the relevant sectoral rules which apply to entities regulated by those Directives.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive:\n(1)\n\u201ccredit institution\u201d means a credit institution within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/48/EC;\n(2)\n\u201cinsurance undertaking\u201d means an insurance undertaking within the meaning of Article 13(1), (2) or (3) of Directive 2009/138/EC;\n(3)\n\u201cinvestment firm\u201d means an investment firm within the meaning of point 1 of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC, including the undertakings referred to in Article 3(1)(d) of Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (28) or an undertaking the registered office of which is in a third country and which would require authorisation under Directive 2004/39/EC if its registered office were in the Union;\n(4)\n\u201cregulated entity\u201d means a credit institution, an insurance undertaking, a reinsurance undertaking, an investment firm, an asset management company or an alternative investment fund manager;\n(5)\n\u201casset management company\u201d means a management company within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2009/65/EC or an undertaking the registered office of which is in a third country and which would require authorisation under that Directive if its registered office were within the Union;\n(5a)\n\u201calternative investment fund manager\u201d means a manager of alternative investment funds within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b), (l) and (ab) of Directive 2011/61/EU or an undertaking the registered office of which is in a third country and which would require authorisation under that Directive if its registered office were within the Union;\n(6)\n\u201creinsurance undertaking\u201d means a reinsurance undertaking within the meaning of Article 13(4), (5) or (6) of Directive 2009/138/EC or a special purpose vehicle within the meaning of Article 13(26) of Directive 2009/138/EC;\n(7)\n\u201csectoral rules\u201d means Union legislation relating to the prudential supervision of regulated entities, in particular Directives 2004/39/EC, 2006/48/EC, 2006/49/EC and 2009/138/EC;\n(8)\n\u201cfinancial sector\u201d means a sector composed of one or more of the following entities:\n(a)\na credit institution, a financial institution or an ancillary services undertaking within the meaning of Article 4(1), (5) or (21) of Directive 2006/48/EC (hereinafter referred to collectively as \u201cthe banking sector\u201d);\n(b)\nan insurance undertaking, a reinsurance undertaking or an insurance holding company within the meaning of Article 13(1), (2), (4) or (5) or of Article 212(1)(f) of Directive 2009/138/EC (hereinafter referred to collectively as \u201cthe insurance sector\u201d);\n(c)\nan investment firm within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2006/49/EC (hereinafter referred to collectively as \u201cthe investment services sector\u201d);\n(9)\n\u201cparent undertaking\u201d means a parent undertaking as defined in Article 1 of Seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 on consolidated accounts (29) or any undertaking which, in the opinion of the competent authorities, effectively exercises a dominant influence over another undertaking;\n(10)\n\u201csubsidiary undertaking\u201d means a subsidiary undertaking as defined in Article 1 of Directive 83/349/EEC or any undertaking over which, in the opinion of the competent authorities, a parent undertaking effectively exercises a dominant influence or all subsidiaries of such subsidiary undertakings;\n(11)\n\u201cparticipation\u201d means a participation within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 17 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (30), or the direct or indirect ownership of 20 % or more of the voting rights or capital of an undertaking;\n(12)\n\u201cgroup\u201d means a group of undertakings which consists of a parent undertaking, its subsidiaries and the entities in which the parent undertaking or its subsidiaries hold a participation, or undertakings linked to each other by a relationship within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 83/349/EEC, including any subgroup thereof;\n(12a)\n\u201ccontrol\u201d means the relationship between a parent undertaking and a subsidiary undertaking as set out in Article 1 of Directive 83/349/EEC, or a similar relationship between a natural or legal person and an undertaking;\n(13)\n\u201cclose links\u201d means a situation in which two or more natural or legal persons are linked by control or participation, or a situation in which two or more natural or legal persons are permanently linked to the same person by a control relationship;\n(14)\n\u201cfinancial conglomerate\u201d means a group or subgroup, where a regulated entity is at the head of the group or subgroup, or where at least one of the subsidiaries in that group or subgroup is a regulated entity, and which meets the following conditions:\n(a)\nwhere there is a regulated entity at the head of the group or subgroup:\n(i)\nthat entity is a parent undertaking of an entity in the financial sector, an entity which holds a participation in an entity in the financial sector, or an entity linked with an entity in the financial sector by a relationship within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 83/349/EEC;\n(ii)\nat least one of the entities in the group or subgroup is within the insurance sector and at least one is within the banking or investment services sector; and\n(iii)\nthe consolidated or aggregated activities of the entities in the group or subgroup within the insurance sector and of the entities within the banking and investment services sector are both significant within the meaning of Article 3(2) or (3) of this Directive; or\n(b)\nwhere there is no regulated entity at the head of the group or subgroup:\n(i)\nthe group\u2019s or subgroup\u2019s activities occur mainly in the financial sector within the meaning of Article 3(1) of this Directive;\n(ii)\nat least one of the entities in the group or subgroup is within the insurance sector and at least one is within the banking or investment services sector; and\n(iii)\nthe consolidated or aggregated activities of the entities in the group or subgroup within the insurance sector and of the entities within the banking and investment services sector are both significant within the meaning of Article 3(2) or (3) of this Directive;\n(15)\n\u201cmixed financial holding company\u201d means a parent undertaking, other than a regulated entity, which, together with its subsidiaries - at least one of which is a regulated entity which has its registered office in the Union - and other entities, constitutes a financial conglomerate;\n(16)\n\u201ccompetent authorities\u201d means the national authorities of the Member States which are empowered by law or regulation to supervise credit institutions, insurance undertakings, reinsurance undertakings, investment firms, asset management companies or alternative investment fund managers whether on an individual or group-wide basis;\n(17)\n\u201crelevant competent authorities\u201d means:\n(a)\nMember States\u2019 competent authorities responsible for the sectoral group-wide supervision of any of the regulated entities in a financial conglomerate, in particular of the ultimate parent undertaking of a sector;\n(b)\nthe coordinator appointed in accordance with Article 10 if different from the authorities referred to in point (a);\n(c)\nwhere appropriate, other competent authorities relevant to the opinion of the authorities referred to in points (a) and (b);\n(18)\n\u201cintra-group transactions\u201d means all transactions by which regulated entities within a financial conglomerate rely directly or indirectly on other undertakings within the same group or on any natural or legal person linked to the undertakings within that group by close links, for the fulfilment of an obligation, whether or not contractual, and whether or not for payment;\n(19)\n\u201crisk concentration\u201d means all risk exposures with a loss potential which is large enough to threaten the solvency or the financial position in general of the regulated entities in a financial conglomerate, whether such exposures are caused by counterparty risk/credit risk, investment risk, insurance risk, market risk, other risks, or a combination or interaction of such risks.\nUntil the entry into force of any regulatory technical standards adopted in accordance with Article 21a(1)(b), the opinion referred to in point (17)(c) shall, in particular, take into account the market share of the regulated entities of the financial conglomerate in other Member States, in particular if it exceeds 5 %, and the importance in the financial conglomerate of any regulated entity established in another Member State.\n(2)\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraphs 1, 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. For the purposes of determining whether the activities of a group mainly occur in the financial sector, within the meaning of Article 2(14)(b)(i), the ratio of the balance sheet total of the regulated and non-regulated financial sector entities in the group to the balance sheet total of the group as a whole should exceed 40 %.\n2. For the purposes of determining whether activities in different financial sectors are significant within the meaning of Article 2(14)(a)(iii) or (14)(b)(iii), for each financial sector the average of the ratio of the balance sheet total of that financial sector to the balance sheet total of the financial sector entities in the group and the ratio of the solvency requirements of the same financial sector to the total solvency requirements of the financial sector entities in the group should exceed 10 %.\nFor the purposes of this Directive, the smallest financial sector in a financial conglomerate is the sector with the smallest average and the most important financial sector in a financial conglomerate is the sector with the highest average. For the purposes of calculating the average and for the measurement of the smallest and the most important financial sectors, the banking sector and the investment services sector shall be considered together.\nAsset management companies shall be added to the sector to which they belong within the group. If they do not belong exclusively to one sector within the group, they shall be added to the smallest financial sector.\nAlternative investment fund managers shall be added to the sector to which they belong within the group. If they do not belong exclusively to one sector within the group, they shall be added to the smallest financial sector.\n3. Cross-sectoral activities shall also be presumed to be significant within the meaning of Article 2(14)(a)(iii) or (14)(b)(iii) if the balance sheet total of the smallest financial sector in the group exceeds EUR 6 billion.\nIf the group does not reach the threshold referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, the relevant competent authorities may decide by common agreement not to regard the group as a financial conglomerate. They may also decide not to apply the provisions of Article 7, 8, or 9, if they are of the opinion that the inclusion of the group in the scope of this Directive or the application of such provisions is not necessary or would be inappropriate or misleading with respect to the objectives of supplementary supervision.\nDecisions taken in accordance with this paragraph shall be notified to the other competent authorities and shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be made public by the competent authorities.\n3a. If the group reaches the threshold referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, but the smallest sector does not exceed EUR 6 billion, the relevant competent authorities may decide by common agreement not to regard the group as a financial conglomerate. They may also decide not to apply the provisions of Article 7, 8, or 9, if they are of the opinion that the inclusion of the group in the scope of this Directive or the application of such provisions is not necessary or would be inappropriate or misleading with respect to the objectives of supplementary supervision.\nDecisions taken in accordance with this paragraph shall be notified to the other competent authorities and shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be made public by the competent authorities.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is amended as follows:\n(i)\npoint (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nexclude an entity when calculating the ratios, in the cases referred to in Article 6(5), unless the entity moved from a Member State to a third country and there is evidence that the entity changed its location in order to avoid regulation.\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe following point is added:\n\u2018(c)\nexclude one or more participations in the smaller sector if such participations are decisive for the identification of a financial conglomerate, and are collectively of negligible interest with respect to the objectives of supplementary supervision.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. For the application of paragraphs 1 and 2, the relevant competent authorities may, in exceptional cases and by common agreement, replace the criterion based on balance sheet total with one or more of the following parameters or add one or more of these parameters, if they are of the opinion that those parameters are of particular relevance for the purpose of supplementary supervision under this Directive: income structure, off-balance sheet activities, total assets under management.\u2019;\n(d)\nthe following paragraphs are added:\n\u20188. The European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (31) (EBA), the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (32) (EIOPA) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (33) (ESMA) (hereinafter collectively referred to as \u201cthe ESA\u201d) shall, through the Joint Committee of the ESA (Joint Committee), issue common guidelines aimed at the convergence of supervisory practices with regard to the application of paragraphs 2, 3, 3a, 4 and 5 of this Article.\n9. The competent authorities shall, on an annual basis, reassess waivers of the application of supplementary supervision and shall review the quantitative indicators set out in this Article and risk-based assessments applied to financial groups.\n(3)\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018For that purpose:\n-\ncompetent authorities which have authorised regulated entities in the group shall cooperate closely,\n-\nif a competent authority is of the opinion that a regulated entity authorised by that competent authority is a member of a group which may be a financial conglomerate and which has not already been identified in accordance with this Directive, the competent authority shall communicate its view to the other competent authorities concerned and to the Joint Committee.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The coordinator shall also inform the competent authorities which have authorised regulated entities in the group, the competent authorities of the Member State in which the mixed financial holding company has its head office and the Joint Committee.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Joint Committee shall publish and keep up-to-date on its website the list of financial conglomerates defined in accordance with Article 2(14). That information shall be available by hyperlink on each of the ESA's websites.\nThe name of each regulated entity referred to in Article 1 which is part of a financial conglomerate shall be entered on a list, which the Joint Committee shall publish and keep up-to-date on its website.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 5 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nevery regulated entity, the parent undertaking of which is a mixed financial holding company which has its head office in the Union;\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Every regulated entity which is not subject to supplementary supervision in accordance with paragraph 2, the parent undertaking of which is a regulated entity or a mixed financial holding company which has its head office in a third country, shall be subject to supplementary supervision at the level of the financial conglomerate to the extent and in the manner prescribed in Article 18.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 4, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In order to apply such supplementary supervision, at least one of the entities must be a regulated entity as referred to in Article 1 and the conditions set out in Article 2(14)(a)(ii) or (14)(b)(ii) and Article 2(14)(a)(iii) or (14)(b)(iii) must be met. The relevant competent authorities shall take their decision, taking into account the objectives of the supplementary supervision as provided for by this Directive.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 6, paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:\n\u20183. For the purposes of calculating the capital adequacy requirements referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2, the following entities shall be included in the scope of supplementary supervision in accordance with Annex I:\n(a)\na credit institution, a financial institution or an ancillary services undertaking;\n(b)\nan insurance undertaking, a reinsurance undertaking or an insurance holding company;\n(c)\nan investment firm;\n(d)\na mixed financial holding company.\n4. When calculating the supplementary capital adequacy requirements with regard to a financial conglomerate by applying method 1 (Accounting consolidation) referred to in Annex I to this Directive, the own funds and the solvency requirements of the entities in the group shall be calculated by applying the corresponding sectoral rules on the form and extent of consolidation as laid down in particular in Articles 133 and 134 of Directive 2006/48/EC and Article 221 of Directive 2009/138/EC.\nWhen applying method 2 (Deduction and aggregation) referred to in Annex I, the calculation shall take account of the proportion of the subscribed capital which is directly or indirectly held by the parent undertaking or undertaking which holds a participation in another entity of the group.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 7 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Pending further coordination of Union legislation, Member States may set quantitative limits, allow their competent authorities to set quantitative limits, or adopt other supervisory measures which would achieve the objectives of supplementary supervision, with regard to any risk concentration at the level of a financial conglomerate.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. The ESA shall, through the Joint Committee, issue common guidelines aimed at the convergence of supervisory practices with regard to the application of supplementary supervision of risk concentration as provided for in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article. In order to avoid duplication, the guidelines shall ensure that the application of the supervisory tools as provided for in this Article is aligned to the application of Articles 106 to 118 of Directive 2006/48/EC and of Article 244 of Directive 2009/138/EC. They shall issue specific common guidelines on the application of paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article to participations of the financial conglomerate in cases where national company law provisions obstruct the application of Article 14(2) of this Directive.\u2019;\n(7)\nArticle 8 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Pending further coordination of Union legislation, Member States may set quantitative limits and qualitative requirements, allow their competent authorities to set quantitative limits or qualitative requirements, or take other supervisory measures that would achieve the objectives of supplementary supervision, with regard to intra-group transactions of regulated entities within a financial conglomerate.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. The ESA shall, through the Joint Committee, issue common guidelines aimed at the convergence of supervisory practices with regard to the application of supplementary supervision of intra-group transactions as provided for in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article. In order to avoid duplication, the guidelines shall ensure that the application of the supervisory tools, as provided for in this Article, is aligned to the application of Article 245 of Directive 2009/138/EC. They shall issue specific common guidelines on the application of paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article to participations of the financial conglomerate in cases where national company law provisions obstruct the application of Article 14(2) of this Directive.\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 9 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Member States shall ensure that, in all undertakings included in the scope of supplementary supervision pursuant to Article 5, there are adequate internal control mechanisms for the production of any data and information which would be relevant for the purposes of the supplementary supervision.\nThe Member States shall require the regulated entities, at the level of the financial conglomerate, to regularly provide their competent authority with details on their legal structure and governance and organisational structure including all regulated entities, non-regulated subsidiaries and significant branches.\nThe Member States shall require the regulated entities to disclose publicly, at the level of the financial conglomerate, on an annual basis, either in full or by way of references to equivalent information, a description of their legal structure and governance and organisational structure.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20186. Competent authorities shall align the application of the supplementary supervision of internal control mechanisms and risk management processes as provided for in this Article with the supervisory review processes as provided for by Article 124 of Directive 2006/48/EC and Article 248 of Directive 2009/138/EC. To this end, the ESA shall, through the Joint Committee, issue common guidelines aimed at the convergence of supervisory practices with regard to the application of supplementary supervision of internal control mechanisms and risk management processes as provided for in this Article, as well as on the consistency with the supervisory review processes as provided for by Article 124 of Directive 2006/48/EC and Article 248 of Directive 2009/138/EC. They shall issue specific common guidelines for the application of this Article to participations of the financial conglomerate, in cases where national company law provisions obstruct the application of Article 14(2) of this Directive.\u2019;\n(9)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 9b\nStress testing\n1. Member States may require that the coordinator ensure appropriate and regular stress testing of financial conglomerates. They shall require the relevant competent authorities to cooperate fully with the coordinator.\n2. For the purpose of Union-wide stress tests the ESA may, through the Joint Committee and in cooperation with the European Systemic Risk Board, established by Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on the European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (34), develop supplementary parameters that capture the specific risks associated with financial conglomerates, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. The coordinator shall communicate the results of the stress tests to the Joint Committee.\n(10)\nArticle 10(2)(b) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (ii), the first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(ii)\nwhere at least two regulated entities which have their registered office in the Union have as their parent the same mixed financial holding company, and one of those entities has been authorised in the Member State in which the mixed financial holding company has its head office, the task of coordinator shall be exercised by the competent authority of the regulated entity authorised in that Member State.\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (iii) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(iii)\nwhere at least two regulated entities which have their registered office in the Union have as their parent the same mixed financial holding company and none of those entities has been authorised in the Member State in which the mixed financial holding company has its head office, the task of coordinator shall be exercised by the competent authority which authorised the regulated entity with the largest balance sheet total in the most important financial sector;\u2019;\n(11)\nArticle 11 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Without prejudice to the possibility of delegating specific supervisory competences and responsibilities as provided for by Union legislative acts, the presence of a coordinator entrusted with specific tasks concerning the supplementary supervision of regulated entities in a financial conglomerate shall not affect the tasks and responsibilities of the competent authorities as provided for by the sectoral rules.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. The required cooperation under this Section and the exercise of the tasks listed in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article and in Article 12 and, subject to confidentiality requirements and Union law, the appropriate coordination and cooperation with relevant third-country supervisory authorities where appropriate, shall be fulfilled through colleges, established pursuant to Article 131a of Directive 2006/48/EC or Article 248(2) of Directive 2009/138/EC.\nThe coordination arrangements referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall be separately reflected in the written coordination arrangements in place pursuant to Article 131 of Directive 2006/48/EC or Article 248 of Directive 2009/138/EC. The coordinator, as Chair of a college established pursuant to Article 131a of Directive 2006/48/EC or Article 248(2) of Directive 2009/138/EC, shall decide which other competent authorities participate in a meeting or in any activity of that college.\u2019;\n(12)\nin the second subparagraph of Article 12(1), point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nidentification of the group\u2019s legal structure and the governance and organisational structure, including all regulated entities, non-regulated subsidiaries and significant branches belonging to the financial conglomerate, the holders of qualifying holdings at the ultimate parent level, as well as of the competent authorities of the regulated entities in the group;\u2019;\n(13)\nin Article 12a, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. The coordinators shall provide the Joint Committee with the information referred to in Article 9(4) and point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 12(1). The Joint Committee shall make available to the competent authorities information regarding the legal structure and the governance and organisational structure of financial conglomerates.\u2019;\n(14)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 12b\nCommon guidelines\n1. The ESA shall, through the Joint Committee, develop common guidelines on how risk-based assessments of financial conglomerates are to be conducted by the competent authority. Those guidelines shall, in particular, ensure that risk- based assessments include appropriate tools in order to assess group risks posed to the financial conglomerates.\n2. The ESA shall, through the Joint Committee, issue common guidelines aimed at developing supervisory practices allowing for supplementary supervision of mixed financial holding companies to appropriately complement the group supervision under Directives 98/78/EC and 2009/138/EC or, as appropriate, consolidated supervision under Directive 2006/48/EC. Those guidelines shall allow all relevant risks to be incorporated in the supervision, while eliminating potential supervisory and prudential overlaps.\u2019;\n(15)\nArticle 18 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Parent undertakings in a third country\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Competent authorities may apply other methods which ensure appropriate supplementary supervision of the regulated entities in a financial conglomerate. Those methods shall be agreed by the coordinator, after consulting the other relevant competent authorities. The competent authorities may in particular require the establishment of a mixed financial holding company which has its head office in the Union, and apply this Directive to the regulated entities in the financial conglomerate headed by that holding company. The competent authorities shall ensure that those methods achieve the objective of supplementary supervision under this Directive and shall notify the other competent authorities involved and the Commission thereof.\u2019;\n(16)\nArticle 19 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 19\nCooperation with third-country competent authorities\nArticle 39(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/48/EC, Article 10a of Directive 98/78/EC and Article 264 of Directive 2009/138/EC shall apply mutatis mutandis to the negotiation of agreements with one or more third countries regarding the means of exercising supplementary supervision of regulated entities in a financial conglomerate.\u2019;\n(17)\nthe title of Chapter III is replaced by the following:\n(18)\nArticle 20 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 20\nPowers conferred on the Commission\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 21c concerning the technical adaptations to be made to this Directive in the following areas:\n(a)\na more precise formulation of the definitions laid down in Article 2 in order to take account of developments in financial markets for the application of this Directive;\n(b)\nthe alignment of terminology and the framing of definitions in this Directive in accordance with subsequent Union acts on regulated entities and related matters;\n(c)\na more precise definition of the calculation methods set out in Annex I in order to take account of developments on financial markets and prudential techniques.\nThose measures shall not include the subject matter of the power delegated to and conferred on the Commission with regard to the items listed in Article 21a.\u2019;\n(19)\nin Article 21, paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 are deleted;\n(20)\nArticle 21a is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, the following point is added:\n\u2018(d)\nArticle 6(2) in order to ensure a uniform format (with instructions) for, and determine the frequency of and, where appropriate, the dates for reporting.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20181a. In order to ensure consistent application of Articles 2, 7 and 8 and Annex II, the ESA shall, through the Joint Committee, develop draft regulatory technical standards to establish a more precise formulation of the definitions set out in Article 2 and to coordinate the provisions adopted pursuant to Articles 7 and 8 and Annex II.\nThe Joint Committee shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2015.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. Within two years of the adoption of any implementing technical standards in accordance with paragraph 2(a), Member States shall require a uniform format for and shall determine the frequency of, and the dates for, reporting of the calculations referred to in this Article.\u2019;\n(21)\nthe following Articles are inserted in Chapter III:\n\u2018Article 21b\nCommon Guidelines\nThe ESA shall, through the Joint Committee, issue the common guidelines referred to in Article 3(8), Article 7(5), Article 8(5), Article 9(6), the third subparagraph of Article 11(1), Article 12b and Article 21(4) in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 56 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively.\nArticle 21c\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The delegation of power referred to in Article 20 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of four years from 9 December 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated power at the latest six months before the end of the four-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 20 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect on the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or on a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 20 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of three months of the notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by three months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.\u2019;\n(22)\nin Article 30, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Pending further coordination of sectoral rules, Member States shall provide for the inclusion of asset management companies:\n(a)\nwithin the scope of consolidated supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, or in the scope of supplementary supervision of insurance undertakings in an insurance group;\n(b)\nwhere the group is a financial conglomerate, in the scope of supplementary supervision within the meaning of this Directive; and\n(c)\nwithin the identification process in accordance with Article 3(2).\u2019;\n(23)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 30a\nAlternative investment fund managers\n1. Pending further coordination of sectoral rules, Member States shall provide for the inclusion of alternative investment fund managers:\n(a)\nwithin the scope of consolidated supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, or within the scope of supplementary supervision of insurance undertakings in an insurance group;\n(b)\nwhere the group is a financial conglomerate, within the scope of supplementary supervision within the meaning of this Directive; and\n(c)\nwithin the identification process in accordance with Article 3(2).\n2. For the application of paragraph 1, Member States shall determine, or give their competent authorities the power to decide, according to which sectoral rules (banking sector, insurance sector or investment services sector) alternative investment fund managers are to be included in the consolidated or supplementary supervision referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1. For the purposes of this paragraph, the relevant sectoral rules regarding the form and extent of the inclusion of financial institutions shall apply mutatis mutandis to alternative investment fund managers. For the purposes of supplementary supervision referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1, the alternative investment fund manager shall be treated as part of whichever sector it is included in by virtue of point (a) of paragraph 1.\nWhere an alternative investment fund manager is part of a financial conglomerate, references to regulated entities, and to competent and relevant competent authorities shall therefore, for the purposes of this Directive, be understood as including, respectively, alternative investment fund managers and the competent authorities responsible for the supervision of alternative investment fund managers. This applies mutatis mutandis as regards groups as referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(24)\nAnnex I is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Directive.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Directive 2006/48/EC\nDirective 2006/48/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nparagraph 2 of Article 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Article 39 and Articles 124 to 143 shall apply to financial holding companies, mixed financial holding companies and mixed-activity holding companies which have their head office in the Union.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoints (14) to (17) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(14)\n\u201cparent credit institution in a Member State\u201d means a credit institution which has a credit institution or a financial institution as a subsidiary or which holds a participation in such an institution, and which is not itself a subsidiary of another credit institution authorised in the same Member State, or of a financial holding company or mixed financial holding company established in the same Member State;\n(15)\n\u201cparent financial holding company in a Member State\u201d means a financial holding company which is not itself a subsidiary of a credit institution authorised in the same Member State, or of a financial holding company or mixed financial holding company established in the same Member State;\n(15a)\n\u201cparent mixed financial holding company in a Member State\u201d means a mixed financial holding company which is not itself a subsidiary of a credit institution authorised in the same Member State, or of a financial holding company or mixed financial holding company established in the same Member State;\n(16)\n\u201cEU parent credit institution\u201d means a parent credit institution in a Member State which is not a subsidiary of another credit institution authorised in any Member State, or of a financial holding company or mixed financial holding company established in any Member State;\n(17)\n\u201cEU parent financial holding company\u201d means a parent financial holding company in a Member State which is not a subsidiary of a credit institution authorised in any Member State or of another financial holding company or mixed financial holding company established in any Member State;\n(17a)\n\u201cEU parent mixed financial holding company\u201d means a parent mixed financial holding company in a Member State which is not a subsidiary of a credit institution authorised in any Member State or of another financial holding company or mixed financial holding company established in any Member State;\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following point is inserted:\n\u2018(19a)\n\u201cmixed financial holding company\u201d means a mixed financial holding company as defined in Article 2(15) of Directive 2002/87/EC;\u2019;\n(c)\npoint (48) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(48)\n\u201cconsolidating supervisor\u201d means the competent authority responsible for the exercise of supervision on a consolidated basis of EU parent credit institutions and credit institutions controlled by EU parent financial holding companies or EU parent mixed financial holding companies;\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 14 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 14\nEvery authorisation shall be notified to EBA. The name of each credit institution to which authorisation has been granted shall be entered on a list, which EBA shall publish and keep up-to-date on its website. The competent authority responsible for supervision on a consolidated basis shall provide the competent authorities concerned and EBA with all information regarding the banking group in accordance with Article 12(3), Article 22(1) and Article 73(3), in particular regarding the legal structure and the governance and organisational structure of the group.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 39 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\ncredit institutions established in third countries, the parent undertakings of which, whether credit institutions, financial holding companies or mixed financial holding companies, have their head office in the Union.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthat the competent authorities of the Member States are able to obtain the information necessary for supervision on the basis of the consolidated financial situations of credit institutions, financial holding companies or mixed financial holding companies situated in the Union which have as subsidiaries credit institutions or financial institutions established in a third country, or hold participation in such institutions;\u2019;\n(5)\nparagraph 2 of Article 69 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The Member States may exercise the option provided for in paragraph 1 where the parent undertaking is a financial holding company or mixed financial holding company established in the same Member State as the credit institution, provided that it is subject to the same supervision as that applicable to credit institutions, and in particular to the standards laid down in Article 71(1).\u2019;\n(6)\nparagraph 2 of Article 71 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Without prejudice to Articles 68, 69 and 70, credit institutions controlled by a parent financial holding company in a Member State or a parent mixed financial holding company in a Member State shall comply, to the extent and in the manner prescribed in Article 133, with the obligations laid down in Articles 75, 120, 123 and Section 5 on the basis of the consolidated financial situation of that financial holding company or mixed financial holding company.\nWhere more than one credit institution is controlled by a parent financial holding company in a Member State or by a parent mixed financial holding company in a Member State, the first subparagraph shall apply only to the credit institution to which supervision on a consolidated basis applies in accordance with Articles 125 and 126.\u2019;\n(7)\nparagraph 2 of Article 72 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Credit institutions controlled by an EU parent financial holding company or by an EU parent mixed financial holding company shall comply with the obligations laid down in Chapter 5 on the basis of the consolidated financial situation of that financial holding company or that mixed financial holding company.\nSignificant subsidiaries of EU parent financial holding companies or EU parent mixed financial holding companies shall disclose the information specified in Annex XII, Part 1, point 5, on an individual or sub-consolidated basis.\u2019;\n(8)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 72a\n1. Where a mixed financial holding company is subject to equivalent provisions under this Directive and under Directive 2002/87/EC, in particular in terms of risk-based supervision, the consolidating supervisor may, after consulting the other competent authorities responsible for the supervision of subsidiaries, apply only the relevant provision of Directive 2002/87/EC to that mixed financial holding company.\n2. Where a mixed financial holding company is subject to equivalent provisions under this Directive and under Directive 2009/138/EC, in particular in terms of risk-based supervision, the consolidating supervisor may, in agreement with the group supervisor in the insurance sector, apply to that mixed financial holding company only the provision of the Directive relating to the most significant financial sector as determined under Article 3(2) of Directive 2002/87/EC.\n3. The consolidating supervisor shall inform EBA and the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (35) (EIOPA) of the decisions taken under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article. EBA, EIOPA and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (36) (ESMA) shall, through the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (Joint Committee), develop guidelines aimed at converging supervisory practices and shall develop draft regulatory technical standards, which they shall submit to the Commission within three years of the adoption of the guidelines.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively.\n(9)\nparagraph 2 of Article 73 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Competent authorities shall require subsidiary credit institutions to apply the requirements laid down in Articles 75, 120 and 123 and Section 5 of this Directive on a sub-consolidated basis if those credit institutions, or their parent undertaking where that parent undertaking is a financial holding company or mixed financial holding company, have a credit institution, a financial institution or an asset management company as defined in Article 2(5) of Directive 2002/87/EC as a subsidiary established in a third country, or hold a participation in such an undertaking.\u2019;\n(10)\nin Article 80(7), point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe counterparty is an institution or a financial holding company, mixed financial holding company, financial institution, asset management company or ancillary services undertaking subject to appropriate prudential requirements;\u2019;\n(11)\nArticle 84 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Where an EU parent credit institution and its subsidiaries or an EU parent financial holding company and its subsidiaries or an EU parent mixed financial holding company and its subsidiaries use the IRB Approach on a unified basis, the competent authorities may allow the minimum requirements of Part 4 of Annex VII to be met by the parent and its subsidiaries considered together.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. Where the IRB Approach is intended to be used by the EU parent credit institution and its subsidiaries, or by the EU parent financial holding company and its subsidiaries, or the EU parent mixed financial holding company and its subsidiaries, the competent authorities of the different legal entities shall cooperate closely as provided for in Articles 129 to 132.\u2019;\n(12)\nin Article 89(1), point (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nexposures of a credit institution to a counterparty which is its parent undertaking, its subsidiary or a subsidiary of its parent undertaking provided that the counterparty is an institution or a financial holding company, mixed financial holding company, financial institution, asset management company or ancillary services undertaking subject to appropriate prudential requirements or an undertaking linked by a relationship within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 83/349/EEC and exposures between credit institutions which meet the requirements set out in Article 80(8);\u2019;\n(13)\nparagraphs 3 and 4 of Article 105 are replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Where an Advanced Measurement Approach is intended to be used by an EU parent credit institution and its subsidiaries or by the subsidiaries of an EU parent financial holding company or an EU parent mixed financial holding company, the competent authorities of the different legal entities shall cooperate closely as provided for in Articles 129 to 132. The application shall include the elements listed in Part 3 of Annex X.\n4. Where an EU parent credit institution and its subsidiaries or the subsidiaries of an EU parent financial holding company or an EU parent mixed financial holding company use an Advanced Measurement Approach on a unified basis, the competent authorities may allow the qualifying criteria set out in Part 3 of Annex X to be met by the parent and its subsidiaries considered together.\u2019;\n(14)\nparagraph 2 of Article 122a is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Where an EU parent credit institution, an EU parent financial holding company or an EU parent mixed financial holding company, or one of its subsidiaries, as an originator or a sponsor, securitises exposures from several credit institutions, investment firms or other financial institutions which are included in the scope of supervision on a consolidated basis, the requirement referred to in paragraph 1 may be satisfied on the basis of the consolidated situation of the related EU parent credit institution, EU parent financial holding company or EU parent mixed financial holding company. This paragraph shall apply only where credit institutions, investment firms or financial institutions which created the securitised exposures have committed themselves to adhere to the requirements set out in paragraph 6 and deliver, in a timely manner, to the originator or sponsor and to the EU parent credit institution, the EU parent financial holding company or the EU parent mixed financial holding company the information needed to satisfy the requirements referred to in paragraph 7.\u2019;\n(15)\nparagraph 2 of Article 125 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Where the parent of a credit institution is a parent financial holding company in a Member State a parent mixed financial holding company in a Member State, an EU parent financial holding company or an EU parent mixed financial holding company, supervision on a consolidated basis shall be exercised by the competent authorities that authorised that credit institution under Article 6.\u2019;\n(16)\nArticle 126 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 126\n1. Where credit institutions authorised in two or more Member States have as their parent the same parent financial holding company in a Member State, the same parent mixed financial holding company in a Member State, the same EU parent financial holding company or the same EU parent mixed financial holding company, supervision on a consolidated basis shall be exercised by the competent authorities of the credit institution authorised in the Member State in which the financial holding company or mixed financial holding company is established.\nWhere the parents of credit institutions authorised in two or more Member States comprise more than one financial holding company or mixed financial holding company which have their head offices in different Member States and there is a credit institution in each of those Member States, supervision on a consolidated basis shall be exercised by the competent authority of the credit institution with the largest balance sheet total.\n2. Where more than one credit institution authorised in the Union has as its parent the same financial holding company or the same mixed financial holding company and none of those credit institutions has been authorised in the Member State in which the financial holding company or the mixed financial holding company is established, supervision on a consolidated basis shall be exercised by the competent authority that authorised the credit institution with the largest balance sheet total, which shall be considered, for the purposes of this Directive, as the credit institution controlled by an EU parent financial holding company or an EU parent mixed financial holding company.\n3. In particular cases, the competent authorities may by common agreement waive the criteria referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 if their application would be inappropriate, taking into account the credit institutions and the relative importance of their activities in different countries, and appoint a different competent authority to exercise supervision on a consolidated basis. Before agreeing on such a waiver, the competent authorities shall give the EU parent credit institution the EU parent financial holding company, the EU parent mixed financial holding company, or the credit institution with the largest balance sheet total, as appropriate, an opportunity to state its opinion.\n4. The competent authorities shall notify the Commission and EBA of any waiver under paragraph 3.\u2019;\n(17)\nArticle 127 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall adopt any measures necessary, where appropriate, to include financial holding companies or mixed financial holding companies in consolidated supervision. Without prejudice to Article 135, the consolidation of the financial situation of the financial holding company or the mixed financial holding company shall not in any way imply that the competent authorities are required to play a supervisory role in relation to the financial holding company or mixed financial holding company on a stand alone basis.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Member States shall provide that their competent authorities responsible for exercising supervision on a consolidated basis may ask the subsidiaries of a credit institution, a financial holding company or a mixed financial holding company, which are not included within the scope of supervision on a consolidated basis for the information referred to in Article 137. In such a case, the procedures for transmitting and verifying the information laid down in that Article shall apply.\u2019;\n(18)\nArticle 129 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, the introductory part is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. In addition to the obligations provided for in this Directive, the competent authority responsible for the exercise of supervision on a consolidated basis of EU parent credit institutions and credit institutions controlled by EU parent financial holding companies or EU parent mixed financial holding companies shall carry out the following tasks:\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. In the case of applications for the permissions referred to in Article 84(1), Article 87(9) and Article 105 and in Part 6 of Annex III respectively, submitted by an EU parent credit institution and its subsidiaries, or jointly by the subsidiaries of an EU parent financial holding company or an EU parent mixed financial holding company, the competent authorities shall work together, in full consultation, to decide whether or not to grant the permission sought and to determine the terms and conditions, if any, to which such permission should be subject.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3:\n(i)\nthe first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The consolidating supervisor and the competent authorities responsible for the supervision of subsidiaries of an EU parent credit institution, an EU parent financial holding company or an EU parent mixed financial holding company shall do everything within their power to reach a joint decision on the application of Articles 123 and 124 to determine the adequacy of the consolidated level of own funds held by the group with respect to its financial situation and risk profile and the required level of own funds for the application of Article 136(2) to each entity within the banking group and on a consolidated basis.\u2019,\n(ii)\nthe fifth subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The decision on the application of Articles 123 and 124 and Article 136(2) shall be taken by the respective competent authorities responsible for supervision of subsidiaries of an EU parent credit institution, an EU parent financial holding company or an EU parent mixed financial holding company on an individual or sub-consolidated basis after duly considering the views and reservations expressed by the consolidating supervisor. If, at the end of the four-month period, any of the competent authorities concerned has referred the matter to EBA in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, the competent authorities shall defer their decision and await any decision that EBA shall take in accordance with Article 19(3) of that Regulation, and shall take its decision in conformity with the decision of EBA. The four-month period shall be deemed the conciliation period within the meaning of that Regulation. EBA shall take its decision within one month. The matter shall not be referred to EBA after the end of the four-month period or after a joint decision has been reached.\u2019,\n(iii)\nthe ninth subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The joint decision referred to in the first subparagraph and any decision taken in the absence of a joint decision in accordance with the fourth and fifth subparagraphs, shall be updated on an annual basis or, in exceptional circumstances, where a competent authority responsible for the supervision of subsidiaries of an EU parent credit institution, an EU parent financial holding company or an EU parent mixed financial holding company makes a written and fully reasoned request to the consolidating supervisor to update the decision on the application of Article 136(2). In the latter case, the update may be addressed on a bilateral basis between the consolidating supervisor and the competent authority making the request.\u2019;\n(19)\nin Article 131a(2), the sixth subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The following may participate in colleges of supervisors:\n(a)\nthe competent authorities responsible for the supervision of subsidiaries of an EU parent credit institution, an EU parent financial holding company or an EU parent mixed financial holding company;\n(b)\nthe competent authorities of a host country where significant branches as referred to in Article 42a are established;\n(c)\ncentral banks as appropriate; and\n(d)\nthird-country competent authorities where appropriate and subject to confidentiality requirements that are equivalent, in the opinion of all the competent authorities, to Articles 44 to 52.\u2019;\n(20)\nArticle 132(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe fifth subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In particular, competent authorities responsible for consolidated supervision of EU parent credit institutions and credit institutions controlled by EU parent financial holding companies or by EU parent mixed financial holding companies shall provide the competent authorities in other Member States who supervise subsidiaries of those parent undertakings with all relevant information. In determining the extent of relevant information, the importance of those subsidiaries within the financial system in those Member States shall be taken into account.\u2019;\n(b)\nin the sixth subparagraph, point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nidentification of the legal structure and the governance and organisational structure of the group, including all regulated entities, non-regulated subsidiaries and significant branches belonging to the group, the parent undertakings, in accordance with Article 12(3), Article 22(1) and Article 73(3), as well as identification of the competent authorities of the regulated entities in the group;\u2019;\n(21)\nArticle 135 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 135\nThe Member States shall require that persons who effectively direct the business of a financial holding company or a mixed financial holding company be of sufficiently good repute and have sufficient experience to perform those duties.\u2019;\n(22)\nin Article 139(3), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Member States shall authorise the exchange between their competent authorities of the information referred to in paragraph 2, on the understanding that, in the case of financial holding companies, mixed financial holding companies, financial institutions or ancillary services undertakings, the collection or possession of information shall not in any way imply that the competent authorities are required to play a supervisory role in relation to those institutions or undertakings standing alone.\u2019;\n(23)\nArticle 140 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Where a credit institution, financial holding company, mixed financial holding company or a mixed activity holding company controls one or more subsidiaries which are insurance companies or other undertakings providing investment services which are subject to authorisation, the competent authorities and the authorities entrusted with the public task of supervising insurance undertakings or those other undertakings providing investment services shall cooperate closely. Without prejudice to their respective responsibilities, those authorities shall provide one another with any information likely to simplify their task and to allow supervision of the activity and overall financial situation of the undertakings they supervise.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The competent authorities responsible for supervision on a consolidated basis shall establish lists of the financial holding companies or mixed financial holding companies referred to in Article 71(2). Those lists shall be communicated to the competent authorities of the other Member States, to EBA and to the Commission.\u2019;\n(24)\nArticles 141 and 142 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 141\nWhere, in applying this Directive, the competent authorities of one Member State wish in specific cases to verify the information concerning a credit institution, a financial holding company, a financial institution, an ancillary services undertaking, a mixed activity holding company, a mixed financial holding company, a subsidiary as referred to in Article 137 or a subsidiary as referred to in Article 127(3), situated in another Member State, they shall ask the competent authorities of that other Member State to have that verification carried out. The authorities which receive such a request shall, within the framework of their competence, act upon it either by carrying out the verification themselves, by allowing the authorities who made the request to carry it out, or by allowing an auditor or expert to carry it out. The competent authority which made the request may participate in the verification when it does not carry out the verification itself.\nArticle 142\nWithout prejudice to their criminal law provisions, Member States shall ensure that penalties or measures aimed at ending observed breaches or the causes of such breaches may be imposed on financial holding companies, mixed financial holding companies and mixed activity holding companies, or their effective managers, that infringe laws, regulation or administrative provisions brought into force to transpose Articles 124 to 141 and this Article. The competent authorities shall cooperate closely to ensure that those penalties or measures produce the desired results, especially when the central administration or main establishment of a financial holding company or of a mixed financial holding company or of a mixed activity holding company is not located in the same Member State as its registered office.\u2019;\n(25)\nArticle 143 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Where a credit institution, the parent undertaking of which is a credit institution or a financial holding company, or a mixed financial holding company, which has its head office in a third country, is not subject to consolidated supervision under Articles 125 and 126, the competent authorities shall verify whether the credit institution is subject to consolidated supervision by a third-country competent authority which is equivalent to that governed by the principles laid down in this Directive.\nThe verification shall be carried out by the competent authority which would be responsible for consolidated supervision if paragraph 3 were to apply, at the request of the parent undertaking or of any of the regulated entities authorised in the Union or on its own initiative. The competent authority shall consult the other competent authorities involved.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Competent authorities may in particular require the establishment of a financial holding company or a mixed financial holding company which has its head office in the Union, and may apply the provisions on consolidated supervision to the consolidated position of that financial holding company or mixed financial holding company.\u2019;\n(26)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 146a\nThe Member States shall require credit institutions to disclose publicly, at the level of the banking group, on an annual basis, either in full or by way of references to equivalent information, a description of their legal structure, and their governance and organisational structure.\u2019;\n(27)\nAnnex X is amended in accordance with Annex III to this Directive.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Directive 2009/138/EC\nDirective 2009/138/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 212(1), points (f) and (g) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(f)\n\u201cinsurance holding company\u201d means a parent undertaking which is not a mixed financial holding company and the main business of which is to acquire and hold participations in subsidiary undertakings, where those subsidiary undertakings are exclusively or mainly insurance or reinsurance undertakings, or third-country insurance or reinsurance undertakings, at least one of such subsidiary undertakings being an insurance or reinsurance undertaking;\n(g)\n\u201cmixed-activity insurance holding company\u201d means a parent undertaking other than an insurance undertaking, a third-country insurance undertaking, a reinsurance undertaking, a third-country reinsurance undertaking, an insurance holding company or a mixed financial holding company, which includes at least one insurance or reinsurance undertaking among its subsidiary undertakings;\n(h)\n\u201cmixed financial holding company\u201d means a mixed financial holding company as defined in Article 2(15) of Directive 2002/87/EC.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 213, paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Member States shall ensure that supervision at the level of the group applies to the following:\n(a)\ninsurance or reinsurance undertakings, which are a participating undertaking in at least one insurance undertaking, reinsurance undertaking, third-country insurance undertaking or third-country reinsurance undertaking, in accordance with Articles 218 to 258;\n(b)\ninsurance or reinsurance undertakings, the parent undertaking of which is an insurance holding company or a mixed financial holding company which has its head office in the Union, in accordance with Articles 218 to 258;\n(c)\ninsurance or reinsurance undertakings, the parent undertaking of which is an insurance holding company or a mixed financial holding company which has its head office in a third country or a third-country insurance or reinsurance undertaking, in accordance with Articles 260 to 263;\n(d)\ninsurance or reinsurance undertakings, the parent undertaking of which is a mixed-activity insurance holding company, in accordance with Article 265.\n3. In the cases referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2, where the participating insurance or reinsurance undertaking or the insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company which has its head office in the Union is either a related undertaking of, or is itself a regulated entity or a mixed financial holding company which is subject to supplementary supervision in accordance with Article 5(2) of Directive 2002/87/EC, the group supervisor may, after consulting the other supervisory authorities concerned, decide not to carry out the supervision of risk concentration referred to in Article 244 of this Directive, the supervision of intra-group transactions referred to in Article 245 of this Directive, or both, at the level of that participating insurance or reinsurance undertaking or that insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company.\n4. Where a mixed financial holding company is subject to equivalent provisions under this Directive and under Directive 2002/87/EC, in particular in terms of risk-based supervision, the group supervisor may, after consulting the other supervisory authorities concerned, apply only the relevant provisions of Directive 2002/87/EC to that mixed financial holding company.\n5. Where a mixed financial holding company is subject to equivalent provisions under this Directive and under Directive 2006/48/EC, in particular in terms of risk-based supervision, the group supervisor may, in agreement with the consolidating supervisor in the banking and investment services sector, apply only the provisions of the Directive relating to the most significant sector as determined in accordance with Article 3(2) of Directive 2002/87/EC.\n6. The group supervisor shall inform the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (37) (EBA) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (EIOPA) (38) of the decisions taken under paragraphs 4 and 5. EBA, EIOPA and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 (39) (ESMA) shall, through the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (Joint Committee), develop guidelines aimed at converging supervisory practices and shall develop draft regulatory technical standards, which they shall submit to the Commission within three years of the adoption of those guidelines.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively.\n(3)\nArticle 214(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The exercise of group supervision in accordance with Article 213 shall not imply that the supervisory authorities are required to play a supervisory role in relation to the third-country insurance undertaking, the third-country reinsurance undertaking, the insurance holding company, the mixed financial holding company or the mixed-activity insurance holding company taken individually, without prejudice to Article 257 as far as insurance holding companies or mixed financial holding companies are concerned.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 215, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Where the participating insurance or reinsurance undertaking or the insurance holding company or the mixed financial holding company referred to in Article 213(2)(a) and (b) is itself a subsidiary undertaking of another insurance or reinsurance undertaking or of another insurance holding company or of another mixed financial holding company which has its head office in the Union, Articles 218 to 258 shall apply only at the level of the ultimate parent insurance or reinsurance undertaking, insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company which has its head office in the Union.\n2. Where the ultimate parent insurance or reinsurance undertaking or insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company which has its head office in the Union, as referred to in paragraph 1, is a subsidiary undertaking of an undertaking which is subject to supplementary supervision in accordance with Article 5(2) of Directive 2002/87/EC, the group supervisor may, after consulting the other supervisory authorities concerned, decide not to carry out the supervision of risk concentration referred to in Article 244, the supervision of intra-group transactions referred to in Article 245, or both, at the level of that ultimate parent undertaking or company.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 216(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Where the participating insurance or reinsurance undertaking or the insurance holding company or the mixed financial holding company which has its head office in the Union, as referred to in Article 213(2)(a) and (b), does not have its head office in the same Member State as the ultimate parent undertaking at Union level referred to in Article 215, Member States may allow their supervisory authorities to decide, after consulting the group supervisor and that ultimate parent undertaking at Union level, to subject the ultimate parent insurance or reinsurance undertaking, insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company at national level to group supervision.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 219 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 219\nFrequency of calculation\n1. The group supervisor shall ensure that the calculations referred to in Article 218(2) and (3) are carried out at least annually, by the participating insurance or reinsurance undertaking, by the insurance holding company or by the mixed financial holding company.\nThe relevant data for and the results of that calculation shall be submitted to the group supervisor by the participating insurance or reinsurance undertaking or, where the group is not headed by an insurance or reinsurance undertaking, by the insurance holding company or the mixed financial holding company or by the undertaking in the group identified by the group supervisor after consulting the other supervisory authorities concerned and the group itself.\n2. The insurance undertaking, reinsurance undertaking, insurance holding company and mixed financial holding company shall monitor the group Solvency Capital Requirement on an ongoing basis. Where the risk profile of the group deviates significantly from the assumptions underlying the last reported group Solvency Capital Requirement, the group Solvency Capital Requirement shall be recalculated without delay and reported to the group supervisor.\nWhere there is evidence to suggest that the risk profile of the group has altered significantly since the date on which the group Solvency Capital Requirement was last reported, the group supervisor may require a recalculation of the group Solvency Capital Requirement.\u2019;\n(7)\nArticle 226 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 226\nIntermediate insurance holding companies\n1. When calculating the group solvency of an insurance or reinsurance undertaking which holds a participation in a related insurance undertaking, a related reinsurance undertaking, a third-country insurance undertaking or a third-country reinsurance undertaking, through an insurance holding company or a mixed financial holding company, the situation of such an insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company shall be taken into account.\nFor the sole purpose of that calculation, the intermediate insurance holding company or intermediate mixed financial holding company shall be treated as if it were an insurance or reinsurance undertaking subject to the rules laid down in Subsections 1, 2 and 3 of Section 4 of Chapter VI of Title I in respect of the Solvency Capital Requirement and were subject to the same conditions as are laid down in Subsections 1, 2 and 3 of Section 3 of Chapter VI of Title I in respect of own funds eligible for the Solvency Capital Requirement.\n2. In cases where an intermediate insurance holding company or intermediate mixed financial holding company holds subordinated debt or other eligible own funds subject to limitation in accordance with Article 98, they shall be recognised as eligible own funds up to the amounts calculated by application of the limits set out in Article 98 to the total eligible own funds outstanding at group level as compared to the Solvency Capital Requirement at group level.\nAny eligible own funds of an intermediate insurance holding company or intermediate mixed financial holding company, which would require prior authorisation from the supervisory authority in accordance with Article 90 if they were held by an insurance or reinsurance undertaking, may be included in the calculation of the group solvency only in so far as they have been duly authorised by the group supervisor.\u2019;\n(8)\nin Article 231(1), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. In the case of an application for permission to calculate the consolidated group Solvency Capital Requirement, as well as the Solvency Capital Requirement of insurance and reinsurance undertakings in the group, on the basis of an internal model, submitted by an insurance or reinsurance undertaking and its related undertakings, or jointly by the related undertakings of an insurance holding company or a mixed financial holding company, the supervisory authorities concerned shall cooperate to decide whether or not to grant that permission and to determine the terms and conditions, if any, to which such permission is subject.\u2019;\n(9)\nArticle 233(5) is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. In the case of an application for permission to calculate the Solvency Capital Requirement of insurance and reinsurance undertakings in the group on the basis of an internal model, submitted by an insurance or reinsurance undertaking and its related undertakings, or jointly by the related undertakings of an insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company, Article 231 shall apply mutatis mutandis.\u2019;\n(10)\nin Section 1 of Chapter II of Title III the title of Subsection 5 is replaced by the following:\n(11)\nArticle 235 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 235\nGroup solvency of an insurance holding company or a mixed financial holding company\n1. Where insurance and reinsurance undertakings are subsidiaries of an insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company, the group supervisor shall ensure that the calculation of the solvency of the group is carried out at the level of the insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company applying Article 220(2) to Article 233.\n2. For the purpose of that calculation, the parent undertaking shall be treated as if it were an insurance or reinsurance undertaking subject to the rules laid down in Subsections 1, 2 and 3 of Section 4 of Chapter VI of Title I as regards the Solvency Capital Requirement and subject to the same conditions as laid down in Subsections 1, 2 and 3 of Section 3 of Chapter VI of Title I as regards the own funds eligible for the Solvency Capital Requirement.\u2019;\n(12)\nArticle 243 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 243\nSubsidiaries of an insurance holding company and mixed financial holding company\nArticles 236 to 242 shall apply mutatis mutandis to insurance and reinsurance undertakings which are the subsidiary of an insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company.\u2019;\n(13)\nArticle 244(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Member States shall require insurance and reinsurance undertakings or insurance holding companies or mixed financial holding companies to report on a regular basis and at least annually to the group supervisor any significant risk concentration at the level of the group, unless Article 215(2) applies.\nThe necessary information shall be submitted to the group supervisor by the insurance or reinsurance undertaking which is at the head of the group or, where the group is not headed by a insurance or reinsurance undertaking, by the insurance holding company, the mixed financial holding company or the insurance or reinsurance undertaking in the group identified by the group supervisor after consulting the other supervisory authorities concerned and the group.\nThe risk concentrations referred to in the first subparagraph shall be subject to supervisory review by the group supervisor.\u2019;\n(14)\nArticle 245(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Member States shall require insurance and reinsurance undertakings, insurance holding companies and mixed financial holding companies to report on a regular basis and at least annually to the group supervisor all significant intra-group transactions by insurance and reinsurance undertakings within a group, including those performed with a natural person with close links to an undertaking in the group, unless Article 215(2) applies.\nIn addition, Member States shall require reporting of very significant intra-group transactions as soon as practicable.\nThe necessary information shall be submitted to the group supervisor by the insurance or reinsurance undertaking which is at the head of the group or, where the group is not headed by an insurance or reinsurance undertaking, by the insurance holding company, the mixed financial holding company or the insurance or reinsurance undertaking in the group identified by the group supervisor after consulting the other supervisory authorities concerned and the group.\nThe intra-group transactions shall be subject to supervisory review by the group supervisor.\u2019;\n(15)\nin Article 246(4), the first, second and third subparagraphs are replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Member States shall require the participating insurance undertaking or reinsurance undertaking, the insurance holding company or the mixed financial holding company to undertake at the level of the group the assessment required by Article 45. The own-risk and solvency assessment conducted at group level shall be subject to supervisory review by the group supervisor in accordance with Chapter III.\nWhere the calculation of the solvency at the level of the group is carried out in accordance with method 1, as referred to in Article 230, the participating insurance or reinsurance undertaking, the insurance holding company or the mixed financial holding company shall provide to the group supervisor a proper understanding of the difference between the sum of the Solvency Capital Requirements of all the related insurance or reinsurance undertakings of the group and the group consolidated Solvency Capital Requirement.\nThe participating insurance or reinsurance undertaking, the insurance holding company or the mixed financial holding company may, subject to the agreement of the group supervisor, undertake any assessments required pursuant to Article 45 at the level of the group and at the level of any subsidiary in the group at the same time, and may produce a single document covering all the assessments.\u2019;\n(16)\nin Article 247(2), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nwhere a group is not headed by an insurance or reinsurance undertaking, by the following supervisory authority:\n(i)\nwhere the parent of an insurance or reinsurance undertaking is an insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company, the supervisory authority which has authorised that insurance or reinsurance undertaking,\n(ii)\nwhere more than one insurance or reinsurance undertaking which have their head offices in the Union have as their parent the same insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company, and one of those undertakings has been authorised in the Member State in which the insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company has its head office, the supervisory authority of the insurance or reinsurance undertaking authorised in that Member State,\n(iii)\nwhere the group is headed by more than one insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company which have their head offices in different Member States and there is an insurance or reinsurance undertaking in each of those Member States, the supervisory authority of the insurance or reinsurance undertaking with the largest balance sheet total,\n(iv)\nwhere more than one insurance or reinsurance undertaking which have their head offices in the Union have as their parent the same insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company and none of those undertakings has been authorised in the Member State in which the insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company has its head office, the supervisory authority which authorised the insurance or reinsurance undertaking with the largest balance sheet total, or\n(v)\nwhere the group is a group without a parent undertaking, or in any circumstances not referred to in points (i) to (iv), the supervisory authority which authorised the insurance or reinsurance undertaking with the largest balance sheet total.\u2019;\n(17)\nin Article 249(1), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018The group supervisor shall provide the supervisory authorities concerned and EIOPA with information regarding the group, in accordance with Article 19, Article 51(1) and Article 254(2), in particular regarding the legal structure and the governance and organisational structure of the group.\u2019;\n(18)\nin Article 256, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall require participating insurance and reinsurance undertakings, insurance holding companies and mixed financial holding companies to disclose publicly, on an annual basis, a report on solvency and financial condition at the level of the group. Articles 51, 53, 54 and 55 shall apply mutatis mutandis.\n2. A participating insurance or reinsurance undertaking, an insurance holding company or a mixed financial holding company may, subject to the agreement of the group supervisor, provide a single report on its solvency and financial condition which shall comprise the following:\n(a)\nthe information at the level of the group to be disclosed in accordance with paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe information for any of the subsidiaries within the group, which information must be individually identifiable and must be disclosed in accordance with Articles 51, 53, 54 and 55.\nBefore granting the agreement in accordance with the first subparagraph, the group supervisor shall consult and duly take into account any views and reservations of the members of the college of supervisors.\u2019;\n(19)\nArticle 257 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 257\nAdministrative, management or supervisory body of insurance holding companies and mixed financial holding companies\nMember States shall require that all persons who effectively run the insurance holding company or the mixed financial holding company are fit and proper to perform their duties.\nArticle 42 shall apply mutatis mutandis.\u2019;\n(20)\nin Article 258, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Where the insurance or reinsurance undertakings in a group do not comply with the requirements provided for in Articles 218 to 246 or where the requirements are met but solvency may nevertheless be jeopardised or where the intra-group transactions or the risk concentrations are a threat to the financial position of the insurance or reinsurance undertakings, measures necessary to rectify the situation as soon as possible shall be adopted by:\n(a)\nthe group supervisor with respect to insurance holding companies and mixed financial holding companies;\n(b)\nthe supervisory authorities with respect to insurance and reinsurance undertakings.\nWhere, in the case referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph, the group supervisor is not one of the supervisory authorities of the Member State in which the insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company has its head office, the group supervisor shall inform those supervisory authorities of its findings with a view to enabling them to take the necessary measures.\nWhere, in the case referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph, the group supervisor is not one of the supervisory authorities of the Member State in which the insurance or reinsurance undertaking has its head office, the group supervisor shall inform those supervisory authorities of its findings with a view to enabling them to take the necessary measures.\nWithout prejudice to paragraph 2, Member States shall determine the measures which may be taken by their supervisory authorities with respect to insurance holding companies and mixed financial holding companies.\nThe supervisory authorities concerned, including the group supervisor, shall, where appropriate, coordinate their measures.\n2. Without prejudice to their criminal law provisions, Member States shall impose sanctions on or adopt measures relating to insurance holding companies and mixed financial holding companies which infringe laws, regulations or administrative provisions brought into force to transpose this Title, or in relation to the person effectively managing those companies. The supervisory authorities shall cooperate closely to ensure that such sanctions or measures are effective, in particular where the central administration or main establishment of an insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company is not located in the same Member State as its head office.\u2019;\n(21)\nArticle 262 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 262\nParent undertakings registered in a third country: absence of equivalence\n1. Where the verification carried out in accordance with Article 260 shows that there is no equivalent supervision, Member States shall apply to the insurance and reinsurance undertakings, mutatis mutandis, either Articles 218 to 258, with the exception of Articles 236 to 243, or one of the methods set out in paragraph 2 of this Article.\nThe general principles and methods set out in Articles 218 to 258 shall apply at the level of the insurance holding company, mixed financial holding company, third-country insurance undertaking or third-country reinsurance undertaking.\nFor the sole purpose of the group solvency calculation, the parent undertaking shall be treated as if it were an insurance or reinsurance undertaking subject to the same conditions as laid down in Subsections 1, 2 and 3 of Section 3 of Chapter VI of Title I as regards the own funds eligible for the Solvency Capital Requirement, and to either of the following:\n(a)\na Solvency Capital Requirement determined in accordance with the principles of Article 226 where it is an insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company;\n(b)\na Solvency Capital Requirement determined in accordance with the principles of Article 227, where it is a third-country insurance undertaking or a third-country reinsurance undertaking.\n2. Member States shall allow their supervisory authorities to apply other methods which ensure appropriate supervision of the insurance and reinsurance undertakings in a group. Those methods shall be agreed by the group supervisor, after consulting the other supervisory authorities concerned.\nThe supervisory authorities may in particular require the establishment of an insurance holding company which has its head office in the Union, or a mixed financial holding company which has its head office in the Union and apply this Title to the insurance and reinsurance undertakings in the group headed by that insurance holding company or mixed financial holding company.\nThe methods chosen shall allow the objectives of the group supervision as defined in this Title to be achieved and shall be notified to the other supervisory authorities concerned and the Commission.\u2019;\n(22)\nin Article 263, the first and second paragraphs are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Where the parent undertaking referred to in Article 260 is itself a subsidiary of an insurance holding company or a mixed financial holding company which has its head office in a third country or of a third-country insurance or reinsurance undertaking, Member States shall apply the verification provided for in Article 260 only at the level of the ultimate parent undertaking which is a third-country insurance holding company, a third-country mixed financial holding company, a third-country insurance undertaking or a third-country reinsurance undertaking.\nSupervisory authorities may, however, in the absence of equivalent supervision referred to in Article 260, carry out a new verification at a lower level where a parent undertaking of insurance or reinsurance undertakings exists, whether at the level of a third-country insurance holding company, a third country mixed financial holding company, a third-country insurance undertaking or a third-country reinsurance undertaking.\u2019.\nArticle 5\nReview\nThe Commission shall fully review Directive 2002/87/EC, including the delegated and implementing acts adopted pursuant thereto. Following that review, the Commission shall send a report to the European Parliament and to the Council by 31 December 2012, addressing, in particular, the scope of that Directive, including whether the scope should be extended by reviewing Article 3, and the application of that Directive to non-regulated entities, in particular special purpose vehicles. The report shall also cover the identification criteria of financial conglomerates owned by wider non-financial groups, whose total activities in the banking sector, insurance sector and investment services sector are materially relevant in the internal market for financial services.\nThe Commission shall also consider whether the ESAs should, through the Joint Committee, issue guidelines for the assessment of this material relevance.\nIn the same context, the report shall cover systemically relevant financial conglomerates, whose size, inter-connectedness or complexity make them particularly vulnerable, and which are to be identified by analogy with the evolving standards of the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. In addition, that report shall review the possibility to introduce mandatory stress testing. The report shall be followed, if necessary, by appropriate legislative proposals.\nArticle 6\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 1, 2 and 3 of this Directive by 10 June 2013. They shall communicate immediately to the Commission the text of those measures and a correlation table between those measures and this Directive.\n2. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 4 of this Directive from 10 June 2013. They shall communicate immediately to the Commission the text of those measures and a correlation table between those measures and this Directive.\n3. By derogation from paragraph 1, Member States shall bring into force by 22 July 2013 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 2(23) of this Directive, as well as with Article 2(1) and (2)(a) of this Directive in so far as those provisions amend Article 1, Article 2(4), (5a) and (16), and Article 3(2) of Directive 2002/87/EC with regard to alternative investment fund managers. They shall communicate immediately to the Commission the text of those measures and a correlation table between those measures and this Directive.\n4. When Member States adopt the measures referred to in this Article, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n5. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 8\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["67", "45", "41", "5", "77", "71", "21", "37", "39", "78", "91", "86", "6", "69", "98", "14", "40", "61", "7", "16", "59", "76", "85", "73", "87", "53", "10", "92", "94", "13", "No Label", "8", "11", "25", "29", "33", "49"], "gold": ["8", "11", "25", "29", "33", "49"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 416/2011\nof 26 April 2011\napproving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Valle d\u2019Aosta Lard d\u2019Arnad/Vall\u00e9e d\u2019Aoste Lard d\u2019Arnad (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and in accordance with Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Valle d\u2019Aosta Lard d\u2019Arnad/Vall\u00e9e d\u2019Aoste Lard d\u2019Arnad\u2019, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1263/96 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2011.", "references": ["68", "94", "2", "60", "92", "42", "26", "10", "20", "7", "55", "98", "32", "41", "9", "43", "77", "53", "73", "0", "13", "86", "16", "39", "66", "58", "72", "88", "33", "78", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 February 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organization on the request for a WTO waiver on additional autonomous trade preferences granted by the European Union to Pakistan\n(2012/114/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union is currently in the process of adopting legislation for granting additional autonomous trade preferences to Pakistan. In the absence of a waiver from the Union\u2019s obligations under paragraph 1 of Article I and Article XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), to the extent necessary, the treatment provided by those additional autonomous trade preferences would need to be extended to all other Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It is therefore appropriate to request a waiver from paragraph 1 of Article I and Article XIII GATT 1994, to the extent necessary, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.\n(2)\nThe Union submitted such a request for a waiver on 18 November 2010, and subsequently revised it on 26 October 2011 and 19 January 2012, and the WTO General Council is to deliberate thereon.\n(3)\nIt is appropriate, therefore, to establish the position to be taken by the Union within the WTO General Council concerning that request,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organization is to approve the WTO waiver on additional autonomous trade preferences granted by the European Union to Pakistan.\nThis position shall be expressed by the Commission.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 February 2012.", "references": ["90", "2", "6", "84", "54", "30", "70", "78", "69", "45", "17", "10", "42", "13", "68", "93", "49", "15", "47", "7", "98", "5", "97", "39", "64", "80", "61", "81", "77", "52", "No Label", "21", "22", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 668/2010\nof 26 July 2010\nimplementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 291(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 (1), and in particular Article 15(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 19 April 2007, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 423/2007. Article 15(2) of that Regulation provides that the Council shall establish, review and amend the list of persons, entities and bodies referred to in Article 7(2) of that Regulation.\n(2)\nThe Council has determined that certain additional persons, entities and bodies fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 and that they should therefore be listed in Annex V of that Regulation for the individual and specific reasons given.\n(3)\nThe obligation to freeze economic resources of designated entities of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) does not require the impounding or detention of vessels owned by such entities or the cargoes carried by them insofar as such cargoes belong to third parties, nor does it require the detention of the crew contracted by them,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons, entities and bodies mentioned in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex V of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["15", "48", "0", "67", "93", "46", "12", "20", "98", "79", "37", "33", "99", "42", "10", "7", "51", "78", "91", "89", "38", "18", "85", "21", "70", "83", "58", "55", "77", "90", "No Label", "3", "11", "16", "23", "56", "95"], "gold": ["3", "11", "16", "23", "56", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 6 May 2010\non harmonised technical conditions of use in the 790-862 MHz frequency band for terrestrial systems capable of providing electronic communications services in the European Union\n(notified under document C(2010) 2923)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/267/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission Communication \u2018Transforming the digital dividend into social benefits and economic growth\u2019 (2) stressed the importance of coherent opening of the 790-862 MHz band (the \u2018800 MHz band\u2019) for electronic communications services by adopting technical conditions of use. The 800 MHz band is part of the digital dividend, i.e. radio frequencies that are freed up as a result of more efficient spectrum use through the switchover from analogue to digital terrestrial TV. The identified socioeconomic benefits are based on the assumption of a Community approach that releases the 800 MHz band by 2015 and imposes technical conditions preventing high power cross-border interference.\n(2)\nTechnological neutrality and service neutrality have been confirmed by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (3) (Better Regulation Directive). Moreover, the RSPG opinion of 18 September 2009 on the digital dividend encourages the application of the WAPECS principles and recommends that the Commission acts on the recommendations contained therein as soon as possible in order to minimise EU-level uncertainty regarding the ability of Member States to make available the 800 MHz band.\n(3)\nThe European Parliament in its resolution of 24 September 2008 on reaping the full benefits of the digital dividend in Europe: a common approach to the use of the spectrum released by the digital switchover, urges Member States to release their digital dividends as quickly as possible and calls for a response at Community level. The Council conclusions of 18 December 2009 on transferring the digital dividend into social benefits and economic growth confirm the Council\u2019s position stated in 2008, which invited the Commission to support and assist the Member States in the process of achieving close cooperation between Member States and with third countries in coordinating spectrum usage and of reaping the full benefits of the digital dividend.\n(4)\nNoting the strong impact of broadband communications on growth, the Economic Recovery Plan (4) has set a target of 100 % broadband coverage by between 2010 and 2013 (5). This cannot be achieved without a significant role being played by wireless infrastructures, including in the provision of broadband to rural areas, part of which can be done by giving early access to the digital dividend to the benefit of such areas.\n(5)\nThe designation of the 800 MHz band for terrestrial systems capable of providing electronic communications services would be an important element addressing the convergence of the mobile, fixed and broadcasting sectors and reflecting technical innovation. The services provided in this frequency band should mainly target end-user access to broadband communications, including broadcasting content.\n(6)\nPursuant to Article 4(2) of the Radio Spectrum Decision, on 3 April 2008 the Commission gave a mandate to the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (hereinafter \u2018the CEPT\u2019) to define the technical conditions to be applied to the 800 MHz band optimised for, but not limited to, fixed and/or mobile communications networks, with a particular focus on common and minimal (least restrictive) technical conditions, the most appropriate frequency arrangement and a recommendation on how to handle Programme Making and Special Events (PMSE) services.\n(7)\nIn response to that mandate, the CEPT has adopted four reports (CEPT Reports 29, 30, 31 and 32). These contain technical conditions for base stations and terminal stations operating in the 800 MHz band. Such harmonised technical conditions will facilitate economies of scale without requiring any type of particular technology to be used, based on optimised parameters for the most likely use of the band.\n(8)\nCEPT Report 29 gives guidance on cross-border coordination issues which are of particular relevance during the coexistence phase, i.e. when some Member States may have implemented the technical conditions optimised for fixed and/or mobile communications networks, while other Member States still have high-power broadcasting transmitters in operation in the 800 MHz band. CEPT considers that the Final Acts of the International Telecommunication Union Regional Radiocommunication Conference for planning of the digital terrestrial broadcasting service in parts of Regions 1 and 3, in the frequency bands 174-230 MHz and 470-862 MHz (GE06 Agreement) provides the necessary regulatory procedures for cross-border coordination.\n(9)\nCEPT Report 30 identifies least restrictive technical conditions through the concept of Block-Edge Masks (BEMs), which are regulatory requirements aimed at managing the risk of harmful interference between neighbouring networks and are without prejudice to limits set in equipment standards under Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (6) (the R&TTE Directive). Based on this CEPT Report the BEMs are optimised for, but are not limited to, fixed and/or mobile communications networks using Frequency-Division Duplexing (FDD) and/or Time-Division Duplexing (TDD).\n(10)\nIn cases where harmful interference has been caused or where it is reasonably considered that it could be caused, the measures identified in CEPT Report 30 could also be supplemented by proportionate national measures that could be imposed.\n(11)\nThe avoidance of harmful interference and disturbance to television receiver equipment, including cable TV equipment, may depend on more effective interference rejection in such equipment. Conditions related to television receiver equipment should be addressed as a matter of urgency within the framework of the Directive 2004/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility and repealing Directive 89/336/EEC (7) (EMC Directive).\n(12)\nThe avoidance of harmful interference to television receiver equipment, including cable TV equipment, may also depend on in-block and out-of-band emission limits for terminal stations. Conditions related to terminal stations should be addressed as a matter of urgency within the framework of the R&TTE Directive in line with the elements developed in CEPT Report 30.\n(13)\nCEPT Report 31 concludes that the preferred frequency arrangement for the 800 MHz band should be based on the FDD mode in order to facilitate cross-border coordination with broadcasting services, noting that such an arrangement would not discriminate in favour of or against any currently envisaged technology. This does not exclude the possibility for Member States to use other frequency arrangements with the aim of (a) achieving general interest objectives, (b) ensuring greater efficiency through market-based spectrum management, (c) ensuring greater efficiency when sharing with existing rights of use during a coexistence period, or (d) avoiding harmful interference, e.g. in coordination with third countries. When designating or making available the 800 MHz band for terrestrial systems capable of providing electronic communications services, Member States are therefore to use the preferred frequency arrangement or alternative arrangements described in CEPT Report 31.\n(14)\nCEPT Report 32 recognises the interest in the continued operation of applications for PMSE and identifies a number of potential frequency bands and innovative technical developments as a solution to the current use of the 800 MHz band by these applications. Administrations should continue to study the available options and the efficiency of PMSE systems with the aim of including their findings in the regular reports to the Commission on effective use of spectrum.\n(15)\nThe results of the mandate to the CEPT should be made applicable in the European Union and implemented by the Member States from the moment they designate the 800 MHz band for networks other than high-power broadcasting networks, given the urgency identified by the European Parliament, the Council and the RSPG as well as the increasing demand identified in studies at European and global levels for terrestrial electronic communications services providing broadband communications.\n(16)\nWhile there is an urgent need to have common technical conditions for the efficient use of the 800 MHz band by systems capable of providing electronic communications services, in order to ensure that any action taken in the immediate future by one or more Member States does not diminish the benefit of a harmonised European approach, the timing has direct implications for the organisation of broadcasting services by Member States in their national territories.\n(17)\nMember States may decide individually whether and at what point in time they designate or make available the 800 MHz band for networks other than high-power broadcasting networks, and this Decision is without prejudice to the use of the 800 MHz band for public order and public security purposes and defence in some Member States.\n(18)\nNo deadline should be defined by the Commission by which the Member States must allow the use of the 800 MHz band for systems capable of providing electronic communications services; this will be decided if and when appropriate by the Parliament and Council, upon a proposal from the Commission.\n(19)\nThe designation and making available of the 800 MHz band in accordance with the results of the mandate to the CEPT recognises the fact that there are other radio applications not covered by this Decision. In so far as coexistence with a radio application is not addressed in CEPT Reports 29, 30, 31 or 32, appropriate sharing criteria for coexistence may be based on national considerations.\n(20)\nOptimal use of the 800 MHz band in cases where neighbouring Member States or third countries have decided on different uses will require constructive coordination of cross-border transmissions with the objective of an innovative approach by all parties, taking into account the RSPG opinions of 19 June 2008 on spectrum issues concerning outer EU borders and of 18 September 2009 on the digital dividend. Member States should have due regard for the need to coordinate with Member States that continue to avail of existing high-power broadcasting rights. They should also facilitate future reorganisation of the 800 MHz band to allow, in the long term, optimum use by low- and medium-power systems capable of providing electronic communications services. In the particular case of coexistence with aeronautical radio navigation systems, which requires technical measures in addition to BEMs, Member States should develop bilateral or multilateral agreements.\n(21)\nThe use of the 800 MHz band by other existing applications in third countries can limit the introduction and use of this band for terrestrial systems capable of providing electronic communications services in several Member States, and this will have to be taken into account in any future decision to set a deadline by which the Member States must allow the use of the 800 MHz band for such terrestrial systems. Information on such limitations will be notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 7 and Article 6(2) of the Radio Spectrum Decision and published in accordance with Article 5 of this Decision.\n(22)\nIn order to ensure effective use of the 800 MHz band also in the longer term, administrations should continue to study solutions that may increase efficiency and innovative use. Such studies should be taken into account when considering a review of this Decision.\n(23)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Radio Spectrum Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThis Decision aims to harmonise the technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of the 790-862 MHz band (800 MHz band) for terrestrial systems capable of providing electronic communications services in the European Union.\nArticle 2\n1. When they designate or make available the 800 MHz band for networks other than high-power broadcasting networks, Member States shall do so, on a non-exclusive basis, for terrestrial systems capable of providing electronic communications services in compliance with the parameters set out in the Annex to this Decision.\n2. Member States shall ensure that systems referred to in paragraph 1 give appropriate protection to systems in adjacent bands.\n3. Member States shall facilitate cross-border coordination agreements with the aim of enabling the operation of systems referred to in paragraph 1, taking into account existing regulatory procedures and rights.\n4. Member States shall not be bound to implement the obligations under this Decision in geographic areas where spectrum coordination with third countries requires a deviation from the parameters set out in the Annex to this Decision, provided that they notify the relevant information to the Commission, including the affected geographic areas, and publish it pursuant to Radio Spectrum Decision. Member States shall make all practicable efforts to resolve such deviations and inform the Commission thereof.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall keep the use of the 800 MHz band under scrutiny and report their findings to the Commission upon request. The Commission shall, were appropriate, proceed to a review of this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2010.", "references": ["33", "44", "8", "16", "55", "82", "20", "65", "50", "67", "4", "73", "78", "84", "14", "79", "9", "90", "58", "87", "80", "81", "99", "6", "56", "68", "48", "38", "92", "36", "No Label", "40", "76"], "gold": ["40", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/123/CFSP\nof 27 February 2012\namending Decision 2011/523/EU partially suspending the application of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Syrian Arab Republic\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 January 1977, the European Economic Community and the Syrian Arab Republic concluded a Cooperation Agreement (1) (\u2018the Cooperation Agreement\u2019) to promote overall cooperation with a view to strengthening relations between them.\n(2)\nOn 2 September 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/523/EU (2) which partially suspends the application of the Cooperation Agreement until the Syrian authorities put an end to the systematic violations of human rights and can again be considered as being in compliance with general international law and the principles which form the basis of the Cooperation Agreement.\n(3)\nSince then, and in view of the further deterioration of the situation in Syria, the Union has adopted further restrictive measures against the Syrian regime (3).\n(4)\nIn this regard, the partial suspension of the application of the Cooperation Agreement should continue. In line with the approach set out in Decision 2011/523/EU, the suspension should aim at targeting the Syrian authorities, not the people of Syria, and should be limited accordingly. Since gold, precious metals and diamonds are products the trade in which benefits in particular the Syrian regime, and which therefore supports its repressive policies, the suspension should be extended so as to apply also to trade in these materials,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe measures listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the Annex to Decision 2011/523/EU.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be notified to the Syrian Arab Republic.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 27 February 2012.", "references": ["27", "77", "18", "24", "96", "70", "59", "81", "5", "28", "19", "33", "16", "8", "32", "72", "29", "99", "75", "66", "91", "13", "42", "55", "48", "47", "15", "88", "64", "14", "No Label", "3", "9", "23", "79", "84", "95"], "gold": ["3", "9", "23", "79", "84", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 354/2011\nof 12 April 2011\nopening and providing for the management of tariff quotas of the Union for certain fish and fishery products originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 594/2008 of 16 June 2008 on certain procedures for applying the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part, and for applying the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part (1), and in particular Article 2 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part (\u2018the Stabilisation and Association Agreement\u2019), was signed in Luxembourg on 16 June 2008. The Stabilisation and Association Agreement is in the process of ratification.\n(2)\nOn 16 June 2008 an Interim Agreement was concluded on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part (2) (\u2018the Interim Agreement\u2019), which was approved by Council Decision 2008/474/EC (3). The Interim Agreement provides for the early entry into force of the trade and trade-related provisions of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. It entered into force on 1 July 2008.\n(3)\nThe Interim Agreement and the Stabilisation and Association Agreement provide that certain fish and fishery products originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina may be imported into the European Union, within the limits of tariff quotas of the Union (\u2018quotas\u2019), at a reduced or a zero rate of customs duty.\n(4)\nThe tariff quotas provided for in the Interim Agreement and in the Stabilisation and Association Agreement are annual and have been adopted for an indefinite period. It is necessary to open the tariff quotas for 2008 and following years and to provide for a common system for their management.\n(5)\nThis common management should ensure that all importers in the European Union have equal and continuous access to the tariff quotas and that the rates laid down for the quotas are applied uninterruptedly to all imports of the products in question into all Member States until the quotas are exhausted. In order to ensure the efficiency of the system, Member States should be authorised to draw from the quota volumes the necessary quantities corresponding to actual imports. Close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission is required and the latter must in particular be able to monitor the rate at which the quotas are used up and inform the Member States accordingly. For reasons of speed and efficiency, communication between the Member States and the Commission should, as far as possible, take place by electronic transmission.\n(6)\nThe quotas opened by this Regulation should therefore be managed in accordance with the system for management of tariff quotas designed to be used following the chronological order of dates of acceptance of customs declarations which is provided for in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (4).\n(7)\nAs the Interim Agreement entered into force on 1 July 2008, this Regulation should apply from the same date and should remain in force after the entry into force of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFish and fishery products originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina and listed in the Annex that are put into free circulation in the European Union shall benefit from a reduced or a zero rate of customs duty, at the levels and within the limits of the annual tariff quotas of the Union set out in the Annex.\nIn order to benefit from these preferential rates, the products in question shall be accompanied by a proof of origin as provided for in Protocol 2 to the Interim Agreement with Bosnia and Herzegovina or in Protocol 2 to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Bosnia and Herzegovina.\nArticle 2\n1. The tariff quotas referred to in Article 1 shall be managed by the Commission in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\n2. Communications referring to the management of tariff quotas between the Member States and the Commission shall be effected, as far as possible, by electronic transmission.\nArticle 3\nThe Member States and the Commission shall cooperate closely to ensure compliance with this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2008.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 April 2011.", "references": ["65", "36", "41", "78", "24", "84", "11", "44", "50", "17", "95", "68", "16", "20", "3", "81", "33", "9", "94", "27", "76", "40", "37", "19", "49", "83", "42", "52", "73", "28", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 388/2010\nof 6 May 2010\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the maximum number of pet animals of certain species that may be the subject of non-commercial movement\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (1), and in particular Article 19 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 lays down the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and the rules applying to checks on such movements. It applies to movements between Member States or from third countries of pet animals of the species listed in Annex I thereto. Dogs, cats and ferrets are listed in Parts A and B of that Annex.\n(2)\nThe requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 differ, depending on whether the pet animals are moved between Member States or from third countries to Member States. In addition, the requirements for such movements from third countries are further differentiated between third countries listed in Section 2 of Part B of Annex II to that Regulation and those third countries which are listed in Part C of that Annex.\n(3)\nThird countries which apply to non-commercial movement of pet animals rules at least equivalent to the rules provided for in Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 are listed in Section 2 of Part B of Annex II to that Regulation.\n(4)\nCouncil Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (2) generally applies to trade.\n(5)\nIn order to avoid that commercial movements are fraudulently disguised as non-commercial movements of pet animals within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, Article 12 of that Regulation provides that the requirements and checks laid down in Directive 92/65/EEC are to apply to the movement of more than five pet animals where the animals are brought into the Community from a third country other than those listed in Section 2 of Part B of Annex II thereto.\n(6)\nExperience in the application of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 has shown that there is a high risk of commercial movements of dogs, cats and ferrets being fraudulently disguised as non-commercial movements, when those animals are moved into a Member State from another Member State or a third country listed in Section 2 of Part B of Annex II to that Regulation.\n(7)\nIn order to avoid such practices and ensure a uniform application of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, provision should be made to establish the same rules where dogs, cats and ferrets are moved into a Member State from another Member State or a third country listed in Section 2 of Part B of Annex II to that Regulation.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe requirements and checks referred to in point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 shall apply to the movement of pet animals of the species listed in Parts A and B of Annex I to that Regulation where the total number of animals moved into a Member State from another Member State or a third country listed in Section 2 of Part B of Annex II to that Regulation, exceeds five.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2010.", "references": ["14", "22", "60", "39", "68", "48", "36", "1", "77", "61", "75", "17", "73", "20", "40", "35", "41", "26", "74", "94", "83", "67", "0", "92", "96", "15", "23", "21", "64", "76", "No Label", "12", "25", "38", "54", "66"], "gold": ["12", "25", "38", "54", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 4 February 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of a fish (Sardinops sagax) peptide product as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 522)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(2011/80/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 April 2008 the company of Senmi Ekisu Co. Ltd made a request to the competent authorities of Finland to place a fish (Sardinops sagax) peptide product on the market as a novel food ingredient.\n(2)\nOn 12 January 2009 the competent food assessment body of Finland issued its initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that the fish peptide product may be placed on the market.\n(3)\nThe Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to all Member States on 10 March 2009.\n(4)\nWithin the 60-day period laid down in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 reasoned objections to the marketing of the product were raised in accordance with that provision.\n(5)\nTherefore the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was consulted on 14 August 2009.\n(6)\nOn 9 July 2010, EFSA (Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies) in the \u2018Scientific opinion on the safety of \u201cSardine Peptide Product\u201d as a novel food ingredient\u2019 (2) came to the conclusion that the fish peptide product was safe under the proposed conditions of use and the proposed levels of intake.\n(7)\nOn the basis of the scientific assessment, it is established that the fish peptide product complies with the criteria laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe fish (Sardinops sagax) peptide product as specified in Annex I may be placed on the market in the Union as a novel food ingredient for the uses listed in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThe designation of fish (Sardinops sagax) peptide product authorised by this Decision on the labelling of the foodstuff containing it shall be \u2018fish (Sardinops sagax) peptides\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Senmi Ekisu Co. Ltd, Research & Development Department, 779-2 Noda, Hirano-Cho, Ohzu-City, Ehime 795-0021, Japan.\nDone at Brussels, 4 February 2011.", "references": ["16", "8", "83", "14", "66", "62", "90", "18", "58", "91", "50", "17", "22", "78", "21", "23", "84", "48", "81", "4", "33", "47", "9", "42", "98", "92", "94", "30", "51", "52", "No Label", "25", "38", "67", "72", "95", "96"], "gold": ["25", "38", "67", "72", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 511/2012\nof 15 June 2012\non notifications concerning producer and interbranch organisations and contractual negotiations and relations provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in the milk and milk products sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular points (b) and (c) of Article 126e(2) and Article 185f(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSection IIA of Chapter II of Title II of Part II of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 inserted by Regulation (EU) No 261/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) contains rules concerning producer organisations and interbranch organisations in the milk and milk products sector.\n(2)\nArticles 126a and 126b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lay down rules concerning the recognition of producer organisations and their associations and of interbranch organisations. Pursuant to those Articles notifications are to be made by Member States to the Commission concerning the decisions to grant, refuse or withdraw recognition. To prepare the reports to the Council and the European Parliament, pursuant to Article 184(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, information is needed on the number of recognised entities, on their size in terms of raw milk volumes produced by their member producers and, where appropriate, on the reasons for refusal or withdrawal of their recognition.\n(3)\nArticle 126c of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down rules concerning the negotiations of contracts for the delivery of raw milk. Pursuant to that Article notifications are to be made by producer organisations and Member States.\n(4)\nArticle 126d of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that Member States have to notify the Commission of the rules they have adopted for regulating the supply of cheese with a protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 185f of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Member States that decide that every delivery of raw milk in their territory by a farmer to a processor of raw milk must be covered by a written contract between the parties and/or decide that first purchasers must make a written offer for a contract for the delivery of raw milk by the farmers, have to notify the Commission of the rules they have adopted with regard to contractual relations.\n(6)\nUniform rules should be laid down concerning the content of those notifications and the date by which they should be submitted.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. No later than 31 March each year, with regard to decisions taken during the previous calendar year, Member States shall notify the Commission, pursuant to Article 126a(4)(d) and Article 126b(3)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of:\n(a)\nthe number of producer organisations, associations of recognised producer organisations, hereinafter referred to as \"associations\", and interbranch organisations that they granted recognition, and, where applicable, the annual marketable raw milk volumes produced by producer organisations and associations;\n(b)\nthe number of applications for recognition submitted by producer organisations, associations and interbranch organisations that they refused and a summary of the reasons for such refusal;\n(c)\nthe number of recognised producer organisations, associations and interbranch organisations whose recognition they withdrew and a summary of the reasons for such withdrawal.\n2. Where a notification referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 relates to a transnational producer organisation or association, the notification shall indicate, where applicable, the annual marketable raw milk volumes produced by members per Member State.\nArticle 2\n1. The notifications of the volumes of raw milk covered by contractual negotiations referred to in Article 126c(2)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be made to the competent authority of the Member State or Member States\n(a)\nwhere the production of raw milk takes place and,\n(b)\nif different, where the delivery to a processor or a collector takes place.\n2. A notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made before the start of negotiations and shall indicate the producer organisation's or the association's estimate of production volume to be covered by the negotiation and the expected time period of delivery of the raw milk volume.\n3. By 31 January each year, each producer organisation or association shall, in addition to the notification referred to in paragraph 1, notify the volume of raw milk, specified per Member State of production, that was actually delivered under the contracts negotiated by the producer organisation in the previous calendar year.\nArticle 3\n1. No later than 15 March each year, Member States shall notify the Commission, pursuant to Article 126c(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of:\n(a)\nthe total volume of raw milk, specified per Member State of production, delivered in their territory under contracts negotiated by the recognised producer organisations and associations in accordance with Article 126c(2)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in the previous calendar year, as notified to the competent authorities under Article 2(3) of this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe number of cases in which National Competition Authorities decided that a particular negotiation should either be reopened or should not take place at all in accordance with Article 126c(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and a short summary of those decisions.\n2. Where the notifications received under Article 2(1) of this Regulation relate to negotiations covering more than one Member State, Member States shall, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 126c(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, forward forthwith to the Commission the information necessary for the Commission to assess whether competition is excluded or SME processors of raw milk are seriously damaged.\nArticle 4\n1. The notifications pursuant to Article 126d(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall contain the rules adopted by the Member States for regulating the supply of cheese with a protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication as well as a summary note indicating:\n(a)\nthe name of the cheese;\n(b)\nthe name and type of organisation requesting the regulation of supply;\n(c)\nthe means selected for the regulation of supply;\n(d)\nthe date of entry into force of the rules;\n(e)\nthe time period in which the rules apply.\n2. Member States shall inform the Commission when they repeal rules before the end of the period referred to in point (e) of paragraph 1.\nArticle 5\nThe notifications referred to in Article 185f(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall contain the rules adopted by the Member States as regards the contracts referred to in Article 185f(1) thereof, as well as a summary note indicating:\n(a)\nwhether the Member State has decided that deliveries of raw milk by a farmer to a processor must be covered by a written contract between the parties and, if so, the stage or stages of the delivery required to be covered by such contracts, if the delivery is made through one or more collectors, and any minimum duration for written contracts;\n(b)\nwhether the Member State has decided that the first purchaser of raw milk must make a written offer for a contract to the farmer, and, where appropriate, the minimum duration for the contract which the offer must include.\nArticle 6\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2012.", "references": ["32", "1", "58", "74", "55", "38", "52", "43", "30", "61", "71", "16", "50", "31", "44", "9", "8", "97", "15", "48", "6", "76", "28", "5", "86", "72", "57", "22", "81", "56", "No Label", "25", "62", "63", "66", "70", "73"], "gold": ["25", "62", "63", "66", "70", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 533/2010\nof 18 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2010.", "references": ["26", "17", "11", "54", "57", "96", "13", "8", "67", "93", "90", "32", "38", "63", "80", "44", "95", "97", "88", "5", "41", "99", "83", "6", "19", "4", "71", "23", "40", "75", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/388/CFSP\nof 16 July 2012\namending Decision 2010/231/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Somalia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 April 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/231/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nOn 17 February 2012, the Security Council Sanctions Committee established pursuant to UNSCR 751 (1992) concerning Somalia (\u2018Sanctions Committee\u2019) updated the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(3)\nOn 22 February 2012, the United Nations Security Council adopted UNSCR 2036 (2012) deciding that Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect import of charcoal from Somalia, whether or not such charcoal originated in Somalia.\n(4)\nDecision 2010/231/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Decision 2010/231/CFSP, the following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 1a\n1. The direct or indirect import, purchase or transport of charcoal from Somalia, whether or not such charcoal originated in Somalia, shall be prohibited.\nThe Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this provision.\n2. It shall be prohibited to provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, as well as insurance and reinsurance, related to the import, purchase or transport of charcoal from Somalia.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe person listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list of persons set out in Section I of the Annex to Decision 2010/231/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["59", "9", "96", "70", "49", "27", "39", "88", "46", "0", "80", "67", "82", "84", "91", "34", "48", "68", "22", "40", "74", "21", "99", "90", "6", "37", "72", "95", "73", "77", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "79", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "79", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 800/2012\nof 5 September 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 September 2012.", "references": ["64", "69", "32", "59", "78", "89", "72", "9", "18", "99", "74", "12", "50", "95", "15", "67", "85", "62", "56", "37", "40", "13", "98", "1", "8", "51", "31", "70", "4", "65", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 960/2010\nof 25 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 October 2010.", "references": ["8", "41", "77", "26", "16", "93", "80", "39", "49", "70", "85", "78", "2", "6", "56", "36", "54", "67", "7", "69", "21", "99", "44", "84", "5", "48", "4", "12", "66", "40", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 16 December 2011\nexempting certain financial services in the postal sector in Hungary from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sector\n(notified under document C(2011) 9197)\n(Only the Hungarian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/875/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1), and in particular Article 30(5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the request submitted by post, by Magyar Posta, received on 24 June 2011,\nWhereas:\nI. FACTS\n(1)\nOn 24 June 2011, the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 30(5) of Directive 2004/17/EC, transmitted to the Commission by post. The Commission requested additional information to the applicant and to the Hungarian Competition Authority, by e-mails of 8 August 2011. The respective replies were received on 2 September and on 15 September 2011. The request submitted by Magyar Posta (in the following referred to as \u2018Posta\u2019) concerns various financial services provided by Posta, and consists of two parts, namely: payment services and services performed on behalf of other financial institutions. In their turn, each part concerns various financial services that have been grouped under the following headings, as defined by Posta:\nPayment services\n1.\nExisting own services:\n1.1.\nServices enabling cash to be placed on a payment account (bill payments and express bill payments),\n1.2.\nServices enabling cash withdrawals from a payment account: (cash delivery service and pension payment service),\n1.3.\nMoney transfer services (domestic money order, international money order and Western Union money order - performed on behalf of others),\n2.\nAccount services and related payment services proposed to be provided in the future\n2.1.\nServices enabling cash to be placed on a payment account as well as all the operations required for operating a payment account,\n2.2.\nServices enabling cash withdrawals from a payment account as well as all the operations required for operating a payment account,\n2.3.\nExecution of payment transactions between payment accounts,\n2.4.\nIssue of card-substitute payment instruments.\nServices performed on behalf of others\n3.1.\nIntermediation of current accounts and the related products and services (retail and corporate bank account services offered on behalf of credit institutions, including the accepting and forwarding of payment orders for execution, and the intermediation of sight deposits and fixed term deposits connected to a bank account),\n3.2.\nCredit intermediation performed on behalf of credit institutions,\n3.3.\nIntermediation and acceptance of payment cards performed on behalf of credit institutions (credit cards, debit cards, bank card acceptance and POS terminals),\n3.4.\nIntermediation of investments and special purpose savings on behalf of others:\n(a)\nsales of financial instruments (government securities, investment funds and other securities);\n(b)\nintermediation of home savings products.\n3.5.\nIntermediation of insurance products: (life insurance and non-life insurance)\n(2)\nAccording to the application (2) the network of the Posta consists of more than 2 600 permanent postal outlets. However, not all services listed in the application are provided by all outlets (3). The total number of credit institutions branches currently operating on the territory of Hungary is of 4 605. According to Giro Zrt, OTP bank is the largest with 809 branches, followed by K&H Bank Zrt. (377 branches), CIB Bank Zrt. (218 branches), Reiffeisen Bank Zrt. (180 branches) and Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt. (145 branches). The eighth largest banks of the credit institutions sector each have over 100 branches, plus there are 22 small and medium-sized banks, 10 branches of credit institutions and 138 credit institutions set up as cooperatives with the larger one operating a network of 20-40 branches. In international comparison, using data of 2007 ECB Blue Book (4), this places Hungary in the middle of the range in terms of per capita number of branches.\nII. LEGAL FRAMEWORK\n(3)\nIt should be recalled that, in accordance with point (c) of Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/17/EC, the provision of financial services as defined in the fourth indent of said point (c) are covered by that Directive only to the extent that such services are provided by entities which also provide postal services within the meaning of point (b) of that provision. Posta is the only contracting entity in Hungary which offers the services concerned by this Decision.\n(4)\nArticle 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC provides that contracts intended to enable the performance of one of the activities to which the Directive applies shall not be subject to the Directive if, in the Member State in which it is carried out, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted. Direct exposure to competition is assessed on the basis of objective criteria, taking account of the specific characteristics of the sector concerned. Access is deemed to be unrestricted if the Member State has implemented and applied the relevant Community legislation opening a given sector or a part of it. Where no relevant Community legislation is listed in the Directive\u2019s Annex XI, as is the case in respect of the services concerned by this Decision, then Article 30(3), second subparagraph requires that it \u2018must be demonstrated that access to the market in question is free de facto and de jure\u2019.\n(5)\nRegarding financial services, it should be recalled that a large body of legislation has been adopted at Union level aiming at liberalising establishment and provision of services in this sector (5). In respect of payment services, it is noted that Hungary, transposed fully and timely, Directive 2007/64/EC on Payment Services through Act LXXXV/2009 on the Pursuit of the Business of Payment Services.\n(6)\nHungary has implemented Union legislation regarding liberalisation of capital movements and freedom to provide services and the relevant legislation on the liberalisation of financial markets. Moreover, Hungary satisfied the requirements set out in the Financial Services Action Plan. The Hungarian market of credit institutions and payment services is well regulated. According to Act CXII: 1996 on credit institutions and financial enterprises (the Banking Act), financial services and auxiliary activities are subject to authorisation. According to Act CXXXVII/2007 on investments firms and commodity dealers and on the regulations governing their activities, investment services may be performed by investments firms and credit institutions only. Act LX/2003 on insurance companies and insurance business provides that insurance activities may be performed by insurance companies only. The Posta is authorised to pursue the financial services subject to this application by the Hungarian Financial Supervisory Authority. Any institution that is able to meet the provisions regarding prudent operation and effective supervision could be authorised to carry out these services. The pursuit of financial services or activities auxiliary to financial services, as well as investment services and insurance services is open also to non-resident companies, through their branches, provided that they are authorised by the competent supervisory authority in the country of establishment. The requirement to have a Hungarian branch does not apply to financial institutions established in any EEA Member State, as these institutions may provide their services cross border.\n(7)\nHaving due regard o the facts set out in recitals 5 and 6 above, it can be assumed that, the condition set out in Article 30(3) relating to free access to the market can be taken to be met.\n(8)\nDirect exposure to competition in a particular market should be evaluated on the basis of various criteria, none of which are, per se, decisive. In respect of the markets concerned by this Decision, the market share of the main players on a given market constitutes one criterion which should be taken into account. Other criteria considered may be the degree of concentration on those markets and/or the customer switching. As the conditions vary for the different activities that are concerned by this Decision, the examination of the competitive situation should take into account the different situations on different markets.\n(9)\nAlthough narrower or a broader market definition might be envisaged in certain cases, the precise definition of the relevant market can be left open for the purposes of this Decision as far as a number of the services listed in the request submitted by Posta are concerned to the extent that the result of the analysis remains the same whether it is based on a narrow or a broader definition.\n(10)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to the application of the rules on competition.\nIII. ASSESSMENT\n(11)\nThe application lists two distinct categories of payment services, namely: (A) existing services; and (B) services which are planned for introduction in 2012. For the purposes of the assessment pertaining to this Decision, only the existing services will be taken into account, as there is no material evidence of the effects which the planned services would have, if and once introduced.\n(12)\nThe existing payment services performed by Posta are services enabling cash to be placed on a payment account and services enabling cash withdrawals from a bank account, whereby Posta acts as an intermediary, and money transfer services (domestic and international money order services of its own right, as well as Western Union money order services acting as intermediary).\n(13)\nThe aim of the present Decision is to establish whether the services offered by Posta are exposed to such a level of competition (on markets to which access is free) that this will ensure that, also in the absence of the discipline brought about by the detailed procurement rules set out in Directive 2004/17/EC, Posta\u2019s procurement for the pursuit of the activities concerned here will be carried out in a transparent, non-discriminatory manner based on criteria allowing it to identify the solution which overall is the economically most advantageous one. For this purpose it is therefore necessary to examine whether the banks and other financial institutions have the possibility to exercise competitive pressure on Posta.\n(14)\nThe main competitors of the Posta in the market for payment services are the banks and other financial institutions that are not covered by the provisions of the Directive 2004/17/EC, as they are not contracting entities in the sense of the directive and/or they do not provide financial services together with postal services.\n(15)\nThe payment methods offered by the banks are generally more attractive than the paper based and/or cash based ones, and are generally available. According to GfK Hungaria (6), the number of users of online banking services has increased by 200 000 by the end of 2010 compared to the year before and it reached 1 million users, with a growth rate getting higher. At the same time, according to the same source, the number of those who prefer to do their banking in person is declining - one fourth of all clients no longer go to the bank braches to do banking.\n(16)\nThe product market as defined by the applicant is the payment services market provided by credit institutions and other payment services providers, while the respective geographical market is considered to be nation-wide. The Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH) indicated that although it does not have all information and data at their disposal in order to be able to properly and precisely define the product market, the relevant product market definition provided by the applicant \u2018is likely to be acceptable\u2019. As far as the geographical market is concerned, under the same disclaimer as above, GVH indicated that \u2018it is not aware of any evidence on which the geographical market should not be the whole territory of Hungary\u2019.\n(17)\nNo further distinction of the payment services market into separate retail and wholesale product markets will be made for the purposes of this Decision, as the result of the analysis remains largely the same whether it is based on a narrow or a broader definition.\n(18)\nThe Hungarian Competition Authorities referring to the degree of concentration of the payment market states that, presumably, \u2018the 5-6 major banks, together with Magyar Posta have a very high combined market share in case of retail payment services, and possibly cover most of the market. The wholesale market might presumably be less concentrated due to the presence of several other financial institutions\u2019.\n(19)\nThese services allow customers to make payments for a service or good purchased. They are used by private persons for discharging payment obligations and are particularly used for making payments for public utilities services, telecommunications, financial services, insurance services, home delivery services, payment of taxes, etc.\n(20)\nThe main factor for determining the relevant product market is to establish the scope of substitute products, which means the alternative means that a client would have for discharging payment obligations. Consequently, the applicant considers that the relevant product market covers cash deposits made to bank accounts in banks, or through ATMs (7), card payments and transfers between bank accounts (simple transfers and automatic debit transfers).\n(21)\nAs regards switching between payment methods, the Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH) confirmed that \u2018the major utilities and other service providers tend to offer various payment methods to their customers with a possibility to easily switch among these. There also seem to be a trend of persuading customers to use electronic payment methods instead of paper and cash based ones\u2019. In this context the increased use of online banking is to be noted. However, as indicated in recital 9 above, the exact definition can be left open for the purposes of the present Decision.\n(22)\nPosta market share for services enabling cash to be places on a payment account, calculated as a percentage of the total market as defined, represented (8) 3,91 % in 2007, 3,88 % in 2008 and 4,14 % in 2009. In terms of both volume and value, is to be noted that the number of Posta transactions and their value decreased in 2009 compared to previous two years (9).\n(23)\nFor the purposes of this Decision, and without prejudice to the competition law, these factors should be taken as an indication of direct exposure of Posta\u2019s activity to competition.\n(24)\nThe characteristics of services enabling cash withdrawals are that the account holder authorises payment from his payment account to the order of a third party. The scope of such services presently includes cash delivery and pension payment service. The main drawees are the State Treasury and the municipal governments using this scheme for payment of family allowances, social benefits unemployment benefits, etc. For payments made by the government, the payee has the option to have the amounts credited to a bank account or to receive it by means of postal delivery. In case of pension payment, the recipients have also the possibility to have part of the amount credited to their account and the other part delivered in cash. It is also possible to switch, at any time between postal cash delivery to bank transfer, by making a simple request to the Central Administration of National Pension Insurance.\n(25)\nThe Hungarian State, through the National Bank is pursuing a policy aimed at reducing the volume of cash transactions and encouraging the development of electronic payment methods and related infrastructure. Corporate entities are required to make payments through payment accounts and the wages of public servants are paid into bank accounts. According to a recent study (10) undertaken by the Hungarian National Bank, currently half of the pensions initiated by the state are made by other means than postal payments, and according to the application (11), both the number and total value of pensions paid through Posta were steadily decreasing in the last years.\n(26)\nFor the above reasons, transfer of payment between payment accounts (simple transfer and group transfers), cash withdrawals with bank cards at ATMs and POS (12) terminals, and cash withdrawals at bank tellers are considered the relevant product market for services enabling cash withdrawals from a payment account.\n(27)\nIn case of the above services, for the purposes of payment made to persons with bank account, payments between payment accounts (simple transactions and group transfers where payments are made from a single account to several persons) could be considered substitute products. Here as well, the exact definition can be left open for the purposes of the present Decision.\n(28)\nPosta\u2019s market share for services enabling cash withdrawals from a payment account, calculated as a percentage of the total substitute service, represented (13) 2,44 % in 2007, 2,49 % in 2008 and 2,61 % in 2009. In terms of both volume and value, is to be noted that the number of Posta transactions and their total value had a decreasing trend in the last three years for which data are available, namely 2007, 2008 and 2009 (14).\n(29)\nFor the purposes of this Decision, and without prejudice to the competition law, these factors should be taken as an indication of direct exposure of Posta\u2019s activity to competition.\n(30)\nThe money transfer service provided by the Posta is generally used for payments made between private persons. The respective services are domestic money orders and international money orders provided in the Posta\u2019s own right and Western Union money transfer which are available domestically and internationally, offering a real-time method for sending money.\n(31)\nFor domestic transfers, both in Posta\u2019s own right and on behalf of Western Union, the applicant considers that transaction between payment accounts are substitutes for money transfers in case the payee has a payment account. Consequently the market of payments made in Hungary between accounts could be considered the relevant product market for domestic money transfers, although the exact definition can be left open.\n(32)\nCalculated accordingly the market shares of the Posta were of less than 1 % in 2007, 2008 and 2009.\n(33)\nIn case of international money transfers, the activities undertaken by Posta and Western Union were considered close substitutes. Moreover the payments through payment accounts are considered substitutable products, therefore the cross border payments between payment accounts is considered the relevant product market by the applicant. However, the exact definition of the relevant market can be left open.\n(34)\nThe Posta\u2019s market share calculated on this basis is of 0,5 % in 2007, 2008 and in 2009.\n(35)\nFor the purposes of this Decision, and without prejudice to the competition law, these factors should be taken as an indication of direct exposure of Posta\u2019s activity to competition.\n(36)\nThe application for exemption pertains also to certain activities of Posta, performed on behalf of others, in connection with certain financial services, where Posta acts as an intermediary.\n(37)\nThe application for exemption covers the intermediation of current accounts and the related products and services, namely: retail and corporate bank account services offered on behalf of credit institutions, including the accepting and forwarding of payment orders for execution, and the intermediation of sight deposits and fixed term deposits connected to a bank account.\n(38)\nThe financial products and services offered by Posta as intermediary are provided by Erste Bank and OTP Bank. Posta is also offering deposit products on its own name.\n(39)\nPrevious Commission practice (15) make distinction between retail banking and corporate banking. Retail banking is defined as all banking services to private individuals and very small enterprises, while corporate banking generally comprises banking services to large corporate customers and small and medium enterprises. However, in previous decisions (16) related to the retail banking sector, the Commission left open whether individual retail banking products represent separate product markets or whether several retail banking products may form part of a single relevant product market.\n(40)\nThe relevant product market needs to be distinguished according to the stage in the distribution chain (upstream - provision of current accounts and related products and services or downstream - intermediation of current accounts and related products and services). For the activity of intermediation of retail payment accounts, the relevant product market could be considered as the market for intermediation of retail current accounts and deposit products. For the activity of intermediation of corporate payment accounts, the relevant product market could be considered as the market for intermediation for corporate current accounts and deposit products. However, in accordance with recital 9 of this Decision, it is not necessary to define the relevant market.\n(41)\nThe applicant defines the geographical market as the entire territory of Hungary. The Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH) confirmed that \u2018for the purpose of the present case, all the financial institutions present in Hungary perform their activities nation-wide; there are no signs of regional deviation in any aspects of the financial services provision\u2019. Moreover, previous Commission practice (17) in connection to financial markets considered the relevant geographical market to be national in scope due to different competitive conditions within individual Member States and the importance of a network of branches.\n(42)\nThe market shares of Posta, calculated on the basis of the above consideration are as follows: for the retail current accounts and deposits: 1,45 % in 2007, 1,38 % in 2008 and 1,51 % in 2009, while on the market for corporate current account and deposits Posta market shares were negligible (0 %) in 2007, 2008 and 2009. These figures indicate that market shares for the intermediation of these financial services are also low\n(43)\nThe rest of the market is shared between other banks and financial institutions which are not subject to the provisions of Directive 2004/17/EC.\n(44)\nIn its inquiry on the retail banking of 2009 (18) the Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH) found that there are no major obstacles to account switching in Hungary, and moreover, it was observed that the level of current account switching is one of the highest when compared to the rest of EU Member State.\n(45)\nThe advantages of Posta\u2019s extensive network are counterbalanced by the growth in importance of online banking.\n(46)\nAccording to a survey (19) of factors influencing the selection of a bank, by customers, the most important factors were found to be reliability and confidence, proximity and accessibility (including the availability of means to withdraw cash) and the quality of service. These conclusions were also confirmed by the results of the survey (20) on financial services and current account services. According to this source, the most important aspect when choosing a bank is the cost and reputation, while easy access (i.a. extensive network) appears to be less important. Furthermore, the spectrum of banking services, namely the availability of a broad range of banking services, and the high quality of service was also considered important. Given the above, although Posta has an extensive network, there are other criteria which were labelled as significant by customers (reputation as a bank, banking services, quality of service) which play a counterbalancing role in choosing a bank. Customers whose needs include a broad range of services would therefore be reticent to consider choosing or changing to a postal account not offering the accustomed range of services.\n(47)\nFor the purposes of this Decision, and without prejudice to the competition law, these factors should be taken as an indication of direct exposure of Posta\u2019s activity to competition.\n(48)\nThis activity represents the intermediation of credit provided by third parties, with the Posta acting as a multiple special services intermediary. Posta is offering credit products (with no collateral requirements, either movable, nor real estate) provided by Erste Bank to retail customers, while in the corporate sector, Posta offers a product of Magyar Fejlesztesi Bank, acting as a multiple special service intermediary.\n(49)\nThe services concerned here can be subdivided in many different ways, according to factors such as the purposes for which a credit is taken or the typical customer (consumers, SMEs, larger undertakings or public administration). Therefore, retail credit intermediation and corporate credit intermediation could be considered as separate product markets.\n(50)\nThe product market of retail credit intermediation is defined by the applicant as the market of unrestricted mortgage loans and personal loans, both in Hungarian Forint and foreign currencies. This is not contradicted by previous Commission practice (21) whereby the Commission left open whether individual retail banking products represents separate relevant product markets or whether several retail banking products may form part of a single relevant product market.\n(51)\nIn the corporate sector, the Posta is offering only one type of corporate credit product. This product is offered typically by other financial institutions (i.e. savings cooperatives). The Posta offers this product in 45 designated locations and not throughout its entire network. The relevant product market for the corporate sector is considered by the applicant to include SMEs loans offered by credit institutions. However, as indicated in recital 9 above, the exact market definition can be left open, for the purposes of this Decision.\n(52)\nThe geographical market is the entire territory of Hungary, virtually for the same reasons as stated in recital 41.\n(53)\nPosta market shares in the market of retail credit as defined was less than 0,5 % in 2007, 2008 and 2009, while the market shares in the market of corporate credit is negligible (0 %) in the same years. The available data shows that the Posta market shares in these markets narrowly defined are so small that on a market more broadly defined Posta will have even smaller market shares.\n(54)\nThe rest of the market is shared between other banks and financial institutions - which are not subject to the provisions of the Utilities directive. The cumulated market shares (22) of the first three competitors in 2007, 2008 and 2009 were as follows: 52,54 %, 51,39 % and 54,27 % respectively in the retail loans market and 42,69 %, 47,36 % and 48,07 % respectively in the corporate loans market.\n(55)\nFor the purposes of this Decision, and without prejudice to the competition law, the above mentioned factors should be taken as an indication of direct exposure of Posta\u2019s activity to competition.\n(56)\nThe Posta offers credit cards issued by Erste Bank Zrt. This product is a standard credit card, in terms of conditions and services offered.\n(57)\nIn respect of debit cards, the Posta acts as intermediary covering corporate and retail bank cards associated with current accounts. The Posta acts as multiple special services intermediary, while the service is provided by Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt. The cards offered are standard debit cards.\n(58)\nIn respect of accepting payment cards the postal outlets are equipped with POS terminals enabling cash withdrawals with bank cards. The applicant argues that from the perspective of customers, the same service (obtaining cash) can be obtain by means of cash withdrawals at a bank teller, or at other POS terminal operated by third parties at locations other than the postal outlets, therefore the products are substitutable.\n(59)\nThe Commission has, in the past, distinguished (23) two main payment card related activities: first the issuing of cards to individuals and companies and secondly the \u2018acquiring\u2019 of merchants for card payment acceptance. Moreover, within the activity of payment card issuing, the Commission has in previous decisions (24) discussed the possibility of distinguishing between different types of cards, but eventually the exact definition was left open.\n(60)\nFor the purposes of this Decision, and without prejudice to the competition law, three product markets will be taken into consideration, namely, the credit card market, the debit card market and the accepting of cards.\n(61)\nAs regards, the card accepting market, the product market defined by the applicant is not the market that was generally defined in previous Commission decisions mentioned in recital 59. The \u2018original\u2019 card accepting market is the one consisting of merchants who accept card payments. Another possible card accepting market is the one consisting of banks who offer card accepting services to such merchants. However, as confirmed by the Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH) (25), in case of Posta, considering that the POS devices functions as ATM machines of the two banks, for which Posta is acting as intermediary, \u2018Magyar Posta was probably correct to provide data on concentration based on concentration based on the number of ATM machines in operation\u2019.\n(62)\nIn terms of geographical market, previous Commission cases (26) indicated that the market of payment cards is still national in scope, although it admitted that there may be scope for widening the market in the future. In the present case, the geographical market definition is considered to be the entire territory of Hungary.\n(63)\nBetween 2007 and 2009, Posta\u2019s market shares was of less than 1 % in the credit card market, of less than 3 % in the debit card market and of less than 6 % in the accepting card market as defined by the applicant.\n(64)\nAccording to the Hungarian Competition Authority (27), following a recent study undertaken by the later and the Hungarian National Bank, out of the total number of 24 banks issuing debit cards the total market share of the top 5 banks in debit card issuing is approximately 82 %. According to the same source the credit card issuing market is less concentrated; out of the 18 banks issuing credit cards, the top 7 banks have a combined market share of 68 % of the market. Moreover, according to the application, the level of concentration as high in the accepting sector three quarters of the total number of ATMs ware operated by four banks.\n(65)\nIn view of the low market shares of Posta and the presence of other banks and financial institutions, which bring competitive pressure on Posta\u2019s activity we can conclude that for the purposes of this Decision, and without prejudice to the competition law, these factors should be taken as an indication of direct exposure of Posta\u2019s activity to competition.\n(66)\nThis category of services covers the sale of financial instruments and the marketing of special investments products. The financial instruments offered are government securities, investment funds of Erste Befektetesi Zrt, other securities and a special home savings arrangement on behalf of Fundamenta Lakaskassza Zrt. and OTP Lakastakarekpenztar Zrt., acting as intermediary.\n(67)\nIn previous cases, the Commission has left open the question whether each of these services might constitute separate product markets (28). The definition will be left open in this case as the services provided by Posta as an intermediary do not raise competition concerns, regardless of the alternative market definition considered.\n(68)\nAs regards geographical scope, the Commission has considered (29) that most of the market segments are international in scope, but some of them have been analysed from a national perspective (30). The exact geographical market definition will be left open, and in the present case the geographical market will be considered the territory of Hungary.\n(69)\nBetween 2007 and 2009, Posta\u2019s market share was of less than 4 % in the market of government securities, between 3 % and 9 % in the market of investment units, of less than 2 % in the market for bonds and of less than 4 % in the market of home savings arrangements.\n(70)\nFor the purposes of this Decision, and without prejudice to the competition law, these factors should be taken as an indication of direct exposure to competition of Posta\u2019s activity in the investment market.\n(71)\nPosta offers life insurance on behalf of Magyar Posta Eletbiztosito Zrt. and non-life insurance on behalf of Magyar Posta Biztosito Zrt.\n(72)\nIn its previous decisions (31), the Commission has distinguished between three broad categories of types of insurances, namely: life insurance, non-life insurance and reinsurance. Moreover, it was observed that, from the demand side, life and non-life insurance can be further divided into as many individual product markets as there are different kinds of risks covered. In relation to life insurance the Commission has considered in previous decisions the following segmentations: life-individual, life-group and unit linked, or, alternatively, individual protection, group protection, personal pension, group pensions, savings and investments (32). In relation to non-life insurance the Commission has previously considered, inter alia, motor, fire, transport, health, property, general civil liability, casualty, litigation, working accidents and credit insurance (33). However, supply side considerations could lead to broader product markets. For the purposes of this Decision the exact product market definition can be left open.\n(73)\nThe Commission has in the past also analysed the distribution of insurance products and confirmed that the relevant market for either non-life or life insurance distribution would comprise all outward (i.e. third party or non-owned) distribution channels, such as brokers, agents and other intermediaries (34). However, for the purposes of this Decision the exact product market definition can be left open.\n(74)\nIn respect of geographical market, the Commission in its previous decisions (35) has defined the markets for life insurance as being national in scope due to national distribution channels, the established market structure, fiscal constraints and different regulatory systems. The same approach will be used in the present case and the geographical market will be considered the entire territory of Hungary.\n(75)\nBetween 2007 and 2009, Posta\u2019s market share was of less than 5 % (36) in the market of life insurance products, and of less than 1 % (37) for non-life insurance products. These figures indicate that market shares for the intermediation of insurance are also low.\n(76)\nIn the same years, the combined market shares of the first three competitors was of 52,29 %, 51,08 % and 50,1 % respectively in the market of life insurance products, and of 54,84 %, 52,56 % and 51,66 % respectively in the market of non-life insurance products.\n(77)\nFor the purposes of this Decision, and without prejudice to the competition law, these factors should be taken as an indication of direct exposure to competition of Posta\u2019s activity in the insurance market.\nIV. CONCLUSIONS\n(78)\nIn view of the factors examined in recitals 11 to 77, the condition of direct exposure to competition laid down in Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC should be considered to be met in Hungary for the following activities:\n(a)\nservices enabling cash to be placed on a payment account;\n(b)\nservices enabling cash withdrawals from a payment account;\n(c)\nmoney transfer services;\n(d)\nintermediation of current accounts and the related products and services;\n(e)\ncredit intermediation;\n(f)\nintermediation and acceptance of payment cards issued by credit institutions;\n(g)\nintermediation of investments and special purpose savings on behalf of others;\n(h)\nintermediation of insurance products.\n(79)\nSince the condition of unrestricted access to the market is also met, Directive 2004/17/EC should not apply when contracting entities award contracts intended to enable the services listed in recital 78 to be carried out in Hungary, nor when design contests are organised for the pursuit of such an activity in Hungary.\n(80)\nThe financial services carried out by Posta are auxiliary to postal services as per Article 6(2)(b) of Directive 2004/17/EC. The postal services carried out by the Posta are not subject to this exemption request, therefore for these activities the provisions of Directive 2004/17/EC continue to apply. In this context, it is recalled that procurement contracts covering several activities shall be treated in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2004/17/EC. This means that, when a contracting entity is engaged in \u2018mixed\u2019 procurement, that is procurement used to support the performance of both, activities exempted from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC and activities not exempted, regard shall be had to the activities for which the contract is principally intended. In the event of such mixed procurement, where the purpose is principally to support postal activities, the provision of Directive 2004/17/EC shall apply. If it is objectively impossible to determine for which activity the contract is principally intended, the contract shall be awarded in accordance with the rules referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 9 of Directive 2004/17/EC.\n(81)\nThis Decision is based on the legal and factual situation as of July to October 2011 as it appears from the information submitted by Magyar Posta, and the Hungarian Competition Authority. It may be revised, should significant changes in the legal or factual situation mean that the conditions for the applicability of Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC are no longer met.\n(82)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Committee for Public Contracts,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2004/17/EC shall not apply to contracts awarded by contracting entities and intended to enable the following services to be carried out in Hungary:\n(a)\nservices enabling cash to be placed on a payment account;\n(b)\nservices enabling cash withdrawals from a payment account;\n(c)\nmoney transfer services;\n(d)\nintermediation of current accounts and the related products and services;\n(e)\ncredit intermediation;\n(f)\nintermediation and acceptance of payment cards issued by credit institutions;\n(g)\nintermediation of investments and special purpose savings on behalf of others;\n(h)\nintermediation of insurance products.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Hungary in accordance to the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["66", "30", "12", "7", "83", "80", "95", "54", "14", "85", "37", "94", "74", "32", "63", "53", "72", "88", "17", "55", "70", "84", "4", "52", "59", "60", "1", "51", "82", "8", "No Label", "20", "29", "40", "48"], "gold": ["20", "29", "40", "48"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 1 June 2011\nconcerning the non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC\n(notified under document C(2011) 3733)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/328/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included flurprimidol.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11f of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 and Article 12(1)(a) and Article 12(2)(b) of that Regulation, Commission Decision 2009/28/EC of 13 January 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (4) was adopted.\n(3)\nThe original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Finland, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2009/28/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nFinland evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 10 March 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on flurprimidol to the Commission on 16 December 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and the Animal Health and finalised on 5 May 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for flurprimidol.\n(6)\nThe additional report by the rapporteur Member State and the conclusion by the Authority concentrate on the concerns that lead to the non-inclusion. Those concerns were the risk to operators and workers in all evaluated scenarios and conditions of use, because the exposure was greater than 100 % of the acceptable operator exposure level (AOEL), and the lack of data on the impurity profile of batches used in toxicological studies.\n(7)\nAdditional information was submitted by the applicant, in particular as regards new calculations for the operator and worker exposure risk assessment. Furthermore, in order to reduce the risk to the environment, the applicant has limited its support to uses restricted to high technology glasshouse production systems with irrigation/excess water management systems that guarantee no release of contaminated water to the environment.\n(8)\nHowever, the additional information provided by the applicant did not permit to eliminate all of the specific concerns arising in respect of flurprimidol.\n(9)\nIn particular, based on the information available and calculated on the basis of the uses supported by the applicant, estimated worker exposure still exceeds the AOEL, irrespective of the use of personal protective equipment. The environmental data package was not sufficient to perform an environmental risk assessment for realistic scenarios and conditions of use. The described greenhouse uses, for which exposure would be acceptable, do not reflect normal greenhouse practice and therefore cannot be considered to be representative.\n(10)\nThe Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion by the Authority. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) to Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the applicant to submit comments on the draft review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(11)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns identified could not be eliminated, and assessments made on the basis of the information submitted and evaluated during the expert meetings of the Authority have not demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing flurprimidol satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(12)\nFlurprimidol should therefore not be included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(13)\nDecision 2009/28/EC should be repealed.\n(14)\nThis Decision does not prejudice the submission of a further application for flurprimidol pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFlurprimidol shall not be included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2009/28/EC is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2011.", "references": ["18", "92", "54", "43", "7", "40", "34", "0", "8", "29", "30", "9", "81", "37", "17", "10", "67", "74", "59", "45", "76", "56", "90", "14", "87", "48", "80", "6", "26", "78", "No Label", "25", "51", "58", "64", "65"], "gold": ["25", "51", "58", "64", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 504/2012\nof 13 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 June 2012.", "references": ["67", "38", "19", "29", "6", "46", "76", "8", "41", "96", "0", "21", "87", "45", "86", "62", "59", "90", "91", "57", "71", "82", "43", "1", "40", "39", "74", "17", "84", "44", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 315/2011\nof 30 March 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 March 2011.", "references": ["30", "0", "23", "49", "68", "11", "15", "54", "33", "90", "3", "44", "19", "62", "36", "32", "9", "2", "56", "61", "76", "70", "24", "97", "60", "26", "94", "50", "8", "63", "No Label", "21", "85"], "gold": ["21", "85"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 29 June 2010\nappointing one Romanian member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/366/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Romanian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of term of Mr Cristian ANGHEL,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nDl Romeo STAVARACHE\nPrimarul municipiului Bac\u0103u, jude\u021bul Bac\u0103u\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 29 June 2010.", "references": ["45", "76", "88", "33", "46", "98", "64", "17", "15", "63", "47", "27", "13", "21", "59", "54", "37", "66", "39", "61", "29", "57", "73", "60", "93", "28", "2", "79", "77", "9", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 763/2010\nof 26 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 August 2010.", "references": ["36", "19", "56", "99", "9", "55", "66", "50", "79", "53", "40", "88", "45", "18", "98", "46", "33", "10", "70", "86", "72", "44", "87", "51", "26", "47", "11", "12", "6", "22", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 21 December 2011\namending Annexes II and IV to Council Directive 2009/158/EC on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs\n(notified under document C(2011) 9518)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/879/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (1), and in particular Article 34 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2009/158/EC lays down animal health conditions governing intra-Union trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs. Annex II thereto sets out the rules for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Union trade in those commodities and surveillance programmes to be carried out for certain diseases in the different poultry species. Annex IV to Directive 2009/158/EC lays down the model veterinary certificates for trade within the Union of the poultry commodities covered by that Directive.\n(2)\nAnnex II to Directive 2009/158/EC, as amended by Commission Decision 2011/214/EU (2), sets out the diagnostic procedures for Salmonella and Mycoplasma.\n(3)\nChapter III of Annex II to Directive 2009/158/EC lays down the minimum requirements for disease surveillance programmes. That Chapter provides a description of the testing procedures for Salmonella pullorum and Salmonella gallinarum. It is however necessary to provide for certain additional specific details as regards the testing for Salmonella arizonae.\n(4)\nIn addition, box I.31. in Part I of the model veterinary certificate for day-old chicks set out in Annex IV to Directive 2009/158/EC includes a requirement to fill in detailed information in relation to the identification of the commodities covered by it.\n(5)\nThat requirement provides valuable information on the health status of the parent flock(s) from which the day-old chicks originate, in particular with respect to testing for certain Salmonella serotypes. However, certain of those data requirements appear to pose unnecessary administrative burdens on business operators, especially in view of the unpredictability of hatch. In addition, certain data required to be filled in that box is filled in in other parts of the certificate.\n(6)\nThose entries should therefore be deleted from box 1.31. in the model veterinary certificates for hatching eggs, day-old chicks and breeding and productive poultry and be replaced by the entry \u2018Approval number\u2019 which would provide clearer information on the origin of the respective commodities. Part I of the notes in Part II of those model certificates should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nAnnex IX to Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (3) sets out the specific conditions which apply to imports of ratites for breeding and production, hatching eggs and day-old chicks thereof.\n(8)\nPoint 3 of Part II of that Annex, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1380/2011 (4), provides that, where day-old chicks are not reared in the Member State which imported the hatching eggs, they are to be transported directly to the final destination and kept there for at least three weeks from the date of hatching. That requirement should be reflected in the relevant model veterinary certificate for day-old chicks laid down in Annex IV to Directive 2009/158/EC. That model certificate should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nDirective 2009/158/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and IV to Directive 2009/158/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 February 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["94", "95", "17", "1", "14", "91", "80", "90", "36", "22", "86", "82", "93", "4", "97", "39", "83", "71", "53", "99", "98", "74", "58", "47", "79", "43", "35", "76", "62", "34", "No Label", "20", "21", "61", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "21", "61", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 May 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on certain aspects of air services\n(2011/285/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy its Decision of 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with an agreement at Union level.\n(2)\nOn behalf of the Union, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement with the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on certain aspects of air services in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Decision of 5 June 2003.\n(3)\nThe Agreement was signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its possible conclusion at a later date.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be approved accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on certain aspects of air services (1) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to make the notification provided for in Article 7(1) of the Agreement.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2011.", "references": ["11", "52", "38", "18", "99", "61", "90", "12", "68", "60", "32", "80", "6", "70", "21", "42", "30", "45", "25", "8", "48", "46", "85", "2", "58", "77", "39", "41", "91", "20", "No Label", "3", "9", "53", "57", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "53", "57", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 138/2011\nof 16 February 2011\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 20 May 2010, the European Commission (the Commission) announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (Notice of initiation), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019 or \u2018the country concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 6 April 2010 by Saint-Gobain Vertex s.r.o., Tolnatex Fonalfeldolgozo es Muszakiszovetgyarto, Valmieras \u2018Stikla Skiedra\u2019 AS and Vitrulan Technical Textiles GmbH (the complainants), representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of certain open mesh fabrics. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting there from, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainants, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers in the PRC, and the representatives of the PRC, known importers and users, of the initiation of the proceeding. The Commission also advised producers in the United States of America (USA), Canada, Croatia, Turkey and Thailand, as these countries were envisaged as a possible analogue country. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. All interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\n(4)\nIn view of the apparent high number of exporting producers in the PRC, unrelated importers and Union producers, sampling was envisaged in the Notice of initiation for the determination of dumping and injury in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and if so, to select a sample, all known exporting producers in the PRC, importers and Union producers, were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the Notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010. The authorities of the PRC were also consulted.\n(5)\nSixteen replies were received to the sampling exercise from exporting producers in the PRC covering 86 % of imports during the investigation period as defined in the recital below. Therefore, the cooperation is considered to be high.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of exporting producers based on the largest representative volume of exports of the product concerned to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sample selected consists of two individual exporting producers and one exporting producer group consisting of four related companies, representing 42 % of imports to the Union during the Investigation Period (IP) as defined in recital 13 below. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned and the PRC authorities were consulted on the selection of sample and raised no objection.\n(7)\nWith regard to Union industry, twelve producers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. On this basis, the Commission selected a sample composed of the four biggest Union producers in terms of sales and production representing, 70 % of the total sales by Union industry as defined in recital 59 below.\n(8)\nOnly four unrelated importers provided the requested information within the deadlines set out in the Notice of initiation. Therefore, it was decided that sampling with regard to unrelated importers was not necessary.\n(9)\nIn order to allow sampled exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the sampled exporting producers. All sampled exporting producers requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation or IT should the investigation establish that they did not meet the conditions for MET. In addition, one exporting producer consisting of a group of related companies which was not included in the sample, requested individual examination under Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(10)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the sampled exporting producers, as well as to the non-sampled exporting producer that had requested individual examination, to the four sampled Union producers, the four cooperating unrelated importers and to all known users in the Union. Questionnaires were also sent to producers in the USA which was the proposed analogue country as mentioned in the Notice of initiation, and to producers in other possible analogue countries. Questionnaire replies were received from the sampled exporting producers in the PRC and from the one cooperating producer who requested individual examination, from one producer in the United States of America and one producer in Canada, envisaged analogue country as explained in recital 43 below, from all sampled Union producers and from four unrelated importers. No users supplied the Commission with any information or made themselves known in the course of this investigation.\n(11)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the purpose of analysis of MET/IT and for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest and carried out verifications at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nExporting producers in the PRC\n-\nYuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co., Ltd\n-\nNingbo Weishan Duo Bao Building Materials Co., Ltd\n-\nGrand Composite Group composed of:\n-\nGrand Composite Co. Ltd\n-\nNingbo Grand Fiberglass Co. Ltd\n-\nNingbo Grand Industrial Co. Ltd\n(b)\nUnion producers\n-\nSaint Gobain Vertex s.r.o, Czech Republic\n-\nTolnatex Fonalfeldolgozo es Muszakiszovetgyarto, Hungary\n-\nVitrulan Technical Textiles GmbH, Germany\n-\nValmieras Stikla Skiedra AS, Latvia\n(c)\nUnrelated importers\n-\nMasterplast, Hungary\n(12)\nIn view of the need to establish a normal value for the exporting producers in the PRC to which MET might not be granted, a verification to establish normal value on the basis of data from Canada as analogue country took place at the premises of the following company:\n(d)\nProducer in analogue country\n-\nSaint Gobain Technical Fabrics, Midland, Canada\n3. Investigation period\n(13)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the investigation period (period considered).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(14)\nThe product concerned is open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2 originating in the PRC (the product concerned) and currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 40 00, ex 7019 51 00, ex 7019 59 00, ex 7019 90 91 and ex 7019 90 99.\n(15)\nOpen mesh fabrics are made of glass fibre yarns and can be found in different cell sizes and weight per square meter. They are mostly used as reinforcement material in the construction sector (external thermal insulation, marble/floor reinforcement, wall repair).\n(16)\nAfter initiation, an exporting producer in the PRC that manufactures fibreglass discs requested clarification whether that product type is included in the product definition. The Union industry was consulted and was of the opinion that such discs may be considered as downstream product and thus are not necessarily covered by the product definition. Since at this stage of the proceeding information at the Commission's disposal does not yet allow for a definitive conclusion concerning its basic characteristics, it was decided to provisionally treat fibreglass discs as forming part of the product concerned, pending collection of further information and considerations from interested parties in the remainder of the investigation.\n2. Like product\n(17)\nThe investigation has shown that open mesh fabrics of glass fibres produced and sold on the domestic market of the PRC and on the domestic market of Canada, which served provisionally as an analogue country, as well as the open mesh fabrics of glass fibres produced and sold in the Union by the Union producers have essentially the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and the same basic uses. They are therefore provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n1. General methodology\n(18)\nThe general methodology set out hereinafter has been applied to the cooperating exporting producers in PRC to establishing whether or not they were practicing dumping.\n2. Market Economy Treatment (MET)\n(19)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. Briefly and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in summarised form below:\n1.\nbusiness decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values;\n2.\nfirms have one clear set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and are applied for all purposes;\n3.\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;\n4.\nbankruptcy and property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty; and\n5.\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates.\n(20)\nIn the present investigation, all sampled exporting producers requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form within the given deadline.\n(21)\nFor all the abovementioned sampled exporting producers, the Commission sought all information deemed necessary and verified the information submitted in the MET claim forms and all other information deemed necessary at the premises of the following companies:\n-\nYuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co., Ltd\n-\nNingbo Weishan Duo Bao Building Materials Co., Ltd\n-\nGrand Composite Group, composed of:\n-\nGrand Composite Co. Ltd\n-\ngbo Grand Fiberglass Co. Ltd\n-\nNingbo Grand Industrial Co. Ltd\n-\nThe fourth company of the sampled group of related companies is located in British Virgin Islands and was therefore not part of the MET assessment.\n(22)\nThe investigation initially established that two sampled exporting producers in the PRC fulfilled all the criteria set forth in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation to be granted MET while the third sampled exporting producer consisting of a group of related companies failed to meet criterion 2 in respect of the international accounting standards. In particular, it was found that certain costs, revenues and accounts did not accurately reflect the true financial situation of the companies in the group. Moreover, the lack of completeness of the accounts was not mentioned in the auditor's report.\n(23)\nThe Commission officially disclosed the results of the MET findings to the exporting producers concerned in the PRC, and the complainants. They were also given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing if there were particular reasons to be heard.\n(24)\nFollowing the disclosure of the MET findings, comments were only received from the sampled exporting producer/group which was not granted MET. However, these comments were not such as to change the findings in this regard as they did not rebut the deficiencies but provided general explanations about the fact that only one private person controlled the whole group and that the companies in the group were going through a transitional phase in the process of integrating their business.\n(25)\nJust prior to the dumping verification visits, the Commission received some allegations supported in the one instance by documentation concerning the two exporting producers in the PRC to which it was initially proposed to grant MET. These allegations were examined during the dumping verification visits.\n(26)\nFor the first exporting producer, the allegation received specifically claimed that it had provided falsified Articles of Association in its MET claim form and during the MET verification visit. The Commission was provided with copies of the allegedly genuine Articles of Association and the corresponding Joint Venture Contract between the company's shareholders. During the dumping verification visit, the exporting producer provided a certified copy of its Articles of Association registered with the local authority which was the same undated document as that provided by the company in its MET claim form and during the MET on-spot visit.\n(27)\nThe comparison of this document with the one received by the Commission as described in recitals 25 and 26 above revealed differences in the dates, in the parties involved and in certain provisions regarding restrictions on labour hiring. Further differences were found regarding sales restrictions when comparing the Joint Venture contract submitted with the company's MET claim form and the one received by the Commission.\n(28)\nA letter was sent to this exporting producer informing them that this information might give grounds to apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation and asking them to provide comments. The reply of the exporting producer did not provide sufficient explanations on the differences that would lift the doubts on the authenticity of the initial documents and information provided by the exporting producer in its MET Claim form submission.\n(29)\nFor the second exporting producer the allegation received specifically referred to falsified audited accounts. This allegation was examined on spot and discrepancies were identified to the balances carried forward from the 2006 un-audited accounts to the first audited financial statements of 2007. In addition no audit fee charges and payments for the years 2007 and 2008 were booked in the company's records.\n(30)\nA letter was also sent to this exporting producer informing them about the discrepancies found on spot and asking them to provide comments. They were also informed that these new findings may give grounds to apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation. The reply of the exporting producer did not provide any additional information that would lift the doubts as to the accuracy and completeness of the figures presented in its financial statements. On the contrary, in its reply, the exporting producer admitted the existence of two different sets of accounts with different figures for 2006 and that its accounts for 2007 and 2008 contained errors which were not reported upon by the auditor.\n(31)\nBased on the above new findings it was considered that the first exporting producer provided misleading information within the course of the investigation. On this basis it was decided to apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation and reverse the original proposal to grant them MET.\n(32)\nFor the second exporting producer it was decided to refuse MET on the grounds that it did not fulfil criterion 2 of the MET assessment.\n3. Individual Treatment (IT)\n(33)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation a countrywide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet the criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below:\n-\nin the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits,\n-\nexport prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined,\n-\nthe majority of the shares belong to private persons. State officials appearing on the Boards of Directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from State interference,\n-\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate, and\n-\nState interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.\n(34)\nThe three sampled exporting producers which requested MET also claimed IT in the event they would not be granted MET. Based on the above findings, Article 18 of the basic Regulation was applied to the first exporting producer and IT was therefore refused. The second exporting producer was found to meet the conditions of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and thus could be granted IT.\n(35)\nFor the third exporting producer (group of companies) that was found not to fulfil the MET criteria, it was decided to grant IT as it was found that the company fulfils the conditions of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(36)\nOn the basis of the information available, it was provisionally established that the following two exporting producers in the PRC which were included in the sample meet all the requirements for IT as set forth in Article 9(5) of the basic regulation.\n-\nYuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co., Ltd\n-\nGrand Composite Group, composed of:\n-\nGrand Composite Co. Ltd\n-\nNingbo Grand Fiberglass Co. Ltd\n-\nNingbo Grand Industrial Co. Ltd\n4. Individual Examination\n(37)\nThe non-sampled group of related companies which requested individual examination also requested MET or IT, should the investigation establish that they did not meet the conditions for MET, and replied to the MET claim form within the given deadline.\n(38)\nThe information submitted in the MET claim form by the company that requested individual examination was not verified. This will be examined subsequently.\n5. Normal value\n(a) Choice of the analogue country\n(39)\nAccording to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for exporting producers not granted MET shall be established on the basis of the domestic prices or constructed normal value in an analogue country.\n(40)\nIn the Notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its intention to use the United States of America as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC and invited interested parties to comment thereon.\n(41)\nFour cooperating exporting producers stated that the USA would not be an appropriate analogue country, because the glass fibre yarns that they use and which is the main raw material for the production of the product concerned, is of a different glass type than the one used by the Chinese exporting producers, thus more expensive. They also proposed that Turkey and Thailand be used instead as the producers of the product concerned in these two countries use the same glass type fibre yarns as the Chinese exporting producers.\n(42)\nThe Commission examined whether other countries could be a reasonable choice of analogue country and questionnaires were sent to producers of the product concerned in Canada, Croatia, Turkey and Thailand. Only one of the producers of the product concerned in the USA and the sole producer in Canada replied to the questionnaires.\n(43)\nBoth the Canadian and USA markets were examined to determine their suitability to be used as analogue country. In regard to Canada, although there is only one producer of the product concerned, it was found that this country has an open market with no import duty and that competition on the market was ensured by significant imports of the product concerned from several third countries. In addition, it was found that the Canadian producer manufactures all types of the product concerned unlike the US producer who manufactures only one type of the like product, which allows calculations of a normal value for each type of the product concerned. The investigation showed that Canada could provisionally be considered as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value.\n(44)\nThe data submitted in the cooperating Canadian producer's reply were verified in situ and found to be reliable information on which a normal value could be based.\n(45)\nIt is therefore provisionally concluded that Canada is an appropriate and reasonable analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.\n(b) Determination of normal value\n(46)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation normal value was established on the basis of verified information received from the producer in the analogue country as set out below.\n(47)\nThe domestic sales of the Canadian producer of the like product were found to be representative in terms of volume compared to the volume of the product concerned exported to the Union by the cooperating exporting producers.\n(48)\nDuring the investigation period, sales on the domestic market to unrelated customers were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade for all types of the like product manufactured by the Canadian producer. However, because of differences in quality between the like product produced and sold in Canada and the product concerned from PRC, it was considered more appropriate to construct normal value in order to be able to take into account these differences and ensure fair comparison as described in recital 52.\n(49)\nPursuant to Article 2(6)(c) of the basic regulation, the amounts for SG&A and profits were established on the basis of the data of the Canadian producer.\n(c) Export prices for the exporting producers granted IT\n(50)\nAs two of the sampled cooperating exporting producers granted IT made export sales to the Union directly to independent customers in the Union, the export prices were based on the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n(d) Comparison\n(51)\nThe normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis.\n(52)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Normal value was adjusted for differences in quality of inputs such as chemicals, coating and raw materials (glass type of yarns). Further adjustments were made, where appropriate, in respect indirect taxes, ocean freight, insurance, handling and ancillary costs, packing, credit, bank charges and commissions in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.\n6. Dumping margins\n(a) For the cooperating sampled exporting producers granted IT\n(53)\nPursuant to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margins for the two sampled cooperating exporting producers granted IT, were established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value established for the analogue country with each company's weighted average export price of the product concerned to the Union as established above.\n(54)\nOn this basis, the provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:\nCompany\nProvisional dumping margin\nYuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co. Ltd\n62,9 %\nGrand Composite Co. Ltd and its related company Ningbo Grand Fiberglass Co. Ltd\n48,4 %\n(b) For all other exporting producers\n(55)\nThe dumping margin for cooperating exporting producers in the PRC, not included in the sample was calculated as an average of the two sampled exporting producers granted IT in accordance with Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation.\n(56)\nIn order to calculate the countrywide dumping margin applicable to all other non-cooperating exporting producers in the PRC as well as to the sampled exporting producer that was subject to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the level of cooperation was first established by comparing the volume of exports to the Union reported by the cooperating exporting producers with that of Eurostat statistics.\n(57)\nGiven the high level of co-operation in the investigation, the co-operating companies representing around 86 % of all imports from the PRC during the IP, the countrywide dumping margin was established by using the highest of the dumping margins found for the two exporting producers granted IT.\n(58)\nOn this basis the provisional sample weighted average dumping margin and the countrywide level of dumping as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid are:\nSample Weighted Average for the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample (see Annex I)\n57,7 %\nResidual for non-cooperating exporting producers and Ningbo Weishan Duo Bao Building Materials Co. Ltd\n62,9 %\nD. INJURY\n1. Union production\n(59)\nDuring the IP, the like product was manufactured by 19 producers in the Union. These producers constitute the total Union industry production within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation. Given that information was collected or available from all the 19 producers which supported the complaint, these producers will be hereafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\n(60)\nAs indicated in recital 7 above, 12 Union producers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in a sample. A sample of four producers was selected, representing around 70 % of total estimated Union production.\n2. Union consumption\n(61)\nThe calculation of Union consumption was based on figures contained in the complaint and supplemented by verified figures obtained from producers and importers cooperating in the investigation. The Union consumption was thus established on the basis of the volume of sales in the Union of the like product produced by the Union industry, and the volume of imports of the product concerned from the PRC and third countries.\n(62)\nOn this basis the Union consumption developed as follows:\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nEU Consumption in square meters\n534 641 644\n644 081 493\n673 885 434\n584 086 575\n597 082 715\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n120\n126\n109\n112\nSource: Complaint supplemented by cooperating companies data and Eurostat figures.\n(63)\nThe consumption of the product concerned and the like product in the Union increased by 12 % over the period considered. It increased by 26 % between 2006 and 2008 and then decreased by 17 % between 2008 and 2009. During the IP consumption again increased slightly. The temporary fall in 2009 can be attributed to a downturn in the construction market.\n3. Imports from the country concerned\n(a) Volume, price and market share of dumped imports from the country concerned\n(64)\nThe volume of imports of the product concerned from the PRC increased by 48 % through the period considered. Following the trend of consumption and the downturn in the construction sector it slightly dropped in 2009. Nevertheless a long term upward trend of these imports is clear and the increase in import volumes was much sharper than the increase in Union consumption.\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nChinese imports in square meters\n206 145 893\n290 395 250\n318 345 286\n294 111 736\n304 218 214\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n141\n154\n143\n148\nSource: Eurostat and complaint.\n(65)\nIncreasing volumes of imports of the product concerned from the PRC were accompanied by the decrease in the average import price which dropped by 12 % between 2006 and the IP.\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nPrices of Chinese imports in euro\n0,19\n0,19\n0,19\n0,17\n0,17\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n99\n101\n89\n88\nSource: Eurostat and complaint.\n(66)\nThe market share of the imports from the country concerned increased by 32 % in the period considered, which in that case means a gain of almost 13 percentage points. In the IP the imports from the country concerned represented a market share as high as 51 %.\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nMarket share of Chinese imports\n38,6 %\n45,1 %\n47,2 %\n50,4 %\n51,0 %\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n117\n123\n131\n132\nSource: Calculation.\n(b) Effect of dumped imports on prices\n(67)\nFor the purpose of analysing price undercutting, the import prices of the cooperating Chinese exporting producers were compared with the sampled Union producers\u2019 prices during the IP, on an average to average basis. The sampled Union producers\u2019 prices were adjusted to a net ex-works level, and compared with cif import prices. The latter prices were adjusted for the import duty and post importation costs. Furthermore, due to quality differences between the product concerned imported from the PRC and the like product produced by the Union industry, an additional quality adjustment was made to the Chinese import prices. This adjustment reflects differences in parameters such as machine and cross-machine direction, tensile strength and elongation which were not fully covered as parameters in the product control number.\n(68)\nTaking into account the quality adjustment, the weighted average undercutting margin found, expressed as a percentage of the Union industry\u2019s prices was between 29,5 % and 30,2 % during the IP.\n4. Situation of the Union industry\n(a) Preliminary remarks\n(69)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry.\n(70)\nIt is recalled that as mentioned in recital 7 above, the Commission selected a sample composed of the four largest Union producers in terms of sales and production.\n(71)\nThe indicators referring to macroeconomic data, such as production, capacity, sales volume, market share etc, relate to the whole Union industry (tables below refer to macro data as a source). Remaining indicators are based on verified data from the sampled producers. These indicators are referred to as micro data.\n(72)\nDuring the investigation it was found that a part of the Union industry's sales was channelled through related companies. The companies claimed that these transactions should be treated us unrelated sales as they claimed that the relations between the companies were not direct and that the sales were made at arms-length. However, it is provisionally decided to exclude these transactions from the injury margin calculations and from the indicators of injury as the Commission will continue further analysis on these specific sales. The exception has been made for the related sales between two of the sampled companies for which the resale mechanism was explained and could be verified.\n(b) Injury indicators\nProduction, capacity and capacity utilisation\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nProduction in square meters\n382 225 680\n428 658 047\n457 433 396\n374 603 756\n367 613 247\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n112\n120\n98\n96\nCapacity in square meters\n496 396 987\n510 307 199\n579 029 615\n527 610 924\n548 676 487\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n103\n117\n106\n111\nCapacity utilisation\n77 %\n84 %\n79 %\n71 %\n67 %\nSource: Macro data.\n(73)\nDuring the period considered, the Union industry's production volume decreased by 4 %. In general, the production output followed the trend in consumption i.e. an increase in the years 2006-2008 followed by a sharp decrease in 2009 and again a slight decrease during the IP. Thus, unlike the consumption, the production of the Union industry did not recover in the IP but rather continued to drop.\n(74)\nThe Union industry\u2019s capacity utilisation rate decreased in the period considered by 10 percentage points from 77 % in 2006 to 67 % in the IP. However, it should be noted that it can be partially attributed to the fact that the capacity itself slightly increased as a result of investments of the Union producers.\nStocks\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nClosing stocks in square meters\n14 084 616\n37 105 459\n46 426 609\n45 326 596\n40 164 077\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n263\n330\n322\n285\nSource: Macro data.\n(75)\nThe Union industry's stock level almost tripled during the period considered. This trend coincides with the decreasing volumes of sales and production. Expressed in relation to the production volume the level of stocks increased from less than 4 % in 2006 to above 11 % in the IP.\nSales volume and market share\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nSales volume in square meters\n308 323 107\n332 203 996\n338 119 822\n272 575 708\n274 270 229\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n108\n110\n88\n89\nUnion industry sales market share\n58 %\n52 %\n50 %\n47 %\n46 %\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n89\n87\n81\n80\nSource: Macro data.\n(76)\nThe sales volume of the Union industry decreased during the period considered by 11 % which resulted in the loss of market share of 12 percentage points from 58 % to 46 % of the total Union consumption.\n(77)\nSales prices\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nSales prices in euro\n0,39\n0,42\n0,41\n0,39\n0,38\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n106\n105\n99\n97\nSource: Micro data.\n(78)\nThe average sales price of the Union industry to unrelated parties in the Union decreased by 3 % over the period considered. The Union industry did not decrease its sales prices significantly in order to compete with the dumped imports. This, however, contributed to a loss of significant market share throughout the period considered.\nProfitability\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nAverage pre-tax profit\n6 %\n18 %\n14 %\n10 %\n12 %\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n309\n234\n166\n212\nSource: Micro data.\nInvestments, return on investment, cash flow and the ability to raise capital\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nInvestments (euro)\n1 674 651\n4 727 666\n4 630 523\n4 703 158\n5 049 713\nReturn on net assets\n5 %\n24 %\n16 %\n5 %\n9 %\nCash flow (euro)\n11 176 326\n16 454 101\n15 469 513\n11 883 024\n14 031 017\nSource: Micro data.\n(79)\nAs explained in recital 68 above, over the period considered there was significant price pressure exerted by Chinese imports on the Union market. Nevertheless, the Union industry managed to maintain good financial condition between 2006 and 2007 when profitability increased from 6 % to 18 %. Thereafter it started to decrease and stood at 12 % in the IP. Other financial indicators, such as return on assets and cash flow also remained positive. In other words, the Union industry did not engage in aggressive price competition with the Chinese imports. Instead they chose to engage into a restructuring process, investing in new production technologies to increase the quality of their product and to reduce costs of production in the long term. However, this was at the expense of decreased sales volume and loss of market share to their Chinese competitors. It should be mentioned that the above profit calculation does not take into account the extraordinary restructuring costs reported by some of the sampled producers. Should these costs be taken into account the profitability of the Union industry would be substantially lower. This would consequently adversely affect the other financial indicators listed above.\n(80)\nOver the period considered the Union industry was still able to maintain a high level of investment with the aim of reducing costs of manufacturing and developing a more efficient method of production. Investments in the IP more than tripled in comparison to the figure of the year 2006.\n(81)\nAbility to raise capital was not considered to be an issue by the Union industry during the period considered.\n(82)\nEmployment, productivity and wages\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nEmployment\n1,492\n1,431\n1,492\n1,247\n1,180\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n96\n100\n84\n79\nAverage labour cost per worker (euro)\n14,046\n14,761\n16,423\n15,471\n15,360\nProductivity per worker (square m.)\n237,853\n283,882\n281,761\n277,954\n289,066\nSource: Micro data except Employment - macro data.\n(83)\nThe number of employees of the Union industry involved with the like product decreased significantly during the period considered by 21 %. Despite the high level of remunerations, starting from 2008 the Union industry additionally reduced average labour costs per worker. As a result productivity, expressed in terms of output per worker, increased over the period considered.\n(c) Magnitude of dumping\n(84)\nGiven the volume and the prices of dumped imports from the country concerned the impact on the Union market of the actual margin of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible during the IP.\n5. Conclusion on injury\n(85)\nAs it clearly appears from the above injury analysis, during the period considered the Union industry suffered substantial losses in sales and production volume, in capacity utilisation, market share and in the number of employees, which decreased significantly by 21 % following restructuring efforts by the industry. Therefore the Union industry was not able to take advantage of the growth of the market, which was entirely taken over by the Chinese imports. Indeed, the 48 % increase in the import volume during the period considered was much higher than the 12 % increase in the Union consumption.\n(86)\nIt is considered that a continued significant price undercutting by the Chinese dumped imports of the prices of the Union industry will continue to adversely affect the sales volume and thus inevitably the financial economic situation of the Union industry. In the medium term the profitability and other financial indicators of the European companies are expected to deteriorate.\n(87)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is provisionally established that the Union industry has suffered injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\nE. CAUSATION\n1. Introduction\n(88)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports from the country concerned had caused injury to the Union industry to a degree sufficient to be considered as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time have injured the Union industry, were also examined in order to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n2. Effects of the dumped imports\n(89)\nOver the period considered the volume of dumped imports of the product concerned from the PRC increased by nearly 50 % and gained a substantial market share in the Union market. In parallel there was a direct and comparable deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry being the other significant player on the Union market as imports from other sources are negligible.\n(90)\nThe continuous increase in volume of dumped imports was accompanied by significant undercutting of the prices of the Union industry. Over the period considered the average import price from the PRC derived from Eurostat import statistics was around 50 % lower than the average price of the Union industry. Even after an adjustment for quality differences, the undercutting margins calculated for the Chinese exporting producers granted IT were around 35 % during the IP. It can therefore be reasonably concluded that the dumped imports were responsible for some price depression in 2009 and in the IP but above all, for the significant loss in market share experienced by the Union industry during the period considered.\n(91)\nIn view of the coincidence in time between, on the one hand, the surge of dumped imports at prices undercutting the Union industry\u2019s prices and, on the other hand, the Union industry\u2019s loss of sales and production volume, decrease in market shares, it is provisionally concluded that the dumped imports are causing material injury to the Union industry.\n3. Effects of other factors\n(a) Export performance of the Union industry\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nExport in square metres\n48 288 843\n39 478 526\n43 447 744\n35 884 733\n36 003 755\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n82\n90\n74\n75\nSource: Macro data.\n(92)\nThe export volume of the Union industry decreased by 25 % during the period considered but exports represented on average only about 8 % of total sales. Therefore, the impact of decreased exports on the overall performance of the Union industry was rather limited.\n(b) Imports from third countries\n(93)\nImports from third countries were negligible during the period considered and could not have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(c) Impact of crisis in the construction industry\n(94)\nThe impact of the economic crisis in the construction industry can clearly be seen in the consumption data as from 2009. However, the crisis should have affected both the Union industry and the Chinese exporters in a similar way. However, the injury investigation showed that the Chinese imports continued to gain market share at the expense of the Union industry even during the crisis.\n(95)\nIn addition, the impact of the crisis had certain negative effects on the Union market during a relatively short period as there were signs of recovery already in the IP.\n(96)\nHence, the impact of the crisis did not break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n4. Conclusion on causation\n(97)\nBased in the above, it is provisionally concluded that the material injury to the Union industry was caused by the dumped imports concerned.\n(98)\nA number of factors other than the dumped imports were examined but none of these could explain the serious losses in market share, production and sales volume which occurred in the period considered and in particular during the IP. These losses by the Union industry coincide with the increases in volumes of dumped imports of the product concerned from the PRC.\n(99)\nGiven the above analysis which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all the known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports, it is provisionally concluded that the imports from the PRC have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n1. General remarks\n(100)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation it was examined whether, despite the provisional conclusion on the existence of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed that could lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to adopt provisional anti-dumping measures in this particular case. For this purpose, and in accordance with Article 21(1) of the basic Regulation, the impact of possible measures on all parties involved in this proceeding and also the consequences of not taking measures were considered on the basis of all evidence submitted.\n2. Interest of the Union industry\n(101)\nThe injury analysis has clearly demonstrated that the Union industry has suffered from the dumped imports. The increased presence of dumped imports in recent years caused a suppression of sales in the Union market and a significant loss of market share of the Union industry.\n(102)\nThe investigation has shown that any increase in the market share of the dumped imports from the country concerned has been gained at the direct expense of the Union industry. It should be underlined that product concerned is an important product in terms of the turnover of the sampled Union producers being up to 40 % of their sales turnover. Without the imposition of measures further deterioration of the Union industry's situation appears very likely in view of the long lasting price pressure exerted by the dumped imports from the PRC on the Union market. Moreover the efforts undertaken by the Union industry to restructure and improve the quality of their product would be fully undermined. The imposition of measures will restore the import price to non-injurious levels, allowing the Union industry to compete under fair trade circumstances.\n(103)\nIt is therefore provisionally concluded that imposing measures would clearly be in the interest of the Union industry.\n3. Interest of importers\n(104)\nThe likely impact of measures on importers has been considered in accordance with Article 21(2) of the basic Regulation. In this respect it is noted that four unrelated importers have cooperated in the investigation with total imports of the product concerned accounting for 15 % of imports from the PRC in the IP.\n(105)\nBased on data verified on spot for the biggest of the cooperating importers the impact of measures on this company should not be significant as the product concerned represents only small part of its turnover.\n(106)\nThe company pointed out, however that the Union industry's total production capacity is lower than the current demand which is allegedly expected to grow. The company pointed out also that there are limited sources of supply from third countries. Therefore, it expects disruptions in supplies should the level of duties be too high. In this regard it should be noted that in view of the significant undercutting the proposed level of measures, which takes into account the quality differences between the product concerned imported form the PRC and like product produced by the Union industry, is not expected to eliminate imports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Union.\n4. Interest of users and consumers\n(107)\nQuestionnaires were sent to 13 known users. However, none of them submitted a reply nor decided to cooperate in the procedure. Also no representations were received from consumers\u2019 organisations following the publication of the notice of initiation of this proceeding.\n(108)\nTherefore, in a view of lack of information on the proportion of the product concerned in the cost of production of the downstream products or on the share of sales of downstream products in relation to the total turnover of the users, it is not possible at this stage of the investigation to assess the impact of the measures on these companies. The lack of cooperation, however, can be seen as an indication of a rather limited impact on users.\n5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(109)\nIn the light of the above, it was provisionally concluded that overall, based on the information concerning the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of provisional measures on dumped imports of the product concerned from the PRC.\nG. PROPOSAL FOR PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(110)\nIn view of the conclusions reached above with regard to dumping, resulting injury, causation and Union interest, provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of the product concerned from the PRC should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.\n1. Injury elimination level\n(111)\nThe level of the provisional anti-dumping measures should be sufficient to eliminate the injury to the Union industry caused by the dumped imports, without exceeding the dumping margins found.\n(112)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs and obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports. The pre-tax profit margin used for this calculation was 12 % of turnover. This was the average profit level achieved by the Union industry in the years 2006-2007. Bearing in mind that the profitability for the product concerned was affected by dumped imports it is clear that this level of profit is prudent and not excessive. On the basis mentioned above, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry of the like product. Since the target profit is equal to the actual profit of the Union industry in the IP weighted average ex-works price was taken as a reference.\n(113)\nThe necessary price increase was then determined for each of the cooperating Chinese exporting producer granted IT on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of that company, as established for the undercutting calculations, with the average non-injurious price of products sold by the Union industry on the Union market. The difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the average import cif value.\n(114)\nOn this basis, the provisional injury margins expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:\nCompany\nProvisional injury margin\nYuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co. Ltd\n69,1 %\nGrand Composite Co. Ltd and its related company Ningbo Grand Fiberglass Co. Ltd\n66,8 %\n(115)\nIn line with the method used for the dumping margin calculation, injury margin for cooperating exporting producers in the PRC, not included in the sample was calculated as a weighted average of the two sampled exporting producers granted IT.\n(116)\nFollowing the method of dumping margin calculation, the countrywide injury margin applicable to all other non-cooperating exporting producers in the PRC as well as to the sampled exporting producer that was subject to Article 18 was established by using the highest of the margins found for the two exporting producers granted IT.\n(117)\nOn this basis the provisional sample weighted average injury margin and the countrywide level of injury margin as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid are:\nSample weighted average for the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample\n68,2 %\nResidual for non-cooperating exporting producers and Ningbo Weishan Duo Bao Building Materials Co. Ltd\n69,1 %\n2. Provisional measures\n(118)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in respect of imports originating in the PRC at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(119)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(120)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (3) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(121)\nIn order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the residual duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.\n(122)\nThe dumping and injury margins as well as provisional anti-dumping duties are established as follows:\nCompany\nDumping margin\nInjury margin\nProvisional duty\nYuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co. Ltd\n62,9 %\n69,1 %\n62,9 %\nGrand Composite Co. Ltd and its related company Ningbo Grand Fiberglass Co. Ltd\n48,4 %\n66,8 %\n48,4 %\nSample Weighted Average for the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample\n57,7 %\n68,2 %\n57,7 %\nResidual for non-cooperating exporting producers and Ningbo Weishan Duo Bao Building Materials Co. Ltd\n62,9 %\n69,1 %\n62,9 %\nH. DISCLOSURE\n(123)\nThe above provisional findings will be disclosed to all interested parties which will be invited to make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Their comments will be analysed and taken into consideration where warranted before any definitive determinations are made. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of anti-dumping duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purposes of any definitive findings,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2, currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 40 00, ex 7019 51 00, ex 7019 59 00, ex 7019 90 91 and ex 7019 90 99 (TARIC codes 7019400011, 7019400021, 7019400050, 7019510010, 7019590010, 7019909110 and 7019909950) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies below shall be:\nCompany\nDuty (%)\nTARIC additional code\nYuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co. Ltd\n62,9\nB006\nGrand Composite Co. Ltd and its related company Ningbo Grand Fiberglass Co. Ltd\n48,4\nB007\nCompanies listed in Annex I\n57,7\nB008\nAll other companies\n62,9\nB999\n3. The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in Annex II. If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall apply.\n4. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n5. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Without prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 February 2011.", "references": ["73", "85", "38", "30", "37", "54", "79", "86", "2", "49", "63", "14", "55", "71", "81", "31", "74", "4", "5", "9", "89", "67", "98", "45", "35", "42", "0", "60", "50", "47", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 December 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton 281-24-236x3006-210-23 (DAS-24236-5xDAS-21\u00d823-5) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 9532)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/891/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Article 7(3) and Article 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 June 2005, Dow AgroSciences Europe submitted to the competent authority of the Netherlands an application, in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from 281-24-236x3006-210-23 cotton (\u2018the application\u2019).\n(2)\nThe application also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of 281-24-236x3006-210-23 cotton for the same uses as any other cotton with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with Articles 5(5) and 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.\n(3)\nOn 15 June 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (\u2018EFSA\u2019) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It considered that cotton 281-24-236x3006-210-23 is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment. Therefore it concluded that it is unlikely that the placing on the market of the products containing, consisting of, or produced from 281-24-236x3006-210-23 cotton as described in the application (\u2018the products\u2019) will have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment in the context of their intended uses (3).\n(4)\nIn its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Articles 6(4) and 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(5)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products. However, due to the physical characteristics of cotton seeds and methods of its transportation, EFSA recommended that, within general surveillance, specific measures are introduced to actively monitor the occurrence of feral cotton plants in areas where seed spillage and plant establishment are likely to occur.\n(6)\nIn order to better describe the monitoring requirements and to comply with the EFSA recommendation, the monitoring plan submitted by the applicant has been modified. Specific measures to limit losses and spillage and to eradicate adventitious cotton populations have been introduced.\n(7)\nTaking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products.\n(8)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).\n(9)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from 281-24-236x3006-210-23 cotton. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (5), lays down in Article 4(6) labelling requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs. Traceability requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs are laid down in paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article 4 and for food and feed produced from GMOs are laid down in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(11)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). The EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in point (e) of Article 6(5) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(12)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(13)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing-House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).\n(14)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(15)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chair and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures.\n(16)\nSince, at its meeting on 15 December 2011, the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal and the Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded, these measures are to be adopted by the Commission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) 281-24-236x3006-210-23, as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier DAS-24236-5xDAS-21\u00d823-5, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Article 4(2) and Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from DAS-24236-5xDAS-21\u00d823-5 cotton;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from DAS-24236-5xDAS-21\u00d823-5 cotton;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of DAS-24236-5xDAS-21\u00d823-5 cotton for the same uses as any other cotton with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018cotton\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of DAS-24236-5xDAS-21\u00d823-5 cotton referred to in Article 2(b) and (c).\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nCommunity register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Dow AgroSciences Europe, United Kingdom, representing Mycogen Seeds, United States.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Dow AgroSciences Europe, European Development Centre, 3 Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN, United Kingdom.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2011.", "references": ["1", "48", "27", "53", "59", "9", "98", "8", "34", "67", "97", "81", "11", "96", "16", "40", "33", "75", "44", "55", "45", "4", "83", "64", "85", "84", "92", "28", "21", "93", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1055/2011\nof 20 October 2011\nfixing the export refunds on milk and milk products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in milk and milk products, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that export refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that comply with the requirements of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (2).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2011 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nExport refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation, subject to the conditions provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["65", "85", "18", "43", "10", "25", "73", "2", "62", "47", "48", "17", "53", "57", "76", "98", "45", "66", "49", "82", "27", "79", "55", "28", "93", "84", "90", "11", "29", "86", "No Label", "20", "22", "70"], "gold": ["20", "22", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 333/2010\nof 22 April 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of a new use of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (DSM 15544) as a feed additive for weaned piglets (holder of authorisation Calpis Co. Ltd. Japan, represented in the European Union by Calpis Co. Ltd. Europe Representative Office)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of a new use of the preparation of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (DSM 15544) as a feed additive for weaned piglets, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of that micro-organism preparation has been authorised for chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1444/2006 (2).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for authorisation for weaned piglets. The European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 9 December 2009 (3) that Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (DSM 15544) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment and that the use of that preparation can improve the performance of the animals. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (DSM 15544) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised, as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018gut flora stabilisers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 April 2010.", "references": ["55", "94", "95", "86", "44", "49", "7", "81", "85", "64", "72", "29", "99", "87", "83", "46", "21", "90", "92", "70", "45", "43", "18", "12", "19", "76", "9", "11", "67", "79", "No Label", "25", "61", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 29 March 2012\namending Decision 1999/94/EC on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards precast normal/lightweight/autoclaved aerated concrete products\n(notified under document C(2012) 1977)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/202/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1), and in particular Article 13(4)(a) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee on Construction,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 January 1999, the Commission adopted Decision 1999/94/EC on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards precast normal/lightweight/autoclaved aerated concrete products (2).\n(2)\nAnnex III to Decision 1999/94/EC should be amended in order to adapt the systems of attestation of conformity for beam/block floor units and elements incorporating organic material to technical progress in order to take into account uses subject to regulations on reaction to fire, as a different level of third party intervention should be ensured depending on the processes and materials used in production.\n(3)\nDecision 1999/94/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Decision 1999/94/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 March 2012.", "references": ["32", "77", "69", "78", "24", "22", "40", "39", "68", "9", "99", "30", "51", "98", "47", "82", "0", "15", "33", "58", "85", "13", "12", "94", "54", "6", "89", "70", "49", "7", "No Label", "76", "87"], "gold": ["76", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1138/2010\nof 7 December 2010\namending for the 140th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Articles 7(1)(a) and 7c(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation. By means of Commission Regulation (EC) No 246/2006 (2) Sanabel Relief Agency Limited (Sanabel) was added to Annex I.\n(2)\nOn 29 September 2010 the General Court annulled Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 in so far as it concerned Sanabel (3) holding that the rights of the defence, the right to judicial review and the right to property had not been respected.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of a statement of reasons from the UN Al Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee, the Commission communicated this statement to Sanabel in August 2009. In July 2010 it has communicated a related statement of reasons which it had just received from the Sanctions Committee. Sanabel has submitted its observations on these statements of reasons.\n(4)\nThe list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply, drawn up by the UN Al Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee, currently comprises Sanabel.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 7c(3) of Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, after having carefully considered the observations received from Sanabel, and given the preventive nature of the freezing of funds and economic resources, the Commission considers that the listing of Sanabel is justified for reasons of its association with the Taliban, Usama bin Laden or the Al-Qaida network.\n(6)\nIn view of this, the listing decision concerning Sanabel should be replaced by a new decision confirming its inclusion in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002.\n(7)\nThis new decision should apply from 11 February 2006, given the preventive nature and objectives of the freezing of funds and economic resources under Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 and the need to protect legitimate interests of the economic operators, who have been relying on the decision made in 2006.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Review of Listings under Regulation 881/2002,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 December 2010.\nIt shall apply from 11 February 2006.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2010.", "references": ["19", "88", "50", "90", "98", "62", "8", "9", "55", "96", "76", "61", "64", "41", "33", "25", "4", "16", "21", "74", "27", "60", "71", "0", "72", "99", "15", "6", "32", "87", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 December 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records to the United States Department of Homeland Security\n(2012/471/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 2 December 2010, the Council adopted a decision, together with negotiation directives, authorising the Commission to open negotiations between the Union and the United States of America on the transfer and use of Passenger Name Records (PNR) to prevent and combat terrorism and other serious transnational crime.\n(2)\nThe negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records to the United States Department of Homeland Security, (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(3)\nThe Agreement respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably the right to private and family life, recognised in Article 7 thereof, the right to the protection of personal data, recognised in Article 8 thereof and the right to effective remedy and fair trial recognised in Article 47 thereof. This Agreement should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 21) on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the Position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by the Agreement or subject to its application.\n(6)\nThe Agreement should be signed, subject to its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records to the United States Department of Homeland Security is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe Declaration of the Union on the Agreement in respect of its obligations under Articles 17 and 23 thereof is hereby approved.\nThe text of the Declaration is annexed to this decision.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["19", "0", "2", "71", "18", "31", "55", "63", "30", "5", "10", "14", "28", "98", "84", "86", "37", "92", "85", "47", "76", "62", "6", "70", "26", "59", "24", "75", "91", "45", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "36", "40", "41", "42", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "36", "40", "41", "42", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 588/2012\nof 3 July 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Kalocsai f\u0171szerpaprika-\u0151rlem\u00e9ny (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and having regard to Article 17(2) thereof, Hungary's application to register the name \u2018Kalocsai f\u0171szerpaprika-\u0151rlem\u00e9ny\u2027 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 July 2012.", "references": ["8", "14", "84", "73", "13", "29", "48", "82", "34", "81", "44", "12", "30", "83", "93", "26", "19", "4", "11", "92", "89", "15", "18", "10", "0", "9", "41", "90", "56", "37", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 25 June 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement\n(2012/364/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 43(2), 114(1) and 207(2), in conjunction with 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement on the European Economic Area (\u2018EEA Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products (3) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(3)\nDecision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products (4) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(4)\nDecision No 768/2008/EC sets out common principles and reference provisions for future legislation harmonising the conditions for the marketing of products and a reference text for existing legislation.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 764/2008 repeals Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1995 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community (5) which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement. The EEA Agreement should therefore be amended to take account of Regulation (EC) No 764/2008.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 765/2008 repeals Council Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 of 8 February 1993 on checks for conformity with the rules on product safety in the case of products imported from third countries (6) which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement. The EEA Agreement should therefore be amended to take account of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.\n(7)\nDecision No 768/2008/EC repeals Council Decision 93/465/EEC of 22 July 1993 concerning the modules for the various phases of the conformity assessment procedures and the rules for the affixing and use of the CE conformity marking, which are intended to be used in the technical harmonization directives (7) which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement. The EEA Agreement should therefore be amended to take account of Decision No 768/2008/EC.\n(8)\nAnnex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should therefore be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["20", "12", "28", "18", "41", "47", "46", "2", "60", "75", "5", "95", "93", "6", "55", "37", "50", "73", "29", "62", "39", "16", "54", "74", "17", "31", "65", "58", "63", "8", "No Label", "3", "9", "23", "25", "76"], "gold": ["3", "9", "23", "25", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/14/EU\nof 24 February 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include profoxydim as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC Spain received on 2 April 1998 an application from BASF SE for the inclusion of the active substance profoxydim in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 1999/43/EC (2) confirmed that the dossier was \u2018complete\u2019 in the sense that it could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annexes II and III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(2)\nFor that active substance, the effects on human and animal health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicant. The designated rapporteur Member State submitted a draft assessment report on 28 March 2001.\n(3)\nFor profoxydim the draft assessment report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. The review was finalised on 23 November 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for profoxydim.\n(4)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing profoxydim may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) and Article 5(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include profoxydim in Annex I to that Directive, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance may be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(5)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing provisional authorisations of plant protection products containing profoxydim to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should transform existing provisional authorisations into full authorisations, amend them or withdraw them in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(6)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31 January 2012 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 February 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing profoxydim as active substance by 31 January 2012. By that date, they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to profoxydim are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the entry concerning the active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(2) of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing profoxydim as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 July 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account Part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning profoxydim. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing profoxydim as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 January 2013 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing profoxydim as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 January 2013 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective directive or directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 August 2011.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2011.", "references": ["92", "2", "9", "48", "8", "40", "96", "14", "78", "71", "35", "37", "80", "11", "66", "41", "5", "52", "60", "22", "89", "53", "15", "26", "77", "99", "6", "13", "31", "46", "No Label", "25", "38", "61"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 667/2012\nof 20 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2012.", "references": ["85", "14", "12", "19", "99", "65", "95", "55", "38", "32", "48", "36", "5", "67", "25", "58", "98", "70", "17", "39", "9", "6", "40", "60", "21", "33", "30", "54", "66", "45", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 100/2012\nof 3 February 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 on the list of aircraft operators that performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on or after 1 January 2006 specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator also taking into consideration the expansion of the Union emission trading scheme to EEA-EFTA countries\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Article 18a(3)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) amended Directive 2003/87/EC to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 (3) establishes a list of aircraft operators which had performed an aviation activity within the meaning of Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC on or after 1 January 2006.\n(3)\nThe list aims to reduce the administrative burden on aircraft operators by providing information on which Member State will be regulating a particular aircraft operator.\n(4)\nThe inclusion in the Union's emissions trading scheme is dependent upon the performance of an aviation activity as set out in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC and is not dependent on the inclusion in the list of aircraft operators established by the Commission on the basis of Article 18a (3) of that Directive.\n(5)\nDirective 2008/101/EC was incorporated into the Agreement on the European Economic Area by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 6/2011 of 1 April 2011, amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement (4).\n(6)\nThe extension of the aviation provisions of the Union emission trading scheme to EEA-EFTA countries implies that the criteria set under Article 18a (1) of Directive 2003/87/EC to determine aircraft operator's administering Member State must be continuously taken into account, thus, certain aircraft operators should be allocated to the EEA-EFTA countries for administration.\n(7)\nIn establishing the updated list of the aircraft operators, the Commission has taken account of the fleet list declarations provided to it by operators and service companies. However, a number of management or service companies and aircraft registration markings appear in the updated list due to a lack of information provided.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 748/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No. 748/2009 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2012.", "references": ["68", "97", "1", "25", "31", "20", "39", "65", "63", "45", "93", "51", "47", "44", "41", "6", "16", "19", "76", "46", "71", "77", "29", "34", "42", "15", "69", "49", "92", "67", "No Label", "9", "57", "58", "60", "96"], "gold": ["9", "57", "58", "60", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1242/2011\nof 30 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["64", "84", "77", "75", "37", "63", "39", "93", "18", "40", "34", "73", "15", "85", "23", "32", "12", "19", "5", "3", "17", "31", "60", "79", "25", "42", "56", "30", "24", "2", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 670/2011\nof 12 July 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 on the common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular points (k), (l) and (m) of the first paragraph of Article 121 and Article 203b, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 of 31 August 2009 laying down detailed rules for the Member States\u2019 notification to the Commission of information and documents in implementation of the common organisation of the markets, the direct payments regime, the promotion of agricultural products and the regimes applicable to the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean islands (2) lays down common rules for notifying information and documents by the competent authorities of the Member States to the Commission. Those rules cover in particular the obligation for the Member States to use the information systems made available by the Commission and the validation of the access rights of the authorities or individuals authorised to send notifications. In addition, that Regulation sets common principles applying to the information systems so that they guarantee the authenticity, integrity and legibility over time of the documents and provides for personal data protection.\n(2)\nThe Commission has developed, in its own internal working procedures and in its relations with the authorities involved in the management of protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional terms, in accordance with Section Ia of Chapter I of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, an information system allowing the management by electronic means of the documents and procedures required under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products (3), both with the competent authorities in Member States and third countries and with the trade organisations and natural or legal persons that have an interest in the framework of this Regulation.\n(3)\nIt is considered that this system, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 or by applying mutatis mutandis the principles that it sets out, enables certain communications provided for by Regulation (EC) No 607/2009, in particular as regards procedures applicable to the protection of geographical indications, designations of origin and traditional terms, the maintenance of the database of the designations concerned and the registers foreseen for the protection of these designations.\n(4)\nFurthermore, the information systems that have already been put in place operationally by the Commission for communicating information regarding the authorities and bodies responsible for the controls to be carried out under the common agricultural policy allow the specific objectives in this area to be met as regards geographical indications, designations of origin and traditional terms. These systems should be made applicable for the communication of information concerning the authorities responsible for examining applications for the protection of designations at the level of Member States or third countries, as well as for the communication of information concerning the authorities responsible for certifying wines that do not have a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication.\n(5)\nIn the interests of effective administrative management and taking account of the experience acquired through the use of information systems put in place by the Commission, communications should be simplified and the way in which information is managed and made available should be improved under Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009. To this end, with a view to giving the competent authorities of the Member States the means of becoming familiar with the legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions, introduced at national level in accordance with Articles 118z(2) and 120a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and to simplifying and facilitating the controls and the cooperation between Member States, provided for by Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 (4), Member States should be asked to communicate to the Commission certain information that is of specific interest for the certification of products, with a view to the Commission\u2019s making this information available to the competent authorities and to the public, where this information is useful for the consumer.\n(6)\nFurthermore, it is appropriate, in the interests of clarity and reducing the administrative burden, to determine the content of certain communications provided for by Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 and to simplify the procedures.\n(7)\nThe transitional measures adopted in order to facilitate the transition from the provisions of Council Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999 (5) and (EC) No 479/2008 (6) to those of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 present difficulties of interpretation as regards the scope and duration of the applicable procedures. Moreover the scope of the provisions of Article 118s of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, taken together with those of Article 118q, as regards the nature of the amendments covered, the reference periods and the duration of the transitional period should be made more precise.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 607/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 607/2009 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\nApplication for protection\nAn application for the protection of a designation of origin or of a geographical indication shall comprise the documents required in Articles 118c and 118d of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the product specification and the single document.\nThe application and the single document shall be communicated to the Commission in accordance with Article 70a(1) of this Regulation.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 9 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 9\nFiling of the application\n1. The date of submission of an application to the Commission shall be the date on which the application is received by the Commission.\n2. The Commission shall confirm receipt of the application to the competent authorities of the Member State or those of the third country or the applicant established in the third country in question and shall attribute a file number to the application.\nThe confirmation of receipt shall include at least the following:\n(a)\nthe file number;\n(b)\nthe name to be registered;\n(c)\nthe date of receipt of the request.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\nAdmissibility of the application\n1. An application shall be admissible when the single document is duly completed and the supporting documents are enclosed. The single document shall be considered to be duly completed when all the mandatory fields, as presented in the information systems referred to in Article 70a, have been filled in.\nIn this case, the application shall be considered admissible on the date on which it is received by the Commission. The applicant shall be informed.\nThis date shall be made known to the public.\n2. If the application has not been completed or has been partially completed, or if the supporting documents referred to in paragraph 1 have not been submitted at the same time as the application or some are missing, the application shall be inadmissible.\n3. Where the application is inadmissible, the competent authorities of the Member State or those of the third country or the applicant established in the third country in question shall be informed of the reasons for its inadmissibility and that they are entitled to submit another application duly completed.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 12(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. If an admissible application does not meet the requirements laid down in Articles 118b and 118c of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the Commission shall inform the Member State or authorities of the third country or the applicant established in the third country in question of the grounds for refusal, setting a deadline of at least 2 months for the withdrawal or amendment of the application or for the submission of comments.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 14 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 14\nSubmission of objections under Community procedure\n1. The objections referred to in Article 118h of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be communicated in accordance with Article 70a(1) of this Regulation. The date of submission of an objection to the Commission shall be the date on which the objection is received by the Commission. This date shall be made known to the authorities and persons concerned by the present Regulation.\n2. The Commission shall confirm receipt of the objection and assign a file number to the objection.\nThe confirmation of receipt shall include at least the following:\n(a)\nthe file number;\n(b)\nthe date of receipt of the objection.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 18 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 18\nRegister\n1. A \u201cregister of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications\u201d, hereinafter \u201cthe Register\u201d, is established and kept updated by the Commission in accordance with Article 118n of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. It is established in the electronic database \u201cE-Bacchus\u201d on the basis of the decisions granting protection to the designations in question.\n2. A designation of origin or geographical indication that has been accepted shall be recorded in the Register.\nIn the case of names registered under Article 118s(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the Commission shall enter in the Register the data provided for in paragraph 3 of this Article.\n3. The Commission shall enter the following data in the Register:\n(a)\nthe protected designation;\n(b)\nthe file number;\n(c)\na record of the fact that the name is protected as either a geographical indication or designation of origin;\n(d)\nthe name of the country or countries of origin;\n(e)\nthe date of registration;\n(f)\nthe reference to the legal instrument protecting the name;\n(g)\nthe reference to the single document.\n4. The register shall be made available to the public.\u2019;\n(7)\nparagraphs 1, 2 and 3 in Article 20 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. An application for approval of amendments to the product specification submitted by an applicant as referred to in Article 118e of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of a protected designation of origin or geographical indication shall be communicated in accordance with Article 70a(1) of this Regulation.\n2. An application for the approval of the amendment of a product specification under Article 118q(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be admissible if the information required under Article 118c(2) of that Regulation and the request duly drawn up have been communicated to the Commission.\n3. For the purposes of applying the first sentence of Article 118q(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Articles 9 to 18 of this Regulation shall apply mutatis mutandis.\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 21 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 21\nSubmission of a request for cancellation\n1. A request for cancellation submitted in accordance with Article 118r of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be communicated in accordance with Article 70a(1) of this Regulation. The date of submission of request for cancellation to the Commission shall be the date on which the request is received by the Commission. This date shall be made known to the public.\n2. The Commission shall confirm receipt of the request and assign a file number to the request.\nThe confirmation of receipt shall include at least the following:\n(a)\nthe file number;\n(b)\nthe date of receipt of the request.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply when the cancellation is initiated by the Commission.\u2019;\n(9)\nthe following paragraph 5 is added to Article 22:\n\u20185. The communications to the Commission referred to in paragraph 3 shall be carried out in accordance with Article 70a(1).\u2019;\n(10)\nat Article 23(1), the following third subparagraph shall be added:\n\u2018The communications to the Commission referred to in the first and second subparagraphs shall be carried out in accordance with Article 70a(1).\u2019;\n(11)\nat Article 28(1), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The application shall be communicated in accordance with Article 70a(1). The date of submission of an application for conversion to the Commission shall be the date on which the application is received by the Commission.\u2019;\n(12)\nArticle 30 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 30\nApplication for protection\n1. The application for protection of a traditional term shall be communicated by the competent authorities of the Member States or those of the third countries or by the representative trade organisations in accordance with Article 70a(1). The application shall be accompanied by the legislation of the Member States or rules applicable to wine producers in third countries governing the use of the term in question and the reference to that legislation or those rules.\n2. In the case of a request submitted by a representative trade organisation established in a third country, the applicant shall communicate to the Commission the information regarding the representative trade organisation and its members, in accordance with Article 70a(1). The Commission shall make this information public.\u2019;\n(13)\nArticle 33 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 33\nFiling of the application\n1. The date of submission of an application to the Commission shall be the date on which the application is received by the Commission.\n2. The Commission shall confirm receipt of the application to the authorities of the Member State or of the third country or the applicant established in the third country in question and shall attribute a file number to the application.\nThe confirmation of receipt shall include at least the following:\n(a)\nthe file number;\n(b)\nthe traditional term;\n(c)\nthe date of receipt of the request.\u2019;\n(14)\nArticle 34 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 34\nAdmissibility\n1. An application shall be admissible where the application form is duly filled in and the documents required in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 are enclosed with the application. The application form shall be considered to be duly filled in when all the mandatory fields, as presented in the information systems referred to in Article 70a, have been filled in.\nIn this case, the application shall be considered admissible on the date on which it is received by the Commission. The applicant shall be informed.\nThis date shall be made known to the public.\n2. If the form has not been completed or has only been partially completed, or if the documents referred to in paragraph 1 were not submitted at the same time as the application or some are missing, the application shall be inadmissible.\n3. Where the application is inadmissible, the authorities of the Member State or those of the third country or the applicant established in the third country in question shall be informed of the reasons for its inadmissibility and that they are entitled to submit another application duly completed.\u2019;\n(15)\nArticle 37(2) and (3) are replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The objection shall be communicated in accordance with Article 70a(1). The date of submission of an objection to the Commission shall be the date on which the application is received by the Commission.\n3. The Commission shall confirm receipt of the objection and assign a file number to the objection.\nThe confirmation of receipt shall include at least the following:\n(a)\nthe file number;\n(b)\nthe date of receipt of the objection.\u2019;\n(16)\nArticle 40 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 40\nGeneral protection\n1. If a traditional term for which protection is requested meets the conditions set out in Article 118u(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and in Articles 31 and 35 of this Regulation and is not rejected by virtue of Articles 36, 38 and 39 of this Regulation, the traditional term is listed and defined in the \u2018E-Bacchus\u2019 database, in accordance with Article 118u(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on the basis of the information communicated to the Commission in accordance with Article 70a(1) of this Regulation, mentioning the following:\n(a)\nthe language referred to in Article 31(1);\n(b)\nthe grapevine product category or categories concerned by the protection;\n(c)\na reference to the national legislation of the Member State or third country in which the traditional term is defined and regulated, or to the rules applicable to wine producers in the third country, including those originating from representative trade organisations, in the absence of national legislation in those third countries;\n(d)\na summary of the definition or conditions of use;\n(e)\nthe name of the country or countries of origin;\n(f)\nthe date of inclusion in the electronic database \u201cE-Bacchus\u201d.\n2. The traditional terms listed in the electronic database \u201cE-Bacchus\u201d, shall be protected only in the language and for the categories of grape vine products claimed in the application, against:\n(a)\nany misuse even if the protected term is accompanied by an expression such as \u201cstyle\u201d, \u201ctype\u201d, \u201cmethod\u201d, \u201cas produced in\u201d, \u201cimitation\u201d, \u201cflavour\u201d, \u201clike\u201d or similar;\n(b)\nany other false or misleading indication as to the nature, characteristics or essential qualities of the product, on the inner or outer packaging, advertising material or documents relating to it;\n(c)\nany other practice liable to mislead the consumer, in particular to give the impression that the wine qualifies for the protected traditional term.\n3. The traditional terms listed in the electronic database \u201cE-Bacchus\u201d shall be made known to the public.\u2019;\n(17)\nat Article 42(1), the third subparagraph shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018The use of a protected homonymous term shall be subject to there being a sufficient distinction in practice between the homonym protected subsequently and the traditional term listed in the electronic database \u201cE-Bacchus\u201d, having regard to the need to treat the producers concerned in an equitable manner and not to mislead the consumer.\u2019;\n(18)\nArticle 45 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 45\nSubmission of a request for cancellation\n1. A duly substantiated request for cancellation may be communicated to the Commission by a Member State, a third country or a natural or legal person having a legitimate interest in accordance with Article 70a(1). The date of submission of a request to the Commission shall be the date on which the request is received by the Commission. This date shall be made known to the public.\n2. The Commission shall confirm receipt of the request and assign a file number to the request.\nThe confirmation of receipt shall include at least the following:\n(a)\nthe file number;\n(b)\nthe date of receipt of the request.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply when the cancellation is initiated by the Commission.\u2019;\n(19)\nin Article 47, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. When a cancellation takes effect, the Commission shall remove the name concerned from the list set out in the electronic database \u201cE-Bacchus\u201d.\u2019;\n(20)\nin Article 63, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall designate the competent authority or authorities responsible for ensuring certification as provided for in Article 118z(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7).\nEach Member State shall communicate to the Commission the following details before 1 October 2011, as well as any amendments to those details in accordance with Article 70a(1) of this Regulation:\n(a)\nthe name, address and contact points, including e-mail addresses, of the authority or authorities responsible for the application of this Article;\n(b)\nwhere applicable, the name, address and contact points, including e-mail addresses, of all the bodies authorised by an authority for the application of this Article;\n(c)\nthe measures they have taken to implement this Article, where those measures are of specific value for the purposes of cooperation between Member States as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 555/2008;\n(d)\nthe wine grape varieties concerned by the application of Articles 118z(2) and 120a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nThe Commission shall draw up and keep up-to-date a list containing the names and addresses of the competent authorities and authorised bodies, as well as the authorised wine grape varieties, based on information communicated by the Member States. The Commission shall make this list known to the public.\n(21)\nin Chapter V, the new Articles 70a and 70b are inserted as follows:\n\u2018Article 70a\nMethod applicable to communications between the Commission, the Member States, third countries and other operators\n1. As regards the present paragraph, the documents and information required for the implementation of this Regulation shall be communicated to the Commission in accordance with the following method:\n(a)\nfor the competent authorities of Member States, through the intermediary of the information system made available to them by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 792/2009;\n(b)\nfor the competent authorities and representative trade organisations of third countries, as well as natural or legal persons who have a legitimate interest under this Regulation, through electronic means, using the methods and forms made available to them by the Commission and made accessible under the conditions specified in Annex XVIII to this Regulation.\nHowever, paper-based communication is also possible, using those forms.\nThe filing of an application and the content of the communications is a matter for the competent authorities designated by the third countries, or the representative trade organisations, or the legal or natural persons that are involved, as the case may be.\n2. Information shall be communicated and made available by the Commission to the authorities and persons affected by this Regulation and, where applicable, to the public, through the information systems put in place by the Commission.\nThe authorities and persons affected by this Regulation may contact the Commission, in accordance with Annex XIX, in order to obtain information on the practicalities of accessing the information systems, of communication and of making information available.\n3. Article 5(2) and Articles 6, 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 apply mutatis mutandis to the communication and making available of information, referred to in paragraph 1(b) and paragraph 2 of this Article.\n4. As regards the implementation of paragraph 1(b), the rights to access the information systems for the competent authorities and the representative trade organisations of third countries, as well as for natural or legal persons who have a legitimate interest under this Regulation, shall be assigned by those responsible for the information systems in the Commission.\nThose who are responsible for the information systems in the Commission shall approve access rights, as appropriate, on the basis of:\n(a)\ninformation regarding the competent authorities designated by the third country with their contact points and e-mail addresses, held by the Commission under international agreements or communicated to the Commission in accordance with these agreements;\n(b)\nan official request from a third country specifying information regarding the authorities responsible for the communication of the documents and information required for the implementation of paragraph 1(b), as well as the contact points and e-mail addresses of the authorities concerned;\n(c)\na request from a representative trade organisation in a third country or a legal or natural person, with proof of identity, evidence of its legitimate interest and an e-mail address.\nAfter access rights have been approved, they shall be activated by those responsible for the information systems in the Commission.\nArticle 70b\nCommunication and provision of information regarding the authorities responsible for examining applications at national level\n1. Member States shall communicate to the Commission before 1 October 2011, in accordance with Article 70a(1), the name, address and contact points, including e-mail addresses of the authorities responsible for the implementation of Article 118f(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as well as any changes to these details.\n2. The Commission shall draw up and maintain a list containing the names and addresses of the competent authorities of the Member States or third countries on the basis of information communicated by the Member States in accordance with paragraph 1 or by third countries in accordance with international agreements concluded with the EU. The Commission shall make this list known to the public.\u2019;\n(22)\nArticle 71(1) and (2) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 71\nWine names protected under Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999\n1. The documents referred to in Article 118s(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, hereinafter \u201cthe file\u201d and the amendments to a product specification referred to in Article 73(1)(c) and (d) and 73(2) of this Regulation, shall be sent by the Member States in accordance with Article 70a(1) of this Regulation in accordance with the following rules and procedures:\n(a)\nthe Commission shall confirm receipt of the file or of the amendment, as indicated in Article 9 of this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe file or amendment shall be considered as admissible on the date on which it is received by the Commission, under the conditions set out in Article 11 of this Regulation and provided that they are received by the Commission at the latest on 31 December 2011;\n(c)\nthe Commission shall confirm the registration of the designation of origin or the geographical indication in question in the register in accordance with Article 18 of this Regulation, with any amendments, and assigns it a file number;\n(d)\nthe Commission shall examine the validity of the application file, taking account where applicable of the amendments received, in accordance with the time-limit laid down in Article 12(1) of this Regulation.\n2. The Commission may decide to withdraw the designation of origin or geographical indication concerned in accordance with Article 118s(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on the basis of the documents available to it under Article 118s(2) of that Regulation.\u2019;\n(23)\nArticle 73 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 73\nTransitional provisions\n1. The procedure set out in Article 118s of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall apply in the following cases:\n(a)\nfor any wine designation submitted to a Member State as a designation of origin or geographical indication and approved by that Member State before 1 August 2009;\n(b)\nfor any wine designation submitted to a Member State as a designation of origin or geographical indication before 1 August 2009, and approved by that Member State before 31 December 2011;\n(c)\nfor any modification to the product specification submitted to a Member State before 1 August 2009 and sent to the Commission by that Member State before 31 December 2011;\n(d)\nfor any minor modification to the product specification submitted to a Member State on or after 1 August 2009 and sent to the Commission by that Member State before 31 December 2011.\n2. The procedure set out in Article 118q of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 does not apply to amendments to a product specification submitted to a Member State on or after 1 August 2009 and sent to the Commission by that Member State before 30 June 2014, where these amendments are concerned exclusively with bringing the product specification sent to the Commission under Article 118s(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 into compliance with Article 118c of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of this Regulation.\n3. Wines placed on the market or labelled before 31 December 2010 that comply with the relevant provisions applicable before 1 August 2009 may be marketed until stocks are exhausted.\u2019;\n(24)\nAnnexes I to IX, XI and XII are deleted;\n(25)\nAnnexes XVIII and XIX are replaced by the texts set out in Annexes I and II hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nHowever, Article 1 point 20 of this Regulation concerning Article 63(1) of Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 as well as Article 1 point 21 of this Regulation as regards Article 70b of Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 shall apply from 1 September 2011.\nCommunications made by the competent authorities of Member States on a voluntary basis, via the information systems put in place by the Commission, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 as amended by Article 1 of this Regulation between 1 June 2011 and the date of entry into force of this Regulation shall be considered as having been made in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 prior to its amendment by this Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["64", "56", "5", "41", "7", "31", "96", "54", "3", "10", "67", "98", "80", "89", "82", "51", "53", "57", "19", "85", "95", "63", "88", "20", "40", "61", "14", "4", "1", "81", "No Label", "23", "24", "25", "71"], "gold": ["23", "24", "25", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 April 2011\non measure C 37/04 (ex NN 51/04), implemented by Finland for Componenta Oyj\n(notified under document C(2011) 2559)\n(Only the Finnish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/529/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision(s) cited above (1),\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 10 March 2004, the Commission received a complaint from Metalls Verkstadsklubb vid Componenta Alvesta AB in which the complainant informed the Commission of an alleged aid measure implemented by the city of Karkkila (hereinafter \u2018Karkkila\u2019) for Componenta Corporation Oyj (hereinafter \u2018Componenta\u2019). By letter dated 19 November 2004, the Commission informed Finland that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) in respect of the aid. The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure but did not receive any such comments.\n(2)\nOn 20 October 2005, the Commission adopted a final negative decision and ordered Finland to recover the aid from Componenta (\u2018the 2005 Decision\u2019). The 2005 Decision closing the formal investigation procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). Componenta launched an appeal against the Decision, which was annulled by judgment of 18 December 2008 (\u2018the judgment\u2019) for failure to provide adequate grounds (4).\n(3)\nFinland submitted observations by letters dated 5 January and 10 January 2010, which also included two studies on the valuation of the real estate concerned. The Commission sent three further requests for information dated 9 January 2009, 23 July 2009 and 8 January 2010, which were answered by letters registered on 9 March 2009, 15 October 2009 and 5 March 2010 respectively. A meeting between the Commission, and representatives of the Finnish government and the beneficiary was held in Brussels on 23 November 2009.\nII. DESCRIPTION OF THE FACTS\n1. Transaction\n(4)\nComponenta is a metal manufacturing company based in Karkkila, Finland. It has production plants in Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. Most of the company\u2019s EUR 316 million turnover in 2004 was generated in the Nordic countries and central Europe. The group employed some 2 200 people in 2004.\n(5)\nThe transaction under assessment concerns the real estate company, Karkkilan Keskustakiinteist\u00f6t Oy (hereinafter \u2018KK\u2019), which owned real estate in Karkkila, located some 65 km north west of Helsinki. KK was jointly owned (50/50) by Componenta and Karkkila. In 1996 each joint venture partner had granted KK an interest-free shareholder loan of EUR 1 670 184.\n(6)\nUnder the sales contract signed on 16 December 2003, it was agreed that the city would acquire full ownership of KK by acquiring the shares held by Componenta for a total price of EUR 2 383 276,50 million. The transaction comprised two parts:\n-\nComponenta received EUR 713 092,50 as payment for the 50 % of shares sold to Karkkila,\n-\nKK paid back to Componenta the EUR 1 670 184 shareholder loan which Componenta had granted it in 1996. For that purpose, Karkkila granted KK a further interest-free loan for the same amount. This resulted in a change of creditor from Componenta to the city of Karkkila.\n(7)\nKarkkila therefore mobilised the sum of EUR 2 383 276,50 for the above transaction: EUR 713 092,50 as payment for KK\u2019s shares and EUR 1 670 184 as an interest-free loan granted to KK.\n(8)\nThe purchase price for the shares was calculated by reference to the standard prices at which Karkkila sold real estate in 2003.\nTable 1\nSales prices per m2 for the plots sold by KK\n(in EUR)\nZone 1\nDetached houses\n11,11\nTerraced houses\n88,81\nTower blocks\n79,56\nZone 2\nDetached houses\n10,19\nTerraced houses\n74,02\nTower blocks\n64,76\nOther\nRaw land outside town planning\n1,18\nLand earmarked for public parks\n1,18\n(9)\nThese standard prices were applied to the real estate in KK\u2019s land portfolio at the time of the transaction and divided by two, which resulted in the share purchase price of EUR 713 092,50.\n(10)\nThe sales contract between Karkkila and Componenta furthermore stated the following:\n(a)\nthe seller agrees to invest in the extension of Componenta Karkkila Oy\u2019s production facilities in the city of Karkkila as specified in Annex 1 to this contract. It is estimated that the investment will create 50-70 new full-time jobs in Karkkila in 2004 (in 2003 the number of jobs was 130);\n(b)\nif the extension of the seller\u2019s facilities is not commenced in 2004 as specified in the above paragraph, the buyer has the right to cancel the transaction at its own discretion.\n(11)\nAnnex 1 to the sales contract stated that Componenta would merge the operations of two of the Group\u2019s production sites, namely the Alvesta (located in Sweden) and Karkkila foundries, and that the decision on the future location of the foundry would depend on the outcome of an analysis. In 2005, the Alvesta foundry was closed and production was transferred to Karkkila.\n(12)\nAfter having taken over Componenta\u2019s shares in KK, Karkkila decided to terminate KK\u2019s activities and transfer the land to the city.\n2. KK\u2019s assets\n(13)\nKarkkila is located some 65 kilometres north-west of Helsinki along highway No 2, in the north-eastern part of Uusimaa Province. Karkkila had some 8 500 inhabitants in 2003. The city developed around the H\u00f6gfors blast furnace founded in the 19th century and its northern area extends along the shores of a lake.\n(14)\nThe real estate owned by KK covered 730 000 m2 of land in Karkkila and its immediate surroundings, no more than 2,5 km from the town centre. In December 2003, the situation was as follows:\n-\nthe highest value land is located in the Asemanranta area (zone 1) and earmarked for tower blocks. This area accounts for roughly half the value of KK\u2019s portfolio,\n-\nmost of the land is located in the Haapala/Uusitalo area (zone 2). It is earmarked for detached family houses and represents about a quarter of the total value of the portfolio,\n-\nthe portfolio also contains a few plots for detached houses in other residential areas, some land earmarked for tower blocks in the Takko I area and a few terraced houses,\n-\npart of the land is earmarked for public park areas,\n-\nthe portfolio also includes some raw land outside town planning.\n(15)\nIn total, the real estate comprises about 160 plots of land. Karkkila intended, however, to reshape some of the land and subdivide it into smaller plots. KK was by far the biggest real estate owner in Karkkila at the time of the transaction.\n(16)\nAfter acquiring full ownership, Karkkila intended to lease out some of the land to cover operating expenses. KK\u2019s operating expenses (salary, rent, interests on loans) in 2000-2003 were at most EUR 40 000.\n3. Further relevant information\n(17)\nKarkkila is located within commuting distance of Helsinki. Real estate in Helsinki and the surrounding areas has become very expensive and prices are still rising. This price pressure has led people to settle in municipalities surrounding the capital, which has had a knock-on effect on real estate prices there. Karkkila can be considered a possible alternative location, together with three other towns: Vihti, Lohja and Hyvink\u00e4\u00e4. Distances from Helsinki are as follows:\nTable 2\nDistances from Helsinki\nLohja\n52 km\n38 min\nHyvink\u00e4\u00e4\n56 km\n45 min\nVihti\n58 km\n42 min\nKarkkila\n68 km\n50 min\n(18)\nThese municipalities have attracted considerable numbers of new residents. As a consequence, real estate prices rose significantly before (and after) the transaction, with prices doubling in Karkkila, and in some instances increasing sixfold.\n(19)\nAccording to official forecasts published in 2000, the population of Karkkila was expected to rise to 9 600 inhabitants by 2025, which would mean housing needs of 600 new homes. These forecasts were soon seen to lag far behind the actual population increase. Three years later, at the time of the transaction, Karkkila\u2019s expected housing needs were about 70 new homes per year, which was confirmed in a study by the Uusimaa Regional Council shortly afterwards, covering the period up to 2025. (In practice, 63 new homes were built in 2005, 137 in 2006 and 95 in 2007).\n(20)\nDuring the five years preceding the transaction, real estate prices in Karkkila had increased on average by 30 %.\nIII. COMMENTS FROM FINLAND\n(21)\nFinland submitted three ex-post expert studies on valuing the land. They concluded that the price paid corresponded to the market price. The Commission broadly rejected the study (Study A) submitted during the first investigation procedure in its initial 2005 Decision (5). After the adoption of the 2005 Decision, Finland commissioned two further expert studies. The first of these (Study B) contains only a general statement that the valuation of the land was correct without entering into details. The second study, the KP & P report, (Study C) analyses the real estate situation in Karkkila and the surrounding municipalities in more detail.\n(22)\nFinland argues that Karkkila acquired full ownership of the shares because it was a medium- to long-term, low-risk investment. Considering the constant rise in real estate prices in the neighbouring municipalities, Karkkila\u2019s forecast population increase, saturation of existing neighbourhoods and the need for expansion, Karkkila City Council considered that purchasing full ownership of KK would be profitable.\n(23)\nFinland also explained that the possibility of speeding up procedures was another practical reason for obtaining sole ownership. Finland hinted on several occasions that cooperation between Karkkila and Componenta was not ideal because of their diverging commercial interests. Both partners agreed to terminate the joint venture in order to avoid deadlock on many decisions. In particular, a large number of decisions had to be taken in the Haapala/Uusitalo area on re-splitting plots to facilitate development of the area. Since real estate activities were not Componenta\u2019s core business, it was in its interests to cease this branch of activity, whereas it was in Karkkila\u2019s interests to be able to steer land development completely independently.\n(24)\nFinland explained why a comparison with Vihti, Lohja and Hyvink\u00e4\u00e4 was pertinent. Finland underlined, inter alia, that there was no passenger rail link to Vihti and Lohja, which would allow commuters to travel easily between these municipalities and Helsinki.\n(25)\nFinland contends that the Commission\u2019s calculation of the amount of aid in the 2005 decision was distorted because the shareholder loan was taken into account twice. The loan was deducted from the value of the company for the calculation of the value of 50 % of the shares and taken into account as repayment to Componenta. Finland therefore argues that the price of the shares (EUR 713 092,50) already includes the loan because that amount was calculated on the basis of KK\u2019s net worth.\nIV. ASSESSMENT\n(26)\nAccording to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the common market. The Court of Justice of the European Union has consistently held that the criterion of trade being affected is met if the recipient firm carries out an economic activity involving trade between Member States.\n(27)\nOther companies in the internal market also manufacture the same products as Componenta and they are intensively traded between Member States. For the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, state resources include local authority resources (6). Thus the transaction in question, which was financed with Karkkila\u2019s resources, involves state resources within the meaning of Article 107(1). Therefore, any advantage granted to Componenta in the context of the transaction which Componenta would not have received in normal market conditions would fall within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. It follows that the main question in the case at hand is whether Componenta received a level of payment that it would not have obtained under normal market conditions.\n(28)\nThe Commission notes that the redemption clause in the sales contract concluded between Componenta and Karkkila can be seen as an indication that the purchase conditions offered by Karkkila were intended to encourage Componenta to keep its production site in Karkkila and close the blast furnace in Alvesta.\n(29)\nThe judgment of the Court of First Instance (7) held that the deal was conditional but did not specify the consequences. In fact, even if the conditionality hints at the fact that the transaction might have been concluded on favourable terms for Componenta, there is no advantage for Componenta that clearly stems from these clauses. Indeed, on the one hand, as will be seen below, the price paid to Componenta for the sale of its stake in KK did not exceed the market price and, on the other hand, the Commission did not find any evidence of other advantages that Componenta might have received from those clauses. The Commission therefore assessed whether a market economy investor already holding 50 % of the shares would have acquired full ownership under these conditions.\n(30)\nIt is established case law that \u2018although the conduct of a private investor, with which the intervention of a public investor pursuing economic policy aims must be compared, need not be the conduct of an ordinary investor laying out capital with a view to realising a profit in the relatively short term, it must at least be the conduct of a private holding company or a private group of undertakings pursuing a structural policy, whether general or sectoral, and guided by prospects of profitability in the longer term\u2019 (8).\n1. General considerations concerning the value of the shares\n(31)\nThe Commission communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (9) (hereinafter \u2018the Communication\u2019) does not apply directly since the case at hand does not actually concern the sale of land but the purchase of shares in a real estate company. However, the principles of this communication can apply since the value of KK\u2019s shares is essentially determined by the market value of the land in its portfolio. Therefore the assessment of the value of the land owned by KK is crucial for establishing the presence of state aid.\n(32)\nIn any case, the communication is based on the principle of a private investor operating in a market economy, i.e. the sale of land by the public authorities does not include elements of state aid if it is sold at a price which a private investor would have been able to obtain in normal market conditions.\n(33)\nThe Commission considers that the appropriate starting-point of the analysis is the price that a market economy investor owning 50 % of KK\u2019s shares would have been prepared to pay for the acquisition of full ownership. A market economy operator would base the calculation of the price it would be prepared to pay on the return it could expect from its investment.\n(34)\nIn the case at hand, Componenta did not try to find another buyer. It was in its interest to sell its shares to the other shareholder. Indeed, according to the Shareholder Agreement (10) and KK\u2019s Articles of Association (11), Karkkila had the right of first refusal on KK\u2019s shares owned by Componenta and it had the right of redemption, if Componenta tried to sell them to a third party. These rules were a disincentive for Componenta to seek other buyers. Moreover, any other private buyer would have been deterred from buying 50 % of the shares in KK, unless by doing so it would have acquired full control over KK. Indeed, any new partner that did not have full control over KK would be bound by KK\u2019s Articles of Association (12), according to which the purpose of KK was to slow down the increase in the price of land and housing in Karkkila to the benefit of the population.\n(35)\nThe Commission also takes the view that a market economy shareholder acquiring full ownership would take into consideration the financing of the overall investment (EUR 2,37 million for the shares and the loan).\n(36)\nWith respect to the reimbursement of the shareholder loan, the Commission notes that the assets in KK\u2019s portfolio were estimated at a value of EUR 4,9 million. This value largely covered the outstanding loans of EUR 3,34 million, which means that the loan reimbursement as such did not appear problematic.\n(37)\nFinland also explained that Karkkila had planned to increase rental income after the transaction in order to cover KK\u2019s financing and operating costs (less than EUR 40 000 per year before the transaction). If the city became the sole shareholder it would be in a position to change KK\u2019s Articles of Association, which limited its freedom as regards pricing policies. Thus, from a legal viewpoint, there was nothing to prevent the city from raising rental income once it had full ownership of KK.\n(38)\nThe Commission notes that subsequent developments confirm that cost coverage through rental income was a realistic plan. Karkkila concluded 28 long-term rental agreements, which generated the following revenue:\nTable 3\nRental income after the transaction\n(in EUR)\n2004\n146 907\n2005\n152 843\n2006\n171 238\n2007\n182 525\n2008\n200 519\n(39)\nIn addition, in return for the free-interest loan, a private investor would have expected an increase in the value of its stake in the company. In the case at hand, the return on the investment manifested itself through the increasing value of the real estate owned by KK. Finland explained that the value of the land owned by KK had risen considerably between 1996 and 2003. During the five years preceding the transaction, real estate prices in Karkkila had increased on average by 30 % and by some 10 % between 2005 and 2008.\n(40)\nAt the same time, the population of Karkkila was expected to grow by more than 100 people per year until 2025, which, on a conservative estimate, would mean that at least 70 new homes would have to be built in the city every year (13).\n(41)\nFor these reasons, a private investor could expect a significant increase in the value of its stake in KK.\n2. Value of the land\n(42)\nAs a first step, the Commission assessed whether the share purchase price paid by Karkkila entailed an advantage for Componenta because the seller would have obtained a lower price under normal market conditions.\n(43)\nFinland indicated the value of KK\u2019s assets as follows (14):\nTable 4\nValue of KK\u2019s assets as calculated by Finland\nCurrent value of land\n5 067 988\nCash and bank deposits\n28 256\nTotal assets\n5 096 244\nShareholder loan\n3 340 368\nCurrent liabilities\n107\nTotal debts\n3 340 475\nKK\u2019s net value\n1 755 769\n50 % of KK\u2019s net value\n877 885\n(44)\nThe value of the land was calculated by reference to the standard prices charged by Karkkila in 2003. These were uniform prices for the whole of the Karkkila area, the only exceptions being the differences between two zones. It became apparent from the data submitted by Finland that the actual market prices vary significantly between different neighbourhoods and residential areas. For that reason, the Commission focused its assessment more closely on the areas concerned.\n(45)\nThe Commission notes that Karkkila embarked on the acquisition of full ownership with a medium- to long-term perspective. It is not unusual in the real estate business to expect significant medium- to long-term increases in value, circumstances permitting. Karkkila pursued a long-term investment strategy and sought to generate profits from increased future sales.\n(46)\nIn the specific situation of Karkkila, Finland demonstrated that Karkkila had valid reasons to expect a major population increase in the medium- to long-term future that would lead to considerable additional housing needs. The main reason was that the three municipalities to the north and west of Helsinki - Vihti, Lohja and Hyvink\u00e4\u00e4 - had attracted large numbers of residents, many of them commuters. As a result, real estate prices grew rapidly and constantly and were not expected to slow down in the near future. In 2003, prices in these neighbouring municipalities were on average 2,5 times higher than in Karkkila. Karkkila therefore expected that further price increases would cause people to move to Karkkila as the next logical alternative place to live, even if prices in Karkkila also rose significantly. It did not seem unrealistic to expect real estate prices in Karkkila to double.\n(47)\nAlthough subsequent developments are not directly relevant for an ex-ante analysis of the transaction, the development of real estate prices in the three neighbouring municipalities in the years after the transaction confirmed that the forecast was realistic. In some instances, real estate prices were over four times higher than in Karkkila.\n(48)\nAnother reason for expecting Karkkila\u2019s population to rise was the scheduled renovation of the road to Karkkila - it had already been planned at the time of the transaction and was subsequently carried out.\n(49)\nThe acquisition of full ownership was also driven by official forecasts of population increases. An initial study had been published in 2000 by the Uusimaa Regional Council, which estimated that the population of Karkkila would grow by about 9 600 inhabitants by 2025 (i.e. about 10 %), and that an additional 600 new homes would be needed. This forecast soon proved to be too conservative. At the time of the transaction, Karkkila expected a much higher population increase resulting in additional housing needs of at least 70 new homes per year.\n(50)\nThis positive forecast was later confirmed by a further study carried out by the Uusimaa Regional Council on 18 August 2009, according to which the population of Karkkila was expected to grow by 100 inhabitants per year up until 2030, leading to additional housing needs of 70 new homes per year. In the event, even this second forecast was topped, since 137 new homes were built in 2006 and 95 new homes in 2007.\n(51)\nIt should also be noted that KK was by far the biggest real estate owner in Karkkila. At the time of the transaction, the actual number of real estate plots included in the portfolio was unclear, as Karkkila intended to divide and reshape some of them (in particular in the Haapala/Uusitalo area). In addition, a higher number of homes per plot can be built on land for terraced housing and even more so on land for tower blocks. The portfolio list submitted by Finland gives fewer than 140 sites for housing (the remainder were earmarked for parks). With estimated housing needs of 70 new homes per year at the time of the transaction, the projected needs for the next 10 years would be 700 new homes and for the next 20 years 1 400 new homes. Given that KK had no major competitor in Karkkila, the city of Karkkila could reasonably expect to be able to sell most - if not all - the property in its portfolio.\n(52)\nFinland explained that Karkkila\u2019s strategy was first to improve the value of the land it owned by reshaping and developing it, to wait for the knock-on effects of the general price increase in the area and to sell the land only at a later stage. In line with this strategy, KK had already refrained from early sales in previous years, which explains the low level of sales in the years preceding the transaction.\n(53)\nThe Commission notes that the land owned by KK was valued differently according to the different types of land, i.e. land for detached houses, for terraced houses, blocks of flats, parks and land for public use. The particular features of each area are described and analysed separately below.\n(54)\nThe land earmarked for tower blocks located in the Asemanranta area is valued at EUR 2 358 158, i.e. about half of the value of KK\u2019s assets. For the purposes of the transaction, the land was valued at EUR 79,56/m2.\n(55)\nThe studies are not fully conclusive in this respect, the main reason being the lack of reference prices in Karkkila. In fact, no land for tower blocks had been sold on the market in Karkkila until the transaction. The expert study submitted by Finland during the first investigation period (Study A) had indicated a price of EUR 50/m2. Finland has now explained that this figure was probably based on the figure used for state-funded social housing in the region and was well below the market price. This initial study also estimated the value of land for tower blocks at between EUR 60 and EUR 75/m2. The second study (Study B) explains that the price paid corresponds to the market price without providing any additional information. The KP & P report (Study C) concludes that the price of EUR 79,56/m2 corresponds to the market price, since it is far below the prices paid in the three neighbouring municipalities. In the absence of any further benchmarks, these studies provide some guidance on real estate prices in the areas surrounding Helsinki at the time of the transaction. The Commission therefore verified the data contained in those studies and supplemented them with its own assessment.\n(56)\nThe Asemanranta area enjoys a very good location on the shores of a lake, 200m away from the city centre. According to Finland, the value of the area is exceptionally high because it benefits from direct lake view and access. A comparable plot was sold in 2006 for EUR 92,35/m2. Karkkila actually considered the value of the property high enough to raise the sales price to EUR 105/m2 in January 2008.\n(57)\nA second important factor in assessing the value of this area is the surface area to which the price is applied. The sales valuation was conservatively based on the minimum planning permission of 29 640 m2, whereas maximum planning permission could go up to 39 590 m2. Given the expected population increase, Karkkila counted on a long-term business case for maximum planning permission.\n(58)\nDespite the fact that no land for tower blocks had been sold in Karkkila before the transaction, the city could reasonably expect that there was an emerging market for this type of building. In 2003, four building permits for tower blocks were granted. Developments after the transaction confirm that the forecast was not unreasonable, given that six further permits were requested and granted up to 2007, and seven tower blocks were built between 2007 and mid-2010.\n(59)\nPrices paid in the neighbouring municipalities went up to EUR 133,6/m2 in 2003 in Hyvink\u00e4\u00e4 and even reached a peak of EUR 312,6/m2 for a sale in Vihti in 2004.\n(60)\nThe Commission considers that the three studies provide values that are broadly comparable and do not appear manifestly wrong if compared with the prices paid for similar land at the time of the transaction. There is no need to establish which of the studies is the most reliable, since the price paid for the shares remains below the market value even under the most conservative estimate (see overall market value calculation in paragraph 84 et seq.). The lowest possible value has been estimated by the Commission as follows: considering the prime location of the land in Asemanranta, the market price was at least in the upper segment of the range provided by the most conservative of the consultants, i.e. EUR 75/m2. Working on the conservative assumption that the land is sold for the minimum planning permission only, the minimum market value would be EUR 2 223 000.\n(61)\nThe maximum value in the case of overestimation - if any - could thus be considered to be EUR 135 158,4, which would correspond to EUR 67 579,2 for 50 %.\n(62)\nThe Commission notes that this value includes the 8-9 hectares also belonging to the Asemanranta area, which will remain as streets, parks, etc. For example, in the partial master plan, the shore area is earmarked for recreational purposes and as a nature protection area. Therefore these 8-9 hectares contribute to the high price of the residential part of the area but they have not been priced separately.\n(63)\nMost of the land in KK\u2019s real estate portfolio was located in the Haapala/Uusitalo area, which is some 2,5 km to the south-west of the city centre. These two adjacent areas were earmarked for detached residential houses and terraced houses but had not yet been developed. As development had not yet begun, prices were low, as was the number of sales. KK owned virtually the entire area.\n(64)\nFor the purposes of the transaction, the land was valued at EUR 1 612 059 for all types of plot, with a price of EUR 10,19/m2 for detached houses and EUR 74,02/m2 for terraced houses, in accordance with the city\u2019s standard prices. The total value of the land for detached houses was EUR 973 268 and EUR 811 209 for terraced houses.\n(65)\nAll three studies state that the prices for detached houses corresponded to market prices. The KP & P report (Study C) explains that market prices were 15-20 % higher than the prices applied by Karkkila. Finland submitted data showing that the average price was some EUR 14,4/m2 in 2003. The initial expert (Study A) had indicated that the market prices in Karkkila ranged between EUR 9,43 and EUR 14,76.\n(66)\nAll three studies referred to average sales prices, whereas the data submitted by Finland revealed significant differences between neighbourhoods, with Haapala/Uusitalo apparently situated at the lower end of the price range. In 2003, two plots were sold in Haapala (private company to private individual): in April 2003, a plot had been sold for EUR 9,25/m2, and in August another one for EUR 10,06/m2. This would correspond to a price increase of 8,8 % over four months. Considering general price developments in Karkkila, where prices rose by 12,6 % between 2001 and 2002, and 42,7 % between 2002 and 2003, a 1,3 % price increase over the last four months of 2003 can be considered in line with the general trend. In view of these circumstances, the Commission sees no reason why a price of EUR 10,19/m2 in December 2003 could not be accepted as the market price.\n(67)\nAs regards the prices for terraced houses, there are no reference sales in the area which would provide a direct benchmark. The initial expert had estimated a market value ranging between EUR 70 and EUR 80/m2, the KP & P report (Study C) only refers to the much higher prices for plots for terraced houses in the neighbouring municipalities. Since all three studies conclude that the price paid corresponded to the market price and since there are no indicators that these conclusions are not correct for the Haapala/Uusitalo area, the Commission can accept that the price of EUR 74,2/m2 corresponded to the market price.\n(68)\nThe Commission asked Finland to explain why Karkkila had an interest in acquiring full ownership of this entire area, considering that past sales figures seemed to indicate that buyers were not interested in this neighbourhood and obviously preferred other city areas, despite the higher prices. Finland explained that already in previous years, KK had followed a targeted investment strategy, consisting of developing Haapala/Uusitalo as the future residential neighbourhood of Karkkila. Other residential areas in the city were already starting to be saturated and, based on population growth, it was expected that new areas would need to be developed.\n(69)\nThe Haapala/Uusitalo area came under the town planning but development had not yet started. This included a new subdivision of the land into individual and more suitably shaped plots, the connection of the sites to the utility networks and the construction of amenities.\n(70)\nKarkkila had already successfully followed the same strategy in other neighbourhoods: it had extended public utilities to the areas of Tuorila, Nikkim\u00e4ki and Pumminm\u00e4ki. In 2003, the average sales price in Pumminm\u00e4ki was already EUR 14,28, and Karkkila successfully sold plots at the new standard price of EUR 14 in 2004, with prices rising further in subsequent years (up to EUR 18,5/m2 in 2005).\n(71)\nThe expectation was that the value of real estate in Haapala/Uusitalo would reach that of similarly developed residential areas and in addition follow the general price increase trends. A value increase of at least 40-50 % after development (i.e. within three to four years) therefore seemed justified, plus additional increases in the medium to long term.\n(72)\nIt was in Karkkila\u2019s interests to develop the area under one infrastructure project covering the whole area. A single coordinated development approach would be much cheaper than development site by site (the municipality is obliged by law to connect real estate to the utility networks, which is normally done upon request by owners intending to build). Karkkila emphasised that operations ran much more smoothly under its sole ownership and control. A large number of individual decisions had to be adopted for each plot and each engineering measure. Since real estate development was not Componenta\u2019s core business (it was a steel producer), it had already become clear that these development activities were harder for it.\n(73)\nDue to its long-term development strategy and its intention to carry out all the engineering works at once, Karkkila had no interest in selling the land before it was developed. This was why there had been virtually no sales at all prior to the transaction.\n(74)\nThe Commission can accept that on the basis of the long-term strategy followed by Karkkila for the Haapala/Uusitalo area, a market economy investor that already owned 50 % of the shares in that area could also have an economic interest in acquiring the remaining 50 % of the shares. The prospect of owning the whole of the future new residential area, the low risk in price terms, and good prospects of selling most of the plots over the next 10 years and the remainder over the following 10 years, can be considered a business strategy that a market economy investor would have pursued.\n(75)\nA few plots for detached houses are located in other areas. The valuation (EUR 43 000) was based on Karkkila\u2019s official unit sales price of EUR 10,19/m2 for land of this type. For the reasons given above (recitals 65-66), the Commission considers that the December 2003 price can be accepted as the market price.\n(76)\nKK\u2019s portfolio also includes two plots of land for tower blocks located in the Takko I area. The total value of this real estate is EUR 110 191. Takko I is also located in the city centre. According to Study A the market price ranged between EUR 60 to EUR 75/m2. The KP & P report (Study C) came to the same conclusion as regards the tower block sites, namely that the price corresponded to the market rate by reference to the sales prices paid in neighbouring municipalities.\n(77)\nIn the Commission\u2019s view there is no need to establish which expert study is the most reliable. Even if the lowest possible market price of EUR 60/m2 were applied to the transaction, the corrected total value of the shares would still exceed the price paid by Karkkila (see calculation of minimum share value below). Under this lowest possible market value assumption, the land in Takko I would have been overvalued by EUR 19,65/m2. This would correspond to a total of EUR 27 212, i.e. EUR 13 606 for 50 % of the shares.\n(78)\nThe value attributed to land earmarked for parks is EUR 456 601. This was based on the standard price of EUR 1,18/m2 which Karkkila normally pays for such land. These are areas which the town has the right to redeem at the going price (15). As these areas are not intended to be built on according to the town plan, they have used the same pricing basis as for unzoned raw land (see paragraph 79). The Commission therefore concluded that this part of the land was not overvalued.\n(79)\nKK\u2019s portfolio also included some raw land outside the town plan valued at a total of EUR 49 678, based on a price of EUR 1,18/m2. The studies do not explain why they consider this land to be correctly valued. The other data submitted by Finland contain a list of sales of undeveloped land in sparsely populated areas in Karkkila sold at an average of EUR 1,86/m2. On this basis, the Commission can accept that EUR 1,18 did not exceed the market price.\n(80)\nAccording to the calculations made by Finland on the basis of the standard prices at which KK sold its property, the value of KK\u2019s real estate amounted to EUR 5 067 988. After deducting the amounts in respect of a potential overvaluation of the land for tower blocks in Asemanranta (EUR 135 158) and in Takko I (EUR 27 212), the minimum value of the land comes to EUR 4 905 618.\n3. The loan repayment\n(81)\nIn 1996 both Componenta and Karkkila had granted, on equal terms (pari passu), an interest-free shareholder loan of EUR 1 670 814 to KK. Componenta\u2019s withdrawal from KK went ahead with the reimbursement of the shareholder loan by KK. Since KK would have had to sell a significant amount of property to generate these funds, and since, as described above, this would jeopardise the mid- to long-term business strategy, Karkkila decided to grant a further interest-free loan to KK for the same amount, which KK used for the reimbursement. As a result, KK owed Karkkila a total of EUR 3,34 million.\n(82)\nThe Commission agrees with Finland that the loans had already been taken into account in the valuation of the company, i.e. the value of the shares had already been reduced by the value of the debt. Assessing the loan reimbursement as a separate measure would therefore be tantamount to double counting.\n4. Value of the shares\n(83)\nAfter deducting the amount of potential overvaluation, the value of 50 % of KK\u2019s shares is as follows:\nTable 5\nValue of KK\nCurrent value of land\n4 905 618\nCash and bank deposits\n28 256\nTotal assets\n4 933 874\nShareholder loan\n3 340 368\nCurrent liabilities\n107\nTotal debts\n3 340 475\nKK\u2019s net value\n1 593 399\n50 % of KK\u2019s net value\n796 699,5\n(84)\nSince Karkkila paid a purchase price of EUR 713 092,50 for 50 % of the shares, the Commission considers that it did not pay a price that exceeded the market value.\nV. CONCLUSION\n(85)\nThe Commission considers that the price paid by Karkkila to Componenta for the acquisition of 50 % of the shares in KK does not exceed the market price and therefore does not qualify as state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe purchase price paid by the city of Karkkila to Componenta Oyj for shares in Karkkilan Keskustakiinteist\u00f6t Oy under the contract concluded by the parties on 16 December 2003 does not constitute state aid for Componenta Corporation Oyj within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Finland.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["60", "50", "12", "57", "44", "46", "42", "19", "81", "55", "7", "47", "51", "18", "58", "31", "70", "87", "2", "4", "0", "3", "67", "32", "13", "76", "82", "66", "80", "6", "No Label", "8", "15", "30", "45", "48", "84", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "30", "45", "48", "84", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 July 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement\n(2012/453/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1), in conjunction with 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 976/2009 of 19 October 2009 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the Network Services (2) should be incorporated into the Agreement on the European Economic Area (3) (\u2018the EEA Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 268/2010 of 29 March 2010 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the access to spatial data sets and services of the Member States by Community institutions and bodies under harmonised conditions (4) should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1088/2010 of 23 November 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 976/2009 as regards download services and transformation services (5) should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 of 23 November 2010 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards interoperability of spatial data sets and services (6) should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 102/2011 of 4 February 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards interoperability of spatial data sets and services (7) should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.\n(6)\nAnnex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["73", "92", "23", "57", "83", "47", "19", "14", "10", "6", "74", "94", "27", "78", "30", "18", "90", "77", "4", "65", "28", "85", "72", "67", "33", "81", "50", "75", "66", "11", "No Label", "3", "9", "25", "40", "43", "76"], "gold": ["3", "9", "25", "40", "43", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 7 April 2011\nextending the transitional period concerning the acquisition of agricultural land in Latvia\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/226/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia,\nHaving regard to the Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, and in particular Chapter 3 of Annex VIII thereto,\nHaving regard to the request made by Latvia,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe 2003 Act of Accession provides that Latvia may maintain in force, under the conditions laid down therein, for a 7-year period following the accession, expiring on 30 April 2011, prohibitions on the acquisition of agricultural land by natural and legal persons from other EU Member States who are neither established nor registered nor having a branch or an agency in Latvia. This is a temporary exception to the free movement of capital as guaranteed by Articles 63 to 66 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This transitional period may only be extended once for a period of up to 3 years.\n(2)\nOn 6 December 2010, Latvia requested to extend the transitional period concerning the acquisition of agricultural land by 3 years.\n(3)\nThe main reason for the transitional period was the need to safeguard the socioeconomic conditions for agricultural activities following the introduction of the single market and the transition to the Common Agricultural Policy in Latvia. In particular, it aimed to meet concerns raised about the possible impact on the agricultural sector of liberalising the acquisition of agricultural land due to initial large differences in land prices and income compared with Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom (hereinafter the EU-15). The transitional period was also designed to ease the process of restitution and privatisation of agricultural land to farmers. In its Report of 16 July 2008 on the Review of the transitional measures for the acquisition of agricultural real estate set out in the 2003 Accession Treaty (hereinafter the \u2018Mid-Term Review of 2008\u2019), the Commission has already emphasised the importance of the completion of the above-mentioned agricultural reform by the end of the foreseen transitional period (1).\n(4)\nAccording to data available to Eurostat, agricultural land prices in Latvia are lower than the agricultural land prices in the EU. Complete convergence in agricultural land sales prices was neither expected nor seen as a necessary pre-condition for terminating the transitional period. Nevertheless, the noticeable differences in agricultural land prices between Latvia and EU-15 are such that they can hinder smooth progress towards price convergence.\n(5)\nSimilarly to the levels of agricultural land prices, the data from Eurostat show that the gap in per capita GDP in Purchasing power standards in Latvia and EU-15 still persists. Thus, existing agricultural land prices in Latvia are high for the Latvian residents relative to their purchasing power.\n(6)\nThe lower competitiveness of the Latvian agricultural sector compared to the agricultural sector in EU-15 also persists and the problem is compounded by difficulties in access to financial resources and by high interest rates applied to commercial credit lines for the acquisition of agricultural land (15 % per annum in 2009 according to data supplied by the Latvian authorities).\n(7)\nMoreover, according to data supplied by the Latvian authorities based on the State Land Service of Latvia, as of 1 January 2010, the agricultural land constitutes 37,7 % of the country\u2019s total territory, and forests areas cover 45,8 % of it. In 2007 62 % of agricultural land was owned by farmers and 26,6 % of it was rented. While agricultural land in Latvia is already predominantly in private hands, the process of restitution of ownership rights and the land reform in rural areas are still not completed.\n(8)\nThe lack of clarity on property rights inevitably hinders land transactions and consolidation of agricultural estates. Land fragmentation, in turn, further contributes to lower competitiveness and leads to less market-oriented farms. In this context, Eurostat data show that, although gradual consolidation of land is ongoing and the average exploited agricultural area per farm in Latvia increased from 10 ha to 16 ha per farm between 2001 and 2007, the latter is still lower than in other EU Member States, such as Denmark, Germany and Sweden, where this average amounted to 60 ha, 46 ha and 43 ha respectively in 2007.\n(9)\nThe recent global financial and economic crisis also had a negative impact on Latvia\u2019s economy. The lack of demand followed by a sharp reduction in purchase prices for agricultural products, at the time when the prices for raw materials remained at the high level of 2008, additionally aggravated the already disadvantaged position of Latvian farmers compared to farmers from EU-15.\n(10)\nAgainst this background, it may be anticipated, as do the Latvian authorities, that the lifting of the restrictions on 1 May 2011 would exert pressure on the land prices in Latvia. Therefore, a threat of serious disturbances on the Latvian agricultural land market upon the expiry of the transitional exists.\n(11)\nAn extension by 3 years of the transitional period referred to in Chapter 3 of Annex VIII to the 2003 Act of Accession should therefore be granted.\n(12)\nIn order to fully prepare the market for liberalisation, it continues to be of utmost importance, even amid adverse economic circumstances, to foster the improvement of factors such as credit and insurance facilities for farmers, and the completion of the agricultural structural reform during the transitional period, as already emphasised in the Mid-Term Review of 2008.\n(13)\nSince the open single market has always been at the heart of the European prosperity, an increased inflow of foreign capital would bring along potential benefits also for the agricultural market in Latvia. As emphasised in the Mid-Term Review of 2008, foreign investment in the agriculture sector would also have important long-term effects on the provision of capital and know-how, on the functioning of land markets and on agricultural productivity. The progressive loosening of the restrictions on foreign ownership during the transitional period would also contribute to preparing the market for full liberalisation.\n(14)\nFor the purpose of legal certainty and in order to avoid a legal vacuum in the national legal system of Latvia after the expiry of the current transitional period, this Decision should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe transitional period concerning the acquisition of agricultural land in Latvia referred to in Chapter 3 of Annex VIII to the 2003 Act of Accession shall be extended until 30 April 2014.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 7 April 2011.", "references": ["28", "96", "68", "54", "0", "79", "6", "78", "3", "76", "49", "4", "2", "71", "40", "77", "80", "43", "37", "46", "86", "24", "38", "82", "69", "95", "34", "39", "62", "66", "No Label", "8", "9", "11", "15", "30", "35", "64", "91"], "gold": ["8", "9", "11", "15", "30", "35", "64", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 805/2011\nof 10 August 2011\nlaying down detailed rules for air traffic controllers\u2019 licences and certain certificates pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (1), and in particular Article 8c(10) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 216/2008 aims at establishing and maintaining a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in Europe. That Regulation provides for the means of achieving that objective and other objectives in the field of civil aviation safety.\n(2)\nThe implementation of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, as well as the new Single European Sky II legislation (2) requires the establishment of more detailed implementing rules, in particular concerning the licensing of air traffic controllers, in order to maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in Europe, to achieve the highest standards of responsibility and competence, to improve the availability of air traffic controllers and to promote the mutual recognition of licences while pursuing the objective of an overall improvement in air traffic safety and competence of personnel.\n(3)\nAir traffic controllers as well as persons and organisations involved in the training, testing, checking or medical assessment of those air traffic controllers, have to comply with the relevant essential requirements set out in Annex Vb to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. According to that Regulation air traffic controllers as well as persons and organisations involved in their training should be certified or licensed once they have been found to comply with the essential requirements.\n(4)\nThe licence introduced by Directive 2006/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on a Community air traffic controller licence (3) has proved to be as a successful tool for recognising the specific role which air traffic controllers play in the safe provision of air traffic control. The establishment of Union-wide competence standards has reduced fragmentation in this field, making for more efficient organisation of work in the framework of growing regional collaboration between air navigation service providers. Therefore, maintaining and enhancing the common licensing scheme for air traffic controllers in the Union is an essential element of the European air traffic control system.\n(5)\nDirective 2006/23/EC has been repealed by Regulation (EC) No 1108/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4). However, the provisions of Directive 2006/23/EC continue to apply until the date of application of the measures referred to in Article 8c(10) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. This Regulation provides for those measures.\n(6)\nThe provisions of this Regulation reflect the state of the art, including best practices and scientific and technical progress, in the field of air traffic controller training. They have been developed on the basis of Directive 2006/23/EC and provide for the Member States a common transposition of the Standards and Recommended Practices set by the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944 and the Safety Regulatory Requirements adopted by the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) set up by the International Convention of 13 December 1960.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure uniformity in the application of common air traffic controller licensing and medical certification requirements common procedures should be followed by the competent authorities of the Member States and, where applicable, the European Aviation Safety Agency, \u2018the Agency\u2019, to assess compliance with these requirements; the Agency should develop certification specifications, acceptable means of compliance and guidance material to facilitate the necessary regulatory uniformity.\n(8)\nThe particular characteristics of air traffic in the Union call for the introduction and effective application of common competence standards for air traffic controllers employed by air navigation service providers providing air traffic management and air navigation services (ATM/ANS) to the public.\n(9)\nMember States should however, as far as practicable, ensure that services provided or made available by military personnel to the public offer a level of safety that is at least equivalent to the level required by the essential requirements set out in Annex Vb of the Basic Regulation. Therefore, Member States may also decide to apply this Regulation to their military personnel providing services to the public referred to in Article 1(2)(c) of that Regulation.\n(10)\nAuthorities performing supervision and verification of compliance should be sufficiently independent of air navigation service providers and training providers. The authorities must also remain capable of performing their tasks efficiently. The competent authority designated for the purpose of this Regulation may be the same body or bodies nominated or established in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (5), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009. The Agency should act as a competent authority for the purpose of this Regulation to issue and renew the certificates of air traffic controller training organisations located outside the territory of the Member States and where relevant, their personnel.\n(11)\nThe provision of air navigation services requires highly skilled personnel whose competence can be demonstrated by several means. For air traffic control the appropriate means is to maintain a common licensing scheme for air traffic controllers in the Union, to be seen as a kind of diploma, for each individual air traffic controller. The rating on a licence should indicate the type of air traffic service an air traffic controller is competent to provide. At the same time, the endorsements included on the licence reflect both the specific skills of the controller and the authorisation by the competent authorities to provide services for a particular sector or group of sectors. That is why the authorities should be in a position to evaluate the competence of air traffic controllers when issuing licences or extending the validity of the endorsements. The competent authorities should also be in a position to suspend a licence, ratings or endorsements when competence is in doubt.\n(12)\nAcknowledging the need to strengthen further the safety culture especially by integrating reliable incident reporting and Just Culture in order to learn from incidents, this Regulation should not establish an automatic link between an incident and the suspension of a licence, rating or endorsement. Revocation of a licence should be considered as the last resort for extreme cases.\n(13)\nIn order to enhance the confidence of Member States in each other\u2019s air traffic controller\u2019 licensing systems, common rules for obtaining and maintaining licences are indispensable. It is therefore important, with a view to ensuring the highest level of safety, to introduce uniform requirements as regards training, qualifications, competence and access to the profession of air traffic controller. This should lead to the provision of safe, high-quality air traffic control services and contribute to the recognition of licences throughout the Union, thereby increasing freedom of movement and improving the availability of air traffic controllers.\n(14)\nThis Regulation should not lead to circumvention of existing national provisions governing the rights and obligations applicable to the employment relationship between an employer and applicant air traffic controllers.\n(15)\nIn order to make skills comparable throughout the Union, they need to become structured in a clear and generally accepted way. This will help to guarantee safety not only within the airspace under the control of one air navigation service provider, but especially at the interface between different service providers.\n(16)\nIn many incidents and accidents, communication plays a significant role. Therefore, this Regulation lays down detailed language knowledge requirements for air traffic controllers. Those requirements are based on the requirements adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and provide a means of enforcing these internationally accepted standards. There is a need for observance of the principles of non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality in language requirements, so as to encourage free movement while ensuring safety.\n(17)\nThe objectives of initial training are described in Eurocontrol\u2019s \u2018Specification for the ATCO Common Core Content Initial Training\u2019 developed at the request of the members of Eurocontrol and are considered the appropriate standards. For unit training the lack of generally accepted standards needs to be offset by a range of measures, including the approval of examiners and competence assessors, which should guarantee high standards of competence. This is all the more important as unit training is very costly and decisive in terms of safety. ICAO has developed standards also in areas where there are no common European training requirements. In the absence of European training requirements Member States may rely on such ICAO standards.\n(18)\nMedical requirements have been developed at the request of Eurocontrol Member States and are considered as appropriate standards for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Regulation. In particular the issue of medical certificates should be consistent with the Requirements for European Class 3 Medical Certification of Air Traffic Controllers laid down by Eurocontrol.\n(19)\nThe certification of training organisations should be considered, in terms of safety, as one of the decisive factors contributing to the quality of air traffic controller training. Therefore it is necessary to lay down the requirements for training organisations. Training should be seen as a service similar to air navigation services, also subject to a certification process. This Regulation should make it possible to certify training by type of training, by package of training services or by package of training and air navigation services, without losing sight of the particular characteristics of training.\n(20)\nThis Regulation confirms long-standing case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of mutual recognition of diplomas and freedom of movement of workers. The principle of proportionality, reasoned justifications for the imposition of compensation measures and the provision of appropriate appeal procedures constitute basic principles which need to become applicable to the air traffic management sector in a more visible manner. Member States should be entitled to refuse to recognise licences not issued in accordance with this Regulation. Since this Regulation is aimed at ensuring the mutual recognition of licences, it does not regulate the conditions concerning access to employment.\n(21)\nThe profession of air traffic controller is subject to technical innovations which call for such controllers\u2019 skills to be regularly updated. The necessary adaptations of this Regulation to the technical developments and scientific progress should follow the appropriate procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Council Decision 1999/468/EC (6).\n(22)\nThis Regulation may have an impact on the daily working practices of air traffic controllers. The social partners should be informed and consulted in an appropriate way on all measures having significant social implications.\nTherefore, the social partners have been consulted within the \u2018fast-track\u2019 procedure of the Agency. The Sectoral Dialogue Committee set up under Commission Decision 98/500/EC of 20 May 1998 on the establishment of Sectoral Dialogue Committees promoting the Dialogue between the social partners at European level (7) should be consulted in an appropriate way on further implementing measures taken by the Commission.\n(23)\nThe general conditions for obtaining a licence, insofar as they relate to age, medical requirements, educational requirements and initial training, should not affect the holders of existing licences. Licences and medical certificates issued by Member States in accordance with Directive 2006/23/EC should be considered as having been issued in accordance with this Regulation in order to guarantee continuation of existing licence privileges and a smooth transition for all licence holders and for the competent authorities.\n(24)\nDerogations should be provided for in order to allow for the continued application of diverging national practices with regard to issues where common rules were not yet established during the accelerated procedure applied for these first phase implementing measures.\n(25)\nThe Agency should make an evaluation of the European air traffic controller licensing system and of further improvements necessary towards a \u2018total aviation system approach\u2019 and to establish full compliance with the essential requirements as described in Annex Vb of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, with a view to submitting an opinion to the Commission, including possible amendments to this Regulation.\n(26)\nThis opinion should also address those issues where, in first stage, under the accelerated procedure there was no possibility to establish common rules instead of the diverging national varieties and thus it is proposed to maintain the applicability of Member States\u2019 national legislation, where applicable, on a transitional basis.\n(27)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are based on the Opinion issued by the Agency in accordance with Articles 17(2)(b) and 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n(28)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 65 of the Regulation (EC) No 216/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nObjective\nThe objective of this Regulation is to increase safety standards and to improve the operation of the air traffic control system within the Union through the issuing of an air traffic controller licence based on common licensing requirements.\nArticle 2\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation lays down detailed rules for the issue, suspension, and revocation of licences of air traffic controllers and student air traffic controllers, of associated ratings, endorsements, medical certificates and of certificates of training organisations and the conditions of their validity, renewal, revalidation and use.\n2. This Regulation shall apply to:\n(a)\nstudent air traffic controllers,\n(b)\nair traffic controllers exercising their functions within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, and\n(c)\npersons and organisations involved in the licensing, training, testing, checking or medical assessment of applicants in accordance with this Regulation.\n3. Subject to Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, Member States shall, as far as practicable, ensure that services provided or made available by military personnel to the public referred to in Article 1(2)(c) of that Regulation offer a level of safety that is at least equivalent to the level required by the essential requirements as defined in Annex Vb of that Regulation.\n4. With the objective to achieve a harmonised level of safety within the European airspace, Member States may decide to apply this Regulation to their military personnel providing services to the public referred to in Article 1(2)(c) of that Regulation.\n5. Air traffic control services within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 shall only be provided by air traffic controllers licensed in accordance with this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018air traffic control service\u2019 means a service provided for the purpose of preventing collisions between aircraft, and, on the manoeuvring area, between aircraft and obstructions, and expediting and maintaining an orderly flow of air traffic;\n2.\n\u2018air navigation service providers\u2019 means any public or private entity providing air navigation services for general air traffic;\n3.\n\u2018general air traffic\u2019 means all movements of civil aircraft, as well as all movements of State aircraft (including military, customs and police aircraft) when these movements are carried out in conformity with the procedures of the ICAO;\n4.\n\u2018licence\u2019 means a certificate, by whatever name it may be known, issued and endorsed in accordance with this Regulation and entitling its lawful holder to provide air traffic control services in accordance with the ratings and endorsements contained therein;\n5.\n\u2018rating\u2019 means the authorisation entered on or associated with a licence and forming part thereof, stating specific conditions, privileges or limitations pertaining to such licence;\n6.\n\u2018rating endorsement\u2019 means the authorisation entered on and forming part of a licence, indicating the specific conditions, privileges or limitations pertaining to the relevant rating;\n7.\n\u2018unit endorsement\u2019 means the authorisation entered on and forming part of a licence, indicating the ICAO location indicator and the sectors and/or working positions where the holder of the licence is competent to work;\n8.\n\u2018language endorsement\u2019 means the authorisation entered on and forming part of a licence, indicating the language proficiency of the holder;\n9.\n\u2018instructor endorsement\u2019 means the authorisation entered on and forming part of a licence, indicating the competence of the holder to give on-the-job training instruction;\n10.\n\u2018ICAO location indicator\u2019 means the four-letter code group formulated in accordance with rules prescribed by ICAO in its manual DOC 7910 and assigned to the location of an aeronautical fixed station;\n11.\n\u2018sector\u2019 means a part of a control area and/or part of a flight information region/upper region;\n12.\n\u2018training\u2019 means the entirety of theoretical courses, practical exercises, including simulation, and on-the-job training required in order to acquire and maintain the skills to deliver safe, high quality air traffic control services; it consists of:\n(a)\ninitial training, providing basic and rating training, leading to the grant of a student licence,\n(b)\nunit training, including transitional training prior to on-the-job training and on-the-job training, leading to the grant of an air traffic controller licence,\n(c)\ncontinuation training, keeping the endorsements of the licence valid,\n(d)\ntraining of on-the-job training instructors, leading to the grant of the instructor endorsement,\n(e)\ntraining of licence holders entitled to act as competence examiners and/or competence assessors in accordance with Article 24;\n13.\n\u2018training organisation\u2019 means an organisation which has been certified by the competent authority to provide one or more types of training;\n14.\n\u2018Unit Competence Scheme\u2019 means an approved scheme indicating the method by which the unit maintains the competence of its licence holders;\n15.\n\u2018Unit Training Plan\u2019 means an approved plan detailing the processes and timing required toallow the unit procedures to be applied to the local area under the supervision of an on-the-job-training instructor.\nArticle 4\nCompetent authority\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the competent authority shall be the authority nominated or established by each Member State as their national supervisory authority in order to assume the tasks assigned to such authority under this Regulation with the exception of the certification of training organisations referred to in Article 27, where the competent authority shall be:\n(a)\nthe authority nominated or established by the Member State where the applicant has its principal place of operation or, if any, its registered office, unless provided otherwise in bi-or multilateral agreements between Member States or competent authorities;\n(b)\nthe Agency if the applicant has its principle place of operation or, if any, its registered office, outside the territory of the Member States.\nCHAPTER II\nLICENCES, RATINGS AND ENDORSEMENTS\nArticle 5\nApplication for and issue of licences, ratings and endorsements\n1. An application for the issue, revalidation or renewal of licences, associated ratings and/or endorsements shall be submitted to the competent authority in accordance with the procedure established by that authority.\n2. The application shall be accompanied by evidence that the applicant is competent to act as an air traffic controller or as a student air traffic controller in accordance with the requirements established in this Regulation. The evidence demonstrating the applicant\u2019s competence shall relate to knowledge, experience, skills and linguistic proficiency.\n3. The licence shall contain all relevant information related to the privileges granted by such document and shall comply with the specifications set out in Annex I.\n4. The licence shall remain the property of the person to whom it is granted and who shall sign it.\nArticle 6\nSuspension and revocation of licences, ratings and endorsements\nIn accordance with Article 22(2):\n(a)\na licence, rating or endorsement may be suspended when the competence of the air traffic controller is in doubt or in cases of misconduct;\n(b)\na licence may be revoked in cases of gross negligence or abuse.\nArticle 7\nExercise of the privileges of licences\nThe exercise of the privileges granted by a licence shall be dependent on the validity of the ratings, endorsements and of the medical certificate.\nArticle 8\nStudent air traffic controller licence\n1. Holders of a student air traffic controller licence shall be authorised to provide air traffic control services under the supervision of an on-the-job-training instructor in accordance with the rating(s) and rating endorsement(s) contained in their licence.\n2. Applicants for the issue of a student air traffic controller licence shall:\n(a)\nbe at least 18 years old;\n(b)\nhold at least a diploma granting access to university or equivalent, or any other secondary education qualification, which enables them to complete air traffic controller training;\n(c)\nhave successfully completed approved initial training relevant to the rating, and if applicable, to the rating endorsement, as set out in Part A of Annex II;\n(d)\nhold a valid medical certificate;\n(e)\nhave demonstrated an adequate level of language proficiency in accordance with the requirements set out in Article 13.\n3. The student air traffic controller licence shall contain the language endorsement(s) and at least one rating and if applicable, one rating endorsement.\nArticle 9\nAir traffic controller licence\n1. Holders of an air traffic controller licence shall be authorised to provide air traffic control services in accordance with the ratings and endorsements in their licence.\n2. The privileges of an air traffic controller licence shall include the privileges of a student air traffic controller licence as set out in Article 8(1).\n3. Applicants for the issue of an air traffic controller licence shall:\n(a)\nbe at least 21 years old. However, Member States may provide a lower age limit in duly justified cases;\n(b)\nhold a student air traffic controller licence;\n(c)\nhave completed an approved unit training plan and successfully passed the appropriate examinations or assessments in accordance with the requirements set out in Part B of Annex II;\n(d)\nhold a valid medical certificate;\n(e)\nhave demonstrated an adequate level of language proficiency in accordance with the requirements set out in Article 13.\n4. The air traffic controller licence shall be validated by the inclusion of one or more ratings and the relevant rating, unit and language endorsements for which training was successfully completed.\nArticle 10\nAir traffic controller ratings\n1. Licences shall contain one or more of the following ratings in order to indicate the type of service which the licence holder is authorised to provide:\n(a)\nthe Aerodrome Control Visual (ADV) rating, which shall indicate that the holder of the licence is competent to provide an air traffic control service to aerodrome traffic at an aerodrome that has no published instrument approach or departure procedures;\n(b)\nthe Aerodrome Control Instrument (ADI) rating, which shall indicate that the holder of the licence is competent to provide an air traffic control service to aerodrome traffic at an aerodrome that has published instrument approach or departure procedures and shall be accompanied by at least one of the rating endorsements described in Article 11(1);\n(c)\nthe Approach Control Procedural (APP) rating, which shall indicate that the holder of the licence is competent to provide an air traffic control service to arriving, departing or transiting aircraft without the use of surveillance equipment;\n(d)\nthe Approach Control Surveillance (APS) rating, which shall indicate that the holder of the licence is competent to provide an air traffic control service to arriving, departing or transiting aircraft with the use of surveillance equipment and shall be accompanied by at least one of the rating endorsements described in Article 11(2);\n(e)\nthe Area Control Procedural (ACP) rating, which shall indicate that the holder of the licence is competent to provide an air traffic control service to aircraft without the use of surveillance equipment;\n(f)\nthe Area Control Surveillance (ACS) rating, which shall indicate that the holder of the licence is competent to provide an air traffic control service to aircraft with the use of surveillance equipment and shall be accompanied by at least one of the rating endorsements described in Article 11(3).\n2. The holder of a rating who has not exercised the privileges associated with that rating for any period of four consecutive years may only commence unit training in that rating after appropriate assessment as to whether the person concerned continues to satisfy the conditions of that rating, and after satisfying any training requirements that result from this assessment.\nArticle 11\nRating endorsements\n1. The Aerodrome Control Instrument (ADI) rating shall bear at least one of the following endorsements:\n(a)\nthe Tower Control (TWR) endorsement, which shall indicate that the holder is competent to provide control services where aerodrome control is provided from one working position;\n(b)\nthe Ground Movement Control (GMC) endorsement, which shall indicate that the holder of the licence is competent to provide ground movement control;\n(c)\nthe Ground Movement Surveillance (GMS) endorsement, granted in addition to the Ground Movement Control endorsement or Tower Control endorsement, which shall indicate that the holder is competent to provide ground movement control with the help of aerodrome surface movement guidance systems;\n(d)\nthe Air Control (AIR) endorsement, which shall indicate that the holder of the licence is competent to provide air control;\n(e)\nthe Aerodrome Radar Control (RAD) endorsement, granted in addition to the Air Control endorsement or Tower Control endorsement, which shall indicate that the holder of the licence is competent to provide aerodrome control with the help of surveillance radar equipment.\n2. The Approach Control Surveillance (APS) rating shall bear at least one of the following endorsements:\n(a)\nthe Radar (RAD) endorsement, which shall indicate that the holder of the licence is competent to provide an approach control service with the use of primary and/or secondary radar equipment;\n(b)\nthe Precision Approach Radar (PAR) endorsement, granted in addition to the Radar endorsement, which shall indicate that the holder of the licence is competent to provide ground-controlled precision approaches with the use of precision approach radar equipment to aircraft on the final approach to the runway;\n(c)\nthe Surveillance Radar Approach (SRA) endorsement, granted in addition to the Radar endorsement, which shall indicate that the holder is competent to provide ground-controlled non-precision approaches with the use of surveillance equipment to aircraft on the final approach to the runway;\n(d)\nthe Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) endorsement, which shall indicate that the holder is competent to provide an approach control service with the use of automatic dependent surveillance;\n(e)\nthe Terminal Control (TCL) endorsement, granted in addition to the Radar or Automatic Dependent Surveillance endorsements, which shall indicate that the holder is competent to provide air traffic control services with the use of any surveillance equipment to aircraft operating in a specified terminal area and/or adjacent sectors.\n3. The Area Control Surveillance (ACS) rating shall bear at least one of the following endorsements:\n(a)\nthe Radar (RAD) endorsement, which shall indicate that the holder is competent to provide area control services with the use of surveillance radar equipment;\n(b)\nthe Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) endorsement, which shall indicate that the holder is competent to provide area control services with the use of automatic dependent surveillance;\n(c)\nthe Terminal Control (TCL) endorsement, granted in addition to the Radar or Automatic Dependent Surveillance endorsements, which shall indicate that the holder is competent to provide air traffic control services with the use of any surveillance equipment to aircraft operating in a specified terminal area and/or adjacent sectors;\n(d)\nthe Oceanic Control (OCN) endorsement, which shall indicate that the holder is competent to provide air traffic control services to aircraft operating in an Oceanic Control Area.\n4. The holder of a rating endorsement who has not exercised the privileges associated with that rating endorsement for any period of four consecutive years may only commence unit training in that rating endorsement after appropriate assessment as to whether the person concerned continues to satisfy the conditions of that rating endorsement, and after satisfying any training requirements that result from this assessment.\nArticle 12\nUnit endorsements\n1. The unit endorsement shall indicate that the licence holder is competent to provide air traffic control services for a particular sector, group of sectors or working positions under the responsibility of an air traffic services unit.\n2. Unit endorsements shall be valid for an initial period of 12 months.\n3. The validity of unit endorsements shall be extended for a subsequent period of 12 months beyond the period provided for in paragraph 2 if the air navigation service provider demonstrates to the competent authority that:\n(a)\nthe applicant has been exercising the privileges of the licence for a minimum number of hours, as indicated in the approved unit competence scheme, throughout the previous 12 months.\n(b)\nthe applicant\u2019s competence has been assessed in accordance with Part C of Annex II and\n(c)\nthe applicant holds a valid medical certificate.\nFor the application of point (a) of the first subparagraph, operational units within air navigation service providers shall keep records of the hours effectively worked in the sectors, group of sectors or in the working positions for every licence holder working in the unit and shall provide that data to the competent authorities and to the licence holder on request.\n4. The minimum number of working hours, leaving aside instruction tasks, required to maintain the validity of the unit endorsement may be reduced for on-the-job training instructors in proportion to the time spent instructing on the working positions for which the extension is applied, as indicated in the approved unit competence scheme.\n5. Where unit endorsements cease to be valid, a unit training plan shall be successfully completed so as to revalidate the endorsement.\nArticle 13\nLanguage endorsement\n1. Air traffic controllers and student air traffic controllers shall not exercise the privileges of their licence unless they have an English language endorsement.\n2. Member States may impose local language requirements when deemed necessary for reasons of safety.\nSuch requirements shall be non-discriminatory, proportionate and transparent and shall be notified to the Agency without delay.\n3. For the purpose of paragraphs 1 and 2 the applicant for a language endorsement shall demonstrate at least an operational level (level four) of language proficiency both in the use of phraseology and plain language.\nTo do so, the applicant shall:\n(a)\ncommunicate effectively in voice-only (telephone/radiotelephone) and in face-to-face situations;\n(b)\ncommunicate on common, concrete and work-related topics with accuracy and clarity;\n(c)\nuse appropriate communicative strategies to exchange messages and to recognise and resolve misunderstandings in a general or work-related context;\n(d)\nhandle successfully and with relative ease the linguistic challenges presented by a complication or unexpected turn of events that occurs within the context of a routine work situation or communicative task with which they are otherwise familiar and\n(e)\nuse a dialect or accent which is intelligible to the aeronautical community.\n4. The language proficiency level shall be determined in accordance with the rating scale set out in Annex III.\n5. Notwithstanding paragraph 3, extended level (level five) of the language proficiency rating scale set out in Annex III in application of paragraphs 1 and 2 may be required by the air navigation service provider, where the operational circumstances of the particular rating or endorsement warrant a higher level for imperative reasons of safety. Such a requirement shall be non-discriminatory, proportionate, transparent and objectively justified by the air navigation service provider wishing to apply the higher level of proficiency and approved by the competent authority.\n6. The language proficiency of the applicant shall be formally evaluated at regular intervals.\nExcept for applicants that have demonstrated language proficiency at an expert level (level six) in accordance with Annex III, the language endorsement shall be valid for a renewable period of:\n(a)\nthree years if the level demonstrated is operational level (level four) in accordance with Annex III or\n(b)\nsix years if the level demonstrated is extended level (level five) in accordance with Annex III.\n7. Language proficiency shall be demonstrated by a certificate issued after a transparent and objective assessment procedure approved by the competent authority.\nArticle 14\nInstructor endorsement\n1. Holders of an instructor endorsement shall be authorised to provide on-the-job training and supervision at a working position for areas covered by a valid unit endorsement.\n2. Applicants for the issue of an instructor endorsement shall:\n(a)\nhold an air traffic controller licence;\n(b)\nhave exercised the privileges of an air traffic controller licence for an immediately preceding period of at least one year, or such longer duration as is fixed by the competent authority having regard to the ratings and endorsements for which instruction is given and\n(c)\nhave successfully completed an approved on-the-job training instructor course during which the required knowledge and pedagogical skills were assessed through appropriate examinations.\n3. The instructor endorsement shall be valid for a renewable period of three years.\nCHAPTER III\nMEDICAL CERTIFICATION\nArticle 15\nApplication for and issue of medical certificates\n1. Applications for the issue, revalidation or renewal of medical certificates shall be submitted to the competent authority in accordance with the procedure established by that authority.\n2. Medical certificates shall be issued by a competent medical body of the competent authority or by aero medical examiners or aero medical centres approved by that authority.\n3. The issuing of medical certificates shall be consistent with the provisions of Annex I to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and the Requirements for European Class 3 Medical Certification of Air Traffic Controllers laid down by Eurocontrol.\n4. Competent authorities shall ensure that effective review or appeal procedures are put in place with the appropriate involvement of independent medical advisors.\nArticle 16\nValidity of medical certificates\n1. Medical certificates shall be valid for a period of:\n(a)\n24 months until the air traffic controller reaches the age of 40;\n(b)\n12 months after the age of 40.\n2. The periods referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated from the date of the medical examination in the case of initial issue and renewal of a medical certificate, and from the expiry date of the previous medical certificate in the case of revalidation.\n3. Examinations for the revalidation of a medical certificate may be undertaken up to 45 days prior to the expiry date of the medical certificate.\n4. If the air traffic controller does not undergo an examination for the revalidation by the date on which the certificate expires, a renewal examination shall be required.\n5. The medical certificate may be limited, suspended or revoked at any time if the medical condition of the holder so requires.\nArticle 17\nReduced medical fitness\n1. Licence holders shall:\n(a)\nnot exercise the privileges of their licence at any time when they are aware of any decrease in their medical fitness which might render them unable to safely exercise the privileges of the licence;\n(b)\nnotify the relevant air navigation service provider that they are becoming aware of any decrease in medical fitness or are under the influence of any psychoactive substance or medicines which might render them unable to safely exercise the privileges of the licence.\n2. Air navigation service providers shall establish procedures to manage the operational impact of cases of reduced medical fitness and inform the competent authority when a licence holder has been assessed as medically unfit.\n3. The procedures referred to in paragraph (2) shall be approved by the competent authority.\nCHAPTER IV\nREQUIREMENTS FOR TRAINING ORGANISATIONS\nArticle 18\nCertification of training organisations\n1. Applications for training organisation certification shall be submitted to the competent authority in accordance with the procedure established by that authority.\n2. Training organisations shall demonstrate by evidence that they are adequately staffed and equipped and operate in an environment suitable for the provision of the training necessary to obtain or maintain student air traffic controller licences and air traffic controller licences.\n3. Training organisations shall grant access to any person authorised by the competent authority to the relevant premises in order to examine the relevant records, data, procedures and any other material relevant to the execution of the tasks of the competent authority.\nArticle 19\nManagement system of training organisations\nTraining organisations shall:\n(a)\nhave an efficient management system and sufficient staff with adequate qualifications and experience to provide training according to this Regulation;\n(b)\nclearly define lines of safety accountability throughout the approved training organisation, including a direct accountability for safety on the part of senior management;\n(c)\nhave available the necessary facilities, equipment and accommodation appropriate for the type of training offered;\n(d)\nfurnish proof of the quality management system as part of the management system in place to monitor compliance with and the adequacy of the systems and procedures which ensure that the training services provided satisfy the requirements set out in this Regulation;\n(e)\ninclude a system of record-keeping that allows adequate storage and reliable traceability of the relevant activities;\n(f)\ndemonstrate that sufficient funding is available to conduct the training according to this Regulation and that the activities have sufficient insurance cover in accordance with the nature of the training provided.\nArticle 20\nRequirements for training courses, initial and unit training plans and unit competence schemes\n1. Training organisations shall provide to the competent authority the methodology they will use to establish details of the content, organisation and duration of training courses and where applicable unit training plans and unit competence schemes.\n2. This shall include the way examinations or assessments are organised. For examinations related to initial training, including simulation training, the qualifications of the examiners and assessors shall be indicated in detail.\nCHAPTER V\nREQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETENT AUTHORITIES\nArticle 21\nIndependence of the competent authority\n1. The competent authorities shall be independent of air navigation service providers and training organisations. This independence shall be achieved through adequate separation, at the functional level at least, between the competent authorities and such providers. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities exercise their powers impartially and transparently.\n2. Member States shall notify the Agency of the names and addresses of the competent authorities, as well as any changes thereof.\nArticle 22\nTasks of the competent authorities\n1. In order to ensure the levels of competence indispensable for air traffic controllers in order for them to perform their work to high safety standards, the competent authorities shall supervise and monitor their training.\n2. The tasks of competent authorities shall include:\n(a)\nthe issue and revocation of licences, ratings and endorsements for which the relevant training and assessment was completed under the area of responsibility of the competent authority;\n(b)\nthe revalidation, renewal and suspension of ratings and endorsements, the privileges of which are exercised under the responsibility of the competent authority;\n(c)\nthe certification of training organisations;\n(d)\nthe approval of training courses, unit training plans and unit competence schemes;\n(e)\nthe approval of examiners or competence assessors;\n(f)\nthe monitoring and auditing of training systems;\n(g)\nthe establishment of appropriate appeal and notification mechanisms;\n(h)\nthe approval of the need for extended level (level five) language proficiency in accordance with Article 13(5);\n(i)\nthe approval of the procedures related to reduced medical fitness in accordance with Article 17(3).\nArticle 23\nIssue and maintaining licences, ratings, endorsements and certificates\n1. The competent authority shall establish procedures for the application and issue, renewal and revalidation of licences, associated ratings, endorsements and medical certificates.\n2. Upon receipt of an application the competent authority shall verify whether the applicant meets the requirements of this Regulation.\n3. When satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of this Regulation, the competent authority shall issue, renew or revalidate the relevant licence, associated rating, endorsement or medical certificate.\n4. The license issued by the competent authority shall include the items set out in Annex I.\n5. When a license is issued in a language other than English, it shall include an English translation of the items set out in Annex I.\nArticle 24\nCompetence assessment\n1. Competent authorities shall approve the licence holders who are entitled to act as competence examiners or competence assessors for unit and continuation training.\n2. The approval shall be valid for a renewable period of three years.\nArticle 25\nRecord-keeping\nCompetent authorities shall ensure that a database is maintained listing the competencies of all licence holders under their responsibility and the validity dates of their endorsements.\nArticle 26\nExchange of information\nWith due respect to the principles of confidentiality set out in Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, competent authorities shall exchange appropriate information and shall assist each other so as to ensure the effective application of this Regulation, particularly in cases involving the free movement of air traffic controllers within the Union.\nArticle 27\nCertification procedure for training organisations\n1. Competent authorities shall establish procedures for the application, issuance and maintaining the validity of training organisations\u2019 certificates.\n2. Competent authorities shall issue certificates when the applicant training organisation fulfils the requirements laid down in Chapter IV.\n3. The certificate may be issued for each type of training or in combination with other air navigation services, whereby the type of training and the type of air navigation service shall be certified as a package of services\n4. The certificate shall specify the information in Annex IV.\nArticle 28\nMonitoring of training organisations activities and enforcement\n1. Competent authorities shall monitor compliance with the requirements and conditions attached to the training organisation\u2019s certificate.\n2. Competent authorities shall audit the training organisations on a regular basis with a view to guaranteeing effective compliance with the standards laid down in this Regulation.\n3. In addition to the regular audit, competent authorities may make unannounced inspections to check compliance with the requirements contained in this Regulation.\n4. If a competent authority finds that the holder of a training organisation\u2019s certificate no longer satisfies the requirements or conditions attached to its certificate, it shall take appropriate enforcement measures, which may include withdrawal of the certificate.\n5. Certificates issued in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation shall be mutually recognised.\nArticle 29\nRecognition of licences\n1. Member States shall recognise air traffic controller and student air traffic controller licences and their associated ratings, rating endorsements and language endorsements as well as associated medical certificates issued by other Member States in accordance with this Regulation.\nHowever, where a Member States has provided for a lower age limit than 21 pursuant to Article 9(3), the right to exercise of the privileges of the air traffic controller licence holder shall be limited to the territory of the Member State that has issued the licence until the holder reaches the age of 21.\nIn cases where a licence holder exercises the privileges of the licence in a Member State other than that in which the licence was issued, the licence holder shall have the right to exchange his or her licence for a licence issued in the Member State where the privileges are exercised, without additional conditions being imposed.\nIn order to grant a unit endorsement, the competent authority shall require the applicant to fulfil the particular conditions associated with this endorsement, specifying the unit, sector or working position. When establishing the unit training plan, the training organisation shall take due account of the acquired competencies and the experience of the applicant.\n2. The competent authority shall approve or reject the unit training plan containing the proposed training for the applicant not later than six weeks after presentation of the evidence, without prejudice to the delay resulting from any appeal that may be made. The competent authority shall ensure that the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality are respected.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 30\nCompliance with the essential requirements\nThe Agency shall make an evaluation of the air traffic controller licensing system established by this Regulation and of further improvements necessary towards a \u2018total aviation system approach\u2019 and to establish full compliance with the essential requirements as described in Annex Vb of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 with a view to submitting an opinion to the Commission, including possible amendments to this Regulation.\nArticle 31\nDerogations\n1. By way of derogation from Article 11 of this Regulation, Member States who have developed national rating endorsements referred to in Article 7(4) of Directive 2006/23/EC may continue to apply the relevant provisions of their national legislation in force at the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 12 of this Regulation, Member States who have provided in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 2006/23/EC that the privileges of a unit endorsement are only to be exercised by licence holders below a given age may continue to apply the relevant provisions of their national legislation in force at the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n3. Where a Member State decides to apply the derogations provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 it shall notify the Commission and the Agency.\nArticle 32\nTransitional arrangements\n1. By way of derogation from Annex II Part A of this Regulation, training organisations may continue to apply training plans based on edition of 10 December 2004 of the Eurocontrol\u2019s \u2018Guidelines for air traffic controllers Common Core Content Initial Training\u2019 for a period of one year after the entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Licences, ratings, endorsements, medical certificates and certificates for training organisations issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of national legislation based on Directive 2006/23/EC at the date of entry into force of this Regulation shall be deemed to be issued in accordance with this Regulation.\n3. Applicants for a licence, rating, endorsement, medical certificate or training organisation certificate, who submit their application before the date of entry into force of this Regulation and have not already been issued with a licence, rating, endorsement, medical certificate or training organisation certificate, shall demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this Regulation before the licence, rating, endorsement, medical certificate or training organisation certificate is issued.\n4. The competent authority of a Member State to which training organisations having the Agency as the competent authority in accordance with Article 4 have applied for the issue of a certificate before the date of entry into force of this Regulation shall finalise the certification process in coordination with the Agency and transfer the file to the Agency upon the issue of the certificate.\n5. The competent authority of a Member State which has had the responsibility for the safety oversight of training organisations having the Agency as the competent authority in accordance with Article 4 shall transfer the safety oversight function of those organisations to the Agency six months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 33\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2011.", "references": ["61", "16", "35", "87", "33", "39", "74", "41", "12", "94", "11", "66", "67", "20", "30", "58", "70", "28", "65", "91", "23", "25", "68", "72", "92", "5", "36", "59", "42", "82", "No Label", "49", "53", "57"], "gold": ["49", "53", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 532/2012\nof 21 June 2012\namending Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC and Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards entries for Israel in the lists of third countries or parts thereof with respect to highly pathogenic avian influenza\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1) and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first paragraph of point 1 of Article 8 and point 4 of Article 8 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (2), and in particular Articles 23(1) and 24(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2007/777/EC of 29 November 2007 laying down the animal and public health conditions and model certificates for imports of certain meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption from third countries and repealing Decision 2005/432/EC (3) lays down rules on imports into the Union and the transit and storage in the Union of consignments of meat products, treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (4).\n(2)\nPart 2 of Annex II to that Decision sets out a list of third countries or parts thereof from which the introduction into the Union of those commodities, which are subject to different treatments listed in Part 4 of that Annex, are authorised.\n(3)\nIsrael is listed in Part 2 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC as authorised for the introduction into the Union of meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption obtained from meat of poultry, farmed ratites and wild game birds, which have undergone a non-specific treatment, for which no minimum temperature is specified (\u2018treatment A\u2019).\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (5) provides that the commodities covered by it are only to be imported into and transited through the Union from the third countries, territories, zones or compartments listed in columns 1 and 3 of the table in Part 1 of Annex I thereto.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 798/2008 also lays down the conditions for a third country, territory, zone or compartment to be considered as free from highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and the requirements for the veterinary certification in that respect for commodities destined for importation into the Union.\n(6)\nIsrael is listed in the table in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as a third country from which all poultry commodities covered by that Regulation may be imported into the Union.\n(7)\nOn 8 and 9 March 2012 Israel notified the Commission of two outbreaks of HPAI of the H5N1 subtype on its territory. Due to those confirmed outbreaks of HPAI, the territory of Israel should no longer be considered as free from that disease. As a consequence, the veterinary authorities of Israel have suspended issuing veterinary certificates for consignments of certain poultry commodities from its whole territory destined for imports into the Union.\n(8)\nAs a consequence of those HPAI outbreaks, Israel no longer complies with the animal health conditions for applying \u2018treatment A\u2019 to meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption obtained from meat of poultry, farmed ratites and wild game birds as listed in Part 2 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC. The current \u2018treatment A\u2019 is insufficient to eliminate animal health risks linked to those commodities and upon confirmation of HPAI, the veterinary authorities of Israel therefore immediately suspended certification for products having undergone such treatment.\n(9)\nIsrael informed the Commission of the control measures taken in relation to the recent outbreaks of HPAI. That information and the epidemiological situation in Israel have been evaluated by the Commission.\n(10)\nIsrael has implemented a stamping out policy in order to control that disease and limit its spread. Israel is also carrying out avian influenza surveillance activities which appear to meet the requirements set out in Part II of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008.\n(11)\nThe positive outcome of the Commission\u2019s evaluation of the control measures taken by Israel and the epidemiological situation in that third country allow limiting the restrictions on imports into the Union for certain poultry commodities to the zone affected by the disease, which the veterinary authorities of Israel have placed under veterinary restrictions. The restrictions on those imports should apply during a three-month period until 22 June 2012, following adequate cleansing and disinfection of the previously infected holdings provided avian influenza surveillance has been carried out during that period by Israel.\n(12)\nThe table in Part 1 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC lists the territories or parts of territories of third countries to which regionalisation for animal health reasons applies. An entry for Israel should therefore be inserted in that table indicating the area in Israel that is affected by the outbreaks of HPAI of 8 and 9 March 2012.\n(13)\nPart 2 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC should also be amended in order to provide for adequate treatment of meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption obtained from meat of poultry, farmed ratites and wild game birds that originate from the area in Israel affected by those outbreaks.\n(14)\nIn addition, the entry for Israel in the table in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should be amended to add an area with the code IL-4 describing that part of Israel under restrictions for imports into the Union of certain poultry commodities in relation to the recent HPAI outbreaks of 8 and 9 March 2012. The \u2018closing\u2019 and \u2018opening dates\u2019 of 8 March 2012 and 22 June 2012 respectively should be indicated in columns 6A and 6B for the area covered by that code.\n(15)\nFurthermore, following a previous HPAI outbreak in 2011, imports of certain poultry commodities from Israel to the Union were prohibited by Regulation (EC) No 798/2008, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 427/2011 (6). The \u2018closing date\u2019 of 8 March 2011 indicated in column 6A for the area in Israel covered by code IL-3 in the table in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008, relating to that outbreak should be deleted as the period of 90 days during which commodities produced before that date may be imported, has elapsed.\n(16)\nDecision 2007/777/EC and Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Decision 2007/777/EC is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2012.", "references": ["1", "52", "85", "63", "94", "4", "97", "27", "87", "50", "15", "18", "42", "44", "19", "48", "58", "37", "30", "71", "76", "99", "32", "72", "10", "53", "79", "7", "98", "45", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "54", "61", "66", "69", "95", "96"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "54", "61", "66", "69", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 783/2012\nof 29 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 August 2012.", "references": ["7", "14", "63", "67", "97", "27", "18", "71", "77", "1", "78", "13", "76", "99", "42", "95", "62", "17", "89", "51", "2", "50", "11", "26", "59", "21", "24", "30", "48", "69", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 900/2011\nof 7 September 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of lasalocid A sodium as a feed additive for pheasants, guinea fowl, quails and partridges other than laying birds (holder of authorisation Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of lasalocid A sodium, CAS number 25999-20-6. The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of lasalocid A sodium, CAS number 25999-20-6, as a feed additive for pheasants, guinea fowl, quails and partridges other than laying birds, to be classified in the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of that preparation was authorised for 10 years for chickens for fattening and for chickens reared for laying up to 16 weeks by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1455/2004 (2), and for turkeys up to 16 weeks by Commission Regulation (EU) No 874/2010 (3).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for authorisation of lasalocid A sodium, CAS number 25999-20-6, for pheasants, guinea fowl, quails and partridges other than laying birds. The European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 16 March 2011 (4) that, under the proposed conditions of use, lasalocid A sodium, CAS number 25999-20-6, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment and that it is efficacious to control coccidiosis in the target species. It considers that there is a need for specific requirements of a post-market monitoring program on the resistance to bacteria and Eimeria spp. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of lasalocid A sodium, CAS number 25999-20-6, shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018coccdiostats and histomonostats\u2019 is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 September 2011.", "references": ["84", "9", "57", "12", "92", "53", "71", "19", "79", "49", "77", "78", "44", "67", "29", "10", "54", "27", "32", "58", "40", "45", "1", "46", "30", "8", "98", "93", "28", "37", "No Label", "25", "61", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "61", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 951/2010\nof 21 October 2010\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Community,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["63", "87", "84", "64", "60", "26", "59", "14", "0", "15", "80", "94", "43", "33", "86", "57", "31", "48", "53", "28", "6", "20", "55", "12", "99", "4", "41", "54", "76", "82", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 123/2011\nof 11 February 2011\nfixing the Union selling prices for the fishery products listed in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 for the 2011 fishing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1), and in particular Article 25(1) and (6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA Union selling price is to be fixed for each of the products listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 before the beginning of the fishing year, at a level at least equal to 70 % and not exceeding 90 % of the guide price.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1258/2010 (2) fixes the guide prices for the 2011 fishing year for all the products concerned.\n(3)\nMarket prices vary considerably depending on the species and how the products are presented, particularly in the case of squid and hake.\n(4)\nConversion factors should therefore be fixed for the different species and presentations of frozen products landed in the Union in order to determine the price level that trigger the intervention measure provided for in Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000.\n(5)\nIn order not to hinder the operation of the intervention system in the year 2011, this Regulation should apply retroactively from 1 January 2011.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Union selling prices, as referred to in Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, applicable during the 2011 fishing year for the products listed in Annex II to that Regulation and the presentations and conversion factors to which they relate are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 February 2011.", "references": ["16", "76", "42", "45", "4", "62", "27", "84", "80", "94", "79", "48", "52", "46", "20", "41", "66", "43", "5", "99", "28", "65", "54", "73", "25", "23", "0", "32", "88", "71", "No Label", "35", "67"], "gold": ["35", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 852/2011\nof 24 August 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 as regards the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota isoglucose until the end of the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 61, first paragraph, point (d), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 61, first subparagraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, isoglucose produced in excess of quota during a marketing year may be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed.\n(2)\nDetailed implementing rules for out-of-quota exports, in particular those concerning the issue of export licences, are laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2). Nevertheless, the quantitative limit should be fixed per marketing year, according to market opportunities.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 of 7 May 2010 fixing the quantitative limit for exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2010/11 marketing year (3) fixed the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota isoglucose at 50 000 tonnes. Large part of this quantity has already been used. As of 12 July 2011 only 16 520 tonnes remain available, i.e. 67 % of the available quantity has been already used. Given the possible market outlets for out-of-quota isoglucose, it is appropriate to increase the export quantitative limit by 15 000 tonnes.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 397/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 2(1) to Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. For the 2010/11 marketing year, running from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011, the quantitative limit referred to in Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) 1234/2007 shall be 65 000 tonnes, in dry matter, for exports without refund of out-of-quota isoglucose falling within CN codes 1702 40 10, 1702 60 10 and 1702 90 30.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 August 2011.", "references": ["19", "56", "27", "7", "41", "45", "67", "14", "37", "33", "10", "54", "59", "8", "57", "6", "5", "64", "32", "49", "91", "38", "72", "85", "55", "93", "46", "25", "24", "94", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "71", "75"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "71", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 772/2012\nof 23 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 August 2012.", "references": ["30", "2", "78", "71", "94", "17", "98", "59", "72", "67", "23", "36", "79", "46", "27", "89", "62", "5", "81", "32", "33", "97", "24", "19", "13", "74", "42", "76", "12", "54", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1076/2010\nof 22 November 2010\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of 3 months, continue to be invoked by the holder, pursuant to Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of 3 months pursuant to Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["74", "17", "60", "29", "49", "34", "32", "27", "80", "64", "73", "82", "43", "97", "66", "30", "86", "25", "35", "7", "71", "59", "72", "4", "24", "67", "65", "83", "48", "45", "No Label", "21", "84"], "gold": ["21", "84"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 88/2012\nof 1 February 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 of 7 July 2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq, (1) and in particular Article 11(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 lists the natural and legal persons, bodies or entities associated with the regime of former President Saddam Hussein covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 2 June 2011, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove two natural persons from the list of persons or entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply, with reference to paragraph 23(b) of Resolution 1483(2003) of the United Nations Security Council. Furthermore, on 6 December 2011 the Sanctions Committee decided to remove one natural person from this list.\n(3)\nAnnex V to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 lists the competent authorities to which specific functions relating to the implementation of that Regulation are attributed. This list should be updated on the basis of information received from Greece and Hungary.\n(4)\nAnnexes IV and V to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 is hereby amended as set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAnnex V to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 is hereby amended as set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 February 2012.", "references": ["62", "28", "13", "19", "48", "15", "89", "25", "26", "11", "64", "32", "52", "54", "73", "35", "50", "49", "33", "21", "12", "96", "56", "23", "55", "20", "9", "45", "29", "38", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2012/424/CFSP\nof 23 July 2012\nimplementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision 2011/782/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 21(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["60", "32", "42", "56", "67", "6", "13", "21", "25", "0", "40", "88", "29", "14", "43", "91", "23", "63", "51", "19", "66", "11", "8", "80", "65", "77", "28", "18", "17", "31", "No Label", "3", "12", "95"], "gold": ["3", "12", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 116/2012\nof 9 February 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia, (1) and in particular Articles 11(a) and 11(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 lists the natural and legal persons, bodies and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation; Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 lists the competent authorities to which specific functions relating to the implementation of that Regulation are attributed.\n(2)\nOn 23 December 2011, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council with its decision No. SC/10510 decided to amend the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I should therefore be amended accordingly,\n(3)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 should also be updated, on the basis of the information most recently provided by Member States regarding the identification of competent authorities.\n(4)\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 is hereby amended as set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 shall be replaced by Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 February 2012.", "references": ["62", "67", "95", "63", "82", "29", "41", "75", "36", "0", "83", "78", "4", "22", "86", "13", "24", "17", "77", "44", "54", "89", "25", "31", "88", "70", "39", "92", "52", "48", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 602/2011\nof 20 June 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["74", "66", "9", "55", "70", "13", "61", "57", "7", "30", "26", "90", "98", "10", "50", "93", "67", "19", "4", "72", "85", "96", "36", "8", "2", "48", "5", "89", "0", "20", "No Label", "21", "84"], "gold": ["21", "84"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1057/2010\nof 18 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2010.", "references": ["60", "62", "12", "90", "21", "45", "54", "34", "20", "1", "83", "89", "6", "50", "37", "76", "42", "80", "29", "67", "30", "9", "39", "51", "72", "26", "38", "31", "2", "98", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 858/2011\nof 24 August 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in VIId by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 August 2011.", "references": ["4", "93", "73", "57", "21", "30", "26", "81", "95", "16", "89", "12", "90", "0", "6", "51", "38", "10", "37", "72", "65", "36", "28", "17", "39", "80", "19", "45", "85", "94", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 December 2011\nappointing a member of the Scientific and Technical Committee\n(2011/865/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 134 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy its Decision of 22 January 2008 (1), the Council appointed the members of the Scientific and Technical Committee (\u2018the Committee\u2019) for the period 22 January 2008 to 22 January 2013.\n(2)\nFollowing the death of Mr Juan Antonio RUBIO RODR\u00cdGUEZ, a seat on the Committee has become vacant. A new member should therefore be appointed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Cayetano L\u00d3PEZ is hereby appointed member of the Scientific and Technical Committee to replace Mr Juan Antonio RUBIO RODR\u00cdGUEZ for the remainder of his term of office, which runs until 22 January 2013.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["10", "64", "21", "77", "82", "1", "91", "51", "20", "2", "86", "70", "49", "72", "97", "24", "36", "93", "76", "33", "79", "69", "22", "43", "18", "30", "84", "54", "25", "14", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 29 September 2010\nconcerning the aid scheme C 4/09 (ex N 679/97) implemented by France to promote radio broadcasting\n(notified under document C(2010) 6483)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/147/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof (2),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (3),\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter of 2 October 1997 the French Republic notified the Commission of aid scheme N 679/97, a draft decree envisaging a change in the existing aid scheme in favour of radio broadcasting services (4). By Decision of 10 November 1997 (5) the Commission approved the renewal of this radio broadcasting aid scheme for a period of 10 years.\n(2)\nA change in that aid scheme was approved by the Commission Decision of 28 July 2003 (6). The modification proposed by the French authorities referred, among other things, to a change in the methods of financing the aid scheme (7). In that Decision the Commission concluded that the amended aid scheme was compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter \u2018TFEU\u2019). The modification entered into force on 1 January 2003 for a period of 10 years.\n(3)\nOn 22 December 2008 the Court of Justice of the European Union declared that the Commission Decision of 10 November 1997 concerning the period 1997-2002 was invalid. Consequently, the Commission took all the necessary measures to rectify the illegality identified and has re-examined the information provided by the French authorities (for a detailed description of this procedure, see chapter 3 \u2018Grounds for initiating the procedure\u2019).\n(4)\nBy letter of 11 February 2009, the Commission informed the French Republic of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the aid.\n(5)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision to initiate that procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (8). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments on the aid in question.\n(6)\nBy letter of 23 April 2009 the French Republic submitted its comments on the measure.\n(7)\nThe Commission has not received other comments from interested third parties on this subject.\n2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\n(8)\nThe measure in question is an aid scheme in support of small French local radio stations that play a local social communication role and have commercial revenue from advertising and sponsorship that is not greater than 20 % of their turnover.\n(9)\nThe aid scheme was financed by receipts from a parafiscal charge levied on resources obtained from radio and television advertising broadcasts.\n(10)\nThe competent authority, namely the Support Fund for Radio Broadcasting (SFRB), can grant three types of aid:\n(a)\nan installation grant for community radio stations recently licensed by the High Audiovisual Council, which cannot exceed a ceiling specified in a scale;\n(b)\nan operating grant representing an amount specified in a scale which starts progressively and then becomes degressive, established by the committee responsible for granting the subsidies. The committee can increase the amount within predefined limits by taking into account the beneficiary\u2019s achievements relating to internal management and educational, community and cultural projects or local social communication;\n(c)\nan equipment grant paying for up to 50 % of the cost of renewing the equipment of eligible radio stations. This can be awarded only once every five years and cannot exceed the ceiling specified in a scale.\n(11)\nThe scheme has been in place since 1989 and has been subject to several changes, all notified to and approved by the Commission in 1990, 1992, 1997 and 2003, respectively.\n2.1. Beneficiaries of the aid scheme\n(12)\nThe draft decree notified by the French authorities concerns the implementation of the aid scheme set out in Article 80 of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 on freedom of communication, as amended by Article 25 of Law No 89-25 of 17 January 1989 and Article 27 of Law No 90-1170 of 29 December 1990, which provides as follows:\n\u2018Radio broadcasting services whose commercial revenue from broadcasting brand or sponsorship advertising represents less than 20 % of their total turnover shall benefit from aid in accordance with the rules laid down by decree of the Council of State.\nThe aid scheme shall be financed by a charge levied on resources obtained from radio and television advertising broadcasts.\nThe remuneration received by the radio broadcasting services for messages aimed at supporting community or general interest projects shall not be taken into account when determining the ceiling referred to in the first paragraph of this section.\u2019\n2.2. Method of financing the aid scheme\n(13)\nAs regards the financing component of the aid scheme, Article 1 of the draft decree notified by the French authorities on 2 October 1997 which became Decree No 97-1263 of 29 December 1997, introducing a parafiscal charge to be paid into a support fund for radio broadcasting (9), states:\n\u2018With effect from 1 January 1998, a parafiscal charge on advertisements broadcast on sound radio and television (\u201cthe charge on advertising companies\u201d) shall be introduced for a period of five years to fund an aid scheme for the benefit of those holding a licence to provide sound radio broadcasting services in respect of which the commercial revenue deriving from broadcasts of brand or sponsorship advertising is less than 20 % of the total turnover. The objective of this charge is to promote radio broadcasting.\u2019\nArticle 2 of the same decree states:\n\u2018The charge shall be levied on the sums, exclusive of agency fees and value added tax, paid by advertisers for the broadcasting of their advertisements to French territory.\nThose liable to pay the tax are the persons responsible for marketing such advertisements.\nThe rate of tax shall be determined in a joint order by the Ministers responsible for Budget and Communications and shall be paid in stages on the basis of the quarterly revenue of the companies liable for the charge and the following upper limits shall apply:\n[\u2026]\u2019\nArticle 4 of the same decree provides that the charge referred to in Article 2 is to be levied, collected and recovered by the Directorate-General for Taxation for the radio broadcasting support fund, in accordance with the same rules, guarantees and penalties as those referring to the VAT.\n(14)\nThese provisions have been amended following the change in the aid scheme notified to the Commission and approved by the decision of 28 July 2003 (10). Under the new rules, the parafiscal charge applies only to companies established on French territory.\n3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE\n(15)\nIn 1997, by Decision N 679/97, the Commission approved a change in the aid scheme consisting in a financing mechanism based on a parafiscal charge levied on radio and television advertising broadcasts. That decision did not include any assessment of the method of financing. The 1997 decision was in force until 2003, when it was replaced by a new positive decision, Decision NN 42/03 (11).\n(16)\nOn 3 August 2004, R\u00e9gie Network, the advertising arm of a major French radio station, NRJ, challenged the charge paid in 2001 (EUR 152 524) before the Lyon courts. The case was referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the validity of the Commission Decision of 10 November 1997 approving the aid.\n(17)\nThe judgment (12) of the Court of Justice, delivered on 22 December 2008, declared that the 1997 decision was invalid on the grounds that the Commission had omitted to assess the method of financing the measure under investigation.\n(18)\nUnder paragraph 89 of its judgment, the Court pointed out that consideration of an aid measure by the Commission must necessarily also take into account the method of financing the aid in cases where that method forms an integral part of the measure. Under paragraph 99 of its judgment, the Court stated that for a tax to be regarded as forming an integral part of an aid measure, it must be hypothecated to the aid under the relevant national rules, in the sense that the revenue from the charge is necessarily allocated for the financing of the aid and has a direct impact on the amount of the aid and, consequently, on the assessment of the compatibility of that aid with the internal market.\n(19)\nAfter having verified that all the requirements have been met in that case, the Court concluded, under paragraph 112 of its judgment, that the charge on advertising companies forms an integral part of the radio broadcasting aid scheme which that charge is intended to finance. Accordingly, the Commission should have taken that charge into account when it examined the aid scheme in question, which it omitted to do in Decision NN 42/03.\n(20)\nFollowing the judgment declaring that the Commission Decision of 10 November 1997 was invalid, the Commission took all the necessary measures to rectify the illegality identified and has re-examined the information provided by the French authorities. Consequently, on 11 February 2009 the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU, under procedure number C4/2009 (13).\n4. COMMENTS FROM FRANCE\n(21)\nBy letter of 23 April 2009 the French authorities submitted the following comments to the Commission:\n(a)\nAn annual average of EUR 20 million was collected and paid during the period in question, and distributed to over 500 recipients.\n(b)\nIt is not disputed that the parafiscal charge has also been paid by foreign operators providing radio broadcasting services in France delivered by radio stations or companies established in other Member States, but it would be impossible to identify them.\n(c)\nThe aid cannot give rise to any recovery primarily for two reasons: first, the aid scheme was duly notified to and approved by the Commission on several occasions, which gave its recipients legitimate expectations; secondly, given the current financial situation of the recipients it would be impossible for the French authorities to recover the amounts paid.\n5. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n5.1. Legal basis for the assessment\n(22)\nThe assessment of the aid scheme in question is based on Article 107(3) TFEU.\n5.2. Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU\n(23)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU provides as follows:\n\u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\u2019\n(24)\nExamination of this case according to the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(a) Aid granted by the State or through State resources\nThe aid scheme is financed by resources obtained from a parafiscal charge provided for by legislative and regulatory provisions, collected by the tax authorities and levied on radio and television advertising broadcasts.\nThe aid is therefore granted through French State resources.\n(b) Distortion or the threat to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods\nThe aid scheme promotes only radio broadcasting services. The beneficiaries of the aid scheme are providers of such services whose advertising revenue is less than 20 % of their total turnover. These broadcasting services are competing to attract listeners and advertising revenue, in particular with other radio broadcasting services in France whose commercial revenue exceeds this threshold and which do not receive public assistance under the aid scheme.\nTherefore, the aid in question distorts or at least threatens to distort competition between the service providers receiving the aid and those not receiving it.\n(c) Effect on trade between Member States\nThe radio broadcasting services delivered from locations on French territory, for instance by those benefiting under the aid scheme, can also be received in other Member States, albeit only in cross-border areas. At the same time, the parafiscal charge provided for by the legislative and regulatory provisions notified also applies to the advertising revenue of the services delivered in France from other Member States.\nIt follows that trade between Member States is affected or likely to be affected by the aid scheme notified.\n(d) Conclusion on the existence of State aid\nUnder these circumstances, the Commission considers that the radio broadcasting aid scheme notified by the French authorities falls within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU. Given that the scheme in question constitutes State aid, the Commission has the duty to examine its compatibility with the internal market. In accordance with the abovementioned R\u00e9gie Networks judgment, the charge levied on advertising companies and used to finance the aid in question must be taken into account when assessing the compatibility of the scheme.\n5.3. Compatibility of the aid in the light of Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU\n(25)\nBecause of its object and scope, the aid measure notified clearly fails to meet the requirements laid down in Article 107(2) TFEU and Article 107(3)(a) and (b) TFEU.\n(26)\nBecause its goal is to favour radio stations providing radio broadcasting services on French territory, in particular by assisting those with the lowest advertising revenue, the aid scheme aims to ensure media pluralism on French territory, which is a legitimate general objective. Thus, the aid component can be examined from the point of view of the criteria laid down in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. That Article provides as follows: \u2018The following may be considered to be compatible with the internal market: (\u2026) aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest (\u2026).\u2019 In this case, the Commission must weigh the positive and negative effects of the measure.\n(27)\nIn its previous decisions, the Commission concluded that the aid scheme in question has positive effects and is compatible with the internal market, in particular because the aid scheme contributes to a clearly specified objective of general interest. It aims to promote the plurality of radio stations providing radio broadcasting services on French territory. It supports small radio stations serving local audiences by taking into account social, cultural and local interests, which is a legitimate general objective. Moreover, any distortion of competition potentially caused by the aid scheme favouring these local radio stations is slight and does not change trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. Given the mission and size of the radio stations in question, the distortion of competition between them and providers of the same type of service in another Member State is quite small. Consequently, this scheme's impact on trade is particularly weak.\n(28)\nHowever, the assessment of Articles 3 and 6 of Decree No 97-1263 indicates that the financing of the aid scheme by means of the parafiscal charge in question forms an integral part of the measure, as was already stated by the Court in its R\u00e9gie Networks judgment (paragraphs 99 to 112).\n(29)\nAs the Court pointed out in paragraph 89 of the R\u00e9gie Networks judgment: \u2018the method by which aid is financed may render the entire aid scheme which it is intended to finance incompatible with the internal market. Therefore, the aid cannot be considered separately from the effects of its method of financing. Quite to the contrary, consideration of an aid measure by the Commission must necessarily also take into account the aid's method of financing in cases where that method forms an integral part of the measure (see to that effect, inter alia, van Calster and Others, paragraph 49, and Case C-345/02 Pearle and Others [2004] ECR I-7139, paragraph 29).\u2019\n(30)\nIt follows that the Commission must take this charge into account when examining the compatibility of the aid scheme with the internal market. The charge in question, levied on advertising companies, appears to run counter to the general principle, regularly asserted by the Commission and confirmed by the Court in its judgment in Case 47/69 France v Commission [1970] ECR 487, that imported products and services must be exempt from all parafiscal charges intended to finance an aid scheme which benefits national undertakings only. The Court referred to this assessment in paragraph 115 of its R\u00e9gie Networks judgment.\n(31)\nThe Commission takes the view that the non-exemption of radio broadcasting services delivered in France by radio stations which are located in other Member States and cannot benefit from aid under the notified aid scheme adversely affects trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. Even though the general purpose of the aid component of the notified scheme may be legitimate and may be regarded as compatible with the internal market, the same cannot be said of the method of financing it.\n6. CONCLUSION\n(32)\nUnder these circumstances, the Commission concludes that the aid scheme can be declared compatible with the internal market, in particular as regards the criteria set out in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. On the other hand, the Commission cannot approve the method of financing the scheme.\n(33)\nThe Commission has noted the impossibility, alleged by the French authorities in their letter of 23 April 2009, of identifying (among the payers of the parafiscal charge used to finance the aid scheme) the foreign operators who provided radio broadcasting services in France delivered by radio stations or companies located in other Member States during the period covered by the aid scheme in question. The Commission can admit the existence of administrative difficulties preventing their identification, given that the facts date far back in time. Nevertheless, on the basis of the explanations submitted by the French authorities, in the case in question the passage of time does not in itself appear to constitute an insurmountable obstacle to identifying who is liable to pay the charge. In reply, the French authorities stated that it was not always possible to establish, on the basis of the data available to them, whether the persons liable for the charge were companies broadcasting from French territory or from another Member State. In this case, they have to send individual notices to the persons liable for the charge, within six months of the date when this decision is notified, informing them of their specific right to reimbursement if they have been broadcasting to France from another Member State. The authorities must use all the available means to identify the persons liable for the charge. However, since it is not certain that the French authorities can identify all the persons liable for the charge, they also have the duty to conduct an adequate campaign advertising the reimbursement measures, so that the operators concerned can come forward.\n(34)\nThere is nothing to prevent France from enabling these unknown operators to exercise their right to the reimbursement of undue taxes paid between 1997 and 2002. France could rectify the incompatibility of the method of financing aid scheme by reimbursing the amount that is incompatible with the internal market in accordance with the following criteria:\n-\nFrance shall send the operators concerned individual notices informing them of their specific right to reimbursement in each case where the French authorities are able to identify them and shall also ensure adequate publicity, especially by publishing advertisements in specialist periodicals throughout the European Union (14),\n-\nthe persons liable for the charge shall be given three years from the date of the adequate publicity to submit the reimbursement request (15),\n-\nreimbursement shall be made within a maximum period of six months from the date of submission of the request (16),\n-\nadded to the amounts reimbursed shall be the interest actually accrued from the date when they were collected until the date of the actual reimbursement, calculated on a compound basis using as an objective benchmark rate, by analogy, the rate referred to in Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (17),\n-\nthe French authorities shall accept all reasonable proof submitted by the operators in question demonstrating that they have paid the charge,\n-\nthe right to reimbursement cannot be subjected to any other conditions,\n-\nthe French authorities shall send the Commission regular reports concerning the reimbursement procedure, every six months starting from the date when this decision is notified,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe aid scheme introduced by France is compatible with the internal market subject to the conditions laid down in Article 2.\nArticle 2\nTo remove the discrimination suffered by foreign broadcasters who paid the charge on advertising companies to the French State without the possibility of benefiting from the aid scheme, the French authorities shall reimburse the parafiscal charge collected from foreign operators between 1997 and 2002. Within six months of the date when this decision is notified, they shall inform all the operators who paid the charges to be reimbursed, in each case where they can identify them and send notices, by means of adequate publicity, so that the operators concerned can come forward. The French authorities shall give them three years to submit a reimbursement request (18). Following such a call and on the basis of the evidence presented by the operators in question, France shall, within six months at most from the date of submission of the reimbursement request, reimburse the amount of charges incompatible with the internal market plus the interest actually accrued, calculated on a compound basis using as an objective benchmark rate, by analogy, the rate referred to in Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\nArticle 3\nWithin two months of the date on which this Decision is notified, France shall inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply with it.\nIt shall send the Commission regular reports concerning the reimbursement procedure referred to in Article 2, every six months starting from the date on which this Decision is notified until the end of a three-year period starting from the date of the last adequate publicity measures referred to in Article 2.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 29 September 2010.", "references": ["70", "81", "43", "58", "14", "63", "44", "71", "29", "1", "30", "73", "2", "85", "39", "22", "68", "93", "52", "76", "90", "9", "7", "87", "21", "49", "50", "6", "18", "55", "No Label", "4", "15", "25", "34", "40", "41", "48"], "gold": ["4", "15", "25", "34", "40", "41", "48"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 598/2011\nof 21 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2011.", "references": ["58", "56", "63", "46", "22", "10", "4", "45", "65", "77", "59", "37", "93", "52", "2", "30", "83", "27", "94", "26", "72", "53", "99", "86", "34", "32", "97", "14", "89", "62", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 180/2012\nof 2 March 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (\u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03c6\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1 \u0391\u03bc\u03c5\u03b3\u03b4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u0393\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 (Koufeta Amygdalou Geroskipou) (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Cyprus\u2019s application to register the name \u2018\u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03c6\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1 \u0391\u03bc\u03c5\u03b3\u03b4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u0393\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u2019 (Koufeta Amygdalou Geroskipou) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2012.", "references": ["9", "49", "27", "41", "7", "86", "15", "16", "36", "83", "85", "81", "84", "95", "56", "69", "50", "35", "29", "31", "43", "67", "52", "34", "79", "60", "63", "37", "51", "90", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 302/2012\nof 4 April 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 103h and 127 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishes a common organisation of agricultural markets which includes the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors. Pursuant to Article 103a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 read in conjunction with Article 125e of that Regulation, Union aid may be granted to producer groups formed in Member States that recently acceded to the European Union, in the outermost regions of the Union and in the smaller Aegean Islands. That aid is to encourage the formation of producer groups, facilitate their administrative operation and enable producer groups to meet the recognition criteria for producer organisations, which are the basic actors of the fruit and vegetables sector.\n(2)\nArticles 36 to 49 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 (2) lay down the detailed rules in respect of producer groups. In order to prevent situations in which operators artificially create the conditions for obtaining payments of Union aid, with a view to obtain advantages contrary to the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, it is appropriate to require Member States to lay down rules in order to prevent producers from shifting from one producer group to another with the aim to benefit from Union aid for a longer period than the period referred to in Article 125e(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and to prevent Member States from recognising legal entities or clearly defined parts of such entities as producer groups, where such entities could already meet the recognition criteria for producer organisations.\n(3)\nArticle 125e(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 requires producer groups to present a phased recognition plan to the competent Member State. Member States should assess whether the duration of the proposed recognition plan is not unduly long and demand modifications where a producer group could meet the recognition criteria for producer organisations before the end of the transitional period referred to in Article 125e(1).\n(4)\nArticle 39(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 provides that Member States shall set the conditions under which producer groups may request changes to plans during their implementation. In order to ensure a sound application of that Regulation and in the interest of financial predictability and sound budgetary management, rules should be laid down providing for a maximum percentage for a proposed increase of the expenditure under an approved recognition plan. However, different limits should apply to recognition plans approved before the entry into force of this Regulation and in the case of mergers of producer groups.\n(5)\nFor reasons of budgetary discipline and in order to optimise the allocation of financial resources in a sustainable and effective way, it is appropriate to provide a ceiling for the Union financing of the aid to cover part of the investments referred to in Article 103a(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. For reasons of financial security and legal certainty, a list of investments which may not be covered by recognition plans should be drawn up.\n(6)\nFor reasons of budgetary discipline, it is also necessary to provide for a ceiling for the expenditure to be financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) in relation to the aid referred to in Article 103a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and to set up a notification system, under which the Member States inform the Commission in respect of the financial implications of the recognition plans prior to their approval.\n(7)\nIn order to prevent any unjustified enrichment where a member leaves its producer group and benefits from investments on its own holding, rules should be laid down in order to allow the producer group to recover the investment or the residual value of the investment where the amortisation period has not yet expired.\n(8)\nFor the sake of financial predictability and budgetary forecasting, it is appropriate to provide for more detailed rules on notifications from Member States to the Commission regarding financial implications of recognition plans of producer groups.\n(9)\nChecks should be conducted in such a manner as to permit Member States to react swifty to any possible abuse which implies a risk for the Union budget. For that purpose, it is appropriate to reinforce checks where significant irregularities have been revealed.\n(10)\nArticle 103e of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that in regions of the Member States where the degree of organisation of producers is particularly low, Member States may be authorised by the Commission, on a duly substantiated request, to pay producer organisations national financial assistance equal to a maximum of 80 % of the financial contributions referred to in Article 103b(1)(a) of that Regulation.\n(11)\nPursuant to Article 103e of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, in regions of Member States where producer organisations market less than 15 % of the fruit and vegetable production and whose fruit and vegetable production represents at least 15 % of their total agricultural output, the national assistance may be reimbursed by the Union at the request of the Member State concerned.\n(12)\nArticle 92(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 provides that the Commission is to approve or refuse the request for the authorisation to grant national financial assistance within three months of its submission. If the Commission does not reply within that period, the request is deemed to have been approved. However, the period of three months may be suspended where a Member State makes an incomplete request.\n(13)\nExperience has shown that the procedure for the adoption and notification to the Member State of a Commission Decision often requires more than three months and that the actual date from which a request is to be deemed approved cannot always be identified. For the sake of legal certainty, it is appropriate to provide that the Commission approves or refuses the request by way of a formal Decision.\n(14)\nArticle 103e of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 limits the proportion of national financial assistance which may be authorised to a maximum of 80 % of the financial contributions made by the members of a producer organisation or by the producer organisation itself. Article 95(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 limits the proportion of Union reimbursement of national financial assistance to 60 % of the national financial assistance granted to the producer organisations. For reasons of budgetary discipline, it is necessary to provide for a ceiling to the amount of national financial assistance that may be reimbursed by the Union by reference to the maximum amount of the Union financial assistance which may be granted to operational funds set up by producer organisations.\n(15)\nFor the sake of simplification, it is appropriate to fine-tune the procedure for the notification of producer prices of fruit and vegetables in the internal market on a voluntary basis.\n(16)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(17)\nIn order to ensure that legitimate expectations of producers are respected, it is necessary to provide that certain amendments made by this Regulation do not apply to recognition plans which have been accepted before the date of entry into force of this Regulation. However, in order to control budgetary expenditure and to ensure a level-playing field between economic operators, it should be provided that recognition plans that have been accepted before the entry into force of this Regulation should be treated in the same way as recognition plans adopted after the entry into force of this Regulation, with respect to the Union contribution to aid referred to in Article 103a(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, where the producer groups concerned have not yet committed themselves financially or have not yet entered into legally binding arrangements with third parties as regards the relevant investments prior to the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n(18)\nIn order to ensure a smooth transition to the new rules applicable to Union reimbursement of national financial assistance, the relevant amendment made by this Regulation should not apply to situations where the request for authorisation to pay national financial assistance has been approved by the Commission prior to the entry into force of this Regulation, but where the Commission has not yet decided on the reimbursement. In such situations Article 95(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 should continue to apply as not amended by this Regulation.\n(19)\nIn order to control Union expenditure for the fruit and vegetables sector, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(20)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 36(2), the following point (e) is added:\n\u2018(e)\nthe rules to avoid that a producer benefits from Union aid for producer groups for more than 5 years.\u2019\n(2)\nIn Article 37, the following second paragraph is added:\n\u2018The investments referred to in point (c) of the first paragraph shall not include investments listed in Annex Va.\u2019\n(3)\nArticle 38 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nParagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The competent authority of the Member State shall take one of the decisions referred to in paragraph 3 within three months of receipt of a draft recognition plan accompanied by all supporting documents. Member States may provide for a shorter deadline.\u2019\n(b)\nParagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Following the conformity checks referred to in Article 111, the competent authority of the Member State shall, as appropriate:\n(a)\nprovisionally accept the plan and grant preliminary recognition;\n(b)\nrequest changes to the plan, including changes in relation to its duration. In particular, the Member State shall assess whether the phases proposed are not unduly long and demand modifications where a producer group could meet the recognition criteria for producer organisations before the end of the five-year period referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 125e(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(c)\nreject the plan, especially in the case where the legal entities or clearly defined parts of such entities applying for preliminary recognition as producer groups already meet the criteria for recognition as a producer organisation.\nProvisional acceptance may be granted, where necessary, only if the changes requested under point (b) have been incorporated in the plan.\u2019\n(c)\nThe following paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 are added:\n\u20184. The competent authority of the Member State shall notify the Commission, by 1 July in any given year, of the decisions provisionally accepting recognition plans and the financial implications of those plans, using the templates set out in Annex Vb.\n5. Once the allocation coefficients referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 47(4) have been set, the competent authority of the Member State shall provide the producer groups concerned with an opportunity to amend or withdraw their recognition plan. Where a producer group does not withdraw its plan the competent authority shall accept such plan definitively subject to such amendments as the competent authority may deem necessary.\n6. The competent authority of the Member State shall notify the legal entity or clearly defined part of a legal entity of decisions referred to in paragraphs 3 and 5.\u2019\n(4)\nIn Article 39, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Member States shall set the conditions under which producer groups may request changes to plans during their implementation. Those requests shall be accompanied by all the necessary supporting documents.\nMember States shall determine the conditions under which recognition plans may be amended during an annual or semestrial segment without prior approval by the competent authority of the Member State. Those changes shall only be eligible for aid if they are communicated by the producer group to the competent authority of the Member State without delay.\nProducer groups may be authorised by the competent authority of the Member State, during a given year and in respect of that year, to increase the total amount of expenditure laid down in a recognition plan by a maximum of 5 % of the amount initially approved, or to decrease it by a maximum percentage to be fixed by Member States, in both cases provided that the overall objectives of the recognition plan are maintained and provided that the overall Union expenditure at the level of the Member State concerned does not exceed the amount of Union contribution allocated to that Member State in accordance with Article 47(4).\nIn the case of mergers of producer groups as referred to in Article 48, the limit of 5 % shall apply to the total amount of expenditure laid down in the recognition plans of the merging producer groups.\u2019\n(5)\nIn Article 44, the following third paragraph is added:\n\u2018Investments may be implemented on individual holdings and/or premises of producer members of the producer group, provided that they contribute to the objectives of the recognition plan. If the member leaves the producer group, Member States shall ensure that the investment or its residual value, where its amortisation period has not yet expired, is recovered.\u2019\n(6)\nArticle 47 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 47\nUnion contribution\n1. Subject to paragraph 4 of this Article, the Union contribution towards aid as referred to in Article 103a(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall amount to:\n(a)\n75 % in the regions eligible under the Convergence Objective; and\n(b)\n50 % in other regions.\nThe Member State may pay its national aid as a flat-rate payment. The aid application shall not be required to include evidence as to the use of the aid.\n2. The Union contribution towards aid as referred to in Article 103a(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, expressed in terms of a capital grant or capital-grant equivalent, shall not exceed, as a percentage of eligible investment costs:\n(a)\n50 % in the regions eligible under the Convergence Objective; and\n(b)\n30 % in other regions.\nThe Member States concerned shall undertake to contribute at least 5 % of eligible investment costs.\nBeneficiaries of aid towards eligible investment costs shall pay at least:\n(a)\n25 % in the regions eligible under the Convergence Objective; and\n(b)\n45 % in other regions.\n3. Subject to paragraph 4 of this Article, the Union contribution to the aid referred to in Article 103a(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be determined for each producer group on the basis of its value of marketed production and shall be subject to the following rules:\n(a)\nin respect of producer groups in Member States which acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004 or thereafter, no ceiling shall apply in the first two years of implementation of their recognition plan, and a ceiling of 70 %, 50 % and 20 % of the value of the marketed production shall apply in the third, fourth and fifth year of implementation of their recognition plan respectively;\n(b)\nin respect of producer groups in the outermost regions of the Union as referred to in Article 349 of the Treaty or in the smaller Aegean Islands as referred to in Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1405/2006 (3), the Union contribution shall be capped at 25 %, 20 %, 15 %, 10 % and 5 % of the value of the marketed production in the first, second, third, fourth and fifth year of implementation of their recognition plan respectively.\n4. The total expenditure for the Union contribution towards aid as referred to in Article 103a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall not exceed EUR 10 000 000 per calendar year.\nOn the basis of the notifications referred to in Article 38(4) the Commission shall set allocation coefficients and establish the total available Union contribution per Member State per year on the basis of those coefficients. If for any year the total amount resulting from the notifications referred to in Article 38(4) does not exceed the maximum amount of the Union contribution, the allocation coefficient shall be set at 100 %.\nThe Union contribution shall be granted in accordance with the allocation coefficient referred to in the second subparagraph. No Union contribution shall be granted in respect of recognition plans that were not notified in accordance with Article 38(4).\nThe exchange rate applicable to the Union contribution per Member State shall be the rate most recently published by the European Central Bank prior to the date provided for in Article 38(4).\n(7)\nIn Article 92, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The Commission shall approve or refuse the request by way of a Decision within three months. That period shall begin on the day following the day on which the Commission received a complete request. If the Commission does not demand additional information within the three-month period, the request shall be deemed complete.\u2019\n(8)\nIn Article 95(4), the following sentence is added:\n\u2018The amount reimbursed shall not exceed 48 % of the financial assistance referred to in Article 103b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\u2019\n(9)\nIn Article 97, point (c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nby 31 January in any given year, the financial amounts corresponding to each forthcoming annual period of implementation of the recognition plans including the current implementing year. Approved or estimated amounts shall be provided. The notification shall include the following information for each producer group and each annual forthcoming period of implementation of the plan:\n(i)\nthe total amount of the annual period of implementation of the recognition plan, the contributions from the Union, the Member States and the producer groups and/or members of the producer groups;\n(ii)\na breakdown between the aid referred to in, respectively, Article 103a(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\u2019\n(10)\nIn Article 98, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The notifications referred to in paragraph 3 shall be made in accordance with models made available to the Member States by the Commission. Those models shall not apply until the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has been informed.\u2019\n(11)\nIn Article 112, the following paragraphs 3a and 3b are inserted:\n\u20183a. The results of the on-the-spot checks referred to in paragraph 2 shall be evaluated to establish whether any problems encountered are of a systemic character, pointing to the likelihood of irregularities in respect of similar actions, beneficiaries or bodies. The evaluation shall also identify the causes of such situations, any further examination which may be required and the necessary corrective and preventive action.\nIf the checks reveal significant irregularities in a region or part of a region or for a specific producer group, the Member State shall carry out additional checks during the year concerned and shall increase the percentage of corresponding applications to be checked the following year.\n3b. The Member State shall determine which producer groups are to be subject to on-the-spot checks on the basis of a risk analysis.\nThe risk analysis shall in particular take account of:\n(a)\nthe amount of aid;\n(b)\nthe findings of the checks in previous years;\n(c)\nan element to ensure randomisation; and\n(d)\nother parameters to be determined by Member States.\u2019\n(12)\nAnnex Va, as set out in Annex I to this Regulation, is inserted.\n(13)\nAnnex Vb, as set out in Annex II to this Regulation, is inserted.\nArticle 2\nTransitional provisions\n1. Points (2), (3)(b), and (12) of Article 1 of this Regulation shall not apply to recognition plans which have been accepted before the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Point (6) of Article 1 of this Regulation, as regards Article 47(3) and (4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, shall not apply to recognition plans which have been accepted before the date of entry into force of this Regulation and in respect of which either:\n(a)\nthe producer group concerned has already committed itself financially or has entered into legally binding arrangements with third parties as regards the relevant investments referred to in Article 103a(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 prior to the date of entry into force of this Regulation, or\n(b)\nthe recognition plan concerned covers only aid referred to in Article 103a(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n3. For recognition plans accepted before the date of entry into force of this Regulation but in respect of which the producer group concerned has not yet committed itself financially or has not as yet entered into legally binding arrangements with third parties as regards the relevant investments prior to the date of entry into force of this Regulation the following rules shall apply:\n(a)\nby 1 July 2012 the competent authority of the Member State shall notify the Commission of recognition plans to which this paragraph applies;\n(b)\nwhen setting the allocation coefficients in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 47(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 the Commission shall take into account the notifications received pursuant to point (a) of this paragraph. The Union contribution towards the aid referred to in Article 103a(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted in accordance with those allocation coefficients;\n(c)\nthe allocation coefficients set in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 47(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 shall not apply in respect of the aid referred to in Article 103a(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(d)\nonce the allocation coefficients referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 47(4) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 have been set, the competent authority of the Member State shall provide the producer groups to which this paragraph applies with an opportunity to amend or withdraw their recognition plan. In the case of withdrawal, expenditure incurred by the producer group after the initial acceptance of the plan in respect of its formation and administration shall be reimbursed by the Union up to an amount not exceeding 3 % of the aid that the producer group would have been entitled to under Article 103a(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 if their recognition plan had been implemented.\n4. Point (8) of Article 1 shall not apply to cases where the request for authorisation to pay national financial assistance has been approved by the Commission in accordance with Article 92(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 prior to the date of entry into force of this Regulation, but where the Commission has not yet decided on Union reimbursement of the national financial assistance in accordance with Article 95 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 April 2012.", "references": ["73", "0", "59", "49", "57", "94", "82", "74", "47", "3", "67", "18", "89", "77", "60", "64", "25", "31", "20", "45", "28", "48", "65", "11", "69", "22", "71", "80", "99", "86", "No Label", "4", "10", "15", "33", "61", "62", "68", "72"], "gold": ["4", "10", "15", "33", "61", "62", "68", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 253/2012\nof 22 March 2012\namending for the 167th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a), 7a(1) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 12 March 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add two natural persons and one entity to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. On 14 March 2012 it decided to add another four natural persons to the list and amend one entry on the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 March 2012.", "references": ["96", "23", "71", "97", "26", "40", "2", "29", "88", "5", "32", "63", "85", "4", "11", "94", "69", "45", "68", "47", "77", "41", "55", "35", "65", "53", "48", "76", "6", "93", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 963/2010\nof 26 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 October 2010.", "references": ["47", "72", "7", "3", "41", "82", "37", "40", "69", "98", "33", "5", "60", "49", "87", "8", "97", "32", "90", "25", "77", "51", "24", "43", "91", "96", "53", "67", "79", "38", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 581/2010\nof 1 July 2010\non the maximum periods for the downloading of relevant data from vehicle units and from driver cards\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (1), and in particular Article 10(5)(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegular downloads of data recorded by the vehicle unit and on the driver card are necessary in order to render possible an effective control of the driver\u2019s and the undertaking\u2019s compliance with the provisions on driving times and rest periods as laid down by Regulation (EC) No 561/2006.\n(2)\nBy determining the maximum period within which the relevant data shall be downloaded from the vehicle unit and the driver card, conditions for road transport undertakings will be further harmonised throughout the Union.\n(3)\nFor the determination of the maximum periods within which data are to be downloaded, only days with a recorded activity should be counted.\n(4)\nDirective 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (2) applies to the processing of personal data pursuant to this Regulation.\n(5)\nIn order to reduce administrative burden on undertakings, it is appropriate to define the relevant data to be downloaded.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 (3),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. This Regulation lays down the maximum periods within which the relevant data shall be downloaded from the vehicle unit and driver card for the purposes of Article 10(5)(a)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation, \u2018relevant data\u2019 means any data recorded by the digital tachograph other than detailed speed data.\n3. The maximum period within which the relevant data are downloaded shall not exceed:\n(a)\n90 days for data from the vehicle unit;\n(b)\n28 days for data from the driver card.\n4. Relevant data has to be downloaded in such a way that no data is lost.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the 90th day following the publication.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2010.", "references": ["52", "91", "66", "30", "19", "86", "62", "33", "79", "69", "4", "60", "61", "63", "77", "25", "28", "14", "87", "21", "7", "18", "75", "84", "82", "17", "98", "65", "22", "35", "No Label", "8", "40", "51", "53", "55"], "gold": ["8", "40", "51", "53", "55"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 885/2010\nof 7 October 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of the preparation of narasin and nicarbazin as a feed additive for chickens for fattening (holder of authorisation Eli Lilly and Company Ltd) and amending Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).\n(2)\nThe preparation of narasin, CAS number 55134-13-9, and nicarbazin, CAS number 330-95-0, was authorised for ten years in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC as a feed additive for use on chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (3). That additive was subsequently entered in the Community Register of feed additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 of that Regulation, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of that additive, requesting that additive to be classified in the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 7 April 2010 that, under the proposed conditions of use, the preparation of narasin and of nicarbazin do not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer health or the environment and that these additives are effective in controlling coccidiosis in chickens for fattening (4). It considers that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring to control the possible development of bacterial and/or Eimeria spp resistances. Since p-nitroaniline, an impurity associated with nicarbazin, leads to possible residues of this substance, the Authority recommends that the content of that impurity be limited at the lowest achievable level. The Authority also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of the preparation of narasin and nicarbazin shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation. In view of the opinion of the Authority, it is, however, necessary to limit the content of the impurity p-nitroaniline. To give producers and users time to adapt, it is appropriate for this limitation to start to apply three years after this Regulation becomes applicable.\n(6)\nAs a consequence of the granting of a new authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, the provisions on that preparation in Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 should be deleted.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018coccidiostats and histomonostats\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999, the entry under the registration number of additive E 772, concerning Narasin 80 g/kg - Nicarbazin 80 g/kg (Maxiban G160), is deleted.\nPremixture and compound feed containing the feed additive labelled in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 may continue to be placed on the market and remain on the market and used until stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 October 2010.", "references": ["24", "62", "92", "95", "29", "65", "46", "14", "79", "89", "77", "83", "41", "91", "28", "93", "75", "33", "72", "45", "3", "59", "49", "96", "5", "8", "20", "27", "71", "9", "No Label", "38", "61", "66", "74"], "gold": ["38", "61", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 373/2010\nof 30 April 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 April 2010.", "references": ["73", "34", "5", "24", "53", "55", "92", "16", "82", "99", "15", "69", "3", "50", "36", "66", "14", "8", "38", "65", "25", "23", "4", "75", "9", "0", "31", "26", "17", "63", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/79/CFSP\nof 4 February 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (1), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof, in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Treaty on European Union,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 31 January 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia.\n(2)\nThe list of persons subject to the restrictive measures set out in the Annex to that Decision should be amended, and the information relating to certain persons on the list should be updated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/72/CFSP shall be replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 4 February 2011.", "references": ["58", "83", "56", "25", "80", "77", "47", "81", "55", "34", "64", "44", "8", "13", "49", "37", "60", "72", "63", "14", "91", "88", "93", "92", "54", "42", "62", "78", "85", "4", "No Label", "11", "12", "36", "94"], "gold": ["11", "12", "36", "94"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 438/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 19 May 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) and Article 168(4)(b) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) lays down the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and the rules applying to checks on such movement.\n(2)\nArticle 5 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 lays down provisions applicable to the movement between Member States of dogs, cats and ferrets as listed in Parts A and B of Annex I thereto. Pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) of that Regulation, those pet animals must be identified by means of an electronic identification system (transponder). For an eight-year transitional period from the date of entry into force of that Regulation, those pet animals are to be regarded as identified also where they bear a clearly readable tattoo.\n(3)\nArticle 4(1) and Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provide that, where the transponder does not comply with ISO Standard 11784 or with Annex A to ISO Standard 11785, the owner or the natural person responsible for the pet animal on behalf of the owner must provide the means necessary for reading the transponder at the time of any inspection.\n(4)\nIn order to avoid any unnecessary disturbances, in particular as regards the movement of pet animals from third countries, it is necessary to make the references to those ISO Standards more precise before the use of transponders becomes mandatory. Due to the technical nature of those references, it is appropriate to include them in an Annex to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 and amend Articles 4 and 14 of that Regulation accordingly.\n(5)\nIn addition, Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that dogs, cats and ferrets must be accompanied by a passport issued by a veterinarian authorised by the competent authority, certifying valid anti-rabies vaccination, in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturing laboratory, carried out on the animal in question, with an inactivated anti-rabies vaccine of at least one antigenic unit per dose (WHO standard). Since the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, recombinant vaccines have also become available for the purposes of anti-rabies vaccination.\n(6)\nIn order to allow the movement, in particular from third countries, of dogs, cats and ferrets vaccinated with recombinant vaccines, provision should also be made to authorise, for the purpose of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, the use of such vaccines in accordance with certain technical requirements laid down in an Annex to that Regulation.\n(7)\nIf administered in a Member State, the vaccines should have been granted a marketing authorisation in accordance with either Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (4) or Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (5).\n(8)\nIf administered in a third country, the vaccines should comply with the minimum standards for safety as laid down in the relevant Chapter of the Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).\n(9)\nIn addition, science-based rules of a similar kind to those laid down for rabies should be adopted. They should provide for preventive health measures for the movement of pet animals regarding other diseases that may affect those animals, where those preventive measures are proportionate to the risk of spreading those diseases due to such movement.\n(10)\nArticle 6 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that the entry of dogs and cats into Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom is to be subject to additional requirements, in view of the particular situation in those Member States with regard to rabies. That provision is to be applied as a transitional measure until 30 June 2010.\n(11)\nIn accordance with those additional requirements, dogs and cats entering the territory of those Member States must be identified by means of a transponder unless the Member State of destination also recognises that the animal may be identified by means of a clearly readable tattoo. In addition, those requirements include mandatory antibody titration before entry of those pet animals into the territory of those Member States, to confirm a protective level of anti-rabies antibodies.\n(12)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of preventive health measures regarding diseases other than rabies, and modifications of technical requirements for the identification of animals and for the anti-rabies vaccination as laid down in the Annexes inserted, in accordance with this Regulation, into Regulation (EC) No 998/2003. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(13)\nArticle 8 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 lays down the conditions for the movement of dogs, cats and ferrets from third countries depending on the prevailing rabies situation in the third country of origin and in the Member State of destination.\n(14)\nArticle 8(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that, in cases where pet animals are moved from certain third countries to Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom, the additional requirements provided for in Article 6 of that Regulation are to apply. Those third countries are listed in Section 2 of Part B and in Part C of Annex II to that Regulation.\n(15)\nArticle 8(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that, in cases where pet animals are moved from other third countries, they are to be placed in quarantine unless they have been brought into conformity with the requirements of Article 6 of that Regulation after their entry into the Union.\n(16)\nIn addition, Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom as regards echinococcosis, and Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom as regards ticks, may make the entry of pet animals into their territory subject to compliance with the special rules applicable on the date of entry into force of that Regulation. That provision is to be applied as a transitional measure until 30 June 2010.\n(17)\nArticle 23 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that the Commission, after receipt of the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the need to maintain the serological test, and based on experience gained and on a risk evaluation, is to submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report, together with appropriate proposals for determining the regime to be applied with effect from 1 July 2010 for Articles 6, 8 and 16 of that Regulation.\n(18)\nIn order to determine that regime, the Commission carried out an impact assessment based on various recent consultations and on the Commission report that was adopted on 8 October 2007 in connection with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 and took into account the recommendations made by EFSA.\n(19)\nOn 11 December 2006, EFSA adopted an opinion entitled \u2018Assessment of the risk of rabies introduction into the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Malta, as a consequence of abandoning the serological test measuring protective antibodies to rabies\u2019 (6).\n(20)\nBased on 2005 data, EFSA identified that certain Member States have a non-negligible prevalence of rabies in pet animals. In addition, EFSA recommended that risk-mitigating measures be implemented with respect to the movement of pet animals from countries with non-negligible prevalence of rabies in pet animals.\n(21)\nRabies in those Member States is primarily of sylvatic nature. Field evidence demonstrated that with the elimination of sylvatic rabies as a result of intensive programmes of oral vaccination of wildlife, the disease occurrence in domestic animals diminishes.\n(22)\nThe Community has approved a number of programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of rabies in those Member States, pursuant to Article 24(5) of Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (7). The Commission envisages ending EU support to national programmes in the territory of those Member States by the end of 2011.\n(23)\nIn view of the EFSA opinion of 11 December 2006 and of the Community-supported programmes for the eradication of rabies in certain Member States, the transitional measure provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 should be extended until 31 December 2011.\n(24)\nOn 18 January 2007, EFSA adopted an opinion entitled \u2018Assessment of the risk of echinococcosis introduction into the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Malta and Finland as a consequence of abandoning the national rules\u2019 (8).\n(25)\nOn 8 March 2007, EFSA adopted an opinion entitled \u2018Assessment of the risk of tick introduction into the UK, Ireland and Malta as a consequence of abandoning the national rules\u2019 (9).\n(26)\nThose opinions show that the data available did not allow EFSA to demonstrate a particular status of the Member States applying the transitional measures with regard to certain ticks and the tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis and to quantify the risk of pathogen introduction through the non-commercial movement of pet animals.\n(27)\nIn order to ensure consistency as regards the transitional measures, it is appropriate to extend the transitional measure provided for in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 until 31 December 2011.\n(28)\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nIn Article 4(1), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In the case referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph, where the transponder does not comply with the requirements set out in Annex Ia, the owner or the natural person responsible for the pet animal on behalf of the owner must provide the means necessary for reading the transponder at the time of any inspection.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 5(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nPoint (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nbe accompanied by a passport issued by a veterinarian authorised by the competent authority certifying that:\n(i)\na valid anti-rabies vaccination was carried out on the animal in question pursuant to Annex Ib,\n(ii)\nwhere necessary, preventive health measures regarding other diseases were carried out on the animal in question.\u2019;\n(b)\nThe following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018In order to ensure the control of diseases other than rabies, likely to spread due to the movement of pet animals, the Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 19b and subject to the conditions of Articles 19c and 19d, the preventive health measures referred to in point (b)(ii) of the first subparagraph. Those measures shall be scientifically justified and shall be proportionate to the risk of spreading those diseases due to such movement.\u2019;\n3.\nIn the first subparagraph of Article 6(1), the introductory part and the first indent is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Until 31 December 2011, the entry of the pet animals listed in Part A of Annex I into the territory of Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom shall be subject to the following requirements:\n-\nthey must be identified in accordance with point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1), unless, until the end of the eight-year transitional period provided for in Article 4(1), the Member State of destination also recognises identification in accordance with point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1), and\u2019;\n4.\nArticle 8(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nIn point (a), point (ii) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(ii)\nuntil 31 December 2011, one of the Member States listed in part A of Annex II, either directly or after transit through one of the territories listed in part B of Annex II, satisfy the requirements of Article 6.\u2019\n(b)\nIn point (b), point (ii) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(ii)\nuntil 31 December 2011, one of the Member States listed in part A of Annex II, either directly or after transit through one of the territories listed in part B of Annex II, be placed in quarantine unless they have been brought into conformity with the requirements of Article 6 after their entry into the Union.\u2019;\n5.\nIn Article 14, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In the case referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1), where the transponder does not comply with the requirements set out in Annex Ia, the owner or the natural person responsible for the pet animal on behalf of the owner must provide the means necessary for reading the transponder at the time of any inspection.\u2019;\n6.\nArticle 16 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 16\nUntil 31 December 2011, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom, as regards echinococcosis, and Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom, as regards ticks, may make the entry of pet animals into their territory subject to compliance with the special rules applicable on the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\u2019;\n7.\nThe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 19a\n1. In order to take account of technical progress, the Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 19b and subject to the conditions of Articles 19c and 19d, amendments to the technical requirements for the identification as laid down in Annex Ia.\n2. In order to take account of scientific and technical developments regarding anti-rabies vaccination, the Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 19b and subject to the conditions of Articles 19c and 19d, amendments to the technical requirements for the anti-rabies vaccination as laid down in Annex Ib.\n3. When adopting such delegated acts, the Commission shall act in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation.\nArticle 19b\n1. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 5(1) and Article 19a shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years following 18 June 2010. The Commission shall make a report in respect of the delegated powers not later than 6 months before the end of the 5 year period. The delegation of powers shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 19c.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 19c and 19d.\nArticle 19c\n1. The delegation of powers referred to in Article 5(1) and Article 19a may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of powers shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 19d\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of two months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council this period shall be extended by two months.\n2. If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\u2019;\n8.\nAnnexes Ia and Ib, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation, are inserted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 19 May 2010.", "references": ["70", "0", "75", "47", "94", "35", "34", "14", "51", "17", "69", "13", "37", "1", "41", "4", "19", "80", "85", "97", "2", "20", "78", "84", "27", "81", "73", "60", "7", "22", "No Label", "38", "54", "66"], "gold": ["38", "54", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 832/2012\nof 17 September 2012\nconcerning the authorisation of a preparation of ammonium chloride as a feed additive for lambs for fattening (holder of authorisation Latochema Co. Ltd)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of ammonium chloride. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of the preparation of ammonium chloride, as specified in the Annex, as a feed additive for lambs for fattening, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 31 January 2012 (2) that, under the proposed conditions of use and for a limited period of feeding, the preparation of ammonium chloride, as specified in the Annex, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use can reduce the pH value in the urine in lambs for fattening. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of the preparation of ammonium chloride, as specified in the Annex, shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018other zootechnical additives\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 September 2012.", "references": ["63", "39", "24", "32", "8", "7", "4", "13", "12", "82", "60", "52", "70", "5", "56", "17", "91", "29", "96", "89", "73", "46", "6", "16", "68", "93", "1", "94", "90", "88", "No Label", "25", "38", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1175/2010\nof 10 December 2010\non selling prices for cereals in response to the second individual invitations to tender within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 (2) has opened the sales of cereals by tendering procedures, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission has to fix for each cereal and per Member State a minimum selling price or to decide not to fix a minimum selling price.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the second individual invitations to tender, it has been decided that a minimum selling price should be fixed for certain cereals and for certain Member States and no minimum selling price should be fixed for other cereals and other Member States.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the second individual invitations to tender for selling of cereals within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 8 December 2010, the decisions on the selling price per cereal and Member State are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 December 2010.", "references": ["87", "7", "63", "8", "72", "70", "31", "17", "62", "14", "29", "36", "75", "55", "52", "47", "99", "98", "79", "0", "30", "28", "91", "56", "40", "51", "23", "2", "45", "37", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 966/2010\nof 27 October 2010\ninitiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China by imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, and making such imports subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Articles 13(3), 14(3) and 14(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has decided, pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, to investigate on its own initiative the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\nA. PRODUCT\n(2)\nThe product concerned by the possible circumvention is certain iron or steel fasteners, other than of stainless steel, i.e. wood screws (excluding coach screws), self-tapping screws, other screws and bolts with heads (whether or not with their nuts or washers, but excluding screws turned from bars, rods, profiles or wire, of solid section, of a shank thickness not exceeding 6 mm and excluding screws and bolts for fixing railway track construction material), and washers, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, falling within CN codes 7318 12 90, 7318 14 91, 7318 14 99, 7318 15 59, 7318 15 69, 7318 15 81, 7318 15 89, ex 7318 15 90, ex 7318 21 00 and ex 7318 22 00.\n(3)\nThe product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but consigned from Malaysia, whether originating in Malaysia or not, currently falling within the same CN codes as the product concerned.\nB. EXISTING MEASURES\n(4)\nThe measures currently in force and possibly being circumvented are anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (2).\nC. GROUNDS\n(5)\nThe Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of the product concerned are being circumvented by means of the transhipment via Malaysia.\n(6)\nThe prima facie evidence at the Commission\u2019s disposal is as follows:\n(7)\nThere is a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the People\u2019s Republic of China and Malaysia to the Union which has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned, without sufficient due cause or justification other than the imposition of the duty for such a change.\n(8)\nThis change in the pattern of trade appears to stem from the transhipment of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China via Malaysia.\n(9)\nFurthermore, the evidence points to the fact that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned are being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. Significant volumes of imports of the product under investigation appear to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, there is sufficient evidence that this increased volume of imports is made at prices well below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures.\n(10)\nFinally, the Commission has sufficient prima facie evidence at its disposal that the prices of the product under investigation are dumped in relation to the normal value previously established for the product concerned.\n(11)\nShould circumvention practices via Malaysia covered by Article 13 of the basic Regulation, other than transhipment, be identified in the course of the investigation, the investigation may also cover these practices.\nD. PROCEDURE\n(12)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation and to make imports of the product under investigation, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(a) Questionnaires\n(13)\nIn order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the known exporters/producers and to the known associations of exporters/producers in Malaysia, to the known exporters/producers and to the known associations of exporters/producers in the People\u2019s Republic of China, to the known importers and to the known associations of importers in the Union and to the authorities of the People\u2019s Republic of China and Malaysia. Information, as appropriate, may also be sought from the Union industry.\n(14)\nIn any event, all interested parties should contact the Commission forthwith, but not later than the time limit set in Article 3 of this Regulation, and request a questionnaire within the time limit set in Article 3(1) of this Regulation, given that the time limit set in Article 3(2) of this Regulation applies to all interested parties.\n(15)\nThe authorities of the People\u2019s Republic of China and Malaysia will be notified of the initiation of the investigation.\n(b) Collection of information and holding of hearings\n(16)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation may be exempted from registration or measures if the importation does not constitute circumvention.\n(17)\nSince the possible circumvention takes place outside the Union, exemptions may be granted, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, to producers in Malaysia of certain iron or steel fasteners that can show that they are not related (3) to any producer subject to the measures (4) and that are found not to be engaged in circumvention practices as defined in Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the basic Regulation. Producers wishing to obtain an exemption should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the time limit indicated in Article 3(3) of this Regulation.\nE. REGISTRATION\n(18)\nPursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied retroactively from the date of registration of such imports consigned from Malaysia.\nF. TIME LIMITS\n(19)\nIn the interests of sound administration, time limits should be stated within which:\n-\ninterested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,\n-\nproducers in Malaysia may request exemption from registration of imports or measures,\n-\ninterested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.\n(20)\nAttention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party\u2019s making itself known within the time limits mentioned in Article 3 of this Regulation.\nG. NON-COOPERATION\n(21)\nIn cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.\n(22)\nWhere it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of the facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.\nH. SCHEDULE OF THE INVESTIGATION\n(23)\nThe investigation will be concluded, according to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, within nine months of the date of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nI. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\n(24)\nIt is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5).\nJ. HEARING OFFICER\n(25)\nIt is also noted that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of Directorate-General for Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views. For further information and contact details, interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer\u2019s web pages on the website of Directorate-General for Trade (http://ec.europa.eu/trade),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAn investigation is hereby initiated pursuant to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, in order to determine if imports into the European Union of certain iron or steel fasteners, other than of stainless steel, i.e. wood screws (excluding coach screws), self-tapping screws, other screws and bolts with heads (whether or not with their nuts or washers, but excluding screws turned from bars, rods, profiles or wire, of solid section, of a shank thickness not exceeding 6 mm and excluding screws and bolts for fixing railway track construction material), and washers, consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 7318 12 90, ex 7318 14 91, ex 7318 14 99, ex 7318 15 59, ex 7318 15 69, ex 7318 15 81, ex 7318 15 89, ex 7318 15 90, ex 7318 21 00 and ex 7318 22 00 (TARIC codes 7318129011, 7318129091, 7318149111, 7318149191, 7318149911, 7318149991, 7318155911, 7318155961, 7318155981, 7318156911, 7318156961, 7318156981, 7318158111, 7318158161, 7318158181, 7318158911, 7318158961, 7318158981, 7318159021, 7318159071, 7318159091, 7318210031, 7318210095, 7318220031 and 7318220095), are circumventing the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009.\nArticle 2\nThe Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union identified in Article 1 of this Regulation.\nRegistration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThe Commission, by regulation, may direct Customs authorities to cease registration in respect of imports into the Union of products manufactured by producers having applied for an exemption of registration and having been found to fulfil the conditions for an exemption to be granted.\nArticle 3\nQuestionnaires should be requested from the Commission within 15 days of the date of publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nInterested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 37 days from the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.\nProducers in Malaysia requesting exemption from registration of imports or measures should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the same 37-day time limit.\nInterested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 37-day time limit.\nAny information, any request for a hearing or for a questionnaire as well as any request for exemption from registration of imports or measures must be made in writing (not in electronic format, unless otherwise specified) and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers of the interested party. All written submissions, including the information requested in this Regulation, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labelled as \u2018Limited\u2019 (6) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labelled \u2018For inspection by interested parties\u2019.\nCommission address for correspondence:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N105 4/92\n1049 Bruxelles/Brussel\nBELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb\nFax +32 22978486\nE-mail: TRADE-AD-FASTENERS-MALAYSIA@ec.europa.eu\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2010.", "references": ["28", "79", "92", "1", "67", "98", "6", "55", "63", "89", "13", "49", "2", "0", "69", "31", "71", "43", "42", "81", "75", "18", "5", "73", "14", "64", "83", "51", "61", "94", "No Label", "8", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["8", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 578/2011\nof 16 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 June 2011.", "references": ["38", "69", "56", "23", "99", "75", "73", "8", "62", "5", "13", "50", "57", "88", "74", "11", "71", "10", "47", "30", "20", "86", "16", "25", "77", "54", "7", "65", "28", "1", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 543/2011\nof 7 June 2011\nlaying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 3, Articles 103h, 121(a), 127, 134, 143(b), 148, 179, 192(2), 194 and 203a(8) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishes a common organisation of agricultural markets which includes the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors.\n(2)\nThe implementing rules covering the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2). That Regulation has been amended several times. In the interests of clarity, it is appropriate to incorporate all the implementing rules in a new Regulation, together with the amendments necessary in the light of experience, and to repeal Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007.\n(3)\nMarketing years should be set for products of the fruit and vegetables and the processed fruit and vegetables sectors. Since there are no longer any aid schemes in the sectors which follow the harvesting cycle of the products concerned, all marketing years may be harmonised to fit the calendar year.\n(4)\nArticle 113(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 authorises the Commission to provide for marketing standards for fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables, respectively. Pursuant to Article 113a(1) of that Regulation, fruit and vegetables which are intended to be sold fresh to the consumer, may only be marketed if they are of sound, fair and marketable quality and if the country of origin is indicated. To harmonise the implementation of that provision, it is appropriate to set out details of and provide for a general marketing standard for all fresh fruit and vegetables.\n(5)\nSpecific marketing standards should be adopted for those products for which it seems necessary to adopt a standard based on an assessment of its relevance, taking into account, in particular, which products are most traded in value terms on the basis of the figures held in the European Commission\u2019s reference database on international trade, Comext.\n(6)\nIn order to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade, where specific marketing standards are to be laid down for individual products, these standards should be those as set out in the standards adopted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Where no specific marketing standard has been adopted at Union level, products should be considered as conforming to the general marketing standard where the holder is able to show that the products are in conformity with any applicable UNECE standard.\n(7)\nExceptions and exemptions from the application of marketing standards should be provided for in the case of certain operations which are either very marginal and/or specific, or take place at the start of the distribution chain, or in the case of dried fruit and vegetables and products intended for processing. Since some products will naturally develop and have a tendency to perish, they should be permitted to show a slight lack of freshness and turgidity, provided they are not in \u2018Extra\u2019 Class. Certain products which are normally not intact when sold should be exempted from the general marketing standard which would otherwise require this.\n(8)\nThe information particulars required by marketing standards should be clearly displayed on the packaging and/or label. To avoid fraud and cases of misleading consumers, the information particulars required by the standards should be available to consumers before purchase, especially in case of distance selling, where experience has shown the risks of fraud and avoidance of the consumer protection offered by the standards.\n(9)\nPackages containing different species of fruit and vegetables are becoming more common on the market in response to demand from certain consumers. Fair trading requires that fruit and vegetables sold in the same package are of uniform quality. For products for which Union standards have not been adopted this can be ensured by recourse to general provisions. Labelling requirements should be laid down for mixes of different species of fruit and vegetables in the same package. They should be less strict than those laid down by the marketing standards in order to take into account, in particular, the space available on the label.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure that checks may be properly and effectively carried out, invoices and accompanying documents, other than those for consumers, should contain certain basic information included in the marketing standards.\n(11)\nFor the purposes of the selective checks, based on risk analysis, as provided for in Article 113a(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 it is necessary to lay down detailed rules on such checks. In particular, the role of the risk assessment when selecting products for checks should be underlined.\n(12)\nEach Member State should designate the inspection bodies responsible for carrying out conformity checks at each stage of marketing. One of those bodies should be responsible for contacts with and coordination between all other designated bodies.\n(13)\nSince knowledge of traders and their main characteristics is an indispensable tool in Member States\u2019 analysis, it is essential to set up a database on traders of fruit and vegetables in each Member State. In order to ensure that all actors in the marketing chain are covered and for the sake of legal certainty, a detailed definition of \u2018trader\u2019 should be adopted.\n(14)\nConformity checks should be carried out by sampling and should concentrate on traders most likely to have goods which do not comply with the standards. Taking into account the characteristics of their national markets, Member States should lay down rules prioritising checks on particular categories of traders. For the sake of transparency, those rules should be notified to the Commission.\n(15)\nMember States should ensure that exports of fruits and vegetables to third countries conform to the marketing standards and should certify conformity, in accordance with the Geneva Protocol on standardisation of fresh fruit and vegetables and dry and dried fruit concluded within the UNECE and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Scheme for the application of international standards for fruit and vegetables.\n(16)\nImports of fruit and vegetables from third countries should conform to the marketing standards or to standards equivalent to them. Conformity checks must therefore be carried out before those goods enter the customs territory of the Union, except in the case of small lots which the inspection bodies consider to be low risk. In certain third countries which provide satisfactory guarantees of conformity, pre-export checks may be carried out by the inspection bodies of those third countries. Where this option is applied, Member States should regularly verify the effectiveness and quality of the pre-export checks carried out by third country inspection bodies.\n(17)\nFruit and vegetables intended for processing are not required to conform to marketing standards, so it should be ensured that they are not sold on the market for fresh products. Such products should be appropriately labelled.\n(18)\nFruit and vegetables checked for conformity with the marketing standards should be subject to the same type of check at all stages of marketing. To this end, the inspection guidelines recommended by the UNECE in line with the relevant OECD recommendations, should be applied. Specific arrangements should, however, be laid down for checks at the retail sale stage.\n(19)\nProvisions for the recognition of producer organisations for the products they request should be laid down. Where the recognition is requested for products intended solely for processing, it should be ensured that they are indeed delivered for processing.\n(20)\nIn order to help achieve the goals of the fruit and vegetables regime and to ensure that producer organisations carry out their work in a sustainable and effective way, there should be the utmost stability within producer organisations. Membership of a producer in the producer organisation should therefore be for a minimum period. It should be left up to Member States to lay down the notice periods and the dates on which resignation from membership are to take effect.\n(21)\nThe main and essential activities of a producer organisation should relate to the concentration of supply and marketing. However, producer organisations should be allowed to engage in other activities, whether or not of a commercial nature.\n(22)\nCooperation between producer organisations should be encouraged by allowing the marketing of fruit and vegetables bought exclusively from another recognised producer organisation to be left out of the calculations both for the purposes of the main activity and for other activities. Where a producer organisation is recognised for a product for which the provision of technical means is required, it should be allowed to provide those means through its members, through subsidiaries or by outsourcing.\n(23)\nProducer organisations may hold shares in subsidiaries which help to increase the added value of the production of their members. Rules should be fixed for calculating the value of such marketed production. The main activities of such subsidiaries should be the same as those of the producer organisation, after allowing for a transitional period for adaptation.\n(24)\nDetailed rules should be laid down on the recognition and functioning of the associations of producer organisations, transnational producer organisations and transnational associations of producer organisations provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. For the sake of consistency, they should, as far as possible, reflect the rules laid down for producer organisations.\n(25)\nIn order to facilitate the concentration of supply, the merger of existing producer organisations to form new ones should be encouraged by providing rules for the merger of operational programmes of the merged organisations.\n(26)\nWhile respecting the principles whereby a producer organisation must be formed on the own initiative of producers and scrutinised by the producers, it should be left up to Member States to lay down the conditions whereby other natural or legal persons are accepted as members of a producer organisation and/or an association of producer organisations.\n(27)\nIn order to ensure that producer organisations genuinely represent a minimum number of producers, Member States should take measures to ensure that a minority of members who may account for the bulk of production in the producer organisation do not unduly dominate its management and operation.\n(28)\nIn order to take account of different production and marketing circumstances in the Union, Member States should lay down certain conditions for the granting of preliminary recognition to producer groups which submit a recognition plan.\n(29)\nTo promote the setting-up of stable producer organisations capable of making a lasting contribution to the attainment of the objectives of the fruit and vegetables regime, preliminary recognition should be granted only to producer groups which can demonstrate their ability to meet all the requirements for recognition within a specified time limit.\n(30)\nProvisions on information which the producer groups must provide in the recognition plan should be laid down. To enable producer groups to better meet the recognition conditions, changes to recognition plans should be authorised. To that end, provisions should be laid down enabling Member States to request from producer groups to take corrective action to ensure that their plan is implemented.\n(31)\nThe producer group may satisfy the conditions for recognition before the recognition plan is completed. Provision should be made to allow such groups to submit applications for recognition along with draft operational programmes. For the sake of consistency, the granting of such recognition to a producer group must signify the termination of its recognition plan, and the aid provided for should be discontinued. However, to take account of the multiannual financing of investments, investments qualifying for investment aid should be able to be carried over to operational programmes.\n(32)\nTo facilitate the correct application of the system of aid to cover the costs of formation and administrative operation of producer groups, that aid should be granted at a flat rate. That flat-rate aid should be subject to a ceiling in order to comply with budgetary constraints. Moreover, taking into account the differing financial needs of producer groups of different sizes, that ceiling should be adjusted in line with the value of marketable production of the producer groups.\n(33)\nFor the sake of consistency and a smooth transition to the status of a recognised producer group, the same rules on main activities of producer organisations and their value of marketed production should apply to producer groups.\n(34)\nIn order to take into account the financial needs of the new producers groups and to ensure the correct application of the aid scheme in the event of mergers, the possibility should be given for the aid to be granted to the producer groups resulting from the merger.\n(35)\nTo facilitate the use of the scheme of support to operational programmes, the marketed production of producer organisations should be clearly defined, including the specification of which products may be taken into account and the marketing stage at which the value of production is to be calculated. For control purposes and for the sake of simplification, it is appropriate to use a flat rate for the purposes of calculating the value of fruit and vegetables intended for processing, representing the value of the basic product, namely fruit and vegetables intended for processing, and activities which do not amount to genuine processing activities. Since the volumes of fruit and vegetables needed for the production of processed fruit and vegetables differ largely between groups of products, those differences should be reflected in the applicable flat rates. In the case of fruit and vegetables intended for processing that are transformed into processed aromatic herbs and paprika powder, it is also appropriate to introduce a flat rate for the purposes of calculating the value of fruit and vegetables intended for processing, representing only the value of the basic product. Additional methods of calculation of marketable production should also be made possible in case of yearly fluctuations or insufficient data. To prevent misuse of the scheme, producer organisations should not in general be permitted to change the methodology for fixing reference periods within the duration of a programme.\n(36)\nIn order to ensure the smooth transition to the new system for the calculation of the value of the marketed production for fruit and vegetables intended for processing, operational programmes approved by 20 January 2010 should not be affected by the new calculation method, without prejudice to the possibility to amend those operational programmes in accordance with Articles 65 and 66 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007. For the same reason, the value of the marketed production for the reference period of operational programmes approved after that date should be calculated under the new rules.\n(37)\nTo ensure the correct use of aid, rules should be laid down for the management of operational funds and members\u2019 financial contributions, allowing for as much flexibility as possible on condition that all producers may take advantage of the operational fund and may democratically participate in decisions on its use.\n(38)\nProvisions should be laid down establishing the scope and structure of the national strategy for sustainable operational programmes and the national framework for environmental actions. The aim shall be to optimise the allocation of financial resources and to improve the quality of the strategy.\n(39)\nIn order to allow appropriate evaluation of the information by the competent authorities and measures and activities to be included in, or excluded from, the programmes, procedures for the presentation and approval of operational programmes, including deadlines, should be laid down. Since the programmes are managed on an annual basis, it should be provided that programmes not approved before a given date are postponed for a year.\n(40)\nThere should be a procedure for the annual amendment of operational programmes for the following year, so that they can be adjusted to take account of any new conditions which could not have been foreseen when they were initially presented. In addition, it should be possible for measures and amounts of the operational fund to be changed during each year of execution of a programme. To ensure that the approved programmes maintain their overall objectives, all such changes should be subject to certain limits and conditions to be defined by Member States and including obligatory notification of changes to the competent authorities.\n(41)\nFor reasons of financial security and legal certainty, a list of operations and expenditure which may not be covered by operational programmes should be drawn up.\n(42)\nIn the case of investments on individual holdings, so as to prevent the unjustified enrichment of a private party who has severed links with the organisation during the useful life of the investment, provisions should be laid down to allow the organisation to recover the residual value of the investment, whether such an investment is owned by a member or by the organisation.\n(43)\nTo ensure the correct application of the aid scheme, information to be included in the applications for aid as well as procedures for the payment of aid should be laid down. To prevent cash-flow difficulties, a system of advance payments accompanied by appropriate securities should be available to producer organisations. For similar reasons, an alternative system should be available for the reimbursement of expenditure already incurred.\n(44)\nThe production of fruit and vegetables is unpredictable and the products are perishable. Surplus on the market, even if it is not too great, can significantly disturb the market. Detailed provisions on the scope and application of crisis management and prevention measures in respect of the products referred to in Article 1(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 should be laid down. As far as possible, those rules should provide for flexibility and for rapid application in crises and therefore should allow decisions to be taken by Member States and producer organisations themselves. Nevertheless, the rules should prevent abuses and provide for limits on the use of certain measures, including in financial terms. They should also ensure that phytosanitary and environmental requirements are duly respected.\n(45)\nAs regards withdrawals from the market, detailed rules should be adopted taking into account the potential importance of that measure. In particular, rules should be drawn up concerning the system of increased support for fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market which are distributed free of charge as humanitarian aid by charitable organisations and certain other establishments and institutions. In order to facilitate free distribution, it is appropriate to provide for the possibility to allow charitable organisations and institutions to ask a symbolic contribution from the final recipients of the withdrawn products, in case those products have undergone processing. In addition, maximum levels of support for market withdrawals should be fixed in order to ensure that they do not become a permanent alternative outlet for products compared to placing them on the market. In this context, for those products for which maximum levels of Union withdrawal compensation were set in Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (3), it is appropriate to continue using such levels, subject to a certain degree of increase to reflect the fact that those withdrawals are now co-financed. For other products, where experience has not yet shown any risk of excessive withdrawals, it is appropriate to allow Member States to fix maximum levels of support. In all cases, however, for similar reasons, it is appropriate to set a quantitative limit of withdrawals per product per producer organisation.\n(46)\nDetailed rules should be adopted concerning the national financial assistance which Member States may grant in regions of the Union where the degree of organisation of producers is particularly low, including defining such low degree of organisation. Procedures for the approval of such national aid as well as for the approval and the amount of the reimbursement of the aid by the Union should be provided for, as well as for the proportion of reimbursement. Those procedures should reflect those currently applicable.\n(47)\nDetailed rules, in particular procedural provisions, should be adopted concerning the conditions under which the rules issued by producer organisations or associations of such organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector may be extended to all producers established in a specific economic area. Where produce is sold on the tree, it should be made clear which rules are to be extended to the producers and the buyers, respectively.\n(48)\nIn order to monitor the imports of apples and to ensure that a significant increase of imports of apples would not go unnoticed within a relatively short period of time, the system of import licenses for apples falling within Combined Nomenclature code (CN code) 0808 10 80 had been introduced in 2006 as a transitional system. Meanwhile, new and accurate means of monitoring imports of apples have been developed, which are less cumbersome for traders than the current licence system. Therefore, the obligation to present import licences for apples falling within CN code 0808 10 80 should cease to apply within a short period of time.\n(49)\nDetailed rules concerning the entry price system for fruit and vegetables should be adopted. Since most of the perishable fruit and vegetables concerned are supplied on consignment, this creates special difficulties for determining their value. The possible methods for the calculation of the entry price on the basis of which imported products are classified in the Common Customs Tariff should be set. In particular, standard import values should be established on the basis of the weighted average of the average prices for the products and special provision should be made for cases in which no prices are available for products of a given origin. There should be provision for the lodging of a security in certain circumstances to ensure that the system is correctly applied.\n(50)\nDetailed rules concerning the import duty which can be imposed on certain products in addition to that provided for in the Common Customs Tariff should be adopted. The additional duty may be imposed if import volumes of the products concerned exceed trigger levels determined for the product and the period of application. Goods en route to the Union are exempt from additional duty and, therefore, specific provisions for such goods should be adopted.\n(51)\nProvision should be made for appropriate monitoring and evaluation of ongoing programmes and schemes in order to assess their effectiveness and efficiency by both producer organisations and Member States.\n(52)\nProvisions concerning the type, format and means of notifications necessary to implement this Regulation should be laid down. Those provisions should include notifications from producers and producer organisations to the Member States and from the Member States to the Commission, as well as the consequences resulting from late or inaccurate notifications.\n(53)\nMeasures should be laid down as regards the checks necessary to ensure the proper application of this Regulation and Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and the appropriate sanctions applicable to irregularities found. Those measures should involve both specific checks and sanctions laid down at Union level as well as additional national checks and sanctions. The checks and sanctions should be dissuasive, effective and proportionate. Rules should be provided for resolving cases of obvious error, force majeure and other exceptional circumstances to ensure fair treatment of producers. Rules for artificially created situations should be provided for in order to avoid any benefit being derived from such situations.\n(54)\nProvisions should be laid down to continue the smooth transition from the previous system set out in Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products (4), and Council Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 of 28 October 1996 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits (5) to the new system set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 of 26 September 2007 laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector, amending Directives 2001/112/EC and 2001/113/EC and Regulations (EEC) No 827/68, (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96, (EC) No 2826/2000, (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 318/2006 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 (6) and subsequently Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and in Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and subsequently this Regulation and the implementation of the transitional rules set out in Article 203a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(55)\nIn order to limit the effects of the abolition of the system of import licences for apples on trade patterns, Article 134 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 should continue to apply until 31 August 2011.\n(56)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nTITLE I\nINTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nScope and use of terms\n1. This Regulation lays down implementing rules for Regulation 1234/2007 as regards the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors.\nHowever, Titles II and III of this Regulation shall only apply in respect of products of the fruit and vegetables sector as referred to in Article 1(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and of such products intended solely for processing.\n2. Terms used in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall have the same meaning when used in this Regulation unless this Regulation provides otherwise.\nArticle 2\nMarketing years\nThe marketing years for fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables shall run from 1 January to 31 December.\nTITLE II\nCLASSIFICATION OF PRODUCTS\nCHAPTER I\nGeneral rules\nArticle 3\nMarketing standards; holders\n1. The requirements of Article 113a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be the general marketing standard. The details of the general marketing standard are set out in Part A of Annex I to this Regulation.\nFruit and vegetables not covered by a specific marketing standard shall conform to the general marketing standard. However, where the holder is able to show that the products are in conformity with any applicable standards adopted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), they shall be considered as conforming to the general marketing standard.\n2. The specific marketing standards referred to in Article 113(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 are set out in Part B of Annex I to this Regulation as regards the following products:\n(a)\napples,\n(b)\ncitrus fruit,\n(c)\nkiwifruit,\n(d)\nlettuces, curled leaved and broad-leaved endives,\n(e)\npeaches and nectarines,\n(f)\npears,\n(g)\nstrawberries,\n(h)\nsweet peppers,\n(i)\ntable grapes,\n(j)\ntomatoes.\n3. For the purposes of Article 113a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, \u2018holder\u2019 means any natural or legal person who is in physical possession of the products concerned.\nArticle 4\nExceptions and exemptions from the application of marketing standards\n1. By way of derogation from Article 113a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the following products shall not be required to conform to the marketing standards:\n(a)\nprovided they are clearly marked with the words \u2018intended for processing\u2019 or \u2018for animal feed\u2019 or any other equivalent wording, products:\n(i)\nintended for industrial processing, or\n(ii)\nintended for animal feed or other non-food use;\n(b)\nproducts transferred by the producer on his holding to consumers for their personal use;\n(c)\nproducts recognised in a Commission Decision taken at the request of a Member State in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as products of a given region which are sold by the retail trade of the region for well established traditional local consumption;\n(d)\nproducts having undergone a trimming or cutting making them \u2018ready to eat\u2019 or \u2018kitchen ready\u2019.\n(e)\nproducts marketed as edible sprouts, following germination of seeds of plants classified as fruit and vegetables under Article 1(1)(i) and Part IX of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 113a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the following products shall not be required to conform to the marketing standards within a given production area:\n(a)\nproducts sold or delivered by the grower to preparation and packaging stations or storage facilities, or shipped from his holding to such stations; and\n(b)\nproducts shipped from storage facilities to preparation and packaging stations.\n3. By way of derogation from Article 113a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Member States may exempt from the specific marketing standards products presented for retail sale to consumers for their personal use and labelled \u2018product intended for processing\u2019 or with any other equivalent wording and intended for processing other than those referred to in paragraph 1(a)(i) of this Article.\n4. By way of derogation from Article 113a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Member States may exempt from the marketing standards products directly sold by the producer to the final consumer for personal use on markets reserved only for producers within a given production area defined by Member States.\n5. By way of derogation from Article 113a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the specific marketing standards, fruit and vegetables other than the \u2018Extra\u2019 Class, at stages following dispatch, may show a slight lack of freshness and turgidity and slight deterioration due to their development and their tendency to perish.\n6. By way of derogation from Article 113a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the following products shall not be required to conform to the general marketing standard:\n(a)\nnon-cultivated mushrooms of CN code 0709 59,\n(b)\ncapers of CN code 0709 90 40,\n(c)\nbitter almonds of CN code 0802 11 10,\n(d)\nshelled almonds of CN code 0802 12,\n(e)\nshelled hazelnuts of CN code 0802 22,\n(f)\nshelled walnuts of CN code 0802 32,\n(g)\npine nuts of CN code 0802 90 50,\n(h)\npistachios of CN code 0802 50 00,\n(i)\nmacadamia of CN code 0802 60 00,\n(j)\npecans of CN code ex 0802 90 20,\n(k)\nother nuts of CN code 0802 90 85,\n(l)\ndried plantains of CN code 0803 00 90,\n(m)\ndried citrus of CN code 0805,\n(n)\nmixtures of tropical nuts of CN code 0813 50 31,\n(o)\nmixtures of other nuts of CN code 0813 50 39,\n(p)\nsaffron of CN code 0910 20.\n7. Evidence shall be supplied to the competent authority of the Member State that the products covered by paragraphs 1(a) and 2 fulfil the conditions laid down, in particular with regard to their intended use.\nArticle 5\nInformation particulars\n1. The information particulars required by this Chapter shall be shown legibly and obviously on one side of the packaging, either indelibly printed directly onto the package or on a label which is an integral part of the package or affixed to it.\n2. For goods shipped in bulk and loaded directly onto a means of transport, the information particulars referred to in paragraph 1 shall be given in a document accompanying the goods or shown on a notice placed in an obvious position inside the means of transport.\n3. In the case of distance contracts within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7), conformity with the marketing standards shall require that the information particulars shall be available before the purchase is concluded.\n4. Invoices and accompanying documents, excluding receipts for the consumer, shall indicate the name and the country of origin of the products and, where appropriate, the class, the variety or commercial type if required in a specific marketing standard, or the fact that it is intended for processing.\nArticle 6\nInformation particulars at the retail stage\n1. At retail stage, the information particulars required by this Chapter shall be legible and conspicuous. Products may be presented for sale provided the retailer displays prominently, adjacent to and legibly the information particulars relating to country of origin and, where appropriate, class and variety or commercial type in such a way as not to mislead the consumer.\n2. For products which are pre-packaged within the meaning of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (8), the net weight shall be indicated, in addition to all the information provided for in the marketing standards. However, in the case of products sold by number, the requirement to indicate the net weight shall not apply if the number of items may be clearly seen and easily counted from the outside or, if the number is indicated on the label.\nArticle 7\nMixes\n1. The marketing of packages of a net weight of 5 kg or less containing mixes of different species of fruit and vegetables shall be allowed, provided that:\n(a)\nthe products are of uniform quality and each product concerned complies with the relevant specific marketing standard or, where no specific marketing standard exists for a particular product, the general marketing standard,\n(b)\nthe package is appropriately labelled, in accordance with this Chapter, and\n(c)\nthe mix is not such as to mislead the consumer.\n2. The requirements of paragraph 1(a) shall not apply to products included in a mix which are not products of the fruit and vegetables sector referred to in Article 1(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n3. If the fruit and vegetables in a mix originate in more than one Member State or third country, the full names of the countries of origin may be replaced with one of the following, as appropriate:\n(a)\n\u2018mix of EU fruit and vegetables\u2019,\n(b)\n\u2018mix of non- EU fruit and vegetables\u2019,\n(c)\n\u2018mix of EU and non-EU fruit and vegetables\u2019.\nCHAPTER II\nChecks on conformity to marketing standards\nSection 1\nGeneral provisions\nArticle 8\nScope\nThis Chapter lays down rules on conformity checks, which shall mean the checks carried out on fruit and vegetables at all marketing stages, in order to verify that they conform to the marketing standards and other provisions of this Title and of Articles 113 and 113a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 9\nCoordinating authorities and inspection bodies\n1. Each Member State shall designate:\n(a)\na single competent authority responsible for coordination and contacts in the areas covered by this Chapter, hereinafter called \u2018the coordinating authority\u2019; and\n(b)\nan inspection body or bodies responsible for the application of this Chapter, hereinafter called \u2018the inspection bodies\u2019.\nThe coordinating authorities and inspection bodies referred to in the first subparagraph may be public or private. However, the Member States shall be responsible for them in either case.\n2. The Member States shall notify the Commission of:\n(a)\nthe name and postal and e-mail address of the coordinating authority they have designated pursuant to paragraph 1(a);\n(b)\nthe name and postal and e-mail address of the inspection bodies they have designated pursuant to paragraph 1(b); and\n(c)\nthe exact description of the respective spheres of activity of the inspection bodies they have designated.\n3. The coordinating authority may be the inspection body or one of the inspection bodies or any other body designated pursuant to paragraph 1.\n4. The Commission shall make publicly available the list of coordinating authorities designated by the Member States in the manner it considers appropriate.\nArticle 10\nTrader database\n1. Member States shall set up a database on traders in fruit and vegetables, which shall list, under the conditions established in this Article, traders involved in the marketing of fruit and vegetables for which standards have been laid down pursuant to Article 113 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nFor this purpose, Member States may use any other database or databases already established for other purposes.\n2. For the purpose of this Regulation, \u2018trader\u2019 means any natural or legal person who:\n(a)\nholds fruit and vegetables subject to marketing standards with a view to:\n(i)\ndisplaying or offering them for sale,\n(ii)\nselling them, or\n(iii)\nmarketing them in any other manner, or\n(b)\nactually carries out any of the activities referred to in point (a) as regards fruit and vegetables subject to marketing standards.\nThe activities referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph shall cover:\n(a)\ndistance selling whether by internet or otherwise,\n(b)\nsuch activities carried out by the natural or legal person for itself or on behalf of a third party, and\n(c)\nsuch activities carried out in the Union and/or by export to third countries and/or import from third countries.\n3. Member States shall determine the conditions under which the following traders are to be included or not in the database:\n(a)\ntraders whose activities are exempt from the obligation to comply with the marketing standards pursuant to Article 4; and\n(b)\nnatural or legal persons whose activities in the fruit and vegetables sector are limited either to the transport of goods, or to the sale at the retail stage.\n4. Where the trader database is composed of several distinct elements, the coordinating authority shall ensure that the database, its elements and their updating are uniform. The updating of the database shall be done in particular using the information collected during conformity checks.\n5. The database shall contain for each trader:\n(a)\nthe registration number, name and address;\n(b)\ninformation needed for its classification in one of the risk categories mentioned in Article 11(2), in particular, position in the marketing chain and information concerning the importance of the firm;\n(c)\ninformation concerning findings made during previous checks of each trader;\n(d)\nany other information considered necessary for checks such as information concerning the existence of a quality assurance system or self-check system related to the conformity to the marketing standards.\nThe updating of the database shall be carried out in particular using the information collected during conformity checks.\n6. Traders shall provide the information that Member States consider necessary to set up and update the database. Member States shall determine the conditions under which traders not established in their territory but trading on it shall be listed in their database.\nSection 2\nConformity checks carried out by the Member States\nArticle 11\nConformity checks\n1. Member States shall ensure that conformity checks are carried out selectively, based on a risk analysis, and with appropriate frequency, so as to ensure compliance with the marketing standards and other provisions of this Title and of Articles 113 and 113a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nThe criteria to assess the risk shall include the existence of a conformity certificate referred to in Article 14 issued by a competent authority of a third country where the conformity checks have been approved pursuant to Article 15. The existence of such certificate shall be considered as a factor reducing the risk of non-conformity.\nThe criteria to assess the risk may also include:\n(a)\nthe nature of the product, the period of production, the price of the product, the weather, the packing and handling operations, the storage conditions, the country of origin, the means of transport or the volume of the lot;\n(b)\nthe size of the traders, their position in the marketing chain, the volume or value marketed by them, their product range, the delivery area or the type of business carried out such as storage, sorting, packing or sale;\n(c)\nfindings made during previous checks including the number and type of defects found, the usual quality of products marketed, the level of technical equipment used;\n(d)\nthe reliability of traders\u2019 quality assurance systems or self-checking systems related to the conformity to marketing standards;\n(e)\nthe place where the check is carried out, in particular if it is the point of first entry into the Union, or the place where the products are being packed or loaded;\n(f)\nany other information that might indicate a risk of non-compliance.\n2. The risk analysis shall be based on the information contained in the trader database referred to in Article 10 and shall classify traders in risk categories.\nMember States shall lay down in advance:\n(a)\nthe criteria for assessing the risk of non-conformity of lots;\n(b)\non the basis of a risk analysis for each risk category, the minimum proportions of traders or lots and/or quantities which will be subject to a conformity check.\nMember States may choose not to carry out selective checks on products not subject to specific marketing standards, based on a risk analysis.\n3. Where checks reveal significant irregularities, Member States shall increase the frequency of checks in relation to traders, products, origins, or other parameters.\n4. Traders shall provide inspection bodies with all the information those bodies judge necessary for organising and carrying out conformity checks.\nArticle 12\nApproved traders\n1. Member States may authorise traders classified in the lowest risk category and providing special guarantees on conformity to marketing standards to use the specimen in Annex II in the labelling of each package at the stage of dispatch and/or to sign the conformity certificate as referred to in Article 14.\n2. The authorisation shall be granted for a period of at least one year.\n3. Traders benefiting from this possibility shall:\n(a)\nhave inspection staff who have received training approved by the Member States;\n(b)\nhave suitable equipment for preparing and packing produce;\n(c)\ncommit themselves to carry out a conformity check on the goods they dispatch and have a register recording all checks carried out.\n4. Where an authorised trader no longer complies with the requirements for authorisation the Member State shall withdraw the authorisation.\n5. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, authorised traders may continue to use specimens which conformed to Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 on 30 June 2009 until stocks are exhausted.\nAuthorisations granted to traders before 1 July 2009 shall continue to apply for the period for which they were granted.\nArticle 13\nAcceptance of declarations by customs\n1. Customs may only accept export declarations and/or declarations for the release for free circulation for the products subject to specific marketing standards if:\n(a)\nthe goods are accompanied by a conformity certificate, or\n(b)\nthe competent inspection body has informed the customs authority that the lots concerned have been issued a conformity certificate, or\n(c)\nthe competent inspection body has informed the customs authority that it has not issued a conformity certificate for the lots concerned because they do not needed to be checked in the light of the risk assessment referred to in Article 11(1).\nThis shall be without prejudice to any conformity checks the Member State may carry out pursuant to Article 11.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall also apply to products subject to the general marketing standard set out in Part A of Annex I and products referred to in Article 4(1)(a) if the Member State concerned considers it necessary in the light of the risk analysis referred to in Article 11(1).\nArticle 14\nCertificate of conformity\n1. Certificates of conformity may be issued by a competent authority to confirm that the products concerned conform to the relevant marketing standard (hereinafter referred to as \u2018certificate\u2019). The certificate for use by competent authorities in the Union is set out in Annex III.\nInstead of certificates issued by competent authorities in the Union, the third countries referred to in Article 15(4) may use their own certificates provided that they contain at least equivalent information to the Union certificate. The Commission shall make available, by the means it considers appropriate, specimens of such third country certificates.\n2. The certificates may be issued either in paper format with original signature or in verified electronic format with electronic signature.\n3. Each certificate shall be stamped by the competent authority and signed by the person or persons empowered to do so.\n4. The certificate shall be issued in at least one of the official languages of the Union.\n5. Each certificate shall bear a serial number, by which it can be identified. A copy of each issued certificate shall be retained by the competent authority.\n6. Notwithstanding the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, Member States may continue to use certificates which conformed to Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 on 30 June 2009 until stocks are exhausted.\nSection 3\nConformity checks carried out by third countries\nArticle 15\nApproval of conformity checks carried out by third countries prior to import into the Union\n1. At the request of a third country, the Commission may, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, approve checks on conformity to specific marketing standards carried out by that third country prior to import into the Union\n2. The approval referred to in paragraph 1 may be granted to third countries where the Union marketing standards, or at least equivalent standards, are met for products exported to the Union.\nThe approval shall specify the official authority in the third country under the responsibility of which checks referred to in paragraph 1 are carried out. That authority shall be responsible for contacts with the Union. The approval shall also specify the third country inspection bodies in charge of the proper checks.\nThe approval may only apply to products originating in the third country concerned and may be limited to certain products.\n3. The third country inspection bodies shall be official bodies or bodies officially recognised by the authority referred to in paragraph 2 which provide satisfactory guarantees and dispose of the necessary personnel, equipment and facilities to carry out checks according to the methods referred to in Article 17(1) or equivalent methods.\n4. The third countries where the conformity checks have been approved under this Article, and the products concerned, shall be set out in Annex IV.\nThe Commission shall make available, by the means it considers appropriate, details of the official authorities and inspection bodies concerned.\nArticle 16\nSuspension of approval of the conformity checks\nThe Commission may suspend approval of the conformity checks if it is found that, in a significant number of lots and/or quantities, the goods do not correspond to the information in the certificates of conformity issued by the third country inspection bodies.\nSection 4\nMethods of inspection\nArticle 17\nMethods of inspection\n1. The conformity checks provided for in this Chapter, with the exception of those at the point of retail sale to the end consumer, shall be carried out in accordance with the methods of inspection laid down in Annex V, save as otherwise provided in this Regulation.\nMember States shall lay down specific arrangements for checking conformity at the point of retail sale to the end consumer.\n2. Where inspectors find that the goods conform with the marketing standards, the inspection body may issue a certificate of conformity as set out in Annex III.\n3. Where the goods do not conform with the standards, the inspection body shall issue a finding of non-conformity for the attention of the trader or their representatives. Goods for which a finding of non-conformity has been issued may not be moved without the authorisation of the inspection body which issued that finding. That authorisation can be subject to the respect of conditions laid down by the inspection body.\nTraders may decide to bring all or some of the goods into conformity. Goods brought into conformity may not be marketed before the competent inspection body has ensured by all appropriate means that the goods have actually been brought into conformity. The competent inspection body shall issue, where applicable, a certificate of conformity as set out in Annex III for the lot or part thereof only after the goods have been brought into conformity.\nIf an inspection body accepts a trader\u2019s wish to bring the goods into conformity in a Member State other than that where the check leading to a finding of non-conformity has been carried out, the trader shall notify the competent inspection body of the destination Member State of the non-conforming lot. The Member State issuing the finding of non-conformity shall send a copy of that finding to the other Member States concerned including the Member State of destination of the non-conforming lot.\nWhere the goods can neither be brought into conformity nor sent to animal feed, industrial processing or any other non-food use, the inspection body may, if necessary, request traders to take adequate measures in order to ensure that the products concerned are not marketed.\nTraders shall supply all information deemed necessary by Member States for the application of this paragraph.\nSection 5\nNotifications\nArticle 18\nNotifications\n1. A Member State where a consignment from another Member State is found not to conform with the marketing standards because of defects or deterioration which could have been detected at the time of packaging shall notify forthwith the Commission and the Member States likely to be concerned.\n2. A Member State where a lot of goods from a third country has been rejected from release into free circulation because of non-compliance with the marketing standards shall notify forthwith the Commission, the Member States likely to be concerned and the third country concerned and listed in Annex IV.\n3. Member States shall notify the Commission of their provisions of inspection and risk analysis systems. They shall inform the Commission of any subsequent amendments to those systems.\n4. Member States shall notify the Commission and the other Member States of the summarised results of the inspections at all marketing stages in a given year by 30 June of the following year.\n5. The notifications referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 shall be made by the means specified by the Commission.\nTITLE III\nPRODUCER ORGANISATIONS\nCHAPTER I\nRequirements and recognition\nSection 1\nDefinitions\nArticle 19\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Title:\n(a)\n\u2018producer\u2019 means a farmer as referred to in Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(b)\n\u2018producer member\u2019 means a producer or a cooperative of producers, who is a member of a producer organisation or association of producer organisations.\n(c)\n\u2018subsidiary\u2019 means a company in which one or more producer organisations or associations thereof have taken shares and which contributes to the objectives of the producer organisation or the association of producer organisations;\n(d)\n\u2018transnational producer organisation\u2019 means any organisation in which at least one of the producers\u2019 holdings is located in a Member State other than where the organisation has its head office;\n(e)\n\u2018transnational association of producer organisations\u2019 means any association of producer organisations in which at least one of the associated organisations is located in a Member State other than where the association has its head office;\n(f)\n\u2018Convergence Objective\u2019 means the objective of the action for the least developed Member States and regions according to the Union legislation governing the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013;\n(g)\n\u2018measure\u2019 means one of the following:\n(i)\nactions aimed at planning of production, including acquisition of fixed assets;\n(ii)\nactions aimed at improving or maintaining product quality, including acquisition of fixed assets;\n(iii)\nactions aimed at improving marketing, including acquisition of fixed assets, as well as promotion and communication activities, other than promotion and communication activities falling under point (vi);\n(iv)\nresearch and experimental production, including acquisition of fixed assets;\n(v)\ntraining actions, other than training falling under point (vi), and actions aimed at promoting access to advisory services;\n(vi)\nany of the six crisis prevention and management instruments listed in points (a) to (f) of the first subparagraph of Article 103c(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(vii)\nenvironmental actions as referred to in Article 103c(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, including acquisition of fixed assets;\n(viii)\nother actions, including acquisition of fixed assets other than those falling under points (i) to (iv) and (vii) which fulfil one or more of the objectives referred to in Article 103c(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(h)\n\u2018action\u2019 means a specific activity or instrument aimed at achieving a particular operational objective contributing to one or more of the objectives referred to in Article 103c(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(i)\n\u2018by-product\u2019 means a product which results from preparation of a fruit or vegetable product which has a positive economic value but is not the main intended result;\n(j)\n\u2018preparation\u2019 means preparatory activities such as cleaning, cutting, peeling trimming and drying of fruit and vegetables, without transforming them into processed fruit and vegetables;\n(k)\n\u2018interbranch basis\u2019 as referred to in Article 103d(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 means one or more of the activities listed in Article 123(3)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 approved by the Member State and managed jointly by a producer organisation or an association of producer organisations and at least one other actor in the food processing and/or distribution chain;\n(l)\n\u2018baseline indicator\u2019 means any indicator reflecting a state or trend existing at the start of a programming period which may provide information useful:\n(i)\nin the analysis of the initial situation, in order to establish a national strategy for sustainable operational programmes or an operational programme;\n(ii)\nas a reference against which the results and impact of a national strategy or an operational programme may be assessed; and/or\n(iii)\nin interpreting the results and impact of a national strategy or an operational programme.\n2. Member States shall define the legal entities concerned in their territory which have to comply with Article 125b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in the light of their national legal and administrative structures. They may adopt complementary rules on the recognition of producer organisations and shall, where appropriate, also lay down provisions on clearly defined parts of legal entities for the application of Article 125b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nSection 2\nRequirements applicable to producer organisations\nArticle 20\nProduct coverage\n1. Member States shall recognise producer organisations under Article 125b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the product or the group of products specified in the application for recognition, subject to any decision taken under Article 125b(1)(c) of that Regulation.\n2. Member States shall only recognise producer organisations in respect of the product or the group of products solely intended for processing where the producer organisations are able to ensure that such products are delivered for processing, whether through a system of supply contracts or otherwise.\nArticle 21\nMinimum number of members\nWhen laying down the minimum number of members of a producer organisation pursuant to Article 125b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Member States may provide that where an applicant for recognition is wholly or partly made up of members which are themselves legal entities or clearly defined parts of legal entities made up of producers, the minimum number of producers may be calculated on the basis of the number of producers associated with each of the legal entities or clearly defined parts of legal entities.\nArticle 22\nMinimum length of membership\n1. The minimum membership period of a producer shall not be less than one year.\n2. Resignation from membership shall be notified to the organisation in writing. The Member States shall lay down the notice periods, which shall not exceed six months, and the dates on which resignation shall take effect.\nArticle 23\nStructures and activities of producer organisations\nMember States shall ensure that producer organisations have at their disposal the staff, infrastructure and equipment necessary to fulfil the requirements laid down in point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 122 and Article 125b(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and ensure their essential functioning, in particular as regards:\n(a)\nthe knowledge of their members\u2019 production;\n(b)\ncollecting, sorting, storing and packaging the production of their members;\n(c)\ncommercial and budgetary management; and\n(d)\ncentralised book keeping and a system of invoicing.\nArticle 24\nValue or volume of marketable production\n1. For the purposes of Article 125b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the value or volume of marketable production shall be calculated on the same basis as the value of marketed production set out in Articles 50 and 51 of this Regulation.\n2. Where one or more members of a producer organisation have insufficient historical data on marketed production for the application of paragraph 1, the value of their marketable production may be calculated as the average value of their marketable production during a period of three years preceding the year in which the application for recognition is submitted and in which the members of the concerned producer organisation were actually producing.\nArticle 25\nProvision of technical means\nFor the purposes of Article 125b(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, a producer organisation which is recognised for a product for which the provision of technical means is necessary shall be considered to fulfil its obligation where it provides an adequate level of technical means itself or through its members, or through subsidiaries, or by outsourcing.\nArticle 26\nProducer organisations\u2019 main activities\n1. The main activity of a producer organisation shall relate to the concentration of supply and the placing on the market of the products of its members for which it is recognised.\n2. A producer organisation may sell products from producers that are not a member of a producer organisation nor of an association of producer organisations, where it is recognised for those products and provided that the economic value of that activity is below the value of its marketed production calculated in accordance with Article 50.\n3. The marketing of fruit and vegetables that are bought directly from another producer organisation and of products for which the producer organisation is not recognised shall not be considered as forming part of the producer organisation\u2019s activities.\n4. Where Article 50(9) applies, paragraph 3 of this Article shall apply mutatis mutandis to the subsidiaries concerned from 1 January 2012.\nArticle 27\nOutsourcing\n1. The activities that a Member State may permit to be outsourced, in accordance with Article 125d of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 may include, among others, collecting, storing, packaging and marketing the produce of the members of the producer organisation.\n2. Outsourcing of an activity of a producer organisation shall mean that the producer organisation enters into a commercial arrangement with another entity, including one or several of its members or a subsidiary for the provision of the activity concerned. The producer organisation shall nevertheless remain responsible for ensuring the carrying out of that activity, and overall management control and supervision of commercial arrangement for the provision of the activity.\nArticle 28\nTransnational producer organisations\n1. A transnational producer organisation\u2019s head office shall be established in the Member State where the organisation has significant holdings or a significant number of members and/or achieves an important level of marketed production.\n2. The Member State in which the head office of the transnational producer organisation is located shall be responsible for the following:\n(a)\nrecognising the transnational producer organisation;\n(b)\napproving the transnational producer organisation\u2019s operational programme;\n(c)\nestablishing the necessary administrative collaboration with the other Member States in which the members are located with respect to compliance with the terms of recognition and the system of checks and sanctions. Those other Member States shall be obliged to give all necessary assistance to the Member State in which the head office is located within a reasonable period of time; and\n(d)\nproviding, on request of other Member States, all relevant documentation, including any applicable legislation available to the other Member States in which the members are located, translated into an official language of the requesting Member States.\nArticle 29\nMergers of producer organisations\n1. Where producer organisations have merged, the producer organisation resulting from the merger shall replace the merging producer organisations. The new entity shall assume the rights and obligations of the merging producer organisations.\nThe newly merged entity may operate the programmes in parallel and separately until 1 January of the year following the merger or merge the operational programmes from the moment of the merger. The operational programmes shall be merged in accordance with Articles 66 and 67.\n2. By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, Member States may authorise producer organisations which so request, for duly substantiated reasons, to continue implementing separate operational programmes in parallel until they reach their natural conclusion.\nArticle 30\nNon-producer members\n1. Member States may determine whether and on what conditions any natural or legal person who is not a producer may be accepted as a member of a producer organisation.\n2. When setting the conditions referred to in paragraph 1, the Member States shall ensure, in particular, compliance with point (a)(iii) of the first paragraph of Article 122 and Article 125a(3)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n3. The natural or legal persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall not:\n(a)\nbe taken into account for the recognition criteria;\n(b)\nbenefit directly from the measures financed by the Union.\nMember States may restrict or prohibit the natural or legal persons\u2019 right to vote on decisions relating to operational funds, in line with the conditions laid down in paragraph 2.\nArticle 31\nDemocratic accountability of producer organisations\n1. Member States shall take all measures they consider to be necessary in order to avoid any abuse of power or influence by one or more members over the management and operation of a producer organisation, which shall include voting rights.\n2. Where a producer organisation is a clearly defined part of a legal entity, Member States may adopt measures to restrict or prohibit the powers of that legal entity to modify, approve or reject decisions of the producer organisation.\nSection 3\nAssociations of producer organisations\nArticle 32\nRules on producer organisations applicable to associations of producer organisations\nArticles 22, 26(3), 27 and 31 shall apply mutatis mutandis to associations of producer organisations. Where the association of producer organisations carries out the selling activity, Article 26(2) shall apply mutatis mutandis.\nArticle 33\nRecognition of associations of producer organisations\n1. Member States may only recognise associations of producer organisations under Article 125c of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the activity or activities concerning the product or the group of products specified in the application for recognition.\n2. An association of producer organisations may be recognised under Article 125c of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and carry out any of the activities of a producer organisation, even when the marketing of the products concerned continues to be carried out by its members.\nArticle 34\nMembers of associations of producer organisations which are not producer organisations\n1. Member States may determine whether and on what conditions any natural or legal person who is not a recognised producer organisation may be accepted as a member of an association of producer organisations.\n2. Members of a recognised association of producer organisations who are not recognised producer organisations shall not:\n(a)\nbe considered for the recognition criteria;\n(b)\nbenefit directly from the measures financed by the Union.\nMember States may permit, restrict or prohibit those members\u2019 right to vote on decisions relating to operational programmes.\nArticle 35\nTransnational association of producer organisations\n1. The head office of the transnational association of producer organisations shall be established in a Member State in which this association has a significant number of member organisations and/or the member organisations achieve an important level of marketed production.\n2. The Member State in which the head office of the transnational association of producer organisations is located shall be responsible for the following:\n(a)\nrecognising the association;\n(b)\napproving, where necessary, the association\u2019s operational programme;\n(c)\nestablishing the necessary administrative collaboration with the other Member States in which the associated organisations are located with respect to compliance with the terms of recognition and the system of checks and sanctions. Those other Member States shall be obliged to give all necessary assistance to the Member State in which the head office is located; and\n(d)\nproviding, on request of other Member States, all relevant documentation, including any applicable legislation available to the other Member States in which the members are located, translated into an official language of the requesting Member States.\nSection 4\nProducer groups\nArticle 36\nSubmission of recognition plans\n1. A legal entity or clearly defined part of a legal entity shall submit the recognition plan referred to in Article 125e(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 to the competent authority of the Member State in which the entity has its head office.\n2. Member States shall lay down:\n(a)\nthe minimum criteria which the legal entity or clearly defined part of a legal entity shall meet to be able to submit a recognition plan;\n(b)\nthe rules for the drafting, content and implementation of recognition plans;\n(c)\nthe period during which a former member of a producer organisation shall be prohibited from joining a producer group after leaving the producer organisation in respect of the products for which the producer organisation was recognised; and\n(d)\nthe administrative procedures for the approval, monitoring and fulfilling of recognition plans.\nArticle 37\nContent of recognition plans\nA draft recognition plan shall cover at least the following:\n(a)\na description of the initial situation, in particular as regards the number of producer members, giving full details of members, production, including the value of marketed production, marketing and infrastructure that is at the producer group\u2019s disposal, including infrastructure owned by individual members of the producer group;\n(b)\nthe proposed date for starting implementation of the plan and its duration, which shall not exceed five years; and\n(c)\nactivities and investments to be implemented in order to achieve recognition.\nArticle 38\nApproval of recognition plans\n1. The competent authority of the Member State shall decide on a draft recognition plan within three months of the receipt of the plan accompanied by all supporting documents. Member States may provide for a shorter deadline.\n2. Member States may adopt additional rules concerning the eligibility of operations and expenditure under recognition plans, including rules on the eligibility of investments, for the purpose of achieving compliance by producer groups with the recognition criteria for producer organisations referred to in Article 125b(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n3. Following the conformity checks referred to in Article 111, the competent authority of the Member State shall, as appropriate:\n(a)\naccept the plan and grant preliminary recognition;\n(b)\nrequest changes to the plan;\n(c)\nreject the plan.\nAcceptance may be granted, where necessary, only if the changes requested under point (b) have been incorporated in the plan.\nThe competent authority of the Member State shall notify the legal entity or clearly defined part of a legal entity of its decision.\nArticle 39\nImplementation of recognition plans\n1. The recognition plan shall be implemented in annual segments starting on 1 January. Member States may allow producer groups to break down these annual segments into semestrial segments.\nFor the first year of implementation in accordance with the proposed date referred to in Article 37(b), the recognition plan shall begin:\n(a)\non 1 January following the date of its acceptance by the competent authority of the Member State; or\n(b)\non the first calendar day following the date of its acceptance.\nThe first year of implementation of the recognition plan shall in any event end on 31 December of the same year.\n2. Member States shall set the conditions under which producer groups may request changes to plans during their implementation. Those requests shall be accompanied by all the necessary supporting documents.\nMember States shall determine the conditions under which recognition plans may be amended during an annual or semestrial segment without prior approval by the competent authority of the Member State. Those changes shall only be eligible for aid if they are communicated by the producer group to the competent authority of the Member State without delay.\n3. The competent authority of the Member State shall decide on changes to plans within three months of receipt of the request for change, after considering the evidence supplied. Where no decision is taken on a request for change within that period, the request shall be deemed to have been rejected. Member States may provide for a shorter deadline.\nArticle 40\nApplications for recognition as a producer organisation\n1. Producer groups implementing a recognition plan may, at any time, submit an application for recognition under Article 125b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. Such applications shall in any event be submitted before the end of the transitional period referred to in Article 125e(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n2. From the date on which such an application is lodged, the group in question may submit a draft operational programme under Article 63.\nArticle 41\nProducer groups\u2019 main activities\n1. The main activity of a producer group shall relate to the concentration of supply and the placing on the market of the products of its members for which it is preliminary recognised.\n2. A producer group may sell products from producers which are not a member of a producer group, where it is recognised for those products and provided that the economic value of that activity is below the value of the marketed production of the producer group\u2019s own members and of members of other producer groups.\nArticle 42\nValue of marketed production\n1. Article 50(1) to (4) and (7) and the first sentence of paragraph 6 of that Article shall apply mutatis mutandis to producer groups.\n2. Where a reduction of the value of marketed production of at least 35 % has occurred due to reasons, duly justified to the Member State, falling outside the responsibility and control of the producer group, the total value of marketed production shall be deemed to represent 65 % of the total value declared in the previous application or applications for aid covering the most recent annual segment, as verified by the Member State, and in the absence thereof, of the value declared initially in the approved recognition plan.\n3. The value of marketed production shall be as calculated under the legislation applicable as regards the period for which the aid is claimed.\nArticle 43\nFinancing of recognition plans\n1. The rates of aid referred to in Article 103a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be reduced by half in relation to marketed production which exceeds EUR 1 000 000.\n2. The aid referred to in Article 103a(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be subject to an annual ceiling for each producer group of EUR 100 000.\n3. The aid referred to in Article 103a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be paid:\n(a)\nin annual or semestrial instalments at the end of each annual or semestrial period for the implementation of the recognition plan; or\n(b)\nin instalments covering part of an annual period if the plan starts during the annual period or if recognition occurs under Article 125b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 before the end of an annual period. In that case, the ceiling referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article shall be reduced proportionately.\nIn order to calculate the instalments, the Member States may use as a basis the marketed production corresponding to a period other than that in respect of which the instalment is paid, where checks so require. The difference between the periods shall be less than the actual period concerned.\n4. The exchange rate applicable to the amounts referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be the rate most recently published by the European Central Bank prior to the first day of the period for which the aid in question is granted.\nArticle 44\nAid for investments required for recognition\nInvestments linked to the implementation of recognition plans referred to in Article 37(c) of this Regulation for which aid is provided for under Article 103a(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be financed pro rata to their use for the products of the members of a producer group for which preliminary recognition is granted.\nInvestments likely to distort competition in respect of the other economic activities of the producer group shall be excluded from Union aid.\nArticle 45\nApplication for aid\n1. A producer group shall submit a single application for the aid referred to in Article 103a(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 within three months of the end of each annual or semestrial period as referred to in Article 43(3) of this Regulation. The application shall include a declaration of the value of marketed production for the period for which the aid is claimed.\n2. Applications for aid covering semestrial periods may be submitted only if the recognition plan is broken into semestrial periods as referred to in Article 39(1). All applications for aid shall be accompanied by a written declaration from the producer group to the effect that the latter:\n(a)\ncomplies and will comply with Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and with this Regulation; and\n(b)\nhas not benefited, is not benefiting and will not benefit either directly or indirectly from duplicate Union or national financing for actions implemented under its recognition plan for which Union financing is granted pursuant to this Regulation.\n3. Member States shall fix the deadline for paying the aid which in any case shall not be later than six months after the receipt of the application.\nArticle 46\nEligibility\nMember States shall evaluate the eligibility of producer groups for the aid under this Regulation in order to establish that the aid is duly justified, taking into account the conditions and the date on which any earlier public aid was granted to the producer organisations or groups from which the members of the producer group in question originate and to any movements of members between producer organisations and producer groups.\nArticle 47\nUnion contribution\n1. The Union contribution towards aid as referred to in Article 103a(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall amount to:\n(a)\n75 % in the regions eligible under the Convergence Objective; and\n(b)\n50 % in other regions.\nThe remainder of the aid shall be paid as a flat-rate payment by the Member State. The aid application shall not be required to include evidence as to the use of the aid.\n2. The Union contribution towards aid as referred to in Article 103a(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, expressed in terms of a capital grant or capital-grant equivalent, shall not exceed, as a percentage of eligible investment costs:\n(a)\n50 % in the regions eligible under the Convergence Objective; and\n(b)\n30 % in other regions.\nThe Member States concerned shall undertake to contribute at least 5 % of eligible investment costs.\nBeneficiaries of aid towards eligible investment costs shall pay at least:\n(a)\n25 % in the regions eligible under the Convergence Objective; and\n(b)\n45 % in other regions.\nArticle 48\nMergers\n1. Aid as provided for in Article 103a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 may be given, or may continue to be given, to producer groups which have been granted preliminary recognition and which result from the merger between two or more producer group granted preliminary recognition.\n2. For the purposes of calculating the aid payable pursuant to paragraph 1, the producer group resulting from the merger shall replace the merging groups.\n3. Where two or more producer groups merge, the new entity shall assume the rights and obligations of the producer group which has been granted preliminary recognition the earliest.\n4. Where a producer group which has been granted preliminary recognition merges with a recognised producer organisation, the resulting entity shall no longer be eligible for preliminary recognition as a producer group, nor for the aid referred to in Article 103a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. The resulting entity shall continue to be treated as the recognised producer organisation, provided that it respects the applicable requirements. If necessary, the producer organisation shall request a change to its operational programme, and to this end Article 29 shall apply mutatis mutandis.\nHowever, actions carried out by producer groups before such a merger shall continue to be eligible under the conditions set out in the recognition plan.\nArticle 49\nConsequences of recognition\n1. Aid as provided for in Article 103a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall cease once recognition is granted.\n2. Where an operational programme is submitted pursuant to this Regulation, the Member State concerned shall ensure that there is no duplicated financing of the measures set out in the recognition plan.\n3. Investments qualifying for the aid or the costs referred to in Article 103a(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 may be carried over to operational programmes provided they are in line with the requirements of this Regulation.\n4. Member States shall fix the period, starting after implementation of the recognition plan, within which the producer group shall be required to be recognised as a producer organisation. The period shall not exceed four months.\nCHAPTER II\nOperational funds and operational programmes\nSection 1\nValue of marketed production\nArticle 50\nBasis for calculation\n1. The value of marketed production for a producer organisation shall be calculated on the basis of the production of the producer organisation itself and its producer members, and shall only include the production of those fruits and vegetables for which the producer organisation is recognised. The value of marketed production may include fruit and vegetables that are not required to conform to the marketing standards, where those standards do not apply pursuant to Article 4.\n2. The value of marketed production shall include the production of members who leave or join the producer organisation. The Member States shall determine the conditions to avoid duplicate counting.\n3. The value of the marketed production shall not include the value of processed fruit and vegetables or any other product that is not a product of the fruit and vegetables sector.\nHowever, the value of the marketed production of fruit and vegetables intended for processing, which have been transformed into one of the processed fruit and vegetable products listed in Part X of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 or any other processed product referred to in this Article and described further in Annex VI to this Regulation, by either a producer organisation, an association of producer organisations or their producer members or subsidiaries as referred to in paragraph 9 of this Article, either by themselves or through outsourcing, shall be calculated as a flat rate in percentage applied to the invoiced value of those processed products. That flat rate shall be:\n(a)\n53 % for fruit juices;\n(b)\n73 % for concentrated juices;\n(c)\n77 % for tomato concentrate;\n(d)\n62 % for frozen fruit and vegetables;\n(e)\n48 % for canned fruit and vegetables;\n(f)\n70 % for canned mushrooms of the genus Agaricus;\n(g)\n81 % for fruits provisionally preserved in brine;\n(h)\n81 % for dried fruits;\n(i)\n27 % for other processed fruit and vegetables;\n(j)\n12 % for processed aromatic herbs;\n(k)\n41 % for paprika powder.\n4. Member States may allow producer organisations to include the value of the by-products in the value of marketed production.\n5. The value of marketed production shall include the value of market withdrawals disposed of as provided for in Article 103d(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, estimated at the average price of those products marketed by the producer organisation in the previous reference period.\n6. Only the production of the producer organisation and/or its producer members which is marketed by that producer organisation shall be counted in the value of marketed production. The production of the producer members of the producer organisation marketed by another producer organisation designated by their own organisation, pursuant to Article 125a(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be counted in the value of marketed production of the second producer organisation.\n7. The marketed production of fruit and vegetables shall be invoiced at the \u2018ex-producer organisation\u2019 stage where applicable, as product listed in Part IX of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 which is prepared and packaged, excluding:\n(a)\nVAT;\n(b)\ninternal transport costs, where the distance between the centralised collection or packing points of the producer organisation and the point of distribution of the producer organisation is significant. Member States shall provide for reductions to be applied to the invoiced value for products invoiced at different stages of delivery or transport and shall duly justify in their national strategy what distance shall be considered as significant.\n8. The value of marketed production may also be calculated at the \u2018ex-association of producer organisation\u2019 stage and on the same basis as set out in paragraph 7.\n9. The value of marketed production may also be calculated at the \u2018ex-subsidiary\u2019 stage, on the same basis as set out in paragraph 7, provided that at least 90 % of the capital of the subsidiary is owned:\n(a)\nby one or more producer organisations or associations of producer organisations; and/or\n(b)\nsubject to Member State approval, by producer members of the producer organisations or associations of producer organisations, if doing so contributes to the objectives listed in point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 122 and Article 125b(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n10. In case of outsourcing, the value of marketed production shall be calculated at the \u2018ex-producer organisation\u2019 stage and shall include the added economic value of the activity that has been outsourced by the producer organisation to its members, third parties or to another subsidiary than the one referred to in paragraph 9.\n11. Where a reduction in production occurs due to a climatic event or animal or plant diseases or pest infestations, any insurance indemnification received in respect of harvest insurance measures covered by Section 6 of Chapter III, or equivalent measures managed by the producer organisation, due to those causes may be included in the value of marketed production.\nArticle 51\nReference period\n1. The annual ceiling on aid referred to in Article 103d(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be calculated each year on the basis of the value of marketed production during a 12-month reference period to be determined by the Member States.\n2. The reference period shall be fixed by the Member States for each producer organisation as:\n(a)\na 12-month period, starting no earlier than 1 January three years preceding the year for which the aid is requested and ending no later than 31 December of the year preceding the year for which the aid is requested; or\n(b)\nthe average value of three consecutive 12-month periods starting no earlier than 1 January five years preceding the year for which the aid is requested and ending no later than 31 December of the year preceding the year for which the aid is requested.\n3. The 12-month period shall be the accounting period of the producer organisation concerned.\nThe methodology for fixing the reference period shall not vary during an operational programme except in duly justified situations.\n4. Where a reduction of at least 35 % in the value of a product has occurred due to reasons falling outside the responsibility and control of the producer organisation, the value of marketed production of that product shall be deemed to represent 65 % of its value in the previous reference period.\nThe producer organisation shall justify the reasons referred to in the first subparagraph to the competent authority of the Member State concerned.\n5. Where recently recognised producer organisations have insufficient historical data on marketed production for the purpose of the application of paragraph 2, the value of marketed production may be considered to be the value of marketable production provided by the producer organisation for the purposes of recognition.\nThe first subparagraph shall apply mutatis mutandis to new members of a producer organisation who join a producer organisation for the first time.\n6. Member States shall take the measures necessary to gather information on the value of marketed production of producer organisations which have not submitted operational programmes.\n7. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 6, the value of marketed production for the reference period shall be as calculated under the legislation applicable in that reference period.\nHowever, for operational programmes approved by 20 January 2010, the value of the marketed production for the years until 2007 shall be calculated on the basis of the legislation applicable in the reference period, whereas the value of the marketed production for the years from 2008 shall be calculated on the basis of the legislation applicable in 2008.\nFor operational programmes approved after 20 January 2010, the value of the marketed production for the years from 2008 shall be calculated on the basis of the legislation applicable at the time the operational programme has been approved.\nSection 2\nOperational Funds\nArticle 52\nManagement\nMember States shall ensure that operational funds are managed in such a way that it is possible for external auditors to annually identify, check and certify their expenditure and revenue.\nArticle 53\nFinancing of operational funds\n1. The financial contributions to the operational fund referred to in Article 103b(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be determined by the producer organisation.\n2. All producers shall have the opportunity to benefit from the operational fund, and all producers shall have the opportunity to participate democratically in decisions concerning the use of the operational fund of the producer organisation and of the financial contributions to the operational fund.\nArticle 54\nNotification of estimated amount\n1. Producer organisations shall notify their Member State of the estimated amounts of Union contribution, and the contribution of its members and of the producer organisation itself to the operational funds for the following year by 15 September at the latest, together with the operational programmes or requests for approval of their amendments.\nMember States may set a later date than 15 September.\n2. Calculation of the estimated amount of operational funds shall be based on the operational programmes and the value of marketed production. The calculation shall be split between expenditure for crisis prevention and management measures and other measures.\nSection 3\nOperational Programmes\nArticle 55\nNational strategy\n1. The overall structure and content of the national strategy referred to in Article 103f(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be established in accordance with the guidelines set out in Annex VII. It may be comprised of regional elements.\nThe national strategy shall integrate all the decisions taken and provisions adopted by the Member State in application of Sections I and Ia of Chapter II of Title II of Part II of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and this Title.\n2. The national strategy, including the integration of the national framework referred to in Article 103f(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be established before draft operational programmes are submitted in any given year. The national framework shall be integrated after having been submitted to the Commission and, if appropriate, after having been amended, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 103f(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n3. An analysis of the initial situation shall form part of the process of drawing up the national strategy and be carried out under responsibility of the Member State. It shall identify and assess the needs to be met, the ranking of the needs in terms of priorities, the goals to be achieved through the operational programmes to meet those priority needs, the results expected and the quantified targets to be attained in relation to the initial situation, and lay down the most appropriate instruments and actions for attaining those objectives.\n4. Member States shall also ensure monitoring and evaluation of the national strategy and its implementation through operational programmes.\nThe national strategy may be amended, in particular in the light of monitoring and evaluation. Such amendments shall be made before the submission of draft operational programmes in any given year.\n5. Member States shall set out in the national strategy maximum percentages of the fund which may be spent on any individual measure and/or type of action and/or expenditure in order to ensure an appropriate balance between different measures.\nArticle 56\nNational framework for environmental actions\n1. In addition to the submission of the proposed framework referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 103f(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Member States shall also notify the Commission of any amendments to the national framework which shall be subject to the procedure set out in that subparagraph. The Commission shall make a national framework available to other Member States by the means it considers appropriate.\n2. The national framework shall indicate in a separate section the general requirements on complementarity, consistency and conformity that environmental actions selected under an operational programme shall fulfil, as referred to in the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 103f(1) of Regulation (EC) 1234/2007. The Commission shall provide the Member States with a model of that section.\nThe national framework shall also set out a non-exhaustive list of environmental actions and the conditions thereof applicable in the Member State for the purposes of Article 103c(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. For each environmental action, the national framework shall indicate:\n(a)\nthe justification of the action, on the basis of its environmental impact; and\n(b)\nthe specific commitment or commitments entailed.\n3. Environmental actions which are similar to agri-environmental commitments supported under a rural development programme shall have the same duration as those commitments. They shall be continued in a subsequent operational programme, where the duration of similar agri-environmental commitments would exceed the duration of the initial operational programme. However, Member States may authorise shorter durations for environmental actions or even their discontinuance in duly justified cases, and in particular based upon the results of the mid-term evaluation referred to in Article 126(3) of this Regulation.\nThe national framework shall indicate the duration of the actions referred to in sub-paragraph 1 and, where appropriate, the obligation to continue the action in a subsequent operational programme.\nArticle 57\nComplementary Member State rules\nMember States may adopt rules complementing Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and this Regulation concerning the eligibility of measures, actions or expenditure under operational programmes.\nArticle 58\nRelationship with rural development programmes\n1. Subject to paragraph 2, no support under the Member State\u2019s rural development programme or programmes approved under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (9), shall be granted to actions which are covered by measures set out by this Regulation.\n2. Where in accordance with Article 5(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 support has exceptionally been granted to measures which would be potentially eligible under this Regulation, Member States shall ensure that a beneficiary may receive support for a given action only under one scheme.\nTo that end, when Member States include measures containing such exceptions in their rural development programmes, they shall ensure that the national strategy as referred to in Article 55 of this Regulation indicates the criteria and administrative rules which they will apply in the rural development programmes.\n3. Where relevant, and without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 103a(3), 103d(1) and (3) and 103e of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Article 47 of this Regulation, the level of support for measures covered by this Regulation shall not exceed that applicable for the measures under the rural development programme.\n4. Support for environmental actions, other than acquisition of fixed assets, shall be limited to the maximum amounts laid down in the Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 for agri-environment payments. Those amounts may be increased in exceptional cases taking account of specific circumstances to be justified in the national strategy as referred to in Article 55 of this Regulation and in the operational programmes of the producer organisations. The amounts for environmental actions may also be increased in order to support operations related to the priorities identified in Article 16a of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.\n5. Paragraph 4 shall not apply to environmental actions which do not relate directly or indirectly to a particular parcel.\nArticle 59\nContents of operational programmes\nOperational programmes shall include the following:\n(a)\na description of the initial situation, based, where relevant, on the common baseline indicators listed in Annex VIII;\n(b)\nthe objectives of the programme, taking into consideration the outlook for production and outlets, and an explanation of how the programme contributes to the national strategy and confirmation that it is consistent with the national strategy, including in its balance between activities. The description of the objectives shall refer to objectives defined in the national strategy and indicate measurable targets, so as to facilitate the monitoring of progress gradually made in implementing the programme;\n(c)\na detailed description of the measures, including those for crisis prevention and management, containing separate actions, to be taken and the means for attaining those objectives in each year of implementation of the programme. The description shall indicate the extent to which the different measures proposed:\n(i)\ncomplement and are consistent with other measures, including measures financed or eligible for support by other Union funds, and in particular rural development support. In this respect, a specific reference shall also be made, if appropriate, to measures carried out under previous operational programmes;\n(ii)\ndo not entail any risk of double financing by Union funds;\n(d)\nthe duration of the programme; and\n(e)\nthe financial aspects, namely:\n(i)\nthe method of calculation and the level of financial contributions;\n(ii)\nthe procedure for financing the operational fund;\n(iii)\ninformation necessary to justify different levels of contribution; and\n(iv)\nthe budget and timetable for undertaking operations for each year of implementation of the programme.\nArticle 60\nEligibility of actions under operational programmes\n1. Operational programmes shall not include actions or expenditure referred to in the list set out in Annex IX.\n2. Expenditure under operational programmes eligible for aid shall be restricted to the actual costs incurred. However, Member States may instead fix standard flat rates in advance and in a duly justified way in the following cases:\n(a)\nwhere such standard flat rates are referred to in Annex IX;\n(b)\nfor additional per-kilometre external transport costs, compared to road haulage costs, incurred when using rail and/or ship transport as part of a measure to respect the environment; and\n(c)\nfor additional costs and income foregone resulting from environmental actions, calculated in conformity with Article 53(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 (10).\nMember States shall review such rates at least every five years.\n3. In order for an action to be eligible, more than 50 % by value of the products concerned by it shall be those for which the producer organisation is recognised. To be counted in the 50 %, the products shall come from the producer organisation\u2019s members or producer members of another producer organisation or association of producer organisations. Article 50 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the value.\n4. The following rules shall apply to environmental actions:\n(a)\nvarious environmental actions may be combined provided that they are complementary and compatible. Where environmental actions are combined, the level of support shall take account of the specific income foregone and additional costs resulting from the combination;\n(b)\ncommitments to limit the use of fertilisers, plant protection products or other inputs shall be accepted only if such limitations can be assessed in a way that provides reasonable assurance about compliance with those commitments;\n(c)\nactions related to the environmental management of packaging shall be properly justified and go beyond the requirements set out by the Member State in accordance with Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (11).\nMember States shall, in the national strategies referred to in Article 55 of this Regulation, set out a maximum percentage of the annual expenditure under an operational programme that may be spent on actions related to the environmental management of packaging. That percentage shall not be higher than 20 %, except in order to take account of specific national/regional circumstances to be justified in the national strategy.\n5. Investments, including those under leasing contracts, the repayment period of which exceeds the length of the operational programme may be carried over to a subsequent operational programme on duly justified economic grounds, and in particular in cases where the fiscal depreciation period is longer than five years.\nWhere investments are replaced, the residual value of the investments replaced shall be:\n(a)\nadded to the operational fund of the producer organisation; or\n(b)\nsubtracted from the cost of the replacement.\n6. Investments or actions may be implemented on individual holdings and/or premises of producer members of the producer organisation, or association of producer organisations including where the actions are outsourced to members of the producer organisation or association of producer organisations, provided that they contribute to the objectives of the operational programme. If the producer member leaves the producer organisation, Member States shall ensure that the investment or its residual value is recovered. However, in duly justified circumstances, Member States may provide that the producer organisation shall not be required to recover the investment or its residual value.\n7. Investments and actions related to the transformation of fruit and vegetables into processed fruit and vegetables may be eligible for support where such investments and actions pursue the objectives referred to in Article 103c(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, including those referred to in point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 122 of that Regulation, and provided that they are identified in the national strategy referred to in Article 103f(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 61\nDocuments to be submitted\nOperational programmes shall in particular be accompanied by:\n(a)\nevidence of the setting-up of an operational fund;\n(b)\na written undertaking from the producer organisation to comply with Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and this Regulation; and\n(c)\na written undertaking from the producer organisation that it has not received and will not receive, directly or indirectly, any other Union or national funding in respect of actions qualifying for aid under this Regulation.\nArticle 62\nOperational programmes of associations of producer organisations\n1. A Member State may authorise an association of producer organisations to present an entire or a partial operational programme, which shall consist of actions identified, but not implemented by two or more member producer organisations in their operational programmes.\n2. The operational programmes of the associations of producer organisations shall be considered together with the operational programmes of the member producer organisations, including as regards the fulfilment of the objectives and limits established in Article 103c of Regulation (EC) 1234/2007.\n3. Member States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nthe actions are fully financed from contributions of members of associations of producer organisations which are producer organisations, paid out of the operational funds of those producer organisations. However, the actions may be financed in a proportional amount to the contribution of member producer organisations, by producer members of associations of producer organisations which are not producer organisations pursuant to Article 34;\n(b)\nthe actions and the corresponding financial participation are listed in the operational programme of each participating producer organisation;\n(c)\nthere is no risk of duplicate aid.\n4. Articles 58, 59 and 60, Article 61(b) and (c) and Articles 63 to 67 shall apply mutatis mutandis to operational programmes of associations of producer organisations. However, a balance between the activities referred to in Article 59(b) shall not be required in respect of partial operational programmes of associations of producer organisations.\nArticle 63\nTime limit for submission\n1. Operational programmes shall be submitted for approval by the producer organisation to the competent authority in the Member State in which the producer organisation has its headquarters by 15 September of the year preceding that in which they are to be implemented, at the latest. However, the Member States may postpone that date.\n2. When a legal entity or clearly defined part of a legal entity, including a producer group, submits an application for recognition as a producer organisation it may, at the same time, submit the operational programme referred to in paragraph 1 for approval. Approval of the operational programme shall be subject to obtainment of recognition no later than on the final date laid down in Article 64(2).\nArticle 64\nDecision\n1. The competent authority of the Member State shall, as appropriate:\n(a)\napprove amounts of operational funds and operational programmes which meet the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and those of this Chapter;\n(b)\napprove the operational programmes, on condition that certain amendments are accepted by the producer organisation; or\n(c)\nreject the operational programmes or parts thereof.\n2. The competent authority of the Member State shall take decisions on operational programmes and operational funds by 15 December of the year in which they are submitted.\nMember States shall notify the producer organisations of those decisions by 15 December.\nHowever, for duly justified reasons, the competent authority of the Member State may take a decision on operational programmes and operational funds by 20 January following the date of submission. The approval decision may stipulate that expenditure is eligible from 1 January of the year following the submission.\nArticle 65\nAmendments to operational programmes for subsequent years\n1. Producer organisations may request amendments to operational programmes, including their duration, by 15 September at the latest, to be applied as from 1 January of the following year.\nHowever, Member States may postpone the date for submitting requests.\n2. Requests for amendments shall be accompanied by supporting documents giving the reason, nature and implications of the changes.\n3. The competent authority of the Member State shall take decisions on requests for amendments to operational programmes by 15 December of the year of the request.\nHowever, for duly justified reasons, the competent authority of the Member State may take a decision on amendments to operational programmes by 20 January following the year of the request. The approval decision may stipulate that expenditure is eligible from 1 January following the year of the request.\nArticle 66\nAmendments to operational programmes during the year\n1. Member States may authorise amendments to operational programmes during the year, under conditions to be determined by them.\n2. The competent authority of the Member States shall take decisions on amendments to operational programmes requested under paragraph 1 by 20 January of the year following the year for which amendments have been requested.\n3. Producer organisations may be authorised by the competent authority of the Member State, during the year to:\n(a)\nimplement their operational programmes in part only;\n(b)\nchange the contents of the operational programme;\n(c)\nincrease the amount of the operational fund by a maximum of 25 %, and decrease it by a percentage to be fixed by Member States, of the amount initially approved, provided that the overall objectives of the operational programme are maintained. Member States may increase this percentage in case of mergers of producer organisations as referred to in Article 29(1);\n(d)\nadd national financial assistance to the operational fund in case of application of Article 93.\n4. Member States shall determine the conditions under which operational programmes may be amended during the year without prior approval by the competent authority of the Member State. Those amendments are only eligible for aid if they are notified by the producer organisation to the competent authority without delay.\nArticle 67\nFormat of operational programmes\n1. Operational programmes shall be implemented in annual periods running from 1 January to 31 December.\n2. Operational programmes approved on 15 December at the latest shall be implemented from 1 January of the following year.\nThe implementation of programmes approved after 15 December shall be postponed for one year.\nBy way of derogation from the first and second subparagraphs of this paragraph, where the third subparagraph of Article 64(2) or the second subparagraph of Article 65(3) apply, the implementation of operational programmes approved in accordance with those provisions shall start not later than 31 January following their approval.\nSection 4\nAid\nArticle 68\nApproved amount of aid\n1. Member States shall notify producer organisations and associations of producer organisations of the approved amount of aid, as required by Article 103g(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, by 15 December of the year preceding the year for which aid is requested.\n2. Where the third subparagraph of Article 64(2) or the second subparagraph of Article 65(3) apply, Member States shall give notification of the approved amount of aid by 20 January of the year for which aid is requested.\nArticle 69\nAid applications\n1. Producer organisations shall submit an application for aid or the balance thereof to the competent authority of the Member State for each operational programme for which aid is requested by 15 February of the year following the year for which the aid is requested.\n2. The aid applications shall be accompanied by supporting documents showing:\n(a)\nthe aid requested;\n(b)\nthe value of marketed production;\n(c)\nthe financial contributions levied on its members and those of the producer organisation itself;\n(d)\nthe expenditure incurred in respect of the operational programme;\n(e)\nthe expenditure concerning crisis prevention and management broken down by actions;\n(f)\nthe proportion of the operational fund spent on crisis prevention and management broken down by actions;\n(g)\ncompliance with Article 103c(2), with the first subparagraph of Article 103c(3) and with Article 103d of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(h)\na written undertaking that it has not received any duplicate Union or national funding in respect of measures and/or operations qualifying for aid under this Regulation; and\n(i)\nin the case of an application for payment based on a standard flat rate as referred to in Article 60(2), proof of the implementation of the action concerned.\n3. The aid applications may cover expenditure programmed but not incurred if the following elements are proved:\n(a)\nthe operations concerned could not be carried out by 31 December of the year of implementation of the operational programme, for reasons beyond the control of the producer organisation concerned;\n(b)\nthose operations can be carried out by 30 April of the year following the year for which the aid is requested; and\n(c)\nan equivalent contribution from the producer organisation remains in the operational fund.\nThe aid shall be paid and the security lodged in accordance with Article 71(3) shall be released only on condition that proof of implementation of the programmed expenditure referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph is provided by 30 April of the year following that for which the expenditure in question was programmed, and on the basis of the entitlement to the aid actually established.\n4. Where applications are submitted after the date provided for in paragraph 1, the aid shall be reduced by 1 % for each day late.\nIn exceptional and duly justified cases, the competent authority of the Member State may accept applications after the date provided for in paragraph 1, if the necessary checks have been carried out and the time limit for payment provided for in Article 70 is complied with.\n5. Associations of producer organisations may submit an application for aid as referred to in paragraph 1 in the name and on behalf of their members, where those members are producer organisations and provided that the supporting documents requested under paragraph 2 are submitted for each member. The producer organisations shall be the final beneficiaries of the aid.\nArticle 70\nPayment of the aid\nMember States shall pay the aid by 15 October of the year following the year of implementation of the programme.\nArticle 71\nAdvance payments\n1. Member States may permit producer organisations to apply for the advance payment of the part of the aid corresponding to the foreseeable expenditure resulting from the operational programme during the three- or four-month period starting in the month in which the application for an advance payment is submitted.\n2. Applications for advance payments shall be submitted as decided by the Member State, either on three-monthly basis in January, April, July and October or on a four-monthly basis in January, May and September.\nTotal advance payments made for a given year may not exceed 80 % of the initially approved amount of aid for the operational programme.\n3. Advances shall be paid subject to the lodging of a security equivalent to 110 % thereof in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 (12).\nConditions shall be provided for by the Member States to ensure that financial contributions to the operational fund have been levied in accordance with Article 52 and Article 53 of this Regulation and previous advance payments and the corresponding producer organisation contribution have actually been spent.\n4. Applications for the release of securities may be submitted during the current programme year and shall be accompanied by supporting documents, such as invoices and documents proving that payment has been made.\nSecurities shall be released in respect of up to 80 % of advances paid.\n5. The primary requirement within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 shall cover the performance of the operations set out in the operational programmes subject to the undertakings provided for in Article 61(b) and (c) of this Regulation.\nIn the event of failure to comply with the primary requirement or of serious failure to meet the obligations provided for in Article 61(b) and (c) the security shall be forfeited, without prejudice to other sanctions and penalties to be applied in accordance with Section 3 of Chapter V.\nIn the event of failure to comply with other requirements, the security shall be forfeited in proportion to the gravity of the irregularity that has been established.\n6. Member States may set a minimum amount and the deadlines for advance payments.\nArticle 72\nPartial payments\nMember States may permit producer organisations to apply for the payment of the part of the aid corresponding to the amounts already spent under the operational programme.\nApplications may be submitted at any time, but no more than three times in any given year. They shall be accompanied by supporting documents, such as invoices and documents proving that payment has been made.\nPayments in respect of applications for parts of the aid may not exceed 80 % of the part of the aid corresponding to the amounts already spent under the operational programme for the period concerned. Member States may set a minimum amount for partial payments and deadlines for applications.\nCHAPTER III\nCrisis prevention and management measures\nSection 1\nGeneral Provisions\nArticle 73\nSelection of crisis prevention and management measures\nMember States may provide that one or more of the measures listed in Article 103c(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall not apply in their territory.\nArticle 74\nLoans to finance crisis prevention and management measures\nLoans taken out to finance crisis prevention and management measures pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 103c(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 the repayment period of which exceeds the length of the operational programme may, on duly justified economic grounds, be carried over to a subsequent operational programme.\nSection 2\nMarket withdrawals\nArticle 75\nDefinition\nThis Section lays down rules concerning market withdrawals as referred to in Article 103c(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nFor the purposes of this Chapter, \u2018products withdrawn from the market\u2019, \u2018withdrawn products\u2019 and \u2018products not put up for sale\u2019 mean products which are so withdrawn from the market.\nArticle 76\nMarketing standards\n1. Where a marketing standard as referred to in Title II exists for a given product, such product withdrawn from the market shall comply with that standard, except for the provisions on the presentation and marking of products. Products may be withdrawn in bulk, all sizes together, provided that the minimum requirements for class II, in particular as regards quality and size, are complied with.\nHowever, miniature produce as defined in the relevant standard shall comply with the applicable marketing standard, including the provisions on the presentation and marking of products.\n2. If no such marketing standard exists for a given product, the minimum requirements laid down in Annex X shall be met by products withdrawn from the market. The Member States may lay down additional rules supplementing those minimum requirements.\nArticle 77\nThree-year average for market withdrawals for free distribution\n1. The limit of 5 % of the volume of marketed production referred to in Article 103d(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be calculated on the basis of an arithmetic mean of the overall volumes of products for which the producer organisation is recognised and are marketed through the producer organisation during the three previous years.\n2. For recently recognised producer organisations, the data for marketing years prior to recognition shall be:\n(a)\nwhere the organisation was a producer group, the equivalent data for that producer group, where applicable; or\n(b)\nthe volume applicable to the application for recognition.\nArticle 78\nPrior notification of withdrawal operations\n1. Producer organisations and associations of producer organisations shall notify in advance the competent authorities of the Member States, by written telecommunication or electronic message, of each withdrawal operation they intend to undertake.\nSuch notification shall specify, in particular, the list of products taken into intervention and their principal characteristics according to the relevant marketing standards, the estimated quantity of each product concerned, their intended destination and the place where the withdrawn products may be inspected as provided for in Article 108.\nNotifications shall include a certificate attesting that the withdrawn products conform to the applicable marketing standards or minimum requirements referred to in Article 76.\n2. Member States shall lay down detailed rules for producer organisations as regards notifications provided for in paragraph 1, in particular as regards time limits.\n3. Within the time limits referred to in paragraph 2, the Member States shall:\n(a)\neither carry out the check referred to in Article 108(1), following which, if no irregularities are detected, it shall authorise the withdrawal operation as noted in the check; or;\n(b)\nin the cases referred to in Article 108(3), not carry out the check referred to in Article 108(1), in which case it shall inform the producer organisation of this by a written telecommunication or an electronic message and authorise the withdrawal operation as notified.\nArticle 79\nSupport\n1. The support, comprising both the Union contribution and the producer organisation contribution, for market withdrawals shall be no more than the amounts set out in Annex XI for the products referred to in that Annex. For other products, Member States shall set maximum amounts of support.\nIn case the producer organisation has received compensation from third parties for withdrawn products, the support referred to in the first subparagraph shall be reduced by the net receipts earned by the producer organisations from the products withdrawn from the market. In order to be eligible for support, the products concerned shall be withdrawn from the commercial market for fruit and vegetables.\n2. Market withdrawals shall not exceed 5 % as a proportion of the volume of the marketed production of any given product in any given producer organisation. However, amounts which are disposed of in one of the ways referred to in Article 103d(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 or any other way approved by Member States under Article 80(2) of this Regulation shall not be taken into account in that proportion.\nThe volume of marketed production shall be calculated as average of the volume of marketed production in the previous three years. If this information is not available, the volume of marketed production for which the producer organisation was recognised shall be used.\nThe percentages referred to in the first subparagraph shall be annual averages over a three year period, with 5 percentage points of annual margin of overrun.\n3. The Union financial assistance in case of market withdrawals of fruit and vegetables which are disposed of by way of free distribution to the charitable organisations and the institutions referred to in Article 103d(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall only cover payment for the disposed products in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and the costs referred to in Articles 81(1) and 82(1) of this Regulation.\nArticle 80\nDestinations for withdrawn products\n1. Member States shall lay down the permissible destinations for products withdrawn from the market. They shall adopt provisions to ensure that no negative impact on the environment nor any negative phytosanitary consequences result from the withdrawal or its destination. Costs incurred by the producer organisations due to compliance with these provisions shall be eligible as part of the support for market withdrawals under the operational programme.\n2. The destinations referred to in paragraph 1 shall include free distribution within the meaning of Article 103d(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and any other equivalent destinations approved by Member States.\nMember States may allow the charitable organisations and institutions referred to in Article 103d(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, to ask a symbolic contribution from the final recipients of products withdrawn from the market, in case those products have undergone processing.\nPayment in kind by the beneficiaries of free distribution to processors of fruit and vegetables may be allowed, where such payment only compensates for processing costs and where the Member State in which the payment takes places has provided for rules ensuring that processed products are indeed destined for consumption by the final recipients referred to in the second subparagraph.\nMember States shall take all the necessary steps to facilitate contacts and co-operation between producer organisations and the charitable organisations and institutions referred to in Article 103d(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 they have approved.\n3. Disposal of products to the processing industry shall be possible. Member States shall adopt detailed provisions to ensure that no distortion of competition occurs for the industries concerned within the Union or for imported products and that products withdrawn do not enter the commercial market again. The alcohol resulting from distillation shall be used exclusively for industrial or energy purposes.\nArticle 81\nTransport costs\n1. The transport costs for the free distribution of all products withdrawn from the market shall be eligible under the operational programme on the basis of the flat-rate amounts set according to the distance between the point of withdrawal and the place of delivery set out in Annex XII.\nIn the case of sea transport, the Member States shall determine the distance between the point of withdrawal and the place of delivery. The compensation may not exceed the cost of land transport over the shortest route between the place of loading and the theoretical point of exit where land transport is possible. A correcting coefficient of 0,6 shall be applied to the amounts as set out in Annex XII.\n2. The transport costs shall be paid to the party which actually bears the financial cost of the transport operation in question.\nPayment shall be subject to the presentation of supporting documents certifying in particular:\n(a)\nthe names of the beneficiary organisations;\n(b)\nthe quantity of the products concerned;\n(c)\nacceptance by the beneficiary organisations and the means of transport used; and\n(d)\nthe distance between the place of withdrawal and the place of delivery.\nArticle 82\nSorting and packing costs\n1. The costs of sorting and packaging fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market for free distribution shall be eligible under operational programmes, in the case of products put up in packages of less than 25 kilograms net weight at the flat-rate amounts set out in Part A of Annex XIII.\n2. Packages of products for free distribution shall display the European emblem together with one or more of the references set out in Part B of Annex XIII.\n3. The costs of sorting and packaging shall be paid to the producer organisations which have performed those operations.\nPayment shall be subject to the presentation of supporting documents certifying in particular:\n(a)\nthe names of the beneficiary organisations;\n(b)\nthe quantity of the products concerned; and\n(c)\nacceptance by the beneficiary organisations, specifying the presentation.\nArticle 83\nConditions for the recipients of withdrawn products\n1. The recipients of withdrawn products referred to in Article 103d(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall undertake to:\n(a)\ncomply with this Regulation;\n(b)\nkeep separate stock records and financial accounts for the operations in question;\n(c)\naccept the checks provided for by Union law; and\n(d)\nprovide the supporting documents on the final destination of each of the products concerned, in the form of a take-over certificate (or equivalent document) certifying that the withdrawn products have been taken over by a third party with a view to their free distribution.\nMember States may decide that recipients do not have to keep records or accounts referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph, if they receive only small quantities and where they consider that the risk is low. That decision and its justification shall be recorded.\n2. The recipients of withdrawn products for other destinations shall undertake to:\n(a)\ncomply with this Regulation;\n(b)\nkeep separate stock records and financial accounts for the operations in question if the Member States considers it as appropriate despite the fact that the product has been denatured before delivery;\n(c)\naccept the checks provided for by Union law; and\n(d)\nnot request additional aid for the alcohol produced from the products concerned in the case of withdrawn products intended for distillation.\nSection 3\nGreen harvesting and non-harvesting\nArticle 84\nDefinitions of green harvesting and non-harvesting\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018green harvesting\u2019 means the total harvesting of non-marketable products on a given area carried out before the beginning of the normal harvest. The products concerned shall not have been already damaged prior to the green harvesting, whether due to climatic reasons or disease or otherwise.\n(b)\n\u2018non-harvesting\u2019 means the situation where no commercial production is taken from the area concerned during the normal production cycle. However destruction of products due to climatic event or disease shall not be considered as non-harvesting.\n2. Green harvesting and non-harvesting shall be additional to and different from normal cultivation practices.\nArticle 85\nConditions for the application of green harvesting and non-harvesting\n1. In relation to green harvesting and non-harvesting, Member States shall:\n(a)\nadopt detailed provisions on the implementation of the measures, including on prior notifications of non-harvesting and green harvesting, their content and deadlines, on the amount of compensation to be paid and on the application of the measures, as well as the list of products eligible under the measures;\n(b)\nadopt provisions to ensure that no negative impact on the environment nor any negative phytosanitary consequences result from the implementation of the measures;\n(c)\ncheck that the measures are carried out correctly, including in relation to the provisions referred to in points (a) and (b), and, if this is not the case, not to approve the application of the measures.\n2. Producer organisations and associations of producer organisations shall notify in advance the competent authorities of the Member State, by written telecommunication or electronic message, of each green harvesting or non-harvesting operation they intend to undertake.\nThey shall include in the first notification of any given year and for a given product, an analysis based on the expected market situation which justifies green harvesting as a crisis prevention measure.\n3. Green harvesting and non-harvesting shall not both be applied for the same product and the same given area in any given year, or in any two consecutive years.\n4. Compensation amounts, comprising both the Union contribution and the producer organisation contribution for green harvesting and non-harvesting shall be per hectare payments set by the Member State under paragraph 1(a):\n(a)\nat the level to cover only additional costs generated by the application of the measure, taking into account the environmental and phytosanitary management needed to comply with the provisions adopted pursuant to paragraph 1(b); or\n(b)\nat a level to cover not more than 90 % of the maximum support level for market withdrawals as referred to in Article 79.\nSection 4\nPromotion and communication\nArticle 86\nImplementation of promotion and communication measures\n1. Member States shall adopt detailed provisions on the implementation of promotion and communication measures. Those provisions shall allow for the rapid application of the measures when required.\n2. Actions under promotion and communication measures shall be additional to any on-going promotion and communication actions not related to crisis prevention and management being applied by the producer organisation concerned.\nSection 5\nTraining\nArticle 87\nImplementation of training actions\nMember States shall adopt detailed provisions on the implementation of training actions.\nSection 6\nHarvest insurance\nArticle 88\nObjective of harvest insurance actions\nHarvest insurance actions shall be managed by a producer organisation which shall contribute to safeguarding producers\u2019 incomes and to covering market losses incurred by the producer organisation and/or its members where they are affected by natural disasters, climatic events and, where appropriate, diseases or pest infestations.\nArticle 89\nImplementation of harvest insurance actions\n1. Member States shall adopt detailed provisions on the implementation of harvest insurance actions, including those necessary to ensure that harvest insurance actions do not distort competition in the insurance market.\n2. Member States may grant additional national financing to support harvest insurance actions which are benefiting from the operational fund. However, total public support for harvest insurance may not exceed:\n(a)\n80 % of the cost of the insurance premiums paid for by producers for insurance against losses as a result of adverse climatic events which can be assimilated to natural disasters;\n(b)\n50 % of the cost of the insurance premiums paid for by producers for insurance against:\n(i)\nlosses referred to in point (a) and against other losses caused by adverse climatic events; and\n(ii)\nlosses caused by animal or plant diseases or pest infestations.\nThe limit set out in point (b) of the first subparagraph shall apply even in cases where the operational fund is otherwise eligible for 60 % Union financial assistance pursuant to Article 103d(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n3. Harvest insurance actions shall not cover insurance payments which compensate producers for more than 100 % of the income loss suffered, taking into account any compensation the producers obtain from other support schemes related to the insured risk.\n4. For the purposes of this Article, an \u2018adverse climatic event which can be assimilated to a natural disaster\u2019 shall have the same meaning as in Article 2(8) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 (13).\nSection 7\nSupport for the administrative cost of setting up mutual funds\nArticle 90\nConditions for support for the administrative cost of setting up mutual funds\n1. Member States shall adopt detailed provisions for support for the administrative cost of setting up mutual funds.\n2. Support for the administrative cost of setting up mutual funds shall comprise both the contribution from the Union and the contribution from the producer organisation. The total amount of support for the administrative cost of setting up mutual funds shall not exceed the following proportion of the contribution of the producer organisation to the mutual fund in the first, second and third year of its operation:\n(a)\n10 %, 8 % and 4 % respectively in the Member States which acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004 or thereafter;\n(b)\n5 %, 4 % and 2 % respectively in other Member States.\n3. A producer organisation may receive the support referred to in the paragraph 2 only once and only within the three first years of operation of the fund. Where a producer organisation only asks for support in the second or the third year of operation of the fund, the support shall be:\n(a)\n8 % and 4 % respectively in the Member States which acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004 or thereafter;\n(b)\n4 % and 2 % respectively in other Member States.\n4. Member States may fix ceilings for the amounts that may be received by a producer organisation as support for the administrative cost of setting up mutual funds.\nCHAPTER IV\nNational Financial Assistance\nArticle 91\nDegree of organisation of producers\n1. For the purposes of Article 103e(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the degree of organisation of producers in a region of a Member State shall be calculated as the value of fruit and vegetable production that was obtained in the region and marketed by producer organisations, associations of producer organisations and producer groups divided by the total value of the fruit and vegetable production that was obtained in that region.\n2. The degree of organisation of producers in a region of a Member State shall be considered as particularly low where the average of the degrees, calculated as provided for in paragraph 1 for the last three years for which the data are available is less than 20 %.\nOnly fruit and vegetable production generated in the region referred to in this article may benefit from national financial assistance. For the purposes of this Chapter, a region shall be considered as a distinct part of the territory of a Member State, as a result of its administrative, geographical or economic characteristics.\nArticle 92\nAuthorisation to pay national financial assistance\n1. Member States shall submit a request to the Commission for authorisation to grant national financial assistance pursuant to Article 103e(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for operational programmes to be implemented in any given calendar year by 31 January of that year.\nThe request shall be accompanied by evidence showing that the degree of organisation of producers in the region concerned is particularly low, as defined in Article 91 of this Regulation, that only products of the fruit and vegetables sector produced in that region benefit from assistance, as well as details of the producer organisations concerned, the amount of assistance concerned and the proportion of financial contributions being made pursuant to Article 103b(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n2. The Commission shall approve or refuse the request within three months of its submission. If the Commission does not reply within this period the request shall be considered to have been approved.\nIf the request is incomplete, the three-month period is suspended and the Member State is informed about the non-compliance found. The suspension shall take effect from the date on which the Member State is informed of the suspension and shall last until a complete request is received.\nArticle 93\nAmendments to the operational programme\nA producer organisation wishing to apply for national financial assistance shall, if necessary, amend its operational programme pursuant to Articles 65 or 66.\nArticle 94\nApplication for and payment of the national financial assistance\n1. Producer organisations shall apply for the national financial assistance, and Member States shall pay the aid, in accordance with Articles 69 and 70.\n2. Member States may adopt additional rules on the payment of the national financial assistance, including the possibility of advance and partial payments.\nArticle 95\nUnion reimbursement of the national financial assistance\n1. Member States may request Union reimbursement of approved national financial assistance actually paid to producer organisations, before 1 January of the second year following the year of implementation of the programme.\nThe request shall be accompanied by evidence showing that the conditions set out in Article 103e(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 have been fulfilled in three of the previous four years, as well as details of the producer organisations concerned, the amount of assistance actually paid and a description of the operational fund broken out between total amount, contributions from Union, Member State (national financial assistance) and producer organisations and members.\n2. The Commission shall take a decision to approve or refuse the request. The request shall be refused where the rules on the authorisation and reimbursement of national financial assistance have not been complied with or where the rules on producer organisations, the operational fund and operational programmes laid down in this Regulation or Regulation (EC) 1234/2007 have not been respected by the requesting Member State.\n3. Where Union reimbursement of the assistance has been approved, the eligible expenditure shall be declared to the Commission in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 (14).\n4. The proportion of Union reimbursement of national financial assistance shall not exceed 60 % of the national financial assistance granted to the producer organisation.\nCHAPTER V\nGeneral Provisions\nSection 1\nReports and notifications\nArticle 96\nProducer groups and producer organisations\u2019 reports\n1. At the request of the competent authority of the Member State, producer groups and producer organisations shall provide any relevant information needed for the drawing up of the annual report referred to in Article 97(b).\n2. Producer organisations shall submit annual reports, accompanying applications for aid, on the implementation of operational programmes.\nThose reports shall concern the following:\n(a)\noperational programmes implemented during the preceding year;\n(b)\nmain amendments to operational programmes; and\n(c)\nvariances between estimated aid and aid applied for.\n3. For each operational programme implemented, the annual report shall indicate:\n(a)\nthe achievements and results of the operational programme, based on, where relevant, the common output and result indicators set out in Annex VIII and, where appropriate, additional output and result indicators set out in the national strategy; and\n(b)\na summary of the major problems encountered in managing the programme and any measures taken to ensure the quality and effectiveness of programme implementation.\nWhere relevant, the annual report shall specify what effective safeguards are in place, in accordance with the national strategy and in application of Article 103c(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, to protect the environment from possible increased pressures coming from investments supported under the operational programme.\n4. For the final year of application of an operational programme, a final report shall replace the annual report referred to in paragraph 1.\nFinal reports shall show to what extent the objectives pursued by the programmes have been achieved. They shall explain changes to actions and/or methods and identify factors which contributed to the success or failure of the programme\u2019s implementation, which have been or will be considered when subsequent operational programmes are drawn up, or when existing operational programmes are amended.\n5. Without prejudice to specific provisions in this Regulation, where a producer group or a producer organisation fails to notify the Member State as required under this Regulation or Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 or if the notification appears incorrect in the light of objective facts in the Member State\u2019s possession, the Member State shall suspend the preliminary recognition of the producer group or the recognition of the producer organisation until the notification is correctly made.\nThe Member State shall include details of such cases in its annual report referred to in Article 97(b) of this Regulation.\nArticle 97\nMember States\u2019 notifications concerning producer organisations, associations of producer organisations and producer groups\nMember States shall notify the Commission of the following information and documents:\n(a)\nby 31 January in any given year, the total amount of the operational funds approved that year for all operational programmes. This notification shall make clear both the total amount of the operational funds and the total amount of Union aid granted to those funds. Those figures shall be further broken down between amounts for crisis prevention and management measures and other measures;\n(b)\nby 15 November in any given year, an annual report on producer organisations, associations of producer organisations and producer groups and operational funds, operational programmes and recognition plans running in the previous year. The annual report shall contain in particular the information set out in Annex XIV;\n(c)\nby 31 January in any given year, the financial amount corresponding to the annual implementation of recognition plans that run that year. Approved or estimated amounts shall be provided. The notification shall include the following information for each producer group:\n(i)\ntotal amount of the annual period of implementation of the recognition plan, the contributions from the Union, the Member States and the producer groups and/or members of the producer groups;\n(ii)\na breakdown between the aid referred to in, respectively, Article 103a(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 98\nMember States\u2019 notifications concerning producer prices of fruit and vegetables in the internal market\n1. The competent authorities of the Member States shall notify the Commission, by 12.00, at noon (Brussels time) of each Wednesday, for each market day, of average recorded prices for fruit and vegetables traded on the representative markets listed in Part A of Annex XV.\nFor fruit and vegetables covered by the general marketing standard, only prices of products meeting that standard shall be notified, whereas prices for products covered by a specific marketing standard shall only concern products of class I.\nNotified prices shall be ex packaging station, sorted, packaged and, where applicable, on pallets, expressed in euro per 100 kilograms net weight.\nWhere data are available, Member States shall notify prices corresponding to the types and varieties of products, sizes and/or presentations specified in Part A of Annex XV. Where recorded prices concern other types, varieties, sizes and/or presentations than those specified in Part A of Annex XV, the competent authorities of Member States shall notify the Commission of the types, varieties, sizes and/or presentations of the products to which prices correspond.\n2. Member States shall identify representative markets in the production area of the fruit and vegetables concerned, on the basis of transactions carried out on physically identifiable markets, such as wholesale markets, auctions or other physical places where supply meets demand, or on the basis of direct transactions between producers, including producer organisations, and individual buyers, such as wholesalers, traders, distribution centres or other relevant operators. Representative markets may also be identified on the basis of a combination of transactions carried out on physically identifiable markets and direct transactions.\n3. The competent authorities of the Member States may notify the Commission of producer prices of the fruit and vegetables and other products listed in Part B of Annex XV on a voluntary basis.\n4. Notifications of prices made in accordance with paragraph 3 shall be done in accordance with guidelines to be adopted by the Commission and be made publicly available by the Commission by the methods it considers appropriate.\nSection 2\nChecks\nArticle 99\nUnique identification system\nMember States shall ensure that a unique identification system applies with regard to all aid applications submitted by the same producer organisation or producer group. This identification shall be compatible with the system to record identity referred to in Article 15(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (15).\nArticle 100\nSubmission procedures\nWithout prejudice to specific provisions of this Regulation, Member States shall provide for appropriate procedures for the submission of aid applications, requests for recognition or approval of operational programme, as well as payment claims.\nArticle 101\nSampling\nWhere it is appropriate to carry out checks by sampling, Member States shall ensure, by their nature and frequency and on the basis of a risk analysis, that the checks are appropriate to the measure concerned.\nArticle 102\nAdministrative checks\nAdministrative checks shall be carried out on all aid applications or payment claims, and shall cover all possible and appropriate elements. The procedures shall require the recording of undertaken operations, the results of the verification and the measures taken in respect of discrepancies.\nArticle 103\nOn-the-spot checks\n1. Every on-the-spot check shall be the subject of a monitoring report in order to make it possible to review the details of the checks carried out. The report shall indicate in particular:\n(a)\nthe aid scheme and the application checked;\n(b)\nthe persons present;\n(c)\nthe actions, measures and documents checked; and\n(d)\nthe results of the check.\n2. The beneficiary may be given the opportunity to sign the report to attest his presence at the check and to add observations. Where irregularities are found the beneficiary may receive a copy of the monitoring report.\n3. Advance notice of on-the-spot checks may be given, provided that the purpose of the check is not jeopardised. The advance notice shall be limited to the minimum time necessary.\n4. Where possible, on-the-spot checks provided for in this Regulation and other checks provided for in Union law concerning agricultural subsidies shall be carried out at the same time.\nArticle 104\nGranting of recognition and approval of operational programmes\n1. Prior to granting recognition to a producer organisation under Article 125b(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Members States shall conduct an on-the-spot visit to the producer organisation to verify compliance with the conditions for recognition.\n2. Prior to the approval of an operational programme under Article 64, the competent authority of the Member State shall verify by all appropriate means, including on-the-spot checks, the operational programme submitted for approval and, if applicable, the requests for amendment. Those checks shall in particular concern:\n(a)\nthe accuracy of information referred to in Article 59(a), (b) and (e), which shall be included in the draft operational programme;\n(b)\ncompliance of the programmes with Article 103c of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as well as with the national framework and the national strategy;\n(c)\nthe eligibility of the actions and the eligibility of the expenditure proposed;\n(d)\nthe consistency and technical quality of programmes, the soundness of the estimates and the aid plan, and the planning of its implementation. Checks shall verify whether measurable targets have been set, so that their achievement can be monitored, and whether the targets set are achievable through implementing the proposed actions; and\n(e)\nthe compliance of the operations for which aid is requested with applicable national and Union law on, in particular, and where relevant, public procurement, State aid and the other appropriate obligatory standards established by national legislation or established in the national framework or the national strategy.\nArticle 105\nAdministrative checks on aid applications for operational programmes\n1. Prior to granting the aid, Member States shall carry out administrative checks on all aid applications, which shall be supplemented by on-the-spot checks by sampling as specified in Article 106.\n2. Administrative checks on aid applications shall include, in particular, and as far as this is appropriate for the submitted application, a verification of:\n(a)\nthe annual or, where applicable, the final report transmitted together with the application on the execution of the operational programme;\n(b)\nthe value of marketed production, the contributions to the operational fund and the expenditure incurred;\n(c)\nthe delivery of the products and services and the genuineness of expenditure claimed;\n(d)\nthe conformity of the actions executed with those included in the operational programme as approved;\n(e)\nthe respect of financial or other limits and ceilings imposed.\n3. Expenditure incurred under the operational programme shall be supported by invoices and documents, such as bank extracts, proving that payment has been made. Where this cannot be done, payments shall be supported by documents of equivalent probative value. Invoices used shall be established in the name of the producer organisation, association of producer organisations or the subsidiary in the situation referred to in Article 50(9) or, subject to Member State approval, in the name of one or more of its producer members. However, where relevant, invoices in respect of the personnel costs referred to in Annex IX (2)(b) shall be established in the name of the producer organisation, association of producer organisation or subsidiary in the situation referred to in Article 50(9).\nArticle 106\nOn-the-spot checks on aid applications for operational programmes\n1. In the context of the verification of the aid application referred to in Article 69(1), Member States shall carry out on-the-spot checks at the premises of producer organisations so as to ensure compliance with the conditions for granting an aid or the balance thereof for the year concerned.\nSuch checks shall in particular concern:\n(a)\nthe compliance with the recognition criteria for the year concerned;\n(b)\nthe use of the operational fund in the given year including expenditure declared in claims for advance payments or partial payments, the value of marketed production, the contributions to the operational fund and the expenditure declared as supported by accounting or other documents;\n(c)\nsecond level checks for the expenses of market withdrawals and green harvesting and non-harvesting.\n2. The checks referred to in paragraph 1 shall relate to a significant sample of applications each year. The sample shall represent at least 30 % of the total aid applied for, in Member States which have more than 10 recognised producer organisations. In other cases, each producer organisation shall be visited at least once every three years.\nAt least one check shall be made on each producer organisation before the payment of the aid or the balance thereof relating to the final year of its operational programme.\n3. The results of the on-the-spot checks shall be evaluated to establish whether any problems encountered are of a systemic character, entailing a risk for other similar actions, beneficiaries or bodies. The evaluation shall also identify the causes of such situations, any further examination which may be required and the necessary corrective and preventive action.\nIf the checks reveal significant irregularities in a region or part of a region or for a specific producer organisation, the Member State shall carry out additional checks during the year concerned and shall increase the percentage of corresponding applications to be checked the following year.\n4. The Member State shall determine which producer organisations are to be checked on the basis of a risk analysis.\nThe risk analysis shall in particular take account of:\n(a)\nthe amount of aid;\n(b)\nthe findings of the checks in previous years;\n(c)\na random element; and\n(d)\nother parameters to be determined by Member States.\nArticle 107\nOn-the-spot checks on measures of operational programmes\n1. Through the on-the-spot checks concerning the measures of operational programmes, Member States shall verify in particular the following:\n(a)\nthe implementation of the actions contained in the operational programme;\n(b)\nthat the implementation or intended implementation of the action is consistent with the use described in the operational programme as approved;\n(c)\nfor an adequate number of expenditure items, that the nature and timing of the relevant expenditure comply with Union law and correspond to the approved specifications;\n(d)\nthat the expenditure incurred can be supported by accounting or other documents; and\n(e)\nthe value of marketed production.\n2. The value of marketed production shall be verified on the basis of the financial accounting system as audited and certified under national law.\nTo that end, the Member States may decide that the declaration of the value of marketed production shall be certified in the same way as the financial accounting data.\nThe check on the declaration of the value of marketed production may be carried out before the relevant aid application is transmitted. They shall be carried out at the latest before payment of the aid.\n3. Except in exceptional circumstances, the on-the-spot check shall include a visit to the action or, if the action is intangible, to the action promoter. In particular, actions on individual holdings covered by the sample referred to in Article 106(2) shall be subject of at least one visit to verify their execution.\nHowever, Member States may decide not to carry out such visits for smaller actions, or where they consider that the risk is low that the conditions for receiving aid are not fulfilled, or that the reality of the operation has not been respected. That decision and its justification shall be recorded.\n4. The on-the-spot check shall cover all the commitments and obligations of the producer organisation or its members which can be checked at the time of the visit.\n5. Only checks meeting all the requirements of this Article may be counted towards the fulfilment of the checking rate set out in Article 106(2).\nArticle 108\nFirst-level checks on withdrawal operations\n1. Member States shall make first-level checks on withdrawal operations in each producer organisation, comprising a documentary and identity check and a physical check, where appropriate, by sampling, of the weight of the products withdrawn from the market and a check on compliance with Article 76, in accordance with the procedures laid down in Chapter II of Title II. The check shall take place following receipt of the notification referred to in Article 78(1), within the time limits set in accordance with Article 78(2).\n2. The first-level checks provided for in paragraph 1 shall cover 100 % of the quantity of products withdrawn from the market. At the end of this check, the withdrawn products other than those for free distribution shall be denatured or disposed of to the processing industry under the supervision of the competent authorities under the terms and conditions laid down by the Member State under Article 80.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, where the products are for free distribution, Member States may check a smaller percentage than that laid down in that paragraph, provided it is not less than 10 % of the quantities concerned during the marketing year of any given producer organisation. The check may take place at the premises of producer organisation and/or at the sites of the recipients of the products. In the event that the checks reveal significant irregularities, the competent authorities of the Member State shall carry out additional checks.\nArticle 109\nSecond-level checks on withdrawal operations\n1. In the framework of the checks referred to in Article 106, Member States shall make second-level checks on withdrawal operations.\nMember States shall lay down criteria for analysing and evaluating the risk of any given producer organisation carrying out non-compliant withdrawal operations. Such criteria shall relate, among other things, to the findings of previous first- and second-level checks, and whether or not a producer organisation has some form of quality-assurance procedure. They shall use those criteria to determine for each producer organisation a minimum frequency of second-level checks.\n2. The checks referred to in paragraph 1 shall comprise on-the-spot checks at the premises of producer organisations and the recipients of withdrawn products, in order to ensure that the conditions for payment of Union aid have been complied with. Those checks shall include:\n(a)\nthe specific stock and accounting records to be kept by all producer organisations which carry out one or more withdrawal operations during the marketing year concerned;\n(b)\nverification of the quantities marketed as declared in the aid applications, checking in particular the stock and accounting records, the invoices and, where necessary, their veracity and ensuring that the declarations tally with the accounting and/or tax data of the producer organisations concerned;\n(c)\nchecks that the accounts are correct, in particular the veracity of net receipts by the producer organisations as declared in their payment applications, the proportionality of any withdrawal costs, ensuring that those amounts are correct; and\n(d)\nchecks on the destination of withdrawn products as declared in the payment application and checks on the appropriate denaturing to ensure that the producer organisations and recipients have complied with this Regulation.\n3. The checks referred to in paragraph 2 shall be carried out at the premises of producer organisations concerned and the recipients associated with those organisations. Each check shall include a sample representing at least 5 % of the quantities withdrawn during the marketing year by the producer organisation.\n4. The specific stock and accounting records referred to in paragraph 2(a) shall show, for each product withdrawn, the amounts moved, expressed in volume, of:\n(a)\nthe production delivered by members of the producer organisation and by members of other producer organisations in accordance with Article 125a(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(b)\nsales by the producer organisation, broken down by products prepared for the fresh market and other types of products including raw materials for processing; and\n(c)\nproducts withdrawn from the market.\n5. The checks on the destination of products referred to in paragraph 4(c) shall include, in particular:\n(a)\na sample check on the separate accounts to be kept by recipients and, where necessary, verification that these tally with the accounts required under national law; and\n(b)\nchecks on compliance with the relevant environmental requirements;\n6. If the second-level checks reveal significant irregularities, the competent authorities of the Member State shall carry out more detailed second-level checks for the marketing year concerned and shall increase the frequency of second-level checks at the premises of producer organisations or their associations concerned during the following marketing year.\nArticle 110\nGreen harvesting and non-harvesting\n1. Before a green harvesting operation takes place, Member States shall verify by an on-the-spot check that the products concerned are not damaged and the given area has been well maintained. After green harvesting, Member States shall verify that the area concerned has been harvested in total and the harvested product has been denatured.\nAfter the harvest period, Member States shall verify the reliability of the analysis based on the expected market situation referred to in Article 85(2). They shall also analyse any differences between the expected market situation and the real market situation.\n2. Before a non-harvesting operation takes place, Member States shall verify by an on-the-spot check that the given area has been well maintained, that no partial harvest has already taken place and that the product is well developed and would in general be sound, fair and of marketable quality.\nMember States shall ensure that the production is denatured. If this is not possible, they shall ensure, by an on-the-spot visit or visits during the harvest season, that no harvest takes place.\n3. Article 109(1),(2),(3) and (6) shall apply mutatis mutandis.\nArticle 111\nChecks before approving recognition plans of producer groups\n1. Before approving a recognition plan of a producer group under Article 125e(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Members States shall conduct an on-the-spot check on the legal entity or clearly defined part of the legal entity.\n2. The Member State shall verify by all appropriate means, including the on-the-spot check:\n(a)\nthe accuracy of the information provided in the recognition plan;\n(b)\nthe commercial consistency and the technical quality of the plan, the soundness of the estimates and the planning of its implementation;\n(c)\nthe eligibility of the actions and the eligibility and reasonableness of the expenditure proposed; and\n(d)\nthe compliance of the operations for which support is requested with applicable national and Union law and in particular, provisions on public procurement, State aid and the other appropriate obligatory standards established by national legislation or established in the national framework or the national strategy.\nArticle 112\nChecks on aid applications of producer groups\n1. Prior to granting payment, Member States shall carry out administrative checks on all aid applications submitted by producer groups, as well as on-the-spot checks by sampling.\n2. Following the submission of the aid application referred to in Article 45, Member States shall carry out on-the-spot checks on producer groups so as to ensure compliance with the conditions for granting aid for the year concerned.\nThose checks shall in particular concern:\n(a)\ncompliance with the recognition criteria for the year concerned; and\n(b)\nthe value of marketed production as well as the implementation of the measures contained in the recognition plan and the expenses incurred.\n3. The checks referred to in paragraph 2 shall relate to a significant sample of applications each year. The sample shall represent at least 30 % of the total amount of aid.\nAll producer groups shall be checked at least once every five years.\n4. Articles 105 and 107 shall apply mutatis mutandis.\nArticle 113\nTransnational producer organisations and transnational associations of producer organisations\n1. The Member State in which a transnational producer organisation or a transnational association of producer organisations has its head office shall have overall responsibility for organisation of checks on that organisation or association in respect of notably the operational programme and operational fund and shall apply sanctions to it where necessary.\n2. The other Member States required to provide the administrative co-operation referred to in Article 28(2)(c) and Article 35(2)(c) shall carry out such administrative and on the spot checks as required by the Member State referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, and report the results to them. They shall respect all deadlines set by the Member State referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. The rules applicable in the Member State referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply in relation to the producer organisation and the operational programme and operational fund. However, in respect of environmental, phytosanitary questions, and in relation to the disposal of withdrawn products, the law of the Member State where the production takes place shall apply.\nSection 3\nSanctions\nArticle 114\nNon-respect of recognition criteria\n1. Member States shall withdraw the recognition of a producer organisation if a failure to respect the criteria for recognition is substantial and results from the fact that the producer organisation acted deliberately or by serious negligence.\nMember States shall in particular withdraw the recognition of a producer organisation if a failure to respect the criteria for recognition concerns:\n(a)\na breach of the requirements of Articles 21, 23, 26(1) and (2) or 31; or\n(b)\na situation where the value of marketed production falls, in two consecutive years, below the limit set by the Member State pursuant to Article 125b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nThe withdrawal of recognition under this paragraph shall take effect from the date from which the conditions for recognition were not fulfilled, subject to any applicable horizontal legislation at national level on limitation periods.\n2. Where paragraph 1 does not apply, Member States shall suspend the recognition of a producer organisation if a failure to respect the criteria for recognition is substantial but is only temporary.\nDuring the period of suspension, no aid shall be paid. The suspension shall take effect from the day where the check has taken place and shall end on the day of the check which shows that the criteria concerned have been fulfilled.\nThe period of suspension shall not exceed 12 months. If the criteria concerned are subsequently not fulfilled after 12 months, recognition shall be withdrawn.\nMember States may make payments after the deadline set out in Article 70 where this is necessary in order to apply this paragraph. However, those later payments may not in any case be made later than 15 October of the second year following the year of implementation of the programme.\n3. In other cases of a failure to respect the criteria for recognition, where paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply, Member States shall send a warning letter stating the corrective measures to be taken. Member States may delay payments of aid until the corrective measures are taken.\nMember States may make payments after the deadline set out in Article 70 where this is necessary in order to apply this paragraph. However, those later payments may not in any case be made later than 15 October of the second year following the year of implementation of the programme.\nA failure to take the corrective measures within a 12 month period shall be regarded as substantial failure to respect the criteria and paragraph 2 shall subsequently be applied.\nArticle 115\nFraud\n1. Where a producer organisation, an association of producer organisations or a producer group is found to have committed fraud in respect of aid covered by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Member States shall, without prejudice to any other sanctions and penalties applicable under Union and national legislation:\n(a)\nwithdraw the recognition of the producer organisation, association of producer organisations or producer group;\n(b)\nexclude the actions or operations concerned from support under the operational programme or recognition plan concerned and recover any aid already paid for that operation; and\n(c)\nexclude the producer organisation, association of producer organisations or producer group from support under the operational programme or recognition plan concerned during the next year.\n2. Member States may suspend the recognition of a producer organisation, an association of producer organisations or a producer groups, or suspend payments to such a body if they are suspected of having committed fraud in respect of aid covered by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 116\nProducer groups\n1. Member States shall apply, mutatis mutandis, the sanctions and penalties provided for in Article 114 and/or 117 to recognition plans.\n2. In addition to paragraph 1, if, after the end of the period set by the Member State under Article 49(4), the producer group is not recognised as producer organisation, the Member State shall recover:\n(a)\n100 % of the aid paid to the producer group if the failure to achieve recognition was due to the producer group acting deliberately or by serious negligence; or\n(b)\n50 % of the aid paid to the producer group in all other cases.\nArticle 117\nOperational programme\n1. Payments shall be calculated on the basis of what is found eligible.\n2. The Member State shall examine the application for aid received from the beneficiary, and establish the amounts that are eligible for support. It shall establish:\n(a)\nthe amount that would be payable to the beneficiary based solely on the application;\n(b)\nthe amount that is payable to the beneficiary after an examination of the eligibility of the application.\n3. If the amount established pursuant to paragraph 2(a) exceeds the amount established pursuant to paragraph 2(b) by more than 3 %, a penalty shall be applied. The amount of the penalty shall be the difference between the amounts calculated in paragraph 2(a) and (b).\nHowever, no penalty shall be applied if the producer organisation or producer group is able to demonstrate that it is not responsible for the inclusion of the ineligible amount.\n4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall apply mutatis mutandis to ineligible expenditure identified during on-the-spot or subsequent checks.\n5. If the value of marketed production is declared and checked before the application for aid, the declared and approved values shall be used when establishing the amounts pursuant to paragraph 2(a) and (b) respectively.\nArticle 118\nSanctions following first-level checks on withdrawal operations\nIf, following the check referred to in Article 108, irregularities are found with regard to the marketing standards or the minimum requirements referred to in Article 76, the beneficiary shall be required:\n(a)\nto pay a penalty of the amount of the Union contribution, calculated on the basis of the quantities of withdrawn products not in conformity with the marketing standards or minimum requirements, if those quantities are less than 10 % of the quantities notified pursuant to Article 78 for the withdrawal operation in question;\n(b)\nto pay a penalty of the double amount of the Union contribution, if those quantities are between 10 % and 25 % of the quantities notified; or\n(c)\nto pay a penalty of the amount of the Union contribution for the entire quantity notified pursuant to Article 78, where those quantities exceed 25 % of the quantity notified.\nArticle 119\nOther sanctions applicable to producer organisations regarding withdrawal operations\n1. The penalties referred to in Article 117 shall cover aid applied for in respect of withdrawal operations as integrated parts of operational programme expenditure.\n2. Expenditure for withdrawal operation shall be considered as ineligible if the products not put up for sale have not been disposed of as provided for by the Member State under Article 80(1) or that the withdrawal or its destination has had a negative impact on the environment or any negative phytosanitary consequences in contravention of the provisions adopted under Article 80(1).\nArticle 120\nSanctions applicable to recipients of withdrawn products\nWhere irregularities attributable to the recipients of withdrawn products are detected during checks made in accordance with Articles 108 and 109, the following sanctions shall apply:\n(a)\nthe recipients shall cease to be eligible to receive withdrawals; and\n(b)\nrecipients of products withdrawn from the market shall be obliged to repay the value of the products they received plus the related sorting, packaging and transport costs in accordance with the rules laid down by the Member States.\nThe sanction provided for in point (a) shall take effect immediately and continue for at least one marketing year. It may be extended depending on the seriousness of the irregularity.\nArticle 121\nGreen harvesting and non-harvesting\n1. With regard to green harvesting, if it is found that the producer organisation has not fulfilled its obligations the producer organisation shall pay by way of penalty the amount of the compensation relating to the areas for which the obligation has not been respected. A failure to fulfil obligations shall include cases where:\n(a)\nthe Member State finds, during the verification referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 110(1), that the green harvesting measure was not justified on the basis of the analysis of the expected market situation existing at the time;\n(b)\nthe area notified for green harvesting is not eligible for green harvesting; or\n(c)\nthe area is not totally harvested or the production not denatured.\n2. With regard to non-harvesting, if it is found that the producer organisation has not fulfilled its obligations the producer organisation shall pay by way of penalty the amount of the compensation relating to the areas for which the obligation has not been respected. A failure to fulfil obligations shall include cases where:\n(a)\nthe area notified for non-harvesting is not eligible for non-harvesting;\n(b)\na harvest or partial harvest has nevertheless taken place; or\n(c)\nthere has been a negative impact on the environment or any negative phytosanitary consequences for which the producer organisation is responsible.\n3. The penalties referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply in addition to any penalty imposed pursuant to Article 117.\nArticle 122\nPreventing an on-the-spot check\nAn aid application shall be rejected for the part of expenditure concerned if the producer organisation, the member or the relevant representative prevents an on-the-spot check from being carried out.\nArticle 123\nPayment of recovered aid and penalties\n1. Producer organisations, associations of producer organisations, producer groups or other operators concerned shall reimburse unduly paid aid with interest and pay the penalties provided for in this Section.\nThe interest shall be calculated:\n(a)\non the basis of the period elapsing between payment and reimbursement by the beneficiary;\n(b)\nat the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations published in the \u2018C\u2019 series of the Official Journal of the European Union and in force on the date on which the undue payment is made, plus three percentage points.\n2. Aid recovered, interest and penalties imposed shall be paid to the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund.\nArticle 124\nNotification of irregularities\nThe application of administrative sanctions and penalties and the recovery of unduly paid amounts, as provided for in this Section, are without prejudice to the notification of irregularities to the Commission pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1848/2006 (16).\nSection 4\nMonitoring and evaluation of operational programmes and of national strategies\nArticle 125\nCommon performance indicators\n1. Both the national strategies and the operational programmes shall be subject to monitoring and evaluation aimed at assessing the progress made towards achieving the objectives set for operational programmes, as well as efficiency and effectiveness in relation to those objectives.\n2. Progress, efficiency and effectiveness shall be assessed by means of common performance indicators, as set out in Annex VIII, relating to the baseline situation as well as to the financial execution, outputs, results and impact of the operational programmes implemented.\n3. Where deemed appropriate by a Member State, the national strategy shall specify a limited set of additional indicators specific to that strategy, reflecting national and/or regional needs, conditions and objectives specific to the operational programmes implemented by producer organisations. Where available, additional indicators concerning environmental objectives which are not covered by common performance indicators shall be included.\nArticle 126\nMonitoring and evaluation procedures in relation to operational programmes\n1. Producer organisations shall ensure the monitoring and evaluation of their operational programmes by making use of relevant indicators among the common performance indicators referred to in Article 125 and, where appropriate, of the additional indicators specified in the national strategy.\nTo this end, they shall establish a system to collect, record and maintain information useful for the compilation of those indicators.\n2. Monitoring shall be aimed at assessing the progress made towards achieving the specific targets that have been set for the operational programme. It shall be carried out by means of financial, output and result indicators. The results of the exercise are intended to serve:\n(a)\nto verify the quality of programme implementation;\n(b)\nto identify any need for adjustments or review of the operational programme aimed at achieving the goals set for the programme or at improving the management of the programme, including its financial management;\n(c)\nto contribute to meeting reporting requirements concerning the implementation of the operational programme.\nInformation concerning the results of the monitoring activities shall be included in each annual report, as referred to in Article 96(1), which the producer organisation is required to transmit to the National Authority in charge of the management of the national strategy.\n3. Evaluation shall take the form of a separate mid-term evaluation report.\nThe mid-term evaluation exercise, which may be carried out with the aid of a specialised consultancy office, shall be aimed at examining the degree of utilisation of financial resources, the efficiency and the effectiveness of the operational programme, and assessing the progress made in relation to the overall objectives of the programme. To this end, use shall be made of common performance indicators relating to the baseline situation, results and, where appropriate, impacts.\nWhere relevant, the mid-term evaluation exercise shall include a qualitative assessment of the results and the impact of the environmental actions aimed at:\n(a)\nthe prevention of soil erosion;\n(b)\na reduction in the use of and/or better management of plant protection products;\n(c)\nthe protection of habitats and biodiversity; or\n(d)\nlandscape conservation.\nThe results of the exercise shall be used:\n(a)\nto improve the quality of the operational programmes managed by the producer organisation;\n(b)\nto identify any need for substantive change of the operational programme;\n(c)\nto contribute to meeting reporting requirements concerning the implementation of the operational programmes; and\n(d)\nto draw lessons useful in improving the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of future operational programmes managed by the producer organisation.\nThe mid-term evaluation exercise shall be carried out during the implementation of the operational programme, in time for allowing the results of the evaluation to be considered in the preparation of the subsequent operational programme.\nThe mid-term evaluation report shall be annexed to the corresponding annual report referred to in Article 96(1).\nArticle 127\nMonitoring and evaluation procedures in relation to the national strategy\n1. Monitoring and evaluation of the national strategy shall be carried out by using relevant indicators among the common performance indicators referred to in Article 125 and, where appropriate, additional indicators specified in the national strategy.\n2. Member States shall establish a system to collect, record and maintain information in computerised form adequate for the purpose of compiling the indicators referred to in Article 125. To this end, they shall build on the information transmitted by the producer organisation in relation to the monitoring and the evaluation of their operational programmes.\n3. Monitoring shall be on-going and aimed at assessing the progress made towards achieving the objectives and the targets set for the operational programmes. It shall be carried out by means of financial, output and result indicators. To this end, use shall be made of the information provided in the annual progress reports transmitted by the producer organisation concerning the monitoring of their operational programmes. The results of the monitoring exercises shall be used:\n(a)\nto verify the quality of the implementation of the operational programmes;\n(b)\nto identify any need for adjustments or review of the national strategy aimed at achieving the goals set for the strategy or at improving the management of the strategy implementation, including the financial management of the operational programmes; and\n(c)\nto contribute to meeting reporting requirements concerning the implementation of the national strategy.\n4. Evaluation shall be aimed at assessing the progress made towards the overall objectives of the strategy. It shall be carried out by means of indicators relating to the baseline situation, results and, where appropriate, impact. To this end, use shall be made of the results of the monitoring and mid-term evaluation of the operational programmes as indicated in the annual progress reports and final reports transmitted by the producer organisations. The results of the evaluation exercises shall be used:\n(a)\nto improve the quality of the strategy;\n(b)\nto identify any need for substantive change of the strategy; and\n(c)\nto contribute to meeting reporting requirements concerning the implementation of national strategy.\nThe evaluation shall include an evaluation exercise carried out in 2012, but in time to allow its results to be included in a separate evaluation report to be annexed, in the same year, to the annual national report referred to in Article 97(b). The report shall examine the degree of utilisation of financial resources, the efficiency and effectiveness of the operational programmes implemented, and assess the effects and impact of those programmes, in relation to the objectives, targets and goals set by the strategy and, where appropriate, other objectives set in Article 103c(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. It shall be aimed at drawing lessons useful in improving the quality of future national strategies, and in particular at identifying possible shortcomings in the definition of objectives, targets or measures eligible for support, or needs for defining new instruments.\nCHAPTER VI\nExtension of rules to producers of an economic area\nArticle 128\nNotification of list of economic areas\nThe notification of the list of economic areas referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 125f(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall include all the information needed to assess whether the conditions laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 125f(2) of that Regulation have been complied with.\nArticle 129\nNotification of binding rules; representativeness\n1. When a Member State notifies rules it has made binding for a given product and economic area pursuant to Article 125g of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, it shall inform at the same time the Commission of:\n(a)\nthe producer organisation or association of producer organisations which requested the extension of the rules;\n(b)\nthe number of producers who belong to that producer organisation or association of producer organisations and the total number of producers in the economic area concerned; such information shall be given in respect of the situation obtaining at the time when the application for extension is made;\n(c)\nthe total production of the economic area and the production marketed by the producer organisation or association of producer organisations during the last marketing year for which figures are available;\n(d)\nthe date from which the rules to be extended have applied to the producer organisation or association of producer organisations concerned; and\n(e)\nthe date from which the extension is to take effect and the duration of application of the extension.\n2. For the purposes of determining representativeness within the meaning of Article 125f(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the Member States shall lay down rules excluding:\n(a)\nproducers whose production is intended essentially for direct sale to consumers on the holding or in the production area;\n(b)\ndirect sales as referred to in point (a);\n(c)\nproduce delivered for processing as referred to in Article 125f(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 except where the rules in question apply entirely or partly to such produce.\nArticle 130\nFinancial contributions\nWhere a Member State decides, pursuant to Article 125i of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, that producers who do not belong to producer organisations are liable for a financial contribution, it shall forward to the Commission the information needed to assess compliance with the conditions laid down in that Article.\nSuch information shall include in particular the basis on which the contribution is calculated and the unit amount thereof, the beneficiary or beneficiaries and the nature of the various costs referred to in Article 125i of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 131\nExtensions beyond one marketing year\nWhere it is decided to apply an extension for a period exceeding one marketing year, the Member States shall verify in respect of each marketing year that the conditions with regard to representativeness laid down in Article 125f(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 continue to be complied with throughout the period of application of the extension.\nIf Member States find that the conditions are no longer complied with, they shall immediately repeal the extension with effect from the beginning of the following marketing year.\nMember States shall immediately inform the Commission of any repeal, which shall make such information publicly available by means it considers appropriate.\nArticle 132\nProduce sold on the tree; buyers\n1. In cases where producers not belonging to a producer organisation sell their produce on the tree, the buyer shall, for the purposes of compliance with the rules referred to in points 1(e), 1(f) and 3 of Annex XVIa to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, be considered as having produced that produce.\n2. The Member State concerned may decide that rules listed in Annex XVIa to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 other than those referred to in paragraph 1 may be made binding on buyers where they are responsible for the management of the production concerned.\nTITLE IV\nTRADE WITH THIRD COUNTRIES\nCHAPTER I\nImport duties and entry price system\nSection 1\nEntry price system\nArticle 133\nScope and definitions\n1. This Section lays down the rules for the application of Article 140a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n2. For the purposes of this Section:\n(a)\n\u2018lot\u2019 means the goods presented under a declaration of release for free circulation, covering only goods of the same origin falling within one single CN code; and\n(b)\n\u2018importer\u2019 means the declarant within the meaning of Article 4(18) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (17).\nArticle 134\nNotification of prices and quantities of products imported\n1. For each product and for the periods set out in Part A of Annex XVI, for each market day and each origin, the Member States shall notify the Commission, by 12 noon (Brussels time) the following working day, of:\n(a)\nthe average representative prices of the products imported from third countries sold on the representative import markets referred to in Article 135, and significant prices recorded on other markets for large quantities of imported products, or, where no prices for the representative markets are available, significant prices for imported products recorded on other markets; and\n(b)\nthe total quantities relating to the prices referred to in point (a).\nWhere the total quantities referred to in point (b) are less than one tonne, the corresponding prices shall not be notified to the Commission.\n2. The prices referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be recorded:\n(a)\nfor each of the products listed in Part A of Annex XVI;\n(b)\nfor all of the available varieties and sizes; and\n(c)\nat the importer/wholesaler stage or the wholesaler/retailer stage where no prices at the importer/wholesaler stage are available.\nThey shall be reduced by the following amounts:\n(a)\na marketing margin of 15 % for the marketing centres of London, Milan and Rungis and of 8 % for other marketing centres; and\n(b)\ncosts of transport and insurance within the customs territory of the Union.\nFor the costs of freight and insurance to be deducted pursuant to the second subparagraph, the Member States may fix standard amounts for deduction. Such standard amounts and the methods for calculating them shall be notified to the Commission without delay.\n3. The prices recorded in accordance with paragraph 2 shall, where they are established at the wholesaler/retailer stage, first be reduced by an amount equal to 9 % to take account of the wholesaler\u2019s trade margin, and then by an amount equal to EUR 0,7245 per 100 kilograms to take account of the costs of handling and market taxes and charges.\n4. For products listed in Part A of Annex XVI covered by a specific marketing standard, the following shall be deemed to be representative:\n(a)\nthe prices of Class I products, provided that the quantities in that class account for at least 50 % of the total quantities marketed;\n(b)\nthe prices of Class I products plus, where products in that class account for less than 50 % of the total quantities, the prices as established of Class II products for quantities enabling 50 % of the total quantities marketed to be covered;\n(c)\nthe prices as established for Class II products, where Class I products are not available, unless it is decided to apply an adjustment coefficient to them if, as a result of the production conditions for products of the origin in question, those products are not normally and traditionally marketed in Class I as a result of their quality characteristics.\nThe adjustment coefficient referred to in point (c) of the first subparagraph shall be applied to prices after deduction of the amounts referred to in paragraph 2.\nFor products listed in Part A of Annex XVI that are not covered by a specific marketing standard, prices of products complying with the general marketing standard shall be deemed to be representative.\nArticle 135\nRepresentative markets\nMember States shall inform the Commission of the customary market days for the markets listed in Annex XVII which shall be deemed to be representative markets.\nArticle 136\nStandard import values\n1. For each product and for the periods set out in Part A of Annex XVI, the Commission shall fix, each working day and for each origin, a standard import value equal to the weighted average of the representative prices referred to in Article 134, less a standard amount of EUR 5/100 kg and the ad valorem customs duties.\n2. Where a standard import value is established for the products and for the periods of application listed in Part A of Annex XVI, in accordance with this Section, the unit price as referred to in Article 152(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (18) shall not apply. It shall be replaced by the standard import value referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. Where no standard import value is in force for a product of a given origin, the average of standard import values in force for that product shall apply.\n4. During the periods of application set out in Part A of Annex XVI, the standard import values shall remain applicable until they are changed. They shall cease to apply, however, where no average representative price has been notified to the Commission for seven consecutive market days.\nWhere, pursuant to the first subparagraph, no standard import value applies to a given product, the standard import value applicable to that product shall be equal to the last average standard import value.\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where it has not been possible to calculate a standard import value, no standard import value shall be applicable from the first day of the periods of application set out in Part A of Annex XVI.\n6. The representative prices in euro shall be converted using the representative market rate calculated for the day in question.\n7. The standard import values expressed in euro shall be made publicly available by the Commission by the methods it considers appropriate.\nArticle 137\nEntry price basis\n1. The entry price on the basis of which the products listed in Part A of Annex XVI are classified in the Common Customs Tariff shall be equal to, as the importer chooses:\n(a)\nthe fob price of the products in their country of origin plus the costs of insurance and freight up to the borders of the customs territory of the Union, where that price and those costs are known at the time the declaration of release of the products for free circulation is made. Where those prices are higher by more than 8 % than the standard value applicable to the product in question at the time the declaration of release for free circulation is made, the importer must lodge the security referred to in Article 248(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93. For this purpose, the amount of import duty for which the products may finally be liable shall be the amount of duty which he would have paid if the product in question had been classified on the basis of the standard value concerned; or\n(b)\nthe customs value calculated in accordance with Article 30(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 applied only to the imported products in question. In that case, the duty shall be deducted as provided for in Article 136(1) of this Regulation. In that case the importer shall lodge the security referred to in Article 248(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, equal to the amount of duty which he would have paid if the classification of the products had been made on the basis of the standard import value applicable to the lot in question; or\n(c)\nthe standard import value calculated in accordance with Article 136 of this Regulation.\n2. The entry price on the basis of which the products listed in Part B of Annex XVI are classified in the Common Customs Tariff shall be equal to, as the importer chooses:\n(a)\nthe fob price of the products in their country of origin plus the costs of insurance and freight up to the borders of the customs territory of the Union, where that price and those costs are known at the time the customs declaration is made. If the customs authorities deem that a security is required pursuant to Article 248 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, the importer must lodge a security equal to the maximum amount of duty applicable to the product in question; or\n(b)\nthe customs value calculated in accordance with Article 30(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 applied only to the imported products in question. In that case, the duty shall be deducted as provided for in Article 136(1) of this Regulation. In that case the importer must lodge the security referred to in Article 248 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, equal to the maximum amount of duty applicable to the product in question.\n3. Where the entry price is calculated on the basis of the fob price of the products in the country of origin, the customs value shall be calculated on the basis of the relevant sale at that price.\nWhen the entry price is calculated in accordance with one of the procedures provided for in paragraph 1(b) or (c) or paragraph 2(b), the customs value shall be calculated on the same basis as the entry price.\n4. The importer shall have one month from the sale of the products in question, subject to a limit of four months from the date of acceptance of the declaration of release for free circulation, to prove that the lot was disposed of under the conditions confirming the correctness of the prices referred to in paragraph 1(a) or paragraph 2(a), or to determine the customs value referred to in paragraph 1(b) and paragraph 2(b). Failure to meet one of these deadlines shall entail the loss of the security lodged, without prejudice to the application of paragraph 5.\nThe security lodged shall be released to the extent that proof of the conditions of disposal is provided to the satisfaction of the customs authorities.\nOtherwise the security shall be forfeit by way of payment of the import duties.\n5. The time limit of four months referred to in paragraph 4 may be extended by the competent authorities of the Member State by a maximum of three months at the request of the importer, which must be duly justified.\n6. If on verification the competent authorities establish that the requirements of this Article have not been met, they shall recover the duty due in accordance with Article 220 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. The amount of the duty to be recovered or remaining to be recovered shall include interest from the date the goods were released for free circulation up to the date of recovery. The interest rate applied shall be that in force for recovery operations under national law.\nSection 2\nAdditional import duties\nArticle 138\nScope and definitions\n1. An additional import duty as referred to in Article 141(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, hereinafter \u2018additional duty\u2019, may be applied to the products and during the periods listed in Annex XVIII on the conditions set out in this Section.\n2. Trigger levels for the additional duties are listed in Annex XVIII.\nArticle 139\nNotification of volumes\n1. For each of the products listed in Annex XVIII and during the periods indicated, Member States shall notify the Commission of details of the volumes put into free circulation using the method for the surveillance of preferential imports set out in Article 308d of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\nSuch notification shall take place no later than 12 noon Brussels time each Wednesday for the volumes put into free circulation during the preceding week.\n2. Declarations for release for free circulation of products covered by this Section which the customs authorities may accept at the importer\u2019s request without their containing certain particulars referred to in Annex 37 to Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 shall contain, in addition to the particulars referred to in Article 254 of that Regulation, an indication of the net mass (kg) of the products concerned.\nWhere the simplified declaration procedure referred to in Article 260 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 is used to put into free circulation products covered by this Section, the simplified declarations shall contain, in addition to other requirements, an indication of the net mass (kg) of the products concerned.\nWhere the local clearance procedure referred to in Article 263 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 is used to put into free circulation products covered by this Section, the notification to the customs authorities referred to in Article 266(1) of that Regulation shall contain all necessary data for the identification of the goods, as well as an indication of the net mass (kg) of the products concerned.\nArticle 266(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 shall not apply to imports of the products covered by this Section.\nArticle 140\nLevying of additional duty\n1. If it is found that, for one of the products and one of the periods listed in Annex XVIII, the quantity put into free circulation exceeds the corresponding triggering volume the Commission shall levy an additional duty unless the imports are unlikely to disturb the Union market, or the effects would be disproportionate to the intended objective.\n2. The additional duty shall be levied on quantities put into free circulation after the date of application of that duty, provided that:\n(a)\ntheir tariff classification determined in accordance with Article 137 entails application of the highest specific duties applicable to imports of the origin in question;\n(b)\nimportation is effected during the period of application of the additional duty.\nArticle 141\nAmount of additional duty\nThe additional duty imposed under Article 140 shall be one third of the customs duty applicable to the given product in accordance with the Common Customs Tariff.\nHowever, for imports benefiting from a tariff preference as to ad valorem duty the additional duty shall be one third of the specific duty on the product in so far as Article 140(2) applies.\nArticle 142\nExemptions from additional duty\n1. The following goods are exempt from the additional duty:\n(a)\ngoods imported against the tariff quotas listed in Annex 7 to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (19) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Combined Nomenclature\u2019);\n(b)\ngoods en route to the Union as defined in paragraph 2.\n2. Goods shall be considered to be en route to the Union if they:\n(a)\nleft the country of origin before the decision to impose the additional duty; and\n(b)\nare being transported under cover of a transport document valid from the place of loading in the country of origin to the place of unloading in the Union, drawn up before imposition of the additional duty.\n3. Interested parties shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the customs authorities that the requirements of paragraph 2 are met.\nHowever, the customs authorities may deem that goods left their country of origin before the date of imposition of the additional duty if one of the following documents is provided:\n(a)\nfor sea transport, the bill of lading showing that loading took place before that date;\n(b)\nfor rail transport, the waybill accepted by the rail authorities of the country of origin before that date;\n(c)\nfor road transport, the road carriage contract (CMR) or another transit document made out in the country of origin before that date, if the conditions laid down in bilateral or multilateral arrangements concluded in the context of Union transit or common transit are observed;\n(d)\nfor air transport, the air way bill showing that the airline accepted the goods before that date.\nTITLE V\nGENERAL, TRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 143\nChecks\nWithout prejudice to specific provisions of this Regulation or other Union legislation, Member States shall introduce checks and measures in so far as they are necessary to ensure the proper application of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and this Regulation. They shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive so that they provide adequate protection for the financial interests of the Union.\nIn particular, they shall ensure that:\n(a)\nall eligibility criteria established by Union or national legislation or the national framework or the national strategy can be checked;\n(b)\nthe competent authorities of the Member State responsible for carrying out checks have a sufficient number of suitably qualified and experienced staff to carry out the checks effectively; and\n(c)\nprovision is made for checks to avoid irregular duplicated financing of measures under this Regulation and other Union or national schemes.\nArticle 144\nNational sanctions\nWithout prejudice to any sanctions set out in this Regulation or Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Member States shall provide for the application of sanctions at national level in relation to irregularities committed in respect of requirements set out in this Regulation and Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 which are effective, proportionate and dissuasive so that they provide adequate protection for the financial interests of the Union.\nArticle 145\nArtificially created situations\nWithout prejudice to any specific measures set out in this Regulation or Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, no payment shall be made in favour of beneficiaries for whom it is established that they artificially created the conditions required for obtaining such payments with a view to obtaining an advantage contrary to the objectives of the support scheme concerned.\nArticle 146\nNotifications\n1. Member States shall designate a single competent authority or body responsible for fulfilling the notification obligations with respect to each one of the following topics:\n(a)\nproducer organisations, associations of producer organisations and producer groups, as provided for in Article 97 of this Regulation;\n(b)\nproducer prices of fruit and vegetable in the internal market, as provided for in Article 98 of this Regulation;\n(c)\nprices and quantities of the products imported from third countries sold on the representative import markets, as provided for in Article 134 of this Regulation;\n(d)\nimport volumes put into free circulation, as provided for in Article 139 of this Regulation.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of the designation and the contact details of the authority or body concerned, and every change of this information.\nThe list of the designated authorities or body containing their names and addresses shall be made available to the Member States and to the public by every appropriate means via the information systems put in place by the Commission, including publication on the Internet.\n3. Without prejudice to any specific provisions of this Regulation, all notifications to be made by Member States to the Commission under this Regulation shall be made by electronic means of the information system made available to the competent authorities or bodies of the Member States by the Commission and in the format specified by the Commission.\nNotifications not made by the means and in the format referred to in the first subparagraph may be considered as not made at all, without prejudice to paragraph 5.\n4. Without prejudice to any specific provisions of this Regulation, Member States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are able to meet the deadlines for notifications set out in this Regulation.\n5. If a Member State fails to make a notification as required under this Regulation or Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 or if the notification appears incorrect in the light of objective facts in the Commission\u2019s possession, the Commission may suspend part or all of the monthly payments referred to in Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (20) as regards the fruit and vegetables sectors until the notification is correctly made.\nArticle 147\nObvious errors\nAny notification, claim or request made to a Member State under this Regulation or Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, including an aid application, may be adjusted at any time after its submission in cases of obvious errors recognised by the competent authority of the Member State.\nArticle 148\nForce majeure and exceptional circumstances\nWhere, under this Regulation or Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, a sanction or penalty is to be imposed or a benefit or recognition is to be withdrawn, the sanction or penalty shall not be imposed or the withdrawal made in cases of force majeure or exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.\nHowever, the case of force majeure shall be notified, with relevant evidence to the satisfaction of the competent authority of the Member State, to the authority within 10 working days of the date on which the person concerned is in a position to do so.\nArticle 149\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 is repealed.\nHowever, Article 134 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 shall continue to apply until 31 August 2011.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall, where appropriate, be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex XIX.\nArticle 150\nTransitional provisions\n1. Operational programmes which benefit from Article 203a(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 may continue to run until their end provided they comply with the rules applicable prior to 1 January 2008.\n2. For the purposes of Article 203a(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the rules on the minimum characteristics of the raw material supplied for processing and minimum quality requirements for finished products which shall remain applicable in respect of the raw materials harvested in the territory of Member States which make use of the transitional arrangement referred to in that paragraph shall be, in addition to any relevant marketing standards referred to in Title II of this Regulation, those contained in the Commission Regulations listed in Annex XX.\n3. Recognition plans accepted under Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 which continue to benefit from acceptance pursuant to Article 203a(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for producer groups not in Member States which acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004 or after that date and not in the outermost regions of the Union as referred to in Article 349 of the Treaty or in the smaller Aegean Islands as referred to in Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1405/2006 (21) shall be financed at the rates set out in Article 103a(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nRecognition plans accepted under Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 which benefited from Article 14(7) of that Regulation and continue to benefit from acceptance pursuant to Article 203a(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be financed at the rates set out in Article 103a(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n4. Member States shall modify their national strategies by 15 September 2011 at the latest if necessary in order to:\n(a)\nduly justify what distance shall be considered as significant as referred to in Article 50(7)(b);\n(b)\nset out a maximum percentage of the annual expenditure under an operational programme to be spent on actions related to the environmental management on packaging as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 60(4).\n5. Operational programmes that were approved before the date of entry into force of this Regulation may continue to run until their end without fulfilling the maximum percentage provided for by the second subparagraph of Article 60(4).\nArticle 151\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2011.", "references": ["5", "96", "7", "76", "75", "73", "38", "67", "11", "69", "93", "60", "18", "87", "94", "26", "13", "51", "21", "31", "45", "46", "47", "58", "53", "34", "27", "6", "36", "10", "No Label", "25", "61", "68", "74"], "gold": ["25", "61", "68", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 667/2011\nof 11 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 July 2011.", "references": ["11", "33", "92", "65", "16", "98", "55", "50", "60", "90", "39", "70", "74", "49", "89", "31", "73", "96", "20", "1", "77", "99", "40", "42", "43", "19", "75", "34", "81", "4", "No Label", "22", "35", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 386/2011\nof 18 April 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of April 2011 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 April 2011 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 April 2011 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 48,295276 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2011.", "references": ["34", "31", "87", "41", "16", "64", "14", "83", "67", "71", "59", "70", "58", "48", "0", "37", "45", "63", "50", "94", "35", "9", "42", "72", "17", "29", "56", "75", "91", "80", "No Label", "21", "23", "24", "69", "76"], "gold": ["21", "23", "24", "69", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 719/2011\nof 20 July 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Saucisson de l\u2019Ard\u00e8che (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Saucisson de l\u2019Ard\u00e8che\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["74", "81", "23", "5", "68", "13", "76", "21", "62", "28", "8", "45", "57", "95", "44", "87", "19", "60", "42", "82", "63", "0", "40", "6", "41", "69", "54", "99", "4", "36", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 660/2011\nof 9 June 2011\nconcerning the allocation of fishing opportunities under the Protocol agreed between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the two parties currently in force\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 19 December 2006 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2027/2006 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cape Verde (1) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Partnership Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nA new Protocol to the Partnership Agreement was initialled on 22 December 2010 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the new Protocol\u2019). The new Protocol provides EU vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which Cape Verde has sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries.\n(3)\nOn 9 June 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/405/EU (2) on the signing and on the provisional application of the new Protocol.\n(4)\nThe method for allocating the fishing opportunities among the Member States should be defined for the period of application of the new Protocol.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 of 29 September 2008 concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters (3), if it appears that the fishing opportunities allocated to the Union under the new Protocol are not fully utilised, the Commission is to inform the Member States concerned. The absence of a reply within the deadline to be set by the Council is to be considered as confirmation that the vessels of the Member State concerned are not making full use of their fishing opportunities in the given period. That deadline should be set.\n(6)\nGiven that the current Protocol is due to expire on 31 August 2011, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and apply from 1 September 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The fishing opportunities set by the Protocol agreed between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the two parties currently in force (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Protocol\u2019) shall be allocated among the Member States as follows:\n(a)\nTuna seiners\nSpain\n16 vessels\nFrance\n12 vessels;\n(b)\nSurface longliners\nSpain\n26 vessels\nPortugal\n9 vessels;\n(c)\nPole-and-line tuna vessels\nSpain\n7 vessels\nFrance\n4 vessels.\n2. Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 shall apply without prejudice to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cape Verde.\n3. If applications for fishing authorisations from the Member States referred to in paragraph 1 do not cover all the fishing opportunities set out in the Protocol, the Commission shall consider applications for fishing authorisations from any other Member State in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008.\nThe deadline referred to in Article 10(1) of that Regulation shall be set at 10 working days.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 9 June 2011.", "references": ["90", "26", "16", "29", "0", "83", "91", "1", "71", "81", "98", "48", "50", "95", "52", "60", "10", "22", "45", "5", "20", "74", "92", "25", "42", "59", "11", "43", "51", "86", "No Label", "56", "67", "94", "96"], "gold": ["56", "67", "94", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 466/2010\nof 27 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2010.", "references": ["71", "97", "31", "54", "46", "75", "58", "74", "93", "56", "55", "69", "87", "29", "65", "3", "78", "34", "11", "90", "91", "81", "21", "83", "7", "50", "49", "52", "94", "45", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 548/2012\nof 25 June 2012\ninitiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China by imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters consigned from Vietnam, whether declared as originating in Vietnam or not, and making such imports subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Articles 13(3) and 14(5) thereof,\nAfter having consulted the Advisory Committee in accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation,\nWhereas:\nA. REQUEST\n(1)\nThe European Commission (\u2027the Commission\u2027) has received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People's Republic of China and to make imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters consigned from Vietnam, whether declared as originating in Vietnam or not, subject to registration.\n(2)\nThe request was lodged on 17 April 2012 by Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 BIC, a Union producer of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters.\nB. PRODUCT\n(3)\nThe product concerned by the possible circumvention is gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters currently falling within CN code ex 9613 10 00 originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2027the product concerned\u2027).\n(4)\nThe product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but consigned from Vietnam, whether declared as originating in Vietnam or not, currently falling within the same CN code as the product concerned (\u2027the product under investigation\u2027).\nC. EXISTING MEASURES\n(5)\nThe measures currently in force and possibly being circumvented are anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 (2).\n(6)\nA circumvention investigation concerning imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters and of certain refillable pocket flint lighters was also carried out in 1998-1999 which led to the extension of the duty to imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of certain disposable refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People's Republic of China or consigned from or originating in Taiwan and to imports of non-refillable lighters consigned from or originating in Taiwan (3).\nD. GROUNDS\n(7)\nThe request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People's Republic of China are being circumvented by means of assembly operations in Vietnam.\n(8)\nThe prima facie evidence submitted is as follows.\n(9)\nThe request shows a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the People's Republic of China and Vietnam to the Union has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned, without sufficient due cause or justification for such a change other than the imposition of the duty.\n(10)\nThis change appears to stem from assembly operations in Vietnam of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters.\n(11)\nFurthermore, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned are being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. Significant volumes of imports of the product under investigation appear to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, there is sufficient evidence that imports of the product under investigation are made at prices below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures.\n(12)\nFinally, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the prices of the product under investigation are dumped in relation to the normal value previously established for the product concerned.\n(13)\nShould circumvention practices via Vietnam covered by Article 13 of the basic Regulation, other than assembly operations, be identified in the course of the investigation, the investigation may also cover these practices.\nE. PROCEDURE\n(14)\nIn light of the above, the Commission has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation and to make imports of the product under investigation, whether declared as originating in Vietnam or not, subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(a) Questionnaires\n(15)\nIn order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the known exporters/producers and to the known associations of exporters/producers in Vietnam, to the known exporters/producers and to the known associations of exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China, to the known importers and to the known associations of importers in the Union and to the authorities of the People's Republic of China and Vietnam. Information, as appropriate, may also be sought from the Union industry.\n(16)\nIn any event, all interested parties should contact the Commission forthwith, but not later than the time-limit set in Article 3 of this Regulation, and request a questionnaire within the time-limit set in Article 3(1) of this Regulation, given that the time-limit set in Article 3(2) of this Regulation applies to all interested parties.\n(17)\nThe authorities of the People's Republic of China and Vietnam will be notified of the initiation of the investigation.\n(b) Collection of information and holding of hearings\n(18)\nAll interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\n(c) Exemption of registration of imports or measures\n(19)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation may be exempted from registration or measures if the importation does not constitute circumvention.\n(20)\nSince the possible circumvention takes place outside the Union, exemptions may be granted, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, to producers in Vietnam of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters, that can show that they are not related (4) to any producer subject to the measures (5) and that are found not to be engaged in circumvention practices as defined in Articles 13(1) and 13(2) of the basic Regulation. Producers wishing to obtain an exemption should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the time-limit indicated in Article 3(3) of this Regulation.\nF. REGISTRATION\n(21)\nPursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied from the date on which registration of such imports consigned from Vietnam was imposed.\nG. TIME-LIMITS\n(22)\nIn the interest of sound administration, time-limits should be stated within which:\n-\ninterested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,\n-\nproducers in Vietnam may request exemption from registration of imports or measures,\n-\ninterested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.\n(23)\nAttention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the time-limits mentioned in Article 3 of this Regulation.\nH. NON-COOPERATION\n(24)\nIn cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time-limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.\n(25)\nWhere it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of facts available.\n(26)\nIf an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.\nI. SCHEDULE OF THE INVESTIGATION\n(27)\nThe investigation will be concluded, pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, within nine months of the date of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nJ. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\n(28)\nIt is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (6).\nK. HEARING OFFICER\n(29)\nInterested parties may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of the Directorate-General for Trade. The Hearing Officer acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission investigation services. The Hearing Officer reviews requests for access to the file, disputes regarding the confidentiality of documents, requests for extension of time-limits and requests by third parties to be heard. The Hearing Officer may organise a hearing with an individual interested party and mediate to ensure that the interested parties' rights of defence are being fully exercised.\n(30)\nA request for a hearing with the Hearing Officer should be made in writing and should specify the reasons for the request. The Hearing Officer will also provide opportunities for a hearing involving parties to take place which would allow different views to be presented and rebuttal arguments offered.\n(31)\nFor further information and contact details interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages on the Directorate-General for Trade's website: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/hearing-officer/index_en.htm.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAn investigation is hereby initiated pursuant to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, in order to determine if imports into the Union of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters, consigned from Vietnam, whether declared as originating in Vietnam or not, currently falling within CN code ex 9613 10 00 (TARIC code 9613100012), are circumventing the measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007.\nArticle 2\nThe Customs authorities shall, pursuant to Article 13(3) and Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union identified in Article 1 of this Regulation.\nRegistration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThe Commission, by regulation, may direct Customs authorities to cease registration in respect of imports into the Union of products manufactured by producers having applied for an exemption of registration and having been found to fulfil the conditions for an exemption to be granted.\nArticle 3\n1. Questionnaires must be requested from the Commission within 15 days from publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. Interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 37 days from the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.\n3. Producers in Vietnam requesting exemption from registration of imports or measures must submit a request duly supported by evidence within the same 37-day time-limit.\n4. Interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 37-day time-limit.\n5. Interested parties are required to make all submissions and requests in electronic format (non-confidential submissions via e-mail, confidential ones on CD-R/DVD), and must indicate their name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers. However, any Powers of Attorney, signed certifications, and any updates thereof, accompanying questionnaire replies must be submitted on paper, i.e. by post or by hand, at the address below. If an interested party cannot provide its submissions and requests in electronic format, it must immediately inform the Commission in compliance with Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation. For further information concerning correspondence with the Commission, interested parties may consult the relevant web page on the website of the Directorate-General for Trade: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/trade-defence.\nAll written submissions, including the information requested in this Regulation, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis must be labelled as \u2027Limited\u2027 (7) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, must be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which must be labelled \u2027For inspection by interested parties\u2027.\nCommission address for correspondence:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N105 4/92\n1049 Bruxelles/Brussel\nBELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb\nFax: +32 2 29 93988\nE-mail: trade-lighters-circumvention@ec.europa.eu\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["63", "55", "92", "66", "85", "47", "15", "51", "76", "14", "29", "31", "79", "49", "19", "6", "11", "99", "21", "43", "0", "74", "39", "2", "36", "59", "64", "5", "71", "88", "No Label", "8", "22", "23", "48", "82", "95", "96"], "gold": ["8", "22", "23", "48", "82", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 April 2011\non establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to detergents for dishwashers\n(notified under document C(2011) 2806)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/263/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Union Ecolabelling Board,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, the EU Ecolabel may be awarded to those products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 66/2010 provides that specific EU Ecolabel criteria are to be established according to product groups.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 1999/427/EC (2) has established the ecological criteria as well as the related assessment and verification requirements for detergents for dishwashers. Following the review of the criteria set out in that Decision, Commission Decision 2003/31/EC (3) has established revised criteria which are valid until 30 April 2011.\n(4)\nThose criteria have been further reviewed in the light of technological developments. It results from the review that it is necessary to modify the definition of the product group so as to include a new sub-product group and to establish new criteria. Those new criteria, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, should be valid for 4 years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\n(5)\nDecision 2003/31/EC should therefore be replaced for reasons of clarity.\n(6)\nA transitional period should be allowed for producers whose products have been awarded the Ecolabel for detergents for dishwashers on the basis of the criteria set out in Decision 2003/31/EC, so that they have sufficient time to adapt their products to comply with the revised criteria and requirements. Producers should also be allowed to submit applications based on the criteria set out in Decision 2003/31/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision until the lapse of validity of that Decision.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe product group \u2018Detergents for Dishwashers\u2019 shall comprise detergents for dishwashers and products used as rinse aids, whether in powder, liquid or any other form, which are intended to be marketed and used exclusively in automatic domestic dishwashers and in automatic dishwashers for professional use, the size and usage of which is similar to that of domestic dishwashers.\nArticle 2\nFor the purpose of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n\u2018Substance\u2019 means a chemical element and their compounds in the natural state or obtained by any production process, including any additive necessary to preserve the stability of the products and any impurity deriving from the process used, but excluding any solvent which may be separated without affecting the stability of the substance or changing its composition.\nArticle 3\nIn order to be awarded the EU Ecolabel under Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, a detergent for dishwashers shall fall within the product group \u2018Detergents for Dishwashers\u2019 as defined in Article 1, and shall comply with the criteria set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThe criteria for the product group \u2018Detergents for Dishwashers\u2019, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid for 4 years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 5\nFor administrative purposes the code number assigned to the product group \u2018Detergents for dishwashers\u2019 shall be \u2018015\u2019.\nArticle 6\nDecision 2003/31/EC is repealed.\nArticle 7\n1. By derogation from Article 6, applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018Detergents for Dishwashers\u2019 submitted before the date of adoption of this Decision shall be evaluated in accordance with the conditions laid down in Decision 2003/31/EC.\n2. Applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018Detergents for Dishwashers\u2019 submitted from the date of adoption of this Decision but by 30 April 2011 at the latest may be based either on the criteria set out in Decision 2003/31/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision.\nThose applications shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria on which they are based.\n3. Where the Ecolabel is awarded on the basis of an application evaluated according to the criteria set out in Decision 2003/31/EC, that Ecolabel may be used for 12 months from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 April 2011.", "references": ["21", "48", "22", "2", "77", "43", "81", "71", "94", "46", "98", "35", "96", "89", "14", "16", "36", "78", "40", "31", "80", "84", "65", "86", "7", "13", "97", "66", "10", "53", "No Label", "9", "24", "25", "58", "76", "83"], "gold": ["9", "24", "25", "58", "76", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 485/2012\nof 7 June 2012\non the minimum customs duty for sugar to be fixed in response to the seventh partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/2012 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, the Commission is to decide, in the light of the tenders received in response to a partial invitation to tender, either to fix a minimum customs duty or not to fix a minimum customs duty per eight-digit CN code.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the seventh partial invitation to tender, a minimum customs duty should be fixed for certain eight-digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701 and no minimum customs duty should be fixed for the other eight-digit codes for sugar falling within that CN code.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the seventh partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 6 June 2012, a minimum customs duty has been fixed, or has not been fixed, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation for the eight-digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["23", "77", "91", "46", "87", "79", "52", "43", "19", "10", "27", "48", "35", "64", "45", "97", "75", "53", "59", "16", "93", "38", "39", "95", "42", "2", "30", "6", "51", "49", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "71", "73"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "71", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 April 2010\namending Decision 2006/636/EC fixing the annual breakdown by Member State of the amount for Community support to rural development for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013\n(notified under document C(2010) 2517)\n(2010/236/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1), and in particular Article 69(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/379/EC of 11 May 2009 setting the amounts which, pursuant to Council Regulations (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 378/2007, (EC) No 479/2008 and (EC) No 73/2009 are made available to the EAFRD and the amounts available for EAGF expenditure (2) has been amended by Commission Decision 2010/237/EU (3).\n(2)\nFollowing the amendment of Decision 2009/379/EC by Decision 2010/237/EU the amounts made available to EAFRD should be adapted in the annual breakdowns of Community support for rural development.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2006/636/EC (4) should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2006/636/EC is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2010.", "references": ["46", "49", "83", "16", "19", "54", "7", "2", "77", "95", "92", "86", "74", "26", "65", "75", "39", "70", "30", "55", "89", "11", "50", "68", "33", "36", "1", "5", "48", "41", "No Label", "4", "10", "15", "17", "96"], "gold": ["4", "10", "15", "17", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/69/CFSP\nof 31 January 2011\namending Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (1).\n(2)\nIn view of the fraudulent presidential elections of 19 December 2010 and the violent crackdown on the political opposition, civil society and representatives of independent mass media in Belarus, the suspension of the travel restrictions with regard to the persons referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 1(1) of Decision 2010/639/CFSP should be terminated.\n(3)\nMoreover, the persons responsible for the fraudulent electoral process and for the crackdown on the opposition should be subject to restrictive measures.\n(4)\nIn addition, the information relating to certain persons on the lists set out in Annexes I, II, III and IV to Decision 2010/639/CFSP should be updated.\n(5)\nThe Council will regularly re-examine the situation in Belarus and evaluate any improvements which the Belarusian authorities may have made towards respect for democratic values, human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and of the media, freedom of assembly and political association and the rule of law.\n(6)\nDecision 2010/639/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/639/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 1(1), the following point (d) is added:\n\u2018(d)\nfor the violations of international electoral standards in the presidential elections in Belarus on 19 December 2010, and the crackdown on civil society and democratic opposition, and those persons associated with them, as listed in Annex IIIA.\u2019.\n(2)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by persons who are responsible:\n(a)\nfor the violations of international electoral standards in the Presidential elections in Belarus on 19 March 2006 and the crackdown on civil society and democratic opposition, and those natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in Annex IV;\n(b)\nfor the violations of international electoral standards in the presidential elections in Belarus on 19 December 2010, and the crackdown on civil society and democratic opposition, and those natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in Annex IIIA;\nshall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of such persons listed in Annexes IIIA or IV\u2019.\n(3)\nArticle 3(1)(a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of the persons listed in Annexes IIIA or IV and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges,\u2019.\n(4)\nArticle 3(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Article 2(2) shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to the provisions of Common Position 2006/276/CFSP or this Decision\nand provided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of this Decision.\u2019.\n(5)\nArticle 4(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall adopt amendments to the lists contained in Annexes I, II, III, IIIA, IV and V as required by political developments in Belarus.\u2019.\n(6)\nArticle 7(3) is deleted.\n(7)\nAnnexes I, II, III and IV to Decision 2010/639/CFSP shall be replaced by the text set out in Annexes I, II, III and IV to this Decision.\n(8)\nThe text of Annex V to this Decision shall be added to Decision 2010/639/CFSP as Annex IIIA thereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2011.", "references": ["35", "54", "95", "12", "32", "68", "19", "33", "79", "86", "27", "82", "2", "28", "76", "26", "10", "52", "20", "46", "23", "24", "45", "67", "56", "34", "77", "44", "22", "63", "No Label", "0", "3", "11", "91", "97"], "gold": ["0", "3", "11", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/331/CFSP\nof 25 June 2012\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 March 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/168/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Vygaudas U\u0160ACKAS as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Afghanistan. The EUSR\u2019s mandate is to expire on 30 June 2012.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended for a further period of 12 months.\n(3)\nThe EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Vygaudas U\u0160ACKAS as the EUSR in Afghanistan is hereby extended until 30 June 2013. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, upon a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe EUSR shall represent the Union and promote Union policy objectives in Afghanistan, in close coordination with Member States\u2019 representatives in Afghanistan. More specifically, the EUSR shall:\n(a)\ncontribute to the implementation of the EU-Afghanistan Joint Declaration and lead the implementation of the EU Action Plan on Afghanistan and Pakistan, in so far as it concerns Afghanistan, thereby working with Member States\u2019 representatives in Afghanistan;\n(b)\nsupport Union-Afghanistan political dialogue;\n(c)\nsupport the pivotal role played by the United Nations (UN) in Afghanistan with particular emphasis on contributing to better coordinated international assistance, thereby promoting the implementation of the London, Kabul and Bonn Conference Communiqu\u00e9s, as well as relevant UN Resolutions.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to fulfil the mandate, the EUSR shall, in close cooperation with Member States\u2019 representatives in Afghanistan:\n(a)\npromote the views of the Union on the political process and developments in Afghanistan;\n(b)\nmaintain close contact with, and support the development of, relevant Afghan institutions, in particular the Government and the Parliament as well as the local authorities. Contact should also be maintained with other Afghan political groups and other relevant actors in Afghanistan;\n(c)\nmaintain close contact with relevant international and regional stakeholders in Afghanistan, notably the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the UN and the Senior Civilian Representative of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and other key partners and organisations;\n(d)\nadvise on the progress achieved in meeting the objectives of the EU-Afghanistan Joint Declaration, of the EU Action Plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan, in so far as it concerns Afghanistan, and of the Kabul and Bonn and other relevant international Conferences, in particular in the following areas:\n-\ncivilian capacity building, notably at sub-national level,\n-\ngood governance and the establishment of institutions necessary for the existence of the rule of law, in particular an independent judiciary,\n-\nelectoral reforms,\n-\nsecurity sector reforms, including the strengthening of judicial institutions, the national army and the police force,\n-\npromotion of growth, namely through agriculture and rural development,\n-\nrespect for Afghanistan\u2019s international human rights obligations, including respect for the rights of persons belonging to minorities and the rights of women and children,\n-\nrespect of democratic principles and the rule of law,\n-\nfostering participation by women in public administration and civil society,\n-\nrespect for Afghanistan\u2019s international obligations, including cooperation in international efforts to combat terrorism, illicit drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings and proliferation of arms and weapons of mass destruction and related materials,\n-\nfacilitation of humanitarian assistance and the orderly return of refugees and internally displaced persons, and\n-\nenhancing the effectiveness of Union presence and activities in Afghanistan and contributing to the formulation of the regular six-monthly implementation reports on the EU Action Plan, as requested by the Council;\n(e)\nactively participate in local coordination fora such as the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board, while keeping non-participating Member States fully informed of decisions taken at these levels;\n(f)\nadvise on the participation and the positions of the Union in international conferences with regard to Afghanistan and contribute to promoting regional cooperation;\n(g)\ncontribute to the implementation of the Union\u2019s human rights policy and the EU Guidelines on Human Rights, in particular with regard to women and children in conflict-affected areas, especially by monitoring and addressing developments in this regard.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (EEAS) and its competent departments.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 shall be EUR 6 380 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of the EUSR\u2019s mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall promptly and regularly inform the Council and the Commission of the composition of the team.\n2. Member States, institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of personnel to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to work with the EUSR. Internationally contracted personnel shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, the sending institution of the Union or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and the staff of the EUSR\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s staff shall be agreed with the host party or parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of his team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. Union delegations and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with the EUSR\u2019s mandate and the security situation in the geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under the EUSR\u2019s direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as management of security incidents and a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of the EUSR\u2019s team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the EEAS;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the HR, the Council and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the progress and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report to Council working parties as necessary. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR shall provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall contribute to the unity, consistency and effectiveness of the Union\u2019s action and shall help ensure that all Union instruments and Member States\u2019 actions are engaged consistently, to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as with those of the EUSR for Central Asia and with the Union\u2019s Delegation in Pakistan. The EUSR shall provide Member States\u2019 missions and Union delegations with regular briefings.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegations and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make every effort to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall provide the Head of the EU Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL Afghanistan) with local political guidance. The EUSR and the Civilian Operation Commander shall consult each other as required. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the HR, the Council and the Commission with a progress report by the end of December 2012 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["4", "94", "6", "76", "80", "27", "90", "74", "19", "2", "85", "75", "22", "21", "14", "83", "99", "9", "43", "50", "37", "58", "41", "93", "55", "32", "5", "97", "31", "72", "No Label", "3", "7", "95"], "gold": ["3", "7", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1029/2010\nof 12 November 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1019/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 November 2010.", "references": ["49", "31", "11", "19", "21", "54", "85", "7", "92", "95", "13", "82", "94", "15", "51", "41", "45", "73", "80", "98", "53", "93", "74", "16", "78", "9", "37", "66", "8", "34", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 5 December 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia on the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction\n(2011/841/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 168(5) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1920/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 December 2006 on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (1) provides, in Article 21 thereof, that the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction shall be open to the participation of any third country that shares the interests of the Union and its Member States in its objectives and work.\n(2)\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia on the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was signed on behalf of the Union on 6 December 2010, subject to its conclusion.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia on the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to transmit, on behalf of the Union, the diplomatic note provided for in Article 10 of the Agreement (2).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 5 December 2011.", "references": ["56", "85", "19", "67", "20", "32", "80", "53", "36", "93", "60", "94", "11", "5", "30", "58", "22", "69", "41", "72", "25", "54", "51", "88", "84", "86", "63", "17", "81", "38", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 74/2011\nof 28 January 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in international waters of I and IIb by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 January 2011.", "references": ["75", "23", "76", "5", "26", "39", "62", "31", "50", "0", "66", "16", "74", "63", "22", "73", "99", "28", "7", "87", "21", "70", "41", "54", "49", "2", "77", "34", "10", "52", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 274/2012\nof 27 March 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1152/2009 imposing special conditions governing the import of certain foodstuffs from certain third countries due to contamination risk by aflatoxins\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1)(b)(ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 provides the Commission with the possibility to adopt emergency measures, where it is evident that food and feed imported from a third country is likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment, and that such risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member States individually.\n(2)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 1152/2009 (2) the Commission has imposed special conditions on the import from certain third countries of certain foodstuffs in which the maximum levels of aflatoxins set by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 (3) appeared to be frequently exceeded.\n(3)\nSince the Combined Nomenclature (CN) code has changed for certain food categories covered by Regulation (EC) No 1152/2009, it is appropriate to change the CN codes in that Regulation accordingly.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to repeal the transitional provision for foodstuffs imported from the United States of America, which are not covered by the Voluntary Aflatoxin Sampling Plan, as sufficient time has been provided to operators in the United States of America to implement the Voluntary Aflatoxin Sampling Plan.\n(5)\nIn the light of the number and nature of notifications in the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, trade volumes, the outcome of inspections of the Food and Veterinary Office and the outcome of controls, the frequency of sampling for analysis should be reduced in some cases. For hazelnuts from Turkey and Brazil nuts from Brazil only a very low number of non-compliance has been observed at import. It is therefore appropriate to reduce the frequency of controls for these foodstuffs. For reasons of clarity and to ensure consistency with other EU legislation, it is appropriate to explicitly mention that the identity checks are to be performed at the same frequency as the physical control (sampling and analysis).\n(6)\nTherefore, Regulation (EC) No 1152/2009 should be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmending provisions\nRegulation (EC) No 1152/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to the import of the following foodstuffs and of the foodstuffs processed and compound thereof:\n(a)\nthe following foodstuffs originating in or consigned from Brazil:\n(i)\nBrazil nuts in shell falling within category CN code 0801 21 00;\n(ii)\nmixtures of nuts or dried fruits falling within CN code 0813 50 and containing Brazil nuts in shell;\n(b)\nthe following foodstuffs originating in or consigned from China:\n(i)\ngroundnuts falling within CN code 1202 41 00 or 1202 42 00;\n(ii)\ngroundnuts falling within CN code 2008 11 91 (in immediate packings of a net content exceeding 1 kg) or 2008 11 98 (in immediate packings of a net content not exceeding 1 kg);\n(iii)\nroasted groundnuts falling within CN code 2008 11 96 (in immediate packings of a net content not exceeding 1 kg);\n(c)\nthe following foodstuffs originating in or consigned from Egypt:\n(i)\ngroundnuts falling within CN code 1202 41 00 or 1202 42 00;\n(ii)\ngroundnuts falling within CN code 2008 11 91 (in immediate packings of a net content exceeding 1 kg) or 2008 11 98 (in immediate packings of a net content not exceeding 1 kg);\n(iii)\nroasted groundnuts falling within CN code 2008 11 96 (in immediate packings of a net content not exceeding 1 kg);\n(d)\nthe following foodstuffs originating in or consigned from Iran:\n(i)\npistachios falling within CN code 0802 51 00 or 0802 52 00;\n(ii)\nroasted pistachios falling within CN codes 2008 19 13 (in immediate packings of a net content exceeding 1 kg) and 2008 19 93 (in immediate packings of a net content not exceeding 1 kg);\n(e)\nthe following foodstuffs originating in or consigned from Turkey:\n(i)\ndried figs falling within CN code 0804 20 90;\n(ii)\nhazelnuts (Corylus spp.) in shell or shelled falling within CN code 0802 21 00 or 0802 22 00;\n(iii)\npistachios falling within CN code 0802 51 00 or 0802 52 00;\n(iv)\nmixtures of nuts or dried fruits falling within CN code 0813 50 and containing figs, hazelnuts or pistachios;\n(v)\nfig paste, pistachio paste and hazelnut paste falling within CN codes 2007 10 or 2007 99;\n(vi)\nhazelnuts and pistachios, prepared or preserved, including mixtures falling within CN code 2008 19 and figs, prepared or preserved, falling within CN code 2008 99, including mixtures falling within CN code 2008 97;\n(vii)\nflour, meal and powder of hazelnuts, figs and pistachios falling within CN code 1106 30 90;\n(viii)\ncut, sliced and broken hazelnuts falling within CN 0802 22 00 and 2008 19;\n(f)\nthe following foodstuffs originating in or consigned from the United States of America:\n(i)\nalmonds in shell or shelled falling within CN code 0802 11 or 0802 12;\n(ii)\nroasted almonds falling within CN codes 2008 19 13 (in immediate packings of a net content exceeding 1 kg) and 2008 19 93 (in immediate packings of a net content not exceeding 1 kg);\n(iii)\nmixtures of nuts or dried fruits falling within CN code 0813 50 and containing almonds.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to consignments of foodstuffs of a gross weight not exceeding 20 kg, or to processed or compound foodstuffs containing the foodstuffs referred to in points (b) to (f) of paragraph 1 in a quantity below 20 %\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 4, paragraph 6 is deleted;\n(3)\nin Article 7, paragraphs 4 and 5 are replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The competent authority at the designated point of import shall carry out an identity check and shall take a sample for analysis of aflatoxin B1 and total aflatoxin contamination on certain consignments with a frequency indicated in paragraph 5 and in accordance with Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 401/2006 before release for free circulation into the Union.\n5. The identity check and the sampling for analysis referred to in paragraph 4 shall be carried out on:\n(a)\napproximately 50 % of the consignments of foodstuffs from Brazil;\n(b)\napproximately 20 % of the consignments of foodstuffs from China;\n(c)\napproximately 20 % of the consignments of foodstuffs from Egypt;\n(d)\napproximately 50 % of the consignments of foodstuffs from Iran;\n(e)\napproximately 5 % of the consignments for each category of hazelnuts and derived products from Turkey referred to in Article 1(1)(e)(ii) and (iv) to (viii), approximately 20 % of the consignments for each category of dried figs and derived products from Turkey referred to in Article 1(1)(e)(i) and (iv) to (vii) and approximately 50 % of the consignments for each category of pistachios and derived products from Turkey referred to in Article 1(1)(e)(iii) to (vii);\n(f)\na random basis for consignments of foodstuffs from the United States of America, referred to in Article 1(1)(f).\u2019.\nArticle 2\nTransitional measures\nBy derogation to Articles 4(1) and 7(2), foodstuffs originating in or consigned from the United States referred to in Article 1(1)(f) which have left the United States before the entry into force of this Regulation and which are not accompanied by the Voluntary Aflatoxin Sampling Plan certificate, can be imported into the EU on the condition that they are subject to a physical check, including sampling and analysis.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 March 2012.", "references": ["80", "17", "36", "18", "84", "0", "70", "50", "59", "87", "33", "71", "52", "90", "30", "69", "79", "3", "63", "64", "24", "41", "12", "39", "73", "86", "66", "57", "27", "9", "No Label", "22", "38", "60", "61", "68", "72", "91", "93", "94", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "38", "60", "61", "68", "72", "91", "93", "94", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 705/2011\nof 20 July 2011\napproving the active substance imazalil, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances listed in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 of 27 June 2007 on laying down the procedure of the renewal of the inclusion of a first group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and establishing the list of those substances (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Imazalil is listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 737/2007.\n(2)\nThe approval of imazalil, as set out in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (4), expires on 31 December 2011. A notification was submitted in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 for the renewal of the inclusion of imazalil in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within the time period provided for in that Article.\n(3)\nThat notification was found to be admissible by Commission Decision 2008/656/EC of 28 July 2008 on the admissibility of the notifications concerning the renewal of the inclusion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances azimsulfuron, azoxystrobin, fluroxypyr, imazalil, kresoxim-methyl, prohexadione and spiroxamine, and establishing the list of the notifiers concerned (5).\n(4)\nWithin the time period provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007, the notifier submitted the data required in accordance with that Article together with an explanation as regards the relevance of each new study submitted.\n(5)\nThe rapporteur Member State prepared an assessment report in consultation with the co-rapporteur Member State and submitted it to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and the Commission on 9 June 2009. In addition to the assessment of the active substance, that report includes a list of the studies the rapporteur Member State relied on for its assessment.\n(6)\nThe Authority communicated the assessment report to the notifier and to the Member States for comments and forwarded the comments received to the Commission. The Authority also made the assessment report available to the public.\n(7)\nAt the request of the Commission, the assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority. The Authority presented its conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of imazalil (6) to the Commission on 4 March 2010. The assessment report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for imazalil.\n(8)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing imazalil may be expected to continue to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve imazalil.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions not provided for in the first inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nBased on the review report which supports a lower level of purity compared to that set out in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, and taking into account that no toxicologically or ecotoxicologically significant impurities are present, the purity level should be modified.\n(11)\nFrom the new data submitted, it appears that imazalil and its degradation products in soil and surface water systems may cause risks for soil micro-organisms and aquatic organisms; negligible groundwater exposure needs to be confirmed; further investigation is needed on the nature of residues in processed commodities. Without prejudice to the conclusion that imazalil should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(12)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(13)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing imazalil. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(14)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(15)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should be amended accordingly.\n(16)\nIn the interest of clarity, Commission Directive 2010/57/EU of 26 August 2010 amending Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC to renew the inclusion of imazalil as active substance (8) should be repealed.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance imazalil, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing imazalil as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing imazalil as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing imazalil as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing imazalil as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nRepeal\nDirective 2010/57/EU is repealed.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["11", "71", "86", "81", "92", "94", "47", "58", "27", "21", "15", "13", "98", "99", "2", "18", "63", "93", "39", "83", "57", "32", "55", "88", "31", "7", "36", "54", "30", "52", "No Label", "25", "43", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "43", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1230/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\non repealing certain obsolete Council acts in the field of common commercial policy\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImproving the transparency of Union law is an essential element of the better lawmaking strategy that the institutions of the Union are implementing. In that context it is appropriate to remove from the legislation in force those acts which no longer have real effect.\n(2)\nA number of acts relating to the common commercial policy have become obsolete, even though formally they are still in force.\n(3)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 1471/88 of 16 May 1988 concerning the arrangements applicable to imports of sweet potatoes and manioc starch intended for certain uses (2) has exhausted its effects since its content has been taken up by successive acts.\n(4)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 478/92 of 25 February 1992 opening an annual Community tariff quota for dog or cat food, put up for retail sale and falling within CN code 2309 10 11 and an annual Community tariff quota for fish food falling within CN code ex 2309 90 41, originating in, and coming from, the Faroe Islands (3) was intended to open a tariff quota for the year 1992 and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(5)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 3125/92 of 26 October 1992 on the arrangements applicable to the importation into the Community of sheepmeat and goatmeat products originating in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (4) dealt with a temporary situation and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(6)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2184/96 of 28 October 1996 concerning imports into the Community of rice originating in and coming from Egypt (5) was meant to grant customs duty reductions resulting from an international agreement which was subsequently replaced by the agreement signed with Egypt on 28 October 2009 which entered into force on 1 June 2010 and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(7)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2398/96 of 12 December 1996 opening a tariff quota for turkey meat originating in and coming from Israel as provided for in the Association Agreement and the Interim Agreement between the European Community and the State of Israel (6) has exhausted its effects since it was based on the Association Agreement signed in 1995 which was subsequently replaced by the Association Agreement signed with Israel on 4 November 2009 which entered into force on the 1 January 2010 and which provided for new tariff rate quotas.\n(8)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1722/1999 of 29 July 1999 on the import of bran, sharps and other residues of the sifting, milling or other working of certain cereals originating in Algeria, Morocco and Egypt and the import of durum wheat originating in Morocco (7) has exhausted its effects since it was meant as an interim instrument for the period prior to the entry into force of the Association Agreement signed with Algeria on 22 April 2002 which entered into force on 1 September 2005, the Association Agreement signed with Morocco on 26 February 1996 which entered into force on 1 March 2000 and whose agricultural annexes were modified by agreements which entered into force in 2003 and 2005, and the Association Agreement signed with Egypt on 28 October 2009 which entered into force on 1 June 2010.\n(9)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2798/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down general rules for the import of olive oil originating in Tunisia for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 906/98 (8) introduced a measure applicable only in the year 2000 and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(10)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 215/2000 of 24 January 2000 renewing for 2000 the measures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1416/95 establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas in 1995 for certain processed agricultural products (9) covered only the year 2000 and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(11)\nCouncil Decision 2004/910/EC of 26 April 2004 on the conclusion of the Agreements in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and, of the one part, Barbados, Belize, the Republic of the Congo, Fiji, the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, the Republic of C\u00f4te d'Ivoire, Jamaica, the Republic of Kenya, the Republic of Madagascar, the Republic of Malawi, the Republic of Mauritius, the Republic of Surinam, Saint Christopher and Nevis, the Kingdom of Swaziland, the United Republic of Tanzania, the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, the Republic of Uganda, the Republic of Zambia and the Republic of Zimbabwe and, of the other part, the Republic of India on the guaranteed prices for cane sugar for the 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 delivery periods (10) had a temporary character and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(12)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1923/2004 of 25 October 2004 establishing certain concessions for the Swiss Confederation in the form of Community tariff quotas for certain processed agricultural products (11) introduced a measure applicable from 1 May to 31 December 2004 and has therefore exhausted its effects.\n(13)\nCouncil Decision 2007/317/EC of 16 April 2007 establishing the position to be adopted, on behalf of the Community, within the International Grains Council with respect to the extension of the Grains Trade Convention 1995 (12) has exhausted its effects since its content has been taken up by a subsequent act.\n(14)\nA number of acts concerning certain countries have become obsolete following the accession of those countries to the Union.\n(15)\nCouncil Decision 98/658/EC of 24 September 1998 on the conclusion of the Additional Protocol to the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Slovenia, of the other part, and to the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Slovenia, of the other part (13) has become obsolete following the accession of Slovenia to the Union.\n(16)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 278/2003 of 6 February 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in Poland (14) has become obsolete following the accession of Poland to the Union.\n(17)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 999/2003 of 2 June 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the import of certain processed agricultural products originating in Hungary and the export of certain processed agricultural products to Hungary (15) has become obsolete following the accession of Hungary to the Union.\n(18)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1039/2003 of 2 June 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in Estonia and the exportation of certain agricultural products to Estonia (16) has become obsolete following the accession of Estonia to the Union.\n(19)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1086/2003 of 18 June 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in Slovenia and the exportation of certain processed agricultural products to Slovenia (17) has become obsolete following the accession of Slovenia to the Union.\n(20)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1087/2003 of 18 June 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in Latvia and the exportation of certain processed agricultural products to Latvia (18) has become obsolete following the accession of Latvia to the Union.\n(21)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1088/2003 of 18 June 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in Lithuania and the exportation of certain processed agricultural products to Lithuania (19) has become obsolete following the accession of Lithuania to the Union.\n(22)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1089/2003 of 18 June 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in the Slovak Republic and the exportation of certain processed agricultural products to the Slovak Republic (20) has become obsolete following the accession of Slovakia to the Union.\n(23)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1090/2003 of 18 June 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in the Czech Republic and the exportation of certain processed agricultural products to the Czech Republic (21) has become obsolete following the accession of the Czech Republic to the Union.\n(24)\nFor reasons of legal certainty and clarity, those obsolete acts should be repealed,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Regulations (EEC) No 1471/88, (EEC) No 478/92, (EEC) No 3125/92, (EC) No 2184/96, (EC) No 2398/96, (EC) No 1722/1999, (EC) No 2798/1999, (EC) No 215/2000, (EC) No 278/2003, (EC) No 999/2003, (EC) No 1039/2003, (EC) No 1086/2003, (EC) No 1087/2003, (EC) No 1088/2003, (EC) No 1089/2003, (EC) No 1090/2003, (EC) No 1923/2004 and Decisions 98/658/EC, 2004/910/EC, 2007/317/EC are hereby repealed.\n2. The repeal of the acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to:\n(a)\nthe maintenance in force of Union acts adopted on the basis of the acts referred to in paragraph 1; and\n(b)\nthe continuing validity of amendments made by the acts referred to in paragraph 1 to other Union acts that are not repealed by this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["30", "53", "75", "91", "90", "49", "46", "10", "5", "45", "66", "92", "0", "17", "83", "41", "25", "58", "63", "71", "11", "2", "94", "4", "43", "26", "19", "64", "36", "35", "No Label", "8", "9", "61"], "gold": ["8", "9", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 920/2011\nof 14 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 September 2011.", "references": ["18", "34", "3", "75", "1", "45", "77", "53", "52", "15", "88", "55", "89", "90", "80", "29", "57", "87", "79", "5", "20", "13", "76", "54", "12", "69", "91", "16", "6", "98", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 889/2010\nof 7 October 2010\nfixing the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the eighth individual invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the eighth individual invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the eighth individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 5 October 2010, the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be EUR 211,60/100 kg.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 October 2010.", "references": ["68", "86", "50", "97", "19", "21", "11", "47", "41", "82", "40", "30", "60", "57", "91", "73", "78", "14", "83", "16", "96", "54", "90", "69", "95", "62", "99", "37", "13", "51", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 299/2011\nof 25 March 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 295/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 March 2011.", "references": ["84", "66", "98", "94", "23", "87", "33", "24", "65", "47", "60", "56", "28", "76", "91", "20", "6", "44", "70", "31", "57", "30", "80", "17", "3", "12", "88", "63", "32", "64", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 504/2011\nof 23 May 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 442/2011.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Syria and in accordance with Council Implementing Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (2), additional persons should be included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011.\n(3)\nThe information relating to certain persons included in the list in Annex II to that Regulation should be updated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 shall be replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["36", "79", "39", "86", "41", "20", "24", "99", "15", "43", "48", "38", "70", "73", "87", "98", "77", "35", "4", "19", "53", "22", "44", "9", "21", "56", "83", "16", "6", "78", "No Label", "3", "5", "11", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "11", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1174/2010\nof 10 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 December 2010.", "references": ["74", "7", "60", "40", "66", "88", "72", "46", "98", "53", "36", "2", "69", "95", "4", "32", "96", "10", "75", "67", "29", "28", "49", "83", "55", "91", "84", "52", "19", "81", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 January 2012\namending Decisions 2011/263/EU and 2011/264/EU in order to take account of developments in enzymes classification in accordance with Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC and Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2012) 323)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/49/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Union Eco-Labelling Board,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 6(6) of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 the EU Ecolabel may not be awarded to goods containing substances or preparations/mixtures meeting the criteria for classification as toxic, hazardous to the environment, carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (2). The EU Ecolabel may also not be awarded to goods containing substances referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (3). According to Article 6(7) of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, where it is not technically feasible to substitute those goods as such or via the use of alternative materials or designs, or in the case of products which have a significantly higher overall environmental performance compared with other goods of the same category, the Commission may adopt measures to grant derogations from Article 6(6) of that Regulation.\n(2)\nThe Commission has adopted Decision 2011/263/EU of 28 April 2011 on establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to detergents for dishwashers (4) and Decision 2011/264/EU of 28 April 2011 on establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for laundry detergents (5). After the adoption of those Decisions the important enzyme subtilisin, which is used in laundry detergents and detergents for dishwashers, was classified as R50 (Very toxic to aquatic life) in accordance with Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (6) and Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, which prevents those laundry detergents and detergents for dishwashers from obtaining the EU Ecolabel.\n(3)\nThis is new information that was not considered during the review of the EU Ecolabel criteria for laundry detergents and detergents for dishwashers and the considerations of derogations for enzymes. Decisions 2011/263/EU and 2011/264/EU should therefore be amended in order to take account of developments in enzymes classification in accordance with Annex I to Directive 67/548/EEC and Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.\n(4)\nA transitional period should be provided for in order to give producers whose products have been awarded the Ecolabel for laundry detergents and detergents for dishwashers on the basis of the criteria set out in Commission Decisions 2003/31/EC (7) and 2003/200/EC (8) sufficient time to adapt their products to comply with the revised criteria and requirements and in order to compensate for suspension caused by this amendment.\n(5)\nDecisions 2011/263/EU and 2011/264/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/263/EU is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Annex to Decision 2011/264/EU is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nWhere the Ecolabel is awarded on the basis of an application evaluated according to the criteria set out in Decisions 2003/31/EC and 2003/200/EC, that Ecolabel may be used until 28 September 2012.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 January 2012.", "references": ["28", "90", "26", "96", "59", "2", "3", "39", "53", "86", "48", "57", "37", "40", "38", "46", "84", "52", "5", "82", "44", "31", "88", "4", "72", "56", "47", "19", "1", "93", "No Label", "9", "25", "43", "60", "83"], "gold": ["9", "25", "43", "60", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1260/2010\nof 22 December 2010\npublishing, for 2011, the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds (2), and in particular the fourth paragraph of Article 3 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe full version of the refund nomenclature valid at 1 January 2011, as it ensues from the regulatory provisions on export arrangements for agricultural products, should be published.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1298/2009 of 18 December 2009 publishing, for 2010, the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (3) should therefore be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EEC) No 3846/87 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nAnnex I is replaced by the text in Annex I to this Regulation.\n(2)\nAnnex II is replaced by the text in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 1298/2009 is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2010.", "references": ["66", "17", "7", "79", "83", "10", "97", "15", "75", "24", "60", "69", "38", "76", "48", "29", "34", "43", "59", "28", "12", "45", "85", "87", "25", "23", "61", "11", "41", "56", "No Label", "20", "62"], "gold": ["20", "62"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 561/2012\nof 27 June 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 284/2012 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1)(b)(ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 provides for the possibility to adopt appropriate Union emergency measures for food and feed imported from a third country in order to protect public health, animal health or the environment, where the risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member States individually.\n(2)\nFollowing the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station on 11 March 2011, the Commission was informed that radionuclide levels in certain food products originating in Japan exceeded the action levels in food applicable in Japan. Such contamination may constitute a threat to public and animal health in the Union and therefore Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 297/2011 of 25 March 2011 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station (2) was adopted. That Regulation was replaced by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 (3) which was later replaced by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 284/2012 (4).\n(3)\nThe Japanese authorities have recently reported frequent non-compliance of log-grown shiitake originating in the prefecture of Iwate. The levels of the sum of caesium-134 and caesium-137 found in log-grown shiitake were exceeding the stricter maximum level of 100 Becquerel/kg, in application in Japan since 1 April 2012. Also in a significant number of samples, the levels found were higher than the maximum level applicable before 1 April 2012 (500 Becquerel/kg). In addition, non compliance was reported on a few samples of fern and fish originating in Iwate. The prefecture of Iwate is not among the prefectures of the affected zone, where a testing of all feed and food originating from those prefectures is required before export to the Union. Given these recent findings it is appropriate to add Iwate prefecture to the affected zone.\n(4)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 284/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 284/2012 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 5, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\"3. The declaration referred to in paragraph 1 shall furthermore certify that:\n(a)\nthe products have been harvested and/or processed before 11 March 2011; or\n(b)\nthe products originate in and are consigned from a prefecture other than Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa, Shizuoka and Iwate; or\n(c)\nthe products are consigned from Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa, Shizuoka and Iwate prefectures, but do not originate in one of those prefectures and have not been exposed to radioactivity during transiting; or\n(d)\nwhere the products originate in Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa, Shizuoka and Iwate prefectures, the products are accompanied by an analytical report containing the results of sampling and analysis.\"\n(2)\nAnnex I is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nTransitional measure\nBy way of derogation from Article 6(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 284/2012, products referred to in Article 1 of that Regulation may be imported into the Union if they are accompanied by a declaration according to the previous model of declaration set out in Annex I to that Regulation where:\n(a)\nthe products left Japan before the entry into force of this Regulation; or\n(b)\nthe declaration was issued before the date of entry into force of this Regulation and the products have left Japan not more than 10 working days after the entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2012.", "references": ["35", "98", "69", "5", "33", "51", "26", "55", "37", "11", "78", "4", "53", "42", "7", "57", "17", "49", "77", "91", "68", "15", "71", "61", "39", "85", "84", "50", "16", "36", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "23", "38", "60", "66", "67", "81", "95", "96"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "23", "38", "60", "66", "67", "81", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 29 June 2011\nconcerning aid to the rendering sector in 2003 State aid C 23/05 (ex NN 8/04 and ex N 515/03)\n(notified under document C(2011) 4425)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/651/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 108(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter of 7 November 2003, the French Permanent Representation to the European Union notified the Commission under Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter \u2018TFEU\u2019) (1) of an exemption from the rendering levy for certain undertakings retailing meat.\n(2)\nThe original notification concerned, on the one hand, aid granted in 2003 and, on the other, aid planned to be granted starting in 2004. As part of the aid had already been granted, the Commission decided at the time to split the file into two cases. Of the aid granted in 2003, only the exemption from the rendering levy is being examined under this decision.\n(3)\nThe rendering levy was abolished on 1 January 2004. After that the financing of public-sector rendering plants was guaranteed by the proceeds of a \u2018slaughtering tax\u2019, to which the Commission did not raise any objections (2).\n(4)\nIn the context of examining the \u2018slaughtering tax\u2019 file (State aid No N515A/03), the French authorities sent the Commission information relevant also to this case, in particular by letter of 29 December 2003.\n(5)\nBy letter of 7 April 2005, registered on 12 April 2005, the French authorities submitted the additional information requested by the Commission by letter of 4 March 2005.\n(6)\nThe Commission initiated the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU concerning the aid in question by letter No SG(2005)D/202956 of 7 July 2005.\n(7)\nThe decision initiating the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). The Commission called on the other Member States and interested third parties to submit their comments on the aid in question.\n(8)\nThe French authorities provided their comments by letters dated 20 September 2005 and 15 November 2005, registered on 17 November 2005.\n(9)\nThe Commission received comments from the French Confederation of Butchers, Delicatessens and Caterers (hereinafter \u2018CFBCT\u2019) on 18 October 2005 and from a private company on 17 October 2005 (4) and 11 July 2008.\n(10)\nBy letter of 18 April 2011, the French authorities confirmed that the exemption from the payment of the tax on meat purchases (\u2018rendering levy\u2019), granted for 2003 to certain companies marketing agricultural products, was covered by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (5).\nII. DESCRIPTION\n(11)\nThe measure in question concerns the financing in 2003 of public-sector rendering plants and the destruction of meat and bone meal that can no longer be used commercially.\n(12)\nPublic-sector rendering plants used to be financed by the rendering levy, introduced by Article 302a ZD of the French General Tax Code, which was adopted under Article 1 of French Law No 96-1139 of 26 December 1996 on the collection and destruction of animal carcases and slaughterhouse waste (hereinafter \u2018Law of 1996\u2019).\n(13)\nThe rendering levy was applied to the purchases of meat and other specified products by all retailers of those products. In principle, this levy was payable by all persons carrying out retail sales. The tax rate was the ex-VAT value of all purchases of meat and other specified products by all retailers of these products:\n-\nfresh, cooked, chilled or frozen meats and offal of poultry, rabbit and game, of animals of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and of horses, asses and their crosses,\n-\nsalted meats, cured meat products, lard, preserved meats and processed offal,\n-\nmeat- and offal-based animal feed.\n(14)\nUndertakings whose turnover in the previous calendar year was less than FRF 2 500 000 (6) (EUR 381 122) excluding VAT were exempt from the payment of the levy. The rate of the levy was 0,5 % on monthly purchases of up to FRF 125 000 (EUR 19 056) excluding VAT and 0,9 % on monthly purchases above that amount. Article 35 of the Amending Finance Act for 2000 (Law No 2000-1353 of 30 December 2000) made certain amendments to the rendering levy scheme, which entered into force on 1 January 2001. These amendments were to offset the effects of the BSE crisis and the resulting extra costs. The levy was subsequently extended to \u2018other meat products\u2019. The levy was set at 2,1 % on monthly purchases of up to FRF 125 000 (EUR 19 056) and 3,9 % on monthly purchases above that amount. In addition, all undertakings with a turnover in the previous calendar year of less than FRF 5 000 000 (EUR 762 245) excluding VAT were exempt from the levy.\n(15)\nInitially, i.e. from 1 January 1997, the proceeds of the levy were paid into an ad hoc fund used to finance the collection and destruction of animal carcases and material seized at slaughterhouses and recognised as being unfit for human or animal consumption, i.e. the activities defined under Article 264 of the Rural Code as falling within the remit of a public service. The fund was managed by the National Centre for the Development of Farm Structures (CNASEA).\n(16)\nStarting on 1 January 2001, the proceeds of the rendering levy were paid directly into the general budget of the State and no longer into the fund set up for that purpose. For 2003, the funds were made available at the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs by Decree No 2002-1580 of 30 December 2002 implementing the Finance Law for 2003. They were entered under the Ministry\u2019s ordinary expenditure under Title IV, Public aid, Part 4, economic measures, incentives and aid. The proceeds of this levy in 2003 were estimated at EUR 550 million.\n(17)\nThe 2003 notification provided for aid for the stocking and destruction of animal meal as well as aid for the transport and destruction of fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste. In addition, under the Law of 1996, undertakings that retailed meat and had an annual turnover of less than EUR 762 245 were exempt from the levy. According to the information available to the Commission, the Law of 1996 was in force throughout 2003.\n(18)\nIn its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission concluded that the aid measures concerning the removal and destruction of fallen stock and the stocking and destruction of animal meal and slaughterhouse waste did not risk adversely affecting trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. They could therefore qualify under the exception provided for in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU as measures able to contribute to the development of the sector. On the other hand, the Commission has decided to initiate the procedure referred to in Article 108(2) TFEU as regards the existence and compatibility of aid for trade exempt from the payment of the rendering levy.\n(19)\nWhen the investigation procedure was initiated, the Commission estimated that the exemption from the payment of the rendering levy implied a loss of resources for the State and did not appear to be justified by the nature and the general scheme of the tax system, which is designed to provide the State with revenue. Indeed, according to the information available to the Commission, the exemption was based on the overall turnover, not just the turnover on meat sales.\n(20)\nAs the rendering levy is calculated on the value of meat products, it did not seem justified to exempt from the payment of the levy undertakings with a higher turnover on meat sales when their competitors with a lower turnover on meat products would have to pay it.\n(21)\nConsequently, the exemption seemed to constitute a selective advantage. It would be aid in favour of the exempted vendors, whose tax burden would be lighter as a result. On the basis of the figures for trade in meat, the Commission concluded that the exemption of traders with a turnover of less than EUR 762 245 from the levy in 2003 was an advantage that might constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(22)\nThe Commission could not rule out the possibility that the tax exemption might have an effect on trade between Member States, in particular in border areas.\n(23)\nTherefore the exemption of traders with a turnover of less than EUR 762 245 from the levy seemed to constitute State aid under the terms of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(24)\nThe exemption in this case seemed to consist of a tax reduction measure lacking any incentive element or counterpart on the part of the beneficiaries, and its compatibility with competition rules had not been demonstrated.\n(25)\nTherefore the Commission considered that the aid fell within the scope of point 3.5 of the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (7), which were effective at that time. According to that point, any aid measure must contain some incentive element or require some counterpart on the part of the beneficiary in order to be considered compatible with the common market. Unless exceptions are expressly provided for in Community legislation or in the Guidelines, unilateral State aid measures which are simply intended to improve the financial situation of producers but which in no way contribute to the development of the sector are considered to constitute operating aid which is incompatible with the common market.\n(26)\nAs regards trade exempt from the payment of the rendering levy, the Commission could not rule out that the aid in question might be State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and might constitute operating aid, regarding the compatibility of which with the internal market the Commission had doubts.\nIII. COMMENTS BY FRANCE\n(27)\nThe French authorities submitted their comments by letters dated 20 September 2005 and 15 November 2005. In those letters, they stated that it could not be disputed that the tax exemption granted to the exempt companies represented aid within the meaning of the EC Treaty. Moreover, the Commission had come to a similar conclusion in its Decision 2005/474/EC (8) on the exemption applied between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2002 (aid NN 17/01 reclassified as C 49/02).\n(28)\nHowever, the French authorities had argued prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 that the aid fell within the scope of Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (9). They pointed out that the number of undertakings concerned, an average of more than 100 000 a year, and the turnover threshold used for the exemption (EUR 762 245) implied that the amount of the exemption that might constitute State aid would in any case be below the threshold of EUR 100 000 over a three-year period provided for in Regulation (EC) No 69/2001.\n(29)\nIn order to show that the amount of the exemption granted to these undertakings in 2003 was consistently below EUR 100 000 over a period of 3 years, the French authorities used two methods.\n(30)\nFirstly, the French authorities attempted to establish the turnover of an undertaking that had paid a levy of EUR 100 000 over 3 years, or an average annual levy of EUR 33 333. On the basis of the amount established, broken down by tax bracket (2,1 % and 3,9 %), they established the tax rate corresponding to the meat purchases of the undertaking. Finally, using the value of these meat purchases, the French authorities estimated the annual turnover on the basis of the maximalist assumption that the undertaking in question specialised in the meat trade. This method allowed them to establish a turnover for the undertaking that markedly exceeded the exemption threshold of the levy. The exemption threshold of EUR 762 245 was thus exceeded by far, meaning that a company that pays EUR 100 000 in taxes over 3 years may under no circumstances be exempt from the tax on meat purchases.\n(31)\nSecondly, the French authorities tried to establish the amount of tax for an undertaking that specialises in meat and has a turnover of EUR 762 000, which is just below the exemption threshold. On the basis of a purchases/turnover coefficient of 0,58 (10), the French authorities calculated the value of the meat purchases of the undertaking, i.e. EUR 441 960 (762 000 \u00d7 0,58). This second method shows that the maximum amount of the exemption is EUR 13 132 per year and undertaking, in other words less than EUR 100 000 over 3 years.\n(32)\nFollowing the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006, the French authorities confirmed that the exemption from the payment of the tax on meat purchases (\u2018rendering levy\u2019), granted for 2003 to certain companies marketing agricultural products, fell within the scope of the said Regulation, in particular Article 5 thereof on transitional measures.\nIV. COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES\n(33)\nFirstly, the Confederation of Butchers, Delicatessens and Caterers (hereinafter \u2018CFBCT\u2019) pointed out that the measure in question did not meet the criteria for the definition of State aid and that the tax mechanism applied to certain companies on the basis of the amount of their turnover was fully justified owing to the general scheme of the tax system. The CFBCT states that the tax on meat purchases was collected and checked according to the rules applied to VAT and similar taxes. The exemption threshold was based on an objective and logical criterion identical to that for thresholds applied to other taxes. The Law of 1996 was part of the French system of collecting VAT. The goal was not to grant an exceptional advantage for certain companies but rather, by introducing a threshold level, to take into account the taxpaying capacity of undertakings and, in particular, the viability of artisanal butchers.\n(34)\nSecondly, according to the CFBCT, this measure did not affect intra-Community trade. Indeed, the extremely modest size of the companies concerned by the measure in question and the extremely limited geographical market on which they operate cast doubt on the claim that the measure constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(35)\nEven if it were considered that the tax-exempt undertakings had received aid, the CFBCT maintains that, in any case, this aid would comply with the rules of the Treaty.\n(36)\nThe Commission should take the view that exempting small butcheries and artisanal butchers was, in fact, justified by an objective of general interest: the management of the mad cow crisis and the treatment necessary for dangerous products. Besides, this measure only concerned SMEs and would probably be covered by the exemption regulations valid at the time, namely Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (11) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products (12).\n(37)\nIn any case, the CFBCT maintains that the requirement that the aid be recovered, which would be the consequence of classifying the measure as incompatible State aid, would violate Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (13), because a negative decision and recovery would not take into account the legitimate expectations of the recipient undertakings.\n(38)\nFurthermore, if the amount of the aid were evaluated a posteriori on the basis of presumptive retroactive taxation it would probably remain below the de minimis thresholds, given that most of the potential beneficiaries of the aid were microenterprises.\n(39)\nAccording to the information available to the Commission, the private company in question engages in food distribution operations in France. Having paid the rendering levy for the years 2001 to 2003 and having requested that the French tax authorities refund the amount paid, the company considers that it is in its interest to submit its comments in the present procedure.\n(40)\nThe company maintains that, contrary to the Commission\u2019s conclusion in its decision of 5 July 2005 (2005/C 228/06) (14) to initiate an investigation procedure, there was no disconnection between the aid to the rendering sector and the tax on meat purchases. It considers that the rendering tax paid for 2003 is based on Article 302a ZD of the French General Tax Code and finances a State aid scheme pursuant to Article 107 TFEU. As this mechanism was not notified to the Commission in advance, it should be declared illegal.\n(41)\nIn addition, the company maintains that the tax exemption is incompatible with Article 107 TFEU and that it would make the tax incompatible with the principle of equality vis-\u00e0-vis charges levied by the State and consequently with the rules on competition.\nV. ASSESSMENT\n(42)\nPursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with the internal market, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, save as otherwise provided for in the Treaty.\n(43)\nArticles 107, 108 and 109 TFEU apply to the pigmeat sector pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat (15). They apply to the beef and veal sector pursuant to Article 40 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (16). Prior to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999, Articles 107, 108 and 109 TFEU applied to the beef and veal sector pursuant to Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council (17). They apply to the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector pursuant to Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2467/98 of 3 November 1998 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat (18). They apply to the poultrymeat sector pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (19). Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2027single CMO Regulation\u2027) (20) repealed these Regulations, and Article 180 thereof states that the rules on State aid apply to the above-mentioned products.\n(44)\nThe French authorities confirmed that the exemption from the payment of the tax on meat purchases (\u2018rendering levy\u2019), granted for 2003 to certain companies marketing agricultural products, fell within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006.\n(45)\nAccording to Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006, aid that fulfils the conditions laid down therein is deemed not to meet all the criteria of Article 107(1) of TFEU and is therefore exempt from the notification requirement of Article 108(3) TFEU.\n(46)\nRegulation (EC) No 1998/2006 applies to aid granted to undertakings in all sectors but, in the case of undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products as listed in Annex I to the Treaty, only when the amount of aid is not fixed on the basis of the price or quantity of such products purchased from primary producers or put on the market by the undertakings concerned and when the aid is not conditional on being partly or entirely passed on to primary producers.\n(47)\nPursuant to Article 5(1) thereof, Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 applies to aid granted before its entry into force to undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products if the aid fulfils all the conditions laid down in Articles 1 and 2. Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 entered into force on 29 December 2006.\n(48)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006, the total de minimis aid granted to any one undertaking must not exceed EUR 200 000 over any period of three fiscal years. The ceiling laid down is expressed as a cash grant. All figures used are gross, that is, before any deduction of tax or other charge. Where aid is awarded in a form other than a grant, the aid amount is the gross grant equivalent of the aid.\n(49)\nThe undertakings in question were active in the processing and marketing of the products as listed in Annex I of the Treaty and other products and were exempt from the rendering levy in 2003. Pursuant to the transitional measures laid down in Article 5 thereof, Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 applies consequently to this case.\n(50)\nThe French authorities have established that the conditions required by Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 were fulfilled by showing that the grant equivalent of the aid received by each beneficiary did not under any circumstances exceed EUR 200 000 over any period of 3 years, as the maximum amount of the exemption was EUR 13 132 per year and undertaking (see recital 29).\n(51)\nIn view of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the tax-exemption of undertakings retailing meat whose annual turnover was less than EUR 762 245 in 2003 falls within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 and fulfils the conditions laid down therein. Therefore this exemption does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe exemption of undertakings retailing meat whose turnover is less than EUR 762 245 from the rendering levy in 2003 does not constitute aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2011.", "references": ["66", "87", "38", "50", "22", "32", "62", "21", "11", "59", "14", "23", "2", "72", "74", "56", "28", "41", "61", "7", "81", "80", "33", "5", "55", "82", "67", "36", "89", "42", "No Label", "8", "15", "24", "34", "48", "58", "60", "73", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "24", "34", "48", "58", "60", "73", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1301/2011\nof 9 December 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Vitellone bianco dell\u2019Appennino centrale (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Vitellone bianco dell\u2019Appennino centrale\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 134/98 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["41", "63", "51", "68", "66", "10", "22", "52", "64", "61", "44", "92", "86", "26", "19", "7", "3", "20", "15", "84", "12", "95", "34", "0", "89", "70", "4", "48", "73", "87", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 894/2010\nof 8 October 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 815/2008 on a derogation from Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 in respect of the definition of the concept of originating products used for the purposes of the scheme of generalised preferences to take account of the special situation of Cape Verde regarding exports of certain fisheries products to the Community\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1), and in particular Article 247 thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (2), and in particular Article 76 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 815/2008 (3) Cape Verde was granted a derogation from the rules of origin laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 allowing it to consider as originating in Cape Verde certain fishery products produced in Cape Verde from non-originating fish. That derogation is due to expire on 31 December 2010.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 21 December 2009 Cape Verde submitted a request for an increase in the quantities granted for 2010 in respect of two of the three categories of fishery products covered by Regulation (EC) No 815/2008. By letter dated 8 June 2010, it submitted complementary information in support of this request.\n(3)\nThe request set out that the originally granted total quantities for 2010 should respectively be increased to 3 600 tonnes for prepared or preserved mackerel fillets and 1 500 tonnes for prepared or preserved frigate tuna or frigate mackerel.\n(4)\nThe total annual quantities originally granted have contributed, in 2008 and 2009, to a significant extent to the improvement of the situation in the fishery processing sector and, to a certain extent, to the revitalisation of Cape Verde\u2019s artisanal fleet, which is of vital importance for that country. However, it appears that the completion of the envisaged revitalisation of the Cape Verdean fleet to the planned levels was affected by certain economic and geographical circumstances and thus further investments are needed.\n(5)\nThe request demonstrates that in the absence of an increase of the quantities that may be traded under the derogation, the ability of the Cape Verdean fishing processing industry to continue its export to the European Union would be significantly affected, which might deter the further necessary investments.\n(6)\nAn increase of the quantities of goods that may be traded under the derogation is therefore required to ensure that the revitalisation efforts of the local fishing fleet continue and thus improve its ability to supply the local fishery processing sector with originating fish.\n(7)\nThe existing quotas are expected to be exhausted for the two categories of products concerned far before the end of 2010, which further justifies the need for an increase in the quantities granted for 2010. However, it does not appear appropriate to fully meet the amounts requested. In particular, account should be taken of the fact that there are already significant sourcing possibilities in originating fish as supplies from local vessels and bilateral cumulation can be used.\n(8)\nThe quantities of the derogation for 2010 should therefore be raised to 2 500 tonnes for prepared or preserved mackerel fillets and to 875 tonnes for prepared or preserved frigate tuna or frigate mackerel fillets, which quantities are considered to be sufficient to allow the processing industry of Cape Verde to continue its exports to the European Union and support the efforts of the local authorities in ensuring that the revitalisation efforts of the local fishing fleet continue successfully.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 815/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 815/2008 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["78", "28", "86", "50", "7", "53", "62", "59", "96", "5", "41", "77", "32", "40", "36", "48", "33", "66", "68", "91", "10", "44", "72", "43", "64", "3", "90", "51", "4", "11", "No Label", "8", "20", "22", "23", "67", "94"], "gold": ["8", "20", "22", "23", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1347/2011\nof 13 December 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in EU and international waters of Vb, VIb and VIaN by vessels flying the flag of Germany\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["32", "14", "79", "64", "87", "25", "95", "76", "31", "9", "77", "15", "50", "20", "60", "65", "11", "66", "45", "26", "21", "30", "73", "74", "38", "23", "51", "6", "28", "49", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 March 2012\nappointing an Estonian member and an Estonian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/183/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Estonian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Kaido KAASIK. An alternate member\u2019s seat will become vacant following the appointment of Ms Urve ERIKSON as member of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas member:\n-\nMs Urve ERIKSON, Member of Tudulinna Municipality Council,\nand\n(b)\nas alternate member:\n-\nMr Villi PIHL, Mayor of K\u00e4rla Municipality.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 26 March 2012.", "references": ["68", "24", "83", "15", "60", "72", "38", "33", "26", "90", "14", "42", "70", "69", "52", "57", "94", "61", "22", "44", "67", "99", "84", "53", "16", "31", "78", "65", "21", "9", "No Label", "7", "91"], "gold": ["7", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 12 May 2011\nconcerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the \u2018operation and traffic management\u2019 subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system\n(notified under document C(2011) 3099)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/314/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 12 of Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 establishing a European Railway Agency (2) requires the European Railway Agency (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agency\u2019) to ensure that the technical specifications for interoperability (hereinafter referred to as \u2018TSIs\u2019) are adapted to technical progress and market trends and to the social requirements and to propose to the Commission the amendments to the TSIs which it considers necessary.\n(2)\nBy Decision C(2007) 3371 of 13 July 2007, the Commission gave a framework mandate to the Agency to perform certain activities under Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (3) and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (4). Under the terms of that framework mandate, the Agency was requested to revise the TSI adopted by Commission Decision 2006/920/EC of 11 August 2006 concerning the technical specification of interoperability relating to the subsystem \u2018Traffic Operation and Management\u2019 of the trans-European conventional rail system (5).\n(3)\nOn 17 July 2009, the Agency issued four recommendations concerning European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) operating rules (ERA/REC/2009-02/INT), the revision of Annex P of the TSIs on operation and traffic management (ERA/REC/2009-03/INT), the revision of Annex T of the TSI on operation and traffic management for conventional rail (ERA/REC/2009-04/INT), and the consistency with Directive 2007/59/EC in respect to train driver competencies (ERA/REC/2009-05/INT), respectively. Those four recommendations led to the draft Commission decision amending Decisions 2006/920/EC and 2008/231/EC concerning TSIs on operation and traffic management, which, on 25 February 2010, received the positive opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC.\n(4)\nThe Agency\u2019s recommendation of 7 May 2010 (ERA/REC/03-2010/INT) proposes further amendments to the TSI on operation and traffic management for conventional rail concerning, inter alia, train visibility (rear end), identifications of trains, and consistency with Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community\u2019s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (6).\n(5)\nFor the sake of clarity and simplicity, it is appropriate to replace Decision 2006/920/EC.\n(6)\nThe TSI set out in the Annex should not demand the use of specific technologies or technical solutions except where this is strictly necessary for the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system.\n(7)\nImplementation of the TSI set out in the Annex and conformity with the relevant points of that TSI must be determined in accordance with an implementation plan that each Member State is required to update for the lines for which it is responsible.\n(8)\nRail traffic currently operates under existing national, bilateral, multinational or international agreements. It is important that those agreements do not hinder current and future progress towards interoperability. To this end, it is necessary that the Commission examine those agreements in order to determine whether the TSI set out in the Annex needs to be revised accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in conformity with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The technical specification for interoperability (TSI) relating to the \u2018operation and traffic management\u2019 subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system, as set out in the Annex, is adopted.\n2. The TSI set out in the Annex to this Decision shall apply to the operation and traffic management subsystem as described in point 2.4 of Annex II to Directive 2008/57/EC.\nArticle 2\n1. The Agency shall publish on its website the lists of codes referred in parts 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Appendix Pa.\n2. The Agency shall keep the lists of codes referred to in paragraph 1 up to date and inform the Commission of their evolution.\nThe Commission shall inform the Member States of the evolution of these codes through the Committee established in accordance with Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC.\nArticle 3\nUntil 31 December 2013, if a vehicle as defined in Article 2(c) of Directive 2008/57/EC is sold or rented for a continuous period exceeding six months and if all technical characteristics under which the vehicle has been authorised to be placed in service remain unchanged, its European Vehicle Number (hereinafter referred to as \u2018EVN\u2019) may be changed through a new registration of the vehicle and withdrawal of the first registration.\nIf that new registration concerns a Member State which is different from that of the first registration, the registering entity competent for the new registration may require a copy of the documentation related to the former registration.\nSuch change of EVN is without prejudice to the application of Articles 21 to 26 of Directive 2008/57/EC as far as the authorisation procedures are concerned.\nThe administrative costs incurred to change the EVN shall be borne by the applicant requesting the change of EVN.\nArticle 4\nMember States shall notify the following types of agreement to the Commission within six months of the entry into force of the TSI set out in the Annex, provided that they were not already notified under Decision 2006/920/EC:\n1.\nnational agreements between the Member States and railway undertakings or infrastructure managers, agreed on either a permanent or a temporary basis and required by the very specific or local nature of the intended transport service;\n2.\nbilateral or multilateral agreements between railway undertakings, infrastructure managers or safety authorities which deliver significant levels of local or regional interoperability;\n3.\ninternational agreements between one or more Member States and at least one third country, or between railway undertakings or infrastructure managers of Member States and at least one railway undertaking or infrastructure manager of a third country which deliver significant levels of local or regional interoperability.\nArticle 5\nEach Member State shall update the national implementation plan of the TSI which it established in accordance with Article 4 of Decision 2006/920/EC. The updated implementation plan shall be drawn up in accordance with Chapter 7 of the Annex to this Decision.\nEach Member State shall forward the updated implementation plan to the other Member States and the Commission by 31 December 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 6\nCommission Decision 2006/920/EC is repealed with effect from 1 January 2012.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nHowever,\n1.\nAppendix P shall apply from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2013;\n2.\nAppendix Pa shall apply from 1 January 2014.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2011.", "references": ["70", "3", "19", "6", "91", "74", "11", "45", "77", "25", "36", "30", "79", "12", "2", "81", "0", "69", "67", "99", "64", "43", "46", "57", "73", "47", "71", "35", "39", "75", "No Label", "53", "55", "76"], "gold": ["53", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 22 July 2011\nconcerning certain protective measures relating to classical swine fever in Lithuania\n(notified under document C(2011) 5137)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/454/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nClassical swine fever is an infectious viral disease affecting domestic and feral pig populations and can have a severe impact on the profitability of pig farming causing disturbance to trade within the Union and exports to third countries.\n(2)\nIn the event of an outbreak of classical swine fever, there is a risk that the disease agent might spread to other pig holdings and to feral pigs. As a result, it may spread from one Member State to another Member State and to third countries through trade in live pigs or their products.\n(3)\nCouncil Directive 2001/89/EC of 23 October 2001 on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever (3) introduces minimum measures to be applied within the Union for the control of classical swine fever. Article 9 of Directive 2001/89/EC provides for the establishment of protection and surveillance zones in the event of outbreaks of that disease, where the measures laid down in Articles 10 and 11 of that Directive are to apply.\n(4)\nLithuania has informed the Commission of the current classical swine fever situation on its territory, and in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2001/89/EC, it has established protection and surveillance zones where the measures referred to in Articles 10 and 11 of that Directive are applicable.\n(5)\nIn order to prevent any unnecessary disturbance to trade within the Union and to avoid unjustified barriers to trade being imposed by third countries, it is necessary to establish in collaboration with the Member State concerned a Union list of the restricted zones for classical swine fever in Lithuania which are the protection and surveillance zones (the restricted zones).\n(6)\nAccordingly, the restricted zones in Lithuania should be listed in the Annex to this Decision and the duration of that regionalisation fixed.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nLithuania shall ensure that the protection and surveillance zones established in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2001/89/EC comprise at least the areas listed in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2011.", "references": ["95", "52", "36", "99", "35", "50", "15", "74", "81", "9", "49", "46", "80", "94", "62", "57", "71", "77", "25", "29", "17", "93", "22", "2", "19", "70", "89", "43", "78", "69", "No Label", "38", "61", "66", "91"], "gold": ["38", "61", "66", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 334/2012\nof 19 April 2012\nconcerning the authorisation of a preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-4407 as a feed additive for rabbits for fattening and non food-producing rabbits and amending Regulation (EC) No 600/2005 (holder of the authorisation Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Industrielle Lesaffre)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).\n(2)\nThe preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC Sc47 was authorised without a time limit in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC as a feed additive for use on rabbits for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 600/2005 (3). That preparation was subsequently entered in the Community Register of feed additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 of that Regulation, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-4407, formerly NCYC Sc47, as a feed additive for rabbits for fattening and, in accordance with Article 7 of that Regulation, for a new use for non food-producing rabbits, requesting that additive to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 13 December 2011 (4) that, under the proposed conditions of use, Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-4407 does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer health or the environment, and that it has a potential to reduce mortality in rabbits for fattening. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-4407 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nAs a consequence of the granting of a new authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, the provisions on Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC Sc47 contained in Regulation (EC) No 600/2005 should be deleted.\n(7)\nSince the modifications on the conditions of the authorisation of the feed additive are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for the disposal of existing stocks of the premixtures and compound feed, as authorised by Regulation (EC) No 600/2005.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018gut flora stabilisers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThe entry for E 1702 in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 600/2005 is deleted.\nArticle 3\nThe preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC Sc47, as authorised by Regulation (EC) No 600/2005, and premixtures and compound feed containing it, labelled in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC before the entry into force of this Regulation may continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["79", "47", "54", "64", "18", "48", "17", "33", "21", "1", "58", "81", "85", "89", "37", "94", "6", "61", "52", "28", "35", "98", "45", "93", "42", "73", "90", "91", "34", "2", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 531/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 June 2012\non roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union\n(recast)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 717/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2007 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Community (3) has been substantially amended (4). Since further amendments are to be made, it should be recast in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nThe objective of reducing the difference between national and roaming tariffs, which was included in the Commission\u2019s Benchmarking Framework 2011-2015, endorsed by the i2010 High Level Group in November 2009, and included in the Commission Communication entitled \u2018A Digital Agenda for Europe\u2019, should also remain the goal of this Regulation. The envisaged separate sale of roaming services and domestic services should increase competition and therefore lower the prices for customers and create an internal market for roaming services in the Union with no significant differentiation between national and roaming tariffs. Union-wide roaming services can stimulate the development of an internal telecommunications market in the Union.\n(3)\nAn internal telecommunications market cannot be said to exist while there are significant differences between domestic and roaming prices. Therefore the ultimate aim should be to eliminate the difference between domestic charges and roaming charges, thus establishing an internal market for mobile communication services.\n(4)\nThe high level of voice, SMS and data roaming prices payable by users of public mobile communication networks, such as students, business travellers and tourists, acts as an obstacle to using their mobile devices when travelling abroad within the Union and is a matter of concern for consumers, national regulatory authorities, and the Union institutions, constituting a significant barrier to the internal market. The excessive retail charges are resulting from high wholesale charges levied by the foreign host network operator and also, in many cases, from high retail mark-ups charged by the customer\u2019s own network operator. Due to a lack of competition, reductions in wholesale charges are often not passed on to the retail customer. Although some operators have recently introduced tariff schemes that offer customers more favourable conditions and somewhat lower prices, there is still evidence that the relationship between costs and prices is far from what would prevail in competitive markets.\n(5)\nHigh roaming charges constitute an impediment to the Union\u2019s efforts to develop into a knowledge-based economy and to the realisation of an internal market of 500 million consumers. Mobile data traffic is facilitated by allocating sufficient radio spectrum in order for consumers and businesses to use voice, SMS and data services anywhere in the Union. By providing for the allocation of sufficient and appropriate spectrum in a timely manner to support Union policy objectives and to best meet the increasing demands for wireless data traffic, the multiannual radio spectrum policy programme established by Decision No 243/2012/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) will pave the way for a development that will allow the Union to take the global lead on broadband speeds, mobility, coverage and capacity, facilitating the emergence of new business models and technologies, thereby contributing to reducing the structural problems at roaming wholesale level.\n(6)\nThe widespread use of internet-enabled mobile devices means that data roaming is of great economic significance. This is a decisive criterion for both users and providers of applications and content. In order to stimulate the development of this market, charges for data transport should not impede growth.\n(7)\nThe Commission noted in its Communication entitled \u2018On the interim report on the state of development of roaming services within the European Union\u2019 that technological developments and/or the alternatives to roaming services, such as availability of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) or Wi-Fi, may render the internal market for roaming services in the Union more competitive. While these alternatives, in particular VoIP services, are increasingly being used at the domestic level, there have been no significant developments in their use when roaming.\n(8)\nGiven the rapid development of mobile data traffic and the increasing amount of customers using voice, SMS and data roaming services abroad, there is a need to increase the competitive pressure, to develop new business models and technologies. The regulation of roaming charges should be designed in a way that does not discourage competition towards lower price levels.\n(9)\nThe creation of a European social, educational, cultural and entrepreneurial area based on the mobility of individuals and digital data should facilitate communication between people in order to build a real \u2018Europe for Citizens\u2019.\n(10)\nDirective 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (6), Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (7), Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (8), Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users\u2019 rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (9) and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (10) (hereinafter together referred to as \u2018the 2002 regulatory framework for electronic communications\u2019) aim to create an internal market for electronic communications within the Union while ensuring a high level of consumer protection through enhanced competition.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 717/2007 is not an isolated measure, but complements and supports, insofar as Union-wide roaming is concerned, the rules provided for by the 2002 regulatory framework for electronic communications. That framework has not provided national regulatory authorities with sufficient tools to take effective and decisive action with regard to the pricing of roaming services within the Union and thus fails to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market for roaming services. Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 was an appropriate means of correcting this situation.\n(12)\nThe 2002 regulatory framework for electronic communications draws on the principle that ex-ante regulatory obligations should only be imposed where there is not effective competition, providing for a process of periodic market analysis and review of obligations by national regulatory authorities, leading to the imposition of ex-ante obligations on operators designated as having significant market power. The elements constituting this process include the definition of relevant markets in accordance with the Commission\u2019s Recommendation on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC (11) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Recommendation\u2019), the analysis of the defined markets in accordance with the Commission\u2019s guidelines on market analysis and the assessment of significant market power under the Union regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (12), the designation of operators with significant market power and the imposition of ex-ante obligations on operators so designated.\n(13)\nThe Recommendation identified as a relevant market susceptible to ex-ante regulation the wholesale national market for international roaming on public mobile networks. However, the work undertaken by the national regulatory authorities, both individually and within the European Regulators Group (ERG) and its successor the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) established by Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (13), in analysing the wholesale national markets for international roaming has demonstrated that it has not yet been possible for a national regulatory authority to address effectively the high level of wholesale Union-wide roaming charges because of the difficulty in identifying undertakings with significant market power in view of the specific circumstances of international roaming, including its cross-border nature. Following the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007, the roaming market was withdrawn from the revised Recommendation (14).\n(14)\nIn addition, the national regulatory authorities responsible for safeguarding and promoting the interests of mobile customers normally resident within their territory are not able to control the behaviour of the visited network operators, situated in other Member States, on whom those customers depend when using international roaming services. This obstacle could also diminish the effectiveness of measures taken by Member States based on their residual competence to adopt consumer protection rules.\n(15)\nAccordingly, there is pressure for Member States to take measures to address the level of international roaming charges, but the mechanism for ex-ante regulatory intervention by national regulatory authorities provided by the 2002 regulatory framework for electronic communications has not proved sufficient to enable those authorities to act decisively in the consumers\u2019 interest in this specific area.\n(16)\nFurthermore, the European Parliament resolution on European electronic communications regulation and markets (15) called on the Commission to develop new initiatives to reduce the high costs of cross-border mobile telephone traffic, while the European Council of 23 and 24 March 2006 concluded that focused, effective and integrated information and communication technology (ICT) policies both at Union and national level are essential to achieving the goals of economic growth and productivity and noted in this context the importance for competitiveness of reducing roaming charges.\n(17)\nThe 2002 regulatory framework for electronic communications, on the basis of considerations apparent at that time, was aimed at removing all barriers to trade between Member States in the area that it harmonised, inter alia, measures which affect roaming charges. However, this should not prevent the adaptation of harmonised rules in step with other considerations in order to find the most effective means of enhancing competition in the internal market for roaming services and achieving a high level of consumer protection.\n(18)\nThis Regulation should therefore allow for a departure from the rules otherwise applicable under the 2002 regulatory framework for electronic communications, in particular the Framework Directive, namely that prices for service offerings should be determined by commercial agreement in the absence of significant market power, and to thereby accommodate the introduction of complementary regulatory obligations which reflect the specific characteristics of Union-wide roaming services.\n(19)\nThe retail and wholesale roaming markets exhibit unique characteristics which justify exceptional measures which go beyond the mechanisms otherwise available under the 2002 regulatory framework for electronic communications.\n(20)\nA common, harmonised approach should be employed for ensuring that users of terrestrial public mobile communication networks when travelling within the Union do not pay excessive prices for Union-wide roaming services, thereby enhancing competition concerning roaming services between roaming providers, achieving a high level of consumer protection and preserving both incentives for innovation and consumer choice. In view of the cross-border nature of the services concerned, this common approach is needed so that roaming providers can operate within a single coherent regulatory framework based on objectively established criteria.\n(21)\nRegulation (EC) No 717/2007 is to expire on 30 June 2012. Prior to its expiry, the Commission has carried out a review in accordance with Article 11 thereof, where it was required to evaluate whether the objectives of that Regulation had been achieved and to review developments in wholesale and retail charges for the provision to roaming customers of voice, SMS and data communications services. In its report to the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July 2011 on the outcome of the review of the functioning of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007, the Commission concluded that it was appropriate to extend the applicability of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 beyond 30 June 2012.\n(22)\nData on the development of prices for Union-wide voice, SMS and data roaming services since the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007, including in particular those collected on a quarterly basis by national regulatory authorities and reported through the medium of the BEREC, do not provide evidence to suggest that competition at the retail or wholesale levels has reasonably developed and is likely to be sustainable from June 2012 onwards in the absence of regulatory measures. Such data indicates that retail and wholesale roaming prices are still much higher than domestic prices and continue to cluster at or close to the limits set by Regulation (EC) No 717/2007, with only limited competition below those limits.\n(23)\nThe expiry on 30 June 2012 of the regulatory safeguards which apply to Union-wide roaming services at wholesale and retail levels by virtue of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 would therefore give rise to a significant risk that the underlying lack of competitive pressures in the internal market for roaming services and the incentive for roaming providers to maximise their roaming revenues would result in retail and wholesale prices for Union-wide roaming that do not constitute a reasonable reflection of the underlying costs involved in the provision of the service, thereby jeopardising the objectives of that Regulation. Regulatory intervention in the market for mobile roaming services should therefore be extended beyond 30 June 2012 in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market by allowing competition to develop, while at the same time guaranteeing that consumers continue to benefit from the assurance that they will not be charged an excessive price, in comparison with competitive national prices.\n(24)\nThe policy objective laid down in Article 8 of the Framework Directive concerning end users\u2019 ability to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice should be promoted by national regulatory authorities.\n(25)\nIn order to allow for the development of a more efficient, integrated and competitive market for roaming services, there should be no restrictions that prevent undertakings from effectively negotiating wholesale access for the purpose of providing roaming services. Obstacles to access to such wholesale roaming services, due to differences in negotiating power and in the degree of infrastructure ownership of undertakings should be removed. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) and resellers of mobile communication services without their own network infrastructure typically provide roaming services based on commercial wholesale roaming agreements with their host mobile network operators in the same Member State. Commercial negotiations, however, may not leave enough margin to MVNOs and resellers for stimulating competition through lower prices. The removal of those obstacles and balancing the negotiation power between MVNOs/resellers and mobile network operators by an access obligation and wholesale caps should facilitate the development of alternative, innovative and Union-wide roaming services and offers for customers. The rules of the 2002 regulatory framework for electronic communications, in particular of the Framework Directive and Access Directive, do not allow this problem to be addressed via the imposition of obligations on operators with significant market powers.\n(26)\nTherefore rules should be introduced to lay down the obligation to meet reasonable requests for wholesale access to public mobile communications networks for the purpose of providing roaming services. Such access should be in line with the needs of those seeking access. Access should be refused only on the basis of objective criteria, such as technical feasibility and the need to maintain network integrity. Where access is refused, the aggrieved party should be able to submit the case for dispute resolution in accordance with the procedure set out in this Regulation. In order to ensure a level playing field, wholesale access for the purpose of providing roaming services should be granted in accordance with the regulatory obligations laid down in this Regulation applicable at the wholesale level and should take into account the different cost elements necessary for the provision of such access. A consistent regulatory approach to the wholesale access for the provision of roaming services should contribute to avoiding distortions between Member States. BEREC should, in coordination with the Commission and in collaboration with the relevant stakeholders, issue guidelines for wholesale access for the purpose of providing roaming services.\n(27)\nA wholesale roaming access obligation should include the provision of direct wholesale roaming services as well as the provision of roaming services on a wholesale basis for resale by third parties. The wholesale roaming access obligation should also cover mobile network operator\u2019s obligation to enable MVNOs and resellers to purchase regulated wholesale roaming services from wholesale aggregators which provide a single point of access and a standardised platform to roaming agreements all over the Union. In order to ensure that operators provide access to all facilities necessary for direct wholesale roaming access and wholesale roaming resale access to roaming providers within a reasonable period of time, a reference offer should be published containing the standard conditions for direct wholesale roaming access and wholesale roaming resale access. The publication of the reference offer should not prevent commercial negotiations between access seeker and access provider on the price level of the final wholesale agreement or on additional wholesale access services that go beyond those necessary for direct wholesale roaming access and wholesale roaming resale access.\n(28)\nA wholesale roaming access obligation should cover access to all the components necessary to enable the provision of roaming services, such as: network elements and associated facilities; relevant software systems including operational support systems; information systems or databases for pre-ordering, provisioning, ordering, maintaining and repair requests, and billing; number translation or systems offering equivalent functionality; mobile networks and virtual network services.\n(29)\nIf access seekers for wholesale roaming resale request access to facilities or services in addition to what is necessary for the provision of retail roaming services, mobile network operators may recover fair and reasonable charges for those facilities or services. Those additional facilities or services could, inter alia, be value-added services, additional software and information systems or billing arrangements.\n(30)\nMobile communications services are sold in bundles including both domestic and roaming services, which limits customer choice for roaming services. Such bundles reduce transparency concerning roaming services, since it is difficult to compare individual items within the bundles. Consequently, competition among operators on the basis of the roaming element in the mobile bundle is not yet apparent. Facilitating the availability of roaming as a stand-alone service would address structural problems by raising consumer awareness of roaming prices, allowing distinct consumer choice concerning roaming services and thus increasing competitive pressure on the demand side. This will therefore contribute to the smooth functioning of the internal market for roaming services.\n(31)\nConsumer and business demand for mobile data services has increased significantly in recent years. However, due to high data roaming charges, the use of those services is severely constrained for consumers and businesses operating across borders in the Union. Given the infancy of the market and the rapidly increasing consumer demand for data roaming, regulated retail charges might only keep prices around the proposed maximum charges themselves, as experienced in relation to Regulation (EC) No 717/2007, instead of pushing them down further, which therefore confirms the need for further structural measures.\n(32)\nCustomers should be able to switch easily, within the shortest possible time depending on the technical solution, without penalty and free of charge to an alternative roaming provider or between alternative roaming providers. Customers should be informed in a clear, understandable and easily accessible form about this possibility.\n(33)\nConsumers should have the right to opt, in a consumer-friendly way, for the separate sale of roaming services from their domestic mobile package. There are currently several ways in which the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services could be technically implemented, including dual International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) (two separate IMSI on the same SIM card), single IMSI (the sharing of one IMSI between the domestic and roaming providers) and combinations of dual or single IMSI together with the technical modality that does not prevent the customer from accessing regulated data roaming services provided directly on a visited network, by means of arrangements between the home network operator and the visited network operator.\n(34)\nHigh data roaming prices are deterring customers from using mobile data services when travelling in the Union. Given the increasing demand and importance of data roaming services, there should be no obstacles to using alternative data roaming services, provided directly on a visited network, temporarily or permanently, regardless of existing roaming contracts or arrangements with domestic providers and without any additional charge levied by them. When it is required, in order to offer data roaming services, provided directly on a visited network, domestic providers and providers of data roaming services should collaborate in order not to prevent customers from accessing and using those services and to ensure service continuity of other roaming services.\n(35)\nWhile this Regulation should not lay down any particular technical modalities for the separate sale of roaming services, but instead pave the way for the most effective and efficient solution, including a combined solution, to be developed by the Commission based on input from BEREC, criteria should be laid down with regard to the technical characteristics which should be met by the technical solution for the separate sale of roaming services. Those criteria should include, inter alia, the introduction of the solution in a coordinated and harmonised manner across the Union and should ensure that consumers are able to quickly and easily choose a different provider for roaming services without changing their number. Furthermore, roaming outside the Union or by third-country customers inside the Union should not be impeded.\n(36)\nIncreased cooperation and coordination among mobile network operators should be established to technically enable a coordinated and sound technical evolution of the provision of separate roaming services, and not preventing access to data roaming services provided directly on a visited network. Therefore, the relevant basic principles and methodologies should be elaborated, in order to allow a rapid adaptation to changed circumstances and technological advancement. BEREC should, in collaboration with the relevant stakeholders, assist the Commission to develop technical elements in order to enable the separate sale of roaming services and in order not to prevent access to data roaming services provided directly on a visited network. If necessary, the Commission should give a mandate to a European standardisation body for the amendment of the relevant standards that are necessary for the harmonised implementation of the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services.\n(37)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the provisions of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission in respect of detailed rules on information obligations of domestic providers and on a technical solution for the separate sale of roaming services. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (16).\n(38)\nBEREC should be allowed, taking into account this Regulation and the implementing acts adopted pursuant hereto, to provide on its own initiative specific technical guidance on the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services or on other matters covered by this Regulation.\n(39)\nIt is considered that, for the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services to be fully effective, such sale needs to be combined with the wholesale access obligation for the provision of roaming services to facilitate market entry by new or existing players including cross-border roaming services providers. That solution would avoid distortions between Member States by ensuring a consistent regulatory approach thereby contributing to the development of the internal market. However, the implementation of the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services will require a reasonable period for operators to adapt at the technical level, and therefore the structural measures will only result in a genuine internal market with sufficient competition after a certain period of time. For this reason, maximum wholesale charges for voice, SMS and data roaming services as well as safeguard caps for those services at the retail level should be maintained on a temporary basis at an appropriate level to ensure that the existing consumer benefits are preserved during a transitional period of implementation of such structural measures.\n(40)\nWith regard to the continuation of temporary price regulation, regulatory obligations should be imposed at both retail and wholesale levels to protect the interests of roaming customers, since experience has shown that reductions in wholesale prices for Union-wide roaming services may not be reflected in lower retail prices for roaming owing to the absence of incentives for this to happen. On the other hand, action to reduce the level of retail prices without addressing the level of the wholesale costs associated with the provision of these services could risk disrupting the orderly functioning of the internal market for roaming services and would not allow a higher degree of competition.\n(41)\nUntil the structural measures have brought sufficient competition in the internal market for roaming services which would lead to reductions in wholesale costs which in turn would be passed on to consumers, the most effective and proportionate approach to regulating the level of prices for making and receiving intra-Union roaming calls is the setting at Union level of a maximum average per-minute charge at wholesale level and the limiting of charges at retail level through the Eurotariff introduced by Regulation (EC) No 717/2007, which was extended by the euro-SMS tariff provided for in Regulation (EC) No 544/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (17) and should be extended by the euro-data tariff provided for in this Regulation. The average wholesale charge should apply between any pair of operators within the Union over a specified period.\n(42)\nThe transitory euro-voice, euro-SMS and euro-data tariffs should be set at a safeguard level which, whilst ensuring that consumer benefits are not only preserved but even increased during a transitional period of implementing the structural measures, guarantees a sufficient margin to roaming providers and encourages competitive roaming offerings at lower rates. During the period concerned, roaming providers should actively bring to the attention of the customers information about the Eurotariffs and offer them to all their roaming customers, free of charge, and in a clear and transparent manner.\n(43)\nThe transitory euro-voice, euro-SMS and euro-data tariffs to be offered to roaming customers should reflect a reasonable margin over the wholesale cost of providing a roaming service, whilst allowing roaming providers the freedom to compete by differentiating their offerings and adapting their pricing structures to market conditions and consumer preferences. Such safeguard caps should be set at levels which do not distort the competitive benefits of structural measures and could be removed once the structural measures have had an opportunity to deliver concrete gains for customers. This regulatory approach should not apply to the part of the tariff that is charged for the provision of value-added services but only to the tariffs for the connection to such services.\n(44)\nThis regulatory approach should be simple to implement and monitor in order to minimise the administrative burden both for the operators and roaming providers which are affected by its requirements and for the national regulatory authorities charged with its supervision and enforcement. It should also be transparent and immediately understandable to all mobile customers within the Union. Furthermore it should provide certainty and predictability to operators providing wholesale and retail roaming services. The level in monetary terms of the maximum per-minute charges at wholesale and retail level should therefore be specified in this Regulation.\n(45)\nThe maximum average per-minute charge at wholesale level so specified should take account of the different elements involved in the making of a Union-wide roaming call, in particular the cost of originating and terminating calls over mobile networks and including overheads, signalling and transit. The most appropriate benchmark for call origination and for call termination is the average mobile termination rate for mobile network operators in the Union, based on information provided by the national regulatory authorities and published by the Commission. The maximum average per-minute charge established by this Regulation should therefore be determined taking into account the average mobile termination rate, which offers a benchmark for the costs involved. The maximum average per-minute charge at wholesale level should decrease annually to take account of reductions in mobile termination rates imposed by national regulatory authorities from time to time.\n(46)\nThe transitory euro-voice tariff applicable at retail level should provide roaming customers with the assurance that they will not be charged an excessive price when making or receiving a regulated roaming call, whilst leaving the roaming provider sufficient margin to differentiate the products they offer to customers.\n(47)\nDuring the transitional period of safeguard caps, all consumers should be informed about, and have the option of choosing without additional charges or preconditions, a simple roaming tariff which will not exceed maximum charges. A reasonable margin between wholesale costs and retail prices should ensure that roaming providers cover all their specific roaming costs at retail level including appropriate shares of marketing costs and handset subsidies and are left with an adequate residual to yield a reasonable return. Transitory euro-voice, euro-SMS and euro-data tariffs are an appropriate means to provide both the consumer with protection and the roaming provider with flexibility. In line with the wholesale level, the maximum levels of the euro-voice, euro-SMS and euro-data tariffs should decrease annually.\n(48)\nDuring the transitional period of safeguard caps, new roaming customers should be fully informed in a clear and understandable manner of the range of tariffs that exist for roaming within the Union, including the tariffs which are compliant with the transitory euro-voice, euro-SMS and euro-data tariffs. Existing roaming customers should be given the opportunity to choose a new tariff compliant with the transitory euro-voice, euro-SMS and euro-data tariffs or any other roaming tariffs within a certain time frame. For existing roaming customers who have not made their choice within this time frame, it is appropriate to distinguish between those who had already opted for a specific roaming tariff or package before the entry into force of this Regulation and those who had not. The latter should be automatically accorded a tariff that complies with this Regulation. Roaming customers who already benefit from specific roaming tariffs or packages which suit their individual requirements and which they have chosen on that basis should remain on their previously selected tariff or package if, after having been reminded of their current tariff conditions and of the applicable Eurotariffs, they express the choice to their roaming provider to remain on that tariff. Such specific roaming tariffs or packages could include, for example, roaming flat-rates, non-public tariffs, tariffs with additional fixed roaming charges, tariffs with per-minute charges lower than the maximum euro-voice, euro-SMS and euro-data tariffs or tariffs with set-up charges.\n(49)\nSince this Regulation should constitute a specific measure within the meaning of Article 1(5) of the Framework Directive, and since providers of Union-wide roaming services may be required by this Regulation to make changes to their retail roaming tariffs in order to comply with the requirements of this Regulation, such changes should not trigger for mobile customers any right under national laws transposing the 2002 regulatory framework for electronic communications to withdraw from their contracts.\n(50)\nThis Regulation should not prejudice innovative offers to consumers which are more advantageous than the transitory euro-voice, euro-SMS and euro-data tariffs as defined in this Regulation, but rather should encourage innovative offers to roaming customers at lower rates in particular in response to the additional competitive pressure created by the structural provisions of this Regulation. This Regulation does not require roaming charges to be reintroduced in cases where they have been abolished altogether, nor does it require existing roaming charges to be increased to the level of the transitory safeguard limits set out in this Regulation.\n(51)\nWhere maximum charges are not denominated in euro, the applicable initial limits and the revised values of those limits should be determined in the relevant currency by applying the reference exchange rates published in the Official Journal of the European Union on the date specified in this Regulation. Where there is no publication on the date specified, the applicable reference exchange rates should be those published in the first Official Journal of the European Union following that date and containing such reference exchange rates. To protect consumers against increasing retail prices for regulated roaming services (regulated voice, SMS or data roaming services) due to fluctuations in the reference exchange rate of currencies other than the euro, a Member State whose currency is not the euro should use an average of several reference exchange rates over time for determining the maximum retail charges in its currency.\n(52)\nThe practice by some mobile network operators of billing for the provision of wholesale roaming calls on the basis of minimum charging periods of up to 60 seconds, as opposed to the per-second basis normally applied for other wholesale interconnection charges, creates a distortion of competition between those operators and those applying different billing methods, and undermines the consistent application of the maximum wholesale charges introduced by this Regulation. Moreover it represents an additional charge which, by increasing wholesale costs, has negative consequences for the pricing of voice roaming services at retail level. Mobile network operators should therefore be required to bill for the wholesale provision of regulated roaming calls on a per-second basis.\n(53)\nThe ERG, the predecessor of the BEREC, estimated that the practice of mobile operators of using charging intervals of more than one second when billing for roaming services at retail level has added 24 % to a typical euro-voice tariff bill for calls made and 19 % for calls received. They also stated that these increases represent a form of hidden charge since they are not transparent to most consumers. For this reason, the ERG recommended urgent action to address the different billing practices at retail level applied to the euro-voice tariff.\n(54)\nWhile Regulation (EC) No 717/2007, by introducing a Eurotariff in the Union, established a common approach to ensuring that roaming customers are not charged excessive prices for regulated roaming calls, the different billing unitisation practices employed by mobile operators seriously undermines its consistent application. This also means that, despite the cross-border nature of Union-wide roaming services, there are divergent approaches in relation to the billing of regulated roaming calls which distort competitive conditions in the internal market.\n(55)\nA common set of rules regarding unitisation of euro-voice tariff bills at retail level should therefore be introduced in order to further strengthen the internal market and provide throughout the Union the same high level of protection to consumers of Union-wide roaming services.\n(56)\nProviders of regulated roaming calls at the retail level should therefore be required to bill their customers on a per-second basis for all calls subject to a euro-voice tariff subject only to the possibility to apply a minimum initial charging period of no more than 30 seconds for calls made. This will enable roaming providers to cover any reasonable set-up costs and to provide flexibility to compete by offering shorter minimum charging periods. No minimum initial charging period is justified in the case of euro-voice tariff calls received, as the underlying wholesale cost is charged on a per-second basis and any specific set-up costs are already covered by mobile termination rates.\n(57)\nCustomers should not have to pay for receiving voice mail messages in a visited network, as they cannot control the duration of such messages. This should be without prejudice to other applicable voice mail charges, for example charges for listening to such messages.\n(58)\nCustomers living in border regions should not receive unnecessarily high bills due to inadvertent roaming. Roaming providers should therefore take reasonable steps to protect customers against incurring roaming charges while they are located in their Member State. This should include adequate information measures in order to empower customers to actively prevent such instances of inadvertent roaming. National regulatory authorities should be alert to situations in which customers face problems with paying roaming charges while they are still located in their Member State and should take appropriate steps to mitigate the problem.\n(59)\nWith regard to SMS roaming services, as is the case for voice roaming calls, there is a significant risk that imposing wholesale pricing obligations alone would not result automatically in lower rates for retail customers. On the other hand, action to reduce the level of retail prices without addressing the level of the wholesale costs associated with the provision of these services could prejudice the position of some roaming providers, in particular smaller roaming providers, by increasing the risk of price squeeze.\n(60)\nFurthermore, because of the particular structure of the market for roaming services and its cross-border nature, the 2002 regulatory framework for electronic communications has not provided national regulatory authorities with suitable tools to address effectively the competitive problems underlying the high level of wholesale and retail prices for regulated roaming SMS services. This fails to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market and should be corrected.\n(61)\nRegulatory obligations should therefore be imposed with regard to regulated roaming SMS services at wholesale level, in order to establish a more reasonable relationship between wholesale charges and the underlying costs of provision, and at retail level for a transitional period to protect the interests of roaming customers until the structural measures become effective.\n(62)\nUntil the structural measures have brought sufficient competition in the market for roaming services, the most effective and proportionate approach to regulating the level of prices for regulated roaming SMS messages at wholesale level is the setting at Union level of a maximum average charge per SMS sent from a visited network. The average wholesale charge should apply between any pair of operators within the Union over a specified period.\n(63)\nThe maximum wholesale charge for regulated roaming SMS services should include all costs incurred by the provider of the wholesale service, including, inter alia, origination, transit and the unrecovered cost of termination of roaming SMS messages on the visited network. Wholesale providers of regulated roaming SMS services should therefore be prohibited from introducing a separate charge for the termination of roaming SMS messages on their network, in order to ensure the consistent application of the rules established by this Regulation.\n(64)\nIn order to ensure that the maximum charges for wholesale roaming SMS services are closer to levels reflecting underlying costs of provision and that competition can develop at the retail level, the maximum wholesale charges for regulated SMS should follow subsequent reductions.\n(65)\nRegulation (EC) No 544/2009 considered that, in the absence of structural elements introducing competition in the market for roaming services, the most effective and proportionate approach to regulating the level of prices for Union-wide roaming SMS messages at the retail level was the introduction of a requirement for mobile operators to offer their roaming customers a euro-SMS tariff which does not exceed a specified maximum charge.\n(66)\nUntil the structural measures become effective, the transitory euro-SMS tariff should be retained at a safeguard level which, whilst ensuring that the existing consumer benefits are preserved, guarantees a sufficient margin to roaming providers while also more reasonably reflecting the underlying costs of provision.\n(67)\nThe transitory euro-SMS tariff that may be offered to roaming customers should therefore reflect a reasonable margin over the costs of providing a regulated roaming SMS service, whilst allowing roaming providers the freedom to compete by differentiating their offerings and adapting their pricing structures to market conditions and consumer preferences. Such a safeguard cap should be set at a level which does not distort the competitive benefits of structural measures and could be removed once the structural measures become effective. This regulatory approach should not apply to value-added SMS services.\n(68)\nRoaming customers should not be required to pay any additional charge for receiving a regulated roaming SMS or voicemail message while roaming on a visited network, since such termination costs are already compensated by the retail charge levied for the sending of a roaming SMS or voicemail message.\n(69)\nA euro-SMS tariff should automatically apply to any new or existing roaming customer who has not deliberately chosen or does not deliberately choose a special SMS roaming tariff or a package for roaming services including regulated roaming SMS services.\n(70)\nAn SMS message is a Short Message Service text message and is clearly distinct from other messages such as MMS messages or e-mails. In order to ensure that this Regulation is not deprived of its effectiveness and that its objectives are fully met, any changes to the technical parameters of a roaming SMS message which would differentiate it from a domestic SMS message should be prohibited.\n(71)\nData collected by national regulatory authorities indicate that high prices for average wholesale charges for data roaming services levied by visited network operators on roaming customers\u2019 roaming providers persist. Even if these wholesale charges appear to be on a downward trend, they are still very high in relation to underlying cost.\n(72)\nThe persistence of high wholesale charges for data roaming services is primarily attributable to high wholesale prices charged by operators of non-preferred networks. Such charges are caused by traffic-steering limitations which leave operators with no incentive to reduce their standard wholesale prices unilaterally since the traffic will be received irrespective of the price charged. This results in an extreme variation in wholesale costs. In some cases the wholesale data roaming charges applicable to non-preferred networks are six times higher than those applied to the preferred network. These excessively high wholesale charges for data roaming services lead to appreciable distortions of competitive conditions between mobile operators within the Union which undermine the smooth functioning of the internal market. They also constrain the ability of roaming providers to predict their wholesale costs and therefore to provide their customers with transparent and competitive retail pricing packages. In view of the limitations on the ability of national regulatory authorities to deal with these problems effectively at national level, a maximum wholesale charge on data roaming services should apply. Regulatory obligations should therefore be imposed with regard to regulated data roaming services at wholesale level, in order to establish a more reasonable relationship between wholesale charges and the underlying costs of provision, and at retail level to protect the interests of roaming customers.\n(73)\nRoaming providers should not charge the roaming customer for any regulated data roaming service, unless and until the roaming customer accepts the provision of the service.\n(74)\nThe scope of this Regulation should cover the provision of Union-wide retail data roaming services. The special characteristics exhibited by the markets for roaming services, which justified the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 and the imposition of obligations on mobile operators with regard to the provision of Union-wide voice roaming calls and SMS messages, apply equally to the provision of Union-wide retail data roaming services. Like voice and SMS roaming services, data roaming services are not purchased independently at national level but constitute only part of a broader retail package purchased by customers from their roaming provider, thereby limiting the competitive forces at play. Likewise, because of the cross-border nature of the services concerned, national regulatory authorities which are responsible for safeguarding and promoting the interests of mobile customers resident within their territory are not able to control the behaviour of the operators of the visited network, situated in other Member States.\n(75)\nAs with the regulatory measures already in place for voice and SMS services, until the structural measures bring sufficient competition, the most effective and proportionate approach to regulating the level of prices for Union-wide retail data roaming services for a transitional period is the introduction of a requirement for roaming providers to offer their roaming customers a transitory euro-data tariff which does not exceed a specified maximum charge. The euro-data tariff should be set at a safeguard level which, whilst ensuring consumer protection until the structural measures become effective, guarantees a sufficient margin to roaming providers while also more reasonably reflecting the underlying costs of provision.\n(76)\nThe transitory euro-data tariff that may be offered to roaming customers should therefore reflect a reasonable margin over the costs of providing a regulated data roaming service, whilst allowing roaming providers the freedom to compete by differentiating their offerings and adapting their pricing structures to market conditions and consumer preferences. Such a safeguard cap should be set at a level which does not distort the competitive benefits of structural measures and could be removed once the structural measures have had an opportunity to deliver concrete and lasting gains for customers. Similar to the approach followed for voice and SMS roaming services, given the reductions foreseen in the underlying costs for the provision of retail data roaming services, the maximum regulated charges for the transitory euro-data tariff should follow a declining glide path.\n(77)\nA transitory euro-data tariff should automatically apply to any new or existing roaming customer who has not deliberately chosen or does not deliberately choose a special data roaming tariff or a package for roaming services including regulated data roaming services.\n(78)\nIn order to ensure that consumers pay for the data services they actually consume and to avoid the problems observed with voice services after the introduction of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 of the hidden charges for the consumer due to the charging mechanisms applied by operators, the transitory euro-data tariff should be billed on a per-kilobyte basis. Such charging is consistent with the charging mechanism already applicable at the wholesale level.\n(79)\nRoaming providers may offer a fair-use, all-inclusive, monthly flat-rate to which no maximum charges apply and which could cover all Union-wide roaming services.\n(80)\nTo ensure that all users of mobile voice telephony may benefit from the provisions of this Regulation, the transitory retail pricing requirements should apply regardless of whether roaming customers have a pre-paid or a post-paid contract with their roaming provider, and regardless of whether the roaming provider has its own network, is a mobile virtual network operator or is a reseller of mobile voice telephony services.\n(81)\nWhere Union providers of mobile telephony services find the benefits of interoperability and end-to-end connectivity for their customers jeopardised by the termination, or threat of termination, of their roaming arrangements with mobile network operators in other Member States, or are unable to provide their customers with service in another Member State as a result of a lack of agreement with at least one wholesale network provider, national regulatory authorities should make use, where necessary, of the powers under Article 5 of the Access Directive to ensure adequate access and interconnection in order to guarantee such end-to-end connectivity and the interoperability of services, taking into account the objectives of Article 8 of the Framework Directive, in particular the creation of a fully functioning internal market for electronic communications services.\n(82)\nIn order to improve the transparency of retail prices for roaming services and to help roaming customers make decisions on the use of their mobile devices while abroad, providers of mobile communication services should supply their roaming customers with information free of charge on the roaming charges applicable to them when using roaming services in a visited Member State. Since certain customer groups might be well informed about roaming charges, roaming providers should provide a possibility to easily opt-out from this automatic message service. Moreover, providers should actively give their customers, provided that the latter are located in the Union, on request and free of charge, additional information on the per-minute, per-SMS or per-megabyte data charges (including VAT) for the making or receiving of voice calls and also for the sending and receiving of SMS, MMS and other data communication services in the visited Member State.\n(83)\nTransparency also requires that providers furnish information on roaming charges, in particular on the euro-voice, euro-SMS and euro-data tariffs and the all-inclusive flat-rate should they offer one, when subscriptions are taken out and each time there is a change in roaming charges. Roaming providers should provide information on roaming charges by appropriate means such as invoices, the internet, TV advertisements or direct mail. All information and offers should be clear, understandable, permit comparison and be transparent with regard to prices and service characteristics. Advertising of roaming offers and marketing to consumers should fully comply with consumer protection legislation, in particular with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) (18). Roaming providers should ensure that all their roaming customers are aware of the availability of regulated tariffs for the period concerned and should send a clear and unbiased communication to these customers in writing describing the conditions of the euro-voice, euro-SMS and euro-data tariffs and the right to switch to and from them.\n(84)\nMoreover, measures should be introduced to improve the transparency of retail charges for all data roaming services, in particular to eliminate the problem of \u2018bill shock\u2019 which constitutes a barrier to the smooth functioning of the internal market, and to provide roaming customers with the tools they need to monitor and control their expenditure on data roaming services. Equally, there should be no obstacles to the emergence of applications or technologies which can be a substitute for, or alternative to, roaming services, such as Wi-Fi.\n(85)\nIn particular, roaming providers should provide their roaming customers, free of charge, with personalised tariff information on the charges applicable to those customers for data roaming services every time they initiate a data roaming service on entering another country. This information should be delivered to their mobile device in the manner best suited to its easy receipt and comprehension, and in such a manner as to enable easy access to it at a later date.\n(86)\nIn order to facilitate customers\u2019 understanding of the financial consequences of the use of data roaming services and to permit them to monitor and control their expenditure, roaming providers should, both before and after the conclusion of a contract, keep their customers adequately informed of charges for regulated data roaming services. Such information could include examples of the approximate amount of data used by, for example, sending an e-mail, sending a picture, web-browsing and using mobile applications.\n(87)\nIn addition, in order to avoid bill shocks, roaming providers should define one or more maximum financial and/or volume limits for their outstanding charges for data roaming services, expressed in the currency in which the roaming customer is billed, and which they should offer to all their roaming customers, free of charge, with an appropriate notification, in a media format that can be consulted again subsequently, when this limit is being approached. Upon reaching this maximum limit, customers should no longer receive or be charged for those services unless they specifically request continued provision of those services in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the notification. In such a case, they should receive free confirmation, in a media format that can be consulted again subsequently. Roaming customers should be given the opportunity to opt for any of these maximum financial or volume limits within a reasonable period or to choose not to have such a limit. Unless customers state otherwise, they should be put on a default limit system.\n(88)\nThese transparency measures should be seen as minimum safeguards for roaming customers, and should not preclude roaming providers from offering their customers a range of other facilities which help them to predict and control their expenditure on data roaming services. For example, many roaming providers are developing new retail flat-rate roaming offers which permit data roaming for a specified price over a specified period up to a \u2018fair use\u2019 volume limit. Likewise roaming providers are developing systems to enable their roaming customers to be updated on a real-time basis on their accumulated outstanding data roaming charges. To ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market, these developments on the domestic markets should be reflected in the harmonised rules.\n(89)\nCustomers under pre-paid tariffs may also suffer from bill shocks for the use of data roaming services. For this reason the provisions on the cut-off limit should also apply to those customers.\n(90)\nThere are considerable disparities between regulated roaming tariffs within the Union and roaming tariffs incurred by customers when they are travelling outside the Union, which are significantly higher than prices within the Union. Due to the absence of a consistent approach to transparency and safeguard measures concerning roaming outside the Union, consumers are not confident about their rights and are therefore often deterred from using mobile services while abroad. Transparent information provided to consumers could not only assist them in the decision as to how to use their mobile devices while travelling abroad (both within and outside the Union), but could also assist them in the choice between roaming providers. It is therefore necessary to address the problem of the lack of transparency and consumer protection by applying certain transparency and safeguard measures also to roaming services provided outside the Union. Those measures would facilitate competition and improve the functioning of the internal market.\n(91)\nIf the visited network operator in the visited country outside the Union does not allow the roaming provider to monitor its customers\u2019 usage on a real-time basis, the roaming provider should not be obliged to provide the maximum financial or volume limits for safeguarding customers.\n(92)\nThe national regulatory authorities which are responsible for carrying out tasks under the 2002 regulatory framework for electronic communications should have the powers needed to supervise and enforce the obligations under this Regulation within their territory. They should also monitor developments in the pricing of voice and data services for roaming customers within the Union including, where appropriate, the specific costs related to roaming calls made and received in the outermost regions of the Union and the need to ensure that these costs can be adequately recovered on the wholesale market, and that traffic-steering techniques are not used to limit choice to the detriment of customers. They should ensure that up-to-date information on the application of this Regulation is made available to interested parties and publish the results of such monitoring every six months. Information should be provided on corporate, post-paid and pre-paid customers separately.\n(93)\nIn-country roaming in the outermost regions of the Union where mobile telephony licences are distinct from those issued in respect of the rest of the national territory could benefit from rate reductions equivalent to those practised on the internal market for roaming services. The implementation of this Regulation should not give rise to less favourable pricing treatment for customers using in-country roaming services as opposed to customers using Union-wide roaming services. To this end, the national authorities may take additional measures consistent with Union law.\n(94)\nWhen laying down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation, Member States should, inter alia, take into account the possibility for roaming providers to compensate customers for any delay or hindrance to the switch to an alternative roaming provider, in accordance with their national law.\n(95)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely to establish a common approach to ensure that users of public mobile communication networks when travelling within the Union do not pay excessive prices for Union-wide roaming services, thereby achieving a high level of consumer protection by enhancing competition between roaming providers, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States in a secure, harmonised and timely manner 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(96)\nRegulatory obligations on wholesale charges for voice, SMS and data roaming services should be maintained until the structural measures have become effective and competition in the wholesale markets has developed sufficiently. In addition, market trends currently show that data services will progressively become the most relevant segment of mobile services, and wholesale data roaming services currently exhibit the highest level of dynamism, with prices reasonably below the current regulated rates.\n(97)\nRetail safeguard caps should be set at sufficiently high levels which do not distort the potential competitive benefits of structural measures and could be removed completely once those measures become effective and have enabled the development of a genuine internal market. Therefore, retail safeguard caps should follow a downward trend and subsequently expire.\n(98)\nThe Commission should review the effectiveness of this Regulation in light of its objectives and the contribution to the implementation of the 2002 regulatory framework for electronic communications and the smooth functioning of the internal market. In this context, the Commission should consider the impact on the competitive position of mobile communications providers of different sizes and from different parts of the Union, the developments, trends and transparency in retail and wholesale charges, their relation to actual costs, the extent to which the assumptions made in the impact assessment that accompanied this Regulation have been confirmed, the costs of compliance and the impact on the investments. The Commission should also, in the light of technological developments, consider the availability and quality of services which are an alternative to roaming (such as access through Wi-Fi).\n(99)\nRegulatory obligations on wholesale and retail charges for voice, SMS and data roaming services should be maintained to safeguard consumers as long as competition at the retail or wholesale level is not fully developed. To this end, the Commission should, by 30 June 2016, assess whether the objectives of this Regulation have been achieved, including whether the structural measures have been fully implemented and competition is sufficiently developed in the internal market for roaming services. If the Commission concludes that competition has not developed sufficiently, the Commission should make appropriate proposals to the European Parliament and the Council to ensure that consumers are adequately safeguarded as from 2017.\n(100)\nAfter the abovementioned review, and in order to ensure the continuous monitoring of roaming services in the Union, the Commission should prepare a report to the European Parliament and the Council every two years which includes a general summary of the latest trends in roaming services and an intermediary assessment of the progress towards achieving the objectives of this Regulation and of the possible alternative options for achieving these objectives,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation introduces a common approach to ensuring that users of public mobile communications networks, when travelling within the Union, do not pay excessive prices for Union-wide roaming services in comparison with competitive national prices, when making calls and receiving calls, when sending and receiving SMS messages and when using packet switched data communication services, thereby contributing to the smooth functioning of the internal market while achieving a high level of consumer protection, fostering competition and transparency in the market and offering both incentives for innovation and consumer choice.\nIt lays down rules to enable the separate sale of regulated roaming services from domestic mobile communications services and sets out the conditions for wholesale access to public mobile communications networks for the purpose of providing regulated roaming services. It also lays down transitory rules on the charges that may be levied by roaming providers for the provision of regulated roaming services for voice calls and SMS messages originating and terminating within the Union and for packet switched data communication services used by roaming customers while roaming on a mobile communications network within the Union. It applies both to charges levied by network operators at wholesale level and to charges levied by roaming providers at retail level.\n2. The separate sale of regulated roaming services from domestic mobile communications services is a necessary intermediate step to increase competition so as to lower roaming tariffs for customers in order to achieve an internal market for mobile communication services and ultimately for there to be no differentiation between national and roaming tariffs.\n3. This Regulation also lays down rules aimed at increasing price transparency and improving the provision of information on charges to users of roaming services.\n4. This Regulation constitutes a specific measure within the meaning of Article 1(5) of the Framework Directive.\n5. The maximum charges set out in this Regulation are expressed in euro.\n6. Where maximum charges under Articles 7, 9 and 12 are denominated in currencies other than the euro, the initial limits pursuant to those Articles shall be determined in those currencies by applying the reference exchange rates published on 1 May 2012 by the European Central Bank in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nFor the purposes of the subsequent limits provided for in Article 7(2), Article 9(1), and Article 12(1), the revised values shall be determined by applying the reference exchange rates so published on 1 May of the relevant calendar year. For the maximum charges under Article 7(2), Article 9(1) and Article 12(1), the limits in currencies other than the euro shall be revised annually as from 2015. The annually revised limits in those currencies shall apply from 1 July using the reference exchange rates published on 1 May of the same year.\n7. Where maximum charges under Articles 8, 10 and 13 are denominated in currencies other than the euro, the initial limits pursuant to those Articles shall be determined in those currencies by applying the average of the reference exchange rates published on 1 March, 1 April and 1 May 2012 by the European Central Bank in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nFor the purposes of the subsequent limits provided for in Article 8(2), Article 10(2) and Article 13(2), the revised values shall be determined by applying the average of the reference exchange rates so published on 1 March, 1 April and 1 May of the relevant calendar year. For the maximum charges under Article 8(2), Article 10(2) and Article 13(2), the limits in currencies other than euro shall be revised annually as from 2015. The annually revised limits in those currencies shall apply from 1 July using the average of the reference exchange rates published on 1 March, 1 April and 1 May of the same year.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions set out in Article 2 of the Access Directive, Article 2 of the Framework Directive, and Article 2 of the Universal Service Directive shall apply.\n2. In addition to the definitions referred to in paragraph 1, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018roaming provider\u2019 means an undertaking that provides a roaming customer with regulated retail roaming services;\n(b)\n\u2018domestic provider\u2019 means an undertaking that provides a roaming customer with domestic mobile communications services;\n(c)\n\u2018alternative roaming provider\u2019 means a roaming provider different from the domestic provider;\n(d)\n\u2018home network\u2019 means a public communications network located within a Member State and used by the roaming provider for the provision of regulated retail roaming services to a roaming customer;\n(e)\n\u2018visited network\u2019 means a terrestrial public mobile communications network situated in a Member State other than that of the roaming customer\u2019s domestic provider that permits a roaming customer to make or receive calls, to send or receive SMS messages or to use packet switched data communications, by means of arrangements with the home network operator;\n(f)\n\u2018Union-wide roaming\u2019 means the use of a mobile device by a roaming customer to make or receive intra-Union calls, to send or receive intra-Union SMS messages, or to use packet switched data communications, while in a Member State other than that in which the network of the domestic provider is located, by means of arrangements between the home network operator and the visited network operator;\n(g)\n\u2018roaming customer\u2019 means a customer of a roaming provider of regulated roaming services, by means of a terrestrial public mobile communications network situated in the Union, whose contract or arrangement with that roaming provider permits Union-wide roaming;\n(h)\n\u2018regulated roaming call\u2019 means a mobile voice telephony call made by a roaming customer, originating on a visited network and terminating on a public communications network within the Union or received by a roaming customer, originating on a public communications network within the Union and terminating on a visited network;\n(i)\n\u2018euro-voice tariff\u2019 means any tariff not exceeding the maximum charge provided for in Article 8, which a roaming provider may levy for the provision of regulated roaming calls in accordance with that Article;\n(j)\n\u2018SMS message\u2019 means a Short Message Service text message, composed principally of alphabetical and/or numerical characters, capable of being sent between mobile and/or fixed numbers assigned in accordance with national numbering plans;\n(k)\n\u2018regulated roaming SMS message\u2019 means an SMS message sent by a roaming customer, originating on a visited network and terminating on a public communications network within the Union or received by a roaming customer, originating on a public communications network within the Union and terminating on a visited network;\n(l)\n\u2018euro-SMS tariff\u2019 means any tariff not exceeding the maximum charge provided for in Article 10, which a roaming provider may levy for the provision of regulated roaming SMS messages in accordance with that Article;\n(m)\n\u2018regulated data roaming service\u2019 means a roaming service enabling the use of packet switched data communications by a roaming customer by means of his mobile device while it is connected to a visited network. A regulated data roaming service does not include the transmission or receipt of regulated roaming calls or SMS messages, but does include the transmission and receipt of MMS messages;\n(n)\n\u2018euro-data tariff\u2019 means any tariff not exceeding the maximum charge provided for in Article 13, which a roaming provider may levy for the provision of regulated data roaming services in accordance with that Article;\n(o)\n\u2018wholesale roaming access\u2019 means direct wholesale roaming access or wholesale roaming resale access;\n(p)\n\u2018direct wholesale roaming access\u2019 means the making available of facilities and/or services by a mobile network operator to another undertaking, under defined conditions, for the purpose of that other undertaking providing regulated roaming services to roaming customers;\n(q)\n\u2018wholesale roaming resale access\u2019 means the provision of roaming services on a wholesale basis by a mobile network operator different from the visited network operator to another undertaking for the purpose of that other undertaking providing regulated roaming services to roaming customers.\nArticle 3\nWholesale roaming access\n1. Mobile network operators shall meet all reasonable requests for wholesale roaming access.\n2. Mobile network operators may refuse requests for wholesale roaming access only on the basis of objective criteria.\n3. Wholesale roaming access shall cover access to all network elements and associated facilities, relevant services, software and information systems, necessary for the provision of regulated roaming services to customers.\n4. Rules on regulated wholesale roaming charges laid down in Articles 7, 9 and 12 shall apply to the provision of access to all components of wholesale roaming access referred to in paragraph 3.\nWithout prejudice to the first subparagraph, in the case of wholesale roaming resale access, mobile network operators may charge fair and reasonable prices for components not covered by paragraph 3.\n5. Mobile network operators shall publish a reference offer, taking into account the BEREC guidelines referred to in paragraph 8, and make it available to an undertaking requesting wholesale roaming access. Mobile network operators shall provide the undertaking requesting access with a draft contract, complying with this Article, for such access at the latest one month after the initial receipt of the request by the mobile network operator. The wholesale roaming access shall be granted within a reasonable period of time not exceeding three months from the conclusion of the contract. Mobile network operators receiving a wholesale roaming access request and undertakings requesting access shall negotiate in good faith.\n6. The reference offer referred to in paragraph 5 shall be sufficiently detailed and shall include all components necessary for wholesale roaming access as referred to in paragraph 3, providing a description of the offerings relevant for direct wholesale roaming access and wholesale roaming resale access, and the associated terms and conditions. If necessary, national regulatory authorities shall impose changes to reference offers to give effect to obligations laid down in this Article.\n7. Where the undertaking requesting the access desires to enter into commercial negotiations to also include components not covered by the reference offer, the mobile network operators shall respond to such a request within a reasonable period of time not exceeding two months from its initial receipt. For the purposes of this paragraph, paragraphs 2 and 5 shall not apply.\n8. By 30 September 2012, and in order to contribute to the consistent application of this Article, BEREC shall, after consulting stakeholders and in close cooperation with the Commission, lay down guidelines for wholesale roaming access.\n9. Paragraphs 5 to 7 shall apply from 1 January 2013.\nArticle 4\nSeparate sale of regulated retail roaming services\n1. Domestic providers shall enable their customers to access regulated voice, SMS and data roaming services, provided as a bundle by any alternative roaming provider.\nNeither domestic nor roaming providers shall prevent customers from accessing regulated data roaming services provided directly on a visited network by an alternative roaming provider.\n2. Roaming customers shall have the right to switch roaming provider at any time. Where a roaming customer chooses to switch roaming provider, the switch shall be carried out without undue delay, and in any case within the shortest possible period of time depending on the technical solution chosen for the implementation of the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services, but under no circumstances exceeding three working days from the conclusion of the agreement with the new roaming provider.\n3. The switch to an alternative roaming provider or between roaming providers shall be free of charge for customers and shall be possible under any tariff plan. It shall not entail any associated subscription or additional fixed or recurring charges, pertaining to elements of the subscription other than roaming, as compared to the conditions prevailing before the switch.\n4. Domestic providers shall inform all their roaming customers in a clear, understandable and easily accessible form about the possibility to opt for services referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1.\nIn particular, at the time of making or renewing a contract on mobile communication services, domestic providers shall provide all their customers individually with full information on the possibility to choose an alternative roaming provider and shall not hinder the conclusion of a contract with an alternative roaming provider. Customers concluding a contract with a domestic provider for regulated roaming services shall explicitly confirm that they have been informed of such possibility. A domestic provider shall not prevent, dissuade or discourage retailers serving as the domestic provider\u2019s points of sale from offering contracts for separate roaming services with alternative roaming providers.\n5. The technical characteristics of regulated roaming services shall not be altered in such a way as to make them differ from the technical characteristics of the regulated roaming services, including the quality parameters, as provided to the customer before the switch. Where the switch does not concern all regulated roaming services, those services which have not been switched shall continue to be provided at the same price and, to the fullest extent possible, with the same technical characteristics, including quality parameters.\n6. This Article shall apply from 1 July 2014.\nArticle 5\nImplementation of separate sale of regulated retail roaming services\n1. Domestic providers shall implement the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services as provided for in Article 4 so that customers can use domestic mobile communication services and separate regulated roaming services. Domestic providers shall meet all reasonable requests for access to facilities and related support services relevant for the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services. Access to those facilities and support services that are necessary for the separate sale of regulated roaming services, including user authentication services, shall be free of charge and shall not entail any direct charges to customers.\n2. In order to ensure consistent and simultaneous implementation across the Union of the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services, the Commission shall, by means of implementing acts and after having consulted BEREC, adopt, by 31 December 2012, detailed rules on the information obligations laid down in Article 4(4) and on a technical solution for the implementation of the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 6(2), and shall apply from 1 July 2014.\n3. The technical solution to implement the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services shall meet the following criteria:\n(a)\nconsumer friendliness, in particular allowing consumers to easily and quickly switch to an alternative roaming provider while keeping their existing mobile phone number and while using the same mobile device;\n(b)\nability to serve all categories of consumer demand on competitive terms, including intensive usage of data services;\n(c)\nability to effectively foster competition, taking also into account the scope for operators to exploit their infrastructure assets or commercial arrangements;\n(d)\ncost-effectiveness, taking into account the division of costs between domestic providers and alternative roaming providers;\n(e)\nability to give effect to the obligations referred to in Article 4(1) in an efficient manner;\n(f)\nallowing a maximum degree of interoperability;\n(g)\nuser friendliness, in particular in respect of the customers\u2019 technical handling of the mobile device when changing networks;\n(h)\nensuring that roaming by Union customers in third countries or by third country customers in the Union is not impeded;\n(i)\nensuring that the rules on protection of privacy, personal data, security and integrity of networks and transparency required by the Framework Directive and the Specific Directives are respected;\n(j)\ntaking into account the promotion by national regulatory authorities of the ability of end users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice, in accordance with point (g) of Article 8(4) of the Framework Directive;\n(k)\nensuring that providers apply equivalent conditions in equivalent circumstances.\n4. The technical solution may combine one or several technical modalities for the purposes of meeting the criteria set out in paragraph 3.\n5. If necessary, the Commission shall give a mandate to a European standardisation body for the adaptation of the relevant standards that are necessary for the harmonised implementation of the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services.\n6. Paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5 of this Article shall apply from 1 July 2014.\nArticle 6\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Communications Committee established by Article 22 of the Framework Directive. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 7\nWholesale charges for the making of regulated roaming calls\n1. The average wholesale charge that the visited network operator may levy on the customer\u2019s roaming provider for the provision of a regulated roaming call originating on that visited network, inclusive, inter alia, of origination, transit and termination costs, shall not exceed EUR 0,14 per minute as of 1 July 2012.\n2. The average wholesale charge referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply between any pair of operators and shall be calculated over a 12-month period or any such shorter period as may remain before the end of the period of application of a maximum average wholesale charge as provided for in this paragraph or before 30 June 2022. The maximum average wholesale charge shall decrease to EUR 0,10 on 1 July 2013 and to EUR 0,05 on 1 July 2014 and shall, without prejudice to Article 19, remain at EUR 0,05 until 30 June 2022.\n3. The average wholesale charge referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated by dividing the total wholesale roaming revenue received by the total number of wholesale roaming minutes actually used for the provision of wholesale roaming calls within the Union by the relevant operator over the relevant period, aggregated on a per-second basis adjusted to take account of the possibility for the operator of the visited network to apply an initial minimum charging period not exceeding 30 seconds.\nArticle 8\nRetail charges for regulated roaming calls\n1. Roaming providers shall make available and actively offer to all their roaming customers, clearly and transparently, a euro-voice tariff as provided for in paragraph 2. That tariff shall not entail any associated subscription or other fixed or recurring charges and may be combined with any retail tariff.\nWhen making this offer, roaming providers shall remind any of their roaming customers who had chosen a specific roaming tariff or package of the conditions applicable to that tariff or package.\n2. With effect from 1 July 2012, the retail charge (excluding VAT) for a euro-voice tariff which a roaming provider may levy on its roaming customer for the provision of a regulated roaming call may vary for any roaming call but shall not exceed EUR 0,29 per minute for any call made or EUR 0,08 per minute for any call received. The maximum retail charge for calls made shall decrease to EUR 0,24 on 1 July 2013 and to EUR 0,19 on 1 July 2014 and the maximum retail charge for calls received shall decrease to EUR 0,07 on 1 July 2013 and to EUR 0,05 on 1 July 2014. Without prejudice to Article 19 those maximum retail charges for the euro-voice tariff shall remain valid until 30 June 2017.\nRoaming providers shall not levy any charge on their roaming customers for the receipt by them of a roaming voicemail message. This shall be without prejudice to other applicable charges such as those for listening to such messages.\nEvery roaming provider shall charge its roaming customers for the provision of any regulated roaming call to which a euro-voice tariff applies, whether made or received, on a per-second basis.\nThe roaming provider may apply an initial minimum charging period not exceeding 30 seconds to calls made which are subject to a euro-voice tariff.\n3. Roaming providers shall apply a euro-voice tariff to all existing roaming customers automatically with the exception of such roaming customers who have already made a deliberate choice of a specific roaming tariff or package by virtue of which they benefit from a different tariff for regulated roaming calls than they would have been accorded in the absence of such a choice.\n4. Roaming providers shall apply a euro-voice tariff to all new roaming customers who do not make a deliberate choice to select a different roaming tariff or a tariff package for roaming services which includes a different tariff for regulated roaming calls.\n5. Any roaming customer may request to switch to or from a euro-voice tariff. Any switch shall be made within one working day of receipt of the request, shall be free of charge and shall not entail conditions or restrictions pertaining to other elements of the subscription, save that where a roaming customer who has subscribed to a special roaming package which includes more than one regulated roaming service wishes to switch to a euro-voice tariff, the roaming provider may require the switching customer to forego the benefits of the other elements of that package. A roaming provider may delay a switch until the previous roaming tariff has been effective for a minimum specified period not exceeding two months. A euro-voice tariff may always be combined with a euro-SMS tariff and a euro-data tariff.\nArticle 9\nWholesale charges for regulated roaming SMS messages\n1. With effect from 1 July 2012, the average wholesale charge that the visited network operator may levy for the provision of a regulated roaming SMS message originating on that visited network shall not exceed EUR 0,03 per SMS message. The maximum average wholesale charge shall decrease to EUR 0,02 on 1 July 2013 and shall, without prejudice to Article 19, remain at EUR 0,02 until 30 June 2022.\n2. The average wholesale charge referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply between any pair of operators and shall be calculated over a 12-month period or any such shorter period as may remain before 30 June 2022.\n3. The average wholesale charge referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated by dividing the total wholesale revenue received by the visited network operator or home network operator for the origination and transmission of regulated roaming SMS messages within the Union in the relevant period by the total number of such SMS messages originated and transmitted on behalf of the relevant roaming provider or home network operator within that period.\n4. The visited network operator shall not levy any charge on a roaming customer\u2019s roaming provider or home network operator, separate from the charge referred to in paragraph 1, for the termination of a regulated roaming SMS message sent to a roaming customer while roaming on its visited network.\nArticle 10\nRetail charges for regulated roaming SMS messages\n1. Roaming providers shall make available and actively offer to all their roaming customers, clearly and transparently, a euro-SMS tariff as provided for in paragraph 2. The euro-SMS tariff shall not entail any associated subscription or other fixed or recurring charges and may be combined with any retail tariff, subject to the other provisions of this Article.\n2. With effect from 1 July 2012, the retail charge (excluding VAT) for a euro-SMS tariff which a roaming provider may levy on its roaming customer for a regulated roaming SMS message sent by that roaming customer may vary for any regulated roaming SMS message but shall not exceed EUR 0,09. That maximum charge shall decrease to EUR 0,08 on 1 July 2013 and to EUR 0,06 on 1 July 2014 and shall, without prejudice to Article 19, remain at EUR 0,06 until 30 June 2017.\n3. Roaming providers shall not levy any charge on their roaming customers for the receipt by them of a regulated roaming SMS message.\n4. Roaming providers shall apply a euro-SMS tariff to all existing roaming customers automatically, with the exception of such roaming customers who have already made a deliberate choice of a specific roaming tariff or package by virtue of which they benefit from a different tariff for regulated roaming SMS messages than they would have been accorded in the absence of such a choice.\n5. Roaming providers shall apply a euro-SMS tariff to all new roaming customers who do not make a deliberate choice to select a different roaming SMS tariff or a tariff package for roaming services which includes a different tariff for regulated roaming SMS messages.\n6. Any roaming customer may request to switch to or from a euro-SMS tariff at any time. Any switch shall be made within one working day of receipt of the request, shall be free of charge and shall not entail conditions or restrictions pertaining to elements of the subscription other than roaming. A roaming provider may delay such a switch until the previous roaming tariff has been effective for a minimum specified period not exceeding two months. A euro-SMS tariff may always be combined with a euro-voice tariff and a euro-data tariff.\nArticle 11\nTechnical characteristics of regulated roaming SMS messages\nNo roaming provider, domestic provider, home network operator or visited network operator shall alter the technical characteristics of regulated roaming SMS messages in such a way as to make them differ from the technical characteristics of SMS messages provided within its domestic market.\nArticle 12\nWholesale charges for regulated data roaming services\n1. With effect from 1 July 2012, the average wholesale charge that the visited network operator may levy on the roaming customer\u2019s home provider for the provision of regulated data roaming services by means of that visited network shall not exceed a safeguard limit of EUR 0,25 per megabyte of data transmitted. The safeguard limit shall decrease to EUR 0,15 per megabyte of data transmitted on 1 July 2013 and to EUR 0,05 per megabyte of data transmitted on 1 July 2014 and shall, without prejudice to Article 19, remain at EUR 0,05 per megabyte of data transmitted until 30 June 2022.\n2. The average wholesale charge referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply between any pair of operators and shall be calculated over a 12-month period or any such shorter period as may remain before 30 June 2022.\n3. The average wholesale charge referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated by dividing the total wholesale revenue received by the visited network or home network operator for the provision of regulated data roaming services in the relevant period by the total number of megabytes of data actually consumed by the provision of those services within that period, aggregated on a per-kilobyte basis on behalf of the relevant roaming provider or home network operator within that period.\nArticle 13\nRetail charges for regulated data roaming services\n1. Roaming providers shall make available and actively offer to all their roaming customers, clearly and transparently, a euro-data tariff as provided for in paragraph 2. This euro-data tariff shall not entail any associated subscription or other fixed or recurring charges and may be combined with any retail tariff.\nWhen making this offer, roaming providers shall remind those roaming customers who have already chosen a specific roaming tariff or package of the conditions applicable to that tariff or package.\n2. With effect from 1 July 2012, the retail charge (excluding VAT) of a euro-data tariff which a roaming provider may levy on its roaming customer for the provision of a regulated data roaming service shall not exceed EUR 0,70 per megabyte used. The maximum retail charge for data used shall decrease to EUR 0,45 per megabyte used on 1 July 2013 and to EUR 0,20 per megabyte used on 1 July 2014 and shall, without prejudice to Article 19, remain at EUR 0,20 per megabyte used until 30 June 2017.\nEvery roaming provider shall charge its roaming customers for the provision of any regulated roaming data service to which a euro-data tariff applies on a per-kilobyte basis, except for Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) messages which may be charged on a per-unit basis. In such a case, the retail charge which a roaming provider may levy on its roaming customer for the transmission or receipt of a roaming MMS message shall not exceed the maximum retail charge set in the first subparagraph.\n3. From 1 July 2012 roaming providers shall apply a euro-data tariff to all existing roaming customers automatically, with the exception of such roaming customers who have already made a choice of a specific roaming tariff, or who are already on a tariff which is demonstrably lower than the euro-data tariff or who have already made a choice of a package by virtue of which they benefit from a different tariff for regulated data roaming services than they would have been accorded in the absence of such choice.\n4. From 1 July 2012 roaming providers shall apply a euro-data tariff to all new roaming customers who have not made a deliberate choice to select a different roaming data tariff or a tariff package for roaming services which includes a different tariff for regulated roaming data services.\n5. Any roaming customer may request to switch to or from a euro-data tariff, respecting their contractual conditions, at any point in time. Any switch shall be made within one working day of receipt of the request, shall be free of charge and shall not entail conditions or restrictions pertaining to elements of the subscription other than Union-wide roaming. A roaming provider may delay such a switch until the previous roaming tariff has been effective for a minimum specified period not exceeding two months. A euro-data tariff may always be combined with a euro-SMS tariff and a euro-voice tariff.\n6. By 30 June 2012 roaming providers shall inform all their roaming customers individually, in a clear and understandable manner and on a durable medium, about the euro-data tariff, that it will apply from 1 July 2012 at the latest to all roaming customers who have not made a deliberate choice of a special tariff or package applicable to regulated data roaming services, and about their right to switch to and from it in accordance with paragraph 5.\nArticle 14\nTransparency of retail charges for roaming calls and SMS messages\n1. To alert roaming customers to the fact that they will be subject to roaming charges when making or receiving a call or when sending an SMS message, each roaming provider shall, except when the customer has notified the roaming provider that he does not require this service, provide the customer, automatically by means of a Message Service, without undue delay and free of charge, when he enters a Member State other than that of his domestic provider, with basic personalised pricing information on the roaming charges (including VAT) that apply to the making and receiving of calls and to the sending of SMS messages by that customer in the visited Member State.\nThat basic personalised pricing information shall include the maximum charges (in the currency of the home bill provided by the customer\u2019s domestic provider) to which the customer may be subject under his tariff scheme for:\n(a)\nmaking regulated roaming calls within the visited Member State and back to the Member State of his domestic provider, as well as for regulated roaming calls received; and\n(b)\nsending regulated roaming SMS messages while in the visited Member State.\nIt shall also include the free-of-charge number referred to in paragraph 2 for obtaining more detailed information and information on the possibility of accessing emergency services by dialling the European emergency number 112 free of charge.\nOn the occasion of each message, a customer shall have the opportunity to give notice to the roaming provider, free of charge and in an easy manner, that he does not require the automatic Message Service. A customer who has given notice that he does not require the automatic Message Service shall have the right at any time and free of charge to require the roaming provider to provide the service again.\nRoaming providers shall provide blind or partially-sighted customers with the basic personalised pricing information referred to in the first subparagraph automatically, by voice call, free of charge, if they so request.\nThe first, second, fourth and fifth subparagraphs shall also apply to voice and SMS roaming services used by roaming customers travelling outside the Union and provided by a roaming provider.\n2. In addition to paragraph 1, customers shall have the right to request and receive, free of charge, and irrespective of their location within the Union, more detailed personalised pricing information on the roaming charges that apply in the visited network to voice calls and SMS, and information on the transparency measures applicable by virtue of this Regulation, by means of a mobile voice call or by SMS. Such a request shall be to a free-of-charge number designated for this purpose by the roaming provider. Obligations provided for in paragraph 1 shall not apply to devices which do not support SMS functionality.\n3. Roaming providers shall provide all users with full information on applicable roaming charges, in particular on the euro-voice tariff and the euro-SMS tariff, when subscriptions are taken out. They shall also provide their roaming customers with updates on applicable roaming charges without undue delay each time there is a change in these charges.\nRoaming providers shall take the necessary steps to secure awareness by all their roaming customers of the availability of the euro-voice tariff and the euro-SMS tariff. They shall in particular communicate to all roaming customers the conditions relating to the euro-voice tariff and the conditions relating to the euro-SMS tariff, in each case in a clear and unbiased manner. They shall send a reminder at reasonable intervals thereafter to all customers who have opted for another tariff.\nThe information provided shall be sufficiently detailed for customers to judge whether or not it is beneficial for them to switch to a Eurotariff.\n4. Roaming providers shall make available information to their customers on how to avoid inadvertent roaming in border regions. Roaming providers shall take reasonable steps to protect their customers from paying roaming charges for inadvertently accessed roaming services while situated in their home Member State.\nArticle 15\nTransparency and safeguard mechanisms for retail data roaming services\n1. Roaming providers shall ensure that their roaming customers, both before and after the conclusion of a contract, are kept adequately informed of the charges which apply to their use of regulated data roaming services, in ways which facilitate customers\u2019 understanding of the financial consequences of such use and permit them to monitor and control their expenditure on regulated data roaming services in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3.\nWhere appropriate, roaming providers shall inform their customers, before the conclusion of a contract and on a regular basis thereafter, of the risk of automatic and uncontrolled data roaming connection and download. Furthermore, roaming providers shall notify to their customers, free of charge and in a clear and easily understandable manner, how to switch off these automatic data roaming connections in order to avoid uncontrolled consumption of data roaming services.\n2. An automatic message from the roaming provider shall inform the roaming customer that the latter is roaming and provide basic personalised tariff information on the charges (in the currency of the home bill provided by the customer\u2019s domestic provider), expressed in price per megabyte, applicable to the provision of regulated data roaming services to that roaming customer in the Member State concerned, except where the customer has notified the roaming provider that he does not require that information.\nSuch basic personalised tariff information shall be delivered to the roaming customer\u2019s mobile device, for example by an SMS message, an e-mail or a pop-up window on the mobile device, every time the roaming customer enters a Member State other than that of his domestic provider and initiates for the first time a data roaming service in that particular Member State. It shall be provided free of charge at the moment the roaming customer initiates a regulated data roaming service, by an appropriate means adapted to facilitate its receipt and easy comprehension.\nA customer who has notified his roaming provider that he does not require the automatic tariff information shall have the right at any time and free of charge to require the roaming provider to provide this service again.\n3. Each roaming provider shall grant to all their roaming customers the opportunity to opt deliberately and free of charge for a facility which provides information on the accumulated consumption expressed in volume or in the currency in which the roaming customer is billed for regulated data roaming services and which guarantees that, without the customer\u2019s explicit consent, the accumulated expenditure for regulated data roaming services over a specified period of use, excluding MMS billed on a per-unit basis, does not exceed a specified financial limit.\nTo this end, the roaming provider shall make available one or more maximum financial limits for specified periods of use, provided that the customer is informed in advance of the corresponding volume amounts. One of those limits (the default financial limit) shall be close to, but not exceed, EUR 50 of outstanding charges per monthly billing period (excluding VAT).\nAlternatively, the roaming provider may establish limits expressed in volume, provided that the customer is informed in advance of the corresponding financial amounts. One of those limits (the default volume limit) shall have a corresponding financial amount not exceeding EUR 50 of outstanding charges per monthly billing period (excluding VAT).\nIn addition, the roaming provider may offer to its roaming customers other limits with different, that is, higher or lower, maximum monthly financial limits.\nThe default limits referred to in the second and third subparagraphs shall be applicable to all customers who have not opted for another limit.\nEach roaming provider shall also ensure that an appropriate notification is sent to the roaming customer\u2019s mobile device, for example by an SMS message, an e-mail or a pop-up window on the computer, when the data roaming services have reached 80 % of the agreed financial or volume limit. Each customer shall have the right to require the roaming provider to stop sending such notifications and shall have the right, at any time and free of charge, to require the provider to provide the service again.\nWhen the financial or volume limit would otherwise be exceeded, a notification shall be sent to the roaming customer\u2019s mobile device. That notification shall indicate the procedure to be followed if the customer wishes to continue provision of those services and the cost associated with each additional unit to be consumed. If the roaming customer does not respond as prompted in the notification received, the roaming provider shall immediately cease to provide and to charge the roaming customer for regulated data roaming services, unless and until the roaming customer requests the continued or renewed provision of those services.\nWhenever a roaming customer requests to opt for or to remove a financial or volume limit facility, the change shall be made within one working day of receipt of the request, shall be free of charge, and shall not entail conditions or restrictions pertaining to other elements of the subscription.\n4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not apply to machine-to-machine devices that use mobile data communication.\n5. Roaming providers shall take reasonable steps to protect their customers from paying roaming charges for inadvertently accessed roaming services while situated in their home Member State. This shall include informing customers on how to avoid inadvertent roaming in border regions.\n6. This Article, with the exception of paragraph 5, and subject to the second and third subparagraph of this paragraph, shall also apply to data roaming services used by roaming customers travelling outside the Union and provided by a roaming provider.\nWhere the customer opts for the facility referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 3, the requirements provided in paragraph 3 shall not apply if the visited network operator in the visited country outside the Union does not allow the roaming provider to monitor its customers\u2019 usage on a real-time basis.\nIn such a case the customer shall be notified by an SMS message when entering such a country, without undue delay and free of charge, that information on accumulated consumption and the guarantee not to exceed a specified financial limit are not available.\nArticle 16\nSupervision and enforcement\n1. National regulatory authorities shall monitor and supervise compliance with this Regulation within their territory.\n2. National regulatory authorities shall make up-to-date information on the application of this Regulation, in particular Articles 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13, publicly available in a manner that enables interested parties to have easy access to it.\n3. National regulatory authorities shall, in preparation for the review provided for in Article 19, monitor developments in wholesale and retail charges for the provision to roaming customers of voice and data communications services, including SMS and MMS, including in the outermost regions referred to in Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. National regulatory authorities shall also be alert to the particular case of inadvertent roaming in the border regions of neighbouring Member States and monitor whether traffic-steering techniques are used to the disadvantage of customers.\nNational regulatory authorities shall monitor and collect information on inadvertent roaming and take appropriate measures.\n4. National regulatory authorities shall have the power to require undertakings subject to obligations under this Regulation to supply all information relevant to the implementation and enforcement of this Regulation. Those undertakings shall provide such information promptly on request and in accordance with time limits and level of detail required by the national regulatory authority.\n5. National regulatory authorities may intervene on their own initiative in order to ensure compliance with this Regulation. In particular, they shall, where necessary, make use of the powers under Article 5 of the Access Directive to ensure adequate access and interconnection in order to guarantee the end-to-end connectivity and interoperability of roaming services, for example where customers are unable to exchange regulated roaming SMS messages with customers of a terrestrial public mobile communications network in another Member State as a result of the absence of an agreement enabling the delivery of those messages.\n6. Where a national regulatory authority finds that a breach of the obligations set out in this Regulation has occurred, it shall have the power to require the immediate cessation of such a breach.\nArticle 17\nDispute resolution\n1. In the event of a dispute in connection with the obligations laid down in this Regulation between undertakings providing electronic communications networks or services in a Member State, the dispute resolution procedures laid down in Articles 20 and 21 of the Framework Directive shall apply.\n2. In the event of an unresolved dispute involving a consumer or end-user and concerning an issue falling within the scope of this Regulation, the Member States shall ensure that the out-of-court dispute resolution procedures laid down in Article 34 of the Universal Service Directive are available.\nArticle 18\nPenalties\nMember States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation, and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission by 30 June 2013 and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.\nArticle 19\nReview\n1. The Commission shall review the functioning of this Regulation and, after a public consultation, shall report to the European Parliament and the Council by 30 June 2016. The Commission shall evaluate in particular whether the objectives of this Regulation have been achieved. In so doing, the Commission shall review, inter alia:\n(a)\nwhether competition has sufficiently developed in order to justify the expiry of maximum retail charges;\n(b)\nwhether competition will be sufficient for the removal of maximum wholesale charges;\n(c)\nthe developments and expected future trends in wholesale and retail charges for the provision to roaming customers of voice, SMS and data communication services, in comparison to the charges for mobile communications services at domestic level in the Member States, both for pre-paid and post-paid customers separately, and in the quality and speed of these services;\n(d)\nthe availability and quality of services including those which are an alternative to voice, SMS and data roaming services, in particular in the light of technological developments;\n(e)\nthe extent to which consumers have benefited through real reductions in the price of roaming services, the variety of tariffs and products which are available to consumers with different calling patterns, and the difference between roaming and national tariffs, including the availability of offers providing a single tariff for national and roaming services;\n(f)\nthe degree of competition in both the retail and wholesale markets, in particular the competitive situation of smaller, independent or newly started operators, including the competition effects of commercial agreements and the degree of interconnection between operators;\n(g)\nthe extent to which the implementation of the structural measures provided for in Articles 3 and 4 has produced results in developing competition in the internal market for roaming services to the extent that the difference between roaming and national tariffs has approached zero;\n(h)\nthe extent to which the level of wholesale and retail maximum charges has provided adequate safeguards against excessive prices for consumers while allowing the development of competition in the internal market for roaming services.\n2. If the report shows that the structural measures provided for by this Regulation have not been sufficient to promote competition in the internal market for roaming services for the benefit of all European consumers or that the differences between roaming tariffs and national tariffs have not approached zero, the Commission shall make appropriate proposals to the European Parliament and the Council to address this situation and thus achieve an internal market for mobile communication services, ultimately with there being no difference between national and roaming tariffs. The Commission shall examine, in particular, whether it is necessary:\n(a)\nto lay down additional technical and structural measures;\n(b)\nto modify the structural measures;\n(c)\nto extend the duration and possibly revise the level of the maximum retail charges provided for in Articles 8, 10 and 13;\n(d)\nto change the duration or revise the level of maximum wholesale charges provided for in Articles 7, 9 and 12;\n(e)\nto introduce any other necessary requirements, including non-differentiation of roaming and national tariffs.\n3. In addition, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council every two years after the report referred to in paragraph 1. Each report shall include a summary of the monitoring of the provision of roaming services in the Union and an assessment of the progress towards achieving the objectives of this Regulation, including by reference to the matters referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.\n4. In order to assess the competitive developments in the Union-wide roaming markets, BEREC shall regularly collect data from national regulatory authorities on the development of retail and wholesale charges for voice, SMS and data roaming services. Those data shall be notified to the Commission at least twice a year. The Commission shall make them public.\nBEREC shall also annually collect information from national regulatory authorities on transparency and comparability of different tariffs offered by operators to their customers. The Commission shall make those data and findings public.\nArticle 20\nNotification requirements\nMember States shall notify to the Commission the identity of the national regulatory authorities responsible for carrying out tasks under this Regulation.\nArticle 21\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 717/2007 is repealed in accordance with Annex I with effect from 1 July 2012.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II.\nArticle 22\nEntry into force and expiry\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and its provisions shall apply from that day save as otherwise provided for in specific Articles.\nIt shall expire on 30 June 2022.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 June 2012.", "references": ["25", "18", "22", "7", "64", "78", "15", "17", "88", "12", "68", "62", "31", "82", "94", "98", "47", "10", "66", "89", "86", "1", "41", "9", "2", "85", "99", "57", "70", "53", "No Label", "24", "35", "40"], "gold": ["24", "35", "40"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/422/CFSP\nof 18 July 2011\nimplementing Decision 2010/603/CFSP on further measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Decision 2010/603/CFSP of 7 October 2010 on further measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (1), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision 2010/603/CFSP the Council adopted measures to freeze all funds and economic resources belonging to the natural persons listed in the Annex thereto, who had been indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).\n(2)\nFollowing the transfer of Ratko MLADIC to the custody of the ICTY on 31 May 2011, his name should be removed from the list in the Annex to Decision 2010/603/CFSP.\n(3)\nThe list contained in the Annex to Decision 2010/603/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2010/603/CFSP shall be replaced by the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["44", "92", "10", "84", "58", "27", "87", "50", "20", "46", "2", "89", "68", "76", "65", "94", "19", "9", "15", "69", "70", "48", "77", "93", "51", "73", "21", "90", "79", "66", "No Label", "3", "11", "12", "14", "97", "99"], "gold": ["3", "11", "12", "14", "97", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 655/2012\nof 17 July 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 July 2012.", "references": ["39", "24", "52", "6", "70", "78", "12", "54", "43", "50", "96", "3", "87", "7", "37", "98", "5", "36", "73", "49", "66", "53", "26", "16", "31", "91", "9", "17", "47", "86", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 788/2011\nof 5 August 2011\napproving the active substance fluazifop-P, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Fluazifop-P is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included fluazifop-P.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (6) the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from entry into force of that Regulation. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (7) was adopted on the non-inclusion of fluazifop-P.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to France, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nFrance evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 19 February 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on fluazifop-P to the Commission on 17 November 2010 (8). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for fluazifop-P.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing fluazifop-P may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve fluazifop-P in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that fluazifop-P should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(11)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of the approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing fluazifop-P. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw existing authorisations. By way of derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(12)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (9) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(13)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (10) should be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of fluazifop-P and the withdrawal of authorisations for plants protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning fluazifop-P in the Annex to that Decision. It is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance fluazifop-P, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing fluazifop-P as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing fluazifop-P as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Following that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing fluazifop-P as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing fluazifop-P as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2008/934/EC\nThe line concerning fluazifop-P in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2011.", "references": ["75", "64", "54", "96", "18", "34", "87", "93", "62", "53", "79", "83", "50", "71", "19", "46", "9", "26", "80", "47", "95", "49", "22", "36", "97", "13", "85", "60", "82", "15", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 January 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas\n(2011/117/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2010/706/EU (1), the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was signed, on behalf of the European Union, on 17 June 2010, subject to its conclusion at a later date.\n(2)\nThe Agreement establishes a Joint Committee which should adopt its rules of procedure. It is appropriate to provide for a simplified procedure for the establishment of the Union position in this case.\n(3)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (2); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(4)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (3); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(6)\nTherefore, the Agreement should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to the notification provided for in Article 14(1) of the Agreement, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the Agreement (4).\nArticle 3\nThe Commission, assisted by experts from Member States, shall represent the Union in the Joint Committee established by Article 12 of the Agreement.\nArticle 4\nThe position of the Union within the Joint Committee with regard to the adoption of its rules of procedure as required pursuant to Article 12(4) of the Agreement shall be taken by the Commission after consultation with a special committee designated by the Council.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["56", "95", "59", "37", "10", "94", "87", "82", "11", "28", "85", "79", "21", "77", "64", "17", "51", "50", "53", "72", "4", "35", "42", "15", "12", "55", "47", "78", "69", "73", "No Label", "2", "3", "9", "13", "91"], "gold": ["2", "3", "9", "13", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 613/2010\nof 12 July 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Mi\u00f3d kurpiowski (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Mi\u00f3d kurpiowski\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2010.", "references": ["71", "11", "46", "33", "18", "40", "36", "61", "7", "54", "17", "42", "28", "16", "67", "73", "29", "48", "93", "39", "94", "45", "5", "63", "75", "35", "90", "3", "88", "43", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1128/2010\nof 30 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for hake in VI and VII; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["11", "66", "86", "63", "44", "71", "40", "24", "3", "12", "37", "55", "85", "30", "53", "72", "88", "61", "64", "84", "70", "78", "74", "5", "4", "89", "52", "31", "35", "51", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 October 2011\nappointing a Portuguese member of the European Economic and Social Committee\n(2011/680/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Portuguese Government,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Manuel CAVALEIRO BRAND\u00c3O,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Gon\u00e7alo da GAMA LOBO XAVIER, Confedera\u00e7\u00e3o da Ind\u00fastria Portuguesa (CIP) is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 10 October 2011.", "references": ["79", "69", "18", "32", "39", "50", "45", "17", "88", "71", "21", "99", "87", "78", "52", "49", "23", "65", "89", "86", "1", "70", "19", "85", "59", "22", "98", "33", "63", "30", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 648/2010\nof 22 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2010.", "references": ["53", "29", "48", "22", "16", "69", "77", "7", "27", "46", "52", "37", "55", "88", "64", "60", "78", "83", "1", "45", "32", "58", "99", "90", "0", "65", "82", "42", "9", "73", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 610/2012\nof 9 July 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 124/2009 of 10 February 2009 setting maximum levels for the presence of coccidiostats or histomonostats in food resulting from the unavoidable carry-over of these substances in non-target feed\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMaximum levels have been set for certain coccidiostats and histomonostats in food by Commission Regulation (EC) No 124/2009 of 10 February 2009 setting maximum levels for the presence of coccidiostats or histomonostats in food resulting from the unavoidable carry-over of these substances in non-target feed (2) in order to ensure a proper functioning of the internal market and to protect public health.\n(2)\nThe maximum levels should be continuously adapted in order to take account of developments in scientific and technical knowledge and the changes of maximum residue limits established for the specific food concerned in the framework of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin (3) or in the framework of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (4).\n(3)\nMaximum residue limits have been established for lasalocid sodium in food of animal origin from bovine species in the framework of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 86/2012 of 1 February 2012 amending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance lasalocid (5). Therefore, it is necessary to amend the provisions as regards lasalocid sodium.\n(4)\nNew technical information, namely specific studies on transfer ratio of maduramicin from feed into eggs from laying hens has become available. These studies demonstrate that feed for laying hens containing maduramicin due to cross-contamination but below the maximum level results in levels of maduramicin in eggs higher than the currently allowed maximum level. In accordance with the conclusions of the EFSA opinion on cross-contamination of non-target feedingstuffs by maduramicin (6) and the scientific opinion on safety and efficacy of maduramicin ammonium for chickens for fattening (7), these higher levels do not result in an appreciable risk to consumers\u2019 health. Therefore it is appropriate to amend the provisions as regards maduramicin accordingly.\n(5)\nThe conditions of authorisation of nicarbazin and diclazuril as feed additives have been modified by Commission Regulation (EU) No 875/2010 of 5 October 2010 concerning the authorisation for 10 years of an additive in feedingstuffs (8) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 169/2011 of 23 February 2011 concerning the authorisation of diclazuril as a feed additive for guinea fowls (9) respectively. Those developments require significant changes to the maximum levels set for nicarbazin and minor changes for diclazuril in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 124/2009. In accordance with the conclusions of the EFSA opinion on cross-contamination of non-target feedingstuffs by nicarbazin (10) and the scientific opinion on safety and efficacy of nicarbazin for chickens for fattening (11), the proposed maximum levels for nicarbazin in food as a consequence of unavoidable carry-over in non-target feed do not result in an appreciable risk to consumers\u2019 health. Therefore it is appropriate to amend the provisions as regards diclazuril and nicarbazin.\n(6)\nTherefore, Regulation (EC) No 124/2009 should be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 124/2009 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 July 2012.", "references": ["10", "81", "93", "4", "41", "46", "50", "86", "15", "12", "63", "31", "27", "2", "82", "40", "71", "33", "28", "47", "83", "18", "21", "35", "8", "11", "17", "19", "13", "94", "No Label", "38", "65", "66", "69", "72", "74"], "gold": ["38", "65", "66", "69", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 24 August 2012\namending Decision 2007/453/EC as regards the BSE status of Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Croatia and Nicaragua\n(notified under document C(2012) 5860)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/489/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in animals. For that purpose, the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) status of Member States or third countries or regions thereof (\u2018countries or regions\u2019) is to be determined by classification into one of three categories depending on the BSE risk involved, namely a negligible BSE risk, a controlled BSE risk and an undetermined BSE risk.\n(2)\nThe Annex to Commission Decision 2007/453/EC of 29 June 2007 establishing the BSE status of Member States or third countries or regions thereof according to their BSE risk (2) lists countries or regions according to their BSE risk status.\n(3)\nThe World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) plays a leading role in the categorisation of countries or regions according to their BSE risk. The list in the Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC takes account of Resolution No 17 - Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Risk Status of Members - adopted by the OIE in May 2011 regarding the BSE status of Member States and third countries.\n(4)\nIn May 2012, the OIE adopted Resolution No 16 - Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Risk Status of Member Countries. That Resolution recognised Austria, Belgium, Brazil and Colombia as having a negligible BSE risk, and Croatia and Nicaragua as having a controlled BSE risk. The list in the Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC should therefore be amended to be brought into line with that Resolution as regards those Member States and third countries.\n(5)\nDecision 2007/453/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 August 2012.", "references": ["41", "21", "11", "18", "62", "95", "82", "85", "8", "27", "22", "25", "36", "42", "56", "40", "98", "68", "28", "99", "80", "75", "90", "35", "59", "49", "76", "86", "94", "31", "No Label", "38", "61", "66", "91", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "61", "66", "91", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 487/2011\nof 19 May 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 479/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 May 2011.", "references": ["37", "41", "34", "16", "0", "11", "36", "38", "20", "31", "66", "68", "5", "74", "30", "99", "89", "17", "90", "14", "9", "53", "64", "87", "79", "73", "50", "28", "12", "70", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 400/2012\nof 7 May 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature and which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2012.", "references": ["25", "60", "76", "72", "48", "35", "69", "96", "59", "64", "57", "27", "6", "36", "22", "20", "44", "56", "43", "38", "28", "55", "41", "54", "18", "34", "17", "23", "7", "47", "No Label", "21", "24", "83"], "gold": ["21", "24", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 2 September 2011\npartially suspending the application of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Syrian Arab Republic\n(2011/523/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn the 18 January 1977, the European Economic Community and the Syrian Arab Republic concluded a Cooperation Agreement (1) (\u2027the Cooperation Agreement\u2027) to promote overall cooperation with a view to strengthening relations between the Parties.\n(2)\nThe Cooperation Agreement is based on the common desire of the Parties to maintain and strengthen friendly relations in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the Treaty on European Union, in its relations with the wider world, the Union is notably to contribute to peace, security and the protection of human rights as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 21(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the Union's action on the international scene is to be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principle of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.\n(5)\nSince March 2011, protests grew against specific abuses of power by Syrian officials against the general backdrop of growing economic and political discontent. Cautious protests which began in marginalised regions developed into a countrywide uprising. The Syrian authorities have responded, and continue to respond, in a very violent manner including by the shooting of peaceful protestors.\n(6)\nOn 18 August 2011, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement to the Human Rights Council 17th Special Session on the \"Situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic\" in which she recalled that, in its report of 18 August, the fact-finding mission to Syria requested by the Human Rights Council had found a pattern of widespread or systematic human rights violations by Syrian security and military forces, including murder, enforced disappearances, torture, deprivation of liberty, and persecution. The High Commissioner considered that the scale and nature of these acts may amount to crimes against humanity and urged the members of the Security Council to consider referring the current situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court.\n(7)\nOn the same day, the Union condemned the brutal campaign being waged by Bashar Al-Assad and his regime against their own people which had led to the killing or injury of many Syrian citizens. The Union has repeatedly emphasised that the brutal repression must be stopped, detained protesters released, free access by international humanitarian and human rights organisations and media allowed, and a genuine and inclusive national dialogue launched. The Syrian leadership, however, has remained defiant in the face of calls from the Union and the broader international community.\n(8)\nOn 23 August 2011, the Human Rights Council adopted a Resolution on grave human rights violations in the Syrian Arab Republic in which it strongly condemned the continued grave human rights violations by the Syrian authorities, reiterated its call upon the Syrian authorities to comply with their obligations under international law, stressed the need for an international, transparent, independent and prompt investigation into alleged violations of international law, including actions that may constitute crimes against humanity and to hold those responsible to account, and decided to dispatch an independent international commission of inquiry to investigate violations of international human rights law in Syria.\n(9)\nAccording to the Preamble of the Cooperation Agreement, both Parties wished, by concluding the Agreement, to demonstrate their common desire to maintain and strengthen friendly relations in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. In the current circumstances, the Union considers that the current situation in Syria is in clear violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter which constitute the basis of the cooperation between Syria and the Union.\n(10)\nConsidering the extreme seriousness of the violations perpetrated by Syria in breach of general international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter, the Union has decided to adopt additional restrictive measures against the Syrian regime.\n(11)\nIn this regard, the application of the Cooperation Agreement should be partially suspended until the Syrian authorities put an end to the systematic violations of human rights and can again be considered as being in compliance with general international law and the principles which form the basis of the Cooperation Agreement.\n(12)\nConsidering that the suspension should aim at targeting the Syrian authorities only and not the people of Syria, the suspension should be limited. Since crude oil and petroleum products are at present the products whose trade most benefits the Syrian regime and which thus supports its repressive policies, the suspension of the Agreement should be limited to crude oil and petroleum products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticles 12, 14 and 15 of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Syrian Arab Republic are suspended in so far as the measures listed in the Annex to this Decision are concerned.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be notified to the Syrian Arab Republic.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2011.", "references": ["97", "98", "44", "42", "61", "15", "59", "62", "78", "85", "88", "21", "45", "34", "6", "91", "89", "19", "43", "26", "25", "37", "7", "82", "29", "84", "92", "74", "32", "93", "No Label", "3", "9", "14", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "9", "14", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/628/CFSP\nof 23 September 2011\namending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria. (1)\n(2)\nIn light of the seriousness of the situation in Syria, the Union has decided to adopt additional restrictive measures against the Syrian regime.\n(3)\nInvestment in key sectors in the oil industry in Syria should be prohibited.\n(4)\nThe delivery of Syrian denominated banknotes and coinage to the Central Bank of Syria should be prohibited.\n(5)\nAdditional persons and entities should be subject to the restrictive measures set out in Decision 2011/273/CFSP.\n(6)\nThe information relating to certain persons on the list in the Annex to that Decision should be updated.\n(7)\nDecision 2011/273/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2011/273/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2b is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2b\nThe following shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nthe granting of any financial loan or credit to enterprises in Syria that are engaged in the Syrian oil industry sectors of exploration, production or refining, or to Syrian or Syrian-owned enterprises engaged in those sectors outside Syria;\n(b)\nthe acquisition or extension of a participation in enterprises in Syria that are engaged in the Syrian oil industry sectors of exploration, production or refining, or in Syrian or Syrian-owned enterprises engaged in those sectors outside Syria, including the acquisition in full of such enterprises and the acquisition of shares or securities of a participating nature;\n(c)\nthe creation of any joint venture with enterprises in Syria that are engaged in the Syrian oil industry sectors of exploration, production or refining and with any subsidiary or affiliate under their control.\u2019;\n(2)\nThe following Articles are added:\n\u2018Article 2c\n1. The prohibitions in Article 2a shall be without prejudice to the execution, until 15 November 2011, of obligations provided for in contracts concluded before 2 September 2011.\n2. The prohibitions in Article 2b(a) and (b) respectively:\n(i)\nshall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts or agreements concluded before 23 September 2011;\n(ii)\nshall not prevent the extension of a participation, if such extension is an obligation under an agreement concluded before 23 September 2011.\nArticle 2d\nThe delivery of Syrian denominated banknotes and coinage to the Central Bank of Syria shall be prohibited.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 4(3)(e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nnecessary for humanitarian purposes, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuations from Syria;\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe persons and entities listed in Annex I to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/273/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nIn the Annex to Decision 2011/273/CFSP, the entries for the following persons:\n(1)\nEmad GHRAIWATI;\n(2)\nTarif AKHRAS;\n(3)\nIssam ANBOUBA,\nshall be replaced by the entries set out in Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2011.", "references": ["49", "99", "48", "8", "82", "35", "98", "76", "77", "62", "41", "75", "25", "54", "52", "32", "67", "16", "92", "44", "21", "72", "34", "56", "85", "70", "42", "33", "66", "84", "No Label", "3", "12", "23", "28", "80", "95"], "gold": ["3", "12", "23", "28", "80", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1156/2010\nof 8 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2010.", "references": ["94", "23", "25", "11", "79", "77", "5", "42", "71", "86", "54", "17", "43", "90", "92", "24", "16", "67", "7", "85", "58", "2", "36", "83", "98", "72", "84", "46", "6", "56", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 612/2010\nof 12 July 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Fasola korczy\u0144ska (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Fasola korczy\u0144ska\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2010.", "references": ["2", "66", "44", "70", "21", "83", "55", "37", "7", "23", "90", "22", "4", "8", "99", "75", "33", "84", "27", "6", "58", "93", "30", "94", "87", "12", "47", "5", "81", "59", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 801/2011\nof 9 August 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first subparagraph of Article 8(1), and Article 8(4), thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 (2) lays down the veterinary certification requirements for the introduction into the Union of certain consignments of live animals or fresh meat. It also lays down the lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof from which those consignments may be introduced into the Union.\n(2)\nRegulation (EU) No 206/2010 provides that consignments of fresh meat intended for human consumption are to be imported into the Union only if they come from the third countries, territories or parts thereof listed in Part 1 of Annex II to that Regulation for which there is a model veterinary certificate corresponding to the consignment concerned listed in that Part.\n(3)\nFour parts of the territory of Botswana are listed in Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 as regions from which imports of fresh de-boned and matured meat from ungulates into the Union are authorised. Those regions consist of a number of veterinary disease control zones.\n(4)\nOn 5 May 2011, Botswana informed the Commission of a suspicion of foot-and-mouth disease based on clinical signs found in eight cattle on a farm. The outbreaks were confirmed, and notified to the Commission, on 11 May 2011 based on the isolation of a SAT2 foot-and-mouth disease virus.\n(5)\nThe outbreaks occurred in the veterinary disease control zone 6, which forms part of one of the four parts of the territory of Botswana from which imports of fresh de-boned and matured meat from ungulates into the Union are authorised.\n(6)\nDue to the risk of introduction of foot-and-mouth disease through imports into the Union of fresh meat from species susceptible to that disease, and considering the guarantees given by Botswana allowing for regionalisation of the country, the authorisation of Botswana to export fresh de-boned and matured meat from ungulates into the Union from the affected part of its territory should be suspended as from 11 May 2011, the date of confirmation of the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease.\n(7)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 the entry for Botswana is replaced by the following:\n\u2018BW - Botswana\nBW-0\nWhole country\nEQU, EQW\nBW-1\nThe veterinary disease control zones 3c, 4b, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 18\nBOV, OVI, RUF, RUW\nF\n1\n11 May 2011\n1 December 2007\nBW-2\nThe veterinary disease control zones 10, 11, 13 and 14\nBOV, OVI, RUF, RUW\nF\n1\n7 March 2002\nBW-3\nThe veterinary disease control zone 12\nBOV, OVI, RUF, RUW\nF\n1\n20 October 2008\n20 January 2009\nBW-4\nThe veterinary disease control zone 4a, except the intensive surveillance buffer zone of 10 km along the boundary with the foot-and-mouth disease vaccination zone and wildlife management areas\nBOV\nF\n1\n18 February 2011\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 August 2011.", "references": ["44", "16", "39", "10", "32", "73", "48", "28", "27", "93", "1", "67", "97", "11", "82", "62", "57", "79", "80", "26", "98", "54", "12", "19", "91", "43", "64", "60", "78", "52", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "38", "61", "66", "69", "94"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "38", "61", "66", "69", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 989/2011\nof 4 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 October 2011.", "references": ["37", "5", "41", "74", "28", "32", "43", "70", "88", "25", "23", "98", "0", "36", "20", "10", "47", "17", "34", "87", "99", "16", "57", "67", "15", "97", "77", "83", "79", "85", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 February 2012\nappointing an Austrian member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/79/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Austrian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. On 26 April 2010, Mr Markus WALLNER was appointed as member until 25 January 2015 by Council Decision 2010/242/EU (3), following the end of the term of office of Mr Herbert SAUSGRUBER.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the electoral mandate on the basis of which Mr Markus WALLNER was appointed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby reappointed to the Committee of the Regions as member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr Markus WALLNER, Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg (change of mandate).\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["32", "57", "41", "17", "20", "59", "52", "6", "18", "67", "42", "25", "86", "65", "68", "16", "60", "94", "55", "82", "44", "99", "75", "51", "45", "64", "35", "69", "24", "9", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 529/2011\nof 30 May 2011\namending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on tomatoes, apricots, lemons, plums, peaches, including nectarines, pears and table grapes\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2) provides for surveillance of imports of the products listed in Annex XVII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2008, 2009 and 2010, the trigger levels for additional duties on tomatoes, apricots, lemons, plums, peaches, including nectarines, pears and table grapes should be amended.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 May 2011.", "references": ["46", "93", "8", "35", "99", "87", "43", "88", "6", "4", "54", "11", "27", "28", "53", "41", "18", "52", "14", "89", "79", "30", "5", "45", "15", "16", "68", "86", "96", "62", "No Label", "10", "22", "66"], "gold": ["10", "22", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 378/2011\nof 15 April 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 April 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 April 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 April 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 April 2011.", "references": ["7", "34", "11", "86", "44", "21", "94", "99", "29", "49", "77", "82", "16", "47", "93", "62", "37", "57", "39", "61", "13", "78", "92", "38", "36", "87", "97", "50", "59", "73", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 296/2011\nof 25 March 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/178/CFSP of 23 March 2011 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2011/178/CFSP provides, inter alia, for further restrictive measures in relation to Libya, including a prohibition on flights in Libyan airspace, a prohibtion on Libyan aircraft in the airspace of the Union, and further provisions in relation to the measures introduced in Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (2), including a provision to ensure that these measures do not affect humanitarian operations in Libya.\n(2)\nSome of those measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(3)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (3) should be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 204/2011 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List of the European Union (4) (Common Military List) or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of goods included in that list, to any person, entity or body in Libya or for use in Libya;\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex I, to any person, entity or body in Libya or for use in Libya;\n(c)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List or in Annex I, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for any provision of related technical assistance to any person, entity or body in Libya or for use in Libya;\n(d)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance, financing or financial assistance, brokering services or transport services related to the provision of armed mercenary personnel in Libya or for use in Libya;\n(e)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) to (d).\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the prohibitions refered to therein shall not apply to the provision of technical assistance, financing and financial assistance related to non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian purposes or protective use, or to other sales and supply of arms and related material, as approved in advance by the Sanctions Committee.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities in the Member States, as listed in Annex IV, may authorise the provision of technical assistance, financing and financial assistance related to equipment which might be used for internal repression, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, if they determine that such equipment is intended solely for humanitarian or protective use.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities in the Member States, as listed in Annex IV, may authorise the provision to persons, entities or bodies in Libya of technical assistance, financing and financial assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List, or related to equipment which might be used for internal repression, where the competent authority considers that such authorisation is necessary in order to protect civilians who, and civilian-populated areas in Libya which, are under threat of attack, provided that, in the case of the provision of assistance related to goods or technology listed in the Common Military List, the Member State concerned has given prior notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.\n5. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and helmets, temporarily exported to Libya by United Nations personnel, personnel of the Union or its Member States, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only.\n(2)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 4a\n1. It shall be prohibited for any aircraft or air carrier registered in Libya, or owned or operated by Libyan nationals or entities, to:\n(a)\nfly over the territory of the Union;\n(b)\nmake stops in the territory of the Union for any purpose; or\n(c)\noperate any air service to or from the Union,\nexcept where the particular flight has been approved in advance by the Sanctions Committee, or in the case of an emergency landing.\n2. It shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibtion in paragraph 1.\nArticle 4b\n1. It shall be prohibited for any aircraft or air carrier in the Union, or owned or operated by citizens of the Union or by entities incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State, to:\n(a)\nfly over the territory of Libya;\n(b)\nmake stops in the territory of Libya for any purpose; or\n(c)\noperate any air service to or from Libya.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to flights:\n(i)\nthe sole purpose of which is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance;\n(ii)\nfor evacuations from Libya;\n(iii)\nauthorised by paragraph 4 or 8 of UNSCR 1973 (2011); or\n(iv)\nwhich are deemed by Member States, acting under the authorisation conferred in paragraph 8 of UNSCR 1973 (2011), to be necessary for the benefit of the Libyan people.\n3. It shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibition in paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Annex II shall include the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies designated by the United Nations Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee in accordance with paragraph 22 of UNSCR 1970 (2011) or paragraphs 19, 22 or 23 of UNSCR 1973 (2011).\n2. Annex III shall consist of natural or legal persons, entities and bodies, not covered by Annex II, who, in accordance with point (b) of Article 6(1) of Decision 2011/137/CFSP have been identified by the Council as being persons and entities involved in or complicit in ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, the commission of serious human rights abuses against persons in Libya, including by being involved in or complicit in planning, commanding, ordering or conducting attacks, in violation of international law, including aerial bombardments, on civilian populations and facilities, or as being persons, entities or bodies that are Libyan authorities, or as being persons, entities or bodies that have violated or have assisted in violating the provisions of UNSCR 1970 (2011) or UNSCR 1973 (2011) or of this Regulation, or as being persons, entities or bodies acting for or on behalf or at the direction of any of the above, or entities or bodies owned or controlled by them or by persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex II.\u2019;\n(4)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 6a\nWith regard to persons, entities and bodies not designated in Annexes II or III, in which a person, entity or body designated in those Annexes has a stake, the obligation to freeze the funds and economic resources of the designated person, entity or body shall not prevent such non-designated persons, entities or bodies from continuing to conduct legitimate business in so far as this business does not involve making available any funds or economic resources to a designated person, entity or body.\u2019;\n(5)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 8a\nBy way of derogation from Article 5, the competent authorities in the Member States, as listed in Annex IV, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resourses belonging to persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex III, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources to persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex III, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, where they consider it necessary for humanitarian purposes, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, the provision of electricity, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuations from Libya. The Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of authorisations granted under this Article.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 12 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 12\nNo claims, including for compensation or any other claim of this kind, such as a claim of set-off or a claim under a guarantee, in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which was affected, directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, by reason of measures decided upon pursuant to UNSCR 1970 (2011) or UNSCR 1973 (2011), including measures of the Union or any Member State in accordance with, as required by, or in any connection with, the implementation of the relevant decisions of the United Nations Security Council, or measures covered by this Regulation, shall be granted to the Libyan authorities, or any person, entity or body claiming on their behalf or for their benefit.\nNo liability shall arise on the part of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies in respect of actions performed by them in good faith in implementation of the obligations laid down in this Regulation.\u2019;\n(7)\nin point (a) of Article 13(1), the reference to Article 4 is replaced by a reference to Article 5.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 March 2011.", "references": ["88", "16", "34", "43", "79", "73", "24", "2", "89", "48", "90", "85", "92", "22", "54", "51", "33", "38", "41", "44", "19", "81", "36", "67", "0", "5", "40", "70", "23", "77", "No Label", "3", "4", "6", "11", "12", "14", "76", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "6", "11", "12", "14", "76", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 744/2011\nof 28 July 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 7(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Czech Republic\u2019s application of 20 October 2004 to register the name \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAustria and Germany submitted objections to the registration pursuant to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. The objections were deemed admissible under points (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 7(3) of that Regulation.\n(3)\nBy letters dated 21 January 2008, the Commission asked the Member States concerned to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with their internal procedures.\n(4)\nGiven that no agreement was reached between Austria and the Czech Republic nor between Germany and the Czech Republic within the designated timeframe, the Commission should adopt a decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(5)\nConcerning the alleged failure of compliance with Article 2 in respect of the delimitation of the geographical area and production within it, use of and characteristics of the thermal spring water, and the appearance of a graphic motif on the wafers, the national authorities responsible provided confirmation that these elements were correct and in addition no manifest error was identified. The national authorities further provided evidence to show the name \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019 was used in the sense of Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and was proposed by the identified producer group.\n(6)\nThe terms \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 and \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019 were found to be mutual translations of each other in the German and Czech languages respectively. The statements of objection from Germany showed that trade marks including the term \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 had been registered prior to the application for registration of the term \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019 as a protected geographical indication. Some evidence was provided to show that in a further instance, a name may have acquired the status of a trade mark established by use. Evidence was further provided to show that consumers in Germany associated the name \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 with a certain type of wafer. However no evidence was provided in the statements of objection that consumers strongly associated the wafers with all or any of the trade marks as distinct from the descriptive term \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019, nor that consumers would be liable to be misled as to the true identity of a product marketed under the name \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019. Therefore, the Commission cannot conclude that the registration of the name \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019 would be contrary to Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(7)\nAs a salient part of the names \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 and \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019 is identical, it is reasonable to conclude that the names are partly identical for the purposes of Article 7(3)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. Furthermore, as mutual translations of each other, and given the phonetic and visual similarities between the products and their common origins, the application of the protection envisaged by Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, and in particular point (b) of paragraph (1) thereof, could have the result that \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019, if registered, would be found by a competent court to be protected against the use of the name \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 on the wafers concerned. The evidence therefore shows that the continued existence of the name \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 would be jeopardised by the registration of \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019 within the meaning of point (c) of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(8)\nThe statements of objection were declared admissible on the ground, inter alia, that registration of the proposed name would jeopardise the existence of a partly identical name, namely \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019, in so far that this name is used for a product and not protected under trade mark legislation. The evidence further shows that the name \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 originated from producers in the town formerly known as Karlsbad and that production of the wafer so named has continued for a considerable period of time. Moreover, the evidence shows that the uses of the name \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 referred to an authentic and traditional product having a common origin with \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019, but was generally not meant to exploit the reputation of the latter name. For these reasons, and in the interests of fairness and traditional usage, the maximum transitional period foreseen by Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 should be foreseen.\n(9)\nConcerning trade marks containing the term \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 that were protected through registration or acquired by use prior to the application for registration of \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019, the conditions of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 not being met, the said trade marks cannot be invalidated nor can their continued use be hindered by virtue of the registration of \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019 as a protected geographical indication, provided the general requirements under trade mark legislation are otherwise met.\n(10)\nConcerning generic status, the evidence provided in the statements of objection referred to the alleged general use of the term \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 in Germany and Austria, and not to that of \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019. While the objections have provided evidence to show that a number of uses as general descriptive terms exist including the German mention \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019, no evidence has been provided that the name \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019 is used to designate a category of products that do not originate in the region of Karlovy Vary. The name \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019 was protected as a geographical indication in 1967 in the Czech Republic. The objection does not take into consideration the situation in the Czech Republic. Therefore, on the basis of information provided the name \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019 cannot be considered to be generic and there is no failure of compliance with Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(11)\nIn the light of the above, the name \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019 should be entered in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications subject to a transitional period of 5 years during which time the term \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 may continue to be used in circumstances that, without such a transitional period, could be contrary to the protection provided for by Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Protected Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe designation contained in the Annex to this Regulation shall be entered in the register.\nArticle 2\n1. The term \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 may be used to designate wafers not complying with the specification for \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019 for a period of 5 years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Trade marks containing the term \u2018Karlsbader Oblaten\u2019 that were protected through registration or acquired by use prior to 20 October 2004, shall not be invalidated nor shall their continued use be hindered by virtue of the registration of \u2018Karlovarsk\u00e9 oplatky\u2019 as a protected geographical indication, provided the general requirements under trade mark legislation are otherwise met.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2011.", "references": ["63", "49", "15", "57", "2", "7", "11", "55", "69", "50", "41", "5", "33", "79", "88", "94", "51", "87", "12", "74", "71", "4", "84", "75", "89", "81", "1", "60", "17", "65", "No Label", "24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 21 May 2012\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\n(2012/265/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 16 June 2011, the European Commission (\u2018Commission\u2019) received a complaint concerning the alleged injurious dumping of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019), lodged pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation by the Glass Fibre Fabrics Defence Coalition (\u2018GFFDC\u2019 or \u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics.\n(2)\nThe complaint contained prima facie evidence of the existence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding.\n(3)\nOn 28 July 2011, the Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the PRC.\n(4)\nThe Commission officially advised the exporters/producers in the PRC, importers, users and any associations known to be concerned, the authorities of the PRC and all known Union producers of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(5)\nAll interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\nB. WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(6)\nBy a letter of 12 March 2012 to the Commission, the complainant formally withdrew its complaint.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(8)\nThe investigation had not brought to light any considerations showing that such termination would be against the Union interest. Therefore the Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. Comments were received from one interested party. However, these comments did not alter the finding that the termination of the proceeding would not be against the Union interest.\n(9)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the PRC should be terminated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of fabrics of woven or stitched or woven and stitched continuous filament glass fibre rovings, excluding products which are impregnated or pre-impregnated (pre-preg), and excluding open mesh fabrics with cells with a size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2 originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 39 00, ex 7019 40 00 and ex 7019 90 00, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2012.", "references": ["50", "8", "68", "81", "69", "6", "42", "38", "43", "35", "54", "16", "26", "36", "56", "13", "1", "27", "17", "63", "79", "25", "98", "61", "74", "37", "24", "5", "21", "49", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "89", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "89", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 659/2012\nof 18 July 2012\non the issue of licences for the import of garlic in the subperiod from 1 September 2012 to 30 November 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 (3) opens and provides for the administration of tariff quotas and introduces a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and other agricultural products imported from third countries.\n(2)\nThe quantities for which \u2018A\u2019 licence applications have been lodged by traditional importers and by new importers during the first seven working days of July 2012, pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 exceed the quantities available for products originating in China.\n(3)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, it is now necessary to establish the extent to which the \u2018A\u2019 licence applications sent to the Commission by 14 July 2012 can be met in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApplications for \u2018A\u2019 import licences lodged pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 during the first seven working days of July 2012 and sent to the Commission by 14 July 2012 shall be met at a percentage rate of the quantities applied for as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2012.", "references": ["90", "46", "84", "11", "69", "47", "99", "76", "89", "66", "36", "78", "97", "18", "94", "56", "87", "33", "63", "85", "13", "35", "75", "20", "29", "4", "67", "74", "83", "88", "No Label", "21", "22", "68", "93", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68", "93", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1353/2011\nof 20 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the keeping of accounts by the paying agencies, declarations of expenditure and revenue and the conditions for reimbursing expenditure under the EAGF and the EAFRD\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 42 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 70[(4c)] of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (2) allows the EAFRD contribution rate to be increased to a maximum of 95 % for Member States which are facing serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability.\n(2)\nIn order to allow Member States to benefit as soon as possible from the increased co-financing rate, the rules for the calculation of the Union contribution in the context of the EAFRD accounts, provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 (3), should be adapted with immediate effect.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 883/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, for rural development programmes modified in accordance with Article 70[(4c)] of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the Union contribution shall, during the period in which the derogation referred to in Article 70[(4c)] of that Regulation applies, be calculated on the basis of the financing plan in force on the last day of the reference period. For the last reference period when the derogation referred to in Article 70[(4c)] of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 applies, the declaration of expenditure referred to in Article 16 shall indicate separately the expenditure incurred before and after the derogation ceased to apply. The Union contribution to be paid in respect of these sub reference periods shall be calculated on the basis of the financing plan in force during each sub reference period\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["26", "51", "80", "3", "92", "87", "4", "74", "59", "11", "37", "77", "27", "81", "82", "65", "25", "41", "79", "69", "53", "6", "5", "8", "94", "0", "52", "96", "23", "75", "No Label", "10", "15", "17"], "gold": ["10", "15", "17"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 255/2012\nof 22 March 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 235/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 March 2012.", "references": ["33", "63", "88", "59", "56", "40", "47", "51", "74", "58", "8", "78", "20", "36", "52", "69", "83", "28", "68", "84", "77", "5", "38", "48", "93", "26", "81", "98", "46", "14", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 350/2010\nof 23 April 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of manganese chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine as a feed additive for all animal species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of manganese chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine as a feed additive for all animal species, to be classified in the additive category \u2018nutritional additives\u2019.\n(4)\nFrom the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) adopted on 9 December 2009 (2), read in combination with the opinions of 15 September 2009 (3) and 15 April 2008 (4), it results that manganese chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment. According to the opinion of 15 April 2008, the use of that preparation may be considered as a source of available manganese and fulfils the criteria of a nutritional additive for all animal species. The Authority recommends appropriate measures for user safety. It does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of that preparation shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised, as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nBy Commission Regulation (EU) No 103/2010 of 5 February 2010 concerning the authorisation of manganese chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine as a feed additive for chickens for fattening (5) that preparation was already authorised as a feed additive for chickens for fattening. That Regulation should be repealed.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018nutritional additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018compounds of trace elements\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 103/2010 is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2010.", "references": ["71", "96", "45", "9", "83", "8", "97", "32", "50", "26", "93", "27", "13", "94", "55", "60", "12", "53", "69", "37", "67", "89", "54", "58", "29", "6", "90", "86", "42", "25", "No Label", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/97/CFSP\nof 17 February 2012\namending Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 15 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (1).\n(2)\nOn the basis of a review of Decision 2011/101/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 20 February 2013.\n(3)\nHowever, there are no longer grounds for keeping certain persons and entities on the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/101/CFSP apply.\n(4)\nIn order to facilitate further the dialogue between the EU and the Government of Zimbabwe, the travel ban imposed on the two members of the re-engagement team of the Zimbabwe Government listed under Decision 2011/101/CFSP should be suspended.\n(5)\nThe information relating to certain persons and entities included on the list in the Annex to Decision 2011/101/CFSP should be updated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nCouncil Decision 2011/101/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 10 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 10\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall apply until 20 February 2013.\n3. The measures referred to in Article 4(1), in so far as they apply to persons listed in Annex II, shall be suspended until 20 February 2013.\n4. This Decision shall be kept under constant review and shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe Annex shall be replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this Decision and the term \u2018Annex\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018Annex I\u2019 throughout Decision 2011/101/CFSP;\n(3)\nAnnex II to this Decision shall be added as Annex II to Decision 2011/101/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2012.", "references": ["92", "41", "45", "48", "82", "71", "67", "52", "55", "23", "31", "95", "15", "65", "97", "17", "72", "16", "49", "73", "93", "37", "78", "21", "96", "14", "42", "80", "89", "56", "No Label", "3", "12", "94"], "gold": ["3", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1022/2010\nof 12 November 2010\nauthorising an increase of the limits for the enrichment of wine produced using the grapes harvested in 2010 in certain wine-growing zones\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular the third paragraph of Article 121 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPoint A.3 of Annex XVa to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that Member States may request that the limits for increasing the alcoholic strength (enrichment) of wine by volume be raised by up to 0,5 % in years when climatic conditions have been exceptionally unfavourable.\n(2)\nBelgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and the United Kingdom have requested such increases of the limits for enrichment of the wine produced using the grapes harvested in the year 2010, as climatic conditions during the growing season have been exceptionally unfavourable in certain geographical regions.\n(3)\nDue to the exceptionally adverse weather conditions during 2010, the limits on increases in the natural alcoholic strength provided for in point A.2 of Annex XVa to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 do not enable the production of wine with an appropriate total alcoholic strength in certain wine-growing regions for which there would normally be market demand.\n(4)\nIt is therefore appropriate to authorise an increase of the limits for the enrichment of wine produced using the grapes harvested in 2010 in certain wine-growing regions.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn the geographical regions listed in the Annex to this Regulation, by derogation from point A.2 of Annex XVa to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the increase in natural alcoholic strength by volume of fresh grapes harvested in the year 2010, grape must, grape must in fermentation, new wine still in fermentation and wine produced using the grapes harvested in the year 2010, shall not exceed the following limits:\n(a)\n3,5 % vol. in wine-growing zone A referred to in the appendix to Annex XIb to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(b)\n2,5 % vol. in wine-growing zone B referred to in the appendix to Annex XIb to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(c)\n2,0 % vol. in wine-growing zone C I referred to in the appendix to Annex XIb to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 November 2010.", "references": ["93", "21", "18", "62", "92", "14", "86", "40", "89", "84", "59", "64", "26", "74", "2", "81", "69", "56", "73", "68", "24", "78", "72", "99", "67", "4", "97", "45", "28", "42", "No Label", "66", "71", "96"], "gold": ["66", "71", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 723/2010\nof 11 August 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 719/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["54", "1", "93", "12", "4", "50", "6", "91", "21", "18", "52", "64", "75", "77", "85", "99", "19", "66", "2", "98", "70", "78", "96", "94", "45", "24", "41", "51", "46", "33", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 182/2012\nof 2 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2012.", "references": ["71", "0", "90", "28", "85", "21", "77", "7", "25", "91", "79", "50", "30", "23", "41", "44", "84", "17", "57", "5", "26", "89", "34", "58", "15", "4", "1", "98", "45", "96", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 402/2012\nof 10 May 2012\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium radiators originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 12 August 2011, the European Commission (the \u2018Commission\u2019) announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (\u2018Notice of Initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of aluminium radiators originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged by the International Association of Aluminium Radiator Manufacturers Limited Liability Consortium (AIRAL Scrl - \u2018the complainant\u2019), representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 % of the total Union production of aluminium radiators. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.\n2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant, other known Union producers, the exporting producers in the PRC, producers in the analogue country, importers, distributors, and other parties known to be concerned, and representatives of the PRC of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(4)\nThe complainant, other Union producers, the exporting producers in the PRC, importers and distributors made their views known. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(5)\nIn view of the apparent high number of Union producers, importers and exporting producers sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and if so, to select a sample, importers and exporting producers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned (as defined in section 3 below) during the period from July 2010-June 2011.\n(6)\nIn order to allow exporting producers to submit a claim for market economy treatment (\u2018MET\u2019) or individual treatment (\u2018IT\u2019), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the Chinese exporting producers known to be concerned and to the authorities of the PRC. Only one group of companies, Sira (Tianjin) Aluminium Products Co. Ltd and Sira Group (Tianjin) Heating Radiators Co. Ltd (the \u2018Sira Group\u2019), came forward and requested MET. Requests for IT were received from Zhejiang Flyhigh Metal Products Co., Ltd. and Metal Group Co., Ltd.\n(7)\nAs regards the Union producers and as duly explained in recital 24 below, eight Union producers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in a sample. On the basis of the information received from the cooperating Union producers, the Commission selected a sample of four Union producers on the basis of their sales/production volume, their size and geographic location in the Union.\n(8)\nAs explained in recital 27 below, only three unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in a sample. However two of these importers did not import/purchase the product concerned. Therefore, in view of the limited number of cooperating importers, sampling was deemed to be no longer necessary.\n(9)\nAs explained in recital 28 below, 18 exporting producers in the PRC provided the requested information and agreed to be included in a sample. On the basis of the information received from these parties, the Commission selected a sample of two exporting producers having the largest volume of exports to the Union.\n(10)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to all the other companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation, namely to the exporting producers in the PRC, the four sampled Union producers, the cooperating importers in the Union and to the European Consumers\u2019 Organization BEUC, with the request to send the users\u2019 questionnaire to its associated companies.\n(11)\nReplies were received from the two sampled exporting producers in the PRC, from the four sampled Union producers and one unrelated importer. None of the users replied to the questionnaire.\n(12)\nIn addition, one claim for individual examination in accrodance with Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation was received from one group of related exporting producers. The examination of these claims at the provisional stage would have been too burdensome to be carried out. A decision whether individual examination will be granted to this group of companies will be taken at the definitive stage.\n(13)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\nProducers in the Union\n-\nArmatura Krakow SA, UL. Zakopianska 72, 30-418 Krakow, Poland;\n-\nFondital S.p.A., via Cerreto 40, 25079 Vobarno, Brescia, Italy;\n-\nGlobal Srl, via Rondinera 51, 24060 Rogno, Bergamo, Italy;\n-\nRadiatori 2000 S.p.A., via Francesca 54/A, 24040 Ciserano, Bergamo, Italy\nImporters in the Union\n-\nHydroland Chorobik Gaw\u0119da Malec Wojtycza Sp.j., Jawornik 658, 32-400 My\u015blenice, Poland.\nExporting producers in the PRC\n-\nZhejiang Flyhigh Metal Products Co., Ltd. (\u2018Zhejiang Flyhigh\u2019), Jinyun\n-\nMetal Group Co., Ltd., Wuyi\n3. Investigation period\n(14)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 (the \u2018investigation period\u2019 or the \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from January 2008 to the end of the IP (\u2018period considered\u2019).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(15)\nThe product concerned is aluminium radiators and elements or sections of which such radiator is composed, whether or not such elements are assembled in blocks, excluding radiators and elements and sections thereof of the electrical type (\u2018the product concerned\u2019). The product concerned currently falls within CN codes, ex 7615 10 10, ex 7615 10 90, ex 7616 99 10 and ex 7616 99 90.\n(16)\nThe product definition was contested by the Sira Group based on an alleged difference between the two production processes which are used to manufacture radiators. Within the Sira Group there are two Chinese exporting producers one of which used the die-casting production technique whereas the second company used the extrusion method. Sira Group argued that the extrusion method should be excluded from the definition of the product concerned because of alleged differences in physical and technical characteristics, raw materials, production costs and sales prices and because the extrusion technique is uncommon in the EU and in the PRC.\n(17)\nAnother Chinese party, the China Chamber of Commerce for Imports and Exports of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) requested clarification of this issue because of differences in costs and prices of radiators manufactured by the two production techniques.\n(18)\nIn this respect, although there are minor differences it is clear that the radiators produced by both methods have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and have the same uses. Radiators produced by both methods are highly substitutable. These basic characteristics are, primarily, lightness, low thermal inertia and high heat conductibility. Differences in costs and prices and the fact that the extrusion technique may involve the use of a slightly different aluminium alloy do not change these basic characteristics. In terms of price comparisons, any differences are properly accounted for in the structure of the product type comparison system employed in this investigation (\u2018PCN-system\u2019) which means that only like for like comparisons would be made.\n(19)\nFurthermore, aluminium radiators should be considered as one single product whatever their manufacturing process because they are sold through the same channels of sales and because end-user and consumer perception of them is that they are made of aluminium (with well-known characteristics as mentioned above) rather than any differentiation based on production method. In view of the above, this claim is therefore rejected.\n(20)\nCCCME also contested the fact that steel plate or even cast iron radiators are not included within the product scope. However, although such products have similar uses, they have different basic physical and technical characteristics as the basic raw material (aluminium alloy) is replaced by steel or iron which have different physical and technical characteristics in terms of weight, thermal inertia and conductibility. This claim is therefore rejected.\n(21)\nCCCME made further comments relating to references in the complaint to sales via \u2018tender processes\u2019. These comments revealed that it assumed that this concerned public procurement. The tender processes referred to in the complaint, however, related to normal business practice whereby an EU purchaser of radiators asks potential suppliers to quote prices before placing orders. None of the Chinese imports used in the calculations involved a public procurement process.\n(22)\nCCCME also commented on references in the Complaint to \u2018design radiators\u2019, assuming that such radiators are excluded from the product definition. Again, these comments were based on a misunderstanding as the product definition does not exclude such radiators. These comments were therefore dismissed.\n2. Like product\n(23)\nThe investigation has shown that aluminium radiators produced in and exported from the PRC and aluminium radiators manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses and are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. SAMPLING\n1. Sampling of Union producers\n(24)\nIn view of the apparent large number of Union producers, sampling was provided for in the notice of initiation for the determination of injury, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(25)\nIn the notice of initiation the Commission announced that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. This sample consisted of four companies, out of the eight Union producers that were known to produce the like product prior to the initiation of the investigation, selected on the basis of their sales volume, their size and geographic location in the Union. They represented 66 % of the total estimated Union production during the IP. Interested parties were invited to consult the file for inspection by interested parties and to comment on the appropriateness of this choice within 15 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. One interested party requested to take also production volume into consideration for the selection of the sample. It was accepted to change the sample accordingly. No interested party opposed to the final sample composed of four companies.\n2. Sampling of unrelated importers\n(26)\nIn view of the potentially large number of importers involved in the proceeding, sampling was envisaged for importers in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(27)\nOnly three unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to cooperate. Since two of these importers did not report imports or purchases the product concerned, sampling was no longer deemed to be necessary.\n3. Sampling of exporting producers\n(28)\nA total of 18 exporting producers in the PRC provided the requested information and agreed to be included in a sample. These companies exported around 5 million elements (3) or slightly less than 50 % of the Chinese exports to the EU market in the IP. On the basis of the information received from these parties, the Commission selected a sample of two exporting producers having the largest representative volume of production, sales and exports which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The two exporting producers, Zhejiang Flyhigh Metal Products Co., Ltd. and Metal Group Co., Ltd., represented around 62 % of the sales volume of the 18 exporting producers which provided data for the sampling exercise.\n(29)\nOne group of exporting producers (the Sira Group) contested their exclusion from the sample on the basis that it manufactured a certain type of radiator (using the extrusion production method) and that its inclusion in the sample would, therefore, increase the representativity of the sample. However, the addition of one extra group was not required as the sample originally selected yet represented more than 60 % of the exports reported by the co-operating companies. In addition, it is not necessary for the sample to cover all types of the product concerned. The claim for inclusion of Sira Group was therefore rejected and the original sample was confirmed.\nD. DUMPING\n1. Market Economy Treatment and Individual treatment\n1.1. Market Economy Treatment (MET)\n(30)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those exporting producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.\n(31)\nHowever, the two sampled exporting producers only requested Individual Treatment (\u2018IT\u2019). MET criteria were therefore not investigated.\n1.2. Individual Treatment (IT)\n(32)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below:\n-\nIn the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;\n-\nExport prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined;\n-\nThe majority of the shares belong to private persons. State officials appearing on the Boards of Directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from State interference;\n-\nExchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and\n-\nState interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty\n(33)\nBoth sampled exporting producers claimed IT. These claims were examined. The investigation showed that the sampled companies fulfilled all the conditions of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(34)\nBoth sampled exporting producers were therefore granted IT.\n2. Analogue country\n(35)\nAccording to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for exporting producers not granted MET shall be established on the basis of the domestic prices or constructed normal value in an analogue country.\n(36)\nIn the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its intention to use Russia as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC and invited interested parties to comment on this.\n(37)\nNo comments were received concerning Russia as proposed analogue country. None of the interested parties suggested alternative analogue country producers of like product in addition to those mentioned in the complaint during the course of investigation.\n(38)\nNo co-operation from Russia was received although all known Russian producers were contacted repeatedly during the investigation and received analogue country questionnaires.\n(39)\nThe Commission through its own research tried to identify any additional producers in third countries.\n(40)\nLetters and questionnaires were therefore sent to all known producers in other third countries (i.e. Turkey, Iran, Croatia, India, South Africa and Switzerland). However, despite follow-up action ultimately no co-operation was received.\n(41)\nAs explained in the recitals 38, 39 and 40 above, the investigation revealed no other market economy third country which could be used as an analogue country in this proceeding. Consequently, in absence of such market economy third country, it was provisionally concluded in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, that it was not possible to determine normal value for the sampled producers based on the domestic prices or constructed normal value in a market economy third country or the price from such a third country to other countries, including the Union, and that it was therefore necessary to determine normal value based on any other reasonable basis, in this case on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product. This was considered appropriate due to the lack of cooperation as mentioned above but also because of the size of the EU market, the existence of imports and the strong internal competition on the EU market for this product.\n3. Normal Value\n(42)\nAs MET was not claimed by the two sampled companies, the normal value for all Chinese exporting producers was determined, as explained in recital 41 above, on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product. Following the choice of the prices paid or payable in the Union, normal value was calculated on the basis of the data verified at the premises of the sampled Union producers listed in recital 13 above.\n(43)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined whether the EU sales of the like product to independent customers were representative. The Union sales of the Union producers of the like product were found to be representative compared to the product concerned exported to the Union by the exporting producers included in the sample.\n(44)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether these sales could be considered as having been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of profitable EU sales to independent customers. EU sales transactions were considered profitable where the unit price was equal to or above the cost of production. Cost of production on the Union market during the IP was therefore determined. This analysis showed that EU sales of some product types were profitable, i.e. the unit net sales price was above the calculated unit cost of production.\n(45)\nThe normal value of each product type was based on the actual sales price (ex-works) for profitable sales and on a constructed normal value for non profitable sales.\n(46)\nNormal value was constructed by adding to the cost of manufacturing of the EU industry its SG&A and profit. Pursuant to Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, the amounts for SG&A and profit of 4,43 % were established on the basis of the actual data pertaining to production and sales in the ordinary course of trade of the like product of the EU producers.\n4. Export prices\n(47)\nAs the sampled exporting producers were granted IT and made export sales to the Union directly to independent customers in the Union, the export prices were based on the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n5. Comparison\n(48)\nThe comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Appropriate adjustments for indirect taxes, freight, insurance, packing, handling and credit costs were granted in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.\n(49)\nFor one of the exporting producers it was clear that the company had not classified the product concerned correctly when using the system as required by the questionnaire. One of the specifications of product concerned related to the thermal output of the radiators. However the company did not posses evidence to support the thermal output reported for its exported models. The thermal output actually reported was not correct and did not correspond to other specifications, such as weight and dimensions. Therefore it was necessary to use only the remaining specifications for comparison purposes.\n(50)\nUsing the PCN-system to classify product types, there was a high degree of matching for one sampled exporting producer. However, for the other sampled exporting producer a resembling technique was employed because no direct matches could be identified. Where the resembling technique was employed the details were disclosed to the party involved.\n6. Dumping margins\n(51)\nAccording to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin for the sampled exporting producers was established based on the comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.\n(52)\nA weighted average of these two dumping margins was calculated for the non sampled co-operating companies.\n(53)\nGiven the low degree of co-operation from the PRC (below 50 %), it is considered appropriate that the countrywide dumping margin applicable to all other exporting producers in the PRC should be based on the most dumped transactions to a particular customer of the cooperating exporters.\n(54)\nThe provisional dumping margins thus established, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:\nTable 1\nCompany Name\nStatus\nDumping Margin\nZhejiang Flyhigh\nIT\n23,0 %\nMetal Group Co. Ltd.\nIT\n70,8 %\nOther co-operating companies\n32,5 %\nCountrywide dumping margin\n76,6 %\nE. INJURY\n1. Total Union production\n(55)\nAll available information concerning Union producers, including information provided in the complaint, data collected from Union producers before and after the initiation of the investigation, and the verified questionnaire responses of the sampled Union producers, was used in order to establish the total Union production for the period considered.\n(56)\nAluminium radiators were manufactured by eight producers in the Union during the IP. All available information concerning Union producers, including information provided in the complaint and data collected from Union producers before and after the initiation of the investigation, was used in order to establish the total Union production during the IP.\n(57)\nOn this basis, the total Union production, in number of elements, was estimated to be around 64 million during the IP. Given that the Union producers supporting the complaint accounted for the total Union production, they constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will be hereafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\n2. Union consumption\n(58)\nEurostat import statistics could not be used in this investigation since the CN codes covering aluminium radiators include other aluminium products, such as electrical radiator, as well.\n(59)\nUnion consumption was thus established on the basis of the data contained in the complaint concerning in particular the sales volume of the Union industry in the Union and the imports made by the exporting producers in the PRC. This data was cross-checked with the received replies to the sampling questionnaires and the data obtained and verified at the premises of the sampled Union producers and the exporting producers in the PRC.\n(60)\nOn this basis the Union consumption was found to have developed as follows:\nTable 2\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnion consumption (elements)\n46 000 000\n40 500 000\n39 000 000\n44 246 066\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n114\n100\n96\n109\nSource: Complaint data and questionnaire replies\n(61)\nTotal consumption on the EU market decreased by 3,8 % during the period considered. Between 2008 and 2009 there was a decrease by about 12 %, in line with the global negative effects of the economic crisis, after which consumption decreased further by 3,7 %. It however recovered from 2010 to the IP, when it increased by 13,5 %, but it did not reach the initial level of 2008. The above table also shows that consumption increased by 9 % in the period from 2009 to the IP.\n3. Imports from the country concerned\n(62)\nImports into the Union from the PRC developed as follows during the period considered:\nTable 3\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nVolume of imports from the PRC (elements)\n6 000 000\n7 000 000\n8 000 000\n10 616 576\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n86\n100\n114\n152\nMarket share\n13,0 %\n17,3 %\n20,5 %\n24,0 %\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n75\n100\n119\n139\nSource: Complaint data and questionnaire replies\n(63)\nNotwithstanding the evolution of consumption, the volume of imports from the PRC increased significantly by 77 % over the period considered. The increase was continuous and was the sharpest between 2010 and the IP (+ 33 %). Similarly, the market share held by Chinese exporting producers shows a steady increasing trend over the period considered, passing from 13 % in 2008 to 24 % during the IP. This trend should be seen in the light of the overall decrease in consumption by 3,8 % during the same period.\n3.1. Prices of imports and price undercutting\nTable 4\nImports from the PRC\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nAverage price in EUR/elements\n4,06\n3,25\n4,07\n4,02\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n125\n100\n125\n123\nSource: Complaint data and questionnaire replies\n(64)\nThe above table shows that the average import price from the PRC slightly decreased during the period considered. In a first step, between 2008 and 2009, it decreased significantly by 20 %, then it increased by 25 % between 2009 and 2010. Finally it decreased again towards the end of the period considered.\n(65)\nThe investigation also showed that the import prices from the PRC consistently remained below the sales prices of the Union industry during the period considered. The drop in prices in 2009 coincided with a sharp increase in Chinese market share from 13 % to 17,3 % of the Union market and the constant price undercutting explains the steady increase in the market share held by Chinese exporting producers in particular between 2009 and the IP.\n(66)\nIn order to determine price undercutting during the IP, the weighted average sales prices per product type of the sampled Union Producers charged to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports from the cooperating Chinese producers to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a CIF basis, with appropriate adjustments for the existing customs duties and post-importation costs.\n(67)\nThe price comparison was made on a type-by-type basis for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and discounts. The result of the comparison, when expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union producers turnover during the IP, showed a weighted average undercutting margin of 6,1 % by the Chinese exporting producers.\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n4.1. Preliminary remarks\n(68)\nAs mentioned in recitals 24 and 25 above, sampling was used for the examination of the possible injury suffered by the Union industry. It should be noted that one of the Union producers included in the sample only started producing aluminium radiators in 2009. In order to provide a consistent trend analysis for the period considered, it was considered appropriate to set 2009 as benchmark year for the injury analysis, namely index 100. For the sake of completeness an index for 2008 has been also established based on the data available.\n(69)\nThe data provided and verified by the four sampled EU producers was used in order to establish micro indicators, such as unit price, unit cost, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, ability to raise capital and stocks. The index for 2008 was established on the basis of the data available for the three existing producers in 2008 compared to the data of the same three producers in 2009 (index 100).\n(70)\nThe data provided for the eight EU producers of aluminium radiators was used to establish macro indicators, such as Union industry production, production capacity, capacity utilization, sales volume, market share and employment. The index for 2008 was established on the basis of the data available for the seven existing producers in 2008 compared to the data available for the same seven producers in 2009 (index 100).\n(71)\nIn the context of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the economic situation of the Union industry over the period considered includes an evaluation of all economic factors established mentioned in that Article.\n4.2. Production, production capacity and capacity utilization\nTable 5\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nProduction volume (elements)\n55 533 555\n60 057 377\n64 100 484\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n116\n100\n108\n115\nProduction capacity (elements)\n93 426 855\n95 762 788\n107 218 125\n100\n103\n115\nCapacity utilisation\n70 %\n59 %\n63 %\n60 %\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n119\n100\n106\n101\nSource: Complaint data and questionnaire replies\n(72)\nAll available information concerning Union producers, including information provided in the complaint, data collected from Union producers before and after the initiation of the investigation, and the verified questionnaire responses of the sampled Union producers, was used in order to establish the total Union production for the period considered.\n(73)\nThe table above shows that production decreased over the period considered. In line with a decrease in demand, production decreased sharply in 2009, after which it recovered in 2010 and during the IP. Production remained relatively stable between 2009 and the IP despite an increase in consumption by 9 %. The level of production is also dependent on the export activity of the Union industry which remained significant throughout the period considered.\n(74)\nDespite the limited decrease in consumption capacity utilisation decreased from 70 % in 2008 to 60 % during the IP. It remained relatively stable in the period between 2009 and the IP.\n4.3. Sales volume and market share\nTable 6\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nSales volume (elements)\n40 000 000\n33 500 000\n31 000 000\n33 629 490\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n119\n100\n93\n100\nMarket share\n87 %\n82,7 %\n79,5 %\n76 %\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n105\n100\n96\n92\nSource: Complaint data and questionnaire replies\n(75)\nThe Union industry sales volume decreased by 16 % over the period considered and its market share continuously dropped from 87 % in 2008 to 76 % during the IP. In 2009 the Union industry sales volume decreased by 16 %, hence it lost more than four percentage points of market share. In 2010 sales volume further dropped by 7 % and its market share decreased from 82,7 % to 79,5 %. During the IP, in a context of increasing consumption (+ 13,5 %), the Union industry market share dropped further to 76 %. It was thus unable to benefit from the growing consumption and to regain some of the market share previously lost.\n4.4. Growth\n(76)\nDuring the period considered it emerged that Union consumption decreased slightly by 3,8 %, while sales volume and market share of the Union industry decreased significantly, respectively by 15,9 % and by 12,6 %, during the same period. At the same time, imports from the PRC increased significantly by 76,9 % over the period considered. As a consequence, the market share of the Union industry decreased by 11 percentage points over the same period.\n4.5. Employment\nTable 7\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nNumber of employees\n1 598\n1 642\n1 641\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n102\n100\n103\n103\nProductivity (unit/employee)\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n114\n100\n105\n112\nSource: Complaint data and questionnaire replies\n(77)\nThe number of employees increased slightly over the period considered, but this in turn led to a decrease in productivity. However, it should be noted that the upwards trend regarding employment is only due to the fact that one of the sampled companies, the smallest of the sample started producing in 2009. Otherwise the trend in employment would have been negative.\n(78)\nProductivity of the Union industry workforce, measured as output per person employed per year, decreased slightly over the period considered. It reached its lowest level in 2009, after which it started to recover towards the IP, without reaching the initial levels. Between 2009 and the IP productivity increased by 12 %.\n4.6. Average unit prices in the Union and cost of production\nTable 8\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnit price in EU to unrelated customers\n(Euro per element)\n5,31\n5,47\n5,62\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n113\n100\n103\n106\nUnit Cost EUR/Element\n4,92\n5,34\n5,61\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n113\n100\n109\n114\nSource: questionnaire replies sampled producers\n(79)\nThe trend of the average sales prices shows a significant decrease by 6 % over the period considered. In the period from 2009 to the IP, in line with an increasing consumption and a recovery in the market, prices recovered by 6 % but did not reach the level of 2008.\n(80)\nIn parallel, the relative costs to produce and sell the like product slightly decreased over the period considered but it was far from allowing the Union industry to remain profitable in 2010 and during the IP. If in 2009, the 11,5 % decrease in costs matched with a 11,5 % decrease in sales prices, in 2010 and during the IP, the Union industry experienced a sharp increase in costs and could only slightly increase its prices to cover the extra costs. This resulted in a further loss in profitability and in market share since the Union industry prices were constantly higher than the Chinese imports prices.\n4.7. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital\nTable 9\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nProfitability of EU sales (% of net sales)\n7,4 %\n7,5 %\n2,4 %\n0,2 %\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n99\n100\n32\n2\nCash Flow\n27 712 871\n14 228 145\n843 570\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n112\n100\n51\n3\nInvestments (EUR)\n25 404 161\n15 476 164\n12 072 057\n8 945 470\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n165\n100\n78\n58\nReturn on Investments\n36 %\n49 %\n21 %\n2 %\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n73\n100\n43\n4\nSource: Questionnaire replies sampled EU producers\n(81)\nProfitability of the Union industry was established by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product as a percentage of the turnover of these sales. Over the period considered, and also on the period from 2009 to the IP, profitability of the Union industry decreased dramatically and barely reached the break even level.\n(82)\nThe trend in cash flow, which is the ability of the industry to self-finance its activities, followed to a large extent the negative trend in profitability. The lowest level was achieved during the IP. Similarly, the return on investment decreased from 36 % in 2008 to 2 % in the IP.\n(83)\nThe evolution of profitability, cash flow and return on investment during the period considered limited the ability of the Union industry to invest in its activities and undermined its development. The Union industry managed to invest heavily in the beginning of the period considered and modernize its machineries to produce more efficiently, but investments thereafter steadily decreased by 64,7 % during the remainder of the period considered.\n4.8. Stocks\nTable 10\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nClosing stock of Union industry Index (2009 = 100)\n137\n100\n131\n299\nSource: Questionnaire replies sampled EU producers\n(84)\nThe stock level of the sampled Union industry increased significantly during the period considered. In 2009 the level of closing stock decreased by 27 %; afterwards, in 2010 and in the IP increased by 30,8 % and 128,4 % respectively.\n5. Magnitude of the actual dumping margin\n(85)\nThe dumping margins are specified above in the dumping section. All margins established are significantly above the de minimis level. Furthermore, given the volume and the prices of dumped imports from the PRC the impact on the EU market of the actual margin of dumping cannot be considered negligible.\n6. Conclusion on injury\n(86)\nThe investigation showed that most of the injury indicators pertaining to the economic situation of the Union industry deteriorated or did not develop in line with consumption during the period considered. This observation particularly applies to the period from 2009 up to the end of the IP.\n(87)\nOver the period considered, in the context of a decreasing consumption, volume of imports from the PRC increased steadily and significantly. At the same time, the Union industry sales volume decreased overall by 16 % and its market share dropped from 87 % in 2008 to 76 % in the IP. Even when consumption recovered by 9 %, from 2009 to the IP, the Union industry market share continued to decrease further. The Union industry was unable to regain the market share previously lost in view of the significant expansion of the dumped imports from the PRC in the EU market. The low-priced dumped imports increased steadily over the period considered, constantly undercutting the prices of the Union industry.\n(88)\nFurthermore, the injury indicators related to the financial performance of the Union industry, such as cash flow and profitability were seriously affected. This means that the ability of the Union industry to raise capital and to invest was undermined.\n(89)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it was concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\nF. CAUSATION\n1. Introduction\n(90)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the dumped imports originating in the PRC have caused injury to the Union industry to a degree that enables it to be classified as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which might have injured the Union industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n2. Effect of the dumped imports\n(91)\nThe investigation showed that the Union consumption decreased by 3,8 % over the period considered, while the volume of dumped imports from the PRC increased dramatically by about 77 %, their market share also increased from 13 % in 2008 to 24 % in the IP. At the same time, sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 16 % and market share dropped from 87 % in 2008 to 76 % in the IP.\n(92)\nIn the period from 2009 up to the IP, Union consumption increased by 9 %, while the Union industry market share dropped again, in contrast to an annual increase in dumped imports from the PRC by 52 % in that period.\n(93)\nWith regard to price pressure, it should be highlighted that in 2009 average import prices from the PRC decreased by 20 % forcing the Union industry to significantly decrease its sales prices by about 11,5 %. In 2010 and during the IP, the Union industry tried to increase its prices, because of increased costs. This resulted in a further loss of market share, since the Union industry prices were constantly higher than the prices of dumped imports from the PRC. This situation led in particular to a significant deterioration in profitability, sales volume and market share of the Union industry.\n(94)\nPrices of dumped imports from the PRC decreased in the period considered. Even if in the period from 2009 to the IP, import price from the PRC increased by 23 %, they consistently remained significantly lower than sales prices of the Union industry during the period considered and in particular during the IP, thus keeping price in the Union market.\n(95)\nBased on the above it is concluded that the massive increase of the dumped imports from the PRC at prices constantly undercutting those of the Union industry have had a determining role in the material injury suffered by the Union industry, which is reflected in particular in its poor financial situation, in the drop in sales volume and in market share and in the deterioration of most of the injury indicators.\n3. Effect of other factors\n3.1. Imports from third countries\n(96)\nAs clarified in recital 58 above, Eurostat import statistics could not be used in this investigation since the CN codes covering aluminium radiators and elements and sections thereof include all sorts of aluminium products. In the absence of any other reliable information, it was established on basis of the complaint, that apart from the PRC, there is no other non-EUcountry which produced and exported aluminium radiators to the EU during the period considered.\n3.2. Economic crisis\n(97)\nThe economic crisis partially explains the contraction of the Union consumption in particular in 2009 and 2010. However, it is noteworthy that in a situation of decreasing consumption in the period considered and in a situation of increasing consumption in the period between 2009 and the IP, the volume of dumped imports from the PRC at prices undercutting those of the Union industry kept on increasing in the Union market.\n(98)\nThe performances of the low-priced dumped imports contrast with those of the Union industry. Indeed, the investigation showed that as from 2009 and up to the IP, even if Union consumption increased in line with the general economic recovery, the Union industry market share kept decreasing. Even if production volume tended to increase, there was a surplus which had to be put into the stocks.\n(99)\nUnder normal economic conditions and in the absence of strong price pressure and surge in import of dumped products, the Union industry might have had some difficulty in coping with the decrease in consumption and the increase in fixed costs per unit due to the decreased capacity utilisation it experienced. However, the investigation clearly suggests that the dumped imports from the PRC have intensified the effect of the economic downturn. Even during the general economic recovery, the Union industry was unable to recover and to regain sales volumes and the market share lost throughout the period considered.\n(100)\nTherefore, although the economic crisis may have contributed to the Union industry\u2019s poor performance, overall, it cannot be considered to have an impact such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injurious situation of that industry suffered in particular during the IP.\n3.3. Development of the Union industry cost of production\n(101)\nThe investigation showed that the cost to produce aluminum radiators is directly linked to the price development of aluminum, the main raw material used to produce this product. Even if, as shown in table 8 above, Union industry cost of production decreased significantly in 2009, sales prices decreased at the same pace. In 2010 and during the IP, costs increased more than sale prices and thus did not allow for a recovery, in particular in the profitability of the Union industry. This situation occurred when the import price of the products imported from the PRC were consistently undercutting those of the Union industry.\n(102)\nIn a market economy, it could be expected that prices on the market would regularly adapt to reflect the development in the various components of the cost of production. This did however not happen. The investigation confirmed that dumped imports from the PRC, undercutting the Union industry prices, continued to depress the Union market prices and thus prevented the Union industry from keeping its market share and adjusting prices to cover for its costs and achieve a reasonable profit level in particular during the IP.\n(103)\nThe increase in raw material prices was therefore not such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury suffered by the Union industry in particular during the IP.\n3.4. Export performance of the sampled Union industry\nTable 11\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nExport sales in elements\n18 280 847\n20 245 515\n17 242 607\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n126\n100\n111\n94\nSource: Questionnaire replies sampled EU producers\n(104)\nThe export activity of the Union industry constituted an important share of its business during the period considered. The core exports markets of the Union industry were mainly Russia and other East European countries where the products sold were of relatively lower quality and were thus cheaper compared to the radiators sold in the Union market.\n(105)\nThe above table shows that the export turnover of the Union industry decreased in the period considered. This may partly be explained by the fact that, as available information suggests, growing export volumes of aluminium radiators from the PRC were also present in those export markets.\n(106)\nNevertheless, it is clear that the export activity allowed the Union industry to achieve economies of scales and thus to reduce its overall costs of production. Hence, it can reasonably be considered that the export activity of the Union industry could not be a potential cause of the material injury it had suffered in particular during the IP. Any negative impact the export sales decrease may have had on the Union Industry, it cannot be such as to break the causal link between that injury and the low-priced dumped imports from China.\n4. Conclusion on causation\n(107)\nThe above analysis demonstrated that there was a substantial increase in the volume and market share of the dumped imports originating in the PRC in the period considered and also from the period from 2009 up to the IP. It was found that these imports were constantly undercutting the prices charged by the Union industry on the Union market and in particular during the IP.\n(108)\nThis increase in volume and market share of the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC was continuous and coincided with the negative development in the economic situation of the Union industry. This situation worsened in the IP, when the Union industry was unable to regain its lost market share and profitability and other financial indicators such as cash flow and return on investments reached their lowest levels.\n(109)\nThe analysis of the other known factors, including the economic crisis, showed that any negative impact of these factors cannot be such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(110)\nBased on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped exports, it was provisionally concluded that the dumped exports from the PRC have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\nG. UNION INTEREST\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(111)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether, despite the provisional conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed for concluding that it is not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this particular case. The analysis of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers, and users of the product concerned.\n2. Interest of the Union industry\n(112)\nThe Union industry has suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports from the PRC. It is recalled that most of the injury indicators showed a negative trend during the period considered. In the absence of measures, a further deterioration in the Union industry\u2019s situation appears unavoidable.\n(113)\nIt is expected that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties will restore effective trade conditions on the Union market, allowing the Union industry to align the prices of the product investigated to reflect the costs of the various components and the market conditions. It can also be expected that the imposition of provisional measures would enable the Union industry to regain at least part of the market share lost during the period considered, with a further positive impact on its profitability and overall financial situation.\n(114)\nShould measures not be imposed, further losses in market share could be expected and the Union industry would remain loss-making. This would be unsustainable in the medium to long-term. In view of the losses incurred and the high level of investment in production made at the beginning of the period considered it can be expected that most Union producers would be unable to recover their investments, should measures not be imposed.\n(115)\nIt is therefore provisionally concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping duties would be in the interest of the Union industry.\n3. Interest of users and importers\n(116)\nThere was no cooperation from users in this investigation.\n(117)\nAs regards importers, only one importer located in Poland cooperated in this investigation by responding to the questionnaire and accepting a verification visit. This importer had small losses for the product concerned during the IP. However, the business of the product concerned is relatively small in relation to the total company\u2019s activities. Therefore, imposition of measures is not likely to have a severe impact on its total profits.\n4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(118)\nIn view of the above, it is provisionally concluded that based on the information available concerning the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of provisional measures on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC.\nH. PROPOSAL FOR PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n1. Injury elimination level\n(119)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.\n(120)\nFor the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the dumping margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Union industry, without exceeding the dumping margins found.\n(121)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the Union. It is considered that the profit that could be achieved in the absence of the dumped imports should be based on the average pre-tax profit margin of the sampled Union producers in the year 2008. It is thus considered that a profit margin of 7, 4 % of turnover could be regarded as an appropriate minimum which the Union industry could have expected to obtain in the absence of injurious dumping.\n(122)\nOn this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry for the like product. The non-injurious price was obtained by adjusting the sales prices of the sampled Union producers by the actual profit/loss made during the IP and by adding the above mentioned profit margin.\n(123)\nThe necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of the cooperating exporting producers in the PRC, as established for the price undercutting calculations, with the non-injurious price of the products sold by the Union industry on the Union market during the IP. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the average total CIF import value.\n2. Provisional measures\n(124)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in respect of imports originating in the PRC at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(125)\nOn the basis of the above, the anti-dumping duty rates have been established by comparing the injury elimination margins and the dumping margins. Consequently, the proposed anti-dumping duty rates are as follows:\nCompany\nDumping margin\nInjury margin\nProvisional Duty\nZhejiang Flyhigh Metal Products Co., Ltd\n23,0 %\n12,6 %\n12,6 %\nMetal Group Co. Ltd.\n70,8 %\n56,2 %\n56,2 %\nOther co-operating companies\n32,5 %\n21,2 %\n21,2 %\nCountrywide dumping margin\n76,6 %\n61,4 %\n61,4 %\n(126)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the PRC and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(127)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (4) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\nI. FINAL PROVISION\n(128)\nIn the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of aluminium radiators and elements or sections of which such radiator is composed, whether or not such elements are assembled in blocks, excluding radiators and elements and sections thereof of the electrical type, currently falling within CN codes, ex 7615 10 10, ex 7615 10 90, ex 7616 99 10 and ex 7616 99 90 (TARIC codes 7615101010, 7615109010, 7616991091, 7616999001 and 7616999091) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below, shall be as follows:\nCompany\nDuty (%)\nTARIC additional code\nZhejiang Flyhigh Metal Products Co., Ltd\n12,6\nB272\nMetal Group Co. Ltd.\n56,2\nB273\nJinyun Shengda Industry Co., Ltd..\n21,2\nB274\nNingbo Ephriam Radiator Equipment Co., Ltd\n21,2\nB275\nNingbo Everfamily Radiator Co., Ltd\n21,2\nB276\nNingbo Ningshing Kinhil Industrial Co. Ltd.\n21,2\nB277\nNingbo Ninhshing Kinhil International Co., Ltd.\n21,2\nB278\nSira (Tianjin) Aluminium Products Co., Ltd\n21,2\nB279\nSira Group (Tianjin) Heating Radiators Co., Ltd.\n21,2\nB280\nYongkang Jinbiao Machine Electric Co., Ltd\n21,2\nB281\nYongkang Sanghe Radiator Co., Ltd.\n21,2\nB282\nZhejiang Aishuibao Piping Systems Co., Ltd\n21,2\nB283\nZhejiang Botai Tools Co., Ltd\n21,2\nB284\nZhejiang East Industry Co., Ltd\n21,2\nB285\nZhejiang Guangying Machinery Co., Ltd\n21,2\nB286\nZhejiang Kangfa Industry & Trading Co., Ltd.\n21,2\nB287\nZhejiang Liwang Industrial and Trading Co., Ltd.\n21,2\nB288\nZhejiang Ningshuai Industry Co., Ltd\n21,2\nB289\nZhejiang Rongrong Industrial Co., Ltd.\n21,2\nB290\nZhejiang Yuanda Machinery & Electrical Manufacturing Co., Ltd\n21,2\nB291\nAll other companies\n61,4\nB999\n3. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security, equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Without prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2012.", "references": ["91", "33", "65", "75", "12", "31", "58", "1", "20", "32", "79", "18", "36", "89", "62", "76", "99", "37", "50", "16", "53", "70", "11", "21", "51", "86", "24", "78", "72", "15", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "85", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "85", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 April 2010\ngranting France a partial derogation from Decision 2006/66/EC concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem \u2018rolling stock - noise\u2019 of the trans-European conventional rail system and from Decision 2006/861/EC concerning the technical specification of interoperability relating to the subsystem \u2018rolling stock - freight wagons\u2019 of the trans-European conventional rail system\n(notified under document C(2010) 2588)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(2010/245/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to the request submitted by France on 27 August 2009,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1)(d) of Directive 2008/57/EC, on 27 August 2009 France submitted a request for partial derogation from Commission Decision 2006/66/EC (2) (TSI noise) and from Commission Decision 2006/861/EC (3) (TSI freight wagons), for wagons type NA and AFA of LOHR company.\n(2)\nThe request for derogation concerns freight wagons used to transport road trucks over rail which are manufactured according to a design that existed before the entry into force of both TSIs.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), the European Railway Agency provided its technical opinion on the request for partial derogation on 24 November 2009.\n(4)\nThe opinion indicates that the provisions of six sections of TSI freight wagons describing draw gear, lifting and jacking, equipment attachment, kinematic gauge, vehicle dynamic behaviour and parking brake (respectively in sections 4.2.2.1.2.2, 4.2.2.3.2.4, 4.2.2.3.2.5, 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.4 and 4.2.4.1.2.8) cannot be applied to the wagons concerned due to their construction constraints implied by specialised kind of transported commodity. Regarding TSI noise, the wagons in question have to use, in combination with composite brake blocks, also louder cast iron blocks in order to achieve required braking performances. Therefore until more silent technology is in place the limits for pass-by noise (section 4.2.1.1 of the TSI) cannot be met.\n(5)\nThe overall economical impact of application of the two TSIs, and more specifically of sections 4.2.3.1 and 4.2.3.4 of TSI freight wagons, to the wagons type NA and AFA of LOHR company is estimated to almost EUR 204 million. This amount together with other requirements that would need to be applied to comply with the TSIs would not only heavily compromise the economical viability of the project but also seriously delay or bring to a halt its implementation.\n(6)\nThe derogation is granted for a limited period of time that should be used by France to accelerate the development of innovative solutions promoted by the harmonised specifications and compliant with the TSIs in question.\n(7)\nThe provisions of this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe partial derogation from TSI noise and TSI freight wagons requested by France on 27 August 2009 for LOHR wagons type NA and AFA in accordance with Article 9(1)(d) of Directive 2008/57/EC is granted with the following limitations:\n(a)\nwith regard to provisions of section 4.2.1.1 of the TSI noise, for as long as no technical solution to achieve compliance is available;\n(b)\nwith regard to provisions of sections 4.2.2.1.2.2, 4.2.2.3.2.4, 4.2.2.3.2.5 (type NA only), 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.4, 4.2.4.1.2.8 of the TSI freight wagons, until the revised decision on TSI freight wagons enters into force.\nIn any case, this partial derogation is no longer valid for wagons of these two types placed into service later than 1 January 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 28 April 2010.", "references": ["72", "84", "64", "34", "48", "61", "3", "23", "95", "6", "1", "92", "44", "78", "29", "59", "15", "22", "62", "93", "13", "47", "77", "19", "68", "25", "88", "63", "70", "10", "No Label", "8", "9", "54", "55", "60", "76", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "9", "54", "55", "60", "76", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 359/2011\nof 12 April 2011\nconcerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP of 12 April 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran (1), adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2011/235/CFSP provides for the freezing of funds and economic resources of certain persons responsible for serious human rights violations in Iran. Those persons and entities are listed in the Annex to the Decision.\n(2)\nThe restrictive measures should target persons complicit in or responsible for directing or implementing grave human rights violations in the repression of peaceful demonstrators, journalists, human rights defenders, students or other persons who speak up in defence of their legitimate rights, including freedom of expression, as well as persons complicit in or responsible for directing or implementing grave violations of the right to due process, torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, or the indiscriminate, excessive and increasing application of the death penalty, including public executions, stoning, hangings or executions of juvenile offenders in contravention of Iran\u2019s international human rights obligations.\n(3)\nThose measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(4)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in particular the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the right to the protection of personal data. This Regulation should be applied in accordance with those rights.\n(5)\nThe power to amend the list in Annex I to this Regulation should be exercised by the Council, in view of the political situation in Iran, and to ensure consistency with the process for amending and reviewing the Annex to Decision 2011/235/CFSP.\n(6)\nThe procedure for amending the lists in Annex I to this Regulation should include providing designated persons, entities or bodies with the grounds for listing, so as to give them an opportunity to submit observations. Where observations are submitted, or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in light of those observations and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n(7)\nFor the implementation of this Regulation, and in order to create maximum legal certainty within the Union, the names and other relevant data concerning natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources must be frozen in accordance with this Regulation, must be made public. Any processing of personal data should respect Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (2) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (3).\n(8)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018funds\u2019 means financial assets and benefits of every kind, including but not limited to:\n(i)\ncash, cheques, claims on money, drafts, money orders and other payment instruments;\n(ii)\ndeposits with financial institutions or other entities, balances on accounts, debts and debt obligations;\n(iii)\npublicly- and privately-traded securities and debt instruments, including stocks and shares, certificates representing securities, bonds, notes, warrants, debentures and derivatives contracts;\n(iv)\ninterest, dividends or other income on or value accruing from or generated by assets;\n(v)\ncredit, right of set-off, guarantees, performance bonds or other financial commitments;\n(vi)\nletters of credit, bills of lading, bills of sale;\n(vii)\ndocuments evidencing an interest in funds or financial resources;\n(b)\n\u2018freezing of funds\u2019 means preventing any move, transfer, alteration, use of, access to, or dealing with funds in any way that would result in any change in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination or other change that would enable the funds to be used, including portfolio management;\n(c)\n\u2018economic resources\u2019 means assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which are not funds but may be used to obtain funds, goods or services;\n(d)\n\u2018freezing of economic resources\u2019 means preventing their use to obtain funds, goods or services in any way, including, but not limited to, by selling, hiring or mortgaging them;\n(e)\n\u2018territory of the Union\u2019 means the territories of the Member States to which the Treaty is applicable, under the conditions laid down in the Treaty, including their airspace.\nArticle 2\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex I shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I.\n3. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited.\nArticle 3\n1. Annex I shall consist of a list of persons who, in accordance with Article 2(1) of Decision 2011/235/CFSP, have been identified by the Council as being persons responsible for serious human rights violations in Iran, and persons, entities or bodies associated with them.\n2. Annex I shall include the grounds for the listing of listed persons, entities and bodies concerned.\n3. Annex I shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies concerned. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and identity card numbers, gender, address, if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, entities and bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\nArticle 4\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities in the Member States, as listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of persons listed in Annex I and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the Member State concerned has notified all other Member States and the Commission of the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted, at least 2 weeks prior to the authorisation.\n2. The Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraph 1.\nArticle 5\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities in the Member States, as listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources in question are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the person, entity or body referred to in Article 2 was listed in Annex I, or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources in question will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a person, entity or body listed in Annex I; and\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgment is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\n2. The Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraph 1.\nArticle 6\n1. Article 2(2) shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 2 has been listed in Annex I,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments are also frozen in accordance with Article 2(1).\n2. Article 2(2) shall not prevent financial or credit institutions in the Union from crediting frozen accounts where they receive funds transferred to the account of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, provided that any additions to such accounts will also be frozen. The financial or credit institution shall inform the relevant competent authority about any such transaction without delay.\nArticle 7\nBy way of derogation from Article 2, and provided that a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex I is due under a contract or agreement that was concluded by, or an obligation that arose for the person, entity or body concerned, before the date on which that person, entity or body had been designated, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe competent authority concerned has determined that:\n(i)\nthe funds or economic resources will be used for a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex I; and\n(ii)\nthe payment is not in breach of Article 2(2); and\n(b)\nthe Member State concerned has, at least 2 weeks prior to granting the authorisation, notified the other Member States and the Commission of that determination and its intention to grant an authorisation.\nArticle 8\n1. The freezing of funds and economic resources or the refusal to make funds or economic resources available, carried out in good faith on the basis that such action is in accordance with this Regulation, shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal person or entity or body implementing it, or its directors or employees, unless it is proved that the funds and economic resources were frozen or withheld as a result of negligence.\n2. The prohibition set out in Article 2(2) shall not give rise to any liability of any kind on the part of the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies who made funds or economic resources available if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe the prohibition in question.\nArticle 9\n1. Without prejudice to the applicable rules concerning reporting, confidentiality and professional secrecy, natural and legal persons, entities and bodies shall:\n(a)\nsupply immediately any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 2, to the competent authority in the Member State where they are resident or located, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II, and shall transmit such information, either directly or through the Member States, to the Commission; and\n(b)\ncooperate with that competent authority in any verification of that information.\n2. Any information provided or received in accordance with this Article shall be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.\nArticle 10\nMember States and the Commission shall immediately inform each other of measures taken under this Regulation and shall supply each other with any other relevant information at their disposal in connection with this Regulation, in particular information in respect of violations, enforcement problems and judgments handed down by national courts.\nArticle 11\nThe Commission shall be empowered to amend Annex II on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\nArticle 12\n1. Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to the measures referred to in Article 2(1), it shall amend Annex I accordingly.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for the listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and shall inform the person, entity or body accordingly.\n4. The list in Annex I shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months.\nArticle 13\n1. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules without delay after the entry into force of this Regulation and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment to them.\nArticle 14\nWhere there is, in this Regulation, a requirement to notify, inform or otherwise communicate with the Commission, the address and other contact details to be used for such communication shall be those indicated in Annex II.\nArticle 15\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\nArticle 16\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 12 April 2011.", "references": ["32", "5", "68", "24", "46", "81", "8", "86", "72", "98", "71", "19", "37", "93", "59", "9", "65", "41", "60", "52", "89", "25", "94", "66", "55", "76", "57", "0", "27", "97", "No Label", "3", "11", "12", "14", "95"], "gold": ["3", "11", "12", "14", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1150/2011\nof 14 November 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.\n(2)\nOn 2 September 2011, the Council amended (3) Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 to extend the measures against Syria, including an expansion of the listing criteria agreed for the purpose of freezing of funds and economic resources, and a prohibition on the purchase, import or transportation of crude oil from Syria. On 23 September 2011, the Council amended (4) Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 to extend further the measures against Syria, including a prohibition on investment in the crude oil sector, the addition of further listings, and a prohibition of the delivery of Syrian banknotes and coins to the Central Bank of Syria. On 13 October 2011, the Council again amended (5) Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, listing an additional entity and making a derogation permitting, for a limited period, the use of frozen funds subsequently received by this entity in connection with the financing of trade with non-designated persons and entities.\n(3)\nIn view of the continued brutal repression and violation of human rights by the Government of Syria, on 14 November 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/735/CFSP amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (6) providing for an additional measure, namely to prohibit the European Investment Bank to make any disbursement or payment under or in connection with existing loan agreements with Syria and to suspend all existing Technical Assistance Service Contracts for sovereign projects located in Syria.\n(4)\nThis measure falls within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, notably with a view to ensuring its uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement it.\n(5)\nFurthermore, Decision 2011/735/CFSP provides for the update of the information relating to one person on the list in Annex I to Decision 2011/273/CFSP.\n(6)\nRegulation (EU) No 442/2011 should be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe following article is inserted in Regulation (EU) No 442/2011:\n\u2018Article 3d\nThe European Investment Bank (EIB) shall:\n(a)\nbe prohibited from making any disbursement or payment under or in connection with any existing loan agreements entered into between the State of Syria or any public authority thereof and the EIB;\n(b)\nsuspend all existing Technical Assistance Service Contracts relating to projects financed under the loan agreements referred to in point (a), and which are intended for the direct or indirect benefit of the State of Syria or any public authority thereof to be performed in Syria.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAnnex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["96", "0", "98", "87", "25", "76", "2", "11", "48", "38", "36", "80", "26", "44", "14", "18", "43", "75", "40", "86", "88", "12", "22", "68", "91", "37", "93", "73", "78", "82", "No Label", "3", "10", "23", "95"], "gold": ["3", "10", "23", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 805/2010\nof 13 September 2010\nre-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, manufactured by Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd, Foshan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 (2) (\u2018the contested Regulation\u2019), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties ranging from 9,9 % to 38,1 % on imports of ironing boards, whether or not free-standing, with or without a steam soaking and/or heating top and/or blowing top, including sleeve boards, and essential parts thereof, i.e. the legs, the top and the iron rest originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019) and Ukraine.\n(2)\nOn 12 June 2007, one cooperating Chinese exporting producer, namely Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd (\u2018Foshan Shunde\u2019), lodged an application at the General Court (\u2018the Court of First Instance\u2019 before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty) seeking the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in so far as it applies to the appellant (3).\n(3)\nOn 29 January 2008, the General Court rejected the application of Foshan Shunde.\n(4)\nOn 3 April 2008, Foshan Shunde lodged an appeal at the Court of Justice asking it to set aside the judgment of the General Court and seeking the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in so far as it concerns the appellant.\n(5)\nOn 1 October 2009, the Court of Justice in its judgment in case C-141/08 P (\u2018the Court of Justice judgment\u2019) set aside the previous judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2008. By its judgment the Court of Justice found that Foshan Shunde\u2019s rights of defence were adversely affected by the infringement of Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, the Court of Justice annulled the contested Regulation in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards manufactured by Foshan Shunde.\n(6)\nThe General Court in case T-2/95 (4) (the \u2018IPS case\u2019) has recognised that, in cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding. The anti-dumping proceeding is an example of such a multi-step proceeding. Consequently, the annulment of the contested Regulation in relation to one party does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation. Moreover, according to Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Union institutions are obliged to comply with the Court of Justice judgment of 1 October 2009. This also implies the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the Court of Justice judgment - as was held in case C-458/98 P (5) (\u2018the IPS appeal case\u2019). It should be noted that apart from the finding of an infringement of Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation, all other findings made in the contested Regulation remain automatically valid to the extent that the Court of Justice rejected all claims made in this respect.\n(7)\nFollowing the Court of Justice judgment of 1 October 2009, a notice (6) was published concerning the partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in PRC. The reopening was limited in scope to the implementation of the Court of Justice judgment in so far as Foshan Shunde is concerned.\n(8)\nThe Commission officially advised the exporting producers, importers and users known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting country and the Union industry of the partial reopening of the investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time-limit set out in the notice.\n(9)\nAll parties who so requested within the above time-limit and who demonstrated that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted the opportunity to be heard.\n(10)\nRepresentations were received from two exporting producers in the PRC (one being the party directly concerned, i.e. Foshan Shunde), the Union industry and two unrelated importers.\n(11)\nAll parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on Foshan Shunde. They were granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to disclosure. The comments of the parties were considered and, where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly.\nB. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE JUDGMENT\n1. Preliminary remark\n(12)\nIt is recalled that the reason for the annulment of the contested Regulation was that the Commission sent its proposal to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty to the Council before the end of the 10-day mandatory deadline as set out by Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation for receiving comments following the sending to interested parties of a definitive disclosure document.\n2. Comments of interested parties\n(13)\nFoshan Shunde argued that the Court of Justice judgment requires no implementing measures. According to the company the re-opening is illegal because there is no specific provision in the basic Regulation allowing for such an approach and because such re-opening would be in conflict with the 15-month statutory deadline for the completion of an investigation as set by Article 6(9) of the basic Regulation and the 18-month deadline as set out by Article 5.10 of the WTO anti-dumping agreement. Foshan Shunde submitted that the IPS case could not serve as a precedent because it was based on Council Regulation (E\u0415C) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (7) (\u2018the old basic Regulation\u2019), under which mandatory deadlines did not apply yet. Foshan Shunde also argued that if the Commission decided to proceed with the implementation of the Court of Justice judgment, this should be done on the basis of the Commission\u2019s definitive disclosure document dated 20 February 2007, where the party was attributed Market Economy Treatment (\u2018MET\u2019) and no dumping was found for this company and not on the basis of the revised definitive disclosure document of 23 March 2007, where the Commission confirmed its provisional findings for Foshan Shunde of no MET and a 18,1 % dumping margin.\n(14)\nThe other Chinese exporting producer - Zheijiang Harmonic Hardware Products Co. Ltd (\u2018Zheijiang Harmonic\u2019) submitted a number of arguments that were essentially identical with those made by Foshan Shunde, i.e. that there is no legal basis for the re-opening of the proceeding, and that no re-imposition of anti-dumping duties is by law possible beyond the time-limits set by the basic Regulation and WTO anti-dumping agreement. It also argued that reissuing a revised disclosure and granting a period to reply in line with Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation cannot correct the violation of Zheijiang Harmonic\u2019s rights of defence and the unlawful imposition of duties. It finally pointed out that the Commission could not re-impose anti-dumping measures based on information relating to 2005, a period that is more than four years prior to the initiation of the partial re-opening of the investigation as this would not be in line with Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, Zheijang Harmonic argued that the Commission could not reopen the case because it has lost its objectivity and impartiality since the contested Regulation proposed by the Commission was partially annulled by the Court of Justice.\n(15)\nThe two unrelated Union importers/producers did not submit any information and data as to the legal merits of the re-investigation but rather emphasised their role as players in the Union\u2019s ironing boards market. One of them also pointed out the repercussions of the Court of Justice\u2019s annulment and the subsequent partial reopening of the investigation on their business.\n(16)\nThe Union industry argued that Union producers pay the price for the irregularity identified by the Court of Justice as they are left without protection against imports that were found to be dumped and causing injury. The Union industry proposed that the procedure be resumed at the stage where the Commission\u2019s irregularity occurred i.e. at the time when the Chinese company had to submit its comments on the Commission\u2019s revised definitive disclosure document of 23 March 2007, the party\u2019s comments be decided upon and the new proposal limited to the situation of Foshan Shunde be sent to the Council, with the aim of reinstating the anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards produced by Foshan Shunde. The Union industry also submitted that a similar approach was followed in the past (i.e. in the judgments in the IPS case, the IPS appeal case, and in Council Regulation (EC) No 235/2004 (8) adopted following the judgment of the Court of Justice in case C-76/00 P Petrotub and Republica v Council). Moreover, according to this party the 15-month time-limit of the basic Regulation does not apply to the amendment of a Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties in order to implement a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.\n3. Analysis of comments\n(17)\nIt is recalled that the Court of Justice has rejected all the substantive arguments of Foshan Shunde referring to the merits of the case. Thus, the Union institutions\u2019 obligation is focused on correcting the part of the administrative procedure where the irregularity occurred in the initial investigation.\n(18)\nThe claim that the introduction of deadlines, 15 months and 18 months respectively, to conclude anti-dumping investigations prevents the Commission from following the approach underlying the IPS case was found to be unwarranted. It is considered that this deadline is not relevant for the implementation of a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Indeed, such deadline only governs the completion of the original investigation from the date of initiation to the date of definitive action, and does not concern any subsequent action that might have to be taken for instance as a result of judicial review. Furthermore, it is noted that any other interpretation would mean that a successful legal action brought by the Union industry would be without any practical effect for that party if it is accepted that the expiry of the time-limit to conclude the original investigation would not allow for the implementation of a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. This would be at odds with the principle that all parties should have the possibility of effective judicial review.\n(19)\nIt is also recalled that the General Court in its judgment in joint cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 (9) has held that even the soft deadline applicable under the old basic Regulation could not be stretched beyond reasonable limits and found that an investigation lasting for more than three years was too long. This contrasts with the IPS case where the implementation of the Court of Justice judgment occurred seven years after the initiation of the original investigation and the Court of Justice judgment contains no indication that deadlines were an issue.\n(20)\nTherefore, it is concluded that Article 6(9) of the basic Regulation applies to the initiation of proceedings and the conclusion of the investigation initiated pursuant to Article 5(9) of the basic Regulation only and not to a partial reopening of an investigation with a view to implementing a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.\n(21)\nThis conclusion is in line with the approach taken for the implementation of WTO panels and Appellate Body reports where it is accepted that institutions could amend deficiencies of a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties in order to comply with dispute settlement body reports, including in cases concerning the Union (10). In such cases it was felt necessary to adopt special procedures to implement WTO panel and Appellate Body reports because of the lack of direct applicability of such reports in the Union legal order, by contrast with the judgments of the Court of Justice which are directly applicable.\n(22)\nWith respect to the arguments submitted on the application of Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation it is noted that no infringement of Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation could be established since the Commission has not opened a new proceeding but reopened the original investigation to implement the Court of Justice judgment.\n(23)\nWith respect to the argument that Foshan Shunde should receive the disclosure document of 20 February 2007 and not the revised disclosure document of 23 March 2007 it is noted that in line with the Court of Justice judgment the Commission should correct the procedural irregularity. This administrative irregularity only happened when Foshan Shunde received less than 10 days to comment on the revised disclosure document. Hence, the validity of the preceding steps of the original investigation were not affected by the Court of Justice judgment and does therefore not require to be reviewed in the context of the current partial reopening.\n4. Conclusion\n(24)\nAccount taken of the comments made by the parties and the analysis thereof it was concluded that the implementation of the Court of Justice judgment should take the form of re-disclosure to Foshan Shunde and all other interested parties of the revised definitive disclosure document of 23 March 2007 on the basis of which it was proposed to re-impose an anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards manufactured by Foshan Shunde by the contested Regulation.\n(25)\nOn the basis of the above it was also concluded that the Commission should give Foshan Shunde and all other interested parties enough time to provide comments on the revised definitive disclosure document of 23 March 2007 and then evaluate such comments in order to determine whether to make a proposal to the Council to re-impose the anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards manufactured by Foshan Shunde on the basis of the facts relating to the original investigation period.\nC. DISCLOSURE\n(26)\nInterested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to implement the Court of Justice judgment.\n(27)\nAll interested parties were given an opportunity to comment, applying the 10-day period prescribed in Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation. Their comments were considered and taken into account, where appropriate, but they were not of a nature as to change the above conclusions.\n(28)\nFoshan Shunde and all other interested parties received the revised definitive disclosure document dated 23 March 2007 on the basis of which it was proposed to re-impose the anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards from Foshan Shunde on the basis of the facts relating to the original investigation period.\n(29)\nFoshan Shunde and all other interested parties were given an opportunity to comment on this revised disclosure document. The oral and written arguments submitted were considered and, where appropriate, were taken into account. In the light of the comments made, the following can be observed. The course of action taken in this Regulation is based on the fact that, in the Court of Justice judgment, it is emphasised that Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation cannot be interpreted in such a manner as to oblige the Commission to propose to the Council definitive measures which would perpetuate an error of assessment made in the original assessment of the substantive criteria of that provision (11). Although the Court of Justice made this comment in relation to an error to the detriment of the applicant in that case, it is clear that this interpretation should be applied in an even-handed manner, meaning that also an error to the detriment of the Union industry can not be perpetuated. As stated in the revised final disclosure document of 23 March 2007 and in the revised specific disclosure document of the same date, and in earlier letters by the Commission to the applicant on which those documents are based, Foshan Shunde should be refused MET because its accounting practices had various serious deficiencies and were therefore not in line with International Accounting Standards. This violation of the second criterion in Article 2(7) can not be remedied by the statistics referred to in the last sentence of paragraph 12 of the Court of Justice judgment. The approach which was originally considered in the final disclosure document of 20 February 2007 should therefore be qualified as an error, which should be corrected. In the interest of protecting the Union industry against dumping, the resulting anti-dumping duty on the applicant should be re-imposed as soon as possible.\n(30)\nFollowing the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the re-imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures, one Chinese exporting producer proposed a price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. However, this undertaking offer failed to provide any remedies with respect to the problems already highlighted in recital 68 of the contested Regulation, notably the need to establish meaningful minimum import prices for each of the numerous product types which could be properly monitored by the Commission without serious risk of circumvention. Moreover, the price undertaking offer either suggested one average minimum price covering only one product type exported to the Union, or several minimum import prices based again on weighted average prices for combinations of some products. Furthermore, all the proposed combinations for minimum import price were significantly lower than the highest established export prices. On the basis of the above, it was concluded that such undertaking was impractical and therefore it cannot be accepted. The party was informed accordingly and given an opportunity to comment. However, its comments have not altered the above conclusion.\nD. DURATION OF MEASURES\n(31)\nThis procedure does not affect the date on which the measures imposed by the contested Regulation will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby re-imposed on imports of ironing boards, whether or not free-standing, with or without a steam soaking and/or heating top and/or blowing top, including sleeve boards, and essential parts thereof, i.e. the legs, the top and the iron rest originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 3924 90 00, ex 4421 90 98, ex 7323 93 90, ex 7323 99 91, ex 7323 99 99, ex 8516 79 70 and ex 8516 90 00 (TARIC codes 3924900010, 4421909810, 7323939010, 7323999110, 7323999910, 8516797010 and 8516900051) and manufactured by Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd, Foshan (TARIC additional code A785).\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, shall be 18,1 %.\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2010.", "references": ["87", "60", "35", "52", "1", "49", "67", "10", "56", "55", "70", "76", "63", "5", "16", "58", "72", "59", "61", "40", "45", "34", "65", "92", "75", "98", "93", "86", "41", "18", "No Label", "23", "48", "90", "95", "96"], "gold": ["23", "48", "90", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 562/2012\nof 27 June 2012\namending Commission Regulation (EU) No 234/2011 with regard to specific data required for risk assessment of food enzymes\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (1), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Food Safety Authority,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 234/2011 of 10 March 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (2), the application dossier shall include all the available data relevant for the purpose of the risk assessment.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 234/2011 concerning specific data required for risk assessment of food enzymes, information shall be provided on the biological and toxicological data.\n(3)\nA number of food enzymes currently placed on the Union market have been evaluated and authorised under national provisions in France and Denmark in accordance with the guidelines for the presentation of data on food enzymes of the Scientific Committee on Food (\"the SCF\") set out in opinion expressed on 11 April 1991 (published in 1992) (3). A few food enzymes (e.g. chymosin, invertase and urease) have also been evaluated by the SCF (4).\n(4)\nWith regard to the toxicological properties of enzyme preparations, the SCF guidelines indicated that food enzymes which are derived from edible parts of (non genetically modified) plants and animals are generally considered as posing no health problems. According to the guidelines no special documentation for safety needs to be supplied provided that the potential consumption under normal use does not lead to an intake of any components which is larger than can be expected from normal consumption of the source as such, and provided that satisfactory chemical and microbiological specifications can be established.\n(5)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\"the Authority\") has also indicated in its guidance on data requirements for the evaluation of food enzyme applications (5) that the justification for not supplying toxicological data for food enzymes from edible parts of animals and non genetically modified plants may include a documented history on the safety of the source of the food enzymes, the composition and the properties of the food enzyme as well as its use in food which demonstrates no adverse effects on human health when consumed in a comparable way, supported by any existing toxicological studies. Therefore, the enzyme application for food enzymes from such edible sources should not be required to include toxicological data.\n(6)\nThe concept of Qualified Presumption of Safety (hereinafter referred to as \"QPS\") (6) was established by the Authority as a tool for the assessment of the safety of micro-organisms that are introduced into the food chain either directly or as a source of additives or food enzymes. This concept means that, where a strain of micro-organism is assigned to a QPS group and satisfies the qualifications specified, the Authority does not need to carry out any further safety assessment of the production strain. Therefore, if the micro-organism used in the production of a food enzyme has a status of QPS according to the most recent list of QPS recommended biological agents adopted by the Authority, the enzyme application should not be required to include toxicological data. However, if residues, impurities, degradation products linked to the total enzyme production process (production, recovery and purification) could give rise for concern the Authority, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, may request additional data for risk assessment, including toxicological data.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 6(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1332/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food enzymes (7) a food enzyme may be included in the Union list only if it does not, on the basis of the scientific evidence available, pose a safety concern to the health of the consumer at the level of use proposed. The reduction of data required for risk assessment in relation to food enzymes obtained from edible parts of non genetically modified animals and plants, and from micro-organisms that have a status of QPS does not have a negative impact on the quality of the risk assessment based on the SCF and the Authority\u2019s guidance.\n(8)\nWith regard to grouping of specified food enzymes in one application, the Authority has already indicated in its guidance on data requirements for the evaluation of food enzyme applications that specified food enzymes with the same catalytic activity, produced by the same micro-organism strain and by the substantially same manufacturing process may be grouped in one application, even if as a rule each individual food enzyme must be assessed.\n(9)\nIt is appropriate that food enzymes obtained from edible parts of plants or animals which have the same catalytic activity and which are processed from the same source (e.g. at species level) and with a substantially same production process may be grouped under one application.\n(10)\nIt is also appropriate that food enzymes obtained from micro-organisms which have a status of QPS or from micro-organisms which have been used in the production of food enzymes that have been evaluated and authorised by the competent authorities in France or Denmark in accordance with the SCF guidelines of 1992 may be grouped under one application under the same conditions.\n(11)\nPursuant to Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, during the risk assessment the Authority may request additional information in duly justified cases.\n(12)\nThe establishment of the Union list of food enzymes should take place smoothly and should not disturb the existing food enzyme market. The derogation from submitting toxicological data and the possibility of grouping dossiers will reduce the burden on applicants and in particular on small and medium size enterprises.\n(13)\nThe derogation from submitting toxicological data and the possibility of grouping dossiers should not apply to food enzymes which are produced from genetically modified plants or animals as defined in point 5 of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (8) nor to food enzymes which are produced from or produced with genetically modified micro-organisms as defined in Article 2(b) of Directive 2009/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (9). However, as regards food enzymes obtained from genetically modified micro-organisms through the use of techniques listed in Annex II, Part A, point 4 of Directive 2009/41/EC, the derogation from submitting toxicological data should apply if the parent strains of the micro-organisms have a status of QPS (10).\n(14)\nRegulation (EU) No 234/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 234/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nThe following Article 1a is inserted:\n\"Article 1a\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\"Status of Qualified Presumption of Safety\" means the safety status assigned by the Authority to selected groups of micro-organisms on the basis of an assessment showing no safety concerns.\n(b)\n\"SCF guidelines of 1992\" means the guidelines for the presentation of data on food enzymes set out in the opinion expressed by the Scientific Committee for Food on 11 April 1991 (11).\n(2)\nIn Article 8 the following paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 are added:\n\"3. By way of derogation from point (l) of paragraph 1 the dossier submitted in support of an application for the safety evaluation of a food enzyme does not need to include toxicological data if the food enzyme in question is obtained from:\n(a)\nedible parts of plants or animals intended to be or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans; or\n(b)\nmicro-organisms having the status of Qualified Presumption of Safety.\n4. Paragraph 3 shall not apply where the plants or animals concerned are genetically modified organisms as defined in point 5 of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 or where the micro-organism concerned is a genetically modified micro-organism as defined in Article 2 (b) of Directive 2009/41/EC (12). However, paragraph 3, point (b) shall apply to micro-organisms where genetic modification is obtained through the use of the techniques/methods listed in Annex II, Part A, point 4 of Directive 2009/41/EC.\n5. Food enzymes may be grouped under one application provided that they have the same catalytic activity, are processed from the same source material (e.g. at species level) and with a substantially same production process, and have been obtained from:\n(a)\nedible parts of plants or animals intended to be or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans; or\n(b)\nmicro-organisms having the status of Qualified Presumption of Safety; or\n(c)\nmicro-organisms which have been used in the production of food enzymes that have been evaluated and authorised by the competent authorities in either France or Denmark in accordance with the SCF guidelines of 1992.\n6. Paragraph 5 shall not apply where the plants or animals concerned are genetically modified organisms as defined in point 5 of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 or where the micro-organism concerned is a genetically modified micro-organism as defined in Article 2 (b) of Directive 2009/41/EC.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2012.", "references": ["39", "50", "29", "9", "80", "41", "47", "2", "35", "31", "54", "5", "22", "18", "14", "20", "55", "99", "65", "44", "19", "63", "88", "10", "37", "78", "86", "91", "79", "45", "No Label", "24", "38", "42", "43", "74", "76"], "gold": ["24", "38", "42", "43", "74", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 July 2011\namending the appropriate measures laid down by Decision 2009/618/EC concerning the conclusion of consultations with the Republic of Guinea under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement and repealing that Decision\n(2011/465/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the partnership agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1) and revised at Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, on 22 June 2010 (2) (the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement), and in particular Article 96 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to a proposal from the European Commission,\nIn agreement with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Republic of Guinea has made progress in implementing the undertakings set out in the letter in the Annex to Council Decision 2009/618/EC of 27 July 2009 concerning the conclusion of consultations with the Republic of Guinea under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement (4). Fulfilment of those undertakings is a condition for the lifting of the related measures.\n(2)\nThe Republic of Guinea has made progress in the transition to the return to constitutional rule and the establishment of democracy in particular with the inauguration of a president, following free and transparent presidential elections, and a civil government.\n(3)\nThe holding of presidential elections and the appointment of the new president constitute the partial achievement of the last milestone established in the Annex to the letter annexed to Decision 2009/618/EC.\n(4)\nThe fourth and last milestone marking the end of the transition will not be achieved by 27 July 2011, the date of expiry of Decision 2009/618/EC.\n(5)\nIn the light of the progress made in the return to constitutional rule, the appropriate measures should therefore be updated to take account of the progress achieved and Decision 2009/618/EC should be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe appropriate measures provided for under Article 96(2)(c) of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement are specified in the letter in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2009/618/EC is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall expire on 19 July 2012.\nIt shall be reviewed, if necessary, after an indicative period of 6 months in the light of the conclusions of an on-the-spot mission of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["67", "24", "93", "71", "88", "44", "62", "52", "89", "99", "55", "65", "38", "8", "56", "84", "2", "46", "43", "64", "14", "97", "32", "22", "57", "90", "72", "61", "83", "20", "No Label", "0", "3", "9", "94", "96"], "gold": ["0", "3", "9", "94", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 8 December 2010\nconcerning the adoption of a financing decision for 2010 in the framework of food safety\n(notified under document C(2010) 8620)\n(2010/764/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Financial Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 75 thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Implementing Rules\u2019), and in particular Article 90 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (3), and in particular Article 66(1)(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDifferent actions are foreseen to amend Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 as outlined in the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of said Regulation (4), in particular those related to the amendment of Council Directive 96/23/EC (5) on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and on the review of the rules on the financing of official controls (inspection fees - Articles 26 to 29 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004).\n(3)\nStudies to evaluate the possible impacts of the different options of the revision of the current European legislation on inspection fees and on the control of residues of veterinary medicines in food of animal origin are foreseen to be carried out in 2010.\n(4)\nArticle 66 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 empowers the Commission to finance measures necessary to ensure the application of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 including the organisation of studies.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to commit adequate financial resources for the organisation of studies related to a possible revision of the current rules on residue controls and inspection fees.\n(6)\nThe present financing decision may also cover the payment of interest due for late payment on the basis of Article 83 of the Financial Regulation and Article 106(5) of the Implementing Rules.\n(7)\nIt is appropriate to define the terms \u2018substantial change\u2019 within the meaning of Article 90(4) of the Implementing Rules for the application of this decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe organisation of studies to support the revision of the current rules on residue controls and inspection fees is hereby adopted. It constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe maximum contribution authorised by this Decision for the implementation of the studies is set at EUR 70 000 for the inspections fees and at EUR 30 000 for the residue control, to be financed from the following Budgetary Line of the General Budget of the European Union for 2010:\n-\nBudgetary Line No 17 04 07 01,\nThese appropriations may also cover interest due for late payment.\nArticle 3\nCumulated changes of the allocations to the specific actions not exceeding 20 % of the maximum contribution authorised by this Decision are not considered to be substantial provided that they do not significantly affect the nature and objective of the work programme.\nThe authorising officer may adopt such changes in accordance with the principles of sound financial management and of proportionality.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the authorising officers by delegation.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2010.", "references": ["45", "55", "99", "44", "50", "7", "36", "75", "42", "5", "9", "41", "26", "13", "52", "97", "76", "88", "63", "92", "87", "2", "90", "61", "18", "34", "3", "57", "35", "83", "No Label", "10", "33", "38", "46", "58", "66"], "gold": ["10", "33", "38", "46", "58", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 15 October 2010\nappointing a Member of the Court of Auditors\n(2010/628/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe term of office of Mr Kikis KAZAMIAS expires on 1 November 2010.\n(2)\nA new appointment should therefore be made,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Lazaros LAZAROU is hereby appointed Member of the Court of Auditors for the period from 2 November 2010 to 1 November 2016.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 15 October 2010.", "references": ["96", "45", "25", "50", "33", "71", "80", "15", "48", "66", "2", "27", "44", "18", "95", "12", "21", "65", "43", "78", "85", "30", "74", "54", "86", "82", "49", "51", "93", "6", "No Label", "7", "52"], "gold": ["7", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 943/2011\nof 22 September 2011\nconcerning the non-approval of the active substance propargite, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply, with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval, to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (3). Propargite is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish lists of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. These lists included propargite.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (6) the notifier withdrew its support for the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (7) was adopted on the non-inclusion of propargite.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2027the applicant\u2027) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to Italy which carried out the evaluation in agreement with France which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nItaly evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2027the Authority\u2027) and to the Commission on 4 March 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on the risk assessment of propargite to the Commission on 23 February 2011 (8). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 15 July 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for propargite.\n(7)\nDuring the evaluation of this active substance, concerns were identified. Those concerns were, in particular, the following. It was not possible to perform reliable risk assessments for consumers, operators, workers and bystanders. In addition, it was not possible to finalise the ecotoxicological risk assessment. In particular, a high long term risk to mammals, a risk of secondary poisoning to birds and a high risk to aquatic organisms were identified.\n(8)\nThe Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion of the Authority. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) to Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the applicant to submit comments on the draft review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(9)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns referred to in recital 7 could not be eliminated. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing propargite satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nPropargite should therefore not be approved pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(11)\nFor plant protection products containing propargite, where Member States grant any period of grace in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, this period should expire on 31 December 2012 at the latest as laid down in the second paragraph of Article 3 of Decision 2008/934/EC.\n(12)\nThis Regulation does not prejudice the submission of a further application for propargite pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(13)\nIn the interest of clarity, the entry for propargite in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC should be deleted.\n(14)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nNon-approval of active substance\nThe active substance propargite is not approved.\nArticle 2\nTransitional measures\nMember States shall ensure that authorisations for plant protection products containing propargite are withdrawn by 31 December 2011.\nArticle 3\nPeriod of grace\nAny period of grace granted by Member States in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 shall be as short as possible and shall expire on 31 December 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2008/934/EC\nIn the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC, the entry for \u2018propargite\u2019 is deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2011.", "references": ["28", "95", "60", "59", "12", "53", "36", "88", "30", "41", "52", "79", "46", "49", "62", "58", "35", "73", "81", "2", "24", "37", "10", "6", "5", "97", "39", "64", "96", "80", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 965/2011\nof 28 September 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/625/CFSP of 22 September 2011 amending Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 2 March 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (2).\n(2)\nFurther to UN Security Council Resolution 2009 (2011), Decision 2011/625/CFSP provides, in particular, for new exemptions from the arms embargo, adjustments to the assets freeze of certain Libyan entities and for the possibility of making funds and economic resources available to such entities, and the resumption of certain Libyan flights, in order to support Libya\u2019s economic recovery.\n(3)\nSome of those measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately upon its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 204/2011 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 3, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20186. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex IV, may authorise the provision to persons, entities or bodies in Libya of technical assistance, financing and financial assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List for security or disarmament assistance to the Libyan authorities, provided that the Member State concerned has notified its intention to grant an authorisation to the Sanctions Committee in advance, and the Sanctions Committee has not objected within 5 working days of such notification.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 4a is deleted;\n(3)\nin Article 5, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled on 16 September 2011 by:\n(a)\nCentral Bank of Libya;\n(b)\nLibyan Arab Foreign Bank (a. k. a. Libyan Foreign Bank);\n(c)\nLibyan Investment Authority; and\n(d)\nLibyan Africa Investment Portfolio,\nand located outside Libya on that date shall remain frozen.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 7\n1. By way of derogation from Article 5, the competent authorities in the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex IV, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of persons listed in Annex II or III or referred to in Article 5(4), and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees or the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources;\nprovided that, where the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex II or referred to in Article 5(4), the Member State concerned has notified the Sanctions Committee of that determination and its intention to grant an authorisation, and the Sanctions Committee has not objected to that course of action within five working days of notification.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 5, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex IV, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain frozen funds or economic resources, after having determined that the frozen funds or economic resources are necessary for extraordinary expenses provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nwhere the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex II or referred to in Article 5(4), the Sanctions Committee has been notified of that determination by the Member State concerned and the determination has been approved by that Committee; and\n(b)\nwhere the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex III, the competent authority has notified the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted to the other competent authorities of the Member States and to the Commission at least two weeks before the authorisation.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8\nBy way of derogation from Article 5, the competent authorities in the Member States, as listed in Annex IV, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources in question are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the person, entity or body referred to in Article 5 was included in Annex II or III, or was referred to in Article 5(4), or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources in question will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a person, entity or body listed in Annex II or III, or referred to in Article 5(4);\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgment is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned;\n(e)\nwhere the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex II or referred to in Article 5(4), the Sanctions Committee has been notified by the Member State of the lien or judgment; and\n(f)\nwhere the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex III, the relevant Member State has informed the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted.\u2019;\n(6)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 8b\n1. By way of derogation from Article 5(4), the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex IV, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided that:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources shall be used for one or more of the following purposes:\n(i)\nhumanitarian needs;\n(ii)\nfuel, electricity and water for strictly civilian uses;\n(iii)\nresuming Libyan production and sale of hydrocarbons;\n(iv)\nestablishing, operating, or strengthening institutions of civilian government and civilian public infrastructure; or\n(v)\nfacilitating the resumption of banking sector operations, including to support or facilitate international trade with Libya;\n(b)\nthe Member State concerned has notified to the Sanctions Committee its intention to authorise access to funds or economic resources, and the Sanctions Committee has not objected within 5 working days of such a notification;\n(c)\nthe Member State concerned has notified the Sanctions Committee that those funds or economic resources shall not be made available to or for the benefit of any person, entity or body listed in Annex II or III;\n(d)\nthe Member State concerned has consulted in advance with the Libyan authorities about the use of such funds or economic resources; and\n(e)\nthe Member State concerned has shared with the Libyan authorities the notifications submitted pursuant to points (b) and (c) of this paragraph and the Libyan authorities have not objected within 5 working days to the release of such funds or economic resources.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 5(4) and provided that a payment is due under a contract or agreement that was concluded by, or an obligation that arose for, the person, entity or body concerned, before the date on which that person, entity or body had been designated by the UN Security Council or the Sanctions Committee, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex IV, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe competent authority concerned has determined that the payment is neither in breach of Article 5(2) nor is it to or for the benefit of persons, entities or bodies referred to in Article 5(4);\n(b)\nthe Sanctions Committee has been notified by the relevant Member State of the intention to grant an authorisation 10 working days in advance.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAnnex II to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 is hereby amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 September 2011.", "references": ["80", "68", "89", "5", "1", "40", "65", "71", "32", "28", "15", "82", "8", "16", "78", "9", "54", "38", "11", "30", "81", "61", "72", "42", "75", "56", "64", "21", "60", "12", "No Label", "3", "23", "94"], "gold": ["3", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 821/2011\nof 16 August 2011\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of vinyl acetate originating in the United States of America\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the \u2027Union\u2027),\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 4 December 2010, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of vinyl acetate originating in the United States of America (hereinafter USA or the country concerned).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 22 October 2010 by Ineos Oxide Ltd (\u2018the complainant\u2019) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 % of the total Union industry production of vinyl acetate. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant, other known producers in the Union, exporting producers in the country concerned, importers, traders, users, suppliers and associations known to be concerned, and the representatives of the United States of America of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(4)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\n(5)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the four known exporting producers in the country concerned. Three such exporting producers provided a questionnaire response. The fourth exporting producer declined to cooperate with the investigation and was subsequently informed that it would be treated as a non-cooperating company in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.\n(6)\nThe Commission also sent questionnaires to the complainant and the other Union producer mentioned in the complaint.\n(7)\nIn view of the apparent large number of unrelated importers which are potentially concerned by this investigation, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all unrelated importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide information specified in the notice of initiation. However, given that only two importers came forward within the deadline set by the notice of initiation, it was decided that sampling was not necessary. Two importers in the Union duly replied to the questionnaire and a verification visit took place at the premises of one of them.\n(8)\nOn the other hand, a number of interested parties made themselves known as users. A questionnaire specifically designed for users was sent to such parties. Twelve companies replied to the questionnaire and verification visits were carried out at the premises of two of them.\n(9)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest and carried out verifications at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nUnion producers\nIneos Oxide Ltd, United Kingdom\nWacker Chemie AG, Germany\n(b)\nExporting producers in the country concerned\nCelanese Ltd.\nThe Dow Chemical Company\nLyondellBasell Industries, Acetyls, LLC\n(c)\nUnrelated companies in the country concerned\nTerminal, United States [name of party and exact location confidential]\n(d)\nRelated and unrelated companies in the Union\nCelanese Chemicals Europe GmbH, Germany\nLyondell Chemie Nederland B.V., Netherlands\nTerminal, Union [name of party and exact location confidential]\n(e)\nRelated companies neither in the Union, nor the United States of America\nDow Europe GmbH, Switzerland\n(f)\nImporters\nGantrade Ltd, United Kingdom\n(g)\nUsers\nVinavil, Mapei, Italy\nSynthomer, United Kingdom\n3. Investigation period\n(10)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2010 (the investigation period or IP). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the IP (the period considered).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(11)\nThe product concerned is defined as vinyl acetate originating in the United States of America currently falling within CN code 2915 32 00.\n(12)\nVinyl acetate (hereinafter VAM or the product concerned) is a commodity chemical derived from acetic acid.\n(13)\nVinyl acetate has a wide variety of applications. The majority of vinyl acetate produced is used as an input into two downstream products: polyvinyl acetate and polyvinyl alcohol. These downstream products are an important polymer in the various industries. Vinyl acetate polymers are commonly used in the production of paints, adhesives, coatings and textile finishes.\n(14)\nThe investigation revealed that there is only one type of the product concerned.\n2. Like product\n(15)\nThe investigation showed that vinyl acetate produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry and the vinyl acetate produced in the country concerned and exported to the Union had the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and uses. Therefore, these products are provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n1. Normal value\n(16)\nFor the determination of normal value, it was first established that domestic sales of the like product to independent customers of the respective exporting producers in the country concerned were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of its total export sales volume of the product concerned to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(17)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each exporting producer could be considered as having been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers during the IP.\n(18)\nDomestic sales transactions were considered profitable where the unit price was equal to or above the cost of production. Cost of production on the domestic market during the IP was therefore determined.\n(19)\nIn the case where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market were above cost and the weighted average sales price was equal to or higher than the weighted average production cost, normal value was calculated as the weighted average of all domestic sales prices, irrespective of whether they were profitable or not. However, where the volume of profitable sales represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume, or where the weighted average sales price was below the weighted average production cost, normal value was on the weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales.\n2. Export price\n(20)\nThe investigation revealed that vinyl acetate was exported from the country concerned to the Union either (i) through related trading companies located in the Union; or (ii) for one exporting producer, through a related trading company outside the Union.\n(21)\nIn both cases, the export prices were established on the basis of the resale prices to the first independent customers in the Union, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, duly adjusted for all costs incurred between importation and resale, and profits.\n3. Comparison\n(22)\nThe normal value and the export price of the respective exporting producers were compared on an ex works basis.\n(23)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments for differences in handling and storage costs, transport and insurance costs, credit costs, rebates, commissions, import duties have been made where applicable and justified.\n4. Dumping margin\n(24)\nPursuant to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin for the cooperating exporting producers in the United States of America was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with a weighted average export price.\n(25)\nIn order to determine the dumping margin for non-cooperating exporting producers, the level of non-cooperation was first established. To this end, the volume of exports to the Union reported by the cooperating exporting producers was compared with the equivalent Eurostat import statistics.\n(26)\nAs the level of cooperation in the United States of America was high (above 90 %) it was provisionally considered appropriate to set the residual dumping margin for any non-cooperating exporting producers in this country at the level of the highest duty imposed on a cooperating exporter. This matter may be subsequently reconsidered at the definitive stage.\n(27)\nOn the basis of the above methodology, the provisional dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Union border, duty unpaid, are the following:\nCompany\nProvisional Dumping Margin\nCelanese Ltd.\n12,1 %\nLyondellBasell Acetyls, LLC\n13,0 %\nThe Dow Chemical Company\n13,8 %\nAll other companies\n13,8 %\nD. INJURY\n1. Union production and Union industry\n(28)\nThe complaint was lodged by Ineos Oxide Ltd hereinafter \"the Complainant\", a producer of vinyl acetate in the Union, representing a major proportion of the total Union production. A second Union producer, Wacker GmbH, supported the initiation of the proceeding. Thus, the complaint was supported by Union producers who represent more than 25 % of total production of vinyl acetate produced by the Union industry. Therefore, the proceeding has been initiated according to the provisions of article 5(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(29)\nA third producer located in the Union (Celanese Europe GmbH) was found to be related to an exporting producer located in the country concerned. According to the information obtained in the course of the investigation, it was provisionally established that this producer was fully controlled by the US-based Celanese Corporation which has decisive role in key European business operations such as business planning, production control, purchase and sales activity.\n(30)\nGiven the abovementioned, it was considered that the relationship of Celanese Europe GmbH within the group was such as to cause a behaviour that would be different from that of other non related producers within the meaning of article 4 (2) of the basic Regulation. It was also considered that through this relationship, the company could be shielded from the negative consequences of the injurious dumping. Furthermore, to include such a company in the injury findings would distort aggregate data on the constitution of the Union industry.\n(31)\nOn this ground, it was provisionally established that Celanese Europe GmbH should be excluded from the definition of the Union industry.\n(32)\nTherefore, the two producers Ineos Oxide Ltd and Wacker GmbH constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation, representing 100 % of the Union production. They will hereinafter be referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\n2. Determination of the relevant Union market\n(33)\nFor the purpose of establishing whether the Union industry, as defined in recitals (28) et seq., had suffered material injury, it was examined to what extent the Union industry's captive production of the product concerned had to be considered in the analysis.\n(34)\nIndeed, the product concerned is sold by the Union industry to both (a) the free market and (b) the captive market (within the same group of the company). In the captive market, the product concerned is used as a raw material for the manufacture of various products used in paints, adhesives, coatings, etc.\n(35)\nIn this context, sales of the product concerned for use as a raw material to manufacture other products for companies in the same group shall be considered as \u2018captive use\u2019, in so far as at least any of the following two conditions occur: (i) sales are not made at market prices or (ii) the customer does not have a free choice of supplier within the same group of companies. In the course of the investigation, it was provisionally found that sales to related entities which purchase the product concerned as a raw material for the manufacture of a different product had to be considered as captive sales; it was found that pursuant to the commercial policy of the companies, these related entities did not have a free choice of supplier.\n(36)\nThis distinction is relevant for the injury analysis. Vinyl acetate destined for captive use was found not to be directly in competition with imports from the country concerned. By contrast, production destined for the free market sales was found to be in direct competition with those imports, because these sales were made under normal market conditions; this implies free choice of supplier. This warranted the differentiation between the captive and the free market in the analysis for certain injury indicators.\n(37)\nIn this respect, it was found that the following economic indicators related to the Union industry could reasonably be examined by referring to the total activity, i.e. including the captive use of the Union industry, production, capacity, capacity utilisation, investments, stocks, employment, productivity, wages and magnitude of the dumping margin. This is because those indicators are affected regardless of the fact whether the product is transferred downstream within a company or a group of companies for further processing or whether it is sold on the free market.\n(38)\nAs for profitability, cash flow, return on investment and ability to raise capital, the analysis was performed at the level of the free market only because the fact that prices in the captive markets are not representative of the normal market conditions has a bearing on the reliability of those indicators.\n(39)\nThe other economic indicators relating to the Union industry, namely consumption, sales, market shares and prices in the Union market were analysed and evaluated mainly referring to the situation prevailing on the free market, in particular where measurable market conditions exist and where transactions are made under normal market conditions implying free choice of supplier.\n(40)\nFor those indicators, the captive market was however also taken into account and compared to data for the free market in order to determine whether the situation of the captive market was likely to change the findings based on the analysis of the free market alone.\n3. Union Consumption\n(41)\nThe Union consumption was established by adding the total import volume of vinyl acetate based on Eurostat, cross-checked against the verified data provided by the exporting producers for imports from the country concerned, to the total sales volume on the Union market of the Union industry and the other producer located in the Union.\n(42)\nIn view of the small number of suppliers and the need to protect confidential business data pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation, the development of consumption is indexed.\nTable 1\nConsumption in the Union\nIndex 2007 = 100\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nTotal consumption\n100\n90\n87\n99\nCaptive market\n100\n96\n100\n104\nFree market\n100\n88\n82\n97\n(43)\nIn the period considered the consumption on the total Union market and on the free market slightly decreased by 1 % and 3 % respectively. Conversely, an increase of 4 % was recorded on the captive market during the same period.\n4. Imports from the country concerned\n4.1. Volume and market share\n(44)\nThe evolution of imports from the country concerned, in volume and market share, has been the following:\nTable 2\nImports from the United States of America\nImport volumes (MT)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nUnited States of America\n103 192\n146 800\n133 763\n152 445\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n100\n142\n130\n148\nMarket share in total market\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n100\n159\n150\n149\nMarket share in free market\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n100\n162\n157\n152\nSource: Eurostat and information obtained from interested parties through the questionnaire responses.\n(45)\nOver the period considered, imports to the total Union market (captive and free market) from the country concerned increased by 48 %. This led to a market share increase during the same period by 49 %. Market share in the free market increased by 52 %.\n4.2. Prices of imports and price undercutting\n(46)\nAverage prices of the imports from the country concerned, developed as follows:\nTable 3\nPrice of imports from the United States of America\nImport prices (EUR/MT)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nUnited States of America\n774\n814\n541\n573\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n100\n105\n70\n74\nSource: Eurostat\n(47)\nWhile seeing a slight increase in the IP, the overall average imports prices from the country concerned decreased by 26 % between 2007 and the IP.\n(48)\nA comparison of sales prices on the Union market was made between the average prices of the Union industry charged on the free market and average import prices from the country concerned. The relevant sales prices of the Union industry were adjusted where necessary to an ex-works level, i.e. excluding freight costs in the Union and after deduction of discounts and rebates.\n(49)\nThese prices were compared with prices charged by the cooperating US exporting producers net of discounts and adjusted where necessary to CIF Union frontier price duly adjusted for customs clearance costs and post-importation costs.\n(50)\nThe comparison showed that during the IP, imports of the product concerned from all the cooperating exporters were sold in the Union at prices which undercut the Union industry\u2019s prices. The average level of undercutting, when expressed as a percentage of the Union industry's prices, was 17,9 %, based on the verified data submitted by the cooperating exporting producers. This level of undercutting was combined with a negative price development and a substantial price depression.\n5. Imports from other third countries\n(51)\nThe following table shows the developments of imports from other third countries.\nTable 4\nVolume of imports from other third countries\nImport volumes (MT)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nUnited States of America\n103 192\n146 800\n133 763\n152 445\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n100\n142\n130\n148\nSaudi Arabia\n0\n0\n0\n73 156\nOther\n88 138\n52 414\n15 937\n8 198\nIndex 2007 = 100\n100\n59\n18\n9\nMarket share in total market\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n100\n66\n21\n9\nMarket share in free market\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n100\n68\n22\n10\nSource: Eurostat\n(52)\nAt the beginning of the period considered, imports from the country concerned competed with other countries including Taiwan, Ukraine and Russia. At the end of the period considered, imports from these traditional sources had decreased to almost nil.\n(53)\nA new exporting country, Saudi Arabia, which entered the Union market during the IP, exported around 73 000 tonnes in the IP. The impact of this development on the Union industry is discussed in recitals (91) et seq.\n6. Situation of the Union industry\n6.1. General\n(54)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic factors and indices relating to the state of the Union industry from 2007 to the end of the IP.\n(55)\nMacroeconomic indicators (production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volumes, market share, employment, productivity, wages and magnitude of dumping margins) as well as micro-economic indicators (stocks, sales prices, profitability, cash flow, and return on investment, ability to raise capital and investments, production costs) were assessed at the level of the entire Union industry. The assessment was based on the information derived from the verified questionnaires submitted by the Union industry.\n(56)\nIt is to be noted that the complainant procured its production facilities only during 2007; as a consequence, the data for certain injury indicators (profitability, wages, investments, return on investment, cash flow) could not be obtained for 2007. Therefore, for those indicators, the analysis covers the period 2008 to IP. For the remaining indicators, figures for 2007 were available. Thus, for such indicators, the analysis covers the entire period under consideration (from 2007 to the IP).\n(57)\nThe complainant is focused on delivering the product concerned entirely to the free market whereas the other Union producer is focused mainly on the captive market with a small fraction destined for the free market. Taking into account the fact that the data for the injury analysis is mainly derived from two sources only, one of which is mainly focused on the captive market, and considering that it has been found that a distinction between the total market and the free market has to be made for a number of injury indicators, data relating to the Union industry had to be indexed in order to preserve confidentiality pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation.\n6.2. Macro-economic indicators\n6.2.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(58)\nThe table below indicates the evolution of production, production capacity and capacity utilisation of the total Union industry:\nTable 5\nTotal Union production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nTotal Production\n100\n105\n102\n92\nTotal Production capacity\n100\n121\n126\n143\nTotal Capacity utilisation\n100\n87\n81\n64\n(59)\nAs shown in the table above, during the period considered, the overall Union production has decreased by 8 %.\n(60)\nDuring the same period, the production capacity increased by 43 %. However, this increase in capacity was not linked to the establishment of new production lines but to the improved efficiency in the utilisation of the existing capacity.\n(61)\nThe combination of these two factors, i.e. decrease in production volume and increase in production capacity during the same period led to a significant decrease in capacity utilisation by 36 % over the period considered.\n6.2.2. Sales volumes and market share\n(62)\nThe figures below present the sales volume, market share and average unit sales prices of the Union industry split between the total, captive and free market.\nTable 6\nSales volumes and market share\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nTotal sales\n100\n99\n96\n88\nMarket share (%)\n100\n110\n111\n88\nCaptive market sales\n100\n111\n109\n113\nMarket share (%)\n100\n115\n108\n109\nFree market sales\n100\n89\n86\n67\nMarket share (%)\n100\n102\n104\n69\n(63)\nThe overall sales volume decreased by 12 % in the period considered. This drop was even steeper in the free market where it fell by 33 % between 2007 and the IP. The captive market followed the opposite trend and sales volume increased by 13 % in the same period.\n(64)\nThe drop in sales volume was reflected in market share that saw an 11 % decrease for the whole market and 31 % decrease in the free market between 2007 and the IP. Again, the captive market followed the opposite trend and saw an increase of 9 % during the same period.\n6.2.3. Employment, productivity and wages\nTable 7\nEmployment, productivity and wages\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nTotal Number of employees\n100\n96\n98\n100\nTotal Productivity (unit/employee)\n100\n109\n104\n92\nTotal Yearly wages\n0\n100\n95\n88\n(65)\nTotal employment remained stable between 2007 and the IP. It should be noted that production of vinyl acetate is not labour-intensive and employment figures are therefore not closely linked to the production figures. Employment is therefore not of significant importance as an indicator in this sector.\n(66)\nDuring the period considered the total productivity per employee decreased by 8 % between 2007 and the IP. This followed the decrease in production and the increase in production capacity as explained in the recital (58) et seq.\n6.2.4. Magnitude of the actual margin of dumping\n(67)\nThe dumping margins are specified above in the dumping section. All margins established were above the de minimis level. Furthermore, given the volumes and the prices of the dumped imports, the impact of the actual margin of dumping cannot be considered as negligible.\n6.3. Micro-economic indicators\n6.3.1. General remarks\n(68)\nThe analysis of micro-economic indicators (stocks, sales prices, profitability, cash flow, and return on investment, ability to raise capital and investments, production costs) was carried out at the level of the entire Union industry as established in recitals (28) et seq.\n(69)\nFrom the above indicators, the assessment of profitability, wages, investments, return on investment, cash flow had to be focused on the free market, meaning that it would reflect mainly the data provided by the Complainant. Given the aforementioned, the development of the indicators profit and cash-flow, could not be given in index format due to confidentiality reasons.\n(70)\nIn addition, as explained in recital (56), the complainant could not provide data for 2007 concerning certain injury indicators; therefore, the analysis of those indicators was performed for the period of 2008 to the IP.\n6.3.2. Stocks\n(71)\nThe figures below represent the evolution of the stocks of the Union industry during each of the period concerned:\nTable 8\nStocks\nIndex 2007 = 100\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nTotal Stocks\n100\n86\n49\n69\n(72)\nStocks decreased by 31 % over the period considered. However, this indicator is not to be considered as relevant in this sector, as vinyl acetate producers produce to order and tend to hold limited stocks. In fact, stocks correspond only to a few weeks of supply.\n6.3.3. Sales prices\n(73)\nThe following table represents the Union industry's price evolution split between the total, captive and free market.\nTable 9\nSales prices\nIndex 2007 = 100\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nAverage unit selling price total market\n100\n107\n74\n84\nAverage unit selling price on captive market\n100\n115\n82\n92\nAverage unit selling price on free market\n100\n102\n69\n77\n(74)\nSales prices for the total Union market decreased by 16 % in the period considered. Sales prices fell in both markets, even if the decrease was sharper in the free market (- 23 %) than in the captive market (- 8 %).\n6.3.4. Profitability, cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital and investments\n(75)\nProfitability for the like product on the free market was established by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product by the Union industry, as the percentage of the turnover of such sales.\n(76)\nThe profitability on the free market decreased over the period considered. During the IP, losses were reported for each month. This was the effect of a strong decrease both in sales volumes and in sales prices.\n(77)\nThe table below demonstrates that the Union industry has increased its investments in the product concerned, even when faced with decreasing profitability. The investments were mainly made in improving and maintaining production technology and process in order to improve efficiency.\nTable 10\nInvestments\nIndex 2008 = 100\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nTotal Investments\nn.a.\n100\n129\n127\n(78)\nInvestments increased by 27 % over the period under consideration.\n(79)\nDespite the increase in investment, the return on investments (ROI) of the product concerned did not meet the expected return and decreased between 2008 and the IP.\n(80)\nA decrease was observed also in cash flow between 2008 and the IP shows a constant deterioration of the ability of the Union industry to generate cash and consequently, a weakening of the financial situation of the Union industry.\n(81)\nTherefore, by increasing its investments, the industry still showed ability to raise capital; nevertheless, this ability is hampered by falling sales and increasing difficulties in generating cash flow.\n7. Conclusion on injury\n(82)\nThe analysis of the situation of the Union industry shows a downwards trend for all the main injury indicators. Against a relatively stable consumption, overall production fell by 8 % in the period considered. During the same period, the Union industry lost 11 % of the overall market share and 33 % of the free market. Capacity utilisation decreased by 36 %. In the same period, imports from the country concerned increased by 48 %.\n(83)\nOver the period under consideration, the overall Union industry's sales volume decreased by 12 %. A stronger downward trend in sales volumes could be observed when looking at trends related to the free market which saw a 33 % decrease over the period under consideration.\n(84)\nThe decrease in sales volumes of Union industry was accompanied by a 16 % overall price depression. As was the case for sales volume, the situation was even worse in the free market where a price depression of 23 % was recorded. The loss of sales volume along with the decrease in prices had an effect on profit levels and led to losses for each month of the IP.\n(85)\nThe only indicators which recorded a positive trend were investments which increased by 27 % and so did the ability to raise capital. However, the investments did not meet the expected return and decreased between 2008 and the IP.\n(86)\nIn view of the above, the investigation confirmed that should the situation continue, losses seen in the course of the investigation would be likely to lead to the discontinuation of any sizeable Union Industry production of vinyl acetate destined for the free market.\n(87)\nDue to the circumstances presented above, the Union industry has suffered material injury during the IP.\nE. CAUSATION\n1. Introduction\n(88)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether the material injury suffered by the Union industry has been caused by the dumped imports from the country concerned. Furthermore, known factors other than dumped imports, which might have injured the Union industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those factors was not attributed to dumped imports.\n2. Impact of the imports from the USA\n2.1. General\n(89)\nThere is a clear coincidence in time between the increase of dumped imports between 2007 and the IP, along with a parallel loss of market share by the Union industry over the same period. The investigation has also established the existence of negative price effects of dumped imports which continuously undercut prices of Union industries and consequently pushed down their profitability.\n(90)\nSome parties claimed that the increase in imports was simply replacing the imports previously made by other importing countries and/or due to the increasing demand on the EU market. However, neither the import figures (see table 2), nor the consumption figures (see table 1) can confirm this claim, In this context it is recalled as seen in recital (43), that consumption was rather stable and even decreased slightly in the period considered while the imports from the USA increased by 48 %.\n3. Effects of other factors\n3.1. Impact of imports from other third countries\n3.1.1. Impact of imports from Saudi Arabia\n(91)\nSome interested parties have claimed that imports of VAM from Saudi Arabia are the cause of the injury of the Union industry.\n(92)\nSaudi Arabia is indeed, as stated in recital (53) above, the second largest exporter of VAM to the Union after the USA. Imports from Saudi Arabia entered the market only during the IP.\n(93)\nEurostat figures presented in table 11 below show the prices of imports from Saudi Arabia and other third countries.\nTable 11\nSales price of exports from other third countries\nEURO/MT\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nSaudi Arabia\nn.a.\nn.a.\nn.a.\n636\n(Index IP = 100)\n0\n0\n0\n100\nOther\n878\n919\n473\n633\n(Index 2007 = 100)\n100\n105\n54\n72\n(94)\nThe table shows that the average price of imports from Saudi Arabia at 636 EUR was comparable with those of imports from other third countries which were on average 633 EUR, while they were 11 % higher than the average US price of 573 EUR.\n(95)\nThe fact that the Saudis are operating in the same price segment as other importers with a significant price differential in comparison to US exports shows that the Saudi exporting producers behave differently from the US in terms of the price setting and in terms of the possible impact on the Union producers.\n(96)\nOn these grounds, it can be provisionally concluded that imports from Saudi Arabia do not break the causal link between dumped imports from the USA and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n3.2. Impact of the economic crisis\n(97)\nSome interested parties claimed that the decrease in production and sales volume of the Union industry should be attributed to the decreasing consumption. These parties also claimed that the downward trend in average sales prices was caused by the world wide economic crisis.\n(98)\nOther interested parties claimed that during the economic crisis, all petro-chemical producers, including VAM producers, suffered serious losses and that therefore the losses suffered by the Union industry should not be attributed to the dumped imports from the country concerned.\n(99)\nHowever, the present investigation, as mentioned in recitals (41) to (43) showed that the decrease of Union consumption on the free market was negligible during the period considered. Therefore, the impact of the economic crisis in terms of a decrease in consumption could not have been responsible for the steep decrease in sales volume as shown in recitals (62) to (64).\n(100)\nThe analysis of the profitability figures of the free market of Union industry has revealed that the VAM business suffered particular losses when compared to other similar chemical products manufactured. Moreover, the profitability of these other products recovered after the crisis, whereas the VAM business has continued to deteriorate. This leads to the provisional conclusion that while the VAM business was most likely to be affected by the economic crisis, it should be distinguished from other petro-chemical sectors, because of persistent losses suffered by the Complainant that continued post-crisis which was directly linked to low priced imports from the USA. The claim is therefore provisionally rejected.\n(101)\nIn the light of the above, it is provisionally concluded that the economic crisis has not contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry to the extent that it would break the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from the USA.\n3.3. Self-inflicted injury\n(102)\nSeveral interested parties claimed that the Complainant had contributed to its precarious situation by building additional production capacity during the recession. It was alleged that any decrease in sales and profit therefore was caused by the combination of the recession and poor business decision on behalf of the Complainant\n(103)\nSeveral interested parties have furthermore claimed that the technology used in the Complainant's plant is the main cause of injury. Over the period considered, the Complainant has suffered several outages and force majeure situations and it was claimed that the decrease in the Complainant's sales should be attributed to the numerous stoppages and not to the dumped imports from the USA. Similar arguments were raised in relation to the Complainant's profitability.\n(104)\nAs for the claim that the Complainant should not have expanded the production capacity during the world economic downturn, it is recalled that the Complainant did not procure any new capacity but simply expanded its production capacity through the optimisation of existing processes. This must be considered a reasonable business decision in a market where total consumption is stable but sales are falling because of the competition of low priced imports. This claim is therefore provisionally rejected.\n(105)\nAs concerns the claim that it was outages caused by technical problems with the complainant that led to the injury suffered by the complainant, the investigation showed that the production process for VAM requires a cyclic maintenance and closure of the plant at regular, planned intervals. Therefore, three out of five stoppages must be considered as part of the regular running of a VAM plant.\n(106)\nFurthermore, it was found that all three planned outages were based on conscious decisions by the Complainant to stop production at times when price pressure caused by dumped imports was so strong that the Complainant was not in the position to deliver at sustainable price levels. During these stoppages, the Complainant had sufficient stock levels to deliver the low volumes demanded which were either agreed by contract or earned through spot sales. Moreover, the decreasing stock levels, as stated in recital (72), confirm that constant deliveries were made over the period considered.\n(107)\nOn these grounds, it was found that the overall impact of the outages of the Complainant was not such as to break the causal link. Therefore, the arguments raised by the interested parties with regards to the self-inflicted injury were rejected.\n3.4. Access to raw material: The natural competitive advantage by producers in the country concerned\n(108)\nSeveral interested parties claimed that the Complainant's dependency on external supplies of raw material, rather than the dumped imports should be considered as one of the main sources of its problems. It was also alleged that US exporters have a natural competitive advantage as they have access to cheaper raw materials, i.e. ethylene and acetic acid.\n(109)\nIn terms of the alleged problems of the raw material sources available to the Complainant, the argument raised above could not be upheld as it was found that the Complainant also benefits from preferential channels, materials sourced from its supplier's on-site plant as well as from a sister company. Accordingly, prices of the main raw materials were thus comparable with those available to the market of the country concerned.\n(110)\nIt follows that while the general prices of the main raw material used for production of VAM indeed may have been lower in the USA than on the Union market this did not have an impact on the costs of the Complainant.\n(111)\nThe fact that the raw material price difference could only have had partial impact on the problems experienced by the Complainant was furthermore supported by the fact that significantly better profitability figures were recorded for other products produced by the Complainant that contained the same raw materials.\n(112)\nOn these grounds, it is provisionally concluded that the impact of raw material prices was not such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports from the USA and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n4. Conclusion on causation\n(113)\nIt was thus concluded that there is a causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from the USA. Other possible causes of injury, i.e. impact of import from other third countries, impact of economic crisis, natural competitive advantage of exporting producers on raw material and self-inflicted injury, have been analysed and none of them had an impact on the situation of the Union industry such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the USA and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(114)\nBased on the above analysis of the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry, it was therefore provisionally concluded that there is a causal link between the dumped imports from the USA and the material injury suffered by the Union industry during the IP.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n1. Interest of the Union industry\n(115)\nThe investigation showed that the Union industry is suffering material injury because of the effects of dumped imports which undercut its prices as elaborated in recital (48) et seq.\n(116)\nThe Union industry is investing to improve its efficiency and is gradually streamlining its production process. It can be expected that measures would prevent further unfair competition from dumped, low-priced imports and consequently allow for the recovery of the Union industry's situation.\n(117)\nOn the other hand, should measures not be imposed, the current financial situation and profitability of the Union industry, as analysed in the present investigation in recitals (54) et seq., are not strong enough to withstand further the pressure exerted by the dumped imports. The consequence would be likely to lead to the discontinuation or significant reduction of the Union industry's production for the free market.\n(118)\nIn the light of the above analysis, it is expected that the Union industry would benefit from the imposition of provisional measures.\n2. Interest of importers\n(119)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the two known unrelated importers which came forward within the deadline set in the Notice of Initiation.\n(120)\nThe investigation showed that a relevant part of its overall turnover relates to the product concerned.\n(121)\nThe impact of the duties on the importer's profitability was analysed. The analysis showed that the profit and mark-up made on its imports are such that the imposition of measures indeed could lead to a decrease in its profitability. Consequently, from a cost perspective, should measures be imposed, they would in all likelihood have an impact on the importer's business. Nevertheless, the importer confirmed that it would be able to pass at least part of the cost increase on its customers in view of the current situation of the market, where demand is expected to remain constant. Moreover, the investigation revealed that it is possible for the importer to switch to sourcing the product from producers which are not subject to the duty, such as Taiwanese exporters or Union producers.\n(122)\nIn view of the above, it is concluded that the effect on importers of the imposition of measures would be limited.\n3. Interest of users\n(123)\nUsers have shown a strong interest in this case. Twelve users cooperated in the investigation; out of these, two were verified on the basis of their volume of imports from the country concerned. These companies are located throughout the Union and are present in the sector of industrial applications such as coatings, paints and adhesives.\n(124)\nThe imports of cooperating users account for around one-third of the total imports from the US based on Eurostat figures. The investigation showed that 30 % of the cooperating users\u2019 VAM purchases are of US origin and 57 % are of EU origin.\n(125)\nThe investigation showed that VAM represented, on average, around one-third of the cost of production of the two verified users.\n(126)\nSome users claimed that the imposition of measures would increase their cost of production and that it would be difficult to transfer this cost increase onto their customers due to the fierce price competition in the market. Allegedly, this difficulty may result either in a reduction of the users\u2019 market share to the advantage of their competitors located outside the Union, or in a switch from their current production process to others not involving the product concerned. Allegedly, the final consequence of the measures would be an important reduction of the users\u2019 profit margins.\n(127)\nTwo of these users alleged that the reduced profit margins would lead to fewer investments in their production and that, consequently, employment would be affected.\n(128)\nAs to the claim concerning the profit margin reduction, taking into account the users\u2019 healthy profitability levels, it is expected that should users not be able to transfer the cost increase onto their customers, the imposition of duties would only slightly decrease their profit margins. Therefore, it is likely that investments in production would not be disrupted and that there would be no significant adverse effect on the employment. In the light of the above, the claim is rejected.\n(129)\nAs regards the claim that measures on imports of the product concerned would harm the competitiveness of Union users as they would increase their production costs and favour imports of downstream products from other third countries, it is recalled that the duties do not intend to stop imports and that the level of measures is not such as to prevent users from sourcing from the USA. The purpose of anti-dumping duties is to re-establish a fair level playing field in the Union market for the product concerned. Based on the above and on the consideration that only one third of the users\u2019 VAM consumption is of US origin, the claim is rejected.\n(130)\nIn addition to the above, it must also be underlined that many users reported that due to the scarce number of sources of VAM, sufficient supply of Union origin VAM is a priority. In this respect, it is recalled that the investigation has shown that there is the likelihood that the Union industry will as good as discontinue supply of free market VAM if measures are not imposed. In relation to the diversity of supply, the imposition of measures would thus also be in the interest of the Union users.\n(131)\nIn view of the above, it is provisionally concluded that any negative effects of the imposition of measures on users would be limited.\n4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(132)\nIn view of the above, it is provisionally concluded that, based on the information available on Union interest, it cannot be clearly concluded that the imposition of provisional measures on imports of vinyl acetate originating in the USA would not be in the Union interest.\nG. PROPOSAL FOR PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(133)\nIn view of the conclusions reached above with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.\n1. Injury elimination level\n(134)\nFor the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the dumping margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Union industry.\n(135)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain a profit before tax that could reasonably be achieved by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the Union.\n(136)\nTherefore, the injury elimination level was calculated on the basis of a comparison of the average price of the dumped imports and the target price of the Union industry. The target price was established by adding a target profit margin to the costs of production of the Union industry. The target profit margin was provisionally set at the level of 9,9 %. This profit margin was established by reference to the profitability based on the average return (measured as EBITDA/sales) that petrochemical companies operating in a sector similar to VAM generated during the period 2007-2009.\n(137)\nThe resulting underselling margins are in excess of 30 %.\n2. Provisional measures\n(138)\nIn the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that the provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed on imports originating in the country concerned at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins in line with the lesser duty rule. In this case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the dumping margins found.\n(139)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the United States of America and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(140)\nAny claim regarding the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (3) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. The Commission, if appropriate, will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, amend the Regulation accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(141)\nOn the basis of the above, the proposed anti-dumping duty rates, expressed on the CIF Union border, are provisionally as follows:\nCompany\nDumping margin\nInjury margin\nProvisional Duty Rates\nCelanese Ltd.\n12,1 %\n38,4 %\n12,1 %\nLyondellBasell Acetyls, LLC\n13 %\n65,8 %\n13 %\nThe Dow Chemical Company\n13,8 %\n66,2 %\n13,8 %\nAll other companies\n13,8 %\n66,2 %\n13,8 %\nH. DISCLOSURE\n(142)\nIn the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of anti-dumping duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purposes of any definitive findings,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of vinyl acetate, currently falling within CN codes 2915 32 00 and originating in the United States of America.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nAnti-Dumping Duty\nTARIC additional code\nCelanese Ltd.\n12,1 %\nB233\nLyondellBasell Acetyls, LLC\n13 %\nB234\nThe Dow Chemical Company\n13,8 %\nB235\nAll other companies\n13,8 %\nB999\n3. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nWithout prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nPursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2011.", "references": ["44", "64", "21", "99", "5", "91", "49", "54", "61", "24", "1", "3", "77", "31", "6", "39", "95", "52", "15", "47", "66", "90", "89", "18", "50", "51", "55", "11", "33", "81", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 May 2012\nterminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India\n(2012/278/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 14 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Provisional measures\n(1)\nThe European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019), by Regulation (EU) No 115/2012 (2) (\u2018the provisional Regulation\u2019), imposed a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India (\u2018India\u2019 or \u2018the country concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated on 13 May 2011 (3), following a complaint lodged on 31 March 2011 by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute (EIFI) (\u2018the complainant\u2019), on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of total Union production of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof.\n(3)\nAs set out in recital 21 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of subsidy and injury covered the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 (\u2018the investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of the IP (\u2018the period considered\u2019).\n1.2. Subsequent procedure\n(4)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional countervailing measures (\u2018provisional disclosure\u2019), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard.\n(5)\nThe Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and, where appropriate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly.\n(6)\nSubsequently, all parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to terminate the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India and to release the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (\u2018final disclosure\u2019). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on this final disclosure.\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(7)\nAfter final disclosure, one party reiterated its comments regarding the definition of the product concerned and the like product provided in recitals 22 and 23 of the provisional Regulation claiming that certain product types should be excluded from the product scope of this investigation.\n(8)\nHowever, the investigation has confirmed that the different product types are covered by the description of the product concerned and like product and share the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and end uses and therefore belong to the same product category. Therefore, this claim was rejected.\n(9)\nIn the absence of other comments concerning the product concerned and the like product, recitals 22 and 23 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. SUBSIDISATION\n3.1. Introduction\n(10)\nIn recital 24 of the provisional Regulation, reference was made to the following schemes, which allegedly involve the granting of subsidies:\n(a)\nDuty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS);\n(b)\nAdvance Authorisation Scheme (AAS);\n(c)\nExport Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS);\n(d)\nExport Oriented Units Scheme (EOUS);\n(e)\nFocus Product Scheme (FPS);\n(f)\nExport Credit Scheme (ECS);\n(g)\nElectricity Duty Exemption.\n(11)\nThe Union industry questioned whether the Commission failed to take into account a number of subsidy schemes, and as a result believed that the subsidies found to be received by Indian producers were underestimated.\n(12)\nIn reply to this, it should be noted that the complaint contained a great number of national and local subsidy schemes, which were included in the questionnaire to exporting producers in India and investigated by the Commission. However, only for the schemes listed in recital 10 above, it was found that the investigated exporting producers in the sample had received subsidies.\n(13)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals 24 to 27 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(14)\nNo comments were received on the findings regarding FPS and on the Electricity Duty Exemption. As regards DEPBS, AAS, EPCGS and ECS, the cooperating exporting producers provided detailed comments. Most of these comments related to the calculation of the subsidy amounts and certain comments resulted in slight adjustments to those calculations. However, the overall conclusions on these schemes were not affected by such comments and are herewith confirmed. Comments were also received on the EOUS. Taking account of the impact of such comments on the EOUS, as summarised below in recitals 13 to 19, there is no need to reproduce in detail the other comments received on the abovementioned four schemes.\n3.2. Export oriented units scheme (EOUS)\n3.2.1. General\n(15)\nIt should be recalled that, as also mentioned under Section 3.5 of the provisional Regulation, a crucial obligation of an Export Oriented Unit (EOU) as set out in the Foreign Trade (FT)-policy 2009-2014 is to achieve net foreign exchange (NFE) earnings, which means that in a reference period (five years) the total value of exports has to be higher than the total value of imported goods. In principle, all enterprises that undertake to export their entire production of goods or services may be set up under the EOUS. In return, companies enjoying this EOU status are entitled to a number of concessions listed under recital 71 of the provisional Regulation. These concessions are financial contributions of the Government of India (GOI) within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation and they confer a benefit upon the EOUs. They are contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first paragraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation.\n(16)\nIn the provisional Regulation it was stated that the EOUS could not be considered as a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation as it did conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex I (items (h) and (i)), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) to the basic Regulation. Indeed, it could not be established that the GOI has a verification system or procedure in place to confirm whether and in what amounts duty and/or sales tax-free procured inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (see Annex II(II)(4) to the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) to the basic Regulation). The verification system in place aims at monitoring the NFE earning obligation and not the consumption of imports in relation to the production of exported goods.\n(17)\nSubsequent to the provisional disclosure, no substantive arguments were raised against the nature of the EOUS, as described above, in particular the absence of an effective verification system and its countervailability. Therefore, the conclusions on the EOUS, as summarised in recitals 78-81 of the provisional Regulation, are herewith confirmed.\n3.2.2. Submission of Viraj Profiles Limited\n(18)\nThe sole sampled party with an EOU status was Viraj Profiles Limited (\u2018Viraj\u2019). The EOU subsidy rate established for this producer at the provisional stage was 2,73 % out of a total subsidy rate of 3,2 %. Viraj represented, in volume, 87 % of Indian exports to the Union.\n(19)\nAs already mentioned in recital 77 of the provisional Regulation, Viraj submitted detailed comments on the scheme. The exporting producer concerned claimed that the subsidy calculated under the scheme would not be compliant with Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, according to which the amount of the countervailable duty shall not exceed the amount of countervailable subsidies actually received by the company. It claimed that, therefore, the overall subsidy rate for the company would be below 2 %, i.e. de minimis. The company submitted detailed accounting data to support its claim.\n(20)\nThe claim was duly analysed. The detailed accounting data provided by Viraj in its submissions could be linked to the accounting data verified during the verification visit and these data suggested that indeed the countervailable benefit received by the company during the investigation period had been overestimated. Therefore, the countervailing duty for Viraj has been recalculated accordingly.\n(21)\nConsequently, the EOUS subsidy rate of Viraj was recalculated and is definitely set at 0,44 %. Including the subsidy rates established for EPCGS (recalculated at 0,05 %), ECS (recalculated at 0,12 %) and Electricity duty exemption (0,09 %), Viraj\u2019s total subsidy rate was definitively established at 0,7 %, i.e. below the de minimis threshold.\n3.2.3. Comments of the Union industry on the final disclosure\n(22)\nAfter final disclosure, Union industry submitted comments arguing that the recalculations made in relation to EUOS benefits received by Viraj were unjustified and incorrect. It argued that the Commission\u2019s analysis was incomplete, inconsistent with the way the Institutions usually countervail this scheme and that it failed to take into account other possible scenarios where Viraj could have unduly disposed of the duty-exempted imports. Furthermore, the Union industry alleged that Viraj\u2019s late submission of the non-confidential comments on the provisional disclosure seriously prejudiced the Union industry\u2019s right of defence.\n(23)\nWith respect to the recalculation of Viraj\u2019s subsidy margin, it should be clarified that this exporting producer had demonstrated that the established provisional countervailable duty was exceeding the amount of countervailable subsidies actually received. Indeed, the company demonstrated that the potential duty foregone had provisionally been overestimated and, therefore, this had to be corrected in the final calculation. It would have been against the provisions of Article 3 of the basic Regulation to countervail certain financial contributions which, clearly and beyond doubt, cannot be considered to confer any benefit to Viraj. However, it is still considered that, with regard to certain transactions, the scheme has conferred specific subsidies to the company concerned which should be countervailed. This approach, therefore, is fully consistent with the way the Institutions have countervailed the scheme in the past. Accordingly, the revision of the EOUS subsidy margin is in full compliance with Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(24)\nAs to the alleged violation of the Union industry\u2019s right of defence, it should be noted that Viraj\u2019s comments on the EOUS subsidy calculation were also included in two open submissions filed prior to the imposition of provisional measures, as well as in two later open submissions. The first and key submission in this regard, which led the Commission to analyse the issue in-depth and, eventually to reconsider its position, had been submitted in December 2011 and was already referred to in recital 77 of the provisional Regulation. All aforementioned documents had been included in the file for inspection by interested parties without delay. Viraj\u2019s comments to the provisional disclosure merely summarised the position already taken in its previous submissions. While the open version of Viraj\u2019s comments to the provisional disclosure was indeed filed by Viraj at a late stage, it was promptly made available by the Commission to the Union industry, which was granted an additional time period to submit comments thereon.\n(25)\nIn view of the above considerations, the claims of the Union industry had to be rejected.\n3.2.4. Other subsidy issues\n(26)\nComments were also received on the calculation of the subsidy margin for the cooperating non-sampled exporting producers and the residual subsidy margin calculation. Moreover, the sole exporting producer which had claimed individual examination insisted that its request should be addressed. However, in view of the conclusions under causation below, it is not necessary to take a final position on these matters.\n4. UNION INDUSTRY\n(27)\nIn the absence of comments concerning the Union production and the Union industry recitals 120 to 123 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5. INJURY\n5.1. Preliminary remarks and Union consumption\n(28)\nIn the absence of comments concerning the preliminary remarks and Union consumption, recitals 124 to 130 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.2. Imports from the country concerned\n(29)\nOne party claimed that the provisional analysis of the development of import prices from India and price undercutting, based on average prices, was misleading, since allegedly it does not take into account the variation of the product mix from one year to the other during the period considered.\n(30)\nIn this respect, it is worth noting that data on prices per product type are only available for the IP, for which exporting producers and Union producers are asked to provide a detailed transaction listing as part of their questionnaire replies. Therefore, in the absence of data per product type for the other years within the period considered, a meaningful analysis of the development of import prices can only be made based on average prices. It should also be noted that the party in question did not provide any evidence to demonstrate why the analysis regarding the development of import prices would be misleading. Therefore, this claim was rejected.\n(31)\nAs regards undercutting, it is recalled that as mentioned in recital 134 of the provisional Regulation, in order to determine price undercutting during the IP, the weighted average sales prices per product type of the sampled Union producers charged to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports from India to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a CIF basis, with appropriate adjustments for the existing customs duties and post-importation costs.\n(32)\nFurthermore, as mentioned in recital 135 of the provisional Regulation, the price comparison was made on a type-by-type basis for transactions at the same level of trade. Therefore, the claim of this party as regards undercutting was rejected.\n(33)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning imports from the country concerned, recitals 131 to 135 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.3. Economic situation of the Union industry\n5.3.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(34)\nOne party claimed that the analysis made in the provisional Regulation concerning the decrease in the production of the Union industry was misleading and claimed that the decrease in production volumes should be seen in the light of unutilised capacity of the Union industry, which also showed a decreasing trend during the period considered.\n(35)\nThe investigation showed that the decline in production coincided with the decrease in sales and the increase of stocks. This situation led some Union producers to close some of their production lines, which explains the decrease in capacity utilisation. The claim of the party was therefore rejected.\n(36)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning production, production capacity and capacity utilisation, recitals 137 and 138 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.3.2. Sales volume and market share\n(37)\nIn the absence of comments concerning the development of sales volume and market share of the Union industry, recital 139 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n5.3.3. Growth\n(38)\nIn the absence of comments concerning growth, recital 140 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n5.3.4. Employment\n(39)\nIn the absence of comments concerning employment, recitals 141 and 142 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.3.5. Average unit prices in the Union\n(40)\nIn the absence of comments concerning average unit prices in the Union, recitals 143 and 144 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.3.6. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital\n(41)\nIn the absence of comments concerning profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital, recitals 145 to 148 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.3.7. Stocks\n(42)\nOne party requested the Commission to provide actual figures with regard to the development of stock levels over the period considered instead of indexed figures, claiming that indexation did not allow it to make effective comments or to assess the level of stocks as a percentage of sales of the Union industry.\n(43)\nFor reasons of confidentiality, as explained in recital 127 of the provisional Regulation, certain micro indicators, including stocks, had to be indexed. In any event, the indexation of closing stocks of the Union industry in table 10 of the provisional Regulation provides a reasonable understanding of the development of stocks during the period considered. Therefore this claim was rejected.\n(44)\nIn the absence of other comments concerning stocks, recital 149 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n5.3.8. Magnitude of the subsidy margin\n(45)\nIt is recalled that the largest Indian exporting producer representing 87 % of the Indian exports to the Union in the IP was found not to be subsidised. Consequently subsidised imports accounted for 13 % of the total volume of the product concerned exported from India to the Union. Given the volume, market share and prices of the subsidised imports from India, the impact on the Union industry of the actual subsidy margins may be considered to be negligible.\n5.3.9. Conclusion on injury\n(46)\nThe investigation confirmed that most of the injury indicators showed a declining trend during the period considered. Therefore the conclusion reached in recitals 151 to 153 of the provisional Regulation that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 8(5) of the basic Regulation is confirmed.\n6. CAUSATION\n6.1. Introduction\n(47)\nIn accordance with Articles 8(5) and Article 8(6) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the subsidised imports originating in India have caused injury to the Union industry to a degree that enables it to be classified as material. Known factors other than the subsidised imports, which could at the same time be injuring the Union industry, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the subsidised imports.\n(48)\nAs explained in recitals 18 to 21 above, the subsidy margin of the largest Indian exporting producer, accounting for 87 % of all Indian exports to the Union in the IP, was found to be de minimis for this individual exporting producer in the meaning of Article 14(5) of the Basic Regulation, consequently considered as non-subsidised for the purpose of this investigation. Therefore, only a mere 13 % of the Indian exports of the product concerned to the Union during the IP were subsidised. These subsidised imports had a market share of 2 % in the IP.\n6.2. Effect of the subsidised imports\n(49)\nThe investigation showed that the Union consumption increased by 9 % over the period considered, while sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 14 % and market share dropped by 21 %.\n(50)\nWith regard to prices, the average import prices of the subsidised imports were found to undercut the average sales prices of the Union industry on the Union market. However, they were around 12 % higher than the prices of the Indian company not found to be subsidised.\n(51)\nBased on the above, it is considered that the limited import volume of the subsidised imports from India, which had higher prices than the non-subsidised imports, may only have played a very limited role, if any, in the deterioration of the injurious situation of the Union industry.\n6.3. Effect of other factors\n6.3.1. Non-subsidised imports from India\n(52)\nThe total volume of imports from India increased dramatically by 65 % over the period considered, increasing their market share from 12,1 % to 18,3 %. However, as explained above, non-subsidised imports represented 87 % of the total Indian export volume in the IP, corresponding to a market share of 15 % in the IP, as opposed to the market share of 2 % of the subsidised imports from India in the same period.\n(53)\nPrices of imports from India decreased overall by 9 % in the period considered, remaining always lower than import prices from the rest of the world and sales prices of the Union industry. However, it is noteworthy that, as explained in recital (50), the average prices of the non-subsidised imports were found to undercut the prices of the Union industry much more than those of the subsidised imports.\n6.3.2. Imports from other third countries\n(54)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning imports from other third countries recitals 161 to 165 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6.3.3. Economic crisis\n(55)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the impact of the economic crisis on the injury suffered by the Union industry, recitals 166 to 169 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6.3.4. Export performance of the sampled Union industry\n(56)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the export performance of the sampled Union industry, recital 170 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n6.4. Conclusion on causation\n(57)\nThe above analysis demonstrated that over the period considered there was a substantial increase in the volume and market share of the low-priced imports originating in India. It was also found that these imports were constantly undercutting the prices charged by the Union industry on the Union market.\n(58)\nHowever, in view of the finding that exports by the largest Indian exporting producer, which represented 87 % of the Indian exports to the Union in the IP, were not subsidised, it is considered that a causal link between the subsidised imports, accounting for a mere 13 % of the total quantity exported from India, and the injury suffered by the Union industry cannot be sufficiently established. Indeed, it cannot be argued that the subsidised Indian exports, in view of their limited volume and very limited market share (2 %) and the fact that their prices were on average 12 % higher than those of the non-subsidised imports, would be causing the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(59)\nThe analysis of the other known factors, which could have caused injury to the Union industry, including the non-subsidised imports, imports from other third countries, the economic crisis and the export performance of the sampled Union industry showed that the injury suffered by the Union industry is due to the impact of the non-subsidised imports from India which represented 87 % of all Indian exports to the Union in the IP and which were made at significantly lower prices than the subsidised imports.\n7. TERMINATION OF THE ANTI-SUBSIDY PROCEEDING\n(60)\nIn the absence of a material causal link between the subsidised imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry, it is considered that countervailing measures are unnecessary and therefore the present anti-subsidy proceeding should be terminated in accordance with Article 14(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(61)\nThe complainant and all other interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. The comments received did not alter the conclusion that the present anti-subsidy proceeding should be terminated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof, currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70, originating in India, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nAmounts secured by way of provisional countervailing duties pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 115/2012 on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India shall be released.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2012.", "references": ["12", "86", "27", "5", "44", "51", "9", "81", "34", "45", "32", "14", "91", "1", "36", "98", "2", "7", "43", "97", "58", "31", "19", "76", "60", "66", "10", "99", "52", "75", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "48", "82", "84", "85", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "48", "82", "84", "85", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 July 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and the provisional application of the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco\n(2011/491/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43, in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 May 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 764/2006 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (1).\n(2)\nThe Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the said Partnership Agreement expired on 27 February 2011.\n(3)\nThe Union has negotiated with the Kingdom of Morocco (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Morocco\u2019) a new Protocol providing EU vessels with fishing opportunities in waters falling within the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Morocco.\n(4)\nOn the conclusion of those negotiations, the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019) was initialled on 25 February 2011.\n(5)\nIn order to allow EU vessels to carry out fishing activities, Article 12 of the Protocol provides for it to be applied on a provisional basis from 28 February 2011.\n(6)\nThe Protocol should be signed and applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its formal conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019) is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThe Protocol shall be applied on a provisional basis from 28 February 2011, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["43", "57", "99", "7", "61", "86", "64", "35", "21", "87", "45", "24", "63", "23", "22", "53", "55", "69", "5", "46", "40", "48", "20", "83", "54", "28", "88", "31", "2", "78", "No Label", "3", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 4 April 2011\namending Decision 2009/996/EU on a Community financial contribution for 2009 to cover expenditure incurred by Germany, Spain, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia for the purpose of combating organisms harmful to plants or plant products\n(notified under document C(2011) 2126)\n(Only the Dutch, German, Italian, Maltese, Portuguese, Slovenian and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(2011/212/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 23(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Directive 2000/29/EC, a financial contribution from the Union may be granted to Member States to cover expenditure relating directly to the necessary measures which have been taken or are planned to be taken for the purpose of combating harmful organisms introduced from third countries or from other areas in the Union, in order to eradicate or, if that is not possible, to contain them.\n(2)\nPursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 23(5) of Directive 2000/29/EC, subject to certain conditions, the financial contribution from the Union on plant health control shall cover up to 50 % of expenditure relating directly to the necessary measures referred to in Article 23(2) of that Directive and, in case of compensation for loss of earnings referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 23(3) of that Directive up to 25 %.\n(3)\nFor 2009, the Union allocated a total financial contribution of EUR 14 049 023 to cover expenditure incurred by Germany, Spain, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia, as provided for in Commission Decision 2009/996/EU of 17 December 2009 on a Community financial contribution for 2009 to cover expenditure incurred by Germany, Spain, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia for the purpose of combating organisms harmful to plants and plant products (2).\n(4)\nAs set out in Section III of the Annex to Decision 2009/996/EU, Spain and Italy received financial contribution from the Union for the replacement of destroyed trees. Spain received a contribution of EUR 289 144 for the replacement in 2009 of coniferous trees affected by the harmful organism Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. Italy received a contribution of EUR 14 525 for the replacement in 2008 of various tree species in Lombardia affected by the harmful organisms Anoplophora chinensis in the area of Gussago and Anoplophora glabripennis in the area of Corbetta.\n(5)\nThis expenditure by Spain and Italy related directly to the prohibition of the future use of the particular trees which are host to the harmful organisms concerned, within the meaning of Article 23(2)(c) of Directive 2000/29/EC. This expenditure does not concern compensation for loss of earnings as referred to in the second indent of the first subparagraph and the second subparagraph of Article 23(3) of that Directive.\n(6)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 23(5), of Directive 2000/29/EC, the financial contribution from the Union should therefore cover up to 50 % of the expenditure concerned, and should not be restricted to up to 25 % as was erroneously set out in Decision 2009/996/EU. Consequently, the maximum Union financial contribution to the relevant programmes submitted by Spain and Italy should be raised by EUR 289 145 and EUR 14 525 respectively, and the total Union contribution for 2009 should be increased to EUR 14 352 693.\n(7)\nTherefore Decision 2009/996/EU should be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2009/996/EU is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The total amount of the financial contribution referred to in Article 1 is EUR 14 352 693.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Section I of the Annex, the third, fourth and fifth row are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Spain\nBursaphelenchus xylophilus\nConiferous trees\n2008 and 2009\n1 and 2\n3 386 573\n1 693 286\nItaly, Lombardia\n(Gussago area)\nAnoplophora chinensis\nVarious tree species\n2008 and part of 2009 (until 30 April)\n1 and 2\n302 683\n151 341\nItaly, Lombardia\n(Corbetta area)\nAnoplophora glabripennis\nVarious tree species\n2007 and 2008\n1 and 2\n302 683\n103 221\u2019\n(3)\nSection III of the Annex is deleted;\n(4)\nat the end of the Annex, the indication \u2018Total Community contribution (EUR): 14 049 023\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Total Union contribution (EUR): 14 352 693\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Slovenia.\nDone at Brussels, 4 April 2011.", "references": ["27", "68", "39", "78", "49", "88", "32", "75", "70", "24", "58", "54", "0", "98", "87", "28", "38", "53", "72", "56", "30", "45", "40", "41", "20", "77", "67", "91", "9", "92", "No Label", "10", "33", "43", "46", "66", "96"], "gold": ["10", "33", "43", "46", "66", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 20 December 2011\nrepealing Council Decision 2011/491/EU on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and the provisional application of the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco\n(2012/15/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019) has been under provisional application since 28 February 2011, pursuant to Council Decision 2011/491/EU (2).\n(2)\nIn reply to the Council\u2019s request of 15 July 2011, pursuant to Article 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Parliament voted on 14 December 2011 not to give its consent that the Council conclude the Protocol.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to repeal Council Decision 2011/491/EU and to notify the Kingdom of Morocco about the termination of the Protocol\u2019s provisional application, in accordance with Article 25(2) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nCouncil Decision 2011/491/EU on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and the provisional application of the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco is hereby repealed.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to notify the Kingdom of Morocco, in accordance with Article 25(2) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that the European Union no longer intends to become a party to the Protocol. That notification shall be made in the form of a letter.\nThe text of the letter is annexed to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["93", "11", "33", "78", "61", "19", "69", "38", "71", "22", "37", "52", "76", "83", "57", "99", "8", "59", "27", "62", "75", "32", "51", "43", "6", "45", "5", "91", "20", "65", "No Label", "3", "9", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 31 October 2011\namending Decision ECB/2010/15 concerning the administration of EFSF loans to Member States whose currency is the euro, and amending Decision ECB/2010/31 concerning the opening of accounts for the processing of payments in connection with EFSF loans to Member States whose currency is the euro\n(ECB/2011/16)\n(2011/728/EU)\nTHE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Articles 17 and 21 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision ECB/2010/15 of 21 September 2010 concerning the administration of EFSF loans to Member States whose currency is the euro (1) lays down provisions concerning the opening of a cash account with the European Central Bank (ECB) in the name of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) for the operation of the loan facility agreements (hereinafter the \u2018Loan Facility Agreements\u2019) under the EFSF Framework Agreement, which entered into force on 4 August 2010 (hereinafter the \u2018EFSF Framework Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nDecision ECB/2010/31 of 20 December 2010 concerning the opening of accounts for the processing of payments in connection with EFSF loans to Member States whose currency is the euro (2) lays down provisions concerning the opening of cash accounts with the ECB in the name of the national central bank of the relevant borrower Member State for the operation of the Loan Facility Agreements under the EFSF Framework Agreement.\n(3)\nThe EFSF Framework Agreement has been amended by the Supplemental Amendment Agreement, which entered into force on 18 October 2011. The amended EFSF Framework Agreement has created additional instruments that the EFSF may use to provide financial support. In accordance with paragraph 2 of the Preamble and Article 2(1) of the amended EFSF Framework Agreement, the EFSF may grant loan disbursements, precautionary facilities, facilities to finance the recapitalisation of financial institutions in a euro area Member State (through loans to the governments of such Member States including non-programme countries), facilities for the purchase of bonds in the secondary markets or facilities for the purchase of bonds in the primary market (all such instruments representing \u2018Financial Assistance\u2019), to be provided through financial assistance facility agreements (hereinafter the \u2018Financial Assistance Facility Agreements\u2019). The Loan Facility Agreements may continue to remain in place following the entry into force of the amended EFSF Framework Agreement.\n(4)\nTherefore, Decisions ECB/2010/15 and ECB/2010/31 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision ECB/2010/15 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nAcceptance of payments on the cash account\nThe ECB shall only accept payments to be made to or from the cash account opened in the name of EFSF, if those payments arise in connection with the Loan Facility Agreements or the Financial Assistance Facility Agreements.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nBalance of the cash account\nNo amount shall be standing to the credit of the cash account opened in the name of EFSF after payments have been made in relation to any Loan Facility Agreement or Financial Assistance Facility Agreement, nor shall amounts be transferred to such cash account before the day on which payments need to be made in relation to any Loan Facility Agreement or Financial Assistance Facility Agreement. No amount shall be standing to the debit of the cash account opened in the name of EFSF at any time. Therefore, no payments shall be effected from the cash account opened in the name of EFSF beyond the amounts standing to the credit of that account.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nDecision ECB/2010/31 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nOpening of cash accounts\nThe ECB may, upon request of the NCB of a borrower Member State, open cash accounts in the name of such NCB for the processing of payments in connection with a Loan Facility Agreement or Financial Assistance Facility Agreement (hereinafter an \u2018NCB cash account\u2019).\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nAcceptance of payments on the cash accounts\nAn NCB cash account shall only be used to process payments in connection with a Loan Facility Agreement or Financial Assistance Facility Agreement.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 2 November 2011.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["41", "34", "62", "81", "42", "15", "66", "30", "78", "71", "32", "87", "65", "59", "13", "86", "9", "50", "12", "14", "56", "31", "69", "85", "10", "75", "55", "18", "46", "74", "No Label", "4", "16", "27", "28", "29", "47"], "gold": ["4", "16", "27", "28", "29", "47"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1149/2010\nof 3 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for black scabbardfish in Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of V, VI, VII and XII by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (2) lays down quotas for 2009 and 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 December 2010.", "references": ["39", "55", "32", "88", "87", "99", "20", "76", "37", "52", "53", "35", "5", "78", "70", "42", "79", "23", "36", "12", "58", "73", "17", "90", "48", "3", "54", "80", "33", "45", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 13 April 2011\namending Decision 2007/843/EC as regards the control programme for Salmonella in certain poultry and eggs in Tunisia\n(notified under document C(2011) 2520)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/238/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the control of Salmonella and other specified food-borne zoonotic agents (1), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 2160/2003 lays down rules for the control of Salmonella in different poultry populations in the Union. It provides that admission to or retention on the lists of third countries provided for in Union legislation, for the relevant species or category, from which Member States are authorised to import those animals or hatching eggs covered by that Regulation is subject to the submission to the Commission by the third country concerned of a control programme for Salmonella with equivalent guarantees to those contained in the national control programmes for Salmonella in the Member States.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2007/843/EC of 11 December 2007 concerning approval of Salmonella control programmes in breeding flocks of Gallus gallus in certain third countries in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Decision 2006/696/EC, as regards certain public health requirements at import of poultry and hatching eggs (2) approved the control programme submitted by Tunisia for Salmonella in flocks of breeding hens, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003.\n(3)\nTunisia has now informed the Commission that that programme has been stopped. Accordingly, that programme submitted by Tunisia should no longer be approved. Decision 2007/843/EC should therefore be amended.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1 of Decision 2007/843/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThe control programmes submitted by Canada, Israel and the United States in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 are hereby approved as regards Salmonella in flocks of breeding hens.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 May 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 April 2011.", "references": ["45", "90", "0", "13", "65", "42", "97", "4", "53", "9", "73", "7", "39", "88", "15", "5", "14", "99", "55", "83", "6", "35", "3", "25", "8", "79", "37", "60", "46", "30", "No Label", "22", "38", "61", "66", "69", "94"], "gold": ["22", "38", "61", "66", "69", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 196/2011\nof 28 February 2011\ncancelling the registration of a name in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Rieser Weizenbier (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, and pursuant to Article 17(2) of the same Regulation, the application submitted by Germany to cancel the name \u2018Rieser Weizenbier\u2019 in the Register was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2),\n(2)\nAs no objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, registration of this name must therefore be cancelled,\n(3)\nIn light of the above, this name must therefore be removed from the \u2018Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications\u2019,\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Protected Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegistration of the name listed in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby cancelled.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["12", "87", "90", "60", "9", "33", "56", "61", "51", "95", "31", "86", "18", "43", "32", "13", "11", "4", "23", "75", "76", "52", "38", "22", "77", "8", "55", "53", "5", "89", "No Label", "24", "25", "71", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "71", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 98/2012\nof 7 February 2012\nconcerning the authorisation of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Pichia pastoris (DSM 23036) as a feed additive for chickens and turkeys for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys reared for breeding, laying hens, other avian species for fattening and laying, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening and sows (holder of authorisation Huvepharma AD)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Pichia pastoris (DSM 23036). The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Pichia pastoris (DSM 23036) as a feed additive for chickens and turkeys for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys reared for breeding, laying hens, other avian species for fattening and laying, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening and sows, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 11 October 2011 (2) that, under the proposed conditions of use, 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Pichia pastoris (DSM 23036) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use can improve the phosphorus digestibility in all target species and performance parameters in avian species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Pichia pastoris (DSM 23036) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018digestibility enhancers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 February 2012.", "references": ["7", "67", "23", "58", "93", "54", "13", "86", "68", "24", "84", "18", "51", "10", "12", "63", "36", "35", "5", "55", "62", "4", "59", "95", "70", "92", "20", "52", "61", "57", "No Label", "25", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 422/2012\nof 16 May 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 as regards representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1484/95 should be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2012.", "references": ["84", "32", "33", "54", "81", "80", "55", "18", "83", "41", "79", "36", "10", "77", "42", "5", "52", "70", "4", "51", "66", "76", "61", "44", "89", "97", "87", "11", "50", "53", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 638/2012\nof 13 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2012.", "references": ["67", "17", "12", "64", "52", "31", "48", "73", "55", "90", "65", "21", "59", "32", "74", "44", "15", "43", "78", "41", "82", "75", "71", "69", "86", "29", "27", "89", "92", "62", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 352/2010\nof 23 April 2010\napproving minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pomme de terre de l\u2019\u00eele de R\u00e9 (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 (1), and in particular the second sentence of Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined France\u2019s application for approval of an amendment to details of the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Pomme de terre de l\u2019\u00eele de R\u00e9\u2019, registered by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1187/2000 (3).\n(2)\nThe purpose of the application is to amend the specification by adding the Carrera variety to the list of varieties of potato allowed for the production of the PDO \u2018Pomme de terre de l\u2019\u00eele de R\u00e9\u2019 in the category \u2018varieties for human consumption\u2019. The practices in question ensure that the essential characteristics of the designation are maintained.\n(3)\nThe Commission has examined the amendments in question and concluded that they are justified. Since these are minor amendments within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission may approve them without using the procedure set out in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of that Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Pomme de terre de l\u2019\u00eele de R\u00e9\u2019 is hereby amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe updated Single Document is set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2010.", "references": ["84", "27", "50", "33", "16", "35", "46", "41", "61", "55", "38", "48", "26", "58", "0", "3", "82", "8", "67", "83", "53", "60", "11", "14", "56", "49", "51", "94", "86", "7", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/848/CFSP\nof 16 December 2011\nimplementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 20 December 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo.\n(2)\nOn 12 October and 28 November 2011, the Security Council Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1533 (2004) concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo updated the list of individuals and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(3)\nThe Annex to Decision 2010/788/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2010/788/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["4", "28", "16", "25", "26", "30", "87", "32", "22", "10", "51", "93", "88", "47", "59", "33", "37", "56", "53", "24", "40", "76", "62", "31", "75", "35", "27", "48", "91", "84", "No Label", "3", "12", "94"], "gold": ["3", "12", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 869/2010\nof 30 September 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 October 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 October 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 October 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 September 2010.", "references": ["34", "92", "63", "64", "94", "80", "25", "41", "62", "97", "58", "81", "51", "96", "2", "66", "15", "8", "29", "60", "4", "76", "35", "32", "50", "36", "69", "26", "27", "85", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "Council Decision 2012/768/CFSP\nof 9 March 2012\non the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia establishing a framework for the participation of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in European Union crisis management operations\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 37 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 218(5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (\"the HR\"),\nWhereas:\n(1) Conditions regarding the participation of third States in European Union crisis management operations should be laid down in an agreement establishing a framework for such possible future participation, rather than defining those conditions on a case-by-case basis for each operation concerned.\n(2) Following the adoption of a Decision by the Council on 26 April 2010 authorising the opening of negotiations, the HR negotiated an agreement between the European Union and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia establishing a framework for the participation of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in European Union crisis management operations (\"the Agreement\").\n(3) The Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia establishing a framework for the participation of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the European Union crisis management operations (\"the Agreement\") is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 16(1) of the Agreement.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2012.", "references": ["24", "69", "63", "86", "62", "82", "44", "37", "54", "7", "83", "1", "26", "81", "70", "32", "84", "39", "52", "71", "46", "38", "89", "57", "79", "14", "29", "11", "25", "72", "No Label", "3", "5", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "5", "9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1029/2011\nof 13 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for anglerfish in VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 October 2011.", "references": ["55", "16", "30", "58", "4", "76", "68", "7", "98", "44", "5", "22", "51", "45", "74", "63", "61", "57", "52", "75", "82", "17", "90", "25", "40", "32", "89", "70", "8", "37", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 593/2012\nof 5 July 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (1), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nWhile maintaining a high uniform level of aviation safety in Europe, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 of 24 September 2003 laying down implementing rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances as well as for the certification of design and product organisations (2) was amended to subject non-complex motor-powered aircraft, recreational aircraft and related products, parts and appliances to measures that are proportionate to their simple design and type of operation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 of 20 November 2003 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and of aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks (3) should be amended to remain consistent with the changes introduced to Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003, in particular with regard to the new definition of ELA1 aircraft and the possibility to accept certain not safety critical parts for installation without an EASA Form 1.\n(3)\nThe European Aviation Safety Agency (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019) prepared draft implementing rules and submitted them as its opinion No 01/2011 on \u2018ELA process and standard changes and repairs\u2019 to the Commission in accordance with Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 2042/2003 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2, point (k) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(k)\n\u201cELA1 aircraft\u201d means the following manned European light aircraft:\n(i)\nan aeroplane with a maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of 1 200 kg or less that is not classified as complex motor-powered aircraft;\n(ii)\na sailplane or powered sailplane of 1 200 kg MTOM or less;\n(iii)\na balloon with a maximum design lifting gas or hot air volume of not more than 3 400 m3 for hot air balloons, 1 050 m3 for gas balloons, 300 m3 for tethered gas balloons;\n(iv)\nan airship designed for not more than four occupants and a maximum design lifting gas or hot air volume of not more than 3 400 m3 for hot air airships and 1 000 m3 for gas airships.\u2019;\n(2)\nAnnex I (Part-M) and Annex II (Part-145) are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2012.", "references": ["99", "73", "94", "18", "83", "2", "38", "9", "49", "5", "81", "19", "15", "97", "86", "29", "87", "46", "48", "95", "72", "40", "11", "55", "39", "36", "28", "6", "25", "65", "No Label", "50", "53", "57", "75", "76"], "gold": ["50", "53", "57", "75", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1258/2010\nof 20 December 2010\nfixing for the 2011 fishing year the guide prices and Union producer prices for certain fishery products pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 104/2000\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 43(3) of the Treaty, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, is to adopt measures on the fixing of prices.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1) requires that guide prices and Union producer prices for each fishing year be fixed in order to determine price levels for intervention on the market for certain fisheries products.\n(3)\nIt is incumbent upon the Council to fix the guide prices for each of the products and groups of products listed in Annexes I and II to Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, and the Union producer prices for the products listed in Annex III to that Regulation.\n(4)\nOn the basis of the data currently available on the prices for the products concerned and the criteria referred to in Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, the guide prices should be increased, maintained or reduced for the 2011 fishing year depending on the species.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to establish the Union producer price for one of the products listed in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 and calculate the Union producer prices for the others by means of the conversion factors established by Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2006 of 30 May 2006 fixing the conversion factors applicable to fish of the genera Thunnus and Euthynnus (2).\n(6)\nOn the basis of the criteria laid down in the first and second indents of Article 18(2) and in Article 26(1) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, the Union producer price for the 2011 fishing year should be adjusted,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the fishing year from 1 January to 31 December 2011, the guide prices as provided for in Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 shall be as set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nFor the fishing year from 1 January to 31 December 2011, the Union producer prices as provided for in Article 26(1) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 shall be as set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["45", "91", "32", "15", "24", "53", "27", "14", "93", "89", "95", "20", "37", "5", "33", "75", "9", "21", "64", "63", "82", "71", "65", "43", "13", "19", "74", "48", "98", "54", "No Label", "35", "67", "72"], "gold": ["35", "67", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 7 July 2010\namending Decision 2008/840/EC as regards emergency measures to prevent the introduction into the Union of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster)\n(notified under document C(2010) 4546)\n(2010/380/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular the fourth sentence of Article 16(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2008/840/EC of 7 November 2008 on emergency measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Community of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) (2) requires Member States to adopt measures to prevent the introduction and spread within the Union of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster).\n(2)\nA mission carried out by the Commission in China from 9 to 20 February 2009 showed that the application of the emergency measures provided for by Decision 2008/840/EC was not fully satisfactory as regards the production and supervision of plants falling within the scope of that Decision, hereinafter \u2018specified plants\u2019.\n(3)\nThe Commission contacted China on 3 July 2009 explaining the conclusions drawn on the basis of that mission.\n(4)\nOn 29 September 2009, China presented a series of measures which would improve the control of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) as regards the production of specified plants destined for export to the Union. In particular, China has conducted a procedure of registration of the places of production for exports to the Union. It has restricted the number of places of production from which specified plants may be exported to the Union to places of production that had been registered by its national plant protection organisation as in compliance with point (1)(b) of Section I(B) of Annex I to Decision 2008/840/EC, as amended. This register was notified to the Commission on the same day. China further announced the adoption of measures in case Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) would be found at one of the registered places of production, including the removal of the place of production concerned from the register under certain circumstances. The Commission communicated the information received from China to the Member States.\n(5)\nOn 23 December 2009, the Commission informed China of its expectations that findings of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) must lead to an automatic removal of the place of production concerned from the register.\n(6)\nNo more findings concerning specified plants imported from China were reported until end of February 2010. However, the Netherlands reported on 1 and 3 March 2010 findings of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) on specified plants originating from two places of production included in the register.\n(7)\nOn 25 March 2010, China communicated to the Commission that it has undertaken to keep the register that it communicated to the Commission on 29 September 2009 up-to-date by, inter alia, promptly removing from the register the two mentioned places of production and to make the updated versions of the register available to the Commission.\n(8)\nIt is necessary to adapt the measures provided for by Decision 2008/840/EC as regards imports of specified plants from China to take into account these developments.\n(9)\nAs most of the interceptions on specified plants imported from China have been reported on plants of the species Acer spp., it is appropriate to ban their import for two years taking into account the life cycle of the insect.\n(10)\nIn addition to the requirements applicable to specified plants imported from third countries where Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) is present, specified plants originating in China should only be imported if they come from a place of production which is listed in the register of places of production in China established by the Chinese national plant protection organisation. Member States should be kept informed by the Commission of any update to this register by the Chinese authorities. Where a place of production is removed from the register by the Chinese authorities, specified plants grown at that place of production should not be imported into the Union for two years from the date when the Commission informs the Member States of that update.\n(11)\nWhere the Commission has evidence that a place of production listed in the register no longer complies with point (1)(b) of Section I(B) of Annex I to Decision 2008/840/EC or that Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) has been found on specified plants imported from such a place of production, it should communicate that information to the Member States. Following that communication specified plants originating from that place of production should not be imported into the Union for two years from the date when the Commission informs the Member States of the non-compliance, irrespective of the action taken by China to update the register.\n(12)\nIt is necessary that a place of production situated in a pest free area in a third country, as referred to in point (1)(a) of Section I of Annex I to Decision 2008/840/EC as it stands, be registered and supervised by the national plant protection organisation of that country.\n(13)\nTaking into account the results of recent inspections of specified plants, carried out at the point of entry or at the place of destination, in accordance with point (2) of Section I of Annex I to Decision 2008/840/EC as it stands, it is also necessary that destructive sampling be part of the inspection in third countries immediately prior to export and of the inspection in accordance with the provisions referred to.\n(14)\nDecision 2008/840/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Article 2 of Decision 2008/840/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nImport of the specified plants from third countries except China\nAs regards imports from third countries where Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) is known to be present, other than China, specified plants may only be introduced into the Union if they fulfil the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey comply with the specific import requirements as set out in point (1) of Section I(A) of Annex I;\n(b)\nwithout prejudice to Article 13a(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC, on entry into the Union they are inspected by the responsible official body in accordance with point (2) of Section I(A) of Annex I to this Decision for the presence of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster), and no signs of that organism have been found.\nArticle 2a\nImport of the specified plants from China\n1.1. As regards imports from China, specified plants may only be introduced into the Union if they fulfil the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey comply with the specific import requirements as set out in point (1) of Section I(B) of Annex I;\n(b)\nwithout prejudice to Article 13a(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC, on entry into the Union they are inspected by the responsible official body in accordance with point (2) of Section I(B) of Annex I to this Decision for the presence of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster), and no signs of that organism have been found;\n(c)\nthe place of production of those plants:\n(i)\nis designated by a unique registration number assigned by the national plant protection organisation of China;\n(ii)\nis included in the most recent version of the register communicated by the Commission to the Member States in accordance with paragraph 3;\n(iii)\nhas not, within the previous two years, been the subject of a communication by the Commission to the Member States of the removal from the register in accordance with paragraph 3; and\n(iv)\nhas not, within the previous two years, been the subject of a communication by the Commission to the Member States as referred to in paragraph 4 or 5.\n2. However, plants of Acer spp. shall not be introduced into the Union until 30 April 2012.\nFrom 1 May 2012, paragraph 1 shall apply to plants of Acer spp.\n3. The Commission shall communicate to the Member States the register of places of production in China which its national plant protection organisation has established as in compliance with point (1)(b) of Section I(B) of Annex I.\nWhere that organisation updates the register by removing a place of production either because that organisation has found that the place of production no longer complies with point (1)(b) of Section I(B) of Annex I or because the Commission has informed China of evidence of the presence of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) at import of specified plants from one of those places of production, and China makes the updated version of the register available to the Commission, the Commission shall communicate the updated version of the register to the Member States through internet based information pages.\nWhere that organisation updates the register by including a place of production because that organisation has found that the place of production complies with point (1)(b) of Section I(B) of Annex I and China makes the updated version of the register available to the Commission as well as the necessary explanatory information, the Commission shall communicate that updated version and, where appropriate, that explanatory information to the Member States through internet based information pages.\nThrough internet based information pages, the Commission shall make the register and its updates available to the public.\n4. Where during an inspection at a registered place of production, as set out in points (ii), (iii) and (iv) of point (1)(b) of Section I(B) of Annex I, the Chinese plant protection organisation finds evidence of the presence of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) and the Commission is notified of that finding by China, the Commission shall immediately communicate that finding to the Member States through internet based information pages.\nThrough internet based information pages, the Commission shall also make this information available to the public.\n5. Where the Commission has evidence from sources other than those referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 that a place of production listed in the register does not comply with point (1)(b) of Section I(B) of Annex I or that Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) has been found on specified plants imported from such a place of production, it shall communicate the information concerning that place of production to the Member States through internet based information pages.\nThrough internet based information pages, the Commission shall also make this information available to the public.\u2019\n2. Annex I to Decision 2008/840/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 July 2010.", "references": ["10", "20", "4", "47", "26", "3", "95", "77", "64", "39", "53", "42", "92", "75", "45", "48", "2", "71", "19", "6", "72", "93", "74", "90", "82", "30", "35", "46", "1", "81", "No Label", "38", "43", "58", "59", "61", "66"], "gold": ["38", "43", "58", "59", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/845/CFSP\nof 16 December 2011\nconcerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 and Article 31(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 17 November 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/694/CFSP concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (1), which provided for an extension of the validity of their national permits for entry into, and stay in, the territory of the Member States referred to in Common Position 2002/400/CFSP of 21 May 2002 concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (2) for a further period of 12 months.\n(2)\nOn the basis of an evaluation of the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP, the Council considers it appropriate that the validity of those permits be extended for a further period of 12 months,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Member States referred to in Article 2 of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP shall extend the validity of the national permits for entry and stay granted pursuant to Article 3 of that Common Position for a further period of 12 months.\nArticle 2\nThe Council shall evaluate the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP within six months of the adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["15", "60", "95", "54", "36", "40", "16", "32", "83", "11", "71", "8", "30", "88", "85", "50", "24", "17", "7", "19", "43", "38", "58", "75", "76", "33", "6", "3", "25", "67", "No Label", "1", "4", "5", "13"], "gold": ["1", "4", "5", "13"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 686/2011\nof 15 July 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 July 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 July 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 July 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 July 2011.", "references": ["6", "91", "11", "34", "89", "82", "58", "67", "42", "38", "55", "81", "32", "61", "14", "77", "66", "51", "9", "31", "43", "45", "57", "18", "8", "25", "47", "48", "23", "44", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1374/2011\nof 21 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["94", "62", "37", "30", "24", "41", "11", "72", "45", "86", "74", "16", "56", "29", "59", "76", "49", "84", "26", "27", "7", "5", "63", "57", "38", "18", "8", "79", "32", "13", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 681/2010\nof 29 July 2010\namending for the 132nd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 19 July 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add four natural persons to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2010.", "references": ["26", "49", "93", "15", "31", "37", "71", "25", "92", "14", "22", "28", "94", "55", "13", "44", "72", "36", "6", "50", "34", "12", "75", "43", "19", "4", "66", "85", "91", "62", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 631/2010\nof 16 July 2010\non the issue of licences for the import of garlic in the subperiod from 1 September 2010 to 30 November 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 (3) opens and provides for the administration of tariff quotas and introduces a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and other agricultural products imported from third countries.\n(2)\nThe quantities for which \u2018A\u2019 licence applications have been lodged by traditional importers and by new importers during the first seven working days of July 2010, pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 exceed the quantities available for products originating in China, and all third countries other than China and Argentina.\n(3)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, it is now necessary to establish the extent to which the \u2018A\u2019 licence applications sent to the Commission by 14 July 2010 can be met in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApplications for \u2018A\u2019 import licences lodged pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 during the first seven working days of July 2010 and sent to the Commission by 14 July 2010 shall be met at a percentage rate of the quantities applied for as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2010.", "references": ["12", "41", "42", "50", "14", "45", "31", "79", "19", "73", "36", "43", "58", "76", "92", "3", "90", "30", "11", "40", "52", "60", "2", "29", "15", "28", "94", "53", "18", "75", "No Label", "4", "21", "23", "68", "93", "95", "96"], "gold": ["4", "21", "23", "68", "93", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 March 2011\nimplementing Council Directive 2002/55/EC as regards conditions under which the placing on the market of small packages of mixtures of standard seed of different vegetable varieties belonging to the same species may be authorised\n(notified under document C(2011) 1760)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/180/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/55/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of vegetable seed, (1) and in particular Article 26(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSome Member States have informed the Commission that there is a demand on the market for small packages of mixtures of vegetable varieties of the same species. It is therefore necessary to establish detailed requirements as regards such small packages.\n(2)\nTaking into account the demand in the Member States concerned, this Decision should cover all species falling within the scope of Directive 2002/55/EC. The maximum size for such small packages should be expressed as maximum net weight of the contained seed, and as defined in Article 2(1)(g) of Directive 2002/55/EC.\n(3)\nDetailed rules should be established for the labelling of such small packages to ensure traceability and adequate information of users.\n(4)\nMember States should report to the Commission by the end of 2012 on the application of this Decision in order to allow the Commission to assess the effectiveness of this Decision and to identify possible issues that may need to be further addressed.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States may authorise their own producers to place on the market small packages of mixtures of standard seed of species listed in Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2002/55/EC. Such small packages may only contain different varieties of the same species.\nArticle 2\nThe small packages referred to in Article 1 may contain seed up to a net weight as laid down in Article 2(1)(g) of Directive 2002/55/EC.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall ensure that small packages, as referred to in Article 1, bear a supplier\u2019s label or a printed or stamped notice.\nThis label or that notice shall contain the following information:\n(a)\nthe words \u2018EU rules and standards\u2019;\n(b)\nthe name and address or the identification mark of the person responsible for affixing the label;\n(c)\nthe year of sealing expressed as: \u2018sealed\u2026 [year]\u2019, or the year of the last sampling for the purposes of the last testing of germination expressed as: \u2018sampled\u2026 [year]\u2019; the indication \u2018use before \u2026 [date]\u2019 may be added;\n(d)\nthe words \u2018mixture of varieties of \u2026 [name of the species]\u2019;\n(e)\nthe denomination of the varieties;\n(f)\nthe proportion of the varieties, expressed as net weight or as number of seeds;\n(g)\nthe reference number of the lot given by the person responsible for affixing the labels;\n(h)\nthe net or gross weight or number of seeds;\n(i)\nwhere weight is indicated and granulated pesticides, pelleting substances or other solid additives are used, the nature of the chemical treatment or additive and the approximate ratio between the weight of clusters or pure seeds and the total weight.\nArticle 4\nMember States shall report to the Commission on the application of this Decision by 31 December 2012.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2011.", "references": ["10", "58", "36", "97", "37", "31", "27", "88", "73", "1", "35", "74", "55", "47", "21", "28", "44", "56", "26", "0", "50", "59", "54", "13", "75", "15", "53", "2", "86", "87", "No Label", "25", "65", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "65", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 441/2012\nof 24 May 2012\namending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for bifenazate, bifenthrin, boscalid, cadusafos, chlorantraniliprole, chlorothalonil, clothianidin, cyproconazole, deltamethrin, dicamba, difenoconazole, dinocap, etoxazole, fenpyroximate, flubendiamide, fludioxonil, glyphosate, metalaxyl-M, meptyldinocap, novaluron, thiamethoxam, and triazophos in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor bifenazate, bifenthrin, chlorothalonil, deltamethrin, etoxazole, glyphosate, metalaxyl-M and triazophos, maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Annex II and Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For boscalid, chlorantraniliprole, clothianidin, cyproconazole, dicamba, difenoconazole, dinocap, fenpyroximate, flubendiamide, fludioxonil, meptyldinocap, novaluron, and thiamethoxam, MRLs were set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For cadusafos no MRLs were set before in any of the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(2)\nIn the context of a procedure for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance metalaxyl-M in lettuce, lamb\u2019s lettuce, scarole, cress, land cress, rocket/rucola, red mustard, leaves and sprouts of brassica, an application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing MRLs.\n(3)\nAs regards fludioxonil, such an application was made for lamb's lettuce, lettuce, scarole, cress, rucola, leaves and sprouts of brassica, spinach, beet leaves and fresh herbs. As regards glyphosate, such an application was made for lentils. As regards chlorantraniliprole, such an application was made for citrus fruit, strawberries, beans and peas with and without pods, lentils, other legume vegetables, globe artichokes, rice and coffee bean.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, these applications were evaluated by the Member State concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission.\n(5)\nThe European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \"the Authority\", assessed the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs (2). It forwarded these opinions to the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public.\n(6)\nThe Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that, as regards use of fludioxonil, on lamb's lettuce, cress, rucola, leaves and sprouts of brassica, and fresh herbs the data were not adequate to support the MRLs requested. As regards chlorantraniliprole on beans without pods, peas with and without pods, lentils, and other legume vegetables, the Authority concluded that the data were not adequate to support the MRLs requested.\n(7)\nAs regards all other applications, the Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs as recommended by the Authority were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of metalaxyl-M. Neither the lifetime exposure to this substance via consumption of all food products that may contain this substance, nor the short term exposure due to extreme consumption of the relevant crops and products showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference dose (ARfD) is exceeded.\n(8)\nOn 9 July 2011 the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) (3) adopted CXLs for bifenazate, bifenthrin, boscalid, cadusafos, chlorantraniliprole, chlorothalonil, clothianidin, cyproconazole, deltamethrin, dicamba, difenoconazole, dinocap, etoxazole, fenpyroximate, flubendiamide, fludioxonil, meptyldinocap, novaluron, thiamethoxam, and triazophos. These CXLs should be included in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as MRLs, with the exception of those CXLs which are not safe for a European consumer group and for which the Union presented a reservation to the CAC (4).\n(9)\nBased on the reasoned opinions and the scientific report of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the proposed modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 May 2012.", "references": ["30", "93", "75", "16", "59", "3", "90", "96", "23", "42", "70", "18", "27", "82", "21", "97", "19", "52", "71", "94", "48", "73", "63", "26", "1", "64", "86", "7", "31", "2", "No Label", "25", "38", "60", "65", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "60", "65", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 952/2010\nof 21 October 2010\nnot fixing a minimum selling price in response to the ninth individual invitation to tender for the sale of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the ninth individual invitation to tender, no minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the ninth individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 19 October 2010, no minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be fixed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["23", "86", "38", "63", "99", "74", "6", "36", "1", "32", "47", "31", "22", "61", "58", "95", "40", "98", "26", "69", "24", "67", "76", "94", "90", "78", "91", "25", "81", "85", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/83/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 25 October 2011\non consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (4) and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (5) lay down a number of contractual rights for consumers.\n(2)\nThose Directives have been reviewed in the light of experience with a view to simplifying and updating the applicable rules, removing inconsistencies and closing unwanted gaps in the rules. That review has shown that it is appropriate to replace those two Directives by a single Directive. This Directive should therefore lay down standard rules for the common aspects of distance and off-premises contracts, moving away from the minimum harmonisation approach in the former Directives whilst allowing Member States to maintain or adopt national rules in relation to certain aspects.\n(3)\nArticle 169(1) and point (a) of Article 169(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provide that the Union is to contribute to the attainment of a high level of consumer protection through the measures adopted pursuant to Article 114 thereof.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 26(2) TFEU, the internal market is to comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods and services and freedom of establishment are ensured. The harmonisation of certain aspects of consumer distance and off-premises contracts is necessary for the promotion of a real consumer internal market striking the right balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of enterprises, while ensuring respect for the principle of subsidiarity.\n(5)\nThe cross-border potential of distance selling, which should be one of the main tangible results of the internal market, is not fully exploited. Compared with the significant growth of domestic distance sales over the last few years, the growth in cross-border distance sales has been limited. This discrepancy is particularly significant for Internet sales for which the potential for further growth is high. The cross-border potential of contracts negotiated away from business premises (direct selling) is constrained by a number of factors including the different national consumer protection rules imposed upon the industry. Compared with the growth of domestic direct selling over the last few years, in particular in the services sector, for instance utilities, the number of consumers using this channel for cross-border purchases has remained flat. Responding to increased business opportunities in many Member States, small and medium-sized enterprises (including individual traders) or agents of direct selling companies should be more inclined to seek business opportunities in other Member States, in particular in border regions. Therefore the full harmonisation of consumer information and the right of withdrawal in distance and off-premises contracts will contribute to a high level of consumer protection and a better functioning of the business-to-consumer internal market.\n(6)\nCertain disparities create significant internal market barriers affecting traders and consumers. Those disparities increase compliance costs to traders wishing to engage in the cross-border sale of goods or provision of services. Disproportionate fragmentation also undermines consumer confidence in the internal market.\n(7)\nFull harmonisation of some key regulatory aspects should considerably increase legal certainty for both consumers and traders. Both consumers and traders should be able to rely on a single regulatory framework based on clearly defined legal concepts regulating certain aspects of business-to-consumer contracts across the Union. The effect of such harmonisation should be to eliminate the barriers stemming from the fragmentation of the rules and to complete the internal market in this area. Those barriers can only be eliminated by establishing uniform rules at Union level. Furthermore consumers should enjoy a high common level of protection across the Union.\n(8)\nThe regulatory aspects to be harmonised should only concern contracts concluded between traders and consumers. Therefore, this Directive should not affect national law in the area of contracts relating to employment, contracts relating to succession rights, contracts relating to family law and contracts relating to the incorporation and organisation of companies or partnership agreements.\n(9)\nThis Directive establishes rules on information to be provided for distance contracts, off-premises contracts and contracts other than distance and off-premises contracts. This Directive also regulates the right of withdrawal for distance and off-premises contracts and harmonises certain provisions dealing with the performance and some other aspects of business-to-consumer contracts.\n(10)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (6).\n(11)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to Union provisions relating to specific sectors, such as medicinal products for human use, medical devices, privacy and electronic communications, patients\u2019 rights in cross-border healthcare, food labelling and the internal market for electricity and natural gas.\n(12)\nThe information requirements provided for in this Directive should complete the information requirements of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (7) and Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (\u2018Directive on electronic commerce\u2019) (8). Member States should retain the possibility to impose additional information requirements applicable to service providers established in their territory.\n(13)\nMember States should remain competent, in accordance with Union law, to apply the provisions of this Directive to areas not falling within its scope. Member States may therefore maintain or introduce national legislation corresponding to the provisions of this Directive, or certain of its provisions, in relation to contracts that fall outside the scope of this Directive. For instance, Member States may decide to extend the application of the rules of this Directive to legal persons or to natural persons who are not consumers within the meaning of this Directive, such as non-governmental organisations, start-ups or small and medium-sized enterprises. Similarly, Member States may apply the provisions of this Directive to contracts that are not distance contracts within the meaning of this Directive, for example because they are not concluded under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme. Moreover, Member States may also maintain or introduce national provisions on issues not specifically addressed in this Directive, such as additional rules concerning sales contracts, including in relation to the delivery of goods, or requirements for the provision of information during the existence of a contract.\n(14)\nThis Directive should not affect national law in the area of contract law for contract law aspects that are not regulated by this Directive. Therefore, this Directive should be without prejudice to national law regulating for instance the conclusion or the validity of a contract (for instance in the case of lack of consent). Similarly, this Directive should not affect national law in relation to the general contractual legal remedies, the rules on public economic order, for instance rules on excessive or extortionate prices, and the rules on unethical legal transactions.\n(15)\nThis Directive should not harmonise language requirements applicable to consumer contracts. Therefore, Member States may maintain or introduce in their national law language requirements regarding contractual information and contractual terms.\n(16)\nThis Directive should not affect national laws on legal representation such as the rules relating to the person who is acting in the name of the trader or on his behalf (such as an agent or a trustee). Member States should remain competent in this area. This Directive should apply to all traders, whether public or private.\n(17)\nThe definition of consumer should cover natural persons who are acting outside their trade, business, craft or profession. However, in the case of dual purpose contracts, where the contract is concluded for purposes partly within and partly outside the person\u2019s trade and the trade purpose is so limited as not to be predominant in the overall context of the contract, that person should also be considered as a consumer.\n(18)\nThis Directive does not affect the freedom of Member States to define, in conformity with Union law, what they consider to be services of general economic interest, how those services should be organised and financed, in compliance with State aid rules, and which specific obligations they should be subject to.\n(19)\nDigital content means data which are produced and supplied in digital form, such as computer programs, applications, games, music, videos or texts, irrespective of whether they are accessed through downloading or streaming, from a tangible medium or through any other means. Contracts for the supply of digital content should fall within the scope of this Directive. If digital content is supplied on a tangible medium, such as a CD or a DVD, it should be considered as goods within the meaning of this Directive. Similarly to contracts for the supply of water, gas or electricity, where they are not put up for sale in a limited volume or set quantity, or of district heating, contracts for digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium should be classified, for the purpose of this Directive, neither as sales contracts nor as service contracts. For such contracts, the consumer should have a right of withdrawal unless he has consented to the beginning of the performance of the contract during the withdrawal period and has acknowledged that he will consequently lose the right to withdraw from the contract. In addition to the general information requirements, the trader should inform the consumer about the functionality and the relevant interoperability of digital content. The notion of functionality should refer to the ways in which digital content can be used, for instance for the tracking of consumer behaviour; it should also refer to the absence or presence of any technical restrictions such as protection via Digital Rights Management or region coding. The notion of relevant interoperability is meant to describe the information regarding the standard hardware and software environment with which the digital content is compatible, for instance the operating system, the necessary version and certain hardware features. The Commission should examine the need for further harmonisation of provisions in respect of digital content and submit, if necessary, a legislative proposal for addressing this matter.\n(20)\nThe definition of distance contract should cover all cases where a contract is concluded between the trader and the consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication (such as mail order, Internet, telephone or fax) up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded. That definition should also cover situations where the consumer visits the business premises merely for the purpose of gathering information about the goods or services and subsequently negotiates and concludes the contract at a distance. By contrast, a contract which is negotiated at the business premises of the trader and finally concluded by means of distance communication should not be considered a distance contract. Neither should a contract initiated by means of distance communication, but finally concluded at the business premises of the trader be considered a distance contract. Similarly, the concept of distance contract should not include reservations made by a consumer through a means of distance communications to request the provision of a service from a professional, such as in the case of a consumer phoning to request an appointment with a hairdresser. The notion of an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme should include those schemes offered by a third party other than the trader but used by the trader, such as an online platform. It should not, however, cover cases where websites merely offer information on the trader, his goods and/or services and his contact details.\n(21)\nAn off-premises contract should be defined as a contract concluded with the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader, for example at the consumer\u2019s home or workplace. In an off-premises context, the consumer may be under potential psychological pressure or may be confronted with an element of surprise, irrespective of whether or not the consumer has solicited the trader\u2019s visit. The definition of an off-premises contract should also include situations where the consumer is personally and individually addressed in an off-premises context but the contract is concluded immediately afterwards on the business premises of the trader or through a means of distance communication. The definition of an off-premises contract should not cover situations in which the trader first comes to the consumer\u2019s home strictly with a view to taking measurements or giving an estimate without any commitment of the consumer and where the contract is then concluded only at a later point in time on the business premises of the trader or via means of distance communication on the basis of the trader\u2019s estimate. In those cases, the contract is not to be considered as having been concluded immediately after the trader has addressed the consumer if the consumer has had time to reflect upon the estimate of the trader before concluding the contract. Purchases made during an excursion organised by the trader during which the products acquired are promoted and offered for sale should be considered as off-premises contracts.\n(22)\nBusiness premises should include premises in whatever form (such as shops, stalls or lorries) which serve as a permanent or usual place of business for the trader. Market stalls and fair stands should be treated as business premises if they fulfil this condition. Retail premises where the trader carries out his activity on a seasonal basis, for instance during the tourist season at a ski or beach resort, should be considered as business premises as the trader carries out his activity in those premises on a usual basis. Spaces accessible to the public, such as streets, shopping malls, beaches, sports facilities and public transport, which the trader uses on an exceptional basis for his business activities as well as private homes or workplaces should not be regarded as business premises. The business premises of a person acting in the name or on behalf of the trader as defined in this Directive should be considered as business premises within the meaning of this Directive.\n(23)\nDurable media should enable the consumer to store the information for as long as it is necessary for him to protect his interests stemming from his relationship with the trader. Such media should include in particular paper, USB sticks, CD-ROMs, DVDs, memory cards or the hard disks of computers as well as e-mails.\n(24)\nA public auction implies that traders and consumers attend or are given the possibility to attend the auction in person. The goods or services are offered by the trader to the consumer through a bidding procedure authorised by law in some Member States, to offer goods or services at public sale. The successful bidder is bound to purchase the goods or services. The use of online platforms for auction purposes which are at the disposal of consumers and traders should not be considered as a public auction within the meaning of this Directive.\n(25)\nContracts related to district heating should be covered by this Directive, similarly to the contracts for the supply of water, gas or electricity. District heating refers to the supply of heat, inter alia, in the form of steam or hot water, from a central source of production through a transmission and distribution system to multiple buildings, for the purpose of heating.\n(26)\nContracts related to the transfer of immovable property or of rights in immovable property or to the creation or acquisition of such immovable property or rights, contracts for the construction of new buildings or the substantial conversion of existing buildings as well as contracts for the rental of accommodation for residential purposes are already subject to a number of specific requirements in national legislation. Those contracts include for instance sales of immovable property still to be developed and hire-purchase. The provisions of this Directive are not appropriate to those contracts, which should be therefore excluded from its scope. A substantial conversion is a conversion comparable to the construction of a new building, for example where only the fa\u00e7ade of an old building is retained. Service contracts in particular those related to the construction of annexes to buildings (for example a garage or a veranda) and those related to repair and renovation of buildings other than substantial conversion, should be included in the scope of this Directive, as well as contracts related to the services of a real estate agent and those related to the rental of accommodation for non-residential purposes.\n(27)\nTransport services cover passenger transport and transport of goods. Passenger transport should be excluded from the scope of this Directive as it is already subject to other Union legislation or, in the case of public transport and taxis, to regulation at national level. However, the provisions of this Directive protecting consumers against excessive fees for the use of means of payment or against hidden costs should apply also to passenger transport contracts. In relation to transport of goods and car rental which are services, consumers should benefit from the protection afforded by this Directive, with the exception of the right of withdrawal.\n(28)\nIn order to avoid administrative burden being placed on traders, Member States may decide not to apply this Directive where goods or services of a minor value are sold off-premises. The monetary threshold should be established at a sufficiently low level as to exclude only purchases of small significance. Member States should be allowed to define this value in their national legislation provided that it does not exceed EUR 50. Where two or more contracts with related subjects are concluded at the same time by the consumer, the total cost thereof should be taken into account for the purpose of applying this threshold.\n(29)\nSocial services have fundamentally distinct features that are reflected in sector-specific legislation, partially at Union level and partially at national level. Social services include, on the one hand, services for particularly disadvantaged or low income persons as well as services for persons and families in need of assistance in carrying out routine, everyday tasks and, on the other hand, services for all people who have a special need for assistance, support, protection or encouragement in a specific life phase. Social services cover, inter alia, services for children and youth, assistance services for families, single parents and older persons, and services for migrants. Social services cover both short-term and long-term care services, for instance services provided by home care services or provided in assisted living facilities and residential homes or housing (\u2018nursing homes\u2019). Social services include not only those provided by the State at a national, regional or local level by providers mandated by the State or by charities recognised by the State but also those provided by private operators. The provisions of this Directive are not appropriate to social services which should be therefore excluded from its scope.\n(30)\nHealthcare requires special regulations because of its technical complexity, its importance as a service of general interest as well as its extensive public funding. Healthcare is defined in Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients\u2019 rights in cross-border healthcare (9) as \u2018health services provided by health professionals to patients to assess, maintain or restore their state of health, including the prescription, dispensation and provision of medicinal products and medical devices\u2019. Health professional is defined in that Directive as a doctor of medicine, a nurse responsible for general care, a dental practitioner, a midwife or a pharmacist within the meaning of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (10) or another professional exercising activities in the healthcare sector which are restricted to a regulated profession as defined in point (a) of Article 3(1) of Directive 2005/36/EC, or a person considered to be a health professional according to the legislation of the Member State of treatment. The provisions of this Directive are not appropriate to healthcare which should be therefore excluded from its scope.\n(31)\nGambling should be excluded from the scope of this Directive. Gambling activities are those which involve wagering at stake with pecuniary value in games of chance, including lotteries, gambling in casinos and betting transactions. Member States should be able to adopt other, including more stringent, consumer protection measures in relation to such activities.\n(32)\nThe existing Union legislation, inter alia, relating to consumer financial services, package travel and timeshare contains numerous rules on consumer protection. For this reason, this Directive should not apply to contracts in those areas. With regard to financial services, Member States should be encouraged to draw inspiration from existing Union legislation in that area when legislating in areas not regulated at Union level, in such a way that a level playing field for all consumers and all contracts relating to financial services is ensured.\n(33)\nThe trader should be obliged to inform the consumer in advance of any arrangement resulting in the consumer paying a deposit to the trader, including an arrangement whereby an amount is blocked on the consumer\u2019s credit or debit card.\n(34)\nThe trader should give the consumer clear and comprehensible information before the consumer is bound by a distance or off-premises contract, a contract other than a distance or an off-premises contract, or any corresponding offer. In providing that information, the trader should take into account the specific needs of consumers who are particularly vulnerable because of their mental, physical or psychological infirmity, age or credulity in a way which the trader could reasonably be expected to foresee. However, taking into account such specific needs should not lead to different levels of consumer protection.\n(35)\nThe information to be provided by the trader to the consumer should be mandatory and should not be altered. Nevertheless, the contracting parties should be able to expressly agree to change the content of the contract subsequently concluded, for instance the arrangements for delivery.\n(36)\nIn the case of distance contracts, the information requirements should be adapted to take into account the technical constraints of certain media, such as the restrictions on the number of characters on certain mobile telephone screens or the time constraint on television sales spots. In such cases the trader should comply with a minimum set of information requirements and refer the consumer to another source of information, for instance by providing a toll free telephone number or a hypertext link to a webpage of the trader where the relevant information is directly available and easily accessible. As to the requirement to inform the consumer of the cost of returning goods which by their nature cannot normally be returned by post, it will be considered to have been met, for example, if the trader specifies one carrier (for instance the one he assigned for the delivery of the good) and one price concerning the cost of returning the goods. Where the cost of returning the goods cannot reasonably be calculated in advance by the trader, for example because the trader does not offer to arrange for the return of the goods himself, the trader should provide a statement that such a cost will be payable, and that this cost may be high, along with a reasonable estimation of the maximum cost, which could be based on the cost of delivery to the consumer.\n(37)\nSince in the case of distance sales, the consumer is not able to see the goods before concluding the contract, he should have a right of withdrawal. For the same reason, the consumer should be allowed to test and inspect the goods he has bought to the extent necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and the functioning of the goods. Concerning off-premises contracts, the consumer should have the right of withdrawal because of the potential surprise element and/or psychological pressure. Withdrawal from the contract should terminate the obligation of the contracting parties to perform the contract.\n(38)\nTrading websites should indicate clearly and legibly at the latest at the beginning of the ordering process whether any delivery restrictions apply and which means of payment are accepted.\n(39)\nIt is important to ensure for distance contracts concluded through websites that the consumer is able to fully read and understand the main elements of the contract before placing his order. To that end, provision should be made in this Directive for those elements to be displayed in the close vicinity of the confirmation requested for placing the order. It is also important to ensure that, in such situations, the consumer is able to determine the moment at which he assumes the obligation to pay the trader. Therefore, the consumer\u2019s attention should specifically be drawn, through an unambiguous formulation, to the fact that placing the order entails the obligation to pay the trader.\n(40)\nThe current varying lengths of the withdrawal periods both between the Member States and for distance and off-premises contracts cause legal uncertainty and compliance costs. The same withdrawal period should apply to all distance and off-premises contracts. In the case of service contracts, the withdrawal period should expire after 14 days from the conclusion of the contract. In the case of sales contracts, the withdrawal period should expire after 14 days from the day on which the consumer or a third party other than the carrier and indicated by the consumer, acquires physical possession of the goods. In addition the consumer should be able to exercise the right to withdraw before acquiring physical possession of the goods. Where multiple goods are ordered by the consumer in one order but are delivered separately, the withdrawal period should expire after 14 days from the day on which the consumer acquires physical possession of the last good. Where goods are delivered in multiple lots or pieces, the withdrawal period should expire after 14 days from the day on which the consumer acquires the physical possession of the last lot or piece.\n(41)\nIn order to ensure legal certainty, it is appropriate that Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits (11) should apply to the calculation of the periods contained in this Directive. Therefore, all periods contained in this Directive should be understood to be expressed in calendar days. Where a period expressed in days is to be calculated from the moment at which an event occurs or an action takes place, the day during which that event occurs or that action takes place should not be considered as falling within the period in question.\n(42)\nThe provisions relating to the right of withdrawal should be without prejudice to the Member States\u2019 laws and regulations governing the termination or unenforceability of a contract or the possibility for the consumer to fulfil his contractual obligations before the time determined in the contract.\n(43)\nIf the trader has not adequately informed the consumer prior to the conclusion of a distance or off-premises contract, the withdrawal period should be extended. However, in order to ensure legal certainty as regards the length of the withdrawal period, a 12-month limitation period should be introduced.\n(44)\nDifferences in the ways in which the right of withdrawal is exercised in the Member States have caused costs for traders selling cross-border. The introduction of a harmonised model withdrawal form that the consumer may use should simplify the withdrawal process and bring legal certainty. For these reasons, Member States should refrain from adding any presentational requirements to the Union-wide model form relating for example to the font size. However, the consumer should remain free to withdraw in his own words, provided that his statement setting out his decision to withdraw from the contract to the trader is unequivocal. A letter, a telephone call or returning the goods with a clear statement could meet this requirement, but the burden of proof of having withdrawn within the time limits fixed in the Directive should be on the consumer. For this reason, it is in the interest of the consumer to make use of a durable medium when communicating his withdrawal to the trader.\n(45)\nAs experience shows that many consumers and traders prefer to communicate via the trader\u2019s website, there should be a possibility for the trader to give the consumer the option of filling in a web-based withdrawal form. In this case the trader should provide an acknowledgement of receipt for instance by e-mail without delay.\n(46)\nIn the event that the consumer withdraws from the contract, the trader should reimburse all payments received from the consumer, including those covering the expenses borne by the trader to deliver goods to the consumer. The reimbursement should not be made by voucher unless the consumer has used vouchers for the initial transaction or has expressly accepted them. If the consumer expressly chooses a certain type of delivery (for instance 24-hour express delivery), although the trader had offered a common and generally acceptable type of delivery which would have incurred lower delivery costs, the consumer should bear the difference in costs between these two types of delivery.\n(47)\nSome consumers exercise their right of withdrawal after having used the goods to an extent more than necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and the functioning of the goods. In this case the consumer should not lose the right to withdraw but should be liable for any diminished value of the goods. In order to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the consumer should only handle and inspect them in the same manner as he would be allowed to do in a shop. For example, the consumer should only try on a garment and should not be allowed to wear it. Consequently, the consumer should handle and inspect the goods with due care during the withdrawal period. The obligations of the consumer in the event of withdrawal should not discourage the consumer from exercising his right of withdrawal.\n(48)\nThe consumer should be required to send back the goods not later than 14 days after having informed the trader about his decision to withdraw from the contract. In situations where the trader or the consumer does not fulfil the obligations relating to the exercise of the right of withdrawal, penalties provided for by national legislation in accordance with this Directive should apply as well as contract law provisions.\n(49)\nCertain exceptions from the right of withdrawal should exist, both for distance and off-premises contracts. A right of withdrawal could be inappropriate for example given the nature of particular goods or services. That is the case for example with wine supplied a long time after the conclusion of a contract of a speculative nature where the value is dependent on fluctuations in the market (\u2018vin en primeur\u2019). The right of withdrawal should neither apply to goods made to the consumer\u2019s specifications or which are clearly personalised such as tailor-made curtains, nor to the supply of fuel, for example, which is a good, by nature inseparably mixed with other items after delivery. The granting of a right of withdrawal to the consumer could also be inappropriate in the case of certain services where the conclusion of the contract implies the setting aside of capacity which, if a right of withdrawal were exercised, the trader may find difficult to fill. This would for example be the case where reservations are made at hotels or concerning holiday cottages or cultural or sporting events.\n(50)\nOn the one hand, the consumer should benefit from his right of withdrawal even in case he has asked for the provision of services before the end of the withdrawal period. On the other hand, if the consumer exercises his right of withdrawal, the trader should be assured to be adequately paid for the service he has provided. The calculation of the proportionate amount should be based on the price agreed in the contract unless the consumer demonstrates that that total price is itself disproportionate, in which case the amount to be paid shall be calculated on the basis of the market value of the service provided. The market value should be defined by comparing the price of an equivalent service performed by other traders at the time of the conclusion of the contract. Therefore the consumer should request the performance of services before the end of the withdrawal period by making this request expressly and, in the case of off-premises contracts, on a durable medium. Similarly, the trader should inform the consumer on a durable medium of any obligation to pay the proportionate costs for the services already provided. For contracts having as their object both goods and services, the rules provided for in this Directive on the return of goods should apply to the goods aspects and the compensation regime for services should apply to the services aspects.\n(51)\nThe main difficulties encountered by consumers and one of the main sources of disputes with traders concern delivery of goods, including goods getting lost or damaged during transport and late or partial delivery. Therefore it is appropriate to clarify and harmonise the national rules as to when delivery should occur. The place and modalities of delivery and the rules concerning the determination of the conditions for the transfer of the ownership of the goods and the moment at which such transfer takes place, should remain subject to national law and therefore should not be affected by this Directive. The rules on delivery laid down in this Directive should include the possibility for the consumer to allow a third party to acquire on his behalf the physical possession or control of the goods. The consumer should be considered to have control of the goods where he or a third party indicated by the consumer has access to the goods to use them as an owner, or the ability to resell the goods (for example, when he has received the keys or possession of the ownership documents).\n(52)\nIn the context of sales contracts, the delivery of goods can take place in various ways, either immediately or at a later date. If the parties have not agreed on a specific delivery date, the trader should deliver the goods as soon as possible, but in any event not later than 30 days from the day of the conclusion of the contract. The rules regarding late delivery should also take into account goods to be manufactured or acquired specially for the consumer which cannot be reused by the trader without considerable loss. Therefore, a rule which grants an additional reasonable period of time to the trader in certain circumstances should be provided for in this Directive. When the trader has failed to deliver the goods within the period of time agreed with the consumer, before the consumer can terminate the contract, the consumer should call upon the trader to make the delivery within a reasonable additional period of time and be entitled to terminate the contract if the trader fails to deliver the goods even within that additional period of time. However, this rule should not apply when the trader has refused to deliver the goods in an unequivocal statement. Neither should it apply in certain circumstances where the delivery period is essential such as, for example, in the case of a wedding dress which should be delivered before the wedding. Nor should it apply in circumstances where the consumer informs the trader that delivery on a specified date is essential. For this purpose, the consumer may use the trader\u2019s contact details given in accordance with this Directive. In these specific cases, if the trader fails to deliver the goods on time, the consumer should be entitled to terminate the contract immediately after the expiry of the delivery period initially agreed. This Directive should be without prejudice to national provisions on the way the consumer should notify the trader of his will to terminate the contract.\n(53)\nIn addition to the consumer\u2019s right to terminate the contract where the trader has failed to fulfil his obligations to deliver the goods in accordance with this Directive, the consumer may, in accordance with the applicable national law, have recourse to other remedies, such as granting the trader an additional period of time for delivery, enforcing the performance of the contract, withholding payment, and seeking damages.\n(54)\nIn accordance with Article 52(3) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market (12), Member States should be able to prohibit or limit traders\u2019 right to request charges from consumers taking into account the need to encourage competition and promote the use of efficient payment instruments. In any event, traders should be prohibited from charging consumers fees that exceed the cost borne by the trader for the use of a certain means of payment.\n(55)\nWhere the goods are dispatched by the trader to the consumer, disputes may arise, in the event of loss or damage, as to the moment at which the transfer of risk takes place. Therefore this Directive should provide that the consumer be protected against any risk of loss of or damage to the goods occurring before he has acquired the physical possession of the goods. The consumer should be protected during a transport arranged or carried out by the trader, even where the consumer has chosen a particular delivery method from a range of options offered by the trader. However, that provision should not apply to contracts where it is up to the consumer to take delivery of the goods himself or to ask a carrier to take delivery. Regarding the moment of the transfer of the risk, a consumer should be considered to have acquired the physical possession of the goods when he has received them.\n(56)\nPersons or organisations regarded under national law as having a legitimate interest in protecting consumer contractual rights should be afforded the right to initiate proceedings, either before a court or before an administrative authority which is competent to decide upon complaints or to initiate appropriate legal proceedings.\n(57)\nIt is necessary that Member States lay down penalties for infringements of this Directive and ensure that they are enforced. The penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n(58)\nThe consumer should not be deprived of the protection granted by this Directive. Where the law applicable to the contract is that of a third country, Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 should apply, in order to determine whether the consumer retains the protection granted by this Directive.\n(59)\nThe Commission, following consultation with the Member States and stakeholders, should look into the most appropriate way to ensure that all consumers are made aware of their rights at the point of sale.\n(60)\nSince inertia selling, which consists of unsolicited supply of goods or provision of services to consumers, is prohibited by Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (\u2018Unfair Commercial Practices Directive\u2019) (13) but no contractual remedy is provided therein, it is necessary to introduce in this Directive the contractual remedy of exempting the consumer from the obligation to provide any consideration for such unsolicited supply or provision.\n(61)\nDirective 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (14) already regulates unsolicited communications and provides for a high level of consumer protection. The corresponding provisions on the same issue contained in Directive 97/7/EC are therefore not needed.\n(62)\nIt is appropriate for the Commission to review this Directive if some barriers to the internal market are identified. In its review, the Commission should pay particular attention to the possibilities granted to Member States to maintain or introduce specific national provisions including in certain areas of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (15) and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (16). That review could lead to a Commission proposal to amend this Directive; that proposal may include amendments to other consumer protection legislation reflecting the Commission\u2019s Consumer Policy Strategy commitment to review the Union acquis in order to achieve a high, common level of consumer protection.\n(63)\nDirectives 93/13/EEC and 1999/44/EC should be amended to require Member States to inform the Commission about the adoption of specific national provisions in certain areas.\n(64)\nDirectives 85/577/EEC and 97/7/EC should be repealed.\n(65)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely, through the achievement of a high level of consumer protection, to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market, 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.\n(66)\nThis Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.\n(67)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making (17), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables, which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT MATTER, DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThe purpose of this Directive is, through the achievement of a high level of consumer protection, to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market by approximating certain aspects of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning contracts concluded between consumers and traders.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018consumer\u2019 means any natural person who, in contracts covered by this Directive, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business, craft or profession;\n(2)\n\u2018trader\u2019 means any natural person or any legal person, irrespective of whether privately or publicly owned, who is acting, including through any other person acting in his name or on his behalf, for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession in relation to contracts covered by this Directive;\n(3)\n\u2018goods\u2019 means any tangible movable items, with the exception of items sold by way of execution or otherwise by authority of law; water, gas and electricity shall be considered as goods within the meaning of this Directive where they are put up for sale in a limited volume or a set quantity;\n(4)\n\u2018goods made to the consumer\u2019s specifications\u2019 means non-prefabricated goods made on the basis of an individual choice of or decision by the consumer;\n(5)\n\u2018sales contract\u2019 means any contract under which the trader transfers or undertakes to transfer the ownership of goods to the consumer and the consumer pays or undertakes to pay the price thereof, including any contract having as its object both goods and services;\n(6)\n\u2018service contract\u2019 means any contract other than a sales contract under which the trader supplies or undertakes to supply a service to the consumer and the consumer pays or undertakes to pay the price thereof;\n(7)\n\u2018distance contract\u2019 means any contract concluded between the trader and the consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;\n(8)\n\u2018off-premises contract\u2019 means any contract between the trader and the consumer:\n(a)\nconcluded in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader;\n(b)\nfor which an offer was made by the consumer in the same circumstances as referred to in point (a);\n(c)\nconcluded on the business premises of the trader or through any means of distance communication immediately after the consumer was personally and individually addressed in a place which is not the business premises of the trader in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer; or\n(d)\nconcluded during an excursion organised by the trader with the aim or effect of promoting and selling goods or services to the consumer;\n(9)\n\u2018business premises\u2019 means:\n(a)\nany immovable retail premises where the trader carries out his activity on a permanent basis; or\n(b)\nany movable retail premises where the trader carries out his activity on a usual basis;\n(10)\n\u2018durable medium\u2019 means any instrument which enables the consumer or the trader to store information addressed personally to him in a way accessible for future reference for a period of time adequate for the purposes of the information and which allows the unchanged reproduction of the information stored;\n(11)\n\u2018digital content\u2019 means data which are produced and supplied in digital form;\n(12)\n\u2018financial service\u2019 means any service of a banking, credit, insurance, personal pension, investment or payment nature;\n(13)\n\u2018public auction\u2019 means a method of sale where goods or services are offered by the trader to consumers, who attend or are given the possibility to attend the auction in person, through a transparent, competitive bidding procedure run by an auctioneer and where the successful bidder is bound to purchase the goods or services;\n(14)\n\u2018commercial guarantee\u2019 means any undertaking by the trader or a producer (the guarantor) to the consumer, in addition to his legal obligation relating to the guarantee of conformity, to reimburse the price paid or to replace, repair or service goods in any way if they do not meet the specifications or any other requirements not related to conformity set out in the guarantee statement or in the relevant advertising available at the time of, or before the conclusion of the contract;\n(15)\n\u2018ancillary contract\u2019 means a contract by which the consumer acquires goods or services related to a distance contract or an off-premises contract and where those goods are supplied or those services are provided by the trader or by a third party on the basis of an arrangement between that third party and the trader.\nArticle 3\nScope\n1. This Directive shall apply, under the conditions and to the extent set out in its provisions, to any contract concluded between a trader and a consumer. It shall also apply to contracts for the supply of water, gas, electricity or district heating, including by public providers, to the extent that these commodities are provided on a contractual basis.\n2. If any provision of this Directive conflicts with a provision of another Union act governing specific sectors, the provision of that other Union act shall prevail and shall apply to those specific sectors.\n3. This Directive shall not apply to contracts:\n(a)\nfor social services, including social housing, childcare and support of families and persons permanently or temporarily in need, including long-term care;\n(b)\nfor healthcare as defined in point (a) of Article 3 of Directive 2011/24/EU, whether or not they are provided via healthcare facilities;\n(c)\nfor gambling, which involves wagering a stake with pecuniary value in games of chance, including lotteries, casino games and betting transactions;\n(d)\nfor financial services;\n(e)\nfor the creation, acquisition or transfer of immovable property or of rights in immovable property;\n(f)\nfor the construction of new buildings, the substantial conversion of existing buildings and for rental of accommodation for residential purposes;\n(g)\nwhich fall within the scope of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (18);\n(h)\nwhich fall within the scope of Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts (19);\n(i)\nwhich, in accordance with the laws of Member States, are established by a public office-holder who has a statutory obligation to be independent and impartial and who must ensure, by providing comprehensive legal information, that the consumer only concludes the contract on the basis of careful legal consideration and with knowledge of its legal scope;\n(j)\nfor the supply of foodstuffs, beverages or other goods intended for current consumption in the household, and which are physically supplied by a trader on frequent and regular rounds to the consumer\u2019s home, residence or workplace;\n(k)\nfor passenger transport services, with the exception of Article 8(2) and Articles 19 and 22;\n(l)\nconcluded by means of automatic vending machines or automated commercial premises;\n(m)\nconcluded with telecommunications operators through public payphones for their use or concluded for the use of one single connection by telephone, Internet or fax established by a consumer.\n4. Member States may decide not to apply this Directive or not to maintain or introduce corresponding national provisions to off-premises contracts for which the payment to be made by the consumer does not exceed EUR 50. Member States may define a lower value in their national legislation.\n5. This Directive shall not affect national general contract law such as the rules on the validity, formation or effect of a contract, in so far as general contract law aspects are not regulated in this Directive.\n6. This Directive shall not prevent traders from offering consumers contractual arrangements which go beyond the protection provided for in this Directive.\nArticle 4\nLevel of harmonisation\nMember States shall not maintain or introduce, in their national law, provisions diverging from those laid down in this Directive, including more or less stringent provisions to ensure a different level of consumer protection, unless otherwise provided for in this Directive.\nCHAPTER II\nCONSUMER INFORMATION FOR CONTRACTS OTHER THAN DISTANCE OR OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS\nArticle 5\nInformation requirements for contracts other than distance or off-premises contracts\n1. Before the consumer is bound by a contract other than a distance or an off-premises contract, or any corresponding offer, the trader shall provide the consumer with the following information in a clear and comprehensible manner, if that information is not already apparent from the context:\n(a)\nthe main characteristics of the goods or services, to the extent appropriate to the medium and to the goods or services;\n(b)\nthe identity of the trader, such as his trading name, the geographical address at which he is established and his telephone number;\n(c)\nthe total price of the goods or services inclusive of taxes, or where the nature of the goods or services is such that the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the manner in which the price is to be calculated, as well as, where applicable, all additional freight, delivery or postal charges or, where those charges cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the fact that such additional charges may be payable;\n(d)\nwhere applicable, the arrangements for payment, delivery, performance, the time by which the trader undertakes to deliver the goods or to perform the service, and the trader\u2019s complaint handling policy;\n(e)\nin addition to a reminder of the existence of a legal guarantee of conformity for goods, the existence and the conditions of after-sales services and commercial guarantees, where applicable;\n(f)\nthe duration of the contract, where applicable, or, if the contract is of indeterminate duration or is to be extended automatically, the conditions for terminating the contract;\n(g)\nwhere applicable, the functionality, including applicable technical protection measures, of digital content;\n(h)\nwhere applicable, any relevant interoperability of digital content with hardware and software that the trader is aware of or can reasonably be expected to have been aware of.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall also apply to contracts for the supply of water, gas or electricity, where they are not put up for sale in a limited volume or set quantity, of district heating or of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium.\n3. Member States shall not be required to apply paragraph 1 to contracts which involve day-to-day transactions and which are performed immediately at the time of their conclusion.\n4. Member States may adopt or maintain additional pre-contractual information requirements for contracts to which this Article applies.\nCHAPTER III\nCONSUMER INFORMATION AND RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL FOR DISTANCE AND OFF-PREMISES CONTRACTS\nArticle 6\nInformation requirements for distance and off-premises contracts\n1. Before the consumer is bound by a distance or off-premises contract, or any corresponding offer, the trader shall provide the consumer with the following information in a clear and comprehensible manner:\n(a)\nthe main characteristics of the goods or services, to the extent appropriate to the medium and to the goods or services;\n(b)\nthe identity of the trader, such as his trading name;\n(c)\nthe geographical address at which the trader is established and the trader\u2019s telephone number, fax number and e-mail address, where available, to enable the consumer to contact the trader quickly and communicate with him efficiently and, where applicable, the geographical address and identity of the trader on whose behalf he is acting;\n(d)\nif different from the address provided in accordance with point (c), the geographical address of the place of business of the trader, and, where applicable, that of the trader on whose behalf he is acting, where the consumer can address any complaints;\n(e)\nthe total price of the goods or services inclusive of taxes, or where the nature of the goods or services is such that the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the manner in which the price is to be calculated, as well as, where applicable, all additional freight, delivery or postal charges and any other costs or, where those charges cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the fact that such additional charges may be payable. In the case of a contract of indeterminate duration or a contract containing a subscription, the total price shall include the total costs per billing period. Where such contracts are charged at a fixed rate, the total price shall also mean the total monthly costs. Where the total costs cannot be reasonably calculated in advance, the manner in which the price is to be calculated shall be provided;\n(f)\nthe cost of using the means of distance communication for the conclusion of the contract where that cost is calculated other than at the basic rate;\n(g)\nthe arrangements for payment, delivery, performance, the time by which the trader undertakes to deliver the goods or to perform the services and, where applicable, the trader\u2019s complaint handling policy;\n(h)\nwhere a right of withdrawal exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with Article 11(1), as well as the model withdrawal form set out in Annex I(B);\n(i)\nwhere applicable, that the consumer will have to bear the cost of returning the goods in case of withdrawal and, for distance contracts, if the goods, by their nature, cannot normally be returned by post, the cost of returning the goods;\n(j)\nthat, if the consumer exercises the right of withdrawal after having made a request in accordance with Article 7(3) or Article 8(8), the consumer shall be liable to pay the trader reasonable costs in accordance with Article 14(3);\n(k)\nwhere a right of withdrawal is not provided for in accordance with Article 16, the information that the consumer will not benefit from a right of withdrawal or, where applicable, the circumstances under which the consumer loses his right of withdrawal;\n(l)\na reminder of the existence of a legal guarantee of conformity for goods;\n(m)\nwhere applicable, the existence and the conditions of after sale customer assistance, after-sales services and commercial guarantees;\n(n)\nthe existence of relevant codes of conduct, as defined in point (f) of Article 2 of Directive 2005/29/EC, and how copies of them can be obtained, where applicable;\n(o)\nthe duration of the contract, where applicable, or, if the contract is of indeterminate duration or is to be extended automatically, the conditions for terminating the contract;\n(p)\nwhere applicable, the minimum duration of the consumer\u2019s obligations under the contract;\n(q)\nwhere applicable, the existence and the conditions of deposits or other financial guarantees to be paid or provided by the consumer at the request of the trader;\n(r)\nwhere applicable, the functionality, including applicable technical protection measures, of digital content;\n(s)\nwhere applicable, any relevant interoperability of digital content with hardware and software that the trader is aware of or can reasonably be expected to have been aware of;\n(t)\nwhere applicable, the possibility of having recourse to an out-of-court complaint and redress mechanism, to which the trader is subject, and the methods for having access to it.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall also apply to contracts for the supply of water, gas or electricity, where they are not put up for sale in a limited volume or set quantity, of district heating or of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium.\n3. In the case of a public auction, the information referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 1 may be replaced by the equivalent details for the auctioneer.\n4. The information referred to in points (h), (i) and (j) of paragraph 1 may be provided by means of the model instructions on withdrawal set out in Annex I(A). The trader shall have fulfilled the information requirements laid down in points (h), (i) and (j) of paragraph 1 if he has supplied these instructions to the consumer, correctly filled in.\n5. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall form an integral part of the distance or off-premises contract and shall not be altered unless the contracting parties expressly agree otherwise.\n6. If the trader has not complied with the information requirements on additional charges or other costs as referred to in point (e) of paragraph 1, or on the costs of returning the goods as referred to in point (i) of paragraph 1, the consumer shall not bear those charges or costs.\n7. Member States may maintain or introduce in their national law language requirements regarding the contractual information, so as to ensure that such information is easily understood by the consumer.\n8. The information requirements laid down in this Directive are in addition to information requirements contained in Directive 2006/123/EC and Directive 2000/31/EC and do not prevent Member States from imposing additional information requirements in accordance with those Directives.\nWithout prejudice to the first subparagraph, if a provision of Directive 2006/123/EC or Directive 2000/31/EC on the content and the manner in which the information is to be provided conflicts with a provision of this Directive, the provision of this Directive shall prevail.\n9. As regards compliance with the information requirements laid down in this Chapter, the burden of proof shall be on the trader.\nArticle 7\nFormal requirements for off-premises contracts\n1. With respect to off-premises contracts, the trader shall give the information provided for in Article 6(1) to the consumer on paper or, if the consumer agrees, on another durable medium. That information shall be legible and in plain, intelligible language.\n2. The trader shall provide the consumer with a copy of the signed contract or the confirmation of the contract on paper or, if the consumer agrees, on another durable medium, including, where applicable, the confirmation of the consumer\u2019s prior express consent and acknowledgement in accordance with point (m) of Article 16.\n3. Where a consumer wants the performance of services or the supply of water, gas or electricity, where they are not put up for sale in a limited volume or set quantity, or of district heating to begin during the withdrawal period provided for in Article 9(2), the trader shall require that the consumer makes such an express request on a durable medium.\n4. With respect to off-premises contracts where the consumer has explicitly requested the services of the trader for the purpose of carrying out repairs or maintenance for which the trader and the consumer immediately perform their contractual obligations and where the payment to be made by the consumer does not exceed EUR 200:\n(a)\nthe trader shall provide the consumer with the information referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 6(1) and information about the price or the manner in which the price is to be calculated together with an estimate of the total price, on paper or, if the consumer agrees, on another durable medium. The trader shall provide the information referred to in points (a), (h) and (k) of Article 6(1), but may choose not to provide it on paper or another durable medium if the consumer expressly agrees;\n(b)\nthe confirmation of the contract provided in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article shall contain the information provided for in Article 6(1).\nMember States may decide not to apply this paragraph.\n5. Member States shall not impose any further formal pre-contractual information requirements for the fulfilment of the information obligations laid down in this Directive.\nArticle 8\nFormal requirements for distance contracts\n1. With respect to distance contracts, the trader shall give the information provided for in Article 6(1) or make that information available to the consumer in a way appropriate to the means of distance communication used in plain and intelligible language. In so far as that information is provided on a durable medium, it shall be legible.\n2. If a distance contract to be concluded by electronic means places the consumer under an obligation to pay, the trader shall make the consumer aware in a clear and prominent manner, and directly before the consumer places his order, of the information provided for in points (a), (e), (o) and (p) of Article 6(1).\nThe trader shall ensure that the consumer, when placing his order, explicitly acknowledges that the order implies an obligation to pay. If placing an order entails activating a button or a similar function, the button or similar function shall be labelled in an easily legible manner only with the words \u2018order with obligation to pay\u2019 or a corresponding unambiguous formulation indicating that placing the order entails an obligation to pay the trader. If the trader has not complied with this subparagraph, the consumer shall not be bound by the contract or order.\n3. Trading websites shall indicate clearly and legibly at the latest at the beginning of the ordering process whether any delivery restrictions apply and which means of payment are accepted.\n4. If the contract is concluded through a means of distance communication which allows limited space or time to display the information, the trader shall provide, on that particular means prior to the conclusion of such a contract, at least the pre-contractual information regarding the main characteristics of the goods or services, the identity of the trader, the total price, the right of withdrawal, the duration of the contract and, if the contract is of indeterminate duration, the conditions for terminating the contract, as referred to in points (a), (b), (e), (h) and (o) of Article 6(1). The other information referred to in Article 6(1) shall be provided by the trader to the consumer in an appropriate way in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article.\n5. Without prejudice to paragraph 4, if the trader makes a telephone call to the consumer with a view to concluding a distance contract, he shall, at the beginning of the conversation with the consumer, disclose his identity and, where applicable, the identity of the person on whose behalf he makes that call, and the commercial purpose of the call.\n6. Where a distance contract is to be concluded by telephone, Member States may provide that the trader has to confirm the offer to the consumer who is bound only once he has signed the offer or has sent his written consent. Member States may also provide that such confirmations have to be made on a durable medium.\n7. The trader shall provide the consumer with the confirmation of the contract concluded, on a durable medium within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the distance contract, and at the latest at the time of the delivery of the goods or before the performance of the service begins. That confirmation shall include:\n(a)\nall the information referred to in Article 6(1) unless the trader has already provided that information to the consumer on a durable medium prior to the conclusion of the distance contract; and\n(b)\nwhere applicable, the confirmation of the consumer\u2019s prior express consent and acknowledgment in accordance with point (m) of Article 16.\n8. Where a consumer wants the performance of services, or the supply of water, gas or electricity, where they are not put up for sale in a limited volume or set quantity, or of district heating, to begin during the withdrawal period provided for in Article 9(2), the trader shall require that the consumer make an express request.\n9. This Article shall be without prejudice to the provisions on the conclusion of e-contracts and the placing of e-orders set out in Articles 9 and 11 of Directive 2000/31/EC.\n10. Member States shall not impose any further formal pre-contractual information requirements for the fulfilment of the information obligations laid down in this Directive.\nArticle 9\nRight of withdrawal\n1. Save where the exceptions provided for in Article 16 apply, the consumer shall have a period of 14 days to withdraw from a distance or off-premises contract, without giving any reason, and without incurring any costs other than those provided for in Article 13(2) and Article 14.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 10, the withdrawal period referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall expire after 14 days from:\n(a)\nin the case of service contracts, the day of the conclusion of the contract;\n(b)\nin the case of sales contracts, the day on which the consumer or a third party other than the carrier and indicated by the consumer acquires physical possession of the goods or:\n(i)\nin the case of multiple goods ordered by the consumer in one order and delivered separately, the day on which the consumer or a third party other than the carrier and indicated by the consumer acquires physical possession of the last good;\n(ii)\nin the case of delivery of a good consisting of multiple lots or pieces, the day on which the consumer or a third party other than the carrier and indicated by the consumer acquires physical possession of the last lot or piece;\n(iii)\nin the case of contracts for regular delivery of goods during defined period of time, the day on which the consumer or a third party other than the carrier and indicated by the consumer acquires physical possession of the first good;\n(c)\nin the case of contracts for the supply of water, gas or electricity, where they are not put up for sale in a limited volume or set quantity, of district heating or of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium, the day of the conclusion of the contract.\n3. The Member States shall not prohibit the contracting parties from performing their contractual obligations during the withdrawal period. Nevertheless, in the case of off-premises contracts, Member States may maintain existing national legislation prohibiting the trader from collecting the payment from the consumer during the given period after the conclusion of the contract.\nArticle 10\nOmission of information on the right of withdrawal\n1. If the trader has not provided the consumer with the information on the right of withdrawal as required by point (h) of Article 6(1), the withdrawal period shall expire 12 months from the end of the initial withdrawal period, as determined in accordance with Article 9(2).\n2. If the trader has provided the consumer with the information provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article within 12 months from the day referred to in Article 9(2), the withdrawal period shall expire 14 days after the day upon which the consumer receives that information.\nArticle 11\nExercise of the right of withdrawal\n1. Before the expiry of the withdrawal period, the consumer shall inform the trader of his decision to withdraw from the contract. For this purpose, the consumer may either:\n(a)\nuse the model withdrawal form as set out in Annex I(B); or\n(b)\nmake any other unequivocal statement setting out his decision to withdraw from the contract.\nMember States shall not provide for any formal requirements applicable to the model withdrawal form other than those set out in Annex I(B).\n2. The consumer shall have exercised his right of withdrawal within the withdrawal period referred to in Article 9(2) and Article 10 if the communication concerning the exercise of the right of withdrawal is sent by the consumer before that period has expired.\n3. The trader may, in addition to the possibilities referred to in paragraph 1, give the option to the consumer to electronically fill in and submit either the model withdrawal form set out in Annex I(B) or any other unequivocal statement on the trader\u2019s website. In those cases the trader shall communicate to the consumer an acknowledgement of receipt of such a withdrawal on a durable medium without delay.\n4. The burden of proof of exercising the right of withdrawal in accordance with this Article shall be on the consumer.\nArticle 12\nEffects of withdrawal\nThe exercise of the right of withdrawal shall terminate the obligations of the parties:\n(a)\nto perform the distance or off-premises contract; or\n(b)\nto conclude the distance or off-premises contract, in cases where an offer was made by the consumer.\nArticle 13\nObligations of the trader in the event of withdrawal\n1. The trader shall reimburse all payments received from the consumer, including, if applicable, the costs of delivery without undue delay and in any event not later than 14 days from the day on which he is informed of the consumer\u2019s decision to withdraw from the contract in accordance with Article 11.\nThe trader shall carry out the reimbursement referred to in the first subparagraph using the same means of payment as the consumer used for the initial transaction, unless the consumer has expressly agreed otherwise and provided that the consumer does not incur any fees as a result of such reimbursement.\n2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the trader shall not be required to reimburse the supplementary costs, if the consumer has expressly opted for a type of delivery other than the least expensive type of standard delivery offered by the trader.\n3. Unless the trader has offered to collect the goods himself, with regard to sales contracts, the trader may withhold the reimbursement until he has received the goods back, or until the consumer has supplied evidence of having sent back the goods, whichever is the earliest.\nArticle 14\nObligations of the consumer in the event of withdrawal\n1. Unless the trader has offered to collect the goods himself, the consumer shall send back the goods or hand them over to the trader or to a person authorised by the trader to receive the goods, without undue delay and in any event not later than 14 days from the day on which he has communicated his decision to withdraw from the contract to the trader in accordance with Article 11. The deadline shall be met if the consumer sends back the goods before the period of 14 days has expired.\nThe consumer shall only bear the direct cost of returning the goods unless the trader has agreed to bear them or the trader failed to inform the consumer that the consumer has to bear them.\nIn the case of off-premises contracts where the goods have been delivered to the consumer\u2019s home at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the trader shall at his own expense collect the goods if, by their nature, those goods cannot normally be returned by post.\n2. The consumer shall only be liable for any diminished value of the goods resulting from the handling of the goods other than what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods. The consumer shall in any event not be liable for diminished value of the goods where the trader has failed to provide notice of the right of withdrawal in accordance with point (h) of Article 6(1).\n3. Where a consumer exercises the right of withdrawal after having made a request in accordance with Article 7(3) or Article 8(8), the consumer shall pay to the trader an amount which is in proportion to what has been provided until the time the consumer has informed the trader of the exercise of the right of withdrawal, in comparison with the full coverage of the contract. The proportionate amount to be paid by the consumer to the trader shall be calculated on the basis of the total price agreed in the contract. If the total price is excessive, the proportionate amount shall be calculated on the basis of the market value of what has been provided.\n4. The consumer shall bear no cost for:\n(a)\nthe performance of services or the supply of water, gas or electricity, where they are not put up for sale in a limited volume or set quantity, or of district heating, in full or in part, during the withdrawal period, where:\n(i)\nthe trader has failed to provide information in accordance with points (h) or (j) of Article 6(1); or\n(ii)\nthe consumer has not expressly requested performance to begin during the withdrawal period in accordance with Article 7(3) and Article 8(8); or\n(b)\nthe supply, in full or in part, of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium where:\n(i)\nthe consumer has not given his prior express consent to the beginning of the performance before the end of the 14-day period referred to in Article 9;\n(ii)\nthe consumer has not acknowledged that he loses his right of withdrawal when giving his consent; or\n(iii)\nthe trader has failed to provide confirmation in accordance with Article 7(2) or Article 8(7).\n5. Except as provided for in Article 13(2) and in this Article, the consumer shall not incur any liability as a consequence of the exercise of the right of withdrawal.\nArticle 15\nEffects of the exercise of the right of withdrawal on ancillary contracts\n1. Without prejudice to Article 15 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers (20), if the consumer exercises his right of withdrawal from a distance or an off-premises contract in accordance with Articles 9 to 14 of this Directive, any ancillary contracts shall be automatically terminated, without any costs for the consumer, except as provided for in Article 13(2) and in Article 14 of this Directive.\n2. The Member States shall lay down detailed rules on the termination of such contracts.\nArticle 16\nExceptions from the right of withdrawal\nMember States shall not provide for the right of withdrawal set out in Articles 9 to 15 in respect of distance and off-premises contracts as regards the following:\n(a)\nservice contracts after the service has been fully performed if the performance has begun with the consumer\u2019s prior express consent, and with the acknowledgement that he will lose his right of withdrawal once the contract has been fully performed by the trader;\n(b)\nthe supply of goods or services for which the price is dependent on fluctuations in the financial market which cannot be controlled by the trader and which may occur within the withdrawal period;\n(c)\nthe supply of goods made to the consumer\u2019s specifications or clearly personalised;\n(d)\nthe supply of goods which are liable to deteriorate or expire rapidly;\n(e)\nthe supply of sealed goods which are not suitable for return due to health protection or hygiene reasons and were unsealed after delivery;\n(f)\nthe supply of goods which are, after delivery, according to their nature, inseparably mixed with other items;\n(g)\nthe supply of alcoholic beverages, the price of which has been agreed upon at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract, the delivery of which can only take place after 30 days and the actual value of which is dependent on fluctuations in the market which cannot be controlled by the trader;\n(h)\ncontracts where the consumer has specifically requested a visit from the trader for the purpose of carrying out urgent repairs or maintenance. If, on the occasion of such visit, the trader provides services in addition to those specifically requested by the consumer or goods other than replacement parts necessarily used in carrying out the maintenance or in making the repairs, the right of withdrawal shall apply to those additional services or goods;\n(i)\nthe supply of sealed audio or sealed video recordings or sealed computer software which were unsealed after delivery;\n(j)\nthe supply of a newspaper, periodical or magazine with the exception of subscription contracts for the supply of such publications;\n(k)\ncontracts concluded at a public auction;\n(l)\nthe provision of accommodation other than for residential purpose, transport of goods, car rental services, catering or services related to leisure activities if the contract provides for a specific date or period of performance;\n(m)\nthe supply of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium if the performance has begun with the consumer\u2019s prior express consent and his acknowledgment that he thereby loses his right of withdrawal.\nCHAPTER IV\nOTHER CONSUMER RIGHTS\nArticle 17\nScope\n1. Articles 18 and 20 shall apply to sales contracts. Those Articles shall not apply to contracts for the supply of water, gas or electricity, where they are not put up for sale in a limited volume or set quantity, of district heating or the supply of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium.\n2. Articles 19, 21 and 22 shall apply to sales and service contracts and to contracts for the supply of water, gas, electricity, district heating or digital content.\nArticle 18\nDelivery\n1. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise on the time of delivery, the trader shall deliver the goods by transferring the physical possession or control of the goods to the consumer without undue delay, but not later than 30 days from the conclusion of the contract.\n2. Where the trader has failed to fulfil his obligation to deliver the goods at the time agreed upon with the consumer or within the time limit set out in paragraph 1, the consumer shall call upon him to make the delivery within an additional period of time appropriate to the circumstances. If the trader fails to deliver the goods within that additional period of time, the consumer shall be entitled to terminate the contract.\nThe first subparagraph shall not be applicable to sales contracts where the trader has refused to deliver the goods or where delivery within the agreed delivery period is essential taking into account all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract or where the consumer informs the trader, prior to the conclusion of the contract, that delivery by or on a specified date is essential. In those cases, if the trader fails to deliver the goods at the time agreed upon with the consumer or within the time limit set out in paragraph 1, the consumer shall be entitled to terminate the contract immediately.\n3. Upon termination of the contract, the trader shall, without undue delay, reimburse all sums paid under the contract.\n4. In addition to the termination of the contract in accordance with paragraph 2, the consumer may have recourse to other remedies provided for by national law.\nArticle 19\nFees for the use of means of payment\nMember States shall prohibit traders from charging consumers, in respect of the use of a given means of payment, fees that exceed the cost borne by the trader for the use of such means.\nArticle 20\nPassing of risk\nIn contracts where the trader dispatches the goods to the consumer, the risk of loss of or damage to the goods shall pass to the consumer when he or a third party indicated by the consumer and other than the carrier has acquired the physical possession of the goods. However, the risk shall pass to the consumer upon delivery to the carrier if the carrier was commissioned by the consumer to carry the goods and that choice was not offered by the trader, without prejudice to the rights of the consumer against the carrier.\nArticle 21\nCommunication by telephone\nMember States shall ensure that where the trader operates a telephone line for the purpose of contacting him by telephone in relation to the contract concluded, the consumer, when contacting the trader is not bound to pay more than the basic rate.\nThe first subparagraph shall be without prejudice to the right of telecommunication services providers to charge for such calls.\nArticle 22\nAdditional payments\nBefore the consumer is bound by the contract or offer, the trader shall seek the express consent of the consumer to any extra payment in addition to the remuneration agreed upon for the trader\u2019s main contractual obligation. If the trader has not obtained the consumer\u2019s express consent but has inferred it by using default options which the consumer is required to reject in order to avoid the additional payment, the consumer shall be entitled to reimbursement of this payment.\nCHAPTER V\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 23\nEnforcement\n1. Member States shall ensure that adequate and effective means exist to ensure compliance with this Directive.\n2. The means referred to in paragraph 1 shall include provisions whereby one or more of the following bodies, as determined by national law, may take action under national law before the courts or before the competent administrative bodies to ensure that the national provisions transposing this Directive are applied:\n(a)\npublic bodies or their representatives;\n(b)\nconsumer organisations having a legitimate interest in protecting consumers;\n(c)\nprofessional organisations having a legitimate interest in acting.\nArticle 24\nPenalties\n1. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n2. Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission by 13 December 2013 and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.\nArticle 25\nImperative nature of the Directive\nIf the law applicable to the contract is the law of a Member State, consumers may not waive the rights conferred on them by the national measures transposing this Directive.\nAny contractual terms which directly or indirectly waive or restrict the rights resulting from this Directive shall not be binding on the consumer.\nArticle 26\nInformation\nMember States shall take appropriate measures to inform consumers and traders of the national provisions transposing this Directive and shall, where appropriate, encourage traders and code owners as defined in point (g) of Article 2 of Directive 2005/29/EC, to inform consumers of their codes of conduct.\nArticle 27\nInertia selling\nThe consumer shall be exempted from the obligation to provide any consideration in cases of unsolicited supply of goods, water, gas, electricity, district heating or digital content or unsolicited provision of services, prohibited by Article 5(5) and point 29 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC. In such cases, the absence of a response from the consumer following such an unsolicited supply or provision shall not constitute consent.\nArticle 28\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 13 December 2013, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of these measures in the form of documents. The Commission shall make use of these documents for the purposes of the report referred to in Article 30.\nThey shall apply those measures from 13 June 2014.\nWhen Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. The provisions of this Directive shall apply to contracts concluded after 13 June 2014.\nArticle 29\nReporting requirements\n1. Where a Member State makes use of any of the regulatory choices referred to in Article 3(4), Article 6(7), Article 6(8), Article 7(4), Article 8(6) and Article 9(3), it shall inform the Commission thereof by 13 December 2013, as well as of any subsequent changes.\n2. The Commission shall ensure that the information referred to in paragraph 1 is easily accessible to consumers and traders, inter alia, on a dedicated website.\n3. The Commission shall forward the information referred to in paragraph 1 to the other Member States and the European Parliament. The Commission shall consult stakeholders on that information.\nArticle 30\nReporting by the Commission and review\nBy 13 December 2016, the Commission shall submit a report on the application of this Directive to the European Parliament and the Council. That report shall include in particular an evaluation of the provisions of this Directive regarding digital content including the right of withdrawal. The report shall be accompanied, where necessary, by legislative proposals to adapt this Directive to developments in the field of consumer rights.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 31\nRepeals\nDirective 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC, as amended by Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services (21) and by Directives 2005/29/EC and 2007/64/EC, are repealed as of 13 June 2014.\nReferences to the repealed Directives shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex II.\nArticle 32\nAmendment to Directive 93/13/EEC\nIn Directive 93/13/EEC, the following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 8a\n1. Where a Member State adopts provisions in accordance with Article 8, it shall inform the Commission thereof, as well as of any subsequent changes, in particular where those provisions:\n-\nextend the unfairness assessment to individually negotiated contractual terms or to the adequacy of the price or remuneration; or,\n-\ncontain lists of contractual terms which shall be considered as unfair,\n2. The Commission shall ensure that the information referred to in paragraph 1 is easily accessible to consumers and traders, inter alia, on a dedicated website.\n3. The Commission shall forward the information referred to in paragraph 1 to the other Member States and the European Parliament. The Commission shall consult stakeholders on that information.\u2019\nArticle 33\nAmendment to Directive 1999/44/EC\nIn Directive 1999/44/EC, the following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 8a\nReporting requirements\n1. Where, in accordance with Article 8(2), a Member State adopts more stringent consumer protection provisions than those provided for in Article 5(1) to (3) and in Article 7(1), it shall inform the Commission thereof, as well as of any subsequent changes.\n2. The Commission shall ensure that the information referred to in paragraph 1 is easily accessible to consumers and traders, inter alia, on a dedicated website.\n3. The Commission shall forward the information referred to in paragraph 1 to the other Member States and the European Parliament. The Commission shall consult stakeholders on that information.\u2019\nArticle 34\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 35\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["59", "98", "58", "99", "66", "27", "28", "56", "89", "57", "34", "63", "43", "96", "79", "85", "6", "4", "22", "73", "35", "10", "81", "94", "72", "48", "19", "69", "36", "31", "No Label", "8", "11", "20", "24"], "gold": ["8", "11", "20", "24"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 377/2011\nof 15 April 2011\non selling prices for cereals in response to the 10th individual invitations to tender within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 (2) has opened the sales of cereals by tendering procedures, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission has to fix for each cereal and per Member State a minimum selling price or to decide not to fix a minimum selling price.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the 10th individual invitations to tender, it has been decided that a minimum selling price should be fixed for certain cereals and for certain Member States and no minimum selling price should be fixed for other cereals and other Member States.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 10th individual invitations to tender for selling of cereals within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 13 April 2011, the decisions on the selling price per cereal and Member State are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 April 2011.", "references": ["3", "12", "95", "34", "55", "91", "92", "48", "84", "89", "72", "44", "76", "26", "19", "28", "49", "74", "57", "97", "24", "53", "14", "51", "38", "88", "1", "22", "33", "41", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/56/EU\nof 27 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include cyproconazole as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included cyproconazole.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of cyproconazole.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Ireland, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nIreland evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 12 February 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on cyproconazole to the Commission on 8 November 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for cyproconazole.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing cyproconazole may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include cyproconazole in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further confirmatory information as regards the toxicological relevance of the impurities in the technical specification, analytical methods for the monitoring of cyproconazole in soil, body fluids and tissues, the residues of triazole derivative metabolites (TDMs) in primary crops, rotational crops and products of animal origin, the long-term risk to herbivorous mammals and the possible environmental impact of the preferential degradation and/or conversion of the mixture of isomers.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing cyproconazole to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of cyproconazole and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning cyproconazole in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning cyproconazole in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing cyproconazole as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to cyproconazole are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing cyproconazole as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning cyproconazole. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing cyproconazole as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing cyproconazole as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2011.", "references": ["37", "94", "62", "9", "67", "21", "55", "82", "58", "76", "46", "99", "75", "91", "88", "24", "66", "80", "41", "54", "35", "42", "5", "39", "81", "96", "93", "27", "23", "69", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 29 November 2010\non the approval of the volume of coin issuance in 2011\n(ECB/2010/25)\n(2010/751/EU)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 128(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/416/EU of 13 July 2010 in accordance with Article 140(2) of the Treaty on the adoption by Estonia of the euro on 1 January 2011 (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Central Bank (ECB) has the exclusive right from 1 January 1999 to approve the volume of coins issued by the Member States whose currency is the euro.\n(2)\nThe derogation in favour of Estonia referred to in Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession has been abrogated with effect from 1 January 2011.\n(3)\nThe 16 Member States whose currency is the euro and Estonia have submitted to the ECB for approval their estimates of the volume of euro coins to be issued in 2011, supplemented by explanatory notes on the forecasting methodology,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of the volume of euro coins to be issued in 2011\nThe ECB hereby approves the volume of euro coins to be issued by the Member States whose currency is the euro in 2011 as described in the following table:\n(EUR million)\nIssuance of coins intended for circulation and issuance of collector coins (not intended for circulation) in 2011\nBelgium\n178,3\nGermany\n629\nEstonia\n48,4\nIreland\n44,4\nGreece\n54,5\nSpain\n180\nFrance\n300\nItaly\n262,4\nCyprus\n15,6\nLuxembourg\n30\nMalta\n6,8\nNetherlands\n64\nAustria\n277\nPortugal\n30\nSlovenia\n36\nSlovakia\n42,2\nFinland\n60\nArticle 2\nFinal provision\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States whose currency is the euro and Estonia.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 29 November 2010.", "references": ["32", "70", "99", "10", "20", "68", "86", "85", "74", "91", "24", "93", "26", "0", "96", "2", "5", "76", "14", "15", "69", "43", "23", "54", "88", "73", "58", "46", "3", "51", "No Label", "7", "27", "28"], "gold": ["7", "27", "28"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/345/CFSP\nof 16 June 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\nIn view of the developments in Libya, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe entry for the person set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 June 2011.", "references": ["57", "88", "2", "6", "78", "16", "50", "87", "23", "35", "61", "40", "52", "77", "5", "92", "71", "97", "34", "24", "25", "29", "73", "1", "53", "74", "65", "69", "4", "43", "No Label", "3", "11", "94"], "gold": ["3", "11", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/42/EU\nof 1 July 2010\nimplementing Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain provisions concerning fund mergers, master-feeder structures and notification procedure\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (1), and in particular Article 43(5), Article 60(6)(a) and (c), Articles 61(3) and 62(4), Article 64(4)(a) and Article 95(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe information to be provided to unit-holders pursuant to Article 43(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC in the case of a merger should reflect the different needs of the unit-holders of the merging and receiving UCITS and assist their understanding.\n(2)\nThe merging UCITS or the receiving UCITS should not be required to include information other than that referred to in Article 43(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC and Articles 3 to 5 of this Directive in the information document. The merging UCITS or the receiving UCITS may however add other information of relevance in the context of the proposed merger.\n(3)\nWhere the information document pursuant to Article 43(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC is supplemented by a summary, it should not relieve the UCITS of the obligation to avoid the use of long or technical explanations in the rest of the information document.\n(4)\nThe information to be provided to the unit-holders of the receiving UCITS pursuant to Article 43(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC should assume that those unit-holders are already reasonably familiar with the features of the receiving UCITS, the rights they enjoy in relation to it, and the manner of its operation. It should therefore focus on the operation of the merger and its potential impact on the receiving UCITS.\n(5)\nThe way the information pursuant to Articles 43 and 64 of Directive 2009/65/EC is provided to unit-holders should be harmonised. That information aims to enable unit-holders to make an informed judgement about whether they want to continue investing or request redemption, where a UCITS is either part of a merger, converts into a feeder UCITS or changes the master UCITS. Unit-holders should be aware of the aforementioned major change the UCITS is undergoing and be in a position to read the information. For that reason the information should be personally addressed to unit-holders either on paper or in another durable medium such as electronic mail (e-mail). The use of electronic means should allow UCITS to provide the information in a cost-efficient way. This Directive should not require UCITS to directly inform their unit-holders, but should take due account of the specificities in certain Member States in which UCITS or their management companies, for legal or practical reasons, are unable to directly contact unit-holders. UCITS should also be able to provide the information by passing it on to the depositary or to intermediaries provided that it is ensured that all unit-holders receive the information in due course. This Directive should only harmonise the manner in which the information pursuant to Articles 43 and 64 of Directive 2009/65/EC is provided to unit-holders. Member States may regulate the provision of other types of information to unit-holders by national rules.\n(6)\nThe agreement between the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS should take account of the specific needs of the feeder UCITS, which invests at least 85 % of its assets in the master UCITS, while at the same time remaining subject to all obligations as a UCITS. The agreement should therefore ensure that the master UCITS provides the feeder UCITS with all necessary information in due course to allow the feeder UCITS to comply with its own obligations. It should also stipulate the other rights and duties of both parties.\n(7)\nMember States should not require the agreement between master and feeder UCITS pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 60(1) to cover elements other than those referred to in Chapter VIII of Directive 2009/65/EC and Articles 8 to 14 of this Directive. The agreement may however cover other elements, if the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS so stipulate.\n(8)\nWhere the dealing arrangements between master UCITS and feeder UCITS do not differ from those applying to all non-feeder unit-holders of the master UCITS and where those arrangements are laid down in the prospectus of the master UCITS, the agreement between master UCITS and feeder UCITS should not have to replicate those standard dealing arrangements, but may cross-refer to the relevant parts of the prospectus of the master UCITS in order to help industry to save costs and reduce the administrative burden.\n(9)\nThe agreement between master UCITS and feeder UCITS should include appropriate procedures for the handling of enquiries and complaints from unit-holders with a view to dealing with correspondence which has mistakenly been sent to the master UCITS instead of the feeder UCITS or vice versa.\n(10)\nIn order to save transaction costs and to avoid negative tax implications, the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS may wish to agree on a transfer of assets in kind, unless this is prohibited under national law or incompatible with the fund rules or instruments of incorporation of either the master UCITS or the feeder UCITS. The possibility of transferring assets in kind to the master UCITS should in particular help those feeder UCITS which have already been carrying on activities as a UCITS, including a feeder UCITS of a different master UCITS, to avoid transaction costs arising from the sale of assets which both the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS have invested in. The feeder UCITS should also be able to receive, if it so wishes, assets in kind from the master UCITS, since this may help to reduce transaction costs and to avoid negative tax implications. A transfer of assets in kind to the feeder UCITS should not be limited to the cases of a liquidation, merger or division of the master UCITS, but should also be available under other circumstances.\n(11)\nIn order to preserve the necessary flexibility, while at the same time taking account of the best interests of investors, a feeder UCITS which has received assets through a transfer of assets in kind should be able to either transfer some or all of those assets to its master UCITS where the master UCITS so agrees, or to realise assets for cash in order to invest cash in the master UCITS.\n(12)\nDue to the specificities of the master-feeder structure it is necessary that the agreement between the master and the feeder UCITS provides for conflict of law rules which derogate from Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (2) in such a way that the applicable law to this agreement should be either the law of the Member State where the feeder UCITS is established, or that of the master UCITS. The parties should be free to assess the advantages and disadvantages of that choice and to take into account whether the master UCITS has several feeder UCITS and whether those feeder UCITS are established in only one or in several Member States.\n(13)\nIn the case of a liquidation, merger or division of the master UCITS in respect of which Directive 2009/65/EC grants unit-holders of the feeder UCITS the right to request redemption, the feeder UCITS should not undermine that right by temporarily suspending repurchase or redemption, unless exceptional circumstances require it to do so to protect the interests of unit-holders or it is directed to do so by its competent authorities.\n(14)\nSince a merger or division of the master UCITS may become effective within 60 days, the time limit for the feeder UCITS to apply for and obtain approval of its new investment intentions and to grant the unit-holders of the feeder UCITS the right to request repurchase or redemption within 30 days, may in exceptional circumstances be too short to allow the feeder UCITS to know for sure how many of its unit-holders will request redemption. Under such circumstances the feeder UCITS should in principle be obliged to request redemption of all its units in the master UCITS. In order to avoid unnecessary transaction costs, the feeder UCITS should however be able to use other means to ensure that its unit-holders may make use of the right to request redemption, while allowing it to reduce transaction costs or to avoid other negative impacts. The feeder UCITS should in particular apply for approval as soon as possible. Furthermore, the feeder UCITS should for instance not be obliged to request redemption to the extent its own unit-holders choose not to make use of that facility. Where the feeder UCITS requests redemption from the master UCITS, it should consider whether a redemption in kind might reduce transaction costs and avoid other negative impacts.\n(15)\nThe information-sharing agreement between the depositaries of the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS should allow the depositary of the feeder UCITS to receive all relevant information and documents which it needs in order to be able to perform its duties. Given the specificity of this agreement it should provide for the same conflict of law rules as foreseen in the agreement between master and feeder UCITS derogating from Articles 3 and 4 of the Rome I Regulation. The information-sharing agreement should however require neither the depositary of the master UCITS nor of the feeder UCITS to carry out tasks which are forbidden or not provided for under the national law of their home Member State.\n(16)\nThe reporting of irregularities, which the depositary of the master UCITS detects in the course of carrying out its depositary function under the national law of its home Member State, aims to protect the feeder UCITS. For that reason no reporting should be required when those irregularities do not have a negative impact on the feeder UCITS. Where irregularities with regard to the master UCITS have a negative impact on the feeder UCITS, the latter should also be informed as to whether and how the irregularities have been resolved. The depositary of the master UCITS should therefore inform the depositary of the feeder UCITS of how the master UCITS has resolved or proposes to resolve the irregularity. If the depositary of the feeder UCITS is not satisfied that the resolution is in the interests of the unit-holders of the feeder UCITS, it should promptly report its view to the feeder UCITS.\n(17)\nThe information-sharing agreement between the auditors of the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS should allow the auditor of the feeder UCITS to receive all relevant information and documents which it needs in order to be able to perform its duties. Given the specificity of this agreement it should provide for the same conflict of law rules as foreseen in the agreement between master and feeder UCITS derogating from Articles 3 and 4 of the Rome I Regulation.\n(18)\nThe scope of the information to be made accessible by electronic means in accordance with Article 91(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC should be specified in order to provide for legal certainty as to what categories of information should be included.\n(19)\nIn order to provide for a common approach to how the documents referred to in Article 93(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC should be made accessible by electronic means to the competent authorities of the UCITS host Member State, it is necessary to require that each UCITS or its management company designates a website where such documents are made available in an electronic format that is in common use. It is also necessary to set out a procedure for electronic notification of changes to these documents to the competent authorities of the UCITS host Member State, in accordance with Article 93(7) of that Directive.\n(20)\nIn order to allow UCITS and their management companies to adapt to the new requirements on the method and manner to provide information to unit-holders in the cases referred to in Articles 7 and 29, Member States should be granted a longer period for the transposition of those requirements into their national legal systems. This is particularly important in those cases where the UCITS or their management companies are unable for legal or practical reasons to inform the unit-holders directly. UCITS with dematerialised bearer shares should be able to prepare all arrangements necessary to ensure that unit-holders receive the information in the cases specified in Articles 8 and 32. UCITS with materialised bearer shares should be able to convert them into registered shares or dematerialised bearer shares, if they want to be able to merge, convert into a feeder UCITS or change the master UCITS.\n(21)\nThe Committee of European Securities Regulators, established by Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (3) has been consulted for technical advice.\n(22)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the European Securities Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Directive lays down detailed rules for the implementation of Article 43(5), Article 60(6)(a) and (c), Articles 61(3) and 62(4), Article 64(4)(a) and Article 95(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018rebalancing of the portfolio\u2019 means a significant modification of the composition of the portfolio of a UCITS;\n2.\n\u2018synthetic risk and reward indicators\u2019 means synthetic indicators within the meaning of Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 583/2010 of 1 July 2010 implementing Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards key investor information and conditions to be met when providing key investor information or the prospectus in a durable medium other than paper or by means of a website (4).\nCHAPTER II\nUCITS MERGERS\nSECTION 1\nContent of the merger information\nArticle 3\nGeneral rules regarding the content of information to be provided to unit-holders\n1. Member States shall require that the information to be provided to unit-holders pursuant to Article 43(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC shall be written in a concise manner and in non-technical language that enables unit-holders to make an informed judgement of the impact of the proposed merger on their investment.\nIn the case of a proposed cross-border merger, the merging UCITS and the receiving UCITS, respectively, shall explain in plain language any terms or procedures relating to the other UCITS which differ from those commonly used in the other Member State.\n2. The information to be provided to the unit-holders of the merging UCITS shall meet the needs of investors who have no prior knowledge of the features of the receiving UCITS or of the manner of its operation. It shall draw their attention to the key investor information of the receiving UCITS and emphasise the desirability of reading it.\n3. The information to be provided to the unit-holders of the receiving UCITS shall focus on the operation of the merger and its potential impact on the receiving UCITS.\nArticle 4\nSpecific rules regarding the content of information to be provided to unit-holders\n1. Member States shall require that the information to be provided in accordance with Article 43(3)(b) of Directive 2009/65/EC to the unit-holders of the merging UCITS shall also include:\n(a)\ndetails of any differences in the rights of unit-holders of the merging UCITS before and after the proposed merger takes effect;\n(b)\nif the key investor information of the merging UCITS and the receiving UCITS show synthetic risk and reward indicators in different categories, or identify different material risks in the accompanying narrative, a comparison of those differences;\n(c)\na comparison of all charges, fees and expenses for both UCITS, based on the amounts disclosed in their respective key investor information;\n(d)\nif the merging UCITS applies a performance-related fee, an explanation of how it will be applied up to the point at which the merger becomes effective;\n(e)\nif the receiving UCITS applies a performance-related fee, how it will subsequently be applied to ensure fair treatment of those unit-holders who previously held units in the merging UCITS;\n(f)\nin cases where Article 46 of Directive 2009/65/EC permits costs associated with the preparation and the completion of the merger to be charged to either the merging or the receiving UCITS or any of their unit-holders, details of how those costs are to be allocated;\n(g)\nan explanation of whether the management or investment company of the merging UCITS intends to undertake any rebalancing of the portfolio before the merger takes effect.\n2. Member States shall require that the information to be provided in accordance with Article 43(3)(b) of Directive 2009/65/EC to the unit-holders of the receiving UCITS shall also include an explanation of whether the management or investment company of the receiving UCITS expects the merger to have any material impact on the portfolio of the receiving UCITS, and whether it intends to undertake any rebalancing of the portfolio either before or after the merger takes effect.\n3. Member States shall require that the information to be provided in accordance with Article 43(3)(c) of Directive 2009/65/EC shall also include:\n(a)\ndetails of how any accrued income in the respective UCITS is to be treated;\n(b)\nan indication of how the report of the independent auditor or the depositary referred to in Article 42(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC may be obtained.\n4. Member States shall require that if the terms of the proposed merger include provisions for a cash payment in accordance with points (p)(i) and (p)(ii) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC, the information to be provided to the unit-holders of the merging UCITS shall contain details of that proposed payment, including when and how unit-holders of the merging UCITS will receive the cash payment.\n5. Member States shall require that the information to be provided in accordance with Article 43(3)(d) shall include:\n(a)\nwhere relevant under national law for the particular UCITS, the procedure by which unit-holders will be asked to approve the merger proposal, and what arrangements will be made to inform them of the outcome;\n(b)\nthe details of any intended suspension of dealing in units to enable the merger to be carried out efficiently;\n(c)\nwhen the merger will take effect in accordance with Article 47(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC.\n6. Member States shall ensure that in cases where, under the national law for the particular UCITS, the merger proposal must be approved by unit-holders, the information may contain a recommendation by the respective management company or board of directors of the investment company as to the course of action.\n7. Member States shall require that the information to be provided to the unit-holders of the merging UCITS shall include:\n(a)\nthe period during which the unit-holders shall be able to continue making subscriptions and requesting redemptions of units in the merging UCITS;\n(b)\nthe time when those unit-holders not making use of their rights granted pursuant to Article 45(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC, within the relevant time limit, shall be able to exercise their rights as unit-holders of the receiving UCITS;\n(c)\nan explanation that in cases where the merger proposal must be approved by the unit-holders of the merging UCITS under national law and the proposal is approved by the necessary majority, those unit-holders who vote against the proposal or who do not vote at all, and who do not make use of their rights granted pursuant to Article 45(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC within the relevant time limit, shall become unit-holders of the receiving UCITS.\n8. If a summary of the key points of the merger proposal is provided at the beginning of the information document, it must cross-refer to the parts of the information document where further information is provided.\nArticle 5\nKey investor information\n1. Member States shall ensure that an up-to-date version of the key investor information of the receiving UCITS shall be provided to existing unit-holders of the merging UCITS.\n2. The key investor information of the receiving UCITS shall be provided to existing unit-holders of the receiving UCITS where it has been amended for the purpose of the proposed merger.\nArticle 6\nNew unit-holders\nBetween the date when the information document pursuant to Article 43(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC is provided to unit-holders and the date when the merger takes effect, the information document and the up-to-date key investor information of the receiving UCITS shall be provided to each person who purchases or subscribes units in either the merging or the receiving UCITS or asks to receive copies of the fund rules or instruments of incorporation, prospectus or key investor information of either UCITS.\nSECTION 2\nMethod of providing the information\nArticle 7\nMethod of providing the information to unit-holders\n1. Member States shall ensure that the merging and the receiving UCITS provide the information pursuant to Article 43(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC to unit-holders on paper or in another durable medium.\n2. Where the information is to be provided to all or certain unit-holders using a durable medium other than paper, the following conditions shall be fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe provision of the information is appropriate to the context in which the business between the unit-holder and the merging or receiving UCITS or, where relevant, the respective management company is, or is to be, carried on;\n(b)\nthe unit-holder to whom the information is to be provided, when offered the choice between information on paper or in another durable medium, specifically chooses the durable medium other than paper.\n3. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, the provision of information by means of electronic communications shall be treated as appropriate to the context in which the business between the merging and receiving UCITS or their respective management companies and the unit-holder is, or is to be, carried on if there is evidence that the unit-holder has regular access to the Internet. The provision by the unit-holder of an e-mail address for the purposes of the carrying on of that business shall be treated as such evidence.\nCHAPTER III\nMASTER-FEEDER STRUCTURES\nSECTION 1\nAgreement and internal conduct of business rules between feeder UCITS and master UCITS\nSubsection 1\nContent of the agreement between master UCITS and feeder UCITS\nArticle 8\nAccess to information\nMember States shall require that the agreement between the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC includes the following with regard to access to information:\n(a)\nhow and when the master UCITS provides the feeder UCITS with a copy of its fund rules or instruments of incorporation, prospectus and key investor information or any amendment thereof;\n(b)\nhow and when the master UCITS informs the feeder UCITS of a delegation of investment management and risk management functions to third parties in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(c)\nwhere applicable, how and when the master UCITS provides the feeder UCITS with internal operational documents, such as its risk management process and its compliance reports;\n(d)\nwhat details of breaches by the master UCITS of the law, the fund rules or instruments of incorporation and the agreement between the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS the master UCITS shall notify the feeder UCITS of and the manner and timing thereof;\n(e)\nwhere the feeder UCITS uses financial derivative instruments for hedging purposes, how and when the master UCITS will provide the feeder UCITS with information about its actual exposure to financial derivative instruments to enable the feeder UCITS to calculate its own global exposure as envisaged by point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 58(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(f)\na statement that the master UCITS informs the feeder UCITS of any other information-sharing arrangements entered into with third parties and where applicable, how and when the master UCITS makes those other information-sharing arrangements available to the feeder UCITS.\nArticle 9\nBasis of investment and divestment by the feeder UCITS\nMember States shall require that the agreement between the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC includes the following with regard to the basis of investment and divestment by the feeder UCITS:\n(a)\na statement of which share classes of the master UCITS are available for investment by the feeder UCITS;\n(b)\nthe charges and expenses to be borne by the feeder UCITS, and details of any rebate or retrocession of charges or expenses by the master UCITS;\n(c)\nif applicable, the terms on which any initial or subsequent transfer of assets in kind may be made from the feeder UCITS to the master UCITS.\nArticle 10\nStandard dealing arrangements\nMember States shall require that the agreement between the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC includes the following with regard to standard dealing arrangements:\n(a)\ncoordination of the frequency and timing of the net asset value calculation process and the publication of prices of units;\n(b)\ncoordination of transmission of dealing orders by the feeder UCITS, including, where applicable, the role of transfer agents or any other third party;\n(c)\nwhere applicable, any arrangements necessary to take account of the fact that either or both UCITS are listed or traded on a secondary market;\n(d)\nwhere necessary, other appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 60(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(e)\nwhere the units of the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS are denominated in different currencies, the basis for conversion of dealing orders;\n(f)\nsettlement cycles and payment details for purchases or subscriptions and repurchases or redemptions of units of the master UCITS including, where agreed between the parties, the terms on which the master UCITS may settle redemption requests by a transfer of assets in kind to the feeder UCITS, notably in the cases referred to in Article 60(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(g)\nprocedures to ensure enquiries and complaints from unit-holders are handled appropriately;\n(h)\nwhere the fund rules or instruments of incorporation and prospectus of the master UCITS give it certain rights or powers in relation to unit-holders, and the master UCITS chooses to limit or forego the exercise of all or any such rights and powers in relation to the feeder UCITS, a statement of the terms on which it does so.\nArticle 11\nEvents affecting dealing arrangements\nMember States shall require that the agreement between the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC includes the following with regard to events affecting dealing arrangements:\n(a)\nthe manner and timing of a notification by either UCITS of the temporary suspension and the resumption of repurchase, redemption, purchase or subscription of units of that UCITS;\n(b)\narrangements for notifying and resolving pricing errors in the master UCITS.\nArticle 12\nStandard arrangements for the audit report\nMember States shall require that the agreement between the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC includes the following with regard to standard arrangements for the audit report:\n(a)\nwhere the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS have the same accounting years, the coordination of the production of their periodic reports;\n(b)\nwhere the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS have different accounting years, arrangements for the feeder UCITS to obtain any necessary information from the master UCITS to enable it to produce its periodic reports on time and which ensure that the auditor of the master UCITS is in a position to produce an ad hoc report on the closing date of the feeder UCITS in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 62(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC.\nArticle 13\nChanges to standing arrangements\nMember States shall require that the agreement between the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC includes the following with regard to changes to standing arrangements:\n(a)\nthe manner and timing of notice to be given by the master UCITS of proposed and effective amendments to its fund rules or instruments of incorporation, prospectus and key investor information, if these details differ from the standard arrangements for notification of unit-holders laid down in the master UCITS fund rules, instruments of incorporation or prospectus;\n(b)\nthe manner and timing of notice by the master UCITS of a planned or proposed liquidation, merger, or division;\n(c)\nthe manner and timing of notice by either UCITS that it has ceased or will cease to meet the qualifying conditions to be a feeder UCITS or a master UCITS respectively;\n(d)\nthe manner and timing of notice by either UCITS that it intends to replace its management company, its depositary, its auditor or any third party which is mandated to carry out investment management or risk management functions;\n(e)\nthe manner and timing of notice of other changes to standing arrangements that the master UCITS undertakes to provide.\nArticle 14\nChoice of the applicable law\n1. Member States shall ensure that where the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS are established in the same Member State, the agreement between the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC provides that the law of that Member State shall apply to the agreement and that both parties agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State.\n2. Member States shall ensure that where the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS are established in different Member States, the agreement between the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC provides that the applicable law shall be either the law of the Member State in which the feeder UCITS is established or that it shall be that of the Member State in which the master UCITS is established and that both parties agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State whose law they have stipulated to be applicable to the agreement.\nSubsection 2\nContent of the internal conduct of business rules\nArticle 15\nConflicts of interest\nMember States shall ensure that the management company's internal conduct of business rules referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC shall include appropriate measures to mitigate conflicts of interest that may arise between the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS, or between the feeder UCITS and other unit-holders of the master UCITS, to the extent that these are not sufficiently addressed by the measures applied by the management company in order to meet requirements of Articles 12(1)(b) and 14(1)(d) of Directive 2009/65/EC and Chapter III of Commission Directive 2010/43/EU of 1 July 2010 implementing Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements, conflicts of interest, conduct of business, risk management and content of the agreement between a depositary and a management company (5).\nArticle 16\nBasis of investment and divestment by the feeder UCITS\nMember States shall ensure that the management company's internal conduct of business rules referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC shall include at least the following with regard to the basis of investment and divestment by the feeder UCITS:\n(a)\na statement of which share classes of the master UCITS are available for investment by the feeder UCITS;\n(b)\nthe charges and expenses to be borne by the feeder UCITS, and details of any rebate or retrocession of charges or expenses by the master UCITS;\n(c)\nwhere applicable, the terms on which any initial or subsequent transfer of assets in kind may be made from the feeder UCITS to the master UCITS.\nArticle 17\nStandard dealing arrangements\nMember States shall ensure that the management company's internal conduct of business rules referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC shall include at least the following with regard to standard dealing arrangements:\n(a)\ncoordination of the frequency and timing of the net asset value calculation process and the publication of prices of units;\n(b)\ncoordination of transmission of dealing orders by the feeder UCITS, including, if applicable, the role of transfer agents or any other third party;\n(c)\nwhere applicable, any arrangements necessary to take account of the fact that either or both UCITS are listed or traded on a secondary market;\n(d)\nappropriate measures to ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 60(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(e)\nwhere the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS are denominated in different currencies, the basis for conversion of dealing orders;\n(f)\nsettlement cycles and payment details for purchases and redemptions of units of the master UCITS including, where agreed between the parties, the terms on which the master UCITS may settle redemption requests by a transfer of assets in kind to the feeder UCITS, notably in the cases referred to in Article 60(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(g)\nwhere the fund rules or instruments of incorporation and prospectus of the master UCITS give it certain rights or powers in relation to unit-holders, and the master UCITS chooses to limit or forego the exercise of all or any such rights and powers in relation to the feeder UCITS, a statement of the terms on which it does so.\nArticle 18\nEvents affecting dealing arrangements\nMember States shall ensure that the management company's internal conduct of business rules referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC shall include at least the following with regard to events affecting dealing arrangements:\n(a)\nthe manner and timing of notification by either UCITS of the temporary suspension and the resumption of the repurchase, redemption or subscription of units of UCITS;\n(b)\narrangements for notifying and resolving pricing errors in the master UCITS.\nArticle 19\nStandard arrangements for the audit report\nMember States shall ensure that the management company's internal conduct of business rules referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC shall include at least the following with regard to standard arrangements for the audit report:\n(a)\nwhere the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS have the same accounting years, the coordination of the production of their periodic reports;\n(b)\nwhere the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS have different accounting years, arrangements for the feeder UCITS to obtain any necessary information from the master UCITS to enable it to produce its periodic reports on time and which ensure that the auditor of the master UCITS is in a position to make an ad hoc report on the closing date of the feeder UCITS in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 62(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC.\nSECTION 2\nLiquidation, merger or division of the master UCITS\nSubsection 1\nProcedures in the event of a liquidation\nArticle 20\nApplication for approval\n1. Member States shall require the feeder UCITS to submit to its competent authorities no later than two months after the date on which the master UCITS informed it of the binding decision to liquidate, the following:\n(a)\nwhere the feeder UCITS intends to invest at least 85 % of its assets in units of another master UCITS in accordance with Article 60(4)(a) of Directive 2009/65/EC:\n(i)\nits application for approval for that investment;\n(ii)\nits application for approval of the proposed amendments to its fund rules or instrument of incorporation;\n(iii)\nthe amendments to its prospectus and its key investor information in accordance with Articles 74 and 82 of Directive 2009/65/EC, respectively;\n(iv)\nthe other documents required pursuant to Article 59(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(b)\nwhere the feeder UCITS intends to convert into a UCITS that is not a feeder UCITS in accordance with Article 60(4)(b) of Directive 2009/65/EC:\n(i)\nits application for approval of the proposed amendments to its fund rules or instrument of incorporation;\n(ii)\nthe amendments to its prospectus and its key investor information in accordance with Articles 74 and 82 of Directive 2009/65/EC, respectively;\n(c)\nwhere the feeder UCITS intends to be liquidated, a notification of that intention.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where the master UCITS informed the feeder UCITS of its binding decision to liquidate more than five months before the date at which the liquidation will start, the feeder UCITS shall submit to its competent authorities its application or notification in accordance with one of the points (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 at the latest three months before that date.\n3. The feeder UCITS shall inform its unit-holders of its intention to be liquidated without undue delay.\nArticle 21\nApproval\n1. The feeder UCITS shall be informed within 15 working days following the complete submission of the documents referred to in points (a) or (b) of Article 20(1) respectively, whether the competent authorities have granted the required approvals.\n2. On receiving the competent authorities\u2019 approval pursuant to paragraph 1, the feeder UCITS shall inform the master UCITS of it.\n3. The feeder UCITS shall take necessary measures to comply with the requirements of Article 64 of Directive 2009/65/EC as soon as possible after the competent authorities have granted the necessary approvals pursuant to Article 20(1)(a) of this Directive.\n4. Where the payment of liquidation proceeds of the master UCITS is to be executed before the date on which the feeder UCITS is to start to invest in either a different master UCITS pursuant to Article 20(1)(a) or in accordance with its new investment objectives and policy pursuant to Article 20(1)(b), the competent authorities of the feeder UCITS shall grant approval subject to the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe feeder UCITS shall receive the proceeds of the liquidation:\n(i)\nin cash; or\n(ii)\nsome or all of the proceeds as a transfer of assets in kind where the feeder UCITS so wishes and where the agreement between the feeder UCITS and master UCITS or the internal conduct of business rules and the binding decision to liquidate provide for it;\n(b)\nany cash held or received in accordance with this paragraph may be re-invested only for the purpose of efficient cash management before the date on which the feeder UCITS is to start to invest either in a different master UCITS or in accordance with its new investment objectives and policy.\nWhere point (a)(ii) of the first subparagraph applies, the feeder UCITS may realise any part of the assets transferred in kind for cash at any time.\nSubsection 2\nProcedures in the event of a merger or division\nArticle 22\nApplication for approval\n1. Member States shall require that the feeder UCITS submits to its competent authorities, no later than one month after the date on which the feeder UCITS received the information of the planned merger or division in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 60(5) of Directive 2009/65/EC, the following:\n(a)\nwhere the feeder UCITS intends to continue to be a feeder UCITS of the same master UCITS:\n(i)\nits application for approval thereof;\n(ii)\nwhere applicable, its application for approval of the proposed amendments to its fund rules or instrument of incorporation;\n(iii)\nwhere applicable, the amendments to its prospectus and its key investor information in accordance with Articles 74 and 82 of Directive 2009/65/EC, respectively;\n(b)\nwhere the feeder UCITS intends to become a feeder UCITS of another master UCITS resulting from the proposed merger or division of the master UCITS or where the feeder UCITS intends to invest at least 85 % of its assets in units of another master UCITS not resulting from the merger or division:\n(i)\nits application for approval of that investment;\n(ii)\nits application for approval of the proposed amendments to its fund rules or instruments of incorporation;\n(iii)\nthe amendments to its prospectus and its key investor information in accordance with Articles 74 and 82 of Directive 2009/65/EC, respectively;\n(iv)\nthe other documents required pursuant to Article 59(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(c)\nwhere the feeder UCITS intends to convert into a UCITS that is not a feeder UCITS in accordance with Article 60(4)(b) of Directive 2009/65/EC:\n(i)\nits application for approval of the proposed amendments to its fund rules or instrument of incorporation;\n(ii)\nthe amendments to its prospectus and its key investor information in accordance with Articles 74 and 82 of Directive 2009/65/EC, respectively;\n(d)\nwhere the feeder UCITS intends to be liquidated, a notification of that intention.\n2. For the purpose of the application of points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 the following should be taken into account:\nThe expression \u2018continues to be a feeder UCITS of the same master UCITS\u2019 refers to cases where:\n(a)\nthe master UCITS is the receiving UCITS in a proposed merger;\n(b)\nthe master UCITS is to continue materially unchanged as one of the resulting UCITS in a proposed division.\nThe expression \u2018becomes a feeder UCITS of another master UCITS resulting from the merger or division of the master UCITS\u2019 refers to cases where:\n(a)\nthe master UCITS is the merging UCITS and, due to the merger, the feeder UCITS becomes a unit-holder of the receiving UCITS;\n(b)\nthe feeder UCITS becomes a unit-holder of a UCITS resulting from a division that is materially different to the master UCITS.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, in cases where the master UCITS provided the information referred to in or comparable with Article 43 of Directive 2009/65/EC to the feeder UCITS more than four months before the proposed effective date, the feeder UCITS shall submit to its competent authorities its application or notification in accordance with one of the points (a) to (d) of paragraph 1 of this Article at the latest three months before the proposed effective date of the merger or division of the master UCITS.\n4. The feeder UCITS shall inform its unit-holders and the master UCITS of its intention to be liquidated without undue delay.\nArticle 23\nApproval\n1. The feeder UCITS shall be informed within 15 working days following the complete submission of the documents referred to in Article 22(1)(a) to (c) respectively, whether the competent authorities have granted the required approvals.\n2. Upon receipt of the information that the competent authorities have granted approval according to paragraph 1, the feeder UCITS shall inform the master UCITS of it.\n3. After the feeder UCITS has been informed that the competent authorities have granted the necessary approvals pursuant to Article 22(1)(b) of this Directive, the feeder UCITS shall take the necessary measures to comply with the requirements of Article 64 of Directive 2009/65/EC without undue delay.\n4. In the cases of Article 22(1)(b) and (c) of this Directive, the feeder UCITS shall exercise the right to request repurchase and redemption of its units in the master UCITS in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 60(5) and Article 45(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC, where the competent authorities of the feeder UCITS have not granted the necessary approvals required pursuant to Article 22(1) of this Directive by the working day preceding the last day on which the feeder UCITS can request repurchase and redemption of its units in the master UCITS before the merger or division is effected.\nThe feeder UCITS shall also exercise this right in order to ensure that the right of its own unit-holders to request repurchase or redemption of their units in the feeder UCITS according to Article 64(1)(d) of Directive 2009/65/EC is not affected.\nBefore exercising the right referred to in the first subparagraph, the feeder UCITS shall consider available alternative solutions which may help to avoid or reduce transaction costs or other negative impacts for its own unit-holders.\n5. Where the feeder UCITS requests repurchase or redemption of its units in the master UCITS, it shall receive one of the following:\n(a)\nthe repurchase or redemption proceeds in cash;\n(b)\nsome or all of the repurchase or redemption proceeds as a transfer in kind where the feeder UCITS so wishes and where the agreement between the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS provides for it.\nWhere point (b) of the first subparagraph applies, the feeder UCITS may realise any part of the transferred assets for cash at any time.\n6. The competent authorities of the feeder UCITS shall grant approval on the condition that any cash held or received in accordance with paragraph 5 may be re-invested only for the purpose of efficient cash management before the date on which the feeder UCITS is to start to invest either in the new master UCITS or in accordance with its new investment objectives and policy.\nSECTION 3\nDepositaries and auditors\nSubsection 1\nDepositaries\nArticle 24\nContent of the information-sharing agreement between depositaries\nThe information-sharing agreement between the depositary of the master UCITS and the depositary of the feeder UCITS referred to in Article 61(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC shall include the following:\n(a)\nthe identification of the documents and categories of information which are to be routinely shared between both depositaries, and whether such information or documents are provided by one depositary to the other or made available on request;\n(b)\nthe manner and timing, including any applicable deadlines, of the transmission of information by the depositary of the master UCITS to the depositary of the feeder UCITS;\n(c)\nthe coordination of the involvement of both depositaries, to the extent appropriate in view of their respective duties under national law, in relation to operational matters, including:\n(i)\nthe procedure for calculating the net asset value of each UCITS, including any measures appropriate to protect against the activities of market timing in accordance with Article 60(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(ii)\nthe processing of instructions by the feeder UCITS to purchase, subscribe or request the repurchase or redemption of units in the master UCITS, and the settlement of such transactions, including any arrangement to transfer assets in kind;\n(d)\nthe coordination of accounting year-end procedures;\n(e)\nwhat details of breaches by the master UCITS of the law and the fund rules or instrument of incorporation the depositary of the master UCITS shall provide to the depositary of the feeder UCITS and the manner and timing of their provision;\n(f)\nthe procedure for handling ad hoc requests for assistance from one depositary to the other;\n(g)\nidentification of particular contingent events which ought to be notified by one depositary to the other on an ad hoc basis, and the manner and timing in which this will be done.\nArticle 25\nChoice of the applicable law\n1. Member States shall ensure that where the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS have concluded an agreement in accordance with Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC, the agreement between the depositaries of the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS provides that the law of the Member State applying to that agreement in accordance with Article 14 of this Directive shall also apply to the information-sharing agreement between both depositaries and that both depositaries agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State;\n2. Member States shall ensure that where the agreement between the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS has been replaced by internal conduct of business rules in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC, the agreement between the depositaries of the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS provides that the law applying to the information-sharing agreement between both depositaries shall be either that of the Member State in which the feeder UCITS is established or, where different, that of the Member State in which the master UCITS is established, and that both depositaries agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State whose law is applicable to the information-sharing agreement.\nArticle 26\nReporting of irregularities by the depositary of the master UCITS\nThe irregularities referred to in Article 61(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC which the depositary of the master UCITS detects in the course of carrying out its function under the national law and which may have a negative impact on the feeder UCITS shall include, but are not limited to:\n(a)\nerrors in the net asset value calculation of the master UCITS;\n(b)\nerrors in transactions for or settlement of the purchase, subscription or request to repurchase or redeem units in the master UCITS undertaken by the feeder UCITS;\n(c)\nerrors in the payment or capitalisation of income arising from the master UCITS, or in the calculation of any related withholding tax;\n(d)\nbreaches of the investment objectives, policy or strategy of the master UCITS, as described in its fund rules or instrument of incorporation, prospectus or key investor information;\n(e)\nbreaches of investment and borrowing limits set out in national law or in the fund rules, instruments of incorporation, prospectus or key investor information.\nSubsection 2\nAuditors\nArticle 27\nInformation-sharing agreement between auditors\n1. The information-sharing agreement between the auditor of the master UCITS and the auditor of the feeder UCITS referred to in Article 62(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC shall include the following:\n(a)\nthe identification of the documents and categories of information which are to be routinely shared between both auditors;\n(b)\nwhether the information or documents referred to in point (a) are to be provided by one auditor to the other or made available on request;\n(c)\nthe manner and timing, including any applicable deadlines, of the transmission of information by the auditor of the master UCITS to the auditor of the feeder UCITS;\n(d)\nthe coordination of the involvement of each auditor in the accounting year-end procedures for the respective UCITS;\n(e)\nidentification of matters that shall be treated as irregularities disclosed in the audit report of the auditor of the master UCITS for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 62(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(f)\nthe manner and timing for handling ad hoc requests for assistance from one auditor to the other, including a request for further information on irregularities disclosed in the audit report of the auditor of the master UCITS.\n2. The agreement referred to in paragraph 1 shall include provisions on the preparation of the audit reports referred to in Article 62(2) and Article 73 of Directive 2009/65/EC and the manner and timing for the provision of the audit report for the master UCITS and drafts of it to the auditor of the feeder UCITS.\n3. Where the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS have different accounting year-end dates, the agreement referred to in paragraph 1 shall include the manner and timing by which the auditor of the master UCITS is to make the ad hoc report required by the first subparagraph of Article 62(2) Directive 2009/65/EC and to provide it and drafts of it to the auditor of the feeder UCITS.\nArticle 28\nChoice of the applicable law\n1. Member State shall ensure that where the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS have concluded an agreement in accordance with Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC, the agreement between the auditors of the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS provides that the law of the Member State applying to that agreement in accordance with Article 14 of this Directive shall also apply to the information-sharing agreement between both auditors and that both auditors agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State.\n2. Member States shall ensure that where the agreement between the feeder UCITS and the master UCITS has been replaced by internal conduct of business rules in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 60(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC, the agreement between the auditors of the master UCITS and the feeder UCITS provides that the law applying to the information-sharing agreement between both auditors shall be either that of the Member State in which the feeder UCITS is established or, where different, that of the Member State in which the master UCITS is established, and that both auditors agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State whose law is applicable to the information-sharing agreement.\nSECTION 4\nManner of providing the information to unit-holders\nArticle 29\nManner of providing the information to unit-holders\nMember States shall ensure that the feeder UCITS provides the information to unit-holders pursuant to Article 64(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC in the same manner as prescribed by Article 7 of this Directive.\nCHAPTER IV\nNOTIFICATION PROCEDURE\nArticle 30\nScope of the information to be made accessible by Member States in accordance with Article 91(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC\n1. Member States shall ensure that the following categories of information on the relevant laws, regulations and administrative provisions are made accessible in accordance with Article 91(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC:\n(a)\nthe definition of the term \u2018marketing of units of UCITS\u2019 or the equivalent legal term either as stated in national legislation or as developed in practice;\n(b)\nrequirements for the contents, format and manner of presentation of marketing communications, including all compulsory warnings and restrictions on the use of certain words or phrases;\n(c)\nwithout prejudice to Chapter IX of Directive 2009/65/EC, details of any additional information required to be disclosed to investors;\n(d)\ndetails of any exemptions from rules or requirements governing arrangements made for marketing applicable in that Member State for certain UCITS, certain share classes of UCITS or certain categories of investors;\n(e)\nrequirements for any reporting or transmission of information to the competent authorities of that Member State, and the procedure for lodging updated versions of required documents;\n(f)\nrequirements for any fees or other sums to be paid to the competent authorities or any other statutory body in that Member State, either when marketing commences or periodically thereafter;\n(g)\nrequirements in relation to the facilities to be made available to unit-holders as required by Article 92 of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(h)\nconditions for the termination of marketing of units of UCITS in that Member State by a UCITS situated in another Member State;\n(i)\ndetailed contents of the information required by a Member State to be included in Part B of the notification letter as referred to in Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 584/2010 of 1 July 2010 implementing Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the form and content of standard notification letter and UCITS attestation, the use of electronic communication between competent authorities for the purpose of notification, and procedures for on-the-spot verifications and investigations and the exchange of information between competent authorities (6);\n(j)\nthe e-mail address designated for the purpose of Article 32.\n2. Member States shall give the information listed in paragraph 1 in the form of a narrative description, or a combination of a narrative description and a series of references or links to source documents.\nArticle 31\nUCITS host Member State's access to documents\n1. Member States shall require UCITS to ensure that an electronic copy of each document referred to in Article 93(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC is made available on a website of the UCITS, or a website of the management company that manages that UCITS, or on another website designated by the UCITS in the notification letter submitted in accordance with Article 93(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC or any updates of it. Any document made available on a website shall be provided in an electronic format in common use.\n2. Member States shall require UCITS to ensure that the UCITS host Member State has access to the website referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 32\nUpdates of documents\n1. Competent authorities shall designate an e-mail address for the purpose of receiving notification of updates and amendments to the documents referred to in Article 93(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC, pursuant to Article 93(7) of that Directive.\n2. Member States shall allow UCITS to notify any update or amendment to the documents referred to in Article 93(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC, pursuant to Article 93(7) of Directive 2009/65/EC by e-mail to be sent to the e-mail address referred to in paragraph 1.\nThe e-mail notifying such an update or amendment may either describe the update or the amendment that has been made, or provide a new version of the document as an attachment.\n3. Member States shall require that any document attached to the e-mail referred to in paragraph 2, shall be provided by UCITS in a commonly used electronic format.\nArticle 33\nDevelopment of common data processing systems\n1. In order to facilitate access by the competent authorities of the UCITS host Member States to the information or documents referred to in Article 93(1), (2) and (3) of Directive 2009/65/EC, for the purpose of Article 93(7) of that Directive, competent authorities of Member States may coordinate the establishment of sophisticated electronic data processing and central storage systems common to all Member States.\n2. The coordination between Member States referred to in paragraph 1 shall take place in the Committee of European Securities Regulators.\nCHAPTER V\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 34\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 June 2011 at the latest.\nHowever, they shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 7 and 29 by 31 December 2013 at the latest.\nThey shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 35\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 36\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2010.", "references": ["52", "14", "12", "78", "5", "79", "18", "50", "90", "16", "2", "26", "62", "34", "7", "35", "59", "86", "98", "42", "56", "48", "6", "74", "71", "94", "89", "22", "47", "93", "No Label", "8", "20", "29", "30", "44", "46", "49", "76"], "gold": ["8", "20", "29", "30", "44", "46", "49", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 352/2011\nof 11 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["46", "9", "45", "84", "34", "55", "66", "51", "56", "91", "37", "60", "83", "79", "78", "86", "50", "11", "5", "54", "71", "49", "48", "39", "2", "36", "0", "26", "43", "98", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 3 June 2010\nappointing one Polish member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/310/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Polish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Jan KOZ\u0141OWSKI, member of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as a member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\nMr Mieczys\u0142aw STRUK, Marsza\u0142ek Wojew\u00f3dztwa Pomorskiego.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["40", "50", "87", "32", "75", "37", "79", "82", "29", "17", "35", "69", "46", "86", "53", "28", "96", "43", "45", "54", "6", "59", "73", "90", "68", "24", "25", "12", "84", "63", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 May 2011\non the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco establishing a dispute settlement mechanism\n(2011/392/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 24 February 2006 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with partners in the Mediterranean region in order to establish a dispute settlement mechanism related to trade provisions.\n(2)\nNegotiations have been conducted by the Commission in consultation with the committee appointed under Article 207 of the Treaty and within the framework of the negotiating directives issued by the Council.\n(3)\nThese negotiations have been concluded and an Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco establishing a Dispute Settlement Mechanism (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) was initialled on 9 December 2009.\n(4)\nThe Agreement was signed on behalf of the Union on 13 December 2010.\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco establishing a Dispute Settlement Mechanism (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall give, on behalf of the Union, the notification provided for in Article 23 of the Agreement (1).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 May 2011.", "references": ["7", "91", "72", "23", "75", "86", "38", "0", "59", "88", "17", "35", "45", "64", "42", "3", "50", "61", "83", "27", "54", "95", "51", "66", "16", "48", "99", "43", "12", "89", "No Label", "5", "9", "94"], "gold": ["5", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 512/2010\nof 14 June 2010\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 11(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nOn 22 January 2001, the Council imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 (3), a definitive anti-dumping duty (\u2018the existing measures\u2019) of EUR 33,25 per tonne on imports of ammonium nitrate (\u2018AN\u2019) falling within CN codes 3102 30 90 and 3102 40 90 and originating, inter alia, in Ukraine. The investigation that led to these measures will be referred to as \u2018the original investigation\u2019.\n(2)\nOn 17 May 2004, following a partial interim review, by Regulation (EC) No 993/2004 (4), the Council exempted from the anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imports to the Union of AN produced by companies from which undertakings would be accepted by the Commission. By Commission Regulation (EC) No 1001/2004 (5), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1996/2004 (6), undertakings were accepted for a period until 20 May 2005. The purpose of these undertakings was to take account of certain consequences of the enlargement of the European Union to 25 Member States.\n(3)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 (7), following an interim review limited in scope to the definition of the product concerned, the Council decided that the definition of the product concerned should be clarified and that the measures in force should apply to the product concerned when incorporated into other fertilizers, in proportion to their content of ammonium nitrate, together with other marginal substances and nutrients.\n(4)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 442/2007 (8), following an expiry review, the Council decided to prolong the existing measures, as clarified by Regulation (EC) No 945/2005, for a period of two years.\n(5)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 (9), following an expiry review, the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of AN originating in Russia.\n(6)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 662/2008 (10), the Council amended Regulation (EC) No 442/2007 by accepting a price undertaking offered by one exporting producer.\n2. Request for a review\n(7)\nOn 22 January 2009, a request for an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation was lodged following the publication of a notice of impending expiry on 17 October 2008 (11). This request was lodged by the European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association (EFMA) (\u2018the applicant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of AN.\n(8)\nThe applicant alleged and provided sufficient prima facie evidence that there is a likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry with regard to imports of AN originating in Ukraine (\u2018the country concerned\u2019).\n(9)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 23 April 2009, by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union (12), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n3. Investigation\n3.1. Investigation period\n(10)\nThe investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009 (\u2018review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 2005 to the end of the RIP (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n3.2. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(11)\nThe Commission officially advised the exporting producers, importers and users known to be concerned and their associations, the representatives of the exporting country, the applicant and the Union producers of the initiation of the expiry review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(12)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(13)\nIn view of the large number of Union producers and of Union importers, it was considered appropriate, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to examine whether sampling should be used. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would indeed be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested, pursuant to Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the investigation and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation.\n(14)\nAfter examination of the information submitted, and given that twelve Union producers indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was necessary with regard to Union producers. No importers came forward by providing the information requested in the notice of initiation.\n(15)\nTwelve Union producers, accounting for around 80 % of the total Union production during the RIP, properly completed the sampling form within the deadline and formally agreed to cooperate further in the investigation. On that basis, the Commission selected, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, a representative sample based on the largest representative volume of production and sales of AN in the Union which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. Five Union producers, accounting for 57 % of the total production of the Union industry during the RIP, were selected in the sample.\n(16)\nIn accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned were consulted on the sample chosen and raised no objection thereto.\n(17)\nQuestionnaires were sent to the five sampled Union producers and to all known exporting producers in the country concerned.\n(18)\nReplies to the questionnaires were received from the five sampled Union producers and three exporting producers in the country concerned.\n(19)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for a determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nExporting producers in Ukraine:\n-\nCJSC Severodonetsk Azot Association, Severodonetsk,\n-\nJSC Concern Stirol, Gorlovka,\n-\nOJSC Rivneazot, Rivne,\n(b)\nUnion producers:\n-\nGrowHow UK Limited, UK,\n-\nGPN, Paris, France,\n-\nZak\u0142ady Azotowe Pu\u0142awy SA, Poland,\n-\nYara SA, Brussels, Belgium,\n-\nAchema, Jonavos, Lithuania.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(20)\nThe product concerned is solid fertilizers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight originating in Ukraine, currently falling within CN codes 3102 30 90, 3102 40 90, ex 3102 29 00, ex 3102 60 00, ex 3102 90 00, ex 3105 10 00, ex 3105 20 10, ex 3105 51 00, ex 3105 59 00 and ex 3105 90 91. AN is a solid nitrogen fertiliser commonly used in agriculture. It is manufactured from ammonia and nitric acid, and its nitrogen content exceeds 28 % by weight in prilled or granular form.\n(21)\nIt should be noted that the scope of the product concerned was clarified in Regulation (EC) No 945/2005.\n2. Like product\n(22)\nAs established in the original investigation, this review investigation confirmed that AN is a pure commodity product, and its quality and basic physical characteristics are identical whatever the country of origin. The product concerned and the products manufactured and sold by the exporting producers on their domestic market and to third countries, as well as those manufactured and sold by the Union producers on the Union market, have thus been found to have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and essentially the same uses and are, therefore, considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n1. General\n(23)\nCooperation was obtained from three Ukrainian exporting producers. A fourth known exporting producer did not cooperate in the investigation.\n(24)\nThe comparison of the export volume of the three cooperating exporting producers with the total volume of exports to the Union from Ukraine showed that the three cooperating exporting producers accounted for more than 90 % of all Union imports from Ukraine during the RIP. The level of cooperation was therefore considered to be high.\n(25)\nTotal import volumes of the product concerned from Ukraine were low, representing a market share of 1,1 % in the RIP when compared to the Union market as a whole.\n2. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n2.1. Normal value\n(26)\nIt is recalled that in the previous expiry review, Ukraine was not yet considered a market economy country and therefore the normal value was based on data obtained from a cooperating producer in the USA, the analogue country.\n(27)\nIn the present review, normal value was based on data obtained and verified at the premises of the three cooperating exporting producers in Ukraine. The Commission examined whether their domestic sales could be considered as having been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. To this end, the cost of production of the product produced and sold on the domestic market by the cooperating exporting producers were examined.\n(28)\nAs regards gas costs, it was found that Ukraine was importing the majority of the gas consumed in the production of AN from Russia. All data available and verified during the investigation indicated that Ukraine imported natural gas from Russia at a price which was, during the RIP, around 40 % below the price of natural gas from Russia when exported to the Union. However, it was found that in the last quarter of the RIP the prices were similar.\n(29)\nIt was found that apart from one product type exported by one producer, domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade during the RIP. Normal value was therefore established either based on the price paid or payable on the domestic market in Ukraine by unrelated customers pursuant to Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation or based on constructed normal value for the product type not sold in the ordinary course of trade. In accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, normal value was constructed by adding to the manufacturing costs of the exported type a reasonable amount of selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) and a reasonable margin of profit. These amounts for SG&A and profit were based on actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the producer concerned.\n(30)\nIt should be noted that the normal value was determined without an adjustment for the gas costs borne by the Ukrainian exporting producers in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation. This was because, as shown in recitals 32 to 34, the use of the unadjusted domestic costs and prices of the Ukrainian exporting producers in spite of the apparently distorted gas prices already clearly shows that dumping took place during the RIP. As a consequence, and given the fact that the purpose of an expiry review is to determine whether dumping would be likely to continue or recur should measures be repealed in order to determine whether the currently applicable measures should be maintained or repealed, it was considered that it was not necessary to examine whether an adjustment under Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation was justified in this case.\n2.2. Export price\n(31)\nIn accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, the export price was established by reference to the price actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Community. All sales of the three cooperating exporting producers were made directly to independent customers in the Union.\n2.3. Comparison\n(32)\nThe normal value and export price were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for the differences affecting price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, where applicable and supported by verified evidence, adjustments were made for differences in transport, handling, loading and ancillary costs, insurance, commissions and packing.\n2.4. Dumping margin\n(33)\nThe dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with a weighted average export price, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.\n(34)\nOn a country-wide basis, a weighted average dumping margin of 6-7 % was established for the three cooperating exporting producers concerned.\n3. Development of imports should measures be repealed\n3.1. Spare capacity and attractiveness of the Union market\n(35)\nIn the RIP, domestic sales of the three cooperating exporting producers represented on average 46 % of their production capacity.\n(36)\nThough the three cooperating exporting producers sold a big proportion of their production on the domestic market, they were also dependent on exports to third countries. In the RIP they had a spare capacity corresponding to around 6 % of the Union consumption.\n(37)\nBased on information in the review request regarding the fourth known Ukrainian producer which did not cooperate in the investigation, the total spare capacity in Ukraine during the RIP was estimated to amount to around 9 % of the Union consumption.\n(38)\nCertain Ukrainian cooperating exporting producers claimed that they were increasingly losing market share on their domestic market to the benefit of Russian producers which can offer very low prices due to the much lower gas costs in Russia. It therefore appeared unlikely that the Ukrainian domestic market could absorb the spare production capacity and therefore any increase in production is likely to be exported.\n(39)\nThe three cooperating companies exported AN to many other third countries on several continents during the RIP. However, it should be noted that certain traditional third country markets are closed to Ukrainian exports either because of anti-dumping measures in force (e.g. USA with anti-dumping measures of more than 100 %) and/or because of safety restrictions (e.g. the People\u2019s Republic of China, Australia). In any event, the Union is the biggest, most attractive and at the same time geographically closest export market. Its attractiveness is additionally boosted by logistic advantages resulting from low rail tariffs in Ukraine.\n(40)\nIn view of the above, it cannot be excluded that a large part of the spare capacity available in Ukraine could be used to increase exports to the Union in the absence of anti-dumping measures.\n3.2. Prices in different export markets\n(41)\nAn analysis of export sales of the three cooperating Ukrainian exporting producers to third countries showed that during the RIP export prices to third countries, when established on a CIF level using the international freight rates provided in the request for a review, were up to 25 % lower than the prevailing market price in the Union.\n(42)\nOn that basis, it therefore appeared that there would be an incentive for Ukrainian exports to third countries to be shifted to the Union, should measures be repealed. The higher prices in the Union market would allow Ukrainian exporters to achieve better profit margins.\n(43)\nBased on the figures provided by the three cooperating exporting producers, it could also be established that on a country-wide level, exports from Ukraine to other third countries were made at dumped prices during the RIP.\n3.3. Conclusion of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping\n(44)\nIn view of the findings described above, it can be concluded that the exports from Ukraine are still being dumped and that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping in the Union market in case the current anti-dumping measures are removed. Indeed, taking into account the existing spare capacity in Ukraine and the attractiveness of the Union market, there appears to be an incentive for Ukrainian exporting producers to i) increase their exports to the Union market and ii) shift AN exports from other third country markets to the Union market at dumped prices, at least as far as two exporting producers are concerned.\n(45)\nFurthermore, the weighted average export prices of the cooperating exporting producers to third country markets were found to be significantly lower than the prevailing price level in the Union. This reinforces the likelihood of increased exports from Ukraine to the Union at dumped prices, should measures be allowed to lapse.\nD. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(46)\nWithin the Union, the like product is manufactured by 16 companies or groups of companies whose output constitutes the total Union production of the like product within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(47)\nTwelve Union producers cooperated with the investigation:\n-\nAchema AB (Lithuania),\n-\nAgropolychim JSC (Bulgaria),\n-\nAzomures (Romania),\n-\nBASF AG (Germany),\n-\nFertiberia SA (Spain),\n-\nGPN SA (France),\n-\nGrowHow UK Ltd (United Kingdom),\n-\nNeochim PLC (Bulgaria),\n-\nNitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek Rt (Hungary),\n-\nYara (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands),\n-\nZak\u0142ady Azotowe Pu\u0142awy SA (Poland),\n-\nZak\u0142ady Azotowe w Tarnowie-Mo\u015bcicach (Poland).\n(48)\nGiven that these 12 Union producers accounted for around 80 % of the total Union production during the RIP, it is considered that they constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. They will be referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\n(49)\nAs indicated in recitals 14 and 15, the selection of the sample of five Union producers was made on the basis of these 12 producers. All sampled producers cooperated and sent questionnaire replies within the deadlines. In addition, the remaining seven cooperating producers duly provided certain general data for the injury analysis.\nE. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Consumption in the Union market\n(50)\nThe apparent Union consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market, the sales volumes of the other Union producers on the Union market, Eurostat data for all Union imports and the information of the questionnaire responses of the cooperating companies as far as the imports of the product concerned from Ukraine are concerned. Given the enlargement of the Union to 27 Member States in 2007, for the sake of clarity and consistency of the analysis, all injury indicators were established on the basis of the EU-27 market throughout the period considered.\n(51)\nBetween 2005 and the RIP, Union consumption decreased by 10 %.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nTotal Union consumption in tonnes\n7 861 796\n6 983 467\n8 023 633\n7 638 439\n7 054 327\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n89\n102\n97\n90\n2. Volume, market share and prices of imports from Ukraine\n(52)\nThe volume, market share and average prices of the imports from Ukraine developed as set out in the table below. The quantity and price trends were based on the information obtained from the questionnaire responses of the cooperating exporting producers, import statistics (Eurostat) and Ukrainian export statistics.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports (tonnes)\n76 867\n42 912\n29 420\n48 232\n75 582\nMarket share\n1 %\n0,6 %\n0,4 %\n0,6 %\n1,1 %\nPrices of imports (EUR/tonne)\n123\n139\n145\n259\n230\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n113\n118\n211\n187\n(53)\nThe volume of imports from Ukraine decreased consistently until 2007 but reached in the RIP almost the same level as in 2005. The Ukrainian market share increased slightly from 1 % in 2005 to 1,1 % in the RIP. The unit prices evolved positively from 123 to 230 EUR/tonne over the period considered. This increase in the RIP has to be seen in line with the worldwide evolution of prices and with the prices of the main raw material.\n(54)\nFor the purpose of calculating the level of price undercutting during the RIP, the Union industry\u2019s ex-works prices to unrelated customers were compared with the CIF Union frontier import prices of the cooperating exporting producers in the country concerned, duly adjusted in order to reflect a landed price. On that basis, the comparison showed that imports from Ukraine were undercutting the prices of the Union industry by 22,5 % on average during the RIP. An undercutting margin of 11 % was still found to exist from Ukrainian exporters when the anti-dumping duty was added on top of their prices to the Union.\n3. Imports from other countries\n(55)\nThe volume of imports from other third countries during the period considered are shown in the table below. The following quantity and price trends are based on Eurostat.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from Russia\n(tonnes)\n328 972\n217 539\n35 852\n136 984\n184 170\nMarket share\n4,2 %\n3,1 %\n0,4 %\n1,8 %\n2,6 %\nPrices of imports from Russia\n(EUR/tonne)\n122\n124\n144\n275\n235\nVolume of imports from Georgia\n(tonnes)\n153 844\n85 870\n88 622\n214 879\n222 912\nMarket share\n2,0 %\n1,2 %\n1,1 %\n2,8 %\n3,2 %\nPrices of imports from Georgia\n(EUR/tonne)\n164\n177\n174\n325\n304\nVolume of imports from Kazakhstan\n(tonnes)\n0\n4 845\n112 239\n81 410\n100 761\nMarket share\n0 %\n0,1 %\n1,4 %\n1,1 %\n1,4 %\nPrices of imports from Kazakhstan\n(EUR/tonne)\n0\n147\n151\n255\n242\nVolume of imports from all other countries (tonnes)\n65 253\n118 927\n99 380\n109 755\n91 785\nMarket share\n0,8 %\n1,7 %\n1,2 %\n1,4 %\n1,3 %\nPrices of imports from all other countries (EUR/tonne)\n190\n170\n240\n242\n265\n(56)\nThere was a significant price increase in the Union market from all third countries which occurred in 2008 and the RIP. It appeared that, apart from Russia, all the countries mentioned in the table above increased their export volumes to the Union during the period considered. In the case of Russian imports, they are subject to an anti-dumping fixed duty of EUR 47,07 per tonne and were imported, as the Ukrainian imports, at the lowest price compared to all other exporting countries.\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(57)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry.\n4.1. Preliminary remarks\n(58)\nSince recourse was made to sampling for the investigation of injury, certain injury indicators such as production, production capacity, sales, market share, productivity and employment were analysed for the Union industry as a whole (\u2018Union\u2019 in the tables below). Other injury indicators relating to the performances of individual companies, such as prices, stocks, costs of production, profitability, wages, investments, return on investment, cash flow, and ability to raise capital were examined on the basis of information collected at the level of the sampled Union producers (\u2018S.P.\u2019 in the tables below).\n4.2. Data relating to the Union industry as a whole\n(a) Production\n(59)\nThe Union industry\u2019s production decreased by 18 % between 2005 and the RIP, i.e. from a level of around 7 million tonnes in 2005 to a level of around 5,8 million tonnes in the RIP. As regards the production for captive use, it remained modest during the period considered and did not affect the situation of the Union industry in particular during the RIP.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nUnion production (tonnes)\n7 133 844\n6 359 967\n7 146 911\n6 454 234\n5 843 181\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n89\n100\n90\n82\nUnion production used for captive transfers\n210 437\n176 413\n185 223\n138 733\n119 053\nAs % of total production\n2,9 %\n2,8 %\n2,6 %\n2,1 %\n2,0 %\n(b) Capacity and capacity utilisation rates\n(60)\nProduction capacity remained by and large stable throughout the period considered. In line with the decrease in production, the resulting capacity utilisation decreased, from a level of 55 % in 2005 to a level of 45 % in the RIP. As already noted in the original investigation, capacity utilisation for AN can be affected by the production of other products which can be produced with the same production equipment. Therefore the trend in the capacity utilisation is less relevant for the assessment of the economic situation of the Union industry.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nUnion capacity (tonnes)\n13 059 281\n12 824 281\n12 820 594\n13 069 317\n13 077 281\nUnion capacity utilisation\n55 %\n50 %\n56 %\n49 %\n45 %\n(c) Sales volume\n(61)\nSales by the Union industry on the Union market decreased by 14 % between 2005 and the RIP. This development has to be seen against the background of a shrinking Union consumption in the same period.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nUnion sales volume (tonnes) to unrelated parties\n5 365 834\n4 756 093\n5 495 037\n5 157 788\n4 605 629\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n89\n102\n96\n86\nUnion sales volume to unrelated parties in third countries (tonnes)\n887 056\n727 176\n637 408\n559 393\n548 090\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n82\n72\n63\n62\n(d) Market share\n(62)\nThe market share held by the Union industry remained stable from 2005 to 2008 but decreased by three percentage points between 2008 and the RIP.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nUnion market share\n68 %\n68 %\n68 %\n68 %\n65 %\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n100\n100\n100\n96\n(e) Employment\n(63)\nThe level of employment of the Union industry decreased by 8 % between 2005 and the RIP.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nUnion employment product concerned\n3 627\n3 578\n3 458\n3 494\n3 354\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n99\n95\n96\n92\n(f) Productivity\n(64)\nDuring the period considered, the average output per person employed by the Union industry decreased by 11 %. This is explained by the fact that the relative decrease in output bypassed the relative decrease in employment.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nUnion productivity (tonnes per employee)\n1 967\n1 778\n2 067\n1 847\n1 742\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n90\n105\n94\n89\n(g) Magnitude of dumping margin\n(65)\nAs concerns the magnitude of the actual margin of dumping, given the currently small volume of imports from Ukraine, this impact is considered not to be significant and the indicator not relevant for the injury analysis.\n4.3. Data relating to the sampled Union producers\n(a) Sales prices and factors affecting domestic prices\n(66)\nThe sampled Union industry producers\u2019 average net sales price increased substantially in 2008 and the RIP reflecting the prevailing favourable international market conditions of AN during that period.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nS.P. Unit price (EUR/tonne)\n165\n182\n189\n309\n315\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n110\n115\n187\n191\n(b) Stocks\n(67)\nThe level of closing stocks of the Union industry decreased by 26 % from 2005 to the RIP. A sharp increase registered in 2006 was due to a steep decrease in sales volume between 2005 and 2006.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nS.P. Closing stocks (tonnes)\n276 569\n489 535\n345 137\n252 072\n203 579\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n177\n125\n91\n74\n(c) Wages\n(68)\nBetween 2005 and the RIP, the average wage per employee increased by 6 %, as shown in the table below. In the light of the inflation rate and the overall reduced employment, this increase of wages is considered to be moderate.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nS.P. Average labour cost per employee (000 EUR)\n40,4\n41,2\n43,3\n45,0\n43,0\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n102\n107\n111\n106\n(d) Investments\n(69)\nThe annual investments in the like product made by the five sampled producers developed positively during the period considered and increased by 70 %. These investments related mainly to the modernisation of certain machinery. This shows that the Union industry is continuously willing to improve its competitiveness.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nS.P. Net investments (000 EUR)\n46 668\n52 191\n64 319\n73 948\n79 379\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n112\n138\n158\n170\n(e) Profitability and return on investments\n(70)\nProfitability of the sampled producers improved significantly, notably since 2006, as it reached the level of 28,1 % on turnover during the RIP. The return on investments (ROI), expressed as the profit in percent of the net book value of investments, broadly followed the positive trend in profitability over the period considered.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nS.P. Profitability of EC sales to unrelated customers (% of net sales)\n9,2 %\n7,9 %\n14,9 %\n25,3 %\n28,1 %\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n85\n162\n274\n304\nS.P. ROI (profit in % of net book value of investment)\n35,2 %\n25,8 %\n41,1 %\n109,1 %\n114,1 %\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n73\n117\n310\n324\n(f) Cash flow and ability to raise capital\n(71)\nCash flow has increased significantly during the period considered and is in line with the development of the overall profitability during that period.\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nS.P. Cash flow (000 EUR)\n84 567\n52 182\n188 535\n373 843\n386 721\nIndex (2005 = 100)\n100\n63\n223\n442\n457\n(72)\nThe investigation did not reveal any difficulties encountered by the sampled Union producers in raising capital. In this respect, it should be noted that as several of these companies are part of large groups, they finance their activities within the group to which they belong either through cash-pooling schemes or through intra-group loans granted by the mother companies.\n5. Conclusion\n(73)\nBetween 2005 and the RIP, most injury indicators developed positively: unit sales prices and profitability improved substantially, the latter reaching a level of 28,1 % during the RIP. Investments, return on investment and cash-flow also evolved positively.\n(74)\nAlthough production and sales volumes decreased considerably over the period considered, this has to be seen against a shrinking Union market in the order of minus 10 %.\n(75)\nOverall, the situation of the Union industry has improved significantly as compared to its situation prior to the imposition of the anti-dumping measures on imports of AN from the country concerned in 2001.\nF. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY\n1. General\n(76)\nIn the context of the likelihood of recurrence of injury, two main parameters were analysed: (i) the likely export volumes and prices in the country concerned and (ii) the likely effect of projected volumes and prices from the country concerned on the Union industry.\n2. Likely export volumes and prices of the country concerned\n(77)\nThere is a known spare capacity of around 650 thousand tonnes available for the cooperating Ukrainian producers, representing 9 % of the Union market, as mentioned in recital 37. This surplus of capacity indicates that Ukrainian producers have the possibility to quickly increase their current production and thus their exports of AN.\n(78)\nMoreover, given the relatively small size of their domestic market, Ukrainian producers are heavily dependent on exports to third countries. As explained in recital 41, these exports were made at prices substantially lower than the prevailing market price in the Union.\n(79)\nBased on the above facts and considerations, the Union market would appear to be attractive for the Ukrainian exporting producers in terms of prices as compared to all other export markets. It can thus reasonably be expected that a considerable part of the volumes exported to third countries would be directed toward the Union market, should the measures be allowed to lapse. The proximity of the Union market, as compared to other export markets, would also render the Union market more attractive and would therefore increase the likelihood of a redirection of current exports by Ukrainian producers from third countries to the Union.\n(80)\nGiven the currently weak market position of Ukrainian products in the Union, the Ukrainian exporters would need to gain market share or broaden their customer base and are likely to manage this by offering AN at dumped prices as was established during the RIP.\n(81)\nOn the basis of the above, it is therefore likely that significant volumes of AN produced in Ukraine would be redirected to the Union market at dumped prices substantially undercutting Union industry\u2019s prices, if the measures are allowed to lapse.\n3. Impact on the Union industry of the projected export volumes and price effects in case of repeal of the measures\n(82)\nThe investigation has shown that AN is a commodity product for which prices can significantly be affected by the presence of low-priced imports undercutting the Union industry\u2019s prices. In other words, the Union market for AN is relatively volatile. The favourable worldwide market conditions for AN prevailing during the period considered played an important role in keeping prices at a high level and the applicable anti-dumping measures reduced the possibility of price distortion in the Union market. During that period, there was a tight balance between supply and demand which resulted in higher prices for all nitrogen fertilisers, which are commodity products. AN is also a commodity product the pricing of which is influenced by numerous factors, such as the price of gas, which has a considerable impact on the supply because it is the most important cost element, weather conditions, crop and grain stock levels, which overall result in a reduced or increased demand for fertilisers.\n(83)\nWith particular regard to the Union market, it can be expected that the demand for AN will increase slightly from the level observed in the RIP. Given that the prices set by the Ukrainian exporting producers significantly undercut the prices of the Union industry, the likely increase in import volumes from Ukraine would force the Union industry either to lower significantly its prices, thereby its profits, or to lose significant market share and thus revenues, or both. The successful restructuring process of the Union industry could probably only partially counterbalance such a likely price depression and the whole recovery process would be put in danger. Therefore, a deterioration of the Union industry\u2019s overall economic situation is likely to result from the repeal of the measures.\n4. Conclusion on the likelihood of recurrence of injury\n(84)\nThe above facts and considerations lead to the conclusion that, should the current measures be allowed to lapse, exports from the country concerned would likely occur in significant volumes and at dumped prices undercutting the Union industry\u2019s prices. This would in all likelihood have the effect of introducing a price-depressive trend on the market, with an expected negative impact on the economic situation of the Union industry. This would, in particular, impede the financial recovery that was achieved during the period considered, leading to a recurrence of injury.\nG. UNION INTEREST\n1. Introduction\n(85)\nIt was examined whether compelling reasons existed that could lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to renew the anti-dumping measures in force. For this purpose, and in accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the impact of the renewal of the measures on all parties involved in this proceeding and the consequences of the expiry of the measures were considered on the basis of all evidence submitted.\n(86)\nIn order to assess the impact of the possible maintenance of the measures, all interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known pursuant to Article 21(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(87)\nIt should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was considered not to be contrary to the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place, allows the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.\n2. Interest of the Union industry\n(88)\nThe Union industry has proven to be a structurally viable industry. This was confirmed by the positive development of its economic situation observed after the imposition of anti-dumping measures in 2001. In particular, the Union industry improved its profit situation between 2005 and the RIP considerably and restructured itself successfully.\n(89)\nIt can thus reasonably be expected that the Union industry will continue to benefit from the measures currently imposed and further recover by maintaining and stabilising its profitability. Should the measures not be maintained, it is likely that increased imports at dumped prices from the country concerned will occur, thereby causing injury to the Union industry by exerting a downward pressure on sale prices which will negatively affect its currently positive financial situation.\n3. Interest of importers\n(90)\nAs mentioned in recital 14, no importer indicated its willingness to be included in the sample and to provide the basic information required in the sampling form. It is recalled that in previous investigations it was found that the impact of the imposition of measures would not be significant because, as a rule, importers do not only deal in AN but also, to a significant extent, in other fertilisers. The lifting of anti-dumping measures on other fertilisers can only reinforce the foregoing. In that context, anti-dumping measures applicable on imports of urea originating in Russia and in Belarus, Croatia, Libya and Ukraine were lifted in August 2007 and March 2008 respectively (13). However, in the absence of cooperation from importers and thus of any conclusive evidence allowing to assess any significant negative consequences, it was concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.\n(91)\nThere is no reliable information available indicating that the maintenance of the measures will have a significant negative effect on importers or traders.\n4. Interest of users\n(92)\nThe users of AN in the Union are farmers. In the original investigation, it was concluded that given the small incidence of AN on the farmers\u2019 activity, any increase in these costs was unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on them.\n(93)\nWithin the present investigation two farmer associations submitted comments advocating for the termination of the measures. They mainly claimed that the Common Agricultural Policy reform of 2003 reduced the use of market intervention mechanisms and broke the link between Union support and production. Consequently, this process of liberalisation forced Union farmers to operate at world market conditions. Only the free choice of AN suppliers could prevent prices of farm products from increasing substantially.\n(94)\nHowever, the possible continuation of the current anti-dumping measures will not prevent users from freely choosing their AN suppliers, but it will maintain a fair level playing field in the Union market where effective competition will be enhanced. Therefore, based on the above, it can be concluded that the continuation of the anti-dumping measures against Ukraine will not have significant adverse effects on the users of the product concerned.\n5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(95)\nGiven the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.\nH. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(96)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure. The comments made were taken duly into consideration where warranted.\n(97)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for in Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of AN originating in Ukraine should be maintained. It is recalled that these measures consist of specific duties.\n(98)\nAs indicated in recital 28, the Ukrainian import prices for natural gas have shown convergence with gas prices prevailing on the Union market in the last quarter of the RIP. Therefore, the potentially injurious effects of dumping may be affected by the impact on export prices of the production cost increases caused by the evolution of domestic gas prices should the latter prove to be of a lasting nature. Therefore, it is considered prudent to limit the maintenance of the measures to two years.\n(99)\nThe undertakings accepted by Commission Decision 2008/577/EC (14) remain in force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, currently falling within CN codes 3102 30 90, 3102 40 90, ex 3102 29 00, ex 3102 60 00, ex 3102 90 00, ex 3105 10 00, ex 3105 20 10, ex 3105 51 00, ex 3105 59 00 and ex 3105 90 91, and originating in Ukraine.\n2. The rate of this anti-dumping duty shall be a fixed amount of euro per tonne as shown below:\nProduct description\nCN code\nTARIC code\nAmount of duty\n(Euro per tonne)\nAmmonium nitrate other than in aqueous solutions\n3102 30 90\n-\n33,25\nMixtures of ammonium nitrate with calcium carbonate or other inorganic non-fertilising substances, with a nitrogen content exceeding 28 % by weight\n3102 40 90\n-\n33,25\nDouble salts and mixtures of ammonium sulphate and ammonium nitrate - Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight\n3102 29 00\n10\n33,25\nDouble salts and mixtures of calcium nitrate and ammonium nitrate - Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight\n3102 60 00\n10\n33,25\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight\n3102 90 00\n10\n33,25\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, with no phosphorus and no potassium content\n3105 10 00\n10\n33,25\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or a potassium content evaluated as K2O of less than 3 % by weight\n3105 10 00\n20\n32,25\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 3 % by weight or more but less than 6 % by weight\n3105 10 00\n30\n31,25\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 6 % by weight or more but less than 9 % by weight\n3105 10 00\n40\n30,26\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 9 % by weight or more but not exceeding 12 % by weight\n3105 10 00\n50\n29,26\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and a potassium content evaluated as K2O of less than 3 % by weight\n3105 20 10\n30\n32,25\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 3 % by weight or more but less than 6 % by weight\n3105 20 10\n40\n31,25\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 6 % by weight or more but less than 9 % by weight\n3105 20 10\n50\n30,26\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 9 % by weight or more but not exceeding 12 % by weight\n3105 20 10\n60\n29,26\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of less than 3 % by weight\n3105 51 00\n10\n32,25\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 3 % by weight or more but less than 6 % by weight\n3105 51 00\n20\n31,25\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 6 % by weight or more but less than 9 % by weight\n3105 51 00\n30\n30,26\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 9 % by weight or more but not exceeding 10,40 % by weight\n3105 51 00\n40\n29,79\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of less than 3 % by weight\n3105 59 00\n10\n32,25\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 3 % by weight or more but less than 6 % by weight\n3105 59 00\n20\n31,25\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 6 % by weight or more but less than 9 % by weight\n3105 59 00\n30\n30,26\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 9 % by weight or more but not exceeding 10,40 % by weight\n3105 59 00\n40\n29,79\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a potassium content evaluated as K2O of less than 3 % by weight\n3105 90 91\n30\n32,25\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 3 % by weight or more but less than 6 % by weight\n3105 90 91\n40\n31,25\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 6 % by weight or more but less than 9 % by weight\n3105 90 91\n50\n30,26\nSolid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, and a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 9 % by weight or more but not exceeding 12 % by weight\n3105 90 91\n60\n29,26\n3. In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (15), the amount of anti-dumping duty, calculated on the amounts set above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Notwithstanding Article 1, the definitive anti-dumping duty shall not apply to imports released for free circulation in accordance with the subsequent paragraphs of this Article.\n2. Imports of solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight originating in Ukraine, falling within CN codes 3102 30 90, 3102 40 90, ex 3102 29 00, ex 3102 60 00, ex 3102 90 00, ex 3105 10 00, ex 3105 20 10, ex 3105 51 00, ex 3105 59 00 and ex 3105 90 91 for release into free circulation which are invoiced by the exporting producer from which undertaking is accepted by the Commission and whose name is listed in the Commission Decision 2008/577/EC, as from time to time amended, shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1, on condition that:\n-\nthey are manufactured, shipped and invoiced directly by the exporting producer to the first independent customer in the Union, and,\n-\nsuch imports are accompanied by an undertaking invoice, which is a commercial invoice containing at least the elements and the declaration stipulated in the Annex to this Regulation, and,\n-\nthe goods declared and presented to customs correspond precisely to the description on the undertaking invoice.\n3. A customs debt shall be incurred at the time of acceptance of the declaration for release into free circulation:\n-\nwhenever it is established, in respect of imports described in paragraph 2, that one or more of the conditions listed in that paragraph are not fulfilled, or\n-\nwhen the Commission withdraws its acceptance of the undertaking pursuant to Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation in a Regulation or Decision which refers to particular transactions and declares the relevant undertaking invoices invalid.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. It shall remain in force for a period of two years.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 14 June 2010.", "references": ["99", "59", "42", "76", "51", "67", "66", "17", "38", "50", "55", "21", "24", "75", "4", "18", "70", "81", "14", "69", "39", "62", "53", "3", "31", "98", "27", "32", "95", "63", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "91", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 569/2012\nof 28 June 2012\ntemporarily suspending customs duties on imports of certain cereals for the 2012/2013 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO Regulation\u2019) (1), and in particular Article 187 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to promote the supply of cereals on the Community market during the last six months of the 2011/2012 marketing year, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1350/2011 (2) suspended customs duties for the import tariff quotas for common wheat of low and medium quality and feed barley opened by Commission Regulations (EC) No 1067/2008 (3) and (EC) No 2305/2003 (4) respectively, until 30 June 2012.\n(2)\nOn the basis of communications made in accordance with Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003, by means of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 20/2012 (5), with effect from 13:00 Brussels time on 6 January 2012, the Commission suspended issue of the import licences for barley from the quota referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 for the current quota period.\n(3)\nThe outlook for the cereals market for the start of the next marketing year (2012/2013) would suggest that prices will remain high, given the low stock levels and current estimates from the Commission regarding the quantities which will actually be available under the 2012 harvest. In order to make it easier to maintain a flow of imports conducive to EU market equilibrium, there is a need to ensure continuity in cereal imports policy by keeping the temporary suspension of customs duties on imports of common wheat during the 2012/2013 marketing year until 31 December 2012 for the import tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008. Given that the issue of import licences for barley has been suspended until 31 December 2012, the suspension of customs duties for this product during the same period becomes unnecessary.\n(4)\nMoreover, traders should not be penalised in cases where cereals are en route for importation into the Union. Therefore, the time required for transport should be taken into account and traders allowed to release cereals for free circulation under the customs-duty suspension regime provided for in this Regulation, for all products whose direct transport to the Union has started at the latest on 31 December 2012. The evidence to be provided showing direct transport to the Union and the date on which the transport commenced should also be established.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure for issuing import licences as from 1 July 2012, this Regulation should enter into force on the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(6)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The application of customs duties on imports of common wheat falling within CN code 1001 99 00, of a quality other than high quality as defined in Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 (6), shall be suspended for the 2012/2013 marketing year for all imports under the reduced-duty tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008.\n2. Where the cereals referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article undergo direct transport to the Union and such transport began at the latest by 31 December 2012, the suspension of customs duties under this Regulation shall continue to apply for the purposes of the release into free circulation of the products concerned.\nProof of direct transport to the Union and of the date on which the transport commenced shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities, by the original transport document.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2012.", "references": ["94", "54", "24", "16", "42", "45", "36", "11", "38", "43", "76", "88", "87", "96", "74", "9", "28", "59", "39", "41", "50", "32", "0", "86", "37", "33", "67", "48", "14", "84", "No Label", "21", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1108/2011\nof 28 October 2011\nderogating from Regulations (EC) No 2058/96, (EC) No 2305/2003, (EC) No 969/2006, (EC) No 1918/2006, (EC) No 1964/2006, (EC) No 1067/2008 and (EC) No 828/2009 as regards the dates for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences in 2012 under tariff quotas for cereals, rice, sugar and olive oil and derogating from Regulations (EC) No 382/2008, (EC) No 1518/2003, (EU) No 1178/2010, (EU) No 90/2011 and (EC) No 951/2006 as regards the dates for issuing export licences in 2012 in the beef and veal, pigmeat, eggs, poultrymeat and out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose sectors\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/96 of 18 June 1996 on the implementation of the concessions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in the wake of the conclusion of the GATT XXIV.6 negotiations (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (2), and in particular Articles 61, 144(1), 148, 156 and 161(3), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements (3), and in particular Article 9(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences from 1 January 2009 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007 (4), and in particular Article 11(7) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 of 30 October 2008 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for common wheat of a quality other than high quality from third countries and derogating from Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (5), Commission Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 of 29 December 2003 opening and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for imports of barley from third countries (6) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 of 29 June 2006 opening and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for imports of maize from third countries (7) lay down specific provisions for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences for common wheat of a quality other than high quality under quotas 09.4123, 09.4124 and 09.4125, for barley under quota 09.4126 and for maize under quota 09.4131.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2058/96 of 28 October 1996 opening and providing for the management of a tariff quota for broken rice of CN code 1006 40 00 for production of food preparations of CN code 1901 10 (8) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1964/2006 of 22 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the opening and administration of an import quota for rice originating in Bangladesh, pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3491/90 (9) lay down specific provisions for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences for broken rice under quota 09.4079 and for rice originating in Bangladesh under quota 09.4517.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 828/2009 of 10 September 2009 laying down detailed rules of application for the marketing years 2009/2010 to 2014/2015 for the import and refining of sugar products of tariff heading 1701 under preferential agreements (10) lays down specific provisions for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences under quotas 09.4221, 09.4231 and 09.4241 to 09.4247.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 of 20 December 2006 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quota for olive oil originating in Tunisia (11) lays down specific provisions for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences for olive oil under quota 09.4032.\n(5)\nIn view of the public holidays in 2012, derogations should be made, at certain times, from Regulations (EC) Nos 2058/96, 2305/2003, 969/2006, 1918/2006, 1964/2006, 1067/2008 and 828/2009 as regards the dates for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences in order to ensure compliance with the quota volumes in question.\n(6)\nThe second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 of 21 April 2008 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector (12), Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1518/2003 of 28 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the pigmeat sector (13), Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2010 of 13 December 2010 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the egg sector (14) and Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 90/2011 of 3 February 2011 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the poultrymeat sector (15) provide that export licences are to be issued on the Wednesday following the week in which the licence applications were lodged, unless the Commission has taken any particular measures in the meantime.\n(7)\nArticle 7d(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (16) lays down that export licences for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose are to be issued from the Friday following the week during which the licence applications were lodged, unless the Commission has taken any particular measures in the meantime.\n(8)\nIn view of the public holidays in 2012 and the resulting impact on the publication of the Official Journal of the European Union, the period between the lodging of applications and the day on which the licences are to be issued will be too short to ensure proper management of the market. That period should therefore be extended.\n(9)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1000/2010 (17) derogating from certain Regulations as regards the dates for lodging applications and issuing import and export licences in 2011 should therefore be repealed.\n(10)\nThe measures set out in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nCereals\n1. By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008, for 2012, import licence applications for common wheat of a quality other than high quality under quotas 09.4123, 09.4124 and 09.4125 may no longer be lodged after 13:00 (Brussels time) on Friday 14 December 2012.\n2. By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003, for 2012, import licence applications for barley under quota 09.4126 may no longer be lodged after 13:00 (Brussels time) on Friday 14 December 2012.\n3. By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 969/2006, for 2012, import licence applications for maize under quota 09.4131 may no longer be lodged after 13:00 (Brussels time) on Friday 14 December 2012.\nArticle 2\nRice\n1. By way of derogation from the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2058/96, for 2012, import licence applications for broken rice under quota 09.4079 may no longer be lodged after 13:00 (Brussels time) on Friday 7 December 2012.\n2. By way of derogation from the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1964/2006, for 2012, import licence applications for rice originating in Bangladesh under quota 09.4517 may no longer be lodged after 13:00 (Brussels time) on Friday 7 December 2012.\nArticle 3\nSugar\nBy way of derogation from Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 828/2009, applications for import licences for sugar products under quotas 09.4221, 09.4231 and 09.4241 to 09.4247 may not be lodged from 13:00 (Brussels time) on Friday 14 December 2012 until 13:00 (Brussels time) on Friday 28 December 2012.\nArticle 4\nOlive oil\nBy way of derogation from Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006, import licences for olive oil applied for during the periods referred to in Annex I to this Regulation shall be issued on the corresponding dates specified therein, subject to measures adopted pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006.\nArticle 5\nLicences for exports of beef and veal, pigmeat, eggs and poultrymeat attracting refunds\nBy way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 382/2008, Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1518/2003, Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1178/2010 and Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 90/2011, export licences applied for during the periods referred to in Annex II to this Regulation are issued on the corresponding dates specified therein, taking account where applicable of the specific measures referred to in Article 12(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 382/2008, Article 3(4) and (4a) of Regulation (EC) No 1518/2003, Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1178/2010 and Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 90/2011, taken before those issue dates.\nArticle 6\nOut-of-quota sugar and isoglucose\nBy way of derogation from Article 7d(1) of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, export licences for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose for which applications are lodged during the periods referred to in Annex III to this Regulation shall be issued on the corresponding dates specified therein taking account where applicable of the specific measures referred to in Article 9(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, taken before those issue dates.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 October 2011.", "references": ["29", "5", "72", "0", "6", "26", "19", "43", "46", "54", "85", "18", "3", "67", "42", "88", "28", "16", "78", "50", "52", "66", "41", "97", "24", "95", "2", "33", "84", "75", "No Label", "21", "22", "68", "69", "70", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68", "69", "70", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 875/2011\nof 31 August 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 August 2011.", "references": ["15", "59", "54", "12", "44", "58", "67", "45", "16", "94", "37", "13", "47", "40", "93", "7", "26", "63", "30", "1", "72", "0", "25", "96", "78", "27", "14", "8", "79", "65", "No Label", "21", "83"], "gold": ["21", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 510/2010\nof 14 June 2010\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cargo scanning systems originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2), (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROVISIONAL MEASURES\n(1)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 1242/2009 (3) (\u2018the provisional Regulation\u2019) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain cargo scanning systems originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 2 February 2009 by Smiths Detection Group Limited (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of a producer representing more than 80 % of the total Union production of certain cargo scanning systems. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n2. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE\n(3)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (\u2018provisional disclosure\u2019), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard.\n(4)\nThe Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. In particular, the Commission continued its investigation with respect to EU consumption aspects. In this respect, the Commission contacted interested parties, notably users as well as producers of the product concerned, with a view to verify claims made by the parties with respect to a series of transactions.\n(5)\nIt is recalled that, as set out in recital (9) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2007 to 31 December 2008 (\u2018the investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2004 to the end of the investigation period (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n(6)\nThe sole cooperating Chinese exporting producer (the \u2018Chinese producer\u2019) argued that there is no justification for the use of an IP of 18 months instead of the 12 months normally used in anti-dumping investigations. According to the Chinese producer, the IP should have simply covered the 2008 calendar year.\n(7)\nAt the outset it should be noted that the Chinese producer had not disputed the use of an IP of 18 months during the provisional stage of the investigation. The claim was only made after the adoption of provisional measures. However, the IP was already announced in the notice of initiation of the proceeding and in the questionnaires, i.e. at the very beginning of the investigation. The specific reasons for selecting an IP of 18 months have been explained in recital (9) of the provisional Regulation. The party did not provide any arguments that put into question the justification concerning the existence of relatively few transactions in this market.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure full comparability of the figures relating to the IP with those relating to previous years, any figures given in the parts on injury and causation given for the IP have been annualised.\n(9)\nThe Chinese producer also claimed that the selection of the IP was made in order to manipulate injury factors. The allegation has to be rejected.\n(10)\nThe Commission was not and could not have been aware at the starting point of the investigation of the complex set of data and figures related to injury indicators at the beginning of the investigation. These data were only established in the course of the investigation.\n(11)\nIt should finally be noted that it is not the first time that an IP is set for a period longer than 12 months (e.g. the 16 months IP on calcium metal originating in the PRC and Russia set by Commission Regulation (EC) No 892/94 (4) or the 18 month IP on disodium carbonate originating in the USA set by Commission Regulation (EC) No 823/95 (5)).\n(12)\nThe Chinese producer also submitted that the signature of the contract captures all transactions at a certain point in time regardless as to whether a sale is made through a tendering process and thus there is no need for an extended IP. This argument is not convincing because it does not address the basic problem of the relatively few number of transactions in this market. The date of signature of the contract was used only in order to have sufficiently clear knowledge of the material elements of the sales as well as to have a well defined date in order to distinguish what should be part of the IP and the preceding periods respectively and what should be left out.\n(13)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the IP, recital (9) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n(14)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain cargo systems originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.\n(15)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.\n3. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(16)\nFollowing provisional measures, the product definition was revisited in light of the comments by the Chinese producer and a detailed examination of the claims made by the Union industry. This process has led to the conclusion that no alpha or beta technology product can be used for cargo scanning. Therefore, it is considered warranted to exclude these two types of technologies from the product scope. No other representation was submitted that could put into doubt the provisional findings that all the remaining technologies (apart from alpha and beta) covered by the product scope can be used in cargo scanners and all product types serve the same purpose, namely to scan cargo by using the same main principal feature, i.e. the emission of radiation concentrated in scanning cargo. Indeed, during the IP, gamma-based units of the product concerned were sold in the EU.\n(17)\nIn view of the above, it is concluded that all types of systems for scanning of cargo, based on the use of neutron technology or based on the use of X-rays with an X-ray source of 250 KeV or more or based on the use of gamma radiations, currently falling within CN codes ex 9022 19 00, ex 9022 29 00, ex 9027 80 17 and ex 9030 10 00 and motor vehicles equipped with such systems currently falling within CN code ex 8705 90 90 share the same basic physical and technical characteristics, have the same basic end-uses and compete with one another on the Union market. On this basis, the conclusions in recitals (10) to (15) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed to the extent they do not refer to alpha and beta radiation technologies.\n(18)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the like product, recital (16) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n(19)\nIn view of the above, it is definitively concluded that all types of cargo scanning systems as defined above are alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n4. DUMPING\n1. Market economy treatment (MET)\n(20)\nThe Chinese producer did not claim market economy treatment (\u2018MET\u2019) and only requested individual treatment (\u2018IT\u2019). In the absence of any comments, recitals (19) and (20) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. Individual treatment (IT)\n(21)\nIn the absence of any comments on IT, recitals (21) to (25) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. Normal value\n3.1. Analogue country\n(22)\nNo party disputed the selection of the United States of America (USA) as an analogue country.\n(23)\nThe Chinese producer reiterated its comments on the non-cooperation of one company, established in the United States of America (\u2018US\u2019), related to the complainant. It argued that the complainant used data relating to its related company in the US to compute the normal value in the complaint, whereas during the investigation the complainant submitted that its related US company was not a producer of the like product. The Chinese exporting producer submitted that the US related party of the complainant should have been obliged to cooperate with the investigation and failure to do so should be considered as a reason to treat the complainant as non-cooperator and thus terminate the proceeding. It was also argued that the Commission should have clarified and verified whether the US company is a producer of the like product. Finally, the Chinese exporting producer disputed the use of the EU\u2019s non preferential rules of origin as an indicator of whether an economic operator could be considered as a producer of a product.\n(24)\nWith respect to the comments relating to the use in the complaint of data derived from the complainant\u2019s related US company, it is noted that information on normal value in the complaint was based on general US prices which were publicly available on the US Government\u2019s GSA Advantages website. For two product types of the like product there were no such publicly available prices and the normal value had therefore to be constructed by the complainant on the basis of information from its production costs in the EU adjusted to a US level based on the complainant\u2019s knowledge of the US market.\n(25)\nFurthermore, the Chinese producer did not provide any evidence that could put into question the findings stated in recital (32) of the provisional Regulation.\n(26)\nEU anti-dumping law does not, in any event, contain a rule that a proceeding should be terminated because a producer in the analogue country has decided not to cooperate in the investigation. The fact that the producer is related to the complainant does not alter this conclusion. Moreover, the court case relied on by the Chinese producer, i.e. T-249/06 (Interpipe), is irrelevant in this context because in that case, the question at issue was to what extent a subsidiary of the Community producer was obliged to cooperate for the purposes of the injury determination. This is different to the submission of data in order to establish normal value in the analogue country.\n(27)\nWith respect to the argument put forward on the definition of the concept of a producer, it is noted that the investigation has established that the complainant is producing the like product in the EU and this manufacturing activity confers origin in line with the EU non-preferential rules of origin. No need exists by law to provide any conclusion with respect to the status of legal entities that are not under investigation in the current proceeding, are not established in the EU or the data of which was not used during the investigation for the establishment of any finding.\n(28)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the selection of the analogue country, recitals (26) to (37) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.2. Determination of normal value\n(29)\nIt is recalled that the normal value was calculated on the basis of the data provided by the sole cooperating producer in the analogue country (i.e. United States of America) and the Union industry. Thus, for one product type imported in the EU, normal value was established on the basis of prices of domestic sales of the US producer of the like product produced in the US. The cooperating US producer did not produce any other product types which could be compared to the product types imported from China into the EU. In order to have a broader basis for normal value, the Commission also examined whether for other product types normal value could be established on any other basis, in line with the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation (\u2018any other reasonable basis\u2019). At the provisional stage, it was found that verified information on costs of the Union industry could be used for some product types.\n(30)\nFollowing the imposition of provisional measures, the Chinese producer submitted comments with regard to the normal value.\n(31)\nThe Chinese producer claimed that the normal value should be adjusted downwards by an amount representing the cost difference between self-produced and externally purchased accelerators, since the Chinese company produces accelerators while the US producer and the Union industry purchases them.\n(32)\nAs regards this claim, it should be noted that it was not accompanied by any factual evidence, despite the fact that the Commission requested such evidence in the course of the investigation.\n(33)\nThe Chinese producer requested the Commission to provide the exact specification of the specific model types used for the normal value calculation. In this respect it is noted that the Union industry and the analogue country producer consider this type of information as confidential. Indeed, if one disclosed the exact name of models, account taken of the fact that the models belonged only to one series and that the specific features of this series were already disclosed, and that only a limited number of model types were used for the purpose of normal value calculations, then parties receiving such disclosure would be able to derive the actual prices charged for the specific model types or the cost and prices on the basis of which normal value was constructed for various model types. Such information is indeed confidential by nature and therefore this request had to be rejected.\n(34)\nThe Chinese producer expressed doubts on the way the Commission determined the normal value derived from Union industry data. It submitted that actual sales prices should be used rather than price offers for tenders. Firstly, it is pertinent to recall that data from the Union industry were used in order to have a higher percentage of representativity of the comparison between normal value and the export sales made by the Chinese producer. Therefore, to the extent possible, for the types of product concerned for which no normal value could be established on the basis of information available in the US, normal value was established on the basis of verified information from the Union industry for the same types of products that were imported from China.\n(35)\nThus, normal value was constructed for a number of product types (in any event other than mobile scanning systems) on the basis of standard costs, without taking into consideration any civil works or other on-site costs, and by adding a normal percentage for profit which was in any event significantly lower than the target profit used for the determination of the injury margin. The investigation established that the Union industry applies standard costs for all types of products it offers. The records concerning the preparation of these standard costs, the way they are calculated and their comparison to the real cost in standard costing were verified and found to be in order.\n(36)\nFurthermore, the cost structure of the Union industry was compared with the cost structure of the US producer of the like product. It was found that (i) the profit margin of the US producer was higher than the profit margin used to construct normal value on the basis of data from the Union industry and (ii) the cost structure of the Union industry is broadly similar to the one of the analogue country producer (the exact difference cannot be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality). Thus, the use of Union industry data to determine normal value is clearly in line with the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(37)\nThe Chinese producer also commented on the public tender on the basis of which the US producer of the like product sold mobile cargo scanning systems on the US market. It claimed that if the Commission used a normal value on the basis of a tender that took place in 2005 and compared it with the export price relating to the IP, then such comparison could not be considered to be fair. This allegation is not borne out by the facts established in the investigation. In the US, public tenders are organised to award a framework contract under which the winner of the tender can sell for a certain period of time. The framework contract did not, however, contain any prices. Such contract was indeed concluded in 2005, but the respective individual quotes for tender and signing of contracts took place in 2007, i.e. already within the IP. Therefore the Commission was satisfied that this tender should be taken into account in the IP and form part of the data for calculating the dumping margin.\n(38)\nThe Chinese producer also requested clarification as to why the normal value for the relocatable system, like the one it sold in Latvia, was not derived from the US producer\u2019s sales but rather from Union industry data. To this respect it is noted that the Commission could not use data in the analogue country because such data had not been available from the cooperating analogue country producer.\n(39)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals (38) to (42) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4. Export price\n(40)\nFollowing the imposition of provisional measures, the Chinese producer submitted comments concerning the export price.\n(41)\nThese comments were made in relation to transactions in the Netherlands, Finland and Poland with respect to specific cost items. The comments which could be corroborated with verified data were accepted and the calculation of the dumping margin was revised accordingly. Comments referring to some installation costs had to be rejected. In this respect it is recalled that, although relevant actual data on the price of different elements of the product concerned was requested at various stages of the investigation, the company never made any attempt to provide any proposal for a conclusive break-down. The amounts provided subsequent to the disclosure of the provisional findings constitute new information, unsupported by accounting information or other evidence that could be verified.\n(42)\nThe Chinese producer also clarified that it made one sale outside public tenders. This representation is confirmed. Nevertheless, the investigation established that this sale was not a sale that occurred in the normal course of business. It was in fact a replacement product and the price to which it refers was agreed a number of years before the IP. The replacement product was of a completely different type as the original product. Therefore, this was not a transaction falling in the IP but a settlement of a contract concluded previously. Thus, the export price relating to this transaction could not be retained in the calculation.\n(43)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals (43) to (46) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5. Comparison\n(44)\nThe Chinese producer claimed that the comparison was made on the basis of truncated product control numbers that ignore the physical differences between the products to be compared. Moreover, the Chinese company submitted that accelerators, differences in types of chassis and energy levels should have been taken into consideration on price comparison.\n(45)\nAs regards the first claim the following points should be highlighted: with respect to data derived from the Union industry, it is recalled that calculations were made with data directly linked to respective bids in public tenders, i.e. for product types that competed at the same level of trade at the same time and that were considered by the tendering authorities as being comparable. As to data derived from the US producer of the like product, the investigation established that the product type compared fulfilled the strict rules set out under Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation, i.e. it is a product alike in all respects to the product under consideration. Therefore, the fact that not all physical differences are reflected in a product control number or a truncated product control number does not prevent the Commission from making a fair comparison between normal value and export price. More importantly, differences that could affect price comparability were looked at. The information on file indicates that products delivered by the cooperating Chinese exporting producer often contain additional features as compared to those used as a basis for normal value. As a result, the normal value has been established conservatively.\n(46)\nWith respect to the accelerators, types of chassis and energy levels, it should be noted that the requested adjustments fall under Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation but the differences in factors claimed have not been demonstrated to affect price and price comparability since no information was provided by the Chinese producer that could warrant an adjustment.\n(47)\nThe Chinese producer submitted that the accelerator is an important component of the product concerned and should have been included in the product control number structure. The Commission did not include the accelerator in the product control number structure as none of the parties concerned presented any evidence that pointed to the fact that the accelerator was a factor distinguishing the different product types.\n(48)\nThe Chinese producer also requested identification and quantification of the adjustments made to the normal value in order to bring it back to an ex-works basis. Adjustments for warranty and credit costs were made to the normal value determined on the basis of the domestic sales prices of the sole US producer of the like product. Adjustments for transport costs, warranty costs, training costs, documentation costs and agent fees were made to the normal value determined on the basis of data of the Union industry. Concerning the request for quantification of these adjustments, the Commission is not able to disclose such data as this information is considered confidential by nature. It must be noted that, similarly, when calculating the ex-works export price, the corresponding data was not disclosed to the Union industry.\n(49)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals (47) and (48) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6. Dumping margins\n(50)\nThe Chinese producer criticised the fact that some sales were excluded from the dumping calculation. In this respect it is noted that the sales values of the transactions in question were originally considered for the establishment of the export prices. However, the normal value for these transactions could not be established. Thus, no comparison could be made between normal value and export price.\n(51)\nThe Chinese producer also claimed that the CIF values of the sales mentioned in recital (50) should have been included in the total CIF value which served as a denominator for the dumping calculations. This claim cannot be accepted. The calculation of a total dumping is the result of the division of the sum of the different dumping found (where a price comparison can be made) with the sum of the corresponding CIF values. The inclusion in the calculations of the CIF values of sales for which no comparison between normal value and export price could be made due to a lack of an established normal value, would cause an arithmetical flaw in these calculations as the nominator and the denominator would no longer refer to comparable transactions.\n(52)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals (49) and (50) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(53)\nTaking into account the above, the definitive dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price duty unpaid, is 38,8 %.\n5. INJURY\n(54)\nComments on the findings concerning injury were received only from the Chinese producer, some of which were a mere repetition of comments already addressed in the provisional Regulation.\n(55)\nArguments concerning comments already addressed in the provisional Regulation are not repeated in this Regulation.\n1. General remarks\n(56)\nIt is recalled that in this case the information presented refers to two Union producers and one exporting producer which represent essentially the Union market. Account taken of the above, no precise figures can be given in order to protect business proprietary information. Thus, indicators are given in indexed form or ranges.\n(57)\nIn its reply to the provisional disclosure, the Chinese producer requested that the injury analysis be presented on an annualised basis. Although this does not alter the substance of the data, but only its presentation, the claim was considered warranted and thus the analysis presented hereunder is annualised throughout.\n(58)\nThe Chinese producer disputed the data provided in the company specific provisional disclosure document on its sales volume for the period considered (from 2004 up to the end of the IP). It is noted that the Commission provided an exhaustive and complete break down to the Chinese producer of the compiled data. Feed-back received by the Chinese producer was consequently cross checked with the available information provided by the authorities of Member States as users of the product concerned and the producers in the Union. Therefore, at the definitive stage of the investigation the details concerning the Chinese sales to the Union and its respective impact were known.\n(59)\nThe Chinese producer argued that where there is no bid from the Union industry, its sales should be excluded from the injury and causation analysis. However it should be noted that the institutions cannot claim that the fact that, during the IP the Union industry did not bid in a specific tender but the Chinese exporting producer did, entailed a self-inflicted injury to such an extent that broke the causal link between injury and dumping. Moreover, to participate in a tender does not come without a cost (translations, agent, sometimes paying for the tendering, etc.) so companies do not bid if they are not sure that they have a chance.\n(60)\nIt was also claimed that where the complainant (Smiths Detection Group Limited) made offers exceeding the price ceiling specified in tenders, it should be excluded from the injury and causation analysis. Nevertheless, the investigation has not brought to light any verifiable information confirming that such offers existed.\n(61)\nThe Chinese producer submitted that there is an asymmetry of the injury data. This is because sales volumes, market share and profit refer to sales by contract date while certain other injury factors were derived from the financial accounting of the complainant and therefore may not correspond in time. At the beginning of this investigation, the Commission services had to set a clear-cut reference point for sales which would be applicable to all companies cooperating with the proceeding. It was decided that the contract date provided the best reference point because there is often a large time gap between tender initiation dates and the contract date, as well as between the contract date and the final invoice date. In addition, several invoices often cover a contract and a contract can cover several years.\n(62)\nHaving set the contract date as the reference point, it was not practicable to ask the Union producers to compile their entire questionnaire response on the basis of contract dates. To do so would have meant that they should have had to completely rework their accounting in a manner which is not normal practice and which would have introduced numerous ambiguities with the consequent negative impact on the quality of such information. Bearing in mind that it was not viable to use invoice dates as the reference point, the injury data was supplied in this case in the best manner possible for this product.\n(63)\nIn the course of month ten of the investigation i.e. in its provisional disclosure response, the Chinese producer also disputed the fact that the IP covered an 18-month period, stating that it should have been limited to the calendar year of 2008. This claim had to be rejected because of the reasons supporting an 18-month period as set out in the provisional Regulation and in recitals (5) to (11). Moreover, such change would have prevented the timely conclusion of the investigation because it would have meant asking all cooperating companies to re-submit their questionnaire responses on the basis of a revised IP.\n(64)\nThe Chinese producer also cast doubts as to whether the many EU companies related to the complainant were properly included in the Commission\u2019s injury analysis. However the verification of the complainant\u2019s questionnaire response was carried out with full cooperation of the entire group and the Commission was satisfied that the injury indicators and calculations were analysed properly for the entire group. As was clarified to the Chinese producer before the adoption of the provisional measures, the EU companies to which it refers play an insignificant role, if any, in the manufacturing and marketing of the relevant product. In fact, their role is limited to some functions referring to the sale of the product under investigation (e.g. servicing) and of products not falling within the scope of this Regulation.\n(65)\nThe Chinese producer finally claimed that, insofar as the Union industry could not meet the technical requirements of certain tenders or did not participate at all in the tenders, no dumping causing injury to the EU industry occurred for these transactions. This claim could not be accepted.\n(66)\nFirstly, it is noted that the fact that no normal value can be established for some export transactions does not put into question the finding of injurious dumping, as long as the basis for the calculation is considered as representative. This was certainly the case here (see recital (50)). For the specific transactions in question the following should be noted. The transaction referring to technical requirement problems concerns one product type sold on the basis of one tender. The Chinese producer, on the one hand, and the two Union producers on the other interpreted the tender quite differently. The Chinese producer claimed towards the end of the investigation that the product type in question was quite different from a mobile scanner while the Union industry was of a different opinion. It is therefore clear that Union industry participated in this tender with the fair belief that it should offer a specific product type. More importantly, its participation entailed costs (translations, agent, paying for the tendering etc.). Thus, the fact that the final conclusion of the tendering process was that the Union industry did not present a bid on the same terms does not imply that such imports have automatically not contributed to injury.\n(67)\nAs regards the remaining transactions the Chinese producer refers to a transaction not falling in the IP, which as explained in recital (42), is in fact a settlement of a contract concluded previously. It also referred to a transaction in which the Union industry did not participate to the tender. With respect to the former transaction, no finding with respect to injury was made. With respect to the latter transaction, the conclusions of recital (59) apply.\n2. Union production and Union industry\n(68)\nIn the course of month eleven of the investigation, a Romanian company came forward with the claim that it was an EU producer of certain cargo scanning systems during the IP. The Commission sought and verified information concerning the actual status of this company. According to information submitted both by the company and by other actors in this market, including the Chinese producer, this company\u2019s involvement in the like product is closely linked to the production activities of a well-established Union producer of cargo scanning systems. Consequently, in the context of the current investigation, the only sale made by the Romanian company during the IP is considered to have been made by the Union producer of cargo scanning systems it has worked with.\n(69)\nAs regards macroeconomic indicators such as consumption, production, capacity utilisation, stocks, sales volume, market share, employment, productivity and wages, as well as export sales, it should be noted that they have been analysed with respect to all Union producers.\n(70)\nIn the absence of any other comments, the findings set out in recitals (52) to (56) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. Union consumption\n(71)\nThe Chinese producer argued that the level of the Union consumption as set out in the provisional Regulation was not accurate. In this respect, the Commission contacted interested parties, notably users, with a view to collect further information on EU consumption during the period considered. On the basis of additional input provided by parties, it is considered that the EU consumption developed as follows:\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\nIP\nIndex: 2004 = 100\n100\n62\n114\n110\n111\nSource: Questionnaire replies and subsequent submissions.\n(72)\nThe consumption of the product concerned and the like product in the EU increased by 11 % during the period considered.\n(73)\nThe Chinese producer claimed that actual consumption data should be disclosed rather than indexed information. In this regard it is noted that, as has already been clearly explained in recital (54) of the provisional Regulation, there are a very limited number of parties involved in the production of certain cargo scanning systems in the EU and any disclosure of actual consumption data would lead to disclosure of actual sales of parties which is considered information that is confidential by nature.\n(74)\nIt was also submitted that consumption should take into account all units of the product concerned consumed on the EU market. In this regard it is noted that Union consumption figures take into consideration all sales of the product under investigation (whether they result from a tendering process or not) of all parties (to the extent known by the Commission). Data was cross checked and verified to the various sources available. However, the consumption figures only comprise actual sales and not the small number of transactions reported to the Commission which were either leased or donated. Had these transactions been included, the Chinese market share would have been even higher.\n(75)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals (57) and (58) of the provisional Regulation, as modified in recitals (71) to (74) above, are hereby confirmed.\n4. Imports from the country concerned\n(a) Volume, price and market share of dumped imports of the product concerned\n(76)\nAs explained in recitals (57) and (58), volumes and market share of dumped imports of the product concerned were revised. The annualisation of data and update of volumes confirmed the conclusions in the provisional Regulation that imports and their market share have increased significantly since 2004. The Chinese party questioned the methodology employed to index this data. It is important to highlight that the actual data used, however indexed, at both the provisional and definitive stages, shows a significant increase of volume and market share of imports from the country concerned.\n(77)\nThe volume of imports of the product concerned increased by more than 150 % during the period considered.\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\nIP\nVolume of imports\n100\n75\n250\n200\n267\nIndex: 2004 = 100\nSource: Questionnaire replies and subsequent submissions.\n(78)\nAs stated in recital 60 of the provisional Regulation, the average export price varied enormously according to the types of cargo scanner imported and no meaningful conclusions could be derived from this.\n(79)\nThe market share of the imports from the country concerned more than doubled in the period considered.\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\nIP\nPRC market share\n15-25 %\n20-30 %\n40-50 %\n30-40 %\n40-50 %\nIndex: 2004 = 100\n100\n121\n219\n183\n240\nSource: Questionnaire replies and subsequent submissions.\n(80)\nThe Chinese producer argued that post-IP volumes (in the form of tenders won during the IP that led to the signing of contracts after the IP) should also be examined. In accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, post-IP events are not taken into account, except in exceptional circumstances. The Chinese producer did not invoke such exceptional circumstances. Moreover, for reasons of comparability, it would have been necessary to also reallocate the sales in periods preceding the IP. The claim was therefore not accepted. Bearing in mind the increases of imports in terms of volume and market share shown above, this decision had in any event no impact on the factors examined in this case.\n(b) Undercutting\n(81)\nThe Chinese producer submitted that the undercutting methodology used at the provisional stage was flawed. In its view, it was not possible to compare its actual sales prices with the tender prices offered by the Union industry. In this respect it is noted that this methodology was considered to be the most appropriate because of the need for a fair comparison involving a product which is very complex in nature and involved in public procurement. No other viable methods were identified by the interested parties.\n(82)\nIt should be stated that although the methodology remained the same as described above, minor adjustments were made to the calculation which reduced the Union industry\u2019s prices and these were disclosed to the interested parties.\n(83)\nThe revised comparison shows that, during the IP, imports of the product concerned were sold in the Union at prices which undercut the Union industry\u2019s prices by a range of 15 to 20 %. It should be noted that the Chinese producer claimed in its submissions that one of the reasons why it won contracts was because it offered a superior product specification. In terms of undercutting (and underselling) this could have led to adjustments being made and higher injury margins being calculated. No such adjustment was made because this was not proven to be valid and there was no information to quantify them.\n(84)\nIn the absence of any other comments, the rest of the information in recitals (59) to (62) of the provisional Regulation, as modified in recitals (76) to (83) above, is hereby confirmed.\n5. Situation of the Union industry\n(85)\nIt should be noted that the data for the injury indicators are presented differently in the definitive Regulation to take account of two issues, as stated in recitals (57) and (69), namely the request of the Chinese producer to annualise data for the 18 months IP and the compilation in the analysis of the macro indicators of data derived from the second Union producer.\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\nIP\nProduction\n100\n75\n94\n173\n151\nCapacity\n100\n83\n90\n185\n200\nCapacity utilization\n100\n90\n104\n94\n76\nIndex: 2004 = 100\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(86)\nDuring the period considered, the Union industry\u2019s production volume increased by 51 %. This positive trend is mainly due to the good export sales of the like product. The Union industry doubled its production capacity over the period considered for the same reason. Capacity utilisation of the Union industry went down by 24 % during the period considered.\n(87)\nBearing in mind that the above figures relate to production, an important part of which is sold on markets outside the EU, it is not considered that these are important indicators in this case.\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\nIP\nStocks\n100\n164\n155\n127\n136\nIndex: 2004 = 100\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(88)\nThe Union industry\u2019s stock level showed an upward and fluctuating trend during the period considered. However, this was not considered to be an important indicator because this industry operates on a production to order basis, stocks are always kept to a very low level and an important part of these stocks was earmarked for the export market.\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\nIP\nUnion sales volume\n100\n67\n93\n100\n76\nMarket share\n65-75 %\n70-80 %\n55-65 %\n60-70 %\n45-55 %\nIndex of market share\n100\n108\n82\n91\n68\nIndex: 2004 = 100\nSource: Questionnaire replies and subsequent submissions.\n(89)\nSales of the Union industry decreased during the period considered and in the IP were almost 25 % less than their original volume. The Union industry lost around 20 percentage points of its market share between 2004 and the end of the IP.\n(90)\nThe findings as to sales prices in recital (69) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.\n(91)\nThe Chinese producer reiterated its request to receive information on public tenders awarded to the complainant and on the extent to which certain tenders were taken into account in the framework of this investigation. However, to give such level of detail was not deemed appropriate for reasons of confidentiality. It also sought further confirmation that the date of signature of sales contracts of tendering proceedings was used as the determining factor to calculate Union consumption. In this respect, the institutions confirm that the methodology explained in recital (57) of the provisional Regulation was used for all parties. The same party also sought clarification that the data of the complainant referred to both of its production sites. In this respect, as stated in recital (7)(a) of the provisional Regulation, it is confirmed that the data reported by the complainant was compiled from both of its production sites.\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\nIP\nPre-tax profit margin\n100\n85\n90\n7\n-50\nIndex: 2004 = 100\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(92)\nThe Union industry became loss-making during the period considered. The situation was particularly bad during the IP.\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\nIP\nInvestments\n100\n164\n100\n354\n105\nReturn on investment\n110-120 %\n85-95 %\n210-220 %\n215-225 %\n60-70 %\nCash flow\n100\n124\n257\n186\n-71\nIndex: 2004 = 100\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(93)\nInvestments remained low during the period considered. A major part of the investments was devoted to maintaining the Union industry\u2019s operating premises. The higher level of investment observed in 2007 concerns a new patent to improve the performance of the product concerned. It is recalled that this business is know-how intensive and not investment intensive.\n(94)\nThe return on investment, expressed in terms of net profits of the Union industry and the net book value of its investments, shows a drop during the period considered, but is not a good injury indicator because it mainly reflects assets that had already been depreciated.\n(95)\nThe cash flow situation of the Union industry deteriorated severely over the period considered.\n(96)\nBearing in mind that the production of cargo scanning systems constituted a small part of the complainant\u2019s activity, the ability to raise capital was not considered to be an important indicator in this case.\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\nIP\nEmployment\n100\n110\n129\n160\n167\nAverage labour cost per worker\n100\n98\n102\n106\n106\nProductivity per worker\n100\n68\n73\n109\n135\nIndex: 2004 = 100\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(97)\nThe employment, average labour cost per worker and productivity per worker increased during the period considered. However, these indicators are not considered to be important indicators in this case because much of the employment relates to production of certain cargo scanning systems sold on the export market.\n(98)\nThe findings of recital (76) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.\n(99)\nIn the absence of any other comments, the rest of the information in recitals (64) to (76) of the provisional Regulation, as modified in recitals (85) to (98) above, is hereby confirmed.\n6. Conclusion on injury\n(100)\nThe findings contained in the provisional Regulation regarding the varying degrees of importance of the injury indicators in this particular proceeding remain valid. The most important injury factors are considered to be profitability, market share and undercutting because they reflect directly the fortunes of the Union industry in relation to its activity on the Union market. The reasons why certain other indicators are not as relevant are explained above.\n(101)\nAs regards profitability, the Union industry has become loss making over the period considered and the market share of the Union producers has fallen by 24 %. Furthermore, the Chinese producer undercut the complainant by a range of 15 to 20 %.\n(102)\nIndeed, the Chinese market share of the product concerned in the Union increased by 140 % during the period considered while at the same time Union industry showed a significant decrease in sales volume (- 24 %) and market share (20 percentage points).\n(103)\nAs explained in the general remarks preceding this injury analysis, the data has been presented in a different way to the provisional Regulation. Clearly, whether the data is shown in an annualised format or not, does not change the substance of the data but only its presentation. However, the injury data presented above in respect of the macro indicators) also includes data of the second Union producer. It is thus concluded that the revised data shown above confirms the provisional injury conclusions, i.e. that an injurious situation existed during the period considered within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(104)\nAccount taken of the above, it is considered that the conclusions regarding the material injury suffered by the Union industry as set out in the provisional Regulation are not altered due to the change of presentation referred to in recital (85). In the absence of any other comments in this respect, recitals (77) to (80) of the provisional Regulation, as modified in recitals (100) to (103) above, are hereby confirmed.\n6. CAUSATION\n(105)\nComments on the findings concerning causation were received only from the Chinese producer.\n(106)\nIt is recalled that the effects of dumped imports and other factors have been annualised for the reasons explained in recital (85).\n1. Effects of the dumped imports\n(107)\nThe market share of the dumped imports increased by 140 % during the period considered, whilst the Union\u2019s industry market share decreased by 32 %. These negative changes for the Union industry occurred against the backdrop of the EU consumption that increased by 11 % between 2004 and the IP (annualised figure).\n2. Effects of other factors\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\nIP\nExport sales of Union production\n100\n93\n123\n245\n233\nExport sales price\n100\n107\n60\n63\n70\nIndex: 2004 = 100\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(108)\nThe export volume of the Union industry increased during the period considered. Exports represented the overwhelming majority (between 85 and 95 %) of the total volume of EU production in the IP.\n(109)\nThe Chinese producer suggested that the Commission failed to analyse imports from the US and that more cargo scanners were sold to the EU by US companies than by the PRC during the IP, but this claim is not supported by actual facts and concrete verifiable evidence.\n(110)\nFollowing provisional measures, the Commission actively sought to have more information on US imports but it finally confirmed the figures for the volume of imports from the US established at the provisional stage.\n(111)\nThe Chinese producer criticised the consequences of the non-participation in some tenders of the Union industry. In this respect, we note that the investigation took stock of the fact that not all parties (the Union industry, the Chinese producer, other producers of certain cargo scanning systems) presented offers to each and every tendering process. No compelling factor was found to suggest that the clearly observed injury during the period considered results from the Union industry not participating in bids that were not deemed reasonable business options. The existence of a reasonable business option as a determining factor in participating to a bid is confirmed by the fact that participation in a tender entails costs (translations, agent, sometimes paying for the tendering etc.) and companies do not bid if they are not sure that they have a chance.\n(112)\nThe Chinese producer insisted on claiming that the injurious effects of non-price related factors such as other technical factors should be further analysed under causation.\n(113)\nIndeed, the Union industry would have been technically able to match the same specifications as those of the Chinese product. However, this would have meant that the Union industry would have had to offer the product at a higher price. In fact, this issue reveals the full effect of the dumping of the Chinese producer. Part of the dumping is due to the fact that the Chinese producer simply offers a product with more features. Since Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (6) allows the application of two award criteria only: \u2018the lowest price\u2019 and \u2018the most economically advantageous tender\u2019, the contract had to be quasi automatically awarded to the Chinese producer engaged in dumping. The offers made by the Chinese producer would have no longer been economically advantageous if they had not been dumped, i.e. if they had at least been higher in order to reflect the additional features.\n(114)\nIt should finally be pointed out that the investigation showed that the complainant met all the technical specifications in tenders where both the complainant and the Chinese producer presented a bid on the same terms.\n(115)\nThe Chinese producer also claimed that there were cases where tenders were awarded to the Chinese producer in spite of the fact that it offered a higher price than the complainant. Thus, such transactions should be deemed not to have caused injury.\n(116)\nIn this respect, it should be noted that the investigation has established the existence of only one case of tendering process where at first sight it seems that the sole cooperating Chinese producer won a tender in spite of the fact that it offered a higher price than the complainant. However, the investigation revealed that in reality this was not the case because the offer made by the Chinese company included many additional features for the same price. If adjustments were to be made for all these additional features, the export price would have been lower entailing a higher dumping margin. No other verifiable information was presented to support the claim that other tenders existed where the Chinese company offered a higher price than the complainant.\n(117)\nThe Chinese producer submitted that the other Union producer engaged in predatory pricing thus causing material injury to the Union industry and that this party is not injured by imports from China because it has discontinued its active cooperation.\n(118)\nFirst of all, it is recalled that the other Union producer has provided information with respect to this proceeding and the injury analysis is assessed for the whole Union industry. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the claims of the Chinese producer on predatory pricing are not supported by any factual evidence and cannot undermine the findings of the investigation as presented at recital (89) of the provisional Regulation.\n3. Conclusion on causation\n(119)\nIn the absence of any other comments, recitals (81) to (95) of the provisional Regulation, as modified in recitals (105) to (118) above, are hereby confirmed.\n(120)\nIn the light of the above, the provisional finding that the material injury to the Union industry was caused by the dumped imports is confirmed.\n7. UNION INTEREST\n1. Interest of users\n(121)\nTwo users that had already sent representations at the provisional stage insisted on their initial comments. They highlighted their concerns about competition and technological developments, should definitive measures be imposed. Both concerns were, however, addressed in the provisional Regulation and nothing new was submitted that could confirm that competition and technological developments would be harmed, at least in the short- to medium-term, by the imposition of a definitive duty.\n2. Conclusion on Union interest\n(122)\nThe two representations above have not altered the provisional conclusions. In the absence of any other comments, recitals (96) to (113) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n8. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n1. Injury elimination level\n(123)\nThe sole cooperating Chinese exporting producer made comments on the underselling calculation. Where warranted, adjustments were made at the definitive stage.\n(124)\nThe Chinese producer submitted a claim in relation to the injury margin that was similar to that set out in recital (51) of this Regulation. This claim had to be rejected for the same reasons as those stated in recital (51).\n(125)\nThe Chinese producer also sought clarifications on the method used to set the pre-tax profit margin and, in particular, to which year this profit margin refers. In this respect, it is noted that the pre-tax profit setting was the result of an analysis of data referring to the financial years 2006 and 2007.\n(126)\nThe calculations made on the definitive dumping margin and the definitive injury elimination level led to the latter being lower than the former. In the absence of any other comments, recitals (114) to (117) of the provisional Regulation, as modified in recitals (123) to (126) of this Regulation, are hereby confirmed.\n2. Definitive measures\n(127)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level of the lowest of the dumping and injury margins found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule. In this case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the injury found. This was calculated at 34 % having fallen significantly since the provisional stage, when the duty rate was set at the level of the dumping found.\n(128)\nOn the basis of the above, the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty for the PRC is 34 %.\n(129)\nIn line with recital (120) of the provisional Regulation, for reasons of careful monitoring of the effectiveness of the measures, the relevant authorities of Member States are requested to provide to the Commission on a confidential and periodic basis information concerning EU public procurement proceedings leading to sales of cargo scanning systems.\n9. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY\n(130)\nIn view of the magnitude of the dumping margin found and given the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by the provisional Regulation should be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the duty definitively imposed by this Regulation. Since the definitive duty is lower than the provisional duty, the amounts secured in excess of the definitive duty rate shall be released,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on systems for the scanning of cargo, based on the use of neutron technology or based on the use of X-rays with an X-ray source of 250 KeV or more or based on the use of gamma radiations, currently falling within CN codes ex 9022 19 00, ex 9022 29 00, ex 9027 80 17 and ex 9030 10 00 (TARIC codes 9022190010, 9022290010, 9027801710 and 9030100091) and motor vehicles equipped with such systems currently falling within CN code ex 8705 90 90 (TARIC code 8705909010) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at- Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 shall be 34 %.\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nAmounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1242/2009 on imports of systems for the scanning of cargo, based on the use of neutron technology or based on the use of X-rays with an X-ray source of 250 KeV or more or based on the use of gamma radiations, currently falling within CN codes ex 9022 19 00, ex 9022 29 00, ex 9027 80 17 and ex 9030 10 00 (TARIC codes 9022190010, 9022290010, 9027801710 and 9030100091) and motor vehicles equipped with such systems currently falling within CN code ex 8705 90 90 (TARIC code 8705909010) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China shall be definitively collected at the rate of the definitive duty imposed pursuant to Article 1. The amounts secured in excess of the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty shall be released.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 14 June 2010.", "references": ["80", "44", "9", "85", "52", "37", "51", "92", "7", "3", "40", "98", "33", "99", "49", "39", "54", "27", "87", "86", "76", "16", "41", "73", "78", "17", "55", "45", "70", "1", "No Label", "22", "23", "42", "48", "53", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "42", "48", "53", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 145/2011\nof 17 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2011.", "references": ["60", "40", "46", "64", "65", "54", "34", "87", "2", "37", "8", "51", "67", "5", "85", "44", "55", "66", "73", "16", "36", "79", "9", "77", "11", "94", "28", "71", "83", "14", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 805/2012\nof 7 September 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 774/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 September 2012.", "references": ["73", "43", "25", "40", "65", "7", "28", "97", "31", "86", "67", "96", "56", "81", "30", "26", "12", "51", "39", "57", "54", "63", "52", "1", "14", "77", "94", "16", "79", "98", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 253/2011\nof 15 March 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XIII\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of 18 December 2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Article 131 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides that substances which are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) as well as substances which are very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex XIII may be included in Annex XIV in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 58. Furthermore, Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 establishes registration obligations of Union manufacturers or importers of substances on their own, in mixtures or articles, where, as part of the chemical safety assessment in accordance with Annex I, registrants have to do a PBT and vPvB assessment comprising, as a first step, a comparison with the criteria in Annex XIII to that Regulation.\n(2)\nArticle 138(5) of Regulation No 1907/2006 requires the Commission to review Annex XIII by 1 December 2008, in order to assess the adequacy of the criteria for identifying substances which are PBT or vPvB, with a view to proposing an amendment to it, if appropriate.\n(3)\nExperience at international level shows that substances with characteristics rendering them persistent, liable to bioaccumulate and toxic, or very persistent and very liable to bioaccumulate, present a very high concern. For that reason, the Commission has taken existing experience in the identification of these substances into account in the review of Annex XIII with a view to ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment.\n(4)\nThe review carried out by the Commission pursuant to Article 138(5) of Regulation No 1907/2006 has revealed that there is a need to amend Annex XIII to that Regulation.\n(5)\nExperience shows that, for the adequate identification of PBT and vPvB substances, all relevant information should be used in an integrated manner and applying a weight-of-evidence approach by comparing the information to the criteria set out in Section 1 of Annex XIII.\n(6)\nA weight-of-evidence determination is particularly relevant in cases where the application of the criteria set out in Section 1 of Annex XIII to the available information is not straightforward.\n(7)\nAccordingly, for the PBT and vPvB assessment of a substance in the framework of registration, registrants should consider all the information that is contained in the technical dossier.\n(8)\nIn cases where the technical dossier contains, for one or more endpoints, only limited information as required in Annexes VII and VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the available data may not allow to reach a definitive conclusion on the PBT or vPvB properties. In such cases, the relevant information available in the technical dossier should be used for screening for P, B, or T properties.\n(9)\nIn order to avoid unnecessary studies, only in cases where the screening assessment indicates a possible P, B, or T property, or a vP or vB property, the registrant should develop additional information or propose additional testing to conclude its PBT and vPvB assessment, unless the registrant implements or recommends sufficient risk management measures or operational conditions. For the same reason, registrants should not be required to develop additional information or propose additional testing if there is no indication of the P or B properties from the screening.\n(10)\nSince substances can have one or more constituents with PBT or vPvB properties, or can transform or degrade into products with such properties, the identification should also take account of the PBT/vPvB-properties of such constituents and transformation and/or degradation products.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 1907/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XIII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\n1. Registrations of substances under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and updates pursuant to Article 22 of that Regulation may be submitted in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation as from 19 March 2011 and shall comply with this Regulation from 19 March 2013.\n2. Registrations of substances under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 that are not in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation shall be updated in order to comply with this Regulation no later than 19 March 2013. Article 22(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 shall not apply to those updates.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 March 2011.", "references": ["8", "89", "53", "96", "14", "31", "56", "7", "88", "90", "69", "62", "43", "75", "80", "15", "33", "32", "86", "6", "55", "57", "16", "76", "26", "92", "2", "74", "59", "84", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "39", "58", "60", "83"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "39", "58", "60", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 920/2010\nof 7 October 2010\nfor a standardised and secured system of registries pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Article 19 thereof,\nHaving regard to Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (2), and in particular the first subparagraph, second sentence, Article 6(1) thereof,\nHaving consulted the European Data Protection Supervisor,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 6 of Decision No 280/2004/EC requires the Union and its Member States to apply the functional and technical specifications for data exchange standards for registry systems under the Kyoto Protocol, adopted by Decision 12/CMP.1 of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (hereinafter Decision 12/CMP.1), for the establishment and operation of registries and the CITL.\n(2)\nArticle 19(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC establishing greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (hereinafter ETS) requires that all allowances are held in the Union registry on accounts managed by the Member States. In order to ensure that Kyoto units and allowances can be held on the same Union registry accounts, the Union registry must also conform to the functional and technical specifications for data exchange standards for registry systems under the Kyoto Protocol, adopted by Decision 12/CMP.1,\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Directive 2003/87/EC requires that an independent transaction log (hereinafter European Union Transaction Log or EUTL) recording the issue, transfer and cancellation of allowances is established. Article 6(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC requires that information on the issue, holding, transfer, acquisition, cancellation and withdrawal of assigned amount units, removal units, emission reduction units and certified emission reductions and the carryover of assigned amount units, emission reduction units and certified emission reductions is made available to the transaction log.\n(4)\nArticle 19(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC requires that a regulation for a standardised and secured system of registries in the form of standardised electronic databases containing common data elements to track the issue, holding, transfer and cancellation of allowances, to provide for public access and confidentiality as appropriate and to ensure that there are no transfers which are incompatible with the obligations resulting from the Kyoto Protocol is drawn up.\n(5)\nEach registry established in accordance with Article 6 of Decision No 280/2004/EC should contain at least one Party holding account, one retirement account, and the cancellation and replacement accounts required pursuant to Decision 13/CMP.1 of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (hereinafter Decision 13/CMP.1), and the Union registry holding all allowances pursuant to Article 19 of Directive 2003/87/EC should contain management accounts and user accounts required to implement the requirements of that Directive. Each account should be created in accordance with standardised procedures to ensure the integrity of the registries system and public access to information held in this system.\n(6)\nEach registry established in accordance with Article 6 of Decision No 280/2004/EC should issue assigned amount units (hereinafter AAUs) pursuant to Decision 13/CMP.1, whereas allowances should be issued in the Union registry. Registries established in accordance with Article 6 of Decision No 280/2004/EC should ensure that they keep a deposit of AAUs that is equal to the amount of allowances issued by them in the Union registry in order to ensure that any transactions with allowances may be followed up with corresponding transfers of AAUs via a clearing mechanism at the end of each period.\n(7)\nAs Member States have no influence on the amount of allowances that account holders will choose to bank in their registries, any potential future international limitations on the banking of AAUs that serve as deposit for issued allowances would cause serious difficulties for those registries where a disproportionate number of such allowances are held. In order to ensure that the risks Member States face in this regard are shared equally among all Member States, the clearing mechanism should be set up in a way that upon its completion, an amount of AAUs is held in the Union registry's clearing account that is equal to allowances to be banked from the 2008-12 period.\n(8)\nTransactions with allowances within the Union registry should be carried out through a communication link involving the EUTL, whereas transactions with Kyoto units should be carried out through a communication link involving both the EUTL and the UNFCCC international transaction log (hereinafter ITL). Provisions should be adopted to ensure that Member States that are not able to issue AAUs under the Kyoto Protocol because they have no binding emission reduction commitment are able to continue their equal participation in the Union emissions trading system. Such participation would not be possible in the 2008-12 period as, unlike all other Member States, these Member States would not be able to issue allowances that are linked to AAUs recognised under the Kyoto Protocol. Such equal participation should be allowed through specific mechanisms within the Union registry.\n(9)\nThe EUTL should perform automated checks on all processes in the registries system concerning allowances, verified emissions, accounts and Kyoto units, and the ITL should perform automated checks on processes concerning Kyoto units to ensure that there are no irregularities. Processes that fail these checks should be terminated in order to ensure that transactions in the Union registries system comply with the requirements of Directive 2003/87/EC and the requirements elaborated pursuant to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.\n(10)\nAdequate and harmonised requirements on authentication and access rights should be applied to protect the security of information held in the integrated registries system and records concerning all processes, operators and persons in the registries system should be kept.\n(11)\nThe Central Administrator should ensure that interruptions to the operation of the registries system are kept to a minimum by taking all reasonable steps to ensure the availability of the Union registry and the EUTL and by providing for robust systems and procedures for the safeguarding of all information.\n(12)\nThe registry system should be able to accommodate the introduction of aviation into the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union from 1 January 2012 onwards. The majority of tasks emerging from the revision of the ETS, laid down in Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community (3), need to be fulfilled only from 1 January 2013 onwards. Those requirements are separate from the functionalities that need to be in place in 2012 due to the introduction of aviation activities into the ETS.\n(13)\nBecause aircraft operators are entitled to surrender a different set of allowances than operators of installations, aircraft operators should be provided a different type of account, the aircraft operator holding account. Allowances issued under the EU ETS Directive's Chapter II covering aviation are different from allowances issued heretofore, since they cover emissions that are for the most part not in the scope of the Kyoto Protocol. As such, they should be marked as different from other allowances.\n(14)\nDirective 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (4) required that Kyoto units or allowances backed by Kyoto units surrendered by aircraft operators shall only be retired up to the quantity equal to domestic aviation emissions. However, as Member States cannot influence the choice of aircraft operators as to whether they surrender Chapter II allowances or units that may be retired, a centralised surrendering and redistribution system should be set up that guarantees that units surrendered by aircraft operators that may be retired are collected and used first of all to cover the domestic aviation emissions of all the Member States in an equal way. Member States should decide at a later stage how to use any units thus collected that may be retired.\n(15)\nFor the purposes of implementing the ETS review and to accommodate the introduction of aviation in 2012, it is sufficient to merge on a technical level the current ETS registry functions of Member States and leave the technical implementation of Kyoto Protocol registry functions with separate Kyoto Protocol (hereinafter KP) registries operated by Member States.\n(16)\nTo implement the changes introduced by Directive 2009/29/EC and to accommodate the introduction of aviation activities into the ETS in 2012, it is sufficient to merge on a technical level the current ETS registry functions of Member States and leave the technical implementation of registry functions with separate registries operated by Member States for so long as this is necessary. However, such a solution would not be cost-effective, as it would require the maintenance in each Member State of extensive parallel information technology capacities that would be little used. Thus, it is the aim of the Commission and the Member States to work together towards the establishment of a \u2018Consolidated System of European Registries\u2019 that would unite the KP registry-related information technology functions of all Member States.\n(17)\nThe modalities determined in this Regulation for the accounting of allowances and Kyoto units and the possibility of setting up of the Consolidated System of European Registries is without prejudice to any future decision by the European Union concerning whether to commit to a joint Union emission reduction target or to separate Member State emission reduction targets under any future international climate change treaty.\n(18)\nAccording to Article 19(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC, there needs to be provision for processes for the change and incident management for the Union registry and appropriate modalities for the Union registry to ensure that initiatives of the Member States pertaining to efficiency improvement, administrative cost management and quality control measures are possible. The holding of all allowances in the Union registry should be without prejudice to the maintenance of national registries for emissions not covered by the ETS and the Union registry should provide the same quality of services as national registries.\n(19)\nAs since 2009, the occurrence of VAT-fraud, money laundering and other criminal activities has increased significantly throughout the registries system, there is a need to provide more detailed and robust rules on checking identity information provided by account holders and people requesting to open accounts. In addition, Member State authorities need to be enabled to refuse the opening of an account to those that can be reasonably suspected of wanting to use the registries system for fraudulent purposes. Finally, detailed rules shall be provided to enable the swift and effective provision of data to law enforcement agencies, which should then be able to use data thus obtained for investigation purposes.\n(20)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 994/2008 of 8 October 2008 for a standardised and secured system of registries pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) repealed and replaced Commission Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 of 21 December 2004 for a standardised and secured system of registries pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) 2012 onwards. As this Regulation substantially changes the provisions applicable from 1 January 2012 on several regulated areas, the interest of clarity requires that Regulation (EC) No 994/2008 is repealed and replaced in its entirety, while retaining the repeal and replace of Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 provided for in Regulation (EC) No 994/2008.\n(21)\nSince Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 will remain in force until the end of 2011, certain partial amendments of that Regulation are necessary with immediate effect. Those amendments relate to the fight against fraud and other criminal activities and the surrendering process. Obsolete provisions should also be deleted for the sake of clarity. Since the amendments related to anti-fraud activities and to the surrendering process should be applied as soon as possible, this Regulation should enter into force immediately following its publication.\n(22)\nRegulation (EC) No 2216/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly with immediate effect. That Regulation should be repealed as of 1 January 2012.\n(23)\nIn accordance with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (7) and Decision 13/CMP.1, specific reports should be made public on a regular basis to ensure that the public has access to information held within the integrated system of registries, subject to certain confidentiality requirements.\n(24)\nUnion legislation concerning the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, in particular Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (8), Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (9) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (10), should be respected where these are applicable to information held and processed pursuant to this Regulation.\n(25)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT MATTER AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down general as well as operational and maintenance requirements concerning the standardised and secured registries system consisting of registries, and the independent transaction log provided for in Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC and Article 6 of Decision No 280/2004/EC. It also provides for a communication system between the registries system and the International Transaction Log established, operated and maintained by the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions laid down in Article 3 of Directive 2003/87/EC shall apply. The following definitions shall also apply:\n1.\n\u2018account holder\u2019 means a person who holds an account in the registries system;\n2.\n\u2018Central Administrator\u2019 means the person designated by the Commission pursuant to Article 20 of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n3.\n\u2018competent authority\u2019 means the authority or authorities designated by a Member State pursuant to Article 18 of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n4.\n\u2018KP Party\u2019 means a Party to the Kyoto Protocol;\n5.\n\u2018trading platform\u2019 is any type of multilateral exchange that brings together or facilitates the bringing together of multiple third-party buying and selling interests as defined in Article 4 of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (11), where the interests bought and sold are in allowances or Kyoto units;\n6.\n\u2018verifier\u2019 means a verifier as defined in Annex I(5)(m) to Commission Decision 2007/589/EC (12);\n7.\n\u2018Assigned Amount Units\u2019 or \u2018AAUs\u2019 are units issued pursuant to Article 7(3) of Decision No 280/2004/EC;\n8.\n\u2018Chapter II allowances\u2019 are allowances issued under Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n9.\n\u2018Chapter III allowances\u2019 are all allowances not issued under Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n10.\n\u2018long-term CERs\u2019 or \u2018lCERs\u2019 are units issued for an afforestation or reforestation project activity under the CDM which, subject to Decision 5/CMP.1 of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, expires at the end of the emission reduction crediting period of the afforestation or reforestation project activity under the CDM for which it was issued;\n11.\n\u2018Removal Units\u2019 or \u2018RMUs\u2019 are units issued pursuant to Article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol;\n12.\n\u2018temporary CERs\u2019 or \u2018tCERs\u2019 are units issued for an afforestation or reforestation project activity under the CDM which, subject to Decision 5/CMP.1, expires at the end of the Kyoto Protocol commitment period following the one during which it was issued;\n13.\n\u2018process\u2019 means an automated technical means to carry out an action relating to an account or a unit in a registry;\n14.\n\u2018transaction\u2019 means a process that includes the transfer of an allowance or Kyoto unit from one account to another account;\n15.\n\u2018surrender\u2019 means the accounting of an allowance or a Kyoto unit by an operator or aircraft operator against the verified emissions of her installation or aircraft;\n16.\n\u2018cancellation\u2019 means the definitive disposal of a Kyoto unit by its holder without accounting it against verified emissions;\n17.\n\u2018deletion\u2019 means the definitive disposal of an allowance by its holder without accounting it against verified emissions;\n18.\n\u2018retirement\u2019 means the accounting of a Kyoto unit by a Party to the Kyoto Protocol against the reported emissions of that Party;\n19.\n\u2018money laundering\u2019 means the same as defined in Articles 1(2) of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (13);\n20.\n\u2018serious crime\u2019 means the same as defined in Article 3(5) of Directive 2005/60/EC;\n21.\n\u2018terrorist financing\u2019 means the same as defined in Article 1(4) of Directive 2005/60/EC;\n22.\n\u2018registry administrator\u2019 shall refer to the registry administrator of the Union registry or any other Kyoto Protocol registry;\n23.\n\u2018national administrator\u2019 shall refer to the entity responsible for managing on behalf of a Member State a set of user accounts under the jurisdiction of a Member State in the Union registry, designated in accordance with Article 6;\n24.\n\u2018administrator of an account\u2019 shall refer to the administrator determined for a particular type of account in the third column of Table I-I in Annex I.\nCHAPTER II\nTHE REGISTRIES SYSTEM\nArticle 3\nRegistries\n1. For the purposes of meeting their obligations as KP Parties and under Article 6 of Decision No 280/2004/EC to ensure the accurate accounting of Kyoto units, each Member State and the Union shall operate a registry (hereinafter \u2018KP registry\u2019) in the form of a standardised electronic database that complies with the UNFCCC's requirements concerning registries, and in particular the functional and technical specifications for data exchange standards for registry systems under the Kyoto Protocol elaborated pursuant to Decision 12/CMP.1 of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.\n2. For the purposes of meeting their obligations under Article 19 of Directive 2003/87/EC to ensure the accurate accounting of allowances, from 1 January 2012 onwards Member States shall use the Union registry, which shall also functions as a KP registry for the European Community as a separate KP Party. The Union registry shall provide to national administrators and account holders all the processes described in Chapters IV to VI.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States that are not able to issue AAUs due to reasons other than being determined by the UNFCCC to be ineligible to transfer ERUs, AAUs and CERs in accordance with the provisions of Decision 11/CMP.1 of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (hereinafter \u2018Member States with no KP registry\u2019) are not required to set up a KP registry.\n4. The Union registry and every other KP registry shall conform to the functional and technical specifications for data exchange standards for registry systems under the Kyoto Protocol elaborated pursuant to Decision 12/CMP.1 and comply with the hardware, network and software and security requirements set out in the Data Exchange and Technical Specifications provided for in Article 71.\nArticle 4\nEuropean Union Transaction Log\n1. For the purposes of meeting its obligations under Article 20 of Directive 2003/87/EC to maintain an independent transaction log that records and checks the issue, transfer and cancellations of allowances the Commission shall establish the European Union Transaction Log (EUTL) in the form of a standardised electronic database. The EUTL shall also serve to record all information relating to the holdings and transfers of Kyoto units made available in accordance with Article 6(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC.\n2. The Central Administrator shall operate and maintain the EUTL in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation.\n3. The EUTL shall be capable of checking and recording all processes referred to under Article 3(2), and shall conform to the functional and technical specifications for data exchange standards for registry systems under the Kyoto Protocol elaborated pursuant to Decision 12/CMP.1 and comply with the hardware, network and software requirements set out in the Data Exchange and Technical Specifications provided for in Article 71.\n4. The EUTL shall be capable of recording all processes described in Chapters IV to VI.\nArticle 5\nCommunication links between registries, the ITL and the EUTL\n1. The Union registry and every other KP registry shall maintain a communication link with the UNFCCC's International Transaction Log (hereinafter \u2018ITL\u2019) for the purposes of communicating transactions that transfer Kyoto units to or from other KP registries.\n2. The EUTL shall also maintain a communication link with the ITL for the purposes of recording and checking transfers referred to under paragraph 1. For this purpose, the ITL communicates all proposed transfers involving a KP registry to the EUTL before the transfer is recorded.\n3. The Union registry shall also maintain a direct communication link with the EUTL for the purposes of checking and recording transactions that transfer allowances and the account management processes described in Chapter IV. All transactions involving allowances shall take place within the Union registry, and shall be recorded and checked by the EUTL, but not by the ITL.\n4. The Climate Change Committee may decide to consolidate the external communication links, the information technology infrastructure, user account access procedures, and the mechanisms for managing KP accounts of the Union registry with those of all other KP registries into a Consolidated System of European Registries, maintained by the Central Administrator. Upon the adoption of this decision, the Commission shall propose amendments to this Regulation to define the modalities of implementing a Consolidated System of European Registries.\n5. The Central Administrator may establish a restricted communication link between the EUTL and the registry of an Accession Country for the purposes of enabling such registries to communicate with the ITL through the EUTL and to record verified emissions data of operators in the EUTL. Those registries must successfully complete all testing and initialisation procedures required of registries before the establishment of this communication link.\nArticle 6\nNational administrators and KP registry administrators\n1. Each Member State shall designate a national administrator. The Member State shall access and manage its own accounts and the accounts in the Union registry under its jurisdiction through its national administrator. Each Member State's national administrator shall also act as the administrator of its KP registry. The KP registry administrator shall operate and maintain the KP registry of its Member State in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation.\n2. The Central Administrator shall operate and maintain the Union registry. The Central Administrator shall also act as the KP registry administrator of the EU KP registry part of the Union registry.\n3. The Member States and the Commission shall ensure that there is no conflict of interest among national administrators, the Central Administrator and holders of user accounts.\n4. Each Member State shall notify the Commission of the identity and contact details of its national administrator.\n5. The Commission shall coordinate the implementation of this Regulation with the registry administrators of each Member State and the Central Administrator. In particular, the Commission shall consult the administrators\u2019 working group of the Climate Change Committee on issues and procedures related to the operation of registries and the implementation of this Regulation. The administrators\u2019 working group shall agree on common operational procedures for the implementation of this Regulation, including change and incident management procedures for the Union registry. Rules of procedure for the registry administrators\u2019 working group shall be adopted by the Climate Change Committee.\n6. The Central Administrator, the competent authorities and national administrators shall only perform processes where these are necessary to carry out their respective functions.\nCHAPTER III\nUNITS\nArticle 7\nUnits\n1. The Union registry shall be able to hold Chapter II allowances and Chapter III allowances.\n2. Each KP registry and the Union registry shall be capable of holding AAUs, ERUs, CERs, RMUs, lCERs and tCERs (collectively referred to as \u2018Kyoto units\u2019).\nCHAPTER IV\nACCOUNTS\nSECTION 1\nProvisions applicable to all accounts\nArticle 8\nAccounts\n1. The Union registry shall contain the accounts listed under the headings \u2018II. Management accounts in the Union registry\u2019 and \u2018III. User accounts in the Union registry\u2019 in Annex I.\n2. The Union registry and every other KP registry shall contain the accounts listed under the heading \u2018I. KP Party accounts in KP registries\u2019 in Annex I.\n3. The type of units that may be held by each account type are set out in Annex I, and the type of transactions that may be initiated or received by each account type are set out in Annex II.\nArticle 9\nAccount status\n1. Accounts shall be in one of the following status: open, inactive, blocked or closed.\n2. No processes may be initiated from blocked accounts, except for the surrendering of units, the entering of verified emissions, and the updating of account details.\n3. No processes may be initiated from closed accounts. A closed account may not be re-opened, and may not receive any unit transfers.\nArticle 10\nThe administering of accounts\n1. Every account shall have an administrator who is responsible for administering the account on behalf of a Member State or on behalf of the Union.\n2. The administrator of an account is determined for each account type in the third column of Table I-1 in Annex I.\n3. The administrator of an account shall have the responsibility to open, suspend access to or close an account, to approve authorised representatives, to permit such changes to account details that require the approval of the administrator, and to initiate transactions if this is requested by the account holder in accordance with Article 19(4).\n4. User accounts shall be governed by the laws and fall under the jurisdiction of the Member State of their administrator and the units held in them shall be considered to be situated in that Member State's territory.\nArticle 11\nNotifications from the administrators\nThe Central Administrator shall notify the holder and the administrator of a Union registry account of the initiation and completion or termination of any process related to the account through an automated mechanism described in the Data Exchange and Technical Specifications provided for in Article 71.\nSECTION 2\nOpening and updating of accounts\nArticle 12\nOpening of KP Party accounts and management accounts\n1. The Commission shall instruct the Central administrator to open the Union's KP Party accounts and all management accounts in the Union registry except the national allowance holding accounts.\n2. The competent body of the Member State shall instruct the national administrator to open its national allowance holding account in the Union registry.\n3. The instructions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall contain the information set out in Annex III.\n4. Within 20 working days of the instruction, the registry administrator or the Central administrator shall open the KP Party account or management account.\nArticle 13\nOpening of person holding accounts in the Union registry\n1. A request for the opening of a person holding account in the Union registry shall be submitted to the national administrator of a Member State. The person requesting the account opening shall provide the information required by the national administrator, which shall include at least the information set out in Annex IV.\n2. The Member State of the national administrator may require that EU persons requesting the account opening have their permanent residence or registration in the Member State of the national administrator administering the account.\n3. Within 20 working days of the receipt of a complete set of information required in accordance with paragraph 1 and 2 and after approving the required number of authorised representatives in accordance with Article 20 the national administrator shall open a person holding account in the Union registry or inform the person requesting the account opening that it refuses to open the account.\n4. If the national administrator refused opening the account, the person requesting the account opening may object to this refusal with the competent authority or relevant authority under national law, who shall either instruct the national administrator to open the account or uphold the refusal in a reasoned decision. Reasons for refusing the opening of an account may be that the person requesting the account opening is under investigation for being involved in fraud involving allowances or Kyoto units, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crimes to which the account may be an instrument, or any other reason set out in national law.\nArticle 14\nOpening of trading platform holding accounts in the Union registry\n1. Trading platforms may submit a request for the opening of a trading platform holding account in the Union registry. This request shall be submitted to the national administrator of a Member State that allows the opening of trading platform holding accounts. The person requesting the account opening shall provide the information required by the national administrator, which shall include the information set out in Annex IV and in Annex V.\n2. Trading platforms must conform to the technical requirements described in the Data Exchange and Technical Specifications provided for in Article 71. The Member State of the national administrator may require that EU persons requesting the account opening have their permanent residence or registration in the Member State of the national administrator administering the account.\n3. Within 20 working days of the receipt of the complete information required in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 and after approving the required number of authorised representatives in accordance with Article 20 the national administrator shall open a trading platform holding account in the Union registry or inform the person requesting the account opening that it refuses to open the account.\n4. If the national administrator refused opening the account, the person requesting the account opening may object to this refusal with the competent authority or the relevant authority under national law, who shall either instruct the national administrator to open the account or uphold the refusal in a reasoned decision. Reasons for refusing the opening of an account may be that the person requesting the account opening is under investigation for being involved in fraud involving allowances or Kyoto units, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crimes to which the account may be an instrument, or any other reason set out in national law.\nArticle 15\nOpening of operator holding accounts in the Union registry\n1. Within 20 working days of the entry into force of a greenhouse gas emissions permit for the operation of a new installation, the competent authority issuing the permit shall provide its Member State\u2019s national administrator with the information set out in Annex VII, and the operator shall request the national administrator to open an operator holding account in the Union registry.\n2. If the competent authority so decides, the information referred to in paragraph 1 above may also be provided by the operator to the national administrator within the deadline set out in paragraph 1.\n3. Within 20 working days of the receipt of all the information referred to in paragraph 1 and after approving the required number of authorised representatives in accordance with Article 20 the national administrator shall open a separate operator holding account for each installation in the Union registry.\nArticle 16\nOpening of aircraft operator holding accounts in the Union registry\n1. Within 20 working days from the approval of the monitoring plan of an aircraft operator, or by 1 January 2012, whichever is the later, the competent authority shall provide its national administrator with the information set out in Annex VIII and the aircraft operator shall request the national administrator to open an aircraft operator holding account in the Union registry. Each aircraft operator shall have one aircraft operator holding account.\n2. If the competent authority so decides, the information referred to in paragraph 1 above may also be provided by the operator to the national administrator within the deadline set out in paragraph 1.\n3. Within 40 working days of the receipt of the information referred to in paragraph 1. and after approving the required number of authorised representatives in accordance with Article 20 the national administrator shall open a separate aircraft operator holding account for each aircraft operator in the Union registry.\nArticle 17\nOpening of verifier accounts in the Union registry\n1. A request for the opening of a verifier account in the Union registry shall be submitted to the national administrator. The person requesting the account opening shall provide the information required by the national administrator, which shall include the information set out in Annex IV and Annex V.\n2. Within 20 working days of the receipt of all the information referred to in paragraph 1 and after approving the required number of authorised representatives in accordance with Article 20, the national administrator shall open the verifier account in the Union registry.\nArticle 18\nTerms and conditions of account holding\nThis Article contains no provisions.\nArticle 19\nAuthorised representatives\n1. Each account shall have at least two authorised representatives. The authorised representative shall initiate transactions and other processes on behalf of the account holder through the website of the registry.\n2. The administrator of the account may allow accounts to have additional authorised representatives who may view the account or whose agreement is required in addition to the agreement of an authorised representative to submit a request to carry out any process.\n3. The administrator of the account may allow holders of user accounts to enable their accounts to be accessed through a trading platform. Account holders enabling their account to be accessed through a trading platform shall nominate as authorised representative a person who is already the authorised representative of a trading platform holding account.\n4. If the authorised representative has no access to the internet, he may also request the administrator of the account to initiate transactions on his behalf, provided that the administrator allows such requests and access was not suspended in accordance with Article 27.\n5. The Data Exchange and Technical Specifications may set a maximum number of authorised representatives and additional authorised representatives for each account type. A national administrator may set a lower maximum for its account, but the minimum number of authorised representatives must be three.\n6. Authorised representatives and additional authorised representatives must be natural persons over 18 years. All authorised representatives and additional authorised representatives of a single account must be different persons but the same person can be an authorised representative or an additional authorised representative on more than one account. The Member State of the national administrator may require that at least one of the authorised representatives of user accounts must be a permanent resident in the Member State of the national administrator administering the account.\nArticle 20\nNominating and approval of authorised representatives and additional authorised representatives\n1. When requesting the opening of an account, the person requesting the account opening shall nominate at least two authorised representatives, and that person may nominate additional authorised representatives if this is permitted by the administrator of the account.\n2. When nominating an authorised representative or additional authorised representative, the person requesting the account opening shall provide the information required by the administrator. That information shall include at least the documents and identification information on the nominee set out in Annex IX.\n3. Within 20 working days of the receipt of a complete set of information required in accordance with paragraph 2 the national administrator shall approve an authorised representative or additional authorised representative, or inform the person requesting the account opening that it refuses to approve. Where evaluation of the nominee information requires more time, the administrator may once extend the evaluation process by up to 20 additional working days, and notify the extension to the person requesting the account opening.\n4. If the national administrator refused to approve an authorised representative or additional authorised representative, the person requesting the account opening may object to this refusal with the competent authority or the relevant authority under national law, who shall either instruct the national administrator to give its approval or uphold the refusal in a reasoned decision. Reasons for refusing the approval may be that the person nominated as authorised representative or additional authorised representative is under investigation for being involved in fraud involving allowances or Kyoto units, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crimes to which the account may be an instrument, or any other reason set out in national law.\n5. The authorised representative of the ETS central clearing account shall act as the authorised representative of the Central Administrator. The authorised representative of each national allowance holding account shall act as the authorised representative of the national administrator for the Member State holding the national allowance holding account.\nArticle 21\nUpdating of account information and information on authorised representatives\n1. All account holders shall notify the administrator of the account within 10 working days of any changes to the information submitted for the opening of an account, and for the nomination of an authorised representative or additional authorised representative. Aircraft operators shall notify the administrator of their account within 10 working days if they have undergone a merger of two or more aircraft operators or if they have split into two or more aircraft operators. If the account holder was required to provide evidence for a particular piece of information upon opening the account or the nomination of an authorised representative or additional authorised representative, the notification of changes shall likewise be accompanied with the required evidence. Within 15 working days of the receipt of such a notification and the accompanying evidence, the administrator of the account shall update the information on the account holder or refuse updating and inform the account holder thereof. Objections to such refusals may be raised with the competent authority or the relevant authority under national law in accordance with Articles 13(4), 14(4) or 20(4).\n2. The holder of a person holding account, a trading platform holding account, a verifier account or an aircraft operator holding account may not sell or divest of the ownership of its account to another person. The account holder of an operator holding account may only sell or divest of its operator holding account together with the installation linked to the operator holding account.\n3. An authorised representative or additional authorised representative may not transfer its status as such to another person.\n4. Any account holder may notify the recalling of authorised representatives, provided that there remain at least two authorised representatives. Within 10 working days of the receipt of such a notification, the responsible administrator shall remove the authorised representative.\n5. Any account holder may nominate new authorised representatives or additional authorised representatives in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 20.\n6. If the administering Member State of an aircraft operator changes in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 18a of Directive 2003/87/EC or due to the enlargement of the European Union the Central Administrator shall update the national administrator of the corresponding aircraft operator holding account. Where the administrator of an aircraft operator holding account changes, the new administrator may require the aircraft operator to submit the account opening information required by the new administrator in accordance with Article 16 and the information required by the new administrator about authorised representatives in accordance with Article 20.\n7. Except for the exception provided for in paragraph 6 above, the Member State responsible for managing an account shall not change.\nSECTION 3\nClosure of accounts\nArticle 22\nClosure of KP Party accounts, management accounts, person holding accounts and trading platform holding accounts\nWithin 10 working days of the receipt of a request from the account holder to close a KP Party account in the Union registry, a management account, a person holding account or a trading platform holding account administered by it, the administrator shall close the account.\nArticle 23\nClosure of operator holding accounts\n1. The competent authority shall notify the national administrator within 10 working days of a greenhouse gas emissions permit being revoked or surrendered for an installation that is, as a result, not covered by any such permit. The competent authority shall also notify the national administrator within 10 working days when it learns that an installation has closed without notifying the competent authority. Within 10 working days of being notified by the competent authority, the national administrator shall record in the Union registry the date on which the greenhouse gas emissions permit expires. Where an installation closes without the permit expiring, the date of closure notified by the competent authority shall be recorded as the permit expiry date.\n2. The national administrator may close operator holding accounts by 30 June of the year after the year in which the permit expired if the relevant installation has surrendered an amount of allowances and Kyoto units at least equal to its verified emissions.\nArticle 24\nClosure of aircraft operator holding accounts\nAircraft operator holding accounts shall only be closed by the national administrator if it was instructed by the competent authority to do so because the competent authority has discovered that the aircraft operator merged into another aircraft operator or the aircraft operator has permanently ceased all its operations covered by Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC, either through a notification by the account holder or through other evidence.\nArticle 25\nClosure of verifier accounts\n1. Within 10 working days of the receipt of a request from a verifier to close its account, the national administrator shall close the verifier account.\n2. The competent authority may also instruct the national administrator to close a verifier account where one of the following conditions is fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe verifier's accreditation has expired or was withdrawn;\n(b)\nthe verifier ceased its operations.\nArticle 26\nPositive balance on accounts under closure\n1. If there is a positive balance of allowances or Kyoto units on an account which an administrator is to close in accordance with Articles 22 to 25 and 28, the administrator shall first request the account holder to specify another account administered by the same administrator to which such allowances or Kyoto units shall then be transferred. If the account holder has not responded to the administrator\u2019s request within 40 working days, the administrator may transfer the allowances to its national allowance holding account in the Union registry and the Kyoto units to a KP Party holding account in its KP registry.\n2. If there is a positive balance of allowances or Kyoto units on an account to which access was suspended in accordance with Article 27(3), the competent authority may require in its instruction in accordance with Article 28(1) that the allowances are moved immediately to the relevant national allowance holding account and the Kyoto units are moved immediately to the relevant KP Party holding account.\nSECTION 4\nSuspension of access to accounts\nArticle 27\nSuspension of access to accounts\n1. An administrator may suspend the access of an authorised representative or an additional authorised representative to any accounts in its registry or to processes to which that authorised representative would otherwise have access if the administrator knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the authorised representative has:\n(a)\nattempted to access accounts or processes which he is not authorised to access;\n(b)\nrepeatedly attempted to access an account or a process using a non-matching username and password; or\n(c)\nattempted, or is attempting, to undermine the security of the registry or the registries system.\n2. An administrator may suspend the access of all authorised representatives or additional authorised representatives to a specific account where one of the following conditions is fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe account holder died without a legal successor or ceased to exist as a legal person;\n(b)\nthe account holder did not pay its fees;\n(c)\nthe account holder violated the terms and conditions applicable to the account;\n(d)\nthe account holder did not agree to the changes in the terms and conditions set by the national administrator and the Central Administrator;\n(e)\nthe account holder did not provide evidence concerning the changes to account information, or evidence concerning new account information requirements;\n(f)\nthe account holder failed to maintain the required minimum number of authorised representatives for the account;\n(g)\nthe account holder failed to maintain compliance with the Member State requirement to have an authorised representative with a permanent residence in the Member State of the administrator of the account;\n(h)\nthe account holder failed to maintain compliance with the Member State requirement that the account holder have a permanent residence or registration in the Member State of the administrator of the account.\n3. The national administrator may suspend access to a person holding account or a trading platform holding account if it considers that their opening should have been refused in accordance with Article 13(3) or Article 14(3).\n4. The administrator of the account shall lift the suspension immediately once the situation giving rise to the suspension is resolved.\n5. The account holder may object to the suspension of its access in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 3 with the competent authority or the relevant authority under national law within 30 calendar days, who shall either instruct the national administrator to reinstate access or uphold the suspension in a reasoned decision.\n6. The competent authority, or in the case of accounts in the Union registry, the Central administrator may also instruct the administrator to implement a suspension.\n7. When access to a trading platform holding account is suspended, the administrator shall also suspend access enabled for the trading platform to user accounts in accordance with Article 19(3). When access of authorised representatives and additional authorised representatives of a trading platform holding account is suspended, the administrator shall also suspend their access enabled for the trading platform to user accounts in accordance with Article 19(3).\n8. Where the holder of an operator holding account or aircraft operator holding account is prevented from surrendering in the 10 working days preceding the surrender deadline laid down in Article 12(2a) and 12(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC due to suspensions in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2, the national administrator shall, if so requested by the account holder and following submission of the authorised representative's identity by means of supporting evidence, surrender the number of allowances and ERUs and CERs specified by the account holder.\nArticle 28\nClosure of accounts and removal of authorised representative on the administrator's initiative\n1. If the situation giving rise to the suspension of access to accounts pursuant to Article 27 is not resolved within a reasonable period despite repeated notifications, the competent authority may instruct the national administrator to close those person holding accounts or trading platform holding accounts where access is suspended.\n2. If a person holding account has a zero balance and no transactions have been recorded during a year, the national administrator may notify the account holder that the person holding account will be closed within 40 working days unless the national administrator receives within that period a request from the account holder that the person holding account be maintained. If the national administrator does not receive any such request from the account holder, the national administrator may close the account.\n3. The national administrator shall close any operator holding account when the competent authority has instructed the national administrator to close the account because there is no reasonable prospect of further allowances being surrendered by the installation\u2019s operator.\n4. The national administrator may remove an authorised representative or an additional authorised representative if it considers that the approval of the authorised representative or an additional authorised representative should have been refused in accordance with Article 20(3), and in particular if it discovers that the documents and identification information provided in upon nomination were fraudulent or erroneous.\n5. The account holder may object to the closure of its account in accordance with paragraph 1 or the removal of its authorised representative or additional authorised representative in accordance with paragraph 4 with the competent authority within 30 calendar days, who shall either instruct the national administrator to reinstate the account or the authorised representative or additional authorised representative or uphold the closure or removal in a reasoned decision.\nCHAPTER V\nVERIFIED EMISSIONS AND COMPLIANCE\nArticle 29\nVerified emissions data for an installation or aircraft operator\n1. Before submitting annual emissions data to the Union registry, each operator and aircraft operator shall select a verifier from the verifiers registered at the national administrator administering its account. If an operator or aircraft operator is also a verifier, it may not select itself as verifier.\n2. The national administrator shall enter emissions data for a year between 1 January and 31 March of the following year. Emissions data for an installation may also be entered for a year during the course of that year if the installation's greenhouse gas permit has already expired. The competent authority may decide that instead of the national administrator, the account holder or the verifier (including those competent authorities acting as verifiers) shall be responsible for entering the emissions data within the deadline set out above.\n3. Annual emissions data shall be submitted using the format set out in Annex X.\n4. Upon the satisfactory verification in accordance with Article 15(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC of an operator\u2019s report on the emissions from an installation during a previous year, or of an aircraft operator's report on the emissions from all aviation activities it performed during a previous year, the verifier shall approve the annual verified emissions.\n5. The emissions approved in accordance with paragraph 4. shall be marked as verified in the Union registry by the national administrator. The competent authority may decide that instead of the national administrator, the verifier shall be responsible for marking emissions as verified in the Union registry.\n6. The competent authority may instruct the national administrator to correct the annual verified emissions for an installation or an aircraft operator to ensure compliance with the detailed requirements established by the Member State pursuant to Annex V to Directive 2003/87/EC, by entering the corrected verified or estimated emissions for that installation or an aircraft operator for that year into the records of the Union registry.\n7. Where, on 1 May of each year, no verified emissions figure has been recorded in the Union registry for an installation or an aircraft operator for a previous year or the verified emissions figure was proven to be incorrect, any substitute emissions figure estimate entered in the Union registry shall be calculated as closely as possible in accordance with the detailed requirements established by the Member State pursuant to Annex V to Directive 2003/87/EC.\nArticle 30\nBlocking of accounts due to a failure to submit verified emissions\n1. If, on 1 April of each year the annual verified emissions of an installation or aircraft operator for the preceding year have not been recorded in the Union registry, the Union registry shall set the corresponding operator holding account or aircraft operator holding account to blocked status.\n2. When all overdue verified emissions of the installation or aircraft operator for the year have been recorded in the Union registry, the Union registry shall set the account to open status.\nArticle 31\nCalculation of compliance status figures\n1. On 1 May of each year, the Union registry shall determine the compliance status figure for the preceding year for every installation and aircraft operator with an open or blocked operator holding account or aircraft operator holding account by calculating the sum of all allowances, CERs and ERUs surrendered for the current period minus the sum of all verified emissions in the current period up to and including the current year, plus a correction factor.\n2. The correction factor referred to in paragraph 1. shall be zero if the compliance status figure of the last year of the previous period was greater than zero, but shall remain as the compliance status figure of the last year of the previous period if this figure is less than or equal to zero.\n3. The Union registry shall record the compliance status figure for every installation and aircraft operator for each year.\nArticle 32\nInactive aircraft operator holding accounts\n1. If, by the deadline set out in Article 12(2a) of Directive 2003/87/EC for surrendering allowances, a verified emissions value of 0 is entered in the Union registry for an aircraft operator for the previous year in accordance with Article 29, the Union registry shall set the corresponding aircraft operator holding account to inactive status.\n2. The Union registry shall set the account to open status when the verified emissions value for year before the current year is not 0.\nCHAPTER VI\nTRANSACTIONS\nSECTION 1\nAllocation and issue of allowances\nArticle 33\nNational allocation plan tables\n1. The EUTL shall contain one national allocation plan table for each Member State for the 2008-2012 period. National allocation plan tables shall include the following information:\n(a)\ntotal number of allowances to issue to installations: in a single cell the total number of allowances that will be issued to installations for the period covered by the national allocation plan;\n(b)\ntotal number of allowances not allocated to incumbent installations (reserve): in a single cell the total number of allowances (issued or purchased) that are set aside for new entrant installations and auctioning for the period covered by the national allocation plan;\n(c)\nyears: in individual cells for each of the years covered in the national allocation plan in ascending order;\n(d)\nInstallation identification code of every installation that has a valid permit at the moment: in individual cells in ascending order. The installations listed shall include installations unilaterally included under Article 24 of Directive 2003/87/EC and shall not include any installations temporarily excluded under Article 27 of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n(e)\nAllocated allowances: the allowances to be allocated for a specified year for a specified installation shall be entered into the cell connecting that year to that installation\u2019s identification code.\n2. The national allocation plan tables shall follow the format set out in Annex XI.\nArticle 34\nUnion aviation allocation table\n1. The EUTL shall contain a single Union aviation allocation table for the year 2012. This table shall tabulate the following information:\n(a)\nthe total number of Chapter II allowances to be allocated in the Union in 2012;\n(b)\nthe number of Chapter II allowances already allocated for free to each account holder listed in the table;\n(c)\nthe number of Chapter II allowances not yet allocated by the Member States, shown separately for each Member State;\n(d)\nthe identity of the receivers of the allocation(in the case of allowances allocated through auction, the receiver shall be the auctioneer).\n2. The Union aviation allocation table shall follow the format set out in Annex XII.\nArticle 35\nEntry into the EUTL of national allocation plan tables\n1. At least 12 months before the start of the 2008-2012 period, each Member State shall notify to the Commission its national allocation plan table, corresponding to the decision taken under Article 11(2)of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n2. If the national allocation plan table is based upon the national allocation plan notified to the Commission which was not rejected under Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC or on which the Commission has accepted proposed amendments, the Commission shall instruct the Central Administrator to enter the national allocation plan table into the EUTL.\nArticle 36\nEntry of allocation decisions in the Union aviation allocation table\nIf the Chapter II allowance allocation decisions taken by Member States under Article 3e(4), of Directive 2003/87/EC with respect to the year 2012 are in conformity with Directive 2003/87/EC, the Commission shall instruct the Central Administrator to enter the allocation decisions into the Union aviation allocation table in the EUTL.\nArticle 37\nCorrections of national allocation plan tables\n1. For the 2008-2012 period, the national administrator shall carry out corrections to the national allocation plan table in the EUTL without notifying the Commission in advance, where:\n(a)\na new entrant was granted an allocation;\n(b)\nthe Member State has replenished the reserve through the purchase of allowances;\n(c)\nan installation's permit has expired and any allocation not yet delivered to its account are moved to the reserve;\n(d)\nan installation was split into two or more installations;\n(e)\ntwo or more installations were merged into one installation.\nThose corrections shall not change the total issued quantity of allowances set out in the national allocation plan table.\n2. A Member State shall notify in advance any correction other than those referred to in paragraph 1 to its national allocation plan together with each corresponding correction in its national allocation plan table to the Commission. If the correction to the national allocation plan table is based upon the national allocation plan notified to the Commission which was not rejected under Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC or on which the Commission has accepted amendments and that correction results from improvements in data, the Commission shall instruct the Central Administrator to enter the corresponding correction into the national allocation plan table held in the EUTL.\n3. Subsequent to any correction made pursuant to paragraph 2 which occurs after allowances have been issued or allocated, and which reduces the total quantity of allowances for the 2008-2012 period, the national administrator shall transfer the number and type of allowances specified by the Union registry to the Union allowance deletion account for the relevant period.\nArticle 38\nCorrections of the Union aviation allocation table\n1. The national administrator may carry out the corresponding corrections to the Union aviation allocation table in the EUTL without notifying the Commission in advance, where:\n(a)\na new aircraft operator started operating;\n(b)\nan auctioneer was awarded Chapter II allowances for auctioning;\n(c)\nan aircraft operator was split into two or more aircraft operators;\n(d)\ntwo or more aircraft operators have merged into a single aircraft operator.\n2. Such corrections shall not change the total quantity of Chapter II allowances set out in the Union aviation allocation table.\n3. A Member State shall notify any correction other than those referred to in paragraph 1. and required to correct an over-allocation caused by an error by the Commission or a Member State to its Chapter II allowance allocation decision taken under Article 3e, paragraph (4) of Directive 2003/87/EC to the Commission. If the correction is in conformity with Directive 2003/87/EC, the Commission shall instruct the Central Administrator to correct the Union aviation allocation table on the basis of this decision and enter it into the EUTL.\n4. After any correction made pursuant to paragraph 2. which occurs after Chapter II allowances have been allocated in accordance with Article 41 and which reduces the total quantity of Chapter II allowances for the 2008-2012 period, the national administrator shall, transfer the number of Chapter II allowances specified by the Central administrator to the Union allowance deletion account for the relevant period.\n5. If a merger between aircraft operators involves aircraft operators that are administered by different Member States, the correction under paragraph (1)(d) shall be initiated by the national administrator administering the aircraft operator whose allocation is to be merged into the allocation of another aircraft operator. Before carrying out the correction, consent shall be obtained from the national administrator administering the aircraft operator whose allocation will incorporate the allocation of the merged aircraft operator.\nArticle 39\nIssuance of Chapter III allowances\n1. After the national allocation plan table has been entered into the EUTL, the national administrator shall, by 28 February of the first year of the 2008-12 period:\n(a)\ntransfer an amount of AAUs issued for the 2008-2012 period that is equal to the quantity of Chapter III allowances to be issued from a KP Party holding account to the ETS AAU deposit account;\n(b)\nissue the total quantity of Chapter III allowances set out in the national allocation plan table into its national allowance holding account in the Union registry.\n2. Prior to the action referred to in paragraph 1, KP registry administrators shall notify the account ID of the designated ETS AAU deposit account in their KP registry to the Central Administrator.\n3. The Union registry shall assign each allowance a unique unit identification code upon their issuance in accordance with paragraph 1.\n4. Member States with no KP registry shall not carry out the action under point (a) of paragraph 1.\nArticle 40\nAllocation of Chapter III allowances\n1. Without prejudice to Articles 37 and 47, by 28 February of each year, the national administrator shall transfer from the national allowance holding account to the relevant open operator holding account the proportion of the total quantity of Chapter III allowances issued which has been allocated to the corresponding installation for that year in accordance with the relevant section of the national allocation plan table.\n2. Where foreseen for an installation in the national allocation plan of the Member State, the national administrator may transfer that proportion at a later date of each year.\n3. If an installation is allocated additional Chapter III allowances in the national allocation plan table as a result of corrections in accordance with Article 37, the national administrator shall transfer from the national allowance holding account to the relevant open operator holding account the additionally allocated Chapter III allowances for the current year at the time when instructed to do so by the competent authority.\nArticle 41\nAllocation of Chapter II allowances\n1. After the Union aviation allocation table has been entered into the EUTL, the national administrator shall by 28 February 2012, create a quantity of Chapter II allowances on each open aircraft operator holding account that is equal to the allocation set out in the Union aviation allocation table for the holder of that account for that year.\n2. The Union registry shall assign each allowance a unique unit identification code upon their creation in accordance with paragraph 1.\n3. If an account holder is allocated additional Chapter II allowances in the Union aviation allocation table as a result of corrections in accordance with Article 38, the national administrator shall, when instructed by the competent authority, create an additional quantity of allocated Chapter II allowances on each open aircraft operator holding account that is equal to the additional allocation set out in the Union aviation allocation table for the holder of that account for the current year.\n4. Where an inactive aircraft operator holding account does not receive allowances under paragraph 1, those allowances shall not be created in the account should it be subsequently set to open status.\nArticle 42\nAllocation of Chapter III allowances following their sale by Member State\nDuring the 2008-2012 period, if instructed to do so by the competent authority, following a sale of 2008-2012 Chapter III allowances by a Member State, the national administrator shall transfer a quantity of Chapter III allowances from the national allowance holding account to the holding account designated by the competent authority.\nSECTION 2\nTransfers of allowances and Kyoto units\nArticle 43\nTransfers of allowances by account holders\nUpon request of an account holder, the Union registry shall carry out any transfer of allowances held in its Union registry account to any other account in the Union registry, unless such transfer is prevented by the status of the initiating account or the type of allowances that may be held in the acquiring account in accordance with Article 8(3).\nArticle 44\nTransfers of Kyoto units by account holders\nUpon request of an account holder, the Union registry shall carry out any transfer of Kyoto units held in a Union registry account to any other account in the Union registry or in a KP registry, unless such transfer is prevented by the status of the initiating account or the Kyoto units that may be held in the acquiring account in accordance with Article 8(3).\nArticle 45\nMinimum holding of Chapter III allowances in Union registry holding accounts administered by the same Member State\n1. If a proposed transfer of allowances by an account holder in accordance with Article 43 would result in the total amount of 2008-12 period Chapter III allowances held in all the Union registry accounts administered by the national administrator of a particular Member State dropping below the quantity of Kyoto units required to be held in the KP registry of that Member State under Decision 11/CMP.1 as the commitment period reserve, minus the amount of Kyoto units currently held in the KP registry of that Member State outside of the ETS AAU deposit account and the cancellation account, the EUTL shall reject the proposed transfer.\n2. If a proposed transfer of allowances by an account holder in accordance with Article 43 would result in the total amount of 2008-2012 period Chapter III allowances held in all the Union registry accounts administered by the national administrators of the oldest fifteen Member States dropping below the quantity of Kyoto units required to be held in the KP registries of these Member States under Decision 11/CMP.1 as the commitment period reserve of the European Union, minus the amount of Kyoto units currently held in the KP registries of those Member States outside of the ETS AAU deposit accounts and the cancellation accounts, the EUTL shall reject the proposed transfer.\nSECTION 3\nSurrender of allowances, ERUs and CERs\nArticle 46\nSurrender of allowances\n1. An operator or aircraft operator shall surrender allowances for the 2008-2012 period by proposing to the Union registry to:\n(a)\nmove a specified number of 2008-12 period allowances from the relevant operator holding account or aircraft operator holding account into the Union allowance deletion account;\n(b)\nrecord the number and type of transferred allowances as surrendered for the emissions of the operator's installation or the emissions of the aircraft operator in the current period.\n2. Chapter II allowances may only be surrendered by aircraft operators.\n3. An allowance that was already surrendered may not be surrendered again.\nArticle 47\nSurrender of allowances on instruction of the competent authority\nIf instructed to do so by the competent authority, the national administrator shall surrender part or all of the proportion of the total quantity of allowances issued which has been allocated to an installation or an aircraft operator for a specific year, by recording the number of surrendered allowances for that installation or aircraft operator for the current period.\nArticle 48\nThe surrender of CERs and ERUs\n1. The surrender of ERUs and CERs by an operator in accordance with Article 11a of Directive 2003/87/EC shall take place through an operator proposing to the Union registry to:\n(a)\nmove a specified number of 2008-2012 period CERs or ERUs from the relevant operator holding account into:\n(i)\na KP Party holding account of the administering Member State, in the case of accounts administered by Member States with a KP registry;\n(ii)\nthe cancellation account of the Union registry, in the case of accounts administered by Member States with no KP registry;\n(b)\nrecord the number of transferred CERs and ERUs as surrendered for the emissions of the operator's installation in the current period.\n2. The surrender of ERUs and CERs by an aircraft operator in accordance with Article 11a of Directive 2003/87/EC shall take place through the aircraft operator proposing to the Union registry to:\n(a)\nmove a specified number of 2008-2012 period CERs or ERUs from the relevant aircraft operator holding account into the aviation surrender set-aside account in the Union registry;\n(b)\nrecord the number of transferred CERs and ERUs as surrendered for the emissions of the aircraft operator in the current period.\n3. The Union registry shall only allow surrenders of CERs and ERUs up to:\n(a)\nthe maximum quantity set by the national administrator of an operator holding account, in the case of operators;\n(b)\nfor 2012, 15 % of the number of allowances required to be surrendered pursuant to Article 12(2a) of Directive 2003/87/EC in the case of aircraft operators.\n4. The Union registry shall reject any request to surrender CERs and ERUs that would surpass the maximum amount of CERs and ERUs that may be surrendered by the operators of a Member State in accordance with the national allocation plan of the Member State.\n5. The Union registry shall reject any request to surrender CERs or ERUs that are prohibited from being used in the ETS in accordance with Article 11a of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n6. A CER or ERU that was already surrendered may not be surrendered again nor transferred to an operator or person holding account in the EU ETS.\n7. The Union registry shall provide automated processes to ensure that account holders cannot surrender units into incorrect accounts under Articles 46 and 48.\nSECTION 4\nDeletion of allowances and cancellation of Kyoto units\nArticle 49\nDeletion of allowances\n1. The Union registry shall carry out any request from an account holder pursuant to Article 12(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC to delete allowances held in the accounts of the account holder by:\n(a)\ntransferring a specified number of allowances from the relevant account into the Union allowance deletion account; and\n(b)\nrecording the number of transferred allowances as deleted for the current year.\n2. Deleted allowances shall not be recorded as surrendered for any emissions.\n3. The Union registry shall reject the request for the deletion of allowances if it is initiated by an account administered by a Member State that has no KP registry and it would result in a minimum deposited quantity calculated for that Member State in accordance with Article 52 that is lower than the gateway quantity calculated for that Member State in accordance with Article 53.\nArticle 50\nCancellation of Kyoto units\nThe Union registry shall carry out any request from an account holder pursuant to Article 12(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC to cancel Kyoto units held in the accounts of the account holder by transferring a specified type and number of Kyoto units from the relevant account into the cancellation account of the account administrator's KP registry.\nSECTION 5\nTransaction reversal\nArticle 51\nReversal of finalised processes initiated in error\n1. If an account holder or a registry administrator acting on behalf of the account holder unintentionally or erroneously initiated one of the transactions listed in paragraph 2, the account holder may propose to the administrator of its account to carry out a reversal of the completed transaction in a written request. The request shall be duly signed by the authorised representative or representatives of the account holder that are authorised to initiate the type of transaction to be reversed and shall be posted within 5 working days of the finalisation of the process. The request shall contain a statement indicating that the transaction was initiated erroneously or unintentionally.\n2. Account holders may propose the reversal of the following transactions:\n(a)\nallocation of Chapter III allowances;\n(b)\nallocation of Chapter II allowances;\n(c)\nsurrender of allowances;\n(d)\nsurrender of CERs and ERUs;\n(e)\ndeletion of allowances;\n(f)\ncancellation of Kyoto units.\n3. If the administrator of the account establishes that the request fulfils the conditions under paragraph 1 and the administrator agrees with the request, it may propose the reversal of the transaction in the Union registry.\n4. The Union registry shall accept the proposal for reversal, block the units that are to be transferred by the reversal and forward the proposal to the Central Administrator provided that all of the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe transaction to be reversed was not completed more than 30 working days prior to the account administrator's proposal in accordance with paragraph 3;\n(b)\nno operator would become non-compliant for a previous year as a result of the reversal;\n(c)\nthe destination account of the transaction to be reversed still holds the amount of units of the type that were involved in the transaction to be reversed;\n(d)\nthe transaction to be reversed was not yet followed up by a deduction in accordance with Article 52 from the minimum deposited quantity after an accounting transfer made on the basis of the transaction to be reversed;\n(e)\nthe allocation of Chapter III allowances to be reversed was carried out after the expiry date of the installation's permit.\n5. The Central Administrator shall approve the proposal within 10 working days. Where the transaction to be reversed involves transfers of Kyoto units from one KP registry to another KP registry, this approval shall only be given if the ITL administrator agreed to reverse the transaction in the ITL.\n6. The Union registry may complete the reversal with different units of the same unit type that are on the destination account of the transaction that is being reversed.\nSECTION 6\nAccounting mechanisms\nArticle 52\nMinimum deposited quantity on the ETS AAU deposit account\n1. The EUTL shall record a minimum deposited quantity for each Member State. In the case of Member States with KP registries, the EUTL will prevent transfers of Kyoto units from their ETS AAU deposit account that would result in Kyoto unit holdings on the ETS AAU deposit account that are below the minimum deposited quantity. In the case of Member States with no KP registry, the minimum deposited quantity is a value used in the clearing process.\n2. The EUTL shall add a quantity to the minimum deposited quantity after an issue of Chapter III allowances has taken place in accordance with Article 39, where the addition shall be equal to the amount of Chapter III allowances issued.\n3. The EUTL shall deduct a quantity from the minimum deposited quantity immediately after:\n(a)\na transfer of Chapter III allowances to the Union allowance deletion account has taken place as a result of downwards correction of Chapter III allowances after their allocation in accordance with Article 37(3), where the deduction shall be equal to the amount of Chapter III allowances transferred;\n(b)\na set-aside of Kyoto units against surrenders of Chapter III allowances by aircraft operators in accordance with Article 54 has taken place, where the deduction shall be equal to the amount set-aside;\n(c)\na cancellation of Kyoto units against deletions of Chapter III allowances in accordance with Article 55(1) has taken place, where the deduction shall be equal to the quantity cancelled;\n(d)\na deletion of allowances set out in Article 55(2) took place, where the deduction shall be equal to the quantity deleted.\n4. The Central Administrator shall carry out a deduction of a quantity from the minimum deposited quantity recorded in the EUTL after the clearing transactions in accordance with Article 56 have taken place. The deduction shall equal the total amount of Chapter III allowances surrendered by user accounts administered by the national administrator of the Member State for the 2008-12 period; plus the clearing value calculated in accordance with Article 56(3).\nArticle 53\nGateway quantity and gateway deposit account\n1. The EUTL shall record a gateway quantity for each Member State with no KP registry.\n2. The EUTL shall add a quantity to the gateway quantity after Chapter III allowances are transferred from a user account administered by a Member State with no KP registry to a user account administered by another Member State, where the addition shall be equal to the amount of Chapter III allowances transferred.\n3. The EUTL shall deduct a quantity from the gateway quantity after Chapter III allowances are transferred from a user account administered by a Member State to a user account administered by a Member State with no KP registry, where the deduction shall be equal to the amount of Chapter III allowances transferred.\n4. The EUTL will not allow any transfer of Chapter III allowances out of accounts administered by a Member State with no KP registry that would result in a gateway quantity that is higher than the amount of Kyoto units held in the gateway deposit account for that Member State.\n5. Until 1 July 2013 or the completion of the clearing set out in Article 56, whichever is later, the EUTL will not allow any transfer of Kyoto units out of the gateway deposit account for a particular Member State with no KP registry that would result in holdings on the gateway deposit account for the Member State that are lower than the gateway quantity.\n6. After 1 July 2013 or the completion of the clearing set out in Article 56, whichever is later, the Central Administrator shall reset the gateway quantity to zero and empty the gateway deposit account through transfers carried out in the following order of precedence:\n(a)\ntransfers in accordance with in Article 54(2);\n(b)\ntransfers to the ETS AAU deposit account of the Member State served by the gateway up to the quantity needed to ensure the banking of all Chapter III allowances in accordance with Article 57;\n(c)\ntransfers to the KP Party holding account of the European Union up to the amount of any previous transfers from that account to the gateway deposit account;\n(d)\ntransfers to the KP Party holding account of the Member State served by the gateway deposit account.\nArticle 54\nSetting aside of AAUs against surrenders of Chapter III allowances by aircraft operators\n1. By 5 May 2013 and each year thereafter, KP registry administrators of Member States with KP registries shall transfer to the aviation surrender set-aside account in the Union registry an amount of AAUs that is equal to the amount of Chapter III allowances surrendered for the current period by aircraft operators pursuant to Article 46 between 1 May of the preceding year and 30 April of the current year.\n2. By 1 July 2013 or when the clearing process in Article 56 is completed, whichever is later, the Central Administrator shall transfer from the gateway deposit account of a Member State with no KP registry to the aviation surrender set-aside account in the Union registry an amount of Kyoto units that is equal to the lower of the following:\n(a)\nthe total amount of Chapter III allowances surrendered from aircraft operator holding accounts administered by that Member State with no KP registry;\n(b)\nthe total amount of units held on the gateway account.\nArticle 55\nCancellation of Kyoto units against deletions of Chapter III allowances\n1. By 5 May 2013 and each year thereafter each KP registry administrator shall transfer an amount of AAUs, ERUs or CERs, but not lCERs or tCERs to the cancellation account in the Union registry. The transferred amount shall be equal to the amount of Chapter III allowances deleted in accordance with Article 49 from user accounts administered by its Member State between 1 May of the preceding year and 30 April of the current year.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1 a registry administrator is not obliged to transfer to the cancellation account in the Union registry amounts of AAUs, ERUs, or CERs equal to deletions which meet one of the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe deletion was carried out in an account administered by a Member State that has no KP registry;\n(b)\nthe deletion took place after 30 April of the year following the last year of the period.\nArticle 56\nClearing of allowance transfers\n1. After the end of the 2008-2012 period, in order to ensure that transfers of Chapter III allowances between accounts administered by national administrators of different Member States are followed up with an equal amount of Kyoto units transferred between KP registries, paragraphs 2 to 4 shall apply.\n2. On the first working day following 1 June 2013, or the day after all changes to minimum deposit quantities related to downwards corrections to allowances set out in Article 52(3)(a) are completed, whichever is later, the Central Administrator shall calculate a clearing value for each Member State and notify the national administrators thereof.\n3. In the case of Member States with a KP registry, the clearing value shall be equal to:\n(a)\nthe minimum deposit quantity on 1 June; minus\n(b)\nthe total amount of Chapter III allowances surrendered by operators administered by the national administrator of the Member State for the 2008-12 period.\n4. In the case of Member States with no KP registry, the clearing value shall be equal to the gateway quantity calculated in accordance with Article 53 on 1 June 2013.\n5. Within 5 working days of the notification set out in paragraph 2, each KP registry administrator whose Member State has a positive clearing value shall transfer an amount of AAUs equal to the clearing value to the ETS central clearing account in the Union registry. In the case of Member States with no KP registry, this transfer shall be carried out by the Central Administrator from the gateway deposit account for the Member State with no KP registry.\n6. Within 5 working days of the completion of the transfers set out in paragraph 5, the Central Administrator shall transfer an amount of AAUs from the ETS central clearing account in the Union registry to a KP Party holding account in the KP registry of each Member State with a negative clearing value that is equal to the positive equivalent of the clearing value. In the case of Member States with no KP registry, this amount shall be transferred to the gateway deposit account.\nArticle 57\nBanking between periods\nWithin 10 working days of the completion of the clearing transactions set out in Article 56, the Union registry shall delete Chapter III allowances and Chapter II allowances valid for the 2008-2012 period held in user accounts in the Union registry and issue an equal amount of Chapter III allowances valid for the 2013-2020 period to the same accounts.\nArticle 58\nRetirement of AAUs, ERUs or CERs against the domestic aviation emissions of aircraft operators\n1. By 30 September of the year following the year of entry into force of this Regulation, the Central Administrator shall transfer an amount of Kyoto units from the aviation surrender set-aside account in the Union registry to the Party holding account of each Member State that is equal to those verified emissions by aircraft operators that are included in the national inventory under the UNFCCC of that Member State for that year. The amounts thus transferred shall constitute of AAUs to the extent possible. If the AAUs in the aviation surrender set-aside account are not sufficient for completing all transfers, the Central Administrator shall preferentially transfer AAUs to those Member States whose domestic aviation emissions are lower than the amount of AAUs they transferred into the aviation surrender set-aside account in accordance with Article 54(1).\n2. If the holdings of the aviation surrender set-aside account are not enough to carry out the transfer set out in paragraph 1, all amounts to be transferred shall be reduced with a factor that shall equal the total units held on the aviation surrender set-aside account divided by the total amount of units required to be transferred.\nCHAPTER VII\nTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGISTRIES SYSTEM\nSECTION I\nAvailability\nArticle 59\nAvailability and reliability of the Union registry and the EUTL\n1. The EUTL shall respond to any message from any registry within 24 hours of its receipt.\n2. The Central Administrator shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that:\n(a)\nthe Union registry is available for access by account holders 24 hours a day, 7 days a week;\n(b)\nthe communication links referred to in Article 5(1) and (2) between the Union registry and the EUTL are maintained 24 hours a day, 7 days a week;\n(c)\nbackup hardware and software necessary in the event of a breakdown in operations of the primary hardware and software is provided for;\n(d)\nthe Union registry and the EUTL respond promptly to requests made by account holders.\n3. The Central Administrator shall ensure that the Union registry and EUTL incorporate robust systems and procedures for the safeguarding of all data and the prompt recovery of all data and operations in the event of a disaster.\n4. The Central Administrator shall keep interruptions to the operation of the Union registry and EUTL to a minimum.\nArticle 60\nHelpdesks\n1. National administrators shall provide assistance and support to holders of accounts in the Union registry that are administered by them through national helpdesks.\n2. The Central Administrator shall provide support to national administrators through a Central Helpdesk for the purposes of helping them to provide assistance in accordance with paragraph 1.\nSECTION 2\nSecurity, and authentication\nArticle 61\nAuthentication of registries and the EUTL\n1. The identity of the Union registry shall be authenticated towards the EUTL with digital certificates and usernames and passwords as indicated in the Data Exchange and Technical Specifications provided for in Article 71.\n2. The Member States and the Union shall use the digital certificates issued by the Secretariat to the UNFCCC, or an entity designated by it, to authenticate their registries to the ITL for the purposes of establishing the communication link referred to in Article 5.\nArticle 62\nAccessing accounts in the Union registry\n1. Account holders shall be able to access their accounts in the Union registry through the secure area of the Union registry. The Central administrator shall ensure that the secure area of the Union registry website is accessible through the Internet. The website of the Union registry shall be available in all languages of the European Union.\n2. The Central administrator shall ensure that accounts in the Union registry where access through trading platforms in accordance with Article 19(3) is enabled and one authorised representative is also the authorised representative of a trading platform holding account are accessible to the trading platform operated by the holder of that trading platform holding account.\n3. Communications between authorised representatives or trading platforms and the secure area of Union registry shall be encrypted in accordance with the security requirements set out in the Data Exchange and Technical Specifications provided for in Article 71.\n4. The Central administrator shall take all necessary steps to ensure that unauthorised access to the secure area of the Union registry website does not occur.\n5. If the security of the credentials of an authorised representative or additional authorised representative has been compromised, the authorised representative or additional authorised representative shall immediately inform the administrator of the account thereof and request a replacement.\nArticle 63\nAuthentication and authorisation of authorised representatives in the Union registry\n1. The Union registry shall issue each authorised representative and additional authorised representative with a username and password to authenticate them for the purposes of accessing the registry.\n2. An authorised representative or additional authorised representative shall only have access to the accounts within the Union registry which he is authorised to access and shall only be able to request the initiation of processes which he is authorised to request pursuant to Article 19. That access or request shall take place through a secure area of the website of the Union registry.\n3. In addition to the username and password referred to in paragraph 1, national administrators shall provide secondary authentication to all accounts administered by them. The types of secondary authentication mechanisms that can be used to access the Union registry shall be set out in the Data Exchange and Technical Specifications provided for in Article 71.\n4. The administrator of an account may assume that a user who was successfully authenticated by the Union registry is the authorised representative or additional authorised representative registered under the provided authentication credentials, unless the authorised representative or additional authorised representative informs the administrator of the account that the security of his credentials has been compromised and requests a replacement.\nArticle 64\nSuspension of all access by authorised representatives due to a security breach\n1. The Central Administrator may suspend access to the Union registry or the EUTL if there is a breach of security of the Union registry or the EUTL which threatens the integrity of the registries system, including the back-up facilities referred to in Article 59.\n2. The administrator of a KP registry may suspend access by all users to its KP registry if there is a breach of security of the KP registry which threatens the integrity of the registries system, including the back-up facilities referred to in Article 59.\n3. In the event of a breach of security that may lead to suspension of access, the administrator who becomes aware of the breach shall promptly inform the Central Administrator of any risks posed to other parts of the registries system. The Central Administrator shall then inform all other administrators.\n4. If an administrator becomes aware of a situation that requires the suspension of all access to its system, it shall inform the Central Administrator and account holders with such prior notice of the suspension as is practicable. The Central Administrator will then inform all other administrators as soon as possible.\n5. The notice referred to in paragraph 3 shall include the likely duration of the suspension and shall be clearly displayed on the public area of that KP registry\u2019s website or on the public area of the EUTL's website.\nArticle 65\nSuspension of processes\n1. The Commission may instruct the Central Administrator to temporarily suspend the acceptance by the EUTL of some or all processes originating from a KP registry, if that registry is not operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation and shall immediately notify the administrator of the KP registry thereof.\n2. The Commission may instruct the Central Administrator to temporarily suspend the acceptance by the EUTL of some or all processes originating from the Union registry, if it is not operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation and shall immediately notify national administrators thereof.\n3. The administrator of a KP registry may request the Central Administrator to temporarily suspend the transmission of all or some of the processes to its KP registry for the purposes of carrying out maintenance on its KP registry.\n4. The Central administrator may temporarily suspend the initiation or acceptance of some or all processes in the Union registry for the purposes of carrying out scheduled maintenance on the Union registry.\n5. A KP registry administrator may request the central administrator to reinstate processes suspended in accordance with paragraph 1 if it estimates that the outstanding issues that caused the suspension have been resolved. The Central administrator shall inform the registry administrator of its decision as soon as possible.\nSECTION 3\nAutomated checking, recording and completing of processes\nArticle 66\nAutomated checking of processes\n1. All processes must conform to the general IT-requirements of electronic messaging that ensure the successful reading, checking and recording of a process by the Union registry. All processes must conform to the specific process-related requirements set out in Chapters IV to VI of this Regulation.\n2. The EUTL shall conduct automated checks for all processes to identify irregularities, hereinafter referred to as \u2018discrepancies\u2019, whereby the proposed process does not conform to the requirements of Directive 2003/87/EC and of this Regulation.\nArticle 67\nDetection of discrepancies\n1. In case of processes completed through the direct communication link between the Union registry and the EUTL referred to in Article 5(2), the EUTL shall terminate any processes where it identifies discrepancies upon conducting the automated checks referred to in Article 66(2), and shall inform thereof the Union registry and the administrator of the accounts involved in the terminated transaction by returning an automated check response code. The Union registry shall immediately inform the relevant account holders that the process has been terminated.\n2. In case of transactions completed through the ITL referred to in Article 5(1), the ITL shall terminate any processes where discrepancies are identified either by the ITL or the EUTL upon conducting the automated checks referred to in Article 66(2). Following a termination by the ITL, the EUTL shall also terminate the transaction. The ITL informs the administrators of the registries involved of the termination of the transaction by returning an automated check response code. If one of the registries involved is the Union registry, the Union registry shall also inform the administrator of the Union registry accounts involved in the terminated transaction by returning an automated check response code. The Union registry shall immediately inform the relevant account holders that the process has been terminated.\nArticle 68\nDetection of discrepancies by the registries\n1. The Union registry and every other KP registry shall contain check input codes and check response codes to ensure the correct interpretation of information exchanged during each process. The check codes shall correspond to those contained in the Data Exchange and Technical Specifications provided for in Article 71.\n2. Prior to and during the execution of all processes the Union registry shall conduct appropriate automated checks to ensure that discrepancies are detected and incorrect processes are terminated in advance of automated checks being conducted by the EUTL.\nArticle 69\nReconciliation - Detection of inconsistencies by the EUTL\n1. The EUTL shall periodically initiate data reconciliation to ensure that the EUTL's records of accounts, holdings of Kyoto units and allowances match the records of these holdings in the Union registry. For that purpose the EUTL shall record all processes.\n2. The ITL periodically initiates data reconciliation to ensure that the ITL's records of the holdings of Kyoto units match the records of these holdings in the Union registry and every other KP registry.\n3. If during the data reconciliation process referred to in paragraph 1, an irregularity, hereinafter referred to as \u2018inconsistency\u2019, is identified by EUTL, whereby the information regarding accounts, holdings of Kyoto units and allowances provided by the Union registry as part of the periodic reconciliation process differs from the information contained in the EUTL, the EUTL shall ensure that no further processes may be completed with any of the accounts, allowances or Kyoto units which are the subject of the inconsistency. The EUTL shall immediately inform the Central Administrator and the administrators of the relevant accounts of any inconsistency.\nArticle 70\nFinalisation of processes\n1. All transactions communicated to the ITL in accordance with Article 5(1) shall be final when the ITL notifies to the EUTL that it has completed the process.\n2. All transactions and other processes communicated to the EUTL in accordance with Article 5(3) shall be final when the EUTL notifies to the Union registry that it has completed the processes.\n3. The data reconciliation process referred to in Article 69(1) shall be final when all inconsistencies between the information contained in the Union registry and the information contained in the EUTL for a specific time and date have been resolved, and the data reconciliation process has been successfully re-initiated and completed.\nSECTION 4\nSpecifications and change management\nArticle 71\nData Exchange and Technical Specifications\nFollowing an opinion of the Climate Change Committee pursuant to Article 3 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC (14), the Commission shall adopt the Data Exchange and Technical Specifications necessary for exchanging data between registries and transaction logs, including the identification codes, automated checks and response codes, as well as the testing procedures and security requirements necessary for the launching of data exchange. The Data Exchange and Technical Specifications shall be consistent with the functional and technical specifications for data exchange standards for registry systems under the Kyoto Protocol elaborated pursuant to Decision 12/CMP.1.\nArticle 72\nChange management\nIf a new version or release of a KP registry, including the Union registry is required, that registry shall complete the testing procedures set out in the Data Exchange and Technical Specifications provided for in Article 71 before a communication link is established and activated between the new version or release of that registry and the EUTL or ITL.\nCHAPTER VIII\nRECORDS, REPORTS, CONFIDENTIALITY AND FEES\nArticle 73\nRecords\n1. The Union registry and every other KP registry shall store records concerning all processes and account holders for 15 years or until any questions of implementation relating to them have been resolved, whichever is later.\n2. National administrators shall be able to access, query and export all records held in the Union registry in relation to accounts that are administered by them.\n3. Records shall be stored in accordance with the data logging requirements described in the Data Exchange and Technical Specifications provided for in Article 71.\nArticle 74\nReporting\n1. The Central Administrator shall make available the information listed in Annex XIII at the frequencies and to the recipients set out in Annex XIII in a transparent and organised manner via the EUTL website. The Central Administrator shall not release additional information held in the EUTL or in the Union registry unless this is permitted under Article 75.\n2. National administrators may also make available the part of the information listed in Annex XIII that they have access to in accordance with Article 73 at the frequencies and to the recipients set out in Annex XIII in a transparent and organised manner on a site publicly accessible via the Internet. National administrators shall not release additional information held in the Union registry unless this is permitted under Article 75.\n3. The EUTL website shall allow recipients of the reports listed in Annex XIII to query those reports using search facilities.\n4. KP registry administrators shall comply with the requirement to publish the information relating to the issuance of ERUs specified in paragraph 46 of the Annex to Decision 13/CMP.1 of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol within a week after the issuance has taken place.\n5. The Union registry and each KP registry shall comply with the requirement to publish the information specified in points (a), (d), (f) and l of paragraph 47 of the Annex to Decision 13/CMP.1 of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on 1 January of the fifth year after the recording of the information.\n6. The Union registry and each KP registry shall comply with the requirement to publish the information specified in points (b), (c), (e), and from (g) to (k) of paragraph 47 of the Annex to Decision 13/CMP.1 of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on 1 January of the first year after the recording of the information.\nArticle 75\nConfidentiality\n1. All information, including the holdings of all accounts and all transactions, held in the EUTL and the Union registry and every other KP registry shall be considered confidential for any purpose other than the implementation of the requirements of this Regulation, Directive 2003/87/EC or national law.\n2. The following entities may obtain data stored in the Union registry and the EUTL:\n(a)\nthe law enforcement and tax authorities of a Member State;\n(b)\nthe European Anti-fraud Office of the European Commission;\n(c)\nEuropol;\n(d)\nnational administrators of Member States.\n3. Data may be provided to the entities listed under paragraph 2. upon their request to the Central Administrator or to a national administrator if such requests are justified and necessary for the purposes of investigation, detection and prosecution of fraud, tax administration or enforcement, money laundering, terrorism financing or serious crime.\n4. An entity receiving data in accordance with paragraph 3 shall ensure that the data received is only used for the purposes stated in the request in accordance with paragraph 3 and is not made available deliberately or accidentally to persons not involved in the intended purpose of the data use. This provision shall not preclude these entities to make the data available to other entities listed in paragraph 2, if this is necessary for the purposes stated in the request made in accordance with paragraph 3.\n5. Upon their request, the Central administrator may provide access to anonymised transaction data to the entities listed in paragraph 2. for the purpose of looking for suspicious transaction patterns. Entities with such access may notify suspicious transaction patterns to other entities listed in paragraph 2.\n6. National administrators shall make available through secure means to all other national administrators the names and identities of persons whom they refused to open an account for in accordance with Article 13(3) or 14(3), or whom refused to nominate as an authorised representative or additional authorised representative in accordance with Article 20(3).\n7. National administrators may decide to notify to national law enforcement authorities all transactions that involve a number of units above the amount determined by the national administrator and to notify any account that is involved in a number of transactions within a 24-hour period that is above the amount determined by the national administrator.\n8. Account holders may request from the national administrator in writing that the public website of the Union registry should not display some or all of the data items in, rows 2 to 12 of Table VII-II of Annex VII.\n9. Account holders may request from the national administrator in writing that the public website of the Union registry display some or all of the data items in rows 3 to 15 of Table IX-I of Annex IX.\n10. Neither the EUTL nor KP registries shall require account holders to submit price information concerning allowances or Kyoto units.\nArticle 76\nFees\n1. The Central Administrator shall not charge any fees to holders of accounts in the Union registry.\n2. National administrators may charge reasonable fees to holders of accounts administered by them.\n3. No fees shall be charged for the transactions described in Chapter VI.\n4. National administrators shall notify the charged fees to the Central Administrator and shall notify it of any changes in the fees within 10 working days. The Central Administrator shall display any fees notified to it on its public website.\nCHAPTER IX\nTRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 77\nMigration and Decoupling\n1. When implementing this Regulation, the following migration process shall apply:\n(a)\nKP registry administrators shall convert any allowances held in any account that are recognised as AAUs by the ITL into AAUs by removing the allowance element from the unique unit identification code of each such AAU and transfer them into the ETS AAU deposit account in their KP registry;\n(b)\nthe Central Administrator shall:\n(i)\ncreate an amount of allowances not recognised as AAUs by the ITL in the Union registry that is equal to the amount transferred in accordance with paragraph (1)(a);\n(ii)\nmake available in the Union registry a set of accounts equivalent to the set from which allowances were transferred in accordance with paragraph (1)(a);\n(iii)\ntransfer an amount of allowances created in accordance with (i) to accounts referred to in (ii). The amount of allowances transferred to each such account shall be equal to the amount transferred from the equivalent account in accordance with paragraph (1)(a).\n2. The KP registry administrators and the Central Administrator shall ensure that relevant historical data related to the account is transferred from the Member States\u2019 registries to the Union registry.\n3. The migration process shall be implemented in accordance with procedures defined in the Data Exchange and Technical Specifications referred to in Article 71. In the course of the migration process, operation of the registry system may be suspended by the Central Administrator for a period of up to 14 calendar days.\nArticle 78\nAmendments of Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004\nRegulation (EC) No 2216/2004 is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 6, the following paragraph 4 is added:\n\u20184. The Central Administrator may establish a restricted communication link between the CITL and the registry of an Accession Country for the purposes of enabling such registries to communicate with the UNFCCC independent transaction log through the CITL and to record verified emissions data of operators in the CITL. Such registries must successfully complete all testing and initialisation procedures required of registries.\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 10, paragraph 2 is replaced with the following paragraphs 2 to 2e:\n\u20182. The following entities may obtain data stored in the registries and the CITL:\n(a)\nthe law enforcement and tax authorities of a Member State;\n(b)\nthe European Anti-fraud Office of the European Commission;\n(c)\nEuropol;\n(d)\nregistry administrators of Member States.\n2a. Transaction data may be provided to the entities listed under paragraph 2. upon their request to the Central Administrator or to a registry administrator if such requests are justified and necessary for the purposes of investigation, detection and prosecution of fraud, tax administration or enforcement, money laundering, terrorism financing or serious crime.\n2b. An entity receiving data in accordance with paragraph 2a shall ensure that the data received is only used for the purposes stated in the request in accordance with paragraph 2a and is not made available deliberately or accidentally to persons not involved in the intended purpose of the data use. This provision shall not preclude these entities to make the data available to other entities listed in paragraph 2, if this is necessary for the purposes stated in the request made in accordance with paragraph 2a.\n2c. Upon their request, the Central administrator may provide access to anonymised transaction data to the entities listed in paragraph 2. for the purpose of looking for suspicious transaction patterns. Entities with such access may notify suspicious transaction patterns to other entities listed in paragraph 2.\n2d. Registry administrators shall make available through secure means to all other registry administrators the names and identities of persons whom they refused to open an account for, or whom refused to nominate as an authorised representative or additional authorised representative.\n2e. Registry administrators may decide to notify to national law enforcement authorities all transactions that involve a number of units above the amount determined by the registry administrator and to notify any account that is involved in a number of transactions within a 24-hour period that is above an amount determined by the registry administrator.\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 11, the following paragraph 6 is added:\n\u20186. The account holder of a person holding account, a verifier account or an aircraft operator holding account may not sell or divest of the ownership of its account to another person. The account holder of an operator holding account may only sell or divest of its operator holding account together with the installation linked to the operator holding account.\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 19, paragraph 2 is replaced with the following:\n\u20182. Within 10 days of the receipt of an application in accordance with paragraph 1 the registry administrator shall create a person holding account in its registry in accordance with the account creation process set out in Annex VIII or inform the person requesting the account opening that it refuses to open the account.\u2019;\n5.\nin Article 19, paragraph 3 is replaced with the following:\n\u20183. The applicant shall notify the registry administrator within 10 days of any changes in the information provided to the registry administrator pursuant to paragraph 1. Within 10 days of the receipt of such a notification the registry administrator shall update the person\u2019s details in accordance with the account update process set out in Annex VIII or refuse updating and inform the account holder thereof.\u2019;\n6.\nin Article 19, the following paragraphs 5 and 6 are added:\n\u20185. If the registry administrator refused opening the account or refused updating information related to the account, the person requesting the account opening may object to this refusal with the competent authority, who shall either instruct the registry administrator to open the account or uphold the refusal in a reasoned decision. Reasons for refusing the opening an account may be that the person requesting the account opening is under investigation for being involved in fraud involving allowances or Kyoto units, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crimes to which the account may be an instrument, or any other reason set out in national law.\n6. The registry administrator may require that EU persons requesting the account opening have their permanent residence or registration in the Member State of the registry.\u2019;\n7.\nthe following Article 21a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 21a\nClosure of accounts and removal of authorised representative on the administrator's initiative\n1. If the situation giving rise to the suspension of access to accounts pursuant to Article 67 is not resolved within a reasonable period despite repeated notifications, the competent authority may instruct the registry administrator to close those person holding accounts where access is suspended.\n2. The account holder may object to the closure of its account in accordance with paragraph 1 with the competent authority within 30 calendar days, who shall either instruct the registry administrator to reinstate the account or uphold the closure in a reasoned decision.\n3. If there is a positive balance of allowances or Kyoto units on an account which the registry administrator is to close after suspension in accordance with Article 67(1), the registry administrator shall first request the account holder to specify another account administered by the same administrator to which such allowances or Kyoto units shall then be transferred. If the account holder has not responded to the administrator\u2019s request within 40 working days, the administrator may transfer the allowances or Kyoto units to its national allowance holding account.\n4. If there is a positive balance of allowances or Kyoto units on an account which was suspended in accordance with Article 67(1b), the competent authority may require in its instruction in accordance with paragraph 1 that these allowances or Kyoto units are moved immediately to the relevant national allowance holding account and KP Party holding account.\u2019;\n8.\nin Article 23, the following paragraphs 5 to 10 are added:\n\u20185. Authorised representatives must be natural persons over 18 years. All authorised representatives and additional authorised representatives of a single account must be different persons but the same person can be an authorised representative or an additional authorised representative on more than one account. The registry administrator may require that at least one of the authorised representatives of operator holding accounts or person holding accounts must be a permanent resident in the Member State of the registry.\n6. When nominating an authorised representative or additional authorised representative, the account holder shall provide the information required by the registry administrator. That information shall include at least the documents and identification information on the nominee set out in Annex IVa.\n7. The registry administrator shall evaluate the information received and if it finds it satisfactory, it shall approve the nominee within 20 working days of receiving the information or inform the person requesting the account opening that it refuses the approval. Where the evaluation of the nominee information requires more time, the registry administrator may once extend the evaluation process by up to 20 additional working days, and notify the extension to the account holder.\n8. If the registry administrator refused to approve an authorised representative or additional authorised representative, the person requesting the account opening may object to this refusal with the competent authority, who shall either instruct the registry administrator to carry out the approval or uphold the refusal in a reasoned decision. Reasons for refusing the approval may be that the person nominated as authorised representative or additional authorised representative is under investigation for being involved in fraud involving allowances or Kyoto units, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crimes to which the account may be an instrument, or any other reason set out in national law.\n9. An authorised representative or additional authorised representative may not transfer its status as such to another person.\n10. The registry administrator may remove an authorised representative or an additional authorised representative if it considers that the approval of the authorised representative or an additional authorised representative should have been refused in accordance with paragraph 7. and in particular if it discovers that the documents and identification information provided in upon nomination were fraudulent or erroneous. The account holder may object to this removal with the competent authority who shall either instruct the registry administrator to re-approve the authorised representative or an additional authorised representative or uphold the removal in a reasoned decision. Reasons for removal of an authorised representative or an additional authorised representative may be that he or she is convicted for being involved in fraud involving allowances or Kyoto units, money laundering, terrorist financing or other serious crimes to which the account may be an instrument, or any other reason set out in national law.\u2019;\n9.\nin Article 34a, the following paragraph 2a is inserted:\n\u20182a. If a registry administrator unintentionally or erroneously initiated an allocation under Article 46 that resulted in allocating allowances to an installation that was not operating anymore at the time of the allocation transaction, the competent authority may notify its request to the Central Administrator to carry out a manual intervention in order to reverse the transaction within the deadlines set out in paragraph 2.\u2019;\n10.\nSection 1 of Chapter V is deleted;\n11.\nArticle 49(1)(b) is deleted;\n12.\nArticle 53 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The registry administrator shall only accept requests to surrender CERs and ERUs up to the percentage of allocation to each installation specified by Member State legislation. The CITL shall reject any request to surrender CERs and ERUs that would surpass the maximum allowed amount of CERs and ERUs to be surrendered in the Member State, or that would result in surrendering CERs or ERUs that are barred from surrendering in accordance with Article 11a of Directive 2003/87/EC.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraphs are added:\n\u2018A CER or ERU that was already surrendered may not be surrendered again nor transferred to an operator or person holding account in the EU ETS.\nSurrendered CERs and ERUs shall only be transferred into a retirement account.\u2019;\n13.\nArticle 54 is deleted;\n14.\nArticle 58 is deleted;\n15.\nSection 7 of Chapter V is deleted;\n16.\nArticle 62(2) is deleted;\n17.\nin Article 67, the following paragraphs 1a, 1b and 1c are inserted:\n\u20181a. An administrator may suspend the access of authorised representatives and additional authorised representatives to a specific account where one of the following conditions is fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe account holder died without a legal successor or ceased to exist as a legal person;\n(b)\nthe account holder did not pay its fees; or\n(c)\nthe account holder violated the terms and conditions applicable to the account; or\n(d)\nthe account holder did not agree to the changes in the terms and conditions;\n(e)\nthe account holder did not provide evidence concerning the changes to account information;\n(f)\nthe account holder failed to maintain the required minimum number of authorised representatives for the account;\n(g)\nthe account holder failed to maintain compliance with the Member State requirement to have an authorised representative with a permanent residence in the Member State of the administrator of the account;\n(h)\nthe account holder failed to maintain compliance with the Member State requirement that the account holder have a permanent residence or registration in the Member State of the administrator of the account.\n1b. The registry administrator may suspend access to a person holding account if it considers that its opening should have been refused on the basis of Article 19(2). The account holder may object to the suspension with the competent authority or the relevant authority under national law within 30 calendar days, who shall either instruct the registry administrator to reinstate access or uphold the suspension in a reasoned decision.\n1c. The competent authority, or in the case of accounts in the Union registry, the Central administrator may also instruct the administrator to implement a suspension in accordance with paragraph 1a.\u2019;\n18.\nAnnex IV is replaced with the following:\n\u2018ANNEX IV\nInformation concerning person holding accounts to be provided to the registry administrator\n1.\nThe information set out in Table IV-I. (The account ID and the alphanumeric identifier shall be unique within the registry.)\nTable IV-I\n1\nAccount ID (given by registry)\n2\nAccount type\n3\nCommitment period\n4\nAccount holder ID (issued by registry)\n5\nAccount holder Name\n6\nAccount Identifier (given by account holder)\n7\nAccount holder address - country\n8\nAccount holder address - region or state\n9\nAccount holder address - city\n10\nAccount holder address - postcode\n11\nAccount holder address - street\n12\nAccount holder address - street No\n13\nAccount holder address Company registration No or ID No\n14\nAccount holder address Telephone 1\n15\nAccount holder address Telephone 2\n16\nAccount holder address email address\n17\nDate of Birth (for natural persons)\n18\nPlace of Birth (for natural persons)\n19\nVAT registration number with country code\n2.\nProof that the person requesting the account opening has an open bank account in a Member State of the European Economic Area.\n3.\nEvidence to support the identity of the person requesting the account opening, which may be a certified copy one of the following:\n(a)\na passport or identity card issued by a state that is a member of the European Economic Area or the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development;\n(b)\nany other passport, certified by an EU embassy as valid.\n4.\nEvidence to support the address of the permanent residence of the natural person account holder, which may be a certified copy of one of the following:\n(a)\nthe identity document submitted under point 3, if it contains the address of the permanent residence;\n(b)\nany other government-issued identity document that contains the address of permanent residence;\n(c)\nif the country of permanent residence does not issue identity documents that contain the address of permanent residence, a statement from the local authorities confirming the nominee's permanent residence;\n(d)\nany other document that is customarily accepted in the Member State of the administrator of the account as evidence of the permanent residence of the nominee.\n5.\nEvidence to support the registered address of the legal person account holder, which may be a certified copy of one of the following:\n(a)\nthe instrument establishing the legal entity;\n(b)\nproving the registration of the legal entity.\n6.\nAny document submitted as evidence under points 4 or 5 that was issued by a government outside the European Economic Area or the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development must be certified as authentic by a notary public.\n7.\nThe registry administrator may require that the documents submitted are accompanied with a certified translation into a language specified by the registry administrator.\u2019;\n19.\nthe following Annex IVa is inserted:\n\u2018ANNEX IVa\nInformation concerning authorised representatives and additional authorised representatives to be provided to the registry administrator\nTable IVa-I: Authorised representative details\n1\nPerson ID\n2\nType of AR\n3\nFirst Name\n4\nLast Name\n5\nTitle\n6\nJob title\n7\nAddress - country\n8\nAddress - region or state\n9\nAddress - city\n10\nAddress - postcode\n11\nAddress - street\n12\nAddress - street number\n13\nTelephone 1\n14\nTelephone 2\n15\nE-mail address\n16\nDate of Birth\n17\nPlace of Birth\n18\nPreferred language\n19\nConfidentiality level\n20\nAARs rights\n1.\nThe information set out in Table IVa-I.\n2.\nA signed statement from the account holder indicating that it wishes to nominate a particular person as authorised representative or additional authorised representative.\n3.\nProof that the nominee has an open bank account in a Member State of the European Economic Area.\n4.\nEvidence to support the identity of the nominee, which may be a certified copy of one of the following:\n(a)\npassport or identity card issued by a state that is a member of the European Economic Area or the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development;\n(b)\nany other passport, certified by an EU embassy as valid.\n5.\nEvidence to support the address of the permanent residence of the nominee, which may be a certified copy of one of the following:\n(a)\nthe identity document submitted under point 4, if it contains the address of the permanent residence;\n(b)\nany other government-issued identity document that contains the address of permanent residence;\n(c)\nif the country of permanent residence does not issue identity documents that contain the address of permanent residence, a statement from the local authorities confirming the nominee's permanent residence;\n(d)\nany other document that is customarily accepted in the Member State of the administrator of the account as evidence of the permanent residence of the nominee.\n6.\nAny document submitted as evidence under point 5 that was issued by a government outside the European Economic Area or the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development must be certified as authentic by a notary public.\n7.\nThe registry administrator may require that the documents submitted are accompanied with a certified translation into a language specified by the registry administrator.\u2019;\n20.\nAnnex XIa is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin Table XIa-3, the sentence \u2018The allowances allocated for the years before the current year will have a value of zero.\u2019 is deleted;\n(b)\nin Table XIa-4, the sentence \u2018The allowances allocated for the years before the current year won\u2019t be modified.\u2019 is deleted;\n(c)\nin Table XIa-7, the code \u20187215\u2019 is deleted;\n21.\nin Annex XII, the description beside response code 7701 in Table XII-I shall be replaced with the following text:\n\u2018Allocation must be provided for all the years.\u2019;\n22.\nAnnex XVI is amended as follows:\n1.\npoint 1 is replaced with the following:\n\u20181.\nThe Central Administrator shall display and update the information in paragraphs 2 to 4c in respect of the registry system on the public area of the Community independent transaction log's website, in accordance with the specified timing, and each registry administrator shall display and update the information in paragraphs 2 to 4b information in respect of its registry on the public area of that registry's website, in accordance with the specified timing.\u2019;\n2.\npoint 2(a) is replaced with the following:\n\u2018(a)\nname, address, city, postcode, country, telephone number and email address of the account holder.\u2019;\n3.\npoint 2(c) is replaced with the following:\n\u2018(c)\nname, address, city, postcode, country, telephone number, facsimile number and email address of the primary and secondary authorised representatives of the account specified by the account holder for that account, provided that the account holder requested the registry administrator in writing to display all or some of this information.\u2019;\n4.\npoints 4(a) and (b) are replaced with the following:\n\u2018(a)\nverified emissions figure, along with its corrections for the installation related to the operator holding account for year X shall be displayed from 1 April onwards of year (X+1), or if 1 April falls on a weekend or on a holiday, then the verified emissions figure shall be displayed from the first working day following 1 April.;\n(b)\nunits surrendered pursuant to Articles 52 and 53, by unit identification code (in the case of ERUs and CERs), for year X shall be displayed from 1 May onwards of year (X+1);\u2019;\n5.\npoint 4c is added:\n\u20184c.\nA list shall be displayed and updated every 24 hours that displays the unit IDs of all allowances, CERs and ERUs that were surrendered. In the case of CERs and ERUs, project name, originating country and project ID shall also be displayed.\u2019;\n6.\npoint 12a is replaced by the following:\n\u201812a.\nThe CITL shall display on its public website the following general information, on 30 April of each year:\n-\nthe percentage share of allowances surrendered in each Member State in the preceding calendar year that were surrendered from the account to which they were allocated to,\n-\nthe sum of verified emissions by Member State entered for the preceding calendar year as a percentage of the sum of verified emissions of the year before that year,\n-\nthe percentage share belonging to accounts administered by a particular Member State in the number and volume of all allowance and Kyoto unit transfer transactions in the preceding calendar year,\n-\nthe percentage share belonging to accounts administered by a particular Member State in the number and volume of all allowance and Kyoto unit transfer transactions in the preceding calendar year between accounts administered by different Member States.\u2019\nArticle 79\nRepeal\nRegulations (EC) No 2216/2004 and (EC) No 994/2008 are repealed with effect from 1 January 2012.\nArticle 80\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticles 2 to 76 and the Annexes shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 October 2010.", "references": ["15", "46", "71", "82", "39", "78", "16", "47", "8", "28", "77", "18", "6", "93", "37", "49", "89", "22", "98", "2", "54", "24", "21", "34", "99", "51", "96", "25", "44", "72", "No Label", "41", "42", "58", "60", "76"], "gold": ["41", "42", "58", "60", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 20/2012\nof 11 January 2012\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for import licences lodged from 1 to 6 January 2012 in the context of the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 for barley\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 (3) opens an annual tariff quota for the import of 307 105 tonnes of barley (order number 09.4126).\n(2)\nThe notification made in accordance with Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 shows that the applications lodged from 1 January 2012 to 6 January 2012 at 13.00 (Brussels time), in accordance with Article 3(1) of that Regulation, exceed the quantities available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined and the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities applied for should be fixed.\n(3)\nNo further import licences should be issued under Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 for the current quota period.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure for issuing import licences, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Each application for an import licence for barley under the quota referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003, lodged from 1 January 2012 to 6 January 2012 at 13.00 (Brussels time), shall be accepted for the quantities applied for multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 3,989135 %.\n2. The issue of licences for the quantities applied for from 6 January 2012 at 13.00 (Brussels time) is hereby suspended for the current quota period.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 January 2012.", "references": ["46", "12", "83", "73", "70", "31", "0", "7", "99", "25", "77", "96", "51", "92", "14", "50", "84", "43", "19", "42", "3", "48", "23", "75", "57", "93", "18", "91", "74", "98", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 15 February 2011\non the clearance of the accounts of a paying agency in Italy concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2008 financial year\n(notified under document C(2011) 757)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(2011/104/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 30 and Article 32(8) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decisions 2009/367/EC (2) and 2010/56/EU (3) cleared, for the 2008 financial year, the accounts of all the paying agencies except for the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019 and the Greek paying agency \u2018OPEKEPE\u2019.\n(2)\nFollowing the transmission of new information and after additional checks, the Commission can now take a decision on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019.\n(3)\nThe first subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (4) lays down that the amounts that are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State, in accordance with the accounts clearance decision referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the said Regulation, shall be determined by deducting the monthly payments in respect of the financial year in question, i.e. 2008, from expenditure recognised for that year in accordance with paragraph 1. The Commission shall deduct that amount from, or add it to, the monthly payment relating to the expenditure effected in the second month following that in which the accounts clearance decision is taken.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities shall be borne by the Member State concerned and 50 % by the EU budget if the recovery of those irregularities has not taken place within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts. Article 32(3) of the said Regulation obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, together with the annual accounts, a summary report on the recovery procedures undertaken in response to irregularities. Detailed rules on the application of the Member States\u2019 reporting obligation of the amounts to be recovered are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. Annex III to the said Regulation provides the model table that had to be provided in 2009 by the Member States. On the basis of the tables completed by the Member States, the Commission should decide on the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities older than 4 or 8 years respectively. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 32(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. Such a decision may only be taken if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered or if the recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. If that decision has been taken within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, 100 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery should be borne by the EU budget. In the summary report referred to in Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 the amounts for which the Member State decided not to pursue recovery and the grounds for the decision are shown. These amounts are not charged to the Member States concerned and are consequently to be borne by the EU budget. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of the said Regulation.\n(6)\nIn clearing the accounts of the paying agencies concerned, the Commission must take account of the amounts already withheld from the Member States concerned on the basis of Decisions 2009/367/EC and 2010/56/EU.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from EU financing expenditure not effected in accordance with EU rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accounts of the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019 concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in respect of the 2008 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State concerned pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2011.", "references": ["89", "57", "3", "32", "68", "20", "36", "22", "66", "37", "48", "71", "70", "45", "87", "21", "24", "51", "80", "28", "34", "55", "1", "30", "98", "7", "14", "2", "99", "40", "No Label", "10", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 814/2011\nof 12 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 August 2011.", "references": ["70", "85", "52", "9", "33", "36", "39", "93", "26", "37", "48", "78", "29", "13", "90", "45", "27", "54", "72", "87", "1", "21", "18", "4", "24", "25", "86", "92", "79", "55", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 20 December 2010\nappointing a Slovak member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/798/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Slovak Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Juraj BLAN\u00c1R,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as a member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\nMr Pavol FRE\u0160O\npredseda Bratislavsk\u00e9ho samospr\u00e1vneho kraja\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["26", "60", "48", "30", "47", "66", "27", "46", "49", "61", "21", "92", "50", "24", "76", "51", "4", "34", "37", "57", "62", "35", "77", "28", "63", "0", "43", "20", "42", "5", "No Label", "7", "52", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "52", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 316/2012\nof 12 April 2012\namending for the 168th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 20 March 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to amend twelve entries on its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. On 2 April 2012 it decided to remove one natural person from the list after considering the de-listing request submitted by this person and the Comprehensive Report of the Ombudsperson established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1904(2009).\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 April 2012.", "references": ["81", "43", "55", "36", "50", "28", "5", "93", "65", "73", "6", "30", "79", "10", "66", "82", "32", "83", "42", "67", "0", "22", "2", "94", "34", "13", "89", "85", "74", "7", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 9 June 2011\namending the Schengen consultation network (technical specifications)\n(2011/369/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 789/2001 of 24 April 2001 reserving to the Council implementing powers with regard to certain detailed provisions and practical procedures for examining visa applications (1), and in particular Article 1(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the initiative by the Kingdom of Belgium,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Schengen consultation network (technical specifications) has been established to allow consultation between the central authorities of the Member States in relation to visa applications submitted by nationals from certain third countries.\n(2)\nThe heading formats of the forms transmitted with a view to the consultation between Member States should be amended and, with certain exceptions, the updated list of three-letter codes of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) (\u2018three-letter codes (ICAO)\u2019) for States, entities, territories, nationalities and organisations should be used in the framework of that consultation in line with the list established by Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (2). The use of the three-letter codes (ICAO) with certain exceptions does not affect and is without prejudice to Member States\u2019 competence with regard to the recognition or non-recognition of States or entities. The codes set up for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Kosovo (3) are only for the purpose of VISION consultation.\n(3)\nThe technical specifications of the Schengen consultation network (technical specifications) should be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (4); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(5)\nThis 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 of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (5); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Decision builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of 6 months after the Council has decided on this Decision whether it will implement it in its national law.\n(7)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (6) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A, of Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement (7).\n(8)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (8) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (9).\n(9)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (10) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/349/EU (11).\n(10)\nAs regards Cyprus, this Decision constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession.\n(11)\nThis Decision constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession.\n(12)\nIn accordance with Article 58(4) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (12), until the date referred to in Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation) (13), the procedure set out in Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 789/2001 should continue to apply, if necessary, for the amendments of certain parts of the Schengen consultation network (technical specifications),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nParts 1, 2 and 3 of the Schengen consultation network (technical specifications) are hereby amended as set out in the Annexes I, II and III.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 9 June 2011.\nIt shall apply from 10 July 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Luxembourg, 9 June 2011.", "references": ["72", "44", "79", "45", "74", "67", "60", "50", "70", "43", "53", "33", "30", "62", "78", "37", "84", "91", "40", "47", "52", "16", "29", "35", "8", "58", "66", "25", "12", "75", "No Label", "13", "76"], "gold": ["13", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 2 December 2010\nestablishing the classes of reaction-to-fire performance for certain construction products as regards fibrous gypsum plaster casts\n(notified under document C(2010) 392)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/738/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988, on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1), and in particular Article 20(2)(a) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee on Construction,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 89/106/EEC envisages that in order to take account of different levels of protection for the construction works at national, regional or local levels, it may be necessary to establish in the interpretative documents classes corresponding to the performance of products in respect of each essential requirement. Those documents have been published as the \u2018Communication of the Commission with regard to the interpretative documents of Directive 89/106/EEC (2)\u2019.\n(2)\nWith respect of the essential requirement of safety in the event of fire, interpretative document No 2 lists a number of interrelated measures which together define the fire safety strategy to be variously developed in the Member States.\n(3)\nInterpretative document No 2 identifies one of those measures as the limitation of the generation and spread of fire and smoke within a given area by limiting the potential of construction products to contribute to the full development of a fire.\n(4)\nThe level of that limitation may be expressed only in terms of the different levels of reaction-to-fire performance of the products in their end-use application.\n(5)\nBy way of a harmonised solution, a system of classes was adopted in Commission Decision 2000/147/EC of 8 February 2000 implementing Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards the classification of the reaction to fire performance of construction products (3).\n(6)\nIn the case of fibrous gypsum plaster casts it is necessary to use the classification established in Decision 2000/147/EC.\n(7)\nThe reaction-to-fire performance of many construction products and/or materials, within the classification provided for in Decision 2000/147/EC, is well established and sufficiently well known to fire regulators in Member States that they do not require testing for this particular performance characteristic,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe construction products and/or materials which satisfy all the requirements of the performance characteristic \u2018reaction-to-fire\u2019 without need for further testing are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThe specific classes to be applied to different construction products and/or materials, within the reaction-to-fire classification adopted in Decision 2000/147/EC, are set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nProducts shall be considered in relation to their end-use application, where relevant.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["11", "54", "61", "98", "36", "43", "44", "30", "83", "2", "42", "86", "48", "13", "28", "37", "67", "4", "65", "82", "69", "88", "94", "23", "70", "80", "45", "49", "29", "63", "No Label", "24", "25", "51", "58", "76", "87"], "gold": ["24", "25", "51", "58", "76", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1162/2011\nof 14 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["79", "34", "25", "20", "52", "38", "81", "84", "2", "76", "98", "80", "96", "95", "0", "99", "64", "67", "69", "74", "11", "36", "57", "97", "70", "75", "60", "18", "14", "73", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1187/2011\nof 15 November 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for ling in IIIa; EU waters of Subdivisions 22-32 by vessels flying the flag of Denmark\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2011.", "references": ["76", "57", "39", "51", "47", "77", "95", "23", "75", "65", "12", "5", "29", "6", "2", "11", "55", "18", "84", "27", "80", "25", "92", "33", "40", "69", "82", "14", "60", "85", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 January 2011\non State aid C 50/07 (ex N 894/06) which France plans to implement to promote the development of sickness insurance policies (contrats solidaires et responsables) and supplementary group insurance policies providing cover for death, incapacity and invalidity\n(notified under document C(2011) 267)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/319/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the Article cited above (2) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter of 28 December 2006, France notified to the Commission aid schemes to promote the development of sickness insurance policies (contrats solidaires et responsables) as planned in a Finance (Amendment) Act for 2006. The provisions governing these schemes are set out in Article 88 of the Finance (Amendment) Act for 2006 (Law No 2006-1771 of 30 December 2006) (3). France communicated additional information to the Commission by letters of 26 February, 11 May and 18 September 2007.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 13 November 2007, the Commission informed France of its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty (TFEU) concerning this aid.\n(3)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid measures in question.\n(4)\nFrance transmitted its comments on the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure by letter of 21 December 2007.\n(5)\nThe Commission received comments on this subject from several interested third parties. It communicated them to France, giving it the opportunity to comment on them, and received its comments by letter of 8 May 2008.\n(6)\nFrance communicated additional information to the Commission by letter of 31 October 2008.\n(7)\nCertain interested third parties sent additional information to the Commission during February 2009.\n(8)\nFollowing a meeting between the Commission and the French authorities on 2 June 2009, the latter undertook to examine the possibility of making certain amendments to the schemes notified and to forward their analysis to the Commission as soon as possible.\n(9)\nBy letter dated 22 September 2009, the Commission granted a time limit of 20 working days to France to communicate its analysis.\n(10)\nBy letter dated 3 November 2009, the French authorities requested a suspension of the formal investigation procedure until 1 April 2010.\n(11)\nOn 17 November 2009, the Commission agreed to suspend the formal investigation procedure until 1 April 2010, under the Code of Best Practice for the conduct of State aid control procedures (5), in order to enable France to adapt its draft legislation and to undertake the necessary consultations.\n(12)\nBy letter dated 26 April 2010, the French authorities informed the Commission that any amended draft scheme would reach it on 17 May 2010.\n(13)\nBy letter dated 27 May 2010, the French authorities forwarded the information to the Commission, although without planning amendments to the schemes notified.\nII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\n(14)\nTwo separate tax measures were the subject of the decision to open the formal investigation procedure:\n(15)\nThe first measure notified consists of exemptions from corporation tax, introduced by Article 207-2 of the General Tax Code (CGI), and from local business tax (6) (Article 1461-1 of the CGI) for management operations connected with certain sickness insurance policies (contrats solidaires et responsables). These exemptions would benefit all institutions issuing such policies: mutual societies and unions subject to the Mutual Society Code, provident societies subject to Title III of Book IX of the Social Security Code or to Book VII of the Rural Code, and all insurance undertakings subject to the Insurance Code.\n(16)\nThe main objective of this measure is, by developing this type of policy, to extend the supplementary sickness insurance cover of the French population. In this capacity, the measure would complement the tax-exemption scheme for insurance conventions which applies to the same type of policy and which the Commission authorised by its Decisions of 2 June 2004 (7) and 29 October 2010 (8).\n(17)\nThe sickness insurance policies concerned by this exemption scheme were introduced in France in 2001 (9). They are, firstly, policies covering group operations with compulsory affiliation and, secondly, policies relating to individual and group operations with optional affiliation.\n(18)\nMore specifically, to be eligible, these policies must meet the following conditions:\n-\nno medical information on the insured person will be required from the insurer for affiliation to optional policies,\n-\nthe amount of the contributions or premiums will not be established according to the state of health of the insured person,\n-\nthe cover granted will compulsorily include benefits linked to prevention and to consultations of the treating doctor and his prescriptions,\n-\nthe cover granted will not have to include the contributions to medical costs which the insured person may incur either on account of fees exceeding the rate for certain treatments or certain consultations, or on account of the lack of designation of a treating doctor.\n(19)\nTo qualify for the preferential scheme, insurers will also have to respect thresholds relating to the number of sickness insurance policies (contrats solidaires et responsables) in their portfolio of sickness insurance policies as a whole. These thresholds vary according to the type of policy:\n-\npolicies relating to individual and group operations with optional affiliation:\nTheir share must represent 150 000 persons or a minimum proportion (fixed by decree) of between 80 % and 90 % of all subscribers and affiliated members under policies relating to individual and group operations with optional affiliation subscribed to with the insurer (10).\n-\npolicies relating to group operations with compulsory affiliation:\nTheir share must represent 120 000 persons or a minimum proportion (fixed by decree) of between 90 % and 95 % of all subscribers and affiliated members under policies relating to individual and group operations with compulsory affiliation subscribed to with the insurer (11).\n(20)\nFinally, beneficiary insurers will also have to fulfil at least one of the following conditions:\n-\nimplement gradation of premium rates or meet the costs of contributions depending on the social situation of subscribers and affiliated members,\n-\naffiliated members and subscribers in receipt of aid for the acquisition of supplementary health insurance (12) represent between 3 % and 6 % at least of members or subscribers to sickness insurance policies relating to individual and group operations with optional affiliation taken out with the insurer (13),\n-\npersons at least 65 years of age represent between 15 % and 20 % at least of affiliated members or subscribers to sickness insurance policies taken out with the insurer (14),\n-\npersons under 25 years of age represent between 28 % and 35 % at least of beneficiaries of sickness insurance policies taken out with the insurer (15).\n(21)\nAccording to the French authorities, these last conditions impose mutualisation in terms of premiums or generations and the achievement of a minimum level of effective solidarity. They aim to encourage the dissemination of contrats solidaires et responsables and cover for the entire population, especially by accepting a significant proportion of young or elderly people, two categories encountering the greatest difficulties in obtaining (supplementary) sickness insurance on account of their low resources (the young) or the potential cost they represent (the elderly).\n(22)\nThe scheme also requires these conditions to be assessed at group level, in respect of their activities which are taxable in France. The object of this provision is apparently to avoid circumvention of the scheme or set-ups leading to concentration of this type of risk in a few ad hoc structures, in contradiction with the objective of mutualisation.\n(23)\nAccording to the French authorities, the aim of all these conditions is to encourage insurers to develop the dissemination of these policies, to participate in the implementation of basic and supplementary universal sickness cover and to offer supplementary sickness cover to the entire population under controlled premium conditions. Persons who are targeted in particular are those whose state of health or financial situation does not allow them to take out individual cover.\n(24)\nThe entry into force of this tax measure, initially planned for 1 January 2008 as regards the exemption from corporation tax and the financial year 2010 with regard to the exemption from local business tax, has been postponed until 1 January 2012 and the financial year 2013 respectively, pending Commission approval of the relevant schemes.\n(25)\nThis second tax measure aims to enable insurers to benefit from the tax deduction for equalisation provisions relating to certain supplementary group insurance policies (Article 39 quinquies GD of the General Tax Code (CGI)) beyond that which is permitted under ordinary law (Article 39 quinquies GB) for such provisions.\n(26)\nThe constitution of a technical equalisation provision (16) is provided for in the accounting and prudential regulations governing insurers. Article 30 of Council Directive 91/674/EEC of 19 December 1991 on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (17) defines the equalisation provision as follows: \u2018The equalisation provision shall comprise any amounts set aside in compliance with legal or administrative requirements to equalise fluctuations in loss ratios in future years or to provide for special risks.\u2019.\n(27)\nIn this particular case, the equalisation provision is intended to cushion fluctuations in loss relating to the group operations providing cover for death or physical injury (incapacity and invalidity). These fluctuations in results (from 1 financial year to another) would be linked to the actual calls on the cover provided by the insurance policies taken out in relation to the hypotheses regarding pay-outs under the cover used to draw up the insurance premium rates. The provision allows the technical results relating to the operations concerned to be smoothed, with a view to cushioning significant fluctuations in loss likely to be recorded subsequently.\n(28)\nAccording to the French authorities, the new equalisation provision referred to in Article 39 quinquies GD contributes to the general objective to develop and improve the supply, by insurers, of personal protection cover subscribed to under a so-called \u2018designation\u2019 procedure. This refers to the supplementary group cover resulting from occupational or inter-occupational conventions or collective agreements, company agreements or employer decisions taken, under which the insurer is designated by the social partners (designation procedure). This designation entails the obligation for the designated insurer to respect the contractual conditions negotiated by the social partners (18) (including the clauses concerning the readjustment of rates). The designation is assumed for a maximum period of 5 years, at the end of which a compulsory review of the designated insurer must be carried out. The policies with designation clause introduced at the level of occupational groups by agreement between the social partners are always the subject of an extension decree by the Minister for Social Security. They are consequently automatically applicable to all employees and former employees of the group and to their dependants (whatever their state of health and age), and their employers are obliged to subscribe to them and join the designated insurer (19).\n(29)\nAccording to the French authorities, designation makes it possible to obtain a more advantageous contribution/cover ratio from the designated insurer and to obtain access for all employees of an economic sector to the same cover, whatever the size of the undertaking to which they belong. It also implies a periodical review of the terms and conditions of organisation and mutualisation of the risks and the designation of the insurer considered.\n(30)\nThis measure also allows improvement, to the benefit of the individual consumer, of the control of rates and the quality of the benefits provided on the occurrence of serious events such as invalidity, incapacity or death, which have significant social and financial consequences for the insured person or his family (additional expenses, loss of income, exclusion, etc.).\n(31)\nMore precisely, the mechanism of the provision of cover for death, invalidity and incapacity subscribed to under a designation procedure aims to enable designated insurers:\n-\nto defray shortfalls from this type of policy, in relation to the average provided for originally, which could result from risks of loss (amounts and numbers) or shift in the risk (changes in data on which the original rates were based),\n-\nto improve the capital and the solvency margin of the insurers which offer these operations through the constitution of the special provision.\n(32)\nIn practice, the annual allocation to the provision is eligible for deduction within the limit of the technical profit (20) from the operations concerned. The total amount of the provision may not exceed 130 % of the total amount of the contributions relating to these operations as a whole carried out during the financial year. The provision is assigned to offsetting technical losses for the financial year in the order of seniority of the annual allocations.\n(33)\nThe annual allocations not used within a period of 10 years are transferred to a special tax-exempt reserve. The amount of this special reserve may not exceed 70 % of the total amount of the contributions relating to the operations concerned as a whole carried out during the financial year. The surplus from these allocations is carried forward to the taxable profit after a period of 10 years from their entry in the accounts.\n(34)\nUnder ordinary law, insurance and reinsurance undertakings (Article 39 quinquies GB) may currently constitute tax-free equalisation provisions relating to the group insurance operations covering death, incapacity or invalidity subject to the following limits:\n-\nthe annual allocation to the provision is limited to 75 % of the technical profit from the policies concerned,\n-\nin relation to the amount of the contributions relating to the policies concerned acquired during the financial year, the total amount of the provision may not exceed a proportion of between 23 % and 100 % depending on the number of insured persons.\nEach provision is allocated to offsetting technical losses of the financial year in the order of seniority of the annual allocations. Moreover, the allocations which could not be used within a period of 10 years are carried forward to the taxable profit.\nIII. REASONS HAVING TRIGGERED THE INITIATION OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(35)\nIn its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure of 13 November 2007, the Commission expressed doubts about the application of Article 107(2)(a) TFEU concerning the two tax measures concerned (21).\n(36)\nAs regards the first measure (exemptions from corporation tax and local business tax for management operations connected with contrats solidaires et responsables), the Commission considered that France had not provided evidence of the advantage being passed on in full to consumers.\n(37)\nThe Commission also questioned whether the condition of absence of discrimination related to the origin of the product was complied with on account of the existence of thresholds relating to the number (120 000/150 000) or proportion (80 %/90 %) of contrats solidaires et responsables in the sickness insurance policy portfolio of the insurers concerned.\n(38)\nAs regards the second measure (tax deduction for equalisation provisions), the Commission was of the opinion that none of the three conditions for the application of Article 107(2)(a) TFEU seemed to be met.\n(39)\nFirstly, in the Commission\u2019s opinion, the social character of the measure at the time the insurance policies are taken out, namely before the serious events they cover actually occur, did not seem to be established clearly.\n(40)\nSecondly, passing on the aid in full to the consumer/insured person seemed even more hypothetical and uncertain than for the first measure. Passing on the advantage also seemed to be potentially beneficial to employers in so far as they too contribute to financing the policy.\n(41)\nThirdly, the high degree of concentration of the market for designation policies in the hands of provident societies in the present context seemed to have the potential to amount to de facto discrimination in their favour.\nIV. COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES\n(42)\nFollowing publication of the decision to initiate the procedure, comments were received from the F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Nationale de la Mutualit\u00e9 Fran\u00e7aise (FNMF), the F\u00e9d\u00e9ration fran\u00e7aise des Soci\u00e9t\u00e9s d\u2019Assurance (FFSA), the Centre technique des Institutions de pr\u00e9voyance (CTIP), the Union Nationale Interf\u00e9d\u00e9rale des \u0152uvres et Organismes Priv\u00e9s Sanitaires et Sociaux (UNIOPSS), the F\u00e9d\u00e9ration nationale des Comit\u00e9s f\u00e9minins pour le D\u00e9pistage des Cancers, the Union F\u00e9d\u00e9rale des Consommateurs - Que choisir (UFC - Que choisir) and an anonymous third party.\n(43)\nThe majority of the interested parties view the two tax measures in question in a positive light and their comments largely tie in with the arguments advanced by the French authorities. They stress the existence of strong competition in the market for supplementary health insurance and the excellent liquidity of the market. They also emphasise that the cover concerned by the two measures compensates for the deficiencies of social security. By creating tax incentives which are easily accessible by all supplementary health insurance operators, the French authorities are creating the conditions to transform the segment of persons of little interest a priori in terms of risk profile or solvency into a segment with new economic appeal.\n(44)\nAs regards the first measure (exemption for contrats solidaires et responsables), the FFSA is nevertheless concerned about the existence of excessively high thresholds which constitute an obvious advantage for operators already having a strong presence in the market. Although the FFSA understands the principle of a threshold to avoid situations which are too complex to manage, it considers on the other hand that it is essential for this threshold not to constitute an obstacle to the granting of aid on account of its level. It considers, too, that the criteria associated with the structure of the population covered (percentage of under-25s, pensioners, etc.) lead to selecting the beneficiaries of the aid without real justification in relation to the stated aim. These criteria benefit homogeneous mutual associations access to which is subject to status or occupational criteria, to the detriment of mutual associations open to all areas of the public. These criteria also introduce a potential difference in treatment between insured persons.\n(45)\nThe CTIP, for its part, states that, to ensure their quality, the services proposed by insurers require significant investments which it must be possible to amortise among groups of sufficiently numerous insured persons. This objective explained the thresholds.\n(46)\nThe CTIP also refers to the obligation for insurance undertakings within the European Union to set aside a solvency margin. If all technical profits were to revert to insured persons, solvency would not be met. It would therefore be perfectly natural for at least part of the advantage to serve to cover, in whole or in part, the increase each year in the solvency requirement.\n(47)\nThe CTIP states, moreover, that, according to Court of Justice case law, occupational schemes of a contractual nature, on account of their nature and their object, are not covered by the provisions of European Union competition law (22). Such schemes also cannot be subject to business taxes since they provide cover which remedies the deficiencies of social security and which is based on conventions and collective agreements.\n(48)\nThe FNMF also invokes the compatibility of the first measure on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. Firstly, the aid is intended to facilitate the development of supplementary health cover which respects solidarity and a sense of responsibility under conditions which do not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. The measure aims to remedy a market failure which tends to produce segmentation of populations, since the market does not allow the overall welfare of non-profitable populations to be ensured efficiently. Secondly, the aid is necessary and proportionate, since the measures put in place previously did not enable the objective pursued to be attained.\n(49)\nAn anonymous third party stresses the French Government\u2019s lack of knowledge and statistical data on the economic and financial situation of undertakings operating in the supplementary sickness insurance market. This rendered any objective analysis of the situation impossible.\n(50)\nThe same anonymous third party also refers to the trend between 2001 and 2007 in profit margins achieved by undertakings in the sector. Whereas the turnover of the undertakings concerned apparently rose by 50 % during that period, expenditure on benefits by the same insurers rose by only 35 %. Gross operating margins therefore increased by a further 15 % in the space of 6 years.\n(51)\nConcerning the second measure (equalisation provision), the FFSA is of the opinion that there is nothing to justify a more advantageous tax scheme for policies with a designation clause than for company group policies covering the same risks. The logic of constituting the provision and the risks are the same, with greater mutualisation which limits the intensity in the case of policies with a designation clause. In addition, the measure is in fact reserved for provident societies. Although the choice of insurer by the social partners is legally open, almost all policies of this type in practice designate the provident society set up on the initiative of the social partners.\n(52)\nThe CTIP, for its part, considers that it is natural that the social partners should prefer to opt for setting up a provident society which they can then manage.\n(53)\nFurthermore, the CTIP recalls the constraints which would be imposed on insurers in the event of designation:\n-\nstrict application of the provisions laid down in the agreement or collective agreement (cover, rates, revaluation clauses, maintenance of rights in the case of precarious situations, etc.),\n-\nprohibition on suspending cover even in the event of non-payment,\n-\nobligation to provide insurance for all undertakings covered by the scope of the agreement or convention,\n-\nneed to smooth the rate over the duration of the cycle of the economic sector covered in order to correlate rate increases with economic crises affecting an occupational sector.\n(54)\nThe CTIP also considers that contractual schemes for supplementary social protection constitute remuneration for employees and, in this capacity, cannot be subject to business taxes. Consequently, the scheme for the supplementary deduction of equalisation provisions should not be considered classifiable as State aid.\n(55)\nThe CTIP, like the FNMF, also invokes the compatibility of the second measure on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, stating that it is intended to facilitate the development of the personal protection market without adversely affecting trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.\n(56)\nIn addition, the CTIP refers to the Albany judgment (23), stating that contractual social protection schemes with compulsory affiliation perform a task of general economic interest. To subject the operations associated with contractual social protection schemes implemented by an insurer to business taxes would be in contradiction with performing the task of general economic interest conferred on insurers.\nV. COMMENTS BY FRANCE\n(57)\nConcerning the passing on of the aid to individual consumers, the French authorities maintain that this will be ensured through the competitive nature of the supplementary sickness insurance market and the very structure of the measure.\n(58)\nNot only are there a large number of operators in the market (24), but also the distribution channels are numerous and varied (general insurance agents, brokers, employees of insurers, direct sales via the Internet, etc.). The competitive nature of this sector is also guaranteed by the insurance and mutual society supervisory authority (ACAM).\n(59)\nMarket mechanisms should therefore ensure that the advantage is passed on to consumers in the form of a reduction in the financial contribution of the insured person, without it being necessary to introduce a mechanism for the compulsory redistribution of the tax saving. In addition, the measure is structured in such a way that the advantage benefits those categories of consumers who are excluded from supplementary health cover on account of their age or financial resources.\n(60)\nAs regards the question of possible discrimination in favour of certain undertakings, France states that the thresholds create an incentive for insurers to mutualise the \u2018bad risk\u2019, characterised by the age or level of resources of the persons concerned, in their portfolio.\n(61)\nAn insufficient proportion or number of contrats solidaires et responsables would not allow this objective of mutualisation to be achieved and, in the absence of such thresholds, the exemptions provided for would have the effect of a windfall for the undertakings concerned. Competition alone (without establishing a threshold) would have the sole effect of the tax advantage being passed on to the end consumer and of enabling the insurers to retain their market shares, without ensuring an increase in the rate of cover. The dual threshold mechanism (percentage or absolute value) is therefore an essential element to increase the rate of cover of the categories of the population not covered at present.\n(62)\nIn a context of the steadily rising price of supplementary health insurance, proposing a tax incentive for these categories of the population meets the real challenge of achieving national solidarity.\n(63)\nThe French authorities firstly point out that the tax scheme should not be considered in its entirety as aid. Classification as State aid should be reserved solely for that part of the scheme which is not justified by the specific nature of the insurance activity concerned having regard to prudential standards.\n(64)\nThe specific characteristics of designation policies, deriving from the strong constraints in terms of rates, risk selection and management, make these policies particularly sensitive to the risk of claims experience deviating from original estimates and therefore fully justify a particularly prudent allocation scheme.\n(65)\nFirstly, the risks covered by designation policies concluded under sectoral collective agreements concern a population specifically linked to an economic sector and therefore particularly sensitive to cyclical reversals affecting that sector. Anticipating these cycles over the long term therefore requires smoothing the results of designation over the long term.\n(66)\nSecondly, designation policies resulting from company agreements concern a population which is necessarily limited and therefore justifies higher provisioning rates on account of significant fluctuations in loss.\n(67)\nThe tax deduction of the allocations to such provisions under adapted and reinforced conditions, beyond the tax regime under ordinary law provided for in Article 39 quinquies GB of the CGI, is therefore justified from a regulatory and prudential point of view.\n(68)\nThe French authorities nevertheless indicate that it is very difficult to justify precisely the rates of allocations which are acceptable for these operations on account of the technical difficulty of assessing a \u2018normal\u2019 level of provisioning for such specific risks. The French authorities nevertheless specify that the ceilings for deductibility of the allocations to the provisions have been fixed in consultation with the profession.\n(69)\nAs regards the compatibility of the aid in relation to Article 107(2)(a) TFEU, France maintains that the three conditions of this provision are duly met. As regards the social character of the aid, it states that the group policies negotiated under sectoral agreements ensure a high degree of mutualisation of the risks and a lower level of premiums than on the individual policies market, whilst enabling employed workers and their families to have access to a high level of cover.\n(70)\nIn response to the Commission\u2019s argument that the social character of the measure is not clearly established at the time insurance policies are taken out, France points out that the granting of aid before the insured event occurs is the only means of attaining the social objective pursued.\n(71)\nConcerning passing the aid on to the end consumer, France firstly draws a distinction between sectoral collective agreements and company agreements. Although the first group can in fact be characterised by the predominance of provident societies, this market will be the subject of new dynamism and other insurance operators will henceforth take an interest in this market. Competition between provident societies will in any case be real and will already enable maximum passing on in favour of the insured person to be ensured. As for the second group (company agreements), there is very strong competition between agreements and no discernible monopoly situation in favour of provident societies.\n(72)\nAccording to the French authorities, the same reasoning can be applied when reduction or moderation of rates is undertaken in favour of the undertaking. The contribution of the employer to financing the cover corresponds to a salary supplement for the employee/insured person and therefore to an advantage for the latter.\n(73)\nConcerning the existence of de facto discrimination in favour of provident societies, France states that the measure deals in an egalitarian fashion with all operators, whatever their status. The personal protection market is not therefore in a monopoly situation in favour of provident societies and is already characterised by strong competition between the principal operators.\n(74)\nFrance also recalls that the choice of insurer (designation procedure) is the responsibility of the employer and the staff representatives. The transparency and tendering procedure for this process is ensured under the usual conditions of a market open to competition. The tendering procedure is undertaken by invitation to tender to several insurers on the basis of specifications drawn up by the social partners.\n(75)\nFrance considers, moreover, that the measure assessed could in any case be considered aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities which does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest in accordance with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. The proven social objective of the measure is indicative of the importance of the development of the personal protection market in the future.\n(76)\nAccording to the French authorities, the development of personal protection policies including a designation procedure aims to develop the introduction of supplementary social protection schemes which are more favourable and offer greater protection to employees, while promoting social dialogue and worker participation.\n(77)\nFinally, France adds that the supplementary insurance benefits in the personal protection field under the designation procedure can be considered to constitute a service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 106(2) TFEU, in particular where affiliation to the benefit scheme is obligatory and it is managed under a joint framework.\n(78)\nThe collective agreement providing for cover and designating the insurer can be made compulsory for all employees, former employees and dependants according to an extension procedure (Articles L 911-3 and 911-4 of the Social Security Code) by decree of the competent minister. It is this decree which should be considered the act by which a Member State assigns public service obligations to an undertaking.\n(79)\nFrance accepts that the amount of compensation (tax saving) for the service of general economic interest does not comply with the conditions laid down by the Community framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (25). Nevertheless, it considers that these conditions are not adapted to the particularities of the operations concerned. According to France, the tax deductibility mechanism is better adapted and more flexible than a subsidy based on a precise assessment of the additional costs resulting from operation of the service.\nVI. REACTION OF FRANCE TO THE COMMENTS BY THIRD PARTIES\n(80)\nThe French authorities note the comments made by third parties and respond more specifically to the comments of the F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Fran\u00e7aise des Soci\u00e9t\u00e9s d\u2019Assurance (FFSA).\n(81)\nAs regards the tax exemption in favour of contrats solidaires et responsables, the French authorities point out that the composition of the insurers\u2019 portfolios is homogeneous so that the proportion of contrats solidaires et responsables in relation to the other types of sickness insurance policies would now be equivalent in the three main categories of insurers operating in this market (undertakings coming under the Insurance Code, mutual societies coming under the Mutual Society Code and provident societies coming under the Social Security Code).\n(82)\nConcerning the new equalisation provision, France stresses that the possibility to conclude occupational designation policies is open to all operators, both French and foreign, operating in the supplementary personal protection market.\n(83)\nFinally, France adds that provident societies do not benefit from a monopoly position and that, consequently, there is no discriminatory advantage. The fact that the opening of the market to competition is slow and gradual is attributable to a historical factor, but does not call into question the competition existing between provident societies. The fact that provident societies are more specialised in this sector is insufficient to establish any form of discrimination.\nVII. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY FRANCE FOLLOWING THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROCEDURE\n(84)\nDuring the investigation procedure, the Commission suggested to France certain ways in which to make the aid schemes compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(2) TFEU.\n(85)\nAs regards the first measure (exemptions from corporation tax and local business tax for management operations connected with contrats solidaires et responsables), the following suggestions were made:\n-\nin order to comply with the second criterion (effective passing on of the advantage), it was proposed to France that it should draw inspiration from the subsidy scheme as previously approved by the Commission for supplementary health cover for French civil servants (N 911/06), a tax credit scheme in favour of individual consumers or any scheme enabling effective passing on of the aid to be ensured,\n-\nin order to avoid any discrimination, the French authorities were invited to review the threshold mechanism.\n(86)\nIn its letter dated 27 May 2010, France nevertheless indicated that it had decided to maintain unchanged the aid scheme it had notified and confirmed its analysis that the schemes notified were compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(2)(a) TFEU.\n(87)\nIn this same letter, France added that supplementary health insurance policies constitute a product for securing the loyalty of insured persons which then enables subsequent offers of more remunerative products to be made to the same insured persons, such as life assurance policies. To secure customer loyalty, market operators are therefore encouraged to practise an attractive rates policy. Under these conditions, the tax advantage granted by an undertaking and passed on by it in the contributions of insured persons will have the direct effect of adaptation of the rates of its competitors, thereby ensuring that the advantage is passed on to all insured persons.\n(88)\nAs regards the second measure (additional tax deduction for equalisation provisions), the Commission made the following suggestions to France:\n-\nin order to respect the second criterion (effective passing on of the advantage), it was proposed to France that it should draw inspiration from the subsidy scheme as previously approved by the Commission for supplementary health cover for French civil servants (N 911/06), a tax credit scheme in favour of individual consumers or any scheme enabling effective passing on of the aid to be ensured;\n-\nin order to avoid any discrimination, the French authorities were invited to consider introducing a compulsory, transparent tendering mechanism for the award of designation policies.\n(89)\nAs with the first measure, France nevertheless decided to maintain unchanged the aid scheme it had notified to promote the development of group personal protection.\n(90)\nIn its letter dated 27 May 2010, France reaffirmed the particularly restrictive nature of the designation which justified a particularly prudent allocation scheme. It was only therefore to a very limited extent that the equalisation provision could be considered State aid and that its compatibility with the internal market should be examined.\nVIII. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\nVIII.1. Exemption from corporation tax and local business tax for management operations connected with contrats solidaires et responsables\n(91)\nWith reference to the Court of Justice\u2019s judgment in Albany (26), the CTIP maintains that, on account of their nature and their object, occupational schemes of a contractual nature are not subject to the competition rules of Community law.\n(92)\nThe Commission notes, however, that the measure referred to by the above-mentioned judgment relates primarily to compulsory legal affiliation by industrial undertakings to a sectoral pension fund benefiting from an exclusive right. In this respect, it should be pointed out that the exemption scheme relating to the first measure also refers to individual policies and group policies with optional affiliation. In addition, the group policies with compulsory affiliation referred to by the measure are subject to the free choice of the social partners as to whether or not to conclude such collective agreements and not to a statutory obligation to enter into such agreements or to affiliate to a sectoral or inter-sectoral fund, as in the Albany case.\n(93)\nThe Court judgment then confirms that risk cover schemes supplementing the statutory social security scheme, as notified in this case by the French authorities, are subject to the competition rules and the funds constituting such schemes are in fact undertakings with the meaning of Articles 101 et seq. TFEU (27).\n(94)\nThe Commission therefore considers that the cover scheme referred to in the first measure is not exempt from the Treaty competition rules and in particular the rules prohibiting State aid.\n(95)\nThe Social Security (compulsory sickness insurance) scheme reimburses only part of the health care costs of persons insured under the scheme. Supplementary health insurance schemes therefore cover the part of the benefits that is not financed by the compulsory sickness insurance scheme.\n(96)\nThe market for supplementary health insurance consists mainly of the following three groups of operators:\n-\nmutual societies and mutual unions subject to the Mutual Society Code,\n-\nprovident societies subject to the Social Security Code,\n-\ninsurance undertakings subject to the Insurance Code.\n(97)\nAccording to a letter from the French authorities dated 21 December 2007, 263 insurance undertakings, 66 provident societies and 1 201 mutual societies operate in the supplementary health insurance market. The French authorities also point out that in 2006, the 20 leading market operators represented only 35 % of the market, without any of them exceeding 4 %, and, in addition, that 65 % of the market consisted of operators with market shares of less than 1 % (28).\n(98)\nHowever, according to official statistics published in 2009, the number of operators in this market nevertheless came to only 876 at the end of 2008 and had been falling continually since 2001 (48 % reduction in 2008 compared with 2001) (29). There were 748 mutual societies, 92 insurance undertakings and 36 provident societies.\n(99)\nAccording to a recent analysis by the French competition authority, the largest market shares in the individual supplementary health insurance market were held by Mutuelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale de l\u2019Education Nationale - MGEN (7,7 % market share), the mutual insurance company Groupama (30) (6,7 % market share) and the insurance company Swiss Life (4 % market share) (31).\n(100)\nRegarding the group supplementary insurance market, the largest market shares were held by the insurance undertaking Axa (17,51 % market share), the provident society group Malakoff-M\u00e9d\u00e9ric (8,7 % market share) and the group AG2R-La Mondiale-Pr\u00e9malliance (32) (6,9 % market share) (33).\n(101)\nDespite requests to that effect to the French authorities, the Commission is not in possession of more precise information on the structure of the supplementary health insurance market, such as that relating to groupings of mutual societies, mutual associations, unions of mutual societies and provident societies. Furthermore, despite being requested to do so by the Commission, the French authorities were unable to forward statistics specific to contrats solidaires et responsables (either at aggregate level or at the level of each category of market operator). The statistics in the tables in recitals 102 and 103 therefore refer to the entire supplementary health insurance market, including policies which do not fulfil the conditions of eligibility for the measure notified. A report published by the French Court of Auditors in 2008 (34) stresses the significant statistical deficiencies with regard to supplementary insurance, concerning the number of insured persons, their distribution between the various categories of insurer and the various types of policy (individual policy, optional group policy and compulsory group policy), and the amount of expenditure refunded by category of household and income. On the basis of analyses carried out by the national competition authority, this market nevertheless appears to be fragmented, and even very fragmented, as regards individual policies (35), which, however, is only one of the sub-markets concerned by the first measure notified.\n(102)\nBetween 2001 and 2007, this sector developed strongly, as shown in the table at the end of this recital (36). The aggregate turnover of these undertakings came to EUR 27,4 billion in 2007, up 55,8 % compared with 2001, i.e. average annual growth of 7.6 %. The turnover for 2008 is thought to exceed EUR 29 billion, up 6 % on 2007 (37).\nTrend in turnover of supplementary insurers 2001-2007\n(billion EUR)\nMutual societies\nProvident societies\nInsurance undertakings\nTotal\n2001\n10,6\n3,3\n3,7\n17,6\n2007\n16,0\n4,7\n6,7\n27,4\n2001-2007\n+50,5 %\n+43,15 %\n+82,13 %\n+55,8 %\n(103)\nAccording to the statistics forwarded by the French authorities, the breakdown between individual and group policies is as follows (2004 figures):\nProvident societies\nMutual societies\nInsurance undertakings\nGroup policies\n38 %\n33 %\n29 %\nIndividual policies\n6 %\n67 %\n27 %\nGroup + individual policies\n18 %\n54 %\n28 %\n(104)\nWhereas mutual societies and mutual unions mainly issue individual policies, provident societies essentially issue group policies (company or sectoral policies). The portfolio of insurance undertakings is more balanced.\n(105)\nThe population coverage rate has increased significantly, rising from 84 % in 1996 to 92,8 % in 2006. There are between 32 million and 38 million beneficiaries under mutual schemes, 13 million with insurance undertakings and 11 million in provident societies, to which must be added over 4 million beneficiaries of the CMU-C fund (universal sickness cover), which offers supplementary health cover free of charge to the poorest. This means that today, 7 % to 8 % of the French population do not have supplementary cover (38).\n(106)\nUnder Article 107 TFEU, \u2018any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(107)\nThe classification of a measure as State aid therefore presupposes that the following cumulative conditions are fulfilled, i.e.: 1) the measure in question confers an advantage, 2) through state resources, 3) this advantage is selective and 4) the measure in question distorts or threatens to distort competition and is liable to affect trade between Member States.\n(108)\nThere is no doubt that the exemptions from or reductions in corporation tax and local business tax consisting in abolishing or reducing a charge which the undertakings concerned would normally have to bear constitute an advantage for their beneficiary (39). In this respect, these tax exemptions or reductions therefore constitute economic advantages.\n(109)\nIn the light of the references made by the CTIP to a possible public service mission, the Commission notes that the conditions identified in the Altmark (40) case (to exclude the classification as aid in certain cases of services of general economic interest) are not fulfilled in the present case (see in particular paragraph 144, the third Altmark condition consisting in absence of overcompensation). One is therefore indeed in the presence of an economic advantage.\n(110)\nThese advantages are granted by the French State, which, in so doing, waives the collection of tax revenue. It therefore confers this advantage through state resources.\n(111)\nThe measure is also of a selective nature. The selectiveness results firstly from the restriction of the measure in question to a single economic sector, i.e. the insurance sector, and secondly from its restriction within this sector to a particular type of policy (sub-sector). In this respect, it should first be noted that corporation tax is a tax whose scope covers all companies, whatever the sector in which they operate. An exemption from this tax benefiting the insurance sector exclusively therefore constitutes a derogation from the general corporation tax regime which thus specifically favours certain undertakings. The same applies to the exemption from local business tax. Moreover, the exemption in question also favours the production within the insurance sector of certain sickness insurance policies, in this case contrats solidaires et responsables. The measure therefore favours operators entering into contrats solidaires, to the detriment of operators issuing \u2018traditional\u2019 policies.\n(112)\nFinally, apart from the fact that the insurance sector is the subject of trade within the European Union, it should be recalled that, where a Member State grants aid to an undertaking, domestic production may for that reason be maintained or increased with the result that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of penetrating the market in that Member State (41).\n(113)\nThe position of the undertakings concerned will consequently be strengthened in trade within the European Union. This measure is therefore liable to create distortions of competition and to affect trade within the European Union.\n(114)\nIt must therefore be concluded that the first measure does in fact constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. France does not challenge this classification.\n(115)\nSince the measure notified constitutes State aid, an analysis must be carried out of its compatibility with the internal market. The French authorities consider that the measure in question constitutes compatible State aid under Article 107(2)(a) TFEU.\n(116)\nArticle 107(2)(a) TFEU reads: \u2018The following shall be compatible with the internal market: (a) aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers, provided that such aid is granted without discrimination related to the origin of the products concerned\u2019.\n(117)\nA State aid measure is compatible on the basis of this provision where the following three conditions are met:\n1.\nthe aid must have a social character;\n2.\nit must be granted to individual consumers;\n3.\nit must be granted without discrimination related to the origin of the product.\n(118)\nIt should be pointed out firstly that Article 107(2) TFEU derogates from the principle of the prohibition of State aid, as set out in Article 107(1) TFEU, and must therefore be interpreted restrictively (42).\n(119)\nAs regards more specifically the application of Article 107(2)(a) TFEU, it must be pointed out, however, that the Commission\u2019s decision-making practice does not rule out the aid being granted to an intermediary which undertakes to pass it on to individual consumers (43), Nevertheless, in such a case, it is necessary for the mechanism put in place to guarantee that the aid is effectively passed on to the end consumer.\n(120)\nThe Commission considers that the social character (first condition) of the measure is well established in so far as the objective is to open up access to supplementary health insurance to people who have difficulties in accessing such insurance owing to their age, state of health or resources. Article 207 of the CGI provides for criteria of a social nature to be respected by insurers to qualify for the measure (44), These criteria introduce minimum proportions of certain vulnerable populations, such as persons on low income or the elderly, in the insurance portfolio of the undertakings concerned. The preliminary draft decree forwarded by the French authorities, which specifies certain terms and conditions for the gradation of rates according to the social situation of insured persons (45), confirms the social character of the measure in favour of vulnerable populations.\n(121)\nOn the other hand, the Commission\u2019s examination of the measure did not allow the conclusion to be drawn that the aid in fact benefits individual consumers (second condition).\n(122)\nAccording to the French authorities, the aid granted to insurers will indirectly benefit individual consumers. The strong competition in the supplementary health insurance market ensures that the aid received is passed on by insurers to consumers in the amount of premiums set.\n(123)\nIn this respect, it should be noted that the tax exemption of sickness insurance policies (contrats solidaires) applied by France has been considered by the Commission to be aid compatible under Article 107(2)(a) TFEU (46). There was in fact no doubt in this case that the tax exemption first and foremost benefited individual consumers who in fact had to pay the tax. The amount of the tax constituted a component of the premium and the tax exemption in favour of contrats solidaires reduced the amount of the premium accordingly.\n(124)\nIn the present case, the aid is granted, not through an indirect tax exemption proportional to the amount of the premium payable by insured persons, but through an exemption from corporation tax which is calculated on the basis of the profits made by the insurer from all insured persons who have taken out contrats solidaires et responsables.\n(125)\nThe actual passing on of the exemption from corporation tax to the end consumer is uncertain to say the least. Firstly, the Commission is not in possession of any information enabling it to establish that the corporation tax (and the exemption from such tax) is in fact passed on to individual consumers in the market concerned. Moreover, a recent report by the French Court of Auditors showed the existence of very significant increases in profit margins in the health insurance sector in recent years (from 12 % in 2003 to 23 % in 2007) (47). In this context of a significant increase in profit margins, it can hardly be concluded that a market mechanism exists guaranteeing that the exemption from corporation tax is in fact passed on to end consumers.\n(126)\nThe CTIP points out that part of profits must be allocated to the constitution of reserves in order to comply with solvency requirements and that it is therefore perfectly natural for at least part of the advantage to serve to cover, in whole or in part, the increase each year in the solvency requirement. This argument tends to show that the measure will give rise to an increase in profits for insurers rather than a reduction in the price of covering the risks concerned for consumers.\n(127)\nFinally, the Commission\u2019s assessment is by no means called into question by France\u2019s argument that supplementary health insurance policies are a product which secures loyalty for insurers, which are encouraged to practise an attractive rates policy. It should be recalled that Article 107(2)(a) TFEU requires that the advantage be in fact passed on to individual consumers. Consequently, the existence of a mere incentive to pass on part of the advantage to end consumers cannot satisfy the requirement of an actual passing on of this advantage.\n(128)\nThe Commission therefore considers that the measure does not guarantee that the advantage is in fact passed on to individual consumers, as required by Article 107(2)(a) TFEU.\n(129)\nThe Commission\u2019s examination also concludes that there is non-compliance with the condition concerning the absence of discrimination related to the origin of the product (third condition). For this to be the case, consumers would have to benefit from the aid irrespective of the economic operator supplying the product or service capable of fulfilling the social objective referred to by the Member State concerned and there would have to be no barrier to entry for insurers established in the European Union (48). However, besides the conditions relating to the type of policy eligible, companies wishing to benefit from the measure must respect the thresholds of a minimum number (120 000/150 000) or proportion (80 %/90 %) of contrats solidaires et responsables in their supplementary health insurance policy portfolio.\n(130)\nThe French authorities consider that these thresholds constitute an incentive to develop this type of policy on a massive scale through the mutualisation of the \u2018bad risk\u2019 characterised by the age or level of financial resources of the insured person in their portfolio and are also necessary to prevent the tax advantage from relating to too low a fraction of the business of the undertakings and in this way to attain the objectives of solidarity and mutualisation. Pursuit of the social objective of the measure can be ensured only by a mechanism requiring insurers to hold in their sickness insurance policy portfolio a minimum number or a significant proportion of contrats solidaires et responsables. In the absence of this threshold mechanism, no provision would have allowed an increase to be ensured in the rate of cover of the populations currently not covered and the tax exemptions would be reflected simply in a windfall for insurers. The threshold reflected as a percentage allowed small undertakings operating almost exclusively in these policies to benefit from the measure without reaching a purely quantitative threshold, whereas the thresholds in absolute terms allowed undertakings offering a significant number of this type of policy (without it being exclusive) to benefit from the measure.\n(131)\nThe Commission notes firstly that no precise information could be supplied by the French authorities concerning the current breakdown of contrats solidaires et responsables among the various market operators or concerning the number and proportion of these policies in their portfolios. According to the Commission\u2019s analysis, it nevertheless emerges that mutual societies and unions of mutual societies are legally bound to offer only contrats solidaires (49). In practice, it also appears that provident societies are subject to the same obligation. Mutual societies and provident societies should therefore always fulfil the condition of the threshold expressed as a percentage, whereas insurance undertakings with a limited presence in the market for contrats solidaires and wishing to invest in it could have difficulties in meeting the threshold conditions (either in terms of proportion or in absolute terms) and therefore in benefiting from the tax exemptions. This would be the case more specifically for insurance undertakings with a large existing portfolio of \u2018traditional\u2019 supplementary health policies which do not meet the conditions for being considered contrats solidaires.\n(132)\nIn this context, the thresholds would not therefore lead to an equivalent effort, whoever the insurer, and would not have the effect of an incentive for insurers already meeting the threshold criteria (in particular mutual societies, unions of mutual societies and provident societies). Contrary to France\u2019s assertions, the introduction of the thresholds is therefore unlikely to avoid a possible windfall effect.\n(133)\nIn the Commission\u2019s view, these thresholds will quite simply have the effect of causing discrimination related to the origin of the product. In this way, the thresholds seem likely to exclude a number of insurers from benefiting from the exemption, even if they were to offer the contrats solidaires et responsables that the French authorities wish to promote. The existence of these thresholds could also place at an advantage undertakings already present in the market and constitute a barrier to entry to the relevant market for certain operators which could not or which feared that they might not be able to meet them.\n(134)\nFinally, it is likely that the amount of aid will vary from one insurer to another depending on the profits made from the operations concerned, and this would not comply with the requirement that consumers must benefit from the aid in question irrespective of the economic operator supplying the product or service capable of fulfilling the social objective invoked by the Member State concerned (50).\n(135)\nIt therefore has to be concluded that the aid scheme notified by France to promote the development of contrats solidaires et responsables is not compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(2)(a) TFEU.\n(136)\nAlthough France does not explicitly invoke any other provision relating to the compatibility of the State aid, it must be noted that none of the conditions for compatibility provided for in Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU apply to the case in point.\n(137)\nAs regards the provisions of Article 107(2) TFEU, other than point (a), it must be noted that the conditions for compatibility provided for in points (b) and (c) obviously do not apply to the case in point.\n(138)\nUnder Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, may be considered compatible.\n(139)\nAccording to the FNMF, the aid is intended to facilitate the development of supplementary health cover which respects the characteristics of solidarity and sense of responsibility under conditions which do not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. Nevertheless, in spite of its requests, the Commission has not obtained any data from the French authorities allowing support to be given to the applicability of the condition for compatibility mentioned in the previous recital or concerning the effect of the existing tax measures on the distribution of contrats solidaires et responsables, or concerning the relationship between the additional advantage envisaged and the additional costs or requirements associated with the management of this type of policy. The Commission is therefore unable to ascertain the necessity and proportionality of the new exemptions envisaged to achieve the objective described. In any case, it must be noted that the exemption from corporation tax is not linked to carrying out investments or creating jobs or specific projects. It therefore constitutes a continuous reduction in charges which constitutes operating aid which, according to established practice, is not liable to be declared compatible under Article 107(3) TFEU.\n(140)\nFinally, no other condition for compatibility provided for in Article 107(3) TFEU was invoked by France.\n(141)\nAccording to the CTIP, measures based on conventions and collective agreements, like the measure in question, have the objective of remedying the deficiencies of social security. The Commission observes that the CTIP does not explicitly invoke the existence of a service of general economic interest and France, whose duty it would be to establish that the aid in question is compatible with the Treaty, does not invoke Article 106(2) TFEU. Under these circumstances, the Commission is unable to assess the compatibility of the aid in question in the light of Article 106(2) TFEU. Furthermore, the Commission makes the following comments.\n(142)\nArticle 106(2) TFEU provides that undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly are subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.\n(143)\nIt follows from the case law of the Court of Justice that, with the exception of the sectors in which this question has already been regulated by the European Union, Member States have a wide-ranging discretion regarding the nature of the services which may be classified as being of general economic interest. However, even supposing that in the present case a service of general economic interest is concerned (which has not been argued by France), it has to be verified that, for the purposes of Article 106(2) TFEU, the compensation paid to the undertakings assigned a public service mission does not exceed the costs of providing the public service, taking account of the income relating to it and a reasonable profit for the performance of these obligations.\n(144)\nIn this respect, if suffices to point out that the tax measure in question does not contain any mechanism allowing overcompensation to be ruled out in relation to the costs of the burden incurred by the operators concerned. It must be noted in fact that the amount of aid in question (tax exemptions regarding the operations concerned) is in no way linked to the additional costs borne by insurers. It is not linked either to the premiums paid by insured persons or to the number of policies.\n(145)\nIn this context, the Commission concludes that in any case the measure concerned could not be declared compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU.\nVIII.2. Tax deduction for equalisation provisions relating to certain supplementary group insurance policies\n(146)\nThe \u2018personal protection\u2019 market groups together the operations designed to prevent and cover the risk of death, risks relating to personal physical injury or associated with maternity or risks of incapacity for work or invalidity or risk of unemployment (51), as a supplement to the statutory social security system.\n(147)\nPersonal protection cover allows:\n-\naccess to medical care to be facilitated by providing supplementary reimbursement of health expenses in the case of illness, maternity, accident, etc.\n-\ntotal or partial maintenance of salary in case of work absence, invalidity or incapacity,\n-\nguaranteeing of capital and annuities for the spouse and children in the event of the death of the insured person,\n-\na financial supplement to be provided for in case of dependence.\n(148)\nThree categories of undertaking are present in this market: companies subject to the Insurance Code (insurance undertakings, mutual insurance companies and subsidiaries of banks), mutual societies subject to the Mutual Society Code, and provident societies subject to the Social Security Code.\n(149)\nPersonal protection insurance may be taken out either as a group policy, by subscribing to a group policy through the employer, an occupational or inter-occupational sector, or in an individual capacity by approaching an insurance undertaking or mutual society directly.\n(150)\nNowadays, a very large majority of employees are covered by a group personal protection policy. Affiliation can be either obligatory or optional.\n(151)\nA group personal protection scheme involves a triangular relationship:\n-\nthe employer enters into a commitment to the employees and, in this capacity, takes out an insurance policy (52),\n-\nthe insurer covers the risk, in exchange for collection of premiums,\n-\nthe employees are the beneficiaries.\n(152)\nAccording to the estimates communicated by the French authorities for 2005, the personal protection market accounted for annual turnover of EUR 20 billion (group and individual policies). Insurance undertakings accounted for the bulk of this market with 71 % of the premium income, whilst provident societies and mutual societies accounted for 21 % and 8 % of the market respectively. It must nevertheless be pointed out that these last figures relate to all categories of policies in this sector: individual policy, group policy with optional affiliation and group policy with compulsory affiliation.\n(153)\nMoreover, the French authorities consider that the occupational designation market (53) providing cover for death, incapacity and invalidity exceeds EUR 4 billion and covers almost all personal protection operations undertaken by provident societies (EUR 4,2 billion) and part of the group policies of insurance undertakings and mutual societies. However, no precise figures were communicated concerning the share of the latter in the designation market.\n(154)\nAlthough France accepted the classification as State aid of the measure in its notification, it subsequently pointed out that at least part of the scheme should not be considered aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU on account of the specific characteristics of designation policies (strong constraints in terms of rates, risk selection and management) which made these policies particularly sensitive to the risks of shifts in loss expectancy compared with original estimates and therefore fully justified a particularly prudent allocation scheme and therefore a higher tax deductibility of allocations to provisions without this giving rise to the existence of an advantage.\n(155)\nFrance therefore considers that part of the tax deduction of the allocations under adapted and strengthened conditions, extending beyond the tax regime under ordinary law existing in Article 39 quinquies GB of the CGI, is justified at regulatory and prudential level and does not constitute an advantage.\n(156)\nIt is therefore appropriate to examine first of all whether the measure gives rise to the existence of an advantage for the insurers concerned.\n(157)\nArticle 39(1)(5) of the above-mentioned Code provides for the deductibility of \u2018provisions constituted with a view to offsetting losses or clearly specified charges which events in progress render probable, provided that they were in fact recorded in the accounts for the financial year\u2019. The Code provides in certain cases for flat-rate deductibility for certain types of operation. This is more particularly the case in the field of insurance and reinsurance for which Articles 39 quinquies G to 39 quinquies GD of the Code lay down specific rules for the deductibility of provisions in order to take account of the specific characteristics of the insurance sector, the principal activity of which consists precisely in covering risks. To determine whether any advantage exists, it is therefore appropriate to verify whether the operations covered by the measure do in fact entail loses or additional charges within the meaning of Article 39(1)(5) of the above-mentioned Code to the extent provided for by Article 39 quinquies GD.\n(158)\nFirst of all, it is appropriate to accept the principle that the nature and intensity of the risks of loss in the supplementary insurance sector providing cover for death, incapacity and invalidity are liable to vary according to the types of population covered and the terms and conditions of cover (individual/group policies, optional/compulsory).\n(159)\nThe policies arising from company agreements, including the designation policies arising from such agreements, relate to a limited population. They entail a \u2018specific\u2019 risk (risk of loss in the undertaking concerned) without always offering the possibility of mutualisation within a large population. The group policies covering a sector (economic activity) concern a wider population and therefore a priori entail greater mutualisation. For this latter type of policy, there would nevertheless seem to be a strong correlation between loss expectancy and the periods of crisis which may affect an entire economic sector. According to the CTIP, the periods of crisis would amplify the volatility of losses at sector level.\n(160)\nAs regards designation group policies resulting from a company agreement, the Commission considers that there is no reason to think that the nature and intensity (and consequently the fluctuation) of the risk of loss is significantly different from the situation in which this same type of policy is concluded outside joint negotiations between trade unions and employers (and therefore outside the designation process).\n(161)\nMoreover, in the absence of precise information on the frequency of losses in this sector, it cannot be concluded that the fluctuations in risks specific to sector designation policies (policies characterised by greater sensitivity to the economic climate but also by greater mutualisation) would be of a greater order of magnitude than the same risks relating to company policies (policies characterised by a specific risk and by lesser mutualisation).\n(162)\nIn addition, should the constraints of the designation invoked by France in fact have the effect of leading to supplementary pressure at the level of the premiums received by insurers, it has to be noted that this is a circumstance which could affect income and not the expenditure from losses. This type of risk (loss of income) is not therefore covered by Article 39(1)(5) of the CGI and is not therefore eligible to benefit from allocations to the deductible provisions.\n(163)\nNo difference in risk has therefore been established between policies with designation clause and group policies within companies covering the same risks. Consequently, the supplementary tax deductibility provided for in Article 39 quinquies GD has the effect of reducing or abolishing a corporation tax charge which the undertakings concerned should normally have to pay. In this capacity, the supplementary deduction therefore constitutes an economic advantage.\n(164)\nIn the light of the references made by France and the CTIP to a possible public service mission, the Commission notes that the conditions identified in the Altmark case (to exclude classification as aid in certain cases of services of general economic interest) are not met in the present case (see in particular recital 189 - the third condition of the Altmark case law is in fact the absence of overcompensation). This is therefore undoubtedly an economic advantage.\n(165)\nThe advantages under the measure are granted by the French State, which, in so doing, waives the collection of tax revenue. It therefore grants this advantage through state resources.\n(166)\nFor the reasons already set out with regard to the first measure, the second measure is also selective in character. The selectiveness results firstly from the restriction of the measure in question to a single economic sector, i.e. the insurance sector, and secondly from its restriction within this sector to a specific type of policy (sub-sector). The measure benefits certain undertakings of the insurance sector which conclude group policies covering the risks of death and physical injury in the context of the procedure of designation by the social partners. The measure does not therefore apply to policies covering the same risks outside the designation procedure. It is also appropriate to note that the measure does not apply to reinsurance undertakings exposed to the same type of risk.\n(167)\nIt is nevertheless appropriate to verify whether this selectiveness is not justified by the nature and logic of the reference tax system. Although, in respect of the deduction of provisions, the CGI provides for flat-rate deductibility for certain types of provisions, it has to be noted that, for the reasons set out above (see recitals 156 to 163), deductibility exceeding the amount provided for in Article 39 quinquies GB is not justified by the logic of the system which provides for provisioning up to the losses or charges which events in progress render probable.\n(168)\nFinally, apart from the fact that the insurance sector is the subject of trade within the European Union, it should be recalled that, where a Member State grants aid to an undertaking, domestic production may for that reason be maintained or increased with the result that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of penetrating the market in that Member State. The position of the undertakings concerned will be strengthened in trade within the European Union. It should also be added that the obligatory nature of designation policies reinforces the distortion of competition. This measure is therefore likely to create distortions of competition and to affect trade within the European Union.\n(169)\nIt must therefore be concluded that the second measure does in fact constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as it provides for a level of deductibility in excess of that provided for in Article 39 quinquies GB of the CGI.\n(170)\nSince the measure constitutes State aid, an analysis must be carried out of its compatibility with the internal market. The French authorities consider that the measure in question constitutes compatible State aid under Article 107(2)(a) TFEU.\n(171)\nThe Commission considers first of all that the social character (first condition) of the measure is established in so far as, as invoked by the French authorities, the operations managed under a designation clause aim to promote the widest possible cover of employees against risks for which social security cover is weak (death, incapacity, invalidity). The social character is defined by the considerable mutualisation between generations and between categories of employees, the single premium (no discrimination according to age, sex, state of health), and the implementation of measures of a social nature (rights free of charge in the case of unemployment, for dependent children, etc.). In an optional and purely individual framework, it is also to be expected that populations of employees on low incomes will opt not to subscribe to cover for serious, but exceptional, risks.\n(172)\nIn its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission considered that the social character of the measure was not clearly established at the time the insurance policies are taken out (before the occurrence of the serious events referred to). It nevertheless has to be noted, as France points out, that the allocation of aid before the risk materialises, through an insurance covering the risks in question, is in fact the only means of achieving the social objective pursued.\n(173)\nOn the other hand, for the reasons already set out when examining the first measure, the Commission\u2019s examination of the measure has not allowed it to be established that the aid would ensure that the advantage is effectively passed on to individual consumers (second condition). The supplementary deductibility of the equalisation provisions has the effect of reducing or abolishing the corporation tax burden and therefore has an effect equivalent to the exemption scheme specific to the first measure.\n(174)\nAs regards the argument invoked by the Commission in its decision to initiate the procedure that the possible passing on of the advantage granted to insurers should be able to benefit not only insured persons/employees, but also employers (who contribute to the payment of part of the premiums), France and the CTIP consider that the employer\u2019s contribution to financing contractual supplementary social protection schemes constitutes remuneration for employees and an advantage for the latter. The Commission is nevertheless of the opinion that, even if the financing of a cover scheme in favour of employees by the employer is in fact an advantage for the employees, it is undeniable that any reduction in premiums will also constitute a reduction in the charges payable by the employer and therefore an advantage for him.\n(175)\nAs regards the existence of possible discrimination related to the origin of the products (third condition), the Commission confirms its assessment that the high degree of concentration between provident societies, which currently characterises activities relating to designation policies, is reflected in de facto discrimination in favour of these institutions. Although France has not been able to supply precise information concerning the breakdown of the designation market between the various market operators, the Commission observes that, on the basis of the information in its possession, the vast majority of designation policies are currently managed by provident societies.\n(176)\nAlthough, as the French authorities state, the insurer designated by the social partners is chosen solely by the latter, it has to be noted that no legal provision obliges the social partners to invite competing bids from all market operators when designating the undertaking. The FFSA maintains, without being contradicted in this respect by the French authorities, that the social partners prefer to opt for the constitution of a provident society which they can subsequently manage.\n(177)\nAlthough it follows from the Albany judgment cited above that agreements concluded under collective bargaining between the social partners and pursuing social objectives do not come under Article 101(1) TFEU on the prohibition of agreements, decisions and concerted practices, it has to be noted that this case law in no way implies, as indicated above, that aid granted to an insurer under a designation procedure is compatible with Article 107(2)(a) TFEU.\n(178)\nInsurers other than provident societies, and especially insurance undertakings operating in the market for group personal protection at company level, are therefore liable to be the subject of discrimination on account of the absence of obligation for the social partners to issue invitations to tender with the aim of allowing any market operator interested to submit a bid to cover the benefits agreed between the social partners and to be chosen on account of the superior quality of its services and/or their lower price. By way of comparison, some French supplementary health insurance schemes provide for a mechanism for the selection of the insurer(s) on the basis of a transparent tendering procedure (54).\n(179)\nIt must therefore be concluded that two of the three conditions for compatibility are not met and that the aid scheme notified by France to promote designation policies in the field of personal protection are not compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(2)(a) TFEU.\n(180)\nThe compatibility criteria provided for in Article 107(2)(b) and (c) TFEU are obviously not applicable to the present case.\n(181)\nRegarding the compatibility of the measure on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, France states that the established social objective of the measure proves the importance for the future of developing the personal protection market. This development is said to be part of an objective in favour of public health, combating insecurity, economic and social cohesion, the development of social dialogue, and the protection of workers, which are European Union objectives in the common interest. The Commission nevertheless considers that the need for and proportionality of the measure have not been proven. As it has already stated in its examination of the existence of an advantage, the Commission is of the opinion that there is nothing to justify the exclusion from the benefit of the measure for group policies at company level covering the same risks but not concluded under designation. The measure is therefore disproportionate in so far as it does not include policies outside designation. Moreover, it should be noted, as the Commission has already done for the first measure, that the measure constitutes a continuous reduction in charges which constitutes operating aid which is not, according to established practice, capable of being declared compatible under Article 107(3) TFEU.\n(182)\nFinally, no other condition for compatibility provided for Article 107(3) TFEU was invoked by France.\n(183)\nAccording to France and the CTIP, the supplementary insurance benefits in the field of personal protection under the designation procedure can be considered as constituting a service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 106(2) TFEU, in particular where affiliation to the benefit scheme is compulsory and its management is undertaken under a joint framework. The CTIP also refers to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Albany (55), stating that contractual social protection schemes with compulsory affiliation fulfil a mission of general economic interest.\n(184)\nUnder this provision, undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly are subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. Furthermore, the development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.\n(185)\nTherefore, as already pointed out in the context of the examination of the first measure (56), Member States have wide discretion regarding the nature of services capable of being classified as being of general economic interest.\n(186)\nThe Commission also observes that, in the Albany case cited above, the Court concludes that the allocation of an exclusive right to manage a supplementary pension scheme in a specific sector can be considered a service of general economic interest, stressing the importance of the social function allotted to supplementary pensions.\n(187)\nIn this context, it is not ruled out that services provided by insurers in the context of designation by the social partners can be considered a service of general economic interest in so far as the agreement between the social partners in the context of designation is made obligatory for all undertakings in the sector concerned (or the undertaking concerned) and covers risks which are not covered or are insufficiently covered by the public social security system. However, as already mentioned in connection with the examination of the first measure (57), the financial measures supporting such a mechanism must be limited to that which is necessary to offset the additional costs for insurers arising from the public service obligations.\n(188)\nThe Community framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (58) defines the conditions under which the Commission considers such compensation to be compatible under Article 106(2) TFEU. In particular, the compensation paid may not exceed the costs of providing the public service, taking into account the revenue relating to it and a reasonable profit for performing these obligations.\n(189)\nIn this respect, it must nevertheless be noted that the tax saving resulting from the supplementary deductibility of allocations to the equalisation provisions does not fulfil this condition. It is not possible to establish any link at all between the amount of the tax saving and the costs relating to providing the public service.\n(190)\nIn its letter dated 31 October 2008, France accepts that the amount of compensation (tax saving) for the service of general economic interest does not comply with the conditions laid down by the Community framework. Nevertheless, it considers that these conditions are not suited to the particularities of the operations concerned. According to France, the mechanism of tax deductibility is better suited and more flexible than a subsidy on the basis of a precise evaluation of the supplementary costs arising from management of the service.\n(191)\nThe Commission is nevertheless of the opinion that the criteria established by the Community framework must be strictly complied with as they enable the necessary equilibrium to be ensured between, on the one hand, the smooth operation of services of general economic interest and, on the other, the absence of development of trade to an extent contrary to the interests of the European Union.\n(192)\nThe Commission is therefore of the opinion that the conditions of Article 106(2) TFEU, as developed in the Community framework, are not respected and that accordingly the measure cannot be declared compatible with the internal market on the basis of that provision.\nIX. CONCLUSION\n(193)\nThe Commission notes that the aid schemes notified by France to promote the development of contrats solidaires et responsables, as well as group personal protection policies, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. It also finds that, despite the established social objective of the aid schemes concerned, the terms and conditions of their implementation prevent the fulfilment of all the conditions provided for in Article 107(2) and (3) or in Article 106(2) TFEU. The two aid schemes must therefore be considered incompatible with the internal market,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe aid schemes which France plans to implement to promote, firstly, the development of certain sickness insurance policies (\u2018contrats solidaires et responsables\u2019) and, secondly, the development of supplementary group insurance policies providing cover for death, incapacity and invalidity, in application of Articles 207, paragraph 2, 1461, 1o and 39 quinquies GD of the General Tax Code, constitute State aid which is incompatible with the internal market.\nFor this reason, these aid schemes may not be implemented.\nArticle 2\nFrance shall inform the Commission, within 2 months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 26 January 2011.", "references": ["84", "0", "51", "43", "6", "61", "73", "18", "78", "58", "65", "55", "38", "69", "24", "3", "35", "86", "41", "66", "5", "19", "15", "80", "46", "45", "62", "12", "89", "22", "No Label", "34", "37", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["34", "37", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2010/73/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\namending Directives 2003/71/EC on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 50 and 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Council agreed, at its meeting on 8 and 9 March 2007, that administrative burdens on companies should be reduced by 25 % by the year 2012 in order to enhance the competitiveness of companies in the Union.\n(2)\nSome of the obligations provided for in Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) have been identified by the Commission as appearing to be excessively burdensome on companies.\n(3)\nThose obligations need to be reviewed in order to reduce the burdens weighing on companies within the Union to the necessary minimum without compromising the protection of investors and the proper functioning of the securities markets in the Union.\n(4)\nDirective 2003/71/EC requires the Commission to make an assessment of the application of that Directive 5 years after the date of its entry into force and to present, where appropriate, proposals for its review. That assessment has revealed that certain elements of Directive 2003/71/EC should be amended in order to simplify and improve its application, increase its efficiency and enhance the international competitiveness of the Union, thereby contributing to the reduction of administrative burdens.\n(5)\nFollowing the conclusions of the report of the High-Level Group on Financial Supervision in the EU (the \u2018de Larosi\u00e8re report\u2019), the Commission put forward concrete legislative proposals on 23 September 2009 in order to establish a European System of Financial Supervisors comprising a network of national financial supervisors working in tandem with new European supervisory authorities. One of those new authorities, the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), is to replace the Committee of European Securities Regulators.\n(6)\nThe way limits of maximum offering amounts are calculated in Directive 2003/71/EC should be clarified for reasons of legal certainty and efficiency. The total consideration for certain offers referred to in that Directive should be computed on a Union-wide basis.\n(7)\nFor the purposes of private placements of securities, investment firms and credit institutions should be entitled to treat as qualified investors those persons or entities that are described in points (1) to (4) of Section I of Annex II to Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (5) and other persons or entities that are treated as professional clients, \u00e5or that are recognised eligible counterparties in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC. Investment firms authorised to continue considering existing professional clients as such in accordance with Article 71(6) of Directive 2004/39/EC should be authorised to treat those clients as qualified investors under this Directive. Such an alignment of the relevant provisions of Directives 2003/71/EC and 2004/39/EC is likely to reduce complexity and costs for investment firms in the event of private placements because the firms would be able to define the persons or entities to whom the placement is to be addressed relying on their own list of professional clients and eligible counterparties. The issuer should be able to rely on the list of professional clients and eligible counterparties that has been drawn up in accordance with Annex II to Directive 2004/39/EC. The definition of qualified investors in Directive 2003/71/EC should therefore be widened to include those persons or entities and no separate regime for registers should be maintained.\n(8)\nEnsuring the correct and full application of Union law is a core prerequisite for the integrity, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets. It is expected that the establishment of the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) will contribute to that goal by issuing a single rulebook and by fostering a more convergent approach regarding the scrutiny and approval of prospectuses. The Commission should undertake a review of Article 2(1)(m)(ii) of Directive 2003/71/EC in relation to the limitation on the determination of the home Member State for issues of non-equity securities with a denomination below EUR 1 000. Following that review, it should consider whether the provision should be maintained or revoked.\n(9)\nThe threshold of EUR 50 000 in Article 3(2)(c) and (d) of Directive 2003/71/EC no longer reflects the distinction between retail investors and professional investors in terms of investor capacity, since it appears that even retail investors have recently made investments of more than EUR 50 000 in a single transaction. For that reason it is appropriate to increase the said threshold and amend other provisions in which that threshold is mentioned accordingly. Corresponding adjustments should be made in Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). Following those adjustments and taking into consideration the outstanding period of debt securities, there should be a grandfathering provision in relation to Article 8(1)(b), Article 18(3) and Article 20(6) of Directive 2004/109/EC in respect of debt securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 50 000, which have already been admitted to trading on a regulated market in the Union prior to the entry into force of this Directive.\n(10)\nA valid prospectus, drawn up by the issuer or the person responsible for drawing up the prospectus and available to the public at the time of the final placement of securities through financial intermediaries or in any subsequent resale of securities, provides sufficient information for investors to make informed investment decisions. Therefore, financial intermediaries placing or subsequently reselling the securities should be entitled to rely upon the initial prospectus published by the issuer or the person responsible for drawing up the prospectus as long as this is valid and duly supplemented in accordance with Articles 9 and 16 of Directive 2003/71/EC and the issuer or the person responsible for drawing up the prospectus consents to its use. The issuer or the person responsible for drawing up the prospectus should be able to attach conditions to his or her consent. The consent, including any conditions attached thereto, should be given in a written agreement between the parties involved enabling assessment by relevant parties of whether the resale or final placement of securities complies with the agreement. In the event that consent to use the prospectus has been given, the issuer or person responsible for drawing up the initial prospectus should be liable for the information stated therein and in case of a base prospectus, for providing and filing final terms and no other prospectus should be required. However, in case the issuer or the person responsible for drawing up such initial prospectus does not consent to its use, the financial intermediary should be required to publish a new prospectus. In that case, the financial intermediary should be liable for the information in the prospectus, including all information incorporated by reference and, in case of a base prospectus, final terms.\n(11)\nIn order to allow for the efficient application of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (7), Directive 2003/71/EC and Directive 2004/109/EC and to clarify underlying problems of differentiation and overlaps, the Commission should put forward a definition for each of the terms \u2018primary market\u2019, \u2018secondary market\u2019 and \u2018public offer\u2019.\n(12)\nLiability regimes in the Member States are significantly different due to national competence in civil law. In order to identify and monitor the arrangements in the Member States, the Commission should establish a comparative table of Member States\u2019 regimes.\n(13)\nArticle 4(1)(d) of Directive 2003/71/EC provides that the obligation to publish a prospectus does not apply to shares offered, allotted or to be allotted free of charge to existing shareholders. Under Article 3(2)(e) of that Directive an offer with a total consideration of less than EUR 100 000 is entirely exempt from the requirement to publish a prospectus. The exemption in Article 4(1)(d) is therefore redundant, since an offer that is free of charge falls within the scope of Article 3(2)(e).\n(14)\nThe current exemptions for securities offered, allotted or to be allotted to existing or former employees or directors are too restrictive to be useful to a significant number of employers operating share schemes for employees in the Union. Participation of employees in the Union is particularly important for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), in which individual employees are likely to have a significant role in the success of the company. Therefore, there should be no requirement to produce a prospectus for offers made in the context of an employee-share scheme by any Union company. Where the securities are not admitted to trading, the issuer is not subject to appropriate ongoing disclosure requirements and rules on market abuse. Therefore, employers or their affiliated undertakings should update the document referred to in Article 4(1)(e) of Directive 2003/71/EC where necessary for an adequate assessment of the securities. The exemption should be extended also to public offers and admissions to trading of companies registered outside the Union whose securities are admitted to trading either on a regulated market or on a third-country market. In the latter case, the Commission must have taken a positive decision on the equivalence of the legal and supervisory framework of the corresponding regulation of markets in the third country in order for the exemption to apply. That should enable Union employees to have access to ongoing information about the company.\n(15)\nThe summary of the prospectus should be a key source of information for retail investors. It should be a self-contained part of the prospectus and should be short, simple, clear and easy for targeted investors to understand. It should focus on key information that investors need in order to be able to decide which offers and admissions of securities to consider further. Such key information should convey the essential characteristics of, and risks associated with, the issuer, any guarantor, and the securities offered or admitted to trading on a regulated market. It should also provide the general terms of the offer, including estimated expenses charged to the investor by the issuer or the offeror, and indicate the total estimated expenses, since these could be substantial. It should also inform the investor of any rights attaching to the securities and of the risks associated with an investment in the relevant security. The format of the summary should be determined in a way that allows comparison of the summaries of similar products by ensuring that equivalent information always appears in the same position in the summary.\n(16)\nMember States should ensure that no civil liability attaches to any person solely on the basis of the summary, including any translation thereof, unless it is misleading, inaccurate or inconsistent with the relevant parts of the prospectus. The summary should contain a clear warning to this effect.\n(17)\nIt is appropriate to clarify that final terms to a base prospectus should contain only information relating to the securities note which is specific to the issue and which can be determined only at the time of the individual issue. Such information might, for example, include the international securities identification number, the issue price, the date of maturity, any coupon, the exercise date, the exercise price, the redemption price and other terms not known at the time of drawing up the prospectus. Other new information which is capable of affecting the assessment of the issuer and the securities should, in general, be included in a supplement to the prospectus. Furthermore, in order to fulfil the obligation to provide key information also under a base prospectus, issuers should combine the summary with relevant parts of final terms in a way that is easily accessible to investors. No separate approval should be required in those cases.\n(18)\nIn order to improve the efficiency of pre-emptive issues of equity securities and adequately to take account of the size of issuers, without prejudice to investor protection, a proportionate disclosure regime should be introduced for offers of shares to existing shareholders who can either subscribe those shares or sell the right to subscribe for the shares, for offers by SMEs and issuers with reduced market capitalisation (namely small companies whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market), and for offers of non-equity securities referred to in Article 1(2)(j) of Directive 2003/71/EC issued by credit institutions. Where such credit institutions issue securities below the limit laid down in that Article, but choose to opt into the regime of this Directive and, consequently, draw up a prospectus, they should be entitled to benefit from the relevant proportionate disclosure regime. The proportionate disclosure regime for pre-emptive issues should apply where the shares offered are of the same class as the shares of the issuer admitted to trading either on a regulated market or on a multilateral trading facility as defined in Article 4(1)(15) of Directive 2004/39/EC as long as the facility is subject to appropriate ongoing disclosure requirements and rules on market abuse. The European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) should issue guidelines regarding these conditions in order to ensure a consistent approach by the competent authorities.\n(19)\nMember States publish abundant information on their financial situation which is in general available in the public domain. Where a Member State guarantees an offer of securities, the issuer should not be obliged to provide in the prospectus information about that Member State acting as guarantor.\n(20)\nIn order to improve legal certainty, the validity of a prospectus should commence at its approval, a point in time which is easily verified by the competent authority. Furthermore, in order to enhance flexibility, issuers should also be able to update the registration document in accordance with the procedure for supplementing prospectuses.\n(21)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of Directive 2004/109/EC, the obligation in Directive 2003/71/EC for the issuer to provide annually a document containing or referring to all information published in the 12 months preceding the issuance of the prospectus has become a dual obligation and should therefore be abolished. As a consequence, a registration document, instead of being updated in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 2003/71/EC, should be updated by means of a supplement or securities note.\n(22)\nInternet ensures easy access to information. In order to ensure better accessibility for investors, the prospectus should always be published in an electronic form on the relevant website. Where a person other than the issuer is responsible for drawing up the prospectus, it should be sufficient for that person to publish the prospectus on the website of that person.\n(23)\nIn order to improve legal certainty, it should be clarified when the requirement to publish a supplement to the prospectus and the right of withdrawal end. Those provisions should be looked at separately. The obligation to supplement a prospectus should be terminated at the final closing of the offering period or the time when trading of such securities on a regulated market begins, whichever occurs later. On the other hand, the right to withdraw an acceptance should be applicable only where the prospectus relates to an offer of securities to the public and the new factor, mistake or inaccuracy arose before the final closing of the offer and the delivery of the securities. Hence, the right of withdrawal is linked to the timing of the new factor, mistake or inaccuracy that gives rise to a supplement, and assumes that that triggering event has occurred while the offer was open and before delivery of the securities.\n(24)\nWhen the prospectus is supplemented, harmonisation at Union level of the time-frame for the exercise by investors of the right of withdrawal of their previous acceptances would provide certainty to issuers making cross-border offers of securities. To provide flexibility to issuers from Member States with a tradition of a longer time-frame in this regard, the issuer or the offeror should be able to extend the term for the exercise of that right voluntarily. To improve legal certainty, the supplement to the prospectus should specify when the right of withdrawal ends.\n(25)\nThe authority responsible for the approval of the prospectus should also notify the issuer or the person responsible for drawing up the prospectus of the certificate of approval of the prospectus that is addressed to the authorities of host Member States in accordance with Directive 2003/71/EC in order to provide the issuer or the person responsible for drawing up the prospectus with certainty as to whether and when a notification has actually been effected.\n(26)\nThe measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive should be adopted by means of implementing acts in accordance with Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It is particularly important that the European Parliament receive draft measures and draft implementing acts as well as any other relevant information before the Commission decides on the equivalence of prospectuses drawn up in a particular third country.\n(27)\nIn order to respect the principles set out in recital 41 of Directive 2003/71/EC and to take account of the technical developments in the financial markets and to specify the requirements laid down in Directive 2003/71/EC, the Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU. In particular, delegated acts may be necessary to update the thresholds and the definitions for reduced market capitalisation and SMEs established in this Directive and in Directive 2003/71/EC, and to specify the detailed content and specific form of the summary in accordance with the outcome of the debate launched by the Commission\u2019s Communication on Packaged Retail Investment Products of 30 April 2009, aligning to the greatest extent possible the content and form of the summary for securities with that outcome, preventing the duplication of documents and potential confusion for investors as well as minimising the costs.\n(28)\nThe European Parliament and the Council should have 3 months from the date of notification to object to a delegated act. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council, it should be possible to prolong that period by 3 months in regard to significant areas of concern. It should also be possible for the European Parliament and the Council to inform the other institutions of their intention not to raise objections. Such early approval of delegated acts is particularly appropriate when deadlines need to be met, for example where there are timetables in the basic act for the Commission to adopt delegated acts.\n(29)\nIn Declaration 39 on Article 290 TFEU, annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007, the Conference took note of the Commission\u2019s intention to continue to consult experts appointed by the Member States in the preparation of draft delegated acts in the financial services area, in accordance with its established practice.\n(30)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely reducing administrative burdens relating to the publication of a prospectus in the case of offers of securities to the public and admission to trading in regulated markets within the Union, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, 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.\n(31)\nDirectives 2003/71/EC and 2004/109/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Directive 2003/71/EC\nDirective 2003/71/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2:\n(i)\npoint (h) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(h)\nsecurities included in an offer where the total consideration for the offer in the Union is less than EUR 5 000 000, which shall be calculated over a period of 12 months;\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (j) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(j)\nnon-equity securities issued in a continuous or repeated manner by credit institutions where the total consideration for the offer in the Union is less than EUR 75 000 000, which shall be calculated over a period of 12 months, provided that those securities:\n(i)\nare not subordinated, convertible or exchangeable;\n(ii)\ndo not give a right to subscribe to or acquire other types of securities and that they are not linked to a derivative instrument.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. In order to take account of technical developments on financial markets, including inflation, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 24a, and subject to the conditions of Articles 24b and 24c, measures concerning the adjustment of the limits referred to in points (h) and (j) of paragraph 2 of this Article.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1:\n(i)\npoint (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\n\u201cqualified investors\u201d means persons or entities that are described in points (1) to (4) of Section I of Annex II to Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (8), and persons or entities who are, on request, treated as professional clients in accordance with Annex II to Directive 2004/39/EC, or recognised as eligible counterparties in accordance with Article 24 of Directive 2004/39/EC unless they have requested that they be treated as non-professional clients. Investment firms and credit institutions shall communicate their classification on request to the issuer without prejudice to the relevant legislation on data protection. Investment firms authorised to continue considering existing professional clients as such in accordance with Article 71(6) of Directive 2004/39/EC shall be authorised to treat those clients as qualified investors under this Directive;\n(ii)\nthe following points are added:\n\u2018(s)\n\u201ckey information\u201d means essential and appropriately structured information which is to be provided to investors with a view to enabling them to understand the nature and the risks of the issuer, guarantor and the securities that are being offered to them or admitted to trading on a regulated market and, without prejudice to Article 5(2)(b), to decide which offers of securities to consider further. In light of the offer and securities concerned, the key information shall include the following elements:\n(i)\na short description of the risks associated with and essential characteristics of the issuer and any guarantor, including the assets, liabilities and financial position;\n(ii)\na short description of the risk associated with and essential characteristics of the investment in the relevant security, including any rights attaching to the securities;\n(iii)\ngeneral terms of the offer, including estimated expenses charged to the investor by the issuer or the offeror;\n(iv)\ndetails of the admission to trading;\n(v)\nreasons for the offer and use of proceeds;\n(t)\n\u201ccompany with reduced market capitalisation\u201d means a company listed on a regulated market that had an average market capitalisation of less than EUR 100 000 000 on the basis of end-year quotes for the previous three calendar years.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraphs 2 and 3 are deleted;\n(c)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. In order to take account of technical developments on financial markets and to specify the requirements laid down in this Article, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 24a, and subject to the conditions of Articles 24b and 24c, the definitions referred to in paragraph 1, including the adjustment of the figures used for the definition of SMEs, and the thresholds for reduced market capitalisation, taking into account the situation on different national markets, including the classification used by the operators of regulated markets, Union legislation and recommendations as well as economic developments.\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2:\n(i)\nthe first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The obligation to publish a prospectus shall not apply to the following types of offer:\n(a)\nan offer of securities addressed solely to qualified investors; and/or\n(b)\nan offer of securities addressed to fewer than 150 natural or legal persons per Member State, other than qualified investors; and/or\n(c)\nan offer of securities addressed to investors who acquire securities for a total consideration of at least EUR 100 000 per investor, for each separate offer; and/or\n(d)\nan offer of securities whose denomination per unit amounts to at least EUR 100 000; and/or\n(e)\nan offer of securities with a total consideration in the Union of less than EUR 100 000, which shall be calculated over a period of 12 months.\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Member States shall not require another prospectus in any such subsequent resale of securities or final placement of securities through financial intermediaries as long as a valid prospectus is available in accordance with Article 9 and the issuer or the person responsible for drawing up such prospectus consents to its use by means of a written agreement.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. In order to take account of technical developments on financial markets, including inflation, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 24a, and subject to the conditions of Articles 24b and 24c, measures concerning the thresholds in points (c) to (e) of paragraph 2 of this Article.\u2019;\n4.\nArticle 4 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1:\n(i)\npoints (c) to (e) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nsecurities offered, allotted or to be allotted in connection with a merger or division, provided that a document is available containing information which is regarded by the competent authority as being equivalent to that of the prospectus, taking into account the requirements of Union legislation;\n(d)\ndividends paid out to existing shareholders in the form of shares of the same class as the shares in respect of which such dividends are paid, provided that a document is made available containing information on the number and nature of the shares and the reasons for and details of the offer;\n(e)\nsecurities offered, allotted or to be allotted to existing or former directors or employees by their employer or by an affiliated undertaking provided that the company has its head office or registered office in the Union and provided that a document is made available containing information on the number and nature of the securities and the reasons for and details of the offer.\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe following subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018Point (e) shall also apply to a company established outside the Union whose securities are admitted to trading either on a regulated market or on a third-country market. In the latter case, the exemption shall apply provided that adequate information, including the document referred to in point (e), is available at least in a language customary in the sphere of international finance and provided that the Commission has adopted an equivalence decision regarding the third-country market concerned.\nOn the request of the competent authority of a Member State, the Commission shall adopt equivalence decisions in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2), stating whether the legal and supervisory framework of a third country ensures that a regulated market authorised in that third country complies with legally binding requirements which are, for the purpose of the application of the exemption under point (e), equivalent to the requirements resulting from Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (9), from Title III of Directive 2004/39/EC and from Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (10), and which are subject to effective supervision and enforcement in that third country. That competent authority shall indicate why it considers that the legal and supervisory framework of the third country concerned is to be considered equivalent and shall provide relevant information to this end.\nSuch a third-country legal and supervisory framework may be considered equivalent where that framework fulfils at least the following conditions:\n(i)\nthe markets are subject to authorisation and to effective supervision and enforcement on an ongoing basis;\n(ii)\nthe markets have clear and transparent rules regarding admission of securities to trading so that such securities are capable of being traded in a fair, orderly and efficient manner, and are freely negotiable;\n(iii)\nsecurity issuers are subject to periodic and ongoing information requirements ensuring a high level of investor protection; and\n(iv)\nmarket transparency and integrity are ensured by the prevention of market abuse in the form of insider dealing and market manipulation.\nAs regards point (e), in order to take into account the developments of financial markets, the Commission may adopt by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 24a, and subject to the conditions of Articles 24b and 24c, measures to specify the above criteria or to add further ones to be applied in the assessment of the equivalence.\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, point (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nsecurities offered, allotted or to be allotted in connection with a merger or a division, provided that a document is available containing information which is regarded by the competent authority as being equivalent to that of the prospectus, taking into account the requirements of Union legislation;\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 5 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2:\n(i)\nin the first subparagraph, the introductory part is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The prospectus shall contain information concerning the issuer and the securities to be offered to the public or to be admitted to trading on a regulated market. It shall also include a summary that, in a concise manner and in non-technical language, provides key information in the language in which the prospectus was originally drawn up. The format and content of the summary of the prospectus shall provide, in conjunction with the prospectus, appropriate information about essential elements of the securities concerned in order to aid investors when considering whether to invest in such securities.\nThe summary shall be drawn up in a common format in order to facilitate comparability of the summaries of similar securities and its content should convey the key information of the securities concerned in order to aid investors when considering whether to invest in such securities. The summary shall also contain a warning that:\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Where the prospectus relates to the admission to trading on a regulated market of non-equity securities having a denomination of at least EUR 100 000, there shall be no requirement to provide a summary, save where a Member State so requires in accordance with Article 19(4).\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The issuer, offeror or person asking for the admission to trading on a regulated market may draw up the prospectus as a single document or separate documents. A prospectus composed of separate documents shall divide the required information into a registration document, a securities note and a summary note. The registration document shall contain the information relating to the issuer. The securities note shall contain the information concerning the securities offered to the public or to be admitted to trading on a regulated market.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 4, the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Where the final terms of the offer are neither included in the base prospectus nor in a supplement, the final terms shall be made available to investors, filed with the competent authority of the home Member State and communicated, by the issuer, to the competent authority of the host Member State(s) when each public offer is made as soon as practicable and, if possible, in advance of the beginning of the public offer or admission to trading. The final terms shall contain only information that relates to the securities note and shall not be used to supplement the base prospectus. Article 8(1)(a) shall apply in those cases.\u2019;\n(d)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. In order to take account of technical developments on financial markets and to specify the requirements laid down in this Article, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 24a and subject to the conditions of Articles 24b and 24c, measures relating to the following:\n(a)\nthe format of the prospectus or base prospectus, the summary, final terms and supplements; and\n(b)\nthe detailed content and specific form of the key information to be included in the summary.\nThose delegated acts shall be adopted by 1 July 2012.\u2019;\n6.\nin Article 6(2), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018However, Member States shall ensure that no civil liability shall attach to any person solely on the basis of the summary, including any translation thereof, unless it is misleading, inaccurate or inconsistent, when read together with the other parts of the prospectus, or it does not provide, when read together with the other parts of the prospectus, key information in order to aid investors when considering whether to invest in such securities. The summary shall contain a clear warning to that effect.\u2019;\n7.\nArticle 7 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Detailed delegated acts regarding the specific information which must be included in a prospectus, avoiding duplication of information when a prospectus is composed of separate documents, shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with Article 24a and subject to the conditions of Articles 24b and 24c.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2:\n(i)\npoint (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nthe various types and characteristics of offers and admissions to trading on a regulated market of non-equity securities. The information required in a prospectus shall be appropriate from the point of view of the investors concerned for non-equity securities having a denomination per unit of at least EUR 100 000;\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nthe various activities and size of the issuer, in particular credit institutions issuing non-equity securities referred to in Article 1(2)(j), companies with reduced market capitalisation and SMEs. For such companies the information shall be adapted to their size and, where appropriate, to their shorter track record;\u2019;\n(iii)\nthe following point is added:\n\u2018(g)\na proportionate disclosure regime shall apply to offers of shares by companies whose shares of the same class are admitted to trading on a regulated market or a multilateral trading facility as defined in Article 4(1)(15) of Directive 2004/39/EC, which are subject to appropriate ongoing disclosure requirements and rules on market abuse, provided that the issuer has not disapplied the statutory pre-emption rights.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The delegated acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on the standards in the field of financial and non-financial information set out by international securities commission organisations, in particular by IOSCO and on the indicative Annexes to this Directive.\u2019;\n8.\nArticle 8 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the introductory part of paragraph 2 and in paragraph 3, the term \u2018implementing measures\u2019 is replaced by \u2018delegated acts\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20183a. Where securities are guaranteed by a Member State, an issuer, an offeror or a person asking for admission to trading on a regulated market, when drawing up a prospectus in accordance with Article 1(3), shall be entitled to omit information about such guarantor.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. In order to take account of technical developments on financial markets and to specify the requirements laid down in this Article, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 24a and subject to the conditions of Articles 24b and 24c, measures concerning paragraph 2.\u2019;\n9.\nArticle 9 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. A prospectus shall be valid for 12 months after its approval for offers to the public or admissions to trading on a regulated market, provided that the prospectus is completed by any supplements required pursuant to Article 16.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. A registration document, as referred to in Article 5(3), previously filed and approved, shall be valid for a period of up to 12 months. The registration document, updated in accordance with Article 12(2) or Article 16, accompanied by the securities note and the summary note shall be considered to constitute a valid prospectus.\u2019;\n10.\nArticle 10 is deleted;\n11.\nArticle 11 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall allow information to be incorporated in the prospectus by reference to one or more previously or simultaneously published documents that have been approved by the competent authority of the home Member State or filed with it in accordance with this Directive or Directive 2004/109/EC. Such information shall be the most recent available to the issuer. The summary shall not incorporate information by reference.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. In order to take account of technical developments on financial markets and to specify the requirements laid down in this Article, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 24a and subject to the conditions of Articles 24b and 24c, measures concerning the information to be incorporated by reference.\u2019;\n12.\nin Article 12, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. In this case, the securities note shall provide information that would normally be provided in the registration document, where there has been a material change or recent development which could affect investors\u2019 assessments since the latest updated registration document, unless such information is provided in a supplement in accordance with Article 16. The securities and summary notes shall be subject to a separate approval.\u2019;\n13.\nin Article 13, paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. In order to take account of technical developments on financial markets and to specify the requirements laid down in this Article, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 24a and subject to the conditions of Articles 24b and 24c, measures concerning the conditions in accordance with which time limits may be adjusted.\u2019;\n14.\nArticle 14 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 2:\n(i)\npoint (c) in the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nin electronic form on the issuer\u2019s website or, if applicable, on the website of the financial intermediaries placing or selling the securities, including paying agents; or\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Member States shall require issuers or the persons responsible for drawing up a prospectus that publish their prospectus in accordance with point (a) or (b) also to publish their prospectus electronically in accordance with point (c).\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u20188. In order to take account of technical developments on financial markets and to specify the requirements laid down in this Article, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 24a and subject to the conditions of Articles 24b and 24c, measures concerning paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article.\u2019;\n15.\nin Article 15, paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. In order to take account of technical developments on financial markets and to specify the requirements laid down in this Article, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 24a and subject to the conditions of Articles 24b and 24c, measures concerning the dissemination of advertisements announcing the intention to offer securities to the public or the admission to trading on a regulated market, in particular before the prospectus has been made available to the public or before the opening of the subscription, and concerning paragraph 4 of this Article.\u2019;\n16.\nArticle 16 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 16\nSupplements to the prospectus\n1. Every significant new factor, material mistake or inaccuracy relating to the information included in the prospectus which is capable of affecting the assessment of the securities and which arises or is noted between the time when the prospectus is approved and the final closing of the offer to the public or, as the case may be, the time when trading on a regulated market begins, whichever occurs later, shall be mentioned in a supplement to the prospectus. Such a supplement shall be approved in the same way in a maximum of seven working days and published in accordance with at least the same arrangements as were applied when the original prospectus was published. The summary, and any translations thereof, shall also be supplemented, if necessary, to take into account the new information included in the supplement.\n2. Where the prospectus relates to an offer of securities to the public, investors who have already agreed to purchase or subscribe for the securities before the supplement is published shall have the right, exercisable within two working days after the publication of the supplement, to withdraw their acceptances, provided that the new factor, mistake or inaccuracy referred to in paragraph 1 arose before the final closing of the offer to the public and the delivery of the securities. That period may be extended by the issuer or the offeror. The final date of the right of withdrawal shall be stated in the supplement.\u2019;\n17.\nin Article 18, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The competent authority of the home Member State shall, at the request of the issuer or the person responsible for drawing up the prospectus and within three working days following receipt of that request or, where the request is submitted together with the draft prospectus, within one working day after the approval of the prospectus, notify the competent authority of the host Member State with a certificate of approval attesting that the prospectus has been drawn up in accordance with this Directive and with a copy of that prospectus. If applicable, that notification shall be accompanied by a translation of the summary produced under the responsibility of the issuer or person responsible for drawing up the prospectus. The same procedure shall be followed for any supplement to the prospectus. The issuer or the person responsible for drawing up the prospectus shall also be notified of the certificate of approval at the same time as the competent authority of the host Member State.\u2019;\n18.\nin Article 19, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Where admission to trading on a regulated market of non-equity securities whose denomination per unit amounts to at least EUR 100 000 is sought in one or more Member States, the prospectus shall be drawn up either in a language accepted by the competent authorities of the home and host Member States or in a language customary in the sphere of international finance, at the choice of the issuer, offeror or person asking for admission to trading, as the case may be. Member States may choose to require in their national legislation that a summary be drawn up in their official language(s).\u2019;\n19.\nin Article 20, the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 24a and subject to the conditions of Articles 24b and 24c, measures to establish general equivalence criteria, based on the requirements laid down in Articles 5 and 7.\u2019;\n20.\nin Article 21(4)(d), the words \u2018its implementing measures\u2019 are replaced by \u2018the delegated acts referred to therein\u2019;\n21.\nthe following articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 24a\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 1(4), Article 2(4), Article 3(4), the fifth subparagraph of Article 4(1), Article 5(5), Article 7(1), Article 8(4), Article 11(3), Article 13(7), Article 14(8), Article 15(7) and the first subparagraph of Article 20(3) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 4 years from 31 December 2010. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated power at the latest 6 months before the end of the four-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 24b.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 24b and 24c.\nArticle 24b\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 1(4), Article 2(4), Article 3(4), the fifth subparagraph of Article 4(1), Article 5(5), Article 7(1), Article 8(4), Article 11(3), Article 13(7), Article 14(8), Article 15(7) or the first subparagraph of Article 20(3) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke a delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 24c\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 3 months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 3 months.\n2. If, on expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to the delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. In accordance with Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\u2019;\n22.\nin Section I(C) and Sections III and IV of Annex I, Section II of Annex II, Sections II and III of Annex III, and the third bullet point of Annex IV, the term \u2018key information\u2019 is replaced by \u2018essential information\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAmendments to Directive 2004/109/EC\nDirective 2004/109/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 2(1)(i), point (i) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(i)\nin the case of an issuer of debt securities the denomination per unit of which is less than EUR 1 000 or an issuer of shares:\n-\nwhere the issuer is incorporated in the Union, the Member State in which it has its registered office,\n-\nwhere the issuer is incorporated in a third country, the Member State referred to in point (iii) of Article 2(1)(m) of Directive 2003/71/EC.\nThe definition of \u201chome\u201d Member State shall be applicable to debt securities in a currency other than euro, provided that the value of such denomination per unit is, at the date of the issue, less than EUR 1 000, unless it is nearly equivalent to EUR 1 000;\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 8 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nan issuer exclusively of debt securities admitted to trading on a regulated market, the denomination per unit of which is at least EUR 100 000 or, in the case of debt securities denominated in a currency other than euro, the value of such denomination per unit is, at the date of the issue, equivalent to at least EUR 100 000.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. By way of derogation from paragraph (1)(b), Articles 4, 5 and 6 shall not apply to issuers of exclusively debt securities the denomination per unit of which is at least EUR 50 000 or, in the case of debt securities denominated in a currency other than euro, the value of such denomination per unit is, at the date of the issue, equivalent to at least EUR 50 000, which have already been admitted to trading on a regulated market in the Union before 31 December 2010, for as long as such debt securities are outstanding.\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 18, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Where only holders of debt securities whose denomination per unit amounts to at least EUR 100 000 or, in the case of debt securities denominated in a currency other than euro whose denomination per unit is, at the date of the issue, equivalent to at least EUR 100 000, are to be invited to a meeting, the issuer may choose as venue any Member State, provided that all the facilities and information necessary to enable such holders to exercise their rights are made available in that Member State.\nThe choice referred to in the first subparagraph shall also apply with regard to holders of debt securities whose denomination per unit amounts to at least EUR 50 000 or, in the case of debt securities denominated in a currency other than euro, the value of such denomination per unit is, at the date of the issue, equivalent to at least EUR 50 000, which have already been admitted to trading on a regulated market in the Union before 31 December 2010, for as long as such debt securities are outstanding, provided that all the facilities and information necessary to enable such holders to exercise their rights are made available in the Member State chosen by the issuer.\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 20, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 to 4, where securities whose denomination per unit amounts to at least EUR 100 000 or, in the case of debt securities denominated in a currency other than euro equivalent to at least EUR 100 000 at the date of the issue, are admitted to trading on a regulated market in one or more Member States, regulated information shall be disclosed to the public either in a language accepted by the competent authorities of the home and host Member States or in a language customary in the sphere of international finance, at the choice of the issuer or of the person who, without the issuer\u2019s consent, has requested such admission.\nThe derogation referred to in the first subparagraph shall also apply to debt securities the denomination per unit of which is at least EUR 50 000 or, in the case of debt securities denominated in a currency other than euro, the value of such denomination per unit is, at the date of the issue, equivalent to at least EUR 50 000, which have already been admitted to trading on a regulated market in one or more Member States before 31 December 2010, for as long as such debt securities are outstanding.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 July 2012. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nWhen Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main measures of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 4\nReview\nBy 1 January 2016, the Commission shall assess the application of Directive 2003/71/EC as amended by this Directive, in particular with regard to the application and the effects of the rules, including liability, regarding the summary with key information, the impact of the exemption provided for in Article 4(1)(e) on the protection of employees and the proportionate disclosure regime referred to in Article 7(2)(e) and (g) and the electronic publication of prospectuses in accordance with Article 14 and it shall review point (ii) of Article 2(1)(m) in relation to the limitation on the determination of the home Member State for issues of non-equity securities with a denomination below EUR 1 000 in order to consider whether that provision should be maintained or revoked. The Commission shall also assess the need to revise the definition of the term \u2018public offer\u2019 and the need to define the terms \u2018primary market\u2019 and \u2018secondary market\u2019 and, in this respect, shall fully clarify the links between Directive 2003/71/EC and Directives 2003/6/EC and 2004/109/EC. Following its assessment, the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council, accompanied, where appropriate, by proposals to amend Directive 2003/71/EC.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 6\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["61", "53", "21", "70", "87", "2", "91", "71", "90", "67", "83", "88", "51", "45", "12", "16", "81", "44", "86", "25", "80", "42", "5", "46", "72", "38", "6", "10", "34", "79", "No Label", "8", "24", "28", "30", "31", "39"], "gold": ["8", "24", "28", "30", "31", "39"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1039/2010\nof 15 November 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1029/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["46", "86", "25", "15", "52", "91", "37", "39", "24", "97", "55", "41", "99", "21", "78", "89", "68", "65", "58", "66", "53", "60", "96", "93", "82", "4", "42", "38", "28", "14", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/57/EU\nof 27 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include fluometuron as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included fluometuron.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifiers withdrew their support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of fluometuron.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifiers (hereinafter \u2018the applicants\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Greece, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nGreece evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicants and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 27 January 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on fluometuron to the Commission on 14 December 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for fluometuron.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing fluometuron may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include fluometuron in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicants submit further information confirming the toxicological properties of the plant metabolite trifluoroacetic acid and the analytical methods for the monitoring of fluometuron in air and the soil metabolite trifluoromethylaniline in soil and water. In case fluometuron is classified under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) as \u2018suspected of causing cancer\u2019, the Member States concerned shall request the submission of further information confirming the relevance for groundwater of the soil metabolites desmethyl-fluometuron and trifluoromethylaniline.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing fluometuron to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (8) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of fluometuron and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning fluometuron in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning fluometuron in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing fluometuron as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to fluometuron are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing fluometuron as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account Part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning fluometuron. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing fluometuron as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing fluometuron as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2011.", "references": ["51", "86", "91", "14", "7", "35", "72", "28", "46", "4", "3", "48", "62", "69", "47", "40", "74", "9", "5", "68", "23", "63", "71", "92", "30", "20", "45", "76", "54", "64", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 217/2011\nof 1 March 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Robiola di Roccaverano (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and having regard to Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Robiola di Roccaverano\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1263/96 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2011.", "references": ["1", "60", "85", "99", "64", "7", "79", "38", "94", "44", "21", "43", "54", "71", "4", "51", "95", "78", "6", "87", "92", "0", "61", "48", "63", "33", "86", "81", "74", "98", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 343/2012\nof 19 April 2012\nfixing the export refunds on beef and veal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XV of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in beef and veal, export refunds should therefore be set in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167, 168 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007 of 21 November 2007 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals (5) provides for a reduction of the special refund if the quantity of cuts of boned meat to be exported amounts to less than 95 %, but not less than 85 %, of the total weight of cuts produced by boning.\n(6)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 257/2012 (6). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(7)\nIn order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(8)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004, and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nIn the case referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007, the rate of the refund on products falling within product code 0201 30 00 9100 shall be reduced by EUR 2,3/100 kg.\nArticle 3\nRegulation (EU) No 257/2012 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["52", "65", "5", "31", "10", "60", "53", "0", "75", "93", "11", "89", "84", "40", "36", "71", "1", "85", "38", "18", "30", "33", "29", "92", "56", "51", "57", "54", "81", "62", "No Label", "20", "22", "61", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/83/EU\nof 30 November 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include napropamide as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included napropamide. By Commission Decision 2008/902/EC (4) it was decided not to include napropamide in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, the original notifier, hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019, submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(3)\nThe application was submitted to Denmark, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance has been clarified. The supported uses are the same as those that were the subject of Decision 2008/902/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(4)\nDenmark evaluated the new information and data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 30 June 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on napropamide to the Commission on 26 March 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 October 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for napropamide.\n(5)\nThe additional report by the rapporteur Member State and the new conclusion by the Authority concentrate on the concerns that lead to the non-inclusion. Those concerns were in particular the potential contamination of groundwater by the metabolite 2-(1-naphthyloxy)propionic acid, hereinafter \u2018NOPA\u2019, and the risk to mammals, fish-eating birds and aquatic organisms. The new data submitted by the applicant show the following. The metabolite NOPA is neither of toxicological nor of biological relevance. Moreover, the risk to birds and mammals may be considered low, while for the risk for aquatic organisms acceptable uses were identified, on the basis of the additional data provided.\n(6)\nConsequently, the additional data and information provided by the applicant permit to eliminate the specific concerns that led to the non-inclusion. No other open scientific questions have arisen.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing napropamide may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include napropamide in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance may be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(8)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that the inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submits information on the aquatic risk for the photolysis metabolites and for NOPA, and information for the risk assessment of aquatic plants.\n(9)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 June 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["78", "5", "68", "45", "3", "37", "30", "64", "10", "92", "49", "66", "73", "62", "44", "18", "52", "79", "16", "26", "99", "27", "43", "75", "77", "24", "33", "0", "57", "90", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "41", "60", "61", "65", "76"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "41", "60", "61", "65", "76"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 20 October 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/011 NL/NXP Semiconductors from the Netherlands)\n(2010/665/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nThe Netherlands submitted an application on 26 March 2010 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise NXP Semiconductors Netherlands BV, and supplemented it by additional information up to 3 June 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 809 434.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Netherlands,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 809 434 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["22", "71", "50", "77", "79", "52", "72", "88", "40", "26", "80", "51", "17", "18", "54", "55", "74", "61", "53", "59", "37", "45", "62", "43", "98", "90", "19", "86", "35", "84", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 7 January 2011\namending Annex XI to Council Directive 2003/85/EC as regards the list of laboratories authorised to handle live foot-and-mouth disease virus\n(notified under document C(2010) 9592)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/7/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC and Decisions 89/531/EEC and 91/665/EEC and amending Directive 92/46/EEC (1), and in particular Article 67(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2003/85/EC sets out minimum control measures to be applied in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and certain preventive measures aimed at increasing the awareness and preparedness of the competent authorities and the farming community concerning that disease.\n(2)\nThose preventive measures include an obligation on Member States to ensure that the handling of foot-and-mouth disease virus for research and diagnosis is carried out only in the authorised national laboratories listed in Part A of Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC.\n(3)\nFrance has officially informed the Commission that the name of its national laboratory listed in Part A of Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC situated in France has changed.\n(4)\nFor legal certainty, it is important to keep the list of laboratories set out in Part A of that Annex updated. Therefore, it is necessary to replace the entry for France in the list of laboratories set out in Part A of Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC.\n(5)\nAnnex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Part A of Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC, the entry for France is replaced by the following:\n\u2018FR\nFrance\nAgence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (ANSES), Laboratoire de sant\u00e9 animale de Maisons-Alfort\nFrance\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 January 2011.", "references": ["32", "85", "27", "3", "5", "58", "0", "37", "64", "76", "10", "47", "41", "15", "50", "57", "23", "71", "89", "94", "95", "2", "52", "35", "98", "49", "46", "26", "59", "92", "No Label", "38", "61", "66", "77", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "61", "66", "77", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 295/2012\nof 3 April 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 December 2005 on the establishment of a Community list of air carriers subject to an operating ban within the Community and on informing air passengers of the identity of the operating carrier, and repealing Article 9 of Directive 2004/36/CE (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 of 22 March 2006 established the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Union referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, some Member States and the European Aviation Safety Agency (hereinafter \"EASA\") communicated to the Commission information that is relevant in the context of updating the Community list. Relevant information was also communicated by third countries. On this basis, the Community list should be updated.\n(3)\nThe Commission informed all air carriers concerned either directly or, when this was not practicable, through the authorities responsible for their regulatory oversight, indicating the essential facts and considerations which would form the basis for a decision to impose on them an operating ban within the Union or to modify the conditions of an operating ban imposed on an air carrier which is included in the Community list.\n(4)\nOpportunity was given by the Commission to the air carriers concerned to consult documents provided by Member States, to submit written comments and to make an oral presentation to the Commission within 10 working days and to the Air Safety Committee established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/1991 of 16 December on the harmonization of the technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (3).\n(5)\nThe Air Safety Committee has heard presentations by EASA about the results of the analysis of audit reports carried out by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO hereafter) in the framework of ICAO\u2019s Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP). Member States were invited to prioritize ramp inspections on air carriers licensed on States for which significant safety concern have been identified by ICAO or for which EASA concluded there are significant deficiencies in the safety oversight system. Notwithstanding consultations undertaken by the Commission under Regulation (EC) No 2011/2005, this will permit to acquire further information regarding the safety performance on the air carriers licensed in that States.\n(6)\nThe Air Safety Committee has heard presentations by EASA about the technical assistance projects carried out in States affected by Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005. It has been informed about the requests for further technical assistance and cooperation to improve the administrative and technical capability of civil aviation authorities with a view to resolving non compliances with applicable international standards. Member States were invited to respond to these requests on a bilateral basis in coordination with the Commission and EASA.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 474/2006 should be therefore amended accordingly.\n(8)\nFollowing the analysis by EASA of information resulting from ramp checks carried out on aircraft of certain air carriers licensed in the European Union or from standardisation inspections carried out by EASA as well as area specific inspections and audits carried out by their national aviation authorities, some Member States have taken certain enforcement measures. They informed the Commission and the Air Safety Committee about these measures: Germany informed that several German air carriers are under re-inforced oversight, including Air Alliance Express and Air Traffic GmbH Dusseldorf, Latvia informed that the Air Operator Certificate (AOC) of Inversija was revoked on 19 January 2012; Italy informed that the AOC of ItaliAirlines was revoked and that the air transport license held by the air carrier Livingston remains suspended; Greece informed that the commercial license of the air carrier Hellenic Imperial Airways was lifted from suspension on 28 February 2012 but remains under heightened surveillance, and that additional surveillance had also been introduced for the air carriers Sky wings Airlines and Hermes Airlines; the Netherlands informed that the AOC of Solid-air was revoked on 28 December 2011 and the AOC of Amsterdam Airlines on 6 February 2012; Spain informed that the AOC of Zorex remains suspended since 7 November 2011; Sweden informed that the AOC of AirSweden Aviation AB was revoked on 10 January 2012, that the AOC of the air carrier Flyg Centrum AB was revoked on 16 December 2011 and the air carrier Nova Air remains under heightened surveillance; Romania informed that by 20 March 2012 the AOC of Direct Aero Services had been revoked.\n(9)\nFollowing the decision taken at the last Air Safety Committee in November 2011 (4), the competent authorities of Albania reported they are progressing in the implementation of their action plan, however with some delay regarding the long-term procurement of qualified inspectors. Albania is urged to speed-up measures to develop the capacity of its safety oversight authority. EASA will continue to monitor the progress of corrective actions and will carry out a comprehensive follow-up inspection in October 2012 to verify the satisfactory implementation of actions plans. The Air Safety Committee will re-assess the situation depending on the results of this inspection.\n(10)\nThe competent authorities of France reported that they could not issue an authorisation to Comlux Aruba N.V., an air carrier certified in Aruba, due to the existence of safety deficiencies identified during the assessment of the technical questionnaire submitted by the operator for the purpose of receiving landing authorisation in that Member State, and notified their conclusion to Member States via the SAFA database (5).\n(11)\nThe Commission, having regard to those deficiencies, has entered into consultation with the competent authorities of Aruba and the air carrier, expressing concerns about the safety of the operations of Comlux Aruba N.V. in the EU and asking for clarifications regarding the actions undertaken by the competent authorities as well as the carrier to respond to these deficiencies.\n(12)\nThe competent authorities of Aruba and the air carrier made written submissions and attended to a meeting with the Commission, EASA and some members of the Air Safety Committee on 20 February 2012. Based on the information provided, although the safety concerns identified by France appear to have been addressed, further concerns were identified with regard to the operator's principal place of business. The carrier stated that its office in Aruba is limited to two secretaries only and that the head office where the operational control of the flight operations and the continuing airworthiness are exercised is not located in Aruba. However, the competent authorities of Aruba informed that they have undertaken a review of the civil aviation legislation to ensure that air carriers certified in Aruba have their principle place of business established in that State and that Comlux Aruba was requested to demonstrate the principal place of business is established in Aruba no later than 1 August 2012.\n(13)\nThe Commission takes note and will further monitor the administrative and legal actions undertaken by the competent authorities of Aruba to ensure that air carriers certified in that State have their principle place of business established in that State.\n(14)\nAir carriers certified in the Democratic Republic of Congo have been listed in Annex A since March 2006 (6). Information was received that the competent authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo had issued a new license to the air carrier Jet Congo Airways. The competent authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo failed to respond to a request for information by the Commission and failed to provide evidence that the safety oversight of new air carrier complies fully with applicable international safety standards. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that this carrier should be equally included in Annex A.\n(15)\nSeveral fatal accidents were reported involving air carriers certified in the Democratic Republic of Congo since the last Air Safety Committee. On 30 January 2012, an aircraft of type Antonov 28 with registration mark 9Q-CUN operated by TRACEP Congo Aviation crashed, leading to the total loss of the aircraft and to 4 fatalities. On 12 February 2012, an aircraft of type Gulfstream IV, with registration mark N25A, operated by Katanga Express crashed, leading to the total loss of the aircraft and to 6 fatalities. The competent authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo however did not respond to requests for information by the Commission on the preliminary findings of the accident investigations.\n(16)\nAll air carriers certified in Equatorial Guinea have been listed in Annex A since March 2006 (7). The Commission and EASA held a consultation meeting with the competent authorities of Equatorial Guinea (DGAC) on 22 February 2012. During this meeting, DGAC presented the progress made to date in order to alleviate the safety concerns identified by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) at the occasion of the audit carried out in 2007 in the framework of the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program (USOAP).\n(17)\nDGAC provided the Commission with evidence of the withdrawal of the Air Operator's Certificates of the following air carriers: GETRA, Guinea Airways, UTAGE, Euroguineana de Aviacion y Transportes, General Work Aviacion, Star Equatorial Airlines and EGAMS. Since these air carriers certified in Equatorial Guinea have consequently ceased their activities, they should be withdrawn from Annex A.\n(18)\nDGAC provided the Commission with information indicating that an Air Operator Certificate was granted to the air carrier Punto Azul. However, DGCA did not provide the evidence that the safety oversight of this air carrier is ensured in compliance with international safety standards, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that this air carrier should be included in Annex A.\n(19)\nThe Commission noted the progress made by the competent authorities of Equatorial Guinea and encourages them to continue their efforts towards the establishment of a civil aviation oversight system in compliance with international safety standards.\n(20)\nConsultations with the competent authorities of Indonesia (DGCA) continue with the view to monitor the progress of the DGCA in ensuring the safety oversight of all air carriers certified in Indonesia in compliance with the international safety standards. On 7 February 2012 a videoconference was held between the Commission, EASA and the DGCA. The DGCA confirmed they continue to progress and informed of further enforcement actions regarding certain air carriers under their oversight: in particular the AOCs of Kartika Airlines, Mimika Air, Riau Airlines and Survei Udara Penas had been suspended.\n(21)\nDGCA also informed and provided confirmation that the AOC of Megantara had been revoked on 13 August 2010. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that this air carrier should be removed from Annex A.\n(22)\nDGCA further informed that new AOCs had been issued to TransNusa Aviation Mandiri on 19 August 2011, Enggang Air Service on 1 March 2010, Surya Air on 8 April 2011, Ersa Eastern Aviation on 9 September 2011 and Matthew Air Nusantara on 20 September 2011. However, DGCA did not provide the evidence that the safety oversight of these air carriers is ensured in compliance with international safety standards, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these carriers should be equally included in Annex A.\n(23)\nThe Commission noted the continued progress made by the competent authorities of Indonesia and encourages them to continue the sound work in establishing a civil aviation oversight system fully in compliance with international safety standards, and will review the case in advance of the next meeting of the Air Safety Committee.\n(24)\nOn the basis of the fatal accident to an aircraft of type Airbus A330 operated by Afriqiyah Airways on 13 May 2010 and verified evidence of safety deficiencies identified by the SAFA programme concerning Afriqiyah Airways (8) and United Aviation (9), the Commission entered into discussions with the Competent Authorities of Libya (LCAA) in October 2010. These discussions were interrupted by the Libyan civil war.\n(25)\nThe consultations were resumed in October 2011 and the LCAA informed that they had suspended all Libyan Air Operator's Certificates (AOC) and would conduct a recertification process before lifting the suspension of the AOCs. During the audits as part of this re-certification process the LCAA detected significant safety issues concerning Afriqiyah Airways, notably in the area of pilot training, a lack of maintenance staff, and insufficient equipment to perform maintenance tasks. Nonetheless, shortly after the audit, the LCAA issued an AOC to Afriqiyah Airways.\n(26)\nThe Commission, EASA and several members of the Air Safety Committee held further consultations with the LCAA, Afriqiyah Airways, Libyan Airlines and Global Aviation on 22 February 2012. However, LCAA failed to provide the information requested to date, in particular the list of air carriers certified in Libya, all corresponding AOCs and attached operations specifications, the audit reports made prior to lift the suspensions, together with evidence that the deficiencies identified in the course of these audits were satisfactorily closed. In addition, they indicated that the investigations into the Afriqiyah Airways accident had encountered difficulties and have not led to conclusions so far.\n(27)\nThe Minister of Transport of Libya, the LCAA, Afriqiyah Airways and Libyan Airlines made presentations to the Air Safety Committee on 20 March 2012. The Minister acknowledged that the Libyan aviation safety system was not conforming to ICAO standards. He set out plans to remedy the situation under a 3 year programme with the assistance of external aviation safety expertise.\n(28)\nThe Minister acknowledged during the Air safety Committee and LCAA confirmed in writing on 22 March 2012 that, because of the identified safety deficiencies in the oversight system of Libya, Libyan air carriers will not be permitted to operate into the European Union, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland at least until 22 November 2012, and that their AOCs will be amended to reflect these restrictions accordingly. He stated further that a Committee had been formed to take forward the work of reconstruction of the Libyan aviation safety system. He stated that the competent authorities of Libya would work closely with the Commission and provide regular updates in order to provide evidence of progress.\n(29)\nThe Committee took note of the decisive action of the Libyan authorities and requested that, no later than 20 April 2012, the LCAA provide to the Commission a corrective action plan which fully addresses all outstanding requests for information, and sets out specific actions and target dates to address the shortfalls in their oversight system.\n(30)\nThe Commission and the Air Safety Committee acknowledged the significant difficulties Libya faces following the conflict and took note of the strong commitment by the Minister to put in place a process of reconstruction. The Commission encourages the LCAA to continue with their open and constructive dialogue established with the Commission since the end of the recent conflict. However, should the LCAA fail to enforce the restrictions they have announced, the Commission will be compelled to take immediate safeguard measures in accordance with Art. 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council.\n(31)\nThe aviation safety situation in Libya will be reviewed by the Air Safety Committee in its meeting scheduled for November 2012 where the effectiveness of actions undertaken by the competent authorities of Libya will be assessed.\n(32)\nAir carriers certified in Mauritania have been listed in Annex A since November 2010 (10). The competent authorities of Mauritania (ANAC) informed of the issuance of a new AOC to the air carrier Mauritania Airlines without demonstrating that the safety oversight of this air carrier complies fully with applicable international safety standards. In particular, its AOC was issued on 8 May 2011 without providing evidence that the numerous deficiencies identified during the initial certification of the airline (desktop review of the operational and maintenance procedures in April 2011 and on-site audit carried out between 3 and 5 May 2011) had been effectively rectified prior to the issuance of the AOC. The AOC was also issued without ensuring beforehand that the operator held the appropriate approvals for continuing airworthiness and maintenance. Furthermore, no evidence was provided that the air carrier is subject to continuous oversight in accordance with international safety standards. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that this carrier should be equally included in Annex A.\n(33)\nANAC also informed that the AOC of Mauritania Airways expired on 15 December 2010 and was not renewed as the air carrier ceased its activity. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that this carrier should be removed from Annex A.\n(34)\nMauritania informed that decisive actions have been undertaken to bring positive changes to its safety oversight system, including the amendment of the civil aviation legislation to align them with the Annexes to the Chicago Convention and changes to the ANAC's management, structure and staffing. The processes for the certification and the continuous surveillance of air carriers have also been updated and will become applicable in the near future.\n(35)\nWhilst recognising that Mauritania still has work to do to address all findings, ICAO informed that Mauritania's commitment to resolve the safety deficiencies identified during the audit conducted in 2008 is to be commended. The State has provided regular updates of its corrective action plan and significant progress is reported by the State. The ICAO Coordinated Validation Mission (ICVM) scheduled in May 2012 will be an important step to validate the progress made.\n(36)\nThe Commission welcomes the progress reported by the competent authorities of Mauritania in the rectification of the deficiencies identified by ICAO and encourages these authorities to pursue their actions with determination in due cooperation with ICAO. The Air Safety Committee will reassess the situation depending on the results of the ICAO Coordinated Validation Mission.\n(37)\nThe Commission has continued its consultations with the Competent Authority of Pakistan (PCAA) and Pakistan International Airways (PIA), and met with them on 20 February 2012 to review their progress in taking the actions described in their Corrective Action Plans (CAP).\n(38)\nThe PCAA reported and provided evidence that they had increased the level of oversight of PIA, had taken regulatory action in suspending some Maintenance Licences, and had demanded significant changes to PIA's Quality Management System. They reported on the successful outcome of the ICAO audit in June 2011 and explained their plans to adopt new regulations reflecting EASA Part 145 rules.\n(39)\nPIA reported that the actions detailed in their corrective action plan were now complete, except for in-depth checks of four aircraft which were currently undergoing maintenance. They confirmed that an extensive training programme was now underway and would continue.\n(40)\nEASA informed the Air Safety Committee that the findings of SAFA inspections of PIA aircraft had led to an opening of the procedure for the suspension of the EASA Part 145 maintenance organisation approval on 11 November 2011. Whilst EASA noted that the corrective action plan of PIA appeared to identify the relevant safety issues they were unable to rely upon the PCAA to effectively monitor the performance of PIA\u2019s maintenance standards and EASA had no option but to suspend the EASA Part-145 approval on 6 March 2012.\n(41)\nThe Commission noted the progress made by both the PCAA and PIA in addressing the identified safety concerns, but confirmed that, should any significant event occur which gave rise to renewed concerns, then action to contain the safety risk would need to be taken. Member States shall therefore continue to verify the effective compliance with relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of this carrier pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 351/2008 of 16 April 2008 implementing Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the prioritisation of ramp inspections on aircraft using Community airports (11).\n(42)\nAir carriers certified in the Philippines have been listed in Annex A since 31 March 2010 (12). The competent authorities of the Philippines (CAAP) informed of the issuance of new Air Operator Certificates to the air carriers Aero Equipment Aviation Inc, AirAsia Philippines Certeza Infosys Corp., Mid-Sea Express, Southern Air Flight Services, NorthSky Air Inc., Island Helicopter Services. The CAAP did not respond adequately to requests for information by the Commission, failing in particular to provide the AOC of these air carriers together with the complete operations specifications; the CAAP also failed to demonstrate that the certification and continuous oversight of these air carriers comply fully with the applicable international safety standards. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these air carriers should be equally included in Annex A.\n(43)\nSeveral fatal accidents were reported involving air carriers certified in the Philippines since the last Air Safety Committee. On 10 December 2011, an aircraft of type Beechcraft 65-80 with registration mark RP-C824 operated by Aviation Technology Innovator crashed into the Felixberto Serrano Elementary School near Manila, leading to the total loss of the aircraft as well as at least 14 fatalities; the CAAP did not respond to requests for information by the Commission on the preliminary findings of the accident investigation; the CAAP simply reported that the AOC was \"inactive/surrendered\" without however stating since when nor providing the related evidence. Another fatal accident occurred on 4 March 2012, involving an aircraft of type Cessna 172S registered RP-C209 operated by Avia Tours, leading to the total loss of the aircraft and two fatalities; although the CAAP provided preliminary information on the accident, the validity of the AOC could not be ascertained as the preliminary accident report indicates the AOC is valid until 14 August 2012 whilst the information provided by the CAAP reveals that the AOC had expired on 14 February 2012.\n(44)\nThe CAAP informed that several operators have an \"inactive/surrendered\" AOC or were recertified under PCAR Part-11 intended for aerial work. However, the CAAP failed to provide evidence that the corresponding AOC had been revoked and evidence that these operators were no longer involved in commercial air transport. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these operators should remain in Annex A.\n(45)\nThe U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) carried out in January 2012 a one-week technical review in the Philippines in order to assess the progress of the CAAP towards compliance with international safety standards. The CAAP failed to provide detailed information on the outcome of this review. However, no change has been noticed in the FAA assessment of the Philippines, which remain in category 2 so far, i.e. not compliant with international safety standards.\n(46)\nFollowing the Air Safety Committee held in November 2011 (13) where the competent authorities of Russia (Russian Federal Air Transport Agency, FATA) informed and provided evidence that the operations of the air carriers Aviastar-TU, UTAir-Cargo, Tatarstan Airlines, Daghestan Airlines, Yakutia and Vim Avia (Vim Airlines) had been partially or fully restricted for safety reasons, the Commission has actively pursued the consultations with FATA in order to follow-up the developments.\n(47)\nConsultation meetings were held in Brussels on 19 December 2011 and 21 February 2012 between FATA and the Commission, EASA and certain Members of the Air Safety Committee. FATA informed about their intention to lift the restrictions imposed on part of the fleet of Tatarstan Airlines (aircraft of type Boeing B737-500, B737-400, B737-300, Tupolev 154M and Yakovlev Yak-42), Aviastar-TU (aircraft of type Tupolev Tu-204) and Yakutia (aircraft of type Boeing B757-200, B737-300 and B737-800) as FATA was satisfied with the results of inspections that were carried out on these carriers,\n(48)\nFATA also provided evidence of further enforcement actions. In particular, the AOC of Daghestan Airlines was revoked on 19 December 2011 due to the concerns arising from the audit carried out on the air carrier. FATA also informed it had requested UTAir-Cargo to put in place additional corrective actions before the restrictions on its fleet could be removed.\n(49)\nIn order to ensure measures undertaken by FATA lead to sustainable safety improvement, Member States will continue to verify the effective compliance of Russian air carriers with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of these carriers pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008 and may take measures accordingly to ensure these requirements are enforced. The Commission will continue to monitor their results.\n(50)\nFATA confirmed that VIM AVIA remains subject to operating restrictions excluding flights into the EU (landing and overflights) on its entire fleet (8 aircraft of type Boeing B757-200) pending the full implementation of a corrective action plan.\n(51)\nVim Avia appeared during the aforementioned meeting on 21 February 2012 to present the investments in safety, in particular in terms of training, but failed to demonstrate that it had succeeded in establishing a functioning safety management system. The carrier was not in a position yet to demonstrate that these investments were operative and effective.\n(52)\nFATA informed that the operator was expected to complete all corrective and remedial actions by 1 April 2012. Afterwards, FATA indicated it will perform an inspection of the air carrier to verify whether all findings have been satisfactorily addressed in order to decide whether the current restrictions could be lifted. FATA agreed to provide to the Commission the progress reports on the implementation of corrective measures by the carrier and the results of the subsequent inspection.\n(53)\nIn view of the above, taking into account the effective enforcement actions undertaken by competent authorities of Russia, it appears too early to re-assess the situation of this air carrier. The Commission will examine the situation of Vim Avia in a future Air Safety Committee, based on the reports provided by the competent authorities of Russia and on their decision regarding the continuation of the current restrictions.\n(54)\nThere is verified evidence of numerous serious safety deficiencies on the part of the air carrier Conviasa certified in Venezuela. These deficiencies have been identified by the competent authorities of Spain during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme (14). Conviasa demonstrated a lack of ability to address these safety deficiencies. Conviasa did not respond timely and adequately to all deficiencies notified by the civil aviation authority of Spain. The repetition of these non-compliances shows systemic safety deficiencies in the area of operations and maintenance.\n(55)\nConviasa has experienced several accidents, including two fatal accidents, one affecting an aircraft of type ATR42 with registration mark YV-1010 on 13 September 2010 and one affecting an aircraft of type Boeing B737-200 with registration mark YV-102T on 30 August 2008. Results of investigations on the cause of such accidents have not been communicated to the Commission by the competent authorities of Venezuela nor is the Commission aware of any recommendations to prevent further occurrences.\n(56)\nThe Commission, having regard to the above mentioned deficiencies, has entered in August 2011 into consultation with the competent authorities of Venezuela, expressing serious concerns about the safety of the operations of Conviasa and asking for clarifications regarding the actions undertaken by the competent authorities as well as the carrier to respond to these deficiencies.\n(57)\nThese authorities failed to respond timely and adequately to the enquiries by the Commission regarding the safety oversight of Conviasa, as the requested information, in particular information on the progress of the accident investigation, recommendations stemming from these investigations, the actions undertaken to address the possible causes of the accidents and the carrier\u2019s operations specifications, requirements and restrictions attached to the AOC, were not submitted.\n(58)\nConviasa and the competent authorities of Venezuela made presentations to the Air Safety Committee on 21 March 2012. The air carrier indicated that it had undertaken actions to enhance the internal controls, the training and the implementation of a safety management system, and that further actions are considered for the future. It stated that all findings identified in ramp inspections had been responded to. The Committee noted there was considerable on-going work between the air carrier and the competent authorities of Spain. However the air carrier failed to explain the repetition of non-compliance findings of similar nature identified in subsequent inspections. The air carrier further failed to provide any information on the causes of the above mentioned fatal accidents and the actions undertaken to prevent their recurrence. The air carrier also failed to present basic information about the fleet it operates and did not provide the operations specifications, requirements and restrictions attached to its AOC.\n(59)\nIn view of the above, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Conviasa does not meet the relevant safety standards and should therefore be included in Annex A.\n(60)\nThere is verified evidence of safety deficiencies on the part of the air carrier L\u00ednea Tur\u00edstica Aerotuy certified in Venezuela. These deficiencies have been identified by France during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme (15).\n(61)\nL\u00ednea Tur\u00edstica Aerotuy has experienced several accidents, including one fatal accident involving an aircraft of type Cessna 208B with registration mark YV-1181 on 17 April 2009.\n(62)\nThe Commission, having regard to the above mentioned deficiencies, has entered in August 2011 in consultation with the competent authorities of Venezuela, expressing serious concerns about the safety of the operations of L\u00ednea Tur\u00edstica Aerotuy and asking for clarifications regarding the actions undertaken by the competent authorities as well as the carrier to respond to these deficiencies. These authorities did not respond adequately and in a timely fashion.\n(63)\nL\u00ednea Tur\u00edstica Aerotuy and the competent authorities of Venezuela made presentations to the Air Safety Committee on 21 March 2012, accompanied by written submissions. The air carrier provided its AOC together with the complete operational specifications attached thereto. The air carrier indicated that it had undertaken actions to remedy the deficiencies identified in the course of ramp inspections to the satisfaction of the competent authorities of France and provided the related evidence. The air carrier was able to provide the requested clarifications about the abovementioned fatal accident and the competent authorities provided the accident report together with the related conclusions and recommendations. The competent authorities of Venezuela also stated that the recommendations stemming from the accident investigation report as well as the results of ramp checks were duly taken into account for the oversight of the air carrier.\n(64)\nThe Commission and the Air Safety Committee take note of the reactivity of the air carrier and its transparency in addressing the identified safety deficiencies. Member States will however continue to verify the effective compliance of the air carrier with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of these carriers pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008 and may take measures accordingly to ensure these requirements are enforced.\n(65)\nThere is verified evidence of safety deficiencies on the part of the air carrier Estelar Latinoam\u00e9rica certified in Venezuela. These deficiencies have been identified by France during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme (16).\n(66)\nThe Commission, having regard to those deficiencies, has entered in August 2011 in consultation with the competent authorities of Venezuela, expressing serious concerns about the safety of the operations of Estelar Latinoamerica and asking for clarifications regarding the actions undertaken by the competent authorities as well as the carrier to respond to these deficiencies. These authorities did not respond adequately and in a timely fashion.\n(67)\nEstelar Latinoamerica and the competent authorities of Venezuela made presentations to the Air Safety Committee on 21 March 2012 accompanied by written submissions. The air carrier provided its AOC together with the complete operational specifications attached thereto. The air carrier indicated that it had undertaken actions to remedy the deficiencies identified in the course of ramp inspections to the satisfaction of the competent authorities of France and provided the related evidence. The competent authorities indicated that they were ensuring that the results of ramp checks were duly taken into account for the oversight of the air carrier.\n(68)\nThe Commission and the Air Safety Committee take note of the reactivity of the air carrier and its transparency in addressing the identified safety deficiencies. Member States will however continue to verify the effective compliance of the air carrier with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of these carriers pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008 and may take measures accordingly to ensure these requirements are enforced.\n(69)\nNo evidence of the full implementation of appropriate remedial actions by the other air carriers included in the Community list updated on 21 November 2011 and by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of these air carriers has been communicated to the Commission so far. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these air carriers should continue to be subject to an operating ban (Annex A) or operating restrictions (Annex B), as the case may be.\n(70)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Air Safety Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 474/2006 is amended as follows:\n1.\nAnnex A is replaced by the text set out in Annex A to this Regulation.\n2.\nAnnex B is replaced by the text set out in Annex B to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 April 2012.", "references": ["74", "5", "56", "6", "61", "34", "82", "30", "16", "75", "98", "1", "60", "65", "90", "47", "13", "45", "78", "43", "71", "62", "24", "8", "66", "9", "0", "49", "17", "36", "No Label", "53", "54", "57", "76", "91", "93", "94", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["53", "54", "57", "76", "91", "93", "94", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 2 March 2011\namending Decision 2008/458/EC laying down rules for the implementation of Decision No 575/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Return Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme \u2018Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows\u2019 as regards Member States\u2019 management and control systems, the rules for administrative and financial management and the eligibility of expenditure on projects co-financed by the Fund\n(notified under document C(2011) 1159)\n(Only the Bulgarian, Czech, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2011/177/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 575/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing the European Return Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme \u2018Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows\u2019 (1), and in particular Article 23 and Article 35(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn the light of the experience gained since the launch of the European Return Fund, it is appropriate to clarify the obligations in the Commission Decision 2008/458/EC (2) relating to transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination when implementing projects.\n(2)\nMember States are required to report on the implementation of the annual programmes. It is therefore appropriate to clarify which information Member States have to provide.\n(3)\nIn order to reduce the administrative burden on the Member States and to provide a greater legal certainty the rules on the eligibility of expenditure of actions co-financed by the European Return Fund should be simplified and clarified.\n(4)\nMost of the changes introduced by this Decision should apply immediately. However, since the 2009 and 2010 annual programmes are ongoing, the revised rules on the eligibility of expenditure of actions co-financed by the European Return Fund should apply from the 2011 annual programme. Member States should nonetheless be given the possibility to apply those rules earlier under certain conditions.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, the United Kingdom is bound by the basic act and, as a consequence, by this Decision.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Ireland is bound by the basic act and, as a consequence, by this Decision.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark is not bound by this Decision or subject to the application thereof.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the common Committee \u2018Solidarity and management of Migration Flows\u2019 established by Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing the External Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme \u2018Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows\u2019 (3).\n(9)\nDecision 2008/458/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2008/458/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 9(1), the second sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Any substantial change to the content of the calls for proposals shall also be published under the same conditions.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\nImplementation contracts\nWhen awarding contracts for the implementation of the projects, the State, regional or local authorities, bodies governed by public law, associations formed by one or several of such authorities or several of such bodies governed by public law shall act in accordance with the applicable Union and national public procurement law and principles.\nEntities other than those referred to in the first paragraph shall award contracts for the implementation of the projects following appropriate publicity in order to ensure compliance with the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment. Contracts with a value of less than EUR 100 000 may be awarded provided the concerned entity requests at least three offers. Without prejudice to national rules, contracts with a value of less than EUR 5 000 shall not be subject to any procedural obligations.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 21, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n1. The responsible authority shall notify the Commission by formal letter of any substantial change in the management and control system and shall send a revised description of the management and control system to the Commission as soon as possible and at the latest at the time any such change takes effect.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 24, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n3. The financial tables linked to the progress reports and final reports shall present a breakdown of the amounts both by priority and by specific priority, as defined in the strategic guidelines.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 25 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1 the following sentences are added:\n\u2018Any changes to the audit strategy submitted in respect of Article 30(1)(c) of the basic act and accepted by the Commission shall be sent to the Commission as soon as possible. The revised audit strategy shall be established in accordance with the model in Annex VI, marking the revisions introduced.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n2. Except when each of the last two annual programmes adopted by the Commission corresponds to an annual Community contribution of less than EUR 1 million, the audit authority shall submit an annual audit plan before 15 February each year, as from 2010. The audit plan shall be established in accordance with the model in Annex VI. Member States are not required to resubmit the audit strategy when submitting the annual audit plans. In the case of a combined audit strategy, as provided for in Article 30(2) of the basic act, a combined annual audit plan may be submitted.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 26 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 26\nDocuments established by the certifying authority\n1. The certification relating to the request for a second pre-financing payment referred to in Article 39(4) of the basic act shall be drawn up by the certifying authority and transmitted by the responsible authority to the Commission in the format in Annex VIII.\n2. The certification relating to the request for a final payment referred to in Article 40(1)(a) of the basic act shall be drawn up by the certifying authority and transmitted by the responsible authority to the Commission in the format in Annex IX.\u2019;\n(7)\nArticle 37 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 37\nElectronic exchange of documents\nIn addition to the duly signed paper versions of the documents referred to in Chapter 3, the information shall also be sent by electronic means.\u2019;\n(8)\nthe Annexes are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\n1. Points 1 to 7 of Article 1 and points 1 to 5 of the Annex shall apply from the date of adoption of this Decision.\n2. Point 6 of the Annex shall apply from the implementation of the 2011 annual programmes at the latest.\n3. Member States may decide to apply point 6 of the Annex in respect of ongoing or future projects as from the 2009 and 2010 annual programmes in full respect of the principles of equal treatment, transparency and non-discrimination. In that case Member States shall apply the new rules in their entirety to the project concerned and, where necessary, shall amend the grant agreement. In respect of technical assistance expenditure only, Member States may decide to apply point 6 of the Annex as from the 2008 annual programme.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2011.", "references": ["89", "54", "42", "36", "74", "52", "24", "12", "44", "75", "31", "69", "62", "17", "80", "91", "95", "23", "86", "3", "79", "57", "55", "97", "60", "40", "88", "61", "45", "5", "No Label", "2", "4", "9", "10", "41", "46"], "gold": ["2", "4", "9", "10", "41", "46"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/36/CFSP\nof 23 January 2012\namending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (1).\n(2)\nOn 10 October 2011, the Council extended the existing restrictive measures until 31 October 2012 by adopting Decision 2011/666/CFSP (2).\n(3)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus, additional restrictive measures against Belarus should be adopted.\n(4)\nThe restrictions on admission and on the freezing of funds and economic resources should be applied to persons responsible for serious violations of human rights or the repression of civil society and democratic opposition, in particular persons in a leading position, and to persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the Lukashenka regime, in particular persons and entities providing financial or material support to the regime.\n(5)\nDecision 2010/639/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/639/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1(1), the following points are added:\n\u2018(e)\nfor serious violations of human rights or the repression of civil society and democratic opposition in Belarus, as listed in Annex V;\n(f)\nand persons or entities benefiting from or supporting the Lukashenka regime as listed in Annex V.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 2(1), the following points are inserted:\n\u2018(c)\nfor serious violations of human rights or the repression of civil society and democratic opposition in Belarus, as listed in Annex V;\n(d)\nand persons or entities benefiting from or supporting the Lukashenka regime, as listed in Annex V;\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 2, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of such persons listed in Annexes IIIA, IV and V.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 3(1), point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of the persons listed in Annexes IIIA, IV and V and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe Annex to this Decision shall be added to Decision 2010/639/CFSP as Annex V.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["55", "62", "31", "22", "52", "10", "39", "41", "54", "16", "38", "6", "90", "47", "93", "86", "17", "85", "77", "5", "35", "76", "53", "9", "8", "42", "61", "40", "57", "88", "No Label", "0", "1", "3", "14", "91", "97"], "gold": ["0", "1", "3", "14", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 547/2012\nof 25 June 2012\nimplementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for water pumps\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Ecodesign Consultation Forum,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Directive 2009/125/EC, ecodesign requirements are to be set by the Commission for energy-related products representing significant volumes of sales and trade, having a significant environmental impact and presenting significant potential for improvement in terms of their environmental impact without entailing excessive costs.\n(2)\nArticle 16(2) of Directive 2009/125/EC provides that, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 19(3) and the criteria set out in Article 15(2), and after consulting the Consultation Forum, the Commission shall, as appropriate, introduce implementing measures for products used in electric motor systems, such as water pumps.\n(3)\nWater pumps forming parts of electric motor systems are essential in various pumping processes. There is a total cost-effective potential for improving the energy efficiency of these pumping systems by approximately 20 % to 30 %. Even though the main savings can be achieved by motors, one of the factors contributing to such improvements is the use of energy-efficient pumps. Consequently, water pumps are a priority product for which ecodesign requirements should be established.\n(4)\nElectric motor systems include a number of energy-related products, such as motors, drives, pumps or fans. Water pumps are one of these products. Minimum requirements are established for motors in a separate measure, Commission Regulation (EC) No 640/2009 (2). Consequently, the present Regulation only sets minimum requirements for the hydraulic performance of water pumps without the motor.\n(5)\nMany pumps are integrated in other products without being separately placed on the market. To achieve the full cost-effective energy-saving potential, water pumps integrated in other products should also be subject to the provisions of this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe Commission has carried out a preparatory study to analyse the technical, environmental and economic aspects of water pumps. The study has been developed together with stakeholders and interested parties from the Union and third countries, and the results have been made publicly available.\n(7)\nThe preparatory study shows that water pumps are placed on the European Union market in large quantities. Their energy consumption in the use phase is the most significant environmental aspect of all life-cycle phases, with their annual electricity consumption amounting to 109 TWh in 2005, corresponding to 50 Mt in CO2 emissions. In the absence of measures to limit this consumption, it is predicted that energy consumption will increase to 136 TWh in 2020. It has been concluded that use-phase electricity consumption can be improved significantly.\n(8)\nThe preparatory study shows that electricity consumption in the use phase is the only significant ecodesign parameter related to product design as referred to in Annex I, Part 1, to Directive 2009/125/EC.\n(9)\nImprovements in electricity consumption in the use phase of water pumps should be achieved by applying existing non-proprietary cost-effective technologies that can reduce the total combined costs of purchase and operation.\n(10)\nEcodesign requirements should harmonise power consumption requirements for water pumps throughout the European Union, thus contributing to the functioning of the internal market and to the improvement of the environmental performance of these products.\n(11)\nAn appropriate timeframe should be provided for manufacturers to redesign products. The timeframe should be such as to avoid negative impacts on the functionalities of water pumps and to take into account cost impacts for manufacturers, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, while ensuring timely achievement of the objectives of this Regulation.\n(12)\nPower consumption should be determined using reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement methods, which take into account the recognised state-of-the-art including, where available, harmonised standards adopted by the European standardisation bodies, as listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (3).\n(13)\nThis Regulation should increase the market penetration of technologies that improve the life-cycle environmental impact of water pumps, leading to estimated energy savings of 3,3 TWh by 2020, compared to the situation where no measures are taken.\n(14)\nIn accordance with Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/125/EC, this Regulation should specify the applicable conformity assessment procedures.\n(15)\nIn order to facilitate compliance checks, manufacturers should provide information in the technical documentation referred to in Annexes IV and V to Directive 2009/125/EC.\n(16)\nIn order to further limit the environmental impact of water pumps, manufacturers should provide relevant information on disassembly, recycling or disposal at end-of-life.\n(17)\nBenchmarks for currently available technologies with high energy efficiency should be identified. This will help to ensure the wide availability and easy accessibility of information, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises, which will further facilitate the integration of the best available technologies for reducing energy consumption.\n(18)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 19(1) of Directive 2009/125/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation establishes ecodesign requirements for the placing on the market of rotodynamic water pumps for pumping clean water, including where integrated in other products.\n2. This Regulation shall not apply to:\n(a)\nwater pumps designed specifically for pumping clean water at temperatures below - 10 \u00b0C or above 120 \u00b0C, except with regard to the information requirements of Annex II, points 2(11) to 2(13);\n(b)\nwater pumps designed only for fire-fighting applications;\n(c)\ndisplacement water pumps;\n(d)\nself-priming water pumps.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions set out in Directive 2009/125/EC, the following definitions apply:\n(1)\n\u2018water pump\u2019 is the hydraulic part of a device that moves clean water by physical or mechanical action and is of one of the following designs:\n-\nEnd suction own bearing (ESOB),\n-\nEnd suction close coupled (ESCC),\n-\nEnd suction close coupled inline (ESCCi),\n-\nVertical multistage (MS-V),\n-\nSubmersible multistage (MSS);\n(2)\n\u2018End suction water pump\u2019 means a glanded single stage end suction rotodynamic water pump designed for pressures up to 16 bar, with a specific speed ns between 6 and 80 rpm, a minimum rated flow of 6 m3/h (1,667\u038710-3 m3/s), a maximum shaft power of 150 kW, a maximum head of 90 m at nominal speed of 1 450 rpm and a maximum head of 140 m at nominal speed of 2 900 rpm;\n(3)\n\u2018Rated flow\u2019 means the head and flow that the manufacturer will guarantee under normal operating conditions;\n(4)\n\u2018Glanded\u2019 means sealed shaft connection between the impeller in the pump body and the motor. The driving motor component remains dry;\n(5)\n\u2018End suction own bearing water pump\u2019 (ESOB) is an end suction water pump with own bearings;\n(6)\n\u2018End suction close coupled water pump\u2019 (ESCC) is an end suction water pump of which the motor shaft is extended to become also the pump shaft;\n(7)\n\u2018End suction close coupled inline water pump\u2019 (ESCCi) means a water pump of which the water inlet of the pump is on the same axis as the water outlet of the pump;\n(8)\n\u2018Vertical multistage water pump\u2019 (MS-V) means a glanded multi stage (i > 1) rotodynamic water pump in which the impellers are assembled on a vertical rotating shaft, which is designed for pressures up to 25 bar, with a nominal speed of 2 900 rpm and a maximum flow of 100 m3/h (27,78\u038710-3 m3/s);\n(9)\n\u2018Submersible multistage water pump\u2019 (MSS) means a multi stage (i > 1) rotodynamic water pump with a nominal outer diameter of 4\u2033 (10,16 cm) or 6\u2033 (15,24 cm) designed to be operated in a borehole at nominal speed of 2 900 rpm, at operating temperatures within a range of 0 \u00b0C and 90 \u00b0C;\n(10)\n\u2018rotodynamic water pump\u2019 means a water pump that moves clean water by means of hydrodynamic forces;\n(11)\n\u2018displacement water pump\u2019 means a water pump that moves clean water by enclosing a volume of clean water and forcing this volume to the outlet of the pump;\n(12)\n\u2018self-priming water pump\u2019 means a water pump that moves clean water and which can start and/or operate also when only partly filled with water;\n(13)\n\u2018clean water\u2019 means water with a maximum non-absorbent free solid content of 0,25 kg/m3, and with a maximum dissolved solid content of 50 kg/m3, provided that the total gas content of the water does not exceed the saturation volume. Any additives that are needed to avoid water freezing down to - 10 \u00b0C shall not be taken into account.\nThe definitions for the purpose of Annexes II to V are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 3\nEcodesign requirements\nThe minimum efficiency requirements as well as information requirements for rotodynamic water pumps are set out in Annex II.\nEcodesign requirements shall apply in accordance with the following timetable:\n(1)\nfrom 1 January 2013, water pumps shall have a minimum efficiency as defined in Annex II, point 1(a);\n(2)\nfrom 1 January 2015, water pumps shall have a minimum efficiency as defined in Annex II, point 1(b);\n(3)\nfrom 1 January 2013, the information on water pumps shall comply with the requirements set out in Annex II, point 2.\nCompliance with ecodesign requirements shall be measured and calculated in accordance with requirements set out in Annex III.\nNo ecodesign requirement is necessary regarding any other ecodesign parameter referred to in Annex I, Part 1, of Directive 2009/125/EC.\nArticle 4\nConformity assessment\nThe conformity assessment procedure referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/125/EC shall be the internal design control set out in Annex IV to that Directive or the management system for assessing conformity set out in Annex V to that Directive.\nArticle 5\nVerification procedure for market surveillance purposes\nWhen performing the market surveillance checks referred to in Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/125/EC, for the ecodesign requirements set out in Annex II to this Regulation, the authorities of the Member States shall apply the verification procedure set out in Annex IV to this Regulation.\nArticle 6\nIndicative benchmarks\nThe indicative benchmarks for the best-performing water pumps available on the market at the time of entry into force of this Regulation are set out in Annex V.\nArticle 7\nRevision\nThe Commission shall review this Regulation in the light of technological progress and shall present the result of this review to the Consultation Forum no later than four years after its entry into force. The review shall aim at adopting an extended product approach.\nThe Commission shall review the tolerances used in the methodology for calculating the energy efficiency before 1 January 2014.\nArticle 8\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["92", "43", "61", "45", "98", "9", "31", "41", "40", "29", "33", "15", "38", "21", "4", "11", "59", "14", "27", "96", "87", "74", "88", "68", "95", "50", "19", "69", "56", "63", "No Label", "25", "76", "78", "81", "85"], "gold": ["25", "76", "78", "81", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 916/2011\nof 13 September 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 913/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2011.", "references": ["73", "3", "87", "60", "56", "77", "12", "40", "33", "67", "2", "52", "53", "71", "23", "32", "76", "51", "61", "86", "24", "6", "90", "92", "43", "63", "9", "93", "37", "82", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 72/2011\nof 28 January 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for anchovy in VIII by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 January 2011.", "references": ["28", "59", "44", "77", "19", "62", "50", "11", "86", "87", "60", "38", "2", "18", "78", "89", "37", "40", "16", "52", "34", "43", "61", "64", "10", "7", "70", "84", "0", "39", "No Label", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1079/2011\nof 25 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["47", "94", "13", "81", "69", "31", "79", "25", "18", "96", "86", "48", "27", "33", "92", "67", "8", "89", "50", "29", "59", "41", "3", "97", "60", "42", "17", "24", "77", "66", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 142/2011\nof 25 February 2011\nimplementing 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\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 5(2) and 6(1)(b)(ii) and the second subparagraph of Article 6(1), the second subparagraph of Article 6(2), Article 11(2)(b) and (c) and the second subparagraph of Article 11(2), Article 15(1)(b), (d), (e), (h) and (i) and the second subparagraph of Article 15(1), Articles 17(2) and 18(3), Article 19(4)(a), (b) and (c) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(4), Article 20(10) and (11), Article 21(5) and (6), Articles 22(3) and 23(3), Article 27(a), (b), (c) and (e) to (h) and the second subparagraph of Article 27, Articles 31(2), 32(3), Article 40, the first and third subparagraph of Article 41(3), Article 42, Articles 43(3), 45(4), 47(2), Article 48(2), Article 48(7)(a) and (8)(a) and the second subparagraph of Article 48(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (2), and in particular Article 16(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 lays down animal and public health rules for animal by-products and products derived thereof. That Regulation determines the circumstances under which animal by-products are to be disposed of, in order to prevent the spreading of risks for public and animal health. In addition, that Regulation specifies under which conditions animal by-products may be used for applications in animal feed and for various purposes, such as in cosmetics, medicinal products and technical applications. It also lays down obligations for operators to handle animal by-products within establishments and plants which are subject to official controls.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 provides that detailed rules for the handling of animal by-products and derived products, such as processing standards, hygiene conditions and the format for documentary evidence which has to accompany consignments of animal by-products and derived products for the purposes of traceability are to be adopted by means of implementing measures.\n(3)\nThe detailed rules for the use and disposal of animal by-products in this Regulation should be laid down with a view to the achievement of the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, notably the sustainable use of animal materials, and a high level of protection of public and animal health in the European Union.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 does not apply to entire bodies or parts of wild animals, which are not suspected of being infected or affected with a disease communicable to humans or animals, except for aquatic animals landed for commercial purposes. In addition, it does not apply to entire bodies or parts of wild game which are not collected after killing, in accordance with good hunting practice. Regarding those animal by-products from hunting, disposal should be carried out in a way which prevents the transmission of risks, as appropriate for specific hunting practices and in accordance with the good practice as it has been described by the hunting profession.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 applies to animal by-products for the preparation of game trophies. The preparation of such trophies, as well as the preparations of animals and parts of animals for which other methods, such as plastination, are used, should take place under conditions which prevent the transmission of risks for human or animal health.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 applies to catering waste if it originates from means of transport operating internationally, such as materials derived from foodstuffs served on board an airplane or a ship arriving in the European Union from a third country destination. Catering waste also falls within the scope of that Regulation, if it is destined for feeding purposes, for processing in accordance with one of the authorised processing methods under this Regulation or for transformation into biogas or for composting. Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 prohibits the feeding of catering waste to farmed animals, other than fur animals. Therefore, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, catering waste may be processed and subsequently used, provided that the derived product is not fed to such animals.\n(7)\nFor the sake of consistency of Union legislation, the definition of feed materials in Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the placing on the market and use of feed, amending European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 and repealing Council Directive 79/373/EEC, Commission Directive 80/511/EEC, Council Directives 82/471/EEC, 83/228/EEC, 93/74/EEC, 93/113/EEC and 96/25/EC and Commission Decision 2004/217/EC (3) should be used as a basis for defining feed materials of animal origin in this Regulation.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 prohibits the dispatch of animal by-products and of derived products from susceptible species from holdings, establishments, plants or zones which are subject to restrictions due to the presence of a serious transmissible disease. In order to provide for a high level of protection of animal health in the Union, the list of diseases in the Terrestrial and Aquatic Animal Health Codes of the World Organisation of Animal Health (hereinafter referred to as \u2018OIE\u2019) should be specified as the list of serious transmissible diseases for the purpose of determining the scope of this prohibition.\n(9)\nSince the incineration and the co-incineration of certain animal by-products do not fall within the scope of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (4), adequate rules for the prevention of health risks arising from such operations should be laid down in this Regulation, taking into account the possible effects on the environment. Residues from the operation of the incineration or co-incineration of animal by-products or derived products should be recycled or disposed of, in accordance with Union environmental legislation, since in particular, that legislation allows for the use of the phosphorous component of ashes in fertilisers and for the handover of ashes from the cremation of pet animals to the owners.\n(10)\nProducts of animal origin or foodstuffs containing such products, should only be disposed of in a landfill, in accordance with Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (5), if they have been processed as defined in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (6), in order to mitigate potential health risks.\n(11)\nThe disposal of animal by-products or derived products via the wastewater stream should be prohibited, since that stream is not subject to requirements which would ensure an appropriate control of public and animal health risks. Appropriate measures should be taken to prevent unacceptable risks from accidental disposal of liquid animal by-products, such as from the cleaning of floors and equipments used for processing.\n(12)\nDirective 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (7) lays down certain measures to protect the environment and human health. Article 2(2)(b) of that Directive provides that certain matters are excluded from the scope of that Directive to the extent that they are covered by other Union legislation, including animal by-products covered by Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (8), except those which are destined for incineration, landfilling or use in a biogas or composting plant. That Regulation has now been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 from 4 March 2011. In the interests of coherency of Union legislation, the processes whereby animal by-products and derived products are transformed into biogas and composted should comply with the health rules laid down in this Regulation, as well as the measures for the protection of the environment laid down in Directive 2008/98/EC.\n(13)\nThe competent authority of a Member State should be able to authorise alternative parameters for the transformation of animal by-products into biogas or for their composting on the basis of a validation according to a harmonised model. In that case, it should be possible to place digestion residues and compost on the market in the whole European Union. In addition, the competent authority of a Member State should be able to authorise certain parameters for specific animal by-products, such as catering waste and mixtures of catering waste with certain other materials, which are transformed into biogas or composted. Since such authorisations are not issued according to a harmonised model, digestion residues and compost should only be placed on the market within the Member State where the parameters have been authorised.\n(14)\nIn order to prevent the contamination of foodstuffs with pathogenic agents, establishments or plants processing animal by-products should operate on a separate site from slaughterhouses or other establishments in which foodstuffs are processed, in particular in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (9), unless the processing of the animal by-products takes place under conditions which have been approved by the competent authority, with a view to preventing the transmission of risks to public and animal health into the food-processing establishments.\n(15)\nRegulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (10) provides that Member States are to carry out annual monitoring programmes for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). Bodies of animals which are used for feeding to certain species, for the purposes of promotion of bio-diversity, should be included in those monitoring programmes to the extent necessary to ensure that those programmes provide sufficient information regarding the prevalence of TSE in a particular Member State.\n(16)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 allows the feeding of certain Category 1 material to endangered or protected species of necrophagous birds and to other species living in their natural habitat, for the promotion of biodiversity. Such feeding should be authorised for certain carnivore species referred to in Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (11) and for certain species of birds of prey referred to in Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (12), in order to take into account the natural feeding patterns of those species.\n(17)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 has introduced a procedure for the authorisation of alternative methods of use or disposal of animal by-products or derived products. Such methods may be authorised by the Commission following receipt of an opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter referred to as \u2018EFSA\u2019). In order to facilitate the evaluation of applications by EFSA, a standard format should be laid down which illustrates to applicants the nature of the evidence to be submitted. In accordance with the Treaties, it should be possible to submit applications for alternative methods in the official languages of the Union, as laid down in EEC Council Regulation No 1 determining the languages to the used by the European Economic Community (13).\n(18)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 183/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 January 2005 laying down requirements for feed hygiene (14), feed business operators, other than primary producers, are required to store and transport feed under certain hygienic conditions. Since those conditions provide for an equivalent mitigation of potential risks, compound feedingstuffs derived from animal by-products should not be subject to the requirements of this Regulation regarding storage and transport.\n(19)\nFor the promotion of science and research and to ensure the best possible use of animal by-products and of derived products in the diagnosis of human or animal diseases, the competent authority should be authorised to lay down conditions for samples of such materials for research, educational and diagnostic purposes. However, those conditions should not be laid down for samples of pathogenic agents for which special rules are provided in Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC (15).\n(20)\nDirective 97/78/EC exempts animal by-products which are intended for exhibitions, provided that they are not intended to be marketed, and animal by-products intended for particular studies or analyses from veterinary checks in the border inspection post of entry into the Union. That Directive allows for the adoption of implementing measures for those exemptions. In this Regulation, appropriate conditions should be set out for the import of animal by-products and derived products intended for exhibitions and particular studies or analyses, to ensure that no unacceptable risks to public or animal health are spread where such products enter the Union. In the interests of coherency of Union legislation, and in order to provide legal certainty to operators, those conditions and the implementing measures for Directive 97/78/EC should be laid down in this Regulation.\n(21)\nFollowing collection, animal by-products should be handled under appropriate conditions which ensure that no unacceptable risks to public or animal health are transmitted. Establishments or plants in which certain operations are carried out before animal by-products are submitted to further processing should be constructed and should operate in a manner which prevents such transmission. This should include establishments or plants where operations involving the handling of animal by-products in accordance with Union veterinary legislation, other than the handling of animal by-products in the course of curative activities of private veterinarians, are carried out.\n(22)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, operators are to ensure that animal by-products and derived products are traceable at all stages of the chain of manufacturing, use and disposal, so as to avoid unnecessary disruptions of the internal market in the case of events which are linked to actual or potential risks to public or animal health. Traceability should therefore not only be ensured by operators generating, collecting or transporting animal by-products, but also by operators disposing of animal by-products or derived products, by incineration, co-incineration or landfilling.\n(23)\nContainers and means of transport which are used for animal by-products or derived products should be maintained in a clean state, so as to prevent contamination. When they are dedicated to the transport of a particular material, such as a liquid animal by-product which does not pose an unacceptable health risk, operators may adjust their measures to ensure the prevention of contamination to the actual risk arising from that material.\n(24)\nMember States should be authorised to require operators to use the integrated computerised veterinary system (Traces) introduced by Commission Decision 2004/292/EC of 30 March 2004 on the introduction of the Traces system and amending Decision 92/486/EEC (16) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the TRACES system\u2019) in order to provide proof for the arrival of consignments of animal by-products or derived products at the place of destination. Alternatively, proof for the arrival of consignments should be provided by way of a fourth copy of the commercial document, which is returned to the producer. The experience with the two alternatives should be evaluated after the first year of implementation of this Regulation.\n(25)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 specifies certain parameters for the treatment of rendered fats, fish oil and egg products which provide an adequate control of possible health risks, when such products are used for purposes other than human consumption. Those parameters should therefore be authorised as alternatives to the treatments for animal by-products which are set out in this Regulation.\n(26)\nColostrum and colostrum products should originate from bovine herds which are free of certain diseases as referred to in Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (17).\n(27)\nThe references to Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (18), to Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists (19), to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products (20) should be updated and the reference to Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (21) in the health rules for the trade in unprocessed manure should be updated.\n(28)\nCertain imported materials for the production of petfood should be handled and used under conditions which are appropriate to the risk which such materials may pose. In particular, provision should be made for their safe channelling to establishments or plants of destination where such materials, as well as Category 3 material, are incorporated into petfood. With respect to the establishments or plants of destination, the competent authority should be authorised to allow the storage of imported materials together with Category 3 material, provided the imported materials can be traced.\n(29)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 refers to certain derived products which may be placed on the market in accordance with conditions laid down in certain other Union legislation. That legislation also lays down conditions for the import, collection and movement of animal by-products and derived products for the manufacture of such derived products. However, Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 applies where that other Union legislation does not lay down conditions concerning risks to public and animal health which may arise from such raw materials. Since such conditions have not been laid down regarding materials which have undergone certain stages of processing prior to their fulfilling the conditions for placing on the market under that other Union legislation, they should be laid down in this Regulation. In particular, the conditions for the import and handling of such materials inside the Union under strict control and documentation requirements should be laid down, so as to prevent the transmission of potential health risks from such materials.\n(30)\nIn particular, adequate health conditions should be laid down in this Regulation for materials which are used for the manufacture of medicinal products in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (22), of veterinary medicinal products in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (23), of medical devices in accordance with Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (24), of in vitro diagnostic medical devices in accordance with Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (25), active implantable medical devices in accordance with Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the approximation of laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices (26) or laboratory reagents (\u2018the finished products\u2019). If the risks arising from such materials are mitigated due to the purification, concentration in the product or due to the conditions under which they are handled and disposed of, only the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and of this Regulation in relation to traceability should apply. In such case, the requirements related to the separation of animal by-products of different categories within the establishment or plant producing the finished products should not apply, since the subsequent use of materials for other purposes, in particular their diversion into food or feed can be excluded by the proper application of the rules by the operator, under the responsibility of the competent authority. Consignments of such materials which are to be imported into the Union should be subject to veterinary checks at the border inspection post of entry in accordance with Directive 97/78/EC, in order to ascertain that those products comply with the requirements for their placing on the market within the Union.\n(31)\nPursuant to Council Directive 2009/156/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (27), certain diseases to which equidae are susceptible are compulsorily notifiable. Blood products from equidae which are intended for purposes other than for feeding, such as blood products intended for veterinary medicinal products, should originate from equidae which did not show clinical signs of those diseases, in order to mitigate the risk of transmission of those diseases.\n(32)\nIt should be permissible to place on the market fresh hides and skins for purposes other than human consumption, provided they comply with the animal health conditions for fresh meat laid down in accordance with Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (28), since those conditions provide for an appropriate mitigation of possible health risks.\n(33)\nThe health rules laid down in this Regulation for the manufacture and placing on the market of game trophies and other preparations from animals which eliminate potential risks should be in addition to the rules for the protection of certain species of wild animals laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (29), due to the different objective of that Regulation. Anatomical preparations of animals or animal by-products which have been submitted to a process such as plastination which equally eliminates potential risks should not be subject to animal health restrictions, in order to facilitate the use of such preparations, in particular in education.\n(34)\nApiculture by-products which are to be placed on the market should be free of certain diseases to which bees are susceptible that are listed in Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (30).\n(35)\nThe European Parliament and the Council have called upon the Commission to determine an end point in the manufacturing chain for oleochemical products, beyond which they are no longer subject to the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009. The decision regarding that end point should be taken as soon as an assessment has become available which evaluates the capacity of the oleochemical processes to mitigate potential health risks which may be present in animal fats of any category of material which are processed.\n(36)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 of 12 March 2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements (31) should be referred to in this Regulation, in so far as those third countries and other territories should be authorised for the importation of certain animal by-products or derived products, since the risks which arise from those products are identical to those which potentially arise from the import of live animals or fresh meat.\n(37)\nFurther lists of third countries from which certain materials of animal origin may be imported should be referred to for the purposes of determining the third countries from which animal by-products of the respective species may be imported, on the basis of similar considerations concerning health risks and in order to ensure coherency of Union legislation. Such lists have been laid down in Commission Decision 2004/211/EC of 6 January 2004 establishing the list of third countries and parts of territory thereof from which Member States authorise imports of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species and amending Decisions 93/195/EEC and 94/63/EC (32), Commission Regulation (EU) No 605/2010 of 2 July 2010 laying down animal and public health and veterinary certifications conditions for introduction into the European Union of raw milk and dairy products intended for human consumption (33), Commission Decision 2006/766/EC of 6 November 2006 establishing the lists of third countries and territories from which imports of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates, marine gastropods and fishery products are permitted (34), Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (35) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 119/2009 of 9 February 2009 laying down a list of third countries or parts thereof, for imports into, or transit through, the Community of meat of wild leporidae, of certain wild land mammals and of farmed rabbits and the veterinary certification requirements (36).\n(38)\nSince waste from the photographic industry which uses certain animal by-products such as bovine vertebral column does not only pose risks to public and animal health, but also risks to the environment, it should either be disposed of or exported to the third country of origin of the animal by-products in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (37).\n(39)\nThe list of border inspection posts laid down in Commission Decision 2009/821/EC of 28 September 2009 drawing up a list of approved border inspection posts, laying down certain rules on the inspections carried out by Commission veterinary experts and laying down the veterinary units in Traces (38) should be referred to in the rules for the transit of certain animal by-products and derived products through the European Union between territories of the Russian Federation. The Common Veterinary Entry Document laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 of 22 January 2004 laying down procedures for veterinary checks at Community border inspection posts on products imported from third countries (39) should be used for the purposes of that transit.\n(40)\nThis Regulation should provide that the health certificates which are to accompany consignments of animal by-products or derived products at the point of entry into the Union where the veterinary checks take place should be issued in accordance with principles of certification equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on the certification of animals and animal products (40).\n(41)\nIn the interests of consistency of Union legislation, official controls on the entire chain of animal by-products and derived products should be carried out in accordance with the general obligations for official controls which are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (41).\n(42)\nIt is therefore necessary to lay down implementing measures for Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 in this Regulation.\n(43)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 repeals Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 with effect from 4 March 2011.\n(44)\nFollowing the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, certain implementing acts were adopted, namely Commission Regulation (EC) No 811/2003 (42) on the intra-species recycling ban for fish, and the burial and burning of certain animal by-products, Commission Decision 2003/322/EC (43) on the feeding of certain necrophagous birds with certain Category 1 materials, Commission Decision 2003/324/EC (44) on a derogation from the intra-species recycling ban for fur animals, Commission Regulations (EC) No 79/2005 (45) on milk and milk-based products, (EC) No 92/2005 (46) on means of disposal or uses, (EC) No 181/2006 (47) on organic fertilisers and soil improvers other than manure, (EC) No 1192/2006 (48) on lists of approved plants and (EC) No 2007/2006 (49) on the importation and transit of certain Category 3 intermediate products.\n(45)\nIn addition, certain transitional measures were adopted, in particular Commission Regulation (EC) No 878/2004 (50) on the import and handling of certain Category 1 and Category 2 materials, Commission Decision 2004/407/EC (51) on the import of certain materials for the production of photogelatine and Commission Regulation (EC) No 197/2006 (52) on handling and disposal of former foodstuffs, to lay down risk-proportionate measures for certain specific uses of animal by-products.\n(46)\nIn order to further simplify Union rules for animal by-products, as requested by the Presidency of the Council at the time of the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, those implementing and transitional measures were reviewed. They should now be repealed and replaced, as necessary, by this Regulation, so as to constitute a coherent legal framework for animal by-products and derived products.\n(47)\nRegulation (EC) No 1069/2009 applies from 4 March 2011 and accordingly this Regulation should also apply from that date. In addition, it is necessary to provide for a transitional period, in order to give stakeholders time to adjust to the new rules laid down in this Regulation and to place on the market certain products which were produced in accordance with Union health rules applicable before that date, and to allow for a continuation of imports when the requirements of this Regulation become applicable.\n(48)\nThe placing on the market and the export of certain products referred to in Regulation (EC) No 878/2004 should continue to be carried out in accordance with national measures, since the associated risks for the limited amount of materials involved currently allow their regulation at national level, pending possible future harmonisation. Pending the adoption of measures for the collection and disposal of certain limited amounts of products of animal origin from the retail sector on the basis of further evidence, the competent authority should continue to be able to authorise the collection and disposal of such products by other means, provided that an equivalent protection of public and animal health is ensured.\n(49)\nIn accordance with the request expressed by the European Parliament at the time of its agreement to Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 at first reading, and taking into account the Parliament's more specific suggestions for addressing certain technical issues, a draft of this Regulation has been presented on 27 September 2010 to its Committee for the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for an exchange of views.\n(50)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\nThis Regulation lays down implementing measures:\n(a)\nfor the public and animal health rules for animal by-products and derived products laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009;\n(b)\nconcerning certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at border inspection posts as provided for in Article 16(1)(e) and (f) of Directive 97/78/EC.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions set out in Annex I apply.\nArticle 3\nEnd point in the manufacturing chain for certain derived products\nThe following derived products may be placed on the market, other than imported, without restrictions, as provided in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009:\n(a)\nbiodiesel which fulfils the requirements for the disposal and use of derived products set out in point 2(b) of Section 3 of Chapter IV of Annex IV;\n(b)\nprocessed petfood which fulfil the specific requirements for processed petfood set out in point 7(a) of Chapter II of Annex XIII;\n(c)\ndogchews which fulfil the specific requirements for dogchews set out in point 7(b) of Chapter II of Annex XIII;\n(d)\nhides and skins of ungulates which fulfil the specific requirements for the end point for those products set out in point C of Chapter V of Annex XIII;\n(e)\nwool and hair, which fulfil the specific requirements for the end point for those products set out in point B of Chapter VII of Annex XIII;\n(f)\nfeathers and down, which fulfil the specific requirements for the end point for those products set out in point C of Chapter VII of Annex XIII;\n(g)\nfur which fulfils the conditions in Chapter VIII of Annex XIII.\nArticle 4\nSerious transmissible diseases\nThe diseases listed by the OIE in Article 1.2.3 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 2010 edition, and in Chapter 1.3 of the Aquatic Animal Health Code, 2010 edition, shall be regarded as serious transmissible diseases for the purposes of general animal health restrictions, as provided for in Article 6(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009.\nCHAPTER II\nDISPOSAL AND USE OF ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS AND DERIVED PRODUCTS\nArticle 5\nRestrictions on the use of animal by-products and derived products\n1. Operators in the Member States referred to in Chapter I of Annex II shall comply with the conditions for the feeding of fur animals with certain materials derived from bodies or parts of animals of the same species set out in the same Chapter.\n2. Operators shall comply with the restrictions on the feeding of farmed animals with herbage from land to which certain organic fertilisers or soil improvers have been applied, as set out in Chapter II of Annex II.\nArticle 6\nDisposal by incineration and co-incineration\n1. The competent authority shall ensure that incineration and co-incineration of animal by-products and derived products shall only take place:\n(a)\nin incineration plants and co-incineration plants which have been granted a permit in accordance with Directive 2000/76/EC; or\n(b)\nfor plants not required to have a permit under Directive 2000/76/EC, in incineration and co-incineration plants which have been approved by the competent authority to carry out disposal by incineration, or disposal or recovery of animal by-products or derived products, if they are waste, by co-incineration, in accordance with Article 24(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009.\n2. The competent authority shall only approve incineration plants and co-incineration plants as referred to in point 1(b), in accordance with Article 24(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, if they comply with the requirements set out in Annex III hereto.\n3. Operators of incineration plants and co-incineration plants shall comply with the general requirements for incineration and co-incineration set out in Chapter I of Annex III.\n4. Operators of high-capacity incineration and co-incineration plants shall comply with the requirements of Chapter II of Annex III.\n5. Operators of low-capacity incineration and co-incineration plants shall comply with the requirements of Chapter III of Annex III.\nArticle 7\nLandfilling of certain Category 1 and 3 materials\nBy way of derogation from Article 12 and Article 14(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, the competent authority may authorise the disposal of the following Category 1 and 3 materials in an authorised landfill:\n(a)\nimported petfood or petfood produced from imported materials, from Category 1 material referred to in Article 8(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009;\n(b)\nCategory 3 material referred to in Article 10(f) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, provided that:\n(i)\nsuch materials have not been in contact with any of the animal by-products referred to in Articles 8 and 9 and Article 10(a) to (e) and (h) to (p) of that Regulation;\n(ii)\nat the time when they are destined for disposal, the materials:\n-\nreferred to in Article 10(f) of that Regulation have undergone processing as defined in Article 2(1)(m) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, and\n-\nreferred to in Article 10(g) of that Regulation have been processed in accordance with Chapter II of Annex X hereto or in accordance with the specific requirements for petfood set out in Chapter II of Annex XIII hereto; and\n(iii)\nthe disposal of such materials does not pose a risk to public or animal health.\nArticle 8\nRequirements for processing plants and other establishments\n1. Operators shall ensure that processing plants and other establishments under their control comply with the following requirements set out in Chapter I of Annex IV:\n(a)\nthe general conditions for processing set out in Section 1;\n(b)\nthe requirements for wastewater treatment set out in Section 2;\n(c)\nthe specific requirements for the processing of Category 1 and 2 materials set out in Section 3;\n(d)\nthe specific requirements for the processing of Category 3 materials set out in Section 4.\n2. The competent authority shall only approve processing plants and other establishments, if they comply with the conditions laid down in Chapter I of Annex IV.\nArticle 9\nHygiene and processing requirements for processing plants and other establishments\nOperators shall ensure that establishments and plants under their control comply with the following requirements set out in Annex IV:\n(a)\nthe hygiene and processing requirements set out in Chapter II;\n(b)\nthe standard processing methods set out in Chapter III, provided such methods are used in the establishment or plant;\n(c)\nthe alternative processing methods set out in Chapter IV, provided such methods are used in the establishment or plant.\nArticle 10\nRequirements regarding the transformation of animal by-products and derived products into biogas and composting\n1. Operators shall ensure that establishments and plants under their control comply with the following requirements for the transformation of animal by-products and derived products into biogas or for composting set out in Annex V:\n(a)\nthe requirements applicable to biogas and composting plants set out in Chapter I;\n(b)\nthe hygiene requirements applicable to biogas and composting plants set out in Chapter II;\n(c)\nthe standard transformation parameters set out in Section 1 of Chapter III;\n(d)\nthe standards for digestion residues and compost set out in Section 3 of Chapter III.\n2. The competent authority shall only approve biogas and composting plants, if they comply with the requirements laid down in Annex V.\n3. The competent authority may authorise the use of alternative transformation parameters for biogas and composting plants subject to the requirements set out in Section 2 of Chapter III of Annex V.\nCHAPTER III\nDEROGATIONS FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REGULATION (EC) No 1069/2009\nArticle 11\nSpecial rules on research and diagnostic samples\n1. The competent authority may authorise the transport, use and disposal of research and diagnostic samples under conditions which ensure the control of the risks to public and animal health.\nThe competent authority shall in particular ensure that operators comply with the requirements of Chapter I of Annex VI.\n2. Operators shall comply with the special rules on research and diagnostic samples set out in Chapter I of Annex VI.\n3. Operators may dispatch research and diagnostic samples which consist of the following animal by-products and derived products to another Member State without informing the competent authority of the Member State of origin in accordance with Article 48(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and without the competent authority of the Member State of destination being informed by means of the TRACES system and agreeing to accept the consignment in accordance with Article 48(1) and (3) of that Regulation:\n(a)\nCategory 1 and 2 materials and meat-and-bone meal or animal fat derived from Category 1 and 2 materials;\n(b)\nprocessed animal protein.\nArticle 12\nSpecial rules on trade samples and display items\n1. The competent authority may authorise the transport, use and disposal of trade samples and display items under conditions which ensure the control of the risks to public and animal health.\nThe competent authority shall in particular ensure that operators comply with the requirements of points 2, 3 and 4 of Section 1 of Chapter I of Annex VI.\n2. Operators shall comply with the special rules on trade samples and display items set out in Section 2 of Chapter I of Annex VI.\n3. Operators may dispatch trade samples which consist of the following animal by-products and derived products to another Member State without informing the competent authority of the Member State of origin in accordance with Article 48(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and without the competent authority of the Member State of destination being informed by means of the TRACES system and agreeing to accept the consignment in accordance with Article 48(1) and (3) of that Regulation:\n(a)\nCategory 1 and 2 materials and meat-and-bone meal or animal fat derived from Category 1 and 2 materials;\n(b)\nprocessed animal protein.\nArticle 13\nSpecial feeding rules\n1. Operators may feed Category 2 material to the following animals, provided that such material comes from animals which were not killed or did not die as a result of the presence or suspected presence of a disease communicable to humans or animals, subject to compliance with the general requirements laid down in Section 1 of Chapter II of Annex VI and any other conditions that may be laid down by the competent authority:\n(a)\nzoo animals;\n(b)\nfur animals;\n(c)\ndogs from recognised kennels or packs of hounds;\n(d)\ndogs and cats in shelters;\n(e)\nmaggots and worms for fishing bait.\n2. Operators may feed Category 3 material to the following animals subject to compliance with the general requirements laid down in Section 1 of Chapter II of Annex VI and any other conditions that may be laid down by the competent authority:\n(a)\nzoo animals;\n(b)\nfur animals;\n(c)\ndogs from recognised kennels or packs of hounds;\n(d)\ndogs and cats in shelters;\n(e)\nmaggots and worms for fishing bait.\nArticle 14\nFeeding of certain species in and outside feeding stations and in zoos\n1. The competent authority may authorise the use of Category 1 material consisting of entire bodies or parts of dead animals containing specified risk material for the feeding:\n(a)\nin feeding stations, to endangered or protected species of necrophagous birds and other species living in their natural habitat, for the promotion of biodiversity, subject to compliance with the conditions set out in Section 2 of Chapter II of Annex VI;\n(b)\noutside feeding stations, if appropriate without prior collection of the dead animals, to wild animals referred to point 1(a) of Section 2 of Chapter II of Annex VI, subject to compliance with the conditions set out in Section 3 of that Chapter.\n2. The competent authority may authorise the use of Category 1 material consisting of entire bodies or parts of dead animals containing specified risk materials and the use of material derived from zoo animals for the feeding of zoo animals subject to compliance with the conditions set out in Section 4 of Chapter II of Annex VI.\nArticle 15\nSpecial rules on collection and disposal\nIf the competent authority authorises the disposal of animal by-products by way of the derogation provided for in Article 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, the disposal shall comply with the following special rules set out in Chapter III of Annex VI:\n(a)\nthe special disposal rules for animal by-products set out in Section 1;\n(b)\nthe rules for the burning and burial of animal by-products in remote areas set out in Section 2;\n(c)\nthe rules for the burning and burial of bees and apiculture by-products set out in Section 3.\nCHAPTER IV\nAUTHORISATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS\nArticle 16\nStandard format for applications for authorisation of alternative methods\n1. Applications for authorisation of alternative methods of use or disposal of animal by-products or derived products, as referred to in Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, shall be submitted by Member States or interested parties in accordance with the requirements of the standard format for applications for alternative methods set out in Annex VII.\n2. Member States shall designate national contact points to provide information on the competent authority responsible for evaluating applications for authorisation of alternative methods of use or disposal of animal by-products.\n3. The Commission shall publish a list of national contact points on its website.\nCHAPTER V\nCOLLECTION, TRANSPORT, IDENTIFICATION AND TRACEABILITY\nArticle 17\nRequirements regarding commercial documents and health certificates, identification, the collection and transport of animal by-products and traceability\n1. Operators shall ensure that animal by-products and derived products:\n(a)\ncomply with the requirements for collection, transport and identification set out in Chapters I and II of Annex VIII;\n(b)\nare accompanied during transport by commercial documents or health certificates in accordance with the requirements set out in Chapter III of Annex VIII.\n2. Operators consigning, transporting or receiving animal by-products or derived products shall keep records of consignments and related commercial documents or health certificates in accordance with the requirements set out in Chapter IV of Annex VIII.\n3. Operators shall comply with the requirements for the marking of certain derived products set out in Chapter V of Annex VIII.\nCHAPTER VI\nREGISTRATION AND APPROVAL OF ESTABLISHMENTS AND PLANTS\nArticle 18\nRequirements regarding the approval of one or more establishments and plants handling animal by-products on the same site\nThe competent authority may grant approval to more than one establishment or plant handling animal by-products on the same site, provided that the transmission of risks to public and animal health between the establishments or plants is excluded by their layout and the handling of animal by-products and derived products within the establishments or plants.\nArticle 19\nRequirements concerning certain approved establishments and plants handling animal by-products and derived products\nOperators shall ensure that establishments and plants under their control which have been approved by the competent authority, comply with the requirements set out in the following Chapters of Annex IX hereto where they carry out one or more of the following activities referred to Article 24(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009:\n(a)\nChapter I, where they manufacture petfood as referred to in Article 24(1)(e) of that Regulation;\n(b)\nChapter II, where they store animal by-products as referred to in Article 24(1)(i) of that Regulation and where they handle animal by-products after their collection, by way of the following operations referred to in Article 24(1)(h) of that Regulation:\n(i)\nsorting;\n(ii)\ncutting;\n(iii)\nchilling;\n(iv)\nfreezing;\n(v)\nsalting;\n(vi)\npreservation by other processes;\n(vii)\nremoval of hides and skins or removal of specified risk material;\n(viii)\noperations involving the handling of animal by-products which are carried out in compliance with obligations under Union veterinary legislation;\n(ix)\nhygienisation/pasteurisation of animal by-products destined for transformation into biogas/composting, prior to such transformation or composting in another establishment or plant in accordance with Annex V hereto;\n(x)\nsieving;\n(c)\nChapter III, where they store derived products for certain intended purposes as referred to in Article 24(1)(j) of that Regulation.\nArticle 20\nRequirements concerning certain registered establishments and plants handling animal by-products and derived products\n1. Operators of registered plants or establishments or other registered operators shall handle animal by-products and derived products under the conditions set out in Chapter IV of Annex IX.\n2. Registered operators transporting animal by-products or derived products, other than between premises of the same operator, shall in particular comply with the conditions set out in point 2 of Chapter IV of Annex IX.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to:\n(a)\napproved operators who are transporting animal by-products or derived products as an ancillary activity;\n(b)\noperators who have been registered for transport activities in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 183/2005.\n4. The competent authority may exempt the following operators from the obligation to notify, referred to in Article 23(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009:\n(a)\noperators handling or generating game trophies or other preparations referred to in Chapter VI of Annex XIII hereto for private or non-commercial purposes;\n(b)\noperators handling or disposing research and diagnostic samples for educational purposes.\nCHAPTER VII\nPLACING ON THE MARKET\nArticle 21\nProcessing and placing on the market of animal by-products and derived products for feeding to farmed animals, excluding fur animals\n1. Operators shall comply with the following requirements for the placing on the market, other than the import, of the animal by-products and derived products destined for feeding to farmed animals excluding fur animals, as provided for in Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, set out in Annex X hereto:\n(a)\nthe general requirements for the processing and the placing on the market set out in Chapter I;\n(b)\nthe specific requirements for processed animal proteins and other derived products set out in Chapter II;\n(c)\nthe requirements for certain fish feed and fishing baits set out in Chapter III.\n2. The competent authority may authorise the placing on the market, other than the import, of milk, milk-based products and milk-derived products categorised as Category 3 material in accordance with Article 10(e), (f) and (h) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and which have not been processed in accordance with the general requirements set out in Part I of Section 4 of Chapter II of Annex X hereto, provided that those materials comply with the requirements for the derogation for the placing on the market of milk processed in accordance with national standards set out in Part II of that Section.\nArticle 22\nPlacing on the market and use of organic fertilisers and soil improvers\n1. Operators shall comply with the requirements for the placing on the market, other than the import, of organic fertilisers and soil improvers, and the use of such products, in particular their application to land, as provided for in Articles 15(1)(i) and 32(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, set out in Annex XI hereto.\n2. The placing on the market, including the import, of guano from wild sea birds is not subject to any animal health conditions.\n3. The competent authority of the Member State where an organic fertiliser or a soil improver, which has been produced from meat-and-bone meal derived from Category 2 material or from processed animal protein, is to be applied to land, shall authorise one or more components which are to be mixed with those materials, in accordance with Article 32(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, according to the criteria set out in point 3 of Section 1 of Chapter II of Annex XI hereto.\n4. By way of derogation from Article 48(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, the competent authorities of a Member State of origin and of a Member State of destination, which share a common border may authorise the dispatch of manure between farms located in border regions of those two Member States subject to appropriate conditions for the control of any possible risks to public or animal health, such as obligations for the operators concerned to keep appropriate records, which are laid down in a bilateral agreement.\n5. As provided for in Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, the competent authorities of the Member States shall encourage, where necessary, the development, dissemination and use of national guides for good agricultural practice for the application of organic fertilisers and soil improvers to land.\nArticle 23\nIntermediate products\n1. Intermediate products, imported into or in transit through the Union shall comply with the conditions controlling potential risks to public and animal health referred to in Annex XII hereto.\n2. Intermediate products which have been transported to an establishment or plant referred to in point 3 of Annex XII hereto, may be handled without further restrictions under Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and under this Regulation, provided that:\n(a)\nthe establishment or plant has adequate facilities for the receipt of the intermediate products, which prevent the transmission of diseases communicable to humans or animals;\n(b)\nthe intermediate products do not pose any risk of transmission of diseases communicable to humans or animals, due to their purification or to other treatments to which the animal by-products in the intermediate product have been submitted, due to the concentration of animal by-products in the intermediate product or due to adequate bio-security measures for the handling of the intermediate products;\n(c)\nthe establishment or plant keeps records on the amount of materials received, their category, if applicable, and the establishment, plant or operator to whom they have supplied their products; and\n(d)\nunused intermediate products or other surplus materials from the establishment or plant, such as expired products, are disposed of in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009.\n3. The operator or owner of the establishment or plant of destination of intermediate products or his representative shall use and/or dispatch the intermediate products exclusively for further mixing, coating, assembling, packaging or labelling.\nArticle 24\nPetfood and other derived products\n1. The use of Category 1 material referred to in Article 8(a),(b), (d) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 for the manufacture of derived products which are intended to be ingested by or applied to humans or animals, other than for derived products referred to in Articles 33 and 36 of that Regulation shall be prohibited.\n2. Where an animal by-product or a derived product may be used for feeding to farmed animals or for other purposes referred to in Article 36(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, they shall be placed on the market, other than imported, in accordance with the specific requirements for processed animal protein and other derived products set out in Chapter II of Annex X hereto, provided that Annex XIII hereto does not set out any specific requirements for such products.\n3. Operators shall comply with the requirements for the placing on the market, other than the import, of petfood, as referred to in Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, set out in Chapters I and II of Annex XIII hereto.\n4. Operators shall comply with the requirements for the placing on the market, other than the import, of derived products, as referred to in Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, set out in Chapter I and Chapters III to XII of Annex XIII hereto.\nCHAPTER VIII\nIMPORT, TRANSIT AND EXPORT\nArticle 25\nImport, transit and export of animal by-products and of derived products\n1. The importation into and the transit through the Union of the following animal by-products shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nunprocessed manure;\n(b)\nuntreated feathers and parts of feathers and down;\n(c)\nbeeswax in the form of honeycomb.\n2. The importation into and the transit through the Union of the following shall not be subject to any animal health conditions:\n(a)\nwool and hair which has been factory-washed or which has been treated by another method which ensures that no unacceptable risks remain;\n(b)\nfurs which have been dried at an ambient temperature of 18\u00b0C for a period of at least two days at a humidity of 55 %.\n3. Operators shall comply with the following specific requirements for the importation into and the transit through the Union of certain animal by-products and derived products, as referred to in Articles 41(3) and 42 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, set out in Annex XIV hereto:\n(a)\nthe specific requirements for the import and transit of Category 3 material and derived products for uses in the feed chain, other than for petfood or feed to fur animals, set out in Chapter I of that Annex;\n(b)\nthe specific requirements for the import and transit of animal by-products and derived products for uses outside the feed chain for farmed animals, set out in Chapter II of that Annex.\nArticle 26\nPlacing on the market, including importation, and export of certain Category 1 materials\nThe competent authority may authorise the placing on the market, including the importation, and the export of hides and skins derived from animals which have been submitted to an illegal treatment as defined in Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 96/22/EC or in Article 2(b) of Directive 96/23/EC, and of ruminant intestines with or without content and of bones and bone products containing vertebral column and skull, subject to compliance with the following requirements:\n(a)\nthose materials must not be Category 1 materials derived from any of the following animals:\n(i)\nanimals suspected of being infected by a TSE in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 999/2001;\n(ii)\nanimals in which the presence of a TSE has been officially confirmed;\n(iii)\nanimals killed in the context of TSE eradication measures;\n(b)\nthose materials must not be intended for any of the following uses:\n(i)\nfeeding;\n(ii)\napplication to land from which farmed animals are fed;\n(iii)\nthe manufacture of:\n-\ncosmetic products as defined in Article 1(1) of Directive 76/768/EEC;\n-\nactive implantable medical devices as defined in Article 1(2)(c) of Directive 90/385/EEC;\n-\nmedical devices as defined in Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 93/42/EEC;\n-\nin vitro diagnostic medical devices as defined in Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 98/79/EC;\n-\nveterinary medicinal products as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/82/EC;\n-\nmedicinal products as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC;\n(c)\nthe materials must be imported with a label and must comply with the specific requirements for certain movements of animal by-products set out in Section 1 of Chapter IV of Annex XIV hereto;\n(d)\nthe materials must be imported in accordance with sanitary certification requirements laid down in national legislation.\nArticle 27\nImportation and transit of research and diagnostic samples\n1. The competent authority may authorise the importation and the transit of research and diagnostic samples, comprising derived products or animal by-products, including the animal by-products referred to in Article 25(1), in accordance with conditions which ensure the control of risks to public and animal health.\nSuch conditions shall include at least the following:\n(a)\nthe introduction of the consignment must have been authorised in advance by the competent authority of the Member State of destination; and\n(b)\nthe consignment must be sent directly from the point of entry into the Union to the authorised user.\n2. Operators shall present research and diagnostic samples which are intended to be imported via a Member State, other than the Member State of destination, at an approved Union border inspection post listed in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC. At the border inspection post, those research and diagnostic samples shall not be subject to veterinary checks in accordance with Chapter I of Directive 97/78/EC. The competent authority of the border inspection post shall inform the competent authority of the Member State of destination of the introduction of the research and diagnostic samples by means of the TRACES system.\n3. Operators handling research samples or diagnostic samples shall comply with the special requirements for disposal of research and diagnostic samples set out in Section 1 of Chapter III of Annex XIV hereto.\nArticle 28\nImportation and transit of trade samples and display items\n1. The competent authority may authorise the importation and the transit of trade samples in accordance with the special rules set out in point 1 of Section 2 of Chapter III of Annex XIV hereto.\n2. Operators handling trade samples shall comply with the special rules for handling and disposal of trade samples set out in points 2 and 3 of Section 2 of Chapter III of Annex XIV hereto.\n3. The competent authority may authorise the importation and the transit of display items in accordance with the special rules for display items set out in Section 3 of Chapter III of Annex XIV hereto.\n4. Operators handling display items shall comply with the conditions for packaging, handling and disposal of display items set out in Section 3 of Chapter III of Annex XIV hereto.\nArticle 29\nSpecific requirements for certain movements of animal by-products between territories of the Russian Federation\n1. The competent authority shall authorise specific movements of consignments of animal by-products coming from and destined to the Russian Federation directly or via another third country, by road or by rail through the Union, between approved Union border inspection posts listed in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe consignment shall be sealed with a serially numbered seal at the border inspection post of entry to the Union by the veterinary services of the competent authority;\n(b)\nthe documents accompanying the consignment and referred to in Article 7 of Directive 97/78/EC shall be stamped \u2018ONLY FOR TRANSIT TO RUSSIA VIA THE EU\u2019 on each page by the official veterinarian of the competent authority responsible for the border inspection post;\n(c)\nthe procedural requirements provided for in Article 11 of Directive 97/78/EC shall be complied with;\n(d)\nthe consignment is certified as acceptable for transit on the Common Veterinary Entry Document provided for in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 by the official veterinarian of the border inspection post of introduction.\n2. Unloading or storage, as defined in Article 12(4) or Article 13 of Directive 97/78/EC of such consignments shall not be allowed on the territory of a Member State.\n3. Regular audits shall be made by the competent authority to ensure that the number of consignments and the quantities of products leaving the Union territory matches the number and quantities entering.\nArticle 30\nLists of establishments and plants in third countries\nLists of establishments and plants in third countries shall be entered into the TRACES system in accordance with technical specifications which are published by the Commission on its website.\nEach list shall be kept up to date regularly.\nArticle 31\nModels of health certificates and declarations for importation and transit\nConsignments of animal by-products and derived products for importation into or transit through the Union shall be accompanied by health certificates and declarations, in accordance with the models set out in Annex XV hereto, at the point of entry into the Union where the veterinary checks take place, as provided for in Directive 97/78/EC.\nCHAPTER IX\nOFFICIAL CONTROLS\nArticle 32\nOfficial controls\n1. The competent authority shall take the necessary measures to control the entire chain of collection, transport, use and disposal of animal by-products and derived products, as referred to in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009.\nThose measures shall be carried out in accordance with the principles for official controls laid down in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\n2. The official controls referred to in paragraph 1 shall include checks on the keeping of records and other documents required by the rules laid down in this Regulation.\n3. The competent authority shall carry out the following official controls, as referred to in Article 45(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, in accordance with the requirements set out in Annex XVI hereto:\n(a)\nofficial controls in processing plants as set out in Chapter I;\n(b)\nofficial controls of other activities which involve the handling of animal by-products, and derived products as set out in Sections 1 to 9 of Chapter III.\n4. The competent authority shall carry out checks on seals which are applied to consignments of animal by-products or derived products.\nWhen the competent authority applies a seal to such consignment which is transported to a place of destination, it must inform the competent authority of the place of destination.\n5. The competent authority shall draw up the lists of establishments, plants and operators referred to in Article 47(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 in accordance with the format set out in Chapter II of Annex XVI hereto.\n6. The competent authority of the Member State of destination shall decide upon the application by an operator concerning the acceptance or refusal of certain Category 1, Category 2 material and meat-and-bone meal or animal fat derived from Category 1 and Category 2 materials, within 20 calendar days from the date of receipt of such application provided that it has been submitted in one of the official languages of that Member State.\n7. Operators shall submit applications for the authorisation referred to in paragraph 6 in accordance with the standard format set out in Section 10 of Chapter III of Annex XVI hereto.\nArticle 33\nReapproval of plants and establishments after the grant of a temporary approval\n1. Where a plant or establishment approved for the processing of Category 3 material is subsequently granted temporary approval for the processing of Category 1 or Category 2 material, in accordance with Article 24(2)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, it shall be prohibited from recommencing the processing of Category 3 material, without first obtaining the approval of the competent authority to recommence processing of Category 3 material in accordance with Article 44 of that Regulation.\n2. Where a plant or establishment approved for the processing of Category 2 material is subsequently granted temporary approval for the processing of Category 1 material, in accordance with Article 24(2)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, it shall be prohibited from recommencing the processing of Category 2 material, without first obtaining the approval of the competent authority to recommence processing of Category 2 material in accordance with Article 44 of that Regulation.\nCHAPTER X\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 34\nRestrictions on the placing on the market of certain animal by-products and derived products for reasons of public and animal health\nThe competent authority shall not prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of the following animal by-products and derived products for public health or animal health reasons other than the rules laid down in Union legislation, and in particular those laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and in this Regulation:\n(a)\nprocessed animal protein and other derived products referred to in Chapter II of Annex X hereto;\n(b)\npetfood and certain other derived products referred to in Annex XIII hereto;\n(c)\nanimal by-products and the derived products imported into or in transit through the Union as referred to in Annex XIV hereto.\nArticle 35\nRepeal\n1. The following acts are repealed:\n(a)\nRegulation (EC) No 811/2003;\n(b)\nDecision 2003/322/EC;\n(c)\nDecision 2003/324/EC;\n(d)\nRegulation (EC) No 878/2004;\n(e)\nDecision 2004/407/EC;\n(f)\nRegulation (EC) No 79/2005;\n(g)\nRegulation (EC) No 92/2005;\n(h)\nRegulation (EC) No 181/2006;\n(i)\nRegulation (EC) No 197/2006;\n(j)\nRegulation (EC) No 1192/2006;\n(k)\nRegulation (EC) No 2007/2006.\n2. References to the repealed acts shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 36\nTransitional measures\n1. For a transitional period until 31 December 2011, operators may place on the market organic fertilisers and soil improvers which were produced before 4 March 2011 in accordance with Regulations (EC) No 1774/2002 and (EC) No 181/2006:\n(a)\nprovided that they have been produced from one of the following:\n(i)\nmeat-and-bone meal derived from Category 2 material;\n(ii)\nprocessed animal protein;\n(b)\neven though they have not been mixed with a component to exclude the subsequent use of the mixture for feeding purposes.\n2. For a transitional period until 31 January 2012, consignments of animal by-products and of derived products accompanied by a health certificate, declaration or commercial document, which has been completed and signed in accordance with the appropriate model set out in Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 shall continue to be accepted for importation into the Union, provided that such certificates, declarations or documents were completed and signed before 30 November 2011.\n3. For a transitional period until 31 December 2012 and by way of derogation from Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, Member States may authorise the collection, transport and disposal of Category 3 materials comprising products of animal origin, or of foodstuffs containing products of animal origin, which are no longer intended for human consumption for commercial reasons or due to problems of manufacturing or packaging defects or other defects from which no risk to public or animal health arise, as referred to in Article 10(f) of that Regulation, by means other than burning or burial on site, as referred to in Article 19(1)(d) of that Regulation, subject to compliance with the requirements for disposal by other means set out in Chapter IV of Annex VI hereto.\nArticle 37\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 4 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 February 2011.", "references": ["51", "93", "36", "44", "99", "85", "67", "0", "88", "37", "55", "78", "65", "1", "84", "23", "15", "72", "62", "31", "20", "64", "41", "56", "68", "98", "87", "3", "90", "5", "No Label", "21", "22", "38", "58", "61", "66", "69", "82"], "gold": ["21", "22", "38", "58", "61", "66", "69", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 June 2011\non establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to all-purpose cleaners and sanitary cleaners\n(notified under document C(2011) 4442)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/383/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Union Eco-labelling Board,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, the EU Ecolabel may be awarded to those products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 66/2010 provides that specific EU Ecolabel criteria are to be established according to product groups.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2005/344/EC (2) has established the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements for all-purpose cleaners and cleaners for sanitary facilities which are valid until 30 June 2011.\n(4)\nThose criteria have been further reviewed in the light of technological developments. The new criteria, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, should be valid for 4 years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\n(5)\nDecision 2005/344/EC should be replaced for reasons of clarity.\n(6)\nA transitional period should be allowed for producers whose products have been awarded the Ecolabel for all-purpose cleaners and sanitary cleaners on the basis of the criteria set out in Decision 2005/344/EC, so that they have sufficient time to adapt their products to comply with the revised criteria and requirements. Producers should also be allowed to submit applications based on the criteria set out in Decision 2005/344/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision until the lapse of validity of that Decision.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe product group \u2018All-purpose cleaners and sanitary cleaners\u2019 shall comprise: all-purpose cleaners, window cleaners, and sanitary cleaners.\n(a)\nAll-purpose cleaners comprising detergent products intended for the routine cleaning of floors, walls, ceilings, windows and other fixed surfaces, and which are either diluted in water prior to use or used without dilution. All-purpose cleaners shall mean products intended for indoor use in buildings which include domestic, commercial and industrial facilities.\n(b)\nWindow cleaners comprising specific cleaners intended for the routine cleaning of windows, and which are used without dilution.\n(c)\nSanitary cleaners comprising detergent products intended for the routine removal, including by scouring, of dirt and/or deposits in sanitary facilities, such as laundry rooms, toilets, bathrooms, showers and kitchens. This subgroup thus contains bathroom cleaners and kitchen cleaners.\nThe product group shall cover products for both private and professional use. The products shall be mixtures of chemical substances and must not contain micro-organisms that have been deliberately added by the manufacturer.\nArticle 2\nFor the purpose of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018substance\u2019 means a chemical element and its compounds in the natural state or obtained by any production process, including any additive necessary to preserve the stability of the product and any impurity deriving from the process used but excluding any solvent, which may be separated without affecting the stability of the substance or changing its composition;\n2.\n\u2018product\u2019 (or \u2018mixture\u2019) means a mixture or solution of two or more substances, which do not react.\nArticle 3\nIn order to be awarded the EU Ecolabel under Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, an item of all-purpose cleaner, window cleaner or sanitary cleaner shall fall within the product group \u2018all-purpose cleaners and sanitary cleaners\u2019 as defined in Article 1 of this Decision and shall comply with the criteria as well as the related assessment and verification requirements set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThe criteria for the product group \u2018all-purpose cleaners and sanitary cleaners\u2019, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid for 4 years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 5\nFor administrative purposes the code number assigned to the product group \u2018all-purpose cleaners and sanitary cleaners\u2019 shall be \u2018020\u2019.\nArticle 6\nDecision 2005/344/EC is repealed.\nArticle 7\n1. By derogation from Article 6, applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018all-purpose cleaners and sanitary cleaners\u2019 submitted before the date of adoption of this Decision shall be evaluated in accordance with the conditions laid down in Decision 2005/344/EC.\n2. Applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018all-purpose cleaners and sanitary cleaners\u2019 submitted from the date of adoption of this Decision but by 30 June 2011 at the latest may be based either on the criteria set out in Decision 2005/344/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision.\nThose applications shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria on which they are based.\n3. Where the Ecolabel is awarded on the basis of an application evaluated in accordance with the criteria set out in Decision 2005/344/EC, that Ecolabel may be used for 12 months from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2011.", "references": ["89", "13", "47", "72", "0", "23", "65", "62", "98", "80", "67", "96", "3", "32", "40", "95", "11", "71", "39", "61", "59", "43", "50", "94", "68", "63", "8", "76", "79", "5", "No Label", "24", "25", "58", "83"], "gold": ["24", "25", "58", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1161/2010\nof 9 December 2010\nrefusing to authorise a health claim made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children\u2019s development and health\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 18(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on food are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as the Authority.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission and to deliver an opinion on the health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nFollowing an application from Laboratoire Vie et Sant\u00e9 submitted on 29 December 2008 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Catalgine\u00ae bouff\u00e9es de chaleur on reduction in the number of hot flushes (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00852) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Contributes to the reduction in the number of hot flushes\u2019.\n(6)\nOn 13 January 2010, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Catalgine\u00ae bouff\u00e9es de chaleur and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(7)\nHealth claims referred to in Article 13(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 are subject to the transition measures laid down in Article 28(5) of that Regulation only if they comply with the conditions therein mentioned, among which that they have to comply with the Regulation. As for the claim subject to the present Regulation, the Authority concluded that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of the food and the claimed effect and thus it does not comply with the Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it could not benefit from the transition period foreseen in Article 28(5) of that Regulation. A transition period of six months is provided for to enable food business operators to adapt to the requirements laid down in this Regulation.\n(8)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe health claim set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall not be included in the Union list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nHowever, it may continue to be used for six months after the entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2010.", "references": ["16", "14", "30", "54", "3", "83", "0", "13", "47", "56", "64", "45", "19", "32", "78", "29", "62", "4", "60", "85", "68", "28", "63", "97", "49", "9", "10", "92", "74", "88", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "39", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "39", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 221/2011\nof 4 March 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 14223 as a feed additive for salmonids (holder of authorisation DSM Nutritional Products Ltd represented by DSM Nutritional products Sp. Z o.o)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the enzyme preparation 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 14223. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 14223 as a feed additive for salmonids, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nIts use was also provisionally authorised for salmonids by Commission Regulation (EC) No 521/2005 (2).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for the authorisation of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 14223 for salmonids. The European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 10 November 2010 (3) that, under the proposed conditions of use, 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 14223 does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use can improve the phosphorus utilisation. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the European Union Reference Laboratory for Feed Additives set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 14223 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nIn the interest of clarity, the entry on 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 14223 in Regulation (EC) No 521/2005 should be deleted.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018digestibility enhancers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nIn Regulation (EC) No 521/2005, Article 2 and Annex II are deleted.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 March 2011.", "references": ["60", "70", "72", "34", "3", "81", "43", "98", "65", "6", "22", "57", "48", "51", "73", "33", "30", "92", "77", "49", "42", "69", "80", "29", "41", "95", "23", "28", "15", "18", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "67", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "67", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1009/2011\nof 12 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 October 2011.", "references": ["25", "17", "86", "55", "15", "51", "28", "57", "10", "2", "97", "5", "7", "90", "49", "60", "38", "33", "3", "12", "65", "13", "52", "46", "76", "83", "91", "29", "63", "71", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 11 April 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Australia pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union\n(2011/247/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 January 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with certain other Members of the World Trade Organization under Article XXIV:6 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 in the course of the accessions to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania.\n(2)\nNegotiations have been conducted by the Commission within the framework of the negotiating directives adopted by the Council.\n(3)\nThese negotiations have been concluded and the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Australia pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (the Agreement) was initialled on 15 June 2010.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Australia pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (the Agreement) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the Agreement (1).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["27", "74", "70", "73", "87", "18", "79", "26", "51", "68", "85", "36", "94", "28", "81", "6", "93", "57", "14", "82", "71", "63", "80", "83", "92", "75", "46", "65", "50", "31", "No Label", "9", "21", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "21", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1009/2010\nof 9 November 2010\nconcerning type-approval requirements for wheel guards of certain motor vehicles and implementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (1), and in particular Article 14 (1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 is a separate Regulation for the purposes of the type-approval procedure provided for by Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 repeals Council Directive 78/549/EEC of 12 June 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the wheel guards of motor vehicles (3). The requirements set out in that Directive should be carried over to this Regulation and, where necessary, amended in order to adapt them to the development of scientific and technical knowledge.\n(3)\nThe scope of this Regulation should be in line with that of Directive 78/549/EEC and thus limited to vehicles of category M1.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 lays down fundamental provisions on requirements for the type-approval of certain motor vehicles with regard to wheel guards. Therefore it is necessary to also set out the specific procedures, tests and requirements for such type-approval.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation applies to motor vehicles of category M1, as defined in Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018vehicle type with regard to wheel guards\u2019 means vehicles which do not differ in such essential respects as the characteristics of the wheel guards or the minimum and maximum tyre and wheel sizes suitable for fitment, taking into account the applicable tyre envelopes, rim sizes and wheel off-sets;\n(2)\n\u2018tyre envelope\u2019 means the maximum section width and outer-diameter of a tyre, including tolerances, as permitted and specified according to its component approval;\n(3)\n\u2018snow traction device\u2019 means a snow chain or other equivalent device providing traction in snow, which shall be able to be mounted onto the vehicle's tyre/wheel combination and which is not a snow tyre, winter tyre, all-season tyre or any other tyre by itself.\nArticle 3\nProvisions for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to wheel guards\n1. The manufacturer or his representative shall submit to the type-approval authority the application for EC type-approval of a vehicle with regard to wheel guards.\n2. The application shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Part 1 of Annex I.\n3. If the relevant requirements set out in Annex II to this Regulation are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC type-approval and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nA Member State may not assign the same number to another vehicle type.\n4. For the purposes of paragraph 3, the type-approval authority shall deliver an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 4\nValidity and extension of approvals granted under Directive 78/549/EEC\nNational authorities shall permit the sale and entry into service of vehicles type-approved before the date referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 and continue to grant extension of approvals to those vehicles under the terms of Directive 78/549/EEC.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2010.", "references": ["65", "28", "89", "27", "13", "90", "34", "66", "78", "94", "49", "59", "32", "70", "37", "82", "60", "15", "17", "63", "31", "92", "29", "21", "58", "41", "55", "67", "16", "72", "No Label", "8", "54", "76"], "gold": ["8", "54", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 584/2010\nof 1 July 2010\nimplementing Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the form and content of the standard notification letter and UCITS attestation, the use of electronic communication between competent authorities for the purpose of notification, and procedures for on-the-spot verifications and investigations and the exchange of information between competent authorities\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (1), and in particular Article 95(2)(a), (b) and (c), Article 101(9) and Article 105 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2009/65/EC provides the Commission with implementing powers to specify and harmonise certain aspects of the new procedure for notification of marketing of units of UCITS in a host Member State. Such harmonisation should provide competent authorities with the necessary certainty as to how the new requirements will work and help to ensure that the new procedure functions smoothly.\n(2)\nIn order to facilitate the notification procedure it is necessary to specify the form and content of the standard model notification letter to be used by a UCITS and the form and content of the attestation to be used by the competent authorities of Member States to confirm that the UCITS fulfils the conditions set out in Directive 2009/65/EC. Member States should be able to communicate both the notification letter and the attestation electronically.\n(3)\nGiven the objective of Directive 2009/65/EC to ensure that a UCITS is able to market its units in other Member States subject to a notification procedure based on improved communication between the competent authorities of the Member States, it is necessary to set out a detailed procedure for the electronic transmission of the notification file between competent authorities.\n(4)\nDirective 2009/65/EC requires the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State to verify if the notification file is complete before they transmit the complete file to the competent authorities of the Member State in which the UCITS proposes to market its units. It also provides a UCITS with the right to access the market of a host Member State immediately after the complete notification file has been transmitted by the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State to the competent authorities of a Member State where the UCITS proposes to market its units. In order to ensure legal certainty it is necessary to establish when the transmission of the complete notification file is considered to have taken place. Moreover, the procedure for the use of electronic communication shall require competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State to make sure that transmission of the complete documentation has taken place, before they notify a UCITS about the transmission pursuant to Article 93(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC. It is also necessary to set out procedures for dealing with technical problems that occur in the process of the transmission of the notification file between competent authorities of the UCITS home and host Member State.\n(5)\nIn order to simplify the transmission of the notification file as well as take into account technical innovations and the feasibility of developing more sophisticated systems for electronic communication, competent authorities may implement cooperative arrangements to improve the electronic communication of the notification file in particular in relation to system security and the use of encryptions mechanisms. Competent authorities should also coordinate arrangements for electronic communication within the Committee of European Securities Regulators.\n(6)\nDirective 2009/65/EC requires that Member States take the necessary administrative and organisational measures to facilitate cooperation. Enhanced cooperation between competent authorities is necessary to ensure that UCITS and management companies managing UCITS comply with Directive 2009/65/EC and to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market and a high level of investor protection.\n(7)\nDirective 2009/65/EC provides that the competent authorities of one Member State may request the cooperation of the competent authorities of another Member State in a supervisory activity or for an on-the-spot verification or in an investigation on the territory of the latter. In particular, where a UCITS is managed by a management company situated in another Member State, it is essential to establish mechanisms for cooperation between competent authorities and detailed procedures to be applied when a competent authority needs to carry out an investigation or on-the-spot verification of an entity or person situated in another Member State.\n(8)\nA competent authority should have a right to request the cooperation of other competent authorities with respect to matters falling within the scope of its supervisory responsibilities. The requested authority should provide assistance even where the conduct under investigation is not considered an infringement in its own jurisdiction. The requested authority may refuse assistance in the cases listed in Article 101(6) of Directive 2009/65/EC.\n(9)\nDirective 2009/65/EC requires the competent authorities of Member States to immediately provide each other with the information required for the purpose of carrying out their duties. It is therefore appropriate to set out detailed rules on the routine exchange of information and the exchange of information without prior request.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure that the obligations set out in Directive 2009/65/EC and in this Regulation apply from the same date, this Regulation should apply from the same date as the national measures transposing Directive 2009/65/EC.\n(11)\nThe Committee of European Securities Regulators, established by Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (2) has been consulted for technical advice.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Securities Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nNOTIFICATION PROCEDURE\nArticle 1\nForm and content of the notification letter\nAn undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) shall produce the notification letter as referred to in Article 93(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC in accordance with the model set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nForm and content of the UCITS attestation\nThe competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State shall produce the attestation that the UCITS fulfils the conditions imposed by Directive 2009/65/EC as referred to in Article 93(3) of that Directive in accordance with the model set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nDesignated e-mail address\n1. Competent authorities shall designate an e-mail address for the purpose of transmitting the documentation referred to in Article 93(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC and for the purpose of the exchange of information related to the notification procedure set out in that Article.\n2. Competent authorities shall inform the competent authorities of other Member States of the designated e-mail address and shall ensure that any modification of that e-mail address is immediately brought to their attention.\n3. The competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State shall transmit all documents referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 93(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC to only the designated e-mail address of the competent authorities of the Member State in which the UCITS proposes to market its units.\n4. Competent authorities shall establish a procedure to ensure that their designated e-mail address for receiving notifications is checked each working day.\nArticle 4\nTransmission of the notification file\n1. Competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State shall transmit the complete documentation referred to in the first and the second subparagraph of Article 93(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC to the competent authorities of a Member State in which the UCITS proposes to market its units, by e-mail.\nAny attachment to the notification letter as specified in Annex I shall be listed in the e-mail and shall be provided in a format in common use that is capable of being viewed and printed.\n2. The transmission of the complete documentation as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 93(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC shall not be considered as having taken place only in any of the following cases:\n(a)\na document that has to be transmitted is missing, incomplete or is in a format other than that specified in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State do not use the e-mail address designated by the competent authorities of the Member State in which the UCITS proposes to market its units pursuant to Article 3(1);\n(c)\nthe competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State have failed to transmit the complete documentation as a result of a technical failure in their electronic system.\n3. Competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State shall ensure that the transmission of the complete documentation as referred to in Article 93(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC has taken place before they notify the UCITS about the transmission.\n4. If the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State are informed or become aware that the transmission of the complete documentation has not taken place, they shall immediately take steps to transmit the complete documentation.\n5. Competent authorities may agree to replace the means by which the complete documentation referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 93(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC is transmitted by a more sophisticated method of electronic communication than e-mail, or to establish additional procedures to enhance the security of e-mails transmitted.\nAny alternative method or enhanced procedure shall comply with the notification time limits set out in Chapter XI of Directive 2009/65/EC and shall not impair the ability of the UCITS to access the market of a Member State other than its home Member State.\nArticle 5\nReceipt of the notification file\n1. When the competent authorities of a Member State in which a UCITS proposes to market its units receive the documentation to be transmitted to them pursuant to Article 93(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC, they shall confirm to the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State as soon as possible, but no later than five working days from the date of the receipt of such documentation whether or not:\n(a)\nall attachments which have to be listed in accordance with Article 4(1) of this Regulation have been received; and\n(b)\nthe documentation which have to be transmitted to them can be viewed or printed.\nThe confirmation may be sent by e-mail to the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State, using the address designated pursuant to Article 3(1) unless the relevant competent authorities have agreed on a more sophisticated method for the acknowledgement of receipt.\n2. Where the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State have not received confirmation from the competent authorities of a Member State in which the UCITS proposes to market its units within the time limits specified in paragraph 1, they shall contact the competent authorities of the Member State in which the UCITS proposes to market its units and verify that the transmission of the complete documentation has taken place.\nCHAPTER II\nSUPERVISORY COOPERATION\nSECTION 1\nProcedure for on-the-spot verifications and investigations\nArticle 6\nRequest for assistance for on-the-spot verifications and investigations\n1. A competent authority intending to carry out an on-the-spot verification or investigation on the territory of another Member State (\u2018the requesting authority\u2019) shall submit a written request to the competent authority of that other Member State (\u2018the requested authority\u2019). The request shall contain the following:\n(a)\nthe reasons for the request, including the legal provisions applicable in the jurisdiction of the requesting authority on which the request is based;\n(b)\nthe scope of the on-the-spot verification or the investigation;\n(c)\nthe actions already undertaken by the requesting authority;\n(d)\nany actions to be taken by the requested authority;\n(e)\nthe proposed methodology of the on-the-spot verification or investigation and the requesting authority\u2019s reasons for choosing it.\n2. The request shall be submitted sufficiently in advance of the on-the-spot verification or investigation.\n3. Where a request for assistance for an on-the-spot verification or investigation is urgent, it may be transmitted by e-mail and subsequently confirmed in writing.\n4. The requested authority shall acknowledge receipt of the request without undue delay.\n5. The requesting authority shall make available any information that has been requested by the requested authority in order to enable the requested authority to provide the necessary assistance.\n6. The requested authority shall transmit without undue delay any information and documents that are available to it as are relevant or useful to the requesting authority, in light of the reasons for and scope of the on-the-spot verification or the investigation.\n7. The requested authority and the requesting authority shall reassess the necessity of the on-the-spot verification and investigation in light of the documents and information transmitted pursuant to paragraph 5 or 6.\n8. The requested authority shall decide whether it carries out the on-the-spot verification or investigation itself or whether it allows the requesting authority to carry out the on-the-spot verification or investigation, or whether it allows auditors or other experts to carry out the on-the-spot verification or investigation.\n9. The requested authority and the requesting authority shall agree on issues related to the allocations of costs of on-the-spot verification or investigation.\nArticle 7\nCarrying out of the on-the-spot verification and investigation by the requested authority\n1. Where the requested authority has decided to carry out the on-the-spot verification or investigation itself, it shall do so in accordance with the procedure provided for in the law of the Member State on whose territory the on-the-spot verification or investigation is to be conducted.\n2. Where the requesting authority has requested that its own officials accompany the officials of the requested authority carrying out the verification or investigation in accordance with Article 101(5) of Directive 2009/65/EC, the requesting authority and the requested authority shall agree on practical arrangements for such participation.\nArticle 8\nCarrying out of the on-the-spot verification and investigation by the requesting authority\n1. Where the requested authority has decided to allow the requesting authority to carry out the on-the-spot verification or investigation, such on-the-spot verification or investigation shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure provided for in the law of the Member State on whose territory the on-the-spot verification or investigation is to be conducted.\n2. Where the requested authority has decided to allow the requesting authority to carry out the on-the-spot verification or investigation, it shall provide the necessary assistance to facilitate that on-the-spot verification or investigation.\n3. If the requesting authority discovers material information relevant for the discharging of duties of the requested authority during its on-the-spot verification or investigation, it shall without undue delay transmit this information to the requested authority.\nArticle 9\nCarrying out of the on-the-spot verification and investigation by auditors or experts\n1. Where the requested authority has decided to allow auditors or experts to carry out on-the-spot verification or investigation, such on-the-spot verification or investigation shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure provided for in the law of the Member State on whose territory the on-the-spot verification or investigation is to be conducted.\n2. Where the requested authority has decided to allow auditors or experts to carry out on-the-spot verification or investigation, it shall provide the necessary assistance to facilitate those auditors or experts in the performance of their tasks.\n3. Where the requesting authority proposes to appoint auditors or experts, it shall transmit any relevant information on the identity and professional qualifications of such auditors or experts to the requested authority.\nThe requested authority shall promptly notify the requesting authority whether it accepts the proposed appointment.\nWhere the requested authority does not accept the proposed appointment or the requesting authority does not propose the appointment of auditors or experts, the requested authority shall have the right to propose auditors or experts.\n4. Where the requested authority and the requesting authority do not agree on the appointment of auditors or experts, the requested authority shall decide whether it carries out the on-the-spot verification or investigation itself or whether it allows the requesting authority to carry out the on-the-spot verification or investigation.\n5. Unless the requested authority and the requesting authority otherwise agree, the authority that has proposed the appointed auditors or experts, shall bear the relevant costs.\n6. If, whilst carrying out on-the-spot verification or investigation the auditors or experts discover material information relevant for the discharging of duties of the requested authority, they shall transmit this information promptly to the requested authority.\nArticle 10\nRequests for assistance in interviews with persons situated in another Member State\n1. Where the requesting authority considers it necessary to conduct interviews with persons situated in the territory of another Member State, it shall submit a written request to the competent authorities of that other Member State.\n2. The request shall contain the following:\n(a)\nthe reasons for the request, including the legal provisions applicable in the jurisdiction of the requesting authority on which the request is based;\n(b)\nthe scope of the interviews;\n(c)\nthe actions already undertaken by the requesting authority;\n(d)\nany actions to be taken by the requested authority;\n(e)\nthe proposed methodology to be used in the interviews and the requesting authority\u2019s reasons for choosing it.\n3. The request shall be submitted sufficiently in advance of the interviews.\n4. Where a request for assistance for conducting interviews with persons situated in the territory of another Member State is urgent, it may be transmitted by e-mail and subsequently confirmed in writing.\n5. The requested authority shall acknowledge receipt of the request without undue delay.\n6. The requesting authority shall make available any information that has been requested by the requested authority in order to enable the requested authority to provide the necessary assistance.\n7. The requested authority shall transmit without undue delay any information and documents that are available to it as are relevant or useful to the requesting authority, in light of the reasons for and scope of the interviews.\n8. The requested authority and the requesting authority shall reassess the need for conducting interviews in light of the documents and information transmitted pursuant to paragraph 6 or 7.\n9. The requested authority shall decide whether it conducts the interviews itself or whether it allows the requesting authority to conduct the interviews.\n10. The requested authority and the requesting authority shall agree on issues related to the allocations of costs for conducting the interviews.\n11. The requesting authority may take part in the interviews requested in accordance with paragraph 1. Before and during the interviews, the requesting authority may submit questions to be asked.\nArticle 11\nSpecific provisions related to on-the-spot verifications and investigations\n1. The competent authorities of the management company\u2019s home Member State and the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State shall notify each other of any on-the-spot verifications and investigations to be undertaken with regard to the management company or the UCITS subject to their respective supervision. Upon such notification, the notified competent authority may request without undue delay the notifying competent authority to include in the scope of on-the-spot verification or investigation the matters falling within the scope of supervision of the notified authority\n2. The competent authorities of the management company\u2019s home Member State may request the assistance of the competent authority of the UCITS home Member State with regard to the on-the-spot verification and investigation of a depositary of a UCITS where necessary to discharge its supervisory duties with regard to the management company.\n3. The competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State and the competent authorities of the management company\u2019s home Member State shall agree on the procedures for sharing the results of the on-the-spot verification and investigations carried out with respect to the management company and the UCITS that are subject to their supervision.\n4. Where necessary, the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State and the competent authorities of the management company\u2019s home Member State shall agree on further actions that need to be taken with regard to the on-the-spot verification or investigation.\nSECTION 2\nExchange of information\nArticle 12\nRoutine exchange of information\n1. The competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State shall immediately inform the competent authorities of the UCITS host Member States and, where the UCITS is managed by a management company situated in a Member State other than the UCITS home Member State, the competent authorities of the management company\u2019s home Member State of:\n(a)\nany decision to withdraw the authorisation for a UCITS;\n(b)\nany decision imposed upon a UCITS regarding the suspension of the issue, re-purchase or redemption of its units;\n(c)\nany other serious measure taken against a UCITS.\n2. Where a UCITS is managed by a management company situated in a Member State other than the UCITS home Member State, the competent authorities of the management company\u2019s home Member State shall immediately notify the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State that the ability of a management company to properly perform its duties with respect to the UCITS it manages may be materially adversely affected or that the management company does not fulfil the requirements set out in Chapter III of Directive 2009/65/EC.\n3. Where a UCITS is managed by a management company situated in a Member State other than the UCITS home Member State, the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State and the management company\u2019s home Member State shall facilitate the exchange of information required for the purposes of carrying out their duties under Directive 2009/65/EC, including the establishment of appropriate information flows. This shall include the exchange of information necessitated by:\n(a)\nthe procedures for the authorisation of a management company to pursue activities within the territory of another Member State pursuant to Articles 17 and 18 of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(b)\nthe procedures for the authorisation of a management company to manage a UCITS authorised in a Member State other than the management company\u2019s home Member State, pursuant to Article 20 of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(c)\nthe on-going supervision of management companies and UCITS.\nArticle 13\nUnsolicited exchange of information\nCompetent authorities shall communicate all relevant information likely to be of material interest with regard to the discharge of duties under Directive 2009/65/EC to other competent authorities, without prior request and undue delay.\nCHAPTER III\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2010.", "references": ["59", "40", "13", "6", "64", "35", "73", "1", "92", "3", "16", "32", "79", "83", "9", "97", "45", "98", "21", "57", "34", "23", "47", "67", "27", "53", "14", "48", "61", "33", "No Label", "8", "20", "29", "30", "44", "46", "49", "76"], "gold": ["8", "20", "29", "30", "44", "46", "49", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1119/2010\nof 2 December 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 as a feed additive for dairy cows and horses and amending Regulation (EC) No 1520/2007 (holder of the authorisation Prosol SpA)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).\n(2)\nThe preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 was authorised as a feed additive for 10 years for use on sows by Commission Regulation (EC) 896/2009 (3). In accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC, it was authorised without a time limit for use on weaned piglets by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1200/2005 (4), on cattle for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 492/2006 (5) and on dairy cows by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1520/2007 (6). That additive was subsequently entered in the Community Register of feed additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 of that Regulation, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 as a feed additive for dairy cows and, in accordance with Article 7 of that Regulation, for a new use on horses, requesting that additive to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019. The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 22 June 2010 (7) concerning the use as a feed additive for dairy cows that, under the proposed conditions of use, Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer health or the environment, and that it has a potential to increase milk production in dairy cows. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe Authority concluded in its opinion of 22 June 2010 (8) concerning the use as a feed additive for horses that the use of that preparation can improve the apparent fibre digestibility in the target species.\n(6)\nThe assessment of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nAs a consequence of the granting of a new authorisation under Regulation (EC) 1831/2003, the provisions on Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 contained in Regulation (EC) No 1520/2007 should be deleted.\n(8)\nSince the modifications on the conditions of the authorisation are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for the disposal of existing stocks of the premixtures and compound feed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018gut flora stabilisers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nIn Regulation (EC) No 1520/2007, Article 1 and Annex I are deleted.\nArticle 3\nPremixtures and compound feed containing Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 labelled in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC may continue to be placed on the market and used until stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["6", "95", "94", "71", "93", "64", "65", "56", "88", "35", "68", "34", "11", "92", "21", "97", "45", "58", "67", "24", "54", "79", "18", "16", "27", "4", "12", "81", "62", "30", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 861/2011\nof 25 August 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 841/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 August 2011.", "references": ["94", "58", "28", "29", "83", "56", "47", "16", "43", "31", "70", "81", "9", "48", "96", "68", "91", "19", "93", "11", "5", "57", "92", "49", "34", "44", "14", "64", "95", "25", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 696/2010\nof 3 August 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 694/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 August 2010.", "references": ["8", "80", "50", "41", "12", "77", "83", "19", "60", "59", "36", "62", "17", "99", "23", "75", "81", "0", "18", "79", "82", "24", "14", "11", "92", "27", "67", "37", "29", "13", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 870/2010\nof 1 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 October 2010.", "references": ["12", "59", "71", "20", "43", "90", "45", "80", "57", "39", "28", "77", "67", "4", "64", "38", "74", "6", "92", "84", "94", "23", "62", "14", "0", "5", "25", "52", "48", "87", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 445/2011\nof 10 May 2011\non a system of certification of entities in charge of maintenance for freight wagons and amending Regulation (EC) No 653/2007\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community\u2019s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (1), and in particular Article 14a thereof,\nHaving regard to the Recommendation of the European Railway Agency of 8 July 2010 on a System of Certification for Entities in Charge of Maintenance,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2004/49/EC aims to improve access to the market for rail transport services by defining common principles for the management, regulation and supervision of railway safety. Directive 2004/49/EC also provides for a framework to be put in place to ensure equal conditions for all entities in charge of maintenance for freight wagons through application of the same certification requirements across the Union.\n(2)\nThe purpose of the certification system is to provide a framework for the harmonisation of requirements and methods to assess the ability of entities in charge of maintenance across the Union.\n(3)\nWithout prejudice to the responsibility of railway undertakings and infrastructure managers for the safe operation of trains, the entity in charge of maintenance should ensure that the freight wagons for which it is in charge of maintenance are in a safe state of running by means of a system of maintenance. Taking into account the wide variety of design and maintenance methods, this system of maintenance should be a process-oriented system.\n(4)\nInfrastructure managers need to use freight wagons to transport materials for construction or for infrastructure maintenance activities. When they operate freight wagons for this purpose, infrastructure managers do so in the capacity of a railway undertaking. The assessment of the infrastructure manager\u2019s capacity to operate freight wagons for this purpose should be part of its assessment for a safety authorisation under Article 11 of Directive 2004/49/EC.\n(5)\nInspections and monitoring undertaken before the departure of a train or en route are generally performed by operational staff of the railway undertakings or infrastructure managers, following the process described in their safety management system in accordance with Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/49/EC.\n(6)\nThe railway undertakings or the infrastructure managers should ensure, through their safety management system, the control of all risks related to their activity, including the use of contractors. To this end, a railway undertaking should rely on contractual arrangements involving entities in charge of maintenance for all wagons it operates. This could be a contract between the railway undertaking and the entity in charge of maintenance or a chain of contracts involving other parties, such as the keeper. These contracts should be consistent with the procedures outlined by a railway undertaking or an infrastructure manager in its safety management system, including for the exchange of information.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Directive 2004/49/EC, a certificate for an entity in charge of maintenance (ECM certificate) is valid throughout the Union. Certificates issued by bodies in third countries appointed under equivalent criteria and meeting equivalent requirements to those contained in this Regulation should normally be accepted as being equivalent to the ECM certificates issued in the Union.\n(8)\nThe assessment by a certification body of an application for an ECM certificate is an assessment of the applicant\u2019s ability to manage maintenance activities and to deliver the operational functions of maintenance either by itself or through contracts with other bodies, such as maintenance workshops, charged with delivering these functions or parts of these functions.\n(9)\nA system of accreditation should provide a tool for managing risks by assuring that accredited bodies are competent to carry out the work they undertake. Furthermore, accreditation is regarded as a means to secure national and international recognition of ECM certificates issued by accredited bodies.\n(10)\nIn order to have a system allowing certification bodies to perform checks on certified entities in charge of maintenance across the Union, it is important that all bodies able to award certificates to any entity in charge of maintenance (the \u2018certification bodies\u2019) should cooperate with each other in order to harmonise approaches to certification. Specific requirements for accreditation should be developed and approved in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).\n(11)\nTo evaluate the certification process set out in this Regulation, it is important that the European Railway Agency (the Agency) oversees the development of the system of certification. To be able to perform this function, the Agency needs to collect information on the nature of the certification bodies active in this field and the number of certificates issued to entities in charge of maintenance. It is also important for the Agency to facilitate coordination of the certification bodies.\n(12)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 653/2007 of 13 June 2007 on the use of a common European format for safety certificates and application documents in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and on the validity of safety certificates delivered under Directive 2001/14/EC (3) provides the standard format for safety certificates. This format must be updated to include further information on entities in charge of maintenance. Regulation (EC) No 653/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nPending the full application of the certification system of the entity in charge of maintenance provided for in this Regulation, the validity of existing practices to certify entities in charge of maintenance and maintenance workshops should be recognised during a period of transition in order to ensure the uninterrupted provision of rail freight services, in particular at international level. During this period the national safety authorities should pay particular attention to the equivalence and the consistency of the different certification practices.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 27 of Directive 2004/49/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPurpose\n1. This Regulation establishes a system of certification of entities in charge of maintenance for freight wagons as referred to in Article 14a of Directive 2004/49/EC.\n2. The purpose of the system of certification is to provide evidence that an entity in charge of maintenance has established its maintenance system and can meet requirements laid down in this Regulation to ensure the safe state of running of any freight wagon for which it is in charge of maintenance.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. The system of certification shall apply to any entity in charge of maintenance for freight wagons to be used on the railway network within the Union.\n2. Maintenance workshops or any organisation taking on a subset of the functions specified in Article 4 may apply the system of certification on a voluntary basis, based on the principles specified in Article 8 and Annex I.\n3. References to an infrastructure manager in Articles 5, 7 and 12 shall be understood as relating to its operations with freight wagons for transporting materials for construction or for infrastructure maintenance activities. When it operates freight wagons for this purpose, an infrastructure manager shall be deemed to do so in the capacity of a railway undertaking.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions laid down in Article 3 of Directive 2004/49/EC apply.\n2. In addition, the following definitions apply:\n(a)\n\u2018accreditation\u2019 means accreditation as defined in Article 2(10) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008;\n(b)\n\u2018ECM certificate\u2019 means a certificate issued to an entity in charge of maintenance for the purposes of Article 14a(4) of Directive 2004/49/EC;\n(c)\n\u2018certification body\u2019 means a body, designated in accordance with Article 10, responsible for the certification of entities in charge of maintenance, on the basis of the criteria in Annex II;\n(d)\n\u2018freight wagon\u2019 means a non-self-propelled vehicle designed for the purpose of transporting freight or other materials to be used for activities such as construction or infrastructure maintenance;\n(e)\n\u2018maintenance workshop\u2019 means a mobile or fixed entity composed of staff, including those with management responsibility, tools and facilities organised to deliver maintenance of vehicles, parts, components or sub-assemblies of vehicles;\n(f)\n\u2018release to service\u2019 means the assurance given to the fleet maintenance manager by the entity delivering the maintenance that maintenance has been delivered according to the maintenance orders;\n(g)\n\u2018return to operation\u2019 means the assurance, based on a release to service, given to the user, such as a railway undertaking or a keeper, by the entity in charge of maintenance that all appropriate maintenance works have been completed and the wagon, previously removed from operation, is in a condition to be used safely, possibly subject to temporary restrictions of use.\nArticle 4\nMaintenance system\n1. The maintenance system shall be composed of the following functions:\n(a)\nthe management function, which supervises and coordinates the maintenance functions referred to in points (b) to (d) and ensures the safe state of the freight wagon in the railway system;\n(b)\nthe maintenance development function, which is responsible for the management of the maintenance documentation, including the configuration management, based on design and operational data as well as on performance and return on experience;\n(c)\nthe fleet maintenance management function, which manages the freight wagon\u2019s removal for maintenance and its return to operation after maintenance; and\n(d)\nthe maintenance delivery function, which delivers the required technical maintenance of a freight wagon or parts of it, including the release to service documentation.\n2. The entity in charge of maintenance shall ensure that the functions referred to in paragraph 1 comply with the requirements and assessment criteria set out in Annex III.\n3. The entity in charge of maintenance shall carry out the management function itself, but may outsource the maintenance functions referred to in points (b) to (d) of paragraph 1, or parts of them, to other contracting parties subject to the provisions of Article 8. Where it resorts to outsourcing, the entity in charge of maintenance shall ensure that the principles set out in Annex I are applied.\n4. Regardless of the outsourcing arrangements in place, the entity in charge of maintenance shall be responsible for the outcome of the maintenance activities it manages and shall establish a system to monitor performance of those activities.\nArticle 5\nRelationships between parties involved in the maintenance process\n1. Each railway undertaking or infrastructure manager shall ensure that the freight wagons it operates, before their departure, have a certified entity in charge of maintenance and that the use of the wagon corresponds to the scope of the certificate.\n2. All parties involved in the maintenance process shall exchange relevant information about maintenance in accordance with the criteria listed in sections I.7 and I.8 of Annex III.\n3. Following contractual arrangements, a railway undertaking may request information for operational purposes on the maintenance of a freight wagon. The entity in charge of the maintenance of the freight wagon shall respond to such requests either directly or through other contracting parties.\n4. Following contractual arrangements, an entity in charge of maintenance may request information on the operation of a freight wagon. The railway undertaking or the infrastructure manager shall respond to such requests either directly or through other contracting parties.\n5. All contracting parties shall exchange information on safety-related malfunctions, accidents, incidents, near-misses and other dangerous occurrences as well as on any possible restriction on the use of freight wagons.\n6. The certificates of entities in charge of maintenance shall be accepted as proof of the ability of a railway undertaking or infrastructure manager to meet the requirements governing maintenance and the control of contractors and suppliers specified in Annex II, points B.1, B.2, B.3 and C.1, to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1158/2010 of 9 December 2010 on a common safety method for assessing conformity with the requirements for obtaining railways safety certificates (4) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1169/2010 of 10 December 2010 on a common safety method for assessing conformity with the requirements for obtaining a railways safety authorisation (5), unless the national safety authority can demonstrate the existence of a substantial safety risk.\n7. If a contracting party, in particular a railway undertaking, has a justified reason to believe that a particular entity in charge of maintenance does not comply with the requirements of Article 14a(3) of Directive 2004/49/EC or with the certification requirements of this Regulation, it shall promptly inform the certification body thereof. The certification body shall take appropriate action to check if the claim of non-compliance is justified and shall inform the parties involved (including the competent national safety authority if relevant) of the results of its investigation.\n8. When there is a change of entity in charge of maintenance, the registration holder as indicated in Article 33(3) of Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), shall inform in due time the registration entity, as defined in Article 4(1) of Commission Decision 2007/756/EC (7), so that the latter may update the national vehicle register.\nThe former entity in charge of maintenance shall deliver the maintenance documentation to either the registration holder or the new entity in charge of maintenance.\nThe former entity in charge of maintenance is relieved of its responsibilities when it is removed from the national vehicle register. If on the date of de-registration of the former entity in charge of maintenance any new entity has not acknowledged its acceptance of entity in charge of maintenance status, the registration of the vehicle is suspended.\nArticle 6\nCertification bodies\n1. ECM certificates shall be awarded by any competent certification body, chosen by the applicant entity in charge of maintenance.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the certification bodies comply with the general criteria and principles set out in Annex II and with any subsequent sectoral accreditation schemes.\n3. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that decisions taken by the certification bodies are subject to judicial review.\n4. In order to harmonise approaches to the assessment of applications, the certification bodies shall cooperate with each other both within the Member States and across the Union.\n5. The Agency shall organise and facilitate cooperation between the certification bodies.\nArticle 7\nSystem of certification for entities in charge of maintenance\n1. Certification shall be based on an assessment of the ability of the entity in charge of maintenance to meet the relevant requirements in Annex III and to apply them consistently. It shall include a system of surveillance to ensure continuing compliance with the applicable requirements after award of the ECM certificate.\n2. The entities in charge of maintenance shall apply for certification using the relevant form in Annex IV and providing documentary evidence of the procedures specified in Annex III. They shall promptly submit all supplementary information requested by the certification body. In assessing applications, certification bodies shall apply the requirements and assessment criteria set out in Annex III.\n3. The certification body shall take a decision no later than 4 months after all the information required and any supplementary information requested has been submitted to it by the entity in charge of maintenance applying for the certificate. The certification body shall undertake the necessary assessment at the site or sites of the entity in charge of maintenance prior to the award of the certificate. The decision on the award of the certificate shall be communicated to the entity in charge of maintenance using the relevant form in Annex V.\n4. An ECM certificate shall be valid for a period up to 5 years. The holder of the certificate shall without delay inform the certification body of all significant changes in the circumstances applying at the time the original certificate was awarded to allow the certification body to decide whether to amend, renew or revoke it.\n5. The certification body shall set out in detail the reasons on which each of its decisions is based. The certification body shall notify its decision and the reasons to the entity in charge of maintenance, together with an indication of the process, time limit for appeal and the contact details of the appeal body.\n6. The certification body shall conduct surveillance at least once a year at selected sites, geographically and functionally representative of all the activities of those entities in charge of maintenance it has certified, to verify that the entities still satisfy the criteria set out in Annex III.\n7. If the certification body finds that an entity in charge of maintenance no longer satisfies the requirements on the basis of which it issued the ECM certificate, it shall agree an improvement plan with the entity in charge of maintenance, or limit the scope of application of the certificate, or suspend the certificate, depending on the degree of non-compliance.\nIn the event of continuous non-compliance with the certification requirements or any improvement plan, the certification body shall limit the scope of or revoke the ECM certificate, giving reasons for its decision, together with an indication of the process and time limit for appeal and the contact details of the appeal body.\n8. When a railway undertaking or an infrastructure manager applies for a safety certificate or safety authorisation, the following shall apply concerning the freight wagons it uses:\n(a)\nwhere the freight wagons are maintained by the applicant, either the applicant shall include as part of its application a valid ECM certificate, if available, or its capacity as entity in charge of maintenance shall be assessed as part of its application for a safety certificate or safety authorisation;\n(b)\nwhere the freight wagons are maintained by parties other than the applicant, the applicant shall ensure, through its safety management system, the control of all risks related to its activity, including the use of such wagons, whereby, in particular, the provisions of Article 5 of this Regulation shall apply.\nCertification bodies and national safety authorities shall conduct an active exchange of views in all circumstances in order to avoid any duplication of assessment.\nArticle 8\nSystem of certification for outsourced maintenance functions\n1. Where the entity in charge of maintenance decides to outsource one or more of the functions referred to in Article 4(1)(b), (c) and (d), or parts of them, voluntary certification of the contractor under the certification system of this Regulation shall create a presumption of conformity of the entity in charge of maintenance with the relevant requirements set out in Annex III, as far as these requirements are covered by the voluntary certification of the contractor. In the absence of such certification, the entity in charge of maintenance shall demonstrate to the certification body how it complies with all the requirements set out in Annex III with regard to the functions it decides to outsource.\n2. Certification in respect of outsourced maintenance functions, or parts of them, shall be issued by the certification bodies, following the same procedures in Articles 6, 7, and 10(3), adapted to the specific case of the applicant. They shall be valid throughout the Union.\nIn assessing applications for certificates in respect of outsourced maintenance functions, or parts of them, certification bodies shall follow the principles set out in Annex I.\nArticle 9\nRole of the supervision regime\nIf a national safety authority has a justified reason to believe that a particular entity in charge of maintenance does not comply with the requirements of Article 14a(3) of Directive 2004/49/EC or with the certification requirements of this Regulation, it shall immediately take the necessary decision and inform the Commission, the Agency, other competent authorities, the certification body and other interested parties of its decision.\nArticle 10\nProvision of information to the Commission and the Agency\n1. By no later than 30 November 2011, Member States shall inform the Commission whether the certification bodies are accredited bodies, recognised bodies or national safety authorities. They shall also notify any change in this situation to the Commission within 1 month of the change.\n2. By no later than 31 May 2012, Member States shall notify the Agency of the certification bodies recognised. The accreditation bodies as defined in Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 shall inform the Agency of the certification bodies accredited. Any change shall also be notified to the Agency within 1 month of the change.\n3. Certification bodies shall notify the Agency of all issued, amended, renewed or revoked ECM certificates or certificates for specific functions according to Article 4(1), within 1 week from its decision, using the forms in Annex V.\n4. The Agency shall keep a record of all information notified under paragraphs 2 and 3 and shall make it publicly available.\nArticle 11\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 653/2007\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 653/2007 is replaced by the text set out in Annex VI to this Regulation.\nArticle 12\nTransitional provisions\n1. The following transitional provisions shall apply without prejudice to Article 9.\n2. Starting from 31 May 2012, any ECM certificate shall be issued in accordance with this Regulation to entities in charge of maintenance for freight wagons, without prejudice to Article 14a(8) of Directive 2004/49/EC.\n3. Certificates issued by a certification body by no later than 31 May 2012 on the basis of principles and criteria equivalent to those of the Memorandum of Understanding establishing the basic principles of a common system of certification of entities in charge of maintenance for freight wagons, signed by Member States on 14 May 2009, shall be recognised as being equivalent to ECM certificates issued under this Regulation for their original validity period until at the latest 31 May 2015.\n4. Certificates issued by a certification body to entities in charge of maintenance by no later than 31 May 2012 on the basis of national laws existing before the entry into force of this Regulation and equivalent to this Regulation, in particular Articles 6 and 7 and Annexes I and III, shall be recognised as being equivalent to ECM certificates issued under this Regulation for their original period of validity until at the latest 31 May 2015.\n5. Certificates issued to maintenance workshops by no later than 31 May 2014 on the basis of national laws existing before the entry into force of this Regulation and equivalent to this Regulation shall be recognised as being equivalent to certificates for maintenance workshops taking on the maintenance delivery function issued under this Regulation for their original period of validity until at the latest 31 May 2017.\n6. Without prejudice to paragraphs 3 to 5, entities in charge of maintenance for freight wagons registered in the national vehicle register by no later than 31 May 2012 shall be certified in accordance with this Regulation by no later than 31 May 2013. During this period, self declarations of conformity of entities in charge of maintenance to the relevant requirements of the present Regulation or of the Memorandum of Understanding establishing the basic principles of a common system of certification of entities in charge of maintenance for freight wagons, signed by Member States on 14 May 2009 shall be recognised as being equivalent to ECM certificates issued under this Regulation.\n7. Railway undertakings and infrastructure managers which are already certified in accordance with Articles 10 and 11 of Directive 2004/49/EC by no later than 31 May 2012 need not apply for an ECM certificate for the original period of validity of their certificates for maintaining the wagons they are responsible for as entity in charge of maintenance.\nArticle 13\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2011.", "references": ["2", "6", "45", "10", "23", "15", "49", "31", "48", "26", "82", "67", "16", "66", "93", "99", "68", "30", "87", "96", "44", "74", "65", "22", "21", "32", "86", "41", "19", "94", "No Label", "7", "53", "55", "76"], "gold": ["7", "53", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 433/2012\nof 23 May 2012\nlaying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 laying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999 (1), and in particular Articles 4(5), 5(2), 8(4), 9(4) and 10(3), Article 11, Articles 12(2) and 16(2), Article 18(3) and (4), Article 19, and Articles 20(9), 24(4), 27(1) and 45(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 1236/2010 lays down certain specific control measures to monitor fishing activities of the Union in the Area covered by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and supplements control measures provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (2). Detailed rules should be laid down for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010. The Annexes to several Recommendations establishing a scheme of control and enforcement (the \u2018Scheme\u2019) applicable to fishing vessels operating in the waters of the Convention Area which lie beyond the waters under the fisheries jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties adopted by NEAFC set out the format for communicating data and models for certain inspection tools and should be transposed in Union law.\n(2)\nSince Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 lays down a new scheme of control and enforcement, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1085/2000 of 15 May 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of control measures applicable in the area covered by the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries (3) should be repealed and replaced by this Regulation.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018position message\u2019 means the report on the position of a vessel automatically transmitted by the satellite-tracking device of the vessel to the Fisheries Monitoring Centre of the flag Member State;\n(b)\n\u2018position report\u2019 means the report made by the master of a vessel as provided for in Article 25 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 (4);\n(c)\n\u2018CFR number\u2019 means the Community Fleet Register identification number of the vessel as referred to in Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 26/2004 (5).\nArticle 2\nContact points\n1. Member States shall send the information concerning contact points, as referred to in Article 4(3) and (4) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010, to the NEAFC Secretary and to the European Fisheries Control Agency (the \u2018Agency\u2019) in computer-readable form.\n2. Member States shall publish the information referred to in paragraph 1 on the secure part of their website established by Articles 114 and 116 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\nCHAPTER II\nMONITORING MEASURES\nArticle 3\nParticipation of the Union\n1. The list referred to in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 shall include the vessels authorised to fish for one or more regulated resources, broken down by species.\nWhere applicable, the list shall refer to the CFR number allocated to each vessel.\n2. Member States shall immediately inform the Commission, by computer transmission, of vessels for which the authorisation to fish in the Regulatory Area has been withdrawn or suspended.\nArticle 4\nRecording of catches\n1. In addition to the information specified in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, the fishing logbook referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 shall contain the information set out in Part A of Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. The production logbook referred to in Article 8(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 shall be as set out in Part B of Annex I.\n3. The stowage plan referred to in Article 8(2) and (3) shall be as set out in Part C of Annex I.\n4. The code to be used for each species is the code established by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) as set out in Annex II.\nArticle 5\nReporting of catches of regulated resources and position\nMember States shall use the format and the specifications for the transmissions to the NEAFC Secretary under Articles 9 and 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 as set out in Annex III.\nArticle 6\nGlobal reporting of catches\nMember States shall transmit the data under Article 10, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 in XML format.\nCHAPTER III\nINSPECTIONS\nArticle 7\nDesignated body\nThe Agency is designated to:\n(a)\ncoordinate the surveillance and inspection activities referred to in Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010;\n(b)\nreceive, send and forward the notifications referred to in Articles 18(2), 19(1) and 20(9) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010;\n(c)\nkeep the record referred to in Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010.\nArticle 8\nIdentification of inspectors and of inspection means\n1. The special identity document referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 shall comply with the model set out in Part A of Annex IV.\n2. The inspection special signal referred to in Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 shall comply with the model set out in Part B of Annex IV.\nArticle 9\nInspection activities\nMember States shall send to the Agency the information related to the date and hour of the start and termination of the activities of inspection vessels and aircraft referred to in Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 in accordance with the form set out in Annex V.\nArticle 10\nSurveillance procedure\n1. The sighting reports referred to in Article 19(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 shall be transmitted using the form set out in Part A of Annex VI.\n2. The surveillance reports referred to in Article 19(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 shall be drawn up using the form set out in Part B of Annex VI.\nArticle 11\nInspection reports\nThe inspection reports referred to in Article 20(9) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 shall be drawn up in accordance with the format set out in Annex VII.\nCHAPTER IV\nPORT STATE CONTROL\nArticle 12\nPrior notification of entry into port\nThe prior notification referred to in Article 24 of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 shall be made by means of the Port State Control (PSC) form provided for in Annex VIII with Part A duly completed as follows:\n(a)\nthe form PSC 1 shall be used where the vessel is landing its own catches;\n(b)\nthe form PSC 2 shall be used where the vessel is engaged in transhipment operations. In such cases a separate form shall be used for each donor vessel.\nArticle 13\nProcessing of prior notification\nWhen returning a copy of the prior notification in accordance with Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010, the flag Member State shall use the PSC form provided for in Annex VIII with Part B duly completed.\nArticle 14\nPort inspection reports\nThe inspection reports referred to in Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 shall be drawn up in accordance with the form set out in Annex IX and transmitted to the NEAFC Secretary with a copy to the Commission.\nCHAPTER V\nINFRINGEMENTS\nArticle 15\nDesignated body\nThe Agency is designated to receive, send and forward the information referred to in Articles 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36 and 43 of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010.\nCHAPTER VI\nDATA\nSECTION 1\nData communication\nArticle 16\nCommunication to the NEAFC Secretary\nThe data exchange formats and protocols referred to in Article 12(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 to be used for transmission of reports and information to the NEAFC Secretary shall comply with the rules set out in Annex X; the corresponding codes to be used in communication with the NEAFC Secretary are as set out in Annex XI.\nSECTION 2\nData security and confidentiality\nArticle 17\nCommon provisions on data security and confidentiality\n1. This Section lays down detailed rules on confidentiality for the implementation of Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010. It shall apply to all electronic reports and messages under this Regulation with the exception of the global reporting of catches referred to in Article 6 of this Regulation.\n2. Each Member State shall, where necessary, at the request of the NEAFC Secretary, rectify or erase electronic reports or messages the processing of which does not comply with Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 and this Regulation.\n3. The electronic reports and messages shall be used only for the purposes specified in the Scheme laid down by Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010.\nArticle 18\nData from inspections\n1. Member States carrying out an inspection may retain and store electronic reports and messages transmitted by the NEAFC Secretary within 24 hours of the departure of the vessels, to which the data pertain, from the Regulatory Area without re-entry. Departure shall be deemed to have been effected six hours after the transmission of the intention to exit from the Regulatory Area.\n2. Member States carrying out an inspection shall ensure the secure processing of electronic reports and messages in their respective electronic data processing systems, in particular where the processing involves transmission over a network.\n3. Member States shall adopt appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect electronic reports and messages against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure or access and against all inappropriate forms of processing.\n4. Member States carrying out an inspection shall make the electronic reports and messages available for inspection purposes and only to inspectors assigned to the Scheme laid down by Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010.\nArticle 19\nData processing systems\n1. Data processing systems used by Member States, the Commission and the Agency shall comply with the minimum security requirements set out in Part A of Annex XII.\n2. For their main computer systems Member States shall meet the criteria set out in Part B of Annex XII.\n3. The https protocol shall be used for communication of data covered by the Scheme laid down by Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010. When such data are communicated, appropriate encryption protocols shall be applied to ensure confidentiality and authenticity.\n4. Access limitation to the data shall be secured via a flexible user identification and password mechanism. Each user shall be given access only to the data necessary for his/her task.\n5. The technical standards for electronic data exchange between Member States, the Commission and the Agency may be laid down in consultation with the Member States, the Commission and the Agency.\nCHAPTER VII\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 20\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 1085/2000 is repealed.\nArticle 21\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2012.", "references": ["54", "7", "50", "70", "25", "5", "56", "20", "92", "71", "37", "52", "19", "94", "93", "30", "49", "36", "68", "44", "55", "22", "98", "91", "86", "73", "82", "97", "85", "90", "No Label", "3", "4", "40", "42", "67"], "gold": ["3", "4", "40", "42", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 797/2012\nof 3 September 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 September 2012.", "references": ["72", "32", "99", "50", "25", "14", "45", "95", "39", "65", "90", "12", "78", "10", "60", "3", "64", "52", "16", "96", "34", "37", "28", "41", "53", "55", "8", "46", "33", "48", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/42/EU\nof 11 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include flutriafol as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included flutriafol.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of flutriafol.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe United Kingdom evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 15 January 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on flutriafol to the Commission on 14 October 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for flutriafol.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing flutriafol may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include flutriafol in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information confirming the relevance of the impurities present in the technical specifications, the assessment as regards the residues of triazole derivative metabolites (TDMs) in primary crops, rotational crops and products of animal origin, and the long-term risk to insectivorous birds.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing flutriafol to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of flutriafol and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning flutriafol in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning flutriafol in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing flutriafol as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to flutriafol are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing flutriafol as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account Part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning flutriafol. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing flutriafol as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing flutriafol as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["70", "5", "69", "16", "32", "92", "24", "56", "41", "95", "33", "72", "78", "54", "13", "23", "19", "47", "53", "45", "67", "85", "27", "71", "11", "50", "64", "30", "17", "26", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 January 2011\non the signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs, amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products\n(2011/51/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (1) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Agricultural Agreement\u2019) entered into force on 1 June 2002.\n(2)\nArticle 12 of the Agricultural Agreement provides that the Agricultural Agreement may be reviewed at the request of either Party.\n(3)\nA Joint Declaration on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin of agricultural products and foodstuffs has been attached to the Final Act of the Agricultural Agreement.\n(4)\nThe Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Agreement\u2019), which amends the Agricultural Agreement by inserting a new Annex 12.\n(5)\nDecision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council, and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation (2) defines the internal procedure for adopting the Union\u2019s position on matters subject to decisions of the Joint Committee referred to in Article 6(3) of the Agricultural Agreement. The internal procedure for establishing the Union\u2019s position on matters relating to Annex 12 to that Agreement should likewise be defined.\n(6)\nThe Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion at a later date,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs, amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (3).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign, on behalf of the Union, the Agreement, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nAs regards matters relating to Annex 12 to the Agricultural Agreement and the Appendices thereto, the European Union\u2019s position on matters which are subject to the Decisions of the Joint Committee for Agriculture as referred to in Article 6(3) of the Agricultural Agreement shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (4).\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["58", "36", "12", "82", "20", "39", "56", "79", "4", "75", "14", "34", "11", "87", "74", "94", "27", "29", "65", "80", "8", "72", "48", "46", "73", "81", "63", "30", "43", "47", "No Label", "21", "23", "38", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "23", "38", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1142/2011\nof 10 November 2011\nestablishing Annexes X and XI to Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 291(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (1), and in particular Article 73(1) and (2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (2), and in particular Article 70 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex X to Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 shall list administrative authorities referred to in Article 2(2) of that Regulation.\n(2)\nFinland, Sweden and the United Kingdom have notified the Commission of administrative authorities to be listed in Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 4/2009.\n(3)\nThe administrative authorities notified by Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom and listed in Annex I satisfy the requirements set out in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009.\n(4)\nAnnex XI to Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 shall list competent authorities referred to in Article 47(3) of that Regulation.\n(5)\nFinland has notified the Commission of a competent authority to be listed in Annex XI to Regulation (EC) No 4/2009.\n(6)\nThe United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 and are therefore taking part in the adoption and application of this Regulation.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application, without prejudice to the possibility for Denmark of implementing its content pursuant to the Agreement of 19 October 2005 between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (4)\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee concerning applicable law, jurisdiction and enforcement in matrimonial matters, parental responsibility and maintenance obligations.\n(9)\nAnnexes X and XI to Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 should therefore be established accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe text of Annexes X and XI to Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 is set out in Annexes I and II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2011.", "references": ["9", "39", "84", "20", "78", "74", "40", "62", "85", "21", "72", "58", "92", "6", "65", "77", "50", "13", "87", "47", "98", "91", "31", "99", "70", "73", "24", "97", "43", "5", "No Label", "0", "2"], "gold": ["0", "2"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 388/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 19 April 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 (2) requires dual-use items (including software and technology) to be subject to effective control when they are exported from or transit through the Union, or are delivered to a third country as a result of brokering services provided by a broker resident or established in the Union.\n(2)\nIn order to enable Member States and the Union to comply with their international commitments, Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 establishes the common list of dual-use items referred to in Article 3 of that Regulation, which implements internationally agreed dual-use controls. These commitments were undertaken within the context of participation in the Australia Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Wassenaar Arrangement and the Chemical Weapons Convention.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 428/2009 provides for the list set out in Annex I to be updated in conformity with the relevant obligations and commitments, and any modification thereof, that Member States have accepted as members of international non-proliferation regimes and export control arrangements, or by ratification of relevant international treaties.\n(4)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 should be amended in order to take account of changes agreed within the Australia Group, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Wassenaar Arrangement, subsequent to the adoption of that Regulation.\n(5)\nIn order to facilitate references for export control authorities and operators, an updated and consolidated version of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 should be published.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 428/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 shall be replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["67", "45", "47", "65", "94", "70", "63", "11", "30", "8", "72", "98", "29", "2", "9", "5", "33", "51", "49", "87", "79", "71", "57", "4", "39", "27", "42", "66", "92", "85", "No Label", "20", "22", "23", "54", "76"], "gold": ["20", "22", "23", "54", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 637/2011\nof 29 June 2011\napproving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Beaufort (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined France's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Beaufort\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2).\n(2)\nSince the amendment in question is not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the amendment should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendment to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2011.", "references": ["30", "85", "39", "95", "22", "71", "72", "15", "83", "90", "76", "79", "49", "86", "11", "17", "37", "16", "51", "75", "38", "50", "48", "2", "6", "98", "52", "77", "88", "66", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 July 2010\nauthorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON89034xNK603 (MON-89\u00d834-3xMON-\u00d8\u00d86\u00d83-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 5133)\n(Only the French and Dutch texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/420/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 7(3) and 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 24 January 2007, Monsanto Europe S.A. submitted to the competent authority of the Netherlands an application, in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON89034xNK603 maize (\u2018the application\u2019).\n(2)\nThe application also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of MON89034xNK603 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with Articles 5(5) and 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.\n(3)\nOn 29 September 2009, the European Food Safety Authority (\u2018EFSA\u2019) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It considered that maize MON89034xNK603 is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment. Therefore it concluded that it is unlikely that the placing on the market of the products containing, consisting of, or produced from MON89034xNK603 maize as described in the application (\u2018the products\u2019) will have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment in the context of their intended uses (3). In its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Articles 6(4) and 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(4)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.\n(5)\nTaking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products.\n(6)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).\n(7)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements, other than those provided for in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON89034xNK603 maize. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(8)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).\n(9)\nThe EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in Article 6(5)(e) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(10)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(11)\nArticle 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (6), lays down labelling requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs.\n(12)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing-House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).\n(13)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(14)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman.\n(15)\nAt its meeting on 29 June 2010, the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal. The Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded. It is accordingly for the Commission to adopt the measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) MON89034xNK603, as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier MON-89\u00d834-3xMON-\u00d8\u00d86\u00d83-6, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Articles 4(2) and 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-89\u00d834-3xMON-\u00d8\u00d86\u00d83-6 maize;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-89\u00d834-3xMON-\u00d8\u00d86\u00d83-6 maize;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of MON-89\u00d834-3xMON-\u00d8\u00d86\u00d83-6 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018maize\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of MON-89\u00d834-3xMON-\u00d8\u00d86\u00d83-6 maize referred to in Article 2(b) and (c).\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with the Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nCommunity register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Monsanto Europe S.A., Belgium, representing Monsanto Company, United States.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Monsanto Europe S.A., Avenue de Tervuren 270-272, 1150 Brussels, BELGIUM.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2010.", "references": ["58", "18", "29", "37", "96", "71", "15", "19", "20", "45", "80", "55", "35", "73", "24", "99", "78", "49", "77", "31", "56", "81", "30", "91", "75", "9", "48", "32", "69", "89", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 December 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles between the European Union and the Russian Federation\n(2012/106/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4) in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn view of the economic importance for the Union of exports of motor vehicles and parts and components thereof to the Russian Federation, and as a result of negotiations regarding the accession of the Russian Federation to the World Trade Organization (WTO), as reflected in the Working Party report for that accession, the investment regime in the automotive sector applied by the Russian Federation, as amended on 24 December 2010, may continue to be applied until 1 July 2018 under certain conditions.\n(2)\nThere is a risk that the Russian Federation\u2019s investment regime in the automotive sector may result in the delocalisation of production of parts and components of motor vehicles from the Union on account of the obligations imposed on investors under such regime to meet local content and production localisation requirements.\n(3)\nIn the context of the negotiations regarding the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, the Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an Agreement on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles between the European Union and the Russian Federation (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) which establishes a compensation mechanism to ensure that imports of parts and components of motor vehicles from the Union to the Russian Federation do not decrease as a result of the application of the investment regime in the automotive sector.\n(4)\nThe Agreement should be signed. The Agreement should be applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles between the European Union and the Russian Federation, is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nIn accordance with Article 13(3) of the Agreement, it shall be applied on a provisional basis as from the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, pending the completion of the procedures for the conclusion of the Agreement (1).\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Geneva, 14 December 2011.", "references": ["57", "79", "66", "74", "36", "56", "0", "30", "43", "44", "42", "58", "24", "29", "87", "63", "2", "45", "16", "51", "11", "23", "67", "40", "41", "50", "75", "12", "39", "70", "No Label", "3", "9", "22", "54", "55", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "22", "54", "55", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 899/2011\nof 7 September 2011\nfixing the coefficients applicable to cereals exported in the form of Irish whiskey for the period 2011/12\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 of 10 November 2006 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 as regards the fixing and granting of adjusted refunds in respect of cereals exported in the form of certain spirit drinks (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 lays down that the quantities of cereals eligible for the refund are to be the quantities placed under control and distilled, weighted by a coefficient to be fixed annually for each Member State concerned. The coefficient is to express the average ratio between the total quantities exported and the total quantities marketed of the spirit drink concerned, on the basis of the trend noted in those quantities during the number of years corresponding to the average ageing period of the spirit drink in question.\n(2)\nAccording to the information provided by Ireland in respect of the period 1 January to 31 December 2010, the average ageing period for Irish whiskey in 2010 was 5 years.\n(3)\nThe coefficients for the period 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012 should therefore be fixed accordingly.\n(4)\nArticle 10 of Protocol 3 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area excludes the grant of refunds in respect of exports to Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway. Moreover, the Union has concluded agreements abolishing export refunds with certain third countries. Under the terms of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006, that should be taken into account in calculating the coefficients for 2011/12.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1116/2010 of 2 December 2010 fixing the coefficients applicable to cereals exported in the form of Irish whiskey for the period 2010/11 (3) has exhausted its effects, as it concerns the coefficients applicable for the year 2010/11. For reasons of legal security and clarity, that Regulation should be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the period 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012, the coefficients provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 applying to cereals used in Ireland for manufacturing Irish whiskey shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 September 2011.", "references": ["26", "77", "87", "92", "90", "94", "89", "43", "75", "95", "44", "86", "40", "38", "61", "31", "59", "35", "82", "52", "84", "72", "83", "60", "16", "81", "54", "58", "37", "41", "No Label", "20", "22", "68", "71", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "22", "68", "71", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1142/2010\nof 7 December 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 as regards the period of application of the transitional measures concerning the conditions for exempting certain animals from the exit ban provided for in Council Directive 2000/75/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/75/EC of 20 November 2000 laying down specific provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(c), Articles 11 and 12 and the third paragraph of Article 19 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 of 26 October 2007 on implementing rules for Council Directive 2000/75/EC as regards the control, monitoring, surveillance and restrictions on movements of certain animals of susceptible species in relation to bluetongue (2) lays down rules for the control, monitoring, surveillance and restrictions on movements of animals, in relation to bluetongue, in and from the restricted zones.\n(2)\nArticle 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 lays down conditions for exemption from the exit ban provided for in Directive 2000/75/EC. Article 8(1) of that Regulation provides that movements of animals, their semen, ova and embryos, from a holding or semen collection or storage centre located in a restricted zone to another holding or semen collection or storage centre are to be exempted from that exit ban provided that they comply with the conditions set out in Annex III to that Regulation or with any other appropriate animal health guarantees based on a positive outcome of a risk assessment of measures against the spread of the bluetongue virus and protection against attacks by vectors, required by the competent authority of the place of origin and approved by the competent authority of the place of destination, prior to the movement of such animals.\n(3)\nArticle 9(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 provides that, until 31 December 2010, and by way of derogation from the conditions set out in Annex III to that Regulation, Member States of destination may require that the movement of certain animals which are covered by the exemption, provided for in Article 8(1) thereof, be subjected to additional conditions, on the basis of a risk assessment taking into account the entomological and epidemiological conditions in which animals are being introduced. Those additional conditions specify that the animals must be less than 90 days old, they must have been kept since birth in vector protected confinement and they must have been subject to certain tests referred to in Annex III to that Regulation.\n(4)\nFifteen Member States and Norway have notified the Commission that they have applied that transitional measure. The outcomes of the risk assessments that were carried out, which are publicly available on the Commission\u2019s website, show that the introduction of bluetongue in those Member States and in Norway as a result of animal movements from restricted zones could have a major negative impact.\n(5)\nThe overall disease situation as regards bluetongue has improved considerably since 2008. However the virus is still present in parts of the Union.\n(6)\nFor the sake of harmonized implementation, Member States have requested for specific criteria for the \u2018vector proof establishment\u2019 which is an important requirement for a number of the conditions set out in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 and aims at the protection of animals against attacks by vectors. Currently, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) is working on a definition of a vector-protected establishment or facility. The outcome of this work shall serve as input for the Commission to define criteria for the vector proof establishment as referred to in Annex III of the Regulation.\n(7)\nPending the development of the criteria for a vector proof establishment, the period of application of the transitional measures provided for in Article 9(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007 should be prolonged for another six months.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 1266/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn the introductory phrase of Article 9a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1266/2007, the date \u201831 December 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u201830 June 2011\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2010.", "references": ["71", "79", "32", "59", "52", "0", "85", "73", "30", "17", "9", "27", "5", "21", "96", "49", "14", "39", "60", "74", "69", "93", "45", "47", "64", "83", "99", "46", "2", "98", "No Label", "8", "23", "38", "54", "65", "66"], "gold": ["8", "23", "38", "54", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1255/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 30 November 2011\nestablishing a Programme to support the further development of an Integrated Maritime Policy\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 43(2), 91(1), 100(2) and 173(3), Articles 175 and 188, and Articles 192(1), 194(2) and 195(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn line with the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 10 October 2007 on an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union (\u2018the Commission Communication\u2019), the primary objective of the Union's Integrated Maritime Policy (\u2018IMP\u2019) is to develop and implement integrated, coordinated, coherent, transparent and sustainable decision-making in relation to the oceans, seas, coastal, insular and outermost regions and in the maritime sectors.\n(2)\nThe Action Plan accompanying the Commission Communication sets out a number of actions that the Commission proposes to take as a first step in implementing a new IMP for the Union.\n(3)\nThe Commission's Progress Report on the EU's Integrated Maritime Policy of 15 October 2009 sums up the main achievements of the IMP up to that date, and charts the course for its next implementation phase.\n(4)\nIn its conclusions of 16 November 2009 on Integrated Maritime Policy, the Council highlighted the importance of funding for the further development and implementation of the IMP by inviting the Commission to present the necessary proposals for the financing of integrated maritime policy actions within the existing Financial Perspective, with a view to entry into force by 2011.\n(5)\nIn its resolution of 21 October 2010 on Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) - Evaluation of progress made and new challenges, the European Parliament expressly supported the Commission's stated intention \u2018to finance the IMP with EUR 50 million over the next 2 years in order to build upon previous projects in the areas of policy, governance, sustainability and surveillance\u2019.\n(6)\nThe financial envelope for the IMP set out in this Regulation takes into account both the current economic downturn and the fact that this is the first operational programme specifically dedicated to the implementation of the IMP.\n(7)\nContinued Union funding is needed to enable the Union to implement and further develop the IMP in line with the European Parliament resolution of 20 May 2008 on an integrated maritime policy for the European Union (4) and to pursue its overarching objectives as set out in the Commission Communication, and as confirmed in the Progress Report of October 2009 and endorsed by the Council in its conclusions of 16 November 2009.\n(8)\nAs not all IMP priorities and goals are covered by existing Union instruments, such as the Cohesion Fund, the European Regional Development Fund, the European Fisheries Fund, the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance and the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, it is therefore necessary to establish a Programme to support the further development of the IMP (\u2018the Programme\u2019).\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the forthcoming negotiations on the post-2013 multiannual financial framework, sufficient resources will need to be available to ensure that the objectives of the IMP can be developed and achieved, without undermining the resources earmarked for other policies, whilst boosting the sustainable development of the Union's maritime regions, including islands, and the outermost regions. To this end it is considered essential to include the IMP in the post-2013 multiannual financial framework. In addition, if appropriate, a proposal should be drawn up to provide for the extension of the Programme beyond 2013, together with a proposal laying down an appropriate financial envelope.\n(10)\nThe development of maritime affairs through financial support for IMP measures will have a significant impact in terms of economic, social, and territorial cohesion.\n(11)\nUnion funding should be designed to support exploratory work on actions which aim to promote the strategic objectives of the IMP, paying due attention to their cumulative impacts, on the basis of the ecosystem approach, to sustainable \u2018blue\u2019 economic growth, employment, innovation and competitiveness in coastal, insular and outermost regions, and to the promotion of the international dimension of the IMP.\n(12)\nThe strategic objectives of the IMP include integrated maritime governance at all levels; the further development and implementation of integrated sea-basin strategies tailored to the specific needs of Europe's different sea basins; the further development of cross-cutting tools for integrated policy-making aiming to improve synergies and coordination between existing policies and instruments, including through maritime-related data and knowledge sharing; the closer involvement of stakeholders in integrated maritime governance schemes; the protection and sustainable use of marine and coastal resources; and the definition of the boundaries of the sustainability of human activities and the protection of the marine and coastal environment and biodiversity in the framework of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (5), which constitutes the environmental pillar of the IMP, as well as the Water Framework Directive (6).\n(13)\nIt is important for the Programme to tie in with other Union policies that may encompass a maritime dimension, in particular the structural funds, the trans-European transport network, the common fisheries policy, tourism, environment and climate change, the framework programme for research and development and energy policy.\n(14)\nIn order to ensure coherence between the different aspects of the Programme, its general objectives should be set out. For every general objective, more detailed operational objectives should be established. The distribution of funds among the general objectives, for the period 2011-13, is indicated in the Annex. This distribution provides flexibility to increase/decrease the general financial allocation per objective without exceeding the overall financial envelope.\n(15)\nUnion funding should enable support for the development of the integration of maritime surveillance in line with the European Parliament resolution of 21 October 2010 and the Council conclusions of 17 November 2009 on Integration of Maritime Surveillance, taking into account the roadmap towards establishing the Common Information Sharing Environment for the EU maritime domain (CISE). This dedicated funding should therefore be limited to the development of a decentralised information exchange system, namely measures including software, to enhance interface between surveillance systems. The Programme should take into account the results from other projects regarding the decentralised maritime surveillance system.\n(16)\nImplementation of the Programme in third countries should contribute to the development objectives of the beneficiary country and be consistent with other cooperation instruments of the Union, including the objectives and priorities of the relevant Union policies and Union acquis, and the relevant international conventions.\n(17)\nThe Programme should be complementary to, and coherent with, existing and future financial instruments made available by the Union and the Member States, at national and sub-national level, for promoting the protection and sustainable use of the oceans, seas and coasts, helping to foster more effective cooperation between the Member States and their coastal, insular and outermost regions, and taking into account the prioritisation and progress of national and local projects.\n(18)\nThe actions foreseen in the Programme should be complementary to other Union actions, in order to ensure the coherent implementation of the legal acts of the Union concerning the relevant sectoral policies, while avoiding duplication.\n(19)\nIt is also necessary to lay down rules governing the programming of the measures, the eligibility of expenditure, the level of Union financial assistance, the main conditions on which it should be made available and the overall budget for the Programme.\n(20)\nThe Programme should be implemented in accordance with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (7) (\u2018the Financial Regulation\u2019) and Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (8).\n(21)\nThis Regulation lays down the multiannual programme's financial envelope, which constitutes for the budgetary authority, during the annual budgetary procedure, the prime reference within the meaning of point 37 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (9).\n(22)\nIn order to help the Commission monitor the implementation of this Regulation, it should be possible to finance expenditure relating to monitoring, checks and evaluation.\n(23)\nThe annual work programmes to be established for the implementation of the Programme should be adopted by the Commission in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (10).\n(24)\nIn relation to the actions financed under this Regulation, it is necessary to ensure the protection of Union financial interests by the application of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (11), Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (12), and Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (13).\n(25)\nIn order to ensure the effectiveness of Union financing, actions funded under this Regulation should be regularly evaluated.\n(26)\nIt is understood that none of the actions foreseen in the context of the Programme would require recourse to an additional legal basis.\n(27)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting alone, and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the actions to be financed under the Programme, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation establishes a Programme to support measures intended to promote the further development and implementation of the Union's Integrated Maritime Policy (\u2018the Programme\u2019).\nThe Union's Integrated Maritime Policy (\u2018IMP\u2019) shall foster coordinated and coherent decision-making to maximise the sustainable development, economic growth and social cohesion of Member States, in particular with regard to coastal, insular and outermost regions in the Union, as well as maritime sectors, through coherent maritime-related policies and relevant international cooperation.\nThe Programme shall support the sustainable use of the seas and oceans, and the expansion of scientific knowledge.\nArticle 2\nGeneral objectives\nThe Programme shall have the following general objectives:\n(a)\nto foster the development and implementation of integrated governance of maritime and coastal affairs;\n(b)\nto contribute to the development of cross-sectoral tools, namely Maritime Spatial Planning, the Common Information Sharing Environment (CISE) and marine knowledge on the oceans, seas and coastal regions within and bordering the Union, in order to develop synergies and to support sea or coast-related policies, particularly in the fields of economic development, employment, environmental protection, research, maritime safety, energy and the development of green maritime technologies, taking into account and building upon existing tools and initiatives;\n(c)\nto promote the protection of the marine environment, in particular its biodiversity, and the sustainable use of marine and coastal resources and to further define the boundaries of the sustainability of human activities that have an impact on the marine environment, in particular in the framework of Directive 2008/56/EC (the Marine Strategy Framework Directive);\n(d)\nto support the development and implementation of sea-basin strategies;\n(e)\nto improve and enhance external cooperation and coordination in relation to the objectives of the IMP, on the basis of advancing debate within international forums; in this respect, third countries shall be urged to ratify and implement the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS);\n(f)\nto support sustainable economic growth, employment, innovation and new technologies in maritime sectors and in coastal, insular and outermost regions in the Union.\nArticle 3\nOperational objectives\n1. Within the objective set out in Article 2(a) (integrated maritime governance) the Programme shall:\n(a)\npromote actions which encourage Member States and EU regions to develop, introduce or implement integrated maritime governance;\n(b)\npromote cross-sectoral cooperation platforms and networks, including representatives of public authorities, regional and local authorities, industry, research stakeholders, citizens, civil society organisations and the social partners;\n(c)\nenhance the visibility of, and raise the awareness of public authorities, the private sector and the general public, to an integrated approach to maritime affairs.\n2. Within the objective set out in Article 2(b) (cross-sectoral tools), the Programme shall foster the development of:\n(a)\nthe Common Information Sharing Environment for the Union maritime domain which promotes cross-sectoral and cross-border surveillance information exchange interlinking all user communities, in line with the principles of the Integrated Maritime Surveillance so as to reinforce the safe, secure and sustainable use of maritime space, taking into account the relevant developments of sectoral policies as regards surveillance and contributing, as appropriate, to their necessary evolution;\n(b)\nmaritime spatial planning and integrated coastal zone management, both important tools for the sustainable development of marine areas and coastal regions and both contributing to the aims of ecosystem-based management and the development of land-sea links, as well as facilitating Member State cooperation, for example as regards the development of experimental and other measures combining the generation of renewable energy and fish farming;\n(c)\na comprehensive and publicly accessible high quality marine data and knowledge base which facilitates sharing, reuse and dissemination of these data and knowledge among various user groups using existing data, thus avoiding duplication of the databases; for this purpose, the best use shall be made of existing Union and Member State programmes, including INSPIRE (14) and GMES (15).\n3. Within the objective set out in Article 2(c) (protection of the marine environment) the Programme shall:\n(a)\nsupport the protection and preservation of the marine and coastal environment, as well as prevent and reduce inputs to the marine environment, including marine litter, with a view to phasing out pollution;\n(b)\ncontribute to the health, biological diversity and resilience of marine and coastal ecosystems;\n(c)\nfacilitate coordination between Member States and other actors in implementing the ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities and the precautionary principle;\n(d)\nfacilitate the development of methods and standards;\n(e)\npromote actions for the mitigation of the effects of, and adaptation to, climate change on the marine, coastal and insular environment, with a particular emphasis on those areas that are most vulnerable in that respect;\n(f)\nsupport the development of strategic approaches to research for the purpose of assessing the current state of ecosystems, thereby providing a basis for ecosystem-based management and planning at regional and national levels.\n4. Within the objective set out in Article 2(d) (sea-basin strategies), the Programme shall:\n(a)\nsupport the development and implementation of integrated sea-basin strategies, taking into account a balanced approach in all sea basins as well as the specificities of the sea basins and sub-sea basins, and of relevant macro-regional strategies where applicable, and especially those in which an exchange of information and experience between various countries is already established and operational multinational structures exist;\n(b)\npromote and facilitate the exploitation of synergies between the national, regional and Union levels, the sharing of information, including on methods and standards, and the exchange of best practices on maritime policy, including its governance and sectoral policies that have an impact on regional seas and coastal regions.\n5. Within the objective set out in Article 2(e) (international dimension) the Programme shall:\n(a)\nencourage continuing working in close cooperation with Member States on an integrated approach with third countries and actors in third countries sharing a sea basin with Member States of the Union, including on the ratification and implementation of UNCLOS;\n(b)\nencourage dialogue with third countries, taking into account UNCLOS and the relevant existing international conventions based on UNCLOS;\n(c)\nencourage the exchange of best practices complementing existing initiatives, taking into account the development of regional strategies at the sub-regional level.\nThis operational objective shall be pursued in coherence with the cooperation instruments of the Union, taking into account the objectives of the national and regional development strategies.\n6. Within the objective set out in Article 2(f) (growth, employment and innovation) the Programme shall:\n(a)\npromote initiatives for growth and employment in the maritime sectors and in coastal and insular regions;\n(b)\npromote training, education and career opportunities in maritime professions;\n(c)\npromote the development of green technologies, marine renewable energy sources, green shipping and short sea shipping;\n(d)\npromote the development of coastal, maritime and island tourism.\nArticle 4\nEligible actions\nThe Programme may provide financial assistance for the following types of actions in accordance with the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3:\n(a)\nprojects, including test projects; studies; research and operational cooperative programmes, including education, professional training and retraining programmes;\n(b)\npublic information and sharing best practice, awareness raising and associated communication and dissemination activities, including publicity campaigns and events, and the development and maintenance of websites and relevant social networks and databases;\n(c)\nconferences, seminars, workshops, and stakeholders fora;\n(d)\npooling, monitoring and visualisation of, and ensuring public access to, a significant amount of data, best practices and databases on Union-funded regional projects, including where appropriate through a secretariat established for one or more of these purposes which will facilitate the adoption of common uniform standards for data collection and processing;\n(e)\nactions relating to cross-cutting tools, including test projects.\nArticle 5\nType of financial intervention\n1. Union financial assistance may take the following legal forms:\n(a)\ngrants, for which the maximum rate of Union co-financing per action shall be 80 %;\n(b)\npublic procurement contracts;\n(c)\nadministrative arrangements with the Joint Research Centre.\n2. Both grants for actions and operating grants may be awarded under the Programme. Save as otherwise provided in the Financial Regulation, beneficiaries of the grants or public procurement contracts shall be selected following a call for proposals or a call for tenders.\nArticle 6\nBeneficiaries\n1. Financial assistance under the Programme may be granted, as a priority, to natural or legal persons, governed by the private or public law of any of the Member States or by Union law.\n2. The Programme may also benefit third countries, stakeholders in third countries sharing a sea basin with Member States of the Union, as well as international organisations or bodies which pursue one or more of the general and operational objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3. The measures must always involve participants from the Union.\n3. Eligibility to participate in a procedure shall be specified in the relevant call for proposals or call for tenders.\nArticle 7\nPrinciples for implementation\n1. Actions financed under the Programme shall not be eligible to receive assistance from other financial instruments of the Union. Synergies and complementarity shall be sought with other instruments of the Union. Actions under the Programme shall be complementary to the implementation of relevant sectoral policies.\n2. The Commission shall ensure that the applicants for financial assistance under the Programme and beneficiaries of such assistance provide it with comprehensive information on the financing of the actions. Financial assistance from the Programme shall be provided only to the extent that other Union financing is not available.\n3. The actions supported by the Programme shall correspond to the Union targets and policies for 2020 and 2050. All Member States, maritime sectors, and coastal, insular and outermost regions shall be able to benefit from the Programme and a genuine European added value shall be created. In relation to the funding of actions in the various sea basins, an adequate regional balance shall be sought.\n4. The actions supported by the Programme shall stimulate and reinforce dialogue, cooperation and coordination with and among Member States, EU regions, stakeholders, citizens, civil society organisations and the social partners, while guaranteeing full transparency.\n5. The actions supported by the Programme shall facilitate the exploitation of synergies, the sharing of information and the exchange of methods, standards and best practice.\n6. The principles of good governance and transparency of decision-making processes shall apply to the implementation of the Programme, and the Programme shall seek to contribute to transparency and good governance in all related sectoral policies at Union, national and regional level.\nArticle 8\nImplementing procedures\n1. The Commission shall implement the Programme in accordance with the Financial Regulation.\n2. To implement the Programme in accordance with its objectives as set out in Articles 2 and 3, the Commission shall adopt annual work programmes in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 14(2).\nArticle 9\nBudgetary resources\n1. The financial envelope for the implementation of the Programme shall be set at EUR 40 000 000 for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2013.\n2. The budgetary resources allocated to the Programme shall be entered in the annual appropriations of the general budget of the Union. The annual appropriations shall be authorised by the budgetary authority within the limits of the financial framework.\n3. The distribution of funds among the general objectives, set out in Article 2, is indicated in the Annex.\nArticle 10\nTechnical assistance\n1. Up to 1 % of the financial envelope established pursuant to Article 9 may also cover necessary expenditure relating to any preparatory action, monitoring, control, audit or evaluation directly necessary in order to implement eligible actions under this Regulation effectively and efficiently and to achieve its objectives.\n2. The activities referred to in paragraph 1 may in particular include studies, expert meetings, expenditure on informatics tools, systems and networks and any other technical, scientific and administrative assistance and expertise as required by the Commission for the implementation of this Regulation.\nArticle 11\nMonitoring\n1. Each beneficiary of financial assistance shall submit to the Commission technical and financial reports on the progress of work financed under the Programme. A final report shall also be submitted within 3 months of the completion of each project.\n2. Without prejudice to the audits carried out by the Court of Auditors in liaison with the competent national audit bodies or departments pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (\u2018TFEU\u2019), or any inspection carried out pursuant to Article 322(1)(b) TFEU, officials and other staff of the Commission shall carry out on-the-spot checks, including sample checks on projects and other measures financed under the Programme, in particular in order to check compliance with the objectives of the Programme and eligibility of actions, as set out in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of this Regulation.\n3. Contracts and agreements resulting from the implementation of this Regulation shall provide, in particular, for supervision and financial control by the Commission, or any representative that the Commission may authorise, and for audits by the Court of Auditors, if necessary on the spot.\n4. Each beneficiary of financial assistance shall keep available for the Commission all supporting documents regarding expenditure on a project for a period of 5 years following the last payment in respect of that project.\n5. On the basis of the results of the reports and sample checks referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the Commission shall, if necessary, adjust the scale or the conditions of allocation of the financial assistance originally approved as well as the timetable for payments.\n6. The Commission shall verify that actions financed under the Programme are carried out properly, are consistent with measures under other sectoral policies and instruments and comply with this Regulation and the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 12\nProtection of Union financial interests\n1. The Commission shall ensure that, when actions financed under the Programme are implemented, the financial interests of the Union are protected by:\n(a)\nthe application of preventive measures against fraud, corruption and any other illegal activities;\n(b)\neffective checks;\n(c)\nthe recovery of the amounts unduly paid; and\n(d)\nthe application of effective, proportional and dissuasive penalties, if irregularities are detected.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Commission shall act in accordance with Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95, Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 and Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999.\n3. The Commission shall reduce, suspend or recover the amount of financial assistance granted for an action if it finds irregularities, including non-compliance with this Regulation or the individual decision or contract or agreement granting the financial assistance, or if it transpires that, without Commission approval having being sought, the action has been subjected to a change which conflicts with its nature or implementing conditions.\n4. If time limits have not been observed or if only part of the allocated financial assistance is justified by the progress made with implementing an action, the Commission shall request the beneficiary to submit observations within a specified period. If the beneficiary does not give a satisfactory answer, the Commission may cancel the remaining financial assistance and demand repayment of sums already paid.\n5. Any undue payment shall be repaid to the Commission. Interest shall be added to any sum not repaid in good time under the conditions laid down by the Financial Regulation.\n6. For the purposes of this Article, \u2018irregularity\u2019, shall mean any infringement of a provision of Union law, or any breach of a contractual obligation resulting from an act or omission by an economic operator which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Union or budgets managed by the Union by an unjustified item of expenditure.\nArticle 13\nReporting, evaluation and extension\n1. The Commission shall regularly and promptly inform the European Parliament and the Council about its work.\n2. The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council:\n(a)\na progress report no later than 31 December 2012; the progress report shall include an evaluation of the Programme's impact on other Union policies;\n(b)\nan ex-post evaluation report no later than 31 December 2014.\n3. If appropriate, the Commission shall submit a legislative proposal on the extension of the Programme beyond 2013 with an appropriate financial envelope.\nArticle 14\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 15\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["17", "48", "82", "12", "73", "91", "22", "26", "83", "61", "27", "95", "87", "29", "81", "84", "23", "57", "43", "25", "6", "78", "66", "28", "32", "51", "3", "62", "11", "55", "No Label", "9", "13", "15", "16", "56", "59"], "gold": ["9", "13", "15", "16", "56", "59"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 702/2010\nof 4 August 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Olomouck\u00e9 tvar\u016f\u017eky (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 7(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Czech Republic\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Olomouck\u00e9 tvar\u016f\u017eky\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nGermany, on 7 January 2008, and Austria, on 31 January 2008 and 4 February 2008, submitted objections to the registration under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. The objections were deemed admissible under points (a), (c) and (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 7(3) of that Regulation.\n(3)\nBy letters dated 6 May 2008, the Commission asked the Member States concerned to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with their internal procedures.\n(4)\nGiven that no agreement was reached between the Czech Republic and Austria nor between the Czech Republic and Germany within the designated time-frame, the Commission should adopt a decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(5)\nConcerning the alleged failure of compliance with Article 2 in respect of the lack of specificity of the product, the product specification sets out details relating to the production process and characteristics of the final product, in particular the organoleptic characteristics thereof, that do not give rise to there being any manifest error.\n(6)\nRegarding the objection that pursuant to Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 only a group shall be entitled to apply for registration it is to be noted that in the present case the applicant group was a single company that met the conditions for filing an application set out in Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 (3), which lays down detailed rules of implementation of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. Moreover, the applicant is the only producer in the designated region and the only producer of such a cheese in that area or its surrounding areas.\n(7)\nThe terms \u2018Olm\u00fctzer Quargel\u2019 and \u2018Olomouck\u00e9 tvar\u016f\u017eky\u2019 were found to be names of similar cheeses in German and Czech languages respectively and that the terms have common historic origins referring to the town of Olomouc in the Czech Republic. The statements of objection from Austria showed that trade marks including the term \u2018Olm\u00fctzer Quargel\u2019 had been registered prior to the application for registration of the term \u2018Olomouck\u00e9 tvar\u016f\u017eky\u2019 as a protected geographical indication. As the names have common origins and given the visual similarities between the products, the application of the protection envisaged by Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, and in particular point (b) of paragraph 1 thereof, could have the result that \u2018Olomouck\u00e9 tvar\u016f\u017eky\u2019, if registered, would be found by a competent court to be protected against the use of the name \u2018Olm\u00fctzer Quargel\u2019. The evidence therefore shows that the continued existence of the name \u2018Olm\u00fctzer Quargel\u2019 would be jeopardised by the registration of \u2018Olomouck\u00e9 tvar\u016f\u017eky\u2019, in accordance with Article 7(3)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. Moreover, the evidence shows that the use of the name \u2018Olm\u00fctzer Quargel\u2019 referred to a product having a common origin with \u2018Olomouck\u00e9 tvar\u016f\u017eky\u2019, but was generally not meant to exploit the reputation of the latter name. For these reasons, and in the interests of fairness and traditional usage, the maximum transitional period foreseen by Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 should be foreseen.\n(8)\nConcerning trade marks containing the term \u2018Olm\u00fctzer Quargel\u2019 that were protected through registration or acquired by use prior to the application for registration of \u2018Olomouck\u00e9 tvar\u016f\u017eky\u2019, the conditions of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 not being met, the said trade marks cannot be invalidated nor can their continued use be hindered by virtue of the registration of \u2018Olomouck\u00e9 tvar\u016f\u017eky\u2019 as a protected geographical indication, provided the general requirements under trademark legislation are otherwise met.\n(9)\nThe prohibition on registration of names that have become generic laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 refers to the whole name proposed for registration. This does not prevent the registration of a name composed of more than one part, even if a component part of the name or a translation thereof may have generic status, provided the name as a whole has not become generic. Furthermore, a statement of objection pursuant to Article 7(3)(d) of the said Regulation, regarding the generic status of a name, is limited to the name for which registration is requested. While the name proposed for registration is \u2018Olomouck\u00e9 tvar\u016f\u017eky\u2019 the evidence provided in the statements of objection referred to the alleged general use of the term \u2018Olm\u00fctzer Quargel\u2019 in Germany and Austria, and not to that of \u2018Olomouck\u00e9 tvar\u016f\u017eky\u2019. No evidence has been provided in the statements of objection to show general usage comprising or including the name proposed for registration.\n(10)\nWhereas protection is granted for the term \u2018Olomouck\u00e9 tvar\u016f\u017eky\u2019 as a whole, the non-geographical component of that term may be used, and used in translation, throughout the Union, provided the principles and rules applicable in the Union\u2019s legal order are respected.\n(11)\nIn the light of the above, the name \u2018Olomouck\u00e9 tvar\u016f\u017eky\u2019 should be entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications subject to a transitional period of five years during which time the term \u2018Olm\u00fctzer Quargel\u2019 may continue to be used in circumstances that, but for the transitional period, could be contrary to the protection provided for by Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Protected Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation shall be entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThe term \u2018Olm\u00fctzer Quargel\u2019 may be used to designate cheese not complying with the specification for \u2018Olomouck\u00e9 tvar\u016f\u017eky\u2019 for a period of five years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 August 2010.", "references": ["90", "85", "22", "35", "14", "58", "19", "45", "93", "98", "15", "23", "52", "83", "33", "94", "34", "39", "66", "44", "63", "79", "72", "74", "37", "61", "56", "18", "47", "59", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 751/2010\nof 20 August 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Saucisse de Morteau or J\u00e9sus de Morteau (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Saucisse de Morteau\u2019 or \u2018J\u00e9sus de Morteau\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 August 2010.", "references": ["32", "39", "73", "86", "4", "79", "53", "9", "64", "75", "55", "85", "48", "67", "27", "3", "83", "54", "82", "38", "69", "90", "42", "0", "61", "68", "19", "71", "51", "17", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1015/2010\nof 10 November 2010\nimplementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for household washing machines\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Ecodesign Consultation Forum,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Directive 2009/125/EC ecodesign requirements should be set by the Commission for energy-related products representing significant volumes of sales and trade, having significant environmental impact and presenting significant potential for improvement in terms of their environmental impact without entailing excessive costs.\n(2)\nArticle 16(2), first indent, of Directive 2009/125/EC provides that in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 19(3) and the criteria set out in Article 15(2), and after consulting the Ecodesign Consultation Forum, the Commission shall, as appropriate, introduce an implementing measure for domestic appliances, including household washing machines.\n(3)\nThe Commission has carried out a preparatory study to analyse the technical, environmental and economic aspects of household washing machines typically used in households. The study has been developed together with stakeholders and interested parties from the Union and third countries, and the results have been made publicly available.\n(4)\nThis Regulation should cover products designed for washing laundry in households.\n(5)\nHousehold combined washer-driers have particular characteristics and should therefore be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. However, considering that they offer similar functionalities as household washing machines, they should be addressed as soon as possible in another implementing measure of Directive 2009/125/EC.\n(6)\nThe environmental aspect of the household washing machines, identified as significant for the purposes of this Regulation, is energy and water consumption in the use phase. The annual electricity and water consumption of products subject to this Regulation was estimated to have been 35 TWh and 2 213 million m3, respectively, in the Union in 2005. Unless specific measures are taken, annual electricity and water consumption is predicted to be 37,7 TWh and 2 051 million m3 in 2020. The preparatory study shows that the electricity and water consumption of products subject to this Regulation can be significantly reduced.\n(7)\nThe preparatory study shows that requirements regarding other ecodesign parameters referred to in Part 1 of Annex I to Directive 2009/125/EC are not necessary as electricity and water consumptions of household washing machines in the use phase are by far the most important environmental aspect.\n(8)\nThe electricity and water consumptions of products subject to this Regulation should be made more efficient by applying existing non-proprietary cost-effective technologies that can reduce the combined costs of purchasing and operating these products.\n(9)\nThe ecodesign requirements should not affect functionality from the end-user\u2019s perspective and should not negatively affect health, safety or the environment. In particular, the benefits of reducing electricity and water consumption during the use phase should more than offset any additional environmental impacts during the production phase.\n(10)\nThe ecodesign requirements should be introduced gradually in order to provide a sufficient timeframe for manufacturers to redesign products subject to this Regulation. The timing should be such as to avoid negative impacts on the functionalities of equipment on the market, and to take into account cost impacts for end-users and manufacturers, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, while ensuring timely achievement of the objectives of this Regulation.\n(11)\nMeasurements of the relevant product parameters should be performed using reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement methods, which take into account the recognised state-of-the-art measurement methods including, where available, harmonised standards adopted by the European standardisation bodies, as listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (2).\n(12)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Directive 2009/125/EC, this Regulation should specify the applicable conformity assessment procedures.\n(13)\nIn order to facilitate compliance checks, manufacturers should provide information in the technical documentation referred to in Annexes V and VI to Directive 2009/125/EC in so far as this information relates to the requirements laid down in this Regulation.\n(14)\nIn addition to the legally binding requirements laid down in this Regulation, indicative benchmarks for best available technologies should be identified to ensure the wide availability and easy accessibility of information on the lifecycle environmental performance of products subject to this Regulation.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 19(1) of Directive 2009/125/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation establishes ecodesign requirements for the placing on the market of electric mains-operated household washing machines and electric mains-operated household washing machines that can also be powered by batteries, including those sold for non-household use and built-in household washing machines.\n2. This Regulation shall not apply to household combined washer-driers.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2009/125/EC, the following definitions shall apply for the purpose of this Regulation:\n(1)\n\u2018household washing machine\u2019 means an automatic washing machine which cleans and rinses textiles using water which also has a spin extraction function and which is designed to be used principally for non-professional purposes;\n(2)\n\u2018built-in household washing machine\u2019 means a household washing machine intended to be installed in a cabinet, a prepared recess in a wall or a similar location, requiring furniture finishing;\n(3)\n\u2018automatic washing machine\u2019 means a washing machine where the load is fully treated by the machine without the need for user intervention at any point during the programme;\n(4)\n\u2018household combined washer-drier\u2019 means a household washing machine which includes both a spin extraction function and also a means for drying the textiles, usually by heating and tumbling;\n(5)\n\u2018programme\u2019 means a series of operations that are pre-defined and are declared by the manufacturer as suitable for washing certain types of textile;\n(6)\n\u2018cycle\u2019 means a complete washing, rinsing and spinning process, as defined for the selected programme;\n(7)\n\u2018programme time\u2019 means the time that elapses from the initiation of the programme until the completion of the programme excluding any end-user programmed delay;\n(8)\n\u2018rated capacity\u2019 means the maximum mass in kilograms stated by the manufacturer at 0,5 kg intervals kg of dry textiles of a particular type, which can be treated in a household washing machine on the selected programme, when loaded in accordance with the manufacturer\u2019s instructions;\n(9)\n\u2018partial load\u2019 means half of the rated capacity of a household washing machine for a given programme;\n(10)\n\u2018remaining moisture content\u2019 means the amount of moisture contained in the load at the end of the spinning phase;\n(11)\n\u2018off-mode\u2019 means a condition where the household washing machine is switched off using appliance controls or switches accessible to and intended for operation by the end-user during normal use to attain the lowest power consumption that may persist for an indefinite time while the household washing machine is connected to a power source and used in accordance with the manufacturer\u2019s instructions; where there is no control or switch accessible to the end-user, \u2018off-mode\u2019 means the condition reached after the household washing machine reverts to a steady-state power consumption on its own;\n(12)\n\u2018left-on mode\u2019 means the lowest power consumption mode that may persist for an indefinite time after completion of the programme without any further intervention by the end-user besides unloading of the household washing machine;\n(13)\n\u2018equivalent washing machine\u2019 means a model of household washing machine placed on the market with the same rated capacity, technical and performance characteristics, energy and water consumption and airborne acoustical noise emissions during washing and spinning as another model of household washing machine placed on the market under a different commercial code number by the same manufacturer.\nArticle 3\nEcodesign requirements\nThe generic ecodesign requirements for household washing machines are set out in point 1 of Annex I.\nThe specific ecodesign requirements for household washing machines are set out in point 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 4\nConformity assessment\n1. The conformity assessment procedure referred to in Article 8 of Directive 2009/125/EC shall be the internal design control system set out in Annex IV to that Directive or the management system set out in Annex V to that Directive.\n2. For the purposes of conformity assessment pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2009/125/EC, the technical documentation file shall contain a copy of the calculation set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nWhere the information included in the technical documentation for a particular household washing machine model has been obtained by calculation on the basis of design, or extrapolation from other equivalent washing machines, or both, the technical documentation shall include details of such calculations or extrapolations, or both, and of tests undertaken by manufacturers to verify the accuracy of the calculations undertaken. In such cases, the technical documentation shall also include a list of all other equivalent household washing machine models where the information included in the technical documentation was obtained on the same basis.\nArticle 5\nVerification procedure for market surveillance purposes\nMember States shall apply the verification procedure described in Annex III to this Regulation when performing the market surveillance checks referred to in Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/125/EC for compliance with requirements set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 6\nBenchmarks\nThe indicative benchmarks for best-performing household washing machines available on the market at the time of entry into force of this Regulation are set out in Annex IV.\nArticle 7\nRevision\nThe Commission shall review this Regulation in the light of technological progress no later than 4 years after its entry into force and present the result of this review to the Ecodesign Consultation Forum. The review shall in particular assess the verification tolerances set out in Annex III, the opportunity of setting requirements on rinsing and spin-drying efficiency and the potential for hot water inlet.\nArticle 8\nEntry into force and application\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. It shall apply from 1 December 2011.\nHowever, the ecodesign requirements listed below shall apply in accordance with the following timetable:\n(a)\nthe generic ecodesign requirements set out in point 1(1) of Annex I shall apply from 1 December 2012;\n(b)\nthe generic ecodesign requirements set out in point 1(2) of Annex I shall apply from 1 June 2011;\n(c)\nthe generic ecodesign requirements set out in point 1(3) of Annex I shall apply from 1 December 2013;\n(d)\nthe specific ecodesign requirements set out in point 2(2) of Annex I shall apply from 1 December 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2010.", "references": ["12", "42", "43", "8", "48", "81", "1", "6", "70", "56", "2", "49", "90", "28", "29", "18", "21", "98", "94", "15", "33", "73", "89", "38", "59", "84", "30", "36", "69", "4", "No Label", "0", "58", "76", "78", "86"], "gold": ["0", "58", "76", "78", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 836/2011\nof 19 August 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 333/2007 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of the levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, inorganic tin, 3-MCPD and benzo(a)pyrene in foodstuffs\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), in particular Article 11(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (2) established, inter alia, maximum levels for the contaminant benzo(a)pyrene.\n(2)\nThe Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) adopted an opinion on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Food on 9 June 2008 (3). The EFSA concluded that benzo(a)pyrene is not a suitable marker for the occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in food and that a system of four specific substances or eight specific substances would be the most suitable markers of PAH in food. The EFSA also concluded that a system of eight substances would not provide much added value compared to a system of four substances.\n(3)\nAs a consequence Commission Regulation (EU) No 835/2011 (4) amended Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 in order to set maximum levels for the sum of four polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (benzo(a)pyrene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene and chrysene).\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 333/2007 (5) lays down analytical performance criteria only for benzo(a)pyrene. It is therefore necessary to lay down analytical performance criteria for the other three substances for which maximum levels are now set out in Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006.\n(5)\nThe European Union Reference Laboratory for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (EU-RL PAH) in collaboration with the national reference laboratories carried out a survey among official control laboratories to assess which analytical performance criteria would be achievable for benzo(a)pyrene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene and chrysene in relevant food matrices. The outcome of this survey was summarised by the EU-RL PAH in the Report on \u2018Performance characteristics of analysis methods for the determination of 4 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in food\u2019 (6). The results of the survey show that the analytical performance criteria currently applicable to benzo(a)pyrene are also suitable for the other three substances.\n(6)\nExperience acquired while implementing Regulation (EC) No 333/2007 revealed that in some cases the current sampling provisions may be impracticable or may lead to unacceptable economic damage to the sampled lot. For such cases, departure from the sampling procedures should be allowed, provided that sampling remains sufficiently representative of the sampled lot or sublot and that the procedure used is fully documented. For sampling at the retail stage, flexibility to depart from the sampling procedures existed already. The provisions for sampling at retail stage should be aligned with the general sampling procedures.\n(7)\nMore detailed provisions are needed as regards the material of sampling containers when samples are taken for PAH analysis. Plastic containers are widely used by enforcement authorities, but they are not suitable when sampling is carried out for PAH analysis, as the PAH content of the sample can be altered by these materials.\n(8)\nClarification is needed for some aspects of the specific requirements for analytical methods, in particular the requirements regarding the use of the performance criteria and the \u2018fitness-for-purpose\u2019 approach. Furthermore, the presentation of the tables with the performance criteria should be modified to appear more uniform across all analytes.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 333/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly. Since Regulation (EU) No 835/2011 and this Regulation are inter-linked, both Regulations should become applicable on the same date.\n(10)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 333/2007 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n(2)\nin Article 1, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Sampling and analysis for the official control of the levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, inorganic tin, 3-MCPD and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (\u201cPAH\u201d) listed in Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 shall be carried out in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe Annex is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 August 2011.", "references": ["57", "19", "87", "11", "90", "36", "70", "86", "42", "26", "69", "97", "95", "61", "79", "55", "60", "16", "93", "8", "9", "46", "78", "80", "14", "98", "63", "94", "21", "41", "No Label", "38", "66", "72", "83"], "gold": ["38", "66", "72", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/174/CFSP\nof 23 March 2012\namending Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 10 November 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nOn 8 December 2009, on 30 July 2010 and 7 December 2010 respectively, the Council adopted Decision 2009/907/CFSP (2), Decision 2010/437/CFSP (3) and Decision 2010/766/CFSP (4), amending Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP.\n(3)\nOn 14 November 2011, the Council adopted the Strategic Framework for the Horn of Africa with the aim of developing a comprehensive approach towards the problems emanating from the Horn of Africa. The fight against piracy is part of this effort.\n(4)\nActs of piracy and armed robbery on and off the Somali coast continue to threaten shipping in the area and especially the delivery of food aid to the Somali population by the World Food Programme and generate financial flows against which further efforts need to be undertaken.\n(5)\nThe EU military operation referred to in Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP (\u2018Atalanta\u2019) should be extended until 12 December 2014.\n(6)\nIt is also necessary to lay down the financial reference amount intended to cover the common costs of Atalanta for the period from 13 December 2012 to 12 December 2014.\n(7)\nOn 16 December 2008, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 1851 (2008) on the situation in Somalia, authorising States and regional organisations cooperating in the fight against piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia for which advance notification has been provided by the Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG) to the United Nations Secretary-General to undertake all necessary measures that are appropriate in Somalia for the purpose of suppressing acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea, provided that any such measures shall be undertaken consistent with applicable international humanitarian and human rights law.\n(8)\nOn 22 November 2011, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2020 (2011) renewing the authorisations set out in paragraph 10 of Resolution 1846 (2008) and paragraph 6 of Resolution 1851 (2008).\n(9)\nBy letter of 20 February 2012 the EU made an offer of extended cooperation to the TFG, complementing its offer made by letter of 30 October 2008.\n(10)\nThe TFG notified the United Nations Secretary-General by letter of 1 March 2012 of the offer made by the EU, in conformity with paragraph 6 of UNSC Resolution 1851 (2008) and paragraph 9 of UNSC Resolution 2020 (2011).\n(11)\nIt is necessary to extend the area of operations of Atalanta to include Somali internal waters and Somali land territory.\n(12)\nIt is also necessary to set out the conditions under which suspects arrested and detained in the internal or territorial waters of States other than Somalia may be transferred.\n(13)\nJoint Action 2008/851/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nJoint Action 2008/851/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nMission\n1. The European Union (EU) shall conduct a military operation in support of Resolutions 1814 (2008), 1816 (2008), 1838 (2008), 1846 (2008) and 1851 (2008) of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), in a manner consistent with action permitted with respect to piracy under Article 100 et seq. of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea signed in Montego Bay on 10 December 1982 (hereinafter referred to as \u201cthe United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea\u201d) and by means, in particular, of commitments made with third States (\u201cAtalanta\u201d) in order to contribute to:\n-\nthe protection of vessels of the WFP delivering food aid to displaced persons in Somalia, in accordance with the mandate laid down in UNSC Resolution 1814 (2008), and\n-\nthe protection of vulnerable vessels cruising off the Somali coast, and the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast, in accordance with the mandate laid down in UNSC Resolutions 1846 (2008) and 1851 (2008).\n2. The area of operations of the forces deployed to that end shall consist of the Somali coastal territory and internal waters, and the maritime areas off the coasts of Somalia and neighbouring countries within the region of the Indian Ocean, in accordance with the political objective of an EU maritime operation, as defined in the crisis management concept approved by the Council on 5 August 2008.\n3. In addition, Atalanta shall contribute to the monitoring of fishing activities off the coast of Somalia.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nprovide protection to vessels chartered by the WFP, including by means of the presence on board those vessels of armed units of Atalanta, including when sailing in Somalia\u2019s territorial and internal waters;\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nkeep watch over areas off the Somali coast, including Somalia\u2019s territorial and internal waters, in which there are dangers to maritime activities, in particular to maritime traffic;\u2019;\n(c)\npoint (f) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(f)\nliaise with organisations and entities, as well as States, working in the region to combat acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast, in particular the \u201cCombined Task Force 151\u201d maritime force which operates within the framework of \u201cOperation Enduring Freedom\u201d;\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 12 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 12\nTransfer of persons arrested and detained with a view to their prosecution\n1. On the basis of Somalia\u2019s acceptance of the exercise of jurisdiction by Member States or by third States, on the one hand, and Article 105 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, on the other hand, persons suspected of intending, as referred to in Articles 101 and 103 of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, to commit, committing or having committed acts of piracy or armed robbery in Somalia\u2019s territorial or internal waters or on the high seas, who are arrested and detained, with a view to their prosecution, and property used to carry out such acts, shall be transferred:\n-\nto the competent authorities of the Member State or of the third State participating in the operation, of which the vessel which took them captive flies the flag, or\n-\nif that State cannot, or does not wish to, exercise its jurisdiction, to a Member State or any third State which wishes to exercise its jurisdiction over the aforementioned persons and property.\n2. Persons suspected of intending, as referred to in Articles 101 and 103 of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, to commit, committing or having committed acts of piracy or armed robbery who are arrested and detained, with a view to their prosecution, by Atalanta in the territorial waters, the internal waters or the archipelagic waters of other States in the region in agreement with these States, and property used to carry out such acts, may be transferred to the competent authorities of the State concerned, or, with the consent of the State concerned, to the competent authorities of another State.\n3. No persons referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 may be transferred to a third State unless the conditions for the transfer have been agreed with that third State in a manner consistent with relevant international law, notably international law on human rights, in order to guarantee in particular that no one shall be subjected to the death penalty, to torture or to any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 14 the following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. The financial reference amount for the common costs of the EU military operation for the period from 13 December 2012 until 12 December 2014 shall be EUR 14 900 000. The percentage of the reference amount referred to in Article 25(1) of Council Decision 2011/871/CFSP shall be 0 %.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 16(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The EU military operation shall terminate on 12 December 2014.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["47", "85", "26", "23", "19", "73", "58", "86", "64", "60", "37", "76", "27", "81", "83", "72", "70", "29", "79", "78", "82", "0", "61", "36", "34", "41", "6", "51", "88", "68", "No Label", "4", "9", "12", "56", "94", "99"], "gold": ["4", "9", "12", "56", "94", "99"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 June 2012\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Turkey on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation\n(2012/499/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(3), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 November 2002, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the Republic of Turkey on the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Turkey on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (the \u2018Agreement\u2019). The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement on 21 June 2012.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of the said Protocol, the United Kingdom is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of the said Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not take part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be signed, subject to its conclusion at a later date,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Turkey on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 June 2012.", "references": ["71", "81", "57", "22", "25", "69", "7", "21", "45", "44", "51", "28", "80", "5", "82", "23", "83", "31", "29", "2", "50", "62", "24", "4", "19", "40", "34", "93", "77", "65", "No Label", "3", "9", "91", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "91", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/73/EU\nof 29 July 2011\namending, for the purposes of their adaptation to technical progress, Annexes I and V to Directive 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on textile names\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on textile names (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2008/121/EC lays down rules governing the labelling or marking of products as regards their textile fibre content, in order to ensure that consumer interests are thereby protected. Textile products may be placed on the market within the Union only if they comply with the provisions of that Directive.\n(2)\nIn view of recent findings by a technical working group, it is necessary, for the purposes of adapting Directive 2008/121/EC to technical progress, to add the fibre polypropylene/polyamide bicomponent to the list of fibres set out in the Annexes I and V to that Directive.\n(3)\nDirective 2008/121/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Directives relating to Textile Names and Labelling,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2008/121/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Annex I the following row 49 is added:\n\u201849.\nPolypropylene/polyamide bicomponent\na bicomponent fibre composed of between 10 % and 25 % by mass of polyamide fibrils embedded in polypropylene matrix\u2019;\n(2)\nin Annex V the following entry 49 is added:\n\u201849.\nPolypropylene/polyamide bicomponent\n1,00\u2019.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 July 2012 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2011.", "references": ["7", "59", "64", "72", "54", "56", "75", "6", "26", "79", "35", "2", "87", "68", "94", "16", "48", "58", "39", "18", "5", "67", "61", "74", "30", "3", "10", "44", "99", "85", "No Label", "24", "25", "89"], "gold": ["24", "25", "89"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 419/2012\nof 16 May 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 562/2011 adopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 2012 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the European Union\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular points (f) and (g) of Article 43, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agri-monetary arrangements for the euro (2), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 562/2011 (3) as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2012 (4) has set the deadlines for the submission of requests for payment and the execution of payments at 30 September 2012 and 15 October 2012 respectively and provides that the implementation period of the 2012 distribution plan is to end on 28 February 2013.\n(2)\nTo enable the Member States to use those deadlines efficiently, it is necessary to allow the possibility of granting advance payments for the transport of products to the storage depots of the charitable organisations and for the transport, administrative and storage costs incurred by the charitable organisations designated to distribute the products. In order to ensure the efficient implementation of the annual plan, the same possibility should be allowed for the supply of products in duly justified cases. In addition it needs to be established how and when a security is required.\n(3)\nTaking into consideration the non-profit nature of the designated organisations referred to in Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the competent authorities of the Member States should be empowered to allow alternative guarantee instruments when advances are paid to those organisations in respect of their administrative, transport and storage costs.\n(4)\nFor accounting purposes, Member States should be required to notify the Commission of certain information related to the advance payments.\n(5)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 562/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Implementing Regulation (EU) No 562/2011 the following Article 4a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 4a\n1. For the purpose of implementing the annual distribution plan referred to in Article 1 of this Regulation, the operators selected in accordance with Article 4(4) and (6) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 and the designated organisations referred to in Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 may submit to the competent authority of the Member State concerned an application for advance payments relating to the cost of transport of products to the storage depots of the designated organisations referred to in point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 27(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and the administrative, transport and storage costs referred to in point (b) of the second subparagraph of that Article. In duly justified cases the Member States may also provide advance payments relating to the cost of the supply of the products to operators selected in accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 provided that, to the satisfaction of the Member States concerned, those operators have demonstrated that prior to 15 October 2012:\n(a)\nthey have taken legally binding commitments to implement the operation;\n(b)\nthey have significantly progressed with the implementation of the operation; and\n(c)\nthey have taken all measures necessary to ensure that the implementation shall be completed no later than 28 February 2013.\n2. The competent authority may grant an advance payment up to 100 % of the amount applied for, subject to the establishment of a security equal to 110 % of the advance referred to in paragraph 1. In the case of operators selected in accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, the security referred to in that Article shall be deemed sufficient for the purposes of this Article.\n3. For the purposes of paragraph 2, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2012 (5) shall apply.\n4. In the case of designated organisations referred to in paragraph 1, the paying agency may accept a written guarantee from a public authority, in accordance with provisions applied in the Member States, covering an amount equal to the percentage referred to in paragraph 2, provided that that public authority undertakes to pay the amount covered by that guarantee in case the entitlement to the advance paid is not established. Member States may also provide for an instrument of equivalent effect, in accordance with the provisions applied in the Member States, on condition that it ensures the repayment of the advance granted in case the entitlement to it is not established.\n5. No later than 15 January 2013, Member States shall notify the Commission of the total amount of the advance payments made by 15 October 2012 in accordance with paragraph 2 which have not been cleared and which relate to operations that have not yet been completed by the final beneficiaries.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2012.", "references": ["92", "58", "29", "70", "67", "6", "64", "12", "43", "23", "8", "86", "17", "59", "44", "5", "62", "27", "25", "22", "39", "51", "57", "90", "55", "9", "63", "48", "28", "2", "No Label", "4", "33", "36", "37", "47", "53", "54"], "gold": ["4", "33", "36", "37", "47", "53", "54"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 January 2011\non the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards sealants for non-structural use in joints in buildings and pedestrian walkways\n(notified under document C(2011) 62)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/19/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1), and in particular Article 13(4) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee on Construction,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission is required to select, in accordance with Article 13(3) of Directive 89/106/EEC, one of two procedures for attesting the conformity of a product. That Article prescribes that the Commission should choose the least onerous possible procedure consistent with safety. It is therefore necessary to decide whether, for a given product or family of products, the existence of a factory production control system under the responsibility of the manufacturer is a necessary and sufficient condition for an attestation of conformity, or whether, for reasons related to compliance with the criteria set out in Article 13(4) of that Directive, the intervention of an approved body is required.\n(2)\nArticle 13(4) requires that the procedure thus determined shall be indicated in the mandates and in the technical specifications. It is therefore desirable to identify the products or family of products referred to in the technical specifications.\n(3)\nThe two procedures provided for in Article 13(3) of Directive 89/106/EEC are described in detail in Annex III to that Directive. It is therefore necessary to specify clearly the methods by which the two procedures shall be implemented, by reference to Annex III, for each product or family of products, since Annex III gives preference to certain systems.\n(4)\nThe procedure referred to in Article 13(3)(a) corresponds to the systems set out in the first possibility, without continuous surveillance, and the second and third possibilities of point (ii) of Section 2 of Annex III. The procedure referred to in Article 13(3)(b) corresponds to the systems set out in point (i) of Section 2 of Annex III, and in the first possibility, with continuous surveillance, of point (ii) of Section 2 of Annex III,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe products and families of products set out in Annex I shall have their conformity attested by a procedure whereby, in addition to a factory production control system operated by the manufacturer, an approved body is involved in assessment and surveillance of the production control or of the product itself.\nArticle 2\nThe procedure for attesting conformity as set out in Annex II shall be indicated in the mandates for harmonised European standards.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 January 2011.", "references": ["93", "3", "29", "84", "27", "33", "78", "6", "28", "24", "20", "13", "41", "47", "45", "43", "85", "0", "50", "51", "86", "63", "59", "21", "11", "57", "80", "31", "40", "55", "No Label", "25", "76", "87"], "gold": ["25", "76", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 695/2011\nof 19 July 2011\non the issue of import licences and the allocation of import rights for applications lodged during the first seven days of July 2011 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 (3) opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products originating in Brazil, Thailand and other third countries.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged in respect of Groups Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 during the first seven days of July 2011 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested.\n(3)\nThe applications for import rights lodged during the first seven days of July 2011 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2011 in respect of Group No 5 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import rights may be allocated should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2011 in respect of Groups Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\n2. The quantities for which import rights applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2011 in respect of Group No 5 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficient set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["74", "32", "67", "31", "97", "26", "42", "90", "58", "44", "6", "82", "43", "11", "53", "39", "5", "70", "0", "81", "91", "52", "83", "10", "33", "71", "45", "46", "4", "24", "No Label", "21", "22", "66", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 522/2011\nof 26 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 May 2011.", "references": ["3", "20", "34", "48", "42", "30", "89", "86", "60", "37", "21", "96", "97", "79", "63", "66", "57", "51", "8", "25", "12", "47", "70", "58", "4", "24", "99", "19", "91", "7", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/31/EU\nof 7 March 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a restriction of the use of the active substance pirimiphos-methyl\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 5(5) of Directive 91/414/EEC an inclusion may be reviewed at any time if there are indications that the criteria referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of that Article are no longer satisfied.\n(2)\nBy Commission Directive 2007/52/EC (2) pirimiphos-methyl was included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. The specific provision concerning that substance required the notifier however, to submit further studies confirming the operator exposure assessment.\n(3)\nOn 22 September 2009 the notifier submitted such studies to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 (3).\n(4)\nThe United Kingdom evaluated those studies and submitted to the Commission an addendum to the draft assessment report on 25 February 2010, which was circulated for comments to the other Member States, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the notifier. Account being taken of the draft assessment report, that addendum was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of a revision of the Commission review report for pirimiphos-methyl of 16 March 2007.\n(5)\nThe studies included in the review report, as finalised on 28 January 2011, show that the risk to operators is not acceptable when hand-held equipment is used.\n(6)\nTaking into account the draft assessment report, its addendum and the comments received from Member States, from EFSA and from the notifier, the conclusion continues to apply that plant protection products containing pirimiphos-methyl may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is, however, necessary to restrict the inclusion of pirimiphos-methyl by excluding hand-held applications.\n(7)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31 October 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 November 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing pirimiphos-methyl as active substance by 31 October 2011.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["88", "45", "5", "91", "62", "21", "68", "26", "71", "7", "49", "55", "69", "93", "89", "58", "67", "75", "22", "73", "18", "8", "14", "95", "24", "99", "59", "4", "43", "19", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 548/2011\nof 6 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 June 2011.", "references": ["68", "57", "30", "75", "58", "22", "63", "50", "14", "19", "84", "80", "40", "49", "64", "12", "69", "88", "92", "67", "51", "89", "9", "85", "29", "82", "10", "33", "4", "47", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 15 December 2011\non a financial contribution from the Union towards certain measures to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease in wild animals in the south-east of Bulgaria in 2011-2012\n(notified under document C(2011) 9225)\n(Only the Bulgarian text is authentic)\n(2011/855/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 8(2), the second paragraph of Article 14(4), Article 20, Article 23, Article 31(2), Article 35(2) and Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFoot-and-mouth disease is a highly contagious viral disease in wild and domestic cloven-hoofed animals with a severe impact on the profitability of livestock farming causing disturbance to trade within the Union and export to third countries.\n(2)\nIn the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, there is a risk that the disease agent spreads to other holdings keeping animals of susceptible species within the affected Member State, but also to other Member States and to third countries through movements of live susceptible animals or their products.\n(3)\nCouncil Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC and Decisions 89/531/EEC and 91/665/EEC and amending Directive 92/46/EEC (2) sets out measures which in the event of an outbreak are to be implemented by Member States as a matter of urgency to prevent further spread of the virus.\n(4)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. Pursuant to Article 14(2) of that Decision, Member States shall obtain a financial contribution towards the costs of certain measures to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease.\n(5)\nOutbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in Bulgaria in 2011 and cases of this disease were detected in susceptible wild animals. The authorities of Bulgaria were able to demonstrate through regular reporting of information on the development of the disease situation to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and continuous submission of reports to the Commission and the Member States that they have efficiently implemented the control measures in the framework of Directive 2003/85/EC.\n(6)\nThe authorities of Bulgaria have therefore fulfilled all their technical and administrative obligations with regard to the measures provided for in Article 14(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (3).\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 85(3) of Directive 2003/85/EC, as soon as the competent authority of Bulgaria had a confirmation of the primary case of foot-and-mouth disease in wild animals, it applied the measures provided for in Part A of Annex XVIII to the Directive in order to reduce the spread of disease.\n(8)\nDue to the occurrence of foot-and-mouth disease in areas shared between wild animals and susceptible domestic cloven-hoofed animals, for the first time a Member State drew up a plan for the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in wild animals in the area defined as infected and specified the measures applied on the holdings in that area in accordance with Part B of Annex XVIII to Directive 2003/85/EC.\n(9)\nOn 4 April 2011, within 90 days following the confirmation of foot-and-mouth disease in wild animals, Bulgaria submitted a plan for the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in wild animals in parts of the regions of Burgas, Yambol and Haskovo.\n(10)\nFollowing evaluation by the Commission of the plan submitted by Bulgaria Commission Implementing Decision 2011/493/EU of 5 August 2011 approving the plan for the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in wild animals in Bulgaria (4) was adopted.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5) and Article 90(1) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (6), the commitment of expenditure from the Union\u2019s budget shall be preceded by a financing decision adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated, setting out the essential elements of the action involving the expenditure.\n(12)\nIt is necessary to establish the level of Union\u2019s financial contribution to the costs incurred by Bulgaria for the implementation of certain elements of the approved eradication plan for foot-and-mouth disease in wild animals in Bulgaria, taking also into account the particular epidemiological situation as regards foot-and-mouth disease at the South-East Balkans.\n(13)\nUrgently needed surveillance activities, including improvements of the National Reference Laboratory, one of the very few laboratories in the entire region with sufficient experience in diagnosing foot-and-mouth disease, and the veterinary information system to integrate surveillance data with movement controls, cleansing and disinfection measures and information campaigns to the public should be financed at an established rate under the present Decision. These actions will increase the knowledge of the Union for managing such cases in the future.\n(14)\nFor financial control purposes, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (7) are applicable.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. A financial contribution from the Union may be granted to Bulgaria towards the costs incurred by this Member State in taking measures pursuant to Article 8, Article 14(4)(c), Article 19, Article 22, Article 31(1), Article 35(1) and Article 36(1) of Decision 2009/470/EC to control and eradicate foot-and-mouth disease in wild animals in the south-east of Bulgaria in 2011 in accordance with the eradication plan approved by Decision 2011/493/EU.\nThe first paragraph constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\n2. The total amount of the Union contribution shall not exceed EUR 890 000.\n3. Only costs incurred in carrying out the measures detailed in the Annex between 4 April 2011 and 3 April 2012 and paid by Bulgaria before the 5 August 2012, shall be eligible for co-financing by means of a financial contribution by the Union at the maximum rate for the specific activities indicated in the Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The expenditure submitted by Bulgaria for a financial contribution by the Union shall be expressed in euro and shall exclude value added tax and all other taxes.\n2. Where the expenditure of Bulgaria is in a currency other than euro, Bulgaria shall convert it into euro by applying the most recent exchange rate set by the European Central Bank prior to the first day of the month in which the application is submitted by the Member State.\nArticle 3\n1. The financial contribution by the Union for the implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1 shall be granted provided that Bulgaria:\n(a)\nimplements the eradication plan referred to in Article 1 effectively and in accordance with the relevant provisions of Union law, including Directive 2003/85/EC, and rules on competition and on the award of public contracts;\n(b)\nforwards to the Commission by 31 January 2012 at the latest an intermediate report on the technical execution of the eradication plan, in accordance with paragraph 5 of Part B of Annex XVIII to Directive 2003/85/EC, accompanied by an intermediate financial report covering the period from 4 April 2011 to 31 December 2011;\n(c)\nforwards to the Commission by 15 September 2012 at the latest a final report on the technical execution of the eradication plan accompanied by justifying evidence as to the costs paid by Bulgaria and the results attained during the period from 4 April 2011 to 3 April 2012;\n(d)\ndoes not submit further requests for other contributions from the Union for the measures detailed in the Annex, and has not previously submitted such requests.\n2. Where Bulgaria does not comply with paragraph 1, the Commission may reduce the financial contribution by the Union having regard to the nature and gravity of the infringement and to the financial loss for the Union.\nArticle 4\n1. Bulgaria shall ensure that the competent authority keeps for a period of seven years a certified copy of the supporting documents relating to the activities receiving the Union\u2019s financial contribution in accordance with Article 1, in particular invoices, salary statements, attendance records and documents relating to the shipment of samples and to missions.\n2. Bulgaria shall record the expenditure submitted to the Commission in its cost accounting system and keep all original documents for seven years for audit purposes.\n3. The supporting documents referred to in paragraph 1 shall be sent to the Commission on request.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2011.", "references": ["59", "18", "85", "43", "64", "74", "42", "29", "50", "81", "8", "9", "82", "12", "54", "39", "68", "45", "37", "70", "44", "92", "31", "20", "40", "65", "25", "89", "73", "67", "No Label", "4", "15", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "15", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 27 September 2010\namending and extending the period of application of Decision 2007/641/EC concluding consultations with the Republic of the Fiji Islands under Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and Article 37 of the Development Cooperation Instrument\n(2010/589/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1) and revised in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (2) (the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement), and in particular Article 96 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (4) (the Development Cooperation Instrument), and in particular Article 37 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2007/641/EC (5) concluding consultations with the Republic of the Fiji Islands under Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and Article 37 of the Development Cooperation Instrument was adopted to implement appropriate measures following the violation of the essential elements referred to in Article 9 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, and the values referred to in Article 3 of the Development Cooperation Instrument.\n(2)\nThose measures have been extended by Decision 2009/735/EC (6), and subsequently by Decision 2010/208/EU (7) since, not only are important commitments concerning essential elements of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and the Development Cooperation Instrument yet to be implemented by the Republic of the Fiji Islands, but recently, there have also been important regressive developments concerning a number of these commitments.\n(3)\nThe period of application of the measures in Decision 2007/641/EC expires on 1 October 2010. It is appropriate to prolong its validity and the content of the appropriate measures should be technically updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2007/641/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 3, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall expire on 31 March 2011. It shall be reviewed regularly at least once every six months.\u2019;\n2.\nthe Annex is replaced by the text appearing in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe letter in the Annex to this Decision shall be addressed to the Republic of the Fiji Islands.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["99", "75", "19", "68", "76", "96", "29", "32", "26", "16", "46", "74", "57", "54", "41", "50", "84", "85", "37", "25", "5", "15", "78", "70", "28", "77", "63", "18", "65", "22", "No Label", "0", "1", "3", "4", "10", "14", "61", "95"], "gold": ["0", "1", "3", "4", "10", "14", "61", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1261/2010\nof 22 December 2010\nimposing a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel bars originating in India\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 12 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 1 April 2010, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (notice of initiation), the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding (AS proceeding) with regard to imports into the Union of certain stainless steel bars originating in India (\u2018India\u2019 or \u2018the country concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nOn the same day, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) (notice of initiation), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of certain stainless steel bars originating in India and commenced a separate investigation (AD proceeding).\n(3)\nThe AS proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 15 February 2010 by the European Federation of Iron and Steel Industries (Eurofer) (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 % of total Union production of certain stainless steel bars. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of subsidisation of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.\n(4)\nPrior to the initiation of the proceeding and in accordance with Article 10(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission notified the Government of India (the \u2018GOI\u2019) that it had received a properly documented complaint alleging that subsidised imports of certain stainless steel bars originating in India were causing material injury to the Union industry. The GOI was invited for consultations with the aim of clarifying the situation as regards the contents of the complaint and arriving at a mutually agreed solution. In this case, no mutually agreed solution was found.\n1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(5)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant Union producers, other known Union producers, the exporting producers, importers, users known to be concerned, and the Indian authorities of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(6)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n1.2.1. Sampling for exporting producers in India\n(7)\nIn view of the large number of exporting producers in India, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of subsidization in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation.\n(8)\nIn order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, exporting producers in India were requested to make themselves known within 15 days from the date of the initiation of the investigation and to provide basic information on their export and domestic sales, their precise activities with regard to the production of the product concerned and the names and activities of all their related companies involved in the production and/or selling of the product concerned during the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010.\n(9)\nThe relevant Indian authorities were also consulted for the selection of a representative sample.\n(10)\nIn total, 22 exporting producers, including groups of related companies in India, provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample within the deadline set in the notice of initiation. 20 of these cooperating companies or groups reported exports of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period. Thus, the sample was chosen on the basis of the information submitted by these 20 exporting producers or groups of exporting producers.\n(11)\nAny exporting producers which did not make themselves known within the aforesaid deadline or did not provide the requested information in due time, were considered as non-cooperating with the investigation. The comparison between Eurostat import data and the volume of exports to the Union of the product concerned reported for the investigation period by the 20 cooperating companies or groups with exports of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period suggests that the cooperation of Indian exporting producers was very high.\n1.2.2. Selection of the sample of cooperating companies in India\n(12)\nIn accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample based on the largest representative volume of exports of the product concerned to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sample selected consisted of two individual companies and one group of companies consisting of four related companies, together representing more than 63 % of the total volume of exports to the Union of the product concerned.\n1.2.3. Individual examination of companies not selected in the sample\n(13)\nOne exporting producer which was not included in the sample because it did not meet the criteria set in Article 27(1) of the basic Regulation requested that an individual margin of subsidisation be established pursuant to Article 27(3) of the basic Regulation and provided a reply to the questionnaire.\n(14)\nAs mentioned in recital 12 the sample was limited to a reasonable number of companies which could be investigated within the time available. The companies investigated for the purpose of the investigation of subsidisation are listed in recital 22 below. In view of the number of verification visits to be carried out at the premises of these companies, it was considered that the individual examination would be unduly burdensome and would have prevented the timely completion of the investigation.\n(15)\nTherefore, it was provisionally concluded that the request for an individual examination could not be accepted.\n1.2.4. Sampling of Union producers\n(16)\nIn view of the large number of Union producers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of injury in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation.\n(17)\nNo other producers than the eight complainants made themselves known and provided, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the investigation period. Out of these eight, a sample of four companies was selected on basis of the representativeness of their sales volume, their various product types and their location in the Union. The complainant and the producers concerned were consulted on the selection of the sample.\n(18)\nThe four sampled Union producers accounted for 62 % of the total production of the Union industry during the investigation period.\n1.2.5. Sampling of importers\n(19)\nIn view of the large number of importers identified in the complaint, sampling was envisaged for importers in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation. Four importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample within the deadline set in the notice of initiation. Given the low number of importers who made themselves known, it was decided not to apply sampling.\n(20)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to all the other companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. Questionnaires were thus sent to the GOI, the sampled exporting producers in India, the sampled Union producers, to the four importers in the Union that came forward within the sampling exercise and to all users known to be concerned by the investigation.\n(21)\nReplies were received from the GOI, the sampled exporting producers, the exporting producer which requested individual examination, the sampled producers in the Union and from one importer. No questionnaire replies were received from users or from any other interested party in the proceeding. In addition, a major proportion of Union producers provided the requested general data for the injury analysis.\n(22)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information provided by interested parties and deemed necessary for a provisional determination of subsidisation, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of GOI in Delhi, the Government of Maharashtra in Mumbai, the regional office of the GOI in Mumbai, and the following parties:\nProducers in the Union\n-\nAceros Inoxidables Olarra SA, Spain and related sales companies,\n-\nRodaciai SPA, Italy and related sales companies,\n-\nRoldan SA, Spain and related sales companies,\n-\nUgitech France SA, France and related sales companies.\nExporting producers in India\n-\nViraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd, Thane, Maharashtra,\n-\nChandan Steel Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra.\nVenus group:\n-\nVenus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra,\n-\nPrecision Metals, Mumbai, Maharashtra,\n-\nHindustan Inox Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra,\n-\nSieves Manufacturer India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra.\n1.3. Investigation period\n(23)\nThe investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 2007 to the end of the investigation period (period considered).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(24)\nThe product concerned is stainless steel bars and rods, not further worked than cold-formed or cold-finished, other than bars and rods of circular cross-section of a diameter of 80 mm or more, originating in India (the product concerned) currently falling within CN codes 7222 20 21, 7222 20 29, 7222 20 31, 7222 20 39, 7222 20 81 and 7222 20 89.\n2.2. Like product\n(25)\nThe investigation showed that the products produced and sold on the domestic market of India, which are covered by this investigation, have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and uses as those exported from this country to the Union market. Similarly, the products produced by the Union industry and sold on the Union market have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and uses when compared to those exported to the Union from the country concerned. They are therefore provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the basic Regulation.\n3. SUBSIDISATION\n3.1. Introduction\n(26)\nOn the basis of the information contained in the complaint and the replies to the Commission\u2019s questionnaire, the following schemes, which allegedly involve the granting of subsidies, were investigated:\n(a)\nDuty Entitlement Passbook Scheme;\n(b)\nAdvance Authorisation Scheme;\n(c)\nExport Promotion Capital Goods Scheme;\n(d)\nExport Oriented Units Scheme;\n(e)\nExport Credit Scheme.\n(27)\nThe schemes (a) to (d) specified above are based on the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 (No 22 of 1992) which entered into force on 7 August 1992 (\u2018Foreign Trade Act\u2019). The Foreign Trade Act authorises the GOI to issue notifications regarding the export and import policy. These are summarised in \u2018Foreign Trade Policy\u2019 documents, which are issued by the Ministry of Commerce every 5 years and updated regularly. Two Foreign Trade Policy documents are relevant to the IP of this investigation, i.e. FT-policy 04-09 and FT-policy 09-14. - In addition, the GOI also sets out the procedures governing the FT-policy 04-09 and FT-policy 09-14 in a \u2018Handbook of Procedures, Volume I\u2019 (\u2018HOP I 04-09\u2019 and \u2018HOP I 09-14\u2019 respectively). The Handbook of Procedures is also updated on a regular basis.\n(28)\nThe Export Credit Scheme specified above under (e) is based on sections 21 and 35A of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, which allow the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to direct commercial banks in the field of export credits.\n3.2. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS)\n(a) Legal Basis\n(29)\nThe detailed description of the DEPBS is contained in chapter 4.3 of the FT-policy 04-09 and FT-policy 09-14 as well as in chapter 4 of the HOP I 04-09 and of the HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(30)\nAny manufacturer-exporter or merchant-exporter is eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation of the DEPBS\n(31)\nAn exporter can apply for DEPBS credits which are calculated as a percentage of the value of products exported under this scheme. Such DEPBS rates have been established by the Indian authorities for most products, including the product concerned. They are determined on the basis of Standard Input Output Norms (\u2018SIONs\u2019) taking into account a presumed import content of inputs in the export product and the customs duty incidence on such presumed imports, regardless of whether import duties have actually been paid or not.\n(32)\nTo be eligible for benefits under this scheme, a company must export. At the time of the export transaction, a declaration must be made by the exporter to the Indian authorities indicating that the export is taking place under the DEPBS. In order for the goods to be exported, the Indian customs authorities issue an export shipping bill during the dispatch procedure. This document shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction. At this point in time, the exporter knows the benefit it will receive. Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill, the GOI has no discretion over the granting of a DEPBS credit.\n(33)\nIt was found that in accordance with Indian accounting standards, DEPBS credits can be booked on an accrual basis as income in the commercial accounts, upon fulfilment of the export obligation. Such credits can be used for payment of customs duties on subsequent imports of any goods - except capital goods and goods where there are import restrictions. Goods imported against such credits can be sold on the domestic market (subject to sales tax) or used otherwise. DEPBS credits are freely transferable and valid for a period of 12 months from the date of issue.\n(34)\nApplication for DEPBS credits are electronically filed and can cover an unlimited amount of export transactions. De facto no strict deadlines apply to DEPBS credits. The electronic system used to manage DEPBS does not automatically exclude export transactions exceeding the submission deadline mentioned in chapter 4.47 of the HOP I 04-09 and 09-14. Furthermore, as clearly provided in chapter 9.3 of the HOP I 04-09 and 09-14, applications received after the expiry of submission deadlines can always be considered subject to the imposition of a minor penalty fee (i.e. 10 % of the entitlement).\n(35)\nIt was found that two of companies in the sample, Chandan Steel and the companies in the Venus group used this scheme during the IP.\n(d) Conclusions on the DEPBS\n(36)\nThe DEPBS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. A DEPBS credit is a financial contribution by the GOI since the credit will eventually be used to offset import duties, thus decreasing the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would otherwise be due. In addition, the DEPBS credit confers a benefit upon the exporter because it improves its liquidity.\n(37)\nFurthermore, the DEPBS is contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation.\n(38)\nThis scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation since it does not conform to the rules laid down in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. In particular, an exporter is under no obligation to actually consume the goods imported free of duty in the production process and the amount of credit is not calculated in relation to actual inputs used. Moreover, there is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production process of the exported product or whether an excess payment of import duties occurred within the meaning of item (i) of Annex I, and Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation. Lastly, an exporter is eligible for the DEPBS benefits regardless of whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported. Thus, even exporters which procure all of their inputs locally and do not import any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled to benefit from the DEPBS.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(39)\nIn accordance with Articles 3(2) and 5 of the basic Regulation, the amount of countervailable subsidies was calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient found to exist during the IP. In this regard, it was considered that the benefit is conferred on the recipient at the point in time when an export transaction is made under this scheme. At that moment, the GOI is liable to forego the customs duties, which constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill which shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction, the GOI has no discretion as to whether or not to grant the subsidy. In the light of the above, it is considered appropriate to assess the benefit under the DEPBS as being the sums of the credits earned on export transactions made under this scheme during the IP.\n(40)\nWhere justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the credits so established to arrive at the subsidy amount as numerator, pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the total export turnover during the IP as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(41)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the companies concerned during the IP ranged from 1,5 % to 3,4 %.\n3.3. Advance Authorisation Scheme (AAS)\n(a) Legal basis\n(42)\nThe detailed description of the scheme is contained in paragraphs 4.1.1 to 4.1.14 of the FT-policy 04-09 and FT-policy 2009-2014 and chapters 4.1 to 4.30 of the HOP I 2004-2009 and of the HOP I 2009-2014.\n(b) Eligibility\n(43)\nThe AAS consists of six sub-schemes, as described in more detail in recital (44) below. Those sub-schemes differ, inter alia, in the scope of eligibility. Manufacturer-exporters and merchant-exporters \u2018tied to\u2019 supporting manufacturers are eligible for the AAS physical exports and for the AAS for annual requirement sub-schemes. Manufacturer-exporters supplying the ultimate exporter are eligible for AAS for intermediate supplies. Main contractors which supply to the \u2018deemed export\u2019 categories mentioned in paragraph 8.2 of the FT-policy 2004-2009, such as suppliers of an export oriented unit (\u2018EOU\u2019), are eligible for the AAS deemed export sub-scheme. Eventually, intermediate suppliers to manufacturer-exporters are eligible for \u2018deemed export\u2019 benefits under the sub-schemes Advance Release Order (\u2018ARO\u2019) and back to back inland letter of credit.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(44)\nThe AAS can be issued for:\n(i) Physical exports: This is the main sub-scheme. It allows for duty-free import of input materials for the production of a specific resulting export product. \u2018Physical\u2019 in this context means that the export product has to leave Indian territory. An import allowance and export obligation including the type of export product are specified in the licence;\n(ii) Annual requirement: Such an authorisation is not linked to a specific export product, but to a wider product group (e.g. chemical and allied products). The licence holder can - up to a certain value threshold set by its past export performance - import duty-free any input to be used in manufacturing any of the items falling under such a product group. It can choose to export any resulting product falling under the product group using such duty-exempt material;\n(iii) Intermediate supplies: This sub-scheme covers cases where two manufacturers intend to produce a single export product and divide the production process. The manufacturer-exporter who produces the intermediate product can import duty-free input materials and can obtain for this purpose an AAS for intermediate supplies. The ultimate exporter finalises the production and is obliged to export the finished product;\n(iv) Deemed exports: This sub-scheme allows a main contractor to import inputs free of duty which are required in manufacturing goods to be sold as \u2018deemed exports\u2019 to the categories of customers mentioned in paragraph 8.2(b) to (f), (g), (i) and (j) of the FT-policy 04-09. According to the GOI, deemed exports refer to those transactions in which the goods supplied do not leave the country. A number of categories of supply is regarded as deemed exports provided the goods are manufactured in India, e.g. supply of goods to an export-oriented unit (EOU) or to a company situated in a special economic zone (SEZ);\n(v) Advance Release Order (ARO): The AAS holder intending to source the inputs from indigenous sources, in lieu of direct import, has the option to source them against AROs. In such cases the Advance Authorisations are validated as AROs and are endorsed to the indigenous supplier upon delivery of the items specified therein. The endorsement of the ARO entitles the indigenous supplier to the benefits of deemed exports as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the FT-policy 04-09 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty). The ARO mechanism refunds taxes and duties to the supplier instead of refunding the same to the ultimate exporter in the form of drawback/refund of duties. The refund of taxes/duties is available both for indigenous inputs as well as imported inputs;\n(vi) Back to back inland letter of credit: This sub-scheme again covers indigenous supplies to an Advance Authorisation holder. The holder of an Advance Authorisation can approach a bank for opening an inland letter of credit in favour of an indigenous supplier. The authorisation will be validated by the bank for direct import only in respect of the value and volume of items being sourced indigenously instead of importation. The indigenous supplier will be entitled to deemed export benefits as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the HUF-policy 04-09 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty).\n(45)\nTwo companies received concessions under the AAS linked to the product concerned during the IP. These companies made use of one of the sub-schemes, i.e. AAS physical exports. It is therefore not necessary to establish the countervailability of the remaining unused sub-schemes.\n(46)\nFor verification purposes by the Indian authorities, an Advance Authorisation holder is legally obliged to maintain \u2018a true and proper account of consumption and utilisation of duty-free imported/domestically procured goods\u2019 in a specified format (chapters 4.26, 4.30 and Appendix 23 HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14), i.e. an actual consumption register. This register has to be verified by an external chartered accountant/cost and works accountant who issues a certificate stating that the prescribed registers and relevant records have been examined and the information furnished under Appendix 23 is true and correct in all respects.\n(47)\nWith regard to the sub-scheme used during the IP by the companies concerned, i.e. physical exports, the import allowance and the export obligation are fixed in volume and value by the GOI and are documented on the Authorisation. In addition, at the time of import and of export, the corresponding transactions are to be documented by Government officials on the Authorisation. The volume of imports allowed under the AAS is determined by the GOI on the basis of Standard Input Output Norms (SIONs) which exist for most products including the product concerned.\n(48)\nImported input materials are not transferable and have to be used to produce the resultant export product. The export obligation must be fulfilled within a prescribed time frame after issuance of the licence (24 months with two possible extensions of 6 months each).\n(49)\nThe investigation established that the verification requirements stipulated by the Indian authorities were either not honoured or not yet tested in practice.\n(50)\nOne of the companies investigated did not maintain a system whereby it could be verified which inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product and in what amounts, as stipulated by the FT-policy (Appendix 23) and in accordance with Annex II(II)(4) of the basic Regulation. In fact, there were no records of actual consumption. Changes in the administration of the FT-policy 2004 to 2009, which became effective in autumn of 2005 (mandatory sending of the consumption register to the Indian authorities in the context of the redemption procedure) has not yet been applied in the case of this company. Thus, the de facto implementation of this provision could not be verified at this stage.\n(51)\nAs regarding the other company, it did maintain a certain production and consumption register. However, the consumption register for the IP was not available, and consequently it was not possible to verify, inter alia, the consumption records in order to establish which inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product and in what amounts, as stipulated by the FT-policy (Appendix 23). Regarding the verification requirements referred to in recital 46 above, there were no records kept by the company on how this certification took place. There was no audit plan or any other supporting material of the audit performed (e.g. a report of the auditing), no recorded information on the methodology used and the specific requirements needed for such scrupulous work that required detailed technical knowledge on production processes. In sum, it is considered that the investigated exporter was not able to demonstrate that the relevant FT-policy provisions were met.\n(d) Conclusion on the AAS\n(52)\nThe exemption from import duties is a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation, namely it constitutes a financial contribution of the GOI which conferred a benefit upon the investigated exporters.\n(53)\nIn addition, AAS physical exports are clearly contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation. Without an export commitment a company cannot obtain benefits under these schemes.\n(54)\nThe sub-scheme used in the present case cannot be considered permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the rules laid down in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. The GOI did not effectively apply a verification system or a procedure to confirm whether and in what amounts inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) of the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) of the basic Regulation). It is also considered that the SIONs for the product concerned were not sufficiently precise and that themselves cannot constitute a verification system of actual consumption because the design of those standard norms does not enable the GOI to verify with sufficient precision what amounts of inputs were consumed in the export production. In addition, the GOI did not carry out a further examination based on actual inputs involved, although this would normally need to be carried out in the absence of an effectively applied verification system (Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) to the basic Regulation).\n(55)\nThe sub-scheme is therefore countervailable.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(56)\nIn the absence of permitted duty drawback systems or substitution drawback systems, the countervailable benefit is the remission of total import duties normally due upon importation of inputs. In this respect, it is noted that the basic Regulation does not only provide for the countervailing of an \u2018excess\u2019 remission of duties. According to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Annex I(i) of the basic Regulation only when the conditions of Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation are met that the excess remission of duties can be countervailed. However, these conditions were not fulfilled in the present case. Thus, if an adequate monitoring process is not demonstrated, the above exception for drawback schemes is not applicable and the normal rule of the countervailing of the amount of unpaid duties (revenue forgone), applies, rather than of any purported excess remission. As set out in Annexes II(II) and III(II) of the basic Regulation the burden is not upon the investigating authority to calculate such excess remission. To the contrary, according to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation, the investigating authority only has to establish sufficient evidence to refute the appropriateness of an alleged verification system.\n(57)\nThe subsidy amount for the companies which used the AAS was calculated on the basis of import duties forgone (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) on the material imported under the sub-scheme during the IP (numerator). In accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the subsidy amount where justified claims were made. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount was allocated over the export turnover of the product concerned during the IP as appropriate denominator because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(58)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the concerned companies for the IP amounts to 0,8 % and 1,5 % respectively.\n3.4. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)\n(59)\nThe investigation revealed that two of the companies or groups of companies in the sample used this scheme during the IP. However, it was found that the incentives received were negligible. Therefore, it was considerate that it was not necessary to further evaluate the countervailability of this scheme in this investigation.\n3.5. Export Oriented Units Scheme (EOUS)\n(60)\nIt was found that one of the companies in the sample had the status of an EOU and received subsidies in the IP.\n(a) Legal basis\n(61)\nThe details of the EOU scheme are contained in chapter 6 of the FT-policy 04-09 and FT-policy 09-14 as well as in chapter 6 of the HOP I 04-09 and of the HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(62)\nWith the exception of pure trading companies, all enterprises which, in principle, undertake to export their entire production of goods or services may be set up under the EOUS. Undertakings in the industrial sectors have to fulfil a minimum investment threshold in fixed assets to be eligible for the EOUS.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(63)\nExport oriented units can be located and established anywhere in India.\n(64)\nAn application for EOU status must include details for a period of the next 5 years on, inter alia, planned production quantities, projected value of exports, import requirements and indigenous requirements. Upon acceptance by the authorities of the company\u2019s application, the terms and conditions attached to this acceptance will be communicated to the company. The agreement to be recognised as a company under EOUS is valid for a five-year period. The agreement may be renewed for further periods.\n(65)\nA crucial obligation of an EOU as set out in the FT-policy 2004-2009 and FT-policy 2009-2014 is to achieve net foreign exchange (NFE) earnings, that is in a reference period (5 years) the total value of exports has to be higher than the total value of imported goods.\n(66)\nExport oriented units are entitled to the following concessions:\n(i)\nexemption from import duties on all types of goods (including capital goods, raw materials and consumables) required for the manufacture, production, processing, or in connection therewith;\n(ii)\nexemption from excise duty on goods procured from indigenous sources;\n(iii)\nreimbursement of central sales tax paid on goods procured locally;\n(iv)\nthe facility to sell part of production on the domestic market of up to 50 % of FOB value of exports, subject to fulfilment of positive NFE earnings upon payment of concessional duties, namely excise duties on finished products;\n(v)\npartial reimbursement of duty paid on fuel procured from domestic oil companies;\n(vi)\nexemption from income tax normally due on profits realised on export sales in accordance with Section 10B of the Income Tax Act for a 10-year period after starting its operations.\n(67)\nUnits operating under these schemes are bonded under the surveillance of customs officials.\n(68)\nThey are legally obliged to maintain a proper account of all imports, of the consumption and utilisation of all imported materials and of the exports made in accordance with the relevant paragraph of HOP I 2009-2014. These documents should be submitted periodically to the competent authorities in India through quarterly and annual progress reports.\n(69)\nHowever, \u2018at no point in time [an EOU] shall be required to co-relate every import consignment with its exports, transfers to other units, sales in DTA or stocks\u2019, as the relevant section of the HOP I 2009-2014 states.\n(70)\nDomestic sales are dispatched and recorded on a self-certification basis. The dispatch process of export consignments of an EOU is supervised by a customs/excise official.\n(71)\nIn the present case, the EOUS was used by one of the cooperating exporters in the sample. This cooperating exporter utilised the scheme to import raw materials, consumables and capital goods free of import duties, to procure goods domestically free of excise duty and to obtain sales tax reimbursement, and to sell part of its production on the domestic market. The cooperating exporter thereby availed of all benefits as described in recital 66 above under (i) to (vi). However, as regards income tax exemption pursuant to Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, the investigation revealed that, as from 1 April 2010, the company would no longer be eligible for this exemption. Consequently, the income tax exemption provisions of the EOU were not further considered in the context of this investigation.\n(d) Conclusions on the EOUS\n(72)\nThe exemptions of an EOU from three types of import duties (\u2018basic customs duty\u2019, \u2018education cess on customs duty\u2019 and \u2018higher secondary education cess\u2019) and the reimbursement of sales tax are financial contributions of the GOI within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Government revenue which would be due in the absence of this scheme is forgone, thus, conferring a benefit upon the EOU in the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation because it improved liquidity by not having to pay duties normally due and by obtaining a sales tax reimbursement.\n(73)\nThe exemption from excise duty and its import duty equivalent (\u2018EED\u2019), however, do not lead to revenue forgone which is otherwise due. Excise and additional customs duty, if paid, could be used as a credit for its own future duty liabilities (the so-called \u2018CENVAT mechanism\u2019) which is a system comparable to VAT and which allows Indian companies to offset taxes on purchases with taxes payable on sales. Therefore, these duties are not definitive. By the means of \u2018CENVAT\u2019-credit only an added value bears a definitive duty, not the input materials.\n(74)\nThus, only the exemption from basic customs duty, education cess on customs duty, higher secondary education cess and the central sales tax reimbursement, constitute subsidies within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation. They are contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation. The export objective of an EOU as set out in chapter 6.1 of the FT-policy 2009-2014 is a conditio sine qua non to obtain the incentives.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(75)\nAccordingly, the countervailable benefit is the remission of import duties basic customs duty, education cess on customs duty, higher secondary education cess normally due upon importation as well as the reimbursement of central sales tax, during the IP.\n(i) Exemption from import duties (basic customs duty, education cess on customs duty, higher secondary education cess), reimbursement of central sales tax on raw materials and consumables\n(76)\nThe subsidy amount for the exporter that are export oriented units was calculated on the basis of import duties forgone (basic customs duty, education cess on customs duty, higher secondary education cess) on the materials imported for the EOU as a whole and the sales tax reimbursed during the IP. Fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation from this sum to arrive at the subsidy amount as numerator. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the appropriate export turnover generated during the IP as appropriate denominator because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. The subsidy margin obtained under the EOUS for the company concerned amounts to 4,3 %.\n(ii) Exemption from import duties (basic customs duty, education cess on customs duty, higher secondary education cess) on capital goods\n(77)\nCapital goods are not physically incorporated into the finished goods. In accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, the benefit to the concerned company has been calculated on the basis of the amount of unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods spread across a period which reflects the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in one of the investigated company. The amount so calculated is then attributable to the IP and has been adjusted by adding interest during this period in order to reflect the value of the benefit over time and thereby establish the full benefit of this scheme to the recipient. In accordance with Articles 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount has been allocated over the appropriate export turnover generated during the IP as appropriate denominator because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. The subsidy margin thus obtained for the company concerned was negligible.\n3.6. Export Credit Scheme (ECS)\n(a) Legal basis\n(78)\nThe details of the scheme are set out in the Master Circular DBOD No. DIR.(Exp).BC 01/04.02.02/2007-08 (Rupee/Foreign Currency Export Credit) and Master Circular DBOD No. DIR.(Exp).BC 09/04.02.02/2008-09 (Rupee/Foreign Currency Export Credit) of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which is addressed to all commercial banks in India.\n(b) Eligibility\n(79)\nManufacturing exporters and merchant exporters are eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(80)\nUnder this scheme, the RBI sets maximum ceiling interest rates applicable to export credits which are mandatory, both in Indian rupees and in foreign currency, which commercial banks can charge an exporter. The ECS consists of two sub-schemes, the Pre-Shipment Export Credit Scheme (packing credit), which covers credits provided to an exporter for financing the purchase, processing, manufacturing, packing and/or shipping of goods prior to export, and the Post-Shipment Export Credit Scheme, which provides for working capital loans with the purpose of financing export receivables. The RBI also directs the banks to provide a certain amount of their net bank credit towards export finance.\n(81)\nAs a result of the RBI Master Circulars exporters can obtain export credits at preferential interest rates as compared with the interest rates for ordinary commercial credits (cash credits), which are solely set under market conditions. The difference in rates might decrease for companies with good credit ratings. In fact, high rating companies might be in a position to obtain export credits and cash credits at the same conditions.\n(82)\nIt was found that the one of the companies used this scheme during the IP.\n(d) Conclusion on the ECS\n(83)\nThe preferential interest rates of an ECS credit set by the RBI Master Circulars mentioned in recital 78 can decrease the interest costs of an exporter as compared with credit costs purely set by market conditions and confer in this case a benefit in the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation on such an exporter. Export financing is not per se more secure than domestic financing. In fact, it is usually perceived as being more risky and the extent of security required for a certain credit, regardless of the finance object, is a purely commercial decision of a given commercial bank. Rate differences with regard to different banks are the result of the methodology of the RBI to set maximum lending rates for each commercial bank individually.\n(84)\nDespite the fact that the preferential credits under the ECS are granted by commercial banks, this benefit is a financial contribution by a government within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation. In this context, it should be noted that neither Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation nor the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures require a charge on the public accounts, e.g. reimbursement of the commercial banks by the GOI, to establish a subsidy, but only government direction to carry out functions illustrated in points (i), (ii) or (iii) of Article 3(1)(a) of the basic Regulation. The RBI is a public body and falls therefore under the definition of \u2018government\u2019 as set out in Article 2(b) of the basic Regulation. It is 100 % government-owned, pursues public policy objectives, e.g. monetary policy, and its management is appointed by the GOI. The RBI directs private bodies, within the meaning of the second indent of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation, since the commercial banks are bound by the conditions it imposes, inter alia, with regard to the maximum ceilings for interest rates on export credits mandated in the RBI Master Circulars and the RBI provisions that commercial banks have to provide a certain amount of their net bank credit towards export finance. This direction obliges commercial banks to carry out functions mentioned in Article 3(1)(a)(i) of the basic Regulation, in this case to provide loans in the form of preferential export financing. Such direct transfer of funds in the form of loans under certain conditions would normally be vested in the government, and the practice differs, in no real sense, from practices normally followed by governments, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation. This subsidy is deemed to be specific and countervailable since the preferential interest rates are only available in relation to the financing of export transactions and are therefore contingent upon export performance, pursuant to Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(85)\nThe subsidy amount has been calculated on the basis of the difference between the interest paid for export credits used during the IP and the amount that would have been payable for ordinary commercial credits used by the company concerned. This subsidy amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total export turnover during the IP as the appropriate denominator in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(86)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the company for the IP amounts to 0,4 %.\n3.7. Amount of countervailable subsidies\n(87)\nBased on the findings, as summarised in the below table, the total amount of countervailable subsidies, expressed ad valorem, were found to range from 3,3 % to 4,3 %:\nSCHEME\u2192\nDEPBS (4)\nAAS (4)\nEOU (4)\nECS (4)\nTotal\nCOMPANY\nChandan Steel Ltd\n1,5 %\n1,5 %\n0,4 %\n3,4 %\nVenus group\n2,6 % to 3,4 %\n0 to 0,8 %\n3,3 % (5)\nViraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd\n4,3 %\n4,3 %\n(88)\nIn accordance with Article 15(3) of the basic Regulation, the subsidy margin for the cooperating companies not included in the sample, calculated on the basis of the weighted average subsidy margin established for the cooperating companies in the sample, is 4,0 %.\n(89)\nWith regard to all other exporters in India, the Commission first established the level of cooperation. As mentioned in recital 10 above, the comparison between Eurostat import data and the volume of exports to the Union of the product concerned reported for the investigation period by the cooperating companies or groups with exports of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period shows that the cooperation of Indian exporting producers was very high, namely 100 %. Given this high level of cooperation, the subsidy rate for all non-cooperating companies is set at the level for the company with the highest individual rate, i.e. 4,3 %,\n4. UNION INDUSTRY\n4.1. Union production\n(90)\nThe output of the following Union producers was considered for establishing the volume of Union production:\n-\neight producers on whose behalf the complaint was lodged,\n-\nfour producers which supported the proceeding,\n-\ntwelve other Union producers listed in the complaint, which were neither complainants nor supporting the proceeding but did not oppose the present investigation.\n(91)\nConsequently, the Union production consists of these 24 companies for the purpose of the injury analysis as a whole.\n4.2. Sampling of Union producers\n(92)\nAs mentioned above in recital 17, a sample of four companies was selected from those producers who made themselves known to the Commission and provided, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the investigation period.\n(93)\nThese four sampled Union producers accounted for 62 % of the total production of the Union industry during the IP.\n5. INJURY\n5.1. Preliminary remarks\n(94)\nInjury has been assessed on the basis of trends concerning production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales, market share and growth collected at the level of the total Union industry and trends concerning prices, employment, productivity, profitability, cash flow, ability to raise capital and investments, stocks, return on investment and wages collected at the level of the sampled Union producers.\n5.2. Union consumption\n(95)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the sampled Union industry, the sales data of the other Union producers as provided by the complainant, the import volume data on the Union market obtained from Eurostat for the period 2007 to 2009 and the replies to the sampling questions for the IP.\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nUnion consumption in tonnes\n315 143\n285 548\n186 198\n202 019\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n91\n59\n64\n(96)\nDuring the period considered, consumption decreased by 36 %. From 2007 to 2009, the consumption decreased by 41 % but increased slightly by 5 percentage points between 2009 and the IP.\n(97)\nThe economic downturn has contributed to the decrease in consumption from 2008, during which users of the product concerned like the automotive industry, domestic appliances, chemical and building industries, experienced a serious drop in demand for their products. In the second half of the IP, the market situation started to improve slightly, resulting in a small increase in demand for the product concerned compared to the first half of the IP.\n5.3. Imports into the Union from the country concerned\n5.3.1. Volume and market share of the imports concerned\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nImports from India in tonnes\n32 754\n31 962\n18 759\n23 792\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n98\n57\n73\nMarket share of imports\n10,39 %\n11,19 %\n10,07 %\n11,78 %\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n108\n97\n113\n(98)\nBased on Eurostat for the period 2007 to 2009 and the replies to the sampling questions for the IP, imports of the product concerned from India followed the downward trend of the EU consumption and decreased by 27 % during the period considered. The biggest decrease took place between 2008 and 2009 when imports dropped by 41 percentage points. Imports then increased by 16 percentage points between 2009 and the IP.\n(99)\nSince this decrease is lower than the decrease in Union consumption, the market share of the Indian producers slightly increased from 10,39 % in 2007 to 11,78 % in the IP.\n5.3.2. Prices of imports and price undercutting\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nAverage import price from India EUR/tonne\n3 504\n2 908\n2 138\n1 971\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n83\n61\n56\n(100)\nThe average import price of the product concerned from India decreased by 44 % with the biggest decrease occurring between 2008 and 2009 when prices fell by 22 percentage points. Although this decrease followed the downward trend of the raw material prices, it has to be noted that throughout the period considered, the average import price per unit from India was significantly lower than the average per unit sales price of the Union industry, resulting in strong price pressure on the Union sales prices.\n(101)\nA comparison for the IP between the sampled Union industry\u2019s ex-works prices to unrelated customers on the Union market with the CIF Union frontier prices of exporting producers in India, duly adjusted for unloading and customs clearance costs, showed price undercutting ranging between 16,7 % and 18,2 %.\n5.4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(102)\nPursuant to Article 8(4) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the subsidised imports from India on the Union industry included an analysis of all relevant economic factors having a bearing on the state of the industry from 2007 to the IP.\n5.4.1. Data relating to the Union industry as a whole\n(a) Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nProduction volume in tonnes\n296 576\n262 882\n159 397\n170 557\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n89\n54\n58\nProduction capacity in tonnes\n478 174\n491 016\n486 755\n476 764\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n103\n102\n100\nCapacity utilisation\n62 %\n54 %\n33 %\n36 %\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n86\n53\n58\n(103)\nBetween 2007 and the IP the Union industry\u2019s overall production decreased by 42 % while the production capacity remained stable, causing the capacity utilisation rate to decrease by 26 percentage points. The decrease in production was greater than that of the Union consumption which decreased by 36 % over the period considered.\n(b) Sales volume, market share\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nEU sales in tonnes\n255 300\n230 344\n154 602\n164 191\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n90\n61\n64\nMarket share (% of Union consumption)\n81 %\n81 %\n83 %\n81 %\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n100\n102\n100\n(104)\nThe Union industry\u2019s sales volume of the like product when sold to the first independent customer on the Union market decreased by 36 % over the period considered with the biggest decrease occurring between 2008 and 2009 when sales fell by 29 percentage points. Sales then increased slightly by 3 percentage points between 2009 and the IP.\n(105)\nThe Union industry\u2019s market share remained stable at a level of around 81 % over the period considered.\n(c) Growth\n(106)\nSince both the Union consumption and the sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 36 % over the period considered, the market share of the Union industry remained stable at 81 %.\n(d) Magnitude of the actual subsidy margin\n(107)\nGiven the volume, market share and prices of the subsidised imports from India, the impact on the Union industry of the actual subsidy margins cannot be considered to be negligible.\n5.4.2. Data relating to the sampled Union producers\n(a) Stocks\n(108)\nThe Union industry mainly produces on order, stocks can therefore not be considered as a meaningful injury indicator. The trends in stocks are given for information purposes. The figures below only refer to the sampled companies and represent the volume of stocks at the end of each period.\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nClosing stock in tonnes\n25 315\n27 736\n24 032\n19 730\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n110\n95\n78\n(109)\nThe volume of stocks decreased by 22 % during the period considered, but as a percentage of production, stocks increased from 16 % to 19,5 %.\n(b) Average unit selling prices on the Union market and cost of production\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nAverage sales price of the Union industry (EUR)\n4 478\n3 615\n2 507\n2 521\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n81\n56\n56\nUnit cost of production\n4 003\n3 408\n2 900\n2 773\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n85\n72\n69\n(110)\nThe average unit prices of the sampled Union industry\u2019s sales to unrelated customers on the Union market decreased by 44 % between 2007 and the IP with the biggest decrease occurring between 2008 and 2009 when prices fell by 25 percentage points. Part of this decrease however, was due to the drop in the unit cost of production of the product concerned which decreased by 31 % over the period considered. The drop in unit costs was mainly caused by the decrease in raw material prices. This decrease was slightly modulated by the increase in the proportion of fixed costs per unit produced, due to the lower capacity utilisation.\n(c) Employment, productivity and labour costs\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nNumber of employees\n1 044\n1 007\n947\n885\nIndex\n100\n97\n91\n85\nProductivity (tonnes/employee)\n149\n141\n97\n115\nIndex\n100\n94\n65\n77\nAverage labour costs per employee\n47 686\n48 062\n47 131\n49 972\nIndex\n100\n101\n99\n105\n(111)\nThe number of employees was reduced by 15 % over the period considered due to the downsizing of activities of the Union industry.\n(112)\nAs regards average labour costs per employee, they increased slightly by 5 % over the period considered. This is considered a natural increase and is less than the rate of inflation over the period considered. Furthermore, it should be noted that labour costs do not form a significant part of the total cost of production of stainless steel bars.\n(d) Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nProfitability of EU sales (% of net sales)\n9,5 %\n3,5 %\n-12,8 %\n-7,9 %\nIndex\n100\n37\n- 135\n-83\nCash flow (EUR)\n44 464 193\n13 280 433\n-12 678 708\n-3 063 190\nIndex\n100\n30\n-29\n-7\nInvestments (1 000 EUR)\n18 085 847\n15 714 829\n4 341 909\n4 198 607\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n87\n24\n23\nReturn on investments\n101 %\n25 %\n-50 %\n-33 %\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n25\n-49\n-32\n(113)\nProfitability of the Union industry was established by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product as a percentage of the turnover of these sales. Over the period considered, the profitability dropped significantly and turned from a profit of more than 9 % in 2007 into a loss of almost 8 % in the IP. The biggest fall in profits was seen between 2008 and 2009, i.e. by more than 16 percentage points.\n(114)\nThe net cash flow generated by the like product decreased by 107 % from 2007 to the IP.\n(115)\nThe annual investment in the production of the like product decreased by 77 % in the period under consideration.\n(116)\nThe return on investment (ROI), expressed as the profit in percent of the net book value of investments, followed the negative trend of profitability, decreasing by 134 percentage points.\n(117)\nThere were no indications that the industry suffered a reduced ability to raise capital over the period considered.\n5.5. Conclusion on injury\n(118)\nDuring the period considered almost all injury indicators pertaining to the Union industry developed negatively.\n(119)\nUnion consumption decreased by 36 %, the Union industry\u2019s sales volume dropped by 36 % and the capacity utilisation decreased by 42 %. The unit sales prices of the sampled Union producers decreased the by 44 % to a level below cost. They followed the decrease in price of the Indian imports in order to maintain a certain volume of sales and production in order to cover the fixed costs.\n(120)\nProfitability turned from a profit of 9,5 % in 2007 into a loss of almost 8 % in the IP. Investments, cash flow and return on investments followed the negative trend as well, decreasing by 77 %, 107 % and 246 percentage points respectively over the period considered.\n(121)\nOnly one indicator, i.e. the market share of the Union industry, remained stable at a level of 81 %.\n(122)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the Union industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 8(5) of the basic Regulation.\n6. CAUSATION\n6.1. Introduction\n(123)\nIn accordance with Article 8(5) and Article 8(6) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the subsidised imports from India had caused injury to the Union industry to a degree sufficient to be considered as material. Known factors other than the subsidised imports, which could at the same time be injuring the Union industry, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the subsidised imports.\n6.2. Effect of the subsidised imports\n(124)\nThe decrease in import prices of 44 % over the period considered, as well as the high margins of undercutting found during the IP, ranging from 16,7 % to 18,2 %, coincided with the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry.\n(125)\nIn view of the level of subsidisation of the cooperating exporters, the low price level of subsidised imports which significantly undercut the Union industry\u2019s prices, their presence on the Union market played a significant role in further exacerbating the negative trend on sales prices on the Union market. The material injury suffered by the Union industry is most clearly seen in the low level of sales prices and the dramatic level of financial losses incurred by the industry.\n(126)\nThe average prices of imports from India decreased substantially, forcing the Union industry to lower its prices in order to maintain a certain turnover, but at loss-making prices, to cover at least fixed costs. As a result, the financial situation of the Union industry deteriorated sharply from 2008.\n(127)\nBased on the above, it is provisionally concluded that the subsidised imports from India, which significantly undercut the prices of the Union industry during the IP, have had a determining role in the injury suffered by the Union industry, which is reflected in its poor financial situation and in the deterioration of almost all injury indicators.\n6.3. Effect of other factors\n(128)\nThe other factors which were examined in the context of causality are the economic crisis, the development of EU consumption, the cost of production, the imports from other third countries and the export performance of the sampled Union industry.\n6.3.1. The economic crisis, development of EU consumption and the cost of production\n(129)\nThe economic downturn contributed to the contraction in consumption and to the price pressure. The low level of demand for certain stainless steel bars resulted in the decrease in production by the Union industry and contributed to part of the depression of sales prices.\n(130)\nUnder normal economic conditions and in the absence of strong price pressure from the subsidised imports, the Union industry might have had some difficulty in coping with the decrease in consumption and the subsequent increase in fixed costs of production due to low capacity utilisation it experienced between 2007 and the IP. The subsidised imports however have intensified the effect of the economic downturn and have made it impossible to sell at or above cost price between 2009 and the IP.\n(131)\nBased on the above, it appears that the decrease in EU demand linked to the economic crisis experienced in the sector contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry. It is considered however that it does not break the casual link established in relation to the Indian low-priced subsidised imports.\n6.3.2. Imports from other third countries\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nImports from other third countries in tonnes\n27 089\n23 242\n12 837\n14 036\nIndex\n100\n86\n47\n52\nMarket share from other third countries\n8,60 %\n8,14 %\n6,89 %\n6,95 %\nIndex\n100\n95\n80\n81\nAverage price of imports\n4 820\n4 487\n3 756\n3 501\nIndex\n100\n93\n78\n73\n(132)\nBased on Eurostat data, the volume of imports into the Union of certain stainless steel bars originating in third countries not concerned by this investigation decreased by 48 % over the period considered. The corresponding market share of the other third countries decreased by 19 %.\n(133)\nThe average prices of these imports were above those of the Indian exporting producers and above those of the Union industry. Consequently, it is provisionally considered that imports from the other third countries did not contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n6.3.3. Export performance of the sampled Union industry\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nExport salese in tonnes\n10 850\n9 158\n5 440\n6 299\nIndex\n100\n84\n50\n58\nUnit selling price in euro\n4 452\n3 728\n2 495\n2 388\nIndex\n100\n84\n56\n54\n(134)\nDuring the period considered the volume of export sales of the sampled Union industry decreased by 42 % and unit selling price by 46 %. Although these exports accounted only for 6 % of its total sales during the IP, it can not be excluded that this performance has had a negative impact on the Union industry. But it is considered that, given the low volume of exports, the impact is not enough to break the causal link between the subsidised imports and the injury found.\n6.4. Conclusion on causation\n(135)\nThe investigation showed that the other known factors, such as imports from other third countries, exports by the Union industry and the decrease in consumption were not a determining cause for the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(136)\nThe coincidence in time between, on the one hand, the subsidised imports from India and the undercutting found and, on the other hand, the deterioration in the situation of the Union industry, leads to the conclusion that the subsidised imports caused the material injury suffered by the Union industry within the meaning of Article 8(5) of the basic Regulation.\n7. UNION INTEREST\n7.1. General considerations\n(137)\nIn accordance with Article 31 of the basic Regulation it has been examined whether, despite the provisional finding of injurious subsidisation, compelling reasons exist for concluding that it is not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this particular case. The impact of possible measures on all parties involved in this proceeding and also the consequences of not taking measures were considered.\n7.2. Interest of the Union industry\n(138)\nThe Union industry has been suffering from injurious subsidised imports of the product concerned from India. It is also recalled that most economic indicators of the Union industry showed a negative trend during the period considered. Taking into account the nature of the injury (i.e. significant losses), a further and substantial deterioration in the situation of the Union industry appears unavoidable in the absence of measures.\n(139)\nThe imposition of measures is expected to prevent further distortions and restore fair competition on the market.\n(140)\nShould measures not be imposed, prices would continue to be below cost and the Union producers\u2019 profits would deteriorate further. This would be unsustainable in the medium to long-term. In view of the losses incurred and the high level of investment in production, it can be expected that most Union producers would be unable to recover their investments should measures not be imposed.\n(141)\nIn addition, given that the Union industry consists of medium-sized and big enterprises spread throughout the Union, the imposition of countervailing measures will help to maintain employment in these areas.\n(142)\nIt is therefore provisionally concluded that the imposition of countervailing duties would be in the interest of the Union industry.\n7.3. Interest of importers\n(143)\nAll importers known to the Commission were asked to make themselves known and to provide basic information on their activities regarding the product concerned. Four importers replied to the sampling exercise. Questionnaires were sent to all four of them and only one importer replied. A verification visit at the premises of the importer, located in Germany, is envisaged for a later stage of the investigation.\n(144)\nShould countervailing duties be imposed, it cannot be ruled out that the level of imports originating in the country concerned may decrease, thus affecting the economic situation of the importers. However, the effect on importers of any increase in the prices of imports of the product concerned should only restore competition on the Union market and should not prevent the importers from selling the product concerned. In addition, the low proportion of the costs of the product concerned in the final users\u2019 total costs should make it easier for the importers to pass any price increase on to their customers. On this basis, it has been provisionally concluded that the imposition of countervailing duties is not likely to have a serious negative effect on the situation of importers in the Union.\n7.4. Interest of users\n(145)\nQuestionnaires were sent to all the parties named as users in the complaint. None of the twenty two companies replied.\n(146)\nIt is recalled that the product concerned is used in a wide variety of applications including the automotive industry, domestic appliances producers, medical and laboratory instruments, etc. However, in this proceeding the users are intermediate companies that produce and supply the elements for the aforementioned applications. In view of that, it is expected that these users would be in a position to pass on all or almost all of the increase in prices resulting from the imposition of countervailing duties to the final users, bearing in mind that for the latter, the impact of such measures will be negligible.\n(147)\nIt is therefore provisionally concluded that the impact on costs of the users resulting from the imposition of countervailing duties would be not significant.\n7.5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(148)\nIn view of the above, it is provisionally concluded that there are no compelling reasons not to impose countervailing duties on imports of certain stainless steel bars originating in India.\n8. PROPOSAL FOR PROVISIONAL COUNTERVAILING MEASURES\n8.1. Injury elimination level\n(149)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to subsidisation, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional countervailing measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the subsidised imports.\n(150)\nFor the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the subsidy margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Union industry, without exceeding the subsidy margin found.\n(151)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious subsidisation, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of subsidised imports, on sales of the like product in the Union. It is considered that the profit that could be achieved in the absence of the subsidised imports should be based on the average pre-tax profit margin of the sampled Union producers in the year 2007. This is the last year before the IP where the Union industry was able to reach a normal profit margin. It is thus considered that a profit margin of 9,5 % of turnover could be regarded as an appropriate minimum which the Union industry could have expected to obtain in the absence of injurious subsidisation.\n(152)\nOn this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry for the like product. The non-injurious price was obtained by adding the above mentioned profit margin of 9,5 % to the cost of production.\n(153)\nThe necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of the cooperating exporting producers in India, as established for the price undercutting calculations (see recital 101), with the non-injurious price of the products sold by the Union industry on the Union market during the IP. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the average total CIF import value.\n8.2. Provisional measures\n(154)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 12(1) of the basic Regulation, provisional countervailing measures should be imposed in respect of imports originating in India at the level of the lower of the subsidy and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(155)\nOn the basis of the above, the countervailing duty rates have been established by comparing the injury elimination margins and the subsidy margins. Consequently, the proposed countervailing duty rates are as follows:\nCompany\nSubsidy margin\nInjury margin\nProvisional CVD rate\nChandan Steel Ltd\n3,4 %\n28,6 %\n3,4 %\nVenus group\n3,3 %\n45,9 %\n3,3 %\nViraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd\n4,3 %\n51,5 %\n4,3 %\nCooperating non-sampled companies\n4,0 %\n44,4 %\n4,0 %\nAll other companies\n4,3 %\n51,5 %\n4,3 %\n(156)\nThe individual company countervailing duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in India and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(157)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company countervailing duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (6) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n9. DISCLOSURE\n(158)\nThe above provisional findings will be disclosed to all interested parties which will be invited to make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Their comments will be analysed and taken into consideration where warranted before any definitive determinations are made. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of countervailing duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purposes of any definitive findings,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional countervailing duty is hereby imposed on imports of stainless steel bars and rods, not further worked than cold-formed or cold-finished, other than bars and rods of circular cross-section of a diameter of 80 mm or more, currently falling within CN codes 7222 20 21, 7222 20 29, 7222 20 31, 7222 20 39, 7222 20 81 and 7222 20 89 and originating in India.\n2. The rate of the provisional countervailing duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies below shall be:\nCompany\nDuty (%)\nTARIC additional code\nChandan Steel Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra\n3,4\nAXXX\nVenus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra\n3,3\nAXXX\nPrecision Metals, Mumbai, Maharashtra\n3,3\nAXXX\nHindustan Inox Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra\n3,3\nAXXX\nSieves Manufacturer India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra\n3,3\nAXXX\nViraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd, Thane, Maharashtra\n4,3\nAXXX\nCompanies listed in the Annex\n4,0\nAXXX\nAll other companies\n4,3\nAXXX\n3. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Without prejudice to Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within 1 month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Pursuant to Article 31(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within 1 month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of 4 months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2010.", "references": ["94", "8", "34", "99", "37", "69", "30", "25", "44", "86", "74", "17", "7", "82", "83", "38", "62", "19", "13", "6", "80", "67", "31", "4", "92", "78", "33", "27", "2", "40", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/656/CFSP\nof 29 October 2010\nrenewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 13 December 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/852/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1) in order to implement the measures imposed against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire by United Nations Security Council Resolution (hereinafter \u2018UNSCR\u2019) 1572 (2004).\n(2)\nOn 23 January 2006, the Council adopted Common Position 2006/30/CFSP (2) renewing the restrictive measures imposed against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire for a further period of 12 months and supplementing them with the restrictive measures imposed by point 6 of UNSCR 1643 (2005).\n(3)\nFollowing the renewal of the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire by UNSCR 1842 (2008), on 18 November 2008, the Council adopted Common Position 2008/873/CFSP (3) further renewing the restrictive measures imposed against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, with effect from 1 November 2008.\n(4)\nOn 15 October 2010, the United Nations Security Council adopted UNSCR 1946 (2010) which renewed the measures imposed against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire by UNSCR 1572 (2004) and point 6 of UNSCR 1643 (2005) until 30 April 2011 and which amended the restrictive measures on arms.\n(5)\nThe restrictive measures imposed against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire should therefore be renewed. In addition to the exemptions to the arms embargo provided for in UNSCR 1946 (2010), it is appropriate to amend the restrictive measures in order to exempt other equipment included autonomously by the Union.\n(6)\nUnion implementing measures are set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 174/2005 of 31 January 2005 imposing restrictions on the supply of assistance related to military activities to C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (4), Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (5) and Council Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 of 20 December 2002 implementing the Kimberley Process certification scheme for the international trade in rough diamonds (6),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related material of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, as well as equipment which might be used for internal repression, to C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States or using the flag vessels or aircraft of Member States shall be prohibited, regardless of whether such arms, related material and equipment originate in the territories of the Member States.\n2. It shall also be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to the items referred to in paragraph 1 or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of such items, to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire;\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the items referred to in paragraph 1, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for the provision of related technical assistance, brokering service or other services to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire.\nArticle 2\nArticle 1 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nsupplies and technical assistance intended solely for the support of or use by the United Nations Operation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire and the French forces who support them;\n(b)\nthe following, as approved in advance by the Committee established by paragraph 14 of UNSCR 1572 (2004) (hereinafter the \u2018Sanctions Committee\u2019):\n(i)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, including such equipment intended for Union, UN, African Union and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) crisis management operations;\n(ii)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal military equipment intended solely to enable the security forces of C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire to use only appropriate and proportionate force while maintaining public order;\n(iii)\nthe provision of financing and financial assistance related to the equipment referred to in points (i) and (ii);\n(iv)\nthe provision of technical assistance and training related to the equipment referred to in points (i) and (ii);\n(c)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire by United Nations personnel, personnel of the Union or its Member States, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only;\n(d)\nsales or supplies temporarily transferred or exported to C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire to the forces of a state which is taking action, in accordance with international law, solely and directly to facilitate the evacuation of its nationals and those for whom it has consular responsibility in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, as notified in advance to the Sanctions Committee;\n(e)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related material and technical training and assistance intended solely for the support of, or use in, the process of restructuring defence and security forces pursuant to paragraph 3, subparagraph (f) of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement, as approved in advance by the Sanctions Committee;\n(f)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal equipment capable of being used for internal repression and which is intended solely to enable the security forces of C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire to use only appropriate and proportionate force while maintaining public order, as well as the provision of financing, financial assistance or technical assistance and training related to such equipment.\nArticle 3\nThe direct or indirect import of all rough diamonds from C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire to the Union, whether or not such diamonds originated in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, shall be prohibited in accordance with UNSCR 1643 (2005).\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the persons designated by the Sanctions Committee, who constitute a threat to the peace and national reconciliation process in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, in particular those who block the implementation of the Linas-Marcoussis and Accra III Agreements, any other person determined as responsible for serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire on the basis of relevant information, any other person who incites publicly hatred and violence and any other person determined by the Sanctions Committee to be in violation of the measures imposed by paragraph 7 of UNSCR 1572 (2004).\nThe persons referred to in the first subparagraph are listed in the Annex.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where the Sanctions Committee determines that:\n(a)\ntravel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, including religious obligations;\n(b)\nan exemption would further the objectives of the UNSC Resolutions for peace and national reconciliation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire and stability in the region.\n4. In cases where, pursuant to paragraph 3, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons designated by the Sanctions Committee, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\nArticle 5\n1. All funds and economic resources owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the persons or entities designated by the Sanctions Committee pursuant to Article 4(1) or held by entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by them or by any persons acting on their behalf or at their direction, as designated by the Sanctions Committee, shall be frozen.\nThe persons referred in the first subparagraph are listed in the Annex.\n2. No funds, financial assets or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of persons or entities referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. Member States may allow for exemptions from the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 in respect of funds and economic resources which are:\n(a)\nnecessary for basic expenses, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges, in accordance with national laws, for the routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds and economic resources;\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, after notification by the Member State concerned to the Sanctions Committee and approval by the latter;\n(e)\nthe subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien or judgment, in which case the funds and economic resources may be used to satisfy that lien or judgment provided that the lien or judgment was entered before designation by the Sanctions Committee of the person or entity concerned, and is not for the benefit of a person or entity referred to in this Article, after notification by the Member State concerned to the Sanctions Committee.\nThe exemptions referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 3 may be made after notification to the Sanctions Committee by the Member State concerned of its intention to authorise, where appropriate, access to such funds and economic resources, and in the absence of a negative decision by the Sanctions Committee within two working days of such notification.\n4. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which those accounts became subject to restrictive measures under Common Position 2004/852/CFSP or this Decision,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to paragraph 1.\nArticle 6\nThe Council shall establish the list in the Annex and amend it in accordance with determinations made by either the United Nations Security Council or the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 7\n1. Where the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee designates a person or entity, the Council shall include such person or entity in the Annex. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the person or entity concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person or entity with an opportunity to present observations.\n2. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person or entity accordingly.\nArticle 8\n1. The Annex shall include the grounds for listing the persons and entities as provided by the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee.\n2. The Annex shall also include, where available, information provided by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee necessary to identify the persons or entities concerned. With regard to persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, and function or profession. With regard to entities, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. The Annex shall also include the date of designation by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 9\nCommon Positions 2004/852/CFSP and 2006/30/CFSP are hereby repealed.\nArticle 10\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\n2. It shall be reviewed, amended or repealed as appropriate, in accordance with relevant decisions of the United Nations Security Council.\nDone at Brussels, 29 October 2010.", "references": ["56", "1", "7", "84", "51", "81", "93", "30", "78", "95", "44", "57", "40", "11", "99", "60", "37", "75", "12", "15", "35", "66", "96", "33", "97", "50", "10", "85", "55", "71", "No Label", "3", "5", "6", "16", "23", "79", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "6", "16", "23", "79", "94"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2009/021 IE/SR Technics from Ireland)\n(2010/739/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nIreland submitted an application on 9 October 2009 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in SR Technics and supplemented it with additional information up to 18 May 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 7 445 863.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Ireland,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 7 445 863 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["35", "21", "78", "31", "55", "72", "54", "52", "1", "6", "79", "89", "22", "19", "8", "2", "38", "36", "53", "45", "94", "64", "90", "61", "25", "93", "24", "66", "67", "37", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 21 February 2011\nconcerning the non-inclusion of methyl bromide in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC\n(notified under document C(2011) 950)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/120/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included methyl bromide.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11f of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 and Article 12(1)(a) and Article 12(2)(b) of that Regulation Commission Decision 2008/753/EC of 18 September 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of methyl bromide in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (4) was adopted.\n(3)\nIn agreement with the original notifier, another person (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/753/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe United Kingdom evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 26 November 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on methyl bromide to the Commission on 3 November 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and the Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for methyl bromide.\n(6)\nThe additional report by the rapporteur Member State and the conclusion by the Authority concentrate on the concerns that lead to the non-inclusion. Those concerns were harmful effects on human health in particular on bystanders, because the exposure was greater than 100 % of the AOEL, and on consumers, because the exposure was greater than 100 % of the ADI and the ARfD. More concerns were identified in the review report for methyl bromide.\n(7)\nAdditional information was submitted by the applicant, in particular as regards reducing exposure by applying a recapture technology. In order to reduce the risk to consumers and non-target species, the applicant has limited its support to uses on wood packaging material in containers.\n(8)\nHowever, the additional information provided by the applicant did not permit to eliminate all of the specific concerns arising in respect of methyl bromide.\n(9)\nIn particular, the information available was not sufficient to conduct a quantitative exposure assessment for bystanders. Furthermore, the information available was insufficient to estimate the possible air concentrations of methyl bromide around containers with wood packaging material on which methyl bromide was used and to finalise the risk assessment for non-target organisms. In addition, data were not available to address the risk of indirect exposure of soil, surface water and groundwater.\n(10)\nThe Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion by the Authority. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) to Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the applicant to submit comments on the draft review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(11)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns identified could not be eliminated, and assessments made on the basis of the information submitted and evaluated during the expert meetings of the Authority have not demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing methyl bromide satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(12)\nMethyl bromide should therefore not be included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(13)\nDecision 2008/753/EC should be repealed.\n(14)\nThis Decision does not prejudice the submission of a further application for methyl bromide pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMethyl bromide shall not be included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2008/753/EC is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2011.", "references": ["83", "21", "17", "71", "43", "73", "36", "56", "85", "62", "98", "26", "37", "97", "18", "68", "32", "59", "91", "31", "86", "24", "34", "87", "27", "15", "82", "93", "76", "58", "No Label", "20", "38", "48", "60", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "38", "48", "60", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 1062/2010\nof 28 September 2010\nsupplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of televisions\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2010/30/EU requires the Commission to adopt delegated acts as regards the labelling of energy related products representing significant potential for energy savings and having a wide disparity in performance levels with equivalent functionality.\n(2)\nThe electricity used by televisions accounts for a significant share of total household electricity demand in the Union and televisions with equivalent functionality have a wide disparity in terms of energy efficiency. The energy efficiency of televisions can be significantly improved. Televisions should therefore be covered by requirements on energy labelling.\n(3)\nHarmonised provisions for indicating the energy efficiency and consumption of televisions by labelling and standard product information should be established in order to provide incentives for manufacturers to improve the energy efficiency of televisions, encourage end-users to purchase energy-efficient models, reduce the electricity consumption of these products, and contribute to the functioning of the internal market.\n(4)\nThe combined effect of the provisions set out in this Regulation and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2009 of 22 July 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for televisions (2) could amounts to annual electricity savings of 43 TWh by 2020, compared to the situation if no measures were taken.\n(5)\nThe information provided on the label should be obtained through reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement procedures that take into account the recognised state-of-the-art measurement methods including, where available, harmonised standards adopted by the European standardisation bodies, as listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (3).\n(6)\nThis Regulation should specify a uniform design and content for the label for televisions.\n(7)\nIn addition, this Regulation should specify requirements as to the technical documentation and the fiche for televisions.\n(8)\nMoreover, this Regulation should specify requirements as to the information to be provided for any form of distance selling, advertisements and technical promotional material of televisions.\n(9)\nIn order to encourage the manufacturing of energy efficient televisions suppliers wishing to place on the market televisions that can meet the requirements for higher energy efficiency classes should be allowed to provide labels showing those classes in advance of the date for mandatory display of such classes.\n(10)\nProvision should be made for a review of this Regulation taking into account technological progress,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation establishes requirements for the labelling and the provision of supplementary product information for televisions.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2010/30/EU, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018television\u2019 means a television set or a television monitor;\n(2)\n\u2018television set\u2019 means a product designed primarily for the display and reception of audiovisual signals which is placed on the market under one model or system designation, and which consists of:\n(a)\na display;\n(b)\none or more tuner(s)/receiver(s) and optional additional functions for data storage and/or display such as digital versatile disc (DVD), hard disk drive (HDD) or videocassette recorder (VCR), either in a single unit combined with the display, or in one or more separate units;\n(3)\n\u2018television monitor\u2019 means a product designed to display on an integrated screen a video signal from a variety of sources, including television broadcast signals, which optionally controls and reproduces audio signals from an external source device, which is linked through standardised video signal paths including cinch (component, composite), SCART, HDMI, and future wireless standards (but excluding non-standardised video signal paths like DVI and SDI), but cannot receive and process broadcast signals;\n(4)\n\u2018on-mode\u2019 means the condition where the television is connected to the mains power source and produces sound and picture;\n(5)\n\u2018home-mode\u2019 means the television setting which is recommended by the manufacturer for normal home use;\n(6)\n\u2018standby-mode(s)\u2019 means a condition where the equipment is connected to the mains power source, depends on energy input from the mains power source to function properly and offers the following functions only, which may persist for an indefinite time:\n(a)\nreactivation function, or reactivation function and only an indication of enabled reactivation function; and/or\n(b)\ninformation or status display;\n(7)\n\u2018off-mode\u2019 means a condition in which the equipment is connected to the mains power source and is not providing any function; the following shall also be considered as off-mode:\n(a)\nconditions providing only an indication of off-mode condition;\n(b)\nconditions providing only functionalities intended to ensure electromagnetic compatibility pursuant to Directive 2004/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4);\n(8)\n\u2018reactivation function\u2019 means a function facilitating the activation of other modes, including on-mode, by remote switch including remote control, internal sensor, timer to a condition providing additional functions, including on-mode;\n(9)\n\u2018information or status display\u2019 means a continuous function providing information or indicating the status of the equipment on a display, including clocks;\n(10)\n\u2018forced menu\u2019 means a set of television settings, pre-defined by the manufacturer, of which the user of the television must select a particular setting upon initial start-up of the television;\n(11)\n\u2018peak luminance ratio\u2019 means the ratio of the peak luminance of the home-mode condition or of the on-mode condition of the television as set by the supplier, as applicable, and the peak luminance of the brightest on-mode condition;\n(12)\n\u2018point of sale\u2019 means a location where televisions are displayed or offered for sale, hire or hire purchase;\n(13)\n\u2018end-user\u2019 means a consumer buying or expected to buy a television.\nArticle 3\nResponsibilities of suppliers\n1. Suppliers shall ensure that:\n(a)\neach television is supplied with a printed label in the format and containing information as set out in Annex V;\n(b)\na product fiche, as set out in Annex III, is made available;\n(c)\nthe technical documentation, as set out in Annex IV, is made available on request to the authorities of Member States and to the Commission;\n(d)\nany advertisement for a specific television model contains the energy efficiency class, if the advertisement discloses energy-related or price information;\n(e)\nany technical promotional material concerning a specific television model, which describes its specific technical parameters, includes the energy efficiency class of that model.\n2. The energy efficiency classes shall be based on the Energy Efficiency Index calculated in accordance with Annex II.\n3. The format of the label set out in Annex V shall be applied according to the following timetable:\n(a)\nfor televisions placed on the market from 30 November 2011, labels for televisions with energy efficiency classes:\n(i)\nA, B, C, D, E, F, G shall be in accordance with point 1 of Annex V or, where suppliers deem appropriate, with point 2 of that Annex;\n(ii)\nA+ shall be in accordance with point 2 of Annex V;\n(iii)\nA++ shall be in accordance with point 3 of Annex V;\n(iv)\nA+++ shall be in accordance with point 4 of Annex V;\n(b)\nfor televisions placed on the market from 1 January 2014 with energy efficiency classes A+, A, B, C, D, E, F, labels shall be in accordance with point 2 of Annex V or, where suppliers deem appropriate, with point 3 of that Annex;\n(c)\nfor televisions placed on the market from 1 January 2017 with energy efficiency classes A++, A+, A, B, C, D, E, labels shall be in accordance with point 3 of Annex V or, where suppliers deem appropriate, with point 4 of that Annex;\n(d)\nfor televisions placed on the market from 1 January 2020 with energy efficiency classes A+++, A++, A+, A, B, C, D labels shall be in accordance with point 4 of Annex V.\nArticle 4\nResponsibilities of dealers\nDealers shall ensure that:\n(a)\neach television, at the point of sale, bears the label provided by suppliers in accordance with Article 3(1) on the front of the television, in such a way as to be clearly visible;\n(b)\ntelevisions offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase, where the end-user cannot be expected to see the television displayed, are marketed with the information to be provided by the suppliers in accordance with Annex VI;\n(c)\nany advertisement for a specific television model contains the energy efficiency class, if the advertisement discloses energy-related or price information;\n(d)\nany technical promotional material concerning a specific television model, which describes its specific technical parameters, includes the energy efficiency class of that model.\nArticle 5\nMeasurement methods\nThe information to be provided pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 shall be obtained by reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement procedures, which take into account the recognised state-of-the-art measurement methods, as set out in Annex VII.\nArticle 6\nVerification procedure for market surveillance purposes\nMember States shall apply the procedure laid down in Annex VIII when assessing the conformity of the declared energy efficiency class.\nArticle 7\nRevision\nThe Commission shall review this Regulation in the light of technological progress no later than 5 years after its entry into force.\nArticle 8\nTransitional provision\nArticle 3(1)(d) and (e) and Article 4(b), (c) and (d) shall not apply to printed advertisement and printed technical promotional material published before 30 March 2012.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 30 November 2011. However, Article 3(1)(d) and (e) and Article 4(b), (c) and (d) shall apply from 30 March 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 September 2010.", "references": ["16", "5", "84", "97", "65", "56", "18", "57", "6", "77", "92", "38", "42", "31", "13", "55", "73", "22", "88", "52", "20", "0", "39", "70", "49", "72", "7", "9", "45", "62", "No Label", "24", "25", "40", "76", "78"], "gold": ["24", "25", "40", "76", "78"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1186/2010\nof 13 December 2010\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Articles 9(4) and 11(2), (5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nThe Council, following an anti-dumping investigation (the original investigation), by Regulation (EC) No 1629/2004 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain graphite electrodes currently falling within CN code ex 8545 11 00 and nipples used for such electrodes currently falling within CN code ex 8545 90 90 originating in India (the definitive anti-dumping measures). The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty of 0 %.\n(2)\nThe Council, following an anti-subsidy investigation, by Regulation (EC) No 1628/2004 (3), imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain graphite electrodes currently falling within CN code ex 8545 11 00 and nipples used for such electrodes currently falling within CN code ex 8545 90 90 originating in India (the definitive countervailing measures). The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty of 15,7 %, with the exception of one company for which the duty rate was 7 %.\n(3)\nFollowing an ex officio partial interim review of the countervailing measures, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1354/2008 (4), amended Regulations (EC) No 1628/2004 and (EC) No 1629/2004. The definitive countervailing duties were amended to 6,3 % and 7,0 % for imports from individually named exporters, with a residual duty rate of 7,2 %. The definitive anti-dumping duties were amended to 9,4 % and 0 % for imports from individually named exporters, with a residual duty rate of 8,5 %.\n2. Request for an expiry review\n(4)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry (5) of the definitive anti-dumping measures in force, the Commission received on 18 June 2009 a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged by three Union producers: Graftech International, SGL Carbon GmbH, and Tokai Erftcarbon GmbH (the applicants) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 90 %, of the total Union production of certain graphite electrode systems.\n(5)\nThe request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.\n3. Initiation of an expiry review\n(6)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 17 September 2009, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (6) (the notice of initiation), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n4. Parallel investigations\n(7)\nBy a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 17 September 2009 (7), the Commission also announced the initiation of an expiry review investigation pursuant to Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (8) of the definitive countervailing measures.\n5. Investigation\n5.1. Investigation period\n(8)\nThe investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the review investigation period (the period considered).\n5.2. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(9)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicants, other known Union producers, exporting producers, importers, users known to be concerned, and the representatives of the exporting country of the initiation of the expiry review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(10)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(11)\nIn view of the apparent large number of unrelated importers, it was considered appropriate, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to examine whether sampling should be used. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested, pursuant to Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the reviews and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation. However, no unrelated importers came forward to cooperate. Sampling was therefore not necessary.\n(12)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to those who made themselves known within the deadlines set in the notice of initiation. Replies were received from three groups of Union producers (i.e. the applicants), one exporting producer and 17 users. None of the importers came forward during the sampling exercise and no other importers supplied the Commission with any information or made themselves known in the course of the investigation.\n(13)\nOnly one of the two known exporting producers in India, namely HEG Limited (HEG) fully cooperated in the review by submitting a response to the questionnaire. It should be noted in this regard that in the original investigation the full, official name of that company was Hindustan Electro Graphite Limited. Subsequently the company changed its name into HEG Limited. The second exporting producer cooperating in the original investigation, namely Graphite India Limited (GIL) decided not to submit a questionnaire reply in the present review.\n(14)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for a determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following interested parties:\n(a)\nUnion producers\n-\nSGL Carbon GmbH, Wiesbaden and Meitingen, Germany,\n-\nGraftech Switzerland SA, Bussigny, Switzerland,\n-\nGraftech Iberica S.L., Ororbia, Spain,\n-\nTokai Erftcarbon GmbH, Grevenbroich, Germany.\n(b)\nExporting producer in India\n-\nHEG Limited, Bhopal.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(15)\nThe product concerned by this review is the same as the one in the original investigation, namely graphite electrodes of a kind used for electric furnaces, with an apparent density of 1,65 g/cm3 or more and an electrical resistance of 6,0 \u03bc.\u03a9.m or less, currently falling within CN code ex 8545 11 00 and nipples used for such electrodes, currently falling within CN code ex 8545 90 90 whether imported together or separately originating in India (the product concerned).\n(16)\nThe investigation confirmed that, as in the original investigation, the product concerned and the products manufactured and sold by the exporting producer on the domestic market in India, as well as those manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers, have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same uses and are, therefore, considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n(17)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.\n1. General\n(18)\nCooperation was obtained from one exporting producer in India. The second known exporting producer did not cooperate in the investigation.\n(19)\nThe comparison of the export volume of the cooperating exporting producer with the total volume of exports to the Union from India showed that the cooperating exporting producer accounted for the vast majority of all Union imports from India during the RIP. The level of cooperation was therefore considered to be high.\n2. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n2.1. Normal value\n(20)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined whether the cooperating Indian exporting producer\u2019s domestic sales of the like product to independent customers were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was equal to at least 5 % of the total volume of the corresponding export sales to the Union.\n(21)\nThe Commission subsequently identified those types of the like product sold domestically by the company that were identical or directly comparable to the types sold for export to the Union. The elements taken into account in defining the product types of graphite electrode systems were (i) whether they were sold with a nipple or not, (ii) their diameter and (iii) their length.\n(22)\nThe cooperating exporting producer claimed that the fact that graphite electrode systems are produced from different grades of coke (basic raw material) should also be taken into account when establishing identical or directly comparable types of graphite electrode systems. Indeed it was confirmed that in the production process the company used two different types of coke: imported needle coke which is of a superior quality and regular coke sourced on the Indian market. It was also confirmed that the type of coke used determines the cost of production and the price of the end product.\n(23)\nTherefore, in order to ensure a fair comparison, the Commission split each of the product types into low-grade and high-grade products for the purpose of the dumping calculation.\n(24)\nIt was further examined whether the domestic sales of the cooperating exporting producer were representative for each product type, i.e. whether domestic sales of each product type constituted at least 5 % of the sales volume of the same product type to the Union. For the product types sold in representative quantities, it was then examined whether such sales were made in the ordinary course of trade, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(25)\nThe examination as to whether the domestic sales of each product type, sold domestically in representative quantities, could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade was made by establishing the proportion of the profitable sales to independent customers of the type in question. In all cases where the domestic sales of the particular product type were made in sufficient quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of all the domestic sales of that type made during the RIP.\n(26)\nFor the remaining product types where domestic sales were not representative or not sold in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. Normal value was constructed by adding to the manufacturing costs of the exported types, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable percentage for selling, general and administrative expenses and a reasonable margin for profit, on the basis of actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer under investigation in accordance with the first sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.\n2.2. Export price\n(27)\nSince all export sales of the cooperating Indian exporting producer to the Union were made directly to independent customers, the export price was established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n2.3. Comparison\n(28)\nThe comparison between the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price was made on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and the export price, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which were demonstrated to affect prices and price comparability. For this purpose, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, financial costs, bank charges and anti-dumping duties paid by the applicant where applicable and justified.\n(29)\nThe cooperating Indian exporting producer claimed that in its case, the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS) is effectively a duty drawback scheme, since the DEPBS licenses are only used to pay the import duties for the raw-materials used for the production of graphite electrode systems. Therefore the cost of import duties paid for raw-materials is refunded when the product is exported, resulting in a lower export price. The company claimed therefore that an adjustment should be made on the domestic prices since they are not affected by the reimbursement of import duties. The investigation showed that, contrary to what has been claimed, the company uses the duty-free imported raw materials both in the production of graphite electrode systems destined for the export market as well as in the production destined for the domestic market. Therefore, the DEPBS has no influence on the price difference between domestically sold and exported products and the adjustment cannot be granted.\n2.4. Dumping margin\n(30)\nAs provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value by type was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned. Based on the above methodology, the dumping margin established for the cooperating exporting producer amounts to 11-12 %.\n(31)\nIn its comments to disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained (final disclosure), the company in question claimed that the calculation of the dumping margin on the basis of 4 of the 12 months of the RIP was a deviation from the methodology used in the original investigation where all 12 months of the investigation period were taken into account. It claimed therefore that the calculation method used inflated the dumping margin.\n(32)\nIt is recalled that basing the dumping calculation on 4 months of the RIP is a methodology normally used by the Commission in expiry reviews, where it should be determined whether there is continuation of dumping or a likelihood that dumping will recur. The investigation on spot ensured that the 4 months were representative of the full 12-month period. This was achieved by comparing costs and prices of the 4 months data with the remaining 8 months. In addition, the 4 months selected were the last months of each quarter and therefore evenly spread over the 12-month period. The Commission does not therefore agree that the method applied alters the final conclusion with regard to the existence of dumping in the RIP nor that it inflates the dumping margin.\n(33)\nIn view of the lack of cooperation from the second known Indian exporting producer, no dumping margin could be calculated for this producer. However, according to the review request, exports by this company to the Union were also made at dumped prices. As the majority of exports from India relate to the cooperating Indian producer which was found to be dumping and the average price of the product concerned imported from India according to Eurostat is lower than the average export price of the cooperating company, the existence of dumping at the countrywide level is confirmed.\n3. Development of imports should measures be repealed\n(34)\nFurther to the analysis of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood of the recurrence of dumping was investigated. Given the fact that only one exporting producer in India cooperated in this investigation, the conclusions below rely on the data from the sole cooperating company as well as on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, namely Eurostat data and the review request.\n(35)\nIn this respect the following elements were analysed: the spare capacity of the exporting Indian producers; the attractiveness of the Union market for the Indian producers and the export prices to third countries.\n3.1. Spare capacity of the exporters\n(36)\nAs regards the cooperating Indian exporting producer, the investigation showed that it has available spare capacity. Furthermore the company has publicly stated that it plans to increase its existing capacity. It should also be underlined that the company is export-oriented with a majority of turnover in the RIP generated by export sales and that the Union is still an important export destination despite the measures in force.\n(37)\nRegarding the second Indian producer, according to the review request, the company has already substantially increased its capacity since the imposition of the measures and plans to increase it further. Therefore it cannot be excluded that at least part of this increased capacity could be diverted to the Union market in the absence of measures.\n3.2. Attractiveness of the Union market\n(38)\nThe attractiveness of the Union market can be illustrated by the fact that the imposition of the anti-dumping and countervailing duties did not stop the expansion of the Indian exports. On the contrary, over the last 3 years, the Indian exporters more than doubled their exports and their market share in the Union more than tripled. It should also be stressed that within this period, the level of prices on the Union market increased by 40 %.\n3.3. Export prices to third countries\n(39)\nWith regard to exports to third countries, the investigation showed that in the RIP the level of the cooperating company\u2019s ex-works export prices were lower than the export prices to the Union which were found to be dumped. It can therefore be expected that in the absence of measures, the cooperating exporting producer would shift at least part of its exports to the Union, in view of the attractiveness of the market.\n3.4. Conclusion of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping\n(40)\nIn view of the findings described above, it can be concluded that the exports from India are still being dumped and that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping on the Union market in case the current anti-dumping measures are removed. Indeed, taking into account the existing spare capacity in India and the attractiveness of the Union market, there appears to be an incentive for Indian exporting producers to increase their exports to the Union market at dumped prices, at least as far as the cooperating exporting producer is concerned.\nD. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n1. Union production\n(41)\nWithin the Union, the like product is manufactured by five companies or groups of companies whose output constitutes the total Union production of the like product within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.\n2. Union industry\n(42)\nTwo of the five groups of companies did not come forward to support the request and did not cooperate in the review investigation by submitting a response to the questionnaire. The following three groups of producers lodged the request and agreed to cooperate: Graftech International, SGL Carbon GmbH, and Tokai Erftcarbon GmbH.\n(43)\nThese three groups of producers account for a major proportion of the total Union production of the like product, since they represent over 90 % of the total Union production of certain graphite electrode systems, as indicated at recital 4 above. They are therefore deemed to constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will hereinafter be referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\nE. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Preliminary remark\n(44)\nGiven that only one Indian exporting producer of the product concerned cooperated in this investigation, data relating to imports of the product concerned into the European Union originating in India are not presented in precise figures in order to preserve confidentiality pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation.\n(45)\nThe situation of the graphite electrode industry is closely linked to that of the steel sector since graphite electrodes are primarily used in the electrical steel industry. In this context, it should be noted that in 2007, and up to the first three quarters of 2008, very positive market conditions prevailed within the steel sector, and as a consequence, also for the graphite electrode industry.\n(46)\nIt should be noted that sales volumes of graphite electrodes move more or less in line with the volume of steel production. However, supply contracts for graphite electrodes, covering prices and quantities, are usually negotiated for 6-12 month periods. There is, therefore, generally a time lag between developments in sales volume resulting from changes in demand and any consequential effect on prices.\n2. Consumption in the Union market\n(47)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market, an estimation of the sales volumes of the other Union producers on the Union market, import data from Eurostat, and data collected in accordance with Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation. As had been done in the original investigation (9), some imports were disregarded because, on the basis of the information available, they appeared not to be the product under investigation.\n(48)\nBetween 2006 and the RIP, Union consumption decreased by almost 25 %, with the main decrease occurring between 2008 and the RIP. It should be noted that, due to very positive market conditions at the beginning of the period considered, Union consumption was at very high levels and had increased by 30 % between the investigation period of the original investigation and 2006.\nTable 1\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nTotal Union consumption (tonnes)\n170 035\n171 371\n169 744\n128 437\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n101\n100\n76\n3. Volume, market share and prices of imports from India\n(49)\nThe volume of imports originating in India (the country concerned) has increased steadily by 143 percentage points over the period considered and reached a level of 5 000 to 7 000 tonnes during the RIP. The market share of imports from the country concerned more than tripled between 2006 and the RIP, when it reached the level of around 5 %. Market share was still growing during the RIP, notwithstanding the significant decrease in demand. The prices of imports from the country concerned increased by 52 % over the period considered, following a similar trend to that for the Union industry\u2019s prices, but remained consistently lower than those of the Union industry. The data in Table 2 is not given in precise figures for reasons of confidentiality, since there are only two known exporting producers in India.\nTable 2\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from the country concerned (tonnes)\n2 000 to\n3 000\n3 000 to\n4 000\n7 000 to\n9 000\n5 000 to\n7 000\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n123\n318\n243\nMarket share of imports from the country concerned\nAround\n1,5 %\nAround\n2 %\nAround\n5 %\nAround\n5 %\nPrice of imports from the country concerned (EUR/tonne)\nAround\n2 000\nAround\n2 600\nAround\n3 000\nAround\n3 200\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n133\n145\n152\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(50)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry.\n4.1. Production\n(51)\nIn the RIP, production decreased by 29 % compared to 2006. The Union industry\u2019s production first increased by 2 % in 2007 compared to 2006, before declining sharply, particularly during the RIP.\nTable 3\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProduction (tonnes)\n272 468\n278 701\n261 690\n192 714\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n102\n96\n71\n4.2. Capacity and capacity utilisation rates\n(52)\nProduction capacity decreased marginally (by 2 % overall) between 2006 and the RIP. As production also decreased in 2008 and in particular during the RIP, the resulting capacity utilisation showed an overall decrease of 25 percentage points between 2006 and the RIP.\nTable 4\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProduction capacity (tonnes)\n298 500\n292 250\n291 500\n293 500\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n98\n98\n98\nCapacity utilisation\n91 %\n95 %\n90 %\n66 %\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n104\n98\n72\n4.3. Stocks\n(53)\nThe level of closing stocks of the Union industry remained stable in 2007 compared to 2006 and then decreased by 10 % in 2008. In the RIP, the level of stocks increased somewhat, but was 5 % lower than in 2006.\nTable 5\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nClosing stock (tonnes)\n21 407\n21 436\n19 236\n20 328\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n100\n90\n95\n4.4. Sales volume\n(54)\nThe sales by the Union industry on the Union market to unrelated customers decreased by 39 % over the period considered. They were very high at the beginning of the period considered having increased by nearly 70 % compared to the investigation period of the original investigation. Sales volumes decreased slightly in 2007 and 2008 but remained at a relatively high level (in 2008 they were still 47 % above the level of the investigation period of the original investigation). However, sales volumes dropped significantly between 2008 and the RIP (by almost one-third).\nTable 6\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nUnion Sales volume to unrelated customers (tonnes)\n143 832\n139 491\n124 463\n88 224\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n97\n87\n61\n4.5. Market share\n(55)\nThe market share held by the Union industry declined progressively by almost 16 percentage points between 2006 and the RIP (from 84,6 % to 68,7 %).\nTable 7\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nMarket share of the Union industry\n84,6 %\n81,4 %\n73,3 %\n68,7 %\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n96\n87\n81\n4.6. Growth\n(56)\nBetween 2006 and the RIP, the Union consumption decreased by almost 25 %. The Union industry lost almost 16 percentage points of market share, whilst the imports concerned gained 3,4 percentage points of market share.\n4.7. Employment\n(57)\nThe level of employment of the Union industry declined by 7 % between 2006 and the RIP.\nTable 8\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nEmployment product concerned (persons)\n1 942\n1 848\n1 799\n1 804\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n95\n93\n93\n4.8. Productivity\n(58)\nProductivity of the Union industry\u2019s workforce, measured as output per person employed per year, decreased by 24 % between 2006 and the RIP. It increased slightly during 2007 and 2008, before decreasing by almost 25 % during the RIP.\nTable 9\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProductivity (tonnes per employee)\n140\n151\n146\n107\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n107\n104\n76\n4.9. Sales prices and factors affecting domestic prices\n(59)\nUnit sales prices of the Union industry show a positive trend, having increased by 40 % during the period considered. This is due to: (i) the general level of prices in the market, (ii) the need to recover increases in costs of production, and (iii) the way supply contract prices are established.\n(60)\nIn 2007 and 2008 the Union industry was able to increase its prices in the context of generally increasing market prices, which was due to continued strong demand for graphite electrodes. This demand was a result of the very positive market conditions prevailing within the steel sector up until the first three quarters of 2008, as described in recital 45.\n(61)\nPrices also increased in 2007 and 2008, in part, in order to cover increasing costs of production and in particular those of raw materials. Between 2006 and 2008 costs increased by 23 %. However, the Union industry was able to cover this by increasing its prices considerably (+ 33 %).\n(62)\nPrices still increased, although to a lesser extent (+ 5 %), in the RIP. The fact that prices did not fall during a period when demand dropped is explained by the way supply contracts are established in the market and the fact that most supply contracts for 2009 were concluded in 2008. As indicated in recital 46, sales volumes of graphite electrodes move more or less in line with steel production. However, the negotiation of supply contracts for graphite electrodes for periods of 6 to 12 months can lead to a delay in the effect of any change (increase or decrease) in demand on prices. Contracts are negotiated on the basis of anticipated sales volumes, which may be different from the actual sales level achieved, with the result that the price trend in a particular period may not necessarily follow the trend in sales volumes for the same period. This was the case in the RIP when sales volumes decreased but prices remained high because most supply contracts for 2009 were concluded in 2008 and some deliveries foreseen for 2008 were deferred until 2009. The 5 % increase in prices during the RIP was, nevertheless, not sufficient to cover cost increases (+ 13 %), as had been possible during the previous periods. Prices were renegotiated at lower levels from after the RIP.\n(63)\nAs explained in recital 49, the prices of imports from the country concerned followed a trend similar to that of the Union industry, but were consistently lower than the prices of the Union industry.\nTable 10\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nUnit price Union market (EUR/tonne)\n2 569\n3 103\n3 428\n3 585\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n121\n133\n140\n4.10. Wages\n(64)\nBetween 2006 and the RIP, the average wage per employee increased by 15 %.\nTable 11\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nAnnual labour cost per employee (\u2018000 EUR)\n52\n56\n61\n60\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n108\n118\n115\n4.11. Investments\n(65)\nBetween 2006 and the RIP, the annual flow of investments in the product concerned made by the Union industry increased by 37 %. However, during the RIP, investments decreased by 14 % compared to 2008.\nTable 12\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nNet investments (EUR)\n30 111 801\n45 383 433\n47 980 973\n41 152 458\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n151\n159\n137\n4.12. Profitability and return on investments\n(66)\nWith an increase in costs of 40 % occurring over the period considered, the Union industry still managed, between 2006 and 2007, to increase its prices by more than its increase in costs. This led to a profit increase from the level of 19 % in 2006 to 26 % in 2007. From 2007 to 2008 prices and costs increased in the same proportion so that the Union industry\u2019s margin remained stable at the level of 2007. Profits then decreased again to 19 % in the RIP due to the effect on costs of lower production capacity utilisation and higher raw material prices. Profits decreased further in 2009, since the Union industry had to adjust its prices downwards in order to reflect the general decrease of selling prices in the graphite electrode market, due to the shrinking demand within the steel sector.\n(67)\nThe return on investments (ROI) increased from a level of 71 % in 2006 to 103 % in 2007. In 2008 it increased to 119 % before decreasing to 77 % during the RIP. Overall, the return on investments only increased by 6 percentage points between 2006 and the RIP.\nTable 13\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nNet Profit of Unionsales to unrelated customers (% of net sales)\n19 %\n26 %\n25 %\n19 %\nROI (net profit in % of net book value of investments)\n71 %\n103 %\n119 %\n77 %\n4.13. Cash flow and ability to raise capital\n(68)\nThe net cash-flow from operating activities increased between 2006 and 2007. This increase continued in 2008 before decreasing during the RIP. Overall, cash flow was 28 % higher in the RIP than at the start of the period considered.\n(69)\nThere were no indications that the Union industry encountered difficulties in raising capital, mainly due to the fact that some of the producers are incorporated in larger groups.\nTable 14\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nCash flow (EUR)\n109 819 535\n159 244 026\n196 792 707\n140 840 498\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n145\n179\n128\n4.14. Magnitude of dumping margin\n(70)\nGiven the volume, market share and prices of the imports from India, the impact on the Union industry of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.\n4.15. Recovery from the effects of past subsidisation and of past dumping\n(71)\nThe indicators examined above show some improvement in the economic and financial situation of the Union industry following the imposition of definitive countervailing and anti-dumping measures in 2004. In particular, between 2006 and 2008, the Union industry benefited from increased prices and profits. This was due to very positive market conditions, which allowed a high level of prices and profitability to be maintained, even though, as explained in recital 55, the market share of the Union industry was declining. However, over the same period, and despite the measures, the market share of Indian imports has increased and Indian products have been imported at prices lower than those of the Union industry. During the RIP, profits already started to decrease for the Union industry and decreased further in 2009 due to increased costs and limited price increases.\n5. Impact of dumped imports and other factors\n5.1. Impact of the dumped imports\n(72)\nDespite a decrease in consumption in the Union over the period considered, the volume of imports from the country concerned more than doubled and the market share of those imports more than tripled (see recital 49). If the anti-dumping and countervailing duties are not taken into consideration, the imports from the country concerned undercut the prices of the Union industry, although by less than 2 %, during the RIP.\n5.2. Impact of the economic crisis\n(73)\nDue to the very positive economic conditions prevailing in the steel and related industries, including graphite electrodes, in 2007 and in the first three quarters of 2008, the Union industry was in a relatively good economic condition when the economic crisis started at the end of 2008. The fact that supply contracts for graphite electrodes are usually negotiated for 6-12 months means that there is a delay in the effect of any change (increase or decrease) in demand on prices. Since contracts for the RIP were negotiated at a stage when the effects of the economic crisis could not be foreseen, the impact of the economic crisis during the RIP was mainly in terms of volumes, since, in terms of prices, any impact would be felt by the Union industry with a delay. In that context it has to be noted that the situation of the Union industry has deteriorated in some respect, even during the period of positive economic conditions, by losing market share to imports from the country concerned. The fact that this deterioration did not lead to more significant negative effects was partly due to the high level of demand in 2007-2008 which had allowed the Union industry to maintain high volumes of production and sales and partly due to the fact that when these volumes decreased in the RIP, the prices could still be maintained due to the time-lag described above.\n5.3. Imports from other countries\n(74)\nDue to the inclusion of products other than the product under investigation in the import data available at CN code level from Eurostat, the following analysis has been made on the basis of import data at Taric code level, supplemented by information from data collected in accordance with Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation. Some imports were disregarded because, on the basis of the information available, they appeared not to be the product under investigation.\n(75)\nIt is estimated that the volume of imports from other third countries increased by 63 % from around 11 000 tonnes in 2006 to around 18 500 tonnes in the RIP. The market share of imports from other countries increased from 6,6 % in 2006 to 14,4 % in the RIP. The average price of imports from other third countries increased by 42 % between 2006 and the RIP. The main imports appear to be from the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC), Russia, Japan, and Mexico, which were the only countries with individual market shares higher than 1 % during the RIP. Imports from these countries are further examined in the following recitals. Imports from nine other countries account for a total market share of only around 2 % and are not examined further.\n(76)\nThe market share of Chinese imports increased by 2,4 percentage points over the period considered (from 0,2 % to 2,6 %). The available information indicates that these imports were made at prices which were lower than those of the Union industry and also lower than those of the imports originating in India.\n(77)\nThe market share of imports from Russia increased by 4,2 percentage points over the period considered (from 1,9 % to 6,1 %). The available information indicates that these imports were made at prices which were slightly lower than those of the Union industry, but higher than those of the imports originating in India.\n(78)\nThe market share of imports from Japan decreased by 0,4 percentage points over the period considered (from 2,0 % to 1,6 %). The available information indicates that these imports were made at prices which were similar to, or above, those of the Union industry and also higher than those of the imports originating in India.\n(79)\nThe market share of imports from Mexico increased by 1,0 percentage points over the period considered (from 0,9 % to 1,9 %). The available information indicates that these imports were made at prices which were higher than those of the Union industry and also higher than those of the imports originating in India.\n(80)\nIn conclusion, it cannot be excluded that the development of imports from the PRC and from Russia could have contributed to some extent to the deterioration in the market share of the Union industry. However, given the general nature of the data available from the import statistics, which does not allow a price comparison by product type, as was possible for India on the basis of the detailed information provided by the exporting producer, the impact of the imports from the PRC and Russia cannot be established with certainty.\nTable 15\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from other countries (tonnes)\n11 289\n11 243\n19 158\n18 443\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n100\n170\n163\nMarket share of imports from the other countries\n6,6 %\n6,6 %\n11,3 %\n14,4 %\nPrice of imports from the other countries (EUR/tonne)\n2 467\n3 020\n3 403\n3 508\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n122\n138\n142\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from the PRC (tonnes)\n421\n659\n2 828\n3 380\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n157\n672\n804\nMarket share of imports from the PRC\n0,2 %\n0,4 %\n1,7 %\n2,6 %\nPrice of imports from the PRC (EUR/tonne)\n1 983\n2 272\n2 818\n2 969\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n115\n142\n150\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from Russia (tonnes)\n3 196\n2 887\n8 441\n7 821\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n90\n264\n245\nMarket share of imports from Russia\n1,9 %\n1,7 %\n5,0 %\n6,1 %\nPrice of imports from Russia (EUR/tonne)\n2 379\n2 969\n3 323\n3 447\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n125\n140\n145\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from Japan (tonnes)\n3 391\n2 223\n3 731\n2 090\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n66\n110\n62\nMarket share of imports from Japan\n2,0 %\n1,3 %\n2,2 %\n1,6 %\nPrice of imports from Japan (EUR/tonne)\n2 566\n3 131\n3 474\n3 590\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n122\n135\n140\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nVolume of imports from Mexico (tonnes)\n1 478\n2 187\n2 115\n2 465\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n148\n143\n167\nMarket share of imports from Mexico\n0,9 %\n1,3 %\n1,2 %\n1,9 %\nPrice of imports from Mexico (EUR/tonne)\n2 634\n3 629\n4 510\n4 554\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n138\n171\n173\n6. Conclusion\n(81)\nAs indicated in recital 49 the volume of imports from the country concerned has more than doubled between 2006 and the RIP. Given that consumption declined by almost 25 % over the same period, this resulted in a sharp rise in the market share held by Indian exporters from around 1,5 % in 2006 to around 5 % during the RIP. While Indian export prices to the Union increased considerably during the period considered as an effect of generally high market prices, they were still undercutting the prices of the Union industry.\n(82)\nBetween 2006 and the RIP, and notwithstanding the existence of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures, a number of important indicators developed negatively: production and sales volumes decreased by 29 % and 39 % respectively, capacity utilisation went down by 28 % and was followed by a decrease in employment and productivity levels. Although a part of these negative developments may be explained by the strong decrease in consumption, which declined by almost 25 % over the period considered, the Union industry\u2019s strong decrease in market share (down by 15,9 percentage points between 2006 and the RIP) must also be interpreted in the light of the constant increase in market share of imports from India.\n(83)\nAs for the relatively high level of profits during the RIP, this was mainly due to the continued high level of prices, for the reasons explained in recital 62. It is concluded that the Union industry\u2019s situation deteriorated overall during the period considered and that the Union industry was in a fragile situation at the end of the RIP, despite a relatively high level of profit at that stage, when its efforts to maintain sales volumes and a sufficient level of prices, in a situation of weakened demand, were hampered by the increased presence of the Indian dumped imports.\nF. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION AND RECURRENCE OF INJURY\n1. Preliminary remarks\n(84)\nAs already seen, the imposition of anti-dumping measures has allowed the Union industry to recover only to some extent from the injury suffered. However, when the high levels of Union consumption experienced during most of the period considered disappeared during the RIP, the Union industry appeared in a fragile and vulnerable situation and still exposed to the injurious effect of the dumped imports from India. In particular, the ability of the Union industry to recover increased costs was weak at the end of the RIP.\n2. Relationship between export volumes and prices to third countries and export volumes and prices to the Union\n(85)\nIt was found that the average export price of Indian sales to non-EU countries was below the average export price to the Union and also below the prices on the domestic market. The Indian exporter\u2019s sales to non-EU countries were made in significant quantities, accounting for the majority of its total export sales. Therefore, it was considered that, should measures lapse, Indian exporters would have an incentive to shift significant quantities of exports from other third countries to the more attractive Union market, at price levels, which, even if they were higher than the prices to third countries, would likely still be below the current export price levels to the Union.\n3. Unused capacity and stocks in the Indian market\n(86)\nThe cooperating Indian producer had significant spare capacities and planned to increase its capacity in 2010/2011. Therefore, the capacity to significantly increase export quantities to the Union exists, in particular because there are no indications that third country markets or the domestic market could absorb any additional production.\n(87)\nIn its comments to the disclosure, the cooperating Indian producer alleged that its spare capacity was mainly due to the economic crisis and the related decrease in demand. However, a significant part of the company\u2019s spare capacity can be explained by the fact that the company substantially increased its capacity between 2006 and the RIP. Furthermore, it should be noted that the company has planned additional increased capacity. Moreover, it should also be pointed out that there is another Indian producer which did not cooperate, that has similar capacity and utilisation and has also announced recently an even more substantial increase in capacity.\n4. Conclusion\n(88)\nThe producers in the country concerned have the potential to raise and/or redirect their export volumes to the Union market. Moreover, the prices of Indian exports to third countries are lower than those to the Union. The investigation showed that, on the basis of comparable product types, the cooperating exporting producer sold the product concerned at prices lower than those of the Union industry. These low prices would most likely decrease in line with the lower prices charged to the rest of the world. Such price behaviour, coupled with the ability of the exporters in the country concerned to deliver significant quantities of the product concerned to the Union market, would, in all likelihood, have a negative impact on the economic situation of the Union industry.\n(89)\nAs shown above, the situation of the Union industry remains vulnerable and fragile. If the Union industry were to be exposed to increased volumes of imports from the country concerned at dumped prices, this would be likely to result in a deterioration of its sales, market share, sales prices, as well as a consequent deterioration of its financial situation to the levels found in the original investigation. On this basis, it is therefore concluded that the repeal of the measures would in all likelihood result in a worsening of the already fragile situation, and a recurrence of material injury to the Union industry.\nG. UNION INTEREST\n1. Introduction\n(90)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of the various interests involved, i.e. those of the Union industry, of importers, and of users.\n(91)\nIt should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place, allows the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.\n(92)\nOn this basis it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case.\n2. Interest of the Union industry\n(93)\nThe Union industry has proven to be a structurally viable industry. This was confirmed by the positive development of its economic situation observed after the imposition of the anti-dumping measures in 2004. In particular, the fact that the Union industry increased its profitability in the few years before the RIP contrasts sharply with the situation preceding the imposition of the measures. However, the Union industry has consistently lost market share while imports from the country considered have substantially increased in market share over the period considered. Without the existence of the measures, the Union industry would likely be in an even worse situation.\n3. Interest of importers/users\n(94)\nNone of the nine unrelated importers that were contacted came forward to cooperate.\n(95)\nSeventeen users came forward and submitted questionnaire replies. While most users have not sourced graphite electrodes from India for several years, and therefore remained neutral with respect to a possible continuation of the measures, six users have, at least to some extent, used Indian electrodes. Four users claimed that a continuation of measures would have a negative impact on competition. One association (Eurofer) strongly opposed a continuation of the measures and claimed that the measures resulted in Indian exporters largely withdrawing from the Union market. The association alleges that the continuation of measures would hamper steel producers in developing alternative sources of supply and would allow the Union industry to continue having a dominant, near duopoly position. However, it is clear from the development of the Indian imports after the imposition of the measures, that such a large withdrawal has not taken place; instead imports from India have increased significantly during the period considered. In addition, the investigation has shown that the graphite electrodes are increasingly entering the Union market from a number of other third countries. As for the strength of the position in the market of the Union industry, it is recalled that its market share has decreased by almost 16 percentage points over the period considered (see recital 55 above). Finally, this association also admitted that graphite electrodes represent only a relatively small component of the total costs of steel manufacturers.\n(96)\nIt is further recalled that, in the original investigation, it was found that the impact of the imposition of measures would not be significant for the users (10). Despite the existence of measures for 5 years, importers/users in the Union continued to source their supply, inter alia, from India. No indications were brought forward either that there have been difficulties in finding other sources. Moreover, it is recalled that, as regards the effect of the imposition of measures on users, it was concluded in the original investigation that, given the negligible incidence of the cost of graphite electrodes on user industries, any cost increase was unlikely to have a significant effect on the user industry. No indications of the contrary were found after the imposition of measures. It is therefore concluded that the maintenance of the anti-dumping measures is not likely to have a serious effect on importers/users in the Union.\n4. Conclusion\n(97)\nGiven the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.\nH. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(98)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to submit comments subsequent to that disclosure. The submissions and comments were duly taken into consideration where warranted.\n(99)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain graphite electrodes originating in India should be maintained. It is recalled that these measures consist of ad valorem duties.\n(100)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation are solely applicable to imports of the product concerned produced by these companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imports of the product concerned manufactured by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(101)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (11) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for instance, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be amended accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of graphite electrodes of a kind used for electric furnaces, with an apparent density of 1,65 g/cm3 or more and an electrical resistance of 6,0 \u03bc.\u03a9.m or less, currently falling within CN code ex 8545 11 00 (TARIC code 8545110010) and nipples used for such electrodes currently falling within CN code ex 8545 90 90 (TARIC code 8545909010) whether imported together or separately originating in India.\n2. The rate of duty applicable to the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, for the products described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCompany\nDefinitive Duty\n(%)\nTARIC Additional Code\nGraphite India Limited (GIL), 31 Chowringhee Road, Kolkatta - 700016, West Bengal\n9,4\nA530\nHEG Limited, Bhilwara Towers, A-12, Sector-1, Noida - 201301, Uttar Pradesh\n0\nA531\nAll other companies\n8,5\nA999\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["19", "6", "59", "41", "56", "10", "34", "70", "14", "47", "62", "17", "13", "18", "82", "26", "99", "39", "63", "86", "32", "84", "44", "52", "1", "27", "31", "76", "29", "77", "No Label", "4", "22", "48", "95", "96"], "gold": ["4", "22", "48", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1181/2010\nof 13 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for anchovy in VIII by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["41", "45", "66", "54", "19", "48", "60", "88", "69", "27", "58", "62", "74", "37", "92", "39", "59", "78", "40", "23", "83", "73", "80", "26", "90", "17", "42", "31", "4", "20", "No Label", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 891/2011\nof 1 September 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006 (1) and in particular Article 18(1)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex V to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 lists the entities covered by certain export, financing and investment restrictions under that Regulation.\n(2)\nAnnex VI to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(3)\nCouncil Decision (EU) No 2011/504/CFSP (2) of 16 August 2011 replaces Annexes I, II of Council Decision 2010/232/CFSP of 26 April 2010 (3). Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 gives effect to Council Decision 2010/232/CFSP to the extent that action at Union level is required. Annexes V, and VI to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nIn the case of the individuals identified in Annex IV of Council Decision 2011/239/CFSP, the effects of their listing in Annex II of the same Decision are suspended. Accordingly it is not appropriate to include their names in Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 194/2008.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 is replaced by the text of Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 is replaced by the text of Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 September 2011.", "references": ["34", "12", "98", "9", "17", "32", "6", "19", "21", "38", "10", "31", "90", "7", "85", "15", "76", "88", "1", "45", "16", "47", "92", "81", "28", "57", "43", "22", "63", "68", "No Label", "3", "23", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "23", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 8 August 2012\namending Decision 2002/253/EC laying down case definitions for reporting communicable diseases to the Community network under Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2012) 5538)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/506/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community (1), and in particular Article 3(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/253/EC (2), the case definitions laid down in the Annex to that Decision should be updated to the extent necessary on the basis of the latest scientific data.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 851/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 establishing a European Centre for disease prevention and control (3) (ECDC), the ECDC provided, at the request of the Commission, a scientific opinion on case definitions aiding the Commission and the Member States in the development of intervention strategies in the field of surveillance of and response to communicable diseases.\n(3)\nThe case definitions already listed in the Annex to Decision 2002/253/EC for HIV/AIDS, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae (invasive disease), hepatitis B and C, meningococcal disease, mumps, legionellosis, congenital rubella, shiga toxin/verocytotoxin producing Escherichia coli infection (STEC/VTEC), salmonellosis and leptospirosis should be updated on the basis of that scientific opinion provided by ECDC.\n(4)\nA generic case definition of antimicrobial resistance, a generic definition of nosocomial infections, a number of specific case definitions of nosocomial infections, and a case definition for tick-borne encephalitis should also be added to the Annex to Decision 2002/253/EC on the basis of that scientific opinion provided by ECDC.\n(5)\nFor the purpose of clarity, it is appropriate to restructure the Annex to Decision 2002/253/EC in order to ensure that case definitions for communicable diseases are in a separate list from those for special health issues, and that, within each list, the case definitions appear in numerical order.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Decision No 2119/98/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2002/253/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 August 2012.", "references": ["0", "23", "35", "64", "85", "47", "88", "24", "33", "15", "71", "55", "93", "89", "56", "40", "34", "97", "75", "20", "44", "8", "94", "74", "78", "46", "11", "87", "59", "12", "No Label", "38", "39", "41"], "gold": ["38", "39", "41"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1192/2010\nof 16 December 2010\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ricotta Romana (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Ricotta Romana\u2019 registered in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 737/2005 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2010.", "references": ["34", "18", "76", "84", "65", "13", "27", "80", "1", "52", "94", "0", "14", "59", "47", "48", "42", "68", "16", "30", "29", "10", "67", "33", "19", "78", "23", "81", "69", "66", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 520/2012\nof 19 June 2012\non the performance of pharmacovigilance activities provided for in Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (1), and in particular Article 87a thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (2), and in particular Article 108 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 1235/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, and Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products (3) strengthened and rationalised the monitoring of the safety of medicines that have been placed on the market in the Union. Similar provisions were introduced by Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (4) into Directive 2001/83/EC.\n(2)\nPharmacovigilance activities cover the whole life-cycle management of medicinal products for human use in relation to safety.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 1235/2010 and Directive 2010/84/EU introduced the concept of the pharmacovigilance system master file. In order to accurately reflect the pharmacovigilance system used by the marketing authorisation holder, the pharmacovigilance system master file should contain key information and documents covering all aspects of pharmacovigilance activities, including information on tasks that have been subcontracted. It should contribute to the appropriate planning and conduct of audits by the marketing authorisation holder and the supervision of pharmacovigilance activities by the qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance. At the same time it should enable national competent authorities to verify compliance concerning all aspects of the system.\n(4)\nThe information contained in the pharmacovigilance system master file should be maintained so as to reflect any modifications that have been made and ensure easy accessibility and availability by national competent authorities for the purpose of inspections.\n(5)\nQuality systems should form an integral part of the pharmacovigilance system. The minimum requirements for the quality system for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities should ensure that marketing authorisation holders, national competent authorities and the European Medicines Agency (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019) establish an adequate and effective quality system, which provides for an effective monitoring of compliance and the accurate and proper documentation of all measures taken. They should also ensure that marketing authorisation holders, national competent authorities and the Agency have at their disposal sufficient competent, appropriately qualified and trained staff.\n(6)\nAdherence to a well-defined quality system should ensure that all pharmacovigilance activities are conducted in such a way that they are likely to produce the desired results or quality objectives for the fulfilment of pharmacovigilance tasks.\n(7)\nAs part of their quality system, national competent authorities and the Agency should establish contact points to facilitate interaction between national competent authorities, the Agency, the Commission, marketing authorisation holders and persons reporting information on the risks of medicinal products, as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 101(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC.\n(8)\nIf marketing authorisation holders, national competent authorities and the Agency use performance indicators to monitor the good performance of pharmacovigilance activities, those indicators should be documented.\n(9)\nPharmacovigilance activities rely increasingly on the periodic monitoring of large databases, such as the Eudravigilance database. Whereas the Eudravigilance database is expected to be a major source of pharmacovigilance information, account should also be taken of pharmacovigilance information coming from other sources.\n(10)\nMarketing authorisation holders, national competent authorities and the Agency should continuously monitor the data in the Eudravigilance database to determine whether there are new risks or whether risks have changed and whether those risks have an impact on the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product. They should validate and confirm signals, as appropriate, based on an examination of individual case safety reports, aggregated data from active surveillance systems or studies, literature information or other data sources. It is therefore necessary to establish common requirements for signal detection, to clarify the respective monitoring roles of marketing authorisation holders, national competent authorities and the Agency, to clarify how signals are validated and confirmed where appropriate and to specify the signal management process.\n(11)\nAs a general principle, signal detection should follow a recognised methodology. However, the methodology may vary depending on the type of medicinal product it is intended to cover.\n(12)\nThe use of internationally agreed terminology, format and standards should facilitate the interoperability of systems used for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities and avoids the duplication of encoding activities concerning the same information. It should also allow for an easier information exchange between regulatory authorities on an international level.\n(13)\nIn order to simplify the reporting of suspected adverse reactions, the marketing authorisation holder and the Member States should report those reactions only to the Eudravigilance database. The Eudravigilance database should be equipped to immediately forward reports on suspected adverse reactions received from marketing authorisation holders to the Member States on whose territory the reaction occurred. It is therefore necessary to establish a common electronic format for the transmission of suspected adverse reaction reports by marketing authorisation holders and Member States to the Eudravigilance database.\n(14)\nPeriodic safety update reports are an important instrument to monitor the development of the safety profile of a medicinal product after it has been placed on the Union market, including an integrated (re-)evaluation of the risk-benefit balance. In order to facilitate their processing and evaluation, common format and content requirements should be established.\n(15)\nRisk management plans are required for all new marketing authorisation applications. They contain a detailed description of the risk management system used by the marketing authorisation holder. In order to facilitate the production of risk management plans and their evaluation by the competent authorities, common format and content requirements should be established.\n(16)\nWhere competent authorities have concerns as to the safety of a medicinal product, they should be able to impose on marketing authorisation holders the obligation to conduct post-authorisation safety studies. The marketing authorisation holder should submit a draft protocol before those studies are conducted. Moreover, the marketing authorisation holder should provide, at the appropriate stage, a study abstract and a final study report. It is appropriate to provide that the protocol, the abstract and the final study report follow a common format in order to facilitate the approval and oversight of those studies by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee or the competent authorities in case of studies to be conducted in only one Member State that requests the study according to Article 22a of Directive 2001/83/EC.\n(17)\nThis Regulation should apply without prejudice to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (5) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (6). The fundamental right to protection of personal data should be fully and effectively guaranteed in all pharmacovigilance activities. The purpose of safeguarding public health constitutes a substantial public interest and consequently the processing of personal data should be justified if identifiable personal data are processed only where necessary and only where the parties involved assess this necessity at every stage of the pharmacovigilance process. National competent authorities and marketing authorisation holders may apply pseudonymisation where appropriate, thereby replacing identifiable personal data with pseudonyms.\n(18)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nPharmacovigilance system master file\nArticle 1\nStructure of the pharmacovigilance system master file\n1. The information in the pharmacovigilance system master file shall be accurate and reflect the pharmacovigilance system in place.\n2. The marketing authorisation holder may, where appropriate, use separate pharmacovigilance systems for different categories of medicinal products. Each such system shall be described in a separate pharmacovigilance system master file.\nAll medicinal products for which the marketing authorisation holder obtained a marketing authorisation in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC or Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 shall be covered by a pharmacovigilance system master file.\nArticle 2\nContent of the pharmacovigilance system master file\nThe pharmacovigilance system master file shall contain at least all of the following elements:\n(1)\nthe following information relating to the qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance:\n(a)\na description of the responsibilities demonstrating that the qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance has sufficient authority over the pharmacovigilance system in order to promote, maintain and improve compliance with pharmacovigilance tasks and responsibilities;\n(b)\na summary curriculum vitae of the qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance, including proof of registration with the Eudravigilance database;\n(c)\ncontact details of the qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance;\n(d)\ndetails of back-up arrangements to apply in the absence of the qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance;\n(e)\nresponsibilities of the contact person for pharmacovigilance issues where such a person has been nominated at national level in accordance with Article 104(4) of Directive 2001/83/EC, including contact details;\n(2)\na description of the organisational structure of the marketing authorisation holder, including the list of the site(s) where the following pharmacovigilance activities are undertaken: individual case safety report collection, evaluation, safety database case entry, periodic safety update report production, signal detection and analysis, risk management plan management, pre- and post-authorisation study management, and management of safety variations to the terms of a marketing authorisation;\n(3)\na description of the location of, functionality of and operational responsibility for computerised systems and databases used to receive, collate, record and report safety information and an assessment of their fitness for purpose;\n(4)\na description of data handling and recording and of the process used for each of the following pharmacovigilance activities:\n(a)\nthe continuous monitoring of the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product(s), the result of that monitoring and the decision-making process for taking appropriate measures;\n(b)\noperation of the risk management system(s) and of the monitoring of the outcome of risk minimisation measures;\n(c)\ncollection, assessment and reporting of individual case safety reports;\n(d)\ndrafting and submission of periodic safety update reports;\n(e)\nprocedures for communicating safety concerns and safety variations to the summary of product characteristics and package leaflet to healthcare professionals and the general public;\n(5)\na description of the quality system for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities, including all of the following elements:\n(a)\na description of the management of human resources referred to in Article 10 containing the following elements: a description of the organisational structure for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities with a reference to the location of qualification records of the personnel; a summary description of the training concept, including a reference to the location of training files; instructions on critical processes;\n(b)\na description of the record management system referred to in Article 12, including the location of the documents used for pharmacovigilance activities;\n(c)\na description of the system for monitoring the performance of the pharmacovigilance system and for the compliance with Article 11;\n(6)\nwhere applicable, a description of the activities and/or services subcontracted by the marketing authorisation holder in accordance with Article 6(1).\nArticle 3\nContent of the Annex to the pharmacovigilance system master file\nThe pharmacovigilance system master file shall have an Annex containing the following documents:\n(1)\na list of medicinal products covered by the pharmacovigilance system master file, including the name of the medicinal product, the international non-proprietary name (INN) of the active substance(s), and the Member State(s) in which the authorisation is valid;\n(2)\na list of written policies and procedures for the purpose of complying with Article 11(1);\n(3)\nthe list of subcontracts referred to in Article 6(2);\n(4)\na list of the tasks that have been delegated by the qualified person for pharmacovigilance;\n(5)\na list of all scheduled and completed audits;\n(6)\nwhere applicable, a list of the performance indicators referred to in Article 9;\n(7)\nwhere applicable, a list of other pharmacovigilance system master files held by the same marketing authorisation holder;\n(8)\na logbook containing the information referred to in Article 5(4).\nArticle 4\nMaintenance\n1. The marketing authorisation holder shall keep the pharmacovigilance system master file up to date and, where necessary, revise it to take account of experience gained, of technical and scientific progress and of amendments to Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\n2. The pharmacovigilance system master file and its Annex shall be subject to version control and shall indicate the date when it was last updated by the marketing authorisation holder.\n3. Any deviations from the pharmacovigilance procedures, their impact and their management shall be documented in the pharmacovigilance system master file until resolved.\n4. Without prejudice to the requirements set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008 of 24 November 2008 concerning the examination of variations to the terms of marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use and veterinary medicinal products (7), the marketing authorisation holder shall notify immediately the Agency of any change in the location of the pharmacovigilance system master file or changes to the contact details and name of the qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance. The Agency shall update the Eudravigilance database referred to in Article 24(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and, where necessary, the European medicines web-portal referred to in Article 26(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 accordingly.\nArticle 5\nForm of the documents contained in the pharmacovigilance system master file\n1. Pharmacovigilance system master file documents shall be complete and legible. Where appropriate, information may be provided in the form of charts or flow diagrams. All documents shall be indexed and archived so as to ensure their accurate and ready retrieval throughout the period for record-keeping.\n2. The particulars and documents of the pharmacovigilance system master file may be presented in modules in accordance with the system delineated in detail in the guidance on good pharmacovigilance practices.\n3. The pharmacovigilance system master file may be stored in electronic form provided that the media used for storage remain readable over time and a clearly arranged printed copy can be made available for audits and inspections.\n4. The marketing authorisation holder shall record in the logbook referred to in point 8 of Article 3 any alteration of the content of the pharmacovigilance system master file made within the last five years, with the exception of the information referred to in point 1(b) to (e) of Article 2 and in Article 3. The marketing authorisation holder shall indicate in the logbook the date, the person responsible for the alteration and, where appropriate, the reason for the alteration.\nArticle 6\nSubcontracting\n1. The marketing authorisation holder may subcontract certain activities of the pharmacovigilance system to third parties. It shall nevertheless retain full responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of the pharmacovigilance system master file.\n2. The marketing authorisation holder shall draw up a list of its existing subcontracts between it and the third parties referred to in paragraph 1, specifying the product(s) and territory(ies) concerned.\nArticle 7\nAvailability and location of the pharmacovigilance system master file\n1. The pharmacovigilance system master file shall be located either at the site in the Union where the main pharmacovigilance activities of the marketing authorisation holder are performed or at the site in the Union where the qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance operates.\n2. The marketing authorisation holder shall ensure that the qualified person for pharmacovigilance has permanent access to the pharmacovigilance system master file.\n3. The pharmacovigilance system master file shall be permanently and immediately available for inspection at the site where it is kept.\nWhere the pharmacovigilance system master file is kept in electronic form in accordance with Article 5(3), it is sufficient for the purposes of this Article that the data stored in electronic form is directly available at the site where the pharmacovigilance system master file is kept.\n4. For the purposes of Article 23(4) of Directive 2001/83/EC, the national competent authority may limit its request to specific parts or modules of the pharmacovigilance system master file and the marketing authorisation holder shall bear the costs of submitting the copy of the pharmacovigilance system master file.\n5. The national competent authority and the Agency may request the marketing authorisation holder to submit a copy of the logbook referred to in point 8 of Article 3 at regular intervals.\nCHAPTER II\nMinimum requirements for the quality systems for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities\nSection 1\nGeneral provisions\nArticle 8\nQuality system\n1. Marketing authorisation holders, the national competent authorities and the Agency shall establish and use a quality system that is adequate and effective for the performance of their pharmacovigilance activities.\n2. The quality system shall cover organisational structure, responsibilities, procedures, processes and resources, appropriate resource management, compliance management and record management.\n3. The quality system shall be based on all of the following activities:\n(a)\nquality planning: establishing structures and planning integrated and consistent processes;\n(b)\nquality adherence: carrying out tasks and responsibilities in accordance with quality requirements;\n(c)\nquality control and assurance: monitoring and evaluating how effectively the structures and processes have been established and how effectively the processes are being carried out;\n(d)\nquality improvements: correcting and improving the structures and processes where necessary.\n4. All elements, requirements and provisions adopted for the quality system shall be documented in a systematic and orderly manner in the form of written policies and procedures, such as quality plans, quality manuals and quality records.\n5. All persons involved in the procedures and processes of the quality systems established by the national competent authorities and the Agency for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities shall be responsible for the good functioning of those quality systems and shall ensure a systematic approach towards quality and towards the implementation and maintenance of the quality system.\nArticle 9\nPerformance indicators\n1. The marketing authorisation holder, national competent authorities and the Agency may use performance indicators to continuously monitor the good performance of pharmacovigilance activities.\n2. The Agency may publish a list of performance indicators on the basis of a recommendation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee.\nSection 2\nMinimum requirements for the quality systems for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities by marketing authorisation holders\nArticle 10\nManagement of human resources\n1. The marketing authorisation holder shall have sufficient competent and appropriately qualified and trained personnel available for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities.\nFor the purposes of the first subparagraph, the market authorisation holder shall ensure that the qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance has acquired adequate theoretical and practical knowledge for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities. Where the qualified person has not completed basic medical training in accordance with Article 24 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (8), the market authorisation holder shall ensure that the qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance is assisted by a medically trained person. This assistance shall be duly documented.\n2. The duties of the managerial and supervisory staff, including the qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance, shall be defined in job descriptions. Their hierarchical relationships shall be defined in an organisational chart. The marketing authorisation holder shall ensure that the qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance has sufficient authority to influence the performance of the quality system and the pharmacovigilance activities of the marketing authorisation holder.\n3. All personnel involved in the performance of pharmacovigilance activities shall receive initial and continued training in relation to their role and responsibilities. The marketing authorisation holder shall keep training plans and records for documenting, maintaining and developing the competences of personnel and make them available for audit or inspection.\n4. The marketing authorisation holder shall provide appropriate instructions on the processes to be used in case of urgency, including business continuity.\nArticle 11\nCompliance management\n1. Specific quality system procedures and processes shall be in place in order to ensure the following:\n(a)\nthe continuous monitoring of pharmacovigilance data, the examination of options for risk minimisation and prevention and appropriate measures are taken by the marketing authorisation holder;\n(b)\nthe scientific evaluation by the marketing authorisation holder of all information on the risks of medicinal products, as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 101(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC;\n(c)\nthe submission of accurate and verifiable data on serious and non-serious adverse reactions to the Eudravigilance database within the time limits provided for in the first and second subparagraphs respectively of Article 107(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC;\n(d)\nthe quality, integrity and completeness of the information submitted on the risks of medicinal products, including processes to avoid duplicate submissions and to validate signals in accordance with Article 21(2);\n(e)\neffective communication by the marketing authorisation holder with the national competent authorities and the Agency, including communication on new risks or changed risks, the pharmacovigilance system master file, risk management systems, risk minimisation measures, periodic safety update reports, corrective and preventive actions, and post-authorisation studies;\n(f)\nthe update of product information by the marketing authorisation holder in the light of scientific knowledge, including the assessments and recommendations made public via the European medicines web-portal, and on the basis of a continuous monitoring by the marketing authorisation holder of information published on the European medicines web-portal;\n(g)\nappropriate communication by the marketing authorisation holder of relevant safety information to healthcare professionals and patients.\n2. Where a marketing authorisation holder has subcontracted some of its pharmacovigilance tasks, it shall retain responsibility for ensuring that an effective quality system is applied in relation to those tasks.\nArticle 12\nRecord management and data retention\n1. Marketing authorisation holders shall record all pharmacovigilance information and ensure that it is handled and stored so as to allow for accurate reporting, interpretation and verification of that information.\nMarketing authorisation holders shall put in place a record management system for all documents used for pharmacovigilance activities that ensures the retrievability of those documents as well as the traceability of the measures taken to investigate safety concerns, of the timelines for those investigations and of decisions on safety concerns, including their date and the decision-making process.\nMarketing authorisation holders shall establish mechanisms enabling the traceability and follow-up of adverse reaction reports.\n2. Marketing authorisation holders shall arrange for the elements referred to in Article 2 to be kept for at least five years after the system as described in the pharmacovigilance system master file has been formally terminated by the marketing authorisation holder.\nPharmacovigilance data and documents relating to individual authorised medicinal products shall be retained as long as the product is authorised and for at least 10 years after the marketing authorisation has ceased to exist. However, the documents shall be retained for a longer period where Union law or national law so requires.\nArticle 13\nAudit\n1. Risk-based audits of the quality system shall be performed at regular intervals to ensure that the quality system complies with the quality system requirements set out in Articles 8, 10, 11 and 12 and to determine its effectiveness. Those audits shall be conducted by individuals who have no direct involvement in or responsibility for the matters or processes being audited.\n2. Corrective action(s), including a follow-up audit of deficiencies, shall be taken where necessary. A report on the results of the audit shall be drawn up for each audit and follow-up audit. The audit report shall be sent to the management responsible for the matters audited. The dates and results of audits and follow-up audits shall be documented in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 104(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC.\nSection 3\nMinimum requirements for the quality systems for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities by national competent authorities and the Agency\nArticle 14\nManagement of human resources\n1. The national competent authorities and the Agency shall have sufficient competent and appropriately qualified and trained personnel available for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities.\nThe organisational structures and the distribution of tasks and responsibilities shall be clear and, to the extent necessary, accessible. Contact points shall be established.\n2. All personnel involved in the performance of pharmacovigilance activities shall receive initial and continued training. The national competent authorities and the Agency shall keep training plans and records for documenting, maintaining and developing the competences of personnel and shall make them available for audit.\n3. Appropriate instructions on the processes to be used in case of urgency, including business continuity, shall be provided by the national competent authorities and by the Agency to their personnel.\nArticle 15\nCompliance management\n1. The national competent authorities and the Agency shall establish specific procedures and processes in order to achieve all of the following objectives:\n(a)\nensuring the evaluation of the quality, including completeness, of pharmacovigilance data submitted;\n(b)\nensuring the assessment of pharmacovigilance data and its processing within the timelines provided by Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(c)\nensuring independence in the performance of pharmacovigilance activities;\n(d)\nensuring effective communication among national competent authorities and between the national competent authorities and the Agency as well as with patients, healthcare professionals, marketing authorisation holders and the general public;\n(e)\nguaranteeing that the national competent authorities and the Agency inform each other and the Commission of their intention to make announcements relating to the safety of a medicinal product authorised in several Member States or an active substance contained in such a medicinal product in accordance with Article 106a of Directive 2001/83/EC;\n(f)\nconducting inspections, including pre-authorisation inspections.\n2. In addition to the procedures referred to in paragraph 1, national competent authorities shall establish procedures for collecting and recording all suspected adverse reactions that occur in their territory.\n3. The Agency shall establish procedures for the monitoring of medical literature in accordance with Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\nArticle 16\nRecord management and data retention\n1. The national competent authorities and the Agency shall record all pharmacovigilance information and ensure that it is handled and stored so as to allow for accurate reporting, interpretation and verification of that information.\nThey shall put in place a record management system for all documents used for pharmacovigilance activities that ensures the retrievability of those documents as well as the traceability of the measures taken to investigate safety concerns, of the timelines for those investigations and of decisions on safety concerns, including their date and the decision-making process.\n2. The national competent authorities and the Agency shall arrange for the essential documents describing their pharmacovigilance system to be kept for at least five years after the system has been formally terminated.\nPharmacovigilance data and documents relating to individual authorised medicinal products shall be retained as long as the product is authorised and for at least 10 years after the marketing authorisation has expired. However, the documents shall be retained for a longer period where Union law or national law so requires.\nArticle 17\nAudit\n1. Risk-based audits of the quality system shall be performed at regular intervals according to a common methodology to ensure that the quality system complies with the requirements set out in Articles 8, 14, 15 and 16 and to ensure its effectiveness.\n2. Corrective action, including a follow-up audit of deficiencies, shall be taken where necessary. The audit report shall be sent to the management responsible for the matters audited. The dates and results of audits and follow-up audits shall be documented.\nCHAPTER III\nMinimum requirements for the monitoring of data in the Eudravigilance database\nArticle 18\nGeneral requirements\n1. The Agency and national competent authorities shall cooperate in the monitoring of the data available in the Eudravigilance database.\n2. Marketing authorisation holders shall monitor the data available in the Eudravigilance database to the extent that they have access to that database.\n3. Marketing authorisation holders, the national competent authorities and the Agency shall ensure the continuous monitoring of the Eudravigilance database with a frequency proportionate to the identified risk, the potential risks and the need for additional information.\n4. The competent authority of each Member State shall be responsible for monitoring the data originating in the territory of that Member State.\nArticle 19\nIdentification of changed risks and new risks\n1. The identification of new risks or changed risks shall be based on the detection and analysis of the signals concerning a medicinal product or an active substance.\nFor the purposes of this chapter, \u2018signal\u2019 means information arising from one or multiple sources, including observations and experiments, which suggests a new potentially causal association, or a new aspect of a known association between an intervention and an event or set of related events, either adverse or beneficial, which is judged to be of sufficient likelihood to justify verificatory action.\nFor the purpose of monitoring data in the Eudravigilance database, only signals related to an adverse reaction shall be considered.\n2. The detection of a signal shall be based on a multidisciplinary approach. Signal detection within the Eudravigilance database shall be complemented by statistical analysis, where appropriate. After consultation with the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, the Agency may publish a list of medical events that have to be taken into account for the detection of a signal.\nArticle 20\nMethodology for determining the evidentiary value of a signal\n1. National competent authorities, marketing authorisation holders and the Agency shall determine the evidentiary value of a signal by using a recognised methodology taking into account the clinical relevance, quantitative strength of the association, the consistency of the data, the exposure-response relationship, the biological plausibility, experimental findings, possible analogies and the nature and quality of the data.\n2. Different types of factors may be taken into account for the prioritisation of signals, in particular whether the association or medicinal product is new, factors related to the strength of the association, factors related to the seriousness of the reaction involved and factors related to the documentation of reports to the Eudravigilance database.\n3. The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee shall regularly review the methodology(ies) used and publish recommendations, as appropriate.\nArticle 21\nSignal management process\n1. The signal management process shall include the following activities: signal detection, signal validation, signal confirmation, signal analysis and prioritisation, signal assessment, and recommendation for action.\nFor the purposes of this Article, \u2018signal validation\u2019 means the process of evaluating the data supporting the detected signal in order to verify that the available documentation contains sufficient evidence demonstrating the existence of a new potentially causal association, or a new aspect of a known association, and therefore justifies further analysis of the signal.\n2. Where a marketing authorisation holder detects a new signal when monitoring the Eudravigilance database, it shall validate it and shall forthwith inform the Agency and national competent authorities.\n3. Where it is considered that a validated signal requires further analysis, it shall be confirmed as soon as possible and no later than 30 days from its receipt as follows:\n(a)\nwhere the signal concerns a product authorised in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC, it shall be confirmed by the competent authority of a Member State in which the medicinal product is marketed or of any lead Member State or co-leader appointed in accordance with Article 22(1);\n(b)\nwhere the signal concerns a product authorised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, it shall be confirmed by the Agency in collaboration with the Member States.\nWhen analysing the validated signal, national competent authorities and the Agency may take into account other information available on the medicinal product.\nWhere the validity of the signal is not confirmed, special attention shall be paid to non-confirmed signals concerning a medicinal product where those signals are subsequently followed by new signals concerning the same medicinal product.\n4. Without prejudice to paragraphs 2 and 3, national competent authorities and the Agency shall validate and confirm any signal that they have detected during their continuous monitoring of the Eudravigilance database.\n5. Any confirmed signal shall be entered in the tracking system administered by the Agency and shall be transmitted to the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee for the initial analysis and prioritisation of signals in accordance with Article 107h(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC and Article 28a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\n6. The Agency shall inform forthwith the marketing authorisation holder(s) concerned of the conclusions of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee of the assessment of any confirmed signal.\nArticle 22\nWorksharing for signal management\n1. For medicinal products authorised in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC in more than one Member State and for active substances contained in several medicinal products where at least one marketing authorisation has been granted in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC, Member States may agree within the coordination group provided for by Article 27 of Directive 2001/83/EC to appoint a lead Member State and, where appropriate, a co-leader. Any such appointment shall be reviewed at least every four years.\nThe lead Member State shall monitor the Eudravigilance database and shall validate and confirm signals in accordance with Article 21(3) and (4) on behalf of the other Member States. The Member State appointed as co-leader shall assist the lead Member State in the fulfilment of its tasks.\n2. When appointing a lead Member State and as appropriate a co-leader, the coordination group may take into account whether any Member State is acting as reference Member State in accordance with Article 28(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC or as a rapporteur for the assessment of periodic safety update reports in accordance with Article 107e of that Directive.\n3. The Agency shall publish on the European medicines web-portal a list of the active substances that are subject to worksharing in accordance with this Article and the lead Member State and co-leader appointed for monitoring those substances in the Eudravigilance database.\n4. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, all Member States shall remain responsible for monitoring the data in the Eudravigilance database in accordance with Article 107h(1)(c) and Article 107h(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC.\n5. For medicinal products authorised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the Agency shall be assisted in the monitoring of data in the Eudravigilance database by the rapporteur appointed by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee in accordance with Article 62(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\nArticle 23\nSignal detection support\nThe Agency shall support the monitoring of the Eudravigilance database by providing national competent authorities with access to the following information:\n(a)\ndata outputs and statistical reports allowing a review of all adverse reactions reported to the Eudravigilance database in relation to an active substance or a medicinal product;\n(b)\ncustomised queries supporting the evaluation of individual case safety reports and case series;\n(c)\ncustomised grouping and stratification of data enabling the identification of patient groups with a higher risk of occurrence of adverse reactions or with a risk of a more severe adverse reaction;\n(d)\nstatistical signal detection methods.\nThe Agency shall also ensure appropriate support for the monitoring of the Eudravigilance database by marketing authorisation holders.\nArticle 24\nSignal detection audit trail\n1. The national competent authorities and the Agency shall keep an audit trail of their signal detection activities conducted in the Eudravigilance database and of the relevant queries and their results.\n2. The audit trail shall allow traceability of how signals have been detected and of how validated and confirmed signals have been assessed.\nCHAPTER IV\nUse of terminology, formats and standards\nArticle 25\nUse of internationally agreed terminology\n1. For the classification, retrieval, presentation, risk-benefit evaluation and assessment, electronic exchange and communication of pharmacovigilance and medicinal product information, Member States, marketing authorisation holders and the Agency shall apply the following terminology:\n(a)\nthe Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) as developed by the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), multidisciplinary topic M1;\n(b)\nthe lists of Standard Terms published by the European Pharmacopoeia Commission;\n(c)\nthe terminology set out in EN ISO 11615:2012, Health Informatics, Identification of Medicinal Products (IDMP) standard, \u2018Data elements and structures for unique identification and exchange of regulated medicinal product information\u2019 (ISO/FDIS 11615:2012);\n(d)\nthe terminology set out in EN ISO 11616:2012 Health Informatics, Identification of Medicinal Products (IDMP) standard, \u2018Data elements and structures for unique identification and exchange of regulated pharmaceutical product information\u2019 (ISO/FDIS 11616:2012);\n(e)\nthe terminology set out in EN ISO 11238:2012 Health Informatics, Identification of Medicinal Products (IDMP) standard, \u2018Data elements and structures for unique identification and exchange of regulated information on substances\u2019 (ISO/FDIS 11238:2012);\n(f)\nthe terminology set out in EN ISO 11239:2012 Health Informatics, Identification of Medicinal Products (IDMP) standard, \u2018Data elements and structures for unique identification and exchange of regulated information on pharmaceutical dose forms, units of presentation and routes of administration\u2019 (ISO/FDIS 11239:2012);\n(g)\nthe terminology set out in EN ISO 11240:2012 Health Informatics, Identification of Medicinal Products (IDMP) standard, \u2018Data elements and structures for unique identification and exchange of units of measurement\u2019 (ISO/FDIS 11240:2012).\n2. Member States, national competent authorities or marketing authorisation holders shall request the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, the European Pharmacopoeia Commission, the European Committee for Standardisation or the International Organisation for Standardisation to add a new term to the terminology referred to in paragraph 1, where necessary. In such a case, they shall inform the Agency accordingly.\n3. Member States, marketing authorisation holders and the Agency shall monitor the use of the terminology referred to in paragraph 1 either systematically or by regular random evaluation.\nArticle 26\nUse of internationally agreed formats and standards\n1. For the description, retrieval, presentation, risk-benefit evaluation and assessment, electronic exchange and communication of pharmacovigilance and medicinal product information, national competent authorities, marketing authorisation holders and the Agency shall apply the following formats and standards:\n(a)\nthe Extended Eudravigilance Medicinal Product Report Message (XEVPRM), which is the format for the electronic submission of information on all medicinal products for human use authorised in the Union in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, as published by the Agency;\n(b)\nICH E2B(R2) \u2018Maintenance of the ICH guideline on clinical safety data management: data elements for transmission of Individual Case Safety Reports\u2019;\n(c)\nICH M2 standard \u2018Electronic Transmission of Individual Case Safety Reports Message Specification\u2019.\n2. For the purpose of paragraph 1 national competent authorities, marketing authorisation holders and the Agency may also apply the following formats and standards:\n(a)\nEN ISO 27953-2:2011 Health Informatics, Individual case safety reports (ICSRs) in pharmacovigilance - Part 2: Human pharmaceutical reporting requirements for ICSR (ISO 27953-2:2011);\n(b)\nEN ISO 11615:2012, Health Informatics, Identification of Medicinal Products (IDMP) standard, \u2018Data elements and structures for unique identification and exchange of regulated medicinal product information\u2019 (ISO/FDIS 11615:2012);\n(c)\nEN ISO 11616:2012, Health Informatics, Identification of Medicinal Products (IDMP) standard \u2018Data elements and structures for unique identification and exchange of regulated pharmaceutical product information\u2019 (ISO/FDIS 11616:2012);\n(d)\nEN ISO 11238:2012, Health Informatics, Identification of Medicinal Products (IDMP) standard, \u2018Data elements and structures for unique identification and exchange of regulated information on substances\u2019 (ISO/FDIS 11238:2012);\n(e)\nEN ISO 11239:2012, Health Informatics, Identification of Medicinal Products (IDMP) standard, \u2018Data elements and structures for unique identification and exchange of regulated information on pharmaceutical dose forms, units of presentation and routes of administration\u2019 (ISO/FDIS 11239:2012);\n(f)\nEN ISO 11240:2012, Health Informatics, Identification of Medicinal Products (IDMP) standard, \u2018Data elements and structures for unique identification and exchange of units of measurement\u2019 (ISO/FDIS 11240:2012).\nCHAPTER V\nTransmission of reports of suspected adverse reactions\nArticle 27\nIndividual case safety reports\nIndividual case safety reports shall be used for reporting to the Eudravigilance database suspected adverse reactions to a medicinal product that occur in a single patient at a specific point in time.\nArticle 28\nContent of the individual case safety report\n1. Member States and marketing authorisation holders shall ensure that individual case safety reports are as complete as possible and shall communicate the updates of those reports to the Eudravigilance database in an accurate and reliable manner.\nIn the case of expedited reporting, the individual case safety report shall include at least an identifiable reporter, an identifiable patient, one suspected adverse reaction and the medicinal product(s) concerned.\n2. Member States and marketing authorisation holders shall record the details necessary for obtaining follow-up information on individual case safety reports. The follow-up of reports shall be adequately documented.\n3. When reporting suspected adverse reactions, Member States and marketing authorisation holders shall provide all available information on each individual case, including the following:\n(a)\nadministrative information: report type, date and a worldwide unique case identification number as well as unique sender identification and sender type; the date on which the report was first received from the source and the date of receipt of the most recent information, using a precise date; other case identifiers and their sources, as well as references to additional available documents held by the sender of the individual case safety report, where applicable;\n(b)\nliterature reference in accordance with the \u2018Vancouver style\u2019 as developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (9) for adverse reactions reported in the worldwide literature, including a comprehensive English summary of the article;\n(c)\nstudy type, study name and the sponsor\u2019s study number or study registration number for reports from studies not covered by Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use (10);\n(d)\ninformation on the primary source(s): information identifying the reporter, including Member State of residence and professional qualifications;\n(e)\ninformation identifying the patient (and parent in the case of a parent-child report), including age at the time of the onset of the first reaction, age group, gestation period when reaction/event was observed in the foetus, weight, height or gender, last menstrual date and/or gestation period at time of exposure;\n(f)\nrelevant medical history and concurrent conditions;\n(g)\nthe name, as defined in Article 1(20) of Directive 2001/83/EC, of the medicinal product(s) suspected to be related to the occurrence of the adverse reaction, including interacting medicinal products or, where the name is not known, the active substance(s) and any other characteristics that allow for the identification of the medicinal product(s), including the name of the marketing authorisation holder, marketing authorisation number, country of marketing authorisation, pharmaceutical form and (parent) route(s) of administration, indication(s) for use in the case, dose administered, start date and end date of administration, actions taken with the medicinal product(s), effect of the dechallenge and rechallenge for suspect medicinal products;\n(h)\nfor biological medicinal product(s), the batch number(s);\n(i)\nconcomitant medicinal products, identified in accordance with point (g), which are not suspected to be related to the occurrence of the adverse reaction and past-medical drug therapy for the patient (and for the parent), where applicable;\n(j)\ninformation on the suspected adverse reaction(s): start date and end date of the suspected adverse reaction(s) or duration, seriousness, outcome of the suspected adverse reaction(s) at the time of last observation, time intervals between suspect medicinal product administration and start of adverse reaction, the original reporter\u2019s words or short phrases used to describe the reaction(s) and Member State or third-country of occurrence of the suspected adverse reaction;\n(k)\nresults of tests and procedures relevant to the investigation of the patient;\n(l)\ndate and reported cause of death, including autopsy-determined causes, in the event of death of the patient;\n(m)\na case narrative, where possible, providing all relevant information for individual cases with the exception of non-serious adverse reactions;\n(n)\nreasons for nullifying or amending an individual case safety report.\nFor the purposes of point (b), upon request of the Agency, the marketing authorisation holder that transmitted the initial report shall provide a copy of the relevant article taking into account copyright restrictions, and a full translation of that article into English.\nFor the purposes of point (h), a follow-up procedure shall be in place to obtain the batch number where it is not indicated in the initial report.\nFor the purposes of point (m), the information shall be presented in a logical time sequence, in the chronology of the patient\u2019s experience including clinical course, therapeutic measures, outcome and follow-up information obtained; any relevant autopsy or post-mortem findings shall also be summarised in the narrative.\n4. Where suspected adverse reactions are reported in narrative and textual descriptions in an official language of the Union other than English, the original verbatim text and a summary thereof in English shall be provided by the marketing authorisation holder.\nMember States may report case narratives in their official language(s). For those reports, case translations shall be provided where requested by the Agency or other Member States for the evaluation of potential signals.\nEnglish shall be used for the reporting of suspected adverse reactions originating outside the Union.\nArticle 29\nFormat of electronic transmission of suspected adverse reactions\nMember States and marketing authorisation holders shall use the formats provided for in Article 26 and the terminology provided for in Article 25 for the electronic transmission of suspected adverse reactions.\nCHAPTER VI\nRisk management plans\nArticle 30\nContent of the risk management plan\n1. The risk management plan established by the marketing authorisation holder shall contain the following elements:\n(a)\nan identification or characterisation of the safety profile of the medicinal product(s) concerned;\n(b)\nan indication of how to characterise further the safety profile of the medicinal product(s) concerned;\n(c)\na documentation of measures to prevent or minimise the risks associated with the medicinal product, including an assessment of the effectiveness of those interventions;\n(d)\na documentation of post-authorisation obligations that have been imposed as a condition of the marketing authorisation.\n2. Products containing the same active substance and belonging to the same marketing authorisation holder may be subject, where appropriate, to the same risk management plan.\n3. Where a risk management plan refers to post-authorisation studies, it shall indicate whether those studies are initiated, managed or financed by the marketing authorisation holder voluntarily or pursuant to obligations imposed by the national competent authorities, the Agency or the Commission. All post-authorisation obligations shall be listed in the summary of the risk management plan together with a timeframe.\nArticle 31\nSummary of the risk management plan\n1. The summary of the risk management plan to be made publicly available in accordance with point (c) of Article 106 of Directive 2001/83/EC and Article 26(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 shall include key elements of the risk management plan with a specific focus on risk minimisation activities and, with regard to the safety specification of the medicinal product concerned, important information on potential and identified risks as well as missing information.\n2. Where a risk management plan concerns more than one medicinal product, a separate summary of the risk management plan shall be provided for each medicinal product.\nArticle 32\nUpdates of the risk management plan\n1. Where the marketing authorisation holder updates a risk management plan, it shall submit the updated risk management plan to the national competent authorities or the Agency as appropriate. After agreement with the national competent authorities or the Agency as appropriate, the marketing authorisation holder may submit only the modules concerned by the update. If necessary, the marketing authorisation holder shall provide the competent authorities or the Agency with an updated summary of the risk management plan.\n2. Each submission of the risk management plan shall have a distinct version number and shall be dated.\nArticle 33\nFormat of the risk management plan\nThe risk management plan shall be in the format set out in Annex I.\nCHAPTER VII\nPeriodic safety update reports\nArticle 34\nContent of periodic safety update reports\n1. The periodic safety update report shall be based on all available data and shall focus on new information which has emerged since the data lock point of the last periodic safety update report.\n2. The periodic safety update report shall provide an accurate estimate of the population exposed to the medicinal product, including all data relating to the volume of sales and volume of prescriptions. This estimate of exposure shall be accompanied by a qualitative and quantitative analysis of actual use, which shall indicate, where appropriate, how actual use differs from the indicated use based on all data available to the marketing authorisation holder, including the results of observational or drug utilisation studies.\n3. The periodic safety update report shall contain the results of assessments of the effectiveness of risk minimisation activities relevant to the risk-benefit assessment.\n4. Marketing authorisation holders shall not be required to include systematically detailed listings of individual cases, including case narratives, in the periodic safety update report. However, they shall provide case narratives in the relevant risk evaluation section of the periodic safety update report where integral to the scientific analysis of a signal or safety concern in the relevant risk evaluation section.\n5. Based on the evaluation of the cumulative safety data and the risk-benefit analysis, the marketing authorisation holder shall draw conclusions in the periodic safety update report as to the need for changes and/or actions, including implications for the approved summary of product characteristics for the product(s) for which the periodic safety update report is submitted.\n6. Unless otherwise specified in the list of Union reference dates and frequency of submission referred to in Article 107c of Directive 2001/83/EC or agreed with the national competent authorities or the Agency, as appropriate, a single periodic safety update report shall be prepared for all medicinal products containing the same active substance and authorised for one marketing authorisation holder. The periodic safety update report shall cover all indications, routes of administration, dosage forms and dosing regimens, irrespective of whether authorised under different names and through separate procedures. Where relevant, data relating to a particular indication, dosage form, route of administration or dosing regimen shall be presented in a separate section of the periodic safety update report and any safety concerns shall be addressed accordingly.\n7. Unless otherwise specified in the list of Union reference dates and frequency of submission referred to in Article 107c of Directive 2001/83/EC, if the substance that is the subject of the periodic safety update report is also authorised as a component of a fixed combination medicinal product, the marketing authorisation holder shall either submit a separate periodic safety update report for the combination of active substances authorised for the same marketing authorisation holder, with cross-references to the single-substance periodic safety update report(s), or provide the combination data within one of the single-substance periodic safety update reports.\nArticle 35\nFormat of periodic safety update reports\n1. Electronic periodic safety update reports shall be submitted in the format set out in Annex II.\n2. The Agency may publish templates for the modules set out in Annex II.\nCHAPTER VIII\nPost-authorisation safety studies\nArticle 36\nScope\n1. This chapter applies to non-interventional post-authorisation safety studies initiated, managed or financed by a marketing authorisation holder under obligations imposed by a national competent authority, the Agency or the Commission in accordance with Articles 21a and 22a of Directive 2001/83/EC and Articles 10 and 10a of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\n2. The marketing authorisation holder shall submit the study protocol, the abstract of the final study report and the final study report which have been provided in accordance with Articles 107n and 107p of Directive 2001/83/EC in English except for studies to be conducted in only one Member State that requests the study according to Article 22a of Directive 2001/83/EC. For the latter studies the marketing authorisation holder shall provide an English translation of the title and abstract of the study protocol as well as an English translation of the abstract of the final study report.\n3. The marketing authorisation holder shall ensure that all study information is handled and stored so as to allow for accurate reporting, interpretation and verification of that information and shall ensure that the confidentiality of the records of the study subjects remains protected. The marketing authorisation holder shall ensure that the analytical dataset and statistical programmes used for generating the data included in the final study report are kept in electronic format and are available for auditing and inspection.\n4. The Agency may publish appropriate templates for the protocol, abstract and final study report.\nArticle 37\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018Start of data collection\u2019 means the date from which information on the first study subject is first recorded in the study dataset or, in the case of the secondary use of data, the date from which data extraction starts;\n(2)\n\u2018End of data collection\u2019 means the date from which the analytical dataset is completely available.\nArticle 38\nFormat of post-authorisation safety studies\nProtocols, abstracts and final study reports for non-interventional post-authorisation safety studies shall be submitted in the format set out in Annex III.\nCHAPTER IX\nFinal provisions\nArticle 39\nData protection\nThis Regulation shall apply without prejudice to the obligations of national competent authorities and marketing authorisation holders relating to their processing of personal data under Directive 95/46/EC or the obligations of the Agency relating to its processing of personal data under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\nArticle 40\nTransitional provisions\n1. The obligation on the part of marketing authorisation holders, national competent authorities and the Agency to use the terminology provided for in points (c) to (g) of Article 25 shall apply from 1 July 2016.\n2. Article 26(2) shall apply from 1 July 2016.\n3. The obligation on the part of the marketing authorisation holder to comply with the format and content as provided for in Articles 29 to 38 shall apply from 10 January 2013.\nArticle 41\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 10 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 June 2012.", "references": ["22", "83", "95", "13", "87", "97", "84", "32", "69", "7", "30", "79", "71", "94", "25", "34", "52", "2", "45", "4", "21", "81", "9", "85", "8", "82", "3", "65", "35", "6", "No Label", "38", "39", "41"], "gold": ["38", "39", "41"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 3 February 2012\namending Decisions 2007/305/EC, 2007/306/EC and 2007/307/EC as regards the tolerance period for traces of Ms1xRf1 (ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7xACS-BN\u00d8\u00d81-4) hybrid oilseed rape, Ms1xRf2 (ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7xACS-BN\u00d8\u00d82-5) hybrid oilseed rape and Topas 19/2 (ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d87-1) oilseed rape, as well as of their derived products\n(notified under document C(2012) 518)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2012/69/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 8(6) and 20(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decisions 2007/305/EC (2), 2007/306/EC (3) and 2007/307/EC (4) set out the rules for the withdrawal from the market of the following genetically modified material (\u2018the GM material\u2019): Ms1xRf1 (ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7xACS-BN\u00d8\u00d81-4) hybrid oilseed rape, Ms1xRf2 (ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7xACS-BN\u00d8\u00d82-5) hybrid oilseed rape and Topas 19/2 (ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d87-1) oilseed rape, as well as their derived products. Those Decisions have been adopted after the notifier of the GM material had indicated to the Commission that it had no intention to submit an application for renewal of the authorisation of that material in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 8(4), Article 11, Article 20(4) and Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(2)\nAll three Decisions provide for a transitional period of time of 5 years, during which food and feed containing the GM material are allowed to be placed on the market, in accordance with Article 4(2) or Article 16(2) of the Regulation, subject to a number of conditions. The Decisions require in particular that the presence of the GM material in food and feed does not exceed a threshold of 0,9 % and that the presence of this GM material be adventitious or technically unavoidable. The purpose of the transitional period is to take into consideration the fact that minute traces of the GM material can be present in the food and feed chain some time after the notifier has decided to stop selling seeds derived from the GMO, even if the notifier has taken all measures to avoid that presence.\n(3)\nDecisions 2007/305/EC and 2007/306/EC also set out a series of measures that the notifier has to take to ensure the effective withdrawal from the market of Ms1xRf1 (ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7xACS-BN\u00d8\u00d81-4) hybrid oilseed rape, Ms1xRf2 (ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7xACS-BN\u00d8\u00d82-5) hybrid oilseed rape and their derived products. Similar measures were not considered necessary in Decision 2007/307/EC since the notifier had stopped selling seeds of oilseed rape ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d87-1 after the 2003 planting season and in light of the fact that stocks of products derived from ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d87-1 oilseed rape had been used up before 18 April 2007. However, given that minute traces of ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d87-1 oilseed rape might remain present in food or feed products for a certain period of time it was necessary to adopt Decision 2007/307/EC.\n(4)\nIn the absence of experience or concrete data on the time needed to ensure a complete withdrawal from the market of the GM material, the tolerated level of presence of that material and the time needed to ensure total withdrawal from the food and feed chains provided for in Decisions 2007/305/EC, 2007/306/EC and 2007/307/EC were set on the basis of data available at this time and results of testing by stakeholders.\n(5)\nIn accordance with the requirements of Decisions 2007/305/EC and 2007/306/EC, the authorisation holder submitted detailed reports in October 2007 and November 2011 on the implementation of discontinuation measures for the above GM oilseed rape events. These reports outline past and current measures which have been implemented by the authorisation holder in accordance with the abovementioned decisions to ensure the removal of this GM material from the market. These include, among others, steps taken to inform commercial operators in the EU of the discontinued status of this GM material, the implementation of a series of measures to ensure the recall and destruction of remaining commercial seed stock, the conclusion of agreements with all third parties involved in the commercialisation of this GM material to ensure that the seed from this GM material is either sent back to the authorisation holder or is effectively destroyed, the actions undertaken to ensure the deregistration of registered varieties of the event concerned from the national seed catalogue and the implementation of an in-house program based on a quality assurance process to avoid the presence of these GM events in breeding and seed production.\n(6)\nRecent test results notified by stakeholders to the Commission show that the measures undertaken by the authorisation holder have allowed the removal of nearly all the GM material from the market. However, these results also show that minute traces (< 0,1 %) of the GM material may still be present in the food or feed chain at the end of the transitional period set out in Decisions 2007/305/EC, 2007/306/EC and 2007/307/EC. The presence of remaining traces after the expiry date set out in these decisions, despite the measures undertaken by the notifier, can be explained by the biology of oilseed rape which can remain dormant for long periods as well as by the farm practices which have been employed to harvest the seed and resulting accidental spillage, the level of which was difficult to estimate at the date of adoption of the three abovementioned Decisions.\n(7)\nAgainst this background it is necessary to extend the current transitional period of time for another 5 years, that is until 31 December 2016. This supplementary transitional period should provide sufficient time to allow the total removal of the GM material from the food and feed chain, taking into account the abovementioned parameters linked to the biology of oilseed rape and the past farming practices used to harvest the crops.\n(8)\nIn order to further contribute to the removal of oilseed rape ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d87-1 from the food and feed chains, it is also appropriate to provide in Decision 2007/307/EC that the notifier implements an in-house program to avoid the presence of this event in the breeding and seed production process.\n(9)\nBy 1 January 2014, the notifier should submit a report to the Commission providing information on the implementation during the additional period of time granted by this decision of the measures set out in the Annex to Decisions 2007/305/EC and 2007/306/EC, as well as in Article 1(1) of Decision 2007/307/EC.\n(10)\nIn view of the very low trace levels which have been reported, it is appropriate to reduce to 0,1 % the level of presence of the GM material that is tolerated in food and feed.\n(11)\nDecisions 2007/305/EC, 2007/306/EC and 2007/307/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Decision 2007/305/EC is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe second paragraph of Article 1 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018By 1 January 2014, the notifier shall submit to the Commission a report on the implementation of the measures set out in the Annex.\u2019;\n(b)\nArticle 2 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe presence of material which contains, consists of or is produced from ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7, ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d81-4 and the hybrid combination ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7xACS-BN\u00d8\u00d81-4 oilseed rape in food or feed products notified under Article 8(1)(a) and Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 shall be tolerated until 31 December 2016:\n(a)\nprovided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable; and\n(b)\nin a proportion no higher than 0,1 %.\u2019;\n2. Decision 2007/306/EC is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe second paragraph of Article 1 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018By 1 January 2014, the notifier shall submit to the Commission a report on the implementation of the measures set out in the Annex.\u2019;\n(b)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe presence of material which contains, consists of or is produced from ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7, ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d82-5 and the hybrid combination ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7xACS-BN\u00d8\u00d82-5 oilseed rape in food or feed products notified under Article 8(1)(a) and Article 20(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 shall be tolerated until 31 December 2016:\n(a)\nprovided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable; and\n(b)\nin a proportion no higher than 0,1 %.\u2019;\n3. Article 1 of Decision 2007/307/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\n1. The notifier shall implement an in-house program to avoid the presence of ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d87-1 oilseed rape in breeding and seed production and shall report to the Commission on the implementation of this measure by 1 January 2014.\n3.2. The presence of material which contains, consists of or is produced from ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d87-1 oilseed rape in food or feed products notified under Article 8(1)(a) and Article 20(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 shall be tolerated until 31 December 2016:\n(a)\nprovided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable; and\n(b)\nin a proportion no higher than 0,1 %.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThe entries in the Community Register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, regarding ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7, ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d81-4 and the hybrid combination ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7xACS-BN\u00d8\u00d81-4 oilseed rape, ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7, ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d82-5 and the hybrid combination ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d84-7xACS-BN\u00d8\u00d82-5 oilseed rape, and ACS-BN\u00d8\u00d87-1 oilseed rape shall be modified in order to take account of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Bayer CropScience AG, Alfred-Nobel-Str. 50, 40789 Monheim am Rhein, Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2012.", "references": ["23", "3", "97", "59", "37", "6", "2", "9", "51", "29", "41", "87", "8", "90", "46", "78", "50", "39", "91", "98", "77", "52", "60", "62", "79", "40", "11", "30", "24", "21", "No Label", "20", "25", "38", "65", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["20", "25", "38", "65", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 927/2011\nof 16 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 September 2011.", "references": ["82", "59", "99", "42", "17", "16", "39", "81", "95", "37", "64", "73", "19", "51", "77", "25", "79", "15", "86", "72", "7", "26", "56", "67", "47", "43", "31", "18", "21", "10", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 460/2012\nof 29 May 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing in category 9 \u2018pelagic freezer trawlers\u2019 in the Mauritanian Economic Zone by vessels flying the flag of a Member State of the European Union\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 704/2008 of 15 July 2008 on the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania for the period 1 August 2008 to 31 July 2012 (2) has limited the fishing opportunities for category 9 (pelagic freezer trawlers) to a reference tonnage of 250 000 tonnes.\n(2)\nConsidering that on the basis of Article 2(3) of this aforementioned regulation, a supplementary a quota of 2 654 tonnes has been allocated for the period from 1 August 2011 to 31 July 2012, bringing the total reference tonnage to 252 654 tonnes\n(3)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches reported in this fishing category by vessels flying the flag in the Member States concerned have exhausted the quota allocated for the above reference period.\n(4)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for this fishing category,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member States concerned shall be deemed to be exhausted from 24 April 2012.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities in category 9 by vessels flying the flag in the Member States concerned shall be prohibited as from midnight on 23 April 2012. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 May 2012.", "references": ["38", "2", "37", "62", "77", "22", "89", "59", "32", "83", "11", "63", "69", "64", "80", "27", "93", "36", "68", "60", "34", "81", "71", "40", "98", "91", "6", "19", "1", "31", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "94", "96"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "94", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 31 March 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of a Memorandum of Cooperation between the European Union and the International Civil Aviation Organization providing a framework for enhanced cooperation\n(2011/530/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) and Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated a Memorandum of Cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organization providing a framework for enhanced cooperation (Memorandum of Cooperation) in accordance with the mandate adopted by the Council on 17 December 2009 authorising the Commission to open negotiations.\n(2)\nThe Memorandum of Cooperation was initialled by both parties on 27 September 2010 during the course of the 37th Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montr\u00e9al.\n(3)\nThe Memorandum of Cooperation should be signed and applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Memorandum of Cooperation between the European Union and the International Civil Aviation Organization providing a framework for enhanced cooperation (Memorandum of Cooperation) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Memorandum of Cooperation.\nThe text of the Memorandum of Cooperation is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Memorandum of Cooperation on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe Memorandum of Cooperation shall be applied on a provisional basis as from the date of signature thereof pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion (1).\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["54", "27", "61", "95", "74", "98", "43", "45", "51", "26", "65", "23", "30", "16", "38", "62", "20", "44", "0", "83", "33", "82", "86", "35", "41", "19", "56", "67", "25", "10", "No Label", "3", "53", "57", "58"], "gold": ["3", "53", "57", "58"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 126/2011\nof 11 February 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Oie d\u2019Anjou (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and having regard to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Oie d\u2019Anjou\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 February 2011.", "references": ["71", "40", "10", "73", "42", "89", "53", "87", "41", "34", "23", "7", "77", "60", "0", "92", "27", "1", "84", "12", "21", "86", "93", "3", "15", "31", "44", "6", "61", "80", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1166/2010\nof 9 December 2010\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Agnello di Sardegna (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Agnello di Sardegna\u2019 registered in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 138/2001 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2010.", "references": ["5", "34", "33", "84", "64", "23", "78", "40", "37", "4", "12", "53", "81", "76", "99", "2", "60", "41", "18", "58", "57", "56", "74", "86", "83", "1", "63", "88", "35", "20", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 938/2011\nof 21 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 September 2011.", "references": ["39", "80", "56", "12", "63", "41", "38", "45", "67", "15", "93", "47", "99", "58", "87", "90", "29", "78", "86", "11", "21", "33", "77", "8", "32", "14", "82", "40", "81", "43", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 347/2012\nof 16 April 2012\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to type-approval requirements for certain categories of motor vehicles with regard to advanced emergency braking systems\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) and Article 14(3)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 is a separate Regulation for the purposes of the type-approval procedure provided for by Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 lays down basic requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 with regard to the installation of advanced emergency braking systems (AEBS). It is necessary to set out the specific procedures, tests and requirements for such type-approval.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 lays down a general obligation for vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 to be equipped with an AEBS.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 provides that the Commission may adopt measures exempting certain vehicles or classes of vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 from the obligation to install AEBS under certain conditions.\n(5)\nAn analysis of cost/benefits and of technical and safety aspects has demonstrated that more lead time will be necessary before wide ranging requirements for AEBS can be applied to all types of vehicle of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3. In particular attention has to be given to the braking technology and rear axle suspension system used on those vehicles when specifying detailed rules concerning the specific test and technical requirements for the type-approval of those vehicles with regard to their AEBS. It is therefore appropriate to implement those requirements in two stages, starting with an approval level 1, which contains appropriate collision warning and emergency braking requirements for types of vehicle of categories M3 and N3 as well as types of vehicle of category N2 with a maximum mass exceeding 8 tonnes, provided that these types of vehicle are equipped with pneumatic or air-over-hydraulic braking systems and with pneumatic rear axle suspension systems. Those requirements should be further extended and complemented in a second stage, through an approval level 2, to also apply to types of vehicle with hydraulic braking systems and non-pneumatic rear axle suspension systems and to include types of vehicle of category M2 and of category N2 with a maximum mass not exceeding 8 tonnes. The timing for implementing the approval level 2 should provide sufficient lead time for gaining further experience with those systems and enable further technical developments in this field, as well as for the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) to adopt international harmonised performance and test requirements for the types of vehicle of the categories concerned. Therefore, no later than two years before the implementation date for the approval level 2, the Commission shall adopt the warning and braking activation test criteria for types of vehicle of category M2 and of category N2 with a maximum mass not exceeding 8 tonnes, taking into consideration the further developments at UNECE level on this issue.\n(6)\nThe cost/benefit analysis has also demonstrated that the mandatory application of AEBS would generate more costs than benefits and proves therefore not to be appropriate for the following classes of vehicles: category N2 semi-trailer towing vehicles with a maximum mass exceeding 3,5 tonnes but not exceeding 8 tonnes, categories M2 and M3 vehicles of Class A, Class I and Class II, and articulated buses of category M3 of Class A, Class I and Class II. In addition, technical and physical constraints make it impossible to install the collision detection equipment in a way that would ensure their reliable functioning on certain special purpose vehicles, off-road vehicles and vehicles with more than three axles. Vehicles of those categories should therefore be exempted from the obligation to install AEBS.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation applies to motor vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3, as defined in Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC, with the exception of the following:\n(1)\nsemi-trailer towing vehicles of category N2 with a maximum mass exceeding 3,5 but not exceeding 8 tonnes;\n(2)\ncategories M2 and M3 vehicles of Class A, Class I and Class II;\n(3)\ncategory M3 articulated buses of Class A, Class I and Class II;\n(4)\noff-road vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 as referred to in points 4.2 and 4.3 of Part A of Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC;\n(5)\nspecial purpose vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 as referred to in point 5 of Part A of Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC;\n(6)\nvehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 with more than three axles.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions laid down in Directive 2007/46/EC and in Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 shall apply.\nIn addition, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018type of vehicle with regard to its advanced emergency braking system\u2019 (AEBS) means a category of vehicles which do not differ in essential respects, including as to:\n(a)\nthe manufacturer\u2019s trade name or trade mark;\n(b)\nvehicle features which significantly influence the performances of the AEBS;\n(c)\nthe type and design of the AEBS;\n(2)\n\u2018subject vehicle\u2019 means the vehicle being tested;\n(3)\n\u2018target\u2019 means a high volume series production passenger car of category M1 AA saloon as defined in point 1 of Section C of Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC or, in the case of a soft target, an object representative of such a vehicle in terms of its detection characteristics applicable to the sensor system of the AEBS under test;\n(4)\n\u2018soft target\u2019 means a target that will suffer minimum damage and cause minimum damage to the subject vehicle in the event of a collision;\n(5)\n\u2018moving target\u2019 means a target travelling at a constant speed in the same direction and in the centre of the same lane of travel as the subject vehicle;\n(6)\n\u2018stationary target\u2019 means a target at standstill facing the same direction and positioned on the centre of the same test lane of travel as the subject vehicle;\n(7)\n\u2018collision warning phase\u2019 means the phase directly preceding the emergency braking phase, during which the AEBS warns the driver of a potential forward collision;\n(8)\n\u2018emergency braking phase\u2019 means the phase starting when the AEBS emits a braking demand for at least 4 m/s2 deceleration to the service braking system of the vehicle;\n(9)\n\u2018common space\u2019 means an area on which two or more information functions may be displayed, but not simultaneously;\n(10)\n\u2018self-check\u2019 means an integrated function that checks for a system failure on a semi-continuous basis at least while the system is active;\n(11)\n\u2018time to collision (TTC)\u2019 means the value of time obtained by dividing the distance between the subject vehicle and the target by the relative speed of the subject vehicle and the target, at an instant in time.\nArticle 3\nObligations of the Member States\n1. With effect from 1 November 2013, national authorities shall refuse, on grounds relating to the AEBS, to grant EC type-approval or national type-approval in respect of new types of vehicle which do not comply with the requirements set out in Annexes II and III, with the exception of the approval level 2 requirements in Annex II and the pass/fail criteria set out in Appendix 2 to that Annex and with the exception of vehicles not equipped with pneumatic rear axle suspension.\n2. With effect from 1 November 2015, national authorities shall, on grounds relating to the AEBS, consider certificates of conformity in respect of new vehicles to be no longer valid for the purposes of Article 26 of Directive 2007/46/EC, and prohibit the registration, sale and entry into service of such vehicles, where such vehicles do not comply with the requirements set out in Annexes II and III, with the exception of the approval level 2 requirements in Annex II and the pass/fail criteria set out in Appendix 2 to that Annex and with the exception of vehicles not equipped with pneumatic rear axle suspension.\n3. With effect from 1 November 2016 national authorities shall refuse, on grounds relating to the AEBS, to grant EC type-approval or national type-approval in respect of new types of vehicle which do not comply with the requirements set out in Annexes II and III, including the approval level 2 requirements in Annex II and the pass/fail criteria set out Appendix 2 to that Annex.\n4. With effect from 1 November 2018, national authorities shall, on grounds relating to the AEBS, consider certificates of conformity in respect of new vehicles to be no longer valid for the purposes of Article 26 of Directive 2007/46/EC, and prohibit the registration, sale and entry into service of such vehicles, where such vehicles do not comply with the requirements set out in Annexes II and III, including the approval level 2 requirements in Annex II and the pass/fail criteria set out in Appendix 2 to that Annex.\n5. Without prejudice to paragraphs 1 to 4, national authorities may not, on grounds relating to the AEBS:\n(a)\nrefuse to grant EC type-approval or national type-approval for a new type of vehicle where that vehicle complies with Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 and this Regulation;\n(b)\nprohibit the registration, sale or entry into service of a new vehicle where that vehicle complies with Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 and this Regulation;\n(c)\ngrant EC type-approval or national type-approval according to approval level 2 for a new type of vehicle of category M2 and of category N2 with a maximum mass not exceeding 8 tonnes, until the pass/fail values for the warning and activation test requirements have been specified in accordance with Article 5.\nArticle 4\nEC type-approval of a type of vehicle with regard to AEBS\n1. The manufacturer or the manufacturer\u2019s representative shall submit to the approval authority the application for EC type-approval of a type of vehicle with regard to AEBS.\n2. The application shall be drawn up in accordance with the model of the information document set out in Part 1 of Annex I.\n3. If the relevant requirements set out in Annex II to this Regulation are met, the approval authority shall grant an EC type-approval and issue a type-approval number in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nAn approval authority may not assign the same number to another type of vehicle.\n4. For the purposes of paragraph 3, the approval authority shall deliver an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 5\nAmendment to Appendix 2 of Annex II\nBy 31 December 2014 the Commission shall amend Appendix 2 of Annex II in order to include the pass/fail values for the warning and activation test requirements which types of vehicles of category M2 and of category N2 with a maximum mass not exceeding 8 tonnes will have to comply with for approval level 2.\nArticle 6\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 April 2012.", "references": ["8", "13", "26", "58", "77", "40", "36", "82", "63", "78", "31", "16", "17", "96", "50", "38", "46", "37", "57", "56", "73", "1", "86", "23", "65", "72", "51", "44", "70", "74", "No Label", "25", "54", "76"], "gold": ["25", "54", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 59/2011\nof 25 January 2011\nopening and providing for the administration of Union tariff quotas for wines originating in the Republic of Serbia\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Stabilisation and Association Agreement\u2019), signed on 29 April 2008, is in the process of ratification.\n(2)\nThe Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part (2) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Interim Agreement\u2019), approved by Council Decision 2010/36/EC (3) on 29 April 2008, provides for the early implementation of the trade and trade-related provisions of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.\n(3)\nThe Interim Agreement and the Stabilisation and Association Agreement provide that wines originating in Serbia may be imported into the European Union, within the limits of Union tariff quotas, and subject to the condition that no export subsidies shall be paid for exports of these quantities by Serbia, at a zero-rate customs duty.\n(4)\nThe Commission should adopt the implementing measures for the opening and the administration of those Union tariff quotas.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (4), has established the management rules for tariff quotas designed to be used following the chronological order of dates of acceptance of customs declarations.\n(6)\nParticular care should be taken to ensure that all Union importers have equal and continuous access to the tariff quotas and that the zero-rate duty laid down for the quotas is applied uninterruptedly to all imports of the products concerned into all Member States until the quotas are exhausted. In order to ensure the efficiency of a common administration of those quotas, there should be no obstacle to authorising the Member States to draw from the quota volumes the necessary quantities corresponding to actual imports. Communication between the Member States and the Commission should, as far as possible, take place by electronic transmission.\n(7)\nThis Regulation should apply from 1 February 2010, date of the entry into force of the Interim Agreement and should continue to apply after the date of entry into force of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. An import tariff quota at zero-rate customs duty is hereby opened for wines imported into the European Union and originating in the Republic of Serbia as set out in the Annex.\n2. The zero-rate duty is applied subject to the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe imported wines shall be accompanied by a proof of origin as provided for in Protocol 2 to the Interim Agreement and to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement;\n(b)\nthe imported wines shall not benefit from export subsidies.\nArticle 2\nThe tariff quota referred to in Article 1 shall be administered by the Commission in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\nArticle 3\nThe Member States and the Commission shall cooperate closely to ensure compliance with this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 February 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 January 2011.", "references": ["19", "3", "30", "53", "8", "41", "27", "39", "49", "12", "94", "66", "15", "5", "58", "54", "65", "90", "36", "99", "24", "75", "37", "98", "47", "45", "92", "63", "95", "85", "No Label", "21", "23", "71", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "23", "71", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 June 2010\non state aid C 1/09 (ex NN 69/08) granted by Hungary to MOL Nyrt.\n(notified under document C(2010) 3553)\n(Only the Hungarian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/88/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Commission Decision initiating the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty (1) in respect of aid No C 1/09 (ex NN 69/08) (2),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above, and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 13 January 2009, following a complaint received on 14 November 2007, the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure into measures put in place by Hungary allegedly constituting state aid in favour of a company called Hungarian Oil & Gas Plc (Magyar Olaj- \u00e9s G\u00e1zipari Nyrt.; hereinafter \u2018MOL\u2019).\n(2)\nHungary submitted its comments on the Commission\u2019s opening decision on 8 April 2009.\n(3)\nThe opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 28 March 2009 (3). Comments were received from two interested parties: MOL and the Hungarian Mining Association (Magyar B\u00e1ny\u00e1szati Sz\u00f6vets\u00e9g), both on 27 April 2009.\n(4)\nThe Commission transmitted the comments to Hungary by letter of 2 June 2009. By letter of 3 July 2009 Hungary reported that it had no comments to make on the observations of the interested parties.\n(5)\nThe Commission requested further information from the Hungarian authorities on 21 September 2009 and 12 January 2010, and Hungary replied by letters of 19 October 2009 and 9 February 2010.\nII. THE BENEFICIARY\n(6)\nMOL is an integrated oil and gas company based in Budapest, Hungary. MOL\u2019s core activities in the Hungarian market include: exploration for and extraction of crude oil and natural gas; manufacturing of gas products; the refining, transportation, storage and distribution of crude oil products at both retail and wholesale; transmission of natural gas; and the production and sale of olefins and polyolefins. In addition, the MOL Group (to which MOL belongs) also includes several other Hungarian and foreign subsidiaries (4).\n(7)\nIn Hungary and Slovakia the MOL Group is market leader in each of its core activities. In 2008 the net sales of MOL and the MOL Group were around EUR 6,8 billion and EUR 13 billion respectively (5). In the same year their respective operating profits were around EUR 400 million and EUR 732 million.\nIII. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n(8)\nThe general rules governing mining activities in Hungary are laid down in the 1993 Act on Mining (hereinafter \u2018Mining Act\u2019) (6), which also governs mining activities (prospecting, exploration and extraction) involving hydrocarbons (i.e. crude oil and natural gas).\n(9)\nThe Mining Act distinguishes mining activities exercised on the basis of two different legal instruments: (i) concession (7) and (ii) authorisation (8).\n-\nIn the case of a concession, the minister responsible for mining (hereinafter \u2018competent minister\u2019) concludes a contract (9) with the successful bidder following an open tender (10) for the exploitation of a \u2018closed area\u2019.\n-\nThis is different from \u2018open areas\u2019 (11), where authorisation of mining rights cannot be refused by the Mining Authority if the applicant fulfils the conditions laid down by law (12).\n(10)\nAccording to the definition in the Mining Act (13), closed areas are reserved for mining activities on the basis of a concession. Consequently any area other than a closed area qualifies as an open area. According to the explanation provided by Hungary, the original intention was to classify all fields as closed areas designated for concession. Open areas presumed to be less rich in minerals would have been the exception. In such cases, the fields were thought to be less valuable and no bids were expected to be received in an open tender.\n(11)\nThe Mining Act also stipulates that the extraction of mineral resources is subject to a mining fee payable to the State, the amount being a percentage of the value of the minerals extracted (14). The mining fee differs depending on the regime applicable:\n-\nIn the case of concessions, the amount of the mining fee is laid down in the concession agreement (15),\n-\nFor mineral resources extracted under authorisation, the fee is governed by the Mining Act (16). Until January 2008, the mining fee related to the extraction of hydrocarbons under authorisation amounted to 12 % for fields put into operation as from 1 January 1998 and J % for fields put into production before 1 January 1998 (17). The factor \u2018J\u2019 was to be calculated according to a formula based on historical gas prices, extracted quantity and value; its minimum value was set at 12 %.\n(12)\nSection 26/A(5) of the Mining Act stipulates that where a mining company under the authorisation regime does not start extraction within 5 years from the date of the Mining Authority\u2019s authorisation, the mining right is withdrawn (18).\n(13)\nThis Section also provides for the possibility of an extension of this deadline by agreement between the competent minister and the mining company (19). The Section provides for three different fees to be paid where extension of the mining right is granted:\n(a)\nfirstly, an extension fee has to be paid for the idle fields until operation is actually started; this fee is maximum 1,2 times the original mining fee, calculated on the basis of a stipulated hypothetical amount of minerals, since this charge has to be paid at a time when there has still not been any actual production on the field;\n(b)\nsecondly, if the extension application concerns more than two fields, the level of the extension fee (the increased mining fee) has to be applied to all mining fields of the company;\n(c)\nthirdly, if the extension concerns more than five fields a one-off payment may be charged in addition (20).\n(14)\nOn 19 September 2005, MOL applied for the extension of the mining right for twelve of its hydrocarbon fields, which it had previously obtained on the basis of an authorisation and on which it had not started extraction within the deadline. On 22 December 2005 MOL and the minister concluded an extension agreement on the basis of Section 26/A(5) of the Mining Act, on the following terms:\n(a) Extension fee: The twelve mining authorisations subject to the request were extended by 5 years (i.e. MOL would have 5 more years to begin extraction on these fields). The extension fee was stipulated for each of the 5 years of the extension period by using the mining fee of 12 %, which was in force at the time, and a multiplier (\u2018c\u2019) ranging between 1,020 and 1,050, resulting in the extension fees listed below in Table 1 (21). The extension fee was stipulated for the 5 years of the extension period. Where the fields were actually put into operation, the stipulated fee had to be applied to the remainder of the 15-year period as the mining fee for the fields covered by the extension (22).\n(b) Extension of increased fee to all mining fields: Since the extension of the mining right had been requested for more than two fields, the increased fee (which is equal to the extension fee, as shown in Table 1) had to be applied for the following 15 years, i.e. until 2020, for all MOL fields under authorisation that were put into operation after 1 January 1998. As regards fields put into operation before 1 January 1998, the factor \u2018J\u2019 multiplied by \u2018c\u2019 is applicable (23).\n(c) Fixed mining fee: The parties also explicitly agreed that the stipulated mining fee would remain applicable for the entire duration of the contract (i.e. until 2020), regardless of any amendments to the Mining Act (24).\n(d) One-off payment: Since the extension of the mining right had been requested for more than five fields, a one-off payment of HUF 20 billion (25) was also laid down in the agreement (26).\n(e) Termination clause: The agreement stipulated that it could not be modified unilaterally (but only with the agreement of both parties). It could be terminated by one of the parties only in the event of a change of ownership in MOL (at least 25 % of shares).\n(15)\nBy decision of 23 December 2005, the Mining Authority extended MOL\u2019s mining rights for the requested twelve fields and extended the increased fee to apply to all fields of the company.\n(16)\nAn amendment (27) to the Mining Act that took effect on 8 January 2008 (28) (hereinafter \u2018the 2008 amendment\u2019) raised the mining fee considerably for certain categories of hydrocarbons. The mining fee for other types of minerals was not affected by this amendment. Section 5 of the amending Act provided for a differentiated mining fee depending on: (i) the date on which the mining field was put into operation; (ii) the quantity of hydrocarbons extracted, and (iii) the crude oil price at the time.\n-\nA 30 % mining fee was stipulated for fields put into production between 1 January 1998 and 1 January 2008,\n-\nFor fields put into operation after 1 January 2008, differentiated rates apply (12 %, 20 % or 30 %) depending on the quantity of hydrocarbons extracted,\n-\nFor mines put into production before 1 January 1998, the factor \u2018J\u2019 is used, its minimum value being set at 30 %.\nMoreover, all these rates are subject to a surcharge depending on the crude oil price: + 3 % if the crude oil price is over 80 USD/bbl or + 6 % if it is over 90 USD/bbl (hereinafter \u2018Brent Clause\u2019). There are special rates applicable to, for example, difficult extracting conditions (12 %) and high inert gas (8 %).\n(17)\nThese mining rates were in force between 8 January 2008 and 23 January 2009 and applied to all mining companies working on mining sites under authorisation, including those which received authorisation before January 2008, from the entry into force of the amendments to the Mining Act. A new amendment to the Mining Act entered into force on 23 January 2009 (after the Commission\u2019s decision to open the formal investigation procedure), reducing the mining fee for fields put into production between 1 January 1998 and 1 January 2008 back to 12 % (while maintaining the \u2018Brent Clause\u2019) (29). The applicable mining fee for other types of fields remained the same as in the Mining Act applicable in 2008.\n(18)\nTable 2 summarises the applicable mining fees under the authorisation regime according to the different versions of the Mining Act.\nTable 2\nSummary of the applicable mining fees in the authorisation regime under the Mining Act\nFee applicable up until 2008\nFee applicable in 2008\nFee applicable from 23 January 2009\nProduction started before 1 January 1998\nJ %\n(at least 12 %)\nJ %\n(at least 30 %, + 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\nJ %\n(at least 30 %, + 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\nProduction started between 1 January 1998 and 1 January 2008\n12 %\n30 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\n12 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\nProduction started after 1 January 2008\nGas fields with an annual production of less than 300m m3\nOil fields with an annual production of less than 50 kt\nNA\n12 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\n12 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\nGas fields with annual production between 300-500m m3\nOil fields with an annual production between 50-200 kt\n20 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\n20 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\nGas fields with an annual production above 500m m3\nOil fields with an annual production above 200 kt\n30 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\n30 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\nHydrocarbons with special mining conditions\n12 %\n12 %\nHigh inert gas\n8 %\n8 %\n\u2018J\u2019 is to be calculated according to a formula based on historical gas prices, extracted quantity and value; see recital 11.\nIV. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE\n(19)\nThe alleged state aid measure under scrutiny is the 22 December 2005 extension agreement between MOL and the Hungarian State, which allowed the company a certain degree of exemption from the increased mining fee on hydrocarbon extraction stipulated in a subsequent amendment to the Hungarian Mining Act. Given the way the agreement and the subsequent amendment were designed, the Commission regards them as part of the same measure (the measure) and the opening decision assessed their joint impact.\n(20)\nIn its opening decision the Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that as a result of the extension agreement MOL was shielded from future changes in the mining fee and, in particular, from the changes laid down in the subsequent 2008 amendment to the Mining Act. Thus the company has been treated more favourably than its competitors, who are operating under the current authorisation regime and, not having concluded a similar extension agreement previously, have had to pay the new increased mining fees. In its preliminary assessment the Commission took the view that the measure constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and could not see any grounds on which it could be compatible with the internal market, since no derogation seemed to be applicable.\n(21)\nFurther details can be found in the opening decision, which is to be taken as an integral part of this Decision.\nV. COMMENTS FROM HUNGARY\n(22)\nHungary\u2019s main arguments with regard to the cumulative criteria defining state aid include: (i) the absence of selectivity and (ii) the absence of any advantage to the alleged beneficiary.\n(23)\nAs regards selectivity, the Hungarian authorities basically argue that the measure is not selective, because by concluding the extension agreement MOL became subject to another regime different from the authorisation regime.\n(24)\nIn the first place, Hungary confirms that there is a difference between the concession and the authorisation regimes, emphasising that in the case of a concession the mining company can, in its concession bid, offer a higher fee than stated in the tender notice, whereas under the authorisation regime the fee is stipulated by the Mining Act. Hungary further argues that alongside these two regimes there was a need for a new \u2018quasi-concessionary\u2019 solution, laying down the mining fee in an individual contract outside the concession system. In Hungary\u2019s view the extension agreement under Section 26/A(5) of the Mining Act can be seen as an appropriate legal basis for such a \u2018quasi-concessionary\u2019 solution, effectively taking the mining right out of the authorisation regime and placing it on a contractual basis.\n(25)\nHungary adds that the extension agreement stems directly from the logic of the Mining Act. According to Hungary, fixing the mining fee for the duration of the extension agreement is a natural element of the agreement referred to in Section 26/A(5) of the Mining Act and the extension could not have been concluded on different terms. Moreover, all other mining companies could expect the same, so there was no preferential treatment for MOL.\n(26)\nSpecifically, Section 20(11) of the Mining Act stipulates that the mining fee is the fee as laid down in: (i) the concession agreement; (ii) the Mining Act, or (iii) the extension agreement. Thus, the Hungarian authorities argue that the Mining Act explicitly allows for the fee under an extension agreement to stay unchanged, even in the event of changes in the legislation. In the view of the Hungarian authorities this is clearly stated in the Mining Act, i.e. in Section 26/A(5), which stipulates that the increased fee is maximum 1,2 times the original mining fee (30). Therefore, Hungary argues, the Hungarian Act precludes application of any higher fee.\n(27)\nAs regards the claimed lack of advantage, Hungary explains that mineral resources are the property of the State and they pass into private ownership through mining by companies holding a mining right acquired against payment. Hungary cites the Ryanair judgment as an analogy and insists that this particular activity of the State is comparable to that of a market operator, even if the State acts in the role of a public authority (31).\n(28)\nHungary denies that the mining fee is a kind of tax, defining it as the price paid for the extraction of the minerals, or the State\u2019s share. Hungary stresses that the fact that the fee is set by law is not decisive grounds for concluding that it is a type of tax.\n(29)\nMoreover, Hungary also explains that the three different payment obligations under the extension agreement (i.e. the extension fee, the increased mining fee extended to all fields and the one-off payment) which stem from the relevant provisions of the Mining Act should not be viewed as compensation for the State\u2019s renouncing income to which it is entitled in any event. According to Hungary, from the point of view of the State these payments may be regarded as additional income, in exchange for which the State renounces its right to put the fields up for tender under the concessionary regime, bearing in mind the associated risks and potential revenue.\n(30)\nHungary emphasises that following the disputed amendment of the Mining Act no other market participant has actually had to pay a higher mining fee than MOL, since there were no competitors falling into the categories with higher mining fees in the relevant period.\nTable 3\nMOL\u2019s yearly mining fee payments (actual and hypothetical)\n(in HUF millions)\nPayment item\nActual: under the extension agreement\nHypothetical: under the Mining Act in force\nDifference\nNet present value of the difference in 2009\n2005\nOne-off payment (32)\n[\u2026] (35)\n[\u2026]\n20 000,0\n28 064,5\n2006\nExtension fee (33)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n835,8\n1 092,1\nMining fee (34)\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n5 755,7\n7 520,0\nTotal\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n6 591,6\n8 612,1\n2007\nExtension fee\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n769,7\n926,5\nMining fee\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n3 428,0\n4 126,4\nTotal\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n4 197,7\n5 052,9\n2008\nExtension fee\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n345,8\n382,9\nMining fee\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n-28 444,7\n-31 498,5\nTotal\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n-28 099,0\n-31 115,6\n2009\nExtension fee\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n211,2\n211,2\nMining fee\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n-1 942,1\n-1 942,1\nTotal\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n-1 730,9\n-1 730,9\nGRAND TOTAL\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n959,5\n8 883,0\nThe figures are based on data provided by the Hungarian authorities.\n(31)\nFurthermore, Hungary argues that as a result of the extension agreement, over the years and taking into account all the components in the agreement, including the extension fee and the one-off payment, MOL actually paid more in absolute terms to the State than it would have paid without the extension agreement, i.e. under the Mining Act. The actual payments made by MOL compared to the hypothetical ones are shown in Table 3 above. The figures were provided by the Hungarian authorities.\n(32)\nIn Hungary\u2019s view, mining companies have a legitimate expectation as regards the predictability of the mining fee, which therefore should be stable over time. This was the thinking behind the amendment to the Mining Act, since, although the mining fee changed, there was not actually any mining company whose mining fee changed as a result of the amendment. According to Hungary, the amendments to the Mining Act might suggest that the State could change the mining fee in respect of fields already in operation. The 2008 amendment, however, was the result of a compromise in the course of the negotiations preceding the adoption of the Mining Act. Thus, it was implicitly accepted that there were legitimate expectations. Consequently, a mining company can legitimately expect that the State will not increase any of these fees unilaterally. Hungary concludes that the system of the Mining Act and its specific provisions entail that mining fees remain unchanged during the whole duration of the contract.\n(33)\nFinally, the Hungarian authorities explain that the \u2018termination clause\u2019 is based on reasons of national security.\nVI. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(34)\nThe Commission received comments from the following interested parties: MOL (the beneficiary of the alleged aid measure) and the Hungarian Mining Association, of which MOL is a member. Both interested parties commented along the same lines as Hungary and their observations overlapped to a large extent with those of Hungary.\n(35)\nMOL, the alleged beneficiary of the measure in question, states that, contrary to what the Commission maintains in the opening decision, it did not enjoy any preferential treatment on the Hungarian hydrocarbon extraction market. A major share of MOL\u2019s mining fees paid to the Hungarian State comes from the mining fields subject to J % (i.e. put into operation before 1 January 1998), which in practice means that MOL pays 64-75 %, whereas its competitors (who started production at a later stage and operate small fields) are subject merely to the 12 % fee.\n(36)\nFurthermore, the conclusion of the extension agreement meant that MOL paid more to the State (taking into account all components in the extension agreement) than it would have paid without the agreement, merely on the basis of the original Mining Act.\n(37)\nAs regards the Commission\u2019s argument that the extension agreement cannot be considered analogous to a concession, because it was subject to the authorisation regime, MOL notes that the extension of the mining right is not a right subject to authorisation on the basis of a unilateral decision by the State, but only following an agreement with the mining company. If the purpose of the legislation had been to make this a matter for the State\u2019s discretion, the relevant provision would have been drafted differently. The wording of the Mining Act suggests that the legislative intention was to treat the extension agreement in a way analogous to concessions.\n(38)\nIn the opening decision the Commission argues that there is a contradiction between the Hungarian authorities\u2019 claim that the amendment of the Mining Act was necessary to raise more revenue and the fact that MOL was in practice exempted from the increased fees.\n(39)\nIn the view of MOL, this statement is not contradictory. For one thing, the company paid more to the State under the extension agreement, than it would have paid under the Mining Act. MOL also pays very high mining fees on the fields subject to J. In addition, the amendment to the Mining Act could have an effect on fields put into operation in the future.\n(40)\nMOL maintains that the extension payment components are not in any way a fine, as the Commission suggests. The Mining Act also lays down penalties/fines for where mining activity is carried out in breach of the Mining Act. The fees under the extension agreement are a result of the negotiation process between the mining company and the State. It was not compulsory to conclude the contract: the mining company could also have chosen not to conclude one, lose its mining right and then bid under the open tender procedure, whereby it might have ultimately obtained the mining right more cheaply.\n(41)\nIt is misleading to compare MOL, who concluded such an extension agreement, with competitors operating under the authorisation regime. Moreover, MOL emphasises that it fulfilled all its obligations and the provisions of the legislation.\n(42)\nMOL also takes issue with the Commission\u2019s view that the multiplier \u2018c\u2019 is too low (as it is less than the legal ceiling of 1,2 times). What also has to be taken into account is that the application of the increased mining fee concerned almost 150 fields, so the increased fee yielded a substantial increase in mining revenue for the State.\n(43)\nFinally, as regards the Commission\u2019s argument that MOL is being treated preferentially by not being subject to the Brent Clause, the company notes that J is also price-sensitive.\n(44)\nThe Hungarian Mining Association (hereinafter \u2018Mining Association\u2019) represents companies engaged in mining activities or activities related to mining. Its main objective is to improve the overall operational framework for carrying out mining activities in Hungary, monitor legislative procedures and act in its members\u2019 interests. Currently, it has 66 members, including MOL. The Chairman of the Mining Association\u2019s board is a senior manager of MOL (36).\n(45)\nAccording to the Mining Association, mining companies have a legitimate expectation that the mining fee will remain unchanged for mining fields already in operation. Thus the State cannot unilaterally raise fees \u2018retroactively\u2019 (i.e. for fields which are already operating). The Mining Association expressed this opinion in connection with the bill preceding the amendment to the Mining Act and, according to the Mining Association, this principle was taken into account when the Mining Act was amended. The final wording was not opposed, because, in terms of effect, it does not raise the mining fee for operations already commenced.\n(46)\nAs regards the general characteristics and economic conditions of the mining market, the Mining Association explains that the time span of mining projects is relatively long. The time between the start of exploration and actual extraction can be as long as 10-15 years. During this phase the mining company has only costs; income is not made until extraction starts. In addition, there is an inherent geological risk, since it is not certain that the exploration will be successful. Therefore, projects must be planned with the utmost care. The profitability of a project depends on multiple factors. Given the manifold risks, the industry expects that at least those which can be influenced by the State will remain stable during the lifespan of the project, i.e. the legislative framework or the mining fee. Given the specific characteristics of the industry, the financing structures play an important role in the projects. Creditors scrutinise the projects constantly and can even withdraw financing if the conditions change substantially.\n(47)\nTherefore, in countries involving a high political risk, the mining company and the State conclude a contract based on private law. In stable regions, such as Western Europe, such agreements are unnecessary, because it can be assumed that the legal framework will not be changed every now and then by the State. Stability as regards the State\u2019s share is expected by both the mining company and the creditors. Without this stability the risk of the project would be increased; a country with a stable economic policy cannot allow itself frequent policy changes, since this would scare off the mining undertakings.\n(48)\nThe Mining Association also points out that the principles of legal certainty and protection of acquired rights are enshrined in the case-law of the European courts and the Hungarian Constitution. Thus, the Hungarian legislature is not entitled to raise mining fees for fields already in operation, as legislation must be predictable. Moreover, the Mining Association also considers that the \u2018stability\u2019 of the mining fee is an acquired right.\n(49)\nA further argument adduced by the Mining Association is the prohibition of discrimination. In particular, there must not be discrimination between market players operating on a concession basis and market players under the authorisation system. Accordingly, the Hungarian legislature is not entitled to raise mining fees \u2018retroactively\u2019 for fields already in operation. The ECJ has clarified in numerous judgments that legal certainty is a fundamental element of EU law. Legislation is meant to be unambiguous, precise and predictable, especially if it has a negative impact on individuals or companies (see the case-law cited). The Mining Association goes on to argue that the principle of legal certainty and acquired rights are also enshrined in the Hungarian Constitution and it concludes that on the basis of EU law and constitutional principles legislation must be predictable.\n(50)\nThe Mining Association finally adds that the principle of the protection of acquired rights derives from the principle of legal certainty. This principle of the protection of acquired rights has been respected in the course of national and international legislative procedures governing mining rights. Other EU Member States also have stable mining legislation which does not change frequently.\nVII. EXISTENCE OF AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) OF THE TFEU\n(51)\nIn order to ascertain whether a measure constitutes state aid, the Commission has to assess whether the contested measure fulfils the conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU. This Article states that: \u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market\u2019. Below, in the light of this provision, the Commission assesses whether the contested measure constitutes state aid.\n(52)\nTo begin with, it must be recalled that a measure can constitute state aid within the meaning of 107(1) TFEU regardless of its legal form. Even if the extension agreement was concluded in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Mining Act and even if it is up to Hungary to set the mining fee by law, this does not in itself mean that these actions, or their effects, are compatible with EU state aid rules. The fact that a measure is compatible with national law does not have a bearing on its compatibility with the state aid rules of the TFEU.\n(53)\nMoreover, as already set out in the opening decision, the Commission does not consider that any of the elements of the case in isolation, i.e. the relevant provisions of the Mining Act, the extension agreement and the amendment of the Mining Act, are contrary to state aid rules. Instead, in the present case the Commission regards the entire sequence of the State\u2019s actions as \u2018the measure\u2019 and assesses the effect of the extension agreement in combination with the subsequent amendments to the Mining Act.\n(54)\nAs regards Hungary\u2019s arguments that the mining fee is not a tax, but the State\u2019s share, the Commission notes that this argument is irrelevant from the point of view of state aid assessment. State aid rules are applicable to all kinds of costs which have to be borne by undertakings and from which they are exempted through a state measure. In any event, it has to be noted that administrative authorisation of exploitation of mineral and hydrocarbon resources appears to be a typical role of a public authority; payments for such authorisation are comparable to a tax or administrative fee.\n(55)\nFinally, with regard to the termination clause, the Commission considers that this is not a state aid issue. The fact that the agreement states that the contract ends if a third party acquires more than 25 % of MOL is a measure which does not involve state resources.\n(56)\nTo be considered state aid, a measure must be specific or selective in that it favours only certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.\n(57)\nAccording to the case-law of the Court of Justice (37), as regards the assessment of the condition of selectivity, which is a constituent factor in the concept of state aid, Article 107(1) TFEU requires assessment of whether, under a particular statutory scheme, a state measure is such as to \u2018favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods\u2019 in comparison with other undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the measure in question.\n(58)\nThe Court has also held on numerous occasions that Article 107(1) TFEU does not distinguish between the causes or the objectives of state aid, but defines them in relation to their effects (38).\n(59)\nThe concept of state aid does not apply, however, to state measures which differentiate between undertakings where that differentiation arises from the nature or the overall structure of the system of which they form part.\n(60)\nThe Commission disagrees with the Hungarian authorities\u2019 and interested parties\u2019 argumentation on the absence of selectivity.\n(61)\nIn order to determine whether a measure is selective, the applicable system of reference must be defined (39).\n(62)\nIn the case at issue the Commission considers that the applicable system of reference for the assessment is the authorisation regime. MOL did not have to enter into competitive bidding for the right to obtain a concession in a closed area. Instead, it obtained the mining right for its fields under the authorisation regime and competes with market participants under this regime. The extension agreement forms part of the authorisation regime. The mere fact that MOL was not able to commence extraction within the stipulated deadline and needed to request an extension agreement cannot result in a change of the system of reference. Accepting such an argument would lead to a situation where individual treatment is given to one company, as is the case under the concession regime, but without a competitive public tender.\n(63)\nIn fact, it is a discretionary decision by the Hungarian authorities to determine whether the field is under concession or authorisation. Thus, if the Hungarian authorities wish to award mining rights on a contractual basis they can opt for a transparent concession procedure which includes an open tendering process. The Commission cannot accept that an opaque so-called \u2018quasi-concession\u2019, which currently applies only to one company (MOL), could be regarded as a separate system of reference.\n(64)\nMoreover, Hungary had a wide margin of discretion for extending the authorisation, as well as for subsequently amending the relevant provisions of the Mining Act (despite knowing the advantageous effects this would have on MOL, this company being the sole market player for hydrocarbons to have concluded an extension agreement). Hungary was free to determine the mining fee at any time, i.e. it could have decided not to amend the Mining Act at all. From the point of view of its effects, the sequence of acts unequivocally favoured one particular undertaking.\n(65)\nIn view of the above, the Commission concludes that the system of reference is the authorisation regime.\n(66)\nIn the framework of the authorisation regime, the extension agreement is clearly selective. Indeed, as the Hungarian authorities themselves confirm, the parties, when negotiating the terms of this agreement, have a certain margin of manoeuvre to stipulate the different payment components and, more importantly, may even decide not to conclude the agreement at all. Thus, the Hungarian authorities had the discretion to conclude such an agreement with MOL (or with any other market participant) (40).\n(67)\nSuch treatment cannot be explained through the logic and nature of the system. On the one hand, mining fees are imposed to ensure revenue for the State on the extracted value. On the other hand, the payment components under the extension agreement are paid in exchange for the extension as an extra charge. In the present case, however, the conclusion of the extension agreement and the subsequent increase in the fees for MOL led to the paradoxical situation that MOL, having failed to commence production on time, benefits from lower mining fees until 2020 for practically all of its fields under authorisation; whereas its competitors, who are equally subject to the authorisation regime and who started production on time and therefore have not concluded an extension agreement, have to pay higher statutory fees.\n(68)\nThis was the only extension agreement concluded for hydrocarbons. MOL noted that there are other extension agreements in force for solid minerals. The Commission observes, however that this concerns other types of minerals which are subject to a different mining fee under the Mining Act than hydrocarbons. It also has to be noted that for solid minerals there was no change in the mining fee introduced by the amendment to the Mining Act, (i.e. the market players having concluded such an agreement have not been affected by the same \u2018sequence of measures\u2019 and therefore no advantage has accrued to them).\n(69)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, despite the arguments put forward by Hungary, the Commission considers that the sequence of actions, i.e. the way Section 26/A(5) of the Mining Act is worded, the extension agreement concluded on its basis, and the subsequent amendment to the Mining Act, was selective in favour of MOL.\n(70)\nThe combined effects of the sequence of measures is that, among holders of mining authorisations granted under Section 5 of the Mining Act, only MOL was subject to a specific regime which shielded it against any increase in the mining fee normally due for hydrocarbons extraction.\n(71)\nIn conclusion, due to the wide discretion in the granting of an extension agreement and in view of the fact that, actually, the exemption is directed to one individual company, the selectivity criterion is met.\n(72)\nContrary to the Hungarian authorities\u2019 arguments, the Commission takes the view that the State does not exercise an economic activity by authorising mining activities. Rather, the granting of administrative concessions or mining authorisations is connected with the exercise of powers which are typically those of a public authority because this activity cannot be originally exercised by a private actor (41). In Hungary - as in other Member States of the EU - no private actor is the original owner of mineral resources. Member States\u2019 legal systems generally attribute control over mineral resources to the public authorities (42). Therefore, the decision to allow a company to exploit mineral resources, in the form the Member State chooses and against payment of certain fees, is, by reason of its nature and rules, a matter for the public authorities and can be categorised as the exercise of public authority powers. Hungary\u2019s intervention in making mining activity subject to administrative supervision serves the general interest and not commercial ones. This behaviour must therefore be considered a form of state intervention by a public authority not akin to the behaviour of a private investor in a market economy (43).\n(73)\nEven if in the present case authorisation for mining exploitation were deemed to be an economic activity whereby the State pursues commercial purposes (which it is not), the Commission notes that there is no clear and direct link in monetary terms between the level of the mining fees set by Hungary for MOL and the value of the mining authorisation. Hungary\u2019s reasoning, namely that it acted as a market operator when it concluded the extension agreement, is not borne out. In particular, there is no indication that tendering the concession for the twelve fields (which would have not been extended) would not have resulted in a higher bid from a competitor. Hungary also failed to demonstrate that it took into account all relevant factors and risks from a commercial point of view when concluding the extension agreement, i.e. all payment components in the extension agreement, the possible higher fees set by the Mining Act until 2020, the duration of the agreement and possible competitors.\n(74)\nA further argument by Hungary is that after the disputed amendment of the Mining Act, no other market participant actually had to pay a higher fee than MOL, because in fact there were no competitors falling into the categories with higher mining fees in the relevant period.\nTable 4\nSummary of the applicable mining fees before and after the amendments to the Mining Act\nFee applicable up until 2008\nFee applicable in 2008\nFee applicable from 23 January 2009\nFee for the fields under MOL\u2019s contract\nApplicable until 2020\nProduction started before 1 January 1998\nJ % (46)\n(at least 12 %)\nJ %\n(at least 30 %, + 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\nJ %\n(at least 30 %, + 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\nJ % \u00d7 c (47)\n(at least 12 %)\nProduction started between 1 January 1998 and 1 January 2008\n12 %\n30 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\n12 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\n12 % \u00d7 c\n(~ 12,24 % (45))\nProduction started after 1 January 2008 (44)\nGas fields with an annual production of less than 300m m3\nOil fields with an annual production of less than 50 kt\nNA\n12 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\n12 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\n12 % \u00d7 c\n(~ 12,24 % (45))\nGas fields with annual production between 300-500m m3\nOil fields with an annual production between 50-200 kt\n20 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\n20 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\nGas fields with an annual production above 500m m3\nOil fields with an annual production above 200 kt\n30 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\n30 %\n(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause)\nHydrocarbons with special mining conditions\n12 %\n12 %\nHigh inert gas\n8 %\n8 %\n(75)\nThis argument has to be dismissed.\n(76)\nTable 4 above summarises the extent to which the extension agreement and the subsequent amendment of the Mining Act resulted in fees for MOL lower than stipulated by the Mining Act.\n(77)\nFirstly, the data submitted by the Hungarian authorities show that in fact there were some market players operating fields under the authorisation regime who have been subject to a higher mining fee obligation than paid by MOL, between 8 January 2008 and 23 January 2009 owing to the first amendment to the Mining Act and also from 23 January 2009 to date owing to the second amendment to the Mining Act. The submissions from the Hungarian authorities show that in 2008 there were mining fields operated under authorisation by companies other than MOL who paid more than 12 % (between 14,24 % and 18 %) owing to the application of the Brent Clause (48).\n(78)\nSecondly, although the Hungarian authorities claim that there are only competitors who operate or are expected to put into operation smaller fields (i.e. producing less than 500 m3 or 200 kt), the Commission observes that even if such smaller fields were subject to the 12 % category, they will still have to pay the Brent mark-up, whenever applicable. This could lead to a mining fee of up to 18 %. The Commission recalls once again that the effect of the measures is that MOL is not subject to the Brent Clause laid down in the Mining Act for all other operators.\n(79)\nThirdly, as regards the current general market environment in Hungary, there are several mining companies engaged in hydrocarbon extraction activities. In addition, there are several companies carrying out exploration who might put fields into operation and become MOL\u2019s competitors. Any new entrants under the authorisation regime will be subject to the statutory mining fee and face competition with MOL, the only company whose mining fields escape the fee applicable under the general authorisation regime and are subject to a lower level of fees.\n(80)\nFourthly, the Commission notes that it is a matter of fact that MOL has been subject to a fee of around 12,24 % not only for the twelve fields granted extension but for all of its mining fields put into operation after 1 January 1998 operated under authorisation at the time of the 2005 agreement, and a fee of J % for all fields put into operation before 1 January 1998. Moreover, MOL\u2019s fee is set by the extension agreement at 12,24 % until 2020. Thus, there is an advantage for MOL for the majority of its fields under authorisation for a considerable length of time.\n(81)\nFifthly, if hypothetically the Mining Authority had not agreed to the extension for the twelve fields, all other MOL fields under authorisation would have become subject to the considerably higher mining fee as well, which might have meant higher revenues for the State (49). Moreover, as mentioned in recital 73, the State could have put out a tender for the concession for the twelve fields not granted extension, and could thereby potentially have obtained a higher bid from a competitor.\n(82)\nRegarding Hungary\u2019s argument that MOL paid a higher mining fee, namely 12,24 %, in 2006 and 2007, the Commission notes that this is irrelevant.\n(83)\nFirst of all, this was due to the fact that MOL had to pay the stipulated increase in the mining fee (from 12 % to 12,24 %) just as any other company wishing to extend its mining authorisation would have had to. In this respect, MOL received the standard treatment and was not put at a disadvantage. Neither had the advantage to MOL materialised yet: this ultimately occurred at the time of the first amendment to the Mining Act, i.e. as of 8 January 2008.\n(84)\nFurthermore, in 2008 MOL paid HUF 28,4 billion and in 2009 HUF 1,9 billion less in mining fees for its producing fields than it would have paid if it had been subject to the Mining Act in force at that time.\n(85)\nAs regards the other payment components under Section 26/A(5) of the Mining Act (i.e. the extension fee and the one-off payment), these were paid in exchange for the extension and not for the right to have fees lower than those applicable to its competitors. Nor can these payment components be regarded as \u2018advance payment\u2019 of mining fees due in later periods. The wording of Section 26/A(5) of the Mining Act is clear in this regard. In particular, it states that \u2018the company shall pay a charge if an extension is granted\u2019. The two other elements are linked to the number of fields granted extension. Thus Section 26/A(5) of the Mining Act clearly establishes a link between the extension and the payment obligation.\n(86)\nAccording to the case-law, aid given to a company cannot be offset by a charge imposed on the same company which represents a specific and distinct charge without a link with the measure constituting aid (50). In the case at issue, as described in recital 85, the other payment components under Section 26/A(5) of the Mining Act represent a charge for the extension which can be regarded as a specific and distinct charge without a link to the subsequent amendment of the statutory fees under the authorisation regime.\n(87)\nFinally, the Commission points out that the conclusion of the extension agreement and the subsequent increase in the fees for MOL led to the paradoxical situation that MOL, having failed to start production on time, will be paying lower mining fees for almost all of its fields under authorisation until 2020, whereas its competitors, who have not concluded an extension agreement because they started production on time and are equally subject to the authorisation regime, have to pay higher statutory fees.\n(88)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the measure conferred an advantage on MOL. It shields MOL from bearing costs which it otherwise would have to bear. The combined effect of the extension agreement and the subsequent modification of the Mining Act result in an advantage being conferred on the company.\n(89)\nThe measure involves forgone revenues to which the State would be entitled and is therefore granted from state resources.\n(90)\nMOL is an integrated oil and gas company and qualifies as an undertaking. It competes with other undertakings which do not benefit from the same advantage. Hence, the measure distorts competition. Furthermore, MOL is active in a sector in which trade exists between Member States; the criterion of affecting trade within the Union is also fulfilled.\n(91)\nOn the basis of the arguments set out above, the Commission takes the view that the measure fulfils the criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU. Under those circumstances, the measure at stake has to be considered state aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nVIII. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET\n(92)\nArticles 107(2) and 107(3) TFEU provide for exemptions to the general rule that state aid is incompatible with the internal market as stated in Article 107(1).\n(93)\nBelow the Commission assesses the compatibility of the measure under those exceptions. It should be noted that Hungary did not put forward any arguments as regards compatibility with the internal market.\n(94)\nMoreover, it should also be noted that the measure results in a reduction of costs which should normally be borne by MOL and must therefore be considered to be operating aid.\n(95)\nThe exemptions in Article 107(2) TFEU do not apply in the present case because this measure does not have a social character, has not been awarded to individual consumers, is not designed to make good damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and has not been awarded to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of that country.\n(96)\nFurther exemptions are laid down in Article 107(3) TFEU.\n(97)\nArticle 107(3)(a) states that \u2018aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment\u2019 may be declared compatible with the internal market. Hungary\u2019s entire territory was regarded as such an area at the time of accession and most of its regions are still eligible for such aid (51).\n(98)\nCompatibility of state aid to assisted areas is governed by the Commission guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 (52). (hereinafter \u2018Regional Aid Guidelines\u2019) Under the Regional Aid Guidelines, state aid can in principle be authorised only for investment costs (53). As already mentioned above, the aid at issue cannot be regarded as investment aid. As far as operating aid is concerned, the measure does not facilitate the development of any activities or economic areas and it is not limited in time, degressive or proportionate to what is necessary to remedy specific economic handicaps (54).\n(99)\nIn view of the above, the Commission concludes that the aid is not eligible for the derogation provided for in Article 107(3)(a) TFEU.\n(100)\nArticle 107(3)(b) TFEU states that \u2018aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State\u2019 may be declared compatible with the internal market.\n(101)\nThe Commission notes that the aid in question is not designed to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest nor has the Commission found any evidence that it is designed to remedy a serious disturbance in the Hungarian economy.\n(102)\nIn view of the above, the Commission concludes that the aid does not qualify for the derogation laid down in Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.\n(103)\nArticle 107(3)(d) TFEU states that aid to promote culture and heritage conservation may be declared compatible with the TFEU where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the EU to an extent that is contrary to the common interest. This obviously does not apply to the current case.\n(104)\nArticle 107(3)(c) TFEU provides for the authorisation of state aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. The Commission has produced a number of guidelines and communications that explain how it will apply the derogation contained in Article 107(3) TFEU.\n(105)\nHowever, the Commission considers that because of the nature and characteristics of the aid, the exceptions under these guidelines and communications are not applicable to the present case. Moreover, Hungary has not claimed that the aid could be compatible under those rules.\n(106)\nThe aid under assessment thus constitutes incompatible state aid.\nIX. LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS, ACQUIRED RIGHTS AND DISCRIMINATION\n(107)\nAlthough the Commission does not dispute the argument that predictability is generally an incentive for investments, it must be noted that, in view of the mandatory nature of the supervision of state aid by the Commission under Article 108 TFEU, undertakings to which aid has been granted may not, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the state aid procedure (55). In this regard, no beneficiary can cite good faith in order to defend acquired rights and avoid recovery (56).\n(108)\nIt is true that the Court has repeatedly held that the right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any person in a situation where an authority of the European Union has caused him or her to have justified expectations. However, a person may not plead infringement of the principle unless he or she has been given precise assurances by the administrative body (57). In the present case, MOL has not been given any assurance by an authority of the EU which could justify a legitimate expectation.\n(109)\nIt is also true that a recipient of unlawfully granted aid is not precluded from citing exceptional circumstances on the basis of which it had legitimately assumed the aid to be lawful and thus declining to refund that aid. However, no exceptional circumstances obtain in the present case. On the contrary, the 2008 amendment to the Mining Act demonstrates that mining companies can in principle not count on there being no changes whatsoever in the law.\n(110)\nThe Commission points out that the mining fee for fields already in operation has been amended twice recently, namely as of 8 January 2008 and as of 23 January 2009. Firstly, it has to be stressed that the 2008 amendment to the Mining Act was designed to apply to existing mining authorisations. This is clearly shown by the fact that the wording of the 2008 Mining Act also concerns the terms of the authorisations granted before 2008. For these authorisations, the fees were adapted as from the entry into force of the new Mining Act. This proves that authorisation holders have no legitimate expectation or acquired right that the royalty level imposed would remain unaltered throughout the whole duration of their authorisation.\n(111)\nContrary to what is stated by Hungary and the other interested parties, EU case-law confirms that individuals may not count on no changes ever being made to the law (58). Likewise, changes in the law are not precluded by the principle of legal certainty either.\n(112)\nAs regards the discrimination argument, this has to be dismissed as well. Raising the fee is not discriminatory if applied to everyone, especially since there is no differentiation within the regime, i.e. no distinctions are drawn among the undertakings operating under authorisation.\nX. RECOVERY\n(113)\nAccording to the TFEU and the Court of Justice\u2019s established case-law, when it has found aid to be incompatible with the internal market the Commission is competent to decide that the State concerned must abolish or alter it (59). The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation (60). In this context, the Court has established that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid has been restored (61).\n(114)\nFollowing that case-law, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99 (62) laid down that \u2018where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.\u2019.\n(115)\nThus, given that the measure at issue is to be considered unlawful and incompatible aid, it must be recovered in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market before it was granted. The amount to be recovered is, therefore, to be calculated from the date when the advantage accrued to the beneficiary, i.e. when the aid was made available to the beneficiary, and is to bear recovery interest until effective recovery.\n(116)\nIn this case, the measure is to be regarded as a sequence of actions by the State. With the extension agreement, MOL was shielded from future increases in the statutory mining fee. The advantage for MOL materialised when the first amendment to the Mining Act took effect, which was 8 January 2008. This is the date from which MOL was de facto relieved of the burden of higher fees and consequently favoured over its competitors.\n(117)\nAs explained in recitals 61 - 65, the applicable system of reference is that of other market participants operating under the authorisation regime. Therefore, the advantage is the difference between the actual mining fee MOL paid after the amendment of the Mining Act for its operating fields under authorisation and the fees as stipulated in the Mining Act.\n(118)\nAs already described in recital 85 above, the Commission considers that the other payment components in the agreement (the extension fee and the one-off payment) were paid in exchange for the extension and not for the right to have fees lower than those applicable to its competitors. This means that they are not to be taken into account in the calculation of the advantage.\nTable 5\nSum of MOL\u2019s actual and hypothetical mining fee obligation for the relevant period\nMining fee payments\nActual (63)\n(according to the extension agreement) HUF million\nHypothetical\n(according to the Mining Act in force) HUF million\nDifference HUF million\n2008\n106 226,3\n134 671,0\n-28 444,7\n2009\n67 099,7\n69 041,8\n-1 942,1\n(119)\nThe difference, as shown in Table 5, is therefore HUF 28,4 billion in 2008 and HUF 1,9 billion in 2009, i.e. a total of HUF 30,3 billion. This is the amount Hungary would have to recover from MOL plus recovery interest. Recovery would have to apply to the amounts for 2010 as well, for which there are as yet no figures available.\n(120)\nThe difference in magnitude of the forgone mining fee between 2008 and 2009 is due to the fact that, with the second amendment of the Mining Act that entered into force on 23 January 2009 (after the Commission\u2019s decision to open the formal investigation procedure), the legal situation before the 2008 amendment was reinstated, at least partially, for certain fields, i.e. for fields put into operation between 1998 and 2008.\nXI. CONCLUSION\n(121)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the measure in favour of MOL, i.e. the combination of the extension agreement and the 2008 amendment to the Mining Act, constitutes state aid that is incompatible with the internal market within the meaning of 107(1) TFEU.\n(122)\nGiven that the measure is to be considered unlawful and incompatible aid, the aid must be recovered from MOL in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market before it was granted.\n(123)\nThe amount to be recovered is HUF 28 444,7 million for 2008 and HUF 1 942,1 million for 2009. As regards 2010, in respect of mining fee payments already made, the amount to be recovered needs to be calculated by Hungary, in the same way as for 2008 and 2009, until the measure is abolished,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The combination of the fixed mining fee defined in the extension agreement concluded between the Hungarian State and MOL Nyrt. on 22 December 2005 and the subsequent amendments to Act XLVIII of 1993 on Mining constitutes state aid to MOL Nyrt. within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n2. The state aid referred to in Article 1(1), unlawfully granted by Hungary to MOL Nyrt., in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU, is incompatible with the internal market.\n3. Hungary shall refrain from granting the state aid referred to in paragraph 1 within 2 months following the date of notification of the present Decision.\nArticle 2\n1. Hungary shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiary.\n2. The state aid totals HUF 28 444,7 million for 2008 and HUF 1 942,1 million for 2009. As regards 2010, the amount of aid has to be calculated by Hungary until the measure is abolished.\n3. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until the date on which they are actually recovered.\n4. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 271/2008.\nArticle 3\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Hungary shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within 4 months of its notification.\nArticle 4\n1. Within 2 months following notification of this Decision, Hungary shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary, including the calculation of the aid amount for 2010;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Hungary shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Hungary.\nDone at Brussels, 9 June 2010.", "references": ["99", "22", "21", "59", "95", "24", "66", "9", "76", "70", "37", "46", "43", "10", "39", "61", "38", "64", "85", "51", "94", "73", "50", "88", "44", "68", "20", "6", "74", "47", "No Label", "15", "41", "48", "79", "80", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "41", "48", "79", "80", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 914/2010\nof 12 October 2010\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance sodium salicylate\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the European Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nSodium salicylate is currently included in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as an allowed substance for bovine and porcine species for oral use only, excluding animals from which milk is produced for human consumption, and for all food producing species except fish, for topical use only.\n(4)\nAn application for the extension of the existing entry for sodium salicylate, which is restricted to oral use, to include turkeys has been submitted to the European Medicines Agency.\n(5)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (hereinafter \u2018CVMP\u2019) has established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) for salicylic acid, the marker residue for sodium salicylate, at 0,38 mg/person or 0,0063 mg/kg bodyweight by using and adjusting data available for the related substance acetyl salicylate.\n(6)\nBased on residue depletion within 24 hours of sodium salicylate in turkeys treated with the substance, the CVMP recommends in its opinion of 13 January 2010 provisional MRLs for muscle, skin, fat, liver and kidney of turkeys. Those provisional MRLs represent 96 % of the maximum daily intake of residues contained in food obtained from turkey.\n(7)\nSince the relevant data on depletion of sodium salicylate in eggs are not available, the CVMP could not evaluate the safety of substance in eggs. Sodium salicylate should therefore not be used in animals producing eggs for human consumption.\n(8)\nThe entry for sodium salicylate in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to include the recommended provisional MRLs for sodium salicylate for turkey while excluding the use of the substance in animals producing eggs for human consumption. The provisional MRL set out in that Table for sodium salicylate should expire on 1 January 2015.\n(9)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period of time for the stakeholders concerned to take measures that may be required to comply with the newly set MRL.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 12 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 October 2010.", "references": ["46", "59", "16", "12", "1", "44", "75", "73", "33", "11", "85", "90", "70", "53", "31", "13", "63", "8", "42", "10", "34", "32", "83", "60", "65", "30", "9", "37", "56", "87", "No Label", "7", "24", "38", "66", "69", "72"], "gold": ["7", "24", "38", "66", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 31/2011\nof 17 January 2011\namending annexes to Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) (1), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1059/2003 constitutes the legal framework for the regional classification in order to enable the collection, compilation and dissemination of harmonised regional statistics in the Union.\n(2)\nThe Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 list the territorial units to be used for statistics.\n(3)\nIn accordance with the provisions in Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003, amendments to the NUTS classification should be adopted in the second half of the calendar year not more frequently than every three years.\n(4)\nAccording to the information provided to the Commission, the administrative territorial division has changed in several Member States.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1059/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall apply, with regard to the transmission of data to the Commission (Eurostat), from 1 January 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 January 2011.", "references": ["24", "26", "27", "53", "6", "78", "86", "33", "83", "98", "74", "29", "65", "40", "60", "30", "47", "18", "11", "81", "7", "10", "76", "82", "4", "55", "0", "67", "56", "97", "No Label", "19", "42", "96"], "gold": ["19", "42", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 950/2010\nof 21 October 2010\nfixing the export refunds on eggs\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), last subparagraph, and Article 170 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in eggs, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162 to 164, 167, 169 and 170 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely within the Union and comply with requirements under Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2) and of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3), as well as marking requirements under point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 653/2010 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The products on which the export refunds provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 may be paid, subject to the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 of this Article, and the amounts of those refunds are specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The products on which a refund may be paid under paragraph 1 shall meet the requirements under Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 and those defined in point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 653/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["66", "52", "38", "47", "42", "45", "60", "89", "64", "9", "27", "95", "19", "55", "65", "10", "99", "67", "76", "43", "61", "62", "30", "94", "51", "90", "26", "12", "21", "40", "No Label", "20", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["20", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 1153/2011\nof 30 August 2011\namending Annex Ib to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the technical requirements for the anti-rabies vaccination\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (1), and in particular Article 19a(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 lays down the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement between Member States of dogs, cats and ferrets as listed in Parts A and B of Annex I thereto. It provides that those animals are to be accompanied by a passport certifying that a valid anti-rabies vaccination was carried out on the animal in question pursuant to Annex Ib. Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 also provides that the technical requirements for anti-rabies vaccination, as laid down in Annex Ib, may be amended by means of delegated acts.\n(2)\nAnnex Ib to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that an anti-rabies vaccination may only be considered valid if, inter alia, the date of vaccination does not precede the date of microchipping indicated in the passport or accompanying animal health certificate. However, an animal bearing a clearly readable tattoo applied before 3 July 2011 is also considered identified in accordance with that Regulation. It is therefore necessary, for the sake of clarity of Union legislation, to amend Annex Ib to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 to provide that an anti-rabies vaccination may be considered valid if, inter alia, the date of the anti-rabies vaccination does not precede the date of microchipping or tattooing.\n(3)\nAnnex Ib to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex Ib to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, point 2(b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nthe date referred to in point (a) must not precede the date of microchipping or tattooing indicated in:\n(i)\nSection III(2) or III(5) of the passport; or\n(ii)\nthe appropriate section of the accompanying animal health certificate;\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 August 2011.", "references": ["11", "18", "73", "71", "3", "7", "26", "72", "58", "55", "4", "42", "23", "9", "12", "48", "52", "14", "64", "25", "95", "70", "34", "62", "91", "24", "19", "16", "56", "2", "No Label", "38", "54", "61", "66"], "gold": ["38", "54", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 375/2011\nof 11 April 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Formaggella del Luinese (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Formaggella del Luinese\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["36", "46", "31", "11", "94", "69", "86", "68", "4", "61", "53", "90", "44", "72", "39", "50", "52", "60", "85", "19", "10", "78", "38", "2", "17", "15", "14", "12", "48", "6", "No Label", "23", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1111/2010\nof 30 November 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1087/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["50", "91", "82", "96", "57", "41", "14", "3", "20", "15", "44", "18", "6", "8", "69", "5", "31", "81", "32", "4", "17", "93", "85", "76", "56", "33", "48", "0", "59", "60", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 344/2010\nof 22 April 2010\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Community,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 April 2010.", "references": ["47", "62", "75", "31", "44", "30", "87", "16", "46", "85", "86", "2", "49", "68", "91", "43", "66", "56", "98", "81", "51", "29", "10", "88", "97", "36", "21", "37", "11", "17", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 December 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and the provisional application of the Protocol to the Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Federated States of Micronesia on fishing in the Federated States of Micronesia\n(2011/116/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 April 2006 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 805/2006 concerning the conclusion of the Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Federated States of Micronesia on fishing in the Federates States of Micronesia (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Partnership Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nA Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Partnership Agreement (hereinafter \u2018the previous Protocol\u2019) was attached to the Partnership Agreement. The previous Protocol expired on 25 February 2010.\n(3)\nThe Union subsequently negotiated with the Federated States of Micronesia (hereinafter \u2018Micronesia\u2019) a new Protocol (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019) to the Partnership Agreement, providing EU vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which Micronesia has sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries.\n(4)\nOn conclusion of those negotiations, the Protocol was initialled on 7 May 2010.\n(5)\nAccording to Article 15 of the Protocol, it is to be applied provisionally from the date of its signing.\n(6)\nIn order to guarantee a rapid resumption of fishing activities by EU vessels, it is essential that the Protocol be applied as quickly as possible taking into account that the previous Protocol has already expired.\n(7)\nThe Protocol should be signed and should be applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Partnership Agreement between the European Community and Federated States of Micronesia on fishing in the Federated States of Micronesia (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of said Protocol.\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThe Protocol shall be applied on a provisional basis as from the date of its signature (2), in accordance with Article 15 thereof, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["17", "23", "21", "75", "31", "32", "48", "41", "56", "65", "42", "35", "16", "52", "97", "64", "29", "74", "63", "7", "93", "76", "44", "22", "27", "24", "88", "25", "99", "13", "No Label", "3", "9", "15", "58", "67", "95"], "gold": ["3", "9", "15", "58", "67", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 513/2012\nof 15 June 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 June 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 June 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 June 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2012.", "references": ["81", "99", "91", "13", "43", "75", "29", "86", "47", "30", "93", "28", "3", "49", "12", "59", "69", "31", "25", "23", "0", "76", "89", "37", "71", "9", "56", "11", "5", "96", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 621/2011\nof 24 June 2011\namending for the 151st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a), 7a(1) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 14 June 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove two natural persons from the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. On 16 June 2011 it decided to add one natural person to the list and to amend one entry on the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 June 2011.", "references": ["29", "41", "72", "9", "30", "96", "73", "80", "46", "94", "24", "32", "58", "67", "48", "88", "42", "50", "70", "13", "69", "79", "55", "98", "64", "59", "87", "86", "93", "37", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 919/2010\nof 12 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 October 2010.", "references": ["77", "20", "2", "73", "44", "70", "31", "92", "32", "1", "86", "16", "12", "39", "13", "69", "21", "10", "84", "67", "76", "5", "62", "74", "91", "23", "54", "45", "38", "96", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 March 2011\non the conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, relating in particular to judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation\n(2011/349/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 16, 79(2)(c), 82(1)(b) and (d), 87(2), 87(3), 89 and 114 in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFollowing the authorisation given to the Presidency, assisted by the Commission, on 27 February 2006, negotiations with the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Swiss Confederation of a Protocol on the accession of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis have been finalised.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decisions 2008/261/EC (1) and 2008/262/JHA (2), and subject to its conclusion at a later date, the Protocol was signed on behalf of the European Union on 28 February 2008.\n(3)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nThe Protocol should be approved.\n(5)\nAs far as the development of the Schengen acquis is concerned, which falls under Part Three, Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union, it is appropriate to make Council Decision 1999/437/EC of17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the association of those two States with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (3) applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the relations with Liechtenstein.\n(6)\nThe United Kingdom is taking part in this Decision in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Article 8(2) of Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (4).\n(7)\nIreland is taking part in this Decision in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (5).\n(8)\nThis Decision does not prejudice the position of Denmark under the Protocol on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis and related documents are hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.\nThe texts of the Protocol and the related documents are attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis decision applies to the fields covered by the provisions listed in Article 2(1) and (2) of the Protocol and to their development to the extent that such provisions are listed in Decisions 2000/365/EC and 2002/192/EC.\nArticle 3\nThe provisions of Articles 1 to 4 of Decision 1999/437/EC shall apply, in the same way, to the association of Liechtenstein with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis.\nArticle 4\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to deposit on behalf of the European Union the Instrument of approval provided for in Article 9 of the Protocol, in order to express the consent of the European Union to be bound, and make the following notification:\n\u2018As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community and from that date exercises all rights and assumes all obligations of the European Community. Therefore, references to \u201cthe European Community\u201d in the Protocol as well as in the Agreement are, where appropriate, to be understood as to \u201cthe European Union\u201d.\u2019\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["56", "19", "85", "25", "22", "34", "54", "71", "23", "57", "12", "35", "83", "77", "68", "49", "58", "26", "62", "52", "29", "7", "6", "11", "30", "61", "28", "59", "78", "20", "No Label", "3", "4", "9", "13", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "4", "9", "13", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 November 2010\ndeclining the solution proposed by Austria under Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 relating to the calculation of the private use component of a compensation to the VAT own resources base resulting from the restriction of the right to deduct VAT under Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC\n(notified under document C(2010) 8206)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2010/719/EU, Euratom)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 of 29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the collection of own resources accruing from value added tax (1), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee on Own Resources,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe compensation to the VAT resources base is based on Article 6(4) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89, which provides that where a Member State restricts or excludes, on the basis of Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the Common system of value added tax (2), the right to deduct input VAT, then the VAT own resources base may be determined as if the right of deduction had not been restricted. This applies only in respect of the purchase of petroleum products and passenger cars used for business purposes, and of expenditure relating to the lease, hire, maintenance and repair of such cars. Austria proposed a solution for the calculation of the private use component of such a compensation to the harmonised VAT own resources base.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89, the solution proposed by Austria was examined by the Advisory Committee on Own Resources at its meeting on 26 October 2010. The examination of the methodology revealed a difference of opinion in the Committee. A draft decision declining the solution presented by Austria was submitted to the Advisory Committee on Own Resources which delivered a positive opinion on 26 October 2010.\n(3)\nWhen calculating private use, in the absence of actual data, alternative methods can be used. To guarantee that these methods contribute to uniformity in the calculation of the compensation they should be based on generally accepted assumptions.\n(4)\nAustria requires taxable persons to administer actual data about the private use of business cars. However, for reasons of administrative simplicity, Austria has proposed a solution for the calculation of private use incorporating general statistical data combined with value depreciation amounts, not devised for determining private use as such. Since the proposed solution results in a private use element significantly lower than the proportion used by other Member States, it is contradictory to the required uniformity in the calculation of the compensation. The solution proposed by Austria concerning the calculation of the private use proportion of cars acquired by businesses needs therefore to be declined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe solution proposed by Austria concerning the calculation of the private use proportion of cars acquired by businesses is declined.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to Austria.\nDone at Brussels, 26 November 2010.", "references": ["25", "17", "32", "93", "2", "72", "22", "29", "56", "44", "8", "81", "13", "37", "38", "11", "59", "41", "87", "70", "91", "96", "94", "76", "53", "3", "28", "33", "1", "23", "No Label", "10", "34", "45", "46", "54"], "gold": ["10", "34", "45", "46", "54"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 24 November 2011\nauthorising the United Kingdom to apply reduced levels of taxation to motor fuels supplied on the islands of the Inner and Outer Hebrides, the Northern Isles, the islands in the Clyde and the Isles of Scilly, in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC\n(2011/776/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1), and in particular Article 19(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter of 23 March 2011 the United Kingdom requested authorisation to apply a reduced rate of excise duty on gas oil and unleaded petrol pursuant to Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC on the islands of the Inner and Outer Hebrides, the Northern Isles, the islands in the Clyde (all off the coast of Scotland) and the Isles of Scilly (off the south west coast of England).\n(2)\nIn these islands, the prices of gas oil and unleaded petrol are higher than the average prices in the rest of the territory of the United Kingdom, placing local fuel consumers at a disadvantage. The price difference is due to additional per unit costs induced by the geographic location of the islands, their low population numbers and the delivery of relatively low volumes of fuel.\n(3)\nThe tax reduction will be no larger than what is necessary to compensate for the additional per unit costs borne by the consumers in the geographical areas concerned.\n(4)\nThe reduced rates of taxation will be above the minimum rates laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/96/EC.\n(5)\nIn view of the insular nature of the areas to which it applies and the moderate reduction in the rate, the measure will not give rise to any movement specifically linked to the supply of fuel.\n(6)\nConsequently, the measure is acceptable from the point of view of the proper functioning of the internal market and of the need to ensure fair competition and it is compatible with the Union\u2019s health, environment, energy and transport policies.\n(7)\nIt follows from Article 19(2) of Directive 2003/96/EC that each authorisation granted under that Article must be strictly limited in time. In order to provide the businesses and consumers concerned with a sufficient degree of certainty, the authorisation should be granted for a period of six years. However, in order not to undermine future general developments in the existing legal framework, it is appropriate to provide that, should the Council, acting on the basis of Article 113 of the Treaty, introduce a modified general system for the taxation of energy products to which the authorisation granted in this Decision would not be adapted, this Decision should expire on the day on which the rules on that modified system become applicable,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The United Kingdom is hereby authorised to apply reduced rates of taxation to unleaded petrol and gas oil supplied as motor fuel to road vehicles in all the islands of the Inner and Outer Hebrides, the Northern Isles, the islands in the Clyde and the Isles of Scilly.\nThe reduction from the standard national rate of taxation for unleaded petrol or gas oil respectively shall be no greater than the additional cost of retail sales in these geographical areas, compared with the average cost incurred of retail sales in the United Kingdom and shall be no more than GBP 50 per 1 000 litres of product.\n2. The reduced rates must comply with the requirements of Directive 2003/96/EC, and in particular with the minimum rates laid down in Article 7 thereof.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nIt shall apply from 1 November 2011 and shall expire on 31 October 2017.\nHowever, should the Council, acting on the basis of Article 113 of the Treaty, introduce a modified general system for the taxation of energy products to which the authorisation granted in Article 1 of this Decision would not be adapted, this Decision shall expire on the day on which the rules on that modified system become applicable.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 24 November 2011.", "references": ["37", "30", "7", "73", "5", "85", "60", "67", "25", "1", "3", "81", "48", "79", "76", "26", "28", "42", "69", "50", "90", "20", "86", "31", "83", "54", "19", "14", "57", "77", "No Label", "34", "59", "80", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["34", "59", "80", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 833/2011\nof 18 August 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 823/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 August 2011.", "references": ["3", "89", "1", "5", "84", "46", "87", "15", "33", "50", "41", "98", "86", "54", "32", "38", "71", "82", "55", "73", "30", "47", "9", "0", "88", "14", "93", "69", "68", "85", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 791/2010\nof 6 September 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 December 2005 on the establishment of a Community list of air carriers subject to an operating ban within the European Union and on informing air transport passengers of the identity of the operating air carrier, and repealing Article 9 of Directive 2004/36/EC (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 (2) of 22 March 2006 established the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the European Union referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, two Member States adopted exceptional measures imposing an immediate operating ban in respect of their own territory in order to react to unforeseen safety problems.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 and Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 473/2006 (4) of 22 March 2006 laying down implementing rules for the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, the two Member States requested to update the list of carriers banned from operating within the European Union.\n(4)\nIt is evident that the continued operation of these carriers is likely to constitute a serious risk to safety, and that such a risk has not been fully resolved by means of urgent measures taken by the two Member States concerned.\n(5)\nThe Commission informed the air carriers concerned indicating the essential facts and considerations which would form the basis for a decision to impose on it an operating ban within the European Union.\n(6)\nSince urgent measures are necessary to resolve this situation, therefore, in accordance with Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 473/2006, the Commission is not required to comply with the provisions of Article 4(1) of the same Regulation. However opportunity was given by the Commission to the air carriers in question to consult the documents provided by Member States, to submit written comments and to make an oral presentation to the Commission and members of the Air Safety Committee.\n(7)\nThe competent authority with responsibility for regulatory oversight over the air carriers concerned has been consulted by the Commission as well as by some Member States.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 474/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThere is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of Meridian Airways certified in the Republic of Ghana. These deficiencies have been identified by Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme (5).\n(10)\nAt a meeting with the Commission on 9 June 2010, also attended by the competent authorities of Ghana together with the competent authorities of Belgium and the United Kingdom, the air carrier submitted a Corrective Action Plan designed to address the safety deficiencies.\n(11)\nThe United Kingdom and Belgium communicated to the Commission that on 23 July 2010 and 27 July 2010 respectively they have adopted an immediate operating ban on the whole fleet of Meridian Airways taking into account the common criteria, in the framework of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005.\n(12)\nIn addition, Belgium and the United Kingdom submitted on 29 July 2010 to the Commission a request to update the Community list in accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, and as prescribed by Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 473/2006, in view of imposing an operating ban to the European Union on the whole fleet of Meridian Airways.\n(13)\nMeridian Airways demonstrated a lack of ability to address safety deficiencies in response to requests by Belgium, as shown by persistent safety deficiencies. Ramp checks in the UK in July 2010 identified multiple airworthiness issues regarding Meridian\u2019s aircraft which also raised concerns about the control and management of flight operations safety standards at Meridian Airways. These checks reflected a similar pattern of adverse ramp checks conducted over the last year by other Member States which indicated significant systemic safety issues within the air carrier.\n(14)\nThe competent authorities of the Republic of Ghana, whilst being willing to co-operate with the Member States in dealing with identified deficiencies, did not adequately address major safety findings resulting from SAFA inspections, as demonstrated by persistent safety deficiencies. However, following notification by the Commission of their concerns regarding the safety standards of the carrier, the competent authorities of Ghana suspended the Air Operator's Certificate of Meridian Airways on 29 July 2010.\n(15)\nMeridian Airways were heard by the services of the Commission and the competent authorities of Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom on 12 August 2010. These consultations did not provide satisfactory solutions to address the identified safety deficiencies in the short term. The competent authorities of the Republic of Ghana declined to attend the meeting.\n(16)\nThe Commission takes note of the commitment by the carrier to continue with its corrective action plan. The progress made by the carrier with the implementation of the corrective action plan together with any other developments should be examined at the next meeting of the Air Safety Committee.\n(17)\nOn the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Meridian Airways does not meet the relevant safety standards. The air carrier should be subject to a ban to all its operations and should be included in Annex A.\n(18)\nThere is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of Airlift International (GH) Ltd certified in the Republic of Ghana. These deficiencies have been identified by the United Kingdom during a ramp inspection performed under the SAFA programme (6).\n(19)\nThe competent authorities of the United Kingdom communicated to the Commission that it adopted on 29 July 2010 an immediate operating ban on the whole fleet of Airlift International (GH) Ltd, due to the number of serious and major findings observed during the ramp inspection as well as the crew's disregard for the applicable flight time limitations.\n(20)\nIn addition, the United Kingdom submitted on 29 July 2010 to the Commission a request to update the Community list in accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, and as prescribed by Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 473/2006, in view of imposing an operating ban to the European Union on the whole fleet of Airlift International (GH) Ltd.\n(21)\nPursuant to the request of the United Kingdom, the Commission consulted the air carrier and the competent authorities in charge of its oversight. These consultations did not provide assurance that the identified safety deficiencies had been removed and that an adequate action plan had been implemented in order to prevent their reoccurrence.\n(22)\nAirlift International (GH) Ltd and the competent authorities of Ghana were heard by the services of the Commission and the competent authorities of Germany and the United Kingdom on 18 August 2010. The air carrier provided documents showing they were permitted to operate four aircraft of type DC8-63F (registration marks 9G-FAB, 9G-TOP, 9G-RAC, 9G-SIM) but that 9G-FAB and 9G-SIM were in storage. The air carrier explained the safety processes they have in place but were unable to provide a clear explanation of why aircraft 9G-RAC, which had been brought out of storage to operate the flight to the UK, had failed to meet international standards. The air carrier briefed that it had recently improved its quality and safety management arrangements and was currently undergoing a review of their safety management processes.\n(23)\nTaking into account the actions taken by the air carrier to date, and on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Airlift International (GH) Ltd should be included in Annex B to allow operations exclusively with the aircraft with registration mark 9G-TOP. The Commission will review the situation at the next meeting of the Air Safety Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 474/2006 is amended as follows:\n1.\nAnnex A is replaced by the text set out in Annex A to this Regulation.\n2.\nAnnex B is replaced by the text set out in Annex B to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 September 2010.", "references": ["2", "17", "15", "66", "10", "26", "89", "60", "91", "38", "65", "40", "45", "50", "3", "85", "88", "42", "23", "8", "84", "41", "96", "82", "86", "95", "75", "92", "63", "12", "No Label", "13", "53", "54", "57"], "gold": ["13", "53", "54", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 589/2010\nof 5 July 2010\namending Council Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 as regards catch limits for the fisheries on sandeel in EU waters of IIIa and EU waters of IIa and IV\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (1), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCatch limits for sandeel in ICES IIa and IV are laid down in Annex IA of Regulation (EU) No 53/2010.\n(2)\nPursuant to point 6 of Annex IID to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010, the Commission is to revise the total allowable catches (TAC) and quotas for 2010 for sandeel in those zones based on advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).\n(3)\nThe STECF indicates that the function laid down in point 6 of Annex IID to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 would indicate a TAC of up to 400 000 tonnes.\n(4)\nSandeel is a North Sea stock which is shared with Norway but which is currently not jointly managed. The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with consultations with Norway pursuant to the provisions of the agreed record of conclusions of fisheries consultations between the European Commission and Norway of 26 January 2010. In consequence, the European Union share of that part of the TAC that can be caught in EU waters of ICES zones IIa and IV should be fixed at 90 % of 400 000 tonnes.\n(5)\nFollowing negotiations with Norway, the amount allocated to Norway from the EU\u2019s share of the TAC should be increased from 20 000 tonnes to 27 500 tonnes in exchange for fishing opportunities on other species in Norwegian waters.\n(6)\nThe Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries recommends that the TAC should be increased by 4,23 % to cover EU waters of ICES zone IIIa.\n(7)\nAnnex IA to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IA to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2010.", "references": ["6", "82", "39", "24", "22", "30", "70", "72", "59", "56", "36", "65", "28", "80", "45", "94", "14", "29", "8", "18", "4", "12", "27", "44", "47", "5", "62", "53", "68", "87", "No Label", "13", "15", "58", "67"], "gold": ["13", "15", "58", "67"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 671/2010\nof 13 July 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 as regards the conversion rate to the euro for Estonia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 140(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 of 31 December 1998 on the conversion rates between the euro and the currencies of the Member States adopting the euro (2) determines the conversion rates as from 1 January 1999.\n(2)\nAccording to Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession, Estonia is a Member State with a derogation as defined in Article 139(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter \u2018the Treaty\u2019).\n(3)\nPursuant to Council Decision 2010/416/EU of 13 July 2010 in accordance with Article 140(2) of the Treaty on the adoption by Estonia of the euro on 1 January 2011 (3), Estonia fulfils the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro and the derogation of Estonia is abrogated with effect from 1 January 2011.\n(4)\nThe introduction of the euro in Estonia requires the adoption of the conversion rate between the euro and the Estonian kroon. This conversion rate shall be set at 15,6466 kroon per 1 euro, which corresponds to the current central rate of the kroon in the exchange rate mechanism (ERM II).\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 2866/98 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2866/98, the following line is inserted between the conversion rates applicable to the German mark and the Greek drachma:\n\u2018= 15,6466 Estonian kroons\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2010.", "references": ["64", "45", "3", "12", "85", "66", "70", "25", "97", "52", "54", "4", "63", "58", "13", "35", "56", "60", "44", "19", "37", "26", "40", "24", "39", "98", "51", "76", "10", "0", "No Label", "27", "28", "91"], "gold": ["27", "28", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 695/2012\nof 24 July 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for common sole in VIIIa and VIIIb by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2) lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["83", "46", "40", "11", "51", "45", "37", "79", "18", "29", "10", "6", "87", "85", "55", "71", "28", "66", "92", "4", "89", "68", "84", "8", "32", "17", "31", "75", "98", "65", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1256/2010\nof 17 December 2010\nfixing the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea for 2011\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 43(3) of the Treaty, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, is to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy (1) requires that measures governing access to waters and resources and the sustainable pursuit of fishing activities be established taking into account available scientific advice and, in particular, the report drawn up by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries.\n(3)\nIt is incumbent upon the Council to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities by fishery or group of fisheries, including certain conditions functionally linked thereto, as appropriate. Fishing opportunities should be distributed among Member States in such a way as to assure each Member State relative stability of fishing activities for each stock or fishery and having due regard to the objectives of the common fisheries policy established in Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\n(4)\nThe total allowable catch (TAC) should be established on the basis of the available scientific advice and by taking into account the biological and socioeconomic aspects whilst ensuring fair treatment between fishing sectors, as well as in the light of the opinions expressed during the consultation of stakeholders.\n(5)\nThe use of fishing opportunities set out in this Regulation is subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (2) and in particular to Articles 33 and 34 of that Regulation concerning the recording of catches and fishing effort and the notification of data on the exhaustion of fishing opportunities. It is therefore necessary to specify codes to be used by the Member States when sending data to the Commission relating to landings of stocks subject to this Regulation.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (3), the stocks that are subject to the various measures referred to therein are to be identified.\n(7)\nIn order to avoid interruption of fishing activities and to ensure the livelihood of the fishermen of the Union, it is important to open these fisheries on 1 January 2011. For reasons of urgency, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT MATTER, SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation fixes fishing opportunities for 2011 for certain fish stocks in the Black Sea.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to EU vessels operating in the Black Sea.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018GFCM\u2019 means General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean;\n(b)\n\u2018Black Sea\u2019 means the GFCM geographical sub-area as defined in resolution GFCM/33/2009/2;\n(c)\n\u2018EU vessel\u2019 means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State and registered in the Union;\n(d)\n\u2018total allowable catch (TAC)\u2019 means the quantity that can be taken from each stock each year;\n(e)\n\u2018quota\u2019 means a proportion of the TAC allocated to the Union, a Member State or a third country.\nCHAPTER II\nFISHING OPPORTUNITIES\nArticle 4\nTACs and allocations\nThe TACs, the allocation of such TACs among Member States, and the conditions functionally linked thereto, where appropriate, are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 5\nSpecial provisions on allocations\nThe allocation of fishing opportunities among Member States as set out in this Regulation shall be without prejudice to:\n(a)\nexchanges made pursuant to Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;\n(b)\nreallocations made pursuant to Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009;\n(c)\nadditional landings allowed under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(d)\nquantities withheld in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(e)\ndeductions made pursuant to Articles 37, 105 and 107 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\nArticle 6\nConditions for landing catches and by-catches\nFish from stocks for which fishing opportunities are fixed by this Regulation shall be retained on board or landed only if:\n(a)\nthe catches have been taken by vessels of a Member State having a quota and that quota is not exhausted; or\n(b)\nthe catches consist of a share in a Union quota which has not been allocated by quota among Member States, and that Union quota has not been exhausted.\nCHAPTER III\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 7\nData transmission\nWhen, pursuant to Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Member States send the Commission data relating to landings of quantities of stocks caught, they shall use the stock codes set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 8\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 December 2010.", "references": ["20", "35", "66", "52", "84", "68", "69", "75", "5", "12", "79", "17", "62", "96", "91", "30", "0", "61", "46", "40", "53", "39", "49", "29", "38", "36", "58", "7", "44", "8", "No Label", "15", "59", "67"], "gold": ["15", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 801/2012\nof 4 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for Northern prawn in NAFO 3L by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 September 2012.", "references": ["74", "28", "43", "5", "39", "99", "20", "69", "50", "46", "68", "85", "30", "25", "66", "29", "95", "80", "3", "34", "22", "38", "84", "48", "53", "17", "92", "79", "61", "73", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 812/2011\nof 10 August 2011\namending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for dimethomorph, fluopicolide, mandipropamid, metrafenone, nicotine and spirotetramat in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor dimethomorph, fluopicolide, mandipropamid, metrafenone, nicotine and spirotetramat maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(2)\nIn the context of a procedure, in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2), for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance mandipropamid on hops an application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing MRL.\n(3)\nAs regards dimethomorph, such an application was made for use on strawberries and lamb's lettuce. As regards fluopicolide, such an application was made for use on onions, tomatoes, cucurbits (edible peel), flowering brassica, head brassica, kohlrabi, lettuce and leek.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 an application was made for metrafenone for use on wine grapes and table grapes. The authorised use of metrafenone on wine grapes and table grapes in the United States leads to higher residues than the MRL in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. To avoid trade barriers for the importation of wine and table grapes, a higher MRL is necessary. Avoiding trade barriers is also in conformity with the objectives of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine (3), as stated in Article 1 of that Agreement.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, these applications were evaluated by the Member States concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission.\n(6)\nAs regards nicotine, the Commission received information from food business operators showing the presence of nicotine in tea, herbal infusions, spices, rose hips and fresh herbs leading to higher residues than the default MRL of 0,01 mg/kg laid down in that Regulation.\n(7)\nThe European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \"the Authority\", assessed for dimethomorph, fluopicolide, mandipropamid and metrafenone the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs (4). For nicotine the Authority assessed the available monitoring data and gave a reasoned opinion on the setting of temporary MRLs for nicotine in the products concerned (5). It forwarded these opinions to the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public.\n(8)\nThe Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that, all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs requested by the applicants were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime exposure to these substances via consumption of all food products that may contain these substances, nor the short term exposure due to extreme consumption of the relevant crops showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference dose (ARfD) is exceeded.\n(9)\nAs regards fluopicolide on onions, tomatoes, cucurbits (edible peel), flowering brassica, head cabbage and Brussels sprouts the Authority concluded that the MRLs were already fixed at the levels covering the current authorised uses.\n(10)\nBased on the reasoned opinions of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the proposed modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(11)\nAs regards spirotetramat, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has adopted CXLs. (6) These CXLs should be included in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as MRLs, with the exception of those CXLs which are not safe for a European consumer group and for which the Union presented a reservation to the CAC.\n(12)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2011.", "references": ["27", "88", "14", "86", "51", "63", "58", "83", "22", "89", "45", "11", "12", "18", "90", "57", "30", "16", "4", "91", "59", "85", "94", "60", "54", "35", "98", "42", "78", "0", "No Label", "38", "65", "66", "72"], "gold": ["38", "65", "66", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 771/2012\nof 23 August 2012\nmaking imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America subject to registration in application of Article 24(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation) and in particular Articles 16(4), 24(3) and 24(5) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas\n(1)\nOn 25 November 2011, the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (\u2018notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding (\u2018AS proceeding\u2019 or \u2018the proceeding\u2019) with regard to imports into the Union of bioethanol originating in the United States of America (\u2018USA\u2019 or \u2018the country concerned\u2019) following a complaint lodged on 12 October 2011 by the European Producers Union of Renewable Ethanol Association (ePURE) (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of bioethanol.\nA. PRODUCT CONCERNED\n(2)\nThe product concerned by this registration is the same as that defined in the notice of initiation, namely bioethanol, sometimes referred to as \u2018fuel ethanol\u2019, i.e. ethyl alcohol produced from agricultural products (as listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), denatured or undenatured, excluding products with a water content of more than 0,3 % (m/m) measured according to the standard EN 15376, as well as ethyl alcohol produced from agricultural products (as listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) contained in blends with gasoline with an ethyl alcohol content of more than 10 % (v/v) originating in the USA, currently falling within CN codes ex 2207 10 00, ex 2207 20 00, ex 2208 90 99, ex 2710 12 11, ex 2710 12 15, ex 2710 12 21, ex 2710 12 25, ex 2710 12 31, ex 2710 12 41, ex 2710 12 45, ex 2710 12 49, ex 2710 12 51, ex 2710 12 59, ex 2710 12 70, ex 2710 12 90, ex 3814 00 10, ex 3814 00 90, ex 3820 00 00 and ex 3824 90 97.\nB. REQUEST\n(3)\nFollowing the publication of the notice of initiation, the complainant requested in November 2011 that imports of the product concerned be made subject to registration pursuant to Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports from the date of such registration. The complainant repeated several times its request for registration of imports of the product concerned, most recently on 3 August 2012, and provided further reasons as to why such registration should be made in the current investigation.\nC. GROUNDS FOR THE REGISTRATION\n(4)\nAccording to Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission may, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, direct the customs authorities to take the appropriate steps to register imports, so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports from the date of such registration. Imports may be made subject to registration following a request from the Union industry which contains sufficient evidence to justify such action.\n(5)\nThe complainant claimed that the product concerned was subsidised and that injury to the Union industry, which is difficult to repair, was caused by the surge in imports benefiting from countervailable subsidies in a relatively short period of time.\n(6)\nThe complainant provided evidence that the imports of the product concerned have increased significantly in absolute terms and in terms of market share. The volume and prices of the imported product concerned have had a negative impact on the quantities sold, the level of the prices charged in the Union market and the market share held by the Union industry, resulting in substantial adverse effects on the overall performance and the financial situation of the Union industry.\n(7)\nThese findings were confirmed by the Commission in its interim conclusion in the AS proceeding in August 2012, as disclosed to interested parties. Therefore, the request contains sufficient evidence to justify registration.\nD. PROCEDURE\n(8)\nIn view of the above, the Commission has concluded that the complainant provided sufficient evidence to make imports of the product concerned subject to registration in accordance with Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(9)\nAll interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing and to provide evidence supporting their views. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\nE. REGISTRATION\n(10)\nDespite positive findings of countervailing subsidisation and material injury caused thereby to the Union industry during the investigation period (\u2018IP\u2019), namely from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011, the Commission decided not to adopt provisional countervailing duties pursuant to Article 12 of the basic Regulation because it was provisionally found that the main subsidy scheme in force during the IP had ceased, in the sense that it no longer conferred a benefit at the time provisional measures would have been imposed. However, there is evidence that the United States might reinstate the main subsidy scheme found to be countervailable in the coming months with retroactive effects. In that event, the Commission considers that it would have been entitled to adopt (and eventually collect) provisional countervailing duties in the present investigation. Thus, in order to preserve the European Union\u2019s rights under these special circumstances, the Commission has decided to proceed as indicated below.\n(11)\nPursuant to Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product concerned shall be made subject to registration so that, eventually, measures may retroactively be applied against those imports from the date of such registration. Should the United States reintroduce the main subsidy scheme with retroactive effect, the Commission intends to propose the Council to collect definitive duties on the imports subject to registration. If, at the definitive stage, the Commission is convinced that the United States would not act in the manner as mentioned before, the Commission intends to propose the Council that those imports subject to registration shall not be subject to any additional liability arising from this AS investigation.\n(12)\nAny future liability would emanate from the definitive findings of the anti-subsidy investigation. The estimated amount of possible future liability is set at the level of subsidisation found so far, i.e. at EUR 108 per tonne of pure bioethanol. (3)\n(13)\nIn order that the registration is sufficiently effective in view of eventual retroactive levying of an anti-subsidy duty, the declarant should indicate on the customs declaration the proportion in blends, by weight, of the total content of ethyl alcohol produced from agricultural products (bioethanol content).\nF. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\n(14)\nAny personal data collected in this anti-subsidy investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (4),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 24(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union of bioethanol, sometimes referred to as \u2018fuel ethanol\u2019, i.e. ethyl alcohol produced from agricultural products (as listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), denatured or undenatured, excluding products with a water content of more than 0,3 % (m/m) measured according to the standard EN 15376, as well as ethyl alcohol produced from agricultural products (as listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) contained in blends with gasoline with an ethyl alcohol content of more than 10 % (v/v) currently falling within CN codes ex 2207 10 00, ex 2207 20 00, ex 2208 90 99, ex 2710 12 11, ex 2710 12 15, ex 2710 12 21, ex 2710 12 25, ex 2710 12 31, ex 2710 12 41, ex 2710 12 45, ex 2710 12 49, ex 2710 12 51, ex 2710 12 59, ex 2710 12 70, ex 2710 12 90, ex 3814 00 10, ex 3814 00 90, ex 3820 00 00 and ex 3824 90 97 (TARIC codes 2207100011, 2207200011, 2208909911, 2710121110, 2710121510, 2270122110, 2710122510, 2710123110, 2710124110, 2710124510, 2710124910, 2710125110, 2710125910, 2710127010, 2710129010, 3814009070, 3820000010 and 3824909767) and originating in the United States of America. Registration shall expire nine months following the data of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThe declarant shall indicate on the customs declaration the proportion in the blend, by weight, of the total content of ethyl alcohol produced from agricultural products (as listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) (bioethanol content).\n2. All interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing, to provide supporting evidence or to request to be heard within 20 days from the date of publication of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThe Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 August 2012.", "references": ["30", "3", "83", "6", "63", "47", "33", "17", "95", "4", "85", "0", "67", "90", "76", "53", "61", "11", "35", "24", "34", "41", "16", "29", "92", "69", "56", "9", "60", "98", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "78", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "78", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 31 January 2012\nadjusting the thresholds referred to in Articles 157(b) and 158(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation\n(2012/56/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1), and in particular Article 271 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1251/2011 (2) adjusted the thresholds applicable to public procurement contracts pursuant to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (3).\n(2)\nFor reasons of consistency, it is therefore necessary to establish the thresholds referred to in Articles 157(b) and 158(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002.\n(3)\nSince the thresholds adjusted by Regulation (EU) No 1251/2011 are applicable from 1 January 2012, this Decision should also apply from 1 January 2012. This Decision should therefore enter into force on the date following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2010/78/EU of 9 February 2010 adjusting the thresholds referred to in Article 157(b) and Article 158(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation (4) has lapsed and should therefore be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe euro equivalents of the thresholds applicable to public procurement contracts shall be established as follows:\n-\nEUR 5 000 000 in Article 157(b),\n-\nEUR 130 000 in Article 158(1)(a),\n-\nEUR 200 000 in Article 158(1)(b),\n-\nEUR 5 000 000 in Article 158(1)(c).\nArticle 2\nDecision 2010/78/EU is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2012.", "references": ["69", "98", "83", "0", "63", "4", "86", "21", "11", "97", "94", "81", "96", "58", "92", "61", "49", "70", "82", "7", "34", "85", "62", "36", "38", "79", "15", "75", "17", "66", "No Label", "2", "10", "20", "32", "33"], "gold": ["2", "10", "20", "32", "33"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 25 October 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of an Agreement between the Union and the Kingdom of Morocco establishing a Dispute Settlement Mechanism\n(2011/58/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 24 February 2006 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with partners in the Mediterranean region in order to establish a dispute settlement mechanism related to trade provisions.\n(2)\nNegotiations have been conducted by the Commission in consultation with the committee appointed pursuant to Article 207 of the Treaty and within the framework of the negotiating directives issued by the Council.\n(3)\nThese negotiations have been concluded and an Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco establishing a Dispute Settlement Mechanism (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) was initialled on 9 December 2009.\n(4)\nThis Agreement should be signed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco establishing a Dispute Settlement Mechanism is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (1).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 October 2010.", "references": ["41", "0", "87", "32", "63", "89", "80", "8", "1", "68", "38", "54", "7", "62", "56", "69", "73", "43", "67", "58", "20", "77", "42", "86", "52", "35", "17", "93", "22", "40", "No Label", "3", "5", "9", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 June 2011\nappointing five Slovenian members and three Slovenian alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/356/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Slovenian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nFive members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Ale\u0161 \u010cERIN, Ms Irena MAJCEN, Ms Jasmina VIDMAR, Mr Franci VOVK and Mr Anton Tone SMOLNIKAR. Three alternate members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Jure MEGLI\u010c, Mr Sini\u0161a GERMOV\u0160EK and Ms Darja DELA\u010c FELDA,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMr Peter BOSSMAN, \u017eupan ob\u010din Piran\n-\nMr Mitja MER\u0160OL, \u010dlan ob\u010dinskega sveta MO Ljubljana\n-\nMs Andreja POTO\u010cNIK, pod\u017eupanja ob\u010dine Tr\u017ei\u010d\n-\nDr Ivan \u017dAGAR, \u017eupan ob\u010dine Slovenska Bistrica\n-\nMs Barbara \u017dGAJNER TAV\u0160, pod\u017eupanja ob\u010dine Trbovlje\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMs Ladislava FURLAN, pod\u017eupanja ob\u010dine Logatec\n-\nMr Anton KOKALJ, \u010dlan ob\u010dinskega sveta ob\u010dine Vodice\n-\nMs Tanja VINDI\u0160 FURMAN, \u010dlanica ob\u010dinskega sveta MO Maribor.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 10 June 2011.", "references": ["21", "11", "0", "51", "40", "71", "29", "5", "47", "24", "22", "49", "27", "82", "3", "6", "38", "78", "19", "4", "77", "53", "37", "94", "58", "2", "50", "42", "79", "14", "No Label", "7", "52", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "52", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1218/2011\nof 24 November 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1199/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 November 2011.", "references": ["52", "41", "45", "42", "6", "59", "4", "75", "11", "25", "44", "93", "53", "12", "83", "78", "58", "95", "14", "90", "39", "60", "29", "15", "92", "89", "96", "79", "0", "68", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU, EURATOM) No 1190/2010\nof 13 December 2010\namending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and in particular Article 12 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), and in particular Articles 63, 64, 65 and 82 of the Staff Regulations and Annexes VII, XI and XIII thereto, and Articles 20(1), 64, 92 and 132 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy judgment of 24 November 2010 in Case C-40/10, the Court of Justice annulled Article 2 and Articles 4 to 18 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 (2). Pursuant to Article 266 of the Treaty, the Council is required to take the necessary measures to comply with this judgment.\n(2)\nIn order to guarantee that the purchasing power of Union officials and other servants develops in parallel with that of national civil servants in the Member States, the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union should be adjusted under the 2009 annual review as proposed by the Commission.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, the table of basic monthly salaries in Article 66 of the Staff Regulations applicable for the purposes of calculating remuneration and pensions is replaced by the following:\n1.7.2009\nSTEP\nGRADE\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n16\n16 902,14\n17 612,39\n18 352,49\n15\n14 938,67\n15 566,42\n16 220,54\n16 671,82\n16 902,14\n14\n13 203,29\n13 758,11\n14 336,24\n14 735,10\n14 938,67\n13\n11 669,50\n12 159,87\n12 670,85\n13 023,37\n13 203,29\n12\n10 313,89\n10 747,30\n11 198,91\n11 510,48\n11 669,50\n11\n9 115,76\n9 498,82\n9 897,97\n10 173,34\n10 313,89\n10\n8 056,81\n8 395,37\n8 748,15\n8 991,54\n9 115,76\n9\n7 120,87\n7 420,10\n7 731,90\n7 947,02\n8 056,81\n8\n6 293,66\n6 558,13\n6 833,71\n7 023,84\n7 120,87\n7\n5 562,55\n5 796,29\n6 039,86\n6 207,90\n6 293,66\n6\n4 916,36\n5 122,95\n5 338,23\n5 486,75\n5 562,55\n5\n4 345,24\n4 527,84\n4 718,10\n4 849,37\n4 916,36\n4\n3 840,47\n4 001,85\n4 170,01\n4 286,03\n4 345,24\n3\n3 394,33\n3 536,97\n3 685,60\n3 788,13\n3 840,47\n2\n3 000,02\n3 126,09\n3 257,45\n3 348,08\n3 394,33\n1\n2 651,52\n2 762,94\n2 879,04\n2 959,14\n3 000,02.\u2019\n(2)\nArticles 4 to 17 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, the amount of the parental leave allowance referred to in the second and third paragraphs of Article 42a of the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 910,82, and shall be EUR 1 214,42 for single parents.\nArticle 5\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, the basic amount of the household allowance referred to in Article 1(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 170,35.\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, the amount of the dependent child allowance referred to in Article 2(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 372,24.\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, the amount of the education allowance referred to in Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 252,56.\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, the amount of the education allowance referred to in Article 3(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 90,93.\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, the minimum amount of the expatriation allowance referred to in Article 69 of the Staff Regulations and in the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Annex VII thereto shall be EUR 504,89.\nWith effect from 14 July 2009, the expatriation allowance referred to in Article 134 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be EUR 362,95.\nArticle 6\nWith effect from 1 January 2010, the kilometric allowance referred to in Article 8(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be adjusted as follows:\nEUR 0 for every km from\n0 to 200 km\nEUR 0,3786 for every km from\n201 to 1 000 km\nEUR 0,6310 for every km from\n1 001 to 2 000 km\nEUR 0,3786 for every km from\n2 001 to 3 000 km\nEUR 0,1261 for every km from\n3 001 to 4 000 km\nEUR 0,0608 for every km from\n4 001 to 10 000 km\nEUR 0 for every km over\n10 000 km.\nTo the above kilometric allowance a flat-rate supplement shall be added, amounting to:\n-\nEUR 189,29 if the distance by train between the place of employment and the place of origin is between 725 km and 1 450 km,\n-\nEUR 378,55 if the distance by train between the place of employment and the place of origin is greater than 1 450 km.\nArticle 7\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, the daily subsistence allowance referred to in Article 10(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be:\n-\nEUR 39,13 for an official who is entitled to the household allowance,\n-\nEUR 31,55 for an official who is not entitled to the household allowance.\nArticle 8\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, the lower limit for the installation allowance referred to in Article 24(3) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be:\n-\nEUR 1 113,88 for a servant who is entitled to the household allowance,\n-\nEUR 662,31 for a servant who is not entitled to the household allowance.\nArticle 9\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, for the unemployment allowance referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 28a(3) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, the lower limit shall be EUR 1 335,85, the upper limit shall be EUR 2 671,72 and the standard allowance shall be EUR 1 214,42.\nArticle 10\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, the table of basic monthly salaries in Article 93 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be replaced by the following:\nFUNCTION GROUP\n1.7.2009\nSTEP\nGRADE\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nIV\n18\n5 826,60\n5 947,77\n6 071,45\n6 197,71\n6 326,60\n6 458,17\n6 592,47\n17\n5 149,70\n5 256,79\n5 366,11\n5 477,70\n5 591,61\n5 707,90\n5 826,60\n16\n4 551,44\n4 646,09\n4 742,71\n4 841,34\n4 942,01\n5 044,79\n5 149,70\n15\n4 022,68\n4 106,33\n4 191,73\n4 278,90\n4 367,88\n4 458,72\n4 551,44\n14\n3 555,35\n3 629,29\n3 704,76\n3 781,80\n3 860,45\n3 940,73\n4 022,68\n13\n3 142,31\n3 207,66\n3 274,36\n3 342,46\n3 411,96\n3 482,92\n3 555,35\nIII\n12\n4 022,61\n4 106,26\n4 191,65\n4 278,81\n4 367,79\n4 458,61\n4 551,33\n11\n3 555,31\n3 629,24\n3 704,71\n3 781,75\n3 860,39\n3 940,66\n4 022,61\n10\n3 142,29\n3 207,64\n3 274,34\n3 342,43\n3 411,93\n3 482,88\n3 555,31\n9\n2 777,26\n2 835,01\n2 893,97\n2 954,14\n3 015,57\n3 078,28\n3 142,29\n8\n2 454,63\n2 505,67\n2 557,78\n2 610,97\n2 665,26\n2 720,68\n2 777,26\nII\n7\n2 777,20\n2 834,96\n2 893,93\n2 954,12\n3 015,56\n3 078,28\n3 142,31\n6\n2 454,51\n2 505,56\n2 557,68\n2 610,87\n2 665,18\n2 720,61\n2 777,20\n5\n2 169,32\n2 214,44\n2 260,50\n2 307,51\n2 355,51\n2 404,50\n2 454,51\n4\n1 917,26\n1 957,14\n1 997,84\n2 039,40\n2 081,82\n2 125,12\n2 169,32\nI\n3\n2 361,91\n2 410,93\n2 460,97\n2 512,05\n2 564,18\n2 617,40\n2 671,72\n2\n2 088,03\n2 131,37\n2 175,60\n2 220,76\n2 266,85\n2 313,89\n2 361,91\n1\n1 845,91\n1 884,22\n1 923,33\n1 963,24\n2 003,99\n2 045,58\n2 088,03\nArticle 11\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, the lower limit for the installation allowance referred to in Article 94 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be:\n-\nEUR 837,82 for a servant who is entitled to the household allowance,\n-\nEUR 496,72 for a servant who is not entitled to the household allowance.\nArticle 12\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, for the unemployment allowance referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 96(3) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, the lower limit shall be EUR 1 001,90, the upper limit shall be EUR 2 003,78 and the standard allowance shall be EUR 910,82.\nWith effect from 14 July 2009, for the unemployment allowance referred to in Article 136 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, the lower limit shall be EUR 881,45 and the upper limit shall be EUR 2 074,00.\nArticle 13\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, the allowances for shift work laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 (3) shall be EUR 381,79, EUR 576,26, EUR 630,06 and EUR 858,98 respectively.\nArticle 14\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, the amounts referred to in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 260/68 (4) shall be subject to a coefficient of 5,511255.\nArticle 15\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, the table in Article 8(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations shall be replaced by the following:\n1.7.2009\nSTEP\nGRADE\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n16\n16 902,14\n17 612,39\n18 352,49\n18 352,49\n18 352,49\n18 352,49\n15\n14 938,67\n15 566,42\n16 220,54\n16 671,82\n16 902,14\n17 612,39\n14\n13 203,29\n13 758,11\n14 336,24\n14 735,10\n14 938,67\n15 566,42\n16 220,54\n16 902,14\n13\n11 669,50\n12 159,87\n12 670,85\n13 023,37\n13 203,29\n12\n10 313,89\n10 747,30\n11 198,91\n11 510,48\n11 669,50\n12 159,87\n12 670,85\n13 203,29\n11\n9 115,76\n9 498,82\n9 897,97\n10 173,34\n10 313,89\n10 747,30\n11 198,91\n11 669,50\n10\n8 056,81\n8 395,37\n8 748,15\n8 991,54\n9 115,76\n9 498,82\n9 897,97\n10 313,89\n9\n7 120,87\n7 420,10\n7 731,90\n7 947,02\n8 056,81\n8\n6 293,66\n6 558,13\n6 833,71\n7 023,84\n7 120,87\n7 420,10\n7 731,90\n8 056,81\n7\n5 562,55\n5 796,29\n6 039,86\n6 207,90\n6 293,66\n6 558,13\n6 833,71\n7 120,87\n6\n4 916,36\n5 122,95\n5 338,23\n5 486,75\n5 562,55\n5 796,29\n6 039,86\n6 293,66\n5\n4 345,24\n4 527,84\n4 718,10\n4 849,37\n4 916,36\n5 122,95\n5 338,23\n5 562,55\n4\n3 840,47\n4 001,85\n4 170,01\n4 286,03\n4 345,24\n4 527,84\n4 718,10\n4 916,36\n3\n3 394,33\n3 536,97\n3 685,60\n3 788,13\n3 840,47\n4 001,85\n4 170,01\n4 345,24\n2\n3 000,02\n3 126,09\n3 257,45\n3 348,08\n3 394,33\n3 536,97\n3 685,60\n3 840,47\n1\n2 651,52\n2 762,94\n2 879,04\n2 959,14\n3 000,02\nArticle 16\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, for the purposes of application of Article 18(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, the amount of the fixed allowance referred to in the former Article 4a of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in force before 1 May 2004 shall be:\n-\nEUR 131,71 per month for officials in Grade C 4 or C 5,\n-\nEUR 201,94 per month for officials in Grade C 1, C 2 or C 3.\nArticle 17\nWith effect from 14 July 2009, the scale for basic monthly salaries in Article 133 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be replaced by the following:\nGrade\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nFull-time basic salary\n1 679,08\n1 956,12\n2 120,85\n2 299,45\n2 493,09\n2 703,03\n2 930,66\nGrade\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\nFull-time basic salary\n3 177,45\n3 445,03\n3 735,14\n4 049,67\n4 390,70\n4 760,44\n5 161,33\nGrade\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\nFull-time basic salary\n5 595,96\n6 067,21\n6 578,13\n7 132,08\n7 732,68\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["92", "93", "50", "98", "71", "29", "46", "68", "90", "78", "62", "42", "69", "64", "99", "56", "32", "85", "96", "55", "18", "87", "38", "81", "49", "3", "14", "57", "6", "23", "No Label", "2", "7", "37", "52"], "gold": ["2", "7", "37", "52"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 3 October 2011\nappointing six Polish members and six Polish alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/660/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Polish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nSix members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Jacek CZERNIAK, Mr Konstanty DOMBROWICZ, Mr Marcin JAB\u0141O\u0143SKI, Mr Witold KROCHMAL, Mr Marek NAWARA and Mr Bogus\u0142aw \u015aMIGIELSKI. Five alternate members\u2019 seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Jan DZIUBI\u0143SKI, Mr W\u0142adys\u0142aw HUSEJKO, Mr Tadeusz KOWALCZYK, Mr Andrzej MATUSIEWICZ and Mr Robert SOSZY\u0143SKI. An alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Pawel ADAMOWICZ as a member of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMr Pawe\u0142 ADAMOWICZ, Prezydent Miasta Gda\u0144ska,\n-\nMr Olgierd GEBLEWICZ, Marsza\u0142ek Wojew\u00f3dztwa Zachodniopomorskiego,\n-\nMr Krzysztof HETMAN, Marsza\u0142ek Wojew\u00f3dztwa Lubelskiego,\n-\nMr Witold KROCHMAL, Radny Miasta i Gminy Wo\u0142\u00f3w (change of mandate),\n-\nMr Marek SOWA, Marsza\u0142ek Wojew\u00f3dztwa Ma\u0142opolskiego,\n-\nMr Witold ST\u0118PIE\u0143, Marsza\u0142ek Wojew\u00f3dztwa \u0141\u00f3dzkiego;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMr Jacek CZERNIAK, Radny Wojew\u00f3dztwa Lubelskiego,\n-\nMr Marcin JAB\u0141O\u0143SKI, Radny Wojew\u00f3dztwa Lubuskiego,\n-\nMr Bogdan DYJUK, Przewodnicz\u0105cy Sejmiku Wojew\u00f3dztwa Pod\u0142askiego,\n-\nMr Arkadiusz GODLEWSKI, Przewodnicz\u0105cy Rady Miasta Katowice,\n-\nMs Teresa KUBAS-HUL, Przewodnicz\u0105ca Sejmiku Wojew\u00f3dztwa Podkarpackiego,\n-\nMs Hanna ZDANOWSKA, Prezydent Miasta \u0141odzi.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 3 October 2011.", "references": ["0", "86", "56", "21", "58", "72", "26", "2", "70", "83", "34", "41", "9", "68", "75", "49", "17", "66", "62", "15", "54", "67", "43", "5", "92", "10", "71", "84", "1", "36", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 868/2010\nof 30 September 2010\nfixing the representative prices and additional import duties applicable to molasses in the sugar sector from 1 October 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), lays down that the cif import price for molasses is to be considered the representative price. That price is fixed for the standard quality defined in Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(2)\nFor the purposes of fixing the representative prices, account must be taken of all the information provided for in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, except in the cases provided for in Article 30 of that Regulation and those prices should be fixed, where appropriate, in accordance with the method provided for in Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nPrices not relating to the standard quality should be adjusted upwards or downwards, according to the quality of the molasses offered, in accordance with Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(4)\nWhere there is a difference between the trigger price for the product concerned and the representative price, additional import duties should be fixed under the terms laid down in Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006. Should the import duties be suspended pursuant to Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, specific amounts for these duties should be fixed.\n(5)\nThe representative prices and additional import duties for the products concerned should be fixed in accordance with Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and the additional duties applying to imports of the products referred to in Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 September 2010.", "references": ["6", "18", "34", "66", "44", "78", "26", "30", "86", "55", "24", "9", "43", "1", "95", "17", "84", "7", "41", "46", "3", "67", "49", "92", "15", "60", "54", "27", "40", "47", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/59/EU\nof 13 May 2011\namending, for the purpose of adaptation to technical progress, Annexes II and III to Council Directive 76/768/EEC relating to cosmetic products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFollowing the publication of a scientific study in 2001, entitled \u2018Use of permanent hair dyes and bladder cancer risk\u2019, the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products intended for Consumers, subsequently replaced by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (\u2018SCCP\u2019), pursuant to Commission Decision 2004/210/EC (2), concluded that the potential risks were of concern. The SCCP recommended that the Commission take further steps to control the use of hair dye substances.\n(2)\nThe SCCP further recommended an overall safety assessment strategy for hair dye substances including the requirements for testing substances used in hair dye products for their potential genotoxicity/mutagenicity.\n(3)\nFollowing the opinions of the SCCP, the Commission agreed with Member States and stakeholders on an overall strategy to regulate substances used in hair dye products according to which the industry was required to submit files, containing updated scientific data on the safety of hair dye substances, for a risk assessment by the SCCP.\n(4)\nThe SCCP, subsequently replaced by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (\u2018SCCS\u2019) pursuant to Commission Decision 2008/721/EC of 5 August 2008 setting up an advisory structure of Scientific Committees and experts in the field of consumer safety, public health and the environment and repealing Decision 2004/210/EC (3), assessed the safety of individual substances for which updated files had been submitted by industry.\n(5)\nThe last step of the safety assessment strategy was to evaluate possible consumer health risk by reaction products formed by oxidative hair dye substances during the hair dyeing process. In its opinion of 21 September 2010 the SCCS did not raise any major concern regarding genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of hair dyes and their reaction products currently used in the Union.\n(6)\nSome hair dye substances are provisionally authorised for use in hair dye products until 31 December 2010 under the restrictions and conditions laid down in Part 2 of Annex III to Directive 76/768/EEC.\n(7)\nIn the light of the risk assessment of the submitted safety data and the final opinions given by the SCCS on the safety of individual substances and of the reaction products, it is appropriate to include in Part 1 of Annex III to Directive 76/768/EEC provisionally authorised hair dye substances, currently listed in Part 2 of that Annex.\n(8)\nThe safety assessment by the SCCS concerning the substances hydroxyethyl-2-nitro-p-toluidine and HC Red No 10 + HC Red No 11, listed in Part 2 of Annex III to Directive 76/768/EEC, could not be finalised before 31 December 2010. Therefore, the provisional use of the substances should be prolonged until 31 December 2011.\n(9)\nConcerning the substance o-aminophenol, the SCCS stated in its opinion of 22 June 2010 that based on the available data no final conclusion on the safety of that substance could be drawn. Based on that opinion o-aminophenol cannot be considered safe when used in hair dye products and should therefore be listed in Annex II to Directive 76/768/EEC.\n(10)\nDirective 76/768/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Cosmetic Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Directive 76/768/EEC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 3 January 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 3 January 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 May 2011.", "references": ["55", "20", "53", "65", "44", "19", "26", "66", "1", "12", "6", "42", "75", "41", "48", "57", "68", "35", "90", "54", "91", "67", "5", "43", "11", "99", "7", "28", "97", "16", "No Label", "24", "25", "83"], "gold": ["24", "25", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 634/2012\nof 12 July 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 616/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2012.", "references": ["87", "28", "47", "25", "44", "3", "86", "41", "79", "17", "43", "23", "65", "45", "51", "64", "95", "88", "76", "59", "36", "30", "69", "60", "20", "70", "50", "13", "29", "96", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 26/2011\nof 14 January 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of vitamin E as a feed additive for all animal species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).\n(2)\nVitamin E was authorised without time limit as a feed additive for use in all animal species by Directive 70/524/EEC as part of the group \u2018Vitamins, pro-vitamins and chemically well-defined substances having similar effect\u2019. That additive was subsequently entered in the Register of feed additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 of that Regulation, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of vitamin E as a feed additive for all animal species, requesting that additive to be classified in the additive category \u2018nutritional additives\u2019. The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 25 May 2010 that, under the proposed conditions of use, vitamin E does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer health or the environment (3). It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of vitamin E shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that additive should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nSince the modifications on the conditions of the authorisation are not related to safety reasons, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for the disposal of existing stocks of the premixtures and compound feed.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparations specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018nutritional additives\u2019 are authorised as additives in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nFeed containing vitamin E labelled in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC or Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 may continue to be placed on the market and used until stocks are exhausted.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 January 2011.", "references": ["97", "35", "14", "19", "32", "85", "63", "71", "34", "45", "61", "27", "84", "43", "78", "58", "11", "49", "77", "44", "1", "96", "5", "93", "65", "70", "30", "83", "23", "41", "No Label", "38", "66", "72", "74"], "gold": ["38", "66", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 491/2011\nof 19 May 2011\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 May 2011.", "references": ["18", "65", "83", "46", "27", "0", "56", "45", "85", "44", "86", "95", "92", "87", "5", "3", "81", "42", "50", "53", "93", "17", "84", "20", "74", "60", "77", "97", "54", "71", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1134/2011\nof 9 November 2011\nconcerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance cinidon-ethyl, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 20 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe active substance cinidon-ethyl was included in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2) for a period expiring on 30 September 2012.\n(2)\nTo enable applicants to prepare their applications and to enable the Commission to evaluate and decide upon such applications, that inclusion was extended until 31 December 2015 by Commission Directive 2010/77/EU of 10 November 2010 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the expiry dates for inclusion in Annex I of certain active substances (3).\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 78(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 that substance was included in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (4) and is to be deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(4)\nThe Commission did not, however, receive any applications for the active substance concerned and the time period for the submission of such applications, as provided for in Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1141/2010 of 7 December 2010 laying down the procedure for the renewal of the inclusion of a second group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and establishing the list of those substances (5), has expired.\n(5)\nConsequently, the approval of that active substance should not be renewed and it should be removed from Part A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as from the date on which its approval would have expired had it not been extended by Directive 2010/77/EU.\n(6)\nThis Regulation does not prejudice the submission of an application for this substance pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nNon-renewal of approval\nThe approval of the active substance cinidon-ethyl is not renewed.\nArticle 2\nGrace periods\nAny grace period granted by a Member State for plant protection products containing cinidon-ethyl shall expire on 31 March 2013 at the latest for the sale and distribution and on 31 March 2014 at the latest for the disposal, storage, and use of existing stocks.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nPart A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2011.", "references": ["80", "8", "96", "33", "13", "17", "41", "89", "53", "54", "81", "63", "0", "99", "28", "62", "60", "50", "48", "74", "12", "29", "32", "90", "4", "1", "38", "78", "22", "49", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/43/EU\nof 1 July 2010\nimplementing Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements, conflicts of interest, conduct of business, risk management and content of the agreement between a depositary and a management company\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (1), and in particular Article 12(3), Article 14(2), Article 23(6), Article 33(6) and Article 51(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe rules and terminology on the organisational requirements, conflicts of interest and conduct of business should be aligned to the greatest possible extent with the standards introduced in the financial services area by Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (2) and Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive (3). Such alignment, while taking due account of the specificities of the collective portfolio management business, would allow the achievement of equal standards not only between different financial services sectors but also within asset management business more widely, where certain requirements of Directive 2006/73/EC have already been extended by some Member States to UCITS management companies.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to adopt these rules in the form of a Directive in order to enable the implementing provisions to be adjusted to the specificities of the particular market and legal system in each Member State. A directive will also enable a maximum level of consistency with the regime created by Directive 2006/73/EC.\n(3)\nEven though the principles laid down in this Directive have general relevance for all management companies, they are flexible enough to ensure that their application and the supervision of such application by competent authorities is proportionate and takes into account the nature, scale and complexity of a management company\u2019s business and the diversity of the companies falling within the scope of application of Directive 2009/65/EC, and the varied nature of the different UCITS that may be managed by a management company.\n(4)\nAs far as allowed by national law, management companies should be able to make arrangements for third parties to carry out some of their activities. The implementing rules should be read accordingly. The management company should in particular perform due diligence in order to determine whether, having regard to the nature of the functions to be carried out by third parties, the undertaking performing those activities can be considered as qualified and capable of undertaking the functions in question. The third party should therefore fulfil all the organisational and conflicts of interest requirements in relation to the activity to be carried out. It also follows that the management company should verify that the third party has taken the appropriate measures in order to comply with the said requirements and should monitor effectively the compliance by the third party with these requirements. Where the delegatee is responsible for applying the rules governing the delegated activities, equivalent organisational and conflict of interests requirements should apply to the activity of monitoring the delegated activities. The management company should be able to take into account in the due diligence process the fact that the third party to whom activities are delegated will often be subject to Directive 2004/39/EC.\n(5)\nTo avoid the application of different standards to management companies and investment companies which have not designated a management company, the latter should be subject to the same rules of conduct and provisions regarding conflicts of interest and risk management as management companies. Therefore, the rules of this Directive on administrative procedures and internal control mechanism should, as a matter of good practice, apply both to management companies and investment companies that have not designated a management company, taking into account the principle of proportionality.\n(6)\nDirective 2009/65/EC requires management companies to have sound administrative procedures. In order to comply with this requirement management companies should establish a well-documented organisational structure that clearly assigns responsibilities and ensures good flows of information between all parties involved. Management companies should also establish systems to safeguard information and ensure business continuity and which are sufficient to allow them to discharge their obligations in cases where their activities are performed by third parties.\n(7)\nManagement companies should also maintain the necessary resources, in particular, to employ personnel with the right skills, knowledge and experience in order to be able to fulfil their duties.\n(8)\nWith respect to safe data processing procedures and the obligation to reconstruct all transactions involving the UCITS the management company should have arrangements in place which permit a timely and proper recording of each transaction carried out on behalf of the UCITS.\n(9)\nAccounting is one of the key areas of UCITS administration. It is therefore of paramount importance that the accounting procedures are further specified in the implementing legislation. This Directive should therefore uphold the principles that all assets and liabilities of a UCITS or of its investment compartments can be directly identified, and that accounts should be separate. In addition, where different share classes exist depending on, for example, the level of management fees, it should be possible to extract directly from the accounting the net asset value of those different classes.\n(10)\nThe clear allocation of the responsibilities of senior management and the supervisory function are central for the implementation of appropriate internal control mechanisms as required by Directive 2009/65/EC. This entails that the senior management should be responsible for the implementation of the general investment policy as referred to in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 583/2010 of 1 July 2010 implementing Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards key investor information and conditions to be met when providing key investor information or the prospectus in a durable medium other than paper or by means of a website (4). Senior management should also maintain the responsibility for the investment strategies which are the general indications concerning the strategic asset allocation of the UCITS and the investment techniques which are needed to adequately and effectively implement the investment policy. The clear division of responsibilities should also ensure that adequate control exists so as to ensure the assets of the UCITS are invested according to the fund rules or the instruments of incorporation and the applicable legal provisions and that risk limits of each UCITS are complied with. The allocation of responsibilities should be consistent with the role and responsibilities of the senior management and the supervisory function under applicable national law and corporate governance codes. It is possible that senior management includes several or all members of the board of directors.\n(11)\nTo ensure that a management company has an adequate control mechanism, a permanent compliance function and an internal audit function are necessary. The compliance function should be designed in such a way as to ensure that it may detect any risk of failure by the management company to comply with its obligations under Directive 2009/65/EC. The audit function should aim at verifying and evaluating the different control procedures and administrative arrangements the management company has put in place.\n(12)\nIt is necessary to allow management companies some flexibility in structuring the organisation of their risk management. Where it is not appropriate or proportionate to have a separate risk management function, the management company should nevertheless be able to demonstrate that specific safeguards against conflicts of interest allow for an independent performance of risk management activities.\n(13)\nDirective 2009/65/EC obliges management companies to put rules in place on personal transactions. In accordance with Directive 2006/73/EC, management companies should prevent their employees who are subject to conflicts of interest or in possession of insider information, within the meaning of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (5), from entering into personal transactions that are the consequence of a misuse of information they have acquired through their professional activity.\n(14)\nDirective 2009/65/EC requires that management companies ensure that each portfolio transaction involving the UCITS can be reconstructed according to its origin, the parties to it, its nature, and the time and place at which it was executed. Therefore, it is necessary to lay down requirements for recording of portfolio transactions and of subscription and redemption orders.\n(15)\nDirective 2009/65/EC requires UCITS management companies to have appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure fair treatment of UCITS in cases of unavoidable conflicts of interest. Therefore, management companies should make sure that in these cases senior management or other competent internal body of the management company are promptly informed, in order to for them to take any necessary decision to ensure the fair treatment of the UCITS and of its unit-holders.\n(16)\nManagement companies should be requested to adopt, apply and maintain an effective and adequate strategy for the exercise of voting rights attached to the financial instruments held by the UCITS they manage, with a view to ensuring that such rights are exercised to the exclusive benefit of UCITS. Information related to the strategy and its application should be freely available to investors, including via a website. As the case may be, the decision not to exercise voting rights could be considered in certain circumstances as being to the exclusive benefit of the UCITS depending upon its investment strategy. However the possibility for an investment company to vote itself or to give specific voting instructions to its management company should not be excluded.\n(17)\nThe obligation to inform senior management or other competent internal body of the management company in order for them to take necessary decisions should not limit the duty of the management companies and the UCITS to report on situations where the organisational or administrative arrangements for conflicts of interest were not sufficient to ensure, with reasonable confidence, the prevention of the risk of damage, for instance in their periodic reports. Such reporting should explain and give reasons for the decision taken by the management company, even where a decision is taken not to act, taking into account the internal policies and procedures adopted to identify, prevent and manage conflicts of interest.\n(18)\nDirective 2009/65/EC obliges management companies to act in the best interest of the UCITS they manage and the integrity of the market. Certain behaviour, such as market timing and late trading, may have detrimental effects on unit-holders and may undermine the functioning of the market. Therefore, management companies should have appropriate procedures in place to prevent malpractices. Furthermore, management companies should put in place appropriate procedures to guard against unreasonable charges and activities such as excessive trading, taking into account the UCITS investment objectives and policy.\n(19)\nManagement companies should also act in the best interest of the UCITS when directly executing orders to deal on behalf of the UCITS they manage or by transmitting them to third parties. When executing orders on behalf of the UCITS, management companies should take all reasonable steps to obtain the best possible result for the UCITS on a consistent basis, taking into account price, costs, speed, likelihood of execution and settlement, size and nature of the order or any other consideration relevant to the execution of the order.\n(20)\nIn order to ensure that management companies act with due skill, care and diligence in the best interests of the UCITS they manage as required by 2009/65/EC Directive, it is necessary to lay down rules on order handling.\n(21)\nCertain fees, commissions or non-monetary benefits which may be paid to or by a management company should not be permitted as they could have an impact on the observance of the requirements laid down in 2009/65/EC Directive that the management company should act honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of the UCITS. Therefore, it is necessary to set out clear rules specifying where the payments of fees, commissions and non-monetary benefits are not considered a violation of those principles.\n(22)\nThe cross-border activities of the management company create new challenges for the relationship between the management company and the UCITS\u2019 depositary. To ensure the necessary legal certainty, the main elements of the agreement between the UCITS\u2019 depositary and the management company, where that management company is established in a Member State other than the UCITS\u2019 home Member State, should be specified in this Directive. Given the need to ensure that this agreement properly serves its purpose it is necessary to provide for conflict of law rules which derogate from Articles 3 and 4 of the Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (6) in such a way that the applicable law to this agreement should be the law of the UCITS\u2019 home Member State.\n(23)\nDirective 2009/65/EC contains an obligation to specify the criteria for assessing the adequacy of a management company\u2019s risk management process. Such criteria focus on the establishment of an adequate and documented risk management policy to be employed by management companies. This policy should enable the management companies to assess the risks of the positions taken within the portfolios they manage and the contributions of these individual risks to the overall risk profile of the portfolio. The organisation of the risk management policy should be adequate and proportionate to the nature, scale and complexity of the management company\u2019s activities and of the UCITS it manages.\n(24)\nThe periodical assessment, monitoring and review of the risk management policy by management companies are also a criterion to assess the adequacy of the risk management process. This criterion also includes the review of the effectiveness of measures taken to address any deficiencies in the performance of the risk management process.\n(25)\nAs an essential element in the criteria for assessing the adequacy of risk management processes, proportionate and effective risk measurement techniques should be adopted by management companies in order to measure at any time the risks which the UCITS they manage are or might be exposed to. These requirements are based on common practices agreed by competent authorities of Member States. They include both quantitative measures, as regards quantifiable risks, and qualitative methods. Electronic data processing systems and tools used for the computation of quantitative measures should be integrated with one another or with the front-office and accounting applications. Risk measurement techniques should allow for an adequate measurement of risks in periods of increased market turbulence and be reviewed whenever necessary in the interest of unit-holders. They should also allow adequate assessment of the concentration and interaction of relevant risks at the portfolio level.\n(26)\nIt is the objective of a functioning risk management system that the investment limits set by Directive 2009/65/EC such as limits on global exposure and exposure to counterparty risk are respected by the management companies. Therefore criteria should be laid down as to how the global exposure should be calculated and how counterparty risk should be calculated.\n(27)\nIt is necessary in laying down such criteria that this Directive clarifies how the global exposure can be calculated, including by using the commitment approach, the value at risk approach or advanced risk measurement methodologies. It should also lay down the main elements of the methodology according to which the management company should calculate the counterparty risk. In applying those rules, account should be taken of the conditions under which those methodologies are used, including the principles to be applied to such collateral arrangements to reduce the UCITS\u2019 exposure to counterparty risk as well as the use of the hedging and netting arrangements, as developed by competent authorities working within the Committee of European Securities Regulators.\n(28)\nAccording to Directive 2009/65/EC, management companies are obliged to employ a process for the accurate and independent assessment of the value of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. This Directive therefore lays down detailed rules for that process in accordance with Commission Directive 2007/16/EC of 19 March 2007 implementing Council Directive 85/611/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) as regards the clarification of certain definitions (7). As a matter of good practice, management companies should apply those requirements to instruments which expose UCITS to valuation risks equivalent to those raised by OTC derivatives, such as those relating to product illiquidity and/or the complexity of the pay-off structure. Accordingly, management companies should adopt arrangements and procedures consistent with the requirements set out in Article 44 for the valuation of less liquid or complex transferable securities and money market instruments which require the use of model-based valuation methods.\n(29)\nDirective 2009/65/EC obliges a management company to provide the relevant competent authorities with information with regard to the types of derivative instruments in which a UCITS has been invested, the underlying risks posed, applicable quantitative limits and methods chosen for estimating the risks associated with such transactions. The content and the procedure to be followed by a management company when discharging this obligation should be specified.\n(30)\nThe Committee of European Securities Regulators, established by Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (8) has been consulted for technical advice.\n(31)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the European Securities Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT-MATTER, SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Directive lays down rules implementing Directive 2009/65/EC:\n1.\nspecifying the procedures and arrangements as referred to under point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 12(1), and the structures and organisational requirements to minimise conflicts of interests as referred to under point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 12(1);\n2.\nestablishing criteria for acting honestly and fairly and with due skill, care and diligence in the best interests of the UCITS and the criteria for determining the types of conflict of interests, specifying the principles required to ensure that the resources are employed effectively, defining the steps that should be taken to identify, prevent, manage or disclose conflicts of interests referred to in Article 14(1) and (2);\n3.\nconcerning the particulars that need to be included in the agreements between the depository and management company in accordance with Articles 23(5) and 33(5); and\n4.\nconcerning the risk management process referred to in Article 51(1), in particular criteria for assessing the adequacy of the risk management process employed by the management company and the risk management policy and processes and the arrangements, processes and techniques for risk measurement and management relating to such criteria.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Directive shall apply to management companies pursuing the activity of management of an undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) as referred to in Article 6(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC.\nChapter V of this Directive shall also apply to depositaries carrying out their functions according to the provisions of Chapter IV and Section 3 of Chapter V of Directive 2009/65/EC.\n2. The provisions of this Chapter, Article 12 of Chapter II and Chapters III, IV and VI shall apply mutatis mutandis to investment companies that have not designated a management company authorised pursuant to Directive 2009/65/EC.\nIn those cases \u2018management company\u2019 shall be understood as \u2018investment company\u2019.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply in addition to the definitions set out in Directive 2009/65/EC:\n1.\n\u2018client\u2019 means any natural or legal person, or any other undertaking including a UCITS, to whom a management company provides a service of collective portfolio management or services pursuant to Article 6(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n2.\n\u2018unit-holder\u2019 means any natural or legal person holding one or more units in a UCITS;\n3.\n\u2018relevant person\u2019 in relation to a management company, means any of the following:\n(a)\na director, partner or equivalent, or manager of the management company;\n(b)\nan employee of the management company, as well as any other natural person whose services are placed at the disposal and under the control of the management company and who is involved in the provision by the management company of collective portfolio management;\n(c)\na natural person who is directly involved in the provision of services to the management company under a delegation arrangement to third parties for the purpose of the provision by the management company of collective portfolio management;\n4.\n\u2018senior management\u2019 means the person or persons who effectively conduct the business of a management company in accordance with Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n5.\n\u2018board of directors\u2019 means the board of directors of the management company;\n6.\n\u2018supervisory function\u2019 means the relevant persons or body or bodies responsible for the supervision of its senior management and for the assessment and periodical review of the adequacy and effectiveness of the risk management process and of the policies, arrangements and procedures put in place to comply with the obligations under Directive 2009/65/EC;\n7.\n\u2018counterparty risk\u2019 means the risk of loss for the UCITS resulting from the fact that the counterparty to a transaction may default on its obligations prior to the final settlement of the transaction\u2019s cash flow;\n8.\n\u2018liquidity risk\u2019 means the risk that a position in the UCITS portfolio cannot be sold, liquidated or closed at limited cost in an adequately short time frame and that the ability of the UCITS to comply at any time with Article 84(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC is thereby compromised;\n9.\n\u2018market risk\u2019 means the risk of loss for the UCITS resulting from fluctuation in the market value of positions in the UCITS\u2019 portfolio attributable to changes in market variables, such as interest rates, foreign exchange rates, equity and commodity prices or an issuer\u2019s credit worthiness;\n10.\n\u2018operational risk\u2019 means the risk of loss for the UCITS resulting from inadequate internal processes and failures in relation to people and systems of the management company or from external events, and includes legal and documentation risk and risk resulting from the trading, settlement and valuation procedures operated on behalf of the UCITS.\nThe term \u2018board of directors\u2019 defined in point 5 of the first paragraph shall not comprise the supervisory board where management companies have a dual structure composed of a board of directors and a supervisory board.\nCHAPTER II\nADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND CONTROL MECHANISM\n(Article 12(1)(a) and Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2009/65/EC)\nSECTION 1\nGeneral principles\nArticle 4\nGeneral requirements on procedures and organisation\n1. Member States shall require management companies to comply with the following requirements:\n(a)\nto establish, implement and maintain decision-making procedures and an organisational structure which clearly and in a documented manner specifies reporting lines and allocates functions and responsibilities;\n(b)\nto ensure that their relevant persons are aware of the procedures which must be followed for the proper discharge of their responsibilities;\n(c)\nto establish, implement and maintain adequate internal control mechanisms designed to secure compliance with decisions and procedures at all levels of the management company;\n(d)\nto establish, implement and maintain effective internal reporting and communication of information at all relevant levels of the management company as well as effective information flows with any third party involved;\n(e)\nto maintain adequate and orderly records of their business and internal organisation.\nMember States shall ensure that management companies take into account the nature, scale and complexity of the business of the management company, and the nature and range of services and activities undertaken in the course of that business.\n2. Member States shall require management companies to establish, implement and maintain systems and procedures that are adequate to safeguard the security, integrity and confidentiality of information, taking into account the nature of the information in question.\n3. Member States shall require management companies to establish, implement and maintain an adequate business continuity policy aimed at ensuring, in the case of an interruption to their systems and procedures, the preservation of essential data and functions, and the maintenance of services and activities, or, where that is not possible, the timely recovery of such data and functions and the timely resumption of their services and activities.\n4. Member States shall require management companies to establish, implement and maintain accounting policies and procedures that enable them, at the request of the competent authority, to deliver in a timely manner to the competent authority financial reports which reflect a true and fair view of their financial position and which comply with all applicable accounting standards and rules.\n5. Member States shall require management companies to monitor and, on a regular basis, evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of their systems, internal control mechanisms and arrangements established in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 4, and to take appropriate measures to address any deficiencies.\nArticle 5\nResources\n1. Member States shall require management companies to employ personnel with the skills, knowledge and expertise necessary for the discharge of the responsibilities allocated to them.\n2. Member States shall ensure that management companies retain the necessary resources and expertise so as to effectively monitor the activities carried out by third parties on the basis of an arrangement with the management company, especially with regard to the management of the risk associated with those arrangements.\n3. Member States shall require management companies to ensure that the performance of multiple functions by relevant persons does not and is not likely to prevent those relevant persons from discharging any particular function soundly, honestly, and professionally.\n4. Member States shall ensure that for the purposes laid down in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, management companies take into account the nature, scale and complexity of the business of the management company, and the nature and range of services and activities undertaken in the course of that business.\nSECTION 2\nAdministrative and accounting procedures\nArticle 6\nComplaints handling\n1. Member States shall require management companies to establish, implement and maintain effective and transparent procedures for the reasonable and prompt handling of complaints received from investors.\n2. Member States shall require management companies to ensure that each complaint and the measures taken for its resolution are recorded.\n3. Investors shall be able to file complaints free of charge. The information regarding procedures referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made available to investors free of charge.\nArticle 7\nElectronic data processing\n1. Member States shall require management companies to make appropriate arrangements for suitable electronic systems so as to permit a timely and proper recording of each portfolio transaction or subscription or redemption order in order to be able to comply with Articles 14 and 15.\n2. Member States shall require management companies to ensure a high level of security during the electronic data processing as well as integrity and confidentiality of the recorded information, as appropriate.\nArticle 8\nAccounting procedures\n1. Member States shall require management companies to ensure the employment of accounting policies and procedures as referred to in Article 4(4) so as to ensure the protection of unit-holders.\nUCITS accounting shall be kept in such a way that all assets and liabilities of the UCITS can be directly identified at all time.\nIf a UCITS has different investment compartments, separate accounts shall be maintained for those investment compartments.\n2. Member States shall require management companies to have accounting policies and procedures established, implemented and maintained, in accordance with the accounting rules of the UCITS\u2019 home Member States, so as to ensure that the calculation of the net asset value of each UCITS is accurately effected, on the basis of the accounting, and that subscription and redemption orders can be properly executed at that net asset value.\n3. Member States shall require management companies to establish appropriate procedures to ensure the proper and accurate valuation of the assets and liabilities of the UCITS, as consistent with the applicable rules referred to in Article 85 of Directive 2009/65/EC.\nSECTION 3\nInternal control mechanisms\nArticle 9\nControl by senior management and supervisory function\n1. Member States shall require management companies, when allocating functions internally, to ensure that senior management and, where appropriate, the supervisory function, are responsible for the management company\u2019s compliance with its obligations under Directive 2009/65/EC.\n2. The management company shall ensure that its senior management:\n(a)\nis responsible for the implementation of the general investment policy for each managed UCITS, as defined, where relevant, in the prospectus, the fund rules or the instruments of incorporation of the investment company;\n(b)\noversees the approval of investment strategies for each managed UCITS;\n(c)\nis responsible for ensuring that the management company has a permanent and effective compliance function, as referred to in Article 10, even if this function is performed by a third party;\n(d)\nensures and verifies on a periodic basis that the general investment policy, the investment strategies and the risk limits of each managed UCITS are properly and effectively implemented and complied with, even if the risk management function is performed by third parties;\n(e)\napproves and reviews on a periodic basis the adequacy of the internal procedures for undertaking investment decisions for each managed UCITS, so as to ensure that such decisions are consistent with the approved investment strategies;\n(f)\napproves and reviews on a periodic basis the risk management policy and arrangements, processes and techniques for implementing that policy, as referred to in Article 38, including the risk limit system for each managed UCITS.\n3. The management company shall also ensure that its senior management and, where appropriate, its supervisory function shall:\n(a)\nassess and periodically review the effectiveness of the policies, arrangements and procedures put in place to comply with the obligations in Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(b)\ntake appropriate measures to address any deficiencies.\n4. Member States shall require management companies to ensure that their senior management receives on a frequent basis, and at least annually, written reports on matters of compliance, internal audit and risk management indicating in particular whether appropriate remedial measures have been taken in the event of any deficiencies.\n5. Member States shall require management companies to ensure that their senior management receives on a regular basis reports on the implementation of investment strategies and of the internal procedures for taking investment decisions referred to in points (b) to (e) of the paragraph 2.\n6. Member States shall require management companies to ensure that the supervisory function, if any, receives on a regular basis written reports on the matters referred to in paragraph 4.\nArticle 10\nPermanent compliance function\n1. Member States shall ensure that management companies establish, implement and maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to detect any risk of failure by the management company to comply with its obligations under Directive 2009/65/EC, as well as the associated risks, and put in place adequate measures and procedures designed to minimise such risk and to enable the competent authorities to exercise their powers effectively under that Directive.\nMember States shall ensure that management companies take into account the nature, scale and complexity of the business of the company, and the nature and range of services and activities undertaken in the course of that business.\n2. Member States shall require management companies to establish and maintain a permanent and effective compliance function which operates independently and which has the following responsibilities:\n(a)\nto monitor and, on a regular basis, to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the measures, policies and procedures put in place in accordance with paragraph 1, and the actions taken to address any deficiencies in the management company\u2019s compliance with its obligations;\n(b)\nto advise and assist the relevant persons responsible for carrying out services and activities to comply with the management company\u2019s obligations under Directive 2009/65/EC.\n3. In order to enable the compliance function referred to in paragraph 2 to discharge its responsibilities properly and independently, management companies shall ensure that the following conditions are satisfied:\n(a)\nthe compliance function must have the necessary authority, resources, expertise and access to all relevant information;\n(b)\na compliance officer must be appointed and must be responsible for the compliance function and for any reporting on a frequent basis, and at least annually, to the senior management on matters of compliance, indicating in particular whether the appropriate remedial measures have been taken in the event of any deficiencies;\n(c)\nthe relevant persons involved in the compliance function must not be involved in the performance of services or activities they monitor;\n(d)\nthe method of determining the remuneration of the relevant persons involved in the compliance function must not compromise their objectivity and must not be likely to do so.\nHowever, a management company shall not be required to comply with point (c) or point (d) of the first subparagraph where it is able to demonstrate that in view of the nature, scale and complexity of its business, and the nature and range of its services and activities, that requirement is not proportionate and that its compliance function continues to be effective.\nArticle 11\nPermanent internal audit function\n1. Member States shall require management companies, where appropriate and proportionate in view of the nature, scale and complexity of their business and the nature and range of collective portfolio management activities undertaken in the course of that business, to establish and maintain an internal audit function which is separate and independent from the other functions and activities of the management company.\n2. The internal audit function referred to in paragraph 1 shall have the following responsibilities:\n(a)\nto establish, implement and maintain an audit plan to examine and evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the management company\u2019s systems, internal control mechanisms and arrangements;\n(b)\nto issue recommendations based on the result of work carried out in accordance with point (a);\n(c)\nto verify compliance with the recommendations referred to in point (b);\n(d)\nto report in relation to internal audit matters in accordance with Article 9(4).\nArticle 12\nPermanent risk management function\n1. Member States shall require management companies to establish and maintain a permanent risk management function.\n2. The permanent risk management function referred to in paragraph 1 shall be hierarchically and functionally independent from operating units.\nHowever, Member States may allow management companies to derogate from that obligation where the derogation is appropriate and proportionate in view of the nature, scale and complexity of the management company\u2019s business and of the UCITS it manages.\nA management company shall be able to demonstrate that appropriate safeguards against conflicts of interest have been adopted so as to allow an independent performance of risk management activities and that its risk management process satisfies the requirements of Article 51 of Directive 2009/65/EC.\n3. The permanent risk management function shall:\n(a)\nimplement the risk management policy and procedures;\n(b)\nensure compliance with the UCITS risk limit system, including statutory limits concerning global exposure and counterparty risk in accordance with Articles 41, 42 and 43;\n(c)\nprovide advice to the board of directors as regards the identification of the risk profile of each managed UCITS;\n(d)\nprovide regular reports to the board of directors and, where it exists, the supervisory function, on:\n(i)\nthe consistency between the current levels of risk incurred by each managed UCITS and the risk profile agreed for that UCITS;\n(ii)\nthe compliance of each managed UCITS with relevant risk limit systems;\n(iii)\nthe adequacy and effectiveness of the risk management process, indicating in particular whether appropriate remedial measures have been taken in the event of any deficiencies;\n(e)\nprovide regular reports to the senior management outlining the current level of risk incurred by each managed UCITS and any actual or foreseeable breaches to their limits, so as to ensure that prompt and appropriate action can be taken;\n(f)\nreview and support, where appropriate, the arrangements and procedures for the valuation of OTC derivatives as referred to in Article 44.\n4. The permanent risk management function shall have the necessary authority and access to all relevant information necessary to fulfil the tasks set out in paragraph 3.\nArticle 13\nPersonal transactions\n1. Member States shall require management companies to establish, implement and maintain adequate arrangements aimed at preventing the following activities in the case of any relevant person who is involved in activities that may give rise to a conflict of interest, or who has access to inside information within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/6/EC or to other confidential information relating to UCITS or transactions with or for UCITS by virtue of an activity carried out by him on behalf of the management company:\n(a)\nentering into a personal transaction which fulfils at least one of the following criteria:\n(i)\nthat person is prohibited from entering into that personal transaction within the meaning of Directive 2003/6/EC;\n(ii)\nit involves the misuse or improper disclosure of confidential information;\n(iii)\nit conflicts or is likely to conflict with an obligation of the management company under Directive 2009/65/EC or under Directive 2004/39/EC;\n(b)\nadvising or procuring, other than in the proper course of his employment or contract for services, any other person to enter into a transaction in financial instruments which, if a personal transaction of the relevant person, would be covered by point (a) of this paragraph or by points (a) or (b) of Article 25(2) of Directive 2006/73/EC, or would otherwise constitute a misuse of information relating to pending orders;\n(c)\ndisclosing, other than in the normal course of his employment or contract for services and without prejudice to Article 3(a) of Directive 2003/6/EC, any information or opinion to any other person if the relevant person knows, or reasonably ought to know, that as a result of that disclosure that other person will or would be likely to take either of the following steps:\n(i)\nto enter into a transaction in financial instruments which, where a personal transaction of the relevant person would be covered by point (a) of this paragraph or by points (a) or (b) of Article 25(2) of Directive 2006/73/EC, or would otherwise constitute a misuse of information relating to pending orders;\n(ii)\nto advise or procure another person to enter into such a transaction.\n2. The arrangements required under paragraph 1 shall in particular be designed to ensure that:\n(a)\neach relevant person covered by paragraph 1 is aware of the restrictions on personal transactions, and of the measures established by the management company in connection with personal transactions and disclosure, in accordance with paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe management company is informed promptly of any personal transaction entered into by a relevant person, either by notification of that transaction or by other procedures enabling the management company to identify such transactions;\n(c)\na record is kept of the personal transaction notified to the management company or identified by it, including any authorisation or prohibition in connection with such a transaction.\nFor the purposes of point (b) of the first subparagraph, where certain activities are performed by third parties, the management company shall ensure that the entity performing the activity maintains a record of personal transactions entered into by any relevant person and provides that information to the management company promptly on request.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the following kinds of personal transactions:\n(a)\npersonal transactions effected under a discretionary portfolio management service where there is no prior communication in connection with the transaction between the portfolio manager and the relevant person or other person for whose account the transaction is executed;\n(b)\npersonal transactions in UCITS or units in collective undertakings that are subject to supervision under the law of a Member State which requires an equivalent level of risk spreading in their assets, where the relevant person and any other person for whose account the transactions are effected are not involved in the management of that undertaking.\n4. For the purposes of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article, \u2018personal transaction\u2019 shall have the same meaning as in Article 11 of Directive 2006/73/EC.\nArticle 14\nRecording of portfolio transactions\n1. Member States shall require management companies to ensure, for each portfolio transaction relating to UCITS, that a record of information which is sufficient to reconstruct the details of the order and the executed transaction is produced without delay.\n2. The record referred to in paragraph 1 shall include:\n(a)\nthe name or other designation of the UCITS and of the person acting on account of the UCITS;\n(b)\nthe details necessary to identify the instrument in question;\n(c)\nthe quantity;\n(d)\nthe type of the order or transaction;\n(e)\nthe price;\n(f)\nfor orders, the date and exact time of the transmission of the order and name or other designation of the person to whom the order was transmitted, or for transactions, the date and exact time of the decision to deal and execution of the transaction;\n(g)\nthe name of the person transmitting the order or executing the transaction;\n(h)\nwhere applicable, the reasons for the revocation of an order;\n(i)\nfor executed transactions, the counterparty and execution venue identification.\nFor the purposes of point (i) of the first subparagraph, an \u2018execution venue\u2019 shall mean a regulated market as referred to under Article 4(1)(14) of Directive 2004/39/EC, a multilateral trading facility as referred to in Article 4(1)(15) of that Directive, a systematic internaliser as referred to in Article 4(1)(7) of that Directive, or a market maker or other liquidity provider or an entity that performs a similar function in a third country to the functions performed by any of the foregoing.\nArticle 15\nRecording of subscription and redemption orders\n1. Member States shall require management companies to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the received UCITS subscription and redemption orders are centralised and recorded immediately after receipt of any such order.\n2. That record shall include information on the following:\n(a)\nthe relevant UCITS;\n(b)\nthe person giving or transmitting the order;\n(c)\nthe person receiving the order;\n(d)\nthe date and time of the order;\n(e)\nthe terms and means of payment;\n(f)\nthe type of the order;\n(g)\nthe date of execution of the order;\n(h)\nthe number of units subscribed or redeemed;\n(i)\nthe subscription or redemption price for each unit;\n(j)\nthe total subscription or redemption value of the units;\n(k)\nthe gross value of the order including charges for subscription or net amount after charges for redemption.\nArticle 16\nRecordkeeping requirements\n1. Member States shall require management companies to ensure the retention of the records referred to in Articles 14 and 15 for a period of at least 5 years.\nHowever, competent authorities may, in exceptional circumstances, require management companies to retain any or all of those records for a longer period, determined by the nature of the instrument or portfolio transaction, where it is necessary to enable the authority to exercise its supervisory functions under Directive 2009/65/EC.\n2. Following the termination of the authorisation of a management company, Member States or competent authorities may require the management company to retain records referred to in paragraph 1 for the outstanding term of the 5-year period.\nWhere the management company transfers its responsibilities in relation to the UCITS to another management company, Member States or competent authorities may require that arrangements are made that such records for the past 5 years are accessible to that company.\n3. The records shall be retained in a medium that allows the storage of information in a way accessible for future reference by the competent authority, and in such a form and manner that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe competent authority must be able to access them readily and to reconstitute each key stage of the processing of each portfolio transaction;\n(b)\nit must be possible for any corrections or other amendments, and the contents of the records prior to such corrections or amendments, to be easily ascertained;\n(c)\nit must not be possible for the records to be otherwise manipulated or altered.\nCHAPTER III\nCONFLICT OF INTERESTS\n(Article 12(1)(b) and Article 14(1)(d) and (2)(c) of Directive 2009/65/EC)\nArticle 17\nCriteria for the identification of conflicts of interest\n1. Member States shall ensure that, for the purposes of identifying the types of conflict of interest that arise in the course of providing services and activities and whose existence may damage the interests of a UCITS, management companies take into account, by way of minimum criteria, the question of whether the management company or a relevant person, or a person directly or indirectly linked by way of control to the management company, is in any of the following situations, whether as a result of providing collective portfolio management activities or otherwise:\n(a)\nthe management company or that person is likely to make a financial gain, or avoid a financial loss, at the expense of the UCITS;\n(b)\nthe management company or that person has an interest in the outcome of a service or an activity provided to the UCITS or another client or of a transaction carried out on behalf of the UCITS or another client, which is distinct from the UCITS interest in that outcome;\n(c)\nthe management company or that person has a financial or other incentive to favour the interest of another client or group of clients over the interests of the UCITS;\n(d)\nthe management company or that person carries on the same activities for the UCITS and for another client or clients which are not UCITS;\n(e)\nthe management company or that person receives or will receive from a person other than the UCITS an inducement in relation to collective portfolio management activities provided to the UCITS, in the form of monies, goods or services, other than the standard commission or fee for that service.\n2. Member States shall require management companies, when identifying the types of conflict of interests, to take into account:\n(a)\nthe interests of the management company, including those deriving from its belonging to a group or from the performance of services and activities, the interests of the clients and the duty of the management company towards the UCITS;\n(b)\nthe interests of two or more managed UCITS.\nArticle 18\nConflicts of interest policy\n1. Member States shall require management companies to establish, implement and maintain an effective conflicts of interest policy. That policy shall be set out in writing and shall be appropriate to the size and organisation of the management company and the nature, scale and complexity of its business.\nWhere the management company is a member of a group, the policy shall also take into account any circumstances of which the company is or should be aware which may give rise to a conflict of interest resulting from the structure and business activities of other members of the group.\n2. The conflicts of interest policy established in accordance with paragraph 1 shall include the following:\n(a)\nthe identification of, with reference to the collective portfolio management activities carried out by or on behalf of the management company, the circumstances which constitute or may give rise to a conflict of interest entailing a material risk of damage to the interests of the UCITS or one or more other clients;\n(b)\nprocedures to be followed and measures to be adopted in order to manage such conflicts.\nArticle 19\nIndependence in conflicts management\n1. Member States shall ensure that the procedures and measures provided for in Article 18(2)(b) are designed to ensure that relevant persons engaged in different business activities involving a conflict of interest carry on those activities at a level of independence appropriate to the size and activities of the management company and of the group to which it belongs and to the materiality of the risk of damage to the interests of clients.\n2. The procedures to be followed and measures to be adopted in accordance with Article 18(2)(b) shall include the following where necessary and appropriate for the management company to ensure the requisite degree of independence:\n(a)\neffective procedures to prevent or control the exchange of information between relevant persons engaged in collective portfolio management activities involving a risk of a conflict of interest where the exchange of that information may harm the interests of one or more clients;\n(b)\nthe separate supervision of relevant persons whose principal functions involve carrying out collective portfolio management activities on behalf of, or providing services to, clients or to investors whose interests may conflict, or who otherwise represent different interests that may conflict, including those of the management company;\n(c)\nthe removal of any direct link between the remuneration of relevant persons principally engaged in one activity and the remuneration of, or revenues generated by, different relevant persons principally engaged in another activity, where a conflict of interest may arise in relation to those activities;\n(d)\nmeasures to prevent or limit any person from exercising inappropriate influence over the way in which a relevant person carries out collective portfolio management activities;\n(e)\nmeasures to prevent or control the simultaneous or sequential involvement of a relevant person in separate collective portfolio management activities where such involvement may impair the proper management of conflicts of interest.\nWhere the adoption or the practice of one or more of those measures and procedures does not ensure the requisite degree of independence, Member States shall require management companies to adopt such alternative or additional measures and procedures as are necessary and appropriate for those purposes.\nArticle 20\nManagement of activities giving rise to detrimental conflict of interest\n1. Member States shall require management companies to keep and regularly update a record of the types of collective portfolio management activities undertaken by or on behalf of the management company in which a conflict of interest entailing a material risk of damage to the interests of one or more UCITS or other clients has arisen or, in the case of an ongoing collective portfolio management activity, may arise.\n2. Member States shall require that, where the organisational or administrative arrangements made by the management company for the management of conflicts of interest are not sufficient to ensure, with reasonable confidence, that risks of damage to the interests of UCITS or of its unit-holders will be prevented, the senior management or other competent internal body of the management company is promptly informed in order for them to take any necessary decision to ensure that in any case the management company acts in the best interests of the UCITS and of its unit-holders.\n3. The management company shall report situations referred to in paragraph 2 to investors by any appropriate durable medium and give reasons for its decision.\nArticle 21\nStrategies for the exercise of voting rights\n1. Member States shall require management companies to develop adequate and effective strategies for determining when and how voting rights attached to instruments held in the managed portfolios are to be exercised, to the exclusive benefit of the UCITS concerned.\n2. The strategy referred to in paragraph 1 shall determine measures and procedures for:\n(a)\nmonitoring relevant corporate events;\n(b)\nensuring that the exercise of voting rights is in accordance with the investment objectives and policy of the relevant UCITS;\n(c)\npreventing or managing any conflicts of interest arising from the exercise of voting rights.\n3. A summary description of the strategies referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made available to investors.\nDetails of the actions taken on the basis of those strategies shall be made available to the unit-holders free of charge and on their request.\nCHAPTER IV\nRULES OF CONDUCT\n(Article 14(1)(a), (b) and (2)(a), (b) of Directive 2009/65/EC)\nSECTION 1\nGeneral principles\nArticle 22\nDuty to act in the best interests of UCITS and their unit-holders\n1. Member States shall require management companies to ensure that unit-holders of managed UCITS are treated fairly.\nManagement companies shall refrain from placing the interests of any group of unit-holders above the interests of any other group of unit-holders.\n2. Member States shall require management companies to apply appropriate policies and procedures for preventing malpractices that might reasonably be expected to affect the stability and integrity of the market.\n3. Without prejudice to requirements under national law, Member States shall require management companies to ensure that fair, correct and transparent pricing models and valuation systems are used for the UCITS they manage, in order to comply with the duty to act in the best interests of the unit-holders. Management companies must be able to demonstrate that the UCITS portfolios have been accurately valued.\n4. Member States shall require management companies to act in such a way as to prevent undue costs being charged to the UCITS and its unit-holders.\nArticle 23\nDue diligence requirements\n1. Member States shall require management companies to ensure a high level of diligence in the selection and ongoing monitoring of investments, in the best interests of UCITS and the integrity of the market.\n2. Member States shall require management companies to ensure they have adequate knowledge and understanding of the assets in which the UCITS are invested.\n3. Member States shall require management companies to establish written policies and procedures on due diligence and implement effective arrangements for ensuring that investment decisions on behalf of the UCITS are carried out in compliance with the objectives, investment strategy and risk limits of the UCITS.\n4. Member States shall require management companies when implementing their risk management policy, and where it is appropriate after taking into account the nature of a foreseen investment, to formulate forecasts and perform analyses concerning the investment\u2019s contribution to the UCITS portfolio composition, liquidity and risk and reward profile before carrying out the investment. The analyses must only be carried out on the basis of reliable and up-to-date information, both in quantitative and qualitative terms.\nManagement companies shall exercise due skill, care and diligence when entering into, managing or terminating any arrangements with third parties in relation to the performance of risk management activities. Before entering into such arrangements, management companies shall take the necessary steps in order to verify that the third party has the ability and capacity to perform the risk management activities reliably, professionally and effectively. The management company shall establish methods for the on-going assessment of the standard of performance of the third party.\nSECTION 2\nHandling of subscription and redemption orders\nArticle 24\nReporting obligations in respect of execution of subscription and redemption orders\n1. Member States shall ensure that where management companies have carried out a subscription or redemption order from a unit-holder, they must notify the unit-holder, by means of a durable medium, confirming execution of the order as soon as possible, and no later than the first business day following execution or, where the confirmation is received by the management company from a third party, no later than the first business day following receipt of the confirmation from the third party.\nHowever, the first subparagraph shall not apply where the notice would contain the same information as a confirmation that is to be promptly dispatched to the unit-holder by another person.\n2. The notice referred to in paragraph 1 shall, where applicable, include the following information:\n(a)\nthe management company identification;\n(b)\nthe name or other designation of the unit-holder;\n(c)\nthe date and time of receipt of the order and method of payment;\n(d)\nthe date of execution;\n(e)\nthe UCITS identification;\n(f)\nthe nature of the order (subscription or redemption);\n(g)\nthe number of units involved;\n(h)\nthe unit value at which the units were subscribed or redeemed;\n(i)\nthe reference value date;\n(j)\nthe gross value of the order including charges for subscription or net amount after charges for redemptions;\n(k)\na total sum of the commissions and expenses charged and, where the investor so requests, an itemised breakdown.\n3. Where orders for a unit-holder which are executed periodically, management companies shall either take the action specified in paragraph 1 or provide the unit-holder, at least once every 6 months, with the information listed in paragraph 2 in respect of those transactions.\n4. Management companies shall supply the unit-holder, upon request, with information about the status of his order.\nSECTION 3\nBest execution\nArticle 25\nExecution of decisions to deal on behalf of the managed UCITS\n1. Member States shall require management companies to act in the best interests of the UCITS they manage when executing decisions to deal on behalf of the managed UCITS in the context of the management of their portfolios.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that management companies take all reasonable steps to obtain the best possible result for the UCITS, taking into account price, costs, speed, likelihood of execution and settlement, order size and nature, or any other consideration relevant to the execution of the order. The relative importance of such factors shall be determined by reference to the following criteria:\n(a)\nthe objectives, investment policy and risks specific to the UCITS, as indicated in the prospectus or as the case may be in the fund rules or articles of association of the UCITS;\n(b)\nthe characteristics of the order;\n(c)\nthe characteristics of the financial instruments that are the subject of that order;\n(d)\nthe characteristics of the execution venues to which that order can be directed.\n3. Member States shall require management companies to establish and implement effective arrangements for complying with the obligation referred to in paragraph 2. In particular, management companies shall establish and implement a policy to allow them to obtain, for UCITS orders, the best possible result in accordance with paragraph 2.\nManagement companies shall obtain the prior consent of the investment company on the execution policy. The management company shall make available appropriate information to unit-holders on the policy established in accordance with this Article and on any material changes to their policy.\n4. Management companies shall monitor on a regular basis the effectiveness of their arrangements and policy for the execution of orders in order to identify and, where appropriate, correct any deficiencies.\nIn addition, management companies shall review the execution policy on an annual basis. A review shall also be carried out whenever a material change occurs that affects the management company\u2019s ability to continue to obtain the best possible result for the managed UCITS.\n5. Management companies shall be able to demonstrate that they have executed orders on behalf of the UCITS in accordance with the management company\u2019s execution policy.\nArticle 26\nPlacing orders to deal on behalf of UCITS with other entities for execution\n1. Member States shall require management companies to act in the best interests of the UCITS they manage when placing orders to deal on behalf of the managed UCITS with other entities for execution, in the context of the management of their portfolios.\n2. Member States shall ensure that management companies take all reasonable steps to obtain the best possible result for the UCITS taking into account price, costs, speed, likelihood of execution and settlement, size, nature or any other consideration relevant to the execution of the order. The relative importance of such factors shall be determined by reference to Article 25(2).\nFor those purposes, management companies shall establish and implement a policy to enable them to comply with the obligation referred to in the first subparagraph. The policy shall identify, in respect of each class of instruments, the entities with which the orders may be placed. The management company shall only enter into arrangements for execution where such arrangements are consistent with obligations laid down in this Article. Management companies shall make available to unit-holders appropriate information on the policy established in accordance with this paragraph and on any material changes to this policy.\n3. Management companies shall monitor on a regular basis the effectiveness of the policy established in accordance with paragraph 2 and, in particular, the execution quality of the entities identified in that policy and, where appropriate, correct any deficiencies.\nIn addition, management companies shall review the policy on an annual basis. Such a review shall also be carried out whenever a material change occurs that affects the management company\u2019s ability to continue to obtain the best possible result for the managed UCITS.\n4. Management companies shall be able to demonstrate that they have placed orders on behalf of the UCITS in accordance with the policy established in accordance with paragraph 2.\nSECTION 4\nHandling of orders\nArticle 27\nGeneral principles\n1. Member States shall require management companies to establish and implement procedures and arrangements which provide for the prompt, fair and expeditious execution of portfolio transactions on behalf of the UCITS.\nThe procedures and arrangements implemented by management companies shall satisfy the following conditions:\n(a)\nensure that orders executed on behalf of UCITS are promptly and accurately recorded and allocated;\n(b)\nexecute otherwise comparable UCITS orders sequentially and promptly unless the characteristics of the order or prevailing market conditions make this impracticable, or the interests of the UCITS require otherwise.\nFinancial instruments or sums of money, received in settlement of the executed orders shall be promptly and correctly delivered to the account of the appropriate UCITS.\n2. A management company shall not misuse information relating to pending UCITS orders, and shall take all reasonable steps to prevent the misuse of such information by any of its relevant persons.\nArticle 28\nAggregation and allocation of trading orders\n1. Member States shall not permit management companies to carry out a UCITS order in aggregate with an order of another UCITS or another client or with an order on their own account, unless the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nit must be unlikely that the aggregation of orders will work overall to the disadvantage of any UCITS or clients whose order is to be aggregated;\n(b)\nan order allocation policy must be established and implemented, providing in sufficiently precise terms for the fair allocation of aggregated orders, including how the volume and price of orders determines allocations and the treatment of partial executions.\n2. Member States shall ensure that where a management company aggregates a UCITS order with one or more orders of other UCITS or clients and the aggregated order is partially executed, it allocates the related trades in accordance with its order allocation policy.\n3. Member States shall ensure that management companies which have aggregated transactions for own account with one or more UCITS or other clients\u2019 orders do not allocate the related trades in a way that is detrimental to the UCITS or another client.\n4. Member States shall require that, where a management company aggregates an order of a UCITS or another client with a transaction for own account and the aggregated order is partially executed, it allocates the related trades to the UCITS or other client in priority over those for own account.\nHowever, if the management company is able to demonstrate to the UCITS or its other client on reasonable grounds that it would not have been able to carry out the order on such advantageous terms without aggregation, or at all, it may allocate the transaction for own account proportionally, in accordance with the policy as referred to in paragraph 1(b).\nSECTION 5\nInducements\nArticle 29\nSafeguarding the best interests of UCITS\n1. Member States shall ensure that management companies are not regarded as acting honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of the UCITS if, in relation to the activities of investment management and administration to the UCITS, they pay or are paid any fee or commission, or provide or are provided with any non-monetary benefit, other than the following:\n(a)\na fee, commission or non-monetary benefit paid or provided to or by the UCITS or a person on behalf of the UCITS;\n(b)\na fee, commission or non-monetary benefit paid or provided to or by a third party or a person acting on behalf of a third party, where the following conditions are satisfied:\n(i)\nthe existence, nature and amount of the fee, commission or benefit, or, where the amount cannot be ascertained, the method of calculating that amount, must be clearly disclosed to the UCITS in a manner that is comprehensive, accurate and understandable, prior to the provision of the relevant service;\n(ii)\nthe payment of the fee or commission, or the provision of the non-monetary benefit must be designed to enhance the quality of the relevant service and not impair compliance with the management company\u2019s duty to act in the best interests of the UCITS;\n(c)\nproper fees which enable or are necessary for the provision of the relevant service, including custody costs, settlement and exchange fees, regulatory levies or legal fees, and which, by their nature, cannot give rise to conflicts with the management company\u2019s duties to act honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of the UCITS.\n2. Member States shall permit a management company, for the purposes of paragraph 1(b)(i), to disclose the essential terms of the arrangements relating to the fee, commission or non-monetary benefit in summary form, provided that the management company undertakes to disclose further details at the request of the unit-holder and provided that it honours that undertaking.\nCHAPTER V\nPARTICULARS OF THE STANDARD AGREEMENT BETWEEN A DEPOSITARY AND A MANAGEMENT COMPANY\n(Article 23(5) and Article 33(5) of Directive 2009/65/EC)\nArticle 30\nElements related to the procedures to be followed by the parties to the agreement\nMember States shall require the depositary and the management company, referred to in this Chapter as the \u2018parties to the agreement\u2019, to include in the written agreement referred to in either Articles 23(5) or Article 33(5) of Directive 2009/65/EC at least the following particulars related to the services provided by and procedures to be followed by the parties to the agreement:\n(a)\na description of the procedures, including those related to the safe-keeping, to be adopted for each type of asset of the UCITS entrusted to the depositary;\n(b)\na description of the procedures to be followed where the management company envisages a modification of the fund rules or prospectus of the UCITS, and identifying when the depositary should be informed, or where a prior agreement from the depositary is needed to proceed with the modification;\n(c)\na description of the means and procedures by which the depositary will transmit to the management company all relevant information that the management company needs to perform its duties including a description of the means and procedures related to the exercise of any rights attached to financial instruments, and the means and procedures applied in order to allow the management company and the UCITS to have timely and accurate access to information relating to the accounts of the UCITS;\n(d)\na description of the means and procedures by which the depositary will have access to all relevant information it needs to perform its duties;\n(e)\na description of the procedures by which the depositary has the ability to enquire into the conduct of the management company and to assess the quality of information transmitted, including by way of on-site visits;\n(f)\na description of the procedures by which the management company can review the performance of the depositary in respect of the depositary\u2019s contractual obligations.\nArticle 31\nElements related to the exchange of information and to obligations on confidentiality and money-laundering\n1. Member States shall require parties to the agreement referred to in either Article 23(5) or Article 33(5) of Directive 2009/65/EC to include at least the following elements related to the exchange of information and obligations on confidentiality and money laundering in that agreement:\n(a)\na list of all the information that needs to be exchanged between the UCITS, its management company and the depositary related to the subscription, redemption, issue, cancellation and repurchase of units of the UCITS;\n(b)\nthe confidentiality obligations applicable to the parties to the agreement;\n(c)\ninformation on the tasks and responsibilities of the parties to the agreement in respect of obligations relating to the prevention of money laundering and the financing of terrorism, where applicable.\n2. The obligations referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall be drawn up so as not to impair the ability of either the competent authorities of a management company\u2019s home Member State or the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State in gaining access to relevant documents and information.\nArticle 32\nElements related to the appointment of third parties\nWhere the depositary or the management company envisage appointing third parties to carry out their respective duties, Member States shall require both parties to the agreement referred to either in Article 23(5) or Article 33(5) of Directive 2009/65/EC to include at least the following particulars in that agreement:\n(a)\nan undertaking by both parties to the agreement to provide details, on a regular basis, of any third parties appointed by the depositary or the management company to carry out their respective duties;\n(b)\nan undertaking that, upon request by one of the parties, the other party will provide information on the criteria used for selecting the third party and the steps taken to monitor the activities carried out by the selected third party;\n(c)\na statement that a depositary\u2019s liability as referred to in Article 24 or Article 34 of Directive 2009/65/EC shall not be affected by the fact that it has entrusted to a third party all or some of the assets in its safe-keeping.\nArticle 33\nElements related to potential amendments and the termination of the agreement\nMember States shall require the parties to the agreement referred to in either Article 23(5) or Article 33(5) of Directive 2009/65/EC to include at least the following particulars related to amendments and the termination of the agreement in that agreement:\n(a)\nthe period of validity of the agreement;\n(b)\nthe conditions under which the agreement may be amended or terminated;\n(c)\nthe conditions which are necessary to facilitate transition to another depositary and, in case of such transition the procedure by which the depositary shall send all relevant information to the other depositary.\nArticle 34\nApplicable law\nMember States shall require the parties to the agreement referred to either in Articles 23(5) or Article 33(5) of Directive 2009/65/EC to specify that the law of the UCITS\u2019 home Member State applies to that agreement.\nArticle 35\nElectronic transmission of information\nIn cases where the parties to the agreement referred to in either Article 23(5) or Article 33(5) of Directive 2009/65/EC agree to the use of electronic transmission for part or all of information that flows between them, Member States shall require that such agreement contains provisions ensuring that a record is kept of such information.\nArticle 36\nScope of the agreement\nMember States may allow that the agreement referred to in either Article 23(5) or Article 33(5) of Directive 2009/65/EC cover more than one UCITS managed by the management company. In such case, the agreement shall list the UCITS covered.\nArticle 37\nService level agreement\nMember States shall allow parties to the agreement to either include details of means and procedures referred to in Article 30(c) and (d) in the agreement referred to in either Article 23(5) or Article 33(5) of Directive 2009/65/EC or in a separate written agreement.\nCHAPTER VI\nRISK MANAGEMENT\n(Article 51(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC)\nSECTION 1\nRisk management policy and risk measurement\nArticle 38\nRisk management policy\n1. Member States shall require management companies to establish, implement and maintain an adequate and documented risk management policy which identifies the risks the UCITS they manage are or might be exposed to.\nThe risk management policy shall comprise such procedures as are necessary to enable the management company to assess for each UCITS it manages the exposure of that UCITS to market, liquidity and counterparty risks, and the exposure of the UCITS to all other risks, including operational risks, which may be material for each UCITS it manages.\nMember States shall require management companies to address at least the following elements in the risk management policy:\n(a)\nthe techniques, tools and arrangements that enable them to comply with the obligations set out in Articles 40 and 41;\n(b)\nthe allocation of responsibilities within the management company pertaining to risk management.\n2. Member States shall require management companies to ensure that the risk management policy referred to in paragraph 1 states the terms, contents and frequency of reporting of the risk management function referred to in Article 12 to the board of directors and to senior management and, where appropriate, to the supervisory function.\n3. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States shall ensure that management companies take into account the nature, scale and complexity of their business and of the UCITS they manage.\nArticle 39\nAssessment, monitoring and review of risk management policy\n1. Member States shall require management companies to assess, monitor and periodically review:\n(a)\nthe adequacy and effectiveness of the risk management policy and of the arrangements, processes and techniques referred to in Articles 40 and 41;\n(b)\nthe level of compliance by the management company with the risk management policy and with arrangements, processes and techniques referred to in Articles 40 and 41;\n(c)\nthe adequacy and effectiveness of measures taken to address any deficiencies in the performance of the risk management process.\n2. Member States shall require management companies to notify to competent authorities of their home Member State any material changes to the risk management process.\n3. Members States shall ensure that requirements laid down in paragraph 1 are subject to review by the competent authorities of the management company\u2019s home Member State on an on-going basis and accordingly when granting authorisation.\nSECTION 2\nRisk management processes, Counterparty risk exposure and issuer concentration\nArticle 40\nMeasurement and management of risk\n1. Member States shall require management companies to adopt adequate and effective arrangements, processes and techniques in order to:\n(a)\nmeasure and manage at any time the risks which the UCITS they manage are or might be exposed to;\n(b)\nensure compliance with limits concerning global exposure and counterparty risk, in accordance with Articles 41 and 43.\nThose arrangements, processes and techniques shall be proportionate to the nature, scale and complexity of the business of the management companies and of the UCITS they manage and be consistent with the UCITS risk profile.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, Member States shall require management companies to take the following actions for each UCITS they manage:\n(a)\nput in place such risk measurement arrangements, processes and techniques as are necessary to ensure that the risks of taken positions and their contribution to the overall risk profile are accurately measured on the basis of sound and reliable data and that the risk measurement arrangements, processes and techniques are adequately documented;\n(b)\nconduct, where appropriate, periodic back-tests in order to review the validity of risk measurement arrangements which include model-based forecasts and estimates;\n(c)\nconduct, where appropriate, periodic stress tests and scenario analyses to address risks arising from potential changes in market conditions that might adversely impact the UCITS;\n(d)\nestablish, implement and maintain a documented system of internal limits concerning the measures used to manage and control the relevant risks for each UCITS taking into account all risks which may be material to the UCITS as referred to in Article 38 and ensuring consistency with the UCITS risk-profile;\n(e)\nensure that the current level of risk complies with the risk limit system as set out in point (d) for each UCITS;\n(f)\nestablish, implement and maintain adequate procedures that, in the event of actual or anticipated breaches to the risk limit system of the UCITS, result in timely remedial actions in the best interests of unit-holders.\n3. Member States shall ensure that management companies employ an appropriate liquidity risk management process in order to ensure that each UCITS they manage is able to comply at any time with Article 84(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC.\nWhere appropriate, management companies shall conduct stress tests which enable assessment of the liquidity risk of the UCITS under exceptional circumstances.\n4. Member States shall require management companies to ensure that for each UCITS they manage the liquidity profile of the investments of the UCITS is appropriate to the redemption policy laid down in the fund rules or the instruments of incorporation or the prospectus.\nArticle 41\nCalculation of global exposure\n1. Member States shall require management companies to calculate the global exposure of a managed UCITS as referred to in Article 51(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC as either of the following:\n(a)\nthe incremental exposure and leverage generated by the managed UCITS through the use of financial derivative instruments including embedded derivatives pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of Article 51(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC, which may not exceed the total of the UCITS net asset value;\n(b)\nthe market risk of the UCITS portfolio.\n2. Member States shall require management companies to calculate the UCITS global exposure on at least a daily basis.\n3. Member States may allow management companies to calculate global exposure by using the commitment approach, the value at risk approach or other advanced risk measurement methodologies as may be appropriate. For the purposes of this provision, \u2018value at risk\u2019 shall mean a measure of the maximum expected loss at a given confidence level over a specific time period.\nMember States shall require management companies to ensure that the method selected to measure global exposure is appropriate, taking into account the investment strategy pursued by the UCITS and the types and complexities of the financial derivative instruments used, and the proportion of the UCITS portfolio which comprises financial derivative instruments.\n4. Where a UCITS in accordance with Article 51(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC employs techniques and instruments including repurchase agreements or securities lending transactions in order to generate additional leverage or exposure to market risk, Member States shall require management companies to take these transactions into consideration when calculating global exposure.\nArticle 42\nCommitment approach\n1. Where the commitment approach is used for the calculation of global exposure, Member States shall require management companies to apply this approach to all financial derivative instrument positions including embedded derivatives as referred to in the fourth subparagraph of Article 51(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC, whether used as part of the UCITS general investment policy, for purposes of risk reduction or for the purposes of efficient portfolio management as referred to in Article 51(2) of that Directive.\n2. Where the commitment approach is used for the calculation of global exposure, Member States shall require management companies to convert each financial derivative instrument position into the market value of an equivalent position in the underlying asset of that derivative (standard commitment approach).\nMember States may allow management companies to apply other calculation methods which are equivalent to the standard commitment approach.\n3. Member States may allow a management company to take account of netting and hedging arrangements when calculating global exposure, where these arrangements do not disregard obvious and material risks and result in a clear reduction in risk exposure.\n4. Where the use of financial derivative instruments does not generate incremental exposure for the UCITS, the underlying exposure need not be included in the commitment calculation.\n5. Where the commitment approach is used, temporary borrowing arrangements entered into on behalf of the UCITS in accordance with Article 83 of Directive 2009/65/EC need not be included in the global exposure calculation.\nArticle 43\nCounterparty risk and issuer concentration\n1. Member States shall require management companies to ensure that counterparty risk arising from an over-the-counter (OTC) financial derivative instrument is subject to the limits set out in Article 52 of Directive 2009/65/EC.\n2. When calculating the UCITS exposure to a counterparty in accordance with the limits as referred to in Article 52(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC, management companies shall use the positive mark-to-market value of the OTC derivative contract with that counterparty.\nManagement companies may net the derivative positions of a UCITS with the same counterparty, provided that they are able to legally enforce netting agreements with the counterparty on behalf of the UCITS. Netting shall only be permissible with respect to OTC derivative instruments with the same counterparty and not in relation to any other exposures the UCITS may have with that same counterparty.\n3. Member States may allow management companies to reduce the UCITS exposure to a counterparty of an OTC derivative transaction through the receipt of collateral. Collateral received shall be sufficiently liquid so that it can be sold quickly at a price that is close to its pre-sale valuation.\n4. Member States shall require management companies to take collateral into account in calculating exposure to counterparty risk as referred to in Article 52(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC when the management company passes collateral to OTC counterparty on behalf of the UCITS. Collateral passed may be taken into account on a net basis only if the management company is able to legally enforce netting arrangements with this counterparty on behalf of the UCITS.\n5. Member States shall require management companies to calculate issuer concentration limits as referred to in Article 52 of Directive 2009/65/EC on the basis of the underlying exposure created through the use of financial derivative instruments pursuant to the commitment approach.\n6. With respect to the exposure arising from OTC derivatives transactions as referred to in Article 52(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC, Member States shall require management companies to include in the calculation any exposure to OTC derivative counterparty risk.\nSECTION 3\nProcedures for the valuation of the OTC derivatives\nArticle 44\nProcedures for the assessment of the value of OTC derivatives\n1. Member States shall require management companies to verify that UCITS exposures to OTC derivatives are assigned fair values that do not rely only on market quotations by the counterparties of the OTC transactions and which fulfil the criteria set out in Article 8(4) of Directive 2007/16/EC.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, management companies shall establish, implement and maintain arrangements and procedures which ensure appropriate, transparent and fair valuation of UCITS exposures to OTC derivatives.\nMember States shall require management companies to ensure that the fair value of OTC derivatives is subject to adequate, accurate and independent assessment.\nThe valuation arrangements and procedures shall be adequate and proportionate to the nature and complexity of the OTC derivatives concerned.\nManagement companies shall comply with the requirements set out in Article 5(2) and in the second subparagraph of Article 23(4) when arrangements and procedures concerning the valuation of OTC derivatives involve the performance of certain activities by third parties.\n3. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, the risk management function shall be appointed with specific duties and responsibilities.\n4. The valuation arrangements and procedures referred to in paragraph 2 shall be adequately documented.\nSECTION 4\nTransmission of information on derivative instruments\nArticle 45\nReports on derivative instruments\n1. Member States shall require management companies to deliver to the competent authorities of their home Member State, at least on an annual basis, reports containing information which reflects a true and fair view of the types of derivative instruments used for each managed UCITS, the underlying risks, the quantitative limits and the methods which are chosen to estimate the risks associated with the derivative transactions.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities of the management company\u2019s home Member State review the regularity and completeness of information referred to in paragraph 1 and that they have an opportunity to intervene where appropriate.\nCHAPTER VII\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 46\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 June 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 47\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 48\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2010.", "references": ["68", "6", "41", "31", "55", "66", "61", "35", "34", "97", "16", "0", "93", "23", "67", "95", "99", "73", "53", "78", "15", "33", "14", "22", "13", "11", "92", "24", "77", "37", "No Label", "8", "20", "29", "30", "44", "46", "49", "76"], "gold": ["8", "20", "29", "30", "44", "46", "49", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 250/2011\nof 14 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 March 2011.", "references": ["7", "8", "98", "92", "11", "71", "95", "96", "94", "86", "69", "9", "14", "48", "3", "89", "28", "21", "75", "37", "76", "51", "83", "12", "6", "4", "15", "38", "5", "65", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/443/CFSP\nof 11 August 2010\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for Central Asia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 5 October 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/670/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Pierre MOREL European Union Special Representative (hereinafter the EUSR) for Central Asia.\n(2)\nOn 22 February 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/112/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 31 August 2010.\n(3)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 31 August 2011. However, the mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter the HR) following the entry into force of the Decision establishing the European External Action Service.\n(4)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the Common Foreign and Security Policy objectives set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Pierre MOREL as the EUSR for Central Asia is hereby extended until 31 August 2011. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the HR following the entry into force of the Decision establishing the European External Action Service.\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe EUSR\u2019s mandate shall be based on the Union\u2019s policy objectives in Central Asia. These objectives include:\n(a)\npromoting good and close relations between countries of Central Asia and the Union on the basis of common values and interests as set out in relevant agreements;\n(b)\ncontributing to strengthening the stability and cooperation between the countries in the region;\n(c)\ncontributing to strengthening democracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Central Asia;\n(d)\naddressing key threats, especially specific problems with direct implications for Europe;\n(e)\nenhancing the Union\u2019s effectiveness and visibility in the region, including through a closer coordination with other relevant partners and international organisations, such as the OSCE.\nArticle 3\nMandate\n1. In order to achieve the policy objectives, the EUSR\u2019s mandate shall be to:\n(a)\npromote overall political coordination of the Union in Central Asia and ensure consistency of the external actions of the Union in the region;\n(b)\nmonitor, on behalf of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) and in accordance with his mandate, together with the Commission the implementation process of the EU Strategy for a New Partnership with Central Asia, make recommendations and report to relevant Council bodies on a regular basis;\n(c)\nassist the Council in further developing a comprehensive policy towards Central Asia;\n(d)\nfollow closely political developments in Central Asia by developing and maintaining close contacts with governments, parliaments, judiciary, civil society and mass media;\n(e)\nencourage Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to cooperate on regional issues of common interest;\n(f)\ndevelop appropriate contacts and cooperation with the main interested actors in the region, and all relevant regional and international organisations, including the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the Eurasian Economic Community (EURASEC), the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA), the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Program (CAREC) and the Central Asian Regional Information and Coordination Centre (CARICC);\n(g)\ncontribute to the implementation of the EU human rights policy and E U Guidelines on Human Rights, in particular with regard to women and children in conflict-affected areas, especially by monitoring and addressing developments in this regard;\n(h)\ncontribute, in close cooperation with the OSCE, to conflict prevention and resolution by developing contacts with the authorities and other local actors (NGOs, political parties, minorities, religious groups and their leaders);\n(i)\nprovide input to the formulation of energy security, anti-narcotics and water resource management aspects of the CFSP with respect to Central Asia.\n2. The EUSR shall support the work of the HR and maintain an overview of all activities of the Union in the region.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (hereinafter the PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011 shall be EUR 1 250 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of his mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting his team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of his team.\n2. Member States and institutions of the Union may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of personnel who are seconded by a Member State or an institution of the Union to the EUSR shall be covered by the Member State or the institution of the Union concerned respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the General Secretariat of the Council may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State or Union institution and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and his staff\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of his staff shall be agreed with the host party/parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of his team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council\u2019s security regulations (3), in particular when managing EU classified information.\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegations and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with his mandate and the security situation in his geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under his direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the General Secretariat of the Council, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as management of security incidents and a mission contingency and evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of his team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the General Secretariat of the Council;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the HR, the Council and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report as necessary to Council working parties. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote overall Union political coordination. He shall help to ensure that all Union instruments in the field are engaged coherently to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as those of the EUSR for Afghanistan. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States\u2019 missions and the Union\u2019s delegations.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegations and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission. They shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the HR, the Council and the Commission with a progress report at the end of February 2011 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2010.", "references": ["51", "61", "34", "10", "69", "42", "86", "4", "15", "49", "65", "39", "45", "58", "17", "47", "12", "98", "50", "90", "40", "76", "21", "0", "26", "29", "36", "85", "99", "59", "No Label", "3", "9", "11", "95"], "gold": ["3", "9", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\non mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management\n(2012/6/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the \u2018Fund\u2019) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.\n(2)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.\n(4)\nSpain submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by an earthquake, and Italy submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by flooding.\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 37 979 875 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["24", "52", "94", "88", "11", "0", "18", "81", "36", "68", "14", "51", "41", "42", "32", "6", "20", "55", "82", "27", "79", "39", "43", "5", "37", "71", "80", "78", "76", "28", "No Label", "4", "10", "33", "60", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "33", "60", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 404/2012\nof 10 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2012.", "references": ["27", "78", "77", "11", "60", "90", "64", "53", "87", "91", "75", "18", "36", "31", "38", "5", "43", "9", "1", "70", "15", "86", "44", "46", "82", "14", "3", "92", "30", "84", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/677/CFSP\nof 8 November 2010\nrepealing Common Position 98/409/CFSP concerning Sierra Leone\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 June 1998, the Council adopted Common Position 98/409/CFSP concerning Sierra Leone (1) in order to implement the measures imposed by United Nations Security Council Resolution (hereinafter \u2018UNSCR\u2019) 1171(1998).\n(2)\nOn 28 January 2008, the Council adopted Common Position 2008/81/CFSP amending Common Position 98/409/CFSP (2) in order to implement the measures imposed by UNSCR 1793(2007) providing for an exemption to the measures imposed by paragraph 5 of UNSCR 1171(1998).\n(3)\nOn 29 September 2010, the United Nations Security Council adopted UNSCR 1940(2010) repealing UNSCR 1171(1998).\n(4)\nCommon Position 98/409/CFSP should therefore be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nCommon Position 98/409/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["7", "5", "70", "85", "26", "36", "73", "8", "49", "95", "79", "97", "80", "61", "16", "77", "37", "62", "89", "75", "10", "1", "15", "0", "40", "93", "91", "33", "44", "55", "No Label", "3", "12", "48", "94", "99"], "gold": ["3", "12", "48", "94", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 19 July 2012\non the establishment of the annual priority lists for the development of network codes and guidelines for 2013\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/413/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to natural gas transmission networks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 (2), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Third Package of directives and regulations (hereinafter the \u2018Third Package\u2019), as adopted in 2009, entered into force on 3 March 2011. With it a new system of establishing binding European-wide network codes entered into force as well.\n(2)\nAs a first step towards binding European network codes, an annual priority list identifying the areas to be included in the development of network codes has to be established by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) in accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (\u2018the Electricity Regulation\u2019) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 (\u2018the Gas Regulation\u2019). In setting the priorities, the Commission has to consult the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (\u2018ACER\u2019), the responsible European Network of Transmission System Operators (\u2018ENTSOs\u2019) and other relevant stakeholders. This decision sets out the priorities as decided by the Commission based on the outcomes from the public consultation.\n(3)\nThe European Council on 4 February 2011 set 2014 as a target for the completion of the internal market for electricity and gas. The Third Package is an important element in the development towards this target. However, further efforts have to be made to allow gas and electricity to flow freely across Europe. The network codes and guidelines which are foreseen by the Third Package will provide the relevant rules for this further development.\n(4)\nFor the planning of resources it is important to identify annually the key areas for the development of network codes and guidelines. As soon as an area is identified as important for the first time, scoping work needs to be started in order to identify to what extent a harmonisation is needed. Key areas where the work on network codes and guidelines has already started will be continued and completed.\n(5)\nThe public consultation, as required by Article 6(1) of the Electricity and the Gas Regulation, took place from 8 March to 16 April 2012. The Commission received 18 responses (3), including one response from a local government and responses by ENTSOG and ENTSO-E. Whereas the other responses came mainly from European energy stakeholder organisations, several individual companies also participated in the public consultation.\n(6)\nThe following were the major general comments received during the public consultation:\n(a)\nA clear message from the public consultation was that stakeholders supported the focused approach of the Commission prioritising the work to deliver key elements that are necessary for the completion of the internal energy market by 2014 as regards the development of network codes and guidelines both for electricity and gas. Stakeholders are of the view that the Commission has pointed out in its consultation the most important tasks to be done for further integration of the internal energy market.\n(b)\nA further key message by several stakeholders was that they would prefer to put all the issues listed in Article 8(6) of the Electricity and Gas Regulation through the FG/NC process instead of using direct comitology guidelines for the adoption of binding rules on these areas. In this context some stakeholders stressed the importance of a transparent, efficient and coherent process which guarantees early and close stakeholder and distribution system operator involvement. It was also mentioned that the necessary timeslots for the development of robust network codes, with sufficient time for consultation of involved actors, need to be given.\n(c)\nSeveral stakeholders requested that draft proposals for the framework guidelines and network codes should be accompanied by the relevant Impact Assessment outlining the main policy options and underpinning by their comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. The Impact Assessment should furthermore be subject to a separate public consultation. Drafting the impact assessment after the end of a public consultation, as in the case of the \u2018pilot code\u2019, would not be acceptable.\n(d)\nSeveral stakeholders mentioned in their response that the scope of some network codes is too wide and does not restrict itself to the scope given by the Regulations, i.e. cross-border issues. In this context it was also stressed that network codes should not be over-prescriptive.\n(7)\nThe following were the major comments concerning the annual priority list regarding electricity network rules received during the public consultation:\n(a)\nSeveral stakeholders were concerned about possible inconsistencies between network codes. Some proposed to develop only one network code in line with one framework guideline and some emphasised that at least some network codes need to be developed together such as the network codes on generator connection and demand connection, the network codes on grid connection and system operation, the network code on connection and congestion management and the \u2018governance\u2019 comitology guideline.\n(b)\nSeveral stakeholders support the development of rules regarding harmonised transmission tariff structures and/or investment incentives. ENTSO-E was of the opinion that the issue of tariff structures and the issue of investment incentives are largely unrelated and recommended therefore addressing them independently while giving priority to rules regarding investment incentives.\n(c)\nENTSO-E expressed the view that rules for longer-term (forward) capacity allocation and rules on High-voltage direct current transmission system connection need to be included into the annual priority list for 2013.\n(8)\nThe following were the major comments concerning the annual priority list regarding gas network rules received during the public consultation:\n(a)\nA key message by stakeholders was that they want to have harmonised rules regarding transmission tariff structures but would prefer to develop the rules through the network code process instead of using direct comitology guidelines. Several stakeholders proposed to set a narrow scope.\n(b)\nSome stakeholders raised concerns about the consistency between the network code on capacity allocation and the rules on congestion management procedures and therefore recommended to synchronise the comitology process for both topics.\n(9)\nThe following were the major comments concerning possible scope and need of network codes and guidelines beyond 2013 regarding electricity network rules received during the public consultation: some stakeholders were of the view Third Party Access rules should be developed before those related to energy efficiency regarding electricity networks as they could provide a level playing field for operators in the internal market.\n(10)\nThe following were the major comments concerning possible scope and need of network codes and guidelines beyond 2013 regarding gas network rules received during the public consultation:\n(a)\nSeveral stakeholders are asking to address the issue of incremental capacity and propose that rules could be developed in a network code on Third Party Access; others also want to have it addressed in the development of rules on harmonised transmission tariff structures. Several stakeholders were of the opinion that rules for trading related to technical and operational provisions of network access services and system balance are already covered by the rules on capacity allocation and balancing. Still stakeholders called for the development of trading rules focusing on rules to foster a liquid market on secondary capacity trading.\n(b)\nConcerning \u2018network security and reliability rules\u2019 the opinion was given that in case this issue needs to be tackled it would be more appropriate to do so in the framework of Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply.\n(c)\nSome stakeholders raised concerns whether the development of network codes and guidelines regarding operational procedures in an emergency would have any benefit and were questioning the harmonisation of these provisions.\n(11)\nHaving regard to the responses of stakeholders the Commission prioritises the work to deliver key elements that are necessary for the completion of the internal energy market by 2014,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAs it is foreseen that harmonised rules on transparency will pass the comitology procedure in 2012 the Commission establishes for the development of harmonised electricity rules this annual priority list for 2013:\n-\ncapacity allocation and congestion management rules including governance for day-ahead and intraday markets including capacity calculation (adoption under comitology procedure),\n-\nrules for longer-term (forward) capacity allocation (drafting of network code),\n-\nnetwork connection rules:\n-\nnetwork rules on generator grid connection (adoption under comitology procedure),\n-\nnetwork code on distribution system operator and industrial load connection (finalise network code and start comitology process),\n-\nnetwork code on High-voltage direct current transmission system connection,\n-\nsystem operation (finalise network codes on operational security, on operational planning and scheduling and on load-frequency control and reserves and start adoption process (5)),\n-\nbalancing rules including network-related reserve power rules (finalise network code on balancing),\n-\nrules regarding harmonised transmission tariff structures and/or investment incentives.\nArticle 2\nAs it is foreseen that harmonised rules on congestion management will pass the comitology procedure in 2012 the Commission establishes for the development of harmonised gas rules this annual priority list for 2013:\n-\ncapacity allocation (adoption under comitology procedure),\n-\nbalancing rules including network-related rules on nomination procedure, rules for imbalance charges and rules for operational balancing between transmission system operators' systems (finalise network code and start adoption process),\n-\ninteroperability and data exchange rules,\n-\nrules regarding harmonised transmission tariff structures.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2012.", "references": ["85", "97", "22", "60", "70", "71", "24", "32", "44", "53", "93", "43", "4", "65", "77", "19", "18", "45", "76", "72", "84", "7", "5", "99", "69", "63", "41", "46", "3", "90", "No Label", "9", "78", "81"], "gold": ["9", "78", "81"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1175/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 121(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe coordination of the economic policies of the Member States within the Union, as provided for by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) should entail compliance with the guiding principles of stable prices, sound public finances and monetary conditions and a sustainable balance of payments.\n(2)\nThe Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) initially consisted of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (3), Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (4) and the Resolution of the European Council of 17 June 1997 on the Stability and Growth Pact (5). Regulations (EC) No 1466/97 and (EC) No 1467/97 were amended in 2005 by Regulations (EC) No 1055/2005 (6) and (EC) No 1056/2005 (7) respectively. In addition, the Council Report of 20 March 2005 on \u2018Improving the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact\u2019 (8) was adopted.\n(3)\nThe SGP is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth underpinned by financial stability, thereby supporting the achievement of the Union's objectives for sustainable growth and employment.\n(4)\nThe preventive part of the SGP requires that Member States achieve and maintain a medium-term budgetary objective and submit stability and convergence programmes to that effect. It would benefit from more stringent forms of surveillance in order to ensure Member States' consistency and compliance with the Union's budgetary coordination framework.\n(5)\nThe content of the stability and convergence programmes as well as the procedure for their examination should further be developed both at national and at the level of the Union in the light of the experience gained with the implementation of the SGP.\n(6)\nThe budgetary targets in the stability and convergence programmes should explicitly take into account the measures adopted in line with the broad economic policy guidelines, the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States and the Union and, in general, the national reform programmes.\n(7)\nThe submission and assessment of stability and convergence programmes should be made before key decisions on the national budgets for the succeeding years are taken. Therefore, an appropriate deadline for submission of the stability and convergence programmes should be established. Taking into account the specificities of the budgetary year of the United Kingdom, special provisions for the date for submission of its convergence programmes should be established.\n(8)\nExperience gained and mistakes made during the first decade of the economic and monetary union show a need for improved economic governance in the Union, which should be built on a stronger national ownership of commonly agreed rules and policies and on a more robust framework at the level of the Union for the surveillance of national economic policies.\n(9)\nThe improved economic governance framework should rely on several interlinked and coherent policies for sustainable growth and employment, in particular a Union strategy for growth and jobs, with particular focus on developing and strengthening the internal market, fostering international trade and competitiveness, a European Semester for strengthened coordination of economic and budgetary policies (European Semester), an effective framework for preventing and correcting excessive government deficits (the SGP), a robust framework for preventing and correcting macroeconomic imbalances, minimum requirements for national budgetary frameworks, and enhanced financial market regulation and supervision, including macroprudential supervision by the European Systemic Risk Board.\n(10)\nThe SGP and the complete economic governance framework complement and support the Union strategy for growth and jobs. Interlinks between the different strands should not provide for exemptions from the provisions of the SGP.\n(11)\nThe strengthening of economic governance should include a closer and more timely involvement of the European Parliament and the national parliaments. While recognising that the counterparts of the European Parliament in the framework of the dialogue are the relevant institutions of the Union and their representatives, the competent committee of the European Parliament may offer an opportunity to participate in an exchange of views to a Member State which is the subject of a Council recommendation in accordance with Article 6(2) or Article 10(2). The Member State's participation in such an exchange of views is voluntary.\n(12)\nThe Commission should have a stronger role in the enhanced surveillance procedure as regards assessments that are specific to each Member State, monitoring, on-site missions, recommendations and warnings.\n(13)\nThe stability and convergence programmes and the national reform programmes should be prepared in a coherent manner and the timing of their submissions should be aligned. Those programmes should be submitted to the Council and to the Commission. They should be made public.\n(14)\nUnder the European Semester the policy surveillance and coordination cycle starts early in the year with a horizontal review in which the European Council, based on input from the Commission and the Council, identifies the main challenges facing the Union and the euro area and gives strategic guidance on policies. Discussion should also take place in the European Parliament at the beginning of the annual cycle of surveillance in due time before the discussion takes place in the European Council. When preparing their stability or convergence programmes and national reform programmes, Member States should take into account the horizontal guidance by the European Council.\n(15)\nIn order to enhance national ownership of the SGP, national budgetary frameworks should be fully aligned with the objectives of multilateral surveillance in the Union, and, in particular, with the European Semester.\n(16)\nIn line with the legal and political arrangements of each Member State, national parliaments should be duly involved in the European Semester and in the preparation of stability programmes, convergence programmes and national reform programmes in order to increase the transparency and ownership of, and accountability for the decisions taken. Where appropriate, the Economic and Financial Committee, the Economic Policy Committee, the Employment Committee and the Social Protection Committee should be consulted within the framework of the European Semester. Relevant stakeholders, in particular the social partners, should be involved, within the framework of the European Semester, on the main policy issues where appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the TFEU and national legal and political arrangements.\n(17)\nAdherence to the medium-term objective for budgetary positions should allow Member States to have a safety margin with respect to the 3 % of GDP reference value in order to ensure sustainable public finances, or rapid progress towards sustainability, while leaving room for budgetary manoeuvre, in particular taking into account the need for public investment. The medium-term budgetary objective should be updated regularly on the basis of a commonly agreed method reflecting appropriately the risks of explicit and implicit liabilities for public finance, as embodied in the aims of the SGP.\n(18)\nThe obligation to achieve and maintain the medium-term budgetary objective needs to be put into operation, through the specification of principles for the adjustment path towards the medium-term objective. Those principles should, inter alia, ensure that revenue windfalls, namely revenues in excess of what can normally be expected from economic growth, are allocated to debt reduction.\n(19)\nThe obligation to achieve and maintain the medium-term budgetary objective should apply to all Member States.\n(20)\nSufficient progress towards the medium-term budgetary objective should be evaluated on the basis of an overall assessment with the structural balance as a reference, including an analysis of expenditure net of discretionary revenue measures. In this regard, and as long as the medium-term budgetary objective is not achieved, the growth rate of government expenditure should normally not exceed a reference medium-term rate of potential GDP growth, with increases in excess of that norm being matched by discretionary increases in government revenues and discretionary revenue reductions being compensated by reductions in expenditure. The reference medium-term rate of potential GDP growth should be calculated according to a commonly agreed method. The Commission should make public the calculation method for those projections and the resulting reference medium-term rate of potential GDP growth. The potentially very high variability of investment expenditure should be taken into account, especially in the case of small Member States.\n(21)\nA faster adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective should be required for Member States faced with a debt level exceeding 60 % of GDP, or with pronounced risks in terms of overall debt sustainability.\n(22)\nA temporary departure from the adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective should be allowed, when it results from an unusual event outside the control of the Member State concerned, which has a major impact on the financial position of the general government or in case of severe economic downturn for the euro area or the Union as a whole, provided that this does not endanger fiscal sustainability in the medium-term, in order to facilitate economic recovery. The implementation of major structural reforms should also be taken into account in allowing a temporary departure from the medium-term budgetary objective or the appropriate adjustment towards it, on condition of maintaining a safety margin with respect to the deficit reference value. Special attention should be paid in this context to systemic pension reforms, where the departure should reflect the direct incremental cost of the diversion of contributions from the publicly managed to the fully funded pillar. Measures transferring the assets of the fully funded pillar back to the publicly managed pillar should be considered one-off and temporary in nature and hence excluded from the structural balance used for assessing progress towards the medium-term budgetary objective.\n(23)\nIn the event of a significant deviation from the adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective, a warning should be addressed by the Commission to the Member State concerned, to be followed within 1 month by an examination of the situation by the Council and a recommendation for the necessary adjustment measures. The recommendation should set a deadline of no more than 5 months for addressing the deviation. The Member State concerned should report to the Council on the action taken. If the Member State concerned fails to take appropriate action within the deadline set by the Council, the Council should adopt a decision establishing that no effective action has been taken and should report to the European Council. It is important that failures by Member States to take appropriate action are established in due time, in particular where the failure persists. The Commission should be able to recommend to the Council to adopt revised recommendations. The Commission should be able to invite the ECB to participate in a surveillance mission for euro area Member States and for Member States that are participating in the Agreement of 16 March 2006 between the European Central Bank and the national central banks of the Member States outside the euro area laying down the operating procedures for an exchange rate mechanism in stage three of Economic and Monetary Union (9) (ERM2), when appropriate. The Commission should report to the Council on the outcome of the mission and, if appropriate, should be able to decide to make its findings public.\n(24)\nThe power to adopt individual decisions establishing non-compliance with the recommendations adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 121(4) TFEU establishing policy measures in case a Member State significantly deviates from the adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective should be conferred on the Council. As part of the coordination of the economic policies of the Member States conducted within the Council, as provided for in Article 121(1) TFEU, those individual decisions are an integral follow-up to the referred recommendations adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 121(4) TFEU. The suspension of the voting rights of the members of the Council representing Member States whose currency is not the euro for adoption by the Council of a decision establishing non-compliance with the recommendations addressed to a Member State whose currency is the euro on the basis of Article 121(4) TFEU, is a direct consequence of such decision being an integral follow-up of that recommendation and the provision in Article 139(4) TFEU reserving the right to vote on such recommendations to the Member States whose currency is the euro.\n(25)\nIn order to ensure compliance with the budgetary surveillance framework of the Union for Member States whose currency is the euro, a specific enforcement mechanism should be established on the basis of Article 136 TFEU for cases of significant deviation from the adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective.\n(26)\nReferences contained in Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 should take account of the new Article numbering of the TFEU.\n(27)\nRegulation (EC) No 1466/97 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1466/97 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThis Regulation sets out the rules covering the content, the submission, the examination and the monitoring of stability programmes and convergence programmes as part of multilateral surveillance by the Council and the Commission so as to prevent, at an early stage, the occurrence of excessive general government deficits and to promote the surveillance and coordination of economic policies thereby supporting the achievement of the Union's objectives for growth and employment.\u2019.\n(2)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nFor the purpose of this Regulation:\n(a)\n\u201cparticipating Member States\u201d means those Member States whose currency is the euro;\n(b)\n\u201cnon-participating Member States\u201d means Member States other than those whose currency is the euro.\u2019.\n(3)\nThe following section is inserted:\n\u2018SECTION 1-A\nEUROPEAN SEMESTER FOR ECONOMIC POLICY COORDINATION\nArticle 2-a\n1. In order to ensure closer coordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of the economic performance of the Member States, the Council shall conduct multilateral surveillance as an integral part of the European Semester for economic policy coordination in accordance with the objectives and requirements set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).\n2. The European Semester shall include:\n(a)\nthe formulation, and the surveillance of the implementation, of the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union (broad economic policy guidelines) in accordance with Article 121(2) TFEU;\n(b)\nthe formulation, and the examination of the implementation, of the employment guidelines that must be taken into account by Member States in accordance with Article 148(2) TFEU (employment guidelines);\n(c)\nthe submission and assessment of Member States' stability or convergence programmes under this Regulation;\n(d)\nthe submission and assessment of Member States' national reform programmes supporting the Union's strategy for growth and jobs and established in line with the guidelines set out in point (a) and (b) and with the general guidance to Member States issued by the Commission and the European Council at the beginning of the annual cycle of surveillance;\n(e)\nthe surveillance to prevent and correct macroeconomic imbalances under Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (10).\n3. In the course of the European Semester, in order to provide timely and integrated policy advice on macrofiscal and macrostructural policy intentions, the Council shall, as a rule, following the assessment of these programmes on the basis of recommendations from the Commission, address guidance to the Member States making full use of the legal instruments provided under Articles 121 and 148 TFEU, and under this Regulation and Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011.\nMember States shall take due account of the guidance addressed to them in the development of their economic, employment and budgetary policies before taking key decisions on their national budgets for the succeeding years. Progress shall be monitored by the Commission.\nFailure by a Member State to act upon the guidance received may result in:\n(a)\nfurther recommendations to take specific measures;\n(b)\na warning by the Commission under Article 121(4) TFEU;\n(c)\nmeasures under this Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 or Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011.\nImplementation of the measures shall be subject to reinforced monitoring by the Commission and may include surveillance missions under Article -11 of this Regulation.\n4. The European Parliament shall be duly involved in the European Semester in order to increase the transparency and ownership of, and the accountability for the decisions taken, in particular by means of the economic dialogue carried out pursuant to Article 2-ab of this Regulation. The Economic and Financial Committee, the Economic Policy Committee, the Employment Committee and the Social Protection Committee shall be consulted within the framework of the European Semester where appropriate. Relevant stakeholders, in particular the social partners, shall be involved within the framework of the European Semester, on the main policy issues where appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the TFEU and national legal and political arrangements.\nThe President of the Council, and the Commission in accordance with Article 121 TFEU, and, where appropriate, the President of the Eurogroup, shall report annually to the European Parliament and to the European Council on the results of the multilateral surveillance. These reports should be a component of the Economic Dialogue referred to in Article 2-ab of this Regulation.\n(4)\nThe following section is inserted:\n\u2018SECTION 1-Aa\nECONOMIC DIALOGUE\nArticle 2-ab\n1. In order to enhance the dialogue between the institutions of the Union, in particular the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and to ensure greater transparency and accountability, the competent committee of the European Parliament may invite the President of the Council, the Commission and, where appropriate, the President of the European Council or the President of the Eurogroup to appear before the committee to discuss:\n(a)\ninformation provided to the committee by the Council on the broad guidelines of economic policy pursuant to Article 121(2) TFEU;\n(b)\ngeneral guidance to Member States issued by the Commission at the beginning of the annual cycle of surveillance;\n(c)\nany conclusions drawn by the European Council on orientations for economic policies in the context of the European Semester;\n(d)\nthe results of multilateral surveillance carried out under this Regulation;\n(e)\nany conclusions drawn by the European Council on the orientations for and results of multilateral surveillance;\n(f)\nany review of the conduct of multilateral surveillance at the end of the European Semester;\n(g)\nCouncil recommendations addressed to Member States in accordance with Article 121(4) TFEU in the event of significant deviation and the report made by the Council to the European Council as defined in Article 6(2) and Article 10(2) of this Regulation.\n2. The Council is expected to, as a rule, follow the recommendations and proposals of the Commission or explain its position publicly.\n3. The competent committee of the European Parliament may offer the opportunity to a Member State which is the subject of a Council recommendation under Article 6(2) or Article 10(2) to participate in an exchange of views.\n4. The Council and the Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament of the application of this Regulation.\u2019.\n(5)\nArticle 2a is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2a\nEach Member State shall have a differentiated medium-term objective for its budgetary position. These country-specific medium-term budgetary objectives may diverge from the requirement of a close to balance or in surplus position, while providing a safety margin with respect to the 3 % of GDP government deficit ratio. The medium-term budgetary objectives shall ensure the sustainability of public finances or a rapid progress towards such sustainability while allowing room for budgetary manoeuvre, considering in particular the need for public investment.\nTaking these factors into account, for participating Member States and for Member States that are participating in ERM2 the country-specific medium-term budgetary objectives shall be specified within a defined range between -1 % of GDP and balance or surplus, in cyclically adjusted terms, net of one-off and temporary measures.\nThe medium-term budgetary objective shall be revised every 3 years. A Member State's medium-term budgetary objective may be further revised in the event of the implementation of a structural reform with a major impact on the sustainability of public finances.\nThe respect of the medium-term budgetary objective shall be included in the national medium-term budgetary frameworks in accordance with Chapter IV of Council Directive 2011/85/EU of 8 November 2011 on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States (11).\n(6)\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Each participating Member State shall submit to the Council and to the Commission information necessary for the purpose of multilateral surveillance at regular intervals under Article 121 TFEU in the form of a stability programme, which provides an essential basis for the sustainability of public finances which is conducive to price stability, strong sustainable growth and employment creation.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, points (a), (b) and (c) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe medium-term budgetary objective and the adjustment path towards that objective for the general government balance as a percentage of GDP, the expected path of the general government debt ratio, the planned growth path of government expenditure, including the corresponding allocation for gross fixed capital formation, in particular bearing in mind the conditions and criteria to establish the expenditure growth under Article 5(1), the planned growth path of government revenue at unchanged policy and a quantification of the planned discretionary revenue measures;\n(aa)\ninformation on implicit liabilities related to ageing, and contingent liabilities, such as public guarantees, with a potentially large impact on the general government accounts;\n(ab)\ninformation on the consistency of the stability programme with the broad economic policy guidelines and the national reform programme;\n(b)\nthe main assumptions about expected economic developments and important economic variables which are relevant to the achievement of the stability programme, such as government investment expenditure, real GDP growth, employment and inflation;\n(c)\na quantitative assessment of the budgetary and other economic policy measures being taken or proposed to achieve the objectives of the programme, comprising a cost-benefit analysis of major structural reforms which have direct long-term positive budgetary effects, including by raising potential sustainable growth;\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20182a. The stability programme shall be based on the most likely macrofiscal scenario or on a more prudent scenario. The macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts shall be compared with the most updated Commission forecasts and, if appropriate, those of other independent bodies. Significant differences between the chosen macrofiscal scenario and the Commission's forecast shall be described with reasoning, in particular if the level or growth of external assumptions departs significantly from the values retained in the Commission's forecasts.\nThe exact nature of the information included in points (a), (aa), (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 2 shall be set out in a harmonised framework established by the Commission in cooperation with the Member States.\u2019;\n(d)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The information about the paths for the general government balance and debt ratio, the growth of government expenditure, the planned growth path of government revenue at unchanged policy, the planned discretionary revenue measures, appropriately quantified, and the main economic assumptions referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 shall be on an annual basis and shall cover the preceding year, the current year and at least the following 3 years.\n4. Each programme shall include information on its status in the context of national procedures, in particular whether the programme was presented to the national parliament, and whether the national parliament had the opportunity to discuss the Council's opinion on the previous programme or, if relevant, any recommendation or warning, and whether there has been parliamentary approval of the programme.\u2019.\n(7)\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\n1. Stability programmes shall be submitted annually in April, preferably by mid-April and not later than 30 April.\n2. Member States shall make public their stability programmes.\u2019.\n(8)\nArticle 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\n1. Based on assessments by the Commission and the Economic and Financial Committee, the Council shall, within the framework of multilateral surveillance under Article 121 TFEU, examine the medium-term budgetary objectives presented by the Member States concerned in their stability programmes, assess whether the economic assumptions on which the programme is based are plausible, whether the adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective is appropriate, including consideration of the accompanying path for the debt ratio, and whether the measures being taken or proposed to respect that adjustment path are sufficient to achieve the medium-term budgetary objective over the cycle.\nThe Council and the Commission, when assessing the adjustment path toward the medium-term budgetary objective, shall examine if the Member State concerned pursues an appropriate annual improvement of its cyclically-adjusted budget balance, net of one-off and other temporary measures, required to meet its medium-term budgetary objective, with 0,5 % of GDP as a benchmark. For Member States faced with a debt level exceeding 60 % of GDP or with pronounced risks of overall debt sustainability, the Council and the Commission shall examine whether the annual improvement of the cyclically-adjusted budget balance, net of one-off and other temporary measures is higher than 0,5 % of GDP. The Council and the Commission shall take into account whether a higher adjustment effort is made in economic good times, whereas the effort might be more limited in economic bad times. In particular, revenue windfalls and shortfalls shall be taken into account.\nSufficient progress towards the medium-term budgetary objective shall be evaluated on the basis of an overall assessment with the structural balance as the reference, including an analysis of expenditure net of discretionary revenue measures. To this end, the Council and the Commission shall assess whether the growth path of government expenditure, taken in conjunction with the effect of measures being taken or planned on the revenue side, is in accordance with the following conditions:\n(a)\nfor Member States that have achieved their medium-term budgetary objective, annual expenditure growth does not exceed a reference medium-term rate of potential GDP growth, unless the excess is matched by discretionary revenue measures;\n(b)\nfor Member States that have not yet reached their medium-term budgetary objective, annual expenditure growth does not exceed a rate below a reference medium-term rate of potential GDP growth, unless the excess is matched by discretionary revenue measures. The size of the shortfall of the growth rate of government expenditure compared to a reference medium-term rate of potential GDP growth is set in such a way as to ensure an appropriate adjustment towards the medium-term budgetary objective;\n(c)\nfor Member States that have not yet reached their medium-term budgetary objective, discretionary reductions of government revenue items are matched either by expenditure reductions or by discretionary increases in other government revenue items or both.\nThe expenditure aggregate shall exclude interest expenditure, expenditure on Union programmes fully matched by Union funds revenue and non-discretionary changes in unemployment benefit expenditure.\nThe excess expenditure growth over the medium-term reference shall not be counted as a breach of the benchmark to the extent that it is fully offset by revenue increases mandated by law.\nThe reference medium-term rate of potential GDP growth shall be determined on the basis of forward-looking projections and backward-looking estimates. Projections shall be updated at regular intervals. The Commission shall make public the calculation method for those projections and the resulting reference medium-term rate of potential GDP growth.\nWhen defining the adjustment path to the medium-term budgetary objective for Member States that have not yet reached this objective, and in allowing a temporary deviation from this objective for Member States that have already reached it, provided that an appropriate safety margin with respect to the deficit reference value is preserved and that the budgetary position is expected to return to the medium-term budgetary objective within the programme period, the Council and the Commission shall take into account the implementation of major structural reforms which have direct long-term positive budgetary effects, including by raising potential sustainable growth, and therefore a verifiable impact on the long-term sustainability of public finances.\nParticular attention shall be paid to pension reforms introducing a multi-pillar system that includes a mandatory, fully funded pillar. Member States implementing such reforms shall be allowed to deviate from the adjustment path to their medium-term budgetary objective or from the objective itself, with the deviation reflecting the amount of the direct incremental impact of the reform on the general government balance, provided that an appropriate safety margin with respect to the deficit reference value is preserved.\nThe Council and the Commission shall also examine whether the stability programme facilitates the achievement of sustained and real convergence within the euro area and the closer coordination of economic policies, and whether the economic policies of the Member State concerned are consistent with the broad economic policy guidelines and the employment guidelines of the Member States and of the Union.\nIn the case of an unusual event outside the control of the Member State concerned which has a major impact on the financial position of the general government or in periods of severe economic downturn for the euro area or the Union as a whole, Member States may be allowed temporarily to depart from the adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective referred to in the third subparagraph, provided that this does not endanger fiscal sustainability in the medium term.\n2. The Council and the Commission shall examine the stability programme within at most 3 months of its submission. The Council, on a recommendation from the Commission and after consulting the Economic and Financial Committee, shall, if necessary, adopt an opinion on the programme. Where the Council, in accordance with Article 121 TFEU, considers that the objectives and the content of the programme should be strengthened with particular reference to the adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective, the Council shall in its opinion invite the Member State concerned to adjust its programme.\u2019.\n(9)\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\n1. As part of multilateral surveillance in accordance with Article 121(3) TFEU, the Council and the Commission shall monitor the implementation of stability programmes, on the basis of information provided by participating Member States and of assessments by the Commission and the Economic and Financial Committee, in particular with a view to identifying actual or expected significant divergences of the budgetary position from the medium-term budgetary objective, or from the appropriate adjustment path towards it.\n2. In the event of a significant observed deviation from the adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 5(1) of this Regulation, and in order to prevent the occurrence of an excessive deficit, the Commission shall address a warning to the Member State concerned in accordance with Article 121(4) TFEU.\nThe Council shall, within 1 month of the date of adoption of the warning referred to in the first subparagraph, examine the situation and adopt a recommendation for the necessary policy measures, on the basis of a Commission recommendation, based on Article 121(4) TFEU. The recommendation shall set a deadline of no more than 5 months for addressing the deviation. The deadline shall be reduced to 3 months if the Commission, in its warning, considers that the situation is particularly serious and warrants urgent action. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall make the recommendation public.\nWithin the deadline set by the Council in the recommendation under Article 121(4) TFEU, the Member State concerned shall report to the Council on action taken in response to the recommendation.\nIf the Member State concerned fails to take appropriate action within the deadline specified in a Council recommendation under the second subparagraph, the Commission shall immediately recommend to the Council to adopt, by qualified majority, a decision establishing that no effective action has been taken. At the same time, the Commission may recommend to the Council to adopt a revised recommendation under Article 121(4) TFEU on necessary policy measures.\nIn the event that the Council does not adopt the decision on the Commission recommendation that no effective action has been taken, and failure to take appropriate action on the part of the Member State concerned persists, the Commission, after 1 month from its earlier recommendation, shall recommend to the Council to adopt the decision establishing that no effective action has been taken. The decision shall be deemed to be adopted by the Council unless it decides, by simple majority, to reject the recommendation within 10 days of its adoption by the Commission. At the same time, the Commission may recommend to the Council to adopt a revised recommendation under Article 121(4) TFEU on necessary policy measures.\nWhen taking the decision on non-compliance referred to in the fourth and fifth subparagraphs, only members of the Council representing participating Member States shall vote and the Council shall act without taking into account the vote of the member of the Council representing the Member State concerned.\nThe Council shall submit a formal report to the European Council on the decisions taken accordingly.\n3. A deviation from the medium-term budgetary objective or from the appropriate adjustment path towards it shall be evaluated on the basis of an overall assessment with the structural balance as the reference, including an analysis of expenditure net of discretionary revenue measures, as defined in Article 5(1).\nThe assessment of whether the deviation is significant shall, in particular, include the following criteria:\n(a)\nfor a Member State that has not reached the medium-term budgetary objective, when assessing the change in the structural balance, whether the deviation is at least 0,5 % of GDP in a single year or at least 0,25 % of GDP on average per year in 2 consecutive years;\n(b)\nwhen assessing expenditure developments net of discretionary revenue measures, whether the deviation has a total impact on the government balance of at least 0,5 % of GDP in a single year or cumulatively in 2 consecutive years.\nThe deviation of expenditure developments shall not be considered significant if the Member State concerned has overachieved the medium-term budgetary objective, taking into account the possibility of significant revenue windfalls and the budgetary plans laid out in the stability programme do not jeopardise that objective over the programme period.\nSimilarly, the deviation may be left out of consideration when it results from an unusual event outside the control of the Member State concerned and which has a major impact on the financial position of the general government or in case of severe economic downturn for the euro area or the Union as a whole, provided that this does not endanger fiscal sustainability in the medium-term.\u2019.\n(10)\nArticle 7 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Each non-participating Member State shall submit to the Council and to the Commission information necessary for the purpose of multilateral surveillance at regular intervals under Article 121 TFEU in the form of a convergence programme, which provides an essential basis for the sustainability of public finances which is conducive to price stability, strong sustainable growth and employment creation.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, points (a), (b) and (c) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe medium-term budgetary objective and the adjustment path towards this objective for the general government balance as a percentage of GDP, the expected path of the general government debt ratio, the planned growth path of government expenditure, including the corresponding allocation for gross fixed capital formation, in particular bearing in mind the conditions and criteria to establish the expenditure growth under Article 9(1), the planned growth path of government revenue at unchanged policy and a quantification of the planned discretionary revenue measures, the medium-term monetary policy objectives, the relationship of those objectives to price and exchange rate stability and to the achievement of sustained convergence;\n(aa)\ninformation on implicit liabilities related to ageing, and contingent liabilities, such as public guarantees, with a potentially large impact on the general government accounts;\n(ab)\ninformation on the consistency of the convergence programme with the broad economic policy guidelines and the national reform programme;\n(b)\nthe main assumptions about expected economic developments and important economic variables which are relevant to the achievement of the convergence programme, such as government investment expenditure, real GDP growth, employment and inflation;\n(c)\na quantitative assessment of the budgetary and other economic policy measures being taken or proposed to achieve the objectives of the programme, comprising a cost-benefit analysis of major structural reforms, which have direct long-term positive budgetary effects, including by raising potential sustainable growth;\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20182a. The convergence programme shall be based on the most likely macrofiscal scenario or on a more prudent scenario. The macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts shall be compared with the most updated Commission forecasts and, if appropriate, those of other independent bodies. Significant differences between the chosen macrofiscal scenario and the Commission forecast shall be described with reasoning, in particular if the level or growth of external assumptions departs significantly from the values retained in the Commission's forecasts.\nThe exact nature of the information included in points (a), (aa), (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 2 shall be set out in a harmonised framework established by the Commission in cooperation with the Member States.\u2019;\n(d)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The information about the paths for the general government balance and debt ratio, the growth of government expenditure, the planned growth path of government revenue at unchanged policy, the planned discretionary revenue measures, appropriately quantified, and the main economic assumptions referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 shall be on an annual basis and shall cover the preceding year, the current year and at least the following 3 years.\n4. Each programme shall include information on its status in the context of national procedures, in particular whether the programme was presented to the national parliament, and whether the national parliament had the opportunity to discuss the Council opinion on the previous programme or, if relevant, any recommendation or warning, and whether there has been parliamentary approval of the programme.\u2019.\n(11)\nArticle 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8\n1. Convergence programmes shall be submitted annually in April, preferably by mid April and not later than 30 April.\n2. Member States shall make public their convergence programmes.\u2019.\n(12)\nArticle 9 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 9\n1. Based on assessments by the Commission and the Economic and Financial Committee, the Council shall, within the framework of multilateral surveillance under Article 121 TFEU, examine the medium-term budgetary objectives presented by the Member States concerned in their convergence programmes, assess whether the economic assumptions on which the programme is based are plausible, whether the adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective is appropriate, including consideration of the accompanying path for the debt ratio, and whether the measures being taken or proposed to respect that adjustment path are sufficient to achieve the medium-term budgetary objective over the cycle and to achieve sustained convergence.\nThe Council and the Commission, when assessing the adjustment path toward the medium-term budgetary objective, shall take into account whether a higher adjustment effort is made in economic good times, whereas the effort might be more limited in economic bad times. In particular, revenue windfalls and shortfalls shall be taken into account. For Member States faced with a debt level exceeding 60 % of GDP or with pronounced risks of overall debt sustainability, the Council and the Commission shall examine whether the annual improvement of the cyclically-adjusted budget balance, net of one-off and other temporary measures, is higher than 0,5 % of GDP. For Member States that are participating in ERM2, the Council and the Commission shall examine if the Member State concerned pursues an appropriate annual improvement of its cyclically adjusted balance, net of one-off and other temporary measures, required to meet its medium-term budgetary objective, with 0,5 % of GDP as a benchmark.\nSufficient progress towards the medium-term budgetary objective shall be evaluated on the basis of an overall assessment with the structural balance as the reference, including an analysis of expenditure net of discretionary revenue measures. To this end, the Council and the Commission shall assess whether the growth path of government expenditure, taken in conjunction with the effect of measures being taken or planned on the revenue side, is in accordance with the following conditions:\n(a)\nfor Member States that have achieved their medium-term budgetary objective, annual expenditure growth does not exceed a reference medium-term rate of potential GDP growth, unless the excess is matched by discretionary revenue measures;\n(b)\nfor Member States that have not yet reached their medium-term budgetary objective, annual expenditure growth does not exceed a rate below a reference medium-term rate of potential GDP growth, unless the excess is matched by discretionary revenue measures. The size of the shortfall of the growth rate of government expenditure compared to a reference medium-term rate of potential GDP growth is set in such a way as to ensure an appropriate adjustment towards the medium-term budgetary objective;\n(c)\nfor Member States that have not yet reached their medium-term budgetary objective, discretionary reductions of government revenue items are matched either by expenditure reductions or by discretionary increases in other government revenue items or both.\nThe expenditure aggregate shall exclude interest expenditure, expenditure on Union programmes fully matched by Union funds revenue and non-discretionary changes in unemployment benefit expenditure.\nThe excess expenditure growth over the medium-term reference shall not be counted as a breach of the benchmark to the extent that it is fully offset by revenue increases mandated by law.\nThe reference medium-term rate of potential GDP growth shall be determined on the basis of forward-looking projections and backward-looking estimates. Projections shall be updated at regular intervals. The Commission shall make public the calculation method for those projections and the resulting reference medium-term rate of potential GDP growth.\nWhen defining the adjustment path to the medium-term budgetary objective for Member States that have not yet reached this objective, and in allowing a temporary deviation from this objective for Member States that have already reached it, provided that an appropriate safety margin with respect to the deficit reference value is preserved and that the budgetary position is expected to return to the medium-term budgetary objective within the programme period, the Council and the Commission shall take into account the implementation of major structural reforms which have direct long-term positive budgetary effects, including by raising potential sustainable growth, and therefore a verifiable impact on the long-term sustainability of public finances.\nParticular attention shall be paid to pension reforms introducing a multi-pillar system that includes a mandatory, fully funded pillar. Member States implementing such reforms shall be allowed to deviate from the adjustment path to their medium-term budgetary objective or from the objective itself, with the deviation reflecting the amount of the direct incremental impact of the reform on the general government balance, provided that an appropriate safety margin with respect to the deficit reference value is preserved.\nThe Council and the Commission shall also examine whether the convergence programme facilitates the achievement of sustained and real convergence and the closer coordination of economic policies, and whether the economic policies of the Member State concerned are consistent with the broad economic policy guidelines and the employment guidelines of the Member States and of the Union. In addition, for Member States that are participating in ERM2, the Council shall examine whether the convergence programme ensures a smooth participation in the exchange rate mechanism.\nIn the case of an unusual event outside the control of the Member State concerned, which has a major impact on the financial position of the general government or in periods of severe economic downturn for the euro area or the Union as a whole, Member States may be allowed temporarily to depart from the adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective referred to in the third subparagraph, provided that this does not endanger fiscal sustainability in the medium term.\n2. The Council and the Commission shall examine the convergence programme within at most 3 months of its submission. The Council, on a recommendation from the Commission and after consulting the Economic and Financial Committee, shall, if necessary, adopt an opinion on the programme. Where the Council, in accordance with Article 121 TFEU, considers that the objectives and the content of the programme should be strengthened with particular reference to the adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective, the Council shall in its opinion invite the Member State concerned to adjust its programme.\u2019.\n(13)\nArticle 10 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 10\n1. As part of multilateral surveillance in accordance with Article 121(3) TFEU, the Council and the Commission shall monitor the implementation of convergence programmes, on the basis of information provided by Member States with a derogation and of assessments by the Commission and the Economic and Financial Committee, in particular with a view to identifying actual or expected significant divergences of the budgetary position from the medium-term budgetary objective, or from the appropriate adjustment path towards it.\nIn addition, the Council and the Commission shall monitor the economic policies of non-participating Member States in the light of convergence programme objectives with a view to ensure that their policies are geared to stability and thus to avoid real exchange rate misalignments and excessive nominal exchange rate fluctuations.\n2. In the event of a significant observed deviation from the adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 9(1) of this Regulation, and in order to prevent the occurrence of an excessive deficit, the Commission shall address a warning to the Member State concerned in accordance with Article 121(4) TFEU.\nThe Council shall, within 1 month of the date of adoption of the warning referred to in the first subparagraph, examine the situation and adopt a recommendation for the necessary policy measures, on the basis of a Commission recommendation, based on Article 121(4) TFEU. The recommendation shall set a deadline of no more than 5 months for addressing the deviation. The deadline shall be reduced to 3 months if the Commission, in its warning, considers that the situation is particularly serious and warrants urgent action. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall make the recommendation public.\nWithin the deadline set by the Council in the recommendation under Article 121(4) TFEU, the Member State concerned shall report to the Council on action taken in response to the recommendation.\nIf the Member State concerned fails to take appropriate action within the deadline specified in a Council recommendation under the second subparagraph, the Commission shall immediately recommend to the Council to adopt, by qualified majority, a decision establishing that no effective action has been taken. At the same time, the Commission may recommend to the Council to adopt a revised recommendation under Article 121(4) TFEU on necessary policy measures.\nIn the event that the Council does not adopt the decision on the Commission recommendation that no effective action has been taken, and failure to take appropriate action on the part of the Member State concerned persists, the Commission, after 1 month from its earlier recommendation, shall recommend to the Council to adopt the decision establishing that no effective action has been taken. The decision shall be deemed to be adopted by the Council unless it decides, by simple majority, to reject the recommendation within 10 days of its adoption by the Commission. At the same time, the Commission may recommend to the Council to adopt a revised recommendation under Article 121(4) TFEU on necessary policy measures.\nWhen taking the decision on non-compliance referred to in the fourth and fifth subparagraphs, the Council shall act without taking into account the vote of the member of the Council representing the Member State concerned.\nThe Council shall submit a formal report to the European Council on the decisions taken accordingly.\n3. A deviation from the medium-term budgetary objective or from the appropriate adjustment path towards it shall be evaluated on the basis of an overall assessment with the structural balance as the reference, including an analysis of expenditure net of discretionary revenue measures, as defined in Article 9(1).\nThe assessment of whether the deviation is significant shall, in particular, include the following criteria:\n(a)\nfor a Member State that has not reached the medium-term budgetary objective, when assessing the change in the structural balance, whether the deviation is at least 0,5 % of GDP in a single year or at least 0,25 % of GDP on average per year in two consecutive years;\n(b)\nwhen assessing expenditure developments net of discretionary revenue measures, whether the deviation has a total impact on the government balance of at least 0,5 % of GDP in a single year or cumulatively in two consecutive years.\nThe deviation of expenditure developments shall not be considered significant if the Member State concerned has overachieved the medium-term budgetary objective, taking into account the possibility of significant revenue windfalls and the budgetary plans laid out in the convergence programme do not jeopardise that objective over the programme period.\nSimilarly, the deviation may be left out of consideration when resulting from an unusual event outside the control of the Member State concerned and which has a major impact on the financial position of the general government or in case of severe economic downturn for the euro area or the Union as a whole, on the condition that this does not endanger fiscal sustainability in the medium term.\u2019.\n(14)\nThe following section is inserted:\n\u2018SECTION 3A\nPRINCIPLE OF STATISTICAL INDEPENDENCE\nArticle 10a\nWith a view to ensuring that the multilateral surveillance is based on sound and independent statistics, Member States shall ensure the professional independence of national statistical authorities, which shall be consistent with the European statistics code of practice as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European Statistics (12). As a minimum this shall require:\n(a)\ntransparent recruitment and dismissal processes which must be solely based on professional criteria;\n(b)\nbudgetary allocations which must be made on an annual or a multiannual basis;\n(c)\nthe date of publication of key statistical information which must be designated significantly in advance.\n(15)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article -11\n1. The Commission shall ensure a permanent dialogue with the relevant authorities of the Member States in accordance with the objectives of this Regulation. To that end, the Commission shall, in particular, carry out missions for the purpose of the assessment of the economic situation in the Member State and the identification of any risks or difficulties in complying with the objectives of this Regulation.\n2. The Commission may undertake enhanced surveillance missions in Member States which are the subject of recommendations issued under Article 6(2) or Article 10(2) for the purposes of on-site monitoring. The Member States concerned shall provide all necessary information for the preparation and the conduct of those missions.\n3. When the Member State concerned is a participating Member State or a Member State that is participating in ERM2, the Commission may invite representatives of the European Central Bank, if appropriate, to participate in surveillance missions.\n4. The Commission shall report to the Council on the outcome of the missions referred to in paragraph 2 and, if appropriate, may decide to make its findings public.\n5. When organising the missions referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall transmit its provisional findings to the Member States concerned for comments.\u2019.\n(16)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 12a\n1. By 14 December 2014 and every 5 years thereafter, the Commission shall publish a report on the application of this Regulation.\nThat report shall evaluate, inter alia:\n(a)\nthe effectiveness of this Regulation, particularly whether the provisions governing decision-making have proved sufficiently robust;\n(b)\nthe progress in ensuring closer coordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of economic performances of the Member States in accordance with the TFEU.\n2. Where appropriate, this report shall be accompanied by a proposal for amendments to this Regulation, including to the decision-making procedures.\n3. The report shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council.\u2019.\n(17)\nAll references to \u2018Article 99 of the Treaty\u2019 shall be replaced throughout the Regulation by references to \u2018Article 121 TFEU\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["52", "63", "23", "5", "0", "62", "48", "54", "64", "83", "9", "60", "94", "75", "65", "49", "82", "20", "89", "97", "98", "55", "14", "81", "70", "46", "30", "17", "77", "10", "No Label", "15", "27", "28", "32", "33"], "gold": ["15", "27", "28", "32", "33"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 25 October 2011\non mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/003 DE/Arnsberg and D\u00fcsseldorf automotive from Germany)\n(2011/724/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nGermany submitted an application on 9 February 2011 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in five enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 29 (\u2018Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers\u2019) in the NUTS II regions of Arnsberg (DEA5) and D\u00fcsseldorf (DEA1) and supplemented it by additional information up to 28 April 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 4 347 868.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Germany,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 4 347 868 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["72", "88", "69", "6", "95", "7", "87", "73", "90", "71", "59", "41", "48", "86", "61", "80", "42", "13", "63", "32", "8", "77", "67", "58", "57", "31", "62", "14", "12", "30", "No Label", "15", "16", "40", "49", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "16", "40", "49", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 20 October 2010\non mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/003 ES/Galicia Textiles from Spain)\n(2010/664/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nSpain submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in 82 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 14 (manufacture of wearing apparel) in a single NUTS II region, Galicia (ES11) on 5 February 2010 and supplemented it by additional information up to 11 May 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 844 700.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Spain,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 844 700 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["96", "43", "13", "90", "88", "63", "29", "93", "40", "41", "69", "60", "83", "18", "79", "22", "68", "36", "26", "21", "20", "39", "97", "86", "76", "9", "85", "95", "25", "27", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "92"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "92"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 7 May 2012\nconcerning the determination of start-up and shut-down periods for the purposes of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions\n(notified under document C(2012) 2948)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/249/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (1), and in particular point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 41 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2010/75/EU does not determine start-up and shut-down periods, while those periods relate to several provisions in that Directive.\n(2)\nFor combustion plants covered by Chapter III of Directive 2010/75/EU, the determination of start-up and shut-down periods is required for assessing compliance with the emission limit values set out in Annex V to Directive 2010/75/EU, taking into account Part 4 of that Annex, as well as for determining the number of operating hours of the combustion plants, where it is relevant for the implementation of that Directive.\n(3)\nArticle 14(1)(f) of Directive 2010/75/EU requires the permit to include measures relating to conditions other than normal operating conditions, such as start-up and shut-down operations. In accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2010/75/EU, such measures can be included in general binding rules.\n(4)\nThe emissions from combustion plants during start-up and shut-down periods are generally at elevated concentrations compared to normal operating conditions. In view of the objective of Directive 2010/75/EU to prevent emissions, those periods should be as short as possible.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 75 of Directive 2010/75/EU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\nThis Decision lays down rules concerning the determination of the start-up and shut-down periods referred to in point (27) of Article 3 and in point 1 of Part 4 of Annex V to Directive 2010/75/EU.\nThis Decision shall apply to combustion plants covered by Chapter III of Directive 2010/75/EU.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision the following definitions apply:\n(1)\n\u2018minimum start-up load for stable generation\u2019 means the minimum load compatible with the steady operation of the generating combustion plant following start-up initiation after which the plant is able to safely and reliably deliver its output to a network, grid, heat accumulator or industrial site;\n(2)\n\u2018minimum shut-down load for stable generation\u2019 means the minimum load at which point the plant can no longer safely and reliably deliver its output to a network, grid, heat accumulator or industrial site and is considered to be shutting down.\nArticle 3\nGeneral rules for determining start-up and shut-down periods\nFor determining the end of the start-up period and the beginning of the shut-down period, the following rules shall apply:\n(1)\nthe criteria or parameters used to determine start-up and shut-down periods shall be transparent and externally verifiable;\n(2)\nthe determination of start-up and shut-down periods shall be based on conditions allowing a stable generation process safeguarding health and safety;\n(3)\nperiods during which a combustion plant, after start-up, is operating stably and safely with fuel supply but without the export of heat or electricity or mechanical energy shall not be included in the start-up or shut-down periods.\nArticle 4\nDetermination of start-up and shut-down periods in the permit\n1. For the purposes of the determination of start-up and shut-down periods in the permit of the installation comprising the combustion plant, the measures referred to in Article 14(1)(f) of Directive 2010/75/EU shall include:\n(a)\nat least one of the following:\n(i)\nthe end point of the start-up period and the start point of the shut-down period expressed as load thresholds, in accordance with Articles 6, 7 and 8 and considering that the minimum shut-down load for stable generation may be lower than the minimum start-up load for stable generation as the combustion plant may be able to operate stably at a lower load once it has reached a sufficient temperature following a period of operation;\n(ii)\ndiscrete processes or thresholds for operational parameters, which are associated with the end of the start-up period, and with the start of the shut-down period, and which are clear, easily monitored and applicable to the technology used, as set out in Article 9;\n(b)\nmeasures ensuring that the start-up and shut-down periods are minimised as far as practicable;\n(c)\nmeasures ensuring that all abatement equipment is brought into operation as soon as is technically practicable.\nFor the purposes of the first subparagraph, account shall be taken of the technical and operational characteristics of the combustion plant and its units, and the technical requirements for operating the abatement techniques installed.\n2. If any aspects relating to the plant that affect start-up and shut-down periods change, including the installed equipment, fuel type, plant role in the system and installed abatement techniques, the permit conditions related to start-up and shut-down periods shall be reconsidered and, if necessary, updated by the competent authority.\nArticle 5\nDetermination of start-up and shut-down periods for combustion plants consisting of two or more units\n1. For the purpose of calculating the average emission values as set out in point 1 of Part 4 of Annex V to Directive 2010/75/EU, the following rules shall apply for determining the start-up and shut-down periods of combustion plants consisting of two or more units:\n(a)\nthe values measured during the start-up period of the first unit starting up and during the shut-down period of the last combustion unit shutting down shall be disregarded;\n(b)\nthe values determined during other start-up and shut-down periods of individual units shall be disregarded only if they are measured or, where no measurement is technically or economically feasible, calculated separately for each of the units concerned.\n2. For the purpose of point (27) of Article 3 of Directive 2010/75/EU, the start-up and shut-down periods of combustion plants consisting of two or more units shall only consist of the start-up period of the first combustion unit starting up and the shut-down period of the last combustion unit shutting down.\nFor combustion plants for which points 2, 4 and 6 of Part 1 of Annex V to Directive 2010/75/EU allow the application of an emission limit value to part of the plant discharging its waste gases through one or more separate flues within a common stack, the start-up and shut-down periods may be determined for each of those parts of the combustion plant separately. The start-up and shut-down periods for a part of the plant shall then consist of the start-up period of the first combustion unit starting up within that part of the plant and the shut-down period of the last combustion unit shutting down within that part of the plant.\nArticle 6\nDetermination of start-up and shut-down periods for combustion plants generating electricity or delivering power for mechanical drive using load thresholds\n1. For combustion plants generating electricity and for combustion plants for mechanical drive, the start-up period shall be considered to end at the point when the plant reaches the minimum start-up load for stable generation.\n2. The shut-down period shall be considered to begin at the initiation of termination of fuel supply after reaching the point of the minimum shut-down load for stable generation from where on generated electricity is no longer available for the grid or generated mechanical power is no longer useful for the mechanical load.\n3. The load thresholds to be used for determining the end of the start-up period and the start of the shut-down period for electricity generating combustion plants and to be included in the plant\u2019s permit shall be a fixed percentage of the rated electrical output of the combustion plant.\n4. The load thresholds to be used for determining the end of the start-up period and the start of the shut-down period for combustion plant for mechanical drive and to be included in the plant\u2019s permit shall be a fixed percentage of the mechanical power output of the combustion plant.\nArticle 7\nDetermination of start-up and shut-down periods for heat generating combustion plants using load thresholds\n1. For heat-generating combustion plants, the start-up period shall be considered to end when the plant reaches the minimum start-up load for stable generation and heat can be safely and reliably delivered to a distributing network, to a heat accumulator or used directly on a local industrial site.\n2. The shut-down period shall be considered to begin after reaching the minimum shut-down load for stable generation when heat can no longer be safely and reliably delivered to a network or used directly on a local industrial site.\n3. The load thresholds to be used for determining the end of the start-up period and the beginning of the shut-down period for heat generating combustion plants and to be included in the plant\u2019s permit shall be a fixed percentage of the rated thermal output of the combustion plant.\n4. Periods in which heat-generating plants are heating up an accumulator or reservoir without exporting heat shall be considered as operating hours and not as start-up or shut-down periods.\nArticle 8\nDetermination of start-up and shut-down periods for combustion plants generating heat and electricity using load thresholds\nFor combustion plants generating electricity and heat, the start-up and shut-down periods shall be determined as set out in Articles 6 and 7, taking into account both the electricity and heat generated.\nArticle 9\nDetermination of start-up and shut-down periods using operational parameters or discrete processes\nFor determining the minimum start-up load and the minimum shut-down load for stable generation, at least three criteria shall be defined, with the end of start-up or start of shut-down periods reached when at least two of the criteria have been met.\nThese criteria shall be chosen from the following:\n(1)\ndiscrete processes set out in the Annex or equivalent processes that suit the technical characteristics of the plant;\n(2)\nthresholds for the operational parameters set out in the Annex, or equivalent operational parameters that suit the technical characteristics of the plant.\nArticle 10\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2012.", "references": ["71", "90", "48", "96", "85", "13", "47", "84", "24", "7", "87", "57", "80", "28", "55", "68", "94", "91", "73", "31", "53", "56", "46", "66", "99", "11", "61", "25", "70", "9", "No Label", "58", "60", "76", "78", "82"], "gold": ["58", "60", "76", "78", "82"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 December 2010\namending the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure\n(2010/795/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 240(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Article 2(2) of Annex III to the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(3), fourth subparagraph, of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaties provides that, until 31 October 2014, when an act is to be adopted by the Council by a qualified majority, and if a member of the Council so requests, it shall be verified that the Member States constituting the qualified majority represent at least 62 % of the total population of the Union calculated according to the population figures set out in Article 1 of Annex III to the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter \u2018Rules of Procedure\u2019).\n(2)\nArticle 2(2) of Annex III to the Rules of Procedure provides that, with effect from 1 January each year, the Council, in accordance with the data available to the Statistical Office of the European Union on 30 September of the preceding year, amends the figures set out in Article 1 of that Annex.\n(3)\nThe Rules of Procedure should therefore be amended accordingly for 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1 of Annex III to the Rules of Procedure shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nFor the purposes of implementing Article 16(5) of the TEU and Article 3(3) and (4) of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, the total population of each Member State for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 shall be as follows:\nMember State\nPopulation\n(\u00d7 1 000)\nGermany\n81 802,3\nFrance\n64 714,1\nUnited Kingdom\n62 008,0\nItaly\n60 340,3\nSpain\n45 989,0\nPoland\n38 167,3\nRomania\n21 462,2\nNetherlands\n16 575,0\nGreece\n11 305,1\nBelgium\n10 827,0\nPortugal\n10 637,7\nCzech Republic\n10 506,8\nHungary\n10 014,3\nSweden\n9 340,7\nAustria\n8 375,3\nBulgaria\n7 563,7\nDenmark\n5 534,7\nSlovakia\n5 424,9\nFinland\n5 351,4\nIreland\n4 467,9\nLithuania\n3 329,0\nLatvia\n2 248,4\nSlovenia\n2 047,0\nEstonia\n1 340,1\nCyprus\n803,1\nLuxembourg\n502,1\nMalta\n413,0\nTotal\n501 090,4\nThreshold (62 %)\n310 676,1\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["23", "75", "74", "32", "56", "27", "93", "51", "48", "25", "42", "40", "68", "0", "4", "67", "39", "6", "87", "33", "81", "13", "90", "12", "91", "54", "34", "21", "82", "70", "No Label", "1", "7"], "gold": ["1", "7"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 408/2012\nof 11 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 May 2012.", "references": ["16", "77", "59", "70", "8", "83", "1", "4", "62", "98", "86", "95", "17", "89", "33", "43", "81", "97", "69", "27", "39", "12", "71", "28", "32", "42", "73", "56", "60", "51", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1285/2011\nof 8 December 2011\namending for the 161st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 30 November 2011, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one natural person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply after considering the de-listing request submitted by this individual and the Comprehensive Report of the Ombudsperson established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1904(2009). It also decided to amend one entry on the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2011.", "references": ["26", "79", "38", "80", "2", "64", "5", "25", "65", "67", "27", "63", "12", "41", "56", "78", "40", "57", "59", "96", "24", "21", "6", "98", "33", "42", "17", "77", "55", "84", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1366/2011\nof 19 December 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pataca de Galicia / Patata de Galicia (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Spain\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Pataca de Galicia / Patata de Galicia\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 148/2007 (2).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union, as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation (3). As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["81", "51", "45", "62", "4", "58", "86", "84", "42", "57", "3", "67", "63", "98", "16", "89", "53", "61", "85", "54", "12", "7", "18", "59", "27", "99", "55", "66", "83", "52", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 714/2011\nof 20 July 2011\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural market and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(s) and listed in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 401/2011 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Part XIX of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 401/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["46", "5", "55", "56", "49", "8", "59", "79", "96", "0", "86", "32", "27", "24", "75", "4", "76", "74", "21", "58", "33", "18", "13", "12", "34", "1", "23", "99", "45", "38", "No Label", "20", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["20", "22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 501/2010\nof 10 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 June 2010.", "references": ["76", "46", "15", "59", "58", "42", "92", "55", "17", "57", "45", "1", "53", "81", "43", "62", "72", "25", "54", "64", "99", "75", "18", "6", "94", "79", "78", "16", "77", "37", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 468/2010\nof 28 May 2010\nestablishing the EU list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999 (1), in particular Articles 27 and 30 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nChapter V of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 lays down procedures for the identification of fishing vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU fishing vessels) as well as procedures for establishing an EU list of such vessels. Article 37 of that Regulation provides for actions to be taken against fishing vessels included in that list.\n(2)\nAccording to Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, the EU list should contain IUU fishing vessels identified by the Commission.\n(3)\nAccording to Article 30 of that Regulation, the EU list should also comprise fishing vessels included in the IUU vessel lists adopted by regional fisheries management organisations.\n(4)\nUntil the Commission directly identifies other fishing vessels as being engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, the EU list will only contain vessels included in the IUU vessel lists adopted by regional fisheries management organisations.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purpose of this Regulation \u2018EU IUU vessel list\u2019 means a list of fishing vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing as referred to in Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008.\nArticle 2\nThe EU IUU vessel list is established in the Annex.\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 May 2010.", "references": ["72", "60", "78", "39", "4", "55", "26", "18", "34", "62", "13", "33", "54", "31", "56", "58", "48", "38", "91", "45", "22", "92", "6", "3", "85", "20", "74", "99", "27", "41", "No Label", "12", "67"], "gold": ["12", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 28/2011\nof 14 January 2011\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 January 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 16 January 2011 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 16 January 2011, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 January 2011.", "references": ["73", "96", "23", "63", "49", "12", "47", "84", "56", "69", "14", "88", "46", "21", "92", "85", "48", "51", "91", "75", "26", "33", "37", "79", "77", "2", "31", "45", "16", "27", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms\n(2011/450/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 and Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nProtocol 31 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1) (the EEA Agreement) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to continue the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement in Union actions funded from the general budget of the Union regarding the implementation, operation and development of the internal market.\n(3)\nProtocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to continue beyond 31 December 2010.\n(4)\nThe position of the Union within the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["16", "6", "51", "0", "57", "83", "89", "15", "93", "49", "44", "99", "64", "78", "31", "98", "84", "12", "14", "50", "80", "91", "46", "34", "60", "3", "42", "38", "54", "30", "No Label", "9", "10", "20", "96"], "gold": ["9", "10", "20", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 34/2012\nof 17 January 2012\namending for the 163rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 13 December 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to amend 101 entries on the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 January 2012.", "references": ["48", "62", "2", "49", "98", "42", "74", "71", "34", "60", "39", "12", "51", "93", "38", "8", "79", "19", "21", "29", "67", "96", "36", "7", "27", "92", "32", "90", "24", "16", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 691/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 6 July 2011\non European environmental economic accounts\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 338(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union provides, inter alia, that the Union \u2018shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment\u2019.\n(2)\nDecision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme (2) confirmed that sound information on the state of the environment, and on the key trends, pressures and drivers for environmental change, is essential for the development of effective policy, its implementation, and the empowerment of citizens more generally. Instruments should be developed with a view to enhancing public awareness of the environmental effects of economic activity.\n(3)\nA scientifically sound approach to measuring the shortage of resources will, in the future, be crucial to the sustainable development of the Union.\n(4)\nDecision No 1578/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 on the Community Statistical Programme 2008 to 2012 (3) refers clearly to the need for high-quality statistics and accounts in the domain of the environment. Furthermore, under the main initiatives for 2008 to 2012 it states that legal bases should be developed, where appropriate, for core areas of environmental data collection currently not covered by legal acts.\n(5)\nIn its Communication of 20 August 2009 entitled \u2018GDP and beyond: Measuring progress in a changing world\u2019, the Commission recognised the need to supplement existing indicators with data that incorporate environmental and social aspects in order to allow more coherent and comprehensive policy making. To that end, environmental economic accounts offer a means of monitoring the pressures exerted by the economy on the environment and of exploring how these might be abated. Environmental economic accounts show the interaction between economic, household and environmental factors and consequently are more informative than national accounts alone. They provide a significant source of data for environmental decisions and the Commission should consult them when drawing up impact assessments. In line with the tenets of sustainable development and the drive to achieve a resource-efficient and low-pollution economy, embedded in the Europe 2020 Strategy and various major initiatives, developing a data framework that consistently includes environmental issues along with economic ones becomes all the more imperative.\n(6)\nThe European System of Accounts (ESA), set up by Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community (4) (ESA 95), consistent with the System of National Accounts (SNA), adopted by the United Nations Statistical Commission in February 1993, is the main tool behind the Union\u2019s economic statistics as well as many economic indicators (including GDP). The ESA framework can be used to analyse and evaluate various aspects of the economy (e.g. its structure, specific parts, development over time) yet for some specific data needs, such as analysis of the interaction between the environment and the economy, the best solution is to draw up separate satellite accounts.\n(7)\nIn its June 2006 conclusions, the European Council called on the Union and its Member States to extend the national accounts to key aspects of sustainable development. National accounts should therefore be supplemented with integrated environmental economic accounts providing data that are fully consistent.\n(8)\nIt is of great importance that, as soon as the system is fully operational, European environmental economic accounts be actively and accurately used in all Member States and in all relevant Union policy making as a key input to impact assessments, action plans, legislative proposals and other significant results of the policy process.\n(9)\nMore timely data could also be produced by now-casting, which uses statistical techniques similar to those used in forecasting to make reliable estimates.\n(10)\nSatellite accounts allow the analytical capacity of national accounting to be expanded for selected areas of social concern, such as pressures on the environment stemming from human activity, in a flexible manner, without overburdening or disrupting the central system. Satellite accounts should be made available to the public regularly and in comprehensible form.\n(11)\nThe system of integrated environmental economic accounts (SEEA), developed collectively by the United Nations, the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Bank, is a satellite system of the SNA. It brings together economic and environmental information in a common framework to measure the contribution of the environment to the economy and the impact of the economy on the environment. It provides policy-makers with indicators and descriptive statistics to monitor these interactions as well as a database for strategic planning and policy analysis to identify more sustainable paths of development.\n(12)\nThe SEEA synthesises and integrates as far as possible the different categories of environmental economic accounts. In general, all these categories broaden the existing SNA concepts of cost, capital formation and stock of capital by supplementing them with additional data in physical terms in order to encompass environmental cost and the use of natural assets in production, or by amending them through the incorporation of these effects in monetary terms. Within this general orientation, the several existing categories differ considerably in terms of methodology and the environmental concerns addressed.\n(13)\nThe Commission presented its first strategy on \u2018green accounting\u2019 in 1994. Since then the Commission (Eurostat) and the Member States have developed and tested accounting methods to the point where several Member States now regularly provide first sets of environmental economic accounts. Most common are physical flow accounts on air emissions (including greenhouse gases) and on material consumption, and monetary accounts on environmental protection expenditure and on environmental taxes.\n(14)\nOne of the objectives for the period covered by the Community Statistical Programme 2008 to 2012 is to take initiatives to replace agreements with Union legislation in certain areas in which European statistics are regularly produced and have reached sufficient maturity.\n(15)\nRegulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European Statistics (5) provides a reference framework for European environmental economic accounts. In particular, it requires European statistics to comply with principles of professional independence, impartiality, objectivity, reliability, statistical confidentiality and cost effectiveness.\n(16)\nAs the different sets of environmental economic accounts are under development and at different stages of maturity, a modular structure providing adequate flexibility, allowing, inter alia, for the introduction of additional modules, should be adopted.\n(17)\nA programme of pilot studies should be established to improve reporting and data quality, enhance methodologies and prepare for further developments.\n(18)\nThe introduction of additional reporting requirements should be preceded by a feasibility assessment.\n(19)\nThe Commission should be entitled to grant derogations to Member States during the transitional periods in so far as major adaptations to their national statistical systems are required.\n(20)\nThe Union should encourage the introduction of environmental economic accounts in third countries, particularly in those that share environmental resources (mainly water) with Member States.\n(21)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely the establishment of a common framework for the collection, compilation, transmission and evaluation of European environmental economic accounts, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.\n(22)\nThe power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission for the purpose of adjusting the modules to environmental, economic and technical developments, as well as providing methodological guidance. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council.\n(23)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (6).\n(24)\nThe European Statistical System Committee has been consulted,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation establishes a common framework for the collection, compilation, transmission and evaluation of European environmental economic accounts, for the purpose of setting up environmental economic accounts as satellite accounts to ESA 95, by providing methodology, common standards, definitions, classifications and accounting rules intended to be used for compiling environmental economic accounts.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018air emission\u2019 means the physical flow of gaseous or particulate materials from the national economy (production or consumption processes) to the atmosphere (as part of the environmental system);\n(2)\n\u2018environmentally related tax\u2019 means a tax whose tax base is a physical unit (or a proxy of a physical unit) of something that has a proven, specific negative impact on the environment, and which is identified in ESA 95 as a tax;\n(3)\n\u2018economy-wide material flow accounts (EW-MFA)\u2019 means consistent compilations of the material inputs into national economies, the changes of material stock within the economy and the material outputs to other economies or to the environment.\nArticle 3\nModules\n1. The environmental economic accounts to be compiled within the common framework referred to in Article 1 shall be grouped in the following modules:\n(a)\na module for air emissions accounts, as set out in Annex I;\n(b)\na module for environmentally related taxes by economic activity, as set out in Annex II;\n(c)\na module for economy-wide material flow accounts, as set out in Annex III.\n2. Each Annex shall contain the following information:\n(a)\nthe objectives for which the accounts are to be compiled;\n(b)\nthe coverage of the accounts;\n(c)\nthe list of characteristics for which data are to be compiled and transmitted;\n(d)\nthe first reference year, frequency and transmission deadlines for the compilation of the accounts;\n(e)\nthe reporting tables;\n(f)\nthe maximum duration of the transitional periods referred to in Article 8 during which the Commission may grant derogations.\n3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, where necessary to take account of environmental, economic and technical developments, in accordance with Article 9:\n(a)\nto provide methodological guidance; and\n(b)\nto update the Annexes referred to in paragraph 1 as regards the information referred to in paragraph 2(c) to (e).\nIn exercising its power pursuant to this paragraph, the Commission shall ensure that its delegated acts do not impose significant additional administrative burdens on the Member States and on the respondent units.\nArticle 4\nPilot studies\n1. The Commission shall draw up a programme for pilot studies to be carried out by Member States on a voluntary basis in order to develop reporting and improve data quality, establish long time series and develop methodology. The programme shall include pilot studies to test the feasibility of introducing new environmental economic account modules. In drawing up the programme, the Commission shall ensure that no additional administrative or financial burdens are placed on the Member States and on the respondent units.\n2. The findings of the pilot studies shall be evaluated and published by the Commission, taking into account the benefits of the availability of the data in relation to the cost of collection and the administrative burden of responding. These findings shall be taken into account in the proposals for introducing new environmental economic account modules that the Commission may include in the report referred to in Article 10.\nArticle 5\nData collection\n1. In accordance with the Annexes to this Regulation, Member States shall collect the necessary data for the observation of the characteristics referred to in Article 3(2)(c).\n2. Member States shall collect the necessary data using a combination of the different sources specified below and applying the principle of administrative simplification:\n(a)\nsurveys;\n(b)\nstatistical estimation procedures in cases where some of the characteristics have not been observed for all of the units;\n(c)\nadministrative sources.\n3. Member States shall inform the Commission and shall provide details concerning the methods and sources used.\nArticle 6\nTransmission to the Commission (Eurostat)\n1. Member States shall transmit to the Commission (Eurostat) the data set out in the Annexes, including the confidential data, within the time limits specified therein.\n2. The data shall be transmitted in an appropriate technical format, which is to be laid down by the Commission by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 11(2).\nArticle 7\nQuality assessment\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the quality criteria as referred to in Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 shall apply to the data to be transmitted.\n2. Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with a report on the quality of the data transmitted.\n3. In applying the quality criteria, referred to in paragraph 1, to the data covered by this Regulation, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts with a view to defining the modalities, structure and periodicity of the quality reports. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 11(2).\n4. The Commission (Eurostat) shall assess the quality of the data transmitted and may, within 1 month of receipt of the data, request the Member State in question to submit additional information regarding the data or a revised dataset, as appropriate.\nArticle 8\nDerogations\n1. The Commission may adopt implementing acts with a view to granting derogations to Member States during the transitional periods referred to in the Annexes in so far as the national statistical systems require major adaptations. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 11(2).\n2. For the purposes of obtaining a derogation under paragraph 1, the Member State concerned shall present a duly justified request to the Commission by 12 November 2011.\nArticle 9\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The delegation of power referred to in Article 3(3) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 11 August 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 9 months before the end of the 5-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than 3 months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 3(3) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 3(3) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.\nArticle 10\nReport and review\nBy 31 December 2013 and every 3 years thereafter, the Commission shall submit a report on the implementation of this Regulation to the European Parliament and the Council. That report shall evaluate in particular the quality of the data transmitted, the data collection methods, the administrative burden on the Member States and on the respondent units, as well as the feasibility and effectiveness of those statistics.\nThe report shall, if appropriate and taking into account the findings referred to in Article 4(2), be accompanied by proposals:\n-\nfor introducing new environmental economic account modules, such as Environmental Protection Expenditure and Revenues (EPER)/Environmental Protection Expenditure Accounts (EPEA), Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS), Energy Accounts, Environmentally Related Transfers (subsidies), Resource Use and Management Expenditure Accounts (RUMEA), Water Accounts (quantitative and qualitative), Waste Accounts, Forest Accounts, Ecosystem services Accounts, Economy-Wide Material Stock Accounts (EW-MSA) and the measurement of unused excavated earthen materials (including soil),\n-\ndesigned to further improve data quality and data collection methods, thereby improving the coverage and comparability of data and reducing the administrative burden on business and administration.\nArticle 11\nCommittee\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the European Statistical System Committee established by Regulation (EC) No 223/2009. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 12\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 6 July 2011.", "references": ["5", "6", "11", "39", "69", "16", "61", "62", "49", "35", "3", "52", "36", "65", "70", "80", "63", "38", "13", "87", "17", "90", "22", "45", "14", "73", "32", "2", "81", "59", "No Label", "7", "15", "18", "19", "40", "42", "58"], "gold": ["7", "15", "18", "19", "40", "42", "58"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 969/2010\nof 27 October 2010\non the issue of licences for importing rice under the tariff quotas opened for the October 2010 subperiod by Regulation (EC) No 327/98\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 of 10 February 1998 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (3) 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 IX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nOctober is the only subperiod for the quota with order number 09.4138 laid down in Article 1(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98. This quota comprises the balance of the unused quantities from the quotas with order numbers 09.4127-09.4128-09.4129-09.4130 in the previous subperiod. October is the last subperiod for the quotas with order numbers 09.4148 and 09.4168 laid down in Article 1(1)(b) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98, which comprise the balance of the unused quantities from the previous subperiod.\n(3)\nThe notifications presented under Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98 show that, for the quotas with order number 09.4138 and 09.4148 the applications lodged in the first 10 working days of October 2010 under Article 4(1) of that Regulation cover a quantity greater than that available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested.\n(4)\nThe final percentage take-up for 2010 of each quota provided for by Regulation (EC) No 327/98 should also be made known.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. For import licence applications for rice under the quotas with order number 09.4138 and 09.4148 as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98 lodged in the first 10 working days of October 2010, licences shall be issued for the quantities requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The final percentage take-up for 2010 of each quota provided for by Regulation (EC) No 327/98 is given in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2010.", "references": ["27", "42", "17", "0", "5", "78", "8", "63", "19", "90", "31", "64", "35", "18", "28", "73", "36", "81", "2", "1", "86", "23", "56", "51", "16", "6", "58", "43", "48", "24", "No Label", "4", "21", "66", "68"], "gold": ["4", "21", "66", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 456/2011\nof 11 May 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 438/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 May 2011.", "references": ["92", "45", "61", "40", "95", "12", "16", "97", "94", "32", "63", "67", "56", "3", "4", "30", "93", "5", "50", "28", "25", "11", "1", "54", "69", "60", "80", "91", "77", "70", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 February 2011\non a Union financial contribution to a programme for the control of organisms harmful to plants and plant products in the French overseas departments for 2011\n(notified under document C(2011) 1100)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(2011/132/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 of 30 January 2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (1), and in particular the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 17(3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe French authorities have submitted to the Commission a programme for 2011 providing for plant health measures in the French overseas departments. That programme specifies the objectives to be achieved, the expected deliverables, the measures to be carried out, their duration and their cost with a view to a possible Union financial contribution. The measures provided for in that programme fulfil the requirements of Commission Decision 2007/609/EC of 10 September 2007 on the definition of the measures eligible for Community financing in the programmes for the control of organisms harmful to plants and plant products in the French overseas departments, in the Azores and in Madeira (2).\n(2)\nThe Commission therefore considers that that programme meets the requirements of Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 17(3) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006, an appropriate maximum to the Union financial contribution should be set, and payment should be made on the basis of documentation provided by France.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (3), Union financial contributions to plant-health measures are to be financed from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. For the purposes of financial control of those measures Articles 9, 36 and 37 of that Regulation apply.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4) and Article 90(1) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated, setting out the essential elements of the action involving the expenditure.\n(6)\nThe programme submitted by the French authorities and the measures provided for concern 2011. This decision should therefore apply as from the beginning of that calendar year, allowing proper financing and execution of these measures.\n(7)\nThis decision constitutes a financing decision for the expenditure provided in the co-financing request, as laid down in the programme submitted by France.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nA Union financial contribution to France for the official programme for the control of organisms harmful to plants and plant products in the French overseas departments for 2011, as specified in Part A of the Annex, is approved.\nIt shall be limited to a maximum of 60 % of the total eligible expenditure, as specified in Part B of the Annex, with a maximum of EUR 165 000 (VAT excluded).\nArticle 2\n1. An advance of EUR 100 000 shall be paid within 60 days after receipt of a request for payment by France.\n2. The balance of the Union financial contribution shall be paid provided that a final implementation report on the programme is submitted to the Commission in electronic form by 15 March 2012 at the latest.\nThat report shall contain at least:\n(a)\na concise technical evaluation of the entire programme, including the degree of achievement of physical and qualitative objectives and the progress accomplished, and an assessment of the immediate phytosanitary and economic impact; and\n(b)\na financial cost statement indicating the actual expenditure broken down by sub-programme and by measure.\n3. With respect to the indicative budget breakdown specified in Part B of the Annex, France may adjust the financing between different measures in the same sub-programme within a limit of 15 % of the Union financial contribution to this sub-programme, provided that the total amount of eligible costs scheduled in the programme is not exceeded and that the main objectives of the programme are not thereby compromised.\nIt shall inform the Commission of any adjustments made.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2011.", "references": ["75", "60", "36", "80", "29", "46", "11", "5", "13", "53", "27", "70", "71", "37", "86", "50", "47", "1", "41", "28", "90", "7", "99", "48", "52", "19", "62", "83", "44", "59", "No Label", "10", "43", "61", "64", "66", "98"], "gold": ["10", "43", "61", "64", "66", "98"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 14 August 2012\namending Decision 2007/777/EC as regards the entries for Israel in the lists of third countries from which certain meat products may be introduced into the Union\n(notified under document C(2012) 5703)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/479/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first subparagraph of point 1 of Article 8 and point 4 of Article 8 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2007/777/EC of 29 November 2007 laying down the animal and public health conditions and model certificates for imports of certain meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption from third countries and repealing Decision 2005/432/EC (2) lays down rules on imports into the Union and the transit and storage in the Union of consignments of meat products and consignments of treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3).\n(2)\nPart 2 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC sets out the list of third countries or parts thereof from which the introduction of meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines is authorised, provided that those commodities comply with the treatment referred to in that list. Where third countries are regionalised for the purposes of inclusion in that list, their regionalised territories are set out in Part 1 of that Annex.\n(3)\nPart 4 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC sets out the treatments referred to in Part 2 of that Annex, assigning a code to each of those treatments. That Part sets out a non-specific treatment \u2018A\u2019 and specific treatments \u2018B\u2019 to \u2018F\u2019 listed in descending order of severity.\n(4)\nFollowing outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain areas of Israel, Decision 2007/777/EC, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 532/2012 (4), provides that imports into the Union of meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines of poultry, farmed feathered game, farmed ratites and wild game birds are authorised from the areas of that third country affected by the outbreak only if they have been subjected to the specific treatment \u2018D\u2019, pursuant to Part 4 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC. The area in Israel affected by the outbreak to which regionalisation for animal health reasons applies is listed in the table in Part 1 of Annex II to that Decision.\n(5)\nIsrael successfully controlled the outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza according to the submitted information on the favourable disease situation with respect to that disease. In addition, surveillance carried out by the competent authority in Israel during the period which has elapsed since the stamping out of the poultry on the infected poultry holdings and the cleaning and disinfection of those premises did not reveal any further spread of disease.\n(6)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend the entries for Israel in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC in order to authorise imports from the whole territory of Israel into the Union of meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines of poultry, farmed feathered game, farmed ratites and wild game birds which have been subjected to a non-specific treatment \u2018A\u2019, pursuant to Part 4 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC.\n(7)\nDecision 2007/777/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Decision 2007/777/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 August 2012.", "references": ["23", "42", "82", "48", "74", "49", "14", "62", "26", "76", "60", "8", "27", "87", "18", "75", "70", "66", "52", "31", "57", "94", "17", "71", "80", "77", "5", "56", "46", "92", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "61", "72", "95", "96"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "61", "72", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 March 2012\namending Decision 2011/734/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit\n(2012/211/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 126(9) and Article 136 thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) foresees the possibility of adopting measures specific to the Member States whose currency is the euro with a view to strengthening the coordination and surveillance of their budgetary discipline.\n(2)\nArticle 126 TFEU establishes that Member States are to avoid excessive government deficits and sets out the excessive deficit procedure to that effect. The Stability and Growth Pact, which in its corrective arm implements the excessive deficit procedure, provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.\n(3)\nOn 27 April 2009, the Council decided, in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), that an excessive deficit existed in Greece.\n(4)\nOn 10 May 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/320/EU (1) addressed to Greece under Article 126(9) and Article 136 TFEU with a view to reinforcing and deepening the fiscal surveillance and giving notice to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit at the latest by 2014. The Council established 2014 as the deadline for correcting the situation of excessive deficit, and annual targets for the government deficit.\n(5)\nDecision 2010/320/EU was substantially amended several times. Since further amendments were to be made, it was recast, on 12 July 2011, by Decision 2011/734/EU (2) in the interests of clarity.\n(6)\nEconomic activity in 2011-2014 is currently estimated and projected to be much weaker than had been expected when Decisions 2010/320/EU and 2011/734/EU were adopted. Economic activity is estimated to have contracted in 2011 by 6,9 %. Currently, the Commission forecasts the real Greek GDP to contract by 4,7 % in 2012, and to stagnate in 2013, before resuming growth of 2,5 % in 2014. In nominal terms, GDP contracted by 5,2 % in 2011, and is expected to contract by 5,4 % and 0,4 % in 2012 and 2013, respectively, before expanding by 2,5 % in 2014.\n(7)\nIn February 2012, the Greek government announced measures aimed at reducing the primary deficit in 2012, including the adoption of a supplementary budget. Extensive discussions on these measures have taken place between the Hellenic authorities and the Commission services. These discussions have considered not only the fiscal consolidation measures, but also the need to enhance the growth-friendly nature of these measures and to minimise any social impact.\n(8)\nIn March 2012, Greece launched and executed a debt exchange operation which substantially reduces the debt level and interest expenditure in 2012 and in the next years, and contributes to the sustainability of government debt.\n(9)\nIn the light of the above considerations, it appears appropriate to amend Decision 2011/734/EU in a number of respects, including the fiscal adjustment path, while keeping unchanged the deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2011/734/EU is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The adjustment path towards the correction of the excessive deficit shall aim to achieve a general government primary deficit (deficit excluding interest expenditure) not exceeding EUR 2 037 million (1,0 % of GDP) in 2012, and primary surpluses of at least EUR 3 652 million (1,8 % of GDP) in 2013 and EUR 9 352 million (4,5 % of GDP) in 2014. Following the debt exchange, these targets for the primary deficit/surplus are consistent with an overall deficit of EUR 14 811 million (7,3 % of GDP) in 2012, EUR 9 462 million (4,7 % of GDP) in 2013 and EUR 4 499 million (2,2 % of GDP) in 2014. To this aim, an improvement in the structural balance of at least 10 % of GDP will have been achieved over the period 2009-2014. Proceeds from the privatisation of assets (financial and non-financial assets), as well as all transfers related to the Eurogroup decision of 21 February 2012 with regard to the income of euro zone national central banks, including the Bank of Greece, stemming from their investment portfolio holdings of Greek government bonds shall not reduce the required fiscal consolidation effort and shall not be counted in the assessment of these targets.\n3. The adjustment path referred to in paragraph 2 is consistent with an annual change in the general government consolidated debt of EUR - 26 954 million in 2012, of EUR 6 775 million in 2013 and of EUR 1 492 million in 2014.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 2, the following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20187a. Greece shall adopt the following measures without delay:\n(a)\na reduction in pharmaceutical expenditure by at least EUR 1 076 million in 2012;\n(b)\na reduction in overtime pay for doctors in hospitals by at least EUR 50 million in 2012;\n(c)\na reduction in the procurement of military material by EUR 300 million (cash and deliveries) in 2012;\n(d)\na reduction by 10 % in the remuneration of elected and related staff at local level in 2012 and a reduction in the number of deputy mayors and associated staff in 2013 with the aim of saving at least EUR 9 million in 2012 and an additional EUR 28 million in 2013;\n(e)\na reduction in the central government\u2019s operational expenditure, and election-related spending, by at least EUR 370 million (compared to the 2012 budget), of which at least EUR 100 million in military-related operational expenditure, and at least EUR 70 million in electoral spending;\n(f)\na reduction in operational expenditure by local government with the aim of saving at least EUR 50 million in 2012;\n(g)\ncuts in subsidies to residents in remote areas, and cuts in grants to several entities supervised by the ministries, with the aim of reducing expenditure in 2012 by at least EUR 190 million;\n(h)\na reduction in the public investment budget (PIB) by EUR 400 million in 2012. This reduction in the PIB budget will not have any impact on projects that are co-financed by structural funds (including TEN-T projects);\n(i)\nchanges in supplementary pension funds and pension funds with high average pensions or which receive high subsidies from the budget, and cuts in other high pensions, with the aim of saving at least EUR 450 million in 2012 (net after taking into account the impact on taxes and social contributions);\n(j)\ncuts in family allowances for high-income households, with the aim of saving EUR 43 million in 2012;\n(k)\nministerial decisions to complete the full implementation of the new wage grid in all the pertinent entities, and legislation on the modalities for the recovery of wages paid in excess as from November 2011;\n(l)\nthe amendment of Articles 3 and 21 of Law 4038/2012 so that the conditions to extend the instalment plans for overdue taxes and social contributions are revised: instalment plans will only apply to existing overdue amounts below EUR 10 000 for individuals and EUR 75 000 for corporations. Tax payers applying for an extended instalment plan should disclose all their financial statements to the tax authorities;\n(m)\na framework law, with an in-depth revision of the functioning of secondary/supplementary public pension funds aimed at stabilising pension expenditure, guaranteeing the budgetary neutrality of these schemes, and ensuring medium- and long-term sustainability of the system.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 2, paragraph 8 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoints (a) and (b) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\na reform of the secondary/supplementary pension schemes designed in consultation with the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and validated by the Economic Policy Committee as regards its estimated impact on long-term sustainability. The parameters of the new secondary notional defined-contribution system ensure long-term actuarial balance, as assessed by the National Actuarial Authority;\n(b)\nan adjustment of pharmacies\u2019 profit margins and the introduction of regressive profit margins with the aim of reducing the overall profit margin to below 15 %.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following points are added:\n\u2018(g)\nthe finalisation of the on-going functional review on social programmes;\n(h)\nappointment of the members of the Single Public Procurement Authority (SPPA);\n(i)\nthe identification of the schemes for which lump sums paid on retirement are out of line with contributions paid, and adjustment of the payments;\n(j)\na reduction of the pharmaceutical wholesalers\u2019 profit margins to converge to a 5 % upper limit;\n(k)\nthe necessary tendering procedures to implement a comprehensive and uniform health care information system (e-health system);\n(l)\nthe appointment of all legal, technical and financial advisors for the privatisations planned for 2012 and 2013.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 2(9), point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe finalisation of the review of public spending programmes. This review shall draw on external technical assistance and focus on pensions and social transfers (in a manner that will preserve basic social protection), defence spending without prejudice to the defence capability of the country and restructuring of central and local administrations; a further rationalisation of pharmaceutical spending and operational spending of hospitals, and of welfare cash benefits, will also be specified;\n(b)\nthe adoption of a tax reform simplifying the tax system, eliminating exemptions and preferential regimes, including broadening bases, thus allowing a gradual reduction in tax rates as revenue performance improves. This reform relates to the personal income tax, corporate income tax and VAT, property taxes, as well as social contributions, and will maintain the relative tax burden from indirect taxes;\n(c)\nthe revision of the legal values of real estate to better align them with market prices;\n(d)\nthe discontinuation of payments in cash and cheque in tax offices which should be replaced by bank transfers, so that staff time is freed-up to focus on more value added work (audit, collection enforcement and taxpayer advice);\n(e)\na reduction by 12 %, on average, in the \u201cspecial wages\u201d of the public sector, to which the new wage grid does not apply. This will apply as from 1 July 2012 and deliver savings of at least EUR 205 million (net after taking into account the impact on taxes and social contributions);\n(f)\ndecisions to provide for the Implementing Regulation of the SPPA; the SPPA starts its operations to fulfil its mandate, objectives, competences and powers as defined in the law on the SPPA and the Action Plan agreed with the European Commission in November 2010.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 2, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u201910. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of September 2012:\n(a)\na draft budget for 2013 in line with the primary surplus target established in Article 1(2);\n(b)\nrules and procedures for centralised purchasing/framework contracts for frequently purchased supplies or services at central government level with the obligation for ministries and central government bodies to source via these contracts and optional use for regional entities.\n11. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of December 2012:\n(a)\nthe final adoption of the budget for 2013 in line with the primary surplus target established in Article 1(2);\n(b)\nlegislation streamlining the procedure for submission and approval of supplementary budgets.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 13 March 2012.", "references": ["53", "26", "89", "49", "1", "20", "10", "71", "81", "4", "23", "78", "85", "47", "51", "22", "98", "9", "60", "50", "61", "35", "92", "63", "87", "7", "86", "67", "79", "14", "No Label", "8", "15", "18", "27", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "18", "27", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 647/2011\nof 4 July 2011\ncorrecting the Slovenian version of Regulation (EU) No 258/2010 imposing special conditions on the imports of guar gum originating in or consigned from India due to contamination risks by pentachlorophenol and dioxins, and repealing Decision 2008/352/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53 (1) (b) (ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 March 2010, the Commission adopted Regulation (EU) No 258/2010 (2) imposing special conditions on the imports of guar gum and repealing Decision 2008/352/EC. In the Slovenian language version of that Regulation, the wording \u2018feed and food business operators\u2019 was translated incorrectly and therefore a correction of that language version is necessary. The other language versions are not affected.\n(2)\nRegulation (EU) No 258/2010 should therefore be corrected accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThis correcting regulation concerns only the Slovenian language version.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 July 2011.", "references": ["81", "32", "78", "29", "62", "89", "64", "18", "77", "39", "65", "2", "49", "59", "51", "3", "25", "69", "60", "22", "41", "57", "86", "16", "98", "80", "88", "8", "9", "40", "No Label", "21", "23", "38", "74", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "23", "38", "74", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 September 2010\nauthorising the French Republic and the Italian Republic to introduce a special measure derogating from Article 5 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax\n(2010/582/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 291(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1), and in particular Article 395(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letters registered with the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 19 June 2009 and 19 November 2009 respectively, Italy and France requested authorisation to introduce a special tax measure in relation to the operation, maintenance and safety of the existing Col de Tende Road Tunnel, as well as the construction, operation, maintenance and safety of a new tunnel to run alongside the existing one (\u2018the measure\u2019).\n(2)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 395(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission informed the other Member States by letter dated 14 December 2009 of the requests made by France and Italy. By letter dated 17 December 2009 the Commission notified France and Italy that it had all the information necessary to consider the requests.\n(3)\nThe Col de Tende Road Tunnel is a permanent road link between France and Italy. An agreement of 12 March 2007 between those two Member States has designated Italy as being responsible for the operation, maintenance and safety of the existing tunnel, as well as for the construction, operation, maintenance and safety of the new tunnel which, when completed, will carry traffic in the opposite direction to the existing tunnel.\n(4)\nThrough the measure, the entire site of the existing tunnel, and the perimeter and construction site of the new tunnel, will be deemed to be on the territory of Italy for the purposes of supplies of goods, services, intra-Community acquisitions of goods and imports intended for the relevant construction, operation, maintenance and safety of the two tunnels. In the absence of such a measure, it would be necessary, according to the principle of territoriality, to ascertain for each supply whether the place of taxation was within France or Italy.\n(5)\nThe purpose of the measure is therefore to simplify the procedure for charging value added tax on the operation, maintenance and safety of the existing tunnel, as well as the construction, operation, maintenance and safety of the new tunnel.\n(6)\nThe derogation has no negative impact on the Union\u2019s own resources accruing from value added tax,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 5 of Directive 2006/112/EC, the French Republic and the Italian Republic are authorised to consider the entire site of the existing Col de Tende Road Tunnel, along with the construction site of the new Col de Tende Road Tunnel which will run alongside the existing tunnel, as being on the territory of Italy for the purposes of supplies of goods, services, intra-Community acquisitions of goods and imports intended for the construction and subsequent operation, maintenance and safety of the new tunnel, as well as the operation, maintenance and safety of the existing tunnel.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic and the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["44", "89", "24", "42", "31", "86", "37", "32", "6", "22", "79", "67", "16", "21", "78", "88", "18", "87", "52", "61", "40", "76", "57", "75", "17", "95", "63", "27", "71", "1", "No Label", "8", "34", "53", "54", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "34", "53", "54", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 716/2010\nof 6 August 2010\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3 of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column 2 of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 August 2010.", "references": ["11", "90", "40", "62", "52", "14", "35", "93", "47", "76", "3", "70", "55", "72", "43", "33", "2", "25", "44", "92", "13", "56", "54", "81", "98", "12", "85", "8", "20", "64", "No Label", "21", "86"], "gold": ["21", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 385/2010\nof 5 May 2010\ncorrecting Regulation (EC) No 1831/96 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas bound under GATT for certain fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetable products from 1996\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 148 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1831/96 (2) opened tariff quotas for certain fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetable products listed in its Annexes and provides for the administration of those tariff quotas.\n(2)\nSince the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1831/96, several CN codes listed in the original Annexes I, II and III to that Regulation have changed. For that reason, those Annexes were replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 973/2006 (3).\n(3)\nIt has appeared that in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1831/96, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 973/2006, CN code 2009 80 34 is missing and that it is appropriate to insert it.\n(4)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1831/96, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 973/2006, should therefore be corrected accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1831/96, in respect of order No 09.0093, CN code \u20182009 80 34\u2019 is inserted in the column \u2018CN code TARIC subheading\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 3 July 2006.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 May 2010.", "references": ["43", "0", "26", "70", "87", "49", "83", "38", "34", "98", "6", "45", "23", "85", "96", "11", "84", "56", "16", "51", "22", "74", "65", "41", "80", "25", "18", "36", "19", "58", "No Label", "10", "21", "68", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "21", "68", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 283/2012\nof 29 March 2012\nfixing the standard fee per farm return from the 2012 accounting year of the farm accountancy data network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 of 30 November 2009 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Community (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 of 13 July 1983 on certain detailed implementing rules concerning the keeping of accounts for the purpose of determining the incomes of agricultural holdings (2), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 provides that a standard fee is to be paid by the Commission to the Member States for each duly completed farm return and forwarded to it within the period prescribed in Article 3 of that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 224/2011 of 7 March 2011 fixing the standard fee per farm return from the 2011 accounting year of the farm accountancy data network (3) fixed the amount of the standard fee for the 2011 accounting year at EUR 157 per farm return. The trend in costs and its effects on the cost of completing the farm return justify a revision of the fee.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard fee provided for in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 shall be fixed at EUR 160.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the 2012 accounting year.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 March 2012.", "references": ["44", "27", "77", "11", "91", "62", "21", "22", "81", "93", "48", "99", "72", "5", "67", "53", "16", "13", "36", "24", "0", "84", "34", "96", "39", "8", "17", "42", "37", "65", "No Label", "18", "33", "63"], "gold": ["18", "33", "63"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 827/2010\nof 20 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2010.", "references": ["69", "25", "74", "29", "38", "91", "71", "96", "89", "1", "17", "49", "26", "2", "12", "82", "67", "62", "94", "53", "27", "37", "52", "78", "22", "77", "36", "3", "95", "92", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 440/2010\nof 21 May 2010\non the fees payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1), and in particular Articles 24(2) and 37(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA manufacturer, importer or downstream user of a substance in a mixture may submit a request to the European Chemicals Agency, hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019, to use an alternative chemical name.\n(2)\nSuch requests under Article 24(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 should be accompanied by a fee.\n(3)\nA manufacturer, importer or downstream user may submit a proposal for harmonisation of classification and labelling of a substance to the Agency, provided there is no entry in part 3 of Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 for that hazard class or differentiation.\n(4)\nSuch proposals should be accompanied by a fee in cases laid down in Article 37(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.\n(5)\nThe level of the fees collected by the Agency as well as the rules for payment should be determined.\n(6)\nThe amount of the fees should take account of the work required by Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 to be carried out by the Agency and should be fixed at such a level as to ensure that the revenue derived from them when combined with other sources of the Agency\u2019s revenue pursuant to Article 96(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) is sufficient to cover the cost of the services delivered.\n(7)\nIn the \u2018Small Business Act\u2019 for Europe (3) the European Union has firmly placed the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (\u2018SMEs\u2019) at the heart of the Lisbon Growth and Jobs Strategy. Specifically the Union\u2019s capacity to build on the growth and innovation potential of SMEs will therefore be decisive for future prosperity of the Union. However, SMEs bear a disproportionate regulatory and administrative burden in comparison to larger businesses. Therefore it is appropriate to reduce the level of fees for SMEs.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate for the identification of SMEs to follow the definitions set out in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (4).\n(9)\nThe reduced fees for proposals for harmonised classification and labelling should be reviewed within 3 years after the entry into force of the Regulation with a view to reviewing or removing them if deemed necessary.\n(10)\nThis Regulation should enter into force as soon as possible, since it has been possible to submit requests for use of alternative chemical names and proposals for harmonisation of classification and labelling of substances to the Agency since 20 January 2009, date of the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT MATTER AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down the levels, and rules for payment, of the fees levied by the European Chemicals Agency, hereinafter called the \u2018Agency\u2019, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018SME\u2019 means a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of the Recommendation 2003/361/EC;\n2.\n\u2018medium-sized enterprise\u2019 means a medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of the Recommendation 2003/361/EC;\n3.\n\u2018small enterprise\u2019 means a small enterprise within the meaning of the Recommendation 2003/361/EC;\n4.\n\u2018microenterprise\u2019 means a microenterprise within the meaning of the Recommendation 2003/361/EC.\nCHAPTER II\nFEES\nArticle 3\nFees for request for use of an alternative chemical name\n1. The Agency shall levy a fee as laid down in Annex I for a request to use an alternative chemical name for a substance in up to 5 mixtures in accordance with Article 24(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.\n2. Where the applicant is an SME, the Agency shall levy a reduced fee, as set out in Annex I.\n3. For the use of the alternative chemical name of the substance in accordance with Article 24(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 in additional mixtures, an additional fee shall be levied for up to 10 additional mixtures and the same additional fee shall be levied for every further 10 additional mixtures, as set out in Section 3 of Annex I.\n4. The date on which the fee levied for a request is received by the Agency shall be considered to be the date of receipt of the request.\nArticle 4\nFees for submission of proposals for harmonised classification and labelling of a substance\n1. The Agency shall levy a fee as laid down in Annex II for submission of proposals for harmonisation of classification and labelling in accordance with Article 37(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.\n2. Where the party making the proposal is an SME, the Agency shall levy a reduced fee, as set out in Annex II.\n3. The date on which the fee levied for a proposal is received by the Agency shall be considered to be the date of receipt of the proposal.\nArticle 5\nReductions\n1. A natural or legal person that claims to be entitled to a reduced fee under Article 3 and 4 shall inform the Agency thereof at the time of submission of the request.\n2. The Agency may request, at any time, evidence that the conditions for a reduction of fees apply.\n3. Where a natural or legal person that claims to be entitled to a reduction cannot demonstrate that it is entitled to such a reduction, the Agency shall levy the full fee.\nWhere a natural or legal person that claims to be entitled to a reduction has already paid a reduced fee, but cannot demonstrate that it is entitled to such a reduction, the Agency shall levy the balance of the full fee.\nCHAPTER III\nPAYMENTS\nArticle 6\nMode of payment\n1. The fees shall be paid in Euro.\n2. Payments shall be made only after the Agency has issued an invoice.\n3. Payments shall be made by means of a transfer to the bank account of the Agency.\nArticle 7\nIdentification of the payment\n1. Every payment must indicate the invoice number in the reference field.\n2. If the purpose of the payment cannot be established, the Agency shall set a deadline by which the payer must notify it in writing of the purpose of the payment. If the Agency does not receive a notification of the purpose of the payment before the expiry of the set deadline, the payment shall be considered invalid and the amount concerned shall be refunded to the payer.\nArticle 8\nDate of payment\nThe date on which the full amount of the payment is deposited in the bank account of the Agency shall be considered as the date on which the payment has been made.\nArticle 9\nRefund of amounts paid in excess\n1. The arrangements for the refund to the payer of amounts paid in excess of a fee shall be fixed by the Executive Director of the Agency and published on the website of the Agency.\nHowever, where an amount paid in excess is under EUR 100 and the party concerned has not expressly requested a refund, the amount paid in excess shall not be refunded.\n2. It shall not be possible to credit any amounts paid in excess towards future payments to the Agency.\nCHAPTER IV\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 10\nProvisional Estimate\nThe Management Board of the Agency shall, when producing an estimate of the overall expenditure and income for the following financial year in accordance with Article 96(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, include a specific provisional estimate of income from fees which is separate from income from any subsidy from the Community.\nArticle 11\nReviews\n1. The fees provided for in this Regulation shall be reviewed annually by reference to the inflation rate as measured by means of the European Index of Consumer Prices as published by Eurostat pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 (5). A first review shall be carried out by 1 June 2011.\n2. The fee reduction for SMEs for harmonised classification and labelling shall be reviewed within 3 years after the entry into force of this Regulation.\n3. The Commission shall also keep this Regulation under continual review in the light of significant information becoming available in relation to the underlying assumptions for anticipated income and expenditure of the Agency.\n4. At the latest by 1 January 2013, the Commission shall review this Regulation with a view to amending it, if appropriate, taking into account in particular the costs of the Agency.\nArticle 12\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2010.", "references": ["55", "76", "96", "10", "78", "0", "12", "17", "86", "35", "38", "42", "44", "54", "2", "45", "6", "99", "36", "57", "43", "74", "22", "75", "50", "28", "41", "48", "4", "29", "No Label", "7", "25", "34"], "gold": ["7", "25", "34"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 April 2010\namending Decisions 92/260/EEC, 93/195/EEC, 93/197/EEC and 2004/211/EC as regards the importation of registered horses from certain parts of China and adapting certain third country denominations\n(notified under document C(2010) 2635)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/266/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (1), and in particular Article 12(1) and (4), Article 15(a), Article 16(2) and the introductory phrase and Article 19(i) and (ii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 92/260/EEC of 10 April 1992 on animal health conditions and veterinary certification for temporary admission of registered horses (2) assigns third countries, from which the temporary admission into the Union of registered horses is authorised, to sanitary groups of countries for the application of specific animal health and certification requirements.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 93/195/EEC of 2 February 1993 on animal health conditions and veterinary certification for the re-entry of registered horses for racing, competition and cultural events after temporary export (3) assigns third countries from which the re-entry of such horses into the Union is authorised to sanitary groups for the application of specific animal health requirements and provides model animal health certificates to be used for registered horses that have participated in specific equestrian events.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 93/197/EEC of 5 February 1993 on animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production (4) assigns third countries, from which the imports of such equidae into the Union is authorised, to sanitary groups for the application of specific animal health and certification requirements.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2004/211/EC of 6 January 2004 establishing the list of third countries and parts of territory thereof from which Member States authorise imports of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species (5) establishes a list of third countries, or parts thereof, from which Member States authorise, amongst others, the temporary admission of registered horses, the re-entry of registered horses after temporary export for racing, competition and cultural events and the import of registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production. That list, set out in Annex I to that Decision, also assigns those third countries and parts thereof to certain specified sanitary groups.\n(5)\nDecisions 92/260/EEC, 93/195/EEC and 93/197/EEC take into account regionalisation as provided for in Commission Decision 92/160/EEC (6). That Decision was repealed by Decision 2004/211/EC. Accordingly, it is necessary to amend Annex I to those three Decisions on the basis of regionalisation as now provided for in Decision 2004/211/EC, as well as the sanitary groups laid in that Decision.\n(6)\nIn order to host the equestrian events of the 16th Asian Games, the competent authorities of China have requested the recognition of an equine disease-free zone which they have established in the administrative district of Conghua City, Guangzhou Municipality, Guangdong Province in China. In January 2010, the Commission carried out a veterinary inspection in China, including the equine disease free zone, which consists of a core zone, which is embedded in a surveillance zone surrounded by a protection zone, and which is connected to an airport and a harbor by biosecurity highway passages.\n(7)\nThe Chinese authorities have provided a number of guarantees in particular as regards the notifiability of the diseases listed in Annex A to Directive 90/426/EEC in their country and the undertaking to fully comply with Article 12(2)(f) as regards the immediate disease notification to the Commission and the Member States.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure the sustainable protection of the health status of the equine population within the equine disease-free zone, the Chinese authorities have undertaken to operate a quarantine facility in the protection zone to control the entry of equidae from holdings in other parts of China or from countries not listed in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC. During this pre-entry quarantine the animals are subjected to the animal health tests in line with EU import conditions.\n(9)\nPrior to the pre-entry quarantine, the movement of these equidae is controlled to ensure that the standards laid down in Article 4 of Directive 90/426/EEC can be certified for the holdings outside the equine disease free zone in which they have been kept during the 180 days prior to dispatch to the European Union.\n(10)\nTaking into account the satisfactory results reported from this inspection, together with the information and guarantees provided by China, it is appropriate to include China in the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC, but at the same time to regionalise China for certain equine diseases and to authorise only the introduction of registered horses from the equine disease-free zone in Guangzhou, Province of Guangdong.\n(11)\nFrom an epidemiological point of view the equine disease-free zone in Guangzhou, Province of Guangdong, in China should be assigned to sanitary group C in the list in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC. That Annex should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nConsequently, it is necessary to amend Decision 92/260/EEC to include this part of China in the list of countries in Annex I to that Decision and to adapt the title and certain testing requirements of the Health Certificate C of Annex II to that Decision.\n(13)\nFor the purpose of re-entry of registered horses, it is necessary to update Article 1, to include this part of China in the list of countries in Annex I, to adapt the title of the health certificate in Annex II and to replace the model health certificate in Annex VII to Decision 93/195/EEC.\n(14)\nIt is also necessary to amend Decision 93/197/EEC to include this part of China in the list of countries in Annex I and to adapt the title of and certain testing requirements of the Health Certificate C of Annex II to that Decision.\n(15)\nAt the same time certain third country denominations in Decisions 92/260/EEC, 93/195/EEC and 93/197/EEC are adapted to the corresponding denominations in the list of third countries established by Decision 2004/211/EC.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Decision 92/260/EEC\nDecision 92/260/EEC is amended as follows:\n1.\nAnnex I is replaced by the text in Annex I to this Decision.\n2.\nIn the title of each of the animal health certificates A to F of Annex II the words following the words \u2018HEALTH CERTIFICATE\u2019 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018for the temporary admission into the European Union of registered horses for a period of less than 90 days in accordance with Decision 2004/211/EC.\u2019\n3.\nPoint (l) in Section III of the health certificate C of Annex II is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(l)\nIf the horse comes from China (1) (3) or Thailand (3), it was subjected to a complement fixation test for glanders and for dourine carried out with negative results at a serum dilution of 1 in 10 on a sample of blood collected within 10 days of export on \u2026 (4) (5);\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAmendments to Decision 93/195/EEC\nDecision 93/195/EEC is amended as follows:\n1.\nThe seventh indent of Article 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nhave taken part in the equestrian events of the Asian Games or the Endurance World Cup, irrespective of in which of the third countries, territories or parts thereof the competition takes place, and from which re-entry into the Union is authorised as provided for by the second indent of Article 3 of Decision 2004/211/EC and indicated in column 7 of Annex I to that Decision, and meet the requirements laid down in the health certificate in accordance with the model set out in Annex VII to this Decision,\u2019\n2.\nThe title of the animal health certificate in Annex II is replaced by the following:\n3.\nAnnexes I and VII are replaced in accordance with Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Decision 93/197/EEC\nDecision 93/197/EEC is amended as follows:\n1.\nAnnex I is replaced by the text in Annex III to this Decision.\n2.\nIn the title of each of the animal health certificates A to F of Annex II the words following the words \u2018HEALTH CERTIFICATE\u2019 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018for imports into the European Union of registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production in accordance with Decision 2004/211/EC\u2019.\n3.\nPoint (m) in Section III of the health certificate C of Annex II is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(m)\nIf the horse comes from China (1) (3) or Thailand (3), it was subjected to a complement fixation test for glanders and for dourine carried out with negative results at a serum dilution of 1 in 10 on a sample of blood collected within 21 days of export on \u2026 (4);\u2019.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2004/211/EC\nAnnex I to Decision 2004/211/EC is amended in accordance with Annex IV to this Decision.\nArticle 5\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 April 2010.", "references": ["90", "18", "89", "42", "76", "68", "34", "8", "20", "56", "91", "2", "81", "29", "55", "50", "64", "37", "9", "23", "5", "15", "73", "44", "7", "54", "88", "53", "28", "98", "No Label", "21", "22", "36", "38", "61", "65", "66", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "36", "38", "61", "65", "66", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 February 2012\non the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on certain aspects of air services\n(2012/113/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy its Decision of 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with an agreement at Union level.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2011/663/EU (1), the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on certain aspects of air services (2) (the \u2018Agreement\u2019) has been signed and provisionally applied, subject to its conclusion.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on certain aspects of air services (3) (the \u2018Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided in Article 8(1) of the Agreement.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 February 2012.", "references": ["47", "83", "1", "61", "90", "11", "16", "42", "89", "99", "4", "44", "56", "88", "25", "69", "35", "17", "72", "82", "33", "77", "81", "70", "68", "65", "94", "32", "97", "26", "No Label", "3", "9", "57", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "57", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\non the recognition of the \u2018International Sustainability and Carbon Certification\u2019 scheme for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria under Directives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(2011/438/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1), and in particular Article 18(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels (2) as amended by the Directive 2009/30/EC (3), and in particular Article 7c(6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee established by Article 25, paragraph 2 of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC both lay down sustainability criteria for biofuels. When reference is made to the provisions of Articles 17 and 18 and Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC this should be construed as the reference also to the similar provisions of Articles 7a, 7b and 7c and Annex IV to Directive 2009/30/EC.\n(2)\nWhere biofuels and bioliquids are to be taken into account for the purposes referred to in Article 17(1)(a), (b) and (c), Member States shall require economic operators to show the compliance of biofuels and bioliquids with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(2) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(3)\nRecital 76 of Directive 2009/28/EC states that the imposition of an unreasonable burden on industry should be avoided and voluntary schemes can help creating efficient solutions for proving compliance with these sustainability criteria.\n(4)\nThe Commission may decide that a voluntary national or international scheme demonstrates that consignments of biofuels comply with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(3) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC or that a voluntary national or international scheme to measure greenhouse gas emission savings contains accurate data for the purposes of Article 17(2) of this Directive.\n(5)\nThe Commission may recognise such a voluntary scheme for a period of 5 years.\n(6)\nWhen an economic operator provides proof or data obtained in accordance with a scheme that has been recognised by the Commission, to the extent covered by that recognition decision, a Member State shall not require the supplier to provide further evidence of compliance with the sustainability criteria.\n(7)\nThe \u2018International Sustainability and Carbon Certification\u2019 (hereinafter \u2018ISCC\u2019) scheme was submitted on 18 March 2011 to the Commission with the request for recognition. The scheme has a global scope and can cover a wide range of different biofuels. The recognised scheme will be made available at the transparency platform established under Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission will take into account considerations of commercial sensitivity and may decide to only partially publish the scheme.\n(8)\nAssessment of the ISCC scheme found it to adequately cover the sustainability criteria of Directive 2009/28/EC, as well as applying a mass balance methodology in line with the requirements of Article 18(1) of the Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(9)\nThe evaluation of the ISCC scheme found that it meets adequate standards of reliability, transparency and independent auditing and also complies with the methodological requirements in Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(10)\nAny additional sustainability elements covered by the ISCC scheme are not part of the consideration of this Decision. These additional sustainability criteria are not mandatory to show compliance with sustainability requirements set up in Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission may at a later stage take a view on whether the scheme also contains accurate data for the purpose of information on measures taken for issues referred to in the second paragraph, second sentence of Article 18(4) of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018International Sustainability and Carbon Certification scheme\u2019 for which the request for recognition was submitted to the Commission on 18 March 2011 demonstrates that consignments of biofuels comply with the sustainability criteria as laid down in Article 17(3)(a), (b) and (c) and Article 17(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(3)(a), (b) and (c) and Article 7b(4) and (5) of Directive 98/70/EC. The scheme also contains accurate data for purposes of Article 17(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(2) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nFurthermore, it may be used for demonstrating compliance with Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nArticle 2\n1. The Decision is valid for a period of 5 years after it enters into force. If the scheme, after adoption of Commission decision, undergoes changes to its contents in a way that might affect the basis of this Decision, such changes shall be notified to the Commission without delay. The Commission will assess the notified changes with a view to establish whether the scheme is still adequately covering the sustainability criteria for which it is recognised.\n2. If it has been clearly demonstrated that the scheme has not implemented elements considered to be decisive for this Decision and if severe and structural breach of those elements has taken place, the Commission reserves the right to revoke its Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision enters into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["55", "3", "1", "18", "67", "92", "15", "90", "61", "21", "31", "72", "20", "88", "28", "57", "45", "85", "71", "83", "6", "24", "60", "39", "16", "75", "73", "40", "81", "93", "No Label", "58", "76", "77", "78"], "gold": ["58", "76", "77", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1263/2011\nof 5 December 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 16774), Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 12856), Lactobacillus paracasei (DSM 16245), Lactobacillus paracasei (DSM 16773), Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 12836), Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 12837), Lactobacillus brevis (DSM 12835), Lactobacillus rhamnosus (NCIMB 30121), Lactococcus lactis (DSM 11037), Lactococcus lactis (NCIMB 30160), Pediococcus acidilactici (DSM 16243) and Pediococcus pentosaceus (DSM 12834) as feed additives for all animal species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, applications were submitted for the authorisation of Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 16774), Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 12856), Lactobacillus paracasei (DSM 16245), Lactobacillus paracasei (DSM 16773), Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 12836), Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 12837), Lactobacillus brevis (DSM 12835), Lactobacillus rhamnosus (NCIMB 30121), Lactococcus lactis (DSM 11037), Lactococcus lactis (NCIMB 30160), Pediococcus acidilactici (DSM 16243) and Pediococcus pentosaceus (DSM 12834). Those applications were accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe applications concern the authorisation of Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 16774), Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 12856), Lactobacillus paracasei (DSM 16245), Lactobacillus paracasei (DSM 16773), Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 12836), Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 12837), Lactobacillus brevis (DSM 12835), Lactobacillus rhamnosus (NCIMB 30121), Lactococcus lactis (DSM 11037) Lactococcus lactis (NCIMB 30160), Pediococcus acidilactici (DSM 16243) and Pediococcus pentosaceus (DSM 12834) as feed additives for all animal species, to be classified in the additive category \u2018technological additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinions of 6 September 2011 on Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 16774) (2), Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 12856) (3) and on Lactobacillus brevis (DSM 12835) (4), that these micro-organisms do not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that they have the potential to improve the production of silage from all forages by increasing acetic production resulting in an extended aerobic stability of the silage. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additives in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe Authority concluded in its opinions of 6 September 2011 on Lactobacillus paracasei (DSM 16245) (5), on Lactobacillus paracasei (DSM 16773) (6), Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 12836) (7) Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 12837) (8), Lactobacillus rhamnosus (NCIMB 30121) (9) Lactococcus lactis (NCIMB 30160) (10) Pediococcus acidilactici (DSM 16243) (11) and on Pediococcus pentosaceus (DSM 12834) (12), and in its opinion of 8 September 2011 on Lactococcus lactis (DSM 11037) (13) that these micro-organisms do not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that they have the potential to improve the production of silage from all forages by reducing the pH and increasing the preservation of the dry matter. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additives in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 16774), Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 12856), Lactobacillus paracasei (DSM 16245), Lactobacillus paracasei (DSM 16773),Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 12836), Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 12837), Lactobacillus brevis (DSM 12835), Lactobacillus rhamnosus (NCIMB 30121), Lactococcus lactis (DSM 11037), Lactococcus lactis (NCIMB 30160), Pediococcus acidilactici (DSM 16243) and Pediococcus pentosaceus (DSM 12834) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of those micro-organisms should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe micro-organisms specified in the Annex belonging to the additive category \u2018technological additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018silage additives\u2019, are authorised as additives in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 December 2011.", "references": ["5", "83", "42", "14", "88", "20", "68", "64", "79", "80", "16", "59", "61", "97", "84", "19", "36", "91", "69", "12", "87", "72", "95", "33", "30", "18", "27", "58", "77", "24", "No Label", "25", "38", "43", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "43", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 574/2010\nof 30 June 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 1 and IFRS 7\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards (1), and in particular Article 3(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 (2) certain international standards and interpretations that were in existence at 15 October 2008 were adopted.\n(2)\nOn 28 January 2010, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) published an amendment to International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 1 Limited Exemption from Comparative IFRS 7 Disclosures for First-time adopters, hereinafter \u2018amendment to IFRS 1\u2019. Realising that the relief regarding restatement of comparative disclosures in IFRS 7 concerning fair value measurements and liquidity risk if those comparative periods end before 31 December 2009 is not available to entities that apply IFRS for the first time, the aim of the amendment to IFRS 1 is to provide for an optional relief for those entities.\n(3)\nThe consultation with the Technical Expert Group (TEG) of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) confirms that the amendment to IFRS 1 meets the technical criteria for adoption set out in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002. In accordance with Commission Decision 2006/505/EC of 14 July 2006 setting up a Standards Advice Review Group to advise the Commission on the objectivity and neutrality of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group's (EFRAG\u2019s) opinions (3), the Standards Advice Review Group considered EFRAG's opinion on endorsement and advised the Commission that it is well-balanced and objective.\n(4)\nThe adoption of the amendment to IFRS 1 implies, by way of consequence, amendments to International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 7 in order to ensure consistency between international accounting standards.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1126/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Accounting Regulatory Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 is amended as follows:\n1.\nInternational Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 1 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;\n2.\nIFRS 7 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEach company shall apply the amendments to IFRS 1 and IFRS 7, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation, at the latest, as from the commencement date of its first financial year starting after 30 June 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 June 2010.", "references": ["44", "55", "26", "73", "31", "4", "94", "85", "7", "19", "50", "58", "68", "9", "70", "72", "77", "3", "29", "97", "78", "24", "28", "33", "6", "84", "49", "1", "0", "16", "No Label", "30", "47", "76"], "gold": ["30", "47", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1297/2011\nof 9 December 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Seggiano (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the third and fourth subparagraphs of Article 7(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Italian application to register the name \u2018Seggiano\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nThe United Kingdom submitted an objection to the registration under Article 7 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. The objection was deemed admissible under Article 7 (3) of that Regulation.\n(3)\nThe United Kingdom indicated in the objection that the registration of the name in question would be contrary to Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and would jeopardise the existence of trademarks registered in its territory.\n(4)\nBy letter dated 18 November 2010, the Commission asked the Member States concerned to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with their internal procedures.\n(5)\nGiven that an agreement was reached between Italy and the United Kingdom within the designated timeframe, with minor modifications of the specification and no modification of the single document published in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the name \u2018Seggiano\u2019 should be entered in the \u2018Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications\u2019,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe designation contained in the Annex to this Regulation shall be entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["14", "62", "99", "6", "46", "94", "64", "37", "81", "28", "59", "92", "18", "76", "88", "32", "38", "90", "47", "10", "86", "26", "79", "42", "66", "29", "33", "57", "67", "53", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/765/CFSP\nof 2 December 2010\non EU action to counter the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons (SALW) by air\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 26(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 13 December 2003, the Council adopted a European Security Strategy identifying five key challenges to be faced by the Union: terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, State failure and organised crime. The consequences of the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons (SALW) and their excessive accumulation and uncontrolled spread are central to four of these five challenges.\n(2)\nOn 15-16 December 2005, the Council adopted the EU Strategy to combat the illicit accumulation and trafficking of SALW and their ammunition (EU SALW Strategy). The EU SALW Strategy promotes the development of a policy for actively combating illicit network trafficking in SALW (illicit brokers and carriers) using the Union\u2019s air, sea and land space, by devising alert and cooperation mechanisms.\n(3)\nThe Action Plan of the EU SALW Strategy also underlines the need to improve the impact of missions of crisis management by including in their mandate measures aiming at the establishment of border controls (or control of the air, land and sea space of the conflict zone) and disarmament.\n(4)\nThe EU Council Working Party on Global Disarmament and Arms Controls (CODUN) and the EU Joint Situation Centre (SitCen) have, since 2007, developed an EU initiative to hinder illicit trafficking of SALW by air transport, by enhancing the exchange, among Member States, of relevant information on suspected air-carriers. In establishing such a system of exchange of information, CODUN and SitCen have been collaborating with the Stockholm International Peace and Research Institute (SIPRI) and its Countering Illicit Trafficking - Mechanism Assessment Project (CIT - MAP). Within the framework of this initiative, CODUN recently agreed to consider ways to render this EU initiative more operational and effective, by ensuring the timely updating and processing of relevant information.\n(5)\nThe risk posed to international security by the illicit trade of SALW via air was also recognised by other international and regional organisations. The OSCE Forum on Security and cooperation held a special session in 2007 devoted to this topic and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly adopted in 2008 a resolution calling for the completion, adoption and implementation of an OSCE Best Practice Guide on the illicit air transportation of SALW. Similarly, Participating States in the Wassenaar Arrangement adopted in 2007 \u2018Best practices to prevent destabilising transfers of SALW through air transport\u2019. In addition, numerous UN Security Council Sanctions Committee Group of Expert reports on West Africa and the Great Lakes region have repeatedly documented the key role played by air cargo companies involved in illicit SALW trafficking.\n(6)\nThe action foreseen in this Decision does not pursue any objectives related to the improvement of air transport safety,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. With a view to the implementation of the EU Strategy to combat the illicit accumulation and trafficking of SALW and their ammunition (EU SALW Strategy), the Union shall pursue the following objectives:\n(a)\nimproving tools and techniques, at the disposal of relevant crisis management missions, international and third countries\u2019 national authorities and Member States, to effectively screen and target suspect air cargo aircrafts likely to be involved in illicit trade of SALW via air within, from or to third States;\n(b)\nincreasing awareness and technical expertise on the part of relevant international and national personnel, of \u2018best practices\u2019 in the areas of monitoring, detection and risk management analysis against air cargo carriers suspected of SALW trafficking via air within, from or to third States.\n2. In order to achieve the objectives referred to in paragraph 1, the Union shall undertake the following measures:\n(a)\nthe development and field testing of a pilot air trafficking risk management dedicated software for relevant crisis management missions, and international and national authorities, including a regularly updated database on, inter alia, air companies, aircraft, registration numbers and transportation routings;\n(b)\nthe development and field testing of a secure pilot risk management and information dissemination system;\n(c)\nthe development and publication of a manual and accompanying training material, as well as the provision of technical assistance to facilitate the use and adaptation of the pilot software and of the secure risk management and information system, including through the organisation of regional seminars to train relevant crisis management missions, and international and national authorities.\nA detailed description of the project is set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.\n2. The technical implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be carried out by SIPRI.\n3. SIPRI shall perform its task under the responsibility of the HR. For this purpose, the HR shall enter into the necessary arrangements with SIPRI.\nArticle 3\n1. The financial reference amount for the implementation of the project referred to in Article 1(2) shall be EUR 900 000.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 1. For this purpose, it shall conclude a financing agreement with SIPRI. The agreement shall stipulate that SIPRI is to ensure the visibility of the EU contribution, appropriate to its size.\n4. The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the financing agreement.\nArticle 4\nThe HR shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular bi-monthly reports prepared by SIPRI. These reports shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council. The Commission shall provide information on the financial aspects of the project\u2019s implementation referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 5\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall expire 24 months after the date of conclusion of the financing agreement referred to in Article 3(3), or 6 months after the date of adoption of this Decision if no financing agreement has been concluded within that period.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["60", "68", "26", "90", "47", "39", "64", "70", "98", "37", "58", "18", "2", "29", "85", "74", "45", "48", "16", "34", "86", "49", "42", "44", "87", "40", "4", "32", "83", "59", "No Label", "1", "5", "6", "13", "20", "57"], "gold": ["1", "5", "6", "13", "20", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 352/2012\nof 23 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 April 2012.", "references": ["96", "26", "41", "64", "45", "48", "65", "10", "50", "88", "78", "90", "92", "30", "62", "36", "93", "59", "80", "15", "60", "77", "34", "38", "17", "86", "71", "82", "63", "74", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 1 March 2012\nas regards emergency measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster)\n(notified under document C(2012) 1310)\n(2012/138/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular the fourth sentence of Article 16(3), thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe experience gained from the implementation of Commission Decision 2008/840/EC of 7 November 2008 on emergency measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Community of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) (2) in general, taking into account recent outbreaks and findings reported by Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom in particular and experiences relating to their eradication, has shown a need to modify the measures provided for in that Decision. In the interest of clarity, in view of the extent of those modifications and of earlier modifications, it is appropriate to replace Decision 2008/840/EC.\n(2)\nIn Section I of Part A of Annex I to Directive 2000/29/EC, Anoplophora chinensis (Thomson) and Anoplophora malasiaca (Forster) are listed, though both denominations cover one single species which for the purposes of this Decision is designated as Anoplophora chinensis (Forster), hereinafter \u2018the specified organism\u2019, as in Decision 2008/840/EC.\n(3)\nTaking into account the experience gained, certain plant species which were not covered by Decision 2008/840/EC should be included in the scope while others which were previously covered should be excluded. Plants and scions whose stem or root collar is below a certain diameter should fall outside the scope. Certain definitions should be included to improve clarity and readability.\n(4)\nAs regards imports, provisions should take into account the phytosanitary status of the specified organism in the country of origin.\n(5)\nGiven the experience with infested consignments originating in China, special provisions should govern imports from that country. As most of the interceptions on specified plants imported from China have been reported on plants of Acer spp., it is appropriate to maintain a ban on their import, until 30 April 2012 as previously laid down.\n(6)\nThe movement of plants within the Union should be provided for.\n(7)\nMember States should conduct annual surveys and notify their results to the Commission and the other Member States. Provision should be made for notification in cases where the specified organism appears in a Member State or in a part of a Member State, in which its presence was previously unknown or it was considered to have been eradicated. A deadline of 5 days for the notification of the presence of the specified organism by the Member State should be set to allow for swift action at Union level, if appropriate.\n(8)\nTo eradicate the specified organism and prevent its spread, Member States should establish demarcated areas and take the necessary measures. As part of their measures, Member States should carry out activities to increase public awareness to the threat posed by the specified organism. They should further set specific time periods for the implementation of these measures. In cases where eradication of the specified organism is no longer possible, Member States should take measures to contain it.\n(9)\nIn specified circumstances, Member States should have the possibility to decide not to establish demarcated areas and to limit the measures to the destruction of the infested material, carrying out intensified monitoring and the tracing of plants associated with the case of infestation concerned.\n(10)\nMember States should report to the Commission and the other Member States on the measures they have taken or intend to take, as well as on the reasons for not establishing demarcated areas. They should annually communicate to the Commission and the other Member States an updated version of that report giving an effective overview of the situation.\n(11)\nDecision 2008/840/EC should therefore be repealed.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018specified plants\u2019 means plants for planting that have a stem or root collar diameter of 1 cm or more at their thickest point, other than seeds, of Acer spp., Aesculus hippocastanum, Alnus spp., Betula spp., Carpinus spp., Citrus spp., Cornus spp., Corylus spp., Cotoneaster spp., Crataegus spp., Fagus spp., Lagerstroemia spp., Malus spp., Platanus spp., Populus spp., Prunus laurocerasus, Pyrus spp., Rosa spp., Salix spp. and Ulmus spp.;\n(b)\n\u2018place of production\u2019 means the place of production as defined in the FAO International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (hereinafter \u2018ISPM\u2019) No 5 (3);\n(c)\n\u2018specified organism\u2019 means Anoplophora chinensis (Forster).\nArticle 2\nImport of the specified plants originating in third countries except China\nAs regards imports originating in third countries where the specified organism is known to be present, other than China, specified plants may only be introduced into the Union if they fulfil the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey comply with the specific import requirements, as set out in point 1 of Section 1(A) of Annex I;\n(b)\non entry into the Union they are inspected by the responsible official body in accordance with point 2 of Section 1(A) of Annex I for the presence of the specified organism, and no signs of that organism have been found.\nArticle 3\nImport of the specified plants originating in China\n1. As regards imports originating in China, specified plants may only be introduced into the Union if they fulfil the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey comply with the specific import requirements as set out in point 1 of Section 1(B) of Annex I;\n(b)\non entry into the Union they are inspected by the responsible official body in accordance with point 2 of Section 1(B) of Annex I for the presence of the specified organism, and no signs of that organism have been found;\n(c)\nthe place of production of those plants:\n(i)\nis designated by a unique registration number assigned by the national plant protection organisation of China;\n(ii)\nis included in the most recent version of the register communicated by the Commission to the Member States in accordance with paragraph 3;\n(iii)\nhas not, within the previous 2 years, been the subject of a communication by the Commission to the Member States of the removal from the register in accordance with paragraph 3; and\n(iv)\nhas not, within the previous 2 years, been the subject of a communication by the Commission to the Member States as referred to in paragraph 4 or paragraph 5.\n2. However, plants of Acer spp. shall not be introduced into the Union until 30 April 2012.\nFrom 1 May 2012, paragraph 1 shall apply to plants of Acer spp.\n3. The Commission shall communicate to the Member States the register of places of production in China which its national plant protection organisation has established as in compliance with point 1(b) of Section 1(B) of Annex I.\nWhere that organisation updates the register by removing a place of production either because that organisation has found that that place of production no longer complies with point 1(b) of Section 1(B) of Annex I or because the Commission has informed China of evidence of the presence of the specified organism at import of specified plants from that place of production, and China makes the updated version of the register available to the Commission, the Commission shall communicate the updated version of the register to the Member States.\nWhere that organisation updates the register by including a place of production because that organisation has found that that place of production complies with point 1(b) of Section 1(B) of Annex I and China makes the updated version of the register available to the Commission as well as the necessary explanatory information, the Commission shall communicate that updated version and, where appropriate, that explanatory information to the Member States.\nThrough Internet based information pages, the Commission shall make the register and its updates available to the public.\n4. Where during an inspection at a registered place of production, as set out in points (ii), (iii) and (iv) of point 1(b) of Section 1(B) of Annex I, the Chinese plant protection organisation finds evidence of the presence of the specified organism and the Commission is notified of that finding by China, the Commission shall immediately communicate that finding to the Member States.\nThrough Internet based information pages, the Commission shall also make this information available to the public.\n5. Where the Commission has evidence from sources other than those referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 that a place of production listed in the register does not comply with point 1(b) of Section 1(B) of Annex I or that the specified organism has been found on specified plants imported from such a place of production, it shall communicate the information concerning that place of production to the Member States.\nThrough Internet based information pages, the Commission shall also make this information available to the public.\nArticle 4\nMovement of specified plants within the Union\nSpecified plants originating in demarcated areas within the Union established in accordance with Article 6 may be moved within the Union only if they meet the conditions set out in point 1 of Section 2 of Annex I.\nSpecified plants which have not been grown in demarcated areas but are introduced into such areas may be moved within the Union only if they meet the conditions set out in point 2 of Section 2 of Annex I.\nSpecified plants imported in accordance with Articles 2 and 3 from third countries where the specified organism is known to be present may be moved within the Union only if they meet the conditions set out in point 3 of Section 2 of Annex I.\nArticle 5\nSurveys and notifications of the specified organism\n1. Member States shall conduct official annual surveys for the presence of the specified organism and for evidence of infestation by that organism on host plants in their territory.\nWithout prejudice to Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC, Member States shall notify the results of those surveys to the Commission and the other Member States by 30 April of each year.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC, Member States shall, within 5 days and in writing, notify the Commission and the other Member States of the presence of the specified organism in an area within their territory where that presence was previously unknown or the specified organism was considered to have been eradicated or where the infestation was detected on a plant species previously not known to be a host plant.\nArticle 6\nDemarcated areas\n1. Where the results of the surveys referred to in Article 5(1) confirm the presence of the specified organism in an area, or there is evidence of the presence of that organism by other means, the Member State concerned shall without delay establish a demarcated area, which shall consist of an infested zone and a buffer zone, in accordance with Section 1 of Annex II.\n2. Member States need not establish demarcated areas, as provided for in paragraph 1, if the conditions, as set out in point 1 of Section 2 of Annex II are satisfied. In such a case, Member States shall take the measures as set out in point 2 of that Section.\n3. Member States shall take measures in the demarcated areas, as set out in Section 3 of Annex II.\n4. Member States shall set time periods for the implementation of the measures provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3.\nArticle 7\nReporting on measures\n1. Member States shall, within 30 days of the notification referred to in Article 5(2), report to the Commission and the other Member States on the measures they have taken or intend to take in accordance with Article 6.\nThe report shall also include the description of a demarcated area, where established, and information on its location with a map showing its delimitation and information on the current pest status as well as measures to comply with the requirements concerning the movement of specified plants within the Union set out in Article 4.\nIt shall describe the evidence and criteria on which the measures are based.\nIn cases where Member States decide not to establish a demarcated area under Article 6(2), the report shall include justifying data and reasons.\n2. Member States shall by 30 April of each year communicate to the Commission and the other Member States a report including an up-to-date list of all demarcated areas established under Article 6, including information on their description and location with maps showing their delimitation, and measures that Member States have taken or intend to take.\nArticle 8\nCompliance\nMember States shall take all measures to comply with this Decision and, if necessary, amend the measures which they have adopted to protect themselves against the introduction and spread of the specified organism in such a manner that those measures comply with this Decision. They shall immediately inform the Commission of those measures.\nArticle 9\nRepeal\nDecision 2008/840/EC is repealed.\nArticle 10\nReview\nThis Decision shall be reviewed by 31 May 2013 at the latest.\nArticle 11\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2012.", "references": ["41", "9", "56", "68", "74", "80", "15", "54", "0", "65", "83", "21", "25", "53", "77", "76", "75", "60", "32", "88", "64", "28", "48", "24", "46", "86", "34", "67", "90", "5", "No Label", "22", "23", "58", "59", "61", "66", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "58", "59", "61", "66", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1134/2010\nof 30 November 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing forkbeards in Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (2) lays down quotas for 2009 and 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["12", "95", "8", "78", "82", "88", "57", "64", "32", "45", "39", "44", "4", "58", "0", "62", "94", "6", "61", "87", "71", "99", "11", "25", "93", "33", "43", "23", "38", "10", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 December 2010\non State aid granted by Germany to the Biria group (C 38/05 (ex NN 52/04))\n(notified under document C(2010) 8289)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/471/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (2), and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Proceedings before the Commission\n(1)\nOn 23 January 2002 and 20 August 2002 the Commission received a complaint with regard to State aid given to the Biria group in the form of a public guarantee.\n(2)\nThere followed an exchange of correspondence between the Commission and Germany; by letter dated 24 January 2003, registered as incoming mail at the Commission on 28 January 2003, Germany informed the Commission that the plan to grant the guarantee, which was conditional on the Commission\u2019s approval, had been withdrawn. The complainant was informed accordingly by letter dated 17 February 2003.\n(3)\nBy letters dated 1 July 2003, registered as incoming mail on 9 July 2003, and 8 August 2003, registered as incoming mail on 5 September 2003, the complainant submitted further information concerning another public guarantee to the Biria group and public holdings in companies belonging to the group.\n(4)\nThe Commission requested information by letter of 9 September 2003, to which Germany replied by letter dated 14 October 2003, registered as incoming mail on 16 October 2003. The Commission requested further information on 9 December 2003, which Germany provided by letter dated 19 March 2004, registered as incoming mail the same day.\n(5)\nThe Commission doubted whether the aid granted to the Biria group complied with the schemes on the basis of which it had ostensibly been granted, and on 18 October 2004 it issued an information injunction. In response to the information injunction Germany submitted further information, by letter dated 31 January 2005, registered as incoming mail the same day.\n(6)\nOn 20 October 2005 the Commission initiated a formal investigation in respect of three suspected State aid measures. In the same decision the Commission took the view that several other measures that had been alleged to constitute illegal State aid either did not constitute State aid or had been granted in accordance with approved aid schemes. The Commission\u2019s decision to initiate the investigation was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). The Commission invited interested parties to submit comments on the supposed aid measures. Comments were submitted by a third party who wished to remain anonymous, in a letter dated 27 January 2006, registered as incoming mail on 30 January 2006; by Prophete GmbH & Co. KG, Rheda-Wiedenbr\u00fcck, and Pantherwerke AG, L\u00f6hne, by letter dated 6 February 2006, registered as incoming mail the same day; and by Vaterland-Werke GmbH & Co. KG, Neuenrade, in two letters, one dated 6 February 2006, registered as incoming mail the same day, and one dated 27 February 2006, registered as incoming mail the same day.\n(7)\nThe comments were transmitted to Germany by letters of 6 February 2006 and 2 March 2006. Germany replied to the comments by letter dated 5 April 2006, registered as incoming mail on 7 April 2006, and by letter dated 12 May 2006, registered as incoming mail the same day.\n(8)\nGermany\u2019s response to the initiation of the formal investigation was provided by letter dated 23 January 2006, registered as incoming mail the same day.\n(9)\nThe Commission requested further information on 6 February 2006, and Germany provided this by letter dated 5 April 2006, registered as incoming mail on 7 April 2006. The Commission sent another request for information on 19 July 2006, to which Germany replied by letter dated 25 September 2006, registered as incoming mail on 26 September 2006.\n(10)\nOn 24 January 2007 the Commission adopted a Decision (4) under Article 7(5) and Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (5).\n1.2. Proceedings before the General Court\n(11)\nOn 5 April 2007 the Land of Saxony brought an action challenging the Commission Decision with regard to measures 2 and 3 (Case T-102/07). A further application was lodged on 16 April 2007 by MB Immobilien Verwaltungs GmbH und MB System GmbH & Co. KG, legal successors to the recipients of the aid to which the Decision related (Case T-120/07). This second application concerned all three of the measures that were the subject of the Decision. On 24 November 2008 the President of the Court decided to join the two cases.\n(12)\nBy judgment of 3 March 2010, the General Court annulled the Commission\u2019s Decision of 24 January 2007.\n(13)\nThe pleas of the parties overlapped to a large extent: their main submissions were as follows. First, the Commission had been wrong to conclude that measures 2 and 3 were outside the scope of the approved German aid scheme. Second, the Commission was mistaken in its assessment of the facts with regard to the question whether the recipients were to be considered firms in difficulty. Third, the Decision did not provide a proper statement of reasons for the assessment it had made of the amount of aid involved.\n(14)\nThe General Court upheld the finding in the Decision that measures 2 and 3 were outside the scope of the approved scheme. The Court also upheld the Commission\u2019s finding that the recipients constituted \u2018firms in difficulty\u2019 under the definition in the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (1999, hereinafter \u2018the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 1999\u2019) (6). It annulled the Decision only on the ground that it did not provide a proper statement of reasons for the risk premiums it used to determine the aid component. In particular, the General Court held that in order to determine the aid component in a loan to a firm in difficulty, a mere reference to the Commission notice on the method for setting the reference and discount rates (1997, hereinafter \u2018the Reference Rates Notice 1997\u2019) (7) was not a sufficient statement of reasons for the application of the different risk premiums.\n(15)\nAs required by the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, therefore, the present Decision implements the General Court\u2019s judgment, and explains in greater detail the method followed by the Commission in order to calculate the aid component in the measures at issue. This Decision changes nothing in the assessment under State aid law that the Commission made in the Decision of 24 January 2007, in particular with regard to the aspects already considered by the Court.\n1.3. Proceedings after the judgment\n(16)\nFollowing the judgment, by letter of 7 June 2010, registered as incoming mail the same day, the recipients submitted further comments. The comments were forwarded to Germany on 16 June 2010. Germany sent the Commission a reply to the recipients\u2019 comments by letter of 12 July 2010, registered as incoming mail the same day.\n(17)\nOn 19 August 2010 the Commission sent Germany a request for information, to which Germany replied by letter dated 14 September 2010, registered as incoming mail the same day.\nII. DESCRIPTION\n2.1. The recipient\n(18)\nUntil 7 November 2005 the Biria group manufactured and sold bicycles. The parent company of the group was at that time called Biria AG, and was based in Neukirch, Saxony, an area assisted under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU (8).\n(19)\nIn 2003 the group had a turnover of EUR 93,2 million (compared with EUR 83,8 million in 2002) and made profits of EUR 3,7 million (compared with losses of EUR 5,8 million in 2002). The group had 415 employees in 2003 (490 in 2002), and was therefore to be classified as a large undertaking.\n(20)\nThe parent company was created in 2003, by merging the old Biria AG into one of its subsidiaries, Sachsen Zweirad GmbH. The name of the absorbing company was changed from Sachsen Zweirad GmbH to Biria GmbH. In April 2005 Biria GmbH was converted into a new Biria AG. In 2003 Biria GmbH had an annual turnover of EUR 55,7 million and made profits of EUR 3,6 million. The sole owner of Biria AG was Mr Mehdi Biria. The parent company is hereinafter referred to as \u2018Biria\u2019.\n(21)\nApart from the parent company the main companies in the group were Bike Systems GmbH & Co. Th\u00fcringer Zweiradwerk KG (Bike Systems) - which Biria owned via Biria\u2019s subsidiary Bike Systems Betriebs- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH (BSBG) - and Checker Pig GmbH.\n(22)\nBike Systems was based in Nordhausen, Thuringia, which is an area assisted under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU. In 2003 it had a turnover of EUR 6,1 million, and losses of EUR 0,6 million. It had 157 employees. Bike Systems produced bicycles exclusively for its parent company BSBG, under a production contract known as a Lohnherstellungsvertrag. BSBG was responsible for the distribution of the bicycles.\n(23)\nChecker Pig GmbH was based in Dresden, Saxony, which is an area assisted under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU. In 2003, Checker Pig had a turnover of EUR 6,9 million, and made losses of EUR 0,4 million. It had 43 employees.\n(24)\nOn 7 November 2005 Biria sold the bulk of its assets to two companies belonging to the Lone Star group, a private equity fund. The real estate remained with Biria, which let it to the Lone Star group. The sales price of the assets was EUR 11,5 million. An external expert had evaluated the market price of the assets at EUR 10,7 million.\n(25)\nAccording to the information submitted by Germany, the sale was conducted by means of an open, transparent and unconditional tender. The tender was published on the Internet and in several print media. For the involvement of a new investor there were several options: an asset deal, a purchase of the entire assets en bloc, or a share deal. The assets were ultimately taken over by the Lone Star group by means of an asset deal.\n(26)\nAccording to Germany the efforts to sell the company started before the Commission\u2019s decision to initiate the formal investigation, which was taken on 20 October 2005. First offers were to be submitted by 4 October 2005.\n(27)\nAt the present time the legal successor to the new Biria AG is MB Immobilien Verwaltungs GmbH (hereinafter \u2018MB Immobilien\u2019); the legal successor to Bike Systems is MB System GmbH & Co. KG (hereinafter \u2018MB System\u2019). MB Immobilien has been in liquidation since July 2008.\n(28)\nIn this Decision the companies, with the exception of the parent company Biria, are referred to by the names they had at the time of the measures at issue.\n2.2. The financial measures\n(29)\nMeasure 1: In March 2001, gbb Beteiligungs AG (hereinafter \u2018gbb\u2019) provided Bike Systems with a silent participation (stille Einlage) amounting to EUR 2 070 732, to run until the end of 2010. gbb was a wholly owned subsidiary of DtA-Beteiligungs-Holding AG, which was itself a wholly owned subsidiary of Deutsche Ausgleichsbank, a Federal Government development bank that had been set up by legislation in the form of a corporation governed by public law.\n(30)\ngbb was already in existence in the time of the former German Democratic Republic, when it was a State bank for agriculture. In 1990, under the Unification Treaty, it became Berliner Genossenschaftsbank, a public-law corporation under the supervision of the Federal Ministry of Finance. In 1991 its name was changed to gbb Beteiligungsholding, and in 1997 it was converted into the form of a public limited company (AG). It was now no longer the property of the Federal Government, but became a subsidiary of Deutsche Ausgleichsbank. Ever since gbb was set up the public administration has exercised far-reaching influence over it. When it was a corporation governed by public law, it was under the direct supervision of the responsible ministry, and the authorities were represented on its supervisory board. When it was converted into a limited company, and became a subsidiary of Deutsche Ausgleichsbank, it came under the supervision that the public authorities exercised over Deutsche Ausgleichsbank (see recitals following).\n(31)\nDeutsche Ausgleichsbank was a corporation governed by public law and was under the supervision of the Federal Ministry of the Interior. A majority of the members of its supervisory board were representatives of federal or Land ministries or members of the Bundestag.\n(32)\nSection 4(1) of the Deutsche Ausgleichsbank Act states that the activities of the bank are limited to the financing of measures supporting small and medium-sized firms and the professions, protecting the environment, promoting social policies, and integrating persons displaced as a consequence of the Second World War.\n(33)\nSection 4(4) of the Act provides that Deutsche Ausgleichsbank may acquire interests in other undertakings if its supervisory board and the ministry supervising it agree.\n(34)\nThe silent participation in Bike Systems is listed in Deutsche Ausgleichsbank\u2019s annual reports for the years 2001 and 2002: the holding represented by the participation amounted to 20 %, which brought it over the threshold that triggered the reporting obligation. In 2001, gbb had interests of 20 % or more in a total of 18 companies.\n(35)\nIn 2003, under a Federal Act, Deutsche Ausgleichsbank merged with Kreditanstalt f\u00fcr Wiederaufbau.\n(36)\nBoth Deutsche Ausgleichsbank and Kreditanstalt f\u00fcr Wiederaufbau are what are known as development institutions (F\u00f6rderinstitute), i.e. banks whose activities are limited to supporting regional, economic and social policy measures. In State aid Case E 10/2000 Germany accepted appropriate measures that confined the activities of the development institutions to specific non-commercial activities, including the administration of support programmes for SMEs (9).\n(37)\nAccording to Germany, gbb\u2019s participation in Bike Systems was provided on market terms, and consequently did not constitute State aid.\n(38)\nMeasure 2: On 20 March 2003 the Land of Saxony granted an 80 % guarantee on a working capital loan of EUR 5,6 million to Sachsen Zweirad GmbH, which was originally to run until the end of 2008. The guarantee was returned in January 2004, and replaced by a guarantee for Biria GmbH (see measure 3). The guarantee was granted on the basis of the loan guarantee scheme in Saxony, an aid scheme approved by the Commission (10).\n(39)\nMeasure 3: On 9 December 2003 the Land of Saxony granted an 80 % guarantee on working capital loans amounting to EUR 24 875 000 to Biria GmbH (later Biria AG) to finance the planned increase in turnover and the restructuring of the group\u2019s financing plan. The loans were to mature on 31 December 2011, and consisted of EUR 8 million to repay working capital loans (Betriebsmitteltilgungsdarlehen), a EUR 7,45 million overdraft facility (Kontokorrentlinie), and EUR 9,425 million for seasonal financing needs (Saisonfinanzierungslinie). The guarantee was granted on the basis of the loan guarantee scheme in Saxony, an aid scheme approved by the Commission. It was provided subject to the condition that the earlier guarantee for Sachsen Zweirad GmbH (measure 2) would be returned. It entered into force only on 5 January 2004, once the guarantee to Sachsen Zweirad had indeed been returned.\nIII. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION\n(40)\nThe Commission initiated the formal investigation because it doubted whether the silent participation had been contributed on market terms, as Germany claimed. The Commission considered that Bike Systems had just emerged from insolvency, through the adoption of an insolvency plan, so that its future prospects were uncertain. At that time, therefore, it ought to have been considered a firm in difficulty. The Commission doubted whether the remuneration took proper account of the risk, and consequently whether the silent participation had been provided on market terms. With regard to possible exemption under Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU, the Commission had no information to show that the tests of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 1999 were satisfied.\n(41)\nA further ground for initiating the formal investigation was that the Commission provisionally took the view that the conditions of the approved aid scheme on the basis of which the guarantees for Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH had ostensibly been given were not in fact fulfilled, so that the guarantees granted fell outside the scope of the scheme. The Commission considered that at the time the guarantees were given Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH were firms in difficulty. In addition, as Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH were large undertakings, the guarantees ought to have been notified to the Commission individually even under the approved aid scheme. With regard to possible exemption under Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU, the Commission doubted whether the tests of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 1999 were satisfied.\nIV. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(42)\nThe Commission received comments from a third party that wished to remain anonymous; from Prophete GmbH & Co. KG and Pantherwerke AG; and from Vaterland-Werke GmbH & Co. KG.\n4.1. Competitor that wished to remain anonymous\n(43)\nIn its comments on the initiation of the formal investigation, the competitor that wished to remain anonymous argued that because of the public guarantee on a EUR 24,5 million loan Biria AG was able to sell bicycles to the competitor\u2019s customers below production cost, even though the competitor had the most cost-efficient production site in Germany.\n(44)\nIn 2003 Biria AG was able to show a profit only because banks had waived claims amounting to EUR 8,567 million. In the succeeding years 2004 and 2005, Biria AG had again recorded losses.\n(45)\nIn addition, Biria had been sold to Lone Star by way of an asset deal. In connection with this deal Landesbank Sachsen and Mittelst\u00e4ndische Beteiligungsgesellschaft Sachsen had probably waived large amounts of debt. The new Biria GmbH, which was owned by the Lone Star group, had taken over all the assets of the old Biria AG.\n4.2. Prophete GmbH & Co. KG and Pantherwerke AG\n(46)\nIn their comments on the initiation of the formal investigation, Prophete GmbH & Co. KG and Pantherwerke AG (hereinafter \u2018Prophete\u2019 and \u2018Pantherwerke\u2019) alleged that the State aid enabled Biria to sell at prices that would be untenable under normal market conditions. The two companies were in competition with Biria, and were thus directly affected by the aid.\n(47)\nBiria group, they argued, was the largest manufacturer of bicycles in Germany, with an annual output of around 700 000 bicycles. The companies of the Biria group operated in two segments of the bicycle market, namely the non-specialised trade and the specialised wholesale trade.\n(48)\nThe non-specialised trade included all retailing by the larger retail chains and mail order business. Bicycles in this segment usually sold at a price between EUR 100 and EUR 199. Prophete and Pantherwerke estimated that there were around 1,5 million bicycles sold on this market, and that Biria sold 650 000, giving it a share of around 50 % of the segment.\n(49)\nAccording to Prophete and Pantherwerke, the Biria group also had a dominant position in the specialised wholesale trade segment. This market segment had a volume of 150 000 to 200 000 bicycles. In the specialised wholesale trade prices ranged up to EUR 400. In this segment Pantherwerke was a direct competitor with Biria.\n(50)\nProphete and Pantherwerke had observed that that the prices offered by the Biria group had for years been consistently below those offered by other manufacturers. The difference could not be explained by economic factors, because although the Biria group\u2019s dominant position meant that it had a larger purchase volume this did not translate into more advantageous terms. Prophete and Pantherwerke surmised that the Biria group had suffered significant losses in recent years as a result of its low selling prices.\n(51)\nAs regards the silent participation, Prophete and Pantherwerke doubted whether given the economic situation of Bike Systems in March 2001 such a participation would have been provided by a private investor.\n(52)\nProphete and Pantherwerke took the view that the guarantees given for Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria in 2003 and 2004 were not compatible with the EU State aid rules. Prophete and Pantherwerke considered that the companies were in difficulty at the time the guarantees were granted. The new Biria was the legal successor to the two former companies from which it had emerged. The opening balance sheet of the newly created company had no informative value.\n(53)\nThe granting of the two guarantees violated the \u2018one time, last time\u2019 principle, as the companies of the Biria group had repeatedly been able to stay in business only with State assistance.\n(54)\nNo compensatory measures had been taken to offset adverse effects on competitors. No attempt had been made to limit the presence of the Biria group in the market. Quite the reverse, the Biria group\u2019s plan was to expand its business further by pursuing an aggressive pricing policy. On its homepage Biria had announced that it planned to increase sales further from their 2004 level by selling 850 000 bicycles in 2005. Prophete and Pantherwerke also drew attention to a press release according to which the owner of Biria AG had sold the business to the private equity fund Lone Star.\n4.3. Vaterland-Werke GmbH & Co. KG\n(55)\nIn its comments on the initiation of the formal investigation, Vaterland-Werke GmbH & Co. KG (Vaterland-Werke) stated that with a total output of between 700 000 and 800 000 bicycles the Biria group was the biggest manufacturer of bicycles in Germany. The only comparable company was MIFA Mitteldeutsche Fahrradwerke, which had an annual output of around 700 000 bicycles; other manufacturers produced only 250 000 to 400 000.\n(56)\nVaterland-Werke and Biria both operated in the non-specialised trade segment, which included the larger retail chains and large mail order firms. Competition in this segment was fierce, and Biria was known as an aggressive competitor that offered prices below production cost. Conduct of this kind was possible only with external financing, which in Biria\u2019s case was provided by State aid. This threatened the existence of all small competitors that were not supported by State aid. Vaterland-Werke was particularly affected, and free capacity could not be filled by alternative work orders. The market was suffering from overcapacity, so that any expansion of a manufacturer\u2019s capacity with the help of State aid placed a burden on other competitors.\n(57)\nAs regards the silent participation, Vaterland-Werke doubted whether given the economic situation of Bike Systems in March 2001 such a participation would have been provided by a private investor.\n(58)\nVaterland-Werke took the view that the guarantees given for Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria in 2003 and 2004 were not compatible with the EU State aid rules. Vaterland-Werke considered that the companies were in difficulty at the time the guarantees were granted. The new Biria was the legal successor to the two former companies from which it had emerged. The opening balance sheet of the newly created company had no informative value.\n(59)\nThe granting of the two guarantees violated the \u2018one time, last time\u2019 principle, as the companies of the Biria group had repeatedly been able to stay in business only with State assistance.\n(60)\nNo compensatory measures had been taken to offset adverse effects on competitors. No attempt had been made to limit the presence of the Biria group in the market. Quite the reverse, the Biria group\u2019s plan was to expand its business further by pursuing an aggressive pricing policy. On its homepage Biria had announced that it planned to increase sales further from their 2004 level by selling 850 000 bicycles in 2005. Vaterland-Werke also drew attention to a press release according to which the owner of Biria AG had sold the business to the private equity fund Lone Star.\n4.4. The recipients\n(61)\nIn their comments of 7 June 2010, following the annulment of the original decision by the General Court, the recipients of the aid submitted further information.\n(62)\nIn particular, they argued that when assessing the silent participation in Bike Systems contributed by gbb in 2001 (measure 1), the Commission had to take into account the existence of a \u2018comfort letter\u2019(Patronatserkl\u00e4rung) provided by Biria GmbH. This Biria GmbH is not the legal entity created through the merger of the old Biria AG into its subsidiary Sachsen Zweirad GmbH referred to in recital 20. The Biria GmbH that issued this comfort letter for Bike Systems was the legal predecessor of the old Biria AG.\nV. COMMENTS BY GERMANY\n(63)\nIn its comments on the initiation of the formal investigation, Germany argued that the terms of the silent participation provided by gbb were in line with market conditions. Germany agreed with the Commission that the risk associated with a silent participation was greater than the risk associated with a conventional bank loan. But the terms of the silent participation were such that the Reference Rates Notice 1997 was complied with. That notice stated that the reference interest rate was a floor rate which could be increased in situations involving a particular risk. In such cases, the premium could amount to 400 basis points or more.\n(64)\nThe remuneration on the silent participation amounted to 12,25 % (8,75 % fixed and 3,5 % depending on profits). This was 600 basis points above the Commission\u2019s reference rate of 6,33 %. gbb had taken account of the fact that the company was going through a restructuring process, and that the risk carried by the silent participation was higher owing to the reorientation of the company and the lack of collateral. The increased risk was reflected in the additional premium of 200 basis points.\n(65)\nIn addition, the decision to provide the silent participation was taken on the basis of a forecast of the company\u2019s development according to which its turnover would increase from EUR 0,89 million in 2001 to EUR 3,38 million in 2003. Germany concluded that the 12,25 % remuneration agreed for the silent participation properly reflected the associated risk. The fact that part of the remuneration was variable was of no relevance, as this was normal practice in the case of silent participations and was in line with the behaviour of a market economy investor.\n(66)\nAs regards the guarantee provided for Sachsen Zweirad GmbH, Germany argued that the company was not in difficulty at the time of the guarantee, and did not display any of the usual signs of a firm in difficulty set out in the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 1999. Among other things, in the year 2003 (up to the merger with Biria in October) the company\u2019s capital and reserves were positive, at EUR 404 million, and it generated a profit of EUR 2,1 million. The economic situation of the company had improved in 2003 by comparison with 2001/2002, as a result of consolidation efforts started at the end of 2002 and an improved market.\n(67)\nThe company\u2019s liquidity situation was difficult, but not \u2018serious\u2019. There had not been any danger that the private banks would not extend their credit lines. Moreover, high interest payments had not led to liquidity problems, as the Commission had claimed.\n(68)\nThe basis of the guarantee given for Biria GmbH (later Biria AG) was the new plan for the Biria group, which called for streamlined organisation of the group and a concentration of procurement, production responsibilities and distribution at Biria GmbH. Alongside the financial requirements of the expansion of turnover, the plan provided for a reorganisation of the overall financing of the group.\n(69)\nBiria GmbH (later Biria AG) was not in difficulty at the time the guarantee was granted. A distinction had to be made between the old and the new Biria AG. The new company could be regarded as a firm in difficulty only if it inherited the difficulties of the old company (always assuming that the old company was in fact in difficulty). But the new Biria AG had not inherited any such difficulties. The new Biria AG was the outcome of a merger of Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and the old Biria AG. Sachsen Zweirad GmbH, which was certainly not in difficulty, was economically dominant in the merger. Thus it could not be automatically assumed that the new Biria AG was a firm in difficulty. Even if the old Biria AG had indeed been in difficulty, the merger with Sachsen Zweirad GmbH meant that the new Biria AG was not necessarily so.\n(70)\nGermany argued that the withdrawal of one of the private banks from the financing of the company was due to a reorientation of the bank\u2019s strategy following a merger. The two other banks ended their involvement at the same time as this private bank. However, this could not be seen as a sign of distrust, as one of the banks had still provided financing for two individual projects.\n(71)\nNor was the merger of Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria AG aimed at circumventing the State aid rules and the classification of the company as a firm in difficulty: it was the consequence of a new plan for the group.\n(72)\nIn its observations on the comments of the competitor that wished to remain anonymous, Germany argued that the figures for the competitor\u2019s cost structure and for Biria\u2019s cost structure were not comparable. The competitor\u2019s turnover had increased while the Biria group\u2019s sales had decreased. At the same time the competitor\u2019s EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation) had fallen, while the Biria group\u2019s EBITDA had remained constant. This showed that Biria was not selling at dumping prices, and that the competitor was pricing more aggressively than the Biria group was.\n(73)\nGermany argued that the competitor\u2019s claim to have suffered damage as a result of the Biria group\u2019s behaviour was not supported by evidence and was not presented in a coherent manner. In a competitive market it was normal that one company should find itself undercut by another.\n(74)\nWith regard to the sale of the assets of the Biria group to the Lone Star group mentioned by the competitor, Germany provided details of the sale itself and of the repayment of the claims of private and public creditors.\n(75)\nIn its observations on the comments submitted by Prophete, Pantherwerke and Vaterland-Werke, Germany argued that the market for bicycles was divided into three segments, and not two, as those companies had alleged. The three segments were the specialised trade, mail order selling, and self-service. Biria had a strong position in mail order, which was due less to aggressive pricing than to its just-in-time delivery system. In the self-service trade the leading supplier was MIFA AG, and Biria\u2019s market share was less than 10 %.\n(76)\nReferred back to information that had already been submitted in the course of the proceedings, Germany rejected Vaterland-Werke\u2019s statement that the Biria group planned to expand its business further by means of an aggressive pricing strategy. Biria AG had produced 670 000 bicycles in 2003, and since then output had been falling.\nVI. ASSESSMENT\n(77)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU states that \u2018any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019. The Court of Justice has consistently held that trade is affected if the recipient firm carries on an economic activity involving trade between Member States.\n(78)\nIn order to consider whether or not there is State aid, the Commission will first identify the relevant undertaking. It will then consider each measure individually and assess whether the conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU are met. It will then calculate the aid component, and assess whether the measure is compatible with the internal market.\n6.1. The recipient undertaking\n(79)\nThe aid was granted to Sachsen Zweirad GmbH, to Biria, and to Bike Systems, a subsidiary of Biria. On 7 November 2005 Biria sold the bulk of its assets to two companies belonging to the Lone Star group, a private equity fund. According to the information provided, the assets were sold following an open, transparent and unconditional tender. Germany states that an expert opinion put the sales value of the assets at EUR 10,7 million. The price paid by the Lone Star group amounted to EUR 11,5 million, which was above that valuation.\n(80)\nOn the basis of the information at its disposal, the Commission concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that any benefit of the aid measures was transferred to the Lone Star group so as to make the Lone Star group the direct or indirect recipient of aid granted to Biria and Bike Systems.\n6.2. Measure 1: Measure allegedly on market terms\n(81)\nThe silent participation (measure 1) was contributed by gbb. Germany claims that the participation was provided under gbb\u2019s own programme, so that State resources were not used. However, as the Commission pointed out in the decision initiating the formal investigation, at the time the participation was provided gbb was a wholly owned subsidiary of Deutsche Ausgleichsbank, which in turn was wholly owned by the Federal Republic of Germany. gbb is therefore an undertaking governed by public law. According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, all resources of public undertakings constitute State resources (11).\n(82)\nIn the Commission\u2019s view, therefore, the measure is necessarily imputable to the State. In Case C-482/99 Stardust Marine, paragraphs 53 to 56, the Court of Justice held as follows:\n\u201853.\nOn that point, it cannot be demanded that it be demonstrated, on the basis of a precise inquiry, that in the particular case the public authorities specifically incited the public undertaking to take the aid measures in question. In the first place, having regard to the fact that relations between the State and public undertakings are close, there is a real risk that State aid may be granted through the intermediary of those undertakings in a non-transparent way and in breach of the rules on State aid laid down by the Treaty.\n54.\nMoreover, it will, as a general rule, be very difficult for a third party, precisely because of the privileged relations existing between the State and a public undertaking, to demonstrate in a particular case that aid measures taken by such an undertaking were in fact adopted on the instructions of the public authorities.\n55.\nFor those reasons, it must be accepted that the imputability to the State of an aid measure taken by a public undertaking may be inferred from a set of indicators arising from the circumstances of the case and the context in which that measure was taken. In that respect, the Court has already taken into consideration the fact that the body in question could not take the contested decision without taking account of the requirements of the public authorities (see, in particular, Van der Kooy, paragraph 37) or the fact that, apart from factors of an organic nature which linked the public undertakings to the State, those undertakings, through the intermediary of which aid had been granted, had to take account of directives issued by a Comitato Interministeriale per la Programmazione Economica (CIPE) (Case C-303/88 Italy v Commission, cited above, paragraphs 11 and 12; Case C-305/89 Italy v Commission, cited above, paragraphs 13 and 14).\n56.\nOther indicators might, in certain circumstances, be relevant in concluding that an aid measure taken by a public undertaking is imputable to the State, such as, in particular, its integration into the structures of the public administration, the nature of its activities and the exercise of the latter on the market in normal conditions of competition with private operators, the legal status of the undertaking (in the sense of its being subject to public law or ordinary company law), the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking, or any other indicator showing, in the particular case, an involvement by the public authorities in the adoption of a measure or the unlikelihood of their not being involved, having regard also to the compass of the measure, its content or the conditions which it contains.\u2019.\n(83)\nIn the present case, the Commission has found indicators of this kind that allow it to conclude that the decision taken by gbb is imputable to the State.\n(84)\ngbb was entrusted by the Federal Government with responsibilities for development: for example, it was responsible for the Eastern Germany Consolidation and Growth Fund (Konsolidierungs- und Wachstumsfonds Ostdeutschland), whose purpose was to provide equity capital to small and medium-sized enterprises in eastern Germany in order to strengthen their capital base.\n(85)\nSecond, gbb\u2019s history indicates that the State has been closely involved in its decision-making. First, as a corporation governed by public law, it was under the supervision of the responsible ministry, and the authorities were represented on its supervisory board. Since it became a limited company, its parent, Deutsche Ausgleichsbank, has been supervised by the responsible ministry, and its supervisory board has been dominated by representatives of public authorities.\n(86)\nThird, at the time of the decision to provide the participation, gbb\u2019s parent company, Deutsche Ausgleichsbank, was a corporation governed by public law, under the supervision of the Ministry of the Interior, with a supervisory board dominated by representatives of federal and Land ministries and members of the Bundestag. Deutsche Ausgleichsbank is not permitted to take interests in other undertakings without the prior consent of both the supervising ministry and its own supervisory board. Even after gbb was converted from a corporation governed by public law into a limited company, therefore, the State kept control over its business decisions via its parent company.\n(87)\nFourth, in 2002 Germany accepted appropriate measures with respect to the German development banks (12). These appropriate measures also apply to Deutsche Ausgleichsbank. The appropriate measures limit Deutsche Ausgleichsbank\u2019s activities to supporting the structural, economic and social policies and the public functions of its public-law owners in accordance with its public mandate. The Commission considers that this makes Deutsche Ausgleichsbank part of the public administration, so that all its actions are imputable to the State.\n(88)\nFifth, the provision of the silent participation appears to fall within Deutsche Ausgleichsbank\u2019s development objective of financing SMEs (13).\n(89)\nThe Commission concludes that the measure is imputable to the State.\n(90)\nAccording to Germany, the silent participation that gbb contributed to Bike Systems (measure 1) was provided on market terms. The risk carried by such a silent participation is comparable to that carried by a subordinated loan, so that a silent participation should be treated as a loan carrying a high risk. In case of insolvency or liquidation, a silent participation will be repaid only after all other liabilities have been honoured. The risk associated with the participation thus exceeds the risk carried by a conventional bank loan towards an investment, which will normally be secured on terms requested by the bank. At the time of the acquisition the average level of the interest rates being charged in the market on medium- and long-term loans backed by the customary security was 6,33 %. The remuneration to be paid for a participation of this kind should significantly exceed that rate.\n(91)\nThe participation bore a fixed remuneration of 8,75 % plus a variable remuneration of 3,5 % depending on the profits made (14). The agreed remuneration is consequently above the reference rate.\n(92)\nIt should be pointed out, however, that this reasoning supposes that Bike Systems would succeed in returning to profitability: but Bike Systems had just emerged from insolvency, and then only as a result of the adoption of an insolvency plan. Its future prospects were uncertain, as there had been only limited restructuring of its operations. According to the company\u2019s annual report for 2001, it continued to make a loss that year. Its equity figure continued to be negative, although because of hidden reserves this did not trigger insolvency. At that time, therefore, Bike Systems had to be considered a firm in difficulty.\n(93)\nAt the time of the first Decision the Commission had no information regarding the comfort letter (see recital 62 above). The wording of the comfort letter was submitted only in the course of the court proceedings.\n(94)\nIn the comfort letter, dated 6 March 2001, Biria GmbH takes note of the silent participation, and undertakes to ensure that for the duration of the participation Bike Systems is managed and financed in such a way that it is able to meet its obligations in respect of the participation.\n(95)\nThe Commission makes the following observations.\n(96)\nWith regard to the financial strength of the parent company that issued the comfort letter, Germany has stated that in 2001 Biria GmbH\u2019s turnover was negligible: it was merely acting as a distributor for other divisions of the group (15). As regards financial performance, the company showed a modest after-tax profit of DEM 205 000 in 1999, and net losses of DEM 473 000 in 2000 (16).\n(97)\nOwing to the company\u2019s past losses, its equity was negative in 1999. It became positive in 2000, but this was due not to its own performance but to a transfer of profits from its subsidiary Sachsen Zweirad (17). The Commission notes that the comfort letter was issued not by a company within the group enjoying a solid financial position but by a parent company that was performing less well.\n(98)\nIrrespective of whether Biria GmbH was to be formally regarded as a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 1999, therefore, the Commission concludes that Biria GmbH had the capacity to satisfy potential claims arising from the comfort letter covering the silent participation, which amounted to over EUR 2 million. As already mentioned, its book profit in 2000 (before the comfort letter was issued) was in fact due only to a transfer of profits from a subsidiary, and not to its own economic performance, and without this transfer of profits it would have had negative equity (including the subscribed capital and other forms such as reserves or cash in the balance sheet). It is thus questionable how Biria GmbH could have prevented a possible insolvency of Bike Systems. Consequently, the Commission considers that the comfort letter has no real economic value that might offset the difficulties of Bike Systems, and thus does not constitute valuable collateral that would reduce the remuneration that a market investor would have sought for the silent participation.\n(99)\nThe Commission concludes that the remuneration was not commensurate with the risk, and consequently that the participation was not provided on market terms. The participation thus conferred an advantage on Bike Systems that it could not have obtained on the market.\n(100)\nBike Systems, Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH were manufacturers of bicycles. As this product is traded across borders, the measures threaten to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.\n6.3. Measures 2 and 3: Aid ostensibly within the scope of approved aid schemes\n(101)\nThe guarantee given on a working capital loan to Sachsen Zweirad GmbH amounting to EUR 5,6 million (measure 2) and the guarantee given on a working capital loan to Biria amounting to EUR 24,875 million (measure 3) were granted on the basis of the loan guarantee scheme of the Land of Saxony (18). This is an approved aid scheme that allows guarantees to be given on loans of more than DEM 5 million (EUR 2,6 million) to healthy companies for the financing of new investment, and in special cases for supplementary financing of investment and working capital. In exceptional cases the scheme also allows the financing of reorganisation and restructuring. But any guarantees given to a large undertaking for purposes of restructuring must be notified to the Commission individually.\n(102)\nAccording to Germany, the conditions of the scheme were fulfilled, so that the guarantees were granted in accordance with the scheme. Germany considers that at the time the guarantees were granted Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria were not in difficulty. The guarantees were provided to secure working capital loans, and this was permissible under the scheme.\n(103)\nThe Commission does not agree that the guarantees were in accordance with the aid scheme on the basis of which they were ostensibly granted. As will be explained in more detail below, the Commission, contrary to the German view, considers that when Sachsen Zweirad GmbH was given a guarantee in March 2003 it was a firm in difficulty, and that when Biria GmbH was given a guarantee in December 2003 it too was a firm in difficulty. A guarantee given to a firm in difficulty for purposes of restructuring is notifiable individually.\n(104)\nGermany argues that Sachsen Zweirad GmbH did not display any of the usual signs of a firm in difficulty listed in the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 1999. The Commission points out that the usual signs of a firm being in difficulty set out in point 6 of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 1999 are intended only to give an indication of when a company can be considered to be in difficulty, and need not all be present at the same time. Sachsen Zweirad GmbH made a loss of EUR 1 274 000 on its ordinary operations in 2001, and a loss of EUR 733 000 in 2002. The losses were taken over by the parent company, Biria, under an existing contract for the transfer of annual profits and losses (Ergebnisabf\u00fchrungsvertrag). Turnover decreased in 2002 from what it had been in 2001, as did cash flow.\n(105)\nAccording to the annual report for 2002, Sachsen Zweirad GmbH also faced liquidity problems. It is explicitly stated in the annual report that Sachsen Zweirad GmbH\u2019s liquidity position was tight, owing to heavy expenditure for the advance financing of the inventory and the growth of the group. According to the annual report, the survival of the company could be ensured only if the banks agreed to maintain the existing lines of credit or to restructure them.\n(106)\nGermany argues that there was never any danger that the banks would not prolong their credit lines. The Commission points out that this does not invalidate the statement that the company\u2019s liquidity situation was tight. According to the annual report the bulk of the credit had a remaining duration of less than 5 years, which is a suboptimal form of financing for a business, and increases the company\u2019s risk. The short-term nature of the credit also led to high interest payments (although the payments fell slightly in 2002 compared to 2001), and this put a further burden on the company\u2019s liquidity position.\n(107)\nThe Commission concludes that at the time the guarantee was granted Sachsen Zweirad GmbH was a firm in difficulty, and that the guarantee consequently has to be considered a guarantee for restructuring. The granting of such a guarantee for a large undertaking has to be notified to the Commission individually, so that the conditions of the approved aid scheme on the basis of which the guarantee was ostensibly granted were not fulfilled, and the guarantee was outside the scope of the scheme.\n(108)\nBiria was created with effect from 1 October 2003 by the merger of the old Biria AG into its subsidiary Sachsen Zweirad GmbH.\n(109)\nAccording to Germany Biria must be clearly distinguished from the old Biria AG and from Sachsen Zweirad GmbH, as the merger created a new company. The question whether this company was in difficulty at the time the guarantee was granted, on 9 December 2004, should therefore be assessed by reference to the balance sheet of the new merged company. According to Germany, this balance sheet demonstrates that Biria GmbH could not be regarded as a firm in difficulty.\n(110)\nThe Commission does not accept this reasoning. It considers that the new merged Biria GmbH cannot be seen in isolation from the old Biria AG and Sachsen Zweirad GmbH, because it is was created by merging the two companies. Otherwise it would be easy to circumvent the definition of a firm in difficulty by merging entities or setting up new ones. The old Biria AG suffered losses and liquidity problems in 2002, as did Sachsen Zweirad GmbH. Biria GmbH inherited all the debts and liabilities of the old Biria AG and of Sachsen Zweirad GmbH. Biria GmbH owned the same assets and carried on the same business as the old Biria AG and Sachsen Zweirad GmbH. The Commission therefore considers that Biria GmbH inherited the difficulties of the old Biria AG and Sachsen Zweirad GmbH.\n(111)\nGermany claims that Sachsen Zweirad GmbH dominated in the merger. According to Germany, Sachsen Zweirad GmbH was not in difficulty, so that it cannot automatically be assumed that the new Biria GmbH was in difficulty. Contrary to the German view, however, the Commission considers that Sachsen Zweirad GmbH was indeed a firm in difficulty. Consequently, the new Biria GmbH also inherited the difficulties of Sachsen Zweirad GmbH.\n(112)\nAccording to its annual report for 2003, the Biria group continued its restructuring and reorganisation process that year. This process had started in 2002, and included a reorganisation of the group\u2019s financing. On the basis of the guarantee given by the Land of Saxony on the EUR 24,875 million loan, the Biria group drew up a new plan for the financing of its business in the medium term. The new financing plan provided for a significant adjustment of the interest rates it was paying, and thus a reduction of its heavy interest burden.\n(113)\nAt the same time the pool of banks was reorganised: three banks agreed to waive claims amounting to EUR 8 567 000, which seems to have represented significantly more than 50 % of their total claims, in return for immediate redemption of their remaining claims. Consequently, the loan covered by the 80 % guarantee that constitutes measure 3 consists of EUR 8 million to repay working capital loans, a EUR 7,45 million overdraft facility, and EUR 9,425 million for seasonal financing needs.\n(114)\nAt the time the guarantee was given, therefore, Biria faced liquidity problems, and was thus a firm in difficulty. This assessment is supported by the fact that three banks withdrew from financing Biria\u2019s activities and indeed agreed to waive a large part of their claims in return for the immediate redemption of the remaining claims. This shows that the banks seriously doubted whether Biria would be able to service its debts, and thus whether it was a viable company.\n(115)\nGermany argues that the banks withdrew only because of a reorientation of their business strategy. The Commission points out that the banks agreed to waive probably around 50 % of their claims. Even if the banks withdrew as a result of a reorientation of their strategy, this waiver is a sign that they felt that it was very unlikely that they would be able to recover the full amount of the loans.\n(116)\nThe Commission concludes that at the time the guarantee was given Biria was a firm in difficulty, and that the guarantee consequently has to be considered a guarantee for restructuring. The granting of such guarantees for large undertakings has to be notified to the Commission individually, and at the time the guarantee was given Biria was a large undertaking, so that the conditions of the approved aid scheme on the basis of which the guarantee was ostensibly granted were not fulfilled, and the guarantee was outside the scope of the scheme.\n(117)\nThe guarantees in measures 2 and 3 were granted by the Land of Saxony; they were consequently provided from State resources and are imputable to the State.\n(118)\nA State aid measure must confer an advantage on the recipient. The Commission considers that the two guarantees conferred an undue advantage on Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH (later Biria AG).\n(119)\nFor the reasons set out in the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (hereinafter \u2018the Guarantees Notice\u2019), points 2.2 and 3.2 (19), a borrower who does not pay a market price for a guarantee obtains an advantage. In some cases, a firm in financial difficulty would not find a financial institution prepared to lend to it without a State guarantee.\n(120)\nIn the case at issue loans to a firm in difficulty were guaranteed, and the guarantor - the State - did not receive a premium on commercial terms.\n(121)\nIn point 3.2 of the Guarantees Notice, the Commission sets out four tests which together are sufficient to rule out the possibility that a guarantee may comprise State aid:\n1.\nthe borrower is not in financial difficulty;\n2.\nthe extent of the guarantee can be properly measured when it is granted;\n3.\nthe guarantee does not cover more than 80 % of the outstanding loan;\n4.\na market-oriented price is paid for the guarantee.\n(122)\nThe Commission has applied these tests to the case at hand, and finds, first of all, that at the time the guarantee was given Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria were in financial difficulty.\n(123)\nNo premiums were charged for the guarantees, and they were granted on loans to a firm in difficulty. The mere fact that no ordinary commercial fee was paid for the guarantees indicates that the measures conferred an advantage on Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria. On the commercial banking market guarantees cannot be obtained without a commercial premium. This is all the more true in the case of guarantees given to firms in difficulty, who may not be able to repay.\n(124)\nFollowing the reasoning set out in the Guarantees Notice, therefore, the guarantees constitute State aid.\n(125)\nThe Commission concludes that the guarantees conferred an advantage on Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH (later Biria AG) because neither of them would have been able to obtain a guarantee on the same terms on the market.\n(126)\nFor the reasons referred to in recital 100, measures 2 and 3 are liable to distort competition and affect trade.\n6.4. Conclusions on the presence of State aid\n(127)\nThe Commission concludes that the silent participation and the two guarantees constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, and that the guarantees were not granted in accordance with an approved aid scheme. Measures 1, 2 and 3 thus constitute new aid, which has to be assessed accordingly.\n6.5. Calculation of the aid component\n(128)\nPoint 4.1 of the Guarantees Notice states that \u2018Where an individual guarantee or a guarantee scheme does not comply with the market economy investor principle, it is deemed to entail State aid. The State aid element therefore needs to be quantified in order to check whether the aid may be found compatible under a specific State aid exemption.\u2019 Before considering whether the aid is compatible, therefore, the Commission needs to quantify the aid element.\n(129)\nThe Commission has laid down general principles for calculating the aid element in a guarantee in the Guarantees Notice.\n(130)\nThe Commission takes the view that the aid component in a State guarantee may in principle amount to the whole value of the underlying loan, if the recipient is unable to access financial markets by itself (Guarantees Notice, points 2.2 and 4.1(a)).\n(131)\nThe rules for calculating the aid component are set out in the Guarantees Notice in points 4.1 (General), 4.2 (Aid element in individual guarantees) and 4.4 (Aid element in guarantee schemes). In what follows the Commission will apply these rules to the case at hand.\n(132)\nPoint 4.2 of the Guarantees Notice states that in the absence of a comparable market premium, a comparison should be made between the all-in financing costs of a loan on the market with and without guarantee (i.e. the interest rate for a similar loan without guarantee should be compared to the total of the interest rate and the guarantee premium for the loan with the guarantee).\n(133)\nIn many cases, such a market interest rate is not available. In its notices on the method for setting the reference and discount rates, therefore, the Commission has development a methodology which, for the reasons set out in point 4.2 of the Guarantees Notice, can be used as a proxy for the market interest rate.\n(134)\nUnder the Reference Rates Notice 1997 the Commission sets reference rates which are intended to reflect the average level of interest rates charged in the market on medium- and long-term loans backed by normal security. The Reference Rates Notice 1997 also points out that the reference rate thus determined is a floor rate which may be increased in situations involving a particular risk (for example, in the case of an undertaking in difficulty, or where the security normally required by banks is not provided). In such cases, the premium may amount to 400 basis points or more. The Reference Rates Notice 1997 does not explain whether risk premiums for different risks can be added together. Combination of this kind is not ruled out, but in its decision the Commission must justify the method used to combine different risk premiums by referring to an analysis of the practice of the financial markets (20).\n(135)\nIn 2004 the auditors Deloitte & Touche GmbH carried out a study for the Commission\u2019s Directorate-General for Competition (hereinafter \u2018the study\u2019) (21). On the basis of empirical research, the study among other things identified risk premiums observable in the market for firms in different categories of risk and for transactions with different collateralisation. The study clearly shows that the combination of different dimensions of risk (such as the creditworthiness of the borrower or the collateral provided) can be reflected in differentiated margins to be added to the base rate.\n(136)\nOn the basis of the study, the Commission further refined its approach to the calculation of the aid component in loans in a Communication on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (2008, hereinafter \u2018the Reference Rates Communication 2008\u2019) (22). The Reference Rates Communication 2008 reflects the approach adopted in the study: it takes a base rate and applies premiums for creditworthiness and collateralisation.\n(137)\nThe Commission considers, moreover, that the determination of the aid component in the measures to be assessed is linked to the concept of State aid. The Court of Justice has held that the question whether an aid measure constitutes State aid has to be determined on the basis of objective factors which must be appraised on the date on which the Commission takes its decision (23).\n(138)\nThe Commission therefore considers that the appropriate basis for the determination of the aid component is the Reference Rates Communication 2008, and in what follows it will make its assessment in the light of that Communication.\n(139)\nThe Commission considers that the aid component in the silent participation is the difference between the remuneration that Bike Systems would have had to pay for the participation on the market and the remuneration it actually did pay. Given that Bike Systems was in difficulty at the time the silent participation was provided, and the related risk was high, the aid component may amount to the whole amount of the participation, as it may be that no market economy investor would ever have provided it (24).\n(140)\nThe Commission takes the view that such a silent participation is not a loan, but that it is nevertheless comparable to a loan with a high risk, because in the event of insolvency it is subordinated to all other claims, including subordinated loans.\n(141)\nAs explained in recital 92, the Commission takes the view that the situation of Bike Systems, which had just emerged from insolvency proceedings, had to be considered weak. Its future prospects were uncertain, as there had been only limited restructuring of its operations. As pointed out in recital 92, therefore, the company had to be regarded as a firm in difficulty. Moreover, no collateral was provided for the silent participation, which increased the risk of default. The Commission consequently takes the view that the guarantee has to be considered a transaction with \u2018low\u2019 collateralisation within the meaning of the Reference Rates Communication 2008. Not only is there a lack of collateral, but in the event of insolvency the participation is also subordinated to all other loans, which increases the risk of default even further. The Commission considers that this has to be treated as a risk factor additional to the absence of collateral: low collateralisation increases the risk that if the borrower becomes insolvent it will not be possible to satisfy the creditor\u2019s claim direct by realising the security, but the low rank of the claim means that in the event of insolvency the creditor will be able to obtain satisfaction only after other creditors, and hence will probably recover nothing at all.\n(142)\nThe Commission considers that since at the time the measure was taken Bike Systems was in difficulty, it must be classified in the credit category \u2018bad\u2019. The Reference Rates Communication 2008 stipulates that for companies in this category with low collateral, the margin that would rule out the presence of State aid may be as high as 1 000 basis points. Taking into account the absence of collateral and the low ranking of the silent participation, the Commission considers a premium of 1 000 basis points justified.\n(143)\nThe aid component in the silent participation is thus the difference between the reference interest rate plus 1 000 basis points and the remuneration paid on the participation.\n(144)\nMoreover, the Commission considers that for the calculation of the aid component the variable remuneration of 3,5 % can be taken into account only partially, as it was dependent on profits. The company\u2019s situation was weak, and the prospects of profit were unclear. The Commission considers that account should be taken of only half of the variable remuneration, or 1,75 %. For purposes of the calculation of the aid component, therefore, the remuneration to be taken into consideration should be the fixed remuneration of 8,75 % plus half of the variable remuneration of 3,5 %, giving a total remuneration of 10,5 %. The aid component is consequently the difference between the reference interest rate plus 1 000 basis points and a remuneration of 10,5 %.\n(145)\nThe guarantees under measures 2 and 3 enabled Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH to obtain financial terms for loans that were better than those normally available on the financial markets. The Commission considers that the aid component in the guarantees under measures 2 and 3 is the difference between the interest rate that Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH would have had to pay for a loan on market terms, i.e. without a guarantee, and the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was actually provided. This difference can be deemed to correspond to the premium that a market economy guarantor would have asked for these guarantees. As Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH were in difficulty at the time the guarantees were given and the loans were granted, the aid component may even amount to the whole of the guarantee, as it may be that without the guarantee no lender would have granted the loan (25).\n(146)\nMoreover, the Commission considers that the loan and the guarantee to Sachsen Zweirad GmbH involved an additional risk, as the collateral provided was particularly low. The guarantee on the loan to Sachsen Zweirad GmbH was secured only by a directly enforceable guarantee (selbstschuldnerische B\u00fcrgschaft) given by the companies in the group. The economic value of such guarantees is very low. The Commission consequently takes the view that the guarantee has to be considered a transaction with \u2018low\u2019 collateralisation within the meaning of the Reference Rates Communication 2008.\n(147)\nThe security provided for the loan and guarantee to Biria GmbH was of a higher economic value than that for the guarantee to Sachsen Zweirad GmbH. Nevertheless, the security was still lower than normally required. The guarantee to Biria GmbH was secured by a first-rank mortgage on property belonging to Bike Systems worth EUR 15 million. But this mortgage was subordinate to another loan of EUR 2 million. The first-rank mortgage was consequently equal to only just above 50 % of the total amount of the loan. However, there is no indication of what would be a proper liquidation value for the mortgage. There was further collateral, in the form of mortgages, the abandonment of claims, the transfer of ownership of materials in the possession of the group companies, and a directly enforceable guarantee given by the owner of Biria GmbH: this collateral was of low economic value. The Commission considers that, despite the collateral offered, the guarantee has to be considered a transaction with \u2018low\u2019 collateralisation within the meaning of the Reference Rates Communication 2008.\n(148)\nAs explained above, at the time the guarantees were given Biria GmbH and Sachsen Zweirad GmbH were in difficulty, so that they had to be classified in the credit category \u2018bad\u2019. The Reference Rates Communication 2008 stipulates that for firms in this rating category with low collateral the premium that would rule out the presence of State aid may be as high as 1 000 basis points. Taking into account the low collateral, the Commission considers that in the case of Sachsen Zweirad GmbH a premium of 800 basis points is justified. Biria GmbH provided slightly better collateral. Here a premium of 700 basis points is appropriate. The premium in both cases is lower than that for the silent participation as a result of the participation\u2019s low ranking.\n(149)\nThe aid component in the guarantee for Sachsen Zweirad GmbH (measure 2) is the difference between the reference interest rate plus 800 basis points and the total financing cost of the guaranteed loan (the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was provided plus any premiums paid for the guarantee).\n(150)\nIn the same way, the aid component in the guarantee for Biria GmbH (measure 3) is the difference between the reference interest rate plus 700 basis points and the total financing cost of the guaranteed loan (the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was provided plus any premiums paid for the guarantee).\n6.6. Exemptions in Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU\n(151)\nParagraphs 2 and 3 of Article 107 TFEU provide for exemptions from the general prohibition of State aid imposed by paragraph 1.\n(152)\nThe exemptions in Article 107(2) TFEU do not apply in the present case: the aid is not aid of a social character granted to individual consumers, nor aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences, nor aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany.\n(153)\nThe exemptions provided for in Article 107(3)(b) and (d) do not apply either. They refer to aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest, and aid to promote culture and heritage conservation.\n(154)\nThere remain the exemptions provided for in Articles 107(3)(a) and 107(3)(c) TFEU and the Community guidelines based on those provisions.\n(155)\nThe Commission notes, first of all, that Bike Systems was located in an area that qualified for regional aid under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU. When the Commission initiated the formal investigation it expressed doubts on this point, but despite this Germany has not produced any information to show that the measure satisfies the requirements for the granting of regional aid laid down in the Guidelines on national regional aid (26).\n(156)\nThere are other exceptions in other Community guidelines. As the aid was granted in March 2001, the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 1999 apply. The Commission does not possess any information that might show that the aid can be considered compatible with the TFEU on the basis of those Guidelines. Under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 1999, restructuring aid can be granted only if there is a sound restructuring plan, any undue distortion of competition is avoided, and the aid is limited to the minimum. When it initiated the formal investigation the Commission expressed doubts on this point, but despite this Germany has not produced any information to show that the requirements are satisfied. The Commission concludes that the requirements of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 1999 are not satisfied.\n(157)\nThe measure under consideration does not fall within the scope of any of the other guidelines or regulations applying to aid in such areas as research and development, the environment, small and medium-sized enterprises, employment and training, or risk capital. Since the measure does not pursue any objective of common interest, it constitutes operating aid that is incompatible with the TFEU.\n(158)\nSachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH were located in an area assisted under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU. However, the exemptions provided for in Article 107(3)(a) and the regional limb of Article 107(3)(c) are not applicable, as Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH were in difficulty, and the objective of the aid measures was not the economic development of a certain region.\n(159)\nThe Commission considers that the only provision that the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty are the only rules that might apply here As the aid was granted in March 2003, the relevant guidelines are the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 1999.\n(160)\nThe grant of aid is there made conditional on the implementation of a restructuring plan, the duration of which must be as short as possible, and which must restore the long-term viability of the firm within a reasonable timescale and on the basis of realistic assumptions as to future operating conditions. When it initiated the formal investigation the Commission expressed doubts on this point, but despite this Germany has not produced any information to show that the guarantees were given on the basis of a sound restructuring plan that would restore the group to profitability.\n(161)\nIn addition, measures must be taken to mitigate, as far as possible, any adverse effects of the aid on competitors. This usually means limiting the presence of the undertaking in its market or markets after the end of the restructuring period. The Commission does not possess any information regarding the relevant market and the Biria group\u2019s share of it. Nor has it any information at its disposal regarding any compensatory measures that might limit the undertaking\u2019s presence in the market. Quite the reverse, it would appear that with the takeover of Checker Pig and Bike Systems the Biria group expanded in 2001.\n(162)\nAccording to the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 1999, the amount of aid must be limited to the strict minimum required to enable restructuring to be undertaken in the light of the existing financial resources of the company and its shareholders. In addition, the recipients of aid must make a substantial contribution to the restructuring costs, from their own resources or by means of external financing at market conditions. As the aid was not given on the basis of a restructuring plan, the Commission has no information regarding a contribution on the part of the recipient or a limitation of the aid to the minimum.\n(163)\nAccording to the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 1999, restructuring aid should be granted once only. If the firm concerned has already received restructuring aid in the past, and less than 10 years have elapsed since the restructuring period came to an end, the Commission will normally allow further restructuring aid only in exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances.\n(164)\nSachsen Zweirad GmbH received restructuring aid on the basis of an approved aid scheme, in the form of a public holding amounting to a total of EUR 1 278 200, in April 1996 and March 1998. Since less then 10 years had elapsed since Sachsen Zweirad GmbH\u2019s period of restructuring came to an end, and the Commission is not aware of any exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances, the two guarantees did not satisfy the \u2018one time, last time\u2019 condition.\n(165)\nThe Commission concludes that the requirements of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 1999 are not satisfied.\n(166)\nThe Commission further takes the view that measures 2 and 3 do not fall within the scope of any of the other Community guidelines or regulations applying to aid in such areas as research and development, the environment, small and medium-sized enterprises, employment and training, or risk capital. Since the measure does not pursue any objective of common interest, it constitutes operating aid that is incompatible with the TFEU.\nVII. CONCLUSION\n(167)\nThe Commission concludes that gbb\u2019s participation in Bike Systems, amounting to EUR 1 070 732, the 80 % guarantee given on a loan of EUR 5,6 million to Sachsen Zweirad GmbH, and the 80 % guarantee given on a loan of EUR 24 875 000 to Biria GmbH (later Biria AG) constitute State aid, and do not satisfy the tests of compatibility with the internal market.\n(168)\nUnder Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the Commission has a fundamental obligation to order the recovery of this incompatible aid from the beneficiary,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid granted by Germany to Bike Systems GmbH & Co. Th\u00fcringer Zweiradwerk KG (now MB System), Sachsen Zweirad GmbH, and Biria GmbH (later Biria AG, now MB Immobilien) is incompatible with the internal market. The aid consists of the following measures:\n(a)\nmeasure 1: a silent participation (stille Einlage) amounting to EUR 2 070 732 contributed to Bike Systems GmbH & Co. Th\u00fcringer Zweiradwerk KG (now MB System); the aid component is the difference between the reference interest rate plus 1 000 basis points and the remuneration to be paid on the participation (the fixed remuneration plus 50 % of the variable remuneration);\n(b)\nmeasure 2: a guarantee of EUR 4 480 000 given for Sachsen Zweirad GmbH (later Biria AG, now MB Immobilien); the aid component is the difference between the reference interest rate plus 800 basis points and the total financing cost of the guaranteed loan (the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was provided plus any premiums paid for the guarantee);\n(c)\nmeasure 3: a guarantee of EUR 19 900 000 given to Biria GmbH (later Biria AG, now MB Immobilien);. the aid component is the difference between the reference interest rate plus 700 basis points and the total financing cost of the guaranteed loan (the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was provided plus any premiums paid for the guarantee).\nArticle 2\n1. Germany shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1 from the recipient.\n2. Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided these allow the immediate and effective enforcement of this Decision.\n3. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which the aid was placed at the disposal of the recipient until their actual recovery.\n4. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (27).\n5. With effect from the date of notification of this Decision, Germany shall cancel all outstanding payments of the aid referred to in Article 1.\nArticle 3\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Germany shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within 4 months of the date of notification of the Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. Within 2 months of notification of this Decision, Germany shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and interest) to be recovered from the recipient;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken or planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocumentary evidence that the recipient has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Germany shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until the recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed. Upon request by the Commission, Germany shall immediately submit information on the measures already taken or planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and interest already recovered from the recipient.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["60", "26", "58", "71", "90", "45", "24", "11", "78", "4", "79", "88", "93", "94", "14", "59", "89", "32", "72", "8", "67", "55", "51", "52", "37", "29", "86", "82", "54", "27", "No Label", "15", "31", "44", "48", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "31", "44", "48", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/005 PT/Norte-Centro Automotive from Portugal)\n(2012/4/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nPortugal submitted an application on 6 June 2011 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in three enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 29 (\u2018Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers\u2019) in the NUTS II regions of Norte (PT11) and Centro (PT16), and supplemented it by additional information up to 18 July 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 518 465.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Portugal,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 518 465 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["6", "14", "76", "43", "63", "54", "27", "35", "51", "21", "45", "98", "90", "34", "58", "88", "55", "37", "46", "56", "48", "75", "50", "36", "82", "22", "69", "9", "68", "2", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 537/2011\nof 1 June 2011\non the mechanism for the allocation of quantities of controlled substances allowed for laboratory and analytical uses in the Union under Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 10(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe mechanism for the allocation of quantities of controlled substances allowed for laboratory and analytical uses should ensure that the quantity annually authorised under licences for individual producers and importers does not exceed 130 % of the annual average of the calculated level of controlled substances licensed for the producer or importer for essential laboratory and analytical uses in the years 2007 to 2009 and that the total quantity annually authorised under licences, including licences for hydrochlorofluorocarbons under Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009, shall not exceed 110 ozone-depleting potential (hereinafter \u2018ODP\u2019) tonnes.\n(2)\nThe total quantities of controlled substances allowed for laboratory and analytical uses for the undertakings which produced or imported under license in the years 2007 to 2009 cannot exceed 77 243,181 ODP kilograms, being calculated on the basis of the licensed production and imports in the reference period.\n(3)\nThe difference to the maximum quantity of 110 ODP tonnes (32 756,819 ODP kilograms), as well as the quantities for which no declarations have been submitted by the undertakings which produced or imported under licence in the years 2007 to 2009, should be allocated to undertakings for which no production or import licences were issued in the reference period 2007 to 2009. The allocation mechanism should ensure that all undertakings requesting a new quota receive an appropriate share of the quantities to be allocated.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quotas for controlled substances for laboratory and analytical uses shall be allocated to producers and importers to which no production or import license was issued in the years 2007 to 2009 in accordance with the mechanism set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2011.", "references": ["99", "79", "52", "94", "13", "51", "4", "1", "6", "88", "45", "26", "53", "50", "59", "27", "64", "7", "61", "97", "29", "63", "78", "31", "69", "16", "54", "30", "40", "18", "No Label", "21", "60", "76", "77", "83"], "gold": ["21", "60", "76", "77", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 540/2011\nof 25 May 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 78(3) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 active substances included in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2) are to be deemed to have been approved under that Regulation.\n(2)\nIt is therefore necessary for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to adopt a Regulation containing the list of active substances included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC at the moment of the adoption of this Regulatation,\n(3)\nIn this context it is to be borne in mind that, as a consequence of Article 83 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 having repealed Directive 91/414/EEC, the Directives which included the active substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC have become obsolete to the extent that they amend that Directive. However, the autonomous provisions of these Directives continue to apply,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe active substances as set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall be deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 14 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2011.", "references": ["3", "49", "4", "20", "14", "85", "53", "82", "99", "64", "40", "43", "16", "29", "72", "67", "88", "21", "51", "42", "38", "7", "61", "73", "33", "26", "12", "37", "45", "68", "No Label", "25", "65"], "gold": ["25", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 527/2012\nof 20 June 2012\nwithdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSubmission of applications for import licences concerning order number 09.4321 were suspended as from 19 January 2012 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 41/2012 of 18 January 2012 suspending submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas (3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009.\n(2)\nFollowing notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for that order number. The suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe suspension laid down by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 41/2012 of submission of applications for import licences for order number 09.4321 as from 19 January 2012 is withdrawn.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2012.", "references": ["54", "32", "28", "86", "11", "49", "40", "80", "1", "82", "63", "81", "94", "42", "29", "85", "52", "95", "90", "5", "70", "53", "55", "91", "9", "36", "23", "20", "74", "45", "No Label", "21", "22", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "71"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 20 December 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Seychelles\n(2010/814/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43, in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 5 October 2006 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1562/2006 concerning the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Seychelles (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Partnership Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nA Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Partnership Agreement (hereinafter \u2018the previous Protocol\u2019) is annexed to the Partnership Agreement. The previous Protocol expires on 17 January 2011.\n(3)\nThe Union negotiated with the Republic of Seychelles (hereinafter \u2018Seychelles\u2019) a new Protocol (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019) to the Partnership Agreement, providing EU vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which Seychelles have sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries. In order to ensure the continuation of fishing activities of EU vessels, the Protocol provides for its provisional application.\n(4)\nOn conclusion of those negotiations, the Protocol was initialled on 3 June 2010 and was amended by an Exchange of Letters on 29 October 2010.\n(5)\nThe Protocol should be signed and should be applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Seychelles (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThe Protocol shall be applied on a provisional basis as from the date of its signature (2), in accordance with Article 13 thereof, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["68", "19", "5", "12", "39", "66", "4", "88", "54", "8", "74", "17", "43", "33", "85", "45", "7", "91", "92", "61", "53", "62", "46", "77", "51", "86", "55", "38", "76", "95", "No Label", "3", "16", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "16", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 623/2012\nof 11 July 2012\namending Annex II to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (1), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 11 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPoland has submitted a reasoned request for amendment to Annex II to Directive 2005/36/EC.\n(2)\nPoland has requested an amendment to the content of training for the profession of train dispatcher (\u2018dy\u017curny ruchu\u2019), a profession which is already included in Annex II to Directive 2005/36/EC. These training programmes fulfil the conditions set out in Article 11 (c)(ii) of Directive 2005/36/EC as they provide training which is equivalent to the level of training provided for under Article 11 (c)(i) of that Directive, provide a comparable professional standard and prepare the trainee for a comparable level of responsibilities and functions, as is apparent from the following legislation: Act on the implementation of the education system reform of 8 January 1999 (Official Journal of the Republic of Poland of 1999 No 12, pos. 96); Railway Transport Act of 28 March 2003 (Official Journal of the Republic of Poland of 2003 No 86, pos. 789); Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure of 16 August 2004 on a list of posts directly associated with railway traffic operation and safety, conditions that should be met by persons filling these posts and driving railway vehicles (Official Journal of the Republic of Poland of 2004 No 212, pos. 2152); Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure of 18 July 2005 on the general conditions for railway traffic operation and signalisation (Official Journal of the Republic of Poland of 2005 No 172, pos. 1444).\n(3)\nPoland has also requested the addition of the profession of train manager (\u2018kierownik poci\u0105gu\u2019) to Annex II to Directive 2005/36/EC. The training programmes for this profession fulfil the conditions set out in Article 11 (c)(ii) of that Directive as they provide training which is equivalent to the level of training provided for under Article 11 (c)(i) of that Directive, provide a comparable professional standard and prepare the trainee for a comparable level of responsibilities and functions, as is apparent from the following legislation: Act on the implementation of the education system reform of 8 January 1999 (Official Journal of the Republic of Poland of 1999 No 12, pos. 96); Railway Transport Act of 28 March 2003 (Official Journal of the Republic of Poland of 2003 No 86, pos. 789); Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure of 16 August 2004 on a list of posts directly associated with railway traffic operation and safety, conditions that should be met by persons filling these posts and driving railway vehicles (Official Journal of the Republic of Poland of 2004 No 212, pos. 2152); Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure of 18 July 2005 on the general conditions for railway traffic operation and signalisation (Official Journal of the Republic of Poland of 2005 No 172, pos. 1444).\n(4)\nPoland has also requested the addition of the profession of inland navigation engineer (\u2018mechanik statkowy \u017ceglugi \u015br\u00f3dl\u0105dowej\u2019) to Annex II to Directive 2005/36/EC. The training programmes for this profession fulfil the conditions set out in Article 11 (c)(ii) of that Directive as they provide training which is equivalent to the level of training provided for under Article 11 (c)(i) of that Directive, provide a comparable professional standard and prepare the trainee for a comparable level of responsibilities and functions, as is apparent from the following legislation: Act on the implementation of the education system reform of 8 January 1999 (Official Journal of the Republic of Poland of 1999 No 12, pos. 96); Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure of 23 January 2003 on the professional qualifications and composition of inland vessel crews (Official Journal of the Republic of Poland of 2003 No 50, pos. 427).\n(5)\nDirective 2005/36/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the recognition of professional qualifications,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Directive 2005/36/EC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 July 2012.", "references": ["27", "30", "67", "1", "37", "64", "35", "53", "38", "90", "74", "15", "80", "40", "89", "92", "10", "85", "34", "25", "93", "87", "11", "42", "0", "36", "95", "78", "83", "6", "No Label", "49", "50", "55", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["49", "50", "55", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 954/2010\nof 21 October 2010\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural market and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(s) and listed in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 659/2010 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Part XIX of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 659/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["25", "68", "85", "6", "27", "7", "94", "38", "70", "39", "32", "50", "97", "61", "40", "9", "88", "3", "83", "0", "48", "62", "4", "31", "33", "57", "46", "63", "60", "84", "No Label", "23", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["23", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 349/2011\nof 11 April 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work, as regards statistics on accidents at work\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work (1), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1338/2008 established a common framework for the systematic production of European statistics on public health and health and safety at work.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008, implementing measures are necessary to determine the data and metadata to be supplied on accidents at work covered in Annex IV to that Regulation as well as to determine the reference periods, intervals and time limits for data provision.\n(3)\nConfidential data sent by Member States to the Commission (Eurostat) should be handled in accordance with the principle of statistical confidentiality as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (2) and with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3).\n(4)\nA cost-benefit analysis has been carried out and evaluated in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018accident at work\u2019 means a discrete occurrence in the course of work which leads to physical or mental harm. The phrase \u2018in the course of work\u2019 means whilst engaged in an occupational activity or during the time spent at work. This includes road traffic accidents that occur in the course of work but excludes commuting accidents, i.e. road accidents that occur during the journey between home and the workplace;\n(b)\n\u2018a fatal accident\u2019 means an accident which leads to the death of a victim within 1 year of the accident;\n(c)\n\u2018economic activity of the employer\u2019 covers the main \u2018economic\u2019 activity of the local unit of the enterprise of the victim;\n(d)\n\u2018age\u2019 means the age of the victim at the time of the accident;\n(e)\n\u2018type of injury\u2019 means the physical consequences for the victim;\n(f)\n\u2018geographical location\u2019 means the territorial unit where the accident has occurred;\n(g)\n\u2018size of the enterprise\u2019 means the number of employees (full-time equivalent) working at the local unit of the enterprise of the victim;\n(h)\n\u2018nationality of the victim\u2019 means the country of citizenship;\n(i)\n\u2018days lost\u2019 means the number of calendar days during which the victim is unfit for work as a result of an accident at work;\n(j)\n\u2018workstation\u2019 means the usual or, alternatively, occasional nature of the place/post occupied by the victim at the time of the accident;\n(k)\n\u2018working environment\u2019 means the workplace, work premises or general environment where the accident happened;\n(l)\n\u2018working process\u2019 means the main type of work or task (general activity) being performed by the victim at the time of the accident;\n(m)\n\u2018specific physical activity\u2019 means the victim\u2019s exact physical activity at the instant of the accident;\n(n)\n\u2018material agent associated with the specific physical activity\u2019 means the tool, object or instrument being used by the victim when the accident happened;\n(o)\n\u2018deviation\u2019 means the last event deviating from normality and leading to the accident;\n(p)\n\u2018material agent associated with the deviation\u2019 means the tool, object or instrument involved in the abnormal event;\n(q)\n\u2018contact - mode of injury\u2019 means how the victim was hurt (physical or mental trauma) by the material agent that caused the injury;\n(r)\n\u2018material agent associated with the contact - mode of injury\u2019 means the object, tool or instrument with which the victim came into contact or the psychological mode of injury.\nArticle 2\nData required\n1. Member States shall transmit to the Commission (Eurostat) microdata on persons who had an accident in the course of work during the reference period and the associated metadata. The list of variables to be transmitted to the Commission (Eurostat) as well as the compulsory or optional status of the variable and the first year for data transmission are set out in Annex I.\n2. Provision of data on accidents at work relating to the self-employed, family workers and students shall be on a voluntary basis.\n3. Provision of data on accidents at work that are subject to confidentiality rules by national legislation as listed in Annex II shall be on a voluntary basis.\n4. Data for accidents at work that occurred during the reference year shall preferably be based on registers and other administrative sources. When this is not feasible, estimation and imputation, even if based on survey and not case-by-case data, may be used to fill gaps in data coverage.\nArticle 3\nReference period\nThe reference period shall be the calendar year in which the accidents are notified to the competent national authorities.\nArticle 4\nMetadata\n1. Member States shall transmit to the Commission (Eurostat) an annual verification and update of the metadata together with the data.\n2. The metadata shall be transmitted according to a standard template specified by the Commission (Eurostat) and shall include the items referred to in Annex III.\nArticle 5\nTransmission of data and metadata to the Commission (Eurostat)\n1. Member States shall transmit data and metadata in accordance with an exchange standard specified by the Commission (Eurostat), within 18 months after the end of the reference period.\n2. Data and metadata shall be transmitted to the Commission (Eurostat) through electronic means, using the single entry point at the Commission (Eurostat).\nArticle 6\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["44", "89", "20", "88", "15", "33", "79", "66", "53", "55", "50", "72", "18", "69", "49", "8", "36", "83", "98", "91", "16", "68", "42", "28", "74", "17", "56", "84", "5", "95", "No Label", "9", "19", "38", "46", "51"], "gold": ["9", "19", "38", "46", "51"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 880/2010\nof 6 October 2010\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Cappero di Pantelleria (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Cappero di Pantelleria\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 October 2010.", "references": ["95", "17", "79", "42", "87", "58", "73", "64", "37", "78", "26", "83", "4", "98", "80", "46", "6", "76", "70", "69", "33", "18", "60", "54", "31", "82", "77", "3", "12", "16", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 January 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the EU-Chile Special Committee on Customs Cooperation and Rules of Origin relating to Annex III to the Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part, concerning the definition of the concept of originating products and methods of administrative cooperation\n(2012/71/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 207(4) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPreferential rules of origin are essential for the correct functioning of the free trade agreements between the European Union and its trading partners, including Chile. The Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part (1) (\u2018Association Agreement\u2019), was signed on 18 November 2002.\n(2)\nAnnex III to the Association Agreement defines the concept of originating products and methods of administrative cooperation. It entered into force on 1 February 2003.\n(3)\nExplanatory Notes to Annex III - which provide customs authorities with clear guidelines on the practical application of that Annex - have been in force since 1 January 2004.\n(4)\nThe Association Agreement aims, inter alia, under Article 58 thereof, at eliminating customs duties on products originating in one Party and exported to the other Party, by referring to the rules of origin laid down in Annex III to that Agreement. That Annex refers, in Article 36(2) thereof, to the \u2018customs territory of the Community\u2019.\n(5)\nThe position to be taken by the Union within the EU-Chile Special Committee on Customs Cooperation and Rules of Origin should be based on the attached draft Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the EU-Chile Special Committee on Customs Cooperation and Rules of Origin relating to Annex III to the Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part, concerning the definition of the concept of originating products and methods of administrative cooperation, shall be based on the draft Decision of that EU-Chile Special Committee attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["90", "92", "18", "42", "27", "71", "75", "53", "12", "3", "54", "39", "1", "74", "58", "45", "44", "62", "98", "78", "49", "70", "35", "7", "51", "33", "77", "56", "11", "0", "No Label", "2", "9", "21", "22", "23", "93"], "gold": ["2", "9", "21", "22", "23", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 1 March 2011\nextending the validity of Decision 2009/251/EC requiring Member States to ensure that products containing the biocide dimethylfumarate are not placed or made available on the market\n(notified under document C(2011) 1174)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/135/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2009/251/EC (2) requires Member States to ensure that products containing the biocide dimethylfumarate (DMF) are not placed or made available on the market.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/251/EC was adopted in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of Directive 2001/95/EC, which restricts the validity of the Decision to a period not exceeding 1 year, but allows it to be confirmed for additional periods none of which shall exceed 1 year.\n(3)\nThe validity of Decision 2009/251/EC was extended by Commission Decision 2010/153/EU (3) for an additional period of 1 year. In the light of the experience acquired so far and the absence of a permanent measure addressing consumer products containing DMF, it is necessary to extend the validity of Decision 2009/251/EC for a further 12 months.\n(4)\nDecision 2009/251/EC should be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15 of Directive 2001/95/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 4 of Decision 2009/251/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nPeriod of application\nThis Decision shall apply until 15 March 2012.\u2019\nArticle 2\nMember States shall take the necessary measures to comply with this Decision by 15 March 2011 at the latest and shall publish those measures. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2011.", "references": ["40", "74", "21", "1", "56", "39", "93", "3", "0", "55", "77", "22", "94", "58", "87", "11", "9", "23", "14", "2", "28", "54", "64", "36", "85", "59", "53", "49", "34", "82", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "48", "83", "96"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "48", "83", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 14 January 2011\nauthorising Member States to adopt certain derogations pursuant to Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the inland transport of dangerous goods\n(notified under document C(2010) 9724)\n(2011/26/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on the inland transport of dangerous goods (1), and in particular Article 6(2) and Article 6(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I, Section I.3, Annex II, Section II.3 and Annex III, Section III.3 to Directive 2008/68/EC contain lists of national derogations, allowing specific national circumstances to be taken into account. Those lists should be updated to include new national derogations.\n(2)\nFor reasons of clarity, it is appropriate to replace those Sections in their entirety.\n(3)\nDirective 2008/68/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the transport of dangerous goods Committee set up by Directive 2008/68/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Member States listed in the Annex to this Decision are authorised to implement the derogations set out therein regarding the transport of dangerous goods within their territory.\nThese derogations shall be applied without discrimination.\nArticle 2\nAnnex I, Section I.3, Annex II, Section II.3 and Annex III, Section III.3 to Directive 2008/68/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 January 2011.", "references": ["85", "42", "34", "11", "68", "2", "43", "67", "57", "73", "0", "44", "51", "46", "39", "36", "6", "89", "52", "16", "32", "35", "94", "65", "97", "33", "95", "62", "99", "92", "No Label", "8", "53", "54", "55", "56"], "gold": ["8", "53", "54", "55", "56"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/429/CFSP\nof 18 July 2011\nrelating to the position of the European Union for the Seventh Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction (BTWC)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 December 2003, the European Council adopted the EU Strategy against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction which aims, inter alia, at reinforcing the Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction (BTWC), continuing the discussion on the verification of the BTWC, supporting universalisation and national implementation of the BTWC, including through the means of criminal legislation, and strengthening compliance with it.\n(2)\nOn 28 April 2004, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1540 (2004), describing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery as a threat to international peace and security. On 27 April 2006, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1673 (2006) in order to intensify the efforts to promote the full implementation of Resolution 1540 (2004). Implementation of the provisions of these Resolutions contributes to the implementation of the BTWC.\n(3)\nOn 26 August 1988, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 620 (1988) which, inter alia, encourages the Secretary-General to carry out promptly investigations in response to allegations concerning the use of chemical and bacteriological (biological) or toxin weapons that constitute a violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. On 8 September 2006, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, annexed to Resolution 60/288, under which Member States encourage the Secretary-General to update the roster of experts and laboratories, as well as the technical guidelines and procedures, available to the Secretary-General for the timely and efficient investigation of allegations.\n(4)\nThe Sixth Review Conference of the States Parties to the BTWC decided that the Seventh Review Conference is to be held in Geneva not later than 2011 and should review the operation of the BTWC, taking into account, inter alia, new scientific and technological developments relevant to the BTWC, as well as progress made by the States Parties to the BTWC (hereinafter the \u2018States Parties\u2019) in the implementation of the obligations under the BTWC and in the implementation of the decisions and recommendations agreed upon at the Sixth Review Conference.\n(5)\nOn 27 February 2006, the Council adopted Joint Action 2006/184/CFSP (1) and on 10 November 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/858/CFSP (2). Both joint actions promote universality of the BTWC and support its implementation by the States Parties. Moreover, Joint Action 2008/858/CFSP promotes the submission of confidence building measures (CBM) declarations by the States Parties, and provides support for the BTWC intersessional process.\n(6)\nIn parallel to Joint Action 2006/184/CFSP, the European Union agreed an EU Action Plan on biological and toxin weapons, complementary to the EU Joint Action in support of the BTWC (3) in respect of the BTWC in which Member States undertook to submit CBM declarations to the UN in April every year and lists of relevant experts and laboratories to the UN Secretary-General to facilitate any investigation of alleged use of (chemical) biological and toxin weapons.\n(7)\nIn the light of the forthcoming BTWC Seventh Review Conference from 5 to 22 December 2011, it is appropriate to update the position of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe objectives of the Union at the Seventh Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons convention and on their destruction (BTWC) shall be to review the operations of the BTWC and explore options to strengthen it further.\nTo attain these objectives, the Union shall put forward concrete proposals to the Seventh Review Conference due to take place from 5 to 22 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nAt the Seventh Review Conference, the Union shall work, in particular, to ensure that the States Parties to the BTWC (hereinafter the \u2018States Parties\u2019) address the following priorities:\n(a)\nbuilding confidence in compliance with the BTWC;\n(b)\nsupporting its national implementation; and\n(c)\npromoting its universality.\nArticle 3\nFor the purposes of the objectives laid down in Article 1 and the priorities laid down in Article 2, the Union shall:\n(a)\ncontribute to a full review of the operation of the BTWC at the Seventh Review Conference, including the implementation of undertakings made by the States Parties under the BTWC;\n(b)\nsupport a further substantive intersessional process during the period between the Seventh and Eighth Review Conferences and identify specific areas and enhanced arrangements for further progress under this process;\n(c)\nsupport the Eighth Review Conference, to be held no later than 2016;\n(d)\nbuild consensus for the successful outcome of the Seventh Review Conference, on the basis of the framework established by the previous conferences, and promote, inter alia, the following key issues:\n(i)\nworking towards identifying and strengthening effective mechanisms to build confidence in compliance within the BTWC;\n(ii)\nStates Parties should be able to demonstrate compliance by means of information exchange and enhanced transparency about their capabilities and actions for implementation and intentions towards compliance. This can be achieved by means of declarations, consultations and on-site activities, representing increasing levels of transparency and scrutiny, but also by information exchange and review during the intersessional process. While recognising that there is currently no consensus on verification, which remains a central element of a complete and effective disarmament and non proliferation regime, the Union is willing to work towards identifying options that could achieve similar goals;\n(iii)\neffective implementation and full compliance with all obligations under the BTWC by all States Parties; supporting and strengthening, where necessary, national implementation measures, including criminal legislation, and control over pathogenic micro-organisms and toxins in the framework of the BTWC, inter alia, by increasing the capacity of the Implementation Support Unit of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (ISU) to support national implementation and taking it up as an intersessional topic. Further action could be considered and decisions taken on ways and means to enhance national implementation. The Union will encourage discussions on possible options in this regard, especially in the area of national legislation, coordination among national stakeholders and regional and sub-regional cooperation; and implementation of appropriate biosafety and biosecurity management standards for life science institutions;\n(iv)\nuniversal adherence of all States to the BTWC, including calling on all States not party to the BTWC to adhere to it without further delay and to commit legally to the disarmament and non-proliferation of biological and toxin weapons; and, pending adherence of those States to the BTWC, encouraging them to participate as observers in the meetings of the States Parties and to implement, on a voluntary basis, the provisions of the BTWC. Working towards the ban on biological and toxin weapons being declared a universally binding Rule of International Law, including through universalisation of the BTWC; and therefore recommending the adoption of an action plan on universalisation, coordinated by the ISU, and evaluated during dedicated sessions during the intersessional process;\n(v)\nefforts to enhance transparency and build confidence in compliance include the confidence building measures (CBM) mechanism. The Union is willing to work on the enhancement of this mechanism by identifying measures to increase the participation, quality and comprehensiveness of the CBM mechanism;\n(vi)\nenhancing transparency about cooperation and assistance related to Article X of the BTWC and taking into account the work and the expertise of other international organisations. The Union will continue to support the concrete implementation of Article X of the BTWC through its various assistance programmes and is willing to continue the elaboration of common understandings, which forms the basis for effective action with regard to cooperation for peaceful purposes in the framework of the BTWC. Further action could be considered and decisions taken on the enhancement of international cooperation, assistance and exchange in biological sciences and technology for peaceful purposes, and on promoting capacity building in the fields of disease surveillance, detection, diagnosis, and containment of infectious diseases;\n(vii)\nstrengthening the UN Secretary-General\u2019s mechanism for investigation of alleged use of biological and toxin weapons. Further action could be considered and decisions taken on the provision of assistance and coordination in the context of Article VII of the BTWC with relevant organisations upon request by any State Party in the case of alleged use of biological and toxin weapons, including improving national capabilities for disease surveillance, detection and diagnosis and public health systems. Work done separately on strengthening the UN Secretary-General\u2019s mechanism for investigation of alleged use of biological and toxin weapons can further help indirectly strengthen Articles VI and VII of the BTWC;\n(viii)\nsupporting a process of more frequent assessments of relevant scientific and technological developments, which may have implications for the BTWC, such as the increasing convergence of chemistry and biology and in the rapidly developing fields of synthetic biology and nanotechnology;\n(ix)\ncompliance with the obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions 1540 (2004) and 1673 (2006), in particular to eliminate the risk of biological and toxin weapons being acquired or used for terrorist purposes, including possible terrorist access to materials, equipment, and knowledge that could be used in the development and production of biological and toxin weapons;\n(x)\nthe G8 Global Partnership programmes targeted at support for disarmament, control and security of sensitive materials, facilities, and expertise;\n(xi)\nconsideration of, and decisions on further action on the basis of the work undertaken pursuant to the intersessional process during the period from 2007 to 2010 and the efforts to discuss, and promote common understanding and effective action on the adoption of necessary national measures to implement the prohibition set out in the BTWC.\nArticle 4\nIn order to strengthen compliance with the BTWC, the Union shall promote:\n(a)\nmeasures related to CBM declarations:\n(i)\nexamining annual CBM declarations as the regular national declaration tool on implementation and compliance and developing them further with this objective in mind;\n(ii)\nincreasing the quality of CBM declarations by:\n-\nreducing to the largest extent possible the complexity of CBM forms and removing potential ambiguities. The detailed and concrete proposals for the modification of the CBM are based on the reports of the Geneva Forum Workshop,\n-\nsupporting the compilation of the information provided in the CBM forms. To that end, the Union would support the ISU playing a greater role in supporting the national points of contact and the national authorities responsible for ensuring compliance. This support could include elements such as setting up a reference library, a \u2018helpdesk\u2019-function, providing the CBM forms in several languages, introducing an electronic format, and giving regional seminars for national points of contact,\n-\nintroducing incentives for CBM submission, such as integrating details about Article X of the BTWC related information into the CBM mechanism (using the current form D or creating a new form);\n(iii)\nincreasing relevance and comprehensiveness of CBM forms by:\n-\nreferring to all relevant Articles of the BTWC, taking into careful account the need to achieve an appropriate balance between providing useful information and the effort required to obtain it. This is to avoid increasing complexity and workload, which could potentially deter participation,\n-\nmodifying the CBM via a possible two-step approach, the modifications that would need further examination being left to a new intersessional process;\n(b)\nmeasures related to the UN Secretary-General\u2019s mechanism for investigation of alleged use of biological and toxin weapons; reaffirming the need for the States Parties to ensure the effectiveness of the provisions of that mechanism and to take practical steps to this end, such as providing support for training programmes, and developing an analytical laboratory system.\nArticle 5\nIn addition to the objectives laid down in Article 1 and the priorities laid down in Article 2, the Union shall support the strengthening of the role of the ISU. In particular, the Union shall support:\n(a)\nthe prolongation of the ISU\u2019s mandate for another five years;\n(b)\nthe following activities being included in the mandate of the ISU:\n(i)\nestablishing a communication and information platform on policy, scientific and other activities relevant to the BTWC (setting up a \u2018reference library\u2019/electronic database for building awareness with States Parties, academia and industry);\n(ii)\nliaising and sharing information with other relevant international organisations;\n(iii)\nfurther strengthening the national implementation of the BTWC by facilitating the exchange of information and advice on national implementation;\n(iv)\nfurther supporting the CBM system by participating to a review process of the CBM declarations. Based on information supplied by means of revised CBMs, the ISU could be mandated to compile Article X of the BTWC related information into an online database;\n(v)\ndeveloping a system to review scientific and technological developments and their impact on the BTWC;\n(vi)\ndeveloping an action plan on universalisation;\n(c)\nan adequate expansion of the current ISU staff in order to enable the ISU to carry out the activities referred to in point (b).\nArticle 6\nIn order to support the review and strengthening of the intersessional process, the Union shall in particular:\n(a)\nsupport the following topics for a new intersessional process either as intersessional topics or through dedicated working groups:\n(i)\nnational implementation;\n(ii)\nuniversalisation;\n(iii)\nfurther post-RevCon work on CBM;\n(iv)\nassistance and cooperation under Articles VII and X of the BTWC, including identification of requirements for assistance in the development and adoption of appropriate regulatory frameworks (focusing on biosafety and biosecurity in the first instance);\n(v)\ndevelopments in science and technology;\n(b)\nsupport a process of more frequent assessments of relevant scientific and technological developments. The ISU could play a role via its renewed mandate. In addition to a detailed discussion in the intersessional process, States Parties could decide on alternative ways to discuss science and technology issues (i.e. to create a new working group, to have a science and technology item included on the agenda of Meetings of States Parties, to have a dedicated experts meeting for science and technology, to set up an advisory panel or to set up an open-ended science and technology forum);\n(c)\nsupport the development of national regulatory frameworks, in particular on biosafety and biosecurity. The adoption of appropriate management standards for biosafety and biosecurity for laboratories and industry, although they are not in any way a substitute for a compliance regime, can help States Parties in the long term with the implementation of the obligations set out in the BTWC. They could also prove to be a useful tool, along with other measures, to contribute to a future enhanced compliance regime. Discussion on this development, i.e. with the relevant industry, could be part of a new intersessional process;\n(d)\nsupport the reinforcement of the decisional character of the intersessional process by exploring a range of options such as making the final report of the States Parties\u2019 Meetings binding, agreeing on road maps, considering the possibility of working groups on specific issues, action plans or recommendations.\nArticle 7\nIn order to support universality, the Union shall:\n(a)\nsupport the adoption of an action plan on universalisation, managed by the ISU, setting out concrete steps and activities. The action plan might include activities such as outreach events, joint demarches, the translation of relevant documents, incentives such as information exchange on assistance offers, and assistance visits to complete the first CBM submissions. This action plan would be evaluated and, if necessary, modified at each States Parties\u2019 Meeting;\n(b)\nsupport the organisation of dedicated sessions or working group meetings on universalisation during the intersessional process in order to coordinate outreach activities between various actors and plan regional initiatives.\nArticle 8\nThe Union shall support the review of the implementation of Article X of the BTWC at the Seventh Review Conference. This review shall aim at:\n(a)\nexploring how to integrate information related to assistance in the CBM, by revising Form D or creating a new form, in order to allow States Parties to exchange information about activities concerning cooperation and assistance;\n(b)\nmandating the ISU to compile Article X of the BTWC related information into an online database, which could be on the restricted area of the website.\nArticle 9\nAction taken by the Union for the purposes referred to in Articles 1 to 8, shall comprise:\n(a)\non the basis of the position set out in Articles 1 to 8, proposals by the Union of specific, practical and feasible arrangements for the effective enhancement of the implementation of the BTWC for consideration by the States Parties at the Seventh Review Conference;\n(b)\nd\u00e9marches by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or the Union delegations;\n(c)\nstatements delivered by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or the Union Delegation to the UN in the run up to and during the Seventh Review Conference.\nArticle 10\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["34", "9", "50", "97", "40", "82", "98", "19", "65", "2", "37", "22", "69", "64", "47", "93", "68", "60", "1", "41", "73", "48", "86", "58", "91", "43", "71", "90", "15", "84", "No Label", "0", "3", "5", "6", "8"], "gold": ["0", "3", "5", "6", "8"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 335/2010\nof 22 April 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of zinc chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine as a feed additive for all animal species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of zinc chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine as a feed additive for all animal species, to be classified in the additive category \u2018nutritional additives\u2019.\n(4)\nFrom the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) adopted on 11 November 2009 (2), read in combination with those of 16 April 2008 (3) and 2 April 2009 (4) it results that zinc chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment. According to the opinion of 16 April 2008, the use of that preparation may be considered as a source of available zinc and fulfils the criteria of a nutritional additive for all animal species. The Authority recommends appropriate measures for user safety. It does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of that preparation shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised, as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 888/2009 of 25 September 2009 concerning the authorisation of Zinc chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine as a feed additive for chickens for fattening (5) that preparation was already authorised as a feed additive for chickens for fattening. That Regulation should be repealed.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018nutritional additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018compounds of trace elements\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 888/2009 is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 April 2010.", "references": ["78", "3", "94", "33", "27", "32", "10", "13", "82", "70", "24", "46", "96", "43", "89", "19", "92", "93", "49", "87", "81", "9", "88", "72", "69", "65", "77", "63", "11", "23", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1031/2011\nof 13 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for black scabbardfish in EU and international waters of VIII, IX and X by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2011 and 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 October 2011.", "references": ["8", "54", "44", "73", "28", "24", "3", "22", "42", "55", "2", "89", "21", "38", "29", "62", "34", "39", "78", "11", "32", "16", "60", "4", "94", "9", "98", "57", "47", "35", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 399/2010\nof 7 May 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 374/2010 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 May 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 May 2010 were fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 374/2010 (3).\n(2)\nAs the average of the import duties calculated differs by more than EUR 5/tonne from that fixed, a corresponding adjustment must be made to the import duties fixed by Regulation (EU) No 374/2010.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 374/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 374/2010 are hereby replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 8 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2010.", "references": ["35", "69", "97", "82", "45", "19", "30", "12", "58", "32", "84", "15", "31", "91", "63", "33", "64", "7", "2", "34", "16", "5", "94", "77", "93", "44", "92", "8", "38", "41", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 29/2012\nof 13 January 2012\non marketing standards for olive oil\n(codification)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 113, paragraph 1, point (a), and Article 121, first paragraph, point (a), in conjunction with Article 4,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 of 13 June 2002 on marketing standards for olive oil (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.\n(2)\nOlive oil has certain properties, in particular organoleptic and nutritional properties, which, taking into account its production costs, allow it access to a relatively high-price market compared with most other vegetable fats. In view of this market situation, marketing standards should be laid down for olive oil containing, in particular, specific labelling rules supplementing those laid down in Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (4), and in particular the rules laid down in Article 2 thereof.\n(3)\nTo guarantee the authenticity of the olive oils sold, packaging for the retail trade should be small and have an adequate closing system. However, the Member States should be allowed to authorise larger packaging for collective establishments.\n(4)\nBesides the compulsory descriptions for the various categories of olive oil provided for in Article 118 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, consumers should be informed about the types of olive oil offered.\n(5)\nAs a result of agricultural traditions and local extraction and blending practices directly marketable virgin olive oils may be of quite different taste and quality depending on their geographical origin. This may result in price differences within the same category that disturb the market. There are no substantial differences linked to origin in other categories of edible olive oil, and so indicating the designation of origin on the immediate packaging of such oil may lead consumers to believe that quality differences do exist. In order not to distort the market in edible olive oils, an obligatory Union regime should therefore be established for designations of origin, which should be restricted to extra virgin and virgin olive oils which satisfy precise conditions. Optional arrangements implemented until 2009 proved not to be sufficient to avoid misleading consumers as to the real characteristics of virgin oils in this regard. In addition, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (5) established traceability rules, applicable since 1 January 2005. The experience gained by operators and administrations in this matter allowed making the labelling of the origin compulsory for extra virgin and virgin olive oil.\n(6)\nExisting trade marks including geographical references may continue to be used provided they have been officially registered in the past in accordance with the first Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (6), or Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (7).\n(7)\nA regional designation of origin may be covered by a protected designation of origin (PDO) or a protected geographical indication (PGI) under Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (8). Designations indicating a regional origin should be reserved for PDOs or PGIs so as to avoid confusion among consumers potentially leading to market disturbances. In the case of imported olive oils, the rules on non-preferential origin provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (9) must be complied with.\n(8)\nIf the designation of origin of virgin olive oil refers to the Union or a Member State, it should be borne in mind that not only the olives used but also the extraction techniques and practices influence the quality and taste of the oil. The designation of origin must thus refer to the geographical area in which the olive oil was obtained, which is generally the area in which the oil was extracted from the olives. However, in certain cases the oil is extracted at a place that is not the same as that where the olives were harvested and this information should be stated on the packaging or labels attached to the packaging to ensure that consumers are not misled and the market in olive oil is not disturbed.\n(9)\nIn the Union, a significant share of extra virgin and virgin olive oils is composed of blends of oils originating from various Member States and third countries. Simple provisions should be laid down for the labelling of the origin of such blends.\n(10)\nUnder Directive 2000/13/EC, indications shown on the labelling may not mislead the purchaser, particularly as to the characteristics of the olive oil concerned, or by attributing to it properties which it does not possess, or by suggesting that it possesses special characteristics when in fact most oils possess such characteristics. Certain commonly used, optional indications that are specific to olive oil also require harmonised rules to precisely define such claims and ensure that their accuracy can be verified. Accordingly, the concepts of \u2018cold pressing\u2019 and \u2018cold extraction\u2019 should correspond to a technically defined traditional production method. Certain terms describing the organoleptic characteristics referring to taste and/or smell of extra virgin and virgin olive oils have been defined by the International Olive Council (IOC) in its revised method for the organoleptic assessment of virgin olive oils. The use of such terms on the labelling of extra virgin and virgin olive oils should be reserved to oils that have been assessed following the corresponding method of analysis. Transitional arrangements are needed for certain operators presently using the reserved terms. Reference to acidity in isolation wrongly suggests a scale of absolute quality which is misleading for consumers since this factor represents a qualitative value only in relation to the other characteristics of the olive oil concerned. Consequently, in view of the proliferation of certain indications and of their economic significance, objective criteria for their uses should be established in order to introduce clarity into the olive oil market.\n(11)\nSteps should be taken to ensure that foodstuffs containing olive oil do not take advantage of consumers by highlighting the reputation of olive oil without clearly specifying the real composition of the product. The percentage of olive oil and certain indications specific to products consisting exclusively of a blend of vegetable oils should therefore be clearly shown on the labelling. In addition, account should be taken of the special provisions laid down in certain regulations specific to olive oil products.\n(12)\nThe names of the categories of olive oil correspond to physico-chemical and organoleptic characteristics which are set out in Annex XVI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 of 11 July 1991 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis (10). All other indications appearing on the labelling should be corroborated by objective elements in order to ensure that consumers are not misled and that competition on the markets in the oils concerned is not distorted.\n(13)\nWithin the framework of the system of checks laid down in Article 113(3), second subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the Member States should specify the evidence to be provided and the financial penalties incurred in the case of the different terms that can be used on labelling. Without ruling out any possibilities a priori, such evidence could include established facts, results of analyses or reliable recordings, and administrative or accounting information.\n(14)\nSince checks on undertakings responsible for labelling must be made in the Member State in which they are established, there should be a procedure for administrative cooperation between the Commission and the Member States where the oil is marketed.\n(15)\nIn order to evaluate the arrangements provided for in this Regulation, the Member States concerned should report on the circumstances and difficulties encountered.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Without prejudice to Directive 2000/13/EC and Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, this Regulation lays down specific standards for retail-stage marketing of the olive oils and olive-pomace oils referred to in points 1(a) and (b), 3 and 6 of Annex XVI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation, retail stage means the sale to the final consumer of oil as referred to in paragraph 1, presented in the natural state or incorporated in a foodstuff.\nArticle 2\nOils as referred to in Article 1(1) shall be presented to the final consumer in packaging of a maximum capacity of 5 litres. Such packaging shall be fitted with an opening system that can no longer be sealed after the first time it is opened and shall be labelled in accordance with Articles 3 to 6.\nHowever, in the case of oils intended for consumption in restaurants, hospitals, canteens and other similar collective establishments, the Member States may set a maximum capacity exceeding 5 litres for packaging depending on the type of establishment concerned.\nArticle 3\nDescriptions in accordance with Article 118 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be considered as the name under which the product is sold as referred to in Article 3(1)(1) of Directive 2000/13/EC.\nThe labelling of oils as referred to in Article 1(1) shall bear, in clear and indelible lettering, in addition to the description referred to in the first paragraph of this Article, but not necessarily close to it, the following information on the category of oil:\n(a)\nextra virgin olive oil:\n\u2018superior category olive oil obtained directly from olives and solely by mechanical means\u2019;\n(b)\nvirgin olive oil:\n\u2018olive oil obtained directly from olives and solely by mechanical means\u2019;\n(c)\nolive oil composed of refined olive oils and virgin olive oils:\n\u2018oil comprising exclusively olive oils that have undergone refining and oils obtained directly from olives\u2019;\n(d)\nolive-pomace oil:\n\u2018oil comprising exclusively oils obtained by treating the product obtained after the extraction of olive oil and oils obtained directly from olives\u2019,\nor\n\u2018oil comprising exclusively oils obtained by processing olive pomace and oils obtained directly from olives\u2019.\nArticle 4\n1. Extra virgin olive oil and virgin olive oil as defined in points 1(a) and (b) of Annex XVI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall bear a designation of origin on the labelling.\nProducts defined in points 3 and 6 of Annex XVI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall not bear any designation of origin on the labelling.\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, \u2018designation of origin\u2019 means reference to a geographical area on the packaging or the label attached to the packaging.\n2. Designations of origin referred to in paragraph 1 shall only consist of:\n(a)\nin the case of olive oils originating, in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5, from one Member State or third country, a reference to the Member State, to the Union or to the third country, as appropriate; or\n(b)\nin the case of blends of olive oils originating, in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5, from more than one Member State or third country, one of the following mentions, as appropriate:\n(i)\n\u2018blend of olive oils of European Union origin\u2019 or a reference to the Union;\n(ii)\n\u2018blend of olive oils not of European Union origin\u2019 or a reference to origin outside the Union;\n(iii)\n\u2018blend of olive oils of European Union origin and not of European Union origin\u2019 or a reference to origin within the Union and outside the Union; or\n(c)\na protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication referred to in Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, in accordance with the provisions of the product specification concerned.\n3. The names of brands or firms whose registration was applied for no later than 31 December 1998 under Directive 89/104/EEC or no later than 31 May 2002 under Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (11) shall not be considered to be designations of origin covered by this Regulation.\n4. In the case of import from a third country, the designation of origin shall be determined in accordance with Articles 22 to 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\n5. The designation of origin mentioning a Member State or the Union shall correspond to the geographical area in which the olives concerned were harvested or in which the mill where the oil was extracted from the olives is situated.\nIf the olives have been harvested in a Member State or third country other than that in which the mill where the oil was extracted from the olives is situated, the designation of origin shall contain the following wording: \u2018(extra) virgin olive oil obtained in (the Union or the name of the Member State concerned) from olives harvested in (the Union or the name of the Member State or third country concerned)\u2019.\nArticle 5\nAmong the optional indications which may appear on the labelling of oil as referred to in Article 1(1), those laid down in this Article shall comply with the following respective requirements:\n(a)\nthe indication \u2018first cold pressing\u2019 may appear only for extra virgin or virgin olive oils obtained at a temperature below 27 \u00b0C from a first mechanical pressing of the olive paste by a traditional extraction system using hydraulic presses;\n(b)\nthe indication \u2018cold extraction\u2019 may appear only for extra virgin or virgin olive oils obtained at a temperature below 27 \u00b0C by percolation or centrifugation of the olive paste;\n(c)\nindications of organoleptic properties referring to taste and/or smell may appear only for extra virgin or virgin olive oils; the terms referred to in point 3.3 of Annex XII to Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 may appear on the labelling only if they are based on the results of an assessment carried out following the method provided for in that Annex;\n(d)\nindication of the acidity or maximum acidity may appear only if it is accompanied by an indication, in lettering of the same size and in the same visual field, of the peroxide value, the wax content and the ultraviolet absorption, determined in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91.\nProducts sold under trademarks whose registration was applied for no later than 1 March 2008 and which contain at least one of the terms referred to in point 3.3 of Annex XII to Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 may not comply with the requirements of Article 5, first paragraph, point (c) of this Regulation until 1 November 2012.\nArticle 6\n1. Where the presence of oils as referred to in Article 1(1) in a blend of olive oil and other vegetable oils is highlighted on the labelling elsewhere than in the list of ingredients, using words, images or graphics, the blend concerned must bear the following trade description: \u2018Blend of vegetable oils (or the specific names of the vegetable oils concerned) and olive oil\u2019, directly followed by the percentage of olive oil in the blend.\nThe presence of olive oil may be highlighted by images or graphics on the labelling of a blend as referred to in the first subparagraph only where it accounts for more than 50 % of the blend concerned.\nMember States may prohibit the production in their territory of blends of olive oil and other vegetable oils referred to in the first subparagraph for internal consumption. However, they may not prohibit the marketing in their territory of such blends coming from other countries and they may not prohibit the production in their territory of such blends for marketing in another Member State or for exportation.\n2. With the exception of tuna in olive oil referred to in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1536/92 (12) and sardines in olive oil referred to in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 (13), where the presence of oils as referred to in Article 1(1) of this Regulation in a foodstuff, other than those referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, is highlighted on the labelling elsewhere than in the list of ingredients, using words, images or graphics, the trade description of the foodstuff shall be directly followed by the percentage of oils as referred to in Article 1(1) of this Regulation relative to the total net weight of the foodstuff.\nThe percentage of added olive oil relative to the total net weight of the foodstuff may be replaced by the percentage of added olive oil relative to the total weight of fats, adding the words \u2018percentage of fats\u2019.\n3. The descriptions referred to in the first paragraph of Article 3 can be replaced by the words \u2018olive oil\u2019 on the labelling of products referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article.\nHowever, where olive-pomace oil is present, the words \u2018olive oil\u2019 shall be replaced by the words \u2018olive-pomace oil\u2019.\n4. The information referred to in the second paragraph of Article 3 is not required on the labelling of products referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article.\nArticle 7\nAt the request of the Member State in which the address of the manufacturer, packer or seller appearing on the labelling is located, the party concerned shall supply documentation in support of the indications referred to in Articles 4, 5 and 6, based on one or more of the following elements:\n(a)\nfactual elements or scientifically established facts;\n(b)\nresults of analyses or automatic recordings taken on representative samples;\n(c)\nadministrative or accounting information kept in accordance with Union and/or national rules.\nThe Member State concerned shall allow a tolerance between the indications referred to in Articles 4, 5 and 6 and appearing on the labelling, and the conclusions reached on the basis of the supporting documentation presented and/or comparative expert opinions, taking account of the accuracy and \u2018repeatability\u2019 of the methods and the documentation concerned and, where applicable, the accuracy and \u2018repeatability\u2019 of the comparative expert opinions.\nArticle 8\n1. Each Member State shall forward the name and address of the body or bodies responsible for monitoring the application of this Regulation to the Commission, which shall inform the other Member States and any interested parties who so request.\n2. The Member State in which the address of the manufacturer, packer or seller appearing on the labelling is located shall, pursuant to a verification request, take samples before the end of the month following that of the request and verify the truth of the indications on the labelling concerned. This request may be sent by:\n(a)\nthe competent Commission departments;\n(b)\nan operators\u2019 organisation in that Member State referred to in Article 125 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;\n(c)\nthe control body of another Member State.\n3. Requests as referred to in paragraph 2 shall be accompanied by all information needed for the requested verification, and in particular:\n(a)\nthe date of sampling or purchase of the oil in question;\n(b)\nthe name or business name and address of the undertaking where the sample was taken or where the oil concerned was purchased;\n(c)\nthe number of batches concerned;\n(d)\na copy of all labels appearing on the packaging of the oil concerned;\n(e)\nthe results of analysis or of the other comparative expert opinions indicating the methods used and the name and address of the laboratory or expert concerned;\n(f)\nwhere applicable, the name of the supplier of the oil in question as declared by the marketing outlet.\n4. Before the end of the third month following that of the request referred to in paragraph 2, the Member State concerned shall inform the requester of the reference number allocated to it and of the action taken.\nArticle 9\n1. The Member States shall take the necessary measures, including as regards the system of penalties to ensure compliance with this Regulation.\nThe Member States shall communicate to the Commission the measures taken to that end no later than 31 December 2002 and the amendments to those measures before the end of the month following that in which they are adopted.\nThe Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia shall notify the Commission of the measures referred to in paragraph 1 no later than 31 December 2004, and of amendments to those measures before the end of the month following that in which they are adopted.\nBulgaria and Romania shall communicate to the Commission the measures referred to in the first paragraph no later than 31 December 2010, and the amendments to those measures before the end of the month following that in which they are adopted.\n2. For the purpose of verifying indications as referred to in Articles 4, 5 and 6, the Member States concerned may introduce arrangements for approving establishments whose packaging facilities are situated in their territory.\nApproval shall be granted and alphanumeric identification allocated to any establishment so requesting which meets the following conditions:\n(a)\npossesses packaging facilities;\n(b)\nundertakes to collect and keep the supporting documentation required by the Member State under Article 7;\n(c)\nhas a storage system which makes it possible to check the provenance of oils bearing a designation of origin, to the satisfaction of the Member State concerned.\nThe label shall, where applicable, bear the alphanumeric identification of the approved packaging plant.\nArticle 10\nThe Member States concerned shall forward to the Commission no later than 31 March each year, a report containing the following information for the previous year:\n(a)\nrequests for verifications received in accordance with Article 8(2);\n(b)\nverifications undertaken and those commenced in previous marketing years and still underway;\n(c)\nthe follow-up to the verifications carried out and the penalties applied.\nThe report shall present this information by year in which verification was undertaken and by category of infringement. Where applicable, it shall stipulate any specific difficulties encountered and proposed improvements to controls.\nArticle 11\nRegulation (EC) No 1019/2002 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II.\nArticle 12\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. Products which have been legally manufactured and labelled in the Union or legally imported into the Union and put into free circulation before 1 July 2012 may be marketed until all stocks are used up.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 January 2012.", "references": ["87", "45", "35", "5", "50", "52", "14", "67", "66", "68", "33", "93", "91", "61", "17", "55", "63", "58", "19", "99", "30", "37", "28", "2", "44", "59", "74", "16", "64", "78", "No Label", "24", "25", "26", "70", "77"], "gold": ["24", "25", "26", "70", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 624/2010\nof 15 July 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Melanzana Rossa di Rotonda (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Melanzana Rossa di Rotonda\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 July 2010.", "references": ["4", "11", "63", "28", "5", "52", "50", "47", "72", "22", "67", "80", "30", "8", "20", "87", "59", "78", "58", "14", "34", "40", "45", "2", "65", "0", "86", "16", "19", "49", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 April 2012\nappointing a Luxembourg member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/215/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Luxembourg Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Albert LENTZ,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed as member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr Ali KAES, Bourgmestre de la commune de Tandel.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["85", "13", "20", "88", "81", "18", "79", "39", "21", "52", "6", "9", "30", "76", "72", "64", "1", "28", "77", "95", "51", "57", "29", "2", "43", "32", "14", "70", "62", "41", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 March 2012\non the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Arrangement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis\n(2012/193/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 74, 77 and 79 in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFollowing the authorisation given to the Commission on 15 May 2006, negotiations with the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation regarding the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis have been concluded.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2012/192/EU (1), and subject to its conclusion at a later date, the Arrangement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (\u2018the Arrangement\u2019) has been signed on behalf of the European Union on 22 September 2011.\n(3)\nThe Arrangement should be concluded.\n(4)\nThis Decision does not prejudice the position of the United Kingdom, under the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (2).\n(5)\nThis Decision does not prejudice the position of Ireland, under the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (3).\n(6)\nThis Decision shall not prejudice the position of Denmark, under the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Arrangement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (\u2018the Arrangement\u2019) and the Joint Declaration attached thereto are hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Arrangement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit on behalf of the Union the instrument of approval provided for in Article 7(4) of the Arrangement in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 13 March 2012.", "references": ["32", "52", "19", "82", "85", "11", "37", "31", "80", "48", "90", "29", "89", "66", "56", "55", "98", "78", "28", "86", "51", "42", "53", "34", "41", "38", "77", "88", "1", "25", "No Label", "0", "3", "8", "9", "13", "96"], "gold": ["0", "3", "8", "9", "13", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/326/CFSP\nof 25 June 2012\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 August 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/518/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Philippe LEFORT as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia. The EUSR\u2019s mandate is to expire on 30 June 2012.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended for a further period of 12 months.\n(3)\nThe EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Philippe LEFORT as the EUSR for the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia is hereby extended until 30 June 2013. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the Union for the South Caucasus, including the objectives set out in the conclusions of the extraordinary European Council meeting in Brussels on 1 September 2008 and the Council conclusions of 15 September 2008, as well as those of 27 February 2012. Those objectives include:\n(a)\nin accordance with the existing mechanisms, including the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and its Minsk Group, to prevent conflicts in the region, to contribute to a peaceful settlement of conflicts in the region, including the crisis in Georgia and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, by promoting the return of refugees and internally displaced persons and through other appropriate means, and to support the implementation of such a settlement in accordance with the principles of international law;\n(b)\nto engage constructively with the main interested actors regarding the region;\n(c)\nto encourage and to support further cooperation between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and, as appropriate, their neighbouring countries;\n(d)\nto enhance the Union\u2019s effectiveness and visibility in the region.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the policy objectives, the mandate of the EUSR shall be:\n(a)\nto develop contacts with governments, parliaments, other key political actors, the judiciary and civil society in the region;\n(b)\nto encourage the countries in the region to cooperate on regional themes of common interest, such as common security threats, the fight against terrorism, illicit trafficking and organised crime;\n(c)\nto contribute to the peaceful settlement of conflicts in accordance with the principles of international law and to facilitate the implementation of such settlement in close coordination with the United Nations, the OSCE and its Minsk Group;\n(d)\nwith respect to the crisis in Georgia:\n(i)\nto help prepare for the international talks held under point 6 of the settlement plan of 12 August 2008 (\u2018Geneva International Discussions\u2019) and its implementing measures of 8 September 2008, including on arrangements for security and stability in the region, the issue of refugees and internally displaced persons, on the basis of internationally recognised principles, and any other subject, by mutual agreement between the parties;\n(ii)\nto help establish the Union\u2019s position and represent it, at the level of the EUSR, in the talks referred to in point (i); and\n(iii)\nto facilitate the implementation of the settlement plan of 12 August 2008 and its implementing measures of 8 September 2008;\n(e)\nto facilitate the development and implementation of confidence-building measures;\n(f)\nto assist in the preparation, as appropriate, of Union contributions to the implementation of a possible conflict settlement;\n(g)\nto intensify the Union\u2019s dialogue with the main actors concerned regarding the region;\n(h)\nto assist the Union in further developing a comprehensive policy towards the South Caucasus;\n(i)\nin the framework of the activities set out in this Article, to contribute to the implementation of the Union\u2019s human rights policy and the EU Guidelines on Human Rights, in particular with regard to children and women in areas affected by conflicts, especially by monitoring and addressing developments in this regard.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (EEAS) and its relevant departments.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 shall be EUR 2 000 000.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be eligible as from 1 July 2012. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of the EUSR\u2019s mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of the team.\n2. Member States, the institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, the sending institution of the Union or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and the staff of the EUSR\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the EUSR\u2019s mission and the members of the EUSR\u2019s staff shall be agreed with the host party or parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegations in the region and/or the Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in accordance with the EUSR\u2019s mandate and the security situation in the geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under the direct authority of the EUSR, in particular by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, providing for mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area and the management of security incidents, and providing for a contingency plan and a mission evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance, as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of the EUSR\u2019s team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the EEAS;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the progress report and the report on the implementation of the mandate.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the PSC and the HR with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report to Council working parties as necessary. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the PSC or the HR, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall contribute to the unity, consistency and effectiveness of the Union\u2019s action and shall help ensure that all Union instruments and Member States\u2019 actions are engaged consistently, to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States\u2019 missions and the Union\u2019s delegations.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of Union delegations and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission, who shall make every effort to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR, in close coordination with the Head of Union Delegation to Georgia, shall provide the Head of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia) with local political guidance. The EUSR and the Civilian Operation Commander for EUMM Georgia shall consult each other as required. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the Council, the HR and the Commission with a progress report by the end of December 2012, and, at the end of the EUSR\u2019s mandate, with a comprehensive report on the implementation of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["61", "95", "88", "21", "6", "22", "31", "16", "63", "68", "99", "98", "30", "46", "76", "26", "49", "48", "69", "96", "56", "34", "58", "72", "25", "32", "45", "54", "24", "66", "No Label", "3", "5", "7", "91"], "gold": ["3", "5", "7", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 November 2010\non the clearance of the accounts of certain paying agencies in Germany concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2009 financial year\n(notified under document C(2010) 8277)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2010/730/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 32(8) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2010/258/EU (2) cleared, for the 2009 financial year, the accounts of all the paying agencies except for the German paying agencies \u2018Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg\u2019, \u2018Hessen\u2019, \u2018IBH\u2019 and \u2018Helaba\u2019, the Italian paying agencies \u2018AGEA\u2019 and \u2018ARBEA\u2019, and the Romanian paying agency \u2018PIAA\u2019.\n(2)\nFollowing the transmission of new information and after additional checks, the Commission can now take a decision on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the German paying agencies \u2018Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg\u2019, \u2018Hessen\u2019, \u2018IBH\u2019 and \u2018Helaba\u2019.\n(3)\nThe first subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (3) lays down that the amounts that are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State, in accordance with the accounts clearance decision referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the said Regulation, shall be determined by deducting the monthly payments in respect of the financial year in question, i.e. 2009, from expenditure recognised for that year in accordance with paragraph 1. The Commission shall deduct that amount from or add it to the monthly payment relating to the expenditure effected in the second month following that in which the accounts clearance decision is taken.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities shall be borne by the Member State concerned and 50 % by the Community budget if the recovery of those irregularities has not taken place within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts. Article 32(3) of the said Regulation obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, together with the annual accounts, a summary report on the recovery procedures undertaken in response to irregularities. Detailed rules on the application of the Member States\u2019 reporting obligation of the amounts to be recovered are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. Annex III to the said Regulation provides the model table that had to be provided in 2010 by the Member States. On the basis of the tables completed by the Member States, the Commission should decide on the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities older than 4 or 8 years respectively. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 32(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. Such a decision may only be taken if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered or if the recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. If that decision has been taken within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, 100 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery should be borne by the Community budget. In the summary report referred to in Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 the amounts for which the Member State decided not to pursue recovery and the grounds for the decision are shown. These amounts are not charged to the Member States concerned and are consequently to be borne by the Community budget. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of the said Regulation.\n(6)\nIn clearing the accounts of the paying agencies concerned, the Commission must take account of the amounts already withheld from the Member States concerned on the basis of Decision 2010/258/EU.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from Community financing expenditure not effected in accordance with Community rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accounts of the German paying agencies \u2018Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg\u2019, \u2018Hessen\u2019, \u2018IBH\u2019 and \u2018Helaba\u2019 concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in respect of the 2009 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State concerned pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["8", "15", "37", "18", "36", "83", "14", "49", "54", "55", "31", "7", "34", "72", "22", "59", "20", "3", "81", "80", "84", "93", "39", "89", "75", "19", "88", "66", "41", "21", "No Label", "10", "17", "33", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "17", "33", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 745/2010\nof 18 August 2010\nestablishing budgetary ceilings for 2010 applicable to certain direct support schemes provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 51(2), Article 69(3), Article 87(3), Article 123(1), the second subparagraph of Article 128(1), the second subparagraph of Article 128(2), and Article 131(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor the Member States implementing, in 2010, the single payment scheme provided for under Title III of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the budgetary ceilings for each of the payments referred to in Articles 52, 53 and 54 of that Regulation should be established for 2010.\n(2)\nFor the Member States making use, in 2010, of the option provided for in Article 87 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the budgetary ceilings applicable to the direct payments excluded from the single payment scheme should be fixed for 2010.\n(3)\nFor the Member States making use, in 2010, of the options provided for in Articles 69(1) or 131(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the budgetary ceilings for the specific support referred to in Chapter 5 of Title III of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 should be established for 2010.\n(4)\nArticle 69(4) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 limits the resources that can be used for any coupled measure provided for in points (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Article 68(1)(a) and in Article 68(1)(b) and (e) to 3,5 % of the national ceiling referred to in Article 40 of the same Regulation. For the sake of clarity, the Commission should publish the ceiling resulting from the amounts notified by the Member States for the measures concerned.\n(5)\nPursuant to Article 69(6)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the amounts calculated in accordance with Article 69(7) of that Regulation have been laid down in Annex III of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (2). For the sake of clarity, the Commission should publish the amounts notified by Member States which they intend to use in accordance with Article 69(6)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.\n(6)\nFor the sake of clarity, the 2010 budgetary ceilings for the single payment scheme, after deduction of the ceilings established for the payments referred to in Articles 52, 53, 54, 68 and 87 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 from the ceilings given in Annex VIII to the same Regulation, should be published. The amount to be deducted from the said Annex VIII in order to finance the specific support provided for in Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 corresponds to the difference between the total amount for the specific support notified by the Member States and the amounts notified to finance the specific support in accordance with article 69(6)(a) of the same Regulation. Where a Member State implementing the single payment scheme decides to grant the support referred to in Article 68(1)(c), the amount notified to the Commission is to be included in the single payment scheme ceiling, as this support takes the form of an increase in the unit value and/or the number of the farmer\u2019s payment entitlements.\n(7)\nFor Member States implementing, in 2010, the single area payment scheme provided for in Chapter 2 of Title V of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the annual financial envelopes should be established in accordance with Article 123(1) of that Regulation.\n(8)\nFor the sake of clarity, the maximum amount of funds available to Member States applying the single area payment scheme for granting separate sugar payments in 2010 under Article 126 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, established on the basis of their notification, should be published.\n(9)\nFor the sake of clarity, the maximum amount of funds available to Member States applying the single area payment scheme for granting separate fruit and vegetables payments in 2010 under Article 127 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, established on the basis of their notification, should be published.\n(10)\nFor Member States applying the single area payment scheme, the 2010 budgetary ceilings applicable to transitional payments for fruit and vegetables payments in 2010 in accordance with Article 128(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, should be published on the basis of their notification.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The budgetary ceilings for 2010 referred to in Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. The budgetary ceilings for 2010 referred to in Article 87(3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\n3. The budgetary ceilings for 2010 referred to in Article 69(3) and 131(4) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex III to this Regulation.\n4. The budgetary ceilings for 2010 for the support provided for in points (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Article 68(1)(a) and in Article 68(1)(b) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex IV to this Regulation.\n5. The amounts that can be used by the Member States in accordance with Article 69(6)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 to cover the specific support provided in Article 68(1) of the same Regulation are set out in Annex V to this Regulation.\n6. The budgetary ceilings for 2010 for the single payment scheme referred to in Title III of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex VI to this Regulation.\n7. The annual financial envelopes for 2010 referred to in Article 123(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex VII to this Regulation.\n8. The maximum amounts of funding available to the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia for granting the separate sugar payment in 2010, as referred to in Article 126 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex VIII to this Regulation.\n9. The maximum amounts of funding available to the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia for granting the separate fruit and vegetables payment in 2010, as referred to in Article 127 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex IX to this Regulation.\n10. The budgetary ceilings for 2010 referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 128(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are set out in Annex X to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 August 2010.", "references": ["88", "28", "79", "87", "42", "3", "20", "55", "99", "53", "9", "80", "6", "27", "64", "2", "30", "97", "37", "45", "77", "12", "11", "59", "81", "32", "39", "38", "65", "60", "No Label", "48", "58", "61"], "gold": ["48", "58", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 979/2010\nof 29 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Porc de Franche-Comt\u00e9 (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Porc de Franche-Comt\u00e9\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 October 2010.", "references": ["22", "88", "41", "4", "3", "38", "42", "9", "55", "17", "67", "33", "23", "18", "45", "54", "68", "6", "46", "71", "37", "10", "5", "26", "93", "43", "12", "82", "16", "28", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "69", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 431/2012\nof 22 May 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 May 2012.", "references": ["67", "97", "2", "74", "26", "82", "69", "57", "80", "8", "23", "64", "12", "40", "39", "87", "25", "18", "79", "38", "65", "62", "32", "29", "75", "0", "76", "42", "19", "4", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 43/2011\nof 20 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2011.", "references": ["19", "54", "67", "52", "53", "82", "86", "75", "29", "79", "32", "27", "51", "13", "74", "92", "88", "31", "73", "23", "71", "26", "48", "20", "95", "28", "64", "36", "41", "96", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 16 August 2011\namending Decision 2005/382/EC authorising methods for grading pig carcasses in Hungary\n(notified under document C(2011) 5746)\n(Only the Hungarian text is authentic)\n(2011/507/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(m), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Decision 2005/382/EC (2), the use of four methods for grading pig carcasses in Hungary was authorised.\n(2)\nHungary has stated that since the adoption of Decision 2005/382/EC the formula and grading methods have evolved considerably. It is therefore necessary to update the formula of one of the methods, to replace the three other methods, to add a new method, and to simplify the grading methods through the use of only one measurement point instead of the present two measurement points.\n(3)\nHungary has requested the Commission to authorise the replacement of the formula used in the \u2018Fat-O-Meater FOM S70 and Fat-O-Meater FOM S71\u2019, method of grading pig carcasses as well as to authorise four new methods for grading pig carcasses on its territory and has presented a detailed description of the dissection trial, indicating the principles on which those methods are based, the results of its dissection trial and the equations used for assessing the percentage of lean meat in the protocol provided for in Article 23(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/2008 of 10 December 2008 laying down detailed rules on the implementation of the Community scales for the classification of beef, pig and sheep carcases and the reporting of prices thereof (3).\n(4)\nExamination of that request has revealed that the conditions for authorising those grading methods are fulfilled. Those grading methods should therefore be authorised in Hungary.\n(5)\nDecision 2005/382/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nModifications of the apparatus or grading methods should not be allowed, unless they are explicitly authorised by Commission Decision.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2005/382/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThe use of the following methods is authorised for grading pig carcasses pursuant to point 1 of Section B.IV of Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (4) in Hungary:\n(a)\nthe \u201cFat-O-Meater FOM S70\u201d and \u201cFat-O-Meater FOM S71\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part I of the Annex;\n(b)\nthe \u201cUltra FOM 300\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part II of the Annex;\n(c)\nthe \u201cOptiScan-TP\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part III of the Annex;\n(d)\nthe \u201cIM-03\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part IV of the Annex;\n(e)\nthe \u201cOptiGrade-MCP\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part V of the Annex.\nAs regards the apparatus \u201cUltra FOM 300\u201d, referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph, after the end of the measurement procedure it must be possible to verify on the carcass that the apparatus measured the values of measurement BF and LD on the site provided for in the Annex, Part II, point 3. The corresponding marking of the measurement site must be made at the same time as the measurement procedure.\n(2)\nthe Annex is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 2 July 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Hungary.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2011.", "references": ["36", "42", "2", "81", "87", "99", "44", "73", "4", "61", "10", "11", "67", "32", "98", "49", "52", "9", "43", "23", "86", "13", "80", "15", "40", "26", "50", "3", "22", "33", "No Label", "19", "65", "69", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["19", "65", "69", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1306/2011\nof 12 December 2011\nclarifying the scope of the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 261/2008 on imports of certain compressors originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Article 9 and Article 14, paragraph 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Original investigation and anti-dumping duty\n(1)\nOn 21 December 2006, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports of certain compressors originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the original investigation\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Council, by Regulation (EC) No 261/2008 (3), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain compressors originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018measure concerned\u2019 and or \u2018definitive Regulation\u2019). The measure concerned expired on 21 March 2010 (4).\n2. Reopening of the original investigation\n(3)\nThe original investigation was reopened on the Commission\u2019s own initiative after some importers of compressors originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the PRC\u2019) have raised concerns on the anti-dumping duties applicable to imports of so-called mini-compressors, i.e. compressors without a tank, capable of operating on a 12 V power supply (\u2018mini-compressors\u2019).\n(4)\nAlthough mini-compressors fall within the literal definition of the product concerned as specified by Article 1 of the definitive Regulation, the information at the Commission\u2019s disposal indicated that mini-compressors appear to be distinct from the other compressors subject to the measure concerned (\u2018other compressors subject to the measure concerned\u2019).\n(5)\nTherefore, it was considered appropriate to partially reopen the investigation as far as a clarification of the scope of the product is concerned, with the conclusion thereon possibly having retroactive effect as of the date of the imposition of the measure concerned.\n3. Present investigation\n(6)\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5) the partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of certain compressors originating in the PRC initiated pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation.\n(7)\nThe Commission officially advised all the parties that cooperated in the original investigation as well as the authorities of the PRC of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(8)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(9)\nSubmissions were received from 15 interested parties, including 11 importers of mini-compressors, one EU producer and one Chinese exporter of mini-compressors, one EU producer of compressors (one of the complainants in the original investigation) and its related exporter of compressors from the PRC.\n(10)\nGiven that the present reopening of the investigation is limited to the clarification of the product scope definitive Regulation, no investigation period was set for the purpose of this partial reopening.\n(11)\nAll interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the present conclusions were reached. In accordance with Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation, parties were granted a period within which they can make representations subsequent to the disclosure. The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered and, where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly.\nB. PRODUCT UNDER INVESTIGATION\n(12)\nThe product under investigation is the same as defined in Article 1 of the definitive Regulation, i.e. reciprocating compressors (excluding reciprocating compressor pumps), giving a flow not exceeding 2 cubic metres per minute.\n(13)\nThe product is currently falling within CN codes ex 8414 40 10, ex 8414 80 22, ex 8414 80 28 and ex 8414 80 51.\n(14)\nThe present reopening of the investigation was intended to determine whether so-called mini-compressors, i.e. compressors without a tank and capable of operating on a 12 V power supply, are covered by the product definition of Article 1 of the definitive Regulation.\nC. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n1. Methodology\n(15)\nIn order to assess whether mini-compressors are covered by the product definition of Article 1 of the definitive Regulation, it was examined whether mini-compressors and other compressors subject to the measure concerned shared the same basic physical and technical characteristics and end-uses. In this regard, the interchangeability between mini-compressors and other compressors subject to the measure concerned in the Union was also assessed. In addition, it was examined whether the original investigation actually covered and analysed mini-compressors.\n2. Basic physical and technical characteristics\n(16)\nThe present reopened investigation established that mini-compressors consist of an electric motor that drives a pump which continuously pushes air out through the connected air hose with varying air pressure. Mini-compressors are not equipped with a tank, typically do not have a pressure regulator and are capable of operating on a 12 V direct current power supply. They are relatively small and their weight would normally not exceed 2-3 kg as they need to be easily portable. Mini-compressors have a maximum operating time (normally up to 20 minutes) and give an airflow normally not exceeding 50 l/min.\n(17)\nOn the other hand, the definitive Regulation, further to the definition in its Article 1 and repeated in recital 12 above, contains detailed information about other compressors subject to the measure concerned. In particular, in recital 17, the definitive Regulation specified that \u2018A compressor is typically made up of a pump, driven by an electric motor either directly or through a belt mechanism. In most cases the pressurised air is pumped into a tank and exits through a pressure regulator and a rubber hose. Compressors, in particular the larger ones, can have wheels to make them mobile\u2019. The tank and pressure regulator in such compressors provide for a steady airflow. Normally, such compressors are relatively big and their weight would be of at least 25 kg and often more. They are designed to work with alternating current of 120 V and above, they have no limited working time and give airflow of up to 2 000 l/min.\n(18)\nConsequently, it is concluded that mini-compressors and other compressors subject to the measure concerned do not share the same basic physical and technical characteristics.\n3. Basic end-uses and interchangeability\n(19)\nThe present reopened investigation established that mini-compressors are predominantly used in automotive sector and are designed to inflate tyres and are often sold as part of a tyre-repair-kit together with a sealant that can be pumped into a punctured tyre. Some mini-compressors are also used as a household application inflating toys, balls, air mattresses or other inflatable objects.\n(20)\nOn the other hand the definitive Regulation specified in recital 19 that \u2018The product concerned is used for driving air-powered tools or for spraying, cleaning, or inflating tyres and other objects\u2019. Such compressors can be used for some semi-professional activities or in the \u2018do-it-yourself\u2019 segment for driving air-powered tools or for spraying or painting or cleaning. Those applications are possible due to a steady flow of air that can be regulated. Such a feature is not provided for in mini-compressors.\n(21)\nThe information gathered showed that mini-compressors are normally priced at a level significantly lower than that for other compressors. Mini-compressors are intended for different customers and are distributed via different channels than other compressors subject to the measure concerned. Moreover, while mini-compressors are normally sold as part of a tyre repair kit (replacing a spare tyre) either together with a car or in specialist automotive shops or in supermarkets (for alternative uses like inflating toys), other compressors subject to the measure concerned are normally to be found only in specialist \u2018do-it-yourself\u2019 shops.\n(22)\nGiven the above, it is concluded that mini-compressors and other compressors subject to the measure concerned have different end-uses, target different markets and are in principle not interchangeable.\n4. Product investigated in the original investigation\n(23)\nNone of the parties that cooperated in the original investigation (three EU producers, 14 exporting producers in the PRC and one unrelated importer in the EU) was involved in manufacturing and/or trading mini-compressors. It is apparent from the original investigation that the relevant information was at that time not collected with regard to mini-compressors.\n(24)\nThus, it seems that although mini-compressors were not explicitly excluded, the investigation at that time did not intend to include mini-compressors.\n(25)\nThis is also confirmed by the statement of one of the complainants in the original investigation. Following a request from the Commission, it clearly stated that in its view mini-compressors were not meant to be covered by the complaint and the resulting anti-dumping proceeding.\n(26)\nGiven the above, it is concluded that mini-compressors were not investigated in the framework of the original investigation.\nD. CONCLUSION ON THE PRODUCT SCOPE\n(27)\nThe above findings show that mini-compressors and other compressors subject to the measure concerned do not share the same basic physical and technical characteristics and end-uses. They have different end-uses, target different markets and are in principle not interchangeable. In addition, mini-compressors were not investigated in the framework of the original investigation. On this basis, it is concluded that mini-compressors and other compressors are two different products.\n(28)\nAlmost all parties that came forward in the present reopened investigation requested that mini-compressors should be excluded from the product scope of the original measure.\n(29)\nOn the other hand, the cooperating EU producer of mini-compressors argued that the original measure encompassed its products and that it rightfully protected its interests. Consequently, it claimed that anti-dumping duty should be collected on mini-compressors retroactively and in the future, as the injurious dumping of mini-compressors continues to take place.\n(30)\nIn this regard, it is noted that neither this producer nor any other producer of mini-compressors cooperated in the original investigation. Further, as concluded above in recital 26, mini-compressors were not investigated at the time of the original investigation. It is also noted that as established by the present reopened investigation significant differences exist between mini-compressors and compressors investigated in the original investigation. Consequently, the position of the said EU producer of mini-compressors cannot alter the findings in the present reopened investigation.\n(31)\nWith regard to the claim about continued injurious dumping of mini-compressors and possible imposition of anti-dumping measures, it should be noted that, as explained in recitals 23 to 26 above, mini-compressors were not investigated in the original investigation and that a determination whether injurious dumping took or is taking place cannot be addressed by the present reopened investigation, which is limited to the clarification of the product scope of the original measure.\n(32)\nFollowing disclosure, the EU producer of mini-compressors repeated his position and suggested that the retroactive exclusion of mini-compressors from the measures would result in retroactive fortification of their competitors in the PRC and would distort the competition.\n(33)\nIn this regard, it is reiterated that the reopened investigation did not analyse the market situation for mini-compressors and did not envisage doing so. It simply aimed at clarifying if mini-compressors are different from the compressors investigated in the original investigation. The outcome is also not supposed to distort any market situation but to provide clarity with regard to applicable duties.\n(34)\nFollowing disclosure, one cooperating importer was suggesting that mini-compressors are in fact only pumps and any duty on compressors is per definition not applicable to pumps that were explicitly excluded from the product scope of the original measure.\n(35)\nIn this respect, it should be noted that the present reopened investigation does not support such an interpretation and that mini-compressors are clearly - from a technical point of view - compressors as they move the air from one place to another (as pumps do) but also compress the air in the object that they are connected to.\n(36)\nGiven the above, it is concluded that mini-compressors (i.e. compressors without a tank and capable of operating on a 12 V power supply) are distinct from compressors investigated in the original investigation.\n(37)\nSince mini-compressors did not fall within the scope of the original investigation the anti-dumping duty should not have been applied to imports of mini-compressors. Consequently, the scope of application of the measure concerned should be clarified retroactively by an amendment to the definitive Regulation.\nE. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION\n(38)\nSince the present reopening of the investigation is limited to the clarification of the product scope and since mini-compressors were not covered by the original investigation and the consequent anti-dumping measure, it is considered appropriate that the findings be applied from the date of the entry into force of the definitive Regulation.\n(39)\nConsequently, any definitive anti-dumping duty paid or entered into the accounts pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 261/2008 on imports of mini-compressors originating in the PRC should be repaid or remitted. The repayment or remission must be requested from national customs authorities in accordance with applicable customs legislation. Moreover, in order to avoid that the importers concerned could not claim such repayment due to the deadlines in that legislation, in case those deadlines have expired before or on the date of publication of this Regulation, or if they expire within six months after that date, they are hereby extended so as to expire six months after the date of publication of this Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2008 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20181. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of reciprocating compressors (excluding reciprocating compressor pumps), giving a flow not exceeding 2 cubic metres per minute, falling within CN codes ex 8414 40 10, ex 8414 80 22, ex 8414 80 28 and ex 8414 80 51, (TARIC codes 8414401010, 8414802219, 8414802299, 8414802811, 8414802891, 8414805119 and 8414805199) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China. So-called mini-compressors, i.e. compressors without a tank and capable of operating on a 12 V power supply and falling within the abovementioned CN codes shall not be covered by the definitive anti-dumping duty.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nFor goods not covered by Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2008 as amended by this Regulation, the definitive anti-dumping duty paid or entered into the accounts pursuant to Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2008 in its initial version shall be repaid or remitted.\nRepayment and remission shall be requested from national customs authorities in accordance with applicable customs legislation. In cases where the time limits provided for in Article 236(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (6) have expired before or on the date of publication of this Regulation, or if they expire within six months after that date, they are hereby extended so as to expire six months after the date of publication of this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall apply retroactively from 21 March 2008.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 December 2011.", "references": ["90", "98", "99", "38", "32", "60", "24", "26", "57", "45", "83", "81", "89", "2", "15", "20", "39", "0", "78", "28", "29", "36", "44", "46", "74", "16", "52", "58", "80", "88", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "85", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "85", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1137/2011\nof 9 November 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1103/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 November 2011.", "references": ["43", "5", "44", "85", "78", "97", "32", "24", "4", "27", "87", "25", "11", "14", "18", "81", "38", "56", "77", "69", "53", "62", "96", "63", "95", "42", "40", "82", "17", "55", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED DECISION\nof 8 February 2012\namending Annex III to Decision No 1080/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council granting an EU guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Union and repealing Decision No 633/2009/EC, as regards Syria\n(2012/207/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 1080/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 granting an EU guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Union and repealing Decision No 633/2009/EC (1), and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil conclusions on Syria of 23 May 2011 (2) invite the European Investment Bank (EIB) not to approve new EIB financing operations in Syria for the time being.\n(2)\nEuropean Parliament Resolution of 7 July 2011 on the situation in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain in the context of the situation in the Arab world and North Africa welcomes the Council conclusions to impose restrictive measures on Syria and notably to invite the EIB not to approve new financing operations in Syria for the time being.\n(3)\nThe political and economic situation in Syria has further deteriorated since the adoption of Decision No 1080/2011/EU.\n(4)\nCouncil conclusions on Syria of 14 November 2011 (3) decided to place new restrictive measures against the Syrian regime by suspending the disbursement or other payments under or in connection with existing EIB loan agreements with Syria.\n(5)\nIn this context, the Council has adopted a series of restrictive measures, including the prohibition of disbursements by the EIB in connection with existing loan agreements between Syria and the EIB, which are now consolidated into Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (4) and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (5).\n(6)\nThe Commission, with the involvement of the European External Action Service, has assessed that the overall economic and political situation requires removing Syria from Annex III to Decision No 1080/2011/EU, which sets out the list of countries eligible for EIB financing under EU guarantee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn point B(1) of Annex III to Decision No 1080/2011/EU, the word \u2018Syria\u2019 is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 8 February 2012.", "references": ["61", "59", "37", "36", "64", "91", "25", "26", "11", "49", "32", "78", "2", "72", "15", "93", "96", "29", "14", "54", "86", "81", "92", "71", "23", "73", "55", "69", "0", "56", "No Label", "3", "7", "10", "31", "95"], "gold": ["3", "7", "10", "31", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1219/2010\nof 17 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 December 2010.", "references": ["88", "34", "16", "27", "81", "40", "50", "60", "48", "66", "29", "58", "7", "82", "71", "84", "92", "13", "11", "53", "95", "14", "63", "26", "39", "2", "79", "73", "86", "97", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 28 February 2012\nappointing a Member of the Court of Auditors\n(2012/125/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe term of office of Mr Juan RAMALLO MASSANET is due to expire on 29 February 2012.\n(2)\nTherefore, a new appointment should be made,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Baudilio TOM\u00c9 MUGURUZA is hereby appointed Member of the Court of Auditors for the period from 1 March 2012 to 28 February 2018.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2012.", "references": ["84", "31", "33", "43", "76", "94", "24", "89", "54", "75", "74", "57", "53", "26", "25", "52", "15", "0", "35", "98", "12", "27", "11", "19", "72", "10", "36", "28", "92", "9", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 April 2011\namending Decision 1999/93/EC on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards doors, windows, shutters, blinds, gates and related building hardware\n(notified under document C(2011) 2587)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/246/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1), and in particular Article 13(4) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee on Construction,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has adopted Decision 1999/93/EC of 25 January 1999 on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards doors, windows, shutters, blinds, gates and related building hardware (2).\n(2)\nArticle 13 of Directive 89/106/EEC provides that conformity shall be established in accordance with Annex III to that Directive.\n(3)\nFollowing a review of the intended uses of doors and gates the corresponding procedures of attestation of conformity should be amended to include provisions for building hardware for windows and for doors not used for fire/smoke compartmentation or for escape routes.\n(4)\nDecision 1999/93/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Decision 1999/93/EC is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2011.", "references": ["38", "42", "49", "0", "10", "67", "3", "39", "35", "73", "8", "31", "64", "58", "65", "80", "43", "78", "45", "62", "61", "33", "20", "91", "63", "99", "37", "57", "93", "15", "No Label", "25", "76", "84", "87"], "gold": ["25", "76", "84", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1349/2011\nof 20 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 134 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 130 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 to manage imports, the Commission has been given the power to determine the products for which import will be subject to presentation of a licence. When assessing the need for a licence system, the Commission takes account of the appropriate instruments for the management of the markets and in particular for monitoring the imports.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 (2) in its Article 1(2)(a)(i) in conjunction with its Annex II, Part I, point I, provides for a licence obligation for imports of \u2018bananas, fresh imported under common customs tariff rate of duty\u2019 falling within CN code 0803 00 19.\n(3)\nCurrently, effective import monitoring can be carried out through other means. In the interest of simplification and for the purpose of alleviating the administrative burden for Member States and operators, the requirement of import licences for bananas should be abolished. Article 1(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2014/2005 of 9 December 2005 on licences under the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community in respect of bananas released into free circulation at the common customs tariff rate of duty (3) limits the validity of licences to the year of issue. It is therefore appropriate to repeal the obligation to obtain import licences as from 1 January 2012.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 376/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Part I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, Point I \u2018Bananas (Part XI of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007)\u2019 is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["69", "73", "58", "10", "57", "41", "71", "72", "80", "35", "29", "4", "51", "49", "18", "30", "92", "42", "98", "24", "97", "91", "90", "66", "78", "55", "32", "67", "27", "17", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 588/2011\nof 20 June 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/357/CFSP of 20 June 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 (2) provides for a freezing of the assets of President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus.\n(2)\nBy Decision 2011/357/CFSP, the Council has decided to take certain additional restrictive measures in relation to Belarus, in particular by imposing an arms embargo and a prohibition on internal repression equipment.\n(3)\nSome elements of these measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(4)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus and in accordance with Council Decision 2011/357/CFSP, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 765/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure that the measures in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 765/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nThe title of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus\u2019.\n(2)\nArticle 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nPoint (5) is replaced by the following:\n\u20185.\n\u201cterritory of the Community\u201d means the territories of the Member States, including their airspace, to which the Treaty is applicable, under the conditions laid down in the Treaty.\u2019.\n(b)\nThe following point is added:\n\u20186.\n\u201ctechnical assistance\u201d means any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance, or any other technical service, and may take forms such as instruction, advice, training, transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services; including verbal forms of assistance.\u2019.\n(3)\nThe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 1a\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex III, whether or not originating in the Union, to any person, entity or body in Belarus or for use in Belarus;\n(b)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in point (a).\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and helmets, temporarily exported to Belarus by United Nations (UN) personnel, personnel of the Union or its Member States, representatives of the media or humanitarian and development workers and associated persons exclusively for their personal use.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities in the Member States as listed in Annex II may authorise the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment which might be used for internal repression, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, if they determine that such equipment is intended solely for humanitarian or protective use.\nArticle 1b\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List of the European Union (3) (\u201cCommon Military List\u201d), or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of goods included in that list, to any person, entity or body in Belarus or for use in Belarus;\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex III, to any person, entity or body in Belarus or for use in Belarus;\n(c)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List or in Annex III, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for any provision of related technical assistance to any person, entity or body in Belarus or for use in Belarus;\n(d)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) to (c).\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the prohibitions referred to therein shall not apply to:\n(a)\nnon-lethal military equipment, or equipment which might be used for internal repression, intended solely for humanitarian purposes or protective use or for institution building programmes of the UN and the Union, or for EU or UN crisis management operations; or\n(b)\nnon-combat vehicles fitted with materials to provide ballistic protection, intended solely for the protective use of personnel of the Union and its Member States in Belarus,\nprovided that the provision thereof has first been approved by the competent authority of a Member State, as identified on the websites listed in Annex II.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to Belarus by UN personnel, personnel of the Union or its Member States, representatives of the media or humanitarian and development workers and associated persons exclusively for their personal use.\n(3) OJ C 86, 18.3.2011, p. 1.\u2019.\" \t\t\t\t\t\t\nArticle 2\n1. The persons and entities listed in Annex I to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.\n2. Annex II to this Regulation shall be added to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["62", "45", "28", "16", "75", "36", "66", "29", "46", "74", "30", "92", "48", "98", "40", "53", "60", "96", "2", "95", "99", "39", "4", "51", "20", "25", "11", "82", "31", "32", "No Label", "3", "23", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "23", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 30 April 2010\namending Decision 92/216/EEC as regards the publication of the list of coordinating authorities for equine competitions\n(notified under document C(2010) 2630)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/256/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/428/EEC of 26 June 1990 on trade in equidae intended for competitions and laying down the conditions for participation therein (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 90/428/EEC lays the conditions governing trade in equidae intended for competitions and the conditions governing their participation. In particular, Article 4(2) thereof provides for possibilities for Member States to reserve, through bodies officially approved or recognised for that purpose, a certain percentage of the prize money or profits which may accrue from certain competitions or types of competition referred to in that Article for the safeguard, development and improvement of breeding.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 1(2) of Commission Decision 92/216/EEC of 26 March 1992 on the collection of data concerning competitions for equidae as referred to in Article 4(2) of Council Directive 90/428/EEC (2), Member States are to communicate to the Commission the name and address of the coordinating authority appointed for collecting the necessary data concerning competitions and the distribution of funds as provided for in Article 4(2) of Directive 90/428/EEC, for publication by the Commission.\n(3)\nCouncil Directive 2008/73/EC of 15 July 2008 simplifying procedures of listing and publishing information in the veterinary and zootechnical fields (3) amended, amongst others, Article 4(2) of Directive 90/428/EEC by conferring onto the Member States the obligation for making available information generated under their responsibility.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 90/428/EEC, it is now the responsibility of each Member State to inform the other Member States and the public of the use of the possibilities provided for by the first indent of Article 4(2) of that Directive and of the criteria for the distribution of funds provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2).\n(5)\nAs in other areas of European Union law where web-based information procedures had been introduced by Directive 2008/73/EC, it is considered necessary for the Commission to assist the Member States and the public to access such information by providing a website to which the Member States provide a link to their national website.\n(6)\nThe Member States should have sufficient time to set up their national websites. Accordingly, the amendments introduced by this Decision should apply from 1 May 2010.\n(7)\nDecision 92/216/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Zootechnics,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1 of Decision 92/216/EEC, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Each Member State shall make the name and address of the coordinating authority appointed in accordance with paragraph 1 available to the Commission, the other Member States and the public on a website.\n3. In order to assist the Member States in making that information available, the Commission shall provide a website to which the Member States shall provide a link to their website established in accordance with paragraph 2.\nThe Member States shall provide those links to the Commission by 30 April 2010 at the latest.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 May 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 April 2010.", "references": ["11", "27", "40", "78", "32", "39", "91", "28", "74", "88", "86", "17", "46", "21", "43", "37", "54", "24", "87", "82", "12", "18", "55", "84", "67", "30", "2", "33", "98", "63", "No Label", "36", "42", "65", "66"], "gold": ["36", "42", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 594/2012\nof 5 July 2012\namending Regulation (EC) 1881/2006 as regards the maximum levels of the contaminants ochratoxin A, non dioxin-like PCBs and melamine in foodstuffs\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 (2) sets maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1259/2011 (3), amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, established new maximum levels for non dioxin-like PCBs applicable as from 1 January 2012. It is appropriate to provide that those maximum levels are not applicable to foodstuffs which were lawfully placed on the market before that date.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 105/2010 (4), amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, established a final lower maximum level for Ochratoxin A in spices, which is supposed to be achievable by applying good practices. To enable the spices producing countries to put prevention measures in place and in order to avoid disruptions of trade to an unacceptable extent, that Regulation furthermore provided for a higher maximum level to be applied for a limited period of time. The Regulation furthermore provided that an assessment should be performed of the achievability of the lower levels for ochratoxin A by applying good practices in the different producing regions in the world. This assessment had to be done before the lower maximum level of Ochratoxin A would become applicable. Although a significant improvement in the application of good practices in the different producing regions in the world has been noticed, the projected lower maximum level for Ochratoxin A is not yet achieavable in Capsicum species on a consistent basis. It is therefore appropriate to postpone the application of the lower maximum level for Capsicum spp.\n(4)\nWheat gluten is produced as a co-product of the starch production. Evidence has been provided that the current maximum level of Ochratoxin A in wheat gluten is no longer achievable, in particular at the end of the storage season, even with the strict application of good practices as regards storage, possibly due to the changing climate conditions. It is therefore appropriate to modify the current maximum level to a level which is achievable by applying good practices and which still provides a high level of human health protection.\n(5)\nThe Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has, on a request from the Commission, adopted on 4 April 2006 an updated scientific opinion relating to ochratoxin A in food (5), taking into account new scientific information and derived a tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 120 ng/kg b.w. In accordance with the conclusions of the opinion adopted by EFSA, the envisaged changes as regards Ochratoxin A in this Regulation continue to provide a high level of human health protection.\n(6)\nThe EFSA has, on a request from the Commission, on 18 March 2010, adopted a scientific opinion related to the melamine in feed and food (6). Its findings show that exposure to melamine can result in the formation of crystals in the urinary tract. Those crystals cause proximal tubular damage and have been observed in animals and children as a result of incidents involving adulteration of feed and infant formula with melamine, leading to fatalities in some instances. The Codex Alimentarius Commission has established maximum levels for melamine in feed and food (7). It is appropriate to include those maximum levels in Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 to protect public health as those levels are in accordance with the conclusions of the EFSA's opinion.\n(7)\nTherefore, Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 should be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmending provisions\nRegulation (EC) No 1881/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nIn Article 11, the first paragraph is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe introductory sentence is replaced by the following:\n\"This Regulation shall not apply to products that were placed on the market before the dates referred to in points (a) to (f) in conformity with the provisions applicable at the respective date:\"\n(b)\nthe following points (e) and (f) are added:\n\"(e)\n01 January 2012 as regards the maximum levels for non dioxin-like PCBs laid down in section 5 of the Annex;\n(f)\n01 January 2015 as regards the maximum level for Ochratoxin A in Capsicum spp. laid down in point 2.2.11. of the Annex.\"\n(2)\nThe Annex is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the date of entry into force with the exception of the provisions laid down in point 2.2.11 of the Annex which shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2012.", "references": ["23", "66", "29", "9", "57", "75", "87", "82", "43", "68", "33", "80", "61", "22", "32", "64", "51", "56", "95", "74", "16", "36", "7", "41", "85", "18", "25", "77", "47", "12", "No Label", "38", "60", "72"], "gold": ["38", "60", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 6 October 2010\namending Annex II to Decision 2006/766/EC as regards the entry for Serbia in the list of third countries and territories from which imports of fishery products for human consumption are permitted\n(notified under document C(2010) 6748)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/602/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 lays down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin. In particular, it provides that products of animal origin are only to be imported from a third country or part of a third country that appears on a list drawn up in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 also provides that when drawing up and updating such lists, account is to be taken of Union controls in third countries and guarantees provided by the competent authorities of third countries, as regards compliance or equivalence with Union feed and food law and animal health rules as specified in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (2).\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2006/766/EC of 6 November 2006 establishing the lists of third countries and territories from which imports of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates, marine gastropods and fishery products are permitted (3) lists those third countries which satisfy the criteria referred to in Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and are therefore able to guarantee that exports of those products to the Union meet the sanitary conditions laid down in Union legislation to protect the health of consumers. In particular, Annex II to that Decision sets out a list of third countries and territories from which imports of fishery products for human consumption are permitted. That list also indicates restrictions concerning such imports from certain third countries.\n(4)\nSerbia is currently included in the list in Annex II to Decision 2006/766/EC as a third country from which imports of fishery products intended for human consumption are permitted, but such imports are restricted to whole fresh fish from wild seawater catches.\n(5)\nUnion controls to evaluate the control system in place in Serbia governing the production of fishery products intended for export to the Union, together with guarantees provided by the competent authority of Serbia, indicate that the conditions applicable in that third country to fishery products for human consumption destined for export to the Union are equivalent to those laid down in the relevant Union legislation. Accordingly, Annex II to Decision 2006/766/EC should be amended in order to permit imports from Serbia of fishery products for human consumption, but not subject to the current restriction.\n(6)\nDecision 2006/766/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex II to Decision 2006/766/EC, the entry for Serbia is replaced by the following:\n\u2018RS\nSERBIA\nNot including Kosovo as defined by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 October 2010.", "references": ["72", "70", "31", "50", "93", "56", "41", "68", "13", "1", "21", "99", "73", "34", "19", "76", "63", "88", "74", "35", "59", "65", "17", "64", "10", "33", "53", "48", "30", "32", "No Label", "22", "23", "38", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "38", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 527/2010\nof 17 June 2010\nfixing the minimum selling price for butter for the second individual invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO Regulation\u2019) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 (2) has opened the sales of butter by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the common conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the second individual invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the second individual invitation to tender for selling of butter within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 15 June 2010, the minimum selling price for butter shall be EUR 355,10/100 kg.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2010.", "references": ["9", "7", "12", "44", "61", "74", "25", "36", "41", "16", "65", "75", "53", "77", "91", "15", "97", "55", "21", "29", "1", "0", "78", "93", "43", "3", "83", "58", "49", "72", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 450/2011\nof 10 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2011.", "references": ["57", "40", "41", "16", "70", "48", "8", "28", "77", "25", "12", "13", "76", "2", "98", "20", "24", "97", "22", "81", "5", "23", "69", "14", "52", "94", "87", "85", "32", "37", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 599/2011\nof 21 June 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of June 2011 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 June 2011 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 June 2011 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 1,055739 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2011.", "references": ["80", "71", "60", "62", "5", "95", "63", "67", "40", "66", "85", "33", "46", "70", "42", "92", "22", "59", "4", "53", "18", "25", "26", "20", "37", "57", "38", "14", "58", "64", "No Label", "21", "69"], "gold": ["21", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 159/2012\nof 22 February 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 142/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 February 2012.", "references": ["60", "80", "82", "86", "30", "4", "15", "92", "67", "51", "98", "52", "9", "89", "75", "65", "21", "29", "94", "91", "68", "28", "66", "12", "59", "90", "6", "79", "74", "27", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1325/2011\nof 16 December 2011\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on pears, lemons, apples and courgettes\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2) provides for the surveillance of the imports of the products listed in Annex XVIII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2008, 2009 and 2010, the trigger levels for additional duties on pears, lemons, apples and courgettes should be adjusted.\n(3)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVIII to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 is hereby replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["5", "97", "71", "49", "78", "92", "48", "70", "2", "36", "94", "86", "72", "52", "13", "56", "29", "64", "91", "51", "21", "55", "4", "44", "24", "25", "99", "65", "16", "31", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 6 October 2010\non the reallocation to Portugal of additional days at sea within ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa excluding the Gulf of Cadiz\n(notified under document C(2010) 6735)\n(Only the Portuguese text is authentic)\n(2010/604/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required and amending Regulations (EC) No 1359/2008, (EC) No 754/2009, (EC) No 1226/2009 and (EC) No 1287/2009 (1), and in particular point 7.5 of Annex IIB thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPoint 5.1 of Annex IIB to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 specifies the maximum number of days on which EU vessels of an overall length equal to or greater than 10 meters carrying on board trawls, Danish seines and similar gears of mesh size equal to or larger than 32 mm and gill-nets of mesh size equal to or larger than 60 mm and bottom long-lines may be present within ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa, excluding the Gulf of Cadiz, from 1 February 2010 to 31 January 2011.\n(2)\nPoint 7.5 of Annex IIB enables the Commission to take a decision that reassesses additional number of days resulting from a permanent cessation of fishing activity previously allocated by the Commission.\n(3)\nThe reassessment of additional fishing days previously allocated by the Commission should take account of the calculation method provided for in the second paragraph of point 7.1 of Annex IIB and be computed on the basis of the current gear groupings and limitations on days at sea.\n(4)\nOn 8 and 23 February, 25 March and 22 April 2010 Portugal submitted data and requested the Commission to reassess the number of days previously allocated by the Commission.\n(5)\nHaving regard to Commission Decision 2007/474/EC of 4 July 2007 on the allocation to Portugal of additional days at sea within ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa excluding the Gulf of Cadiz (2), and on the basis of the current gear groupings and limitations on days at sea, fourteen additional days at sea for vessels carrying on board the fishing gears specified in point 2 a) of Annex IIB to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 should be allocated to Portugal for the period from 1 February 2010 to 31 January 2011.\n(6)\nHaving regard to Commission Decision 2010/415/EU of 26 July 2010 on the allocation to Portugal of additional days at sea within ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa excluding the Gulf of Cadiz (3), and on the basis of the current gear groupings and limitations on days at sea, nineteen additional days at sea for vessels carrying on board the fishing gears specified in point 2 a) of Annex IIB to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 should be allocated to Portugal for the period from 1 February 2010 to 31 January 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe maximum number of days on which a fishing vessel flying the flag of Portugal and carrying on board the fishing gear grouping mentioned in point 2 a) of Annex IIB to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 and not subject to any of the special conditions listed in point 5.2 of that Annex may be present within ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa excluding the Gulf of Cadiz, as laid down in Table I of that Annex, shall be amended to 191 days per year.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 6 October 2010.", "references": ["22", "34", "9", "39", "64", "11", "71", "53", "80", "18", "5", "23", "51", "72", "14", "2", "99", "86", "1", "84", "70", "87", "16", "26", "59", "42", "20", "55", "38", "17", "No Label", "13", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU, EURATOM) No 1081/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as regards the European External Action Service\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 322 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Court of Auditors (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3) (hereinafter the \u2018Financial Regulation\u2019), lays down the budgetary principles and financial rules which should be respected in all legislative acts. It is necessary to amend certain provisions of the Financial Regulation in order to take account of the amendments introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon and of the establishment of the European External Action Service, pursuant to Council Decision 2010/427/EU of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (4).\n(2)\nThe Treaty of Lisbon establishes a European External Action Service (hereinafter the \u2018EEAS\u2019). Decision 2010/427/EU provides that the EEAS is a service of a sui generis nature and should be treated as an institution for the purposes of the Financial Regulation.\n(3)\nIn the context of the discharge, given that the EEAS should be treated as an institution for the purposes of the Financial Regulation, the EEAS should be fully subject to the procedures provided for in Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Articles 145 to 147 of the Financial Regulation. The EEAS should fully cooperate with the institutions involved in the discharge procedure and provide, as appropriate, any additional necessary information, including through attendance at meetings of the relevant bodies. The Commission should remain responsible, in accordance with Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for the implementation of the budget, including operational appropriations implemented by Heads of Delegations who are sub-delegated authorising officers of the Commission. In order to allow the Commission to fulfil its responsibilities, the Heads of Union Delegations should provide the necessary information. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter the \u2018High Representative\u2019) should be informed at the same time and should facilitate the cooperation between Union Delegations and Commission departments. Given the novelty of this structure, high-standard provisions on transparency and budgetary and financial accountability need to be applied.\n(4)\nWithin the EEAS, a Director-General for budget and administration should be responsible to the High Representative for the administrative and internal budgetary management of the EEAS. The Director-General should work within the existing format and follow the same administrative rules which are applicable to the part of Section III of the Union budget that falls under heading 5 of the multiannual financial framework.\n(5)\nThe setting up of the EEAS should be guided by the principles enunciated by the European Council of 29 and 30 October 2009, in particular by the principle of cost-efficiency aiming towards budget neutrality.\n(6)\nThe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that Commission Delegations will become part of the EEAS as Union Delegations. In order to ensure their efficient management, all administrative and support expenditure of Union Delegations which finance common costs should be executed by a single support service. To that effect, the Financial Regulation should provide the possibility for detailed arrangements, to be agreed with the Commission, in order to facilitate the implementation of the Union Delegations' administrative appropriations.\n(7)\nIt is necessary to ensure the continuity of the functioning of Union Delegations and, in particular, continuity and efficiency in the management of external aid by the Delegations. Therefore, the Commission should be authorised to sub-delegate its powers of budget implementation of operational expenditure to Heads of Union Delegations belonging to the EEAS as a separate institution. Furthermore, where the Commission implements the budget under direct centralised management, it should be allowed to do so also through sub-delegation to Heads of Union Delegations. The authorising officers by delegation of the Commission should continue to be responsible for the definition of internal management and control systems, while the Heads of Union Delegations should be responsible for the adequate setting up and functioning of internal management and control systems and for the management of the funds and the operations carried out within their Delegations. They should report twice a year to that effect. Such delegation may be withdrawn in accordance with the rules applicable to the Commission.\n(8)\nIn order to comply with the principle of sound financial management, Heads of Union Delegations, when acting as sub-delegated authorising officers of the Commission, should apply the Commission rules and should be subject to the same duties, obligations and accountability as any other sub-delegated authorising officer of the Commission. For those purposes, they should also refer to the Commission as their institution.\n(9)\nThe accounting officer of the Commission remains responsible for the entire Commission section of the budget, including accounting operations relating to appropriations sub-delegated to Heads of Union Delegations. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify that the responsibilities of the accounting officer of the EEAS should concern only the EEAS section of the budget, to avoid any overlapping of responsibilities. The Accounting Officer of the Commission should also act as the Accounting Officer of the EEAS in respect of the implementation of the EEAS section of the budget, subject to review.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure coherence and equality of treatment between sub-delegated authorising officers who are EEAS staff and those who are Commission staff, and to ensure that the Commission is properly informed, the special financial irregularities panel of the Commission should also be responsible for handling irregularities within the EEAS where the Commission sub-delegated implementation powers to Heads of Union Delegations. Nevertheless, in order to maintain the link between financial management responsibility and disciplinary action, the Commission should be entitled to request the High Representative to initiate proceedings if the panel finds irregularities concerning those competences of the Commission sub-delegated to the Heads of Union Delegations. In such a case the High Representative should take the appropriate action in accordance with the Staff Regulations (5).\n(11)\nThe internal auditor of the Commission should act as the internal auditor of the EEAS in respect of the implementation of both the Commission and the EEAS sections of the budget, subject to review.\n(12)\nIn order to ensure democratic scrutiny of the implementation of the Union's budget, Heads of Union Delegations should provide an assurance, together with a report including information on the efficiency and effectiveness of internal management and control systems in their Delegation, as well as on the management of operations sub-delegated to them. The Heads of Union Delegations' reports should be annexed to the annual activity report of the responsible authorising officer by delegation and made available to the budgetary authority.\n(13)\nThe term \u2018High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy\u2019 should, for the purposes of the Financial Regulation, be interpreted in accordance with the various functions of the High Representative under Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union.\n(14)\nRegulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\n1. This Regulation lays down the rules for the establishment and the implementation of the general budget of the European Union, (the \u201cbudget\u201d) and the presentation and auditing of the accounts.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation:\n-\nthe term \u201cinstitution\u201d refers to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Ombudsman, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European External Action Service (hereinafter the \u201cEEAS\u201d).\n-\nthe European Central Bank shall not be considered an institution of the Union.\n3. Any reference to \u201cthe Communities\u201d or to \u201cthe Union\u201d shall be understood as a reference to the European Union and / or the European Atomic Energy Community as the context may require.\u2019\n2.\nIn the second paragraph of Article 16, the words \u2018the Commission's External Service\u2019 are replaced by \u2018the Commission and the EEAS\u2019.\n3.\nIn Article 28(1), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Any proposal or initiative submitted to the legislative authority by the Commission, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter the \u201cHigh Representative\u201d) or by a Member State, which may have an impact on the budget, including changes in the number of posts, must be accompanied by a financial statement and by the evaluation provided for in Article 27(4).\u2019\n4.\nIn Article 30(3), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Commission shall make available, in an appropriate manner, information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the budget held by it when the budget is implemented on a centralised basis and directly by its departments or by Union Delegations in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 51, and information on the beneficiaries of funds as provided by the entities to which budget implementation tasks are delegated under other modes of management.\u2019\n5.\nIn the first paragraph of Article 31, the words \u2018the European Council and\u2019 are inserted in front of the words \u2018the Council\u2019 and the words \u2018and the European External Action Service\u2019 are inserted in front of the words \u2018shall draw up\u2019.\n6.\nIn Article 31, the following paragraph is inserted after the first paragraph:\n\u2018The EEAS shall draw up an estimate of its revenue and expenditure, which it shall send to the Commission before 1 July each year. The High Representative will hold consultations with the Members of the Commission responsible for development policy, neighbourhood policy and international cooperation, humanitarian aid and crisis response, regarding their respective responsibilities.\u2019\n7.\nIn Article 33, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. In accordance with Article 8(5) of Council Decision 2010/427/EU of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (6) and in order to ensure the budgetary transparency in the area of external action of the Union, the Commission shall transmit to the budgetary authority, together with the draft budget, a working document presenting, in a comprehensive way,\n-\nall administrative and operational expenditure related to the external actions of the Union, including Common Foreign and Security Policy / Common Security and Defence Policy (CFSP/CSDP) tasks, and financed from the Union's budget;\n-\nthe EEAS' overall administrative expenditure for the previous year, broken down into expenditure by delegation and expenditure for the EEAS' central administration; together with the operational expenditure, broken down by geographic area (regions, countries), thematic areas, Union Delegation and mission.\nThe working document shall also:\n-\nshow the number of posts for each grade in each category and the number of permanent and temporary posts, including contractual and local staff authorised within the limits of the budget appropriations in each Union Delegation, as well as in the central administration of the EEAS;\n-\nshow any increase or reduction of posts by grade and category in the central administration of the EEAS, and in all Union Delegations based on the preceding year;\n-\nshow the number of posts authorised for the financial year, the number of posts authorised for the preceding year, as well as the number of posts occupied by diplomats seconded from the Member States, Council and Commission staff; provide a detailed picture of all staff in place in the Union Delegations at the time of presenting the draft budget, including a breakdown by geographic area, individual country and mission, distinguishing establishment plan posts, contract agents, local agents and seconded national experts and appropriations requested in the draft budget for such other types of personnel with corresponding estimates of the equivalent full-time staff that may be employed within the limits of the appropriations requested.\n8.\nIn Article 46(1), the following point is added:\n\u2018(6)\nthe total amount of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) expenditure shall be entered into one budget chapter, entitled CFSP, with specific budgetary articles. Those articles shall cover CFSP expenditure and shall contain specific budget lines identifying at least the single major missions\u2019.\n9.\nIn the first paragraph of Article 50, the following sentences are added:\n\u2018However, detailed arrangements may be agreed with the Commission in order to facilitate the implementation of the Union Delegations' administrative appropriations. Those arrangements shall not contain any derogation from the provisions of the Financial Regulation or its implementing rules.\u2019\n10.\nIn Article 51, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u2018However, the Commission may delegate its powers of budget implementation concerning the operational appropriations of its own section to the Heads of Union Delegations. It shall, at the same time, inform the High Representative thereof. When Heads of Union Delegations act as sub-delegated authorising officers of the Commission, they shall apply the Commission rules for the implementation of the budget and shall be submitted to the same duties, obligations and accountability as any other sub-delegated authorising officer of the Commission.\nThe Commission may withdraw that delegation in accordance with its own rules.\nFor the purposes of the second paragraph, the High Representative shall take the measures necessary to facilitate the cooperation between Union Delegations and Commission departments.\u2019\n11.\nArticle 53a is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 53a\nWhere the Commission implements the budget on a centralised basis, implementation tasks shall be performed, either directly by its departments or by Union Delegations in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 51, or indirectly, in accordance with Articles 54 to 57.\u2019\n12.\nIn Article 59, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. Where Heads of Union Delegations act as authorising officers by sub-delegation in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 51, they shall be subject to the Commission as the institution responsible for the definition, exercise, control and appraisal of their duties and responsibilities as authorising officers by sub-delegation. The Commission shall, at the same time, inform the High Representative thereof.\u2019\n13.\nAt the end of the second subparagraph of Article 60(7), the following sentence is added:\n\u2018The annual activity reports of the authorising officers by delegation shall also be made available to the budgetary authority.\u2019\n14.\nIn section 2, the following Article is added:\n\u2018Article 60a\n1. Where Heads of Union Delegations act as authorising officers by sub-delegation in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 51, they shall cooperate closely with the Commission for the proper implementation of the funds, in order to ensure, in particular, the legality and regularity of financial transactions, the respect of the principle of sound financial management in the management of the funds and the effective protection of the financial interests of the Union.\nTo this effect, they shall take the measures necessary to prevent any situation susceptible to put at stake the responsibility of the Commission for the implementation of the budget sub-delegated to them as well as any conflict of priorities which is likely to have an impact on the implementation of the financial management tasks sub-delegated to them.\nWhere a situation or conflict of the type referred to in the second subparagraph arises, the Heads of Union Delegations shall inform the responsible Directors-General of the Commission and of the EEAS thereof without delay. Those Directors-General shall take appropriate steps to remedy the situation.\n2. If Heads of Union Delegations find themselves in a situation referred to in Article 60(6), they shall refer the matter to the specialised financial irregularities panel set up pursuant to Article 66(4). In the event of any illegal activity, fraud or corruption which may harm the interests of the Union, they shall inform the authorities and bodies designated by the applicable legislation.\n3. Heads of Union Delegations acting as authorising officers by sub-delegation in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 51 shall report to their authorising officer by delegation so that the latter can integrate their reports in his annual activity report referred to in Article 60(7). The reports of the Heads of Union Delegations shall include information on the efficiency and effectiveness of internal management and control systems put in place in their Delegation, as well as on the management of operations sub-delegated to them, and provide the assurance pursuant to Article 66(3a). These reports shall be annexed to the annual activity report of the authorising officer by delegation, and shall be made available to the budgetary authority taking into account, where appropriate, their confidentiality.\nThe Heads of Union Delegations shall fully cooperate with institutions involved in the discharge procedure and provide, as appropriate, any additional necessary information. In this context, they may be requested to attend meetings of the relevant bodies and assist the responsible authorising officer by delegation.\n4. Heads of Union Delegations acting as authorising officers by sub-delegation in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 51 shall reply to any request by the authorising officer by delegation of Commission at its own request or, in the context of discharge, at the request of the European Parliament.\n5. The Commission shall ensure that sub-delegating powers are not detrimental to the discharge procedure, in accordance with Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\u2019\n15.\nIn Article 61(1), the following subparagraphs are added after point (f):\n\u2018The responsibilities of the accounting officer of EEAS shall concern only the EEAS section of the budget as implemented by the EEAS. The accounting officer of the Commission shall remain responsible for the entire Commission section of the budget, including accounting operations relating to appropriations sub-delegated to Heads of Union Delegations.\nThe accounting officer of the Commission shall also act as the accounting officer of the EEAS in respect of the implementation of the EEAS section of the budget, subject to Article 186a.\u2019\n16.\nArticle 66 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\u20183a. In the event of sub-delegation to the Heads of Union Delegations, the authorising officer by delegation shall be responsible for the definition of the internal management and control systems put in place, their efficiency and effectiveness. The Heads of Union Delegations shall be responsible for the adequate setting up and functioning of those systems, in accordance with the instructions of the authorising officer by delegation, and for the management of the funds and the operations they carry out within the Union Delegation under their responsibility. Before taking up their duties, they must complete specific training courses on the tasks and responsibilities of authorising officers and the implementation of the budget, in accordance with Article 50 of the Implementing Rules.\nHeads of Union Delegations shall report on their responsibilities pursuant to the first subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with Article 60a(3).\nEach year, Heads of Union Delegations shall provide to the authorising officer by delegation of the Commission the assurance on the internal management and control systems put in place in their Delegation, as well as on the management of operations sub-delegated to them and the results thereof, in order to allow the authorising officer to establish his statement of assurance, as provided for in Article 60(7).\u2019\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20185. Where Heads of Union Delegations act as authorising officers by sub-delegation in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 51, the specialised financial irregularities panel set up by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article shall be competent for cases referred to in that paragraph.\nIf the panel detects systemic problems, it shall send a report with recommendations to the authorising officer, the High Representative and to the authorising officer by delegation of the Commission, provided the latter is not the person involved, as well as to the internal auditor.\nOn the basis of the opinion of the panel, the Commission may request the High Representative to initiate, in the High Representative's capacity as appointing authority, proceedings entailing liability to disciplinary action or to payment of compensation against authorising officers by sub-delegation if irregularities concern the competencies of the Commission sub-delegated to them. In such a case, the High Representative will take appropriate action in accordance with the Staff Regulations in order to enforce decisions on disciplinary action and/or the payment of compensation, as recommended by the Commission.\nThe Member States shall fully support the Union in the enforcement of any liability under Article 22 of the Staff Regulations of temporary staff to whom Article 2, point (e) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities applies.\u2019\n17.\nIn Article 85, the following paragraphs are added:\n\u2018For the purposes of the internal auditing of the EEAS, Heads of Union Delegations, acting as authorising officers by sub-delegation in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 51 shall be subject to the verifying powers of the internal auditor of the Commission for the financial management sub-delegated to them.\nThe internal auditor of the Commission shall also act as the internal auditor of the EEAS in respect of the implementation of the EEAS section of the budget, subject to Article 186a.\u2019\n18.\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 147a\nThe EEAS shall be fully subject to the procedures provided for in Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Articles 145 to 147 of this Regulation. The EEAS shall fully cooperate with the institutions involved in the discharge procedure and provide, as appropriate, any additional necessary information, including through attendance at meetings of the relevant bodies.\u2019\n19.\nIn Article 163, the first sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The actions referred to in this Title may be implemented on a centralised basis by the Commission pursuant to Article 53a, by shared management, on a decentralised basis by the beneficiary third country or countries, or jointly with international organisations in compliance with the relevant provisions of Articles 53 to 57.\u2019\n20.\nIn Article 165, the first sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The implementation of actions by beneficiary third countries or international organisations is subject to scrutiny by the Commission and by Union Delegations in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 51.\u2019\n21.\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 186a\nThe third subparagraph of Article 61(1) and the third paragraph of Article 85 will be reviewed in 2013 taking due account of the specificity of the EEAS and in particular that of the Union Delegations, and, where appropriate, an adequate financial management capacity of the EEAS.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["62", "87", "0", "27", "72", "18", "71", "88", "76", "59", "83", "48", "40", "43", "66", "16", "41", "38", "94", "92", "17", "68", "74", "8", "78", "19", "1", "21", "35", "85", "No Label", "7", "9", "10", "32", "33", "46"], "gold": ["7", "9", "10", "32", "33", "46"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 167/2012\nof 24 February 2012\nfixing the maximum amount of aid granted for the private storage of olive oil under the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 111/2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(d) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 111/2012 of 9 February 2012 opening the tendering procedure for aid for private storage of olive oil (2) provides for two tendering sub-periods.\n(2)\nUnder Article 13(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 of 20 August 2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products (3), on the basis of the tenders notified by the Member States the Commission is to decide whether or not to fix a maximum amount of aid.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders submitted in response to the first partial invitation to tender, a maximum amount of aid for private storage of olive oil should be fixed for the tendering sub-period ending on 21 February 2012. The fixing of such a maximum amount of aid would lead to the global quantity provided for in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 111/2012 being exceeded. Consequently, in accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008, the Commission is fixing an allocation coefficient for tenders which have been introduced at the maximum aid level in order to comply with the global quantity laid down.\n(4)\nIn order to send the market a swift signal and ensure that the measure is managed efficiently, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. For the tendering sub-period ending on 21 February 2012 under the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 111/2012, the maximum amount of aid for olive oil is hereby fixed in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. An allocation coefficient of 84,00456 % shall apply to tenders introduced at the maximum aid level.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2012.", "references": ["1", "32", "74", "78", "99", "48", "3", "90", "92", "25", "87", "69", "97", "45", "96", "42", "66", "83", "40", "43", "27", "5", "76", "28", "46", "55", "89", "63", "35", "11", "No Label", "15", "20", "26", "62", "70"], "gold": ["15", "20", "26", "62", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 14 December 2011\namending Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU on granting Union financial assistance to Portugal\n(2012/92/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUpon a request by Portugal, the Council granted financial assistance to it (Council Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU (2)) in support of a strong economic and financial adjustment programme (Programme) aiming at restoring confidence, enabling the return of the economy to sustainable growth, and safeguarding financial stability in Portugal, the euro area and the Union.\n(2)\nUnder the Commission\u2019s current projections for nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth (- 0,6 % in 2011, - 1,9 % in 2012, 1,9 % in 2013 and 3,9 % in 2014), the fiscal adjustment path is in line with the Council Recommendation to Portugal of 2 December 2009 with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive government deficit, pursuant to Article 126(7) of the Treaty, and consistent with a path for the debt-to-GDP ratio of 107,2 % in 2011, 116,2 % in 2012, 118,1 % in 2013 and 116 % in 2014. The debt-to-GDP ratio would therefore be stabilised in 2013 and be placed on a declining path thereafter, assuming further progress in the reduction of the deficit. Debt dynamics are affected by several below-the-line operations, including sizeable acquisitions of financial assets, in particular for possible bank recapitalisation and financing to state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and differences between accrued and cash interest payments.\n(3)\nThe quarterly quantitative performance criterion on the general government cash balance for the second quarter of 2011 was met and preliminary data suggest that this was also the case in the third quarter of 2011. However, with the information available as of early November, on a European Systems of Accounts (ESA95) basis, a budgetary gap of around 1,5 % of GDP is projected for 2011 as a whole. Part of this fiscal gap had been ascertained by August, in particular due to current expenditure overruns, lower-than-projected current non-tax revenue and higher-than-budgeted capital spending. The Portuguese Government had taken some measures to narrow this gap, namely a one-time surcharge in personal income tax and an increase in the VAT rate for natural gas and electricity, which was brought forward to 1 October 2011 from 2012. But these measures were not sufficient to close the fiscal gap, particularly as further slippages have been identified more recently, including higher interest payment, lower-than-projected capital revenue and sales of real estate. The Portuguese Government is seeking an agreement with the banks on a partial transfer of their pension funds to the State social security system, to be undertaken in full compliance with the Union State aid rules, and to be used exceptionally to meet the deficit target of 5,9 % of GDP in 2011. The Portuguese Government agreed not to rely on further transfers of pension funds to meet the Programme targets for the coming years.\n(4)\nProgress is being made to strengthen public financial management through improved reporting and monitoring, and reforming the budgetary framework in line with the recommendations from Commission services and International Monetary Fund (IMF) staff.\n(5)\nThe stock of arrears should be significantly reduced over the Programme period. To this end, a strategy for the validation and settlement of arrears for the entities inside the general government as well as for SOEs classified outside the general government should be prepared. In this strategy, a roadmap should be provided which sets out how and when the stock of arrears should be stabilised. Moreover, various options of settling arrears should be explored, providing appropriate incentive mechanisms including the potential of rebates for early settlements and rewarding entities that no longer accumulate new arrears.\n(6)\nGiven the significant drag that the Autonomous Region of Madeira has exerted on Portuguese public finances, the Portuguese Government should prepare a financial arrangement with that region with a view to containing the high level of fiscal risks still remaining. The arrangement should be designed in line with the Programme and comprise, among others, a debt sustainability analysis.\n(7)\nPortuguese banks are to work towards meeting the higher capital requirements as stipulated by the Programme, taking also into account the implications deriving from the European Banking Authority-led exercise based on the valuation of sovereign exposures according to end-September market prices, the special on-site inspection programme and the transfer of banks\u2019 pension funds to the State social security system. A legal framework, the purpose of which is to provide temporary public support to banks, is under preparation. A balanced and orderly deleveraging of the banking sector remains critical, while safeguarding adequate credit for the productive sectors of the economy. The sale of Banco Portugu\u00eas de Neg\u00f3cios is in its final stage although the transaction still needs clearance from the Union competition authorities. Progress has also been made to strengthen the supervisory and regulatory framework, including via technical assistance.\n(8)\nProgress in labour and product market reforms is essential to restore competitiveness and raise the growth potential. Labour market reforms to align the protection and rights under fixed and open-ended contracts and to establish an employer-financed fund for paying out workers\u2019 severance entitlements are advancing. The privatisation programme is being implemented under the new framework law for privatisation. A deep and urgent restructuring of SOEs is at the top of the Portuguese Government\u2019s agenda. Further progress is needed to lower entry barriers to the sheltered sectors with a view to fostering competition and reduce excessive rents. Structural reforms should be implemented decisively and closely monitored.\n(9)\nNotwithstanding the relatively large first and second disbursements, the Portuguese Government\u2019s cash position remains under strain. This is explained by increasing financing needs from SOEs, a sharp increase in households\u2019 redemption of savings certificates, and persisting financial market stress.\n(10)\nIn light of these developments, Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 3 of Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The general government deficit shall not exceed EUR 10 068 million (equivalent to 5,9 % of GDP based on current projections) in 2011, EUR 7 645 million (4,5 % of GDP) in 2012 and 3,0 % of GDP by 2013 in line with the excessive deficit procedure requirements. For the calculation of this deficit, the possible budgetary costs of bank support measures in the context of the Portuguese Government\u2019s financial sector strategy shall not be taken into account. Consolidation shall be achieved by means of high-quality permanent measures and minimising the impact of consolidation on vulnerable groups.\u2019;\n(2)\nparagraph 5 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoints (a) and (b) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\n2011 fiscal deficit target shall be reached by an exceptional measure. Assets acquired as a result of the transfer of banks pensions funds to the State social security system shall not be used in a way detrimental to long-term sustainability of Portuguese public finances;\n(b)\nPortugal shall adopt measures to reinforce public finance management. Portugal shall implement the measures provided for in the new Budgetary Framework Law, including setting up a medium-term budgetary framework and establishing an independent Fiscal Council. The budgetary framework at local and regional levels shall be considerably strengthened, in particular by putting forward the key options for the alignment of the respective financing laws to the requirements of the Budgetary Framework Law. Portugal shall step up reporting and monitoring of public finances and reinforce budgetary execution rules and procedures. The Portuguese Government shall prepare a strategy for the validation and settlement of arrears which is to present a roadmap setting out how and when the stock of arrears is to be stabilised and explore various options of settling arrears. Regarding Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), the Portuguese Government shall not enter into any new PPPs before the study results on existing PPPs envisaged in the Programme and the legal and institutional reforms proposed become available;\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nPortugal shall continue opening up the economy to competition. The Portuguese Government shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the Portuguese State or any public body does not conclude, in a shareholder capacity, agreements which may hinder the free movement of capital or influence the management control of companies. The new Privatisation Law shall also be respectful of the principles of free movement of capital and not grant or allow special rights to the State. A revision of competition law shall be undertaken aiming at improving the speed and effectiveness of enforcement of competition rules;\u2019;\n(c)\npoint (h) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(h)\nPortugal shall prepare a financial arrangement with the Autonomous Region of Madeira (RAM) consistent with the Programme. Until the agreement of that arrangement and its implementation in the RAM budget, Portugal shall closely monitor the execution of the RAM budget, shall keep transfers from the State to the RAM government suspended and shall not honour any new commercial or financial debt or guarantees by the RAM government and its SOEs that are not approved by the Ministry of Finance.\u2019;\n(3)\nparagraph 6 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoints (a) to (d) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nPortugal shall implement the privatisation programme. In particular, the sale of public sector shares in EDP shall be completed in 2012. In addition, the public sector shares in REN and GALP, and, if market conditions permit, TAP, shall be sold in 2012. A strategy for Parpublica shall be prepared, reconsidering the role of Parpublica as a public company and considering the possibility of winding down the company or consolidating it with the general government. The privatisation plan through 2013 shall also cover Aeroportos de Portugal, the freight branch of Comboios de Portugal, Correios de Portugal and Caixa Seguros, as well as a number of smaller firms;\n(b)\nthe measures defined in points (c) and (d), amounting to at least EUR 8,8 billion, shall be included in the 2012 budget. Further measures, mostly on the expenditure side, shall be taken to fill any possible gap arising from budgetary developments in 2012;\n(c)\nthe budget shall provide for a reduction of expenditure in 2012 of at least EUR 6,7 billion including a reduction in public sector wages and employment; cuts in pensions; a comprehensive reorganisation of the central administration, eliminating duplicities and other inefficiencies; reducing the number of municipalities and parishes; cuts in education and health; lower transfers to regional and local authorities; and reductions in capital expenditure and in other expenditure as set out in the Programme;\n(d)\non the revenue side, the budget shall include revenue measures totalling around EUR 2,1 billion in a full year, including by broadening VAT bases through reducing exemptions and rearranging the lists of goods and services subject to reduced, intermediate and higher rates; an increase in excise taxes; broadening the corporate and personal income tax bases by reducing tax deductions and special regimes; ensuring the convergence of personal income tax deductions applied to pensions and labour income; and changes in property taxation by substantially reducing exemptions. These measures shall be complemented by action to fight tax evasion, fraud and informality;\u2019;\n(b)\npoints (k) and (l) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(k)\nPortugal shall promote wage developments consistent with the objectives of fostering job creation and improving firms\u2019 competitiveness with a view to correcting macroeconomic imbalances. Over the Programme period, any increase in minimum wages shall take place only if justified by economic and labour market developments. Measures shall be taken to address weaknesses in the current wage bargaining schemes, including legislation to redefine the criteria and modalities of the extension of collective agreements and to facilitate firm-level agreements. Until then, the application of extensions shall be suspended;\n(l)\nan action plan shall be prepared to improve the quality of secondary and vocational education and training;\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following point is added:\n\u2018(p)\nPortugal shall adopt measures to ensure the sustainability of the national electricity system leading to the elimination of the tariff debt by 2020 and ensuring it shall stabilise by 2013. These measures shall correct excessive rents and cover all their sources.\u2019;\n(4)\nparagraph 7 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoints (a) and (b) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe 2013 budget shall include fiscal consolidation measures amounting to at least EUR 3,4 billion aiming at a reduction of the general government deficit within the timeframe referred to in Article 3(3);\n(b)\nthe budget shall include revenue measures including in particular further broadening of corporate and personal income tax bases, higher excises taxes and changes in property taxation, yielding close to EUR 0,7 billion of additional revenue;\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following points are added:\n\u2018(d)\non the expenditure side, the budget shall provide for a reduction of at least EUR 2,7 billion, including reducing expenditures in the central administration, education and health; transfers to local and regional authorities; reduction of the number of employees in the public sector; and lower costs by SOEs;\n(e)\nPortugal shall improve the business environment by reducing administrative burden through the extension of simplification reforms (Points of Single Contact and \u2018Zero Authorisation\u2019 projects) to all sectors of the economy; and by alleviating credit constraints of small and medium-sized enterprises, including through the implementation of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (3).\n(5)\nparagraph 8 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe introductory wording is replaced by the following:\n\u20188. With a view to restoring confidence in the financial sector, Portugal shall adequately recapitalise its banking sector and ensure an orderly deleveraging process. In that regard, Portugal shall develop and agree with the Commission, the ECB and the IMF a strategy for the future structure and functioning of the Portuguese banking sector so that financial stability is preserved. In particular, Portugal shall:\u2019;\n(b)\npoints (a) to (g) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nadvise banks to strengthen their collateral buffers on a sustainable basis and monitor the issuance of the government guaranteed bank bonds, which has been authorised up to EUR 35 billion in line with Union State aid rules;\n(b)\nfollow closely the plans presented by the banks to reach a core Tier 1 ratio of 9 % by end-2011 and 10 % at the latest by end-2012. The capital requirements stemming from valuing sovereign debt based on market prices according to the European Banking Authority shall be met in June 2012 together with the capital implications from the special on-site inspections programme and the transfer of the banks\u2019 pension funds to the State social security system. Banks shall present in February 2012 plans on how they intend to reach their capital needs in that year. If banks cannot reach the capital requirement thresholds on time, they might temporarily require public provision of capital, which for privately owned banks shall be available through the EUR 12 billion bank solvency support facility established under the Programme;\n(c)\nensure a balanced and orderly deleveraging of the banking sector, which remains critical to eliminating funding imbalances on a permanent basis. Banks\u2019 funding plans aim at a reduction in the loan-to-deposit ratio to around 120 % by the end of the Programme and a reduction of the reliance on Eurosystem funding during the duration of the Programme. These funding plans shall be reviewed quarterly, with the next one due before the third Programme review. The Bank of Portugal shall take appropriate action in case of deviations from the banks\u2019 funding plans;\n(d)\ncomplete the sale of Banco Portugu\u00eas de Neg\u00f3cios respecting the Union State aid rules;\n(e)\nensure that the state-owned Caixa Geral de Dep\u00f3sitos (CGD) is streamlined to increase the capital base of its core banking arm as needed in 2011 without relying on the sale of its insurance arm. This sale is expected to take place in 2012 directly to a final buyer and to contribute to meeting that year\u2019s additional capital needs. Insofar as these needs cannot be met from internal group sources, CGD shall be provided with government capital support outside of the bank solvency support facility;\n(f)\nensure that the partial transfer of the banks\u2019 pension funds to the State social security system is done under actuarially balanced conditions, as well as respecting Union competition and State aid rules. In order to avoid having to take recourse to the bank solvency support within the Programme financing envelope, the Portuguese Government shall offer banks help to cover the impact of the transfer on capital by using part of the transfer to acquire common equity in the banks. The remainder of the transferred funds shall be deposited in a blocked account until the completion of the third Programme review;\n(g)\nfinalise the legal framework for access to capital from public sources by end-January 2012 consistent with Union State aid rules and in line with the principles laid down in the Memorandum of Understanding;\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following points are added:\n\u2018(i)\nensure that before the third Programme review banks have incorporated the available results of the special on-site inspections programme in the stress test exercise with a 6 % Core Tier 1 threshold;\n(j)\ncomplete the legal framework for early intervention, resolution and deposit insurance for banks by end-2011 and by the same deadline the one for corporate and household debt restructuring.\u2019;\n(6)\nparagraph 9 is replaced by the following:\n\u20189. In order to ensure the smooth implementation of the Programme\u2019s conditionality, and to help to correct imbalances in a sustainable way, the Commission shall provide continued advice and guidance on fiscal, financial market and structural reforms. Within the framework of the assistance to be provided to Portugal, together with the IMF and in liaison with the ECB, it shall periodically review the effectiveness and economic and social impact of the agreed measures, and shall recommend necessary corrections with a view to enhancing growth and job creation, securing the necessary fiscal consolidation and minimising harmful social impacts, particularly on the most vulnerable parts of Portuguese society.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2011.", "references": ["5", "87", "17", "55", "12", "81", "48", "29", "36", "26", "69", "61", "45", "4", "85", "79", "88", "62", "93", "0", "41", "28", "80", "64", "19", "71", "38", "7", "50", "94", "No Label", "10", "15", "30", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "30", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 2 December 2010\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Bulgaria\n(2010/758/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2), in particular Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1 of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(5)\nBulgaria has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on dactyloscopic data exchange.\n(6)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by Bulgaria with Austria.\n(7)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in Bulgaria and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the Austrian/Spanish evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(8)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning dactyloscopic data exchange has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching of dactyloscopic data, Bulgaria has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Article 9 of that Decision as from the date of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["11", "89", "84", "20", "51", "77", "16", "57", "28", "76", "48", "82", "7", "3", "95", "21", "94", "79", "14", "22", "81", "63", "80", "44", "19", "5", "9", "53", "85", "50", "No Label", "4", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 13 January 2011\namending Decision 97/556/EC on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards external thermal insulation composite systems/kits with rendering (ETICS)\n(notified under document C(2011) 34)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/14/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988, on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1), and in particular Article 13(4) thereof,\nAfter consulting of the Standing Committee on Construction,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 97/556/EC of 14 July 1997 on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards external thermal insulation composite systems/kits with rendering (ETICS) (2) refers only to products in the scope of European technical approvals while some of those products may also be covered by harmonised European standards.\n(2)\nDecision 97/556/EC should therefore be amended in order to apply also to products falling under the scope of harmonised European standards to be elaborated by CEN,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 97/556/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe procedure for attesting conformity as set out in Annex II shall be indicated in mandates for guidelines for European technical approvals. The procedure for attesting conformity as set out in Annex III shall be indicated in mandates for harmonised European standards.\u2019;\n2.\na new Annex III is added, as set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 January 2011.", "references": ["4", "73", "19", "62", "10", "67", "5", "27", "63", "24", "35", "66", "0", "41", "31", "86", "81", "51", "56", "36", "11", "83", "17", "23", "79", "22", "14", "28", "58", "96", "No Label", "25", "76", "87"], "gold": ["25", "76", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 294/2012\nof 3 April 2012\namending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 15(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (2) lays down rules concerning the increased level of official controls to be carried out on imports of feed and food of non-animal origin listed in Annex I thereto (the list), at the points of entry into the territories referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\n(2)\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 provides that the list is to be reviewed on a regular basis, and at least quarterly, taking into account at least the sources of information referred to in that Article.\n(3)\nThe occurrence and relevance of food incidents notified through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), the findings of missions to third countries carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office, as well as the quarterly reports on consignments of feed and food of non-animal origin submitted by Member States to the Commission in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 indicate that the list should be amended.\n(4)\nIn particular, the list should be amended by deleting the entries for commodities for which those information sources indicate an overall satisfactory degree of compliance with the relevant safety requirements provided for in Union legislation and for which an increased level of official control is therefore no longer justified.\n(5)\nIn addition, the list should be amended by increasing the official control frequency for the commodities for which the same source of information show a higher degree of non-compliance with the relevant Union legislation that warrants the increase of level of official controls.\n(6)\nThe entries in the list for certain imports from India and for certain other commodities from all third countries should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe amendment to the list concerning the deletion of the entries for certain commodities should apply as soon as possible, as the original safety concerns have been satisfied. Accordingly, those amendments should apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n(8)\nTaking into account the number of amendments that need to be made to Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009, it is appropriate to replace it by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 669/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 April 2012.\nHowever, the amendments of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 concerning the deletion of entries of Capsicum annuum (crushed or ground), Curry (chilli products), Curcuma longa (turmeric) and Red palm oil for the possible contamination of Sudan dyes shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 April 2012.", "references": ["90", "49", "10", "92", "59", "25", "53", "58", "37", "95", "45", "26", "97", "15", "67", "81", "44", "18", "74", "13", "6", "31", "93", "70", "85", "94", "54", "41", "3", "76", "No Label", "20", "22", "38", "66", "72"], "gold": ["20", "22", "38", "66", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 997/2010\nof 5 November 2010\nsuspending the introduction into the Union of specimens of certain species of wild fauna and flora\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1), and in particular Article 19(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Scientific Review Group,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 provides that the Commission may establish restrictions to the introduction of certain species into the Union in accordance with the conditions laid down in points (a) to (d) thereof. Furthermore, implementing measures for such restrictions have been laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 of 4 May 2006 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (2).\n(2)\nA list of species for which the introduction into the Union is suspended was established in Commission Regulation (EC) No 359/2009 of 30 April 2009 suspending the introduction into the Union of specimens of certain species of wild fauna and flora (3).\n(3)\nOn the basis of recent information, the Scientific Review Group has concluded that the conservation status of certain species listed in Annexes A and B to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 will be seriously jeopardised if their introduction into the Union from certain countries of origin is not suspended. The introduction of the following species should therefore be suspended:\n-\nCuora amboinensis from Vietnam;\n-\nCuora galbinifrons from Laos and Vietnam;\n-\nDendrobium nobile from Laos.\n(4)\nThe Scientific Review Group has also concluded that, on the basis of the most recent available information, the suspension of the introduction into the Union of the following species should no longer be required:\n-\nOvis ammon nigrimontana (Hunting trophies) from Kazakhstan;\n-\nLeucopternis occidentalis from Ecuador and Peru;\n-\nHexaprotodon liberiensis from C\u00f4te d'Ivoire, Guinea Bissau and Sierra Leone;\n-\nHippopotamus amphibius from Democratic Republic of the Congo and Malawi;\n-\nChrysocyon brachyurus from Bolivia and Peru;\n-\nEupleres goudotii, Fossa fossana, Anas bernieri, Mantella baroni, Mantella aff. baroni, Mantella cowanii, Mantella haraldmeieri, Mantella laevigata, Mantella madagascariensis, Mantella manery, Mantella nigricans and Mantella pulchra from Madagascar;\n-\nLeopardus colocolo and Leopardus pajeros from Chile;\n-\nLeptailurus serval from Algeria;\n-\nPrionailurus bengalensis from China (Macau);\n-\nCynogale bennettii from Brunei, China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand;\n-\nEquus zebra hartmannae from Angola;\n-\nMyrmecophaga tridactyla from Belize and Uruguay;\n-\nAlouatta macconnelli from Trinidad and Tobago;\n-\nAteles paniscus, Chalcostigma olivaceum, Heliodoxa rubinoides, Buteo albonotatus, Buteo platypterus, Forpus xanthops, Pionus chalcopterus, Otus roboratus, Pseudoscops clamator, Pulsatrix melanota and Podocnemis sextuberculata from Peru;\n-\nLagothrix cana and Varanus yemenensis from all range States;\n-\nCebus capucinus from Belize;\n-\nCercocebus atys from Ghana;\n-\nCercopithecus ascanius from Burundi;\n-\nCercopithecus cephus from Central African Republic;\n-\nCercopithecus dryas, Glaucidium capense and Phodilus prigoginei from Democratic Republic of the Congo;\n-\nCercopithecus pogonias and Cercopithecus preussi from Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea;\n-\nColobus polykomos from C\u00f4te d'Ivoire;\n-\nColobus vellerosus from C\u00f4te d'Ivoire and Ghana;\n-\nMacaca arctoides from India, Malaysia and Thailand;\n-\nMacaca assamensis from Nepal;\n-\nMacaca fascicularis from Bangladesh and India;\n-\nMacaca leonina, Ratufa bicolor, Psittacula roseata and Strix uralensis davidi from China;\n-\nMacaca maura, Macaca nigra, Macaca nigrescens, Macaca ochreata, Macaca pagensis, Goura cristata, Goura scheepmakeri, Goura victoria, Spizaetus bartelsi, Cacatua sanguinea, Lorius domicella, Alisterus chloropterus chloropterus, Eclectus roratus, Psittacula alexandri, Tanygnathus gramineus, Ninox rudolfi, Otus angelinae, Tyto inexspectata, Tyto nigrobrunnea, Tyto sororcula, Ornithoptera tithonus, Troides andromache (wild and ranched specimens) and Tridacna gigas from Indonesia;\n-\nPapio anubis from Libya;\n-\nPapio papio from Guinea Bissau\n-\nProcolobus verus from Benin, C\u00f4te d'Ivoire, Ghana, Sierra Leone and Togo;\n-\nTrachypithecus phayrei from Cambodia, China and India;\n-\nTrachypithecus vetulus from Sri Lanka;\n-\nGalago demidoff from Burkina Faso and Central African Republic;\n-\nGalago granti from Malawi;\n-\nArctocebus aureus from Central African Republic and Gabon;\n-\nNycticebus pygmaeus from Cambodia and Laos;\n-\nChiropotes chiropotes, Chiropotes israelita, Chiropotes satanas, Chiropotes utahickae, Nannopsittaca panychlora, Pyrrhura leucotis, Touit melanonotus, Touit surdus and Eunectes deschauenseei from Brazil;\n-\nRatufa affinis and Ketupa ketupu from Singapore;\n-\nBalaeniceps rex from Zambia;\n-\nBuceros rhinoceros from Thailand;\n-\nTauraco corythaix, Agapornis fischeri (ranched specimens) and Python sebae from Mozambique;\n-\nTauraco fischeri, Agapornis lilianae, Poicephalus cryptoxanthus, Poicephalus meyeri, Poicephalus rufiventris, Bubo vosseleri, Gongylophis colubrinus and Stigmochelys pardalis from Tanzania;\n-\nTauraco macrorhynchus, Terathopius ecaudatus and Strix woodfordii from Guinea;\n-\nTauraco porphyreolopha from Uganda;\n-\nAccipiter brachyurus, Tyto aurantia, Tyto manusi, Varanus bogerti and Varanus telenesetes from Papua New Guinea;\n-\nAccipiter gundlachi and Aratinga euops from Cuba;\n-\nAccipiter imitator and Nesasio solomonensis from Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands;\n-\nButeo galapagoensis, Pyrrhura albipectus, Pyrrhura orcesi, Conolophus pallidus and Conolophus subcristatus from Ecuador;\n-\nButeo ridgwayi from Dominican Republic and Haiti;\n-\nErythrotriorchis radiatus, Lophoictinia isura, Polytelis alexandrae and Varanus keithhornie from Australia;\n-\nGyps coprotheres from Mozambique, Namibia and Swaziland;\n-\nHarpyopsis novaeguineae from Indonesia and Papua New Guinea;\n-\nFalco deiroleucus from Belize and Guatemala;\n-\nFalco fasciinucha from Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe;\n-\nFalco hypoleucos from Australia and Papua New Guinea;\n-\nMicrastur plumbeus from Colombia and Ecuador;\n-\nPolyplectron schleiermacheri from Indonesia and Malaysia;\n-\nAnthropoides virgo from Sudan;\n-\nBalearica regulorum from Angola, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Swaziland, Uganda;\n-\nPitta nympha from Brunei Darussalam, China, North Korea, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia and South Korea;\n-\nPycnonotus zeylanicus from Malaysia;\n-\nCharmosyna aureicincta from Fiji;\n-\nTrichoglossus johnstoniae, Prioniturus luconensis, Bubo philippensis, Otus fuliginosus, Otus longicornis, Otus mindorensis and Otus mirus from Philippines;\n-\nAgapornis pullarius from Angola and Kenya;\n-\nAmazona agilis and Amazona collaria from Jamaica;\n-\nAmazona mercenaria from Venezuela;\n-\nAmazona xanthops from Bolivia and Paraguay;\n-\nAratinga aurea from Argentina;\n-\nBolborhynchus ferrugineifrons, Hapalopsittaca fuertesi, Pyrrhura calliptera and Pyrrhura viridicata from Colombia;\n-\nPoicephalus robustus from Botswana, Gambia, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa and Swaziland;\n-\nPsittacula finschii from Bangladesh and Cambodia;\n-\nPsittacus erithacus from Burundi, Mali and Togo;\n-\nBubo blakistoni from China, Japan and Russia;\n-\nNinox affinis from India;\n-\nOtus capnodes and Otus paulani from Comoros;\n-\nOtus insularis from Seychelles;\n-\nScotopelia ussheri from C\u00f4te d'Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone;\n-\nHeloderma horridum from Guatemala and Mexico;\n-\nPodocnemis erythrocephala from Colombia and Venezuela;\n-\nPodocnemis expansa from Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela;\n-\nGopherus polyphemus from United States;\n-\nManouria emys from Bangladesh, India, Myanmar and Thailand;\n-\nTestudo horsfieldii from China and Pakistan;\n-\nMontipora caliculata from Tonga.\n(5)\nThe countries of origin of the species which are subject to new restrictions to introduction into the Union pursuant to this Regulation have all been consulted.\n(6)\nAt the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention new nomenclatural references (splitting of species and renaming of genus) for animals were adopted and are reflected accordingly in this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe list of species for which the introduction into the Union is suspended should therefore be amended and Regulation (EC) No 359/2009 should be, for reasons of clarity, replaced.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject to the provisions of Article 71 of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, the introduction into the Union of specimens of the species of wild fauna and flora listed in the Annex to this Regulation is suspended.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 359/2009 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 November 2010.", "references": ["94", "81", "62", "57", "84", "79", "99", "71", "30", "67", "70", "8", "86", "65", "50", "32", "22", "5", "40", "34", "68", "80", "14", "18", "55", "46", "78", "97", "1", "39", "No Label", "0", "7", "20", "23", "25", "58", "59"], "gold": ["0", "7", "20", "23", "25", "58", "59"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 918/2012\nof 5 July 2012\nsupplementing Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps with regard to definitions, the calculation of net short positions, covered sovereign credit default swaps, notification thresholds, liquidity thresholds for suspending restrictions, significant falls in the value of financial instruments and adverse events\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (1), and in particular Article 2(2), Article 3(7), Article 4(2), Article 7(3), Article 13(4), Article 23(7) and Article 30 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 236/2012 imposes certain measures in relation to short selling and credit default swaps. Article 42 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts to supplement the provisions of that Regulation in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This delegated act supplements and amends certain non-essential elements.\n(2)\nThe provisions in this Regulation are closely linked, since the notification and publication thresholds and the determination of uncovered credit default swaps depend on the definitions and the methods of calculation of short positions while the provisions on significant falls in the value of financial instruments and falls in the liquidity of sovereign debt markets and the determination of adverse events are inextricably linked. To ensure coherence between those provisions on short selling which should enter into force at the same time, it is appropriate to include all the provisions required by Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 in a single Regulation.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 236/2012 contains certain definitions. For further clarity and legal certainty, it is appropriate to provide supplementary provisions in relation to the definitions in Article 2(1), in particular when a natural or legal person is considered to own a financial instrument for the purposes of the definition of a short sale and further specification of when a natural or legal person \u2018holds\u2019 a share or debt instrument for the purposes of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 are required. The specifications are chosen to ensure that Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 has the intended effect in a consistent manner despite the divergent approach of the laws of Member States. The concepts of ownership and holding in Member States concerning securities are currently not harmonised but the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 are only intended to apply to short selling and to be without prejudice to any future legal developments such as harmonising legislation.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 236/2012 imposes restrictions and obligations, such as notification and publication requirements, on natural or legal persons holding or entering into net short positions in shares and sovereign debt. Long and short positions in shares and sovereign debt can be held and valued in different ways. In order to ensure a consistent approach and give effect to the intention of the measures on short positions in shares and sovereign debt it is therefore necessary to further specify how net short positions should be calculated. Short sales may occur through single instruments or through baskets of sovereign debt and so it is necessary to specify how short sales through baskets are included in these calculations. In order to ensure a robust approach to the calculation of net short positions, it is necessary to apply a more restrictive approach to specifying long positions than short positions in shares. Because the value of some financial instruments depend on variations in the price of underlying instruments, it is necessary to specify how to account for this. The delta-adjusted methodology is specified since it is a commonly accepted practice.\n(5)\nNet short positions are calculated by reference to the long and short positions held by a natural or legal person. However long and short positions may be held by different entities within a group or in different funds managed by a fund manager. Large net short positions may be concealed by distributing them amongst entities within a group or amongst different funds. To reduce avoidance and ensure that the notifications and reporting of short positions provide an accurate and representative picture, more detailed provisions specifying how the calculation of net short positions should be performed for entities within a group and for fund managers are required. To give effect to these provisions it is necessary to define the meaning of investment strategy in order to clarify which entities\u2019 short positions in a group and which funds\u2019 short positions should be aggregated. It is also necessary to define management activities to clarify which funds\u2019 short positions should be aggregated. In order to ensure that the notifications are made, it is necessary to specify which entities within a group or in different funds are required to perform the calculations and make the notifications.\n(6)\nRegulation (EU) No 236/2012 imposes restrictions on entering into uncovered sovereign credit default swap transactions but permits sovereign covered credit default swaps entered into for legitimate hedging purposes. A wide variety of assets and liabilities may be hedged using sovereign credit default swaps but distinguishing between legitimate hedging and speculation may be difficult in many cases. Detailed and additional specification of the cases in which a sovereign credit default swap can be considered to be covered is therefore required. Where a quantitative measure of correlation needs to be specified on a consistent basis, a simple, widely accepted and understood measure such as the Pearson\u2019s correlation coefficient should be used, calculated as the covariance of two variables divided by the product of their standard deviations. Matching assets and liabilities to create a perfect hedge is in practice difficult due to the diverse characteristics of different assets and liabilities as well as volatility in their values. Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 requires a proportionate approach to measures and when defining an uncovered credit default swap, it is therefore necessary to specify how a proportionate approach should be applied to assets and liabilities hedged by a covered credit default swap. Whereas Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 does not prescribe a specific degree of correlation necessary for a covered position in a sovereign credit default swap, it is necessary to specify that correlation should be meaningful.\n(7)\nRegulation (EU) No 236/2012 requires that a natural or legal person holding a net short position in sovereign debt in excess of a threshold should notify the relevant competent authority of these positions. An appropriate specification of this threshold is therefore required. Minimal values that would not have any significant impact on the relevant sovereign debt market should not require notification and the threshold should take into account, inter alia, the liquidity of each individual bond market and the stock of outstanding sovereign debt as well as the objectives of this measure.\n(8)\nThe data required for the calculation of notification thresholds for net short positions relating to issued sovereign debt will not be available at the date of entry into force of this Regulation. Therefore the two criteria used to set the initial notification thresholds at the date of publication should be firstly the total amount of outstanding issued sovereign debt of the sovereign issuer and secondly the existence of a liquid futures market for that sovereign debt. Revised thresholds should be adopted when the relevant data on all the criteria is available.\n(9)\nWhere the liquidity in a sovereign debt market falls below a certain threshold, the restrictions on investors entering into uncovered short sales of sovereign debt may be lifted temporarily for the purpose of stimulating liquidity in that market. Where there is a significant fall in the value of a financial instrument on a trading venue, competent authorities may prohibit, restrict short selling or otherwise limit transactions in that instrument. There are a wide variety of instruments and it is necessary to specify the threshold for each of the different classes of financial instruments taking into account, differences such as those between the instruments and the different volatilities of their respective markets.\n(10)\nNo threshold for a significant fall in the value of the unit price of a listed UCITS, except for exchange-traded funds that are UCITS, is specified in this Regulation as although the price may vary freely in the trading venue, it is subject to a rule in Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (2) which keeps the prices close to the net asset value of the UCITS. No threshold for a significant fall in the value of derivatives is specified other than those specified in this Regulation.\n(11)\nThis Regulation clarifies the intervention powers of both the relevant competent authorities and the European Securities Markets Authority (ESMA) established and exercising its powers in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) as regards adverse events or developments. A list of these events is required to ensure a consistent approach while permitting appropriate action to be taken where unforeseen adverse events or developments occur.\n(12)\nFor reasons of legal certainty it is necessary that this Regulation enter into force on the same day as Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 919/2012 (4),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down detailed rules supplementing the following Articles of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 with regard to:\n-\nArticle 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 further specifying the definitions of ownership and short sale,\n-\nArticle 3(7) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 further specifying cases of and the method for calculating a net short position and the definition of holding,\n-\nArticle 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 further specifying uncovered positions in sovereign credit default swaps and the calculation methods for groups and fund management activities,\n-\nArticle 7(3) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 further specifying the notification threshold for significant short positions in sovereign debt,\n-\nArticle 13(4) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 further specifying the liquidity threshold for suspending restrictions on short sales of sovereign debt,\n-\nArticle 23(7) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 further specifying the meaning of significant falls in value of financial instruments other than liquid shares,\n-\nArticle 30 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 further specifying criteria and factors to be taken into account in determining in which cases the adverse events or developments referred to in Articles 18 to 21 and Article 27 and the threats referred to in point (a) of Article 28(2) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 arise.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018group\u2019 means those legal entities which are controlled undertakings within the meaning of Article 2(1)(f) of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) and the single natural or legal person that controls such undertaking;\n(b)\n\u2018supra-national issuer\u2019 means an issuer within the meaning of Article 2(1)(d)(i), (iv), (v) and (vi) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012.\nCHAPTER II\nSUPPLEMENTARY SPECIFICATION OF DEFINITIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 2(2) AND ARTICLE 3(7)(a)\nArticle 3\nSpecification of the term \u2018ownership\u2019 and defining a short sale\n1. For the purposes of defining a short sale, the determination, where applicable, of whether a natural or legal person is considered to own a financial instrument when there are legal or beneficial ownerships thereof shall be made in accordance with the law applicable to the relevant short sale of that share or debt instrument. Where natural or legal persons are the beneficial owners of a share or debt instrument, that share or debt instrument shall be deemed to be owned by the ultimate beneficial owner, including where the share or debt instrument is held by a nominee. For the purposes of this Article, the beneficial owner shall be the investor who assumes the economic risk of acquiring a financial instrument.\n2. For the purposes of points (i), (ii) and (iii) of Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, and a \u2018short sale\u2019 within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, does not include:\n(a)\nthe sale of financial instruments that have been transferred under a securities lending or repo agreement, provided that the securities will either be returned or the transferor recalls the securities so that settlement can be effected when it is due;\n(b)\nthe sale of a financial instrument by a natural or legal person who has purchased the financial instrument prior to the sale but has not taken delivery of that financial instrument at the time of the sale provided that the financial instrument will be delivered at such time that the settlement may be effected when due;\n(c)\nthe sale of a financial instrument by a natural or legal person who has exercised an option or a similar claim on that financial instrument, provided that the financial instrument will be delivered at such a time that the settlement may be effected when due.\nArticle 4\nHolding\nA natural or legal person is considered to hold a share or debt instrument for the purposes of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 in the following circumstances:\n(a)\nthe natural or legal person owns the share or debt instrument in accordance with Article 3(1);\n(b)\nan enforceable claim to be transferred ownership of the share or debt instrument to the natural or legal person in accordance with the law applicable to the relevant sale.\nCHAPTER III\nNET SHORT POSITIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 3(7)(b)\nArticle 5\nNet short positions in shares - long positions\n1. The holding of a share through a long position in a basket of shares shall, in relation to that share, also be taken into account to the extent that that share is represented in that basket.\n2. Any exposure through a financial instrument other than the share which confers a financial advantage in the event of an increase in the price of the share as set out in Article 3(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 means any exposure to share capital through any one or more of the instruments listed in Annex I, Part 1.\nThe exposure referred to in the first subparagraph depends on the value of the share in respect of which a net short position has to be calculated, and which confers a financial advantage in the event of an increase in the price or value of the share.\nArticle 6\nNet short positions in shares - short positions\n1. A short sale of a share through the short sale of a basket of shares shall, in relation to that share, also be taken into account to the extent that that share is represented in the basket.\n2. For the purposes of Article 3(1)(a) and 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 where a position in a financial instrument, including those listed in Annex I, Part 1, confers a financial advantage in the event of a decrease in the price or value of the share, this position shall be taken into account in calculating the short position.\nArticle 7\nNet short positions in shares - general\nThe following criteria shall be taken into account for the purposes of net short positions referred to in Articles 5 and 6:\n(a)\nit is irrelevant whether a cash settlement or physical delivery of underlying assets has been agreed;\n(b)\nshort positions on financial instruments that give rise to a claim to unissued shares, and subscription rights, convertible bonds and other comparable instruments shall not be considered as short positions when calculating a net short position.\nArticle 8\nNet short position in sovereign debt - long positions\n1. For the purposes of this Article and Annex II, pricing shall mean the yield, or where there is no yield for one of the relevant assets or liabilities or the yield is an inappropriate comparator between the relevant assets or liabilities, it shall mean the price. The holding of a sovereign debt instrument through a long position in a basket of sovereign debt instruments of different sovereign issuers shall in relation to that sovereign debt, also be taken into account to the extent that that sovereign debt is represented in that basket.\n2. For the purpose of Article 3(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, any exposure through an instrument other than the sovereign debt which confers a financial advantage in the event of an increase in the price of the sovereign debt means any exposure through any one or more of the instruments listed in Annex I, Part 2 provided always that their value depends on the value of the sovereign debt in respect of which a net short position has to be calculated, and which confers a financial advantage in the event of an increase in the price or value of the sovereign debt.\n3. Provided always that they are highly correlated in accordance with Article 3(5) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 and with paragraphs 4 and 5, all net holdings of sovereign debt of a sovereign issuer which is highly correlated with the pricing of the sovereign debt in any short position shall be included in the calculation of the long position. Sovereign debt instruments from issuers located outside the Union shall not be included.\n4. For assets with a liquid market price, a high correlation between the pricing of a debt instrument of another sovereign issuer and the pricing of the debt of the given sovereign issuer shall be measured on a historical basis using daily accumulated weighted data for the 12-month period preceding the position in the sovereign debt. For assets for which there is no liquid market or where the price history is less than 12 months, an appropriate proxy of similar duration shall be used.\n5. For the purposes of Article 3(5) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, a debt instrument and a issued sovereign debt shall be considered to be highly correlated where the Pearson\u2019s correlation coefficient is at least 80 % between the pricing of the debt instrument of another sovereign issuer and the pricing of the given sovereign debt for the relevant period.\n6. If the position subsequently ceases to be highly correlated based on a rolling 12-month time-frame, then the sovereign debt of the previously highly correlated sovereign issuer shall no longer be taken into account when calculating a long position. However, positions shall not be deemed to cease to be highly correlated where there is a temporary fall in the level of correlation of the sovereign debt for no more than three months below the level set out in paragraph 4, provided that the correlation coefficient is at least of 60 % throughout this three-month period.\n7. In calculating net short positions, it shall be irrelevant whether a cash settlement or physical delivery of underlying assets has been agreed.\nArticle 9\nNet short positions in sovereign debt - short positions\n1. A short sale of sovereign debt through the sale of a basket of sovereign debt shall in relation to that sovereign debt also be taken into account to the extent that that sovereign debt is represented in the basket.\n2. For the purposes of Article 3(1)(a) and 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 where a position in an instrument, including those listed in Article 8(2), confers a financial advantage in the event of a decrease in the price or value of the sovereign debt, this position shall be taken into account in calculating the short position.\n3. Any sovereign credit default swap referenced to a sovereign issuer shall be included in the calculation of net short positions in that sovereign debt. Sales of sovereign credit default swaps shall be considered to be long positions and purchases of sovereign credit default swaps shall be considered to be short positions.\n4. If a sovereign credit default swap position is hedging a risk other than the referenced sovereign debt, the value of the hedged risk cannot be treated as a long position for the purposes of calculating whether a natural or legal person has a net short position in the issued sovereign debt of a sovereign issuer.\n5. In calculating net short positions, it is irrelevant whether cash settlement or physical delivery of underlying assets has been agreed.\nArticle 10\nMethod of calculation of net short positions in relation to shares\n1. For the purposes of calculating the net short position in shares pursuant to Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, the delta-adjusted model for shares set out in Annex II shall be used.\n2. Any calculations by a natural or legal person of a long and short position in relation to the same shares shall use the same methods.\n3. The calculation of net short positions shall take into account transactions in all financial instruments, whether on or outside a trading venue, that confer a financial advantage in the event of a change in price or value of the share.\nArticle 11\nCalculation of net short positions for sovereign debt\n1. For the purposes of Article 3(5) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, net short positions in sovereign debt shall be calculated by taking into account transactions in all financial instruments that confer a financial advantage in the event of a change in the price or yield of the sovereign debt. The delta-adjusted model for sovereign debt set out in Annex II shall be used.\n2. In accordance with Article 3(6) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 positions shall be calculated for every sovereign issuer in which a natural or legal person holds a short position.\nCHAPTER IV\nNET SHORT POSITIONS IN FUNDS OR GROUPS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 3(7)(c)\nArticle 12\nMethod of calculating positions for management activities related to several funds or managed portfolios\n1. The calculation of the net short position in a particular issuer shall be made in accordance with Article 3(7)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 for each individual fund, irrespective of its legal form and for each managed portfolio.\n2. For the purposes of Article 12 and Article 13, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018investment strategy\u2019 means a strategy that is pursued by a management entity, regarding a particular issuer, that aims to have either a net short or a net long position taken through transactions in various financial instruments issued by or that relate to that issuer;\n(b)\n\u2018management activities\u2019 means management of funds irrespective of their legal form and portfolio management in accordance with mandates given by clients on a discretionary client-by-client basis where such portfolios include one or more financial instruments;\n(c)\n\u2018management entity\u2019 means a legal person or entity, including a division, unit or department that manages, on a discretionary basis, funds or portfolios pursuant to a mandate.\n3. The management entity shall aggregate the net short positions of the funds and portfolios under its management for which the same investment strategy is pursued in relation to a particular issuer.\n4. When applying the method described above, the management entity shall:\n(a)\ntake into account the positions of the funds and portfolios the management of which has been delegated by a third party;\n(b)\nexclude the positions of the funds and portfolios the management of which it has delegated to a third party.\nThe management entity shall report, and disclose where required, the net short position that results from paragraphs 3 and 4 when it reaches or exceeds a relevant notification or disclosure threshold in accordance with Articles 5 to 11 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012.\n5. Where a single legal entity is performing management activities together with other non-management activities, it shall apply the method described set out in paragraphs 1 to 3 to its management activities only and report, and disclose the resulting net short positions.\n6. For its non-management activities that give rise to the holding of short positions by the entity for its own account, that single legal entity shall perform the calculation of the net short position in a particular issuer in accordance with Article 3(7)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 and report, and disclose the resulting net short positions.\nArticle 13\nMethod of calculating positions for legal entities within a group that have long or short positions in relation to a particular issuer\n1. The calculation of the net short position shall be made in accordance with Article 3(7)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 for each legal entity constituting the group. The relevant legal entity, or on its behalf, the group it belongs to, shall report, and disclose, the net short position in a particular issuer when it reaches or exceeds a notification or disclosure threshold. Where one or more of the legal entities constituting the group are management entities, they shall apply the method described in Article 12(1) to 12(4) for fund and portfolio management activities.\n2. The net short and long positions of all the legal entities constituting the group shall be aggregated and netted, with the exception of the positions of the management entities that perform management activities. The group shall report, and disclose where relevant, the net short position in a particular issuer when it reaches or exceeds a relevant notification or disclosure threshold.\n3. When a net short position reaches or crosses the notification threshold in accordance with Article 5 or disclosure threshold in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 then a legal entity within the group shall report, and disclose in accordance with Articles 5 to 11 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 the net short position in a particular issuer calculated according to paragraph 1 provided that no net short position at group level calculated according to paragraph 2 reaches or crosses a notification or disclosure threshold. A legal entity designated for this purpose shall report, and disclose where relevant, the net short position at group level in a particular issuer calculated according to paragraph 2 when:\n(i)\nno notification or disclosure threshold is reached or crossed by any legal entity within the group;\n(ii)\na notification or disclosure threshold is reached or crossed simultaneously both by the group itself and any legal entity within that group.\nCHAPTER V\nCOVERED SOVEREIGN CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 4(2)\nArticle 14\nCases which are not uncovered sovereign credit default swap positions\n1. In the following cases a sovereign credit default swap position shall not be considered an uncovered position in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012.\n(a)\nIn respect of hedges for the purpose of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, the sovereign credit default swap shall not be considered an uncovered position in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 and shall serve to hedge against the risk of decline in the value of assets or liabilities correlated with the risk of the decline of the value of the sovereign debt which the credit default swap references and where those assets or liabilities refer to public or private sector entities in the same Member State.\n(b)\nA sovereign credit default swap position, in which assets or liabilities refer to public or private sector entities in the same Member State as the reference sovereign for the credit default swap, shall not be considered an uncovered position in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 where it:\n(i)\nreferences a Member State, including any ministry, agency or special purpose vehicle of the Member State, or in the case of a Member State that is a federal state, one of the members making up the federation;\n(ii)\nis used to hedge any assets or liabilities meeting the correlation test set out in Article 18.\n(c)\nA sovereign credit default swap position, where the assets or liabilities refer to a sovereign issuer in which the reference sovereign for the credit default swap is a guarantor or shareholder, shall not be considered an uncovered position in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 where it:\n(i)\nreferences a Member State;\n(ii)\nis used to hedge any assets or liabilities meeting the correlation test set out in Article 18.\n2. For the purposes of point (a) of paragraph 1, a correlation shall exist between the value of the asset or liability being hedged and the value of the referenced sovereign debt as set out in Article 18.\nArticle 15\nCases which are not uncovered sovereign credit default swap positions where the obligor is established or the asset or liability is located in more than one Member State\n1. Where the obligor of, or counterparty to, an asset or liability is established in more than one Member State a sovereign credit default swap position shall not be considered an uncovered position in the following cases, in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, and provided that the correlation test in Article 18 of this Regulation is met in each case:\n(a)\nwhere there is a parent company in one Member State and a subsidiary in another Member State and a loan has been made to the subsidiary. Where there is either explicit or implicit credit support to the subsidiary by the parent, it shall be permissible to purchase sovereign credit default swaps in the Member State of the parent rather than the subsidiary;\n(b)\nwhere there is a parent holding company which own or controls a subsidiary operating company in a different Member States. If the parent company is the issuer of the bond but the assets and revenues that are hedged are owned by the subsidiary, it shall be permissible to buy sovereign credit default swaps referenced to the Member State of the subsidiary;\n(c)\nto hedge an exposure to a company in one Member State which has invested in the sovereign debt of a second Member State to the extent that that company would be significantly impacted in the event of a significant fall in the value of the sovereign debt of the second Member State, provided that the company is established in both Member States. Where the correlation between this risk and the debt of the second Member State is greater than the correlation between this risk and the debt of the Member State in which the company is established it shall be permissible to buy sovereign credit default swaps referenced to the second Member State.\n2. A sovereign credit default swap position shall not be considered an uncovered position in the following cases, in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, and provided that the correlation test in Article 18 of this Regulation is met in each case:\n(a)\nwhere the obligor of, or counterparty to, an asset or liability being hedged is a company which has operations across the Union or where the exposure being hedged relates to the Union or the Member States which have the euro as their currency, it shall be permissible to hedge it with an appropriate European or euro area index of sovereign bond credit default swaps;\n(b)\nwhere the counterparty to an asset or liability being hedged is a supra-national issuer, it shall be permissible to hedge the counterparty risk with an appropriately chosen basket of sovereign credit default swaps referencing that entity\u2019s guarantors or shareholders.\nArticle 16\nJustification of uncovered sovereign credit default swap positions\nAny natural or legal person entering into a sovereign credit default swap position shall, on the request of the competent authority:\n(a)\njustify to that competent authority which of the cases set out in Article 15 were fulfilled at the time the position was entered into;\n(b)\ndemonstrate to that competent authority compliance with the correlation test in Article 18 and the proportionality requirements in Article 19 in respect of that sovereign credit default swap position at any time that they hold that sovereign credit default swap.\nArticle 17\nHedged assets and liabilities\nThe following are cases where assets and liabilities may be hedged through a sovereign credit default swap position, provided the conditions set out in Articles 15 and 18 and in Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 are met:\n(a)\na long position in the sovereign debt of the relevant issuer;\n(b)\nany position or portfolio used in the context of hedging exposures to the sovereign issuer referenced in the credit default swaps;\n(c)\nany assets or liabilities which refer to public sector entities in the Member State whose sovereign debt is referenced in the credit default swap. This includes exposures to central, regional and local administration, public sector entities or any exposure guaranteed by the referred entity and may include financial contracts, a portfolio of assets or financial obligations, interest rate or currency swap transactions where the sovereign credit default swap is used as a counterparty risk management tool for hedging exposure on financial or foreign trade contracts;\n(d)\nexposures to private sector entities established in the Member State which is referenced in the sovereign credit default swap. The exposures in question include but are not limited to loans, counterparty credit risk (including potential exposure when regulatory capital is required for such exposure), receivables and guarantees. The assets and liabilities include but are not limited to financial contracts, a portfolio of assets or financial obligations, interest rate or currency swap transactions where the sovereign credit default swap is used as a counterparty risk management tool for hedging exposure on financial contracts or trade finance exposures;\n(e)\nany indirect exposures to any of the above entities obtained through exposure to indices, funds or special purpose vehicles.\nArticle 18\nCorrelation tests\n1. The correlation test referred to in this Chapter shall be met in either of the following cases:\n(a)\nthe quantitative correlation test shall be met by showing a Pearson\u2019s correlation coefficient of at least 70 % between the price of the assets or liabilities and the price of the sovereign debt calculated on a historical basis using data for at least a period of 12 months of trading days immediately preceding the date when the sovereign credit default swap position is taken out;\n(b)\nthe qualitative correlation shall be met by showing meaningful correlation, which means a correlation that is based on appropriate data and is not evidence of a merely temporary dependence. The correlation shall be calculated on a historical basis using data for the 12 months of trading days before the sovereign credit default swap position is taken out, weighted to the most recent time. A different time-frame shall be used if it is demonstrated that the conditions prevailing in that period were similar to those at the time that the sovereign credit default swap position is to be taken out or which would occur in the period of the exposure being hedged. For assets for which there is not a liquid market price or where there is not a sufficiently long price history, an appropriate proxy shall be used.\n2. The correlation test in paragraph 1 shall be deemed to have been met if it can be demonstrated that:\n(a)\nthe exposure being hedged relates to an enterprise which is owned by the sovereign issuer or where the sovereign issuer owns a majority of its voting share capital or whose debts are guaranteed by the sovereign issuer;\n(b)\nthe exposure being hedged relates to a regional, local or municipal government of the Member State;\n(c)\nthe exposure being hedged relates to an enterprise whose cash flows are significantly dependent on contracts from a sovereign issuer or a project which is funded or significantly funded or underwritten by a sovereign issuer, such as an infrastructure project.\n3. The relevant party shall justify that the correlation test was met at the time that the sovereign credit default swap position was entered into upon request by the relevant competent authority.\nArticle 19\nProportionality\n1. In determining whether the size of the sovereign credit default swap position is proportionate to the size of the exposures hedged, where a perfect hedge is not possible, an exact match is not required and limited over-provision shall be permitted in accordance with paragraph 2. The relevant party shall justify upon request to the competent authority why an exact match was not possible.\n2. Where justified by the nature of the assets and liabilities being hedged and their relationship to the value of the obligations of the sovereign which are within the scope of the credit default swap, a greater value of sovereign credit default swap shall be held to hedge a given value of exposures. However, this shall only be permitted where it is demonstrated that a larger value of sovereign credit default swap is necessary to match a relevant measure of risk associated with the reference portfolio, taking into account as the following factors:\n(a)\nthe size of the nominal position;\n(b)\nthe sensitivity ratio of the exposures to the obligations of the sovereign which are within the scope of the credit default swap;\n(c)\nwhether the hedging strategy involved is dynamic or static.\n3. It is the responsibility of the position holder to ensure that its sovereign credit default swap position remains proportionate at all times and that the duration of the sovereign credit default swap position is aligned as closely as practicable given prevailing market conventions and liquidity with the duration of the exposures being hedged or the period during which the person intends to hold the exposure. If the exposures being hedged by the credit default swap position are liquidated or redeemed, they must either be replaced by equivalent exposures or the credit default swap position must be reduced or otherwise disposed of.\n4. Provided that a sovereign credit default swap position was covered at the time it was entered into, it shall not be treated as becoming uncovered where the sole reason for the position becoming uncovered is a fluctuation in the market value of the hedged exposures or the value of the sovereign credit default swap.\n5. In all circumstances, where parties accept a sovereign credit default swap position as a consequence of their obligations as members of a central counterparty which clears sovereign credit default swap transactions and as a result of the operation of the rules of that central counterparty, such a position shall be treated as involuntary and not as a position that the party has entered into and so shall not be considered uncovered pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012.\nArticle 20\nMethod of calculation of an uncovered sovereign credit default swap position\n1. The calculation of a natural or legal person\u2019s sovereign credit default swap position shall be its net position.\n2. When calculating the value of the eligible risks hedged or to be hedged by a sovereign credit default swap position a distinction shall be made between static and dynamic hedging strategies. For static hedging, such as direct exposures to sovereign or public sector bodies in the sovereign, the metric used shall be the jump to default measure of the loss if the entity to which the position holder is exposed defaults. The resulting value shall then be compared against the net notional value of the credit default swap position.\n3. When calculating the value of market value adjusted risks for which a dynamic hedging strategy is required, the calculations must be undertaken on a risk-adjusted rather than notional basis, taking into account the extent to which an exposure might increase or decrease during its duration and the relative volatilities of the assets and liabilities being hedged and of the referenced sovereign debt. A beta adjustment shall be used if the asset or liability for which the credit default swap position is being used as a hedge is different from the reference asset of the credit default swap.\n4. Indirect exposures to risks, such as through indices, funds, special purpose vehicles, and to credit default swap positions shall be taken into account in proportion to the extent the reference asset, liability or credit default swap is represented in the index, fund or other mechanism.\n5. The value of the eligible portfolio of assets or liabilities to be hedged shall be deducted from the value of the net credit default swaps position held. If the resulting number is positive the position shall be considered to be an uncovered credit default swaps position in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012.\nCHAPTER VI\nNOTIFICATION THRESHOLDS FOR NET SHORT POSITIONS IN SOVEREIGN DEBT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 7(3)\nArticle 21\nNotification thresholds for net short positions relating to the issued sovereign debt\n1. The relevant measure for the threshold that triggers notification to the relevant competent authority of net short positions in the issued sovereign debt of a sovereign issuer shall be a percentage of the total amount of outstanding issued sovereign debt for each sovereign issuer.\n2. The reporting threshold shall be a monetary amount. This monetary amount shall be fixed by applying the percentage threshold to the outstanding sovereign debt of the sovereign issuer and rounding up to the nearest million euro.\n3. The monetary amount implied by the percentage threshold shall be revised and updated quarterly in order to reflect changes in the total amount of outstanding issued sovereign debt of each sovereign issuer.\n4. The monetary amount implied by the percentage threshold and the total amount of outstanding issued sovereign debt shall be calculated in accordance with the method of calculation for net short positions in sovereign debt.\n5. The initial amounts and additional incremental levels for sovereign issuers shall be determined on the basis of the following factors:\n(a)\nthe thresholds shall not require notifications of net short positions of minimal value in any sovereign issuers;\n(b)\nthe total amount of outstanding sovereign debt for a sovereign issuer and average size of positions held by market participants relating to the sovereign debt of that sovereign issuer;\n(c)\nthe liquidity of the sovereign debt market of each sovereign issuer, including, where appropriate, the liquidity of the futures market for that sovereign debt.\n6. Taking into account the factors in paragraph 5, the relevant notification thresholds for the initial amount to be considered for each sovereign issuer is a percentage that equals 0,1 % or 0,5 % of the total amount of outstanding issued sovereign debt. The relevant percentage to be applied for each issuer shall be determined in application of the criteria described in paragraph 5, so that each sovereign issuer is assigned one of the two percentage thresholds used to calculate the monetary amounts that will be relevant for notification.\n7. The two initial threshold categories at the date of entry into force of this Regulation shall be:\n(a)\nan initial threshold of 0,1 % applicable where the total amount of the outstanding issued sovereign debt is between 0 and 500 billion euro;\n(b)\na threshold of 0,5 % applicable where the total amount of the outstanding issued sovereign debt is above 500 billion euro or where there is a liquid futures market for the particular sovereign debt.\n8. The additional incremental levels shall be set at 50 % of the initial thresholds and shall be:\n(a)\neach 0,05 % above the initial notification threshold of 0,1 % starting at 0,15 %;\n(b)\neach 0,25 % above the initial threshold of 0,5 % starting at 0,75 %.\n9. The sovereign issuer shall move to the appropriate threshold group where there has been a change in the sovereign debt market of the sovereign issuer and, applying the factors specified in paragraph 5, that change has subsisted for at least one calendar year.\nCHAPTER VII\nPARAMETERS AND METHODS FOR CALCULATING LIQUIDITY THRESHOLD FOR SUSPENDING RESTRICTIONS ON SHORT SALES OF SOVEREIGN DEBT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 13(4)\nArticle 22\nMethods for calculating and determining the threshold of liquidity for suspending restrictions on short sales in sovereign debt\n1. The measure of liquidity of the issued sovereign debt to be used by each competent authority is the turnover, defined as the total nominal value of debt instruments traded, in relation to a basket of benchmarks with different maturities.\n2. The temporary suspension of restrictions on uncovered short sales in sovereign debt may be triggered when the turnover of a month falls below the fifth percentile of the monthly volume traded in the previous 12 months.\n3. To perform these calculations each competent authority shall use the representative data readily available, from one or more trading venues, from over the counter (OTC) trading or from both, and inform ESMA of the data used thereafter.\n4. Before the competent authorities exercise the power to lift the restrictions on short selling related to sovereign debt, they shall ensure that the significant drop in liquidity is not the result of seasonal effects on liquidity.\nCHAPTER VIII\nSIGNIFICANT FALL IN VALUE FOR FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS OTHER THAN LIQUID SHARES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 23\nArticle 23\nSignificant fall in value for financial instruments other than liquid shares\n1. In respect of a share other than a liquid share, a significant fall in value during a single trading day compared to the closing price of the previous trading day means:\n(a)\na decrease in the price of the share of 10 % or more where the share is included in the main national equity index and is the underlying financial instrument for a derivative contract admitted to trading on a trading venue;\n(b)\na decrease in the price of the share of 20 % or more where the share price is EUR 0,50 or higher, or the equivalent in the local currency;\n(c)\na decrease in the price of the share of 40 % or more in all other cases.\n2. An increase of 7 % or more in the yield across the yield curve during a single trading day for the relevant sovereign issuer shall be considered a significant fall in value for a sovereign bond.\n3. An increase of 10 % or more in the yield of a corporate bond during a single trading day shall be considered a significant fall in value for a corporate bond.\n4. A decrease of 1,5 % or more in the price of a money-market instrument during a single trading day shall be considered a significant fall in value for a money-market instrument.\n5. A decrease of 10 % or more in the price of an exchange-traded fund during a single trading day shall be considered a significant fall in value for an exchange-traded fund, including exchange-traded funds that are UCITS. A leveraged exchange-traded fund shall be adjusted by the relevant leverage ratio to reflect a 10 % fall in the price of an equivalent unleveraged direct exchange-traded fund. A reverse exchange-traded fund shall be adjusted by a factor of -1 to reflect a 10 % fall in the price of an equivalent unleveraged direct exchange-traded fund.\n6. Where a derivative, including financial contracts for difference, is traded on a trading venue and has as its only underlying financial instrument, a financial instrument for which a significant fall in value is specified in this Article and Article 23(5) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, a significant fall in value in that derivative instrument shall be considered to have occurred when there has been a significant fall in that underlying financial instrument.\nCHAPTER IX\nADVERSE EVENTS OR DEVELOPMENTS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 30\nArticle 24\nCriteria and factors to be taken into account in determining when adverse events or developments and threats arise\n1. For the purposes of Articles 18 to 21 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 adverse events or developments that may constitute a serious threat to the financial stability or market confidence in the Member State concerned or in one or more other Member States pursuant to Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 include any act, result, fact, or event that is or could reasonably be expected to lead to the following:\n(a)\nserious financial, monetary or budgetary problems which may lead to financial instability concerning a Member State or a bank and other financial institutions deemed important to the global financial system such as insurance companies, market infrastructure providers and asset management companies operating within the Union when this may threaten the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system in the Union;\n(b)\na rating action or a default by any Member State or banks and other financial institutions deemed important to the global financial system such as insurance companies, market infrastructure providers and asset management companies operating within the Union that causes or could reasonably be expected to cause severe uncertainty about their solvency;\n(c)\nsubstantial selling pressures or unusual volatility causing significant downward spirals in any financial instrument related to any banks and other financial institutions deemed important to the global financial system such as insurance companies, market infrastructure providers and asset management companies operating within the Union and sovereign issuers as the case may be;\n(d)\nany relevant damage to the physical structures of important financial issuers, market infrastructures, clearing and settlement systems, and supervisors which may adversely affect markets in particular where such damage results from a natural disaster or terrorist attack;\n(e)\nany relevant disruption in any payment system or settlement process, in particular when it is related to interbank operations, that causes or may cause significant payments or settlement failures or delays within the Union payment systems, especially when these may lead to the propagation of financial or economic stress in a bank and other financial institutions deemed important to the global financial system such as insurance companies, market infrastructure providers and asset management companies or in a Member State.\n2. For the purposes of Article 27, ESMA shall take into account the possibility of any spillovers or contagion to other systems or issuers and, especially, the existence of any type of self-fulfilling phenomena when considering the criteria in paragraph 1.\n3. For the purposes of Article 28(2)(a), a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union shall mean:\n(a)\nany threat of serious financial, monetary or budgetary instability concerning a Member State or the financial system within a Member State when this may seriously threaten the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union;\n(b)\nthe possibility of a default by any Member State or supra-national issuer;\n(c)\nany serious damage to the physical structures of important financial issuers, market infrastructures, clearing and settlement systems, and supervisors which may seriously affect cross-border markets in particular where such damage results from a natural disaster or terrorist attack when this may seriously threaten the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union;\n(d)\nany serious disruption in any payment system or settlement process, in particular when it is related to interbank operations, that causes or may cause significant payments or settlement failures or delays within the Union cross-border payment systems, especially when these may lead to the propagation of financial or economic stress in the whole or part of the financial system in the Union.\nArticle 25\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 November 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2012.", "references": ["76", "49", "80", "55", "83", "73", "89", "22", "39", "17", "11", "60", "87", "23", "95", "19", "99", "41", "48", "72", "61", "85", "65", "66", "92", "63", "52", "74", "78", "57", "No Label", "25", "30", "32", "42"], "gold": ["25", "30", "32", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1365/2011\nof 19 December 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Carne De Vacuno Del Pa\u00eds Vasco/Euskal Okela (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Spain's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Carne De Vacuno Del Pa\u00eds Vasco / Euskal Okela\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1483/2004 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union, as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation (4). As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["39", "43", "76", "50", "52", "30", "16", "26", "6", "68", "56", "93", "90", "15", "8", "20", "80", "62", "38", "57", "36", "99", "9", "45", "10", "55", "42", "12", "46", "44", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 934/2011\nof 20 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2011.", "references": ["83", "94", "76", "39", "65", "46", "66", "87", "75", "74", "10", "15", "25", "56", "73", "82", "70", "32", "97", "7", "33", "14", "81", "54", "19", "23", "40", "3", "12", "88", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/020 IE/Construction 43 from Ireland)\n(2011/773/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nIreland submitted an application on 9 June 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 1 560 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 43 (\u2018Specialised construction activities\u2019) in the NUTS II regions of Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02) in Ireland, and supplemented it by additional information up to 17 June 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 21 664 148.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Ireland,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 21 664 148 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["12", "39", "67", "14", "98", "88", "51", "7", "85", "35", "65", "4", "36", "84", "93", "71", "28", "47", "94", "99", "83", "30", "2", "72", "59", "92", "37", "26", "41", "46", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "87", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "87", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 531/2011\nof 31 May 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1480/2004 laying down specific rules concerning goods arriving from the areas not under the effective control of the Government of Cyprus in the areas in which the Government exercises effective control\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 866/2004 of 29 April 2004 on a regime under Article 2 of Protocol 10 to the Act of Accession (1) and in particular Article 4(12) thereof,\nAfter consultation of the Line Regulation Committee (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1480/2004 (3) provides for a special regime for phytosanitary inspections of and reporting on goods which consist of plants, plant products and other objects covered by Part B of Annex V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (4).\n(2)\nTrade and economic interaction on the island need to be enhanced in light of experience gained since Regulation (EC) No 1480/2004 entered into force.\n(3)\nPotatoes constitute the most important single product traded across the Green Line.\n(4)\nTo increase the potato trade volume, potato producers in the areas not under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus (hereafter called \u2018the Areas\u2019) should be allowed to grow second crop potatoes from farm saved seed potatoes produced in the Areas.\n(5)\nFarm saved seed potatoes in the Areas are grown directly from EU-certified seeds.\n(6)\nPositive experience in the Green Line potato trade since 2006 has shown that, provided that plant health inspections are performed by independent experts appointed by the Commission and that traceability is ensured, potatoes produced in the Areas do not pose an undue risk to plant health when introduced in the areas under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. As a consequence, certain restrictions imposed by Article 3(1) second subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1480/2004 can be lifted.\n(7)\nIndependent phytosanitary experts appointed by the Commission will be further deployed to the Areas to provide the necessary assurance with regard to traceability and the phytosanitary status of potato crops.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 1480/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1480/2004 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 3(1), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In the case of potatoes, the independent phytosanitary experts shall verify that the potatoes in the consignment were grown directly from seed potatoes certified in one of the Member States or from seed potatoes certified in any other country for which the entry into the Union of potatoes intended for planting is not prohibited pursuant to Annex III to Directive 2000/29/EC or from farm saved seed potatoes which were, under supervision of the experts, grown as the first offspring of the certified seed potatoes referred to in this paragraph\u2019;\n(2)\nAnnex III is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2011.", "references": ["51", "52", "46", "70", "63", "80", "62", "82", "36", "65", "2", "84", "37", "41", "19", "98", "57", "83", "28", "31", "27", "72", "21", "7", "69", "14", "99", "6", "9", "75", "No Label", "61", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["61", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 February 2011\non the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos SA\n(notified under document C(2011) 1006)\n(Only the Greek text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/452/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the decision by which the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU (1), in respect of the aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) (2),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above, and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 9 July 2007, the Commission received a complaint alleging that Greece had granted two State aid measures in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos SA (hereinafter: \u2018Ellinikos Xrysos\u2019). After exchanges of information, on 10 December 2008 the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure on the alleged measures.\n(2)\nGreece submitted its comments to the Commission\u2019s opening decision on 23 February 2009.\n(3)\nThe opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 10 March 2009 (3). Comments were received from four interested parties: from Ellinikos Xrysos, the beneficiary of the alleged measures, on 10 April 2009; from European Goldfields Ltd, the main shareholder of Ellinikos Xrysos, on 10 April 2009; from the Cassandra Mines trade unions on 2 April 2009; from the Hellenic Mining Watch, a Greek society whose purpose is the \u2018protection of the environment and the public against the negative consequences of mining and safeguarding of the national wealth\u2019 (4), on 6 April 2009.\n(4)\nThe comments were transmitted to Greece by letters of 6 May 2009 and 7 July 2009. Greece replied to the interested parties\u2019 comments by letters of 3 June 2009, 20 July 2009 and 23 September 2009.\n(5)\nThe Commission requested further information from the Greek authorities on 19 June 2009, 11 December 2009 and 22 April 2010, to which Greece and Ellinikos Xrysos replied by letters of 23 July 2009, 29 July 2009, 15 January 2010, 11 February 2010, 12 February 2010, 4 May 2010 and 27 May 2010. Further informal exchange of information took place by e-mail in May 2010 between the Commission services and the Greek authorities. Meetings took place between the Commission services and the Greek authorities on 11 February 2009 and 24 June 2010, as well as between the Commission services and the alleged beneficiary on 2 February 2009 and 26 June 2009.\nII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\nII.a. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON MINING RIGHTS AND PERMITS\n(6)\nA mining right is the right to enter upon and occupy a specific piece of ground for the purpose of working it, either by underground excavations or open workings, to obtain the mineral ores which may be deposited therein. It is transferred with the mining property, as an integral part of it.\n(7)\nThe mining right is distinct to the mining permit, which is a permit to execute mining operations. It is granted by the competent authorities, after assessment of submitted feasibility reports and environmental studies. In the case at hand, at the time of the 2003 sale, mining permits were granted by the Ministry of Development.\nII.b. THE BENEFICIARY\n(8)\nEllinikos Xrysos is a large Greek mining company, active in the business of mining gold, copper, lead, silver and zinc. In 2009 it had a turnover of EUR 44,7 million (with earnings after taxes of EUR 1,7 million) and ca. 350 employees. At the time of the aid measures in question (see paragraphs 11 and 15-18 below), Ellinikos Xrysos was a large company, because it was linked to a large company. According to the Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (5): (a) The category of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is made up of enterprises which employ fewer than 250 persons and which have an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million (Annex, title 1, article 2(1)); (b) to remove from the category of SMEs groups of enterprises whose economic power may exceed that of genuine SMEs, a distinction should be made between various types of enterprises, depending on whether they are autonomous (paragraph 9 of introduction); (c) an \u2018autonomous enterprise\u2019 is any enterprise which is not classified as a linked enterprise (Annex, title 1, article 3(1)); and (d) a linked enterprise is one whose majority of the shareholders\u2019 or members\u2019 voting rights is held by another enterprise (Annex, title 1, article 3(3)(a)). In the case at hand, in December 2003 (time of the 2003 sale) Ellinikos Xrysos\u2019 shares belonged by 53,3 % (160 000 shares over a total of 300 000) to the company \u2018Greek Mines SA\u2019, a subsidiary of the company \u2018Aktor SA\u2019. Aktor\u2019s latest two annual turnovers, i.e. of 2001 and 2002, amounted to EUR 120,9 million and EUR 302,6 million, respectively. Also, its latest two annual balance sheet totals amounted to EUR 151,9 million and EUR 260 million, respectively (6). These figures indeed qualify Aktor as a large company. Thus, Ellinikos Xrysos was a large company at the time of the aid measures in question.\n(9)\nThe present shareholders of Ellinikos Xrysos are European Goldfields Greece BV (65 % of shares), Hellas Gold BV (30 % of shares) and Aktor SA (5 % of shares), a Greek constructions and energy company. European Goldfields Greece BV and Hellas Gold BV are subsidiaries of European Goldfields Ltd, a Canadian company involved in the acquisition, exploration and development of mineral properties in the Balkans.\n(10)\nEllinikos Xrysos owns and operates the Cassandra Mines. It bought them and their mining rights from the Greek State in December 2003. The Cassandra Mines are located in Northern Greece. They include the gold mining projects of Olympias and Skouries and the copper-zinc mining project of Stratoni.\n(11)\nBefore 2003, the Cassandra Mines were owned by the company TVX Hellas SA, which had acquired them in 1995 from the Greek State through a public tender for DR 11 billion (approximately EUR 39,8 million (7)).\n(12)\nIn 2002, the Greek State Council annulled the mining and gold processing permits of the Cassandra Mines, in particular of Olympias and Stratoni. The Olympias mining and gold processing permits were annulled for environmental reasons, which are considered as serious. On the other hand, the Stratoni mining permit was annulled because the Greek State had improperly issued it, through an incompetent authority.\n(13)\nFollowing the above annulment by the Greek State Council, the competent Ministry of Development issued two acts, regarding Stratoni: 1) on 7 January 2003, ordering the interruption of operations in Stratoni; and 2) on 29 January 2003, ordering the adoption of additional security measures in Stratoni. On 18 February 2003, the Ministry of Development, in line with the above annulment decision of the Greek State Council, issued another act allowing Ellinikos Xrysos to start operations in Stratoni and annulling its previous acts of 7 and 29 January 2003. This act of 18 February 2003 was valid at the time of the Mines\u2019 sale to Ellinikos Xrysos.\n(14)\nFollowing also the above annulment of the mining and gold processing permits of the Cassandra Mines, Kinross (a Canadian mining company), the owner of TVX Hellas, stopped financing it in order to preserve shareholder value. This action forced TVX Hellas to file for bankruptcy.\nII.c. MEASURE 1: PRICE OF SALE BELOW MARKET VALUE\n(15)\nOn 12 December 2003, the Cassandra Mines were transferred from TVX Hellas to the Greek State for EUR 11 million, under an extrajudicial settlement, in the context of which a clearing of mutual claims took place (the claim of TVX Hellas against Greece amounted to EUR 293,5 million). On the same day, the Greek State sold the Cassandra Mines to Ellinikos Xrysos for EUR 11 million, without any evaluation of the assets or any open tender. The sale included: (a) Mines of Stratoni, Skouries and Olympias, together with the relevant mining rights; (b) land; (c) stock of minerals; and (d) fixed assets (mining-processing equipment, houses for workers and industrial buildings). According to the Greek authorities, the measure\u2019s objective was to find an owner willing to operate the mines and thus to protect the employment and the environment.\nII.d. MEASURE 2: WAIVER OF TAX AND REDUCTION OF LEGAL FEES\n(16)\nThe sale of the Cassandra Mines from Greece to Ellinikos Xrysos was realised through a contract between the two parties, which was ratified by Law 3220/2004 (8). According to that law, Ellinikos Xrysos was exempted from any kind of tax. There was also a reduction of legal and other fees to only 5 % of the actual amount that should have normally been paid. According to the Greek authorities, the measure\u2019s objective was to create an incentive for potential buyers, because the value of the Mines was negative.\n(17)\nAccording to Greek law (9), tax on transfer of real estate property is 7 % of the value of the transferred property for the first EUR 15 000 and 9 % for the rest. Also, according to Greek Mining Code (10), the specific tax on transfer of mining rights is 5 % of the value of the transferred right (i.e. value of the mine).\n(18)\nFor measures 1 and 2, in the present decision the Commission has arrived at a total aid figure of EUR 15,34 million, having examined:\n(a)\nthe value of the three individual mines which comprise them (Stratoni, Olympias and Skouries), based on economic factors applying at the time of the sale, and also the ability of those mines to be operational (see detailed analysis in paragraphs 63-79 below);\n(b)\nthe value of the land of the Cassandra Mines, as attributed by a valuation report (see paragraph 19 below) and verified against the price paid for most part of this land in a 1995 open tender (see detailed analysis in paragraphs 80-90 below);\n(c)\nthe value of the stock of minerals that Ellinikos Xrysos acquired through the 2003 sale, based also on the above valuation report (see detailed analysis in paragraphs 91-97 below);\n(d)\nthe amount of the due taxes that Ellinikos Xrysos was exempted from in the sale contract (see detailed analysis in paragraphs 118-125 below).\n(19)\nIn the opening decision of 10 December 2008 the Commission questioned whether the Cassandra Mines were sold by Greece to Ellinikos Xrysos at their market value, since the sale was realised without an open tender or an independent valuation of the assets, and also whether such a sale below market value was compatible with TFEU. Reference was made to a valuation report of the Cassandra Mines assets, issued on behalf of European Goldfields, shareholder of Ellinikos Xrysos. According to that report, the fair-market value of the Cassandra Mines assets was USD 500 million (equal to EUR 411 million on 30 June 2004, using that date\u2019s exchange rate of 1,2155 USD/EUR (11)). This report was issued by Behre Dolbear International Ltd (hereinafter \u2018the Behre Dolbear report\u2019), \u2018a pre-eminent international minerals industry consultant\u2019, according to European Goldfields (12).\n(20)\nThe Commission also questioned whether the waiver of tax and the reduction of legal fees constituted reliefs from financial obligations to the State that were compatible with TFEU.\nIII. COMMENTS FROM GREECE AND INTERESTED PARTIES\nIII.a. COMMENTS FROM GREECE AND THE BENEFICIARY\n(21)\nThe comments of Greece and the beneficiary overlap to a large extent, therefore the Commission will expose them together, as follows in paragraphs 22-31 below.\n(22)\nAccording to the Greek authorities and the beneficiary, Greece only acted as an intermediary in the 2003 sale, because TVX Hellas, being within the bankruptcy procedure, could not directly sell the Mines to Ellinikos Xrysos. It is also claimed that Greece has never been owner of the Mines and has not received any amount of money from the 2003 sale, as the EUR 11 million were paid directly to TVX Hellas. It is also argued that in 1995, the sale transaction took place between TVX Hellas and the previous owner, a private company in bankruptcy, therefore there are no State resources involved in the 2003 sale.\n(23)\nFurthermore, the Greek authorities and the beneficiary claim that, at the time of the sale, the Cassandra Mines\u2019 market value was reduced or even negative, because of the long stop in operations and the annulment of the mining permits. The negative market value of the Mines would also be demonstrated by the fact that Kinross, the owner of TVX Hellas and a market economy operator, attributed negative value to the Mines when it capitalised significant losses from their investment. It is also stated that the positive price paid by Ellinikos Xrysos, also a private company, is justified by the contract\u2019s annulling clause, which eliminated the buyer\u2019s risk. In addition, it is submitted that land acquired by a mining company can only be used for mining activities and does not have a market value, because Greek law gives priority to mining activities in such areas. Therefore, it is argued that the reduction of value of the mining rights, due to the long stop in operations and the annulment of mining permits, affected a reduction of value also to land. Finally, regarding the gold mineral stock which was part of the assets sold to Ellinikos Xrysos, it is claimed that in 2003 it had negative value because of the relatively low price of gold and the relatively high related costs such as transport and processing.\n(24)\nIn addition to the above and as regards market economy criteria to be taken into account in a transaction, the Greek authorities and the beneficiary argue that these criteria also include environmental and social concerns, in the context of company image and staff satisfaction. This is supported by the fact that TVX Hellas, a market economy operator, also took under consideration labour and environmental issues by paying relevant indemnifications. It is also argued that not selling the Mines would also mean substantial environmental costs to be borne by the Greek State, in the area of EUR 15,7 million. At the same time, it is submitted that the price paid by Ellinikos Xrysos is also justified by market economy criteria, as it was equal to the price asked by TVX Hellas, a private company. According to Greece and the beneficiary, if TVX Hellas could, it would have asked for a higher price. In addition, it is stated that the price paid by Ellinikos Xrysos was equal to the assets\u2019 book value in the financial statements of TVX Hellas. Finally, it is submitted that the price paid in the 2003 sale represented the real value of the Mines, meaning the value of the Stratoni mine, since it was the only one operating. As regards Skouries, according to Greece and the beneficiary no mining activity or investment has ever taken place there but only mining research, conducted by TVX Hellas before the 2003 sale. It is also argued that in order to create a mining facility in Skouries, significant investment is needed. For the above reasons, it is claimed that the 2003 sale did not confer an advantage to Ellinikos Xrysos.\n(25)\nAs regards the Behre Dolbear report, neither Greece nor the beneficiary argues against the credibility of Behre Dolbear. Instead, they both argue against the report, claiming that it cannot be taken into account, because its purpose was to attract investors\u2019 attention and its point in time (June 2004) was not the same as that of the sale (December 2003). Also, it is argued that the value of the Mines estimated by Behre Dolbear concerns the assets together with the relevant mining permits, however Ellinikos Xrysos only acquired the assets, whereas the mining permits would be granted later by the Greek state. In addition, it is argued that the report does not refer to the sold assets but to the value of Ellinikos Xrysos as a going concern, therefore it is not indicative of the value of the assets sold by the Greek State in December 2003. Finally, it is submitted that in page 37 of the report, table 5.3, Behre Dolbear estimates the net present value of the near-production Cassandra Mines to be negative USD 2,59 million, therefore the price actually paid (EUR 11 million) was above the market value of the Mines.\n(26)\nIf however the Behre Dolbear report is used, Greece argues that only the Income Approach (out of three different methods that the report includes) could be accepted, as it is an internationally used main method of valuation, but only for its validation date and with the prerequisite of mining permits granted and serious investments realised.\n(27)\nOn the other hand, the Greek authorities and the beneficiary admit that Greece sold the assets directly to Ellinikos Xrysos without an open tender or an evaluation, because of time pressure to protect the employment and the environment. Also, it is stated that TVX Hellas had claims of EUR 293,5 million against Greece, due to damages from the investments to the mines (which stopped operations because of the 2002 annulling decisions) and expenses for the protection of the environment. In addition, it is argued that the sale contract did not foresee any clause for minimum work posts, because mining requires a lot of workers and at the same time an obligation for jobs cannot be quantified. Finally, it is stated that in case of a recovery order by the Commission, there could be a request for the contract to be annulled, asking the Greek State to return EUR 11 million to the company and receive back the assets.\n(28)\nFurthermore, the Greek authorities state that the value determined by the 1995 open tender could be taken into account, and that the value of land could be considered as unchanged. Also, it is stated that the method used in the Behre Dolbear report (the Income Approach method) can be accepted, but only in relation to the date of the report (30 June 2004), with mining permits granted and serious investments realised. Finally, it is accepted that at the time of the sale, Stratoni had valid mining permits and therefore was operational and fulfilled the Behre Dolbear report\u2019s clause of a \u2018near production facility\u2019.\n(29)\nAs regards the tax waiver and the reduction of legal fees, according to the beneficiary the foreseen tax on transfer of mines was not applicable in the case at hand. Furthermore, according to Greece, the value of the Mines was negative, therefore an incentive for potential buyers was needed. Also, Greece argues that article 173 of Greek Mining Code foresees a tax rate of 5 %, but only to transactions \u2018against consideration\u2019, \u2018\u03bc\u03b5 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03ae \u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u2019, which, according to Greece, means transactions caused by unfortunate incidents, e.g. death of the owner, therefore it was not applicable in the case at hand. Furthermore, the beneficiary argues that the sale contract is not yet definitive because of an annulling clause, therefore the application of any tax would be premature. Finally, the beneficiary argues that the reduction of legal fees does not involve State resources, because lawyers are private operators, and the fees\u2019 tax and duties were paid duly.\n(30)\nGreece acknowledges that 7 %-9 % tax is indeed levied in all cases of land sale, regardless of whether it is a sale of company assets or individual ones.\n(31)\nFinally, Greece and the beneficiary argue that, even if the 2003 sale constituted aid in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos, the latter would be eligible for aid under the 1998 Regional aid guidelines and the 2002 Multisectoral framework for large investment projects, applicable at the time of the sale, as a company located in an article 107(3)(a) TFEU area. Also, the beneficiary argues that it could be eligible for aid under GBER, the Environmental aid guidelines of 2008 and Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, as the investment in question was related to a sector and an area of vital national importance. As regards the tax waiver, according to the beneficiary it was equal to EUR 38 000 therefore lower than the de minimis threshold (EUR 100 000 over any period of 3 years) (13) and did not result in any benefit for Ellinikos Xrysos.\nIII.b. COMMENTS FROM OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES\n(32)\nThe Commission also received comments to the opening decision from the Hellenic Mining Watch (in paragraphs 32-34: \u2018HMW\u2019) (14). HMW claims that the Cassandra Mines assets include also substantial real estate, which increases their total value considerably but was not taken into account by the Behre Dolbear report. Also, HMW contradicts the invocation of unemployment reasons for the transfer of the Mines without compliance with legal procedures, claiming that the sale contract did not include any obligation for Ellinikos Xrysos to recruit a certain or minimum number of workers.\n(33)\nFurthermore, HMW contradicts the invocation of environmental reasons for the transfer of the Mines without compliance with legal procedures, claiming that Article 1 of the 2003 sale contract discharges Ellinikos Xrysos from any liability for damage to the environment, which came about or whose cause came about prior to the publication of the Law ratifying the sale contract. Finally, HMW alleges that the Mines assets also included a stock of gold-bearing minerals of significant value, amounting to EUR 80 million, which was not mentioned in the contract of the sale to Ellinikos Xrysos.\n(34)\nIn its reaction to HMW\u2019s comments, Greece dismisses them and reiterates that Ellinikos Xrysos did not benefit from State aid. In particular, Greece argues that it was nor the owner neither the vendor of the Mines but merely an intermediary in a transaction between two private parties. Furthermore, Greece claims that HMW\u2019s allegations are vague, inaccurate and contradictory. Finally, Greece supports that HMW seeks the return of the Cassandra Mines to the State because its ultimate goal is the protection of the environment.\n(35)\nFinally, the Commission also received comments to the opening decision from the Cassandra Mines trade unions (15), contesting that the measures would entail illegal State aid and referring to the contribution of the Mines to the economy and employment.\nIV. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n(36)\nOn the basis of the above facts and also of the arguments of Greece and other third parties, the Commission will assess the measures in question in what follows in this section. First, the Commission will assess the presence of aid in the measures under scrutiny, in order to conclude if there is aid or not (sub-section IV.a). Secondly, where a measure indeed involves aid, the Commission will assess its compatibility with the internal market (sub-section IV.b).\nIV.a. PRESENCE OF AID IN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU\n(37)\nIn order to ascertain whether a measure constitutes an aid, the Commission has to assess whether the contested measure fulfils the conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU. This provision states that \u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(38)\nIn the light of this provision, the Commission will assess hereunder whether the contested measures in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos constitute State aid.\nMEASURE 1: PRICE OF SALE BELOW MARKET VALUE\na. Advantage\n(39)\nWhere the State sells an asset at a price below market value, this entails an advantage to the buyer (who receives an asset at a subsidised price) which may constitute State aid. Conversely, an asset is sold at market value (and hence State aid is excluded) where that price is determined by an independent valuator and matches the sale price or where the sale is performed through a competitive, open, transparent and unconditional tender and the highest bid is picked (16).\n(40)\nIn the case at hand, the Cassandra Mines were sold without an open tender or a valuation of any kind. However, in order to avoid State aid, the State has to act as a rational, profit-maximising private owner, i.e. a \u2018market economy vendor\u2019, and seek the best financial outcome from a sale. Thus, in the case at hand the Commission made an assessment of the behaviour of the Greek State as a market economy vendor.\n(41)\nThe Greek authorities and the beneficiary argue that environmental and social issues should also count as market economy criteria, because they concern company image and staff satisfaction. According to them, their argument is supported by the fact that TVX Hellas, a market economy operator, also took under consideration labour and environmental issues by paying indemnifications for its employees as well as for past environmental liabilities (liabilities for the time before the 2003 sale). They claim that, in the same manner, a market economy vendor would agree to a reduced price, in order to satisfy environmental and social concerns.\n(42)\nThe Commission cannot accept the above argument. Environmental and social concerns are, by their very nature, public policy concerns pursued by public authorities. A market economy vendor could take into account unemployment and environmental issues, at most, to a limited extent, to protect or to create a business reputation as a socially or environmentally responsible agent, and not to the substantial detriment of its financial interests. At any rate, a rational market economy vendor, in the context of a sale, would evaluate and quantify any payments or costs deriving from those issues, in order to decide how these could influence the acceptable price. In the case at hand, the Commission notes that the contract does not include any such financial specification, and Greece has not shown that at the time of the sale it made any evaluation of such financial costs.\n(43)\nThe Greek authorities and the beneficiary also claim that the Mines had negative market value, which is demonstrated by the fact that Kinross, the owner of TVX Hellas and a market economy operator, attributed negative value to the Mines when it capitalised significant losses from their investment.\n(44)\nThe Commission cannot accept the above argument. Indeed, the Commission notes that TVX Hellas stopped its business in the Cassandra Mines because of the annulment of the mines\u2019 permits by the State Council. However, Stratoni had a valid mining permit at the time of its sale by TVX Hellas to Greece (see paragraph 13 above), whereas the permit of Olympias remained annulled. Therefore the Commission considers that the decision of TVX Hellas to sell the Cassandra Mines was related to the failure of its substantial investment in Olympias. Therefore, the behaviour of TVX Hellas was related to the value of the Olympias investment and not to the value of Stratoni.\n(45)\nThe Greek authorities and the beneficiary admit that Greece sold the assets directly to Ellinikos Xrysos without an open tender or a valuation, because of time pressure to protect the employment and the environment. As regards the latter, they argue that not selling the Mines would mean substantial environmental costs to be borne by the Greek State, in the area of EUR 15,7 million. As regards employment, the Greek authorities and the beneficiary accept that the sale contract did not foresee any clause for minimum work posts, but argue that an obligation for jobs cannot be quantified and that mining requires a lot of workers.\n(46)\nThe Commission notes on the above that indeed the sold assets\u2019 value was not assessed in any way prior to the sale and the sale was not conducted through an open process but through direct contacts with the buyer. As regards the environmental costs allegedly to be borne by Greece, the Commission notes that there is no trace of those costs in the contract or in any contemporaneous document. The Commission also notes that no additional environmental obligations, beyond the legislation applicable, were imposed to the buyer. The Commission considers that, if environmental cost is to be considered as a factor for the determination of the price of a sale, a private vendor would carefully evaluate and quantify these costs before determining the sale price. Greece has not shown that, at the time of the sale, it made any such evaluation and quantification or otherwise took into consideration any such environmental costs.\n(47)\nThe Commission also notes that the 2003 sale contract indeed did not foresee any clause requiring the buyer to keep or create any minimum work posts. Therefore, the Commission cannot accept that the buyer was burdened with an obligation to maintain more jobs than economically needed, since the sale contract did not have any obligation for the maintenance of specific number of jobs. Thus, the Commission considers that, from the perspective of a private vendor, no reason related to the number of jobs and the protection of employment can explain a sale price lower than the market value of the mines.\n(48)\nThus, on the basis of paragraphs 46-47 above, the Commission cannot accept the arguments of Greece and the beneficiary in paragraph 45 above.\n(49)\nOn the above matter of employment and environmental protection (see paragraph 45), the Hellenic Mining Watch contradicts the invocation of unemployment reasons for the transfer of the Mines without compliance with legal procedures, claiming that the sale contract did not include any obligation for Ellinikos Xrysos to recruit a certain or minimum number of workers. The Hellenic Mining Watch also claims that Ellinikos Xrysos received an advantage, because Article 1 of the 2003 sale contract discharges Ellinikos Xrysos from any liability for damage to the environment, in case that such a damage came about or its cause came about prior to the publication of the Law ratifying the sale contract.\n(50)\nAs regards the second argument of the Hellenic Mining Watch above, the Commission notes that indeed the 2003 sale contract discharges Ellinikos Xrysos from any liability for damage to the environment in case that such a damage came about or its cause came about prior to the publication of the Law ratifying the sale contract. The Commission considers that the above provision of the contract does not grant an autonomous, specific advantage to Ellinikos Xrysos that would be different from the sales price. Clauses about apportioning various financial liabilities for the past between vendor and buyer are not infrequent in private contracts. Ultimately, the parties to a sale take such clauses into account, as factors in determining the sale price. Therefore, the ultimate question in the present case is whether the sale, taking into account the conditions, reflected the market value of the mines.\n(51)\nFurthermore, the Greek authorities and the beneficiary argue that the 2003 sale did not grant an advantage to Ellinikos Xrysos, because the price paid by Ellinikos Xrysos was equal to the assets\u2019 book value in the financial statements of TVX Hellas, the owner of Cassandra Mines before the Greek State.\n(52)\nThe Commission cannot accept the above argument. Indeed, the Commission considers that the book value of TVX Hellas cannot be taken into account for the assessment of the assets\u2019 value, since it takes into account depreciation in the company\u2019s books for taxation reasons (17), therefore it represents the assets\u2019 accounting value. According to well-established case law (18), accounting value is not always the same as market value, when the aim is to evaluate assets for the purpose of establishing their price in a sale. Also, the assets in question were transferred on a stand alone basis, therefore the depreciation affected by the previous owner only concerned its own bookkeeping and taxation.\n(53)\nThe Greek authorities and the beneficiary also claim that the price paid by Ellinikos Xrysos is justified by market economy criteria, as it was equal to the price asked by TVX Hellas, a private company. If the latter could, it would have asked for a higher price.\n(54)\nThe Commission cannot accept the above argument. Indeed, the Commission notes that the price paid by Greece to TVX Hellas was the result of a clearing of the two parties\u2019 claims against each other. The Commission also notes that the claim of TVX Hellas against Greece amounted to EUR 293,5 million (see paragraph 15 above). In this sense, in case that the two parties had claims of different amounts, the final outcome of their clearing could be different, however it would be linked to the sale of the same assets. Therefore, the Commission considers that the above clearing of claims was not representative of the value of the sold assets.\n(55)\nAt the same time, the Commission notes that the above claims were indemnifications requested by the two parties. In particular, Greece\u2019s claim concerned environmental damages allegedly caused by TVX Hellas. TVX Hellas\u2019 claim concerned environmental expenses and losses from investments that the company suffered allegedly due to the mining permits\u2019 annulment in 2002. The Commission also notes that the value of the assets was not assessed in any way at the time of the above clearing. Therefore, the price of EUR 11 million for the sale of the Cassandra Mines to Greece was linked to the two parties\u2019 alleged responsibilities and not to the value of the assets.\n(56)\nFinally, the Commission notes that the decision of TVX Hellas to sell the Cassandra Mines was related to the failure of its substantial investment in Olympias, therefore to the value of the Olympias investment and not to the value of Stratoni. Ellinikos Xrysos had not realised any such investments, therefore was not affected by the failure of that investment. Thus, the Commission considers that the price of EUR 11 million for the sale of the Cassandra Mines to Greece was a price representing only the commercial relationship between TVX Hellas and Greece and also the specific situation of TVX Hellas at the time of the sale. Therefore it could not be representative of a separate commercial agreement, such as the one between Greece and Ellinikos Xrysos.\n(57)\nOn the basis of the above (see paragraphs 54-56), the Commission concludes that there was no connection of the clearing of claims between Greece and TVX Hellas to the value of the assets.\n(58)\nOn the basis of the above, and in order to establish whether the sale price reflected well the assets\u2019 market value, the Commission separated the assets in three categories: (a) mines; (b) land; and (c) stock of minerals. For the calculation of the assets\u2019 market value, the Commission relied on the Behre Dolbear report (see paragraph 19 above). As regards land, the Commission has verified this report\u2019s value by using the price paid for the land in question in a previous tender in 1995 (see paragraph 11 above).\n(59)\nOn the use of the Behre Dolbear report, Greece and the beneficiary argue that it cannot be taken into account, because its purpose was to attract investors\u2019 attention. The Commission cannot accept this argument, because the attraction of investors\u2019 attention is a principal and legitimate purpose of any valuation report, issued on behalf of market economy operators who seek funds in the financial markets. The validity of any valuation has to be verified, however the mere fact that valuation reports are intended to attract investors is not enough to discredit any valuation report.\n(60)\nAlso, Greece and the beneficiary argue that the report cannot be taken into account because its point in time (June 2004) was not the same as that of the sale (December 2003).\n(61)\nThe Commission cannot accept the above argument. The Commission notes that the Behre Dolbear reports\u2019 date is indeed 30 June 2004, however its content can be considered as contemporary to the sale of December 2003, because it derives from historical metal prices of the period 1993-2003.\n(62)\nThe Greek State and Ellinikos Xrysos argue that the report does not refer to the sold assets but to the value of Ellinikos Xrysos as a going concern, therefore it is not indicative of the value of the assets sold by the Greek State in December 2003. The Commission cannot accept this argument, because the report provides an analytical assessment of the value of the sold assets on an individual basis, in order to calculate the overall value of the company.\na.a. Estimation of mines value\na.a.1. Argumentation on the value of the mines\n(63)\nThe Greek authorities and the beneficiary claim that, at the time of the sale, the Cassandra Mines\u2019 market value was reduced or even negative, because of the long stop in operations and the annulment of the mining permits. They also argue that the price paid in the 2003 sale represented the value of the Stratoni mine, since it was the only operational one. In particular, Greece accepts that, at the time of the sale, Stratoni had valid mining permits and therefore was operational and fulfilled the Behre Dolbear report\u2019s clause of a \u2018near production facility\u2019.\n(64)\nThe Commission notes that the 2002 annulling decisions only affected the value of Olympias, because indeed at the time of the sale Stratoni had valid mining permits, therefore it had a value. At the same time, TVX Hellas stopped business because of the failure of its investment in the process of gold extraction, when the Olympias permits were annulled, therefore its behaviour was related only to the value of the Olympias investment and not to the value of Stratoni.\n(65)\nAs regards Skouries, the Greek authorities and the beneficiary claim that no mining activity or investment has ever taken place there but only mining research, conducted by TVX Hellas before the 2003 sale, and significant investment is needed in order to create a mining facility there.\n(66)\nThe Commission notes that indeed Skouries did not have mining permits or an established mining infrastructure. However, the Greek authorities and the beneficiary have not submitted any information or substantial argument demonstrating that Skouries was not administratively allowed or economically feasible to be operated. Also, according to the Behre Dolbear report, the capital costs for mine development and construction in Skouries were USD 268 million in 2004, i.e. EUR 220 million. In its report, Behre Dolbear states its belief that these costs are \u2018reasonable\u2019. Therefore the Commission considers that there were no administrative or economic obstacles to the granting of mining permits or to the construction of a mining infrastructure and the realisation of operations in Skouries.\n(67)\nOn the basis of the above (paragraphs 63-66), the Commission considers that, at the time of the sale, the market value of Olympias was indeed jeopardized by the 2002 annulling decisions, however the market value of Stratoni and Skouries was not. Therefore, at the time of the 2003 sale a market value for the Cassandra Mines could be estimated.\na.a.2. Calculation of mines value\n(68)\nIn order to calculate the value of the Cassandra Mines, the Commission examined for each of the three individual mines which comprise them (Stratoni, Olympias and Skouries) the same two issues: (a) the value of the mine, which should be based on economic factors applying at the time of the sale; and (b) the mine\u2019s ability to be operational, in order to realise the above mentioned value. On the basis of these two issues, the Commission comes to the conclusion that Stratoni and Skouries had a certain value which was able to be realised and that Olympias had a value that was difficult to be established at the time of the 2003 sale.\n(69)\nIn order to estimate the value of the mines, the Commission used the Behre Dolbear report. The latter report uses three methods to set the fair market value of the Cassandra Mines: (a) the Income Approach valuation (19); (b) the Related Transactions (comparable sales) valuation; and (c) the Market Capitalisation approach (20). The attributed values of the three methods are, respectively: (a) USD 130,3-402,5 million or EUR 107,2-331,1 million; (b) USD 504,7 million or EUR 415,2 million; and (c) USD 614,9 million or EUR 505,9 million. The range of the Income Approach valuation is due to the different pricing scenarios used therein (see paragraph 72 below). From these three methods, the Commission used the Income Approach. Motivation for this is presented in the Table below:\nTable\nMotivation for the use of the Income Approach\nIncome Approach\nRelated Transactions\nMarket Capitalisation\nThe Income Approach provides analytical values for each of the three mining projects and based on metal prices that were known at the time of the sale of the Mines. When estimating the value of an asset in a transaction, one can take into account only factors standing at the time of the transaction.\nThe base of the Related Transactions valuation is questionable, because two different mines cannot be the same. According to Behre Dolbear, related transactions are controversial, due to the fact that every mineral deposit, even of the same commodity, is different to some extent from other deposits, as regards mineralogy, mining conditions, metallurgy, environmental aspects, social issues present, ore grades etc.\nThe Behre Dolbear report also includes a comment for the Market Capitalisation method, by American Appraisal Associates. According to that comment, the Market Capitalisation is recommended as a secondary valuation method or as a rule of thumb, suitable to check valuation determinations by primary methods.\nThe Income Approach is a primary valuation method. Therefore, the Income Approach is the one to rely on. In addition, in the case at hand the Market Capitalisation method verifies only the value resulting from market capitalisations of first half of 2004, which are not accepted as this information is ex posteriori. Therefore, the Market Capitalisation method cannot be used even as a secondary valuation method.\nBehre Dolbear appears to put more trust in the value deriving from the Income Approach, since it states that \u2018Historically, Behre Dolbear would have placed significant weight on the value derived by the Income Approach\u2019 (summary of values in p. 43 of the Behre Dolbear report).\n(70)\nGreece accepts that, if the Behre Dolbear report is used, only the Income Approach can be accepted, as it is an internationally used main method of evaluation, but only for its validation date (30 June 2004) and with the prerequisite of mining permits granted and serious investments realised.\n(71)\nBased on the Income Approach, the Commission estimates the value of the mines at the time of the 2003 sale, as follows (see paragraphs 72-79 below):\n(72)\nThe Income Approach estimates the fair market value of the Cassandra Mines at a near-production level (21), as the result of the mines\u2019 operations, with well defined costs and proven and probable reserves (22). The report uses three different pricing scenarios with prices of: (a) 1993-2003 average; (b) first half of 2004 only; and (c) 1993-2003 average plus first half of 2004 (divided by 2). The Commission considers that it can take into account only the 1993-2003 average scenario, instead of the other two, because it is based on prices and costs that were known at the time of the sale, which took place in December 2003. In addition, the 1993-2003 historic prices used by Behre Dolbear do not show any specific trend throughout the whole 1993-2003 period, i.e. they fluctuate between different years, and therefore the Commission considers that the 1993-2003 average incorporates better the historic developments in the metal market. Also, the prices of first half of 2004 are not representative of the value of the mines, because they are only a snapshot and therefore do not take into account fluctuation. The latter\u2019s consideration is critical, in order to minimize the effect of any possible extraordinary changes or random events and to have a reliable picture of the mines\u2019 value.\n(73)\nGreece and the beneficiary argue that Behre Dolbear estimates the net present value of the near-production Cassandra Mines to be negative USD 2,59 million (page 37, table 5.3 of the report), therefore the price actually paid (EUR 11 million) was above the market value of the Mines.\n(74)\nThe Commission notes that, on a stand alone basis, the net present values (at near-production level) attributed by the Income Approach to the three mining projects are: (a) to Olympias, negative USD 28,79 million, i.e. negative EUR 23,7 million; (b) to Stratoni, USD 10,48 million, i.e. EUR 8,6 million; and (c) to Skouries, USD 15,72 million, i.e. EUR 12,9 million. The above three values indeed sum up to negative USD 2,59 million.\n(75)\nHowever, the Commission does not accept the above argument of Greece and the beneficiary. From the above values, the Commission notes that indeed the net present value (at near-production level) of Olympias at the time of the sale was negative. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that the negative net present value of Olympias means that, at the time of the sale, the expected profits resulting from operating the mine at the price level observed over the past 11 years would be negative. At such a gold price level, any owner of Olympias would choose not to operate the mine and would seek to avoid the losses to the greatest extent possible. As it turns out, by not operating the mine, the buyer could limit the losses to EUR 5,5 million, costs that the buyer had contractually to bear for environmental protection and maintenance purposes. From this alone, one cannot infer however that therefore the value of Olympias should be evaluated at EUR 5,5 million negative. This is because, in principle, owning a mine also confers an option value: the owner can operate the mine when times are good (gold prices are high enough) and choose not to operate when times are bad (gold prices are not high enough). Accordingly, Ellinikos Xrysos may have chosen to take over the mine as part of the package of Cassandra Mines or in view of later being able to undertake necessary investments into the Olympias mine to profitably restart exploitation in case gold prices were to rise to levels (substantially) above the level observed over the past period of 1993-2003.\n(76)\nObtaining a reliable estimate of this option value is fairly complicated, however. More importantly, any such value would have to be adjusted for the (possibly high) likelihood that, even though gold prices would be high enough to allow profitable operation, no permit would be obtained for this mine. As indicated above (see paragraph 12), the Olympias mining and gold processing permits were annulled for environmental reasons, which are considered as serious. Therefore it would appear appropriate to regard Olympias as having an option value which can conservatively be put to zero. The net value of Olympias would accordingly be estimated at EUR 5,5 million negative.\n(77)\nBy contrast, the Commission considers that the individual values attributed to Stratoni and Skouries reach a value of EUR 21,5 million, as the sum of the two mines\u2019 values according to the Behre Dolbear report (EUR 8,6 million plus EUR 12,9 million, respectively, see paragraph 74 above), because:\n(a)\nStratoni had a valid mining permit, an established mining infrastructure and a positive value to derive from its operations (positive net present value), therefore it was operational at the time of the sale;\n(b)\nAs regards Skouries, the Commission considers that there were no administrative or economic obstacles to the granting of mining permits or to the construction of a mining infrastructure and the realisation of operations. At the same time, Skouries also had a positive value to derive from its operations (positive net present value).\n(78)\nGreece and the beneficiary argue that the value of the Mines estimated by Behre Dolbear cannot be taken into account, because it concerns the assets together with the relevant mining permits, but Ellinikos Xrysos only acquired the assets, whereas the mining permits would be granted later by the Greek State. The Commission does not accept this argument, because, as demonstrated above, Stratoni indeed had a valid mining permit at the time of the sale. As regards Skouries, as also demonstrated above, there were no administrative obstacles to the granting of its mining permit. Also, the cost of applying for and obtaining a mining permit for Skouries was limited to the fees of geologists and other experts, for the preparation of the studies required for the permit, as well as the fee for a Letter of Guarantee required by the competent Ministry. According to the submission of the Greek authorities, the above costs equal (respectively) to approximately EUR 5 000 on an ad hoc basis plus EUR 600 000 per year, at maximum. The Commission considers these amounts to be at a low level, comparing to the overall capital costs for mine development and construction in Skouries, equal to USD 268 million in 2004, i.e. EUR 220 million (see paragraph 66 above). Thus, the Commission considers that the above mining permit costs were not an obstacle for a company willing to invest in Skouries. The Commission also notes that the Behre Dolbear report also includes \u2018administration\u2019 costs in the calculation of the mine\u2019s net present value, therefore the Commission considers the above costs (of applying for and obtaining a mining permit for Skouries) to have been taken into account by the Behre Dolbear report.\n(79)\nFrom the above, the value of the mines can be estimated at EUR 16 million for the three mines (EUR 21,5 million - EUR 5,5 million).\na.b. Calculation of land value\n(80)\nThe Greek authorities and the beneficiary argue that land, in cases where it is acquired by a mining company, can only be used for mining activities and does not have a market value, because Greek law gives priority to mining activities in such areas. Therefore, the reduction of value of the mining rights, due to the long stop in operations and the annulment of mining permits, affected a reduction of value also to land.\n(81)\nOn the above issue, the Commission considers the land in question as an asset of a mining undertaking and not as \u2018real estate\u2019, in the broad sense of the term, due to the particular characteristics of mining operations (pollution, disturbance of environment etc.), which would make the possibility of trading those assets separately from the mines questionable.\n(82)\nHowever, the Commission also considers that any business asset has a value, because it contributes or can contribute to operations and to the realisation of earnings. The Cassandra Mines was an undertaking operational at the time of the sale, therefore the Commission considers that the land could be used for the operations of the Mines and thus indeed had a value. Therefore, the Commission cannot accept the above argument of Greece and Ellinikos Xrysos.\n(83)\nThe Hellenic Mining Watch claims that the Cassandra Mines assets include also substantial real estate, which increases their total value considerably but was not taken into account by the Behre Dolbear report.\n(84)\nHowever, the Commission notes that the Behre Dolbear report indeed takes into account land, other than the mines. In particular, the Behre Dolbear report considers land as a non-mineral asset of the Cassandra Mines and gives it a value of EUR 6 million (23), separately to the Income Approach method.\n(85)\nBehre Dolbear states in the report that the value provided for land is the one reported by Ellinikos Xrysos, and has not been estimated by Behre Dolbear. Thus, the Commission needs to verify this value.\n(86)\nFor the above verification, the Commission uses the price paid for land in the 1995 open tender for the sale of the Cassandra Mines to TVX Hellas (see paragraph 6 above). This is not a primary calculation but a secondary one, intended to test the validity of the Behre Dolbear report\u2019s value (EUR 6 million).\n(87)\nThe Greek authorities accept that the value determined by the 1995 open tender could be taken into account, and that the value of land can be considered as unchanged. The Commission notes that, in the context of the 1995 sale of the Cassandra Mines to TVX Hellas, land was assigned a price of DR 1,2 billion. The Commission notes the absence of valid price references or price indexes for the particular land of the Cassandra Mines, which is considered as an asset of a mining undertaking and not as \u2018real estate\u2019 in the broad sense of the term (see paragraph 81 above). Such valid price references or price indexes, if available, would allow the calculation of an updated reference value. In their absence, the Commission considers the 1995 price as the best available estimate in the case at hand. Therefore, the Commission takes as a starting point a fair market value for the land of DR 1,2 billion or EUR 3,5 million (using the exchange rate of 340,75 DR/EUR at which Greece entered the Eurozone in 2001).\n(88)\nAlso, after 1995, TVX Hellas acquired 70 additional land plots (in period 1997-2000, most part in 1998-1999). The Commission notes that the acquisition value of those 70 additional land plots is EUR 1,1 million, as presented in the financial statements of TVX Hellas. The Commission considers that acquisition value to be market oriented, since it was obtained in the market. Adding together the above two values (EUR 3,5 million plus EUR 1,1 million), the total land\u2019s fair market value can be established at EUR 4,6 million.\n(89)\nThe above amount of EUR 4,6 million is the nominal value of land in 2003, based on prices of 1995 and 1997-2000. The Commission considers that this value would need to be adjusted according to the Greek general index of industrial production prices, for the periods 1995-2003 and 1998-2003. The index of industrial production prices is used because the land in question is an asset of an industrial company, therefore the adjustment has to be representative of the price changes in the industrial sector. This adjustment of the 1995 and 1997-2000 sales prices leads to a final result of EUR 5,9 million in December 2003.\n(90)\nThe Commission notes that the above value of EUR 5,9 million closely matches the value of EUR 6 million, reported by Behre Dolbear in the valuation report (see paragraph 84 above). The Commission considers that this close match confirms the soundness of the valuation of the land by Ellinikos Xrysos used by the Behre Dolbear report, and therefore justifies taking the figure of EUR 6 million as representing the fair market value in December 2003.\na.c. Calculation of stock of minerals value\n(91)\nThe 2003 sale also included a quantity of stock of minerals with concentrates (24) of gold. The Greek authorities and the beneficiary argue that in 2003 the above stock had negative value because of the relatively low price of gold and the relatively high related costs.\n(92)\nIn particular, the Greek authorities have provided a calculation of the \u2018break even\u2019 price point, for which the trade of the above stock would be gainful. Taking into account the concentration of gold in the mineral, i.e. 0,7 ounces of gold per tonne, and the price of gold on 12 December 2003, i.e. USD 407 per ounce, the value of gold concentrated in the stock of mineral was USD 284,9 per tonne. Also, the Greek authorities have provided the costs related to the trade of the above stock: treatment charges of USD 245 per ounce and USD 171,5 per tonne; transport costs of USD 50 per tonne; cleansing penalties of USD 270 per tonne; and refining charges of USD 5 per ounce and USD 4,1 per tonne. The calculation of the above results in a negative sale price of USD 210,7 per tonne.\n(93)\nThe Commission has indeed verified the above calculation. The Commission considers that, for the above reasons of price and cost, at the time of the sale the trade of this stock was loss-making. Perhaps the trade of the stock of gold minerals would be gainful, if transport cost changed/was expected to change, but this was an uncertain event. Also, the Behre Dolbear report does not provide the value of stock of gold minerals. Therefore, the Commission considers that the value of this stock cannot be calculated.\n(94)\nThe Hellenic Mining Watch alleges that the stock of gold-bearing minerals had significant value, amounting to EUR 80 million. The Commission notes that this value of EUR 80 million was not supported by any data or evidence by the Hellenic Mining Watch. On this basis as well as on the basis of the above calculation, resulting that the value of this stock cannot be calculated, the Commission does not accept this argument of the Hellenic Mining Watch.\n(95)\nThe Commission notes that the assets sold in December 2003 also included two mineral deposits of lead and zinc. The Behre Dolbear report includes an estimation of the value of existing concentrates of lead and zinc of 30 June 2004 (25). This estimation is separate to the calculation of the mines\u2019 Net Present Value and does not form part of the valuation under the Income Approach. It provides the net smelter return (26) for the owner of the mine: firstly, the value of the contained metals (lead, silver and zinc) is calculated, on the basis of the current prices and the available quantities; secondly, the \u2018smelter pay schedule\u2019 (the cost of further processing, charged by the buyer of the minerals to their producer) is applied, taking into account specific conditions for the deduction of that cost (specific depreciation percentages, treatment and refining charges and freight costs); finally, the smelter pay schedule is deducted from the above value of the contained metals (27).\n(96)\nThe Commission notes that the above method is the standard method for calculating metal payments. Therefore the Commission will use the above method in order to estimate the market value of the mineral deposits that Ellinikos Xrysos bought in December 2003, using the mineral deposits\u2019 quantities and metal prices of December 2003 (28). By applying the above method for the mineral quantities and the metal prices of December 2003 as well as the specific smelter pay schedule conditions of Ellinikos Xrysos, the Commission concludes that the market value of the mineral deposits which Ellinikos Xrysos bought in December 2003 amounted to USD 3,7 million or EUR 3 million (using the exchange rate of 1,2254 USD/EUR of the date of the minerals\u2019 sale to Ellinikos Xrysos, 12 December 2003).\n(97)\nThe Commission notes that, according to the submission of the beneficiary, the mineral deposits of lead and zinc, acquired in December 2003, were sold in December 2004 (1 December 2004 and 31 December 2004), therefore post to the date of the Behre Dolbear report. Thus, the Commission considers that the specific conditions of the above method (value calculation for deposits of June 2004, see paragraph 95 above) are valid also for the value calculation of the mineral deposits of December 2003, since there was no other sale of minerals between December 2003 and June 2004 that could have set different conditions.\na.d. Conclusion on advantage\n(98)\nThe above calculation yields a total value for the Cassandra mines of EUR 25 million, as the sum of the value of mines (EUR 16 million), land (EUR 6 million) and stock of minerals (EUR 3 million).\n(99)\nThis total value is significantly lower than the value presented by the Behre Dolbear report as fair-market value of the Cassandra Mines assets (USD 500 million or EUR 411 million, see paragraph 19 above). The value presented by the Behre Dolbear report was mentioned in the Commission\u2019s decision of 10 December 2008 to initiate the formal investigation procedure, as an indication that the sale price was below market value of the Mines.\n(100)\nThe reason to depart from the above value of the Behre Dolbear report (USD 500 million) is that it derives from two valuation methods which are not adequate in the case at hand (see Table 1 above). In particular, it derives from two evaluation methods, namely the \u2018Related Transactions\u2019 and the \u2018Market Capitalisation\u2019 methods, which cannot be accepted because: (a) The base of the Related Transactions valuation is questionable, as two different mines cannot be the same: every mineral deposit, even of the same commodity, is different to some extent from other deposits; (b) the Market Capitalisation is recommended as a secondary valuation method or as a rule of thumb, suitable to check valuation determinations by primary methods like the Income Approach. In the case at hand, the Market Capitalisation method cannot be used even as a secondary valuation method, because it verifies only the value of the Income Approach resulting from market capitalisations of first half of 2004, which cannot be accepted because this information is ex posteriori to the date of the sale; and (c) Behre Dolbear states its trust in the value deriving from the Income Approach.\n(101)\nFurthermore, the total value at which the Commission concludes (EUR 25 million) is much lower than the value range provided by the Income Approach (EUR 107,2 million-EUR 331,1 million, see paragraph 69 above). The reason for this is that the latter concerns: (a) values of assets that were not transferred in December 2003, e.g. receivables, cash and stock of minerals (the one of June 2004, different than the one of December 2003, see calculation in paragraphs 91-97); and (b) mineral resources characterised in the Behre Dolbear report as speculative and uncertain (29), (mineable material or exploration potential). The latter are not included in the cash flows for the determination of the net present value under the Income Approach (see paragraph 72 above), which derives only from proven and probable reserves, excluding all other resources. In addition, the above value range also includes different values of Olympias under different pricing scenarios, however the Commission does not accept those values (see paragraphs 72-76 above). Finally, the above value range is influenced by the above mentioned different pricing scenarios, of which the Commission accepts only one (see paragraph 72 above).\n(102)\nTherefore, the Commission concludes that the market value of the Cassandra Mines assets amounted to EUR 25 million at the time of their sale to Ellinikos Xrysos.\n(103)\nThe Commission considers that the advantage amount, from which Ellinikos Xrysos benefitted, equals EUR 14 million, as the difference between the total fair market value of the Cassandra Mines assets (EUR 25 million) and the price paid in the sale (EUR 11 million).\n(104)\nOn the basis of the above analysis of the arguments put forward by Greece and the beneficiary as well as the calculation of the sold assets\u2019 market value and the latter\u2019s comparison to the price actually paid by Ellinikos Xrysos, the Commission considers that the criterion of advantage is fulfilled.\nb. State resources\n(105)\nThe Greek authorities and the beneficiary argue that Greece only acted as an intermediary in the 2003 sale and has never been owner of the Mines. They also argue that Greece has not received any amount of money from the 2003 sale, as the EUR 11 million were paid directly to TVX Hellas. Finally, the Greek authorities and the beneficiary argue that the 1995 sale transaction took place between TVX Hellas and the previous owner, a private company in bankruptcy.\n(106)\nThe Commission notes that Greece was an active party of the two transactions, realised through two different contracts. In the second contract, Greece assumed the obligations of a vendor but also was entitled to the revenue of the sale. The latter was paid directly to TVX Hellas in order to cover a certain obligation of the Greek State, therefore the latter\u2019s role as a vendor and not as just an intermediary is again verified. As regards the argument that the 1995 sale took place between TVX Hellas and a private company, the Commission considers that it is irrelevant to the criterion of State resources in the case at hand, because this criterion is examined only for the 2003 sale.\n(107)\nThus, the Commission does not accept the arguments put forward by the Greek authorities and the beneficiary and considers that the criterion of State resources is fulfilled.\nc. Selectivity\n(108)\nThe Cassandra Mines were sold to Ellinikos Xrysos, therefore the latter benefitted selectively from the difference between the sale price and the sold assets\u2019 market value. Thus, the Commission considers that the measure is selective as it favours only this specific company.\n(109)\nNeither Greece nor the beneficiary contested this point.\nd. Distortion of competition and affectation of trade between Member States\n(110)\nEllinikos Xrysos is active in a sector whose products are widely traded among Member States. In particular, there is zinc, copper, lead, gold and silver mining in eleven Member States, apart from Greece, i.e. in United Kingdom, Italy, Finland, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Sweden (30). As regards the trade of zinc, copper, lead, gold and silver, those are traded in all Member States (31). Also, the aid measure in question granted Ellinikos Xrysos an advantage over its competitors (see paragraphs 39-104 above). When State aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in trade between Member States, those other undertakings must be regarded as affected by that aid. Thus, the criterion of distortion of competition and affectation of trade between Member States is indeed fulfilled.\n(111)\nNeither Greece nor the beneficiary contested this point.\ne. Conclusion on the existence of aid in measure 1\n(112)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that the 2003 sale of the Cassandra Mines to Ellinikos Xrysos constitutes State aid in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The amount of aid equals to EUR 14 million, as the difference between the price paid in the 2003 sale, i.e. EUR 11 million, and the market value of the sold assets at the time of the sale, i.e. EUR 25 million.\nMEASURE 2: WAIVER OF TAX AND REDUCTION OF LEGAL FEES\na. State resources\n(113)\nAccording to Greece and the beneficiary, the reduction of legal fees does not involve State resources, because lawyers are private operators and not public employees, and the fees\u2019 tax and duties were paid duly. Also, according to Greece, the buyer\u2019s legal fees were not paid by the State. At the same time, the reduction of legal fees is stipulated in the sale\u2019s contract, Article 5, where it is stated that the legal rights and fees \u2018are reduced to 5 % of the minimum fee level, as foreseen by the relevant laws\u2019.\n(114)\nThe Commission agrees that lawyers are not public employees. On the other hand, the Commission notes that notaries are indeed public servants. However, notaries do not receive a salary; their income comes exclusively from their clients and not from the State budget.\n(115)\nThe Commission also notes that, in sale contracts, legal fees are borne by both parties. In the case at hand, the Commission accepts the Greek authorities\u2019 submission that the State did not pay the above fees in the place of the buyer.\n(116)\nThus, the Commission considers that the reduction of legal fees does not involve State resources and therefore does not constitute State aid in the sense of Article 107(1) of TFEU.\n(117)\nAs regards the waiver of tax, taxes are aimed to finance the budget of the State. Therefore the non-collection of taxes deprives the State of resources. Thus, the Commission considers that the waiver of tax indeed involves State resources.\nb. Advantage\n(118)\nThe Commission notes that two taxes were due in the case of the sale of the Cassandra Mines: 1) a tax on the transfer of the mines, equal to a rate of 5 %; and 2) a tax on the transfer of the land, equal to a rate of 7 %-9 %.\n(119)\nEllinikos Xrysos argues that the application of any tax in the 2003 sale would be premature, as the sale contract was not definitive, because of an annulling clause. The Commission does not accept this argument, because the specific annulling clause only foresees undoing the sale in case of the two parties not respecting certain obligations, in order to safeguard its effect, which is a usual clause for the majority of contracts and does not make them not definitive. In addition, the contract indeed stipulates its validation, in particular in its Article 9, where validation is set for the date of publication of the contract\u2019s ratifying law in the Government\u2019s Gazette. Finally, the contract makes no reference to any kind of non-definitive status. Thus, the Commission considers that the contract was indeed definitive and the appropriate taxes should have been applied.\n(120)\nThe Greek authorities and the beneficiary also argue that the value of the Mines was negative, therefore an incentive for potential buyers was needed. On this argument, the Commission notes that the value of the Mines at the time of the sale was not negative but positive and amounted to EUR 16 million (as calculated in paragraphs 68-79 above).\n(121)\nThe Commission notes that according to the Greek Mining Code, transfers of mines are taxed at a rate of 5 % on the basis of their value, applicable to transactions against consideration, \u2018\u03bc\u03b5 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03ae \u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u2019. The Greek authorities argue that transactions \u2018against consideration\u2019 are those caused by unfavourable incidents, e.g. death of the owner, therefore the 5 % tax stands only for such transactions and was not applicable in the case at hand. The Commission cannot accept this argument, because, according to its investigation, transactions \u2018against consideration\u2019 are those where the person who acquires an asset gives as compensation a return and in general when there is a consideration for the acquisition. This is also the well-established and accepted interpretation of the issue (32).\n(122)\nThe market value of the mines in 2003 was EUR 16 million (as calculated in paragraphs 68-79 above). Thus, the Commission considers that the appropriate tax for the mines sold in 2003 would equal to EUR 0,8 million.\n(123)\nIn addition, Greece acknowledges that 7 %-9 % tax is indeed levied in all cases of land sale, regardless of whether it is a sale of company assets or individual ones. On this issue, the Commission received two different letters, one from the Ministry of Finance and one from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (competent for mining issues), contradicting each other. The Commission pointed this contradiction to the Greek authorities but did not receive any letter with a final opinion. Thus, the Commission accepts the information submitted by the Ministry of Finance, as the competent service for taxation issues.\n(124)\nThe market value of land in 2003 was EUR 6 million (as calculated in paragraphs 80-90 above). Thus, the Commission considers that the 2003 land sale should have resulted in a tax of EUR 0,54 million (33).\n(125)\nAs the 2003 sale contract foresees zero tax for the transfer, the Commission considers the above amounts (totalling EUR 1,34 million) as the advantage from which Ellinikos Xrysos benefitted.\n(126)\nGreece and the beneficiary claim that the tax waiver was equal to EUR 38 000 and therefore was lower than the de minimis threshold (34) and did not benefit the buyer. The Commission cannot accept this argument, because the de minimis threshold, equal to EUR 100 000 at the time of the 2003 sale, applies irrespective of the form of the aid or the objective pursued. Therefore one cannot distinguish the different aid measures at hand, i.e. measures 1 and 2, and only take into account part of measure 2, i.e. the tax waiver. Thus, the Commission, taking under consideration both of the aid measures of the case at hand and finding that they involve aid amounts of over the de minimis threshold of EUR 100 000, considers that aid granted fails to satisfy the conditions for aid to be considered de minimis. On the basis of the above, the Commission maintains its conclusion of paragraph 125 above.\nc. Selectivity\n(127)\nThe criterion of selectivity is fulfilled in the same way as in paragraph 108 above.\nd. Distortion of competition and affectation of trade between Member States\n(128)\nFinally, criterion of distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States is fulfilled in the same way as in paragraph 110 above.\ne. Conclusion on the existence of aid in measure 2\n(129)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that the waiver of tax constitutes State aid of EUR 1,34 million in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. On the other hand, the Commission considers that the reduction of legal fees does not constitute State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nIV.b. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET\n(130)\nInasmuch as the measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, their compatibility must be assessed in the light of the exceptions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 of that Article.\n(131)\nArticles 107(2) and 107(3) TFEU provide for exemptions to the general rule that State aid is incompatible with the internal market as stated in Article 107(1).\n(132)\nIn the following the Commission will assess the compatibility of the measures under those exceptions.\n(133)\nThe exemptions in Article 107(2) TFEU do not apply in the present case because this measure does not have a social character, has not been awarded to individual consumers, is not designed to make good damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and has not been awarded to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of that country.\n(134)\nFurther exemptions are laid out in Article 107(3) TFEU. The exceptions laid down in Article 107(3)(b), (d) and (e) are clearly not applicable and have not been invoked by the Greek authorities. In the following, the Commission will assess the measures\u2019 potential compatibility under Article 107(3)(a) and (c).\n(135)\nArticle 107(3)(a) states that \u2018aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment\u2019 may be declared compatible with the internal market. The Cassandra Mines are located in an assisted area under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU, therefore Ellinikos Xrysos could potentially be eligible for regional aid.\n(136)\nThe Guidelines on national regional aid applicable at the time of the 2003 sale (\u2018the 1998 Regional aid guidelines\u2019 (35)) set out the conditions for the approval of regional investment aid.\n(137)\nAccording to the 1998 Regional aid guidelines, the object of regional investment aid is to secure either productive investment (initial investment) or job creation which is linked to investment.\n(138)\nAs regards the possibility to consider aid for job creation, it shall be stressed that under regional aid, job creation means a net increase in the number of jobs in a particular establishment compared with the average over a period of time and that any jobs lost during that period must therefore be deducted from the apparent number of jobs created during the same period. Furthermore, the amount of aid shall be calculated on the basis of the wage cost, in particular it must not exceed a certain percentage of the wage cost of the person hired, calculated over a period of 2 years.\n(139)\nIn comparison to these requirements, the Commission observes that the sale contract only included a vague clause allowing Ellinikos Xrysos the discretion to recruit any number of employees, according to its needs; secondly the above mentioned conditions are not fulfilled. The Commission therefore is on the view that job creation in the sense of the Guidelines was not secured.\n(140)\nAs regards the definition of an initial investment, the 1998 Regional aid guidelines define it as an investment in fixed capital relating to the setting-up of a new establishment, the extension of an existing establishment, or the starting-up of an activity involving a fundamental change in the product or production process of an existing establishment (through rationalisation, diversification or modernisation) (36).\n(141)\nThe Commission accepts that the acquisition of Skouries qualifies as an initial investment, on the basis of the above definition of the Guidelines. Indeed, at the time of the 2003 sale there was no established mining infrastructure in Skouries, therefore an investment in fixed capital was in order, relating to the setting-up of the new mine\u2019s construction (see paragraph 66 above).\n(142)\nRegarding Stratoni, the Commission considers it is doubtful that the sale of Stratoni can be considered as an initial investment in the meaning of the Guidelines (37).\n(143)\nHowever, according to the 1998 Regional aid guidelines, an investment in fixed capital undertaken in the form of the purchase of an establishment which has closed or which would have closed had it not been purchased may also be regarded as initial investment.\n(144)\nAt this regard, the Commission notes that Greece has indeed demonstrated that the mines were closed or would have been closed had they not been purchased by Ellinikos Xrysos (38). Thus, such investment could be considered as initial investment.\n(145)\nNevertheless, the fact that the sale of the Cassandra mines is to be considered as initial investment doesn\u2019t mean that this investment is compatible on the basis of the 1998 Regional aid guidelines. Indeed, two conditions set by these guidelines are not fulfilled, as follows in paragraphs 146-152:\n(146)\nFirstly, the sale of the Cassandra mines is an ad hoc measure. On this aspect, the 1998 Regional aid guidelines explicitly mention the following: \u2018A derogation from the incompatibility principle established by Article [107(1)] of the Treaty may be granted in respect of regional aid only if the equilibrium between the resulting distortions of competition and the advantages of the aid in terms of the development of a less favoured region can be guaranteed [\u2026] An individual ad hoc aid payment made to a single firm, or aid confined to one area of activity, may have a major impact on competition in the relevant market, and its effects on regional development are likely to be too limited. Such aid generally comes within the ambit of specific or sectoral industrial policies and is often not in keeping with the spirit of regional aid policy as such. The latter must remain neutral towards the allocation of productive resources between the various economic sectors and activities. The Commission considers that, unless it can be shown otherwise, such aid does not fulfil the requirements set out in the preceding paragraph\u2019.\n(147)\nDespite the fact that Greece was requested to argue on the compatibility of the aid on the basis of Article 107(3)(a) TFEU and the 1998 regional aid guidelines, in the context of the Commission\u2019s opening decision of 10 December 2008, the Commission notes that Greece did not to demonstrate at all that the sale of the Cassandra mines was founded on an equilibrium between the resulting distortions of competition and the advantages of the aid in terms of the development of a the less favoured region in question.\n(148)\nSecondly, regional aid must have an incentive effect, i.e. it must provide a real incentive to undertake investments which would not otherwise be made in the assisted areas. In that sense, the Guidelines mention that \u2018aid schemes must lay down that an application for aid must be submitted before work is started on the projects\u2019 (39). This condition is also valid for ad hoc aid measures (40). Greece did not demonstrate that the beneficiary complied with the above requirement and submitted an aid application before starting the project.\n(149)\nAlso as regards the incentive effect of the aid, the Commission notes that Greece did not realise any open and unconditional tender, in order to sell the Cassandra Mines. The Commission considers that such an open and unconditional tender would have been the test to verify if there were or not any willing investors in the market for the mines. Since no such tender took place, the Commission is of the view that Greece did not verify the level of willingness of the market to invest in the Cassandra Mines, and thus did not verify the need for an aid with incentive effect.\n(150)\nIn addition, the Commission notes that the acquisition of the Cassandra Mines was an investment in the mining sector. The latter is a capital-intensive sector where usually significant amounts of investments are required for business development and operations. Indeed, in the case at hand, according to the Behre Dolbear report, the capital costs for mine development and construction in Skouries were EUR 220 million (see paragraph 66 above). The Commission notes this amount to be considerably higher than the aid amount in question, i.e. EUR 15,34 million (see combined amounts in paragraphs 111 and 124 above). In particular, the above aid amount represents only 7 % of the investment required in one of the mines. Furthermore, the Commission did not receive any evidence demonstrating that Ellinikos Xrysos could not realise the investment without aid. To the contrary, the Commission notes that the Greece and Ellinikos Xrysos agreed that the latter would indeed realise capital investments for the development of the mines (41). Thus, the Commission considers that the aid in question did not have an incentive effect and was not necessary for investors willing to acquire the Cassandra Mines.\n(151)\nFinally, Greece did not demonstrate in any way the incentive effect of the aid in question.\n(152)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission considers that the sale of the Cassandra Mines does not fulfil the conditions of the 1998 Regional aid guidelines for declaring the aid compatible as initial investment aid.\n(153)\nIt could also be explored whether the aid can be declared compatible as operating aid under the same guidelines. The 1998 Regional aid guidelines define operating aid as aid aimed at reducing a firm\u2019s current expenses. In accordance with the Guidelines, operating aid may be granted on an exceptional basis in regions eligible under the derogation in Article 107(3)(a) TFEU.\n(154)\nHowever, according to the Guidelines, operating aid is aid \u2018aimed at reducing a firm\u2019s current expenses\u2019 (point 4.15). The Commission notes that current expenses are non-capital and usually recurrent expenditures necessary for the operation of a business. The Commission notes that the aid in question did not finance current expenses in the above sense but an investment in fixed capital (acquisition of mines and land) and a waiver of the due taxes for the above investment (acquisition taxes). Therefore, the aid in question did not finance current expenses. Thus, the Commission considers that the aid in question cannot be found to fulfill the definition of operating aid in the sense of the Guidelines.\n(155)\nAlso according to the Guidelines, operating aid may be granted in eligible regions, provided that its level is proportional to the handicaps it seeks to alleviate, and it is for the Member State to demonstrate the existence of any handicaps and gauge their importance. In the case at hand, Greece did not provide any kind of measurement or calculation of the handicaps of the region and of the level of the aid, in order to demonstrate that the latter is proportional to the former.\n(156)\nFinally, according to the Guidelines, operating aid must be both limited in time and progressively reduced. The Commission notes that the sale in question did not have any kind of time limitation or progressive reduction. Indeed, both the sale price and the tax waiver, as fixed in the sale contract, were determined and validated with no reference to any kind of time limit or reduction.\n(157)\nThus, the Commission is of the view that the aid cannot be declared compatible as operating aid under the Guidelines.\n(158)\nTherefore, the Commission concludes that the aid can not be declared compatible on the basis of the 1998 Regional aid guidelines.\n(159)\nAs regards compatibility under the general block exemption Regulation, declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU (42), the Commission considers that on the basis of the financial figures submitted by the Greek authorities, Ellinikos Xrysos is a large enterprise, as demonstrated in paragraph 12 above. According to the general block exemption Regulation, Article 1(5), ad hoc aid to large companies is excluded from the scope of its application.\n(160)\nAlso according to the general block exemption Regulation, Article 8(3)), in case that any aid covered by it is granted to a large enterprise, the Member State should confirm the material incentive effect of the aid, on the basis of a document that analyses the viability of the aided project or activity, with and without aid. The Commission has not been provided with such evidence.\n(161)\nFinally, according to the general block exemption Regulation, the acquisition of the capital assets directly linked to an establishment, where the establishment has closed or would have closed had it not been purchased, is considered an eligible cost provided that the transaction has taken place under market conditions. The Greek authorities admitted that the transaction took place without an open, unconditional and transparent competition or an independent valuation of the market value of the Cassandra Mines assets. Thus, the Commission considers that the sale in question did not take place under market conditions.\n(162)\nIn conclusion, the aid granted to Ellinikos Xrysos is not compatible under the general block exemption Regulation.\n(163)\nArticle 107(3)(c) TFEU states that \u2018aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest\u2019 may be declared compatible with the internal market.\n(164)\nThe Commission considers that the derogation under Article 107(3)(c) does not apply in the case at hand and that Ellinikos Xrysos is not eligible for rescue and/or restructuring aid. Indeed, according to point 7 of the 1999 Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, applicable at the time of the 2003 sale (43), \u2018[\u2026] a newly created firm is not eligible for rescue or restructuring aid, even if its initial financial position is insecure. This is the case, for instance, where a new firm emerges from the liquidation of a previous firm or merely takes over such firm\u2019s assets\u2019. Ellinikos Xrysos is a company which was established 3 days before the acquisition of the Cassandra Mines. Also, restructuring aid is conditional on the existence of a sound restructuring plan. Greece did not provide such a restructuring plan. In conclusion, the aid granted to Ellinikos Xrysos is not compatible under rescue and/or restructuring aid rules.\n(165)\nFinally, and as regards environmental aid, Ellinikos Xrysos was obliged to meet the applicable environmental standards. In particular, it was obliged to realise investments for the protection of the environment and keep its mining operations in accordance with Greek and Community environmental laws. Since the above were compulsory by law, it was not necessary to provide Ellinikos Xrysos with aid in order to obey the law.\n(166)\nIn the view of the above, the Commission concludes that the aid measures in question are incompatible with TFEU.\n(167)\nIn particular, the Commission considers that the difference between the market value of the Cassandra Mines assets and the price at which they were sold to Ellinikos Xrysos is incompatible aid in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos; also, the Commission considers that the amount of taxes which should have been paid by Ellinikos Xrysos for the acquisition of the mines and the land is incompatible aid in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos.\nV. CONCLUSION\n(168)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the measures at hand constitute State aid in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In particular, the Commission considers that the difference between the market value of the Cassandra Mines assets and the price at which they were sold to Ellinikos Xrysos constitutes aid in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos; also, the Commission considers that the amount of taxes which should have been paid by Ellinikos Xrysos for the acquisition of the mines and land constitutes aid in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos.\n(169)\nIn addition, the Commission concludes that the aid measures at hand are incompatible with the internal market. In particular, the Commission considers that the difference between the market value of the Cassandra Mines assets and the price at which they were sold to Ellinikos Xrysos is incompatible aid in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos; also, the Commission considers that the amount of taxes which should have been paid by Ellinikos Xrysos for the acquisition of the mines and land is incompatible aid in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos.\n(170)\nAccording to the TFEU and the Court of Justice\u2019s established case law, the Commission is competent to decide that the State concerned must abolish or alter aid (44) when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market. The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation (45). In this context, the Court has established that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored (46).\n(171)\nFollowing that case-law, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99 (47) laid down that \u2018where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.\u2019\n(172)\nThus, given that the measures at hand are to be considered as unlawful and incompatible aid, the amounts of aid must be recovered in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid. Recovery shall be hence affected from the time when the advantage occurred to the beneficiary, i.e. when the aid was put at the disposal of the beneficiary and shall bear recovery interest until effective recovery.\n(173)\nThe incompatible aid element of the measures is calculated as the sum of (a) the difference between the market value of the Cassandra Mines assets and the price at which they were sold to Ellinikos Xrysos (EUR 14 million); and (b) the amount of tax which should have been paid by Ellinikos Xrysos for the acquisition of the assets, i.e. mines and land (EUR 1,34 million). The above are equal to EUR 15,34 million.\n(174)\nIn addition to the above and as regards recovery, the Commission notes that the 2003 sale contract included two annulment provisions, in its Article 4. According to those provisions, Ellinikos Xrysos is allowed to annul the sale, in case of: (a) an administrative or legal act by the Greek authorities to change the mining permits\u2019 status; or (b) a judiciary decision (related to the mining permits\u2019 status) to stop the operations or the realization of the investment plan. In both cases, Ellinikos Xrysos would return the assets to the Greek State and would be refunded the total EUR 11 million, with a possible additional remuneration.\n(175)\nThe Greek authorities have submitted that the above two provisions could be activated by a decision of the Commission for the recovery of incompatible aid. Whether this is the case is a question of contract interpretation and national law. If however the provisions are activated, such activation should have no effect on the obligation of Greece to recover the aid amount indicated in this decision.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid amounting to EUR 15,34 million unlawfully granted by Greece in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos S.A. by way of a sale of assets and land below its value and a waiver of the associated taxes, with the aim of protecting the employment and the environment and also of creating an incentive for potential buyers of the Cassandra Mines, is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\n1. Greece shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiary.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (48) and to Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 (49) amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\n4. Greece shall cancel all outstanding payments of the aid referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this decision.\nArticle 3\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Greece shall ensure that this decision is implemented within 4 months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. Within 2 months following notification of this Decision, Greece shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Greece shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to Greece.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2011.", "references": ["59", "81", "7", "75", "86", "70", "56", "38", "3", "94", "12", "85", "22", "11", "49", "9", "10", "17", "73", "54", "64", "71", "26", "50", "24", "36", "14", "99", "90", "68", "No Label", "8", "15", "48", "79", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "48", "79", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1193/2010\nof 16 December 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Maine-Anjou (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Maine-Anjou\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nItaly objected to this registration in accordance with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. The objection was deemed admissible under Article 7(3) of that Regulation.\n(3)\nThe objection related to non-compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, in particular with regard to the link between the geographical area and the quality of the product. The objection also stated that registration of the name in question would be contrary to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, in particular in view of the conflict between the name to be registered and the name of an animal breed, namely Maine-Anjou.\n(4)\nLastly, the objection also related to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, in particular with regard to the partially homonymous registered name \u2018B\u0153uf du Maine\u2019.\n(5)\nBy letter of 9 July 2009, the Commission asked France and Italy to seek mutual agreement in accordance with their internal procedures.\n(6)\nFollowing consultations, France informed the Commission by letter of 5 February 2010 that an agreement had been reached between the parties. Furthermore, no amendments were made to the details published pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(7)\nPursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 7(5) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the name \u2018Maine-Anjou\u2019, submitted by France, should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2010.", "references": ["95", "40", "79", "67", "80", "44", "46", "52", "35", "87", "28", "94", "63", "58", "15", "48", "47", "30", "45", "7", "99", "55", "8", "68", "84", "85", "54", "21", "13", "72", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 663/2011\nof 8 July 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 659/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 July 2011.", "references": ["55", "81", "68", "95", "21", "85", "25", "60", "5", "3", "12", "83", "52", "70", "45", "99", "64", "32", "93", "54", "61", "1", "80", "34", "74", "87", "69", "58", "9", "42", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1042/2011\nof 18 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 October 2011.", "references": ["27", "38", "91", "57", "29", "13", "10", "48", "11", "71", "31", "43", "7", "56", "20", "1", "92", "44", "33", "90", "41", "66", "15", "82", "49", "62", "60", "59", "25", "69", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 401/2011\nof 20 April 2011\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural market and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(s) and listed in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 51/2011 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Part XIX of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 51/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["89", "95", "46", "51", "39", "34", "60", "91", "82", "49", "64", "33", "4", "17", "9", "37", "74", "50", "41", "13", "53", "11", "58", "25", "30", "65", "32", "61", "8", "73", "No Label", "23", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["23", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 802/2012\nof 6 September 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 September 2012.", "references": ["82", "31", "93", "83", "23", "51", "44", "52", "27", "4", "12", "57", "76", "86", "60", "85", "24", "6", "87", "69", "25", "96", "46", "41", "5", "48", "19", "34", "3", "26", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 2 December 2010\nappointing one Netherlands member of the European Economic and Social Committee\n(2010/752/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Netherlands government,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 13 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Melanie BOUWKNEGT,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nMr Leon MEIJER, senior beleidsadviseur Europese Zaken, is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which is until 20 September 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["9", "82", "24", "43", "49", "80", "59", "72", "41", "56", "89", "83", "10", "74", "38", "32", "13", "6", "23", "12", "27", "79", "57", "16", "11", "5", "33", "36", "86", "20", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 15 December 2010\namending Council Directive 2008/90/EC to extend the derogation relating to import conditions for fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production from third countries\n(notified under document C(2010) 8992)\n(2010/777/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2008/90/EC of 29 September 2008 on the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 12(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission is required pursuant to Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/90/EC to decide whether fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants produced in a third country and affording the same guarantees as regards obligations on the supplier, identity, characteristics, plant health, growing medium, packaging, inspection arrangements, marking and sealing are equivalent in all these respects to fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants produced in Union and complying with the requirements and conditions of that Directive.\n(2)\nHowever, the information presently available on the conditions applying in third countries is still not sufficient to enable the Commission to adopt any such decision in respect of any third country at this stage.\n(3)\nIn order to prevent trade patterns from being disrupted, Member States importing fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants from third countries should continue to be allowed to apply conditions equivalent to those applicable to similar Union products in accordance with Article 12(2) of Directive 2008/90/EC.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to allow the application of such conditions for a period that is consistent with the transitional period referred to in Article 21 of Directive 2008/90/EC.\n(5)\nThe period of application of the derogation provided for in Directive 2008/90/EC for such imports should consequently be extended until 31 December 2018.\n(6)\nDirective 2008/90/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Propagating Material and Plants of Fruit Genera and Species,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn the first subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Directive 2008/90/EC, the date \u201831 December 2010\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 December 2018\u2019.\nArticle2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["1", "98", "94", "39", "62", "92", "75", "41", "71", "34", "65", "38", "6", "73", "53", "33", "80", "43", "87", "18", "60", "78", "69", "54", "95", "63", "44", "40", "68", "24", "No Label", "25", "61", "66"], "gold": ["25", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1157/2011\nof 10 November 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in EU and international waters of Vb, VIb and VIaN by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2011.", "references": ["68", "80", "22", "47", "70", "8", "81", "32", "36", "25", "85", "30", "63", "62", "24", "5", "43", "61", "16", "4", "60", "21", "46", "65", "90", "9", "38", "76", "94", "50", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1159/2011\nof 11 November 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in Norwegian waters of I and II by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 November 2011.", "references": ["37", "79", "22", "32", "23", "93", "61", "1", "51", "74", "87", "52", "41", "24", "36", "9", "50", "4", "5", "34", "43", "57", "29", "10", "38", "85", "65", "48", "44", "8", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 April 2012\namending the Annexes to Decision 2003/467/EC as regards the declaration of Latvia as officially brucellosis-free Member State and of certain regions of Italy, Poland and Portugal as officially tuberculosis-free, brucellosis-free and enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free regions\n(notified under document C(2012) 2451)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/204/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), and in particular Annex A(I)(4), Annex A(II)(7) and Annex D(I)(E) thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 64/432/EEC applies to trade within the Union in bovine animals and swine. It lays down the conditions whereby a Member State or region of a Member State may be declared officially tuberculosis-free, officially brucellosis-free and officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free as regards bovine herds.\n(2)\nThe Annexes to Commission Decision 2003/467/EC of 23 June 2003 establishing the official tuberculosis, brucellosis and enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free status of certain Member States and regions of Member States as regards bovine herds (2) list the Member States and regions thereof which are declared respectively officially tuberculosis-free, officially brucellosis-free and officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free.\n(3)\nItaly has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions for the officially tuberculosis-free status laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC for the provinces of Asti and Biella in the region of Piemonte in Italy.\n(4)\nIn addition, the province of Ascoli Piceno is already listed in Chapter 2 of Annex I to Decision 2003/467/EC as an officially tuberculosis-free region of Italy. However, the administrative division of Italy splits the province of Ascoli Piceno in the region of Marche into two distinct provinces: the province of Ascoli Piceno and the province of Fermo. The entries for Italy in the list set out in Chapter 2 of Annex I to Decision 2003/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nPortugal has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions for the officially tuberculosis-free status laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC for all administrative regions (distritos) within the superior administrative unit (regi\u00e3o) of Algarve in Portugal.\n(6)\nFollowing evaluation of the documentation submitted by Italy and Portugal, the provinces of Asti and Biella in the region of Piemonte in Italy and all administrative regions (distritos) within the superior administrative unit (regi\u00e3o) of Algarve in Portugal should be declared as officially tuberculosis-free regions of Italy and Portugal respectively.\n(7)\nItaly has also submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions for the officially brucellosis-free status laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC for all the provinces in the region of Valle d\u2019Aosta in Italy.\n(8)\nLatvia has also submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions for the officially brucellosis-free status laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC for its whole territory.\n(9)\nPortugal has also submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions for the officially brucellosis-free status laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC for all administrative regions (distritos) within the superior administrative unit (regi\u00e3o) of Algarve in Portugal.\n(10)\nFollowing evaluation of the documentation submitted by Italy, Latvia and Portugal, Latvia should be declared as officially brucellosis-free Member State, all the provinces in the Region of Valle d\u2019Aosta in Italy and all administrative regions (distritos) within the superior administrative unit (regi\u00e3o) of Algarve should be declared as officially brucellosis-free regions of Italy and Portugal respectively.\n(11)\nItaly, Poland and Portugal have submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions for the officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free status laid down for in Directive 64/432/EEC for the provinces of Catania, Enna, Palermo and Ragusa in the region of Sicily in Italy, for 19 administrative regions (powiaty) within the superior administrative units (voivodships) of Kujawsko-Pomorskie, Pomorskie, Warmi\u0144sko-Mazurskie and Wielkopolskie in Poland and for all administrative regions (distritos) within the superior administrative units (regi\u00f5es) of Centro and Lisboa e Vale do Tejo and four administrative regions (distritos) within the superior administrative unit (regi\u00e3o) of Norte in Portugal.\n(12)\nFollowing evaluation of the documentation submitted by Italy, Poland and Portugal, the provinces of Catania, Enna, Palermo and Ragusa in the region of Sicily in Italy, the 19 administrative regions (powiaty) within the superior administrative units (voivodships) of Kujawsko-Pomorskie, Pomorskie, Warmi\u0144sko-Mazurskie and Wielkopolskie and all administrative regions (distritos) within the superior administrative units (regi\u00f5es) of Centro and Lisboa e Vale do Tejo and four administrative regions (distritos) within the superior administrative unit (regi\u00e3o) of Norte should be declared as officially enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free regions of Italy, Poland and Portugal respectively.\n(13)\nThe Annexes to Decision 2003/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annexes to Decision 2003/467/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["21", "29", "10", "14", "13", "18", "95", "67", "52", "2", "50", "39", "98", "26", "22", "73", "75", "70", "36", "35", "48", "64", "88", "90", "32", "25", "37", "24", "30", "28", "No Label", "61", "65", "66", "91", "92"], "gold": ["61", "65", "66", "91", "92"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 722/2011\nof 22 July 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 690/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2011.", "references": ["37", "15", "98", "13", "49", "63", "18", "56", "31", "39", "99", "24", "76", "64", "42", "4", "54", "52", "21", "34", "83", "38", "19", "8", "73", "0", "71", "69", "14", "12", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 13 December 2010\non the increase of the European Central Bank\u2019s capital\n(ECB/2010/26)\n(2011/20/EU)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the \u2018Statute of the ESCB\u2019), and in particular Article 28.1 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1009/2000 of 8 May 2000 concerning capital increases of the European Central Bank (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first sentence of Article 28.1 of the Statute of the ESCB the capital of the European Central Bank (ECB) is EUR 5 000 million. The ECB\u2019s capital was increased to EUR 5 760 652 402,58 in accordance with Article 48.3 of the Statute of the ESCB as a consequence of Member States acceding to the Union and their national central banks joining the European System of Central Banks.\n(2)\nPursuant to the second sentence of Article 28.1 of the Statute of the ESCB, the ECB\u2019s capital may be increased by such amount as may be decided by the Governing Council acting by the qualified majority provided for in Article 10.3 of the Statute of the ESCB, within the limits and under the conditions set by the Council of the European Union under the procedure laid down in Article 41 of the Statute of the ESCB.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1009/2000 the Governing Council of the ECB may increase the capital of the ECB beyond the amount specified in the first sentence of Article 28(1) of the Statute of the ESCB by an additional amount of up to EUR 5 000 million.\n(4)\nPursuant to the fourth recital of Regulation (EC) No 1009/2000, the Regulation establishes a limit for future increases in the ECB\u2019s capital, thereby enabling the Governing Council of the ECB to decide on an actual increase at some point in the future in order to sustain the adequacy of the capital base needed to support the operations of the ECB.\n(5)\nTaking into account the increase of the ECB\u2019s balance sheet total over the last years, it is considered necessary to increase the ECB\u2019s capital by EUR 5 000 million in order to sustain the adequacy of the capital base needed to support the operations of the ECB,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIncrease of the ECB\u2019s capital\nThe ECB\u2019s capital shall be increased by EUR 5 000 million from EUR 5 760 652 402,58 to EUR 10 760 652 402,58.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 29 December 2010.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["68", "76", "52", "75", "84", "49", "43", "42", "64", "4", "21", "15", "73", "71", "53", "24", "40", "38", "30", "79", "1", "10", "17", "51", "47", "85", "77", "22", "39", "36", "No Label", "7", "23", "44"], "gold": ["7", "23", "44"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2012/8/EU\nof 2 March 2012\namending Directive 2003/90/EC setting out implementing measures for the purposes of Article 7 of Council Directive 2002/53/EC as regards the characteristics to be covered as a minimum by the examination and the minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (1), and in particular Article 7(2) (a) and (b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Directive 2003/90/EC (2) was adopted to ensure that the varieties the Member States include in their national catalogues comply with the guidelines established by the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) as regards the characteristics to be covered as a minimum by the examination of the various species and the minimum conditions for examining the varieties, as far as such guidelines had been established. For other varieties this Directive provides that guidelines of the International Union for Protection of new Varieties of Plants (UPOV) are to apply.\n(2)\nThe CPVO has since established further guidelines for a number of other species, and has updated existing ones.\n(3)\nDirective 2003/90/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Directive 2003/90/EC are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nFor examinations started before 1 October 2012 Member States may apply Directive 2003/90/EC in the version applying before its amendment by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish, by 30 September 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 October 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2012.", "references": ["89", "44", "15", "51", "88", "83", "17", "42", "32", "72", "61", "22", "62", "68", "8", "25", "37", "49", "27", "80", "6", "50", "94", "84", "85", "71", "19", "30", "11", "38", "No Label", "7", "39", "66"], "gold": ["7", "39", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 768/2010\nof 26 August 2010\nlaying down the weightings applicable from 1 July 2009 to the remuneration of officials, temporary staff and contract staff of the European Union serving in third countries\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 336 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of employment of other servants of the Communities laid down by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X thereto,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt is necessary to take account of changes in the cost of living in countries outside the Union and to determine accordingly the weightings applicable from 1 July 2009 to remuneration paid in the currency of the country of employment to officials, temporary staff and contract staff serving in third countries.\n(2)\nThe weightings in respect of which payment has been made on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 613/2009 (2) may lead to retrospective upward or downward adjustments to remuneration.\n(3)\nProvision should be made for back-payments in the event of an increase in remuneration as a result of the new weightings.\n(4)\nProvision should be made for the recovery of sums overpaid in the event of a reduction in remuneration as a result of the new weightings for the period from 1 July 2009 to the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n(5)\nProvision should be made for any such recovery to be restricted to a period of no more than 6 months preceding the date of entry into force of this Regulation and for its effects to be spread over a period of no more than 12 months following that date, as is the case with the weightings applicable within the European Union to remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nWith effect from 1 July 2009, the weightings applicable to the remuneration of officials, temporary staff and contract staff of the European Union serving in third countries payable in the currency of the country of employment shall be as shown in the Annex.\nThe exchange rates for the calculation of such remuneration shall be established in accordance with the rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3) and shall correspond to 1 July 2009.\nArticle 2\n1. The institutions shall make back-payments in the event of an increase in remuneration as a result of the weightings shown in the Annex.\n2. The institutions shall make retrospective downward adjustments to remuneration in the event of a reduction as a result of the weightings shown in the Annex for the period from 1 July 2009 to 31 August 2010.\nRetrospective adjustments involving the recovery of sums overpaid shall be restricted to a period of no more than 6 months preceding 31 August 2010. Recovery shall be spread over a period of no more than 12 months from that date.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 August 2010.", "references": ["96", "40", "89", "87", "3", "70", "6", "27", "74", "39", "1", "71", "21", "84", "63", "22", "72", "58", "82", "54", "76", "15", "51", "26", "95", "60", "30", "78", "81", "73", "No Label", "2", "4", "7", "28", "52"], "gold": ["2", "4", "7", "28", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 June 2010\nconcerning tax aid granted by France to the Fonds de pr\u00e9vention des al\u00e9as p\u00eache et aux entreprises de p\u00eache (Fund for the prevention of risks to fishing and fisheries undertakings) (State aid C 24/08 (ex NN 38/07))\n(notified under document C(2010) 3938)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/569/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2), and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments (3) pursuant to the provisions cited above,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nIn the context of the investigation of the aid granted to the Fund for the prevention of risks to fishing (Fonds de pr\u00e9vention des al\u00e9as p\u00eache, hereinafter: FPAP) and fisheries undertakings, which resulted in Commission Decision 2008/936/EC (4), the Commission became aware of the existence of a specific tax scheme in favour of FPAP and its members.\n(2)\nThe tax regime was not investigated during the procedure resulting in the Decision of 20 May 2008, as this was new information of which the Commission had not been aware when the formal investigation procedure was opened (5).\n(3)\nWhereas, however, the information at the Commission\u2019s disposal was sufficient for it to identify the existence of illegal aid, the Commission decided to carry out a preliminary investigation of the tax aid (6). Following this analysis, also by a decision adopted on 20 May 2008 (7), the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure with regard to this aid.\n(4)\nThe Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments within one month of the date of publication. No comments were received from any third parties.\n(5)\nFrance submitted its observations on the initiation of the formal investigation procedure by letter dated 8 September 2008.\n(6)\nFurthermore, during the aid recovery procedure pursuant to Decision 2008/936/EC, France reported in a letter dated 29 November 2008 that the FPAP had been dissolved on 27 February 2008 and the balance of the advances received from the state had been repaid.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\n(7)\nThe Commission refers to Decision 2008/936/EC for a detailed description of the operation and activities of the FPAP.\n(8)\nThe specific tax regime in favour of the FPAP and its members is described in two letters from the French ministry responsible for the budget, which were sent to the Commission following the publication of the initiation of the investigation procedure which led to Decision 2008/936/EC (8).\n(9)\nThe first letter, dated 5 February 2004, relates to the creation of the FPAP, the articles of association of which were approved by the constituent assembly which took place on 10 February 2004. The letter states that:\n\u2018-\nthe fund set up in the form of a trade association will not be subject to corporation tax in respect of the contributions paid by the fishermen-owners and the financial income resulting from investment of its liquid assets;\n-\nthe contributions paid will be deductible from the fishermen-owners\u2019 taxable results in respect of the year in which they were paid. As an exceptional measure, initial contributions paid by 30 March 2004 at the latest will be accepted as deductions in respect of the 2003 results.\u2019\n(10)\nThe letter also indicates the amounts which could be subject to the deduction mentioned: the annual contributions of member fishermen-owners, which would be deductible from taxable income, would be between EUR 1 000 and 15 000.\n(11)\nThe second letter, dated 28 November 2004, relates to the deduction from income of the contributions paid by members. The second letter was written in connection with an amendment of the guarantee agreement between the FPAP and its members, which would henceforth provide for the refund to members of contributions which had been paid but not used.\n(12)\nThe letter states that:\n\u2018-\ncontributions paid by members in application of the new agreement will be deductible in respect of the year in which they were paid, up to a limit of EUR 10 000 per year and per member, where this ceiling is increased by 25 % of the part of the profit between EUR 40 000 and 80 000;\n-\nthe contributions paid in excess of the limits set out above in respect of a guarantee project implemented by the Fund will be entirely deductible from members\u2019 taxable income in respect of the year in which they were paid.\u2019\n(13)\nThe letter indicates that \u2018an assessment of this exercise\u2019 would be produced at the end of 2006, and \u2018any necessary amendments examined\u2019. This is not therefore a tax scheme to be applied on a permanent basis.\n(14)\nMoreover, although the letter of 28 November 2004 states that the contributions would be deductible from taxable income in respect of the year in which they were paid, there is no indication of any change with regard to the provision set out in the letter of 5 February 2004 regarding the deduction of contributions paid before the end of March 2004 from income in respect of 2003.\n(15)\nIt follows from the two letters mentioned above that the tax scheme granted by the Ministry of Finance to the FPAP and its members comprises two aspects:\n-\nfirstly, in respect of the FPAP, exemption from corporation tax,\n-\nsecondly, the option for FPAP members to deduct their contributions to the fund from their taxable result.\n3. REASONS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(16)\nThe Commission considered that the tax scheme granted by the French authorities in respect of the FPAP and its members should, as previously for case C-9/06, be analysed under the State aid scheme in relation to the advantages it conferred, on the one hand on the FPAP itself and, on the other hand, on its member fisheries undertakings.\n3.1. Existence of State aid\n3.1.1. State aid at the level of the FPAP\n(17)\nAs explained in Decision 2008/936/EC, the FPAP must be considered as an undertaking within the meaning of European Union competition law. The non-profit-making character of the FPAP and its association status are without relevance in this respect.\n(18)\nConsequently, the Commission considered that the tax scheme granted by the French authorities conferred a double advantage on the FPAP in relation to other private investors active on futures markets for petroleum products:\n-\nfirstly, the exemption from corporation tax, described in recital 9, granted to the FPAP constitutes a mitigation of the charges which are normally included in the budget of undertakings operating in this field,\n-\nsecondly, the tax advantage granted to FPAP members, whichever form it may take, constitutes an incentive to contribute to the income of the FPAP; it thus enables the FPAP to increase its liquidity, whereas other undertakings operating in this sector do not have an equivalent mechanism at their disposal.\n(19)\nAfter its preliminary investigation, the Commission considered that the advantage referred to in recital 17 had been granted by the state and that it involved the waiving of state resources.\n(20)\nLastly, as a result of the tax measures referred to in recital 17, the FPAP had benefitted from a financial advantage in relation to other companies operating on futures markets, both in France and in other Member States.\n(21)\nIn its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission also indicated that it assumed that the legal basis which had enabled the FPAP to benefit from the exemption from tax on profits was Article 206(1a) of the General Tax Code (9), which provides for exemption of trade associations under certain conditions. Under these circumstances, the FPAP may also have qualified for an exemption from business tax, as provided for under Article 1447 of the same Code for organisations which qualify for the exemption provided for under Article 206(1a) of the Code.\n3.1.2. State aid in favour of fisheries undertakings\n(22)\nThe financial advantage referred to under recital 17 enabled member fisheries undertakings to purchase fuel at a preferential rate as a result of the investments made by the FPAP on futures markets for petroleum products.\n(23)\nThe effect of the option granted to fisheries undertakings of deducting their contributions to the FPAP from their income was to mitigate the charges which are normally included in their budgets. This deduction option was granted by the ministry responsible for the budget and is, therefore, imputable to the state.\n(24)\nThe undertakings which have been able to apply the deduction referred to in recital 22 have benefitted from a financial advantage in relation to other fisheries undertakings in the Union. This advantage has thus affected trade between Member States and distorted or threatened to distort competition. For this reason, it constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(25)\nMoreover, in its analysis of the information set out in the \u2018Detailed rules of procedure of the Fund for the prevention of risks to fishing\u2019 (\u2018Mode d'emploi d\u00e9taill\u00e9 du Fonds de pr\u00e9vention des al\u00e9as p\u00eache\u2019), which were also forwarded to the Commission in connection with the formal investigation procedure C-9/06, the Commission found that, when contributions to the FPAP determined on a declarative basis in relation to projected fuel consumption for the year ahead were calculated on a basis which was higher than actual consumption, shipowners retained in full the tax deduction granted. The system appeared to constitute an incentive for shipowners to overestimate their cover requirements with the sole objective of benefitting from the tax deduction.\n(26)\nOn the basis of the same document, the Commission also found that some members whose professional activities were not connected to fishing but who were \u2018prepared to provide moral support for the trade association\u2019 were also entitled to a tax deduction in respect of their contributions to the FPAP, even though the latter were not linked to a guarantee risk.\n3.2. Compatibility with the common market\n(27)\nWith regard to this point, the Commission referred to the analysis presented in Decision 2008/936/EC. The Commission found that the aid in question was operating aid in respect of the FPAP and fisheries undertakings and that no provision of the TFEU or any State aid instrument adopted by the Commission constituted a basis for asserting that such aid was compatible with the common market.\n(28)\nConsequently, the Commission informed France of its serious doubts as to the compatibility of the aid measures with the common market.\n4. COMMENTS FROM FRANCE\n4.1. Tax measure in favour of fisheries undertakings\n(29)\nFrance considers that the tax measures in favour of fisheries undertakings are not State aid because the contributions paid to the FPAP by fisheries undertakings constitute part of these undertakings\u2019 overheads for the exercise of their professional activities. In application of Article 39 of the General Tax Code, these costs are deductible from taxable income. The deduction of these contributions therefore corresponds to the implementation of a general measure and, consequently, does not constitute State aid.\n(30)\nFrance recognises that the letters referred to under recital 7 did not contain any information on the scheme for the reimbursement of contributions. However, France emphasises that this does not mean that the reimbursement was without tax effect. In accordance with common law principles for determining taxable results, the reimbursement of the contributions to FPAP member fisheries undertakings constituted income subject to tax on the profit of these undertakings. France also states that, in the case where the price of fuel exceeded the threshold laid down in the guarantee agreement, the compensation received by FPAP member undertakings constituted a gain subject to tax on profits. Consequently, there was no incentive for member undertakings to overestimate their cover requirements, as this would have resulted in additional taxation.\n(31)\nIn addition, France states that the selective nature of an aid measure may be justified on account of the nature and general scheme of the system. Consequently, there may be legitimate reasons which justify differentiated treatment and thus, where appropriate, the granting of the advantages which may ensue. However, in this case, France has not presented any information which could justify differentiated treatment in favour of fisheries undertakings.\n4.2. Tax measure in favour of the FPAP\n(32)\nFrance considers that the exemption from corporation tax granted to the FPAP is justified on account of its non-profit-making character and its trade association status.\n(33)\nFrance asserts that this is compliant with European Union law. The very objective of corporation tax is to levy a tax on profit-making activities. In application of this principle, France recalls that the Commission itself, in its communication on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (10) (hereinafter: \u2018direct taxation communication\u2019), considers that the nature of the tax system may justify exemption from business tax for not-for-profit organisations.\n5. ASSESSMENT\n(34)\nThe assessment set out in the decision to initiate the procedure must be reviewed and developed in the light of the information presented by France on 8 September and 29 November 2008 (see recitals 5 and 6).\n(35)\nThe analysis examines the double objective of the FPAP, that is to say, on the one hand, to acquire financial options on futures markets for petrol and derivative products and, on the other hand, to pay the member fisheries undertakings a sum equal to the difference between the average monthly reference price and the \u2018maximum price covered\u2019 or the price of 30 euro cents per litre depending on the period.\n5.1. Tax measure in favour of fisheries undertakings\n(36)\nThe tax measure in question involves the option of deducting the contributions paid by fisheries undertakings to the FPAP from taxable income.\n(37)\nFrance considers that this deduction does not constitute State aid since the contributions constitute part of the overheads of the undertakings and the French tax system provides for the deduction of such expenses from taxable income. Consequently, it is claimed that the measure constitutes the implementation of a general measure and that the deduction does not constitute State aid.\n(38)\nThe Commission notes that overheads are deductible from undertakings\u2019 results in application of Article 39 of the General Tax Code. This is a general measure which applies to all undertakings, irrespective of their field of activity. The deduction option therefore falls under the category of tax measures open to all economic operators referred to under point 13 of the \u2018direct taxation communication\u2019. Accordingly, a measure of this kind which applies without distinction to all undertakings and the production of all goods does not constitute State aid.\n(39)\nFrance argues that the eligibility of charges for deduction as overheads is determined on the basis of the object of the charges. If the charges were incurred in the company\u2019s interest, they are in principle deductible. Accordingly, contributions paid to professional bodies (associations, chambers of commerce, etc.) by definition constitute expenditure committed in the interest of the professional activity in question and are always eligible for deduction from the taxable result. As the FPAP is a trade association, the eligibility for deduction of its members\u2019 contributions follows the same principle.\n(40)\nMoreover, the Commission stated in recital 20 of Decision 2008/936/EC that \u2018the FPAP is thus designed to be a mutual insurance company providing a number of benefits for its members in exchange for their contributions\u2019.\n(41)\nInsurance contributions form part of the charges borne by undertakings to protect themselves against various risks. The risk of fluctuations in the cost of oil may constitute one of these risks. These charges are directly linked to the carrying out of the professional activity and do not increase the assets of the undertaking; they are also deductible from taxable income as overheads. It can therefore be considered that the contributions to the FPAP used to offset the risk of fluctuations in the price of oil are deductible from undertakings\u2019 results in application of Article 39 of France\u2019s General Tax Code. Under these conditions, the measure corresponds to the implementation of a general measure. The deduction option does not therefore constitute State aid.\n5.2. Tax measure in favour of the FPAP\n(42)\nThe Commission notes that the FPAP was dissolved on 27 February 2008. The tax provisions in respect of the FPAP lapsed on the same date.\n(43)\nThe Commission also observes that, following the liquidation procedure, the FPAP ceased all economic activity. The activities and assets of the FPAP have not been transferred to any other undertaking. Moreover, the funds which were still available to the FPAP on the date of its disbandment were transferred to the state, via OFIMER, a state-funded public body.\n(44)\nFor these reasons, the Commission considers that, even supposing that the tax measures in favour of the FPAP had constituted an advantage for the FPAP and a distortion of competition, such distortion came to an end when the FPAP ceased to operate and when the measures relating to it came to an end. Under these circumstances, a decision by the Commission on the existence of such tax aid and its potential compatibility with the common market would be devoid of practical effect.\n(45)\nConsequently, the formal investigation initiated under Article 108(2), TFEU no longer serves any purpose with regard to the FPAP.\n6. CONCLUSION\n(46)\nOn the basis of the analysis set out in section 5.1, the Commission notes that the tax advantages conferred upon the members of the FPAP do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(47)\nOn the basis of the considerations set out in section 5.2, the Commission finds that the procedure against the FPAP has no purpose,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION\nArticle 1\nThe tax measures granted by France in respect of fisheries undertakings do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nArticle 2\nThe formal investigation initiated under Article 108(2) TFEU with regard to tax measures in respect of the FPAP is closed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to France.\nDone at Brussels, 23 June 2010.", "references": ["47", "55", "90", "62", "61", "65", "22", "79", "31", "8", "44", "64", "71", "88", "35", "9", "19", "73", "95", "26", "46", "32", "42", "18", "57", "80", "84", "4", "53", "77", "No Label", "15", "34", "41", "48", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "34", "41", "48", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\nappointing two Slovakian members and four Slovakian alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/451/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Slovakian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nTwo members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Andrej \u010eURKOVSK\u00dd and Mr Franti\u0161ek KNAP\u00cdK. Three alternate members\u2019 seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Jozef PETU\u0160\u00cdK, Mr J\u00e1n BLCH\u00c1\u010c and Mr Remo CICUTTO. An alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Milan FT\u00c1\u010cNIK as a member of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMr Milan FT\u00c1\u010cNIK, prim\u00e1tor hl. mesta Bratislava\n-\nMr Richard RA\u0160I, prim\u00e1tor mesta Ko\u0161ice\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMr Jozef DVON\u010c, prim\u00e1tor mesta Nitra\n-\nMr Vladim\u00edr BAJAN, starosta M\u010c Bratislava-Petr\u017ealka\n-\nMr Alexander SLAFKOVSK\u00dd, prim\u00e1tor mesta Liptovsk\u00fd Mikul\u00e1\u0161\n-\nMr Marek TURANSK\u00dd, starosta obce Voderady.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["29", "57", "39", "0", "89", "23", "60", "1", "40", "47", "49", "92", "19", "68", "9", "52", "3", "51", "44", "20", "75", "86", "56", "69", "95", "38", "12", "34", "80", "25", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 463/2012\nof 31 May 2012\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 June 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 June 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.\n(5)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 June 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2012.", "references": ["65", "2", "93", "51", "24", "3", "40", "36", "87", "1", "94", "9", "85", "25", "79", "52", "41", "27", "64", "39", "0", "83", "95", "75", "99", "90", "46", "7", "67", "50", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1203/2011\nof 18 November 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["33", "24", "49", "11", "28", "62", "99", "4", "44", "85", "2", "38", "10", "57", "46", "63", "3", "93", "87", "48", "51", "23", "94", "88", "6", "15", "64", "80", "0", "20", "No Label", "21", "40"], "gold": ["21", "40"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 20 June 2011\non the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing\n(2011/443/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a), thereof\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Union is competent to adopt measures for the conservation, management and control of fishery resources; it is also competent to enter into agreements with third countries and within the framework of international organisations.\n(2)\nThe European Union is a contracting party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, which, inter alia, requires all members of the international community to cooperate in managing and conserving the biological resources of the sea.\n(3)\nThe European Union and its Members are Contracting Parties to the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, which entered into force on 11 December 2001.\n(4)\nThe Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Conference approved, at its Thirty Sixth Session held in Rome on 18-23 November 2009, the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) in accordance with Article XIV, paragraph 1, of the FAO Constitution, for submission to FAO Members.\n(5)\nThe Agreement was signed on 22 November 2009 on behalf of the European Community, subject to its conclusion at a later date.\n(6)\nThe Union is a major player in international fisheries and one of the main global markets for fishery products and it is in its interest to play an effective role in the implementation of the Agreement and to approve the Agreement.\n(7)\nThe Agreement should therefore be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement and the Declaration concerning the competence of the Union are attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to deposit the instrument of approval with the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations acting in his capacity as Depositary of the Agreement in accordance with Article 26 of the Agreement, together with the Declaration concerning the competence of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["32", "45", "88", "43", "51", "0", "70", "74", "95", "11", "13", "8", "3", "34", "79", "57", "15", "68", "89", "91", "10", "7", "19", "65", "26", "9", "1", "35", "6", "73", "No Label", "12", "56", "58", "67"], "gold": ["12", "56", "58", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED DECISION\nof 29 June 2012\non investigations and fines related to the manipulation of statistics as referred to in Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area\n(2012/678/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area (1), and in particular Article 8(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 1173/2011 sets out a system of sanctions for enhancing the enforcement of the preventive and corrective parts of the Stability and Growth Pact in the euro area. It applies to Member States whose currency is the euro.\n(2)\nThe availability of sound fiscal data is essential for budgetary surveillance in the euro area. In order to guarantee sound and independent statistics, Member States should ensure the principle of professional independence of national statistical authorities in conformity with Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (2), and as further set out in the European Statistics Code of Practice.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 1173/2011 empowers the Commission to survey the economic and monetary cooperation with a view to detecting and exposing manipulation of general government deficit and debt data relevant for the application of the multilateral surveillance system and the excessive deficit procedure.\n(4)\nFor that purpose, the Commission should conduct all necessary investigations to confirm the existence of misrepresentations of actual deficit and debt data, as a result of intent or serious negligence, as referred to in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011.\n(5)\nIt is necessary to establish the detailed rules concerning the procedures for investigations, detailed criteria establishing the amount of the fine, detailed rules guaranteeing the rights of the defence, access to the file, legal representation, confidentiality, and provisions as to the timing and collection of fines.\n(6)\nA decision by the Commission to launch investigations should be justified, and the investigations undertaken should be proportionate so as not to go beyond what is necessary to establish the possible existence of manipulation of the relevant deficit and debt data.\n(7)\nWhen undertaking such investigations, the Commission should be able to conduct on-site inspections and request information from any entity to be classified in the general-government sector, whether at central, State, local or social-security level, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community (3), hereinafter referred to as \u2018ESA 95\u2019.\n(8)\nIn order to confirm a suspicion following serious indications of misrepresentation of the relevant deficit and debt data, the launch of an investigation should normally be preceded by a methodological visit conducted by the Commission (Eurostat) in accordance with Article 11b of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 of 25 May 2009 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (4).\n(9)\nIn assessing what constitutes a misrepresentation of deficit and debt data within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011, incorrect implementation of ESA 95 accounting rules which is not the result of either intent or serious negligence should not be considered as such. Further excluded from the application of this Decision should be revisions, including major revisions due to changes in methodology for all historical years, that are clearly and adequately explained, insignificant mistakes and cases where a doubt has been expressed by the Member State concerned and clarification has been requested from the Commission (Eurostat) in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 479/2009.\n(10)\nUsers of European statistics have a legitimate expectation that they are produced by statistical authorities that conduct their activities professionally and with due diligence. An unintentional act or omission should be considered a case of serious negligence if a person responsible for the production of general government deficit and debt data is in patent breach of his duty of care.\n(11)\nFor the purpose of its defence, the Member State concerned should be duly notified of the opening of as well as of the results of the Commission investigations. The results of the investigations should be communicated by means of a Commission report to be transmitted to the European Parliament and to the Council, and to be made public. The Commission (Eurostat) should keep the European Statistical System Committee and the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board appropriately informed.\n(12)\nThe rights of defence and the principle of confidentiality should be respected in accordance with the general principles of law and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In particular, the Member State concerned should have the right to be heard by the Commission during the investigations, as well as to access the file compiled by the Commission.\n(13)\nRecommendations to the Council to impose a fine should be based exclusively on grounds on which the Member State concerned has been able to comment.\n(14)\nCriteria determining the amount of the fine should be established. These criteria should be used to ensure that the fine proposed is fixed at an appropriate level, making it effective, proportionate and dissuasive, based on a reference amount adapted upwards or downwards where necessary in the light of specific circumstances.\n(15)\nThis Decision should be without prejudice to the Commission (Eurostat) exercising its powers under Regulation (EC) No 479/2009.\n(16)\nThe content and form of the measures laid down in this Decision do not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives established in Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011, in accordance with Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union.\n(17)\nThis Decision should apply without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (5),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Decision lays down detailed rules concerning the procedures for investigating misrepresentations of general-government deficit and debt data that are the result of intent or serious negligence, detailed rules concerning the right of defence and confidentiality, detailed criteria establishing the amount of the fine and provisions as to the timing and collection of the fines referred to in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011.\n2. This Decision shall apply to Member States whose currency is the euro.\nCHAPTER II\nPROCEDURES FOR INVESTIGATIONS\nArticle 2\nInitiation of the investigations\n1. The Commission shall notify the Member State concerned of its decision to initiate an investigation, including information of the serious indications found of the existence of facts liable to constitute a misrepresentation of general government deficit and debt data arising from the manipulation of such data as a result of either intent or serious negligence.\n2. During an investigation, the Commission (Eurostat) may request information, interview persons, conduct on-site inspections and accede to the accounts of all government entities at central, State, local and social security level, in accordance with the procedures laid down in Articles 3 to 5. Those means of investigation may be employed by the Commission (Eurostat), either individually or in combination. Where relevant and while fully respecting national rules governing such institutions, the court of auditors or other supreme audit institutions of the Member State concerned may be invited to assist and participate.\n3. The Commission may opt not to conduct such an investigation until a methodological visit has been carried out in accordance with a decision taken by the Commission (Eurostat) under Regulation (EC) No 479/2009.\n4. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council of its decision to initiate an investigation.\nArticle 3\nRequest for information\n1. At the request of the Commission, any government entity, directly or indirectly involved in compiling debt and deficit data of the Member State concerned, or whose accounts are used for this compilation (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the entity concerned\u2019) shall provide the Commission with all necessary information to perform its task of investigation. The Member State concerned shall be informed about any such request by the Commission to the entity concerned.\n2. The Commission shall state the purpose of the request, specifying that the request is made pursuant to this Decision, and shall indicate a deadline for the reply, which shall be no less than four weeks.\nArticle 4\nInterviews\nThe Commission may interview any person directly or indirectly involved in compiling deficit and debt data, who agrees to be interviewed, for the purpose of collecting information or explanations concerning facts or documents relating to the subject matter of an investigation and to record the answers. The entity concerned shall be informed before any of its representatives or members of staff are interviewed. The person interviewed may request the assistance of a representative of the entity concerned or of a legal counsel.\nArticle 5\nInspections\n1. The Commission officials and other accompanying persons authorised by the Commission to conduct an inspection shall be empowered to:\n(a)\nenter any premises of the entity concerned;\n(b)\naccede all records and accounts of the entity concerned, irrespective of the medium on which they are stored;\n(c)\ntake or obtain any form of copy or extract of any records and accounts;\n(d)\nseal any records and accounts to the extent and for the period of time necessary to compile the factual evidence for the investigation while not hampering the essential activities of the entity concerned;\n(e)\nask any representative or member of staff of the entity concerned for explanations on facts or documents relating to the subject matter and purpose of the inspection, under the conditions laid down in Article 4.\n2. The Commission officials and other accompanying persons authorised by the Commission to conduct an inspection shall present a written authorisation specifying the subject matter and purpose of the inspection, stating the date on which the inspection begins.\n3. The entity concerned shall fully cooperate with the Commission for the purposes of the inspection.\n4. Staff members of statistical authorities of the Member State concerned shall, at the request of the Commission, actively assist the officials and other accompanying persons authorised by the Commission. To this end, they shall enjoy the powers specified in paragraph 1.\n5. Where the Commission officials and other accompanying persons authorised by the Commission find that an entity opposes an inspection ordered pursuant to this Article, the Member State concerned shall provide them the necessary assistance according to national rules.\n6. If, by national rules, the authorisation from a judicial authority is necessary for the conduct of the inspection, such authorisation shall be applied for by the Commission. In those cases the authorisation from a judicial authority shall be presented along with the written authorisation referred to in paragraph 2.\nArticle 6\nRight to be heard\nBefore adoption of the report referred to in Article 7, the Commission shall invite the Member State concerned to submit written observations on the preliminary findings.\nIt shall do so in writing, indicating a deadline for the submission of those observations, which shall be no less than four weeks.\nArticle 7\nReporting\n1. The Commission shall adopt a report presenting its findings and the observations submitted by the Member State concerned in the light of the investigations conducted in accordance with this Chapter and submit it to that Member State.\n2. The Commission shall transmit this report to the European Parliament and the Council. This report shall be made public.\n3. The Commission (Eurostat) shall inform the European Statistical System Committee and the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board about the outcome of the investigation.\n4. Any Commission recommendation to the Council to impose a fine on the Member State concerned shall be based on the report referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 8\nDuration\n1. The Commission shall adopt the report referred to in Article 7 no later than 10 months after notification of its decision to initiate an investigation according to Article 2. In exceptional cases, where the investigations are obstructed or where the acquisition of the information necessary for the investigations involves excessively long procedures, the Commission may extend the deadline by five months.\n2. The inspections shall be completed within six months of the starting date of the inspection. In exceptional cases, where the inspections are obstructed or where the acquisition of the information in connection with the inspections involves excessively long procedures, the Commission may extend the deadline by three months.\nCHAPTER III\nRIGHT OF DEFENCE AND CONFIDENTIALITY\nArticle 9\nRight of defence\nThe principle of the right of defence shall apply to any implementation of this Decision.\nArticle 10\nAccess to the file\nThe Member State concerned shall have the right, on request, to access all documents and other factual materials compiled by the Commission which could serve as supporting evidence for the recommendation to the Council to impose the said Member State a fine.\nDocuments obtained by the Member State concerned through access to the file shall be used solely for the purposes of this Decision.\nArticle 11\nLegal representation\nThe Member State concerned, any entity concerned, any person working for such an entity or any other natural person concerned shall have the right to legal representation during the investigations.\nArticle 12\nConfidentiality and professional secrecy\nThe investigations set out in Chapter II shall be conducted subject to the principles of confidentiality and professional secrecy. The Commission officials and other accompanying persons authorised by the Commission shall not disclose information that is acquired in the framework of the investigation which is covered by the obligation of professional secrecy and confidentiality.\nDocuments or information obtained by the Commission in the course of the investigations shall be used solely for the purposes of this Decision.\nCHAPTER IV\nCRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE\nArticle 13\nMaximum amount\nThe total amount of the fine shall not exceed 0,2 % of the latest official gross domestic product at current market prices of the Member State concerned, as defined in ESA 95, in the preceding year.\nArticle 14\nCriteria with regard to the amount of the fine\n1. The Commission shall ensure that the fine to be recommended is effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The fine shall be established on the basis of a reference amount that may be modulated upwards or downwards when taking into account the specific circumstances referred to in paragraph 3.\n2. The reference amount shall be equal to 5 % of the larger impact of the misrepresentation on the level of either the general government deficit or debt of the Member State for the relevant years covered by the notification in the context of the excessive deficit procedure.\n3. Taking into account the maximum amount established in Article 13, the Commission shall in each case take into consideration, where relevant, the following circumstances:\n(a)\nthe seriousness and the wider effects of the misrepresentation; in particular, the impact of the misrepresentation on the functioning of the strengthened economic governance of the Union;\n(b)\nthe fact that the misrepresentation has been shown to be the result of serious negligence or, alternatively, the misrepresentation has been shown to be intentional;\n(c)\nthe fact that the misrepresentation was the work of one entity acting alone or, alternatively, the misrepresentation was the result of a concerted action by two or more entities;\n(d)\nthe repetition, frequency or duration of the misrepresentation by the Member State concerned; in such cases, the reference amount shall be the highest magnitude detected and shall be multiplied by the number of years, across the four years of the last notification, in which the relevant misrepresentation occurred;\n(e)\nthe degree of diligence and cooperation, alternatively the degree of obstruction, shown by the Member State concerned in the detection of the misrepresentation and in the course of the investigations.\nArticle 15\nLimitation period for the collection of fines\n1. The right of the Commission to enforce decisions taken by the Council pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 shall be exercised within a period of five years.\n2. The period shall begin to run on the day on which the Member State concerned is notified of the decision of the Council.\n3. The limitation period for the recovery of fines shall be interrupted by any action of the Commission designed to enforce payment of the fine or shall be suspended for so long as enforcement of payment is suspended pursuant to a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union.\nCHAPTER V\nFINAL PROVISION\nArticle 16\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2012.", "references": ["63", "14", "7", "61", "75", "29", "23", "43", "55", "96", "78", "60", "48", "3", "5", "2", "58", "90", "38", "10", "66", "9", "22", "37", "56", "99", "51", "68", "1", "30", "No Label", "8", "12", "19", "27", "28", "32", "33"], "gold": ["8", "12", "19", "27", "28", "32", "33"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 7 May 2012\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel, excluding seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel, originating in Belarus\n(2012/247/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 16 May 2011 the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) received a complaint concerning the alleged injurious dumping of imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel, excluding seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel, originating in Belarus (\u2018the country concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe complaint was lodged by the Defence Committee of the Seamless Steel Tubes Industry of the European Union (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain seamless pipes and tubes.\n(3)\nThe complaint contained prima facie evidence of the existence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding.\n(4)\nThe Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, in a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), initiated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in Belarus.\n(5)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the Union industry, to the exporting producer in Belarus, to the importers, and to the authorities of Belarus. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(6)\nAll interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\nB. WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(7)\nBy letter of 26 January 2012 to the Commission, the complainant formally withdrew its complaint.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(9)\nThe Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated since the investigation had not brought to light any considerations showing that such termination would not be in the Union interest. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received indicating that such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(10)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in Belarus should be terminated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes or iron or steel, excluding seamless pipes and steel of stainless steel, of circular cross-section, of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm with a Carbon Equivalent Value (CEV) not exc\u0117eding 0,86 according to the International Institute of Welding (IIW) formula and chemical analysis (3) originating in Belarus, currently falling within CN codes ex 7304 19 10, ex 7304 19 30, ex 7304 23 00, ex 7304 29 10, ex 7304 29 30, ex 7304 31 80, ex 7304 39 58, ex 7304 39 92, ex 7304 39 93, ex 7304 51 89, ex 7304 59 92 and ex 7304 59 93, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 7 May 2012.", "references": ["72", "36", "59", "15", "52", "78", "69", "38", "27", "65", "24", "31", "6", "3", "7", "62", "29", "20", "11", "1", "99", "63", "67", "34", "68", "89", "77", "71", "93", "35", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "76", "85", "91", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "76", "85", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/34/EU\nof 8 March 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include flurochloridone as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included flurochloridone.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of flurochloridone.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter the applicant) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Spain, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nSpain evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 3 November 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on flurochloridone to the Commission on 14 October 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 4 February 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for flurochloridone.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing flurochloridone may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include flurochloridone in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information confirming: the relevance of impurities other than toluene, the compliance of ecotoxicological test material with the technical specifications, the relevance of the groundwater metabolite R42819 (7) and the potential endocrine disrupting properties of flurochloridone.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing flurochloridone to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (8) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of flurochloridone and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning flurochloridone in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning flurochloridone in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing flurochloridone as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to flurochloridone are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing flurochloridone as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning flurochloridone. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1) (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing flurochloridone as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing flurochloridone as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2011.", "references": ["99", "55", "79", "86", "62", "96", "53", "24", "34", "45", "39", "97", "17", "16", "36", "14", "58", "35", "54", "73", "50", "92", "11", "66", "95", "29", "7", "87", "52", "82", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 June 2011\namending Part A of Annex XI to Council Directive 2003/85/EC as regards the list of national laboratories authorised to handle live foot-and-mouth disease virus\n(notified under document C(2011) 4385)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/378/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC and Decisions 89/531/EEC and 91/665/EEC and amending Directive 92/46/EEC (1), and in particular Article 67(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2003/85/EC sets out minimum control measures to be applied in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and certain preventive measures aimed at increasing the awareness and preparedness of the competent authorities and the farming community concerning that disease.\n(2)\nThose preventive measures include an obligation on Member States to ensure that the handling of live foot-and-mouth disease virus for research and diagnosis is carried out only in the approved laboratories listed in Part A of Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC.\n(3)\nSpain has officially informed the Commission that the Centro de Investigaci\u00f3n en Sanidad Animal (CISA), Valdeolmos, Madrid, complies with the requirements laid down in Article 65 of Directive 2003/85/EC. Spain requested that the CISA be added to the list of national laboratories, authorised to handle the live foot-and-mouth disease virus, set out in Part A of Annex XI to that Directive.\n(4)\nAccordingly, it is necessary to replace the entry for Spain in the list of national laboratories set out in Part A Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC.\n(5)\nPart A of Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Part A of Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC, the entry for Spain is replaced by the following:\n\u2018ES\nSpain\n-\nLaboratorio Central de Sanidad Animal, Algete, Madrid\n-\nCentro de Investigaci\u00f3n en Sanidad Animal (CISA), Valdeolmos, Madrid\nSpain\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2011.", "references": ["33", "22", "99", "72", "71", "7", "84", "47", "70", "35", "88", "50", "95", "94", "45", "93", "42", "98", "19", "25", "15", "10", "55", "76", "21", "48", "34", "49", "69", "63", "No Label", "38", "61", "66", "77", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "61", "66", "77", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 29 June 2011\non State aid granted by France to the Institut Fran\u00e7ais du P\u00e9trole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08))\n(notified under document C(2011) 4483)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/26/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2), and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (3),\nWhereas:\n1 PROCEDURE\n(1)\nIn the course of a formal investigation in State aid case No C 51/05, concerning aid granted by France to the Institut Fran\u00e7ais du P\u00e9trole (4), the French authorities informed the Commission, by letter dated 18 July 2006, registered as received on 19 July 2006, that on 7 July 2006 the Institut Fran\u00e7ais du P\u00e9trole (\u2018IFP\u2019), which had formerly been a trade body (\u00e9tablissement professional) within the meaning of the legislation known as Law No 43-612 of 17 November 1943 on the management of trade interests (loi sur la gestion des int\u00e9r\u00eats professionnels), had now been converted into a publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment (\u00e9tablissement public \u00e0 caract\u00e8re industriel et commercial - \u2018EPIC\u2019). This conversion was evidenced in two documents which the French authorities enclosed with their letter: i) Decree No 2006-797 of 6 July 2006 establishing the constitution of the publicly owned establishment IFP (d\u00e9cret portant statuts de l\u2019\u00e9tablissement public IFP), and ii) Article 95 of Programme Law No 2005-781 of 13 July 2005 establishing the energy policy guidelines (loi de programme fixant les orientations de la politique \u00e9nerg\u00e9tique), under which the Decree cited above had been issued.\n(2)\nBy letters dated 3 August 2007 and 7 May 2008, the Commission requested information from the French authorities; they replied by letters dated 28 September 2007 and 26 June 2008 respectively.\n(3)\nOn 16 July 2008, in a previous case, the Commission adopted a decision on a first measure implemented by France to assist the IFP group (\u2018decision C 51/2005\u2019) (5). In that decision, the Commission stressed that the question of the existence of additional State aid, in the form of a potential unlimited State guarantee stemming from the EPIC status of IFP, would be the subject of a separate investigation in another proceeding.\n(4)\nThis second proceeding under Article 108(2) TFEU was the subject of a Commission decision dated 16 July 2008 (\u2018the opening decision\u2019) (6), taken pursuant to Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (7) (\u2018the Procedural Regulation\u2019), against the unlimited State guarantee from which the IFP group was potentially benefiting.\n(5)\nThe Commission published the opening decision in the Official Journal of the European Union on 11 October 2008, asking interested parties to submit their comments on the measure.\n(6)\nThe Commission received observations from France by letter dated 14 October 2008.\n(7)\nBy letter dated 6 November 2008, registered as received by the Commission on the same day, the legal advisers of UOP Ltd (\u2018UOP\u2019) informed the Commission that their client wished to comment on the measure. In view of the time needed for translation, they asked for extra time until 30 November 2008 in which to send their comments. By letter dated 7 November 2008, the Commission accepted that this request was justified and agreed to extend the deadline for UOP\u2019s reply until 30 November 2008. By letter dated 28 November 2008, registered as received by the Commission on the same day, UOP\u2019s legal advisers forwarded their client\u2019s comments on the opening decision.\n(8)\nIn the same letter of 28 November 2008 UOP\u2019s legal advisers sought permission for their client to submit additional comments in the course of the proceeding. By letter dated 17 December 2008, the Commission acceded to this request, agreeing to extend the deadline for UOP\u2019s reply until 23 January 2009 to enable it to submit any additional comments. By letter dated 23 January 2009, UOP\u2019s legal advisers forwarded additional comments from their client.\n(9)\nBy letter dated 6 May 2009, the Commission communicated to the French authorities all the comments made by UOP on the opening decision, where necessary in a confidential version. It asked them to send it their comments by 8 June 2009 at the latest. By letter dated 2 June 2009, the French authorities requested that this time limit be extended until 22 June 2009, since, in their view, the comments submitted by the third party required detailed and in-depth analysis and the consultation of several ministerial departments. By letter dated 9 June 2009, the Commission agreed to this extension until 22 June 2009. By letter dated 22 June 2009, the French authorities forwarded their observations on the comments made by UOP.\n(10)\nBy letter dated 29 July 2009, the Commission asked the French authorities for additional information, requesting a reply by 24 August 2009. By letter dated 19 August 2009, the French authorities asked for an extension until 7 September 2009, to which the Commission acceded by letter dated 20 August 2009. The French authorities finally provided the information requested by letter dated 8 September 2009.\n(11)\nBy letter dated 20 November 2009, the Commission requested further information from the French authorities, asking for a reply within twenty days. By letter dated 14 December 2009, the French authorities asked for an extension until 22 January 2010, which the Commission granted by letter dated 18 December 2009. The French authorities finally supplied the information requested by letter dated 13 January 2010.\n(12)\nOn 20 May 2010, a meeting organised by the Commission was held in Brussels to discuss with the French authorities the consequences for the present case of the decision adopted by the Commission on 26 January 2010 concerning State aid granted to La Poste by State aid measure No C 56/07 (ex E 15/05) (\u2018decision C 56/2007\u2019) (8). La Poste was an entity governed by public law which up to that time had a status that could be deemed equivalent to that of an EPIC (9), and the case concerning it (the \u2018La Poste case\u2019 or the \u2018postal case\u2019) presented significant similarities with the measure at issue, so much so that the French authorities had put forward the same arguments,mutatis mutandis, in their comments on each of the two cases. On 4 June 2010, a list of additional questions was sent to France by e-mail, since the Commission wished to receive a written contribution from the French authorities on the various points covered during this meeting. On 16 July 2010, the French authorities supplied the information requested.\n(13)\nBy letter dated 29 September 2010, the Commission asked the French authorities to transmit additional information, requesting a reply within 20 days. By letter dated 7 October 2010, the French authorities asked for an extension until 26 November 2010; the Commission agreed by letter dated 8 October 2010. The French authorities finally provided the information requested by letter dated 26 November 2010.\n2 THE IFP GROUP\n(14)\nAs indicated by the Commission in the opening decision and in decision C 51/2005 (10), IFP performs three tasks:\n-\nresearch and development in the fields of oil and gas prospecting and refining and petrochemicals technologies,\n-\nthe training of engineers and technicians, and\n-\nthe provision of sector information and documentation.\nA contract of objectives with the State lays down the broad lines of its work for five years at a time.\n(15)\nFurthermore, IFP directly and indirectly controls commercial enterprises with which it has concluded exclusive research and licensing agreements. On the basis of a body of consistent evidence, the details of which are recalled in recital 137, the Commission considered in decision C 51/2005 that the combination of the public limited companies Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat, together with their parent, IFP, constituted an economic group (the \u2018IFP group\u2019) for purposes of competition law.\n(16)\nAxens is active in the market for catalysts and technologies for the refining and petrochemicals industries, and in 2006, when the legal form of its parent changed, its consolidated turnover was EUR 308,45 million. IFP and Axens are linked by two exclusive framework licensing and product licensing agreements and an industrial research agreement (11). The subsidiary pays the parent royalties under the licensing agreements and remuneration [\u2026] (13) for access to IFP\u2019s research capacity.\n(17)\nBeicip-Franlab specialises in the publication and distribution of deposits exploration software and in consultancy and advisory services. In 2006, its turnover was EUR 42 million. An exclusive development, marketing and use agreement, signed in 2003 for a period of ten years, provides that Beicip-Franlab [receives proposals from IFP relating to the results of its research] (**) into the algorithms, models and methodologies [constituting the outcome of the research of] (**) IFP in the field of deposit exploration, and may request permission from IFP to produce products on that basis. Beicip-Franlab covers all of the product development costs borne by IFP. In addition, Beicip-Franlab makes various additional payments [\u2026] (*) to cover maintenance and rights of use. An amendment was signed in 2005, which modifies the payment arrangements while at the same time retaining the principle of total coverage of development costs by Beicip-Franlab.\n(18)\nProsernat provides consultancy and other services and supplies gas treatment and sulphur recovery plants. In 2006, its turnover was EUR 49,9 million. On 18 August 2003 IFP and Prosernat signed a framework licensing agreement and an industrial research agreement, with retroactive effect from 1 January 2002, for a period of 10 years. Under these agreements, Prosernat has an exclusive licence for the patents of IFP and [IFP offers it the results of its] (**) research [\u2026] (*) in the field of gas treatment and sulphur recovery technologies. Prosernat pays its parent a fee out of the annual turnover for the licence for the processes, and a fee on a case-by-case basis for equipment. The IFP\u2019s remuneration for Prosernat\u2019s access to the results of the research work amounts to [\u2026] (*) % of Prosernat\u2019s global annual turnover.\n(19)\nIn accordance with Article 6 of decision C 51/2005, a clause was inserted in 2009 in the exclusive agreements governing the remuneration to IFP to be paid by its subsidiaries Axens et Prosernat (14), so as to ensure that IFP received a minimum variable remuneration, covering at least 25 % of the costs of feasibility studies preparatory to industrial research activities, 50 % of the costs of industrial research and, where appropriate, 75 % of the costs of pre-competitive development activities, within the meaning of the Community framework for state aid for research and development of 17 February 1996 (\u2018the 1996 R&D Framework\u2019) (15), carried out by IFP in the subsidiaries\u2019 fields of activity (16).\n(20)\nIn accordance with the opening decision, the investigation of the measure should take account of the potential impact of the State guarantee arising from the EPIC status of IFP on all the activities of the IFP group, including the publicly owned establishment IFP and its three subsidiaries governed by private law (17).\n3 DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n(21)\nUntil 2006, IFP was a legal person governed by private law, a trade body within the meaning of Law No 43-612 of 17 November 1943 on the management of trade interests, placed under the economic and financial supervision of the French Government.\n(22)\nThe principle that IFP was to be converted into an EPIC was laid down in Article 95 of Programme Law No 2005-781 of 13 July 2005 establishing the energy policy guidelines. The conversion became effective from the publication in the Journal Officiel de la R\u00e9publique Fran\u00e7aise of Decree No 2006-797 of 6 July 2006 establishing the constitution of the publicly owned establishment IFP.\n(23)\nFrom the date of its change of legal form, IFP, as en EPIC, became a legal person governed by public law (18).\n(24)\nThe legal implications of the EPIC form are explained in detail in part 2 of decision C 56/2007 (\u2018Description of the measure\u2019) and in part 3.2.1 of the opening decision, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis.\n4 REASONS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(25)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission began by expressing doubts about the special arrangements governing the bankruptcy of EPICs, which departed from the ordinary law on such matters. It considered that these were akin to an unlimited State guarantee mechanism which mobilised public resources:\n-\nEPICs, as legal entities governed by public law, are not subject to insolvency and bankruptcy procedures, by virtue of the general principle of the immunity from seizure of the assets of legal entities governed by public law, which has been recognised by the French courts, including the Court of Cassation (19), since the late nineteenth century. For further details, the Commission refers to section 3.2.1.1 of the opening decision, recitals 38 to 40 (20).\n-\nEPICs are subject to the Law of 16 July 1980 and its implementing rules. These expressly identify the State as the authority responsible for covering the debts of publicly owned establishments. They confer on it important prerogatives, such as the issuing of a mandatory payment order and the creation of sufficient resources, and organise a principle of last-resort State liability for the debts of legal entities governed by public law. For further details, the Commission refers to section 3.2.1.2 of the opening decision, recitals 41 to 45 (21).\n-\nIn the event of the winding up of an EPIC, the general principle applies that its debts will be transferred to the State or to another public entity (22), which means that creditors of an EPIC have an assurance that they will not lose the money they are owed by a publicly owned establishment. For further details, the Commission refers to section 3.2.1.3 of the opening decision, recitals 46 to 51 (23).\n-\nEPICs may possibly also have preferential access to Treasury imprest accounts. For further details, the Commission refers to section 3.2.1.4 of the opening decision, recital 52 (24).\n(26)\nAs explained in recitals 65 to 74 of the opening decision, to which the Commission refers for more details, the clarifications to legislation and regulations proposed by the French authorities did not at first sight seem sufficient to assuage these doubts.\n(27)\nThe Commission said that it could not be ruled out that there might be a selective economic advantage, mainly through funding terms considered more favourable, even if IFP and its subsidiaries were not the subject of a financial rating by an external rating agency. The IFP group might also have been advantaged in its dealings with customers and suppliers in so far as they believed their claims to be covered by a State guarantee. Consequently, it could not be ruled out at the preliminary examination stage that in the case of the supply or purchase of goods or services involving a claim, the suppliers or customers concerned would grant terms to IFP that were better than those they would have granted to an undertaking not benefiting from a State guarantee.\n(28)\nOn the basis of the information available at the end of its preliminary examination, the Commission considered that the unlimited nature of the guarantee, especially as regards its duration, amount and scope, made it extremely difficult to calculate the amount of the market premium that IFP ought to pay the State for such protection.\n(29)\nFinally, the Commission doubted whether the aid was compatible with the internal market, particular because it did not at first sight appear to be intended to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or regions.\n5 OBSERVATIONS AND PROPOSALS PUT FORWARD BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES\n5.1 INITIAL OBSERVATIONS BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES\n(30)\nFollowing the opening decision cited above, the French authorities submitted observations and proposals to the Commission by letter dated 14 October 2008. That letter supplemented the observations and proposals set out in the previous letters from the French authorities (25) that were summarised in the opening decision.\n(31)\nIn their observations of 14 October 2008, the French authorities pointed out, as a preliminary point, that the procedure against the IFP group had been initiated in parallel to the postal case cited above; they said they were therefore reiterating the same arguments mutatis mutandis as those they developed during the examination of that case (26). Despite these similarities, the French authorities nevertheless wished to draw attention to the specific features of IFP: it was a research organisation assigned a three-fold task in the general interest (research, training and documentation), with an overwhelming majority of non-economic activities, and this justified the public funding granted to it. Moreover, they specified the reasons for its conversion into EPIC form, which they said was intended to ensure that IFP\u2019s legal form was consistent with the nature of its activities and its method of funding; relinquishing the form of trade body governed by private law would bring IFP closer to the public sphere.\n(32)\nThe French authorities disputed the existence of State aid, since, in their opinion, two of the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU were not met: the mechanism at issue did not involve any transfer of State resources (5.1.1) and did not confer any advantage on IFP (5.1.2).\n5.1.1 THERE IS NO GUARANTEE IMPUTABLE TO THE STATE INVOLVING A TRANSFER OF STATE RESOURCES\n(33)\nAccording to the French authorities, (A) publicly owned establishments do not enjoy any guarantee because of their legal form, and (B) the Commission\u2019s argument in the opening decision is flawed.\nA. No unlimited State guarantee\n(34)\nAs explained in recitals 41 to 45 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities develop five pleas in law in support of their arguments.\n(35)\nFirst, no legislation or decision lays down the principle that the State would, out of principle, indefinitely guarantee the debts of EPICs.\n(36)\nSecond, the Council of State has found against the existence of guarantees, in particular in its judgment in Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de l\u2019h\u00f4tel d\u2019Albe (27) and in its two judgments in the Campoloro case (28).\n(37)\nThird, the Organic Law of 1 August 2001 governing the Finance Act (the \u2018LOLF\u2019) lays down that only a provision of a finance act can create a guarantee (29), and the Council of State explicitly confirmed this in its 2006 annual report (30). According to the expert called upon by the French authorities in the postal case cited above (31), therefore, it has been legally impossible to give an implied guarantee since the full entry into force of the Organic Law governing the Finance Act on 1 January 2005. Debts contracted since 1 January 2005 are therefore not covered by an implied guarantee. As for debts incurred before 1 January 2005, the expert takes the view that, in the absence of a court judgment, it is impossible to determine whether it might be held that implied guarantees given before 1 January 2005 which were not expressly authorised by a finance act retain their validity on the basis of respect for the constitutionally protected rights of creditors.\n(38)\nFourth, France considers that if EPICs enjoyed a State guarantee, the change in their legal form would require the introduction of new measures to protect creditors\u2019 rights. Since such a mechanism has never been introduced (32), France concludes conversely that EPICs do not benefit from any State guarantee.\n(39)\nFifth, the French authorities refer to an article by Mr Labetoulle, a former president of the litigation division of the Council of State, according to which \u2018in law, there is nothing automatic about the granting, enjoyment and scope of this guarantee [a State guarantee that applies automatically to State-owned public establishments]\u2019 (33).\nB. Flawed Commission argument (34)\n(40)\nThe French authorities consider that, as far as EPICs are concerned, (a) the reimbursement of individual claims is not guaranteed, and (b) there is no assurance of the continued existence of the publicly owned establishment or of its obligations.\na) The reimbursement of individual claims is not guaranteed\n(41)\nAs explained in recitals 46 to 49 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities consider that the Law of 16 July 1980 cannot serve as a basis for a guarantee. In the light of the legislative history of the Law, an interpretation of the Campoloro decisions of 10 November 1999 (35) and 18 November 2005 (36), and the academic literature on the subject (37), France argues that the Law of 16 July 1980 does not impose an obligation on the State to commit its own resources. The expression \u2018y pourvoit\u2019 (\u2018shall do so\u2019) in Article 1 confers on the State only a power of \u2018substitution\u2019 for the executive of the person whom it replaces, in the exercise of which it is a matter of principle that the substitute has the same powers as the person replaced. When acting as a substitute, therefore, the State may exercise only the powers of that executive, which do not include access to the State budget, and the granting of an exceptional subsidy is outside the scope of the power of substitution.\n(42)\nFurthermore, as indicated in recitals 50 to 53 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities maintain that the State cannot incur strict liability solely on the ground of a lack of assets. According to the French authorities, any guarantee requires the guarantor to accept the fact of the guarantee. Where liability arises out of responsibility for a fault or, in the case of strict liability, for the consequences of one\u2019s own actions, there can be no question of a guarantee. According to France, the liability of the State cannot be incurred on the sole ground that the prefect or supervising authority was unable to take any measures that could allow the claim to be repaid because of the financial and asset situation of the publicly owned establishment. There is no fault: inaction on the part of the prefect or the supervising authority is not necessarily a fault. The French authorities recognise that when implementing the procedure laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980 the representative of the State is subject to the requirement of continuity of the public service, but consider that even if a court were to order that a creditor be compensated, such compensation would merely place the creditor in the same position that he would have been in under ordinary law, because under ordinary law the asset would have been sold and the body of creditors would have received the corresponding sum. There is therefore be no advantage to the creditor.\nb) The continued existence of IFP or of its obligations is not guaranteed\n(43)\nAs explained in recitals 54 to 56 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities consider that the inapplicability to legal persons governed by public law of the administration and winding-up procedures provided for under ordinary law does not exclude the possibility of the bankruptcy of an EPIC or prevent bankruptcy proceedings being brought against it. They challenge the Commission\u2019s analysis, which is based on its Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees (\u2018the Guarantees Notice\u2019) (38), and consider that in the case in point the Commission has not demonstrated the existence of \u2018more favourable funding terms\u2019 attributable to the exclusion of the possibility of bankruptcy, and has not established that IFP cannot go bankrupt, nor that insolvency proceedings are impossible: the Law of 1985 is merely a procedural law, and the fact that EPICs lie outside its scope does not mean that administration, winding-up or ad hoc bankruptcy proceedings cannot be brought against them.\n(44)\nMoreover, as explained in recitals 57 to 67 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities maintain that the application of the \u2018procedure\u2019 introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980, rather than the collective procedure under ordinary law, does not confer any advantage on the creditor. To assess whether the application of a specific procedure in the event of insolvency confers an advantage on the entity subject to the procedure as compared with undertakings subject to commercial law, they challenge the need to fulfil the criteria of publicity (39) and equivalence (40) referred to by the Commission in recital 81 of the opening decision (41), but they use these same criteria to analyse the procedure established by the Law of 16 July 1980. As regards the publicity criterion, they consider that the procedure is correctly identified by the rating agencies as applicable in the event of the insolvency of an EPIC; as regards the equivalence criterion, they draw a distinction depending on whether or not there is a requirement for continuity of the public service, at the same time noting that the financial situation of IFP and its subsidiaries makes it unlikely that IFP might be short of assets, since available funds and investments at the end of 2007 (EUR 150,3 million) represented approximately five times the amount of borrowings and financial liabilities (EUR 25,2 million):\n(a)\nIf there is no requirement for continuity of the public service, in the event of lack of assets of the publicly owned establishment, application of the procedure introduced by the Law of 1980 would not place the creditors in a more favourable position than if the procedure under ordinary law had been applied: they would recover the same amount as the creditors of an entity subject to commercial law, i.e. the proceeds from the sale of the assets, and would no longer have any redress at the end of the procedure (42), since, according to France, the State cannot be held liable solely on the ground of lack of assets. Only two aspects would be different:\n-\nThe absence of a single procedure for all creditors: unlike the procedure under private law, whereby claims are processed en masse and creditors are satisfied in decreasing order of priority and pro rata from the amounts available, the procedure introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 requires creditors to take action to protect their rights. The approach of the Law of 16 July 1980 is \u2018first come, first served\u2019.\n-\nIt is the representative of the State who, under the supervision of the administrative court (monitoring for gross negligence as established by the Council of State in the Campoloro judgment cited above), takes on the role equivalent to that of the liquidator and court-appointed administrator.\n(b)\nIn the event that the continuity of the public service has to be guaranteed, the French authorities admit that the representative of the State, when exercising the powers conferred by the Law of 16 July 1980, could decide not to sell certain assets needed to perform a public service task. This failure to sell certain assets would then be reflected, if the State did not pay compensation, in lower proceeds from the assets and a corresponding reduction in the amounts recoverable by creditors. According to the French authorities, such a procedure would not confer on IFP\u2019s creditors rights greater than those they would have had under commercial law. However, the French authorities admit that, in such an event, the State might incur strict liability, and would have to compensate creditors for the loss they had suffered (not exceeding the market value of the assets retained by the State for the continuity of the public service). The creditors would therefore potentially be reinstated in the same situation as that which would have resulted from the application of ordinary law. The French authorities conclude that the procedure introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 does not confer any advantage over the procedure under ordinary law and that there is therefore no justification for subjecting IFP directly to a procedure such as that which applies under ordinary law.\n(45)\nIn the opening decision, in particular in recital 82, the Commission referred specifically to the French consolidating instruction No 02-060-M95 of 18 July 2002, on the financial and accounting regulation of national publicly owned industrial and commercial establishments, and to the guide to the financial organisation of the creation, conversion and abolition of national publicly owned establishments and of public interest groups (Guide sur l\u2019organisation financi\u00e8re des cr\u00e9ations, transformations et suppressions des \u00e9tablissements publics nationaux et des groupements d\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat) of 14 November 2006; as explained in recital 68 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities contend that the instruments in question are neither applicable nor transferable to IFP.\n(46)\nConcerning the recapitalisation of IFP\u2019s subsidiaries, the French authorities take the view firstly that the question raised in recital 80 of the opening decision should be considered not in order to establish the existence of any State guarantee, but rather in order to measure the potential effects of such a guarantee, which could place IFP and its subsidiaries in a preferential situation on account of the easier terms for recapitalisation. They argue that the Commission\u2019s argument is based on two incorrect ideas:\n-\nOn the one hand, the Commission commits an error in its reasoning regarding any support that IFP could provide to its subsidiaries through an intra-group transfer, since the conditions on which the parent of a group can support one of its subsidiaries in difficulty are strictly regulated by company law, even if it is a legal person governed by public law (43), and are totally unrelated to the concept of undertaking within the meaning of competition law.\n-\nOn the other hand, the French authorities deny that the EPIC status of IFP, with any possible State guarantee that such a status might imply, enables it to recapitalise its subsidiaries more easily than group parent companies with a legal form governed by private law. According to the French authorities, the fact that a company temporarily bears the losses of one of its subsidiaries is part of the normal operation of a group, as the European Union court has already recognised (44), and the intervention of a public investor acting according to the same rules of conduct as a private investor is not considered to contain State aid elements within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (45). This is the case in particular for IFP, which has the legal possibility (and not the obligation) to recapitalise a subsidiary in difficulties according to the same assessment criteria as any prudent investor. Finally, the French authorities deny that EPICs have any possibility at all of \u2018direct access\u2019 to \u2018Treasury imprest accounts\u2019. They say that the budgetary mechanism of the \u2018financial assistance account\u2019, regulated by Article 24 of the Organic Law governing the Finance Act, provides for the constitution of appropriations accounts, capped by the Finance Act, which allow the State to grant advance payments to various bodies, if it wishes and if it is able to do so (in particular in the light of European Union law). According to the French authorities, EPICs have not got \u2018direct access\u2019 to these accounts.\n5.1.2 NO ADVANTAGE IS CONFERRED ON IFP OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES\n(47)\nThe French authorities consider, first, that it cannot be concluded from the Guarantees Notice cited above that an advantage exists in the present case; second, that an extension to IFP\u2019s subsidiaries, which are public limited companies under ordinary law, of any advantages from which IFP might benefit on account of its EPIC status would be in contradiction with the Commission\u2019s decision-making practice; and third, that no proof has been given of an actual economic advantage to IFP and its subsidiaries in the present case.\n(48)\nThe French authorities consider that the Commission misinterprets point 1.2 of the Guarantees Notice cited above, which provides that \u2018The Commission also regards as aid in the form of a guarantee the more favourable funding terms obtained by enterprises whose legal form rules out bankruptcy or other insolvency procedures or provides an explicit State guarantee or coverage of losses by the State\u2019:\n-\nFirstly, the French authorities deny that IFP, as an EPIC, possesses a legal status which rules out any bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings. In any event, they say, the Commission has not proved this, but provided evidence to show only that IFP\u2019s status would not allow the application of one specific procedure (namely the procedure introduced by the Law of 25 January 1985).\n-\nSecondly, the French authorities deny that the fact that under the law and its own constitution a body cannot be made the subject of bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings automatically secures it more favourable funding terms on the market. In order to conclude that an enterprise is receiving aid in the form of a guarantee, the Commission must first, in application of point 1.2 of the Guarantees Notice cited above, demonstrate that it dos indeed receive more favourable funding terms.\n(49)\nThe French authorities contend that in the opening decision, when examining potential advantages to IFP\u2019s subsidiaries arising out of the existence of an unlimited guarantee for their parent EPIC, the Commission disregarded its own decision-making practice. They say the Commission\u2019s line of reasoning contradicts the approach it took at the time of the creation of La Banque Postale (46). Like IFP\u2019s subsidiaries, La Banque Postale was a public limited company wholly owned by an entity similar to an EPIC. Leaving aside the commitments given by France in that case, the Commission took the view that the legal status of public limited company under ordinary law was by itself sufficient to rule out the possibility of an unlimited guarantee to the subsidiary. Following the same reasoning, according to the French authorities, it must be held that IFP\u2019s subsidiaries, which likewise have the legal form of public limited company under ordinary law, do not benefit from any unlimited guarantee conferred by the status of EPIC.\n(50)\nFinally, the French authorities contend that the Commission has not demonstrated the existence of an actual economic advantage to IFP and its subsidiaries, and in the opening decision merely refers to funding terms \u2018considered\u2019 more favourable, without providing actual proof. European Union case-law requires the Commission to show that IFP\u2019s EPIC status has in fact enabled it to obtain more favourable funding terms (47). The French authorities say that in the course of the procedure they provided evidence to show that IFP\u2019s EPIC status had not procured and would not procure any financial advantage to IFP and its subsidiaries; in particular, the conversion of IFP was carried out with due regard for a general principle of continuity, especially in terms of its activity, organisation, accounting and financial regime (resources and accounting and financial rules) and tax treatment.\n(51)\nThe French authorities consider that the factors above demonstrate that:\n-\nthe financial situation of IFP and its subsidiaries is sound, which makes the question of possible bankruptcy and consequently last-resort State intervention irrelevant;\n-\nthe terms for the short-term funding of IFP and its subsidiaries are different for each of these entities, and result from specific negotiations conducted on a one-to-one basis with their respective banks;\n-\nthe relations that IFP and its subsidiaries maintain with their suppliers and customers do not give rise to preferential conditions resulting from an expectation on the part of these suppliers and customers of a State guarantee.\n(52)\nThe French authorities conclude from this that:\n-\nthe analysis set out by the Commission in its opening decision is questionable: IFP and its subsidiaries do not enjoy any State guarantee;\n-\nthe Commission has not demonstrated the existence of an advantage to IFP and its subsidiaries deriving from IFP\u2019s EPIC status;\n-\nthe Commission has not, therefore, demonstrated the existence of State aid to IFP and its subsidiaries.\n5.2 PROPOSALS BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES\n(53)\nNonetheless, in order to dispel any doubts on the part of the Commission, the French authorities have indicated that they are willing to implement the following measures if the Commission agrees to close the procedure by a decision finding that no aid is involved, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the Procedural Regulation cited above:\n-\nclarification of the Decree implementing the Law of 16 July 1980;\n-\nincorporation of a reference spelling out the absence of a guarantee in IFP\u2019s contracts involving a claim;\n-\nincorporation of a reference spelling out the absence of a guarantee in the financing contracts of IFP\u2019s subsidiaries.\n5.2.1 CLARIFICATION OF THE DECREE IMPLEMENTING THE LAW OF 16 JULY 1980\n(54)\nAs specified in recitals 94 to 96 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities propose clarifying the interpretation of the Law of 16 July 1980 by amending the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the Decree implementing the Law (48). The proposed amendment is intended, they say, to dispel any misgivings concerning the scope of the expression \u2018shall do so\u2019 (y pourvoit) in the organisation of the supervisory power conferred on the prefect or on the supervising authority; the prefect or supervising authority would now have to release resources from the budget of the regional or local authority or the establishment concerned (49). According to the French authorities, this proposal would prevent the representative of the State, when exercising his supervisory power, from increasing the resources of the authority or establishment concerned by means of a subsidy from the State or an injection of public resources.\n5.2.2 INCORPORATION OF A REFERENCE SPELLING OUT THE ABSENCE OF A GUARANTEE IN IFP\u2019S CONTRACTS INVOLVING A CLAIM\n(55)\nAs explained in recitals 97 to 100 of decision C 56/2007 cited above, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities challenge the Commission\u2019s view (50) that the State can be held liable solely on the grounds of the insolvency of IFP. However, they put forward a proposal based on the plea of accepted risk (l\u2019exception de risque accept\u00e9, see the judgments of the Council of State in Sille (51) and Meunier (52)) under which, as they suggested in the postal case, IFP\u2019s creditors would be officially informed that their claim does not enjoy a State guarantee and that, in the event of insolvency, the State will not be obliged to substitute itself for the undertaking financially to pay the claim. Consequently, the parties concerned would be exposing themselves to risk in full knowledge of the facts, and could not claim any right to compensation. The French authorities therefore undertake, jointly with IFP, to include the following statement in the financing contract for each transaction (for all instruments covered by a contract):\n\u2018The issue/programme/loan does not enjoy any form of direct or indirect State guarantee. In the event of insolvency, the State would not be obliged to act as financial substitute for IFP for payment of the claim.\u2019\n(56)\nAs explained in recital 101 of decision C 56/2007 cited above, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities have also noted the misgivings set out by the Commission in recital 71 of the opening decision, which indicated that the plea of accepted risk was a rule established by case-law that could develop; that it was based on secondary law instruments which could be annulled in the event of conflict; and, finally, that the proposal of the French authorities did not cover all possible scenarios, since debts could be not only financial but also commercial or other forms of debt again.\n(57)\nAs specified in recitals 102 to 104 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, after reiterating their opposition in principle to the Commission\u2019s position that the State may incur strict liability solely on the grounds of IFP\u2019s the lack of assets, the French authorities have provided additional information to address these misgivings:\n(a)\nThe French authorities consider that the Commission\u2019s first objection would seem to say that even if there is no actual provision to this effect in the national law of a Member State, the mere risk of a change in the case-law, i.e. a change in national law, is enough to create State aid. The Commission cannot argue that there is State aid because of a possible change in the law, which in this case is highly improbable, the plea of accepted risk being a general principle of public law that has been confirmed by case-law on many occasions, has never been contradicted, and has been widely commented.\n(b)\nConcerning the second objection, the French authorities recognise that statute law and regulations take precedence over contracts, and that a disputed clause can always be annulled. However, they consider that the objection does not in fact refer to any higher-ranking text, that it is not substantiated, and therefore has no weight.\n(c)\nFinally, as regards the third objection, the French authorities consider that it is based on a mere supposition of a possible belief or expectation among suppliers that their claims enjoy a State guarantee, a supposition which cannot by itself serve to demonstrate the existence of an advantage, but must be corroborated by information establishing that IFP and its subsidiaries have actually benefited from an economic advantage of this kind.\n(58)\nNevertheless, as specified in recital 106 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities indicate that they are willing to extend their proposal to include a statement concerning the absence of a guarantee to include all contracts involving a claim, so as to explicitly rule out any risk that the State might incur strict liability on the basis solely of the insolvency of IFP.\n5.2.3 INCORPORATION OF A REFERENCE SPELLING OUT THE ABSENCE OF A GUARANTEE IN THE FINANCING CONTRACTS OF IFP\u2019S SUBSIDIARIES AXENS, BEICIP-FRANLAB AND PROSERNAT\n(59)\nTo supplement the proposed mechanism, the French authorities make an additional proposal to the Commission, similar to that made on the creation of La Banque Postale, with regard to the terms on which IFP\u2019s subsidiaries (Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat) are able to borrow on the market, under which an undertaking would be given that in the financing contract for each transaction (for all instruments covered by a contract) the following clause would be included in writing: \u2018Pursuant to French law (in particular the need for express statutory authority for each guarantee), the present financing transaction shall not enjoy any form of direct or indirect State guarantee\u2019.\n(60)\nAs specified in recitals 107 to 110 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities consider that the two clarification measures proposed (the details of which are set out in recitals 55 and 59) would allow the creditors of IFP and its subsidiaries to be made fully aware of their rights, so that France could not be held \u2018responsible for the expectations created in the minds of IFP\u2019s creditors concerning the existence of a guarantee\u2019, or regarded as voluntarily maintaining an opaque legal situation that procures an advantage for IFP and is liable to commit the State\u2019s resources, as the Commission indicated in recital 87 of the opening decision.\n5.3 ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS FROM THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES\n(61)\nBy letters dated 16 July 2010 and 26 November 2010, the French authorities provided additional information which in their opinion showed that there was no State aid to IFP.\n(62)\nIn their letter dated 16 July 2010, as a preliminary point, they say that in the France T\u00e9l\u00e9com case the European Union courts held that in order to establish the existence of State aid the Commission was obliged to demonstrate that there was a real advantage (53). They consider that in this case, the unlimited guarantee which according to the Commission arises from IFP\u2019s legal form in reality confers no economic advantage on it. In their letter dated 26 November 2010, the French authorities say that in their opinion the burden of proof lies with the Commission. They draw attention to the requirements laid down in European Union case-law with regard to proof and reasoning, more especially by the General Court in the France Telecom case cited above and by the Court of Justice in Krantz (54) and more recently in Deutsche Post AG (55). The French authorities consider that the analysis presented by the Commission in this case is based \u2018more on hypotheses than on an analysis in concreto\u2019.\n(63)\nFurthermore, in the view of the French authorities, the Commission considers that IFP could benefit from an advantage at three levels: (i) that of its relations with banks and financial institutions, (ii) that of its relations with suppliers, and (iii) that of its relations with third-party industrial partners that make use of its research services.\n(64)\nThe French authorities consider that in its dealings with banks and financial institutions IFP has so far drawn no economic advantage from its EPIC status. They provide evidence to show that: (i) over the long term, IFP recorded zero debt in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 (56) and in 2008 and 2009, (ii) over the medium term, although IFP each year negotiated overdraft facilities with various banking institutions, it obtained rates comparable to market rates and in any case has never made use of these credit lines, and finally (iii) over the short term, IFP\u2019s debt was close to zero or at zero during the period under review.\n(65)\nAs regards its dealings with suppliers, the French authorities consider that IFP, as a contracting authority, is subject to the disclosure and competitive procurement obligations laid down in Order (ordonnance) No 2005-649 of 6 June 2005 (57), and consequently that it cannot benefit from any advantage. In their letter dated 26 November 2010, the French authorities reiterate this analysis, and say that in their opinion the fact that IFP\u2019s orders are subject to a tendering procedure in accordance Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (58) constitutes a guarantee sufficient to avoid distortion of competition in the market. According to France IFP has ensured competition between its suppliers, in line with the obligations arising from European Union law, and consequently cannot be accused of enjoying an unlawful advantage, at least in the absence of any specific evidence to that effect. The French authorities stress that recourse to electronic purchasing has been facilitated precisely in order to improve efficiency of public procurement: for example, recital 13 of Directive 2004/18/EC indicates that \u2018This purchasing technique allows the contracting authority \u2026 to have a particularly broad range of tenders \u2026 and hence to ensure optimum use of public funds through broad competition.\u2019 They refer to a Commission report which concluded that the public procurement legislation had had a positive impact in terms of lowering prices, the fall being presented as the \u2018social benefit\u2019 of fairer competition between tenderers (59). By imputing these economies to IFP\u2019s EPIC status, the Commission is at odds with the spirit of the Directive, which sees the selection procedures as the key vector for better competition leading to a reduction in public procurement costs.\n(66)\nFinally, with regard to IFP\u2019s dealings with its customers, France says that the contract research activities concerned are the services provided by IFP at the request of a customer, third party or subsidiary, on a subject which comes within the scope of IFP\u2019s task, does not involve strategic interests for IFP in terms of ownership of the results, is of a nature to enrich IFP\u2019s knowledge and skills in the conduct of the public R&D programmes that it carries out, and does not come within the exclusive field of activities of its subsidiaries. The French authorities note that the research services that these customers acquire call for specific equipment and expertise.\n(67)\nFrance contends that even if IFP were to benefit from its EPIC status in the performance of these economic activities, the advantage would have no material impact on the market. In particular, it would not be liable to distort competition or to affect trade between Member States. Over the period since the change of IFP\u2019s status (which occurred in July 2006), the French authorities nevertheless acknowledge that IFP may potentially have benefited from a reduction in charges as a result of the lack of subscription to performance bonds, but say that on the basis of the sums usually charged by banks and insurance companies to provide this type of service the amount involved is negligible. The French authorities conclude that any such effect would not have the character of an advantage, which calls into question the very existence of State aid to IFP.\n6 COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES AND FROM THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES\n6.1 OBSERVATIONS FROM UOP\n(68)\nIn its letter dated 28 November 2008, UOP submits that it has an interest n the proceedings (60), and goes on to put forward some general observations and to argue that the entity that it refers to as \u2018IFP/Axens\u2019 receives State aid:\n-\nIFP/Axens, consisting of the publicly owned establishment and its subsidiary Axens, is undeniably perceived by the market as a public entity (5.1.1);\n-\nthe award of EPIC status to IFP/Axens has allowed and continues to allow significant distortion of competition in the process technologies market in which UOP operates, as it confers advantages in relations with suppliers, capital providers and customers (5.1.2).\n6.1.1 MARKET PERCEPTION OF IFP/AXENS\n(69)\nAccording to UOP, the French authorities\u2019 argument that Axens is a separate economic entity, like the other IFP subsidiaries, is untenable. The Commission, argues UOP, has rightly pointed out that (i) Axens is wholly owned by IFP; (ii) the implementation by Axens of the R&D of IFP reflects strategic priorities decided by the State; (iii) the managers of the publicly owned establishment IFP participate in the management of Axens; (iv) Axens has an exclusive contract with IFP, which is crucial to the subsidiary\u2019s economic activity; and (v) there is in particular an agreement providing for first call on and provision of staff.\n(70)\nUOP adds that the image IFP and Axens present of their relationship, and the market perception of their relationship, also constitute decisive factors:\n-\nIFP and Axens present themselves on the market as a single economic entity, \u2018IFP/Axens\u2019. Axens\u2019s Internet site mentions in particular that the company is \u2018backed by nearly fifty years of R&D and industrial success\u2019 (61). Axens\u2019s advertisements for its technology refer to IFP. Axens and IFP staff sometimes visit their licensees together.\n-\nThe industrial press illustrates the market perception of IFP/Axens as a single economic entity. UOP encloses extracts from press cuttings referring to the activities of \u2018IFP/Axens\u2019 in the field of process technology licences, or alternatively referring to such licences being provided by IFP via its subsidiary Axens. UOP also provides examples of articles or presentations in which Axens staff have given the impression that Axens is seen by IFP as comprising the entire activities of the industrial and procatalysis divisions.\n6.1.2 THE ADVANTAGES CONFERRED BY THE EPIC STATUS\n(71)\nUOP indicates that the fact that Axens is perceived by both suppliers and customers as disposing of unlimited State resources to finance its activities gives it a significant market edge. Even supposing that this is only a market perception, its importance is magnified in the context of the world economic crisis.\n(72)\nAs regards customers, the guarantees offered by IFP/Axens are of particular significance in a market where customers take account of long-term economic considerations before opting for a given technology. Taking the example of \u2018aromatic compounds\u2019, UOP explains, in substance, that before implementing such technologies, customers have to make very significant investments in the design and construction of the production infrastructures, which takes several years of work. However, the success of these industrial complexes is linked to the performance of the technologies used, with customers generally requiring them to be guaranteed by the seller of the processes (62). If the required performance level is not achieved, they will not hesitate to hold the assignee responsible and to require compliance with strict obligations regarding compensation. The long-term solvency of the assignee is consequently an important factor in the choice made by purchasers, not only for compliance with contractual obligations, but also for the prospects offered in the field of R&D as pledges of future improvements in the performance of the process acquired. IFP/Axens, perceived by the market as depending on the State, therefore has an advantage over its competitors, since purchasers have no particular reason to doubt its long-term survival.\n(73)\nAs regards suppliers, UOP considers that preferential terms may be granted to IFP/Axens as compared with its competitors; UOP cites the contracts signed jointly by IFP and Axens mentioned in the opening decision.\n(74)\nAs regards the financial markets, UOP considers that IFP/Axens benefits from preferential terms and interest rates on the capital markets as a result of the role of guarantor of last resort played by the State. Furthermore, in a context of financial crisis, the presence of the State, and the security it represents for investors, makes it possible to attract private capital at a time of shortage. Competing undertakings cannot obtain access to comparable funding, or can obtain it only on far less favourable economic terms. According to UOP, the effects of the economic and financial crisis have strengthened the potential of the measure to distort competition still further.\n(75)\nIn its letter dated 23 January 2009, UOP refers to its previous observations and to those sent in the course of the proceedings that led to decision C 51/2005 cited above. UOP considers that this information provides sufficient evidence of the importance of the solvency of co-contractors on the process licensing market concerned. It reiterates the argument that the customers of the IFP/Axens entity assume they are in a trading relationship with a State body, the long-term viability of which ensures that there is no risk. Finally, UOP asks the Commission to analyse the agreements between Axens and its customers, indicating that it is convinced that they contain no clause that would limit liability to Axens alone.\n6.2 COMMENTS FROM THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES ON UOP\u2019S OBSERVATIONS\n(76)\nIn their letter dated 22 June 2009, the French authorities consider that UOP\u2019s comments are based on assertions that are mistaken, or in some cases entirely false, and in any event are not founded on any evidence that might demonstrate the existence of State aid to IFP or Axens.\n(77)\nIn substance, the French authorities deny any relevance to the allegation made that \u2018IFP/Axens\u2019 is perceived by the market as a public entity benefiting from advantages in relation to customers, suppliers and the financial markets, and reject the assertion that this \u2018IFP/Axens\u2019 is a State body whose long-term viability is assured.\n(78)\nThe French authorities develop two arguments:\n-\nfirstly, \u2018IFP/Axens\u2019 is not a State body with unlimited resources at its disposal; moreover, there is no proof that this entity is perceived as such on the market (6.2.1);\n-\nsecondly, IFP\u2019s EPIC status confers no market advantage on Axens (6.2.2).\n6.2.1 \u2018IFP/AXENS\u2019 IS NOT A STATE BODY WITH UNLIMITED RESOURCES\n(79)\nThe French authorities contend that contrary to UOP\u2019s affirmations the suppliers and customers of \u2018IFP/Axens\u2019 do not perceive this undertaking as a State body with unlimited resources.\n(80)\nFirstly, the French authorities refer to the legal analysis which they have sent the Commission and to their previous comments, which, they maintain, show that IFP\u2019s EPIC status confers no State guarantee of any kind.\n(81)\nSecondly, the French authorities note that UOP relies on an alleged belief in an unlimited State guarantee for IFP/Axens, a belief which has no existence in law and which is not by itself sufficient to demonstrate that there is State aid.\n(82)\nThirdly, even supposing that IFP does enjoy a State guarantee - which the French authorities deny - it is not true that any such guarantee would automatically extend to IFP\u2019s subsidiaries on the ground that IFP and its subsidiaries form an economic group for purposes of competition law. France argues that IFP\u2019s subsidiaries, and especially Axens, are private-law bodies subject to company law, and would not be covered by such a guarantee, especially because UOP\u2019s theory of the automatic extension of guarantees within a group is contrary to the principle of the autonomy of subsidiaries. The concept of a group may have a meaning in competition law, but it is not recognised in company law, and the granting of guarantees within a group is subject to strict conditions of form and substance. This is the case in particular for IFP: Article 7 of IFP\u2019s constitution provides for authorisation by the board of directors. In addition, the French authorities consider that the Commission has already taken note of this point, since it accepted that the legal status of Banque Postale, a legal person governed by private law, sufficed in itself to rule out the existence of any unlimited guarantee to Banque Postale (63).\n6.2.2 AXENS DOES NOT DERIVE ANY ADVANTAGE ON THE MARKET FROM IFP\u2019S EPIC STATUS\n(83)\nUOP has argued, the French authorities say, that the market is likewise of the belief that the IFP/Axens entity is a State body with unlimited resources, and enjoys advantages in relation to customers, suppliers and creditors; but the French authorities contend that this argument is not based on any reliable evidence, and is undeniably refuted by the facts.\n(84)\nThe French authorities have submitted an internal memo from Axens\u2019s legal and contracts department, entitled \u2018Principles of legal security of Axens\u2019 (64), which explains the relations between IFP and Axens. These relations are explicitly governed by the general rule that Axens does not ask for any guarantee from its parent for any reason whatsoever. The French authorities specify that no exception is possible to this rule that there can be no guarantee. The principle is also spelt out in full in the document, in the following terms: \u2018IFP does not guarantee Axens\u2019s acts or omissions\u2019. The French authorities say that this rule applies to any contract or project that Axens might possibly conclude or conduct with customers, with suppliers or on the financial markets.\n6.2.2.1 The relations between Axens and its customers\n(85)\nUOP argues, say the French authorities, that the public guarantee has important implications for Axens\u2019s long-term financial situation, especially in the light of the contractual guarantees and maintenance obligations traditionally provided for in licensing agreements (65); but there is no justification for this argument, nor has UOP substantiated the reasons why it is convinced that the Commission will not identify any provision limiting liability to Axens alone.\n(86)\nThe French authorities contend that the rule described in recital 84, according to which the subsidiary is not to apply for any guarantee from the parent, also applies to any guarantee that Axens might negotiate or conclude with a customer. They illustrate their argument with the example of aromatic compounds mentioned by UOP in its observations. They say that as a general rule, Axens chooses to limit its liability to a certain fraction of the fee [\u2026] (*). This guarantee limitation policy, which is one of the \u2018Principles of legal security of Axens\u2019, is consequently quite different from the customs of other undertakings operating in this field, which, according to the French authorities, are in the habit of granting unlimited guarantees in certain cases.\n(87)\nFinally, the French authorities argue that the obligations regarding maintenance or repairs applicable in the event of a claim would not bring into play any financial cover on the part of IFP:\n(a)\nin the event of default by Axens, the capacity offered by its civil liability insurers through the various insurance policies under its world programme is well in excess of the maximum liability of Axens contractually agreed with its licensees;\n(b)\nthe capacity for immediate or rapid mobilisation of Axens\u2019 resources is also very considerable, in particular because of its low debt level;\n(c)\nthe agreements between IFP and Axens explicitly limit IFP\u2019s liability in the event of default on the part of one of Axens\u2019 licensees to sums which are necessarily small, as they are correlated to the fee received by IFP;\n(d)\nAxens\u2019 civil liability insurer expressly waives any recourse against IFP, for any reason whatsoever.\n(88)\nThe French authorities conclude that UOP\u2019s assertions concerning advantages allegedly obtained by Axens on the process licensing market are invalidated especially by the fact that Axens has continually conducted a policy of limiting guarantees of liability granted to its customers.\n(89)\nIn their letter dated 8 September 2009, the French authorities state that the limitation of liability to customers is provided for in both the framework licensing agreement (66) and the product licensing agreement (67) concluded between IFP and Axens, which entered into force on 1 January 2001. These two agreements provide that if Axens can prove that its default originates in the services supplied by IFP, the financial liability of the latter will be limited to a percentage (68) of the sums in fact collected by IFP in fee pro rata to the sales transaction that forms the basis of the claim (product licence), and to the unit subject to a sub-licence or to the sales transaction carried out under a sub-licence that forms the basis of the claim (framework licence). In other words, IFP\u2019s liability can never extend beyond 100 % of the sums received. Moreover, the framework licence provides that Axens is responsible for financial guarantees granted to sub-licensees with regard to technical performance of the processes. This means that IFP is not liable for technical guarantees given by Axens to its customers.\n(90)\nIn addition, it should be pointed out that the licensing agreements between Axens and its customers provide, conversely, that Axens\u2019 financial liability is generally confined to [\u2026] (*) % of the royalties paid for each unit for which a claim is made. If for commercial reasons the guarantee given by Axens to its customer proves to be higher than that given to it by IFP, IFP\u2019s liability is totally independent of that of Axens. The same principle is applied to any licence that IFP grants to third parties other than its subsidiaries.\n(91)\nFinally, the French authorities add that when IFP performs services (studies, research to order, tests, etc.) for its customers, whether subsidiaries or firms outside the group, IFP always seeks to limit its liability. The liability accepted by IFP then consists in a commitment to rectify the work carried out, while at financial level the principle is that the liability is limited to [\u2026] (*) % of the remuneration actually received, with a maximum which may reach up to [\u2026] (*) % depending on the case. Therefore if the customer considers that the work carried out by IFP is defective, IFP can never be obliged to repeat the work ad infinitum.\n6.2.2.2 The relations between Axens and its suppliers and the funding terms on the financial markets\n(92)\nThe French authorities deny any relevance to the assertion by UOP that the alleged belief in the existence of unlimited financial resources available to Axens secures it preferential terms from either its suppliers or the financial markets. France says that UOP has not provided the slightest proof in support of this allegation.\n(93)\nThe French authorities consider that the rule described in recital 84, according to which the subsidiary is not to apply for any guarantee from the parent, is sufficient to invalidate the hypothesis put forward by UOP.\n(94)\nFurthermore, as regards Axens\u2019s borrowing terms on the financial markets, and the terms available to Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat, the French authorities point out that they are prepared to give the Commission an undertaking that a clause would be included in writing in the financing contract for every transaction stating that \u2018Pursuant to French law (in particular the need for express statutory authority for each guarantee), the present financing transaction shall not enjoy any form of direct or indirect State guarantee\u2019 (69).\n7 ASSESSMENT\n7.1 EXISTENCE OF STATE AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU\n(95)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU reads: \u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\u2019\n(96)\nTo establish the existence of State aid in the present case it must first be considered whether the EPIC status granted by France to IFP on 7 July 2006 involves the use of State resources (7.1.1) to provide an unlimited public guarantee covering economic activities (7.1.2). The extent of the cover by the State guarantee and the nature of the activities covered will allow the scope of this decision to be defined (7.1.3), and it will then have to be considered whether the measure in question confers a selective advantage on the IFP group (7.1.4) which may affect trade between Member States (7.1.5).\n7.1.1 USE OF STATE RESOURCES IN THE FORM OF AN UNLIMITED GUARANTEE\n(97)\nIn view of its particular structure as an economic group for purposes of competition law, it is necessary to assess the potential impact of the unlimited State guarantee arising from the EPIC status of the publicly owned establishment IFP on the whole of the IFP group, i.e. on the publicly owned establishment itself and on its subsidiaries, by proceeding in two stages:\n-\nAs regards the publicly owned establishment IFP, the impact of the unlimited guarantee arises directly from its EPIC status: as a legal person governed by public law, IFP is not subject to the ordinary law governing the administration and winding up of firms in difficulty. In the light of this particularity, the parent of the IFP group may carry on economic activities itself, under more advantageous conditions than other market participants not benefiting from comparable protection (7.1.1.1).\n-\nAs regards the activities carried out directly by the IFP subsidiaries governed by private law, which, for their part, are entirely subject to the ordinary law of bankruptcy, any direct liability of the publicly owned establishment, and therefore of the State, seems impossible. If a subsidiary\u2019s assets are insufficient, therefore, it has to be considered whether the creditors of Axens, Prosernat and Beicip-Franlab could benefit from an indirect mechanism whereby the parent would be liable for its subsidiaries, equivalent to a guarantee mechanism (7.1.1.2).\n7.1.1.1 Unlimited State guarantee to IFP conferred by its EPIC status\n(98)\nIn decision C 56/2007, the Commission concluded (70) that the special factors intrinsically linked to the legal form of La Poste as a publicly owned establishment (71), and in particular the existence of a guarantee ensuring the payment of individual claims and the continued existence of La Poste or its obligations or both, implied that the State performed the role of guarantor of last resort in respect of the economic activities of the publicly owned establishment.\n(99)\nIn the present case, the Commission considers that the arguments set out in decision C 56/2007 can essentially be transposed to the EPIC status of the publicly owned establishment IFP, and that IFP also enjoys a special legal position with regard to the payment of its creditors and its continuation in business in the event of insolvency. For the purposes of the present analysis, therefore, the Commission will refer to the arguments set out in section 4.1, \u2018Classification as aid\u2019, of decision C 56/2007.\nA. Guarantee of payment of individual claims\n(100)\nIt is first necessary to consider the argument of the French authorities that the existence of a State guarantee in favour of EPICs is ruled out by the legislation or the case-law, before showing that in the event that IFP were in default its creditors would benefit from a more favourable procedure than the creditors of undertakings governed by ordinary law.\na) Rejection of the arguments of the French authorities\n(101)\nContrary to the French authorities\u2019 affirmation, the Commission is able to conclude that French law does acknowledge the existence of implied guarantees, and in particular the existence of a State guarantee deriving from the status of publicly owned establishment. The Commission rejects the arguments of the French authorities for the following reasons.\n(102)\nFirstly, where the French authorities assert that there is no legislation or decision laying down the principle that the State is to guarantee the debts of EPICs, the Commission refers to recitals 120 and 121 of decision C 56/2007, mutatis mutandis. The Commission considers, on the contrary, that although it is true that there is no legislation or decision confirming or excluding the existence of an express State guarantee in favour of EPICs, this absence does not mean that there can be no implied guarantee.\n(103)\nSecondly, where the French authorities consider that the courts have held that there is no such guarantee, notably in the judgments in Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de l\u2019h\u00f4tel d\u2019Albe (72) and Campoloro (73), the Commission refers to recitals 122 to 124 of decision C 56/2007, mutatis mutandis. In Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de l\u2019h\u00f4tel d\u2019Albe, as the Commission expert pointed out in the postal case, the judgment did not refer to the precise situation in which the guarantee would come into play (74). In Campoloro (75), the Commission considers, on the contrary, that the judgments establish a scheme of State liability in proceedings for the recovery of the debts of publicly owned establishments which displays all the characteristics of a guarantee mechanism.\n(104)\nThirdly, in the postal case the French authorities argued that the debts contracted by EPICs since the entry into force of the Organic Law governing the Finance Act on 1 January 2005 did not qualify for an implied guarantee: the Commission considers that this argument cannot hold:\n(a)\nThe Commission emphasises that the change of legal form of the publicly owned establishment IFP occurred on 7 July 2006, i.e. after the entry into force of the Organic Law governing the Finance Act. Under such circumstances, it is not necessary to examine the arguments put forward by the French authorities\u2019 expert in the postal case regarding debts contracted before 1 January 2005, despite the fact that the French authorities refer to this mutatis mutandis in their comments. Debts contracted by IFP before 1 January 2005 were contracted by a trade body within the meaning of Law No 43-612 of 17 November 1943 on the management of trade interests, and therefore by a legal person governed by private law, and consequently could not be covered, at the time they were entered into (76), by the unlimited guarantee conferred by the EPIC status.\n(b)\nThe Commission nevertheless notes, as its expert pointed out in the postal case, and as it explained in recital 130 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, that the obligation to enter State guarantees in a Finance Act is confined to the \u2018giving\u2019 (octroi) of such guarantees. To \u2018give\u2019 a guarantee the State must confer a guarantee on an organisation or an operation by an express manifestation of its intention. The scope of the obligation to enter guarantees in the Finance Act does not extend to guarantees that arise out of the legal form of an organisation, or out of an obligation established in case-law, which are guarantees of an implied and automatic character. This category is not the result of a decision of the State, but of the fact that the State places itself in an existing legal framework, the guarantee being only one effect of that framework (77).\n(c)\nThe Commission concludes, as it did in recital 131 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, that the argument put forward by the French authorities on the basis of the Organic Law governing the Finance Act is not convincing, because the fact that it is not stated in any Finance Act that the State extends a guarantee to IFP by virtue of its legal form does not mean that there is no implied guarantee. The Commission is not in any event bound by the description of the measure as a \u2018guarantee\u2019 for purposes of French law, or by the fact that a guarantee is or is not caught by the Organic Law governing the Finance Act. The only relevant consideration is how the measure is to be described for purposes of Union law. Union law recognises the existence of an implied guarantee once a Member State legally has to repay a claim on another person in the event of that person\u2019s defaulting (78).\n(105)\nFourthly, the Commission rejects the argument of the French authorities that, if a State guarantee does exist in favour of EPICs, any establishment of a new EPIC (including by change of legal form) would necessitate measures to preserve the rights of creditors arising before the change, and that conversely (modus tollens), since no such mechanism has ever been set up (79), no guarantee exists in favour of the publicly owned establishment IFP:\n(a)\nAs pointed out by the Commission\u2019s expert in the postal case, and as recalled in recital 133 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission considers that this assertion is based on too broad an interpretation of the constitutional protection of the right of property.\n(b)\nThe Commission takes the view, as it did in recital 134 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, that in the same way, when an EPIC is converted into a company that can be made the subject of court proceedings for administration or winding up, the right of property does not require that a specific measure be taken to preserve the entitlements of creditors, and that the fact that no such measure has been taken does not constitute evidence that there is no implied guarantee.\n(c)\nThe Commission adds that, as explained in recitals 135 and 136 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the fact that the French authorities decided to give an express guarantee to La Poste when it obtained a legal form equivalent to that of an EPIC in 1990 (80) does not mean that there was no implied guarantee before that date.\n(106)\nFinally, as regards the article by Mr Labetoulle cited by the French authorities (81), and its analysis of the Campoloro case-law (82), the Commission refers to the part of the present decision relating to the liability of the State and to section 4.1.1 A(b)(3) of decision C 56/2007\n(107)\nContrary to the argument put forward by the French authorities, who contend that such a guarantee is excluded by the legislation, the Commission notes that the existence of implied guarantees arising out of the legal form of publicly owned establishments is confirmed by a memorandum of the Council of State drawn up in 1995 in the Cr\u00e9dit Lyonnais case, which took the view that the organisation concerned enjoyed an implied guarantee given by the State by reason merely of its character as a publicly owned establishment (83).\n(108)\nAs explained in recitals 142 to 145 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission does not share the interpretation put forward by the French authorities that this opinion of the Council of State cannot be transposed to the case of IFP. The opinion makes no reference to the aims of the establishment or to whether or not a public accountant is present within it. Moreover, the French authorities do not explain why, in their view, this opinion should apply to publicly owned establishments only if they have a public accountant. The Commission rejects the arguments put forward by the French authorities to the effect that the opinion is not applicable because it predates the Organic Law governing the Finance Act and is contrary to the subsequent case-law of the Council of State: in recital 104 above, and in decision C 56/2007, the Commission concluded that the Organic Law governing the Finance Act did not stand in the way of an implied guarantee given by the State to IFP.\n(109)\nFinally, as indicated in recitals 146 and 147 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission notes the memorandum from the Minister for Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry dated 22 July 2003, concerning a \u2018Census of implied and express guarantee arrangements granted by the State\u2019, which confirms that there are implied State guarantees that derive from an administrative or legislative act which \u2018produces and entails financial consequences for the State\u2019. That memorandum shows that a State guarantee can derive from legal acts of very different kinds (84) and indicates that the setting up of a publicly owned establishment may entail an implied guarantee given by the State to the establishment\u2019s creditors (85).\nb) A creditor of IFP can be sure that his claim will be repaid.\n(110)\nFollowing the example of the argument in section 4.1.1.A(b) of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission will now set out to demonstrate that in the event of a default by IFP, its creditors would be in a more favourable position than that of creditors of an enterprise governed by commercial law.\n(111)\nFirstly, in the case of publicly owned establishments, the conventional obstacles to the settlement of a claim against a body governed by private law are not applicable. On the basis of the factors detailed at greater length in recitals 150 to 154 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission concludes on this first point that:\n-\nunlike the creditors of undertakings governed by commercial law, creditors of IFP (which is not subject to the ordinary law governing the compulsory administration or winding up of firms in difficulty) are not in danger of seeing their claim cancelled in whole or in part as an outcome of compulsory winding-up proceedings;\n-\nthe fact that IFP has legal personality is no bar to the existence of a guarantee given by the State;\n-\nin the absence of any express limitation on the State\u2019s liability in respect of IFP, IFP\u2019s creditors may legitimately act on the principle that the State will bear the debts of IFP, even though IFP possesses legal personality.\n(112)\nSecondly, in the case of the recovery of the debts of a publicly owned establishment that has been found by a court to be in default, the procedure laid down in the Law of 16 July 1980 (and in implementing provisions (86)) is, for the reasons explained in recitals 113 to 117, more favourable to IFP\u2019s creditors than insolvency proceedings in the courts under ordinary law, in so far as it is not liable to result in the cancellation of their claim on IFP.\n(113)\nIn accordance with the analysis developed in recitals 157 to 161 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission notes firstly that the Law of 1980 (87) and its implementing provisions (88) designate the State as the authority responsible for covering the debts of publicly owned establishments, and confer important prerogatives on the State: the mandatory payment order and the creation of sufficient resources.\n(114)\nFollowing the example of the argument in recitals 162 to 168 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission considers that the specific procedure laid down by the Law of 1980 and the measures implementing it is a procedure only for the recovery of claims, and not for winding up, and that at the end of the procedure the claim is not cancelled, whereas at the end of winding-up proceedings under ordinary law a judgment terminating the proceedings on the ground that the assets are insufficient, without penalty, prevents creditors from pursuing the proceedings further. The Commission also notes that the Law of 1980 and the measures implementing it provide for the deferral of a payment order, and nowhere envisage a cessation of payments, and thereby give creditors to understand that there are or that there will be the resources necessary to settle a claim they hold on the public entity. These two factors lead to it consider that a shortage of funds will be covered, if necessary by the State, or is temporary only. But winding-up procedures never provide for the possibility that a third party can become liable for the debts of the insolvent party, except of course in the case of a guarantor.\n(115)\nIn accordance with the analysis developed in recitals 170 to 180 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission considers that in the event of a shortage of funds, French legislation authorises or indeed encourages the State to provide capital to publicly owned establishments, rather than expecting them to secure conventional bank loans; the \u2018additional resources\u2019 referred to in the Law of 16 July 1980 may consist of contributions of this kind. The Commission also considers that the relevant legislation is known to creditors, who consequently have good reason to believe that the supervising authority will be in a position to secure the resources necessary to ensure that their claims are satisfied. Consequently, the Commission takes the view that the probability that a creditor might not succeed in obtaining satisfaction of his claim under the procedures laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980 is low.\n(116)\nHowever, contrary to the conclusion it drew in respect of La Poste in decision C 56/2007, the Commission observes that in this case the resources of its own that IFP would be able to mobilise are relatively high, since, as the French authorities have explained (see recital 44), available funds and investments at the end of 2007 (EUR 150,3 million) represented approximately five times the amount of borrowings and financial liabilities (EUR 25,2 million). Consequently, the Commission recognises that in its present financial position, it seems unlikely, at least in the near future, that a shortage of own resources could lead to IFP being unable to meet its debts and give rise to the need for State intervention.\n(117)\nAlthough it is unlikely at present, it cannot be ruled out that IFP might experience such a shortage of assets in the longer term. In such circumstances, the fact that resources cannot be mobilised by selling assets means that use has to be made of other guarantee mechanisms (advances, efforts to establish a liability on the part of the State, etc.). Furthermore, in the event of a default on the part of IFP, the fact that the legislature has laid down rules protecting the assets might then be invoked in any dispute in which it was alleged that there was a strict liability resting on the State (89). On this point, the Commission takes note of the argument put forward by the French authorities (90) according to which even if the State considers an asset belonging to a publicly owned establishment to be \u2018indispensable\u2019 for the provision of a public service, and therefore objects to its sale, it is not bound to compensate via a guarantee mechanism. The Commission notes, however, that the French authorities have acknowledged that in applying the procedure laid down in the Law of 16 July 1980 the representative of the State is bound by the requirement of continuity of public service (although they deny that IFP can benefit as a result) (91). The Commission therefore considers that such a choice by the public authorities to prevent sales of assets in order to maintain a public service means that the State might incur strict liability for a breach of the principle of equality before public burdens.\n(118)\nThirdly, for the reasons already set out in recitals 185 to 226 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission considers that, in the unlikely event that the procedure laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980 does not result in payment of creditors, the courses still open to them to render the State liable have the characteristics of a guarantee mechanism.\n(119)\nAlthough the French authorities consider that the State has in principle no liability, whether for a fault on its part or in the absence of any such fault (92), they acknowledge that, if there is a requirement of continuity of public service that is binding on the representative of the State in the procedure laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980, a court may order that the creditor be compensated. But in that event the French authorities consider that the creditor is not given any advantage, as the compensation he receives is comparable to that which he would have received under ordinary law. The Commission draws attention, however, to certain specific features of the special scheme introduced by the Law of 1980: under the ordinary law governing compulsory winding up, creditors (and especially unsecured creditors) will not as a general rule recover the whole of their claims, and the enterprise being wound up will not usually have its debts paid by a third party.\n(120)\nThe French authorities also further deny that any possibility of compensation of creditors that may be opened up if the State is held liable can be considered equivalent to a guarantee. The Commission takes the view, however, that, in the procedure for the recovery of the debts of the public bodies referred to in the Law of 16 July 1980, the liability of the State, with or without fault, is indeed equivalent to a guarantee mechanism for purposes of European Union law, because it ensures creditors that if IFP should default the State will be required to meet their claims. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (\u2018ECHR\u2019) in Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de gestion du port de Campoloro et Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 fermi\u00e8re de Campoloro v France (93) (the Campoloro case) also points to the existence of an automatic guarantee.\n(121)\nFinally, as shown in recitals 181 to 184 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission considers that the French authorities\u2019 proposal for a clarification of the Decree implementing the Law of 1980 is not sufficient to prevent an increase in resources from being achieved by an injection of public funds.\n(a)\nThe French authorities propose to amend the Decree implementing the Law of 1980 as follows (the amendment is shown in italic): \u2018If the notice given has had no effect by the time these deadlines expire, the representative of the State or the authority responsible for supervision shall enter the expenditure in the budget of the defaulting authority or publicly owned establishment. The representative of the State or the authority responsible for supervision shall, as appropriate, release the necessary resources from the budget of the defaulting authority or establishment either by reducing the appropriations allocated to other expenditures and still available or by increasing resources\u2019.\n(b)\nHowever, as the Commission pointed out in recital 67 of the opening decision, neither in its present wording nor in the amended wording proposed by the French authorities does the legislation prevent an increase in resources from being made possible by a subsidy or injection of public funds.\n(122)\nFor the reasons already set out in recitals 204 to 211 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission also considers that the EHCR\u2019s judgment in the Campoloro case demonstrates that, in this instance, the liability accepted by the French State operates as an implied guarantee of the public authorities\u2019 liabilities and is not linked to any condition relating to injury.\n(a)\nThe Commission notes more specifically that the ECHR rejected the arguments of the French authorities which attempted to base their case (94) on the absence of, firstly, an operative event imputable to the State and, secondly, a guarantee on the part of the State to public authorities possessing legal personality, and accepted the contrary arguments of the applicants (95).\n(b)\nThe ECHR found that there had been a breach of Article 6-1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (\u2018the Convention\u2019), and added that the judgments had to be implemented and that a State authority could not use lack of resources as a pretext for not honouring a debt based on a judicial decision. The ECHR also found that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention, the applicants having suffered interference with their property rights on account of a huge and special burden due to the non-payment of the sums which they should have received (96). In the light of the above, the ECHR charged the whole of the debtor communes\u2019 debt to the State (97).\n(c)\nThe Commission considers that this judgment has three important implications:\n-\nSubject to the applicants obtaining a court judgment recognising their claim, the liability of the State functions as an implied guarantee (98), in so far as the French State is required to pay the whole of the debt of the public body (99) and no distinction is made between debt conceivably due to the public authority\u2019s insolvency and possible defaults imputable to the State (the ECHR did not at any time seek to identify an act or omission imputable to the State, and looked no further than the debtor\u2019s insolvent status).\n-\nThis liability covers the debts of public authorities possessed, however, of legal personality. The existence of legal personality and of assets specific to the authority was expressly invoked by the French Government in its opposition to holding the French State liable, but this argument was rejected by the ECHR.\n-\nThe scope of the State guarantee extends to include public authorities dependent on the State. The guarantee is therefore intrinsically connected with the debtor\u2019s public-law legal form.\n(d)\nMoreover, the Commission notes that the solution adopted by the ECHR in the Campoloro case is not an isolated one and stems from a well established line of case-law, notably in the judgments in the cases Artico v Italy (100) and Bourdov v Russia (101).\n(123)\nFor the reasons already set out in recitals 212 to 220 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission considers that the observations made by the French authorities are not of a nature to invalidate this reasoning. As it argued in the postal case, in recital 222 of decision C 56/2007, and in the opening decision, the Commission concludes that, as French law currently stands, a creditor of IFP who has not obtained the payment of his claim by recourse to the procedures introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 may receive all of the sums corresponding to the unmet claim by invoking the State\u2019s last-resort liability. This is the opposite of what happens within the framework of winding-up proceedings under ordinary law, where the reimbursement of the creditor is limited by the value of the available assets. In consequence of the above, the Commission considers that the State\u2019s liability is treated as a guarantee, it is not the subject of any limitation by French legislation, and is intrinsically linked to the public-law legal form possessed by the debtor body.\n(124)\nFurthermore, for the reasons already set out in recitals 223 to 226 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission takes note of the French proposal to include a clause in all IFP contracts involving claims so as to limit any risk of triggering the State\u2019s strict liability based on IFP\u2019s insolvency alone. It considers that such a legal framework would remain fragile and that there are doubts about its durability, because the plea of accepted risk is a rule established by case-law, which could always evolve. The Commission considers, however, that such a proposal is inherently inadequate as it does not cover all eventualities: it would not mean that the State guarantee could never come into play for any type of liability (in particular non-contractual liability and criminal liability). Moreover, it is impossible to make it contractually clear to its debtors that the State will not be liable for IFP\u2019s debts, as IFP may find itself indebted towards a third party through a variety of judicial mechanisms, in particular if it were to absorb another entity holding claims by initially unidentifiable third parties (102). Ultimately, as regards the individual claims held by third parties, the Commission considers that only a text of general scope applicable in any situation and to any type of third party, indicating that the State is not the guarantor of IFP, would be enough to eliminate the unlimited guarantee. In addition, even if the French proposals were to make it quite impossible for a creditor of IFP to hold the State liable for paying its claim (something which in the Commission\u2019s view has not been shown), such proposals would not enable it to be clearly established what would happen in the event of IFP becoming insolvent (103).\n(125)\nFourthly, even if he were to fail obtain satisfaction, the creditor of a publicly owned establishment could invoke legal effects arising from a legitimate mistake he made at the time the claim arose, when he believed that the claim would always be honoured.\n(126)\nFor the reasons already set out in recitals 227, 228 (first to third indents) and 229 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission believes that the theory of appearance (104) provides confirmation that the creditors of IFP would be justified in believing, on the basis of a body of consistent evidence, that such a guarantee does indeed exist (even assuming, quod non, that the fact that IFP has the legal form of an EPIC is not of a nature to confer on it, in law, an unlimited guarantee given by the French State). The main relevant indices in relation to the theory of appearance derive firstly from the fact that a variety of legislative instruments (Law of 16 July 1980 and the measures implementing it) or official (budgetary) documents lead the creditor to believe that the State would take over EPICs\u2019 debts in the event of their having a shortage of funds or that it would assume liability for those debts; secondly from the fact that the lack of clarification by the French authorities of the legal situation following the Campoloro case and of the initial proceedings undertaken by the Commission on the legal form of EPICs also increases creditors\u2019 confidence that such a guarantee does in fact exist; and finally from the fact that the lack of any clear indication as to the effects of a situation in which an EPIC is in default also militates in favour of this view.\n(127)\nIn the present case, the Commission wishes to add that prior to 7 July 2006, any creditors of the publicly owned establishment IFP were in a contractual relationship with a trade body within the meaning of Law No 43-612 of 17 November 1943 on the management of trade interests, a body which was a legal person governed by private law, and which they had no reason to think could be covered by a State guarantee of any kind. Consequently, the theory of appearance can in any event be applied only with regard to claims arising after the change of status of the publicly owned establishment IFP.\n(128)\nFollowing the conclusions of its expert in the postal case, the Commission has arrived at the view that, as regards claims arising after 7 July 2006, even if, in the scenario championed by the French authorities, it was in error that a creditor came to consider that the State was required to guarantee the debts of publicly owned establishments and of IFP in particular, his error would be legitimate given the above-mentioned factors, and the law could impart effects to it. If, exceptionally, the creditor did not succeed in obtaining the payment of his claim, he could nevertheless rest assured that there was no likelihood of the claim being cancelled.\nB. Guarantee of the continued existence of IFP and/or of its obligations\n(129)\nFor the reasons already set out in recitals 230 to 250 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission considers that even if, within a reasonable period and after the use of the procedures described in the previous section, the creditor of an EPIC does not succeed in obtaining the payment of his claim, he will be secure in the knowledge that the claim will not be cancelled, in contrast to the situation of a creditor of a company constituted under private law in liquidation, who has no guarantee that his claim will have to be met.\n(130)\nThe Commission stresses that there is no public authority-motivated winding up/closing down of publicly owned establishments in which the rights and obligations of the establishments are also cancelled: in the event of publicly owned establishments being closed down by decision of a public authority - and despite the fact that no legislation expressly provides for this - experience and certain basic principles of administrative law tend to show that the rights and obligations of publicly owned establishments that are closed down as such are always taken over by another body and, failing that, by the State. In other words, the debts of publicly owned establishments are always transferred to another legal person, which cannot refuse them, so that each creditor can therefore be certain that the right arising from his claim may be invoked against another body and that his claim will not, therefore, be cancelled.\n(131)\nThe Commission refers to the detail of the analysis presented in recitals 233 to 250 of decision C 56/2007, based on the study carried out by its expert in the postal case on organic developments affecting publicly owned establishments, which identifies three reasons why publicly owned establishments may be closed (105): the case of publicly owned establishments which have reached the ends of their lives, the case of publicly owned establishments being closed because the tasks assigned to them no longer need to be carried out, and the case, most frequently encountered, that the tasks assigned to them have been transferred elsewhere, necessarily implying a transfer of the rights and obligations.\n(a)\nOn the basis of this expert report, it can be considered firstly that although there is no overall judicial scheme for organising the closing down of publicly owned establishments, experience shows that the legislation always provides for transferring the rights and obligations of the establishment that is to be closed either to the State or to the body that is to take over its task (106).\n(b)\nSecondly, there is generally a transfer of \u2018rights and obligations\u2019 (with the term \u2018obligations\u2019 undoubtedly referring to debts), sometimes a transfer of \u2018assets\u2019 (107) (a formulation that would also include debts). The only example found of the pure and simple closing down of a publicly owned establishment involved, in any case, the transfer of the \u2018debts\u2019 themselves to other entities governed by public law (108).\n(c)\nThirdly, even when the task disappears, the publicly owned establishment\u2019s rights and obligations are, in practice, taken over by another body.\n(d)\nFourthly and finally, the practice described in the study is in accordance with codifying instruction No 02-060-M95 of 18 July 2002 and the guide to the financial organisation of the creation, conversion and abolition of national publicly owned establishments, cited above (109), namely that the rights and obligations of a wound-up EPIC go either to the State or to the legal entity that will take over the establishment\u2019s task.\n(132)\nGuided by its expert in the postal case, the Commission concludes that the debts of publicly owned establishments are in practice always transferred to another legal entity governed by public law in the event of the closing down of the publicly owned establishment that carried out the task concerned. The creditors of these publicly owned establishments, such as IFP, therefore have a guarantee that their unpaid claims will not be cancelled.\nC. Conclusion regarding the existence of a State guarantee in favour of IFP\n(133)\nOn the basis of the evidence of the existence of a guarantee ensuring the payment of individual claims and the continued existence of IFP\u2019s obligations, the Commission concludes that, from the change in the legal form of the publicly owned establishment IFP which occurred on 7 July 2006:\n-\nthe creditors of IFP do not encounter the usual private and public law limitations on the payment of a claim in full;\n-\nin recovering the sums owed to them, the creditors of IFP may have recourse to specific procedures authorising the State to force the debtor body to settle the claim;\n-\nnowhere does French law give the creditors of IFP to understand that IFP could face, for good, a situation in which it had a shortage of funds;\n-\nthe budgetary documents give the impression that, if there is a shortage of funds, the State could give an exceptional grant to public sector bodies, of which IFP is one;\n-\nif the procedures described above do not enable the creditor to obtain satisfaction, he can hold the State liable in order to obtain the payment of his claim in full;\n-\nif the actions envisaged above were to be spread out over time, the creditor can be certain that his claim will not be cancelled, even if IFP were to be subject to structural development.\n(134)\nThese special factors are intrinsically linked to IFP\u2019s legal form as a publicly owned establishment and imply that the State performs the role of guarantor of last resort. It may therefore be legitimately concluded that IFP benefits from an unlimited guarantee on the part of the French State by virtue of its legal form as an EPIC.\n(135)\nThe unlimited State guarantee to IFP results in a transfer of State resources within the meaning of point 2.1 of the Guarantees Notice. IFP pays no premium for this guarantee. There is thus both an advantage to the establishment and a drain on public resources, as the State waives the remuneration that normally accompanies guarantees. In addition, the guarantee creates the risk of a potential and future claim on the resources of the State, which could find itself obliged to pay IFP\u2019s debts (110).\n(136)\nFinally, the State\u2019s unlimited guarantee to IFP is imputable to the State, because it derives from the combination of IFP\u2019s public-law legal form, principles of national law, and two legislative acts, namely the Law of 25 January 1985, now the Commercial Code, and Law No 80-539 of 16 July 1980 and the measures implementing it.\n7.1.1.2 The unlimited guarantee does not cover IFP\u2019s private-law subsidiaries\n(137)\nAs the Commission already indicated in its decision on case C 51/2005 (111), in the opening decision in the present case, and in section 2 above (\u2018The IFP group\u2019), IFP and its subsidiaries Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat form an economic group for purposes of competition law: the economic integration of the publicly owned establishment IFP and its subsidiaries Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat is sufficiently strong to justify such a conclusion, because the publicly owned establishment IFP holds 100 % of Axens\u2019s capital and 100 % of Beicip-Franlab\u2019s capital directly, and 100 % of Prosernat\u2019s capital indirectly; it exercises control of its subsidiaries through the presence of IFP managers in the subsidiaries\u2019 decision-making bodies; it expresses its opinion in particular on the strategic planning and the key decisions for the future of the subsidiaries; and it is party to exclusive technology transfer agreements which are essential for the pursuit of its subsidiaries\u2019 economic activities (agreements that include reciprocal rights of first refusal (112)) and to assignment contracts for the provision of premises and staff. The precise scope of the State guarantee has therefore to be examined in order to establish whether, in the event of default by an IFP subsidiary governed by private law, public resources could be mobilised to compensate its creditors (in other words, whether or not the unlimited State guarantee covers the economic activities of IFP\u2019s subsidiaries).\n(138)\nUOP did not express an opinion on this point in its comments. Its arguments are based on market operators\u2019 perception of \u2018IFP/Axens\u2019 which, in its opinion, is liable to confer an advantage on the IFP group in relation to suppliers, customers or capital providers. This aspect will be examined in section 7.1.4 of this decision, which investigates the advantages which the IFP group derives from the measure.\n(139)\nOn the other hand, as indicated in recital 47, the French authorities deny the existence of a State guarantee for IFP\u2019s subsidiaries, in particular because they have the legal form of public limited companies governed by ordinary law.\n(140)\nIn section 7.1.1.1, the Commission showed that the publicly owned establishment IFP enjoyed an unlimited guarantee; it will now consider whether the creditors of IFP\u2019s private-law subsidiaries are covered by (A) a guarantee of payment of their individual claims or (B) a guarantee of the continued existence of their obligations in the event of insufficient assets.\nA. Creditors of IFP\u2019s subsidiaries have no guarantee of payment of their individual claims\n(141)\nIFP\u2019s subsidiaries have the legal form of public limited companies. As legal persons governed by private law (unlike their controlling shareholder, which is a publicly owned establishment), they are fully subject to the compulsory administration and winding-up procedures provided for under ordinary law in France (113).\n(142)\nBefore examining whether the controlling shareholder, the publicly owned establishment IFP, might have a vicarious liability that could be invoked for its subsidiaries (b), an account must be given of the compulsory winding-up procedure under ordinary law to which these private-law subsidiaries would be subject in the event of cessation of payments (a).\na) Compulsory winding up under ordinary law\n(143)\nSupposing that an IFP subsidiary, a public limited company, was in default (in other words that it was no longer able to meet current liabilities out of its available assets), and that a reorganisation seemed manifestly impossible (114), the procedure under ordinary law (115) would lead to it being wound up compulsorily. The commencement of such proceedings (116) would be requested, where appropriate, by a debtor within forty-five days at the latest following the cessation of payments (unless the debtor had already requested the commencement of conciliation proceedings). The purpose of such a compulsory winding up procedure would be to end the business activity of the undertaking or to sell its assets through a general or separate sale of its interests and property (117). In the order commencing the winding up proceedings (118), the court appoints a supervisory judge (juge-commissaire) and, as liquidator, a court-registered administrator (mandataire judiciaire) or another person chosen for competence in this field. Within a month of his appointment, the liquidator draws up a report on the situation of the undertaking and then carries out the liquidation operations and the verification (119) of claims (120). The proceeds of the liquidation are shared among the creditors according to their ranking (preferential and mortgage creditors, creditors secured by a special security over movable property, unsecured creditors, i.e. without preference, pro rata to their claims).\n(144)\nWhere there are no longer any current liabilities and the liquidator has sufficient sums at his disposal to satisfy the creditors, or where continuing the winding up has become impossible due to lack of assets, the court closes the winding up (121). After closure of the proceedings, similar proceedings cannot be resumed against the debtor. In other words, a judgment terminating the winding-up proceedings owing to lack of assets prevents the creditors from bringing further proceedings against the debtor unless the claim results from a criminal conviction or rights attached to the person of the creditor (122).\nb) No guarantee mechanism for IFP\u2019s private-law subsidiaries\n(145)\nAs the Commission expert explained in the postal case, in some commercial forms of enterprise, and in particular public limited companies (SAs) or private limited companies (SARLs), the members are not normally speaking obliged to pay the debts of the organisation in which they take part to an amount beyond their initial contribution. IFP\u2019s subsidiaries are public limited companies and fall squarely into this category. Therefore, in the IFP group, as in any other group of companies, in the event of default by a subsidiary with limited liability (in this case a public limited company), the liability of the parent (as for any other ordinary shareholder) is confined to the loss of its contributions, always assuming there are no suretyships, endorsements, guarantees, letters of intent or letters of comfort (123) explicitly committing it.\n(146)\nIn view of the fact that IFP and its subsidiaries belong to the same economic group for purposes of competition law, it has to be considered whether or not, in the event of default on the part of one of these private-law subsidiaries, the relationship of economic dependency of the subsidiaries on their parent may in French company law automatically trigger the liability of the publicly owned establishment IFP, and consequently mobilise public resources, since the State is responsible for the bulk of IFP\u2019s financing and has implicitly guaranteed it as a publicly owned establishment.\n(147)\nAt the end of the present detailed examination, the Commission concludes that in French civil and commercial law, in the event of default by one of the subsidiaries, (i) its controlling shareholder will not in principle be liable, except where the controlling shareholder can be shown to have committed a fault in the management of its subsidiary. The plans to reform the Civil Code, recently contemplated then abandoned, which aimed precisely to extend the principle of vicarious liability to the relationship between parent and subsidiaries of a group, confirm a contrario (ii) that such a principle does not exist at present in French law.\ni) No general vicarious liability of a shareholder for its subsidiary\n(148)\nAccording to legal theory (124), the organisation of a group never by itself gives rise to a chain of liability. French law keeps to the principle of personal liability set out in Article 1382 of the Civil Code (125). Only an unlawful act which can be imputed to the conduct of the parent could open access to its assets.\n(149)\nAs a preliminary point, the parent of the IFP group is a legal person governed by public law, namely the publicly owned establishment IFP, which raises an additional difficulty: the question has first to be asked which court, an administrative court or an ordinary civil or criminal court, would have jurisdiction under the French system to establish whether when a legal person governed by private law is to be wound up compulsorily, and is controlled by a legal person governed by public law, there is any liability that rests on the controlling entity.\n(150)\nAs regards proceedings for liability because of insufficient assets (126), the Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction (Tribunal des conflits) for long considered that the ordinary courts had jurisdiction where the legal person governed by public law was manager de jure (127), and that the administrative courts had jurisdiction where the legal person governed by public law was manager de facto (128). However, it seems that the jurisdiction of the administrative and the ordinary courts is now distinguished by reference to the nature of the service provided: whether it is an administrative public service, or an industrial or commercial activity.\n(a)\nWhere an administrative public service is involved, the old rule, based on de jure or de facto management, seems to have been abandoned by the Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction (129) in its D\u00e9partement de la Dordogne decision (130), where the Court decided that the administrative courts had jurisdiction because the service involved was an administrative public service, regardless of whether the legal person governed by public law was the de jure or de facto manager of the person governed by private law that actually performed the public service task. The Court recalled that in line with its judgment in Blanco (131)\u2018the liability which may lie with the State or with other legal persons governed by public law by reason of damage attributed to their administrative public services is governed by public law\u2019 (emphasis added), and that the situation was otherwise only where the law expressly so provided; the Court went on to find that in Law of 25 January 1985 on compulsory administration and winding-up procedures, (now codified in Articles L. 624-3 et seq. of the Commercial Code) the legislature had not, \u2018by way of exception to the principles governing the liability of public-law persons, intended to confer jurisdiction on the ordinary courts for determining the civil liability of the State or other legal persons governed by public law in the performance of a duty to provide an administrative public service\u2019 (emphasis added).\n(b)\nConversely, where an industrial or commercial activity is concerned, jurisdiction to determine the civil liability of a legal person governed by public law controlling a private person in liquidation clearly rests with the ordinary courts. In its judgment in Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019\u00c9conomie Mixte Olympique d\u2019Al\u00e8s en C\u00e9vennes (132), the Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction held in particular that \u2018although jurisdiction to determine the civil liability of the State or of other legal persons governed by public law in respect of the performance of a duty to provide an administrative public service rests with the administrative courts, such proceedings come under the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts where it is shown that the State or the legal person governed by public law is liable in respect of an industrial or commercial activity; there is no necessity to determine whether the public authority acted as manager de jure or de facto\u2019 (emphasis added). In the case before it the Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction ruled that the activities conducted by a public limited company with a board of directors and supervisory board (SEM Olympique d\u2019Al\u00e8s en C\u00e9vennes) were not of an administrative public service nature, on the basis of two considerations: the company\u2019s object (133) and its financing (134).\n(151)\nAs regards more specifically the public limited companies Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat, which are subsidiaries governed by private law controlled by the publicly owned establishment IFP, it emerges from the information contained in the file, especially that recalled in recital 159, that their object is economic and not administrative (135). In addition, the bulk of the resources of these companies comes from operating proceeds generated by their economic activities and not from public funding. Finally, it should be noted that these subsidiaries of a publicly owned establishment were set up as commercial companies on the initiative of a legal person governed by private law (136) (and not of a legal person governed by public law, because IFP was converted into an EPIC only on 7 July 2006). Therefore the industrial and commercial nature of the activities of Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat seems undeniable and, in the event of compulsory winding up by the court, jurisdiction to hear any case concerning liability against the publicly owned establishment IFP would undoubtedly lie with the ordinary courts.\n(152)\nIt must therefore be considered in what circumstances the controlling shareholder may be held liable in the light of the case-law of the Court of Cassation. In order to extend compulsory winding-up proceedings initiated in respect of a specific person (the subsidiary) so as to include another legal person (the parent), the conditions laid down are very strict. Confronted by a defaulting subsidiary, the victims of its actions have to prove misconduct on the part of the parent in order to obtain redress; this may in particular take the form of (\u03b1) denial by the parent of the legal personality of its subsidiary, or (\u03b2) mismanagement of the controlled company.\n\u03b1) Denial by the parent of the legal personality of the subsidiary\n(153)\nIn its judgments the Court of Cassation has established that the liability of a parent company may extend to the actions of its subsidiaries in two exceptional cases: firstly, where the assets of the subsidiaries are inseparable from those of the parent (confusion du patrimoine), and secondly, where the subsidiaries are fictitious legal persons (137).\n(154)\nThe concept of inseparable assets (138) generally applies to a situation where the accounts of the two separate legal entities are such that it is impossible to determine to which of them a specific asset or liability belongs. However, to show that assets are inseparable it is not enough that there should be links, even close links, between the companies of the group. Likewise, the fact that partners or managers or even the registered office (139) are identical does not by itself mean that the assets are inseparable. The fact that relations within the group are formally defined in agreements between the parent company and its subsidiaries usually suffices to rule out any possibility of inseparability of assets (140).\n(155)\nIn two recent cases, Metaleurop (141) and AOL Libert\u00e9 (142), the Court of Cassation seems actually to have tightened its approach to the conditions for the extension of proceedings to include the parent company of a group. Even very intensive integration of the group companies does not necessarily entail inseparability of assets. According to the legal literature, \u2018Neither the liquidity and exchange agreements between the two entities, nor the exchanges of staff, nor the advances of funds by the parent company, nor the parent company\u2019s control of the management of the subsidiary imply a general disorder in the accounts that would justify the unification of the assets\u2019 (143). It therefore seems to be particularly difficult to hold a parent company liable for the actions of one of its subsidiaries on the basis of the inseparability of their assets (144), with the level of proof required by the Court of Cassation being extremely high.\n(156)\nIn the present case, it has to be pointed out that the Commission has already found that \u2018IFP and the subsidiaries concerned are distinct legal entities and their accounts are separate\u2019 (145). In addition, the agreements signed between IFP and its subsidiaries, especially the agreements for exclusive technology transfer or the assignment of staff (146), do not produce general disorder in the accounts such as to justify unification of the assets within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Cassation, since each service is specifically entered in the respective balance sheets of each entity of the IFP group, as will be established in particular in sections 7.1.4 and 7.3.\n(157)\nTo show that a subsidiary is a \u2018fictitious legal entity\u2019 it must be established that the constitution of the subsidiary is flawed for lack of intention to cooperate (affectio societatis) so that the subsidiary does not have a real existence as a company. The Court of Cassation (147) considers that there is a fictitious company where the legal person against which the proceedings are brought exists only apparently, by reason of a lack of any activity separate from that of the natural or legal person directing the business (148).\n(158)\nOn the basis of publicly available information (149), the Commission also notes that the publicly owned establishment IFP and Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat have neither the same contact information nor the same business premises:\n(a)\nThe publicly owned establishment IFP is registered in the Nanterre Trade and Companies Register (\u2018RCS\u2019) under number B 775 729 155 and its registered office is located in Rueil-Malmaison (150). IFP owns two establishments in France, in Solaize (151) and Pau (152) respectively.\n(b)\nAxens is registered in the Nanterre RCS under number B 599 815 073 and its registered office is also located in Rueil-Malmaison, but at a different address from its parent (153). Its operating centres are also located in different sites from those of its parent, mostly outside France: in the United States, in Houston, Texas; Princeton, New Jersey; Savannah, Georgia; and Calvert City, Kentucky; in Canada, in Brockville, Ontario: in China, in Beijing; in Japan, in Tokyo; in India, in New Delhi; in Bahrain; and in Russia, in Moscow.\n(c)\nBeicip-Franlab is registered in the Nanterre RCS under number B 679 804 047, and its registered office is also located in Rueil-Malmaison, but at a different address from its parent and Axens (154). It has subsidiaries and offices in a large number of countries in the world, in particular in Bahrain; in Abu Dhabi; in Tripoli in Libya; in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia; in Houston, Texas, in the United States; in Villahermosa in Mexico; in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil; and in Moscow in Russia.\n(d)\nProsernat is registered in the Nanterre RCS under number B 315 251 330 and its registered office is located in Puteaux (155). The company states (156) that it is present in some twenty countries throughout the world, including in South America (Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela), Europe (United Kingdom, Italy, and Norway), North Africa (Algeria and Egypt), the Gulf countries (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar), Iran, Russia, the Commonwealth of Independent States and South-East Asia.\n(159)\nIn addition, in this case, the economic activities engaged in by each of the subsidiaries are real, so that the companies cannot reasonably be classified as fictitious, especially as the Court of Cassation is very exacting when it comes to categorising a legal person as \u2018fictitious\u2019 (157).\n(a)\nAxens, set up in 2001, engages in an economic activity in the market for catalysts and technologies for the refining and petrochemicals industries, for which it employs more than 600 people and through which it achieves an annual turnover of approximately EUR 300 million.\n(b)\nBeicip-Franlab, set up in 1967, engages in a real activity in the publication and distribution of exploration-deposits software and in consultancy and advisory services. This activity involves over 100 employees and provides an annual turnover of approximately EUR 40 million.\n(c)\nProsernat, acquired in 2001, provides consultancy and other services and supplies gas treatment and sulphur recovery plants. The company employs about 70 people to carry out this activity and has a turnover of approximately EUR 50 million.\n(160)\nLeaving aside the question of mismanagement, which will be examined in recitals 161 to 164, it is clear from the above that the extremely limited cases in which the case-law gives a parent company vicarious liability for its subsidiaries - the subsidiary is a fictitious legal entity or the assets of the subsidiary and the parent company are inseparable - are clearly not fulfilled in this case. Consequently, the Commission considers that if IFP\u2019s subsidiaries Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat were to be wound up the conditions for automatically holding IFP liable would not be met.\n\u03b2) Liability for mismanagement of the subsidiary by the parent\n(161)\nA fault in the exercise of supervision over a subsidiary may traditionally render the parent company liable (158). Where the parent has committed a fault in the supervision that it has to exercise over the management of its subsidiaries, \u2018especially in the case of groups of companies, the case-law allows the parent company to be held liable\u2019 (159). According to the literature, mismanagement by a parent company which has acted as de jure or de facto manager of a subsidiary in difficulty may render it liable if the subsidiary is wound up (160): the parent company may be held liable as a shareholder of the subsidiary (161) if faults that originated the controlled company\u2019s difficulties can be imputed to it (162).\n(162)\nOrdinary law therefore provides for the liability of managers in relation to their company, its shareholders or its creditors (163). In the case of a group, the creditors of a subsidiary which has suspended payments will try to demonstrate that the parent company has assumed the role of manager of the subsidiary, de jure or de facto (164). Liability of a parent for its subsidiary on the basis of a fault committed by the parent is therefore provided for in particular by the law governing collective proceedings (165), and more specifically in the context of actions for liability for insufficient assets (166), on condition that the parent has acted as the manager (167) of its subsidiary. However, for the parent company to be held liable for fault, it is necessary to provide proof of such fault, and above all of a causal link between this and the damage suffered y reason of the conduct of the subsidiary (168).\n(163)\nIn any event, it is clear from the above that legal actions of this case are never actions seeking the enforcement of a guarantee, since they are always based on a fault committed by the parent company. Therefore such actions do not demonstrate the existence of a general principle of vicarious liability of a parent company for its subsidiaries, a principle which would be contrary to the principle of the limitation of a shareholder\u2019s liability to the initial contribution made to the company, apart from cases where the company is a fictitious entity or where its assets are inseparable form those of its parent company, which can be ruled out here.\n(164)\nTo sum up, it is clear from the case-law of the Court of Cassation that the principle of liability of a parent company for mismanagement of a subsidiary does not in any way provide a mechanism equivalent to a guarantee.\nii) Recent plans for reform of vicarious liability\n(165)\nAccording to the findings of a recent parliamentary information report (169), in the present state of the law it appears, therefore, that \u2018the approaches taken in the case-law throw into relief the obstacle which legal personality places in the way of the assignment of liability\u2019 (emphasis added) (170).\n(166)\nThis obstacle seems to be so critical that three has recently been debate in France on the advisability of a reform of the Civil Code which would extend vicarious liability to situations of economic dependence (171) (with special reference to the relationships of the subsidiaries of a group with their parent company). Certain consumer associations (172) mentioned in the parliamentary report cited above seem in particular to deplore the fact that the technique of converting units into subsidiaries allows certain entities, in the event of later litigation involving the liability of a subsidiary, to rely on the legal partitioning of the companies of the group even though in their commercial dealings they have presented the image of a group of perfectly integrated companies offering a range of services.\n(167)\nArticle 1355 of the Catala preliminary draft (173) recently proposed the introduction of a new basis for vicarious liability which would call into question the principle of the legal autonomy of subsidiaries:\n\u2018Article 1355\nA person shall be liable automatically for the damage caused by those whose way of life he regulates, or whose activity he organises, directs or controls in his own interest \u2026\u2019\n(168)\nThe comments made by the authors of this preliminary draft clarify the innovations proposed with regard to non-contractual vicarious liability. The legislation would add as a possible basis \u2018the act of directing and organising the activity of others in the personal interest of the person exercising such control\u2019 (174), which would make quite a profound change to the present legal position, especially as the liability would henceforth be strict: it would not be \u2018subject to proof of a fault on the part of the person responsible, but rather to proof of an act that might have rendered the direct author personally liable if he had not acted under the control of others\u2019 (175).\n(169)\nThe second paragraph of Article 1360 of the preliminary draft defines this principle in the case of the liability of the parent company of a group of companies in relation to its subsidiaries:\n\u2018Article 1360\n\u2026 Likewise, a person shall also be liable where he controls the economic activity or assets of a professional person who is in a situation of dependence even though acting for his own account, if the victim shows that the act giving rise to the damage is related to the exercise of control. This shall apply in particular to parent companies in respect of damage caused by their subsidiaries, and to licensors for damage caused by their licensees\u2019 (emphasis added.)\n(170)\nIt is clear from the above, a contrario, that in the present state of French law, vicarious liability of the parent company for its subsidiary requires proof that the parent committed a fault affecting the subsidiary.\n(171)\nAs regards foreseeable developments in French positive law, the Commission notes that the reform contemplated on this point seems to have been abandoned: in the context of the parliamentary report cited above, the working party of the Senate Legal Affairs Committee declared itself against any legislative provision \u2018establishing the existence of strict liability by reason of a state of economic dependence\u2019 (Recommendation No 19). Moreover, a reform along these lines no longer seems to be on the agenda: in particular, it does not appear in Bill No 657 on the reform of civil liability (176) presented during the ordinary session 2009-2010 (registered at the office of the President of the Senate on 9 July 2010).\n(172)\nIn conclusion, whereas the State is liable in the event of default of a publicly owned establishment, by a mechanism which, especially in view of its automatic character, has all the features of a guarantee, there is in the current state of French law no implicit and automatic liability of parent companies for the actions of subsidiaries governed by private law under compulsory winding up.\nB. Creditors of IFP\u2019s subsidiaries have no guarantee of the continued existence of the subsidiaries and/or their obligations\n(173)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that if, as public limited companies, the IFP subsidiaries were to be wound up and their existence terminated, their rights and obligations would disappear at the same time. Admittedly their controlling shareholder, the publicly owned establishment IFP, would have the option of a prior capital injection (177) to avoid their winding up. Such a capital contribution could then ensure the continuation the claims against the subsidiaries held by third parties.\n(174)\nHowever, that would be a strategic choice on the part of the publicly owned establishment and not a legal obligation automatically imposed on it. Moreover, such a choice would be subject to the strict framework of State aid law: if the capital injection was not the behaviour of a private investor operating under normal market economy conditions, it would have to be notified to the Commission by the French authorities and await the Commission\u2019s prior vetting (and approval).\n(175)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that in the event of winding up, the creditors of IFP\u2019s subsidiaries have no certainty regarding the settlement of their claims.\nC. Conclusion regarding the lack of a State guarantee covering the private-law subsidiaries of the publicly owned establishment IFP\n(176)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that, in contrast to the creditors of the publicly owned establishment IFP, the creditors of the private-law subsidiaries of the IFP group do not have a guarantee either of the payment of their individual claims or of the continued existence of these companies in the event of winding up. These private-law subsidiaries are not covered by the unlimited guarantee enjoyed by IFP by virtue of its legal form as a publicly owned establishment. The Commission bases its analysis on the fact that the creditors of the IFP subsidiaries governed by private law:\n-\nremain subject to the ordinary-law procedures regarding the administration and winding up of undertakings;\n-\nare unable, in the current state of French law, to rely on an automatic liability of the controlling shareholder of the subsidiaries, the publicly owned establishment IFP, and hence of the French State, for the actions of IFP\u2019s subsidiaries: they must first show that there has been a fault on the part of the publicly owned establishment, which means that any liability is not automatic and cannot be likened to a guarantee mechanism.\n(177)\nThe Commission emphasises that it has already come to similar conclusions in other cases in which it took the view that a public limited company wholly owned by a publicly owned establishment, or by the State itself, was not covered by the unlimited public guarantee enjoyed by its shareholder. As regards companies owned directly by the State, the Commission considered, as early as 2003, in the EDF case (178), that the conversion of an EPIC into a public limited company under ordinary law, which made it subject to the ordinary law on bankruptcy, had the effect of withdrawing the guarantee enjoyed by the undertaking up to that time. This approach was recently confirmed when La Poste was transformed into a public limited company wholly owned by the State (179). As regards companies held by publicly owned establishments, the Commission acknowledged, in the decision cited above relating to the setting up of La Banque Postale, that the fact that the subsidiary had the legal form of a public limited company wholly owned by a publicly owned establishment (namely La Poste, which at that time was a publicly owned establishment with a form equivalent to that of an EPIC) was by itself sufficient to rule out the possibility of an unlimited guarantee to the subsidiary (180).\n7.1.2 ECONOMIC NATURE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PUBLICLY OWNED ESTABLISHMENT IFP THAT ARE COVERED BY THE UNLIMITED GUARANTEE\n(178)\nAs the Commission already pointed out in its previous decisions relating to the publicly owned establishment IFP (181), under its constitution, IFP performs three tasks:\n-\nresearch and development in the fields of oil and gas prospecting and refining and petrochemicals technologies,\n-\nthe training of engineers and technicians,\n-\nthe provision of sector information and documentation.\n(179)\nAs explained in recital 31, the French authorities consider that the publicly owned establishment IFP is a research organisation assigned a three-fold task in the general interest (research, training and documentation).\n(180)\nThe Commission likewise takes the view that in the light of the tasks assigned to it IFP can be termed a \u2018research organisation\u2019 within the meaning of point 2.2.(d) of the Community framework for State aid for research and development and innovation (182) (\u2018the R&D&I Framework\u2019): its primary goal is to conduct fundamental research (183), industrial research (184) or experimental development (185) and to disseminate their results by way of teaching, publication or technology transfer.\n(181)\nIn accordance with the Court of Justice case-law (186), the public financing of the activities carried out by a research organisation (including their cover by an unlimited public guarantee) may (187) lead to the granting of State aid provided that the organisation in question is engaged in an economic activity, i.e. an activity consisting of offering goods and services on a given market (188), regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed.\n(182)\nIn its decision-making practice the Commission has clarified what it considers to be economic and non-economic activities engaged in by research organisations (189).\n(183)\nThe Commission takes the view that the primary activities of research organisations are normally of a non-economic character, notably:\n-\neducation for more and better skilled human resources;\n-\nthe conduct of independent R&D for more knowledge and better understanding, including collaborative R&D;\n-\nthe dissemination of research results.\n(184)\nIt furthermore considers that technology transfer activities (licensing, spin-off creation or other forms of management of knowledge created by the research organisation) are of a non-economic character if these activities are of an \u2018internal nature\u2019 (190) and all income from these activities is reinvested in the primary activities of the research organisations.\n(185)\nOn the other hand, the Commission considers that research carried out under contract with industry, the renting out of research infrastructure and consultancy work constitute economic activities (191).\n(186)\nIn the case under examination, the unlimited guarantee conferred on IFP by virtue of its EPIC status covers both its non-economic activities (which in itself does not give rise to any problem under the law governing State aid) and its economic activities, which are of two types.\n(187)\nRegarding the first type of economic activity, although, as indicated in recital 31, the majority of IFP\u2019s activities are non-economic, the French authorities acknowledged in their letters dated 13 January and 16 July 2010 that outside the exclusive field of activity of its subsidiaries IFP provided services consisting essentially in renting out infrastructures and premises, providing staff and supplying legal services to its the subsidiaries, and contract research services for third parties and its subsidiaries. As pointed out in recital 185, such activities are economic activities as generally defined by the Commission.\n(188)\nRegarding the second type of economic activity, technology transfers such as licensing, spin-off creation or other forms of management of knowledge created by the research organisation are in principle non-economic, as recalled in recital 184, if they are of an internal nature and if the profits they generate are entirely reinvested in public research. In the present case, however, as the Commission found in decision C 51/2005, the very specific relationships between the publicly owned establishment IFP and certain of its subsidiaries governed by private law are such that \u2018certain of IFP\u2019s activities fall outside the scope of its non-economic activities insofar as they give rise to commercial exploitation by its subsidiaries\u2019 (192). The Commission came to the conclusion that the subsidiaries concerned could not be considered autonomous from their parent in so far as their activities formed part of IFP\u2019s development strategy, IFP exercised not only de jure but also de facto control, exclusive agreements bore witness to strong economic integration, and IFP and the subsidiaries concerned had a common image in the eyes of operators in the relevant sectors. The technology transfers between IFP and its subsidiaries Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat, and especially those resulting from industrial research work (193), must consequently be categorised as economic activities for purposes of competition law.\n7.1.3 SCOPE OF THE PRESENT DECISION\n(189)\nIt is clear from section 7.1.1 that only the activities carried out directly by the publicly owned establishment IFP are covered by the State guarantee; the activities carried out by its subsidiaries, which are governed by private law, are not covered by the guarantee.\n(190)\nMoreover, among the activities carried out directly by IFP, there can be a State aid element only in the guarantee cover given to activities of an economic character, and always provided the other conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are also met.\n(191)\nFinally, it is clear from section 7.1.2 that these economic activities are confined on the one hand to contract research activities carried out by the publicly owned establishment IFP, and on the other hand to the transfer of technologies in the exclusive fields of activity of the subsidiaries Axens, Prosernat and Beicip-Franlab and the renting out of infrastructure, provision of staff and provision of legal services.\n7.1.4 EXISTENCE OF A SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE TO THE IFP GROUP\n(192)\nTo analyse any advantages that the IFP group may derive from the unlimited guarantee conferred on the parent, IFP, by virtue of its EPIC status, the Commission will proceed in two stages: it will first examine any advantages to the parent (7.1.4.1), and then examine those potentially transferred to its subsidiaries (7.1.4.2).\n7.1.4.1 Advantages to the publicly owned establishment IFP\n(193)\nIn the opening decision, in accordance with point 2.1.3 of the Guarantees Notice, the Commission said that it took the view that IFP could derive benefit from its EPIC status mainly through more favourable funding terms on the capital markets (194), which is an advantage resulting from the non-applicability of the ordinary legal procedure for compulsory administration and winding up to legal entities governed by public law. Moreover, in the event of default of the publicly owned establishment, the Commission noted that the State guarantee would cover all of IFP\u2019s debts, which, as specified in recital 71 of the opening decision, might be not only financial but also commercial or of another nature again, in particular claims held by suppliers (whose invoices had not been paid) or by customers (to whom services had not been supplied).\n(194)\nAt the end of the detailed examination of the measure, therefore, the Commission considers that it is appropriate to analyse the existence of any advantage to the publicly owned establishment IFP in its relations with (A) banks and financial institutions, (B) its suppliers and (C) its customers.\nA. No advantage in dealings with banks and financial institutions\n(195)\nIn the opening decision, although the Commission acknowledged that the publicly owned establishment IFP was not the subject of a financial rating by an external rating agency (195), it pointed out that the funding granted to IFP necessarily entailed an assessment by creditors of the risk of default (196). Given that IFP had recourse to the credit market to finance its debt, the Commission could not at the preliminary examination stage rule out the possibility that IFP might enjoy an economic advantage as a result of the weight given by the financial markets in their assessments to the State\u2019s role of last-resort guarantor of IFP\u2019s debts.\n(196)\nAt the end of the detailed examination, the Commission takes note of the information sent by France which is referred to in recital 64 above, and which is summarised in Table 1 in the present recital.\nTable 1\nDebt of the publicly owned establishment IFP over the period 2005-2010\nEntity:\nIFP\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\n2010\nEUR thousand\nEUR thousand\nEUR thousand\nEUR thousand\nEUR thousand\nEUR thousand\nLoans and debts with credit institutions (197)\nAmounts payable within one year (1)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\nAmounts payable at over one year\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n(1) of which bank loans and overdrafts and bank credit balances\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\nInterest rate on loans and debts contracted with credit institutions:\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\n2010\nInterest rate + margin\nInterest rate + margin\nInterest rate + margin\nInterest rate + margin\nInterest rate + margin\nInterest rate + margin\nMedium and long-term loans\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\n[\u2026] (197)\nBank loans and overdrafts and short-term credit facilities\n[Bank No 1] (198)\nEONIA + [\u2026] (197)\nEONIA + [\u2026] (197)\n[Bank No 2] (198)\nEONIA + [\u2026] (197)\nEONIA + [\u2026] (197)\n[Bank No 3] (198)\nEONIA + [\u2026] (197)\n[Bank No 4] (198)\nEONIA + [\u2026] (197)\n(197)\nThis information shows that as regards the amounts payable at more than one year, IFP has not had recourse to borrowing from credit institutions since its change of legal form, i.e. over the period between 2006 and 2009 for which the data are available. Over the same period, following the change of status, IFP has had recourse to borrowing at less than one year only once, in 2009, for a negligible sum of EUR [\u2026] (*). Moreover, the rate applied at the time by [Bank No 3] (**) (EONIA + [\u2026] (*) %) was [\u2026] (*) base points higher (all other things being equal) than the rate negotiated by IFP in 2005 with [Bank No 1] (**) (EONIA + [\u2026] (*) %), when IFP it was still a legal person governed by private law, and therefore not yet covered by the State guarantee that it now derives from its status as a publicly owned establishment.\n(198)\nAs regards 2010 specifically, the French authorities specified that the publicly owned establishment IFP had received four proposals for credit facilities amounting to EUR [\u2026] (*), at a one-year rate varying between EONIA + [\u2026] (*) % with [Bank No 4] (**) (plus commitment fee of [\u2026] (*) %, i.e. EUR [\u2026] (*)) or [Bank No 5] (**) (plus commitment fee of [\u2026] (*) %, i.e. EUR [\u2026] (*)) and EONIA + [\u2026] (*) % with [Bank No 3] (**) (plus commitment fee of [\u2026] (*) %, i.e. EUR [\u2026] (*)) or [Bank No 1] (**) (plus commitment fee of [\u2026] (*) %, i.e. EUR [\u2026] (*)). IFP also received another spot offer from [Bank No 3] (**) (depending on the term of drawdown chosen), for a rate equal to EURIBOR + [\u2026] (*) %. The Commission notes the fact that these rates are equivalent to those negotiated by IFP before its change of status in 2006, when it was still a legal person governed by private law not covered by a State guarantee.\n(199)\nIn view of the above, the Commission acknowledges that, over the period between its change of legal form and 2010, IFP did not derive any actual economic advantage from its EPIC status in its relations with banks and financial institutions. In other words, it appears that the potential advantage that the undertaking might have derived from the unlimited guarantee, in the form of interest rates on borrowings more favourable than what was available on the market, did not materialise during the period under review.\n(200)\nThis conclusion naturally applies only for the past, since the Commission cannot make assumptions concerning future conduct by market operators or about their perception of the impact of the State guarantee on the risk of default of the publicly owned establishment IFP. Therefore, in the context of the annual reports that the French authorities will be called upon to send the Commission in the future, they should furnish information relating to the levels and terms of IFP\u2019s debt, providing proof that these loans are in line with market conditions, or adding the gross equivalent of the aid component to the estimate of the maximum impact of the guarantee using a methodology similar to that described in Table 6 appearing in recital 300.\n(201)\nFinally, the Commission notes the proposal of the French authorities to include the following written statement in the financing contract for each transaction (for all instruments covered by a contract):\n\u2018The issue/programme/loan does not enjoy any form of direct or indirect State guarantee. In the event of insolvency, the State would not be obliged to act as financial substitute for IFP for payment of the claim.\u2019\n(202)\nWhile this commitment will not by itself suffice to resolve the question of the existence of the guarantee, in the particular context, combined with all the other obligations imposed on France, it will allow the plea of accepted risk to be relied upon where appropriate, and any negative repercussions of the guarantee to be limited considerably.\nB. Advantage in dealings with suppliers\n(203)\nAs regards suppliers, contrary to the view expressed by the French authorities (see recital 65), in order to prevent IFP from drawing any advantage from its EPIC status it is not sufficient that it should be subject, under European Union law or national law, to a competitive procurement obligation: when IFP issues a public call for tenders, every potential supplier drawing up a tender can anticipate the impossibility of a bankruptcy of IFP. When considering public procurement, therefore, a distinction has to be drawn between the fall in price resulting from the efficiency gains secured by competition between bidders - which, as the Commission found in the report cited by the French authorities, represent a genuine \u2018social benefit\u2019 - and the fall in price resulting from the more favourable assessment by contractors of the risk of default on the part of an entity which they know is protected from the risk of compulsory winding up by its status as a publicly owned establishment. Both of these factors tend to cause the prices of public procurement to fall, but they are of an intrinsically different nature, which means that there can be no question for the Commission of imputing the effects of the second factor to the first.\n(204)\nTo estimate the fall in price resulting from the more favourable assessment of the risk of default made by suppliers in the case of an EPIC, the Commission will look at the cost of equivalent risk cover. In the absence of a State guarantee, a supplier to IFP wishing to benefit from a comparable guarantee (i.e. to cover itself in full against the risk of default of the other party) could have recourse to the services of a specialised credit institution or insurance undertaking. Such cover against the risk of default is commonly offered by specialised factoring companies (199).\n(205)\nThe remuneration for such a factoring service comprises two components:\n(a)\na financing fee (or debit interest) calculated in proportion to the time involved, to cover the funding of the advance granted to the supplier, which depends in particular on the interest rate in force at the time the claims are transferred;\n(b)\na factoring fee proper, varying between 0,7 % and 2,5 % of the turnover assigned, with an average rate of 1,5 % (200), calculated on the value of the claims transferred, to pay for the accounting management, collection and performance bond services.\n(206)\nIn their letter dated 26 November 2010, the French authorities said that, in their opinion, the Commission\u2019s arguments on the role of factoring were based on an inaccurate assessment of the reasons for which an undertaking might have recourse to this type of service. They acknowledged that factoring companies could provide three services, i.e. cash advance, collection and guarantee of claims, but said they could offer these services jointly or separately. On the basis of a Banque de France study carried out in 2009 (201), they added that, among these different services, delegated management (i.e. a financial transaction without debt collection) was becoming predominant in the services offered by factors, so that recourse to factoring increasingly amounted to a mere cash transaction for the supplier. The Commission takes note of this observation.\n(207)\nThe French authorities have communicated the volume of payments made by IFP to factors (202) since 2004 (to pay for supplies needed for both types of activity, economic and non-economic):\nTable 2\nRecourse to factoring by IFP\u2019s suppliers over the period 2004-2010\nYear\nNumber of suppliers concerned\nPayments to factors\n(in euros)\nNumber of invoices concerned\n2004\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n2005\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n2006\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n2007\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n2008\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n2009\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n2010 (203)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nPeriod as a whole\n(2004-2010)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n(208)\nThe French authorities observe that since its change of legal form in 2006, the payments made by IFP to factors have increased. They say that this trend invalidates the Commission\u2019s argument concerning the perception of third parties of the risk of default of EPICs. They consider that if IFP had benefited from cover of its risk of default by the State from 2006, recourse to the services of factors should have become less frequent from that date, if it did not stop altogether.\n(209)\nBut as the French authorities themselves indicate (see recital 206), recourse to factoring is increasingly associated with a need for cash advances (increase in the delegated management service) and less and less with a need to transfer the risk of non-payment (decline in the collection, financing and guarantee service), and in IFP\u2019s accounts it is not possible to break down the use made of factoring by its suppliers by type of service; in the Commission\u2019s view, therefore, the trend established by IFP does not invalidate the Commission\u2019s arguments, still less does it show that IFP\u2019s suppliers have concluded that since IFP\u2019s change of legal form the risk of a default on its part has increased.\n(210)\nThe Commission acknowledges that it is unable to provide a precise estimate of the amount of the premium which would be necessary to cover IFP\u2019s suppliers against the risk of default if IFP did not already enjoy a State guarantee. The Commission points out, however, that since the factoring fee referred to in recital 205.b in fact covers three separate services (collection, financing and guarantee against the risk of unpaid invoices), the maximum amount of 2,5 % of the guaranteed turnover which is mentioned there must in any event be an upper bound to the premium which would be required to cover the risk of default only.\n(211)\nIn any event, the French authorities are still free to notify a more precise methodology for estimating the advantage conferred by the guarantee on IFP in its dealings with suppliers. Such a methodology could be based on an economic report by an expert, which would be debated by the two sides in the context of the appraisal, and if found appropriate could be the subject of a positive decision by the Commission and could be used by France to meet the information requirements laid down in the operative part of this decision.\n(212)\nAs regards the amounts in question, the French authorities indicated in their letter dated 26 November 2010 that the cost of these goods and services was incorporated directly into the ratios for the use made of the staff allocated to the activities to which the acquisition of these goods and services related (204). Moreover, the invoicing of seconded staff and of premises did not give rise to any significant specific expenditure, since all the relevant costs were already integrated into the structural costs of the establishment.\n(213)\nFinally, with regard to the goods and services specifically acquired for the pursuit solely of economic activities, the French authorities submit that the average annual value of such supplies represents only a small fraction of IFP\u2019s annual average turnover (205). For contract research, on the basis of the information obtained by IFP via its analytical accounting system, the average value of supplies acquired by IFP to provide its services between 2006 and 2009 comes to EUR [\u2026] (*) per year.\n(214)\nThe Commission considers that, for the performance of its economic activities, IFP has enjoyed a real economic advantage, consisting in a reduction in the prices charged by its suppliers, and resulting from a more favourable assessment by the latter of the risk of default of the establishment. The Commission cannot quantify this advantage precisely, but considers that, in any case, it would not have exceeded a sum in the order of EUR [\u2026] (*) per year on average over the period under review (2006-2009) (206).\n(215)\nFinally, the Commission points out that such an advantage in dealings between IFP and its suppliers is selective, because its competitors, which remain subject to compulsory administration and winding-up procedures under ordinary law, do not enjoy a comparable guarantee conferred by the State, which is intrinsically linked to IFP\u2019s status as a publicly owned establishment.\nC. Advantage in dealings with customers\n(216)\nAs regards the research services provided by the publicly owned establishment IFP, the Commission notes the comments made by UOP, which indicates that in technology transfer, a field which is risky by nature, acquirers are particularly sensitive to the guarantees that their providers are able to give them in terms of cover of both contractual and non-contractual liability.\n(217)\nAs regards non-contractual liability, the French authorities stated in their letter dated 13 January 2010 that in France companies governed by private law and publicly owned establishments were both subject to ordinary law (Article 1382 of the Civil Code, relating in particular to tortious liability) (207). They added that IFP\u2019s activities presented specific characteristics, in that they required the use of laboratory apparatus and inflammable, explosive or toxic products, which were potential sources of a significant \u2018industrial\u2019 risk (208), within the meaning of the term customarily used by insurers. Consequently, IFP had entered into various insurance contracts to cover not only the traditional risks (civil liability), but also specific risks, such as those associated with sources of ionising radiation or with breakdown of machinery in the areas surrounding wells. As regards civil liability cover, IFP\u2019s insurance contract covered four risks: civil liability for its operations, civil liability after delivery, professional liability and environmental damage.\n(218)\nIt appears from the above that IFP has not shifted its non-contractual liability to the State by taking the risk that in the event of a claim it would be able to rely on the guarantee it derives from its EPIC status, but that, on the contrary, it has covered the risk by entering into the necessary insurance contracts on the market.\n(219)\nAs regards contractual liability, it is clear from the information supplied by the French authorities in response to UOP\u2019s comments, in particular those set out in recital 91, that with respect to the provision of services IFP\u2019s liability towards its customers (whether they are its own subsidiaries or third parties) \u2018is limited to [\u2026] (*) % of the remuneration actually received, with a maximum which may reach up to [\u2026] (*) % depending on the case\u2019, so that if the customer considers that the work carried out by IFP is defective, the latter cannot under any circumstances be obliged to repeat the work ad infinitum. Moreover, the Commission takes note of the French authorities\u2019 observation that, on account of the principle of non-combination of liabilities, a contracting party cannot invoke non-contractual liability to seek compensation for damage suffered under a contractual relationship (209).\n(220)\nThe fact remains that, in view of the State guarantee granted to IFP, its customers are assured that IFP will never be subjected to compulsory winding up and therefore will always be able to fulfil its contractual obligations, or failing that that they will be compensated for any such breach.\n(221)\nBy analogy with the arguments it set out in recitals 204 et seq. with regard to dealings with suppliers, the Commission considers that in the absence of a State guarantee, a customer wishing to enjoy the same level of protection would take out a performance bond from a financial intermediary (a bank or insurance company, for example) to ensure the completion of the contract between it and IFP. The purpose of such protection would be to guarantee financial compensation for the customer for loss caused by (total or partial) breach of contract.\n(222)\nFrance acknowledges, not without certain reservations, as set out in recital 66, that \u2018the only supposed effect on IFP that might be identified would be a reduction in charges as a result of the absence of subscription to performance bonds\u2019. The French authorities conclude, without elaborating further, that, on the basis of \u2018the sums usually charged by banks and insurance companies to provide this type of service, it is clear that the sum involved in such a reduction would be negligible\u2019.\n(223)\nThe Commission points out, firstly, that a large number of factors enter into the calculation of the cost of a performance bond, notably the type of contract and the sum covered, the staff employed, the financial situation, the risk of default and the claims history of the undertaking whose service the contract concerns, as well as other purely financial factors, such as the fees or commissions of intermediaries. On the basis of publicly available information (210), the Commission estimates that the rate applied generally speaking varies between 1 % and 5 % of the turnover covered.\n(224)\nThe calculation of premiums by specialised intermediaries uses statistical techniques, which may be refined by type of risk, and it is not possible to establish a priori a standard rate for a performance bond. The final price of the guarantee depends ultimately on the estimated value of potential losses and the probability that they may occur. Consequently, whereas a guarantee of full performance without defects is proposed in certain sectors (for example in civil engineering and building and public works or in international trade), it does not seem feasible in the case of contract research services to cover more than best efforts, since R&D is by nature a high-risk field in which the purchaser of research work has no certainty that it will lead to results that can be exploited. In this respect, the Commission notes that the amount contractually guaranteed to IFP\u2019s customers, including its subsidiaries, is limited to 100 % of the price of the research work carried out.\n(225)\nThe Commission acknowledges that it is unable to provide an exact estimate of the premium which would be required to guarantee to customers (including subsidiaries) that IFP will use its best efforts in carrying out the research work. Questioned on this point, the French authorities indicated in their letter dated 26 November 2010 that they did not have any information on the premiums charged on the market to cover the specific risks in the field of R&D. The Commission considers, however, that the premium which would be required by the market to cover such a risk (limited to best efforts in research, and therefore less than the risk attached to full performance without defects) should logically be lower than the maximum estimates mentioned in recital 223. Therefore the Commission considers that a maximum rate of 5 % of the turnover generated by the service covered is in any case an upper bound to the premium which would be necessary to cover such a risk.\n(226)\nAs regards the volume of the economic activities which might be covered by such a guarantee, the Commission recalls that these activities are of two types: on the one hand, renting out infrastructure, providing research staff and legal services, and the contract research activities carried out by IFP on behalf of both third parties and its own subsidiaries, and on the other hand, the transfer of technology from IFP to its subsidiaries in the exclusive fields of activity of Axens and Prosernat. As regards the activities carried out by IFP in the exclusive field of activity of its subsidiary Beicip-Franlab (211), the Commission has already found that they are financed entirely from income earned in the market for oilfield operation consultancy services and the contract development of oilfield software. In decision C 51/2005, the Commission established the absence of intra-group transfers of public funding from the publicly owned establishment IFP to its subsidiary Beicip-Franlab, since the business relations between the two entities were based on normal market conditions. The remuneration paid by Beicip-Franlab to IFP \u2018broadly\u2019 (212) covers the cost of work done by IFP in its subsidiary\u2019s exclusive domain, so that the Commission can conclude that the prices charged are such that in any event Beicip-Franlab already bears a cost equivalent to any additional impact of the State guarantee on the research costs borne by IFP. In these conditions, the cover provided by the State guarantee for the business relations between the subsidiary and its parent is not of a nature to confer a competitive advantage on the activities conducted by IFP in the exclusive research fields of its subsidiary Beicip-Franlab. Consequently, the fact that they may be covered by the State guarantee does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(227)\nRegarding activities of the first type carried out by IFP for third parties and its own subsidiaries, the French authorities in their letter dated 26 November 2010 provided figures for the volume of economic activities carried by IFP between 2006 and 2009. It emerges from this information that the average annual value of research services during this period is in the order of EUR [\u2026] (*), including EUR [\u2026] (*) on behalf of third parties and EUR [\u2026] (*) on behalf of the subsidiaries.\n(228)\nThe French authorities also provided information concerning the administrative services supplied by IFP to its subsidiaries during the same period. This information shows that, since 2006, the average annual amount invoiced by IFP to its subsidiaries is in the order of EUR [\u2026] (*) for the staff provided and EUR [\u2026] (*) for the costs of premises and ancillary services (frais de domiciliation). (213)\n(229)\nRegarding the activities of the second type, i.e. the transfer of technology from IFP to its subsidiaries in the exclusive fields of activity of Axens and Prosernat, it should first be pointed out that decision C 51/2005 already contained the figures for 2006:\n(a)\nin the exclusive field of Axens, IFP carried out economic activities comprising technical feasibility studies prior to industrial research amounting to EUR [\u2026] (*) and industrial research work amounting to EUR [\u2026] (*), i.e. in total EUR [\u2026] (*).\n(b)\nin the exclusive field of Prosernat, IFP carried out economic activities comprising technical feasibility studies amounting to EUR [\u2026] (*) and industrial research work amounting to EUR [\u2026] (*), i.e. in total EUR [\u2026] (*).\n(c)\nIn total, IFP carried out research work in the exclusive fields of its subsidiaries amounting to EUR 56,4 million (EUR 7,4 million for technical feasibility studies and EUR 49,0 million for industrial research work), whereas the volume of its own resources was only EUR [\u2026] (*), and the Commission accordingly considered that these research activities had been subsidised by public funds to the amount of EUR 11,3 million (an aid intensity of 20 %) (214).\n(230)\nAs regards the following years, in accordance with Article 5(1) of decision C 51/2005, until the expiry date of the exclusive agreements, France is required to \u2018submit to the Commission a detailed annual report on the projects carried out by IFP in the exclusive fields of activity of Axens and Prosernat\u2019. The information contained in these annual reports allows a precise calculation to be made of the annual volume of the research services carried out by IFP on behalf of and in the exclusive fields of its subsidiaries.\n(231)\nSo far, France has sent the Commission the annual reports for 2007, 2008 and 2009. In view of the time needed to process the accounting data, the 2010 report is to be forwarded in the course of 2011.\n(232)\nIn the exclusive fields of Axens, these economic activities are summarised for the years 2007 to 2009 in Table 3 shown in this recital (EUR thousand).\nTable 3\nActivities of lFP in the exclusive fields of Axens between 2007 and 2009\n(EUR thousand)\nTotal\nTotal charges\nTotal own resources\nPublic resources (+) or benefit (-)\n2007\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n2008\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n2009\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n(233)\nThe research services provided by IFP in the exclusive field of Axens therefore generated economic activity amounting to EUR [\u2026] (*) in 2007, EUR [\u2026] (*) in 2008, and EUR [\u2026] (*) in 2009, which is comparable to that established by the Commission for 2006 in decision C 51/2005 (EUR [\u2026] (*)).\n(234)\nIn the exclusive fields of Prosernat, these economic activities are summarised for the years 2007 to 2009 in Table 4 shown in this recital (EUR thousand).\nTable 4\nActivities of IFP in the exclusive fields of Prosernat between 2007 and 2009\n(EUR thousand)\nTotal\nTotal charges\nTotal own resources\nPublic resources (+) or benefit (-)\n2007\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n2008\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n2009\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n(235)\nThe research services provided by IFP in the exclusive field of Prosernat therefore generated economic activity amounting to EUR [\u2026] (*) in 2007, EUR [\u2026] (*) in 2008, and EUR [\u2026] (*) in 2009, comparable to that established by the Commission for 2006 in decision C 51/2005 (EUR [\u2026] (*)).\n(236)\nOn the basis of the above, the Commission considers that in the pursuit of its economic activities IFP has benefited from a real economic advantage, consisting in the absence of payment of a premium for a performance bond, at the very least for best efforts, which it was able to offer in respect of its research activities to its customers, including to its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat in their exclusive fields. The Commission cannot quantify this advantage precisely, but in view of the specific nature of the risk covered, the Commission considers that in any case it would not exceed, service by service, year by year, the sums shown in Table 5 in this recital:\nTable 5\nUpper bounds to economic advantage derived by IFP from the unlimited guarantee in its customer relations between 2006 and 2009\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nResearch services (outside the exclusive fields of the subsidiaries)\nTurnover\n(EUR million)\nUpper bound (215)\n(insurance premium)\nTurnover\n(EUR million)\nUpper bound\n(insurance premium)\nTurnover\n(EUR million)\nUpper bound\n(insurance premium)\nTurnover\n(EUR million)\nUpper bound\n(insurance premium)\nOn behalf of subsidiaries\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\nOn behalf of third parties\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\nAdministrative services provided\nInvoicing of staff provided\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\nInvoicing of premises and ancillary services\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\nServices in the exclusive field of Axens\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*) million\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*) million\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*) million\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*) million\nServices in the exclusive field of Prosernat\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\nTotal for the subsidiaries\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*) million\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*) million\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*) million\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*) million\nTotal for third parties\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nEUR [\u2026] (*)\n(237)\nIn any event, the French authorities are still free to notify a more precise methodology for estimating the advantage conferred by the guarantee on IFP in its dealings with customers. Such a methodology could be based on an economic report by an expert, which would be debated by the two sides in the context of the appraisal, and if found appropriate could be the subject of a positive decision by the Commission and could be used by France to meet the information requirements laid down in the operative part of this decision.\n(238)\nFinally, the Commission points out that such an advantage in dealings between IFP and its suppliers is selective, because its competitors, which remain subject to compulsory administration and winding-up procedures under ordinary law, do not enjoy a comparable guarantee conferred by the State, which is intrinsically linked to IFP\u2019s status as a publicly owned establishment.\n7.1.4.2 Advantages transferred to the private-law subsidiaries of the IFP group\n(239)\nAs regards the subsidiaries of the publicly owned establishment IFP, in its opening decision the Commission pointed out that it could not at the preliminary investigation stage rule out the possibility that any advantage arising from the EPIC status of the publicly owned establishment IFP, such as in particular more advantageous borrowing terms, might also benefit the three subsidiaries (216).\n(240)\nAt the end of the present detailed examination, for the reasons listed in section 7.1.1.2, given that in French law a shareholder in a group of companies does not bear general vicarious liability for its subsidiaries, there is no reason to take the view that the publicly owned establishment IFP, and consequently the French State, can be liable for the payment of claims held by third parties in respect of the economic activities of Axens and Prosernat, in particular if those subsidiaries were to be subjected to compulsory winding up.\n(241)\nHowever, it should be noted that in decision N 531/2005 cited above, although it took the view, as recalled in recital 177, that as a public limited company La Banque Postale remained subject to ordinary law with regard to compulsory administration and winding-up and did not therefore itself enjoy an unlimited State guarantee, the Commission nevertheless examined the question of a possible transfer to the subsidiary of the effects of the public guarantee conferred on its sole shareholder (217).\n(242)\nMore precisely, the Commission took the view (218) that the operating structure of the group resulted in permeability between the shareholder (La Poste) and the subsidiary (La Banque Postale), owing to the combined effect of (i) the use by the subsidiary of human and material resources made available by the parent and (ii) the remuneration of these resources on the basis of the costs borne by the parent, in such a way that in the event of an economic advantage of a nature to cause the costs of La Poste to fall, the remuneration paid by La Banque Postale to its parent would have been reduced accordingly, resulting in an (at least partial) transfer of this economic advantage to the subsidiary.\n(243)\nIn the same way, in decision C 51/2005, the Commission considered that there was a measure of porosity, in particular in the prices applied by IFP for the services supplied to Axens and Prosernat in their exclusive fields, such that the intra-group business relations did not follow a market-driven logic, but on the contrary offered the possibility of cross-subsidisation of the economic activities of the subsidiaries via public funds made available by the parent. As recalled in recital 226, the Commission concluded moreover that the relations between IFP and its subsidiary Beicip-Prosernat (219) were conducted on normal market terms.\n(244)\nIn the case cited above relating to La Banque Postale, the Commission considered it necessary for the French authorities to enter into commitments permitting a mechanism to be put in place which neutralised at the level of the subsidiary any advantages that might be enjoyed by the parent. As regards the funding terms, this obligation was to state in writing in the financing contract, for each instrument covered by a contract, that under French law (in particular the need for express statutory authorisation by law for each guarantee) this financing transaction would not benefit from any guarantee of any kind, direct or indirect, on the part of the State. The issuing prospectus of each transaction was to publicise this contractual provision (220).\n(245)\nIn the present case, the French authorities have given a commitment, with regard to the borrowing terms of the IFP subsidiaries (Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat), to state in writing in the financing contract for each transaction (for any instrument covered by a contract) that \u2018Pursuant to French law (in particular the need for express statutory authority for each guarantee), the present financing transaction shall not enjoy any form of direct or indirect State guarantee\u2019.\n(246)\nAs regards the use by the subsidiaries of human and material resources made available by their parent, as noted by the Commission in decision C 51/2005, \u2018if there is any subsidisation of economic activities, it results from the level of the remunerations paid by the subsidiaries concerned to the parent company and is reflected in IFP\u2019s accounts\u2019 (221). In the examination of IFP\u2019s accounts, the only cost components not taken into account by the Commission for the year 2006 in decision C 51/2005, and for the following years in the annual reports sent by the French authorities, are those relating to the cover provided by the unlimited guarantee for the services provided by IFP to its subsidiaries. Since the premium corresponding to a performance bond, at the very for best efforts, was not paid to the State, it was not possible for it to be priced into the services supplied to the subsidiaries either.\n(247)\nConsequently, it must be held that the economic advantage conferred on the publicly owned establishment by the guarantee it enjoys by virtue of its legal form was transferred in this way to its private-law subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat.\n(248)\nThe French authorities have confirmed the existence of the contracts jointly concluded by IFP and its subsidiaries Axens, Prosernat and Beicip-Franlab with common suppliers, which the Commission mentioned in its opening decision and which UOP also referred to in its comments, as indicated in recital 73; but the French authorities have pointed out that that essentially they concerned the transport sector (air and rail) for business travel of the staff of the various entities. The Commission considers that if the subsidiaries were able to benefit from more favourable purchasing conditions granted to the IFP group - which has not necessarily been established with regard to the supplies in question - this was the result of a volume discount policy applied by these suppliers for bulk purchasing, rather than for any impact of the guarantee. In any case, even supposing that the analysis presented in section 7.1.4.1 B with regard to the publicly owned establishment can be transposed to the subsidiaries for the supplies obtained jointly with it, and that by such a mechanism these subsidiaries benefit from a transfer of the advantage enjoyed by the publicly owned establishment IFP on account of the guarantee, thus enabling them to obtain these services more cheaply, the sums in question would be so negligible that the Commission doubts whether they can be described as a real economic advantage.\n(249)\nConsequently, in line with the conclusions of decision C 51/2005, the only activities that may benefit from an advantage deriving from the cover provided by the parent\u2019s State guarantee for the research activities conducted in the subsidiaries\u2019 exclusive fields are confined to the \u2018contribution [by the publicly owned establishment IFP] to activities in the fields of activity of Axens and Prosernat\u2019 (222). The Commission cannot quantify the advantage transferred to Axens and Prosernat precisely, but in view of the specific nature of the risk covered, the Commission considers that it would not in any case exceed, service by service, year by year, the sums shown in Table 5 in recital 236.\n(250)\nIn the Commission\u2019s view, such an economic advantage transferred by the publicly owned establishment IFP to its private-law subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat is selective, because the subsidiaries\u2019 competitors do not have access to the technologies and human and material resources of IFP on such favourable terms.\n7.1.5 DISTORTION OF COMPETITION AND EFFECT ON TRADE\n(251)\nThe measure examined may lead to a reduction in the operating costs of IFP for the services it supplies to third parties (contract research) and in those of Axens and Prosernat for the services they obtain from their parent (research in their exclusive field, contract research, provision of staff and infrastructures, and provision of administrative services), which has the effect of favouring the IFP group and therefore of distorting competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(252)\nThe markets on which the IFP group operates, in particular that of contract research in the case of the publicly owned establishment IFP itself, those of catalysts and technologies for the refining and petrochemicals industries in the case of its subsidiary Axens, and consultancy, other services, and infrastructures in the field of gas treatment and sulphur recovery in the case of its subsidiary Prosernat, are wide open to trade within the European Union, so that the measure is liable to have an unfavourable impact on competing undertakings which have, or wish to develop, similar economic activities in the markets concerned.\n(253)\nThe existence of an unlimited State guarantee for the publicly owned establishment IFP is consequently liable to distort competition and to affect trade within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n7.1.6 CONCLUSION REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE AID MEASURE\n(254)\nThe guarantee given by the State to IFP by virtue of its legal form therefore results in a transfer of State resources imputable to the State, and distorts or threatens to distort competition and trade between Member States by favouring the IFP group.\n(255)\nThe Commission concludes that this guarantee constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n7.2 UNLAWFULNESS OF THE AID MEASURE\n(256)\nBefore its change of legal form, IFP was a legal person governed by private law, in the form of a trade body within the meaning of Law No 43-612 of 17 November 1943 on the management of trade interests. In this capacity, IFP was subject to the compulsory administration and winding-up procedures provided for under ordinary law and did not benefit from the State guarantee conferred by EPIC status.\n(257)\nIFP became an EPIC on 7 July 2006, by Decree of 6 July 2006, adopted under Law No 2005-781 of 13 July 2005. This change of legal form is the basis of an unlimited State guarantee granted to the publicly owned establishment IFP. The measure in question must therefore be categorised as new aid within the meaning of Article 1(c) of the Procedural Regulation.\n(258)\nIn accordance with Article 2(1) of the Procedural Regulation, Member States are required to notify in sufficient time \u2018any plans to grant new aid\u2019. The change of IFP\u2019s legal form was not formally notified by France, but only pointed out incidentally in the context of other proceedings, and the measure was implemented without the prior approval of the Commission, so that the State aid in question was put into effect by the French Government in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU.\n(259)\nConsequently, the Commission considers that this measure constitutes unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of the Procedural Regulation.\n7.3 COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID MEASURE\n7.3.1 AID IN THE FIELD OF CONTRACT RESEARCH AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE PUBLICLY OWNED ESTABLISHMENT IFP\n(260)\nThe services provided consist in the renting out of research infrastructure, providing staff or providing legal services (to the subsidiaries).\n(261)\nIFP\u2019s contract research services generally consist in providing support to a customer (a third party or subsidiary) (223) wishing to conduct research activities with a view to better understanding or mastery of a scientific or technical phenomenon (224). The request may be more or less precise and leave IFP greater or lesser scope, ranging from simple compliance with specifications strictly defined by the customer to the supply of full research including recommendations. [\u2026] (*) In response to a request IFP draws up a technical and commercial proposal, accompanied by contractual conditions for implementation, which is then the subject of negotiation with the customer. The French authorities have explained the contract research and provision of services provided by IFP in its three fields of competence, handled by its operating centres (\u2018centres de r\u00e9sultat\u2019) for exploration and production, refining and petrochemicals, and engines and energy.\n(262)\nThe services provided by the operating centre for exploration and production are aimed in particular at validating and/or improving the methodologies, technologies and software developed by the research centre. Moreover, to carry out some of these services, the centre makes available to its industrial partners infrastructures and calculation algorithms specific to IFP or rare expertise which is not available under a commercial service supplied by a private operator. These services can be classified into the following categories:\n(a)\nservices linked to specific infrastructures with very few if any equivalents in the world (225);\n(b)\ninterpretation of cases using software developed by IFP which is not yet marketed or which in the particular context can be used only with specific expertise and IFP skills (226);\n(c)\nuse of special IFP expertise (227);\n(d)\nuse of expertise under development to validate the competency, technologies and methodologies developed (228).\n(263)\nThe contract research services provided by the operating centre for refining and petrochemicals have consisted, for example, in assistance in the establishment, by a foreign university (229), of activities within the specific competence of IFP in the field of catalysts, work relating to \u2018[\u2026] (*)\u2019 (230) to gain insight into the phenomena of [\u2026] (*), or a study on [\u2026] (*) (231).\n(264)\nContract research services provided to car manufacturers by the operating centre for engines and energy consisted, for example, in [\u2026] (*) on the basis of [\u2026] (*), of a [\u2026] (*) and an IFP methodology (232), a study [\u2026] (*) based on research by IFP [\u2026] (*) (233), or tests of [\u2026] (*) on [\u2026] (*) developed by IFP (234).\n(265)\nThis description shows that the contract research activities conducted by IFP on behalf of third parties concern technical feasibility studies prior to research activities, or aim at the acquisition of new knowledge and skills in IFP\u2019s fields of competence or at the application of knowledge and technologies developed by IFP to develop new products, processes or services.\n(266)\nThe French authorities have supplied costings of the contract research activities and the provision of services on behalf of third parties by IFP for the period 2004-2009. The information sent shows that these research services represent annually about [0-5] (**) % of IFP\u2019s total budget (i.e. EUR [\u2026] (*) in services for about EUR 300 million in budget), which means that this economic activity can be regarded as only residual within the activities of the publicly owned establishment.\n7.3.1.1 Possible transfer of State aid to third parties or subsidiaries\n(267)\nIn accordance with point 3.1.2 of the R&D&I Framework, where a not-for-profit research organisation performs economic activities, such as renting out infrastructures, supplying services to business undertakings or performing contract research, any public funding of these economic activities will generally entail State aid. However, if it is possible to prove that the totality of the State funding has been passed on to the final recipient, and that there is no advantage granted to the intermediary, the intermediary organisation may not be a recipient of State aid.\n(268)\nIn the present case the research organisation, which is the publicly owned establishment IFP, performs contract research activities whilst being covered by an unlimited public guarantee, and it must be held that it receives State aid unless it can be proved that the selling price of these services has allowed the totality of the State aid to be transferred to its customers.\n(269)\nThe pricing of IFP\u2019s contract research services is established on the basis of their total production cost (235), to which a margin is applied, the rate of which varies according to the outcome of the negotiations with the customer mentioned in recital 261. The only cost component which IFP does not seem to have taken into account is an insurance premium to be paid by IFP for the performance bond (or best efforts guarantee).\n(270)\nAs regards the contract research carried out by the publicly owned establishment IFP on behalf of its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat, the Commission considers that the economic advantage resulting from the guarantee may either remain with IFP and where appropriate be put to other uses or, in view of the specific nature of the links binding them to their parent, be transferred to the subsidiaries through the pricing mechanism:\n(a)\nin the former case, the compatibility of the aid is examined in this section;\n(b)\nin the latter case, the Commission refers to the analysis of compatibility presented in section 7.3.2, which, as a precaution, will include the amounts at stake in the estimate of the advantage potentially transferred to the subsidiaries.\n(271)\nAs regards third-party customers, likewise, if it could be established that an amount corresponding to this additional cost component was systematically transferred to the third parties via the pricing mechanism, detailed examination of the aid transferred would very likely reveal de minimis sums (236). The information sent by the French authorities shows that the majority of the services invoiced generate less than EUR [\u2026] (*) in turnover (i.e. a maximum amount of cover of the risk of default of EUR [\u2026] (*)), the largest contract amounting to only EUR [\u2026] (*) (i.e. a maximum amount of cover of the risk of default of EUR [\u2026] (*)).\n(272)\nHowever, it cannot be concluded that the margin applied by IFP has always allowed the totality of the State aid to be passed on to the customer for contract research services. In such a case, the absence of a guarantee premium paid to the State to cover contract research contracts performed for third parties would constitute additional public funding made available to the publicly owned establishment by the State.\n(273)\nThe public funds involved could then be put to three uses:\n(a)\nto finance non-economic activities of the publicly owned establishment, which would not entail State aid;\n(b)\nor to finance other contract research activities on behalf of third parties or subsidiaries: this case is analysed in detail in section 7.3.1.2;\n(c)\nor to finance research carried out by the publicly owned establishment in the exclusive field of activity of its subsidiaries, which could consequently be added to the amounts of State aid already transferred to the subsidiaries: this hypothesis is analysed in detail in section 7.3.2.\n7.3.1.2 Compatibility of a State guarantee conferred on a research organisation for the performance of contract research services and services ancillary to its principal objective of independent public research\n(274)\nBefore examining the specific features of the present case, the Commission wishes to reassert the general approach that it has adopted in its decision-making practice, according to which an unlimited State guarantee covering economic activities in principle constitutes incompatible State aid (237). Generally, the Commission considers unlimited guarantees in a sector open to competition to be incompatible with the TFEU, in particular because such a guarantee causes the State to shoulder the liability for all the risks attaching to an economic activity without the beneficiary undertaking paying the cost of such cover, and gives rise to a situation of moral hazard which incites the beneficiary undertaking, protected from any threat of bankruptcy, to increase its risk-taking by comparison with a situation in which it would have to bear all the negative consequences of its actions. Under the principle of proportionality, such unlimited guarantees cannot usually be justified by the need to perform an economic task of general interest, because with an unlimited guarantee it is impossible to check whether the amount of aid exceeds the net costs of providing the public service (238).\n(275)\nIn the present case, it should be pointed out that French legislation has assigned public service obligations to the publicly owned establishment IFP, consisting of a three-fold task of research, training and documentation; unlike services of general economic interest (239), these obligations fall outside the scope of economic activities within the meaning of Union law. The fact that non-economic activities may be covered by a public guarantee by reason of IFP\u2019s legal form, therefore, does not entail any granting of State aid. But the bulk of IFP\u2019s activity is of a non-economic nature. Consequently, the impact of the guarantee it enjoys by virtue of its legal form falls mainly on these non-economic activities, and affects the ancillary contract research and provision of services only in the second place.\n(276)\nOn the other hand, where the guarantee covers the economic activities of a research organisation, for example contract research or provision of services, without being priced on market terms, it confers State aid on the research organisation, which, as explained above, can be added to the public funding of its non-economic activities in the general interest (independent public research), or to the funding of its other economic activities of contract research and provision of services, or finally to the funding of technological transfer to Axens and Prosernat (240).\n(277)\nIn the first two cases, however, although in the present case the State guarantee is a priori unlimited, it is possible, exceptionally, to make an a posteriori estimate, for the years 2006 to 2009, of an upper bound to the gross grant equivalent of the effects of the guarantee (the risk premium not paid to the State), which (provided that it has been retained by IFP) comes in addition to the public funds already paid by the State to IFP to cover the net costs of its independent public research and contract research activity or provision of services.\n(278)\nIn this respect, however, the Commission wishes to emphasise that the contract research and the provision of services covered by the State guarantee are confined to activities which are ancillary to the principal activity of independent public research, i.e. economic activities which:\n(a)\ndo not prejudice the normal operation, the independence or the neutrality of the research organisation;\n(b)\nare performed on normal market terms, and in particular at a market price or, in the absence of a market price, at a price that reflects all the organisation\u2019s costs (net of the impact of the guarantee) plus a reasonable margin;\n(c)\nare the subject of accounting separate from that of the independent public research activities, especially as regards their respective costs and funding;\n(d)\nare intrinsically linked to the principal activity of independent public research, so that it is not technically possible to separate them, by reason in particular of the use of the same infrastructures, equipment, materials or technologies, or the use of the same researchers, scientists, engineers, designers or technicians.\n(279)\nThese ancillary activities may consist in research, expert reports or technical or scientific consultancy, entailing where appropriate the provision of infrastructures, equipment, materials or technologies with high innovative content which are funded or introduced in the context of, and are necessary to, the independent public research work, which have few if any equivalents in the world (241) outside the services offered by one or more comparable research organisations, and the use of which requires the expertise and competency of researchers, scientists, engineers, designers or technicians who are employed mainly by the research organisation to contribute to its independent public research work.\n(280)\nThese services also permit the dissemination of scientific knowledge between public research and the industrial sector, offering customer undertakings the possibility to access IFP\u2019s experimental resources, technologies and staff knowhow, and allowing IFP to accumulate feedback on the use made of its original work, which is a source of future improvements in its independent public research activities. These reciprocal impacts in the field of scientific knowledge are mutually beneficial for the various operators involved and for the European Union as a whole.\n(281)\nAs indicated in recital 266, contract research and services activities represented only [0-5] (**) % of IFP\u2019s total budget over the period between 2004 and 2009, which is an extremely small proportion.\n(282)\nMoreover, for any one customer, the services invoiced are usually for an amount below EUR [\u2026] (*) in turnover, which means that the estimated maximum amount of aid usually remains negligible, in the order of EUR [\u2026] (*) per contract. Consequently, in the Commission\u2019s view, the aid at issue is proportionate to the objective in the general interest which is the dissemination of scientific knowledge in the European Union.\n(283)\nProvided that these ancillary activities continue to represent a very limited fraction of the budgets devoted by IFP to its principal task of independent public research, and taking account of the positive impact of these ancillary activities in terms of objectives in the common interest, the Commission is of the opinion that the fact that they are covered by the State guarantee cannot under any circumstances adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the interest of the Union within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\n(284)\nIn the annual reports relating to the measure at issue, it will be for the French authorities to provide proof that this condition is still being met. In case of doubt about the ancillary nature of contract research activities or provision of services, they should of course notify the Commission accordingly without delay, and where appropriate notify any State aid taking account of the impact of the State guarantee.\n(285)\nThe Commission also takes note of the proposal of the French authorities to include a clause stating that the State bears no liability in any contract specifically falling within IFP\u2019s economic activity, and therefore its contract research activities and its provision of services, so as to allow a plea of accepted risk to be relied upon where appropriate, thus strictly limiting any negative repercussions of the guarantee.\n7.3.2 AID TO THE IFP GROUP IN THE EXCLUSIVE FIELDS OF ACTIVITY OF AXENS AND PROSERNAT\n7.3.2.1 Basis for the examination of the compatibility of the aid\n(286)\nSince this is a State aid measure designed to support the R&D work carried out by IFP, the rules applicable to the examination of compatibility are those relating to State aid for research and development.\n(287)\nBecause IFP\u2019s change of legal form took place on 7 July 2006, the date on which the State granted the unlimited guarantee in question is prior to 1 January 2007, when the R&D&I Framework entered into force. In accordance with the notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid (242), therefore, the Commission will consider the compatibility of this non-notified measure on the basis of the 1996 R&D Framework, which was in force at the time the aid was granted.\n(288)\nHowever, in view of the fact that IFP\u2019s economic activities are to be covered by the unlimited guarantee conferred by its EPIC status over an unlimited period of time, and in view of the fact that, as explained in recital 277, it is possible, exceptionally, to make a quantified estimate of the maximum impact of the guarantee in this particular case, the Commission will also make an assessment of whether the cover provided by the unlimited guarantee for IFP\u2019s activities in the exclusive fields of activity of Axens and Prosernat is compatible with the internal market on the basis of the R&D&I Framework, from 1 January 2007, the date on which the Framework entered into force. In any event, the conclusions of the analysis of compatibility remain the same whichever framework is applied.\n7.3.2.2 Research stages\n(289)\nIn decision C 51/2005 (243), the Commission considered that the activities carried on by IFP in collaboration with its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat in their exclusive fields of activity did fall under the heading of R&D, because in each project sticking points were identified in the component parts, their relationships or the characteristics of the target processes or products; the work was carried out prior to certification, by staff consisting mainly of research workers and technicians, using methods based on experimentation, interpretation and modelling; and the results were wide in scope and patented. The Commission also observed that activities of the same type carried on by other operators in the sector were usually classified as research activities (244). The analysis of the innovative aspects of the research activities carried out was performed on the basis of the internationally recognised standards of the Frascati Manual (245).\n(290)\nWith respect to the year 2006, in decision C 51/2005 the Commission examined the work carried out under the research agreements concluded between IFP and Axens, on the one hand, and IFP and Prosernat, on the other (246). The Commission came to the conclusion that within the meaning of the 1996 R&D Framework this work consisted in industrial research activities and technical feasibility studies preparatory to industrial research activities. Each research activity carried out by IFP and Axens on the one hand, and by IFP and Prosernat on the other, was classified on the basis of the specific examples and explanations provided by the Frascati Manual.\n(291)\nMoreover, in the reports forwarded in accordance with decision C 51/2005, the French authorities have classified the projects carried out in the exclusive fields of activity of Axens and Prosernat for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 into the two abovementioned categories defined in the 1996 R&D Framework, or alternatively into industrial research activities within the meaning of point 2.2(f) of the 2006 R&D&I Framework and technical feasibility studies preparatory to industrial research within the meaning of point 5.2 of that Framework. The work consisted in studying new synthesis routes or the improvement of synthesis routes, on a scale far from the industrial level. It was aimed at validating concepts, and constituted industrial research within the meaning of the 1996 R&D framework and the R&D&I Framework. Annual summaries of each project were forwarded to the Commission with the annual reports communicated under decision C 51/2005.\n(292)\nFor the following years, the Commission points out that decision C 51/2005 requires France to submit a report to the Commission each year setting out the details of the projects carried out by IFP classified by category of research.\n7.3.2.3 Eligible costs\n(293)\nThe costs of projects in the exclusive fields of Axens and Prosernat set out in decision C 51/2005 (247) (for 2006) and in the annual reports (for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009) are in line with the eligible costs defined in Annex II to the 1996 R&D Framework and point 5.1.4 of the R&D&I Framework.\n(294)\nThe costs of research activities carried out by IFP invoiced to Axens and Prosernat include the costs directly chargeable to projects relating to sub-contracting, travel, insurance and documentation, and supplies and small equipment. They also include the other costs chargeable to projects such as expenditure on research personnel, the amortisation of fixed tangible and intangible assets and other overheads. These costs are incurred directly as a result of the research activities and are broken down between the different research projects in proportion to the time spent by the research personnel on each project. The costs of cross-cutting R&D projects relating to the methods and equipment used in other R&D projects are allocated in proportion to the costs of each R&D project.\n(295)\nThese costs fall into the following categories: costs of consultancy and equivalent services, personnel costs, costs of instruments, equipment, and land and premises, and additional overheads and other operating expenses, which are in line with the categories of eligible costs in the 1996 Framework and the R&D&I Framework.\n(296)\nIn succeeding years this information too should be included in the annual reports submitted by the French authorities.\n7.3.2.4 Intensity of the aid\n(297)\nAccording to the 1996 R&D Framework, the maximum permissible aid intensity is 75 % for technical feasibility studies preparatory to industrial research projects (point 5.4) and 50 % for industrial research projects (point 5.3).\n(298)\nAccording to the R&D&I Framework, the aid intensity, as calculated on the basis of the eligible costs of the project, may not exceed 50 % for industrial research (point 5.1.2(b)) and 65 % for studies preparatory to industrial research activities carried out in large undertakings (point 5.2(b)). To recap, the activities covered by the State guarantee relate only to industrial research and technical feasibility studies carried out by IFP, since precompetitive development activity within the meaning of the 1996 R&D Framework (or experimental development within the meaning of the R&D&I Framework) is financed entirely by Axens and Prosernat from their own resources out of income obtained on the markets.\n(299)\nThe Commission has drawn up Table 6 appearing in recital 300 on the basis of the lists of projects detailing the annual costs by project and by research stage and on the basis of the statement of IFP\u2019s resources.\n(300)\nIn performing this exercise, the Commission has followed a conservative approach by including all costs falling under the exclusive fields of activity of Axens and Prosernat, directly or indirectly, and excluding all proceeds other than those paid by Axens and Prosernat (248). As a precaution, the Commission has also integrated into this table all the potential effects of the unlimited guarantee on the unlikely assumption that they would all be used by IFP to fund research activities in the exclusive fields of activity of Axens and Prosernat (effects of the guarantee in relations with suppliers and customers, whether subsidiaries or third parties).\nTable 6\nMaximum estimate of the total amount of public funding contributed by lFP to the activities carried out in the exclusive fields of activity of Axens and Prosernat between 2006 and 2009\n(EUR million)\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nAnnual cost of technical feasibility studies (EUR million)\nArea of activity IFP/Axens\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nArea of activity IFP/Prosernat\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nTotal\n7,4\n3,5\n0,9\n0,9\nAnnual cost of industrial research work (EUR million)\nArea of activity IFP/Axens\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nArea of activity IFP/Prosernat\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nTotal\n49,0\n45,5\n52,8\n55,2\nOwn resources (EUR million)\nAmount\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nAnnual State aid (EUR million)\nAmount of public funding (249)\n11,3\n6,4\n7,7\n11,1\nUpper bound to the impact of the guarantee in dealings between IFP and its suppliers\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nUpper bound to the impact of the guarantee in dealings between IFP and its customers (250)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n-\nin the exclusive field of the subsidiaries\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n-\noutside the exclusive field of the subsidiaries\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nMaximum amount of public funding\n(including the upper bound to the impact of the guarantee)\n13,1\n9,8\n11,3\n14,7\nIntensity of the aid\n(net of upper bound to the impact of the guarantee)\n20,0 %\n13,0 %\n14,3 %\n19,8 %\nUpper bound to the intensity of the aid\n(including upper bound to the impact of the guarantee)\n23,2 %\n20,0 %\n21,0 %\n26,2 %\nMaximum permissible intensity (251)\n-\n1996 R&D Framework\n53 %\n51,8 %\n50,4 %\n50,4 %\n-\nR&D&I Framework\n-\n51,1 %\n50,3 %\n50,2 %\n(301)\nThe Commission has checked on compliance with the permissible intensities by research stage on the basis of the annual lists of projects carried out between 2006 and 2009, taking account of the maximum possible impact of the unlimited guarantee deriving from IFP\u2019s status as a publicly owned establishment, and incorporating as an additional aid component the estimated upper bound to the insurance premiums for the various risks. In all cases, even incorporating all the possible effects of the guarantee in dealings with customers and suppliers, the upper bound to the intensity of the aid remains well within the maximum permissible. In conclusion, the Commission considers that the aid intensities permitted by the 1996 R&D Framework and the R&D&I Framework are complied with.\n(302)\nWith regard to succeeding years, the Commission points out that decision C 51/2005 requires France to submit an annual report to the Commission so that the latter may satisfy itself that the aid intensities by research stage and by project are being complied with. From 2010, the report will have to cover all projects carried out in the fields of activity of Axens and Prosernat, classified according to research categories, stating not only their costs by research stage and the amounts of public financing and of own resources allocated by IFP and its subsidiaries, but also the upper bound to the amount of the guarantee premium, estimated according to the method described in this decision, including any effects on the terms of IFP\u2019s debt financing in line with the reasoning in recital 200.\n7.3.2.5 Cumulation\n(303)\nThe rules on overlapping aid measures, whether in point 5.12 of the 1996 R&D Framework or in point 8 of the R&D&I Framework, are complied with. The Commission has considered the total amount of public funding, irrespective of its origin, including the maximum impact of the unlimited guarantee for the years 2006 to 2009.\n(304)\nFrom 2010, the French authorities are to apply the same method in the annual reports sent to the Commission.\n7.3.2.6 Incentive effect\n(305)\nThe 1996 R&D Framework and the R&D&I Framework require that State aid have an incentive effect, i.e. result in the recipient changing its behaviour so that it increases its level of R&D (and innovation). The following criteria are generally sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an incentive effect for projects in receipt of aid below the thresholds for a detailed assessment: an increase in the size of the project, an increase in its scope, an increase in its speed and an increase in the total sum allocated to R&D&I. If a significant effect on at least one of these elements can be demonstrated, the Commission will normally conclude that the aid proposal has an incentive effect, taking account of the normal behaviour of an undertaking in the respective sector (252).\n(306)\nThe Commission would refer to the analysis in recitals 196 to 198 of decision C 51/2005 concerning the strategic interest, monitored and validated by technical committees, of the research conducted by IFP and its subsidiaries in the field of the long-term security of energy supplies, with special reference to renewing and increasing production of oil and gas (increasing the success rate in exploration and deposit recovery rates, exploitation of unconventional resources, etc.), designing refining processes, developing conversion technologies, developing innovative fuels and efficient engine technologies, and diversifying the energy sources used in fuel production; a large number of these objectives are among the European Union\u2019s priorities for research, energy policy and environmental policy.\n(307)\nWith regard to the year 2006, the Commission reiterates the analysis it presented in recital 199 of decision C 51/2005, according to which, thanks to State support, of which the unlimited guarantee forms an integral part, IFP and its subsidiaries were able to conduct additional research activities which would not have been pursued otherwise, owing to the technological risk or the highly uncertain return on investment.\n(308)\nOn the basis of the annual reports submitted by the French authorities, the Commission finds that this approach continued in 2007, 2008 and 2009. In these reports, the French authorities indicate, for each project, the incentive effect obtained as a result of the aid, notably in terms of scope of the project, its speed and the increase in the total amount allocated to R&D.\n(309)\nFor example, in 2007, in the exclusive field of Axens, the IFP group conducted flagship projects, [\u2026] (*) (253). [\u2026] (*). Without State aid, a lag of several years would have occurred before these products were placed on the market: the R&D projects would have been launched later, they would have developed more slowly, and [\u2026] (*).\n(310)\nIn the exclusive field of Prosernat, State aid enabled the launch of the project [\u2026] (*) on [\u2026] (*), the finalisation and patenting of original processes of [\u2026] (*) (254) [\u2026] (*). [Such a project] (**) entailed delicate, difficult operations requiring substantial human, technical and financial investments that a company like Prosernat could not achieve alone. Consequently, the State support provided by the publicly owned establishment IFP proved essential. In particular, only IFP had specialised teams available with the capacity to devise the models necessary to develop the process and laboratory equipment adapted to handling components which are harmful to health.\n(311)\nIn 2008, in the exclusive field of Axens, the State aid enabled removal of the scientific and technical barriers in [\u2026] (*). Moreover, the project [\u2026] (*) (255) also underwent major developments. The State aid enabled the publicly owned establishment IFP to develop, in association with industrial partners, a process [\u2026] (*), which will be accessible to the market via licensing. The development work for a process of this type involves both [\u2026] (*), and [\u2026] (*).\n(312)\nIn the exclusive field of Prosernat, a project [\u2026] (*) relating to the capture of CO2 in fumes was implemented. The capture/storage of CO2 (CSC) is one of the means identified to reduce global warming (256). In view of the constituents of the fumes and their low pressure, IFP had to take up new technological challenges. Prosernat would not have been able to develop this process from its own resources, in view of the uncertainty surrounding the structure, magnitude, deployment and regulatory framework of the future market for capture of CO2.\n(313)\nIn 2009, in the exclusive field of Axens, the project [\u2026] (*) on the processes [\u2026] (*) can be mentioned as an example. Its aim was to develop [\u2026] (*) and to improve certain processes [\u2026] (*). Thanks to the public funding, [\u2026] (*) could be studied, which allowed a significant improvement to the [\u2026] (*). The project [\u2026] (*) was able, thanks to the public financing, to explore solutions breaking with the existing technologies, [\u2026] (*). Likewise, the project [\u2026] (*) was continued on catalysts which, after extrapolation, allowed diversification of the supply on the growth market [\u2026] (*). Without the State aid, the development of the catalysts would have been far more sequential and the improvement in performances slower. As regards [\u2026] (*), the project [\u2026] (*), which related to innovative catalysts [\u2026] (*) allowed new pathways to be explored thanks to the State aid, whilst the project [\u2026] (*), which aimed to explore the limits of the technology (variation in loads in particular) in order to [\u2026] (*), succeeded in enlarging its spectrum beyond the existing performances.\n(314)\nIn the exclusive field of Prosernat, the State aid permitted, for example, the relaunch and continuation of R&D work with respect to [\u2026] (*) which had been undertaken but gradually sidelined. The State support also meant that it was possible to avoid losing the earlier technological achievements and to maintain a range of processes [\u2026] (*) on the market. Likewise, the public aid allowed the continuation of the project [\u2026] (*) on the capture of CO2 [\u2026] (*).\n(315)\nThe Commission also takes note of the continuation between 2007 and 2009 of the positive trend in indicators of the R&D efforts of IFP and its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat which it noted in recital 200 of decision C 51/2005.\nTable 7\nProgression of the indicators measuring the effort of IFP and its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat in 2007, 2008 and 2009\nProgression of the indicators\nIFP/Axens\nIFP/Prosernat\n2007/2003\n2008/2003\n2009/2003\n2007/2003\n2008/2003\n2009/2003\nExpenditure allocated to R&D in the exclusive field\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\nStaff allocated to R&D in the exclusive field\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n[\u2026] (*)\n(316)\nIn addition, the Commission reiterates the findings it summarised in recitals 201 to 203 of decision C 51/2005: the proportion of the IFP groups\u2019 turnover accounted for by R&D expenditure is particularly high, even though it works in a context subject to a large number of constantly evolving national regulations, especially with regard to environmental standards and intellectual property protection regimes.\n(317)\nAs in recital 204 of decision C 51/2005, the Commission notes the diversity and structure of supply and the functioning of competition on the refining and petrochemicals market (257). Certain competitors enjoy a far more comfortable competitive position than that of the IFP group: UOP, for example, possesses a world market share in the order of 57 % in terms of value, compared to only 7 % for the IFP group. The Commission therefore considers that the State aid granted to the R&D projects conducted by the IFP group is not, by its nature or proportions, such as to impair the dynamic incentives of the refining technologies market. Moreover, it is clear that trading partners of the European Union, and especially the United States, devote large budgets to financing research into energy which have allowed support to be given to the R&D projects carried out by the IFP group\u2019s competitors. For instance, certain competitors of the IFP group, and in particular UOP, enjoy substantial State support (258) or have benefited from indirect State support through partnerships with research institutes and universities.\n(318)\nIn conclusion, the Commission considers that the State aid for the IFP group in the exclusive field of its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat had an incentive effect in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.\n(319)\nFrom 2010, the annual reports that are to be submitted by France to the Commission, until the exclusive agreements between the publicly owned establishment IFP and its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat expire, will have to show that the aid still has an incentive effect.\n(320)\nIn the light of all the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the State aid granted to the IFP group for activities in the exclusive fields of its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat, including the aid component deriving from the effects of the unlimited guarantee enjoyed by the publicly owned establishment IFP, is in keeping with the provisions of the 1996 R&D Framework and those of the R&D&I Framework, subject to compliance with the conditions set forth therein.\n7.3.3 CONCLUSION ON THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE MEASURE\n(321)\nIn conclusion, the Commission considers that the measure at issue is compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with the conditions set forth in sections 7.3.1 and 7.3.2.\n8 NEUTRALITY WITH REGARD TO THE RULES GOVERNING THE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP\n(322)\nThe Commission wishes to emphasis that it is in no way disputing the State\u2019s ownership of IFP, nor is it challenging its status as a legal entity governed by public law as such.\n(323)\nUnder Article 345 TFEU the Union is neutral with regard to the rules governing the system of property ownership in the Member States, and no provision of the Treaty prevents a State from owning enterprises (whether wholly or partly). That being so, the rules of competition must be applied equally to private and public enterprises. Neither of these two types of enterprise may be placed at an advantage or disadvantage by the application of those rules.\n(324)\nIn the present case, the guarantee enjoyed by the publicly owned establishment IFP stems not from the ownership of the enterprise but from its legal form. The Member States are free to choose the legal form of enterprises, but they must, when making their choice, comply with the competition rules of the Treaty. In particular, the mere fact that a State guarantee automatically derives from a particular legal form does not prevent the guarantee from constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if the necessary conditions are met (259),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The status of publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment granted by France to IFP conferred on IFP, from 7 July 2006 onward, an unlimited public guarantee (\u2018the State guarantee\u2019) covering the totality of its activities.\n2. The cover provided by the State guarantee for the non-economic activities of the publicly owned establishment IFP, in particular its training activities with a view to increased, better qualified human resources, its independent R&D activities with a view to more extensive knowledge and better understanding, and its activities for the dissemination of research results, does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n3. The cover provided by the State guarantee for the technology transfer activities carried out by the publicly owned establishment IFP in the fields provided for by the exclusive development, marketing and use agreement concluded with its subsidiary Beicip-Franlab does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n4. The cover provided by the State guarantee for the technology transfer activities carried out by the publicly owned establishment IFP in the fields provided for by the exclusive agreements concluded with its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat referred to in Article 3(1) of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 on the aid measure implemented by France for the IFP group (\u2018decision C 51/2005\u2019) constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n5. The cover provided by the State guarantee for the contract research and other services performed by the publicly owned establishment IFP, on behalf of both third parties and the subsidiaries, constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nArticle 2\nIn the event of any amendment of the agreement between the publicly owned establishment IFP and its subsidiary Beicip-Franlab referred to in Article 1(3), France shall notify the agreement to the Commission, taking account of any impact of the State guarantee in order to assess the total amount of any public funding, unless the new contractual terms allow the presence of State aid to be ruled out.\nArticle 3\nIn the period between 7 July 2006 and 31 December 2009, the cover provided by the State guarantee for the economic activities referred to in Article 1(4) and (5) constituted aid compatible with the internal market.\nArticle 4\nFrom 1 January 2010 onward, and until the date of expiry of the exclusive agreements between the publicly owned establishment IFP and its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat referred to in Article 3(1) of decision C 51/2005, the cover provided by the State guarantee for the economic activities referred to in Article 1(4) of this decision constitutes aid compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with the conditions in Articles 5 and 6 of this decision.\nArticle 5\n1. The annual financial report referred to in Article 4(2) of decision C 51/2005 shall include, in addition to the information already mentioned in Article 5(1) of that decision, the information listed in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article.\n2. The annual financial report shall include the value, interest rate and contractual terms of the loans subscribed to by the publicly owned establishment IFP during the year under review, and an estimate of the gross grant equivalent of any interest rate subsidy deriving from the State guarantee, unless proof is supplied that these loan contracts are in accordance with normal market conditions, either by comparing their terms with those obtained by the publicly owned establishment IFP before its change of legal form, or on the basis of a more precise methodology approved in advance by the Commission.\n3. The annual financial report shall include the value of goods and services obtained by the publicly owned establishment IFP from suppliers to carry out the economic activities referred to in Article 1(4) and (5), during the year under review, and a maximum estimate of the gross grant equivalent of the aid resulting from a more favourable assessment by suppliers of the risk of default of the establishment. This estimate shall be made either by applying a flat rate of 2,5 % to the value of acquisitions made, or on the basis of a more precise methodology approved in advance by the Commission.\n4. The annual financial report shall include the value of the economic activities referred to in Article 1(4) and (5) carried out by the publicly owned establishment IFP during the year under review, and a maximum estimate of the gross grant equivalent of the aid resulting from the lack of payment of a premium corresponding to a performance bond or, at the very least a best efforts guarantee, offered to the beneficiaries of the above-mentioned economic services. This estimate shall be made either by applying a flat rate of 5 % to the value of the services provided or on the basis of a more precise methodology approved in advance by the Commission.\nArticle 6\n1. The total amount of public funding allocated to the activities of the publicly owned establishment IFP in the exclusive fields of activity of Axens and Prosernat, including the maximum impact of the State guarantee as estimated in Article 5(2), (3) and (4), must be lower than the maximum intensity permitted by the Community framework for State aid for research and development and innovation.\n2. If the threshold referred to in paragraph 1 is exceeded, the surplus aid shall, where appropriate, be refunded by the subsidiary concerned, Axens or Prosernat, to the publicly owned establishment IFP.\nArticle 7\nFrom 1 January 2010, the cover provided by the State guarantee for the economic activities referred to in Article 1(5) constitutes State aid which is compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with the conditions in Article 8.\nArticle 8\n1. The contract research activities and the provision of services carried out by the publicly owned establishment IFP referred to in Article 1(5) shall remain ancillary to its principal activity of independent public research.\n2. To be considered ancillary, the contract research activities and the provision of services by the publicly owned establishment IFP must:\n-\nnot prejudice the normal functioning, independence and neutrality of the publicly owned establishment IFP;\n-\nbe charged for at a market price, or in the absence of a market price, at a price which reflects the totality of the costs, plus a reasonable margin, net of the potential impact of the State guarantee;\n-\nbe the subject of accounting separate from that of the independent public research activities (accounting separation of their respective costs and funding), and the profits they generate must be reinvested in full in the principal activity of independent public research;\n-\nbe intrinsically linked to the principal activity of independent public research of the publicly owned establishment IFP by reason in particular of the use of the same infrastructures, equipment, materials or technologies, or the use of the same researchers, scientists, engineers, designers or technicians;\n-\nbe outside the scope of the exclusive agreements concluded between the publicly owned establishment IFP and its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat referred to in Article 3(1) of decision C 51/2005, where appropriate extended or amended in accordance with Article 3(2) of decision C 51/2005 and Article 12(2) of the present decision;\n-\nrepresent only a residual proportion of the budget devoted by the publicly owned establishment IFP to its independent public research activities.\n3. France shall submit each year to the Commission a report on the contract research activities and provision of services carried out by the publicly owned establishment IFP which specifies the ratio of their value to the budget devoted by the publicly owned establishment IFP to its independent public research activities.\nArticle 9\n1. The French authorities and the publicly owned establishment IFP shall include the following written statement in the financing contract for each transaction (for all instruments covered by a contract):\n\u2018The issue/programme/loan does not enjoy any form of direct or indirect State guarantee. In the event of insolvency, the State would not be obliged to act as financial substitute for the publicly owned establishment IFP for payment of the claim.\u2019\n2. The French authorities shall have a similar clause, ruling out State liability, included in any contract relating to contract research services or other services referred to in Article 1(5).\n3. The French authorities shall have a similar clause, ruling out liability of the publicly owned establishment IFP and the State, included in any contract involving a claim concluded by the public limited companies Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat.\n4. The publicly owned establishment IFP shall refrain from issuing any form of suretyship, endorsement, guarantee, or letter of intent or comfort in favour of the public limited companies Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat which does not comply with normal market terms.\nArticle 10\nFrance shall notify individually to the Commission any aid of an amount in excess of the thresholds laid down in the Community framework for State aid for research and development and innovation, taking account of any impact of the State guarantee.\nArticle 11\nFrance shall inform the Commission, within two months from the date of notification of this decision, of the measures it has taken to comply herewith.\nArticle 12\n1. Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the present decision shall apply until the date of expiry of the exclusive agreements referred to in Article 3(1) of decision C 51/2005 between the publicly owned establishment IFP and its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat.\n2. Where they notify the Commission of an extension of, or amendment to, the above-mentioned exclusive agreements, in accordance with Article 3(2) of decision C 51/2005, the French authorities shall take account of the impact of the State guarantee in order to assess the total amount of public funding.\nArticle 13\nThis decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2011.", "references": ["55", "68", "45", "61", "30", "44", "52", "22", "74", "79", "16", "6", "14", "0", "56", "71", "20", "73", "27", "59", "65", "33", "38", "40", "35", "57", "69", "58", "67", "36", "No Label", "2", "4", "8", "15", "48", "80", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "4", "8", "15", "48", "80", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 725/2011\nof 25 July 2011\nestablishing a procedure for the approval and certification of innovative technologies for reducing CO2 emissions from passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community\u2019s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (1), and in particular Article 12(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to promote the development and the early uptake of new and advanced CO2 emission-reducing vehicle technologies, Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 provides manufacturers and suppliers with the possibility of applying for the approval of certain innovative technologies contributing to reducing CO2 emissions from passenger cars. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the criteria for determining which technologies should be eligible as eco-innovations pursuant to that Regulation.\n(2)\nAccording to point (c) of Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, technologies that are part of the Union\u2019s integrated approach outlined in the Commission Communication of 7 February 2007 entitled \u2018Results of the review of the Community Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles\u2019 (2) and the Commission Communication of 7 February 2007 entitled \u2018A Competitive Automotive Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century\u2019 (3), and have been regulated in Union law, or other technologies that are mandatory under Union law, are not eligible as eco-innovations under that Regulation. These technologies include tyre pressure monitoring systems, tyre rolling resistance and gear shift indicators falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefore (4) and, as regards tyre rolling resistance, Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters (5).\n(3)\nA technology that has already for some time been widely available on the market cannot be considered innovative within the meaning of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and should not be eligible as an eco-innovation. In order to create the right incentives, it is appropriate to limit the level of market penetration of a technology to that of the niche segment as defined in Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and to use the year 2009 as a baseline. Those thresholds should be subject to review at the latest in 2015.\n(4)\nIn order to promote technologies with the highest potential for reducing CO2 emissions from passenger cars, and in particular the development of innovative propulsion technologies, only those technologies should be eligible that are intrinsic to the transport function of the vehicle and contribute significantly to improving the overall energy consumption of the vehicle. Technologies that are accessory to that purpose or aim at enhancing the comfort of the driver or the passengers should not be eligible.\n(5)\nAccording to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, applications may be submitted by both manufacturers and suppliers. The application should include the necessary evidence that the eligibility criteria are fully met, including a methodology for measuring the CO2 savings from the innovative technology.\n(6)\nIt should be possible to measure the CO2 savings from an eco-innovation with a satisfactory degree of accuracy. That accuracy can only be achieved where the savings are 1 g CO2/km or more.\n(7)\nWhere the CO2 savings of a technology depends on the behaviour of the driver or on other factors that are outside the control of the applicant, that technology should in principle not be eligible as an eco-innovation, unless it is possible, on the basis of strong and independent statistical evidence, to make verifiable assumptions about average driver behaviour.\n(8)\nThe standard test cycle used for type approval measurement of the CO2 emissions from a vehicle does not demonstrate all savings that can be attributed to certain technologies. To create the right incentives for innovation, only those savings that are not captured by the standard test cycle should be taken into account for the calculation of the total CO2 savings.\n(9)\nIn demonstrating the CO2 savings, a comparison should be made between the same vehicles with and without the eco-innovation. The testing methodology should provide verifiable, repeatable and comparable measurements. In order to ensure a level playing field and, in the absence of an agreed and more realistic driving cycle, the driving patterns in the New European Driving Cycle as referred to in Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 of 18 July 2008 implementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (6) should be used as a common reference. The testing methodology should be based on measurements on a chassis dynamometer or on modelling or simulation where such methodologies would provide better and more accurate results.\n(10)\nGuidelines on the preparation of the application and the testing methodologies should be provided by the Commission and be regularly updated to take into account the experience gained from assessing different applications.\n(11)\nAccording to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, the application must be accompanied by a verification report provided by an independent and certified body. That body should be a technical service of category A or B as referred to in Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (7). However, in order to ensure the independence of the body, technical services designated in accordance with Article 41(6) of that Directive should not be considered an independent and certified body within the meaning of this Regulation. The body should, together with the verification report, provide relevant evidence of its independence from the applicant.\n(12)\nIn order to ensure efficient registration and monitoring of the specific savings for individual vehicles, savings should be certified as part of the type approval of a vehicle and the total savings should be entered into the certificate of conformity in accordance with Directive 2007/46/EC.\n(13)\nThe Commission should have the possibility to verify on an ad hoc-basis the certified total savings for individual vehicles. Where it is evident that the certified savings are inconsistent with the level of savings resulting from the decision to approve a technology as an eco-innovation, the Commission should be able to disregard the certified CO2 savings for the calculation of the average specific CO2 emissions. The manufacturer should, however, be given a limited time period during which it may demonstrate that the certified values are accurate.\n(14)\nIn order to ensure a transparent application procedure, summary information should be available to the public on the applications for approval of innovative technologies and the testing methodologies. Once approved, the testing methodologies should be publicly accessible. The exceptions to the right to public access to documents set out in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (8) should apply as appropriate.\n(15)\nAccording to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, innovative technologies may no longer be approved under the procedure set out in that Regulation from the date of application of a revised procedure for the measurement of CO2 emissions. In order to ensure an appropriate phasing out of the eco-innovation credits approved pursuant to this Regulation, this Regulation should be reviewed not later than in 2015.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation sets out the procedure to be followed for the application for, and assessment, approval and certification of, innovative technologies that reduce emissions of CO2 from passenger cars pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. Any technology falling within the scope of the following measures covered by the integrated approach referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 shall not be considered as innovative technologies:\n(a)\nefficiency improvements for air-conditioning systems;\n(b)\ntyre pressure monitoring systems falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009;\n(c)\ntyre rolling resistance falling within the scope of Regulations (EC) No 661/2009 and (EC) No 1222/2009;\n(d)\ngear shift indicators falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009;\n(e)\nuse of bio fuels.\n2. An application may be made under this Regulation in respect of a technology, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nit had been fitted in 3 % or less of all new passenger cars registered in 2009;\n(b)\nit relates to items intrinsic to the efficient operation of the vehicle and is compatible with Directive 2007/46/EC.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions set out in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018innovative technology\u2019 means a technology or a combination of technologies with similar technical features and characteristics where the CO2 savings can be demonstrated using one testing methodology and where each of the individual technologies forming the combination falls within the scope specified in Article 2;\n(b)\n\u2018supplier\u2019 means the manufacturer of an innovative technology responsible for ensuring conformity of production or its authorised representative in the Union or the importer;\n(c)\n\u2018applicant\u2019 means the manufacturer or supplier submitting an application for the approval of an innovative technology as an eco-innovation;\n(d)\n\u2018eco-innovation\u2019 means an innovative technology accompanied by a testing methodology that has been approved by the Commission in accordance with this Regulation;\n(e)\n\u2018independent and certified body\u2019 means a category A or B technical service referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 41(3) of Directive 2007/46/EC meeting the requirements set out in Article 42 of that Directive, with the exception of technical services designated in accordance with Article 41(6) of that Directive.\nArticle 4\nApplication\n1. An application for the approval of an innovative technology as an eco-innovation shall be submitted to the Commission in writing. The application and all supporting documentation shall also be submitted by electronic mail or electronic data carrier or uploaded in a server managed by the Commission. The written application shall list the supporting documentation.\n2. An application shall include the following:\n(a)\ncontact details of the applicant;\n(b)\na description of the innovative technology and the way it is fitted on a vehicle, including evidence that the technology falls within the scope specified in Article 2;\n(c)\na summary description of the innovative technology, including details supporting that the conditions provided for in Article 2(2) are met, and of the testing methodology referred to in point (e) of this paragraph to be made public upon submission of the application to the Commission;\n(d)\nan estimated indication of the individual vehicles that may be, or are intended to be, fitted with the innovative technology, and the estimated reductions of CO2 emissions for those vehicles from the innovative technology;\n(e)\na methodology to be used for demonstrating the CO2 emissions reductions of the innovative technology, or where such methodology has already been approved by the Commission, a reference to the approved methodology;\n(f)\nevidence demonstrating that:\n(i)\nthe emissions reduction achieved by the innovative technology meets the threshold specified in Article 9(1), taking into account any deterioration over time of the technology;\n(ii)\nthe innovative technology is not covered by the standard test cycle CO2 measurement referred to in point (c) of Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 as specified in Article 9(2) of this Regulation;\n(iii)\nthe applicant is accountable for the CO2 emissions reduction of the innovative technology as specified in Article 9(3);\n(g)\na verification report from an independent and certified body as specified in Article 7.\nArticle 5\nBaseline vehicle and eco-innovation vehicle\n1. For the purpose of the demonstration of CO2 emissions referred to in Article 8, the applicant shall designate:\n(a)\nan eco-innovation vehicle that shall be fitted with the innovative technology;\n(b)\na baseline vehicle that shall not be fitted with the innovative technology but that is in all other aspects identical to the eco-innovation vehicle.\n2. If the applicant considers that the information referred to in Articles 8 and 9 can be demonstrated without the use of a baseline vehicle and an eco-innovation vehicle as referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the application shall include the necessary details justifying that conclusion and a methodology providing equivalent results.\nArticle 6\nTesting methodology\n1. The testing methodology referred to in point (e) of Article 4(2) shall provide results that are verifiable, repeatable and comparable. It shall be capable of demonstrating in a realistic manner the CO2 emissions benefits of the innovative technology with strong statistical significance and, where relevant, take account of the interaction with other eco-innovations.\n2. The Commission shall publish guidance on the preparation of testing methodologies for different potential innovative technologies meeting the criteria in paragraph 1.\nArticle 7\nVerification report\n1. The verification report referred to in point (g) of Article 4(2) shall be established by an independent and certified body that is not part of the applicant or otherwise connected to it.\n2. For the purposes of the verification report, the independent and certified body shall:\n(a)\nverify that the eligibility criteria specified in Article 2(2) are met;\n(b)\nverify that the information provided in accordance with point (f) of Article 4(2) meets the criteria set out in Article 9;\n(c)\nverify that the testing methodology referred to in point (e) of Article 4(2) is appropriate for certifying the CO2 savings from the innovative technology for the relevant vehicles referred to in point (d) of Article 4(2), and meets the minimum requirements specified in Article 6(1);\n(d)\nverify that the innovative technology is compatible with relevant requirements specified for the type approval of the vehicle;\n(e)\ndeclare that it meets the requirement specified in paragraph 1 of this Article.\n3. For the purposes of the certification of the CO2 savings in accordance with Article 11, the independent and certified body shall, at the request of the manufacturer, draw up a report on the interaction between several eco-innovations fitted to one vehicle type, variant or version.\nThe report shall specify the CO2 savings from the different eco-innovations taking into account the impact of the interaction.\nArticle 8\nDemonstration of CO2 emissions\n1. The following CO2 emissions shall be demonstrated for a number of vehicles representative of the individual vehicles indicated in accordance with point (d) of Article 4(2):\n(a)\nthe CO2 emissions from the baseline vehicle and from the eco-innovation vehicle with the innovative technology in operation resulting from the application of the methodology referred to in point (e) of Article 4(2);\n(b)\nthe CO2 emissions from the baseline vehicle and from the eco-innovation vehicle with the innovative technology in operation resulting from the application of the standard test cycle referred to in point (c) of Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009.\nThe demonstration of the CO2 emissions in accordance with points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph shall be carried out under testing conditions that are identical for all tests.\n2. The total savings for an individual vehicle shall be the difference between the emissions demonstrated in accordance with point (a) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1.\nWhere there is a difference between the emissions demonstrated in accordance with point (b) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, that difference shall be subtracted from the total savings demonstrated in accordance with point (a) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1.\nArticle 9\nEligibility criteria\n1. The minimum reduction achieved by the innovative technology shall be 1 g CO2/km. That threshold shall be considered met where the total savings for the innovative technology demonstrated in accordance with Article 8(2) are 1 g CO2/km or more.\n2. Where the total savings of an innovative technology do not include any savings demonstrated under the standard test cycle in accordance with Article 8(2), the innovative technology shall be considered not to be covered by the standard test cycle.\n3. The technical description of the innovative technology referred to in point (b) of Article 4(2) shall provide the necessary details for demonstrating that the CO2 reducing performance of the technology is not dependant on settings or choices that are outside the control of the applicant.\nWhere the description is based on assumptions, those assumptions shall be verifiable and based on strong and independent statistical evidence supporting them and their applicability across the Union.\nArticle 10\nAssessment of an eco-innovation application\n1. On receipt of an application, the Commission shall make public the summary description of the innovative technology and the testing methodology referred to in point (c) of Article 4(2).\n2. The Commission shall assess the application and, within 9 months from receipt of a complete application, it shall approve the innovative technology as an eco-innovation together with the testing methodology, unless objections are raised in respect of the eligibility of the technology or the appropriateness of the testing methodology.\nThe decision to approve the innovative technology as an eco-innovation shall specify the information required for the certification of the CO2 savings in accordance with Article 11 of this Regulation, subject to the application of the exceptions to the right to public access to documents specified in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.\n3. The Commission may require adjustments to the proposed testing methodology or require the use of another approved testing methodology than the one proposed by the applicant. The applicant shall be consulted on the proposed adjustment or the choice of testing methodology.\n4. The assessment period may be extended by 5 months where the Commission finds that, because of the complexity of the innovative technology and the accompanying testing methodology or because of the size and contents of the application, the application cannot be appropriately assessed within the 9-month assessment period.\nThe Commission shall within 40 days of receipt of the application notify the applicant if the assessment period is to be extended.\nArticle 11\nCertification of CO2 savings from eco-innovations\n1. A manufacturer wishing to benefit from a reduction of its average specific CO2 emissions for the purpose of meeting its specific emissions target by means of the CO2 savings from an eco-innovation shall apply to an approval authority within the meaning of Directive 2007/46/EC for an EC type-approval certificate of the vehicle fitted with the eco-innovation. The application for a certificate shall, in addition to the documents providing the necessary information specified in Article 6 of Directive 2007/46/EC, refer to the decision by the Commission to approve an eco-innovation in accordance with Article 10(2) of this Regulation.\n2. The certified CO2 savings of the eco-innovation demonstrated in accordance with Article 8 of this Regulation shall be specified separately in both the type approval documentation and the certificate of conformity in accordance with Directive 2007/46/EC, on the basis of tests carried out by technical services in accordance with Article 11 of that Directive, using the approved testing methodology.\nWhere the CO2 savings of an eco-innovation for a specific type, variant or version are below the threshold specified in Article 9(1), the savings shall not be certified.\n3. Where the vehicle is fitted with more than one eco-innovation, the CO2 savings shall be demonstrated separately for each eco-innovation in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 8(1). The sum of the resulting savings determined in accordance with Article 8(2) for each eco-innovation shall provide the total CO2 savings for the purpose of the certification of that vehicle.\n4. Where interaction between several eco-innovations fitted to one vehicle cannot be ruled out because they are clearly of a different nature, the manufacturer shall indicate this in the application to the approval authority and shall provide a report from the independent and certified body on the impact of the interaction on the savings of the eco-innovations in the vehicle as referred to in Article 7(3).\nWhere, due to that interaction, the total savings are less than 1 g CO2/km times the number of eco-innovations only those eco-innovation savings that meet the threshold set out in Article 9(1) shall be taken into account for calculating the total savings in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article.\nArticle 12\nReview of certifications\n1. The Commission shall ensure that the certifications and the CO2 savings attributed to individual vehicles are verified on an ad hoc-basis.\nWhere it finds that there is a difference between the certified CO2 savings and the savings it has verified using the relevant testing methodology or methodologies, the Commission shall notify the manufacturer of its findings.\nThe manufacturer may within 60 days of receipt of the notification provide the Commission with evidence demonstrating the accuracy of the certified CO2 savings. At the request of the Commission the report on the interaction of different eco-innovations referred to in Article 7(3) shall be provided.\n2. Where the evidence referred to in paragraph 1 is not provided within the indicated time period, or it finds that the evidence provided is not satisfactory, the Commission may decide not to take the certified CO2 savings into account for the calculation of the average specific emissions of that manufacturer for the following calendar year.\n3. A manufacturer for which the certified CO2 savings are no longer taken into account may apply for a new certification of the vehicles concerned in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11.\nArticle 13\nDisclosure of information\nAn applicant requesting that information submitted under this Regulation be treated as confidential shall justify why any of the exceptions referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 apply.\nArticle 14\nReview\nThis Regulation and the eco-innovations approved pursuant to this Regulation shall be reviewed by 31 December 2015 at the latest.\nArticle 15\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2011.", "references": ["97", "67", "52", "96", "70", "44", "21", "41", "68", "71", "73", "7", "3", "2", "84", "34", "93", "12", "74", "89", "56", "22", "28", "99", "50", "65", "90", "91", "69", "78", "No Label", "54", "58", "76", "77"], "gold": ["54", "58", "76", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 760/2011\nof 1 August 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 751/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 August 2011.", "references": ["66", "29", "12", "51", "31", "75", "80", "2", "60", "43", "79", "25", "23", "36", "4", "76", "5", "15", "70", "83", "0", "19", "82", "85", "17", "14", "18", "48", "42", "92", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 June 2010\non a Union financial contribution towards Member States\u2019 fisheries control, inspection and surveillance programmes for 2010\n(notified under document C(2010) 3940)\n(Only the Bulgarian, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Lithuanian, Polish, Romanian, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2010/352/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea (1), and in particular Article 21 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMember States have submitted to the Commission their fisheries control programme for 2010 together with the applications for a Union financial contribution towards the expenditure to be incurred in carrying out the projects contained in such programme.\n(2)\nApplications concerning actions listed in Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 may qualify for Union funding.\n(3)\nApplications for Union funding are to comply with the rules set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 391/2007 (2).\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to fix the maximum amounts and the rate of the Union financial contribution within the limits set by Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and to lay down the conditions under which such contribution may be granted.\n(5)\nIn order to encourage investment in the priority actions defined by the Commission in conformity with the Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 (3) and in view of the negative impact of the financial crisis on Member States\u2019 budgets, expenditure related to automation and management of data, electronic recording and reporting systems (ERS) and vessel monitoring systems (VMS), as well as to seminars by Member States aiming at enhancing awareness on the new control Regulation as well as on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, should benefit from a high co-financing rate, within the limits laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006.\n(6)\nIn order to limit the amount dedicated to the purchase and modernisation of fisheries patrol vessels and aircraft, the Union contribution to these expenditure shall be restricted to a maximum amount of EUR 1 Million by Member State.\n(7)\nIn order to qualify for the contribution, automatic localisation devices should satisfy the requirements fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2244/2003 of 18 December 2003 laying down detailed provisions regarding satellite-based Vessel Monitoring Systems (4).\n(8)\nIn order to qualify for the contribution, electronic recording and reporting devices on board fishing vessels should satisfy the requirements laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1077/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1966/2006 on electronic recording and reporting of fishing activities and on means of remote sensing and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1566/2007 (5).\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision provides for a Union financial contribution for 2010 towards expenditure incurred by Member States for 2010 in implementing the monitoring and control systems applicable to the common fisheries policy (CFP), as referred to in Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006. It establishes the maximum amount of the Union financial contribution for each Member State, the rate of the Union financial contribution and the conditions on which such contribution may be granted.\nArticle 2\nClosure of outstanding commitments\nAll payments in respect of which a reimbursement is claimed shall be made by the Member State concerned by 30 June 2014. Payments made by a Member State after that deadline shall not be eligible for reimbursement. The budgetary appropriations related to this Decision shall be de-committed at the latest by 31 December 2015.\nArticle 3\nNew technologies and IT networks\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex I, on the setting up of new technologies and IT networks in order to allow efficient and secure collection and management of data in connection with monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries activities, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\n2. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex I and related to vessel monitoring system (VMS), electronic recording and reporting system (ERS) or illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\n3. Any other expenditure incurred for new technologies and IT networks, in respect of projects referred in Annex I, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits let down in that Annex.\nArticle 4\nAutomatic localisation devices\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex II, on the purchase and fitting on board of fishing vessels of automatic localisation devices enabling vessels to be monitored at a distance by a fisheries monitoring centre through a vessel monitoring system (VMS) shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits established in that Annex.\n2. The financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 shall be limited to EUR 2 500 per vessel.\n3. In order to qualify for the financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1, automatic localisation devices shall satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2244/2003.\nArticle 5\nElectronic recording and reporting systems\nExpenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex III, on the development, purchase, and installation of, as well as technical assistance for, the components necessary for electronic recording and reporting systems (ERS), in order to allow efficient and secure data exchange related to monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries activities, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 6\nElectronic recording and reporting devices\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex IV, on the purchase and fitting on board of fishing vessels of ERS devices enabling vessels to record and report electronically to a Fisheries Monitoring Centre data on fisheries activities, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits established in that Annex.\n2. The financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 shall be limited to EUR 3 000 per vessel, without prejudice to paragraph 4.\n3. In order to qualify for a financial contribution, ERS devices shall satisfy the requirements established pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1077/2008.\n4. In case of devices combining ERS and VMS functions, and fulfilling the requirements laid down in Regulations (EC) No 2244/2003 and (EC) No 1077/2008, the financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be limited to EUR 4 500.\nArticle 7\nPilot projects\nExpenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex V, on pilot projects on new control technologies shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 8\nTraining and exchange programmes\nExpenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex VI, on training and exchange programmes of civil servants responsible for monitoring, control and surveillance tasks in the fisheries area shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 9\nInitiatives raising awareness of CFP rules\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex VIII, on initiatives including seminar and media tools aimed at enhancing awareness among fishermen and other players such as inspectors, public prosecutors and judges, as well as among the general public, on the need to fight irresponsible and illegal fishing and to implement the new control Regulation, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 90 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\n2. Any other expenditure incurred for initiatives raising awareness of CFP rules, in respect of projects referred in Annex VIII, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits let down in that Annex.\nArticle 10\nFisheries patrol vessels and aircraft\n1. Expenditure incurred, in respect of projects referred to in Annex IX, on the purchase and modernisation of vessels and aircraft used for inspection and surveillance of fishing activities by the competent authorities of the Member States shall qualify for a financial contribution up to 50 % of the eligible expenditure, within the limits laid down in that Annex.\n2. The financial contribution specified for each Member State in Annex IX shall be calculated on the basis of the utilisation of the concerned vessels and aircraft for inspection and surveillance as a percentage of their total yearly activity, as declared by the Member States.\nArticle 11\nTotal maximum Union contribution per Member State\nThe planned expenditure, the eligible share thereof, and the maximum Union contribution per Member State are as follows:\n(in EUR)\nMember State\nExpenditure planned in the national fisheries control programme\nEligible expenditure\nMaximum Union contribution\nBelgium\n254 270\n254 270\n176 343\nBulgaria\n195 828\n195 828\n153 748\nDenmark\n3 215 749\n3 148 559\n2 729 961\nGermany\n6 418 061\n1 120 000\n893 600\nEstonia\n239 745\n239 745\n207 873\nIreland\n51 495 000\n46 395 000\n1 997 500\nGreece\n18 595 000\n7 085 750\n5 111 175\nSpain\n9 563 245\n9 153 093\n7 735 444\nFrance\n4 536 370\n3 497 768\n2 640 008\nItaly\n26 650 600\n2 625 600\n1 312 800\nCyprus\n357 800\n357 800\n318 900\nLithuania\n460 001\n460 001\n404 001\nNetherlands\n2 809 000\n1 616 000\n1 424 000\nPoland\n702 600\n696 000\n600 000\nRomania\n593 600\n593 600\n334 240\nSlovenia\n510 807\n507 649\n383 900\nFinland\n981 000\n881 000\n766 500\nSweden\n2 353 016\n2 139 327\n1 902 083\nUnited Kingdom\n2 164 334\n1 408 528\n1 036 432\nTotal\n132 096 027\n82 375 517\n30 128 508\nArticle 12\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Lithuania, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2010.", "references": ["46", "47", "92", "19", "38", "97", "83", "15", "34", "33", "93", "55", "64", "99", "1", "86", "2", "58", "94", "81", "17", "96", "82", "32", "91", "30", "59", "74", "52", "51", "No Label", "10", "42", "49", "67", "76"], "gold": ["10", "42", "49", "67", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 838/2010\nof 23 September 2010\non laying down guidelines relating to the inter-transmission system operator compensation mechanism and a common regulatory approach to transmission charging\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (1), and in particular the first sentence of Article 18 (5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 774/2010 of 2 September 2010 on laying down guidelines relating to inter-transmission system operator compensation and a common regulatory approach to transmission charging (2) establishes a mechanism for the compensation of transmission system operators for the costs of hosting cross-border flows of electricity and a common regulatory approach to transmission charging. However, that Regulation will expire on 2 March 2011.\n(2)\nIn order to ensure the continuity of implementation the inter-transmission system operator compensation mechanism, new guidelines specified in Article 18(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of 13 July 2009 should be adopted which reflect the institutional framework established by that Regulation. In particular, the Agency for the Co-operation of Energy Regulators (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019), established by Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) should be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the inter-transmission system operator compensation mechanism.\n(3)\nBinding guidelines establishing an inter-transmission system operator compensation mechanism should establish a stable basis for the operation of the inter-transmission system operator compensation mechanism and fair compensation to transmission system operators for the costs of hosting cross-border flows of electricity.\n(4)\nTransmission system operators from third countries or from territories which have concluded agreements with the Union whereby they have adopted and are applying Union law in the field of electricity should be entitled to participate in the inter-transmission system compensation Mechanism on an equivalent basis to transmission system operators from Member States.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to allow transmission system operators in third countries which have not concluded agreements with the Union whereby they have adopted and are applying Union law in the field of electricity to enter into multi-party agreements with the transmission system operators in the Member States which enable all parties to be compensated for the costs of hosting cross-border flows of electricity on a fair and equitable basis.\n(6)\nTransmission system operators should be compensated for energy losses resulting from hosting cross-border flows of electricity. Such compensation should be based on an estimate of what losses would have been incurred in the absence of transits of electricity.\n(7)\nA fund should be established to compensate transmission system operators for the costs of making infrastructure available to host cross-border flows of electricity. The value of this fund should be based on a Union-wide assessment of the long run average incremental costs of making infrastructure available to host cross-border flows of electricity.\n(8)\nThe Union-wide assessment of electricity transmission infrastructure associated with facilitating cross-border flows of electricity should be carried out by the Agency as the body responsible for coordinating the activities of regulatory authorities who must carry out a similar function at a national level.\n(9)\nTransmission system operators in third countries should face the same costs for using the Union transmission system as transmission system operators in Member States.\n(10)\nVariations in charges faced by producers of electricity for access to the transmission system should not undermine the internal market. For this reason average charges for access to the network in Member States should be kept within a range which helps to ensure that the benefits of harmonisation are realised.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 46 of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nTransmission system operators shall receive compensation for costs incurred as a result of hosting cross-border flows of electricity on their networks on the basis of the guidelines set out in Part A of the Annex.\nArticle 2\nCharges applied by network operators for access to the transmission system shall be in accordance with guidelines set out in Part B of the Annex.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 3 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2010.", "references": ["87", "72", "85", "96", "22", "84", "91", "60", "58", "50", "11", "44", "76", "18", "71", "67", "41", "74", "53", "10", "68", "21", "80", "31", "89", "77", "7", "49", "73", "86", "No Label", "20", "54", "78", "81"], "gold": ["20", "54", "78", "81"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 19 January 2011\nconcerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria\n(notified under document C(2011) 179)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/44/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 5 January 2011 Bulgaria reported a case of foot-and-mouth disease in a wild boar shot in Burgas region in the South-East of Bulgaria within a zone of reinforced surveillance along the border with Turkey. The Commission therefore adopted Decision 2011/8/EU of 6 January 2011 concerning certain interim protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (3).\n(2)\nOn 9 January 2011 Bulgaria reported outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in livestock in the same area. The new epidemiological situation requires to review the measures previously adopted, also in the light of the information provided by Bulgaria and the discussions with Member States at the meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health of 12 January 2011.\n(3)\nThe foot-and-mouth disease situation in Bulgaria is liable to endanger the herds of other Member States in view of trade in live biungulate animals and the placing on the market of certain of their products.\n(4)\nBulgaria has taken measures in the framework of Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (4), in particular the measures provided for in Section 3 of Chapter II and in Article 85(4) thereof.\n(5)\nThe whole territory of Bulgaria is subject to the restrictions of Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 8b and 11 of Commission Decision 2008/855/EC of 3 November 2008 concerning animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in certain Member States (5). However, being listed in Part II of the Annex to that Decision allows Bulgaria to dispatch under certain health conditions fresh pig meat and meat preparations and products produced from such meat.\n(6)\nThe disease situation in Bulgaria makes it necessary to reinforce the control measures for foot-and-mouth disease taken by the competent authorities in Bulgaria.\n(7)\nIt is appropriate to define as a permanent measure the high and low risk areas in the affected Member State and to provide for a prohibition on the dispatch of susceptible animals from the high and low risk areas and on the dispatch of products derived from susceptible animals from the high risk area. The Decision should also provide for the rules applicable to the dispatch from those areas of safe products that either had been produced before the restrictions, from raw material sourced from outside the restricted areas or that had undergone a treatment proven effective in inactivating possible foot-and-mouth disease virus.\n(8)\nThe size of the defined risk areas is a direct function of the outcome of tracing of possible contacts to the infected holding and takes into account the possibility to implement sufficient controls on the movement of animals and products. At this point of time and based on information provided by Bulgaria, the whole of Burgas region should currently remain a high risk area.\n(9)\nThe prohibition of dispatch should only cover products derived from animals of susceptible species coming from or obtained from animals originating in the high risk areas listed in Annex I and should not affect transit through these areas of such products coming from or obtained from animals originating in other areas.\n(10)\nCouncil Directive 64/432/EEC (6) concerns animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine.\n(11)\nCouncil Directive 91/68/EEC (7) concerns animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals.\n(12)\nCouncil Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (8) concerns, amongst others, trade in other biungulates and in semen, ova and embryos of sheep and goats, and in embryos of porcine animals.\n(13)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (9) concerns, amongst others, the health conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat, minced meat, mechanically separated meat, meat preparations, farmed game meat, meat products, including treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, and dairy products.\n(14)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (10) concerns, amongst others, the health marking of food of animal origin.\n(15)\nCouncil Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (11) provides for specific treatment of meat products that ensure inactivation of the foot-and-mouth disease virus in products of animal origin.\n(16)\nCommission Decision 2001/304/EC of 11 April 2001 on marking and use of certain animal products in relation to Decision 2001/172/EC concerning certain protection measures with regard to foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom (12) concerns a specific health mark to be applied to certain products of animal origin that shall be restricted to the national market. It is appropriate to lay down in a separate Annex a similar marking in the case of foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria.\n(17)\nCouncil Directive 92/118/EEC (13) lays down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC.\n(18)\nRegulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (14) provides for a range of treatments of animal by-products suitable to inactivate the foot-and-mouth disease virus.\n(19)\nCouncil Directive 88/407/EEC (15) lays down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of deep-frozen semen of domestic animals of the bovine species.\n(20)\nCouncil Directive 89/556/EEC (16) concerns the animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species.\n(21)\nCouncil Directive 90/429/EEC (17) lays down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species.\n(22)\nThe model health certificates for trade within the Union in semen, ova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species and in ova and embryos of animals of the porcine species are laid down in Commission Decision 2010/470/EU of 26 August 2010 laying down model health certificates for trade within the Union in semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine, ovine and caprine species and in ova and embryos of animals of the porcine species (18).\n(23)\nIn so far as medicinal products defined in Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (19), Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (20), and Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use (21) no longer fall under the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 they should be excluded from animal health related restrictions set up by this Decision.\n(24)\nArticle 6 of Commission Decision 2007/275/EC of 17 April 2007 concerning lists of animals and products to be subject to controls at border inspection posts under Council Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC (22) provides for a derogation from the veterinary checks for certain products containing animal products. It is appropriate to allow dispatch from the high risk areas of such products under a simplified certification regime.\n(25)\nThe possible risk of spread of foot-and-mouth disease within the European Union through the movements of consignments of products of animal origin of a non-commercial character should be considered in view of the foot-and-mouth disease situation in Bulgaria. Therefore such movements should be prevented in order to avoid further spread of the disease. Bulgaria should ensure that compliance with the restrictions imposed by this Decision on certain products derived from animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease is also ensured as regards the non-commercial movement of these products. Member States should cooperate in monitoring personal luggage of passengers travelling in particular from the high risk areas and in information campaigns carried out to prevent introduction of products of animal origin into the territory of Member States other than Bulgaria.\n(26)\nMember States other than Bulgaria should support the disease control measures carried out in the affected areas by ensuring that live susceptible animals are not dispatched to those areas.\n(27)\nCouncil Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (23) provides for a mechanism to compensate affected holdings for losses incurred as a result of disease control measures.\n(28)\nThe foot-and-mouth disease situation has been reviewed at the meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health of 12 January 2011 and the measures provided for in Decision 2011/8/EU were adapted in the light of the information received from Bulgaria on the development of the epidemiological situation. Decision 2011/8/EU should therefore be repealed and replaced by this Decision.\n(29)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nLive animals\n1. Bulgaria shall ensure that the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 to 7 of this Article are met, without prejudice to the measures taken by that Member State within the framework of:\n(a)\nDirective 2003/85/EC; and\n(b)\nDecision 2008/855/EC.\n2. No live animals of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and other biungulates shall move between the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II.\n3. No live animals of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and other biungulates shall be dispatched from or moved through the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, the competent authorities of Bulgaria may authorise the direct and uninterrupted transit of biungulate animals through the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II on main roads and railway lines.\n5. The health certificates, as provided for in Directive 64/432/EEC for live bovine animals and, without prejudice to Article 8b and 9 of Decision 2008/855/EC, for porcine animals and in Directive 91/68/EEC for live ovine and caprine animals, accompanying animals consigned from parts of the territory of Bulgaria not listed in Annex I and Annex II to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Animals conforming to Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (24).\n6. The health certificates accompanying biungulates other than those covered by the certificates referred to in paragraph 5, consigned from parts of the territory of Bulgaria not listed in Annex I and Annex II to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Live biungulates conforming to Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (25).\n7. Animals accompanied by an animal health certificate as referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 may be moved to other Member States only if the local veterinary authority in Bulgaria has, 3 days before the move, notified the central and local veterinary authorities in the Member State of destination.\n8. By way of derogation from paragraph 2 the competent authorities of Bulgaria may authorise the transport of animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease from holding situated in areas listed in Annex II to a slaughterhouse situated in the areas listed in Annex I.\n9. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, the competent authority of Bulgaria may authorise the transport of pigs from holdings outside the surveillance zone established in accordance with Article 21 of Directive 2003/85/EC for immediate slaughter at designated slaughterhouses situated in the areas listed in Annex II under the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe pigs originate from holdings in the area listed in Annex I from which consignments of fresh pigmeat and meat preparations and meat products consisting of, or containing meat of those pigs may be dispatched in accordance with Article 6 of Decision 2008/855/EC.\nThe central veterinary authority of Bulgaria shall communicate to the other Member States and to the Commission the list of holdings which they have approved for the purpose of application of this paragraph;\n(b)\nduring the 21 days prior to the date of transport to the slaughterhouse, the animals have remained under the supervision of the competent veterinary authority on a single holding which is situated in the centre of a circle around the holding of at least 10 km radius, where there has been no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease during at least 30 days prior to the date of loading;\n(c)\nno animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease have been introduced into the holding referred to in the introductory sentence of this paragraph during the 21 days prior to the date of loading, except in the case of pigs coming from a supplying holding which complies with the conditions laid down in point (b), in which case the period of 21 days may be reduced to 7 days;\n(d)\nthe transport of pigs is only authorised after the satisfactory completion of the measures provided for in Article 22(2) of Directive 2003/85/EC.\nArticle 2\nMeats\n1. For the purposes of this Article, \u2018meats\u2019 means \u2018fresh meat\u2019, \u2018minced meat\u2019, \u2018mechanically separated meat\u2019 and \u2018meat preparations\u2019 as defined in points 1.10, 1.13, 1.14 and 1.15 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\n2. Bulgaria shall not dispatch meats of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and other biungulates coming from or obtained from animals originating in the areas listed in Annex I.\n3. Meats not eligible for dispatch from Bulgaria in accordance with this Decision shall be marked in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/99/EC or in accordance with Annex IV.\n4. Without prejudice to Articles 6 and 8b of Decision 2008/855/EC, the prohibition set out in paragraph 2 shall not apply to meats bearing the health mark in accordance with Chapter III of Section I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004, provided that:\n(a)\nthe meat is clearly identified, and has been transported and stored since the date of production separately from meat which is not eligible, in accordance with this Decision, for dispatch outside the areas listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nthe meat complies with one of the following conditions:\n(i)\nit was obtained before 9 December 2010; or\n(ii)\nit is derived from animals that have been reared for at least 90 days, or since birth if less than 90 days of age, prior to the date of slaughter and which have been slaughtered, or in the case of meat obtained from wild game of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease killed, outside the areas listed in Annexes I and II; or\n(iii)\nit complies with the conditions set out in points (c), (d) and (e);\n(c)\nthe meat was obtained from domestic ungulates or from farmed game of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease, as specified for the respective category of meat in one of the appropriate columns 4 to 7 in Annex III, and complies with the following conditions:\n(i)\nthe animals have been reared for at least 90 days prior to the date of slaughter, or since birth if less than 90 days of age, on holdings situated within the areas specified in columns 1, 2 and 3 of Annex III, where there has been no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease during at least 90 days prior to the date of slaughter;\n(ii)\nduring the 21 days prior to the date of transport to the slaughterhouse, or in the case of farmed game of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease prior to the date of on-farm slaughtering, the animals have remained under the supervision of the competent veterinary authorities on a single holding which is situated in the centre of a circle around the holding of at least 10 km radius, where there has been no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease during at least 30 days prior to the date of loading;\n(iii)\nno animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease have been introduced into the holding referred to in point (ii) during the 21 days prior to the date of loading, or in the case of farmed game of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease prior to the date of on-farm slaughtering, except in the case of pigs coming from a supplying holding which complies with the conditions laid down in point (ii), in which case the period of 21 days may be reduced to 7 days.\nHowever, the competent authority may authorise the introduction into the holding referred to in point (ii) of animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease which comply with the conditions set out in points (i) and (ii) and which:\n-\ncome from a holding where no animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease have been introduced during the 21 days prior to the date of transport to the holding referred to in point (ii), except in the case of pigs coming from a supplying holding in which case the period of 21 days may be reduced to 7 days; or\n-\nwere subjected with negative results to a test for antibodies against the foot-and-mouth disease virus carried out on a blood sample taken within 10 days prior to the date of transport to the holding referred to in point (ii); or\n-\ncome from a holding that was subjected with negative results to a serological survey pursuant to a sampling protocol suitable to detect 5 % prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease with at least a 95 % level of confidence;\n(iv)\nthe animals or, in the case of farmed game of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease slaughtered on the farm, the carcasses have been transported under official control in means of transport that have been cleansed and disinfected before loading from the holding referred to in point (ii) to the designated slaughterhouse;\n(v)\nthe animals have been slaughtered less than 24 hours following the time of arrival at the slaughterhouse and separately from animals the meat of which is not eligible for dispatch from the area listed in Annex I;\n(d)\nthe meat, if positively marked in column 8 of Annex III, was obtained from wild game of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease, that was killed in areas where there has been no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease for at least a period of 90 days before the date of killing and at a distance of at least 20 km from areas not specified in columns 1, 2 and 3 of Annex III;\n(e)\nmeat referred to in points (c) and (d) must in addition comply with the following conditions:\n(i)\nthe dispatch of such meat is only to be authorised by the competent veterinary authority of Bulgaria, if\n-\nthe animals referred to in point (c)(iv) have been transported to the establishment without contact to holdings situated in areas not specified in columns 1, 2 and 3 of Annex III, and\n-\nthe establishment is not situated in a protection zone;\n(ii)\nthe meat is at all times clearly identified, handled, stored and transported separately from meat which is not eligible for dispatch from the area listed in Annex I;\n(iii)\nduring post-mortem inspection by the official veterinarian in the establishment of dispatch, or in the case of on-farm slaughtering of farmed game of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease on the holding referred to in point (c)(ii), or in the case of wild game of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease at the game-handling establishment, no clinical signs or post-mortem evidence of foot-and-mouth disease were established;\n(iv)\nthe meat has remained in the establishments or holdings referred to in point (e)(iii) for at least 24 hours following the post-mortem inspection of the animals referred to in points (c) and (d);\n(v)\nany further preparation of meat for dispatch outside the area listed in Annex I shall be suspended:\n-\nin the case where foot-and-mouth disease has been diagnosed in the establishments or holdings referred to in point (e)(iii), until the slaughter of all animals present and the removal of all meat and dead animals has been completed, and at least 24 hours have elapsed since the completion of the total cleansing and disinfection of those establishments and holdings under the control of an official veterinarian, and\n-\nin the case of slaughter in the same establishment of animals susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease coming from holdings situated in areas listed in Annex I that do not comply with the conditions set out in point 4(c) or (d), until the slaughter of all such animals and the cleansing and disinfection of those establishments have been completed under the control of an official veterinarian;\n(vi)\nthe central veterinary authorities shall communicate to the other Member States and the Commission a list of those establishments and holdings which they have approved for the purposes of application of points (c), (d) and (e).\n5. Compliance with the conditions set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be checked by the competent veterinary authority under the supervision of the central veterinary authorities.\n6. Without prejudice to Articles 6 and 8b of Decision 2008/855/EC, the prohibition set out in paragraph 2 of this Article shall not apply to fresh meat obtained from animals reared outside the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II and transported, by way of derogation from Article 1(2) and (3), directly and under official control without contact to holdings situated in areas listed in Annex I to a slaughterhouse situated in the areas listed in Annex I outside the protection zone for immediate slaughter, provided that such fresh meat is only placed on the market in the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II and complies with the following conditions:\n(a)\nall such fresh meat is marked in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/99/EC or in accordance with Annex IV to this Decision;\n(b)\nthe slaughterhouse:\n(i)\nis operated under strict veterinary control;\n(ii)\nsuspends any further preparation of meat for dispatch outside the areas listed in Annex I in the case of slaughter in the same slaughterhouse of animals susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease coming from holdings situated in areas listed in Annex I until the slaughter of all such animals and the cleansing and disinfection of the slaughterhouse have been completed under the control of an official veterinarian;\n(c)\nthe fresh meat is clearly identified, and transported and stored separately from meat which is eligible for dispatch outside Bulgaria.\nCompliance with the conditions set out in the first subparagraph shall be checked by the competent veterinary authority under the supervision of the central veterinary authorities.\nThe central veterinary authority of Bulgaria shall communicate to the Commission and to the other Member States the list of the establishments which they have approved for the purposes of application of this paragraph.\n7. Without prejudice to Article 6 of Decision 2008/855/EC, the prohibition set out in paragraph 2 shall not apply to fresh meat obtained from cutting plants situated in the areas listed in Annex I under the following conditions:\n(a)\nonly fresh meat as described in paragraph 4(b) is processed in that cutting plant, on the same day.\nCleansing and disinfection shall be carried out after processing of any meat not meeting this requirement;\n(b)\nall meat bears the health mark in accordance with Chapter III of Section I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004;\n(c)\nthe cutting plant is operated under strict veterinary control;\n(d)\nthe fresh meat is clearly identified, and transported and stored separately from meat which is not eligible for dispatch outside the areas listed in Annex I.\nCompliance with the conditions set out in the first subparagraph shall be checked by the competent veterinary authority under the supervision of the central veterinary authorities.\nThe central veterinary authority of Bulgaria shall communicate to the other Member States and the Commission the list of the establishments which they have approved for the purpose of application of this paragraph.\n8. Meat dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall be accompanied by an official certificate, which shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Meat conforming to Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (26).\n9. Without prejudice to Articles 6 and 8b of Decision 2008/855/EC, the prohibition set out in paragraph 2 of this Article shall not apply to fresh meat obtained from pigs reared in the areas listed in Annex I and transported in accordance with Article 1(9) to a slaughterhouse situated in the areas listed in Annex II for immediate slaughter, provided that such fresh meat complies with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe fresh meat is marked in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/99/EC or in accordance with Annex IV to this Decision and is placed on the market only in the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II;\n(b)\nthe slaughterhouse:\n(i)\nis operated under veterinary control;\n(ii)\nsuspends any further preparation of meat for dispatch outside the areas listed in Annex I in the case of slaughter in the same slaughterhouse of animals susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease coming from other holdings situated in areas listed in Annex I until the slaughter of all such animals and the cleansing and disinfection of the slaughterhouse have been completed under the control of an official veterinarian;\n(c)\nthe fresh meat is clearly identified and is transported and stored separately from meat which is eligible for dispatch outside Bulgaria.\nCompliance with the conditions set out in paragraph 1 shall be checked by the competent veterinary authority under the supervision of the central veterinary authorities.\nThe central veterinary authority of Bulgaria shall communicate to the other Member States and to the Commission the list of the establishments which they have approved for the purpose of application of this paragraph.\nArticle 3\nMeat products\n1. Bulgaria shall not dispatch meat products, including treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, of animals of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and other biungulates (\u2018meat products\u2019) coming from the areas listed in Annex I or prepared using meat obtained from animals originating in those areas.\n2. Without prejudice to Articles 6 and 8b of Decision 2008/855/EC, the prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to meat products, including treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, bearing the health mark in accordance with Chapter III of Section I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004, provided that the meat products:\n(a)\nare clearly identified and have been transported and stored since the date of production separately from meat products not eligible, in accordance with this Decision, for dispatch outside the areas listed in Annex I;\n(b)\ncomply with one of the following conditions:\n(i)\nthey are made from meats described in Article 2(4)(b); or\n(ii)\nthey have undergone at least one of the relevant treatments laid down for foot-and-mouth disease in Part 1 of Annex III to Directive 2002/99/EC.\nCompliance with the conditions set out in the first subparagraph shall be checked by the competent veterinary authority under the supervision of the central veterinary authorities.\nThe central veterinary authorities shall communicate to the other Member States and the Commission a list of the establishments which they have approved for the purpose of application of this paragraph.\n3. Meat products dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall be accompanied by an official certificate, which shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Meat products, including treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, conforming to Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (27).\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 3 it shall be sufficient, in the case of meat products which comply with the requirements of paragraph 2 and have been processed in an establishment operating Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and an auditable standard operating procedure which ensures that standards for treatment are met and recorded, that compliance with the conditions required for the treatment laid down in point (b)(ii) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 is stated in the commercial document accompanying the consignment, endorsed in accordance with Article 9(1).\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 3 it shall be sufficient, in the case of meat products heat treated in accordance with point (b)(ii) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 in hermetically sealed containers so as to ensure that they are shelf stable, to be accompanied by a commercial document stating the heat treatment applied.\nArticle 4\nColostrums and milk\n1. Bulgaria shall not dispatch colostrums and milk from animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease intended or not intended for human consumption from the areas listed in Annex I.\n2. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to milk produced from bovine, ovine and caprine animals kept in areas listed in Annex I which has been subjected to a treatment in accordance with:\n(a)\nPart A of Annex IX to Directive 2003/85/EC, if the milk is intended for human consumption; or\n(b)\nPart B of Annex IX to Directive 2003/85/EC, if the milk is not intended for human consumption or is intended for feeding to animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease.\n3. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to milk from bovine, ovine and caprine animals prepared in establishments situated in the areas listed in Annex I under the following conditions:\n(a)\nall milk used in the establishment must either conform to the conditions set out in paragraph 2 or be obtained from animals reared and milked outside the areas listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nthe establishment is operated under strict veterinary control;\n(c)\nthe milk must be clearly identified, and transported and stored separately from milk and dairy products which are not eligible for dispatch outside the areas listed in Annex I;\n(d)\ntransport of raw milk from holdings situated outside the areas listed in Annex I to the establishments situated in the areas listed in Annex I is carried out in vehicles which were cleansed and disinfected prior to operation and had no subsequent contact with holdings in the areas listed in Annex I keeping animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease.\nCompliance with the conditions set out in the first subparagraph shall be checked by the competent veterinary authority under the supervision of the central veterinary authorities.\nThe central veterinary authorities shall communicate to the other Member States and the Commission a list of the establishments which they have approved for the purpose of application of this paragraph.\n4. Milk dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall be accompanied by an official certificate, which shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Milk conforming to Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (28).\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 4 it shall be sufficient, in the case of milk which complies with the requirements of paragraph 2 and has been processed in an establishment operating HACCP and an auditable standard operating procedure which ensures that standards for treatment are met and recorded, that compliance with those requirements is stated in the commercial document accompanying the consignment, endorsed in accordance with Article 9(1).\n6. By way of derogation from paragraph 4 it shall be sufficient, in the case of milk which complies with the requirements in paragraph 2(a) or (b) and which has been heat treated in hermetically sealed containers so as to ensure that it is shelf stable, to be accompanied by a commercial document stating the heat treatment applied.\nArticle 5\nDairy products\n1. Bulgaria shall not dispatch dairy products produced from colostrums and milk from animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease intended or not intended for human consumption from the areas listed in Annex I.\n2. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to dairy products:\n(a)\nproduced before 9 December 2010; or\n(b)\nprepared from milk complying with the provisions in Article 4(2) or (3); or\n(c)\nfor export to a third country where import conditions permit such products to be subject to treatment other than those laid down in Article 4(2) which ensures the inactivation of the foot-and-mouth disease virus.\n3. Without prejudice to Chapter II of Section IX of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, the prohibition set out in paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply to the following dairy products intended for human consumption:\n(a)\ndairy products produced from milk of a controlled pH less than 7 and subject to a heat treatment at a temperature of at least 72 \u00b0C for at least 15 seconds, on the understanding that such treatment was not necessary for finished products, the ingredients of which comply with the respective animal health conditions laid down in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of this Decision;\n(b)\ndairy products produced from raw milk of bovine, ovine or caprine animals which have been resident for at least 30 days on a holding situated, within an area listed in Annex I, in the centre of a circle of at least 10 km radius in which no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred during 30 days prior to the date of production of the raw milk, and subject to a maturation or ripening process of at least 90 days during which the pH is lowered below 6.0 throughout the substance, and the rind of which has been treated with 0,2 % citric acid immediately prior to wrapping or packaging.\n4. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to dairy products prepared in establishments situated in the areas listed in Annex I under the following conditions:\n(a)\nall milk used in the establishment either complies with the conditions laid down in Article 4(2) or is obtained from animals outside the areas listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nall dairy products used in the final products either comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 2(a) and (b) or paragraph 3 or are made from milk obtained from animals outside the areas listed in Annex I;\n(c)\nthe establishment is operated under strict veterinary control;\n(d)\nthe dairy products are clearly identified and transported and stored separately from milk and dairy products which are not eligible for dispatch outside the areas listed in Annex I.\nCompliance with the conditions set out in the first subparagraph shall be checked by the competent authority under the responsibility of the central veterinary authorities.\nThe central veterinary authorities shall communicate to the other Member States and the Commission a list of the establishments which they have approved for the purposes of application of this paragraph.\n5. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to dairy products prepared in establishment situated outside the areas listed in Annex I using milk obtained before 9 December 2010, provided that the dairy products are clearly identified and transported and stored separately from dairy products which are not eligible for dispatch outside those areas.\n6. Dairy products dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall be accompanied by an official certificate, which shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Dairy products conforming to Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (29).\n7. By way of derogation from paragraph 6 it shall be sufficient, in the case of dairy products which comply with the requirements of paragraph 2(a) and (b) and paragraphs 3 and 4 and have been processed in an establishment operating HACCP and an auditable standard operating procedure which ensures that standards for treatment are met and recorded, that compliance with those requirements is stated in the commercial document accompanying the consignment, endorsed in accordance with Article 9(1).\n8. By way of derogation from paragraph 6 it shall be sufficient, in the case of dairy products which comply with the requirements of paragraph 2(a) and (b) and paragraphs 3 and 4 and which have been heat treated in hermetically sealed containers so as to ensure that they are shelf stable, to be accompanied by a commercial document stating the heat treatment applied.\nArticle 6\nSemen, ova and embryos\n1. Bulgaria shall not dispatch semen, ova and embryos of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and other biungulates (\u2018semen, ova and embryos\u2019) from the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 5 of Decision 2008/855/EC, the prohibitions set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nsemen, ova and embryos produced before 9 December 2010;\n(b)\nfrozen bovine semen and in-vivo derived embryos, frozen porcine semen, and frozen ovine and caprine semen and embryos imported into Bulgaria in accordance with the conditions laid down in Directives 88/407/EEC, 89/556/EEC, 90/429/EEC or 92/65/EEC respectively, and which since their introduction into Bulgaria have been stored and transported separately from semen, ova and embryos not eligible for dispatch in accordance with paragraph 1;\n(c)\nfrozen semen and embryos obtained from bovine, porcine, ovine and caprine animals kept for at least 90 days prior to the date of and during collection outside the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II and which:\n(i)\nhave been be stored in approved conditions for a minimum period of 30 days prior to the date of dispatch; and\n(ii)\nhave been collected from donor animals standing in centres or on holdings which have been free from foot-and-mouth disease for at least 3 months prior to the date of collection of the semen or embryos and 30 days after the date of collection and which are situated in the centre of an area of 10 kilometres radius in which there has been no case of foot-and-mouth disease for at least 30 days prior to the date of collection.\n(d)\nBefore the dispatch of the semen or embryos referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) the central veterinary authorities shall communicate to the other Member States and the Commission a list of centres and teams approved for the purpose of application of this paragraph.\n3. The health certificate provided for in Directive 88/407/EEC and accompanying frozen bovine semen dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Frozen bovine semen conforming to Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (30).\n4. Without prejudice to Article 9(b) of Decision 2008/855/EC, the health certificate provided for in Directive 90/429/EEC and accompanying frozen porcine semen dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Frozen porcine semen conforming to Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (31).\n5. The health certificate provided for in Directive 89/556/EEC and accompanying bovine in-vivo derived embryos dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Bovine in-vivo derived embryos conforming to Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (32).\n6. The health certificate provided for in Directive 92/65/EEC and accompanying frozen ovine or caprine semen dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Frozen ovine/caprine semen conforming to Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (33).\n7. The health certificate provided for in Directive 92/65/EEC and accompanying frozen ovine or caprine embryos dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Frozen ovine/caprine embryos conforming to Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (34).\n8. Without prejudice to Article 9(c) of Decision 2008/855/EC, the health certificate provided for in Directive 92/65/EEC and accompanying frozen porcine embryos dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Frozen porcine embryos conforming to Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (35).\nArticle 7\nHides and skins\n1. Bulgaria shall not dispatch hides and skins of animals of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and of other biungulates (\u2018hides and skins\u2019) from the areas listed in Annex I.\n2. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to hides and skins which:\n(a)\nwere produced in Bulgaria before 9 December 2010; or\n(b)\ncomply with the requirements provided for in point 2(c) or (d) of Part A of Chapter VI of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002; or\n(c)\nwere produced outside the areas listed in Annex I in accordance with the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, and have since introduction into Bulgaria been stored and transported separately from hides and skins not eligible for dispatch in accordance with paragraph 1.\nTreated hides and skins shall be separated from untreated hides and skins of animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease.\n3. Bulgaria shall ensure that hides and skins to be dispatched to other Member States shall be accompanied by an official certificate which bears the following words:\n\u2018Hides and skins conforming to Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (36).\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 3 it shall be sufficient, in the case of hides and skins which comply with the requirements of points (1)(b) to (e) of Part A of Chapter VI of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, to be accompanied by a commercial document stating compliance with those requirements.\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 3 it shall be sufficient, in the case of hides and skins which comply with the requirements of point 2(c) or (d) of Part A of Chapter VI of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, that compliance with those requirements is stated in the commercial document accompanying the consignment, endorsed in accordance with Article 9(1).\nArticle 8\nOther animal products\n1. Bulgaria shall not dispatch products of animals of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and other biungulates not mentioned in Articles 2 to 7 produced after 9 December 2010 and coming from the areas listed in Annex I, or obtained from animals originating in the areas listed in Annex I.\nBulgaria shall not dispatch dung and manure of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and other biungulates from the areas listed in Annex I.\n2. The prohibition set out in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nanimal products which:\n(i)\nhave been subjected to a heat treatment:\n-\nin a hermetically sealed container with a Fo value of 3,00 or more, or\n-\nin which the centre temperature is raised to at least 70 \u00b0C; or\n(ii)\nwere produced outside the areas listed in Annex I in accordance with the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, and which since introduction into Bulgaria have been stored and transported separately from animal products not eligible for dispatch in accordance with paragraph 1;\n(b)\nblood and blood products as defined in points 4 and 5 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 which have been subjected to at least one of the treatments provided for in point 4(a) of Part A of Chapter IV of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, followed by an effectiveness check, or have been imported in accordance with Part A of Chapter IV of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002;\n(c)\nlard and rendered fats which have been subject to the heat treatment prescribed in point 2(d)(iv) of Part B of Chapter IV of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002;\n(d)\nanimal casings complying with the conditions in Part A of Chapter 2 of Annex I to Directive 92/118/EEC and which have been cleaned, scraped and then either salted, bleached or dried, followed by steps to prevent the recontamination of the casings;\n(e)\nsheep wool, ruminant hair and pigs bristles which have undergone factory washing or have been obtained from tanning and unprocessed sheep wool, ruminant hair and pigs bristles which are securely enclosed in packaging and dry;\n(f)\npetfood conforming to the requirements of points 2, 3 and 4 of Part B of Chapter II of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002;\n(g)\ncomposite products which are not subject to further treatment containing products of animal origin, on the understanding that the treatment was not necessary for finished products, the ingredients of which comply with the respective animal health conditions laid down in this Decision;\n(h)\ngame trophies in accordance with points 1, 3 or 4 of Part A of Chapter VII of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002;\n(i)\npacked animal products intended for use as in-vitro diagnostic, laboratory reagents;\n(j)\nmedicinal products as defined in Directive 2001/83/EC, medical devices manufactured utilising animal tissue which is rendered non-viable as referred to in Article 1(5)(g) of Directive 93/42/EEC, veterinary medicinal products as defined in Directive 2001/82/EC, and investigational medicinal products as defined in Directive 2001/20/EC.\n3. Bulgaria shall ensure that the animal products referred to in paragraph 2 to be dispatched to other Member States shall be accompanied by an official certificate which bears the following words:\n\u2018Animal products conforming to Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (37).\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, it shall be sufficient, in the case of the products referred to in paragraph 2(a) to (d) and (f) of this Article that compliance with the conditions for the treatment stated in the commercial document required in accordance with the respective Union legislation is endorsed in accordance with Article 9(1).\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 3 it shall be sufficient, in the case of products referred to in paragraph 2(e) to be accompanied by a commercial document stating either the factory washing or origin from tanning or compliance with the conditions laid down in points 1 and 4 of Part A of Chapter VIII of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.\n6. By way of derogation from paragraph 3 it shall be sufficient, in the case of products referred to in paragraph 2(g) which have been produced in an establishment operating HACCP and an auditable standard operating procedure which ensures that pre-processed ingredients comply with the respective animal health conditions laid down in this Decision, that this is stated on the commercial document accompanying the consignment, endorsed in accordance with Article 9(1).\n7. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, it shall be sufficient, in the case of products referred to in paragraph 2(i) and (j), to be accompanied by a commercial document stating that the products are for use as in-vitro diagnostic, laboratory reagents, medical products or medical devices, provided that the products are clearly labelled \u2018for in-vitro diagnostic use only\u2019 or \u2018for laboratory use only\u2019, as \u2018medicinal products\u2019 or as \u2018medical devices\u2019.\n8. Derogating from the provisions in paragraph 3, it shall be sufficient, in the case of composite products that fulfil the conditions set out in Article 6(1) of Decision 2007/275/EC that they are accompanied by a commercial document, which bears the following words:\n\u2018These composite products are shelf stable at ambient temperature or have clearly undergone in their manufacture a complete cooking or heat treatment process throughout their substance, so that any raw material is de-natured\u2019.\nArticle 9\nCertification\n1. Where reference is made to this paragraph, the competent authorities of Bulgaria shall ensure that the commercial document required by Union legislation for trade between Member States is endorsed by the attachment of a copy of an official certificate stating that:\n(a)\nthe products concerned have been produced:\n(i)\nin a production process that has been audited and found in compliance with the appropriate requirements in Union animal health legislation and suitable to destroy the foot-and-mouth disease virus; or\n(ii)\nfrom pre-processed materials which had been certified accordingly; and\n(b)\nprovisions are in place to avoid possible re-contamination with the foot-and-mouth disease virus after treatment.\nSuch certification of the production process shall bear a reference to this Decision, shall be valid for 30 days, shall state the expiry date and shall be renewable after inspection of the establishment.\n2. In case of products for retail sale to the final consumer, the competent authorities of Bulgaria may authorise consolidated consignments of animal products other than fresh meat, minced meat, mechanically separated meat and meat preparations, each of which is eligible for dispatch in accordance with this Decision, to be accompanied by a commercial document endorsed by the attachment of a copy of an official veterinary certificate confirming that:\n(a)\nthe premises of dispatch have in place a system to ensure that goods can only be dispatched if they are traceable to documentary evidence of compliance with this Decision; and\n(b)\nthe system referred to in (a) has been audited and found satisfactory.\nSuch certification of the traceability system shall bear a reference to this Decision, shall be valid for 30 days, shall state the expiry date and shall be renewable only after the establishment had been audited with satisfactory results.\nThe competent authorities of Bulgaria shall communicate to the other Member States and the Commission the list of establishments which they have approved for the purpose of application of this paragraph.\nArticle 10\nCleansing and disinfection\n1. Without prejudice to Article 11 of Decision 2008/855/EC, Bulgaria shall ensure that vehicles which have been used for the transport of live animals in the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II are cleansed and disinfected after each operation, and that such cleansing and disinfection is recorded in accordance with Article 12(2)(d) of Directive 64/432/EEC.\n2. Bulgaria shall ensure that vehicles which have been used within the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II for the transport of animals and parts of animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease referred to in Article 5(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 and of other animal by-products and processed animal by-products derived from animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease are cleansed and disinfected after each operation, and that such cleansing and disinfection and all contacts with holdings keeping animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease are recorded in the journey log of the vehicle concerned.\nArticle 11\nCertain exempted products\nThe restrictions laid down in Articles 3, 4, 5 and 8 shall not apply to the dispatch from the areas listed in Annex I of the animal products referred to in those Articles if such products were:\n(a)\nnot produced in Bulgaria and remained in their original packaging indicating the country of origin of the products; or\n(b)\nproduced in an approved establishment situated in the areas listed in Annex I from pre-processed products not originating from those areas, which:\n(i)\nhave, since introduction into the territory of Bulgaria, been transported, stored and processed separately from products which are not eligible for dispatch outside the areas listed in Annex I;\n(ii)\nare accompanied by a commercial document or official certificate as required by this Decision.\nArticle 12\nCooperation between Member States\nMember States shall cooperate in monitoring personal luggage of passengers travelling from the areas listed in Annex I and in information campaigns carried out to prevent introduction of products of animal origin into the territory of Member States other than Bulgaria.\nArticle 13\nMeasures to be taken by Member States other than Bulgaria\n1. Without prejudice to Article 1(4), Member States other than Bulgaria shall ensure that live animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease are not dispatched to the areas listed in Annex I.\n2. Member States other than Bulgaria shall take appropriate precautionary measures in relation to susceptible animals dispatched from Bulgaria between 9 December 2010 and 6 January 2011. Those measures may include any of the following:\n(a)\nisolation and clinical inspection;\n(b)\nwhere necessary, laboratory testing to detect or rule out infection with the foot-and-mouth disease virus.\nArticle 14\nImplementation\nMember States shall amend the measures which they apply to trade so as to bring them into compliance with this Decision. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.\nArticle 15\nRepeal\nDecision 2011/8/EU is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Decision shall be construed as references to this Decision.\nArticle 16\nThis Decision shall apply until 31 March 2011.\nArticle 17\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 January 2011.", "references": ["98", "64", "45", "40", "79", "33", "20", "55", "70", "6", "9", "49", "36", "57", "43", "39", "87", "44", "78", "29", "85", "31", "18", "4", "26", "30", "68", "99", "82", "65", "No Label", "21", "23", "38", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "23", "38", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 12/2011\nof 7 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 January 2011.", "references": ["98", "24", "3", "66", "93", "13", "6", "74", "19", "9", "38", "20", "89", "96", "63", "55", "26", "78", "34", "65", "45", "86", "88", "17", "14", "33", "16", "5", "76", "49", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUSEC/1/2010\nof 18 May 2010\non the establishment of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union Mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of Congo (EUSEC RD Congo)\n(2010/297/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2009/709/CFSP of 15 September 2009 on the European Union mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of Congo (EUSEC RD Congo) (1), and in particular Article 10(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 10(3) of Joint Action 2009/709/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take relevant decisions on the establishment of a Committee of Contributors (CoC) for EUSEC RD Congo.\n(2)\nThe European Council Conclusions of G\u00f6teborg of 15 and 16 June 2001 established guiding principles and modalities for third State\u2019s contributions to police missions. On 10 December 2002, the Council approved the document entitled \u2018Consultations and Modalities for the Contributions of non-EU States to EU civilian crisis management operations\u2019 which further developed the arrangements for the participation of third States in civilian crisis management operations, including the establishment of a Committee of Contributors.\n(3)\nThe CoC will play a key role in the day-to-day management of EUSEC RD Congo. It will be the main forum for discussing all problems relating to the day-to-day management of the Mission. The PSC, which exercises the political control and strategic direction of the Mission, is to take account of the views expressed by the CoC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEstablishment\nA Committee of Contributors (CoC) for the European Union Mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of Congo (EUSEC RD Congo) is hereby established.\nArticle 2\nFunctions\n1. The CoC may express views which shall be taken into account by the PSC which exercises the political control and strategic direction of EUSEC RD Congo.\n2. The terms of reference of the CoC are laid down in the document entitled \u2018Consultations and Modalities for the Contribution of non-EU States to EU civilian crisis management operations\u2019.\nArticle 3\nComposition\n1. All EU Member States are entitled to be present at the CoC\u2019s discussions but only contributing States shall take part in the day-to-day management of EUSEC RD CONGO. Representatives of the third States participating in EUSEC RD CONGO may attend the CoC\u2019s meetings. A representative of the European Commission may also attend the CoC\u2019s meetings.\n2. The CoC shall receive regular information from the Head of Mission.\nArticle 4\nChair\nThe CoC shall be chaired by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or by his or her representative.\nArticle 5\nMeetings\n1. The CoC shall be convened by the Chair on a regular basis. Where circumstances require, emergency meetings may be convened on the Chair\u2019s initiative, or at the request of a member.\n2. The Chair shall circulate in advance a provisional agenda and documents relating to the meeting. The Chair shall be responsible for conveying the outcome of the CoC\u2019s discussions to the PSC.\nArticle 6\nConfidentiality\n1. In accordance with Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 (2), the Council\u2019s security regulations shall apply to the meetings and proceedings of the CoC. In particular, representatives in the CoC shall possess adequate security clearance.\n2. The deliberations of the CoC shall be covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, except insofar as the CoC unanimously decides otherwise.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 May 2010.", "references": ["41", "87", "8", "74", "11", "27", "97", "33", "16", "12", "81", "43", "75", "79", "88", "24", "89", "44", "84", "85", "50", "67", "17", "57", "13", "6", "98", "59", "10", "40", "No Label", "1", "4", "7", "9", "94"], "gold": ["1", "4", "7", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 509/2012\nof 15 June 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 January 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (2) with a view to giving effect to most of the measures provided for in Decision 2011/782/CFSP.\n(2)\nIn view of the continued brutal repression and violation of human rights by the Government of Syria, Council Decision 2012/206/CFSP (3), amending Decision 2011/782/CFSP, provides for additional measures, namely a prohibition or prior authorisation requirement on the sale, supply, transfer or export of goods and technology which might be used for internal repression, and a ban on exports of luxury goods to Syria.\n(3)\nThose measures fall within the scope of the Treaty and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(4)\nTherefore, Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should be amended to give effect to the new measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 36/2012 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 2a\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, equipment, goods or technology which might be used for internal repression or for the manufacture and maintenance of products which might be used for internal repression, as listed in Annex IA, whether or not originating in the Union, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(b)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in point (a).\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities in the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex III, may grant, under such terms and conditions as they deem appropriate, an authorisation for a transaction in relation to equipment, goods or technology as listed in Annex IA, provided that the equipment, goods or technology are for food, agricultural, medical or other humanitarian purposes.\nArticle 2b\n1. A prior authorisation shall be required for the sale, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, of equipment, goods or technology which might be used for internal repression or for the manufacture and maintenance of products which might be used for internal repression, as listed in Annex IX, whether or not originating in the Union, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria.\n2. The competent authorities in the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex III, shall not grant any authorisation for any sale, supply, transfer or export of the equipment, goods or technology listed in Annex IX, if they have reasonable grounds to determine that the equipment, goods or technology the sale, supply, transfer or export of which is in question is or might be used for internal repression or for the manufacture and maintenance of products which might be used for internal repression.\n3. The authorisation shall be granted by the competent authorities of the Member State where the exporter is established and shall be in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (4). The authorisation shall be valid throughout the Union.\n(2)\nArticle 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List of the European Union (5) (\u201cCommon Military List\u201d) or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of goods included in that list, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to equipment, goods or technology which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annexes I and IA, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(c)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List or in Annexes I and IA, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for any provision of related technical assistance to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(d)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) to (c).\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the prohibitions referred to therein shall not apply to the provision of technical assistance, financing and financial assistance related to:\n-\ntechnical assistance intended solely for the support of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF),\n-\nnon-lethal military equipment, or equipment which might be used for internal repression, intended solely for humanitarian purposes or protective use or for institution building programmes of the UN and the Union, or for Union or UN crisis management operations, or\n-\nnon-combat vehicles fitted with materials to provide ballistic protection, intended solely for the protective use of personnel of the Union and its Member States in Syria,\nprovided that such provision shall first have been approved by the competent authority of a Member State, as identified on the websites listed in Annex III.\n3. By way of derogation from point (b) of paragraph 1, the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex III, may grant, under such terms and conditions as they deem appropriate, an authorisation for technical assistance or brokering services related to equipment, goods or technology, as listed in Annex IA, provided that the equipment, goods or technology are for food, agricultural, medical or other humanitarian purposes.\nThe Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission, within four weeks, of any authorisation granted under the first subparagraph.\n4. Prior authorisation from the competent authority of the relevant Member State, as identified on the websites listed in Annex III, shall be required for the provision of:\n(a)\ntechnical assistance or brokering services related to equipment, goods or technology listed in Annex IX, and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of such equipment, goods or technology, directly or indirectly to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(b)\nfinancing or financial assistance related to goods and technology listed in Annex IX, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such goods and technology, or for any provision of related technical assistance to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria.\nThe competent authorities shall not grant any authorisation for the transactions referred to in the first subparagraph, if they have reasonable grounds to determine that those transactions are or may be intended to contribute to internal repression or for the manufacture and maintenance of products which might be used for internal repression.\n(3)\nthe following article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 11b\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, luxury goods as listed in Annex X, to Syria;\n(b)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities whose object or effect is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the prohibition referred to in point (a).\n2. By way of derogation from point (a) of paragraph 1, the prohibition referred to therein shall not apply to goods of a non-commercial nature, for personal use, contained in travellers\u2019 luggage.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe text set out in Annex I to this Regulation is added to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 as Annex IA.\nArticle 3\nThe text set out in Annex II to this Regulation is added to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 as Annex IX.\nArticle 4\nThe text set out in Annex III to this Regulation is added to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 as Annex X.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 15 June 2012.", "references": ["73", "97", "46", "67", "82", "69", "58", "74", "22", "68", "10", "72", "43", "85", "42", "47", "5", "88", "84", "56", "66", "62", "32", "41", "31", "15", "51", "1", "17", "89", "No Label", "3", "23", "76", "90", "95"], "gold": ["3", "23", "76", "90", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1101/2010\nof 26 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 November 2010.", "references": ["17", "50", "74", "56", "66", "51", "33", "96", "58", "13", "89", "43", "44", "70", "11", "49", "1", "69", "8", "62", "94", "82", "75", "14", "36", "99", "23", "3", "83", "29", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 July 2012\non measure SA.34440 (12/C) implemented by Luxembourg concerning the sale of Dexia BIL\n(notified under document C(2012) 5264)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/836/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the above Articles (2) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy decision of 19 November 2008 (3), the Commission decided not to raise any objections to the emergency measures concerning a liquidity assistance operation (hereinafter: \u2018LA operation\u2019) and a guarantee for certain of Dexia\u2019s liabilities (4). The Commission considered these measures to be rescue aid to an undertaking in difficulty and therefore compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, and authorised the measures for a period of six months from 3 October 2008, specifying that after that time the Commission would re-evaluate the aid as a structural measure.\n(2)\nBelgium, France and Luxembourg (hereinafter: \u2018the Member States concerned\u2019) notified to the Commission an initial restructuring plan for Dexia on 16, 17 and 18 February 2009 respectively.\n(3)\nBy decision of 13 March 2009, the Commission decided to open the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU on all the aid measures granted to Dexia SA (5).\n(4)\nBy decision of 30 October 2009 (6), the Commission authorised the extension of the guarantee referred to in recital (1) until 28 February 2010 or until the date of the Commission decision concerning the compatibility of the aid measures and the restructuring plan for Dexia.\n(5)\nOn 9 February 2010 the Member States concerned sent the Commission information on the additional measures planned to supplement the initial restructuring plan notified in February 2009.\n(6)\nBy decision of 26 February 2010 (7), the Commission authorised the restructuring plan for Dexia and the conversion of the rescue aid into restructuring aid on condition that all the commitments and conditions established by the decision were complied with.\n(7)\nSince the summer of 2011 Dexia has encountered further difficulties and the Member States concerned have envisaged additional aid measures.\n(8)\nBy decision of 17 October 2011 (8), the Commission decided to open a formal investigation procedure into the measure involving the sale by Dexia SA of Dexia Bank Belgium (hereinafter: \u2018DBB\u2019) and its acquisition by the Belgian State. In the interest of preserving financial stability, the Commission also decided to temporarily approve the measure. The measure is therefore approved for six months from the date of the decision in question or, if Belgium submits a restructuring plan within six months of that date, until such time as the Commission adopts a final decision on the measure.\n(9)\nOn 18 October 2011 the Member States concerned informed the Commission of a set of potential new measures for a new plan for the restructuring or dismantling of Dexia. As part of the set of new measures, on 21 October 2011 Belgium notified to the Commission a measure involving recourse by DBB to the emergency liquidity assistance (hereinafter: \u2018ELA\u2019) with a guarantee by the Belgian State. The measure enables DBB to grant financing to Dexia Cr\u00e9dit Local SA (hereinafter: \u2018DCL\u2019).\n(10)\nOn 14 December 2011 France, Belgium and Luxembourg also notified to the Commission, as part of the set of new measures, a draft temporary guarantee by the Member States concerned on the refinancing of Dexia SA and DCL (hereinafter: \u2018temporary refinancing guarantee\u2019).\n(11)\nBy decision of 21 December 2011 (hereinafter: \u2018opening decision on additional aid for the restructuring of Dexia\u2019) (9), in the interest of preserving financial stability, the Commission decided to temporarily approve the temporary refinancing guarantee until 31 May 2012. However, with this Decision, the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in relation to all the additional measures for the restructuring of Dexia (including the temporary refinancing guarantee) since the adoption of the conditional decision and asked the Member States concerned to notify to it, within three months, a restructuring plan for Dexia or, if Dexia\u2019s viability could be restored, an orderly resolution plan for Dexia.\n(12)\nOn 21 and 22 March 2012 the Member States concerned notified to the Commission an orderly resolution plan for Dexia.\n(13)\nOn 25 May 2012 the Member States concerned notified to the Commission a request to extend the temporary refinancing guarantee. On 31 May 2012 the Commission adopted two decisions.\n(14)\nIn the first decision (hereinafter: \u2018the decision to extend the procedure\u2019), the Commission decided to extend the formal investigation procedure relating to the Dexia group in order to examine the orderly resolution plan for the Dexia group submitted by Belgium, France and Luxembourg on 21 and 22 March 2012 (10).\n(15)\nIn the second decision (hereinafter: \u2018the decision to extend the guarantee\u2019) (11), the Commission temporarily approved, until it takes a final decision on the orderly resolution plan for Dexia, an extension until 30 September 2012 of the period for issuing the temporary guarantee by the Member States concerned in relation to the refinancing of Dexia SA and DCL, while at the same time extending the formal investigation procedure to this measure.\n(16)\nOn 5 June 2012 the Member States concerned notified to the Commission an increase in the ceiling of the temporary guarantee to the maximum amount of principal of EUR 55 billion. In its decision of 6 June 2012 (12), the Commission temporarily approved, until it takes a final decision on the orderly resolution plan for Dexia, the increase in the guarantee ceiling.\n(17)\nOn 6 October 2011 Dexia SA announced in a press release (13) that it had entered into exclusive negotiations with a group of international investors, in which the State of Luxembourg would participate, with a view to the sale of Dexia Banque Internationale \u00e0 Luxembourg (hereinafter: \u2018Dexia BIL\u2019). The board of the Dexia group was to express its opinion on the content of any offer at the end of the exclusivity period.\n(18)\nOn 18 December 2011 the Commission was informed that a binding Memorandum of Understanding on the sale of Dexia SA\u2019s 99,906 % holding in Dexia BIL was about to be concluded. Under the Memorandum of Understanding, Precision Capital SA, a Qatari investment group, was to acquire 90 % of the holding, and the remaining 10 % was to be acquired by Luxembourg. Certain of Dexia BIL\u2019s assets are excluded from the scope of the sale.\n(19)\nThe sale of Dexia BIL was not part of the measures approved by the Commission under the restructuring plan for Dexia approved on 26 February 2010. Nor was it covered by the formal investigation procedure opened by the Commission decision of 21 December 2011 concerning the restructuring measures notified to the Commission after that date.\n(20)\nThe sale of Dexia BIL had already been brought to the Commission\u2019s attention before 21 December 2011. The sale of Dexia BIL will therefore be analysed by the Commission separately from the restructuring of Dexia, not only because of the need to establish legal certainty as quickly as possible, but also and above all because the sale of Dexia BIL is independent from the restructuring of the group in the light of the aid measures that were temporarily approved in 2011, given that the sale had already been envisaged since 2009, according to information received by the Commission, and that Dexia BIL will be legally and economically separate from Dexia.\n(21)\nOn 23 March 2012 Luxembourg formally notified the sale of Dexia BIL to the Commission.\n(22)\nBy decision dated 3 April 2012 (14), the Commission informed Luxembourg that it had decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of the sale of Dexia BIL.\n(23)\nOn 4 May 2012 and 12 June 2012 the Luxembourg authorities provided the Commission with additional information, including an update by Dexia SA of the fairness opinion for Dexia BIL dated 30 May 2012 (hereinafter: \u2018updated fairness opinion\u2019).\n(24)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (15). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments on the measure in question.\n(25)\nThe Commission received comments from interested parties. It communicated them to Luxembourg, giving the Luxembourg authorities the opportunity to comment on them, and received their comments by letter dated 28 June 2012.\n2. THE FACTS\n2.1. Description of the Dexia group\n(26)\nDexia BIL is part of Dexia group. Dexia was formed in 1996 by the merger of France\u2019s Cr\u00e9dit Local and Belgium\u2019s Cr\u00e9dit Communal and was specialised in loans to local authorities, but also had some 5,5 million private customers, mainly in Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey.\n(27)\nThe Dexia group was organised around the parent holding company (Dexia SA) and three operational subsidiaries located in France (DCL), Belgium (DBB) and Luxembourg (Dexia BIL).\nSimplified organisation chart of the group on 30 September 2011\n(i.e. before execution of the transfers announced at the meeting of the Dexia board held on 9 October 2011)\n(28)\nOn 20 October 2011 DBB was sold to the Belgian State and, on 31 December 2011, the consolidated balance-sheet total of the Dexia group (deconsolidation of DBB on 1 October 2011) was EUR 413 billion.\n(29)\nIn addition to the sale of DBB that took place on 20 October 2011, the Dexia group announced the sale \u2018in the short term\u2019 of the following companies:\n-\nDexia BIL\n-\nDexia Municipal Agency\n-\nDenizBank\n-\nDexia Asset Management (hereinafter: \u2018DAM\u2019)\n-\nRBC Dexia Investor Services (hereinafter: \u2018RBCD\u2019).\n(30)\nThe holdings of the main shareholders in Dexia SA are as follows:\nShareholder\n% holding at 31 December 2011\nCaisse des D\u00e9p\u00f4ts et Consignations\n17,6 %\nHolding Communal\n14,3 %\nArco Group\n12,0 %\nFrench Government\n5,7 %\nBelgian Government\n5,7 %\nEthias\n5,0 %\n3 Belgian regions\n5,7 %\nCNP Assurances\n3,0 %\nEmployees\n0,6 %\nOthers\n30,4 %\nSource:\nDexia, presentation of financial results for 2011, 23 February 2012, p. 51; included in the orderly resolution plan notified to the Commission.\n2.2. Description of Dexia BIL\n(31)\nDexia BIL is one of the largest commercial banks in Luxembourg, with a balance-sheet total of EUR 41 billion on 30 June 2011. Dexia BIL operates not only in Luxembourg, but also in other countries such as Switzerland, the United Kingdom and some countries in Asia and the Middle East, either directly or through certain of its subsidiaries. Dexia BIL also holds a substantial portfolio of legacy securities, with an estimated market value at 30 September 2011 of approximately EUR [5-10] billion.\n(32)\nDexia BIL is one of the large banks with a branch network in Luxembourg and is an essential player in the local economy as both a depositary bank for resident individuals and businesses, and a provider of consumer credit, property loans and business lending.\n(33)\nAccording to the tables provided by Luxembourg\u2019s financial supervisory authority (Commission de surveillance du secteur financier - CSSF), Dexia BIL is the bank of choice for [10-15] % of individual residents and [15-20] % of resident SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises), both groups placing it in third position on the Luxembourg market. Dexia BIL\u2019s market shares in the Luxembourg banking system are approximately [10-15] % by volume of deposits, [10-15] % by volume of loans and [5-10] % of assets under management in the private banking sector.\n2.3. Difficulties faced by Dexia\n(34)\nThe difficulties faced by the Dexia group during the financial crisis in autumn 2008 were described in the decision of 26 February 2010. Dexia\u2019s more recent difficulties may be summarised as follows.\n(35)\nFirst, the worsening of the sovereign debt crisis, which many European banks are facing, has resulted in increasing mistrust on the part of investors towards bank counterparties, so the latter are unable to obtain financing in satisfactory volumes and under satisfactory conditions.\n(36)\nFurthermore, since the Dexia group has been particularly exposed to sovereign and quasi-sovereign risk, the level of mistrust among investors is higher. Dexia has among its assets many loans and/or bonds from countries and/or local and regional authorities in countries perceived as risky by the market.\n(37)\nIn addition, the current crisis hit before Dexia had time to finalise implementation of its restructuring plan, which would have resulted in a much stronger liquidity risk profile. Since Dexia still had a particularly vulnerable liquidity profile and the market was well aware of that vulnerability, it is possible that Dexia faced more mistrust than other banks.\n(38)\nDexia\u2019s financing requirements increased markedly for the following reasons:\n(i)\nthe sharp fall in interest rates during the summer of 2011 increased by at least EUR [5-20] billion the need for additional collateral to cope with the margin calls linked to the variation in the market value of the portfolio of interest-rate derivatives used to hedge the balance sheet;\n(ii)\nmany bond issues (in particular sovereign-guaranteed bonds previously issued by Dexia) matured at a time when market conditions for refinancing these bonds were not optimal;\n(iii)\nthe substantial fall in market value and decline in the credit quality of the assets that Dexia uses by way of security to obtain financing;\n(iv)\nthe loss in confidence by many investors following, among other things, the announcement of substantial losses in the second quarter of 2011 (almost EUR 4 billion) and downgrades by some rating agencies;\n(v)\nDexia\u2019s difficulties also resulted in massive withdrawals of deposits by customers in Belgium and Luxembourg in October 2011.\n(39)\nGiven that it was impossible for Dexia to refinance itself on the markets and [\u2026] (16), initially it had to resort to a new ELA measure by the Banque nationale de Belgique and the Banque de France respectively. It is in these circumstances that the Member States concerned granted the temporary refinancing guarantee in favour of Dexia.\n(40)\nAlthough Dexia BIL was not the source of the Dexia group\u2019s problems, [\u2026], it faced substantial deposit outflows, in particular between 30 September 2012 and 10 October 2011, a period during which deposits fell by EUR [1-5] billion (from EUR [5-15] billion to EUR [5-15] billion). The deposit outflows subsequently stabilised following the announcement of a series of measures intended to dismantle the Dexia group and secure certain of the group\u2019s subsidiaries (including Dexia BIL). In particular, on 6 October 2011 Dexia announced that it had entered into negotiations with a group of investors and the State of Luxembourg with a view to selling Dexia BIL. Since bottoming at EUR [5-15] billion on 22 November 2011, Dexia BIL\u2019s deposits showed a slight improvement to EUR [5-15] billion EUR on 14 December 2011.\n2.4. Description of the sale of Dexia BIL\n(41)\nOn 23 March 2012 Luxembourg notified the sale of Dexia BIL. Closure of the sale is subject to the prior approval of the Commission.\n(42)\nThe measure of the sale of Dexia BIL notified to the Commission was not the subject of a formal call for tenders. According to the Luxembourg authorities, the sale of Dexia BIL had apparently been envisaged for a long time by Dexia, which contacted a series of operators in that regard between 2009 and 2011, in particular [\u2026]. [\u2026]. The discussions had made some progress but none of the operators had submitted a tangible plan to acquire Dexia BIL.\n(43)\nFinally, contacts with Precision Capital resulted in the start of exclusive negotiations, which was announced on 6 October 2011. A binding draft agreement on the sale of Dexia\u2019s 99,906 % holding in Dexia BIL was concluded by a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter: \u2018MoU\u2019) on 20 December 2011. Under the Memorandum of Understanding, Precision Capital will acquire 90 % of the holding, the remaining 10 % being acquired by Luxembourg under the same terms and conditions as Precision Capital.\n(44)\nCertain of Dexia BIL\u2019s assets are excluded from the scope of the sale, which relates only to part of Dexia BIL, i.e. its retail and private banking businesses (hereinafter: \u2018the sold businesses\u2019). More specifically, the following are excluded from the scope of the sale: Dexia BIL\u2019s 51 % holding in DAM, its 50 % holding in RBCD, its 40 % holding in Popular Banca Privada, its portfolio of legacy securities (and certain derivative and associated products) and its holdings in Dexia LDG Banque and Parfipar. The above businesses will be transferred to Dexia before the transaction is completed, with a clause for the recovery of the net proceeds from the transfers by Dexia BIL. Furthermore, the MoU provides as a precondition for the sale the elimination of all the unsecured borrowing and lending with companies in the Dexia group and the elimination of much of the secured borrowing and lending with companies in the Dexia group. On 10 February 2012 the financing granted to the other companies in the group was approximately EUR [0-5] billion, of which less than EUR [500-800] million was secured. The exclusion of all these assets will make it possible to reduce Dexia BIL\u2019s total assets by approximately EUR 16,9 billion in relation to total assets of EUR 41 billion on 30 June 2011 (i.e. a 40 % reduction in total assets and a 50 % reduction in risk-weighted assets).\n(45)\nThe notified measure stipulates that, when the sale is completed, Dexia BIL will have a Common Equity Tier 1 ratio under Basel III of exactly 9 %.\n(46)\nThe sale price is set at EUR 730 million, with Dexia BIL having a Common Equity Tier 1 ratio of exactly 9 % when the sale is completed. In the event that the capital at the time of completion exceeds the 9 % Common Equity Tier 1 ratio under Basel III, the sale price will be adjusted by the excess capital available at the time of completion. If there is a shortfall of capital in relation to the 9 % Common Equity Tier 1 ratio, the shortfall will be offset by Dexia SA.\n(47)\nThe measure notified on 23 March 2012 included a clause stipulating that, if Dexia SA or a company in the Dexia group obtained a sovereign guarantee in favour of a buyer in relation to its indemnification obligations towards that buyer under contractual guarantees specific to the sale, and if the buyer is a private entity (not controlled directly or indirectly by public entities), then Dexia undertakes to ensure that a guarantee on similar terms and for similar contractual obligations is granted by the same guarantor (or an alternative guarantor with the same credit rating) to the buyers under the sale contracts. This obligation was to have applied until 1 January 2017 (hereinafter: \u2018clause 3.3.5\u2019). However, the clause was subsequently dropped and was not included in the final contracts for transfer of shares that replaced the MoU.\n(48)\nBefore the MoU was finalised, various scenarios under the preliminary draft of the sale of Dexia BIL were subject to a fairness opinion by a third party (17). The evaluation dated 10 December 2011 was carried out using three different methods (18) and resulted in a valuation of between EUR [600-700] and [800-900] million. The updated evaluation dated 30 May 2012 comes to the same conclusions.\n2.5. Grounds for initiating the formal investigation procedure\n(49)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission took the view that it could not, at that stage, conclude that the transaction did not involve any aid.\n(50)\nThe Commission took the view that clause 3.3.5 might contain state aid.\n(51)\nIt also took the view that the sale process for Dexia BIL had not been open, transparent and non-discriminatory. The sale process had been restricted to bilateral negotiations with a number of potential buyers without a call for tenders. The Commission could not, therefore, conclude that the sale process had been such as to ensure the setting of a market price and, consequently, that it did not contain any state aid.\n(52)\nAccording to the Commission\u2019s understanding, the fairness opinion by a third party (19) had been established during the negotiations and before the setting of the precise conditions in the MoU dated 20 December 2011, which was notified on 23 March 2012. The Commission therefore had doubts about whether the fairness opinion had taken into account the exact scope of the sold businesses and the conditions of the notified measure, including the clause for the recovery of the net proceeds from the transfers by Dexia BIL and clause 3.3.5.\n(53)\nThe Commission could not conclude, therefore, that the conditions of sale of Dexia BIL resulted in a sale at the market price, given the combined effects of the absence of an open call for tenders and the lack of precise information about the appropriate valuation of the transaction, having regard in particular to the scope of the sold businesses and the potential clause 3.3.5.\n3. COMMENTS BY THIRD PARTIES\n(54)\nFollowing the publication of the formal investigation procedure on 3 April 2012, the Commission received comments from two third parties.\n(55)\nOne of the comments received (hereinafter: \u2018comment A\u2019) from an investors\u2019 association concerns the level of the purchase price. The association takes the view that the sale price for Dexia BIL is too low, in particular in the light of Dexia BIL\u2019s good results in the past.\n(56)\nThe comments (hereinafter: \u2018comment B\u2019) by the other third party, a shareholder in Dexia SA, expressed doubts about the behaviour of Dexia SA, Dexia BIL and the individuals and bodies supposed to supervise these companies since 1998. The shareholder also believes that Dexia SA does not provide sufficient information to its shareholders. The shareholder also takes the view that the minutes of the Annual General Meetings since 1999, the annexes relating to its own statements at those meetings, and all the correspondence between itself, Dexia SA, Dexia BIL and its managers should have been sent by Dexia SA to the potential buyers of Dexia BIL.\n4. COMMENTS BY DEXIA SA\n(57)\nDexia SA stresses that the sale of Dexia BIL is an important stage in the stabilisation of Dexia BIL after the outflows of deposits that took place at the beginning of October 2011. It is essential to provide confirmation as soon as possible to the parties to the transaction that the sale of Dexia BIL contains no aid.\n(58)\nSince clause 3.3.5 has not been included in the final contracts for the transfer of shares that replaced the MoU, these concerns are groundless.\n(59)\nThe many contacts between Dexia SA and potential buyers since 2009, in conjunction with the official announcement on 6 October 2011 of the potential sale of Dexia BIL to an international group of investors, had made public the planned sale of Dexia BIL. Exclusive negotiations were not formally opened until more than two weeks later, so any other serious candidates interested in buying Dexia BIL would have had more than enough time to express their interest. Moreover, the conditions of sale of Dexia BIL were determined by Dexia SA with Precision Capital during arm\u2019s length negotiations between private operators, under their own liability and without committing state resources. Furthermore, it was urgent to find a buyer for Dexia BIL in order to protect the bank\u2019s depositors and customers, to preserve the bank\u2019s value, and to reduce the risks of contagion to the rest of the financial system. Under these circumstances, the sale process for Dexia BIL may be regarded as an open, transparent and non-discriminatory process, such as to ensure the formation of a market price. It does not, therefore, contain any state aid.\n(60)\nThe fairness opinion dating from December 2011 related to the new scope of Dexia BIL (sold businesses), which is confirmed by the updated fairness opinion dated 30 May 2012.\n(61)\nThe sale price is based on a Core Equity Tier 1 capital ratio under Basel III of 9 % at the time the sale was completed. If there is a difference between this level and the level of capital when the transfer is completed, the adjustment clause guarantees that the difference will be repaid by the buyers or the seller and/or that the sale price will be adjusted. Under these conditions, Dexia SA takes the view that the valuation of shareholdings or assets excluded from the transaction should not be taken into account when determining the market price.\n(62)\nDexia BIL did not benefit directly from the previous aid received by the Dexia group. On the contrary, since the end of 2008, Dexia BIL has constantly been a net provider of liquidity to the Dexia group. In addition, the Commission cannot presume that, because a company belongs to a group of companies, the company has benefited from aid received by the group, in particular where, as in this case, the transfer mechanisms existing in the group have been used solely to the detriment of the company and not for its benefit (20). Likewise, the Commission cannot presume that the transaction is imputable to the State or commits state resources when it is carried out at arm\u2019s length between Dexia and the buyer without involving state resources.\n(63)\nIn any event, Dexia SA stresses the fact that the acquisition of Dexia BIL at the market price is enough to eliminate the possibility of a potential transfer of previous aid received by the Dexia group to the buyer or to the sold company, Dexia BIL (21).\n(64)\nThe sale of Dexia BIL cannot include new aid because the acquisition by the State of Luxembourg is taking place without it injecting new capital into Dexia BIL. In that context, Dexia SA emphasises that, in the absence of additional aid, the sale of Dexia BIL does not distort competition, so it is not necessary to impose additional measures to limit distortions of competition. In any event, the reduction in the size of Dexia BIL through the businesses excluded from the sale is sufficiently large not to require additional measures.\n5. COMMENTS BY LUXEMBOURG\n(65)\nLuxembourg takes the view that the sale of Dexia BIL is a private-market solution that does not contain any state aid.\n(66)\nLuxembourg points out that the planned sale of Dexia BIL was officially announced on 6 October 2011, i.e. before the announcement of the additional guarantees on new refinancing granted by the Member States concerned to Dexia SA and DCL.\n(67)\nLuxembourg stresses that Dexia BIL is one of the large banks with a branch network in Luxembourg and is an essential player in the local economy as both a depositary bank for resident individuals and businesses, and a provider of consumer credit, property loans and business lending. Dexia BIL plays a systemic role in the Luxembourg economy (22) and a failure of this bank (or even merely uncertainty as to its fate) would have extremely serious effects on the stability of Luxembourg\u2019s financial system and economy in general, which could also be felt in neighbouring countries.\n(68)\nThe Luxembourg authorities maintain that there is no advantage for Dexia SA or Dexia BIL arising from the acquisition by the Luxembourg State of a 10 % holding in Dexia BIL because the acquisition took place under market conditions, and the price paid and the terms were the same as for Precision Capital.\n(69)\nLuxembourg also points out that the sale of Dexia BIL had been envisaged for a long time by Dexia SA, which to that end had contacted a series of operators between 2009 and 2011, in particular [\u2026]. The discussions undertaken had made some progress but none of the operators had expressed an interest in Dexia BIL. Although the Luxembourg authorities acknowledge that the process did not constitute a formal call for tenders, they point out that it is unlikely that a formal invitation to tender would have produced a different result. It was impossible to organise such an invitation to tender within the shortened deadline dictated by the accelerating erosion of Dexia BIL\u2019s deposits at the end of September 2011 because of the rumours concerning the difficulties of the Dexia group and the downgrade of Dexia SA's rating by the rating agency Moody's on 3 October 2011, which added to the rumours swirling around the European banking system, the sovereign debt crisis and the difficulties in the euro area. This urgent situation resulted in the announcement on 6 October 2011 of the planned sale of Dexia BIL and the entry into negotiations with Precision Capital. Between that date and the opening of exclusive negotiations (23), no other serious expression of interest or offer was received, despite [\u2026] enquiries by other potential investors (24).\n(70)\nIn the opinion of the Luxembourg authorities, an informal tender process, organised to a tight deadline and using specific procedures dictated by the circumstances, could be regarded as an open, transparent and non-discriminatory procedure which ensures the formation of a market price. The Luxembourg authorities also point out that a fairness opinion dated 10 December 2011 and the update of 30 May 2012 conclude that the price is fair in the current market context and that the Commission had already accepted that the valuation of a company may be in line with a market price on the basis of a fairness opinion carried out by an independent expert.\n(71)\nSince the end of 2008, Dexia BIL has constantly been a net provider of liquidity to the other companies in the group. As for the new temporary guarantee approved provisionally by the Commission on 21 December 2011, Dexia BIL was not a guaranteed company and does not benefit from this temporary guarantee.\n(72)\nFurthermore, the Luxembourg authorities point out that Dexia BIL will have a strong liquidity position after the sale, will focus on retail banking and private banking, and will have cut its ties to the residual Dexia group by disposing of the legacy portfolio and Dexia LDG and selling its holdings in RBCD and DAM. Likewise, the MoU is based on an absence of financing by Dexia BIL of Dexia SA or other companies in the residual group post-sale.\n(73)\nLuxembourg is also requesting that Dexia BIL no longer be subject to the conditions and commitments laid down in the Decision of 26 February 2010, or to the new restructuring and orderly resolution plan for Dexia to be drawn up under the Decision of 21 December 2011. Being subject to the restructuring plan approved by the Decision of 26 February 2010 and to the conditions and commitments provided for by the plan is linked to Dexia BIL belonging to the Dexia group, which is identified as the sole beneficiary of the aid granted in previous decisions. Moreover, this point is evident in most of the commitments under the restructuring plan for Dexia, which apply to Dexia or Dexia SA and concern Dexia BIL only to the extent that it is a subsidiary of the group and forms a single economic unit with Dexia SA. In any event, the sale of Dexia BIL does not contain any state aid and is carried out at a market price.\n(74\nLuxembourg, in its observations on the opening decision, confirms that clause 3.3.5 has not been included in the final share purchase contracts that replaced the MoU, and that these concerns are groundless.\n(75)\nThe Luxembourg authorities also confirm that the scope of the fairness opinion coincides exactly with the scope of the sold businesses. In addition, the adjustment mechanism in relation to the exact level of 9 % Common Equity Tier 1 under Basel III ensures that the value of the businesses excluded from the transaction (recital (36)) does not have any positive or negative financial impact for the buyer. The Luxembourg authorities also refer to the fairness opinion updated at the end of May 2012, which reached the same conclusions. The sale price for Dexia BIL may therefore be regarded as a market price, which excludes any transfer of aid.\n(76)\nFinally, the Luxembourg authorities agree with the comments by Dexia SA. (section 4 above).\n(77)\nThe Luxembourg authorities take the view that the statements in comment A are based on limited data and do not fully analyse the situation. In particular, they do not take account of the exact terms of the transaction. In this regard, the Luxembourg authorities would refer to the various documents submitted to the Commission by themselves and Dexia SA, in particular the fairness opinions by third parties, which conclude that the price paid is a fair price in the light of the terms of the transaction. This is clear from the evaluation by a third party dated 10 December 2011 and was confirmed on 30 May 2012 by the same consultant, namely [\u2026].\n(78)\nMoreover, it is clear from the file in the Commission\u2019s possession that the Luxembourg State neither offered nor granted guarantees to the buyer.\n(79)\nThe Luxembourg authorities therefore note that comment A appears to be based on incomplete information and contains mistaken assertions, without the slightest piece of evidence, with the result that they would ask the Commission not to take it into account in its final decision but rather to refer to the explanations by the Luxembourg authorities and Dexia SA in their exchanges with the Commission, which fully answer the questions raised and dispel the criticisms levelled.\n(80)\nThe Luxembourg authorities note that comment B consists of a series of exchanges of correspondence by the third party in question with the management of Dexia SA and Dexia BIL, and with the supervisory authorities, between 2005 and the end of 2011, with no direct bearing on the sale of Dexia BIL. The correspondence relates to different requests to and criticisms of Dexia SA concerning the failure to take into account certain questions about events well before the sale of Dexia BIL, which is the only subject of this Decision on the sale of Dexia BIL. The Luxembourg authorities therefore call on the Commission to set aside the documents as irrelevant.\n(81)\nThe Luxembourg authorities note that Dexia SA concludes (see section 4 above) that the Dexia BIL transaction is being carried out at a market price without any aid. This conclusion is consistent with the conclusions of the Luxembourg authorities, and so does not require further comment by them.\n(82)\nIn conclusion, the Luxembourg authorities note that none of the comments received from third parties is such as to call into question the developments set out in their notification and in their comments. The Luxembourg authorities further note that none of the comments by third parties is likely to call into question the argument that the process of the sale of Dexia BIL must be regarded, in accordance with the Commission\u2019s decision-making practice, as an open, transparent and non-discriminatory process capable of guaranteeing that the transaction took place at the market price. The Luxembourg authorities therefore maintain that the transaction took place without any aid.\n6. EXISTENCE OF AID\n(83)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU lays down that \u2018Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain enterprises or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(84)\nDexia BIL is active at European level and therefore clearly competes with other foreign market operators. The Commission therefore takes the view that any potential aid contained in the sale of Dexia BIL would affect trade between Member States and distort or threaten to distort competition.\n(85)\nThe Commission, in its Decision of 26 February 2010, has already established that the aid received by Dexia in the form of capital, financing guarantees, ELA backed by a sovereign guarantee and support for impaired assets (FSA measure) did constitute state aid (granted by Belgium, Luxembourg and France). It is therefore necessary to verify that the sold business does not retain the benefit of the aid previously received by Dexia.\n(86)\nAccording to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Italie et SIM 2 v Commission (25), which the Commission relied on for its decisions in Olympic Airlines (26) and Alitalia (27), examination of the economic continuity between the old firm and the new structures is based on a number of factors. These factors include, in particular, the subject of the transfer, the transfer price, and the identity of the shareholders or owners of the acquiring firm or the acquired firm. This was reiterated by the Court of First Instance in its judgment in Ryanair v Commission (28), which confirmed the Alitalia decision.\n(87)\nWith regard to the subject of the sale, the scope of the sold businesses is limited to the retail and private banking businesses, which do not appear to have been the cause of the Dexia group\u2019s problems requiring state aid to be granted. The Commission also notes that the part of the portfolio of legacy securities held by Dexia BIL, which was linked to the group\u2019s refinancing problems that contributed to the need for state aid authorised by the Decision of 26 February 2010, is not included in the sold businesses. From a quantitative perspective, the scope of the sold businesses accounts for approximately 60 % of Dexia BIL\u2019s balance-sheet total and [0-10] % of the Dexia group\u2019s balance-sheet total.\n(88)\nThere is no link between the private buyer Precision Capital and the current shareholders in Dexia SA, which therefore means that the private buyer is independent in relation to Dexia SA when it takes decisions and implements its strategy in relation to the sold businesses of Dexia BIL.\n(89)\nMoreover, an acquisition at the market price for the sold businesses would ensure that the buyer pays an adequate price for the aid which this part of Dexia BIL could have benefited from as a company in the Dexia group and that the transaction price for the sale of Dexia BIL does not, therefore, contain any aid.\n(90)\nFollowing the opening decision, the Commission received additional information about the evaluation of the market price.\n(91)\nThe Commission notes that the sale of Dexia BIL was subject to a first fairness opinion by a third party on 10 December 2011, which was updated on 30 May 2012. The evaluations were carried out using three different methods: (i) discounted cash flows to equity on the basis of the cash flow distributable to shareholders, subject to compliance with the Core Tier 1 regulatory ratios; (ii) price-to-book ratio, on the basis of excess profitability in relation to the cost of capital; (iii) comparable listed companies. The first fairness opinion by a third party, dated 10 December 2011, resulted in a price in a band between EUR [600-700] and [800-900] million. The updated assessment, dated 30 May 2012, confirms that the assessment took into account exactly the scope of the sold businesses and comes to the same conclusions, namely that the fair price lies within a range of between EUR [600-700] and [800-900] million. The Commission has examined these fairness opinions. It notes that the evaluations are based on standard methods generally applicable in this field and take into account the precise conditions and scope of the transaction.\n(92)\nThe price of the transaction, EUR 730 million, lies within the range of the fairness opinions. There is therefore no indication that the price paid is below or above the market price. The sale price for Dexia BIL may therefore be regarded as a market price, which also excludes any transfer on the sale of any potential aid previously granted to Dexia.\n(93)\nCertain of Dexia BIL\u2019s activities are excluded from the scope of the sale (recital (36)). These activities will be transferred to Dexia before the transaction is completed, with a clause for the recovery of the net proceeds from the transfers by Dexia BIL. The Commission notes that the additional information received subsequent to the opening decision confirms that the valuation of the activities excluded from the transaction has no bearing on establishing the market price. The sale price is based on a Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio under Basel III of exactly 9 % at the time the sale is completed. If there is a difference between this level and the level of capital when the transfer is completed, the adjustment clause guarantees that the difference will be repaid by the buyers or the seller and/or that the sale price will be adjusted. The valuation of shareholdings or assets excluded from the scope of the transaction should not, therefore, be taken into account when establishing the market price. The adjustment clause was also taken into account in the fairness opinions.\n(94)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission noted that the Luxembourg State was participating in the sale of Dexia BIL as a buyer of a 10 % holding under the same conditions as Precision Capital. It is clear, therefore, that the holding by Luxembourg involves state resources. Given that Luxembourg is participating on the same conditions as Precision Capital, the Commission takes the view that in principle Luxembourg is acting as a private investor, which excludes any aid in relation to Luxembourg's 10 % holding.\n(95)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission also noted that Precision Capital and the Luxembourg State planned to remove clause 3.3.5. The Commission has noted that under this clause, Dexia SA would undertake to obtain sovereign guarantees in favour of the buyer of Dexia BIL. Activation of the clause would potentially call on state resources in the form of guarantees. Moreover, the very existence of the clause would be likely to grant benefits to the buyer of Dexia BIL. Following the opening decision, the Commission received additional information confirming that clause 3.3.5 had not been included in the final share purchase contracts that replaced the MoU. The Commission therefore concludes that, since the clause was not implemented and has been abandoned, there is no aid in this regard.\n7. CONCLUSION\n(96)\nFor the reasons set out above, the Commission concludes that the measure comprising the sale of Dexia BIL does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In particular, it does not constitute new aid for Dexia SA or for Dexia BIL,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe measure comprising the sale of Dexia BIL does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nImplementation of the measure is therefore authorised.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2012.", "references": ["0", "40", "56", "46", "24", "33", "39", "54", "72", "75", "4", "38", "30", "18", "20", "45", "79", "9", "69", "8", "62", "19", "94", "81", "6", "90", "58", "29", "83", "32", "No Label", "15", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/576/CFSP\nof 23 September 2010\non the European Union police mission undertaken in the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28 and 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 June 2007, the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP (1) establishing a European Union police mission undertaken in the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018EUPOL RD Congo\u2019 or \u2018the Mission\u2019).\n(2)\nOn 23 June 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/485/CFSP (2) amending and extending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP until 30 June 2009.\n(3)\nOn 15 June 2009, the Council adopted Joint Action 2009/466/CFSP (3) amending and extending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP until 30 June 2010.\n(4)\nOn 14 June 2010, the Council adopted Council Decision 2010/329/CFSP (4) amending and extending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP until 30 September 2010.\n(5)\nEUPOL RD Congo should be continued for a further year until 30 September 2011.\n(6)\nThe command and control structure of the Mission should be without prejudice to the contractual responsibility of the Head of Mission towards the Commission for implementing the budget of the Mission.\n(7)\nThe Watch-Keeping Capability established within the General Secretariat of the Council should be activated for the Mission.\n(8)\nThe Mission will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Mission\n1. The European Union police mission undertaken in the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (hereinafter referred to as \u2018EUPOL RD Congo\u2019 or \u2018the Mission\u2019), established by Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP, shall be extended for the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011.\n2. EUPOL RD Congo shall operate in accordance with the Mission statement set out in Article 2 and shall carry out the tasks set out in Article 3. It shall operate without prejudice to DRC ownership of SSR.\nArticle 2\nMission statement\n1. In order to improve the maturity and sustainability of the reform process of the Congolese National Police (PNC), EUPOL RD Congo shall assist the Congolese authorities in the implementation of the Police Action Plan, covering the priorities of the Police Reform process for the period 2010-2012, and building on the guidelines of the Strategic Framework. EUPOL RD Congo shall focus on concrete activities and projects to underpin its action at the strategic level of the reform process, on capacity building and on enhancement of the interaction between the PNC and the wider criminal justice system with a view to better supporting the fight against sexual violence and impunity. EUPOL RD Congo shall work in close coordination and cooperation with other Union, international and bilateral donors, with a view to avoiding duplication of efforts.\n2. The particular objectives of the Mission shall be:\n(a)\nto support the overall SSR process at the strategic level in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with a particular emphasis on the reform of the PNC and its interaction with the judiciary;\n(b)\nto support the implementation of the Police Reform and the improvement of the PNC operational capacity and accountability through mentoring, monitoring and advising (MMA) activities;\n(c)\nto enhance the knowledge and capacity of senior PNC officials, trainers and training systems, including through the provision of strategic training courses;\n(d)\nto support the fight against impunity in the field of human rights and sexual violence.\n3. The Mission shall have a Project Cell for identifying and implementing projects. The Mission shall advise the Member States and third States and shall coordinate and facilitate, under their responsibility, the implementation of their projects in fields which are of interest to the Mission and in furtherance of its objectives.\nArticle 3\nMission tasks\nIn order to achieve its objectives, the tasks of EUPOL RD Congo shall be as follows:\n1.\nto support the overall SSR process at the strategic level in DRC with a particular emphasis on the reform of the PNC and its interaction with the judiciary:\n-\nby supporting the work and evolution of the Police Reform Monitoring Committee (CSRP) and its Working Groups, including by providing assistance in the preparation of the relevant legal and sub-legal framework of the Police Reform in order to contribute to the finalisation of the conception work,\n-\nby contributing to and advising on the establishment and development of the bodies to be created for the Police Reform, contributing to their activities by providing specialist expertise in the most relevant domains for the implementation of Police Reform,\n-\nby contributing to the enhancement of the links between the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Justice with a view to increasing levels of cooperation and understanding between the two Ministries,\n-\nby participating in the activities of the Joint Justice Committee (Comit\u00e9 Mixte de Suivi du Programme Cadre de la Justice) and assisting, as appropriate, in the review of the criminal legal framework, while supporting, as appropriate, the Joint Defence Committee, with a view to supporting coherence and consistency among the different pillars of SSR,\n-\nby joining wider Union efforts and activities to support inter-ministerial coordination and coherence;\n2.\nto support the implementation of the Police Reform and the improvement of the PNC operational capacity and accountability through MMA activities:\n-\nby advising on the design and implementation of an adequate organisational structure for the PNC and supporting data collection activities in order to establish a complete census of police officers,\n-\nby mentoring, monitoring and advising personnel, including by co-location if appropriate, in the technical directorates within the PNC Inspectorate and at Headquarters (HQ) to advise and assist in the implementation of the reform process and in the integration of all police services within one single institution. This task needs to be closely coordinated with the UN MONUSCO operation, taking into account their deployment across the Congolese territory,\n-\nby supporting the integration of the crime police (Police Judiciaire des Parquets) into the PNC, in order to help to establish an effective interface between the crime police and the prosecution service. The Mission will work towards this by advising as appropriate key actors in the field of criminal justice, in close coordination with the Commission and partners\u2019 programmes,\n-\nby supporting the newly created police audit service (Inspection G\u00e9n\u00e9rale d'Audit) through efforts to strengthen its institutional and operational capacity in order to provide the citizens and authorities with a key instrument of democratic control over the police force,\n-\nby mentoring and advising the crime police in Kinshasa, especially through the Police de Recherche et d'Intervention, in improving its standards and its capability to effectively prevent and investigate crimes,\n-\nby supporting the implementation of the Police Action Plan in order to enable the PNC to have at its disposal, to the largest extent possible, the instruments, decision-making processes and means to guarantee a proper keeping of public order, while fully respecting the fundamental freedoms granted in the Constitution as well as the international human rights standards,\n-\nby helping the PNC to upgrade the coordination, coherence and flexibility of its decision-making process by supporting the reinforcement of the Command and Control Centre as well as the Operations Centre in Kinshasa, in close cooperation with other partners already working in this area,\n-\nby contributing to the finalisation of a Community Policing (Police de proximit\u00e9) concept and by participating in the pilot project of the Commissariat de R\u00e9f\u00e9rence, with the aim of strengthening a confidence between the population and the police and of enhancing security both in objective terms and in the public perception;\n3.\nto enhance the knowledge and capacity of senior PNC officials, trainers and training systems, including through the provision of strategic training courses:\n-\nby assisting in the enhancement of training capabilities at the School for Crime Police Officers in Kinshasa,\n-\nby supporting the establishment and operation of the Police Academy in Kasapa, Lubumbashi, including logistics and equipment,\n-\nby supporting the professional development of senior PNC officials with a view to improving the leadership and management skills,\n-\nby undertaking an assessment of current PNC training needs and resources,\n-\nby contributing to the definition of the regulatory and educational framework for the start-up and operation of the Police Academy,\n-\nby developing and introducing PNC training manuals for basic and specific training,\n-\nby contributing to the institutionalisation of the Community Policing (Police de proximit\u00e9) concept with training,\n-\nby participating in the selection and training of trainers for police,\n-\nby providing specialist training in areas that support the achievement of the objectives of the Mission;\n4.\nto support the fight against impunity in the field of human rights and sexual violence:\n-\nby assisting the relevant groups of the CSRP and of the implementation bodies of Police Reform,\n-\nby supporting the development of a coherent policy for the PNC and the Inspection G\u00e9n\u00e9rale d'Audit against sexual violence,\n-\nby helping to create, and by monitoring and mentoring specialised units within the police to fight against sexual violence and crimes related to children as well as impunity, and increase their operationalisation through MMA activities,\n-\nby supporting the organisation of actions aimed at increasing the awareness of police officers of the problem of sexual violence and impunity,\n-\nby monitoring and following up PNC and judicial activities in this field, advising, as appropriate, relevant representatives of prosecution services, of military courts and of the crime police, in coordination with the other national and international key players;\n5.\nOther tasks/Project Cell:\n-\nto support the Commission as required, especially in its projects for an integrated system for human resources management and for the police census,\n-\nto identify and implement projects through the Project Cell to ensure proper use of designated funds from the CFSP budget for their implementation. The Project Cell personnel may also support Member States and third States at their request, within the Mission's means and capabilities, by providing reinforced coordination and technical assistance for their own projects and under their own responsibility. All activities of the Project Cell are to be carried out within the Mission mandate and to complete the activities carried out by EUPOL RD Congo.\nArticle 4\nStructure of the Mission\n1. EUPOL RD Congo shall be structured as follows:\n(a)\nHQ in Kinshasa. The HQ shall consist of the Office of the Head of Mission and of the HQ Staff, providing all necessary functions of advice at strategic and operational level, command and control, as well as mission and administrative support;\n(b)\nField Office. A Field Office shall be established in Goma. The nation-wide implications of the Mission mandate may also require in-country actions and possibly temporary presence (also for a longer term) of experts in other locations, still subject to security considerations.\n2. The elements referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to further detailed arrangements in the Operation Plan (OPLAN).\nArticle 5\nCivilian Operation Commander\n1. The Director of the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) shall be the Civilian Operation Commander for EUPOL RD Congo.\n2. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and the overall authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), shall exercise command and control of EUPOL RD Congo at the strategic level.\n3. The Civilian Operation Commander shall ensure proper and effective implementation of the Council decisions as well as the PSC decisions, including by issuing instructions at the strategic level as required to the Head of Mission and providing him with advice and technical support.\n4. All seconded staff shall remain under the full command of the national authorities of the seconding State or Union institution concerned. National authorities shall transfer Operational Control (OPCON) of their personnel to the Civilian Operation Commander.\n5. The Civilian Operation Commander shall have overall responsibility for ensuring that the Union duty of care is properly discharged.\n6. The Civilian Operation Commander and the EU Special Representative (EUSR) shall consult each other on SSR issues and support at Region-wide level as required.\nArticle 6\nHead of Mission\n1. The Head of Mission shall assume responsibility for and exercise command and control of the Mission at theatre level.\n2. The Head of Mission shall exercise OPCON over personnel from contributing States as assigned by the Civilian Operation Commander together with administrative and logistic responsibility, including over assets, resources and information placed at the disposal of the Mission.\n3. The Head of Mission shall issue instructions to all Mission staff for the effective conduct of EUPOL RD Congo in theatre, assuming its coordination and day-to-day management, and following the instructions at the strategic level of the Civilian Operation Commander.\n4. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the implementation of the Mission budget. For this purpose, the Head of Mission shall sign a contract with the Commission.\n5. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for disciplinary control over the staff. For seconded staff, disciplinary action shall be exercised by the national or Union authority concerned.\n6. The Head of Mission shall represent EUPOL RD Congo in the operations area and shall ensure appropriate visibility of the Mission.\n7. The Head of Mission shall coordinate, as appropriate, the actions of EUPOL RD Congo with other Union actors on the ground. The Head of Mission shall, without prejudice to the chain of command, receive local political guidance on SSR issues and support at Region-wide level from the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nStaff\n1. EUPOL RD Congo shall consist primarily of staff seconded by Member States or Union institutions. Each Member State or Union institution shall bear the costs related to any member of the staff seconded by it, including travel expenses to and from the place of deployment, salaries, medical coverage and allowances other than applicable daily allowances, as well as hardship and risk allowances.\n2. International civilian staff and local staff shall be recruited on a contractual basis by the Mission if the functions required are not provided by personnel seconded by Member States. Exceptionally, in duly justified cases, where no qualified applications from Member States are available, nationals from participating third States may be recruited on a contractual basis, as appropriate.\n3. All staff shall abide by the Mission-specific minimum security operating standards and the Mission security plan supporting the Union field security policy. As regards the protection of EU classified information with which members of staff are entrusted in the course of their duties, all staff shall respect the principles and minimum standards of security established by security regulations of the Council (5).\nArticle 8\nStatus of the Mission and its staff\n1. The status of the Mission and its staff, including where appropriate the privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the Mission, shall be agreed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 37 of the Treaty.\n2. The State or Union institution having seconded a member of staff shall be responsible for answering any claims linked to the secondment, from or concerning the member of staff. The State or Union institution concerned shall be responsible for bringing any action against the seconded person.\n3. The conditions of employment and the rights and obligations of international and local civilian staff shall be laid down in the contracts between the Head of Mission and the members of staff.\nArticle 9\nChain of command\n1. EUPOL RD Congo shall have a unified chain of command, as a crisis management operation.\n2. Under the responsibility of the Council and of the HR, the PSC shall exercise political control and strategic direction of EUPOL RD Congo.\n3. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the PSC and the overall authority of the HR, shall exercise command and control of EUPOL RD Congo at the strategic level and, as such, shall issue instructions to the Head of Mission and provide him with advice and technical support.\n4. The Civilian Operation Commander shall report to the Council through the HR.\n5. The Head of Mission shall exercise command and control of EUPOL RD Congo at theatre level and shall be directly responsible to the Civilian Operation Commander.\nArticle 10\nPolitical control and strategic direction\n1. The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and of the HR, political control and strategic direction of the Mission. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty. This authorisation shall include the powers to appoint a Head of Mission, upon a proposal of the HR, and to amend the CONOPS and the OPLAN. The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of the Mission shall remain vested in the Council.\n2. The PSC shall report to the Council at regular intervals.\n3. The PSC shall receive, on a regular basis and as required, reports by the Civilian Operation Commander and the Head of Mission on issues within their areas of responsibility.\nArticle 11\nParticipation of third States\n1. Without prejudice to the decision-making autonomy of the Union and its single institutional framework, third States may be invited to contribute to the Mission, provided that they bear the cost of the staff seconded by them, including salaries, all risk insurance cover, daily subsistence allowances and travel expenses to and from DRC, and that they contribute to the running costs of the Mission, as appropriate.\n2. Third States contributing to the Mission shall have the same rights and obligations in terms of day-to-day management of the Mission as Member States.\n3. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions and to establish a Committee of Contributors.\n4. Detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States shall be covered by agreements concluded in accordance with Article 37 of the Treaty and additional technical arrangements as necessary. Where the Union and a third State conclude an agreement establishing a framework for the participation of that third State in Union crisis-management operations, the provisions of that agreement shall apply in the context of the Mission.\nArticle 12\nSecurity\n1. The Civilian Operation Commander, in coordination with the Council Security Office, shall direct the Head of Mission planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation for EUPOL RD Congo in accordance with Articles 5 and 9.\n2. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the security of the Mission and for ensuring compliance with minimum security requirements applicable to the Mission, in line with the Union policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, and its supporting instruments.\n3. The Head of Mission shall be assisted by a Senior Mission Security Officer (SMSO), who shall report to the Head of Mission and also maintain a close functional relationship with the Council Security Office.\n4. EUPOL RD Congo staff shall undergo mandatory security training before taking up their duties, in accordance with the OPLAN. They shall also receive regular in-theatre refresher training organised by the SMSO.\n5. The Head of Mission shall ensure the protection of EU classified information in accordance with the Council security regulations.\nArticle 13\nWatch-Keeping Capability\nThe Watch-Keeping Capability shall be activated for EUPOL RD Congo.\nArticle 14\nFinancial arrangements\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover expenditure related to the Mission for the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 shall be EUR 6 430 000.\n2. All expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The Head of Mission shall report fully to, and be supervised by, the Commission regarding the activities undertaken in the framework of his contract.\n4. Nationals of third States shall be allowed to tender for contracts. Subject to the Commission's approval, the Head of Mission may conclude technical arrangements with Member States, participating third States and other international actors regarding the provision of equipment, services and premises to EUPOL RD Congo.\n5. The financial arrangements shall respect the operational requirements of the Mission, including compatibility of equipment and interoperability of teams of the Mission.\n6. The expenditure shall be eligible as of the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 15\nCoordination\n1. Without prejudice to the chain of command, the Head of Mission shall act in close coordination with the Union Delegation and EUSEC RD Congo to ensure the consistency of Union action in support of DRC.\n2. The Head of Mission shall coordinate closely with Heads of the diplomatic missions of Member States.\n3. The Head of Mission shall cooperate with other international actors present in the country, and work in close coordination with the UN MONUSCO.\nArticle 16\nRelease of classified information\n1. The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States associated with this Decision, as appropriate and in accordance with the needs of the Mission, EU classified information and documents up to \u2018CONFIDENTIEL UE\u2019 level which are generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with the security regulations of the Council.\n2. The HR shall be authorised to release to the UN and OSCE, in accordance with the operational needs of the Mission, EU classified information and documents up to \u2018RESTREINT UE\u2019 level which are generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with the security regulations of the Council. Local arrangements shall be drawn up for this purpose.\n3. In the event of a specific and immediate operational need, the HR shall be authorised to release to the host State any EU classified information and documents up to \u2018RESTREINT UE\u2019 level which are generated for the purposes of the Mission, in accordance with the security regulations of the Council. In all other cases, such information and documents shall be released to the host State in accordance with the appropriate procedures for cooperation by the host State with the Union.\n4. The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States and international organisations referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, EU non-classified documents connected with the deliberations of the Council relating to the Mission and covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Council (6).\nArticle 17\nReview of the Mission\nA review of the Mission shall be presented to the PSC every six months, on the basis of a report by the Head of Mission.\nArticle 18\nEntry into force and duration\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2010.", "references": ["70", "77", "38", "53", "42", "41", "0", "60", "65", "75", "78", "90", "73", "29", "67", "2", "83", "50", "58", "11", "59", "62", "46", "63", "13", "57", "56", "40", "17", "71", "No Label", "1", "4", "9", "10", "36", "94"], "gold": ["1", "4", "9", "10", "36", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 415/2012\nof 15 May 2012\namending for the 171st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 7 May 2012 and 9 May 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove two natural persons from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply after considering the de-listing requests submitted by these persons and the Comprehensive Reports of the Ombudsperson established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1904(2009).\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 May 2012.", "references": ["22", "59", "90", "25", "77", "11", "74", "91", "65", "49", "82", "31", "68", "10", "17", "32", "34", "51", "58", "64", "47", "55", "18", "81", "5", "78", "84", "7", "72", "4", "No Label", "1", "3"], "gold": ["1", "3"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/146/CFSP\nof 7 March 2011\namending Decision 2010/145/CFSP renewing measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 8 March 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/145/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nThe measures provided for in Decision 2010/145/CFSP should be renewed for a further period of 12 months,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 4(1) of Decision 2010/145/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:\n\u20181. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption. It shall expire on 16 March 2012.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["38", "53", "88", "34", "94", "13", "26", "0", "66", "10", "42", "98", "33", "41", "17", "75", "74", "59", "87", "95", "5", "2", "67", "36", "20", "85", "86", "18", "7", "1", "No Label", "3", "9", "11", "12", "14", "97", "99"], "gold": ["3", "9", "11", "12", "14", "97", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 92/2011\nof 3 February 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Salame Piacentino (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and in accordance with Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Salame Piacentino\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1263/96 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2011.", "references": ["79", "82", "90", "84", "60", "22", "19", "52", "9", "51", "10", "46", "2", "87", "53", "64", "39", "3", "88", "12", "23", "41", "33", "36", "89", "7", "78", "5", "49", "29", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 882/2010\nof 6 October 2010\nfixing an acceptance percentage for the issuing of export licences, rejecting export-licence applications and suspending the lodging of export-licence applications for out-of-quota sugar\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 7e in conjunction with Article 9(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 61, first subparagraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 the sugar produced during the marketing year in excess of the quota referred to in Article 56 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit fixed by the Commission.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 of 7 May 2010 fixing the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2010/2011 marketing year (3) sets the above mentioned limits.\n(3)\nThe quantities of sugar covered by applications for export licences exceed the quantitative limit fixed by Regulation (EU) No 397/2010. An acceptance percentage should therefore be set for quantities applied for on 1 October 2010. All export-licence applications for sugar lodged after 1 October 2010 should accordingly be rejected and the lodging of export-licence applications should be suspended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export licences for out-of-quota sugar for which applications were lodged on 1 October 2010 shall be issued for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an acceptance percentage of 69,810682 %.\n2. Applications for out-of-quota sugar export licences submitted on 4 October, 5 October, 6 October, 7 October and 8 October 2010 are hereby rejected.\n3. The lodging of applications for out-of-quota sugar export licences shall be suspended for the period 11 October 2010 to 30 September 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 October 2010.", "references": ["59", "18", "36", "84", "49", "4", "79", "74", "52", "40", "82", "91", "12", "35", "44", "24", "92", "8", "3", "93", "73", "9", "76", "86", "2", "90", "96", "54", "57", "27", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "25", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "25", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 729/2010\nof 12 August 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 723/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 August 2010.", "references": ["79", "87", "63", "82", "20", "0", "40", "19", "23", "49", "58", "16", "98", "55", "78", "67", "83", "85", "61", "13", "77", "4", "41", "36", "3", "39", "14", "66", "91", "92", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 350/2012\nof 23 April 2012\nimplementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and in particular Article 46(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 March 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.\n(2)\nThe Council considers that there are no longer grounds for keeping one person and two entities on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.\n(3)\nThe list set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe person and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 23 April 2012.", "references": ["71", "79", "61", "27", "97", "5", "40", "44", "36", "63", "24", "45", "49", "41", "55", "80", "76", "78", "85", "56", "87", "86", "57", "81", "47", "10", "50", "58", "9", "89", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 11 May 2010\namending Annex II to Decision 2008/185/EC as regards the inclusion of Ireland in the list of regions where an approved national control programme for Aujeszky\u2019s disease is in place\n(notified under document C(2010) 2983)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/271/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 64/432/EEC lays down rules applicable to intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine. Article 9 of that Directive lays down criteria for approving compulsory national control programmes for certain contagious diseases, including Aujeszky\u2019s disease.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2008/185/EC of 21 February 2008 on additional guarantees in intra-Community trade of pigs relating to Aujeszky\u2019s disease and criteria to provide information on this disease (2) lays down the additional guarantees for movements of pigs between Member States. Those guarantees are linked to the classification of Member States according to their disease status.\n(3)\nAnnex II to Decision 2008/185/EC lists Member States or regions thereof where approved national control programmes for Aujeszky\u2019s disease are in place.\n(4)\nIreland has submitted supporting documentation to the Commission as regards the Aujeszky\u2019s disease status of that Member State. A national control programmes for Aujeszky\u2019s disease has been implemented in Ireland for several years.\n(5)\nThe Commission has examined the documentation submitted by Ireland and has found that the national control programme in that Member State complies with the criteria laid down in Article 9(1) of Directive 64/432/EEC. Accordingly, Ireland should be included in the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2008/185/EC.\n(6)\nFor the sake of clarity, it is necessary to make certain minor amendments to the entry for Spain in the list in Annex II to Decision 2008/185/EC.\n(7)\nAnnex II to Decision 2008/185/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Decision 2008/185/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 May 2010.", "references": ["27", "9", "95", "58", "33", "49", "92", "32", "18", "72", "17", "62", "37", "73", "22", "45", "94", "64", "81", "84", "67", "19", "57", "55", "51", "93", "77", "60", "98", "29", "No Label", "20", "38", "61", "65", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "38", "61", "65", "66", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1098/2011\nof 27 October 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ( (Jinxiang Da Suan) (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the application of the People\u2019s Republic of China to register the name \u2018\n(Jinxiang Da Suan)\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["21", "2", "78", "92", "34", "9", "86", "71", "90", "57", "79", "72", "41", "69", "44", "36", "32", "85", "93", "97", "17", "65", "67", "50", "66", "55", "18", "73", "51", "63", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "95", "96"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 978/2010\nof 29 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ( (Longkou Fen Si) (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, China\u2019s application to register the name \u2018\n(Longkou Fen Si)\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 October 2010.", "references": ["97", "85", "42", "26", "66", "59", "78", "73", "16", "19", "52", "10", "6", "57", "68", "65", "54", "63", "34", "39", "77", "53", "33", "4", "49", "92", "51", "31", "48", "41", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "95", "96"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "75", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 999/2011\nof 10 October 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/666/CFSP of 10 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 (2) provides for a freezing of the assets of President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus.\n(2)\nBy Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011 (3), the Council added further names to the list of persons targeted by the asset freeze. These further names included entities.\n(3)\nBy Decision 2011/666/CFSP, the Council has decided that a derogation from the asset freeze should be provided, in order to ensure that EU companies are not prohibited from recovering funds owed to them by the listed entities under contracts entered into prior to the listing of those entities.\n(4)\nThis measure falls within the scope of the Treaty and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to give effect to it, in particular with a view to ensuring its uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 765/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, the following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 4a\nBy way of derogation from Article 2(1), where a payment by a natural or legal person, entity or body listed in Annex I or Annex IA is due under a contract or agreement that was concluded by, or an obligation that arose for the natural or legal person, entity or body concerned before the date on which that person, entity or body had been listed, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided that:\n(i)\nthe competent authority concerned has determined that the payment is not, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of a person, entity or body listed in Annex I or Annex IA; and\n(ii)\nthe Member State concerned has, at least 2 weeks prior to the grant of the authorisation, notified the other Member States and the Commission of that determination and its intention to grant the authorisation.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 10 October 2011.", "references": ["21", "78", "18", "59", "20", "64", "51", "22", "31", "84", "72", "99", "52", "82", "44", "43", "24", "8", "58", "81", "93", "49", "96", "34", "95", "86", "33", "83", "13", "66", "No Label", "3", "11", "23", "45", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "11", "23", "45", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 August 2011\non State aid C 39/09 (ex N 385/09) - Latvia - Public financing of port infrastructure in Ventspils Port\n(notified under document C(2011) 6043)\n(Only the Latvian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/784/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1),\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy electronic notification of 26 June 2009, Latvia notified, according to Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), a measure providing for public financing for the construction of port infrastructure in Ventspils Port.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 15 December 2009, the Commission informed Latvia that it had decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU in respect of part of the measure.\n(3)\nThe Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (hereinafter \u2018the opening decision\u2019). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments.\n(4)\nThe Commission received no comments from interested parties. With letters dated 16 March 2010, 7 April 2010, 12 April 2010 and 14 April 2010 the Latvian authorities submitted their comments on the opening decision.\n(5)\nThe Commission requested additional information on the measure by letters dated 21 September 2010, 22 December 2010 and 18 March 2011. The Latvian authorities provided the information requested by letters dated 8 October 2010, 20 January 2011, 22 March 2011 and 31 March 2011.\n(6)\nAdditionally, several meetings took place between the Commission services and the Latvian authorities. These meetings were preceded and followed by the dispatch of additional information by the Latvian authorities.\n2. DESCRIPTION\n2.1. THE PROJECT\n(7)\nThe objective of the project is to upgrade the port infrastructure. The project consists of the following sub-projects to be developed during 2010-2014:\n(a)\nconstruction of a dry cargo terminal;\n(b)\nconstruction of berth No 35;\n(c)\nconstruction of berth No 12;\n(d)\nreconstruction of the northern breakwater;\n(e)\ndredging of the port basin;\n(f)\nconstruction of access railroads;\n(g)\nrenovation of mooring jetties for the port authority\u2019s vessels;\n(h)\nfortification of the coast of the channel.\n2.2. SCOPE OF THE PRESENT DECISION\n(8)\nIn its decision of 15 December 2009 (3), the Commission considered that it was not necessary to decide whether the public financing of the breakwater, the fortification of the coast of the channel and the renovation of the mooring jetties used by the ships of the port authority involved State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU at the level of the port authority, since such aid would be compatible with the internal market.\n(9)\nAs regards the public financing of the dredging and the access railroads, the Commission considered that it involved State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and declared the aid at the level of the port authority as compatible with the internal market.\n(10)\nAs regards the public financing of the new terminal and the two berths, the Commission considered that it involved aid at the level of the port authority. The Commission concluded that the aid to the port authority was compatible with the internal market.\n(11)\nThe dry-bulk terminal and the two berths will be operated by private parties. To that end, the port authority will conclude concession contracts with port service providers for a period of 35 years. No tender will be carried out in order to grant the concession contracts. The concession fee to be paid by the chosen port services providers has been established beforehand on the basis of an evaluation carried out by an independent expert.\n(12)\nIn its decision of 15 December 2009, the Commission raised doubts as to whether the price of concession would not involve State aid. On the basis of the information available at that stage, the Commission could not conclude on the aid character of the public financing at the level of the three concession holders of the user-specific port infrastructure.\n(13)\nThe Commission also found that end-users will have access to the newly built infrastructure on non-discriminatory conditions.\n(14)\nConsequently, only potential aid at the level of the concession holders has been subject to the formal investigation procedure.\n2.3. CONCESSION CONTRACTS\n2.3.1. THE DRY BULK TERMINAL\n(15)\nThe port authority intends to grant the concession contract for the operation of the newly built terminal to [\u2026] (4). Currently the operator is carrying out cargo handling operations in the territory leased by the port authority to [\u2026] on the basis of a sublease agreement concluded with [\u2026].\n(16)\nAccording to the Latvian authorities, [\u2026] intends to extend its operations and use the leased territory in its entirety for its own operations, and therefore plans to terminate the sublease agreement.\n(17)\nThe port authority decided to construct a new terminal and subsequently grant the concession to [\u2026], so that [\u2026] can continue to operate in the port.\n2.3.2. BERTH No 35 FOR LIQUID CARGO\n(18)\nAccording to the Latvian authorities, the restoration of the capacity of liquid cargoes in the port of Ventspils is linked to this particular location because of constraints related to the required depth for accommodation of liquid cargo vessels of appropriate tonnage.\n(19)\nThe entire adjacent territory is currently leased to [\u2026]. The intention of the Latvian authorities is to grant the concession contract for the operation of the new berth to the [\u2026] since it has handled liquid cargoes in the port and therefore already owns the required equipment for transhipment of liquid cargoes, including fire extinguishing equipment.\n2.3.3. BERTH No 12 FOR GENERAL AND BULK CARGO\n(20)\nOne of the users of the berth will be a subsidiary of [\u2026], which intends to establish a building modules factory on the territory of the port on the basis of a long-term land lease agreement with the port authority. The building modules will be transported to export markets by ro-ro vessels.\n(21)\nTransport of the modules from the factory itself to the berth will be carried out by rail and road, along the territory of Universal terminal No 2 operated by [\u2026]. To this end, a trilateral agreement between [\u2026], [\u2026] and the port authority will be signed after the construction of the berth.\n(22)\nAccording to the Latvian authorities, [\u2026] and [\u2026] are the only potential operators of berth No 12. The port authority initially intended to grant the concession to the [\u2026].\n2.4. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE AS REGARDS THE AID CHARACTER OF THE MEASURE AT THE LEVEL OF THE CONCESSION HOLDERS\n2.4.1. EXISTENCE OF STATE AID\n(23)\nIn its opening decision, the Commission took the preliminarily view that the criteria required to conclude that the port authority behaved like a private investor when establishing the concession fees to be charged to the future concession holders were not fully complied with.\n(24)\nThe Commission expressed doubts both as to the methodology used to establish the concession fee itself, as well as to the independent character of the expert\u2019s valuation.\n2.4.1.1. Methodologies used by the port authority to establish the concession fees\n(25)\nThe independent expert which valuated the concession fees has used two different methodologies, namely benchmarking and income. With regard to the liquid berth, the expert only used income.\n(26)\nWith regard to benchmarking, the Commission observed that it was mainly based on ongoing contracts in the same port. Therefore, the Commission raised doubts as to its reliability. The Commission noted that such benchmarking could not be conclusive insofar as there was no indication that a market oriented concession fee is paid pursuant to the contracts used as reference. In addition, the Commission noted that the analysis has been carried out in respect to the same three concession agreements for both the dry bulk terminal and berth No 12 for general and bulk cargo, despite the fact that those terminals appear to differ substantially in their nature.\n(27)\nWith regard to the income approach used in the evaluation, the Commission observed that it did not appear to reflect the entirety of the investment cost in the case of the dry bulk terminal and berth No 12.\n2.4.1.2. Independent character of the expert\u2019s valuation\n(28)\nThe Commission noted that a decision taken by the port board already in March 2006 showed the commitment of the port to grant the concession for the operation of berth No 35 to [\u2026] after completion of the construction works. The methodology of calculation of the concession fee, based on the same principles as the independent evaluation, is detailed therein. Consequently, the Commission raised doubts as to the independent character of the evaluation as such.\n2.4.1.3. Conclusion\n(29)\nThe Commission considered that the public financing of the construction of the terminal and the two berths appeared to provide a selective economic advantage to the operators of the infrastructure in question and thus to constitute aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n2.4.2. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID\n(30)\nThe Commission took the preliminary view that any aid to the concession holders would constitute operating aid, relieving them from costs they would normally have to bear. According to the case law of the Court, such operating aid is in principle incompatible with the internal market (5).\n3. COMMENTS FROM LATVIA\n3.1.1. THE CONCESSION HOLDERS\n(31)\nThe Latvian authorities maintain that the three operators have been chosen by the port authority on objective grounds and represent the most viable alternative as operators of the newly built infrastructure.\n3.1.1.1. Dry cargo terminal\n(32)\nThe port authority intends to grant the concession for the operation of the dry bulk terminal to [\u2026], dealing mainly with the transhipment of wood. The Latvian authorities explain that the presence of [\u2026] in the port is essential because of the particular significance of wood exports in the region.\n(33)\nAs explained above, [\u2026] is currently providing cargo handling services in the territory leased by the port authority to [\u2026] on the basis of a sublease agreement concluded with the [\u2026]. Given that [\u2026] intends to extend its operations and use the leased territory in its entirety, the port board adopted in October 2005 a resolution to construct a new terminal and subsequently grant the concession for its operation to [\u2026] (see Annex I).\n(34)\nThe Latvian authorities maintain that the decision to award the concession contract to this particular operator is based on purely objective commercial grounds. In this sense the Latvian authorities underline that [\u2026] represents the most feasible solution for the operation of the terminal since it already owns the equipment required for the handling of dry cargoes. In addition, no other potential concessionaire has expressed an interest to operate the dry bulk terminal. The Latvian authorities underline that it is in the interest of the port authority to initiate negotiations with all potentially interested parties, in particular since a significant portion of port land is still unused.\n(35)\n[\u2026] has already transhipped in the port more than [\u2026] thousand m3 per year and has thus already established a solid business network. The port authority considers that the company would be able to maintain such cargo turnover in the future and thus offer the required guarantees as regards the recovery of the investments carried out by the port authority.\n3.1.1.2. Berth No 35\n(36)\nThe berth will replace jetty No 1 for the transhipment of liquid hazardous cargoes. The jetty is currently outdated and cannot therefore be used for cargo handling. As explained above, the restoration of the capacity of liquid cargoes in the port of Ventspils is linked to this particular location because of safety requirements and constraints related to the required depth for liquid cargo vessels of appropriate tonnage.\n(37)\nThe Latvian authorities state that granting the concession for the operation of berth No 35 to a different company is not possible in practice precisely due to the specific location of the infrastructure at stake within the port. Currently the entirety of the adjacent port territory is leased to [\u2026] (see Annex II).\n(38)\nMoreover, it is argued that, similarly to [\u2026], since [\u2026] has already handled liquid cargoes in Ventspils port, the operator owns all the equipment required for transhipment of liquid cargoes, which is essential to the operation of the berth.\n3.1.1.3. Berth No 12\n(39)\nThe project aims to increase the discharge capacity of general cargo. The Latvian authorities explain that the decision to construct the berth is linked to the conclusion by the port authority of a long-term land lease agreement with a subsidiary of [\u2026]. The subsidiary of [\u2026] intends to establish a building modules factory on the territory of the port. The building modules may only be transported to export markets by ro-ro vessels.\n(40)\nThe Latvian authorities however underline that prior to the conclusion of the lease contract with [\u2026], the port authority participated to various tenders organised by freight forwarders and potential concessionaires of berth No 12, such as [\u2026], but was unsuccessful.\n(41)\nAccording to the Latvian authorities, transport of the modules from the factory itself to the berth can only be carried out by rail and road, alongside the territory of Universal terminal No 2 operated by [\u2026]. To this end, a trilateral agreement between [\u2026], [\u2026] and the port authority will be signed after the construction of the berth.\n(42)\nFurthermore, the Latvian authorities state that there are only two potential operators of the berth, i.e. [\u2026] and [\u2026]. By the comments submitted in the context of the formal investigation procedure, the Latvian authorities have clarified that the concession contract for the operation of the berth would be granted to [\u2026].\n(43)\nGiven that the only way to deliver the building modules from the factory to berth No 12 is through the territory leased to the [\u2026] (see Annex III), the port authority considers [\u2026] as the most realistic alternative.\n(44)\nIn addition, the Latvian authorities underline that the surface of the port plot adjacent to the berth does not allow storage of cargo. Therefore it is necessary to ensure the reliable connections with other areas of the port where storage is possible.\n(45)\nIt is also claimed that, considering both the location of the berth as well as its technical parameters, the berth will serve freight forwarders located in an area up to 12 ha, irrespective of the type of cargo handled.\n3.1.2. THE EXPERT VALUATION\n(46)\nSeparate valuations have been carried out for each of the concession contracts for the user specific infrastructure. The Latvian authorities maintain that these valuations have been carried out in accordance with the Latvian Valuation Standards and International Valuation Standards.\n(47)\nAs regards the methodology used, the Latvian authorities underline that, given the location and characteristic of the Riga and Liepaja ports, the benchmarking exercise (the so-called \u2018comparison approach\u2019) is fully reliable. The concession fees paid by the service providers operating in these ports have been provided by the port authorities themselves and should therefore be considered as trustworthy.\n(48)\nAccording to the Latvian authorities, the reviewed valuations, based on cash flow analysis, should also allay the Commission\u2019s doubts as regards their independent character.\n(49)\nIn what follows, the Commission will detail in turn the methodology used by the expert to establish the concession fees.\n3.1.2.1. Dry cargo terminal\n(50)\nThe assessment is based on two methods, as follows:\n(51)\nThe benchmarking exercise is carried out in respect of three contracts considered as comparable in Ventspils port. The expert used correction quotients in order to establish an adequate concession fee. The following factors were taken into account: time and conditions of conclusion of the contract, location, description of the berths, rent area, technical conditions of terminals and access to utilities.\n(52)\nThe calculated concession fee equals EUR [\u2026] per sm per year. The valuer set the concession fee at EUR [\u2026] per sm per year.\n(53)\nThe income approach is used to assess whether the discounted values of future income allow full coverage of the total investment costs (including the loading area, dredging and access railways costs) and provides for financial projections for a period of 25 years. Estimated income and costs are corrected by a discount rate of 7,5 %, which reflects the investment risk level.\n(54)\nThe independent appraisal takes into account income from port dues and fees and income resulting from the use of port land and infrastructure. Total investment costs are taken into account.\n(55)\nBased on different levels of cargo turnover, the net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR) and benefit costs ratio (BCR) are forecasted for concession fees ranging from EUR [\u2026] per sm to EUR [\u2026] per sm per year. The financial indicators justify a concession fee of at least EUR [\u2026] per sm per year at an average cargo turnover of [\u2026] tonnes per year and EUR [\u2026] per sm per year for an average cargo turnover of [\u2026] tonnes per year. If the average turnover exceeds [\u2026] tonnes per year, the concession fee can be minimal.\n(56)\nGiven that the forecasted average cargo turnover is [\u2026] tons per year, the independent valuer concludes that an annual concession fee between EUR [\u2026] and EUR [\u2026] per sm per year is justified.\n(57)\nTaking into account both methods detailed above, the independent valuer set the concession fee at EUR [\u2026] per sm per year.\n(58)\nThe table below provides the values of the financial indicators of the project taking into account the resulted concession fee:\nCargo turnover [\u2026] tonnes, concession fee EUR [\u2026] per sm per year, discount rate 7,5 %, growth rate 2,28 %\nIndicator\nWithout Cohesion Fund grant\nWith Cohesion Fund grant\nIRR\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\nNPV\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(59)\nThus the appraisal of the independent valuer confirmed the appropriateness of the concession fee calculated as detailed above, i.e. EUR [\u2026] per sm per year.\n3.1.2.2. Berth No 35\n(60)\nThe income approach provides for financial projections for a period of 25 years. Estimated income and costs are corrected by the same discount rate of 7,5 %, which reflects the investment risk level.\n(61)\nThe independent appraisal takes into account income from port dues and fees and income resulting from the use of port land and infrastructure. Total investment costs are taken into account.\n(62)\nBased on different levels of cargo turnover, the net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR) and benefit costs ratio (BCR) are forecasted for concession fees ranging from EUR [\u2026] to EUR [\u2026] per year. The financial indicators justify an annual concession fee above EUR [\u2026] per year for an expected cargo turnover of [\u2026] tonnes per year and higher than EUR [\u2026] per year for an expected turnover of [\u2026] tonnes per year. For higher cargo turnover the concession fee may be minimal.\n(63)\nConsidering that the 30-year depreciation period of deep water berths, the independent valuer established the value of the concession fee at EUR [\u2026] per year, i.e. 1/30 of the berth investment costs, excluding dredging works.\n(64)\nThe table below indicates the financial results of the project for an annual cargo turnover of [\u2026] tonnes, taking into account a concession fee of EUR [\u2026] per year. Total investment costs, including dredging works, have been taken into account in the calculation.\nCargo turnover [\u2026] tonnes, concession fee EUR [\u2026] per year, discount rate 7,5 %, growth rate 2,28 %\nIndicator\nWithout Cohesion Fund grant\nWith Cohesion Fund grant\nIRR\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\nNPV\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(65)\nThus the valuer set the concession fee at EUR [\u2026] per year (instead of EUR [\u2026] per year, as initially foreseen).\n3.1.2.3. Berth No 12\n(66)\nThe valuation is based on two methods, i.e. the comparable transaction approach and the income approach.\n(67)\nFirst, the concession contract is benchmarked against three contracts considered as comparable in Ventspils port. Taking into consideration the specific features and characteristics of the infrastructure subject to these three contracts, the valuer used correction quotients in order to establish an adequate concession fee. The following factors were taken into account: time and conditions of conclusion of the deal, location, description of the berths, rent area, technical conditions of the infrastructure, access to utilities.\n(68)\nThe calculated concession fee equals EUR [\u2026] per sm per year. The concession fee was set to EUR [\u2026] per sm per year.\n(69)\nThe income approach, used to assess whether the discounted values of future income enable the coverage of the total investment costs (including dredging and access railways costs), provides for financial projections for a period of 25 years. Forecasted income and costs are corrected by a discount rate of 7,5 %, which reflects the investment risk level.\n(70)\nThe independent appraisal takes into account income from port dues and fees and income resulting from the use of port land and infrastructure. Total investment costs are taken into account, including the public financing.\n(71)\nBased on different levels of cargo turnover, the net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR) and benefit costs ratio (BCR) are forecasted for concession fees ranging from EUR [\u2026] per sm to EUR [\u2026] per sm per year. The independent valuer concluded that the financial indicators justify (the NPV is positive) a concession fee not lower than EUR [\u2026] per sm per year for an expected cargo turnover of [\u2026] tonnes per year and EUR [\u2026] per sm per year for an expected cargo turnover of [\u2026] tonnes per year.\n(72)\nGiven the forecasted volume of [\u2026] tonnes per year, the valuer concluded that a concession fee of at least [\u2026] EUR per sm per year is justified.\n(73)\nTaking into account the results of the two methods detailed above, the independent valuer set the concession fee at EUR [\u2026] per sm per year.\n(74)\nThe table below provides the values of the financial indicators of the project taking into account the resulted concession fee:\nCargo turnover [\u2026] tonnes, concession fee EUR [\u2026] per sm per year, discount rate 7,5 %, growth rate 2,28 %\nIndicator\nWithout Cohesion Fund grant\nWith Cohesion Fund grant\nIRR\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\nNPV\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(75)\nThus the appraisal of the independent valuers confirmed the appropriateness of the concession fee set as detailed above, i.e. EUR [\u2026] per sm per year.\n3.1.3. THE CONCESSION FEE\n(76)\nOn the basis of the valuations carried out by the independent valuer, the Latvian authorities decided to set the concession fees as follows:\nConcession holder\nInfrastructure\nIndependent valuation\n(per year)\nConcession fee\n(per year)\n[\u2026]\nDry cargo terminal\nEUR [\u2026]\nEUR [\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nBerth No 35\nEUR [\u2026]\nEUR [\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nBerth No 12\nEUR [\u2026]\nEUR [\u2026]\n4. ASSESSMENT\n4.1. EXISTENCE OF AID\n(77)\nPursuant to 107(1) of the TFEU, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market save as otherwise provided by the TFEU.\n(78)\nThe criteria laid down in Article 107(1) are cumulative. Therefore, in order to determine whether the notified measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, all the abovementioned conditions need to be fulfilled. Namely, the financial support:\n(a)\nis granted by a Member State or through State resources;\n(b)\nfavours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods;\n(c)\ndistorts or threatens to distort competition;\n(d)\naffects trade between Member States.\n4.1.1. ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE\n(79)\nAccording to the case-law (6) of the Court, there is no advantage to the concession holders if a private investor, in similar circumstances, would have set the concession fee at the same level.\n(80)\nFrom the outset, the Commission notes that in this case the concession fees have been established beforehand by means of separate valuations carried out by an external expert. The Latvian authorities have provided evidence to the effect that the expert has suitable degree and experience.\n(81)\nAs detailed above, the independent valuer benchmarked the calculated concession fees with those set for three contracts considered as comparable in Ventspils port. Taking into consideration the specific features and characteristics of the infrastructure subject to these contracts, the independent expert used correction quotients in order to establish an adequate concession fee.\n(82)\nNevertheless, the Commission cannot ascertain, on the basis of the information available whether the contracts considered as reference have been tendered out, nor there is currently any indication that the concession fees paid on the basis of these contracts can be considered a market price.\n(83)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission maintains that the benchmarking exercise is not sufficiently reliable and thus cannot be sufficient to exclude that the concession holders will benefit of an advantage.\n(84)\nAccording to the second method used by the independent valuer, the concession fees and other revenues of the port authority would ensure recovery of the infrastructure investment costs and a certain rate of return in 25 years. The port authority decided to set the concession fee for the dry cargo terminal (EUR [\u2026] per sm instead of EUR [\u2026] per sm per year) and for berth No 35 (EUR [\u2026] instead of EUR [\u2026] per year) substantially above the value recommended by the expert. Therefore, the actual return expected by the port authority is substantially higher than the value calculated by the expert.\n(85)\nTherefore, the Commission concludes that the concession fee and the other revenues of the port authority enable it to recover the entire infrastructure investment costs, including dredging and access railways costs, and earn a return which is in line with the return a private investor would require.\n(86)\nIn addition, the Commission notes that there is no indication in this case that the port authority has set the concession fees at a level that would not maximise its revenues.\n(87)\nFurthermore, the inclusion of review clause enables the concession fee to be reviewed periodically.\n(88)\nIn view of the above, the Commission is of the view that in the present case, it can be concluded that the concession fee established as detailed above does not grant undue advantages to the concession holders of the user-specific infrastructure.\n(89)\nThis decision in no way prejudges any possible further analysis by the Commission as far as the respect for the EU public procurement rules or other general principles of the TFEU are concerned.\n4.1.2. CONCLUSION\n(90)\nThe Commission considers that the public financing of the user-specific infrastructure in Ventspils port does not result in an economic advantage at the level of the concession holders and the measure does not therefore have the effect of putting the chosen service providers in a more favourable competitive position than the undertakings competing with them.\n(91)\nAccording to settled case-law, for a measure to be classified as State aid, all the conditions set out in Article 107(1) TFEU must be satisfied (7). Since the measure to be put in place by the Latvian authorities does not entail an economic advantage for the future concession holders, it does not therefore cumulatively fulfil the conditions required to be considered State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n5. CONCLUSION\n(92)\nIn light of the above, the Commission concludes that the public financing of the construction of user-specific infrastructure in Ventspils port does not involve aid at the level of the concession holders.\n(93)\nThis decision only concerns State aid aspects and is without prejudice to the application of other provisions of TFEU, particularly regarding service concessions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid which Latvia is planning to implement in favour of Ventspils port authority in relation to the construction of the dry-bulk terminal, berth No 12 and berth No 35 does not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU at the level of the concession holders.\nImplementation of the measure is accordingly authorised.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Latvia.\nDone at Brussels, 25 August 2011.", "references": ["68", "64", "37", "44", "47", "27", "72", "45", "22", "50", "10", "59", "98", "52", "3", "6", "29", "40", "4", "89", "60", "80", "55", "71", "34", "13", "67", "96", "39", "38", "No Label", "15", "20", "31", "48", "53", "56", "91"], "gold": ["15", "20", "31", "48", "53", "56", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 19/2011\nof 11 January 2011\nconcerning type-approval requirements for the manufacturer\u2019s statutory plate and for the vehicle identification number of motor vehicles and their trailers and implementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 is a separate Regulation for the purposes of type-approval provided for in Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 repeals Council Directive 76/114/EEC of 18 December 1975 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to statutory plates and inscriptions for motor vehicles and their trailers, and their location and method of attachment (3). The requirements set out in that Directive should be carried over to this Regulation and where necessary, amended in order to adapt them to the development of scientific knowledge.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 661/2009 lays down fundamental provisions on requirements for type-approval of vehicles with regard to vehicle identification methods. Therefore, it is necessary to also set out the specific procedures, tests and requirements for such type-approval.\n(4)\nIn the absence of harmonised legislation on the maximum permissible laden mass or maximum permissible masses for axles or axle groups of heavy duty vehicles, Directive 97/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 1997 relating to the masses and dimensions of certain categories of motor vehicles and their trailers and amending Directive 70/156/EEC (4) provides for the determination of registration/in-service maximum permissible masses to be determined for the purposes of registration, of the entry into service or of the use of heavy duty vehicles in the territory of a Member State. It is therefore appropriate to include the registration/in-service maximum permissible masses in the model of the manufacturer\u2019s statutory plate. For road safety reasons, it is also appropriate to include the maximum permissible mass on an axle group.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation applies to complete and incomplete vehicles of categories M, N and O.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation,\n(1)\n\u2018manufacturer\u2019s statutory plate\u2019 means a plate or label, affixed by the manufacturer on a vehicle that provide the main technical characteristics which are necessary for the identification of the vehicle and provides the competent authorities with the relevant information concerning the permissible maximum laden masses;\n(2)\n\u2018vehicle identification number\u2019 (VIN) means the alphanumeric code assigned to a vehicle by the manufacturer in order to ensure proper identification of every vehicle;\n(3)\n\u2018vehicle type\u2019 means a set of vehicles as defined in Annex II, Part B to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nArticle 3\nProvisions for EC type-approval of a type of vehicle with regard to the manufacturer\u2019s statutory plate and the vehicle identification number\n1. The manufacturer or his representative shall submit to the type-approval authority the application for EC type-approval of a type of vehicle as regard the lay-out and the location of the manufacturer\u2019s statutory plate and the composition and the location of the vehicle identification number.\n2. The application shall be drawn up in accordance with the model information document set out in Part A of Annex III.\n3. If deemed necessary by the approval authority or the technical service, the manufacturer shall make available a vehicle representative of the type to be approved for the purposes of inspection.\n4. If the relevant requirements set out in Annex I and Annex II to this Regulation are met, the approval authority shall grant a type-approval in accordance with the numbering system set out in Annex VII to Directive 2007/46/EC.\nA Member State may not assign the same number to another vehicle type.\n5. For the purpose of paragraph 4, the type-approval authority shall deliver an EC type-approval certificate established in accordance with the model set out in Part B of Annex III.\nArticle 4\nValidity and extension of EC type-approvals granted under Directive 76/114/EEC\nNational authorities shall permit the sale and entry into service of vehicles type-approved before the date referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 and shall continue to grant extension to approvals granted under the terms of Directive 76/114/EEC.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 January 2011.", "references": ["8", "24", "69", "79", "70", "84", "11", "25", "7", "6", "51", "61", "77", "87", "36", "65", "52", "14", "32", "50", "17", "43", "80", "47", "98", "26", "49", "13", "45", "63", "No Label", "53", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["53", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 498/2010\nof 9 June 2010\nprohibiting fishing activities for purse seiners flying the flag of France or Greece or registered in France or Greece, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and in the Mediterranean Sea\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1) , and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required and amending Regulations (EC) No 1359/2008, (EC) No 754/2009, (EC) No 1226/2009 and (EC) No 1287/2009 (2), fixes the amount of bluefin tuna which may be fished in 2010 in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea by European Union fishing vessels.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 of 6 April 2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, amending Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1559/2007 (3), requires Member States to inform the Commission of the individual quota allocated to their vessels over 24 metres.\n(3)\nThe Common Fisheries Policy is designed to ensure the long-term viability of the fisheries sector through sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources based on the precautionary approach.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 36(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, on the basis of information to be provided by Member States or on its own initiative, where the Commission finds that fishing opportunities available to the European Union, a Member State or group of Member States are deemed to have been exhausted, the Commission shall inform the Member States concerned thereof and shall prohibit fishing activities for the respective area, gear, stock, group of stocks or fleet involved in those specific fishing activities.\n(5)\nThe information in the Commission's possession indicates that the fishing opportunities for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean Sea allocated to purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in France or Greece will be deemed to be exhausted on 9 June 2010.\n(6)\nIt is therefore necessary that the Commission prohibits as from 10 June 2010, 00h00, the fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W and the Mediterranean Sea by purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in France or Greece,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45\u00b0 W, and the Mediterranean by purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in France or Greece shall be prohibited as from 10 June 2010, 00h00.\nIt shall also be prohibited to retain on board, place in cages for fattening or farming, tranship, transfer or land such stock caught by those vessels as from that date.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 June 2010.", "references": ["47", "92", "71", "81", "79", "0", "15", "50", "72", "17", "76", "29", "25", "38", "12", "86", "66", "20", "68", "8", "18", "26", "4", "59", "89", "22", "80", "49", "73", "70", "No Label", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 February 2012\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs\n(2012/164/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) and Article 218(7) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an agreement between the European Union and Georgia on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (the \u2018Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Agreement will enable the reciprocal protection of the geographical indications of the respective Parties and will contribute to the approximation of legislation among the EU neighbouring countries.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2011/620/EU (1), the Agreement was signed on 14 July 2011, subject to its conclusion.\n(4)\nThe internal procedure for establishing representation of the Union on matters relating to the Agreement should also be defined.\n(5)\nCertain tasks for implementation have been attributed to the Joint Committee established by the Agreement, including the power to amend certain technical aspects of the Agreement as well as certain Annexes thereto.\n(6)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (the \u2018Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Commission, assisted by Member States\u2019 representatives, shall represent the Union in the Joint Committee referred to in Article 11 of the Agreement.\nFor the purposes of Article 11(3) of the Agreement, modifications to the Agreement through decisions of the Joint Committee shall be approved by the Commission on behalf of the Union on the basis of the procedure laid down in Article 15(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2).\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to give, on behalf of the Union, the notification provided for in Article 14(1) of the Agreement, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the Agreement (3).\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 February 2012.", "references": ["98", "75", "43", "20", "11", "71", "0", "69", "55", "90", "81", "5", "15", "59", "58", "27", "82", "95", "61", "68", "14", "48", "35", "56", "93", "16", "38", "44", "10", "31", "No Label", "3", "9", "24", "25", "66", "72", "91"], "gold": ["3", "9", "24", "25", "66", "72", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 28 February 2012\nestablishing the best available techniques (BAT) conclusions under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions for iron and steel production\n(notified under document C(2012) 903)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/135/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (1), and in particular Article 13(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 13(1) of Directive 2010/75/EU requires the Commission to organise an exchange of information on industrial emissions between it and Member States, the industries concerned and non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection in order to facilitate the drawing up of best available techniques (BAT) reference documents as defined in Article 3(11) of that Directive.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Directive 2010/75/EU, the exchange of information is to address the performance of installations and techniques in terms of emissions, expressed as short- and long-term averages, where appropriate, and the associated reference conditions, consumption and nature of raw materials, water consumption, use of energy and generation of waste and the techniques used, associated monitoring, cross-media effects, economic and technical viability and developments therein and also the best available techniques and emerging techniques identified after considering the issues mentioned in points (a) and (b) of Article 13(2) of that Directive.\n(3)\n\u2018BAT conclusions\u2019 as defined in Article 3(12) of Directive 2010/75/EU are the key element of BAT reference documents and lay down the conclusions on best available techniques, their description, information to assess their applicability, the emission levels associated with the best available techniques, associated monitoring, associated consumption levels and, where appropriate, relevant site remediation measures.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 14(3) of Directive 2010/75/EU, BAT conclusions are to be the reference for setting the permit conditions for installations covered by Chapter 2 of that Directive.\n(5)\nArticle 15(3) of Directive 2010/75/EU requires the competent authority to set emission limit values that ensure that, under normal operating conditions, emissions do not exceed the emission levels associated with the best available techniques as laid down in the decisions on BAT conclusions referred to in Article 13(5) of that Directive.\n(6)\nArticle 15(4) of Directive 2010/75 provides for derogations from the requirement laid down in Article 15(3) only where the costs associated with the achievement of emissions levels disproportionately outweigh the environmental benefits due to the geographical location, the local environmental conditions or the technical characteristics of the installation concerned.\n(7)\nArticle 16(1) of Directive 2010/75/EU provides that the monitoring requirements in the permit referred to in point (c) of Article 14(1) are to be based on the conclusions on monitoring as described in the BAT conclusions.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 21(3) of Directive 2010/75/EU, within four years of publication of decisions on BAT conclusions, the competent authority is to reconsider and, if necessary, update all the permit conditions and ensure that the installation complies with those permit conditions.\n(9)\nCommission Decision of 16 May 2011 establishing a forum for the exchange of information pursuant to Article 13 of the Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (2) established a forum composed of representatives of Member States, the industries concerned and non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection.\n(10)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Directive 2010/75/EU, the Commission obtained the opinion (3) of that forum on the proposed content of the BAT reference document for iron and steel production on 13 September 2011 and made it publicly available.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 75(1) of Directive 2010/75/EU,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe BAT conclusions for iron and steel production are set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2012.", "references": ["13", "47", "42", "70", "4", "21", "97", "2", "37", "67", "14", "33", "16", "39", "8", "73", "89", "10", "3", "62", "79", "7", "81", "1", "72", "46", "95", "44", "27", "24", "No Label", "41", "58", "60", "76", "84"], "gold": ["41", "58", "60", "76", "84"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 846/2011\nof 19 August 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for hake in EU waters of IIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 August 2011.", "references": ["74", "94", "50", "25", "58", "90", "12", "64", "30", "9", "72", "22", "26", "82", "54", "52", "19", "43", "76", "69", "8", "77", "21", "31", "75", "78", "84", "80", "1", "44", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 130/2011\nof 11 February 2011\non selling prices for cereals in response to the sixth individual invitations to tender within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 (2) has opened the sales of cereals by tendering procedures, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission has to fix for each cereal and per Member State a minimum selling price or to decide not to fix a minimum selling price.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the sixth individual invitations to tender, it has been decided that a minimum selling price should be fixed for the cereals and for the Member States.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the sixth individual invitations to tender for selling of cereals within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 9 February 2011, the decisions on the selling price per cereal and Member State are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 February 2011.", "references": ["15", "45", "26", "72", "46", "9", "2", "27", "60", "12", "89", "64", "94", "90", "84", "80", "22", "44", "33", "19", "61", "17", "11", "0", "36", "65", "42", "73", "24", "92", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/788/CFSP\nof 20 December 2010\nconcerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and repealing Common Position 2008/369/CFSP\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 14 May 2008, the Council adopted Common Position 2008/369/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1) following the adoption by the United Nations Security Council on 31 March 2008 of Resolution 1807 (2008) (\u2018UNSCR 1807 (2008)\u2019).\n(2)\nOn 1 December 2010, the Sanctions Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1533 (2004) (\u2018UNSCR 1533 (2004)\u2019) amended the list of persons and entities which are subject to restrictive measures.\n(3)\nThe procedure for amending the Annex to this Decision should include providing to designated persons and entities the grounds for listing so as to give them an opportunity to present observations. Where observations are submitted or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in the light of those observations and inform the person or entity concerned accordingly.\n(4)\nThis Decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the right to property and the right to the protection of personal data. This Decision should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(5)\nThis Decision also fully respects the obligations of Member States under the Charter of the United Nations and the legally binding nature of Security Council resolutions.\n(6)\nCommon Position 2008/369/CFSP should therefore be repealed and replaced by this Decision.\n(7)\nThe Union implementing measures are set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 889/2005 of 13 June 2005 imposing certain restrictive measures in respect of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (2) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (3),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer of arms and any related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned to all non-governmental entities and individuals operating in the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, shall be prohibited whether originating or not in their territories.\n2. It shall also be prohibited to:\n(a)\ngrant, sell, supply or transfer technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to military activities and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, directly or indirectly to all non-governmental entities and individuals operating in the territory of the DRC;\n(b)\nprovide financing or financial assistance related to military activities, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related materiel, or for any grant, sale, supply, or transfer of related technical assistance, brokering services and other services, directly or indirectly to all non-governmental entities and individuals operating in the territory of the DRC.\nArticle 2\n1. Article 1 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nthe supply, sale or transfer of arms and any related materiel or the provision of technical assistance, financing, brokering services and other services related to arms and related materiel intended solely for support of, or use by, the United Nations Organisation Mission in the DRC (MONUC);\n(b)\nthe supply, sale or transfer of protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to the DRC by United Nations personnel, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel, for their personal use only;\n(c)\nthe supply, sale or transfer of non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, or the provision of technical assistance and training, related to such non-lethal equipment.\n2. The supply, sale or transfer of arms and any related materiel or the provision of services or technical assistance and training referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to prior authorisation by the competent authorities of the Member States.\n3. Member States shall give the Sanctions Committee established pursuant to UNSCR 1533 (2004) (Sanctions Committee) advance notification of any shipment of arms and related materiel for the DRC, or any provision of technical assistance, financing, brokering services and other services related to military activities in the DRC, other than those referred to in paragraphs 1(a) and (b). Such notification shall contain all relevant information, including, where appropriate, the end-user, the proposed date of delivery and the itinerary of shipments.\n4. Member States shall consider deliveries under paragraph 1 on a case-by-case basis, taking full account of the criteria set out in Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment (4). Member States shall require adequate safeguards against misuse of authorisations granted pursuant to paragraph 2 and, where appropriate, make provisions for repatriation of the arms delivered and related materiel.\nArticle 3\nRestrictive measures as provided for in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) and (2) shall be imposed against the following persons and, as appropriate, entities, designated by the Sanctions Committee:\n-\npersons or entities acting in violation of the arms embargo and related measures as referred to in Article 1,\n-\npolitical and military leaders of foreign armed groups operating in the DRC who impede the disarmament and the voluntary repatriation or resettlement of combatants belonging to those groups,\n-\npolitical and military leaders of Congolese militias receiving support from outside the DRC, who impede the participation of their combatants in disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration processes,\n-\npolitical and military leaders operating in the DRC and recruiting or using children in armed conflicts in violation of applicable international law,\n-\nindividuals operating in the DRC and committing serious violations of international law involving the targeting of children or women in situations of armed conflict, including killing and maiming, sexual violence, abduction and forced displacement,\n-\nindividuals obstructing the access to or the distribution of humanitarian assistance in the eastern part of the DRC,\n-\nindividuals or entities supporting the illegal armed groups in the eastern part of the DRC through illicit trade of natural resources.\nThe relevant persons and entities are listed in the Annex.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the persons referred to in Article 3.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where the Sanctions Committee:\n(a)\ndetermines in advance and on a case-by-case basis that such entry or transit is justified on the grounds of humanitarian need, including religious obligation,\n(b)\nconcludes that an exemption would further the objectives of relevant resolutions of the Security Council, that is to say peace and national reconciliation in the DRC and stability in the region,\n(c)\nauthorises in advance and on a case-by-case basis, the transit of individuals returning to the territory of the State of their nationality, or participating in efforts to bring to justice perpetrators of grave violations of human rights or international humanitarian law.\n4. In cases where, pursuant to paragraph 3, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons designated by the Sanctions Committee, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the persons concerned thereby.\nArticle 5\n1. All funds, other financial assets and economic resources owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the persons or entities referred to in Article 3 or held by entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by them or by any persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, as identified in the Annex, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds, other financial assets or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the persons or entities referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. Member States may allow for exemptions from the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 in respect of funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are:\n(a)\nnecessary for basic expenses, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges, in accordance with national laws, for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds, or other financial assets and economic resources;\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, after notification by the Member State concerned to, and approval by, the Sanctions Committee;\n(e)\nthe subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien or judgment, in which case the funds, other financial assets and economic resources may be used to satisfy that lien or judgment provided that the lien or judgment was entered before designation by the Sanctions Committee of the person or entity concerned, and is not for the benefit of a person or entity referred to in Article 3, after notification by the Member State concerned to the Sanctions Committee.\n4. The exemptions referred to in paragraph 3(a), (b) and (c) may be made after notification to the Sanctions Committee by the Member State concerned of its intention to authorise, where appropriate, access to such funds, other financial assets and economic resources, and in the absence of a negative decision by the Sanctions Committee within four working days of such notification.\n5. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which those accounts became subject to restrictive measures,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments remain subject to paragraph 1.\nArticle 6\nThe Council shall amend the list contained in the Annex on the basis of the determinations made by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 7\n1. Where the United Nations Security Council or the Sanctions Committee lists a person or entity, the Council shall include such person or entity in the Annex. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the person or entity concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person or entity an opportunity to present observations.\n2. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the person or entity concerned accordingly.\nArticle 8\n1. The Annex shall include the grounds for listing of listed persons and entities as provided by the United Nations Security Council or the Sanctions Committee.\n2. The Annex shall also include, where available, information provided by the United Nations Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee necessary to identify the persons or entities concerned. With regard to persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known, and function or profession. With regard to entities, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. The Annex shall also include the date of designation by the United Nations Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 9\nThis Decision shall be reviewed, amended or repealed as appropriate, as determined by the United Nations Security Council.\nArticle 10\nCommon Position 2008/369/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 11\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["55", "5", "2", "16", "13", "27", "58", "35", "66", "63", "65", "79", "10", "49", "34", "78", "17", "84", "28", "0", "88", "93", "89", "50", "48", "71", "40", "42", "18", "85", "No Label", "3", "4", "6", "9", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "6", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1199/2010\nof 14 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in Norwegian waters of I and II by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2010.", "references": ["72", "86", "65", "87", "52", "12", "84", "93", "24", "1", "33", "15", "29", "68", "34", "62", "81", "47", "50", "99", "55", "43", "9", "16", "95", "35", "89", "25", "76", "37", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 596/2011\nof 7 June 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Fichi di Cosenza (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Fichi di Cosenza\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2011.", "references": ["17", "38", "93", "8", "42", "94", "39", "37", "30", "20", "60", "82", "73", "53", "5", "61", "9", "44", "59", "49", "16", "48", "27", "2", "88", "95", "47", "72", "71", "4", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 251/2011\nof 14 March 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 246/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 March 2011.", "references": ["52", "90", "20", "80", "51", "81", "39", "34", "84", "76", "92", "26", "3", "50", "43", "95", "33", "27", "83", "7", "60", "94", "57", "77", "31", "47", "98", "15", "64", "53", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 259/2011\nof 16 March 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 on rules of application (cereal sector import duties) for Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 5 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 on rules of application (cereal sector import duties) for Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (2) lays down the components determining the representative cif import prices referred to in Article 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for the cereals referred to in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010.\n(2)\nAlthough Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 refer to the common wheat of high quality, Annex III to that Regulation includes quotation exchanges and reference varieties also for medium and low quality common wheat. For sake of consistency, it is appropriate to remove from that Annex quotations and varieties for medium and low quality common wheat.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 642/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures set out in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 March 2011.", "references": ["11", "79", "5", "46", "36", "20", "82", "19", "54", "98", "72", "60", "99", "74", "96", "67", "29", "17", "44", "16", "78", "0", "87", "15", "32", "90", "83", "45", "50", "26", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "30", "35", "68"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "30", "35", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 January 2011\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the Joint Committee on Agriculture set up by the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products, as regards the adaptation of Annex 3 to the Agreement\n(2011/53/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(4) first subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (1) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) entered into force on 1 June 2002.\n(2)\nArticle 6 of the Agreement sets up a Joint Committee on Agriculture to be responsible for the administration of the Agreement and to ensure its proper functioning.\n(3)\nArticle 11 of the Agreement provides that the Joint Committee on Agriculture may decide to amend Annexes to the Agreement.\n(4)\nIn order to take into account the full liberalisation in bilateral trade in cheeses, with effect from 1 June 2007 and the protection of geographical indications, to be provided for in a new Annex 12 to the Agreement, which calls for consistency in the specifications in particular those of cheeses, the necessary adaptations of Annex 3 to the Agreement should be made.\n(5)\nThe first subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation (2) provides that the European Union position within the Joint Committee on Agriculture shall be adopted by the Council on a proposal from the Commission.\n(6)\nThe Union should therefore take the position set out in the attached draft Decision within the Joint Committee on Agriculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the Joint Committee on Agriculture set up by the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products, as regards the adaptations of the Agreement as far as bilateral trade in products falling under heading 0406 of the Harmonised System is concerned to take account of the fully liberalised trade in the sector, shall be based on the draft Decision of the Joint Committee on Agriculture attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Decision of the Joint Committee on Agriculture shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union without delay after its adoption.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["95", "63", "55", "64", "47", "14", "50", "57", "18", "29", "44", "0", "36", "35", "22", "51", "42", "59", "13", "82", "52", "65", "5", "89", "43", "25", "40", "11", "26", "32", "No Label", "9", "20", "21", "23", "66", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "20", "21", "23", "66", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 559/2011\nof 7 June 2011\namending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for captan, carbendazim, cyromazine, ethephon, fenamiphos, thiophanate-methyl, triasulfuron and triticonazole in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC, and in particular Article 14(1)(a) and Article 49(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor captan, carbendazim, cyromazine, ethephon, fenamiphos, thiophanate-methyl, triasulfuron and triticonazole maximum residue levels (MRLs) are set in Annex II and Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(2)\nFor captan the Commission was informed that uses on celery, spinach, and parsley were revoked and thus the corresponding MRLs could be reduced without requiring the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(3)\nFor cyromazine an evaluation by the Authority (2) indicated that the MRL for lettuce may raise concerns of consumer protection. The Authority recommended lowering that MRL. These concerns also apply to scarole.\n(4)\nOn the basis of additional data submitted by South Africa and Germany, the Authority further refined its earlier evaluation of the consumer exposure for carbendazim (3) and thiophanate-methyl (4). It concluded that it is necessary to lower the MRLs as regards carbendazim for grapefruits, oranges, and tomatoes and as regards thiophanate-methyl for tomatoes.\n(5)\nFor ethephon (5), fenamiphos (6), triasulfuron (7) and triticonazole (8), the Authority submitted reasoned opinions on the existing MRLs in accordance with Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. The Authority concluded that it is necessary to lower the MRLs as regards triasulfuron for barley, oats, rye, and wheat and as regards fenamiphos for tomatoes, aubergines, peppers, water melons, courgettes, Brussels sprouts, bananas, peanuts and oilseeds and to raise the MRL for grapes. As regards triticonazole, the Authority concluded that no MRL needs to be modified. It is appropriate to move the MRLs on new commodities for these four substances, temporarily set in Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, to Annex II to that Regulation.\n(6)\nBased on the reasoned opinions of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(7)\nThrough the World Trade Organisation, the trading partners of the Union were consulted on the new MRLs and their comments have been taken into account.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before the modified MRLs become applicable in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the modification of the MRLs.\n(9)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 and Part B of Annex III to that Regulation should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nIn order to allow for the normal marketing, processing and consumption of products, this Regulation should provide for a transitional arrangement for products which have been lawfully produced before the modification of the MRLs and for which information shows that a high level of consumer protection is maintained.\n(11)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended as follows:\n(1)\nAnnex II is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nIn Part B of Annex III, the columns for ethephon, fenamiphos, triasulfuron and triticonazole are deleted.\nArticle 2\nAs regards the active substances and the products set out in the following list, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as it stood before being amended by this Regulation shall continue to apply to products which were lawfully produced before 1 January 2012:\n(a)\ncaptan: celery, spinach and parsley;\n(b)\ncarbendazim and thiophanate-methyl: frozen, canned, preserved and processed products of grapefruits, oranges and tomatoes;\n(c)\nfenamiphos: fruiting vegetables, bananas, oilseeds and Brussels sprouts.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2011.", "references": ["15", "82", "90", "58", "97", "31", "61", "91", "64", "29", "20", "23", "19", "35", "45", "43", "83", "77", "41", "47", "21", "5", "37", "51", "30", "73", "18", "27", "86", "75", "No Label", "7", "24", "60", "65", "66"], "gold": ["7", "24", "60", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 226/2011\nof 7 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["74", "28", "31", "11", "42", "66", "15", "85", "4", "47", "98", "25", "94", "37", "93", "97", "29", "82", "55", "87", "96", "10", "45", "53", "81", "95", "0", "19", "14", "32", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 178/2012\nof 1 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2012.", "references": ["31", "11", "74", "77", "54", "7", "41", "48", "25", "80", "47", "71", "8", "95", "70", "69", "6", "73", "52", "50", "14", "75", "56", "97", "89", "43", "19", "33", "12", "24", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 825/2011\nof 12 August 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 August 2011.", "references": ["80", "3", "99", "59", "86", "90", "87", "65", "76", "77", "81", "52", "35", "34", "98", "30", "69", "82", "93", "1", "22", "0", "74", "75", "32", "25", "79", "7", "38", "31", "No Label", "21", "83"], "gold": ["21", "83"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 70/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 18 January 2012\non statistical returns in respect of the carriage of goods by road\n(recast)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 338(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1172/98 of 25 May 1998 on statistical returns in respect of the carriage of goods by road (2) has been substantially amended several times. Since further amendments are to be made, that Regulation should be recast in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nIn order to carry out the tasks entrusted to it in the context of the common transport policy, the Commission should have at its disposal comparable, reliable, synchronised, regular and comprehensive statistical data on the scale and development of the carriage of goods by road by means of vehicles registered in the Union, and on the degree of utilisation of vehicles carrying out this transport.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to compile comprehensive regional statistics with regard to both the carriage of goods and vehicle journeys.\n(4)\nIt is therefore appropriate to ensure that the regional origin and destination of transport within the Union is described on the same basis as national transport, and to provide a link between the carriage of goods and vehicle journeys by measuring the degree of utilisation of vehicles carrying out this transport.\n(5)\nIn accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the creation of common statistical standards allowing the production of harmonised information can be better achieved only at Union level, while data will be collected in each Member State under the authority of the bodies and institutions in charge of compiling official statistics.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (3) provides a reference framework for the provisions laid down by this Regulation, in particular those concerning access to the sources of administrative data, the cost-effectiveness of available resources and statistical confidentiality.\n(7)\nCommunication of individual data, once rendered anonymous, is necessary in order to estimate the overall accuracy of the results.\n(8)\nIt is important to ensure that statistical information is adequately disseminated.\n(9)\nIn view of the specific geographical situation of Malta, its short-range road transport journeys, its limited road network and the disproportional burden that collecting such data would cause to the Maltese authorities, a derogation should be granted to Malta.\n(10)\nIn order to take account of economic and technical developments, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of updating Part 1 of Annex I, except for any modifications to the optional nature of the required information, and adapting Annexes II to VII. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(11)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (4),\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. Each Member State shall compile statistics for the Union on the carriage of goods by road by means of goods road transport vehicles which are registered in that Member State, and on the journeys made by such vehicles.\n2. This Regulation shall not apply to the carriage of goods by road by means of:\n(a)\ngoods road transport vehicles whose authorised weight or dimensions exceed the limits normally permitted in the Member States concerned;\n(b)\nagricultural vehicles, military vehicles and vehicles belonging to central or local public administrations, with the exception of goods road transport vehicles belonging to public undertakings, and in particular railway undertakings.\nEach Member State may exclude from the scope of this Regulation goods road transport vehicles whose load capacity or maximum permissible weight is lower than a certain limit. This limit may not exceed a load capacity of 3,5 tonnes or maximum permissible weight of 6 tonnes in the case of single motor vehicles.\n3. This Regulation shall not apply to Malta, so long as the number of Maltese-registered goods road transport vehicles licensed to engage in the international carriage of goods by road does not exceed 400 vehicles. For that purpose, Malta shall submit annually to Eurostat the number of goods road transport vehicles licensed to engage in the international carriage of goods by road at the latest by the end of March following the year to which the number of goods road transport vehicles relates.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a) \u2018carriage of goods by road\u2019: all transport of goods by means of a goods road transport vehicle;\n(b) \u2018road transport vehicle\u2019: a road vehicle fitted with an engine whence it derives its sole means of propulsion, which is normally used for carrying persons or goods by road, or for drawing, on the road, vehicles used for the carriage of persons or goods;\n(c) \u2018road vehicle for the transport of goods\u2019: a road vehicle designed exclusively or primarily to carry goods (lorry, trailer, semi-trailer);\n(d) \u2018goods road transport vehicle\u2019: any single road transport vehicle, or combination of road vehicles, namely road train or articulated vehicle, designed to carry goods;\n(e) \u2018lorry\u2019: a rigid road vehicle designed exclusively or primarily to carry goods;\n(f) \u2018road tractor\u2019: a road transport vehicle designed exclusively or primarily to haul other road vehicles which are not power-driven (mainly semi-trailers);\n(g) \u2018trailer\u2019: a road vehicle for the transport of goods designed to be hauled by a road transport vehicle;\n(h) \u2018semi-trailer\u2019: a road vehicle for the transport of goods with no front axle so designed that part of the vehicle and a substantial part of its loaded weight rest on the road tractor;\n(i) \u2018articulated vehicle\u2019: a road tractor coupled to a semi-trailer;\n(j) \u2018road train\u2019: a goods road transport vehicle coupled to a trailer or an articulated vehicle with a further trailer attached;\n(k) \u2018registered\u2019: the state of having been entered in a register of road transport vehicles, kept by an official body in a Member State, whether or not the registration is accompanied by the issue of a registration plate.\nIn the case of carriage by means of a combination of road transport vehicles, namely road train or articulated vehicle, in which the goods road transport vehicle and the trailer or semi-trailer are registered in different countries, the complete vehicle shall be deemed to be registered in the country where the goods road transport vehicle is registered;\n(l) \u2018load capacity\u2019: maximum weight of goods declared permissible by the competent authority of the country of registration of the vehicle.\nWhen the goods road transport vehicle is a road train made up of a lorry with trailer, the load capacity of the road train is the sum of the load capacities of the lorry and the trailer;\n(m) \u2018maximum permissible weight\u2019: total weight of the vehicle (or vehicle combination) when stationary and ready for the road and of the weight of the load declared permissible by the competent authority of the country of registration of the vehicle;\n(n) \u2018Eurostat\u2019: the Commission department responsible for carrying out the tasks incumbent on the Commission in the field of the production of Union statistics.\nArticle 3\nData collection\n1. Member States shall compile statistical data relating to the following areas:\n(a)\nvehicle;\n(b)\njourney;\n(c)\ngoods.\n2. The statistical variables in each area, their definition and the levels within the classification used for their breakdown are set out in Annexes I to VII.\n3. When determining the method to be used for compiling statistical data, Member States shall refrain from carrying out any formalities at frontiers between Member States.\n4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt, where necessary, delegated acts in accordance with Article 8 concerning the updating of Part 1 of Annex I, solely in order to take account of economic and technical developments, except for any modifications to the optional nature of the required information.\nThe Commission shall also be empowered to adopt, where necessary, delegated acts in accordance with Article 8 concerning the adaptation of Annexes II to VII to take account of economic and technical developments.\nIn exercising its power pursuant to this paragraph, the Commission shall ensure that any delegated acts adopted do not impose significant additional administrative burdens on the Member States and on the respondents.\nArticle 4\nPrecision of statistical results\nMember States shall ensure that their methods for the collection and processing of statistical data are designed to ensure that the statistical results transmitted pursuant to this Regulation are sufficiently precise so as to enable the Commission to have at its disposal comparable, reliable, synchronised, regular and comprehensive statistical data, whilst taking account of the structural characteristics of road transport in the Member States.\nFor the purpose of the first paragraph, the Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt detailed technical rules regarding the precision of the statistical data required. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 9(2).\nArticle 5\nTransmission of statistical results to Eurostat\n1. Member States shall transmit to Eurostat every quarter duly verified individual data corresponding to the variables referred to in Article 3 and listed in Annex I, without indicating the name, address or registration number.\nSuch transmission shall, where appropriate, include statistical data relating to previous quarters for which the data transmitted were provisional.\n2. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt the arrangements for transmitting the data referred to in paragraph 1, including, where appropriate, the statistical tables based on those data. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 9(2).\n3. The transmission of the data referred to in paragraph 1, shall take place within 5 months of the end of each quarterly period of observation.\nThe first transmission shall cover the first quarter of 1999.\nArticle 6\nDissemination of statistical results\nStatistical results in respect of the carriage of goods by road shall be disseminated no later than 12 months after the end of the period to which the results relate.\nThe Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt rules on the dissemination of statistical results in respect of the carriage of goods by road, including the structure and content of the results to be disseminated. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 9(2).\nArticle 7\nReports\n1. Member States shall forward to Eurostat, on or before the date on which the first quarterly information is forwarded, a report on the methods used in compiling statistical data.\nMember States shall also forward to Eurostat details of any substantial changes in the methods used to collect the statistical data.\n2. Member States shall provide Eurostat with information each year on sample sizes, non-response rates and, in the form of standard error or confidence intervals, the reliability of the main statistical results.\n3. By 31 December 2014 and every 3 years thereafter, the Commission shall submit a report on the implementation of this Regulation to the European Parliament and to the Council. That report shall evaluate in particular the quality of the statistical data transmitted, the data collection methods as well as the administrative burdens on the Member States and on the respondents. The report shall, if appropriate, be accompanied by proposals for modifying the list of variables, taking into account the findings of related projects, in particular those on air pollution emissions caused by the carriage of goods by road.\nArticle 8\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt the delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 3(4) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 23 February 2012. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 9 months before the end of the 5-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than 3 months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 3(4) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 3(4) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or by the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 9\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the European Statistical System Committee established by Regulation (EC) No 223/2009. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 10\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 1172/98 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex IX.\nArticle 11\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 18 January 2012.", "references": ["98", "37", "10", "69", "89", "71", "62", "60", "39", "76", "33", "97", "94", "58", "8", "61", "90", "24", "9", "79", "82", "72", "40", "63", "45", "80", "14", "73", "31", "75", "No Label", "7", "19", "42", "53", "54", "55"], "gold": ["7", "19", "42", "53", "54", "55"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 28 October 2011\namending Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU on emergency measures applicable to fenugreek seeds and certain seeds and beans imported from Egypt\n(notified under document C(2011) 7744)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/718/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1)(b)(i) and (iii) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 178/2002 lays down the general principles governing food and feed in general, and food and feed safety in particular, at Union and national level. It provides for emergency measures where it is evident that food or feed imported from a third country is likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment, and that such risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member State(s) concerned.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2) lays down general rules on the hygiene of food stuffs. Those rules include hygiene requirements for the production of seeds and beans for direct human consumption to be followed by food business operators.\n(3)\nCertain lots of fenugreek seeds imported from Egypt have been identified to be the causative agent of an outbreak in the Union of Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli bacteria (STEC), serotype O104:H4. Accordingly, Commission Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU (3) introduced a ban on the release for free circulation in the Union of seeds and beans from Egypt that fall within the CN codes listed in the Annex thereto. The ban expires on 31 October 2011.\n(4)\nFrom 21 to 25 August 2011 the Commission\u2019s Food and Veterinary Office conducted an audit in Egypt in order to trace back the possible source of infection of the recent E. coli outbreaks (O104:H4 serotype) in the northern part of Germany and Bordeaux, France, and to evaluate the production and processing conditions of the suspect seeds in that third country.\n(5)\nThe findings of the audit and the actions being taken by Egypt concerning the shortcomings in the production of seeds for human consumption that may potentially be sprouted have been evaluated. That evaluation shows that the measures introduced by the Egyptian authorities are not sufficient to tackle the identified risks.\n(6)\nAccording to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, the hygiene of imported food should comply, among others, with the requirements laid down in Annex I of that Regulation. However, the actions indicated by the Egyptian authorities do not provide sufficient guarantees on an active commitment to carry out production in line with Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) will adopt by the end of October 2011, a scientific opinion on the risk posed by Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and other pathogenic bacteria in seeds and sprouts, shoots and cress derived from seeds.\n(7)\nPending the possible introduction of additional control measures based on the EFSA opinion and in order to allow the time necessary for the competent authorities in Egypt to provide further feedback to the Commission and to provide effective guarantees on additional risk management measures, the temporary ban on the release for free circulation in the Union of seeds and beans from Egypt laid down in Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU should be prolonged until 31 March 2012.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure the effectiveness of this decision to avoid import of any goods listed in the Annex, this Decision shall apply as from 1 November 2011 because Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU provided that the release of seeds from Egypt as set out in the Annex was prohibited until 31 October 2011.\n(9)\nImplementing Decision 2011/402/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nImplementing Decision No 2011/402/EU is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nThe release for free circulation in the Union of seeds and beans from Egypt as set out in the Annex shall be prohibited until 31 March 2012.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe Annex is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 November 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 October 2011.", "references": ["74", "60", "19", "86", "29", "20", "56", "70", "12", "99", "45", "3", "88", "1", "82", "34", "62", "84", "42", "13", "98", "35", "67", "0", "7", "2", "64", "15", "36", "25", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "38", "65", "68", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "38", "65", "68", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1225/2010\nof 13 December 2010\nfixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 43(3) of the Treaty, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, is to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1) requires that measures governing access to waters and resources and the sustainable pursuit of fishing activities be established taking into account available scientific, technical and economic advice and in particular reports drawn up by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).\n(3)\nIt is incumbent upon the Council to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities by fishery or group of fisheries, including certain conditions functionally linked thereto, where appropriate. Fishing opportunities should be distributed among Member States in such a way as to assure each Member State relative stability of fishing activities for each stock or fishery and having due regard to the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy established by Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.\n(4)\nThe total allowable catches (TACs) should be established on the basis of the available scientific advice, by taking into account the biological and socioeconomic aspects whilst ensuring fair treatment between fishing sectors, as well as in the light of the opinions expressed during the consultation of stakeholders, in particular those of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture and of the Regional Advisory Councils concerned.\n(5)\nFishing opportunities should be in accordance with international agreements and principles, such as the 1995 United Nations agreement concerning the conservation and management of straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (2), and the detailed management principles laid down in the 2008 International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, according to which, in particular, a regulator should be more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate. The absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures.\n(6)\nThe latest scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) (3) and from the STECF (4) indicates that most deep-sea stocks are harvested unsustainably and that fishing opportunities for those stocks, in order to assure their sustainability, should be reduced until the evolution of the stock sizes show a positive trend. The ICES has further advised that no directed fishery should be allowed for orange roughy.\n(7)\nConcerning deep sea sharks, the main commercial species are considered depleted, and therefore no directed fishing should take place. Until the amount of unavoidable by-catch will have been established by means of selectivity projects and other technical measures, no by-catch should be allowed to be landed.\n(8)\nThe fishing opportunities for deep-sea species, as listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 of 16 December 2002 establishing specific access requirements and associated conditions applicable to fishing for deep-sea stocks (5), are decided on a bi-annual basis. Nevertheless, an exception is made for the stocks of greater silver smelt and the main fishery of blue ling, for which the fishing opportunities depend on the outcome of the annual negotiations with Norway. The fishing opportunities for those stocks are therefore established in another relevant annual regulation fixing fishing opportunities.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (6), the stocks that are subject to the various measures referred to therein must be identified.\n(10)\nTo ensure the livelihood of Union fishermen, it is important to open these fisheries on 1 January 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject-matter\nThis Regulation fixes for the years 2011 and 2012 the annual fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea species in EU waters and in certain non-EU waters where catch limits are required.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018EU vessel\u2019 means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State and registered in the Union;\n(b)\n\u2018EU waters\u2019 means the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of waters adjacent to the territories mentioned in Annex II to the Treaty;\n(c)\n\u2018total allowable catch\u2019 (TAC) means the quantity that can be taken and landed from each stock each year;\n(d)\n\u2018quota\u2019 means a proportion of the TAC allocated to the Union, a Member State or a third country;\n(e)\n\u2018international waters\u2019 means waters falling outside the sovereignty or jurisdiction of any State.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following zone definitions shall apply:\n(a)\nICES zones are as defined in Regulation (EC) No 218/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on the submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States fishing in the north-east Atlantic (recast) (7);\n(b)\nCECAF (Eastern Central Atlantic or FAO major fishing zone 34) zones are as defined in Regulation (EC) No 216/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on the submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States fishing in certain areas other than those of the North Atlantic (recast) (8).\nArticle 3\nTACs and allocations\nThe TACs for deep-sea species caught by EU vessels in EU waters and certain non-EU waters, the allocation of such TACs among Member States and the conditions functionally linked thereto, where appropriate, are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 4\nSpecial provisions on allocations\nThe allocation of fishing opportunities among Member States provided for in the Annex shall be without prejudice to:\n(a)\nexchanges made pursuant to Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;\n(b)\ndeductions and reallocations made pursuant to Article 37 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (9) or pursuant to Article 10(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 of 29 September 2008 concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters (10);\n(c)\nadditional landings allowed pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(d)\nquantities withheld pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;\n(e)\ndeductions made pursuant to Articles 105 and 107 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.\nArticle 5\nRelationship with Regulation (EC) No 847/96\nFor the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 847/96, all quotas in the Annex to this Regulation shall be considered analytical quotas.\nArticle 6\nConditions for landing catch and by-catch\nFish from stocks for which fishing opportunities are fixed by this Regulation shall be retained on board or landed only if they were taken by vessels of a Member State having a quota which is not exhausted.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["83", "12", "69", "58", "14", "7", "26", "22", "5", "27", "34", "96", "59", "15", "56", "64", "2", "95", "29", "43", "23", "84", "0", "54", "75", "65", "9", "38", "37", "46", "No Label", "67"], "gold": ["67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 129/2012\nof 13 February 2012\napproving minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Queso Manchego (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the second sentence of Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) and Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Spain\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Queso Manchego\u2019, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 561/2009 (3).\n(2)\nThe application concerns the amendments to the method of production of the protected designation of origin \u2018Queso Manchego\u2019 and involves changes to the single document.\n(3)\nThe Commission has examined the amendment in question and decided that it is justified. Since this concerns a minor amendment, in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission may adopt it without using the procedure set out in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of that Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Queso Manchego\u2019 is hereby amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe consolidated single document setting out the main points of the specification is set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 February 2012.", "references": ["42", "7", "30", "97", "84", "40", "16", "78", "31", "94", "41", "23", "83", "54", "86", "36", "8", "33", "56", "48", "68", "60", "11", "13", "91", "51", "99", "90", "62", "47", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "76", "92"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "76", "92"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/70/EU\nof 28 October 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the expiry date for inclusion in Annex I of the active substance carbendazim\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Directive 2006/135/EC (2) carbendazim was included as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That inclusion expires on 31 December 2010.\n(2)\nOn request the inclusion of an active substance may be renewed for a period not exceeding ten years. On 6 August 2007 the Commission received such a request from the notifier regarding the renewal of the inclusion for this substance.\n(3)\nOn 10 January 2008 the notifier submitted a technical dossier to the rapporteur Member State Germany in support of its request. Germany delivered its draft reassessment report on 27 July 2009. The European Food Safety Authority then performed a peer review which was finalised on 30 April 2010.\n(4)\nSince it is impossible to complete the renewal procedure before the date when the inclusion of carbendazim will expire and since the request for renewal was made in sufficient time, in accordance with Article 5(5) of Directive 91/414/EEC a renewal should be granted for the period necessary to complete that procedure.\n(5)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, in row No 149 (carbendazim (unstated stereochemistry) CAS No 10605-21-7 CIPAC No 263), in the sixth column (expiration of inclusion), the words \u201831 December 2010\u2019 are replaced by the words \u201813 June 2011\u2019.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31 December 2010 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 January 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 October 2010.", "references": ["75", "14", "92", "86", "63", "71", "23", "22", "31", "26", "67", "47", "76", "53", "34", "88", "90", "15", "8", "5", "48", "18", "68", "80", "21", "3", "99", "4", "69", "24", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "42", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "42", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 704/2010\nof 4 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 August 2010.", "references": ["21", "47", "64", "56", "92", "6", "22", "38", "52", "12", "37", "15", "97", "41", "17", "19", "80", "76", "31", "36", "66", "84", "74", "30", "58", "82", "34", "0", "54", "42", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 512/2012\nof 15 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2012.", "references": ["86", "76", "19", "24", "84", "12", "42", "1", "37", "43", "52", "82", "66", "4", "67", "28", "34", "41", "71", "89", "59", "21", "97", "93", "11", "62", "85", "69", "53", "31", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 528/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 22 May 2012\nconcerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBiocidal products are necessary for the control of organisms that are harmful to human or animal health and for the control of organisms that cause damage to natural or manufactured materials. However, biocidal products can pose risks to humans, animals and the environment due to their intrinsic properties and associated use patterns.\n(2)\nBiocidal products should neither be made available on the market nor used unless authorised in accordance with this Regulation. Treated articles should not be placed on the market unless all active substances contained in the biocidal products with which they were treated or which they incorporate are approved in accordance with this Regulation.\n(3)\nThe purpose of this Regulation is to improve the free movement of biocidal products within the Union while ensuring a high level of protection of both human and animal health and the environment. Particular attention should be paid to the protection of vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women and children. This Regulation should be underpinned by the precautionary principle to ensure that the manufacturing and making available on the market of active substances and biocidal products do not result in harmful effects on human or animal health or unacceptable effects on the environment. With a view to removing, as far as possible, obstacles to trade in biocidal products, rules should be laid down for the approval of active substances and the making available on the market and use of biocidal products, including rules on the mutual recognition of authorisations and on parallel trade.\n(4)\nTo ensure a high level of protection for human health, animal health and the environment, this Regulation should apply without prejudice to Union legislation on safety in the workplace and environmental and consumer protection.\n(5)\nRules concerning the making available on the market of biocidal products within the Community were established by Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). It is necessary to adapt those rules in the light of experience and in particular the report on the first seven years of the implementation submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, which analyses problems with and weaknesses of that Directive.\n(6)\nTaking into account the main changes that should be made to the existing rules, a regulation is the appropriate legal instrument to replace Directive 98/8/EC to lay down clear, detailed and directly applicable rules. Moreover, a regulation ensures that legal requirements are implemented at the same time and in a harmonised manner throughout the Union.\n(7)\nA distinction should be drawn between existing active substances which were on the market in biocidal products on the transposition date set in Directive 98/8/EC and new active substances which were not yet on the market in biocidal products on that date. During the ongoing review of existing active substances, Member States should continue to allow biocidal products containing such substances to be made available on the market according to their national rules until a decision is taken on approval of those active substances. Following such a decision Member States, or, where appropriate, the Commission, should grant, cancel or modify authorisations as appropriate. New active substances should be reviewed before biocidal products containing them are placed on the market, so as to ensure that new products that are placed on the market comply with the requirements of this Regulation. However, to encourage the development of new active substances, the evaluation procedure for new active substances should not prevent Member States or the Commission from authorising, for a limited period of time, biocidal products containing an active substance before it is approved, provided that a full dossier has been submitted and it is believed that the active substance and the biocidal product satisfy the conditions set out in this Regulation.\n(8)\nTo ensure the equal treatment of persons placing active substances on the market, they should be required to hold a dossier, or have a letter of access to a dossier, or to relevant data in a dossier, for each of the active substances they manufacture or import for use in biocidal products. Biocidal products containing active substances for which the relevant person does not comply with that obligation should no longer be made available on the market. In such cases, there should be appropriate phase-out periods for disposal and use of existing stocks of biocidal products.\n(9)\nThis Regulation should apply to biocidal products that, in the form in which they are supplied to the user, consist of, contain or generate one or more active substances.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure legal certainty, it is necessary to establish a Union list of active substances approved for use in biocidal products. A procedure should be laid down for assessing whether or not an active substance can be entered in that list. The information that interested parties should submit in support of an application for approval of an active substance and its inclusion in the list should be specified.\n(11)\nThis Regulation applies without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and establishing a European Chemicals Agency (4). Under certain conditions, biocidal active substances are exempt from the relevant provisions of that Regulation.\n(12)\nWith a view to achieving a high level of protection of human health, animal health and the environment, active substances with the worst hazard profiles should not be approved for use in biocidal products except in specific situations. These should include situations when approval is justified because of the negligible risk from exposure to the substance, human health, animal health or environmental reasons or the disproportionate negative impact for society of non-approval. When deciding if such active substances may be approved, the availability of suitable and sufficient alternative substances or technologies should also be taken into account.\n(13)\nThe active substances in the Union list should be regularly examined to take account of developments in science and technology. Where there are significant indications that an active substance used in biocidal products or treated articles does not meet the requirements of this Regulation, the Commission should be able to review the approval of the active substance.\n(14)\nActive substances should be designated as candidates for substitution if they have certain intrinsic hazardous properties. In order to allow for a regular examination of substances identified as candidates for substitution, the approval period for those substances should not, even in the case of renewal, exceed seven years.\n(15)\nIn the course of granting or renewing the authorisation of a biocidal product that contains an active substance that is a candidate for substitution, it should be possible to compare the biocidal product with other authorised biocidal products, non-chemical means of control and prevention methods with regard to risks they pose and benefits from their use. As a result of such a comparative assessment, a biocidal product containing active substances identified as candidates for substitution should be prohibited or restricted where it is demonstrated that other authorised biocidal products or non-chemical control or prevention methods that present a significantly lower overall risk for human health, animal health and the environment, are sufficiently effective and present no other significant economic or practical disadvantages. Appropriate phase-out periods should be provided for in such cases.\n(16)\nIn order to avoid unnecessary administrative and financial burdens for industry and competent authorities, a full in-depth evaluation of an application to renew the approval of an active substance or the authorisation of a biocidal product should be carried out only if the competent authority that was responsible for the initial evaluation decides that this is necessary on the basis of the available information.\n(17)\nThere is a need to ensure effective coordination and management of the technical, scientific and administrative aspects of this Regulation at Union level. The European Chemicals Agency set up under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (\u2018the Agency\u2019) should carry out specified tasks with regard to the evaluation of active substances as well as the Union authorisation of certain categories of biocidal products and related tasks. Consequently, a Biocidal Products Committee should be established within the Agency to carry out certain tasks conferred on the Agency by this Regulation.\n(18)\nCertain biocidal products and treated articles as defined in the Regulation are also regulated by other Union legislation. It is therefore necessary to draw clear borderlines in order to ensure legal certainty. A list of product-types covered by this Regulation with an indicative set of descriptions within each type should be set out in an Annex to this Regulation.\n(19)\nBiocidal products intended to be used not only for the purposes of this Regulation, but also in connection with medical devices, such as disinfectants used to disinfect surfaces in hospitals and medical devices, may pose risks other than those with which this Regulation is concerned. Therefore, such biocidal products should comply, in addition to the requirements laid down in this Regulation, with the relevant essential requirements set out in Annex I to Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices (5), Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (6) and Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (7).\n(20)\nWhere a product has a biocidal function that is inherent to its cosmetic function, or where that biocidal function is considered to be a secondary claim of a cosmetic product and is therefore regulated under Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (8), that function and the product should remain outside the scope of this Regulation.\n(21)\nThe safety of food and feed is subject to Union legislation, in particular Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (9). Therefore, the present Regulation should not apply to food and feed used as repellents or attractants.\n(22)\nProcessing aids are covered by existing Union legislation, in particular Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (10) and Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (11). Therefore, it is appropriate to exclude them from the scope of this Regulation.\n(23)\nAs products used for the preservation of food or feed by the control of harmful organisms, previously covered by product-type 20, are covered by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, it is not appropriate to maintain that product-type.\n(24)\nAs the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships\u2019 Ballast Water and Sediments provides for an effective assessment of the risks posed by ballast water management systems, the final approval and subsequent type-approval of such systems should be considered equivalent to the product authorisation required under this Regulation.\n(25)\nTo avoid possible negative effects on the environment, biocidal products that can no longer lawfully be made available on the market should be dealt with in accordance with Union legislation on waste, in particular Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste (12), as well as national legislation implementing that legislation.\n(26)\nTo facilitate the making available on the market throughout the Union of certain biocidal products with similar conditions of use in all Member States, it is appropriate to provide for Union authorisation of those products. In order to allow some time for the Agency to build up the necessary capacity and to gain experience with this procedure, the possibility to apply for Union authorisation should be extended through a step-wise approach to further categories of biocidal products with similar conditions of use in all Member States.\n(27)\nThe Commission should review experience with the provisions on Union authorisations and report to the European Parliament and the Council by 31 December 2017, accompanying its report with proposals for changes if appropriate.\n(28)\nTo ensure that only biocidal products that comply with the relevant provisions of this Regulation are made available on the market, biocidal products should be subject to authorisation either by competent authorities for making available on the market and use within the territory of a Member State or part of it, or by the Commission for making available on the market and use within the Union.\n(29)\nTo encourage the use of products with a more favourable environmental or human or animal health profile, it is appropriate to provide for simplified authorisation procedures for such biocidal products. Once authorised in at least one Member State, those products should be allowed to be made available on the market in all Member States without the need for mutual recognition, under certain conditions.\n(30)\nTo identify biocidal products which are eligible for simplified authorisation procedures, it is appropriate to establish a specific list of the active substances that those products may contain. That list should, initially, contain substances identified as presenting a low risk under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 or Directive 98/8/EC, substances identified as food additives, pheromones and other substances considered to have low toxicity, such as weak acids, alcohols and vegetable oils used in cosmetics and food.\n(31)\nIt is necessary to provide common principles for the evaluation and authorisation of biocidal products to ensure a harmonised approach by competent authorities.\n(32)\nTo evaluate the risks that would arise from proposed uses of biocidal products, it is appropriate that applicants submit dossiers which contain the necessary information. Defining a data set for active substances and for biocidal products in which they are contained is necessary so as to assist both applicants seeking authorisation and competent authorities carrying out an evaluation to decide on authorisation.\n(33)\nIn the light of the diversity of both active substances and biocidal products not subject to the simplified authorisation procedure, the data and test requirements should suit the individual circumstances and allow an overall risk assessment. Therefore, an applicant should be able to request the adaptation of the data requirements, as appropriate, including the waiving of data requirements which are not necessary or are impossible to submit in view of the nature or the proposed uses of the product. Applicants should provide appropriate technical and scientific justification to support their requests.\n(34)\nIn order to help applicants, and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to comply with the requirements of this Regulation, Member States should provide advice, for example by establishing helpdesks. This advice should be in addition to the operational guidance documents and other advice and assistance provided by the Agency.\n(35)\nIn particular, to ensure that applicants can effectively exercise the right to request the adaptation of data requirements, Member States should provide advice on this possibility and the grounds on which such requests could be made.\n(36)\nTo facilitate access to the market it should be possible to authorise a group of biocidal products as a biocidal product family. Biocidal products within a biocidal product family should have similar uses and the same active substances. Variations in the composition or the replacement of non-active substances should be specified, but may not adversely affect the level of risk or significantly reduce the efficacy of the products.\n(37)\nWhen authorising biocidal products it is necessary to ensure that, when properly used for the purpose intended, they are sufficiently effective and have no unacceptable effect on the target organisms such as resistance, or, in the case of vertebrates, unnecessary suffering and pain. Furthermore, they may not have, in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, any unacceptable effect on human health, animal health or on the environment. Where appropriate, maximum residue limits for food and feed should be established with respect to active substances contained in a biocidal product to protect human and animal health. When these requirements are not met, biocidal products shall not be authorised unless their authorisation is justified because of the disproportionate negative impact for society of not authorising them when compared to the risks arising from their use.\n(38)\nWhere possible, the presence of harmful organisms should be avoided by means of suitable precautionary steps, such as proper warehousing of goods, compliance with relevant hygiene standards and immediate disposal of waste. As far as possible, biocidal products that pose lower risks for humans, animals and the environment should be used whenever they provide an effective remedy, and biocidal products that are intended to harm, kill or destroy animals that are capable of experiencing pain and distress should be used only as a last resort.\n(39)\nSome authorised biocidal products may present certain risks if used by the general public. It is therefore appropriate to provide that certain biocidal products should not generally be authorised for making available on the market for use by the general public.\n(40)\nTo avoid duplication of the evaluation procedures and to ensure free movement of biocidal products within the Union, procedures should be established to ensure that product authorisations granted in one Member State are recognised in other Member States.\n(41)\nTo enable closer cooperation between Member States in the evaluation of biocidal products and to facilitate biocidal products\u2019 market access, it should be possible to launch the mutual recognition procedure when applying for the first national authorisation.\n(42)\nIt is appropriate to lay down procedures for the mutual recognition of national authorisations and, in particular, to resolve any disagreements without undue delay. If a competent authority refuses mutual recognition of an authorisation or proposes to restrict it, a coordination group should try to reach an agreement on the action to be taken. If the coordination group does not succeed in finding an agreement within a specified time limit, the Commission should be empowered to take a decision. In case of technical or scientific questions, the Commission may consult the Agency before preparing its decision.\n(43)\nHowever, considerations related to public policy or public security, environmental and human and animal health protection, the protection of national treasures and the absence of the target organisms might justify, following agreement with the applicant, Member States\u2019 refusal to grant an authorisation or decision to adjust the terms and conditions of the authorisation to be granted. If no agreement with the applicant can be found, the Commission should be empowered to take a decision.\n(44)\nThe use of biocidal products of certain product-types might give rise to animal welfare concerns. Therefore, Member States should be allowed to derogate from the principle of mutual recognition for biocidal products falling under such product-types, in so far as such derogations are justified and do not jeopardise the purpose of this Regulation regarding an appropriate level of protection of the internal market.\n(45)\nIn order to facilitate the functioning of the authorisation and mutual recognition procedures, it is appropriate to establish a system for the mutual exchange of information. To accomplish this, a Register for Biocidal Products should be established. Member States, the Commission and the Agency should use this Register to make available to each other the particulars and scientific documentation submitted in connection with applications for authorisation of biocidal products.\n(46)\nIf the use of a biocidal product is in the interests of a Member State, but there is no applicant interested in making available on the market such a product in the Member State, official or scientific bodies should be able to apply for an authorisation. If they are granted an authorisation, they should have the same rights and obligations as any other authorisation holder.\n(47)\nTo take account of scientific and technical developments as well as the needs of authorisation holders, it is appropriate to specify under which conditions authorisations can be cancelled, reviewed or amended. The notification and exchange of information which may affect authorisations is also necessary to enable competent authorities and the Commission to take appropriate action.\n(48)\nIn the event of an unforeseen danger threatening public health or the environment which cannot be contained by other means, it should be possible for Member States to permit, for a limited period of time, the making available on the market of biocidal products which do not comply with the requirements of this Regulation.\n(49)\nTo encourage research and development in active substances and biocidal products, it is necessary to establish rules concerning the making available on the market and use of unauthorised biocidal products and non-approved active substances for the purposes of research and development.\n(50)\nIn view of the benefits for the internal market and for the consumer, it is desirable to establish harmonised rules for parallel trade in identical biocidal products authorised in different Member States.\n(51)\nTo determine, where necessary, the similarity of active substances, it is appropriate to lay down rules concerning technical equivalence.\n(52)\nTo protect human health, animal health and the environment, and to avoid discrimination between treated articles originating in the Union and treated articles imported from third countries, all treated articles placed on the internal market should contain only approved active substances.\n(53)\nTo enable consumers to make informed choices, to facilitate enforcement and to provide an overview of their use, treated articles should be appropriately labelled.\n(54)\nApplicants that have invested in supporting the approval of an active substance or the authorisation of a biocidal product in accordance with this Regulation or Directive 98/8/EC should be able to recover part of their investment by receiving equitable compensation whenever use of proprietary information which they submitted in support of such approval or authorisation is made for the benefit of subsequent applicants.\n(55)\nWith a view to ensuring that all proprietary information submitted in support of the approval of an active substance or the authorisation of a biocidal product is protected from the moment of its submission and to prevent situations where some information is without protection, the data protection periods should also apply to information submitted for the purposes of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(56)\nTo encourage the development of new active substances and biocidal products containing them, it is necessary to provide for a period of protection with respect to the proprietary information submitted in support of the approval of such active substances or the authorisation of biocidal products containing them which is longer than the period of protection for information concerning existing active substances and biocidal products containing them.\n(57)\nIt is essential to minimise the number of tests on animals and for testing with biocidal products, or active substances contained in biocidal products, to be carried out only when the purpose and use of a product so requires. Applicants should share, and not duplicate, studies on vertebrates in exchange for equitable compensation. In the absence of an agreement on sharing of studies on vertebrates between the data owner and the prospective applicant, the Agency should allow the use of the studies by the prospective applicant without prejudice to any decision on compensation made by national courts. Competent authorities and the Agency should have access to the contact details of the owners of such studies via a Union register so as to inform prospective applicants.\n(58)\nA level playing field should be established as quickly as possible on the market for existing active substances, taking into account the objectives of reducing unnecessary tests and costs to the minimum, in particular for SMEs, of avoiding the establishment of monopolies, of sustaining free competition between economic operators and of equitable compensation of the costs borne by data owners.\n(59)\nThe generation of information by alternative means not involving tests on animals which are equivalent to prescribed tests and test methods should also be encouraged. In addition, the adaptation of data requirements should be used to prevent unnecessary costs related to testing.\n(60)\nTo ensure that the requirements laid down with respect to the safety and quality of authorised biocidal products are satisfied when they are made available on the market, Member States should take measures for appropriate control and inspection arrangements and manufacturers should maintain a suitable and proportionate quality control system. To this end, it may be appropriate for Member States to take action together.\n(61)\nEffective communication of information on risks resulting from biocidal products and risk management measures is an essential part of the system established by this Regulation. While facilitating access to information, competent authorities, the Agency and the Commission should respect the principle of confidentiality and avoid any disclosure of information which could be harmful to the commercial interests of the person concerned, except where it is necessary for the protection of human health, safety or the environment or for other reasons of overriding public interest.\n(62)\nTo increase the efficiency of monitoring and control, and to provide information relevant for addressing the risks of biocidal products, authorisation holders should keep records of the products they place on the market.\n(63)\nIt is necessary to specify that provisions concerning the Agency laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 should apply accordingly in the context of biocidal active substances and products. Where separate provisions need to be made with respect to the tasks and functioning of the Agency under this Regulation, they should be specified in this Regulation.\n(64)\nThe costs of the procedures associated with the operation of this Regulation need to be recovered from those making biocidal products available on the market and those seeking to do so in addition to those supporting the approval of active substances. To promote the smooth operation of the internal market, it is appropriate to establish certain common principles applicable both to fees payable to the Agency and to Member States\u2019 competent authorities, including the need to take into account, as appropriate, the specific needs of SMEs.\n(65)\nIt is necessary to provide for the possibility of an appeal against certain decisions of the Agency. The Board of Appeal set up within the Agency by Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 should also process appeals against decisions adopted by the Agency under this Regulation.\n(66)\nThere is scientific uncertainty about the safety of nanomaterials for human health, animal health and the environment. In order to ensure a high level of consumer protection, free movement of goods and legal certainty for manufacturers, it is necessary to develop a uniform definition for nanomaterials, if possible based on the work of appropriate international forums and to specify that the approval of an active substance does not include the nanomaterial form unless explicitly mentioned. The Commission should regularly review the provisions on nanomaterials in the light of scientific progress.\n(67)\nTo ensure a smooth transition, it is appropriate to provide for a deferred application of this Regulation and to provide for specific measures concerning the assessment of applications for the approval of active substances and authorisation of biocidal products submitted before the application of this Regulation.\n(68)\nThe Agency should take over the coordination and facilitation tasks for new submissions for approval of active substances as of the date of applicability of this Regulation. However, in view of the high number of historical dossiers it is appropriate to allow some time for the Agency to prepare for the new tasks related to dossiers submitted under Directive 98/8/EC.\n(69)\nTo respect the legitimate expectations of companies with respect to the placing on the market and use of low-risk biocidal products covered by Directive 98/8/EC, those companies should be allowed to make such products available on the market if they comply with the rules on the registration of low-risk biocidal products under that Directive. However, this Regulation should apply after the expiry of the first registration.\n(70)\nTaking into consideration that some products were not covered by Community legislation on biocidal products, it is appropriate to provide for transitional periods for such products and treated articles.\n(71)\nThis Regulation should take account, as appropriate, of other work programmes concerned with the review or authorisation of substances and products, or relevant international Conventions. In particular, it should contribute to the fulfilment of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management adopted on 6 February 2006 in Dubai.\n(72)\nIn order to supplement or amend this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of certain non-essential elements of this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(73)\nThe Commission should adopt immediately applicable delegated acts where, in duly justified cases relating to the restriction of an active substance in Annex I or to the removal of an active substance from that Annex, imperative grounds of urgency so require.\n(74)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (13).\n(75)\nThe Commission should adopt immediately applicable implementing acts where, in duly justified cases relating to the approval of an active substance or to the cancelling of an approval, imperative grounds of urgency so require.\n(76)\nSince the objective of this Regulation, namely, to improve the functioning of the internal market for biocidal products, whilst ensuring a high level of protection of both human and animal health and the environment cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nPurpose and subject matter\n1. The purpose of this Regulation is to improve the functioning of the internal market through the harmonisation of the rules on the making available on the market and the use of biocidal products, whilst ensuring a high level of protection of both human and animal health and the environment. The provisions of this Regulation are underpinned by the precautionary principle, the aim of which is to safeguard the health of humans, the health of animals and the environment. Particular attention shall be paid to the protection of vulnerable groups.\n2. This Regulation lays down rules for:\n(a)\nthe establishment at Union level of a list of active substances which may be used in biocidal products;\n(b)\nthe authorisation of biocidal products;\n(c)\nthe mutual recognition of authorisations within the Union;\n(d)\nthe making available on the market and the use of biocidal products within one or more Member States or the Union;\n(e)\nthe placing on the market of treated articles.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Regulation shall apply to biocidal products and treated articles. A list of the types of biocidal products covered by this Regulation and their descriptions is set out in Annex V.\n2. Subject to any explicit provision to the contrary in this Regulation or other Union legislation, this Regulation shall not apply to biocidal products or treated articles that are within the scope of the following instruments:\n(a)\nCouncil Directive 90/167/EEC of 26 March 1990 laying down the conditions governing the preparation, placing on the market and use of medicated feedingstuffs in the Community (14);\n(b)\nDirective 90/385/EEC, Directive 93/42/EEC and Directive 98/79/EC;\n(c)\nDirective 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (15), Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (16) and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (17);\n(d)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003;\n(e)\nRegulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (18) and Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (19);\n(f)\nRegulation (EC) No 1333/2008;\n(g)\nRegulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods (20);\n(h)\nRegulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the placing on the market and use of feed (21);\n(i)\nRegulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (22);\n(j)\nRegulation (EC) No 1223/2009;\n(k)\nDirective 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys (23).\nNotwithstanding the first subparagraph, when a biocidal product falls within the scope of one of the abovementioned instruments and is intended to be used for purposes not covered by those instruments, this Regulation shall also apply to that biocidal product insofar as those purposes are not addressed by those instruments.\n3. Subject to any explicit provision to the contrary in this Regulation or other Union legislation, this Regulation shall be without prejudice to the following instruments:\n(a)\nCouncil Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (24);\n(b)\nCouncil Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (25);\n(c)\nCouncil Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (26);\n(d)\nCouncil Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (27);\n(e)\nDirective 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (28);\n(f)\nDirective 2000/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work (29);\n(g)\nDirective 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (30);\n(h)\nDirective 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work (31);\n(i)\nRegulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants (32);\n(j)\nRegulation (EC) No 1907/2006;\n(k)\nDirective 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (33);\n(l)\nRegulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals (34);\n(m)\nRegulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (35);\n(n)\nDirective 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides (36);\n(o)\nRegulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (37);\n(p)\nDirective 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (38);\n(q)\nDirective 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (39).\n4. Article 69 shall not apply to the carriage of biocidal products by rail, road, inland waterway, sea or air.\n5. This Regulation shall not apply to:\n(a)\nfood or feed used as repellents or attractants;\n(b)\nbiocidal products when used as processing aids.\n6. Biocidal products which obtained final approval under the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships\u2019 Ballast Water and Sediments shall be considered as authorised under Chapter VIII of this Regulation. Articles 47 and 68 shall apply accordingly.\n7. Nothing in this Regulation shall prevent Member States from restricting or banning the use of biocidal products in the public supply of drinking water.\n8. Member States may allow for exemptions from this Regulation in specific cases for certain biocidal products, on their own or in a treated article, where necessary in the interests of defence.\n9. The disposal of active substances and biocidal products shall be carried out in accordance with the Union and national waste legislation in force.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018biocidal product\u2019 means\n-\nany substance or mixture, in the form in which it is supplied to the user, consisting of, containing or generating one or more active substances, with the intention of destroying, deterring, rendering harmless, preventing the action of, or otherwise exerting a controlling effect on, any harmful organism by any means other than mere physical or mechanical action,\n-\nany substance or mixture, generated from substances or mixtures which do not themselves fall under the first indent, to be used with the intention of destroying, deterring, rendering harmless, preventing the action of, or otherwise exerting a controlling effect on, any harmful organism by any means other than mere physical or mechanical action.\nA treated article that has a primary biocidal function shall be considered a biocidal product.\n(b)\n\u2018micro-organism\u2019 means any microbiological entity, cellular or non-cellular, capable of replication or of transferring genetic material, including lower fungi, viruses, bacteria, yeasts, moulds, algae, protozoa and microscopic parasitic helminths;\n(c)\n\u2018active substance\u2019 means a substance or a micro-organism that has an action on or against harmful organisms;\n(d)\n\u2018existing active substance\u2019 means a substance which was on the market on 14 May 2000 as an active substance of a biocidal product for purposes other than scientific or product and process-orientated research and development;\n(e)\n\u2018new active substance\u2019 means a substance which was not on the market on 14 May 2000 as an active substance of a biocidal product for purposes other than scientific or product and process-orientated research and development;\n(f)\n\u2018substance of concern\u2019 means any substance, other than the active substance, which has an inherent capacity to cause an adverse effect, immediately or in the more distant future, on humans, in particular vulnerable groups, animals or the environment and is present or is produced in a biocidal product in sufficient concentration to present risks of such an effect.\nSuch a substance would, unless there are other grounds for concern, normally be:\n-\na substance classified as dangerous or that meets the criteria to be classified as dangerous according to Directive 67/548/EEC, and that is present in the biocidal product at a concentration leading the product to be regarded as dangerous within the meaning of Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Directive 1999/45/EC, or\n-\na substance classified as hazardous or that meets the criteria for classification as hazardous according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, and that is present in the biocidal product at a concentration leading the product to be regarded as hazardous within the meaning of that Regulation,\n-\na substance which meets the criteria for being a persistent organic pollutant (POP) under Regulation (EC) No 850/2004, or which meets the criteria for being persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic (PBT) or very persistent and very bio-accumulative (vPvB) in accordance with Annex XIII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006;\n(g)\n\u2018harmful organism\u2019 means an organism, including pathogenic agents, which has an unwanted presence or a detrimental effect on humans, their activities or the products they use or produce, on animals or the environment;\n(h)\n\u2018residue\u2019 means a substance present in or on products of plant or animal origin, water resources, drinking water, food, feed or elsewhere in the environment and resulting from the use of a biocidal product, including such a substance\u2019s metabolites, breakdown or reaction products;\n(i)\n\u2018making available on the market\u2019 means any supply of a biocidal product or of a treated article for distribution or use in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge;\n(j)\n\u2018placing on the market\u2019 means the first making available on the market of a biocidal product or of a treated article;\n(k)\n\u2018use\u2019 means all operations carried out with a biocidal product, including storage, handling, mixing and application, except any such operation carried out with a view to exporting the biocidal product or the treated article outside the Union;\n(l)\n\u2018treated article\u2019 means any substance, mixture or article which has been treated with, or intentionally incorporates, one or more biocidal products;\n(m)\n\u2018national authorisation\u2019 means an administrative act by which the competent authority of a Member State authorises the making available on the market and the use of a biocidal product or a biocidal product family in its territory or in a part thereof;\n(n)\n\u2018Union authorisation\u2019 means an administrative act by which the Commission authorises the making available on the market and the use of a biocidal product or a biocidal product family in the territory of the Union or in a part thereof;\n(o)\n\u2018authorisation\u2019 means national authorisation, Union authorisation or authorisation in accordance with Article 26;\n(p)\n\u2018authorisation holder\u2019 means the person established within the Union who is responsible for the placing on the market of a biocidal product in a particular Member State or in the Union and specified in the authorisation;\n(q)\n\u2018product-type\u2019 means one of the product-types specified in Annex V;\n(r)\n\u2018single biocidal product\u2019 means a biocidal product with no intended variations as to the percentage of the active or non-active substances it contains;\n(s)\n\u2018biocidal product family\u2019 means a group of biocidal products having similar uses, the active substances of which have the same specifications, and presenting specified variations in their composition which do not adversely affect the level of risk or significantly reduce the efficacy of the products;\n(t)\n\u2018letter of access\u2019 means an original document, signed by the data owner or its representative, which states that the data may be used for the benefit of a third party by competent authorities, the Agency, or the Commission for the purposes of this Regulation;\n(u)\n\u2018food\u2019 and \u2018feed\u2019 mean food as defined in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and feed as defined in Article 3(4) of that Regulation;\n(v)\n\u2018processing aid\u2019 means any substance falling within the definition of point (b) of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 or point (h) of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003;\n(w)\n\u2018technical equivalence\u2019 means similarity, as regards the chemical composition and hazard profile, of a substance produced either from a source different to the reference source, or from the reference source but following a change to the manufacturing process and/or manufacturing location, compared to the substance of the reference source in respect of which the initial risk assessment was carried out, as established in Article 54;\n(x)\n\u2018Agency\u2019 means the European Chemicals Agency established by Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006;\n(y)\n\u2018advertisement\u2019 means a means of promoting the sale or use of biocidal products by printed, electronic or other media;\n(z)\n\u2018nanomaterial\u2019 means a natural or manufactured active substance or non-active substance containing particles, in an unbound state or as an aggregate or as an agglomerate and where, for 50 % or more of the particles in the number size distribution, one or more external dimensions is in the size range 1-100 nm.\nFullerenes, graphene flakes and single-wall carbon nanotubes with one or more external dimensions below 1 nm shall be considered as nanomaterials.\nFor the purposes of the definition of nanomaterial, \u2018particle\u2019, \u2018agglomerate\u2019 and \u2018aggregate\u2019 are defined as follows:\n-\n\u2018particle\u2019 means a minute piece of matter with defined physical boundaries,\n-\n\u2018agglomerate\u2019 means a collection of weakly bound particles or aggregates where the resulting external surface area is similar to the sum of the surface areas of the individual components,\n-\n\u2018aggregate\u2019 means a particle comprising strongly bound or fused particles;\n(aa)\n\u2018administrative change\u2019 means an amendment of an existing authorisation of a purely administrative nature involving no change to the properties or efficacy of the biocidal product or biocidal product family;\n(ab)\n\u2018minor change\u2019 means an amendment of an existing authorisation that is not of a purely administrative nature and requires only a limited re-assessment of the properties or efficacy of the biocidal product or biocidal product family;\n(ac)\n\u2018major change\u2019 means an amendment of an existing authorisation which is neither an administrative change nor a minor change;\n(ad)\n\u2018vulnerable groups\u2019 means persons needing specific consideration when assessing the acute and chronic health effects of biocidal products. These include pregnant and nursing women, the unborn, infants and children, the elderly and, when subject to high exposure to biocidal products over the long term, workers and residents;\n(ae)\n\u2018small and medium-sized enterprises\u2019 or \u2018SMEs\u2019 means small and medium-sized enterprises as defined in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (40).\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions laid down in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 shall apply for the following terms:\n(a)\n\u2018substance\u2019;\n(b)\n\u2018mixture\u2019;\n(c)\n\u2018article\u2019;\n(d)\n\u2018product and process-orientated research and development\u2019;\n(e)\n\u2018scientific research and development\u2019.\n3. The Commission may, at the request of a Member State, decide, by means of implementing acts, whether a substance is a nanomaterial, having regard in particular to Commission Recommendation 2011/696/EU of 18 October 2011 on the definition of nanomaterial (41), and whether a specific product or group of products is a biocidal product or a treated article or neither. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\n4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 83 in order to adapt the definition of nanomaterial set out in point (z) of paragraph 1 of this Article in view of technical and scientific progress and taking into account the Recommendation 2011/696/EU.\nCHAPTER II\nAPPROVAL OF ACTIVE SUBSTANCES\nArticle 4\nConditions for approval\n1. An active substance shall be approved for an initial period not exceeding 10 years if at least one biocidal product containing that active substance may be expected to meet the criteria laid down in point (b) of Article 19(1) taking into account the factors set out in Article 19(2) and (5). An active substance that falls under Article 5 may only be approved for an initial period not exceeding five years.\n2. The approval of an active substance shall be restricted to those product-types for which relevant data have been submitted in accordance with Article 6.\n3. The approval shall specify the following conditions, as appropriate:\n(a)\nthe minimum degree of purity of the active substance;\n(b)\nthe nature and maximum content of certain impurities;\n(c)\nthe product-type;\n(d)\nmanner and area of use including, where relevant, use in treated articles;\n(e)\ndesignation of categories of users;\n(f)\nwhere relevant, characterisation of the chemical identity with regard to stereoisomers;\n(g)\nother particular conditions based on the evaluation of the information related to that active substance;\n(h)\nthe date of approval and the expiry date of the approval of the active substance.\n4. The approval of an active substance shall not cover nanomaterials except where explicitly mentioned.\nArticle 5\nExclusion criteria\n1. Subject to paragraph 2, the following active substances shall not be approved:\n(a)\nactive substances which have been classified in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 as, or which meet the criteria to be classified as, carcinogen category 1A or 1B;\n(b)\nactive substances which have been classified in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 as, or which meet the criteria to be classified as, mutagen category 1A or 1B;\n(c)\nactive substances which have been classified in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 as, or which meet the criteria to be classified as, toxic for reproduction category 1A or 1B;\n(d)\nactive substances which, on the basis of the criteria specified pursuant to the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 or, pending the adoption of those criteria, on the basis of the second and third subparagraphs of paragraph 3, are considered as having endocrine-disrupting properties that may cause adverse effects in humans or which are identified in accordance with Articles 57(f) and 59(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 as having endocrine disrupting properties;\n(e)\nactive substances which meet the criteria for being PBT or vPvB according to Annex XIII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 4(1), active substances referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article may be approved if it is shown that at least one of the following conditions is met:\n(a)\nthe risk to humans, animals or the environment from exposure to the active substance in a biocidal product, under realistic worst case conditions of use, is negligible, in particular where the product is used in closed systems or under other conditions which aim at excluding contact with humans and release into the environment;\n(b)\nit is shown by evidence that the active substance is essential to prevent or control a serious danger to human health, animal health or the environment; or\n(c)\nnot approving the active substance would have a disproportionate negative impact on society when compared with the risk to human health, animal health or the environment arising from the use of the substance.\nWhen deciding whether an active substance may be approved in accordance with the first subparagraph, the availability of suitable and sufficient alternative substances or technologies shall be a key consideration.\nThe use of a biocidal product containing active substances approved in accordance with this paragraph shall be subject to appropriate risk-mitigation measures to ensure that exposure of humans, animals and the environment to those active substances is minimised. The use of the biocidal product with the active substances concerned shall be restricted to Member States in which at least one of the conditions set out in this paragraph is met.\n3. No later than 13 December 2013, the Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 83 specifying scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties.\nPending the adoption of those criteria, active substances that are classified in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 as, or meet the criteria to be classified as, carcinogen category 2 and toxic for reproduction category 2, shall be considered as having endocrine-disrupting properties.\nSubstances such as those that are classified in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 as, or that meet the criteria to be classified as, toxic for reproduction category 2 and that have toxic effects on the endocrine organs, may be considered as having endocrine-disrupting properties.\nArticle 6\nData requirements for an application\n1. An application for approval of an active substance shall contain at least the following elements:\n(a)\na dossier for the active substance satisfying the requirements set out in Annex II;\n(b)\na dossier satisfying the requirements set out in Annex III for at least one representative biocidal product that contains the active substance; and\n(c)\nif the active substance meets at least one of the exclusion criteria listed in Article 5(1), evidence that Article 5(2) is applicable.\n2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the applicant need not provide data as part of the dossiers required under points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 where any of the following applies:\n(a)\nthe data are not necessary owing to the exposure associated with the proposed uses;\n(b)\nit is not scientifically necessary to supply the data; or\n(c)\nit is not technically possible to generate the data.\nHowever, sufficient data shall be provided in order to make it possible to determine whether an active substance meets the criteria referred to in Article 5(1) or Article 10(1), if required by the evaluating competent authority under Article 8(2).\n3. An applicant may propose to adapt the data as part of the dossiers required under points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 in accordance with Annex IV. The justification for the proposed adaptations to the data requirements shall be clearly stated in the application with a reference to the specific rules in Annex IV.\n4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 83 specifying criteria for determining what constitutes adequate justification to adapt the data requirements under paragraph 1 of this Article on the grounds referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 of this Article.\nArticle 7\nSubmission and validation of applications\n1. The applicant shall submit an application for approval of an active substance, or for making subsequent amendments to the conditions of approval of an active substance, to the Agency, informing it of the name of the competent authority of the Member State that it proposes should evaluate the application and providing written confirmation that that competent authority agrees to do so. That competent authority shall be the evaluating competent authority.\n2. The Agency shall inform the applicant of the fees payable under Article 80(1) and shall reject the application if the applicant fails to pay the fees within 30 days. It shall inform the applicant and the evaluating competent authority accordingly.\nUpon receipt of the fees payable under Article 80(1), the Agency shall accept the application and inform the applicant and the evaluating competent authority accordingly, indicating the date of the acceptance of the application and its unique identification code.\n3. Within 30 days of the Agency accepting an application, the evaluating competent authority shall validate the application if the data required in accordance with points (a) and (b) and, where relevant, point (c) of Article 6(1), and any justifications for the adaptation of data requirements, have been submitted.\nIn the context of the validation referred to in the first subparagraph, the evaluating competent authority shall not make an assessment of the quality or the adequacy of the data or justifications submitted.\nThe evaluating competent authority shall, as soon as possible after the Agency has accepted an application, inform the applicant of the fees payable under Article 80(2) and shall reject the application if the applicant fails to pay the fees within 30 days. It shall inform the applicant accordingly.\n4. Where the evaluating competent authority considers that the application is incomplete, it shall inform the applicant as to what additional information is required for the validation of the application and shall set a reasonable time limit for the submission of that information. That time limit shall not normally exceed 90 days.\nThe evaluating competent authority shall, within 30 days of receipt of the additional information, validate the application if it determines that the additional information submitted is sufficient to comply with the requirement laid down in paragraph 3.\nThe evaluating competent authority shall reject the application if the applicant fails to submit the requested information within the deadline and shall inform the applicant and the Agency accordingly. In such cases, part of the fees paid in accordance with Article 80(1) and (2) shall be reimbursed.\n5. On validating an application in accordance with paragraph 3 or 4, the evaluating competent authority shall without delay inform the applicant, the Agency and other competent authorities accordingly, indicating the date of the validation.\n6. An appeal may be brought, in accordance with Article 77, against decisions of the Agency under paragraph 2 of this Article.\nArticle 8\nEvaluation of applications\n1. The evaluating competent authority shall, within 365 days of the validation of an application, evaluate it in accordance with Articles 4 and 5, including, where relevant, any proposal to adapt data requirements submitted in accordance with Article 6(3), and send an assessment report and the conclusions of its evaluation to the Agency.\nPrior to submitting its conclusions to the Agency, the evaluating competent authority shall give the applicant the opportunity to provide written comments on the assessment report and on the conclusions of the evaluation within 30 days. The evaluating competent authority shall take due account of those comments when finalising its evaluation.\n2. Where it appears that additional information is necessary to carry out the evaluation, the evaluating competent authority shall ask the applicant to submit such information within a specified time limit, and shall inform the Agency accordingly. As specified in the second subparagraph of Article 6(2), the evaluating competent authority may, as appropriate, require the applicant to provide sufficient data to permit a determination of whether an active substance meets the criteria referred to in Article 5(1) or Article 10(1). The 365-day period referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be suspended from the date of issue of the request until the date the information is received. The suspension shall not exceed 180 days in total unless it is justified by the nature of the data requested or by exceptional circumstances.\n3. Where the evaluating competent authority considers that there are concerns for human health, animal health or the environment as a result of the cumulative effects from the use of biocidal products containing the same or different active substances, it shall document its concerns in accordance with the requirements of the relevant parts of Section II.3 of Annex XV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and include this as part of its conclusions.\n4. Within 270 days of receipt of the conclusions of the evaluation, the Agency shall prepare and submit to the Commission an opinion on the approval of the active substance having regard to the conclusions of the evaluating competent authority.\nArticle 9\nApproval of an active substance\n1. The Commission shall, on receipt of the opinion of the Agency referred to in Article 8(4), either:\n(a)\nadopt an implementing Regulation providing that an active substance is approved, and under which conditions, including the dates of approval and of expiry of the approval; or\n(b)\nin cases where the conditions laid down in Article 4(1) or, where applicable, the conditions set out in Article 5(2), are not satisfied or where the requisite information and data have not been submitted within the prescribed period, adopt an implementing decision that an active substance is not approved.\nThose implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\n2. Approved active substances shall be included in a Union list of approved active substances. The Commission shall keep the list up to date and make it electronically available to the public.\nArticle 10\nActive substances which are candidates for substitution\n1. An active substance shall be considered a candidate for substitution if any of the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nit meets at least one of the exclusion criteria listed in Article 5(1) but may be approved in accordance with Article 5(2);\n(b)\nit meets the criteria to be classified, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, as a respiratory sensitiser;\n(c)\nits acceptable daily intake, acute reference dose or acceptable operator exposure level, as appropriate, is significantly lower than those of the majority of approved active substances for the same product-type and use scenario;\n(d)\nit meets two of the criteria for being PBT in accordance with Annex XIII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006;\n(e)\nthere are reasons for concern linked to the nature of the critical effects which, in combination with the use patterns, amount to use that could still cause concern, such as high potential of risk to groundwater, even with very restrictive risk management measures;\n(f)\nit contains a significant proportion of non-active isomers or impurities.\n2. When preparing its opinion on the approval or renewal of the approval of an active substance, the Agency shall examine whether the active substance fulfils any of the criteria listed in paragraph 1 and address the matter in its opinion.\n3. Prior to submitting its opinion on the approval or renewal of the approval of an active substance to the Commission, the Agency shall make publicly available, without prejudice to Articles 66 and 67, information on potential candidates for substitution during a period of no more than 60 days, during which time interested third parties may submit relevant information, including information on available substitutes. The Agency shall take due account of the information received when finalising its opinion.\n4. By way of derogation from Article 4(1) and Article 12(3), the approval of an active substance that is considered as a candidate for substitution and each renewal shall be for a period not exceeding seven years.\n5. Active substances that are considered as candidates for substitution in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be identified as such in the relevant Regulation adopted in accordance with Article 9.\nArticle 11\nTechnical guidance notes\nThe Commission shall draw up technical guidance notes to facilitate the implementation of this Chapter, in particular Article 5(2) and Article 10(1).\nCHAPTER III\nRENEWAL AND REVIEW OF APPROVAL OF AN ACTIVE SUBSTANCE\nArticle 12\nConditions for renewal\n1. The Commission shall renew the approval of an active substance if the active substance still meets the conditions laid down in Article 4(1) or, where applicable, the conditions set out in Article 5(2).\n2. In the light of scientific and technical progress, the Commission shall review and, where appropriate, amend the conditions specified for the active substance referred to in Article 4(3).\n3. The renewal of an approval of an active substance shall be for 15 years for all product-types to which the approval applies, unless a shorter period is specified in the implementing regulation adopted in accordance with point (a) of Article 14(4) renewing such an approval.\nArticle 13\nSubmission and acceptance of applications\n1. Applicants wishing to seek renewal of the approval of an active substance for one or more product-types shall submit an application to the Agency at least 550 days before the expiry of the approval. Where there are different expiry dates for different product-types, the application shall be submitted at least 550 days before the earliest expiry date.\n2. When applying for the renewal of the approval of the active substance, the applicant shall submit:\n(a)\nwithout prejudice to Article 21(1), all relevant data required under Article 20 that it has generated since the initial approval or, as appropriate, previous renewal; and\n(b)\nits assessment of whether the conclusions of the initial or previous assessment of the active substance remain valid and any supporting information.\n3. The applicant shall also submit the name of the competent authority of the Member State that it proposes should evaluate the application for renewal and provide written confirmation that that competent authority agrees to do so. That competent authority shall be the evaluating competent authority.\nThe Agency shall inform the applicant of the fees payable under Article 80(1) and shall reject the application if the applicant fails to pay the fees within 30 days. It shall inform the applicant and the evaluating competent authority accordingly.\nUpon receipt of the fees payable under Article 80(1), the Agency shall accept the application and inform the applicant and the evaluating competent authority accordingly, indicating the date of the acceptance.\n4. An appeal may be brought, in accordance with Article 77, against decisions of the Agency under paragraph 3 of this Article.\nArticle 14\nEvaluation of applications for renewal\n1. On the basis of an assessment of the available information and the need to review the conclusions of the initial evaluation of the application for approval or, as appropriate, the previous renewal, the evaluating competent authority shall, within 90 days of the Agency accepting an application in accordance with Article 13(3), decide whether, in the light of current scientific knowledge, a full evaluation of the application for renewal is necessary taking account of all product-types for which renewal is requested.\n2. Where the evaluating competent authority decides that a full evaluation of the application is necessary, the evaluation shall be carried out in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 8.\nWhere the evaluating competent authority decides that a full evaluation of the application is not necessary, it shall, within 180 days of the Agency accepting the application in accordance with Article 13(3), prepare and submit to the Agency a recommendation on the renewal of the approval of the active substance. It shall provide the applicant with a copy of its recommendation.\nThe evaluating competent authority shall, as soon as possible after the Agency has accepted an application, notify the applicant of the fees payable under Article 80(2). The evaluating competent authority shall reject the application if the applicant fails to pay the fees within 30 days of the notification and shall inform the applicant accordingly.\n3. Within 270 days of receipt of a recommendation from the evaluating competent authority, if it has carried out a full evaluation of the application, or 90 days otherwise, the Agency shall prepare and submit to the Commission an opinion on renewal of the approval of the active substance.\n4. The Commission shall, on receipt of the opinion of the Agency, adopt:\n(a)\nan implementing regulation providing that the approval of an active substance is renewed for one or more product-types, and under which conditions; or\n(b)\nan implementing decision that the approval of an active substance is not renewed.\nThose implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\nArticle 9(2) shall apply.\n5. Where, for reasons beyond the control of the applicant, the approval of the active substance is likely to expire before a decision has been taken on its renewal, the Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision postponing the expiry date of approval for a period sufficient to enable it to examine the application. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 82(2).\n6. Where the Commission decides not to renew or decides to amend the approval of an active substance for one or more product-types, the Member States or, in the case of a Union authorisation, the Commission shall cancel or, where appropriate, amend the authorisations of biocidal products of the product-type(s) concerned containing that active substance. Articles 48 and 52 shall apply accordingly.\nArticle 15\nReview of approval of an active substance\n1. The Commission may review the approval of an active substance for one or more product-types at any time where there are significant indications that the conditions laid down in Article 4(1) or, where applicable, the conditions set out in Article 5(2) are no longer met. The Commission may also review the approval of an active substance for one or more product-types at the request of a Member State if there are indications that the use of the active substance in biocidal products or treated articles raises significant concerns about the safety of such biocidal products or treated articles. The Commission shall make publicly available the information that it is carrying out a review and shall provide an opportunity for applicant to submit comments. The Commission shall take due account of those comments in its review.\nWhere those indications are confirmed, the Commission shall adopt an implementing Regulation amending the conditions of approval of an active substance or cancelling its approval. That implementing Regulation shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3). Article 9(2) shall apply. The Commission shall inform the initial applicants for the approval accordingly.\nOn duly justified imperative grounds of urgency the Commission shall adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 82(4).\n2. The Commission may consult the Agency on any questions of a scientific or technical nature related to the review of approval of an active substance. The Agency shall, within 270 days of the request, prepare an opinion and submit it to the Commission.\n3. Where the Commission decides to cancel or amend the approval of an active substance for one or more product-types, the Member States or, in the case of a Union authorisation, the Commission shall cancel or, where appropriate, amend the authorisations of biocidal products of the product-type(s) concerned containing that active substance. Articles 48 and 52 shall apply accordingly.\nArticle 16\nImplementing measures\nThe Commission may adopt, by means of implementing acts, detailed measures for the implementation of Articles 12 to 15, further specifying the procedures for the renewal and review of the approval of an active substance. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\nCHAPTER IV\nGENERAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING THE AUTHORISATION OF BIOCIDAL PRODUCTS\nArticle 17\nMaking available on the market and use of biocidal products\n1. Biocidal products shall not be made available on the market or used unless authorised in accordance with this Regulation.\n2. Applications for authorisation shall be made by, or on behalf of, the prospective authorisation holder.\nApplications for national authorisation in a Member State shall be submitted to the competent authority of that Member State (\u2018the receiving competent authority\u2019).\nApplications for Union authorisation shall be submitted to the Agency.\n3. An authorisation may be granted for a single biocidal product or a biocidal product family.\n4. An authorisation shall be granted for a maximum period of 10 years.\n5. Biocidal products shall be used in compliance with the terms and conditions of the authorisation stipulated in accordance with Article 22(1) and the labelling and packaging requirements laid down in Article 69.\nProper use shall involve the rational application of a combination of physical, biological, chemical or other measures as appropriate, whereby the use of biocidal products is limited to the minimum necessary and appropriate precautionary steps are taken.\nMember States shall take necessary measures to provide the public with appropriate information about the benefits and risks associated with biocidal products and ways of minimising their use.\n6. The authorisation holder shall notify each competent authority that has granted a national authorisation for a biocidal product family of each product within the biocidal product family at least 30 days before placing it on the market, except where a particular product is explicitly identified in the authorisation or the variation in composition concerns only pigments, perfumes and dyes within the permitted variations. The notification shall indicate the exact composition, trade name and suffix to the authorisation number. In the case of a Union authorisation, the authorisation holder shall notify the Agency and the Commission.\n7. The Commission shall, by means of an implementing act, specify procedures for the authorisation of the same biocidal products by the same or different enterprises under the same terms and conditions. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\nArticle 18\nMeasures geared to the sustainable use of biocidal products\nBy 18 July 2015 the Commission shall, on the basis of experience gained with the application of this Regulation, submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on how this Regulation is contributing to the sustainable use of biocidal products, including on the need to introduce additional measures, in particular for professional users, to reduce the risks posed to human health, animal health and the environment by biocidal products. That report shall, inter alia, examine:\n(a)\nthe promotion of best practices as a means of reducing the use of biocidal products to a minimum;\n(b)\nthe most effective approaches for monitoring the use of biocidal products;\n(c)\nthe development and application of integrated pest management principles with respect to the use of biocidal products;\n(d)\nthe risks posed by the use of biocidal products in specific areas such as schools, workplaces, kindergartens, public spaces, geriatric care centres or in the vicinity of surface water or groundwater and whether additional measures are needed to address those risks;\n(e)\nthe role that improved performance of the equipment used for applying biocidal products could play in sustainable use.\nOn basis of that report, the Commission shall, if appropriate, submit a proposal for adoption in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.\nArticle 19\nConditions for granting an authorisation\n1. A biocidal product other than those eligible for the simplified authorisation procedure in accordance with Article 25 shall be authorised provided the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe active substances are approved for the relevant product-type and any conditions specified for those active substances are met;\n(b)\nit is established, according to the common principles for the evaluation of dossiers for biocidal products laid down in Annex VI, that the biocidal product, when used as authorised and having regard to the factors referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, fulfils the following criteria:\n(i)\nthe biocidal product is sufficiently effective;\n(ii)\nthe biocidal product has no unacceptable effects on the target organisms, in particular unacceptable resistance or cross-resistance or unnecessary suffering and pain for vertebrates;\n(iii)\nthe biocidal product has no immediate or delayed unacceptable effects itself, or as a result of its residues, on the health of humans, including that of vulnerable groups, or animals, directly or through drinking water, food, feed, air, or through other indirect effects;\n(iv)\nthe biocidal product has no unacceptable effects itself, or as a result of its residues, on the environment, having particular regard to the following considerations:\n-\nthe fate and distribution of the biocidal product in the environment,\n-\ncontamination of surface waters (including estuarial and seawater), groundwater and drinking water, air and soil, taking into account locations distant from its use following long-range environmental transportation,\n-\nthe impact of the biocidal product on non-target organisms,\n-\nthe impact of the biocidal product on biodiversity and the ecosystem;\n(c)\nthe chemical identity, quantity and technical equivalence of active substances in the biocidal product and, where appropriate, any toxicologically or ecotoxicologically significant and relevant impurities and non-active substances, and its residues of toxicological or environmental significance, which result from uses to be authorised, can be determined according to the relevant requirements in Annexes II and III;\n(d)\nthe physical and chemical properties of the biocidal product have been determined and deemed acceptable for the purposes of the appropriate use and transport of the product;\n(e)\nwhere appropriate, maximum residue limits for food and feed have been established with respect to active substances contained in a biocidal product in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food (42), Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food (43), Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin (44), Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin (45) or Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed (46);\n(f)\nwhere nanomaterials are used in that product, the risk to human health, animal health and the environment has been assessed separately.\n2. The evaluation of whether a biocidal product fulfils the criteria set out in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall take into account the following factors:\n(a)\nrealistic worst case conditions under which the biocidal product may be used;\n(b)\nthe way in which treated articles treated with the biocidal product or containing the biocidal product may be used;\n(c)\nthe consequences of use and disposal of the biocidal product;\n(d)\ncumulative effects;\n(e)\nsynergistic effects.\n3. A biocidal product shall only be authorised for uses for which relevant information has been submitted in accordance with Article 20.\n4. A biocidal product shall not be authorised for making available on the market for use by the general public where:\n(a)\nit meets the criteria according to Directive 1999/45/EC for classification as:\n-\ntoxic or very toxic,\n-\na category 1 or 2 carcinogen,\n-\na category 1 or 2 mutagen, or\n-\ntoxic for reproduction category 1 or 2;\n(b)\nit meets the criteria according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 for classification as:\n-\nacute oral toxicity category 1 or 2 or 3,\n-\nacute dermal toxicity category 1 or 2 or 3,\n-\nacute inhalation toxicity (gases and dust/mist) category 1 or 2 or 3,\n-\nacute inhalation toxicity (vapours) category 1 or 2,\n-\na category 1A or 1B carcinogen,\n-\na category 1A or 1B mutagen, or\n-\ntoxic for reproduction category 1A or 1B;\n(c)\nit meets the criteria for being PBT or vPvB in accordance with Annex XIII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006;\n(d)\nit has endocrine-disrupting properties; or\n(e)\nit has developmental neurotoxic or immunotoxic effects.\n5. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 4, a biocidal product may be authorised when the conditions laid down in paragraph 1(b)(iii) and (iv) are not fully met, or may be authorised for making available on the market for use by the general public when the criteria referred to in paragraph 4(c) are met, where not authorising the biocidal product would result in disproportionate negative impacts for society when compared to the risks to human health, animal health or the environment arising from the use of the biocidal product under the conditions laid down in the authorisation.\nThe use of a biocidal product authorised pursuant to this paragraph shall be subject to appropriate risk mitigation measures to ensure that exposure of humans and the environment to that biocidal product is minimised. The use of a biocidal product authorised pursuant to this paragraph shall be restricted to Member States in which the condition of the first subparagraph is met.\n6. In the case of a biocidal product family, a reduction in the percentage of one or more active substances may be allowed, and/or a variation in percentage of one or more non-active substances, and/or the replacement of one or more non-active substances by other specified substances presenting the same or lower risk. The classification, hazard and precautionary statements for each product within the biocidal product family shall be the same (with the exception of a biocidal product family comprising a concentrate for professional use and ready-for-use products obtained through dilution of that concentrate).\nA biocidal product family shall be authorised only if all the biocidal products within it, taking into account the permitted variations referred to in the first subparagraph, are expected to comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 1.\n7. Where appropriate, the prospective authorisation holder or its representative shall apply for the establishment of maximum residue limits with respect to active substances contained in a biocidal product in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 315/93, Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 or Directive 2002/32/EC.\n8. Where, for active substances covered by Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009, no maximum residue limit has been established in accordance with Article 9 of that Regulation at the time of the approval of the active substance, or where a limit established in accordance with Article 9 of that Regulation needs to be amended, the maximum residue limit shall be established or amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 10(1)(b) of that Regulation.\n9. Where a biocidal product is intended for direct application to the external parts of the human body (epidermis, hair system, nails, lips and external genital organs), or to the teeth and the mucous membranes of the oral cavity, it shall not contain any non-active substance that may not be included in a cosmetic product pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009.\nArticle 20\nRequirements for applications for authorisation\n1. The applicant for an authorisation shall submit the following documents together with the application:\n(a)\nfor biocidal products other than biocidal products meeting the conditions laid down in Article 25:\n(i)\na dossier or letter of access for the biocidal product satisfying the requirements set out in Annex III;\n(ii)\na summary of the biocidal product characteristics including the information referred to in points (a), (b) and (e) to (q) of Article 22(2), as applicable;\n(iii)\na dossier or a letter of access for the biocidal product satisfying the requirements set out in Annex II for each active substance in the biocidal product;\n(b)\nfor biocidal products that the applicant considers meet the conditions laid down in Article 25:\n(i)\na summary of the biocidal product characteristics as referred to in point (a)(ii) of this paragraph;\n(ii)\nefficacy data; and\n(iii)\nany other relevant information in support of the conclusion that the biocidal product meets the conditions laid down in Article 25.\n2. The receiving competent authority may require that applications for national authorisation be submitted in one or more of the official languages of the Member State where that competent authority is situated.\n3. For applications for Union authorisations submitted under Article 43, the applicant shall submit the summary of the biocidal product characteristics referred to in point (ii) of paragraph (1)(a) of this Article in one of the official languages of the Union accepted by the evaluating competent authority at the time of application and in all official languages of the Union before the authorisation of the biocidal product.\nArticle 21\nWaiving of data requirements\n1. By way of derogation from Article 20, the applicant need not provide data required under that Article where any of the following applies:\n(a)\nthe data are not necessary owing to the exposure associated with the proposed uses;\n(b)\nit is not scientifically necessary to supply the data; or\n(c)\nit is not technically possible to generate the data.\n2. The applicant may propose to adapt the data requirements of Article 20 in accordance with Annex IV. The justification for the proposed adaptations to the data requirements shall be clearly stated in the application with reference to the specific rules in Annex IV.\n3. In order to ensure the harmonised application of paragraph 1(a) of this Article, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 83 specifying criteria for defining when the exposure associated with the proposed uses would justify adapting the data requirements of Article 20.\nArticle 22\nContent of authorisation\n1. An authorisation shall stipulate the terms and conditions relating to the making available on the market and use of the single biocidal product or the biocidal product family and include a summary of the biocidal product characteristics.\n2. Without prejudice to Articles 66 and 67, the summary of the biocidal product characteristics for a single biocidal product or, in the case of a biocidal product family, the biocidal products within that biocidal product family, shall include the following information:\n(a)\ntrade name of the biocidal product;\n(b)\nname and address of the authorisation holder;\n(c)\ndate of the authorisation and its date of expiry;\n(d)\nauthorisation number of the biocidal product, together with, in the case of a biocidal product family, the suffixes to apply to individual biocidal products within the biocidal product family;\n(e)\nqualitative and quantitative composition in terms of the active substances and non-active substances, knowledge of which is essential for proper use of biocidal products; and in the case of a biocidal product family, the quantitative composition shall indicate a minimum and maximum percentage for each active and non-active substance, where the minimum percentage indicated for certain substances may be 0 %;\n(f)\nmanufacturers of the biocidal product (names and addresses including location of manufacturing sites);\n(g)\nmanufacturers of the active substances (names and addresses including location of manufacturing sites);\n(h)\ntype of formulation of the biocidal product;\n(i)\nhazard and precautionary statements;\n(j)\nproduct-type and, where relevant, an exact description of the authorised use;\n(k)\ntarget harmful organisms;\n(l)\napplication doses and instructions for use;\n(m)\ncategories of users;\n(n)\nparticulars of likely direct or indirect adverse effects and first aid instructions and emergency measures to protect the environment;\n(o)\ninstructions for safe disposal of the product and its packaging;\n(p)\nconditions of storage and shelf-life of the biocidal product under normal conditions of storage;\n(q)\nwhere relevant, other information about the biocidal product.\nArticle 23\nComparative assessment of biocidal products\n1. The receiving competent authority or, in the case of an evaluation of an application for a Union authorisation, the evaluating competent authority, shall perform a comparative assessment as part of the evaluation of an application for authorisation or for renewal of authorisation of a biocidal product containing an active substance that is a candidate for substitution in accordance with Article 10(1).\n2. The results of the comparative assessment shall be forwarded, without delay, to the competent authorities of other Member States and the Agency and, in the case of evaluation of an application for a Union authorisation, also to the Commission.\n3. The receiving competent authority or, in the case of a decision on an application for a Union authorisation, the Commission shall prohibit or restrict the making available on the market or the use of a biocidal product containing an active substance that is a candidate for substitution where the comparative assessment in accordance with Annex VI (\u2018comparative assessment\u2019) demonstrates that both of the following criteria are met:\n(a)\nfor the uses specified in the application, another authorised biocidal product or a non-chemical control or prevention method already exists which presents a significantly lower overall risk for human health, animal health and the environment, is sufficiently effective and presents no other significant economic or practical disadvantages;\n(b)\nthe chemical diversity of the active substances is adequate to minimise the occurrence of resistance in the target harmful organism.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, a biocidal product containing an active substance that is a candidate for substitution may be authorised for a period of up to four years without comparative assessment in exceptional cases where it is necessary to acquire experience first through using that product in practice.\n5. Where the comparative assessment involves a question which, by reason of its scale or consequences, would be better addressed at Union level, in particular where it is relevant to two or more competent authorities, the receiving competent authority may refer the question to the Commission for a decision. The Commission shall adopt that decision by means of implementing acts in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 83 specifying the criteria for determining when comparative assessments involve questions better addressed at Union level and the procedures for such comparative assessments.\n6. Notwithstanding Article 17(4), and without prejudice to paragraph 4 of this Article, an authorisation for a biocidal product containing an active substance that is a candidate for substitution shall be granted for a period not exceeding five years and renewed for a period not exceeding five years.\n7. Where it is decided not to authorise or to restrict the use of a biocidal product pursuant to paragraph 3, that cancellation or amendment of the authorisation shall take effect four years after that decision. However, where the approval of the active substance which is a candidate for substitution expires on an earlier date, the cancellation of the authorisation shall take effect on that earlier date.\nArticle 24\nTechnical guidance notes\nThe Commission shall draw up technical guidance notes to facilitate the implementation of this Chapter and, in particular, Article 22(2) and Article 23(3).\nCHAPTER V\nSIMPLIFIED AUTHORISATION PROCEDURE\nArticle 25\nEligibility for the simplified authorisation procedure\nFor eligible biocidal products, an application for authorisation may be made under a simplified authorisation procedure. A biocidal product shall be eligible if all the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nall the active substances contained in the biocidal product appear in Annex I and satisfy any restriction specified in that Annex;\n(b)\nthe biocidal product does not contain any substance of concern;\n(c)\nthe biocidal product does not contain any nanomaterials;\n(d)\nthe biocidal product is sufficiently effective; and\n(e)\nthe handling of the biocidal product and its intended use do not require personal protective equipment.\nArticle 26\nApplicable procedure\n1. Applicants seeking the authorisation of a biocidal product meeting the conditions of Article 25 shall submit an application to the Agency, informing it of the name of the competent authority of the Member State that it proposes should evaluate the application and providing written confirmation that that competent authority agrees to do so. That competent authority shall be the evaluating competent authority.\n2. The evaluating competent authority shall inform the applicant of the fees payable under Article 80(2) and shall reject the application if the applicant fails to pay the fees within 30 days. It shall inform the applicant accordingly.\nUpon receipt of the fees payable under Article 80(2), the evaluating competent authority shall accept the application and inform the applicant accordingly, indicating the date of the acceptance.\n3. Within 90 days of accepting an application, the evaluating competent authority shall authorise the biocidal product if satisfied that the product meets the conditions laid down in Article 25.\n4. Where the evaluating competent authority considers that the application is incomplete, it shall inform the applicant as to what additional information is required and shall set a reasonable time limit for the submission of that information. That time limit shall not normally exceed 90 days.\nThe evaluating competent authority shall, within 90 days of receipt of the additional information, authorise the biocidal product if satisfied, on the basis of the additional information submitted, that the product meets the conditions laid down in Article 25.\nThe evaluating competent authority shall reject the application if the applicant fails to submit the requested information within the deadline and shall inform the applicant accordingly. In such cases, where fees have been paid, part of the fees paid in accordance with Article 80(2) shall be reimbursed.\nArticle 27\nMaking available on the market of biocidal products authorised in accordance with the simplified authorisation procedure\n1. A biocidal product authorised in accordance with Article 26 may be made available on the market in all Member States without the need for mutual recognition. However, the authorisation holder shall notify each Member State no later than 30 days before placing the biocidal product on the market within the territory of that Member State and shall use the official language or languages of that Member State in the product\u2019s labelling, unless that Member State provides otherwise.\n2. Where a Member State other than that of the evaluating competent authority considers that a biocidal product authorised in accordance with Article 26 has not been notified or labelled in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article or does not meet the requirements of Article 25, it may refer that matter to the coordination group established in accordance with Article 35(1). Article 35(3) and Article 36 shall apply mutatis mutandis.\nWhere a Member State has valid reasons to consider that a biocidal product authorised in accordance with Article 26 does not meet the criteria laid down in Article 25 and a decision pursuant to Articles 35 and 36 has not yet been taken, that Member State may provisionally restrict or prohibit making available on the market or use of that product on its territory.\nArticle 28\nAmendment of Annex I\n1. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 83 amending Annex I, after receiving the opinion of the Agency, in order to include active substances provided that there is evidence that they do not give rise to concern according to paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. Active substances give rise to concern where:\n(a)\nthey meet the criteria for classification according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 as:\n-\nexplosive/highly flammable,\n-\norganic peroxide,\n-\nacutely toxic of category 1, 2 or 3,\n-\ncorrosive of category 1A, 1B or 1C,\n-\nrespiratory sensitiser,\n-\nskin sensitiser,\n-\ngerm cell mutagen of category 1 or 2;\n-\ncarcinogen of category 1 or 2,\n-\nhuman reproductive toxicant of category 1 or 2 or with effects on or via lactation,\n-\nspecific target organ toxicant by single or repeated exposure, or\n-\ntoxic to aquatic life of acute category 1;\n(b)\nthey fulfil any of the substitution criteria set out in Article 10(1); or\n(c)\nthey have neurotoxic or immunotoxic properties.\nActive substances also give rise to concern, even if none of the specific criteria in points (a) to (c) are met, where a level of concern equivalent to that arising from points (a) to (c) can be reasonably demonstrated based on reliable information.\n3. The Commission shall also be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 83 amending Annex I, after receiving the opinion of the Agency, in order to restrict or to remove the entry for an active substance if there is evidence that biocidal products containing that substance do not, in certain circumstances, satisfy the conditions set out in paragraph 1 of this Article or in Article 25. Where imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 84 shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph.\n4. The Commission shall apply paragraph 1 or 3 at its own initiative or at the request of an economic operator or a Member State providing the necessary evidence as referred to in those paragraphs.\nWhenever the Commission amends Annex I it shall adopt a separate delegated act in respect of each substance.\n5. The Commission may adopt implementing acts further specifying the procedures to be followed with respect to an amendment of Annex I. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\nCHAPTER VI\nNATIONAL AUTHORISATIONS OF BIOCIDAL PRODUCTS\nArticle 29\nSubmission and validation of applications\n1. Applicants wishing to apply for a national authorisation in accordance with Article 17 shall submit an application to the receiving competent authority. The receiving competent authority shall inform the applicant of the fees payable under Article 80(2), and shall reject the application if the applicant fails to pay the fees within 30 days. It shall inform the applicant accordingly. Upon receipt of the fees payable under Article 80(2), the receiving competent authority shall accept the application and inform the applicant accordingly, indicating the date of the acceptance.\n2. Within 30 days of acceptance, the receiving competent authority shall validate the application if it complies with the following requirements:\n(a)\nthe relevant information referred to in Article 20 has been submitted; and\n(b)\nthe applicant states that it has not applied to any other competent authority for a national authorisation for the same biocidal product for the same use(s).\nIn the context of the validation referred to in the first subparagraph, the receiving competent authority shall not make an assessment of the quality or the adequacy of the data or justifications submitted.\n3. Where the receiving competent authority considers that the application is incomplete, it shall inform the applicant as to what additional information is required for the validation of the application and shall set a reasonable time limit for the submission of that information. That time limit shall not normally exceed 90 days.\nThe receiving competent authority shall, within 30 days of receipt of the additional information, validate the application if it determines that the additional information submitted is sufficient to comply with the requirements laid down in paragraph 2.\nThe receiving competent authority shall reject the application if the applicant fails to submit the requested information within the deadline and shall inform the applicant accordingly.\n4. Where the Register for Biocidal Products referred to in Article 71 shows that a competent authority other than the receiving competent authority is examining an application relating to the same biocidal product or has already authorised the same biocidal product, the receiving competent authority shall decline to evaluate the application. In that event, the receiving competent authority shall inform the applicant of the possibility of seeking mutual recognition in accordance with Article 33 or 34.\n5. If paragraph 3 does not apply and the receiving competent authority considers that the application is complete, it shall validate the application and without delay inform the applicant accordingly, indicating the date of the validation.\nArticle 30\nEvaluation of applications\n1. The receiving competent authority shall, within 365 days of the validation of an application in accordance with Article 29, decide whether to grant an authorisation in accordance with Article 19. It shall take into account the results of the comparative assessment carried out in accordance with Article 23, if applicable.\n2. Where it appears that additional information is necessary to carry out the evaluation, the receiving competent authority shall ask the applicant to submit such information within a specified time limit. The 365-day period referred to in paragraph 1 shall be suspended from the date of issue of the request until the date the information is received. The suspension shall not exceed 180 days in total unless it is justified by the nature of the data requested or by exceptional circumstances.\nThe receiving competent authority shall reject the application if the applicant fails to submit the requested information within the deadline and shall inform the applicant accordingly.\n3. Within the 365-day period referred to in paragraph 1, the receiving competent authority shall:\n(a)\ndraft a report summarising the conclusions of its assessment and the reasons for authorising the biocidal product or for refusing to grant an authorisation (the \u2018assessment report\u2019);\n(b)\nsend an electronic copy of the draft assessment report to the applicant and provide it with the opportunity to submit comments within 30 days; and\n(c)\ntake due account of those comments when finalising its assessment.\nArticle 31\nRenewal of a national authorisation\n1. An application by or on behalf of an authorisation holder wishing to seek the renewal of a national authorisation for one or more product-types shall be submitted to the receiving competent authority at least 550 days before the expiry date of the authorisation. Where renewal is sought for more than one product-type, the application shall be submitted at least 550 days before the earliest expiry date.\n2. The receiving competent authority shall renew the national authorisation, provided that the conditions set out in Article 19 are still satisfied. It shall take into account the results of the comparative assessment carried out in accordance with Article 23, if applicable.\n3. When applying for renewal, the applicant shall submit:\n(a)\nwithout prejudice to Article 21(1), all relevant data required under Article 20 that it has generated since the initial authorisation or, as appropriate, previous renewal; and\n(b)\nits assessment of whether the conclusions of the initial or previous assessment of the biocidal product remain valid and any supporting information.\n4. The receiving competent authority shall inform the applicant of the fees payable under Article 80(2) and shall reject the application if the applicant fails to pay the fees within 30 days. It shall inform the applicant accordingly.\nUpon receipt of the fees payable under Article 80(2), the receiving competent authority shall accept the application and inform the applicant accordingly, indicating the date of the acceptance.\n5. On the basis of an assessment of the available information and the need to review the conclusions of the initial evaluation of the application for authorisation or, as appropriate, the previous renewal, the receiving competent authority shall, within 90 days of accepting an application in accordance with paragraph 4, decide whether, in the light of current scientific knowledge, a full evaluation of the application for renewal is necessary taking account of all product-types for which renewal is requested.\n6. Where the receiving competent authority decides that a full evaluation of the application is necessary, it shall decide on the renewal of the authorisation after carrying out an evaluation of the application in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 30.\nWhere the receiving competent authority decides that a full evaluation of the application is not necessary, it shall decide on the renewal of the authorisation within 180 days of accepting the application in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Article.\n7. Where, for reasons beyond the control of the holder of a national authorisation, no decision is taken on the renewal of that authorisation before its expiry, the receiving competent authority shall grant a renewal for the period necessary to complete the evaluation.\nCHAPTER VII\nMUTUAL RECOGNITION PROCEDURES\nArticle 32\nAuthorisation through mutual recognition\n1. Applications for mutual recognition of a national authorisation shall be made in accordance with the procedures set out in Article 33 (mutual recognition in sequence) or Article 34 (mutual recognition in parallel).\n2. Without prejudice to Article 37, all Member States receiving applications for mutual recognition of a national authorisation for a biocidal product shall, in accordance with and subject to the procedures set out in this Chapter, authorise the biocidal product under the same terms and conditions.\nArticle 33\nMutual recognition in sequence\n1. Applicants wishing to seek the mutual recognition in sequence, in one or more Member States (\u2018the Member States concerned\u2019), of the national authorisation of a biocidal product already granted in another Member State in accordance with Article 17 (\u2018the reference Member State\u2019) shall submit an application to each of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned containing, in each case, a translation of the national authorisation granted by the reference Member State into such official languages of the Member State concerned as it may require.\nThe competent authorities of the Member States concerned shall inform the applicant of the fees payable under Article 80 and shall reject the application if the applicant fails to pay the fees within 30 days. They shall inform the applicant and the other competent authorities accordingly. Upon receipt of the fees payable under Article 80, the competent authorities of the Member States concerned shall accept the application and inform the applicant indicating the date of acceptance.\n2. Within 30 days of acceptance referred to in paragraph 1, the Member States concerned shall validate the application and inform the applicant accordingly, indicating the date of the validation.\nWithin 90 days of validating the application, and subject to Articles 35, 36 and 37, the Member States concerned shall agree on the summary of biocidal product characteristics referred to in Article 22(2) and shall record their agreement in the Register for Biocidal Products.\n3. Within 30 days of reaching agreement, each of the Member States concerned shall authorise the biocidal product in conformity with the agreed summary of biocidal product characteristics.\n4. Without prejudice to Articles 35, 36, and 37, if no agreement is reached within the 90-day period referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, each Member State that agrees to the summary of biocidal product characteristics referred to in paragraph 2, may authorise the product accordingly.\nArticle 34\nMutual recognition in parallel\n1. Applicants wishing to seek the mutual recognition in parallel of a biocidal product which has not yet been authorised in accordance with Article 17 in any Member State shall submit to the competent authority of the Member State of its choice (\u2018the reference Member State\u2019) an application containing:\n(a)\nthe information referred to in Article 20;\n(b)\na list of all other Member States where a national authorisation is sought (\u2018the Member States concerned\u2019).\nThe reference Member State shall be responsible for the evaluation of the application.\n2. The applicant shall, at the same time as submitting the application to the reference Member State in accordance with paragraph 1, submit to the competent authorities of each of the Member States concerned an application for mutual recognition of the authorisation for which it has applied to the reference Member State. This application shall contain:\n(a)\nthe names of the reference Member State and of the Member States concerned;\n(b)\nthe summary of biocidal product characteristics referred to in Article 20(1)(a)(ii) in such official languages of the Member States concerned as they may require.\n3. The competent authorities of the reference Member State and of the Member States concerned shall inform the applicant of the fees payable in accordance with Article 80 and shall reject the application if the applicant fails to pay the fees within 30 days. They shall inform the applicant and the other competent authorities accordingly. Upon receipt of the fees payable under Article 80, the competent authorities of the reference Member State and of the Member States concerned shall accept the application and inform the applicant indicating the date of acceptance.\n4. The reference Member State shall validate the application in accordance with Article 29(2) and (3) and inform the applicant and the Member States concerned accordingly.\nWithin 365 days of validating an application, the reference Member State shall evaluate the application and draft an assessment report in accordance with Article 30(3) and shall send its assessment report and the summary of biocidal product characteristics to the Member States concerned and to the applicant.\n5. Within 90 days of receipt of the documents referred to in paragraph 4, and subject to Articles 35, 36 and 37, the Member States concerned shall agree on the summary of biocidal product characteristics, and shall record their agreement in the Register for Biocidal Products. The reference Member State shall enter the agreed summary of biocidal product characteristics and the final assessment report in the Register for Biocidal Products, together with any agreed terms or conditions imposed on the making available on the market or use of the biocidal product.\n6. Within 30 days of reaching agreement, the reference Member State and each of the Member States concerned shall authorise the biocidal product in conformity with the agreed summary of biocidal product characteristics.\n7. Without prejudice to Articles 35, 36, and 37, if no agreement is reached within the 90-day period referred to in paragraph 5, each Member State that agrees to the summary of biocidal product characteristics referred to in paragraph 5 may authorise the product accordingly.\nArticle 35\nReferral of objections to the coordination group\n1. A coordination group shall be set up to examine any question, other than matters referred to in Article 37, relating to whether a biocidal product for which an application for mutual recognition has been made in accordance with Article 33 or 34 meets the conditions for granting an authorisation laid down in Article 19.\nAll Member States and the Commission shall be entitled to participate in the work of the coordination group. The Agency shall provide the secretariat of the coordination group.\nThe coordination group shall establish its rules of procedure.\n2. If any of the Member States concerned considers that a biocidal product assessed by the reference Member State does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 19, it shall send a detailed explanation of the points of disagreement and the reasons for its position to the reference Member State, the other Member States concerned, the applicant, and, where applicable, to the authorisation holder. The points of disagreement shall be referred without delay to the coordination group.\n3. Within the coordination group, all Member States referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article shall use their best endeavours to reach agreement on the action to be taken. They shall allow the applicant the opportunity to make its point of view known. Where they reach agreement within 60 days of the referral of the points of disagreement referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, the reference Member State shall record the agreement in the Register for Biocidal Products. The procedure shall then be considered to be closed and the reference Member State and each of the Member States concerned shall authorise the biocidal product in accordance with Article 33(4) or Article 34(6) as appropriate.\nArticle 36\nReferral of unresolved objections to the Commission\n1. If the Member States referred to in Article 35(2) fail to reach agreement within the 60-day period laid down in Article 35(3), the reference Member State shall immediately inform the Commission, and provide it with a detailed statement of the matters on which Member States have been unable to reach agreement and the reasons for their disagreement. A copy of that statement shall be forwarded to the Member States concerned, the applicant and, where applicable, the authorisation holder.\n2. The Commission may ask the Agency for an opinion on scientific or technical questions raised by Member States. Where the Commission does not ask the Agency for an opinion it shall provide the applicant and, where applicable, the authorisation holder with the opportunity to provide written comments within 30 days.\n3. The Commission shall adopt, by means of implementing acts, a decision on the matter referred to it. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\n4. The decision referred to in paragraph 3 shall be addressed to all Member States and reported for information to the applicant and, where applicable, the authorisation holder. The Member States concerned and the reference Member State shall, within 30 days of notification of the decision, either grant, refuse to grant or cancel the authorisation, or vary its terms and conditions as necessary to comply with the decision.\nArticle 37\nDerogations from mutual recognition\n1. By way of derogation from Article 32(2), any of the Member States concerned may propose to refuse to grant an authorisation or to adjust the terms and conditions of the authorisation to be granted, provided that such a measure can be justified on grounds of:\n(a)\nthe protection of the environment;\n(b)\npublic policy or public security;\n(c)\nthe protection of health and life of humans, particularly of vulnerable groups, or of animals or plants;\n(d)\nthe protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or\n(e)\nthe target organisms not being present in harmful quantities.\nAny of the Member States concerned may, in particular, propose in accordance with the first subparagraph to refuse to grant an authorisation or to adjust the terms and conditions of the authorisation to be granted for a biocidal product containing an active substance to which Article 5(2) or Article 10(1) applies.\n2. The Member State concerned shall communicate to the applicant a detailed statement of the grounds for seeking a derogation pursuant to paragraph 1 and shall seek to reach an agreement with the applicant on the proposed derogation.\nIf the Member State concerned is unable to reach agreement with the applicant or receives no reply from the applicant within 60 days of that communication it shall inform the Commission. In that case, the Commission:\n(a)\nmay ask the Agency for an opinion on scientific or technical questions raised by the applicant or the Member State concerned;\n(b)\nshall adopt a decision on the derogation in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\nThe Commission\u2019s decision shall be addressed to the Member State concerned and the Commission shall inform the applicant thereof.\nThe Member State concerned shall take necessary measures to comply with the Commission\u2019s decision within 30 days of its notification.\n3. If the Commission has not adopted a decision pursuant to paragraph 2 within 90 days of being informed in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, the Member State concerned may implement the derogation proposed pursuant to paragraph 1.\nWhile the procedure under this Article is ongoing, the Member States\u2019 obligation to authorise a biocidal product within two years of the date of approval, referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 89(3), shall be temporarily suspended.\n4. By way of derogation from Article 32(2), a Member State may refuse to grant authorisations for product-types 15, 17 and 20 on grounds of animal welfare. Member States shall without delay inform other Member States and the Commission of any decision taken in this respect and its justification.\nArticle 38\nOpinion of the Agency\n1. If so requested by the Commission pursuant to Article 36(2) or Article 37(2), the Agency shall issue an opinion within 120 days from the date on which the matter in question was referred to it.\n2. Before issuing its opinion, the Agency shall provide the applicant and, where applicable, the authorisation holder with an opportunity to provide written comments within a specified time limit not exceeding 30 days.\nThe Agency may suspend the time limit referred to in paragraph 1 to allow the applicant or the authorisation holder to prepare the comments.\nArticle 39\nApplication for mutual recognition by official or scientific bodies\n1. Where no application for a national authorisation has been submitted in a Member State for a biocidal product that is already authorised in another Member State, official or scientific bodies involved in pest control activities or the protection of public health may apply, under the mutual recognition procedure provided for in Article 33 and with the consent of the authorisation holder in that other Member State, for a national authorisation for the same biocidal product, with the same use and the same conditions for use as in that Member State.\nThe applicant shall demonstrate that the use of such a biocidal product is of general interest for that Member State.\nThe application shall be accompanied by the fees payable under Article 80.\n2. Where the competent authority of the Member State concerned considers that the biocidal product fulfils the conditions referred to in Article 19 and the conditions under this Article are met, the competent authority shall authorise the making available on the market and use of the biocidal product. In that case, the body that made the application shall have the same rights and obligations as other authorisation holders.\nArticle 40\nSupplementary rules and technical guidance notes\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 83 laying down supplementary rules for the renewal of authorisations subject to mutual recognition.\nThe Commission shall also draw up technical guidance notes to facilitate the implementation of this Chapter and, in particular, Articles 37 and 39.\nCHAPTER VIII\nUNION AUTHORISATIONS OF BIOCIDAL PRODUCTS\nSECTION 1\nGranting of Union authorisations\nArticle 41\nUnion authorisation\nA Union authorisation issued by the Commission in accordance with this Section shall be valid throughout the Union unless otherwise specified. It shall confer the same rights and obligations in each Member State as a national authorisation. For those categories of biocidal products referred to in Article 42(1), the applicant may apply for Union authorisation as an alternative to applying for a national authorisation and mutual recognition.\nArticle 42\nBiocidal products for which Union authorisation may be granted\n1. Applicants may apply for Union authorisation for biocidal products which have similar conditions of use across the Union with the exception of biocidal products that contain active substances that fall under Article 5 and those of product-types 14, 15, 17, 20 and 21. The Union authorisation may be granted:\n(a)\nfrom 1 September 2013, to biocidal products containing one or more new active substances and biocidal products of product-types 1, 3, 4, 5, 18 and 19;\n(b)\nfrom 1 January 2017, to biocidal products of product-types 2, 6 and 13; and\n(c)\nfrom 1 January 2020, to biocidal products of all remaining product-types.\n2. The Commission shall by 1 September 2013 draw up guidance documents on the definition of \u2018similar conditions of use across the Union\u2019.\n3. The Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Article by 31 December 2017. That report shall contain an assessment of the exclusion of product-types 14, 15, 17, 20 and 21 from the Union authorisation.\nThe report shall, if appropriate, be accompanied by relevant proposals for adoption in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.\nArticle 43\nSubmission and validation of applications\n1. Applicants wishing to apply for Union authorisation in accordance with Article 42(1) shall submit an application to the Agency, including a confirmation that the biocidal product would have similar conditions of use across the Union, informing the Agency of the name of the competent authority of the Member State that they propose should evaluate the application and providing written confirmation that that competent authority agrees to do so. That competent authority shall be the evaluating competent authority.\n2. The Agency shall inform the applicant of the fees payable under Article 80(1), and shall reject the application if the applicant fails to pay the fees within 30 days. It shall inform the applicant and the evaluating competent authority accordingly.\nUpon receipt of the fees payable under Article 80(1), the Agency shall accept the application and inform the applicant and the evaluating competent authority accordingly, indicating the date of acceptance.\n3. Within 30 days of the Agency accepting an application, the evaluating competent authority shall validate the application if the relevant information referred to in Article 20 has been submitted.\nIn the context of the validation referred to in the first subparagraph, the evaluating competent authority shall not make an assessment of the quality or the adequacy of the data or justifications submitted.\nThe evaluating competent authority shall, as soon as possible after the Agency has accepted an application, inform the applicant of the fees payable under Article 80(2) and shall reject the application if the applicant fails to pay the fees within 30 days. It shall inform the applicant accordingly.\n4. Where the evaluating competent authority considers that the application is incomplete, it shall inform the applicant what additional information is required for the evaluation of the application and shall set a reasonable time limit for the submission of that information. That time limit shall not normally exceed 90 days.\nThe evaluating competent authority shall, within 30 days of receipt of the additional information, validate the application if it determines that the additional information submitted is sufficient to comply with the requirement laid down in paragraph 3.\nThe evaluating competent authority shall reject the application if the applicant fails to submit the requested information within the deadline and shall inform the applicant accordingly. In such cases, part of the fees paid in accordance with Article 80(1) and (2) shall be reimbursed.\n5. On validating the application in accordance with paragraph 3 or 4, the evaluating competent authority shall, without delay, inform the applicant, the Agency and other competent authorities accordingly, indicating the date of the validation.\n6. An appeal may be brought, in accordance with Article 77, against decisions of the Agency under paragraph 2 of this Article.\nArticle 44\nEvaluation of applications\n1. The evaluating competent authority shall, within 365 days of the validation of an application, evaluate it in accordance with Article 19, including, where relevant, any proposal to adapt data requirements submitted in accordance with Article 21(2), and send an assessment report and the conclusions of its evaluation to the Agency.\nPrior to submitting its conclusions to the Agency, the evaluating competent authority shall provide the applicant with the opportunity to provide written comments on the conclusions of the evaluation within 30 days. The evaluating competent authority shall take due account of those comments when finalising its evaluation.\n2. Where it appears that additional information is necessary to carry out the evaluation, the evaluating competent authority shall ask the applicant to submit such information within a specified time limit, and shall inform the Agency accordingly. The 365-day period referred to in paragraph 1 shall be suspended from the date of issue of the request until the date the information is received. However, the suspension shall not exceed 180 days in total other than in exceptional cases and where justified by the nature of the information requested.\n3. Within 180 days of receipt of the conclusions of the evaluation, the Agency shall prepare and submit to the Commission an opinion on the authorisation of the biocidal product.\nIf the Agency recommends the authorisation of the biocidal product, the opinion shall contain at least the following elements:\n(a)\na statement on whether the conditions laid down in Article 19(1) are fulfilled, and a draft summary of biocidal product characteristics, as referred to in Article 22(2);\n(b)\nwhere relevant, details of any terms or conditions which should be imposed on the making available on the market or use of the biocidal product;\n(c)\nthe final assessment report on the biocidal product.\n4. Within 30 days of submitting its opinion to the Commission, the Agency shall transmit to the Commission, in all the official languages of the Union, the draft summary of the biocidal product characteristics, as referred to in Article 22(2), where applicable.\n5. On receipt of the opinion of the Agency, the Commission shall adopt either an implementing regulation granting the Union authorisation to the biocidal product or an implementing decision stating that the Union authorisation of the biocidal product has not been granted. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\nThe Commission shall, at the request of a Member State, decide to adjust certain conditions of a Union authorisation specifically for the territory of that Member State or decide that a Union authorisation shall not apply in the territory of that Member State, provided that such a request can be justified on one or more of the grounds referred to in Article 37(1).\nSECTION 2\nRenewal of Union authorisations\nArticle 45\nSubmission and acceptance of applications\n1. An application by or on behalf of an authorisation holder wishing to seek the renewal of a Union authorisation shall be submitted to the Agency at least 550 days before the expiry date of the authorisation.\nThe application shall be accompanied by the fees payable under Article 80(1).\n2. When applying for renewal, the applicant shall submit:\n(a)\nwithout prejudice to Article 21(1), all relevant data required under Article 20 that it has generated since the initial authorisation or, as appropriate, previous renewal; and\n(b)\nits assessment of whether the conclusions of the initial or previous assessment of the biocidal product remain valid and any supporting information.\n3. The applicant shall also submit the name of the competent authority of the Member State that it proposes should evaluate the application for renewal and provide written confirmation that that competent authority agrees to do so. That competent authority shall be the evaluating competent authority.\nThe Agency shall inform the applicant of the fees payable to it under Article 80(1) and shall reject the application if the applicant fails to pay the fees within 30 days. It shall inform the applicant and the evaluating competent authority accordingly.\nUpon receipt of the fees payable to it under Article 80(1), the Agency shall accept the application and inform the applicant and the evaluating competent authority accordingly, indicating the date of acceptance.\n4. An appeal may be brought, in accordance with Article 77, against decisions of the Agency under paragraph 3 of this Article.\nArticle 46\nEvaluation of applications for renewal\n1. On the basis of an assessment of the available information and the need to review the conclusions of the initial evaluation of the application for Union authorisation or, as appropriate, the previous renewal, the evaluating competent authority shall, within 30 days of the Agency accepting the application in accordance with Article 45(3), decide whether, in the light of current scientific knowledge, a full evaluation of the application for renewal is necessary.\n2. Where the evaluating competent authority decides that a full evaluation of the application is necessary, the evaluation shall be carried out in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 44.\nWhere the evaluating competent authority decides that a full evaluation of the application is not necessary, it shall, within 180 days of the Agency accepting the application, prepare and submit to the Agency a recommendation on the renewal of the authorisation. It shall provide the applicant with a copy of its recommendation.\nThe evaluating competent authority shall, as soon as possible after the Agency has accepted the application, inform the applicant of the fees payable under Article 80(2) and shall reject the application if the applicant fails to pay the fees within 30 days. It shall inform the applicant accordingly.\n3. Within 180 days of receipt of a recommendation from the evaluating competent authority, the Agency shall prepare and submit to the Commission an opinion on the renewal of the Union authorisation.\n4. On receipt of the opinion of the Agency, the Commission shall adopt either an implementing Regulation to renew the Union authorisation or an implementing decision to refuse to renew the Union authorisation. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\nThe Commission shall renew a Union authorisation, provided that the conditions set out in Article 19 are still satisfied.\n5. Where, for reasons beyond the control of the holder of the Union authorisation, no decision is taken on the renewal of the authorisation before its expiry, the Commission shall grant the renewal of the Union authorisation for the period necessary to complete the evaluation by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 82(2).\nCHAPTER IX\nCANCELLATION, REVIEW AND AMENDMENT OF AUTHORISATIONS\nArticle 47\nObligation for notification of unexpected or adverse effects\n1. On becoming aware of information concerning the authorised biocidal product, or the active substance(s) it contains, that may affect the authorisation, the holder of an authorisation shall without delay notify the competent authority that granted the national authorisation and the Agency or, in the case of a Union authorisation, the Commission and the Agency. In particular, the following shall be notified:\n(a)\nnew data or information on the adverse effects of the active substance or biocidal product for humans, in particular vulnerable groups, animals or the environment;\n(b)\nany data indicating the potential of the active substance for the development of resistance;\n(c)\nnew data or information indicating that the biocidal product is not sufficiently effective.\n2. The competent authority that granted the national authorisation or, in the case of a Union authorisation, the Agency, shall examine whether the authorisation needs to be amended or cancelled in accordance with Article 48.\n3. The competent authority that granted the national authorisation or, in the case of a Union authorisation, the Agency, shall without delay notify competent authorities of other Member States and, where appropriate, the Commission of any such data or information it receives.\nCompetent authorities of Member States that have issued a national authorisation for the same biocidal product under the mutual recognition procedure shall examine whether the authorisation needs to be amended or cancelled in accordance with Article 48.\nArticle 48\nCancellation or amendment of an authorisation\n1. Without prejudice to Article 23, the competent authority of a Member State or, in the case of a Union authorisation, the Commission shall at any time cancel or amend an authorisation it has granted where it considers that:\n(a)\nthe conditions referred to in Article 19 or, where relevant, in Article 25 are not satisfied;\n(b)\nthe authorisation was granted on the basis of false or misleading information; or\n(c)\nthe authorisation holder has failed to comply with its obligations under the authorisation or this Regulation.\n2. Where the competent authority or, in the case of a Union authorisation, the Commission, intends to cancel or amend an authorisation, it shall inform the authorisation holder thereof and give it the opportunity to submit comments or additional information within a specified time limit. The evaluating competent authority or, in the case of a Union authorisation, the Commission, shall take due account of those comments when finalising its decision.\n3. Where the competent authority or, in the case of a Union authorisation, the Commission, cancels or amends an authorisation in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall without delay notify the authorisation holder, the competent authorities of other Member States and, where relevant, the Commission.\nCompetent authorities that have issued authorisations under the mutual recognition procedure for biocidal products for which the authorisation has been cancelled or amended shall, within 120 days of the notification, cancel or amend the authorisations and shall notify the Commission accordingly.\nIn the case of disagreement between competent authorities of certain Member States concerning national authorisations subject to mutual recognition the procedures laid down in Articles 35 and 36 shall apply mutatis mutandis.\nArticle 49\nCancellation of an authorisation at the request of the authorisation holder\nAt the reasoned request of an authorisation holder, the competent authority that granted the national authorisation or, in the case of Union authorisation, the Commission shall cancel the authorisation. Where such a request concerns a Union authorisation, it shall be submitted to the Agency.\nArticle 50\nAmendment of an authorisation at the request of the authorisation holder\n1. Amendments to the terms and conditions of an authorisation shall be made only by the competent authority that authorised the biocidal product concerned, or in the case of a Union authorisation, by the Commission.\n2. An authorisation holder seeking to change any of the information submitted in relation to the initial application for authorisation of the product shall apply to the competent authorities of relevant Member States having authorised the biocidal product concerned, or in the case of a Union authorisation, the Agency. Those competent authorities shall decide, or, in the case of a Union authorisation, the Agency shall examine and the Commission decide whether the conditions of Article 19 or, where relevant, Article 25 are still met and whether the terms and conditions of the authorisation need to be amended.\nThe application shall be accompanied by the fees payable under Article 80(1) and (2).\n3. An amendment to an existing authorisation shall fall under one of the following categories of changes:\n(a)\nadministrative change;\n(b)\nminor change; or\n(c)\nmajor change.\nArticle 51\nDetailed rules\nIn order to ensure a harmonised approach to the cancellation and amendment of authorisations, the Commission shall lay down detailed rules for the application of Articles 47 to 50 by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\nThe rules referred to in the first paragraph of this Article shall be based, inter alia, on the following principles:\n(a)\na simplified notification procedure shall be applied for administrative changes;\n(b)\na reduced evaluation period shall be established for minor changes;\n(c)\nin the case of major changes, the evaluation period shall be proportionate to the extent of the proposed change.\nArticle 52\nPeriod of grace\nNotwithstanding Article 89, where the competent authority or, in the case of a biocidal product authorised at Union level, the Commission, cancels or amends an authorisation or decides not to renew it, it shall grant a period of grace for the disposal, making available on the market and use of existing stocks, except in cases where continued making available on the market or use of the biocidal product would constitute an unacceptable risk to human health, animal health or the environment.\nThe period of grace shall not exceed 180 days for the making available on the market and an additional maximum period of 180 days for the disposal and use of existing stocks of the biocidal products concerned.\nCHAPTER X\nPARALLEL TRADE\nArticle 53\nParallel trade\n1. A competent authority of a Member State (\u2018Member State of introduction\u2019) shall, at the request of the applicant, grant a parallel trade permit for a biocidal product that is authorised in another Member State (\u2018Member State of origin\u2019) to be made available on the market and used in the Member State of introduction, if it determines in accordance with paragraph 3 that the biocidal product is identical to a biocidal product already authorised in the Member State of introduction (\u2018the reference product\u2019).\nThe applicant who intends to place the biocidal product on the market in the Member State of introduction shall submit the application for a parallel trade permit to the competent authority of the Member State of introduction.\nThe application shall be accompanied by the information referred to in paragraph 4 and all other information necessary to demonstrate that the biocidal product is identical to the reference product as defined in paragraph 3.\n2. Where the competent authority of the Member State of introduction determines that a biocidal product is identical to the reference product, it shall grant a parallel trade permit within 60 days of receipt of the fees payable under Article 80(2). The competent authority of the Member State of introduction may request from the competent authority of the Member State of origin additional information necessary to determine whether the product is identical to the reference product. The competent authority of the Member State of origin shall provide the requested information within 30 days of receiving the request.\n3. A biocidal product shall be considered as identical to the reference product only if all the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthey have been manufactured by the same company, by an associated undertaking or under license in accordance with the same manufacturing process;\n(b)\nthey are identical in specification and content in respect of the active substances and the type of formulation;\n(c)\nthey are the same in respect of the non-active substances present; and\n(d)\nthey are either the same or equivalent in packaging size, material or form, in terms of the potential adverse impact on the safety of the product with regard to human health, animal health or the environment.\n4. An application for a parallel trade permit shall include the following information and items:\n(a)\nname and authorisation number of the biocidal product in the Member State of origin;\n(b)\nname and address of the competent authority of the Member State of origin;\n(c)\nname and address of the authorisation holder in the Member State of origin;\n(d)\noriginal label and instructions for use with which the biocidal product is distributed in the Member State of origin if it is considered as necessary for the examination by the competent authority of the Member State of introduction;\n(e)\nname and address of the applicant;\n(f)\nname to be given to the biocidal product to be distributed in the Member State of introduction;\n(g)\na draft label for the biocidal product intended to be made available on the market in the Member State of introduction in the official language or languages of the Member State of introduction, unless that Member State provides otherwise;\n(h)\na sample of the biocidal product which is intended to be introduced if it is considered as necessary by the competent authority of the Member State of introduction;\n(i)\nname and authorisation number of the reference product in the Member State of introduction.\nThe competent authority of the Member State of introduction may require a translation of the relevant parts of the original instructions for the use referred to in point (d).\n5. The parallel trade permit shall prescribe the same conditions for making available on the market and use as the authorisation of the reference product.\n6. The parallel trade permit shall be valid for the duration of authorisation of the reference product in the Member State of introduction.\nIf the authorisation holder of the reference product applies for cancellation of authorisation in accordance with Article 49 and the requirements of Article 19 are still fulfilled, the validity of the parallel trade permit shall expire on the date on which the authorisation of the reference product would normally have expired.\n7. Without prejudice to specific provisions in this Article, Articles 47 to 50 and Chapter XV shall apply mutatis mutandis to biocidal products made available on the market under a parallel trade permit.\n8. The competent authority of the Member State of introduction may withdraw a parallel trade permit if the authorisation of the introduced biocidal product is withdrawn in the Member State of origin because of safety or efficacy reasons.\nCHAPTER XI\nTECHNICAL EQUIVALENCE\nArticle 54\nAssessment of technical equivalence\n1. Where it is necessary to establish the technical equivalence of active substances, the person seeking to establish that equivalence (\u2018the applicant\u2019) shall submit an application to the Agency and pay the applicable fees in accordance with Article 80(1).\n2. The applicant shall submit all data that the Agency requires to assess technical equivalence.\n3. The Agency shall inform the applicant of the fees payable under Article 80(1), and shall reject the application if the applicant fails to pay the fees within 30 days. It shall inform the applicant and the evaluating competent authority accordingly.\n4. After giving the applicant the opportunity to submit comments, the Agency shall take a decision within 90 days of receipt of the application referred to in paragraph 1 and shall communicate it to Member States and to the applicant.\n5. Where, in the opinion of the Agency, additional information is necessary to carry out the assessment of technical equivalence, the Agency shall ask the applicant to submit such information within a time limit specified by the Agency. The Agency shall reject the application if the applicant fails to submit the additional information within the specified time limit. The 90-day period referred to in paragraph 4 shall be suspended from the date of issue of the request until the information is received. The suspension shall not exceed 180 days except where justified by the nature of the data requested or in exceptional circumstances.\n6. Where appropriate, the Agency may consult the competent authority of the Member State which acted as the evaluating competent authority for the evaluation of the active substance.\n7. An appeal may be brought, in accordance with Article 77, against decisions of the Agency under paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of this Article.\n8. The Agency shall draw up technical guidance notes to facilitate the implementation of this Article.\nCHAPTER XII\nDEROGATIONS\nArticle 55\nDerogation from the requirements\n1. By way of derogation from Articles 17 and 19, a competent authority may permit, for a period not exceeding 180 days, the making available on the market or use of a biocidal product which does not fulfil the conditions for authorisation laid down in this Regulation, for a limited and controlled use under the supervision of the competent authority, if such a measure is necessary because of a danger to public health, animal health or the environment which cannot be contained by other means.\nThe competent authority referred to in the first subparagraph shall, without delay, inform the other competent authorities and the Commission of its action and the justification for it. The competent authority shall, without delay, inform the other competent authorities and the Commission of the revocation of such action.\nOn receipt of a reasoned request from the competent authority, the Commission shall, without delay and by means of implementing acts, decide whether, and under what conditions, the action taken by that competent authority may be extended, for a period not exceeding 550 days. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\n2. By way of derogation from point (a) of Article 19(1) and until an active substance is approved, competent authorities and the Commission may authorise, for a period not exceeding three years, a biocidal product containing a new active substance.\nSuch a provisional authorisation may be issued only if, after dossiers have been evaluated in accordance with Article 8, the evaluating competent authority has submitted a recommendation for approval of the new active substance and the competent authorities which received the application for the provisional authorisation or, in the case of a provisional Union authorisation, the Agency, consider that the biocidal product is expected to comply with points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 19(1) taking into account the factors set out in Article 19(2).\nIf the Commission decides not to approve the new active substance, the competent authorities which granted the provisional authorisation or the Commission shall cancel that authorisation.\nWhere a decision on the approval of the new active substance has not yet been adopted by the Commission when the period of three years expires, the competent authorities which granted the provisional authorisation, or the Commission, may extend the provisional authorisation for a period not exceeding one year, provided that there are good reasons to believe that the active substance will satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 4(1) or, where applicable, the conditions set out in Article 5(2). Competent authorities which extend the provisional authorisation shall inform the other competent authorities and the Commission of such action.\n3. By way of derogation from point (a) of Article 19(1), the Commission may, by means of implementing acts, allow a Member State to authorise a biocidal product containing a non-approved active substance if it is satisfied that that active substance is essential for the protection of cultural heritage and that no appropriate alternatives are available. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 82(2). A Member State wishing to obtain such a derogation shall apply to the Commission, providing due justification.\nArticle 56\nResearch and development\n1. By way of derogation from Article 17, an experiment or a test for the purposes of research or development involving an unauthorised biocidal product or a non-approved active substance intended exclusively for use in a biocidal product (\u2018experiment\u2019 or \u2018test\u2019) may take place only under the conditions laid down in this Article.\nPersons carrying out an experiment or test shall draw up and maintain written records detailing the identity of the biocidal product or active substance, labelling data, quantities supplied and the names and addresses of those persons receiving the biocidal product or active substance, and shall compile a dossier containing all available data on possible effects on human or animal health or impact on the environment. They shall make this information available to the competent authority on request.\n2. Any person intending to carry out an experiment or test that may involve, or result in, release of the biocidal product into the environment shall first notify the competent authority of the Member State where the experiment or test will occur. The notification shall include the identity of the biocidal product or active substance, labelling data and quantities supplied, and all available data on possible effects on human or animal health or impact on the environment. The person concerned shall make available any other information requested by the competent authorities.\nIn the absence of an opinion from the competent authority within 45 days of the notification referred to in the first subparagraph, the notified experiment or test may take place.\n3. If the experiments or tests could have harmful effects, whether immediate or delayed, on the health of humans, particularly of vulnerable groups, or animals, or any unacceptable adverse effect on humans, animals or the environment, the relevant competent authority of the Member State concerned may prohibit them or allow them subject to such conditions as it considers necessary to prevent those consequences. The competent authority shall, without delay, inform the Commission and other competent authorities of its decision.\n4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 83 specifying detailed rules supplementing this Article.\nArticle 57\nExemption from registration under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006\nIn addition to the active substances referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, active substances manufactured or imported for use in biocidal products authorised for placing on the market in accordance with Article 27, 55 or 56 shall be regarded as being registered and the registration as completed for manufacture or import for use in a biocidal product and therefore as fulfilling the requirements of Chapters 1 and 5, Title II of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\nCHAPTER XIII\nTREATED ARTICLES\nArticle 58\nPlacing on the market of treated articles\n1. This Article shall apply exclusively to treated articles that are not biocidal products. It shall not apply to treated articles where the sole treatment undertaken was the fumigation or disinfection of premises or containers used for storage or transport and where no residues are expected to remain from such treatment.\n2. A treated article shall not be placed on the market unless all active substances contained in the biocidal products that it was treated with or incorporates are included in the list drawn up in accordance with Article 9(2), for the relevant product-type and use, or in Annex I, and any conditions or restrictions specified therein are met.\n3. The person responsible for the placing on the market of such a treated article shall ensure that the label provides the information listed in the second subparagraph, where:\n-\nin the case of a treated article containing a biocidal product, a claim is made by the manufacturer of that treated article regarding the biocidal properties of the article, or\n-\nin relation to the active substance(s) concerned, having particular regard to the possibility of contact with humans or the release into the environment, the conditions associated with the approval of the active substance(s) so require.\nThe label referred to in the first subparagraph shall provide the following information:\n(a)\na statement that the treated article incorporates biocidal products;\n(b)\nwhere substantiated, the biocidal property attributed to the treated article;\n(c)\nwithout prejudice to Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, the name of all active substances contained in the biocidal products;\n(d)\nthe name of all nanomaterials contained in the biocidal products, followed by the word \u2018nano\u2019 in brackets;\n(e)\nany relevant instructions for use, including any precautions to be taken because of the biocidal products with which a treated article was treated or which it incorporates.\nThis paragraph shall not apply where at least equivalent labelling requirements already exist under sector-specific legislation for biocidal products in treated articles to meet information requirements concerning those active substances.\n4. Notwithstanding the labelling requirements set out in paragraph 3, the person responsible for the placing on the market of a treated article shall label it with any relevant instructions for use, including any precautions to be taken, if this is necessary to protect humans, animals and the environment.\n5. Notwithstanding the labelling requirements set out in paragraph 3, the supplier of a treated article shall, where a consumer so requests, provide that consumer, within 45 days, free of charge, with information on the biocidal treatment of the treated article.\n6. The labelling shall be clearly visible, easily legible and appropriately durable. Where necessary because of the size or the function of the treated article, the labelling shall be printed on the packaging, on the instructions for use or on the warranty in the official language or languages of the Member State of introduction, unless that Member State provides otherwise. In the case of treated articles that are not produced as part of a series but rather designed and manufactured to meet a specific order, the manufacturer may agree other methods of providing the customer with the relevant information.\n7. The Commission may adopt implementing acts for the application of paragraph 2 of this Article, including appropriate notification procedures, possibly involving the Agency, and further specifying the labelling requirements under paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\n8. Where there are significant indications that an active substance contained in a biocidal product with which a treated article is treated or which it incorporates does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 4(1), Article 5(2) or Article 25, the Commission shall review the approval of that active substance or its inclusion in Annex I in accordance with Article 15(1) or Article 28(2).\nCHAPTER XIV\nDATA PROTECTION AND DATA-SHARING\nArticle 59\nProtection of data held by competent authorities or the Agency\n1. Without prejudice to Articles 62 and 63, data submitted for the purposes of Directive 98/8/EC or of this Regulation shall not be used by competent authorities or the Agency for the benefit of a subsequent applicant, except where:\n(a)\nthe subsequent applicant submits a letter of access; or\n(b)\nthe relevant time limit for data protection has expired.\n2. When submitting data to a competent authority or to the Agency for the purposes of this Regulation the applicant shall, where relevant, indicate the name and contact details of the data owner for all data submitted. The applicant shall also specify whether it is the data owner or holds a letter of access.\n3. The applicant shall, without delay, inform the competent authority or the Agency about any changes to the ownership of the data.\n4. The advisory scientific committees set up under Commission Decision 2004/210/EC of 3 March 2004 setting up Scientific Committees in the field of consumer safety, public health and the environment (47) shall also have access to the data referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.\nArticle 60\nData protection periods\n1. Data submitted for the purposes of Directive 98/8/EC or of this Regulation shall benefit from data protection under the conditions laid down in this Article. The protection period for the data shall start when they are submitted for the first time.\nData protected under this Article or for which the protection period under this Article has expired shall not be protected again.\n2. The protection period for data submitted with a view to the approval of an existing active substance shall end 10 years from the first day of the month following the date of adoption of a decision in accordance with Article 9 on the approval of the relevant active substance for the particular product-type.\nThe protection period for data submitted with a view to the approval of a new active substance shall end 15 years from the first day of the month following the date of adoption of a decision in accordance with Article 9 on the approval of the relevant active substance for the particular product-type.\nThe protection period for new data submitted with a view to the renewal or review of the approval of an active substance shall end five years from the first day of the month following the date of the adoption of a decision in accordance with Article 14(4) concerning the renewal or the review.\n3. The protection period for data submitted with a view to the authorisation of a biocidal product containing only existing active substances shall end 10 years from the first day of the month following the first decision concerning the authorisation of the product taken in accordance with Article 30(4), Article 34(6) or Article 44(4).\nThe protection period for data submitted with a view to the authorisation of a biocidal product containing a new active substance shall end 15 years from the first day of the month following the first decision concerning the authorisation of the product taken in accordance with Article 30(4), Article 34(6) or Article 44(4).\nThe protection period for new data submitted with a view to the renewal or amendment of the authorisation of a biocidal product shall end five years from the first day of the month following the decision concerning the renewal or amendment of the authorisation.\nArticle 61\nLetter of access\n1. A letter of access shall contain at least the following information:\n(a)\nthe name and contact details of the data owner and the beneficiary;\n(b)\nthe name of the active substance or biocidal product for which access to the data is authorised;\n(c)\nthe date on which the letter of access takes effect;\n(d)\na list of the submitted data to which the letter of access grants citation rights.\n2. Revocation of a letter of access shall not affect the validity of the authorisation issued on the basis of the letter of access in question.\nArticle 62\nData sharing\n1. In order to avoid animal testing, testing on vertebrates for the purposes of this Regulation shall be undertaken only as a last resort. Testing on vertebrates shall not be repeated for the purposes of this Regulation.\n2. Any person intending to perform tests or studies (\u2018the prospective applicant\u2019)\n(a)\nshall, in the case of data involving tests on vertebrates; and\n(b)\nmay, in the case of data not involving tests on vertebrates,\nsubmit a written request to the Agency to determine whether such tests or studies have already been submitted to the Agency or to a competent authority in connection with a previous application under this Regulation or Directive 98/8/EC. The Agency shall verify whether such tests or studies have already been submitted.\nWhere such tests or studies have already been submitted to the Agency or to a competent authority in connection with a previous application, under this Regulation or Directive 98/8/EC, the Agency shall, without delay, communicate the name and contact details of the data submitter and data owner to the prospective applicant.\nThe data submitter shall, where relevant, facilitate contacts between the prospective applicant and the data owner.\nWhere the data acquired under those tests or studies are still protected under Article 60, the prospective applicant:\n(a)\nshall, in the case of data involving tests on vertebrates; and\n(b)\nmay, in the case of data not involving tests on vertebrates,\nrequest from the data owner all the scientific and technical data related to the tests and studies concerned as well as the right to refer to these data when submitting applications under this Regulation.\nArticle 63\nCompensation for data sharing\n1. Where a request has been made in accordance with Article 62(2), the prospective applicant and the data owner shall make every effort to reach an agreement on the sharing of the results of the tests or studies requested by the prospective applicant. Such an agreement may be replaced by submission of the matter to an arbitration body and a commitment to accept the arbitration order.\n2. Where such agreement is reached, the data owner shall make all the scientific and technical data related to the tests and studies concerned available to the prospective applicant or shall give the prospective applicant permission to refer to the data owner\u2019s tests or studies when submitting applications under this Regulation.\n3. Where no agreement is reached with respect to data involving tests or studies on vertebrates, the prospective applicant shall inform the Agency and the data owner thereof, at the earliest one month after the prospective applicant receives the name and address of the data submitter from the Agency.\nWithin 60 days of being informed, the Agency shall give the prospective applicant permission to refer to the requested tests or studies on vertebrates, provided that the prospective applicant demonstrates that every effort has been made to reach an agreement and that the prospective applicant has paid the data owner a share of the costs incurred. Where the prospective applicant and data owner cannot agree, national courts shall decide on the proportionate share of the cost that the prospective applicant is to pay to the data owner.\nThe data owner shall not refuse to accept any payment offered pursuant to the second subparagraph. Any acceptance is without prejudice, however, to his right to have the proportionate share of the cost determined by a national court, in accordance with the second subparagraph.\n4. Compensation for data sharing shall be determined in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner, having regard to the guidance established by the Agency (48). The prospective applicant shall be required to share only in the costs of information that it is required to submit for the purposes of this Regulation.\n5. An appeal may be brought, in accordance with Article 77, against decisions of the Agency under paragraph 3 of this Article.\nArticle 64\nUse of data for subsequent applications\n1. Where the relevant data protection period according to Article 60 has expired in relation to an active substance, the receiving competent authority or the Agency may agree that a subsequent applicant for authorisation may refer to data provided by the first applicant in so far as the subsequent applicant can provide evidence that the active substance is technically equivalent to the active substance for which the data protection period has expired, including the degree of purity and the nature of any relevant impurities.\nWhere the relevant data protection period according to Article 60 has expired in relation to a biocidal product, the receiving competent authority or the Agency may agree that a subsequent applicant for authorisation may refer to data provided by the first applicant in so far as the subsequent applicant can provide evidence that the biocidal product is the same as the one already authorised, or the differences between them are not significant in relation to the risk assessment and the active substance(s) in the biocidal product are technically equivalent to those in the biocidal product already authorised, including the degree of purity and the nature of any impurities.\nAn appeal may be brought, in accordance with Article 77, against decisions of the Agency under the first and second subparagraphs of this paragraph.\n2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, subsequent applicants shall provide the following data accordingly to the receiving competent authority or the Agency, as applicable:\n(a)\nall necessary data for the identification of the biocidal product, including its composition;\n(b)\nthe data needed to identify the active substance and to establish technical equivalence of the active substance;\n(c)\nthe data needed to demonstrate the comparability of the risk from and efficacy of the biocidal product to that of the authorised biocidal product.\nCHAPTER XV\nINFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION\nSECTION 1\nMonitoring and reporting\nArticle 65\nCompliance with requirements\n1. Member States shall make the necessary arrangements for the monitoring of biocidal products and treated articles which have been placed on the market to establish whether they comply with the requirements of this Regulation. Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products (49) shall apply accordingly.\n2. Member States shall make the necessary arrangements for official controls to be carried out in order to enforce compliance with this Regulation.\nIn order to facilitate such enforcement, manufacturers of biocidal products placed on the Union market shall maintain, in relation to the manufacturing process, appropriate documentation in paper or electronic format relevant for the quality and safety of the biocidal product to be placed on the market and shall store production batch samples. The documentation shall include as a minimum:\n(a)\nsafety data sheets and specifications of active substances and other ingredients used for manufacturing the biocidal product;\n(b)\nrecords of the various manufacturing operations performed;\n(c)\nresults of internal quality controls;\n(d)\nidentification of production batches.\nWhere necessary in order to ensure uniform application of this paragraph, the Commission may adopt implementing acts in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\nMeasures taken pursuant to this paragraph shall avoid causing disproportionate administrative burden to economic operators and Member States.\n3. Every five years, from 1 September 2015, Member States shall submit to the Commission a report on the implementation of this Regulation in their respective territories. The report shall include in particular:\n(a)\ninformation on the results of official controls carried out in accordance with paragraph 2;\n(b)\ninformation on any poisonings and, where available, occupational diseases involving biocidal products, especially regarding vulnerable groups, and any specific measures taken to mitigate the risk of future cases;\n(c)\nany available information on adverse environmental effects experienced through using biocidal products;\n(d)\ninformation on the use of nanomaterials in biocidal products and the potential risks thereof.\nReports shall be submitted by 30 June of the relevant year and shall cover the period until 31 December of the year preceding their submission.\nThe reports shall be published on the relevant website of the Commission.\n4. On the basis of the reports received in accordance with paragraph 3, and within 12 months from the date referred to in the second subparagraph of that paragraph, the Commission shall draw up a composite report on the implementation of this Regulation, in particular Article 58. The Commission shall submit the report to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nArticle 66\nConfidentiality\n1. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (50) and the rules of the Management Board of the Agency, adopted in accordance with Article 118(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, shall apply to documents held by the Agency for the purposes of this Regulation.\n2. The Agency and the competent authorities shall refuse access to information where disclosure would undermine the protection of the commercial interests or the privacy or safety of the persons concerned.\nDisclosure of the following information shall normally be deemed to undermine the protection of the commercial interests or the privacy or safety of the persons concerned:\n(a)\ndetails of the full composition of a biocidal product;\n(b)\nthe precise tonnage of the active substance or biocidal product manufactured or made available on the market;\n(c)\nlinks between a manufacturer of an active substance and the person responsible for the placing of a biocidal product on the market or between the person responsible for the placing of a biocidal product on the market and the distributors of the product;\n(d)\nnames and addresses of persons involved in testing on vertebrates.\nHowever, where urgent action is essential to protect human health, animal health, safety or the environment or for other reasons of overriding public interest, the Agency or the competent authorities shall disclose the information referred to in this paragraph.\n3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, after the authorisation has been granted, access to the following information shall not in any case be refused:\n(a)\nthe name and address of the authorisation holder;\n(b)\nthe name and address of the biocidal product manufacturer;\n(c)\nthe name and address of the active substance manufacturer;\n(d)\nthe content of the active substance or substances in the biocidal product and the name of the biocidal product;\n(e)\nphysical and chemical data concerning the biocidal product;\n(f)\nany methods for rendering the active substance or biocidal product harmless;\n(g)\na summary of the results of the tests required pursuant to Article 20 to establish the product\u2019s efficacy and effects on humans, animals and the environment and, where applicable, its ability to promote resistance;\n(h)\nrecommended methods and precautions to reduce dangers from handling, transport and use as well as from fire or other hazards;\n(i)\nsafety data sheets;\n(j)\nmethods of analysis referred to in Article 19(1)(c);\n(k)\nmethods of disposal of the product and of its packaging;\n(l)\nprocedures to be followed and measures to be taken in the case of spillage or leakage;\n(m)\nfirst aid and medical advice to be given in the case of injury to persons.\n4. Any person submitting information related to an active substance or a biocidal product to the Agency or a competent authority for the purposes of this Regulation can request that the information in Article 67(3) shall not be made available, including a justification as to why the disclosure of the information could be harmful for their commercial interests or those of any other party concerned.\nArticle 67\nElectronic public access\n1. From the date on which an active substance is approved, the following up-to-date information held by the Agency or the Commission on active substances shall be made publicly and easily available free of charge:\n(a)\nwhere available, the ISO name and the name in the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) nomenclature;\n(b)\nif applicable, the name as given in the European Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical Substances;\n(c)\nthe classification and labelling, including whether the active substance meets any of the criteria set out in Article 5(1);\n(d)\nphysicochemical endpoints and data on pathways and environmental fate and behaviour;\n(e)\nthe result of each toxicological and ecotoxicological study;\n(f)\nacceptable exposure level or predicted no-effect concentration established in accordance with Annex VI;\n(g)\nthe guidance on safe use provided in accordance with Annexes II and III;\n(h)\nanalytical methods referred to under Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of Title 1, and Section 4.2 of Title 2 of Annex II.\n2. From the date on which a biocidal product is authorised, the Agency shall make publicly and easily available free of charge the following up-to-date information:\n(a)\nthe terms and conditions of the authorisation;\n(b)\nthe summary of the biocidal product characteristics; and\n(c)\nanalytical methods referred to under Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of Title 1, and Section 5.2 of Title 2 of Annex III.\n3. From the date on which an active substance is approved, the Agency shall, except where the data supplier submits a justification in accordance with Article 66(4) accepted as valid by the competent authority or the Agency as to why such publication is potentially harmful for its commercial interests or any other party concerned, make publicly available, free of charge, the following up-to-date information on active substances:\n(a)\nif essential to classification and labelling, the degree of purity of the substance and the identity of impurities and/or additives of active substances which are known to be hazardous;\n(b)\nthe study summaries or robust study summaries of studies submitted to support the approval of the active substance;\n(c)\ninformation, other than that listed in paragraph 1 of this Article, contained in the safety data sheet;\n(d)\nthe trade name(s) of the substance;\n(e)\nthe assessment report.\n4. From the date on which a biocidal product is authorised, the Agency shall, except where the data supplier submits a justification in accordance with Article 66(4) accepted as valid by the competent authority or the Agency as to why such publication is potentially harmful for its commercial interests or any other party concerned, make publicly available, free of charge, the following up-to date information:\n(a)\nstudy summaries, or robust study summaries, of studies submitted to support the biocidal product authorisation; and\n(b)\nthe assessment report.\nArticle 68\nRecord-keeping and reporting\n1. Authorisation holders shall keep records of the biocidal products they place on the market for at least 10 years after placing on the market, or 10 years after the date on which the authorisation was cancelled or expired, whichever is the earlier. They shall make available the relevant information contained in these records to the competent authority on request.\n2. To ensure the uniform application of paragraph 1 of this Article, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts to specify the form and content of the information in records. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 82(2).\nSECTION 2\nInformation about biocidal products\nArticle 69\nClassification, packaging and labelling of biocidal products\n1. Authorisation holders shall ensure that biocidal products are classified, packaged and labelled in accordance with the approved summary of biocidal product characteristics, in particular the hazard statements and the precautionary statements, as referred to in point (i) of Article 22(2), and with Directive 1999/45/EC and, where applicable, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.\nIn addition, products which may be mistaken for food, including drink, or feed shall be packaged to minimise the likelihood of such a mistake being made. If they are available to the general public, they shall contain components to discourage their consumption and, in particular, shall not be attractive to children.\n2. In addition to compliance with paragraph 1, authorisation holders shall ensure that labels are not misleading in respect of the risks from the product to human health, animal health or the environment or its efficacy and, in any case, do not mention the indications \u2018low-risk biocidal product\u2019, \u2018non-toxic\u2019, \u2018harmless\u2019, \u2018natural\u2019, \u2018environmentally friendly\u2019, \u2018animal friendly\u2019 or similar indications. In addition, the label must show clearly and indelibly the following information:\n(a)\nthe identity of every active substance and its concentration in metric units;\n(b)\nthe nanomaterials contained in the product, if any, and any specific related risks, and, following each reference to nanomaterials, the word \u2018nano\u2019 in brackets;\n(c)\nthe authorisation number allocated to the biocidal product by the competent authority or the Commission;\n(d)\nthe name and address of the authorisation holder;\n(e)\nthe type of formulation;\n(f)\nthe uses for which the biocidal product is authorised;\n(g)\ndirections for use, frequency of application and dose rate, expressed in metric units, in a manner which is meaningful and comprehensible to the user, for each use provided for under the terms of the authorisation;\n(h)\nparticulars of likely direct or indirect adverse side effects and any directions for first aid;\n(i)\nif accompanied by a leaflet, the sentence \u2018Read attached instructions before use\u2019 and, where applicable, warnings for vulnerable groups;\n(j)\ndirections for the safe disposal of the biocidal product and its packaging, including, where relevant, any prohibition on the reuse of packaging;\n(k)\nthe formulation batch number or designation and the expiry date relevant to normal conditions of storage;\n(l)\nwhere applicable, the period of time needed for the biocidal effect, the interval to be observed between applications of the biocidal product or between application and the next use of the product treated, or the next access by humans or animals to the area where the biocidal product has been used, including particulars concerning decontamination means and measures and duration of necessary ventilation of treated areas; particulars for adequate cleaning of equipment; particulars concerning precautionary measures during use and transport;\n(m)\nwhere applicable, the categories of users to which the biocidal product is restricted;\n(n)\nwhere applicable, information on any specific danger to the environment particularly concerning protection of non-target organisms and avoidance of contamination of water;\n(o)\nfor biocidal products containing micro-organisms, labelling requirements in accordance with Directive 2000/54/EC.\nBy way of derogation from the first subparagraph, where this is necessary because of the size or the function of the biocidal product, the information referred to in points (e), (g), (h), (j), (k), (l) and (n) may be indicated on the packaging or on an accompanying leaflet integral to the packaging.\n3. Member States may require:\n(a)\nthe provision of models or drafts of the packaging, labelling and leaflets;\n(b)\nthat biocidal products made available on the market in their territories be labelled in their official language or languages.\nArticle 70\nSafety data sheets\nSafety data sheets for active substances and biocidal products shall be prepared and made available in accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, where applicable.\nArticle 71\nRegister for Biocidal Products\n1. The Agency shall establish and maintain an information system which shall be referred to as the Register for Biocidal Products.\n2. The Register for Biocidal Products shall be used for the exchange of information between competent authorities, the Agency and the Commission and between applicants and competent authorities, the Agency and the Commission.\n3. Applicants shall use the Register for Biocidal Products to submit applications and data for all procedures covered by this Regulation.\n4. Upon submission of applications and data by applicants, the Agency shall check that these have been submitted in the correct format and notify the relevant competent authority accordingly without delay.\nWhere the Agency decides that the application has not been submitted in the correct format, it shall reject the application and inform the applicant accordingly.\n5. Once the relevant competent authority has validated or accepted an application, it shall be made available via the Register for Biocidal Products to all other competent authorities and to the Agency.\n6. The competent authorities and the Commission shall use the Register for Biocidal Products to record and communicate the decisions they have taken in relation to the authorisations of biocidal products and shall update the information in the Register for Biocidal Products at the time such decisions are taken. The competent authorities shall, in particular, update the information in the Register for Biocidal Products relating to biocidal products which have been authorised within their territory or for which a national authorisation has been refused, amended, renewed or cancelled, or for which a parallel trade permit has been granted, refused or cancelled. The Commission shall, in particular, update the information relating to biocidal products which have been authorised in the Union or for which a Union authorisation has been refused, amended, renewed or cancelled.\nThe information to be introduced into the Register for Biocidal Products shall include, as appropriate:\n(a)\nthe terms and conditions of the authorisation;\n(b)\nthe summary of the biocidal product characteristics referred to in Article 22(2);\n(c)\nthe assessment report of the biocidal product.\nThe information referred to in this paragraph shall also be made available to the applicant through the Register for Biocidal Products.\n7. In the event that the Register for Biocidal Products is not fully operational by 1 September 2013 or ceases to be operational after that date, all obligations in relation to submissions and communication placed upon Member States, competent authorities, the Commission and applicants by this Regulation shall continue to apply. With a view to ensuring the uniform application of this paragraph, particularly with regard to the format in which information may be submitted and exchanged, the Commission shall adopt the necessary measures in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3). Those measures shall be limited in time to the period strictly necessary for the Register for Biocidal Products to become fully operational.\n8. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down detailed rules on the types of information to be entered in the Register for Biocidal Products. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 82(2).\n9. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 83 laying down supplementary rules for the use of the Register.\nArticle 72\nAdvertising\n1. Any advertisement for biocidal products shall, in addition to complying with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, include the sentences \u2018Use biocides safely. Always read the label and product information before use.\u2019. The sentences shall be clearly distinguishable and legible in relation to the whole advertisement.\n2. Advertisers may replace the word \u2018biocides\u2019 in the prescribed sentences with a clear reference to the product-type being advertised.\n3. Advertisements for biocidal products shall not refer to the product in a manner which is misleading in respect of the risks from the product to human health, animal health or the environment or its efficacy. In any case, the advertising of a biocidal product shall not mention \u2018low-risk biocidal product\u2019, \u2018non-toxic\u2019, \u2018harmless\u2019, \u2018natural\u2019, \u2018environmentally friendly\u2019, \u2018animal friendly\u2019 or any similar indication.\nArticle 73\nPoison control\nArticle 45 of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 shall apply for the purposes of this Regulation.\nCHAPTER XVI\nTHE AGENCY\nArticle 74\nRole of the Agency\n1. The Agency shall carry out the tasks conferred on it by this Regulation.\n2. Articles 78 to 84, 89 and 90 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 shall apply mutatis mutandis taking into account the role of the Agency with respect to this Regulation.\nArticle 75\nBiocidal Products Committee\n1. A Biocidal Products Committee is hereby established within the Agency.\nThe Biocidal Products Committee shall be responsible for preparing the opinion of the Agency on the following issues:\n(a)\napplications for approval and renewal of approval of active substances;\n(b)\nreview of approval of active substances;\n(c)\napplications for inclusion in Annex I of active substances meeting the conditions laid down in Article 28 and review of the inclusion of such active substances in Annex I;\n(d)\nidentification of active substances which are candidates for substitution;\n(e)\napplications for Union authorisation of biocidal products and for renewal, cancellation and amendments of Union authorisations, except where the applications are for administrative changes;\n(f)\nscientific and technical matters concerning mutual recognition in accordance with Article 38;\n(g)\nat the request of the Commission or of Member States\u2019 competent authorities, any other questions that arise from the operation of this Regulation relating to technical guidance or risks to human health, animal health or the environment.\n2. Each Member State shall be entitled to appoint a member of the Biocidal Products Committee. Member States may also appoint an alternate member.\nIn order to facilitate its work, the Committee may, by a decision of the Management Board of the Agency in agreement with the Commission, be divided into two or more parallel committees. Each parallel committee shall be responsible for the tasks of the Biocidal Products Committee assigned to it. Each Member State shall be entitled to appoint one Member for each of the parallel committees. The same person may be appointed to more than one parallel committee.\n3. Committee members shall be appointed on the basis of their experience relevant to performing the tasks specified in paragraph 1 and may work within a competent authority. They shall be supported by the scientific and technical resources available to Member States. To this end, Member States shall provide adequate scientific and technical resources to Committee members that they have nominated.\n4. Article 85, paragraphs 4, 5, 8 and 9, and Articles 87 and 88 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Biocidal Products Committee.\nArticle 76\nSecretariat of the Agency\n1. The Secretariat of the Agency referred to in point (g) of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 shall undertake the following tasks:\n(a)\nestablishing and maintaining the Register for Biocidal Products;\n(b)\nperforming the tasks relating to the acceptance of the applications covered by this Regulation;\n(c)\nestablishing technical equivalence;\n(d)\nproviding technical and scientific guidance and tools for the application of this Regulation by the Commission and Member States\u2019 competent authorities and providing support to national helpdesks;\n(e)\nproviding advice and assistance to applicants, in particular to SMEs, for the approval of an active substance or its inclusion in Annex I to this Regulation or for a Union authorisation;\n(f)\npreparing explanatory information on this Regulation;\n(g)\nestablishing and maintaining database(s) with information on active substances and biocidal products;\n(h)\nat the request of the Commission, providing technical and scientific support to improve cooperation between the Union competent authorities, international organisations and third countries on scientific and technical issues relating to biocidal products;\n(i)\nnotification of decisions taken by the Agency;\n(j)\nspecification of formats and software packages for the submission of information to the Agency;\n(k)\nproviding support and assistance to Member States in order to avoid the parallel assessment of applications relating to the same or similar biocidal products referred to in Article 29(4);\n2. The Secretariat shall make the information identified in Article 67 publicly available, free of charge, over the internet, except where a request made under Article 66(4) is considered justified. The Agency shall make other information available on request in accordance with Article 66.\nArticle 77\nAppeal\n1. Appeals against decisions of the Agency taken pursuant to Article 7(2), Article 13(3), Article 26(2), Article 43(2), Article 45(3), Article 54(3), (4) and (5), Article 63(3) and Article 64(1) shall lie with the Board of Appeal set up in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\nArticle 92(1) and (2) and Articles 93 and 94 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 shall apply to appeal procedures lodged under this Regulation.\nFees may be payable, in accordance with Article 80(1) of this Regulation, by the person bringing an appeal.\n2. An appeal lodged pursuant to paragraph 1 shall have suspensive effect.\nArticle 78\nThe budget of the Agency\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the revenues of the Agency shall consist of:\n(a)\na subsidy from the Union, entered in the general budget of the European Union (Commission Section);\n(b)\nthe fees paid to the Agency in accordance with this Regulation;\n(c)\nany charges paid to the Agency for services that it provides under this Regulation;\n(d)\nany voluntary contributions from Member States.\n2. Revenue and expenditure for activities related to this Regulation and to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 shall be dealt with separately in the Agency\u2019s budget and shall have separate budgetary and accounting reporting.\nRevenue of the Agency referred to in Article 96(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 shall not be used for carrying out tasks under this Regulation. Revenue of the Agency referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be used for carrying out tasks under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\nArticle 79\nFormats and software for submission of information to the Agency\nThe Agency shall specify formats and software packages and make them available free of charge on its website for submissions to the Agency. The competent authorities and applicants shall use these formats and packages in their submissions pursuant to this Regulation.\nThe technical dossier referred to in Article 6(1) and Article 20 shall be submitted using the IUCLID software package.\nCHAPTER XVII\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 80\nFees and charges\n1. The Commission shall adopt, on the basis of the principles set out in paragraph 3, an implementing Regulation specifying:\n(a)\nthe fees payable to the Agency, including an annual fee for products granted a Union authorisation in accordance with Chapter VIII and a fee for applications for mutual recognition in accordance with Chapter VII;\n(b)\nthe rules defining conditions for reduced fees, fee waivers and the reimbursement of the member of the Biocidal Products Committee who acts as a rapporteur; and\n(c)\nconditions of payment.\nThat implementing Regulation shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3). It shall apply only with respect to fees paid to the Agency.\nThe Agency may collect charges for other services it provides.\nThe fees payable to the Agency shall be set at such a level as to ensure that the revenue derived from the fees, when combined with other sources of the Agency\u2019s revenue pursuant to this Regulation, is sufficient to cover the cost of the services delivered. The fees payable shall be published by the Agency.\n2. Member States shall directly charge applicants fees for services that they provide with respect to the procedures under this Regulation, including the services undertaken by Member States\u2019 competent authorities when acting as evaluating competent authority.\nBased on the principles set out in paragraph 3, the Commission shall issue guidance concerning a harmonised structure of fees.\nMember States may levy annual fees with respect to biocidal products made available on their markets.\nMember States may collect charges for other services they provide.\nMember States shall set and publish the amount of fees payable to their competent authorities.\n3. Both the implementing Regulation referred to in paragraph 1 and Member States\u2019 own rules concerning fees shall respect the following principles:\n(a)\nfees shall be set at such a level as to ensure that the revenue derived from the fees is, in principle, sufficient to cover the cost of the services delivered and shall not exceed what is necessary to cover those costs;\n(b)\npartial reimbursement of the fee if the applicant fails to submit the information requested within the specified time limit;\n(c)\nthe specific needs of SMEs shall be taken into account, as appropriate, including the possibility of splitting payments into several instalments and phases;\n(d)\nthe structure and amount of fees shall take into account whether information has been submitted jointly or separately;\n(e)\nin duly justified circumstances, and where it is accepted by the Agency or the competent authority, the whole fee or a part of it may be waived; and\n(f)\nthe deadlines for the payment of fees shall be fixed taking due account of the deadlines of the procedures provided for in this Regulation.\nArticle 81\nCompetent authorities\n1. Member States shall designate a competent authority or competent authorities responsible for the application of this Regulation.\nMember States shall ensure that competent authorities have a sufficient number of suitably qualified and experienced staff so that the obligations laid down in this Regulation can be carried out efficiently and effectively.\n2. Competent authorities shall provide advice to applicants, in particular to SMEs, and to any other interested parties on their respective responsibilities and obligations under this Regulation. That shall include the provision of advice about the possibility of adapting the data requirements of Articles 6 and 20, the grounds on which such an adaptation can be made, and on how to prepare a proposal. It shall be in addition to the advice and assistance that the Secretariat of the Agency shall provide in accordance with Article 76(1)(d).\nCompetent authorities may in particular provide advice by establishing helpdesks. Helpdesks already established under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 may act as helpdesks under this Regulation.\n3. Member States shall inform the Commission of the names and addresses of the designated competent authorities and, where they exist, helpdesks by 1 September 2013. Member States shall, without undue delay, inform the Commission of any changes to the names and addresses of the competent authorities or helpdesks.\nThe Commission shall make publicly available a list of competent authorities and helpdesks.\nArticle 82\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products (\u2018the committee\u2019). That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\n3. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nWhere the committee delivers no opinion, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act and the third subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\n4. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 83\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 3(4), Article 5(3), Article 6(4), Article 21(3), Article 23(5), Article 28(1) and (3), Article 40, Article 56(4), Article 71(9), Article 85 and Article 89(1) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from 17 July 2012. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 3(4), Article 5(3), Article 6(4), Article 21(3), Article 23(5), Article 28(1) and (3), Article 40, Article 56(4), Article 71(9), Article 85 and Article 89(1) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 3(4), Article 5(3), Article 6(4), Article 21(3), Article 23(5), Article 28(1) and (3), Article 40, Article 56(4), Article 71(9), Article 85 and Article 89(1) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 84\nUrgency procedure\n1. Delegated acts adopted under this Article shall enter into force without delay and shall apply as long as no objection is expressed in accordance with paragraph 2. The notification of a delegated act to the European Parliament and to the Council shall state the reasons for the use of the urgency procedure.\n2. Either the European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 83(5). In such a case, the Commission shall repeal the act without delay following the notification of the decision to object by the European Parliament or by the Council.\nArticle 85\nAdaptation to scientific and technical progress\nIn order to allow the provisions of this Regulation to be adapted to scientific and technical progress, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 83 concerning the adaptation of Annexes II, III and IV to such scientific and technical progress.\nArticle 86\nActive substances included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC\nThe active substances included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC shall be deemed to have been approved under this Regulation and shall be included in the list referred to in Article 9(2).\nArticle 87\nPenalties\nMember States shall lay down the provisions on penalties applicable to infringement of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission no later than 1 September 2013 and shall notify the Commission without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.\nArticle 88\nSafeguard clause\nWhere, on the basis of new evidence, a Member State has justifiable grounds to consider that a biocidal product, although authorised in accordance with this Regulation, constitutes a serious immediate or long-term risk to the health of humans, particularly of vulnerable groups, or animals, or to the environment, it may take appropriate provisional measures. The Member State shall, without delay, inform the Commission and the other Member States accordingly and give reasons for its decision based on the new evidence.\nThe Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, either permit the provisional measure for a time period defined in the decision or require the Member State to revoke the provisional measure. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3).\nArticle 89\nTransitional measures\n1. The Commission shall carry on with the work programme for the systematic examination of all existing active substances commenced in accordance with Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC with the aim of achieving it by 14 May 2014. To that end, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 83 concerning the carrying out of the work programme and specification of the related rights and obligations of the competent authorities and the participants in the programme.\nDepending upon the progress of the work programme, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 83 concerning the extension of the duration of the work programme for a determined period.\nIn order to facilitate a smooth transition from Directive 98/8/EC to this Regulation, during the work programme the Commission shall adopt either implementing regulations providing that an active substance is approved, and under which conditions, or, in cases where the conditions laid down in Article 4(1) or, where applicable, the conditions set out in Article 5(2), are not satisfied or where the requisite information and data have not been submitted within the prescribed period, implementing decisions stating that an active substance is not approved. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 82(3). Regulations approving an active substance shall specify the date of approval. Article 9(2) shall apply.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 17(1), Article 19(1) and Article 20(1) of this Regulation, and without prejudice to paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article, a Member State may continue to apply its current system or practice of making a given biocidal product available on the market until two years after the date of approval of the last of the active substances to be approved in that biocidal product. It may, according to its national rules, authorise the making available on the market in its territory only of a biocidal product containing existing active substances which have been or are being evaluated under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC (51), but which have not yet been approved for that product-type.\nBy way of derogation from the first subparagraph, in the case of a decision not to approve an active substance, a Member State may continue to apply its current system or practice of making biocidal products available on the market for up to 12 months after the date of the decision not to approve an active substance in accordance with the third subparagraph of paragraph 1.\n3. Following a decision to approve a particular active substance for a specific product-type Member States shall ensure that authorisations for biocidal products of that product-type and containing that active substance are granted, modified or cancelled as appropriate in accordance with this Regulation within two years of the date of approval.\nTo that effect, those wishing to apply for the authorisation or mutual recognition in parallel of biocidal products of that product-type containing no active substances other than existing active substances shall submit applications for authorisation or mutual recognition in parallel to Member States\u2019 competent authorities no later than the date of approval of the active substance(s). In the case of biocidal products containing more than one active substance, applications for authorisation shall be submitted no later than the date of approval of the last active substance for that product-type.\nWhere no application for authorisation or mutual recognition in parallel has been submitted in accordance with the second subparagraph:\n(a)\nthe biocidal product shall no longer be made available on the market with effect from 180 days after the date of approval of the active substance(s); and\n(b)\ndisposal and use of existing stocks of the biocidal product may continue until 365 days after the date of approval of the active substance(s).\n4. Where a Member State\u2019s competent authority rejects the application for authorisation of a biocidal product submitted under paragraph 3 or decides not to grant authorisation, that biocidal product shall no longer be made available on the market 180 days after the date of such rejection or decision. Disposal and use of existing stocks of such biocidal products may continue until 365 days after the date of such rejection or decision.\nArticle 90\nTransitional measures concerning active substances evaluated under Directive 98/8/EC\n1. The Agency shall be responsible for coordinating the process of evaluation of dossiers submitted after 1 September 2012 and shall facilitate the evaluation by providing organisational and technical support to the Member States and the Commission.\n2. Applications submitted for the purposes of Directive 98/8/EC for which the Member States\u2019 evaluation in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC has not been completed by 1 September 2013 shall be evaluated by the competent authorities in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation and, where relevant, Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\nThat evaluation shall be carried out on the basis of the information provided in the dossier submitted under Directive 98/8/EC.\nWhere the evaluation identifies concerns arising from the application of provisions of this Regulation which were not included in Directive 98/8/EC, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to provide additional information.\nEvery effort shall be made to avoid additional testing on vertebrates and to avoid causing delays to the review programme laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 as a result of these transitional arrangements.\nNotwithstanding paragraph 1, the Agency shall also be responsible for coordinating the evaluation process of dossiers submitted for the purposes of Directive 98/8/EC for which the evaluation has not been completed by 1 September 2013 and shall facilitate the preparation of the evaluation by providing organisational and technical support to the Member States and the Commission from 1 January 2014.\nArticle 91\nTransitional measures concerning applications for biocidal product authorisations submitted under Directive 98/8/EC\nApplications for biocidal product authorisations submitted for the purposes of Directive 98/8/EC for which the evaluation has not been completed by 1 September 2013 shall be evaluated by the competent authorities in accordance with that Directive.\nNotwithstanding the first paragraph, the following shall apply:\n-\nwhere the risk assessment of the active substance indicates that one or more of the criteria listed under Article 5(1) is met, the biocidal product shall be authorised in accordance with Article 19,\n-\nwhere the risk assessment of the active substance indicates that one or more of the criteria listed under Article 10 is met, the biocidal product shall be authorised in accordance with Article 23.\nWhere the evaluation identifies concerns arising from the application of provisions of this Regulation which were not included in Directive 98/8/EC, the applicant shall be given the opportunity to provide additional information.\nArticle 92\nTransitional measures concerning biocidal products authorised/registered under Directive 98/8/EC\n1. Biocidal products for which an authorisation or registration in accordance with Article 3, 4, 15 or 17 of Directive 98/8/EC was granted before 1 September 2013 can continue to be made available on the market and used subject, where applicable, to any conditions of authorisation or registration stipulated under that Directive until the expiry date of the authorisation or registration or its cancellation.\n2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, this Regulation shall apply to biocidal products referred to in that paragraph from 1 September 2013.\nArticle 93\nTransitional measures concerning biocidal products not covered by the scope of Directive 98/8/EC\n1. Without prejudice to Article 89, applications for authorisation of biocidal products not covered by the scope of Directive 98/8/EC and falling within the scope of this Regulation and which were available on the market on 1 September 2013 shall be submitted at the latest by 1 September 2017.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 17(1), biocidal products referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article for which an application was submitted in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article may continue to be made available on the market or used until the date of the decision granting the authorisation. In the case of a decision refusing to grant the authorisation, the biocidal product shall no longer be made available on the market 180 days after such a decision.\nBy way of derogation from Article 17(1), biocidal products referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article for which an application was not submitted in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article may continue to be made available on the market or used until 180 days after 1 September 2017.\nDisposal and use of existing stocks of biocidal products which are not authorised for the relevant use by the competent authority or the Commission may continue until 365 days after the date of the decision referred to in the first subparagraph or 12 months after the date referred to in the second subparagraph, whichever is the later.\nArticle 94\nTransitional measures concerning treated articles\n1. By way of derogation from Article 58 and without prejudice to Article 89, treated articles that were available on the market on 1 September 2013 may, until the date of a decision concerning the approval for the relevant product-type of the active substance(s) contained in the biocidal products with which the treated articles were treated or which they incorporate, continue to be placed on the market if the application for the approval of the active substance(s) for the relevant product-type is submitted at the latest by 1 September 2016.\n2. In the case of a decision not to approve an active substance for the relevant product-type, treated articles which were treated with, or which incorporate, biocidal product(s) containing that active substance shall no longer be placed on the market 180 days after such a decision or as of 1 September 2016, whichever is the later, unless an application for the approval has been submitted in accordance with paragraph 1.\nArticle 95\nTransitional measures concerning access to the active substance dossier\n1. As of 1 September 2013, any person wishing to place active substance(s) on the Union market on its own or in biocidal products (the \u2018relevant person\u2019) shall, for every active substance that they manufacture or import for use in biocidal products, submit to the Agency:\n(a)\na dossier complying with the requirements of Annex II or, where appropriate, with Annex IIA to Directive 98/8/EC; or\n(b)\na letter of access to a dossier as referred to under point (a); or\n(c)\na reference to a dossier as referred to under point (a) and for which all data protection periods have expired.\nIf the relevant person is not a natural or legal person established within the Union, the importer of the biocidal product containing such active substance(s) shall submit the information required under the first subparagraph.\nFor the purposes of this paragraph and for existing active substances listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, Article 63(3) of this Regulation shall apply to all toxicological and ecotoxicological studies including any toxicological and ecotoxicological studies not involving tests on vertebrates.\nThe relevant person to whom a letter of access to a dossier on the active substance has been issued shall be entitled to allow applicants for the authorisation of a biocidal product containing that active substance to make reference to that letter of access for the purposes of Article 20(1).\nBy way of derogation from Article 60 of this Regulation, all data protection periods for substance/product-type combinations listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, but not yet approved under this Regulation shall end on 31 December 2025.\n2. The Agency shall make publicly available the list of persons that have made a submission in accordance with paragraph 1 or for whom it has taken a decision in accordance with Article 63(3). The list shall also contain the names of persons who are participants in the work programme established under the first subparagraph of Article 89(1) or have taken over the role of the participant.\n3. Without prejudice to Article 93, as of 1 September 2015, a biocidal product shall not be made available on the market if the manufacturer or importer of the active substance(s) contained in the product, or where relevant, the importer of the biocidal product, is not included in the list referred to in paragraph 2.\nWithout prejudice to Articles 52 and 89, disposal and use of existing stocks of biocidal products containing an active substance, for which no relevant person is included in the list referred to in paragraph 2, may continue until 1 September 2016.\n4. This Article shall not apply to active substances listed in Annex I in categories 1 to 5 and 7 or to biocidal products containing only such active substances.\nArticle 96\nRepeal\nWithout prejudice to Articles 86, 89, 90, 91 and 92 of this Regulation, Directive 98/8/EC is hereby repealed with effect from 1 September 2013.\nReferences to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Regulation and read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex VII.\nArticle 97\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 September 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 22 May 2012.", "references": ["44", "13", "41", "38", "51", "50", "59", "65", "4", "36", "10", "70", "79", "6", "89", "30", "24", "47", "77", "73", "42", "98", "16", "67", "2", "60", "95", "29", "63", "52", "No Label", "8", "25", "83"], "gold": ["8", "25", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 690/2012\nof 27 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2012.", "references": ["17", "94", "38", "37", "5", "92", "82", "51", "27", "2", "73", "89", "13", "1", "96", "77", "66", "59", "93", "33", "20", "74", "11", "53", "28", "50", "7", "29", "87", "88", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1054/2010\nof 18 November 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 391/2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States in implementing the monitoring and control systems applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea (1), and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union has been financing Member States actions in the field of fisheries control and enforcement since 1990 pursuant to the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy set out in particular by Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (2).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 861/2006 provides, amongst other actions, for Union financial measures for expenditure on fisheries control, inspection and surveillance for the period 2007 to 2013. Commission Regulation (EC) No 391/2007 (3) establishes detailed rules for the implementation of such measures.\n(3)\nIn view of the principle of sound financial management, Member States must have clear indications on the rules to be followed in order to benefit from Union financial assistance when incurring expenditure in the area of fisheries control and enforcement.\n(4)\nRules applicable to the Union financial contribution to national control programmes should be simplified and clarified.\n(5)\nIn the case of certain large investments, Member States may require more time than is currently allowed to enter into legal and budgetary commitment, and in the interest of reducing future problems with reimbursements, an extended deadline should be applicable as from 22 June 2010, the date on which the first Commission financing decision of 2010 was adopted.\n(6)\nWhere vessels and aircraft are not used 100 % for fishery control, reimbursement should be made at a rate which reflects percentage use of the item.\n(7)\nA contract between the relevant administration and the supplier should be included in a request for pre-financing only if the nature of the project makes such contract necessary.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 391/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 391/2007 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nCommitment of expenditure\n1. Member States shall enter into legal and budgetary commitments for actions considered eligible for a financial contribution under the decision provided for in Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 within 12 months of the end of the year in which they were notified of such decision.\n2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States shall enter into legal and budgetary commitments for projects concerning the purchase or modernisation of vessels and aircrafts within 24 months of the end of the year in which they were notified of the decision provided for in Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006.\n3. Paragraph 2 shall apply as from 22 June 2010, the date on which the first Commission financing decision of 2010 was adopted.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 6, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Expenditure incurred on the purchase and modernisation of aircraft and vessels shall be eligible to the extent that it complies with Annex III and it is used for monitoring and control of fishing activities, as declared by the Member State concerned, for at least 25 % of the time. In cases where the vessels or aircraft are used less than 100 % of the time for monitoring and control of fishing activities, reimbursement shall be made at a rate which reflects the percentage use.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 10, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Where the nature of the project is such that a contract between the relevant administration and the supplier is required, the request by the Member State shall be accompanied by a certified copy of that contract.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2010.", "references": ["93", "74", "37", "63", "84", "52", "18", "56", "58", "6", "47", "34", "27", "85", "57", "41", "54", "2", "78", "69", "48", "11", "95", "28", "49", "10", "60", "99", "94", "72", "No Label", "33", "67"], "gold": ["33", "67"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/021 IE/Construction 71 from Ireland)\n(2011/774/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nIreland submitted an application on 9 June 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 230 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 71 (\u2018Architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis\u2019) in the NUTS II regions of Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02) in Ireland, and supplemented it by additional information up to 17 June 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 387 819.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Ireland,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 387 819 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["54", "53", "84", "17", "2", "71", "1", "30", "51", "79", "67", "89", "69", "77", "27", "36", "63", "86", "92", "87", "22", "12", "64", "72", "37", "83", "4", "13", "35", "43", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "82", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "82", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 415/2011\nof 26 April 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Lapin Poron kylm\u00e4savuliha (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Finland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Lapin Poron kylm\u00e4savuliha\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2011.", "references": ["35", "59", "12", "32", "47", "17", "28", "73", "22", "29", "93", "31", "52", "63", "38", "64", "36", "70", "16", "50", "67", "45", "14", "7", "1", "74", "9", "98", "33", "80", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "69", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "69", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 303/2012\nof 4 April 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 April 2012.", "references": ["81", "74", "70", "94", "86", "3", "83", "30", "52", "40", "19", "23", "85", "44", "64", "50", "62", "73", "10", "82", "46", "49", "71", "60", "20", "63", "90", "16", "0", "89", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 545/2012\nof 25 June 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 January 2012 the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2) with a view to giving effect to most of the measures provided for in Decision 2011/782/CFSP. That Regulation prohibits, inter alia, the provision of certain financing and financial assistance related to goods subject to an export prohibition.\n(2)\nDecision 2012/322/CFSP amending Decision 2011/782/CFSP (3), further develops the application of restrictive measures related to financial assistance in the context of the arms embargo.\n(3)\nThose measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 36/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 36/2012 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 3, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\"1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List of the European Union (4) (\u2027Common Military List\u2027) or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of goods included in that list, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to equipment, goods or technology which might be used for internal repression or for the manufacture and maintenance of products which could be used for internal repression as listed in Annex I or IA, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(c)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List, or in Annex I or IA, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, as well as insurance and reinsurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for any provision of related technical assistance to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(d)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) to (c).\n(2)\nArticle 3, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\"4. Prior authorisation from the competent authority of the relevant Member State, as identified on the websites referred to in Annex III shall be required for the provision of:\n(a)\ntechnical assistance or brokering services related to equipment, goods or technology listed in Annex IX and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of such equipment, goods and technology, directly or indirectly to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;\n(b)\nfinancing or financial assistance related to goods and technology referred to in Annex IX, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, as well as insurance and reinsurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such goods and technology, or for any provision of related technical assistance to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria.\nThe competent authorities shall not grant any authorisation for the transactions referred to inthe first subparagraph, if they have reasonable grounds to determine that those transactions are or may be intended to contribute to internal repression or for the manufacture and maintenance of products which might be used for internal repression.\".\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["34", "64", "81", "94", "14", "68", "66", "29", "15", "73", "90", "60", "46", "45", "53", "65", "89", "82", "51", "13", "50", "42", "31", "74", "93", "85", "2", "24", "83", "37", "No Label", "3", "23", "76", "95"], "gold": ["3", "23", "76", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 July 2011\non the recognition of the \u2018Bonsucro EU\u2019 scheme for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria under Directives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(2011/439/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1), and in particular Article 18(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels (2) as amended by the Directive 2009/30/EC (3), and in particular Article 7c(6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee established by Article 25, paragraph 2 of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC both lay down sustainability criteria for biofuels. When reference is made to the provisions of Articles 17 and 18 of and Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC this should be construed as the reference also to the similar provisions of Articles 7a, 7b and 7c of and Annex IV to Directive 2009/30/EC.\n(2)\nWhere biofuels and bioliquids are to be taken into account for the purposes referred to in Article 17(1)(a), (b) and (c), Member States shall require economic operators to show the compliance of biofuels and bioliquids with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(2) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(3)\nRecital 76 of Directive 2009/28/EC states that the imposition of an unreasonable burden on industry should be avoided and voluntary schemes can help creating efficient solutions for proving compliance with these sustainability criteria.\n(4)\nThe Commission may decide that a voluntary national or international scheme demonstrates that consignments of biofuel comply with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(3) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC or that voluntary national or international scheme to measure greenhouse gas emission saving contains accurate data for the purposes of Article 17(2) of this Directive.\n(5)\nThe Commission may recognise such a voluntary scheme for a period of five years.\n(6)\nWhen an economic operator provides proof or data obtained in accordance with a scheme that has been recognised by the Commission, to the extent covered by that recognition decision, a Member State shall not require the supplier to provide further evidence of compliance with the sustainability criteria.\n(7)\nThe \u2018Bonsucro EU\u2019 scheme was submitted on 11 March 2011 to the Commission with the request for recognition. The scheme covers sugar cane based products and applies to all geographic locations. The recognised scheme will be made available at the transparency platform established under Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission will take into account considerations of commercial sensitivity and may decide to only partially publish the scheme.\n(8)\nAssessment of the Bonsucro EU scheme found it to adequately cover, with exception of the criterion set out in Article 17(3)(c), the sustainability criteria of Directive 2009/28/EC, as well as applying a mass balance methodology in line with the requirements of Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(9)\nThe evaluation of the Bonsucro EU scheme found that it meets adequate standards of reliability, transparency and independent auditing and also complies with the methodological requirements in Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(10)\nAny additional sustainability elements covered by the Bonsucro EU scheme are not part of the consideration of this Decision. These additional sustainability criteria are not mandatory to show compliance with sustainability requirements set up in Directive 2009/28/EC. The European Commission may at a later stage take a view on whether the scheme also contains accurate data for the purpose of information on measures taken for issues referred to in the second paragraph, second sentence of Article 18(4) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018Bonsucro EU\u2019, for which the request for recognition was submitted to the Commission on 11 March 2011, demonstrates that consignments of biofuels comply with the sustainability criteria as laid down in Article 17(3)(a) and (b), (4) and (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(3)(a) and 7b(3)(b), 7b(4) and 7b(5) of Directive 98/70/EC. The scheme also contains accurate data for purposes of Article 17(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(2) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nFurthermore, it may be used for demonstrating compliance with Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC and of Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nArticle 2\n1. The Decision is valid for a period of five years after it enters into force. If the scheme, after adoption of Commission decision, undergoes changes to its contents in a way that might affect the basis of this Decision, such changes shall be notified to the Commission without delay. The Commission will assess the notified changes with a view to establish whether the scheme is still adequately covering the sustainability criteria for which it is recognised.\n2. If it has been clearly demonstrated that the scheme has not implemented elements considered to be decisive for this Decision and if severe and structural breach of those elements has taken place, the Commission reserves the right to revoke its Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision enters into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2011.", "references": ["95", "43", "44", "93", "14", "29", "83", "51", "42", "81", "32", "53", "37", "54", "22", "80", "94", "48", "24", "13", "17", "6", "38", "12", "63", "36", "35", "92", "86", "56", "No Label", "58", "76", "77", "78"], "gold": ["58", "76", "77", "78"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 August 2012\nextending the validity of Decision 2012/96/EU and suspending the application of the appropriate measures set out in Decision 2002/148/EC\n(2012/470/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1) and as last revised in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, on 23 June 2010 (2), hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Cotonou Agreement\u2019, and in particular Article 96 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision 2002/148/EC (4), consultations with the Republic of Zimbabwe under Article 96(2)(c) of the Cotonou Agreement were concluded and appropriate measures, as specified in the Annex to that Decision, were taken. These measures have since been adapted and their period of application extended each year.\n(2)\nBy Decision 2012/96/EU (5) the appropriate measures were adapted and their period of application extended for six months until 20 August 2012.\n(3)\nThe Union recognises the creation of the Government of National Unity in Zimbabwe as an opportunity to re-establish a constructive relationship between the Union and Zimbabwe and to support the implementation of Zimbabwe\u2019s reform programme.\n(4)\nBy means of Council Decision 2012/97/CFSP of 17 February 2012 amending Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (6), the Union took a significant decision to relax parallel CFSP sanctions on individuals with a view to encouraging further progress and thereby demonstrating its strong commitment to the Global Political Agreement process. The high level consultations held in Brussels with the Zimbabwe Ministerial re-engagement team in May 2012 constitute an important step forward in this re-engagement process.\n(5)\nThe Union continues to support the ongoing efforts of the Government of National Unity in implementing the Global Political Agreement, and welcomes the progress made in Zimbabwe to stabilise the economy and restore social services. The Union also continues to support the facilitation efforts led by South Africa on behalf of the Southern African Development Community.\n(6)\nTo demonstrate the Union\u2019s continued commitment to the Global Political Agreement process, it is appropriate to extend the validity of Decision 2012/96/EU, while, however, suspending the application of the appropriate measures limiting cooperation under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement for a period of 12 months.\n(7)\nShould there be a deterioration of the state of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe, the Union could re-impose these appropriate measures and/or other measures at any time,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe validity of Decision 2012/96/EU and of its appropriate measures is hereby extended until 20 August 2013. However, the application of the appropriate measures is hereby suspended.\nThe appropriate measures shall be kept under constant review and shall be applied again if the situation in Zimbabwe is to seriously deteriorate. Such measures shall in any event be reviewed six months after the entry into force of this Decision.\nThe letter annexed to this Decision shall be addressed to the President of Zimbabwe, Mr Mugabe, and copied to Prime Minister Tsvangirai and Mr Welshman Ncube.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 7 August 2012.", "references": ["81", "23", "33", "65", "46", "61", "55", "84", "89", "54", "96", "66", "39", "87", "64", "75", "24", "48", "28", "35", "16", "80", "12", "98", "59", "97", "30", "10", "25", "69", "No Label", "0", "4", "9", "94"], "gold": ["0", "4", "9", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 252/2012\nof 21 March 2012\nlaying down methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of levels of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs in certain foodstuffs and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1883/2006\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), in particular Article 11(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (2) provides for maximum levels for non-dioxin-like PCBs, dioxins and furans and for the sum of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs in certain foodstuffs.\n(2)\nCommission Recommendation 2011/516/EU of 23 August 2011 on the reduction of the presence of dioxins, furans and PCBs in feed and food (3) sets out action levels in order to stimulate a pro-active approach to reduce the presence of polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) and dioxin-like PCBs in food. Those action levels are a tool for competent authorities and operators to highlight those cases where it is appropriate to identify a source of contamination and to take measures for its reduction or elimination.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1883/2006 of 19 December 2006 laying down methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of levels of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in certain foodstuffs (4) establishes specific provisions concerning the sampling procedure and the methods of analysis to be applied for the official control.\n(4)\nThe application of new maximum levels for non-dioxin-like PCBs, established following the availability of a scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on non-dioxin-like PCBs and also to provide a harmonisation at Union level and the update of the criteria for screening methods require significant amendments. Therefore, for reasons of clarity, it is appropriate to replace Regulation (EC) No 1883/2006 by this Regulation.\n(5)\nThe provisions laid down in this Regulation relate only to the sampling and analysis of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. They do not affect the sampling strategy, sampling levels and frequency as specified in Annexes III and IV to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (5). They do not affect the targeting criteria for sampling as laid down in Commission Decision 98/179/EC of 23 February 1998 laying down detailed rules on official sampling for the monitoring of certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products (6).\n(6)\nA screening method of analysis with widely acceptable validation and high throughput can be used to identify the samples with significant levels of PCDD/Fs and dioxin-like PCBs (preferably selecting samples exceeding action levels and ensuring the selection of samples exceeding maximum levels). The levels of PCDD/Fs and dioxin-like PCBs in these samples need to be determined by a confirmatory method of analysis. It is therefore appropriate to establish appropriate requirements for the screening method making sure that the false-compliant rate with respect to maximum levels is below 5 % and strict requirements for the confirmatory methods of analysis. Furthermore, confirmatory methods allow the determination of levels also in the low background range. That is important for to follow time trends, exposure assessment and for the re-evaluation of maximum and action levels.\n(7)\nFor the sampling of very large fish, it is necessary that the sampling is specified in order to ensure a harmonised approach throughout the Union.\n(8)\nIn fish of the same species originating from the same region, the level of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs can be different depending on the size and/or the age of the fish. Moreover, the level of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs is not necessarily the same in all parts of the fish. Therefore, it is necessary that the sampling and sample preparation is specified in order to ensure a harmonised approach throughout the Union.\n(9)\nIt is important that analytical results are reported and interpreted in a uniform way in order to ensure a harmonised enforcement approach throughout the Union.\n(10)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions and abbreviations set out in Annex I shall apply.\nArticle 2\nSampling for the official control of the levels of dioxins, furans, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs listed in Section 5 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 shall be carried out in accordance with the methods set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nSample preparation and analyses for the official control of the levels of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs listed in Section 5 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 shall be carried out in accordance with the methods set out in Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nAnalyses for the official control of the levels of non-dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs listed in Section 5 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements for analytical procedures set out in Annex IV to this Regulation.\nArticle 5\nRegulation (EC) No 1883/2006 is hereby repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 6\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the date of entry into force.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2012.", "references": ["75", "3", "24", "96", "50", "17", "42", "64", "90", "98", "35", "69", "30", "29", "12", "61", "97", "70", "46", "89", "57", "93", "23", "99", "6", "80", "74", "9", "28", "88", "No Label", "38", "43", "60", "72"], "gold": ["38", "43", "60", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 526/2011\nof 27 May 2011\non selling prices for cereals in response to the 13th individual invitations to tender within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 (2) has opened the sales of cereals by tendering procedures, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission has to fix for each cereal and per Member State a minimum selling price or to decide not to fix a minimum selling price.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the 13th individual invitations to tender, it has been decided that a minimum selling price should be fixed for the cereals and for the Member States.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 13th individual invitations to tender for selling of cereals within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 25 May 2011, the decisions on the selling price per cereal and Member State are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2011.", "references": ["16", "6", "11", "7", "85", "18", "52", "78", "51", "60", "28", "75", "96", "22", "15", "29", "58", "62", "91", "26", "81", "56", "86", "84", "43", "14", "82", "73", "13", "63", "No Label", "20", "35", "68"], "gold": ["20", "35", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 252/2011\nof 15 March 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex I\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Article 131 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (2) harmonises the provisions and criteria for the classification and labelling of substances, mixtures and certain specific articles within the Community, taking into account the classification criteria and labelling rules of the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals.\n(2)\nCouncil Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (3) and Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (4) were amended several times. Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC will be replaced over a transitional period according to which substances must be classified, labelled and packaged according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 from 1 December 2010 and mixtures from 1 June 2015, although from 1 December 2010 until 1 June 2015 classification of substances according to both Directive 67/548/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 is required. Both Directives will be repealed in full by Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 with effect from 1 June 2015.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 should be amended to adapt it to the criteria for classification and other relevant provisions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.\n(4)\nArticle 58(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 modifies Article 14(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 to adapt it to the classification criteria in Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. This also has consequences for Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, which was not amended by Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. It is therefore necessary to adapt Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 to the new text in its Article 14(4).\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1272/2008 introduces substantive changes in terminology compared to those used in Directive 67/548/EEC. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 was not amended by Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and should be updated to reflect these changes and ensure consistency throughout.\n(6)\nFurthermore, references to Directive 67/548/EEC should be replaced by appropriate references to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, registrations including chemical safety reports will have been submitted by the date of application of this Regulation. Changes in classification criteria and other relevant provisions resulting from Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 apply to substances from 1 December 2010, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 62 of that Regulation. In order to ensure a smooth transition for the updating of registrations, a transitional period should be provided.\n(8)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established pursuant to Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 is amended as follows:\n1.\npoint 0.6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20180.6. Steps of a chemical safety assessment\n0.6.1.\nA chemical safety assessment performed by a manufacturer or an importer for a substance shall include the following steps 1 to 4 in accordance with the respective sections of this Annex:\n1.\nHuman health hazard assessment.\n2.\nHuman health hazard assessment of physicochemical properties.\n3.\nEnvironmental hazard assessment.\n4.\nPBT and vPvB assessment.\n0.6.2.\nIn the cases referred to in point 0.6.3 the chemical safety assessment shall also include the following steps 5 and 6 in accordance with Sections 5 and 6 of this Annex:\n5.\nExposure assessment.\n5.1.\nThe generation of exposure scenario(s) (or the identification of relevant use and exposure categories, if appropriate).\n5.2.\nExposure estimation.\n6.\nRisk characterisation.\n0.6.3.\nWhere as a result of steps 1 to 4 the manufacturer or importer concludes that the substance fulfils the criteria for any of the following hazard classes or categories set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 or is assessed to be a PBT or vPvB, the chemical safety assessment shall also include steps 5 and 6 in accordance with Sections 5 and 6 of this Annex:\n(a)\nhazard classes 2.1 to 2.4, 2.6 and 2.7, 2.8 types A and B, 2.9, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13 categories 1 and 2, 2.14 categories 1 and 2, and 2.15 types A to F;\n(b)\nhazard classes 3.1 to 3.6, 3.7 adverse effects on sexual function and fertility or on development, 3.8 effects other than narcotic effects, 3.9, and 3.10;\n(c)\nhazard class 4.1;\n(d)\nhazard class 5.1.\n0.6.4.\nA summary of all the relevant information used in addressing the points above shall be presented under the relevant heading of the Chemical Safety Report (Section 7).\u2019;\n2.\npoint 1.0.1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181.0.1.\nThe objectives of the human health hazard assessment shall be to determine the classification of a substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008; and to derive levels of exposure to the substance above which humans should not be exposed. This level of exposure is known as the Derived No-Effect Level (DNEL).\u2019;\n3.\npoint 1.0.2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181.0.2.\nThe human health hazard assessment shall consider the toxicokinetic profile (i.e. absorption, metabolism, distribution and elimination) of the substance and the following groups of effects:\n(1)\nacute effects such as acute toxicity, irritation and corrosivity;\n(2)\nsensitisation;\n(3)\nrepeated dose toxicity; and\n(4)\nCMR effects (carcinogenity, germ cell mutagenicity and toxicity for reproduction).\nBased on all the available information, other effects shall be considered when necessary.\u2019;\n4.\npoint 1.1.3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181.1.3.\nAll non-human information used to assess a particular effect on humans and to establish the dose (concentration) - response (effect) relationship, shall be briefly presented, if possible in the form of a table or tables, distinguishing between in vitro, in vivo and other information. The relevant test results (e.g. ATE, LD50, NO(A)EL or LO(A)EL) and test conditions (e.g. test duration, route of administration) and other relevant information shall be presented, in internationally recognised units of measurement for that effect.\u2019;\n5.\npoints 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181.3.1.\nThe appropriate classification developed in accordance with the criteria in Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 shall be presented and justified. Where applicable, Specific Concentration limits resulting from the application of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and Articles 4 to 7 of Directive 1999/45/EC shall be presented and, if they are not included in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, justified.\nThe assessment should always include a statement as to whether the substance fulfils or does not fulfil the criteria given in Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 for classification in the hazard class carcinogenicity category 1A or 1B, in the hazard class germ cell mutagenicity category 1A or 1B or in the hazard class reproductive toxicity category 1A or 1B.\n1.3.2.\nIf the information is inadequate to decide whether a substance should be classified for a particular hazard class or category, the registrant shall indicate and justify the action or decision he has taken as a result.\u2019;\n6.\nthe second sentence of point 1.4.1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018For some hazard classes, especially germ cell mutagenicity and carcinogenicity, the available information may not enable a toxicological threshold, and therefore a DNEL, to be established.\u2019;\n7.\npoint 2.1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182.1.\nThe objective of the hazard assessment for physicochemical properties shall be to determine the classification of a substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.\u2019;\n8.\npoint 2.2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182.2.\nAs a minimum, the potential effects to human health shall be assessed for the following physicochemical properties:\n-\nexplosivity,\n-\nflammability,\n-\noxidising potential.\nIf the information is inadequate to decide whether a substance should be classified for a particular hazard class or category, the registrant shall indicate and justify the action or decision he has taken as a result.\u2019;\n9.\npoint 2.5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182.5.\nThe appropriate classification developed in accordance with the criteria in Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 shall be presented and justified.\u2019;\n10.\npoint 3.0.1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183.0.1.\nThe objective of the environmental hazard assessment shall be to determine the classification of a substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and to identify the concentration of the substance below which adverse effects in the environmental sphere of concern are not expected to occur. This concentration is known as the Predicted No-Effect Concentration (PNEC).\u2019;\n11.\npoints 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20183.2.1.\nThe appropriate classification developed in accordance with the criteria in Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 shall be presented and justified. Any M-factor resulting from the application of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 shall be presented and, if it is not included in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, justified.\n3.2.2.\nIf the information is inadequate to decide whether a substance should be classified for a particular hazard class or category, the registrant shall indicate and justify the action or decision he has taken as a result.\u2019;\n12.\npoints 4.1 and 4.2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20184.1. Step 1: Comparison with the criteria\nThis part of the PBT and vPvB assessment shall entail the comparison of the available information with the criteria given in Section 1 of Annex XIII and a statement of whether the substance fulfils or does not fulfil the criteria. The assessment shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions laid down in the introductory part of Annex XIII as well as Sections 2 and 3 of that Annex.\n4.2. Step 2: Emission Characterisation\nIf the substance fulfils the criteria or it is considered as if it is a PBT or vPvB in the registration dossier an emission characterisation shall be conducted comprising the relevant parts of the exposure assessment as described in Section 5. In particular it shall contain an estimation of the amounts of the substance released to the different environmental compartments during all activities carried out by the manufacturer or importer and all identified uses, and an identification of the likely routes by which humans and the environment are exposed to the substance.\u2019;\n13.\nPart B of the table in Section 7 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoints 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 are deleted;\n(b)\npoints 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 are deleted;\n(c)\npoint 5.7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185.7. Germ cell mutagenicity\u2019;\n(d)\npoints 5.9.1 and 5.9.2 are deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 5 May 2011.\nHowever, for registrations submitted prior to 5 May 2011, the chemical safety report shall be updated in accordance with this Regulation by 30 November 2012 at the latest. Article 22(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 shall not apply to those updates.\nThis Article is without prejudice to Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 253/2011 (5), with regard to Article 1(12) of this Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 March 2011.", "references": ["70", "74", "84", "67", "44", "49", "98", "1", "62", "18", "23", "15", "82", "86", "4", "20", "31", "80", "11", "8", "91", "0", "61", "36", "32", "30", "57", "95", "29", "6", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "39", "58", "60", "83"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "39", "58", "60", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 329/2011\nof 5 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 April 2011.", "references": ["33", "50", "84", "0", "73", "26", "91", "30", "18", "16", "28", "2", "79", "15", "57", "31", "62", "64", "23", "7", "70", "78", "1", "49", "80", "41", "75", "21", "4", "97", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 378/2010\nof 3 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 May 2010.", "references": ["15", "14", "88", "81", "47", "37", "87", "6", "30", "38", "64", "69", "32", "7", "85", "20", "5", "98", "51", "18", "97", "0", "75", "86", "77", "3", "66", "12", "19", "53", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 637/2010\nof 19 July 2010\nsuspending submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 1 to 7 July 2010 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, are equal to the quantity available under order number 09.4325.\n(2)\nSubmission of further applications for licences for order number 09.4325 should be suspended until the end of the marketing year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubmission of further applications for licences, which correspond to the order numbers indicated in the Annex, shall be suspended until the end of the marketing year 2009/10.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2010.", "references": ["83", "42", "70", "92", "98", "7", "48", "55", "88", "87", "68", "36", "8", "9", "84", "79", "31", "19", "29", "16", "51", "57", "23", "44", "14", "93", "10", "59", "13", "82", "No Label", "21", "22", "25", "71"], "gold": ["21", "22", "25", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 357/2012\nof 24 April 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 29/2012 on marketing standards for olive oil\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 113(1)(a) and Article 121, first paragraph, point (a), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 29/2012 of 13 January 2012 on marketing standards for olive oil (2), which is the codification of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 (3), the references to the Community made in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 in respect of designations of origin have been replaced by references to the Union. Article 12(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 29/2012 provides for a transitional period to allow products which have been legally manufactured and labelled in the Union or legally imported into the Union and put into free circulation before 1 July 2012 to be marketed until all stocks are used up. Firstly, this transitional period is considered too short and, secondly, the use of the term \u2018legally\u2019 in that provision leads to confusion regarding the transition between Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 29/2012.\n(2)\nIn order to allow labels using the term \u2018Community\u2019 to be used for a longer period, it should therefore be provided that products which have been manufactured and labelled in the Union or imported into the Union and put into free circulation in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 before 1 January 2013 may be marketed until all stocks are used up.\n(3)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 29/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 12(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 29/2012 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Products which have been manufactured and labelled in the Union or imported into the Union and put into free circulation in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 before 1 January 2013 may be marketed until all stocks are used up.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["12", "27", "38", "65", "95", "37", "86", "4", "91", "89", "42", "94", "11", "47", "36", "61", "19", "26", "10", "73", "17", "67", "52", "29", "23", "82", "28", "69", "93", "57", "No Label", "21", "22", "25", "70"], "gold": ["21", "22", "25", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 683/2010\nof 29 July 2010\nfixing the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EU) No 462/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAn invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries was opened by Commission Regulation (EU) No 462/2010 (2).\n(2)\nUnder Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 of 18 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of tariff quotas for imports of maize and sorghum into Spain and imports of maize into Portugal (3) the Commission, in accordance the procedure laid down in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, may decide to fix a maximum reduction in the import duty. In fixing this maximum the criteria provided for in Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 must be taken into account.\n(3)\nA contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum reduction in the duty.\n(4)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor tenders lodged from 16 July to 29 July 2010 under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EU) No 462/2010, the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported shall be 5,50 EUR/t for a total maximum quantity of 49 000 t.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 30 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2010.", "references": ["24", "48", "43", "50", "13", "71", "60", "34", "77", "16", "3", "8", "26", "42", "92", "49", "35", "10", "15", "1", "22", "29", "31", "83", "32", "41", "18", "58", "80", "57", "No Label", "4", "20", "21", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "20", "21", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 December 2011\non the State aid C 85/01 on ad hoc measures implemented by Portugal in favour of RTP\n(notified under document C(2011) 9429)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/365/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) (1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision(s) cited above (2) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy three complaints submitted in 1993, 1996 and 1997 by the commercial broadcaster Sociedade Independente de Comunica\u00e7\u00e3o SA (SIC), the Commission was informed that Portugal had implemented a number of ad hoc measures and annual compensation measures in favour of the Portuguese public broadcaster, Radiotelevis\u00e3o Portuguesa SA (RTP).\n(2)\nBy letter dated 15 November 2001, the Commission informed Portugal that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of a number of the ad hoc measures granted to RTP.\n(3)\nThe Commission\u2019s Decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Subsequently, Article 1 of Commission Decision 2005/406/EC of 15 October 2003 on ad hoc measures implemented by Portugal for RTP (3), found that certain of those measures, namely the State aid of PTE 68 006 million granted by Portugal to RTP in the form of an agreement with the social security scheme in 1993, capital injections in the period 1994 to 1997 and a loan in 1998 to be compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty (4). In addition, Article 2 of that Decision stated that certain measures did not contain State aid, namely the exemption from registration charges, the payment for the hiving-off of the television broadcasting network, the facilities granted for payment of the annual fee for the use of the television broadcasting network, the protocol on cinema promotion, the bond issue and the restructuring plan for the period 1996 to 2000.\n(4)\nOn 26 June 2008, the Court of First Instance in Case T-442/03 (5) annulled part of Decision 2005/406/EC on two grounds. It annulled Article 2 of that Decision insofar as it found that the \u2018exemption from registration charges\u2019 does not constitute State aid. The Court found that the Commission\u2019s task was to establish, in relation to the ad hoc advantage consisting of the exemption from payment of the registration charges and fees relating to its transformation into a public limited company (hereafter \u2018temporary exemption\u2019), whether it was compatible with the logic of the Portuguese system for the transformation of public undertakings into public limited companies to occur by legislation, or whether the recourse to legislation was a derogation which was intended to confer an advantage on public undertakings in relation to other undertakings.\n(5)\nFor the permanent advantage resulting from an unlimited exemption from registration charges and other charges in respect of any act of inscription, registration or annotation granted to RTP (hereafter \u2018permanent exemption\u2019), the Court found that while it is not unlikely that the exemption in reality was not permanent (see paragraphs 73 and 79 of the judgment), that would not alter the finding that the general nature of that exemption had not been demonstrated by the Commission. The Court further found that while it might be that RTP was transformed by Portugal into public limited company because that was considered necessary for the fulfilment of the public service remit, this was not accompanied by sufficient evidence.\n(6)\nThe Court dismissed the applications as regards the finding in Decision 2005/406/EC not to classify the 1994 bond issue and the payment facilities for the license fee as State aid.\n(7)\nAs regards the compatibility of the State aid measures (Article 1 of Decision 2005/406/EC), the Court found that the Commission could not rely on the public service reports and the data contained therein, without having an external audit for those reports, as required by national law. The Commission was therefore not entitled to conclude that the State aid measures were compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 86(2) of the Treaty (now 106(2) TFEU and the \u2018internal market\u2019) (6). The Court annulled Article 1 of the Decision 2005/406/EC.\n(8)\nFollowing the judgment of the Court in Case T-442/03, the Commission drew the attention of interested parties to the fact that the Commission\u2019s investigation in this case had been reopened and invited comments from third parties (7).\n(9)\nThe Commission received comments from the complainant on 10 March 2009, which were forwarded to Portugal on 8 April 2009. Further comments from the complainant were received on 17 June 2009, which were forwarded to Portugal on 28 July 2009. Portugal replied to both sets of comments by letters dated 7 and 8 September 2009. Portugal sent further information to the Commission on 23 February 2010, 4 March 2010 and 15 April 2010. The Commission sent an information request to Portugal on 10 May 2010, requesting in particular that independent external audits of the public service reports for the period from 1992 to 1997 be conducted.\n(10)\nPortugal replied to the Commission\u2019s request for information by letter dated 8 June 2010 and submitted the requested external audits on the public service reports by letter dated 12 August 2010. Further information by Portugal was submitted by letter dated 29 September 2010. A meeting took with Portugal on 29 March 2011 and further information was supplied by Portugal to the Commission on 17 June 2011, 25 August 2011 and 26 October 2011.\nBy letter registered on 15 December 2011, Portugal exceptionally agreed that this Decision be adopted in English as its authentic language.\n(11)\nThis Decision only deals with the ad hoc measures covered by the Decision to open the formal investigation proceedings. Some of the measures, which were declared not to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC Treaty in Decision 2005/406/EC, have not been annulled by the Court in Case T-442/03 and Article 2 of Decision 2005/406/EC has therefore become final. Those measures concern the payment for the hiving-off of the television broadcasting network, the facilities granted for payment of the annual fee for the use of the television broadcasting network, the protocol on cinema production, the bond issue and the restructuring plan for the period from 1996 to 2000. However, as required by the Court in Case T-442/03, the Commission will make a new assessment as regards the temporary and permanent exemption from notarial deed charges as well as registration charges and publication costs.\nThis Decision focuses on the financial relation between RTP and Portugal in the period from 1992 to 1998 with regard to the agreement with the social security scheme in 1993, the capital injections during the period from 1994 to 1997 and the loan of in the year 1998. This Decision does not deal with the questions of the legal classification and compatibility with the Treaty of the annual compensation payments granted to RTP, which has been dealt with in the Commission\u2019s Decision of 22 March 2006 in Case No E 14/05 (8). In addition, on 4 July 2006, the Commission adopted a Decision regarding RTP\u2019s financing restructuring agreement, in Case NN 31/06 (9).\n(12)\nHowever, in order to have a complete \u2018picture\u2019 of the financial relations between Portugal and RTP during the period covered by the Commission\u2019s investigation in this Case, the Commission must consider not only the ad hoc measures, but also the financial support granted to RTP by means of annual compensation payments. Therefore, this Decision refers to the annual compensation payments to the extent necessary to clarify the Commission\u2019s reasoning on the ad hoc measures.\nII. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUES AT STAKE\nA. MEASURES IN FAVOUR OF RTP\nA.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECIPIENT RTP\n(13)\nRTP (at the time R\u00e1dio e Televis\u00e3o Portuguesa SARL) was set up as a public limited company by deed of 15 December 1955, following the decision of Portugal to establish a broadcasting company that would be entrusted with the concession for the provision of the public service of television broadcasting (10). The public service concession contract was signed on 16 January 1956.\n(14)\nBy Decree-Law No 674-D/75 of 2 December 1975, RTP was nationalised. That Decree-Law converted RTP into a public undertaking with the name \u2018Radiotelevis\u00e3o Portuguesa EP\u2019, to which all the legal rights and obligations of its predecessor were transferred under the Decree-Law.\n(15)\nRTP had a monopoly position on the national broadcasting market until the 1980s. It operated two television channels, RTP1 and RTP2. In the 1990s, it started facing competition from commercial broadcasters after Portugal granted licences in February 1992 to SIC and the commercial broadcaster TVI to broadcast on a third and fourth channel respectively (11).\n(16)\nLaw No 21/92 of 14 August 1992 converted RTP, EP into a public limited company with the name \u2018Radiotelevis\u00e3o Portuguesa SA\u2019 and approved its new statutes.\n(17)\nRTP performs both public service broadcasting activities and commercial activities. RTP is legally allowed to pursue commercial or industrial activities related to the activity of television (12).\n(18)\nRTP\u2019s commercial activities have been conducted through financial participation in companies, which are legally distinct from RTP and have their own structure and accounting system.\nA.2. MEASURES (13)\n(19)\nThe annual compensation payments to RTP constitute the main mechanism for compensating RTP for its public service obligations. In the period from 1992 to 1998, RTP received annual compensation payments totalling PTE 66 495 million (around EUR 332 million) (14) to cover the costs of its public service obligations. The legal basis for the annual compensation payments is Article 5 of Law No 21/92 (15).\n(20)\nTable 1 gives a breakdown of the annual compensation payments granted to RTP in the period from 1992 to 1998, covered by this Decision.\nTable 1\nAmount of annual compensation payments 1992-98\n(PTE and EUR million)\n1992\n1993\n1994\n1995\n1996\n1997\n1998\n6 200\n7 100\n7 145\n7 200\n14 500\n10 350\n14 000\nEUR 26,9 (16)\nEUR 35,4\nEUR 35,6\nEUR 35,9\nEUR 72,3\nEUR 51,6\nEUR 69,8\nSource: Council of Ministers Resolution.\n(21)\nAt the time when RTP was transformed into a public limited company, the Portuguese law on company registration can be described as follows. Article 7(1) of the Portuguese company code (C\u00f3digo das Sociedades Comerciais), in its version in force at the time of the transformation of RTP provided that the articles of association (contrato de sociedade) of a trading company had to be formalised by a notarial deed.\nArticle 18(5) of the company code provided that the act setting up a public limited company, after the company had been established in due legal form, had to be recorded in the commercial registry. Registration was compulsory pursuant to article 15(1) and 3(a) of the Commercial Registry Code (C\u00f3digo do Registo Comercial) and Article 166.o of the company code.\nIn accordance with Article 70(1)(a) of the Commercial Registry Code, in its version in force at the relevant time, the act setting up a public limited company had to be published in the Di\u00e1rio da Rep\u00fablica (see Article 70(2) (17)) The publication must be carried out ex officio by the registrar, at the expense of the interested party (see Article 71(1) of the Commercial Registry Code)\n(22)\nUpon its transformation into a public limited company in 1992, RTP was exempted from the payment of the notarial and registration charges related to the registration of the legal transformation of RTP from a public company into a public limited company. The value of the exemptions was PTE 33 million (approximately EUR 164 000). Normally, under Portuguese law, all legal persons have to pay the charges levied on the setting up of a company and the amendment of the company\u2019s statutes or any other relevant modifications of the company.\n(23)\nThe legal basis for the exemption from registration charges is Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92, which provides that:\n\u2018the statutes of RTP SA (\u2026) are hereby approved; they do not need to be transformed into a deed, but shall be automatically registered, free of duties and expenses, on the basis of the Journal of the Republic (Di\u00e1rio da Rep\u00fablica) in which they are published.\u2019.\n(24)\nArticle 11(1) of Law No 21/92 is derived from the application of Law 84/88 of 20 July 1988 on the transformation of public undertakings into public limited companies. Article 1 of Law No 84/88 provides that public undertakings, even if nationalised, could be converted by decree-law into public limited companies. It reads:\n\u2018Public undertakings \u2026 may be transformed by decree-law into public limited companies owned entirely or in majority by public entities, in accordance with the Constitution and with this law.\u2019.\n(25)\nArticle 3(2) of Law No 84/88 on the transformation of public undertakings into public limited companies, also provides that such a decree-law must approve the statutes of the public limited company. Pursuant to Article 3(3) of Law No 84/88, that decree-law constitutes a sufficient document for the registration requirements to be carried out (18).\n(26)\nUnder Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92, RTP was exempted from paying other registration fees directly linked to the modification of the legal nature of the company. Article 11(2) reads as follows:\n\u2018All acts of inscription, registration and annotation before all registration departments, all authorities and all public bodies, in particular the national register of legal persons, the register of mortgages and the vehicle registration department shall be carried out on the basis of a simple request signed by two members of the undertaking\u2019s Board of Administration and shall be free of any charges and fees.\u2019.\n(27)\nAccording to Portugal, the provision of Article 11(2) was derived from the application of Decree-Law No 404/90 (19) and confirms the applicability to RTP of a provision of general application. On the basis of article 1 of this law, undertakings which, up to 31 December 1993, performed acts of cooperation or concentration could be granted exemption from transfer tax on fixed assets, which were necessary for the concentration or cooperation. Article 1 of that law also provided for an exemption from the emoluments and other legal charges which could be due for the performance of such acts.\n(28)\nPortugal stated that RTP has, on several occasions in the past, paid notarial and registration charges related to certain capital increases and other operations after its transformation into a public limited company (20).\n(29)\nIn the period from 1983 to 1989, RTP \u2018built up\u2019 a debt to the social security scheme of PTE 2 189 million arising from its failure to pay social security contributions. The background to that debt was a dispute between RTP and Social Security administration on the interpretation of the social security deductions for overtime and artists fees.\n(30)\nThe Social Security administration\u2019s interpretation was laid down in Article 2(e) of Implementing Decree No 12/83 of 12 February 1983. In order to avoid legal proceedings, the two parties reached an agreement under which the Social Security administration would waive its interest claim for late payment and accept a rescheduled payment of the debt. Following the settlement of the legal dispute, the Implementing Decree was never revoked.\n(31)\nOn 6 May 1993, a joint decree of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Social Security formally authorised the rescheduling of the debt in 120 monthly instalments and waived the fines and interest due for the amount of PTE 1 206 million (EUR 6 million).\n(32)\nThe conditions for authorising the exceptional arrangements for settling RTP\u2019s debts owed to the Social Security Scheme are laid down in Decree-Law No 411/91. Article 2(1) of that Decree-Law provides that the authorisation for must be indispensable in order to guarantee the viability of the debtor and the arrangements for may be applied, inter alia, on the ground that, as provided for in Article 2 (d) of the Decree-Law, the indebted undertaking \u2018has been the subject of occupation, worker self-management or state intervention\u2019.\n(33)\nIn the period from 1994 to 1997, Portugal increased the capital of RTP each year. The following table gives an overview of the different capital increases, which amounted to PTE 46 800 million (EUR 233 million).\nTable 2\nIncreases in RTP\u2019s share capital 1994 to 1997\n(PTE million)\nYear\n1994\n1995\n1996\n1997\nIncrease in share capital\n10 000\n12 800\n10 000\n14 000\nShare capital as at 31 December\n22 708\n35 508\n45 508\n59 508\nSource: Balance sheets of RTP.\n(34)\nThe public service contracts that the Portugal concluded with RTP provide for state participation in investments made by RTP, preferably in the form of capital increases (21).\n(35)\nIn December 1998, a contract was concluded between the Public Debt Stabilisation Fund and RTP for a subordinated loan between from the Public Debt Stabilisation Fund (Fundo de Regulariza\u00e7\u00e3o da D\u00edvida P\u00fablica) to RTP and laying down the conditions of a loan of PTE 20 000 million (EUR 99,8 million) to increase RTP\u2019s capital.\n(36)\nThe Public Debt Stabilisation Fund is managed by the Public Debt Management Institute (Instituto de Gest\u00e3o de Cr\u00e9dito P\u00fablico), which is responsible for managing the debt of the Portuguese State and for implementing the central borrowing programme, in accordance with the Public Debt Law (22) and the guidelines laid down by the Portuguese Government. That Institute is subject to the authority and supervision of the Portuguese Ministry of Finance (23).\n(37)\nFrom the date on which the sums were available to RTP, the loan was subject to annual interest payments at the 12-month Lisbor rate, calculated on the first date of each period, plus 20 basis points (24).\n(38)\nAccording to the contract, the loan was to be reimbursed on 31 December 2003 but could be extended for a further period of one or two years by mutual agreement. RTP did not pay interest on the loan, as the contract stipulates that the interest payable on the first four annual payments should be capitalised (25).\n(39)\nThe contract concluded in December 1998 between the Public Debt Stabilisation Fund and RTP was drawn up in accordance with the guidelines set out in a joint resolution of the State Secretaries for the Media, for the Treasury and for Finance on 17 December 1998.\nB. FINANCIAL POSITION OF RTP\n(40)\nAs the following table shows, RTP made losses during the period that is subject to the Commission\u2019s investigation In 1996, RTP\u2019s financial situation deteriorated to the extent that its net equity became negative.\nTable 3\nRTP economic and financial data 1993 to 1998\n(PTE million)\n1993\n1994\n1995\n1996\n1997\n1998\nNet profits (losses)\n(7 883)\n(19 558)\n(26 581)\n(18 512)\n(32 223)\n(25 039)\nNet equity\n1 557\n8 071\n4 269\n(4 274)\n(20 586)\n(50 827)\nAssets\n39 418\n42 262\n56 078\n67 654\n62 340\n83 843\nFinancial debts (26)\n22 402\n26 855\n30 258\n44 922\n44 885\n92 775\nSource: RTP\u2019s financial accounts.\nC. RTP\u2019S PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATIONS IN 1992 TO 1998\n(41)\nRTP is obliged to provide public service television. Different laws lay down the definition, assignment and financing of that service.\n(42)\nLaw No 58/90, which governs the activity of television broadcasting, laid down the conditions for private broadcasters and the obligation on the State to guarantee public service television broadcasting (27). As regards the statutes of RTP, Law No 21/92 defines the main public service obligations and the financing of that service.\n(43)\nTwo public service contracts signed between RTP and the Portuguese State in 1993 and in 1996 described the public service and the financing thereof in greater detail, (hereafter either \u2018old public service contract\u2019 or \u2018new public service contract\u2019 or \u2018public service contracts\u2019, when both contracts are referred to) (28).\n(44)\nArticle 4 of Law No 21/92 provides that a concession contract is to be concluded between Portugal and RTP and specifies the main public service obligations that must be performed under that contract. Article 4(2) of that Law establishes the general principles that RTP has to observe when performing its activity as concessionaire (29), while Article 4(3) thereof outlines the obligations of the public television broadcasting service (30).\n(45)\nThe public service contracts confirm RTP\u2019s public service obligations. Firstly, general obligations and obligations relating to programme content are imposed on RTP (31). RTP must provide a public television service, as part of which it has to broadcast two channels and provide the population of mainland Portugal with general coverage. The first channel is of a more general nature and is required to provide more general programming. The second channel must aim more at specific audiences and provide educational, cultural and scientific programmes. One of the channels has to cover the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira.\n(46)\nSecondly, the public service contracts impose specific programming obligations on RTP (32). Standards are set for programme quality (such as pluralism, impartial information, etc.) and programme content (new fiction, sport, children, Portuguese culture, domestic news, entertainment). RTP must allow viewing time for specified entities, to support the cinema and other forms of audiovisual production, to promote the production of educational or training programmes, to exchange programmes with the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira and to promote cooperation with other public service television bodies in the European Union. Furthermore, it must fulfil specific programming obligations relating to international cooperation. For example, it has to produce programmes for, and broadcast them to Portuguese communities living abroad, to Portuguese-speaking countries in Africa and to Macau. It is required to ensure the functioning of RTP Madeira and RTP A\u00e7ores and to maintain its production centres and delegations abroad.\n(47)\nThirdly, the public service contracts impose specific obligations on RTP. For example, RTP must maintain audiovisual archives, introduce technological innovations in its equipment and activities, support the S. Carlos National Theatre and to provide other services to be specified on an ad hoc basis.\n(48)\nArticle 5 of Law No 58/90 assigned to RTP the concession for public service broadcasting for a period of 15 years, renewable for a further period of 15 years and covering the frequencies corresponding to the first and second channels. Article 4 of Law No 21/92 provides that RTP is the concessionaire for public service television broadcasting. Clause 1(a) of the public service contracts confirms that RTP is the provider of the public service television (33).\n(49)\nThe public service contracts (34) provide for the setting up of a Public Opinion Council (Conselho de Opini\u00e3o) consisting of representatives from the different sections of public opinion that may intervene in order to assess whether RTP is complying with its general and specific public service television broadcasting obligations.\n(50)\nRTP is required to provide the Minister for Finance with a Public Business Plan and Budget for the fulfilment of its public service mission, (Plano de Actividades e Or\u00e7amento do Servi\u00e7o P\u00fablico) for the following year, accompanied by opinions issued by RTP\u2019s board of auditors and the Public Opinion Council. Furthermore, it has to provide a report on its compliance with its public service obligations during the previous year (Relat\u00f3rio sobre o Cumprimento das Obrigac\u00f5es do Servi\u00e7o P\u00fablico, (the \u2018public service reports\u2019), accompanied by an opinion of RTP\u2019s board of auditors (35).\n(51)\nThe Minister for Finance and the member of the government responsible for the media are required to verify compliance with the public service contracts. The Inspector-General of Finances is required to audit the financial plan. Furthermore, an annual audit on the public service reports has to be conducted by an external specialised auditor (36).\n(52)\nThe new public service contract also provides for sanctions to be imposed by Portugal for breach of contract in the form of fines, seizure, redemption or termination of the contract.\n(53)\nDuring the period 1992 to 1998, RTP had external audits on all its annual accounts by an independent auditor.\n(54)\nRTP also had produced the public service reports for all the years, with the exception of the public service report 1992, as the obligation to have external audits was first stated in the old public service contract dating from 1993. Portugal claims that for the years 1995 to 1998 a legally independent auditor issued a favourable and autonomous opinion on the public service reports (37). Portugal also argues that all public service reports during that period were accompanied by an opinion of RTP\u2019s Board of Auditors and by an audit of the Inspector General of Finance (Inspec\u00e7\u00e3o-Geral de Finan\u00e7as), the latter being independent of RTP.\nThe situation as regards the external audits of the public service reports can be described as follows:\n(55)\nThe 1993 and the 1994 public service reports contained a compliance statement by that RTP\u2019s public service obligations were fulfilled, but only by RTP\u2019s management.\n(56)\nFor the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, the public service report contained compliance statements by an external auditor independent to the company, Maia, Mesquita & Associados - (Revisor Oficial das Contas), that that the audit did not disclose any matters that would significantly affect the calculation of the compensation payments to RTP referred to in those reports for those years.\n(57)\nIn 2010, Portugal submitted more comprehensive external audits of the public service reports for the period from 1992 to 1997 to the Commission. The external audits of the public service reports for that period were organised by the national media regulator, Entidade Reguladora para a Comunica\u00e7\u00e3o Social (ERC). They were carried out for that period by Pedro Roque SROC, an external auditor, that is independent of RTP (38). Portugal also provided a synthesis report summarising the audit results for all the years.\nAn external audit on the public service report was already in existence for the year 1998. That external audit for the year 1998 was carried out by BDO Binder, an external auditor the \u2018BDO Binder report\u2019) (39).\n(58)\nThe mandate of the audits 1992-97 was, for each year in question, to assess whether RTP fulfilled its mandate as stipulated in the public service contracts in force at the time and whether there was a correspondence between the public service costs and the compensation payments. The external audits listed the public service obligations resulting from the public service contracts, took into account the various laws governing RTP\u2019s public service obligations (for example, the Television Act No 58/90 of 7 September 1990) as well as the Public Business Plan and Budget (Plano de Actividades e Or\u00e7amento do Servi\u00e7o P\u00fablico) and the public service reports. The external audits examined whether the public service obligations were respected. The reports made a comparison with the compensation payments by Portugal compared to the costs established in the public service reports.\n(59)\nFor all the years under investigation, i.e. 1992-97, the audits come to the conclusion that RTP essentially fulfilled its main broadcasting obligations. The audits also state that \u2018with regard to the correspondence between the public service tasks provided and the compensation of the \u2018real and actual costs\u2019, there are no materially relevant distortions which affect compliance with the legislation in force at the time\u2019. For all years, the synthesis report finds that the compensation payment by Portugal was less than the amounts indicated in every public service report. The audits are published on the ERC website (40). Likewise did the BDO Binder report not point to any overcompensation for the public service provided.\n(60)\nArticle 5 of Law No 21/92 confers on RTP the right to receive compensation for its public service obligations. That right is confirmed in the public service contracts.\n(61)\nIn addition to the system of annual compensation payments (see recital 19 above), the public service contracts provide for funding by Portugal for:\n(a)\nthe payment of specific services under agreements to provide services signed or to be signed by the public administration and RTP (41);\n(b)\nState participation in all investments made by RTP, particularly those for the infrastructures required for the operation of the production and broadcasting centres in the autonomous regions of Azores and Madeira, the audiovisual archives and RTP\u2019s international broadcasts and other technological investments that RTP is required to make (42).\n(62)\nIn order to determine the costs and revenues of the public service obligations that qualify for compensation payments, RTP applies an analytical accounting system. The public service contracts specify the criteria for calculating the eligible costs for compensation in respect of each public service obligation (43).\n(63)\nOn the basis of the analytical accounting system mentioned in the previous recital, RTP allocates costs and revenues (for example, personnel and equipment) to cover a defined number of activities (such as management of programming, direct and indirect programme costs, diffusion costs, emission costs, marketing costs and overheads).\n(64)\nThe direct costs of the different activities are divided between the different cost items (for example, RTP 1, RTP 2, RTPi and RTP \u00c1frica). The indirect costs are allocated to the cost items on the basis of consistent analytical criteria (for example, the number of broadcasting hours) (44).\n(65)\nThe analytical accounting system has the following characteristics:\n(a)\nunder the public service contracts, only the net operating costs may be compensated for in accordance with the method described in the public service contracts. The financial cost, the extraordinary expenditure and provisions not directly related to an activity are excluded from compensation (45);\n(b)\nin order to calculate the net reimbursable operating costs, RTP must deduct the operating revenues derived from each public service obligation;\n(c)\nunder the old public service contract, no compensation was allowed for the general public service obligation to operate RTP 1 and RTP 2 and to cover the autonomous regions with one of the channels (46);\n(d)\nunder the new public service contract, the operating costs of RTP 1 and RTP 2 can be compensated for, but no extra compensation is allowed in the event of the real net operating costs of RTP 1 and RTP 2 exceeding the planned cost (47).\n(66)\nRTP has reported on the net cost of providing the public service in the annual public service reports in line with the cost calculation method described in recitals 60-65. The following table gives an overview of the costs of each public service activity for which RTP is entitled to receive compensation payments.\nTable 4\nNet reported and reimbursable costs of the public service\n(PTE million)\n1992\n1993\n1994\n1995\n1996\n1997\n1998\nTeletext\n112,9\n86,8\nOperation of RTP International\n882,3\n1 517,4\n1 826,9\n1 890,8\n2 059,6\n3 999,1\n3 712,9\nRTP \u00c1frica\n-\n-\n-\n-\n654,7\n1 332,0\nDirect broadcasting by RTP 1 to Azores and Madeira\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n76,8\n295,4\nAudiovisual archives\n509,1\n241,6\n402,7\n492,7\n184,9\n909,4\n672,1\nCooperation with Portuguese-speaking countries in Africa\n186,9\n128,4\n172,2\n148,6\n144,9\n202,4\n200,3\nCoverage differential\n406,7\n1 312,8\n1 314,2\n1 050,3\n1 050,0\n622,6\n208,6\nDelegations/correspondents\n797,8\n658,2\n681,1\n642,7\n583,2\n457,2\n211,0\nS. Carlos National Theatre Foundation\n50,0\n55,0\n60,0\n60,0\n60,0\n60,0\nCinema promotion\n215,0\n95,0\n27,5\n156,5\n391,1\n352,8\nOperation of autonomous regional centres\n3 453,4\n3 486,0\n3 685,9\n3 696,1\n3 846,6\n3 459,2\n2 855,2\nBroadcasting for specific entities\n482,0\n350,6\n151,1\n94,6\n80,8\nSport TV (48)\n- 440,0\nNet operating costs of RTP 1\n16 946,1\n11 916,6\nNet operating costs of RTP 2\n9 050,6\n10 080,6\n8 637,6\nTotal net operating costs\n6 718,2\n7 960,0\n8 384,1\n8 103,3\n17 217,1\n37 972,1\n30 101,3\nSource: Portuguese authorities and the public service reports.\n(67)\nThe following table gives an overview of RTP\u2019s investments in equipment for its public service activities. It presents both the real investments in public service activities, as shown in the annual financial accounts, and the investments reported in the public service reports. The real investments in public service activities were higher than the investments reported in the public service reports.\nTable 5\nInvestments in public service activities\n(PTE million)\n1992\n1993\n1994\n1995\n1996\n1997\n1998\nTotal\nFinancial accounts\n2 632,6\n2 102,0\n2 763,9\n992,7\n1 480,4\n4 037,4\n6 054,2\n20 063,2\nPublic service reports\n2 327,3\n98,0\n1 975,1\n154,4\n28,1\n4 037,4\n6 127,8\n14 748,1\nDifference\n305,3\n2 004,0\n788,8\n838,3\n1 452,3\n0\n-73,6\n5 315,1\nSource: RTP financial accounts and public service reports.\n(68)\nThe objective of the ad hoc measures was to compensate RTP for the public service obligations imposed on it and to finance its investments.\n(69)\nIn Portugal, the public service operator was not selected as a result of a competitive procedure in which all interested undertakings had the opportunity to state the amount of compensation they would require to operate a public service television broadcasting concession. RTP was appointed by the Government to provide public service television.\n(70)\nSince 1992, both commercial and public service broadcasters have been active in the Portuguese television market. Apart from RTP, the commercial broadcasters SIC and TVI are licensed to broadcast television channels. SIC was the first private operator to start broadcasting on 6 October 1992. The measures in favour of RTP could have the effect of distorting competition in the television broadcasting market.\nIII. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(71)\nFollowing the initiation of the Commission\u2019s investigation procedure in this case several interested parties commented on the measures referred to in recitals 21-39. The following recitals provide an overview of the relevant comments received from the interested parties, categorised by measure.\n(72)\nOnly comments pertaining to the issues left open following the judgment of the Court in Case T-442/03 are referred to in this Section, namely those relating to the exemptions from notarial and registration charges and publication costs, as well as in relation to the other measures (the agreement with the social security scheme in 1993, capital injections in the period 1994 to 1997 and a loan in 1998), as referred to in Article 1 of Decision 2005/406/EC. These comments of interested parties include views submitted after the Commission\u2019s first opening decision of 15 November 2001 as well as comments received after the publication of the invitation to submit comments on 24 December 2008 (49).\n(73)\nSIC and TVI argued that the exemptions from notarial and registration charges are an exception from the rules that are normally applicable under Portuguese law for any modification in company statutes. SIC commented that the scope of the exemption is not limited to the transformation of RTP in 1992. On the basis of Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 RTP enjoys a general exemption from the payment of taxes and rights for any kind of inscription and registry.\n(74)\nTVI commented that RTP was also exempted from the payment of costs linked to the publication of the notarial deed.\n(75)\nOn the capital injections in the period 1994 to 1997, SIC, ACT, the Association of commercial broadcasters, the Italian commercial broadcaster Mediaset and TVI commented that no rational shareholder would have increased the capital of a company of the characteristics of RTP. The referred capital injections were made in a severely deficit company without a coherent restructuring plan to make the undertaking viable.\n(76)\nFurthermore, as regards the loan in 1998, SIC argued that taking into account the fact that RTP was \u2018technically bankrupt\u2019 in 1996, no financial institution would have approved such a loan to RTP.\n(77)\nSIC, in particular, stressed the absence of external audits, which should have taken place on a regular basis. It also referred to flaws found for the year 1998 as described in the BDO Binder report for that year, the only existing external audit, which the Commission should have taken into account. It pointed to several criticisms in the BDO Binder report for 1998, including, inter alia, an excess of the advertising limits for RTP television broadcasts. SIC points out that according to the public service contracts, RTP is required to respect advertising limits and can e.g. only show a certain number of minutes of advertising per hour. According to the findings in the BDO Binder report, this was not respected for the year 1998. SIC also quoted the finding in that report that certain assets had not been accounted for, which SIC seems to take as proof that the respective investments for these assets have not been made.\n(78)\nFollowing the annulment of Article 1 and part of Article 2 of Decision 2005/406/EC by the Court in Case T-442/03, SIC argues that the Commission must in this Decision also take into account the report of the Portuguese Court of Auditors (Tribunal de Contas, hereafter referred to as Court of Auditors) of June 2002 (No 8/2002), which according to SIC had the objective duty to examine RTP\u2019s management and its provision of public television service in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and economy and which dealt with the period 1997 to 2000. However, that period was extended to 1993. Summarising the findings of the report, SIC underlines that there was a lack of strategy for defining RTP\u2019s programmes and internal board directives concerning cost limits were not observed and annual budget drawn up were not complied with. SIC also stated that the Court of Auditors points out that Portugal has not yet specified that the award of State aid is related to RTP\u2019s actual compliance with its public service obligation.\n(79)\nSIC pointed to the Portuguese Court of Auditor\u2019s general findings on the public service contracts, which give an incentive to RTP to disregard efficiency and effectiveness in RTP\u2019s management, which goes along with a vague and non-specific public service remit.\nIV. COMMENTS FROM PORTUGAL\n(80)\nOn the exemption from notarial charges, registration charges and publication costs, Portugal agues that, since the transformation of the public undertaking into a public limited company (sociedade an\u00f3nima) had to be carried out by legislative act, no basis existed for the collection of the taxes and emoluments related to formalisation by notarial deed of that transformation, nor to its registration and publication.\n(81)\nThe transformation of RTP into a public limited company was carried out in 1992 in order to bring it under private law and the way in which it operates closer to that of private operators. It was considered necessary to equip RTP with the means and conditions to allow it to best fulfil its public service objectives in a market that was increasingly open to competition. The aim was to give RTP\u2019s operations and management the same flexibility afforded to \u2018normal\u2019 companies, operating under private commercial law. According to Portugal, the public limited company format was less cumbersome than the State control procedures that previously applied to RTP as a public undertaking, thus offering it better conditions for developing television channels and their programming.\n(82)\nPortugal argues that the transformation of RTP by law in 1992, with the consequence that no \u2018notarial deed\u2019 for the formalisation of that act was necessary, was in line with the nature and logic of the Portuguese legal system. In that regard Portugal recalls that RTP had been established as a public undertaking in 1975 by way of legislation, namely, by the Decree-Law No 674-D/75. Therefore, as specifically required by Law 84/88 that governed the transformation of public undertakings into public limited companies, such acts had to be carried out also by way of legislation.\nPursuant to Article 3(2) of Law No 84/88, which is a general law on the transformation of public undertakings (see above recital 25), the legislative act that provided for the transformation of the public undertaking had to approve the statutes of the public limited company resulting from the transformation. This was, moreover, in line with the principle of the equivalence of acts, according to which legislative acts may only be amended, suspended or revoked by acts having an equivalent ranking within the hierarchy of legal acts. Portugal points out that the principle of the equivalence of acts is provided for in the Portuguese Constitution (currently Article 112(5) or Article 115(5) of the Constitution at the time when RTP was transformed in 1992) which states that \u2018no law shall create other categories of legislation, or grant other types of act the power to interpret, integrate, modify, suspend or revoke any of its provisions with any external effect\u2019. The application of this principle to the transformation of public undertakings is supported by legal authors (50). Portugal also refers to a number of judgments of its Constitutional Court which reiterate the interpretation that a law may only be interpreted by another law (51) and not by an act with a different and inferior ranking within the hierarchy of legal acts.\n(83)\nPortugal argues that the transformation of RTP into a public limited company by Law No 21/92 was carried out in compliance with that general scheme of Portuguese law and could not lawfully have been carried out simply under private law in the form of a notarial deed. Portugal also quotes several examples of other public undertakings transformed by legislative act into public limited companies (52).\n(84)\nPortugal refers to Decree law No 267/76 of 8 April 1976 which established for the first time a general scheme for public undertakings. That decree-law established that public undertakings could only be created by way of a decree-law, which must approve their statutes. That applied also to subsequent alterations of the statutes.\n(85)\nPortugal further refers to Law No 84/88 of 20 July 1988 (see recital 25 of this Decision) which stipulated that a decree-law was necessary to transform public undertakings into public limited companies and that it also should approve the statutes of the public undertaking. Portugal consequently concludes that for the transformation of RTP in 1992 first a decree-law was necessary and that secondly also the statutes could only be approved by law and not by notarial deed.\n(86)\nIn addition, Law No 58/90 of 7 September 1990 required public service television to be provided by operators owned exclusively or in majority by public entities, and the statutes of such operators had to be approved by decree-law.\n(87)\nAs regards the \u2018registration charges\u2019, Portugal observes that while the registration of the statutes approved by Law No 21/92 was exempted from such charges, the registration formalities still had to be carried out \u2018ex officio\u2019. Registration formalities were considered necessary because the Commercial Registration Code (C\u00f3digo do Registo Comercial) requires acts relating to companies to be registered and published. According to Portugal, the value of the registration charges is 11 000 contos (53) which equals PTE 11 000 000.\n(88)\nRegarding the publication requirement, Portugal stresses that since RTP\u2019s statutes were published in the Di\u00e1rio da Rep\u00fablica as an Annex to Law No 21/92 which approved them, that requirement was fulfilled.\n(89)\nWith regards to SIC\u2019s comments concerning Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92, Portugal replied that the Portuguese legislator did not reserve specified tax benefits in business transformation or restructuring operations for public undertakings. The exemption was based on Decree-Law No 404/90. Portugal argues that RTP was not exempted from the payment of registration charges on the basis of Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92, outside the 1992 transformation. Portugal also argues that the classification of Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 as a permanent exemption from charges is due to a linguistic misunderstanding. Instead of stipulating that the decree law was sufficient for all legal purposes and any acts necessary to regularise \u2018the situation\u2019 (that is to say the 1992 transformation, own emphasis added), Article 11(2) provided that RTP would be exempted from any charges and fees that gave effect to the acts in the property registers. This meant, according to Portugal, that RTP was not exempted from registration charges outside the context of the 1992 transformation operations except for those concerning the 1992 transformation. Portugal also provided documentation for several situations in which RTP has paid registration charges.\n(90)\nPortugal claims that the background of the initial settlement between the Social Security administration and RTP on the rescheduling of debt and the waiver of interest and fines was a legal dispute on the constitutionality of Implementing Decree No 12/83 regarding mandatory social security deductions on remuneration for overtime. The settlement acknowledged RTP\u2019s interpretation that the remuneration was not subject to social security deductions, which was supported by a tax expert.\n(91)\nSecondly, Portugal claims that the formal authorisation of this settlement by the Portuguese government did not confer a specific financial advantage on RTP compared to other undertakings under similar circumstances under Decree Law No 411/91. Portugal claims that the derogation provided for in Article 2(1)(d) applied to RTP, as RTP was the subject of state intervention and experienced various vicissitudes under the management of an administrative commission appointed by the Government in 1977 (54). Portugal argues that the general nature of the derogation is underlined by the fact that an arrangement has also been made with one of the interested parties on the basis of Decree Law No 411/91.\n(92)\nAs regards the loan, Portugal commented that the technical conditions attached to it provided that the financial operation should carry interest calculated according to market criteria.\n(93)\nPortugal argued that the capital injections in the period 1994 to 1998 constituted an instrument for financing the costs of providing a public television service, together with payment of the compensatory allowances.\n(94)\nAccording to Portugal, the financing model chosen to compensate RTP for its public service costs proved inadequate and led to trading deficits. Firstly, the compensatory allowances were always calculated at below the real needs of public service television financing. Secondly, Portugal systematically paid the allowances late. RTP then had to resort to bank financing in order to meet its operating expenditure but could not include the interest and amortisation charges in the calculation of the public service cost. Thirdly, RTP had to pay value added tax (VAT) to the State on the allowances, thereby reducing the net amount of the compensatory allowances.\n(95)\nPortugal claims that: (i) the tax exemptions (i.e. exemption from notarial deed charges, registration charges and publication costs); (ii) the facilities for the payment of the tax on the use of the broadcasting network; (iii) the rescheduling of the debt to the social security scheme; (iv) the payment for the hiving-off of the television network; (v) the protocol on cinema promotion; and (vi) the loan taken out by RTP in 1998 do not fall within the concept of State aid. As regards the compatibility of the other measures, Portugal argued that they should be regarded as compensation for public service costs and therefore not as State aid (55) or, alternatively, their compatibility with Union legislation should be assessed in the light of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 106(2) TFEU).\n(96)\nAs regards calculation of the overcompensation, Portugal argued that:\n(a)\nthe inclusion in 1996 of the operating costs of RTP 2 as reimbursable public service costs was based on the new public service contract, according to which compensation for RTP 2\u2019s operating costs under the Contract took effect from 1 January 1996 onwards (56);\n(b)\nthe loan of PTE 20 000 million should not be regarded as compensation since it was granted on market terms;\n(c)\nthe capital increases were also designed to finance investments and not simply to provide financial compensation for reimbursable public service costs. The State\u2019s obligation as shareholder to participate in the financing of investments deemed to be necessary is laid down in the public service contracts (57);\n(d)\nthe compensation payments were subject to VAT, with the result that the net value received by RTP was lower;\n(e)\nunder the new public service contract, the public service costs were reimbursable only up to the allotted budget.\nTaking into account the matters the foregoing, Portugal concluded that the financial compensation for RTP\u2019s public service obligations should not be regarded as excessive or inappropriate.\n(97)\nAs regards the absence of external audits, Portugal argues that the Commission had already taken a position on RTP\u2019s financial situation, also covering the period from 1992 to1998, without requiring an external audit of the public service in its Decisions of 2006 in case E 14/05 and NN 31/06 and those decisions were not challenged in Court. Portugal argues that, in particular, the Commission already took the Court of Auditors Report No 8/2002 into account in Decision NN 31/06. It further underlines that the Commission concluded in Decision NN 31/06 that RTP\u2019s financial situation from 1992 to 1998 resulted from the chronic under-financing of its public service activities. In Decision NN 31/06, the Commission based its finding on an external report, namely the PriceWaterhouse Cooper report of 2005 and on the externally audited annual accounts of RTP which Portugal considers to be the only relevant accounts.\n(98)\nPortugal also reiterates that the public service reports for the period from 1993 to 1998 were audited by RTP\u2019s company auditors (58). However, Portugal later submitted external audits of the public service reports for the period from 1992 to 1998, together with a final summarising report covering all of those years. The external audits were organised by the independent Media Authority, Entidade Reguladora para a Comunica\u00e7\u00e3o Social (ERC), which asked the external auditors, Pedro Roque (59) to carry out the external audits.\n(99)\nPortugal replied in greater detail to some of SIC\u2019s allegations on specific points. As regards SIC\u2019s allegation that according to the BDO Binder report, the opinion of Public Opinion Council was missing, Portugal emphasises that that opinion did not extend to RTP\u2019s public service report. While the opinion of that body was warranted, in the old public service contract, it had not become a legally binding requirement. Also, the new public service contract did not require the opinion of that body to be given on the public service report.\n(100)\nAs regards SIC\u2019s allegations that the BDO Binder report for the year 1998 included some EUR 53 million of tangible assets, although no inventory existed for such assets, Portugal has confirmed that the respective investments have been made for those assets. The fact that no inventory was originally drawn up for those assets (although except for 4 million the value of such assets could later be identified and inventory could retroactively be drawn up), does not mean that no investment had been made. The external auditor confirmed balances and figures and transaction with third parties.\n(101)\nAs regards SIC\u2019s allegation that according to the BDO Binder report for the year 1998 advertising times limits had been exceeded, Portugal pointed out that this would in no way involve a reduction in the financial compensation. The reason for that is that the amounts, which RTP received from the excess of advertising times was way below the under-financing of that year. In any event, Portugal confirmed that the total advertising revenues (including revenues from the excess of advertising limits) were taken into account when calculating the financing need, i.e. the compensation for the fulfilment of the public service obligation.\n(102)\nPortugal claims that the 8/2002 report of the Portuguese Court of Auditors should not be taken into account in this Decision as the judgment of the Court in Case T-442/2003 only found an objective weakness of the information contained in the public service reports, which were not accompanied by an external audit. Portugal emphasises that the 8/2002 report of the Court of Auditors only relates to the years 1997 to 2000 and not the whole period covered by the current investigation. The years 1993 to 1997 were only covered in the report for the purpose of a general description of RTP\u2019s financial situation and restructuring needs, but do not constitute the very subject matter of the report. The report purpose is to assess RTP\u2019s management, the role of the State as a shareholder and the provision of the public broadcasting service.\nPortugal claims that the Court of Auditor exceeded its mandate of auditing public finances and instead entered into an analysis of efficacy and cost effectiveness of the public expenditure. The report has, in the view of Portugal, no relevance except that it constituted an independent audit on the company, confirmed the accounts of Portugal and detected no illegality. Portugal argues that the Commission should take into account in this Decision the 20/98 Report of the Court of Auditors instead of the 8/2002 audit report, as the 20/98 audit report covers the RTP \u2018s economic and financial situation for the period from 1994 to 1996. The 20/98 audit report concluded that the criteria used to finance the public service are more clearly defined in the new public service contract than under the old public service contract, which is disputed by the later 8/2002 Report.\nV. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES\n(103)\nIn order to ascertain whether the ad hoc measures implemented by Portugal for RTP constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, the Commission has to assess whether those measures:\n(a)\nare granted by the Member State or through State resources;\n(b)\nare capable of distorting competition;\n(c)\nfavour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods;\n(d)\naffect trade between Member States.\n(104)\nIn the following, the State aid character of the loan of 1998, the settlement on the rescheduling of debt and interest waiver and the capital injections 1994-97 will be examined. Likewise, the presence of State resources in the exemptions from notarial deed charges, registration charges and publications costs will be assessed.\n(105)\nState resources are involved in the exemption notarial deed charges, registration charges and publications costs, as a loss of tax revenue is equivalent to the consumption of State resources in the form of fiscal expenditure (60).\n(106)\nAs regards the rescheduling of debt due to the social security scheme and the waiver of interest for late payment, the Commission considers that the body responsible for social security scheme cannot be regarded as an undertaking. It does not carry out an economic activity but is a public body with the task of administering social security (61). Furthermore, the authorisation for the debt rescheduling was given not by the social security scheme itself but by a joint decree of the State Secretaries for Finance and Social Security and the Deputy State Secretary to the Deputy Minister. With the authorisation, the State did forgo income since normally it would have received PTE 1 206 million in interest on the outstanding debt. Therefore, it is clear that State resources were involved and that the measure is attributable to the State.\n(107)\nThe capital increases granted to RTP were provided by the State directly from the public budget. It is therefore clear that such funding constituted State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(108)\nThe Commission cannot accept the claim by Portugal that no State resources are involved in the loan to RTP. The concept of State resources also includes advantages granted by bodies designated or established by a Member State for that purpose (62). The loan contract of 1998 was concluded between RTP and the Public Debt Stabilisation Fund, a fund managed by the Public Debt Management Institute. A legal act determines that the Institute is subject to the authority and supervision of the Minister for Finance (63). It may therefore be concluded that the funds granted by the Public Debt Stabilisation Fund should be regarded as State resources.\n(109)\nThat measure can be considered as being directly attributable to the State, since a resolution agreed on 17 December 1998 between the Secretary for State for the Media, the Treasury and Finance laid down the conditions of the contract.\n(110)\nExemption from notarial deed charges, as well as registration charges and publication costs: As regards the exemption from notarial deed charges, registration charges and publication costs it should be assessed whether that measure conferred a general tax exemption that benefited RTP or whether it applied specifically to RTP. In the following recitals the Commission distinguishes between the temporary exemption provided for in Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92 and the permanent exemption provided for in Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92.\n(111)\nThe Commission finds that the exemption from the necessity of a notarial deed, registration and publication costs conferred an advantage in favour of RTP by relieving it of charges that it would otherwise have to bear from its own budget.\n(112)\nThat advantage is also materially selective by being granted, as Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92 demonstrates, only to RTP. The fact that that law might reaffirm, as argued by Portugal, the application of a more general law, namely Law No 84/88, does not change this finding. Law No 84/88 refers to public undertakings and provides that such undertakings may be transformed into public limited companies by way of a decree-law. However, the fact that that law refers to \u2018public undertakings in general\u2019 does not affect the material selectivity found in Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92 in favour of the specific company RTP. In any event, an exemption for only public undertakings would likewise constitute a materially selective measure for that group of undertakings (compared to private undertakings), of which RTP forms part.\n(113)\nState measures can however, despite being materially selective, not fall within the notion of a selective measure within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, if the State measure, instead of derogating from the normal application of the system becomes an inherent part of it (64). It is therefore necessary to examine whether the measure was compatible with the nature and logic of the Portuguese legal system to transform the public undertaking RTP into a public limited company by way of legislation or whether resource to legislation for the purpose of transforming RTP was chosen in order to confer an advantage to it in relation to other undertakings. In line with the approach by the Court in its judgment, the Commission will in the following distinguish between the exemption from notarial costs on the one hand and registration and publication costs on the other hand (65).\n(114)\nExemption from the notarial deed and the notarial costs: The Commission finds that the transformation of RTP into a public limited company and the approval of its statutes by way of legislation instead of by a notarial deed complies with the logic and nature of the Portuguese legal system. The transformation into a public limited company was done in order to give RTP a more flexible company form and thereby put it on an equal footing with private operators. The fact that this transformation was done by law, rather than by a notarial deed, was not an attempt to circumvent the requirement of a notarial deed, but resulted from the general principle of Portuguese law that legislative acts may only be modified by equivalent legislative acts.\n(115)\nUnder that principle of \u2018equivalence of acts\u2019, a law may only be repealed, suspended or modified by a legal act which is of the same hierarchical rank as the constitutive act and not by an act which has a lower rank in the hierarchy of laws. This principle was introduced into the Portuguese Constitution in 1982, that is to say, long before the transformation of RTP in 1992 took place. Article 115(5) of the Portuguese Constitution in its form in force at the time of RTP\u2019s transformation provided that no law should: \u2018create other forms of legislation or grant other types of act the power to interpret, integrate, modify, suspend or revoke any of its provisions in such a way to produce effects in relation to third parties\u2019. As RTP was nationalised in 1975 by an act of legislation, namely by Decree-Law No D 674-D/75, its transformation into another legal form could again only be achieved by way of a decree-law, or by a law which has an equivalent or even higher rank than that of a decree-law. There is also nothing to suggest that RTP\u2019s original nationalisation in 1975 was carried out in order to circumvent the applying to companies governed by private law and created a benefit for the company.\n(116)\nThere is no evidence to suggest that all the other laws in place before RTP\u2019s transformation (see recitals 84 to 86 of this Decision) were for the purpose of creating a pecuniary advantage for public undertakings by avoiding notarial deeds (and the respective costs) applying to private transactions. In particular, Law No 84/88 which allowed public undertakings to be transformed into public limited companies by decree-law, reflected the constitutional and legal principles in force at the relevant time.\n(117)\nConclusion: Taking those matters into consideration, the exemption from the requirement to carry out the RTP transformation via a notarial deed (and thus incur the respective costs) does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(118)\nExemption from registration charges and publication costs: It is necessary to assess whether RTP enjoyed a benefit by not paying any costs linked to the registration of the company in the commercial registry and the publication of the notarial deed. In accordance with Portuguese law in force at the time, a notarial deed which formalised the setting up of a company governed by private law and its articles of association had to be published in the Di\u00e1rio da Rep\u00fablica by the Registrar in charge of the Commercial Registry in order to make third parties aware of the contents of those documents. RTP did not incur these publication costs since the mandatory publication in the Di\u00e1rio da Rep\u00fablica of Law No 21/92 ensured that the act of transformation of RTP and the contents of its new articles of association were afforded the necessary publicity.\n(119)\nThere is no indication that the Portugal chose to transform RTP into a public limited company by way of Law No 21/92 in order to grant RTP an advantage in the form of savings in registration and publication costs. It was rather that a second publication of RTP\u2019s statutes would have been entirely meaningless as the transparency and publicity requirements were already fulfilled through the publication of Law No 21/92 in the Di\u00e1rio da Rep\u00fablica. While the registration is done with a view to later publication and the two measures are linked, it is questionable whether the exemption from registration charges can also be justified by the nature and logic of the Portuguese legal system and the mandatory conversion of RTP by way of legislation. Portugal does not dispute that the registration was still required by the Commercial Companies Code. As Portugal stated: \u2018registration was not dispensed with, it was only that no deed was needed, but that the decree-law constituted a sufficient document for registration purposes\u2019. This also follows from Article 3(3) of Law No 84/88, (see recital 25 of this Decision). In addition, Portugal emphasised that in order for RTP to register in the future all other acts relating to the company, the fact of its creation (i.e. the result of the 1992 transformation into a public limited company) needed to be registered (66) If however, registration is necessary, then the Commission sees no reason why RTP should not have to bear the corresponding charges.\n(120)\nConclusion: It should be concluded that the exemption of RTP from the requirement of a notarial deed (including notarial costs), as well as the exemption from the requirement for publication and the respective publication costs according to Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92, do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nThe exemption from registration charges according to Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92 does constitute State aid.\nHowever, as referred to later in recitals 160 and 161 of this Decision, these exemptions would, in any event, be justified as a legitimate compensation for the costs of the provision of a service of general economic interest costs under Article 106(2) TFEU.\n(121)\nPortugal claims that Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 does not actually grant a permanent exemption to RTP, but that it was only intended to cover the same situation as before in relation to the temporary exemption, namely the transformation of RTP into a public limited company in 1992. Portugal also claims that on several occasions RTP paid notarial registration charges. However, the wording of Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 covers all further inscription, registration or annotation acts which, in accordance with that Article, may be effectuated free of charge for an unlimited amount of time.\n(122)\nSuch a permanent exemption also confers an advantage on RTP by relieving it of charges which it otherwise would have to bear from its own budget. The argument by Portugal that to its knowledge Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 has never been applied and RTP paid all necessary charges, is evidence which is relevant in a potential recovery of State aid, but does not alter the finding on the provision\u2019s wording.\n(123)\nThat advantage is also selective, as Law No 21/92 refers to RTP. Portugal cannot claim that Law No 21/92 is the mere application of a general rule of Portuguese law. In particular, Articles 1 and 2 of Decree-Law No 404/90 cannot be used in order to prove the absence of selectivity as the decree-law deals with acts of concentration and, thus, does not cover this Case which concerns the transformation of a public undertaking into a public limited company (67).\n(124)\nContrary to a temporary exemption from registration charges, a permanent exemption cannot also be justified by the equivalence of acts doctrine which, due to the legislative adoption process, dispensed with the requirement of a notarial deed and its publication when RTP was transformed in 1992. Compliance with the nature and logic of the Portuguese legal system could be accepted for the temporary exemption because in the concrete case of RTP\u2019s transformation into a public limited company could only be achieved, as demonstrated, by a decree-law. However, the wide scope of Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 does not preclude that exemptions from notarial requirements (and costs) would be possible for other situations than the 1992 transformation of RTP into a public limited company. It is sufficient to state that a permanent exemption in favour of one company (or one group of companies such as public limited companies) from various registration charges can never be within the nature and logic of a legal system (68).\nConclusion: It should be concluded that the permanent exemption for RTP resulting from Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(125)\nSocial security settlement (debt rescheduling and interest waiver): After considering the comments from third parties and Portugal, the Commission concludes that the initial agreement between the body responsible for the social security scheme and RTP cannot be regarded as representing typical behaviour of a private operator. The dispute was whether or not the interpretation of certain social security rules as laid down in Implementing Decree No 12/83 was legally correct. The agreement confirmed RTP\u2019s interpretation, which was supported by the analysis of a tax expert who concluded that the Implementing Decree was unconstitutional. However, the Implementing Decree was not revoked following the agreement. Therefore, it must be concluded that the measure was selectively applied to RTP without affecting the applicability of the social security scheme\u2019s interpretation in relation to other companies.\n(126)\nThe Commission cannot accept the Portugal\u2019s claim that the authorisation for the debt rescheduling and for the waiver of fines and interest was given within the framework of a general system applicable to all undertakings in a similar situation on the basis of Decree-Law No 411/91 and therefore did not confer a specific advantage on RTP.\n(127)\nWithout prejudging the selective or general nature of such a scheme, the purpose of this Decision is to determine whether the application of the scheme to RTP was selective.\n(128)\nIn order to prove that the rescheduling is indispensable to ensure the viability of the company, Decree-Law No 411/91 requires a financial/economic study to be carried out. RTP never carried out such a study of its viability pursuant to Article 2(3) of Decree-Law No 411/91.\n(129)\nFurthermore, the condition laid down in Article 2(1)(d) of Decree-Law No 411/91 was not applicable to RTP as the debt regularisation did not follow state intervention. The Commission does not accept Portugal\u2019s claim that the history of State intervention affected the operation of the debtor enterprise and that RTP was governed by statutory rules at the time of the State intervention. Although RTP was subject to a special management regime in 1977 (69), that regime came to an end with the adoption of the 1980 statutes, whereas the debt to the social security scheme was \u2018built up\u2019 in the period from 1983 to 1989. The Commission considers that the debt regularisation for RTP cannot be considered part of a general regime under Law No 411/91, as RTP did not meet the criteria laid down in that Law for such authorisation. Therefore, the measure was applied in a selective manner to RTP.\n(130)\nBy granting the debt rescheduling, the Portugal should have acted in the same way as a public or private creditor that seeks to recover sums due to it and, to that end, concludes debt rescheduling agreements to facilitate payment (70). The rate of default interest applied by the State should be equal to the rate a private creditor would apply in similar circumstances. The Commission considers that a private creditor that pursued the recovery of the debt by legal means would obtain at least the statutory interest rate. Therefore, by not requiring any interest payments at all, despite available enforcement mechanisms, Portugal did not act in the same way a private creditor would have acted in order to maximise the rate of interest. Furthermore, the debt with the social security scheme \u2018built up\u2019 in the period from 1983 to 1989 and a rescheduling arrangement was agreed only in 1993. Under the same conditions, a private creditor would not have allowed a similar accumulation of outstanding debt over such a long period without initiating collection procedures. Therefore, it seems that the measure conferred a specific advantage on RTP.\n(131)\nCapital increases: After considering the comments from third parties and Portugal, the Commission concludes that the capital increases in the period from 1994 to 1997 provided a financial advantage for RTP. As can be seen from Table 3 in recital 40, considering the weak financial position of RTP in the period when the capital increases were made, no private investor would have injected capital into the company as no normal return could be expected from the company within a reasonable time. In fact, despite the capital injections, RTP\u2019s financial position deteriorated. Neither Portugal nor third parties have alleged that Portugal acted as a private investor when injecting capital into the company.\n(132)\nLoan 1998: The Commission cannot accept Portugal\u2019s claim that the loan granted in 1998 was in conformity with market conditions. For the loan not to constitute State aid, the conditions attached to it (namely, the security sought and the interest rate) should reflect the inherent risk of lending to an undertaking (71). The risk, and consequently the interest rate, are higher when a company is in an economic and financial situation the soundness of which is below the level at which a financial institution would lend to it.\n(133)\nAs can be seen from Table 3 in recital 40, at the time the loan was agreed, RTP was in severe financial difficulties to the extent that its debts exceeded the value of its assets and its net equity was negative. Technically, the company was bankrupt.\n(134)\nFirstly, it should be borne in mind that the loan was a subordinated loan, that is to say, it had no asset-based security and, in the case of bankruptcy, it ranked for repayment purposes after all creditors but before shareholders. The absence of appropriate asset-based security was a clear indication that the loan was not granted at market conditions and that State aid was involved. In view of RTP\u2019s technical bankruptcy at the time the loan was granted, no financial institution would have awarded a subordinated loan to it as there was little likelihood of RTP being able to repay it. Indeed, the loan was not granted by a private financial institution but by the Public Debt Stabilisation Fund.\n(135)\nSecondly, it may be argued that the interest rate applied to the loan clearly does not reflect its intrinsic risk. Not only is it below the reference rate that the Commission normally uses to calculate the State aid element in interest subsidy schemes for loans (72), but also a normal market operator would require, on the top of \u2018sound\u2019 guarantees, an interest rate that compensated for such a high risk of non-repayment.\n(136)\nGiven that RTP\u2019s financial position was such that it would not have been able to obtain a subordinated loan under normal circumstances, the loan effectively equates to the payment of a grant and constitutes an advantage for RTP.\n(137)\nAccordingly, the Commission considers that the debt rescheduling with the social security scheme, the capital injections in the period from 1994 to 1997 and the loan granted in 1998 provided a financial and economic advantage as compared with competitors that did not receive the same funds.\n(138)\nSince the Portuguese television market was open to competition by 1992 at the latest, there were competitors on the market during the period that RTP benefited from the different measures. In February 1992, broadcasting licences were granted to the commercial broadcasters SIC and TVI and in October 1992 SIC started broadcasting in Portugal.\n(139)\nThe Commission does not accept Portugal\u2019s claim that the agreement on the debt with the social security scheme would fall outside the concept of State aid, as the debt itself had been created before the Portuguese broadcasting market was opened up to competition. The financial advantage was granted to RTP in May 1993 after the opening-up of the broadcasting market and was therefore able to confer an economic advantage on RTP.\n(140)\nAccordingly, it should be concluded that the measures granted by Portugal were able to confer an economic and financial advantage on RTP compared with competitors not receiving the same funds and thereby to distort competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(141)\nState measures fall within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as they affect trade between Member States. This is the case whenever the activities in question are subject to trade between Member States. In this case, the beneficiary, RTP, is itself active on the international market. Indeed, through the European Broadcasting Union it exchanges television programmes and participates in the Eurovision system (73). Furthermore, RTP is in direct competition with commercial broadcasters that are active on the international broadcasting market and have an international ownership structure (74).\n(142)\nAccordingly, it can be concluded that the measures granted to RTP by Portugal affect trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(143)\nIt transpires from the above that, leaving aside possible public service obligations imposed on RTP, the following measures involve State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU:\n-\nthe debt rescheduling with the social security scheme,\n-\nthe capital injections during the period from 1994 to 1997, and\n-\nthe loan granted in 1998.\nLikewise, the temporary exemption from registration charges in accordance with Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92 and the permanent exemption from registration and other charges in accordance with Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(144)\nHowever, as referred to in recitals 44-48 of this Decision, RTP is entrusted with a public service broadcasting obligation. In the Case of Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspr\u00e4sidium Magdeburg v Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH, and Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (\u2018the Altmark case\u2019), the Court of Justice held that State measures compensating for public service costs do not qualify as State aid under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, (now Article 107(1) TFEU) when the following four conditions are all satisfied (75):\n(a)\nthe recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge, and the obligations must be clearly defined;\n(b)\nthe parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner;\n(c)\nthe compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or some of the costs incurred in the discharge of public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations;\n(d)\nwhen the company is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately equipped, would have incurred in discharging those obligations.\n(145)\nLeaving aside the conditions referred to the first and the third conditions, the ad hoc measures (see recital 143 of this Decision) do not seem to fulfil the second and fourth condition of the Altmark judgment for the following reasons:\n(146)\nIt is clear that the financing granted by means of the agreement with the body responsible for the social security scheme and the loan in 1998 were not part of a compensation system the parameters of which had been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner (second condition). On the contrary, they were based on ad hoc decisions attributable to the State.\n(147)\nFurthermore, as referred to in recital 61 of this Decision, the public service contracts provided for a specific financing possibility for investments in public service equipment by means of capital injections. They do not restrict investments public services or define clearly the conditions and limits of state participation; they merely refer to the possibility for the State to participate in RTP\u2019s investments as a shareholder. Therefore, the Commission considers that the capital injections too may not be considered to be part of a compensation system the parameters of which have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner.\n(148)\nRTP was clearly not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure guaranteeing the lowest possible cost. There are no indications that the amount of the ad hoc payments was determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs that a typical undertaking would incur (fourth condition).\n(149)\nAccordingly, it is clear that in this case not all the conditions set out in the Altmark case are satisfied. Therefore, the measures referred to in recital 143 of this Decision must be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(150)\nThe Court of Justice has consistently held that Article 106 TFEU may provide for an exemption from the ban on State aid for undertakings entrusted with a service of general economic interest (SGEI). It has been implicitly confirmed in the Altmark case that State aid which compensates for the costs incurred by an undertaking in providing an SGEI may be regarded as compatible with the internal market if it meets the conditions of 106(2) TFEU (ex-Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty and formerly referred to as the \u2018common market\u2019) (76).\n(151)\nThe Court of Justice has made it clear that, for a measure to benefit from such exemption, the principles of definition, entrustment and proportionality must all be fulfilled. The Commission considers that, where those principles are fulfilled, the development of trade is not affected to an extent contrary to the interests of the Union.\n(152)\nThe way those principles apply in the broadcasting sector is explained in the Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (the Broadcasting Communication) (77). According to that Broadcasting Communication, the Commission must assess whether or not (78):\n(a)\nthe activities of RTP are public service obligations clearly defined as such by the Member State (definition);\n(b)\nRTP is officially entrusted by the Portuguese authorities with the provision of that service (entrustment);\n(c)\nthe funding is proportionate to the net cost of providing the public service.\n(153)\nAs stated in the Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States (the Amsterdam Protocol (79)) and the Broadcasting Communication (80), it is for the Member States to define the public service remit of the public service broadcaster. In the broadcasting sector the role of the Commission is limited to checking whether the public service definition contains any manifest error. Such error would constitute an abuse of the definition of the public service.\n(154)\nGiven the specific nature of the broadcasting sector, the Commission considers, in view of the interpretative provisions of that Protocol, a definition entrusting a given broadcaster with the task of providing balanced and varied programming to be legitimate (81). Such a definition would be consistent with the objective of fulfilling the democratic, social and cultural needs of a particular society.\n(155)\nAs referred to in recitals 44 to 48of this Decision., RTP is, by virtue of Law No 21/92 and the public service contracts, required to ensure as a general public television service the broadcasting of two channels with general coverage. While the first channel has to offer more general programming, the second channel has to aim more at specific audiences. Furthermore, as described in recitals 44 and 45 of this Decision, Law No 21/92 and the public service contracts impose more detailed obligations on RTP regarding programme content and international cooperation, as well as some other specific obligations.\n(156)\nAlthough the definition of RTP\u2019s public service broadcasting is of a qualitative and rather broad nature, the Commission, in view of the interpretative provisions of the Amsterdam Protocol, considers such a \u2018broad\u2019 definition to be legitimate (82). Therefore, it also considers the general definition of RTP\u2019s public service remit to provide two television channels of national coverage, one more general and the other more focused on specific audiences, to be legitimate. Such a definition can be regarded as fulfilling the democratic, social and cultural needs of Portuguese society.\n(157)\nFurthermore, the Commission regards as legitimate the obligations which determine in detail how RTP should perform the general public service broadcasting remit. In line with wording of the Amsterdam Protocol, those obligations can also be considered to fulfil the democratic, social and cultural needs of Portuguese society.\n(158)\nAlthough the Commission regards the public service mission of RTP as legitimate, it must, however, ascertain whether or not the definition contains any manifest errors.\nThe Commission will assess whether the temporary and permanent exemption from notarial deed charges, registration and publication costs can be considered as a compensation for a public service cost and will further analyse whether the obligation on RTP to support cinemas can be considered to be within the public service remit of RTP.\n(159)\nThe Commission will first assess whether the temporary exemption from notarial deed requirements (and related costs), registration charges and publication costs during the 1992 transformation into a public limited company in accordance with Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92, as well as the permanent exemption from various charges in accordance with Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 may be considered as a compensation for costs resulting from the provision of the public service.\n(160)\nTemporary exemptions: Firstly, it is necessary to examine whether costs involved in the transformation of RTP into a public limited company in 1992 (i.e. costs normally occurring for a notarial deed, its registration and publication) may be legitimately compensated for as public service costs. The compensation takes form, as stated above, by way of exemption according to Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92.\n(161)\nAt the time of its transformation, RTP conducted public service activities only (see recital 18 of this Decision), while commercial activities were carried out by legally distinct subsidiaries. Therefore, the costs related to the transformation of the public service broadcaster automatically constituted public service costs, which the State legitimately could compensate. It is not necessary to consider whether the reorganisation of RTP was legally mandatory or needed (83). The assessment under Article 106(2) TFEU and the Broadcasting Communication require that the compensation does not exceed the net public service costs, but does not require an assessment on whether these costs, provided that they are limited to the provision of the public service, could have been avoided (84). In line with the Amsterdam Protocol and the Broadcasting Communication, Member States are, in principle, free to decide on the organisation of their public service broadcaster, which does not only apply to the broadcaster\u2019s organisation of which content will be distributed, but also under which legal form the public service broadcaster will carry out its operations. The Commission\u2019s role is limited to control of whether this freedom by the Member State was used in an abusive manner. In this case, there are no indications that the transformation was carried out with the sole aim of conferring an advantage to RTP. There is no reason to question Portugal\u2019s reasoning that the 1992 transformation was carried out in order to give RTP more flexibility in its operations rather than being a State organisation with cumbersome State control proceedings. It should therefore be concluded that the exemption from registration charges (i.e. notarial deed charges, registration charges, publication costs) at the time of the RTP transformation constitutes a legitimate compensation for the provision of the public service broadcasting.\n(162)\nPermanent exemption: However, the above reasoning (set out in recital 161 of this Decision) cannot apply to the permanent exemption in Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92, which is not limited in time and therefore open to also cover registrations and inscriptions for activities of RTP outside its public service remit (e.g. when RTP would take up commercial activities itself rather than through legally distinct subsidiaries).\nIn view of the wide scope of Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92, both as regards time (i.e. unlimited) and in kind (i.e. not limited to public service activities), a justification of any potential future exemption from registration charges as a public service cost is not possible. It should therefore be concluded that the exemption from charges in accordance with Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 is not compatible with the internal market.\n(163)\nWhile Portugal argued that Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 has never been applied and that RTP always paid all necessary registration charges after the 1992 transformation, that argument might prove valid in the case of recovery, but does not change the fact that that provision, as such, grants State aid to RTP which is not justified by Article 106(2) TFEU or any other provision of that Treaty.\n(164)\nTaking into account recital 45 to the \u2018Television without Frontiers\u2019 Directive, the Commission could accept, in so far the resulting film rights are shown on public service television, that the public service definition of public service broadcasters includes the obligation to contribute substantially to investment in European audiovisual production (85).\n(165)\nThe Commission considers that the obligation imposed on RTP to promote the cinema falls within the scope of public service broadcasting, as RTP subsequently broadcasts on public service television the films for which it has acquired the distribution rights.\n(166)\nThe Commission cannot, therefore, agree with the comments by interested parties that RTP\u2019s obligation regarding cinema promotion and its financing is discriminatory. The parties argued that private broadcasters also concluded protocols on cinema promotion with the Portuguese authorities that do not provide for compensation. However, the Commission considers that it is necessary to distinguish between the voluntary agreements on cinema promotion concluded between the State and the private broadcasters, on the one hand, and the public service broadcasting obligations imposed on RTP to broadcast cinema productions and to finance them, on the other hand. It is clear that RTP is explicitly entrusted with a public service task to support certain film productions that are subsequently broadcast as public service television programmes, whereas no such public service task is entrusted to the private broadcasters. In fact, RTP has become an instrument used by the State to support the cinema. Any resulting advantages granted by RTP to the cinema could constitute State aid and should be assessed as such. This decision is without prejudice to any assessment of possible advantages granted to film producers.\n(167)\nAccordingly, it should be concluded that the co-financing by RTP of Portuguese cinematographic works that are shown on the public service channels may be considered as a legitimate specific obligation that is instrumental in fulfilling RTP\u2019s general public service broadcasting obligations. This obligation does not, therefore, constitute a manifest error.\n(168)\nHowever, the Commission considers that the legal obligation imposed on RTP to provide \u2018other services to be specified on an ad hoc basis\u2019 (86) is not sufficiently precise to enable the Commission to assess beforehand with sufficient legal certainty whether such services can be considered as a public service. Although it takes the view that the \u2018other services to be specified\u2019 are not clearly defined, it notes that no payments were made under this provision during the period under investigation (87).\n(169)\nIn view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the activities of RTP as described in Law No 21/92 and redefined in the public service contracts are clearly defined public service obligations.\nAlthough the obligation to provide \u2018other services to be provided on an ad hoc basis\u2019 is not sufficiently precise for it to be concluded beforehand that all the services provided under this heading could be considered public services, no payments were made under this provision in the period from 1992 to 1998.\nHowever, the permanent exemption from registration and other charges is not limited to the compensation of a public service cost and can therefore not be justified under Article 106(2) TFEU.\n(170)\nSecondly, it is necessary to assess whether the public service obligations were entrusted to the recipient RTP of the State funding.\n(171)\nIn line with the Broadcasting Communication, the Commission has to verify whether the public service remit has been entrusted to RTP by means of an official act (88).\n(172)\nAs referred to in recital 48 of this Decision, the public service obligations are clearly entrusted to RTP under various laws and contracts: Article 5 of Law No 58/90, Article 4(1) and Article 5 of Law No 21/92 and clause 1 of the old and new public service contracts.\n(173)\nThe Commission did not receive any comments from interested parties or Portugal to the effect that the public service was not sufficiently entrusted to RTP by means of an official act. In line with the Broadcasting Communication and in view of the laws and contracts referred to in recital 48 of this Decision, it should be concluded that there is RTP undoubtedly must perform the public service television obligations and a public service remit has, therefore, been officially entrusted to RTP.\n(174)\nNot only is it necessary that the public service be entrusted to RTP by means of an official act; steps should also be taken to ensure that the public service is provided as required by the law and the public service contracts As referred to in recitals 49 to 59 of this Decision., different control mechanisms were in place to ensure that RTP carried out the public service obligations in the manner provided for.\n(175)\nFirstly, RTP was required to provide reports on the performance of its public service obligations and plans accompanied by an opinion of its internal board of auditors. RTP produced public service reports in for the years 1993 to 1998 that described the fulfilment of each public service obligation and identified the costs of each public service obligation through an analytical accounting system.\n(176)\nSecondly, the Minister of Finance and the responsible government member for mass media audited the observance of the public service contract and the Inspector General of Finances audited the financial plan.\n(177)\nThirdly, annual external auditing had to take place. The Commission cannot accept the argument by Portugal, repeated after the judgment of the Court in Case T-442/03, that in fact the public service reports were externally audited and that thus no further action was necessary. The situation before the adoption of Decision of 15 October 2003 may be described as follows:\n(a)\nfor the year 1992, no public service report existed, as the obligation to provide public service reports and an audit on such reports first came into place with the concession contract of 1993;\n(b)\nfor the years 1993 and 1994, there was no external audit, just a statement by the company representatives, namely of the Fiscal Council of RTP (Conselho fiscal da RTP), which is merely internal to the company;\n(c)\nfor the years 1995 to 1998, a statement by an external auditor independent from RTP and its representatives accompanied the reports. Those statements confirm that RTP respected its public service obligations. No more detailed public service reports which led to these findings could however be accessed.\n(178)\nHowever, in view of the findings of the Court in Case T-442/03 and in particular in paragraphs 232 to 256 of the judgment, the Commission could not rely exclusively on the (short) audit statements on the public service reports referred to in recital 177 of this Decision and instead accepted Portugal\u2019s offer to carry out an external audit on the basis of the existing public service reports for all the years concerned. That is to say, external audits on the fulfilment by RTP of the public service obligations were carried out for the years 1992 to 1997. For the year 1992, the external audit was carried out despite the absence of a public service report. However, the external auditor relied on other document to assess whether the public service mandate had been fulfilled. For the year 1998, no external audit has been performed, as there always existed, undisputed also by SIC, an external audit in form of the BDO Binder report 1998, which is referred to later in recitals 186-188 of this Decision.\n(179)\nThe new audits for the years 1992 to 1997 have been organised by the national media regulator, namely the Entidade Reguladora para a Comunica\u00e7\u00e3o Social, ERC. The ERC is an independent administrative body which, in accordance with the Portuguese Constitution, is responsible for ensuring, among other things, the respect for the statutes and rules governing mass media activity. It organised audits to be carried out for the years from 1992 until 1997 by contracting with the external auditor, Pedro Roque, which is independent of RTP.\n(180)\nGiven the time elapse between 1992 and the public service report audits carried out in 2010, it has been difficult to access all the data. This explained the length of the investigation and the time it took to conduct new audits. However, in the end, the audits could be carried out, as the public service reports already (except for the year 1992) existed and the auditors thus had a basis for their audit. The audits for the years from 1992 to 1997 have been submitted to the Commission.\n(181)\nThe external audits state that their mandate is to assess and monitor the public broadcasting service, as provided by RTP and the payment received by it for that task. They contain a description of the information taken into account. They refer, inter alia, to Law No 58/90 (Public service broadcasting Act, Law No 21/92 on the transformation of RTP, the public service contracts, the yearly accounts and the external audits on the yearly accounts, the Public Business Plan and Budget (Plano de Actividades e Or\u00e7amento do Servi\u00e7o P\u00fablico), the public service reports for the respective years (Relatorio sobre o Cumprimento das Obriga\u00e7aoes do Servico Publico, RCOSP). The audits mention that due to the long period of time which elapsed between the years 1992 to 1997 and the auditing contract in 2010, some documents were destroyed and certain information was not available. For that reason, the audit report mainly focused on the available reports, in particular the public service reports (89) and the certified annual accounts.\n(182)\nDespite those constraints due to the lapse of time, the auditors found it possible to fulfil their contract and carry out the audits and make an assessment of the fulfilment of RTP\u2019s public service obligation and the compensation received by it. The audits expressly state that the auditors were able to surmount the difficulties incurred to the lapse of time and carryout out the audits. For example, while the auditors make the reservation that the cost accounting criteria and methods of cost allocations were not able to be consulted, that did not prove to be an impediment for carrying out the audit and for coming to a positive conclusion. The synthesis report states that: \u2018all the costs and revenues of RTP are based on the premise that its activity only refers to the provision of public television services, and that the present audits were based on financial statements audited by both the company\u2019s internal auditor and external auditors, from which did not result any relevant facts other than the ones described in detail in the annual accounts\u2019 (90). The Commission had already established (see recital 18 of this Decision) that RTP had only conducted public service activities during the years under investigation, whereas the commercial activities were carried out by legally distinct subsidiaries of RTP. The cost allocation criteria and are therefore only relevant for placing cost allocation within the public service costs incurred by RTP and should not have any effect on the amount of the total public service costs.\nAs regards the financial information, the Commission found that the external auditors could legitimately rely on the annual financial accounts, which were always accompanied by an audit certifying the accuracy of the accounts of RTP. According to the public service contracts, the objective of the external audit on the public service report was to verify that RTP had fulfilled its public service obligations as mandated and that the public service compensation is in line with these costs performing such obligations. Therefore, while the financial data for the public service provision during the years under investigation related to the provision of public service by RTP, a further independent verification was necessary to ascertain whether the costs incurred complied with the public service mandate.\n(183)\nThe external auditors confirm that point. For the years 1992-97, the auditors come to the conclusion that: \u2018RTP had essentially fulfilled its broadcasting obligations in terms of quantity, as set out in the concession contract, with a special focus on the Broadcasting Content obligation\u2019. The auditor finds that \u2018having analysed the documents available, namely the reports of the Auditor and the Statutory Audit Committee, we did not find anything that would lead us to conclude that the documents presented, relating to the correspondence between the public service tasks provided and the payment of their real and actual cost, contain materially relevant distortions that affect their compliance with the legislation in force on that date\u2019 (91).\n(184)\nA number of audit reports mention that RTP could have requested a higher amount of compensation but was prevented from doing so due to the terms of the public service contracts, due to Article 15(4) of the old public service contract and Article 19(3) of the 1996 new public service contract. The individual external audits for the years 1994, 1996 and 1997 contain statements regarding the difference between the high costs actually incurred by RTP for providing the public service and the compensation received by it which was less than the costs incurred (92). The final synthesis report for all the years which have been audited states explicitly that: \u2018for all years, the compensatory indemnification that was attributed and paid was inferior to the amounts indicated in each RCOPS (Relat\u00f3rio sobre o cumprimento das obriga\u00e7\u00f5es de servi\u00e7o p\u00fablico, the public service reports)\u2019 (93).\n(185)\nCertain audits (with the exception of those for the years 1992 and 1993), state that RTP exceeded the legal advertising limit, i.e. it broadcasted more advertisements than it was permitted to do by the public service contracts. The revenue that RTP received for such advertising must be taken into account for calculating the public service costs, in accordance with the Broadcasting Communication, as income generated by the public service, including advertising revenues, should be integrated into the calculation of the company\u2019s public service financing need.\nThe fact that advertising limits were exceeded did not affect the auditor\u2019s analysis that for all 1992-97 the public service compensation corresponded to the public service tasks carried out by RTP and there was no overcompensation. Portugal also confirmed that in respect of the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, all advertising profits (so including those resulting from an excess of allowed advertising time) were taken into account and reduced the public service financing need respectively (94). As regards the year 1996, article 15 in the new public service contract stipulated that, for the determination of the compensation the profits resulting from the exploitation of the channels, may not be taken into account when summed the costs for the purposes of calculating the total cost of the public service. The \u2018profits\u2019 includes the advertising revenues. Portugal explicitly confirmed that the advertising profits were deducted from the amount of compensation required (95).\n(186)\nAs regards the year 1998, the external BDO Binder carried out an investigation regarding the relationship between RTP\u2019s public service remit and the costs related thereto. The BDO Binder report gives several future oriented recommendations and suggests strengthening RTP\u2019s internal controls to ensure compliance with internal regulations, but does not include any finding that RTP had received too much compensation in relation to the public service tasks carried out by it or that the figures used in the public service report drawn up by RTP and used by the Commission in Decision of 15 October 2003 could not be relied upon. When the BDO Binder report addresses concrete figures, it refers to a failure in drawing up an inventory for certain assets. However, the BDO Binder Report appears more to criticise the absence of an asset inventory (96), rather than concluding that the respective investments had not been made and that the investment values have wrongly been accounted for. However, as stressed by Portugal, figures for the respective investments were, in any event, not included in the compensation calculation, which excluded that depreciation costs for fixed assets could be reimbursed.\n(187)\nAs regarding the excess of advertising times the BDO Binder report found that all advertising income had been taken into account for the calculation of the public service financing need. Again, none of these factors lead the auditor to give a negative opinion on the fulfilment - by RTP of its public service obligations nor does it point to any overcompensation.\n(188)\nBut most importantly for the analysis in this Decision is the conclusion in the BDO Binder Report (which is not disputed by SIC), that RTP could have claimed PTE 25 billion for the fulfilment of its public service obligations, but instead only received PTE 14 billion. In other words, the BDO Binder report does not point to any overcompensation but instead comes to the opposite conclusion.\n(189)\nAs stated in Decision NN 31/06 regarding the restructuring of RTP, an external audit by PriceWaterhouse Coopers has scrutinised whether the financial information provided by the Portuguese authorities was in accordance with the RTP\u2019s financial accounts in the period 1991 to 2003, with the amounts included in the public service audit reports and with other sources of information which were considered relevant to ensure the conformity of the reported audits (see recital 38 of Decision NN 31/06). The PWC audit report validated the data without any significant remark (recital 52 of Decision NN 31/06). The PWC audit report expressly confirmed that the amounts received by RTP as public service compensation corresponded to the amounts indicated in the resolutions from the Council of Ministers (see recital 41 and table 39 of Decision NN 31/06). The PWC audit report remarked on the global under-financing of RTP. It pointed out that in addition to the public service tasks which were reimbursable under public service contracts there were public service tasks which were carried out RTP, but for which no reimbursement from the State could be demanded. The Commission concluded in Decision NN 31/06 that the PWC audit report could therefore correctly base itself on RTP\u2019s financial accounts and found that RTP was indeed chronically underfinanced. Therefore, for the purposes of this Decision, the PWC audit report can be taken as another element, in addition to the external audits on the public service reports, that the data used by the Commission in Decision 2005/403/EC were correct.\n(190)\nRegarding the complainant\u2019s argument that the report No 8/2002 of the State auditor, the Tribunal de Contas, should be taken into account, the Commission has indeed considered that report in its assessment in this Decision. Firstly, it must be acknowledged, as admitted also by SIC, that the audit report No 8/2002 covers the period from 1997 to 2000, and is therefore only relevant for the years 1997 and 1998. While figures in respect of earlier years have been mentioned in that report, they were meant to use to describe the general financial development of RTP, but were not themselves subject of the Court of Auditor\u2019s investigation.\n(191)\nMost importantly, report No 8/2002 does not point to any irregularity in RTP\u2019s financing or to any overcompensation for the years 1997-2000 (or for any of the other years). On the contrary, the report No 8/2002 points a number of times to RTP\u2019s structural financial difficulties. Accordingly, the Commission is not in a position, on the basis of the report No 8/2002 report to single out certain payments as constituting overcompensation and illegal State aid. On the contrary, the report No 8/2002 report explicitly confirms that from 1993 until late 1999, RTP\u2019s survival was achieved using a continuous and increasing indebtedness of the company.\n(192)\nAs mentioned by the complainant, the report No 8/2002 report criticises, the management of the company a number of times and points to inefficiencies which could have been avoided. The objective of the report No 8/2002 report is defined as a general review of RTP\u2019s management and the provision of public service television, in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and economy. As pointed out by the complainant, the report No 8/2002 report indicated that RTP had inflexible structures and excessive staff levels and was providing a public service in an inefficient manner. The report No 8/2002 report also criticise the excessively vague and generic concept of the public service remit and the public service contracts which invite, according to the State auditor, managerial inefficiency.\n(193)\nHowever, the concept of RTP\u2019s public service remit was investigated by the Commission in the decision of 15 November 2003. In Case T-442/03, the Court upheld that the wide definition of RTP\u2019s remit was acceptable (97). As to the alleged inefficiencies, the Commission would like to point out that this is not an aspect which needs to be considered in the application of the Broadcasting Communication.\n(194)\nThe third criterion the Commission should assess is whether the financing is proportionate to the net cost of the public service.\n(195)\nThe Broadcasting Communication describes the criteria on the basis of which the Commission assesses the proportionality of state funding. It requires that the State aid should not exceed the net costs of the public service mission and that no market distortions should occur that were not necessary for the fulfilment of the public service mission (98).\n(196)\nFirstly, in order to determine the cost of the public service activities correctly, the Broadcasting Communication requires a proper allocation of costs and revenue between the public service and commercial activities.\n(197)\nAs referred to in recitals 61-67 of this Decision, the public service contracts define the method of cost and revenue allocation that RTP must apply. In this case, the Commission\u2019s task is, in principle, made easier by the fact that RTP has implemented an analytical accounting system which permits quantification of the eligible costs incurred by it to fulfil each of the reimbursable public service obligations.\n(198)\nBy means of that system, each item of eligible expenditure is allocated to an activity and subsequently divided between the different reimbursable public service tasks of RTP, on the basis of objective accounting principles.\n(199)\nAs the revenues derived from each reimbursable public service task are deducted from the operating costs of the public service, the system guarantees that the annual compensation payments are limited to the net cost of each public service obligation (see recital 65 of this Decision).\n(200)\nThe Commission has, therefore, come to the conclusion that the parameters for determining the cost are established in an objective and transparent manner.\n(201)\nHowever, the rules of cost compensation might underestimate the real net cost of RTP\u2019s public service and could lead to structural under-financing of the real funding needs.\n(202)\nAs referred to in recital 65, under the cost calculation method laid down in the public service contracts, certain public service costs were excluded from payment by means of annual compensation (99). Moreover, Portugal informed the Commission that, although RTP had to pay VAT on the annual compensation payments received, the resulting costs could not be taken into account under the accounting rules (see recital 94) Finally, in its public service reports, RTP did not include all the investments made in public service equipment, although these were accounted for in its financial accounts (see recital 67).\n(203)\nHowever, under the Amsterdam Protocol, it is for the Member State to provide for the funding of the public service broadcasters. In this case, the Portugal decided not to reimburse some of the costs incurred by the service provider in fulfilling its tasks.\n(204)\nIn this case, the State granted not only annual compensation payments to RTP but also additional financing in the form of share capital increases, loans and an agreement with body responsible for the social security scheme. In accordance with paragraph 57 of the Broadcasting Communication, the Commission must analyse whether all measures are proportionate to the net public service costs. Only then can the financing of RTP be considered to be compatible with Article 106(2) TFEU.\n(205)\nThe Commission also considers that the public service obligations imposed on RTP which were not eligible for compensation under the public service contracts may be considered as legitimate and clearly defined public service obligations formally imposed by the State on the service provider. Therefore, under the State aid rules, Portugal may finance all the net public service costs of RTP.\n(206)\nTable 6 in recital 207 gives an overview of RTP\u2019s public service costs (both investment costs and net operating costs), as calculated under the cost accounting rules applicable, and of the compensation received for investment and operating costs.\n(207)\nFirstly, the investments in public service equipment (Table 5) and compensation provided for to finance investments (Table 2) are presented. Secondly, the net operating costs of RTP (Table 4) and the compensation payments for these costs (Table 1) are presented. Lastly, the table shows the advantage gained from ad hoc aid resulting from the agreement with the social security scheme and the loan of 1998.\nTable 6\nSummary of funding needs and compensation for the public service net operating cost under the accounting rules\n(PTE million)\n1992\n1993\n1994\n1995\n1996\n1997\n1998\nSum\nInvestment costs\n2 632,6\n2 102,0\n2 763,9\n992,7\n1 480,4\n4 037,4\n6 054,2\n20 063,2\nCapital injections\n-0\n-0\n-10 000,0\n-12 800,0\n-10 000,0\n-14 000,0\n-0\n-46 800,0\nDifference between investment costs and compensation\n2 632,6\n2 102,0\n-7 236,1\n-11 807,3\n-8 519,6\n-9 962,6\n6 054,2\n-26 736,8\nPublic service operating costs\n6 718,2\n7 960,0\n8 384,1\n8 103,3\n17 217,1\n37 972,1\n30 101,3\n116 456,1\nCompensation payments\n-6 200,0\n-7 100,0\n-7 145,0\n-7 200,0\n-14 500,0\n-10 350,0\n-14 000,0\n-66 495,0\nSocial security\n-\n-1 206,0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-1 206,0\nLoan\n-20 000,0\n-20 000,0\nDifference between operating costs and compensation\n518,2 (100)\n- 346\n1 239,1\n903,3\n2 717,1\n27 622,1\n-3 898,7\n28 755,1\nSource: Financial report and public service reports.\n(208)\nAs emphasised in recital 201 and 202, the system of annual compensation payments chosen by Portugal had the effect of underestimating the actual costs of the public service tasks performed by RTP. The system led to an accumulation of debt. At a second stage, in order to maintain RTP\u2019s financial equilibrium, Portugal used ad hoc measures to finance RTP\u2019s public service costs.\n(209)\nAs Table 6 in recital 207 shows, the capital injection overcompensated for public service investments by PTE 26 736,8 million, whereas the operating costs were underfinanced by the compensation payments and the other ad hoc measures to the tune of PTE 28 755,1 million. Although the capital injections were basically meant to finance investments in equipment, they were also used to repay accumulated debt.\n(210)\nAs Table 6 in recital 207 also shows, the total compensation was PTE 2 018,3 million less than the net public service costs (PTE 28 755,1 minus PTE 26 736,8 million). The Commission concludes, therefore, that under the Union rules total State funding is proportionate to the net operating public service costs of RTP for the period under investigation. That finding does not change if it is considered that the PTE 11 000 000 resulting from the exemption from registration charges also to be State aid (see recitals 119 and 120 of this Decision), contrary to the Commission\u2019s original assumption. Taken into account that amount, there would still be an under-financing of RTP of PTE 2 007,3 million.\n(211)\nThe Commission considers that the funds received by RTP were even lower than the total net costs incurred in fulfilling the obligations imposed on it by the State owing to the fact that Table 6 in recital 207 does not take into account all the public service costs of RTP in the period from 1992 to 1998.\n(212)\nIn accordance with the Broadcasting Communication, the Commission should ensure that the State funding is proportionate to the net costs of providing the public service, but also that no market distortions occur with respect to the commercial activities which derive from the public service activities and for which no correct cost allocation is possible on the revenue side that are not necessary for the fulfilment of the public service mission. There would be such a distortion if RTP depressed the prices of advertising on the market so as to reduce the revenue of competitors (101). In such a case, RTP would not maximise its commercial revenues and would unnecessarily increase the need for State funding. According to the Broadcasting Communication, such conduct, if demonstrated, cannot be considered as intrinsic to the public service mission attributed to the broadcaster (102).\n(213)\nIn the Decision initiating the investigation procedure of 15 November 2001, the Commission stated that, if such conduct were found to have taken place, it would take such distortions and the resulting need for higher State funding into account when assessing possible overcompensation. At that stage in the procedure, the Commission noted that \u2018on the basis of the information the Commission has in its possession at this moment, it cannot be established whether RTP engaged in such behaviour\u2019 (103).\n(214)\nFollowing the invitation to submit comments on the initiation of procedure in this case, the Commission did not receive any observations from RTP\u2019s competitors indicating or demonstrating that RTP was engaged in anti-competitive behaviour in commercial markets that could lead to increased state funding incompatible with the Treaty (104).\n(215)\nUnder the circumstances, the Commission considers that there are no indications suggesting such behaviour. Consequently, it concludes that RTP does not seem to have engaged in anti-competitive behaviour in commercial markets leading to an increased need for State funding and that no overcompensation took place as a result of such behaviour.\n(216)\nAccordingly, the Commission concludes that the agreement with the body responsible for the social security scheme, the capital injections and the subordinated loan as well as the temporary exemption from registration charges should be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. However, the funding of RTP by means of ad hoc measures is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 106(2) TFEU. The total funding is proportionate to the net costs of clearly defined, entrusted public service obligations. Therefore, the State funding did not affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent which would be contrary to the interests of the Union under Article 106(2) TFEU (105).\nVI. CONCLUSION\n(217)\nThe Commission finds that Portugal has unlawfully implemented the ad hoc aids in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU (106). This does not apply to the temporary exemption from notarial deed charges and publication fees according to Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92, as these measures are not considered to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(218)\nAs referred to in recital 143, the Commission concludes that the agreement with the body responsible for the social security in 1993, the capital injections in the period from 1994 to 1997 and the loan in 1998 constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. Similarly, the exemption from registration charges according to Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92 and the permanent exemption from charges in accordance with Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 constitute State aid. The ad hoc measures are granted through State resources, and threaten to distort competition in the internal market by favouring RTP and have an effect on trade.\nThe ad hoc measures do not fulfil the conditions set out in the Altmark judgment, as they may not be regarded as part of a compensation system, whose parameters have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner. Furthermore, it is clear that RTP was not selected by means of a public tender procedure guaranteeing the lowest possible cost and there are no indications that the amount of the ad hoc payments was determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs that a typical undertaking would incur.\n(219)\nThe exemption provided for in Article 106(2) TFEU is applicable to the ad hoc measures with the exception of the permanent exemption of RTP under Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92. As analysed the measures compensated clearly defined public service obligations sufficiently entrusted to RTP by Law No 21/92 and the public service contracts. The ad hoc measures are proportionate to the net operating public service cost of RTP. The ad hoc measures do not distort competition to an extent contrary to the Union\u2019s interest, as the measures are proportionate to the net public service cost of RTP. RTP also did not behave in an anti-competitive manner in commercial activities.\n(220)\nThe Commission finds that the permanent exemption provided for in Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 constitutes State aid which is not compatible with the internal market as it does not qualify as a compensation for the operation of a service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 106(2) TFEU. Therefore, Portugal should abolish that law. Portugal should also ensure that any aid paid to RTP under that Law should be recovered from it.\n(221)\nConsidering the above conclusions, the Commission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The following ad hoc measures granted by Portugal in favour of Radiotelevis\u00e3o Portuguesa, SA, (RTP) constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(a)\nthe rescheduling of a debt of PTE 1 206 million by Portugal to RTP in the form of an agreement with the body responsible for the social security in 1993;\n(b)\ncapital injections in the period 1994 to 1997 amounting to PTE 46 800 million;\n(c)\na loan of PTE 20 000 million granted in 1998;\n(d)\na temporary exemption from registration charges provided for in Article 11(1) of the Portuguese Law No 21/92 and amounting to PTE 11 000 000.\n2. The State aid measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article are compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 106(2) of the Treaty since they did not lead to any overcompensation of the net costs of the public service tasks entrusted to RTP.\nArticle 2\nThe exemption from notarial deed charges and publication costs provided for in Article 11(1) of the Portuguese Law No 21/92 does not constitute State aid.\nArticle 3\n1. The unlimited exemption accorded to RTP from the payment of any charges and fees in respect of any act of inscription, registration or annotation, as provided for Article 11(2) of the Portuguese Law No 21/92, constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n2. The State aid unlawfully granted by Portugal, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty, on the basis of Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92, in favour of RTP, is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 4\n1. Portugal shall repeal the law referred to in Article 3(1) of this Decision and shall order recovery of any State aid received by RTP under that provision until the repeal of the law.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of RTP until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 and to Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\nArticle 5\n1. Recovery of the aid granted under the law referred to in Article 3 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Portugal shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 6\n1. Within two months following notification of this Decision, Portugal shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\na detailed description of the measures undertaken to abolish Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92;\n(b)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from RTP;\n(c)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(d)\ndocuments demonstrating that RTP has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Portugal shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 3 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from RTP.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["20", "86", "24", "29", "94", "68", "41", "56", "33", "95", "28", "12", "0", "64", "58", "37", "79", "23", "17", "85", "1", "83", "32", "45", "50", "89", "63", "42", "13", "76", "No Label", "15", "40", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "40", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 January 2011\nappointing three Dutch members and six Dutch alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/41/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Dutch Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nThree members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Annemarie JORRITSMA-LEBBINK, Ms Luzette WAGENAAR-KROON and Mr Rob BATS.\n(3)\nFour alternate members\u2019 seats have become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Ellie FRANSSEN, Mr Job COHEN, Ms Rinda DEN BESTEN and Mr Hendrikus DE LANGE.\n(4)\nTwo alternate members\u2019 seats will become vacant following the appointment of Mr Hans KOK and Mr Henk KOOL as members of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMr H.A.J. (Hans) KOK, Burgemeester (Mayor of \u2018t Hof van Twente),\n-\nMr H.P.M (Henk) KOOL, Wethouder (alderman of The Hague),\n-\nMr S.B. (Sipke) SWIERSTRA, Gedeputeerde (member of the Executive Council) of the Province of Drenthe;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMr H.A.J. (Henk) AALDERINK, Burgemeester (Mayor of Bronckhorst),\n-\nMr J.P. (Jean Paul) GEBBEN, Burgemeester (Mayor of Renkum),\n-\nMr J.P.W. (Jan Willem) GROOT, Wethouder (alderman of Amstelveen),\n-\nMs L.W.C.M. (Loes) van der MEIJS, Wethouder (alderman of Doetinchem),\n-\nMr N.A. (Andr\u00e9) van de NADORT, Burgemeester (Mayor of Ten Boer),\n-\nMr F. (Frank) de VRIES, Wethouder (alderman of Groningen).\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["45", "94", "16", "87", "79", "36", "31", "15", "48", "29", "10", "72", "88", "17", "2", "71", "37", "26", "67", "90", "19", "18", "92", "25", "13", "14", "4", "93", "66", "11", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1299/2011\nof 9 December 2011\napproving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Azeites do Ribatejo (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and having regard to Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Portugal's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Azeites do Ribatejo\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["82", "58", "9", "74", "26", "77", "20", "17", "42", "47", "86", "18", "49", "6", "92", "57", "69", "10", "66", "53", "5", "2", "68", "35", "22", "83", "73", "15", "90", "60", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 13 July 2011\non State aid No C 6/08 (ex NN 69/07) implemented by Finland for \u00c5lands Industrihus Ab\n(notified under document C(2011) 4905)\n(Only the Finnish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/252/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1),\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nThrough a complaint lodged on 5 September 2006, the Commission was informed of a variety of measures granted by the Local Government of \u00c5land (\u2018the LG\u2019) in favour of the real estate company \u00c5lands Industrihus Ab (\u2018\u00c5I\u2019). By letters dated 25 October 2006 and 14 February 2007, the Commission requested information from Finland which was submitted by letters dated 11 January 2007 and 3 April 2007. The Finnish authorities submitted further information on 31 May 2007 and 12 July 2007. The complainant submitted additional information in November 2006 and May 2007.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 30 January 2008, the Commission informed Finland that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (\u2018TFEU\u2019) (2) in respect of the aid (\u2018the opening decision\u2019).\n(3)\nThe Commission\u2019s opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.\n(4)\nThe Commission received no comments from interested parties.\n(5)\nFurther to the opening decision, Finland submitted information which was registered with the Commission on 6 May 2008, 21 January 2010, 26 February 2010, 21 May 2010, 18 June 2010, 18 April 2011, 27 June 2011 and 28 June 2011. A meeting between the Commission services, the Finnish authorities and representatives of \u00c5I took place on 4 June 2010.\n2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\n2.1. THE BENEFICIARY\n(6)\n\u00c5I is registered in the City of Mariehamn, the capital of \u00c5land, an archipelago in the Baltic Sea between mainland Finland and Sweden with a total population of some 28 000. \u00c5land is a province of Finland but enjoys a high degree of autonomy. \u00c5I is owned mainly by the LG (84,43 %) and the City of Mariehamn (15,01 %). Other local authorities in \u00c5land make up the remaining shareholders (4).\n(7)\n\u00c5I\u2019s business is the construction, ownership and letting of buildings for industrial and commercial use. According to Finland, the objective of the company\u2019s activities is to provide buildings to companies in \u00c5land in order to contribute to a diversified and competitive economy.\n(8)\nUp until 1999 \u00c5I\u2019s business activities were modest in size (5). The balance sheet of \u00c5I grew very slowly, if at all (6). In this context the board of \u00c5I decided to start searching for new business opportunities in order to expand. At the same time, the local business community (made up almost exclusively of small enterprises) expressed a wish for a \u2018technology park\u2019, i.e. a cluster of office properties where local firms could locate under the same roof in order to facilitate cooperation, generate new ideas and enhance entrepreneurship in general. This would eventually become the \u2018iTiden\u2019 office park (kvarteret iTiden). The genesis of the project is explained in more detail in Section 2.2.\n2.2. THE iTiden PROJECT (7)\n(9)\nDiscussions between representatives of the local business community and the LG concerning the possibility of building a \u2018technology park\u2019 started back in 1999. Joint study trips were made to similar facilities in Sweden.\n(10)\nIn 2000 the project was assigned to a working group, which presented a proposal to the LG and the City of Mariehamn in the spring of 2000. The project and the LG\u2019s plans to build and finance it were mentioned in the LG budget for 2000 (8) and confirmed in the 2001 budget, in which the LG also requested funds for possible capital increases for infrastructure projects, including for \u00c5I (a similar request was made in the 2000 budget) (9).\n(11)\nOn 12 July 2001, with the help of a capital increase, \u00c5I bought land in the \u2018V\u00e4stra Klinten\u2019 district of Mariehamn, where iTiden was to be built. In connection with this purchase, \u00c5I also secured the changes necessary for the iTiden project in the town planning.\n(12)\nIn the budget for 2002 the LG declared that \u00c5I would start building the iTiden project in 2002 and that this would in all likelihood require a capital increase (for which the LG requested the necessary budgetary appropriations) (10).\n(13)\nAt the beginning of 2002 a working group for the building of iTiden was appointed and an architect commissioned. Potential tenants were sounded out for their interest in renting property in iTiden. The preparatory land works were carried out in the spring of 2003 and the construction of phase 1 (the project was designed in two consecutive construction phases) started in the summer of 2003. The first tenants moved into the completed \u2018phase 1\u2019 part of iTiden on 1 December 2004.\n(14)\nThe construction of phase 2 of iTiden was launched in the autumn of 2006 and completed in 2007.\n2.3. THE STATE AID MEASURES\n(15)\nThe Commission\u2019s formal investigation has covered several capital injections (\u2018capital increases\u2019) and guarantees for bank loans (\u2018loan guarantees\u2019) granted by the LG in favour of \u00c5I between 1997 and 2007. The measures are set out in the table below (capital injections are numbered C-I to C-XI and guarantees G-I to G-III).\nMeasure\nDate of the measure\nCapital increases\n(in EUR)\nLoan guarantees\n(in EUR)\nC-I (11)\n18.6.1997\n84 094,39\nC-II (11)\n22.6.2000\n340 582,27\nC-III (11)\n10.10.2000\n114 368,37\nC-IV\n20.7.2001\n353 199,00\nC-V\n15.8.2002\n599 933,73\nC-VI\n13.3.2003\n799 911,64\nG-I\n9.10.2003\n2 600 000,00\nC-VII\n6.5.2004\n515 165,97\nC-VIII\n30.9.2004\n669 896,95\nG-II\n2.11.2004\n1 160 000,00\nC-IX\n16.6.2005\n199 977,91\nC-X\n16.6.2005\n234 961,43\nG-III\n13.12.2005\n2 600 000,00\nC-XI\n15.2.2007\n1 379 998,95\nTOTAL\n5 292 090,61\n6 360 000,00\n(16)\nCompared with the table of the measures in point 7 of the opening decision, a loan guarantee of EUR 2 587 500 dated 26 October 2006 has been removed, as it was never put into effect (following a decision by Finnish courts). Furthermore, capital increase C-XI, dated 12 June 2006 in the opening decision, is dated 15 February 2007 here as it became clear in the investigation that this measure had been put into effect at that later date. The LG\u2019s decision to grant this capital increase has recently (6 April 2011) been annulled by Finland\u2019s Supreme Administrative Court (see recital 114 below). However, as the capital was paid to \u00c5I in 2007 and has not been paid back, the Commission considers that the national court decision does not remove this measure from the scope of its investigation.\n(17)\nAccording to the Finnish authorities, all capital increases were provided to finance the iTiden project, with the exception of the following:\nC-I: Capital injection of 18 June 1997 (EUR 84 094,39)\nC-II: Capital injection of 22 June 2000 (EUR 340 582,27)\nC-III: Capital injection of 10 October 2000 (EUR 114 368,37)\nC-VIII: Capital injection of 30 September 2004 (EUR 669 896,95)\nC-IX: Capital injection of 16 June 2005 (EUR 199 977,91).\n(18)\nAll the loan guarantees, according to Finland, were issued with the purpose of financing the iTiden project. More details on the loan guarantees are given in recitals 66 to 86 below.\n3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 108(2) TFEU\n(19)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission questioned whether the capital increases and loan guarantees were compatible with the internal market on the following grounds.\n(20)\nAs regards the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Commission noted that the measures involved State resources, as they were granted by the local authorities, and that they were selective, as they were targeted at \u00c5I. As regards the criterion of whether the measures granted an \u2018advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions\u2019 because a private investor, guided by the prospect of profitability in the long run, would not have given the same support, the Commission doubted that a private investor would have provided capital as the LG did, given \u00c5I\u2019s long record of losses or, at best, very modest profits. With respect specifically to the loan guarantees, the Commission doubted that \u00c5I would have been able to obtain comparable financial support on the markets, and that they consequently provided \u00c5I with an advantage. The Commission also considered that any such advantages would be liable to distort competition and intra-Community trade.\n(21)\nIf the measures were considered State aid, the Commission doubted that they could be viewed as compatible with the internal market.\n(22)\nFinally, the Commission questioned Finland\u2019s claim that the measures, if they were indeed considered to constitute State aid, had been granted in compliance with aid schemes that applied already prior to Finland\u2019s accession to the EU and would thus be lawful.\n4. COMMENTS FROM FINLAND\n4.1. THE MEASURES ARE NOT STATE AID\n(23)\nFinland has taken the view that the LG has acted in accordance with the market investor principle, i.e. that the measures were guided by the LG\u2019s prospects of return on its investment. Finland has argued that the investment decisions were motivated by the company\u2019s programme of new investments, chiefly by the iTiden project. The measures were thus not intended to cover previous losses, or to support a loss-making business. The LG has obtained concrete value for its investments in new shares in \u00c5I, as the company\u2019s value increased in line with the share subscription. \u00c5I did not, therefore, obtain any advantage that it would not have been able to obtain from a private investor.\n(24)\nIrrespective of any possible advantage, Finland has also taken the view that the measures cannot be classified as State aid, because there is no concrete evidence of a significant effect on competition in the \u00c5land real estate market.\n4.2. IF STATE AID, IT IS LAWFUL UNDER EXISTING AID SCHEMES\n(25)\nHowever, if the measures were found to include a State aid element, the aid, according to Finland, should be considered as lawful. Finland has argued that both the capital injections and the guarantees were covered by existing aid schemes that were put into place prior to Finland\u2019s EU membership.\n4.3. IF IT IS NEW STATE AID, IT IS NEVERTHELESS COMPATIBLE WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET\n(26)\nShould the measures constitute unlawful State aid, they should nonetheless be considered compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, as their purpose has been the development of the region and the creation of new jobs, mainly by contributing to the diversification of the region\u2019s economy, which relies too heavily on the shipping industry.\n4.4. POSSIBLE RECOVERY\n(27)\nShould the Commission find that the aid constitutes unlawful and incompatible aid that needs to be recovered, Finland put forward the following arguments.\n(28)\nUnder Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (12) the Commission will not require recovery of aid where this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law. This would be the case here, since Finland had legitimate reasons to expect that the abovementioned schemes, which pre-dated accession, were and still are valid, and thus that any aid granted under these rules would be lawful.\n(29)\nShould the Commission nevertheless consider than the aid is to be recovered, Finland argues that the aid element in the capital increases is not necessarily the full nominal amount of the transactions that comprise State aid. In respect of the guarantees, any aid to be recovered cannot be larger than the interest advantage obtained by the firm as a result of the guarantee (by comparison to non-guaranteed loans). Similarly, concerning the capital injections, any aid cannot be more than \u00c5I\u2019s cost of obtaining equivalent capital on the market.\n5. ASSESSMENT\n5.1. QUALIFICATION AS STATE AID\n(30)\nAccording to Article 107(1) TFEU, \u2018any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(31)\nThe qualification of a measure as State aid requires that the following conditions are met: (a) it must be financed by a Member State or through State resources; (b) it must grant a selective advantage liable to favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods; and (c) it must distort or threaten to distort competition and have the potential to affect trade between Member States. These conditions being cumulative, they must all be present before a measure is characterised as State aid.\n5.1.1. STATE RESOURCES AND SELECTIVITY\n(32)\nFor the reasons indicated in the opening decision (and which have not been contested by Finland), these two criteria are met. The measures are granted by individual decisions taken by the LG to make use of funds that it has been allocated in its annual budget by the regional assembly of \u00c5land. The measures are thus clearly financed by the State and individually targeted at \u00c5I.\n5.1.2. ADVANTAGE\n(33)\nFinland has argued that the measures are not State aid because they did not provide \u00c5I with an advantage that it would not have been able to obtain on the markets, be it from a private shareholder or from a private creditor.\n(34)\nIt is a settled principle of State aid law (usually referred to as the Market Economy Investor Principle, or MEIP) that an investment by public authorities in the capital of undertakings constitutes State aid unless in similar circumstances a private investor, having regard in particular to the prospects of achieving a return, might have provided the same capital (13). Similarly, under point 3.1 of the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (14) (\u2018the Guarantee Notice\u2019), a guarantee provided by public authorities will constitute State aid unless funding is made available on conditions which would be acceptable for a private operator under the normal conditions of a market economy.\n(35)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission expressed doubts that the MEIP was met in relation to the capital injections and guarantees, based in particular on two observations concerning \u00c5I:\n(a)\n\u00c5I\u2019s long record of losses or negligible profits in the years in which the measures were granted. Indeed, \u00c5I made losses in every year between 2001 and 2005. The profits between 1998 and 2000 were small and decreasing (respectively EUR 38 000, 28 000 and 9 000). Similarly, when \u00c5I eventually again showed a profit in 2006 this was a mere EUR 557,43. The profit forecasted for 2007 in 2006 (i.e. what was anticipated when the decision to grant the last measures were taken) was only EUR 5 868,46 (15).\n(b)\nIn addition, it appeared to the Commission that \u00c5I\u2019s cash flow was insufficient to cover its costs, and had been so since 2000, which led to the presumption that the measures had been necessary simply to cover this cash drain (16).\n(36)\nFinland has dismissed this view. Its arguments will be discussed below separately for the capital increases and the loan guarantees.\n5.1.2.1. The capital injections\n(37)\nFirst of all, Finland dismisses the view that \u00c5I had a liquidity problem. In fact, although the company\u2019s operations had been limited in size prior to the iTiden project, its operational result and liquidity had been satisfactory and remained so throughout the period covered by the investigation. The measures have thus not been necessary to cover the operations\u2019 costs. Rather, the measures were intended to finance the expansion of the company and should consequently be considered investments. In the light of the conditions of these investments, they were justified under the Market Economy Investor Principle and consequently do not constitute State aid.\n(38)\nIn this context, Finland argues that most capital increases were used to finance the iTiden project, whereas the rest were intended for \u00c5I's other projects (see recital 17 above).\n(39)\nThe Commission makes the following assessment.\n(40)\nAs a preliminary point the Commission underscores that the capital that a shareholder provides to a firm is by definition not earmarked for a certain use but becomes part of the tangible equity of the company. It is therefore normal, when an investment is provided as general equity, to assess its compliance with the MEIP against the general performance prospects of the firm as a whole. This does not exclude, where evidence thereof is available, making an assessment of the expected return on specific planned investments, provided of course that such information was available at the time when the investment decision was made.\n(41)\nAs regards the general financial performance of \u00c5I, the Commission accepts, based on the evidence submitted in the investigation, that the operational result of \u00c5I consistently covered its losses and ensured liquidity. The evidence available does not allow the conclusion that the capital increases (or the loans obtained through the guarantees) were used to cover losses stemming from \u00c5I\u2019s operations.\n(42)\nHowever, the fact remains that the LG made available to \u00c5I important additional capital that prima facie generated no or very little profits between 1997 and 2006. The crux therefore is - as Finland itself argues - whether the LG had reason to expect a return on its capital that would have been sufficient for a private investor to have made the same investment. This has to be assessed on the basis of what was known to the LG at the time of the capital increases.\n(43)\nFinland has argued that the lion\u2019s share of the capital increases was intended to finance the iTiden project, phases 1 and 2, whereas the remaining capital increases were assigned to various other investments. For reasons of clarity, the capital increases that were used to finance the iTiden project are dealt with first in the analysis presented below.\n(44)\nFinland argues that all capital increases with the exception of C-I, C-II, C-III, C-VIII and C-IX were made with the purpose of funding iTiden, which was by far \u00c5I\u2019s biggest single project. The earliest capital increase assigned to the iTiden project was thus made in 2001 (C-IV).\n(45)\nAs regards the conditions on which these capital increases were made by the LG, and crucially the return that was expected at the time of the decision, Finland has provided the following information:\n(46)\nThe LG\u2019s decisions to proceed with the capital increases related to iTiden were made on the basis of information provided at informal meetings involving the LG and representatives of \u00c5I. Finland states that no minutes were kept of these meetings. Finland has nevertheless submitted to the Commission presentations made at such informal meetings or at meetings of \u00c5I\u2019s board. These contain succinct accounts of the background and main features of the iTiden project and profitability calculations for iTiden phase 1 and phase 2. This evidence consequently allows the Commission to ascertain what return was anticipated by the LG at the time it made the capital increases related to iTiden.\n(47)\nOn 31 January 2002, \u00c5I held an informal meeting with the LG in order to secure its approval to launch the construction of iTiden in 2002 (subsequent to the purchase of the land which had taken place in 2001). At this meeting, \u00c5I presented a profitability calculation, where the assumption was that the project would yield a yearly return of 3 % on \u00c5I\u2019s own equity.\n(48)\nAnother informal meeting between \u00c5I and the LG was held on 4 March 2003 in order to prepare \u00c5I\u2019s general assembly on 5 March 2003. The general assembly was to decide on launching the construction of phase 1 of iTiden, which had not been carried out in 2002. An updated profitability calculation was provided. In this calculation it was estimated that phase 1 would yield a surplus of only EUR 700 assuming no return on \u00c5I\u2019s own equity.\n(49)\nOn 2 January 2006 the board of \u00c5I met to discuss the launch of the construction of phase 2 and the call for a capital increase that would be launched to finance this. According to a profitability calculation presented at the meeting, the project would break even with a return on equity of 3 %. However, this calculation had to be revised to account for the increased cost of adapting the buildings to the tenant\u2019s needs. Thus, a revised calculation was established on 10 January 2006 to serve as a basis for the capital increase decided at the general assembly on 12 June 2006 (although the capital increase was only paid on 15 February 2007 for technical reasons - this is capital increase C-XI). In this calculation, the assumed annual return on own equity for phase 2 of iTiden was set at 1 %.\n(50)\nFinland has provided this evidence and states that this accurately accounts for the contemporaneous yield expectations based on which the LG decided to make the capital increases for the iTiden project, i.e. C-IV, C-V, C-VI, C-VII and C-X for phase 1 and C-XI for phase 2. These profitability assessments are based on anticipated revenue (i.e. rents) from iTiden. Finland has argued that the return on the LG\u2019s investment should also take into account the prospect of capital gains consisting in an increase in value of the property over time. However, Finland has provided no concrete evidence of this. Such considerations are not integrated in the profitability calculations, which indicate that they were not taken into account when the investment decisions were made. On the basis of the above evidence, the Commission finds that a private investor would not have made similar investments against this expected return.\n(51)\nAny investor putting money into a project that involves some element of risk (such as commercial real estate development) will demand a return that adequately reflects the risk inherent in the investment. Thus, he will expect a \u2018risk premium\u2019 that exceeds the known return that he can receive from an alternative, risk-free asset (\u2018the risk-free rate\u2019). A common benchmark for the risk-free rate are AAA-rated government bonds for shorter maturities. For the purpose of this assessment, the yield on two-year Finnish government bonds is used, as Finland did not issue bonds with shorter maturities. Accordingly, this gives a risk-free rate of between 2,7 and 4,2 % in 2002, between 2,2 and 2,7 % in 2003 and between 2,8 and 3,8 % in 2006.\n(52)\nCompared to the return on equity expected by the LG when it decided to make the iTiden-related capital increases, the Commission observes that the LG could have achieved the same or even higher returns without any of the risk associated with the property projects. Indeed, even under the most optimistic reading, the \u2018risk premium\u2019 (i.e. the return exceeding the risk-free premium) would have been at most 0,3 % for capital increases C-IV and C-V (i.e. the capital increases of 2001 and 2002). For the capital increases made as a result of the 2003 decision to launch the construction of phase 1 of iTiden (and thus on the basis of the expected returns presented at the informal meeting of 4 March 2003, see recital 48 above), i.e. C-VI, C-VII and C-X, the expected return was zero, meaning that an infinitely better return could have been achieved by taking no risk at all. Similarly, for the capital increase for phase 2, C-XI, the expected return of 1 % was largely inferior to the risk-free rate available at the time.\n(53)\nIt is obvious that no private investor would have been satisfied with the negative, or marginal, risk premium that the LG was ready to accept for the capital increases mentioned in recitals 47 to 49 above. If need be, this can be corroborated by empirical data on expected returns in the \u00c5land property market.\n(54)\nAccording to a report (17) from KPMG dated 10 July 2007, commissioned by the Finnish authorities and submitted to the Commission on 17 July 2007, the return demanded by private investors on office property investments in \u00c5land is 7 % (and 8 % for industrial property). Although this report was drawn up later than the investment decisions of the LG at issue in this decision, it is nevertheless relevant, as the report is based on observations of past investments and there is no obvious reason to believe that the required return would have been significantly lower in the preceding years. At any rate, it provides convincing indications that the returns expected by \u00c5I would not have been sufficient for a private investor.\n(55)\nFinland has argued that, despite the low or zero expected return, the investments would be consistent with the MEIP because (i) prior to starting construction, \u00c5I had approached potential tenants and was confident that it would achieve an occupancy rate of at least 80 % and (ii) in view of the actual financial performance of \u00c5I (and thus principally of the iTiden project) in the years from 2004 onwards, and the potential capital gains thus accrued, the investments turned out to be profitable.\n(56)\nIn this respect, and without it being necessary to go into the merits of \u00c5I\u2019s financial performance in later years, it suffices to reiterate that the question is not whether the firm\u2019s results today are adequate but whether, based on what was known and could be assumed at the time when the LG decided to make the State resources available to \u00c5I (having regard to the expected 80 % occupancy rate), a private investor acting on market terms would have provided the same capital to the firm. For the reasons explained above, the Commission finds that a private investor would not have done so.\n(57)\nConsequently, the Commission finds that capital increases C-IV, C-V, C-VI, C-VII, C-X and C-XI have provided \u00c5I with an advantage that it would not have been able to get on market terms (18).\n(58)\nThe Commission will now look at the remaining capital increases covered by the opening decision which, according to Finland, where not motivated by the iTiden project.\n(59)\nUnder the de minimis rules applicable at the time of this capital injection, subsidies of less than ECU 100 000 granted to an undertaking over a period of three years did not constitute State aid (19). This capital increase amounts to EUR 84 094,39, i.e. well below the ECU 100 000de minimis ceiling. \u00c5I did not benefit from any other measure during a period of three years (20). Based on this, the 1997 capital injection would in any event - irrespective of the circumstances in which it was performed - not constitute State aid.\n(60)\nFinland has indicated that these measures were intended for the construction of an industrial property in Norrb\u00f6le, the renovation of a property in Mariehamn (C-II) and the purchase of an industrial property in the eastern part of \u00c5land (C-III). There is thus no clear link to the iTiden project, which at that time had not yet clearly taken shape (this would happen in 2001 when the land was purchased).\n(61)\nAlthough it is true that \u00c5I\u2019s overall profits were modest or negative in the period 1998-2007, the fact is that it turned a modest profit in 2000 and the two preceding years and that losses started in 2001. It has been shown in the investigation that the company was covering its costs and that the liquidity position was adequate. The investments motivating these two capital increases seem proportionate to the size and \u2018traditional\u2019 business model of \u00c5I prior to the expansion linked to the iTiden project. There is therefore no compelling reason to consider that a private investor would not have undertaken the same capital increases, and there is thus no clear evidence of an advantage to \u00c5I.\n(62)\nUp until 2000 \u00c5I\u2019s business operations were showing modest but positive results (in the range of EUR 9 000 to EUR 38 000 in 1997-2000). \u00c5I\u2019s business operations were in accordance with the company\u2019s plan in place then. Accordingly \u00c5I owned and let warehouses and offices around the \u00c5land Islands. The stock of real estate owned by \u00c5I had remained very stable until 2000, which also explains the company\u2019s stable financial performance. \u00c5I\u2019s turnover was in the range of EUR 95 000 to EUR 101 000 in 1997-2000. Accordingly, although with a relatively small turnover, \u00c5I was able to make its businesses profitable.\n(63)\nAccording to Finland, these capital increases were used to purchase an industrial property (C-VIII) and to construct a hangar at Jomala airport outside Mariehamn (C-IX).\n(64)\nAlthough not immediately justified by the iTiden project, these measures were implemented in circumstances that were completely different from those affecting previously discussed measures C-II and C-III. Capital increases C-VIII and C-IX were undertaken in 2004 and 2005, respectively. At that time, \u00c5I had been operating at a loss since 2001. Crucially, too, these investments were made at a time when the LG had already invested more than EUR 2,25 million in \u00c5I since 2001 on the understanding that this investment would not provide a return that would be acceptable to a market investor.\n(65)\nThe inadequate return on the iTiden project would inevitably impact negatively on \u00c5I\u2019s result as a whole. Indeed, the equity of an undertaking is not earmarked but fungible and has to be remunerated from the overall performance of the firm. It must therefore have been clear to the LG, at the time when they undertook measures C-VIII and C-IX, that any additional increases in the capital of \u00c5I was unlikely to produce an adequate return in the foreseeable future. A market investor would have been ready to make those capital injections if those investments had allowed a market return on the overall performance of the firm (i.e. a return that would have compensated for the low returns of the other capital increases), but there is nothing suggesting that this was expected to be the case. Finland has not provided any specific information regarding those measures that would change this view. The Commission consequently considers that no private investor would have provided additional capital to \u00c5I in these circumstances. Capital increases C-VIII and C-IX have thus provided \u00c5I with an advantage that it would not have been able to obtain on the market.\n5.1.2.2. The loan guarantees\n(66)\nWhen assessing the possible State aid involved in guarantees, the Commission applies the principles laid down in its Guarantee Notice. Point 3.2 of the Notice sets out the conditions that would normally be sufficient to rule out the presence of State aid in a guarantee granted by public authorities. However, these conditions are not met concerning guarantees G-I, G-II and G-III (it is sufficient to record that these guarantees covered 100 % of the underlying loans, see point 3.2(c) of the Guarantee Notice).\n(67)\nThe Commission first notes that \u00c5I\u2019s financial position in the period in which the guarantees were granted was strong enough not to exclude the firm\u2019s ability to obtain loans on the market without guarantees. The firm was not a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Commission\u2019s Guidelines on Rescue and Restructuring Aid (21). It cannot be concluded on the basis of the available evidence that \u00c5I was a firm that would not have survived at all without state support. In the years preceding the capital injections, i.e. before the launch of the iTiden project, \u00c5I\u2019s financial performance was stable and its business operations showed moderate positive results. The reason why the public authorities started massively injecting capital in 2001 was not to rescue the firm but to finance its growth. In the absence of the aid in the form of capital increases, \u00c5I would not have been a bankrupt firm but a smaller firm that still would have had access to the financial markets. The Commission cannot, therefore, conclude that \u00c5I would not have had access to credit markets without guarantees. The question is then whether the guarantees afforded the firm an advantage in the form of lower loan costs than it would have paid on market terms, in the absence of a guarantee.\n(68)\nThe question that needs to be examined next is whether an adequate premium is charged for the guarantees, comparable to what would have been charged by a private guarantee provider. In the present case, the Commission has found no private guarantees that allow for a ready comparison. In such circumstances, the Commission will compare the total financial cost of the guaranteed loan, including the interest rate of the loan and the guarantee premium, with the market premium of a similar non-guaranteed loan (22).\n(69)\nOn 9 October 2003, [\u2026] (23), a commercial bank, granted \u00c5I a loan amounting to EUR [\u2026] against collateral [\u2026]. The interest rate was set at [\u2026]% per annum until 15 January 2007 (24).\n(70)\nAlthough this loan was contemporaneous with guarantee G-I, the Commission does not consider it a suitable comparison for the cost of that measure. Indeed, between June 2000 and March 2003, \u00c5I received five capital injections for a total amount of EUR 2 208 595,01. State support of such magnitude will inevitably have influenced the risk assessment conducted by [\u2026] before granting the loan and thus improved the loan terms, including cost, compared to the terms that the firm would have been able to obtain on the markets in the absence of the State aid element in the capital increases. Therefore, the Commission cannot assume that the interest rate for the 2003 non-guaranteed loan (or any later loans) accurately reflects the credit terms of \u00c5I in the absence of State aid and cannot use it as a credible and reliable benchmark for the cost of the loans covered by the guarantees granted by the LG.\n(71)\nThe Commission considers that, in the absence of any other reliable evidence as to comparable loans on market terms, the Reference Rate Communication (25) provides an appropriate benchmark external to the beneficiary for assessing whether measures G-I, G-II and G-III were granted on market terms. The Reference Rate Communication provides a proxy for the market rate and for calculating the aid element in aid measures. The methodology for defining the reference rate is based on the following two factors: the base rate (in this case the one-year Euribor) to which a loan margin is added. The loan margin to be added to the base rate depends on two factors: the rating of the undertaking receiving the loan and the level of collateral offered for the loan. The communication distinguishes five rating categories (strong [AAA-A], good [BBB], satisfactory [BB], weak [B] and bad [CCC and below]) and three collateralisation levels (high, normal and low) for each rating category.\n(72)\nOn 18 June 2010, Finland submitted to the Commission a report from the consultancy firm [\u2026] that provides an annual rating for \u00c5I for December each year. The rating is prepared retrospectively and based on the figures available at the end of the financial year (i.e. the rating given in December 2002 looks retrospectively at the health of the company in 2002). [\u2026] produced the rating report describing the overall financial status and development of the company and covering the following sectors of evaluation: growth, profitability, cash flow, liquidity, solvency and obligations. The applied rating scale has five rating categories: excellent (A + and A), good (A - and B +), satisfactory (B and B -), adequate (C + and C) and poor (C - and D), allowing a direct comparison with the rating scale of the Reference Rate Communication.\n(73)\nIn December 2002, 2003 and 2004, [\u2026] rated \u00c5I respectively at C +, C + and C, which places the company in the category \u2018adequate\u2019. This category corresponds to the \u2018weak\u2019 rating category within the meaning of the Reference Rate Communication. For a company rated \u2018weak\u2019, the loan margins to be added to the base rate under the Reference Rate Communication range, depending on the collateral offered, from 220 bps for a high collateralisation to 650 bps for a low collateralisation. In December 2005, [\u2026] rated \u00c5I at B - (satisfactory), which corresponds to a \u2018satisfactory\u2019 rating within the meaning of the Reference Rate Communication.\n(74)\nOn 27 June 2011 Finland submitted additional information on the rating and collateralisation of the loans. The rating was produced by [\u2026], the bank that gave \u00c5I the non-guaranteed loans and two of the guaranteed loans. The [\u2026] rating uses a letter system for the years 2000 to 2003, complemented with one-word qualifications. The rating is readily comparable with the rating scale of the Reference Rate Communication. For 2005 onwards, the rating is provided by [\u2026], a consultancy firm similar to [\u2026]. In 2003 and 2004 [\u2026] rated \u00c5I at B - (satisfactory) and A (satisfactory), which corresponds to a \u2018satisfactory\u2019 rating within the meaning of the Reference Rate Communication. This means that for 2003 and 2004 [\u2026] rated \u00c5I one category higher than [\u2026] did. For 2005 [\u2026] rated \u00c5I at A (satisfactory), which translates into a \u2018satisfactory\u2019 rating according to the Reference Rate Communication and thus places \u00c5I in the same category as [\u2026] does.\n(75)\nThe Commission is of the opinion that the rating of [\u2026] should be applied when assessing whether guarantees G-I, G-II and G-III were granted on market terms. Bearing in mind that before the first guarantee G-I was granted in October 2003, when \u00c5I had already received five capital injections for a total of EUR 2 208 595,01, any rating of the company in 2003 is likely to have been affected by the considerable amount of State support. Therefore the Commission considers it appropriate to apply the more conservative rating produced by [\u2026]. This has an impact for 2003 and 2004, as for these two years [\u2026] rated \u00c5I one category lower than [\u2026]. It should also be noted that [\u2026] granted \u00c5I loans guaranteed by the LG while at the same time producing \u00c5I\u2019s rating, which might have affected the assessment. [\u2026] was not involved in the financial proceedings and their assessment is thus less likely to have been directly influenced by undue considerations linked to the State aid.\n(76)\nConsequently, the Commission assumes the following ratings for \u00c5I for the purpose of applying the Reference Rate Communication: weak (B) in 2003 and 2004 and satisfactory (BB) in 2005.\n(77)\nAs regards the collateral, \u00c5I provided collateral at the nominal value of the guarantees in the form of mortgages on real estate on which the iTiden project was built. Finland has not provided Loss Given Default (LGD) related information under footnote 2 of the Reference Rate Communication. This information helps to define the level of collateralisation and the loan margins to be added on top of the base rate. Therefore the Commission requested information on the priority of the mortgages pledged and the value of the property at the time of granting the guarantees. Finland does not have valuations that show the value of the property at the time of the guarantee measures. The Finnish authorities have, however, argued that the value of the property has accrued over time, as the project progressed. According to Finland, in 2010 the property was valued at EUR [\u2026].\n(78)\nAs regards the seniority of the collateral, the Commission notes that for guarantees G-I and G-II, the LG collateral had the highest seniority of all mortgages granted on the property. The Commission notes that commercial banks have granted non-guaranteed loans to \u00c5I and accepted as collateral mortgages on the same property that rank lower in seniority (and are thus less good collateral) than the collateral received by the LG. In view of this, and in the absence of better evidence, the Commission assumes that the level of collateralisation of the guarantees was \u2018normal\u2019 for the purpose of applying the Guarantee Notice.\n(79)\nOn the basis of the above, the reference rate will be assessed separately for each guarantee that \u00c5I received from the LG.\n(80)\nThe Commission notes that, for all guarantees granted to \u00c5I, the premiums were made up of two parts: (i) a recurrent premium, paid annually and expressed as a percentage of the outstanding principal of the loan and (ii) a \u2018one-off\u2019 fee, also expressed as a percentage of the loan amount, but paid only once, at the emission of the guarantee. In the assessment below, the total financial cost of the guaranteed loans includes only the recurrent premium paid annually. In accordance with point 4.2 of the Guarantee Notice, the aid element of a guarantee should be calculated as the difference between the market price (in this case the reference rate) and the price actually paid. The price actually paid by \u00c5I includes the recurrent premium paid annually and a one-off premium paid only once. For practical reasons the one-off premium will be addressed below in Section 8.2 dealing with recovery, since it is easier to deduct the amount of the one-off fee from the amount of aid to be recovered. In any case, even if the one-off premiums were added to the total financial costs of the guaranteed loans, the conclusion as to the presence of aid would not change. The one-off premium affects only the amount of aid granted to \u00c5I.\n(81)\nGuarantee G-I was granted by the LG on 9 October 2003 to cover a loan of EUR [\u2026] from [\u2026] to \u00c5I (credit number [\u2026]). As collateral for any claims under the guarantee, \u00c5I provided a mortgage on real estate. The interest rate on the loan was set at [\u2026]% until 15 January 2007 (26). The premium for the guarantee was [\u2026]% of the loan amount p.a (27). Thus, the total financial cost of the guaranteed loan at the time of granting the loan amounted to [\u2026]% p.a., which should be compared with a reference rate calculated for the guarantee on the basis of the base rate and a margin that depends on \u00c5I\u2019s rating and the collateralisation level of the loan. The base rate (one-year Euribor) on 9 October 2003 was 2,235 %. At the time \u00c5I was rated \u2018weak\u2019 within the meaning of the Reference Rate Communication. As established above, the Commission assumes that the collateralisation level of the loan was normal, which means that the loan margin to be added on top of the basis rate is 400 bps. Therefore, the reference rate for this loan amounts to 6,235 %, which is higher than the total financial cost of G-I amounting to [\u2026]% p.a.\n(82)\nIn addition, as from 6 September 2004, the LG reduced the guarantee premium for G-I to [\u2026]%. Accordingly, the total financial cost of the guaranteed loan came to [\u2026]%, i.e. [\u2026] basis points below the reference rate, thus generating a corresponding advantage for \u00c5I.\n(83)\nOn 2 November 2004 \u00c5I took a loan of EUR [\u2026] from [\u2026] (credit number [\u2026]). This loan was secured by a guarantee from the LG, for which \u00c5I provided security in the form of a lien on real estate. The interest rate was set at [\u2026] + [\u2026] basis points and the guarantee fee at [\u2026]% of the loan amount p.a., meaning that the total financial cost of this guaranteed loan was [\u2026]% p.a (28).\n(84)\nThe reference rate for G-II has to be calculated on the basis of the one-year Euribor on 2 November 2004, which was 2,314 %. At the time \u00c5I was rated \u2018weak\u2019 within the meaning of the Reference Rate Communication. Assuming a normal level of collateralisation, the reference rate for this loan amounts to 6,314 % p.a., which is higher than the total financial cost of G-II amounting to [\u2026]% p.a. Comparing the costs of this new guaranteed loan with the reference rate shows that the total financial cost of the loan covered by guarantee G-II was at least [\u2026] basis points below the reference rate, thus providing a financial advantage to \u00c5I. According to the information available to the Commission, the interest rate on the guaranteed loan has not changed since it was issued.\n(85)\nOn 13 December 2005, the LG issued a new guarantee in favour of \u00c5I. This guarantee was to cover the \u2018reference loan\u2019, i.e. the originally non-guaranteed loan of 9 October 2003, the terms of which were thus amended. The interest rate of the loan was at this point changed to [\u2026]% p.a. The guarantee fee was set at [\u2026]% of the loan amount, meaning a total financial cost of [\u2026]% p.a. (29) (the terms applied from this date are identical to those, described above, that apply to the loan covered by guarantee G-I, including the changes to the interest rate over time).\n(86)\nThe reference rate for G-III has to be calculated on the basis of the one-year Euribor on 13 December 2005, which was 2,769 %. At the time \u00c5I was rated \u2018satisfactory\u2019 within the meaning of the Reference Rate Communication. Taking into account a normal level of collateralisation, the reference rate for this loan amounts to 4,969 % p.a. This is higher than the total financial cost of G-III amounting to [\u2026]% p.a. Therefore, the LG has given \u00c5I a corresponding financial advantage of at least [\u2026]% p.a.\n5.2. DISTORTION OF COMPETITION AND EFFECTS ON TRADE\n(87)\nThe Finnish authorities have claimed that the measures in question do not affect trade between Member States and do not therefore constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In support of this argument Finland has in essence argued that \u00c5I is only one of several firms active on the real estate market, and not the largest one. There is thus no evidence that the measures, if they are considered to constitute State aid, would have strengthened \u00c5I\u2019s position to the detriment of competitors.\n(88)\nThe Commission cannot accept this argument. The fact that \u00c5I has been provided with a financial advantage that was not made available to its competitors (and, as Finland has confirmed, there are several other operators on the \u00c5land real estate market) means that \u00c5I has been able to make large investments and expand its operations on financial terms that were more advantageous than those made available to its competitors (who, in the absence of the advantage granted to \u00c5I, might have chosen to make similar investments). It is not necessary to demonstrate that the measures have allowed \u00c5I to take market shares from any specific competitor.\n(89)\nSimilarly, the advantage granted to \u00c5I was liable to affect trade between Member States. It is true that \u00c5land is a small market, located on an archipelago that can only be reached by sea or air, and that specific restrictions on the right of establishment apply there by virtue of Finland\u2019s EU Accession Treaty. However, the fact remains that there is no absolute obstacle to foreign undertakings operating in \u00c5land, and certainly no obstacle to such undertakings making investments in the local property market. The Commission also notes that Finland has not disputed the statement in the opening decision that real estate in \u00c5land has in the past been acquired by undertakings based in other Member States. Any advantage granted to \u00c5I through these measures would thus have at least the potential to affect trade between the Member States by unduly strengthening \u00c5I\u2019s position in relation to potential foreign competitors or investors.\n5.3. CONCLUSION ON THE QUALIFICATION OF STATE AID\n(90)\nFor the above reasons, the Commission finds that all capital increases (with the exception of C-I, C-II and C-III) and loan guarantees G-I, G-II and G-III constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.\n6. ALLEGED LAWFULNESS OF THE AID\n(91)\nFinland has argued that both the capital injections and the guarantees, if State aid, were lawful under aid schemes that were put into place prior to Finland\u2019s EU membership and duly submitted to the EFTA Surveillance Authority (\u2018ESA\u2019) prior to EU accession under references 93-074 (capital increases) and 93-079 (guarantees).\n(92)\nThis argument should be examined in the context of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. Pursuant to Article 1(d), \u2018aid scheme\u2019 means \u2018any act on the basis of which, without further implementing measures being required, individual aid awards may be made to undertakings defined within the act in a general and abstract manner and any act on the basis of which aid which is not linked to a specific project may be awarded to one or several undertakings for an indefinite period of time and/or for an indefinite amount\u2019. Furthermore, according to Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, \u2018existing aid\u2019 means: \u2018(i) without prejudice to Sections 144 and 172 of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, all aid which existed prior to the entry into force of the Treaty in the respective Member States, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which were put into effect before, and are still applicable after, the entry into force of the Treaty\u2019.\n(93)\nFinland acceded to the European Community on 1 January 1995. Moreover, according to paragraph 5 of Section 172 of the Treaty of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden \u2018[\u2026] state aids granted by new Member States during 1994 but which, in contravention of the EEA Agreement or arrangements made thereunder, either have not been notified to the ESA or have been notified but granted before the ESA took a decision, shall not as a consequence be considered as existing state aids under Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty [\u2026]\u2019.\n(94)\nFurthermore, according to Article 1(c) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, \u2018new aid\u2019 means all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid (30).\n(95)\nFinally, Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (31) defines alteration of existing aid as \u2018any change, other than modifications of a purely formal or administrative nature which cannot affect the evaluation of the compatibility of the aid measure with the common market. However an increase in the original budget of an existing aid scheme by up to 20 % shall not be considered an alteration to existing aid.\u2019\n(96)\nFrom the above it follows that a measure that pre-dates accession and constitutes a State aid scheme can be said to be existing aid if two conditions are satisfied. The first is that the scheme was put into effect before the entry into force of the EC Treaty and the second is that its substance has not been substantially altered since.\n(97)\nThe Commission will assess the Finnish argument about the lawfulness of the aid separately for the two alleged schemes.\n6.1. THE ALLEGED GUARANTEE SCHEME (93-079)\n(98)\nThe Commission will first assess whether these measures constitute an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.\n(99)\nThe national legal basis for the guarantee scheme is the provincial Act on provincial guarantees for industry and certain other enterprise sectors (\u00c5FS 1966:14) (32), which was passed in 1966, and amended by \u00c5FS 1979:84, 1982:37, 1988:53, 1992:9, 1994:29, 1996:56 and 2002:23. As regards the budget or \u2018envelope\u2019, at the time of Finland\u2019s accession to the EC, the 1966 provincial Act stipulated that \u2018the amount of outstanding guarantees or loans (33) may not at any given time exceed FIM 20 000 000\u2019. On the other hand, the measure in question does not provide for any temporal limitation to their application.\n(100)\nIn the light of the above and of the provisions of the national act, the measures would prima facie appear to meet the definition of an aid scheme, as it seems that the act allows aid which is not linked to a specific project to be awarded to one or several undertakings for an indefinite period of time. The alleged scheme in question was put in place on 1 September 1982, i.e. well before 1 January 1994, and was communicated to the ESA. Thus the first condition for existing aid seems to be satisfied, because the original scheme was put in place before the entry into force of the Treaty in Finland and even before 1 January 1994, which means that paragraph 5 of Article 172 of the Treaty of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden is not applicable in this case.\n(101)\nHowever, the Commission must also assess whether the measures have undergone any substantive alterations since 1 January 1994.\n(102)\nAt least three amendments to the guarantee scheme were enacted by the regional authorities after 1 January 1994 (by Provincial Acts 1994:29, 1996:56 and 2002:23) and prior to the granting of the first guarantee on 14 August 2003. These amendments provided for a substantial increase in the budget of the scheme (i.e. an increase in the global amount of guarantees that could be granted at any given time). Since the present case concerns the granting of a loan guarantee, it should be assessed whether the alterations concerning the budget of the scheme, introduced prior to the measures under discussion, should be considered as substantial and severable from the existing scheme.\n(103)\nAs described, according to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 budget increases of more than 20 % constitute an alteration of an existing aid scheme. Two of the abovementioned amendments (34) have increased the original budget of the scheme by 50 % and 150 %, respectively. These budget increases constitute substantive alterations to the scheme which were never notified to the Commission.\n(104)\nThe effect of these substantive alterations cannot be considered as severable from the alleged scheme, with the result that the scheme in its entirety becomes new aid. Indeed, the original aid scheme was limited only as regards the total amount of guarantees that could be outstanding at any given time. With this particular configuration, a very substantial increase in the budget (even without any other alteration of the scheme) touches upon the very essence of the existing rules.\n(105)\nIn addition, the Commission notes that it does not appear from the guarantee documents submitted by Finland that the legal basis of these guarantees was the alleged guarantee scheme.\n(106)\nConsequently, the guarantees covered by this decision must be considered new aid. Given that the aid has been put into effect without prior approval by the Commission as required by Article 108 TFEU, it is unlawful.\n6.2. THE ALLEGED SHARE SUBSCRIPTION SCHEME (93-079)\n(107)\nThe national rules concerning this alleged scheme were declared to ESA as aid arrangements for share subscriptions. It appears from the documents submitted at the time that the \u2018Annual budget for \u00c5land\u2019 was given as the national legal basis. Under the heading \u2018maximum possible aid intensity that (\u2026) can be obtained in favour of any one project\u2019, Finland has indicated \u201830 %\u2019. Furthermore, under the heading \u2018Budget/expenditure\u2019 Finland has indicated budgets for the years 1992 to 1994 but left a blank under the heading \u2018Total budget estimate for the whole planning period of the scheme\u2019.\n(108)\nIn the course of the investigation, Finland has explained that the formal legal basis of the alleged scheme is the Act on the Autonomy of \u00c5land (1144/1991), which was passed in 1991. Under Section 18(22) the \u00c5land local authorities have \u2018general powers\u2019 to adopt different sorts of measures focusing on the promotion of \u00c5land\u2019s economy. These powers are implemented (e.g. by means of loans, capital injections, guarantees) through provisions in the annual general budget of the LG.\n(109)\nThe Commission notes the following:\n(110)\nIrrespective of the fact that Finland may qualify the powers of the local authorities to provide such capital injections (under the general powers they are granted by the Autonomy Act) as a \u2018scheme\u2019, the Commission must verify whether the provisions of the national law laying down those powers meet the definition of a \u2018scheme\u2019 under Article 1(d) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. It appears in this respect that the legal basis (Section 18(22) of Act 1144/1991) consists of rules that relate to the allocation of powers between different authorities within the Finnish legal order and that do not meet the requirements for constituting an aid scheme (which is defined among other things as \u2018\u2026 an act on the basis of which, without further implementing measures being required, individual aid awards may be made \u2026\u2019). Any allocation of capital to an individual beneficiary would thus first require an appropriation in the annual budget of the LG (voted by the \u00c5land regional assembly at its discretion) and then the implementation of decisions taken by the LG. It appears thus that capital injections granted under those powers are to be seen as a succession of individual decisions rather than an aid scheme.\n(111)\nIn any event, the Commission also notes that the alleged scheme concerned only the years 1992 to 1994, as no other information was given under the heading \u2018Budget/expenditure\u2019 although the legal basis was the \u2018annual budget for \u00c5land\u2019.\n(112)\nFinally, the Commission notes that Finland had indicated that the maximum aid intensity that can \u2018be obtained in favour of any one project\u2019 is 30 %. This can, in any event, only be understood as meaning that capital injections under this alleged scheme were intended to be used together with significant private contributions (at least 70 %) towards \u2018projects\u2019 intended to promote the objectives of the alleged scheme, given as being \u2018Tourism, industry, R&D\u2019. The capital increases at issue in this decision do not meet this formal condition and can consequently not be covered by the national legal provisions that were submitted to the ESA, irrespective of whether these measures constituted a proper aid scheme and if so whether it applied beyond 1994.\n(113)\nConsequently, the State aid given in the form of capital increases to \u00c5I constitutes new aid. As the aid has been put into effect without prior approval by the Commission as required by Article 108 TFEU, it is unlawful.\n6.3. ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON RECENT DECISIONS BY FINLAND\u2019S SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT\n(114)\nIt should also be noted that two measures granted by the LG to \u00c5I have recently been annulled by a national Finnish court. The measures are (i) capital increase C-XI paid to \u00c5I in 2007 (see comment at recital 16 above) and (ii) a 2006 loan guarantee that was never implemented. By decision of 6 April 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court ruled on whether the LG\u2019s decisions were taken in compliance with national administrative rules. However, in doing so, the Court also assessed whether there were sufficient indications that the measures constituted State aid, meaning that the local authorities should have notified them to the Commission before putting them into effect. The Court finds that all criteria of State aid are met prima facie. The Court also analysed Finland\u2019s claim that the measures - if they did constitute aid - would be covered by the national rules that applied prior to accession and consequently qualify as \u2018existing aid\u2019. In doing so, the Court made an in-depth assessment of the national rules and found that, irrespective of whether these rules amounted to genuine State aid schemes or not, the decisions of the local authorities did not comply with the formal requirement under the national rules, mainly owing to the reasons presented above by the Commission. Therefore the conclusions of the national Supreme Administrative Court are in accord with those of the Commission that the capital injection C-XI under investigation includes new State aid. The Supreme Court came to the same conclusion regarding the 2006 loan guarantee. As the guarantee was never put into effect, it has not been assessed in this decision.\n7. COMPATIBILITY\n(115)\nFinland has argued in general terms that the measures, if found to constitute new State aid, would nevertheless be compatible with the internal market because the purpose of \u00c5I\u2019s activities, as financed by the aid, was to facilitate the development of the region and create new jobs.\n(116)\nState aid, although in principle prohibited, will nevertheless be considered compatible with the internal market in the circumstances mentioned in Article 107(2) TFEU and may be considered compatible if it is used to achieve the objectives mentioned in Article 107(3). The only ground for compatibility that can be envisaged in this case is 107(3)(a) TFEU, which allows for aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious unemployment, or Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, which provides that State aid may be authorised to facilitate the development of certain economic areas.\n(117)\nUnder the regional aid rules applicable to Finland at that time (the Regional Aid Maps 2000-2006 and 2007-2013), the City of Mariehamn where iTiden is located was in any event not eligible for such aid. This means that even if the aid could be said to be assigned to that project, it could not be deemed compatible. In addition, the Commission notes that Finland has not shown that any of the conditions for compatibility under the regional aid rules (regarding e.g. the form of aid, eligible costs or maximum aid intensities) are met.\n(118)\nNor can the aid be considered compatible with the internal market under any of the other Guidelines and Communications adopted by the Commission with regard to the application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU or directly under that Article. The Finnish authorities have not provided any specific argument or evidence enabling the Commission to approve those measures as compatible under any provision of the TFEU.\n8. RECOVERY OF THE AID\n8.1. FINLAND\u2019S ARGUMENTS\n(119)\nArticle 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 provides that \u2018where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary [\u2026]. The Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law.\u2019 The natural consequence is therefore that the measures that constitute unlawful State aid to \u00c5I should be recovered.\n(120)\nFinland has, however, argued that the Commission should refrain from ordering recovery in this case, because Finland had legitimate expectations that the aid was lawful under the alleged pre-accession schemes and that recovery would be contrary to a principle of Community law. The Commission notes that Finland has formally argued legitimate expectations only as regards the LG. Legitimate expectations on behalf of the beneficiary were not expressly argued.\n(121)\nIn any event, the Commission cannot accept this argument.\n(122)\nAs regards the capital increases, the Commission has shown above that, irrespective of what \u00c5I or anyone else may have had reason to believe about the legal status of the alleged share subscription scheme in relation to State aid rules, they did not even comply with the formal conditions of the alleged scheme as it had been notified to ESA. It is thus not possible to argue that \u00c5I could benefit from a legitimate expectation as to the lawfulness of the capital increases, since these could not have been covered by the national rules in relation to which Finland claims to have had legitimate expectations.\n(123)\nConcerning the loan guarantees, the Commission has shown that the guarantee scheme had been substantively altered even before the granting of the guarantees at issue in this decision. These alterations, made by the \u00c5land authorities, have not been notified to the Commission. The consequence is that any guarantees granted under the national rules that made up the original scheme have to be considered new aid. It is well-established that no beneficiary of aid can legitimately expect that aid that should have been notified to the Commission under Article 108 TFEU but has not been so, is lawful (35).\n(124)\nIn summary, both the guarantees and the capital increases constitute new State aid that should have been notified to the Commission before implementation.\n(125)\nIt is established case law (36) that a Member State whose authorities have granted aid contrary to the procedural rules laid down in Article 108 TFEU may not rely on the legitimate expectations of the aid recipients in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligation to take the steps necessary to implement a Commission decision instructing it to recover the aid. If national authorities were able to rely on their own unlawful conduct, they would completely invalidate Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU and deprive decisions taken by the Commission under these provisions of their effectiveness.\n(126)\nThe same principle must necessarily apply when the national authorities argue that they themselves had a legitimate expectation about the legality of the measures, but did not notify them to the Commission although the measures constituted new aid (37).\n(127)\nLikewise, insofar as the legitimate expectations of \u00c5I are relevant, the Commission notes that according to established jurisprudence, in view of the mandatory nature of the supervision of State aid by the Commission under Article 108 of the TFEU, undertakings to which aid has been granted may not, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in that Article. A diligent businessman should normally be able to determine whether that procedure has been followed (38).\n(128)\nThe Commission points out that no firm was in a better position than \u00c5I to have insight into the actions of the LG concerning the alleged aid schemes, since the LG is its main shareholder and is represented on the \u00c5I board by individuals who are also members of the LG executive. This argument is corroborated by the fact that, as shown above in connection with the capital increases, representatives of \u00c5I and the LG regularly exchange information. Therefore, even though the Finnish authorities have not expressly argued legitimate expectation on behalf of the aid beneficiary, the Commission believes that \u00c5I cannot claim any legitimate expectation in the present case.\n(129)\nFinally, the Commission has never given either Finland or the aid beneficiary any precise assurance that the measures at issue would not be State aid or would be compatible aid, which might create expectation to that effect (39).\n(130)\nFinland has further argued that in the event of a recovery of aid granted through the capital increases, the aid element should not necessarily be the whole amount of the capital provided, but rather (by analogy with the calculation of the aid element in guarantees), the cost to \u00c5I of finding alternative investment on the markets. In this respect, Finland has suggested that the cost of such alternative funding could be established by reference to the 7 % expected return on investment for office property as established in the KPMG report.\n(131)\nThe Commission cannot accept this view.\n(132)\nIt is certainly correct, as a general proposition, that State aid in a given case is constituted by the difference between the advantage (in the form of funding) that the firm has effectively received from State resources and what it would have been able to obtain on the capital markets. Consequently, \u2018by repaying the aid, the recipient forfeits the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to payment of the aid is restored\u2019 (40).\n(133)\nAnyone making an investment, be it by providing credit or by taking an equity stake in a firm, will seek to have a return on his investment that is commensurate with the risk.\n(134)\nWhen the aid is given in the form of a credit at a cost below markets costs (which is the case for a guaranteed loan when the total financial cost is lower than the interest rate of a market loan) to a firm that is not excluded from the loan market and that would thus, as an alternative to the aid, have been able to take out a loan at market rate, it is clear that the reparative purpose of the recovery can be achieved by making the firm pay the difference (with interest), thus putting it back on a par with its competitors.\n(135)\nThe situation is different for equity investments. The return here is not dependent on the firm\u2019s willingness to pay (as in the case of a loan) but is entirely a factor of the inherent profitability of the firm\u2019s business model. Unless the private investor believes that the business will adequately remunerate the risk it entails, he will not make the investment but put his money elsewhere. In other words the Commission cannot accept that the company would have been able to get the same money in the capital market to increase its capital by offering a higher remuneration because its expected performance did not allow it to offer this higher remuneration to any equity investor. The counterfactual, i.e. the situation in the absence of aid which the recovery is intended to restore or bring about, is thus that no capital would have been invested at all. The aid to be recovered is therefore the full amount of the capital increases.\n(136)\nThe Commission can consequently not accept Finland\u2019s view as regards the aid element in the capital increases.\n8.2. AID TO BE RECOVERED\n(137)\nIn consequence, the unlawful and incompatible aid that has been identified by the Commission and that Finland shall recover from \u00c5I is as follows:\n(138)\nCapital increases:\n(a)\nCapital increase C-IV: EUR 353 199,00. This aid was put at the disposal of \u00c5I on 20 July 2001.\n(b)\nCapital increase C-V: EUR 599 933,78. This aid was put at the disposal of \u00c5I on 15 August 2002.\n(c)\nCapital increase C-VI: EUR 799 911,64. This aid was put at the disposal of \u00c5I on 13 March 2003.\n(d)\nCapital increase C-VII: EUR 515 165,97. This aid was put at the disposal of \u00c5I on 6 May 2004.\n(e)\nCapital increase C-VIII: EUR 669 896,95. This aid was put at the disposal of \u00c5I on 30 September 2004.\n(f)\nCapital increase C-IX: EUR 199 977,91. This aid was put at the disposal of \u00c5I on 16 June 2005.\n(g)\nCapital increase C-X: EUR 234 961,43. This aid was put at the disposal of \u00c5I on 16 June 2005.\n(h)\nCapital increase C-XI: EUR 1 379 998,95. This aid was put at the disposal of \u00c5I on 15 February 2007.\n(139)\nLoan guarantees: the aid element for all guarantees is calculated as the difference between, on the one hand, the reference rate applied as a benchmark for loan costs a company with financial strength comparable to \u00c5I would have borne without the guarantee and, on the other, the interest rate obtained by means of the State guarantee after any premiums paid have been taken into account, pursuant to point 4.2 of the Guarantee Notice (as explained in detail in recitals 66 to 80).\n(a)\nAs regards guarantee G-I, the aid element is made up of the difference between the reference rate for a loan to a firm in the rating category \u2018weak (B)\u2019 and with a normal collateralisation and the total financial cost of the loan covered by the guarantee (understood as the premiums paid for the guarantee plus the interest on the loan). This aid was put at the disposal of \u00c5I on 9 October 2003 (as explained in recitals 81 and 82). From this amount shall be deducted the one-off guarantee premium of EUR 19 500 (41).\n(b)\nAs regards guarantee G-II, the aid element is made up of the difference between the reference rate for a loan to a firm in the rating category \u2018weak (B)\u2019 and with a normal collateralisation and the total financial cost of the loan covered by the guarantee (understood as the premiums paid for the guarantee plus the interest on the loan). This aid was put at the disposal of \u00c5I on 2 November 2004. From this amount shall be deducted the one-off guarantee premium of EUR 2 900 (42).\n(c)\nAs regards guarantee G-III, the aid element is made up of the difference between the reference rate for a loan to a firm in the rating category \u2018satisfactory (BB)\u2019 and with a normal collateralisation and the total financial cost of the loan covered by the guarantee (understood as the premiums paid for the guarantee plus the interest on the loan). This aid was put at the disposal of \u00c5I on 13 December 2005. From this amount shall be deducted the one-off guarantee premium of EUR 6 500 (43).\n(140)\nThe exact total amount of aid to be recovered will be determined by the Finnish authorities, in collaboration with the Commission, within the framework of the recovery procedure according to the methodology described in recitals 138 to 139 above. To the aid amount to be determined shall be added interest from the date on which the aid was put at the disposal of the recipient until the date of its recovery. The Commission calls on the Finnish authorities, in accordance with their duty of sincere cooperation, to collaborate with it in determining the exact amount of aid to be recovered,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe capital increase in the amount of EUR 84 094,39 granted by Finland in favour of \u00c5lands Industrihus AB on 18 June 1997 does not constitute State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThe State aid measures listed in Section 8.2 of this Decision unlawfully granted by Finland, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of \u00c5lands Industrihus AB are incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 3\n1. Finland shall recover the State aid referred to in Article 2 from the beneficiary.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\n4. Finland shall cancel all outstanding payments of the aid referred to in Article 2 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Finland shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 5\n1. Within two months following notification of this Decision, Finland shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Finland shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Finland.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2011.", "references": ["26", "12", "43", "93", "63", "89", "33", "9", "1", "28", "35", "37", "60", "80", "72", "11", "41", "31", "77", "49", "7", "6", "65", "58", "70", "45", "25", "52", "94", "3", "No Label", "8", "15", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 21/2011\nof 12 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 January 2011.", "references": ["50", "57", "25", "17", "46", "5", "0", "21", "81", "12", "54", "37", "34", "27", "85", "95", "80", "77", "51", "30", "28", "8", "63", "89", "40", "14", "90", "55", "59", "52", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 998/2010\nof 5 November 2010\nconcerning the authorisation of Enterococcus faecium DSM 7134 as a feed additive for chickens for fattening (holder of the authorisation Lactosan GmbH & Co KG)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of Enterococcus faecium DSM 7134 as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of Enterococcus faecium DSM 7134 has been authorised for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 538/2007 (2), for sows by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1521/2007 (3) and was provisionally authorised for 4 years for chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 521/2005 (4).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for the authorisation of the preparation for chickens for fattening. The European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 27 May 2010 (5) that Enterococcus faecium DSM 7134, under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that it has the potential to be efficacious, when fed to the target species, by improving zootechnical parameters. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of Enterococcus faecium DSM 7134 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018gut flora stabilisers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 November 2010.", "references": ["55", "61", "24", "69", "99", "49", "71", "62", "23", "20", "68", "44", "79", "17", "35", "42", "11", "22", "9", "8", "47", "18", "31", "45", "28", "32", "94", "30", "81", "89", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 833/2012\nof 17 September 2012\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium foils in rolls originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 20 December 2011, the European Commission (the \u2018Commission\u2019) announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (\u2018Notice of Initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of certain aluminium foil in rolls originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 9 November 2011 by the European Association of Metals (Eurom\u00e9taux) (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain aluminium foil in rolls. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.\n2. Parties Concerned by the Proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant, other known Union producers, the exporting producers in the PRC, producers in the analogue country, importers, distributors, and other parties known to be concerned, and representatives of the PRC of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the Notice of Initiation.\n(4)\nThe complainant, other Union producers, the exporting producers in the PRC, importers and distributors made their views known. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(5)\nIn view of the apparent high number of Union producers, importers and exporting producers sampling was envisaged in the Notice of Initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(6)\nIn order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and if so, to select a sample, importers and exporting producers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the Notice of Initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned (as defined in section 3 below) during the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011.\n(7)\nAs regards the Union producers, in the Notice of Initiation the Commission announced that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers on the basis of the information received from the cooperating Union producers prior to the initiation of the investigation. That sample consisted of the four largest known companies or groups of companies in the Union.\n(8)\nAs explained in recital (24) below, only two unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. Therefore, in view of the limited number of cooperating importers, sampling was deemed to be no longer necessary. A third importing company provided a submission without submitting a questionnaire response.\n(9)\nAs explained in recital (26) below, 14 exporting producers in the PRC provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. On the basis of the information received from these parties, the Commission selected a sample of four exporting producers having the largest volume of exports to the Union.\n(10)\nIn order to allow exporting producers to submit a claim for market economy treatment (\u2018MET\u2019) or individual treatment (\u2018IT\u2019), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to all Chinese exporting producers known to be concerned and to the authorities of the PRC. Two companies came forward and requested MET, one company was part of the selected sample, the other not. Requests for IT were received from the companies in the sample and the company that requested MET but was not part of the sample.\n(11)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all exporting producers that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the Notice of Initiation, namely the four sampled companies and all other companies in order to allow them to request individual examination. Questionnaires were also sent to other parties known to be concerned, namely the four sampled Union producers, the cooperating importers in the Union, users and an association of consumers.\n(12)\nReplies were received from three sampled exporting producers in the PRC, from the four sampled Union producers and two unrelated importers. Also six retailers replied to the user's questionnaire.\n(13)\nThe Commission has not received any claims for individual examination in accordance with Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(14)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\nProducers in the Union\n-\nCUKI Cofresco SPA, Volpiano (TO), Italy;\n-\nFora Folienfabrik GmbH, Radolfzell, Germany;\n-\nITS BV, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands;\n-\nSPHERE Group, Paris, France.\nExporting producers in the PRC\n-\nCeDo Shanghai Co. Ltd., Shanghai;\n-\nNingbo Favoured Commodity Co. Ltd., Ningbo;\n-\nNingbo Times Co. Ltd., Ningbo;\n-\nShanghai Blue Diamond Co. Ltd., Shanghai.\nRelated importer in the Union\n-\nCeDo Limited, Telford, UK\nProducer in Turkey (analogue country)\n-\nSedat Tahir Ltd., Ankara\n(15)\nIn order to collect information concerning the cost of the major indirect raw material in the production of aluminium foil, i.e. primary aluminium, information from the Shanghai Futures Exchange (\u2027SHFE\u2027 or \u2027Exchange\u2027), the main trading patform for aluminium in China was sought. Information about world markets and prices was requested from the London Metal Exchange (\u2027LME\u2027), to which also an information visit was paid. The SHFE provided some written information following the request of the Commission. The Commission also proposed an information visit to SHFE which initially was accepted. However at a later stage, the SHFE considered that an approval from the Chinese government would be required for such a visit. The Chinese authorities on the other hand denied that such an approval would be necessary. Eventually the SHFE reversed its initial acceptance and decided not to accept the visit.\n(16)\nAn information visit was paid to Shanghai Metals Markets (\u2027SMM\u2027), a price information provider and publisher in Shanghai.\n3. Investigation Period\n(17)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 (the \u2018investigation period\u2019 or the \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from January 2008 to the end of the IP (\u2018period considered\u2019).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product Concerned\n(18)\nThe product concerned is aluminium foil of a thickness of 0,007 mm or more but less than 0,021 mm, not backed, not further worked than rolled but whether or not embossed, in low weight rolls of a weight not exceeding 10 kg (\u2018the product concerned\u2019 or \u2027aluminium foil in rolls\u2027 or \u2027AHF\u2027). The product concerned currently falls within CN codes ex 7607 11 11 and ex 7607 19 10.\n(19)\nThe product concerned is generally used as a consumer product for packaging and other household/catering application. The product definition was not contested.\n2. Like Product\n(20)\nThe investigation has shown that aluminium foil in rolls produced in and exported from the PRC, aluminium foil in rolls produced and sold in the Union by the Union producers and aluminium foil in rolls produced and sold in Turkey (the analogue country) by the cooperating Turkish producer have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses and are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. SAMPLING\n1. Sampling of Union Producers\n(21)\nIn view of the apparent large number of Union producers, sampling for the determination of injury was provided for in the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(22)\nIn the Notice of Initiation the Commission announced that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. This sample consisted of the four largest (groups of) companies, out of more than 30 Union producers that were known to produce the like product prior to the initiation of the investigation. The selection of the sample was done on the basis of the producers' sales volume, their size and geographic location in the Union and the proposed sample represented 44 % of the total estimated Union production during the IP. Interested parties were invited to consult the file for inspection by interested parties and to comment on the appropriateness of this choice within 15 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. After the deadline for comments, one interested party argued that the sample should have included a producer from the United Kingdom. In this respect, it is noted that a UK producer company (part of the Sphere Group) was indeed in the sample. No other interested party opposed the final sample and the sample was, consequently, confirmed.\n2. Sampling of Unrelated Importers\n(23)\nIn view of the potentially large number of importers involved in the proceeding, sampling of importers was provided for in the Notice of Initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(24)\nOnly two unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to cooperate. Consequently, sampling was no longer deemed to be necessary.\n3. Sampling of Exporting Producers\n(25)\nIn view of the apparent large number of exporting producers, sampling for the determination of dumping was provided for in the Notice of Initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(26)\nA total of 14 exporting producers in the PRC provided the requested information and agreed to be included in a sample. These companies exported around 7.800 tonnes, i.e. around 60 % of the Chinese exports to the EU market in the IP. On the basis of the information received from these parties, the Commission selected a sample of four exporting producers having the largest representative volume of production, sales and exports which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. One of the sampled companies subsequently withdrew its cooperation and another notified the Commission that the information it has provided to the Commission in its sampling form was erroneous. Based on this new information it was decided to exclude this company from the sample of companies. The Commission invited two further companies to be in the sample. The cooperating exporting producers, the Mission of the PRC to the EU and the complainant were consulted about the final composition of the sample. No interested party opposed this selection. Subsequently one of the newly sampled companies also withdrew its cooperation. The final sample thus included three exporting producers in the PRC covering around 30 % of the imports of the product concerned to the Union during the IP and representing 50 % of the sales volume of the 14 exporting producers which provided data for the sampling exercise.\nD. DUMPING\n1. Market Economy Treatment and Individual Treatment\n1.1. Market Economy Treatment (MET)\n(27)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those exporting producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.\n(28)\nTwo companies, CeDo Shanghai Co. Ltd.(\u2018CeDo Shanghai\u2019) and Shanghai Blue Diamond Co. Ltd. (\u2018Blue Diamond\u2019), came forward and requested MET. Only CeDo Shanghai was selected to be part of the sample as explained above; the other company was not. However, following the judgement by the Court of Justice in Case C-249/10 \u03a1 Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council of the European Union, it was decided to examine all MET claim forms received within the deadline - i.e. the claims by the two above mentioned companies.\n(29)\nThe claims for MET were analysed against the five criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, the MET criteria are set out in summarised form below:\n-\nbusiness decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values,\n-\nfirms have one clear set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and are applied for all purposes,\n-\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system,\n-\nbankruptcy and property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty, and\n-\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates.\n(30)\nOn-the-spot investigations regarding MET claims were carried out at the premises of these companies.\n(31)\nFor both companies, MET was denied under Criterion 1 of Article 2(7)(c) based on evidence that the price of the upstream basic raw material, aluminium, was distorted. These distortions were also found in the price of the intermediate raw material, aluminium foil in jumbo rolls as described below. The companies also failed to meet other criteria as explained below.\n1.1.1. Industry-wide conclusions concerning Criterion 1- Business decisions and costs of major inputs\n(32)\nAluminium foil in small rolls is produced through a simple process of rewinding, cutting and packaging of aluminium foil on jumbo rolls onto smaller rolls. The main raw material for the production of aluminium foil is primary aluminium. Primary aluminium accounts for ca. 60-70 % of the costs of production of the product concerned by this investigation and it is thus the main cost-driver in its production. This is reflected in the industry-wide practice of quoting both purchasing and sales prices for aluminium foil on the basis of a reference price for primary aluminium (aluminium ingot) plus a production / conversion fee. Indeed, the companies requesting MET purchased aluminium foil on jumbo rolls on the basis of purchase contracts that set the price of aluminium foil on jumbo rolls with reference to primary aluminium prices published in the SMM, a price information provider on different metals, which quotes these prices on the basis of spot traded prices in the Shanghai area. The SMM publication is highly representative of domestic aluminium prices. These prices follow very closely prices quoted on the SHFE where most transactions take place in China.\n(33)\nThe world-wide reference for the price of primary aluminium, which is a commodity, is the quotation at the LME. The price of aluminium on the domestic Chinese market diverges significantly from LME prices. As shown in the following graph, the LME v. SHFE price difference in the IP ranged from + 500 to - 90 USD/tonne. During the investigation period, the price quotation at the LME has been, on a monthly average basis more than 9 % higher than in the SHFE (net price), the difference reaching as high as + 23 % in the middle of the period. It is also noteworthy that during the latter part of the IP when globally prices were decreasing due to a market contraction in demand, the opposite trend could be observed in the SHFE prices, (resulting even in prices 3 % above LME prices) which further illustrates the price distortions prevalent in this market.\n(34)\nThis substantial price divergence of primary aluminium compared to the rest of the world, as explained above, is considered to be due to a combination of a series of State-driven factors and significant interference by the State in the domestic market with a number of tools. This State influence resulted in the creation and existence of a rather isolated domestic market for primary aluminium in China insulated from market forces.\n(35)\nFirst of all, the SHFE is controlled by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (\u2027CSRC\u2027). SHFE performs its functions in accordance with the Regulation on the Administration of Futures Trading, the Measures for the Administration of Futures Exchanges and its AoA. Several of these state-imposed rules governing the functioning of the Exchange contribute to low volatility, distorted prices and price trends at the SHFE: daily price fluctuations are limited to 4 % above or below the settlement price of the previous trading day, trading happens at a low frequency (until the 15th day of each month), futures contracts are limited to a duration of up to 12 months, open interests by traders are limited to a certain amount, price speculation is restricted.\n(36)\nAccess to the Exchange is limited by law only to Chinese traders which also need an approval from CSRC to trade on the Exchange. Market representatives of SHFE members can only perform transactions at the request of SHFE members, cannot accept orders from other organizations and cannot trade on their own account. Physical deliveries can only take place in an approved warehouse within the PRC, unlike international exchanges, where delivery can take place worldwide. Moreover, as they are a platform for physical exchanges only (no derivatives are sold) this completely insulates the Chinese aluminium markets. As a consequence, arbitrage with the LME or other markets is practically not possible and the Exchange works in isolation from world markets. Thus an equalization among these markets cannot take place.\n(37)\nSecond, the State interferes in the price setting mechanism in the SHFE given its position both as a seller of primary aluminium and as a purchaser via the State Reserve Bureau and other State Bodies. For example, the Chinese Government enacted a stimulus package aiming at limiting the effects of the economic crisis at the end of 2008 and this package included a scheme for the State Reserves Bureau to buy aluminium from smelters in order to support their operations by artificially increasing domestic demand as the global financial / economic crisis reduced global demand. Those State arranged purchases distorted the prices significantly during the first half of 2009. It is interesting to note in this respect that at the end of the investigation period prices on the Chinese domestic market moved in an opposite direction to prices on world markets.\n(38)\nThe Chinese State described its policy of interference in the aluminium sector in its 12th 5-Year Development Plan for Aluminium (2011-15). The plan states \"adjusting tax and export tax rebates and other economic levers, and strictly control the total amount of expansion and exports of primary products\". In practice this means that a combination of specific tax schemes is geared to promote the aluminium industry. These tools discourage the exports of primary aluminium from the PRC whilst encouraging the imports and the manufacture of downstream products (such as the product concerned) incorporating aluminium for both the domestic and export markets.\n(39)\nThis plan continues the policy which has existed for many years in previous Plans. Furthermore these plans have been implemented over many years and during the IP several implementing measures were in operation and are described below. These schemes are:\n1)\nan export duty of 17 % on primary aluminium and aluminium scrap (compared with a 0 % duty on aluminium foil in small rolls);\n2)\na VAT rebate of 0 % on primary aluminium (compared with the 15 % rebate on aluminium foil since June 2009);\n3)\nelimination of the 5 % import duty on metal.\n(40)\nThus the combination of these measures is used by the State to restrict exports of primary aluminium, which in turn results in an increased domestic supply and leads to a reduction of its price on the domestic market.\n(41)\nThe large majority of the Chinese aluminium smelters are state-owned. The various industrial plans that clearly influence aluminium production capacity and output, currently in particular the 12th 5 -year plan (2011-2015) for the Aluminium Industry encourages the strategic development of \"aluminium deep processing products and to promote aluminium fabrication industry to further extend industrial chain\".\n(42)\nThe measures taken by the Chinese State as described above were consequently considered as evidence of underlying State interference in decisions of firms regarding acquisition of raw materials and their production costs. Indeed, the current Chinese system of high export duties and lack of VAT reimbursement for export of primary aluminium, combined with no export taxes and partial VAT reimbursement on exports of the downstream aluminium products such as the product concerned, and State interference in the setting of prices in the SHFE, has essentially lead to a situation where Chinese primary aluminium prices and the prices of downstream aluminium products (also used as raw material in the production of other aluminium products) are the result of State intervention independent from price fluctuations on international markets. This has a direct influence on company decisions when acquiring downstream aluminium raw materials. Prices of aluminium have always been distorted and, except for a very limited period of time when as mentioned above other State distortive priorities appear to have been in play, this has provided an unfair advantage to Chinese producers of aluminium foil.\n(43)\nBearing in mind that primary aluminium accounts for ca. 60 % of cost of production of aluminium foil in small rolls this difference is translated into an unfair significant cost advantage for Chinese producers, which for a commodity type product like aluminium foil in small rolls is decisive.\n(44)\nCeDo Shanghai disputed the findings of the Commission after they were disclosed to them. First, it claimed that some of the Commission's findings are erroneous and inconsistent which negatively affects the overall finding concerning business decisions of firms in the PRC. Specifically it stated that access to the SHFE is not limited to Chinese nationals as it is possible to open accounts with brokers who have the authorization to trade on the SHFE. Overall, the company did not dispute the fact that controlled actions on the side of Chinese State exist, but in its view the purpose of these actions is not to distort prices and secure a low volatility on the market, but rather to prevent speculation and potential mistakes while carrying out transactions. Secondly, the company claimed that there were rather limited price variations and gaps between the SHFE and LME in the IP, including a period where prices in the PRC were even higher than elsewhere. Consequently the cost advantage of the Chinese producers that would exist through depressed prices is minimal, if existing at all. It further explains the reversing price trends at the end of the IP were due to the fact that the Chinese economy was still expanding at the end of 2011 and were not the result of distortions induced by the State. Finally it claimed that the above-mentioned mechanisms or procedures do not have material impact on the company\u2019s decisions with respect to its costs and pricing policies.\n(45)\nThe company's statements do not contradict the Commission's finding that only Chinese traders are allowed to trade on this Exchange. As to the purpose and objective of the State's actions the company's statements are speculative and no evidence has been provided at this stage. Further, it is irrelevant why these regulations and limitations were put in place What is at issue is their overall effect of creating an isolated domestic market for aluminium where price trends do not follow price trends on world markets. In this respect it is also noted that upon disclosure, the Chinese authorities did not comment on this point. As concluded above in recital (43), the distortion on the Chinese aluminium market (minus 9 % price difference in the IP) is significant enough to result in an unfair significant cost advantage to Chinese producers of a commodity type of product such as the product concerned. This cost advantage cannot be explained by any comparative advantage of the Chinese aluminium producers. Finally, all cooperating companies purchased their raw material on the Chinese domestic market on the basis of contracts that are indexed to local aluminium price indices. Thus individual companies' decisions are clearly influenced by the State's actions creating a distorted market for aluminium.\n(46)\nBlue Diamond explained that SMM prices are not State-ruled prices and SMM is similar to LME as they are public information sources. The Commission did not find that prices were directly set by the State thus this comment is irrelevant. Secondly, the fact that prices are publicly available does not ensure automatically that they are the result of market forces.\n1.1.2. Company-specific conclusions concerning Criterion 2 to 5\n(47)\nThe Commission found that CeDo Shanghai did not fulfil Criterion 3 as its repayment of a loan in foreign currency was subject to the approval of the Foreign Exchange Administration which is considered to have a distortive effect on decisions of the company on borrowing and thus its financial situation.\n(48)\nCeDo Shanghai disputed the Commission's findings concerning Criterion 3. It claimed that the registration with the Foreign Exchange Administration is a country-wide practice which applies to any company which repays borrowings from abroad and it is merely good governance by the Chinese financial authorities to ensure that improper transactions are not used to channel finances out of China. The company further claimed that neither its production costs nor its overall financial situation in any way depend on this approval. Thus CeDo claimed that the Commission's definition of Criterion 3 in this regards is deficient.\n(49)\nFinancing decisions clearly are one of the most important decisions for firms. The Regulation of external debt provided by CeDO clearly puts in place an approval procedure for borrowings originating from outside of China. Thus decisions of firms to take financing from abroad are subject to approval of the State which creates a distortion in their financial situation. The company\u2019s claims thus were rejected.\n(50)\nBlue Diamond did not meet Criterion 1 for the further reason that it benefits from an extended income tax exemption. It also failed Criterion 2 as it does not have one clear set of basic accounting records audited in line with international accounting standards and which would be applied for all purposes. Finally the company could not demonstrate that it meets Criterion 3 as it uses industrial premises for free, which distorts its costs and financial situation.\n(51)\nThe company disputed some of these findings. It claimed that the tax exemption has no effect on its export prices, the latter being the focus of anti-dumping investigations. It also claimed that it has followed Chinese VAT-rules in its accounting and explained that differing sales and accounting records were the result of contractual conditions and were not a regular practice followed by the company. The company further confirmed that it uses a considerable industrial area for free on the basis of an agreement.\n(52)\nThe comments concerning double invoicing contradicted the explanation and evidence provided during the on-spot investigation. No further evidence was provided concerning double invoicing and how the company's depreciation practice was in line with Chinese VAT rules as claimed by the company. Finally, the company confirmed the findings concerning tax exemptions and free use of industrial estate. It is noted in this regard that the Criteria used for the assessment of MET claims are not all strictly export price-relevant criteria but they are there to determine whether market economy conditions prevail for the producer in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product concerned. Furthermore, since the company neither claimed individual examination, nor was it selected to be part of the sample, no information about its export prices was requested.\n(53)\nMET is therefore denied to both companies.\n1.2. Individual Treatment (IT)\n(54)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below:\n-\nIn the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;\n-\nExport prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined;\n-\nThe majority of the shares belong to private persons. State officials appearing on the Boards of Directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from State interference;\n-\nExchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and\n-\nState interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.\n(55)\nAll sampled companies and Blue Diamond requested IT. These claims were examined. The investigation showed that all the sampled companies and Blue Diamond fulfilled all the conditions of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(56)\nThus all sampled exporting producers and Blue Diamond were granted IT.\n2. Analogue Country\n(57)\nAccording to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for exporting producers not granted MET shall be established on the basis of the domestic prices or constructed normal value in an analogue country.\n(58)\nIn the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its intention to use the United States of America as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC and invited interested parties to comment on this.\n(59)\nNo substantive comments were received concerning the United States of America (\u2027USA\u2027) as a proposed analogue country. None of the interested parties suggested alternative analogue country producers of the like product.\n(60)\nHowever there was no co-operation from the producers in the USA although all known producers in the USA were contacted during the investigation. The Commission requested that from producers in other third countries which were mentioned in the complaint such as Mexico and South Africa cooperate, however was no cooperation from these countries either.\n(61)\nThe Commission through its own research tried to identify any additional producers in third countries. Letters and questionnaires were therefore sent to all known producers in other third countries (Turkey, India, South Korea).\n(62)\nTwo Turkish producers came forward showing willingness to cooperate. Ultimately one producer provided a full questionnaire reply and accepted a verification visit at its premises.\n(63)\nThe Commission placed its assessment concerning the appropriateness of Turkey as an analogue country in the non-confidential file for inspection by interested parties. None of the interested parties made comments on the selection of Turkey as the analogue country in the present case.\n(64)\nIt is therefore provisionally concluded that Turkey constitutes an appropriate analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n3. Normal Value\n(65)\nAs none of the companies requesting MET could demonstrate that they fulfil the MET criteria and the other two companies that were selected to be part of the sample did not request MET, the normal value for all Chinese exporting producers was determined, as explained in recital (57) above, on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable or a constructed normal value in Turkey for the like product. Following the choice of the prices paid or payable in the Union, normal value was calculated on the basis of the data verified at the premises of the cooperating Turkish producer listed in recital (14) above.\n(66)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined whether the sales of the like product to independent customers were representative. The sales of the Turkish cooperating producer of the like product were found to be representative compared to the product concerned exported to the Union by the exporting producers included in the sample.\n(67)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether these sales could be considered as having been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers. The sales transactions were considered profitable where the unit price was equal to or above the cost of production. Cost of production on the Turkish market during the IP was therefore determined.\n(68)\nFor those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market of the product type were above cost and the weighted average sales price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not.\n(69)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during the IP.\n(70)\nWherever there were no domestic sales of a particular product type by the cooperating Turkish producer, the normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(71)\nFor product types that were not sold on the domestic market by the Turkish cooperating producer but these product types were sold on other markets, a normal value was constructed by adding to the cost of manufacturing of the same product type sold on other markets its SG&A and profit. In case of product types that were not sold by the Turkish cooperating producer at all, a normal value was constructed by adding to the cost of manufacturing of all product types their SG&A and profit.\n(72)\nPursuant to Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, the amounts for SG&A and profit were established on the basis of the actual data pertaining to production and sales in the ordinary course of trade of the like product by the Turkish producer.\n4. Export Prices\n(73)\nThe exporting producers made export sales to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related companies located in the Union.\n(74)\nWhere export sales to the Union were made directly to independent customers in the Union, export prices were established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n(75)\nWhere export sales to the Union were made through related companies located in the Union, export prices were established on the basis of the first resale prices of these related companies to independent customers in the Union, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale including sales, general and administrative expenses and profit. With respect to profit margin, the profit realised by two unrelated importers of the product concerned was used since the actual profit of the related importer was not considered reliable because of the relationship between the exporting producer and the related importer.\n5. Comparison\n(76)\nAs Chinese imports were of private label business, comparisons were made only on the basis of sales of private label products by the Turkish cooperating company.\n(77)\nThe comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Appropriate adjustments for indirect taxes, freight, insurance, handling, warranty and credit costs were granted in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence. The weight of packaging was disregarded in the comparison.\n(78)\nUsing the PCN-system to classify product types, there was a low degree of matching for all sampled exporting producer. Where no direct matches could be identified, similar types were compared and adjustments were made for differences, such as the packaging types. Where the resembling technique was employed the details were disclosed to the party involved.\n6. Dumping Margins\n(79)\nAccording to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin for the sampled exporting producers was established based on the comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.\n(80)\nA weighted average of these three dumping margins was calculated for the non-sampled co-operating companies.\n(81)\nGiven the low degree of co-operation from the PRC (around 60 %), it is considered appropriate that the countrywide dumping margin applicable to all other exporting producers in the PRC should be based on the most dumped transactions of the cooperating exporters.\n(82)\nThe provisional dumping margins thus established, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:\nTable 1\nDumping margins\nCompany Name\nStatus\nDumping margin\nCeDo Shanghai Co. Ltd.\nIT\n39,3 %\nNingbo Times Co. Ltd.\nIT\n31,4 %\nNingbo Favoured Commodity Co. Ltd.\nIT\n28,6 %\nOther co-operating companies\n35,2 %\nCountrywide dumping margin\n43,4 %\nE. INJURY\n1. Union Production and Union Industry\n(83)\nIn the Union, there are 31 producers or groups of producers of the like product, most of them relatively small. They will hereafter be referred to as \u2027Union industry\u2027 within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The complainant, Eurom\u00e9taux, acted on behalf of seven producers whose collective output, during the IP, amounted to ca. 50 % of the total Union production of certain aluminium foil in rolls. However, it should be noted that the data submitted by the complainant, as checked with other available sources, covered all known companies producing and selling the product concerned on the Union market. On that basis, the total Union production of the like product was estimated to amount to 91 000 tonnes in the IP. Given that, through the complainant, information was collected or available from all known companies producing and selling the product concerned on the Union market, such information will be used as macroeconomic indicators in this investigation.\n2. Union Consumption\n(84)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volume on the Union market by the Union industry plus imports to the Union market. This data was supplied by the complainant and was made available to all interested parties. The data supplied for Union producers was crosschecked to the data received by the Commission during the standing and sampling exercises. Import data for the product concerned for both the country concerned and third countries was crosschecked to the COMEXT data available on Eurostat. The complainant pointed out that its figures for sales on the Union market contained certain volumes produced in the PRC already included in the import figures. A deduction was therefore made to the sales volume of certain non-sampled producers in the EU which also imported from the PRC. This deduction prevented double counting of these sales volumes in the total consumption.\n(85)\nOn this basis the Union consumption was found to have developed as follows:\nTable 1\nConsumption in the EU (tonnes)\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nTotal import\n4 600\n7 600\n10 300\n14 300\nUnion production sold on the Union market\n91 000\n91 500\n87 700\n82 456\nTotal consumption\n95 600\n99 100\n98 000\n96 756\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n104\n103\n101\n(86)\nTotal consumption on the EU market only fluctuated slightly over the period considered. The reason for this stability is that the EU market for the product concerned is mature and, being a product generally used for household purposes, it was not subject to fluctuation despite the economic crisis.\n3. Imports from the Country Concerned\n3.1. Volumes and market share\n(87)\nImport volumes were obtained from the complainant who adjusted the Eurostat statistical data on the basis of its market knowledge. This adjustment was necessary because the CN code statistics contain imports which are not the product concerned. The adjustment was based on knowledge of exports to the EU market from the various exporting countries and the import price which would indicate whether the import was the product concerned or not. The detailed figures and methodology were made available to interested parties at Annex 3 of the complaint. On that basis, imports into the Union from the PRC developed as follows during the period considered:\nTable 2\nImports from the PRC\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nImports from the PRC (tonnes)\n4 270\n6 836\n9 839\n12 994\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n160\n230\n304\nMarket share\n4,5 %\n6,9 %\n10,0 %\n13,4 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n154\n225\n301\nSource: Complainant\n(88)\nFollowing the anti-dumping investigation on the main raw material and upstream product (aluminium foil in jumbo reels), which resulted in the imposition of duties in 2009 on Chinese producers, import volumes from the PRC increased substantially. The volume of imports of the product concerned increased by more than 200 % over the period considered.\n(89)\nThe market share held by Chinese exporting producers shows the same increasing trend of the imports over the period considered, passing from 4,5 % in 2008 to 13,4 % during the IP.\n3.2. Prices of dumped imports and price undercutting\n(90)\nAverage prices of imports from the PRC developed as follows:\nTable 3\nPrices of imports from the PRC\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nAverage CIF price in EUR/tonnes\n(3)\n2 335\n2 600\n2 518\nIndex (2009 = 100)\n(3)\n100\n111\n108\nSource: Eurostat\n(91)\nIt should be stated that Chinese import prices follow, to a large extent, Chinese raw material prices (mainly aluminium alloys). However, import prices fell by 3 % in the IP as compared to 2010 at a time when raw material prices increased by around 4 % (see table below).\nTable 4\nDevelopment of average Chinese aluminium prices\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nSHFE monthly spot weighted average price per tonne (EUR)\n1 408\n1 187\n1 467\n1 523\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n84\n104\n108\nSource: Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE) excluding VAT\n(92)\nAs all known Chinese imports were of private label business, undercutting (and underselling) comparisons were made on the basis of Union industry sales of private label products only.\n(93)\nIn order to determine price undercutting during the IP, the weighted average sales prices per product type of the sampled Union producers charged to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports from the cooperating Chinese producers to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a CIF basis, with appropriate adjustments for the existing customs duties and post-importation costs.\n(94)\nThe price comparison was made on a type-by-type basis for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and discounts. The result of the comparison, when expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union producers' turnover during the IP, showed a weighted average undercutting margin of 10,0 % by the Chinese exporting producers.\n4. Economic Situation of the Union Industry\n4.1. Preliminary remarks\n(95)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry.\n(96)\nThe macroeconomic indicators (production, capacity, capacity utilization, sales volume and market share) were assessed at the level of the whole Union industry. The assessment was based on the information provided by the complainant, cross-checked with data provided by the cooperating Union producers.\n(97)\nThe analysis of microeconomic indicators (average unit prices, employment, wages, productivity, stocks, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital) was carried out at the level of the sampled Union producers. The assessment was based on their information, duly verified.\n4.2. Macro-economic indicators\n4.2.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\nTable 5\nTotal Union production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nProduction volume (tonnes)\n95 500\n95 000\n93 000\n91 000\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n99\n97\n95\nProduction capacity (tonnes)\n160 000\n164 000\n164 000\n164 000\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n103\n103\n103\nCapacity utilisation\n59,7 %\n57,9 %\n56,7 %\n55,5 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n97\n95\n93\n(98)\nThe table above shows that production decreased over the period considered despite consumption remaining stable throughout the same period. Although the production capacity remained moderately stable over the period considered, the capacity utilisation followed the same declining trend of the production.\n4.2.2. Sales volume and market share\nTable 6\nSales volume and market share\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nSales volume on the EU market (tonnes)\n91 000\n91 500\n87 700\n82 456\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n101\n96\n91\nMarket share\n95,2 %\n92,3 %\n89,5 %\n85,2 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n97\n94\n90\n(99)\nThe Union industry sales volume decreased by 9 % over the period considered and its market share continuously dropped from 95,2 % in 2008 to 85,2 % during the IP.\n4.2.3. Growth\n(100)\nThe drop in EU sales volumes and market share of the Union industry over the period considered should be seen in the context of stable consumption over the same period, as described in recital (85).\n4.3. Data of the sampled Union producers (micro-economic indicators)\n4.3.1. Average unit prices in the Union and cost of production\nTable 7\nSales prices\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnit price in EU to unrelated customers\n(Euro per tonne)\n4 479\n3 950\n4 237\n4 378\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n88\n95\n98\n(101)\nThe trend of the average sales prices (including branded and non-branded products) shows a decrease of 2 % over the period considered. However, sales prices were not considered to be a reliable indicator of injury because they were largely affected by the prices of raw materials (mainly aluminium) which showed a similar trend over the period considered. Overall, prices in 2010 and the IP were suppressed due to the undercutting described in recital (94) above.\n4.3.2. Employment, productivity and wages\nTable 8\nEmployment, productivity and wages\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nNumber of employees\n301\n314\n287\n284\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n104\n95\n94\nProductivity (unit/employee)\n143\n138\n141\n138\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n96\n98\n96\nWages per employee\n41 070\n38 913\n44 115\n43 600\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n95\n107\n106\n(102)\nThe number of employees decreased by 6 % over the period considered, although wages per employee increased slightly. In addition the decrease of employees did not lead to an increase in productivity as the loss in sales volumes, as described in recital (99) above, was even stronger. Indeed, the productivity of the Union industry workforce, measured as output per person employed per year, decreased slightly over the period considered. It reached its lowest level in 2009, after which it started to recover in the 2010, without reaching the initial levels. In the IP the productivity returned to the 2009 lowest level.\n4.3.3. Stocks\nTable 9\nStocks\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nClosing stock\n2 873\n2 994\n3 092\n3 534\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n104\n108\n123\nClosing stock as percentage of production\n6,7 %\n6,9 %\n7,7 %\n9,1 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n104\n115\n136\n(103)\nAlthough the sampled companies of the Union industry maintained their stocks at a low level using a production to order system, some common products were kept in stock. The stock level increased significantly both in absolute terms and as percentage of production. Over the period concerned, the end of year stock level increased from 6,7 % to 9,1 %.\n4.3.4. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital\nTable 10\nProfitability\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nProfitability of EU sales (% of net sales)\n2,7 %\n6,2 %\n2,7 %\n0,7 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n231\n101\n27\n(104)\nProfitability of the Union industry was established by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product as a percentage of the turnover of these sales. The profitability thus calculated reached its highest level in 2009 due to decreased purchase costs of the main raw material item (i.e. aluminium). Profit fell from 2009 onwards reaching 0,7 % in the IP. These profitability figures cover all segments of the market, including the relatively profitable branded segment which was to a much lesser extent subject to competition from the low priced Chinese imports. Indeed, the private label segment alone was substantially loss-making in the IP.\n(105)\nAbility to raise capital was not mentioned as a significant problem by the Union industry.\nTable 11\nCash flow, investments and return on investment (ROI)\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nCash Flow\n12 716 283\n17 369 815\n12 030 581\n7 771 917\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n137\n95\n61\nInvestments (EUR)\n4 604 286\n2 167 756\n2 770 090\n1 716 570\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n47\n60\n37\nReturn on Investment\n33,3 %\n68,7 %\n27,2 %\n7,4 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n206\n82\n22\n(106)\nThe trend in cash flow, which is the ability of the industry to self-finance its activities, as well as return on investment, followed a similar negative trend as the return on turnover.\n(107)\nIn 2008 an EU producer invested in extra storage facilities. In the other years of the period considered, no major investments were identified in respect of the sampled companies of the Union industry.\n4.3.5. Magnitude of the actual dumping margin\n(108)\nThe dumping margins are specified above in the dumping section. All margins established are significantly above the de minimis level. Furthermore, given the volume and the prices of dumped imports from the PRC the impact on the EU market of the actual margin of dumping cannot be considered negligible.\n5. Conclusion on Injury\n(109)\nThe investigation showed that many of the injury indicators pertaining to the economic situation of the Union industry deteriorated or did not develop in line with consumption during the period considered. This observation particularly applies to the period from 2010 up to the end of the IP.\n(110)\nOver the period considered, in the context of a stable consumption, volume of imports from the PRC increased steadily and significantly. At the same time, the Union industry sales volume decreased overall by 9 % and its market share dropped by around 10 percentage points. Also the Union industry's stock volume increased significantly, indicating its inability to sell the product. The low-priced dumped imports increased steadily over the period considered and undercut the prices of the Union industry significantly in the IP.\n(111)\nFurthermore, the injury indicators related to the financial performance of the Union industry, such as cash flow and profitability were seriously affected in 2010 and the IP.\n(112)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\nF. CAUSATION\n1. Introduction\n(113)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the dumped imports originating in the PRC have caused injury to the Union industry to a degree that enables it to be classified as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which might have injured the Union industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n2. Effect of the Dumped Imports\n(114)\nAt the end of 2009 anti-dumping duties were imposed on jumbo reels of aluminium foil originating in the PRC. From this date imports of the product concerned (the downstream product) increased rapidly. These increases coincide with a deterioration of the situation of the Union industry.\n(115)\nThe investigation showed that the Union consumption remained stable over the period considered, while the volume of dumped imports from the PRC increased dramatically by over 200 %. The market share of these imports also increased from 4,5 % in 2008 to 13,4 % in the IP (i.e. by around 9 percentage points). At the same time, sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 9 % and market share dropped also by 9 percentage points, from 95,2 % in 2008 to 85,2 % in the IP.\n(116)\nWith regard to the price pressure, it should be highlighted that the Chinese exporting producers undercut the Union industry in the IP. The price pressure at increasing volumes allowed the Chinese exporting producers to win contracts with major customers (retailers and wholesalers). For contracts maintained the Union industry had to forego price increases which it needed to offset increases in aluminium prices. Undercutting in the IP was around 10 % and in that year the Union industry raised average prices by 3 % to reflect increased raw material costs, whereas the Chinese exporting producers reduced their prices on the EU market by around 3 % (see Table 3). This resulted in a significant deterioration in profitability of the Union industry.\n(117)\nBased on the above it is concluded that the large increase of the dumped imports from the PRC at prices undercutting those of the Union industry have had a determining role in the material injury suffered by the Union industry, which is reflected in particular in its poor financial situation, in the drop in sales volume and in market share and in the deterioration of many of the injury indicators.\n3. Effect of Other Factors\n3.1. Imports from third countries\n(118)\nThe volume of imports from other third countries during the period considered is shown in the table below. The quantity and price trends were supplied from the complainant based on Eurostat data.\nTable 12\nImports from third countries\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nImports from third countries\n330\n764\n461\n1 306\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n231\n140\n396\nMarket share\n0,3 %\n0,8 %\n0,5 %\n1,3 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n223\n136\n391\n(119)\nImports from third countries (mainly India, Russia, Taiwan and Turkey) increased by 300 % over the period considered. However, the total EU market share of these imports still remains marginal. Therefore, they cannot have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry during the IP.\n3.2. Export volumes and prices\n(120)\nThe volume of exports of the sampled Union producers during the period considered is shown in the table below. The quantity and price trends are verified figures from the sampled producers.\nTable 13\nExports of the Sampled Union Producers\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nEU Export volume\n1 900\n1 800\n1 600\n1 700\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n95\n84\n89\nExports as percentage of production\n2,0 %\n1,9 %\n1,7 %\n1,9 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n95\n86\n94\nExport Prices\n3 792\n3 460\n3 447\n3 565\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n91\n91\n94\n(121)\nThe sampled producers' export volumes were not significant over the period considered, never representing more than 2 % of the produced volumes. They followed a trend similar to that of the sales volumes in the European market. In view of their limited volumes, the development of exports of the Union industry did not contribute to the material injury suffered.\n3.3. The impact of the economic crisis\n(122)\nThe economic crisis did not produce any contraction of the Union consumption during the period considered. As could be expected for non-luxury household products, the financial crisis had no impact on consumption of AHF which remains a very stable product in the food processing and packaging industry. Thus, the economic crisis did not contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry during the IP.\n3.4. Competition on the Union market\n(123)\nCompetition on the Union market is strong bearing in mind that the Union industry is quite diverse (there are over 30 producers) and that one of their main customers is the powerful retail sector.\n(124)\nOver many years the major European Union retailers have developed their own brands (private labels) which in respect of AHF has gradually reduced the volume of sales of the producers own brands. This has been detrimental to the Union industry producers which have suffered falls in sales of the more profitable branded segment and forced them into greater competition with each other in the increasing private label segment.\n(125)\nHowever, this development has been a gradual process over many years and the investigation has shown that the private label business has only increased from 83 % to 84 % from 2010 to the IP. Therefore although this increase will have had a small impact on the EU producers it does not explain the magnitude of the injurious trends experienced by them.\n3.5. Development of the Union industry cost of production\n(126)\nIt was argued by interested parties that fluctuations in the cost of production, mainly the aluminium price, contributed to the injury.\n(127)\nThe cost of production of AHF is closely linked to the price development of aluminium the main raw material used to produce this product. The LME is the worldwide benchmark for aluminium prices.\nTable 14\nDevelopment of LME average aluminium prices\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nLME cash average price per tonne in USD\n2 750\n1 750\n2 150\n2 460\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n64\n78\n90\nSource: LME\n(128)\nThe development seen above resulted from the financial crisis which began around October 2008. Aluminium prices fell on reduced demand and recovered to some extent by the end of the IP. However, the AHF industry normally sets its prices on an LME benchmark basis plus a margin to cover transformation costs and profit. This means that under normal circumstances fluctuations in the LME benchmark do not have a big impact on the situation of the AHF industry as prices of the finished products move in line with LME prices. In fact the Union industry has always existed in an environment of fluctuating aluminium prices.\n(129)\nIt was also argued that the Union industry has inefficient equipment which contributed to the injury. It must be said that the investigation did not support this view and that in fact EU and Chinese transformation costs as a whole were quite similar. Furthermore any such inefficiency would mean that Union industry profitability would have been low for many years and this kind of claim does not explain the loss of market share, sales volume and profitability which occurred from 2009 to the IP.\n(130)\nIn view of the above, the fluctuating aluminium prices or the alleged lack of production efficiency cannot be considered a cause of the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n3.6. Overcapacity\n(131)\nAs mentioned above the capacity utilisation of the European producers was relatively low over the period considered. However, as the Union producers are able to use the same machinery for rewinding other products (such as cling film) the capacity utilisation figures are not considered to be a major causation factor. Also the capacity utilisation figures were already quite low in 2008 and 2009 when profitability rates and the situation of the industry in general were satisfactory.\n(132)\nIt was therefore concluded that overcapacity was not a substantial cause of the injury suffered by the EU producers.\n4. Conclusion on Causation\n(133)\nThe above analysis demonstrated that there was a substantial increase in the volume and market share of the dumped imports originating in the PRC particularly in 2010 and the IP. It was found that these imports undercut the prices charged by the Union industry on the Union market during the IP.\n(134)\nThis increase in volume and market share of the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC coincided with the negative development in the economic situation of the Union industry. This situation worsened in the IP, when the Union industry continued to lose market share and profitability and other financial indicators such as cash flow and return on investments reached their lowest levels.\n(135)\nThe analysis of the other known factors, including the economic crisis, showed that any negative impact of these factors cannot be such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(136)\nBased on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped exports, it is provisionally concluded that the dumped exports from the PRC have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\nG. UNION INTEREST\n1. Preliminary Remarks\n(137)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether, despite the provisional conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed for concluding that it is not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this particular case. The analysis of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers/wholesalers and retailers of the product concerned.\n2. Interest of the Union Industry\n(138)\nThe Union industry has suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports from the PRC. It is recalled that many of the injury indicators showed a negative trend during the period considered. In the absence of measures, a further deterioration in the Union industry's situation appears unavoidable. The situation of the Union industry deteriorated rapidly following the imposition of anti-dumping measures on the upstream product (aluminium foil in jumbo reels) in 2009. As the same structural problems in the Chinese aluminium sector already observed during that investigation continue to exist on the market, the Union industry argued that it too should be protected from unfair competition.\n(139)\nIt is expected that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties will restore effective trade conditions on the Union market, allowing the Union industry to align the prices of the product investigated to reflect the costs of the various components and the market conditions. It can also be expected that the imposition of provisional measures would enable the Union industry to regain at least part of the market share lost during the period considered, with a further positive impact on its profitability and overall financial situation.\n(140)\nShould measures not be imposed, further losses in market share could be expected and the Union industry would remain loss-making, notably in the private label sector. This would be unsustainable in the medium to long-term. In view of the decreasing trend in profitability and of other financial indicators such as cash flow and return on investments, it can be expected that most Union producers would be unable to remain competitive on the market, should measures not be imposed.\n(141)\nFurthermore the Union industry supplies its customers (mainly retailers and wholesalers) with other food processing and packaging products such as cling film and paper products. Some of these products are produced on the same rewinding equipment as is used for the product concerned. The product concerned is a major segment of the portfolio of products sold by the various Union industry companies to the extent that for some it represents more than 50 % of turnover. If the situation of the product concerned deteriorates further this would jeopardise the Union production of the other products too.\n(142)\nIt is therefore provisionally concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping duties would be in the interest of the Union industry.\n3. Interest of Importers/Wholesalers\n(143)\nAs regards importers, a large proportion of imports of the product concerned, estimated at around 50 % during the IP, are made by two large players on the European market which source their products in the PRC.\n(144)\nOne of those importers is related to a sampled co-operating exporting producer (CeDo Shanghai). The CeDo Group has developed a dual sourcing strategy whereby the foil it sells on the Union market is produced in both the PRC and the Union. The Group pointed out that anti-dumping measures would threaten this strategy and reduce its profitability. However, the measures proposed are not directed at any particular company but are designed to restore fair trade on the Union market.\n(145)\nIt is not known to the investigation if the other large importer (Quickpack) is related to any of its Chinese suppliers. This is because, although it has been invited to participate in the investigation it has opted not to cooperate. Therefore, the impact of any duties, of the level proposed, on its business is not clear.\n(146)\nOf the remaining importers only two cooperated in this investigation by responding to the questionnaire. Their replies represent around 6 % of total imports from the PRC. These companies claimed that they may be forced to exit the foil market if an anti-dumping duty were imposed, however, other products represented over 80 % of their turnover because these two companies imported many other products in the food and household goods sector.\n(147)\nA further importer/producer (Terinex Ltd) did not supply a questionnaire response but supplied its opinion based on the UK market. Terinex Ltd explained that its sourcing from the PRC undercut its own production but that as a small player on the market it did not consider that its imports were injurious to the Union industry. However, if all imports from the PRC are taken into account (recital (87) onwards) then as explained at recital (114) onwards, it is clear that the imports from the PRC are a major cause of the injury suffered by the Union industry. As the turnover of the product concerned is relatively small in relation to the total companies' activities the imposition of measures is not likely to have a severe impact on its total profits.\n(148)\nIn respect of the importing sector in general (whether related or not) it cannot be excluded that the imposition of measures would negatively affect this sector because a duty is likely to make imports less attractive and the Union industry would probably be able to win back some orders/contracts to the detriment of the importing sector. Nevertheless, this would be on the basis of a restoration of fair competition and the impact on the importing sector as a whole would not be disproportionate.\n(149)\nOn the basis of the above, it is provisionally concluded that the impact on importers would not be as such that the measures have to be considered to be against the overall Union interest.\n4. Interest of Retailers\n(150)\nSix retailers co-operated in the investigation. These retailers can be considered representative in view of their wide spread of geographic location in the European Union as well as their differing size in terms of turnover. All of them oppose the imposition of any measures on the grounds that those will impose extra costs on their businesses and that measures would restrict their choice of suppliers.\n(151)\nHowever, it is very clear from their responses that the product under investigation is a tiny part of these retailers' turnover (in any case less than 1 %) and any anti-dumping measure would have little or no impact on their turnover or profits.\n5. Interest of Consumers\n(152)\nThe Commission contacted one association of consumers which replied that it was not interested in cooperating in the investigation. No other consumers\u2019 association made itself known.\n(153)\nThe impact of anti-dumping duties on consumers is likely to be very marginal since AHF forms a very low percentage of a consumer's weekly budget. Furthermore it is expected that any increase in AHF prices at retail level caused by the imposition of duties would be either very marginal or non-existent.\n6. Conclusion on Union Interest\n(154)\nIn view of the above, it is provisionally concluded that based on the information available concerning the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of provisional measures on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC.\nH. PROPOSAL FOR PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n1. Injury Elimination Level\n(155)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.\n(156)\nFor the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the dumping margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Union industry, without exceeding the dumping margins found.\n(157)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the Union.\n(158)\nIn previous investigations involving AHF (jumbo reels) the margin of normal profit was set at 5 % on the basis described above. The complainant claimed that 6 % would be a reasonable profit margin, for the industry, in the absence of injurious dumping. However, it failed to duly substantiate this claim and therefore, in the absence of other comments in this regard, it is considered appropriate to resort to the 5 % profit margin established in the previous investigation. It is thus provisionally considered that a profit margin of 5 % of turnover could be regarded as an appropriate figure which the Union industry could have expected to obtain in the absence of injurious dumping. On this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry for the like product. The non-injurious price was obtained by subtracting from the EU sales prices the actual profit achieved during the IP and replacing it by the above mentioned profit margin.\n(159)\nThe necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of the cooperating exporting producers in the PRC, as established for the price undercutting calculations, with the non-injurious price of the products sold by the Union industry on the Union market during the IP. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the average total CIF import value.\n2. Provisional Measures\n(160)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in respect of imports originating in the PRC at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(161)\nOn the basis of the above, the anti-dumping duty rates have been established by comparing the injury elimination margins and the dumping margins. Consequently, the proposed anti-dumping duty rates are as follows:\nProposed provisional anti-dumping duties\nCompany Name\nDumping margin\nInjury margin\nProvisional Duty\nCeDo Shanghai Co. Ltd.\n39,3 %\n16,3 %\n16,3 %\nNingbo Times Co. Ltd.\n31,4 %\n15,5 %\n15,5 %\nNingbo Favoured Commodity Co. Ltd.\n28,6 %\n13,0 %\n13,0 %\nOther co-operating companies\n35,2 %\n15,5 %\n15,5 %\nCountrywide dumping margin\n43,4 %\n35,4 %\n35,4 %\n(162)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the PRC and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(163)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (4) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\nI. FINAL PROVISION\n(164)\nIn the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of aluminium foil of a thickness of 0,007 mm or more but less than 0,021 mm, not backed, not further worked than rolled but whether or not embossed, in low weight rolls of a weight not exceeding 10 kg, currently falling within CN codes ex 7607 11 11 and ex 7607 19 10 (TARIC codes 7607111110 and 7607191010) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below, shall be as follows:\nCompany\nDuty (%)\nTARIC additional code\nCeDo Shanghai Co. Ltd.\n16,3 %\nB299\nNingbo Times Co. Ltd.\n15,5 %\nB300\nNingbo Favoured Commodity Co. Ltd.\n13,0 %\nB301\nAble Packaging Co.,Ltd\n15,5 %\nB302\nGuangzhou Chuanlong Aluminium Foil Product Co.,Ltd\n15,5 %\nB303\nNingbo Ashburn Aluminium Foil Products Co.,Ltd\n15,5 %\nB304\nShanghai Blue Diamond Aluminium Foil Manufacturing Co.,Ltd\n15,5 %\nB305\nWeifang Quanxin Aluminium Foil Co.,Ltd\n15,5 %\nB306\nZhengzhou Zhuoshi Tech Co. Ltd\n15,5 %\nB307\nZhuozhou Haoyuan Foil Industry Co.,Ltd\n15,5 %\nB308\nZibo Hengzhou Aluminium Plastic Packing Material Co.,Ltd\n15,5 %\nB309\nYuyao Caelurn Aluminium Foil Products Co.,Ltd\n15,5 %\nB310\nAll other companies\n35,4 %\nB999\n3. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security, equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Without prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 September 2012.", "references": ["31", "61", "10", "25", "75", "66", "19", "36", "70", "60", "17", "44", "54", "99", "86", "2", "30", "35", "4", "62", "74", "46", "50", "98", "73", "58", "80", "9", "93", "24", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1045/2011\nof 19 October 2011\nconcerning the non-approval of the active substance asulam, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Articles 13(2) and 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply, with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval, to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (3). Asulam is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish lists of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. These lists included asulam.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (6) the notifier withdrew its support for the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (7) was adopted on the non-inclusion of asulam.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nThe United Kingdom evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 6 November 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on the risk assessment of asulam to the Commission on 23 September 2010 (8). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 14 July 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for asulam.\n(7)\nDuring the evaluation of this active substance, concerns were identified. Those concerns were, in particular, the following. It was not possible to perform a reliable consumer exposure assessment as data were missing concerning the presence and toxicity of the metabolite sulfanilamide, as well as concerning the presence of other potentially significant metabolites that were not analysed in the available residue trials and processing studies. Furthermore, no data was available on the toxicological relevance of the impurities in the technical specification of the active substance. In addition, a high risk to birds was identified.\n(8)\nThe Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion of the Authority. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the applicant to submit comments on the draft review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(9)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns referred to in recital 7 could not be eliminated. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing asulam satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nAsulam should therefore not be approved pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(11)\nFor plant protection products containing asulam, where Member States grant any period of grace in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, this period should expire on 31 December 2012 at the latest as laid down in the second paragraph of Article 3 of Decision 2008/934/EC.\n(12)\nThis Regulation does not prejudice the submission of a further application for asulam pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(13)\nIn the interest of clarity, the entry for asulam in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC should be deleted.\n(14)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(15)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health did not deliver an opinion. An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation. The appeal committee did not deliver an opinion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nNon-approval of active substance\nThe active substance asulam is not approved.\nArticle 2\nTransitional measures\nMember States shall ensure that authorisations for plant protection products containing asulam are withdrawn by 31 December 2011.\nArticle 3\nPeriod of grace\nAny period of grace granted by Member States in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 shall be as short as possible and shall expire on 31 December 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2008/934/EC\nIn the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC, the entry for \u2018asulam\u2019 is deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 October 2011.", "references": ["40", "35", "43", "16", "83", "58", "10", "88", "77", "9", "44", "84", "32", "7", "23", "31", "93", "13", "21", "11", "71", "80", "85", "95", "1", "14", "52", "66", "6", "24", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 February 2011\namending Decision 2007/863/EC granting a derogation requested by the United Kingdom with regard to Northern Ireland pursuant to Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources\n(notified under document C(2011) 1033)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(2011/128/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIf the amount of manure that a Member State intends to apply per hectare each year is different from those specified in the first sentence of the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC and in point (a) of that subparagraph, that amount is to be fixed so as not to prejudice the achievement of the objectives specified in Article 1 of that Directive and it has to be justified on the basis of objective criteria, such as long growing seasons and crops with high nitrogen uptake.\n(2)\nOn 14 December 2007, the Commission adopted Decision 2007/863/EC granting a derogation requested by the United Kingdom with regard to Northern Ireland pursuant to Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (2), allowing Northern Ireland the application of 250 kg nitrogen per hectare per year from livestock manure on farms with at least 80 % grassland.\n(3)\nThe derogation granted by Decision 2007/863/EC concerned in 2009 approximately 150 farms in Northern Ireland corresponding to approximately 0,6 % of total number of holdings and 1 % of the total net agricultural area. Decision 2007/863/EC expires on 31 December 2010.\n(4)\nOn 23 September 2010 the United Kingdom for the region of Northern Ireland submitted to the Commission a request for an extension of the derogation. The request contained a justification on the basis of the objective criteria specified in the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC.\n(5)\nThe United Kingdom for the region of Northern Ireland has adopted a new action programme for the period January 2011 to December 2014, which mainly maintains the measures of the action programme for the period until 31 December 2010 and applies to the whole territory of Northern Ireland.\n(6)\nNitrate concentrations in Northern Ireland surface freshwaters remain relatively low, with average nitrate concentrations below 25 mg NO3/l in 2008 for 99,7 % of monitoring stations. Between 2005 and 2008, surface freshwater monitoring sites showed in general stable or decreasing average nitrate concentrations, including in catchments with the highest proportion of derogation farms. For groundwater average nitrate concentrations are below 25 mg NO3/l in 2008 for 91,9 % of the monitoring stations and show similar stable or downwards trends as for surface waters.\n(7)\nLivestock numbers decreased in Northern Ireland during the period 2006-2010 by about 12,5 % for sheep, 11,5 % for poultry and 4,7 % for cattle and increased by 9,8 % for pigs. Northern Ireland farming continues to be a predominantly grass-based system.\n(8)\nThe amount of manure N produced on farms in Northern Ireland during the period 2006-2010 decreased by 6,4 % while the rate of application of livestock manure per ha of land decreased by 4,7 %. The agricultural area available for manure application decreased by 1,7 %. Cattle dominate as the main source of manure N in Northern Ireland, followed by sheep, poultry and pigs. The decrease in overall manure N is largely due to the decline in the cattle sector and within that sector, the main driver of change is reduced numbers of beef cows and their offspring.\n(9)\nIn the light of the scientific information referred to in the request for extension of the derogation and the measures which the United Kingdom for the region of Northern Ireland has committed itself to in the action programme for the period January 2011 to December 2014, it can be concluded that the conditions for obtaining the derogation as specified in Directive 91/676/EEC, such as long growing seasons and crops with high nitrogen uptake, are still fulfilled, and that the derogation does not prejudice the achievement of the objectives of that Directive.\n(10)\nFor the purpose of ensuring that the grassland farms concerned may continue to benefit from a derogation, it is appropriate to extend the period of application of Decision 2007/863/EC to 31 December 2014.\n(11)\nThe deadlines for reporting to the Commission set out in Decision 2007/863/EC should however be adapted in order to simplify the administrative burden by allowing United Kingdom for the region of Northern Ireland to establish only one deadline for all reporting obligations.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Nitrates Committee set up pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 91/676/EEC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2007/863/EC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThe derogation requested by the United Kingdom with regard to Northern Ireland by letter of 10 August 2007 and the extension requested by letter of 23 September 2010, for the purpose of allowing a higher amount of livestock manure than that provided for in the first sentence of the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC and in point (a) of that subparagraph, is granted, subject to conditions laid down in this Decision.\u2019;\n2.\nthe last sentence of Article 8(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Those maps shall be submitted to the Commission annually by June.\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\nApplication\nThis Decision shall apply in the context of the Nitrates Action Programme Regulation (Northern Ireland) 2010.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2014.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2011.", "references": ["71", "6", "95", "62", "90", "4", "72", "68", "61", "77", "79", "59", "76", "35", "32", "25", "21", "87", "37", "12", "66", "42", "65", "99", "73", "15", "24", "45", "63", "53", "No Label", "8", "58", "60", "83", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "58", "60", "83", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 August 2012\non amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/490/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 (1), and in particular Article 23(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 715/2009 sets non-discriminatory rules for access conditions to natural gas transmission systems to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market in gas. Since the duplication of gas transmission systems is in most cases not economic and efficient, competition in natural gas markets is stimulated by third-party access opening infrastructure to all suppliers in a transparent and non-discriminatory way. The frequent occurrence of contractual congestion where network users cannot gain access to gas transmission systems in spite of the physical availability of the capacity is an obstacle on the road towards completing the internal energy market.\n(2)\nThe practice has shown that despite the application of certain congestion-management principles such as the offering of interruptible capacities as provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 September 2005 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks (2) and Regulation (EC) No 715/2009, contractual congestion in the Union gas transmission networks remains an obstacle to the development of a well-functioning internal market in gas. Therefore it is necessary to amend the guidelines on the application of congestion-management procedures in the event of contractual congestion. In accordance with Article 23(3) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 the proposed guidelines should reflect differences between national gas systems and may set minimum requirements to be met to achieve non-discriminatory and transparent network access conditions with respect to congestion management procedures.\n(3)\nThe congestion-management procedures should apply in the event of contractual congestion and are aimed at resolving those events by bringing unused capacity back to the market to be reallocated in the course of the regular allocation processes.\n(4)\nWhere an interconnection point is frequently subject to the occurrence of physical congestion, congestion management procedures may often be of no avail. In those cases a solution should be examined from a network planning and investment point of view.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (\u2018the Agency\u2019) should monitor and analyse the implementation of these guidelines. It is necessary that transmission system operators publish the information necessary to identify the occurrence of contractual congestion in a workable format.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 the national regulatory authorities ensure compliance with those guidelines.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure that congestion management procedures are applied in the most effective way at all interconnection points and with a view to maximising available capacities in all adjacent entry-exit systems, it is of great importance that national regulatory authorities and transmission system operators from different Member States and within Member States closely cooperate amongst themselves and with each other. In particular national regulatory authorities and transmission system operators should have regard to best practices and endeavour to harmonise processes for the implementation of these Guidelines. Acting in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 the Agency and the national regulatory authorities should ensure that the most effective congestion management procedures are implemented at the applicable entry and exit points across the Union.\n(8)\nWhereas transmission system operators possess detailed information about the physical use of the system and are best placed to assess future flows, it is appropriate for them to determine an amount of additional capacity to be made available in addition to the calculated technical capacity. By offering more firm capacity than technically available through taking into consideration flow scenarios and contracted capacities, transmission system operators take a risk that should be rewarded accordingly. For the purpose of determining transmission system operators\u2019 revenues, such additional capacity should however only be allocated if all other capacity, including capacity resulting from the application of other congestion-management procedures, has been allocated. Transmission system operators should closely cooperate to set the technical capacity. In order to resolve a potential situation of physical congestion the transmission system operators should apply the most cost-effective measure, including either buying back capacity or taking other technical or commercial measures.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 715/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 51 of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 24 August 2012.", "references": ["46", "84", "77", "70", "28", "35", "63", "17", "1", "71", "94", "49", "99", "0", "33", "38", "79", "73", "56", "72", "85", "24", "76", "89", "61", "95", "48", "57", "53", "21", "No Label", "9", "20", "80"], "gold": ["9", "20", "80"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 518/2012\nof 18 June 2012\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of June 2012 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of June 2012 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2012 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2012 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 June 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2012.", "references": ["91", "80", "12", "99", "89", "58", "28", "88", "45", "51", "49", "14", "84", "92", "82", "98", "44", "24", "94", "52", "95", "62", "11", "83", "87", "48", "47", "41", "2", "1", "No Label", "21", "22", "66", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/872/CFSP\nof 22 December 2011\nupdating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Decision 2011/430/CFSP\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 December 2001, the Council adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (1).\n(2)\nOn 18 July 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/430/CFSP updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (2).\n(3)\nIn 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 2011/430/CFSP applies.\n(4)\nThis 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 applies.\n(5)\nThe 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.\n(6)\nThe 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 2011/430/CFSP should be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply shall be that set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2011/430/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2011.", "references": ["8", "49", "0", "7", "30", "66", "78", "89", "50", "12", "20", "45", "61", "64", "33", "81", "71", "25", "5", "99", "22", "72", "63", "53", "97", "18", "44", "62", "26", "24", "No Label", "1", "3", "36"], "gold": ["1", "3", "36"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2012/6/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 14 March 2012\namending Council Directive 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies as regards micro-entities\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 50(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Council of 8 and 9 March 2007 underlined in its conclusions that reducing administrative burdens is important for boosting Europe's economy and that a strong joint effort to reduce administrative burdens within the European Union is necessary.\n(2)\nAccounting has been identified as one of the key areas in which administrative burdens for companies within the Union may be reduced.\n(3)\nCommission Recommendation 2003/361/EC (3) defines micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. However, consultations with Member States have indicated that the size criteria for micro-enterprises in that Recommendation may be too high for accounting purposes. Therefore, a sub-group of micro-enterprises, so-called \"micro-entities\", should be introduced to cover companies with lower size criteria for balance sheet total and net turnover than those laid down for micro-enterprises.\n(4)\nMicro-entities are in most cases engaged in business at local or regional level with no or limited cross-border activity. In addition, they play an important role in creating new jobs, fostering research and development and creating new economic activities.\n(5)\nMicro-entities have limited resources with which to comply with demanding regulatory requirements. However, they are often subject to the same financial reporting rules as larger companies. Those rules place on them a burden which is not in proportion to their size and is therefore disproportionate for the smallest enterprises as compared to larger ones. Therefore, it should be possible to exempt micro-entities from certain obligations that may impose on them an unnecessarily onerous administrative burden. However, micro-entities should still be subject to any national obligation to keep records showing their business transactions and financial position.\n(6)\nGiven that the numbers of companies to which the size criteria set in this Directive will apply will vary greatly from one Member State to another, and given that the activities of micro-entities have no bearing, or only a limited bearing, on cross-border trade or the functioning of the internal market, Member States should take into account the differing impact of those criteria when implementing this Directive at national level.\n(7)\nMember States should take into account the specific conditions and needs of their own markets when making decisions about how or whether to implement a micro-entity regime within the context of Council Directive 78/660/EEC (4).\n(8)\nMicro-entities must take account of income and charges relating to the financial year, irrespective of the date of receipt or payment of such income or charges. However, the calculation of prepayments and accrued income and accruals and deferred income can be burdensome for micro-entities. Consequently, Member States should be permitted to exempt micro-entities from calculating and presenting such items, only to the extent that such exemption relates to charges other than the cost of raw materials and consumables, value adjustments, staff costs and tax. In this way, the administrative burden involved in calculating relatively small balances may be reduced.\n(9)\nPublication of annual accounts can be burdensome for micro-entities. At the same time, Member States need to ensure compliance with this Directive. Accordingly, Member States should be permitted to exempt micro-entities from a general publication requirement, provided that balance sheet information is duly filed, in accordance with national law, with at least one designated competent authority and that the information is transmitted to the business register, so that a copy should be obtainable upon application. In such cases the obligation laid down in Article 47 of Directive 78/660/EEC to publish any accounting document in accordance with Article 3(5) of Directive 2009/101/EC (5), would not apply.\n(10)\nThe aim of this Directive is to enable Member States to create a simple financial reporting environment for micro-entities. The use of fair values can result in the need for detailed disclosures to explain the basis on which the fair value of certain items has been determined. Given that the micro-entity regime provides for very limited disclosure by way of notes on the accounts, the users of the accounts of micro-entities would not know whether the amounts presented in the balance sheet and the profit and loss account incorporate fair values. Accordingly, to provide certainty for such users in this regard, Member States should not permit or require micro-entities using any of the exemptions available to them under this Directive to use the fair valuation basis in drawing up their accounts. Micro-entities that wish or need to use fair value will still be able to do so by using other regimes under this Directive where a Member State permits or requires such use.\n(11)\nWhen making decisions about how or whether to implement a micro-entity regime within the scope of Directive 78/660/EEC, Member States should ensure that micro-entities that are to be consolidated under Council Directive 83/349/EEC (6) on consolidated accounts avail themselves of accounting data detailed enough for that purpose and that exemptions in this Directive are without prejudice to the obligation to prepare consolidated accounts in accordance with Directive 83/349/EEC.\n(12)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely to reduce the administrative burden for micro-entities, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, and can therefore by reason of its effect 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 to achieve that objective.\n(13)\nDirective 78/660/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Directive 78/660/EEC\nDirective 78/660/EEC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\"Article 1a\n1. Member States may provide for exemptions from certain obligations under this Directive in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 in respect of companies which on their balance sheet dates do not exceed the limits of two of the three following criteria (micro-entities):\n(a)\nbalance sheet total: EUR 350 000;\n(b)\nnet turnover: EUR 700 000;\n(c)\naverage number of employees during the financial year: 10.\n2. Member States may exempt companies referred to in paragraph 1 from any or all of the following obligations:\n(a)\nthe obligation to present \u2027Prepayments and accrued income\u2027 and \u2027Accruals and deferred income\u2027 in accordance with Articles 18 and 21;\n(b)\nwhere a Member State makes use of the option in point (a) of this paragraph, it may permit those companies, only in respect of other charges as referred to in point (b)(vi) of paragraph 3, to depart from Article 31(1)(d) with regard to the recognition of \u2027Prepayments and accrued income\u2027 and \u2027Accruals and deferred income\u2027, provided that this fact is disclosed in the notes on the accounts or, in accordance with point (c) of this paragraph, at the foot of the balance sheet;\n(c)\nthe obligation to draw up notes on the accounts in accordance with Articles 43 to 45, provided that the information required by Article 14 and point (13) of Article 43(1) of this Directive and Article 22(2) of Directive 77/91/EEC (7) is disclosed at the foot of the balance sheet;\n(d)\nthe obligation to prepare an annual report in accordance with Article 46 of this Directive, provided that the information required by Article 22(2) of Directive 77/91/EEC is disclosed in the notes on the accounts or, in accordance with point (c) of this paragraph, at the foot of the balance sheet;\n(e)\nthe obligation to publish annual accounts in accordance with Articles 47 to 50a, provided that the balance sheet information contained therein is duly filed, in accordance with national law, with at least one competent authority designated by the Member State concerned. Whenever the competent authority is not the central register, commercial register or companies register, as referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/101/EC (8), the competent authority is required to provide the register with the information filed.\n3. Member States may permit companies referred to in paragraph 1:\n(a)\nto draw up only an abridged balance sheet showing separately at least those items preceded by letters in Articles 9 or 10, where applicable. In cases where point (a) of paragraph 2 applies, items E under \u2027Assets\u2027 and D under \u2027Liabilities\u2027 in Article 9 or items E and K in Article 10 shall be excluded from the balance sheet;\n(b)\nto draw up only an abridged profit and loss account showing separately at least the following items, where applicable:\n(i)\nnet turnover;\n(ii)\nother income;\n(iii)\ncost of raw materials and consumables;\n(iv)\nstaff costs;\n(v)\nvalue adjustments;\n(vi)\nother charges;\n(vii)\ntax;\n(viii)\nprofit or loss.\n4. Member States shall not permit or require the application of Section 7a to any micro-entity making use of any of the exemptions provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3.\n5. In respect of companies referred to in paragraph 1, annual accounts drawn up in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 shall be regarded as giving the true and fair view required by Article 2(3), and consequently Article 2(4) and (5) shall not apply to such accounts.\n6. Where on its balance sheet date a company exceeds or ceases to exceed the limits of two of the three criteria set out in paragraph 1, that fact shall affect the application of the derogation provided for in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 only if it occurs in both the current and the preceding financial year.\n7. In the case of those Member States which have not adopted the euro, the amount in national currency equivalent to the amounts specified in paragraph 1 shall be that obtained by applying the exchange rate published in the Official Journal of the European Union on the date of the entry into force of any Directive setting those amounts.\n8. The balance sheet total referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall consist either of the assets referred to in items A to E under \u2027Assets\u2027 in Article 9 or the assets referred to in items A to E in Article 10. If point (a) of paragraph 2 applies, the balance sheet total referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall consist either of the assets referred to in items A to D under \u2027Assets\u2027 in Article 9 or the assets referred to in items A to D in Article 10.\n(2)\nin Article 5, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\"1. By way of derogation from Article 4(1) and (2), Member States may prescribe special layouts for the annual accounts of investment companies and of financial holding companies provided that those layouts give a view of these companies equivalent to that provided for in Article 2(3). Member States shall not make available the exemptions set out in Article 1a in respect of investment companies or financial holding companies.\";\n(3)\nArticle 53a is replaced by the following:\n\"Article 53a\nMember States shall not make the exemptions set out in Articles 1a, 11 and 27, points (7a) and (7b) of Article 43(1) and Articles 46, 47 and 51 available in respect of companies whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market within the meaning of point (14) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC.\".\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive if and when they decide to make use of any option provided for in Article 1a of Directive 78/660/EEC, taking into account in particular the situation at national level regarding the number of companies covered by the size criteria laid down in paragraph 1 of that Article. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nReport\nNot later than 10 April 2017 the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee a report on the situation of micro-entities taking account in particular of the situation at national level regarding the number of companies covered by the size criteria and the reduction of administrative burdens resulting from the exemption from the publication requirement.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 5\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 14 March 2012.", "references": ["97", "15", "53", "91", "3", "77", "35", "76", "62", "61", "13", "26", "74", "14", "49", "90", "46", "57", "29", "44", "73", "69", "32", "72", "39", "42", "30", "5", "11", "41", "No Label", "2", "8", "45", "47"], "gold": ["2", "8", "45", "47"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 525/2012\nof 20 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2012.", "references": ["55", "77", "43", "57", "29", "50", "92", "59", "62", "86", "42", "39", "70", "52", "14", "99", "24", "6", "33", "88", "40", "4", "64", "45", "97", "73", "17", "2", "16", "9", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 978/2011\nof 3 October 2011\namending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acetamiprid, biphenyl, captan, chlorantraniliprole, cyflufenamid, cymoxanil, dichlorprop-P, difenoconazole, dimethomorph, dithiocarbamates, epoxiconazole, ethephon, flutriafol, fluxapyroxad, isopyrazam, propamocarb, pyraclostrobin, pyrimethanil and spirotetramat in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor acetamiprid, captan, dithiocarbamates, ethephon, pyraclostrobin and pyrimethanil maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Annex II and Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For biphenyl, chlorantraniliprole, cyflufenamid, cymoxanil, dichlorprop-P, difenoconazole, dimethomorph, epoxiconazole, flutriafol, isopyrazam, propamocarb and spirotetramat, MRLs were set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For fluxapyroxad, no MRLs were set before in any of the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, so the default value of 0.01 mg/kg applied.\n(2)\nIn the context of a procedure, in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2), for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance acetamiprid on plums, melons, figs, cauliflower, other flowering brassica (except broccoli), lettuce, scarole, rucola, leaves and sprouts of brassica, beans and peas (with pods), peas (without pods), globe artchokes, dry beans and peas, rape seed and wheat an application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing MRLs.\n(3)\nAs regards captan, such an application was made for apricots, peaches and plums. As regards cymoxanil, such an application was made for spinach. As regards chlorantraniliprole, such an application was made for cauliflower and other flowering brassica and beans with pods. As regards dichlorprop-P, such an application was made for oranges and for kidney and liver, taking into account existing uses on cereals and grass fed to ruminants. As regards cyflufenamid, such an application was made for apples, pears, table and wine grapes, cucumbers, courgettes and melon. As regards difenoconazole, such an application was made for beet leaves, globe artichokes, broccoli, cardoons and strawberries. As regards dimethomorph, such an application was made for oranges, scarole, cress, land cress, red mustard, leaves and sprouts of brassica. As regards dithiocarbamates, such an application was made for radishes. As regards epoxiconazole, such an application was made for certain cereals and for kidney and milk, taking into account uses on cereals fed to ruminants. As regards spirotetramat, such an application was made for herbs. As regards propamocarb, such an application was made for leek, spinach, witloof and lamb's lettuce. As regards pyraclostrobin, such an application was made for citrus fruit, peanuts, cotton seed, linseed, poppy seed, sesame seed, rape seed, mustard seed, safflower, borage, gold of pleasure, castor bean, sunflower seed and soya bean. As regards pyrimethanil, such an application was made for lettuce and scarole.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 an application was made for acetamiprid for pome fruit, table and wine grapes, strawberries, blueberries, onions, tomatoes, aubergines, broccoli, head cabbage, spinach, celery and cotton seed. The authorised use of acetamiprid on these crops in the United States leads to higher residues than the MRLs in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. To avoid trade barriers for the importation of these crops, higher MRLs are necessary.\n(5)\nAs regards chlorantraniliprole, such an application was made to raise the current MRLs for oranges from Brazil and South Africa, table and wine grapes and radishes from the United States and cane fruit, blueberries and cranberries from Canada and the United States. Concerning the same active substance, such an application was made to raise the current MRLs for rice and ruminants meat, liver, kidney, milk and eggs from the United States, taking into account existing uses on products fed to the animals concerned. As regards flutriafol, such an application was made to raise the current MRL for soybeans from the United States. As regards isopyrazam, such an application was made to raise the current MRL for bananas from Central America. As regards fluxapyroxad, such an application was made to raise the current MRLs for pome fruit, stone fruit (cherry, peach, plum, apricot and nectarine), potato, other root vegetables, bulb vegetables, sweet corn, brassica vegetables, leafy vegetables and fresh herbs, peas and beans with and without pods, pulses (dry), oilseeds, cereals (wheat, triticale, rye, barley, oat, maize and sorghum) and sugar beet and for fat, liver, eggs and milk from the United States, Canada and Brazil, taking into account uses on cereals fed to food procucing animals. In all these cases higher MRLs are necessary in order to avoid trade barriers for the importation of the products concerned.\n(6)\nAs regards ethephon, recently submitted data that require further evaluation, justify the extension of the expiry date for the MRLs on table olives and cotton seed.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, these applications were evaluated by the Member States concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission.\n(8)\nThe Commission received information from Germany and the European Spice Association about residues of biphenyl on nutmeg and mace which exceed the current MRLs. Germany stated that due to the ubiquitous presence of biphenyl from unknown sources it was impossible to produce nutmeg and mace complying with the MRLs for biphenyl. Germany submitted an application in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modifications to those MRLs and an evaluation report.\n(9)\nThe European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \"the Authority\", assessed the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs (3). It forwarded these opinions to the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public.\n(10)\nThe Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that, as regards use of acetamiprid on melons and peas with and without pods, the data were not adequate to support the MRLs requested. As regards acetamiprid on scarole, based on the proposal in the evaluation report, the Authority recommended to lower the MRL in order to prevent exceedence of the ARfD. As regards chlorantraniliprole the Authority concluded that, as regards use on oranges and rice the data were not adequate to support the MRLs requested. For table and wine grapes the Authority concluded that the MRLs were already fixed at the levels corresponding to the intended authorised use. As regards dimethomorph on scarole, the Authority identified an short term intake concern for the requested MRL and recommended to keep the MRL at the current value. As regards propamocarb the Authority concluded that, as regards use on lamb's lettuce the data were not adequate to support the MRL requested. For spinach and leek, the Authority identified a short term intake concern for the requested MRL and recommended to keep the MRL at the current value. As regards pyraclostrobin the Authority concluded that, as regards use on grapefruit, lemon, limes and mandarin the data were not adequate to support the MRLs requested. For sunflower seed and soya the Authority concluded that the MRLs were already fixed at the levels corresponding to the intended authorised use. As regards fluxapyroxad the Authority concluded that, as regards use on cherries and cotton the data were not adequate to support the MRLs requested. For potatoes the Authority concluded that the MRL was already fixed at the level corresponding to the intended authorised use.\n(11)\nAs regards all other applications, the Authority concluded that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs requested by the applicants were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime exposure to these substances via consumption of all food products that may contain these substances, nor the short term exposure due to extreme consumption of the relevant crops and products showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference dose (ARfD) is exceeded.\n(12)\nBased on the reasoned opinions of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(13)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 October 2011.", "references": ["94", "28", "85", "87", "79", "49", "6", "99", "78", "63", "13", "36", "62", "46", "10", "95", "56", "47", "23", "91", "27", "39", "24", "35", "31", "4", "71", "75", "60", "43", "No Label", "38", "61", "65", "66", "72"], "gold": ["38", "61", "65", "66", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/80/EU\nof 22 November 2010\namending Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of defence-related products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products within the Community (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2009/43/EC covers all defence-related products which correspond to those listed in the Common Military List of the European Union, adopted by the Council on 19 March 2007.\n(2)\nOn 15 February 2010 the Council adopted an updated Common Military List of the European Union (2).\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to amend the Annex to Directive 2009/43/EC providing for the list of defence-related products.\n(4)\nFor reasons of coherence, Member States should apply the provisions necessary to comply with this Directive from the same date as those provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2009/43/EC.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 14 of Directive 2009/43/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Directive 2009/43/EC is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 June 2011 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nThose provisions apply from 30 June 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["3", "56", "18", "39", "69", "21", "40", "60", "2", "13", "70", "22", "96", "54", "76", "31", "15", "61", "4", "93", "30", "42", "57", "59", "71", "28", "63", "98", "29", "35", "No Label", "1", "6", "23"], "gold": ["1", "6", "23"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 589/2012\nof 4 July 2012\napproving the active substance fluxapyroxad, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply, with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval, to active substances for which a decision has been adopted in accordance with Article 6(3) of that Directive before 14 June 2011. For fluxapyroxad the conditions of Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 are fulfilled by Commission Decision 2010/672/EU (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the United Kingdom received on 11 December 2009 an application from BASF SE for the inclusion of the active substance fluxapyroxad in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Decision 2010/672/EU confirmed that the dossier was \u2018complete\u2019 in the sense that it could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annexes II and III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nFor that active substance, the effects on human and animal health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicant. The designated rapporteur Member State submitted a draft assessment report on 11 January 2011.\n(4)\nThe draft assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019). The Authority presented to the Commission its conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance fluxapyroxad (4) on 16 December 2011. The draft assessment report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and was finalised on 1 June 2012 in the format of the Commission review report for fluxapyroxad.\n(5)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing fluxapyroxad may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) and Article 5(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve fluxapyroxad.\n(6)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of six months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing fluxapyroxad. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(7)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (5) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (6) should be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance fluxapyroxad, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing fluxapyroxad as an active substance by 30 June 2013.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing fluxapyroxad as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances, all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2012 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing fluxapyroxad as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 June 2014 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing fluxapyroxad as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 June 2014 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 July 2012.", "references": ["16", "40", "74", "60", "2", "49", "23", "75", "39", "22", "99", "79", "15", "94", "37", "32", "45", "5", "21", "11", "88", "81", "46", "0", "93", "17", "78", "72", "38", "29", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\non a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in Germany in 2007\n(notified under document C(2011) 8723)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2011/800/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 3,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to eradicate bluetongue as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 3(6) first indent of that Decision identifies the percentage of Union financial contributions can be paid to compensate the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nArticle 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2008/444/EC of 5 June 2008 on a financial contribution from the Community towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in Germany in 2007 (3) provided for a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in Germany in 2007.\n(5)\nGermany submitted an official request for reimbursement on 6 June 2008 as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(6)\nArticle 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 makes the payment of that financial contribution from the Union subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(7)\nDecision 2008/444/EC provided that a first tranche of EUR 950 000,00 should be paid as part of the Union\u2019s financial contribution.\n(8)\nAn audit according to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 carried out by the Commission\u2019s services did reveal only minor financial issues.\n(9)\nGermany has thus to this point complied with its technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(10)\nIn view of the above considerations, a second tranche of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred in association with the eradication of bluetongue in Germany in 2007 should now be fixed.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nA second tranche of EUR 1 950 000,00 shall be paid to Germany as part of the Union financial contribution.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision constituting a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["33", "54", "77", "6", "5", "90", "95", "52", "98", "29", "83", "28", "62", "1", "56", "41", "50", "39", "34", "20", "73", "24", "68", "15", "46", "43", "86", "67", "94", "59", "No Label", "4", "10", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 839/2010\nof 23 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2010.", "references": ["31", "74", "51", "21", "0", "86", "88", "91", "89", "58", "85", "1", "10", "49", "29", "70", "53", "66", "32", "75", "78", "56", "37", "7", "79", "48", "34", "77", "72", "97", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 698/2010\nof 4 August 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (M\u00e2connais (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France\u2019s application to register the name \u2018M\u00e2connais\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 August 2010.", "references": ["55", "83", "67", "50", "98", "47", "72", "19", "80", "87", "9", "31", "13", "15", "99", "94", "35", "78", "44", "57", "48", "61", "85", "71", "77", "68", "36", "38", "59", "27", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/473/CFSP\nof 25 July 2011\namending Decision 2010/279/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 30 May 2007 the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP (1) establishing the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN).\n(2)\nOn 18 May 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/279/CFSP (2) that extended EUPOL AFGHANISTAN until 31 May 2013. Pursuant to Decision 2011/298/CSFP amending Decision 2010/279/CSFP (3), the financial reference amount of EUR 54 600 000 covers the period until 31 July 2011.\n(3)\nArticle 13(2) of Decision 2010/279/CFSP provides that the financial reference amount for the subsequent periods shall be decided by the Council.\n(4)\nDecision 2010/279/CFSP should therefore be amended to include a financial reference amount for the period from 1 August 2011 to 31 July 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following subparagraph is hereby added to Article 13(1) of Decision 2010/279/CFSP:\n\u2018The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN for the period from 1 August 2011 to 31 July 2012 shall be EUR 60 500 000.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2011.", "references": ["34", "17", "54", "92", "90", "72", "93", "37", "11", "69", "58", "31", "25", "13", "50", "15", "91", "73", "35", "39", "76", "41", "22", "78", "53", "75", "14", "20", "26", "30", "No Label", "9", "33", "95"], "gold": ["9", "33", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 13 May 2011\naccepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina\n(2011/279/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EU) No 1036/2010 (2), the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Union of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n(2)\nFollowing the adoption of the provisional anti-dumping measures, the Commission continued the investigation of dumping, injury and Union interest. The investigation confirmed the provisional findings of injurious dumping relating to these imports.\n(3)\nThe definitive findings and conclusions of the investigation are set out in Council Regulation (EU) No 464 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina (3) (the \u2018product concerned\u2019).\nB. UNDERTAKING\n(4)\nSubsequent to the adoption of provisional anti-dumping measures, the cooperating exporting producer in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik, together with its related company in the Union, AB Kauno Tiekimas filialas \u2018Kauno Tiekimas\u2019, located in Kaunas, Lithuania, offered a price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. In this undertaking offer, both companies offered to sell the product concerned at or above price levels which eliminate the injurious effects of dumping found during the investigation.\n(5)\nThe minimum import price (MIP) offer from the companies was based on the normal value calculated for the investigation period.\n(6)\nThe undertaking offer also contained the provision that the sales of the product concerned would be shipped directly from Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik to the first independent customer in the Union and invoiced either from Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik to the first independent customer in the Union or invoiced directly by Kauno. Furthermore, the companies offered to establish a link between the transfer invoices concerning the product concerned issued by Alumina d.o.o Zvornik to Kauno Tiekimas and the resale invoices to the first independent customer in the Union by Kauno Tiekimas.\n(7)\nBoth companies also agreed to undertake to provide the Commission with regular and detailed information concerning their sales to the Union, allowing for the undertaking to be monitored effectively by the Commission.\nC. COMMENTS OF PARTIES AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE UNDERTAKING\n(8)\nThe Union industry indicated that it disagrees with the acceptance of an undertaking offer, in particular with a fixed MIP. It was argued that prices of zeolite A powder depend on cost of raw materials, especially caustic soda, and energy and that the market prices are expected to rise. In this respect it is noted that available information concerning the evolution of the cost of production (which includes raw materials and energy costs) confirms that the evolution was linear. The information gathered throughout the investigation suggest that the prices of main raw materials did not change dramatically with exception to the caustic soda in the mid-2009, however this trend was reversed towards the end of 2009 and prices returned to long-time average. Furthermore, energy is not a raw material input and could not be linked with a MIP. The Union industry disputed whether the Bosnian exporting producer and its related company in the Union could be considered trustworthy, account taken of their financial situation. Nevertheless, no concrete and verifiable information was provided to corroborate this claim. The trustworthiness of the aforesaid parties was also questioned since it was argued that they declared on importation the product concerned under various CN codes. In this respect, it is noted that the product concerned is currently falling within CN code ex 2842 10 00 and that the customs declaration is not carried out by the companies offering the undertaking. It was also argued that the Bosnian exporting producer may sell other products in the Union, thus, increasing the danger of cross compensation and that the related company in the Union may provide compensation to its Union clients when selling the product under MIP. In this respect, it is noted that the Commission has not established any systemic danger of cross compensation, in particular as the market and clients for zeolite A powder is well defined. Indeed, the clients that purchase zeolite A powder do not purchase any other products produced by Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik since they operate in completely different markets than the customers of the other products. In this respect, it is emphasised that all parties subject to this undertaking offer will be closely monitored. The Union industry also submitted that the undertaking offer was not submitted within the time period foreseen under the basic Regulation. In this respect, it is noted that the offer was indeed submitted within the time frame period foreseen under Article 8(2) of the basic Regulation. The Union industry submitted some additional comments concerning the calculation method of the MIP and the monitoring of such undertaking, which were however not considered pertinent or justified since the Commission ensured that the proposed MIP is in line with its administrative practices followed with respect to undertaking offers.\n(9)\nIn view of the above, the undertaking offered by the two companies is acceptable.\n(10)\nIn order to enable the Commission to effectively monitor the companies\u2019 compliance with the undertaking, when the request for release for free circulation is presented to the relevant customs authority, exemption from the anti-dumping duty will be conditional on (i) the presentation of an undertaking invoice containing at least the elements listed in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 464; (ii) the fact that the imported goods are manufactured by Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik and shipped directly by it to the first independent customer in the Union and invoiced to the first independent customer in the Union either directly by Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik or Kauno Tiekimas and (iii) the fact that the goods declared and presented to customs correspond precisely to the description on the undertaking invoice. Where no such invoice is presented, or when it does not correspond to the product presented to customs, the appropriate rate of anti-dumping duty shall instead be payable.\n(11)\nTo ensure that the undertaking is respected, importers have been made aware by the Council Regulation mentioned above in recital 3 that the non-fulfilment of the conditions provided for by that Regulation, or the withdrawal by the Commission of the acceptance of the undertaking, may lead to a customs debt being incurred for the relevant transactions.\n(12)\nIn the event of a breach or withdrawal of the undertaking or in case of withdrawal of acceptance of the undertaking by the Commission, the anti-dumping duty imposed in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation shall automatically apply pursuant to Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe undertaking offered by the exporting producer, together with its related importer in the Union mentioned below in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina is hereby accepted.\nCountry\nCompany\nTaric Additional Code\nBosnia and Herzegovina\nManufactured, shipped and invoiced directly by Alumina d.o.o., Zvornik, Bosnia and Herzegovina to the first independent customer in the Union\nB115\nBosnia and Herzegovina\nManufactured and shipped directly by Alumina d.o.o., Zvornik, Bosnia and Herzegovina to the first independent customer in the Union and invoiced directly by AB Kauno Tiekimas filialas, Kaunas, Lithuania to the first independent customer in the Union\nB116\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 13 May 2011.", "references": ["59", "85", "39", "75", "93", "1", "67", "51", "43", "53", "15", "94", "55", "90", "26", "63", "71", "77", "99", "35", "0", "7", "20", "41", "73", "28", "81", "2", "38", "36", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 19 December 2011\non a Union financial contribution for 2011 to cover expenditure incurred by Germany, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, the Netherlands and Portugal for the purpose of combating organisms harmful to plants or plant products\n(notified under document C(2011) 9243)\n(Only the Dutch, German, Greek, Italian, Maltese, Portuguese and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(2011/868/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 23(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 22 of Directive 2000/29/EC, Member States may receive a \u2018plant health control\u2019 financial contribution from the Union to cover expenditure relating directly to the necessary measures which have been taken or are planned to be taken for the purpose of combating harmful organisms introduced from third countries or from other areas in the Union, in order to eradicate or, if that is not possible, to contain them.\n(2)\nGermany introduced two requests for financial contribution. The first one was introduced on 20 December 2010 and relates to measures taken in 2009 and 2010 to control Anoplophora glabripennis in Nordrhein-Westfalen. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected there in 2009.\n(3)\nThe second request of Germany was introduced on 15 April 2011 and relates to measures taken in 2010 to eradicate or contain Diabrotica virgifera in Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg. The outbreaks of that harmful organism were detected in different districts of that State (Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald, Emmendingen, Freiburg city, Konstanz, Loerrach, Ortenaukreis and Ravensburg) in different years, i.e. 2008, 2009 and 2010. The measures taken in 2008 and 2009 have also been the subject to co-financing in 2009 and 2010.\n(4)\nItaly introduced three requests for financial contribution on 29 April 2011. The first request relates to measures taken in 2011 in Lombardia, province of Brescia, commune of Gussago, to control Anoplophora chinensis. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2008. The measures taken in 2008, 2009 and 2010 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2009 and 2010.\n(5)\nThe second request of Italy relates to the measures taken in 2011 in Veneto, province of Treviso, commune of Cornuda, to control Anoplophora glabripennis. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2009. The measures taken in 2009 and 2010 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2010.\n(6)\nThe third request of Italy relates to measures taken in 2010 in Emilia-Romagna, provinces of Bologna, Ferrara, Ravenna and Forl\u00ec-Cesena, to control Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae. The outbreak of that harmful organism was confirmed in 2010.\n(7)\nMoreover, Italy introduced a fourth request for financial contribution on 20 April 2011. That request relates to measures taken in 2011 in Lazio, commune of Rome, to control Anoplophora chinensis. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2008. Measures taken in 2008, 2009 and 2010 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2009 and 2010.\n(8)\nCyprus introduced a request for financial contribution on 29 April 2011 relating to measures taken or planned for 2011 to control Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. The outbreaks of that harmful organism were detected in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Measures taken in 2010 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2010.\n(9)\nMalta introduced a request for financial contribution on 29 April 2011 relating to measures taken in 2010 and 2011 to control Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. The outbreaks of that harmful organism were detected in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Measures taken in 2008 and 2009 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2009.\n(10)\nThe Netherlands introduced three requests for financial contribution on 13 December 2010. The first request relates to measures taken in 2009 and 2010 in the area of Boskoop to control Anoplophora chinensis. The appearance of that harmful organism was detected in December 2009.\n(11)\nThe second request of the Netherlands relates to measures taken in 2009 to control Potato Spindle Tuber Viroid (PSTVd). The suspected appearance of that harmful organism was detected in 2009.\n(12)\nThe third request of the Netherlands relates to measures taken in 2009 to control Tuta absoluta. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2009.\n(13)\nMoreover, the Netherlands introduced additionally a fourth and a fifth request for financial contribution on 13 December 2010. The fourth request relates to measures taken in 2009 and 2010 in the area of Westland to control Anoplophora chinensis. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2007. Measures taken in 2008 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2009.\n(14)\nThe fifth request of the Netherlands relates to measures taken in 2009 to control Clavibacter michiganensis spp. michiganensis. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2007. Measures taken in 2007 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2009. No co-financing was requested for the measures in 2008.\n(15)\nPortugal introduced three requests for financial contribution on 30 April 2011 relating to measures taken to control Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. The first request relates to measures taken in 2011 concerning continental Portugal, with the exception of the originally infested zone of Setubal of 1999, to control the outbreaks detected in 2008. The measures taken in 2008, 2009 and 2010 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2009 and 2010.\n(16)\nThe two other requests of Portugal concern exclusively measures of heat treatment of wood or wood packaging material in the area of Setubal, in 2010 and 2011.\n(17)\nSpain introduced three requests for financial contribution. The first one was introduced on 15 April 2011 and relates to measures taken in 2011 in Extremadura to control Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2008. The measures taken in 2008, 2009 and 2010 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2009 and 2010.\n(18)\nThe second request of Spain was introduced on 28 April 2011. It relates to measures taken in 2011 and planned for 2011 in Galicia to control Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2010.\n(19)\nThe third request of Spain was introduced on 27 April 2011. It relates to measures taken in 2010 and 2011, and also planned for 2011, in Catalonia to control Pomacea insularum. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2010.\n(20)\nGermany, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, The Netherlands and Portugal have each established a programme of actions to eradicate or contain the above harmful organisms introduced in their territories. These programmes specify the objectives to be achieved, the measures carried out, their duration and their cost.\n(21)\nAll the above measures consist of a variety of plant health measures, including destruction of contaminated trees or crops, application of plant protection products, sanitation techniques, inspections and testings carried out officially or upon official request to monitor the presence or extent of contamination by the respective harmful organisms, and replacement of destroyed plants, within the meaning of Article 23(2)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2000/29/EC.\n(22)\nGermany, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, The Netherlands and Portugal have applied for the allocation of a Union financial contribution to these programmes in accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 23 of Directive 2000/29/EC, in particular paragraph 1 and 4 thereof, and in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1040/2002 of 14 June 2002 establishing detailed rules for the implementation of the provisions relating to the allocation of a financial contribution from the Community for plant-health control and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2051/97 (2).\n(23)\nThe technical information provided by Germany, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, The Netherlands and Portugal has enabled the Commission to analyse the situation accurately and comprehensively. The Commission has concluded that the conditions for the granting of a Union financial contribution, as laid down in particular in Article 23 of Directive 2000/29/EC, have been met. Accordingly, it is appropriate to provide a Union financial contribution to cover the expenditure on those programmes.\n(24)\nIn accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 23(5) of Directive 2000/29/EC, the Union financial contribution may cover up to 50 % of eligible expenditure for measures that have been taken within a period of not more than 2 years after the date of detection of the appearance or that are planned for that period. However, in accordance with the third subparagraph of that Article, that period may be extended if it has been established that the objective of the measures will be achieved within a reasonable additional period, in which case the rate of the Union financial contribution shall be digressive over the years concerned. Having regard to the conclusions of the Working Group on evaluation of the respective requests, it is appropriate to extend the two-year period for the programmes concerned, while reducing the rate of the Union financial contributions for these measures to 45 % of eligible expenditure for the third year and to 40 % for the fourth year of these programmes.\n(25)\nThe Union financial contribution up to 50 % of eligible expenditure should therefore apply to Germany, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Anoplophora glabripennis (2009, 2010), Germany, Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg, Diabrotica virgifera, rural districts of Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald and Freiburg city (2010), rural districts of Emmendingen, L\u00f6rrach, and Konstanz (2009), Italy, Emilia-Romagna, Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae provinces of Bologna, Ferrara, Ravenna and Forl\u00ec-Cesena (2010), Cyprus, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (2011), The Netherlands, Anoplophora chinensis, Boskoop area (2009, 2010), The Netherlands, PSTVd (2009), The Netherlands, Tuta absoluta (2009), The Netherlands, Anoplophora chinensis, Westland (2009), Portugal, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, Setubal area (2010, 2011), Spain, Galicia, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (2010, 2011) and to Spain, Catalonia, Pomacea insularum (2010, 2011).\n(26)\nThe Union financial contribution up to 45 % of eligible expenditure should therefore apply to the following programmes: Italy, Veneto, Anoplophora glabripennis (2011), Malta, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (2010), The Netherlands, Clavibacter michiganesis ssp. michiganensis (2009), as the measures concerned have already been the subject of a Union financial contribution under Commission Decisions 2009/996/EU (3) (Malta, The Netherlands) or 2010/772/EU (4) (Italy) for the first 2 years of their implementation. This also applies to the programme of The Netherlands, Anoplophora chinensis, Westland (2010), where measures for 2009 (year 2 of the programme) are co-financed in the present Decision.\n(27)\nThe same level of contribution should apply to the third year (2010) of the programme presented by Germany in Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg for Diabrotica virgifera in the rural district of Ravensburg, which measures have been the subject of a Union financial contribution under Decision 2009/996/EU and Decision 2010/772/EU.\n(28)\nMoreover, a Union contribution up to 40 % should apply to the fourth year of the following programmes: Spain, Extremadura, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (2011), Italy, Lombardia, Anoplophora chinensis (2011), Italy, Lazio, Anoplophora chinensis (2011), Malta, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (2011), Portugal, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (2011), continental Portugal with the exception of the originally infested zone of Setubal of 1999, as the measures have been the subject of a Union financial contribution under Decision 2009/996/EU (Spain, Italy, Portugal) and 2010/772/EU (Spain, Italy, Portugal) for the first 3 years of their implementation.\n(29)\nThe same level of contribution should apply to the fourth year (2010) of the programme presented by Germany in Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg for Diabrotica virgifera in the rural district of Ortenaukreis, which measures have been the subject of a Union financial contribution under Commission Decision 2009/147/EC (5), Decision 2009/996/EU and Decision 2010/772/EU.\n(30)\nIn accordance with the conclusions of the audit mission in Portugal from 29 March 2011 to 11 April 2011 of the Food and Veterinary Office of the Commission, only 25 % of the number of coniferous host trees infested by pinewood nematode, or showing any symptoms of poor health, had been felled and destroyed at the date of 1 April 2011. This failure of the Portuguese authorities is not in compliance with the provisions of point 2(a)(iii) of the Annex to Commission Decision 2006/133/EC (6). In this view, the level of eligible expenditure in the request relating to measures in continental Portugal, with exception of the originally infested zone of Setubal, should be reduced as regards the cost of felling coniferous trees, and therefore only 25 % of this category of expenditure should be deemed eligible.\n(31)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (7), plant-health measures are financed from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. For the purpose of financial control of these measures, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of the above Regulation should apply.\n(32)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (8) and Article 90(1) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (9), the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision adopted by the institution to which powers have been delegated, setting out the essential elements of the action involving the expenditure.\n(33)\nThe present decision constitutes a financing decision for the expenditure provided in the co-financing requests presented by Member States.\n(34)\nThe measures provided in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nOn the basis of the dossiers submitted by the Member States and analysed by the Commission, the allocation of a Union financial contribution for 2011 to cover expenditure incurred by Germany, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, The Netherlands and Portugal relating to necessary measures as specified in Article 23(2)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2000/29/EC and taken for the purpose of combating the organisms concerned by the eradication or containment programmes listed in the Annex, is hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThe total amount of the Union financial contribution referred to in Article 1 is EUR 15 006 869,89. The maximum amounts of the Union financial contribution for each of the programmes shall be as indicated in the Annex.\nArticle 3\nThe Union financial contribution as set out in the Annex shall be paid on the following conditions:\n(a)\nevidence of the measures taken has been submitted by the Member State concerned in accordance with the provisions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1040/2002;\n(b)\na request for payment has been submitted by the Member State concerned to the Commission, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1040/2002.\nThe payment of the financial contribution is without prejudice to the verifications by the Commission under Article 23(8) the second paragraph, Article 23(10) and Article 24 of Directive 2000/29/EC.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Portuguese Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["73", "72", "3", "43", "33", "57", "99", "7", "24", "17", "84", "23", "82", "19", "25", "94", "8", "15", "85", "63", "75", "1", "79", "45", "21", "83", "78", "38", "4", "9", "No Label", "10", "58", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "58", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 762/2011\nof 29 July 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2011.", "references": ["63", "48", "24", "93", "8", "49", "1", "87", "81", "88", "98", "51", "27", "20", "33", "94", "85", "66", "42", "55", "36", "40", "50", "3", "31", "64", "35", "57", "15", "78", "No Label", "21", "84"], "gold": ["21", "84"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1257/2011\nof 23 November 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 810/2008 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/96 of 18 June 1996 on the implementation of the concessions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in the wake of the conclusion of the GATT XXIV.6 negotiations (1), and in particular Article 1(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 810/2008 (2) opened yearly tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen meat of bovine animals covered by CN codes 0201 and 0202, for products covered by CN codes 0206 10 95 and 0206 29 91 and for frozen boneless buffalo meat covered by CN code 0202 30 90.\n(2)\nArticle 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2008 allocates 28 000 tonnes of boneless beef covered by CN codes 0201 30 00 and 0206 10 95 to selected beef cuts meeting a precise definition.\n(3)\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Argentina pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (3) approved by Council Decision 2011/769/EU (4), provides for an addition of 1 500 tonnes in the country allocated (Argentina) EU tariff quota \u2018boneless meat of bovine animals, fresh or chilled\u2019. For the four first years of implementation the increase is to be 2 000 tonnes annually. That Agreement also provides for the creation of a country allocation (Argentina) of 200 tonnes under the EU tariff quota \u2018Boneless buffalo meat, frozen\u2019, the allocation of Argentina also covering \u2018fresh and chilled\u2019.\n(4)\nFor the sake of clarity it is appropriate to specify the country where the buffalo meat is originating in.\n(5)\nArticle 2(e) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2008 allocates 1 300 tonnes of meat covered by CN codes 0201 20 90, 0201 30, 0202 20 90, 0202 30, 0206 10 95 and 0206 29 91 to high quality beef cuts meeting a precise definition.\n(6)\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (5) approved by Council Decision 2011/767/EU (6), provides for a change in the definition of the EU tariff quota of 1 300 tonnes \u2018high quality beef\u2019.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 810/2008 should be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 810/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, paragraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\n66 750 tonnes for high quality fresh, chilled or frozen meat of bovine animals covered by CN codes 0201 and 0202 and for products covered by CN codes 0206 10 95 and 0206 29 91. For the import period 2011/2012, the total amount is 66 625 tonnes and for the import periods 2012/2013, 2013/2014, 2014/2015, the total amount is 67 250 tonnes.\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\n2 250 tonnes for frozen boneless buffalo meat covered by CN code 0202 30 90, expressed in weight of boneless meat, originating in Australia. This quota carries order number 09.4001.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following point (c) is added:\n\u2018(c)\n200 tonnes for \u201cboneless buffalo meat, fresh, chilled or frozen\u201d covered by CN code 0201 30 00 and CN code 0202 30 90, expressed in weight of boneless meat, originating in Argentina. This quota carries order number 09.4004.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 2 is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\n29 500 tonnes of boneless beef covered by CN codes 0201 30 00 and 0206 10 95 and meeting the following definition:\n\u201cSelected beef cuts obtained from steers, young steers or heifers having been exclusively fed through pasture grazing since their weaning. The steer carcasses shall be classified as \u2018JJ\u2019, \u2018J\u2019, \u2018U\u2019 or \u2018U2\u2019, young steer and heifer carcasses shall be classified as \u2018AA\u2019, \u2018A\u2019, or \u2018B\u2019 according to the official beef classification established by the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Food in Argentina (Secretar\u00eda de Agricultura, Ganader\u00eda, PESCA y Alimentos - SAGPyA)\u201d.\nHowever, for the import period 2011/2012 the total amount is 29 375 tonnes and for the import periods 2012/2013, 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 it is raised to 30 000 tonnes.\nThe cuts shall be labelled in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7).\nThe indication \u201cHigh Quality Beef\u201d may be added to the information on the label.\nThis quota carries order number 09.4450.\n(b)\nin point (e), the definition is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Selected beef cuts derived from exclusively pasture grazed steers or heifers, the carcases of which have a dressed weight of not more than 370 kilograms. The carcases shall be classified as A, L, P, T or F, be trimmed to a fat depth of P or lower and have a muscling classification of 1 or 2 according to the carcase classification system administered by the New Zealand Meat Board\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 8, paragraph 1, is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Imports of the quantities set out in Article 1(1)(b) and (c) and in Article 2(a) to (e) and (g) shall be subject to presentation, on release for free circulation, of import licences issued in accordance with Article 4(a) and (b) and paragraph 2 of this Article.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 10, the second paragraph, is replaced by the following:\n\u2018For quantities referred to in Article 1(1)(b) and (c) and in Article 2(a) to (e) and (g) of this Regulation, the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 shall apply, save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 11 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nNo later than 31 August following the end of each import tariff quota period, for the import tariff quota with the order numbers 09.4001 and 09.4004, the quantities of products, including nil returns, for which import licenses were issued in the previous import tariff quota period;\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, the second subparagraph, is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The notifications regarding the quantities referred to in Article 1(1)(b) and (c) and in Article 2(a) to (e) and (g) of this Regulation shall be made as indicated in Annexes IV, V and VI to this Regulation.\u2019;\n(6)\nin Annex I, the definition is replaced by the following:\n\u2018High quality beef originating in \u2026\n(appropriate definition)\nor Buffalo meat originating in Australia\nor Buffalo meat originating in Argentina.\u2019;\n(7)\nin Annex II, the first indent is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nMINISTERIO DE ECONOM\u00cdA Y FINANZAS P\u00daBLICAS:\nFor meat originating in Argentina:\n(a)\nmeeting the definition in point (c) of Article 1(1)\n(b)\nmeeting the definition in Article 2(a)\u2019;\n(8)\nin Annexes IV, V and VI the following order number and country of origin are added:\n\u201809.4004\u2019\n\u2018Argentina\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 November 2011.", "references": ["73", "43", "64", "17", "44", "48", "36", "33", "32", "51", "45", "85", "5", "65", "40", "63", "24", "58", "92", "3", "87", "37", "52", "99", "88", "38", "94", "2", "6", "79", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "69", "72", "93", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "69", "72", "93", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 28 June 2012\nauthorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87701 \u00d7 MON 89788 (MON-877\u00d81-2 \u00d7 MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2012) 4312)\n(Only the Dutch and French texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/347/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Article 7(3) and Article 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 14 August 2009, Monsanto Europe SA submitted to the competent authority of the Netherlands an application, in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON 87701 \u00d7 MON 89788 soybean (\u2018the application\u2019).\n(2)\nThe application also covers the placing on the market of MON 87701 \u00d7 MON 89788 soybean as present in products other than food and feed containing or consisting of MON 87701 \u00d7 MON 89788 soybean for the same uses as any other soybean with the exception of cultivation.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 5(5) and Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, the application includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.\n(4)\nOn 15 February 2012, the European Food Safety Authority (\u2018EFSA\u2019) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It concluded that soybean MON 87701 \u00d7 MON 89788, as described in the application, is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment (3).\n(5)\nIn its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Article 6(4) and Article 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(6)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.\n(7)\nTaking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for MON 87701 \u00d7 MON 89788 soybean and all products containing it or consisting of it and for food and feed produced from it as described in the application (\u2018the products\u2019). Products other than food and feed produced from MON 87701 \u00d7 MON 89788 soybean do not fall under the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and are not covered by this authorisation.\n(8)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each genetically modified organism (\u2018GMO\u2019) as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).\n(9)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON 87701 \u00d7 MON 89788 soybean. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (5), lays down labelling requirements in Article 4(6) for products containing or consisting of GMOs. Traceability requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs are laid down in paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article 4 and for food and feed produced from GMOs are laid down in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(11)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). The EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in point (e) of Article 6(5) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(12)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the EU register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(13)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing-House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and point (c) of Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).\n(14)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(15)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman. An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation. The appeal committee did not deliver an opinion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified soybean MON 87701 \u00d7 MON 89788 is assigned the unique identifier MON-877\u00d81-2 \u00d7 MON-89788-1, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Article 4(2) and Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-877\u00d81-2 \u00d7 MON-89788-1 soybean;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-877\u00d81-2 \u00d7 MON-89788-1 soybean;\n(c)\nMON-877\u00d81-2 \u00d7 MON-89788-1 soybean present in products other than food and feed containing it or consisting of it, for the same uses as any other soybean with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018soybean\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of MON-877\u00d81-2 \u00d7 MON-89788-1 soybean referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 2.\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nEU register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the EU register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Monsanto Company, United States, represented by Monsanto Europe SA, Belgium.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Monsanto Europe SA, Avenue de Tervuren/Tervurenlaan 270-272, 1150 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2012.", "references": ["37", "67", "18", "82", "19", "53", "32", "3", "59", "95", "62", "10", "11", "90", "78", "42", "15", "30", "40", "46", "55", "16", "57", "71", "44", "87", "54", "88", "4", "86", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 881/2011\nof 2 September 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1137/2007 as regards the additive composition of the preparation of Bacillus subtilis DSM 17299 (holder of authorisation Chr. Hansen A/S) and its use in feed containing formic acid\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe preparation of Bacillus subtilis DSM 17299, belonging to the additive category of \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019, was authorised for 10 years as a feed additive for use on chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1137/2007 (2).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, the holder of the authorisation has proposed changing the terms of the authorisation of Bacillus subtilis DSM 17299 to modify the additive composition by increasing the minimum concentration and to allow its use in feed for chickens for fattening containing formic acid. The application was accompanied by the relevant supporting data. The Commission forwarded that application to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019).\n(3)\nThe Authority concluded in its opinion of 15 March 2011 that the increase of the minimum concentration from 1,6 \u00d7 109 to 1,6 \u00d7 1010 CFU/g is unlikely to introduce new hazards and that the modified composition is compatible with formic acid. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nThe conditions provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 are satisfied.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1137/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1137/2007 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2011.", "references": ["78", "76", "91", "65", "71", "14", "15", "10", "96", "34", "22", "68", "62", "54", "93", "75", "70", "48", "80", "4", "1", "88", "95", "12", "73", "67", "23", "20", "53", "43", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1126/2010\nof 3 December 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1547/2007 as regards an extension of the transitional period for withdrawing the Republic of Cape Verde from the list of beneficiary countries of the special arrangement for least developed countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007 (1), and in particular Article 11(8) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Republic of Cape Verde (hereinafter referred to as Cape Verde) is a beneficiary of the special arrangement for least-developed countries (also known as the Everything but Arms scheme, EBA) under the Union\u2019s scheme of generalised tariff preferences.\n(2)\nArticle 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 provides for the withdrawal of a country from the special arrangement for least-developed countries, when that country is excluded by the United Nations from the list of the least developed countries. This Article also provides for the establishment of a transitional period of at least three years before the removal takes effect.\n(3)\nCape Verde was excluded by the United Nations from the list of least-developed countries, with effect from 1 January 2008 (2).\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1547/2007 (3) provides for Cape Verde\u2019s removal from the list of beneficiaries of the special arrangement for least developed countries with effect from 1 January 2011 after the expiry of a three-year transitional period.\n(5)\nThe transitional period granted under Regulation (EC) No 1547/2007, coming in a time of economic crisis, was marked by declining trade volumes that hampered Cape Verde\u2019s economic diversification efforts. Hence, this transitional period has not allowed the time necessary for Cape Verde to overcome the over-reliance on one key export sector and thus alleviate potential adverse effects of the removal from the EBA scheme. That period should therefore be extended until 1 January 2012.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Generalised Preferences Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1547/2007 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThe Republic of Cape Verde shall be removed from the list of beneficiaries of the special arrangement for the least-developed countries in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 732/2008, with effect from 1 January 2012.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 December 2010.", "references": ["99", "9", "26", "89", "68", "63", "23", "11", "44", "28", "45", "78", "1", "71", "29", "69", "0", "34", "64", "81", "87", "2", "42", "6", "66", "17", "84", "70", "27", "74", "No Label", "16", "20", "94"], "gold": ["16", "20", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1222/2011\nof 28 November 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 as regards administrative arrangements with third countries on catch certificates for marine fisheries products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (1), in particular Articles 12(4), 14(3), 20(4) and 52 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAdministrative arrangements with third countries on catch certificates for fisheries products are listed in Annex IX to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 of 22 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 (2).\n(2)\nTwo new administrative arrangements on catch certificates, based on electronic traceability systems, have been agreed with Norway and South Africa respectively on 4 May 2011 and 21 September 2010.\n(3)\nAnnex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 should be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 is amended as set out in Annexes I and II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 November 2011.", "references": ["74", "72", "58", "23", "90", "33", "65", "48", "27", "4", "71", "50", "53", "31", "9", "2", "12", "63", "76", "36", "60", "83", "32", "81", "42", "29", "28", "55", "22", "15", "No Label", "41", "67", "91", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["41", "67", "91", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1031/2010\nof 12 November 2010\non the timing, administration and other aspects of auctioning of greenhouse gas emission allowances pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowances trading within the Community\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Articles 3d(3) and 10(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2003/87/EC was revised and amended by Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (2) and Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community (3). One of the improvements determined in the revision of Directive 2003/87/EC was that auctioning should be the basic principle for allocation, as it is the simplest and generally considered to be the most economically efficient means of doing so. The efficiency of the emissions trading scheme relies on a clear carbon price signal to achieve abatement of greenhouse gas emissions at least cost. Auctioning should support and strengthen such a carbon price signal.\n(2)\nArticle 10(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC requires Member States to auction allowances covered by Chapter III of that Directive not allocated free of charge. Thus, Member States must auction allowances not allocated free of charge. They may not use any other means of allocation, nor could they withhold or cancel allowances not allocated for free instead of auctioning them.\n(3)\nArticle 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC lays down various objectives for the auctioning process. It should be predictable, in particular as regards the timing and sequencing of auctions and the estimated volumes of allowances to be made available. Auctions should be designed to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises covered by the emissions trading scheme have full, fair and equitable access, that small emitters are granted access, that participants have access to information at the same time, that participants do not undermine the operation of the auctions, and that the organisation of and participation in the auctions is cost-efficient avoiding undue administrative costs.\n(4)\nThese objectives should be read in the context of the overarching aims of the revision of Directive 2003/87/EC, which include, inter alia, more harmonisation, avoidance of distortions of competition and greater predictability, all of which should reinforce the carbon price signal to achieve abatement of emissions at least cost. Indeed, the increased emissions reduction effort requires the highest possible degree of economic efficiency on the basis of fully harmonised conditions of allocation within the Union.\n(5)\nArticle 3d(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC provides for the auctioning of 15 % of allowances covered by Chapter II of that Directive in the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012 whilst Article 3d(2) provides for the auctioning of the same percentage of allowances covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC in the period from 1 January 2013 onwards. Article 3d(3) requires the adoption of a regulation containing detailed provisions for the auctioning by Member States of allowances covered by Chapter II not required to be issued free of charge in accordance with Article 3d(1) and (2) or Article 3f(8) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n(6)\nAccording to the majority of stakeholders involved in the consultation prior to the adoption of this Regulation, the overwhelming majority of Member States and the impact assessment carried out by the Commission, a common auctioning infrastructure where a common auction platform conducts the auctions best achieves the overarching objectives of the review of Directive 2003/87/EC. Such an approach avoids any distortions of the internal market. It allows for the highest degree of economic efficiency and permits allowances to be allocated through auctioning on the basis of fully harmonised conditions within the Union. Moreover, conducting the auctions by means of a common auction platform best strengthens the carbon price signal required for economic operators to make the investment decisions necessary to achieve abatement of greenhouse gas emissions at least cost.\n(7)\nAccording to the majority of stakeholders involved in the consultation prior to the adoption of this Regulation, the overwhelming majority of Member States and the impact assessment carried out by the Commission, a common auctioning infrastructure where a common auction platform conducts the auctions also best achieves the objectives in Article 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC. Such an approach is the most cost-effective means of auctioning allowances without an undue administrative burden that would necessarily ensue from using multiple auctioning infrastructures. It best provides for open, transparent and non-discriminatory access to the auctions, both de jure and de facto. Such a common approach would ensure the predictability of the auction calendar and best strengthens the clarity of the carbon price signal. A common auctioning infrastructure is particularly important for providing equitable access to small and medium-sized enterprises covered by the emissions trading scheme and access to small emitters. Indeed, the cost of becoming familiar and registering with, as well as participating in, more than one auction platform would be particularly burdensome for such companies. A common auction platform facilitates the widest participation from across the Union and, thereby, best mitigates the risk of participants undermining the auctions by using them as a vehicle for money laundering, terrorist financing, criminal activity or market abuse.\n(8)\nNevertheless, to mitigate any risk of reduced competition in the carbon market, this Regulation provides for the possibility for Member States to opt-out of the common auction platform by appointing their own auction platforms subject to the listing of these opt-out platforms in an Annex to this Regulation. Such listing should be based on a notification of the opt-out platform by the appointing Member State to the Commission. However, this possibility inevitably implies less than full harmonisation of the auction process and, therefore, the arrangements put in place in this Regulation should be reviewed within an initial five-year period and in consultation with stakeholders with a view to making any changes deemed necessary in the light of the experience acquired. Following receipt of a notification in relation to an opt-out platform from a Member State, the Commission should act without undue delay in relation to the listing of that opt-out platform.\n(9)\nIn addition, it should be possible for a Member State to request the auction monitor to draw up a report about the functioning of the auction platform it intends to appoint, for instance when preparing any amendment of this Regulation to list opt-out auction platforms. Moreover, the auction monitor should keep under review the compatibility of all auction platforms with this Regulation and the objectives of Article 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC and report thereon to the Member States, the Commission and the auction platform concerned. Such review should include the impact of the auctions on the market position of the auction platforms on the secondary market. To avoid auctioning Member States unwittingly becoming locked-into any auction platform beyond its term of appointment, any contracts appointing an auction platform should contain appropriate provisions requiring an auction platform to hand over of all tangible and intangible assets necessary for the conduct of the auctions by an auction platform\u2019s successor.\n(10)\nThe choices as regards the number of auction platforms and the type of entity that may become an auction platform underpin the provisions adopted in this Regulation for a predictable auction calendar as well as the measures on accessing the auctions, the design of the auctions, and the provisions on the management of collateral, payment and delivery and on auction supervision. Such provisions could not be adopted by the Commission in a fully harmonised regulation without knowing the number of auction platforms and the specific capabilities of the entity chosen to conduct the auctions. Therefore, the measures adopted in this Regulation are based on auctions being conducted through a common auction platform whilst providing for a procedure to ascertain the number and quality of any other auction platform a Member State may decide to use.\n(11)\nIn view of the constraints outlined in recital (10), it is appropriate for the listing of an opt-out auction platform in an Annex to this Regulation to be made subject to conditions or obligations. The listing of an opt-out platform in an Annex to this Regulation is without prejudice to the powers of the Commission to propose the delisting of an auction platform in particular in the event of any breach of this Regulation or the objectives of Article 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC. In the absence of listing, the auctioning Member State should auction its allowances through the common auction platform. The Commission should provide in the Commission regulation adopted pursuant to Article 19(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC for measures suspending the execution of processes pertaining to the auctioning of allowances in circumstances where the opt-out platform is in breach of this Regulation or the objectives of Article 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n(12)\nThe detailed provisions pertaining to the auction process to be conducted by the opt-out auction platform should be assessed by the Commission and should be subject to consultation of the Committee referred to in Article 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC. Such an assessment is necessary to ensure that the appointment of the opt-out auction platform, conducted at national level by each opting-out Member State, is subject to a similar level of scrutiny as that to which the appointment of the common auction platform is subject under the joint action provided for in this Regulation. Member States participating in the joint procurement of the common auction platform will be doing so together with the Commission which will be involved in the entire process. Moreover, opt-out Member States will be given observer status in the joint procurement process, subject to appropriate terms and conditions agreed by the Commission and participating Member States, in the joint procurement agreement.\n(13)\nThis Regulation should apply to the auctioning of allowances covered by Chapter II and Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC from, respectively, 1 January 2012 onwards and 1 January 2013 onwards. It should also apply to the auctioning of any allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC prior to the start of the period from 2013, if necessary to ensure an orderly functioning of the carbon and electricity markets.\n(14)\nFor reasons of simplicity and accessibility, the allowances auctioned should be available for delivery within five trading days at the latest. Such short-term delivery deadlines would limit any potential negative impact on competition between the auction platforms and trading places in the secondary market for allowances. Moreover, short-term delivery deadlines are simpler, encourage wide participation thereby mitigating the risk of market abuse and better ensure accessibility for small and medium-sized enterprises covered by the scheme and small emitters. Rather than providing forwards and futures in the auctions, it is for the market to offer optimal solutions to respond to the demand for allowance derivatives. It is appropriate to provide for a choice between two-day spot and five-day futures to be made during the process for the appointment of the auction platform to assess the best solution for the optimal auctioned product to be selected. Whilst two-day spot is not a financial instrument under Union financial market legislation, five-day futures are financial instruments within the meaning of Union financial market regulation.\n(15)\nThe choice of whether or not the auctioned product should be a financial instrument should be part of the procedures for selecting the auction platform and should be made on the basis of an overall assessment of the costs and benefits of the solutions offered by candidates taking part in the competitive procurement process. This assessment should concern, notably, cost efficiency, equitable access for small and medium-sized enterprises covered by the scheme and small emitters, adequate protections and market supervision.\n(16)\nFor as long as the legal measures and technical means necessary to deliver allowances are not in place, it is appropriate to provide for an alternative means of auctioning allowances. To this end, this Regulation provides for the possibility of auctioning futures and forwards with delivery no later than 31 December 2013. Such futures and forwards are financial instruments which allow the auctioneer and bidders alike to benefit from protections analogous to those available to them within the context of the regulatory framework applicable to financial markets. For the purposes of this Regulation, futures differ from forwards in that whilst the former are subject to cash variation margining, the latter are variation margined through non-cash collateral. It is appropriate to provide the Member States with the option of choosing which type of product to use for the auctioning of allowances in line with which margining provisions would best meet their budgetary situation. If it were necessary to resort to such alternative means of auctioning allowances, futures and forwards would be auctioned on a provisional basis through one or two auction platforms.\n(17)\nIn view of the desire for simplicity, fairness and cost-efficiency and the need to mitigate the risk of market abuse, auctions should be carried out by means of a single-round, sealed-bid and uniform-price format. Moreover, tied bids should be resolved by means of a random process, as this generates uncertainty for bidders making collusion on the price they are bidding unsustainable. The auction clearing price can be expected to be closely aligned to the prevailing secondary market price, whereas an auction clearing price significantly under the prevailing secondary market price is likely to indicate a deficiency of the auction. Allowing such an auction clearing price to prevail could distort the carbon price signal, disturb the carbon market and would not ensure that bidders pay fair value for the allowances. Therefore, in such a situation, the auction should be cancelled.\n(18)\nA relatively high frequency of the auctions is desirable to limit the impact of the auctions on the functioning of the secondary market, whilst ensuring that auctions are large enough to attract sufficient participation. A relatively high frequency reduces the risk of market abuse because it decreases the value at stake for bidders in individual auctions and increases their flexibility to make use of later auctions to adjust their trading positions. For these reasons, this Regulation should provide for a frequency of at least weekly auctions for allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC. Given the much smaller volume of allowances covered by Chapter II of the same Directive, the appropriate frequency for auctions for these allowances is at least once every two months.\n(19)\nTo provide predictability to the secondary market, this Regulation should provide the following rules and procedures. Firstly, it should provide for determining the volumes of any allowances to be auctioned in 2011 and 2012 as soon as practicable following the adoption of this Regulation. The volumes so determined, as well as the auctioned products through which they are to be auctioned, will be listed in an Annex to this Regulation. Secondly, it should provide clear and transparent rules that determine the volume of allowances to be auctioned in each year thereafter. Thirdly, it should contain rules and procedures to establish for each calendar year a detailed auction calendar, with all relevant information for each individual auction well before the beginning of that calendar year. Any subsequent changes to the auction calendar should only be possible in a limited number of prescribed situations. Any adjustments should be made in a manner least affecting the predictability of the auction calendar.\n(20)\nAs a rule, the volume to be auctioned in each year should be equal to the volume of allowances attributed to that year. Any allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned in 2011 and 2012 would be an exception. Given the expected availability of allowances banked from the second into the third trading period, the expected availability of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) and the expected volume of allowances to be sold pursuant to Article 10a(8) of Directive 2003/87/EC, it is appropriate to address the impact from any \u2018early auctions\u2019 in 2011 and 2012 by rebalancing the volume of allowances to be auctioned in 2013 and 2014.\n(21)\nIn line with demand on the secondary market, the volume of allowances to be auctioned in each year should be spread evenly throughout the year.\n(22)\nOpen access is required to encourage participation and, thereby, ensure a competitive auction outcome. Equally, confidence in the integrity of the auction process, in particular vis-\u00e0-vis participants seeking to distort the auctions by using them as a vehicle for money laundering, terrorist financing, criminal activity or market abuse is a pre-requisite for ensuring auction participation and a competitive auction outcome. To ensure the integrity of the auctions, access to the auctions should be subject to minimum requirements for adequate customer due diligence checks. To ensure the cost-effectiveness of such checks, eligibility to apply for admission to the auctions should be given to easily identifiable, well-defined categories of participants, notably operators of stationary installations and aircraft operators covered by the emissions trading scheme, as well as regulated financial entities such as investment firms and credit institutions. Also business groupings of operators or aircraft operators, such as partnerships, joint ventures and consortia acting as an agent on behalf of their members, should be eligible to apply for admission to bid in the auctions. Thus, it would be prudent to circumscribe eligibility to apply for admission to the auctions at the beginning without precluding the possibility of enlarging access to the auctions to further categories of participants in the light of the experience acquired through the auctions or following the Commission\u2019s examination pursuant to Article 12(1a) of Directive 2003/87/EC of whether the market for emission allowances is sufficiently protected from market abuse.\n(23)\nIn addition, for reasons of legal certainty, this Regulation should provide for relevant provisions of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing (4) to apply to the auction platform. This is particularly important in view of the fact that the auction platform is required to provide access not only to investment firms and credit institutions but also to operators and aviation operators as well as other persons authorised to bid on their own account and on behalf of others, which are not themselves subject to Directive 2005/60/EC.\n(24)\nThis Regulation should provide participants with the choice of accessing the auctions directly via either the internet or dedicated connections, through authorised and supervised financial intermediaries or other persons authorised by the Member States to bid on their own account or on behalf of clients of their main business, where their main business is not the provision of investment or banking services, subject to such other persons complying with investor protection measures and customer due diligence measures equivalent to those applicable to investment firms.\n(25)\nThe addition of other persons authorised by the Member States to the list of persons eligible to apply for admission to bid is intended to give indirect access to operators and aviation operators not only through financial intermediaries but also through other intermediaries with whom they have an existing client relationship such as their power or fuel supplier who are exempt from Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (5) pursuant to Article 2(1)(i) of that Directive.\n(26)\nIn view of legal certainty and transparency, this Regulation should contain detailed provisions on other aspects of auctioning such as lot size, the possibility to withdraw or modify submitted bids, the currency used for bidding and for payment, the submission and processing of applications for admission to bid, as well as any refusal, revocation or suspension of admission.\n(27)\nEach Member State should appoint an auctioneer, who would be responsible for the auctioning of allowances on behalf of its appointing Member State. The auction platform should be responsible solely for conducting the auctions. It should be possible for the same auctioneer to be appointed by more than one Member State. The auctioneer should act separately on behalf of each appointing Member State. It should be responsible for auctioning the allowances on the auction platform and for receiving and disbursing the auction proceeds pertaining to each appointing Member State to that Member State. It is important for the agreement(s) between the Member States and their auctioneer to be compatible with the agreement(s) between the auctioneer and the auction platform, and in case of any conflict for the latter to prevail.\n(28)\nFurthermore, it is necessary for the auctioneer appointed by a Member State not participating in the common auction platform but appointing its own auction platform to be admitted not only by the auction platform appointed by the Member State concerned but also by the common auction platform. This is desirable to ensure the means for a smooth transition from the opt-out auction platform to the common auction platform should this be required notably in the absence of a listing of the auction platform in an Annex to this Regulation.\n(29)\nThe requirement that the auction platform is a regulated market is founded on the desire to use the organisational infrastructure available on the secondary market for the administration of the auctions. In particular, regulated markets are bound under Directive 2004/39/EC and under Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (6), to provide a number of safeguards in the conduct of their operations. Those safeguards include arrangements to identify and manage the potential adverse consequences of any conflicts of interest for the operation of the regulated market or its participants; to identify and manage the risks to which they are exposed and to put in place effective measures to mitigate them; to provide for the sound management of the technical operations of their systems establishing effective contingency arrangements to cope with risks of systems disruptions; to have transparent and non-discretionary rules and procedures for fair and orderly trading and establish objective criteria for the efficient execution of orders; to facilitate the efficient and timely finalisation of the transactions executed under their systems; to have available sufficient financial resources to facilitate their orderly functioning, having regard to the nature and extent of the transactions concluded on the market and the range and degree of risks to which they are exposed.\n(30)\nThe requirement that the auction platform is a regulated market has various further advantages. It allows relying on the organisational infrastructure, experience, capabilities and transparent mandatory operational rules of the market. This is relevant, inter alia, with regard to the clearing or settlement of transactions, as well as monitoring compliance with the market\u2019s own rules and with other legal obligations such as the prohibition of market abuse and the provision of extra-judicial dispute settlement mechanisms. This is cost-effective and helps safeguard the operational integrity of the auctions. The conflict of interest rules of regulated markets would require the auctioneer to be independent of the auction platform, its owners or its market operator so as not to undermine the sound functioning of the regulated market. Moreover, many potential participants in the auctions will already be either members of, or participants, in the various regulated markets active on the secondary market.\n(31)\nUnder Directive 2004/39/EC, regulated markets and their market operators are authorised and supervised by the competent national authorities in the Member State where the regulated market or its market operator are either registered or situated (i.e. the home Member State). Without prejudice to any relevant provisions of Directive 2003/6/EC, notably any criminal sanctions provided for in national legislation on market abuse, the law applicable to regulated markets is the public law of the home Member State. Thus, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the administrative courts in the home Member State, as determined under national law. This regulatory framework applies to trading, as opposed to auctioning, and only to financial instruments, not to spot products. Therefore, it is appropriate for reasons of legal certainty for this Regulation to provide for the home Member State of the regulated market being appointed as the auction platform to ensure that its national law extends the relevant parts of the aforementioned regulatory framework to the auctions, being conducted by the auction platform coming under its jurisdiction. In addition, this Regulation should require the auction platform to provide for extra-judicial dispute resolution. Furthermore, the relevant Member State should also provide for the right to appeal decisions of the extra-judicial dispute resolution mechanism, regardless of whether the auctioned product is a financial instrument or a spot contract.\n(32)\nCompetition between different potential auction platforms must be ensured by the competitive procurement process for the appointment of the auction platform where required by either Union or national procurement law. The auction platform should be connected to at least one clearing system or settlement system. More than one clearing system or settlement system may connect to the auction platform. The appointment of the common auction platform should be for a limited period of maximum five years. The appointment of opt-out auction platforms should be for a limited period of maximum three years renewable for another two years during which the arrangements governing all auction platforms should be reviewed. Providing for a period of three years for the opt-out auction platform is designed to ensure a minimum term of appointment for the opt-out platform whilst allowing the appointing Member State to join the common platform if it chooses to do so after the three year period has elapsed, without prejudice to the ability of the appointing Member State to renew the appointment of the opt-out platform for a further two years pending the outcome of the review by the Commission. Upon expiry of each appointment period there should be a new competitive procurement process where a procurement process is required by either Union or national procurement law. Any impact on the secondary market resulting from the selection of a common auction platform to carry out the auctions is expected to be limited, as only allowances with delivery within five days at the latest should be auctioned.\n(33)\nThe conduct of the auctions, the establishment and management of the auction calendar and various other tasks relating to the auctions, such as maintaining an up-to-date website accessible throughout the Union, require joint action by the Member States and the Commission, within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 91(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (7) (the Financial Regulation). The need for such joint action is derived from the Union-wide ambit of the emissions trading scheme, the overarching policy objectives of the review of Directive 2003/87/EC, and the fact that the Commission is directly responsible under Directive 2003/87/EC for the detailed implementation of a number of features of the emissions trading scheme which have a direct impact in particular on the auction calendar and on the monitoring of the auctions. Therefore, this Regulation should provide for the competitive procurement process for the appointment of the common auction platform and the auction monitor to be carried out through a joint procurement by the Commission and the Member States within the meaning of Article 125c of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (8). Article 125c of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 allows for the use of the procurement rules applicable to the Commission to a joint procurement between the Member States and the Commission. Given the Union-wide ambit of the procurement, it is appropriate to apply, to the relevant extent, the procurement rules of the Financial Regulation and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 to the joint procurement process. This Regulation should specify the auctioning services to be procured by Member States and the technical support services to be procured by the Commission, in particular with respect to potential decisions on completion of incomplete Annexes to this Regulation, the appropriate frequency of the auctions, on the coordination of the auction calendars of the various auction platforms, on the imposition of a maximum bid-size, and any amendment to this Regulation, in particular as regards linkage to other schemes and services to foster a proper understanding of the auctioning rules outside the Union. It is appropriate for the Commission to procure such services from the common auction platform with the most experience in conducting auctions on behalf of more than one Member State. This does not prejudice any consultation of other auction platforms or other stakeholders.\n(34)\nThe auction platforms should be procured through an open, transparent and competitive selection procedure unless the appointment of the auction platform by a Member State not participating in the joint action is not subject to procurement rules under both Union and national procurement law. In appointing the auction platforms and the clearing system or settlement system connected to them, account should be taken of the solutions offered by candidates to provide for cost-efficiency, full, fair and equitable access to bid in the auctions for small and medium-sized enterprises and access for small emitters, and robust auction supervision including the provision of an extra-judicial dispute resolution mechanism. The auction platform auctioning forwards or futures may, by way of exception, be procured on the basis that it may apply the access provisions, payment and delivery rules and market supervision rules applicable on the secondary market. The specific procedures to be followed for the procurement of the common auction platform should be specified in an agreement agreed between the Commission and Member States, in which the practical modalities for the evaluation of the requests for participation or the tenders and the award of the contract, as well as the law applicable to the contract and the competent court for hearing disputes should be set out as required by Article 125c of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002.\n(35)\nSubject to any applicable public procurement rules, including those concerning the avoidance of conflicts of interest and maintaining confidentiality, Member States not participating in the joint action to procure the common auction platform may be given observer status in whole or in part to the joint procurement process upon terms and conditions agreed between the Member States participating in the joint action and the Commission, as set out in the joint procurement agreement. Such access could be desirable to facilitate convergence between the opt-out auction platforms and the common auction platform with respect to aspects of the auction process that are not fully harmonised in this Regulation.\n(36)\nIt is appropriate that Member States that decide not to participate in a joint action for the appointment of the common auction platform but decide to appoint their own auction platform should inform the Commission of their decision within a relatively short period following the entry into force of this Regulation. In addition, it is necessary for the Commission to assess whether Member States appointing their own auction platform take the necessary measures to ensure that the auction process satisfies the provisions of this Regulation as well as the objectives of Article 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC. Furthermore, it is necessary for the Commission to coordinate the detailed auction calendars proposed by auction platforms other than the common auction platform with the auction calendars proposed by the common auction platform. Once the Commission has conducted its assessment for all opt-out auction platforms, it should list such auction platforms, their appointing Member States and any applicable conditions or obligations, including any conditions or obligations relating to their respective auction calendars in an Annex to this Regulation. Such listing would not constitute endorsement by the Commission of the compliance of the appointing Member State with any procurement rules applicable to the appointment of their chosen auction platform.\n(37)\nArticle 10(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC provides that Member States determine the use of revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances. For the avoidance of any doubt, this Regulation should provide for the transfer of the auction proceeds directly to the auctioneer appointed by each Member State.\n(38)\nGiven that the auctioning of allowances consists of their primary issuance into the secondary market instead of allocating them directly to operators and aircraft operators free of charge, it is inappropriate for the clearing system(s) or settlement system(s) to be bound by any obligations of specific performance of the delivery of allowances to successful bidders or their successors in title in the event of any failure in delivery, outside its control. Thus, this Regulation should provide that the only remedies available to successful bidders or their successors in title in the event of any failure to deliver auctioned allowances should be to accept deferred delivery. However, it is important to allow for auctioned allowances that are not delivered due to failure of payment in full to be auctioned in forthcoming auctions organised by the same auction platform.\n(39)\nIt is not appropriate for Member States to have to deposit collateral other than the allowances themselves when auctioning, since the Member States\u2019 only commitments relate to the delivery of allowances. Thus, this Regulation should provide that the only obligations of Member States when auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures as defined in this Regulation consist of pre-depositing allowances being auctioned into an escrow account held in the Union registry by the clearing system or settlement system acting as custodian.\n(40)\nHowever, it is necessary for an auction platform, including any clearing system or settlement system connected to it to implement adequate collateral and any other risk management processes necessary to ensure that auctioneers receive full payment for the allowances auctioned at the auction clearing price regardless of any payment default by a successful bidder or its successor in title.\n(41)\nFor cost-efficiency reasons, successful bidders should be able to trade the allowances they have been allocated in the auction already before these allowances are delivered. An exception to this requirement of tradability can only be made when the allowances are delivered within two trading days after the auction. As a corollary, this Regulation provides for the option of accepting payment from and making delivery to a successor in title of a successful bidder, instead of the successful bidder itself. However, this option should not allow for circumvention of the requirements for eligibility to apply to bid in the auctions.\n(42)\nIt is appropriate for the structure and level of fees applied by auction platforms and the clearing system or settlement system connected to them to be no less favourable than comparable fees and conditions applied to transactions on the secondary market. In the interests of transparency, all fees and conditions should be comprehensible, itemised and publicly available. As a general rule, the costs of the auction process should be borne by the fees paid by the bidders as set out in the contract appointing the auction platform. However, it is important for the procurement of a cost-effective common auction platform for Member States to participate in the joint action from the outset. For this reason, it is appropriate that Member States that participating in the joint action at a later stage may be required to bear their own costs and for these amounts to be deducted from the costs otherwise borne by bidders. Such provisions should, however, not disadvantage Member States wishing to participate in the joint action following the expiry of the appointment of an opt-out platform. Neither should Member States be disadvantaged when they temporarily participate in the joint action due to the absence of listing of a notified opt-out platform. The auctioneer should pay only for access to the auction platform, if anything, but the costs of the clearing and settlement system, if any, should be borne by the bidders as provided for under the general rule.\n(43)\nNevertheless, it is appropriate to provide for the costs of the auction monitor to be borne by the Member States and to be deducted from the auction proceeds. Furthermore, it is appropriate for the contract appointing the auction monitor to distinguish between costs of the auction monitor which vary primarily according to the number of auctions and all other costs. The determination of the precise delineation between these costs should be left to the joint procurement process.\n(44)\nAn impartial auction monitor should be appointed to monitor and report on compliance of the auction process with the objectives of Article 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC, on the compliance with the provisions of this Regulation, and on any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, or market abuse. The monitoring of the auctions requires joint action by Member States and the Commission, as for auctions, and, therefore, a joint procurement is appropriate. The auction platforms, the auctioneers and the competent national authorities responsible for supervising the auction platform, investment firms or credit institutions or other persons authorised to bid on behalf of others participating in the auctions or for the investigation and prosecution of market abuse, should be required to cooperate with the auction monitor in fulfilling its functions.\n(45)\nTo ensure the auction monitor\u2019s impartiality, the requirements for appointing the auction monitor should take account of candidates with the least risk of conflict of interest or market abuse having regard, in particular, to their activities on the secondary market, if any, and their internal processes and procedures to mitigate the risk of conflict of interest or market abuse, without affecting their ability to fulfil their functions, in a timely manner, in accordance with the highest professional and quality standards.\n(46)\nAnti-competitive behaviour and market abuse is incompatible with the principles of openness, transparency, harmonisation and non-discrimination which underpin this Regulation. Therefore, this Regulation should include appropriate provisions to mitigate the risk of such behaviour in auctions. A common auction platform, a simple auction design, a relatively high frequency, random resolution of tied-bids, adequate access to the auctions, equal information disclosure and transparency of rules all help to mitigate the risk of market abuse. Financial instruments as a means for auctioning allowances enable the auctioneer and bidders alike to benefit from the protections available to them within the context of the regulatory framework applicable to financial markets. This Regulation should provide rules similar to those applicable to financial instruments in order to mitigate risk of market abuse in case the auctioned product is not a financial instrument. An impartial auction monitor should assess the entire auction process, including the auctions themselves and the implementation of the rules applicable to these.\n(47)\nMoreover, it is essential to ensure the auctioneer\u2019s integrity. Therefore, when appointing the auctioneer, Member States should take account of candidates with the least risk of conflict of interest or market abuse having regard in particular to their activities on the secondary market, if any, and their internal processes and procedures to mitigate the risk of conflict of interest or market abuse, without affecting their ability to fulfil their functions, in a timely manner, in accordance with the highest professional and quality standards. A corollary of this requirement is for Member States to be expressly prohibited from sharing any inside information regarding the auctions with their auctioneer. Contravention of this prohibition should be subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.\n(48)\nIn addition, it is desirable to provide for the auction platform to monitor the behaviour of bidders and to notify the competent national authorities in the event of market abuse, money laundering and terrorist financing, in line with the reporting obligations laid down in Directive 2003/6/EC and by applying the reporting obligations laid down in Directive 2005/60/EC.\n(49)\nWhen applying the national measures transposing, to the relevant extent, Titles III and IV of Directive 2004/39/EC and Directive 2003/6/EC competent authorities of the Member States concerned should give due regard to the corresponding provisions of Union measures implementing those Directives.\n(50)\nMoreover, it is desirable for this Regulation to provide for the option of imposing a maximum limit on what a single bidder can bid for as a share of the total volume of allowances to be auctioned in individual auctions or over a given calendar year, or any other appropriate remedial measures. In view of the potential administrative burden that this option could generate, the option should only be activated after the competent national authorities have been notified of any market abuse, money laundering and terrorist financing, and have decided not to act, provided that the need for its activation and its effectiveness are demonstrated. Activation of this option should be subject to obtaining the Commission\u2019s prior opinion thereon. Before giving its opinion, the Commission should consult the Member States and the auction monitor on the proposal made by the auction platform. The Commission\u2019s own assessment of whether the market for emissions allowances is sufficiently protected from market abuse pursuant to Article 12(1a) of Directive 2003/87/EC will also be relevant to its opinion.\n(51)\nIt is also appropriate that other persons authorised by Member States to bid on behalf of clients of their main business abide by the conduct rules provided for in this Regulation to ensure that their clients are adequately protected.\n(52)\nIt is necessary for this Regulation to provide for the language regime applicable to any auction platform, in a way that ensures transparency and balances the objective of non-discriminatory access to the auctions whilst providing for the most cost-efficient language regime. Documentation not published in the Official Journal of the European Union should be published in a language customary in the sphere of international finance, namely English. The use of a language customary in the sphere of international finance has already been provided for in Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (9).\n(53)\nMember States may provide, at their own cost, for the translation of all documentation into their national official language(s). Where a Member State chooses to do so, opt-out platforms should also translate all documentation relating to their own auction platform into the language(s) of the Member State in question, at the cost of the Member State that has appointed the opt-out platform concerned. As a corollary, the auction platforms should consequently be able to handle all oral and written communications from applicants for admission to bid, persons admitted to bid or bidders bidding in an auction, in any language where a Member State has provided for a translation at its own cost, if requested to do so by such persons. The auction platforms cannot charge such persons for the additional cost of doing so. Instead, these costs should be borne equally by all bidders on the auction platform concerned to ensure equal access to the auctions throughout the Union.\n(54)\nIn view of legal certainty and transparency, this Regulation should contain detailed provisions on other aspects of auctioning such as publication, announcement and notification of the auction results, protection of confidential information, correction of errors in any payment or allowance transfers made and collateral given or released under this Regulation, right to appeal the decisions of the auction platform, and entry into force.\n(55)\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, investment firms submitting bids relating to financial instruments on their own account or on behalf of clients should be considered to be performing an investment service or activity.\n(56)\nThis Regulation does not prejudge the Commission\u2019s examination pursuant to Article 12(1a) of Directive 2003/87/EC of whether the market for emission allowances is sufficiently protected from market abuse, nor any proposals the Commission may bring forward to ensure such protection. This Regulation aims at ensuring that trading conditions are fair and orderly pending the outcome of the Commission\u2019s examination.\n(57)\nThis Regulation is without prejudice to the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty, for instance in the context of arrangements for ensuring fair, full and equitable access for small and medium-sized enterprises covered by the Union\u2019s emissions trading scheme and access to small emitters.\n(58)\nThis Regulation is without prejudice to the application of any applicable internal market rules.\n(59)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised, in particular, by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular by Article 11 thereof, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this regard, this Regulation does not in any way prevent Member States from applying their constitutional rules relating to freedom of the press and freedom of expression in the media.\n(60)\nIn order to ensure predictable and timely auctions, this Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency.\n(61)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 23(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation provides for rules on the timing, administration and other aspects of the auctioning of allowances under Directive 2003/87/EC.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to the allocation through auctions of allowances under Chapter II (aviation) of Directive 2003/87/EC and to the allocation through auctions of allowances under Chapter III (stationary installations) of that Directive valid for surrendering in trading periods from 1 January 2013.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018futures\u2019 means allowances auctioned as financial instruments, pursuant to Article 38(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006 (10), for delivery at an agreed future date at the auction clearing price determined pursuant to Article 7(2) of this Regulation and upon which variation margin calls to reflect price movements are payable in cash;\n2.\n\u2018forwards\u2019 means allowances auctioned as financial instruments, pursuant to Article 38(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006, for delivery at an agreed forward date at the auction clearing price determined pursuant to Article 7(2) of this Regulation and upon which variation margin calls to reflect price movements may be secured, either through non-cash collateral or by means of an agreed government guarantee, at the option of the central counterparty;\n3.\n\u2018two-day spot\u2019 means allowances auctioned for delivery at an agreed date no later than the second trading day from the day of the auction, pursuant to Article 38(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006;\n4.\n\u2018five-day futures\u2019 means allowances auctioned as financial instruments, pursuant to Article 38(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006, for delivery at an agreed date no later than the fifth trading day from the day of the auction;\n5.\n\u2018bid\u2019 means an offer in an auction to acquire a given volume of allowances at a specified price;\n6.\n\u2018bidding window\u2019 means the time period during which bids may be submitted;\n7.\n\u2018trading day\u2019 means any day during which an auction platform and the clearing system or settlement system connected to it are open for trading;\n8.\n\u2018investment firm\u2019 means the same as in point (1) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC;\n9.\n\u2018credit institution\u2019 means the same as in Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (11);\n10.\n\u2018financial instrument\u2019 means the same as in point (17) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC unless otherwise stated in this Regulation;\n11.\n\u2018secondary market\u2019 means the market in which persons buy or sell allowances either before or after they are allocated either free of charge or through auctioning;\n12.\n\u2018parent undertaking\u2019 means the same as in Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 83/349/EEC (12);\n13.\n\u2018subsidiary undertaking\u2019 means the same as in Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 83/349/EEC;\n14.\n\u2018affiliate undertaking\u2019 means an undertaking linked to a parent or subsidiary undertaking by a relationship within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 83/349/EEC;\n15.\n\u2018control\u2019 means the same as in Article 3(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 (13) as applied in the Commission\u2019s Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice (14). Recital (22) of that Regulation and paragraphs 52 and 53 of that Notice shall apply for determining the notion of control for state-owned undertakings;\n16.\n\u2018auction process\u2019 means the process encompassing the setting of the auction calendar, the procedures for admission to bid, the procedures for submission of bids, the conduct of the auction, the calculation and announcement of the auction results, the arrangements for payment of the price due, delivery of the allowances and management of the collateral needed to cover any transaction risks, as well as the surveillance and monitoring of the proper conduct of the auctions by an auction platform;\n17.\n\u2018money laundering\u2019 means the same as in Article 1(2) of Directive 2005/60/EC having regard to Article 1(3) and (5) of that Directive;\n18.\n\u2018terrorist financing\u2019 means the same as in Article 1(4) of Directive 2005/60/EC having regard to Article 1(5) of that Directive;\n19.\n\u2018criminal activity\u2019 means the same as in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/60/EC;\n20.\n\u2018auctioneer\u2019 means any public or private entity appointed by a Member State, to auction allowances on its behalf;\n21.\n\u2018nominated holding account\u2019 means one or more type of holding account provided for in the applicable Commission regulation adopted pursuant to Article 19(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC for the purposes of participating in or conducting the auction process including the holding of allowances in escrow, pending their delivery under this Regulation;\n22.\n\u2018nominated bank account\u2019 means a bank account designated by an auctioneer, a bidder or its successor in title for the receipt of payments due under this Regulation;\n23.\n\u2018customer due diligence measure\u2019 means the same as in Article 8(1) of Directive 2005/60/EC having regard to Article 8(2) of that Directive;\n24.\n\u2018beneficial owner\u2019 means the same as in Article 3(6) of Directive 2005/60/EC;\n25.\n\u2018duly certified copy\u2019 means an authentic copy of an original document that is certified as being a true copy of the original by a qualified lawyer, accountant, notary public or similar professional who is recognised under the national law of the Member State concerned to attest officially as to whether a copy is in fact a true copy of its original;\n26.\n\u2018politically exposed persons\u2019 means the same as in Article 3(8) of Directive 2005/60/EC;\n27.\n\u2018market abuse\u2019 means either insider dealing as defined in point (28) of this Article or prohibited in Article 38 or market manipulation as defined in point (30) of this Article or in Article 37(b), or both;\n28.\n\u2018insider dealing\u2019 means the use of inside information as prohibited pursuant to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 2003/6/EC in relation to a financial instrument within the meaning of Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/6/EC referred to in Article 9 of that Directive unless otherwise stated in this Regulation;\n29.\n\u2018inside information\u2019 means the same as in Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/6/EC in relation to a financial instrument within the meaning of Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/6/EC referred to in Article 9 of that Directive unless otherwise stated in this Regulation;\n30.\n\u2018market manipulation\u2019 means the same as in Article 1(2) of Directive 2003/6/EC in relation to a financial instrument within the meaning of Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/6/EC referred to in Article 9 of that Directive unless otherwise stated in this Regulation;\n31.\n\u2018clearing system\u2019 means one or more infrastructure connected to the auction platform that can provide clearing, margining, netting, management of collateral, settlement and delivery, and any other services, carried out by a central counterparty, accessed either directly or indirectly through members of the central counterparty who act as intermediaries between their clients and the central counterparty;\n32.\n\u2018clearing\u2019 means all processes preceding the opening of the bidding window, during the bidding window and following the closing of the bidding window until settlement, involving the management of any risks arising during that interval, including margining, netting, or novation, or any other services, carried out possibly by a clearing or settlement system;\n33.\n\u2018margining\u2019 means the process by which collateral is to be pledged by an auctioneer or a bidder, or one or more intermediaries acting on their behalf, to cover a given financial position, encompassing the entire process of measuring, calculating and administering the collateral put up to cover such financial positions, intended to ensure that all payment commitments of a bidder and all delivery commitments of an auctioneer or one or more intermediaries acting on their behalf can be met within a very short period of time;\n34.\n\u2018settlement\u2019 means payment by a successful bidder, or its successor in title, or a central counterparty, or a settlement agent of the sum due for allowances to be delivered to that bidder or its successor in title, or a central counterparty, or a settlement agent, and delivery of the allowances to the successful bidder or its successor in title, or a central counterparty or a settlement agent;\n35.\n\u2018central counterparty\u2019 means an entity which interposes either directly between an auctioneer and a bidder or its successor in title, or between intermediaries representing them, that acts as the exclusive counterparty to each of them guaranteeing the payment of the auction proceeds to the auctioneer or an intermediary representing it or the delivery of the auctioned allowances to the bidder or an intermediary representing it, subject to Article 48;\n36.\n\u2018settlement system\u2019 means any infrastructure whether or not connected to the auction platform that can provide settlement services, which may include clearing, netting, management of collateral, or any other services, which ultimately enable the delivery of allowances on behalf of an auctioneer to a successful bidder or its successor in title, and the payment of the sum due by a successful bidder or its successor in title to an auctioneer, carried out through either of the following:\n(a)\nthe banking system and the Union registry;\n(b)\none or more settlement agents acting on behalf of an auctioneer and a bidder or its successor in title, accessing the settlement agent either directly or indirectly through members of the settlement agent who act as intermediaries between their clients and the settlement agent;\n37.\n\u2018settlement agent\u2019 means an entity acting as an agent providing accounts to the auction platform, through which accounts instructions for the transfer of the auctioned allowances given by the auctioneer or an intermediary representing it and the payment of the auction clearing price by a successful bidder, its successor in title, or an intermediary representing them are safely executed either simultaneously or nearly simultaneously in a guaranteed manner;\n38.\n\u2018collateral\u2019 means the forms of collateral security referred to in Article 2(m) of Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (15), including any allowances accepted as security by the clearing system or settlement system;\n39.\n\u2018regulated market\u2019 means the same as in point (14) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC;\n40.\n\u2018SMEs\u2019 means operators or aircraft operators that are small and medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC (16);\n41.\n\u2018small emitters\u2019 means operators or aircraft operators that emitted 25 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions or less on average in the three calendar years preceding the year in which they participate in an auction, as determined by their verified emissions;\n42.\n\u2018market operator\u2019 means the same as in point (13) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC;\n43.\n\u2018establishment\u2019 means any of the following:\n(a)\nplace of residence or permanent address within the Union for the purposes of the third subparagraph of Article 6(3);\n(b)\nthe same as in point 20(a) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC taking into account the requirements of Article 5(4) of that Directive for the purposes of Article 18(2) of this Regulation;\n(c)\nthe same as in point 20(a) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC taking into account the requirements of Article 5(4) of that Directive for the purposes of Article 18(3) of this Regulation, in the case of persons referred to in point (b) of Article 18(1) of this Regulation;\n(d)\nthe same as in point (7) of Article 4 of Directive 2006/48/EC for the purposes of Article 18(3) of this Regulation, in the case of persons referred to in point (c) of Article 18(1) of this Regulation;\n(e)\nthe same as in point 20(a) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC for the purposes of Article 19(2) of this Regulation in the case of business grouping referred to in point (d) of Article 18(1) of this Regulation;\n(f)\nthe same as in point 20(b) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC for the purposes of Article 35(4), (5) and (6) and Article 42(1) of this Regulation.\nCHAPTER II\nTHE DESIGN OF THE AUCTIONS\nArticle 4\nAuctioned products\n1. Allowances shall be offered for sale on an auction platform by means of standardised electronic contracts traded on that auction platform (\u2018the auctioned product\u2019). The auctioned products need not be traded on the same auction platform where the allowances are delivered within two trading days after the auction.\n2. Until implementation of the legal measures and technical means necessary to deliver the allowances, Member States shall auction allowances in the form of either futures or forwards.\nFutures or forwards shall be auctioned in accordance with Article 11(1), Article 32 and Annex I.\nWhen auctioning futures or forwards, the delivery of the allowances may be deferred to a date no later than 31 December 2013.\n3. No later than three months from the implementation of the legal measures and technical means necessary to deliver the allowances, Member States shall auction allowances in the form of either two-day spot or five-day futures.\nArticle 5\nAuction format\nAuctions shall be carried out through an auction format whereby bidders shall submit their bids during one given bidding window without seeing bids submitted by other bidders. Each successful bidder shall pay the same auction clearing price as referred to in Article 7 for each allowance regardless of the price bid.\nArticle 6\nSubmission and withdrawal of bids\n1. The minimum volume bid for shall be one lot.\nOne lot of two-day spot or five-day futures shall be 500 allowances.\nOne lot of futures or forwards shall be 1 000 allowances.\n2. Each bid shall state the following:\n(a)\nthe identity of the bidder and whether the bidder is bidding on its own account or on behalf of a client;\n(b)\nwhere the bidder is bidding on behalf of a client, the identity of the client;\n(c)\nthe volume bid as a number of allowances in integral multiples of lots of 500 or 1 000 allowances;\n(d)\nthe price bid in euros for each allowance specified to two decimal points.\n3. Each bid may only be submitted, modified or withdrawn during a given bidding window.\nBids submitted may be modified or withdrawn by a given deadline before the close of the bidding window. Such deadline shall be set by the auction platform concerned and published on that auction platform\u2019s website at least five trading days prior to the opening of the bidding window.\nOnly a natural person established in the Union appointed pursuant to Article 19(2)(d) and authorised to bind a bidder for all purposes relating to the auctions including the submission of a bid (the \u2018bidder\u2019s representative\u2019) is entitled to submit, modify or withdraw a bid on behalf of a bidder.\nOnce submitted, each bid shall be binding, unless it is withdrawn or modified pursuant to this paragraph or withdrawn pursuant to paragraph 4.\n4. Where the relevant auction platform is satisfied that a genuine mistake has been made in the submission of a bid, it may, upon request of the bidder\u2019s representative, treat the mistakenly submitted bid as withdrawn after the close of the bidding window, but before the auction clearing price has been determined.\n5. The reception, transmission and submission of a bid by an investment firm or credit institution on any auction platform shall be deemed to constitute an investment service within the meaning of point 2 of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC where the auctioned product is a financial instrument.\nArticle 7\nAuction clearing price and resolution of tied bids\n1. The auction clearing price shall be determined upon closure of the bidding window.\n2. An auction platform shall sort bids submitted to it in the order of the price bid. Where the price of several bids is the same, these bids shall be sorted through a random selection according to an algorithm determined by the auction platform before the auction.\nThe volumes bid shall be added up, starting with the highest bid price. The price of the bid at which the sum of the volumes bid matches or exceeds the volume of allowances auctioned shall be the auction clearing price.\n3. All bids making up the sum of the volumes bid determined pursuant to paragraph 2 shall be allocated at the auction clearing price.\n4. Where the total volume of successful bids determined pursuant to paragraph 2 exceeds the volume of auctioned allowances, the remaining volume of the auctioned allowances shall be allocated to the bidder that has submitted the last bid making up the sum of the volumes bid.\n5. Where the total volume of bids sorted pursuant to paragraph 2 falls short of the volume of auctioned allowances, the auction platform shall cancel the auction.\n6. Where the auction clearing price is significantly under the price on the secondary market prevailing during and immediately before the bidding window when taking into account the short term volatility of the price of allowances over a defined period preceding the auction, the auction platform shall cancel the auction.\n7. Before an auction is started, the auction platform shall determine the methodology for the application of paragraph 6, after consulting the auction monitor and obtaining its opinion thereon and notifying the competent national authorities referred to in Article 56. The auction platform concerned shall take the utmost account of the auction monitor\u2019s opinion.\nIn between two bidding windows on the same auction platform, the auction platform concerned may modify the methodology after having consulted the auction monitor and notified the competent national authorities referred to in Article 56.\n8. Where an auction is cancelled pursuant to paragraphs 5 or 6, the auctioned volume shall be distributed evenly over the next auctions scheduled on the same auction platform.\nIn case of allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC the volume to be auctioned shall be distributed evenly over the next four scheduled auctions.\nIn case of allowances covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC the volume to be auctioned shall be distributed evenly over the next two scheduled auctions.\nCHAPTER III\nAUCTION CALENDAR\nArticle 8\nTiming and frequency\n1. An auction platform shall conduct auctions separately through its own regularly recurring bidding window. The bidding window shall be opened and closed on the same trading day. The bidding window shall be kept open for no less than two hours. The bidding windows of any two or more auction platforms may not overlap and there shall be at least a two-hour delay between two consecutive bidding windows.\n2. The auction platform shall determine the dates and times of the auctions taking account of public holidays that affect international financial markets and any other relevant events or circumstances that, in view of the auction platform, might affect the proper conduct of the auctions necessitating changes. No auctions shall be held in the two weeks over Christmas and New Year of each year.\n3. In exceptional circumstances, any auction platform may, after consulting the auction monitor and obtaining its opinion thereon, change the times of any bidding window, by giving notice to all persons likely to be affected. The auction platform concerned shall take the utmost account of the auction monitor\u2019s opinion.\n4. As from the sixth auction or earlier, the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) shall conduct auctions of allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC on a weekly basis at least and auctions of allowances covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC shall be conducted on a two-monthly basis at least.\nNo other auction platform shall conduct an auction on any of a maximum of two days a week during which an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) conducts an auction. Where the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) conducts auctions on more than two days a week, it shall determine and publish on which two days no other auctions may take place. It shall do so no later than when it makes the determination and publication referred to in Article 11(1).\n5. As from the sixth auction or earlier, the volume of allowances to be auctioned on the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) shall be distributed evenly over the auctions held in a given year, except that volumes auctioned in auctions held in August of each year shall be half of the volume auctioned in auctions held in other months of the year.\n6. Additional provisions on the timing and frequency of the auctions conducted by any auction platform other than the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) and (2) are set out in Article 32.\nArticle 9\nCircumstances preventing the conduct of auctions\nWithout prejudice to the application of the rules referred in Article 58 where appropriate, an auction platform may cancel an auction where the proper conduct of that auction is disrupted or is likely to be disrupted, due to any circumstance affecting the security or reliability of the information technology system needed to apply for admission to bid, to access or to execute an auction.\nIn case of allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC the volume to be auctioned shall be distributed evenly over the next four scheduled auctions.\nIn case of allowances covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC the volume to be auctioned shall be distributed evenly over the next two scheduled auctions.\nArticle 10\nAnnual volumes of the auctioned allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC\n1. The volume of any allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned in 2011 or 2012 and the auctioned products by means of which the allowances are to be auctioned shall be set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. The volume of allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned in 2013 and 2014 shall be the quantity of allowances determined pursuant to Articles 9 and 9a of that Directive for the calendar year concerned, less the allocation free of charge provided for in Articles 10a(7) and 11(2) of that Directive, less half of the total volume of any allowances auctioned in 2011 and 2012.\nThe volume of allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned each calendar year as from 2015 onwards shall be the quantity of allowances determined pursuant to Articles 9 and 9a of that Directive for the calendar year concerned, less the allocation free of charge provided for in Articles 10a(7) and 11(2) of that Directive.\nAny quantity to be auctioned pursuant to Article 24 of Directive 2003/87/EC shall be added to the volume of allowances to be auctioned in a given calendar year, determined pursuant to the first or second subparagraphs of this paragraph.\nThe volume of allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned in the final year of each trading period shall take account of any cessation of operations of an installation pursuant to Article 10a(19) of that Directive, any adaptation of the level of free allocation pursuant to Article 10a(20) of that Directive and of allowances remaining in the reserve for new entrants provided for in Article 10a(7) of that Directive.\n3. The volume of allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned each calendar year as from 2013 shall be based on the Commission\u2019s determination and publication pursuant to Article 10(1) of that Directive of the estimated amount of allowances to be auctioned or on the most recent amendment of the Commission\u2019s original estimate as published by 31 January of the preceding year.\nAny subsequent change to the volume of allowances to be auctioned in a given calendar year shall be accounted for in the volume of allowances to be auctioned in the subsequent calendar year.\n4. Without prejudice to Article 10a(7) of Directive 2003/87/EC, for any given calendar year each Member State\u2019s share of allowances to be auctioned covered by Chapter III of that Directive shall be the share determined pursuant to Article 10(2) of the same Directive, less any transitional free allocation made by that Member State pursuant to Article 10c of Directive 2003/87/EC in that calendar year, plus any allowances to be auctioned by that Member State in the same calendar year pursuant to Article 24 of that Directive.\nArticle 11\nCalendar for individual auctions of allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC auctioned by auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) of this Regulation\n1. The auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) of this Regulation shall determine and publish the bidding windows, individual volumes, auction dates as well as the auctioned product, payment and delivery dates of the allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned in individual auctions each calendar year, by 28 February of the previous year, or as soon as practicable thereafter, having previously consulted the Commission and obtained its opinion thereon. The auction platforms concerned shall take the utmost account of the Commission\u2019s opinion.\n2. The auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) of this Regulation shall base their determinations and publications under paragraph 1 of this Article on the Commission\u2019s determination and publication of the estimated amount of allowances to be auctioned or on the most recent amendment of the Commission\u2019s original estimate referred to in Article 10(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n3. The bidding windows, individual volumes and auction dates of the allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned in individual auctions for the final year of each trading period, may be adjusted by the auction platform concerned to take account of any cessation of operations of an installation pursuant to Article 10a(19) of that Directive, any adaptation of the level of free allocation pursuant to Article 10a(20) of that Directive or allowances remaining in the reserve for new entrants provided for in Article 10a(7) of that Directive.\n4. The calendar for individual auctions of allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC conducted by an auction platform other than the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) of this Regulation shall be determined and published pursuant to Article 32 of this Regulation.\nArticle 12\nAnnual volumes of auctioned allowances covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC\n1. The volume of allowances covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned in 2012 shall be the volume calculated and decided by the Commission pursuant to Article 3d(1) of that Directive.\nThe volume of allowances covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned each calendar year as from 2013 onwards shall be the volume calculated and decided by the Commission pursuant to Article 3d(2) of that Directive, divided equally over the number of years making up the trading period in question.\nHowever, the volume of allowances to be auctioned in the final year of each trading period shall take account of allowances remaining in the special reserve referred to in Article 3f of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n2. For each calendar year in a given trading period, each Member State\u2019s share of allowances to be auctioned covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC shall be the share determined for that trading period pursuant to Article 3d(3) of that Directive divided by the number of years making up the trading period in question.\nArticle 13\nCalendar for individual auctions of allowances covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC auctioned by auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) of this Regulation\n1. The auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) of this Regulation shall determine and publish the bidding windows, individual volumes and auction dates of the allowances covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned in individual auctions for 2012, by 30 September 2011, or as soon as practicable thereafter, having previously consulted the Commission and obtained its opinion thereon. The auction platforms concerned shall take the utmost account of the Commission\u2019s opinion.\n2. As from 2012, the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) of this Regulation shall determine and publish the bidding windows, individual volumes, auction dates as well as the auctioned product, payment and delivery dates of the allowances covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned in individual auctions for each calendar year by 28 February of the previous year, or as soon as practicable thereafter, having previously consulted the Commission and obtained its opinion thereon. The auction platforms concerned shall take the utmost account of the Commission\u2019s opinion.\nThe bidding windows, individual volumes, auction dates as well as the auctioned product, payment and delivery dates of the allowances covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned in individual auctions for the final year of each trading period, may be adjusted by the auction platform concerned to take account of allowances remaining in the special reserve referred to in Article 3f of that Directive.\n3. The auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) of this Regulation shall base their determinations and publications under paragraphs 1 and 2 on the Commission\u2019s decision adopted pursuant to Article 3e(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n4. The provisions on the calendar for individual auctions of allowances covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC conducted by an auction platform other than the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) of this Regulation shall be determined and published pursuant to Article 32 of this Regulation.\nArticle 14\nAdjustments of the auction calendar\n1. The determinations and publications of the annual volumes to be auctioned and of the bidding windows, volumes, dates, auctioned product, payment and delivery dates in connection with individual auctions pursuant to Articles 10 to 13 and Article 32(4) shall not be modified except for adjustments due to any of the following:\n(a)\nthe cancellation of an auction pursuant to Article 7(5) and (6), Article 9 and Article 32(5);\n(b)\nany suspension of an auction platform other than the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) of this Regulation provided for in the Commission regulation adopted pursuant to Article 19(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n(c)\nany decision by a Member State made pursuant to Article 30(8);\n(d)\nany settlement failure referred to in Article 45(5);\n(e)\nany allowances remaining in the special reserve referred to in Article 3f of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n(f)\nthe cessation of operations of an installation pursuant to Article 10a(19) of Directive 2003/87/EC, any adaptation of the level of free allocation pursuant to Article 10a(20) of that Directive or allowances remaining in the reserve for new entrants provided for in Article 10a(7) of that Directive;\n(g)\nany unilateral inclusion of additional activities and gases pursuant to Article 24 of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n(h)\nany measures adopted pursuant to Article 29a of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n(i)\nthe entry into force of amendments to this Regulation or to Directive 2003/87/EC.\n2. Where the manner in which a modification is to be implemented is not provided for in this Regulation, the auction platform concerned shall not implement that modification until it has previously consulted the Commission and obtained its opinion thereon. The auction platform concerned shall take the utmost account of the Commission\u2019s opinion.\nCHAPTER IV\nACCESS TO THE AUCTIONS\nArticle 15\nPersons who may submit bids directly in an auction\nWithout prejudice to Article 28(3), only a person who is eligible to apply for admission to bid pursuant to Article 18 and is admitted to bid pursuant to Articles 19 and 20 may submit bids directly in an auction.\nArticle 16\nMeans of access\n1. An auction platform shall provide for the means to access its auctions on a non-discriminatory basis.\n2. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures shall ensure that its auctions can be accessed remotely by means of an electronic interface accessible securely and reliably through the internet.\nIn addition, an auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures shall offer bidders the option of accessing its auctions through dedicated connections to the electronic interface.\n3. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures may offer one or more alternative means of accessing its auctions, should the main means of access be inaccessible for whatever reason, provided that such alternative means of access are secure and reliable and their use does not lead to any discrimination between bidders.\nArticle 17\nTraining and helpline\nAn auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures shall offer a practical web-based training module on the auction process it is conducting, including guidance on how to complete and submit any forms and a simulation of how to bid in an auction. It shall also make available a helpline service accessible by telephone, facsimile and electronic mail at least during the working hours of each trading day.\nArticle 18\nPersons eligible to apply for admission to bid\n1. The following persons shall be eligible to apply for admission to bid directly in auctions:\n(a)\nan operator or an aircraft operator having an operator holding account, bidding on its own account, including any parent undertaking, subsidiary undertaking or affiliate undertaking forming part of the same group of undertakings as the operator or the aircraft operator;\n(b)\ninvestment firms authorised under Directive 2004/39/EC bidding on their own account or on behalf of their clients;\n(c)\ncredit institutions authorised under Directive 2006/48/EC bidding on their own account or on behalf of their clients;\n(d)\nbusiness groupings of persons listed in point (a) bidding on their own account and acting as an agent on behalf of their members;\n(e)\npublic bodies or state-owned entities of the Member States that control any of the persons listed in point (a).\n2. Without prejudice to the exemption in Article 2(1)(i) of Directive 2004/39/EC, persons covered by this exemption and authorised pursuant to Article 59 of this Regulation shall be eligible to apply for admission to bid directly in the auctions either on their own account or on behalf of clients of their main business provided that a Member State where they are established has enacted legislation enabling the relevant competent national authority in that Member State to authorise them to bid on their own account or on behalf of clients of their main business.\n3. Persons referred to in paragraph 1(b) or (c) shall be eligible to apply for admission to bid directly in the auctions on behalf of their clients when bidding for auctioned products that are not financial instruments provided that a Member State in which they are established has enacted legislation enabling the relevant competent national authority in that Member State to authorise them to bid on their own account or on behalf of their clients.\n4. Where the persons referred to in paragraph 1(b) and (c) and paragraph 2 bid on behalf of their clients, they shall ensure that those clients are themselves eligible to apply for admission to bid directly under paragraphs 1 or 2.\nWhere the clients of the persons referred to in the first subparagraph are themselves bidding on behalf of their own clients, they shall ensure that those clients are also eligible to apply for admission to bid directly under paragraphs 1 or 2. The same shall apply to all further clients down the chain bidding indirectly in the auctions.\n5. The following persons shall not be eligible to apply for admission to bid directly in auctions nor may they participate in auctions through one or more persons admitted to bid pursuant to Articles 19 and 20, whether for their own account or on behalf of any other person, where they fulfil their role with respect to the auctions in question:\n(a)\nthe auctioneer;\n(b)\nthe auction platform including any clearing system and any settlement system connected to it;\n(c)\npersons who are in a position to exercise, directly or indirectly, significant influence over the management of the persons under points (a) and (b);\n(d)\npersons working for persons under points (a) and (b).\n6. The auction monitor may not participate in any auction directly or indirectly through one or more persons admitted to bid pursuant to Articles 19 and 20 whether for its own account or on behalf of any other person.\nPersons who are in a position to exercise, directly or indirectly, significant influence over the management of the auction monitor may not participate in any auction directly or indirectly, through one or more persons admitted to bid pursuant to Articles 19 and 20, whether for their own account or on behalf of any other person.\nPersons working for the auction monitor in connection with the auctions may not participate in any auction directly or indirectly, through one or more persons admitted to bid pursuant to Articles 19 and 20, whether for their own account or on behalf of any other person.\n7. The option made available pursuant to Articles 44 to 50 for an auction platform, including any clearing system or settlement system connected to it, to accept payment, make delivery or take collateral, from a successor in title to a successful bidder shall not undermine the application of Articles 17 to 20.\nArticle 19\nRequirements for admission to bid\n1. When an auction platform organises a secondary market, members or participants of the secondary market organised by an auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures that are eligible persons pursuant to Article 18(1) or (2) shall be admitted to bid directly in the auctions conducted by that auction platform without any further admission requirements, provided that all of the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe requirements for admission of the member or participant to trade allowances through the secondary market organised by the auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures are no less stringent than those listed under paragraph 2 of this Article;\n(b)\nthe auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures receives any additional information necessary to verify the fulfilment of any requirements referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article that have not been previously verified.\n2. Persons, who are not members or participants of the secondary market organised by an auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures, and that are eligible persons pursuant to Article 18(1) or (2) shall be admitted to bid directly in the auctions conducted by that auction platform provided that they:\n(a)\nare established in the Union, an operator or an aircraft operator;\n(b)\nhold a nominated holding account;\n(c)\nhold a nominated bank account;\n(d)\nappoint at least one bidder\u2019s representative as defined in the third subparagraph of Article 6(3);\n(e)\nsatisfy the auction platform concerned in line with applicable customer due diligence measures as to their identity, the identity of their beneficial owners, integrity, business and trading profile having regard to the means of establishing the relationship with the bidder, the type of bidder, the nature of the auctioned product, the size of prospective bids, and the means of payment and delivery;\n(f)\nsatisfy the auction platform concerned of their financial standing, in particular, that they are able to meet their financial commitments and current liabilities as they fall due;\n(g)\nhave in place or are able to put in place when requested, the internal processes, procedures and contractual agreements necessary to give effect to a maximum bid-size imposed pursuant to Article 57;\n(h)\nfulfil the requirements of Article 49(1).\nWhen an auction platform does not organise a secondary market, persons who are eligible persons pursuant to Article 18(1) or (2) shall be admitted to bid directly in the auctions conducted by that auction platform provided that they satisfy the conditions set out in subparagraphs (a) to (h) of this paragraph.\n3. Persons falling under the scope of Article 18(1)(b) and (c) or Article 18(2) submitting bids on behalf of their clients shall be responsible for ensuring that all of the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\ntheir clients are eligible persons pursuant to Article 18(1) or (2);\n(b)\nthey have or will have in good time before the opening of the bidding window adequate internal processes, procedures and contractual agreements necessary to:\n(i)\nenable them to process bids from their clients including the submission of bids, collection of payment and transfer of allowances;\n(ii)\nprevent the disclosure of confidential information from that part of their business responsible for receiving, preparing and submitting bids on behalf of their clients to that part of their business responsible for preparing and submitting bids on their own account;\n(iii)\nensure that their clients who themselves are acting on behalf of clients bidding in the auctions apply the requirements set out in paragraph 2 of this Article and in this paragraph and that they require the same of their clients and of the clients of their clients as provided for in Article 18(4).\nThe auction platform concerned may rely on reliable checks carried out by the persons referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph, their clients, or the clients of their clients as provided for in Article 18(4).\nPersons referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall be responsible for ensuring that they are able to demonstrate to the auction platform whenever requested to do so by the auction platform pursuant to Article 20(5)(d) that the conditions in points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph are fulfilled.\nArticle 20\nSubmission and processing of applications for admission to bid\n1. Before submitting their first bid directly through any auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures, persons eligible pursuant to Article 18(1) or (2) shall apply to the auction platform concerned for admission to bid.\nWhen an auction platform organises a secondary market, members of or participants in the secondary market organised by the auction platform concerned fulfilling the requirements of Article 19(1) shall be admitted to bid without applying under the first subparagraph of this paragraph.\n2. An application for admission to bid made under paragraph 1 shall be made by completing an electronic application accessible through the internet. The electronic application and its access through the internet shall be provided and maintained by the auction platform concerned.\n3. An application for admission to bid shall be supported by duly certified copies of all supporting documents required by the auction platform to show that the applicant satisfies the requirements of Article 19(2) and (3). An application for admission to bid shall at least include the elements listed in Annex II.\n4. An application for admission to bid, including any supporting documents, shall upon request be made available for inspection by the auction monitor, the competent national law enforcement authorities of a Member State conducting an investigation, referred to in Article 62(3)(e) and any competent Union bodies involved in investigations conducted on a cross-border basis.\n5. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures may refuse admission to bid in its auctions if the applicant refuses any of the following:\n(a)\nto comply with requests made by the auction platform for additional information or clarification or substantiation of information provided;\n(b)\nto attend an invitation made by the auction platform to interview any officers of the applicant including at its business premises or elsewhere;\n(c)\nto allow investigations or verifications, requested by the auction platform including on-site visits or spot-checks at the applicant\u2019s business premises;\n(d)\nto comply with requests made by the auction platform for any information required from an applicant, the clients of an applicant or the clients of their clients as provided for in Article 18(4) to check compliance with the requirements of Article 19(3);\n(e)\nto comply with requests made by the auction platform for any information required to check compliance with the requirements of Article 19(2).\n6. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures shall apply the measures provided for in Article 13(4) of Directive 2005/60/EC in respect of its transactions or business relationships with politically exposed persons irrespective of their country of residence.\n7. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures shall require an applicant for admission to bid in its auctions to ensure that clients of the applicant comply with any request made pursuant to paragraph 5 and that any client of the applicant\u2019s clients as provided for in Article 18(4) does the same.\n8. An application for admission shall be deemed to be withdrawn if the applicant fails to submit information requested by an auction platform within a reasonable period specified in a request for information made pursuant to point (a), (d) or (e) of paragraph 5, by the auction platform concerned, which shall not be less than five trading days from the date of the request for information, or fails to respond or submit to or cooperate in an interview or any investigations or verifications under point (b) or (c) of paragraph 5.\n9. An applicant shall not provide any auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures, with false or misleading information. An applicant shall notify the auction platform concerned fully, frankly and promptly of any changes in its circumstances that could affect its application for admission to bid in auctions conducted by that auction platform or any admission to bid already granted to it.\n10. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures shall decide on an application submitted to it and notify its decision to the applicant.\nThe auction platform concerned may:\n(a)\ngrant unconditional admission to the auctions for a period not exceeding the term of its appointment, including any extension or renewal of that appointment;\n(b)\ngrant conditional admission to the auctions for a period not exceeding the term of its appointment, subject to fulfilment of the specified conditions, by a given date, which shall be duly verified by the auction platform concerned;\n(c)\nrefuse to grant admission.\nArticle 21\nRefusal, revocation or suspension of admission\n1. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures shall refuse to grant admission to bid in its auctions, revoke or suspend any admission to bid already granted to any person who:\n(a)\nis not or is no longer eligible to apply for admission to bid pursuant to Article 18(1) or (2);\n(b)\ndoes not or no longer meets the requirements of Articles 18, 19 and 20;\n(c)\nis wilfully or repeatedly in breach of this Regulation, the terms and conditions of its admission to bid in the auctions conducted by the auction platform concerned or any other related instructions or agreements.\n2. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures shall refuse to grant admission to bid in its auctions, revoke or suspend any admission to bid already granted, if it suspects money laundering, terrorist financing, criminal activity or market abuse in relation to an applicant, provided that such refusal, revocation or suspension is unlikely to frustrate efforts by the competent national authorities, to pursue or apprehend the perpetrators of such activities.\nIn such a case, the auction platform concerned shall make a report to the financial intelligence unit (FIU) referred to in Article 21 of Directive 2005/60/EC in accordance with Article 55(2) of this Regulation.\n3. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures may refuse to grant admission to bid in its auctions, revoke or suspend any admission to bid already granted, to any person:\n(a)\nwho is negligently in breach of this Regulation, the terms and conditions of its admission to bid in the auctions conducted by the auction platform concerned or any other related instructions or agreements;\n(b)\nwho has otherwise behaved in a manner that is prejudicial to the orderly or efficient conduct of an auction;\n(c)\nwho is referred to in Article 18(1)(b) or (c) or Article 18(2) and has not bid in any auction during the preceding 220 trading days.\n4. Persons referred to in paragraph 3 shall be notified of the refusal to grant admission, or the revocation or suspension of admission, and be given a reasonable period, specified in the decision of refusal to admit, revocation or suspension of admission, to respond in writing.\nAfter considering the person\u2019s written response, the auction platform concerned shall if warranted:\n(a)\ngrant or reinstate admission with effect from a given date;\n(b)\ngrant conditional admission or conditional reinstatement of admission subject to fulfilment of the specified conditions by a given date, which shall be duly verified by the auction platform concerned;\n(c)\nconfirm the refusal to grant admission, the revocation or suspension of admission with effect from a given date.\nThe auction platform shall notify the person in question of its decision.\n5. Persons whose admission to bid is revoked or suspended pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2 or 3 shall take reasonable steps to ensure that their removal from the auctions:\n(a)\nis orderly;\n(b)\ndoes not prejudice the interests of their clients or interfere with the efficient functioning of the auctions;\n(c)\ndoes not affect their obligations to comply with any payment provisions, the terms and conditions of their admission to bid in the auctions or any other related instructions or agreements;\n(d)\ndoes not compromise their obligations regarding the protection of confidential information pursuant to Article 19(3)(b)(ii) which shall remain in force for 20 years following their removal from the auctions.\nThe refusal to grant admission, the revocation or suspension of admission, referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, shall specify any measures needed to comply with this paragraph and the auction platform shall verify compliance with such measures.\nCHAPTER V\nAPPOINTMENT OF THE AUCTIONEER AND ITS FUNCTIONS\nArticle 22\nAppointment of the auctioneer\n1. Each Member State shall appoint an auctioneer. No Member State shall auction allowances without appointing an auctioneer. More than one Member State may appoint the same auctioneer.\n2. The auctioneer shall be appointed by the appointing Member State in good time prior to the commencement of the auctions so as to conclude and implement the necessary arrangements with the auction platform appointed or to be appointed by that Member State, including any clearing system and settlement system connected to it, allowing the auctioneer to auction allowances on behalf of the appointing Member State upon mutually agreed terms and conditions.\n3. For Member States not participating in the joint actions provided for in Article 26, the auctioneer shall be appointed by the appointing Member State in good time prior to the commencement of the auctions on the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) and (2) so as to conclude and implement the necessary arrangements with these auction platforms, including any clearing system and settlement system connected to them, to enable the auctioneer to auction allowances on behalf of the appointing Member State on such auction platforms upon mutually agreed terms and conditions, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 30(7) and the first subparagraph of Article 30(8).\n4. Member States shall refrain from disclosing any inside information within the meaning of point (29) of Article 3 and point (a) of Article 37 to any person working for an auctioneer.\nIn the event of any unauthorised disclosure of inside information to persons working for the auctioneer, the terms of appointment of the auctioneer shall provide for adequate measures to remove from the auctions any persons to whom such unauthorised disclosure has been made.\nThe second subparagraph of this paragraph shall apply without prejudice to the application of Articles 11 to 16 of Directive 2003/6/EC and Article 43 of this Regulation to any contravention of the prohibition of the first subparagraph of this paragraph.\n5. The allowances to be auctioned on behalf of a Member State shall be retained from the auctions until an auctioneer is duly appointed and until the arrangements referred to in paragraph 2 are concluded and implemented.\n6. Paragraph 5 is without prejudice to any legal consequences arising under Union law from a Member State failing to fulfil its obligations under paragraphs 1 to 4.\n7. Member States shall notify the identity of the auctioneer and its contact details to the Commission.\nThe auctioneer\u2019s identity and contact details shall be published on the Commission\u2019s website.\nArticle 23\nThe auctioneer\u2019s functions\nThe auctioneer shall:\n(a)\nauction the volume of allowances to be auctioned by each Member State appointing it;\n(b)\nreceive the auction proceeds due to each Member State appointing it;\n(c)\ndisburse the auction proceeds due to each Member State appointing it.\nCHAPTER VI\nAPPOINTMENT OF THE AUCTION MONITOR AND ITS FUNCTIONS\nArticle 24\nThe auction monitor\n1. All auction processes shall be monitored by the same auction monitor.\n2. All Member States shall appoint an auction monitor following a joint procurement procedure between the Commission and the Member States conducted pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 91(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 and Article 125c of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002.\n3. The period for which the auction monitor is appointed shall be no longer than 5 years.\nAt least three months prior to the expiry of the term of appointment or termination of the appointment of the auction monitor, a successor shall be appointed, pursuant to paragraph 2.\n4. The identity and contact details of the auction monitor shall be published on the Commission\u2019s website.\nArticle 25\nThe auction monitor\u2019s functions\n1. The auction monitor shall monitor each auction and report on the proper implementation of the auctions conducted in the preceding month to the Commission on behalf of the Member States and to the Member States concerned, within the deadline provided for in the fourth subparagraph of Article 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC, pursuant to that subparagraph in particular with respect to:\n(a)\nfair and open access;\n(b)\ntransparency;\n(c)\nprice formation;\n(d)\ntechnical and operational aspects.\n2. The auction monitor shall provide to the Member States and the Commission an annual consolidated report which shall comprise:\n(a)\nthe matters referred to in paragraph 1 both in relation to each individual auction and in aggregate for each auction platform;\n(b)\nany failure to comply with the contract appointing an auction platform;\n(c)\nany evidence of anti-competitive behaviour or market abuse;\n(d)\nthe impact of the auctions on the market position of the auction platforms on the secondary market, if any;\n(e)\nthe relationship between the auction processes covered in the consolidated report and between them and the functioning of the secondary market, pursuant to Article 10(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n(f)\ninformation about the number, nature and status of any complaints made pursuant to Article 59(4) as well as any other complaints made to the national competent authorities supervising credit institutions and investment firms;\n(g)\ninformation about any follow-up given to any reports of the auction monitor made under paragraphs 3, 4 and 5;\n(h)\nany recommendations deemed appropriate to improve any of the auction processes or for any review of the following:\n(i)\nthis Regulation including the review referred to in Article 33;\n(ii)\nthe Commission regulation adopted pursuant to Article 19(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n(iii)\nDirective 2003/87/EC including the review of the functioning of the carbon market provided for in Articles 10(5) and 12(1a) of that Directive.\n3. The auction monitor may, upon request by the Commission and one or more Member State(s), or as required in paragraph 5, report from time to time on any specific issue related to any of the auction processes, whenever it is necessary to raise the issue in question prior to the submission of the reports covered in paragraphs 1 or 2. Otherwise the auction monitor may report thereon in the reports provided for in paragraphs 1 or 2.\n4. A Member State not participating in the joint action provided for in Article 26 of this Regulation but opting to appoint its own auction platform pursuant to Article 30(1) and (2) of this Regulation may request the auction monitor to provide the Member States, the Commission and the auction platform concerned with a technical report on the ability of the auction platform it proposes or intends to propose, to carry out the auction process in accordance with the requirements of this Regulation and in conformity with the objectives set out in Article 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\nIn such reports, the auction monitor shall clearly state where the auction process meets the requirements of the first subparagraph and where it does not. It shall make precise recommendations for further development or improvement to the auction process wherever appropriate, proposing a specific timeline for their implementation.\n5. In the event of any breach of this Regulation or non-conformity with the objectives of Article 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the auction process carried out by an auction platform, or upon request by the Commission in case it suspects such a breach, the auction monitor shall report forthwith to the Member States, the Commission and the auction platform concerned.\nThe report shall clearly state the nature of the breach or non-conformity. It shall make precise recommendations to remedy the situation, proposing a specific timeline for their implementation. Where appropriate, it may recommend the suspension of the auction platform concerned. The auction monitor shall keep its report pursuant to this paragraph under constant review and provide quarterly up-dates thereon to the Member States, the Commission and the auction platform concerned.\n6. Any opinions provided pursuant to Article 7(7) or 8(3) of this Regulation by the auction monitor shall form part of its functions pursuant to this Article.\n7. The reports and opinions provided for pursuant to this Article shall be drawn up in a comprehensible, standardised easily accessible format to be determined as set out in the contract appointing the auction monitor.\nCHAPTER VII\nAPPOINTMENT OF AN AUCTION PLATFORM BY MEMBER STATES PARTICIPATING IN A JOINT ACTION WITH THE COMMISSION AND ITS FUNCTIONS\nArticle 26\nAppointment of an auction platform through joint action of the Member States with the Commission\n1. Without prejudice to Article 30, Member States shall appoint one auction platform for auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures following a joint procurement procedure between the Commission and the Member States participating in the joint action.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 30, Member States shall appoint one or two auction platforms for auctioning futures or forwards, provided that those auctioned products are listed in Annex I, following a joint procurement procedure between the Commission and the Member States participating in the joint action.\n3. The joint procurement procedure referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be conducted pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 91(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 and Article 125c of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002.\n4. Any period of appointment of the auction platforms referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be no longer than five years.\n5. The identity and contact details of the auction platforms referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be published on the Commission\u2019s website.\n6. Any Member State that joins the joint actions pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 after the entry into force of the joint procurement agreement entered into between the participating Member States and the Commission shall accept the terms and conditions agreed by participating Member States and the Commission in the joint procurement agreement as well as any decisions already adopted under that agreement.\nAny Member State that decides pursuant to Article 30(4) not to participate in the joint action but to appoint its own auction platform may be given observer status upon terms and conditions agreed in the joint procurement agreement between the Member States participating in the joint action and the Commission subject to any applicable public procurement rules.\nArticle 27\nFunctions of the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1)\n1. The auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) shall provide the following services to the Member States as more particularly delineated in the contract appointing it:\n(a)\nproviding access to the auctions, pursuant to Articles 15 to 21, including the provision and maintenance of the necessary internet-based electronic interfaces and website;\n(b)\nconducting the auctions in accordance with Articles 4 to 7;\n(c)\nmanaging the auction calendar in accordance with Articles 8 to 14;\n(d)\nannouncing and notifying the results of an auction, pursuant to Article 61;\n(e)\nproviding, or ensuring through sub-contracting the provision of, the requisite clearing system or settlement system needed for:\n(i)\nthe handling of payments made by successful bidders or their successors in title and distribution of the proceeds of the auctions to the auctioneer, pursuant to Articles 44 and 45;\n(ii)\ndelivering the auctioned allowances to successful bidders or their successors in title, pursuant to Articles 46, 47 and 48;\n(iii)\nmanaging collateral including any margining, provided by the auctioneer or bidders, pursuant to Articles 49 and 50;\n(f)\nproviding the auction monitor with any information relating to the conduct of the auctions, required for the carrying out of the auction monitor\u2019s functions, pursuant to Article 53;\n(g)\nsupervising the auctions, notifying suspicions of money laundering, terrorist financing, criminal activity or market abuse, administering any required remedial measures or sanctions including the provision of an extra-judicial dispute resolution mechanism, pursuant to Articles 44 to 59 and Article 64(1).\n2. At least 20 trading days prior to the opening of the first bidding window run by the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1), the auction platform shall be connected to at least one clearing system or settlement system.\nArticle 28\nFunctions of the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(2)\n1. An auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(2) shall provide the following services to the Member States:\n(a)\nproviding access to the auctions pursuant to the arrangements in place in the secondary market, organised by the auction platform, as modified in the contracts appointing it;\n(b)\nconducting the auctions in accordance with Articles 4 to 7;\n(c)\nmanaging the auction calendar in accordance with Articles 8 to 14;\n(d)\nannouncing and notifying the results of an auction, pursuant to Article 61;\n(e)\nproviding, pursuant to the arrangements in place in the secondary market organised by the auction platform, except that Article 40 shall apply in any case, as modified in the contract appointing it, the clearing system or settlement system needed for the:\n(i)\nhandling of payments made by bidders or their successors in title and the distribution of the proceeds of the auctions to the auctioneer;\n(ii)\ndelivering auctioned allowances to successful bidders or their successors in title;\n(iii)\nmanaging collateral, including any margining, provided by the auctioneer or bidders;\n(f)\nproviding the auction monitor with any information relating to the conduct of the auctions, required for the carrying out of the auction monitor\u2019s functions, pursuant to Article 53;\n(g)\nsurveying the auctions, notifying suspicions of money laundering, terrorist financing, criminal activity or market abuse, administering any required remedial measures or sanctions, including the provision of an extra-judicial dispute resolution mechanism, pursuant to the arrangements in place in the secondary market organised by the auction platform, as modified in the contract appointing it.\n2. At least 20 trading days prior to the opening of the first bidding window run by an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(2), the auction platform concerned shall be connected to at least one clearing system or settlement system.\n3. Article 16(2) and (3), Articles 17, 19, 20, 21, 54, 55 and 56, Articles 60(3) and 63(4), and Article 64 shall not apply with respect to the auctions conducted by an auction platform auctioning futures or forwards.\nArticle 29\nServices provided to the Commission by the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2)\nAuction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) shall provide the Commission with technical support services with respect to the Commission\u2019s work relating to the following:\n(a)\ncompletion of Annex I and any coordination of the auction calendar for Annex III;\n(b)\nany opinions provided by the Commission under this Regulation;\n(c)\nany opinions or reports provided by the auction monitor regarding the functioning of the auctions platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2);\n(d)\nthe reports or any proposal made by the Commission pursuant to Articles 10(5) and 12(1a) of Directive 2003/87/EC;\n(e)\nany amendment to this Regulation or Directive 2003/87/EC which has an impact on the functioning of the carbon market including the implementation of the auctions;\n(f)\nany review of this Regulation, Directive 2003/87/EC or the Commission regulation adopted pursuant to Article 19(3) of that Directive which has an impact on the functioning of the carbon market including the implementation of the auctions;\n(g)\nany other joint action relating to the functioning of the carbon market including the implementation of the auctions agreed between the Commission and the Member States participating in the joint action.\nCHAPTER VIII\nAPPOINTMENT OF AUCTION PLATFORMS BY MEMBER STATES OPTING TO HAVE THEIR OWN AUCTION PLATFORM AND THEIR FUNCTIONS\nArticle 30\nAppointment of any auction platform other than an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2)\n1. Any Member State not participating in the joint action provided for in Article 26 of this Regulation may appoint its own auction platform for the auctioning of its share of the volume of allowances covered by Chapters II and III of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned by means of two-day spot or five-day futures.\n2. Any Member State not participating in the joint action provided for in Article 26 of this Regulation may appoint its own auction platform for the auctioning of its share of the volume of allowances covered by Chapters II and III of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned by means of the futures or forwards, provided that these products are listed in Annex I to this Regulation.\n3. Member States not participating in the joint action provided for in Article 26 may appoint the same auction platform or separate auction platforms for the auctioning of futures or forwards and two-day spot or five-day futures, respectively.\n4. Any Member State not participating in the joint action provided for in Article 26, shall inform the Commission of its decision not to participate in the joint action but to appoint its own auction platform pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article within three months of the entry into force of this Regulation.\n5. Any Member State not participating in the joint action provided for in Article 26 shall select its own auction platform appointed pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article on the basis of a selection procedure compliant with Union and national procurement law where a public procurement process is required by either Union or national law, respectively. The selection procedure shall be subject to all applicable remedies and enforcement procedures under Union and national law.\nAny period of appointment of the auction platforms referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be no longer than three years renewable for no more than a further two years.\nThe appointment of the auction platforms referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be subject to listing the auction platform concerned in Annex III pursuant to paragraph 7. It shall not be implemented before the entry into force of the listing of the auction platform concerned in Annex III as provided for in paragraph 7.\n6. Each Member State not participating in the joint action provided for in Article 26 but opting to appoint its own auction platform pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall provide the Commission with a complete notification containing all of the following:\n(a)\nthe identity of the auction platform it proposes to appoint indicating whether the same auction platform or separate auction platforms shall auction the futures or forwards, and two-day spot or five-day futures, respectively;\n(b)\nthe detailed operative rules that would govern the auction process to be conducted by the auction platform(s) it proposes to appoint, including the contractual provisions concerning the appointment of the auction platform concerned including the any clearing system(s) and settlement system(s) connected to the proposed auction platform stipulating the terms and conditions governing the structure and level of fees, collateral management, payment and delivery;\n(c)\nthe proposed bidding windows, individual volumes, auction dates indicating the occurrence of relevant public holidays, as well as the auctioned product, payment and delivery dates of the allowances to be auctioned in individual auctions in a given calendar year and any other information necessary for the Commission to assess whether the proposed auction calendar is compatible with the auction calendar of the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) as well as other auction calendars proposed by other Member States not participating in the joint action provided for in Article 26 but opting to appoint their own auction platforms;\n(d)\nthe detailed rules and conditions on surveying and supervising the auctions to which its proposed auction platform shall be subject pursuant to Article 35(4), (5) and (6) as well as the detailed rules protecting against money laundering, terrorist financing, criminal activity or market abuse, including any remedial measures or sanctions;\n(e)\nthe detailed measures put in place to comply with Article 22(4) and Article 34 regarding the appointment of the auctioneer.\nThe notification shall demonstrate the compatibility with the provisions of this Regulation and conformity with the objectives in Article 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\nA notifying Member State may modify its original notification prior to the listing referred to in paragraph 7 of this Article.\nEach notifying Member State shall present its original and modified notification to the Committee referred to in Article 23(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n7. Auction platforms other than those appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2), the Member States appointing them, their term of appointment, and any applicable conditions or obligations, shall be set out in Annex III where the requirements of this Regulation and the objectives of Article 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC are satisfied. The Commission and the Committee provided for in Article 23(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC shall act solely on the basis of these requirements and objectives and shall have full regard to any reports made by the auction monitor pursuant to Article 25(4) of this Regulation.\nIn the absence of any listing provided for in the first subparagraph, a Member State not participating in the joint action provided for in Article 26 but opting to appoint its own auction platform pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall use the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) to auction its share of the allowances that would have otherwise been auctioned on the auction platform to be appointed pursuant to paragraphs 1 or 2 of this Article in the period until the expiry of three months after the entry into force of the listing provided for in the first subparagraph.\n8. Any Member State not participating in the joint action provided for in Article 26 but opting to appoint its own auction platform pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article may join the joint action provided for in Article 26, pursuant to Article 26(6).\nThe volume of allowances that were scheduled to be auctioned on an auction platform other than the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) shall be spread evenly over the auctions conducted by the relevant auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2).\nArticle 31\nFunctions of auction platforms other than the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2)\n1. Any auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 30(1) shall carry out the same functions as the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) as provided for in Article 27 except for Article 27(1)(c) on the auction calendar which shall not apply.\n2. Any auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 30(2) shall carry out the same functions as the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(2) as provided for in Article 28 except for Article 28(1)(c) on the auction calendar which shall not apply.\n3. The provisions on the auction calendar provided for in Article 8(1), (2) and (3), Articles 9, 10, 12, 14 and 32 shall apply to the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 30(1) or (2).\nArticle 32\nAuction calendar for any auction platform other than the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2)\n1. The volume of allowances covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC auctioned in individual auctions conducted by an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 30(1) or (2) of this Regulation shall be no greater than 20 million allowances and no less than 10 million allowances; save where the total volume of allowances, covered by Chapter III of Directive 2003/87/EC, to be auctioned by the appointing Member State is less than 10 million in a given calendar year, in which case the allowances shall be auctioned in a single auction per calendar year.\n2. The volume of allowances covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC auctioned in individual auctions conducted by an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 30(1) or (2) of this Regulation shall be no greater than 5 million allowances and no less than 2,5 million allowances; save where the total volume of allowances, covered by Chapter II of Directive 2003/87/EC, to be auctioned by the appointing Member State is less than 2,5 million in a given calendar year, in which case the allowances shall be auctioned in a single auction per calendar year.\n3. The total volume of allowances covered by Chapters II and III of Directive 2003/87/EC to be auctioned by all auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 30(1) or (2) of this Regulation collectively shall be distributed evenly over any given calendar year, except that the volume auctioned in auctions held in August of each year shall be half of the volume auctioned in other months of the year.\n4. The auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 30(1) or (2) of this Regulation shall determine and publish the bidding windows, individual volumes, auction dates as well as the auctioned product, payment and delivery dates of the allowances, covered by Chapters II and III of Directive 2003/87/EC, to be auctioned in individual auctions each year, after the determination and publication pursuant to Articles 11(1) and 13(1) of this Regulation by the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) and (2) of this Regulation, by 31 March of the previous year, or as soon as practicable thereafter, having previously consulted the Commission and obtained its opinion thereon. The auction platforms concerned shall take the utmost account of the Commission\u2019s opinion.\nPublished calendars referred to in the first subparagraph shall be consistent with any relevant conditions or obligations listed in Annex III.\n5. Where an auction conducted by an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 30(1) or (2) is cancelled by the auction platform pursuant to Article 7(5) or (6) or Article 9, the auctioned volume shall be distributed evenly either over the next four auctions scheduled on the same auction platform or, if the auction platform concerned conducts less than four auctions in a given calendar year, over the next two auctions scheduled on the same auction platform.\nArticle 33\nReview of this Regulation\nUpon delivery of the annual consolidated report drawn up by the auction monitor pursuant to Article 25(2) which shall be delivered no later than 31 December 2014, the Commission shall review the arrangements provided for in this Regulation including the operation of all auction processes.\nThe review shall analyse the experience acquired with regard to the interaction between the auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 30(1) or (2) and those appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) as well as the interaction between the auctions and the secondary market.\nThe review shall be carried out in consultation with Member States and stakeholders.\nThe Commission may put forward any measures deemed necessary to deal with any distortion or malfunctioning of the internal market or the carbon market arising from the arrangements under this Regulation, having regard to the outcome of the review, with a view to entry into force of such measures by 31 December 2016.\nCHAPTER IX\nAPPOINTMENT REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE AUCTIONEER AUCTION MONITOR AND ANY AUCTION PLATFORM\nArticle 34\nAppointment requirements applicable to the auctioneer and the auction monitor\n1. When appointing auctioneers and the auction monitor, the Member States shall take into account the extent to which candidates:\n(a)\nexhibit the least risk of conflict of interest or market abuse having regard to the following:\n(i)\nany activities on the secondary market;\n(ii)\nany internal processes and procedures to mitigate the risk of conflict of interest or market abuse;\n(b)\nare able to fulfil the auctioneer\u2019s or the auction monitor\u2019s functions, in a timely manner, in accordance with the highest professional and quality standards.\n2. The auctioneer\u2019s appointment shall be subject to the conclusion of the arrangements referred to in Article 22(2) and (3) between the auctioneer and the auction platform concerned.\nArticle 35\nAppointment requirements applicable to any auction platform\n1. Auctions shall only be conducted on an auction platform authorised as a regulated market under paragraph 5 by the competent national authorities referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 4.\n2. Any auction platform appointed under this Regulation for the auctioning of two-day spot or five-days futures shall be allowed, without further legal or administrative requirements by the Member States, to provide appropriate arrangements so as to facilitate access to and participation in auctions by bidders referred to in Article 18(1) and (2).\n3. When appointing any auction platform, the Member States shall take into account the extent to which candidates demonstrate fulfilment of all of the following:\n(a)\nensuring respect of the principle of non-discrimination both de facto and de jure;\n(b)\nfull, fair and equitable access to bid in the auctions for SMEs covered by the Union scheme and access to bid in the auctions for small emitters;\n(c)\nensuring cost-efficiency and avoiding undue administrative burden;\n(d)\nrobust auction supervision, notification of suspicions of money laundering, terrorist financing, criminal activity or market abuse, administration of any required remedial measures or sanctions, including the provision of an extra-judicial dispute resolution mechanism;\n(e)\navoiding distortions of competition in the internal market including the carbon market;\n(f)\nensuring the proper functioning of the carbon market including the implementation of the auctions;\n(g)\nconnecting to one or more clearing system or settlement system;\n(h)\nthe provision of adequate measures requiring an auction platform to hand over all tangible and intangible assets necessary for the conduct of the auctions by an auction platform\u2019s successor.\n4. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-days futures shall only be appointed after the Member State where the candidate regulated market and its market operator are established has ensured in good time, and in any event prior to the opening of the first bidding window that the national measures transposing the provisions of Title III of Directive 2004/39/EC apply to the auctioning of two-day spot or five-days futures to the extent relevant.\nAn auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-days futures shall only be appointed after the Member State, where the candidate regulated market and its market operator are established, has ensured in good time, and in any event prior to the opening of the first bidding window, that the competent national authorities of that Member State are able to authorise and supervise them in accordance with the national measures transposing Title IV of Directive 2004/39/EC to the extent relevant.\nWhere the candidate regulated market and its market operator are not established in the same Member State, the first and second subparagraphs shall apply to both the Member State where the candidate regulated market is established and the Member State where its market operator is established.\n5. The competent national authorities of the Member State referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 4 of this Article designated pursuant to Article 48(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC shall decide on the authorisation of a regulated market for the purposes of this Regulation, provided that the regulated market and its market operator comply with the provisions of Title III of Directive 2004/39/EC, as transposed into the national legal order of the Member State of their establishment pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article. The decision on authorisation shall be taken in accordance with Title IV of Directive 2004/39/EC as transposed into the national legal order of the Member State of their establishment pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article.\n6. The competent national authorities referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article shall maintain effective market oversight and take the necessary measures to ensure that the requirements referred to in that paragraph are complied with. To that effect, they shall be able to exercise directly, or with the assistance of other competent national authorities designated pursuant to Article 48(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC, the powers provided for in the national measures transposing Article 50 of that Directive with regard to the regulated market and its market operator referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article.\nThe Member State of each competent national authority referred in paragraph 5 shall ensure that the national measures transposing Articles 51 and 52 of Directive 2004/39/EC apply in relation to the persons responsible for failure to comply with their obligations under Title III of Directive 2004/39/EC as transposed into the national legal order of the Member State of their establishment pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article.\nFor the purposes of this paragraph, national measures transposing Articles 56 to 62 of Directive 2004/39/EC shall apply to cooperation between competent national authorities of different Member States.\nCHAPTER X\nMARKET ABUSE REGIME APPLICABLE TO AUCTIONED PRODUCTS\nArticle 36\nMarket abuse regime applicable to financial instruments within the meaning of Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/6/EC\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, where two-day spot or five-days futures are financial instruments within the meaning of Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/6/EC, that Directive shall apply to the auctioning of those auctioned products.\n2. Where two-day spot or five-days futures are not financial instruments within the meaning of Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/6/EC, the provisions of Articles 37 to 43 of this Regulation shall apply.\nArticle 37\nDefinitions for market abuse regime applicable to auctioned products other than financial instruments within the meaning of Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/6/EC\nFor the purposes of Articles 38 to 43 which apply to auctioned products other than financial instruments within the meaning of Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/6/EC, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018inside information\u2019 means information of a precise nature which has not been made public, relating, directly or indirectly, to one or more of the auctioned products, and which, if it were public, would be likely to have a significant effect on the prices at which bids would be made.\nFor persons charged with the execution of bids, inside information also means information conveyed by a client and related to the client\u2019s pending bids, which is of a precise nature, which related directly or indirectly to one or more auctioned products and which, if it were made public, would be likely to have a significant effect on the prices at which bids would be made;\n(b)\n\u2018market manipulation\u2019 means:\n(i)\nbids, or transactions or orders on the secondary market:\n-\nwhich give, or are likely to give, false or misleading signals as to the demand for or price of the auctioned products, or\n-\nwhich secure, by a person, or persons acting in collaboration, an auction clearing price for the auctioned products at an abnormal or artificial level,\nunless the person who made the bid or, on the secondary market, the transaction or the order, establishes that its reasons for so doing are legitimate;\n(ii)\nbids which employ fictitious devices or any other form of deception or contrivance;\n(iii)\ndissemination of information through the media, including the Internet, or by any other means, which gives, or is likely to give, false or misleading signals as to the auctioned products, including the dissemination of rumours and false or misleading news, where the person who made the dissemination knew, or ought to have known, that the information was false or misleading. In respect of journalists when they act in their professional capacity such dissemination of information is to be assessed, taking into account the rules governing their profession, unless those persons derive, directly or indirectly, an advantage or profits from the dissemination of the information in question.\nIn particular, the following instances are derived from the core definition given in point (b) of the first paragraph:\n-\nconduct by a person, or persons acting in collaboration, to secure a dominant position over the demand for an auctioned product which has the effect of fixing, directly or indirectly, auction clearing prices or creating other unfair trading conditions,\n-\nthe buying or selling on the secondary market of allowances or related derivatives prior to the auction with the effect of fixing the auction clearing price for the auctioned products at an abnormal or artificial level or misleading bidders bidding in the auctions,\n-\ntaking advantage of occasional or regular access to the traditional or electronic media by voicing an opinion about an auctioned product while having previously made a bid in relation to that product and profiting subsequently from the impact of the opinions voiced on the other bid prices offered for that product, without having simultaneously disclosed that conflict of interest to the public in a proper and effective way.\nArticle 38\nProhibition of insider dealing\n1. No person referred to in the second subparagraph who possesses inside information shall use that information by submitting, modifying or withdrawing a bid, for its own account or for the account of a third party, either directly or indirectly, for an auctioned product to which that information relates.\nThe first subparagraph shall apply to any person who possesses inside information:\n(a)\nby virtue of its membership of the administrative, management or supervisory bodies of the auction platform, the auctioneer or the auction monitor; or\n(b)\nby virtue of its holding in the capital of the auction platform, the auctioneer or the auction monitor; or\n(c)\nby virtue of its having access to the information through the exercise of his employment, profession or duties; or\n(d)\nby virtue of its criminal activities.\n2. Where the person referred to in paragraph 1 is a legal person, the prohibition laid down in that paragraph shall also apply to the natural persons who take part in the decision to submit, modify or withdraw the bid for the account of the legal person concerned.\n3. This Article shall not apply to the submission, modification or withdrawal of a bid for an auctioned product made in the discharge of an obligation that has become due where that obligation results from an agreement concluded before the person concerned possessed inside information.\nArticle 39\nOther prohibited uses of inside information\nNo person who is subject to the prohibition laid down in Article 38 shall:\n(a)\ndisclose inside information to any other person unless such disclosure is made in the normal course of the exercise of its employment, profession or duties;\n(b)\nrecommend or induce another person, on the basis of inside information, to submit, modify or withdraw the bid for auction products to which that information relates.\nArticle 40\nOther persons covered by the prohibition of inside dealing\nArticles 38 and 39 shall also apply to any person, other than the persons referred to in those Articles, who possesses inside information while that person knows, or ought to have known, that it is inside information.\nArticle 41\nProhibition of market manipulation\nNo person shall engage in market manipulation.\nArticle 42\nSpecific requirements to mitigate the risk of market abuse\n1. The auction platform, the auctioneer and the auction monitor shall each draw up a list of those persons working for them, under a contract of employment or otherwise, who have access to inside information. The auction platform shall regularly update its list and transmit it to the competent national authority of the Member State in which it is established whenever so requested. The auctioneer and the auction monitor shall each regularly update their list and transmit it to the competent national authority of the Member State where the auction platform is established and the Member State of establishment of the auctioneer or the auction monitor, as provided for in the contract(s) appointing them, whenever the competent national authority concerned so request.\n2. Persons discharging managerial responsibilities within the auction platform, the auctioneer, or the auction monitor and, where applicable, persons closely associated with them, shall, at least, notify to the competent national authority referred to in paragraph 1, the existence of bids submitted, modified or withdrawn on their own account relating to the auctioned products, or to derivatives or other financial instruments linked to them.\n3. Persons who produce or disseminate research concerning auctioned products and persons who produce or disseminate other information recommending or suggesting investment strategy, intended for distribution channels or for the public, shall take reasonable care to ensure that such information is fairly presented and disclose their interests or indicate conflicts of interest concerning auctioned products.\n4. The auction platform shall adopt structural provisions aimed at preventing and detecting market manipulation practices.\n5. Any person referred to in Article 59(1) who reasonably suspects that a transaction might constitute insider dealing or market manipulation shall notify the competent national authority of the Member State of its establishment without delay.\nArticle 43\nSupervision and enforcement\n1. The competent national authorities referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2003/6/EC shall maintain effective market oversight and take the necessary measures to ensure that the provisions of Articles 37 to 42 of this Regulation are complied with.\n2. The competent national authorities referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall have the powers provided for in the national measures transposing Article 12 of Directive 2003/6/EC.\n3. Member States shall ensure that the national measures transposing Articles 14 and 15 of Directive 2003/6/EC apply in relation to the persons responsible for failure to comply with Articles 37 to 42 of this Regulation in relation to auctions carried out in their territory or abroad.\n4. For the purposes of application of Articles 37 to 42 of this Regulation and paragraph 1, 2 and 3 of this Article, national measures transposing Article 16 of Directive 2003/6/EC shall apply to cooperation between competent national authorities referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.\nCHAPTER XI\nPAYMENT AND TRANSFER OF THE AUCTION PROCEEDS\nArticle 44\nPayment by successful bidders and transfer of proceeds to the Member States\n1. Each successful bidder or its successor(s) in title, including any intermediaries acting on their behalf, shall pay the sum due notified to it pursuant to Article 61(3)(c) for the allowances won as notified to it pursuant to Article 61(3)(a), by transferring or arranging for the transfer of the sum due through the clearing system or settlement system, into the auctioneer\u2019s nominated bank account in cleared funds either before or at the latest upon delivery of the allowances into the bidder\u2019s nominated holding account or the nominated holding account of its successor in title.\n2. An auction platform including the clearing system(s) or settlement system(s) connected to it, shall transfer the payments made by the bidders or any successors in title arising from the auctioning of allowances covered by Chapters II and III of Directive 2003/87/EC to the auctioneers that auctioned the allowances in question.\n3. Payments to the auctioneers shall be made in euros or in the currency of the appointing Member State where that Member State is not member of the euro-zone, at the option of the Member State concerned, regardless of what currency payments are made by the bidders, provided that the clearing system or settlement system concerned is capable of handling the national currency in question.\nThe exchange rate shall be the rate published on a recognised financial newswire service specified in the contract appointing the auction platform concerned, immediately following the close of the bidding window.\nArticle 45\nConsequences of late or non-payment\n1. A successful bidder, or its successors in title, shall only be delivered allowances notified to the successful bidder pursuant to Article 61(3)(a), if the entire sum due notified to it pursuant to Article 61(3)(c), is paid to the auctioneer pursuant to Article 44(1).\n2. A successful bidder, or its successors in title, that fails to meet its obligations under paragraph 1 of this Article in full by the due date notified to the successful bidder pursuant to Article 61(3)(d) shall be in default of payment.\n3. A bidder in default of payment may be charged either or both of the following:\n(a)\ninterest for each day beginning with the date on which payment was due pursuant to Article 61(3)(d) and ending on the date on which payment is made at an interest rate set out in the contract appointing the auction platform concerned, calculated on a daily basis;\n(b)\na penalty, which shall accrue to the auctioneer less any costs deducted by the clearing system or settlement system.\n4. Without prejudice to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, where a successful bidder is in default of payment one of the following shall occur:\n(a)\nthe central counterparty shall interpose to take delivery of the allowances and effect payment of the sum due to the auctioneer;\n(b)\nthe settlement agent shall apply collateral taken from the bidder to effect payment of the sum due to the auctioneer.\n5. In the event of a failure of settlement, the allowances shall be auctioned at the next two auctions scheduled on the auction platform concerned.\nCHAPTER XII\nDELIVERY OF THE AUCTIONED ALLOWANCES\nArticle 46\nTransfer of the auctioned allowances\n1. Allowances auctioned pursuant to Article 4(2) of this Regulation shall be transferred by the Union registry prior to the deadline for their delivery into a nominated holding account, to be held in escrow by the clearing system or settlement system acting as custodian, until delivery of the allowances to successful bidders or their successors in title, pursuant to the results of the auction, as provided for in the applicable Commission regulation adopted pursuant to Article 19(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n2. Allowances auctioned pursuant to Article 4(3) of this Regulation shall be transferred by the Union registry prior to the opening of a bidding window, into a nominated holding account, to be held in escrow by the clearing system or settlement system acting as custodian, until delivery of the allowances to successful bidders or their successors in title, pursuant to the results of the auction, as provided for in the applicable Commission regulation adopted pursuant to Article 19(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC.\nArticle 47\nDelivering the auctioned allowances\n1. The clearing system or settlement system shall allocate each allowance auctioned by a Member State to a successful bidder, until the total volume allocated matches the volume of allowances notified to the bidder pursuant to Article 61(3)(a).\nA bidder may be allocated allowances from more than one Member State auctioning in the same auction if necessary to make up the volume of allowances notified to the bidder pursuant to Article 61(3)(a).\n2. Upon payment of the sum due, pursuant to Article 44(1), each successful bidder or its successors in title shall be delivered the allowances allocated to that bidder, as soon as practicable and in any event no later than the deadline for their delivery by transferring the allowances notified to the bidder pursuant to Article 61(3)(a) from a nominated holding account held in escrow by the clearing system or settlement system acting as custodian, in whole or in part into one or more nominated holding accounts held by the successful bidder or by its successors in title, or into a nominated holding account held in escrow by a clearing system or settlement system acting as custodian for the successful bidder or its successors in title.\nArticle 48\nLate delivery of the auctioned allowances\n1. Where the clearing system or settlement system fails to deliver the whole or part of the auctioned allowances due to circumstances outside its control, the clearing system or settlement system shall deliver the allowances at the earliest opportunity and the successful bidders or their successors in title shall accept delivery at that later date.\n2. The remedy provided for in paragraph 1 shall be the sole remedy to which a successful bidder or its successors in title shall be entitled to in case of any failure to deliver auctioned allowances, due to circumstances outside the control of the clearing system or settlement system concerned.\nCHAPTER XIII\nMANAGEMENT OF COLLATERAL\nArticle 49\nCollateral given by the bidder\n1. Prior to the opening of the bidding window for the auctioning of two-day spot or five-day futures, bidders or any intermediaries acting on their behalf, shall be required to give collateral.\n2. If so requested, any unused collateral posted by an unsuccessful bidder, together with any interest accrued on cash collateral, shall be released, as soon as practicable after the close of the bidding window.\n3. If so requested, any collateral posted by a successful bidder that has not been used for settlement, together with any interest accrued on cash collateral, shall be released, as soon as practicable after settlement.\nArticle 50\nCollateral given by the auctioneer\n1. Prior to the opening of the bidding window for the auctioning of two-day spot or five-day futures, the auctioneer shall only be required to give allowances as collateral to be held in escrow by the clearing system or settlement system acting as custodian, pending their delivery.\n2. When the legal measures and technical means necessary to deliver the allowances are implemented, any collateral given by Member States with respect to the auctioning of futures or forwards may, at the option of the auctioning Member State and with the agreement of the auction platform, be released and replaced by allowances to be held in escrow by the clearing system or settlement system acting as custodian, pending their delivery.\n3. Where any allowances given as collateral under paragraphs 1 or 2 are not used, the clearing system or settlement system may retain them, at the option of the auctioning Member State, in a nominated holding account held in escrow by the clearing system or settlement system acting as custodian, pending their delivery.\nCHAPTER XIV\nFEES AND COSTS\nArticle 51\nStructure and level of fees\n1. The structure and level of fees as well as any related conditions applied by any auction platform and the clearing system(s) and settlement system(s) shall be no less favourable than comparable standard fees and conditions applied on the secondary market.\n2. Any auction platform and the clearing system(s) and settlement system(s) may only apply fees, deductions or conditions explicitly set out in the contract appointing them.\n3. All fees and conditions applied pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be clearly stated, easily understandable and publicly available. They shall be itemised indicating each charge made for each type of service.\nArticle 52\nCosts of the auction process\n1. Without prejudice to paragraph 2, the costs of the services provided for in Articles 27(1) and 28(1) and Article 31 shall be paid for through fees paid by the bidders, except that:\n(a)\nthe cost of a central counterparty accepting a government guarantee instead of non-cash collateral when auctioning allowances as forwards shall be borne by the auctioning Member State offering the government guarantee;\n(b)\nany cost of the arrangements between the auctioneer and the auction platform referred to in Article 22(2) and (3) allowing the auctioneer to auction allowances on behalf of the appointing Member State, but excluding the costs of any clearing system or settlement system connected to the auction platform concerned, shall be borne by the auctioning Member State.\nThe costs referred to in points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph shall be deducted from the auction proceeds payable to the auctioneers, pursuant to Article 44(2) and (3).\n2. Where a Member State does not sign the joint procurement agreement referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 26(6) within the deadline provided for in Article 30(4), but subsequently joins the joint action, it may be required to bear its own share of the costs of the services provided for in Articles 27(1) and 28(1) from the date when that Member State commences auctioning through the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) until the termination or expiry of the term of appointment of that auction platform.\nThe extent to which such a Member State may be required to bear its own share of the costs of the services provided for in Articles 27(1) and 28(1), shall be provided for in the joint procurement agreement and the contract with the auction platform concerned.\nA Member State shall not be required to bear its own share of the costs pursuant to this paragraph where it joins the joint action following the expiry of the appointment period referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 30(5) or where it joins the joint action in the absence of a listing, pursuant to Article 30(7), of an auction platform, which has been notified pursuant to Article 30(6).\nThe costs borne by bidders under paragraph 1 shall be reduced by the amount of the costs borne by a Member State under this paragraph.\n3. The share of the costs of the auction monitor that varies according to the number of auctions, as more particularly specified in the contract appointing the auction monitor, shall be evenly distributed over the number of auctions. All other costs of the auction monitor, as more particularly specified in the contract appointing the auction monitor, except for the cost relating to any report made pursuant to Article 25(4), shall be evenly distributed over the number of auction platforms, unless otherwise specified in the contract appointing the auction monitor.\nThe share of the costs of the auction monitor relating to an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 30(1) or (2), including the cost of any report requested pursuant to Article 25(4), shall be borne by the appointing Member State.\nThe share of the costs of the auction monitor relating to an auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2) shall be distributed between the Member States participating in the joint action in accordance with their shares in the total volume of allowances auctioned on the auction platform concerned.\nThe costs of the auction monitor borne by each Member State shall be deducted from the auction proceeds payable by the auctioneers to the appointing Member State, pursuant to point (c) of Article 23.\nCHAPTER XV\nAUCTION SURVEILLANCE, REMEDIAL MEASURES AND SANCTIONS\nArticle 53\nCooperation with the auction monitor\n1. Auctioneers, auction platforms and the competent national authorities supervising them shall, upon request, provide the auction monitor with any information in their possession relating to the auctions, as is reasonably required for the carrying out of the auction monitor\u2019s functions.\n2. The auction monitor shall be entitled to observe the conduct of the auctions.\n3. Auctioneers, auction platforms and the competent national authorities supervising them shall assist the auction monitor in fulfilling its functions by actively cooperating with the auction monitor each within their own remit.\n4. The competent national authorities supervising credit institutions and investment firms and the competent national authorities supervising persons authorised to submit bids on behalf of others pursuant to Article 18(2) shall assist the auction monitor in fulfilling its functions by actively cooperating with the auction monitor within their competence.\n5. The obligations imposed on the competent national authorities in paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 shall take into account professional secrecy considerations to which they are subject under Union law.\nArticle 54\nMonitoring the relationship with bidders\n1. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures shall monitor the relationship with bidders admitted to bid in its auctions throughout its subsistence, by doing the following:\n(a)\nscrutinising bids made throughout the course of that relationship to ensure that the bidding behaviour of bidders is consistent with the auction platform\u2019s knowledge of the customer, its business and risk profile, including, where necessary, the source of funds;\n(b)\nmaintaining effective arrangements and procedures for the regular monitoring of the compliance by persons admitted to bid pursuant to Article 19(1), (2) and (3) with its market conduct rules;\n(c)\nmonitoring transactions undertaken by persons admitted to bid pursuant to Articles 19(1), (2) and (3) and 20(6) using its systems in order to identify breaches of the rules referred to in point (b) of this subparagraph, unfair or disorderly auctioning conditions or conduct that may invoke market abuse.\nWhere scrutinising bids in accordance with point (a) of the first subparagraph, the auction platform concerned shall pay particular attention to any activity which it regards as particularly likely, by its nature, to be related to money laundering, terrorist financing or criminal activity.\n2. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures shall ensure that the documents, data or information it holds on a bidder are kept up-to-date. For this purpose, such an auction platform may:\n(a)\nrequest any information of the bidder, pursuant to Articles 19(2) and (3) and 20(5), (6) and (7), for the purposes of monitoring the relationship with that bidder following its admission to bid in the auctions, throughout the subsistence of that relationship and for a period of five years following its termination;\n(b)\nrequire any person admitted to bid to resubmit an application for admission to bid at regular intervals;\n(c)\nrequire any person admitted to bid to promptly notify the auction platform concerned of any changes to the information submitted to it pursuant to Articles 19(2) and (3) and 20(5), (6) and (7).\n3. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures shall keep records of:\n(a)\nthe application for admission to bid submitted by an applicant, pursuant to Article 19(2) and (3), including any amendments thereto;\n(b)\nthe checks carried out in:\n(i)\nprocessing the application for admission to bid submitted, pursuant to Articles 19, 20 and 21;\n(ii)\nscrutinising and monitoring the relationship, pursuant to points (a) and (c) of paragraph 1, following an applicant\u2019s admission to bid;\n(c)\nall information relating to a given bid submitted by a given bidder in an auction, including any withdrawal or modification of such bids, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) and (4);\n(d)\nall information relating to the conduct of each auction in which a bidder has submitted a bid.\n4. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures shall keep the records referred to in paragraph 3 for as long as a bidder is admitted to bid in its auctions and for at least five years following the termination of the relationship with that bidder.\nArticle 55\nNotification of money laundering, terrorist financing or criminal activity\n1. The competent national authorities referred to in Article 37(1) of Directive 2005/60/EC shall monitor and take the necessary measures to ensure compliance of an auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures with the customer due diligence requirements of Article 19 and Article 20(6) of this Regulation, the monitoring and record keeping requirements of Article 54 of this Regulation and the notification requirements of the paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article.\nThe competent national authorities referred to in the first subparagraph shall have the powers provided for in the national measures transposing Article 37(2) and (3) of Directive 2005/60/EC.\nAn auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures may be held liable for infringements of Article 19, Articles 20(6) and (7) and 21(1) and (2), and Article 54 of this Regulation and paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article. The national measures transposing Article 39 of Directive 2005/60/EC shall apply in this regard.\n2. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures, its directors and employees, shall cooperate fully with the FIU referred to in Article 21 of Directive 2005/60/EC by promptly:\n(a)\ninforming the FIU, on their own initiative, where they know, suspect or have reasonable grounds to suspect that money laundering, terrorist financing or criminal activity is being or has been committed or attempted in the auctions;\n(b)\nproviding the FIU, at its request, with all necessary information, in accordance with the procedures established by the applicable legislation.\n3. The information referred to in paragraph 2 shall be forwarded to the FIU of the Member State in whose territory the auction platform concerned is situated.\nThe national measures transposing the compliance management and communication policies and procedures, referred to in Article 34(1) of Directive 2005/60/EC, shall designate the person or persons responsible for forwarding information pursuant to this Article.\n4. The Member State in whose territory an auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures is situated shall ensure that the national measures transposing Articles 26 to 29, 32, Article 34(1) and Article 35 of Directive 2005/60/EC apply to the auction platform concerned.\nArticle 56\nNotification of market abuse\n1. An auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures, shall notify the competent national authorities designated pursuant to Article 43(2) of Directive 2004/39/EC, responsible for supervising the auction platform concerned or for investigating and prosecuting market abuse, occurring on or through the systems of the auction platform concerned, of suspicion of market abuse by any person admitted to bid in the auctions or by any person on whose behalf the person admitted to bid in the auctions is acting.\nNational measures transposing Article 25(2) of Directive 2005/60/EC shall apply.\n2. The auction platform concerned shall notify the auction monitor and the Commission of the fact that it has made a notification under paragraph 1, stating what remedial action it has taken or proposes to take to counter the wrongdoing referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 57\nMaximum bid-size and other remedial measures\n1. A maximum bid-size, or any other remedial measures necessary to mitigate an actual or potential discernible risk of market abuse, money laundering, terrorist financing or other criminal activity, as well as anti-competitive behaviour, may be imposed by any auction platform after consulting the Commission and obtaining its opinion thereon, provided that implementation of a maximum bid-size or any other remedial measures would effectively mitigate the risk in question. The Commission may consult the Member States concerned and the auction monitor and obtain their opinion on the proposal made by the auction platform concerned. The auction platform concerned shall take the utmost account of the Commission\u2019s opinion.\n2. The maximum bid-size shall either be expressed as a percentage of the total number of auctioned allowances in any given auction or a percentage of the total number of auctioned allowances in any given year, whichever may be most appropriate to deal with the risk of market abuse identified in Article 56(1).\n3. For the purposes of this Article, maximum bid-size means the maximum number of allowances that may be bid for, directly or indirectly, by any group of persons listed in Article 18(1) or (2), which belong to any of the following categories:\n(a)\nthe same group of undertakings including any parent undertakings, its subsidiary undertakings and affiliate undertakings;\n(b)\nthe same business grouping;\n(c)\na separate economic unit having an independent power of decision where they are controlled, directly or indirectly, by public bodies or state-owned entities.\nArticle 58\nMarket conduct rules or any other contractual arrangements\nArticles 53 to 57 shall be without prejudice to any other action that an auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures is entitled to take under its market conduct rules or any other contractual arrangements in place, directly or indirectly, with any bidders admitted to bid in the auctions, provided that such action does not conflict with or undermine the provisions of Articles 53 to 57.\nArticle 59\nConduct rules for other persons authorised to bid on behalf of others pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) and (c) and Article 18(2)\n1. This Article shall apply to:\n(a)\npersons authorised to bid pursuant to Article 18(2);\n(b)\ninvestment firms and credit institutions referred to Article 18(1)(b) and (c) authorised to bid pursuant to Article 18(3).\n2. Persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply the following conduct rules in their relationship with their clients:\n(a)\nthey shall accept instructions from their clients on comparable terms;\n(b)\nthey may refuse to bid on behalf of a client if they have reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering, terrorist financing, criminal activity or market abuse, subject to national legislation transposing Articles 24 and 28 of Directive 2005/60/EC;\n(c)\nthey may refuse to bid on behalf of a client if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the client is unable to pay for the allowances for which it is seeking to bid;\n(d)\nthey shall enter into a written agreement with their clients. Agreements entered into shall not impose any unfair conditions or restrictions on the client concerned. They shall provide for all the terms and conditions relating to the services offered including in particular payment and delivery of the allowances;\n(e)\nthey may require their clients to make a deposit by way of advance payment for allowances;\n(f)\nthey may not unduly limit the number of bids that a client might submit;\n(g)\nthey may not prevent or restrict their clients from engaging the services of other entities eligible pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) to (e) and Article 18(2) to bid on their behalf in the auctions;\n(h)\nthey shall pay due regard to the interests of their clients who request them to submit bids on their behalf in the auctions;\n(i)\nthey shall treat clients fairly and without discrimination;\n(j)\nthey shall maintain adequate internal systems and procedures to process requests from clients to act as agent in an auction and to be able to participate effectively in an auction in particular with regard to the submission of bids on behalf of their clients, collect payment and collateral from and transfer allowances to clients for whom they act;\n(k)\nthey shall prevent the disclosure of confidential information from that part of their business responsible for receiving, preparing and submitting bids on behalf of their clients to that part of their business responsible for preparing and submitting bids on their own account or to that part of their business responsible for dealing on their own account on the secondary market;\n(l)\nthey shall keep records of information obtained or created in their role as intermediaries handling bids on behalf of their clients in the auctions, for five years from the date of obtaining or creating the information concerned.\nThe amount of the deposit referred to in point (e) shall be calculated on a just and reasonable basis.\nThe method of calculating the deposit referred to in point (e) shall be set out in the agreements entered into pursuant to point (d).\nAny part of the deposit referred to in point (e) not used to satisfy payment for allowances shall be refunded to the payee within a reasonable period after the auction as stated in the agreements entered into pursuant to point (d).\n3. Persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply the following conduct rules when bidding on their own account or on behalf of their clients:\n(a)\nthey shall provide any information requested by any auction platform where they are admitted to bid or by the auction monitor to fulfil their respective functions under this Regulation;\n(b)\nthey shall act with integrity, reasonable skill, care and diligence.\n4. The competent national authorities designated by the Member States where the persons referred to in paragraph 1 are established shall be responsible for authorising such persons to carry out the activities referred to in that paragraph and for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the conduct rules provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 including the handling of any complaints made for non-compliance with such conduct rules.\n5. The competent national authorities referred to in paragraph 4 shall only grant an authorisation to the persons referred to in paragraph 1 where the persons fulfil all of the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey are of sufficiently good repute and sufficiently experienced as to ensure proper respect of the conduct rules provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3;\n(b)\nthey have put in place the necessary processes and checks to manage conflicts of interest and serve the best interests of their clients;\n(c)\nthey comply with the requirements of national legislation transposing Directive 2005/60/EC;\n(d)\nthey comply with any other measures deemed necessary having regard to the nature of the bidding services being offered and the level of sophistication of the clients in question in terms of their investor or trading profile as well as any risk-based assessment of the likelihood of money laundering, terrorist financing or criminal activity.\n6. The competent national authorities of the Member State where the persons referred to in paragraph 1 are authorised shall monitor and enforce the conditions listed in paragraph 5. The Member State shall ensure that:\n(a)\nits competent national authorities have at their disposal the necessary investigative powers and sanctions that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive;\n(b)\na mechanism is established for the handling of complaints and the withdrawal of authorisations where the authorised persons are in breach of their obligations pursuant to such authorisation;\n(c)\nits competent national authorities may withdraw the authorisation granted under paragraph 5 where a person referred to in paragraph 1 has seriously and systematically infringed the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3.\n7. Clients of bidders referred to in paragraph 1 may direct any complaints that they may have with regard to compliance with the conduct rules provided for in paragraph 2 to the competent authorities mentioned in paragraph 3 in accordance with the procedural rules laid down for the handling of such complaints in the Member State where the persons referred to in paragraph 1 are supervised.\n8. Persons referred to in paragraph 1 that are admitted to bid at an auction platform pursuant to Articles 18, 19 and 20 shall be allowed, without further legal or administrative requirements of the Member States, to provide bidding services to clients referred to in point (a) of Article 19(3).\nCHAPTER XVI\nTRANSPARENCY AND CONFIDENTIALITY\nArticle 60\nPublication\n1. All legislation, guidance, instructions, forms, documents, announcements, including the auction calendar, any other non-confidential information pertinent to the auctions on a given auction platform, any decision, including any decision pursuant to Article 57, to impose a maximum bid-size and any other remedial measures necessary to mitigate an actual or potential discernible risk of money-laundering, terrorist financing, criminal activity or market abuse on that auction platform, shall be published on a dedicated up-to-date auctioning web-site maintained by the auction platform concerned.\nInformation which is no longer relevant shall be archived. Such archives shall be accessible through the same auctioning web-site.\n2. Non-confidential versions of the auction monitor\u2019s reports to the Member States and the Commission pursuant to Article 25(1) and (2) shall be published on the Commission\u2019s website.\nReports which are no longer relevant shall be archived. Such archives shall be accessible through the Commission\u2019s web-site.\n3. A list of the names, addresses, telephone and facsimile numbers, electronic mail addresses and websites of all persons admitted to bid on behalf of others in auctions conducted by any auction platform auctioning two-day spot or five-day futures shall be published on the website maintained by the auction platform concerned.\nArticle 61\nAnnouncement and notification of the auction results\n1. An auction platform shall announce the results of each auction it conducts as soon as is reasonably practicable and no later than 15 minutes after the close of the bidding window.\n2. The announcement made pursuant to paragraph 1 shall at least include the following:\n(a)\nthe volume of the allowances auctioned;\n(b)\nthe auction clearing price in euros;\n(c)\nthe total volume of bids submitted;\n(d)\nthe total number of bidders and the number of successful bidders;\n(e)\nin case of cancellation of an auction, the auctions to which the volume of allowances will be carried over;\n(f)\nthe total revenue earned from the auction;\n(g)\nthe distribution of the revenue between the Member States, in the case of auction platforms appointed pursuant to Article 26(1) or (2).\n3. At the same time as the announcement pursuant to paragraph 1, the auction platform shall notify each successful bidder bidding through its systems:\n(a)\nthe total number of allowances to be allocated to that bidder;\n(b)\nwhich of its tied bids, if any, were randomly selected;\n(c)\nthe payment due either in euros or in the currency of a Member State not member of the euro-zone, chosen by the bidder provided that the clearing system or settlement system is capable of handling the national currency in question;\n(d)\nthe date by which the payment due must be paid in cleared funds into the auctioneer\u2019s nominated bank account.\n4. Where the currency chosen by the bidder is not euros an auction platform shall notify a successful bidder bidding in auctions conducted by it of the exchange rate it has used to calculate the amount due in the currency chosen by the successful bidder.\nThe exchange rate shall be the rate published on a recognised financial newswire service specified in the contract appointing the auction platform concerned, immediately following the close of the bidding window.\n5. An auction platform shall notify the relevant clearing system and settlement system connected to it of the information notified to each successful bidder, pursuant to paragraph 3.\nArticle 62\nProtection of confidential information\n1. The following shall constitute confidential information:\n(a)\nthe contents of a bid;\n(b)\nthe contents of any instructions to bid even when no bid is submitted;\n(c)\ninformation which discloses, or from which can be deduced, the identity of the bidder in question and either of the following:\n(i)\nthe number of allowances which a bidder wishes to acquire in an auction;\n(ii)\nthe price which a bidder is willing to pay for those allowances;\n(d)\ninformation about, or derived from, one or more bids or instructions to bid which either separately or collectively would be likely to:\n(i)\ngive an indication as to the demand for allowances prior to any auction;\n(ii)\ngive an indication as to the auction clearing price prior to any auction;\n(e)\ninformation provided by persons in the framework of the establishment or maintenance of the relationship with bidders or in the framework of the monitoring of that relationship pursuant to Articles 19, 20, 21 and 54;\n(f)\nthe auction monitor reports and opinions made pursuant to Article 25(1) to (6) except for the parts contained in any non-confidential versions of the auction monitor\u2019s reports published by the Commission pursuant to Article 60(2);\n(g)\nbusiness secrets provided by persons participating in a competitive procurement process to appoint an auction platform or the auction monitor;\n(h)\ninformation on the algorithm used for the random selection of tied bids, referred to in Article 7(2);\n(i)\ninformation on the methodology to define what constitutes an auction clearing price significantly under the prevailing secondary market price before and during an auction, referred to in Article 7(6).\n2. Confidential information shall not be disclosed by any person who obtained that information, whether directly or indirectly, other than in accordance with paragraph 3.\n3. Paragraph 2 shall not prevent the disclosure of confidential information which:\n(a)\nhas already lawfully been made available to the public;\n(b)\nis made public with the written consent of a bidder, person admitted to bid, or person applying for admission to bid;\n(c)\nis required to be disclosed or to be publicly available by an obligation under Union law;\n(d)\nis made public pursuant to a court order;\n(e)\nis made public for the purposes of any criminal, administrative, or judicial investigations or proceedings carried out in the Union;\n(f)\nis disclosed by an auction platform to the auction monitor for the purpose of enabling or assisting the auction monitor to carry out its functions or to fulfil its obligations in relation to the auctions;\n(g)\nis aggregated or redacted prior to its disclosure, so that it is unlikely that information relating to the following is discernable:\n(i)\nindividual bids or instructions to bid;\n(ii)\nindividual auctions;\n(iii)\nindividual bidders, prospective bidders or persons applying for admission to bid;\n(iv)\nindividual applications for admission to bid;\n(v)\nindividual relationships with bidders;\n(h)\nis referred to in paragraph 1(f) provided that it is disclosed to the public in a non-discriminatory and orderly fashion by the competent national authorities of Member States for information covered by Article 25(2)(c) and by the Commission for other information covered by Article 25(2);\n(i)\nis referred to in paragraph 1(g) provided that it is disclosed to persons working for Member States or the Commission involved in the competitive procurement process referred to in paragraph 1(g), who are themselves bound by an obligation of professional secrecy under their terms of employment;\n(j)\nis made public after the end of a period of 30 months starting from either of the following dates, subject to any subsisting professional secrecy obligations under Union law:\n(i)\nthe date of the opening of the bidding window of the auction in which the confidential information is first disclosed with respect to confidential information in paragraph 1(a) to (d);\n(ii)\nthe date of the termination of the relationship with a bidder with respect to confidential information in paragraph 1(e);\n(iii)\nthe date of the auction monitor\u2019s report or opinion with respect to confidential information in paragraph 1(f);\n(iv)\nthe date of submission of the information in the competitive procurement process with respect to confidential information in paragraph 1(g).\n4. The measures required to ensure that confidential information is not wrongfully disclosed and the consequences of any such wrongful disclosure by an auction platform or the auction monitor, including any persons contracted to work for them, shall be set out in the contracts appointing them.\n5. Confidential information obtained by an auction platform or the auction monitor, including any persons contracted to work for them, shall be used solely for the purpose of the performance of their obligations or the exercise of their functions with respect to the auctions.\n6. Paragraphs 1 to 5 shall not preclude the exchange of confidential information between an auction platform and the auction monitor, nor between any one of them and:\n(a)\nthe competent national authorities supervising an auction platform;\n(b)\nthe competent national authorities responsible for investigating and prosecuting money laundering, terrorist financing, criminal activity or market abuse;\n(c)\nthe Commission.\nConfidential information exchanged under this paragraph shall not be disclosed to other persons than those referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) contrary to paragraph 2.\n7. Any person who works, or has worked for, an auction platform or the auction monitor involved in the auctions, shall be bound by the obligation of professional secrecy and shall ensure that confidential information is protected pursuant to this Article.\nArticle 63\nLanguage regime\n1. Written information provided by an auction platform pursuant to Article 60(1) and (3), or by the auction monitor pursuant to Article 60(2), or under the contract appointing them, which is not published in the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be in a language customary in the sphere of international finance.\n2. Any Member State may provide, at its own cost, for the translation of all information covered by paragraph 1 of an auction platform, into the official language(s) of that Member State.\nWhere a Member State provides, at its own cost, for the translation of all information covered by paragraph 1 provided by the auction platform appointed pursuant to Article 26(1), any Member State having appointed an auction platform pursuant to Article 30(1) shall also provide, at its own cost, for the translation into the same language(s) of all information covered by paragraph 1 provided by the auction platform it has appointed pursuant to Article 30(1).\n3. Applicants for admission to bid and persons admitted to bid may submit the following in the official language of the Union they have chosen under paragraph 4 provided that a Member State has decided to provide a translation in that language under paragraph 2:\n(a)\ntheir applications for admission to bid, including any supporting documents;\n(b)\ntheir bids, including any withdrawal or modifications thereof;\n(c)\nany queries relating to points (a) or (b).\nAn auction platform may request a certified translation into a language customary in the sphere of international finance.\n4. Applicants for admission to bid, persons admitted to bid and bidders participating in an auction, shall choose any official language of the Union in which they shall receive all notifications made pursuant to Articles 8(3), 20(10), 21(4) and 61(3).\nAll other oral or written communication by any auction platform to applicants for admission to bid, persons admitted to bid or bidders participating in an auction, shall be made in the language chosen under the first subparagraph at no additional cost to the applicants, persons and bidders in question, provided that a Member State has decided to provide a translation in that language under paragraph 2.\nHowever, even where a Member State pursuant to paragraph 2 has decided to provide a translation in the language chosen under the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the applicant for admission to bid, the person admitted to bid or the bidder participating in an auction, may waive its right under the second subparagraph of this paragraph by giving prior written consent for the auction platform concerned to use only a language customary in the sphere of international finance.\n5. Member States shall be responsible for the accuracy of any translation made pursuant to paragraph 2.\nPersons submitting a translation of a document referred to in paragraph 3 and any auction platform notifying a translated document under paragraph 4 shall be responsible for ensuring that it is an accurate translation of the original.\nCHAPTER XVII\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 64\nRight of appeal\n1. An auction platform shall ensure that it has in place an extra-judicial mechanism to deal with complaints from applicants for admission to bid, bidders admitted to bid, or whose admission to bid has been refused, revoked or suspended.\n2. Member States where a regulated market appointed as an auction platform or its market operator are supervised, shall ensure that any decisions made by the extra-judicial mechanism dealing with complaints referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article are properly reasoned and are subject to the right to apply to the courts referred to in Article 52(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC. That right shall be without prejudice to any rights of appealing directly to the courts or competent administrative bodies provided for in the national measures transposing Article 52(2) of Directive 2004/39/EC.\nArticle 65\nCorrection of errors\n1. Any errors in any payment or allowance transfers made and collateral or deposit given or released under this Regulation shall be notified to the clearing system or settlement system as soon as it comes to the notice of any person.\n2. The clearing system or settlement system shall take whatever measures necessary to rectify any errors in any payment or allowance transfers made and collateral or deposit given or released under this Regulation which come to their attention by whatever means.\n3. Any person benefiting from an error under paragraph 1 which cannot be rectified under paragraph 2, due to the intervening rights of a third party purchaser in good faith, who knew of or ought to have known of the error and failed to notify it to the clearing system or settlement system, shall be liable to make good any damage caused.\nArticle 66\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 November 2010.", "references": ["45", "28", "6", "93", "21", "18", "75", "2", "72", "30", "62", "73", "48", "61", "29", "59", "64", "20", "22", "42", "80", "77", "50", "56", "40", "34", "33", "51", "94", "99", "No Label", "58", "60"], "gold": ["58", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 908/2011\nof 8 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 September 2011.", "references": ["76", "94", "2", "25", "38", "8", "26", "43", "31", "98", "55", "33", "13", "69", "41", "7", "56", "17", "84", "51", "75", "59", "34", "19", "46", "64", "14", "95", "6", "93", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 February 2011\nestablishing minimum requirements for the cross-border processing of documents signed electronically by competent authorities under Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market\n(notified under document C(2011) 1081)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/130/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (1), and in particular Article 8(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nService providers whose services fall within the scope of Directive 2006/123/EC must be able to complete, through the Points of Single Contact and by electronic means, the procedures and formalities necessary for the access to and the exercise of their activities. Within the limits established in Article 5(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC, there may still be cases where service providers have to submit original documents, certified copies or certified translations when completing such procedures and formalities. In those cases, service providers may need to submit documents signed electronically by competent authorities.\n(2)\nThe cross-border use of advanced electronic signatures supported by a qualified certificate is facilitated through Commission Decision 2009/767/EC of 16 October 2009 setting out measures facilitating the use of procedures by electronic means through the \u2018points of single contact\u2019 under Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market (2) which, inter alia, imposes an obligation on Member States to carry out risk assessments before requiring these electronic signatures from service providers and establishes rules for the acceptance by Member States of advanced electronic signatures based on qualified certificates, created with or without a secure signature creation device. However, Decision 2009/767/EC does not deal with formats of electronic signatures in documents issued by competent authorities, that need to be submitted by service providers when completing the relevant procedures and formalities.\n(3)\nAs competent authorities in Member States currently use different formats of advanced electronic signatures to sign their documents electronically, the receiving Member States that have to process these documents may face technical difficulties due to the variety of signature formats used. In order to allow service providers to complete their procedures and formalities across borders by electronic means, it is necessary to ensure that at least a number of advanced electronic signature formats can be technically supported by Member States when they receive documents signed electronically by competent authorities from other Member States. Defining a number of advanced electronic signature formats that need to be supported technically by the receiving Member State would allow greater automation and improve the cross-border interoperability of electronic procedures.\n(4)\nMember States whose competent authorities use other electronic signature formats than those commonly supported, may have implemented validation means that allow their signatures to be verified also across borders. When this is the case and in order for the receiving Member States to be able to rely on these validation tools, it is necessary to make information on these tools available in an easily accessible way unless the necessary information is included directly in the electronic documents, in the electronic signatures or in the electronic document carriers.\n(5)\nThis Decision does not affect the determination by the Member States of what constitutes an original, a certified copy or a certified translation. Its objective is limited to facilitating the verification of electronic signatures if they are used in the originals, certified copies or certified translations that service providers may need to submit via the Points of Single Contact.\n(6)\nFor the purpose of allowing Member States to implement the necessary technical tools, it is appropriate that this Decision applies as of 1 August 2011.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Services Directive Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nReference format for electronic signatures\n1. Member States shall put in place the necessary technical means allowing them to process electronically signed documents that service providers submit in the context of completing procedures and formalities through the Points of Single Contact as foreseen by Article 8 of Directive 2006/123/EC, and which are signed by competent authorities of other Member States with an XML or a CMS or a PDF advanced electronic signature in the BES or EPES format, that complies with the technical specifications set out in the Annex.\n2. Member States whose competent authorities sign the documents referred to in paragraph 1 using other formats of electronic signatures than those referred to in that same paragraph, shall notify to the Commission existing validation possibilities that allow other Member States to validate the received electronic signatures online, free of charge and in a way that is understandable for non-native speakers unless the required information is already included in the document, in the electronic signature or in the electronic document carrier. The Commission will make that information available to all Member States.\nArticle 2\nApplication\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 August 2011.\nArticle 3\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 February 2011.", "references": ["1", "81", "77", "30", "91", "70", "62", "93", "35", "33", "6", "27", "26", "18", "71", "69", "72", "96", "58", "38", "85", "53", "32", "78", "64", "57", "52", "88", "17", "43", "No Label", "2", "9", "20", "23", "25", "49", "76"], "gold": ["2", "9", "20", "23", "25", "49", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 146/2011\nof 17 February 2011\nfixing the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 16th individual invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.\n(3)\nIn the light of the tenders received for the 16th individual invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 16th individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 15 February 2011, the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be EUR 250,10/100 kg.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2011.", "references": ["13", "8", "91", "49", "61", "23", "45", "19", "64", "12", "29", "84", "24", "4", "53", "77", "37", "83", "1", "68", "22", "62", "89", "66", "7", "36", "72", "79", "92", "6", "No Label", "20", "35", "70"], "gold": ["20", "35", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 488/2010\nof 3 June 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 475/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["87", "17", "56", "57", "42", "49", "64", "20", "99", "0", "4", "70", "67", "12", "9", "28", "1", "51", "39", "23", "80", "47", "31", "19", "66", "55", "13", "83", "74", "34", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 227/2011\nof 7 March 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 219/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2011.", "references": ["15", "59", "88", "54", "27", "83", "43", "95", "64", "24", "86", "17", "23", "96", "40", "68", "81", "9", "46", "84", "62", "77", "98", "7", "8", "51", "93", "25", "26", "53", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 710/2011\nof 20 July 2011\nfixing the export refunds on eggs\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in eggs, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely within the Union and comply with requirements under Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2) and of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3), as well as marking requirements under point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 398/2011 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 and those defined in point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 398/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["55", "67", "95", "84", "38", "73", "64", "8", "9", "29", "59", "3", "54", "31", "45", "74", "27", "10", "21", "94", "12", "14", "36", "50", "76", "96", "99", "19", "30", "52", "No Label", "20", "22", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 788/2012\nof 31 August 2012\nconcerning a coordinated multiannual control programme of the Union for 2013, 2014 and 2015 to ensure compliance with maximum residue levels of pesticides and to assess the consumer exposure to pesticide residues in and on food of plant and animal origin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), in particular Articles 28 and 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 1213/2008 (2) a first coordinated multiannual Community programme, covering the years 2009, 2010 and 2011, was established. That programme continued under consecutive Commission Regulations. The latest one was Commission Regulation (EU) No 1274/2011 of 7 December 2011 concerning a coordinated multiannual control programme of the Union for 2012, 2013 and 2014 to ensure compliance with maximum residue levels of pesticides and to assess the consumer exposure to pesticide residues in and on food of plant and animal origin (3).\n(2)\nThirty to forty foodstuffs constitute the major components of the diet in the Union. Since pesticide uses show significant changes over a period of three years, pesticides should be monitored in those foodstuffs over a series of three-year cycles to allow consumer exposure and the application of Union legislation to be assessed.\n(3)\nOn the basis of a binomial probability distribution, it can be calculated that examination of 642 samples allows, with a certainty of more than 99 %, the detection of a sample containing pesticide residues above the limit of determination (LOD), provided that not less than 1 % of the products contain residues above that limit. Collection of these samples should be apportioned among Member States according to population numbers, with a minimum of 12 samples per product and per year.\n(4)\nAnalytical results from the 2010 official control programme of the Union (4) have shown that certain pesticides are more commonly present on agricultural products than previously, indicating changes in the use pattern of those pesticides. Those pesticides should be included in the control programme in addition to those which were covered under Regulation (EU) No 1274/2011 in order to ensure that the range of pesticides covered by the control programme is representative of the pesticides used.\n(5)\nThe analysis of certain pesticides, in particular those added to the control programme by this Regulation or those with very difficult residue definition, should be optional in 2013 in order to allow time, for official laboratories to validate the methods required for the analysis of those pesticides, in case they have not yet done so.\n(6)\nWhere the residue definition of a pesticide includes other active substances, metabolites or breakdown products, those metabolites should be reported separately.\n(7)\nGuidance concerning \u2018Method Validation and Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis in food and feed\u2019 is published on the Commission website (5). Member States should be allowed, under certain conditions, to use qualitative screening methods.\n(8)\nImplementing measures, such as the Standard Sample Description (SSD) (6) for submitting results of pesticide residues analysis, relating to the submission of information by Member States have been agreed by Member States, Commission and European Food Safety Authority.\n(9)\nFor the sampling procedures Commission Directive 2002/63/EC of 11 July 2002 establishing Community methods of sampling for the official control of pesticide residues in and on products of plant and animal origin and repealing Directive 79/700/EEC (7) which incorporates the sampling methods and procedures recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission should apply.\n(10)\nIt is necessary to assess whether maximum residue levels for baby food provided for in Article 10 of Commission Directive 2006/141/EC of 22 December 2006 on infant formulae and follow-on formulae (8) and Article 7 of Commission Directive 2006/125/EC of 5 December 2006 on processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children (9) are respected, taking into account only the residue definitions as they are set out in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(11)\nIt is also necessary to assess possible aggregate, cumulative and synergistic effects of pesticides when methodology becomes available. This assessment should start with some organophosphates, carbamates, triazoles and pyrethroides, as set out in Annex I.\n(12)\nAs regards single residue methods Member States may be able to meet their obligations of analysis by having recourse to official laboratories already having the validated methods required.\n(13)\nMember States should submit by 31 August of each year the information concerning the previous calendar year.\n(14)\nIn order to avoid any confusion due to an overlap between consecutive multiannual programmes, Regulation (EU) No 1274/2011 should be repealed in the interest of legal certainty. It should, however, continue to apply to samples tested in 2012.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nMember States shall, during the years 2013, 2014 and 2015, take and analyse samples for the pesticide/product combinations, as set out in Annex I.\nThe number of samples of each product shall be as set out in Annex II.\nArticle 2\n1. The lot to be sampled shall be chosen randomly.\nThe sampling procedure, including the number of units, shall comply with Directive 2002/63/EC.\n2. Samples shall be analysed in accordance with the residue definitions set out in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. Where no explicit residue definition is set out in that Regulation for a particular pesticide, the residue definition as set out in Annex I to this Regulation shall apply.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall submit the results of the analysis of samples tested in 2013, 2014 and 2015 by 31 August 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively. Those results shall be submitted in accordance with the Standard Sample Description (SSD), as set out in Annex III.\n2. Where the residue definition of a pesticide includes active substances, metabolites and/or breakdown or reaction products, Member States shall report the analysis results in accordance with the legal residue definition. The results of each of the main isomers or metabolites mentioned in the residue definition shall be submitted separately, as far as they are measured individually.\nArticle 4\nRegulation (EU) No 1274/2011 is repealed.\nHowever, it shall continue to apply to samples tested in 2012.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 August 2012.", "references": ["81", "9", "6", "45", "64", "84", "63", "48", "90", "29", "71", "62", "91", "79", "12", "56", "89", "60", "20", "77", "13", "51", "67", "35", "82", "22", "33", "66", "55", "16", "No Label", "24", "38", "61", "65", "72"], "gold": ["24", "38", "61", "65", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 779/2012\nof 27 August 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for black scabbardfish in EU and international waters of V, VI, VII and XII by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 August 2012.", "references": ["15", "76", "93", "1", "47", "27", "58", "33", "60", "49", "78", "69", "82", "84", "71", "45", "23", "36", "39", "94", "17", "32", "8", "44", "62", "89", "48", "86", "61", "41", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 20 June 2011\nappointing an Austrian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/371/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Austrian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Johanna MIKL-LEITNER,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as alternate member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMs Barbara SCHWARZ, Amt der N\u00d6 Landesregierung.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["8", "65", "75", "61", "15", "80", "79", "68", "57", "48", "66", "51", "20", "16", "27", "84", "6", "60", "67", "90", "34", "88", "49", "93", "76", "58", "53", "40", "28", "33", "No Label", "7", "52", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "52", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 110/2011\nof 8 February 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 458/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European system of integrated social protection statistics (ESSPROS) as regards the appropriate formats for the transmission of data, the results to be transmitted and the criteria for measuring quality for the ESSPROS module on net social protection benefits\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 458/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 April 2007 on the European system of integrated social protection statistics (ESSPROS) (1), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 458/2007 established a methodological framework to be used for compiling statistics on a comparable basis for the benefits of the European Union and time limits for the transmission and dissemination of statistics compiled in accordance with the European system of integrated social protection statistics (hereinafter referred to as \u2018ESSPROS\u2019).\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 458/2007, implementing measures relating to the formats for the transmission of data, the results to be transmitted and the criteria for measuring quality for the module on net social protection benefits should be adopted.\n(3)\nThe module on net social protection benefits should be obtained using the \u2018restricted approach\u2019, in order to have the same population of beneficiaries of the gross social protection benefits collected in the ESSPROS core system.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The formats for the transmission of data and the results to be transmitted for the module on net social protection benefits shall be as laid down in Annex I.\n2. The criteria for measuring the quality of data relating to the module on net social protection benefits shall be as laid down in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 February 2011.", "references": ["23", "71", "13", "7", "91", "75", "38", "18", "84", "98", "90", "76", "16", "27", "11", "24", "15", "57", "55", "58", "43", "3", "85", "53", "5", "46", "72", "73", "78", "29", "No Label", "19", "36", "37", "40"], "gold": ["19", "36", "37", "40"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 238/2011\nof 11 March 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Z\u00e1zrivsk\u00fd korb\u00e1\u010dik (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovakia\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Z\u00e1zrivsk\u00fd korb\u00e1\u010dik\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 March 2011.", "references": ["72", "52", "82", "67", "86", "50", "51", "65", "1", "49", "55", "46", "26", "12", "16", "8", "43", "94", "63", "56", "22", "74", "87", "13", "68", "58", "78", "18", "79", "28", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 25 February 2011\non the arrangements for the renegotiation of the Monetary Agreement between the Government of the French Republic, on behalf of the European Community, and the Government of His Serene Highness the Prince of Monaco\n(2011/190/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 219(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union has the competence for monetary and exchange rate matters as of the date of the introduction of the euro.\n(2)\nThe Council is to determine the arrangements for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements concerning monetary or foreign exchange regime matter.\n(3)\nOn 26 December 2001 the Monetary Agreement between the Government of the French Republic, on behalf of the European Community, and the Government of His Serene Highness the Prince of Monaco (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was concluded.\n(4)\nFrance has long standing monetary links with the Principality of Monaco (hereinafter \u2018Monaco\u2019), which are reflected in various legal instruments. The financial institutions located in Monaco have the right to access the refinancing facilities of the Banque de France and they participate in some French payment systems under the same conditions as French banks.\n(5)\nIn its conclusion of 10 February 2009 the Council invited the Commission to review the functioning of the existing Monetary Agreements and to consider possible increases in the ceilings for coin issuance.\n(6)\nThe Commission concluded in the Communication on the functioning of the Monetary Agreements with Monaco, San Marino and Vatican that the Agreement in its present form needs to be amended with a view to ensuring a more consistent approach in the relations between the Union and the countries having signed a monetary agreement.\n(7)\nThe Agreement should therefore be renegotiated with a view to adjusting the ceiling for the issuance of coins, electing a jurisdiction for possible dispute settlement, and adjusting the format of the Agreement in order to be brought closer to the new common model for monetary agreements. The Agreement should remain in force until a renegotiated agreement is concluded between the parties,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFrance shall notify Monaco of the need to amend the Agreement at the earliest possible date and offer renegotiation on the relevant provisions of the Agreement.\nArticle 2\nThe Union shall seek the following changes in the renegotiation of the Agreement:\n(a)\nThe renegotiated Agreement shall be concluded between the Union, represented by the Government of the French Republic and the Commission, and the Government of His Serene Highness the Prince of Monaco.\n(b)\nThe method for determining the ceiling of issuance of Monegasque euro coins shall be revised. The new ceiling shall be calculated using a method which will combine a fixed part aimed at avoiding excessive numismatic speculation on Monegasque coins by satisfying the demand of the collector coin market and a variable part, calculated as the average per capita coin issuance of France in the year n-1 multiplied by the number of inhabitants of Monaco. Without prejudice to the issuance of collector coins, the renegotiated Agreement shall set the minimum proportion of Monegasque euro coins to be put into circulation at face value at 80 % of the euro coins issued every year.\n(c)\nThe Court of Justice of the European Union (\u2018Court of Justice\u2019) shall be elected as the body in charge of settling disputes which may arise from the application of the Agreement. If the Union or Monaco consider that the other Party has not fulfilled an obligation under the renegotiated Agreement, it may bring the matter before the Court of Justice. The judgment of the Court of Justice shall be binding on the Parties, which will take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment within a period to be decided by the Court of Justice in its judgment. In case the Union or Monaco fail to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment within the period, the other Party can terminate immediately the renegotiated Agreement.\n(d)\nThe format of the renegotiated Agreement shall be adjusted.\nArticle 3\nThe negotiations with Monaco shall be conducted by France and the Commission on behalf of the Union. The European Central Bank (ECB) shall be fully associated with the negotiations and its agreement shall be required on issues falling within its field of competence. France and the Commission shall submit the draft renegotiated Agreement to the Economic and Financial Committee (EFC) for opinion.\nArticle 4\nFrance and the Commission shall be entitled to conclude the renegotiated Agreement on behalf of the Union, unless the EFC or the ECB is of the opinion that the renegotiated Agreement should be submitted to the Council.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic, the Commission and the European Central Bank.\nDone at Brussels, 25 February 2011.", "references": ["84", "14", "67", "15", "75", "45", "19", "40", "85", "49", "28", "70", "37", "92", "98", "79", "18", "53", "31", "94", "11", "50", "69", "82", "3", "20", "65", "60", "29", "74", "No Label", "12", "27", "30", "91", "97"], "gold": ["12", "27", "30", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 105/2011\nof 4 February 2011\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for import licences for olive oil lodged from 31 January to 1 February 2011 under the Tunisian tariff quota and suspending the issue of import licences for the month of February 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(1) and (2) of Protocol No 1 (3) to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part (4), opens a tariff quota at a zero rate of duty for imports of untreated olive oil falling within CN codes 1509 10 10 and 1509 10 90, wholly obtained in Tunisia and transported direct from that country to the European Union, up to the limit laid down for each year.\n(2)\nArticle 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 of 20 December 2006 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quota for olive oil originating in Tunisia (5) lays down monthly quantitative limits for the issue of import licences.\n(3)\nImport licence applications have been submitted to the competent authorities under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 in respect of a total quantity exceeding the limit laid down for the month of February in Article 2(2) of that Regulation.\n(4)\nIn these circumstances, the Commission must set an allocation coefficient allowing import licences to be issued in proportion to the quantity available.\n(5)\nSince the limit for the month of February has been reached, no more import licences can be issued for that month,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications were lodged for 31 January and 1 February 2011 under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 95,463571 %.\nThe issue of import licences in respect of amounts applied for as from 7 February 2011 shall be suspended for February 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 February 2011.", "references": ["81", "78", "71", "68", "24", "15", "97", "52", "12", "14", "86", "17", "43", "38", "95", "87", "11", "90", "50", "55", "74", "62", "0", "10", "6", "1", "69", "3", "47", "66", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "70", "94"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "70", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 207/2011\nof 2 March 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Diphenylether, pentabromo derivative and PFOS)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Article 131 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 introduces restrictions to the placing on the market and use of Diphenylether, pentabromo derivative and perfluorooctane sulfonates (PFOS) under entries 44 and 53.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC (2) implements in Union law the commitments set out in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, hereinafter \u2018the Convention\u2019, approved by Council Decision 2006/507/EC (3) and in the 1998 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants, hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019, approved by Council Decision 2004/259/EC (4).\n(3)\nFollowing nominations of substances received from the European Union and its Member States, Norway and Mexico, the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee established under the Convention has concluded its work on a group of substances that have been found to meet the criteria of the Convention. At the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on 4-8 May 2009, (hereinafter \u2018the COP 4\u2019), it was agreed to add nine substances to the Annexes to the Convention including Pentabromodiphenyl ether and PFOS.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 757/2010 of 24 August 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on persistent organic pollutants as regards Annexes I and III (5) implements the Decisions of the COP 4, by including the substances listed in the Convention or the Protocol or in both in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004. Those substances include Pentabromodiphenyl ether and PFOS. Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 prohibits the production and placing on the market of the substances listed in Annex I and regulates the management of waste containing these substances. In the case of PFOS, derogations applicable under REACH in Annex XVII are carried over and listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 with some amendments to reflect the COP 4 Decision.\n(5)\nAs a consequence, restrictions on Diphenylether, pentabromo derivative and PFOS in Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 are superfluous and entries 44 and 53 should be deleted.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 entries 44 and 53 are deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2011.", "references": ["99", "5", "3", "13", "11", "62", "32", "80", "12", "88", "28", "18", "52", "64", "4", "87", "50", "86", "90", "46", "74", "44", "55", "10", "58", "82", "65", "26", "48", "61", "No Label", "7", "24", "25", "38", "60", "83"], "gold": ["7", "24", "25", "38", "60", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 820/2011\nof 16 August 2011\napproving the active substance terbuthylazine, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Terbuthylazine is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included terbuthylazine.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (6) the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from entry into force of that Regulation. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (7) was adopted on the non-inclusion of terbuthylazine.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nThe United Kingdom evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 3 February 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on terbuthylazine to the Commission on 20 December 2010 (8). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for terbuthylazine.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing terbuthylazine may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve terbuthylazine in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that terbuthylazine should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(11)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of the approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of six months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing terbuthylazine. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw existing authorisations. By way of derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(12)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (9) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(13)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (10) should be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of terbuthylazine and the withdrawal of authorisations for plants protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning terbuthylazine in the Annex to that Decision. It is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance terbuthylazine, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing terbuthylazine as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing terbuthylazine as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Following that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing terbuthylazine as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing terbuthylazine as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2008/934/EC\nThe line concerning terbuthylazine in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2011.", "references": ["7", "57", "41", "45", "55", "24", "60", "20", "10", "96", "17", "39", "26", "28", "87", "34", "63", "78", "74", "97", "56", "40", "12", "95", "92", "19", "18", "91", "54", "50", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 August 2010\nallowing Member States to extend provisional authorisations granted for the new active substances Candida oleophila strain O, potassium iodide and potassium thiocyanate\n(notified under document C(2010) 5662)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/457/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in July 2006 the United Kingdom received an application from Bionext SPRL for the inclusion of the active substance Candida oleophila strain O in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2007/380/EC (2) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annexes II and III to that Directive.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in September 2004 the Netherlands received an application from Koppert Beheer BV for the inclusion of the active substance potassium iodide in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2005/751/EC (3) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annexes II and III to that Directive.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in September 2004 the Netherlands received an application from Koppert Beheer BV for the inclusion of the active substance potassium thiocyanate in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Decision 2005/751/EC confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annexes II and III to that Directive.\n(4)\nConfirmation of the completeness of the dossiers was necessary in order to allow them to be examined in detail and to allow Member States the possibility of granting provisional authorisations, for periods of up to three years, for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned, while complying with the conditions laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and, in particular, the condition relating to the detailed assessment of the active substances and the plant protection products in the light of the requirements laid down by that Directive.\n(5)\nFor these active substances, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicants. The rapporteur Member States submitted the respective draft assessment reports to the Commission on 5 February 2008 (Candida oleophila strain O) and on 27 July 2007 (potassium iodide and potassium thiocyanate).\n(6)\nFollowing submission of the draft assessment reports by the rapporteur Member States, it has been found to be necessary to request further information from the applicants and to have the rapporteur Member States examine that information and submit their assessment. Therefore, the examination of the dossiers is still ongoing and it will not be possible to complete the evaluation within the timeframe provided for in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(7)\nAs the evaluation so far has not identified any reason for immediate concern, Member States should be given the possibility of prolonging provisional authorisations granted for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned for a period of 24 months in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of Directive 91/414/EEC so as to enable the examination of the dossiers to continue. It is expected that the evaluation and decision-making process with respect to a decision on a possible inclusion in Annex I to that Directive for Candida oleophila strain O, potassium iodide and potassium thiocyanate will have been completed within 24 months.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States may extend provisional authorisations for plant protection products containing Candida oleophila strain O, potassium iodide or potassium thiocyanate for a period ending on 31 August 2012 at the latest.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall expire on 31 August 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 August 2010.", "references": ["51", "56", "72", "24", "17", "55", "75", "7", "64", "63", "62", "98", "20", "38", "26", "46", "80", "29", "79", "91", "16", "93", "22", "88", "66", "34", "36", "99", "53", "47", "No Label", "41", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["41", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 643/2010\nof 20 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2010.", "references": ["16", "20", "9", "15", "23", "22", "66", "46", "24", "40", "99", "55", "19", "0", "92", "71", "47", "78", "67", "51", "52", "7", "54", "12", "90", "63", "17", "56", "53", "58", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 27 January 2012\nappointing a Spanish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/62/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Jordi BAYONA LLOPIS,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed as alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr Esteban MAS PORTELL, Delegado del Gobierno de las Illes Balears en Bruselas.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 27 January 2012.", "references": ["49", "42", "90", "85", "41", "24", "69", "64", "23", "14", "47", "60", "17", "44", "25", "50", "54", "9", "35", "3", "11", "43", "28", "63", "99", "48", "55", "26", "84", "40", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 892/2010\nof 8 October 2010\non the status of certain products with regard to feed additives within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor certain substances, micro-organisms or preparations, referred to as products, there is uncertainty whether they are feed additives. This uncertainty concerns some products which are authorised as feed additives included in the Register of feed additives and also included in the Catalogue of feed materials provided for in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the placing on the market and use of feed, amending European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 and repealing Council Directive 79/373/EEC, Commission Directive 80/511/EEC, Council Directives 82/471/EEC, 83/228/EEC, 93/74/EEC, 93/113/EC and 96/25/EC and Commission Decision 2004/217/EC (2), some products which are neither authorised as feed additives nor included in the Catalogue of feed materials and some products which are authorised as feed additives, but could be included in the Catalogue of feed materials in accordance with the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 767/2009.\n(2)\nTo avoid inconsistencies in the treatment of such products, to facilitate the work of the national competent control authorities and to lighten the burden of the interested parties, as regards certain products it is necessary to adopt a Regulation determining those products that are not feed additives.\n(3)\nFor that determination all the characteristics of the products concerned have to be taken into account.\n(4)\nFrom a comparison between the characteristics of the products included in the Register of feed additives on the one hand and of the products mentioned in the Catalogue of feed materials on the other hand, several criteria may be derived for the classification of products as feed material, feed additive or other products. Useful criteria for this differentiation are amongst others the production and processing method, the level of standardisation, the homogenisation, the purity, the chemical definition and the mode of use of the products. For the sake of consistency, products with similar properties should be classified by analogy. For products for which there were doubts whether they were feed additives, an examination has been carried out taking into account these criteria.\n(5)\nBased on that examination, the products set out in the Annex should not be considered as feed additives within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nAs regards the labelling of the products which were authorised as feed additives and the labelling of feed materials and compound feed containing those products, a transitional period should be provided to allow feed business operators to adapt. Furthermore those products should be deleted from the Register of feed additives.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe substances, micro-organisms and preparations (referred to as \u2018products\u2019), as set out in the Annex, are not feed additives within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\nArticle 2\nThe products listed under Part 1 of the Annex shall no longer be considered as authorised feed additives within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\nArticle 3\nProducts set out in Part 1 of the Annex which are labelled as feed additives and pre-mixtures in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 may continue to be placed on the market until 9 October 2013 and remain on the market until stocks are exhausted. The same applies to feed materials or compound feed which refer to these products in their labelling as feed additives in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 767/2009.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["10", "83", "81", "11", "76", "3", "95", "64", "26", "70", "37", "1", "36", "54", "28", "38", "80", "72", "30", "41", "15", "39", "82", "79", "86", "16", "12", "5", "60", "98", "No Label", "25", "61", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "61", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 291/2011\nof 24 March 2011\non essential uses of controlled substances other than hydrochlorofluorocarbons for laboratory and analytical purposes in the Union under Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Union has already phased out the production and consumption of controlled substances for most uses. The Commission is required to determine essential laboratory and analytical uses for controlled substances other than hydrochlorofluorocarbons.\n(2)\nDecision XXI/6 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol consolidates existing decisions and extends the global laboratory and analytical use exemption beyond 31 December 2010 until 31 December 2014 for all controlled substances except for hydrochlorofluorocarbons, thus authorising the production and consumption necessary to satisfy essential laboratory and analytical uses of controlled substances, subject to the conditions established under the Montreal Protocol.\n(3)\nDecision VI/25 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol specifies that a use can only be considered as essential if there are no available technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health. In its 2010 Progress Report, the Technical and Economical Assessment Panel (TEAP) has identified a significant number of procedures for which alternatives to the use of controlled substances are now available. Based on that information and Decision XXI/6, a list of those uses for which technically and economically feasible alternatives that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health are available should be established.\n(4)\nA positive list of permitted essential uses of methyl bromide, as agreed by the Parties in Decision XVIII/15, as well as the uses which the TEAP has identified to be without alternatives should also be established.\n(5)\nIn addition, it should be clarified that the use of controlled substances for primary and secondary educational purposes cannot be considered essential and should be limited to higher education or vocational training. Furthermore, the use of controlled substances in experimental chemistry kits available to the general public should not be considered as essential.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe production, import and use of controlled substances other than hydrochlorofluorocarbons may be permitted for any essential laboratory and analytical use specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 March 2011.", "references": ["62", "95", "41", "12", "10", "3", "98", "9", "66", "59", "57", "49", "36", "47", "63", "71", "13", "50", "67", "40", "84", "34", "5", "7", "0", "51", "44", "76", "33", "35", "No Label", "58", "60", "77", "83"], "gold": ["58", "60", "77", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1266/2010\nof 22 December 2010\namending Directive 2007/68/EC as regards labelling requirements for wines\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 21 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Directive 2007/68/EC (2) amends the list of Annex IIIa to Directive 2000/13/EC indicating the ingredients which must be included in the labelling of foods as they are likely to cause adverse reactions in susceptible individuals; it also draws a list of certain derivatives from the ingredients included in Annex IIIa, for which it has been scientifically established that they are not likely, under specific circumstances to trigger adverse reactions and are therefore excluded from the labelling requirement. It furthermore repeals Commission Directive 2005/26/EC of 21 March 2005 establishing a list of food ingredients or substances provisionally excluded from Annex IIIa of Directive 2000/13/EC (3).\n(2)\nSince changes in labelling rules affect industry, mainly small and medium-sized enterprises, which need an adaptation period to smooth the transition towards new labelling requirements, Directive 2007/68/EC provided for temporary measures to facilitate the application of the new rules by allowing the marketing of foods placed on the market or labelled before 31 May 2009 that complied with Directive 2005/26/EC until stocks were exhausted.\n(3)\nThat transitional period provided for by those temporary measures was extended until 31 December 2010 by Commission Regulation (EC) No 415/2009 (4) for wines as defined in Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 (5).\n(4)\nFollowing the repeal of Regulation (EC) No 479/2008, wines are now defined in Annex XIb to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (6). Reference should thus be made to that Annex.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 6(11), first subparagraph of Directive 2000/13/EC, the list in Annex IIIa should be systematically re-examined and, where necessary, updated on the basis of the most recent scientific knowledge.\n(6)\nThe wine sector conducted new scientific studies on the allergenicity of casein and ovalbumin, derived from milk and egg respectively, used as fining agents in the winemaking. According to the applicant, those studies are based on new scientific data demonstrating that wines fined with casein and ovalbumin according to good manufacturing practice are not likely to trigger adverse reactions in milk or egg allergic individuals.\n(7)\nOn 8 June and 19 July 2010 the International Organisation of Vine and Wine made a request for a labelling exemption regarding casein and ovalbumin used in the manufacture of wine as clarification processing aids.\n(8)\nOn 14 July and 30 July 2010 the Commission submitted to EFSA requests for scientific opinions on the abovementioned substances.\n(9)\nIn order to avoid unnecessary burdens on the economic operators due to changes in labelling rules, the mandatory application to the wine sector of Directive 2007/68/EC should be postponed pending the scientific assessment by EFSA.\n(10)\nThe date provided for in Article 3(3) of Directive 2007/68/EC which sets out a transitional period should be consequently set for 30 June 2012 for wines placed on the market or labelled before that date and until their stocks are exhausted provided they comply with the provisions previously in force, namely those of Directive 2005/26/EC.\n(11)\nDirective 2007/68/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 3 of Directive 2007/68/EC the third paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Member States shall allow wines, as defined in Annex XIb to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, placed on the market or labelled before 30 June 2012, and which comply with the provisions of Directive 2005/26/EC, to be marketed until stocks are exhausted.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2010.", "references": ["53", "66", "96", "20", "94", "21", "30", "83", "74", "45", "88", "99", "18", "63", "61", "19", "70", "1", "4", "69", "82", "84", "10", "68", "16", "22", "67", "81", "59", "2", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "72"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 765/2010\nof 25 August 2010\namending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for chlorothalonil clothianidin, difenoconazole, fenhexamid, flubendiamide, nicotine, spirotetramat, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor chlorothalonil, fenhexamid and thiacloprid maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Annex II and Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For clothianidin, difenoconazole, flubendiamide, spirotetramat and thiamethoxam, MRLs were set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. Up to now, for nicotine no specific MRLs were set nor was that substance included in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(2)\nIn the context of a procedure, in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2), for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance difenoconazole on swedes and turnips an application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing MRLs.\n(3)\nAs regards chlorothalonil, such an application was made for the use on barley. In view of that application, it is necessary to set MRLs for meat, fat, liver, kidney and milk from bovines, sheep and goats, since cereals are used as feed and residues may end up on forage for these animals. As regards fenhexamid, such an application was made for the use on lettuce. As regards flubendiamide, such an application was made for the use on aubergine, cucurbits and beans with pods. As regards spirotetramat, such an application was made for the use on onions. As regards thiacloprid, such an application was made for the use on strawberries, while also a Codex MRL exists for that combination. As regards thiamethoxam, such an application was made for carrots. In view of residues of clothianidin caused by the use of thiamethoxam, it is also necessary to modify the MRL for clothianidin on carrots.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, these applications were evaluated by the Member States concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission.\n(5)\nAs regards nicotine in wild fungi, the Commission received information from Member States and business operators showing the presence of nicotine in wild fungi leading to higher residues than the default MRL of 0,01 mg/kg laid down in that Regulation.\n(6)\nThe European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, assessed the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs (3). In the case of nicotine, the Commission asked the Authority to give an opinion on public health risks of nicotine residues in mushrooms. Given the urgency the Authority issued a \u2018statement\u2019, referring to several remaining uncertainties, rather than a reasoned opinion (4). It forwarded these opinions and that statement to the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public.\n(7)\nThe Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs requested by the applicants were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime exposure to these substances via consumption of all food products that may contain these substances, nor the short term exposure due to extreme consumption of the relevant crops showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference dose (ARfD) is exceeded.\n(8)\nAs regards nicotine on wild fungi, the Authority points out that its statement is affected by a number of uncertainties and limitations. In addition to that statement, monitoring data were collected in 2009 to investigate the presence of this substance in wild mushrooms. Those data were generated by Member States, food business operators and by the Chinese government and showed that nicotine is present in wild mushrooms at levels that vary depending on the source and variety, but that exceed, in almost the totality of the samples, the default MRL of 0,01 mg/kg. These findings provide evidence of the unavoidable presence of nicotine in wild fungi, in particular ceps (Boletus edulis). Therefore, it is appropriate to set temporary MRLs for nicotine in wild fungi, based on the available monitoring data and on the opinion of the Authority. Those temporary MRLs should be reviewed within two years, to evaluate new data and information that will become available, including any scientific evidence on the natural occurrence or formation of nicotine in wild fungi.\n(9)\nBased on the reasoned opinions and statement of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 August 2010.", "references": ["82", "72", "5", "35", "67", "64", "15", "88", "27", "7", "78", "23", "69", "55", "57", "70", "85", "49", "47", "10", "31", "62", "86", "2", "99", "42", "90", "73", "92", "30", "No Label", "24", "60", "65", "66", "83"], "gold": ["24", "60", "65", "66", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 201/2012\nof 8 March 2012\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance nitroxinil\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit (MRL) for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nNitroxinil is currently included in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as an allowed substance, for bovine and ovine species, applicable to muscle, fat, liver and kidney, excluding animals producing milk for human consumption.\n(4)\nIreland has submitted to the European Medicines Agency a request for an opinion for the extrapolation of the existing entry for nitroxinil applicable to bovine and ovine milk.\n(5)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use has recommended the establishment of an MRL for nitroxinil for bovine and ovine milk and the removal of the provision \u2018Not for use in animals from which milk is produced for human consumption\u2019.\n(6)\nThe entry for nitroxinil in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to include the recommended MRL for bovine and ovine milk and to remove the existing provision \u2018Not for use in animals from which milk is produced for human consumption\u2019.\n(7)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period of time for the stakeholders concerned to take measures that may be required to comply with the newly set MRL.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 8 May 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2012.", "references": ["93", "94", "24", "82", "22", "87", "17", "91", "6", "75", "42", "32", "61", "59", "35", "85", "99", "92", "80", "52", "71", "84", "9", "34", "31", "68", "15", "14", "66", "28", "No Label", "25", "38", "65", "69", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "65", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 720/2012\nof 7 August 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 691/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 August 2012.", "references": ["3", "79", "53", "9", "6", "13", "38", "4", "69", "52", "46", "90", "62", "20", "0", "87", "41", "85", "84", "98", "63", "2", "50", "55", "77", "59", "42", "34", "12", "56", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 December 2011\nestablishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation as regards a request for granting a waiver in order to give preferential treatment to services and service suppliers of least-developed countries\n(2012/8/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular of Articles 91, 100 and the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle IX of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO) sets out the procedures for the granting of waivers concerning the Multilateral Trade Agreements in Annex 1A or 1B or 1C to that Agreement and their annexes.\n(2)\nA waiver has been requested whereby WTO Members would be enabled to grant preferential treatment to services and service suppliers of least-developed countries without according the same treatment to like services and service suppliers of all other WTO Members by exceptionally derogating from the obligation under paragraph 1 of Article II of the General Agreement on Trade in Services.\n(3)\nIt is in the interest of the European Union to give its support to that request for a waiver and thus to conclude a part of the Doha Development Agenda negotiations on services which is of special interest to least-developed country Members,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position of the Union within the Ministerial Conference of the WTO shall be to support the request under paragraph 3 of Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation for a waiver enabling WTO Members to grant preferential treatment to services and service suppliers of least-developed countries.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Geneva, 14 December 2011.", "references": ["86", "98", "79", "31", "96", "72", "18", "40", "60", "11", "7", "76", "93", "74", "42", "99", "34", "64", "27", "85", "32", "92", "70", "63", "2", "67", "13", "28", "87", "35", "No Label", "16", "21", "23"], "gold": ["16", "21", "23"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 141/2011\nof 16 February 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 134/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 February 2011.", "references": ["40", "57", "92", "69", "52", "37", "45", "85", "84", "80", "5", "99", "3", "49", "47", "54", "58", "48", "79", "21", "9", "51", "78", "32", "42", "75", "64", "60", "88", "53", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 403/2010\nof 10 May 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Tarta de Santiago (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Tarta de Santiago\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2010.", "references": ["31", "37", "19", "84", "95", "4", "29", "2", "41", "89", "28", "42", "12", "53", "51", "7", "70", "52", "5", "54", "21", "27", "30", "35", "74", "58", "87", "90", "6", "17", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "73", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "73", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 11 April 2011\namending Decision 2000/367/EC establishing a classification system for resistance-to-fire performance for construction products, construction works and parts thereof\n(notified under document C(2011) 2417)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/232/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1), and in particular Article 20(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Standing Committee on Construction,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2000/367/EC of 3 May 2000 implementing Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards the classification of the resistance to fire performance of construction products, construction works and parts thereof (2) should be amended to take into account technical progress in the development of the relevant test methods and in order to include cavity barriers.\n(2)\nDecision 2000/367/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2000/367/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 April 2011.", "references": ["11", "84", "75", "14", "33", "5", "88", "49", "95", "57", "66", "21", "23", "74", "60", "12", "8", "43", "18", "47", "6", "31", "3", "81", "68", "59", "86", "73", "19", "80", "No Label", "24", "58", "76", "87"], "gold": ["24", "58", "76", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 824/2010\nof 17 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 September 2010.", "references": ["99", "92", "77", "96", "37", "47", "91", "69", "49", "48", "43", "24", "59", "25", "88", "95", "7", "53", "63", "21", "12", "0", "20", "78", "11", "52", "40", "14", "4", "19", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 743/2011\nof 26 July 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for anglerfish in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2011.", "references": ["70", "74", "25", "69", "8", "88", "45", "30", "80", "26", "21", "36", "22", "76", "20", "78", "12", "98", "68", "11", "72", "61", "29", "32", "16", "33", "31", "10", "87", "54", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 40/2012\nof 18 January 2012\non the issue of licences for the import of garlic in the subperiod from 1 March 2012 to 31 May 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 (3) opens and provides for the administration of tariff quotas and introduces a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and other agricultural products imported from third countries.\n(2)\nThe quantities for which \u2018A\u2019 licence applications have been lodged by traditional importers and by new importers during the first seven working days of January 2012, pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 exceed the quantities available for products originating in China, Argentina and all third countries other than China and Argentina.\n(3)\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, it is now necessary to establish the extent to which the \u2018A\u2019 licence applications sent to the Commission by 14 January 2012 can be met in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApplications for \u2018A\u2019 import licences lodged pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 during the first seven working days of January 2012 and sent to the Commission by 14 January 2012 shall be met at a percentage rate of the quantities applied for as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2012.", "references": ["35", "1", "41", "90", "39", "19", "73", "71", "46", "40", "80", "11", "27", "54", "78", "2", "9", "74", "38", "5", "97", "61", "49", "45", "87", "86", "84", "0", "25", "91", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 466/2012\nof 1 June 2012\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance clorsulon\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit (MRL) for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding MRLs in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding MRLs in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nClorsulon is currently included in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as an allowed substance, for bovine species, applicable to muscle, liver and kidney, excluding animals producing milk for human consumption.\n(4)\nIreland has submitted to the European Medicines Agency a request for an opinion for the extrapolation of the existing entry for clorsulon applicable to bovine milk.\n(5)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) has recommended the establishment of a provisional MRL for clorsulon for bovine milk and the removal of the provision banning the use of that substance in animals from which milk is produced for human consumption.\n(6)\nThe entry for clorsulon in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to include the recommended provisional MRL for bovine milk and to remove the existing ban.\n(7)\nThe provisional MRL for clorsulon set out in that Table should expire on 1 January 2014. The CVMP recommended a two-year period to allow for the completion of scientific studies required to respond to the list of questions addressed by the CVMP to Ireland.\n(8)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period of time for the stakeholders concerned to take measures that may be required to comply with the newly set MRL.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 August 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2012.", "references": ["96", "67", "75", "49", "62", "73", "23", "85", "81", "0", "71", "53", "13", "36", "14", "94", "35", "28", "88", "83", "76", "86", "1", "61", "82", "52", "68", "56", "42", "9", "No Label", "25", "38", "65", "69", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "65", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1228/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\nrepealing Regulation (EEC) No 429/73 of the Council making special provisions for imports into the Community of certain goods coming under Regulation (EEC) No 1059/69 and originating in Turkey\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImproving the transparency of Union law is an essential element of the better lawmaking strategy that the institutions of the Union are implementing. In that context it is appropriate to remove from the legislation in force those acts which no longer have real effect.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 429/73 of the Council (2) was adopted in order to determine the reduced fixed component of the import duties for processed agricultural products originating in Turkey and imported in the framework of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed on 23 November 1970.\n(3)\nDecision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union (3) lays down the rules for determining the customs duties for processed agricultural products originating in Turkey and imported into the European Union. Therefore Regulation (EEC) No 429/73 has become obsolete.\n(4)\nFor reasons of legal certainty and clarity, Regulation (EEC) No 429/73 should therefore be repealed,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Regulation (EEC) No 429/73 is repealed.\n2. The repeal of the act referred to in paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to:\n(a)\nthe maintenance in force of Union acts adopted on the basis of the act referred to in paragraph 1; and\n(b)\nthe continuing validity of amendments made by the act referred to in paragraph 1 to other Union acts that are not repealed by this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["52", "47", "64", "67", "94", "9", "19", "24", "57", "44", "1", "49", "45", "18", "16", "70", "85", "21", "17", "6", "39", "74", "38", "68", "76", "71", "15", "81", "29", "37", "No Label", "10", "22", "23", "72", "91", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "22", "23", "72", "91", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 12 July 2011\nauthorising Germany to apply a reduced rate of electricity tax to electricity directly provided to vessels at berth in a port (\u2018shore-side electricity\u2019) in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC\n(2011/445/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1), and in particular Article 19 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter of 27 December 2010, Germany sought authorisation to apply a reduced rate of electricity tax to electricity directly provided to vessels at berth in a port (\u2018shore-side electricity\u2019), pursuant to Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC.\n(2)\nWith the tax reduction it intends to apply, Germany aims at promoting a more widespread use of shore-side electricity as an environmentally less harmful way for ships to satisfy their electricity needs while lying at berth in ports as compared to the burning of bunker fuels on board the vessels.\n(3)\nIn so far as the use of shore-side electricity avoids emissions of air pollutants associated with the burning of bunker fuels on board the vessels at berth, it contributes to an improvement of local air quality in port cities. The measure is therefore expected to contribute to the Union\u2019s environmental and health policy objectives.\n(4)\nAllowing Germany to apply a reduced rate of electricity taxation to shore-side electricity does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the abovementioned objective, since on-board generation will remain the more competitive alternative in most cases. For the same reason, and because of the current relatively low degree of market penetration of the technology, the measure is unlikely to lead to significant distortions in competition during its lifetime and will thus not negatively affect the proper functioning of the internal market.\n(5)\nIt follows from Article 19(2) of Directive 2003/96/EC that each authorisation granted under that provision is to be strictly limited in time. Given the need for a period long enough not to discourage port operators from making the necessary investments, but also the need to review the situation in Germany in due time and the need not to undermine future developments of the existing legal framework, it is appropriate to grant the authorisation requested for a period of 3 years, subject however to the entry into application of general provisions in the matter, at a point in time earlier than the expiry thus foreseen,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGermany is hereby authorised to apply a reduced rate of electricity taxation to electricity directly supplied to vessels, other than private pleasure craft, berthed in ports (\u2018shore-side electricity\u2019), provided that the minimum levels of taxation pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 2003/96/EC are respected.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nIt shall expire on 16 July 2014.\nHowever, should the Council, acting on the basis of Article 113 of the Treaty, provide for general rules on tax advantages for shore-side electricity, this Decision shall expire on the day on which those general rules become applicable.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["1", "46", "5", "90", "63", "23", "13", "86", "9", "68", "41", "6", "22", "0", "35", "82", "29", "78", "32", "80", "92", "42", "4", "73", "55", "99", "93", "36", "76", "37", "No Label", "34", "56", "58", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["34", "56", "58", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 607/2011\nof 22 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) ,\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2) , and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2011.", "references": ["27", "70", "45", "58", "85", "14", "80", "68", "86", "24", "77", "63", "49", "84", "53", "33", "37", "26", "40", "48", "69", "30", "55", "83", "39", "89", "81", "8", "19", "92", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1221/2010\nof 17 December 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 of 14 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the poultrymeat sector (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 533/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 December 2010.", "references": ["6", "0", "72", "63", "47", "33", "94", "88", "64", "39", "52", "1", "60", "35", "98", "29", "48", "83", "68", "96", "54", "28", "16", "18", "3", "62", "24", "19", "61", "93", "No Label", "21", "69"], "gold": ["21", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 712/2010\nof 26 July 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 as regards certain fishing opportunities and amending Regulation (EC) No 754/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 (1) fixes for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required.\n(2)\nIn the context of the fisheries agreement with Norway, a further 521 tonnes of cod in Norwegian waters of ICES zones I and II, as well as 150 tonnes of whiting and 100 tonnes of plaice in the North Sea have been made available to the Union. In addition, the arrangements for licences for EU vessels fishing for mackerel in Norwegian waters have been amended. These measures should be implemented in the law of the Union.\n(3)\nAt its annual meeting in 2009, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) decided to reopen the fishery for cod in zone NAFO 3M and for redfish in zone NAFO 3LN after having set a moratorium for over ten years. The by-catch rules established in Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 for the two reopened fisheries should be amended to ensure consistency with the general by-catch rules applicable in the NAFO Regulatory Area pursuant to Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1386/2007 of 22 October 2007 laying down conservation and enforcement measures applicable in the Regulatory Area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (2).\n(4)\nIn the context of the fisheries agreement with Greenland, the conditions for fishing cod in Greenlandic waters have been amended. These amendments should be implemented into the law of the Union.\n(5)\nAt its special meeting in Madrid on 24-26 February 2010, the compliance committee of The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) reduced the quota for bluefin tuna allocated to the European Union. It is therefore necessary to implement those new provisions into the law of the Union.\n(6)\nHaving regard to paragraphs 5 and 8 of Article 5 and paragraph 4 of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 of 6 April 2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean (3) it is necessary to establish the maximum number and total capacity in gross tonnage of fishing vessels of each Member State that may be authorised to fish for, retain on board, tranship, transport, or land bluefin tuna, the maximum number of tuna traps that may be authorised by each Member State, the maximum tuna farming and fattening capacity for each Member State and the maximum input of wild caught bluefin tuna that each Member State may allocate to its farms.\n(7)\nWithin the context of establishing fishing opportunities and in accordance with Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks (4), the Council may, on the basis of information provided by Member States and assessed by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), exclude certain groups of vessels from the fishing effort regime established in that Regulation, provided that appropriate data is available on cod catches and discards of the vessels concerned, that the percentage of cod catches does not exceed 1,5 % of the total catches of the group of vessels and that the inclusion of the group in the effort regime would constitute an administrative burden disproportionate to its overall impact on cod stocks. Germany provided information on the cod catches by a group of vessels targeting saithe in the North Sea and in the area to the West of Scotland with bottom trawls of mesh size equal to or larger than 120 mm.\nIreland provided information on the cod catches by a group of vessels targeting Nephrops in the Irish Sea with a selective sorting grid similar to that defined in Appendix 2 to Annex III to Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 of 16 January 2009 fixing for 2009 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (5). France provided information on the cod catches by a group of vessels targeting deep-sea species in the West of Scotland with bottom trawls of mesh size larger than 110 mm. On the basis of that information as assessed by STECF, it can be established that the cod catches, including discards, of those groups of vessels do not exceed 1,5 % of their total catches. Moreover, having regard to control and monitoring measures in place ensuring the monitoring and control of the fishing activities of those groups of vessels and considering that the inclusion of those groups would constitute an administrative burden disproportionate to the overall impact of that inclusion on cod stocks, it is appropriate to exclude those groups of vessels from the fishing effort regime laid down in Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008, thus allowing to establish the effort limits for the Member States concerned accordingly.\n(8)\nArticle 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 allowed Member States to modify their effort allocations in 2009 by transferring their fishing effort and capacity between geographical areas, provided that certain conditions were met. On the basis of the information provided by the Netherlands regarding the transfer of a certain amount of effort and capacity from the North Sea to the Irish Sea in 2009, it is appropriate to adjust the maximum allowable effort allocated to the Netherlands, which is set out in Appendix 1 to Annex IIA to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010.\n(9)\nRegulation (EU) No 53/2010 and Council Regulation (EC) No 754/2009 of 27 July 2009 excluding certain groups of vessels from the fishing effort regime laid down in Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 (6) should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nRegulation (EU) No 53/2010 applies from 1 January 2010. However, the fishing effort limits are laid down for a one-year period starting from 1 February 2010. In order to follow the year-to-year regime of reporting on fishing opportunities, the provisions of this Regulation concerning catch limits and allocations should apply from 1 January 2010 and the provisions concerning fishing effort limits from 1 February 2010. Such retroactive application would be without prejudice to the principle of legal certainty as the fishing opportunities to be reduced have not yet been exhausted,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010\nRegulation (EU) No 53/2010 is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 15 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 15\nFishing and farming and fattening capacity limitations for bluefin tuna\n1. The number of EU bait boats and trolling boats authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna between 8 kg/75 cm and 30 kg/115 cm in the Eastern Atlantic shall be limited as set out in point 1 of Annex IV.\n2. The number of EU coastal artisanal fishing vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna between 8 kg/75 cm and 30 kg/115 cm in the Mediterranean shall be limited as set out in point 2 of Annex IV.\n3. The number of EU vessels fishing for bluefin tuna in the Adriatic Sea for farming purposes authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna between 8 kg/75 cm and 30 kg/115 cm shall be limited as set out in point 3 of Annex IV.\n4. The number and total capacity in gross tonnage of fishing vessels authorised to fish for, retain on board, tranship, transport, or land bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean shall be limited as set out in point 4 of Annex IV.\n5. The number of traps engaged in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery shall be limited as set out in point 5 of Annex IV.\n6. The bluefin tuna farming capacity, the fattening capacity and the maximum input of wild caught bluefin tuna allocated to the farms in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean shall be limited as set out in point 6 of Annex IV.\u2019\n2.\nAnnex IA is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe entry for whiting in zone IV; EU waters of IIa is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nWhiting\nMerlangius merlangus\nZone\n:\nIV; EU waters of IIa\n(WHG/2AC4.)\nBelgium\n240 (7)\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nDenmark\n1 036 (7)\nGermany\n270 (7)\nFrance\n1 557 (7)\nthe Netherlands\n599 (7)\nSweden\n2 (7)\nUnited Kingdom\n7 490 (7)\nEU\n11 194 (8)\nNorway\n640 (9)\nTAC\n12 897\nWithin the limits of the abovementioned quotas, no more than the quantities given below may be taken in the following zone:\nNorwegian waters of IV\n(WHG/*04N-)\nEU\n8 203\u2019\n(b)\nthe entry for plaice in zone IV; EU water of IIa, that part of IIIa not covered by the Skagerrak and the Kattegat is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nPlaice\nPleuronectes platessa\nZone\n:\nIV; EU waters of IIa; that part of IIIa not covered by the Skagerrak and the Kattegat\n(PLE/2A3AX4)\nBelgium\n3 671\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nDenmark\n11 931\nGermany\n3 442\nFrance\n688\nthe Netherlands\n22 946\nUnited Kingdom\n16 979\nEU\n59 657\nNorway\n4 168\nTAC\n63 825\nWithin the limits of the abovementioned quotas, no more than the quantities given below may be taken in the following zone:\nNorwegian waters of IV\n(PLE/*04N-)\nEU\n24 439\u2019\n(c)\nthe entry for mackerel in zone IIIa and IV; EU waters of IIa, IIIb, IIIc and IIId is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nMackerel\nScomber scombrus\nZone\n:\nIIIa and IV; EU waters of IIa, IIIb, IIIc and IIId\n(MAC/2A34.)\nBelgium\n475\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nDenmark\n12 529 (10)\nGermany\n495\nFrance\n1 496\nthe Netherlands\n1 507\nSweden\n4 485 (11) (12)\nUnited Kingdom\n1 395\nEU\n22 382 (11) (13)\nNorway\n103 374 (14)\nTAC\nNot relevant\nWithin the limits of the abovementioned quotas, no more than the quantities given below may be taken in the following zones:\nIIIa\n(MAC/*03A.)\nIIIa and IVbc\n(MAC/*3A4BC)\nIVb\n(MAC/*04B.)\nIVc\n(MAC/*04C.)\nVI; international waters of IIa from 1 January to 31 March 2010 and in December 2010\n(MAC/*2A6.)\nDenmark\n4 130\n5 360\nFrance\n490\nthe Netherlands\n490\nSweden\n390\n10\n1 697\nUnited Kingdom\n490\nNorway\n3 000\u2019\n3.\nAnnex IB is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe entry for cod in zone Greenland waters of NAFO 0 and 1; Greenland waters of V and XIV is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nCod\nGadus morhua\nZone\n:\nGreenland waters of NAFO 0 and 1; Greenland waters of V and XIV\n(COD/N01514)\nGermany\n1 636 (15) (16)\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 does not apply.\nUnited Kingdom\n364 (15) (16)\nEU\n2 500 (15) (16) (17)\nTAC\nNot relevant\n(b)\nthe entry for cod in zone Norwegian waters of I and II is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nCod\nGadus morhua\nZone\n:\nNorwegian waters of I and II\n(COD/1N2AB.)\nGermany\n2 486\nAnalytical TAC\nArticle 3 of Regulation (EU) No 847/96 does not apply.\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EU) No 847/96 does not apply.\nGreece\n308\nSpain\n2 773\nIreland\n308\nFrance\n2 281\nPortugal\n2 773\nUnited Kingdom\n9 642\nEU\n20 571\nTAC\nNot relevant\u2019\n4.\nAnnex IC is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe entry for cod in zone NAFO 3M is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nCod\nGadus morhua\nZone\n:\nNAFO 3M\n(COD/N3M.)\nEstonia\n61 (18) (19)\nGermany\n247 (18)\nLatvia\n61 (18) (19)\nLithuania\n61 (18) (19)\nPoland\n209 (18) (19)\nSpain\n796 (18)\nFrance\n110 (18)\nPortugal\n1 070 (18)\nUnited Kingdom\n521 (18)\nEU\n3 136 (18) (19)\nTAC\n5 500 (18) (19)\n(b)\nthe entry for redfish in zone NAFO 3LN is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nRedfish\nSebastes spp.\nZone\n:\nNAFO 3LN\n(RED/N3LN.)\nEstonia\n173 (20) (21)\nGermany\n119 (20)\nLatvia\n173 (20) (21)\nLithuania\n173 (20) (21)\nEU\n638 (20) (21)\nTAC\n3 500 (20) (21)\n5.\nIn Annex ID, the entry for bluefin tuna in zone Atlantic Ocean, east of 45\u00b0 W, and Mediterranean is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nBluefin tuna\nThunnus thynnus\nZone\n:\nAtlantic Ocean, east of 45\u00b0 W, and Mediterranean\n(BFT/AE045W)\nCyprus\n70,18 (26)\nGreece\n130,30\nSpain\n2 526,06 (23) (26)\nFrance\n2 021,93 (23) (24) (26)\nItaly\n1 937,50 (26) (27)\nMalta\n161,34 (26)\nPortugal\n237,66\nAll Member States\n2,41 (22)\nEU\n7 087,38 (23) (24) (26) (27)\nTAC\n13 500\n6.\nAppendix 1 to Annex IIA is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin table (b), the columns concerning Germany (DE) and the Netherlands (NL) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Regulated gear\nDE\nNL\nTR 1\n1 269 111\n371 757\nTR 2\n516 154\n1 080 920\nTR 3\n3 501\n48 508\nBT 1\n29 271\n999 808\nBT 2\n1 691 253\n34 743 212\nGN\n224 484\n438 664\nGT\n467\n0\nLL\n0\n0\u2019\n(b)\nin table (c), the column concerning Ireland (IE) is replaced by the following and the following column for the Netherlands (NL) is added:\n\u2018Regulated gear\nIE\nNL\nTR 1\n59 625\n0\nTR 2\n778 729\n0\nTR 3\n8 433\n0\nBT 1\n0\n0\nBT 2\n514 584\n200 000\nGN\n18 255\n0\nGT\n0\n0\nLL\n0\n0\u2019\n(c)\nin table (d), the columns concerning Germany (DE) and France (FR) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Regulated gear\nDE\nFR\nTR 1\n11 151\n2 685 733\nTR 2\n0\n7 415\nTR 3\n0\n0\nBT 1\n0\n7 161\nBT 2\n0\n13 211\nGN\n35 442\n400 503\nGT\n0\n0\nLL\n0\n54 917\u2019\n7.\nAnnex III is replaced by the following:\n\u2018ANNEX III\nQuantitative limitations of fishing authorisations for EU vessels fishing in third-country waters\nArea of fishing\nFishery\nNumber of fishing authori-sations\nAllocation of fishing authorisations amongst Member States\nMaximum number of vessels present at any time\nNorwegian waters and fishery zone around Jan Mayen\nHerring, north of 62\u00b000\u2032 N\n93 (28)\nDK: 32, DE: 6, FR: 1, IE: 9, NL: 11, PL: 1, SV: 12, UK: 21\n69\nDemersal species, north of 62\u00b000\u2032 N\n80 (28)\nDE: 16, IE: 1, ES: 20, FR: 18, PT: 9, UK: 14\n50\nMackerel\n97 (29)\nDK: 15, DE: 4, FR: 2, IE: 23, NL: 11, SE: 6, UK: 36\n70\nIndustrial species, south of 62\u00b000\u2032 N\n480 (28)\nDK: 450, UK: 30\n150\nFaroese waters\nAll trawl fisheries with vessels of not more than 180 feet in the zone between 12 and 21 miles from the Faroese baselines\n26\nBE: 0, DE: 4, FR: 4, UK: 18\n13\nDirected fisheries for cod and haddock with a minimum mesh of 135 mm, restricted to the area south of 62\u00b028\u2032 N and east of 6\u00b030\u2032 W\n8 (30)\n4\nTrawl fisheries outside 21 miles from the Faroese baseline. In the periods from 1 March to 31 May and from 1 October to 31 December, these vessels may operate in the area between 61\u00b020\u2032 N and 62\u00b000\u2032 N and between 12 and 21 miles from the baselines.\n70\nBE: 0, DE: 10, FR: 40, UK: 20\n26\nTrawl fisheries for blue ling with a minimum mesh of 100 mm in the area south of 61\u00b030\u2032 N and west of 9\u00b000\u2032 W and in the area between 7\u00b000\u2032 W and 9\u00b000\u2032 W south of 60\u00b030\u2032 N and in the area south-west of a line between 60\u00b030\u2032 N, 7\u00b000\u2032 W and 60\u00b000\u2032 N, 6\u00b000\u2032 W\n70\nDE: 8 (31), FR: 12 (31), UK: 0 (31)\n20 (32)\nDirected trawl fisheries for saithe with a minimum mesh size of 120 mm and with the possibility to use round-straps around the codend\n70\n22 (32)\nFisheries for blue whiting. The total number of fishing authorisations may be increased by four vessels to form pairs, should the Faroese authorities introduce special rules of access to an area called \u201cmain fishing area of blue whiting\u201d.\n36\nDE: 3, DK: 19, FR: 2, NL: 5, UK: 5\n20\nLine fisheries\n10\nUK: 10\n36\nMackerel\n12\nDK: 12\n12\nHerring, north of 61\u00b0 N\n21\nDK: 7, DE: 1, IE: 2, FR: 0, NL: 3, SV: 3, UK: 5\n21\n8.\nAnnex IV is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe table in point 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Spain\n139\nFrance\n86\nItaly\n35\nCyprus\n25\nMalta\n83\nEU\n368\u2019\n(b)\nthe following points are added:\n\u20184.\nMaximum number and total capacity in gross tonnage of fishing vessels of each Member State that may be authorised to fish for, retain on board, tranship, transport, or land bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean\nTable A\nNumber of fishing vessels\nCyprus\nGreece\nItaly\nFrance\nSpain\nMalta\nPurse Seiners\n1\n1\n24\n19\n6\n0\nLongliners\n12\n0\n30\n0\n81\n83\nBait boat\n0\n0\n0\n8\n61\n0\nHandline\n0\n0\n0\n29\n2\n0\nTrawler\n0\n0\n0\n78 (34)\n0\n0\nOther artisanal\n0\n256 (33)\n0\n87\n33\n0\nTable B\nTotal capacity in gross tonnage\nCyprus\nGreece\nItaly\nFrance\nSpain\nMalta\nPurse Seiners\n51\n260\n(35)\n4 826\n1 608\n0\nLongliners\n409\n-\n1 196\n0\n4 416,73\n1 365,64\nBait boat\n-\n-\n-\n243\n10 335,58\n0\nHandline\n-\n-\n-\n1 436\n20,96\n0\nTrawler\n-\n-\n-\n9 212\n0\n0\nOther artisanal\n-\n3 343,21 (36)\n-\n943\n489,83\n0\n5.\nMaximum number of traps engaged in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery authorised by each Member State\nNumber of traps\nSpain\n6\nItaly\n6\nPortugal\n1\n6.\nMaximum bluefin tuna farming capacity and fattening capacity for each Member State and maximum input of wild caught bluefin tuna that each Member State may allocate to its farms in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean\nTable A\nMaximum tuna farming capacity and fattening capacity\nNumber of farms\nCapacity (in tonnes)\nSpain\n14\n11 852\nItaly\n15\n13 000\nGreece\n2\n2 100\nCyprus\n3\n3 000\nMalta\n8\n12 300\nTable B\nMaximum input of wild caught bluefin tuna (in tonnes)\nSpain\n5 855\nItaly\n3 764\nGreece\n785\nCyprus\n2 195\nMalta\n8 768\u2019\nArticle 2\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 754/2009\nIn Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 754/2009, the following points are added:\n\u2018(f)\nthe group of high sea vessels flying the flag of Germany, participating in the fishery indicated in the request from Germany dated 26 March 2010, as completed by correspondence dated 9 April and 20 May 2010, targeting saithe in the North Sea, the EU waters of ICES Zone IIa and in the area to the West of Scotland with bottom trawls of mesh size equal to or larger than 120 mm;\n(g)\nthe group of vessels flying the flag of Ireland, participating in the fishery indicated in the request from Ireland dated 26 March 2010, fishing in the Irish Sea during the period in which these vessels are fishing solely with a selective sorting grid similar to that defined in Appendix 2 to Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 and targeting Norway lobster;\n(h)\nthe group of vessels flying the flag of France, participating in the fishery indicated in the request from France dated 24 March 2010, as completed by correspondence dated 25 March, 29 March, 8 April and 20 May 2010, targeting deep sea species in the area to the West of Scotland with bottom trawls of mesh size larger than 110 mm.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nPoints 1 to 5 and 8 of Article 1 shall apply from 1 January 2010.\nArticle 1(6) and Article 2 shall apply from 1 February 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["24", "49", "42", "1", "89", "8", "90", "56", "12", "70", "0", "99", "58", "76", "85", "20", "73", "31", "23", "51", "25", "88", "63", "65", "91", "52", "82", "18", "50", "35", "No Label", "13", "59", "67"], "gold": ["13", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 855/2011\nof 23 August 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in EU waters of IIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 August 2011.", "references": ["0", "66", "34", "29", "88", "80", "53", "24", "18", "77", "31", "6", "48", "5", "75", "46", "22", "37", "35", "50", "11", "14", "99", "1", "28", "33", "71", "4", "82", "16", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 953/2011\nof 23 September 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 948/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2011.", "references": ["30", "39", "46", "77", "93", "1", "54", "98", "27", "21", "85", "81", "40", "48", "29", "20", "8", "84", "47", "70", "23", "42", "62", "61", "45", "38", "53", "82", "66", "15", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1239/2011\nof 30 November 2011\nopening a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/2012 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe world market prices for sugar have been at a level close to or even above the Union internal market price for several months. Forecasts of world market prices based on the sugar futures exchange markets of New York and London for the terms of March, May and July 2012 further indicate a constant high world market price. Imports from third countries benefiting from certain preferential agreements are therefore expected to increase only moderately during the 2011/2012 marketing year.\n(2)\nThe forecasted Union sugar balance for the 2011/2012 marketing year indicates a negative difference between availability and utilisation. The resulting low level of ending stocks threatens to disrupt the availability of supply of the Union sugar market.\n(3)\nFor that reason and with the view to increasing the supply, it is necessary to make imports easier through the reduction of the import duty for certain quantities of sugar, in a way similar to that provided for in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 634/2011 of 29 June 2011 opening a standing invitation to tender for the 2010/2011 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty (2). The quantity and the reduction of the duty should be assessed in the light of the current state and foreseeable development of the Union and world sugar market. The quantity and reduction should therefore be based on a tendering system.\n(4)\nThe minimum eligibility requirements to tender should be specified.\n(5)\nA security should be lodged for each tender. That security should become the security for the import licence application in the case of a successful tender and be released when a tender is unsuccessful.\n(6)\nThe competent authorities of the Member States should notify the Commission of the admissible tenders. In order to simplify and standardise those notifications, models should be made available.\n(7)\nFor each partial invitation to tender, provision should be made for the Commission to fix a minimum customs duty and, if appropriate, an allocation coefficient in order to reduce the quantities accepted, or to decide not to fix a minimum customs duty.\n(8)\nMember States should inform the tenderers of the result of their participation in the partial invitation to tender within a short period.\n(9)\nIt should be made clear that during the first 3 months of the marketing year import licences for raw sugar for refining are to be issued only to full time refiners.\n(10)\nThe competent authorities should notify the Commission of the quantities for which import licenses have been issued. For this purpose, models should be made available by the Commission.\n(11)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nA tendering procedure is opened for the 2011/2012 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty, bearing reference number 09.4313.\nThat customs duty shall replace the common customs tariff duty and the additional duties referred to in Article 141 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Article 36 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 (3).\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 (4) shall apply save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.\nArticle 2\n1. The period during which tenders may be submitted in response to the first partial invitation to tender shall end on 7 December 2011 at 12 noon, Brussels time.\n2. The periods during which tenders may be submitted in response to the second and subsequent partial invitations shall begin on the first working day following the end of the preceding period. They shall end at 12 noon, Brussels time, on 14 December 2011, 21 December 2011, 11 January 2012, 25 January 2012, 1 February 2012, 15 February 2012, 6 June 2012, 27 June 2012 and 11 July 2012.\n3. The Commission may suspend the submission of tenders for one or several partial invitations to tender.\nArticle 3\n1. Tenders shall be lodged by operators established in the Union. They shall be lodged to the competent authority in the Member State in which an operator is registered for VAT purposes.\n2. Tenders shall be lodged by means of the application form for an import licence that is provided in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008.\n3. The application form may be lodged by electronic means, using the method made available to the operators by the Member State concerned. The competent authorities of the Member States may require that electronic tenders be accompanied by an advance electronic signature within the meaning of Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).\n4. Tenders shall be admissible only if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\ntenders shall indicate:\n(i)\nin box 4, the name, address and VAT number of the tenderer;\n(ii)\nin boxes 17 and 18, the quantity of sugar tendered, which shall be at least 20 tonnes and shall not exceed 45 000 tonnes, rounded with no decimal places;\n(iii)\nin box 20, the proposed amount of the customs duty, in euro per tonne of sugar, rounded to no more than two decimal places;\n(iv)\nin box 16, the eight digit CN code of the sugar;\n(b)\nproof is furnished, before the expiry of the time limit for the submission of tenders, that the tenderer has lodged the security referred to in Article 4(1);\n(c)\nthe tender is presented in the official language, or one of the official languages of the Member State in which the tender is lodged;\n(d)\nthe tender indicates a reference to this Regulation and the expiry date for the submission of the tenders;\n(e)\nthe tender does not include any additional conditions introduced by the tenderer other than those laid down in this Regulation.\n5. A tender which is not submitted in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not be admissible.\n6. Applicants shall not submit more than one tender per eight digit CN code for the same partial invitation to tender.\n7. A tender may not be withdrawn or amended after its submission.\nArticle 4\n1. In accordance with the provisions of Title III of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 (6) each tenderer shall lodge a security of EUR 150 per tonne of sugar to be imported under this Regulation.\n2. Where a tender is successful, that security shall become the security for the import licence.\n3. The security referred to in paragraph 1 shall be released in case of unsuccessful tenderers.\nArticle 5\n1. The competent authorities of the Member States shall decide on the validity of tenders on the basis of the conditions set out in Article 3.\n2. Persons authorised to receive and examine the tenders shall be under an obligation not to disclose any particulars relating thereto to any unauthorised person.\n3. Where the competent authorities of the Member States decide that a tender is invalid they shall inform the tenderer.\n4. The competent authority concerned shall notify the Commission, by fax, of the admissible tenders submitted within 2 hours after the expiry of the time limit for the submissions laid down in Article 2(1) and (2). That notification shall not contain the data referred to in Article 3(4)(a)(i).\n5. The form and content of the notifications shall be defined on the basis of models made available by the Commission to the Member States. When no tenders are submitted, the competent authority shall notify the Commission thereof by fax within the same time limit.\nArticle 6\nIn the light of the current state and foreseeable development of the Union and world sugar markets, the Commission shall, for each partial invitation to tender and for each eight digit CN code, either fix a minimum customs duty or decide not to fix a minimum customs duty by adopting an Implementing Regulation in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nWith that Implementing Regulation, the Commission shall also fix, where necessary, an allocation coefficient applicable to the tenders which have been introduced at the level of the minimum customs duty. In this case, the security referred to in Article 4 shall be released in proportion to the quantities allocated.\nArticle 7\n1. Where no minimum customs duty has been fixed all tenders shall be rejected.\n2. The competent authority concerned shall notify applicants within 3 working days after the day of publication of the Implementing Regulation referred in Article 6 of the result of their participation in the partial invitation to tender.\nArticle 8\n1. No later than the last working day of the week following the week during which the Implementing Regulation referred in Article 6 was published, the competent authority shall issue an import licence to any tenderer whose tender quotes a customs duty for the eight digit CN code equal to or exceeding the minimum customs duty fixed for that eight digit CN code by the Commission. The quantities awarded shall take account of the allocation coefficient fixed by the Commission in accordance with Article 6.\nThe competent authorities of the Member States shall not issue licences for tenders that have not been notified as provided for in Article 5, paragraph 4.\n2. Import licences shall contain the following entries:\n(a)\nin box 16, the eight digit CN code of the sugar;\n(b)\nin boxes 17 and 18, the quantity of sugar awarded;\n(c)\nin box 20 at least one of the entries listed in Part A of the Annex;\n(d)\nin box 24 the customs duty applicable using one of the entries listed in Part B of the Annex.\n3. By way of derogation from Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, the rights deriving from the import licence shall not be transferable.\n4. The first sentence of the first subparagraph and second subparagraph of Article 153(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall apply.\nArticle 9\nImport licences issued in connection with a partial invitation to tender shall be valid from the day of issue until the end of the third month following the month in which the Implementing Regulation on partial invitation referred in Article 6 is published.\nArticle 10\nNo later than the last working day of the second week following the week during which the Implementing Regulation referred in Article 6 is published the competent authorities shall notify the Commission of the quantities for which import licences have been issued under this Regulation. The notification shall be transmitted electronically in accordance with models and methods made available to the Member States by the Commission.\nArticle 11\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 30 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["68", "17", "62", "40", "0", "23", "2", "54", "8", "64", "30", "7", "37", "97", "85", "69", "14", "75", "72", "87", "42", "9", "93", "94", "81", "77", "98", "38", "89", "28", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "71", "73"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "71", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 777/2010\nof 2 September 2010\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Prosciutto Toscano (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and in accordance with Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Prosciutto Toscano\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1263/96 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2010.", "references": ["22", "98", "34", "29", "40", "9", "37", "95", "54", "73", "93", "68", "32", "1", "83", "84", "11", "41", "30", "10", "82", "76", "20", "0", "81", "17", "57", "51", "64", "16", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 757/2011\nof 27 July 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of 3 months, continue to be invoked by the holder, pursuant to Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of 3 months pursuant to Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2011.", "references": ["3", "88", "1", "6", "85", "73", "46", "64", "95", "35", "0", "65", "96", "54", "26", "32", "47", "38", "12", "48", "60", "20", "51", "15", "42", "80", "30", "16", "17", "28", "No Label", "21", "89", "90"], "gold": ["21", "89", "90"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 690/2011\nof 18 July 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 685/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["8", "32", "83", "25", "57", "71", "54", "45", "41", "84", "81", "66", "27", "48", "0", "37", "2", "94", "53", "51", "52", "44", "62", "61", "79", "58", "91", "39", "96", "95", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 32/2011\nof 17 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 January 2011.", "references": ["38", "53", "64", "7", "98", "54", "1", "3", "48", "66", "16", "19", "22", "14", "12", "21", "84", "65", "6", "88", "93", "27", "4", "52", "46", "75", "79", "36", "82", "92", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION BiH/17/2011\nof 14 January 2011\non the appointment of an EU Operation Commander for the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina\n(2011/35/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 38, second paragraph, thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2004/570/CFSP of 12 July 2004 on a European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6(1) of Joint Action 2004/570/CFSP the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Operation Commander.\n(2)\nAccording to Political and Security Committee Decision BiH/10/2007 of 25 September 2007 on the appointment of an EU Operation Commander for the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2), Deputy Supreme Allied Commander for Europe (DSACEUR) General John McCOLL was appointed EU Operation Commander for the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n(3)\nNATO has decided to appoint General Sir Richard SHIRREFF as DSACEUR to replace General John McCOLL. The assignment of General Sir Richard SHIRREFF will begin on 4 March 2011. General Sir Richard SHIRREFF should also replace General John McCOLL in his capacity as EU Operation Commander for the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications.\n(5)\nThe Copenhagen European Council adopted on 12 and 13 December 2002 a declaration stating that the \u2018Berlin plus\u2019 arrangements and the implementation thereof will apply only to those Member States of the Union which are also either NATO members or parties to the \u2018Partnership for Peace\u2019, and which have consequently concluded bilateral security agreements with NATO,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGeneral Sir Richard SHIRREFF is hereby appointed EU Operation Commander for the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 4 March 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 14 January 2011.", "references": ["29", "59", "2", "69", "68", "83", "1", "60", "73", "40", "13", "28", "63", "61", "67", "41", "79", "27", "92", "71", "72", "33", "77", "34", "85", "51", "90", "48", "37", "47", "No Label", "5", "6", "9", "52", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["5", "6", "9", "52", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 463/2011\nof 12 May 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 456/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 13 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2011.", "references": ["84", "33", "6", "21", "55", "18", "40", "7", "60", "16", "44", "14", "67", "23", "77", "99", "93", "25", "24", "76", "96", "20", "49", "59", "42", "30", "82", "95", "85", "56", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 20 October 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2009/015 DK/Danfoss Group from Denmark)\n(2010/659/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nDenmark submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the Danfoss Group. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 8 893 336.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Denmark,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 8 893 336 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 20 October 2010.", "references": ["8", "41", "20", "18", "54", "73", "89", "53", "39", "72", "75", "4", "87", "48", "5", "29", "74", "98", "58", "21", "51", "24", "25", "22", "2", "14", "80", "64", "77", "82", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 14 July 2011\napproving certain amended programmes for the eradication and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses for the year 2011 and amending Decision 2010/712/EU as regards the financial contribution from the Union for certain programmes approved by that Decision\n(notified under document C(2011) 4993)\n(2011/416/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 27(5) and (6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the Union financial contribution for programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2008/341/EC of 25 April 2008 laying down Community criteria for national programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses (2) provides that in order to be approved under the Union financial measures programmes submitted by the Member States must meet at least the criteria set out in the Annex to that Decision.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2010/712/EU of 23 November 2010 approving annual and multiannual programmes and the financial contribution from the Union for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses presented by the Member States for 2011 and following years (3) approves certain national programmes and sets out the rate and maximum amount of financial contribution from the Union for each programme submitted by the Member States.\n(4)\nSpain submitted an amended programme for the monitoring and eradication of bluetongue to introduce compulsory vaccination against serotype 8 in certain regions following outbreaks of that disease.\n(5)\nSlovakia submitted an amended vaccination programme for the eradication of rabies to extend the area in which baits are distributed, following the occurrence of the disease in bordering areas of Poland.\n(6)\nPoland and Finland have submitted amended programmes for the eradication of rabies to include oral vaccination activities in certain areas of neighbouring third countries adjacent to the Union, in order to protect the Union from a reintroduction of rabies through the movement of infected wild animals across the common borders.\n(7)\nThe Commission has assessed the amended programmes submitted by Spain, Poland, Slovakia and Finland from both the veterinary and the financial point of view. The programmes were found to comply with relevant Union veterinary legislation and in particular with the criteria set out in Decision 2008/341/EC.\n(8)\nThe amended programmes submitted by Spain, Poland, Slovakia and Finland should therefore be approved.\n(9)\nDecision 2010/712/EU provides for a financial contribution from the Union for Slovakia for those oral vaccination activities included in the annual programme for the eradication of rabies in that Member State that are implemented in bordering areas of neighbouring third countries. In addition, that Decision provides for a financial contribution from the Union for Lithuania for those oral vaccination activities included in the multiannual programme for the eradication of rabies in that Member State that are implemented in bordering areas of neighbouring third countries.\n(10)\nIt is therefore appropriate to also provide for a financial contribution from the Union for those parts of the programmes for the eradication of rabies in Poland and Finland that are implemented in bordering areas of neighboring third countries adjacent to the Union.\n(11)\nThe approval by this Decision of the amended programmes for the eradication of rabies submitted by Poland and Finland has an impact on the amounts needed for carrying out the programmes for those Member States as approved under Decision 2010/712/EU. The maximum amount of Union financial contribution for the programmes for the eradication of rabies in Poland and Finland, laid down in that Decision, should therefore be adjusted accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2010/712/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe amended programme for the monitoring and eradication of bluetongue submitted by Spain on 1 February 2011 is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nThe amended programmes for the eradication of rabies submitted by Poland on 5 April 2011, by Slovakia on 13 December 2010 and by Finland on 12 April 2011 are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.\nArticle 3\nArticle 10 of Decision 2010/712/EU is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin paragraph 2, point (c) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nshall not exceed the following:\n(i)\nEUR 1 800 000 for Bulgaria;\n(ii)\nEUR 620 000 for Estonia;\n(iii)\nEUR 1 450 000 for Hungary;\n(iv)\nEUR 7 110 000 for Poland;\n(v)\nEUR 5 000 000 for Romania;\n(vi)\nEUR 700 000 for Slovakia;\n(vii)\nEUR 200 000 for Finland.\u2019;\n(2)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Notwithstanding paragraphs 2 and 3, for the parts of the Polish, Slovakian and Finnish programmes that will be implemented outside the Union territory, the financial contribution by the Union shall:\n(a)\nbe granted only for the costs of the purchase and of the distribution of oral vaccine plus baits;\n(b)\nbe at the rate of 100 %; and\n(c)\nnot exceed:\n(i)\nEUR 630 000 for Poland;\n(ii)\nEUR 250 000 for Slovakia;\n(iii)\nEUR 65 000 for Finland.\u2019.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 July 2011.", "references": ["72", "42", "86", "94", "8", "68", "88", "67", "35", "93", "48", "98", "15", "76", "24", "54", "21", "43", "64", "45", "56", "99", "31", "57", "39", "80", "47", "77", "71", "7", "No Label", "10", "38", "46", "61", "66", "96"], "gold": ["10", "38", "46", "61", "66", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 617/2012\nof 10 July 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 174/2005 imposing restrictions on the supply of assistance related to military activities to C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2012/371/CFSP of 10 July 2012 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP (2) renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire and repealing Common Position 2004/852/CFSP (3). Regulation (EC) No 174/2005 (4), adopted initially to give effect to Common Position 2004/852/CFSP, also gives effect to Decision 2010/656/CFSP at Union level by imposing restrictions on the supply of assistance related to military activities to C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire.\n(2)\nDecision 2012/371/CFSP amends the scope of Decision 2010/656/CFSP in the light of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2045 (2012) and removes the restrictions on the supply of technical and financial assistance related to military activities. It also removes the restrictions on the supply of technical and financial assistance related to internal repression equipment.\n(3)\nThose measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, notably with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement them.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 174/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 174/2005 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, \u201cSanctions Committee\u201d shall mean the Committee of the Security Council of the United Nations which was established pursuant to paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1572 (2004).\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 2 is repealed;\n(3)\nArticle 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex I, whether or not originating in the Union, to any person, entity or body in, or for use in, C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire;\n(b)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to promote the transactions referred to in point (a) of this Article.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 4 is repealed;\n(5)\nin Article 4a, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. By way of derogation from Article 3, the competent authority, as listed in Annex II, of the Member State where the exporter or service provider is established, may authorise, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, the sale, supply, transfer or export of non-lethal equipment included in Annex I, after having determined that the non-lethal equipment concerned is intended solely to enable the Ivorian security forces to use only appropriate and proportionate force while maintaining public order.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 3, the competent authority, as listed in Annex II, of the Member State where the exporter or service provider is established, may authorise, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex I, which is intended solely for the support of the Ivorian process of Security Sector Reform and for support or use by the United Nations Operation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (UNOCI) and the French forces who support them.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["48", "13", "69", "42", "16", "88", "81", "24", "2", "47", "73", "97", "65", "12", "64", "33", "92", "19", "85", "87", "0", "76", "74", "5", "31", "29", "90", "4", "80", "40", "No Label", "3", "6", "10", "23", "94"], "gold": ["3", "6", "10", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1098/2010\nof 26 November 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Dresdner Christstollen/Dresdner Stollen/Dresdner Weihnachtsstollen (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Dresdner Christstollen/Dresdner Stollen/Dresdner Weihnachtsstollen\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 November 2010.", "references": ["11", "64", "12", "41", "6", "2", "55", "59", "9", "54", "79", "85", "35", "32", "28", "50", "13", "98", "66", "53", "78", "86", "48", "72", "60", "99", "57", "88", "65", "27", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "73", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "73", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 93/2011\nof 3 February 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Fontina (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and in accordance with Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Italy's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Fontina\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union, as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation (3). As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2011.", "references": ["44", "80", "19", "98", "51", "17", "81", "99", "29", "79", "76", "82", "43", "34", "55", "21", "27", "46", "77", "87", "22", "1", "72", "60", "49", "59", "66", "32", "35", "7", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 547/2010\nof 22 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2010.", "references": ["18", "1", "30", "8", "15", "53", "58", "34", "24", "75", "52", "79", "88", "5", "4", "17", "20", "59", "71", "41", "95", "73", "76", "55", "45", "66", "67", "89", "83", "43", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 March 2011\non the allocation of import quotas for controlled substances, and the quantities that may be released for free circulation in the Union, under Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, for the period 1 January to 31 December 2011\n(notified under document C(2011) 1820)\n(Only the Czech, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(2011/185/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1), and in particular Article 16 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe release for free circulation in the Union of imported controlled substances is subject to quantitative limits as set out in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009.\n(2)\nThe Commission has published a Notice to undertakings intending to import or export controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer to or from the European Union in 2011 and undertakings intending to request for 2011 a quota for these substances intended for laboratory and analytical uses (2), and has thereby received declarations on intended imports in 2011.\n(3)\nThe quantitative limits and quotas should be determined for the period 1 January to 31 December 2011.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The quantity of controlled substances of group I (chlorofluorocarbons 11, 12, 113, 114 and 115) and group II (other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 which may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2011 from sources outside the Union shall be 11 025 000,00 ozone depleting potential (ODP) kilograms.\n2. The quantity of controlled substances of group III (halons) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 that may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2011 from sources outside the Union shall be 30 733 655,00 ODP kilograms.\n3. The quantity of controlled substances of group IV (carbon tetrachloride) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 that may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2011 from sources outside the Union shall be 2 752 200,00 ODP kilograms.\n4. The quantity of controlled substances of group V (1,1,1-trichloroethane) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 that may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2011 from sources outside the Union shall be 400 030,00 ODP kilograms.\n5. The quantity of controlled substances of group VI (methyl bromide) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 which may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2011 from sources outside the Union shall be 810 120,00 ODP kilograms.\n6. The quantity of controlled substances of group VII (hydrobromofluorocarbons) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 which may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2011 from sources outside the Union shall be 1 058,50 ODP kilograms.\n7. The quantity of controlled substances of group VIII (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 that may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2011 from sources outside the Union shall be 4 970 602,212 ODP kilograms.\n8. The quantity of controlled substances of group IX (bromochloromethane) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 that may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2011 from sources outside the Union shall be 246 012,00 ODP kilograms.\nArticle 2\n1. The allocation of import quotas for chlorofluorocarbons 11, 12, 113, 114 and 115 and other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons during the period 1 January to 31 December 2011 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex I.\n2. The allocation of import quotas for halons during the period 1 January to 31 December 2011 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex II.\n3. The allocation of import quotas for carbon tetrachloride during the period 1 January to 31 December 2011 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex III.\n4. The allocation of import quotas for 1,1,1-trichloroethane during the period 1 January to 31 December 2011 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex IV.\n5. The allocation of import quotas for methyl bromide during the period 1 January to 31 December 2011 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex V.\n6. The allocation of import quotas for hydrobromofluorocarbons during the period 1 January to 31 December 2011 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex VI.\n7. The allocation of import quotas for hydrochlorofluorocarbons during the period 1 January to 31 December 2011 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex VII.\n8. The allocation of import quotas for bromochloromethane during the period 1 January to 31 December 2011 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex VIII.\n9. The individual import quotas for undertakings shall be as set out in Annex IX.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2011 and shall expire on 31 December 2011.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the following undertakings:\nAlbemarle Europe SPRL\nParc scientifique Einstein\nRue du Bosquet 9\n1348 Louvain-la-Neuve\nBelgium\nABCR Dr Braunagel GmbH & Co. (DE)\nIm Schlehert 10\n76187 Karlsruhe\nGermany\nAesica Queenborough Ltd (UK)\nQueenborough\nKent ME11 5EL\nUnited Kingdom\nAGC Chemicals Europe Ltd\nYork House\nHillhouse International\nThornton Cleveleys\nLancashire FY5 4QD\nUnited Kingdom\nArkema France SA\n420 rue d\u2019Estienne d\u2019Orves\n92705 Colombes Cedex\nFrance\nArkema Qu\u00edmica S.A.\nAvenida de Burgos 12\n28036 Madrid\nSpain\nBASF Agri Production SAS\n32 rue de Verdun\n76410 Saint-Aubin-l\u00e8s-Elbeuf\nFrance\nBayer Crop Science AG\nGeb\u00e4ude A729\n41538 Dormagen\nGermany\nDow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH\nB\u00fctzflether Sand\n21683 Stade\nGermany\nDuPont de Nemours (Nederland) BV\nBaanhoekweg 22\n3313 LA Dordrecht\nNetherlands\nDyneon GmbH\nWerk Gendorf\nIndustrieparkstra\u00dfe 1\n84508 Burgkirchen\nGermany\nEras Labo\n222 RN 90\n38330 Saint-Nazaire-les-Eymes\nFrance\nEsto Cheb s.r.o.\nPaleck\u00e9ho 2087/8a\n35002 Cheb\nCzech Republic\nEusebi Impianti Srl\nVia Mario Natalucci 6\n60131 Ancona\nItaly\nEusebi Service Srl\nVia Vincenzo Pirani 4\n60131 Ancona\nItaly\nExcelsyn Molecular Development Ltd (UK)\nMostyn Road\nHolywell\nFlintshire CH8 9DN\nUnited Kingdom\nFujifilm Electronic Materials (Europe) NV\nKeetberglaan 1A\nHaven 1061\n2070 Zwijndrecht\nBelgium\nHalon & Refrigerants Services Ltd\nJ.Reid Trading Estate\nFactory Road, Sandycroft\nDeeside, Flintshire CH5 2QJ\nUnited Kingdom\nFire Fighting Enterprises Ltd\n9 Hunting Gate,\nHitchin SG4 0TJ\nUnited Kingdom\nHoneywell Fluorine Products Europe BV\nLaarderhoogtweg 18,\n1101 EA Amsterdam\nNetherlands\nHovione Farmaciencia SA\nSete Casas\n2674-506 Loures\nPortugal\nICL-IP Europe BV\nFosfaatweeg 48\n1013 BM Amsterdam\nNetherlands\nIntergeo Ltd\nThermi Industrial Area\n57001 Thessaloniki\nGreece\nLaboratorios Miret SA\nG\u00e9minis 4\n08228 Terrassa, Barcelona\nSpain\nLPG Tecnicas en Extincion de Incendios SL\nC/Mestre Joan Corrales 107-109\n08950 Esplugas de Llobregat, Barcelona\nSpain\nLufthansa CityLine GmbH\nWaldstr. 247\n51147 K\u00f6ln\nGermany\nMebrom NV\nAssenedestraat 4\n9940 Rieme Ertvelde\nBelgium\nMeridian Technical Services Ltd\n14 Hailey Road\nDA18 4AP Erith, Kent\nUnited Kingdom\nMexichem UK Ltd\nPO Box 13\nThe Heath\nRuncorn Cheshire WA7 4QX\nUnited Kingdom\nPo\u017c-Pliszka Sp. z o.o.\nul. Szczeci\u0144ska 45\n80-392 Gda\u0144sk\nPoland\nR.P. Chem s.r.l.\nVia San Michele 47\n31062 Casale sul Sile (TV)\nItaly\nSabena Technics DNR\nBois de Ponthual\nBP 90154\n35800 Saint-Lunaire\nFrance\nSafety Hi-Tech S.r.l.\nVia Cavour 96\n67051 Avezzano (AQ)\nItaly\nSavi Technologie Sp. z o.o.\nul. Wolno\u015bci 20\nPsary\n51-180 Wroc\u0142aw\nPoland\nSigma Aldrich Company Ltd\nThe Old Brickyard, New Road\nGillingham SP8 4XT\nUnited Kingdom\nSigma Aldrich Logistik GmbH\nRiedstra\u00dfe 2\n89555 Steinheim\nGermany\nSJB Energy Trading BV (NL)\nSlagveld 15\n3230 AG Brielle\nNetherlands\nSolvay Fluor GmbH\nHans-B\u00f6ckler-Allee 20\n30173 Hannover\nGermany\nSolvay Fluores France\n25 rue de Clichy\n75442 Paris\nFrance\nSolvay Solexis SAS\nAvenue de la R\u00e9publique\n39501 Tavaux Cedex\nFrance\nSolvay Solexis SpA\nViale Lombardia 20\n20021 Bollate (MI)\nItaly\nSterling S.r.l.\nVia della Carboneria 30\n06073 Solomeo di Corciano (PG)\nItaly\nSyngenta Crop Protection\nSurrey Research Park\n30 Priestly Road\nGuildford Surrey GU2 7YH\nUnited Kingdom\nTazzetti SpA\nCorso Europa n. 600/a\n10070 Volpiano (TO)\nItaly\nTEGA Technische Gase und Gastechnik GmbH\nWerner-von-Siemens-Stra\u00dfe 18\n97076 W\u00fcrzburg\nGermany\nThomas Swan & Co Ltd\nRotary Way\nConsett\nCounty Durham DH8 7ND\nUnited Kingdom\nTotal Feuerschutz GmbH\nIndustriestr. 13\n68526 Ladenburg\nGermany\nDone at Brussels, 24 March 2011.", "references": ["25", "49", "32", "2", "47", "26", "74", "52", "90", "95", "98", "0", "76", "36", "6", "20", "73", "71", "27", "62", "7", "69", "82", "81", "54", "37", "8", "57", "85", "44", "No Label", "58", "60", "77", "83"], "gold": ["58", "60", "77", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 3 August 2012\nauthorising the placing on the market of a novel chewing gum base as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Implementing Decision 2011/882/EU\n(notified under document C(2012) 5406)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(2012/461/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 10 October 2007 the company Revolymer Ltd made a request to the competent authorities of the Netherlands to place a novel chewing gum base on the market as a novel food ingredient.\n(2)\nOn 23 April 2009 the competent food assessment body of the Netherlands issued its initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that the novel chewing gum base can safely be used as a food ingredient.\n(3)\nThe Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to all Member States on 30 April 2009.\n(4)\nWithin the 60 days period laid down in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 reasoned objections to the marketing of the product were raised in accordance with that provision.\n(5)\nTherefore the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was consulted on 2 July 2010.\n(6)\nOn 25 March 2011, EFSA in the \u2018Scientific Opinion on the safety of a \u201cnovel chewing gum base (REV-7)\u201d as a novel food ingredient\u2019 (2) came to the conclusion that the novel chewing gum base was safe at the proposed conditions of use and the proposed levels of intake.\n(7)\nThe novel chewing gum base complies with the criteria laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 and therefore Commission Implementing Decision 2011/882/EU of 21 December 2011 authorising the placing on the market of a novel chewing gum base as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) was adopted.\n(8)\nArticle 2 of Implementing Decision 2011/882/EU provided that the designation of the novel chewing gum base authorised thereby on the labelling of the foodstuff containing it shall be \u2018gum base (1,3-butadiene, 2-methyl-homopolymer, maleated, esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether)\u2019.\n(9)\nHowever, while the full chemical name provides for a clear and unambiguous designation of the substance, its length might dominate the labelling of the foodstuff containing it. As chewing gum is frequently sold in packages with limited space on the surface for labelling, it would be appropriate to provide a shorter alternative for the labelling.\n(10)\nThe Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry numbers (CAS No) are an international standard for the designation of chemicals, which provides equivalent information to that of the chemical name as regards the nature of the substance.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to allow the use of the CAS registry number for the designation of the novel chewing gum base authorised by Implementing Decision 2011/882/EU on the labelling of the foodstuff containing it as an alternative to the full chemical name.\n(12)\nThe Annex could have caused misunderstandings as in its title it provided only a part of the chemical name. Furthermore the CAS No should be given in the Annex.\n(13)\nTherefore, it appears appropriate to repeal and replace Implementing Decision 2011/882/EU by a new Decision with the abovementioned modifications.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe novel chewing gum base as specified in the Annex may be placed on the market in the Union as a novel food ingredient for the use in chewing gum up to a maximum of 8 %.\nArticle 2\nThe designation of the novel chewing gum base authorised by this Decision on the labelling of the foodstuff containing it shall be \u2018gum base (including 1,3-butadiene, 2-methyl-homopolymer, maleated, esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether)\u2019 or \u2018gum base (including CAS No: 1246080-53-4)\u2019.\nArticle 3\nImplementing Decision 2011/882/EU is hereby repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to Revolymer Ltd, 1, NewTech Square, Deeside Industrial Park, Deeside, Flintshire, CH5 2NT, United Kingdom.\nDone at Brussels, 3 August 2012.", "references": ["41", "73", "20", "56", "2", "65", "68", "95", "99", "21", "10", "76", "54", "51", "33", "6", "28", "48", "89", "31", "17", "37", "0", "88", "87", "14", "72", "57", "5", "44", "No Label", "25", "38", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 704/2011\nof 20 July 2011\napproving the active substance azimsulfuron, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances listed in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 of 27 June 2007 on laying down the procedure for the renewal of the inclusion of a first group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and establishing the list of those substances (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Azimsulfuron is listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 737/2007.\n(2)\nThe approval of azimsulfuron, as set out in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (4), expires on 31 December 2011. A notification was submitted in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007 for the renewal of the inclusion of azimsulfuron in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within the time period provided for in that Article.\n(3)\nThat notification was found to be admissible by Commission Decision 2008/656/EC of 28 July 2008 on the admissibility of the notifications concerning the renewal of the inclusion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances azimsulfuron, azoxystrobin, fluroxypyr, imazalil, kresoxim-methyl, prohexadione and spiroxamine, and establishing the list of the notifiers concerned (5).\n(4)\nWithin the time period provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2007, the notifier submitted the data required in accordance with that Article together with an explanation as regards the relevance of each new study submitted.\n(5)\nThe rapporteur Member State prepared an assessment report in consultation with the co-rapporteur Member State and submitted it to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and the Commission on 1 June 2009. In addition to the assessment of the active substance, that report includes a list of the studies the rapporteur Member State relied on for its assessment.\n(6)\nThe Authority communicated the assessment report to the notifier and to the Member States for comments and forwarded the comments received to the Commission. The Authority also made the assessment report available to the public.\n(7)\nAt the request of the Commission, the assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the Authority. The Authority presented its conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of azimsulfuron (6) to the Commission on 12 March 2010. The assessment report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for azimsulfuron.\n(8)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing azimsulfuron may be expected to continue to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve azimsulfuron.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions not provided for in the first inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nBased on the review report, which points out that the manufacturing impurity phenol is of toxicological concern, a maximum level of 2 g/kg should, however, be set for that impurity in the technical material.\n(11)\nFrom the new data submitted, it appears that azimsulfuron and its degradation products in aqueous photolysis may cause risks for aquatic organisms. Without prejudice to the conclusion that azimsulfuron should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(12)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(13)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing azimsulfuron. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw authorisations. By way of derogation from that deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(14)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(15)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should be amended accordingly.\n(16)\nIn the interest of clarity, Commission Directive 2010/54/EU of 20 August 2010 amending Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC to renew the inclusion of azimsulfuron as active substance (8) should be repealed.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance azimsulfuron, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing azimsulfuron as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Article 13(1) to (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing azimsulfuron as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product still satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing azimsulfuron as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing azimsulfuron as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nRepeal\nDirective 2010/54/EU is repealed.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2011.", "references": ["45", "92", "66", "82", "83", "32", "80", "87", "95", "69", "91", "47", "14", "55", "48", "22", "28", "44", "81", "41", "35", "84", "21", "74", "42", "75", "52", "29", "36", "70", "No Label", "25", "43", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "43", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 771/2011\nof 2 August 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 760/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 3 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2011.", "references": ["49", "61", "47", "97", "14", "3", "89", "31", "93", "29", "54", "57", "71", "46", "96", "38", "95", "63", "19", "36", "55", "25", "48", "52", "76", "60", "77", "67", "30", "20", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 469/2010\nof 28 May 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 May 2010.", "references": ["48", "26", "87", "80", "21", "4", "41", "16", "82", "20", "19", "76", "22", "83", "94", "52", "23", "2", "85", "84", "15", "37", "32", "50", "34", "67", "6", "56", "95", "14", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1141/2010\nof 7 December 2010\nlaying down the procedure for the renewal of the inclusion of a second group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and establishing the list of those substances\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 91/414/EEC provides that, on request, the inclusion of an active substance may be renewed.\n(2)\nThe Commission has received letters from several producers requesting a renewal for active substances included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and for which the inclusion period is to expire in 2011 and 2012.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to provide for a procedure for the submission and appraisal of applications for the renewal of the inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of those active substances.\n(4)\nPeriods should be set for the different steps of that procedure to ensure that they are carried out rapidly.\n(5)\nProducers wishing to secure the renewal of active substances covered by this Regulation should be required to apply to the relevant rapporteur Member State.\n(6)\nWhere two or more applications for the same active substance have been submitted separately and fulfil the requirements, the rapporteur Member States should communicate the updated contact details of each applicant to the other applicants to facilitate the submission of joint dossiers and to avoid, whenever possible, duplication of studies involving vertebrate animals.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure the efficiency of renewal procedures, rapporteur Member States should organise, prior to the submission of the dossiers, a meeting to discuss the state of the art of the active substance and consider whether and, if necessary, how the dossiers submitted for the first inclusion are to be updated.\n(8)\nThe dossiers submitted for renewal should include new data relevant to the active substance and new risk assessments to reflect any changes in data requirements and any changes in scientific or technical knowledge since the active substance was first included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, as reflected in guidance documents published by the Commission and in relevant opinions from the Scientific Committee on Plants or the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019). The range of uses submitted should reflect the representative uses. The applicant should demonstrate, on the basis of the data submitted, that for one or more preparations the requirements of Article 5 of Directive 91/414/EEC will be fulfilled.\n(9)\nThe applicants should list separately vertebrate studies to be submitted with the dossier and the rapporteur Member States should make such lists available on request to promote early discussions on the sharing of vertebrates data to avoid duplication of vertebrate studies.\n(10)\nTechnical or scientific information about an active substance, in particular with regard to potentially dangerous effects, submitted within the relevant period by third parties should be taken into consideration in the evaluations. The applicants should be given the opportunity to comment on such information.\n(11)\nThe renewal assessment reports prepared by the rapporteur Member States may, where necessary, be the subject of a consultation of experts organised by the Authority on request of the Commission before they are submitted to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.\n(12)\nThe rules on data protection of Article 13 of Directive 91/414/EEC are intended to provide an incentive to applicants to assemble the detailed studies required under Annexes II and III to that Directive. However, data protection should not be extended artificially by the production of new studies which are not needed to decide on the renewal of an active substance. To this end, applicants should be required to identify explicitly which studies are new compared to the original dossier used for the first inclusion of the substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EC and to provide justification for their submission.\n(13)\nIn view of the particular situation, where parts of the renewal procedure still take place while Directive 91/414/EEC applies while the decisions on the renewals will be taken under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (2), applicants are encouraged, as regards the format of the updating statement and the format and content of the dossier, to pay particular attention to the specific guidance documents published by the Commission.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation lays down the procedure for the renewal of the inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances listed in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018producer\u2019 means the person who manufactures the active substance on his own or who contracts out the manufacturing to another party or a person designated by the manufacturer as his sole representative for the purpose of compliance with this Regulation;\n(b)\n\u2018applicant\u2019 means a producer who applies for the renewal of the inclusion of an active substance referred to in column A of Annex I;\n(c)\n\u2018rapporteur Member State\u2019 means the Member State which evaluates an active substance, as listed in column B of Annex I for the respective active substance;\n(d)\n\u2018co-rapporteur Member State\u2019 means a Member State which cooperates in the evaluation carried out by the rapporteur Member State, as listed in column C of Annex I for the respective active substance;\n(e)\n\u2018inclusion\u2019 means inclusion of an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC;\n(f)\n\u2018renewal\u2019 means renewal of the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 3\nCoordinating authority of the Member State\nEach Member State shall appoint an authority, hereinafter \u2018the coordinating authority\u2019, which coordinates and ensures contacts with applicants, other Member States, the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, in accordance with this Regulation. Each Member State shall communicate the name and the contact details of its coordinating authority and any modifications to the Commission.\nThe Commission shall publish a list including the names and the contact details of the coordinating authorities of the Member States. It shall keep that list updated according to the modifications communicated to it.\nArticle 4\nSubmission of application\n1. A producer wishing to renew the inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of an active substance referred to in column A of Annex I to this Regulation, or any variants thereof, shall, for each active substance separately, submit an application to the rapporteur Member State and to the co-rapporteur Member State by 28 March 2011 at the latest.\n2. When submitting an application, the applicant may, pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC, request certain parts of the information to be kept confidential. It shall present such parts of the application separately, setting out the reasons for requesting confidentiality.\nAt the same time, the applicant shall submit any data protection claims pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n3. The applicant shall send a copy of the application, without the updating statement referred to in Article 5(2), to the Commission and to the Authority.\n4. Where several producers wish to renew the inclusion of the same active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, a joint application may be submitted by a joint representative.\n5. Where applicable, a fee, as referred to in Article 19, shall be paid upon submission of an application.\nArticle 5\nFormat and content of application\n1. An application shall be submitted in the format set out in Annex II.\n2. The application shall state which sections of the dossiers submitted for the first inclusion of the active substance require updating with new information.\nHereinafter, that part of the application is referred to as \u2018the updating statement\u2019.\n3. The updating statement shall list the new information the applicant intends to submit and demonstrate that such information is necessary, because of data requirements or criteria which were not applicable at the time of the first inclusion of the active substance or because of changes in the representative uses or because the application is for an amended renewal.\nThe updating statement shall separately list new studies the applicant intends to submit on vertebrate animals.\n4. Upon request from any interested party, the rapporteur Member State shall make available the information listed by the applicant as referred to in paragraph 3.\nArticle 6\nChecking of application\n1. Within 1 month of receipt of the application, the rapporteur Member State shall check whether the application fulfils the requirements of Articles 4 and 5.\n2. Where the rapporteur Member State considers that the application fulfils the requirements of Articles 4 and 5, it shall, within the period of 1 month provided for in paragraph 1, inform the applicant, the Commission and the Authority of the date of receipt and that the application fulfils the requirements.\n3. Where the rapporteur Member State considers that the application does not fulfil the requirements of Articles 4 and 5, it shall, within the period of 1 month provided for in paragraph 1, inform the applicant of the date of receipt and explain which requirements have not been fulfilled. It shall at the same time set the applicant a period of 14 days to render the application compliant. That period shall extend the period of 1 month provided for in paragraph 1. Where, at the end of the period set for rendering the application compliant, the rapporteur Member States considers that the application fulfils the requirements of Articles 4 and 5, paragraph 2 shall apply.\nWhere, at the end of the period set for rendering the application compliant, the rapporteur Member States considers that the application still does not fulfil the requirements of Articles 4 and 5, it shall, stating its reasons, immediately so inform the applicant, the Commission and the Authority.\nUpon receiving the communication from the rapporteur Member State, the Commission shall, taking into account the view of the rapporteur Member State, decide whether the application fulfils the requirements of Articles 4 and 5 and inform the rapporteur Member State, the other Member States and the Authority of its decision. The rapporteur Member State shall immediately inform the applicant of that decision.\n4. Where for an active substance no application fulfils the requirements of Articles 4 and 5, in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, the active substance shall be removed from Annex I to that Directive. Its non-inclusion and the withdrawal of the authorisations of plant-protection products containing that active substance shall be provided for.\n5. Where two or more applications for the same active substance have been submitted separately and each is considered to fulfil the requirements of Articles 4 and 5, the rapporteur Member State shall communicate the contact details of each applicant to the other applicants.\n6. The Commission shall publish, for each active substance, the names and the addresses of the applicants whose applications are considered to fulfil the requirements of Articles 4 and 5.\nArticle 7\nPre-submission contacts\nWhere an application fulfils the requirements of Articles 4 and 5, the applicant may request a meeting with the rapporteur Member State and the co-rapporteur Member State to discuss the updating statement. If requested, such pre-submission contacts shall take place prior to the submission of supplementary dossiers, as provided for in Article 9.\nArticle 8\nAccess to the application\nUpon request from any interested party, the rapporteur Member State shall make available the application, excluding any information for which confidential treatment has been requested and is justified pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 9\nSubmission of supplementary dossiers\n1. Where the rapporteur Member State has informed the applicant in accordance with Article 6(2) that its application fulfils the requirements of Articles 4 and 5, the applicant shall submit to the rapporteur Member State and the co-rapporteur Member State a supplementary summary dossier and a supplementary complete dossier, hereinafter \u2018the supplementary dossiers\u2019. The supplementary dossiers shall be added to the dossiers submitted for the first inclusion, with their subsequent updates, hereinafter \u2018the original dossiers\u2019.\n2. The contents of the supplementary dossiers shall comply with Article 10.\n3. The supplementary dossiers shall be submitted by the date set out for the respective active substance in column D of Annex I.\n4. At the request of the Authority or a Member State, the applicant shall make available the original dossiers where it has access to them.\n5. Where there is more than one applicant requesting renewal of the same active substance, those applicants shall take all reasonable steps to submit their dossiers jointly. Where dossiers are not submitted jointly by all applicants concerned, the reasons shall be set out in the dossiers. For each study involving vertebrate animals, the applicants concerned shall detail the attempts made to avoid duplication of testing and justify, if applicable, the need for conducting a duplicate study.\nArticle 10\nContents of supplementary dossiers\n1. The supplementary summary dossier shall include the following:\n(a)\na copy of the application, where the applicant is joined by another applicant the name and address of that applicant and of the joint representative, provided for in Article 4(4), where the applicant is replaced by another applicant the name and address of that applicant;\n(b)\ninformation with respect to one or more representative uses on a widely grown crop of at least one plant protection product containing the active substance, demonstrating that the inclusion requirements provided for in Article 5(1) and (2) of Directive 91/414/EEC are fulfilled; where the information submitted does not concern a widely grown crop, a justification shall be submitted;\n(c)\ndata and risk assessments which were not part of the original dossiers and which are necessary to reflect changes:\n(i)\nin requirements under Annexes II and III to Directive 91/414/EEC;\n(ii)\nin scientific and technical knowledge since the first inclusion of the active substance concerned; or\n(iii)\nto representative uses;\n(d)\nfor each point of the requirements for the active substance, as set out in Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC, for which new data are necessary within the meaning of point (c), the summaries and results of tests and studies, the name of their owner and of the person or institute having carried these out and the reason why each test or study is necessary either in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge or with a view to an amended renewal;\n(e)\nfor each point of the requirements for the plant protection product, as set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC, for which new data are necessary within the meaning of point (c), the summaries and results of tests and studies, the name of their owner and of the person or institute having carried out the tests and studies, for one or more plant protection products which are representative of the supported uses, and the reason why each test or study is necessary either in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge or with a view to an amended renewal of the active substance;\n(f)\nfor each test or study involving vertebrate animals, a description of the steps taken to avoid animal testing and duplication of tests and studies on vertebrate animals;\n(g)\nwhere relevant, a copy of an application for maximum residue levels as referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3);\n(h)\nan assessment of all information submitted;\n(i)\na checklist demonstrating that the supplementary dossiers referred to in paragraph 3 are complete, indicating which data are new.\n2. The uses referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall, where appropriate, include the uses evaluated for the first inclusion. At least one plant protection product referred to in that point (b) shall contain no other active substance, where such a product exists for a representative use.\n3. The complete supplementary dossiers shall contain the full text of each test and study report referred to in points (d) and (e) of paragraph 1.\nArticle 11\nChecking of supplementary dossiers\n1. Within 1 month of receipt of the supplementary dossiers, the rapporteur Member State shall check whether the supplementary dossiers have been submitted by the date set in column D of Annex I for the respective active substance and whether they contain all the elements provided for in Article 10(1) and 10(3), using the checklist referred to in Article 10(1)(i).\n2. Where the supplementary dossiers have been submitted by the applicable date and contain all the elements provided for in Article 10(1) and 10(3), the rapporteur Member State shall, within the period provided for in paragraph 1, inform the applicant, the Commission and the Authority of the date of receipt and that the dossiers are considered to be complete.\nThe rapporteur Member State shall then start assessing the active substance.\n3. Where the supplementary dossiers have not been submitted by the applicable date or do not contain all the elements provided for in Article 10(1) and 10(3), the rapporteur Member State shall, within the period provided for in paragraph 1, inform the applicant of the date of receipt and explain which elements are missing. It shall at the same time set the applicant a period of 14 days to render the dossier compliant. That period shall extend the period of 1 month provided for in paragraph 1.\nWhere, at the end of the period set for rendering the supplementary dossiers compliant, the dossiers contain all the elements provided for in Article 10(1) and 10(3), paragraph 2 shall apply.\nWhere, at the end of the period set for rendering the supplementary dossiers compliant, the dossiers still do not contain all the elements provided for in Article 10(1) and 10(3), the rapporteur Member State shall immediately inform the applicant, the Commission and the Authority that the application is rejected, explaining the reasons for its decision.\n4. Where for an active substance no supplementary dossiers that fulfil the requirements of Article 10(1) and 10(3) have been submitted by the applicable date, in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, the active substance shall be removed from Annex I to that Directive. Its non-inclusion and the withdrawal of the authorisations of plant-protection products containing that active substance shall be provided for.\nArticle 12\nWithdrawal and replacement of the applicant\n1. An applicant may withdraw its application by informing the rapporteur Member State. In that case the applicant shall at the same time inform the co-rapporteur Member State, the Commission, the Authority and any other applicants having submitted an application for the same active substance of the withdrawal.\n2. An applicant may be replaced by another producer in respect of all of its rights and obligations under this Regulation by informing the rapporteur Member State, through a joint declaration by the applicant and the other producer. In that case the applicant and the other producer shall at the same time inform the co-rapporteur Member State, the Commission, the Authority and any other applicants having submitted an application for the same active substance of the replacement.\n3. Where an applicant withdraws its application and where no other application has been submitted for the same active substance fulfilling the requirements of Articles 4, 5, 9 and 10, the active substance shall be removed from Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Its non-inclusion and the withdrawal of the authorisations of plant-protection products containing that active substance shall be provided for.\n4. Paragraph 3 shall not apply where several applicants have jointly submitted their dossiers and not all of these applicants have withdrawn their application. In such a case the procedure for the renewal of the inclusion of the active substance shall continue on the basis of the submitted dossiers.\nArticle 13\nSubmission of information by third parties\nAny person or Member State wishing to submit information which might contribute to the assessment, in particular with regard to the potentially dangerous effects of the active substance or its residues on human and animal health and on the environment, shall do so to the rapporteur Member State by the date set out for the respective active substance in column D of Annex I.\nThe rapporteur Member State shall, without delay, communicate any information received to the co-rapporteur Member State, the Authority, and the applicant. The applicant may send its comments on the submitted information to the rapporteur Member State and the other parties concerned at the latest by 2 months after receipt.\nArticle 14\nAssessment by the rapporteur Member State and the co-rapporteur Member State\n1. Within 11 months of informing the applicant that the supplementary dossiers are considered to be complete in accordance with Article 11(2), the rapporteur Member State shall, after consulting the co-rapporteur Member State, prepare and submit to the Commission, with a copy to the Authority, a report assessing whether the active substance can be expected to continue to meet the requirements for inclusion, as provided for in Article 5(1) and (2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, hereinafter \u2018the renewal assessment report\u2019.\nThe renewal assessment report shall also include the following:\n(a)\na recommendation with regard to the renewal of the inclusion;\n(b)\nwhere relevant, a suggestion for maximum residue levels to be set;\n(c)\na conclusion on which of the new studies included in the supplementary dossiers are relevant for the assessment;\n(d)\na recommendation as to the parts of the report on which a consultation of experts is to be organised in accordance with Article 16(2);\n(e)\nthe points on which the co-rapporteur Member State did not agree with the assessment by the rapporteur Member State, where relevant.\n2. For the assessment, the rapporteur Member State shall take into account the supplementary dossiers, any information submitted by a third party, comments on such information received from the applicant and, where appropriate, the original dossiers.\n3. Where the rapporteur Member State needs additional information, it shall set a period for the applicant to supply that information. That period shall not lead to an extension of the period of 11 months provided for in paragraph 1.\n4. The rapporteur Member State may consult the Authority and request additional technical or scientific information from other Member States. Such consultations and requests shall not lead to an extension of the period of 11 months provided for in paragraph 1.\n5. Information submitted by the applicant without having been requested, or after expiry of the period set for its submission in accordance with the first subparagraph of paragraph 3, shall not be taken into account, unless submitted in accordance with Article 7 of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n6. When submitting the renewal assessment report to the Commission, the rapporteur Member State shall request the applicant to submit the supplementary summary dossier, updated to include the additional information requested by the rapporteur Member State in accordance with paragraph 3 or submitted in accordance with Article 7 of Directive 91/414/EEC, to the Authority, the other Member States and, on request, to the Commission.\nArticle 15\nComments upon the renewal assessment report and access to that report and to the supplementary summary dossiers\n1. After receiving the renewal assessment report, the Authority shall immediately communicate it for comments to the applicant and to the Member States. Such comments shall be communicated to the Authority within 2 months, which shall collate and forward those comments, including its own, to the Commission.\n2. Upon request from any interested party, the Authority shall make the renewal assessment report available, excluding any information for which confidential treatment has been requested and is justified pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n3. The Authority shall make the supplementary summary dossier available to the public, with the exception of parts of it for which confidential treatment has been requested and is justified pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 16\nEvaluation of the renewal assessment report\n1. The Commission shall, without delay, examine the renewal assessment report and the comments received in accordance with Article 15(1).\n2. The Commission may consult the Authority asking it for a conclusion on the entire risk assessment or on specific points thereof. Such consultation may include a request to organise a consultation of experts. The Authority shall use the guidance documents available at the time of the entry into force of this Regulation.\nThe Authority shall deliver its conclusion at the latest 6 months after receipt of the request.\nWhere paragraph 3 applies, that period shall be extended by the periods referred to in the first and the second subparagraph of that paragraph.\n3. Where the Authority considers that additional information or data from the applicant is necessary to comply with a request made by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 2, it shall in consultation with the rapporteur Member State, set a period of maximum 1 month for the applicant to supply it. It shall at the same time inform the Commission and the Member States. The applicant shall communicate the requested information to the Authority, the rapporteur Member State and the co-rapporteur Member State.\nThe rapporteur Member State shall, within 2 months of receipt, evaluate the information received and send its evaluation to the Authority.\n4. Information submitted by the applicant without having been requested, or after expiry of the period set for its submission in accordance with the first subparagraph of paragraph 3, shall not be taken into account, unless submitted in accordance with Article 7 of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 17\nReview report and presentation of draft acts\n1. The Commission shall draft a review report, hereinafter \u2018the review report\u2019, taking into account the renewal assessment report by the rapporteur Member State, the comments referred to in Article 15(1) and, where applicable, the conclusion of the Authority.\nThe applicant shall be given the possibility to submit comments on the draft review report within a period set by the Commission.\nThe Commission shall present to the Committee referred to in Article 19(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC the draft review report within 6 months of receipt of the comments referred to in Article 15(1) or, where the Commission has consulted it in accordance with Article 16(2), of receipt of the conclusion of the Authority.\n2. On the basis of the review report and taking into account any comments submitted by the applicant within the period set by the Commission pursuant to the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, the Commission shall submit to the Committee:\n(a)\na draft act renewing the inclusion of the active substance concerned in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, setting out, where appropriate, the conditions and restrictions, including the period for such inclusion; or\n(b)\na draft act removing the active substance from Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and providing for its non-inclusion and the withdrawal of the authorisations of plant-protection products containing that active substance.\n3. The draft acts referred to in paragraph 2 shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 19(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 18\nAccess to review report\nThe Commission shall make the review report available to the public, with the exception of parts of it for which confidential treatment has been requested and is justified pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 19\nFees and charges\n1. Member States may recover the costs associated with any work they carry out within the scope of this Regulation, by means of fees or charges.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the fees or charges referred to in paragraph 1:\n(a)\nare established in a transparent manner; and\n(b)\ncorrespond to the actual total cost of the work involved except if it is in public interest to lower the fees or charges.\nThe fees or charges may include a scale of fixed charges based on average costs for the work referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 20\nOther charges, levies or fees\nArticle 19 is without prejudice to Member States\u2019 rights to maintain or introduce, in accordance with the Treaty, charges, levies or fees with regard to the authorisation, placing on the market, use and control of active substances and plant protection products other than the fee provided for in Article 19.\nArticle 21\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2010.", "references": ["53", "21", "90", "40", "74", "7", "26", "37", "9", "51", "95", "76", "62", "63", "6", "10", "39", "44", "46", "31", "66", "88", "70", "27", "57", "36", "56", "29", "23", "94", "No Label", "38", "41", "58", "65", "77", "83", "96"], "gold": ["38", "41", "58", "65", "77", "83", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 563/2011\nof 10 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 June 2011.", "references": ["99", "85", "18", "8", "26", "93", "28", "48", "29", "55", "84", "67", "19", "70", "88", "21", "60", "65", "54", "56", "98", "40", "6", "2", "77", "59", "79", "51", "4", "43", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/867/CFSP\nof 20 December 2011\namending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), in order, inter alia, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1970 (2011).\n(2)\nOn 23 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/178/CFSP (2) amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP in order to implement UNSCR 1973 (2011).\n(3)\nOn 22 September 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/625/CFSP (3) amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP in order to implement UNSCR 2009 (2011).\n(4)\nOn 10 November 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/729/CFSP (4) amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP in order to implement UNSCR 2016 (2011).\n(5)\nOn 16 December 2011, the Security Council Committee established pursuant to UNSCR 1970 (2011), acting in accordance with paragraph 19 of UNSCR 2009(2011), decided to lift the designation relating to two entities.\n(6)\nDecision 2011/137/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 6(1a) of Decision 2011/137/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:\n\u20181a. All funds, other financial assets and economic resources, owned or controlled, directly or indirectly by the:\n(a)\nLibyan Investment Authority; and\n(b)\nLibyan Africa Investment Portfolio,\nthat are frozen as of 16 September 2011 shall remain frozen.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["71", "96", "7", "44", "61", "34", "50", "98", "57", "91", "2", "47", "14", "1", "62", "22", "32", "9", "33", "85", "55", "68", "10", "66", "65", "58", "51", "63", "69", "84", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2010/63/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 22 September 2010\non the protection of animals used for scientific purposes\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 24 November 1986 the Council adopted Directive 86/609/EEC (3) in order to eliminate disparities between laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. Since the adoption of that Directive, further disparities between Member States have emerged. Certain Member States have adopted national implementing measures that ensure a high level of protection of animals used for scientific purposes, while others only apply the minimum requirements laid down in Directive 86/609/EEC. These disparities are liable to constitute barriers to trade in products and substances the development of which involves experiments on animals. Accordingly, this Directive should provide for more detailed rules in order to reduce such disparities by approximating the rules applicable in that area and to ensure a proper functioning of the internal market.\n(2)\nAnimal welfare is a value of the Union that is enshrined in Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).\n(3)\nOn 23 March 1998 the Council adopted Decision 1999/575/EC concerning the conclusion by the Community of the European Convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (4). By becoming party to that Convention, the Community acknowledged the importance of the protection and welfare of animals used for scientific purposes at international level.\n(4)\nThe European Parliament in its resolution of 5 December 2002 on Directive 86/609/EEC called for the Commission to come forward with a proposal for a revision of that Directive with more stringent and transparent measures in the area of animal experimentation.\n(5)\nOn 15 June 2006, the Fourth Multilateral Consultation of Parties to the European Convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes adopted a revised Appendix A to that Convention, which set out guidelines for the accommodation and care of experimental animals. Commission Recommendation 2007/526/EC of 18 June 2007 on guidelines for the accommodation and care of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (5) incorporated those guidelines.\n(6)\nNew scientific knowledge is available in respect of factors influencing animal welfare as well as the capacity of animals to sense and express pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm. It is therefore necessary to improve the welfare of animals used in scientific procedures by raising the minimum standards for their protection in line with the latest scientific developments.\n(7)\nAttitudes towards animals also depend on national perceptions, and there is a demand in certain Member States to maintain more extensive animal-welfare rules than those agreed upon at the level of the Union. In the interests of the animals, and provided it does not affect the functioning of the internal market, it is appropriate to allow the Member States certain flexibility to maintain national rules aimed at more extensive protection of animals in so far as they are compatible with the TFEU.\n(8)\nIn addition to vertebrate animals including cyclostomes, cephalopods should also be included in the scope of this Directive, as there is scientific evidence of their ability to experience pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm.\n(9)\nThis Directive should also cover foetal forms of mammals, as there is scientific evidence showing that such forms in the last third of the period of their development are at an increased risk of experiencing pain, suffering and distress, which may also affect negatively their subsequent development. Scientific evidence also shows that procedures carried out on embryonic and foetal forms at an earlier stage of development could result in pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm, should the developmental forms be allowed to live beyond the first two thirds of their development.\n(10)\nWhile it is desirable to replace the use of live animals in procedures by other methods not entailing the use of live animals, the use of live animals continues to be necessary to protect human and animal health and the environment. However, this Directive represents an important step towards achieving the final goal of full replacement of procedures on live animals for scientific and educational purposes as soon as it is scientifically possible to do so. To that end, it seeks to facilitate and promote the advancement of alternative approaches. It also seeks to ensure a high level of protection for animals that still need to be used in procedures. This Directive should be reviewed regularly in light of evolving science and animal-protection measures.\n(11)\nThe care and use of live animals for scientific purposes is governed by internationally established principles of replacement, reduction and refinement. To ensure that the way in which animals are bred, cared for and used in procedures within the Union is in line with that of the other international and national standards applicable outside the Union, the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement should be considered systematically when implementing this Directive. When choosing methods, the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement should be implemented through a strict hierarchy of the requirement to use alternative methods. Where no alternative method is recognised by the legislation of the Union, the numbers of animals used may be reduced by resorting to other methods and by implementing testing strategies, such as the use of in vitro and other methods that would reduce and refine the use of animals.\n(12)\nAnimals have an intrinsic value which must be respected. There are also the ethical concerns of the general public as regards the use of animals in procedures. Therefore, animals should always be treated as sentient creatures and their use in procedures should be restricted to areas which may ultimately benefit human or animal health, or the environment. The use of animals for scientific or educational purposes should therefore only be considered where a non-animal alternative is unavailable. Use of animals for scientific procedures in other areas under the competence of the Union should be prohibited.\n(13)\nThe choice of methods and the species to be used have a direct impact on both the numbers of animals used and their welfare. The choice of methods should therefore ensure the selection of the method that is able to provide the most satisfactory results and is likely to cause the minimum pain, suffering or distress. The methods selected should use the minimum number of animals that would provide reliable results and require the use of species with the lowest capacity to experience pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm that are optimal for extrapolation into target species.\n(14)\nThe methods selected should avoid, as far as possible, death as an end-point due to the severe suffering experienced during the period before death. Where possible, it should be substituted by more humane end-points using clinical signs that determine the impending death, thereby allowing the animal to be killed without any further suffering.\n(15)\nThe use of inappropriate methods for killing an animal can cause significant pain, distress and suffering to the animal. The level of competence of the person carrying out this operation is equally important. Animals should therefore be killed only by a competent person using a method that is appropriate to the species.\n(16)\nIt is necessary to ensure that the use of animals in procedures does not pose a threat to biodiversity. Therefore, the use of endangered species in procedures should be limited to a strict minimum.\n(17)\nHaving regard to the present state of scientific knowledge, the use of non-human primates in scientific procedures is still necessary in biomedical research. Due to their genetic proximity to human beings and to their highly developed social skills, the use of non-human primates in scientific procedures raises specific ethical and practical problems in terms of meeting their behavioural, environmental and social needs in a laboratory environment. Furthermore, the use of non-human primates is of the greatest concern to the public. Therefore the use of non-human primates should be permitted only in those biomedical areas essential for the benefit of human beings, for which no other alternative replacement methods are yet available. Their use should be permitted only for basic research, the preservation of the respective non-human primate species or when the work, including xenotransplantation, is carried out in relation to potentially life-threatening conditions in humans or in relation to cases having a substantial impact on a person\u2019s day-to-day functioning, i.e. debilitating conditions.\n(18)\nThe use of great apes, as the closest species to human beings with the most advanced social and behavioural skills, should be permitted only for the purposes of research aimed at the preservation of those species and where action in relation to a life-threatening, debilitating condition endangering human beings is warranted, and no other species or alternative method would suffice in order to achieve the aims of the procedure. The Member State claiming such a need should provide information necessary for the Commission to take a decision.\n(19)\nThe capture of non-human primates from the wild is highly stressful for the animals concerned and carries an elevated risk of injury and suffering during capture and transport. In order to end the capturing of animals from the wild for breeding purposes, only animals that are the offspring of an animal which has been bred in captivity, or that are sourced from self-sustaining colonies, should be used in procedures after an appropriate transition period. A feasibility study should be carried out to that effect and the transition period adopted if necessary. The feasibility of moving towards sourcing non-human primates only from self-sustaining colonies as an ultimate goal should also be examined.\n(20)\nThere is a need for certain species of vertebrate animals used in procedures to be bred specifically for that purpose so that their genetic, biological and behavioural background is well-known to persons undertaking the procedures. Such knowledge both increases the scientific quality and reliability of the results and decreases the variability, ultimately resulting in fewer procedures and reduced animal use. Furthermore, for reasons of animal welfare and conservation, the use of animals taken from the wild in procedures should be limited to cases where the purpose of the procedures cannot be achieved using animals bred specifically for use in procedures.\n(21)\nSince the background of stray and feral animals of domestic species is not known, and since capture and placement into establishments increases distress for such animals, they should not, as a general rule, be used in procedures.\n(22)\nTo enhance transparency, facilitate the project authorisation, and provide tools for monitoring compliance, a severity classification of procedures should be introduced on the basis of estimated levels of pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm that is inflicted on the animals.\n(23)\nFrom an ethical standpoint, there should be an upper limit of pain, suffering and distress above which animals should not be subjected in scientific procedures. To that end, the performance of procedures that result in severe pain, suffering or distress, which is likely to be long-lasting and cannot be ameliorated, should be prohibited.\n(24)\nWhen developing a common format for reporting purposes, the actual severity of the pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm experienced by the animal should be taken into account rather than the predicted severity at the time of the project evaluation.\n(25)\nThe number of animals used in procedures could be reduced by performing procedures on animals more than once, where this does not detract from the scientific objective or result in poor animal welfare. However, the benefit of reusing animals should be balanced against any adverse effects on their welfare, taking into account the lifetime experience of the individual animal. As a result of this potential conflict, the reuse of animals should be considered on a case-by-case basis.\n(26)\nAt the end of the procedure, the most appropriate decision should be taken as regards the future of the animal on the basis of animal welfare and potential risks to the environment. The animals whose welfare would be compromised should be killed. In some cases, animals should be returned to a suitable habitat or husbandry system or animals such as dogs and cats should be allowed to be rehomed in families as there is a high level of public concern as to the fate of such animals. Should Member States allow rehoming, it is essential that the breeder, supplier or user has a scheme in place to provide appropriate socialisation to those animals in order to ensure successful rehoming as well as to avoid unnecessary distress to the animals and to guarantee public safety.\n(27)\nAnimal tissue and organs are used for the development of in vitro methods. To promote the principle of reduction, Member States should, where appropriate, facilitate the establishment of programmes for sharing the organs and tissue of animals that are killed.\n(28)\nThe welfare of the animals used in procedures is highly dependent on the quality and professional competence of the personnel supervising procedures, as well as of those performing procedures or supervising those taking care of the animals on a daily basis. Member States should ensure through authorisation or by other means that staff are adequately educated, trained and competent. Furthermore, it is important that staff are supervised until they have obtained and demonstrated the requisite competence. Non-binding guidelines at the level of the Union concerning educational requirements would, in the long run, promote the free movement of personnel.\n(29)\nThe establishments of breeders, suppliers and users should have adequate installations and equipment in place to meet the accommodation requirements of the animal species concerned and to allow the procedures to be performed efficiently and with the least distress to the animals. The breeders, suppliers and users should operate only if they are authorised by the competent authorities.\n(30)\nTo ensure the ongoing monitoring of animal-welfare needs, appropriate veterinary care should be available at all times and a staff member should be made responsible for the care and welfare of animals in each establishment.\n(31)\nAnimal-welfare considerations should be given the highest priority in the context of animal keeping, breeding and use. Breeders, suppliers and users should therefore have an animal-welfare body in place with the primary task of focusing on giving advice on animal-welfare issues. The body should also follow the development and outcome of projects at establishment level, foster a climate of care and provide tools for the practical application and timely implementation of recent technical and scientific developments in relation to the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement, in order to enhance the life-time experience of the animals. The advice given by the animal-welfare body should be properly documented and open to scrutiny during inspections.\n(32)\nIn order to enable competent authorities to monitor compliance with this Directive, each breeder, supplier and user should maintain accurate records of the numbers of animals, their origins and fate.\n(33)\nNon-human primates, dogs and cats should have a personal history file from birth covering their lifetimes in order to be able to receive the care, accommodation and treatment that meet their individual needs and characteristics.\n(34)\nThe accommodation and care of animals should be based on the specific needs and characteristics of each species.\n(35)\nThere are differences in the requirements for the accommodation and care of animals between Member States, which contribute to the distortion of the internal market. Furthermore, some of those requirements no longer reflect the most recent knowledge on the impacts of accommodation and care conditions on both the animal welfare and the scientific results of procedures. It is therefore necessary to establish in this Directive harmonised requirements for accommodation and care. These requirements should be updated on the basis of scientific and technical development.\n(36)\nTo monitor compliance with this Directive, Member States should carry out regular inspections of breeders, suppliers and users on a risk basis. To ensure public confidence and promote transparency, an appropriate proportion of the inspections should be carried out without prior warning.\n(37)\nTo assist the Member States in the enforcement of this Directive and on the basis of the findings in the reports on the operation of the national inspections, the Commission should, when there is reason for concern, carry out controls of the national inspection systems. Member States should address any weaknesses identified in the findings of these controls.\n(38)\nComprehensive project evaluation, taking into account ethical considerations in the use of animals, forms the core of project authorisation and should ensure the implementation of principles of replacement, reduction and refinement in those projects.\n(39)\nIt is also essential, both on moral and scientific grounds, to ensure that each use of an animal is carefully evaluated as to the scientific or educational validity, usefulness and relevance of the expected result of that use. The likely harm to the animal should be balanced against the expected benefits of the project. Therefore, an impartial project evaluation independent of those involved in the study should be carried out as part of the authorisation process of projects involving the use of live animals. Effective implementation of a project evaluation should also allow for an appropriate assessment of the use of any new scientific experimental techniques as they emerge.\n(40)\nDue to the nature of the project, the type of species used and the likelihood of achieving the desired objectives of the project, it might be necessary to carry out a retrospective assessment. Since projects may vary significantly in terms of complexity, length, and the time period for obtaining the results, it is necessary that the decision on retrospective assessment should be made taking those aspects fully into account.\n(41)\nTo ensure that the public is informed, it is important that objective information concerning projects using live animals is made publicly available. This should not violate proprietary rights or expose confidential information. Therefore, users should provide anonymous non-technical summaries of those projects, which Member States should publish. The published details should not breach the anonymity of the users.\n(42)\nTo manage risks to human and animal health and the environment, the legislation of the Union provides that substances and products can be marketed only after appropriate safety and efficacy data have been submitted. Some of those requirements can be fulfilled only by resorting to animal testing, hereinafter referred to as \u2018regulatory testing\u2019. It is necessary to introduce specific measures in order to increase the use of alternative approaches and to eliminate unnecessary duplication of regulatory testing. For that purpose Member States should recognise the validity of test data produced using test methods provided for under the legislation of the Union.\n(43)\nTo reduce the administrative workload and enhance the competitiveness of research and industry in the Union, it should be possible to authorise multiple generic projects when carried out using established methods for testing, diagnostic or production purposes under one group authorisation, albeit without exempting any of these procedures from the project evaluation.\n(44)\nTo ensure effective examination of authorisation applications and to enhance the competitiveness of research and industry in the Union, a time-limit should be set for the competent authorities to evaluate project proposals and take decisions on the authorisation of such projects. In order not to compromise the quality of the project evaluation, additional time might be required for more complex project proposals due to the number of disciplines involved, the novel characteristics and more complex techniques of the proposed project. However, the extension of deadlines for project evaluation should remain the exception.\n(45)\nGiven the routine or repetitive nature of certain procedures, it is appropriate to provide for a regulatory option whereby the Member States could introduce a simplified administrative procedure for the evaluation of projects containing such procedures, provided certain requirements laid down in this Directive are complied with.\n(46)\nThe availability of alternative methods is highly dependent on the progress of the research into the development of alternatives. The Community Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development provided increasing funding for projects which aim to replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in procedures. In order to increase competitiveness of research and industry in the Union and to replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in procedures, the Commission and the Member States should contribute through research and by other means to the development and validation of alternative approaches.\n(47)\nThe European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, a policy action within the Joint Research Centre of the Commission, has coordinated the validation of alternative approaches in the Union since 1991. However, there is an increasing need for new methods to be developed and proposed for validation, which requires a reference laboratory of the Union for the validation of alternative methods to be established formally. This laboratory should be referred to as the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). It is necessary for the Commission to cooperate with the Member States when setting priorities for validation studies. The Member States should assist the Commission in identifying and nominating suitable laboratories to carry out such validation studies. For validation studies that are similar to previously validated methods and in respect of which a validation represents a significant competitive advantage, ECVAM should be able to collect charges from those who submit their methods for validation. Such charges should not be prohibitive of healthy competition in the testing industry.\n(48)\nThere is a need to ensure a coherent approach to project evaluation and review strategies at national level. Member States should establish national committees for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes to give advice to the competent authorities and animal-welfare bodies in order to promote the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement. A network of national committees should play a role in the exchange of best practice at the level of the Union.\n(49)\nTechnical and scientific advancements in biomedical research can be rapid, as can the increase in knowledge of factors influencing animal welfare. It is therefore necessary to provide for a review of this Directive. Such review should examine the possible replacement of the use of animals, and in particular non-human primates, as a matter of priority where it is possible, taking into account the advancement of science. The Commission should also conduct periodic thematic reviews concerning the replacement, reduction and refinement of the use of animals in procedures.\n(50)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for implementation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt guidelines at the level of the Union on the requirements with regard to education, training and competence of breeders\u2019, suppliers\u2019 and users\u2019 staff, to adopt detailed rules regarding the Union Reference Laboratory, its duties and tasks and the charges it may collect, to establish a common format for submitting the information by Member States to the Commission on the implementation of this Directive, statistical information and other specific information, and for the application of safeguard clauses. According to Article 291 TFEU, rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers shall be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (6) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable.\n(51)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of the following: modifications of the list of species falling under the obligation of being specifically bred for use in procedures; modifications of the care and accommodation standards; modifications of methods of killing, including their specifications; modifications of the elements to be used for the establishment by Member States of requirements with regard to education, training and competence of breeders\u2019, suppliers\u2019 and users\u2019 personnel; modifications of certain obligatory elements of the application for authorisation; modifications regarding the Union Reference Laboratory, its duties and tasks; as well as modifications of examples of different types of procedures assigned to each of the severity categories on the basis of factors related to the type of procedure. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultation during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(52)\nMember States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Directive and ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n(53)\nDirective 86/609/EEC should therefore be repealed. Certain modifications introduced by this Directive have a direct impact on the application of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption (7). It is therefore appropriate to amend a provision of that Regulation accordingly.\n(54)\nBenefits to animal welfare from applying project authorisation retrospectively, and the related administrative costs, can only be justified for long term ongoing projects. Therefore, it is necessary to include transitional measures for ongoing short and medium term projects to avoid the need for retrospective authorisation with only limited benefits.\n(55)\nIn accordance with paragraph 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making, Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables, which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n(56)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely the harmonisation of legislation concerning the use of animals for scientific purposes, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, 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,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Directive establishes measures for the protection of animals used for scientific or educational purposes.\nTo that end, it lays down rules on the following:\n(a)\nthe replacement and reduction of the use of animals in procedures and the refinement of the breeding, accommodation, care and use of animals in procedures;\n(b)\nthe origin, breeding, marking, care and accommodation and killing of animals;\n(c)\nthe operations of breeders, suppliers and users;\n(d)\nthe evaluation and authorisation of projects involving the use of animals in procedures.\n2. This Directive shall apply where animals are used or intended to be used in procedures, or bred specifically so that their organs or tissues may be used for scientific purposes.\nThis Directive shall apply until the animals referred to in the first subparagraph have been killed, rehomed or returned to a suitable habitat or husbandry system.\nThe elimination of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm by the successful use of anaesthesia, analgesia or other methods shall not exclude the use of an animal in procedures from the scope of this Directive.\n3. This Directive shall apply to the following animals:\n(a)\nlive non-human vertebrate animals, including:\n(i)\nindependently feeding larval forms; and\n(ii)\nfoetal forms of mammals as from the last third of their normal development;\n(b)\nlive cephalopods.\n4. This Directive shall apply to animals used in procedures, which are at an earlier stage of development than that referred to in point (a) of paragraph 3, if the animal is to be allowed to live beyond that stage of development and, as a result of the procedures performed, is likely to experience pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm after it has reached that stage of development.\n5. This Directive shall not apply to the following:\n(a)\nnon-experimental agricultural practices;\n(b)\nnon-experimental clinical veterinary practices;\n(c)\nveterinary clinical trials required for the marketing authorisation of a veterinary medicinal product;\n(d)\npractices undertaken for the purposes of recognised animal husbandry;\n(e)\npractices undertaken for the primary purpose of identification of an animal;\n(f)\npractices not likely to cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm equivalent to, or higher than, that caused by the introduction of a needle in accordance with good veterinary practice.\n6. This Directive shall apply without prejudice to Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (8).\nArticle 2\nStricter national measures\n1. Member States may, while observing the general rules laid down in the TFEU, maintain provisions in force on 9 November 2010, aimed at ensuring more extensive protection of animals falling within the scope of this Directive than those contained in this Directive.\nBefore 1 January 2013 Member States shall inform the Commission about such national provisions. The Commission shall bring them to the attention of other Member States.\n2. When acting pursuant to paragraph 1, a Member State shall not prohibit or impede the supply or use of animals bred or kept in another Member State in accordance with this Directive, nor shall it prohibit or impede the placing on the market of products developed with the use of such animals in accordance with this Directive.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018procedure\u2019 means any use, invasive or non-invasive, of an animal for experimental or other scientific purposes, with known or unknown outcome, or educational purposes, which may cause the animal a level of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm equivalent to, or higher than, that caused by the introduction of a needle in accordance with good veterinary practice.\nThis includes any course of action intended, or liable, to result in the birth or hatching of an animal or the creation and maintenance of a genetically modified animal line in any such condition, but excludes the killing of animals solely for the use of their organs or tissues;\n2.\n\u2018project\u2019 means a programme of work having a defined scientific objective and involving one or more procedures;\n3.\n\u2018establishment\u2019 means any installation, building, group of buildings or other premises and may include a place that is not wholly enclosed or covered and mobile facilities;\n4.\n\u2018breeder\u2019 means any natural or legal person breeding animals referred to in Annex I with a view to their use in procedures or for the use of their tissue or organs for scientific purposes, or breeding other animals primarily for those purposes, whether for profit or not;\n5.\n\u2018supplier\u2019 means any natural or legal person, other than a breeder, supplying animals with a view to their use in procedures or for the use of their tissue or organs for scientific purposes, whether for profit or not;\n6.\n\u2018user\u2019 means any natural or legal person using animals in procedures, whether for profit or not;\n7.\n\u2018competent authority\u2019 means an authority or authorities or bodies designated by a Member State to carry out the obligations arising from this Directive.\nArticle 4\nPrinciple of replacement, reduction and refinement\n1. Member States shall ensure that, wherever possible, a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy, not entailing the use of live animals, shall be used instead of a procedure.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the number of animals used in projects is reduced to a minimum without compromising the objectives of the project.\n3. Member States shall ensure refinement of breeding, accommodation and care, and of methods used in procedures, eliminating or reducing to the minimum any possible pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm to the animals.\n4. This Article shall, in the choice of methods, be implemented in accordance with Article 13.\nArticle 5\nPurposes of procedures\nProcedures may be carried out for the following purposes only:\n(a)\nbasic research;\n(b)\ntranslational or applied research with any of the following aims:\n(i)\nthe avoidance, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of disease, ill-health or other abnormality or their effects in human beings, animals or plants;\n(ii)\nthe assessment, detection, regulation or modification of physiological conditions in human beings, animals or plants; or\n(iii)\nthe welfare of animals and the improvement of the production conditions for animals reared for agricultural purposes;\n(c)\nfor any of the aims in point (b) in the development, manufacture or testing of the quality, effectiveness and safety of drugs, foodstuffs and feed-stuffs and other substances or products;\n(d)\nprotection of the natural environment in the interests of the health or welfare of human beings or animals;\n(e)\nresearch aimed at preservation of the species;\n(f)\nhigher education, or training for the acquisition, maintenance or improvement of vocational skills;\n(g)\nforensic inquiries.\nArticle 6\nMethods of killing\n1. Member States shall ensure that animals are killed with minimum pain, suffering and distress.\n2. Member States shall ensure that animals are killed in the establishment of a breeder, supplier or user, by a competent person.\nHowever, in the case of a field study an animal may be killed by a competent person outside of an establishment.\n3. In relation to the animals covered by Annex IV, the appropriate method of killing as set out in that Annex shall be used.\n4. Competent authorities may grant exemptions from the requirement in paragraph 3:\n(a)\nto allow the use of another method provided that, on the basis of scientific evidence, the method is considered to be at least as humane; or\n(b)\nwhen, on the basis of scientific justification, the purpose of the procedure cannot be achieved by the use of a method of killing set out in Annex IV.\n5. Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not apply where an animal has to be killed in emergency circumstances for animal-welfare, public-health, public-security, animal-health or environmental reasons.\nCHAPTER II\nPROVISIONS ON THE USE OF CERTAIN ANIMALS IN PROCEDURES\nArticle 7\nEndangered species\n1. Specimens of those endangered species listed in Annex A to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (9), which do not fall within the scope of Article 7(1) of that Regulation, shall not be used in procedures, with the exception of those procedures meeting the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe procedure has one of the purposes referred to in points (b)(i), (c) or (e) of Article 5 of this Directive; and\n(b)\nthere is scientific justification to the effect that the purpose of the procedure cannot be achieved by the use of species other than those listed in that Annex.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to any species of non-human primates.\nArticle 8\nNon-human primates\n1. Subject to paragraph 2, specimens of non-human primates shall not be used in procedures, with the exception of those procedures meeting the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe procedure has one of the purposes referred to in\n(i)\npoints (b)(i) or (c) of Article 5 of this Directive and is undertaken with a view to the avoidance, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of debilitating or potentially life-threatening clinical conditions in human beings; or\n(ii)\npoints (a) or (e) of Article 5;\nand\n(b)\nthere is scientific justification to the effect that the purpose of the procedure cannot be achieved by the use of species other than non-human primates.\nA debilitating clinical condition for the purposes of this Directive means a reduction in a person\u2019s normal physical or psychological ability to function.\n2. Specimens of non-human primates listed in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 338/97, which do not fall within the scope of Article 7(1) of that Regulation, shall not be used in procedures, with the exception of those procedures meeting the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe procedure has one of the purposes referred to in:\n(i)\npoints (b)(i) or (c) of Article 5 of this Directive and is undertaken with a view to the avoidance, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of debilitating or potentially life-threatening clinical conditions in human beings; or\n(ii)\nArticle 5(e);\nand\n(b)\nthere is scientific justification to the effect that the purpose of the procedure cannot be achieved by the use of species other than non-human primates and by the use of species not listed in that Annex.\n3. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, great apes shall not be used in procedures, subject to the use of the safeguard clause in Article 55(2).\nArticle 9\nAnimals taken from the wild\n1. Animals taken from the wild shall not be used in procedures.\n2. Competent authorities may grant exemptions from paragraph 1 on the basis of scientific justification to the effect that the purpose of the procedure cannot be achieved by the use of an animal which has been bred for use in procedures.\n3. The capture of animals in the wild shall be carried out only by competent persons using methods which do not cause the animals avoidable pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.\nAny animal found, at or after capture, to be injured or in poor health shall be examined by a veterinarian or another competent person and action shall be taken to minimise the suffering of the animal. Competent authorities may grant exemptions from the requirement of taking action to minimise the suffering of the animal if there is scientific justification.\nArticle 10\nAnimals bred for use in procedures\n1. Member States shall ensure that animals belonging to the species listed in Annex I may only be used in procedures where those animals have been bred for use in procedures.\nHowever, from the dates set out in Annex II, Member States shall ensure that non-human primates listed therein may be used in procedures only where they are the offspring of non-human primates which have been bred in captivity or where they are sourced from self-sustaining colonies.\nFor the purposes of this Article a \u2018self-sustaining colony\u2019 means a colony in which animals are bred only within the colony or sourced from other colonies but not taken from the wild, and where the animals are kept in a way that ensures that they are accustomed to humans.\nThe Commission shall, in consultation with the Member States and stakeholders, conduct a feasibility study, which shall include an animal health and welfare assessment, of the requirement laid down in the second subparagraph. The study shall be published no later than 10 November 2017. It shall be accompanied, where appropriate, by proposals for amendments to Annex II.\n2. The Commission shall keep under review the use of sourcing non-human primates from self-sustaining colonies and, in consultation with the Member States and stakeholders, conduct a study to analyse the feasibility of sourcing animals only from self-sustaining colonies.\nThe study shall be published no later than 10 November 2022.\n3. Competent authorities may grant exemptions from paragraph 1 on the basis of scientific justification.\nArticle 11\nStray and feral animals of domestic species\n1. Stray and feral animals of domestic species shall not be used in procedures.\n2. The competent authorities may only grant exemptions from paragraph 1 subject to the following conditions:\n(a)\nthere is an essential need for studies concerning the health and welfare of the animals or serious threats to the environment or to human or animal health; and\n(b)\nthere is scientific justification to the effect that the purpose of the procedure can be achieved only by the use of a stray or a feral animal.\nCHAPTER III\nPROCEDURES\nArticle 12\nProcedures\n1. Member States shall ensure that procedures are carried out in a user\u2019s establishment.\nThe competent authority may grant an exemption from the first subparagraph on the basis of scientific justification.\n2. Procedures may be carried out only within the framework of a project.\nArticle 13\nChoice of methods\n1. Without prejudice to national legislation prohibiting certain types of methods, Member States shall ensure that a procedure is not carried out if another method or testing strategy for obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of a live animal, is recognised under the legislation of the Union.\n2. In choosing between procedures, those which to the greatest extent meet the following requirements shall be selected:\n(a)\nuse the minimum number of animals;\n(b)\ninvolve animals with the lowest capacity to experience pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm;\n(c)\ncause the least pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm;\nand are most likely to provide satisfactory results.\n3. Death as the end-point of a procedure shall be avoided as far as possible and replaced by early and humane end-points. Where death as the end-point is unavoidable, the procedure shall be designed so as to:\n(a)\nresult in the deaths of as few animals as possible; and\n(b)\nreduce the duration and intensity of suffering to the animal to the minimum possible and, as far as possible, ensure a painless death.\nArticle 14\nAnaesthesia\n1. Member States shall ensure that, unless it is inappropriate, procedures are carried out under general or local anaesthesia, and that analgesia or another appropriate method is used to ensure that pain, suffering and distress are kept to a minimum.\nProcedures that involve serious injuries that may cause severe pain shall not be carried out without anaesthesia.\n2. When deciding on the appropriateness of using anaesthesia, the following shall be taken into account:\n(a)\nwhether anaesthesia is judged to be more traumatic to the animal than the procedure itself; and\n(b)\nwhether anaesthesia is incompatible with the purpose of the procedure.\n3. Member States shall ensure that animals are not given any drug to stop or restrict their showing pain without an adequate level of anaesthesia or analgesia.\nIn these cases, a scientific justification shall be provided, accompanied by the details of the anaesthetic or analgesic regimen.\n4. An animal, which may suffer pain once anaesthesia has worn off, shall be treated with pre-emptive and post-operative analgesics or other appropriate pain-relieving methods provided that it is compatible with the purpose of the procedure.\n5. As soon as the purpose of the procedure has been achieved appropriate action shall be taken to minimise the suffering of the animal.\nArticle 15\nClassification of severity of procedures\n1. Member States shall ensure that all procedures are classified as \u2018non-recovery\u2019, \u2018mild\u2019, \u2018moderate\u2019, or \u2018severe\u2019 on a case-by-case basis using the assignment criteria set out in Annex VIII.\n2. Subject to the use of the safeguard clause in Article 55(3), Member States shall ensure that a procedure is not performed if it involves severe pain, suffering or distress that is likely to be long-lasting and cannot be ameliorated.\nArticle 16\nReuse\n1. Member States shall ensure that an animal already used in one or more procedures, when a different animal on which no procedure has previously been carried out could also be used, may only be reused in a new procedure provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe actual severity of the previous procedures was \u2018mild\u2019 or \u2018moderate\u2019;\n(b)\nit is demonstrated that the animal\u2019s general state of health and well-being has been fully restored;\n(c)\nthe further procedure is classified as \u2018mild\u2019, \u2018moderate\u2019 or \u2018non-recovery\u2019; and\n(d)\nit is in accordance with veterinary advice, taking into account the lifetime experience of the animal.\n2. In exceptional circumstances, by way of derogation from point (a) of paragraph 1 and after a veterinary examination of the animal, the competent authority may allow reuse of an animal, provided the animal has not been used more than once in a procedure entailing severe pain, distress or equivalent suffering.\nArticle 17\nEnd of the procedure\n1. A procedure shall be deemed to end when no further observations are to be made for that procedure or, as regards new genetically modified animal lines, when the progeny are no longer observed or expected to experience pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm equivalent to, or higher than, that caused by the introduction of a needle.\n2. At the end of a procedure, a decision to keep an animal alive shall be taken by a veterinarian or by another competent person. An animal shall be killed when it is likely to remain in moderate or severe pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.\n3. Where an animal is to be kept alive, it shall receive care and accommodation appropriate to its state of health.\nArticle 18\nSharing organs and tissues\nMember States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the establishment of programmes for the sharing of organs and tissues of animals killed.\nArticle 19\nSetting free of animals and rehoming\nMember States may allow animals used or intended to be used in procedures to be rehomed, or returned to a suitable habitat or husbandry system appropriate to the species, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe state of health of the animal allows it;\n(b)\nthere is no danger to public health, animal health or the environment; and\n(c)\nappropriate measures have been taken to safeguard the well-being of the animal.\nCHAPTER IV\nAUTHORISATION\nSection 1\nRequirements for breeders, suppliers and users\nArticle 20\nAuthorisation of breeders, suppliers and users\n1. Member States shall ensure that all breeders, suppliers and users are authorised by, and registered with, the competent authority. Such authorisation may be granted for a limited period.\nAuthorisation shall be granted only if the breeder, supplier or user and its establishment is in compliance with the requirements of this Directive.\n2. The authorisation shall specify the person responsible for ensuring compliance with the provisions of this Directive and the person or persons referred to in Article 24(1) and in Article 25.\n3. Renewal of the authorisation shall be required for any significant change to the structure or the function of an establishment of a breeder, supplier or user that could negatively affect animal welfare.\n4. Member States shall ensure that the competent authority is notified of any changes of the person or persons referred to in paragraph 2.\nArticle 21\nSuspension and withdrawal of authorisation\n1. Where a breeder, supplier or user no longer complies with the requirements set out in this Directive, the competent authority shall take appropriate remedial action, or require such action to be taken, or suspend or withdraw its authorisation.\n2. Member States shall ensure that, where the authorisation is suspended or withdrawn, the welfare of the animals housed in the establishment is not adversely affected.\nArticle 22\nRequirements for installations and equipment\n1. Member States shall ensure that all establishments of a breeder, supplier or user have installations and equipment suited to the species of animals housed and, where procedures are carried out, to the performance of the procedures.\n2. The design, construction and method of functioning of the installations and equipment referred to in paragraph 1 shall ensure that the procedures are carried out as effectively as possible, and aim at obtaining reliable results using the minimum number of animals and causing the minimum degree of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.\n3. For the purposes of implementation of paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States shall ensure that the relevant requirements as set out in Annex III are complied with.\nArticle 23\nCompetence of personnel\n1. Member States shall ensure that each breeder, supplier and user has sufficient staff on site.\n2. The staff shall be adequately educated and trained before they perform any of the following functions:\n(a)\ncarrying out procedures on animals;\n(b)\ndesigning procedures and projects;\n(c)\ntaking care of animals; or\n(d)\nkilling animals.\nPersons carrying out the functions referred to in point (b) shall have received instruction in a scientific discipline relevant to the work being undertaken and shall have species-specific knowledge.\nStaff carrying out functions referred to in points (a), (c) or (d) shall be supervised in the performance of their tasks until they have demonstrated the requisite competence.\nMember States shall ensure, through authorisation or by other means, that the requirements laid down in this paragraph are fulfilled.\n3. Member States shall publish, on the basis of the elements set out in Annex V, minimum requirements with regard to education and training and the requirements for obtaining, maintaining and demonstrating requisite competence for the functions set out in paragraph 2.\n4. Non-binding guidelines at the level of the Union on the requirements laid down in paragraph 2 may be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 56(2).\nArticle 24\nSpecific requirements for personnel\n1. Member States shall ensure that each breeder, supplier and user has one or several persons on site who shall:\n(a)\nbe responsible for overseeing the welfare and care of the animals in the establishment;\n(b)\nensure that the staff dealing with animals have access to information specific to the species housed in the establishment;\n(c)\nbe responsible for ensuring that the staff are adequately educated, competent and continuously trained and that they are supervised until they have demonstrated the requisite competence.\n2. Member States shall ensure that persons specified in Article 40(2)(b) shall:\n(a)\nensure that any unnecessary pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm that is being inflicted on an animal in the course of a procedure is stopped; and\n(b)\nensure that the projects are carried out in accordance with the project authorisation or, in the cases referred to in Article 42, in accordance with the application sent to the competent authority or any decision taken by the competent authority, and ensure that in the event of non-compliance, the appropriate measures to rectify it are taken and recorded.\nArticle 25\nDesignated veterinarian\nMember States shall ensure that each breeder, supplier and user has a designated veterinarian with expertise in laboratory animal medicine, or a suitably qualified expert where more appropriate, charged with advisory duties in relation to the well-being and treatment of the animals.\nArticle 26\nAnimal-welfare body\n1. Member States shall ensure that each breeder, supplier and user sets up an animal-welfare body.\n2. The animal-welfare body shall include at least the person or persons responsible for the welfare and care of the animals and, in the case of a user, a scientific member. The animal-welfare body shall also receive input from the designated veterinarian or the expert referred to in Article 25.\n3. Member States may allow small breeders, suppliers and users to fulfil the tasks laid down in Article 27(1) by other means.\nArticle 27\nTasks of the animal-welfare body\n1. The animal-welfare body shall, as a minimum, carry out the following tasks:\n(a)\nadvise the staff dealing with animals on matters related to the welfare of animals, in relation to their acquisition, accommodation, care and use;\n(b)\nadvise the staff on the application of the requirement of replacement, reduction and refinement, and keep it informed of technical and scientific developments concerning the application of that requirement;\n(c)\nestablish and review internal operational processes as regards monitoring, reporting and follow-up in relation to the welfare of animals housed or used in the establishment;\n(d)\nfollow the development and outcome of projects, taking into account the effect on the animals used, and identify and advise as regards elements that further contribute to replacement, reduction and refinement; and\n(e)\nadvise on rehoming schemes, including the appropriate socialisation of the animals to be rehomed.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the records of any advice given by the animal-welfare body and decisions taken regarding that advice are kept for at least 3 years.\nThe records shall be made available to the competent authority upon request.\nArticle 28\nBreeding strategy for non-human primates\nMember States shall ensure that breeders of non-human primates have a strategy in place for increasing the proportion of animals that are the offspring of non-human primates that have been bred in captivity.\nArticle 29\nScheme for rehoming or setting free of animals\nWhere Member States allow rehoming, the breeders, suppliers and users from which animals are intended to be rehomed shall have a rehoming scheme in place that ensures socialisation of the animals that are rehomed. In the case of wild animals, where appropriate, a programme of rehabilitation shall be in place before they are returned to their habitat.\nArticle 30\nAnimal records\n1. Member States shall ensure that all breeders, suppliers and users keep records of at least the following:\n(a)\nthe number and the species of animals bred, acquired, supplied, used in procedures, set-free or rehomed;\n(b)\nthe origin of the animals, including whether they are bred for use in procedures;\n(c)\nthe dates on which the animals are acquired, supplied, released or rehomed;\n(d)\nfrom whom the animals are acquired;\n(e)\nthe name and address of the recipient of animals;\n(f)\nthe number and species of animals which died or were killed in each establishment. For animals that have died, the cause of death shall, when known, be noted; and\n(g)\nin the case of users, the projects in which animals are used.\n2. The records referred to in paragraph 1 shall be kept for a minimum of 5 years and made available to the competent authority upon request.\nArticle 31\nInformation on dogs, cats and non-human primates\n1. Member States shall ensure that all breeders, suppliers and users keep the following information on each dog, cat and non-human primate:\n(a)\nidentity;\n(b)\nplace and date of birth, when available;\n(c)\nwhether it is bred for use in procedures; and\n(d)\nin the case of a non-human primate, whether it is the offspring of non-human primates that have been bred in captivity.\n2. Each dog, cat and non-human primate shall have an individual history file, which follows the animal as long as it is kept for the purposes of this Directive.\nThe file shall be established at birth or as soon as possible thereafter and shall cover any relevant reproductive, veterinary and social information on the individual animal and the projects in which it has been used.\n3. The information referred to in this Article shall be kept for a minimum of 3 years after the death or rehoming of the animal and shall be made available to the competent authority upon request.\nIn the case of rehoming, relevant veterinary care and social information from the individual history file referred to in paragraph 2 shall accompany the animal.\nArticle 32\nMarking and identification of dogs, cats and non-human primates\n1. Each dog, cat or non-human primate shall be provided, at the latest at the time of weaning, with a permanent individual identification mark in the least painful manner possible.\n2. Where a dog, cat or non-human primate is transferred from one breeder, supplier or user to another before it is weaned, and it is not practicable to mark it beforehand, a record, specifying in particular its mother, must be maintained by the receiver until it is marked.\n3. Where an unmarked dog, cat or non-human primate, which is weaned, is received by a breeder, supplier or user it shall be permanently marked as soon as possible and in the least painful manner possible.\n4. The breeder, supplier and user shall provide, at the request of the competent authority, reasons for which the animal is unmarked.\nArticle 33\nCare and accommodation\n1. Member States shall, as far as the care and accommodation of animals is concerned, ensure that:\n(a)\nall animals are provided with accommodation, an environment, food, water and care which are appropriate to their health and well-being;\n(b)\nany restrictions on the extent to which an animal can satisfy its physiological and ethological needs are kept to a minimum;\n(c)\nthe environmental conditions in which animals are bred, kept or used are checked daily;\n(d)\narrangements are made to ensure that any defect or avoidable pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm discovered is eliminated as quickly as possible; and\n(e)\nanimals are transported under appropriate conditions.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that the care and accommodation standards set out in Annex III are applied from the dates provided for therein.\n3. Member States may allow exemptions from the requirements of paragraph 1(a) or paragraph 2 for scientific, animal-welfare or animal-health reasons.\nSection 2\nInspections\nArticle 34\nInspections by the Member States\n1. Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities carry out regular inspections of all breeders, suppliers and users, including their establishments, to verify compliance with the requirements of this Directive.\n2. The competent authority shall adapt the frequency of inspections on the basis of a risk analysis for each establishment, taking account of:\n(a)\nthe number and species of animals housed;\n(b)\nthe record of the breeder, supplier or user in complying with the requirements of this Directive;\n(c)\nthe number and types of projects carried out by the user in question; and\n(d)\nany information that might indicate non-compliance.\n3. Inspections shall be carried out on at least one third of the users each year in accordance with the risk analysis referred to in paragraph 2. However, breeders, suppliers and users of non-human primates shall be inspected at least once a year.\n4. An appropriate proportion of the inspections shall be carried out without prior warning.\n5. Records of all inspections shall be kept for at least 5 years.\nArticle 35\nControls of Member State inspections\n1. The Commission shall, when there is due reason for concern, taking into account, inter alia, the proportion of inspections carried out without prior warning, undertake controls of the infrastructure and operation of national inspections in Member States.\n2. The Member State in the territory of which the control referred to in paragraph 1 is being carried out shall give all necessary assistance to the experts of the Commission in carrying out their duties. The Commission shall inform the competent authority of the Member State concerned of the results of the control.\n3. The competent authority of the Member State concerned shall take measures to take account of the results of the control referred to in paragraph 1.\nSection 3\nRequirements for projects\nArticle 36\nProject authorisation\n1. Member States shall ensure, without prejudice to Article 42, that projects are not carried out without prior authorisation from the competent authority, and that projects are carried out in accordance with the authorisation or, in the cases referred to in Article 42, in accordance with the application sent to the competent authority or any decision taken by the competent authority.\n2. Member States shall ensure that no project is carried out unless a favourable project evaluation by the competent authority has been received in accordance with Article 38.\nArticle 37\nApplication for project authorisation\n1. Member States shall ensure that an application for project authorisation is submitted by the user or the person responsible for the project. The application shall include at least the following:\n(a)\nthe project proposal;\n(b)\na non-technical project summary; and\n(c)\ninformation on the elements set out in Annex VI.\n2. Member States may waive the requirement in paragraph 1(b) for projects referred to in Article 42(1).\nArticle 38\nProject evaluation\n1. The project evaluation shall be performed with a degree of detail appropriate for the type of project and shall verify that the project meets the following criteria:\n(a)\nthe project is justified from a scientific or educational point of view or required by law;\n(b)\nthe purposes of the project justify the use of animals; and\n(c)\nthe project is designed so as to enable procedures to be carried out in the most humane and environmentally sensitive manner possible.\n2. The project evaluation shall consist in particular of the following:\n(a)\nan evaluation of the objectives of the project, the predicted scientific benefits or educational value;\n(b)\nan assessment of the compliance of the project with the requirement of replacement, reduction and refinement;\n(c)\nan assessment and assignment of the classification of the severity of procedures;\n(d)\na harm-benefit analysis of the project, to assess whether the harm to the animals in terms of suffering, pain and distress is justified by the expected outcome taking into account ethical considerations, and may ultimately benefit human beings, animals or the environment;\n(e)\nan assessment of any justification referred to in Articles 6 to 12, 14, 16 and 33; and\n(f)\na determination as to whether and when the project should be assessed retrospectively.\n3. The competent authority carrying out the project evaluation shall consider expertise in particular in the following areas:\n(a)\nthe areas of scientific use for which animals will be used including replacement, reduction and refinement in the respective areas;\n(b)\nexperimental design, including statistics where appropriate;\n(c)\nveterinary practice in laboratory animal science or wildlife veterinary practice where appropriate;\n(d)\nanimal husbandry and care, in relation to the species that are intended to be used.\n4. The project evaluation process shall be transparent.\nSubject to safeguarding intellectual property and confidential information, the project evaluation shall be performed in an impartial manner and may integrate the opinion of independent parties.\nArticle 39\nRetrospective assessment\n1. Member States shall ensure that when determined in accordance with Article 38(2)(f), the retrospective assessment shall be carried out by the competent authority which shall, on the basis of the necessary documentation submitted by the user, evaluate the following:\n(a)\nwhether the objectives of the project were achieved;\n(b)\nthe harm inflicted on animals, including the numbers and species of animals used, and the severity of the procedures; and\n(c)\nany elements that may contribute to the further implementation of the requirement of replacement, reduction and refinement.\n2. All projects using non-human primates and projects involving procedures classified as \u2018severe\u2019, including those referred to in Article 15(2), shall undergo a retrospective assessment.\n3. Without prejudice to paragraph 2 and by way of derogation from Article 38(2)(f), Member States may exempt projects involving only procedures classified as \u2018mild\u2019 or \u2018non-recovery\u2019 from the requirement for a retrospective assessment.\nArticle 40\nGranting of project authorisation\n1. The project authorisation shall be limited to procedures which have been subject to:\n(a)\na project evaluation; and\n(b)\nthe severity classifications assigned to those procedures.\n2. The project authorisation shall specify the following:\n(a)\nthe user who undertakes the project;\n(b)\nthe persons responsible for the overall implementation of the project and its compliance with the project authorisation;\n(c)\nthe establishments in which the project will be undertaken, where applicable; and\n(d)\nany specific conditions following the project evaluation, including whether and when the project shall be assessed retrospectively.\n3. Project authorisations shall be granted for a period not exceeding 5 years.\n4. Member States may allow the authorisation of multiple generic projects carried out by the same user if such projects are to satisfy regulatory requirements or if such projects use animals for production or diagnostic purposes with established methods.\nArticle 41\nAuthorisation decisions\n1. Member States shall ensure that the decision regarding authorisation is taken and communicated to the applicant 40 working days at the latest from the receipt of the complete and correct application. This period shall include the project evaluation.\n2. When justified by the complexity or the multi-disciplinary nature of the project, the competent authority may extend the period referred to in paragraph 1 once, by an additional period not exceeding 15 working days. The extension and its duration shall be duly motivated and shall be notified to the applicant before the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. Competent authorities shall acknowledge to the applicant all applications for authorisations as quickly as possible, and shall indicate the period referred to in paragraph 1 within which the decision is to be taken.\n4. In the case of an incomplete or incorrect application, the competent authority shall, as quickly as possible, inform the applicant of the need to supply any additional documentation and of any possible effects on the running of the applicable time period.\nArticle 42\nSimplified administrative procedure\n1. Member States may decide to introduce a simplified administrative procedure for projects containing procedures classified as \u2018non-recovery\u2019, \u2018mild\u2019 or \u2018moderate\u2019 and not using non-human primates, that are necessary to satisfy regulatory requirements, or which use animals for production or diagnostic purposes with established methods.\n2. When introducing a simplified administrative procedure, Member States shall ensure that the following provisions are met:\n(a)\nthe application specifies elements referred to in Article 40(2)(a), (b) and (c);\n(b)\na project evaluation is performed in accordance with Article 38; and\n(c)\nthat the period referred to in Article 41(1) is not exceeded.\n3. If a project is changed in a way that may have a negative impact on animal welfare, Member States shall require an additional project evaluation with a favourable outcome.\n4. Article 40(3) and (4), Article 41(3) and Article 44(3), (4) and (5) shall apply mutatis mutandis to projects that are allowed to be carried out in accordance with this Article.\nArticle 43\nNon-technical project summaries\n1. Subject to safeguarding intellectual property and confidential information, the non-technical project summary shall provide the following:\n(a)\ninformation on the objectives of the project, including the predicted harm and benefits and the number and types of animals to be used;\n(b)\na demonstration of compliance with the requirement of replacement, reduction and refinement.\nThe non-technical project summary shall be anonymous and shall not contain the names and addresses of the user and its personnel.\n2. Member States may require the non-technical project summary to specify whether a project is to undergo a retrospective assessment and by what deadline. In such a case, Member States shall ensure that the non-technical project summary is updated with the results of any retrospective assessment.\n3. Member States shall publish the non-technical project summaries of authorised projects and any updates thereto.\nArticle 44\nAmendment, renewal and withdrawal of a project authorisation\n1. Member States shall ensure that amendment or renewal of the project authorisation is required for any change of the project that may have a negative impact on animal welfare.\n2. Any amendment or renewal of a project authorisation shall be subject to a further favourable outcome of the project evaluation.\n3. The competent authority may withdraw the project authorisation where the project is not carried out in accordance with the project authorisation.\n4. Where a project authorisation is withdrawn, the welfare of the animals used or intended to be used in the project must not be adversely affected.\n5. Member States shall establish and publish conditions for amendment and renewal of project authorisations.\nArticle 45\nDocumentation\n1. Member States shall ensure that all relevant documentation, including project authorisations and the result of the project evaluation is kept for at least 3 years from the expiry date of the authorisation of the project or from the expiry of the period referred to in Article 41(1) and shall be available to the competent authority.\n2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, the documentation for projects which have to undergo retrospective assessment shall be kept until the retrospective assessment has been completed.\nCHAPTER V\nAVOIDANCE OF DUPLICATION AND ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES\nArticle 46\nAvoidance of duplication of procedures\nEach Member State shall accept data from other Member States that are generated by procedures recognised by the legislation of the Union, unless further procedures need to be carried out regarding that data for the protection of public health, safety or the environment.\nArticle 47\nAlternative approaches\n1. The Commission and the Member States shall contribute to the development and validation of alternative approaches which could provide the same or higher levels of information as those obtained in procedures using animals, but which do not involve the use of animals or use fewer animals or which entail less painful procedures, and they shall take such other steps as they consider appropriate to encourage research in this field.\n2. Member States shall assist the Commission in identifying and nominating suitable specialised and qualified laboratories to carry out such validation studies.\n3. After consulting the Member States, the Commission shall set the priorities for those validation studies and allocate the tasks between the laboratories for carrying out those studies.\n4. Member States shall, at national level, ensure the promotion of alternative approaches and the dissemination of information thereon.\n5. Member States shall nominate a single point of contact to provide advice on the regulatory relevance and suitability of alternative approaches proposed for validation.\n6. The Commission shall take appropriate action with a view to obtaining international acceptance of alternative approaches validated in the Union.\nArticle 48\nUnion Reference Laboratory\n1. The Union Reference Laboratory and its duties and tasks shall be those referred to in Annex VII.\n2. The Union Reference Laboratory may collect charges for the services it provides that do not directly contribute to the further advancement of replacement, reduction and refinement.\n3. Detailed rules necessary for the implementation of paragraph 2 of this Article and Annex VII may be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 56(3).\nArticle 49\nNational committees for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes\n1. Each Member State shall establish a national committee for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. It shall advise the competent authorities and animal-welfare bodies on matters dealing with the acquisition, breeding, accommodation, care and use of animals in procedures and ensure sharing of best practice.\n2. The national committees referred to in paragraph 1 shall exchange information on the operation of animal-welfare bodies and project evaluation and share best practice within the Union.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 50\nAdaptation of Annexes to technical progress\nIn order to ensure that the provisions of Annexes I and III to VIII reflect the state of technical or scientific progress, taking into account the experience gained in the implementation of this Directive, in particular through the reporting referred to in Article 54(1), the Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 51 and subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 52 and 53, modifications of those Annexes, with the exception of provisions of Sections I and II of Annex VIII. The dates referred to in Section B of Annex III shall not be brought forward. When adopting such delegated acts, the Commission shall act in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Directive.\nArticle 51\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 50 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 8 years beginning on 9 November 2010. The Commission shall make a report in respect of the delegated power at the latest 12 months before the end of the 8-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 52.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 52 and 53.\nArticle 52\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 50 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 53\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 2 months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council this period shall be extended by 2 months.\n2. If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force at the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 54\nReporting\n1. Member States shall by 10 November 2018, and every 5 years thereafter, send the information on the implementation of this Directive and in particular Articles 10(1), 26, 28, 34, 38, 39, 43 and 46 to the Commission.\n2. Member States shall collect and make publicly available, on an annual basis, statistical information on the use of animals in procedures, including information on the actual severity of the procedures and on the origin and species of non-human primates used in procedures.\nMember States shall submit that statistical information to the Commission by 10 November 2015 and every year thereafter.\n3. Member States shall submit to the Commission, on annual basis, detailed information on exemptions granted under Article 6(4)(a).\n4. The Commission shall by 10 May 2012 establish a common format for submitting the information referred to in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of this Article in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 56(3).\nArticle 55\nSafeguard clauses\n1. Where a Member State has scientifically justifiable grounds for believing it is essential to use non-human primates for the purposes referred to in Article 8(1)(a)(i) with regard to human beings, but where the use is not undertaken with a view to the avoidance, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of debilitating or potentially life-threatening clinical conditions, it may adopt a provisional measure allowing such use, provided the purpose cannot be achieved by the use of species other than non-human primates.\n2. Where a Member State has justifiable grounds for believing that action is essential for the preservation of the species or in relation to an unexpected outbreak of a life-threatening or debilitating clinical condition in human beings, it may adopt a provisional measure allowing the use of great apes in procedures having one of the purposes referred to in points (b)(i), (c) or (e) of Article 5; provided that the purpose of the procedure cannot be achieved by the use of species other than great apes or by the use of alternative methods. However, the reference to Article 5(b)(i) shall not be taken to include the reference to animals and plants.\n3. Where, for exceptional and scientifically justifiable reasons, a Member State deems it necessary to allow the use of a procedure involving severe pain, suffering or distress that is likely to be long-lasting and cannot be ameliorated, as referred to in Article 15(2), it may adopt a provisional measure to allow such procedure. Member States may decide not to allow the use of non-human primates in such procedures.\n4. A Member State which has adopted a provisional measure in accordance with paragraph 1, 2 or 3 shall immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States thereof, giving reasons for its decision and submitting evidence of the situation as described in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 on which the provisional measure is based.\nThe Commission shall put the matter before the Committee referred to in Article 56(1) within 30 days of receipt of the information from the Member State and shall, in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 56(3), either:\n(a)\nauthorise the provisional measure for a time period defined in the decision; or\n(b)\nrequire the Member State to revoke the provisional measure.\nArticle 56\nCommittee\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 3 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\n3. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\nThe period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at 3 months.\nArticle 57\nCommission report\n1. By 10 November 2019 and every 5 years thereafter, the Commission shall, based on the information received from the Member States under Article 54(1), submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the implementation of this Directive.\n2. By 10 November 2019 and every 3 years thereafter, the Commission shall, based on the statistical information submitted by Member States under Article 54(2), submit to the European Parliament and the Council a summary report on that information.\nArticle 58\nReview\nThe Commission shall review this Directive by 10 November 2017, taking into account advancements in the development of alternative methods not entailing the use of animals, in particular of non-human primates, and shall propose amendments, where appropriate.\nThe Commission shall, where appropriate, and in consultation with the Member States and stakeholders, conduct periodic thematic reviews of the replacement, reduction and refinement of the use of animals in procedures, paying specific attention to non-human primates, technological developments, and new scientific and animal-welfare knowledge.\nArticle 59\nCompetent authorities\n1. Each Member State shall designate one or more competent authorities responsible for the implementation of this Directive.\nMember States may designate bodies other than public authorities for the implementation of specific tasks laid down in this Directive only if there is proof that the body:\n(a)\nhas the expertise and infrastructure required to carry out the tasks; and\n(b)\nis free of any conflict of interests as regards the performance of the tasks.\nBodies thus designated shall be considered competent authorities for the purposes of this Directive.\n2. Each Member State shall communicate details of a national authority serving as contact point for the purposes of this Directive to the Commission by 10 February 2011, as well as any update to such data.\nThe Commission shall make publicly available the list of those contact points.\nArticle 60\nPenalties\nMember States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission by 10 February 2013, and shall notify the Commission without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.\nArticle 61\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 10 November 2012, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 January 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The method of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 62\nRepeal\n1. Directive 86/609/EEC is repealed with effect from 1 January 2013 with the exception of Article 13, which shall be repealed with effect from 10 May 2013.\n2. References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive.\nArticle 63\nAmendment of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009\nPoint (a)(iv) of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(iv)\nanimals used in a procedure or procedures defined in Article 3 of Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (10), in cases where the competent authority decides that such animals or any of their body parts have the potential to pose serious health risks to humans or to other animals, as a result of that procedure or those procedures without prejudice to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003;\nArticle 64\nTransitional provisions\n1. Member States shall not apply laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted in accordance with Articles 36 to 45 to projects which have been approved before 1 January 2013 and the duration of which does not extend beyond 1 January 2018.\n2. Projects which have been approved before 1 January 2013 and the duration of which extends beyond 1 January 2018 shall obtain project authorisation by 1 January 2018.\nArticle 65\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 66\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 22 September 2010.", "references": ["53", "75", "7", "24", "54", "44", "43", "15", "94", "21", "72", "32", "6", "25", "76", "92", "10", "69", "1", "84", "80", "68", "87", "13", "74", "73", "41", "18", "38", "47", "No Label", "36", "58", "61", "66", "77"], "gold": ["36", "58", "61", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 2 February 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of a chitin-glucan from Aspergillus niger as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 480)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(2011/76/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 15 January 2008 the company Kitozyme SA made a request to the competent authorities of Belgium to place a chitin-glucan from Aspergillus niger on the market as a novel food ingredient.\n(2)\nOn 5 November 2008 the competent food assessment body of Belgium issued its initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that an additional assessment was required.\n(3)\nThe Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to all Member States on 12 March 2009. Several Member States submitted additional comments.\n(4)\nTherefore the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was consulted on 27 August 2009.\n(5)\nOn 9 July 2010, EFSA (Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies) in the \u2018Scientific opinion on the safety of \u201cchitin-glucan\u201d as a novel food ingredient\u2019 (2) came to the conclusion that chitin-glucan from Aspergillus niger was safe under the proposed conditions of use and the proposed levels of intake.\n(6)\nOn the basis of the scientific assessment, it is established that chitin-glucan from Aspergillus niger complies with the criteria laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nChitin-glucan from Aspergillus niger as specified in the Annex may be placed on the market in the Union as a novel food ingredient to be used in food supplements with a maximum dose of 5 g per day.\nArticle 2\nThe designation of chitin-glucan from Aspergillus niger authorised by this Decision on the labelling of the foodstuff containing it shall be \u2018chitin-glucan from Aspergillus niger\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Kitozyme SA, Rue Haute Claire, 4, Parc Industriel des Hauts-Sarts, Zone 2, 4040 Herstal, Belgium.\nDone at Brussels, 2 February 2011.", "references": ["15", "81", "54", "84", "61", "30", "37", "49", "66", "52", "59", "43", "7", "68", "13", "35", "96", "34", "41", "22", "19", "89", "71", "80", "53", "1", "65", "18", "90", "86", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "72", "83"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "72", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 454/2011\nof 5 May 2011\non the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem \u2018telematics applications for passenger services\u2019 of the trans-European rail system\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 2(e) of Directive 2008/57/EC, the rail system is subdivided into structural and functional subsystems. Each of the subsystems should be covered by a technical specification for interoperability (TSI).\n(2)\nBy Decision C(2006) 124 final of 9 February 2007, the Commission gave a mandate to the European Railway Agency (the Agency) to develop technical specifications for interoperability under Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (2). Under the terms of that mandate, the Agency was requested to draw up the draft TSI related to telematics applications for passengers. It submitted a recommendation on 31 May 2010. This recommendation should be complemented by an additional recommendation following a mandate from the Commission to cover tariffs, ticketing and reservation for domestic journeys. In drafting its recommendation, the Agency should take into account national developments and technical developments in the area of innovative ticketing and intermodality.\n(3)\nTechnical specifications for interoperability are specifications adopted in accordance with the Directive 2008/57/EC. The TSI in Annex covers the subsystem relating to telematics applications for passenger services in order to meet the essential requirements and ensure the interoperability of the rail system.\n(4)\nThe efficient interconnection of the information and communication systems of the different infrastructure managers and railway undertakings is considered to be important, in particular for the provision of up-to-date information and ticketing services to passengers.\n(5)\nThe purpose of this TSI is to define procedures and interfaces between all types of actors to provide information and issue tickets to passengers via widely available technologies. It should include the exchange of information for the following aspects: systems providing passengers with information before and during the journey, reservation and payment systems, luggage management, issuing of tickets via ticket offices, ticket selling machines, on board trains, telephone, Internet or any other widely available information technology, management of connections between trains and with other modes of transport.\n(6)\nThe information provided to passengers should be accessible in accordance with the requirements of Commission Decision 2008/164/EC of 21 December 2007 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to \u2018persons with reduced mobility\u2019 in the trans-European conventional and high-speed rail system (3).\n(7)\nThe provisions of this TSI should not prejudge decisions taken by Member States under Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4).\n(8)\nDetailed specifications are necessary to ensure that this Regulation can be applied. Those specifications define the data exchange system based on common components and on the interconnection of the information and communication systems of the relevant actors. Moreover, a description of the governance for the development, deployment and operation of this system, and a master plan for the development and deployment of this system are necessary as well. These deliverables will be produced during an initial phase of implementation. The TSI therefore needs to be amended at a later stage in order to take these deliverables (detailed specifications, governance and master plan) into account.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 5(8) of Directive 2008/57/EC, the technical documents published by the Agency that are referred to in this Regulation should be regarded as Annexes to the TSI and should become mandatory from the moment the TSI is applicable.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Technical Specification for Interoperability (hereinafter \u2018TSI\u2019) relating to the element \u2018applications for passenger services\u2019 of the subsystem \u2018telematics applications\u2019 of the trans-European rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC is set out in Annex I.\n2. The TSI shall apply to the element \u2018applications for passenger services\u2019 of the subsystem \u2018telematics applications\u2019 as defined in Section 2.5 of Annex II to Directive 2008/57/EC.\n3. With regard to rail passenger services operated from or to third countries, compliance with the requirements of this TSI is subject to the availability of information from actors outside the EU unless bilateral agreements provide information exchange compatible with the TSI.\nArticle 2\nThis TSI shall be implemented in three phases:\n-\na first phase establishing detailed IT specifications, governance and master plan (phase one),\n-\na second phase concerning the development of the data exchange system (phase two), and\n-\na final phase concerning the deployment of the data exchange system (phase three).\nArticle 3\n1. The European Railway Agency shall publish on its website the technical documents listed in Annex III and shall keep them up to date. It shall implement a change management process for the technical documents as specified in Section 7.5.2 of Annex I. It shall report to the Commission on the progress of these documents. The Commission shall inform the Member States through the Committee established under Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC.\n2. The European Railway Agency shall publish on its website the reference files referred to in Section 4.2.19 of Annex I and shall keep them up to date. It shall implement a change management process for such files. It shall report to the Commission on the progress of these documents. The Commission shall inform the Member States through the Committee established under Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC.\n3. The European Railway Agency shall submit its recommendation on the open points listed in Annex II to this Regulation by 31 March 2012.\nArticle 4\nRailway undertakings, infrastructure managers, station managers, ticket vendors and the Agency shall support the works of phase one as specified in Section 7.2 of Annex I by providing functional and technical information and expertise.\nArticle 5\nThe representative bodies from the railway sector acting at European level as defined in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) together with a representative of ticket vendors and a representative of European passengers, shall develop the detailed IT specifications, the governance and the master plan as described in Chapter 7 of Annex I and shall submit them to the Commission not later than 1 year after the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 6\nMember States shall ensure that railway undertakings, infrastructure managers, station managers and ticket vendors are informed of this Regulation.\nArticle 7\nThis Regulation shall be amended taking into account the results of phase one as described in Section 7.2 of Annex I.\nArticle 8\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 May 2011.", "references": ["46", "27", "78", "73", "22", "37", "50", "60", "59", "38", "85", "34", "65", "44", "75", "17", "7", "54", "52", "15", "4", "83", "32", "35", "61", "91", "98", "41", "94", "72", "No Label", "9", "36", "42", "55", "76"], "gold": ["9", "36", "42", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 977/2011\nof 3 October 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (1), and in particular Article 50 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 48 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation) (2), the VIS will be rolled-out progressively region by region in the order defined by the Commission in decisions adopted in accordance with the comitology procedure.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 48(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008, the Commission is to determine the date from which the VIS starts operations in the first region and the date from which it becomes mandatory in each subsequent region to transfer to the VIS all data: alphanumeric data, photographs and fingerprints. Before the transfer of all data has become mandatory in a region, Member States can already collect and transmit to the VIS alphanumeric data and photographs, and optionally also the fingerprints, in any location as soon as they have notified the Commission that they have made the necessary technical and legal arrangements to do so. As a consequence, three situations can coexist as regards the registration in the VIS.\n(3)\nIn the regions where the collection and transmission of visa data to the VIS has become mandatory following a decision by the Commission, all data referred to in Article 5(1) of the VIS Regulation, including the fingerprints for each applicant, will be registered in the VIS, except in the cases where the applicant is exempted from the requirement to provide fingerprints in accordance with Article 13(7) of the Visa Code. In locations where the use of the VIS is not yet mandatory, Member States may similarly decide to collect and register in the VIS all data referred to in Article 5(1) of the VIS Regulation, including the fingerprints, of each visa applicant.\n(4)\nHowever, in these locations where the use of the VIS has not yet become mandatory, one or more Member States may not register visa applicants in the VIS yet; while other Member States may register only alphanumeric data and photographs of visa applicants.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 7(3) (aa) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (3), from the 20th day following the date of start of operations of the VIS in the first region, the thorough checks on entry are to comprise the verification of the identity of the visa holder and of the authenticity of the visa, by consulting the VIS. In accordance with Article 18 of the VIS Regulation, searches are to be carried out using the number of the visa sticker in combination with the verification of the fingerprints of the visa holder. However, for a maximum period of 3 years from the date of start of operations in the first region, the search in the VIS may be carried out using only the number of the visa sticker. At the expiry of that period, searches in the VIS are always to be carried out using the visa sticker number in combination with the fingerprints, except for visa holders whose fingerprints cannot be used. Besides, during an additional maximum period of 3 years, by way of derogation, searches may be run using only the visa sticker number in a limited number of circumstances defined by Article 7(3) (ab) of the Schengen Borders Code.\n(6)\nTo facilitate controls at the external borders, a specific code should be added on the visa sticker to indicate that the visa holder is registered in the VIS. The absence of such code should be without prejudice to Member States\u2019 obligation to run searches on entry at the external borders of the Schengen area against the VIS for all visa holders, as laid down in Article 7(3) of the Schengen Borders Code. In situations where no data has been registered and where border authorities consequently receive a negative answer from the VIS, the fact that no code appears on the visa sticker will confirm to the border authorities that such a negative answer is not due to a technical problem (false negative identification) or fraud.\n(7)\nA specific code should also be added on the visa sticker to indicate situations where the visa holder is registered in the VIS but his fingerprints were not collected because the collection of fingerprints was not yet mandatory in the region concerned. The presence of such a code should be without prejudice to the obligation to run searches in the VIS by using the visa sticker number in combination with the verification of the fingerprints from 3 years after the start of operations in the first region.\n(8)\nAnnex VII to Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 should be amended to ensure the harmonised application by Member States of the codes relating to the registration of visa holders and their fingerprints in the VIS.\n(9)\nGiven that Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 builds upon the Schengen acquis in accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 4 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark notified the implementation of this acquis in its national law. It is therefore bound under international law to implement this Regulation.\n(10)\nThis Regulation constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (4). The United Kingdom is therefore not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(11)\nThis Regulation constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (5). Ireland is therefore not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(12)\nAs regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters\u2019 association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (6), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement (7).\n(13)\nAs regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (8), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of the Council Decisions 2008/146/EC (9).\n(14)\nAs regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation\u2019s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (10).\n(15)\nAs regards Cyprus, this Regulation constitutes provisions building upon or otherwise related to the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession.\n(16)\nThis Regulation constitutes an act building upon or otherwise related to the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession.\n(17)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Visa Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn point 9(a) of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 the following indents are added:\n\u2018-\nwhere all data referred to in Article 5(1) of the VIS Regulation is registered in the Visa Information System, the following mention is added: \u2018VIS\u2019,\n-\nwhere only the data referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 5(1) of the VIS Regulation is registered in the Visa Information System but the data referred to in point (c) of that paragraph was not collected because the collection of fingerprints was not mandatory in the region concerned, the following mention is added: \u2018VIS 0\u2027;\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the date referred to in Article 48(1) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008.\nIt shall expire on the date from which the collection and transmission of the data referred to in Article 5(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 becomes mandatory for all applications in the last region where the VIS is deployed, in accordance with the decision to be adopted by the Commission referred to in Article 48(3) of the VIS Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 3 October 2011.", "references": ["66", "20", "49", "78", "36", "62", "35", "64", "25", "96", "14", "9", "65", "26", "80", "77", "40", "44", "52", "60", "32", "46", "15", "79", "38", "5", "91", "47", "39", "16", "No Label", "1", "13", "43"], "gold": ["1", "13", "43"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 380/2012\nof 3 May 2012\namending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the conditions of use and the use levels for aluminium-containing food additives\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Article 10(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 lays down a Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and their conditions of use.\n(2)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), in its opinion of 22 May 2008 (2) recommended to lower the tolerable weekly intake (TWI) for aluminium to 1 mg/kg body weight/week. In addition, EFSA considers that the revised TWI is generally exceeded for high consumers, especially children, in a significant part of the Union.\n(3)\nEFSA considers that the major route of exposure to aluminium compounds for the general population is through food, both as a consequence of the natural occurrence of aluminium in food and the use of aluminium compounds in food processing, including food additives. However, EFSA is not able to quantify the respective role of each source due to the design of the human dietary studies and the analytical methods used, which only determine the total aluminium content in food.\n(4)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 authorises the use of aluminium-containing food additives in a wide number of foodstuffs, often at very high maximum permitted levels or without any indication of the maximum concentration levels (Quantum satis).\n(5)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 laying down specifications for food additives listed in Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) authorise the use of some colours that may contain aluminium in the form of lakes in a wide number of foodstuffs, in general without any indication of the maximum concentration levels of aluminium in the lakes.\n(6)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend the current conditions of use and reduce the use levels for aluminium-containing food additives, including aluminium lakes, to ensure that the revised TWI is not exceeded.\n(7)\nSince manufacturing practices using higher amounts of food additives have been applied since decades, a transitional period should be provided to allow the food business operators to adapt to the new requirements laid down in this Regulation for the uses of aluminium-containing food additives others than lakes.\n(8)\nLabelling of aluminium content in aluminium lakes not intended for sale to the final consumer is currently optional. It should become mandatory within 12 months from the entry into force of this Regulation in order to allow food manufacturers using aluminium lakes to adapt to the proposed maximum limits for such lakes. Therefore a longer transitional period than 12 months should be provided to allow the food business operators to adapt to the new requirements laid down in this Regulation.\n(9)\nAnnex II as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1129/2011 (4) is in principle applicable from 1 June 2013. In order to facilitate the effective implementation of Annex II, it is appropriate to insert in the Annex the periods of application that do not start on 1 June 2013 and are posterior to the entry into force of this Regulation.\n(10)\nThe aluminium containing carrier bentonite, E 558 is not used any more according to information submitted by food manufacturers. Therefore, it is not included in Part 1 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 and should also be deleted from the list of all additives in Part B of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.\n(11)\nThe aluminium containing food additives calcium aluminium silicate E 556 and aluminium silicate (kaolin) E 559 should be deleted from the list of all additives in Part B of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, since these substances can be replaced by other food additives.\n(12)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\n1. Foods not complying with the provisions laid down in this Regulation applicable from 1 February 2014 that have been lawfully placed on the market before 1 February 2014, may continue to be marketed until their date of minimum durability or use-by date.\n2. By derogation from paragraph 1, foods containing aluminium lakes and not complying with the provisions laid down in this Regulation applicable from 1 August 2014, that have been lawfully placed on the market before 1 August 2014, may continue to be marketed until their date of minimum durability or use-by date.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 May 2012.", "references": ["57", "68", "28", "97", "43", "23", "73", "1", "15", "33", "60", "24", "66", "98", "16", "27", "31", "96", "99", "75", "10", "56", "51", "4", "71", "34", "55", "48", "92", "22", "No Label", "20", "25", "38", "72", "74", "84"], "gold": ["20", "25", "38", "72", "74", "84"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 623/2011\nof 27 June 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 11a(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 April 2005, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\n(2)\nIn view of the developments in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 should be amended.\n(3)\nIn view of the urgency, and in order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately upon its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2011.", "references": ["32", "55", "20", "35", "64", "77", "36", "78", "75", "83", "90", "27", "73", "56", "14", "7", "46", "95", "21", "6", "93", "25", "92", "43", "19", "98", "79", "49", "66", "16", "No Label", "3", "11", "23", "94"], "gold": ["3", "11", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/170/CFSP\nof 23 March 2012\namending Decision 2010/573/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/573/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nIn order to encourage progress in reaching a political settlement of the Transnistrian conflict and restoring the free movement of persons across the administrative boundary of the Transnistrian region, the restrictive measures applying with respect to Annex I to Decision 2010/573/CFSP should be further suspended until 30 September 2012. At the end of that period, the Council should review those restrictive measures in the light of developments in the two areas mentioned above.\n(3)\nIn order to encourage progress in addressing the remaining problems of the Latin-script schools, the restrictive measures applying with respect to Annex II to Decision 2010/573/CFSP should be further suspended until 30 September 2012. At the end of that period, the Council should review those restrictive measures with a view to ensuring the fulfilment of the conditions for an effective and sustainable return to the normal functioning of the Latin-script schools in the Transnistrian region, namely by the removal of restrictions on their registration by the Transnistrian de facto administration, the provision of decent functioning conditions for all of them, and the sustainability of such functioning conditions over time.\n(4)\nThe information relating to certain persons included in the lists in Annexes I and II to Decision 2010/573/CFSP should be updated.\n(5)\nDecision 2010/573/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 4 of Decision 2010/573/CFSP, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\"3. The restrictive measures provided for in this Decision shall be suspended until 30 September 2012. At the end of that period, the Council shall review those restrictive measures.\".\nArticle 2\n1. Annex I to Decision 2010/573/CFSP shall be amended as set out in Annex I to this Decision.\n2. Annex II to Decision 2010/573/CFSP shall be amended as set out in Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["28", "64", "90", "48", "59", "63", "0", "15", "30", "79", "20", "44", "22", "89", "67", "17", "14", "6", "7", "25", "4", "50", "27", "65", "77", "34", "32", "45", "57", "80", "No Label", "3", "12", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "12", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 168/2012\nof 27 February 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 January 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (2).\n(2)\nIn view of the continued brutal repression and violation of human rights by the Government of Syria, Council Decision 2012/122/CFSP (3) amending Decision 2011/782/CFSP provides for additional measures, namely a prohibition on the sale, purchase, transportation or brokering of gold, precious metals and diamonds, restrictive measures against the Central Bank of Syria, and amendments to the list of targeted persons and entities.\n(3)\nThose measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 36/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 36/2012 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 11a\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, gold, precious metals and diamonds, as listed in Annex VIII, whether or not originating in the Union, to the Government of Syria, its public bodies, corporations and agencies, the Central Bank of Syria, any person, entity or body acting on their behalf or at their direction, or any entity or body owned or controlled by them;\n(b)\nto purchase, import or transport, directly or indirectly, gold, precious metals and diamonds, as listed in Annex VIII, whether the item concerned originates in Syria or not, from the Government of Syria, its public bodies, corporations and agencies, the Central Bank of Syria and any person, entity or body acting on their behalf or at their direction, or any entity or body owned or controlled by them; and\n(c)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services, financing or financial assistance, related to the goods referred to in points (a) and (b), to the Government of Syria, its public bodies, corporations and agencies, the Central Bank of Syria and any person, entity or body acting on their behalf or at their direction, or any entity or body owned or controlled by them.\n2. Annex VIII shall include gold, precious metals and diamonds subject to the prohibitions referred to in paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 21a\nThe prohibitions in Article 14 shall not apply to:\n(a)\n(i)\na transfer by or through Central Bank of Syria of funds or economic resources received and frozen after the date of its designation; or\n(ii)\na transfer of funds or economic resources to or through Central Bank of Syria where the transfer is related to a payment by a person or entity not listed in Annex II or IIa due in connection with a specific trade contract,\nprovided that the competent authority of the relevant Member State has determined, on a case-by-case basis, that the payment will not directly or indirectly be received by any other person or entity listed in Annex II or IIa; or\n(b)\na transfer made by or through Central Bank of Syria of frozen funds or economic resources in order to provide financial institutions within the jurisdiction of the Member States with liquidity for the financing of trade, provided that the transfer has been authorised by the competent authority of the relevant Member State.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe persons and entity listed in Annex I to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\nArticle 3\nThe person listed in Annex II to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.\nArticle 4\nThe text set out in Annex III to this Regulation is added to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 as Annex VIII.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 February 2012.", "references": ["97", "76", "73", "16", "60", "91", "38", "85", "70", "93", "7", "4", "2", "71", "25", "83", "29", "36", "35", "44", "48", "20", "81", "54", "49", "65", "80", "17", "78", "42", "No Label", "3", "23", "79", "84", "95"], "gold": ["3", "23", "79", "84", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/487/CFSP\nof 1 August 2011\namending Common Position 2002/402/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Usama bin Laden, members of the Al-Qaida organisation and the Taliban and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 May 2002, the Council adopted Common Position 2002/402/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nOn 17 June 2011, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1989 (2011) (\u2018UNSCR 1989 (2011)\u2019) noting with concern the continued threat posed to international peace and security by Al-Qaida and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with it and reaffirming the resolve of the Security Council to address all aspects of that threat.\n(3)\nIn this context, UNSCR 1989 (2011) maintained the restrictive measures as previously imposed by paragraph 8(c) of Resolution 1333 (2000), and paragraphs 1 and 2 of Resolution 1390 (2002), with respect to Al-Qaida and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them, including those referred to in section C (\u2018Individuals associated with Al-Qaida\u2019) and section D (\u2018Entities and other groups and undertakings associated with Al-Qaida\u2019) of the Consolidated List established pursuant to Resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000), as well as those designated after the date of adoption of UNSCR 1989 (2011).\n(4)\nCommon Position 2002/402/CFSP should be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe Union implementing measures are set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nCommon Position 2002/402/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nThe title is replaced by the following:\n2.\nArticle 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nThis Common Position applies to members of the Al-Qaida organisation and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them, as referred to in the list drawn up pursuant to UNSCR 1267(1999) and 1333(2000) to be updated regularly by the Committee established pursuant to UNSCR 1267(1999).\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 1 August 2011.", "references": ["93", "7", "41", "33", "69", "32", "24", "77", "18", "99", "30", "14", "94", "62", "75", "54", "2", "85", "10", "56", "83", "15", "78", "13", "8", "82", "39", "57", "29", "74", "No Label", "1", "3", "5", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "5", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/75/EU\nof 2 September 2011\namending Council Directive 96/98/EC on marine equipment\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 96/98/EC of 20 December 1996 on marine equipment (1), and in particular Article 17 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor the purposes of Directive 96/98/EC, the international conventions and testing standards should apply in their up-to-date versions.\n(2)\nA number of amendments to the international conventions and applicable testing standards have entered into force since the adoption of the last amending act to Directive 96/98/EC. Those amendments should be incorporated into Directive 96/98/EC.\n(3)\nIn the same period the International Maritime Organisation and the European standardisation organisations have also adopted standards, including detailed testing standards, for a number of items of equipment which are listed in Annex A.2 to Directive 96/98/EC or which, albeit not listed, are considered relevant for the purpose of that Directive. Therefore such items of equipment should be included in Annex A.1 or transferred from Annex A.2 to Annex A.1, as appropriate.\n(4)\nDirective 96/98/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex A to Directive 96/98/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nEquipment listed in Annex A.1 as having been transferred from Annex A.2 which was manufactured before 5 October 2012 in conformity with procedures for type-approval already in force before that date within the territory of a Member State may continue to be placed on the market and on board a Community ship until 5 October 2014.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 5 October 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. They shall apply those provisions from 5 October 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2011.", "references": ["39", "18", "82", "72", "52", "21", "71", "10", "96", "67", "95", "25", "34", "91", "28", "94", "46", "22", "32", "43", "54", "98", "66", "9", "50", "87", "17", "5", "74", "93", "No Label", "53", "56", "76"], "gold": ["53", "56", "76"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1340/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006 on establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 209(1) and Article 212 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, in the light of the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on 31 October 2011 (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA new framework for planning and delivering assistance was established in 2006 in order to make the Community\u2019s external assistance more effective and transparent. It contains Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (2), Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (3), Council Regulation (EC) No 1934/2006 of 21 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for cooperation with industrialised and other high-income countries and territories (4), Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability (5), Council Regulation (Euratom) No 300/2007 of 19 February 2007 establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (6), Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7), and Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (8).\n(2)\nIn implementing those Regulations inconsistencies have emerged regarding exceptions to the principle of non-eligibility for Union financing of costs related to taxes, duties and other charges. It is therefore proposed to amend the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006 in order to align it with the other instruments.\n(3)\nThis Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued, in accordance with Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1889/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 13(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. Union assistance shall not in principle be used for paying taxes, duties or charges in beneficiary countries.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["38", "58", "53", "26", "91", "25", "45", "77", "20", "82", "37", "79", "73", "12", "46", "69", "18", "84", "50", "49", "87", "74", "85", "31", "33", "28", "35", "93", "99", "24", "No Label", "2", "4", "10", "14"], "gold": ["2", "4", "10", "14"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency vaccination plans against bluetongue in Italy in 2007 and 2008\n(notified under document C(2011) 8728)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(2011/802/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 3(3), (4) and second indent of (6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate bluetongue as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. The second indent of Article 3(6) of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2008/655/EC (3) as modified by Decision 2009/19/EC (4) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in Italy in 2007 and 2008.\n(5)\nOn 12 March 2009, Italy submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005. The Commission\u2019s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Italy in a letter dated 28 March 2011.\n(6)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(7)\nThe Italian authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(8)\nIn view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of bluetongue in Italy in 2007 and 2008 should now be fixed according to Article 3(2) of Decision 2008/655/EC.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating bluetongue in Italy in 2007 and 2008 is fixed at EUR 732 680,67. It constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe balance of the financial contribution is fixed at EUR 1 336,20.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["42", "41", "63", "92", "72", "69", "43", "0", "99", "76", "57", "75", "6", "93", "35", "71", "73", "26", "24", "94", "1", "44", "53", "98", "47", "67", "62", "22", "45", "85", "No Label", "4", "10", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 22 November 2010\nappointing one Austrian member and two Austrian alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/708/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Austrian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Johannes PEINSTEINER.\n(3)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Markus LINHART as a member of the Committee of the Regions.\n(4)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Marianne F\u00dcGL,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas a member:\n-\nHerr Dipl.-Ing. Markus LINHART, B\u00fcrgermeister von Bregenz;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nHerr Johannes PEINSTEINER, B\u00fcrgermeister von St. Wolfgang und Landtagsabgeordneter,\n-\nHerr Hannes WENINGER, Gemeinderat und Nationalratsabgeordneter.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["81", "5", "40", "88", "9", "93", "33", "15", "94", "71", "30", "79", "53", "34", "64", "27", "21", "57", "38", "24", "84", "63", "11", "87", "20", "55", "2", "72", "35", "25", "No Label", "7", "52", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "52", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2010/45/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 7 July 2010\non standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 168(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOver the past 50 years organ transplantation has become an established worldwide practice, bringing immense benefits to hundreds of thousands of patients. The use of human organs (hereinafter \u2018organs\u2019) for transplantation has steadily increased during the last two decades. Organ transplantation is now the most cost-effective treatment for end-stage renal failure, while for end-stage failure of organs such as the liver, lung and heart it is the only available treatment.\n(2)\nRisks are, however, associated with the use of organs in transplantation. The extensive therapeutic use of organs for transplantation demands that their quality and safety should be such as to minimise any risks associated with the transmission of diseases. Well organised national and international transplantation systems and use of the best available expertise, technology and innovative medical treatment can significantly reduce the associated risks of transplanted organs for recipients.\n(3)\nIn addition the availability of organs used for therapeutic purposes is dependent on citizens of the Union being prepared to donate them. In order to safeguard public health and to prevent the transmission of diseases by these organs, precautionary measures should be taken during their procurement, transport and use.\n(4)\nEvery year organs are exchanged between Member States. The exchange of organs is an important way of increasing the number of organs available and ensuring a better match between donor and recipient and therefore improving the quality of the transplantation. This is particularly important for the optimum treatment of specific patients such as patients requiring urgent treatment, hypersensitised patients or paediatric patients. Available organs should be able to cross borders without unnecessary problems and delays.\n(5)\nHowever, transplantation is carried out by hospitals or professionals falling under different jurisdictions and there are significant differences in quality and safety requirements between Member States.\n(6)\nThere is therefore a need for common quality and safety standards for the procurement, transport and use of organs at Union level. Such standards would facilitate exchanges of organs to the benefit of thousands of European patients in need of this type of therapy each year. Union legislation should ensure that organs comply with recognised standards of quality and safety. Such standards would help to reassure the public that organs procured in another Member State carry the same basic quality and safety guarantees as those obtained in their own country.\n(7)\nUnacceptable practices in organ donation and transplantation include trafficking in organs, sometimes linked to trafficking in persons for the purpose of the removal of organs, which constitutes a serious violation of fundamental rights and, in particular, of human dignity and physical integrity. This Directive, although having as its first objective the safety and quality of organs, contributes indirectly to combating organ trafficking through the establishment of competent authorities, the authorisation of transplantation centres, the establishment of conditions of procurement and systems of traceability.\n(8)\nAccording to Article 168(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the measures adopted pursuant to Article 168(4)(a) thereof shall not affect national provisions on the medical use of organs, nor therefore the surgical act of transplantation itself. However, in view of the objective of reducing the associated risks of the transplanted organs, it is necessary to include in the scope of this Directive certain provisions concerning transplantation and, in particular, provisions aimed at addressing those unintended and unexpected situations occurring during the transplantation that might affect the quality and safety of organs.\n(9)\nIn order to reduce the risks and maximise the benefits of transplantation, Member States need to operate an effective framework for quality and safety. That framework should be implemented and maintained throughout the entire chain from donation to transplantation or disposal, and should cover the healthcare personnel and organisation, premises, equipment, materials, documentation and record-keeping involved. The framework for quality and safety should include auditing where necessary. Member States should be able to delegate the performance of activities provided for under the framework for quality and safety to specific bodies deemed appropriate under national provisions, including European organ exchange organisations.\n(10)\nCompetent authorities should supervise compliance with the conditions of procurement through the authorisation of procurement organisations. Such organisations should have in place proper organisation, suitably qualified or trained and competent personnel and adequate facilities and material.\n(11)\nThe risk-benefit ratio is a fundamental aspect of organ transplantation. Owing to the shortage of organs and the inherent life-threatening nature of diseases leading to the need for organs for transplantation, the overall benefits of organ transplantation are high and more risks are accepted than with blood or most tissues and cell-based treatments. The clinician plays an important role in this context by deciding whether or not organs are suitable for transplantation. This Directive sets out the information required to make that assessment.\n(12)\nPre-transplant evaluation of potential donors is an essential part of organ transplantation. That evaluation has to provide enough information for the transplantation centre to undertake a proper risk-benefit analysis. It is necessary to identify and document the risks and characteristics of the organ in order to allow its allocation to a suitable recipient. Information from a potential donor's medical history, physical examination and complementary tests should be collected for the adequate characterisation of the organ and the donor. To obtain an accurate, reliable and objective history, the medical team should perform an interview with the living donor or, where necessary and appropriate, with the relatives of the deceased donor, during which the team should properly inform them about the potential risks and consequences of donation and transplantation. Such an interview is particularly important due to the time constraints in the process of deceased donation which reduce the ability to rule out potentially serious transmissible diseases.\n(13)\nThe shortage of organs available for transplantation and the time constraints in the process of organ donation and transplantation make it necessary to take into account those situations in which the transplantation team lacks some of the information required for organ and donor characterisation as set out in Part A of the Annex, which specifies a mandatory minimum data set. In those particular cases, the medical team should assess the particular risk posed to the potential recipient by the lack of information and by not proceeding with transplantation of the organ in question. Where a complete characterisation of an organ, according to Part A of the Annex, is not possible in time or due to particular circumstances, the organ may be considered for transplantation where non-transplantation might pose a greater risk to the potential recipient. Part B of the Annex, referring to a complementary data set, should allow a more detailed organ and donor characterisation to be made.\n(14)\nEffective rules for the transportation of organs should be provided that optimise ischaemic times and reduce organ damage. While maintaining medical confidentiality, the organ container should be clearly labelled and accompanied by the necessary documentation.\n(15)\nThe transplantation system should ensure traceability of organs from donation to reception and should have the capacity to raise the alert if there is any unexpected complication. A system should therefore be put in place to detect and investigate serious adverse events and reactions for the protection of vital interest of the individuals concerned.\n(16)\nAn organ donor is also very often a tissue donor. Quality and safety requirements for organs should complement and be linked with the existing Union system for tissues and cells laid down in Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (4). This does not mean that systems for organs and for tissues and cells should necessarily be electronically linked. An unexpected adverse reaction in an organ donor or recipient should be traced by the competent authority and reported through the notification system for serious adverse events and reactions for tissues and cells as provided for in that Directive.\n(17)\nHealthcare personnel directly involved in the donation, testing, characterisation, procurement, preservation, transport and transplantation of organs should be suitably qualified or trained and competent. The importance of donor coordinators, appointed at hospital level, has been acknowledged by the Council of Europe. The role of the donor coordinator or coordination team should be recognised as key to improving not only the effectiveness of the process of donation and transplantation, but also the quality and safety of the organs to be transplanted.\n(18)\nAs a general principle, organ exchange with third countries should be supervised by the competent authority. Organ exchange with third countries should be allowed only where standards equivalent to those provided for in this Directive are met. However, the important role played by existing European organ exchange organisations in the exchange of organs between the Member States and third countries participating in such organisations should be taken into account.\n(19)\nAltruism is an important factor in organ donations. To ensure the quality and safety of organs, organ transplantation programmes should be founded on the principles of voluntary and unpaid donation. This is essential because the violation of these principles might be associated with unacceptable risks. Where donation is not voluntary and/or is undertaken with a view to financial gain, the quality of the process of donation could be jeopardised because improving the quality of life or saving the life of a person is not the main and/or the unique objective. Even if the process is developed in accordance with appropriate quality standards, a clinical history obtained from either a potential living donor or the relatives of a potential deceased donor who are seeking financial gain or are subjected to any kind of coercion might not be sufficiently accurate in terms of conditions and/or diseases potentially transmissible from donor to recipient. This could give rise to a safety problem for potential recipients since the medical team would have a limited capability for performing an appropriate risk assessment. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union should be recalled, notably the principle set out in Article 3(2)(c) thereof. That principle is also enshrined in Article 21 of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of the Council of Europe, which many Member States have ratified. It is also reflected in the World Health Organization Guiding Principles on Human Cell, Tissue and Organ Transplantation, whereby the human body and its parts may not be the subject of commercial transactions.\n(20)\nOther internationally recognised principles guiding practices in organ donation and transplantation include, inter alia, the certification or the confirmation of death in accordance with national provisions before the procurement of organs from deceased persons and the allocation of organs based on transparent, non-discriminatory and scientific criteria. They should be recalled and be taken into account in the context of the Commission's Action Plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation.\n(21)\nSeveral models of consent to donation coexist in the Union, including opting-in systems in which consent to organ donation has to be explicitly obtained, and opting-out systems in which donation can take place unless there is evidence of any objection to donation. In order to enable individuals to express their wishes in this regard, some Member States have developed specific registries where citizens record them. This Directive is without prejudice to the broad diversity of the systems of consent already in place in the Member States. In addition, by means of its Action plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation the Commission aims to increase public awareness of organ donation and in particular to develop mechanisms to facilitate the identification of organ donors across Europe.\n(22)\nArticle 8 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (5) prohibits in principle the processing of data concerning health, while laying down limited exemptions. Directive 95/46/EC also requires the controller to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure or access and against all other unlawful forms of processing. It should be ensured that strict confidentiality rules and security measures are in place for the protection of donors' and recipients' personal data, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC. Moreover, the competent authority may also consult the national data protection supervisory authority in relation to developing a framework for the transfer of data on organs to and from third countries. As a general principle, the identity of the recipient(s) should not be disclosed to the donor or the donor's family or vice versa, without prejudice to legislation in force in Member States which, under specific conditions, might allow such information to be made available to donors or donors' families and organ recipients.\n(23)\nLiving donation coexists with deceased donation in most Member States. Living donation has evolved over the years in such a way that good results can be obtained even where there is no genetic relationship between donor and recipient. Living donors should be adequately evaluated to determine their suitability for donation in order to minimise the risk of transmission of diseases to the recipients. In addition, living donors face risks linked both to testing to ascertain their suitability as a donor and to the procedure to obtain the organ. Complications may be medical, surgical, social, financial or psychological. The level of risk depends, in particular, on the type of organ to be donated. Therefore, living donations need to be performed in a manner that minimises the physical, psychological and social risk to the individual donor and the recipient and does not jeopardise the public's trust in the healthcare community. The potential living donor has to be able to take an independent decision on the basis of all the relevant information and should be informed in advance as to the purpose and nature of the donation, the consequences and risks. In this context, and to guarantee respect for the principles governing donation, the highest possible protection of living donors should be ensured. It should also be noted that some Member States are signatories to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of the Council of Europe, and its additional protocol on Transplantation of Organs and Tissues of Human Origin. Complete information, a proper evaluation and an adequate follow-up are internationally recognised measures aimed at protecting the living donors and also contribute to ensuring the quality and safety of organs.\n(24)\nThe competent authorities of the Member States should have a key role to play in ensuring the quality and safety of organs during the entire chain from donation to transplantation and in evaluating their quality and safety throughout patients' recovery and during the subsequent follow-up. For that purpose, besides the system for reporting serious adverse events and reactions, the collection of relevant post-transplantation data is needed for a more comprehensive evaluation of the quality and safety of organs intended for transplantation. Sharing such information between Member States would facilitate further improvement of donation and transplantation across the Union. As emphasised by the Recommendation Rec(2006)15 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to Member States on the background, functions and responsibilities of a National Transplant Organisation (NTO), it is preferable to have a single non-profit making body which is officially recognised with overall responsibility for donation, allocation, traceability and accountability. However, depending especially on the division of competences within the Member States, a combination of local, regional, national and/or international bodies may work together to coordinate donation, allocation and/or transplantation, provided that the framework in place ensures accountability, cooperation and efficiency.\n(25)\nMember States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and ensure that these penalties are implemented. Those penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n(26)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in order to adapt the Annex. The Commission should supplement or amend the minimum data set specified in Part A of the Annex only in exceptional situations where it is justified by a serious risk to human health, and supplement or amend the complementary data set specified in Part B of the Annex in order to adapt it to scientific progress and international work carried out in the field of quality and safety of organs intended for transplantation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(27)\nThe exchange of organs between Member States requires that uniform rules on the procedures for the transmission of information on organs and donor characterisation, as well as for ensuring the traceability of organs and for reporting serious adverse events and reactions, should be adopted by the Commission, in order to ensure the highest standards of quality and safety of the organs exchanged. According to Article 291 TFEU, rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers are to be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (6) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable.\n(28)\nSince the objectives of this Directive, namely laying down quality and safety standards for organs intended for transplantation to the human body, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale of the 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. 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 those objectives,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER I\nSUBJECT MATTER, SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject Matter\nThis Directive lays down rules to ensure standards of quality and safety for human organs (hereinafter \u2018organs\u2019) intended for transplantation to the human body, in order to ensure a high level of human health protection.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. This Directive applies to the donation, testing, characterisation, procurement, preservation, transport and transplantation of organs intended for transplantation.\n2. Where such organs are used for research purposes, this Directive only applies where they are intended for transplantation into the human body.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions apply:\n(a)\n\u2018authorisation\u2019 means authorisation, accreditation, designation, licensing or registration, depending on the concepts used and the practices in place in each Member State;\n(b)\n\u2018competent authority\u2019 means an authority, body, organisation and/or institution responsible for implementing the requirements of this Directive;\n(c)\n\u2018disposal\u2019 means the final placement of an organ where it is not used for transplantation;\n(d)\n\u2018donor\u2019 means a person who donates one or several organs, whether donation occurs during lifetime or after death;\n(e)\n\u2018donation\u2019 means donating organs for transplantation;\n(f)\n\u2018donor characterisation\u2019 means the collection of the relevant information on the characteristics of the donor needed to evaluate his/her suitability for organ donation, in order to undertake a proper risk assessment and minimise the risks for the recipient, and optimise organ allocation;\n(g)\n\u2018European organ exchange organisation\u2019 means a non-profit organisation, whether public or private, dedicated to national and cross-border organ exchange, in which the majority of its member countries are Member States;\n(h)\n\u2018organ\u2019 means a differentiated part of the human body, formed by different tissues, that maintains its structure, vascularisation, and capacity to develop physiological functions with a significant level of autonomy. A part of an organ is also considered to be an organ if its function is to be used for the same purpose as the entire organ in the human body, maintaining the requirements of structure and vascularisation;\n(i)\n\u2018organ characterisation\u2019 means the collection of the relevant information on the characteristics of the organ needed to evaluate its suitability, in order to undertake a proper risk assessment and minimise the risks for the recipient, and optimise organ allocation;\n(j)\n\u2018procurement\u2019 means a process by which the donated organs become available;\n(k)\n\u2018procurement organisation\u2019 means a healthcare establishment, a team or a unit of a hospital, a person, or any other body which undertakes or coordinates the procurement of organs, and is authorised to do so by the competent authority under the regulatory framework in the Member State concerned;\n(l)\n\u2018preservation\u2019 means the use of chemical agents, alterations in environmental conditions or other means to prevent or retard biological or physical deterioration of organs from procurement to transplantation;\n(m)\n\u2018recipient\u2019 means a person who receives a transplant of an organ;\n(n)\n\u2018serious adverse event\u2019 means any undesired and unexpected occurrence associated with any stage of the chain from donation to transplantation that might lead to the transmission of a communicable disease, to death or life-threatening, disabling or incapacitating conditions for patients or which results in, or prolongs, hospitalisation or morbidity;\n(o)\n\u2018serious adverse reaction\u2019 means an unintended response, including a communicable disease, in the living donor or in the recipient that might be associated with any stage of the chain from donation to transplantation that is fatal, life-threatening, disabling, incapacitating, or which results in, or prolongs, hospitalisation or morbidity;\n(p)\n\u2018operating procedures\u2019 means written instructions describing the steps in a specific process, including the materials and methods to be used and the expected end outcome;\n(q)\n\u2018transplantation\u2019 means a process intended to restore certain functions of the human body by transferring an organ from a donor to a recipient;\n(r)\n\u2018transplantation centre\u2019 means a healthcare establishment, a team or a unit of a hospital or any other body which undertakes the transplantation of organs and is authorised to do so by the competent authority under the regulatory framework in the Member State concerned;\n(s)\n\u2018traceability\u2019 means the ability to locate and identify the organ at each stage in the chain from donation to transplantation or disposal, including the ability to:\n-\nidentify the donor and the procurement organisation,\n-\nidentify the recipient(s) at the transplantation centre(s), and\n-\nlocate and identify all relevant non-personal information relating to products and materials coming into contact with that organ.\nCHAPTER II\nTHE QUALITY AND SAFETY OF ORGANS\nArticle 4\nFramework for quality and safety\n1. Member States shall ensure that a framework for quality and safety is established to cover all stages of the chain from donation to transplantation or disposal, in compliance with the rules laid down in this Directive.\n2. The framework for quality and safety shall provide for the adoption and implementation of operating procedures for:\n(a)\nthe verification of donor identity;\n(b)\nthe verification of the details of the donor's or the donor's family's consent, authorisation or absence of any objection, in accordance with the national rules that apply where donation and procurement take place;\n(c)\nthe verification of the completion of the organ and donor characterisation in accordance with Article 7 and the Annex;\n(d)\nthe procurement, preservation, packaging and labelling of organs in accordance with Articles 5, 6 and 8;\n(e)\nthe transportation of organs in accordance with Article 8;\n(f)\nensuring traceability, in accordance with Article 10, guaranteeing compliance with the Union and national provisions on the protection of personal data and confidentiality;\n(g)\nthe accurate, rapid and verifiable reporting of serious adverse events and reactions in accordance with Article 11(1);\n(h)\nthe management of serious adverse events and reactions in accordance with Article 11(2).\nThe operating procedures referred to in points (f), (g) and (h) shall specify, inter alia, the responsibilities of procurement organisations, European organ exchange organisations and transplantation centres.\n3. In addition, the framework for quality and safety shall ensure that the healthcare personnel involved at all stages of the chain from donation to transplantation or disposal are suitably qualified or trained and competent, and shall develop specific training programmes for such personnel.\nArticle 5\nProcurement organisations\n1. Member States shall ensure that the procurement takes place in, or is carried out by, procurement organisations that comply with the rules laid down in this Directive.\n2. Member States shall, upon the request of the Commission or another Member State, provide information on the national requirements for the authorisation of procurement organisations.\nArticle 6\nOrgan procurement\n1. Member States shall ensure that medical activities in procurement organisations, such as donor selection and evaluation, are performed under the advice and the guidance of a doctor of medicine as referred to in Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (7).\n2. Member States shall ensure that procurement takes place in operating theatres, which are designed, constructed, maintained and operated in accordance with adequate standards and best medical practices so as to ensure the quality and safety of the organs procured.\n3. Member States shall ensure that procurement material and equipment are managed in accordance with relevant Union, international and national legislation, standards and guidelines on the sterilisation of medical devices.\nArticle 7\nOrgan and donor characterisation\n1. Member States shall ensure that all procured organs and donors thereof are characterised before transplantation through the collection of the information set out in the Annex.\nThe information specified in Part A of the Annex contains a set of minimum data which has to be collected for each donation. Information specified in Part B of the Annex contains a set of complementary data to be collected in addition, based on the decision of the medical team, taking into account the availability of such information and the particular circumstances of the case.\n2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, if according to a risk-benefit analysis in a particular case, including in life-threatening emergencies, the expected benefits for the recipient outweigh the risks posed by incomplete data, an organ may be considered for transplantation even where not all of the minimum data specified in Part A of the Annex are available.\n3. In order to meet the quality and safety requirements laid down in this Directive, the medical team shall endeavour to obtain all necessary information from living donors and for that purpose shall provide them with the information they need to understand the consequences of donation. In the case of deceased donation, where possible and appropriate, the medical team shall endeavour to obtain such information from relatives of the deceased donor or other persons. The medical team shall also endeavour to make all parties from whom information is requested aware of the importance of the swift transmission of that information.\n4. The tests required for organ and donor characterisation shall be carried out by laboratories with suitably qualified or trained and competent personnel and adequate facilities and equipment.\n5. Member States shall ensure that organisations, bodies and laboratories involved in organ and donor characterisation have appropriate operating procedures in place to ensure that the information on organ and donor characterisation reaches the transplantation centre in due time.\n6. Where organs are exchanged between Member States, those Member States shall ensure that the information on organ and donor characterisation, as specified in the Annex, is transmitted to the other Member State with which the organ is exchanged, in conformity with the procedures established by the Commission pursuant to Article 29.\nArticle 8\nTransport of organs\n1. Member States shall ensure that the following requirements are met:\n(a)\nthe organisations, bodies or companies involved in the transportation of organs have appropriate operating procedures in place to ensure the integrity of the organs during transport and a suitable transport time;\n(b)\nthe shipping containers used for transporting organs are labelled with the following information:\n(i)\nidentification of the procurement organisation and the establishment where the procurement took place, including their addresses and telephone numbers;\n(ii)\nidentification of the transplantation centre of destination, including its address and telephone number;\n(iii)\na statement that the package contains an organ, specifying the type of organ and, where applicable, its left or right location and marked \u2018HANDLE WITH CARE\u2019;\n(iv)\nrecommended transport conditions, including instructions for keeping the container at an appropriate temperature and position;\n(c)\nthe organs transported are accompanied by a report on the organ and donor characterisation.\n2. The requirements laid down in paragraph 1(b) need not be met where the transportation is carried out within the same establishment.\nArticle 9\nTransplantation centres\n1. Member States shall ensure that transplantation takes place in, or is carried out by, transplantation centres that comply with the rules laid down in this Directive.\n2. The competent authority shall indicate in the authorisation which activities the transplantation centre concerned may undertake.\n3. The transplantation centre shall verify before proceeding to transplantation that:\n(a)\nthe organ and donor characterisation are completed and recorded in accordance with Article 7 and the Annex;\n(b)\nthe conditions of preservation and transport of shipped organs have been maintained.\n4. Member States shall, upon the request of the Commission or another Member State, provide information on the national requirements for the authorisation of transplantation centres.\nArticle 10\nTraceability\n1. Member States shall ensure that all organs procured, allocated and transplanted on their territory can be traced from the donor to the recipient and vice versa in order to safeguard the health of donors and recipients.\n2. Member States shall ensure the implementation of a donor and recipient identification system that can identify each donation and each of the organs and recipients associated with it. With regard to such a system, Member States shall ensure that confidentiality and data security measures are in place in compliance with Union and national provisions, as referred to in Article 16.\n3. Member States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nthe competent authority or other bodies involved in the chain from donation to transplantation or disposal keep the data needed to ensure traceability at all stages of the chain from donation to transplantation or disposal and the information on organ and donor characterisation as specified in the Annex, in accordance with the framework for quality and safety;\n(b)\ndata required for full traceability is kept for a minimum of 30 years after donation. Such data may be stored in electronic form.\n4. Where organs are exchanged between Member States, those Member States shall transmit the necessary information to ensure the traceability of organs, in conformity with the procedures established by the Commission pursuant to Article 29.\nArticle 11\nReporting system and management concerning serious adverse events and reactions\n1. Member States shall ensure that there is a reporting system in place to report, investigate, register and transmit relevant and necessary information concerning serious adverse events that may influence the quality and safety of organs and that may be attributed to the testing, characterisation, procurement, preservation and transport of organs, as well as any serious adverse reaction observed during or after transplantation which may be connected to those activities.\n2. Member States shall ensure that an operating procedure is in place for the management of serious adverse events and reactions as provided for in the framework for quality and safety.\n3. In particular, and with regard to paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States shall ensure that operating procedures are in place for the notification, in due time, of:\n(a)\nany serious adverse event and reaction to the competent authority and to the concerned procurement organisation or transplantation centre;\n(b)\nthe management measures with regard to serious adverse events and reactions to the competent authority.\n4. Where organs are exchanged between Member States, those Member States shall ensure the reporting of serious adverse events and reactions in conformity with the procedures established by the Commission pursuant to Article 29.\n5. Member States shall ensure the interconnection between the reporting system referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and the notification system established in accordance with Article 11(1) of Directive 2004/23/EC.\nArticle 12\nHealthcare personnel\nMember States shall ensure that healthcare personnel directly involved in the chain from donation to the transplantation or disposal of organs are suitably qualified or trained and competent to perform their tasks and are provided with the relevant training, as referred to in Article 4(3).\nCHAPTER III\nDONOR AND RECIPIENT PROTECTION AND DONOR SELECTION AND EVALUATION\nArticle 13\nPrinciples governing organ donation\n1. Member States shall ensure that donations of organs from deceased and living donors are voluntary and unpaid.\n2. The principle of non-payment shall not prevent living donors from receiving compensation, provided it is strictly limited to making good the expenses and loss of income related to the donation. Member States shall define the conditions under which such compensation may be granted, while avoiding there being any financial incentives or benefit for a potential donor.\n3. Member States shall prohibit advertising the need for, or availability of, organs where such advertising is with a view to offering or seeking financial gain or comparable advantage.\n4. Member States shall ensure that the procurement of organs is carried out on a non-profit basis.\nArticle 14\nConsent requirements\nThe procurement of organs shall be carried out only after all requirements relating to consent, authorisation or absence of any objection in force in the Member State concerned have been met.\nArticle 15\nQuality and safety aspects of living donation\n1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure the highest possible protection of living donors in order to fully guarantee the quality and safety of organs for transplantation.\n2. Member States shall ensure that living donors are selected on the basis of their health and medical history, by suitably qualified or trained and competent professionals. Such assessments may provide for the exclusion of persons whose donation could present unacceptable health risks.\n3. Member States shall ensure that a register or record of the living donors is kept, in accordance with Union and national provisions on the protection of the personal data and statistical confidentiality.\n4. Member States shall endeavour to carry out the follow-up of living donors and shall have a system in place in accordance with national provisions, in order to identify, report and manage any event potentially relating to the quality and safety of the donated organ, and hence of the safety of the recipient, as well as any serious adverse reaction in the living donor that may result from the donation.\nArticle 16\nProtection of personal data, confidentiality and security of processing\nMember States shall ensure that the fundamental right to protection of personal data is fully and effectively protected in all organ donation and transplantation activities, in conformity with Union provisions on the protection of personal data, such as Directive 95/46/EC, and in particular Article 8(3), Articles 16 and 17 and Article 28(2) thereof. Pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC, Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that:\n(a)\nthe data processed are kept confidential and secure in accordance with Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 95/46/EC. Any unauthorised accessing of data or systems that makes identification of donor or recipients possible shall be penalised in accordance with Article 23 of this Directive;\n(b)\ndonors and recipients whose data are processed within the scope of this Directive are not identifiable, except as permitted by Article 8(2) and (3) of Directive 95/46/EC, and national provisions implementing that Directive. Any use of systems or data that makes the identification of donors or recipients possible with a view to tracing donors or recipients other than for the purposes permitted by Article 8(2) and (3) of Directive 95/46/EC, including medical purposes, and by national provisions implementing that Directive shall be penalised in accordance with Article 23 of this Directive;\n(c)\nthe principles relating to data quality, as set out in Article 6 of Directive 95/46/EC, are met.\nCHAPTER IV\nOBLIGATIONS OF COMPETENT AUTHORITIES AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION\nArticle 17\nDesignation and tasks of competent authorities\n1. Member States shall designate one or more competent authorities.\nMember States may delegate, or may allow a competent authority to delegate, part or all of the tasks assigned to it under this Directive to another body which is deemed suitable under national provisions. Such a body may also assist the competent authority in carrying out its functions.\n2. The competent authority shall, in particular, take the following measures:\n(a)\nestablish and keep updated a framework for quality and safety in accordance with Article 4;\n(b)\nensure that procurement organisations and transplantations centres are controlled or audited on a regular basis to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this Directive;\n(c)\ngrant, suspend, or withdraw, as appropriate, the authorisations of procurement organisations or transplantation centres or prohibit procurement organisations or transplantation centres from carrying out their activities where control measures demonstrate that such organisations or centres are not complying with the requirements of this Directive;\n(d)\nput in place a reporting system and management procedure for serious adverse events and reactions as provided for in Article 11(1) and (2);\n(e)\nissue appropriate guidance to healthcare establishments, professionals and other parties involved in all stages of the chain from donation to transplantation or disposal, which may include guidance for the collection of relevant post-transplantation information to evaluate the quality and safety of the organs transplanted;\n(f)\nparticipate, whenever possible, in the network of competent authorities referred to in Article 19 and coordinate at national level input to the activities of that network;\n(g)\nsupervise organ exchange with other Member States and with third countries as provided for in Article 20(1);\n(h)\nensure that the fundamental right to protection of personal data is fully and effectively protected in all organ transplantation activities, in conformity with Union provisions on the protection of personal data, in particular Directive 95/46/EC.\nArticle 18\nRecords and reports concerning procurement organisations and transplantation centres\n1. Member States shall ensure that the competent authority:\n(a)\nkeeps a record of the activities of procurement organisations and transplantation centres, including aggregated numbers of living and deceased donors, and the types and quantities of organs procured and transplanted, or otherwise disposed of in accordance with Union and national provisions on the protection of personal data and statistical confidentiality;\n(b)\ndraws up and makes publicly accessible an annual report on activities referred to in point (a);\n(c)\nestablishes and maintains an updated record of procurement organisations and transplantation centres.\n2. Member States shall, upon the request of the Commission or another Member State, provide information on the record of procurement organisations and transplantation centres.\nArticle 19\nExchange of information\n1. The Commission shall set up a network of the competent authorities with a view to exchanging information on the experience acquired with regard to the implementation of this Directive.\n2. Where appropriate, experts on organ transplantation, representatives from European organ exchange organisations, as well as data protection supervisory authorities and other relevant parties may be associated with this network.\nCHAPTER V\nORGAN EXCHANGE WITH THIRD COUNTRIES AND EUROPEAN ORGAN EXCHANGE ORGANISATIONS\nArticle 20\nOrgan exchange with third countries\n1. Member States shall ensure that organ exchange with third countries is supervised by the competent authority. For this purpose, the competent authority and European organ exchange organisations may conclude agreements with counterparts in third countries.\n2. The supervision of organ exchange with third countries may be delegated by the Member States to European organ exchange organisations.\n3. Organ exchange, as referred to in paragraph 1, shall be allowed only where the organs:\n(a)\ncan be traced from the donor to the recipient and vice versa;\n(b)\nmeet quality and safety requirements equivalent to those laid down in this Directive.\nArticle 21\nEuropean organ exchange organisations\nMember States may conclude or allow a competent authority to conclude agreements with European organ exchange organisations, provided that such organisations ensure compliance with the requirements laid down in this Directive, delegating to those organisations, inter alia:\n(a)\nthe performance of activities provided for under the framework for quality and safety;\n(b)\nspecific tasks in relation to the exchanges of organs to and from Member States and third countries.\nCHAPTER VI\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 22\nReports concerning this Directive\n1. Member States shall report to the Commission before 27 August 2013 and every three years thereafter on the activities undertaken in relation to the provisions of this Directive, and on the experience gained in implementing it.\n2. Before 27 August 2014 and every three years thereafter, the Commission shall transmit to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, a report on the implementation of this Directive.\nArticle 23\nPenalties\nMember States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that the penalties are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission by 27 August 2012 and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendments affecting them.\nArticle 24\nAdaptation of the Annex\nThe Commission may adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 25 and subject to the conditions of Articles 26, 27 and 28 in order to:\n(a)\nsupplement or amend the minimum data set specified in Part A of the Annex only in exceptional situations where it is justified by a serious risk to human health considered as such on the basis of the scientific progress;\n(b)\nsupplement or amend the complementary data set specified in Part B of the Annex in order to adapt it to scientific progress and international work carried out in the field of quality and safety of organs intended for transplantation.\nArticle 25\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 24 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years following 27 August 2010. The Commission shall make a report in respect of the delegated powers not later than six months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of powers shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 26.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 27.\n4. Where, in the case of the emergence of new serious risk to human health, imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 28 shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 24(a).\nArticle 26\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of powers referred to in Article 24 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of powers shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 27\nObjection to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of two months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council this period shall be extended by two months.\n2. If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 28\nUrgency procedure\n1. Delegated acts adopted under this Article shall enter into force without delay and shall apply as long as no objection is expressed in accordance with paragraph 2. The notification of a delegated act adopted under this Article to the European Parliament and to the Council shall state the reasons for the use of the urgency procedure.\n2. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act adopted under this Article in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 27(1). In such a case, the act shall cease to apply. The institution which objects to such a delegated act shall state its reasons therefor.\nArticle 29\nImplementing measures\nThe Commission shall adopt, where organs are exchanged between Member States, detailed rules for the uniform implementation of this Directive in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 30(2), on the following:\n(a)\nprocedures for the transmission of information on organ and donor characterisation as specified in the Annex in accordance with Article 7(6);\n(b)\nprocedures for the transmission of the necessary information to ensure the traceability of organs in accordance with Article 10(4);\n(c)\nprocedures for ensuring the reporting of serious adverse events and reactions in accordance with Article 11(4).\nArticle 30\nCommittee\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee on organ transplantation, hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Committee\u2019.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof. The period laid down to in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.\nArticle 31\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 27 August 2012. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\nWhen they are adopted by Member States, those measures shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.\n2. This Directive shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent rules, provided that they comply with the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nCHAPTER VII\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 32\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 33\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 7 July 2010.", "references": ["76", "34", "92", "31", "69", "35", "85", "90", "86", "62", "91", "23", "22", "20", "72", "70", "81", "18", "9", "25", "15", "71", "74", "54", "60", "32", "41", "13", "98", "43", "No Label", "24", "38", "96"], "gold": ["24", "38", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 776/2012\nof 27 August 2012\non advances to be paid from 16 October 2012 of the direct payments listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular Article 29(4)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 provides that payments under support schemes listed in Annex I to that Regulation are to be made within the period from 1 December to 30 June of the following calendar year. However, Article 29(4)(a) of that Regulation permits the Commission to provide for advances.\n(2)\nIn 2012 unfavourable weather conditions in Europe, with an extreme drought in some Member States and a very harsh winter and rainfalls in others, have caused serious damages on the crop and fodder production. Severe financial difficulties have been encountered by farmers as a result, in particular by cattle producers. These difficulties are compounded by the effects of the ongoing financial crisis which have caused many farmers to be confronted with serious liquidity problems. In order to help to alleviate these difficulties it is appropriate to allow for farmers to receive advance payments of up to 50 % of the support schemes listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. Regarding the beef and veal payments provided for in Section 11 of Chapter 1 of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, Member States should also be authorised to increase the payment of advances as referred to in Article 82 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the support schemes for farmers provided for in Titles IV and V thereof (2), to up to 80 % of the payment.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure that the advance payments will be accounted for under the 2013 budget year, they should be made from 16 October 2012. The necessary verification of eligibility conditions under Article 29(3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 should nevertheless be carried out before payment of the advances in the interests of good financial management.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nMember States may pay, from 16 October 2012, advances to farmers of up to 50 % of the direct payments listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 in respect of applications made in 2012, provided that the verification of the eligibility conditions pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 has been finalised.\nRegarding the beef and veal payments provided for in Section 11 of Chapter 1 of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, Member States shall be authorised to increase the amount referred to in the first paragraph to up to 80 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 August 2012.", "references": ["35", "68", "3", "25", "90", "15", "98", "30", "56", "1", "71", "19", "8", "95", "69", "60", "75", "6", "36", "9", "5", "39", "78", "16", "91", "46", "0", "99", "10", "44", "No Label", "47", "61"], "gold": ["47", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 162/2012\nof 23 February 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2012.", "references": ["80", "94", "43", "42", "19", "85", "4", "23", "0", "9", "70", "50", "25", "60", "74", "30", "98", "81", "34", "84", "39", "8", "38", "69", "66", "86", "40", "45", "31", "48", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 164/2011\nof 21 February 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 154/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2011.", "references": ["96", "68", "0", "94", "8", "82", "91", "4", "26", "61", "57", "54", "27", "74", "83", "65", "88", "58", "66", "98", "45", "59", "33", "85", "92", "31", "52", "17", "47", "34", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/1/EU\nof 3 January 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include 6-Benzyladenine as active substance and amending Decision 2008/941/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 1112/2002 (2) and (EC) No 2229/2004 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included 6-Benzyladenine.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 24e of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/941/EC of 8 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of 6-Benzyladenine.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter the applicant) submitted a new application requesting the application of the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/941/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe United Kingdom evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 27 November 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on 6-Benzyladenine to the Commission on 27 August 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 23 November 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for 6-Benzyladenine.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing 6-Benzyladenine may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include 6-Benzyladenine in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(8)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing 6-Benzyladenine to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(9)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(10)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(11)\nDecision 2008/941/EC provides for the non-inclusion of 6-Benzyladenine and the withdrawal of authorisation of plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning 6-Benzyladenine in the Annex to that Decision.\n(12)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/941/EC accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning 6-Benzyladenine in the Annex to Decision 2008/941/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing 6-Benzyladenine as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to 6-Benzyladenine are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing 6-Benzyladenine as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning 6-Benzyladenine. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing 6-Benzyladenine as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing 6-Benzyladenine as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 January 2011.", "references": ["17", "63", "10", "70", "55", "6", "71", "88", "45", "69", "32", "64", "26", "98", "58", "68", "12", "36", "91", "42", "35", "37", "86", "54", "77", "24", "87", "89", "81", "19", "No Label", "2", "25", "41", "65", "76"], "gold": ["2", "25", "41", "65", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 610/2010\nof 12 July 2010\nimplementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1285/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009, the Council adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1285/2009 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2), establishing an updated list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies.\n(2)\nThe 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 1285/2009. In the case of two persons, an amended statement of reasons was provided in April 2010.\n(3)\nBy way of a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), the Council informed the persons, groups and entities listed in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1285/2009 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\u2019s reasons for putting them on the list where one had not already been communicated to them. In the case of two groups, an amended statement of reasons was made available in April 2010 (4).\n(4)\nThe 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.\n(5)\nThe Council has concluded that there are no longer grounds for keeping certain groups on the list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies.\n(6)\nThe Council has concluded, that with the exception of the groups referred to in recital (5), the other 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 (5), 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.\n(7)\nThe list of the persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies should be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe list provided for in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 shall be replaced by the list set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 1285/2009 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2010.", "references": ["32", "75", "56", "21", "90", "58", "7", "84", "12", "82", "5", "4", "92", "71", "17", "26", "43", "18", "35", "72", "46", "86", "87", "28", "85", "30", "81", "93", "48", "25", "No Label", "1", "2", "3"], "gold": ["1", "2", "3"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 756/2012\nof 20 August 2012\namending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1), and in particular Article 247 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 430/2010 of 20 May 2010 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (2) removed the obligation to provide an exit summary declaration for goods which are supplied for incorporation as parts of or accessories in vessels and aircraft, motor fuels, lubricants and gas necessary for the operation of vessels or aircraft, foodstuffs, and other items to be consumed or sold on board. Annex 30a to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (3) should therefore be adapted accordingly.\n(2)\nPursuant to Annex 30a to Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, information about the consignee is mandatory in an exit summary declaration. However, where the goods are carried under a negotiable bill of lading that is \u2018to order blank endorsed\u2019, the consignee is unknown. In that case a specific code should be used to show that the consignee particulars are unknown.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1917/2000 of 7 September 2000 laying down certain provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1172/95 as regards statistics on external trade (4) has been replaced by Commission Regulation (EU) No 113/2010 of 9 February 2010 implementing Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics relating to external trade with non-member countries, as regards trade coverage, definition of the data, compilation of statistics on trade by business characteristics and by invoicing currency, and specific goods or movements (5). It is therefore necessary to adapt Annexes 37 and 38 to Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\n(4)\nCouncil Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (6) lays down conditions for exemption from payment of the VAT due upon importation. One of the conditions is that at the time of importation, the importer must have provided to the competent authorities of the Member State of importation certain information. It is therefore necessary to adapt Annexes 37 and 38 to Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 to provide a harmonised solution for indicating that information in the customs declaration. The obligation to provide the information required by Article 143(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC should be stated in the description of Box 44 in Annex 37.\n(5)\nSince a Community transit operation may take place in Andorra and San Marino, a reference to those countries should be added to the reference to the EFTA countries in Annex 37 to Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, in order to reflect the fact that the guarantee or guarantee waiver may be not valid in one or more EFTA countries, nor in Andorra or in San Marino.\n(6)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1172/95 of 22 May 1995 on the statistics relating to the trading of goods by the Community and its Member States with non-member countries (7) has been replaced by Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on Community statistics relating to external trade with non-member countries and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1172/95 (8). The reference to Regulation (EC) No 1172/95 in Annex 38 to Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 should therefore be updated.\n(7)\nIn 2010 the eighth version of the Incoterms rules (\u2018Incoterms 2010\u2019) has been established. The Incoterms codes as amended by the Incoterms 2010 should therefore be set out in Annex 38 in order to update the delivery terms.\n(8)\nAnnex 38 to Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 contains a list of packaging codes based upon the list of Coded representations of packaging type names used in international trade set out in Annexes V and VI to Recommendation No 21 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Due to the revision of the code list following a technological development, it is appropriate to replace the list in Annex 38 by the latest version resulting from Revision 8.1 of Recommendation No 21.\n(9)\nCouncil Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (9) provides that excise goods may be moved under a duty suspension arrangement within the customs territory of the Community, including where the goods are moved via a third country or a third territory from the place of importation to any of the destinations referred to in Article 17(1)(a) of that Directive. The respective codes in Annex 38 to Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 should therefore be adapted to reflect the cases where no excise duties are paid upon importation.\n(10)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (10) has been replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (11). Some references and descriptions of codes in Annex 38 to Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 should therefore be adapted.\n(11)\nSince Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (12) has been replaced by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (13), it is necessary to update the reference to Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 in Annex 38 to Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\n(12)\nIt is necessary to adapt the list of goods involving a higher risk of fraud set out in Annex 44c to Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 to the Combined Nomenclature 2012 laid down in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (14).\n(13)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2454/93 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nSince Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 applies from 1 January 2012, the amendments to Annex 44c to Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 should apply from the same date.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EEC) No 2454/93 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nAnnex 30a is amended as set out in Annex I to this Regulation;\n(2)\nAnnex 37 is amended as set out in Annex II to this Regulation;\n(3)\nAnnex 38 is amended as set out in Annex III to this Regulation;\n(4)\nAnnex 44c is amended as set out in Annex IV to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2013, except Annex IV.\nAnnex IV shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 August 2012.", "references": ["3", "55", "81", "70", "80", "61", "54", "11", "94", "51", "87", "46", "24", "56", "26", "0", "31", "9", "96", "82", "66", "15", "74", "39", "8", "88", "85", "47", "17", "64", "No Label", "12", "19", "20", "21", "25", "34", "76"], "gold": ["12", "19", "20", "21", "25", "34", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 747/2010\nof 18 August 2010\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of August 2010 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 August 2010 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 August 2010 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 79,54388 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 August 2010.", "references": ["9", "33", "0", "47", "2", "58", "38", "63", "16", "72", "12", "1", "7", "3", "65", "15", "94", "14", "87", "34", "67", "68", "53", "74", "28", "56", "98", "46", "8", "59", "No Label", "21", "23", "24", "69", "76"], "gold": ["21", "23", "24", "69", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 809/2012\nof 10 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for whiting in area VIII by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 September 2012.", "references": ["7", "11", "81", "60", "21", "5", "27", "24", "85", "18", "66", "99", "57", "45", "25", "30", "87", "32", "12", "14", "46", "94", "23", "37", "88", "63", "26", "50", "78", "10", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 565/2012\nof 27 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2012.", "references": ["30", "1", "69", "64", "63", "36", "15", "56", "52", "82", "74", "72", "6", "9", "12", "49", "0", "90", "98", "84", "11", "60", "87", "89", "16", "80", "18", "24", "32", "13", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 8 November 2010\non the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Amendment to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries\n(2010/717/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Convention\u2019), was signed in Ottawa on 24 October 1978 and entered into force on 1 January 1979, thereby establishing the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO).\n(2)\nThe Community acceded to the Convention pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3179/78 of 28 December 1978 concerning the conclusion by the European Economic Community of the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (1).\n(3)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nThe General Council of NAFO adopted the Amendment to the Convention at its Annual Meetings in 2007 and 2008 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Amendment\u2019). The Amendment revises many aspects of the Convention with the primary purpose of bringing it more into line with other more recent regional conventions and international instruments within the field of fisheries and incorporating modern concepts of fisheries management.\n(5)\nThe Amendment contributes to the fulfillment by the Union of its international obligations in relation to sustainable fisheries as well as to furthering the objectives of the Treaty.\n(6)\nThe Amendment should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Amendment to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Amendment\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (2).\nThe text of the Amendment is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to give the notification provided for in Article XXI(3) of the Convention in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["39", "97", "61", "75", "86", "14", "56", "40", "93", "90", "53", "96", "16", "42", "49", "6", "64", "81", "17", "92", "27", "35", "25", "23", "13", "85", "72", "22", "69", "28", "No Label", "4", "15", "59", "67"], "gold": ["4", "15", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 26/2012\nof 12 January 2012\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for import licences lodged from 1 to 6 January 2012 under subquota IV in the context of the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 for common wheat of a quality other than high quality\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 (3) opens an overall annual import tariff quota of 3 112 030 tonnes of common wheat of a quality other than high quality. That quota is divided into four subquotas.\n(2)\nArticle 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 sets subquota IV (order number 09.4133) at 122 790 tonnes for the period 1 January to 31 December 2012.\n(3)\nThe notification made in accordance with Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 shows that the applications lodged from 1 to 6 January 2012 at 13.00 (Brussels time) in accordance with Article 4(1), subparagraph 2, of that Regulation exceed the quantities available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined and the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities applied for should be fixed.\n(4)\nNo further import licences should be issued under subquota IV as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 for the current quota period.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Each import licence application under subquota IV referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 and lodged from 1 to 6 January 2012 at 13.00 (Brussels time) shall give rise to the issue of a licence for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 2,484571 %.\n2. The issue of licences for the quantities applied for from 6 January 2012 at 13.00 (Brussels time) falling within subquota IV as referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 is hereby suspended for the current quota period.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 January 2012.", "references": ["27", "40", "6", "10", "1", "16", "94", "29", "32", "86", "58", "37", "74", "85", "80", "70", "7", "39", "59", "45", "3", "66", "44", "71", "69", "62", "2", "60", "14", "56", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 12 October 2011\namending Decision 2004/558/EC as regards the infectious bovine rhinotracheitis-free status of certain administrative regions in Germany\n(notified under document C(2011) 7165)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/674/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), and in particular Articles 9(2) and 10(2) thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 64/432/EEC lays down rules for trade within the Union in bovine animals. Article 9 thereof provides that a Member State, which has a compulsory national control programme for one of the contagious diseases listed in Annex E(II) thereto, may submit its programme to the Commission for approval. That list includes infectious bovine rhinotracheitis. Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis is the description of the most prominent clinical signs of the infection with the bovine herpesvirus type 1 (BHV1).\n(2)\nArticle 9 of Directive 64/432/EEC also provides for the definition of the additional guarantees which may be required in intra-Union trade.\n(3)\nIn addition, Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC provides that where a Member State considers that its territory or part thereof is free from one of the diseases listed in Annex E(II) to that Directive, it is to present appropriate supporting documentation to the Commission. That Article also provides for the definition of the additional guarantees which may be required in intra-Union trade.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2004/558/EC of 15 July 2004 implementing Council Directive 64/432/EEC as regards additional guarantees for intra-Community trade in bovine animals relating to infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and the approval of the eradication programmes presented by certain Member States (2) approves the programmes for the control and eradication of BHV1 presented by the Member States listed in Annex I thereto for the regions listed in that Annex and for which additional guarantees apply in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 64/432/EEC.\n(5)\nIn addition, Annex II to Decision 2004/558/EC lists the regions of the Member States that are considered free of BHV1 and to which additional guarantees apply in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC.\n(6)\nAll regions of Germany, with the exception of the administrative regions of Regierungsbezirke Oberpfalz, Oberfranken, Mittelfranken and Unterfranken in the Federal State of Bavaria are currently listed in Annex I to Decision 2004/558/EC. Those four administrative regions in the Federal State of Bavaria are considered free of BHV1 and are therefore currently listed in Annex II to that Decision.\n(7)\nGermany has now applied for the remaining administrative regions in the Federal State of Bavaria, namely the administrative regions of Regierungsbezirke Oberbayern, Niederbayern and Schwaben, to be considered free of BHV1 and for the additional guaranties, in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC, to be extended to cover those administrative regions.\n(8)\nFollowing the evaluation of the supporting documentation submitted by that Member State, those three BHV1-free administrative regions should no longer be listed in Annex I to Decision 2004/558/EC, but instead be listed in Annex II thereto and the application of the additional guaranties in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC should be extended to them.\n(9)\nDecision 2004/558/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2004/558/EC are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 October 2011.", "references": ["39", "98", "92", "9", "13", "47", "52", "2", "93", "67", "18", "86", "36", "5", "58", "42", "94", "6", "4", "71", "29", "43", "22", "17", "74", "64", "81", "30", "77", "60", "No Label", "20", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 7 July 2011\non a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Germany in November 2010\n(notified under document C(2011) 4773)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2011/404/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAvian influenza is an infectious viral disease of poultry and other captive birds with a severe impact on the profitability of poultry farming causing disturbance to trade within the Union and export to third countries.\n(2)\nIn the event of an outbreak of avian influenza, there is a risk that the disease agent spreads to other poultry holdings within that Member State, but also to other Member States and to third countries through trade in live poultry or their products.\n(3)\nCouncil Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and repealing Directive 92/40/EEC (2) sets out measures which in the event of an outbreak have to be immediately implemented by Member States as a matter of urgency to prevent further spread of the virus.\n(4)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. Pursuant to Article 4(2) of that Decision, Member States shall obtain a financial contribution towards the costs of certain measures to eradicate avian influenza.\n(5)\nArticle 4(3), first and second indents of Decision 2009/470/EC lays down rules on the percentage of the costs incurred by the Member State that may be covered by the financial contribution from the Union.\n(6)\nThe payment of a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to eradicate avian influenza is subject to the rules laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (3).\n(7)\nOutbreaks of avian influenza occurred in Germany in November 2010. Germany took measures in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC to combat those outbreaks.\n(8)\nThe German authorities were able to demonstrate through reports provided in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and continuous submission of information on the development of the disease situation that they have efficiently implemented the control measures provided for in Directive 2005/94/EC leading to the rapid containment of the disease.\n(9)\nThe German authorities have therefore fulfilled all their technical and administrative obligations with regard to the measures provided for in Article 4(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFinancial contribution from the Union to Germany\n1. A financial contribution from the Union shall be granted to Germany towards the costs incurred by this Member State in taking measures pursuant to Article 4(2) and (3) of Decision 2009/470/EC, to combat avian influenza in Germany in November 2010.\n2. The amount of the financial contribution mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be fixed in a subsequent decision to be adopted in accordance with the procedure established in Article 40(2) of Decision 2009/470/EC.\nArticle 2\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 7 July 2011.", "references": ["90", "39", "12", "75", "64", "98", "19", "24", "25", "58", "17", "51", "82", "5", "1", "35", "76", "88", "67", "30", "89", "84", "3", "72", "86", "37", "69", "26", "41", "9", "No Label", "10", "38", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "38", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 817/2010\nof 16 September 2010\nlaying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport\n(recast)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 170 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 639/2003 of 9 April 2003 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). Since further amendments are to be made, it should be recast in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 168 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the granting and the payment of the refund for exports of live bovine animals are subject to compliance with legislation of the Union concerning animal welfare and, in particular, Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations (4).\n(3)\nIn order to guarantee that the animal welfare standards are maintained, a monitoring system should be introduced comprising compulsory checks at the exit point from the customs territory of the Community and after leaving the customs territory of the Community where there is a change of means of transport and also at the place of the first unloading in the third country of final destination.\n(4)\nIn order to facilitate proper checks on exit from the customs territory of the Community, it is necessary to designate exit points.\n(5)\nThe assessment of the physical condition and state of health of animals requires specific expertise and experience. Checks should therefore be carried out by a veterinarian. Moreover, the extent of those checks should be clarified and a model report set out in order to make those checks accurate and harmonised.\n(6)\nChecks in third countries for the purposes of this Regulation should be compulsory and should be carried out by agencies of Member States or by international control and supervisory agencies (hereinafter referred to as \u2018SAs\u2019) approved and controlled by Member States in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (5). In order to carry out checks for the purposes of this Regulation, the SAs should in particular meet the requirements for approval and control set out in Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 612/2009.\n(7)\nArticle 168 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and this Regulation provide that compliance with legislation of the Union on animal welfare is a condition for the payment of export refunds. Therefore, it should be clearly set out that, without prejudice to cases of force majeure recognised by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, a violation of those animal welfare provisions does not trigger a reduction but the loss of the export refund, related to the number of animals for which the welfare requirements were not respected. It equally results from those provisions, as well as from the animal welfare rules set out in Articles 3 to 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 and the Annexes referred to therein, that the refund is to be lost for the animals for which those welfare rules were not respected, irrespective of the concrete physical conditions of the animals.\n(8)\nIn addition to the non-payment of the export refund, when there is evidence that Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 is not complied with for a high number of animals, appropriate penalties should be applied. Furthermore, where such non-compliance is due to a complete disregard of animal welfare requirements, the total loss of the refund should be established.\n(9)\nGiven the discrepancies between different language versions, it is necessary to clarify that the refund for all animals indicated in the export declaration is to be refused if the number of animals for which no refund is paid amounts to more than 5 % of the number endorsed in the accepted export declaration, but at least three animals, or to 10 animals or more, but at least 2 % of the number endorsed in the accepted export declaration. Article 6(2)(b) should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nMember States should provide the Commission with the necessary information for the purposes of monitoring and reporting on the application of this Regulation.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThe payment of export refunds for live bovine animals falling within CN code 0102 (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018animals\u2019), pursuant to Article 168 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be subject to compliance, during the transport of the animals to the first place of unloading in the third country of final destination, with Articles 3 to 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 and the Annexes referred to therein, and with this Regulation.\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, in the case of transport by road, the \u2018first place of unloading in the third country of final destination\u2019 shall mean the place at which the first animal is finally unloaded from a road vehicle, thus excluding a place where the journey is interrupted to rest, feed or water the animals.\nArticle 2\nChecks within the customs territory of the Community\n1. The exit of the animals from the customs territory of the Community may take place only through the following exit points:\n(a)\na border inspection post approved by a Commission decision for veterinary checks on live ungulates from third countries;\nor\n(b)\nan exit point designated by the Member State.\n2. The official veterinarian at the exit point shall verify in accordance with Council Directive 96/93/EC (6) for those animals for which an export declaration is accepted whether:\n(a)\nthe requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 have been complied with from the place of departure, as defined in Article 2 (r) of that Regulation, until the exit point;\nand\n(b)\nthe transport conditions for the rest of the journey comply with Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 and that the necessary arrangements have been taken to ensure its compliance until the first unloading in the third country of final destination.\nThe official veterinarian who has conducted the checks shall complete a report in accordance with the model set out in Annex I to this Regulation certifying whether the results of the checks performed in accordance with the first subparagraph are satisfactory or not satisfactory.\nThe veterinarian authority responsible for the exit point shall keep that report for at least three years. A copy of the report shall be sent to the paying agency.\n3. If the official veterinarian at the exit point is satisfied that the requirements of paragraph 2 are met, he shall certify this by one of the entries listed in Annex II and by stamping and signing the document constituting evidence of exit from the customs territory of the Community, either in Section J of the control copy T5 or in the most appropriate place on the national document.\n4. The official veterinarian at the exit point shall endorse on the document referred to in paragraph 3 the total number of animals for which an export declaration had been accepted minus the number of animals which gave birth or aborted during transport, died or for which the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 were not complied with.\n5. Member States may require the exporter to give advance notice of the arrival of the consignment at the exit point to the official veterinarian at the exit point.\n6. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where the simplified Community transit procedure for carriage by rail or large containers referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 applies, the official veterinarian shall carry out checks at the office where the animals are placed under such procedure.\nThe certification and endorsements referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article shall be made on the document used for the purpose of payment of the refund or on the T5 control copy in the case described in Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009.\nArticle 3\nChecks in third countries\n1. After leaving the customs territory of the Community, the exporter shall ensure that the animals shall be subject to a check at:\n(a)\nany place where there is a change of means of transport except where such change was not planned and is due to exceptional and unforeseen circumstances;\n(b)\nthe place of the first unloading in the third country of final destination.\n2. An international control and supervisory agency, approved and controlled for this purpose by a Member State in accordance with Articles 18 to 23 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009, or an official agency of a Member State shall be responsible for carrying out the checks provided for in paragraph 1.\nThe checks provided for in paragraph 1 shall be carried out by a veterinarian holding a diploma, certificate or other evidence of formal qualification in veterinary medicine as referred to in Article 21 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7). However, the Member States, which have approved the international control and supervisory agencies, referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall verify that those agencies check that veterinarians holding a qualification not covered by that Directive possess the knowledge of the requirements imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. Those checks shall be carried out in a reasonable, objective and impartial manner through appropriate procedures.\nA report of each check carried out pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be completed in accordance with the models set out in Annexes III and IV to this Regulation by the veterinarian who carried out the check.\nArticle 4\nProcedure for payment of export refunds\n1. The exporter shall inform the competent authority of the Member State where the export declaration is accepted about all necessary details of the journey, at the latest when the export declaration is lodged.\nAt the same time, or at the latest when he becomes aware thereof, the exporter shall inform the competent authority about any possible change of the means of transport.\n2. Applications for the payment of export refunds drawn up in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 shall be supplemented within the time limit laid down in that Article by:\n(a)\nthe document referred to in Article 2(3) of this Regulation duly completed;\nand\n(b)\nthe reports provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 3(2) of this Regulation.\n3. Where the checks referred to in Article 3(1) could not be carried out due to circumstances beyond the control of the exporter, the competent authority, on a reasoned request from the exporter, may accept other documents which prove to its satisfaction that Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 has been complied with.\nArticle 5\nNon-payment of export refunds\n1. The total sum of the export refund per animal calculated in accordance with the second subparagraph shall not be paid for:\n(a)\nanimals which have died during transport, except as provided in paragraph 2;\n(b)\nanimals which have given birth or aborted during transport before their first unloading in the third country of final destination;\n(c)\nanimals for which, in the light of the documents referred to in Article 4(2) and/or all other elements at its disposal concerning compliance with this Regulation, the competent authority considers that Articles 3 to 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 and the Annexes referred to therein have not been complied with.\nThe weight of an animal in respect of which the refund is not paid shall be determined on a flat-rate basis by dividing the total weight in kilograms given in the export declaration by the total number of animals given in that same declaration.\n2. Where the animals have died during transport as a result of force majeure after leaving the customs territory of the Community:\n(a)\nin the case of a non-differentiated refund, the total refund shall be paid;\n(b)\nin the case of a differentiated refund, the part of the refund calculated in accordance with Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 shall be paid.\nArticle 6\nPenalties\n1. The refund shall be further reduced by an amount equal to the amount of refund which is not paid pursuant to Article 5(1), if the number of animals for which no export refund is paid amounts to:\n(a)\nmore than 1 % of the number endorsed in the accepted export declaration, but at least two animals;\nor\n(b)\nmore than five animals.\n2. The refund for all animals indicated in the export declaration shall be refused if the number of animals for which no refund is paid pursuant to Article 5(1) amounts to:\n(a)\nmore than 5 % of the number endorsed in the accepted export declaration, but at least three animals;\nor\n(b)\n10 animals or more, but at least 2 % of the number endorsed in the accepted export declaration.\n3. For the purpose of paragraphs 1 and 2, the animals which died during transport and the animals that gave birth or aborted before their first unloading in the third country of final destination for which the exporter proves to the satisfaction of the competent authority that their death or the birth or abortion was not the result of non-compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 shall not be taken into account.\n4. The penalty referred to in Article 48 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 shall not apply to the amount not paid and the amount of the reduction pursuant to Article 5 of this Regulation and to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article.\nArticle 7\nRecovery of amounts over-paid\nWhere it is established after payment of the refund that Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 has not been complied with, the relevant part of the refund, including where appropriate the penalty pursuant to Article 6 of this Regulation, shall be considered to have been paid unduly and shall be recovered in accordance with Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009.\nArticle 8\nCommunication of information\nMember States shall notify to the Commission no later than 31 March of each year the following information relating to the application of this Regulation during the previous calendar year:\n(a)\nthe number of export declarations for animals for which the refund was paid and the number of animals for which the refund was paid;\n(b)\nthe number of export declarations for which the refund was totally or partially not paid and the number of animals for which the refund was not paid;\n(c)\nthe number of export declarations for which the refund was totally or partially recovered and the number of animals for which the refund was recovered, including those for which the recovery of the refunds relates to export operations carried out before the period concerned;\n(d)\nthe reasons for the non-payment and the recovery of the refund for the animals referred to in points (b) and (c), as well as the number of those animals recorded under category B, C and D respectively as referred to in Annexes I, III and IV;\n(e)\nthe number of penalties for each category provided for in Article 6(1) and (2) with the corresponding numbers of animals and amounts of refund not paid;\n(f)\nthe amounts of the refunds in euro that were not paid and the amounts that were recovered, including the recovered amounts corresponding to export operations carried out before the period concerned;\n(g)\nthe number of export declarations and the amounts for which the recovery procedure is still in process;\n(h)\nany other information Member States consider relevant regarding the functioning of this Regulation.\nArticle 9\nRepeal\nRegulation (EC) No 639/2003 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex VI.\nArticle 10\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 September 2010.", "references": ["56", "13", "43", "82", "45", "68", "93", "72", "2", "18", "95", "32", "80", "5", "53", "33", "64", "73", "85", "98", "1", "34", "89", "84", "90", "6", "97", "8", "96", "70", "No Label", "20", "22", "54", "61", "65", "66"], "gold": ["20", "22", "54", "61", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 857/2010\nof 27 September 2010\nimposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019) (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Provisional measures\n(1)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 473/2010 (2) (\u2018the provisional Regulation\u2019), imposed a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (\u2018the countries concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 20 July 2009 by the Polyethylene Terephthalate Committee of Plastics Europe (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain polyethylene terephthalate.\n(3)\nAs set out in recital (15) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (\u2018the investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n(4)\nIn the parallel anti-dumping proceeding, the Commission by Regulation (EU) No 472/2010 (3), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran and the United Arab Emirates.\n1.2. Subsequent procedure\n(5)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional countervailing measures (\u2018provisional disclosure\u2019), several interested parties made written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were also granted the opportunity to be heard.\n(6)\nThe Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties following the provisional disclosure were considered and, where appropriate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly.\n(7)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (\u2018final disclosure\u2019). They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.\n(8)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and, where appropriate, the findings were modified accordingly.\n1.3. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(9)\nSome interested parties claimed that the sample of EU producers was not representative and inconsistent and that therefore the injury analysis was deficient. In particular, it was claimed that sampling was not necessary since the number of producers was not large. In addition, it was claimed that by \u2018artificially\u2019 splitting company groups into individual legal entities, the sample would not contain some of the market leaders (Artenius, M&G Polimeri) and that the methodology for the selection of the sample is inconsistent since the sample also included two groups of companies. It was also claimed that the sample was not representative since it did not contain any producer that is selling to a related PET processor in sufficient quantities. As a result, the institutions allegedly could not assess the real supply capability of the Union industry and did not take into account the Union industry\u2019s conflict of interest. Moreover, as one company did not provide all necessary information and was excluded from the sample, the representativity allegedly dropped to 28 % of EU production. The same parties claimed that the selected sample was not statistically valid.\n(10)\nWith regard to the argument that sampling was not necessary since the number of producers was not large, it is reiterated that in the sampling exercise 14 Union producers belonging to eight groups of companies came forward. Given the objectively high number of EU producers that cooperated, i.e. 14, sampling was applied in accordance with Article 27(1) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the largest representative volume of sales that could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sample selected consisted of five individual companies (with six producing locations).\n(11)\nWith regard to the first claim concerning the representativity of the sample, it should be noted that the institutions can include individual companies which are part of a company group within the sample as long as they are representative and have separate financial accounts. Otherwise, investigating all fourteen EU producers belonging to the eight groups of companies would have prevented the timely completion of the investigation. However, the fact that two company groups have been included in the sample is not inconsistent with the sampling methodology applied in this case, i.e. the largest representative volumes of sales to EU clients.\n(12)\nAs regards Indorama, this group had two different production plants in the IP - one in the Netherlands and the other one in UK. Including this group in the sample is in line with the sampling methodology applied since those plants formed one entity from the legal and financial perspective. As regards Equipolymers, which had two separate entities producing PET in the IP (one in Italy and another one in Germany), the company reported consolidated figures for both locations. Given that the verification of these consolidated figures was possible during one visit at the company\u2019s headquarters, it was decided to treat Equipolymers PET producing companies as one entity for the purpose of this proceeding. With regard to the claim that Artenius and M&G Polimeri had to be included in the sample because they were the market leaders, it is noted that none of their individual entities belonged to the companies with the highest volumes of sales to EU clients.\n(13)\nAs regards the claim that the sample was not representative because it did not include one producer who produces mainly for internal consumption, it should be noted that the capability to supply can be examined in the framework of the Union interest analysis if such a claim is made and for that purpose the captive consumption can be deducted from the production volume. Thus, there is no need to have such a producer in the sample for the examination of certain injury factors. Secondly, any double interest resulting from the position of a company as EU producer and processor at the same time can also be assessed in the Union interest analysis. The position of a company as EU producer and processor is not linked with the performance of the Union industry where sales to unrelated customers in the EU are taken as a benchmark. The claim is thus rejected.\n(14)\nWith regard to the claim concerning the overall representativity of the sample, it is reiterated that the reduction of the sample to four companies lowered the representativity from 65 % to 47 % of the sales by all cooperating producers. The same four companies accounted for 52 % of the Union production. This is considered to be a representative sample of the EU producers in terms of sales to independent customers in the EU.\n(15)\nAs regards the claim that the sample selected was not statistically valid, it is noted that Article 27(1) of the basic Regulation clearly allows for a sample to be based on the largest representative volume of the sales that can reasonably be investigated in the time available, as an alternative for a \u2018statistically valid\u2019 sample.\n(16)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the sampling, the findings in recitals (5) to (14) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(17)\nIt is recalled that, in recital (16) of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned was defined as polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, originating in the countries concerned and currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20.\n(18)\nMoreover, in recital (18) of the provisional Regulation, it was stated that the investigation showed that PET produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry, and the PET produced and sold on the domestic markets of the countries concerned, and exported to the Union were like products.\n(19)\nSince the product under investigation was considered a homogeneous product, it was not further subdivided into different product types for calculating the injury margins.\n(20)\nOne exporting producer claimed that PET should be subdivided into different product types according to their different viscosity numbers since the viscosity number is essential to determine the different possible applications of the PET type produced. It was considered that the claim should be accepted and the methodology for calculating injury margins was adapted accordingly.\n3. SUBSIDISATION\n3.1. Iran\n3.1.1. Introduction\n(21)\nThe Government of Iran and the cooperating exporting producer submitted comments on the following schemes, countervailed in the provisional Regulation:\n(I)\nMeasures connected to Special Economic Zones (\u2018SEZs\u2019) - Petrochemical SEZ\n(II)\nFinancing from National Petrochemical Company to the PET exporting producer\n3.1.2. Specific Schemes\n(I) Measures connected to Special Economic Zones (SEZs) - Petrochemical SEZ\n(22)\nThe Government of Iran (GOI) disputed that duty-free imports in Free Trade Zones of raw materials and capital goods can be countervailed. Free Trade Zone and Special Economic Zones are by definition duty-free zones for import and export, compatible with the WTO. Besides, the GOI as well as the cooperating exporting producer asserted that the import of duty-free capital goods is not contingent in law on export performance because this exemption exists also for the companies established in the rest of the Iranian territory.\n(23)\nWith respect to the compliance of SEZs with WTO rules, it is noted that the general argument submitted cannot dispute the established facts that the subsidies in question are countervailiable as no elaborated analysis was provided to rebut the one presented in the provisional Regulation. With regards to the duty-free importation of capital goods in Iran, the information at the time submitting comments on the provisional disclosure suggests that this possibility exists only for companies that are modernizing their infrastructure, i.e. it is not an automatic provision applicable to all parties. Therefore, the above claims had to be rejected.\n(24)\nThe cooperating exporting producer argued that the Commission disregarded the principle of non-discrimination given that similar rules and regimes are also applied in other countries. The company also claimed that the Commission did not correctly inform it of the scope of the verification visit and the corresponding information requirements before such verification.\n(25)\nAs regards the general allegation of violation of the principle of non-discrimination, it is recalled that the Commission initiated this anti-subsidy investigation against the three countries mentioned in the complaint in line with the provisions of Article 10 of the basic Regulation. Thus the Commission\u2019s recommendation could only be based on the findings of this investigation. As to the alleged lack of advance information on the points to be investigated, it is noted that the Commission informed the cooperating exporting producer well in advance of the verification visit that it would seek information during the verification visit on the relationship between the exporting producer and its shareholder. Therefore, these claims had to be rejected.\n(26)\nThe cooperating exporting producer brought to the attention of the institutions two clerical mistakes in the calculation of the duty exemption on imports of one raw material of the production process and in the total import value of capital goods exempted. Those errors are herein corrected. The revised subsidy rates are 0,14 % for the duty-free import of input products and 0,72 % for the duty-free import of capital goods. The revised total subsidy rate for this scheme is 0,86 %.\n(27)\nIn the light of the above and in the absence of any other relevant comments, the findings in relation to this scheme as set out in recitals (20) to (44) of the provisional Regulation, as modified by recital (26) of this Regulation, are hereby confirmed.\n(II) Financing from National Petrochemical Company to the PET exporting producer\n(28)\nThe cooperating exporting producer (Shahid Tondguyan Petrochemical Co. or STPC) claimed that its main shareholder, National Petrochemical Company (NPC), is not a public body and that the GOI neither entrusted nor directed NPC to make payments to STPC. In addition, it was submitted that the NPC financing to the STPC has to be considered as repayable and thus not a subsidy.\n(29)\nIn addressing these claims, it should be recalled that, in order to assess whether an entity should be considered as a public body for purposes of anti-subsidy investigations, the following factors are relevant: 1) government ownership; 2) the government\u2019s presence on the entity\u2019s board of directors; 3) the government\u2019s control over the entity\u2019s activities and the entity\u2019s pursuit of governmental policies or interests; and 4) whether the entity is created by statute. All these requirements have been analysed as reported in recital (52) of the provisional Regulation. The NPC, as a government body, does not need entrustment or delegation, concepts that refer to private entities. In fact the investigation has established that NPC\u2019s role is to develop and operate the country\u2019s petrochemical sector and that the company has received from the GOI the additional task of managing as a state administrative authority the Petrochemical Special Economic Zone. Thus any claim disputing NPC\u2019s public body role has to be rejected.\n(30)\nWith regards to the claim that the financing to STPC is repayable, it is pertinent to note that the investigation has established that the repayment of this funding is only a hypothetical allegation as no evidence was provided at any stage of the proceeding that such repayment has materialized. Indeed, as explained in the recital (51) of the provisional Regulation, the fact that the non-repayable funds have been accumulated since at least 2004 confirms that this is a recurring subsidy, the purpose of which is to keep in operation the sole cooperating Iranian exporting producer. Account taken of the above, the relevant claim has to be rejected.\n(31)\nThe cooperating exporting producer also argued that the subsidy amount was overstated. To this respect it was claimed that it is a perfectly normal business practice in Iran not to add interest between a parent company (in this case NPC) and its subsidiary (in this case STPC). It was also argued that when calculating the subsidy rate the amounts used on total funding provided by NPC and total turnover of STPC were not correct as the turnover figure was understated and that another amount should have been used while the total funding provided was overstated as certain amounts should not to be attributed to the funds provided from NPC to STPC.\n(32)\nThe above claims had to be rejected. With respect to the former claim concerning the interest rate calculations, it is noted that evidence gathered does not uphold the company\u2019s claim that the normal business practice in Iran is that no interest is added between a parent company and its subsidiary in their funding transactions. Moreover, any such practice is clearly inconsistent with the usual economic practice of private investors.\n(33)\nAs regards the latter argument, it is pertinent to note that the subsidy amount has been calculated by using the financing and turnover figures provided by the cooperating exporting producer and verified during the verification visit.\n(34)\nWith respect to the alleged new total turnover it is recalled that the figure provided at the time of submitting comments on the provisional Regulation is not substantiated by any verifiable evidence and does not tally with what the company has reported prior to and during the verification visit.\n(35)\nWith respect to the total funding figure, the cooperating exporting producer argued that certain amounts should not be considered as forming part of NPC\u2019s funding to STPC. Nevertheless the information provided could not corroborate this claim as no evidence was provided to prove that the amounts in question were not relevant to NPC\u2019s funding to STPC. In fact part of the explanations given reconfirmed that NPC was acting as a public body taking up obligations for financing the cooperating exporting producer without charging any interest that should have been honoured by another public body. Therefore, no deduction from the total financing amount can be granted since no verifiable evidence was provided.\n(36)\nThe GOI claimed that pursuant to Article 14 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement), \u2018government provision of equity capital \u2026 [and] loan by government shall not be considered as conferring a benefit \u2026 \u2019, so the NPC financing to SPTC should not be considered a subsidy. This claim has to be rejected since the same abovementioned Article 14 concludes that \u2018the government provision of equity capital shall not be considered as conferring a benefit, unless the investment decision can be regarded as inconsistent with the usual investment practice of private investors in the territory of that Member\u2019. This practice is indeed inconsistent with the usual investment practice of private investors since no commercial organisation in any WTO Member would conceivably continue to provide such non-repayable funding. In any event it should be noted that Iran is not a WTO member.\n(37)\nIn the light of the above and in the absence of any other relevant comments, the findings in relation to this scheme as set out in recitals (45) to (57) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.1.3. Amount of countervailable subsidies\n(38)\nAccount taken of recitals (21) to (37) above, the definitive amount of countervailiable subsidies in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the sole cooperating Iranian exporting producer is 51,88 %.\n3.2. Pakistan\n3.2.1. Introduction\n(39)\nThe Government of Pakistan (GOP) and the cooperating exporting producer submitted comments on the following schemes, countervailed in the provisional Regulation:\n(I)\nManufacturing Bond Scheme\n(II)\nImports of plant, machinery and equipment in Manufacturing Bond\n(III)\nTariff protection on purchases of PTA in the domestic market\n(IV)\nFinal Tax Regime (FTR)\n(V)\nExport Long-Term Fixed Rate Financing Scheme (LTF-EOP)\n(VI)\nExport Finance Scheme from the State Bank of Pakistan (EFS)\n(VII)\nFinance under F.E. Circular No 25 of the State Bank of Pakistan.\n(40)\nThe GOP as a preliminary remark submitted that the Commission has failed to grasp or overlooked its past submissions on the subsidy schemes. The cooperating exporting producer as a preliminary remark argued that the past submissions of the GOP provided a reasoned legal analysis demonstrating that the schemes should not be considered as \u2018prohibited\u2019 subsidies. It was also argued by this party that the Commission based its findings in the provisional Regulation not only on an incorrect appraisal of factual elements but rather on an incorrect legal analysis as well. It was further claimed that the correct legal analysis was the one presented by the GOP.\n(41)\nWith respect to submissions prior to the provisional Regulation, it is noted that the Commission has fully taken them into consideration during the process of the investigation as they formed part, together with the relevant questionnaire replies of the parties and subsequent data provided, of the information on the basis of which the provisional determination was made.\n(42)\nFurthermore, it is noted that the Commission has accurately listed the legal provisions of the relevant schemes and the practical implementations derived from them. No evidence was provided that the legal provisions listed were not accurate. As to the Commission\u2019s legal analysis, this was based on the relevant provisions of the basic Regulation and reinforced by the long-standing legal analysis used by the EU in past anti-subsidy investigation when analysing for example duty drawback schemes, export credit schemes and income tax schemes (4). The fact that a party does not agree with the presented legal analysis does not imply that this analysis is incorrect, especially when no evidence is provided to corroborate this claim. This is even more obvious since the GOP expressed with its submission to provisional Regulation its willingness to amend to the extent possible a number of schemes. Account taken of the above the claims presented in recital (40) had to be rejected.\n3.2.2. Specific Schemes\n(I) Manufacturing Bond Scheme\n(43)\nThe GOP and the cooperating exporting producer reiterated their views that the Manufacturing Bond scheme is properly managed thanks to the existence of an effective implementation and monitoring system that records consumption/deduction and controls duty-free raw materials and the company\u2019s actual consumption as per its total production records. It was also submitted that the input/output ratio is based on actual consumption of the relevant company availing the benefits of the scheme and that the record on input is subject to verification. According to these claims the input/output ratio was established with a verified benchmarking system that was regularly updated on the basis of company\u2019s actual consumption. After any change in the ratio, the excess remission of the previous period was added back to update the stock-in register, thus obtaining the actual stock, and it is on the basis of such actual stock that the company availing benefits under the scheme must demonstrate the export of finished products. Furthermore, the cooperating exporting producer submitted two letters in which it disclosed to the Customs authorities the materials saved in the Manufacturing Bond showing that the company was allowed to utilise the resultant excess input materials for the manufacturing of goods for export in the future.\n(44)\nIn regard to this scheme, as stated in recital (70) of the provisional Regulation, the relevant record of input goods received, manufactured and exported was not kept on the basis of actual consumption. Only the theoretical consumption was registered, according to an Analysis Certificate, with input-output ratios of all the raw materials for producing 1 000 kg of outputs. These input-output norms are set out by the authorities and periodically reviewed on the basis of information derived from the cooperating exporting producer but there are no clear rules and no evidence of how these reviews are performed. In addition, following the revisions made on the Analysis Certificate which indicated the existence of excess remission no follow-up action was taken by the authorities to verify the totality of the previous actual consumption and to request payments made for the previous years. In other words no control of any excess remission on the duties foregone was performed. The cooperating exporting producer alleged that the excess raw materials accounted in the previous period was added back to update the stock-in register, thus obtaining the actual stock. It is worth noting that this practice relies on the fact that it is the exporting producer that, by its own initiative, proceeds to show to the relevant authority the excess remission accumulated in the previous period. More interestingly, this practice was not in any way foreseen in the legislative provisions disciplining this scheme. All the above confirms that no effective implementation and monitoring system exist for this scheme. In these circumstances, all the relevant claims had to be rejected.\n(45)\nBoth parties argued also that the customs duty under the normal import regime was zero during the IP and thus no government revenue is foregone on imports of PTA under Manufacturing Bond.\n(46)\nThis claim had to be rejected. It is clear from the information submitted by parties that the normal customs duty on imports of PTA is 7,5 %. By derogation and under certain conditions parties may avail of a zero duty rate. The fact that the GOP has established the Manufacturing Bond scheme or the scheme on Tariff protection on purchases of PTA does not in any way imply that the customs duty rate for all imports of PTA is zero. In fact, the existence of the aforesaid schemes confirms that there is revenue forgone for the government and this is the reason why special derogation schemes with specific rules and eligible users have been implemented.\n(47)\nThe cooperating exporting producer also claimed that there was no breach of Article 349 of Chapter XV of the Pakistani Customs Rules 2001. In this respect it was submitted that the Manufacturing Bond covers all the company\u2019s factory and thus the premises of the warehouse fulfilled the relevant rules requesting an independent area having an independent entry or exit from a public area and having no other entry or exit with the manufacturing area and separate stores of finished goods, rejects and waste clearly ear-marked in the premises.\n(48)\nWith regards to the above comments, it has to be reiterated that the verification visit revealed that only the raw materials imported duty-free were separated from locally procured input goods. The premises of the warehouse, that is the bonded warehouse and the manufacturing bond, were not in an independent area having an independent entry or exit from a public area and having no other entry or exit, as prescribed in Article 349 mentioned above. Furthermore the party\u2019s claim that its entire factory is under Manufacturing Bond is not based on any verifiable evidence (e.g. an explicit permit on the surface of the Manufacturing Bond) apart from an analysis of the wording of Article 349. Thus, the relevant claims had to be rejected.\n(49)\nThe GOP provided very recent administrative changes in relation to this scheme. It has introduced a more detailed definition of the Manufacturing Bond in the legislation and has taken steps to enhance the relevant authority\u2019s control on the scheme.\n(50)\nWith respect to the control exercised by the authority on the Manufacturing Bond, the changes introduced do not address the most critical flaws of the system as identified by the current investigation i.e.: (i) the lack of reporting of the actual consumption of raw materials imported and (ii) the lack of a verification system that focuses on the actual results rather than the historically set standards. Furthermore, as the implementation of any change made with respect to this scheme needs to be properly verified (the problems identified refer also to the management of the scheme) a certain period of time would be necessary before making any conclusive ruling on the amendments made to the scheme and the way the authorities have implemented these amendments and ensured a properly managed verification system.\n(51)\nThe GOP expressed also its willingness to provide the Commission with an undertaking concerning the concrete implementation of the rules applicable to the Manufacturing Bond. It was proposed that this would take the form of providing evidence that the cooperating exporting producer complies with the new rules (e.g. changes in the premises, revision of input/output ratios, remission of duties), providing periodical reports and allowing for verifications visits by the Commission.\n(52)\nAs regards the above it is noted that by this undertaking proposal the GOP indirectly confirms all the flaws highlighted by the provisional Regulation with respect to this scheme. In addition, as it is stated at recital (50) above it is not possible to accept an undertaking referring to the management of a scheme on the basis of evidence that would materialise only in the future. Finally, such an undertaking is not practical because the necessary monitoring would effectively require repeating important parts of the investigation on a regular basis. In this respect it should be highlighted that the GOP and/or the cooperating exporting producer may request, should the relevant provisions of Article 19 of the basic Regulation be fulfilled, an interim review of the measures.\n(53)\nIn the light of the above and in the absence of any other relevant comments, the findings in relation to this scheme as set out in recitals (60) to (80) of the provisional Regulation, as modified in recitals (44) to (52) above, are hereby confirmed.\n(II) Imports of plant, machinery and equipment in Manufacturing Bond\n(54)\nConcerning this scheme both parties claimed that the interest rate used to calculate the subsidy margin has to be the interest rate available to the concerned exporter during the IP. Further, the parties argued that as the plant, machinery and equipment were used for the production of PET meant for exports as well as domestic sales, the subsidy margin should be determined on the basis of the total turnover of the exporting producer.\n(55)\nIn replying to these claims it should be noted that the interest rate used in the calculation is the commercial interest rate applied during the IP in Pakistan, as sourced from the website of the State Bank of Pakistan. This rate represents the normal credit rate prevailing in the market. With regards to the denominator in the subsidy calculation, it has to be recalled that the precondition to avail of the scheme is to install the imported machinery in the Manufacturing Bond which is a system of duty-free import of raw materials used only for subsequent export of the production under the Manufacturing Bond. Thus, the subsidy amount (nominator) has to be allocated over the total export turnover during the IP because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance. Consequently, all the above claims had to be rejected.\n(56)\nIn the light of the above and in the absence of any other relevant comments, the findings in relation to this scheme, as set out in recitals (81) to (92) of the provisional Regulation, are hereby confirmed.\n(III) Tariff protection on purchases of PTA in the domestic market\n(57)\nThe GOP argued that the price of locally produced PTA is not reduced by 7,5 % over the international price and that the refund is not only given for domestically-produced PTA but also for imported PTA. The cooperating exporting producer argued that the scheme allows refund of customs duties for both locally-procured as well as imported PTA and thus the scheme does not favour procurement of domestically-produced PTA. It was also argued that the legislation does not limit access to this scheme.\n(58)\nThe above arguments had to be rejected. In this regard it is noted that this scheme provides a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds that confers a clear benefit upon the recipient company. By analyzing the information submitted by the GOP, it is clear that an eligible company may: (i) buy in the domestic market PTA and receive a compensatory support of a portion equal to 7,5 % of the price paid for PTA purchases manufactured locally or (ii) import PTA and receive a refund of the applicable customs duty (7,5 %) paid on imports of PTA. Nevertheless, the latter option is not permitted if the eligible company uses a duty drawback scheme (e.g. Manufacture Bond) on imports of PTA. It is clear form the above that the cooperating exporting producer was de jure forced to use this scheme only for its purchases of domestically-procured PTA as it was using in parallel the Manufacturing Bond scheme for its imported PTA.\nFurthermore it is obvious that even in cases where one eligible company makes use of both available options of the scheme (i.e. by denouncing the possibility to use the drawback scheme of Manufacturing Bond) it is clear that the refunds that one would expect to receive would have been different as in one case the rate is calculated on a full domestic invoice price while on the other case it is calculated on the declared value at customs that is not necessarily the full invoice price. No verifiable evidence was provided that could undermine the aforesaid conclusions. Finally, with respect to the argument that there are no restrictions in the access of the scheme, the investigation has established that the relevant legislation clearly listed by name the eligible parties. In any event, domestically-produced PTA is not subject to any duty and therefore the 7,5 % \u2018refund\u2019 is a direct transfer of funds, or a pure grant. The only way for a producer of PET to obtain this subsidy, i.e. the grant, is to purchase domestically-produced PTA. On the other hand, any \u2018refund\u2019 of customs duty on imported PTA is an exemption of a payment normally due, not a direct transfer of funds; therefore, there is no equivalence between the two situations.\n(59)\nConsequently, the scheme confers a clear benefit to the domestic buyer i.e. the producer of PET by means of a direct transfer of funds and it is specific, within the meaning of Article 4(4)(b) of the basic Regulation, given that the subsidy is contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods, since only domestic goods are eligible for the direct grant. Furthermore, this subsidy can also be considered specific within the meaning of Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation, given that the legislation itself explicitly limits access to this scheme to certain enterprises belonging to the polyester industry.\n(60)\nIn relation to this scheme, the GOP provided with its comments on the provisional Regulation a Government Order issued on 28 June 2010 stating that the SRO No 1045(I)/2008 has been repealed with effect from 1 July 2010. The GOP submitted that this development will ensure that no refund on domestically procured or imported PTA is allowed or will be allowed anymore to the users of PTA.\n(61)\nFurthermore, a press clipping submitted on the same matter from the cooperating exporting producer appears to suggest that the GOP decided to withdraw the regulation relevant to this scheme in order for Pakistan to meet international standards in this regard. The cooperating exporting producer corroborated the information provided by GOP by data confirming that starting from 1 July 2010 it is not possible anymore to receive the relevant grant when purchasing domestically-produced PTA. In this respect it is recalled that in line with Article 15 of the basic Regulation no measure shall be imposed if the subsidy is withdrawn or it has been demonstrated that the subsidy no longer confers any benefit on the exporters involved. It is obvious from the above information that Pakistan in substance accepts that the points highlighted by the provisional Regulation with respect to this scheme called for corrective action from its side, that the GOP has terminated the scheme and that the cooperating exporting producer is not receiving any benefits related to this scheme. Under these circumstances it is considered that the conditions set out by Article 15 of the basic Regulation are met and thus this scheme should not be countervailed.\n(62)\nIn the light of the above and in the absence of any other relevant comments, the findings in relation to this scheme as set out in recitals (93) to (105) of the provisional Regulation, as modified in recitals (58) to (61) above, are hereby confirmed.\n(IV) Final Tax Regime (FTR)\n(63)\nBoth parties claimed that this scheme constitutes a different taxation system and should not be countervailed given that Pakistan has sovereignty of taxation and is free to apply the taxation system it wishes. It was also argued that the FTR does not imply any financial contribution to any company and it is a generalised rule of taxation in Pakistan (a withholding tax of 1 % at the time of the realisation of foreign exchange proceeds) that operates under a different concept and on a different basis as compared to the Normal Tax Regime (NTR) which provides for a taxation at 35 % on the domestic income. According to these parties it is not possible to determine which of the two systems is more favourable and thus the FTR does not result in revenue foregone or not collecting government revenue that is otherwise due.\n(64)\nWith respect to these claims, it should be noted that it is not Pakistan\u2019s sovereignty that is questioned, but the alleged subsidies granted to certain exporting producers. Moreover, it should be recalled that profits from exports are taxed in a different way from those earned on domestic sales. To the extent that this tax regime results in profits from exports being taxed at a lower rate than those earned on domestic sales, this scheme is considered to be a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of forgone government revenue that confers a benefit upon the recipient company. It is also a specific subsidy under Article 4(4)(a) given that it is contingent upon export performance.\n(65)\nIn addition, the cooperating exporting producer provided a set of calculations made in excel format for the years 2008 and 2009 and a notice of tax demand and assessment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax which revised a set of figures of the company\u2019s 2008 income tax return statement. The GOP corroborated the claims of the cooperating exporting producer by arguing that the provided calculations show that the cooperating exporting producer has paid more tax under the FTR regime compared to what it would have paid in case of application of the NTR regime.\n(66)\nThese arguments had to be rejected. Firstly, the calculations provided do not form part of the company\u2019s income tax return statement or any other official tax authority document. Thus there in no verifiable evidence that they accurately picture the income tax obligations of the cooperating exporting producer.\n(67)\nSecondly, an analysis of the submitted official tax documents (notice of tax demand and assessment order) does not in any way confirm the claims made by parties on the levels of tax due under the different tax regimes.\n(68)\nWith respect to the submitted documentation referring to 2008, the parties have failed to show how the amounts presented can accurately tally with the company\u2019s 2008 income tax return statement and the two documents issued subsequently by the relevant tax authorities. With respect to the latter documents they appear to confirm that the company is requested to pay an income tax amount on its domestic income. Nevertheless, it is not at all clear from the submitted information that this tax amount (or any other tax amount) was actually paid or if the company has appealed the above-mentioned tax notice. It is also not clear how the amounts submitted in the excel calculations could tally either with the company\u2019s income tax return statement or with the tax authority\u2019s assessment order. In any event even if one was to accept that the amount set in the notice of tax demand was paid, this would not alter the conclusion that the cooperating exporting producer paid less tax than it would have paid if the 35 % rate was applied to export income.\n(69)\nWith respect to the submitted documentation relating to 2009 it is noted that the parties have not provided the cooperating exporting producer\u2019s 2009 income tax return statement. Instead of providing the official tax declarations and return statements, an Excel calculation was provided as evidence. Such kind of information is clearly non verifiable and cannot corroborate any claim made for post IP income tax developments. In this respect it should be highlighted that the GOP and/or the cooperating exporting producer may request, should the relevant provisions of Article 19 of the basic Regulation be fulfilled, an interim review of the measures.\n(70)\nHowever, when calculating the subsidy amount under the FTR, a clerical error referring to the cooperating exporting producer\u2019s export income as stated in the company\u2019s 2008 income tax return statement was discovered. This was corrected accordingly. The subsidy rate established with regards to this scheme during the IP for the exporting producer amounts to 1,97 % (instead of 1,95 %).\n(71)\nIn the light of the above, and in the absence of any other relevant comments, the findings in relation to this scheme as set out in recitals (106) to (116) of the provisional Regulation, as modified in recital (70) above, are hereby confirmed.\n(V) Export Long-Term Fixed Rate Financing Scheme (LTF-EOP)\n(72)\nBoth parties claimed that the interest rate used to calculate the subsidy margin of this financing scheme has to be the interest rate available at the time the exporting producer was negotiating the fixed rate financing, namely the rate in the year 2004-2005. Furthermore, the denominator used to calculate the provisional subsidy margin should be the total company turnover rather than the total export turnover, given that the same manufacturing facilities which are financed under the LTF-EOP are used to produce both domestic and exported goods.\n(73)\nThese claims had to be rejected. First of all, it should be clarified that the rate used in the calculation is the commercial interest rate which prevailed during the IP in Pakistan, as sourced from the website of the State Bank of Pakistan. The financing negotiated in 2004/2005 was drawn down in tranches by the exporter concerned. When calculating the subsidy amount the amount of credit drawn down for the IP, as reported by the cooperating exporting producer, was used. When examining the benefit received by a party during a specific IP the applicable commercial credit rate prevailing in the market during the IP is normally compared to the rate paid on the loan received during the IP, and this was done here. With regards to the denominator in the subsidy calculation, it has to be recalled that a precondition to benefit from the scheme is that the company has to export directly or indirectly at least 50 % of its annual production. Thus, the subsidy amount (nominator) has to be allocated over the export turnover of the product concerned during the IP because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance.\n(74)\nIn the light of the above and in the absence of any other relevant comments, the findings in relation to this scheme as set out in recitals (117) to (133) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(VI) Export Finance Scheme from the State Bank of Pakistan (EFS)\n(75)\nThe Government of Pakistan submitted that the PET sector was excluded from this scheme by a decision taken by the State Bank of Pakistan on 28 June 2010. It was thus argued that this scheme is in line with the provisions of Article 15 of the basic Regulation and that the Commission should not countervail since it is demonstrated that the subsidy is withdrawn. To this matter the cooperating exporting producer argued that pursuant to the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) Circular No 09 of 2010, dated 28 June 2010 the company has repaid the entire amounts of EFS financing and there is no amount outstanding on 30 June 2010 with respect to the EFS.\n(76)\nWith respect to this claim it is recalled that Article 15 of the basic Regulation states that no measures shall be imposed if the subsidy is withdrawn or it is demonstrated that the subsidy no longer confers a benefit on the exporter involved. With respect to the submitted documentation relevant to the EFS facility it is noted that indeed the decision of the State Bank of Pakistan states that banks may not allow financing facilities for PET under this scheme. The relevant text also states that existing facilities granted to exporters will remain valid up to the maturity date of the respective loans while the export performance of companies will be taken into account for the companies\u2019 borrowing during 2009-2010 and for entitlements up to 2011.\nAs regards these points the GOP clarified, by providing the necessary documentation, that companies which do not hold short-term loans under this scheme within the Pakistani Financial Year 2009-2010 (i.e. up to 30 June 2010) are not entitled to any benefit in the transitional period up to 2011. As to the claim that the cooperating exporting producer has no outstanding financing under the EFS it is noted that this claim has been substantiated with a set of evidence provided by the relevant banks and complemented by the company\u2019s chartered accountant. Account taken of the above, it is concluded that the parties were in a position to demonstrate that the EFS scheme no longer confers any benefit on the exporter involved. Thus the conditions lay down in Article 15 of the basic Regulation are fulfilled and the claims made were considered warranted. It was therefore concluded that this scheme should not be countervailed.\n(77)\nThe cooperating exporting producer also claimed that the interest rate used to calculate the subsidy margin has to be the short-term interest rate available to the company during the IP. It was also argued that the finance obtained is used to meet the overall financing needs of the company\u2019s current assets for both domestic and export sales and thus the denominator in the subsidy margin calculation should be the total company\u2019s turnover.\n(78)\nThese claims had to be rejected. It is recalled that the rate used in the calculation is the commercial interest rate applied during the IP in Pakistan, as sourced from the website of the State Bank of Pakistan. This rate represents the normal credit rate prevailing in the market. With regards to the denominator in the subsidy calculation, it is noted that the precondition to avail of the scheme is either the fulfilment of specific export transactions or the overall export performance. Thus, the subsidy amount (nominator) has to be allocated over the total export turnover during the IP because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance.\n(79)\nIn the light of the above and in the absence of any other relevant comments, the findings in relation to this scheme as set out in recitals (134) to (148) of the provisional Regulation, as modified in recitals (75) to (78) above, are hereby confirmed.\n(VII) Finance under F.E. Circular No 25 of the State Bank of Pakistan\n(80)\nBoth parties submitted that there is no intervention of the State Bank of Pakistan in this scheme, that commercial banks provide financing in foreign currency without preferential interest rates and that the scheme is not contingent upon export performance since both exporters and importers may use it.\n(81)\nThe arguments provided were analysed in the light of the relevant legal provisions and practical implementation of the scheme and they were found warranted. It was therefore concluded that this scheme should not be countervailed. Since the scheme under F.E. Circular No 25 of the State Bank of Pakistan will not be countervailed, it is not necessary to respond to the corresponding disclosure comments.\n3.2.3. Amount of countervailable subsidies\n(82)\nAccount taken the above, the definitive amount of countervailable subsidies in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the sole cooperating Pakistani exporting producer is 5,15 %.\n3.3. United Arab Emirates (UAE)\n3.3.1. Introduction\n(83)\nThe Government of the UAE (GUAE) and the cooperating exporting producer submitted comments on the following schemes, countervailed in the provisional Regulation:\n(I)\nFederal Law No 1 of 1979\n(II)\nFree Trade Zone (FTZ).\n3.3.2. Specific Schemes\n(I) Federal Law No 1 of 1979\n(84)\nThe GUAE submitted that the scheme under Federal Law No 1 of 1979 is broadly and horizontally available to all industrial sectors and enterprises in the UAE and is granted without any exemption. The cooperating exporting producer submitted that the licence issued under the Federal Law No 1 of 1979 constitutes the precondition to exist and operate in the UAE.\n(85)\nWith respect to the above it is noted that the investigation established that industrial undertakings in the UAE could operate under various types of licences. Indeed, apart from the licence granted under Federal Law No 1 of 1979, an industrial undertaking may operate under a licence issued by the regional authorities in the specific emirate where it is established. This was the case for the cooperating exporting producer who holds a licence issued by the Government of the Ras al Khaimah Emirate. Furthermore, an industrial undertaking could operate under a Free Trade Zone where no licence is required under the aforementioned law. Thus, it is not correct to say that all industrial undertakings in the UAE operate under Federal Law No 1 of 1979. Thus it is not proved that the allocation of the scheme is automatic and the relevant claim has to be rejected.\n(86)\nBoth parties argued that the requirements provided in the law are just the necessary preconditions for any industrial project to operate in the country and not to obtain the exemptions from payment of customs duties and thus the Commission\u2019s analysis in the provisional Regulation of Articles 12, 13 and 21 of the Federal Law No 1 is erroneous. The GUAE also submitted that with respect to Article 13 the term \u2018considered\u2019 has no mandatory meaning in the Arabic version of the law. The GUAE also argued that Articles 11 and 12 of the aforesaid law were never applied in practice as the Technical Committee responsible for recommending to the Minister on the applications has never been established. It was also submitted that the role of the Industrial Development Department is set out in the User Manual of the Electronic Industrial System issued by the Ministry, as mentioned in recital (173) of the provisional Regulation.\n(87)\nThese claims had to be rejected. It is noted that Articles 13 and 21 of the law form part of the step-by-step process foreseen in the analysis for the Industrial Licence under Federal Law No 1 of 1979. With respect to Articles 11 and 12 it is noted that these articles set out the role and responsibilities of the various bodies of the state authority issuing the Industrial Licence under Federal Law No 1 of 1979. The fact that a body has never been established although it is foreseen by the law and it is responsible for: (i) assessing the input provided by the Industrial Development Department and (ii) recommending to the Minister the approval or rejection of applications, confirms that the legislation pursuant to which the granting authority operates is in practice not followed and thus there is no legal certainty on the way the subsidy is granted. Moreover, in fact the claim of the GUAE with respect to the Technical Committee is contradictory to previous claims according to which the Minister requested this committee to provide comments on a possible revision of the law. With respect to the definition of the word \u2018considered\u2019 in Article 13 of the Federal Law it is noted that the English version was the only text provided by the GUAE during the investigation. Moreover, it only submitted subsequent to the provisional disclosure that there may be differences in definitions between English and Arabic texts. The fact that the two versions of the text raise doubts on certain parts of the eligibility criteria is again a clear indication that there is no legal clarity on the criteria and conditions governing the eligibility of the subsidy. With respect to the role of the Industrial Development Department it is noted that no new information was submitted that could undermine the findings of the investigation.\n(88)\nThe GUAE submitted that its industrial statistics prove that there are more than 4 000 industrial firms registered under Federal Law No 1 of 1979. Both parties argued that the Commission failed to provide positive evidence that the UAE authorities have exercised discretion in granting or rejecting applications to the scheme.\n(89)\nThese claims had to be rejected. It is noted that the investigation has established that the granting of Industrial Licence under Federal Law No 1 of 1979 is not automatic and that the rules governing the granting process for choosing recipients are not objective. Account taken of the fact that the scheme was found to be specific in line with the provisions of Article 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation, it was up to the GUAE to prove, in line with the provisions of Article 4(2)(c) of the basic Regulation, its claim that the requests from all parties that have submitted applications for Industrial Licence under Federal Law No 1 of 1979 since the enactment of the law have been approved. No such verifiable information was ever provided.\n(90)\nBoth parties claimed that all industrial undertakings in the UAE obtain customs duty exemptions for their production. The cooperating exporting producer also claimed that the WTO Trade Policy Review on the UAE, published in 2006, has analysed the Federal Law No 1 of 1979 and found that custom duties exemptions are granted to all industrial concerns. It was also argued that there are controls of the system as Industrial Licences are renewed every year, companies under the scheme report the imported duty-free materials and authorities reject duty-free imports if inputs are not related to production.\n(91)\nThese claims had to be rejected. It is pertinent to note that customs duty exemptions are granted to companies availing of the scheme under Federal Law No 1 of 1979 and the normal customs duty rate for the raw materials is not zero. The cooperating exporting producer has failed to demonstrate how a general statement in the WTO Trade Policy Review document is more accurate than the detailed analysis, based on the verification visit, provided in the provisional Regulation explicitly on the eligibility and practical implementations of the Federal Law No 1 of 1979. Even more importantly, the investigation has established that the authorities act in a discriminatory way when managing the importation of duty-free materials under the scheme. Indeed since there are no rules on the way requests to duty-free imports are accepted or rejected and in view of the absence of an effective verification system on the management of the scheme, it is unclear why one party at a certain time may be allowed to import duty-free while at some other date it may be refused to import duty-free. In fact this was the case for the cooperating exporting producer who was requested from time to time to pay duties without any justification provided by the granting authority. Therefore the two parties have failed to provide any evidence to corroborate their claims on the management of the scheme and allocation of duty-free imports.\n(92)\nIt was also submitted that the scheme is governed by objective criteria, namely the requirement that the duty exemption can only concern imported goods used for the industrial undertaking\u2019s production. This claim had to be rejected since, as it is explained under recitals (89) and (91) above, no such objective criteria have been demonstrated to exist.\n(93)\nThe GUAE submitted that the Federal Law No 1 of 1979 is under revision and that this information was provided to the Commission. It was also argued that the Commission has disregarded the information and documents submitted by GUAE and did not provide arguments and positive evidence on the facts and law which led to its conclusions.\n(94)\nWith respect to the above it is noted that the Commission has closely evaluated and analysed all information provided by the parties. With respect to the revision of the Federal Law No 1 of 1979 it is pertinent to note that the text provided by GUAE is an internal draft document of the Ministry of Finance and Industry. As such it has no legal value. The investigating authority is bound to analyze the actual legal provisions and the way these are implemented and not a non-binding draft that has not been approved by the administrative and legislative branches of the UAE and has not been enacted. Even more importantly, the fact that the GUAE is currently working on a possible revision of the Federal Law No 1 of 1979 confirms that the authorities have realised that there is a need, as the GUAE has stated, to remove any inconsistency with the WTO Agreement on Subsidy and Countervailing Measures.\n(95)\nIn the light of the above, the findings in relation to this scheme as set out in recitals (166) to (183) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(II) Free Trade Zone (FTZ)\n(96)\nBoth parties submitted that all enterprises in the UAE are granted duty-free imports of capital goods.\n(97)\nIn this respect it is noted that the investigation has established that companies established in the FTZ receive duty-free imports of capital goods. The fact that one party may avail of the same benefit by using another scheme (namely the Federal Law No 1 of 1979) does not imply that the subsidy in question is not considered countervailable. Furthermore, the parties were not in a position to provide any factual evidence to rebut the findings of the investigation with respect to the FTZ. Account taken of the above, the submitted claim had to be rejected.\n(98)\nIn the light of the above, the findings in relation to this scheme as set out in recital (184) to (199) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.3.3. Amount of countervailable subsidies\n(99)\nAccount taken the above, the definitive amount of countervailable subsidies in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation expressed ad valorem, for the sole cooperating United Arab Emirates exporting producer is 5,13 %.\n3.4. Comments on final disclosure\n(100)\nIt is recalled that all interested parties were given an opportunity to comment and make representations subsequent to final disclosure. Their comments were considered and taken into account where appropriate but they were not of a nature as to change the above findings.\n(101)\nThe Iranian cooperating exporting producer presented again its analysis of the facts of the case but did not provide any new conclusive evidence which would undermine the findings of the investigation.\n(102)\nThe Government of Pakistan expressed dissatisfaction with the rejection of its undertaking with respect to the Manufacturing Bond scheme and repeated comments on the LTF-EOP scheme and FTR. It also submitted a new decision of the Federal Board of Revenue issued on 27 July 2010 setting the customs duty on imports of PTA (raw material used for PET) at the rate of 3 % and argued that the institutions were bound by law to recalculate the subsidy margin established for the Manufacturing Bond scheme. This had to be rejected because there is no indication that the subsidy does not continue to exist. The Government of Pakistan claims that it is reduced. Nevertheless, as per Manufacturing Bond scheme rules, input material may be used at least up to two years after importation. In other words something that was imported up to July 2010 (when the duty rate was 7,5 %) may be used up to July 2012. The institutions have made a determination of the amount of subsidy on the basis of data pertaining to the IP and in accordance with the scheme rules there may still be an impact of the previous customs rate up to 2012. Thus, subsidisation is clearly present at the time of the definitive duty imposition. Furthermore, the customs duty is just one element of the data set and, as demonstrated under recitals (43) to (53) above, if the duty rate had been lower, import volumes may have been higher.\n(103)\nThe Pakistani cooperating exporting producer disagreed with the analysis concerning FTR but the elements provided could not alter the findings of the investigation. It also submitted that there is verifiable evidence picturing accurately its income tax obligations and provided a set of documents to prove that the findings of the Commission are not accurate. In this respect it is noted that the information provided is inconclusive and non-verifiable and thus it cannot be taken into consideration.\n(104)\nThe Government of the United Arab Emirates presented again its analysis of the facts of the case and argued that the institutions based their findings on an unclear interpretation of the Federal Law 1 of 1979 and failed to provide any positive evidence. In this respect it is recalled that specificity has been established in accordance with Articles 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) of the basic Regulation, that the interpretation of the Federal Law 1 of 1979 by the institutions was based on the submitted information, evidence and data and no conclusive evidence was found that could alter the findings of the investigation. GUAE clarified that the amendment process of the Federal Law 1 of 1979 has been advanced and it is reaching its final steps for promulgation. In this respect it is noted that the Commission welcomes the efforts made by UAE to amend its relevant legal provisions but the aforesaid developments bear no impact on the findings of the investigation, as there is no clear timetable for the conclusion of the amendment process and the enactment of the new law.\n(105)\nThe UAE cooperating exporting producer repeated its claims concerning the Federal Law 1 of 1979. It also submitted that there are errors in the calculation of the subsidy margin. It was argued that the company realised following definitive disclosure that procurements of raw material made from Saudi Arabia bear no customs duty because UAE and Saudi Arabia form part of the customs union of the Gulf Cooperation Council and provided a set of documentation related to its claims. In this respect it is noted that these representations form part of a totally new set of information that should already have been presented in the questionnaire reply or in the verification visit at the latest so that the Commission would have been able to verify the veracity of these claims. Thus the data provided cannot be verified at this late stage of the investigation. Moreover, there is also no conclusive evidence to corroborate these claims. Furthermore it was argued that the benefit should be calculated on the basis of raw materials consumed during the IP and not on the basis of raw materials purchased. In this respect it is noted that the split between raw materials consumed and purchased is irrelevant as the amount countervailed is the total amount attributable to the IP as explained in recitals (84) to (95) above.\n4. INJURY\n4.1. Union production, Union industry and Union consumption\n(106)\nNo comments have been received with regard to Union production, Union industry and Union consumption. Consequently, recitals (201) to (206) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4.2. Imports from the countries concerned\n(107)\nNo comments have been received with regard to the cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned, the volume of imports from the countries concerned and their respective market share. Consequently, recitals (207) to (213) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(108)\nGiven that, as mentioned above at recital (20), it was decided to divide the product under investigation into several product types a new undercutting calculation reflecting that change was performed.\n(109)\nFor the purpose of analysing price undercutting, the weighted average sales prices of the Union industry to unrelated customers on the Union market per product type, adjusted to an ex-works level, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports from the countries concerned to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a CIF basis with appropriate adjustments for post-importation costs and differences in the level of trade.\n(110)\nThe comparison showed that, during the IP, the subsidised imports originating in the UAE sold in the Union undercut the Union industry\u2019s prices by 3,2 %. The subsidised imports originating in Iran sold in the Union undercut the prices of the Union industry by 3,0 %. The subsidised imports originating in Pakistan sold in the Union undercut the prices of the Union industry by 0,5 %. The weighted average undercutting margin of the countries concerned during the IP is 2,5 %.\n(111)\nThe Iranian exporter commented that its injury margin was overstated since the weighted average unit sales price established was understated due to an incorrect calculation of the amount of level of trade adjustment. As regards this claim it must be noted that the amount for the level of trade used in the provisional calculation was a fixed amount per tonne which is the commission charged by the cooperating importing agent and which represents around 1 % of the average CIF price. However, since no alternative quantification of the level of trade adjustment was proposed and no other information is available for such an adjustment, the claim is thus rejected.\n(112)\nThe same party also claimed that the 2 % rate taken for post-importation costs appeared to be understated.\n(113)\nIt is reiterated in this regard that no importer cooperated in this investigation and it was not possible to verify the actual post-importation cost. Thus, in absence of any other information available, the rate used in previous proceedings was applied.\n4.3. Situation of the Union industry\n(114)\nSome interested parties claimed that injury did not exist since the sample was wrongly chosen and as a result no results could be extrapolated for the total Union industry. It was claimed that since one company (not in the sample) had indicated that it was using over 100 % of its capacity, this would be a clear sign of no injury. It is noted that the information submitted is an extract of this company\u2019s submission to the stock exchange authorities in a third country and is not verified. This information also does not square with the information on the file. Moreover, and in any event, the capacity utilisation of one EU producer alone cannot alter the findings of injury for the sampled EU producers and the other EU producers.\n(115)\nIn the absence of any other claims or comments, recitals (218) to (237) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4.4. Conclusion on injury\n(116)\nIn the absence of any specific comments, the conclusion on injury laid down in recitals (238) to (240) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n5. CAUSATION\n5.1. Effect of the subsidised imports\n(117)\nIn the absence of any specific comments, recitals (241) to (245) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.2. Effect of other factors\n(118)\nSome interested parties claimed that any injury found would not be due to the subsidised imports, but that the low prices for PET in the EU reflect the worldwide cycle of the industry and that from September 2008 until June 2009 the PET prices in the EU followed the low prices of crude oil. As regards this argument, it is acknowledged that the prices of PET depend to some extent on the prices of crude oil, its derivatives being the main raw material to produce PET. However, prices for crude oil were not low during the whole IP but very volatile, starting with a huge decrease and followed by a recovery. This volatility of world prices of crude oil cannot explain why imports of PET were subsidised and therefore undercut the Union producers\u2019 prices. It was precisely this undercutting, made possible due to the subsidies received, that depressed the prices of the Union industry, forcing EU producers to sell at a loss in order not to loose their clients.\n(119)\nThe Iranian exporter claimed that financial and technical problems of some EU producers were not properly separated from the injury analysis and wrongly attributed to Iranian imports since it only entered the market after 2006. In this respect it is noted that imports from Iran were present already in 2006 and 2007 in quantities below 1 % of the market share. Since 2008, they were above 1 % and contributed with their low prices to the price suppression in the EU. Moreover, the conditions for cumulative assessment were fulfilled in this case and the effects of subsidised imports from all countries concerned could be assessed cumulatively. In addition, only one of the companies mentioned by the Iranian exporter was in the sample and the technical problems of this EU producer, limited from September to mid-October 2008, did not significantly influence the overall injury picture.\n(120)\nThe same party reiterated that any injury found would be linked to the contraction in demand, especially during the IP which was marked by the global financial and economic crisis. However this party did not rebut the arguments given in recitals (254) to (256) of the provisional Regulation: that the economic downturn starting in the last quarter of 2008 cannot in any way diminish the damaging injurious effects of low priced subsidised imports in the EU market over the whole period considered and that, even though the shrinking demand was a factor contributing to the injury suffered, it did not break the causal link. It is further noted that those subsidised imports even increased their market share when demand contracted, i.e. from 7,6 % to 10,2 %, to the detriment of the EU producers.\n(121)\nSome interested parties claimed that any injury was due to lack of investment by the EU PET producers and their consequent cost disadvantage vis-\u00e0-vis the exporters.\n(122)\nIt is recognised that PET is a capital intensive industry and that a certain level of investment is necessary to remain competitive in the mid-to-long term perspective. It is recalled that, as mentioned in recital (237) of the provisional Regulation, some of the sampled companies made important investments in 2006 and 2007, but there was only a minimal level of investment in 2008 and in the IP.\n(123)\nIt is noted in this regard that given the decreasing production and capacity utilisation rates in 2008 and in the IP combined with the sharply dropping market share of the Union producers, it would be unreasonable to expect any major investment in new capacities in the same period.\n(124)\nIt is also reiterated that, as mentioned in recitals (233) and (234) of the provisional Regulation, the financial situation of the sampled Union producers was very bad during the whole period considered and that they experienced significant losses between 2006 and the IP. Again, in such a situation, it would be unreasonable to expect any major investment by the Union producers.\n(125)\nConsequently, it is concluded that the limited investment in 2008 and the IP did not materially contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry but was rather a result thereof.\n5.3. Conclusion on causation\n(126)\nIn the absence of any further comments on causation, recitals (246) to (264) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6. UNION INTEREST\n(127)\nFollowing the provisional disclosure a significant number of EU converters and/or bottlers came forward and claimed that the Union interest analysis would not correctly reflect the arguments of the great number of cooperating users and that the findings contradicted the current economic environment. There was, however, no further substantiation or explanation. The companies all requested a hearing, but only two companies of this group of users and one association of Italian bottlers actually came to the hearing. More substantive comments were received from one cooperating EU converter (ALPLA), a group of processors (Caiba SA, Coca-Cola group, Danone Waters, Logoplaste, MFS Commodities, PepsiCO, Novara International and Silico Polymers), the cooperating import agent (GSI) and the association of plastic converters (EuPC). All these parties strongly opposed the imposition of any measures.\n6.1. Interest of the Union industry and other Union producers\n(128)\nSome interested parties claimed that the EU producers would (mis-)use trade defence instruments to shield the Union market and to set artificially high prices in the EU. These parties point to the existing anti-dumping and/or countervailing measures in place against India, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and the People\u2019s Republic of China. However, it is noted that any company producing in the EU has a right to complain and to seek remedies in case it can demonstrate the existence of injurious subsidisation practices. The fact that subsidisation and dumping practices have been found concerning numerous countries can possibly be explained by the fact that demand for this product increased tremendously since the \u201b90s with usually double digit annual growth rates. This attracted significant investments worldwide, leading to a structural worldwide oversupply for PET. It is also noted that some third countries have measures in place against several of the above-mentioned countries, underlining the existing structural problem.\n(129)\nSeveral interested parties reiterated that the Union producers would not be able to improve their performance in the long term since new investments in other third countries would come on-stream soon and decrease the artificially high prices in the EU.\n(130)\nThe investigation showed that a new investment that only recently came on-stream in Oman has increased its import volumes considerably in 2009 and it cannot be excluded that it might cause problems to the Union industry in the future. However, as already indicated in recital (270) of the provisional Regulation, new investments that might come on-stream and might cause injury to the Union industry are no valid reason to deny legitimate protection in this proceeding.\n(131)\nOne interested party claimed that that the increase in the PET prices in the EU would allow only the EU producers with investment in third countries not subject to measures (Thailand, US, Russia) or other PET producers in third countries (South Korea) to improve their performance. Thus, the party argued, the short-term benefit for the EU producers would clearly be outweighed by the transfer of wealth to producers outside the EU.\n(132)\nIn this respect it is noted that there is no evidence on file supporting the statement that any financial benefit that might be shifted to producers in third countries not subject to trade defence measures or to companies with a zero duty would outweigh the benefits to the Union industry.\n(133)\nIt was also claimed that Union producers only employ some 2 000 people whereas PET processors and bottlers that would be highly affected by any duty employ around 20 000 and 60 000 people respectively.\n(134)\nIt is noted that the employment created by PET producers is not marginal and the question whether the imposition of measures is against the Union interest as a whole cannot be reduced to a simple question of the number of people employed. In this regard it is also particularly relevant that the relevant users would likely not significantly be affected by the measures, taking into account the level of the duty as well as alternative sources of supply, as set out below in recitals (141) to (156).\n6.2. Interest of unrelated importers in the Union\n(135)\nIt is reiterated that no unrelated importer cooperated in this investigation.\n(136)\nThe cooperating agent strongly contested that the imposition of duties would not have a considerable impact on its business. The company claimed that while it was indeed working on a commission basis, the impact would be important since an important part of its business was linked to the countries concerned. Should definitive measures be imposed, the commission obtained from the producers in the countries concerned would be affected given that the PET from the countries concerned could no longer compete with PET produced by other producers.\n(137)\nIn view of the overall moderate duty level, it is not likely that PET sales from the countries concerned will be affected substantially. Moreover, the agent can in the medium term most probably switch to other sources of supply, namely to imports from Oman, US, Brazil, Mexico and the companies with a zero anti-dumping duty rate in South Korea. Sales of these exporting producers should put the agent in a position to compensate for any loss that may be incurred due to the imposition of measures. Consequently, the claim is rejected.\n6.3. Interest of the raw material suppliers in the Union\n(138)\nOne interested party claimed that it is not legitimate to protect the raw material suppliers of the EU PET producers at the expense of the packaging industry, the bottlers and the final consumers.\n(139)\nIt is noted that the analysis of the impact of measures on the supplying industry is in conformity with Article 31 of the basic Regulation. It is a standard practice to carry out such an analysis, in particular when there is a strong dependency between raw material suppliers and Union producers.\n(140)\nIn the absence of any other comments in this regard, recitals (265) to (279) of the provisional Regulation are hereby definitively confirmed.\n6.4. Interest of users\n(141)\nIt is reiterated that PET used in the production of bottle pre-forms amounts to between 70 % and 80 % of the total cost of production for converters. It is therefore a critical cost component for these companies.\n(142)\nSome interested parties indicated that the EU packaging industry is constantly challenged by the requirements of the bottle fillers for new designs and more environmental friendly packaging. To that end, some of the converters appear to invest constantly in R & D to invent new products and design in order to remain competitive and to add more value in the chain.\n(143)\nSome interested parties claimed that the impact on the EU converting industry will be very heavy and will lead to the erosion of their resources to invest in new, environmental friendly packaging and possibly even to the closure of hundreds of smaller companies as their margins are even narrower due to the small volumes processed and limited negotiation power.\n(144)\nIndeed, should the converters absorb the whole price increase due to the measures, the impact on them could be sizeable, depending on their sources of supply, given that the cost of PET constitutes the majority of their costs and that many of the small and medium-sized companies operate on low margins.\n(145)\nIn this regard, a verification visit was carried out to a small plastic converter in Italy in order to gain a better insight about the impact of duties on this user group. The investigation showed that, although limited, processors normally have some ability to pass on their price increase, especially if the price increase is not marginal and can be anticipated. Moreover, some PET processors have adaptation clauses in their contracts for raw material prices and this might help EU converters to pass on some price increase to bottlers.\n(146)\nConsequently, and against the background of the rather moderate duty level, it is concluded that the imposition of countervailing duties would likely not have a devastating effect on converters.\n(147)\nSome interested parties reiterated the argument that the risk of delocalisation of PET processors/converters would increase if definitive measures were imposed. These parties also claimed that due to the delocalisation of EU processors there would be no long-term benefit to EU producers. One of the cooperating PET converters stated that the process of delocalisation is already ongoing and that any imposition of countervailing duties would further accelerate this development. This party claimed that a substantial part of EU converters would be located in areas which are close to EU borders (Switzerland, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Turkey, Russia and Ukraine) and that some converters would be much more flexible to move their production to these areas than suggested in the provisional Regulation.\n(148)\nBased on the information on file, the delocalisation is indeed already an ongoing process and it is thus considered that the imposition of countervailing duties might be one factor out of many other considerations influencing such a company decision. It was not found that, without the imposition of measures in this case, those companies would be ready to stay within the EU given that such a decision is normally a result of an analysis taking into account a number of aspects other than trade defence measures, such as being close to the client, having access to skilled workers for R & D, general cost structure, etc.\n(149)\nIt is also noted that the information on the file shows that the EU converter industry is facing a number of important challenges due to inherent structural deficiencies that are becoming more and more apparent in the fast changing and increasingly competitive environment. It is evident that size matters in that business and that the consolidation of the market is already ongoing, including closures and delocalisation. Consequently, it is considered that any price increase for PET due to countervailing measures is not the reason for the feared closures of the smaller converters.\n(150)\nConsequently, it is concluded that the imposition of countervailing duties is not going to be a determinative factor in the eventual decision about delocalising for the companies in the PET processing industry.\n(151)\nSeveral interested parties stated that any measures would have a sizeable effect on many bottlers as due to contractual arrangements any increase in PET resin prices would be (at least partially) passed on to them. It was also claimed that some bottle fillers might not be in a position to pass on price increases to their clients, being the supermarket/retail chains, and that they might not survive any increased cost.\n(152)\nThese parties claimed that the range of products that will be affected by duties was underestimated as they will not only affect bottled water, soft drinks and edible oil, but also beer, milk and dairy products, juice producers, ketchup and spices, cosmetic and personal care products, drugs, vitamins and supplements, household cleaning products and oil and lubricants for cars.\n(153)\nIt is acknowledged that PET packaging is manifold. It is noted, however that the provisional Regulation focused on the impact on bottlers, as it based on the data submitted by the companies cooperating in this investigation, being mainly water, soft-drink or juice producers. No other detailed data was available showing an even higher impact on the other applications mentioned above.\n(154)\nConsequently, it is considered that the provisional findings described in recital (291) of the provisional Regulation can be definitively confirmed. In addition, given the moderate level of the proposed measures, they may result in a cost increase of not more than 1 % (in the worst case scenario - i.e. full impact of the measures to be born by the bottling companies) and thus will only have a limited impact on the overall situation of the bottling companies, even if, as claimed, they would not be in a position to pass on the increased cost to their customers.\n(155)\nSeveral interested parties claimed that any trade defence measures will exacerbate the shortage of supply in the Union market which will be particularly problematic in the summer months given the higher demand for water/drinks. It was claimed that up to 900 000 tonnes of imports would be needed in 2010. This problem would be notably reinforced by the fact that some EU producers are also PET processors and would only sell to the free market once their internal demand is satisfied and at premium prices.\n(156)\nIn this regard no new information was submitted and the arguments provided in recitals (294) and (295) of the provisional Regulation were not refuted. It is also noted that given the moderate level of duties imposed on imports from UAE and Pakistan, the impact on trade volumes from those countries might not be significantly affected. Consequently, the findings set out in recitals (294) and (295) are definitively confirmed.\n6.5. Impact on consumers\n(157)\nSeveral interested parties claimed that the provisional Regulation failed to properly address the impact on consumers which would buy, on a daily basis, products containing PET resins. These claims were not substantiated further than stating that an increase of 50 EUR/t applied to a consumption of 3 million tonnes would lead to EUR 150 million to be borne by the final consumer per year.\n(158)\nIt is noted that the proposed estimate is unrealistic given that most parties agreed that some impact will be borne by the PET processors, the bottlers and supermarkets/retail chains, i.e. that some of the increased costs will be diluted in the sales chain.\n(159)\nThe impact on the final consumer, in the worst case scenario (i.e. the unrealistic scenario where the customer would bear all the impact of the price increase), given the moderate level of measures proposed, would not exceed 0,5 eurocent per bottle consumed, and is highly likely to be much less.\n6.6. Conclusion on Union interest\n(160)\nGiven the above and after analysing in detail all the interests at stake, it is definitively concluded that, on balance, no compelling reasons exist for not imposing measures in the present case. In the absence of any other comments in this regard, recitals (280) to (298) of the provisional Regulation are hereby definitively confirmed.\n6.7. Comments on final disclosure\n(161)\nFollowing disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission has proposed the imposition of definitive countervailing duty some interested parties submitted further comments. Considering that the majority of these comments were a repetition of the observations already submitted and addressed, they did not change the above findings.\n(162)\nWith regard to the reiterated argument that the recent change in the exchange rate between USD and EUR led to a significant increase in the price of the imported PET and consequently the Union industry allegedly does not need to be granted protection by trade defence measures, it is noted that any anti-subsidy investigation normally does not take into account the post IP developments; unless, in extraordinary situations, it can be shown, inter alia, that they are of a lasting nature and would significantly alter the findings of the case. Any changes in the exchange rate between USD and EUR cannot be considered to be of such nature.\n7. DEFINITIVE MEASURES\n7.1. Injury elimination level\n(163)\nOne interested party claimed that a target profit of 5 % was overstated for the second quarter of the IP given that in this quarter (4th quarter of 2008) not only the demand was lower (winter season), but the global economic crisis also affected the PET producers heavily. Thus, it is claimed that a correct application of the principle developed in Case T-210/95 (5) must lead to a 0 % margin in the absence of subsidised imports. Moreover, the party claimed, since all quarters of the IP were affected by the crisis, also in the other quarters, a 5 % profit margin would appear as unrealistic given that even without an economic crisis, i.e. in 2006/2007, the Union industry did not come close to the 5 % profit.\n(164)\nIt is acknowledged that in line with the jurisprudence, the target profit to be used should be the profit which the Union industry could reasonably achieve under normal conditions of competition, in the absence of subsidised imports. It is recalled that in previous investigations for the same product a target profit of 7 % and above was used instead of the 5 % provisionally used in the current investigation. The 5 % target profit is considered to be the profit that the Union industry could expect in the absence of subsidised imports. Consequently, the claim for reducing the target profit is rejected.\n(165)\nGiven the adjusted undercutting calculation mentioned in recitals (108) to (110) above, the corresponding injury elimination levels are as follows:\nCountry\nInjury elimination level\nIran\n16,7 %\nPakistan\n14,1 %\nUAE\n17,5 %\n7.2. Definitive measures\n(166)\nIn view of the definitive conclusions reached with regard to subsidisation, injury, causation and Union interest, and in accordance with Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that a definitive countervailing duty should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates at the level of the lowest of the subsidisation and injury elimination level found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(167)\nIn the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Article 12(1) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that the definitive countervailing duty rate should be imposed on imports originating in Iran at the level of the injury margin found while for imports originating in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, the definitive countervailing duty rate should be imposed at the level of the subsidy margin found.\n(168)\nIt is recalled that costs and prices of PET are subject to considerable fluctuations in relatively short periods of time. It was therefore considered appropriate to impose duties in the form of a specific amount per tonne. This amount results from the application of the countervailing rate to the CIF export prices used for the calculations in the parallel anti-dumping proceeding.\n(169)\nOn the basis of the above, the proposed countervailing duty amounts, expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, are as follows:\nCountry\nTotal subsidy margin\nInjury margin\nDefinitive countervailing duty rate\n%\nAmount\n(EUR/tonne)\nIran\n51,8 %\n16,7 %\n16,7 %\n139,70\nPakistan\n5,1 %\n14,1 %\n5,1 %\n44,02\nUAE\n5,1 %\n17,5 %\n5,1 %\n42,34\n(170)\nAny claim requesting the application of an individual company countervailing duty rate (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (6) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be amended accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n7.3. Undertakings\n(171)\nFollowing the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-subsidy measures, the Iranian exporting producer offered a price undertaking in accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(172)\nThe offer was examined and in view of the fact that the prices for the individual product types differ significantly, it was found that the sole minimum import price (MIP) offered would not guarantee the elimination of the injurious subsidisation for all products.\n(173)\nIt was also established that the Iranian cooperating exporting producer sells the product concerned and other products to the EU exclusively through a related trading company which exports a multitude of products manufactured by various companies. This sales structure bears a very high risk of cross-compensation as PET subject to an undertaking could be sold together with other products to the same customers and prices set for a variety of products sold to the same client could be very easily compensated or off-set. Finally, it also appears from publicly available sources that there is at least one additional producer of PET in Iran. In view of the above sales structure, this situation casts serious doubts on whether the institutions and customs authorities can ensure that only PET from the cooperating exporting producer is sold according to the provisions of the undertaking as the product is a commodity product and easily interchangeable in the sense that in such commodity products it is not at all clear to physically recognise the producer.\n(174)\nOn the basis of the above, it was concluded that such undertaking was impractical and therefore it cannot be accepted. The party was informed accordingly and given an opportunity to comment. However, its comments have not altered the above conclusion.\n8. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY\n(175)\nIn view of the magnitude of the countervailable subsidies found and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional duty imposed by the provisional Regulation be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of definitive duties imposed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive countervailing duty is hereby imposed on imports of polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.\n2. The rate of the definitive countervailing duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 shall be as follows:\nCountry\nDefinitive countervailing duty rate (EUR/tonne)\nIran: all companies\n139,70\nPakistan: all companies\n44,02\nUnited Arab Emirates: all companies\n42,34\n3. In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (7), the amount of definitive countervailing duty, calculated on the amounts set above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThe amounts secured by way of provisional countervailing duty pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU) No 473/2010 on imports of polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, shall be definitively collected at the rate of the definitive countervailing duty imposed pursuant to Article 1. The amounts secured in excess of the rate of the definitive countervailing duty shall be released.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 September 2010.", "references": ["4", "80", "27", "62", "52", "92", "28", "87", "0", "30", "31", "11", "65", "1", "76", "73", "15", "88", "13", "67", "35", "57", "53", "59", "21", "66", "54", "12", "32", "78", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 556/2011\nof 8 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 June 2011.", "references": ["44", "98", "75", "20", "78", "74", "82", "56", "25", "38", "14", "70", "11", "67", "29", "8", "71", "22", "88", "85", "41", "32", "83", "63", "94", "99", "33", "72", "60", "57", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1141/2011\nof 10 November 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 supplementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security as regards the use of security scanners at EU airports\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (1) and in particular Article 4 and the Annex.\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008, the Commission is required to adopt general measures designed to amend non-essential elements of the common basic standards laid down in the Annex to that Regulation by supplementing them.\n(2)\nArticle 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 further provides that the Commission must adopt detailed measures for implementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security laid down in the Annex to that Regulation, as supplemented by the general measures adopted by the Commission on the basis of Article 4(2).\n(3)\nIn particular, Commission Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 (2) supplementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security provides for general measures in respect of methods of screening allowed for passengers as laid down in Part A of its Annex.\n(4)\nSecurity scanners are an effective method for passenger screening and should be authorised for use at EU airports by adding them to the list of allowed methods of screening.\n(5)\nThe Commission has requested its Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) to assess the possible effects of security scanners which use ionising radiation to human health. Without prejudice to Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation (3) and of Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (4), at this stage, to safeguard citizens\u2019 health and safety, only security scanners which do not use ionising radiation are added to the list of allowed methods for passenger screening for aviation security purposes.\n(6)\nThe use of security scanners should be subject to specific implementing rules allowing the use of this method of screening, individually or in combination, as a primary or secondary means and under defined conditions set to ensure the protection of fundamental rights. These shall be adopted separately pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008.\n(7)\nBy laying down specific operational conditions on the use of security scanners and by providing passengers with the possibility to undergo alternative screening methods, this Regulation, together with the specific implementing rules adopted pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008, respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including respect for human dignity and for private and family life, the right to the protection of personal data, the rights of the child, the right to freedom of religion and the prohibition of discrimination. This Regulation must be applied according to these rights and principles.\n(8)\nThe Commission will work closely with the industry and Member States in order to make sure that as soon as possible only security scanners based on automated threat detection are deployed at EU airports, so that it is no longer necessary for any human reviewer to analyse images.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Civil Aviation Security,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2011.", "references": ["69", "74", "31", "62", "80", "37", "33", "66", "22", "25", "21", "72", "63", "96", "90", "39", "28", "34", "85", "88", "26", "44", "6", "19", "54", "99", "15", "18", "76", "1", "No Label", "36", "42", "43", "53", "57"], "gold": ["36", "42", "43", "53", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 24 November 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of yeast beta-glucans as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 8527)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(2011/762/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 September 2009 the company Biothera Incorporated made a request to the competent authority of Ireland to place yeast beta-glucans on the market as a novel food ingredient for use in a variety of foods, including beverages, for the general population as well as in food supplements and in foods for particular nutritional uses with the exception of infant formulae and follow-on formulae.\n(2)\nOn 23 December 2009 the competent food assessment body of Ireland issued its initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that yeast beta-glucans were acceptable as a novel food ingredient provided that the product specifications and intended use levels are maintained and that the range of foodstuffs is limited to those presented in the application dossier.\n(3)\nThe Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to all Member States on 18 January 2010.\n(4)\nWithin the 60-day period laid down in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 reasoned objections to the marketing of the product were raised in accordance with that provision.\n(5)\nTherefore, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was consulted on 2 July 2010.\n(6)\nOn 8 April 2011, EFSA in the \u2018Scientific Opinion on the safety of \u201cYeast beta-glucans\u201d as a novel food ingredient\u2019 (2) came to the conclusion that yeast beta-glucans were safe under the proposed conditions of use. EFSA opinion did not address in its opinion the safety for children below 1\u00bd years.\n(7)\nOn the basis of the EFSA scientific assessment and taking into account Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (3), Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (4), Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses (5), Commission Directive 1999/21/EC of 25 March 1999 on dietary foods for special medical purposes (6), Commission Directive 2006/125/EC of 5 December 2006 on processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children (7), it is established that yeast beta-glucans comply with the criteria laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nYeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) beta-glucans as specified in Annex I may be placed on the market in the Union as a novel food ingredient for the uses defined and at the maximum levels established in Annex II, and without prejudice to the provisions of Directive 2002/46/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 and Directive 2009/39/EC.\nArticle 2\nThe designation of yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) beta-glucans authorised by this Decision for the labelling of the foodstuffs containing it shall be \u2018yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) beta-glucans\u2019.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Biothera Incorporated, 3388 Mike Collins Drive, Eagan, Minnesota, USA, 55121.\nDone at Brussels, 24 November 2011.", "references": ["55", "67", "70", "28", "39", "48", "26", "33", "51", "69", "3", "59", "44", "49", "42", "86", "91", "66", "97", "45", "23", "18", "34", "0", "2", "90", "43", "81", "10", "79", "No Label", "25", "38", "72", "73"], "gold": ["25", "38", "72", "73"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 432/2010\nof 20 May 2010\nfixing the export refunds on milk and milk products\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Community market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in milk and milk products, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167, 169 and 170 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that export refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nExport refunds for the Dominican Republic have been differentiated to take into account the reduced custom duties applied on imports under the import tariff quota under the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and the Dominican Republic on import protection for milk powder in the Dominican Republic (2), approved by Council Decision 98/486/EC (3). Due to a changed market situation in the Dominican Republic, characterised by increased competition for milk powder, the quota is no longer fully used. In order to maximise the use of the quota, the differentiation of export refunds for the Dominican Republic should be abolished.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 326/2010 (4) amending Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds (5) added certain product codes concerning cheeses to the agricultural product nomenclature. Consequently, those codes should be included in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nExport refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation, subject to the conditions provided for in Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 (6).\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2010.", "references": ["94", "33", "37", "16", "83", "36", "2", "29", "13", "40", "82", "55", "69", "62", "98", "19", "35", "21", "6", "38", "75", "34", "93", "3", "71", "12", "85", "81", "63", "17", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 377/2012\nof 3 May 2012\nconcerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2012/237/CFSP of 3 May 2012 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2012/237/CFSP provides for the adoption of restrictive measures against certain persons, entities and bodies who seek to prevent or block a peaceful political process, or who take action that undermines stability in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau. This concerns in particular those who played a leading role in the mutiny of 1 April 2010 and the coup d\u2019\u00e9tat of 12 April 2012 and whose actions continue to be aimed at undermining the rule of law and the primacy of civilian power. These measures include the freezing of funds and economic resources of the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies listed in the Annex to that Decision.\n(2)\nThese measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement them.\n(3)\nThis Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to an effective remedy, the right to a fair trial and the right to the protection of personal data. This Regulation should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(4)\nThe power to amend the list in Annex I to this Regulation should be exercised by the Council, in view of the specific threat to international peace and security posed by the situation in Guinea-Bissau and in order to ensure consistency with the procedure for amending and reviewing the Annex to Decision 2012/237/CFSP.\n(5)\nThe procedure for amending the list in Annex I to this Regulation should include providing designated natural or legal persons, entities or bodies with the grounds for the listing so as to give them an opportunity to submit observations. Where observations are submitted, or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in the light of those observations and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n(6)\nFor the implementation of this Regulation, and in order to create maximum legal certainty within the Union, the names and other relevant data concerning natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen in accordance with this Regulation should be made public. Any processing of personal data should respect Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (2) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (3).\n(7)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018funds\u2019 means financial assets and benefits of every kind, including but not limited to:\n(i)\ncash, cheques, claims on money, drafts, money orders and other payment instruments;\n(ii)\ndeposits with financial institutions or other entities, balances on accounts, debts and debt obligations;\n(iii)\npublicly- and privately-traded securities and debt instruments, including stocks and shares, certificates representing securities, bonds, notes, warrants, debentures and derivatives contracts;\n(iv)\ninterest, dividends or other income on or value accruing from or generated by assets;\n(v)\ncredit, right of set-off, guarantees, performance bonds or other financial commitments;\n(vi)\nletters of credit, bills of lading, bills of sale;\n(vii)\ndocuments evidencing an interest in funds or financial resources;\n(b)\n\u2018freezing of funds\u2019 means preventing any move, transfer, alteration, use of, access to, or dealing with funds in any way that would result in any change in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination or other change that would enable the funds to be used, including portfolio management;\n(c)\n\u2018economic resources\u2019 means assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which are not funds but can be used to obtain funds, goods or services;\n(d)\n\u2018freezing of economic resources\u2019 means preventing the use of economic resources to obtain funds, goods or services in any way, including, but not limited to, by selling, hiring or mortgaging them;\n(e)\n\u2018territory of the Union\u2019 means the territories to which the Treaty is applicable, under the conditions laid down in the Treaty.\nArticle 2\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by natural or legal persons, entities and bodies who, in accordance with Article 2(1) of Decision 2012/237/CFSP, have been identified by the Council as either (i) engaging in or providing support for acts that threaten the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau or (ii) being associated with such persons, entities or bodies, as listed in Annex I, shall be frozen.\n2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I.\n3. Participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited.\nArticle 3\n1. Annex I shall include the grounds for listing of listed persons, entities and bodies.\n2. Annex I shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies concerned. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names, including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, entities and bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.\nArticle 4\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are:\n(a)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of the persons listed in Annex I and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(b)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;\n(c)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided in this case that the Member State has notified the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted to all other Member States and to the Commission at least two weeks prior to authorisation.\n2. The relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraph 1.\nArticle 5\n1. By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex II, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources in question are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established prior to the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 2 was included in Annex I or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources in question will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a natural or legal person, entity or body listed in Annex I; and\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgment is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.\n2. The relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraph 1.\nArticle 6\n1. Article 2(2) shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 2 was included in Annex I,\nprovided that any such interest, other earnings and payments are frozen in accordance with Article 2(1).\n2. Article 2(2) shall not prevent financial or credit institutions in the Union from crediting frozen accounts where they receive funds transferred to the account of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, provided that any additions to such accounts will also be frozen. The financial or credit institution shall inform the relevant competent authority about any such transaction without delay.\nArticle 7\n1. The freezing of funds and economic resources or the refusal to make funds or economic resources available, carried out in good faith on the basis that such action is in accordance with this Regulation, shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal person, entity or body implementing it, or its directors or employees, unless it is proved that the funds and economic resources were frozen or withheld as a result of negligence.\n2. The prohibition set out in Article 2(2) shall not give rise to any liability of any kind on the part of the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies who made funds or economic resources available if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe the prohibition in question.\nArticle 8\n1. Without prejudice to the applicable rules concerning reporting, confidentiality and professional secrecy, the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex I shall:\n(a)\nsupply immediately any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 2, to the competent authority of the Member State where they are resident or located, as identified on the websites listed in Annex II, and shall transmit such information, either directly or through that competent authority, to the Commission; and\n(b)\ncooperate with that competent authority in any verification of this information.\n2. Any information provided or received in accordance with this Article shall be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.\nArticle 9\nThe Commission and Member States shall immediately inform each other of the measures taken under this Regulation and shall supply each other with any other relevant information at their disposal in connection with this Regulation, in particular information in respect of violation and enforcement problems and judgments handed down by national courts.\nArticle 10\nThe Commission shall be empowered to amend Annex II on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\nArticle 11\n1. Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to the measures referred to in Article 2(1), it shall amend Annex I accordingly.\n2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for the listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 1, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body with an opportunity to submit observations.\n3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the natural or legal person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n4. The list in Annex I shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months.\nArticle 12\n1. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules without delay after the entry into force of this Regulation and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment to such rules.\nArticle 13\nWhere this Regulation provides for a requirement to notify, inform or otherwise communicate with the Commission, the address and other contact details to be used for such communication shall be those indicated in Annex II.\nArticle 14\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\nArticle 15\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 May 2012.", "references": ["33", "11", "89", "9", "18", "37", "72", "58", "95", "46", "66", "17", "21", "56", "35", "96", "83", "47", "41", "67", "42", "71", "27", "77", "45", "69", "75", "48", "10", "84", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1071/2011\nof 20 October 2011\nrepealing Regulation (EEC) No 3448/80 on the implementation of Article 43 of the 1979 Act of Accession, concerning the system of trade applicable to the goods covered by Regulations (EEC) No 3033/80 and (EEC) No 3035/80\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the 1979 Act of Accession, and in particular Article 43 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImproving the transparency of Union law is an essential element of the better law-making strategy that Union institutions are implementing. In that context it is appropriate to remove from active legislation those acts which no longer have real effect.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 3448/80 (1) provided for transitional measures for trade of non-Annex I goods between the EC and Greece between 1 November 1981 and 31 July 1982. While Greece is a full Member now, that Regulation has become obsolete, and should consequently be withdrawn from the active Union acquis.\n(3)\nFor reasons of legal certainty and clarity, Regulation (EEC) No 3448/80 should be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Regulation (EEC) No 3448/80 is repealed.\n2. The repeal of the Regulation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to:\n(a)\nthe maintenance in force of Union acts adopted on the basis of the Regulation referred to in paragraph 1; and\n(b)\nthe continuing validity of amendments made by the Regulation referred to in paragraph 1 to other acts of Union law that are not repealed by this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 October 2011.", "references": ["53", "12", "97", "85", "70", "15", "18", "52", "64", "10", "89", "81", "55", "73", "67", "94", "42", "11", "34", "40", "58", "43", "80", "95", "91", "46", "83", "27", "19", "99", "No Label", "4", "22", "61", "66"], "gold": ["4", "22", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 555/2012\nof 22 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics concerning balance of payments, international trade in services and foreign direct investment, as regards the update of data requirements and definitions\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics concerning balance of payments, international trade in services and foreign direct investment (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 184/2005 establishes a common framework for the systematic production of Union statistics on balance of payments, international trade in services and foreign direct investment.\n(2)\nIt is necessary to update the data requirements and definitions of Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 taking into account economic and technical changes, bringing them in line with international standards which provide the general rules for compiling statistics on balance of payments, international trade in services, and foreign direct investment.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Balance of Payments Committee.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2014.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2012.", "references": ["87", "74", "21", "28", "67", "63", "88", "12", "35", "72", "83", "77", "17", "70", "15", "45", "29", "60", "40", "93", "4", "47", "86", "96", "59", "82", "68", "44", "10", "90", "No Label", "19", "23", "25", "27", "31", "42"], "gold": ["19", "23", "25", "27", "31", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 298/2011\nof 25 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 March 2011.", "references": ["69", "88", "93", "37", "56", "31", "72", "26", "59", "2", "58", "76", "20", "80", "3", "13", "8", "99", "34", "94", "1", "6", "29", "48", "95", "81", "64", "15", "18", "17", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 901/2010\nof 8 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [\u03a6\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1 \u03a3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 (Fava Santorinis) (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Greece's application to register the name \u2018\u03a6\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1 \u03a3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 (Fava Santorinis)\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["13", "9", "64", "1", "35", "14", "95", "66", "12", "33", "37", "40", "39", "26", "61", "60", "20", "2", "23", "27", "43", "87", "90", "81", "52", "72", "0", "21", "36", "94", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/68/EU\nof 1 July 2011\namending Directives 2003/90/EC and 2003/91/EC setting out implementing measures for the purposes of Article 7 of Council Directives 2002/53/EC and 2002/55/EC respectively, as regards the characteristics to be covered as a minimum by the examination and the minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species and vegetable species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (1), and in particular Article 7(2)(a) and (b) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/55/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of vegetable seed (2), and in particular Article 7(2)(a) and (b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Directives 2003/90/EC (3) and 2003/91/EC (4) were adopted to ensure that the varieties the Member States include in their national catalogues comply with the guidelines established by the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) as regards the characteristics to be covered as a minimum by the examination of the various species and the minimum conditions for examining the varieties, as far as such guidelines had been established. For other varieties those Directives provide that guidelines of the International Union for Protection of new Varieties of Plants (UPOV) are to apply.\n(2)\nThe CPVO has since established further guidelines for one other species, and has updated existing ones.\n(3)\nDirectives 2003/90/EC and 2003/91/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Directive 2003/90/EC are replaced by the text in Part A of the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe Annexes to Directive 2003/91/EC are replaced by the text in Part B of the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 3\nFor examinations started before 1 January 2012 Member States may apply Directives 2003/90/EC and 2003/91/EC in the version applying before their amendment by this Directive.\nArticle 4\nMember States shall adopt and publish, by 31 December 2011 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 January 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2011.", "references": ["30", "33", "19", "15", "50", "45", "56", "57", "32", "79", "54", "6", "37", "29", "8", "0", "31", "76", "25", "87", "3", "98", "26", "49", "93", "88", "22", "55", "42", "78", "No Label", "7", "39", "66", "77"], "gold": ["7", "39", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 301/2011\nof 28 March 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 297/95 as regards the adjustment of the fees of the European Medicines Agency to the inflation rate\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 297/95 of 10 February 1995 on fees payable to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (1), and in particular Article 12 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 67(3) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (2), the revenue of the European Medicines Agency (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019) consists of a contribution from the Union and fees paid by undertakings to the Agency. Regulation (EC) No 297/95 lays down the categories and levels of such fees.\n(2)\nArticle 12 of Regulation (EC) No 297/95 requires that the fees of the Agency be updated each year by reference to the inflation rate.\n(3)\nThose fees should therefore be updated by reference to the inflation rate of 2010. The inflation rate in the Union, as published by the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat), was 2,1 % in 2010.\n(4)\nFor the sake of simplicity, the adjusted levels of the fees should be rounded to the nearest EUR 100.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 297/95 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nFor reasons of legal certainty, this Regulation should not apply to valid applications which are pending on 1 April 2011.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 297/95, the update has to be made with effect from 1 April 2011. It is therefore appropriate that this Regulation enters into force as a matter of urgency and applies from that date,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 297/95 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 3 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(i)\npoint (a) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 254 100\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 259 400\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 25 500\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 26 000\u2019,\n-\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 6 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (b) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 98 600\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 100 700\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 164 200\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 167 600\u2019,\n-\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 9 800\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 10 000\u2019,\n-\nin the fourth subparagraph, \u2018EUR 6 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019;\n(iii)\npoint (c) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 76 300\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 77 900\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 19 100 to EUR 57 200\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 19 500 to EUR 58 400\u2019,\n-\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 6 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nthe first subparagraph of point (a) is amended as follows:\n-\n\u2018EUR 2 700\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 2 800\u2019,\n-\n\u2018EUR 6 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (b) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 76 300\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 77 900\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 19 100 to EUR 57 200\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 19 500 to EUR 58 400\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, \u2018EUR 12 600\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 12 900\u2019;\n(d)\nin paragraph 4, \u2018EUR 19 100\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 19 500\u2019;\n(e)\nin paragraph 5, \u2018EUR 6 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019;\n(f)\nparagraph 6 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 91 100\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 93 000\u2019;\n(ii)\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 22 700 to EUR 68 300\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 23 200 to EUR 69 700\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 4, \u2018EUR 63 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 64 700\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 5 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(i)\npoint (a) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 127 100\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 129 800\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 12 600\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 12 900\u2019,\n-\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 6 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019,\n-\nthe fourth subparagraph is amended as follows:\n-\n\u2018EUR 63 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 64 700\u2019,\n-\n\u2018EUR 6 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (b) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 63 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 64 700\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 107 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 109 700\u2019,\n-\nin the third subparagraph,\u2019EUR 12 600\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 12 900\u2019,\n-\nin the fourth subparagraph, \u2018EUR 6 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019,\n-\nthe fifth subparagraph is amended as follows:\n-\n\u2018EUR 31 700\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 32 400\u2019,\n-\n\u2018EUR 6 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019;\n(iii)\npoint (c) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 31 700\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 32 400\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 7 900 to EUR 23 700\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 8 100 to EUR 24 200\u2019,\n-\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 6 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin point (a) is amended as follows:\n-\n\u2018EUR 2 700\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 2 800\u2019,\n-\n\u2018EUR 6 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019;\n(ii)\npoint (b) is amended as follows:\n-\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 38 100\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 38 900\u2019,\n-\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 9 500 to EUR 28 600\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 9 700 to EUR 29 200\u2019,\n-\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 6 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, \u2018EUR 6 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019;\n(d)\nin paragraph 4, \u2018EUR 19 100\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 19 500\u2019;\n(e)\nin paragraph 5, \u2018EUR 6 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019;\n(f)\nparagraph 6 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin the first subparagraph, \u2018EUR 30 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 31 000\u2019;\n(ii)\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 7 600 to EUR 22 700\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 7 800 to EUR 23 200\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 6, \u2018EUR 38 100\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 38 900\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 7 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the first paragraph, \u2018EUR 63 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 64 700\u2019;\n(b)\nin the second paragraph, \u2018EUR 19 100\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 19 500\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 8 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 76 300\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 77 900\u2019;\n(ii)\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 38 100\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 38 900\u2019;\n(iii)\nin the fourth subparagraph, \u2018 EUR 19 100 to EUR 57 200\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 19 500 to EUR 58 400\u2019;\n(iv)\nin the fifth subparagraph, \u2018EUR 9 500 to EUR 28 600\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 9 700 to EUR 29 200\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nin the second subparagraph, \u2018EUR 254 100\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 259 400\u2019;\n(ii)\nin the third subparagraph, \u2018EUR 127 100\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 129 800\u2019;\n(iii)\nin the fifth subparagraph, \u2018EUR 2 700 to EUR 219 000\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 2 800 to EUR 223 600\u2019;\n(iv)\nin the sixth subparagraph, \u2018EUR 2 700 to EUR 109 600\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 2 800 to EUR 111 900\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, \u2018EUR 6 400\u2019 is replaced by \u2018EUR 6 500\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall not apply to valid applications pending on 1 April 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 March 2011.", "references": ["13", "42", "82", "11", "66", "86", "92", "33", "15", "1", "85", "46", "32", "74", "40", "73", "30", "99", "75", "81", "49", "21", "36", "51", "53", "78", "0", "57", "26", "61", "No Label", "7", "16", "34", "45"], "gold": ["7", "16", "34", "45"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 595/2010\nof 2 July 2010\namending Annexes VIII, X and XI to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (1), and in particular the first and second subparagraph of Article 32(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1774/2002 lays down animal and public health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption. It provides that processed animal protein and other processed products that could be used as feed material are to be placed on the market only if they have been processed in accordance with Annex VII to that Regulation. In addition, Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 provides that petfood, dogchews and technical products and those animal by-products referred to in Annex VIII are to be placed on the market only if they meet the specific requirements set out in that Annex.\n(2)\nChapter V of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 currently sets out harmonised requirements for the placing on the market and importation of serum of equidae. However, certain Member States, trading partners and economic operators have indicated their interest in the use of blood and a wider range of blood products from equidae, both of Union and of third country origin, for technical purposes in the Union. In order to facilitate the use of such blood and of such blood products, it is necessary to lay down animal health requirements for their use for technical purposes. Such requirements should mitigate the potential risks of transmission of certain compulsorily notifiable diseases listed in Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (2), on the basis of available scientific evidence. In particular, blood should come from slaughterhouses that have been approved in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3) or from facilities approved and supervised by the competent authority of the third country for the purpose of blood collection, such as holdings where animals are kept under special health conditions.\n(3)\nChapter X of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 sets out requirements for the importation of horns and horn products (excluding horn meal) and hooves and hoof products (excluding hoof meal) intended for use other than as feed material, organic fertilizers or soil improvers.\n(4)\nEconomic operators have indicated their interest in the use of such animal by-products for the production of organic fertilizers or soil improvers. However, the placing on the market, including the importation of such animal by-products should only be allowed if they originate from animals which are fit for slaughter for human consumption or which did not show clinical signs of any communicable disease and if a treatment has been applied to them which mitigates potential health risks.\n(5)\nIn the case of horns, appropriate measures should be taken to prevent the transmission of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) when the horns are removed from the skull. The Scientific Steering Committee issued an opinion on TSE infectivity distribution in ruminant tissues (4). According to that opinion, horns must be removed without opening the cranial cavity, to prevent cross-contamination with TSE agents.\n(6)\nAccordingly, a new Chapter XV should be added to Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 which specifies the health conditions for the placing on the market, including the importation, of horns and horn products, excluding horn meal, and hooves and hoof products, excluding hoof meal, which are intended for the production of organic fertilisers or soil improvers.\n(7)\nAnnex X to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 437/2008' (5), sets out a single model health certificate for milk and milk products not intended for human consumption originating in third countries for dispatch to or for transit through the Union. Chapter V of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 lays down specific requirements for the placing on the market and importation of milk, milk products and colostrum. Point 3 of Section A and point 1.5 of Section B of that Chapter lay down the requirements for whey that is to be fed to animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease. The model health certificate for the importation of milk and milk products not intended for human consumption is set out Chapter 2 of Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002. The requirements for whey set out in that model certificate are stricter than the corresponding requirements for whey in intra-Union trade set out in Chapter V of Annex VII to that Regulation. Accordingly, that model certificate should be amended so that the requirements for the importation of whey are not less favourable than those applicable to the production and marketing of whey in intra-Union trade. The model health certificate in Chapter 2 of Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 should therefore be amended.\n(8)\nAnnex XI to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 sets out lists of third countries from which Member States may authorise imports of certain animal by-products not intended for human consumption with reference to Council Decision 79/542/EEC (6), Commission Decision 97/296/EC (7), Commission Decision 94/85/EEC (8), Commission Decision 94/984/EC (9), Commission Decision 2000/585/EC (10), Commission Decision 2000/609/EC (11), Commission Decision 2004/211/EC (12), Commission Decision 2004/438/EC (13) and Commission Decision 2006/696/EC (14). These legal acts have been considerably amended or replaced. Annex XI should be amended to take account of amendments made to those Union acts.\n(9)\nA transitional period should be provided for after the date of entry into force of this Regulation, in order to provide the necessary time for stakeholders to comply with the new rules and to allow for the continued importation into the Union of animal by-products, as provided for Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, before the amendments introduced by this Regulation.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes VIII, X and XI to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nFor a transitional period until 31 August 2010, Member States shall accept consignments of milk and milk products, serum from equidae and treated blood products, excluding those of equidae, for the manufacture of technical products which are accompanied by a health certificate completed and signed in accordance with the appropriate model certificates, as set out in Chapter 2, Chapter 4(A) and Chapter 4(D) respectively of Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 before the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nUntil 30 October 2010, Member States shall accept such consignments if the accompanying health certificates were completed and signed before 1 September 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force and apply on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 July 2010.", "references": ["75", "98", "5", "37", "74", "26", "73", "96", "39", "71", "12", "57", "9", "85", "88", "34", "47", "67", "50", "8", "21", "2", "97", "72", "81", "55", "11", "65", "36", "25", "No Label", "24", "38", "61", "69", "70", "82"], "gold": ["24", "38", "61", "69", "70", "82"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 272/2011\nof 21 March 2011\nimplementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 2 March 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Libya, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be included in the list set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["6", "1", "58", "73", "29", "98", "38", "24", "7", "27", "12", "22", "99", "28", "46", "74", "30", "65", "33", "95", "82", "79", "0", "32", "61", "16", "62", "54", "93", "86", "No Label", "3", "4", "11", "14", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "11", "14", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 418/2012\nof 16 May 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 as regards licence obligations for certain agricultural products, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1342/2003 as regards the transfer of rights deriving from licences for cereals and rice imported under tariff quotas\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 134 and Article 161(3), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Articles 130 and 161 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, in order to manage imports and exports, the Commission has been given the power to determine the products for which import or export will be subject to presentation of a licence. When assessing the need for a licence system, the Commission has to take into account the appropriate instruments for the management of the markets and in particular for monitoring the imports or exports.\n(2)\nArticle 1(2)(a)(i) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (2) in conjunction with Section A of Part I of Annex II to that Regulation provides for a licence obligation for imports of, among others, durum wheat including products imported under tariff quotas as referred to in Article 1(2)(a)(iii) of that Regulation, barley and grain sorghum other than hybrids for sowing, all these products including seeds thereof. Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 also provides for a licence obligation for imports of manioc, arrowroot, salep, Jerusalem artichokes, sweet potatoes and similar roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, fresh, chilled, frozen or dried, whether or not sliced or in the form of pellets, for imports of sago pith and for imports of sweet potatoes for human consumption.\n(3)\nArticle 1(2)(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 in conjunction with Section A of Part II of Annex II to that Regulation provides for a licence obligation for exports of, among others, durum wheat, rye, barley and oats, all of them including seeds thereof.\n(4)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 refers to CN codes in order to indicate the products which are subject to the presentation of an import or export licence under the conditions laid down by that Regulation.\n(5)\nIt seems appropriate to adapt the CN codes used in Parts I, II and III of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 to those used in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (3) as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 (4). Moreover, some minor linguistic changes to Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 are needed in the interest of clarity.\n(6)\nIn the interest of simplification and for the purpose of alleviating the administrative burden for Member States and operators, the requirement of import licences for seeds of durum wheat, including products imported under tariff quotas as referred to in Article 1(2)(a)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, of barley and of grain sorghum other than hybrids for sowing, the requirement of import licences for manioc, arrowroot, salep, Jerusalem artichokes, sweet potatoes and similar roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, fresh, chilled, frozen or dried, whether or not sliced or in the form of pellets, for sago pith and for sweet potatoes for human consumption and the requirement of export licences for seeds of durum wheat, of rye, of barley and of oats should be abolished.\n(7)\nPursuant to Article 130(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 introduced a licence obligation for imports of all sugar products falling within CN code 1701 imported under preferential conditions other than tariff quotas. The amount of the security and the period of validity of import licences for all products falling within that CN code imported under preferential conditions other than tariff quotas are set out in Section C of Part I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 by way of a reference to specific provisions of the sectoral Commission regulations. Since those regulations have been repealed in the meantime, it is appropriate to specify the amount of the security and the period of validity of import licences of the products concerned in that Section.\n(8)\nThe product codes for which an import licence is required are currently listed in Part I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008. By Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1667/2006 of 7 November 2006 on glucose and lactose (5), all the provisions, and in particular the system of trade with third countries, adopted for the dairy product lactose and lactose syrup falling within CN code 1702 19 00 are extended to the industrial product lactose and lactose syrup falling within CN code 1702 11 00. For the sake of completeness, transparency and clarity, it is appropriate to include CN code 1702 11 00 in Part I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008.\n(9)\nHorizontal rules concerning transferability of licences including transfer of rights deriving from licences or certificates are laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008. In the interest of clarity as regards transferability of licences issued in accordance with Article 1(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 concerning tariff quotas, it seems appropriate to adapt Article 6(7) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1342/2003 of 28 July 2003 laying down special detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences for cereals and rice (6).\n(10)\nRegulations (EC) No 376/2008 and (EC) No 1342/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nFor the sake of clarity, it is appropriate to lay down the rules concerning the import licences issued for seeds of durum wheat including products imported under tariff quotas as referred to in Article 1(2)(a)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, of barley and of grain sorghum other than hybrids for sowing, the import licences for manioc, arrowroot, salep, Jerusalem artichokes, sweet potatoes and similar roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, fresh, chilled, frozen or dried, whether or not sliced or in the form of pellets; sago pith; sweet potatoes for human consumption and the export licences issued for seeds of durum wheat, of rye, of barley and of oats, which are still valid on the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAmendment of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2003\nIn Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2003, paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:\n\u20187. By way of derogation from Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, rights deriving from licences referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article shall not be transferable.\u2019\nArticle 3\nTransitional measures\nAt the request of the interested parties, the securities lodged for the issuing of import licences for seeds of durum wheat including products imported under tariff quotas as referred to in Article 1(2)(a)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, of barley and of grain sorghum other than hybrids for sowing, of import licences for manioc, arrowroot, salep, Jerusalem artichokes, sweet potatoes and similar roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, fresh, chilled, frozen or dried, whether or not sliced or in the form of pellets for sago pith and for sweet potatoes for human consumption and of export licences for seeds of durum wheat, of rye, of barley and of oats, shall be released when the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe validity of the licences has not expired on the date of entry into force of this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe licences have been used only partially or not at all on the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2012.", "references": ["90", "80", "56", "89", "87", "88", "96", "99", "4", "93", "2", "11", "31", "42", "54", "50", "85", "57", "48", "67", "33", "3", "39", "71", "92", "18", "26", "55", "17", "69", "No Label", "21", "22", "66"], "gold": ["21", "22", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 652/2012\nof 13 July 2012\ncorrecting Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 121(e) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Latvian and Lithuanian language versions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 contain several errors. Some of the errors appear in the multilingual annexes of the regulation and therefore those annexes should be corrected in all language versions.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 543/2008 should therefore be corrected accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nConcerns only the Lithuanian version.\nArticle 2\nConcerns only the Latvian version.\nArticle 3\nThe Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 are amended as follows:\n(a)\nAnnexes I and III are replaced by the text in Annex I to this Regulation;\n(b)\nconcerns only the Lithuanian version;\n(c)\nconcerns only the Latvian version.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2012.", "references": ["33", "31", "35", "76", "16", "83", "62", "72", "63", "70", "51", "40", "36", "60", "58", "2", "13", "3", "20", "32", "84", "50", "6", "59", "71", "93", "7", "45", "18", "56", "No Label", "25", "66", "69", "91"], "gold": ["25", "66", "69", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 April 2010\non the State aid implemented by Belgium for the restructuring of the Ostend fish auction\n(State aid C 30/08 (ex NN 21/08))\n(notified under document C(2010) 2520)\n(Only the Dutch and French texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/607/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2), and in particular Article 7(5) and Article 14 thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments (3) pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (4) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter of 16 February 2006 the Commission received a complaint concerning aid granted by the Belgian authorities to the Ostend fish auction, registered under reference number CP 40/06. On 31 July 2007 an additional complaint was received pertaining to the same issue.\n(2)\nBy letters of 13 March 2006, 26 June 2006 and 11 July 2007, the Commission has requested the Belgian authorities to provide information about these measures, to which they responded by letters of 11 May 2006, 20 October 2006 and 27 November 2007.\n(3)\nAfter examination of the information and documents provided by the Belgian authorities, the Commission informed the Belgian authorities on 3 July 2008 of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.\n(4)\nBy letter of 16 July 2008 the Belgian authorities have transmitted to the Commission certain documents relating to the privatisation of the Ostend fish auction contemplated by the City of Ostend.\n(5)\nBy letter of 25 July 2008 the Belgian authorities requested an extension until the 8 September 2008 to submit their comments. The extension was granted on 4 August 2008.\n(6)\nBy letter of 8 September 2008 the Belgian authorities submitted their comments on the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure.\n(7)\nThe Commission Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5). The Commission has invited interested parties to submit their comments within one month of the date of the publication.\n(8)\nThe Commission met the Belgian authorities on 9 October 2008. During this meeting, the Belgian authorities gave information about the manner in which they intended to organise the privatisation of the fish auction.\n(9)\nThe Commission received comments from the following interested third parties: EAFPA (European Association of Fishing Ports and Auctions), NOVA (Nationaal Overleg Visafslagen), Flanders Ship Repair, Zeebrugse Vis Promotie vzw (ZVP), Grimsby Fish Market, Zeebrugse Visveiling (ZV) and European Fish Centre (EFC) and Gardec (a ship repair undertaking).\n(10)\nBy letter of 4 November 2008, the Commission forwarded these comments to Belgium, which was given the opportunity to react. Belgium did not send any observations further to the comments from third parties.\n(11)\nBy letter dated 8 September 2009 with reference C(2009) 6907, Commission issued an information injunction in accordance with Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 requiring a complete answer to the questions raised in its letters of 13 March 2006, 26 June 2006 and 11 July 2007 and in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure.\n(12)\nBy letter of 7 October 2009 the Belgian authorities requested an extension until 9 November 2009 to submit the information. The extension was granted on 9 October 2009. In their letter, the Belgian authorities also asked the Commission to transmit to the Belgian authorities the comments submitted by third parties. Together with granting the delay extension, the Commission re-transmitted the comments of third parties and a copy of the letter of 4 November 2008.\n(13)\nBy letter of 22 October 2009 the Belgian authorities informed the Commission that they had never received the Commission letter of 4 November 2008. For this reason, they requested a new period of one month in order to submit their observations further to the comments submitted by third parties.\n(14)\nBy letter of 5 November 2009 the Commission granted the Belgian authorities an extension until 27 November 2009 in order to give them the opportunity to react to the comments submitted by third parties.\n(15)\nThe Belgian authorities gave their answers to the information injunction as well as additional information on the privatisation of the fish auction.\n(16)\nBy letter of 30 November 2009 Belgium transmitted its observations further to the comments submitted by third parties.\n2. RESTRUCTURING OF THE OSTEND FISH AUCTION IN 2001\n(17)\nThe Ostend fish auction, originally a State owned auction, had been highly fragmented and - according to the Belgian authorities themselves - badly managed for years. It was performing badly. From 1991 to 2001, its share in terms of fish arrivals in Belgian harbours had fallen from approximately 37 % to 20 % (6). From 1997 to 2001 its turnover dropped from EUR 20 550 000 to EUR 13 440 000 (7) and over many years, the City of Ostend (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the City\u2019), in relation to the auction, had been recording an average annual loss of EUR 1 850 000 (including in 2001).\n(18)\nIn 2001 the City had to make a choice between closing down the fish auction and restructuring it. On 23 November 2001 the City decided to restructure the Ostend fish auction into an autonomous municipal company under Belgian Law, with the City as its sole shareholder.\n(19)\nThe decision to restructure the auction was based on a financial plan presenting one hypothesis (described as positive) and a two-page business plan, drawn up by HAMA Consult NV. These documents indicate that the fish auction could become profitable within a period of nine years provided that it was transformed into a separate legal entity with starting capital of BEF 250 million (around EUR 6,2 million), to be paid up in full over a period of five years. This separate company was called the \u2018Autonoom Gemeentebedrijf Vismijn Oostende\u2019 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018AGVO\u2019). AGVO took over the financial charge relating to the reimbursement of various bank loans relating to the former Ostend fish auction.\n2.1. COMPANY STRUCTURE\n2.1.1. AGVO\n(20)\nAs mentioned in recital 18, in order to restructure the fish auction, the City established, on 23 November 2001 (8), the autonomous municipal company AGVO. Such an autonomous municipal company is a separate legal entity, established under Article 261 of the New Municipality Law, intended for the organisation of municipal institutions and services outside the general municipal services, focused on institutions or services of a commercial or industrial nature and managed in accordance with industrial and commercial methods.\n(21)\nAs regards both shareholding and management bodies, the City, as the establishing municipality, is required by law to have the majority of votes. The City actually has 100 % of shares in AGVO and - according to AGVO\u2019s articles of association - appoints all members of the Board of Directors. The majority of the directors must be members of the City Council.\n(22)\nAGVO has currently at least two wholly-owned subsidiaries: NV Exploitatie Vismijn Oostende (hereinafter referred to as \u2018EVO\u2019), and NV Pakhuizen (hereinafter referred to as \u2018PAKHUIZEN\u2019).\n2.1.2. EVO\n(23)\nEVO was established on 8 August 2002 to run the auction and all activities relating thereto. EVO was provided with an initial capital of EUR 371 840. The ownership was shared in 15 000 equal shares without nominal value between AGVO, which held 14 999 shares, and Mr Miroir, Member of the City Council, with 1 share.\n(24)\nEVO is managed by a Board of Directors. The board members are appointed by the shareholders for a period of six years, with a possibility of renewal. In terms of shareholding, EVO is fully controlled by AGVO.\n2.1.3. PAKHUIZEN\n(25)\nPAKHUIZEN was set up in 1988 by vessel-owners in order to manage moveable and immovable assets. In 2005, PAKHUIZEN was taken over by AGVO through the purchase of all its shares for EUR 350 000.\n(26)\nPAKHUIZEN is managed by a Board of Directors. The board members are nominated by the shareholders for a period of six years, with a possibility of renewal. Since 2005, PAKHUIZEN is owned and controlled by AGVO.\n2.2. TASKS\n2.2.1. AGVO\n(27)\nAccording to its articles of association, AGVO is entrusted with tasks which are classified by the Belgian authorities as tasks in the public interest and commercial tasks. The \u2018public tasks\u2019 are performed by AGVO itself; the \u2018commercial tasks\u2019 are performed by the wholly-owned subsidiaries EVO and, since 2005, PAKHUIZEN.\n(28)\nAs regards the \u2018public tasks\u2019, the Belgian authorities have indicated that AGVO was entrusted with the management of the Ostend fishing port (which includes the management and maintenance of matters falling within the public and private domain situated within the boundaries of the fishing port), the inspection of fish landed for consumption, the setting of tax duties on auction prices while checking that the catch landed is subjected to the VAT requirement, the operation of the locks between the channel and the fisheries dock (which is used not only by fishing vessels), public relations functions on behalf of the local authorities and the renovation and provision of buildings to public-law or semi-public-law institutions such as the Flemish Region, West Flanders Province etc.\n2.2.2. EVO\n(29)\nEVO operates the Ostend fish auction. The activities in this context concern mainly organising and running the fish auction, letting warehouses and other subsidiary activities. In the context of the operation of the auction, EVO applies an auction charge of 6 % of the price. Buyers at the auction are charged with a buyer\u2019s commission of between 1 % and 3 % and must bear the hire fee for the fish crates. It is not known how much they pay for the latter.\n(30)\nMoreover, EVO grants loans to customer vessel-owners. Some of the recent loans were granted at a rate of Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) + 2 %. It seems, however, that not all loans were granted under those conditions. In exchange for the loan, the vessel-owners are required to auction their fish in Ostend.\n(31)\nIn addition, EVO provides vessel-owners with certain facilities, such as by contributing part or all of the costs of refrigerated transport.\n2.2.3. PAKHUIZEN\n(32)\nThe activities of PAKHUIZEN are mainly aimed at converting, restoring, (re-)decorating, (re-)constructing, and demolishing, exploiting, managing and letting immovable property.\n2.3. THE AID MEASURES AT ISSUE\n2.3.1. INITIAL CAPITAL AND CAPITAL INCREASES\n(33)\nAt the time of its establishment, on 23 November 2001, AGVO was granted a starting capital of BEF 250 million (EUR 6 179 338,12) by the City to be paid in equal yearly instalments over a period of five years. Since 2002, six instalments of the initial capital have been paid, amounting to a total of EUR 3 596 665,62: EUR 619 734 have been paid on 28 June 2002, EUR 570 155 on 26 June 2003, EUR 570 155 on 25 June 2004 and EUR 570 155 on 26 June 2005. In their comments in the context of the formal investigation procedure Belgium has indicated that in 2006 and 2007 two more instalments of EUR 619 734 were paid. So far as the Commission is aware, the remaining part of the starting capital of EUR 2 582 672,5 has not yet been claimed by AGVO.\n(34)\nThe Belgian authorities have indicated that AGVO has used the starting capital partly for \u2018public purposes\u2019 and for repayments of current bank loans in capital and interest. It has also used it to buy shares in Pakhuizen. Finally it has used it in order to pay up EVO\u2019s initial capital and to grant loans to EVO which were later (31 December 2004, 31 December 2005 and 21 December 2007) converted into capital by means of a remission of debts.\n(35)\nAt the time of its establishment on 8 August 2002, EVO was provided with an initial capital of EUR 371 840,29. Subsequently, AGVO has increased EVO\u2019s capital by cancelling its debts. On 31 December 2004, the capital was increased by EUR 1 387 044; on 31 December 2005 by EUR 710 000,75 and on 21 December 2007 by EUR 1 500 114,96. In total AGVO has provided EVO with a capital of EUR 3 969 000.\n(36)\nAlthough the Belgian authorities had informed the Commission that EVO\u2019s initial capital had been increased and that it amounted to EUR 2 468 885 by 31 December 2006, they did not inform the Commission of the particular form of the capital increases. Following observations received from third parties, the attention of the Commission was drawn to the capital increase of 21 December 2007 and to the fact that the capital had been increased by way of a remission of debts. Belgium did not comment on this aspect of the third parties\u2019 observations.\n2.3.2. GUARANTEES FOR LOANS\n(37)\nApart from the initial capital, the City assisted both AGVO and EVO by providing, free of charge, guarantees for obtaining private loans.\n(38)\nSo far as concerns AGVO, the guarantees were for three loans, granted on 26 March (EUR 609 379,40) and 23 April 2004 (EUR 2 117 500) and 22 April 2005 (EUR 550 000), totalling BEF 132 199 987 (EUR 3 276 879).\n(39)\nSo far as concerned EVO, the guarantees were for loans, granted on 28 June and 27 September 2002. However, according to the information submitted by the Belgian authorities, in the end the loans concerned were not taken up. On 23 April 2004 and 22 April 2005, the City again provided guarantees free of charge for loans to EVO, which enabled the latter to take up loans amounting to BEF 145 505 820 (EUR 3 606 995). Without mentioning any date, the Belgian authorities have indicated that the City had also guaranteed an additional loan of EUR 78 000. Given that this was indicated in the comments of the Belgian authorities of 4 September 2008 and that the previous comments were dated 23 November 2007, the Commission assumes that this additional guarantee was provided some time between those dates.\n(40)\nAGVO has also provided guarantees free of charge to EVO for two loans for a total of EUR 600 000. No information was given as to the date of the decision to grant the free guarantees. Given that EVO was established on 22 August 2002 and that the document submitted by the Belgian authorities mentioning the two loans was describing the situation on 3 August 2006, the Commission assumes that the guarantee was provided some time between those dates.\n2.3.3. LAND AND BUILDINGS\n(41)\nAccording to Article 30 of its Articles of association of 23 November 2001, AGVO is granted the exclusive right to use, free of charge, the land and buildings of the Ostend fishing port (9).\n(42)\nArticle 30 of the articles of association also indicates that the City can at a later stage transfer the property rights (or other rights) in those land and buildings to AGVO.\n(43)\nThis was the case on 26 March 2004, when the City made a contribution to AGVO by transferring to it its property rights in various buildings located in the Ostend fishing harbour consisting of 57 500 m2. This contribution was made at the inventory value entered in the municipal accounts, which was EUR 14 891 524. The transfer concerned only buildings (fish auction, offices, and warehouses) and not the ground on which the buildings were erected. The ground itself is used by the City on the basis of an open-ended concession from the Flemish Region, the owner of the plots of land. AGVO continued to have the exclusive right to use these lands on the basis of Article 30 of its articles of association.\n(44)\nThe transfer of immovable property of 26 March 2004 included 14 754 m2 of buildings subject to a long-term lease between the City and PAKHUIZEN concluded in 1989 for a period of 45 years. Under this contract, PAKHUIZEN pays a token rent of BEF 1 000 (EUR 25) per year for the use of the buildings. In return, PAKHUIZEN is contractually required, at its expense and without entitlement to compensation, to renovate the warehouses described in the long-term lease so that they will comply with future regulations. Furthermore, after 27 years of lease (in 2016), the City will be granted 50 % every year of PAKHUIZEN\u2019s net annual profit. The Belgian authorities have indicated that PAKHUIZEN did not comply with its obligations and the specified warehouses were not renovated, as contractually required, at least not before 2005. However, the Belgian authorities indicated that after AGVO purchased PAKHUIZEN shares, it spent EUR 257 872 in 2005 and EUR 68 816 in 2006 on renovation and maintenance works. The exact amount of the costs of the works undertaken in 2007 is not known.\n(45)\nFrom 26 March 2004, the date on which the City transferred the ownership of the building to AGVO, AGVO replaced the City as the contracting party in the long-term lease with PAKHUIZEN. By doing so, AGVO became entitled to collect the EUR 25 per year, as well as to obtain after 27 years of lease, 50 % of PAKHUIZEN\u2019s net annual profit.\n(46)\nAccording to the information provided by Belgium, the 57 500 m2 thus made available to AGVO are distributed as follows:\n-\n13 600 m2 used by the subsidiary EVO to house the fish auction, as working/storage space and administrative buildings,\n-\n14 754 m2 rented to PAKHUIZEN, of which 955 m2 are used for port activities,\n-\n2 700 m2 of warehouses rented to (semi-) public-law institutions,\n-\n8 156 m2 of public roads,\n-\n2 488 m2 which are used as free public parking,\n-\n2 400 m2 which are used as a container park for fisheries activities,\n-\n13 402 m2 of docks.\n(47)\nEVO does not pay rent for the use of the buildings. Belgium has stated that, in return, EVO pays for all maintenance and renovation costs. PAKHUIZEN continues to pay 25 EUR per year.\n(48)\nThe Belgian authorities have indicated that between 31 December 2002 and 31 December 2007 EVO and PAKHUIZEN have paid respectively EUR 182 377,31 and EUR 381 835,16 for renovation and infrastructure works and EUR 193 255,70 and EUR 133 895,35 for maintenance costs.\n2.4. COMMERCIAL STRATEGY\n(49)\nDuring the years following the restructuring, both AGVO and EVO have registered losses that kept increasing despite a slight profit for AGVO in 2003/04. By the end of 2006, AGVO had cumulated losses of almost EUR 3 000 000 and short- and long-term debts for more than EUR 4 000 000 while, also at the end of 2006, EVO had to carry over losses of an amount of more than EUR 3 400 000, short-and long-term debts for more than EUR 5 800 000 and a negative capital of almost EUR 1 000 000.\n(50)\nDespite those cumulated losses, AGVO and EVO engaged in speculative activities and in expanding their activities. For instance in 2006 AGVO took a 51 % shareholding in a company called HAF Holding BO established in Iceland, while EVO engaged in a King crab project (10) in 2006 (Polardrift, an undertaking established in Norway). EVO was also involved in the Icelandic HAF Holding. Furthermore, in 2005 EVO concluded a contract with a sales agent under which the agent was mandated to purchase high quality fish on Icelandic auctions which would then be resold at the Ostend fish auction.\n(51)\nThe commercial strategy of EVO has been described by the various stakeholders as unfair competition consisting of offering, among others, to bear all or part of the costs of the transport of fish embarked in foreign harbours to Ostend and of offering loans to vessel-owners at advantageous conditions on the condition that they auction their catches in Ostend.\n(52)\nThese projects, as well as the commercial strategy described by third parties, seem to indicate that EVO undertook to expand its market share and its turnover at any cost. In any event, the annual accounts of AGVO and EVO indicate that EVO could maintain its presence on the market, despite its precarious financial situation, only thanks to the support of the City (11).\n3. REASONS FOR OPENING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n3.1. ADVANTAGES GRANTED TO AGVO\n(53)\nAGVO has been granted an initial capital of BEF 250 million (EUR 6 179 338). Considering the heavy losses of the past and the very short and incomplete business plan, the Commission concluded in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure that a private investor would not have invested such an amount in the fish auction and that this starting capital therefore qualifies as State aid. The Commission expressed doubts regarding its compatibility with the internal market since the conditions laid down in the Guidelines for aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, applicable at the time the aid was granted, (hereinafter \u2018the 1999 R & R Guidelines\u2019) (12) did not seem to be fulfilled.\n(54)\nThe City also contributed its buildings to AGVO without requiring any consideration or imposing obligations on AGVO of a similar value. The Commission considered that a private investor would have required a reasonable price for such a contribution, so that the contribution of the buildings had to be considered State aid. This aid, which seemed to reduce AGVO\u2019s production costs, appeared to constitute operating aid. The Commission could not find any provision in Article 107 TFEU or in the Guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture (hereinafter \u2018the Fisheries Guidelines\u2019) (13) that would enable it to allow the aid.\n(55)\nThe City also provided guarantees for loans for AGVO. While a private operator would have required a premium for the guarantee, the City granted it free of charge. Thus, the Commission concluded that these guarantees had to be considered State aid. Again, this aid appeared to reduce the production costs of AGVO and thus to constitute operating aid. The Commission could not find any provision in Article 107 TFEU or in the Fisheries Guidelines that would have allowed it to consider it compatible with the internal market.\n(56)\nFinally, the City empowered AGVO to establish and collect community tax duties, and to use the proceeds, an advantage which a private undertaking generally does not have. The Commission considered that the conditions laid down in Altmark (14) were not fulfilled and that the advantages deriving from the right to levy and collect the community tax duties should be considered State aid. In the absence of any information on that levy, the Commission concluded that it had at first sight to be analyzed as operating aid and that no provision in Article 107 TFEU or in the Fisheries Guidelines would make this aid compatible with the internal market.\n3.2. ADVANTAGES GRANTED TO EVO\n(57)\nThe City and AGVO provided guarantees for loans for EVO. While a private operator would have required a premium for the guarantees, the City and AGVO granted them free of charge and the Commission concluded that they must be considered State aid. This aid appeared to reduce the production costs of EVO and to constitute operating aid. The Commission could not find any provision in Article 107 TFEU or in the Fisheries Guidelines that would have allowed the Commission to consider it as compatible with the internal market. It therefore expressed its doubts that these measures could be found compatible with the internal market.\n(58)\nAGVO allowed EVO the continuous free use of the buildings owned by AGVO of a total of 13 600 m2. The Commission considered that a private investor would have required a reasonable price for it and that making the buildings available free of charge had to be considered State aid. This aid, which seemed to reduce EVO\u2019s production costs, appeared to constitute operating aid. The Commission could not find any provision in Article 107 TFEU or in the Fisheries Guidelines that would have allowed it to consider it compatible with the internal market. it therefore doubted whether these measures could be considered compatible with the internal market.\n3.3. ADVANTAGE GRANTED TO PAKHUIZEN\n(59)\nThe effect of the terms of the long-term lease between the City and PAKHUIZEN was that PAKHUIZEN could benefit from a yearly reduction of its operating costs. The Commission concluded that this advantage qualified as State aid and did not fall within the scope of any of the measures mentioned in the Fisheries Guidelines, or within the objectives of other horizontal or specific guidelines which could be applicable to this kind of undertaking. Both under the relevant Fisheries Guidelines as well as the horizontal rules on State aid, such type of aid would be considered operating aid which is incompatible with the internal market. The Commission therefore doubted whether this measure could be considered compatible with the internal market.\n3.4. ADVANTAGES GRANTED TO FISHERIES UNDERTAKINGS\n(60)\nThe Commission further observed that fisheries undertakings making use of the Ostend fish auction were granted advantages by EVO through the provision of services at rates below those which a normal private operator would charge, and by PAKHUIZEN letting buildings at rates below those which a normal private operator would charge.\n(61)\nThe Commission considered those advantages to constitute State aid and could not find any provision in Article 107 TFEU or in the Fisheries Guidelines that would make this aid compatible and therefore doubted whether these measures could be found compatible with the internal market.\n3.5. CONCLUSION\n(62)\nIn light of the foregoing and the information at its disposal, the Commission considered that all measures mentioned under section 3 had to be regarded as State aid and had doubts as to the compatibility of these aids with the internal market.\n4. COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES\n(63)\nAll interested third parties which submitted observations on the decision to open the formal investigation procedure agreed with the arguments put forward in that decision. Furthermore they indicated that they had suffered damage as a result of the illegal aid granted to AGVO, EVO and PAKHUIZEN (loss of clients and revenues) and urged the Commission to take the necessary steps to forbid the aid and seek its recovery.\n4.1. EAFPA\n(64)\nEAFPA stresses that the aid measures at issue distort the market and calls on the Commission to forbid the aid and to seek its recovery.\n4.2. NOVA\n(65)\nAs complainant, NOVA supports the Commission\u2019s Decision to open a formal investigation. It considers it important to ensure transparency in the auction market and to guarantee a level playing field. It further calls on the Commission to adopt appropriate steps to ensure recovery of the aid which may be incompatible.\n4.3. FLANDERS SHIP REPAIR\n(66)\nFlanders Ship Repair explains that the effect of the State aid has been to attract shippers to Ostend. This has led, according to Flanders Ship Repair, to a loss of revenue, since the shippers who have gone over to Ostend no longer had their ships repaired in Zeebrugge. Flanders Ship Repair asks for a negative decision with recovery as well as for provisional measures.\n4.4. ZVP\n(67)\nZVP, an association of fish purchasers and processors on the Belgian East coast, states that the unlawful State aid, together with other advantages, has allowed the Ostend fish auction to artificially attract foreign vessels and vessels from Zeebrugge. Moreover, through numerous interviews and press releases by local politicians and members of EVO\u2019s Board of Directors (stating in particular that in Belgium there probably is room for only one fish auction, namely Oostende), doubts have been cast concerning the future of the Zeebrugse fish auction and consequently the surrounding business park. This has resulted in loss of revenues and a decrease in, suspension or withdrawal of investments and marketing efforts.\n(68)\nZVP also mentions that it has tried to make the local authorities aware of this problem, but without success.\n(69)\nFinally ZVP points out that EVO has - by using a \u2018front\u2019 and obtaining public funds - established a filleting company, called Ostend Filleting Factory, which is also engaging in unfair competition.\n4.5. GRIMSBY FISH MARKET\n(70)\nGrimsby Fish Market, a UK fish auction, indicates that around 2005/06, EVO started to buy fish straight from Icelandic fishermen at (high) fixed prices and sold by Dutch auction in Ostend, frequently at lower prices, and concludes that these losses have been paid for by public money. Grimsby Fish Market urges an audit of EVO\u2019s accounts to investigate the means by which the Icelandic fish supplies were financed and the losses incurred by EVO as a result of such sales methods.\n4.6. ZV AND EFC\n(71)\nZV and EFC draw the attention of the Commission on other possible unfair practices and State aid measures, namely the use by AGVO/EVO of the City\u2019s staff, free of charge, and price guarantees granted by EVO and based on the auction price at the Zeebrugse Visveiling.\n(72)\nThey further explain why in their view competition is distorted and trade between Member States affected.\n(73)\nThey also draw the attention of the Commission on additional injection of capital into AGVO and in EVO (through remission of debts).\n(74)\nFinally they note that the Belgian authorities have not suspended the aid.\n4.7. GARDEC\n(75)\nGardec is a ship repair undertaking located in Zeebrugge. It supports the Commission Decision. It adds that it has suffered injury from the unfair commercial practices in Ostend (decrease in turnover) and notes that the loans granted to firms in difficulty had the effect of allowing them to survive in Ostend while their debts remained unpaid in Zeebrugge.\n5. BELGIUM\u2019S OBSERVATIONS FOLLOWING THE DOUBTS EXPRESSED IN THE DECISION TO INITIATE THE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(76)\nIn their observations of 8 September 2008 following opening of the formal procedure, the Belgian authorities consider that the Commission should limit its investigation to the fish auction market. As neither AGVO nor PAKHUIZEN are active on those markets, the measures taken in their favour are irrelevant for the present procedure. More in general they consider that the Commission has not properly defined the scope of the investigation and that there is a risk of double counting of the aid.\n5.1. THE AID TO AGVO\n(77)\nThe Belgian authorities insist upon the fact that AGVO has no commercial activities and that there can therefore be no impact on competition. The aid granted to AGVO cannot therefore qualify as State aid. They add that at most, only the funds that have been used for EVO could be taken into account for the investigation (for instance the part of the initial capital that has been passed on to EVO through AGVO). They submit that the rest has been used for public interest tasks and cannot have any impact on the competition in the fish auction market.\n(78)\nThe Belgian authorities note that, even though an initial start capital of EUR 6 197 338,12 has been promised to AGVO, AGVO has so far received only EUR 3 569 667.\n(79)\nWith regard to the right to levy taxes or fees, the Belgian authorities consider such a right is linked to AGVO\u2019s public interest tasks and cannot be regarded as State aid and that, in any event, AGVO does not have the power to levy taxes for the locks and the slipways.\n(80)\nWith regard to the buildings, they submit that it would not make any difference whether the buildings are the property of the City or of another public entity. They consider the contribution of the buildings to AGVO as a merely internal allocation of property. The Belgian authorities recall that AGVO has no commercial activities and that the contribution of the buildings cannot therefore be qualified as State aid. They add that the contribution of the buildings is linked to the obligation to repair and maintain them in a good state and thus dispute that AGVO has been advantaged by the contribution.\n(81)\nThey consider further that the free guarantees cannot qualify as State aid because they were provided for loans entered into by AGVO for repair works on buildings rented to public authorities. They however admit that one of the guaranteed loans (loan of EUR 550 000) was used for EVO.\n(82)\nFinally, the Belgian authorities note that the Altmark judgment is not relevant because the public tasks of AGVO are non-economic. They add that there is no risk of cross-subsidy because AGVO has no commercial activity.\n5.2. THE AID TO PAKHUIZEN\n(83)\nBelgium submits that Ostend has only a limited right to the land and the long lease is therefore of reduced commercial value. Moreover, PAKHUIZEN is required to repair and renovate the buildings, which is presented as an onerous obligation which amply makes up for the token rent.\n(84)\nThe Belgian authorities add that PAKHUIZEN is only active on the market for the management of buildings used in the fishing sector. They take the view that this activity can hardly be considered commercial because of the renovation obligations involved and because of the poor value of the buildings. Finally, because the buildings managed by PAKHUIZEN can only be rented for activities linked to the fishing sector, the Belgian authorities argue that PAKHUIZEN does not compete with anyone.\n(85)\nThe Belgian authorities further observe that AGVO bought the PAKHUIZEN shares at market price and that PAKHUIZEN rents the buildings at market prices (considering that they were not in good state of repair).\n5.3. THE AID TO EVO\n(86)\nThe Belgian authorities indicate that the fact that the buildings are at the disposal of EVO free of charge is compensated by the fact that EVO has to bear renovation costs that normally fall upon the owner of the buildings.\n(87)\nThey further submit that the free guarantees granted for loans to EVO are to be analysed in the framework of the privatisation and restructuring plan of the auction. They take the view that, in the framework of the restructuring of the fish auction the City acted like a private investor, in so far as the recapitalisation of the fish auction was more profitable from an economic point of view than the closing of the auction and that through the privatisation, the City would be able to recoup its investment through the rent it will ask from the private owner of the auction. They also stress that already in 2002 there were plans to privatise the fish auction and that privatisation was only possible after restructuring.\n(88)\nMore specifically on the free guarantee, they observe that the loans were used to complete the financing of the fish auction, which was primarily financed through a capital injection (to AGVO and, through AGVO, to EVO) from the City. The Belgian authorities note that through the guarantee the City has substantially reduced the costs incurred for the restructuring. They add that without the guarantee of the City no loan would have been granted and point out that it is normal commercial practice that a parent undertaking offers a guarantee for loans engaged into by its subsidiary.\n5.4. THE AID TO FISHING UNDERTAKINGS/SHIP-OWNERS\n(89)\nThe Belgian authorities observe that the Commission has counted the same aid twice and that there is either aid to EVO or to the fishermen but not to both. They take the view that, should the measures concerned constitute State aid, they then constitute State aid at the level of EVO and PAKHUIZEN and distort competition at that level but not at the level of vessel-owners and fishing undertakings. They add that in any event, EVO and PAKHUIZEN do not offer their services below market prices. Specifically, so far as EVO is concerned, they explain that EVO offers services that are also proposed elsewhere. They also observe that EVO does not purport to offer any storage facilities, does not offer electricity free of charge and is not responsible for the manage of the port and the slipways. They indicate that the price for the water is included in the auction fee and that EVO does not grant any loan under market prices to ship-owners. Finally, they state that, in practice, EVO has never enforced the contract articles obliging ship-owners to auction their catches at its auctions.\n6. PRIVATIZATION PROCEDURE LAUNCHED AFTER INITIATION OF THE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(90)\nBelgium has informed the Commission that it has been decided on 22 May 2008 to privatise the Ostend fish auction and that the City has launched a public selection procedure in order to attract an operational partner run EVO.\n(91)\nIn its comments, Belgium explains that the privatisation will take place through the establishment of a new undertaking (\u2018NewCo\u2019) that will carry out the operation of the fish auction. The buildings of the fish auction will return to the City and NewCo will have to sign a lease agreement with the City. NewCo will not be obliged to take over the other assets of the fish auction (employees, fish boxes, contracts, loans to ship-owners, etc.).\n(92)\nAs the sale and the rental agreement will be negotiated at market prices, no aid will be transferred to NewCo and no aid can be recovered from NewCo.\n(93)\nIn its letter of 16 November 2009, Belgium informed the Commission of the further developments of the privatisation process.\n(94)\nIt indicates that, as a first step, the property of the buildings belonging to AGVO has been transferred back, free of charge, to the City on 4 September 2009, as well as rights and obligations relating to the buildings (rental contracts). The City has also taken over various loans from AGVO and PAKHUIZEN. Subsequently, the property of the buildings was transferred to the Flemish Region which paid the City in various forms: the Flemish Region paid EUR 3 500 000 to the City and the City was granted the right to collect until 1 January or, in certain cases, until 30 June 2010 the rent paid by the public and semi-public organisations renting the buildings. Finally the Flemish Region took over various debts and/or loans from the City.\n(95)\nBelgium argues that the fact that the property of the buildings has been transferred back to the City puts an end to the State aid issue.\n(96)\nBelgium has further indicated that PAKHUIZEN has decided to terminate the long-term lease agreement concluded with the City in 1989. Belgium expects that PAKHUIZEN will be wound-up soon, which would render the State aid procedure devoid of purpose.\n(97)\nSo far as EVO is concerned, Belgium has explained that the candidate fulfilling the selection criteria did not offer conditions which were satisfactory for the City. EVO will therefore continue to exist until a suitable candidate is found to take over EVO\u2019s assets.\n(98)\nFinally, Belgium indicated that AGVO would continue to exist until all remaining debts/obligations are settled.\n(99)\nBelgium asks the Commission to postpone its decision until the privatisation process is finished.\n7. BELGIUM\u2019S OBSERVATIONS FOLLOWING THE COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES\n(100)\nBelgium indicates, so far as the Icelandic issue is concerned, that EVO never directly purchased fish from Icelandic ship-owners or fishermen but only from Icelandic fish auctions, through a sales agent.\n(101)\nBelgium adds that it soon became clear that the resale of the Icelandic fish was not profitable. Thus, after approximately one year, it was decided, on 17 March 2006, to put an end to these purchases and resales. Belgium has submitted a copy of the said decision.\n(102)\nBelgium explains that the reason why fish was bought against high prices at Icelandic fish auctions and then resold in Ostend at lower prices was not due to any strategy aiming at attracting Icelandic fish to Ostend but was due to the fact that the fish of higher quality which was bought by the sales agent in Iceland and meant for EVO never reached EVO but instead was directly bought by a private filleting undertaking, Luna Fish, whereas Icelandic fish of lesser quality arrived at EVO and could then not be sold at profitable prices, given its lesser quality. Belgium concludes that EVO was therefore rather a victim of these practices. The delegated administrator of AGVO/EVO and the commercial director were dismissed when the problem was discovered.\n(103)\nSo far as the alleged free secondment of staff for administrative, accountancy and maintenance tasks is concerned, Belgium submits that ZV\u2019s statements are based on mere suspicions and that EVO has its own employees to perform those tasks and that, furthermore, some of EVO\u2019s employees sometimes discharge public interest tasks (maintenance of the fish auction road).\n(104)\nBelgium also mentions that the statement made by ZV that EVO would guarantee a minimum price by reference to the auction price at the Zeebrugse fish auction is not supported by any evidence. Belgium adds that fishing undertakings might have alleged this when negotiating with ZV, as part of a strategy to obtain better commercial conditions from ZV.\n(105)\nAs for the Ostend Filleting Factory (OFF) issue, Belgium stresses that the documents submitted by third parties only indicate that OFF was set up by private parties and do not reveal how OFF would have engaged in unfair competition. Belgium states that it was only in March 2006 that PAKHUIZEN acquired 60 % of the shares in OFF. The name \u2018OFF\u2019 was then changed to \u2018Ostend Premium Fish bvba\u2019 and the company finally went bankrupt on 14 January 2008.\n(106)\nOn the alleged losses suffered by Gardec and Flanders Ship Repair as a result of the State aid, Belgium considers that, even if State aid were to induce vessels to go to Oostende instead of Zeebrugge, the causal link with the loss would still not be demonstrated. Belgium submits that ship-owners do not always let their vessel be repaired in their home port and instead make use of cheaper repair services in Eastern Europe (Poland). Belgium observes that there has been a clear decline in ship repair work in Oostende.\n8. INFORMATION INJUNCTION\n(107)\nBy letters of 13 March and 26 June 2006 the Commission asked the Belgian authorities for information about the legal situation of the Ostend fish auction, the involvement of the State and for details about the financial flows between the State and the fish auction.\n(108)\nIn their letter of 19 October 2006, the Belgian authorities underlined the fact that in addition to its commercial activity (running of the fish auction), AGVO was entrusted with public interest tasks. The information provided on this point was, however, very sketchy and contained nothing to enable the Commission to assess whether the advantages granted by the City to AGVO could be considered compensation for tasks of general (economic) interest and whether there were no over-compensation and risks of cross-subsidies.\n(109)\nTherefore, by letter dated 11 July 2007, the Commission asked the Belgian authorities, in accordance with Article 10(2) Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, to provide detailed information on the public tasks entrusted to AGVO. In particular, it asked whether and on which basis those tasks could be considered tasks of public service within the meaning of Commission Decision 2005/842/EC of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (15).\n(110)\nBy letter of 27 November 2007 the Belgian authorities merely stated that none of the tasks entrusted to AGVO were economic and that Decision 2005/842/EC was not relevant. They stated that AGVO is not compensated for any of the public tasks it performs.\n(111)\nIn its decision of 2 July 2008 to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission found that AGVO, EVO and PAKHUIZEN formed a group of undertakings active on the market for fish auctioning and ancillary services and were given various advantages from the City that distorted competition on the market. On the issue of compensation for public tasks, the Commission noted that there was no element in the file indicating that the criteria developed by the Court of Justice in its Altmark judgment were fulfilled. Moreover, given the lack of information on that point, the Commission was not in a position to determine whether in particular the right to establish and collect tax duties could be considered compensation granted for services of public interest and thus doubted the compatibility of the aid. Consequently, in recital 121 of its decision to initiate the formal investigation, the Commission invited the Belgian authorities to communicate any information that might be of use for the assessment of the measures at issue.\n(112)\nIn their observations, received on 8 September 2008, and during a follow-up meeting on 9 October 2008, the Belgian authorities did not provide any additional element to enable the Commission to examine whether the advantages granted to AGVO could be considered compensation for tasks of general (economic) interest. Instead, the Belgian authorities reiterated that the Altmark criteria were not relevant because AGVO was involved exclusively in public tasks.\n(113)\nThis answer was, however, unsatisfactory, since AGVO was also involved in economic activities.\n(114)\nPursuant to Article 10(3) Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the Commission thus requested by way of an information injunction of 8 September 2009 any useful information and in particular:\n-\na list of the various activities entrusted to AGVO divided into economic activities, tasks of non-economic public interest and tasks of general economic interest,\n-\nthe parameters for calculating, controlling and reviewing the compensation for the tasks of non-economic public interest on the one hand and the compensation for the tasks of economic public interest on the other hand,\n-\nthe arrangements for avoiding and repaying any overcompensation,\n-\nthe costs incurred in the discharge of, and the revenue relating to, the economic public services obligation, the non-economic public services obligation and the other services,\n-\nabstracts from internal accounts showing separately the costs and receipts associated with the service of general economic interest and those associated with the service of general non-economic interest and those of other services, as well as the parameters for allocating costs and revenues,\n-\nif available, documents showing that AGVO complies with the fourth criterion laid down in Altmark, i.e. that the level of compensation needed has been determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs, which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided within the same sector would incur, taking into account the receipts and a reasonable profit from discharging the obligations.\n(115)\nIn their letter of 16 November 2009, the Belgian authorities reiterate that AGVO is entrusted with the following public interest tasks: management of the fishing port, renovation and renting of buildings to public and semi-public organisations, and management and maintenance of the public domain (including maintenance of the road leading to the fish auction). They submit that those tasks are of public interest since they are not carried out in favour of specific beneficiaries. They do not make a distinction between tasks of general non-economic interest and services of public economic interest but admit that some or all public tasks might be of economic nature.\n(116)\nThe Belgian authorities acknowledge that AGVO, through its subsidiary EVO, is engaged in a commercial activity, i.e. the running of the fish auction, which is not of public interest.\n(117)\nThe Belgian authorities state that AGVO does not actually receive any compensation for its tasks of general interest. They are financed out of AGVO\u2019s budget. There is thus no methodology to calculate the compensation. The Belgian authorities add that it is not possible on the basis of AGVO\u2019s and EVO\u2019s accounts to distinguish between costs and revenues relating to the tasks of general interest and the commercial tasks.\n9. SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION\n(118)\nIt is apparent from various recitals of the preamble (for instance recital 85) to the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure that the scope of the investigation is larger than the fish auction market and also concerns activities linked to the fish auction (rental of buildings around the fish auction, management of the fishing port, etc.). Therefore, the advantages granted to AGVO or PAKHUIZEN which do not directly relate to the operation of the fish auction also form part of the current procedure.\n(119)\nThe Commission has also analysed the advantages granted to EVO, either directly by the City or by AGVO. In the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, EVO\u2019s initial capital and the subsequent capital increases had not been analysed as separate measures from the capital instalments granted to AGVO. They were merely taken into account as one of the uses that AGVO has made of the capital instalments received from the City. However, in their comments, the Belgian authorities claimed that the Commission had not sufficiently distinguished between the activities and tasks performed by AGVO, PAKHUIZEN and EVO and that, due to the division of tasks between AGVO and EVO, the advantages granted to AGVO were relevant for the current investigation only to the extent that they had been \u2018transferred\u2019 to EVO. Therefore, for the sake of clarity and in order to meet the Belgian authorities\u2019 concerns, the provision of EVO with its initial capital and the subsequent capital increases are examined separately in point 10.1.2.2.3. The issue of the real beneficiary of the aid is examined in recital 319.\n10. ASSESSMENT\n10.1. EXISTENCE OF STATE AID\n(120)\nAccording to Article 107(1) of the TFEU, \u2018save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n10.1.1. UNDERTAKINGS\n(121)\nAs explained above, this investigation concerns the possible aid granted to AGVO, EVO and PAKHUIZEN, and the fisheries undertakings making use of the Ostend fish auction and EVO\u2019s and PAKHUIZEN\u2019s services. All these must be qualified as undertakings within the meaning of Article 107 of the TFEU. The only entity in respect of which the Belgian authorities seriously contest this is AGVO, which according to the Belgian authorities only performs public interest tasks.\n(122)\nThe Belgian authorities have mentioned that AGVO performs \u2018public interest tasks\u2019 (\u2018taken van openbaar belang\u2019). However, it appears that AGVO engages in economic activities and must therefore be considered an undertaking (16) within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, for the reasons detailed in recitals 123 to 129 inclusive.\n(123)\nAGVO offers buildings for rent to public and semi-public institutions and to undertakings. AGVO is thus directly offering services (rental services) on the market.\n(124)\nAGVO is also entrusted with the operation and management of the fishing port. As the General Court and the Court of Justice have confirmed in the A\u00e9roports de Paris (17) case, the management of infrastructure facilities can constitute an economic activity. This has been confirmed, so far as port infrastructure is concerned, among others in the Flemish Ports and Rotterdam port development cases (18). The Commission notes that AGVO is offering services, goods and infrastructure facilities against payment. Indeed, according to its articles of association, AGVO is entitled to establish and levy fees for the remuneration of its services.\n(125)\nMoreover, AGVO also offers indirectly, through its subsidiaries EVO and PAKHUIZEN, goods and services on the market.\n(126)\nAGVO holds a controlling interest in EVO and PAKHUIZEN and actually exercises that control by involving itself directly or indirectly in the management:\n-\nalmost all members of the Board of Directors in AGVO are also members of the Board of Directors of EVO and PAKHUIZEN. Between 2005 and 2007 AGVO and EVO were members of the Board of Directors of PAKHUIZEN;\n-\naccording to its articles of association, AGVO is entrusted with the management, development and operation of the fish auction and the fish dock of Ostend and its annexes as well as with the development of all directly and indirectly related activities. In other words, AGVO is compelled by its articles of association to involve itself in the management of the fish auction.\n(127)\nThere are other links between AGVO, EVO and PAKHUIZEN which further illustrate the existence of organisational and functional links between AGVO and its subsidiaries: AGVO has guaranteed loans granted to EVO; AGVO puts buildings at the disposal of EVO and PAKHUIZEN and AGVO\u2019s annual accounts reveal that AGVO has regularly granted loans to EVO and PAKHUIZEN.\n(128)\nAll these elements allow AGVO to exercise functions relating not only to control, but also to direction and financial support of EVO and PAKHUIZEN. For those reasons AGVO must also be considered an undertaking for the purposes of competition law, in particular through its participation in EVO and PAKHUIZEN (19).\n(129)\nThe Commission notes that the Belgian authorities have acknowledged that EVO and PAKHUIZEN are the operating arms of AGVO, that through EVO, AGVO participated in commercial activities and that measures favouring AGVO can have an impact on the market through EVO. In their comments and answers they tend to treat AGVO, PAKHUIZEN and EVO as one single undertaking and have also explicitly claimed that AGVO and EVO should be seen as one single entity.\n(130)\nFinally, it should be noted that AGVO does not have any separate accounts for its economic and non-economic tasks, so that cross-subsidies cannot be excluded.\n10.1.2. ADVANTAGES FOR THE UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED\n10.1.2.1. Advantages for AGVO\n10.1.2.1.1. Initial Capital\n(131)\nPublic investments are regarded as State aid where it is apparent that a public authority which injects capital in a company is not merely providing equity capital under normal market economy conditions. This is the case where the financial position of the company, and particularly the structure and volume of its debts, is such that a normal return (in dividend or capital gains) cannot be expected within a reasonable time from the capital investment. It is thus necessary to assess whether, in similar circumstances, a private investor of a dimension comparable to that of the bodies managing the public sector could have been prevailed upon to make capital contributions of the same size in connection with the restructuring of that undertaking or whether it would instead have chosen to wind it up having regard in particular to the information available and foreseeable developments at the date of those contributions (20).\n(132)\nThe Belgian authorities argue that the decision of the City to provide an initial capital to AGVO of BEF 250 million (EUR 6 179 338) was an economically rational choice. The choice to restructure the auction was made on the basis of a financial and business plan showing that, with a limited investment, the auction could become profitable again after eight years if it did not take over the losses of the past. The Belgian authorities claim that a private investor in the same situation would have made the same decision.\n(133)\nOn the basis of the information available to it, the Commission cannot share this opinion.\n(134)\nAs indicated above, the Ostend fish auction was performing badly and its market share had been decreasing constantly in the years preceding the restructuring. The Commission considers that a normal private operator, in a similar situation, would not have made the choice to provide an initial capital of more than EUR 6 000 000 on the basis of merely one financial plan, containing the financial forecast for the period 2002/10 in a \u2018positive hypothesis\u2019, and a business plan of just two pages.\n(135)\nThis is all the more so since, as set out in greater detail in recital 259, AGVO, as the continuation of the Ostend fish auction, could be described as a company in difficulty at the time when the initial capital was granted. When faced with a company in difficulties, a normal private operator would have sought solid assurances as to the future prospects of the company and would not have been satisfied with the documents on the basis of which the City took its decision.\n(136)\nThe Commission points out the scale of the investment on the one hand and the long-term situation of ongoing losses of the Ostend fish auction (21) on the other hand. Especially in the light of these facts, combined with the facts that the firm was operating in a highly competitive but shrinking market, a normal private operator would have based its decision on a much more thorough financial and business plan containing different hypotheses and scenarios instead of taking into account a financial plan based only on one hypothesis, which was, moreover, qualified as \u2018positive\u2019.\n(137)\nIt would also seem appropriate for a normal private operator to ask for a study of, in particular, the market space available in the industry at the time, based on existing figures for landings and local demand and to require a plan explaining how the activity was to be restructured as well as what measures were contemplated to avoid the recurrence of the heavy losses of the past and to boost productivity (new investments, new marketing strategy, etc.).\n(138)\nHowever the business plan does not contain any of these elements.\n(139)\nMoreover, it is based on a number of assumptions and factual elements which are taken for granted but are not explained or justified and sometimes seem to be highly hypothetical or unlikely. It is for instance difficult to accept the assumption that the turnover of the auctioning activities will increase by 10 % during the next five years, although in the period before the restructuring the landings and turnover had been steadily decreasing, the market had become highly competitive and the fish quotas were on a decreasing trend. There are furthermore no explanations concerning the calculation of the social and outsourcing costs and of the water and energy costs. Moreover, in the business plan these costs are indicated as remaining absolutely constant over the nine years following the creation of AGVO. This seems however hardly possible, especially when the turnover is expected to double in the same period.\n(140)\nAs a result, the financial plan and the business plan not only appear to be very short and incomplete, they also lack credibility. A normal private investor would not have relied on them in order to invest BEF 250 million in a loss-making undertaking in a shrinking market (22).\n(141)\nEven if it were accepted that the financial and the business plan were complete and reliable, quod non, the Commission observes that a private investor would still not have invested the same amount as the City. Indeed, on the basis of the financial plan and the business plan, it appears that a smaller amount of capital would have been sufficient. Given the low return on capital, a normal private operator would not have invested such an amount when it was not necessary.\n(142)\nThe Belgian authorities consider that the decision to pursue the on-going fish auction activities was more rational than closing down.\n(143)\nHowever, the Belgian authorities do not give any indication relating to the costs of winding up these activities and neither do they explain why closing down was not a rational decision.\n(144)\nThe Belgian authorities further try to justify the rationality of the decision taken in 2001 to inject BEF 250 million in AGVO by means of the decision to privatise the fish auction. They submit that the current privatisation was part of the restructuring plan decided in 2001 and that no privatisation of the fish auction was possible without the restructuring.\n(145)\nThe Commission points out that according to consistent case law and practice, in order to examine whether or not the State has adopted the conduct of a prudent investor operating in a market economy, it is necessary to place oneself in the context of the period during which the financial support measures were taken in order to assess the economic rationality of the State\u2019s conduct, and thus to refrain from any assessment based on a later situation (23).\n(146)\nThe Belgian authorities claim that the current privatisation forms part of the restructuring decision of 2001 and that the rationality of the decision to restructure the fish auction must be assessed in the light of the privatisation procedure. However, the various documents submitted by the Belgian authorities do not support their claim. In particular, this intention to privatise the fish auction is not mentioned in the decision to restructure the fish auction, the business plan nor in the financial plan. Nothing in those documents indicates that the decision to invest EUR 6 200 000 in the fish auction was (among others) motivated or justified by the fact that this investment would make it possible to privatise the fish auction after a certain amount of time. Their claim is also hard to reconcile with AGVO\u2019s articles of association that indicate that AGVO is established for an indefinite time, that the City has the intention to control AGVO and that subsidiaries or companies in which AGVO holds shares must be controlled by AGVO (and thus by the City).\n(147)\nMoreover, one would expect that the decision to privatise would be contemplated once the fish auction were again profitable in order to obtain a better price for the fish auction, that is to say a price which would make it possible to recover at least the additional BEF 250 million investment. However, not only was privatisation not mentioned in either the financial or the business plan, the decision to privatise was not even taken when the fish auction had become profitable. It was on the contrary taken after two years of heavy losses affecting both AGVO and EVO and after the Commission had started its investigation. This all seems to indicate that privatisation played no part in the restructuring decision taken by the City in 2001.\n(148)\nIn addition, the Belgian authorities have indicated that the future private partner will take over the goodwill of EVO and can choose the assets he wishes to take over (i.e. to take or leave employees, machinery, fish slates, etc.). He will not have to take over the liabilities of EVO. In such circumstances, it is hard to understand why a similar approach could not have been taken in 2001/02 (without investing an additional BEF 250 million).\n(149)\nMoreover, if all this had been part of the restructuring plan of the fish auction in 2002, no private investor would have agreed to invest BEF 250 million in the fish auction with a view to reselling it later, as he could not reasonably expect on the basis of the business plan to be able to recoup this investment by the mere sale of the business a few years later. In this regard, the Court has held that a private investor pursuing a structural policy - whether general or sectoral - and guided by prospects of viability in the long-term could not reasonably allow itself, after years of continuous losses, to make a contribution of capital that is linked to the sale of the undertaking, which removes any hope of profit, even in the longer term (24).\n(150)\nThe Belgian authorities add that restructuring followed by privatisation will allow recovery of the investments through the rent to be charged for the fish auction buildings.\n(151)\nHowever, this argument is not convincing either. The financial plan indicated that over the next eight years, the City would lose BEF 121 603 000 (in addition to the accumulated past losses) before being able to recover part of the BEF 250 million capital injection decided in 2001. The Commission notes that the City could already have decided in 2002 to rent the fish auction buildings to a third party. This might have allowed the City already to recover from 2002 part of the considerable amount of money spent for the Ostend fish auction before its restructuring or at least to cover the financial burden of the repaying the bank loans instead of running the very high risk - especially in light of the earlier poor performance of the auction - of increasing the losses that would need to be recovered at a later stage.\n(152)\nThe Belgian authorities further stress that the decision to restructure the fish auction was not taken lightly, as the decision was first rejected by the public authority monitoring the City (toezichtautoriteit) because there was not enough likelihood that the fish auction could become viable. Indeed, the documents provided to the Commission show that the decision to restructure the auction was first rejected because, on the basis of a first financial plan, cumulated losses of BEF 190 million were to be expected after five years.\n(153)\nInstead of making the decision more rational this element reveals that from the start the intention to restructure the fish auction and provide it with fresh additional capital was not even based on the idea that the fish auction would become profitable again after a certain period. Moreover, it makes the second financial plan appear even less complete and reliable, as no explanation is given as to how it was possible to come to such different results in the first and the second plan. It is thus even less likely that a private investor would have taken the decision to invest an additional BEF 250 million in the auction under the same circumstances.\n(154)\nOn the basis of the above elements, the Commission concludes that the decision to invest BEF 250 million in the auction would not have been taken under the same circumstances by a normal private investor. This is also confirmed by the documents provided to the Commission. They show that one of the reasons why it was decided to restructure the auction instead of winding it up was of a political and social nature, since the restructuring would help maintain employment in a city where unemployment rates were over 12 % (25), a reason that a private investor would not have taken any account of (26).\n(155)\nConsequently, this action provides AGVO with an advantage compared to its competitors and thus favours this undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n10.1.2.1.2. Land and buildings\n(156)\nAccording to Article 30 of its articles of association, since its establishment AGVO has had the exclusive right to use, free of charge, the land and buildings of the Ostend fishing port.\n(157)\nIn 2004, various buildings and infrastructures located in the Ostend fishing port and representing, according to the City\u2019s records of that time, 57 500 m2, were contributed to AGVO by granting it full ownership. According to the municipal accounts, this property had at that time a book value of EUR 14 891 524. The Commission has not received information that would allow it to determine the market value of the real estate at the time it was transferred to AGVO.\n(158)\nThe Belgian authorities submit that the decision to transfer the ownership of the real estate to AGVO could never be viewed as State aid as it merely concerned a transfer of real estate between two public authorities as AGVO does not participate in commercial activities.\n(159)\nHowever, as shown in point 10.1.1 of this Decision, AGVO participates directly and indirectly through its subsidiaries in commercial activities and must therefore be considered to be an undertaking. Accordingly, the decision to transfer the ownership of the real estate to AGVO cannot be viewed as a mere transfer of real estate between two public authorities, especially since the real estate concerned is largely used for the economic activities concerned (rental services, operation of the fish auction, managing the fishing port).\n(160)\nThe Commission considers that a normal private operator would not agree to a transfer of ownership of buildings of such value without obtaining a reasonable price for it.\n(161)\nThe Belgian authorities stated that the buildings were in very poor condition and that, therefore, the book value of the buildings was overestimated. Moreover, they argued that the costs for renovation, to be paid by AGVO, were of such magnitude that the transfer of ownership could be viewed as a null operation.\n(162)\nHowever, the Belgian authorities have not provided the Commission with evidence showing that the book value of the assets in question had been overestimated, nor has the Commission received any evidence showing that the renovation costs would be equal to the actual value of the property rights in the buildings involved.\n(163)\nThe information available to the Commission shows on the contrary that the Belgian authorities\u2019 argument cannot be accepted.\n(164)\nFirst and foremost, prior to the transfer of ownership and since its establishment AGVO had been granted the exclusive right to use, free of charge, the lands and buildings of the fishing harbour, including the fish auction. The articles of association do not contain any specific obligation concerning mandatory renovation works to be undertaken by AGVO. According to Article 3 of the articles of association, AGVO has the right to undertake, should it wish to do so, any maintenance, repair or modernisation works on the buildings (27) but the articles of association do not contain any provision that would put AGVO under the obligation to renovate certain buildings.\n(165)\nAGVO has thus had the lands and buildings of the fishing port at its disposal since its establishment without having to pay any rent or any other kind of remuneration. A private operator would not have agreed to grant exclusive usage rights to an undertaking without receiving a proper remuneration.\n(166)\nThe Deed of Transfer by means of Contributing Immovable Property, of 30 December 2004, by which the right of ownership of the buildings was transferred from the City to AGVO, does not contain any particular conditions or obligations for AGVO regarding specific renovation works either. In fact, it is a general deed whereby the City hands over all rights and obligations in respect of the buildings concerned to AGVO. The responsibilities imposed on AGVO in the deed do not seem to be of such a nature as to justify that no payment would be required for taking the ownership of the buildings.\n(167)\nFurthermore, it is not disputed that AGVO also has the right to offer the buildings for rent or to grant concession rights. The buildings, at least part of them, have a commercial value. The Belgian authorities have admitted that a part of them was rented to public and semi-public organisations and a part for private purposes (see recital 46 of this Decision).\n(168)\nFinally, the Commission notes that AGVO has been granted another advantage in relation to the said renovation costs. The Belgian authorities have sent the Commission a list of guarantees that were given, free of charge, for certain loans. According to the list transmitted to the Commission, some of those guaranteed loans aimed at financing the renovation costs. Thus, in addition to the fact that AGVO was not obliged to engage in such renovation, the costs of at least some of the renovations that AGVO performed was reduced by these guarantees. It is for this reason also that the argument that the transfer of ownership took place, free of charge, as a kind of \u2018compensation\u2019 for particularly high renovation costs which AGVO was obliged to perform, cannot be accepted.\n(169)\nEven if the renovation costs could be considered particularly significant and constitute a kind of remuneration for the transfer of ownership of the buildings, which has not been demonstrated by the Belgian authorities, the fact that AGVO had since its establishment already been provided with the exclusive right to use the land and buildings of the Ostend fishing port free of charge would still have to be considered an advantage to be regarded as State aid. Indeed, the question whether the City acted as a normal private investor must be examined in the light of the elements available at the time the decision was taken (28). In the present case, when the decision was taken, the City must have known that it was granting an advantage to AGVO, since point 11 of the business plan prepared by HAMA Consult NV on 9 November 2001 clearly mentions that, since the fish auction had recently been modernised, no significant investments were to be expected in the next 10 years.\n(170)\nFurthermore, according to the Commission Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (29), in order for a transfer of the ownership of publicly owned buildings to be considered to conform to market value, the sale would normally either have to be by way of an unconditional bidding procedure, or following an independent expert evaluation. Neither of these procedures has been followed. An expert evaluation of the value of the buildings and the proper remuneration for the exclusive usage right granted to AGVO and then the transfer of ownership would in the present case have been all the more necessary since the Belgian authorities considered that the book value did not correspond to the real value.\n(171)\nConsequently, it appears that the provision free of charge and subsequently the contribution of the buildings by the City to AGVO is an act which cannot be considered to comply with normal economic standards, such as a normal private investor in similar conditions would have undertaken.\n(172)\nThe Belgian authorities consider that since the property has been transferred back to the City (without compensation) puts an end to the State aid issue.\n(173)\nThe Commission, however, cannot agree with this position.\n(174)\nThe Commission would point out that the fact that the property has been transferred back to the City does not affect the fact that from 2002 to 2009 AGVO benefited, free of charge, from the exclusive right to use the concerned buildings, be it on the basis of Article 30 of its articles of association or on the basis of the Deed of Property Transfer of 30 December 2004. In particular, it is not certain that the value of the property as it has been recently transferred back is at least equal to the value of the benefits referred to in the previous sentence, plus the interest which is due under the State aid rules over illegal and incompatible aid which has to be recovered.\n(175)\nMoreover, the Commission considers that to the extent that AGVO would continue to use these buildings free of charge or for a below-market rent after the transfer of property, AGVO would continue to benefit from State aid (30).\n10.1.2.1.3. Free guarantees for loans\n(176)\nAccording to point 2.1.1 of the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form or guarantees (the \u2018Notice on guarantees\u2019) (31), a State guarantee is considered to benefit a certain undertaking where it would allow the borrower to obtain better financial terms for a loan than those normally available on the financial markets without paying a market premium for the guarantee. In order to determine the normal market conditions, the conduct of the City ought to be compared with that of a private creditor acting with a view to realising a reasonable profit (32).\n(177)\nThe Notice on guarantees gives a certain number of indications as to how a guarantee is assessed within the scope of State aid rules. In particular it states that for a guarantee not to be considered State aid, it must fulfil certain criteria. Some of them raise problems in the current case.\n(178)\nNo market price has been paid for the guarantees, since the guarantees were completely free of charge.\n(179)\nMoreover, the guarantees covered more than 80 % of the outstanding loan, as they covered the totality of the loan. This reinforces the advantage received because in the case of a 100 % State guarantee there is no incentive for the lender to properly assess the creditworthiness of AGVO and thus to properly determine the financial terms of the loan in accordance with the risk profile of AGVO (33).\n(180)\nIt is therefore clear that these guarantees allowed AGVO to obtain better financial terms for loans than those normally available on the financial markets (34), especially in light of the poor and often negative results of AGVO and its subsidiaries.\n(181)\nThe Belgian authorities submit that it would be normal for a shareholder to provide a guarantee free of charge in favour of an undertaking he controls. This statement is, however, not substantiated by any evidence or example. It is moreover particularly difficult to reconcile this with the behaviour of a private creditor.\n(182)\nIndeed, the decision of the City to provide guarantees to financial institutions for loans taken out by AGVO, without any charges, is particularly unusual under normal conditions on the financial markets. In a normal situation, such a guarantee would be remunerated by an appropriate premium, which reflects the risks connected with the guarantee (35), even if the guarantor is a shareholder holding a controlling majority (36). Moreover, a normal private creditor providing guarantees would take out certain securities before granting it and verify beforehand the conditions of the loan, the risk involved etc. while the information provided by Belgium shows this has not been the case (37). This is all the more problematic in the present case given the financial situation of the fish auction, which has suffered recurrent and heavy losses in the past years and operates in a highly competitive and shrinking market (38).\n(183)\nAs set out in greater detail in recital 259, AGVO must be considered a company in financial difficulties in the sense 1999 R & R Guidelines. According to established practice, guarantees granted to companies in difficulties are deemed as likely to constitute State aid (39).\n(184)\nThe Belgian authorities argue that the guarantees were granted for loans relating to renovation works to undertake on buildings rented to public and semi-public bodies. They add that since this is part of AGVO\u2019s public task, the guarantee must be seen as participating in this public task and consequently cannot be considered State aid.\n(185)\nIt should first be noted that it is not certain that the guaranteed loans were actually used for the intended purpose. Even if it is true that the information submitted to the Commission seem to indicate that the City granted the guarantees on the basis of AGVO\u2019s intention to use the loans for the financing of renovation works, it also appears that the City did not link the free guarantees to the carrying-out of renovation works, nor did the City withdraw the free guarantees or ask for a remuneration when it was later established that the loans had in fact been used for other purposes.\n(186)\nThe Belgian authorities have explained that the loans have at times been used for purposes other than the announced aim. For instance a Fortis loan which was initially intended to finance the purchase of the shares in PAKHUIZEN was finally not used for that purpose but apparently for renovation works.\n(187)\nThe Belgian authorities have furthermore admitted that the EUR 550 000 loan from the ING Bank, initially intended for renovation works, was eventually used to support EVO. It is undisputed that the free guarantee for this loan cannot be regarded as a contribution to renovation tasks. In other words, it cannot be said that the City behaved as a normal private guarantor would do (including one that controlled the company concerned), namely to first examine whether the loan for which the guarantee would give cover would in all likelihood be repaid, and then to verify whether the loan was strictly used for the project for which it was originally intended.\n(188)\nAs for guaranteed loans which were actually (entirely or partly) used to finance renovation works, it must be recalled that the renting activity of AGVO is an economic activity and that the provision of a free guarantee favours AGVO on the rental market. Moreover, the free guarantee improves AGVO\u2019s financial situation in general, allowing it to use the financial resources that, under normal circumstances, it would have had to use in order to pay the premium for other purposes than the renovation of the buildings rented to public and semi-public organisms.\n(189)\nFinally, even if it were to be accepted that the rental of buildings to public and semi-public organisations could be considered a service of general economic interest entrusted to AGVO, the conditions laid down in the Altmark case are not fulfilled, so that it must be concluded that the free guarantees constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n(190)\nIn its judgment in Altmark the Court of Justice held that public service compensation does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU if it fulfils the cumulative following criteria: \u2018(\u2026) First, the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge and those obligations must be clearly defined (\u2026); (\u2026); (\u2026) Second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner (\u2026); (\u2026) Third, the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the public services obligation, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit (\u2026); and (\u2026) Fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations, in a specific case, is not chosen pursuant a public procurement procedure, which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs, which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided within the same sector would incur, taking into account the receipts and a reasonable profit from discharging the obligations.\u2019\n(191)\nIn the present case, these criteria are not fulfilled. Apart from the fact that it can be disputed whether AGVO was entrusted with public service obligations in connection with the rental of buildings to public or semi-public organisations, the Commission notes that the Belgian authorities have explicitly confirmed that no parameters for compensation had been established. Moreover, AGVO has not opted for a system of separate accounts and nothing prevents overcompensation and cross subsidies between the various activities of AGVO. Moreover, AGVO has not been chosen pursuant a public procurement procedure, and the Belgian authorities did not demonstrate that the services are provided at the least cost to the community.\n10.1.2.1.4. Tax duties\n(192)\nThe City granted AGVO the right to establish and collect the community tax duties for the use of the fishing harbour and the auction.\n(193)\nThe tax duties thereby collected by AGVO appear to constitute resources at the disposal of the State, which have partly (40) been transferred to AGVO. Moreover, they constitute an advantage which it would normally not receive and, consequently, favour this undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n(194)\nIn the present case, the Belgium authorities have indicated that the collection of the levy forms part of, and in fact constitutes a retribution for, the public interest tasks entrusted to AGVO, in particular the task of managing the fishing port. Belgium submits that the transfer of the tasks and the right to collect the tax duties should be seen as a mere allocation of tasks within the State and cannot qualify as State aid.\n(195)\nHowever, as already demonstrated in point 10.1.1 of this Decision, AGVO qualifies as an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, which the Belgium authorities have also acknowledged in their letter of 27 November 2009. As explained in recital 124, the management of the fishing port constitutes an economic activity.\n(196)\nThe Commission has examined whether the right to collect the tax duties and use the proceeds could qualify as a compensation for services of general economic interest and whether the cumulative criteria laid down in the Altmark judgment were fulfilled.\n(197)\nHowever, as already established in recital 191 of this Decision, these criteria are not fulfilled, since for instance no parameters for compensation have been established.\n(198)\nFinally, even if it were accepted that the right to collect tax duties and use its proceeds should be seen as a compensation/remuneration for tasks of public (non-economic) interest, it is nevertheless true that AGVO also carries out commercial activities, which has explicitly been acknowledged by the Belgian authorities. Since the Belgian authorities have also admitted that AGVO had no separate accounts and that it was not possible to isolate the costs and revenues relating to AGVO\u2019s non-commercial tasks, cross subsidies cannot be avoided and the tax duties must be seen as an advantage.\n10.1.2.1.5. Conclusion\n(199)\nIn view of the foregoing recitals, the actions mentioned in 10.1.2.1.1 to 10.1.2.1.4 inclusive provided AGVO with an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n10.1.2.2. Advantage for EVO\n(200)\nThe Commission considers that aid has been granted to EVO directly by the City by way of granting it free guarantees for loans from private banks, and, through AGVO, by allowing it free use of 13 600 m2 of buildings, by granting free guarantees for loans from private banks and by providing it with an initial capital and capital increases.\n10.1.2.2.1. Free guarantee for loans\n(201)\nAs regards the guarantees from the City and AGVO, the Commission observes that no market price has been paid for the guarantees, since the guarantees are completely free of charge. Moreover they cover more than 80 % of the outstanding loan.\n(202)\nThe Belgian authorities submit that it would be normal for a shareholder holding a controlling interest in a company to provide a guarantee free of charge in favour of the company he controls. This statement is, however, not substantiated by any evidence. It is moreover particularly difficult to reconcile with the behaviour of a private investor. In a normal situation, such a guarantee would be remunerated by an appropriate premium, which reflects the risks connected with the guarantee (41), even if the guarantor is a parent company (42). Moreover, the Court has already found that commercial operations even within a group of public undertakings have to be remunerated according to normal market conditions (43).\n(203)\nIt should further be noted that, as set out in greater detail in recital 306, EVO must be considered a company in financial difficulties within the meaning of the 1999 R & R Guidelines and the 2004 Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (44) (\u20182004 R & R Guidelines\u2019). Its financial situation remained difficult throughout the whole period 2003/08. At the end of 2003, more than half of its registered capital had disappeared, a situation which did not change in the following years despite the successive increases in capital.\n(204)\nAccording to established practice, guarantees granted to companies in difficulties are deemed as likely to constitute State aid (45).\n(205)\nThe Belgian authorities add that without the free guarantee from the City, EVO would not have been able to obtain the loans. In the Commission\u2019s view, this acknowledgement and the constant bad financial situation of EVO reveal that the loans granted by private banks under a free guarantee provided by the City (or AGVO) would not have been obtained either without that guarantee. Accordingly, the guaranteed loans also grant an advantage to EVO (46).\n(206)\nFinally the Belgian authorities submit that the guarantees should be viewed as being part of the restructuring of the fish auction.\n(207)\nThe Commission notes, however, that neither the free guarantee, nor the investments for which the loans were apparently obtained were mentioned in the business plan. Moreover, the loans and guarantees at issue (i.e. those that were actually put in place) were not granted in 2002 when EVO was established but later on in 2004 and 2005. The numerous guarantees provided also reveal that they were granted on demand each time that it was claimed that EVO needed a guarantee to obtain a loan from a credit institution. The Commission also observes that one of the loans granted by Fortis and guaranteed by the City was actually used to grant loans to vessel owners and it is difficult to see how this can be viewed as part of a restructuring or even the privatisation plan of the fish auction.\n(208)\nAccordingly, the Commission takes the view that the free guarantees granted by the City and AGVO favoured EVO within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n10.1.2.2.2. Buildings\n(209)\nThe Belgian authorities have argued that the decision of AGVO to grant EVO the right to use the buildings without charge can be considered to correspond with normal market standards such as a normal private investor in similar conditions would have undertaken.\n(210)\nThe Commission cannot accept such a statement. This statement is already contradicted by the fact that the Belgian authorities have indicated that the future strategic partner will have to conclude a rental agreement for the use of the buildings of the fish auction and will have to pay a rent. Moreover, it cannot be claimed that AGVO, being the full owner of EVO (47), expected EVO\u2019s profits to be substantial so that the capital gains it would thus realise justified not charging any rent. After all, the auction had been running high average annual losses.\n(211)\nThe Belgian authorities submitted that the absence of rent was compensated by the fact the EVO had to bear renovation and repair costs for the fish auction which would normally have to be borne by the owner. According to the Belgian authorities, EVO paid EUR 182 377,31 since 2002 for renovation and infrastructure works on the fish auction.\n(212)\nThe Commission first notes that the Belgian authorities have not submitted any documents confirming that EVO was under the obligation to bear all renovation costs for the fish auction buildings; nor have they submitted any documents confirming that EVO actually paid EUR 182 377,31 for renovation works.\n(213)\nThe Commission further notes that the Belgian authorities have not demonstrated that it would be so unusual for a tenant to bear renovation costs or that when this is the case he would have no rent to pay. Nor have they indicated what kinds of works were undertaken, so that it is not possible for the Commission to determine whether the works concerned were unusual for a tenant. Moreover, it appears from the document received that AGVO, also, undertook renovation works relating to the fish auction between 2004 and 2007 for an amount of EUR 36 497,40. This does not seem consistent with the statement of the Belgian authorities whereby EVO would have to bear all maintenance and renovation costs.\n(214)\nFurthermore, the Belgian authorities have not provided any evidence showing that the EUR 182 377,31 allegedly paid by EVO for renovation works would correspond to the rent to be paid for more than five years of use of 13 600 m2 buildings under normal market conditions.\n(215)\nMoreover, even if the renovation costs could be considered particularly significant and a kind of remuneration for the use of the buildings, which has not been demonstrated by the Belgian authorities, the business plan of 21 November 2001 clearly mentioned that since the fish auction had recently been modernised, no significant investments were to be expected in the next 10 years. Accordingly, when AGVO decided in 2002 to put the buildings at the disposal of EVO free of charge, without any reasonable expectation that the costs resulting from alleged obligation on EVO to finance their maintenance would be at least equal to the rent which an operator would be prepared to pay for them, AGVO was granting EVO an advantage. As the question whether AGVO acted as a normal private investor must be examined in the light of the elements available at the time the decision was taken (48), it must be concluded that EVO received State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU by being granted the use of 13 600 m2 of buildings free of charge in 2002.\n10.1.2.2.3. Initial capital and subsequent capital increases\n(216)\nSo far as the initial capital of about EUR 370 000 to EVO is concerned, the Commission would refer to its analysis in point 10.1.2.1.1 of this Decision. Indeed, the Belgian authorities have confirmed that the initial capital in EVO was financed through the initial capital in AGVO. As the Commission has already observed, a private investor would not have chosen to restructure the fish auction and invest BEF 250 million in it; he would certainly not established a 100 % subsidiary with part of the fresh capital.\n(217)\nSo far as the capital increases by way of a remission of debt by AGVO are concerned, the Commission would also refer to its analysis in point 10.1.2.1.1 of this Decision. Indeed the Belgian authorities have confirmed that the capital increases had also (partly (49)) been financed through the initial capital in AGVO.\n(218)\nThere are, moreover, other reasons why it must be considered that AGVO did not act as a private investor would have done in the same situation.\n(219)\nPublic investments are regarded as State aid where it is apparent that the financial position of the company concerned, and particularly the structure and volume of its debts, is such that a normal return (in dividend or capital gains) cannot be expected within a reasonable time from the capital investment.\n(220)\nThe Commission observes that the first increase in capital by remission of debt occurred on 31 December 2004 after almost 1,5 years existence of EVO. The increase in capital was evidently conceived as a measure in order to offset the heavy losses of EVO. The same can be said about the increase in capital in 2005 and 2007. The measures were obviously not taken with a view to obtaining some return on capital in the short or even the long-term but merely to offset past losses. A private investor would never have decided to grant the increases in capital, especially not the last two increases. EVO was not in a good financial and economic position and the situation was clearly not developing according to the business plan, according to which the losses were supposed to decrease steadily, instead of growing fast. Indeed, already at the end of 2003 more than half of EVO\u2019s registered capital had disappeared, a situation which did not change in the following years despite of the successive increases in capital. Without any prospect of future return on capital, a private investor would not have chosen to increase the capital of the company in order to offset losses (50). Instead he would seriously have considered the other options available (winding up, selling, etc.) and would at least have required some guarantees or restructuring measures. Also the particular form the capital increase took (remission of debt) confirms that those capital increases cannot be viewed as part of the restructuring planned in 2001.\n(221)\nIn addition, it should be noted that EVO must be considered a company in financial difficulties (51). According to established practice, an increase in capital granted to companies in difficulties is deemed to constitute State aid (52).\n(222)\nConsequently, the successive increases in capital which EVO benefited from favoured EVO within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n10.1.2.3. Advantage for PAKHUIZEN\n(223)\nSo far as concerns the long-term lease for the use of buildings (53) to PAKHUIZEN, having regard to the information available, the Commission takes the view that it grants an advantage. First, the charge of only EUR 25 per year cannot be regarded as normal pay for a long-term lease of 45 years relating to 14 754 m2 of buildings, even when in very poor condition and needing renovation. The fact that PAKHUIZEN is required to renovate the buildings does not change this. Indeed, according to Belgian law (54), the owner of the buildings is not under the obligation to repair the buildings. By contrast, the tenant is under the obligation to maintain the buildings in good condition and to undertake any ordinary repair works. The Belgian authorities have not demonstrated that the renovation works PAKHUIZEN was bound to undertake under the long-term lease would go beyond \u2018ordinary repair works\u2019. Moreover, the Belgian authorities have not provided any evidence that the cost flowing from that obligation is equal to the rent which could have been obtained for the buildings under normal market conditions.\n(224)\nIn addition, the Belgian authorities have admitted that PAKHUIZEN has not fulfilled its renovation obligations and has not respected the destination of the buildings. The City has obviously not taken any action against PAKHUIZEN in order to enforce the agreement, although it was entitled to do so. Therefore, even if having regard to the renovation costs, the rent of EUR 25 per year could have been regarded as corresponding to the market price - quod non - PAKHUIZEN would in any event have received an advantage from the moment it became apparent that the City had not enforced the contract.\n(225)\nMoreover, as regards the lease of the buildings to PAKHUIZEN subject to the conditions of maintaining and renovating the buildings, according to the market economy investor principle, to the conditions established in the Commission Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities, a public authority can be considered to be acting as a market economy operator if it offers its contracts at the highest possible price within an open, transparent and non-discriminating tender, to the highest bidder or following an estimation of the market value by an independent expert. This seems however not to have been the case.\n(226)\nFinally, the fact that after 27 years the owner of the buildings (originally the City, then AGVO) is entitled to half the yearly profit of PAKHUIZEN, does not change the above analysis. Such an advantage is too distant and uncertain to have any genuine net present value for the owner of the buildings. Furthermore, even if it had any such value, the Belgian authorities have not shown that this value - even when taken together with the EUR 25 a year plus the (unusual) renovation costs - is so high that it amounts to a market-price rent for the use of the real estate by PAKHUIZEN.\n(227)\nAccordingly, PAKHUIZEN benefits from a yearly advantage in its operating costs which constitutes an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n(228)\nAs regards the period after 26 March 2004, the date on which AGVO became the owner of the buildings concerned, the Commission notes that the lease continued to apply under the same conditions as before, and that the advantage for PAKHUIZEN therefore continued to exist.\n10.1.2.4. Advantage for fisheries undertakings making use of EVO\u2019s and PAKHUIZEN\u2019s services\n(229)\nIn the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure, the Commission observed that EVO and possibly also PAKHUIZEN were offering their services to fisheries undertakings using the auction at a rate below that which a normal private operator would offer.\n(230)\nIt appears that EVO repays all or part of the costs of container transport of fish to be auctioned in Ostend from various destinations in Europe. Moreover, EVO provides loans seemingly below market rates on condition that the borrowing undertaking sell its catches at the Ostend auction.\n(231)\nThe comments submitted by third parties suggest that EVO has also adopted other practices which distort normal competition on the market but the Commission has not received any evidence to confirm this. The Belgian authorities have contested that EVO have been offering services under market conditions.\n(232)\nAlthough the Commission has received very little evidence regarding the commercial conditions under which EVO was offering its services, it could still be the case that undertakings using the Ostend fish auction are favoured within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. However, for the time being, the Commission also sees some force in the argument of the Belgian authorities that the fact that, thanks to the State aid, EVO was able to offer its services at better conditions than it would otherwise have done does not necessarily mean that State aid was passed on in favour of the vessel-owners and fishing undertakings.\n(233)\nFor those reasons, the Commission considers that it is not possible to conclude with certainty that an advantage has been passed on to the ship-owners. Moreover, it is likely that, since the Commission in the present Decision orders the termination and recovery of the aid to AGVO, EVO and PAKHUIZEN, any such advantages will discontinue or at least be strongly diminished. Finally, in any event the main beneficiary of the aid is the restructured fish auction which has used the aid to maintain itself on the market and to increase its market share by offering services at a loss and thereby distorting the normal functioning of the market.\n10.1.3. STATE RESOURCES AND IMPUTABILITY\n(234)\nThe Commission notes that the activities at issue concern actions of the City itself as well as actions funded through State resources and imputable to the City.\n10.1.3.1. Aid granted by the public authority\n(235)\nFirst, the City granted aid to AGVO by providing it with an initial capital, funded from the City budget; by granting AGVO free guarantees for loans from private banks; by transferring the ownership of its buildings to AGVO and by empowering AGVO to establish and collect community tax duties. It also granted aid to PAKHUIZEN through the long-term lease for the use of its buildings and to EVO by granting it free guarantees for loans from private banks.\n(236)\nThese measures are therefore financed from State resources and imputable to the State.\n10.1.3.2. Actions imputable to the public authority\n(237)\nSecondly, as regards the advantages granted by AGVO to EVO and by AGVO to PAKHUIZEN, the Commission notes that, according to the articles of association, AGVO is the sole shareholder of EVO (apart from Mr Miroir, who has 1 share out of the 15 000 shares and is in fact a Member of the City Council) and of PAKHUIZEN and that it appoints all members of the Board of Directors of those undertakings. Furthermore, the City is the sole shareholder of AGVO and the City Council appoints all Member of the Board of AGVO. Consequently, the City is in a position where it is able to exercise a dominant influence over AGVO.\n(238)\nFurther, according to its articles of association, AGVO is entrusted with the management, development and operation of the fish auction and the fish dock of Ostend and its annexes as well as with the development of all directly and indirectly related activities. In other words, AGVO is compelled by its articles of association to involve itself in the management of the fish auction.\n(239)\nAs regards specifically the long-term lease of buildings to PAKHUIZEN, this lease was granted directly by the City.\n(240)\nThus, in the light of the Stardust case (55) and given the public assistance provided to those undertakings as outlined above, AGVO must be regarded as a body controlled by the State and its decisions regarding capital injections into EVO, free guarantees for loans to EVO and the right for EVO to use buildings free of charge as decisions financed through State resources and imputable to the public authority.\n(241)\nThe Belgian authorities do not dispute those findings. They have on the contrary confirmed that the City controlled EVO and PAKHUIZEN through AGVO (56).\n10.1.4. DISTORTION OF COMPETITION AND EFFECT ON TRADE\n(242)\nThe activities of the City benefit AGVO, EVO and PAKHUIZEN. AGVO, EVO and PAKHUIZEN form a group of companies operating in a common market, auctioning fish and providing related services to the fisheries sector.\n(243)\nThe market for fish auctions is a very competitive market in which the auctions from neighbouring Member States compete directly with each other to attract fishermen from various Member States. Consequently, any benefit provided to a player on this market would distort or threaten to distort competition between the auctions and could thus affect trade between the Member States.\n(244)\nThis is confirmed by the comments received from third parties. Fish auctions and fish auction associations from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and other European countries have shown interest in the procedure and described the effect they consider the State aid measures has had on their business.\n(245)\nFinally the Commission notes that the Belgian authorities have indicated that not only Belgian but also other fish auctions from other Member States had shown interest in purchasing the Ostend fish auction.\n(246)\nAs for the markets for rental services, aid to undertakings active in those sectors can distort competition with undertakings providing rental services in other fishing ports, including in other Member States, and with undertakings offering buildings for rent close to the Ostend fishing port (which may well include undertakings from other Member States). Moreover, the aid measures could have helped to maintain or strengthen the market position of AGVO and PAKHUIZEN, whose business would or could have been taken over by another undertaking, if there had been no aid. It should be recalled that according to the case law of the Court of Justice, the mere fact that the competitive position of an undertaking is strengthened compared to other competing undertakings, by giving it an economic benefit which it would not otherwise have received in the normal course of its business, points to a possible distortion of competition (57).\n(247)\nAs for the fishing ports management activities, the Commission considers that aid to such undertakings could distort competition with undertakings managing other fishing ports competing with the Ostend fishing port. Furthermore, the aid measures could have helped to maintain or strengthen the market position of an undertaking, the activity of which would or could have been taken over by another undertaking, if there had been no aid (58).\n(248)\nThe Commission would add that, although AGVO and PAKHUIZEN are not directly active on the fish auction market, they provide services which are auxiliary to that activity and which have an impact on the attractiveness of the fish auction. The Commission notes moreover that AGVO is indirectly active on the fish auction market through its subsidiary EVO. Aid granted to AGVO and PAKHUIZEN cannot therefore only distort competition and affect trade between Member States on the specific market where they are active (rental market and fishing port market) but also on the fish auction market.\n10.1.5. CONCLUSION\n(249)\nIn view of the foregoing, the Commission takes the view that the following activities must be considered to fulfil the conditions of Article 107(1) of the TFEU and thus to constitute State aid:\n(a)\nThe advantages provided to AGVO by the following decisions of the City:\n-\nto provide AGVO with a starting capital of BEF 250 million (EUR 6 179 338),\n-\nto provide AGVO with the exclusive right to use the lands and buildings located within the fishing port,\n-\nto contribute buildings to AGVO, and\n-\nto provide free guarantees for loans for AGVO, and\n-\nto provide AGVO with the right to collect and use the community tax duties;\n(b)\nThe advantages provided to EVO by the decision of:\n-\nthe City to provide free guarantees for loans for EVO,\n-\nAGVO not to charge EVO rent for the use of its buildings, and\n-\nAGVO to provide EVO with an initial capital and capital increases amounting to EUR 3 969 000;\n(c)\nThe advantages provided to PAKHUIZEN, by the City and/or subsequently by AGVO, by the long-term lease for the use of its buildings.\n10.2. COMPATIBILITY\n(250)\nState aid can be declared compatible with the internal market if it complies with one of the exceptions provided for in the TFEU. The undertakings concerned are undertakings active predominantly in the fisheries sector. They are also active on the market for rental services. The Commission considers that AGVO as a manager of the fishing port and EVO as an operator of the fish auction are undertakings a significant part of whose activities should be considered to come within the scope of the fisheries sector. As regards PAKHUIZEN, it seems less evident that this undertaking can be considered active in the fisheries sector.\n(251)\nAs regards State aid to the fisheries sector, State aid measures can be deemed to be compatible with the internal market only if they comply with the conditions of the Fisheries Guidelines. According to point 5.3 of the current Guidelines, an \u2018unlawful aid\u2019 within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 will be appraised in accordance with the guidelines applicable at the time when the administrative act setting up the aid entered into force. Consequently, the aid needs to be appraised on the basis of the Fisheries Guidelines of 2001, 2004 and 2008.\n(252)\nInsofar as PAKHUIZEN cannot be considered to be a fisheries undertaking, the Commission notes that the assessment of the aid should be based on the general rules applicable to all sectors and on the basis of the objectives of the aid.\n(253)\nFinally the Commission notes that the Belgian authorities have not contested the analysis of the Commission so far as compatibility was concerned.\n10.2.1. AID GRANTED TO AGVO\n(254)\nAs regards the State aid granted by the City to AGVO, it is necessary for the assessment to distinguish between the various actions and the dates on which they took place.\n10.2.1.1. Initial capital\n(255)\nThe Belgian authorities have submitted that the initial capital has to be seen in the framework of the restructuring of the Ostend fish auction.\n(256)\nAccording to point 2.2.4 of the 2001 Fisheries Guidelines, applicable at the time of the restructuring, aid for the restructuring of firms in difficulty needs to be assessed in accordance with the Guidelines for aid for rescue and restructuring firms in difficulty, applicable at the time the aid was granted, i.e. in this case, the 1999 R & R Guidelines, including when it relates to undertakings active in the fisheries and aquaculture sector (59).\n(257)\nIn point 2.1 of the 1999 R & R Guidelines, a firm is considered to be in difficulty where it is unable, whether through its own resources or with the funds it is able to obtain from its owner/shareholders or creditors, to stem losses which, without outside intervention by the public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to go out of business in the short or medium term. The usual signs of a firm being in difficulty are increasing losses, diminishing turnover, growing stock inventories, excess capacity, declining cash flow, mounting debt, rising interest charges and falling or nil net asset value.\n(258)\nIn the Commission\u2019s view, there is no doubt that the Ostend fish auction bore all the signs of a \u2018firm in difficulty\u2019 in 2001. Indeed, as explained in recital 17, from 1991 until 2001, its share in terms of fish arrivals in Belgian harbours had fallen from approximately 37 % to 20 %. From 1997 to 2001 its turnover dropped from EUR 20 550 000 to EUR 13 440 000 and, over many years, the City had been recording an average annual loss of EUR 1 850 000. Consequently, in 2001 the City had to decide whether it would close the auction or restructure it. The Commission therefore considers that the Ostend fish auction qualifies as a \u2018firm in difficulty\u2019 within the meaning of the 1999 R & R Guidelines. The Belgian authorities have not contested to this conclusion.\n(259)\nThough AGVO is a newly set up legal entity, the Commission notes that the constitution of the initial capital of AGVO was part of the restructuring plan of the Ostend fish auction. As the latter was a company in difficulties and AGVO was only created for the purposes of the restructuring of the Ostend fish auction and as AGVO took over not only the assets of the Ostend Fish auction but also the financial charge of various bank loans, AGVO can be considered a company in difficulty at the time when the initial capital was granted. Hence, it can be considered that the initial capital constitutes restructuring aid (60) within the meaning of the 1999 R & R Guidelines.\n(260)\nThough AGVO is eligible for aid under point 30 of the 1999 R & R Guidelines, the aid for the restructuring of the auction, by way of establishing AGVO, providing it with a starting capital of BEF 250 million (EUR 6 179 338), does not comply with the conditions as to compatibility with the internal market laid down in paragraph 32 of the 1999 R & R Guidelines.\n(261)\nIn particular, according to point 32 of those Guidelines, \u2018the restructuring plan, the duration of which must be as short as possible, must restore the long-term viability of the firm within a reasonable timescale and on the basis of realistic assumptions as to future operating conditions\u2019. The Commission does not consider that the restructuring plan referred to in recital 19 meets those conditions. In this respect, the Commission notes that the plan does not contain specific internal measures to improve the operation of the auction and to abandon loss-making activities.\n(262)\nIn addition, contrary to what is required under point 32 of the 1999 R & R Guidelines, the restructuring does not appear to have been based on a market survey providing information on future prospects for supply and demand, an analysis of the market concerned and the other information mentioned in Annex I to the 1999 R & R Guidelines.\n(263)\nNor does the restructuring plan does not contain the elements mentioned in point 33 of the 1999 R & R Guidelines, that is the circumstances that led to the company\u2019s difficulties, thereby providing a basis for assessing whether the proposed measures are appropriate; the present state of and future prospects for supply and demand on the relevant product market, with scenarios reflecting best-case, worst-case and intermediate assumptions, and the firm\u2019s specific strengths and weaknesses.\n(264)\nFurthermore, the Commission finds that the available information does not contain any evidence showing that the aid has been limited to the strict minimum needed as required in point 40 of the 1999 R & R Guidelines, or that the beneficiary has been required to make any contributions from its own resources. In this respect, it is also relevant to note that, according to point 41 of the 1999 R & R Guidelines, the aid must be used only for restoring the firm\u2019s viability and should not enable the recipient during the implementation of the restructuring plan to expand production capacity. However, as noted above, the financial plan drafted in 2001 suggests that the fish auction could have recovered after eight years without needing the entirety of the BEF 250 million. The business plan also foresees a 10 % increase of the turnover for the first five years the restructured fish auction would operate on the market, which could imply that the fish auction intended to expand. The recovery plan thus appears not to have been designed to ensure that the aid would be used only for restoring the firm\u2019s viability and seems to place the fish auction in a position to use the additional liquidities to expand its production capacity, its activities and/or to act aggressively on the market. From the information received, it appears that the aid was indeed used for extending the auction\u2019s activities (61) and for aggressive, market-distorting activities (62).\n(265)\nThe Commission observes further that the restructuring plan does not include any measures ensuring the full implementation of the plan and observance of all conditions thereof.\n(266)\nMoreover, Belgium has not demonstrated either that compensatory measures had been taken in accordance with points 35-39 of the 1999 R & R Guidelines or, alternatively, that the specific (alternative) conditions for agriculture (including fisheries) laid down in points 73-82 of the 1999 R & R Guidelines have been met (63). Indeed the City does not appear to have taken any measures to mitigate so far as possible any adverse effects of the aid on the competitors, contrary to what is required under point 35 of the 1999 R & R Guidelines. Yet, having regard to the specific situation of fish auctions in particular with regard to the limited supply due to the restrictive conservation measures adopted annually at Union level, it is highly likely that the aid would adversely affect competing auctions and the City should have paid special attention to that point.\n(267)\nConsequently, the aid granted to AGVO for the restructuring of the fish auction is not compatible with the conditions of the 1999 R & R Guidelines nor with the 2001 fisheries guidelines which refer to the rescue and restructuring guidelines.\n(268)\nWith regard to the question as to whether the provision of capital could be considered compensation for public service obligations, the Commission refers to its analysis in point 10.2.1.4 of this Decision.\n10.2.1.2. Transfer of ownership of buildings and exclusive rights to use the land and buildings\n(269)\nAs established in point 10.1.2.2.2 of this Decision, the granting of the exclusive right to use the buildings free of charge from 14 March 2002 and subsequently the transfer by the City of the ownership of several buildings representing a surface of 57 500 m2 occurred without imposing obligations on AGVO of a similar value. As already observed, neither the articles of association nor the transfer deed appear to be linked to any specific and unusual condition or obligation that would justify the absence of rent or remuneration.\n(270)\nSuch an action must therefore be considered to be an aid intended to improve the situation of the undertaking and increase its business liquidity, which has the effect of reducing the recipient\u2019s production costs.\n(271)\nThe Commission has not found that this aid would comply with any of the rules on compatibility with the internal market provided for in the 2001 Fisheries Guidelines, nor have the Belgian authorities submitted any information in this regard.\n(272)\nWith regard to the question as to whether the exclusive use rights and the transfer of ownership, free of charge, should be viewed in the framework of the restructuring of the fish auction, the Commission has already established in paragraphs 260 et seq of this Decision that, although AGVO would have been eligible at the time of the granting of the measures for restructuring aid (i.e. qualified as a company in difficulty), the conditions of the 1999 R & R Guidelines are not fulfilled.\n(273)\nWith regard to the question as to whether the exclusive use rights and the transfer of ownership could be considered compensation for public service obligations, the Commission refers to its analysis in point 10.2.1.4 of this Decision.\n10.2.1.3. Loan guarantees\n(274)\nThe Belgian authorities consider that a distinction must be drawn between free guarantees for loans which were used for renovation works and those that were used to support EVO.\n(275)\nThey have acknowledged in this regard that a EUR 550 000 loan had been used to support EVO.\n(276)\nThe Belgian authorities have submitted that free guarantees for loans which were used to support EVO should be seen in the framework of the restructuring of the fish auction.\n(277)\nThe Commission notes, however, that as established in paragraphs 260 et seq of this Decision, though AGVO would have been eligible at the time of the granting of the measures for restructuring aid (i.e. qualified as a company in difficulty), the compatibility conditions provided for in the 1999 R & R Guidelines are not fulfilled.\n(278)\nMoreover, the Commission notes that the free guarantees are aid measures which are not mentioned in the restructuring plan. The Commission recalls that according to point 3.2.3 of the 1999 R & R Guidelines and to point 3.3 of the 2004 R & R Guidelines (64), restructuring aid should only be granted once. Therefore, even assuming that the original aid, namely by way of initial capital and so forth, complied with the applicable R & R Guidelines - quod non - the free guarantees do not comply with the \u2018one time, last time\u2019 condition.\n(279)\nThe Belgian authorities seem to imply that eventually the City chose to grant free guarantees for loans instead of paying out the further annual instalments of the initial capital. However, the Commission observes that the restructuring plan was not revised in accordance with point 52 of the 1999 R & R Guidelines and the 2004 R & R Guidelines. Moreover, it is not clear whether the amount of aid was increased, decreased or whether the form of the aid was amended. Indeed, although the instalments of the initial capital were not all paid annually as initially intended, it is nevertheless true that AGVO legally had the right to require its shareholder to pay out the rest of the initial capital. In fact, AGVO has exercised this right in 2006 and 2007, when further instalments were paid out to AGVO.\n(280)\nAccordingly, the Commission considers that the free guarantee for the loan of EUR 550 000 is not compatible with the conditions of the 1999 R & R Guidelines and 2004 R & R Guidelines nor with the 2004 fisheries guidelines which refer to the rescue and restructuring guidelines.\n(281)\nAs for free guarantees for loans which were used for renovation works, the Commission refers to its analysis in point 10.2.1.4 of this Decision.\n10.2.1.4. Tax duties and public service compensation\n(282)\nThe Belgian authorities have argued that part of the initial capital, part of the buildings and part of the guaranteed loans had been used for the provision of services of general (economic) interest, namely the management of the fishing port and the renting of buildings to public and semi-public organisations. They also considered that the right to collect (and use) tax duties from users of the fishing port should be seen as part of AGVO\u2019s public tasks.\n(283)\nThe Belgian authorities have not demonstrated that these measures can be declared compatible under Article 106(2) of the TFEU. It must be recalled that it is incumbent on a Member State which invokes Article 106(2) TFEU as a derogation from the fundamental rules of the Treaty, to show that the conditions for application of that provision are fulfilled (65). In any event, the Commission has examined whether the aid measures could to some extent be considered public service compensation granted in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 106(2) of the TFEU.\n(284)\nIn this regard, the Commission has - in the 1996 (66) and 2001 (67) Communications on services of general interest in Europe as well as in the 2005 Community framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (68) - spelled out the conditions under which State aid can be considered to be compatible pursuant to Article 106(2).\n(285)\nOne of these conditions is that the undertaking beneficiary of the aid must have been specifically entrusted by the Member State with the operation of a particular service of general economic interest. Such act or acts of entrustment must, at the very least, specify the precise nature, scope and duration of the public service obligations imposed and the identity of the undertakings concerned.\n(286)\nThe Commission could agree that through its Act of Association AGVO have been entrusted with the management of the fishing port and that this entrustment implies certain specific obligations.\n(287)\nHowever, so far as the rental activities of AGVO are concerned, the Commission observes that the public service obligations imposed on AGVO are not clearly defined. In particular it could not find any provision imposing specific obligations on AGVO in this respect and the Belgian authorities have not submitted further information on this issue. The Belgian authorities seem to consider that the fact that the organisations renting the buildings are public or semi-public organisations implies necessarily that the undertakings renting buildings to those organisations are themselves discharging a public service. The Commission, however, cannot agree with such a position, since this fact in itself does not imply any entrustment or any imposition of specific public service obligations that would differ from obligations falling upon any private lessor. The Commission therefore concludes that Belgium has not demonstrated that AGVO had been entrusted with public service obligations in connection with its rental activities.\n(288)\nFurthermore, the Commission considers that the aid measures granted to AGVO do not comply with the requirement of necessity and proportionality either.\n(289)\nThe requirements of necessity and proportionality of compensation are defined as follows (see among others paragraphs 14, 15, and 17 of the 2005 Community framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation):\n-\nthe amount of compensation may not exceed what is necessary to cover the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations,\n-\nthe amount of compensation includes all advantages granted by the State or through State resources in any form whatsoever - irrespective of their classification for the purposes of Article 107 of the TFEU,\n-\nthe amount of compensation must be actually used for the operation of the service of general economic interest concerned. Public service compensation used to operate on other markets is not justified, and consequently constitutes incompatible State aid.\n(290)\nThe Commission observes that the necessity and proportionality requirements have not been complied with in this case. Belgium has admitted that no parameters had been defined for the compensation. The Belgian authorities have further explained to the Commission that it was not possible to determine the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations and the receipts for discharging those obligations. The Commission further observes that AGVO does not operate separate accounts for its various categories of activities. Consequently, compensation for public service obligations can be used to operate on other markets. Several elements in the file indicate that there has actually been overcompensation. For instance, so far as free guarantees for loans are concerned, it has been established in paragraphs 186 et seq of this Decision that guaranteed loans could be used and have been used for other purposes than the intended initial purpose. Since the amount of capital put into EVO (EUR 3 969 000) and the price paid to buy the PAKHUIZEN shares (EUR 350 000) (in total: EUR 4 319 000) go beyond the amount of capital actually paid to AGVO (EUR 3 596 665,62), AGVO has necessarily used loans and possibly tax duties in order to finance them.\n(291)\nFor the above reasons, the Commission cannot consider the aid measures to be compatible with the conditions imposed in Article 106(2) of the TFEU.\n10.2.2. AID GRANTED TO EVO\n(292)\nAs regards the State aid granted by the City and by AGVO to EVO, it is necessary for the assessment to distinguish between the various actions and the dates on which they took place.\n(293)\nThe following decisions need to be assessed under the 2001 Guidelines:\n-\nthe decisions taken by the City to provide a free guarantee for loans on 28 June 2002, 27 September 2002 and 23 April 2004,\n-\nthe decision taken by AGVO to allow EVO from 8 August 2002 onward continuous free use of the buildings owned by AGVO of a total of 13 600 m2,\n-\nthe decision taken by AGVO to provide EVO with a starting capital of EUR 371 840 on 22 August 2002.\n(294)\nThe following decisions need to be assessed under the 2004 Guidelines:\n-\nthe decisions taken by the City to provide a free guarantee for a loan on 22 April 2005,\n-\nthe decisions taken by AGVO to increase EVO\u2019s capital by a remission of debts on 31 December 2004, 31 December 2005, 21 December 2007.\n(295)\nThe following decision need to be assessed under both the 2001 and 2004 Guidelines:\n-\nthe decisions taken by AGVO to provide free guarantees for loans of EUR 600 000 between 22 August 2002 and 3 August 2006.\n(296)\nThe following decision need to be assessed under both the 2004 and 2008 Guidelines:\n-\nthe decision taken by the City to provide a free guarantee for a loan of EUR 78 000 between 27 September 2007 and 4 September 2008.\n10.2.2.1. Guarantees for loans, right to use the fish auction free of charge\n(297)\nAccording to point 1.2 of the 2001 Fisheries Guidelines and point 3.7 of the 2004 Fisheries Guidelines State, aid which is granted without imposing any obligation on the part of recipients and which is intended to improve the situation of the undertakings and increase their business liquidity or is calculated on the quantity produced or marketed, product prices, units produces or the means of production, and which has the effect of reducing the recipient\u2019s production costs or improving the recipients income is, as operating aid, incompatible with the internal market. According to point 3.4 of the 2008 Fisheries Guidelines, operating aid which, for example, increases the business liquidity of the recipient or is calculated on the quantity produced or marketed, product prices, units produces or the means of production, and which has the effect of reducing the recipient\u2019s production costs or improving the recipients income is in principle incompatible with the internal market. It may be considered compatible only if the aid clearly and firmly contributes to serving the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy.\n(298)\nFrom the information available it appears that the free guarantees for loans and the right to use the fish auction, free of charge, have been granted without imposing any particular obligation on EVO that would render the aid compatible with any of the conditions laid down in the Fisheries Guidelines.\n(299)\nIndeed, the free guarantees for loans appear to have been granted on mere demand for loans serving various purposes and do not seem to have been subject to any particular conditions or obligations.\n(300)\nThe information provided by the Belgian authorities even shows that the fact that the guaranteed loan was finally used for a purpose different from the purpose initially announced did not result in any sanction or annulment of the guarantee. For example, it appears that even though it was first announced that the loan of EUR 1 795 000 provided by Fortis was intended among others to buy additional machines and fish crates and to finance several modification works, it (or at least a part of it) was actually used to grant loans to owners of vessels. The guarantee has not been retracted and guarantees have been provided also after this situation occurred without apparently prompting the City to impose any conditions on EVO for the guarantee.\n(301)\nThe free guarantees have increased the business liquidity of EVO; not only did it not have to pay for the guarantee it appears also appears that, without the guarantee, EVO would not have obtained the loans.\n(302)\nAlso the right to use the auction building, free of charge, has increased EVO\u2019s liquidities, since it was spared the costs of the rent that it would have otherwise had to pay under market conditions.\n(303)\nThe Commission does not see how the free guarantees of the right to use the buildings, free of charge, can be considered contributing to the objectives of Common Fisheries Policy. The Belgian authorities have not submitted any information in this regard.\n(304)\nThe Belgian authorities have submitted that the measures had to be assessed in the framework of the restructuring of the fish auction.\n(305)\nFirst, it must be assessed whether EVO would be eligible under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines. EVO could be considered a company in difficulty within the meaning of the 1999 and 2004 R & R Guidelines respectively.\n(306)\nAccording to point 8 of the 1999 R & R Guidelines and point 13 of the 2004 R & R Guidelines, a company belonging to a larger business group is normally not eligible for rescue or restructuring aid. It could, however, be eligible if it has been created by a firm in difficulty. EVO was created by AGVO, which itself is the new legal form of the Ostend Fish auction restructured in 2001. It should be noted that AGVO is the continuation of the former Ostend fish auction, which was State owned and had no legal personality. As stated in recital 259 of this Decision, the Commission considers that AGVO, though newly created, qualifies as a firm in difficulty and is eligible under the 1999 R & R Guidelines. Since EVO has been set up in the context of the restructuring of AGVO, EVO, together with AGVO, can be regarded as a company in difficulty and could receive aid under the conditions laid down in the R & R Guidelines.\n(307)\nHowever, even if EVO is eligible under the R & R Guidelines, it is nevertheless true that it has been demonstrated in recitals 260 et seq of this Decision that the compatibility conditions laid down in the 1999 R & R Guidelines are not fulfilled. Moreover, since the concerned aid measures were not provided for in the restructuring plan, they raise the same concerns as those mentioned in recitals 278 et seq of this Decision.\n(308)\nThe free guarantees for loans and the right to use the fish auction, free of charge, must therefore be considered operating aid in the sense of the 2001, 2004 and 2008 Fisheries Guidelines and do not contribute to serving the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy. They are thus not compatible with the internal market.\n10.2.2.2. Initial capital and subsequent capital increases\n(309)\nEVO was established in the framework of the restructuring of the Ostend fish auction. The Belgian authorities have moreover confirmed that part of the initial capital of AGVO (i.e. EUR 371 840) was used as initial capital for the establishment of EVO and for subsequent capital increases.\n(310)\nHence, it is to be assessed whether the initial capital and subsequent capital increases could be considered Rescue and Restructuring aid within the meaning of the 1999 R & R Guidelines and the 2004 R & R Guidelines respectively.\n(311)\nEVO, together with AGVO, can be considered a company in difficulty within the meaning of the 1999 R & R Guidelines and the 2004 R & R Guidelines respectively as described in point 10.2.2.1.\n(312)\nHowever, as already indicated above in recitals 260 et seq of this Decision, the compatibility conditions for restructuring aid are not met in this case.\n(313)\nThe initial capital and the subsequent capital increases cannot therefore be considered compatible with the internal market.\n10.2.3. AID GRANTED TO PAKHUIZEN\n(314)\nThe effect of the terms of the lease between the City and PAKHUIZEN was that PAKHUIZEN could benefit from a yearly reduction of its operating costs. This type of aid does not fall within the scope of any of the measures mentioned in the Fisheries Guidelines, or within the objectives of other horizontal or specific guidelines which could be applicable to this kind of undertaking. Under both the relevant Fisheries Guidelines and the horizontal rules on State aid, such type of aid must be considered operating aid which is incompatible with the internal market.\n10.2.4. CONCLUSION\n(315)\nIn view of all the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the measures mentioned in point 10.1.5 of this Decision must be regarded as State aid, that they are not compatible with the internal market and that they must be recovered as described in section 11.\n11. RECOVERY\n(316)\nIn accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, where negative Decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission must decide that the Member State concerned must take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary. The purpose is achieved once the aid in question, together where appropriate with default interest, has been repaid by the recipient or, in other words, by the undertakings which actually benefited from it.\n(317)\nRegulation (EC) No 659/1999 does not lay down any limitation period for the examination of unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) thereof, i.e. aid implemented before the Commission is able to reach a conclusion about its compatibility with the common market. However, Article 15 of that Regulation stipulates that the powers of the Commission to recover aid is subject to a limitation period of 10 years, that the limitation period begins on the day on which the aid is awarded to the beneficiary and that that limitation period is interrupted by any action taken by the Commission.\n(318)\nThe limitation period was interrupted by the request for information sent to Belgium on 13 March 2006. Accordingly, the recovery shall be limited to the aid received after 13 March 1996.\n(319)\nIn order to determine what has to be recovered from AGVO, EVO and PAKHUIZEN, account should be taken of the fact that part of the aid granted to AGVO has been transferred to EVO. As pointed out by the Belgian authorities, this aid should be recovered only once from the real beneficiary.\n(320)\nFor that reason, in those situations where aid granted by the City finally benefitted EVO, the aid to be recovered from AGVO is the part of the aid which was not transferred to EVO.\n11.1. RECOVERY FROM EVO\n(321)\nThe aid to be recovered from EVO is composed of:\n-\nthe initial capital for an amount of EUR 371 840,\n-\nthe subsequent capital increases of EUR 1 387 044, EUR 710 000,75 and EUR 1 500 114,96,\n-\nthe advantage received thanks to the provision of free guarantees for loans, and\n-\nthe advantage derived from the free use of the fish auction between 22 August 2002 and the last day EVO has had the fish auction at its disposal.\n(322)\nAs for the aid element of the free guarantees, this is in principle the amount of the loans guaranteed, unless the Belgian authorities provide evidence that it would have been possible for EVO to obtain such guarantees on the market; in that case, the aid element consists of what the likely market premium would have been for the guarantee.\n(323)\nThe Belgian authorities have declared that the two loans for which a guarantee was provided in 2002 were in the end not taken up by EVO. As a consequence, though the aid had been granted (the decision to provide the free guarantee had been adopted), EVO has not actually benefited from it. The aid resulting from the free guarantees for loans agreed on 28 June and 27 September 2002 does not therefore need to be recovered. Consequently, an amount of EUR 4 284 995 (3 606 995 + 78 000 + 600 000) should be recovered.\n11.2. RECOVERY FROM PAKHUIZEN\n(324)\nThe aid to be recovered from PAKHUIZEN is composed of the advantage derived from the fact that the long-term lease agreement was not concluded at a market price.\n(325)\nAccording to Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the recovery shall be limited to a period of 10 years back from 13 March 2006.\n(326)\nThe advantage consists of the remuneration (rent) that would have been paid under normal market conditions for the long-term lease agreement for the buildings minus (a) the EUR 25 paid annually and (b) any renovation costs that PAKHUIZEN has had and which it would not have needed to pay under the normal rules of Belgian law (69). The period at issue runs until the day of recovery or - in the case the lease agreement was ended before recovery was ordered - the day the lease agreement was ended.\n11.3. RECOVERY FROM AGVO\n(327)\nThe aid to be recovered from AGVO is composed of the initial capital, the advantage derived from the provision of free guarantees for loans, the advantage derived from the exclusive use of the lands and buildings in the Ostend fishing port between 14 March 2002 and 25 March 2004 (for the buildings that were subsequently transferred to AGVO) and between 14 March 2002 and the day of recovery (for the rest of land and buildings that were not part of the property transfer deed concluded on 26 March 2004) and the advantage derived from the transfer on 26 March 2004, free of charge, of the ownership of 57 500 m2 of buildings located in the Ostend fishing port.\n(328)\nSo far as the initial capital is concerned, the information provided to the Commission shows that though the aid was granted for an amount of BEF 250 million (EUR 6 200 000), it has not been entirely paid out yet. Recovery should therefore be limited to the amount actually paid to AGVO, that is EUR 3 596 665,62 according to the last information submitted to the Commission. If more than this amount has been paid to AGVO the surplus has to be recovered as well.\n(329)\nAs for the aid element of the free guarantees, this is in principle the amount of the loans guaranteed, unless the Belgian authorities provide evidence that it would have been possible for AGVO to obtain such guarantees on the market; in that case, the aid element consists of what the likely market premium would have been for the guarantee, when they were agreed (26 March 2004, 23 April 2004 and 22 April 2005).\n(330)\nWhere the market does not provide guarantees for the type of transaction concerned the aid element should be calculated in the same way as the grant equivalent of a soft loan, namely as the difference between the specific market interest rate AGVO would have borne without the guarantee and the interest rate obtained by means of the State guarantee. If there is no market interest rate and if the Member State wishes to use the reference rate as a proxy, the Commission stresses that the conditions laid down in the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (70) are valid to calculate the aid intensity of an individual guarantee. This means that due attention must be paid to the top-up to be added to the base rate in order to take into account the relevant risk profile linked to the operation covered, the undertaking guaranteed and the collaterals provided.\n(331)\nSo far as concerns the advantage derived from the exclusive use, free of charge of the lands and buildings of the Ostend fishing port, the aid amounts to the rent AGVO would have had to pay under market conditions for the exclusive use of the lands and buildings in the Ostend fishing port between 14 March 2002 and the day of recovery or the last day that AGVO had the right to use the buildings, free of charge, either on the basis of its articles of association, the Deed for transferring the ownership of the buildings or otherwise.\n(332)\nThe Commission is aware of the fact that part of the lands and buildings were of limited or no commercial value (for example the roads). The Commission observes however, that part of the lands and buildings had a clear commercial value (fish auction, offices, warehouses) and that another part of the lands and buildings (infrastructure of the fishing port) allowed AGVO to provide services to vessel-owners and that AGVO had the right to levy a fee in exchange for the services provided. These elements must be taken into account in order to calculate the rent.\n(333)\nSo far as the advantage derived from the collection of tax duties is concerned, the aid amounts to the tax collected since its establishment and the day of recovery or the last day AGVO was entitled to collect those duties.\n(334)\nFinally, the Commission notes that the amount to be recovered from AGVO should be diminished by the amount of aid that has been transferred to EVO in the form of capital (EUR 3 969 000) and free disposal of the buildings where the fish auction is operated.\n(335)\nThe Commission is aware of the fact that AGVO was entrusted with some non-economic public tasks (inspection of fish landed for consumption, checking that the catch landed is subjected to the VAT requirement, public relations functions) and with the management of the fishing port. The Commission considers that the amount to be recovered from AGVO should be diminished by the costs for which it can be proved that they were made when discharging these tasks.\n11.4. IMPACT OF THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE FISH AUCTION ON THE RECOVERY ISSUE\n(336)\nThe Belgian authorities have informed the Commission that the City and AGVO were planning to privatise the fish auction. They have argued that once privatisation was completed, there would no longer be an issue of State aid and the procedure would be rendered devoid of purpose.\n(337)\nThe Commission would recall in this regard that though the privatisation could put an end to the aid measures at issue, it does not erase the advantages granted to the beneficiaries of the aid for the period prior to the ending of the aid measures. Recovery precisely serves the purpose of re-establishing the previously existing situation in order to ensure a level-playing field in the internal market. The Commission draws the attention of the Belgian authorities in this respect to the Notice from the Commission \u2018Towards an effective implementation of Commission Decisions ordering Member States to recover unlawful and incompatible State aid\u2019 (71), in particular point 3.2.4 thereof which deals with the recovery of State aid from companies which are being wound up and insolvent beneficiaries. As regards the request to postpone taking this Decision (see recital 99), that would be inappropriate since it is important that unlawful and incompatible State aid be recovered as quickly as possible,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The aid granted to NV Exploitatie Vismijn Oostende (EVO) for an amount of EUR 3 969 000 in the form of an initial capital and loans which were later transformed into capital increases is incompatible with the internal market.\n2. The aid granted to EVO for an amount of EUR 4 284 995 in the form of free guarantees for loans is incompatible with the internal market.\n3. The aid granted to EVO in the form of the right to use, free of charge, the buildings of the fish auction located in the Ostend fishing port, is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 2\n1. The aid granted to Autonoom Gemeentebedrijf Vismijn Oostende (AGVO) for an amount of EUR 6 200 000 in the form of an initial capital is incompatible with the internal market.\n2. The aid granted to AGVO in the form of free guarantees for loans is incompatible with the internal market.\n3. The aid granted to AGVO in the form of the right to use, free of charge and/or at a rate below the market price, lands and buildings located in the Ostend fishing port, is incompatible with the internal market.\n4. The aid granted to AGVO in the form of the transfer of ownership, free of charge, between 26 March 2004 and 4 September 2009, of 57 500 m2 of buildings located in the Ostend fishing port is incompatible with the internal market.\n5. The aid granted to AGVO in the form of the right to collect tax duties since 14 March 2002 is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 3\nThe aid granted to NV Pakhuizen (PAKHUIZEN) and resulting from the long-term lease agreement concluded in 1989 with the City of Ostend, is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 4\n1. Belgium shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1 and Article 2(2) to (5) from the beneficiaries.\n2. Belgium shall recover the aid referred to in Article 2(1) to the extent it has already been paid to AGVO (EUR 3 596 665,62).\n3. Belgium shall recover the aid referred to in Article 3 to the extent it has been granted since 13 March 1996.\n4. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were placed at the disposal of the beneficiaries until their actual recovery or the last date on which they were placed at the disposal of the beneficiaries, should the aid measures have ended before recovery took place.\n5. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (72) and with Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 (73) amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\n6. Belgium shall cancel all outstanding payments of and/or other forms of granting the aid referred to in Articles 1, 2 and 3 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 5\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Articles 1, 2 and 3 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Belgium shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months of the date of its notification.\nArticle 6\n1. Within two months of notification of this Decision, Belgium shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interest) to be recovered from AGVO, EVO and PAKHUIZEN;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that AGVO, EVO and PAKHUIZEN have been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Belgium shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Articles 1 to 3 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from AGVO, EVO and PAKHUIZEN.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2010.", "references": ["90", "6", "51", "25", "64", "45", "93", "60", "5", "17", "78", "62", "1", "28", "72", "68", "75", "74", "69", "89", "10", "3", "8", "57", "76", "11", "13", "81", "9", "83", "No Label", "15", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "29", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 11 July 2011\nconcerning a site information format for Natura 2000 sites\n(notified under document C(2011) 4892)\n(2011/484/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and in particular to the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (2), and in particular to Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 3(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC provides that the Natura 2000 network shall include the special protection areas classified by the Member States pursuant to Council Directive 79/409/EEC (3).\n(2)\nFor each Natura 2000 site, the format needs to provide for a map of the site, name, location, extent and the data resulting from application of the criteria used in selecting the site.\n(3)\nThe format serves as documentation of the Natura 2000 network.\n(4)\nThe content of the Natura 2000 Standard Data Form should be updated regularly based on the best available information for each site of the network in order to allow the Commission to fulfil its coordinating role and in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 92/43/EEC to periodically review the contribution of Natura 2000 towards the achievement of the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3 of that Directive.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up pursuant to Article 20 of Directive 92/43/EEC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe format for the transmission of information on the Natura 2000 network, called the \u2018Natura 2000 Standard Data Form\u2019, is set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nCommission Decision 97/266/EC (4) is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 July 2011.", "references": ["83", "96", "38", "19", "85", "18", "95", "62", "53", "16", "54", "52", "6", "10", "42", "92", "23", "11", "71", "43", "1", "63", "89", "55", "80", "48", "29", "21", "72", "88", "No Label", "39", "40", "58", "59"], "gold": ["39", "40", "58", "59"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 275/2011\nof 21 March 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["25", "14", "48", "64", "83", "90", "80", "5", "27", "84", "44", "30", "78", "36", "45", "88", "40", "28", "3", "31", "10", "50", "99", "97", "95", "22", "98", "53", "19", "70", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1315/2011\nof 15 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2011.", "references": ["33", "55", "6", "50", "51", "94", "95", "52", "12", "16", "11", "17", "7", "98", "40", "78", "97", "57", "39", "67", "73", "44", "9", "62", "29", "49", "72", "45", "14", "75", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 566/2011\nof 8 June 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards access to vehicle repair and maintenance information\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (1), and in particular Articles 4(4), 5(3) and 8 thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (2), in particular Article 39(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 715/2007 establishes common technical requirements for the type approval of motor vehicles (vehicles) and replacement parts with regard to their emissions and lays down rules for in-service conformity, durability of pollution control devices, on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems, measurement of fuel consumption and accessibility of vehicle repair and maintenance information.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 of 18 July 2008 implementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (3) requires the Commission to introduce the new test procedure for particle mass and numbers emitted by light duty vehicles.\n(3)\nCouncil Directive 76/756/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles and their trailers (4) requires the use of daytime running lamps for safety reasons. The effect of those devices, which are switched on permanently during the operation of vehicles, should be appropriately reflected in the measured pollutant and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.\n(4)\nThe risk of tampering with and total failures of diesel particle filters (DPFs) necessitates the monitoring of DPFs, regardless of the exceedance of the applicable OBD threshold limit.\n(5)\nDue to its permanent nature, the monitoring of electric circuits should be exempt from the reporting resulting from the in-use-performance-ratio requirements on the OBD system.\n(6)\nThe limited frequency of driving situations during which monitors of the boost control system or monitors requiring a cold start can be operated requires special performance requirements for these monitors.\n(7)\nThe statistical conditions under which compliance with in-use-performance-ratio requirements is assessed by default should be harmonised.\n(8)\nIf tampering of the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system is identified by direct monitoring of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, the conditions under which its driver inducement system is activated should be better defined.\n(9)\nThe recording of activation of the driver inducement system should be clarified with regard to possible future use of this information during roadworthiness inspections.\n(10)\nThe protection of the emission control computer against tampering should be open for technical improvements due to innovation.\n(11)\nRecording and reporting of data are essential parts of a mandatory OBD monitor and should not be waived by alleged deficiencies, in particular not in a systematic manner where the manufacturer opts for certain standards for on/off board communication.\n(12)\nIn order to ensure effective competition on the market for vehicle repair and maintenance information services, and in order to clarify that the information concerned also covers information which needs to be provided to independent operators other than repairers, so as to ensure that the independent vehicle repair and maintenance market as a whole can compete with authorised dealers, regardless of whether the vehicle manufacturer gives such information to authorised dealers and repairers directly, further clarifications with regard to the details of the information to be provided under Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 are necessary.\n(13)\nConsidering the proportionality principle, while vehicle manufacturers should not be forced to collect data on modifications of individual vehicles from third parties exclusively for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and its implementing acts, in order to ensure a competitive repair and maintenance market, independent operators should receive updates to vehicle component data to the extent the updates are available to authorised dealers and repairers.\n(14)\nWork units are important technical repair and maintenance information for independent operators. Clarifying that work units are covered by Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 is expected to provide commercial certainty to the market players.\n(15)\nWhere vehicle manufacturers provide that repair and maintenance records are no longer kept in physical format - which vehicle owners can also make accessible to independent repairers for the latter to introduce a statement of the repair and maintenance work carried out - in the vehicle, but kept in the vehicle manufacturers\u2019 central data base, these records must, with the consent of the vehicle owners, also be accessible by the independent repairer in order to allow them to continue to produce such complete record of the repair and maintenance work carried out and to enable vehicle owners to have a single document proving all such works.\n(16)\nMore flexibility should be given for the re-programming of vehicle control units and the data exchange between vehicle manufacturers and independent operators in order to allow for innovations and to save costs.\n(17)\nIt should be ensured that vehicles approved in accordance with the relevant Regulation from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) equivalent to the emissions-related requirements of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 and fulfilling the requirements of those Regulations on access to information are approved in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 without administrative burdens.\n(18)\nSince there is currently no common structured process for the exchange of vehicle component data between vehicle manufacturers and independent operators, it is appropriate to develop principles for such an exchange of data. A future common structured process on the standardised format of the data exchanged should be developed by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) formally, whereupon the mandate given to CEN does not predetermine the level of detail this standard will provide. The CEN\u2019s work should, in particular, reflect the interests and needs of vehicle manufacturers and independent operators alike and should also investigate solutions such as open data formats described by well defined meta-data to accommodate existing IT infrastructures.\n(19)\nRegulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 692/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(20)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Technical Committee - Motor Vehicles,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 715/2007 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 6 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall include:\n(a)\nan unequivocal vehicle identification;\n(b)\nservice handbooks, including repair and maintenance records;\n(c)\ntechnical manuals;\n(d)\ncomponent and diagnosis information (such as minimum and maximum theoretical values for measurements);\n(e)\nwiring diagrams;\n(f)\ndiagnostic trouble codes (including manufacturer specific codes);\n(g)\nthe software calibration identification number applicable to a vehicle type;\n(h)\ninformation provided concerning, and delivered by means of, proprietary tools and equipment;\n(i)\ndata record information and two-directional monitoring and test data; and\n(j)\nstandard work units or time periods for repair and maintenance tasks if made available, either directly or through a third party, to manufacturers\u2019 authorised dealers and repairers.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph 8 is added:\n\u20188. Where vehicle repair and maintenance records are kept in a central data base of the vehicle manufacturer or on its behalf, independent repairers, approved and authorised as required in point 2.2 of Annex XIV to Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 (5), shall have access to such records free of charge and under the same conditions as authorised dealers or repairers in order to record information on repair and maintenance performed.\n(2)\nin Article 7, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Manufacturers shall make available vehicle repair and maintenance information including transactional services such as reprogramming or technical assistance on an hourly, daily, monthly, and yearly basis, with fees for access to such information varying in accordance with the respective periods of time for which access is granted. In addition to time-based access, manufacturers may offer transaction-based access, for which fees are charged per transaction and not based on the time for which access is granted. Where both access systems are offered by manufacturers, independent repairers shall choose a preferred access system, either time-based or transaction-based.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Annex I, notes 1 and 2 of Table 1 and notes 1, 2 and 5 of Table 2 are deleted.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EC) No 692/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2, the following point 33 is added:\n\u201833.\n\u201cCold start\u201d means an engine coolant temperature (or equivalent temperature) at engine start less than or equal to 35 \u00b0C and less than or equal to 7 K higher than ambient temperature (if available) at engine start.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 6(1), the following fourth and fifth subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018The relevant requirements shall be deemed to be met if all the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe requirements of Article 13 are met;\n(b)\nthe vehicle has been approved according to UN/ECE Regulations No 83, series of amendments 06, No 101, series of amendments 01 and in the case of compression ignition vehicles No 24 Part III, series of amendments 03.\nIn the case referred to in the fourth subparagraph Article 14 shall also apply.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 10(1), the following third and fourth subparagraphs are added:\n\u2018The relevant requirements shall be deemed to be met if all the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe requirements of Article 13 are met;\n(b)\nthe replacement pollution control devices have been approved according to UN/ECE Regulation No 103.\nIn the case referred to in the third subparagraph Article 14 shall also apply.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 13(9) is replaced by the following:\n\u20189. The Forum on Access to Vehicle Information (the Forum) is hereby established.\nThe Forum shall consider whether access to information affects the advances made in reducing vehicle theft and shall make recommendations for improving the requirements relating to access to information. In particular, the Forum shall advise the Commission on the introduction of a process for approving and authorising independent operators by accredited organisations to access information on vehicle security.\nThe Commission may decide to keep the discussions and findings of the Forum confidential.\u2019;\n(5)\nAnnexes I, III, IV, VIII, IX, XI, XII, XIV, XVI and XVIII are amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation;\n(6)\nAnnex II is replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 June 2011.", "references": ["14", "9", "77", "36", "59", "3", "24", "12", "82", "2", "57", "85", "43", "32", "38", "93", "4", "44", "63", "68", "87", "46", "83", "52", "10", "97", "65", "26", "51", "35", "No Label", "54", "55", "58", "60", "76"], "gold": ["54", "55", "58", "60", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 104/2011\nof 4 February 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 70/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 5 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 February 2011.", "references": ["57", "24", "82", "60", "81", "56", "41", "17", "85", "95", "38", "79", "34", "89", "76", "31", "58", "47", "49", "8", "11", "63", "68", "61", "67", "39", "97", "62", "87", "0", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 July 2012\nappointing a Spanish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/376/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Mar\u00eda Isabel NIETO FERN\u00c1NDEZ,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed as alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMr Enrique BARRASA S\u00c1NCHEZ, Director General de Inversiones y Acci\u00f3n Exterior Junta de Extremadura.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["12", "99", "5", "21", "1", "0", "54", "43", "78", "20", "61", "53", "81", "41", "82", "46", "35", "26", "71", "89", "38", "73", "27", "29", "68", "55", "17", "90", "45", "47", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 277/2011\nof 21 March 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of March 2011 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 of 14 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the poultrymeat sector (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 533/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of March 2011 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["89", "4", "1", "71", "8", "55", "70", "28", "83", "48", "36", "98", "57", "51", "68", "46", "73", "40", "74", "37", "82", "84", "58", "66", "22", "27", "41", "45", "97", "35", "No Label", "21", "61", "69"], "gold": ["21", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 16 July 2012\nappointing a Slovenian member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/407/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Slovenian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Barbara \u017dGAJNER TAV\u0160,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed as member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nMs Jasna GABRI\u010c, pod\u017eupanja ob\u010dine Trbovlje.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["23", "44", "42", "58", "98", "82", "85", "71", "2", "69", "78", "72", "55", "43", "3", "21", "95", "15", "25", "63", "73", "77", "37", "14", "8", "93", "52", "20", "30", "24", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/483/CFSP\nof 28 July 2011\namending and extending Decision 2010/96/CFSP on a European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28 and 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 15 February 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/96/CFSP on a European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (1).\n(2)\nOn 31 March 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/197/CFSP on the launch of a European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia) (2).\n(3)\nOn 20 July 2011, the Council approved the revised Crisis Management Concept for EUTM Somalia.\n(4)\nOn 28 April 2011, in his report S/2011/277 to the Security Council, the United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) noted the territorial gains and the progress in the security track, and mentioned the training provided by the EU. The UNSG recommends focusing on further development of the Somali security sector institutions and in particular recommends improving the Command and Control structures of the National Security Forces (NSF).\n(5)\nOn 21 April 2011, the Chairperson of the African Union (AU) Commission submitted his report on the situation in Somalia to the Peace and Security Council. He highlighted the gains in the security domain and made a request for the continuation of the training support.\n(6)\nIn his letter of 4 May 2011, to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Prime Minister of Somalia, expressed the Somali Transitional Federal Government\u2019s (TFG) appreciation for the EU\u2019s support and reiterated the TFG\u2019s full commitment to building a Command and Control structure for the NSF, to protect the civilian population and to integrate different militias and clans\u2019 forces into the NSF.\n(7)\nThe TGF\u2019s appreciation was reiterated during the Joint Security Committee in Kampala on 23 June 2011.\n(8)\nDuring the Joint Consultative meeting of the AU PSC and the EU PSC held on 10 May 2011 in Addis Ababa, the AU expressed its satisfaction with the support provided by EUTM Somalia in the build-up to a professional and unified Somali NSF.\n(9)\nUgandan Political and Military authorities have expressed their satisfaction with the partnership with the EU and the United States of America, and their willingness to continue the training.\n(10)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications. Denmark does not participate in the implementation of this Decision and therefore does not participate in the financing of this operation.\n(11)\nEUTM Somalia should be further extended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/96/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n1. In order to continue contributing towards strengthening the Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG) as a functioning government serving all Somali citizens, an EU military training mission (EUTM Somalia) shall contribute to the development of the Somali security sector through the provision of military training to the National Security Forces (NSF). Training will focus on developing Command and Control and specialised capabilities and on self-training capacities of the Somali NSF, with a view to transferring EU training expertise to local actors. EUTM Somalia will continue operating in close cooperation and coordination with other actors in the International Community, in particular the United Nations, AMISOM, and the United States of America and Uganda in line with agreed TFG requirements.\n2. The EU military training carried out to that end shall continue to take place mainly in Uganda, in accordance with the political objective of the EU mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces, as defined in the revised Crisis Management Concept approved by the Council on 20 July 2011. Elements of EUTM Somalia will also be based in Nairobi and Brussels.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 2, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n1. Colonel Michael BEARY is hereby appointed EU Mission Commander with effect from 9 August 2011.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 10 is hereby amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n2. The financial reference amount for the common costs of the EU military mission for the period until 9 August 2011 shall be EUR 4,8 million. The percentage of the reference amount referred to in Article 32(3) of ATHENA shall be 60 %.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n3. The financial reference amount for the common costs of the EU military mission for the period starting on 9 August 2011 shall be EUR 4,8 million. The percentage of this reference amount referred to in Article 32(3) of ATHENA shall be 30 %.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 12, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n2. The EU military mission shall terminate in 2012 after two 6-month training periods and redeployment of the EU units and personnel to Europe.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2011.", "references": ["44", "54", "0", "25", "98", "88", "70", "82", "92", "56", "43", "89", "58", "64", "85", "42", "45", "74", "8", "86", "30", "87", "26", "73", "46", "95", "67", "57", "37", "16", "No Label", "1", "6", "9", "49", "94"], "gold": ["1", "6", "9", "49", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 July 2012\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors concerning the reassignment of a part of the unallocated resources of the 10th European Development Fund to Intra-ACP cooperation\n(2012/491/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 209(2) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (2), was first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (3) and was amended for the second time in Ouagadougou on 22 June 2010 (4) (\u2018the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement\u2019). The second amendment has been provisionally applied since 31 October 2010.\n(2)\nArticle 15 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement establishes an ACP-EU Council of Ministers with powers to take decisions in accordance with the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement.\n(3)\nIn accordance with paragraph 6 of Annex Ib to the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors, acting on behalf of the ACP-EU Council of Ministers, may reassign funds between allocations provided for in paragraph 2 of that Annex, in order to meet programming requirements under one such allocation.\n(4)\nThe balance of funds available under the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) envelope for Intra-ACP cooperation is insufficient to meet the programming requirements that emerged from its Mid-Term Review. It is necessary to transfer EUR 195 million from the 10th EDF unallocated resources to the envelope for Intra-ACP cooperation so as to allow for the financing of actions based on both EU and ACP existing priorities, including a replenishment of the African Peace Facility amounting to EUR 100 million.\n(5)\nThe Union should determine the position to be taken within the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors concerning the reassignment of a part of the unallocated resources of the 10th EDF to the benefit of the appropriation intended for Intra-ACP cooperation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors concerning the reassignment of a part of the unallocated resources of the 10th European Development Fund to Intra-ACP cooperation shall be based on the draft Decision of the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors attached to this Decision.\nFormal and minor changes to the draft Decision may be agreed without requiring that this Decision be amended.\nArticle 2\nIn order to support the efforts of the African Union and regional organisations to address security challenges across Africa, EUR 100 million out of the EUR 195 million financial reallocation shall be earmarked for the African Peace Facility.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["97", "0", "66", "6", "65", "38", "11", "41", "68", "24", "79", "2", "71", "39", "13", "93", "31", "14", "40", "91", "88", "35", "67", "34", "64", "48", "17", "60", "29", "57", "No Label", "4", "5", "9", "10", "94", "96"], "gold": ["4", "5", "9", "10", "94", "96"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1235/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 15 December 2010\namending, as regards pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, and Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 and Article 168(4)(c) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (3),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (4),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 726/2004 (5) creates a Union-wide marketing authorisation procedure for certain categories of medicinal products (the \u2018centralised procedure\u2019), lays down rules for the pharmacovigilance of those products and establishes the European Medicines Agency (the \u2018Agency\u2019).\n(2)\nPharmacovigilance rules are necessary for the protection of public health in order to prevent, detect and assess adverse reactions to medicinal products for human use placed on the Union market, as the full safety profile of medicinal products for human use can be known only after they have been placed on the market.\n(3)\nThe pollution of waters and soils with pharmaceutical residues is an emerging environmental problem. Member States should consider measures to monitor and evaluate the risk of environmental effects of such medicinal products for human use, including those which may have an impact on public health. The Commission should, based, inter alia, on data received from the Agency, the European Environment Agency, and Member States, produce a report on the scale of the problem, along with an assessment on whether amendments to Union legislation on medicinal products for human use or other relevant Union legislation are required.\n(4)\nIn the light of the experience acquired and following an assessment by the Commission of the Union system of pharmacovigilance, it has become clear that it is necessary to take measures in order to improve the operation of Union law on the pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use.\n(5)\nThe main tasks of the Agency in the area of pharmacovigilance laid down in Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 should be maintained and further developed, in particular as regards the management of the Union pharmacovigilance database and data-processing network (the \u2018Eudravigilance database\u2019), the coordination of safety announcements by the Member States and the provision to the public of information regarding safety issues.\n(6)\nIn order to allow all competent authorities to receive, access simultaneously and share pharmacovigilance information for medicinal products for human use authorised in the Union, the Eudravigilance database should be maintained and strengthened as the single point of receipt of such information. Member States should therefore not impose any additional reporting requirements on marketing authorisation holders. The database should be fully and permanently accessible to the Member States, the Agency and the Commission, and accessible to an appropriate extent to marketing authorisation holders and the public.\n(7)\nIn order to increase transparency as regards pharmacovigilance issues, a European medicines web-portal should be created and maintained by the Agency.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure the availability of the necessary expertise and resources for pharmacovigilance assessments at Union level, it is appropriate to create a new scientific committee within the Agency: the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee. That committee should be composed of members appointed by Member States who are competent in the safety of medicines including the detection, assessment, minimisation and communication of risk, and in the design of post-authorisation safety studies and pharmacovigilance audits, and of members appointed by the Commission, who are independent scientific experts, or representatives of healthcare professionals and patients.\n(9)\nThe rules on Scientific Committees of the Agency laid down in Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 should apply to the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure harmonised responses across the Union to safety concerns regarding medicinal products for human use, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and the coordination group established by Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (6) should rely on the recommendations of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee with regard to any question relating to the pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use. However, for the sake of consistency and continuity of the safety assessments, the final responsibility for issuing an opinion on the risk-benefit assessment of medicinal products for human use authorised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 should remain with the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and with the authorities competent for the granting of marketing authorisations.\n(11)\nIt is appropriate that the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee should give a recommendation as part of any Union-wide post-authorisation assessment based on pharmacovigilance data relating to medicinal products for human use and it should be responsible for making recommendations on risk management systems and monitoring their effectiveness. Such Union-wide assessments should follow the procedures laid down in Directive 2001/83/EC also for medicinal products for human use that were authorised through the centralised procedure.\n(12)\nIn accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC the Agency provides the secretariat to the coordination group. In view of the enlarged mandate of the coordination group in the area of pharmacovigilance, the technical and administrative support by the secretariat of the Agency to the coordination group should be reinforced. Provision should be made for the Agency to ensure appropriate coordination between the coordination group and the Agency\u2019s Scientific Committees.\n(13)\nIn order to protect public health, the pharmacovigilance activities of the Agency should be adequately funded. It should be ensured that adequate funding is possible for pharmacovigilance activities by empowering the Agency to charge fees to marketing authorisation holders. However, the management of those collected funds should be under the permanent control of the Management Board in order to guarantee the independence of the Agency.\n(14)\nTo ensure the highest levels of expertise and the functioning of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, rapporteurs providing assessments for Union pharmacovigilance procedures, periodic safety update reports, post-authorisation safety study protocols and risk management systems should receive payment through the Agency.\n(15)\nTherefore, the Agency should be empowered to charge fees in return for performing the activities of the coordination group within the Union system of pharmacovigilance, as provided for in Directive 2001/83/EC, and the rapporteurs within the coordination group should, in turn, be paid by the Agency.\n(16)\nIt is necessary, from a public health perspective, to complement the data available at the time of authorisation with additional data about the safety and, in certain cases, also about the efficacy of medicinal products for human use authorised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. The Commission should therefore be empowered to impose on the marketing authorisation holder the obligation to conduct post-authorisation studies on safety and on efficacy. It should be possible to impose that obligation at the time of granting the marketing authorisation or later, and it should be a condition of the marketing authorisation. Such studies may be aimed at collecting data to enable the assessment of safety or efficacy of medicinal products for human use in everyday medical practice.\n(17)\nIt is essential that a strengthened system of pharmacovigilance not lead to the premature granting of marketing authorisations. However, some medicinal products for human use are authorised subject to additional monitoring. This includes all medicinal products for human use with a new active substance and biological medicinal products, including biosimilars, which are priorities for pharmacovigilance. Competent authorities may also require additional monitoring for specific medicinal products for human use that are subject to the obligation to conduct a post-authorisation safety study or to conditions or restrictions with regard to the safe and effective use of the medicinal product that will be specified in the risk management plan. Risk management plans are normally required for new active substances, biosimilars, medicinal products for paediatric use and for medicinal products for human use involving a significant change in the marketing authorisation, including a new manufacturing process of a biotechnologically-derived medicinal product. Medicinal products for human use subject to additional monitoring should be identified as such by a black symbol, which will be selected by the Commission on the basis of a recommendation by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, and an appropriate standardised explanatory sentence in the summary of product characteristics and in the package leaflet. The Agency should keep an up-to-date, publicly available list of such medicinal products.\n(18)\nExperience has shown that the responsibilities of marketing authorisation holders with regard to pharmacovigilance of authorised medicinal products for human use should be clarified. The marketing authorisation holder should be responsible for continuously monitoring the safety of its medicinal products for human use, for informing the authorities of any changes that might have an impact on the marketing authorisation, and for ensuring that the product information is kept up to date. As medicinal products for human use could be used outside the terms of the marketing authorisation, the marketing authorisation holder\u2019s responsibilities should include providing all available information, including the results of clinical trials or other studies, as well as reporting any use of the medicinal product which is outside the terms of the marketing authorisation. It is also appropriate to ensure that all relevant information collected on the safety of the medicinal product for human use is taken into account when the marketing authorisation is being renewed.\n(19)\nScientific and medical literature is an important source of information on suspected adverse reaction case reports. Currently, for active substances included in more than one medicinal product for human use, literature cases are reported in adverse reaction case reports in a duplicative way. In order to enhance the efficiency of reporting, the Agency should monitor a defined list of literature for a defined list of active substances used in medicinal products for which there are several marketing authorisations.\n(20)\nAs a result of the submission of all suspected adverse reaction data for medicinal products for human use authorised by the Member States directly to the Eudravigilance database, it is not necessary to provide for different reporting rules for medicinal products for human use authorised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. The rules on suspected adverse reaction recording and reporting laid down in Directive 2001/83/EC should therefore apply to medicinal products for human use authorised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.\n(21)\nIt is necessary to increase the shared use of resources between competent authorities for the assessment of periodic safety update reports. The assessment procedures provided for in Directive 2001/83/EC should therefore apply for the single assessment of periodic safety update reports for different medicinal products for human use containing the same active substance or the same combination of active substances, including joint assessments of medicinal products for human use authorised both nationally and through the centralised procedure.\n(22)\nIt is appropriate to strengthen the supervisory role for medicinal products for human use authorised through the centralised procedure by providing that the supervisory authority for pharmacovigilance should be the competent authority of the Member State in which the pharmacovigilance system master file of the marketing authorisation holder is located.\n(23)\nThis Regulation shall apply without prejudice to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (7) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (8). In order to detect, assess, understand and prevent adverse reactions, and to identify and take actions to reduce the risks of, and increase the benefits from, medicinal products for human use for the purpose of safeguarding public health, it should be possible to process personal data within the Eudravigilance system while respecting the Union legislation relating to data protection. The purpose of safeguarding public health constitutes a substantial public interest and consequently the processing of personal data can be justified if identifiable health data are processed only when necessary and only when the parties involved assess this necessity at every stage of the pharmacovigilance process.\n(24)\nThis Regulation and Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (9) widen the tasks of the Agency with regard to pharmacovigilance, including the monitoring of literature cases, the improved use of information technology tools and the provision of more information to the general public. The Agency should be enabled to fund these activities from fees charged to marketing authorisation holders. These fees should not cover tasks carried out by national competent authorities for which such authorities charge fees in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC.\n(25)\nThe pharmacovigilance activities provided for in this Regulation require that uniform conditions be established as concerns the contents and maintenance of the pharmacovigilance system master file, as well as the minimum requirements for the quality system for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities by the Agency, the use of internationally agreed terminology, formats and standards for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities, and the minimum requirements for the monitoring of the data contained in the Eudravigilance database to determine whether there are new risks or whether risks have changed. The format and content of the electronic transmission of suspected adverse reactions by Member States and marketing authorisation holders, the format and content of electronic periodic safety update reports and risk management plans as well as the format of protocols, abstracts and final study reports for the post-authorisation safety studies should also be established. In accordance with Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers are to be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (10) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable.\n(26)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in order to supplement the provisions in point (cc) of Article 9(4) and in point (b) of Article 10a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. The Commission should be empowered to adopt supplementary measures laying down the situations in which post-authorisation efficacy studies may be required. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.\n(27)\nThe provisions on the monitoring of medicinal products for human use in Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 constitute specific provisions in the meaning of Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products (11).\n(28)\nProper coordination between the newly established Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee and the other Committees of the Agency, in particular the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products and the Committee for Advanced Therapies established under Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 (12) should be ensured.\n(29)\nRegulations (EC) No 726/2004 and (EC) No 1394/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004\nRegulation (EC) No 726/2004 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 5(2) the following sentence is added:\n\u2018For the fulfilment of its pharmacovigilance tasks, including the approval of risk management systems and monitoring their effectiveness provided for under this Regulation, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use shall rely on the scientific assessment and recommendations of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee referred to in Article 56(1)(aa).\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 9(4) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following point is inserted:\n\u2018(aa)\na recommendation on the frequency of submission of periodic safety update reports;\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following points are inserted:\n\u2018(ca)\ndetails of any recommended measures for ensuring the safe use of the medicinal product to be included in the risk management system;\n(cb)\nif appropriate, details of any recommended obligation to conduct post-authorisation safety studies or to comply with obligations on the recording or reporting of suspected adverse reactions which are stricter than those referred to in Chapter 3;\n(cc)\nif appropriate, details of any recommended obligation to conduct post-authorisation efficacy studies where concerns relating to some aspects of the efficacy of the medicinal product are identified and can be resolved only after the medicinal product has been marketed. Such an obligation to conduct such studies shall be based on the delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 10b while taking into account the scientific guidance referred to in Article 108a of Directive 2001/83/EC;\u2019;\n(c)\npoint (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nthe assessment report as regards the results of the pharmaceutical and pre-clinical tests and of the clinical trials, and as regards the risk management system and the pharmacovigilance system for the medicinal product concerned.\u2019;\n3.\nArticle 10 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Within 15 days after receipt of the opinion referred to in Article 5(2), the Commission shall prepare a draft of the decision to be taken in respect of the application.\nWhere a draft decision envisages the granting of a marketing authorisation, it shall include or make reference to the documents mentioned in points (a) to (d) of Article 9(4).\nWhere a draft decision envisages the granting of a marketing authorisation subject to the conditions referred to in points (c), (ca), (cb), or (cc) of Article 9(4), it shall lay down deadlines for the fulfilment of the conditions, where necessary.\nWhere the draft decision differs from the opinion of the Agency, the Commission shall attach a detailed explanation of the reasons for the differences.\nThe draft decision shall be forwarded to Member States and the applicant.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. The Agency shall disseminate the documents referred to in points (a) to (d) of Article 9(4), together with any deadlines laid down pursuant to the third subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article.\u2019;\n4.\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 10a\n1. After the granting of a marketing authorisation, the Agency may impose an obligation on the marketing authorisation holder:\n(a)\nto conduct a post-authorisation safety study if there are concerns about the risks of an authorised medicinal product. If the same concerns apply to more than one medicinal product, the Agency shall, following consultation with the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, encourage the marketing authorisation holders concerned to conduct a joint post-authorisation safety study;\n(b)\nto conduct a post-authorisation efficacy study when the understanding of the disease or the clinical methodology indicate that previous efficacy evaluations might have to be revised significantly. The obligation to conduct the post-authorisation efficacy study shall be based on the delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 10b while taking into account the scientific guidance referred to in Article 108a of Directive 2001/83/EC.\nThe imposition of such an obligation shall be duly justified, notified in writing, and shall include the objectives and timeframe for submission and conduct of the study.\n2. The Agency shall provide the marketing authorisation holder with an opportunity to present written observations in response to the imposition of the obligation within a time limit which it shall specify, if the marketing authorisation holder so requests within 30 days of receipt of the written notification of the obligation.\n3. On the basis of the written observations submitted by the marketing authorisation holder, and of the opinion of the Agency, the Commission shall withdraw or confirm the obligation. Where the Commission confirms the obligation, the marketing authorisation shall be varied to include the obligation as a condition of the marketing authorisation and the risk management system shall be updated accordingly.\nArticle 10b\n1. In order to determine the situations in which post-authorisation efficacy studies may be required under point (cc) of Article 9(4) and point (b) of Article 10a(1) of this Regulation, the Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 87b, and subject to the conditions of Articles 87c and 87d, measures supplementing the provisions in point (cc) of Article 9(4) and point (b) of Article 10a(1).\n2. When adopting such delegated acts, the Commission shall act in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 14 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe second subparagraph of paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018To this end, the marketing authorisation holder shall provide the Agency with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including the evaluation of data contained in suspected adverse reactions reports and periodic safety update reports submitted in accordance with Chapter 3, and information on all variations introduced since the marketing authorisation was granted, at least 9 months before the marketing authorisation ceases to be valid in accordance with paragraph 1.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Once renewed, the marketing authorisation shall be valid for an unlimited period, unless the Commission decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, including exposure of an insufficient number of patients to the medicinal product concerned, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal in accordance with paragraph 2.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u20188. In exceptional circumstances and following consultation with the applicant, the marketing authorisation may be granted subject to certain conditions, in particular relating to the safety of the medicinal product, notification to the competent authorities of any incident relating to its use, and action to be taken. The marketing authorisation may be granted only when the applicant can show that he is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety of the medicinal product under normal conditions of use, for objective, verifiable reasons and must be based on one of the grounds set out in Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC. Continuation of the marketing authorisation shall be linked to the annual reassessment of these conditions.\u2019;\n6.\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 14a\nThe marketing authorisation holder shall incorporate any conditions referred to in points (c), (ca), (cb) and (cc) of Article 9(4) or in Article 10a, or in Article 14(7) and (8) in his risk management system.\u2019;\n7.\nArticle 16 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 16\n1. After a marketing authorisation has been granted in accordance with this Regulation, the marketing authorisation holder shall, in respect of the methods of manufacture and control provided for in points (d) and (h) of Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC, take account of scientific and technical progress and introduce any changes that may be required to enable the medicinal product to be manufactured and checked by means of generally accepted scientific methods. He shall apply for approval of corresponding variations in accordance with this Regulation.\n2. The marketing authorisation holder shall forthwith provide the Agency, the Commission and the Member States with any new information which might entail the amendment of the particulars or documents referred to in Article 8(3), Article 10, 10a, 10b and 11, or Article 32(5) of Directive 2001/83/EC, in Annex I thereto, or in Article 9(4) of this Regulation.\nIn particular, the marketing authorisation holder shall forthwith inform the Agency and the Commission of any prohibition or restriction imposed by the competent authorities of any country in which the medicinal product is marketed and of any other new information which might influence the evaluation of the benefits and risks of the medicinal product concerned. The information shall include both positive and negative results of clinical trials or other studies in all indications and populations, whether or not included in the marketing authorisation, as well as data on the use of the medicinal product where such use is outside the terms of the marketing authorisation.\n3. The marketing authorisation holder shall ensure that the product information is kept up to date with the current scientific knowledge including the conclusions of the assessment and recommendations made public by means of the European medicines web-portal established in accordance with Article 26.\n4. In order to be able to continuously assess the risk-benefit balance, the Agency may at any time ask the marketing authorisation holder to forward data demonstrating that the risk-benefit balance remains favourable. The marketing authorisation holder shall answer fully and promptly any such request.\nThe Agency may at any time ask the marketing authorisation holder to submit a copy of the pharmacovigilance system master file. The marketing authorisation holder shall submit the copy at the latest 7 days after receipt of the request.\u2019;\n8.\nArticle 18 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. In the case of medicinal products manufactured within the Union, the supervisory authorities for manufacturing shall be the competent authorities of the Member State or Member States which granted the manufacturing authorisation provided for in Article 40(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC in respect of the medicinal product concerned.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018In the case of medicinal products imported from third countries, the supervisory authorities for imports shall be the competent authorities of the Member State or Member States that granted the authorisation provided for in Article 40(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC to the importer, unless appropriate agreements have been made between the Union and the exporting country to ensure that those controls are carried out in the exporting country and that the manufacturer applies standards of good manufacturing practice at least equivalent to those laid down by the Union.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraph is added:\n\u20183. The supervisory authority for pharmacovigilance shall be the competent authority of the Member State in which the pharmacovigilance system master file is located.\u2019;\n9.\nArticle 19 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The supervisory authorities for manufacturing and imports shall be responsible for verifying on behalf of the Union that the marketing authorisation holder for the medicinal product or the manufacturer or importer established within the Union satisfies the requirements concerning manufacturing and imports laid down in Titles IV and XI of Directive 2001/83/EC.\nThe supervisory authorities for pharmacovigilance shall be responsible for verifying on behalf of the Union that the marketing authorisation holder for the medicinal product satisfies the pharmacovigilance requirements laid down in Titles IX and XI of Directive 2001/83/EC. They may, if this is considered necessary, conduct pre-authorisation inspections to verify the accuracy and successful implementation of the pharmacovigilance system as it has been described by the applicant in support of his application.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The inspection shall be undertaken by inspectors from the Member States who possess the appropriate qualifications. They may be accompanied by a rapporteur or expert appointed by the Committee referred to in paragraph 2. The report of the inspectors shall be made available electronically to the Commission, the Member States and the Agency.\u2019;\n10.\nArticle 20 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Following an opinion by the Agency, the Commission shall adopt the necessary provisional measures, which shall be applied immediately.\nA final decision in respect of the medicinal product concerned shall be adopted within 6 months, in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 87(2).\nThe Commission may also adopt a decision addressed to the Member States pursuant to Article 127a of Directive 2001/83/EC.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraphs are added:\n\u20188. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 to 7 of this Article, the Union procedures laid down in Article 31 and Article 107i of Directive 2001/83/EC shall apply, as appropriate, where the reason for the Member State or the Commission to consider taking decisions or measures referred to in this Article is based on the evaluation of data resulting from pharmacovigilance activities.\n9. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 to 7 of this Article, where a procedure under Article 31 or Articles 107i to 107k of Directive 2001/83/EC concerns a range of medicinal products or a therapeutic class, medicinal products that are authorised in accordance with this Regulation and that belong to that range or class shall only be included in the procedure under Article 31, or Articles 107i to 107k of that Directive.\u2019;\n11.\nChapter 3 of Title II is replaced by the following:\n\u2018CHAPTER 3\nPHARMACOVIGILANCE\nArticle 21\n1. The obligations of marketing authorisation holders laid down in Article 104 of Directive 2001/83/EC shall apply to marketing authorisation holders for medicinal products for human use authorised in accordance with this Regulation.\nWithout prejudice to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article, holders of marketing authorisations granted before 2 July 2012 shall, by way of derogation from Article 104(3)(c) of Directive 2001/83/EC not be required to operate a risk management system for each medicinal product.\n2. The Agency may impose an obligation on a marketing authorisation holder to operate a risk management system, as referred to in point (c) of Article 104(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC, if there are concerns about the risks affecting the risk-benefit balance of an authorised medicinal product. In that context, the Agency shall also oblige the marketing authorisation holder to submit a detailed description of the risk-management system which he intends to introduce for the medicinal product concerned.\nThe imposition of such obligations shall be duly justified, notified in writing, and shall include the timeframe for submission of the detailed description of the risk-management system.\n3. The Agency shall provide the marketing authorisation holder with an opportunity to present written observations in response to the imposition of the obligation within a time limit which it shall specify, if the marketing authorisation holder so requests within 30 days of receipt of the written notification of the obligation.\n4. On the basis of the written observations submitted by the marketing authorisation holder, and of the opinion of the Agency, the Commission shall withdraw or confirm the obligation. Where the Commission confirms the obligation, the marketing authorisation shall be varied accordingly, to include the measures to be taken as part of the risk management system as conditions of the marketing authorisation referred to in point (ca) of Article 9(4).\nArticle 22\nThe obligations of marketing authorisation holders laid down in Article 106a(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC, and the obligations of the Member States, the Agency and the Commission laid down in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of that Article shall apply to the safety announcements referred to in point (e) of Article 57(1) of this Regulation concerning medicinal products for human use authorised in accordance with this Regulation.\nArticle 23\n1. The Agency shall, in collaboration with the Member States, set up, maintain and make public a list of medicinal products that are subject to additional monitoring.\nThat list shall include the names and active substances of:\n(a)\nmedicinal products authorised in the Union that contain a new active substance which, on 1 January 2011, was not contained in any medicinal product authorised in the Union;\n(b)\nany biological medicinal product not covered by point (a) that was authorised after 1 January 2011.\n2. At the request of the Commission, following consultation with the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, medicinal products that are authorised pursuant to this Regulation subject to conditions referred to in points (c), (ca), (cb) and (cc) of Article 9(4), or in Articles 10a, Article 14(7) and (8) and in Article 21(2), may also be included in the list.\nAt the request of a national competent authority, following consultation with the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, medicinal products that are authorised pursuant to Directive 2001/83/EC, subject to the conditions referred to in Articles 21a, 22, 22a and 104a of that Directive, may also be included in the list.\n3. The list shall include an electronic link to the product information and to the summary of the risk management plan.\n4. The Agency shall remove a medicinal product from the list 5 years after the Union reference date referred to in Article 107c(5) of Directive 2001/83/EC.\nHowever, the Commission or the national competent authority, as appropriate, may, following a recommendation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, extend that period until such time as they conclude that the conditions referred to in Article 14a and Article 21(2) of this Regulation or referred to in Articles 22b and 104a of Directive 2001/83/EC have been fulfilled.\n5. For medicinal products included in that list, the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet shall include the statement \u201cThis medicinal product is subject to additional monitoring\u201d. That statement shall be preceded by a black symbol which shall be selected by the Commission following a recommendation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee by 2 January 2012, and shall be followed by an appropriate standardised explanatory sentence.\nArticle 24\n1. The Agency shall, in collaboration with the Member States and the Commission, set up and maintain a database and data processing network (hereinafter the \u201cEudravigilance database\u201d) to collate pharmacovigilance information regarding medicinal products authorised in the Union and to allow competent authorities to access that information simultaneously and to share it.\nThe Eudravigilance database shall contain information on suspected adverse reactions in human beings arising from use of the medicinal product within the terms of the marketing authorisation as well as from uses outside the terms of the marketing authorisation, and on those occurring in the course of post-authorisation studies with the medicinal product or associated with occupational exposure.\n2. The Agency shall, in collaboration with the Member States and the Commission, draw up the functional specifications for the Eudravigilance database, together with a timeframe for their implementation.\nThe Agency shall prepare an annual report on the Eudravigilance database and send it to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The first annual report shall be prepared by 2 January 2013.\nThe Management Board of the Agency shall on the basis of an independent audit report that takes into account the recommendation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee confirm and announce when the Eudravigilance database has achieved full functionality and the system meets the functional specifications drawn up pursuant to the first subparagraph.\nAny substantial change to the Eudravigilance database and the functional specifications shall take into account the recommendations of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee.\nThe Eudravigilance database shall be fully accessible to the competent authorities of the Member States and to the Agency and the Commission. It shall also be accessible to marketing authorisation holders to the extent necessary for them to comply with their pharmacovigilance obligations.\nThe Agency shall ensure that healthcare professionals and the public have appropriate levels of access to the Eudravigilance database, while guaranteeing personal data protection. The Agency shall work together with all stakeholders, including research institutions, healthcare professionals, and patient and consumer organisations, in order to define the \u201cappropriate level of access\u201d for healthcare professionals and the public to the Eudravigilance database.\nThe data held on the Eudravigilance database shall be made publicly accessible in an aggregated format together with an explanation of how to interpret the data.\n3. The Agency shall, in collaboration either with the marketing authorisation holder or with the Member State that submitted an individual suspected adverse reaction report to the Eudravigilance database, be responsible for operating procedures that ensure the quality and integrity of the information collected in the Eudravigilance database.\n4. Individual suspected adverse reaction reports and follow-ups submitted to the Eudravigilance database by marketing authorisation holders shall be transmitted electronically upon receipt to the competent authority of the Member State where the reaction occurred.\nArticle 25\nThe Agency shall, in collaboration with the Member States, develop standard web-based structured forms for the reporting of suspected adverse reactions by healthcare professionals and patients in accordance with the provisions referred to in Article 107a of Directive 2001/83/EC.\nArticle 25a\nThe Agency shall, in collaboration with the national competent authorities and the Commission, set up and maintain a repository for periodic safety update reports (hereinafter the \u201crepository\u201d) and the corresponding assessment reports so that they are fully and permanently accessible to the Commission, the national competent authorities, the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and the coordination group referred to in Article 27 of Directive 2001/83/EC (hereinafter the \u201ccoordination group\u201d).\nThe Agency shall, in collaboration with the national competent authorities and the Commission, and after consultation with the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, draw up the functional specifications for the repository.\nThe Management Board of the Agency shall, on the basis of an independent audit report that takes into account the recommendations of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, confirm and announce when the repository has achieved full functionality and meets the functional specifications drawn up pursuant to the second paragraph.\nAny substantial change to the repository and the functional specifications shall always take into account the recommendations of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee.\nArticle 26\n1. The Agency shall, in collaboration with the Member States and the Commission, set up and maintain a European medicines web-portal for the dissemination of information on medicinal products authorised in the Union. By means of that portal, the Agency shall make public at least the following:\n(a)\nthe names of members of the Committees referred to in points (a) and (aa) of Article 56(1) of this Regulation and the members of the coordination group, together with their professional qualifications and with the declarations referred to in Article 63(2) of this Regulation;\n(b)\nagendas and minutes from each meeting of the Committees referred to in points (a) and (aa) of Article 56(1) of this Regulation and of the coordination group as regards pharmacovigilance activities;\n(c)\na summary of the risk management plans for medicinal products authorised in accordance with this Regulation;\n(d)\nthe list of medicinal products referred to in Article 23 of this Regulation;\n(e)\na list of the locations in the Union where pharmacovigilance system master files are kept and contact information for pharmacovigilance enquiries, for all medicinal products authorised in the Union;\n(f)\ninformation about how to report to national competent authorities suspected adverse reactions to medicinal products and the standard structured forms referred to in Article 25 for their web-based reporting by patients and healthcare professionals, including links to national websites;\n(g)\nUnion reference dates and frequency of submission of periodic safety update reports established in accordance with Article 107c of Directive 2001/83/EC;\n(h)\nprotocols and public abstracts of results of the post-authorisation safety studies referred to in Articles 107n and 107p of Directive 2001/83/EC;\n(i)\nthe initiation of the procedure provided for in Articles 107i to 107k of Directive 2001/83/EC, the active substances or medicinal products concerned and the issue being addressed, any public hearings pursuant to that procedure and information on how to submit information and to participate in public hearings;\n(j)\nconclusions of assessments, recommendations, opinions, approvals and decisions taken by the Committees referred to in points (a) and (aa) of Article 56(1) of this Regulation and by the coordination group, the national competent authorities and the Commission in the framework of the procedures of Articles 28, 28a and 28b of this Regulation and of sections 2 and 3 of Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of Title IX of Directive 2001/83/EC.\n2. Before the launch of this portal, and during subsequent reviews, the Agency shall consult relevant stakeholders, including patient and consumer groups, healthcare professionals and industry representatives.\nArticle 27\n1. The Agency shall monitor selected medical literature for reports of suspected adverse reactions to medicinal products containing certain active substances. It shall publish the list of active substances being monitored and the medical literature subject to this monitoring.\n2. The Agency shall enter into the Eudravigilance database relevant information from the selected medical literature.\n3. The Agency shall, in consultation with the Commission, Member States and interested parties, draw up a detailed guide regarding the monitoring of medical literature and the entry of relevant information into the Eudravigilance database.\nArticle 28\n1. The obligations of marketing authorisation holders and of Member States laid down in Articles 107 and 107a of Directive 2001/83/EC shall apply to the recording and reporting of suspected adverse reactions for medicinal products for human use authorised in accordance with this Regulation.\n2. The obligations of marketing authorisation holders laid down in Article 107b of Directive 2001/83/EC and the procedures under Article 107b and Article 107c of that Directive shall apply to the submission of periodic safety update reports, the establishment of Union reference dates and changes to the frequency of submission of periodic safety update reports for medicinal products for human use authorised in accordance with this Regulation.\nThe provisions applicable to the submission of periodic safety update reports laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 107c(2) of that Directive shall apply to holders of marketing authorisations which were granted before 2 July 2012 and for which the frequency and dates of submission of the periodic safety update reports are not laid down as a condition to the marketing authorisation until such time as another frequency or other dates of submission of the reports are laid down in the marketing authorisation or are determined in accordance with Article 107c of that Directive.\n3. The assessment of the periodic safety update reports shall be conducted by a rapporteur appointed by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee. The rapporteur shall closely collaborate with the rapporteur appointed by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use or the Reference Member State for the medicinal products concerned.\nThe rapporteur shall prepare an assessment report within 60 days of receipt of the periodic safety update report and send it to the Agency and to the members of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee. The Agency shall send the report to the marketing authorisation holder.\nWithin 30 days of receipt of the assessment report, the marketing authorisation holder and the members of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee may submit comments to the Agency and to the rapporteur.\nFollowing the receipt of the comments referred to in the third subparagraph, the rapporteur shall within 15 days update the assessment report taking into account any comments submitted, and forward it to the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee. The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee shall adopt the assessment report with or without further changes at its next meeting and issue a recommendation. The recommendation shall mention the divergent positions with the grounds on which they are based. The Agency shall include the adopted assessment report and the recommendation in the repository set up under Article 25a, and forward both to the marketing authorisation holder.\n4. In the case of an assessment report that recommends any action concerning the marketing authorisation, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use shall, within 30 days of receipt of the report by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, consider the report and adopt an opinion on the maintenance, variation, suspension or revocation of the marketing authorisation concerned, including a timetable for the implementation of the opinion. Where this opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use differs from the recommendation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use shall attach to its opinion a detailed explanation of the scientific grounds for the differences together with the recommendation.\nWhere the opinion states that regulatory action concerning the marketing authorisation is necessary, the Commission shall adopt a decision to vary, suspend or revoke the marketing authorisation. Article 10 of this Regulation shall apply to the adoption of that decision. Where the Commission adopts such a decision, it may also adopt a decision addressed to the Member States pursuant to Article 127a of Directive 2001/83/EC.\n5. In the case of a single assessment of periodic safety update reports concerning more than one marketing authorisation in accordance with Article 107e(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC which includes at least one marketing authorisation granted in accordance with this Regulation, the procedure laid down in Articles 107e and 107g of that Directive shall apply.\n6. The final recommendations, opinions and decisions referred to in paragraphs 3 to 5 of this Article shall be made public by means of the European medicines web-portal referred to in Article 26.\nArticle 28a\n1. Regarding medicinal products for human use authorised in accordance with this Regulation, the Agency shall, in collaboration with the Member States, take the following measures:\n(a)\nmonitor the outcome of risk minimisation measures contained in risk management plans and of conditions referred to in points (c), (ca), (cb) and (cc) of Article 9(4) or in points (a) and (b) of Article 10a(1), and in Article 14(7) and (8);\n(b)\nassess updates to the risk management system;\n(c)\nmonitor the data in the Eudravigilance database to determine whether there are new risks or whether risks have changed and whether those risks impact on the risk-benefit balance.\n2. The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee shall perform the initial analysis and prioritisation of signals of new risks or risks that have changed or changes to the risk-benefit balance. Where it considers that follow-up action may be necessary, the assessment of those signals and agreement on any subsequent action concerning the marketing authorisation shall be conducted in a timescale commensurate with the extent and seriousness of the issue.\n3. The Agency and national competent authorities and the marketing authorisation holder shall inform each other in the event of new risks or risks that have changed or changes to the risk-benefit balance being detected.\nArticle 28b\n1. For non-interventional post-authorisation safety studies concerning medicinal products for human use authorised in accordance with this Regulation which fulfil one of the requirements referred to in Articles 10 and 10a of this Regulation, the procedure provided for in paragraphs 3 to 7 of Article 107m, Articles 107n to 107p and Article 107q(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC shall apply.\n2. Where, in accordance with the procedure referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee issues recommendations for the variation, suspension or revocation of the marketing authorisation, the Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use shall adopt an opinion taking into account the recommendation, and the Commission shall adopt a decision in accordance with Article 10.\nWhere the opinion of the Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use differs from the recommendation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, the Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use shall attach to its opinion a detailed explanation of the scientific grounds for the differences, together with the recommendation.\nArticle 28c\n1. The Agency shall collaborate with the World Health Organisation in matters of pharmacovigilance and shall take the necessary steps to submit to it, promptly, appropriate and adequate information regarding the measures taken in the Union which may have a bearing on public health protection in third countries.\nThe Agency shall make available promptly all suspected adverse reaction reports occurring in the Union to the World Health Organisation.\n2. The Agency and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction shall exchange information that they receive on the abuse of medicinal products including information related to illicit drugs.\nArticle 28d\nAt the request of the Commission, the Agency shall participate in collaboration with the Member States in international harmonisation and standardisation of technical measures in relation to pharmacovigilance.\nArticle 28e\nThe Agency and the Member States shall cooperate to continuously develop pharmacovigilance systems capable of achieving high standards of public health protection for all medicinal products, regardless of the routes of marketing authorisation, including the use of collaborative approaches, to maximise use of resources available within the Union.\nArticle 28f\nThe Agency shall perform regular independent audits of its pharmacovigilance tasks and report the results to its Management Board on a 2-yearly basis.\nArticle 29\nThe Commission shall make public a report on the performance of pharmacovigilance tasks by the Agency on 2 January 2014 at the latest and subsequently every 3 years thereafter.\u2019;\n12.\nArticle 56(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following point is inserted:\n\u2018(aa)\nthe Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, which shall be responsible for providing recommendations to the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and the coordination group on any question relating to pharmacovigilance activities in respect of medicinal products for human use and on risk management systems and it shall be responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of those risk management systems;\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (f) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(f)\na Secretariat, which shall provide technical, scientific and administrative support for the Committees and ensure appropriate coordination between them, and which shall provide technical and administrative support for the coordination group and ensure appropriate coordination between it and the Committees.\u2019;\n13.\nArticle 57 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, points (c) to (f) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\ncoordinating the monitoring of medicinal products for human use which have been authorised within the Union and providing advice on the measures necessary to ensure the safe and effective use of these medicinal products for human use, in particular by coordinating the evaluation and implementation of pharmacovigilance obligations and systems and the monitoring of such implementation;\n(d)\nensuring the collation and dissemination of information on suspected adverse reactions to medicinal products for human use authorised in the Union by means of a database permanently accessible to all Member States;\n(e)\nassisting Member States with the rapid communication of information on pharmacovigilance concerns to healthcare professionals and coordinating the safety announcements of the national competent authorities;\n(f)\ndistributing appropriate information on pharmacovigilance concerns to the general public, in particular by setting up and maintaining a European medicines web-portal;\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is inserted after the first subparagraph:\n\u2018For the purposes of the database, the Agency shall set up and maintain a list of all medicinal products for human use authorised in the Union. To this effect the following measures shall be taken:\n(a)\nthe Agency shall, by 2 July 2011 at the latest, make public a format for the electronic submission of information on medicinal products for human use;\n(b)\nmarketing authorisation holders shall, by 2 July 2012 at the latest, electronically submit to the Agency information on all medicinal products for human use authorised or registered in the Union, using the format referred to in point (a);\n(c)\nfrom the date set out in point (b), marketing authorisation holders shall inform the Agency of any new or varied marketing authorisations granted in the Union, using the format referred to in point (a).\u2019;\n14.\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 61a\n1. The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee shall be composed of the following:\n(a)\none member and one alternate member appointed by each Member State, in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article;\n(b)\nsix members appointed by the Commission, with a view to ensuring that the relevant expertise is available within the Committee, including clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology, on the basis of a public call for expressions of interest;\n(c)\none member and one alternate member appointed by the Commission, on the basis of a public call for expressions of interest, after consulting the European Parliament, in order to represent healthcare professionals;\n(d)\none member and one alternate member appointed by the Commission, on the basis of a public call for expressions of interest, after consulting the European Parliament, in order to represent patient organisations.\nThe alternate members shall represent and vote for the members in their absence. The alternate members referred to in point (a) may be appointed to act as rapporteurs in accordance with Article 62.\n2. A Member State may delegate its tasks in the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee to another Member State. Each Member State may represent no more than one other Member State.\n3. The members and alternate members of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee shall be appointed on the basis of their relevant expertise in pharmacovigilance matters and risk assessment of medicinal products for human use, in order to guarantee the highest levels of specialist qualifications and a broad spectrum of relevant expertise. For this purpose, Member States shall liaise with the Management Board and the Commission in order to ensure that the final composition of the Committee covers the scientific areas relevant to its tasks.\n4. The members and alternate members of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee shall be appointed for a term of 3 years, which may be prolonged once and thereafter renewed following the procedures referred to in paragraph 1. The Committee shall elect its Chairman from among its members for a term of 3 years, which may be prolonged once.\n5. Paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of Article 61 shall apply to the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee.\n6. The mandate of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee shall cover all aspects of the risk management of the use of medicinal products for human use including the detection, assessment, minimisation and communication relating to the risk of adverse reactions, having due regard to the therapeutic effect of the medicinal product for human use, the design and evaluation of post-authorisation safety studies and pharmacovigilance audit.\u2019;\n15.\nArticle 62 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nthe first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Where, in accordance with this Regulation, any of the Committees referred to in Article 56(1) is required to evaluate a medicinal product for human use, it shall appoint one of its members to act as rapporteur, taking into account existing expertise in the Member State. The Committee concerned may appoint a second member to act as co-rapporteur.\nA rapporteur appointed for this purpose by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee shall closely collaborate with the rapporteur appointed by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use or the Reference Member State for the medicinal product for human use concerned.\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe fourth subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018If there is a request for re-examination of one of its opinions where this possibility is provided for in Union law, the Committee concerned shall appoint a different rapporteur and, where necessary, a different co-rapporteur from those appointed for the initial opinion. The re-examination procedure may deal only with the points of the opinion initially identified by the applicant and may be based only on the scientific data available when the Committee adopted the initial opinion. The applicant may request that the Committee consult a scientific advisory group in connection with the re-examination.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Member States shall transmit to the Agency the names of national experts with proven experience in the evaluation of medicinal products for human use who, taking into account Article 63(2), would be available to serve on working parties or scientific advisory groups of any of the Committees referred to in Article 56(1), together with an indication of their qualifications and specific areas of expertise.\u2019;\n(c)\nin paragraph 3, the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018The first and second subparagraphs shall also apply to the work of rapporteurs in the coordination group as regards the fulfilment of its tasks in accordance with Articles 107c, 107e, 107g, 107k and 107q of Directive 2001/83/EC.\u2019;\n16.\nArticle 64(2) is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nfor managing all the Agency resources necessary for conducting the activities of the Committees referred to in Article 56(1), including making available appropriate scientific and technical support to those Committees, and for making available appropriate technical support to the coordination group;\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (d) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(d)\nfor ensuring appropriate coordination between the Committees referred to in Article 56(1) and, where necessary, between the Committees and the coordination group;\u2019;\n17.\nin Article 66(g), the words \u2018Article 67\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018Article 68\u2019;\n18.\nArticle 67 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 3, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Agency\u2019s revenue shall consist of a contribution from the Union and fees paid by undertakings for obtaining and maintaining Union marketing authorisations and for other services provided by the Agency, or by the coordination group as regards the fulfilment of its tasks in accordance with Articles 107c, 107e, 107g, 107k and 107q of Directive 2001/83/EC.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Activities relating to pharmacovigilance, to the operation of communications networks and to market surveillance shall be under the permanent control of the Management Board in order to guarantee the independence of the Agency. This shall not preclude the Agency from charging fees to marketing authorisation holders for performing these activities by the Agency on the condition that its independence is strictly guaranteed.\u2019;\n19.\nArticle 82(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Without prejudice to the unique, Union nature of the content of the documents referred to in points (a) to (d) of Article 9(4) and in points (a) to (e) of Article 34(4), this Regulation shall not prohibit the use of two or more commercial designs for a given medicinal product for human use covered by a single marketing authorisation.\u2019;\n20.\nin Article 83(6), the second sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 28(1) and (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis.\u2019;\n21.\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 87a\nIn order to harmonise the performance of the pharmacovigilance activities provided for in this Regulation, the Commission shall adopt implementing measures as provided for in Article 108 of Directive 2001/83/EC covering the following areas:\n(a)\nthe content and maintenance of the pharmacovigilance system master file kept by the marketing authorisation holder;\n(b)\nthe minimum requirements for the quality system for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities by the Agency;\n(c)\nthe use of internationally agreed terminology, formats and standards for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities;\n(d)\nthe minimum requirements for the monitoring of data included in the Eudravigilance database to determine whether there are new risks or whether risks have changed;\n(e)\nthe format and content of electronic transmission of suspected adverse reactions by Member States and marketing authorisation holders;\n(f)\nthe format and content of electronic periodic safety update reports and risk management plans;\n(g)\nthe format of protocols, abstracts and final study reports of the post-authorisation safety studies.\nThose measures shall take account of the work on international harmonisation carried out in the area of pharmacovigilance and shall, where necessary, be revised to take account of technical and scientific progress. Those measures shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 87(2).\nArticle 87b\n1. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 10b shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from 1 January 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated powers not later than 6 months before the end of the 5 year period. The delegation of powers shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 87c.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 87c and 87d.\nArticle 87c\n1. The delegation of powers referred to in Article 10b may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of powers shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 87d\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 2 months from the date of notification.\nAt the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 2 months.\n2. If, on expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to the delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007\nArticle 20(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Executive Director of the Agency shall ensure appropriate coordination between the Committee for Advanced Therapies and the other Committees of the Agency, in particular the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee and the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, their working parties and any other scientific advisory groups.\u2019.\nArticle 3\nTransitional provisions\n1. The obligation on the part of the marketing authorisation holder to maintain and make available on request a pharmacovigilance system master file in respect of one or more medicinal products for human use provided for in Article 104(3)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC as amended by Directive 2010/84/EU, which applies to medicinal products for human use authorised pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 by virtue of Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as amended by this Regulation, shall apply to marketing authorisations granted before 2 July 2012 as from either:\n(a)\nthe date on which those marketing authorisations are renewed; or\n(b)\nthe expiry of a period of 3 years starting from 2 July 2012,\nwhichever is the earlier.\n2. The procedure provided for in Articles 107m to 107q of Directive 2001/83/EC as amended by Directive 2010/84/EU, which apply by virtue of Article 28b of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as amended by this Regulation, shall apply only to studies which have commenced after 2 July 2012.\n3. The obligation of the Agency under the second subparagraph of Article 28c(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as amended by this Regulation shall apply once the full functionality of Eudravigilance has been announced by the Management Board.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 2 July 2012.\nDone at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["18", "66", "2", "58", "54", "23", "64", "48", "47", "90", "16", "22", "99", "60", "88", "32", "85", "83", "97", "81", "74", "28", "82", "61", "71", "70", "15", "49", "52", "69", "No Label", "7", "25", "38"], "gold": ["7", "25", "38"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 245/2012\nof 20 March 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 as regards exports of milk and milk products to the Dominican Republic\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 170 and Article 171(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 27 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (2) provides that within the context of the export quota of milk powder opened by the Dominican Republic, priority is to be given to products falling under specific product codes from the export refund nomenclature. This restriction was introduced in order to prevent excessive number of applications for licences, which could result in a fragmentation of the market and a risk in a loss of market share for the exporters of the Union.\n(2)\nThe quantities applied for the quota year 2011/12 were for the first time lower than the quota quantities available. In case of remaining quantities, it is appropriate to allocate those quantities to the applicants who are interested in receiving higher quantities than those requested, provided that the security is increased accordingly.\n(3)\nWith a view to maximising the use of the quota in the following years, it is appropriate to extend the scope of the licence applications to all the products covered by the tariff quota as provided for in the Economic Partnership Agreement between the Cariforum States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part (3), the signature and provisional application of which have been approved by Council Decision 2008/805/EC (4). Moreover, as regards the validity of export licences, the derogation provided for in Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 should not be limited only to products belonging to the same product category as referred to in Annex I thereof, but it should be extended to any of the products covered by the tariff quota.\n(4)\nAs export refunds are fixed at 0 since 2008 export licence applications and licences should show the Combined Nomenclature codes instead of the product codes in the nomenclature for refunds. The relevant provisions should be adjusted accordingly.\n(5)\nFor the purpose of good management, it is necessary for the Commission to have earlier than 31 August notification on the quantity for which licences have been issued. Conversely, the notification on the quantities allocated is superfluous and can be abolished.\n(6)\nArticle 28(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 provides that exports licence applications are only admissible where applicants lodge a security in accordance with Article 9 thereof. The exception of Article 9 of that Regulation laid down in Article 33(1) thereof is therefore inconsistent.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1187/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1187/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 27(2), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Licence applications can be lodged for all the products falling under CN codes 0402 10, 0402 21 and 0402 29.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 28(3), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018To be admissible, only one export licence application may be submitted per product code in the Combined Nomenclature and all applications must be lodged at the same time with the competent authority of a single Member State.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 31 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Not later than the fifth working day following the expiry of the period for lodging licence applications, Member States shall notify the Commission, for each of the two parts of the quota and for each product code of the Combined Nomenclature, of the quantities covered by licence applications or, where applicable, that no applications have been lodged.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the third and the fourth subparagraphs are replaced by the following:\n\u2018If the application of the allocation coefficient results in a quantity per applicant of less than 20 tonnes, applicants may withdraw their applications. In such cases, they shall notify the competent authority within 3 working days of publication of the Commission\u2019s decision. The security shall be released immediately. The competent authority shall notify the Commission, within 8 working days of publication of the decision, of the quantities broken down by product codes of the Combined Nomenclature, for which applications have been withdrawn and for which the security has been released.\nWhere applications for licences are submitted for quantities of product not exceeding the quotas referred to in Article 28(1), the Commission shall allocate the remaining quantities in proportion to the quantities applied for, by fixing an allocation coefficient. The amount resulting from the application of the coefficient shall be rounded down to the nearest kg. The operators shall inform the competent authority of the supplementary quantity they accept, within a week from the publication of the allocation coefficient. The security lodged shall be increased accordingly.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 32 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Member States shall notify the Commission by the end of February at the latest for both parts of the quota referred to in Article 28(1) of the quantities for which licences were issued, broken down by product code of the Combined Nomenclature.\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018For the purposes of Article 6(2), the export licence shall also be valid for any of the products falling under the codes referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 27(2).\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. By 31 August each year at the latest, Member States shall notify the Commission for both parts of the quota referred to in Article 28(1), and in respect to the previous 12-month period as referred to in Article 28(1), broken down by product code of the Combined Nomenclature:\n-\nthe quantity for which licences were not issued or cancelled,\n-\nthe quantity exported.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 33, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Chapter II shall apply, with the exception of Articles 7 and 10.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the quota year 2012/13.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 March 2012.", "references": ["82", "80", "95", "60", "7", "66", "63", "50", "53", "52", "0", "99", "3", "58", "26", "4", "90", "28", "43", "89", "38", "35", "73", "12", "92", "79", "51", "32", "83", "36", "No Label", "20", "21", "22", "70", "93"], "gold": ["20", "21", "22", "70", "93"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 September 2010\non the position to be taken by the European Union in the EU-Switzerland Joint Committee established in the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation in the audiovisual field, establishing the terms and conditions for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the Community programme MEDIA 2007, as regards a Joint Committee decision updating Article 1 of Annex I to the Agreement\n(2011/129/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 166(4) and 173(3), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation in the audiovisual field, establishing the terms and conditions for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the Community programme MEDIA 2007 (1) signed on 11 October 2007, hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019, establishes a Joint Committee responsible for the management and proper implementation of the Agreement.\n(2)\nFollowing the entry into force on 19 December 2007 of Directive 89/552/EEC as last amended by Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, which was subsequently codified (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (2), it appears appropriate to the European Union and to Switzerland, hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Contracting Parties\u2019, to update the references to that Directive accordingly, as provided in the Final Act (3) to the Agreement in the Joint Declaration by the Contracting Parties on the adaptation of the Agreement to the new Community Directive, and to update Article 1 of Annex I to the Agreement, pursuant to Article 8(7) of the Agreement.\n(3)\nThe Union should therefore take the position in the EU - Switzerland Joint Committee set out in the attached draft decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Council approves the draft decision in the Annex as the position to be taken by the European Union regarding a decision to be adopted by the EU-Switzerland Joint Committee established in the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation in the audiovisual field, establishing the terms and conditions for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the Community programme MEDIA 2007, on the updating of Article 1 of Annex I to the Agreement.\nArticle 2\nThe decision of the Joint Committee shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 13 September 2010.", "references": ["65", "60", "20", "29", "98", "41", "11", "58", "30", "53", "14", "88", "27", "93", "23", "92", "0", "21", "35", "47", "73", "54", "80", "67", "32", "5", "2", "34", "56", "64", "No Label", "9", "36", "40", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "36", "40", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 435/2011\nof 5 May 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 951/2007 laying down implementing rules for cross-border cooperation programmes financed under Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (1), and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has adopted Regulation (EC) No 951/2007 of 9 August 2007 laying down implementing rules for cross-border cooperation programmes financed under Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (2).\n(2)\nGiven the delayed start of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument cross-border cooperation programmes, a one-year extension of the implementation phase for projects would enable the programmes to respect the work programmes and complete the implementation of large scale projects.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 951/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 951/2007, subparagraph (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nan implementation phase for projects financed by the joint operational programme starting at the same time as the implementation phase for the programme and ending on 31 December 2015 at the latest. All activities of projects financed by the programme shall end by that date at the latest.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 May 2011.", "references": ["98", "66", "56", "62", "50", "23", "11", "87", "5", "74", "68", "26", "22", "16", "31", "39", "64", "88", "41", "24", "36", "63", "20", "95", "73", "29", "59", "67", "85", "42", "No Label", "4", "9", "10", "46"], "gold": ["4", "9", "10", "46"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 435/2010\nof 20 May 2010\nfixing the rates of the refunds applicable to milk and milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1)b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(p) and listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 of 30 June 2005 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nIn accordance with the second paragraph, subparagraph (a) of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.\n(4)\nArticle 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.\n(5)\nIn the case of certain milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, there is a danger that, if high refund rates are fixed in advance, the commitments entered into in relation to those refunds may be jeopardised. In order to avert that danger, it is therefore necessary to take appropriate precautionary measures, but without precluding the conclusion of long-term contracts. The fixing of specific refund rates for the advance fixing of refunds in respect of those products should enable those two objectives to be met.\n(6)\nArticle 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 provides that, when the rate of the refund is being fixed, account is to be taken, where appropriate, of aids or other measures having equivalent effect applicable in all Member States in accordance with the Regulation on the common organisation of the agricultural markets to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 or to assimilated products.\n(7)\nArticle 100(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides for the payment of aid for Union-produced skimmed milk processed into casein if such milk and the casein manufactured from it fulfil certain conditions.\n(8)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 and in Part XVI of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2010.", "references": ["24", "20", "31", "76", "0", "50", "22", "4", "61", "13", "42", "30", "15", "5", "71", "67", "52", "64", "17", "54", "19", "78", "12", "83", "62", "91", "55", "82", "16", "10", "No Label", "23", "70"], "gold": ["23", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 191/2012\nof 7 March 2012\nfixing the import duties applicable to certain husked rice from 8 March 2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 137 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn the basis of the information provided by the competent authorities, the Commission notes that import licences for husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20, other than import licences for basmati rice, were issued in respect of 143 798 tonnes for the period from 1 September 2011 to 29 February 2012. The import duty for husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20 other than basmati rice, fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 903/2011 (2), should therefore be adjusted.\n(2)\nThe applicable duty must be fixed within 10 days of the end of the period mentioned above. This Regulation should therefore enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe import duty for husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20 shall be EUR 30 per tonne.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 March 2012.", "references": ["84", "36", "23", "12", "95", "11", "33", "85", "94", "16", "47", "63", "55", "20", "38", "79", "29", "69", "28", "8", "25", "34", "76", "37", "51", "81", "50", "26", "87", "48", "No Label", "10", "22", "61", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1000/2011\nof 10 October 2011\nimplementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (1), and in particular Article 8a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 May 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus, additional persons should be included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.\n(3)\nFurthermore, the information relating to certain persons and to an entity on the list in Annex IA to that Regulation should be updated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons listed in Annex I to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, the entries for the following persons and entity shall be replaced by the respective entries set out in Annex II to this Regulation:\n(1)\nMazouka Siarhei\n(2)\nBazanau, Aliaksandr Viktaravich\n(3)\nPeftiev Vladimir\n(4)\nIpatau, Vadzim Dzmitryevich\n(5)\nBushnaia, Natallia Uladzimirauna\n(6)\nBushchyk, Vasil Vasilievich\n(7)\nKatsuba, Sviatlana Piatrouna\n(8)\nKisialiova, Nadzeia Mikalaeuna\n(9)\nPadaliak, Eduard Vasilievich\n(10)\nRakhmanava, Maryna Iurievna\n(11)\nShchurok, Ivan Antonavich\n(12)\nSport-Pari\n(13)\nShadryna, Hanna Stanislavauna.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 10 October 2011.", "references": ["9", "55", "8", "56", "65", "5", "67", "48", "78", "15", "59", "66", "41", "17", "64", "7", "31", "6", "29", "47", "52", "24", "12", "33", "30", "43", "23", "86", "99", "96", "No Label", "3", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 17/2011\nof 10 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 January 2011.", "references": ["52", "29", "7", "33", "34", "60", "2", "36", "6", "91", "69", "23", "65", "11", "18", "39", "51", "95", "81", "40", "94", "22", "80", "56", "71", "28", "78", "67", "26", "30", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 470/2010\nof 28 May 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 457/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 May 2010.", "references": ["44", "37", "16", "8", "70", "73", "77", "24", "14", "80", "4", "39", "29", "65", "38", "7", "75", "31", "21", "50", "83", "3", "89", "26", "18", "19", "15", "92", "54", "88", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 December 2011\nconcerning the accession of the European Union to the Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974, as regards Articles 10 and 11 thereof\n(2012/23/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 81(1) and points (a) and (c) of Article 81(2), in conjunction with point (a) of Article 218(6) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974 (\"Athens Protocol\") represents a major improvement to the regime relating to the liability of carriers and the compensation of passengers carried by sea.\n(2)\nThe Athens Protocol modifies the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974 and establishes in Article 15 that the two instruments shall, as between the Parties to the Athens Protocol, be read and interpreted together as one single instrument.\n(3)\nArticles 10 and 11 of the Athens Protocol affect Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1). The Union thus has exclusive competence as regards Articles 10 and 11 of the Athens Protocol.\n(4)\nUpon accession of the Union to the Athens Protocol, the rules on jurisdiction set out in Article 10 thereof should take precedence over the relevant Union rules.\n(5)\nHowever, the rules on recognition and enforcement of judgments laid down in Article 11 of the Athens Protocol should not take precedence either over the relevant rules of the Union, as extended to Denmark by the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (2), or the rules of the Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 16 September 1988 (3) or the Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 30 October 2007 (4), since the effect of the application of these rules is to ensure that judgments are recognised and enforced at least to the same extent as under the rules of the Athens Protocol.\n(6)\nThe Athens Protocol is open for ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by States and by Regional Economic Integration Organisations which are constituted by sovereign States that have transferred competence over certain matters governed by the Athens Protocol to those Organisations.\n(7)\nAccording to Article 17(2)(b) and Article 19 of the Athens Protocol, Regional Economic Integration Organisations may conclude the Athens Protocol.\n(8)\nThe United Kingdom and Ireland, to which the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, applies, will be bound as part of the European Union by Articles 10 and 11 of the Athens Protocol.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application in respect of Articles 10 and 11 of the Athens Protocol. It will be bound by these Articles only as a separate Contracting Party.\n(10)\nThe majority of the rules of the Athens Protocol have been incorporated into Union law by Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents (5). Thus, the Union exerted competence as regards the matters governed by that Regulation. A separate Decision relating to those provisions is to be adopted in parallel to this Decision.\n(11)\nMember States which are to ratify or accede to the Athens Protocol should, if possible, do so simultaneously. Member States should therefore exchange information on the state of their ratification or accession procedures in order to prepare as far as possible the simultaneous deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession. When ratifying or acceding to the Athens Protocol, Member States should make the reservation contained in the IMO Guidelines,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accession of the European Union to the Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974 (\"Athens Protocol\") is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union as regards Articles 10 and 11 thereof.\nThe text of these Articles is reproduced in the Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person or persons empowered to deposit the instrument of accession of the Union to the Athens Protocol as regards Articles 10 and 11 thereof in accordance with Articles 17(2)(c), 17(3) and 19 of that Protocol.\n2. At the time of the deposit of the instrument of accession, the Union shall make the following declaration of competence:\n\"As regards matters covered by Articles 10 and 11 of the Athens Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974, which come under Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Member States of the European Union, with the exception of the Kingdom of Denmark, in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, have conferred competences to the Union. The Union exercised this competence by adopting Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.\".\n3. At the time of the deposit of the instrument of accession, the Union shall make the following declaration on Article 17bis(3) of the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974, as amended by Article 11 of the Athens Protocol:\n\"1.\nJudgments on matters covered by the Athens Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974, when given by a court of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, shall be recognised and enforced in a Member State of the European Union in accordance with the relevant rules of the European Union on the subject.\n2.\nJudgments on matters covered by the Athens Protocol, when given by a court of the Kingdom of Denmark, shall be recognised and enforced in a Member State of the European Union in accordance with the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.\n3.\nJudgments on matters covered by the Athens Protocol, when given by a court of a third State\n(a)\nbound by the Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 30 October 2007 shall be recognised and enforced in the Member States of the European Union in accordance with that Convention;\n(b)\nbound by the Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 16 September 1988 shall be recognised and enforced in the Member States of the European Union in accordance with that Convention.\".\n4. The person or persons designated under paragraph 1 of this Article shall make the reservation contained in the IMO Guidelines when depositing the instrument of accession of the Union to the Athens Protocol as regards Articles 10 and 11 thereof.\nArticle 3\nThe Union shall deposit its instrument of accession to the Athens Protocol as regards Articles 10 and 11 thereof by 31 December 2011.\nArticle 4\nMember States shall take the necessary steps to deposit the instruments of ratification of, or accession to, the Athens Protocol within a reasonable time and, if possible, by 31 December 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 12 December 2011.", "references": ["83", "66", "14", "93", "75", "45", "6", "34", "40", "79", "22", "73", "71", "77", "87", "24", "91", "78", "15", "33", "76", "55", "70", "88", "81", "8", "97", "44", "74", "68", "No Label", "3", "9", "11", "54", "56", "99"], "gold": ["3", "9", "11", "54", "56", "99"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1135/2010\nof 3 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 December 2010.", "references": ["58", "52", "64", "0", "87", "79", "75", "38", "63", "11", "60", "26", "50", "66", "25", "51", "34", "36", "59", "17", "27", "72", "67", "48", "73", "1", "44", "9", "84", "45", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 846/2010\nof 24 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 September 2010.", "references": ["39", "50", "5", "41", "26", "11", "97", "8", "45", "10", "19", "46", "57", "1", "28", "23", "48", "3", "42", "94", "66", "2", "90", "96", "74", "77", "37", "60", "89", "63", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 738/2010\nof 16 August 2010\nlaying down detailed rules on payments to German producer organisations in the hops sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Article 102a(3), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 102a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 72/2009 (2) provides for an annual payment to recognised German producer organisations in the hops sector. The amounts received by producer organisations should be used to finance measures adopted in order to achieve the aims referred to in Article 122(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(2)\nSo as to ensure the orderly management of the payments, Germany should adopt rules on the submission of applications by producer organisations, including deadlines, and ensure that all applications contain the information that is needed in order to allow the German competent authority to verify whether producer organisations are entitled to payments.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure that payments are made in a fair manner, the amounts to be paid to producer organisations should be calculated on a pro rata basis, linked to the eligible hops areas of their members.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure the efficient use of financial resources, payments made by the competent German payment agency should be committed within a reasonable period of time.\n(5)\nIn order to protect the financial interests of the European Union, no payments should be made before checks in respect of the eligibility criteria have been made. These control measures should involve administrative checking supplemented by on-the-spot controls. Amounts unduly paid should be recovered and sanctions should be determined in order to deter applicants from fraudulent behaviour and serious negligence.\n(6)\nArticle 63(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (3) which has established common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy as well as certain support schemes for farmers has integrated the partially coupled payments in the hops sector into the single payments scheme from 1 January 2010. In order to ensure the continuity of payments, the first payment of the Union aid pursuant to Article 102a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and this Regulation should be made by 30 April 2011 at the latest.\n(7)\nIn order to facilitate the execution of the first payment, it is appropriate to allow the German competent authority to proceed, in the year preceding that payment, with the identification of the potential beneficiaries and the potentially eligible hop areas.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope and use of terms\n1. This Regulation lays down detailed rules for the implementation of Article 102a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the payment to producer organisations in the hops sector in Germany referred to in that Article.\n2. Terms used in this Regulation shall have the same meaning as when used in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, unless this Regulation provides otherwise.\nArticle 2\nApplications for aid\n1. The producer organisation seeking to benefit from the payment referred to in Article 102a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall submit an application to the German competent authority each year, by a date to be fixed by Germany and which shall not be later than 30 September.\n2. When fixing the date referred to in paragraph 1, Germany shall take into account the period of time that is required to ensure the proper administrative and financial management of the payment, including the requirement to carry out effective checks.\n3. Applications shall be accompanied by supporting documents showing:\n(a)\nthe identity and proof of recognition of the producer organisation;\n(b)\nthe total of the eligible areas referred to in Article 3;\n(c)\nthe details permitting identification of the members of the producer organisation and the eligible areas they cultivate;\n(d)\nthe measures implemented, completed or ongoing and the corresponding expenditure incurred or committed during the calendar year of the aid application with a view to achieving the aims referred to in Article 122(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 3\nAid entitlement\n1. The amounts paid to the producer organisations in the hops sector shall be committed in order to finance measures to achieve the aims referred to in Article 122 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n2. The amount to be paid to each producer organisation shall be calculated pro rata based on the eligible hop areas of its members as specified in paragraphs 3 to 6.\n3. Eligible hop areas are hop areas in Germany which are entirely planted and which have already undergone normal tending operations in accordance with local standards, at the moment of submission of the application referred to in Article 2.\n4. The areas referred to in paragraph 2 shall be planted at a uniform density of at least 1 500 plants per hectare in the case of double stringing/wiring, or at least 2 000 plants per hectare in the case of single stringing/wiring.\n5. The areas referred to in paragraph 2 shall only include areas bounded by a line joining the outer stays of the poles. Where there are hop plants on that line, an additional strip of a width corresponding to the average width of an alleyway within that parcel may be added to each side of that area. The additional strip shall not form part of a public right of way. The two headlands at the ends of the hop rows that are needed for manoeuvring agricultural machinery may be included in the area, provided that the length of neither headland exceeds eight metres and they are counted only once, and they do not form part of a public right of way.\n6. The areas referred to in paragraph 2 shall not include areas planted with young hop plants grown chiefly as nursery products.\nArticle 4\nPayment of the aid\n1. Germany shall pay the aid to the beneficiaries between 16 October of the year in which the application was made and 31 January of the following year at the latest for each application that was submitted in accordance with this Regulation and German legislation, but only after all compulsory checks referred to in Article 5 have been carried out.\n2. Any amount paid by the German competent authority which has not been committed by a producer organisation within a period of three years from the date of payment shall be paid back to the paying agency and deducted from the expenditure financed under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund.\nArticle 5\nChecks and sanctions\n1. Prior to granting the payment, the competent national authority shall carry out administrative checks on all aid applications as well as on-the-spot checks on a significant sample of applications.\n2. Administrative checks on aid applications shall be exhaustive and shall include:\n(a)\ncross-checks of the eligible areas claimed with, inter alia, data from the integrated administration and control system provided for in Chapter 4 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009;\n(b)\na verification of the contribution of the measures implemented to the aims referred to in Article 122(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n3. On-the-spot checks shall be conducted at each producer organisation and cover at least 5 % of the aid to be distributed. Such checks shall verify in particular:\n(a)\nthe producer organisations\u2019 compliance with the recognition criteria;\n(b)\nthe eligibility of the hop areas claimed;\n(c)\na representative sample of the measures implemented, completed or ongoing and the corresponding expenditure incurred or committed during the calendar year of the aid application with a view to achieving the aims referred to in Article 122(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n4. Provided that the purpose of the on-the-spot check is not jeopardised, advance notice, strictly limited to the minimum time period necessary, may be given.\n5. In all appropriate cases, Germany shall make use of the integrated administration and control system.\n6. In the event of undue payment, Article 80 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis.\n7. Where an undue payment has been made as a result of a false declaration, false documents or serious negligence, the applicant shall, in addition to the recovery of unduly paid amounts, repay an amount equal to the difference between the amount initially paid and the amount to which the applicant was actually entitled. These amounts shall be payable to the EU budget.\n8. The competent control authority shall draw up a control report on each on-the-spot check. The report shall describe precisely the different items and aspects controlled, and provide sufficient detail to allow review of the control work performed and results achieved.\n9. The German competent authority executing the payments shall send an annual report to the Commission on the producer organisations\u2019 use of the amounts received, including a description of the measures that have been financed by means of the payments. The report shall include details of the number of the on-the-spot checks carried out and the related findings, and shall be sent at the latest by 30 June of each year.\nArticle 6\nTransitional provisions\n1. Applications for the first payment referred to in Article 102a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be made by a deadline to be determined by Germany but not later than 15 January 2011. The corresponding payments shall be executed by 30 April 2011. Applications for the second payment referred to in Article 102a of that Regulation shall be made by a deadline to be determined by Germany but not later than 30 September 2011. The corresponding payments shall be executed by 31 January 2012 at the latest.\n2. Before the first payment referred to in paragraph 1, the competent national authority shall identify the eligible producer organisations referred to in Article 2(1), provisionally verify the fulfilment of the conditions referred to in Article 3(1) and provisionally establish the amounts and the eligible areas referred to in Article 3(2) of this Regulation during the calendar year preceding that payment.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2010.", "references": ["50", "89", "69", "54", "75", "46", "94", "23", "62", "72", "29", "51", "24", "88", "21", "71", "26", "9", "98", "93", "22", "7", "81", "27", "53", "31", "74", "56", "66", "59", "No Label", "15", "47", "48", "61", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "47", "48", "61", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1160/2011\nof 14 November 2011\non the authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 17(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on foods are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Authority\u2019.\n(3)\nFollowing receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission thereof, and to deliver an opinion on the health claim concerned.\n(4)\nThe Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.\n(5)\nFollowing an application from CreaNutrition AG, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of oat beta-glucan on lowering blood cholesterol (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-681) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018The inclusion of oat beta-glucan as part of a balanced diet can actively lower/reduce blood LDL (low-density lipoprotein) and total cholesterol\u2019.\n(6)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 8 December 2010 that a cause and effect relationship had been established between the consumption of oat beta-glucan and lowering of blood LDL-cholesterol concentrations. Accordingly, a health claim reflecting this conclusion should be considered as complying with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and should be included in the Union list of permitted claims.\n(7)\nArticle 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 provides that an opinion in favour of authorising a health claim should include certain particulars. Accordingly, those particulars should be set out in Annex I to this Regulation as regards the authorised claim and include, as the case may be, the revised wording of the claim, specific conditions of use of the claim, and, where applicable, conditions or restrictions of use of the food and/or an additional statement or warning, in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and in line with the opinions of the Authority.\n(8)\nOne of the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 is to ensure that health claims are truthful, clear and reliable and useful to the consumer, and that wording and presentation are taken into account in that respect. Therefore where the wording of claims has the same meaning for consumers as that of an authorised health claim, because they demonstrate the same relationship that exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health, they should be subject to the same conditions of use indicated in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(9)\nFollowing an application from HarlandHall Ltd (on behalf of the Soya Protein Association, the European Vegetable Protein Federation and the European Natural Soyfood Manufacturers Association), submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of soy protein on the reduction of blood cholesterol concentrations (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00672) (3). The claim proposed by the applicants was worded as follows: \u2018Soy protein has been shown to lower/reduce blood cholesterol; blood cholesterol lowering may reduce the risk of (coronary) heart disease\u2019.\n(10)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 30 July 2010 that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of soy protein and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(11)\nFollowing an application from Danone France, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Actimel\u00ae, a fermented milk product containing Lactobacillus casei DN-114 001 and yoghurt symbiosis on the reduction of the presence of Clostridium difficile toxins in the gut (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00776) (4). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: \u2018Fermented milk containing the probiotic Lactobacillus casei DN-114001 and yogurt symbiosis decreases presence of Clostridium difficile toxins in the gut (of susceptible ageing people). Presence of Clostridium difficile toxins is associated with the incidence of acute diarrhoea\u2019.\n(12)\nOn the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 8 December 2010 that the evidence provided is insufficient to establish a cause and effect relationship between the consumption of Actimel\u00ae and reduction of the risk of C. difficile diarrhoea by reducing the presence of C. difficile toxins. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.\n(13)\nThe comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.\n(14)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The health claim listed in Annex I to this Regulation may be made on foods on the European Union market in compliance with the conditions laid down in that Annex.\n2. The health claim referred to paragraph 1 shall be included in the Union list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nArticle 2\nThe health claims listed in Annex II to this Regulation shall not be included in the Union list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["41", "91", "76", "44", "54", "32", "62", "6", "94", "33", "85", "79", "34", "64", "1", "69", "87", "28", "9", "4", "93", "61", "59", "71", "48", "84", "75", "12", "31", "58", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "39", "68", "70"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "39", "68", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1001/2011\nof 10 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 October 2011.", "references": ["65", "85", "28", "42", "90", "30", "89", "17", "43", "62", "20", "13", "76", "75", "18", "60", "66", "1", "47", "69", "70", "96", "14", "74", "12", "72", "8", "54", "94", "7", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 346/2011\nof 8 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 April 2011.", "references": ["50", "75", "54", "26", "55", "85", "82", "0", "38", "19", "23", "86", "64", "2", "83", "46", "65", "1", "10", "98", "49", "99", "94", "15", "48", "27", "32", "74", "33", "72", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1278/2011\nof 8 December 2011\napproving the active substance bitertanol, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. Bitertanol is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included bitertanol.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (6) the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from entry into force of that Regulation. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (7) was adopted on the non-inclusion of bitertanol.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nThe United Kingdom evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 29 November 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on bitertanol to the Commission on 6 October 2010 (8). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 October 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for bitertanol.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing bitertanol may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve bitertanol in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that bitertanol should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(10)\nConcerns were expressed as regards the hazard profile of the active substance due to the proposed classification for this active substance as \u2018reproductive toxicant category 1B\u2019 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9). Data and information related to the hazard profile of the active substance will need to be reassessed. Account should also be taken on the progressive understanding of the need to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the sustainable environment. Therefore it is considered appropriate to limit the approval period to three and half years. This period is considered the shortest period possible to allow the applicant to submit an application for renewal under the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(11)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(12)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of the approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of six months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing bitertanol. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw existing authorisations. By way of derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles. Given the hazardous properties of bitertanol, the period for Member States to verify whether the plant protection products, which contain bitertanol as the only active substance or in combination with other approved active substances, comply with the provisions of Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 should not exceed two and a half years.\n(13)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (10) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(14)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (11) should be amended accordingly.\n(15)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of bitertanol and the withdrawal of authorisations for plants protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning bitertanol in the Annex to that Decision. It is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(16)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health did not deliver an opinion. An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation. The appeal committee did not deliver an opinion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance bitertanol, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing bitertanol as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing bitertanol as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 June 2014.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2008/934/EC\nThe line concerning bitertanol in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 December 2011.", "references": ["46", "78", "5", "94", "67", "14", "91", "80", "11", "92", "85", "0", "87", "34", "68", "84", "95", "98", "31", "21", "70", "8", "88", "45", "57", "66", "60", "40", "49", "90", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 434/2012\nof 16 May 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Chel\u010dicko - Lhenick\u00e9 ovoce (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Czech Republic\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Chel\u010dicko - Lhenick\u00e9 ovoce\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 May 2012.", "references": ["13", "49", "77", "99", "48", "33", "75", "46", "31", "10", "84", "44", "98", "52", "66", "36", "22", "73", "78", "45", "62", "88", "7", "27", "8", "56", "82", "90", "42", "97", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "92"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "92"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1358/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 14 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1745/2003 on the application of minimum reserves (ECB/2003/9)\n(ECB/2011/26)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first indent of Article 127(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the \u2018Statute of the ESCB\u2019), and in particular Article 19.1 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 19.1 of the Statute of the ESCB provides that the European Central Bank (ECB) may require credit institutions established in Member States to hold minimum reserve on accounts with the ECB and national central banks in pursuance of monetary policy objectives and that regulations concerning the calculation and determination of the required minimum reserves may be established by the Governing Council.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1745/2003 of the European Central Bank of 12 September 2003 on the application of minimum reserves (ECB/2003/9) (1) establishes, inter alia, the categories of institutions subject to reserve requirements and reserve ratios applicable to certain liability categories.\n(3)\nOn 8 December 2011 the Governing Council decided on additional enhanced credit support measures to support bank lending and liquidity in the euro area money market. As the ECB\u2019s minimum reserve system does not need to be applied to the same extent as under normal circumstances to steer money market conditions, in order to enhance the provision of liquidity to counterparties to Eurosystem monetary policy operations it is necessary to reduce the reserve ratio to 1 %. Regulation (EC) No 1745/2003 (ECB/2003/9) should therefore be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 1745/2003 (ECB/2003/9)\nArticle 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1745/2003 (ECB/2003/9) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. A reserve ratio of 1 % shall apply to all other liabilities included in the reserve base.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. Article 1 shall apply from the maintenance period starting on 18 January 2012.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 14 December 2011.", "references": ["82", "6", "17", "41", "38", "80", "79", "27", "75", "9", "60", "88", "57", "71", "63", "18", "4", "66", "13", "85", "98", "58", "78", "77", "11", "65", "2", "14", "32", "42", "No Label", "28", "29", "47"], "gold": ["28", "29", "47"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 4 October 2011\non the European register of authorised types of railway vehicles\n(notified under document C(2011) 6974)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/665/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 34(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 34(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC, the European Railway Agency (the Agency) should set up and keep a register of types of vehicles authorised by the Member States for placing in service on the Union rail network.\n(2)\nFor some existing vehicles it is not possible to establish a correspondence to a type of vehicle that is authorised in accordance with Article 26 of Directive 2008/57/EC. A possibility to include the technical characteristics of all the vehicles in service in one single register may, however, be beneficial for the railway sector.\n(3)\nRestrictions on how the vehicle may be used as mentioned in Article 33(2)(e) of Directive 2008/57/EC are in most cases subject to a specific code. Those restriction codes should be harmonised. The use of national restriction codes should be limited to those restrictions that reflect particular characteristics of the existing railway system of a Member State and are unlikely to be applied with the same meaning in other Member States. The Agency should keep up-to-date the list of harmonised restriction codes and of national codes and publish them on its web site.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 34(3) of Directive 2008/57/EC, when an authorisation of type is granted, modified, suspended or withdrawn in a Member State, national safety authorities should inform the Agency so that the latter may update the register. The register should include types of vehicle authorised in accordance with Article 26 of Directive 2008/57/EC. Therefore, when informing the Agency, national safety authorities should indicate which parameters of the given type were checked according to the notified national rules. This indication should be established in accordance with the reference document referred to in Article 27(4) of Directive 2008/57/EC.\n(5)\nThe European Railway Agency submitted its recommendation ERA/REC/07-2010/INT to the Commission on 20 December 2010.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up under Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision establishes the specification for the European register of authorised types of vehicles referred to in Article 34 of Directive 2008/57/EC.\nArticle 2\nSpecification of the European register of authorised types of vehicles\n1. The Agency shall develop, operate and maintain the European register of authorised types of vehicles on the basis of the specification set out in Annexes I and II.\n2. The European register of authorised types of vehicles (ERATV) shall contain data on the types of vehicle authorised by the Member States pursuant to Article 26 of Directive 2008/57/EC.\n3. Types of vehicle authorised by a Member State before 19 July 2010 for which one or more vehicles have been authorised in one or more Member States pursuant to Article 22 or 24 of Directive 2008/57/EC after 19 July 2010 are deemed to fall under provisions of Article 26 of Directive 2008/57/EC and shall be registered in ERATV. In this case, data to be recorded may be limited to the parameters that have been verified during the type authorisation process.\n4. The types of vehicles which can be registered voluntarily are those set out in Section 1 of Annex I.\n5. The structure of the number that each type of vehicle receives shall be as set out in Annex III.\n6. The register shall be operational by 31 December 2012. In the meantime the Agency shall publish the information relating to the authorised types of vehicles on its website.\nArticle 3\nInformation to be sent by national safety authorities\n1. The Member States shall make sure that the national safety authorities provide the information on the type authorisations they have granted, as set out in Annex II.\n2. The national safety authorities shall provide the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article in accordance with the rules laid down in Section 5.2 of Annex I.\n3. The national safety authorities shall submit the information by using the standard web-based electronic form with the relevant fields filled in.\n4. The national safety authorities shall submit the information related to the authorisations of types of vehicles that they have granted after 19 July 2010 and before the entry into force of this Decision not later than 4 months after the date of entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 4\nRestriction codes\n1. Harmonised restriction codes shall be applicable in all the Member States.\nThe list of harmonised restriction codes for the whole of the Union rail system shall be kept up-to-date by the Agency and published on its web site.\nIf a national safety authority considers that a new code needs to be added to the list of harmonised restriction codes, it shall request the Agency to evaluate the inclusion of this new code.\nThe Agency shall evaluate the request, in consultation with other national safety authorities. If appropriate, the Agency shall include a new restriction code in the list. Prior to the publication of the modified list, the Agency shall communicate it to the Commission together with the change request and its evaluation.\nThe Commission shall keep the Member States informed through the committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC.\n2. The Agency shall keep up-to-date the list of national restriction codes. The use of national restriction codes shall be limited to those restrictions that reflect particular characteristics of the existing railway system of a Member State and are unlikely to be applied with the same meaning in other Member States.\nFor types of restrictions not indicated in the list referred to in paragraph 1, the national safety authority shall request the Agency the inclusion of a new code in the list of national restriction codes. The Agency shall evaluate the request, in consultation with other national safety authorities. If appropriate the Agency shall include a new restriction code in the list. Prior to the publication of the modified list, the Agency shall communicate it to the Commission together with the change request and its evaluation.\nThe Commission shall keep the Member States informed through the committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC.\n3. The restriction code for multinational safety authorities shall be treated as national restriction codes.\n4. The use of non-coded restrictions shall be limited to those restrictions that due to their particular character are unlikely to be applied to several types of vehicle.\nArticle 5\nFinal provisions\n1. The Agency shall publish and keep up-to-date an application guide for the European register of authorised types of vehicles. Among other information, this guide shall include for each parameter a reference to the clauses of the technical specifications for interoperability that state the requirements for this parameter.\n2. The Agency shall submit a recommendation to the Commission on the possible inclusion in the register of types of vehicles that were authorised before 19 July 2010 and on the possible amendment of this Decision based on the experience gained not later than 18 months after the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 6\nDate of application\nThis Decision shall apply from 15 April 2012.\nArticle 7\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the European Railway Agency and the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 October 2011.", "references": ["72", "34", "15", "93", "37", "88", "30", "24", "44", "26", "12", "27", "97", "62", "85", "75", "2", "91", "21", "25", "92", "56", "18", "0", "65", "95", "8", "68", "86", "6", "No Label", "7", "9", "40", "41", "42", "55", "76"], "gold": ["7", "9", "40", "41", "42", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 583/2011\nof 9 June 2011\namending the lists of insolvency proceedings, winding-up proceedings and liquidators in Annexes A, B and C to Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings and codifying Annexes A, B and C to that Regulation\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1), and in particular Article 45 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnexes A, B and C to Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 list the designations given in the national legislation of the Member States to the proceedings and liquidators to which that Regulation applies. Annex A lists the insolvency proceedings referred to in Article 2(a) of that Regulation. Annex B lists the winding-up proceedings referred to in Article 2(c) of that Regulation and Annex C lists the liquidators referred to in Article 2(b) of that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 15 September 2010, Austria notified the Commission, pursuant to Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000, of amendments to be made to the lists set out in Annexes A, B and C to that Regulation.\n(3)\nOn 23 November 2010, Latvia notified the Commission, pursuant to Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000, of amendments to be made to the lists set out in Annexes A and B to that Regulation.\n(4)\nAs a consequence of the amendments to be made to Annexes A, B and C to Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 following the abovementioned notifications by Austria and Latvia, Annexes A, B and C to that Regulation should be codified in order to provide all parties involved in insolvency proceedings covered by that Regulation with the necessary legal certainty.\n(5)\nThe United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 and, by virtue of Article 45 of that Regulation, are therefore taking part in the adoption and application of this Regulation.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(7)\nAnnexes A, B and C to Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 should therefore be amended and codified accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1346/2000 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Annex A:\n(a)\nthe designations for Latvia are replaced by the following:\n\u2018LATVIJA\n-\nTiesisk\u0101s aizsardz\u012bbas process,\n-\nJuridisk\u0101s personas maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas process,\n-\nFizisk\u0101s personas maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas process.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe designations for Austria are replaced by the following:\n\u2018\u00d6STERREICH\n-\nDas Konkursverfahren (Insolvenzverfahren),\n-\nDas Sanierungsverfahren ohne Eigenverwaltung (Insolvenzverfahren),\n-\nDas Sanierungsverfahren mit Eigenverwaltung (Insolvenzverfahren),\n-\nDas Schuldenregulierungsverfahren,\n-\nDas Absch\u00f6pfungsverfahren,\n-\nDas Ausgleichsverfahren.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Annex B:\n(a)\nthe designations for Latvia are replaced by the following:\n\u2018LATVIJA\n-\nJuridisk\u0101s personas maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas process,\n-\nFizisk\u0101s personas maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas process.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe designations for Austria are replaced by the following:\n\u2018\u00d6STERREICH\n-\nDas Konkursverfahren (Insolvenzverfahren).\u2019;\n(3)\nin Annex C, the designations for Austria are replaced by the following:\n\u2018\u00d6STERREICH\n-\nMasseverwalter,\n-\nSanierungsverwalter,\n-\nAusgleichsverwalter,\n-\nBesonderer Verwalter,\n-\nEinstweiliger Verwalter,\n-\nSachwalter,\n-\nTreuh\u00e4nder,\n-\nInsolvenzgericht,\n-\nKonkursgericht.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAnnexes A, B and C to Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 as amended in accordance with Article 1 of this Regulation are hereby codified and replaced by the texts set out in Annexes I, II and III to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Luxembourg, 9 June 2011.", "references": ["52", "51", "92", "17", "9", "19", "74", "20", "60", "3", "34", "87", "25", "83", "42", "40", "10", "6", "39", "45", "93", "59", "82", "86", "66", "4", "48", "73", "23", "47", "No Label", "11", "44", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["11", "44", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 April 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union, of the one part, and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part, providing further liberalisation of agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products and amending the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part\n(2011/248/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 14 November 2005, the Council authorised the Commission to conduct negotiations in order to achieve greater liberalisation of trade in agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products with certain Mediterranean countries. The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union, of the one part, and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part, providing further liberalisation of agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products and amending the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion at a later date,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union, of the one part, and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part, providing further liberalisation of agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products and amending the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (1).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 12 April 2011.", "references": ["63", "25", "87", "6", "78", "52", "36", "64", "84", "31", "23", "13", "69", "53", "59", "77", "35", "93", "98", "11", "94", "46", "76", "24", "55", "50", "29", "40", "85", "75", "No Label", "2", "9", "66", "72"], "gold": ["2", "9", "66", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1352/2011\nof 20 December 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 of 27 June 2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (1), and in particular Article 12(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1236/2005 imposes a prohibition on exports of goods which have no practical use other than for the purpose of capital punishment, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and controls on exports of certain goods that could be used for such purpose. It respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular respect for and protection of human dignity, the right to life and the prohibition of torture and inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment.\n(2)\nIn some recent cases medicinal products exported to third countries have been diverted and used for capital punishment, notably by administering a lethal overdose by means of injection. The Union disapproves of capital punishment in all circumstances and works towards its universal abolition. The exporters objected to their involuntary association with such use of the products they developed for medical use.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to supplement the list of goods subject to trade restrictions to prevent the use of certain medicinal products for capital punishment and to ensure that all Union exporters of medicinal products are subject to uniform conditions in this regard. The relevant medicinal products were developed for, inter alia, anaesthesia and sedation and their export should therefore not be made subject to a complete prohibition.\n(4)\nIt is also necessary to broaden the ban on trade in electric-shock belts to cover similar body-worn devices such as electric shock sleeves and cuffs which have the same impact as electric-shock belts.\n(5)\nIt is necessary to prohibit trade in spiked batons which are not admissible for law enforcement. While the spikes are capable of causing significant pain or suffering, spiked batons do not appear more effective for riot control or self-protection than ordinary batons and the pain or suffering caused by the spikes is therefore cruel and not strictly necessary for the purpose of riot control or self-protection.\n(6)\nChanges in the numbering of certain parts of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) have occurred after Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 was adopted and the relevant CN codes should be updated accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Common Rules for Exports of Products.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 shall be replaced by the texts in Annex I and Annex II, respectively.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall not apply to products listed in point 4.1 of Annex III for which an export declaration has been lodged prior to its entry into force.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2011.", "references": ["47", "45", "93", "71", "77", "41", "64", "43", "11", "65", "10", "61", "33", "53", "69", "63", "62", "29", "83", "16", "91", "8", "20", "5", "28", "94", "55", "27", "49", "72", "No Label", "1", "12", "14", "21", "22", "23", "38"], "gold": ["1", "12", "14", "21", "22", "23", "38"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 363/2012\nof 23 February 2012\non the procedural rules for the recognition and withdrawal of recognition of monitoring organisations as provided for in Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market (1), and in particular Article 8(7) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 995/2010 aims, in particular, at minimising the risk of placing illegal timber and products derived from such timber on the internal market. Monitoring organisations should assist operators in meeting the requirements of that Regulation. To that end, they should develop a due diligence system, grant the operators the right to use it, and verify its proper use.\n(2)\nThe procedure under which the Commission recognises monitoring organisations should be fair, transparent and independent. Therefore, applicants should be assessed after consulting the competent authorities of the Member States and after collecting sufficient information about an applicant. Where necessary, the collection of information should include visits to an applicant\u2019s premises.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to specify the appropriate expertise and capacity that monitoring organisations should have in order to determine the compliance of wood with relevant legislation in its country of harvest and to propose measures to assess the risk of placing illegal timber and products derived from such timber on the market. Where the risk identified is not negligible, monitoring organisation should also be able to propose adequate measures to effectively minimising it.\n(4)\nIt should be ensured that monitoring organisations exercise their functions in a transparent and independent manner, avoiding any conflict of interest arising out of their functions and providing their services to operators in a non-discriminatory manner.\n(5)\nThe Commission should decide upon a withdrawal of recognition following a procedure, which is fair, transparent and independent. Before taking a decision the Commission should consult the Member States\u2019 competent authorities concerned and should collect sufficient information, including on-the-spot visits where necessary. The monitoring organisation concerned should be given the opportunity to submit comments before a decision is taken.\n(6)\nIn accordance with the principle of proportionality, the Commission should be able to withdraw recognition either in a temporary and/or conditional basis, or permanently, as it may deem required by the level of shortcomings detected, where a monitoring organisation no longer fulfils the functions or meets the requirements laid down in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010.\n(7)\nIt is necessary to ensure that the level of protection of individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data within the scope of this Regulation, in particular as regards the processing of personal data in the applications for recognition as a monitoring organisation complies with the requirements laid down in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individual with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (2) and with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Regulation, in addition to the definitions laid down in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018competent authorities concerned\u2019 means competent authorities of the Member States in which a monitoring organisation or an applicant for recognition as monitoring organisation is legally established or in which provides services or intends to provide services within the meaning of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4);\n(2)\n\u2018evidence of formal qualifications\u2019 means diplomas, certificates and other evidence issued by an authority in a State, designated pursuant to legislative or administrative provisions of that State and certifying successful completion of professional training;\n(3)\n\u2018professional experience\u2019 means the actual and lawful pursuit of the profession concerned.\nArticle 2\nApplication for recognition\n1. Any entity, public or private, being a company, corporation, firm, enterprise, institution or authority, legally established in the Union, may submit to the Commission an application to be recognised as a monitoring organisation.\nThe entity shall submit the application in any of the official languages of the Union together with the documents listed in the Annex.\n2. To be recognised as a monitoring organisation, an applicant shall demonstrate that it fulfils all requirements provided in Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 and in Articles 5 to 8 of this Regulation.\n3. The Commission shall acknowledge the receipt of an application and provide the applicant with a reference number within 10 working days from the date of receipt.\nIt shall also provide the applicant with an indicative time limit within which it will decide on the application. The Commission shall inform the applicant anytime it revises the indicative time limit due to the necessity to obtain additional information or documents for the assessment of the application.\n4. Where three months have lapsed since the receipt of an application or the Commission\u2019s last written communication to an applicant, whichever is later, and the Commission has not adopted a recognition decision or rejected the application, the Commission shall inform the applicant in writing of the progress in assessment of the application.\nThe first subparagraph may apply more than once to the handling of one application.\n5. The Commission shall transmit a copy of the application and supporting documents to the competent authorities concerned, which may provide comments on the application within one month of the date of transmission.\nArticle 3\nAdditional documents and access to premises\n1. Upon request by the Commission, an applicant or the competent authorities concerned shall submit any additional information or documents required by the Commission within a specified time limit.\n2. The applicant shall grant the Commission access to its premises to verify that all requirements provided in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 and in Articles 5 to 8 are fulfilled. The Commission shall inform the applicant of a visit in advance. The competent authorities concerned may participate in the visit.\nThe applicant shall offer all assistance necessary to facilitate such visits.\nArticle 4\nRecognition decision\nWhere the Commission has adopted a recognition decision pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, it shall notify the applicant concerned within 10 working days of the date of adoption of that decision.\nThe Commission shall also provide the applicant with a certificate of recognition without delay and shall communicate its decision to the competent authorities of all Member States in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 within the time limit referred to in the first paragraph.\nArticle 5\nLegal personality and legal establishment within the Union\n1. Where an applicant is legally established in more than one Member State, it shall provide information about its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Union as well as about all its agencies, branches or subsidiaries set up in the territory of any Member State. The applicant shall also declare in which Member States it intends to provide services.\n2. An applicant which is, or forms part of an authority of a Member State shall not be required to prove its legal personality and legal establishment within the Union.\nArticle 6\nAppropriate expertise\n1. For the purpose of ensuring proper exercise of the functions of a monitoring organisation as required by Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, the technically competent personnel of an applicant shall meet the following minimum criteria, attested by evidence of formal qualifications and professional experience:\n(a)\nformal professional training in a discipline relevant to the functions of a monitoring organisation;\n(b)\nfor senior technical positions, at least five years of professional experience in function related to the functions of a monitoring organisation.\nFor the purposes of point (a) of the first subparagraph, disciplines related to forestry, environment, law, business management, risk management, trade, auditing, financial control or supply chain management shall be considered relevant disciplines.\n2. An applicant shall maintain records documenting the duties and responsibilities of its personnel. The applicant shall have in place procedures for monitoring the performance and technical competence of its personnel.\nArticle 7\nCapacity to exercise functions as a monitoring organisation\n1. An applicant shall demonstrate that it has in place all of the following:\n(a)\nan organisational structure that ensures a proper exercise of the functions of a monitoring organisation;\n(b)\na due diligence system to be made available to and used by operators;\n(c)\npolicies and procedures that allow for the evaluation and improvement of the due diligence system;\n(d)\nprocedures and processes to verify the proper use of its due diligence system by operators;\n(e)\nprocedures for corrective actions to be taken in a case of a failure by an operator to properly use its due diligence system.\n2. In addition to requirements of paragraph 1, an applicant shall demonstrate that it has financial and technical capacity to exercise the functions of a monitoring organisation.\nArticle 8\nAbsence of conflict of interest\n1. An applicant shall be organised so as to safeguard the objectivity and impartiality of its activities.\n2. An applicant shall identify, analyse and maintain records documenting risks of conflict of interest arising as a result of it exercising functions as a monitoring organisation, including any conflicts arising from its relationships with related bodies or subcontractors.\n3. Where a risk of a conflict of interest has been identified the applicant shall have in place written policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest at organisational and individual level. The written policies and procedures shall be maintained and implemented. Those policies and procedures may include third party audits.\nArticle 9\nInformation on subsequent changes\n1. A monitoring organisation shall inform the Commission without delay of any of the following situations occurring after its recognition:\n(a)\na change that may affect the ability of that monitoring organisation to comply with the requirements in Articles 5 to 8, which have occurred after its recognition;\n(b)\nthe monitoring organisation sets up agencies, branches or subsidiaries within the Union, other than those declared in its application;\n(c)\nthe monitoring organisation decides to provide services in a Member States other than as declared in its application or in a Member State where it declared to have ceased to provide its services in accordance with point (d);\n(d)\nthe monitoring organisation ceases to provide services in any Member State.\n2. The Commission shall communicate all information obtained pursuant to paragraph 1 to the competent authorities concerned.\nArticle 10\nReview of the recognition decision\n1. The Commission may review a decision recognising a monitoring organisation at any time.\nThe Commission shall carry out such a review in any of the following situations:\n(a)\na competent authority concerned informs the Commission that it has determined that a monitoring organisation no longer fulfils the functions laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 or no longer complies with the requirements laid down in Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 as specified in Articles 5 to 8 of this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe Commission is in possession of relevant information, including substantiated concerns from third parties, that a monitoring organisation no longer complies with the requirements laid down in Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 and in Articles 5 to 8 of this Regulation;\n(c)\na monitoring organisation has informed the Commission of changes referred to in Article 9(1)(a) of this Regulation.\n2. Where a review is initiated the Commission shall be assisted by a review team to conduct the review and perform checks.\n3. An applicant shall grant the review team access to its premises to verify that all requirements provided in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 and in Articles 5 to 8 in this Regulation are fulfilled. The competent authorities concerned may participate in the visit.\nThe applicant shall offer all assistance necessary to facilitate such visits.\n4. The review team shall draft a report stating its findings. Supporting evidence shall be annexed to the review report.\nThe review report shall include a recommendation as to whether the recognition of a monitoring organisation should be withdrawn.\nThe review team shall send the review report to the competent authorities concerned. Those authorities may provide comments within three weeks of the date of transmission of the report.\nThe review team shall provide the monitoring organisation concerned with a summary of the findings and conclusions of the report. The organisation may provide comments to the review team within three weeks of the date of transmission of the summary.\n5. The review team shall recommend in its review report withdrawal of recognition on a temporary and/or conditional basis, or permanently, as it may deem required by the level of shortcomings detected, where it determines that a monitoring organisation no longer fulfils the functions or meets the requirements laid down in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010.\nThe review team may instead recommend that the Commission issue a notice of remedial actions or an official warning, or that the Commission take no further action.\nArticle 11\nDecision to withdraw recognition\n1. The Commission shall decide whether to withdraw recognition of a monitoring organisation on a temporary and/or conditional basis, or permanently, taking into account the review report referred to in Article 10.\n2. The Commission may issue a notice of remedial actions or an official warning where the level of detected shortcomings does not lead to a determination, in accordance with Article 8(6) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 that the monitoring organisation no longer fulfils the functions or the requirements laid down in Article 8(2) of that Regulation.\n3. A decision to withdraw recognition of a monitoring organisation as well as a notice or a warning pursuant to paragraph 2 shall be notified to the monitoring organisation concerned and communicated to the competent authorities of all the Member States in accordance with Article 8(6) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 within 10 working days of its adoption.\nArticle 12\nData protection\nThis Regulation shall be without prejudice to the rules concerning the processing of personal data laid down in Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\nArticle 13\nFinal provisions\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2012.", "references": ["64", "83", "93", "96", "62", "6", "10", "87", "92", "2", "79", "74", "97", "58", "19", "41", "68", "72", "39", "56", "36", "81", "4", "35", "90", "66", "51", "89", "50", "91", "No Label", "8", "20", "22", "42", "88"], "gold": ["8", "20", "22", "42", "88"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/210/CFSP\nof 1 April 2011\non a European Union military operation in support of humanitarian assistance operations in response to the crisis situation in Libya (EUFOR Libya)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn its Resolution on Peace and Security in Africa, adopted on 26 February 2011 (UNSCR 1970 (2011)), the United Nations Security Council (Security Council) expressed grave concern at the situation in Libya and condemned the violence and the use of force against civilians. Furthermore, the Security Council called upon all Member States of the United Nations to make available humanitarian and related assistance in Libya.\n(2)\nIn its Resolution on the situation in Libya, adopted on 17 March 2011 (UNSCR 1973 (2011)), the Security Council recalled UNSCR 1970 (2011) and expressed its determination to ensure the protection of civilians and civilian populated areas and the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance and the safety of humanitarian personnel. It also welcomed the response of neighbouring States, in particular Tunisia and Egypt, to address the needs of refugees and foreign workers and called on the international community to support those efforts.\n(3)\nFurthermore, the Security Council authorised Member States having notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements and in cooperation with him and with the Member States of the League of Arab States, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.\n(4)\nIn its conclusions of 21 March 2011, the Council expressed its concern at the situation in Libya and condemned the gross and systematic violation of human rights, violence and brutal repression perpetrated by the regime against the Libyan people. It expressed its satisfaction at the adoption of UNSCR 1973 (2011) and underlined the Union\u2019s determination to contribute to its implementation and to act collectively and resolutely, with all international partners, particularly the League of Arab States and other regional stakeholders, to that effect. It confirmed that the Union\u2019s main aim is the protection of the civilian population and support for the Libyan people to realise their aspirations for a democratic society.\nThe Council also expressed the Union\u2019s readiness to provide Common Security and Defence Policy support to humanitarian assistance in response to a request from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and under the coordination role of the United Nations.\n(5)\nOn 24 March 2011 the Council approved a Crisis Management Concept in response to the crisis in Libya. Further planning should focus on the support to humanitarian assistance. In particular, the operation will not impact on the neutrality or impartiality of the humanitarian actors. Any decision to launch the operation must be preceded by a request from OCHA and must be taken in the light of a current risk and threat assessment.\n(6)\nClose coordination and consultation is taking place with the Governments of Egypt and Tunisia in order to ensure their authorisation for a possible Union military presence in their respective countries.\n(7)\nThe Political and Security Committee (PSC) should exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (the High Representative), political control over the Union military operation, provide it with strategic direction, and take the relevant decisions in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).\n(8)\nIt is necessary to negotiate and conclude international agreements relating to the participation of third States in Union operations and relating to the status of Union forces and personnel.\n(9)\nThe operational expenditure arising from this Decision, which has military or defence implications, should be borne by the Member States pursuant to Article 41(2) TEU and in accordance with Council Decision 2008/975/CFSP of 18 December 2008 establishing a mechanism to administer the financing of the common costs of European Union operations having military or defence implications (\u2018ATHENA\u2019) (1).\n(10)\nArticle 28(1) TEU empowers the Council to adopt decisions laying down the means to be made available to the Union. The financial reference amount, for an initial 4-month period, for the common costs of the European Union military operation constitutes the best current estimate and is without prejudice to the final figures to be included in a budget to be approved in accordance with the rules laid down in ATHENA.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the TEU and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications. Denmark does not, therefore, participate in the financing of this operation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMission\n1. With a view to underpinning the mandates of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011), the Union shall, if requested by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), conduct in the framework of the Common Security and Defence Policy a military operation, hereinafter called \u2018EUFOR Libya\u2019, in order to support humanitarian assistance in the region. The operation shall fully respect the Guidelines on the use of Military and Civil Defence Assets to support United Nations humanitarian activities in complex emergencies and the Guidance on the use of Foreign Military Assets to Support Humanitarian Operations in the Context of the Current Crisis in North Africa.\n2. In support of this political objective, EUFOR Libya, if requested by OCHA, shall, in full respect of the Guidelines and the Guidance referred to in paragraph 1:\n-\ncontribute to the safe movement and evacuation of displaced persons,\n-\nsupport, with specific capabilities, the humanitarian agencies in their activities.\nArticle 2\nAppointment of the EU Operation Commander\nRear Admiral Claudio GAUDIOSI is hereby appointed European Union Operation Commander of EUFOR Libya.\nArticle 3\nDesignation of the EU Operational Headquarters\nThe Operational Headquarters of EUFOR Libya shall be located in Rome.\nArticle 4\nPlanning and launch of the operation\nThe Decision to launch the European Union military operation shall be adopted by the Council, in the light of a current risk and threat assessment, following approval of the Operation Plan and the Rules of Engagement.\nArticle 5\nPolitical control and strategic direction\n1. Under the responsibility of the Council and the High Representative, the PSC shall exercise the political control and strategic direction of EUFOR Libya. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 TEU. This authorisation shall include the powers to amend the planning documents, including the Operation Plan, the Chain of Command and the Rules of Engagement. It shall also include the powers to take decisions on the appointment of the European Union Operation Commander and the European Union Force Commander. The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of EUFOR Libya shall remain vested in the Council.\n2. The PSC shall report to the Council at regular intervals.\n3. The PSC shall, at regular intervals, receive reports from the Chairman of the European Union Military Committee (EUMC) regarding the conduct of EUFOR Libya. The PSC may invite the European Union Operation Commander or the Force Commander to its meetings, as appropriate.\nArticle 6\nMilitary direction\n1. The EUMC shall monitor the proper execution of EUFOR Libya conducted under the responsibility of the European Union Operation Commander.\n2. The EUMC shall, at regular intervals, receive reports from the European Union Operation Commander. It may invite him or the Force Commander to its meetings, as appropriate.\n3. The Chairman of the EUMC shall act as the primary point of contact with the European Union Operation Commander.\nArticle 7\nImplementation and consistency of the Union\u2019s response\n1. The High Representative shall ensure the implementation of this Decision and its consistency with the Union\u2019s external action as a whole, including the Union\u2019s humanitarian aid activities.\n2. The European Union Operation Commander shall assist the High Representative in the implementation of this Decision.\nArticle 8\nCooperation with other actors\n1. Planning and conduct of the operation shall be carried out in close cooperation and complementarity with the OCHA, which is coordinating the overall humanitarian response, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and other actors.\n2. EUFOR Libya shall cooperate closely with the designated United Nations coordinator(s), as well as with the designated coordinator(s) of the League of Arab States and with its Member States.\n3. Consultations shall take place with the African Union as appropriate.\nArticle 9\nParticipation by third States\n1. Without prejudice to the Union\u2019s decision-making autonomy or to the single institutional framework, and in accordance with the relevant guidelines of the European Council, third States, in particular the Member States of the League of Arab States, may be invited to participate in the operation.\n2. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to invite third States to offer contributions and to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions, upon the recommendation of the European Union Operation Commander and the EUMC.\n3. Detailed arrangements for the participation of third States shall be the subject of agreements concluded pursuant to Article 37 TEU and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218 TFEU. Where the Union and a third State have concluded an agreement establishing a framework for the latter\u2019s participation in crisis management operations of the Union, the provisions of such an agreement shall apply in the context of this operation.\n4. Third States making significant military contributions to EUFOR Libya shall have the same rights and obligations in terms of day-to-day management of the operation as Member States taking part in the operation.\n5. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take relevant decisions on the setting-up of a Committee of Contributors, should third States provide significant military contributions.\nArticle 10\nStatus of Union-led forces and personnel\nThe status of Union-led forces and their personnel, including the privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the fulfilment and smooth functioning of their mission, may be the subject of agreements concluded pursuant to Article 37 TEU and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218(3) TFEU.\nArticle 11\nFinancial arrangements\n1. The common costs of EUFOR Libya shall be administered in accordance with Decision 2008/975/CFSP.\n2. The financial reference amount for the common costs of EUFOR Libya shall be EUR 7 900 000. The percentage of the reference amount referred to in Article 25(1) of Decision 2008/975/CFSP shall be 30 %.\nArticle 12\nRelease of information to third parties\n1. The High Representative is hereby authorised to release to the African Union, Egypt, the League of Arab States, Tunisia, and the United Nations, as well as to other third parties associated with this Decision, classified Union information and documents generated for the purposes of EUFOR Libya up to the level of classification appropriate for each of them and in accordance with the Council\u2019s security regulations (2).\n2. The High Representative is hereby authorised to release to the African Union, Egypt, the League of Arab States, Tunisia and the United Nations, as well as to other third parties associated with this Decision, unclassified Union documents relating to Council deliberations on EUFOR Libya which are covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Council (3).\nArticle 13\nEntry into force and termination\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\n2. EUFOR Libya shall, unless the Council decides otherwise, terminate no later than 4 months after reaching Initial Operating Capability.\n3. This Decision shall be repealed as from the later of the date of closure of the European Union Operational Headquarters or the Force Headquarters, in accordance with the plans approved for the termination of EUFOR Libya, and without prejudice to the relevant procedures regarding the audit and presentation of the accounts thereof as laid down in Decision 2008/975/CFSP.\nDone at Brussels, 1 April 2011.", "references": ["3", "97", "46", "44", "68", "29", "23", "74", "24", "19", "67", "9", "85", "99", "65", "82", "41", "31", "71", "45", "35", "39", "2", "53", "51", "28", "54", "27", "91", "60", "No Label", "4", "5", "6", "10", "37", "94"], "gold": ["4", "5", "6", "10", "37", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/60/EU\nof 23 May 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include tebufenozide as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included tebufenozide.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of tebufenozide.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Germany, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nGermany evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 23 November 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on tebufenozide to the Commission on 19 October 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for tebufenozide.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing tebufenozide may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include tebufenozide in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit confirmatory information as regards the relevance of metabolites RH-6595 (7), RH-2651 (8), M2 (9), the degradation of tebufenozide in soils of alkaline pH and the risk to Lepidoptera non-target insects.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing tebufenozide to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (10) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of tebufenozide and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning tebufenozide in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning tebufenozide in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing tebufenozide as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to tebufenozide are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing tebufenozide as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning tebufenozide. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing tebufenozide as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing tebufenozide as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective directive or directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["53", "99", "15", "90", "35", "4", "30", "17", "75", "70", "95", "77", "9", "89", "29", "27", "8", "56", "24", "80", "91", "26", "84", "28", "64", "63", "78", "5", "97", "33", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 19 July 2010\non Common Safety Targets as referred to in Article 7 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 4889)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/409/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community\u2019s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive) (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation of the European Railway Agency on the first set of Common Safety Targets, delivered to the Commission on 18 September 2009,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Directive 2004/49/EC, Common Safety Targets (CSTs) should be gradually introduced to ensure that a high level of safety is maintained and, when and where necessary and reasonably practicable, improved. They should provide tools for assessment of the safety level and the performance of the operators at EU level as well as in Member States.\n(2)\nArticle 3(e) of Directive 2004/49/EC defines CSTs as the safety levels that must at least be reached by different parts of the railway system (such as the conventional railway system, the high speed railway system, long railway tunnels or lines solely used for freight transport) and by the system as a whole, expressed in risk acceptance criteria. However, Recital 7 of Commission Decision 2009/460/EC of 5 June 2009 on the adoption of a common safety method for assessment of achievement of safety targets, as referred to in Article 6 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) states that, due to the lack of harmonised and reliable data on safety performance of parts of rail systems which are in operation in the different Member States, the development of the first set of CSTs for parts of the rail system (such as the conventional rail system, the high speed rail system, long railway tunnels or lines solely used for freight transport) is not feasible.\n(3)\nArticle 7(3) of Directive 2004/49/EC requires that the first set of CSTs should be based on an examination of existing targets and safety performance of railway systems in the Member States. According to the methodology established by Decision 2009/460/EC, the first set of CSTs is to be based on National Reference Values (NRVs). It has been calculated using series of data based on Regulation (EC) No 91/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on rail transport statistics (3) and provided by Eurostat on 6 March 2009 for the period 2004-2007. For each railway risk category the maximum tolerable level of risk for a Member State should be (1) the NRV if the NRV is equal to, or lower than, the corresponding CST or (2) the CST if the NRV is higher than the corresponding CST, in accordance with section 3 of the annex to Decision 2009/460/EC.\n(4)\nThe first set of CSTs should be considered as a first step of a process. With this first set, a harmonised and transparent framework is put in place for an efficient monitoring and safeguarding the European safety performance of railways.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 27(1) of the Directive 2004/49/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and definitions\nThis Decision establishes the values of the first set of Common Safety Targets based on National Reference Values, in compliance with Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/49/EC and following the methodology laid down by the Decision 2009/460/EC.\nFor the purposes of this Decision, definitions of the Directive 2004/49/EC, Regulation (EC) No 91/2003 and Decision 2009/460/EC shall apply.\nArticle 2\nNational Reference Values\nThe National Reference Values for the different Member States and for the different risk categories are laid down in chapter 1, sections from 1.1 to 1.6 of the Annex.\nArticle 3\nCommon Safety Targets\nThe first set of Common Safety Targets for the different risk categories are laid down in chapter 2 of the Annex.\nArticle 4\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2010.", "references": ["45", "72", "61", "49", "33", "14", "70", "31", "21", "6", "42", "58", "71", "86", "9", "81", "17", "4", "97", "43", "46", "51", "11", "96", "79", "24", "44", "39", "57", "13", "No Label", "8", "53", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["8", "53", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1192/2011\nof 18 November 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["58", "17", "21", "26", "25", "85", "37", "44", "89", "91", "7", "63", "39", "32", "42", "60", "64", "55", "92", "56", "2", "49", "38", "94", "12", "87", "59", "99", "47", "74", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/860/CFSP\nof 19 December 2011\namending Decision 2010/800/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People\u2019s Republic of Korea\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/800/CFSP of 22 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People\u2019s Republic of Korea (1), and in particular Articles 9(2) and 12(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/800/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People\u2019s Republic of Korea.\n(2)\nThe Council has carried out a complete review of the list of persons and entities, as set out in Annexes II and III to Decision 2010/800/CFSP, to which Articles 4(1)(b) and (c) and 5(1)(b) and (c) of that Decision apply.\n(3)\nThe Council has concluded that the persons and entities listed in Annexes II and III to Decision 2010/800/CFSP should continue to be subject to the specific restrictive measures provided for therein.\n(4)\nThe Council has also concluded that the entry concerning one entity included in Annex II to Decision 2010/800/CFSP should be amended.\n(5)\nThe Council has moreover decided that additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annexes II and III to Decision 2010/800/CFSP.\n(6)\nThe list of persons and entities set out in Annexes II and III to Decision 2010/800/CFSP should be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Decision 2010/800/CFSP shall be amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["86", "42", "72", "14", "38", "49", "96", "68", "41", "55", "19", "65", "37", "17", "80", "47", "31", "36", "75", "26", "92", "32", "44", "30", "4", "11", "23", "24", "8", "5", "No Label", "3", "12", "95"], "gold": ["3", "12", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 15 February 2011\non the clearance of the accounts of certain paying agencies in Italy concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2008 financial year\n(notified under document C(2011) 754)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(2011/103/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 33 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Fund Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decisions 2009/373/EC (2), 2010/59/EU (3) and 2010/721/EU (4) cleared, for the 2008 financial year, the accounts of all the paying agencies except for the German paying agency \u2018Bayern\u2019, the Greek paying agency \u2018OPEKEPE\u2019 and the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019.\n(2)\nFollowing the transmission of new information and after additional checks, the Commission can now take a decision concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from EU financing expenditure not effected in accordance with EU rules,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accounts of the Italian paying agency \u2018ARBEA\u2019 concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in respect of the 2008 financial year, are hereby cleared.\nThe amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State under each rural development programme pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 33(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 15 February 2011.", "references": ["49", "77", "39", "89", "53", "0", "46", "48", "36", "13", "14", "86", "72", "76", "78", "99", "7", "95", "92", "3", "45", "41", "15", "55", "54", "73", "62", "18", "71", "26", "No Label", "10", "17", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "17", "47", "61", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 324/2012\nof 16 April 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 318/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 April 2012.", "references": ["18", "36", "13", "23", "27", "30", "38", "1", "28", "62", "52", "94", "12", "96", "44", "7", "40", "99", "24", "91", "77", "57", "42", "87", "53", "58", "76", "31", "70", "95", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 3 February 2012\namending Decision 2008/911/EC establishing a list of herbal substances, preparations and combinations thereof for use in traditional herbal medicinal products\n(notified under document C(2012) 514)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/67/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1), and in particular Article 16f thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency, formulated on 15 July 2010 by the Committee for Herbal Medicinal Products,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThymus vulgaris L., Thymus zygis Loefl. ex L. can be considered as a herbal substance, a herbal preparation or a combination thereof within the meaning of Directive 2001/83/EC and it complies with the requirements set out in that Directive.\n(2)\nIt is therefore appropriate to include Thymus vulgaris L., Thymus zygis Loefl. ex L. in the list of herbal substances, preparations and combinations thereof for use in traditional herbal medicinal products established by Commission Decision 2008/911/EC (2).\n(3)\nDecision 2008/911/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2008/911/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 February 2012.", "references": ["35", "58", "86", "17", "91", "28", "61", "42", "47", "83", "15", "49", "95", "6", "74", "69", "78", "30", "33", "5", "25", "66", "98", "26", "84", "13", "56", "80", "39", "77", "No Label", "38", "68"], "gold": ["38", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1147/2011\nof 11 November 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 implementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security as regards the use of security scanners at EU airports\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (1) and in particular Article 4(2) and (3).\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008, the Commission is required to adopt general measures designed to amend non-essential elements of the common basic standards laid down in the Annex to that Regulation by supplementing them.\n(2)\nArticle 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 further provides that the Commission must adopt detailed measures for implementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security laid down in the Annex to that Regulation, as supplemented by the general measures adopted by the Commission on the basis of Article 4(2).\n(3)\nIn particular, Commission Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 (2) supplementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security provides for general measures in respect of methods of screening allowed for passengers as laid down in Part A of its Annex.\n(4)\nIn order to allow the use of security scanners as method for the screening of passengers, provisions on this use, minimum detection performance standards and minimum operational conditions shall be set.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 (3) should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nSecurity scanners shall be deployed and used in compliance with Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (4) and Directive 2004/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (18th individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (5).\n(7)\nBy laying down specific operational conditions on the use of security scanners and by providing passengers with the possibility to undergo alternative screening methods, this Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including respect for human dignity and for private and family life, the right to the protection of personal data, the rights of the child, the right to freedom of religion and the prohibition of discrimination. This Regulation must be applied according to these rights and principles.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Civil Aviation Security,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 November 2011.", "references": ["88", "40", "87", "98", "26", "44", "22", "11", "28", "91", "93", "24", "89", "15", "83", "78", "4", "79", "49", "71", "27", "3", "66", "63", "30", "43", "61", "23", "94", "0", "No Label", "36", "42", "53", "57"], "gold": ["36", "42", "53", "57"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/298/CFSP\nof 23 May 2011\namending Decision 2010/279/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 30 May 2007 the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP (1) establishing the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN).\n(2)\nOn 18 May 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/279/CFSP (2) which extended EUPOL AFGHANISTAN until 31 May 2013.\n(3)\nThe financial reference amount provided for in Decision 2010/279/CFSP and intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN until 31 May 2011 should cover the period until 31 July 2011.\n(4)\nDecision 2010/279/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 13 of Decision 2010/279/CFSP, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN until 31 July 2011 shall be EUR 54 600 000.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["32", "40", "76", "22", "89", "74", "82", "85", "45", "56", "98", "15", "13", "12", "86", "8", "97", "87", "92", "35", "20", "78", "72", "93", "38", "60", "41", "70", "91", "11", "No Label", "4", "5", "9", "95"], "gold": ["4", "5", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 July 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Arrangement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis\n(2012/192/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 74, 77 and 79 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFollowing the authorisation given to the Commission on 15 May 2006, negotiations with the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation regarding the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis have been concluded.\n(2)\nSubject to its conclusion at a later date, the Arrangement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (\u2018the Arrangement\u2019) initialled on 30 June 2009 should be signed and the attached Joint Declaration be approved.\n(3)\nThis Decision does not prejudice the position of the United Kingdom, under the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000, concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (1).\n(4)\nThis Decision does not prejudice the position of Ireland, under the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002, concerning Ireland\u2019s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (2).\n(5)\nThis Decision shall not prejudice the position of Denmark, under the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Arrangement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (\u2018the Arrangement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nThe text of the Arrangement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Joint Declaration attached to this Decision is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Arrangement on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2010.", "references": ["78", "41", "95", "79", "6", "20", "42", "35", "50", "22", "75", "51", "82", "10", "48", "17", "7", "29", "72", "53", "58", "64", "60", "66", "2", "80", "57", "99", "43", "61", "No Label", "0", "3", "8", "9", "13", "96"], "gold": ["0", "3", "8", "9", "13", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 454/2012\nof 15 May 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for hake in VI and VII; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 May 2012.", "references": ["69", "72", "44", "95", "42", "4", "10", "30", "39", "75", "27", "37", "54", "99", "22", "94", "64", "84", "25", "23", "50", "66", "52", "78", "20", "8", "49", "79", "11", "3", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 134/2012\nof 23 January 2012\nconcerning the allocation of fishing opportunities under the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 November 2007, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1446/2007 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique (1) (the \u2027Agreement\u2027). A Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement (2) was attached thereto. That Protocol expired on 31 December 2011.\n(2)\nA new Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique (the \u2027Protocol\u2027) was initialled on 2 June 2011, providing EU vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which Mozambique have sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries.\n(3)\nOn 23 January 2012 the Council adopted Decision 2012/91/EU (3) on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Protocol.\n(4)\nThe method for allocating the fishing opportunities among the Member States should be defined for the duration of the Protocol.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 of 29 September 2008 concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters (4), if it appears that the fishing opportunities allocated to the Union under a Fisheries Partnership Agreement are not fully utilised, the Commission is to inform the Member States concerned. The absence of a reply within deadlines to be set by the Council is to be considered as confirmation that the vessels of the Member State concerned are not making full use of their fishing opportunities in the given period. It is necessary to set such deadlines.\n(6)\nSince the Protocol to the Agreement expired on 31 December 2011, this Regulation should apply from 1 February 2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The fishing opportunities set out in the Protocol shall be allocated among the Member States as follows:\n(a)\ntuna purse seiners:\nSpain\n22 vessels\nFrance\n20 vessels\nItaly\n1 vessel\nTotal\n43 vessels\n(b)\nsurface longliners:\nSpain\n16 vessels\nFrance\n8 vessels\nPortugal\n7 vessels\nUnited Kingdom\n1 vessel\nTotal\n32 vessels\n2. Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 shall apply without prejudice to the Agreement and the Protocol.\n3. If applications for fishing authorisations from the Member States referred to in paragraph 1 do not cover all the fishing opportunities set by the Protocol, the Commission shall consider applications for fishing authorisations from any other Member State pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008.\n4. The deadline by which Member States are to confirm that they do not fully utilise the fishing opportunities allocated under the Agreement, as referred to in Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008, shall be set at 10 working days from the day on which Commission informs the Member States that the fishing opportunities have not been exhausted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 February 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["55", "99", "6", "45", "0", "89", "33", "23", "4", "59", "27", "58", "16", "18", "36", "28", "98", "15", "62", "24", "93", "1", "39", "81", "29", "48", "72", "11", "32", "13", "No Label", "3", "9", "56", "67", "91", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "56", "67", "91", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1346/2011\nof 13 December 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for boarfish in EU and international waters of VI, VII and VIII by vessels flying the flag of any Member State, except Denmark and Ireland\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["83", "89", "52", "60", "11", "1", "12", "40", "19", "2", "49", "95", "7", "34", "41", "10", "74", "24", "77", "47", "94", "57", "30", "73", "15", "37", "31", "43", "4", "75", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 554/2010\nof 24 June 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 2488/2000 maintaining a freeze of funds in relation to Mr Milosevic and those persons associated with him\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Common Position 2000/599/CFSP of 9 October 2000 on support to a democratic FRY and the immediate lifting of certain restrictive measures (1), and to Council Common Position 2000/696/CFSP of 10 November 2000 on the maintenance of specific restrictive measures directed against Mr Milosevic and persons associated with him (2),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2488/2000 of 10 November 2000 maintaining a freeze of funds in relation to Mr Milosevic and those persons associated with him (3) confirmed certain restrictive measures in accordance with Common Positions 2000/599/CFSP and 2000/696/CFSP.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to align Regulation (EC) No 2488/2000 with recent developments in sanctions practice, on the one hand as regards the identification of competent authorities and on the other, as regards the Article on Union jurisdiction.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 2488/2000 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 2488/2000 is amended as follows:\n1.\nParagraph 2 of Article 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Any information that the provisions of this Regulation are being, or have been circumvented shall be notified to the competent authorities as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II and/or to the Commission.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 3\n1. Without prejudice to the applicable rules concerning reporting, confidentiality and professional secrecy, natural and legal persons, entities and bodies shall:\n(a)\nsupply immediately any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 1, to the competent authorities of Member States as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II for the country where they are resident or located and shall transmit such information, directly or through the competent authority as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II, to the Commission; and\n(b)\ncooperate with that competent authority in any verification of this information.\n2. Any additional information directly received by the Commission shall be made available to the Member State concerned.\n3. Any information provided or received in accordance with this Article shall be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.\u2019;\n3.\nParagraphs 2 and 3 of Article 4 are replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The Commission shall be empowered:\n(a)\nto amend Annex I, taking into account decisions implementing Common Position 2000/696/CFSP,\n(b)\non an exceptional basis, to grant exemptions to Article 1 for strictly humanitarian purposes,\n(c)\nto amend Annex II on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\n3. Any request by a person for an exemption referred to in paragraph 2(b) or for an amendment of Annex I shall be made through the competent authorities as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II.\nThe competent authorities of the Member States shall verify, to the fullest extent possible, the information provided by the persons making a request.\u2019;\n4.\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 8a\n1. Member States shall designate the competent authorities referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 4 and identify them in the websites as listed in Annex II. Member States shall notify the Commission of any changes to the addresses of their websites listed in Annex II before such changes take effect.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of their competent authorities, including the contact details of those competent authorities, by 15 July 2010 and shall notify the Commission without delay of any subsequent amendment.\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 10 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 10\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\u2019;\n6.\nAnnex II is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 24 June 2010.", "references": ["93", "88", "81", "5", "64", "78", "76", "84", "35", "45", "60", "7", "17", "49", "46", "91", "80", "34", "41", "83", "51", "99", "8", "53", "62", "20", "29", "18", "63", "68", "No Label", "0", "2", "3", "30"], "gold": ["0", "2", "3", "30"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 97/2012\nof 6 February 2012\namending for the 164th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a), 7a(1) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 25 January 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add three natural persons to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. It also decided to amend one entry on the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 February 2012.", "references": ["6", "37", "45", "89", "44", "33", "20", "94", "43", "97", "17", "64", "53", "62", "39", "9", "40", "51", "31", "16", "75", "61", "85", "86", "54", "98", "11", "78", "63", "28", "No Label", "1", "3", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1241/2011\nof 30 November 2011\nrepealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1211/2011 operating deductions from certain fishing effort for 2011 on account of overfishing by certain Member States in the previous year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (1), and in particular Article 106(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1211/2011 (2) reduces for certain Member States the maximum allowable fishing effort fixed in Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 (3) and for certain fishing areas and fisheries in Council Regulation (EC) No 1415/2004 (4).\n(2)\nOn the basis of recent correspondence with certain Member States, there is a need for additional verification of the information underlying Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1211/2011 and the quantities of effort deducted as set out in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1211/2011.\n(3)\nConsidering that Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1211/2011 will be directly applicable in all Member States after its entry into force and considering the direct impact it may have on the fishing activities of certain EU operators, it is appropriate for it to be repealed as from that date pending verification and replacement by a new Regulation. This is without prejudice to the obligation of the Commission to operate deductions of fishing effort on account of overfishing in 2010 in subsequent years,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 1211/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["77", "21", "19", "90", "83", "1", "46", "29", "12", "57", "40", "79", "44", "36", "26", "6", "45", "88", "18", "47", "75", "0", "23", "34", "20", "10", "16", "63", "64", "25", "No Label", "13", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 17 September 2012\non the recognition of Egypt pursuant to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers\n(notified under document C(2012) 6297)\n(2012/505/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 19(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the requests from Cyprus on 13 May 2005, from the United Kingdom on 25 September 2006 and from the Hellenic Republic on 26 October 2006\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Directive 2008/106/EC Member States may decide to endorse seafarers\u2019 appropriate certificates issued by third countries, provided that the third country concerned is recognised by the Commission. Those third countries have to meet all the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW Convention) (2), as revised in 1995.\n(2)\nThe requests for the recognition of Egypt were submitted by letters of 13 May 2005 from Cyprus, of 25 September 2006 from the United Kingdom and of 26 October 2006 from the Hellenic Republic. Following these requests, the Commission assessed the training and certification system in Egypt in order to verify whether Egypt meets all the requirements of the STCW Convention and whether the appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. That assessment was based on the results of an inspection carried out by experts of the European Maritime Safety Agency in December 2006. During that inspection certain deficiencies in the training and certification systems were identified.\n(3)\nThe Commission provided the Member States with a report on the results of the assessment.\n(4)\nBy letters of 16 February 2009, 21 September 2010 and 20 December 2011, the Commission requested Egypt to provide evidence demonstrating that the deficiencies identified had been corrected.\n(5)\nBy letters of 12 November 2009, 25 November 2010 and 28 February 2012, Egypt provided the requested information and evidence concerning the implementation of appropriate and sufficient corrective action to address the deficiencies identified during the assessment of compliance.\n(6)\nThe outcome of the assessment of compliance and the evaluation of the information provided by Egypt demonstrates that Egypt complies with the requirements of the STCW Convention, while this country has taken appropriate measures to prevent fraud involving certificates.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of Article 19 of Directive 2008/106/EC, Egypt is recognised as regards the systems for the training and certification of seafarers.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 September 2012.", "references": ["70", "32", "22", "57", "81", "40", "0", "8", "59", "16", "45", "13", "67", "62", "55", "85", "87", "28", "84", "5", "12", "9", "14", "99", "77", "48", "34", "89", "78", "3", "No Label", "49", "54", "56", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["49", "54", "56", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1321/2011\nof 16 December 2011\namending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 of 12 October 1993 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries (1), and in particular Article 19 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries should be updated to take account of amendments to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (2) which also affect certain codes in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 3030/93 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Textile Committee set up by Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply with effect from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["63", "45", "20", "13", "0", "94", "28", "46", "82", "4", "75", "43", "6", "11", "15", "88", "47", "71", "52", "98", "40", "10", "69", "74", "93", "84", "2", "32", "44", "31", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "89"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "89"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 May 2012\non the conclusion of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Liberia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the European Union\n(2012/373/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraphs of Article 207(3) and (4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) and Article 218(7) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn May 2003, the Commission adopted a Communication to the Council and to the European Parliament entitled \u2018Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT): Proposal for an EU Action Plan\u2019 which called for measures to address illegal logging by developing voluntary partnership agreements with timber-producing countries. Council conclusions on that Action Plan were adopted in October 2003 (1) and the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the subject on 11 July 2005 (2).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2011/475/EU (3), the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Liberia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the European Union (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) was signed on 27 July 2011, subject to its conclusion.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Liberia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the European Union (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to give, on behalf of the Union, the notification provided for in Article 31 of the Agreement, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the Agreement (4).\nArticle 3\nRepresentatives of the Commission shall represent the Union in the Joint Implementation Committee set up in accordance with Article 19 of the Agreement.\nThe Member States may participate in meetings of the Joint Implementation Committee as members of the Union delegation.\nArticle 4\nFor the purpose of amending the annexes to the Agreement in accordance with Article 26 thereof, the Commission is authorised, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 of 20 December 2005 on the establishment of a FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of timber into the European Community (5), to approve any such amendments on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 14 May 2012.", "references": ["36", "33", "84", "25", "10", "12", "23", "41", "53", "40", "13", "72", "4", "60", "62", "15", "6", "30", "47", "49", "46", "69", "65", "18", "82", "87", "43", "20", "26", "91", "No Label", "9", "21", "22", "88", "94"], "gold": ["9", "21", "22", "88", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 780/2010\nof 2 September 2010\napproving minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Th\u00fcringer Leberwurst (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the second sentence of Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has examined Germany\u2019s application for approval, pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of an amendment to details of the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Th\u00fcringer Leberwurst\u2019, registered by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2206/2003 (3).\n(2)\nThe purpose of the application is to amend the specification by making the use of natural casing compulsory and by extending the forms of packaging, in particular to allow the use of plastic jars, but not artificial casing. This is more in line with market realities and consumer preferences and makes it possible to unlock existing market potential.\n(3)\nThe Commission has examined the amendments in question and concluded that they are justified. Since these are minor amendments, the Commission may approve them without using the procedure set out in Articles 6 and 7 of that Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication \u2018Th\u00fcringer Leberwurst\u2019, as set out in accordance with Annex I, are approved.\nArticle 2\nThe updated Single Document is set out in Annex II.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2010.", "references": ["52", "99", "75", "14", "78", "65", "63", "58", "85", "53", "19", "49", "94", "98", "11", "15", "29", "18", "9", "13", "23", "17", "26", "70", "61", "27", "43", "55", "41", "73", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 516/2010\nof 15 June 2010\nconcerning the permanent authorisation of an additive in feedingstuffs\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs (1), and in particular Article 3 and Article 9d(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (2), and in particular Article 25 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition.\n(2)\nArticle 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 lays down transitional measures for applications for the authorisation of feed additives submitted in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC before the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application for authorisation of the additive set out in the Annex to this Regulation was submitted before the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(4)\nInitial comments on that application, as provided for in Article 4(4) of Directive 70/524/EEC, were forwarded to the Commission before the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003. This application is therefore to continue to be treated in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 70/524/EEC.\n(5)\nThe use of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced by Aspergillus aculeatus (CBS 589.94), endo-1,4-beta-glucanase produced by Trichoderma longibrachiatum (CBS 592.94), alpha-amylase produced by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (DSM 9553) and endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma viride (NIBH FERM BP 4842) was provisionally authorised for laying hens by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1458/2005 (3). It was authorised without a time limit for chickens for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 358/2005 (4) and for turkeys for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1284/2006 (5).\n(6)\nNew data were submitted in support of an application for authorisation without a time limit of that enzyme preparation for laying hens.\n(7)\nThe assessment shows that the conditions laid down in Article 3a of Directive 70/524/EEC for such authorisation are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that enzyme preparation, as specified in the Annex to this Regulation, should be authorised without a time limit.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation belonging to the group \u2018Enzymes\u2019, as specified in the Annex, is authorised without a time limit as additive in animal nutrition under the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2010.", "references": ["9", "29", "34", "39", "26", "0", "80", "53", "63", "67", "32", "90", "12", "5", "15", "22", "56", "55", "10", "97", "69", "60", "36", "76", "23", "71", "78", "96", "77", "4", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 August 2010\nextending the derogation period for Bulgaria to raise objections to shipments of certain waste to Bulgaria for recovery under Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 5434)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/438/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 63(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 63(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 Bulgaria may raise objections to shipments of certain wastes for recovery for a period of time ending on 31 December 2009.\n(2)\nBy letter of 23 December 2009 Bulgaria requested to extend that period until 31 December 2012.\n(3)\nThere is a need to ensure that environmental protection remains at high levels across the Union, in particular where the recovery of certain shipments of waste would continue not to be in accordance with national legislation in the country of dispatch relating to the recovery of waste. Therefore, Bulgaria should retain the possibility to object to certain undesired planned waste shipment destined for recovery onto its territory. In consequence, there is a need to prolong the derogation regime applicable to Bulgaria until 31 December 2012.\n(4)\nIn order to continue ensuring a higher environmental protection as well as preserve the legal certainty in relation to the legal regime applying to shipments of waste destined for recovery to Bulgaria in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, the measures provided for in this Decision should apply as of 1 January 2010. The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 18 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nBy way of derogation from Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, the period during which the Bulgarian competent authorities may raise objections to shipments to Bulgaria for recovery of the waste listed in the second subparagraph of Article 63(4) of that Regulation and in accordance with the grounds for objection laid down in Article 11 thereof shall be extended until 31 December 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply with effect from 1 January 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2010.", "references": ["9", "32", "48", "67", "94", "19", "65", "72", "16", "51", "43", "30", "28", "76", "35", "34", "62", "15", "86", "6", "41", "77", "36", "1", "45", "39", "7", "69", "80", "54", "No Label", "2", "20", "58", "60", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "20", "58", "60", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 13 October 2011\namending Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC as regards the entry for Mexico in the list of third countries and parts thereof from which the introduction into the Union of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species are authorised\n(notified under document C(2011) 7168)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/686/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), and in particular Article 17(3)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2009/156/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing the movement and importation from third countries of equidae (2), and in particular the first and second subparagraphs of Article 12(1), Article 12(4) and the introductory phrase and points (a) and (b) of Article 19 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 92/65/EEC lays down conditions applicable to imports into the Union of, amongst others, semen, ova and embryos of the equine species. Those conditions are to be at least equivalent to those applicable to trade between Member States.\n(2)\nDirective 2009/156/EC lays down animal health conditions for the importation into the Union of live equidae. It provides that imports of equidae into the Union must come from third countries or parts of the territory thereof in which Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis (VEE) is a compulsory notifiable disease and which have been free from VEE for 2 years.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2004/211/EC of 6 January 2004 establishing the list of third countries and parts of territory thereof from which Member States authorise imports of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species, and amending Decisions 93/195/EEC and 94/63/EC (3) establishes a list of third countries, or parts thereof where regionalisation applies, from which Member States authorise the importation of equidae and semen, ova and embryos thereof, and indicates the other conditions applicable to such imports. That list is set out in Annex I to that Decision. Mexico, with the exception of the States of Chiapas and Oaxaca, is currently listed in that Annex.\n(4)\nOn 19 August 2011, Mexico notified the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) of the confirmation of two cases of VEE in horses in the States of Tabasco and Veracruz, which are caused by a virus of the same subtype IE that was observed in the neighbouring States of Chiapas and Oaxaca.\n(5)\nThe introduction into the Union of any equidae and of semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine species should therefore no longer be authorised from the States of Tabasco and Veracruz in Mexico. Therefore, those States should be deleted from Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC.\n(6)\nDecision 2004/211/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe entry for Mexico in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018MX\nMexico\nMX-0\nWhole country\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMX-1\nThe whole country except the States of Chiapas, Oaxaca, Tabasco and Veracruz\nD\nX\nX\nX\n-\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 October 2011.", "references": ["94", "33", "89", "95", "40", "32", "38", "64", "31", "84", "54", "91", "56", "47", "76", "6", "43", "77", "3", "46", "18", "67", "7", "20", "42", "37", "21", "10", "87", "58", "No Label", "22", "23", "65", "66", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "65", "66", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 6 January 2011\nconcerning certain interim protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria\n(notified under document C(2011) 70)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/8/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA case of foot-and-mouth disease (\u2018FMD\u2019) has been detected in a wild boar in Burgas region in the South-East of Bulgaria within a zone of reinforced surveillance along the border with Turkey.\n(2)\nThe FMD situation in Bulgaria is liable to endanger the herds of other Member States in view of trade in live biungulate animals and the placing on the market of certain of their products.\n(3)\nBulgaria has taken measures in the framework of Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (3) (\u2018the Directive\u2019), in particular the measures provide for in Article 85(4) of that Directive and detailed in Annex XVIII thereto.\n(4)\nThe whole territory of Bulgaria is subject to the restrictions of Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 8b and 11 of Commission Decision 2008/855/EC of 3 November 2008 concerning animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in certain Member States (4). However, being listed in Part II of Annex I to that Decision allows Bulgaria to dispatch under certain health conditions fresh pig meat and meat preparations and products produced from such meat.\n(5)\nThe disease situation in Bulgaria makes it necessary to reinforce the control measures for FMD taken by the competent authorities in Bulgaria.\n(6)\nIt is appropriate to define as a permanent measure the high and low risk areas in the affected Member State and to provide for a prohibition on the dispatch of susceptible animals from the high and low risk areas and on the dispatch of products derived from susceptible animals from the high risk area. The Decision should also provide for the rules applicable to the dispatch from those areas of safe products that either had been produced before the restrictions, from raw material sourced from outside the restricted areas or that had undergone a treatment proven effective in inactivating possible foot-and-mouth disease virus.\n(7)\nThe size of the defined risk areas is a direct function of the outcome of tracing of possible contacts to the infected holding and takes into account the possibility to implement sufficient controls on the movement of animals and products. At this point of time and based on information provided by Bulgaria, the whole of Burgas region should currently remain a high risk area.\n(8)\nThe prohibition of dispatch should only cover products derived from animals of susceptible species coming from or obtained from animals originating in the high risk areas listed in Annex I and should not affect transit through these areas of such products coming from or obtained from animals originating in other areas.\n(9)\nCouncil Directive 64/432/EEC (5) concerns animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine.\n(10)\nCouncil Directive 91/68/EEC (6) concerns animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals.\n(11)\nCouncil Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (7) concerns, amongst others, trade in other biungulates and in semen, ova and embryos of sheep and goats, and in embryos of porcine animals.\n(12)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (8) concerns, amongst others, the health conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat, minced meat, mechanically separated meat, meat preparations, farmed game meat, meat products, including treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, and dairy products.\n(13)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (9) concerns, amongst others, the health marking of food of animal origin.\n(14)\nCouncil Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (10) provides for specific treatment of meat products that ensure inactivation of the FMD virus in products of animal origin.\n(15)\nCommission Decision 2001/304/EC of 11 April 2001 on marking and use of certain animal products in relation to Decision 2001/172/EC concerning certain protection measures with regard to foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom (11) concerns a specific health mark to be applied to certain products of animal origin that shall be restricted to the national market. It is appropriate to lay down in a separate Annex a similar marking in the case of FMD in Bulgaria.\n(16)\nCouncil Directive 92/118/EEC (12) lays down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC.\n(17)\nRegulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (13) provides for a range of treatments of animal by-products suitable to inactivate the FMD virus.\n(18)\nCouncil Directive 88/407/EEC (14) lays down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of deep-frozen semen of domestic animals of the bovine species.\n(19)\nCouncil Directive 89/556/EEC (15) concerns the animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species.\n(20)\nCouncil Directive 90/429/EEC (16) lays down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species.\n(21)\nThe model health certificates for trade within the Union in semen, ova and embryos of animals of the ovine and caprine species and in ova and embryos of animals of the porcine species are laid down in Commission Decision 2010/470/EU of 26 August 2010 laying down model health certificates for trade within the Union in semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine, ovine and caprine species and in ova and embryos of animals of the porcine species (17).\n(22)\nCouncil Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (18) provides for a mechanism to compensate affected holdings for losses incurred as a result of disease control measures.\n(23)\nIn so far as medicinal products defined in Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (19), Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (20), and Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use (21) no longer fall under the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 they should be excluded from animal health related restrictions set up by this Decision.\n(24)\nArticle 6 of Commission Decision 2007/275/EC of 17 April 2007 concerning lists of animals and products to be subject to controls at border inspection posts under Council Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC (22) provides for a derogation from the veterinary checks for certain products containing animal products. It is appropriate to allow dispatch from the high risk areas of such products under a simplified certification regime.\n(25)\nMember States other than Bulgaria should support the disease control measures carried out in the affected areas by ensuring that live susceptible animals are not consigned to those areas.\n(26)\nTo better understand the epidemiological situation and to facilitate the detection of possible infection, it is necessary to enforce a prolonged standstill for livestock in the Member State concerned while granting the possibility for slaughter and the transport of equidae under controlled conditions.\n(27)\nPending the meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and in collaboration with the Member State concerned the Commission should take interim protection measures relating to FMD in Bulgaria.\n(28)\nThe situation shall be reviewed at the meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health scheduled for 11-12 January 2011, and the measures adapted where necessary,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nLive animals\n1. Without prejudice to the measures taken by Bulgaria within the framework of\n(a)\nDirective 2003/85/EC, and in particular those provided for in Article 85(4) of that Directive and detailed in Annex XVIII thereto; and\n(b)\nArticles 2 and 4 of Decision 2008/855/EC;\nBulgaria shall ensure that the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 to 7 of this Article are met.\n2. No live animals of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and other biungulates shall move between the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II.\n3. No live animals of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and other biungulates shall be dispatched from or moved through the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, the competent authorities of Bulgaria may authorise the direct and uninterrupted transit of biungulate animals through the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II on main roads and railway lines.\n5. The health certificates, as provided for in Directive 64/432/EEC for live bovine animals and, without prejudice to Articles 8b and 9 of Decision 2008/855/EC, for porcine animals and in Directive 91/68/EEC for live ovine and caprine animals, accompanying animals consigned from parts of the territory of Bulgaria not listed in Annex I and Annex II to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Animals conforming to Commission Decision 2011/8/EU of 6 January 2011 concerning certain interim protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (23).\n6. The health certificates accompanying biungulates other than those covered by the certificates referred to in paragraph 5, consigned from parts of the territory of Bulgaria not listed in Annex I and Annex II to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Live biungulates conforming to Commission Decision 2011/8/EU of 6 January 2011 concerning certain interim protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (24).\n7. Animals accompanied by an animal health certificate as referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 may be moved to other Member States only if the local veterinary authority in Bulgaria has, three days before the move, notified the central and local veterinary authorities in the Member State of destination.\n8. By way of derogation from paragraph 2 the competent authorities of Bulgaria may authorise the transport of animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease from holding situated in areas listed in Annex II to a slaughterhouse situated in the areas listed in Annex I.\nArticle 2\nMeats\n1. For the purposes of this Article, \u2018meats\u2019 means \u2018fresh meat\u2019, \u2018minced meat\u2019, \u2018mechanically separated meat\u2019 and \u2018meat preparations\u2019 as defined in points 1.10, 1.13, 1.14 and 1.15 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\n2. Bulgaria shall not dispatch meats of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and other biungulates coming from or obtained from animals originating in the areas listed in Annex I.\n3. Meats not eligible for dispatch from Bulgaria in accordance with this Decision shall be marked in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/99/EC or in accordance with Annex IV.\n4. Without prejudice to Articles 6 and 8b of Decision 2008/855/EC, the prohibition set out in paragraph 2 shall not apply to meats bearing the health mark in accordance with Chapter III of Section I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004, provided that:\n(a)\nthe meat is clearly identified, and has been transported and stored since the date of production separately from meat which is not eligible, in accordance with this Decision, for dispatch outside the areas listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nthe meat complies with one of the following conditions:\n(i)\nit was obtained before the date of application of this Decision; or\n(ii)\nit is derived from animals that have been reared for at least 90 days, or since birth if less than 90 days of age, prior to the date of slaughter and which have been slaughtered, or in the case of meat obtained from wild game of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease (\u2018wild game\u2019) killed, outside the areas listed in Annexes I and II; or\n(iii)\nit complies with the conditions set out in points (c), (d) and (e);\n(c)\nthe meat was obtained from domestic ungulates or from farmed game of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease (\u2018farmed game\u2019), as specified for the respective category of meat in one of the appropriate columns 4 to 7 in Annex III, and complies with the following conditions:\n(i)\nthe animals have been reared for at least 90 days prior to the date of slaughter, or since birth if less than 90 days of age, on holdings situated within the areas specified in columns 1, 2 and 3 of Annex III, where there has been no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease during at least 90 days prior to the date of slaughter;\n(ii)\nduring the 21 days prior to the date of transport to the slaughterhouse, or in the case of farmed game prior to the date of on-farm slaughtering, the animals have remained under the supervision of the competent veterinary authorities on a single holding which is situated in the centre of a circle around the holding of at least 10 km radius, where there has been no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease during at least 30 days prior to the date of loading;\n(iii)\nno animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease have been introduced into the holding referred to in point (ii) during the 21 days prior to the date of loading, or in the case of farmed game prior to the date of on-farm slaughtering, except in the case of pigs coming from a supplying holding which complies with the conditions laid down in point (ii), in which case the period of 21 days may be reduced to 7 days;\nHowever, the competent authority may authorise the introduction into the holding referred to in point (ii) of animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease which comply with the conditions set out in points (i) and (ii) and which\n-\ncome from a holding where no animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease have been introduced during the 21 days prior to the date of transport to the holding referred to in point (ii),except in the case of pigs coming from a supplying holding in which case the period of 21 days may be reduced to 7 days, or\n-\nwere subjected with negative results to a test for antibodies against the foot-and-mouth disease virus carried out on a blood sample taken within 10 days prior to the date of transport to the holding referred to in point (ii), or\n-\ncome from a holding that was subjected with negative results to a serological survey pursuant to a sampling protocol suitable to detect 5 % prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease with at least a 95 % level of confidence;\n(iv)\nthe animals or, in the case of farmed game slaughtered on the farm, the carcases have been transported under official control in means of transport that have been cleansed and disinfected before loading from the holding referred to in point (ii) to the designated slaughterhouse;\n(v)\nthe animals have been slaughtered less than 24 hours following the time of arrival at the slaughterhouse and separately from animals the meat of which is not eligible for dispatch from the area listed in Annex I;\n(d)\nthe meat, if positively marked in column 8 of Annex III, was obtained from wild game, that was killed in areas where there has been no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease for at least a period of 90 days before the date of killing and at a distance of at least 20 km from areas not specified in columns 1, 2 and 3 of Annex III;\n(e)\nMeat referred to in points (c) and (d) must in addition comply with the following conditions:\n(i)\nthe dispatch of such meat is only to be authorised by the competent veterinary authority of Bulgaria, if\n-\nthe animals referred to in point (c)(iv) have been transported to the establishment without contact to holdings situated in areas not specified in columns 1, 2 and 3 of Annex III, and\n-\nthe establishment is not situated in a protection zone;\n(ii)\nthe meat is at all times clearly identified, handled, stored and transported separately from meat which is not eligible for dispatch from the area listed in Annex I;\n(iii)\nduring post-mortem inspection by the official veterinarian in the establishment of dispatch, or in the case of on-farm slaughtering of farmed game on the holding referred to in point (c)(ii), or in the case of wild game at the game-handling establishment, no clinical signs or post-mortem evidence of foot-and-mouth disease were established;\n(iv)\nthe meat has remained in the establishments or holdings referred to in point (e)(iii) for at least 24 hours following the post-mortem inspection of the animals referred to in points (c) and (d);\n(v)\nany further preparation of meat for dispatch outside the area listed in Annex I shall be suspended:\n-\nin the case where foot-and-mouth disease has been diagnosed in the establishments or holdings referred to in point (e)(iii), until the slaughter of all animals present and the removal of all meat and dead animals has been completed, and at least 24 hours have elapsed since the completion of the total cleansing and disinfection of those establishments and holdings under the control of an official veterinarian, and\n-\nin the case of slaughter in the same establishment of animals susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease coming from holdings situated in areas listed in Annex I that do not comply with the conditions set out in point 4(c) or (d), until the slaughter of all such animals and the cleansing and disinfection of those establishments have been completed under the control of an official veterinarian;\n(vi)\nthe central veterinary authorities shall communicate to the other Member States and the Commission a list of those establishments and holdings which they have approved for the purposes of application of points (c), (d) and (e).\n5. Compliance with the conditions set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be checked by the competent veterinary authority under the supervision of the central veterinary authorities.\n6. Without prejudice to Articles 6 and 8b of Decision 2008/855/EC, the prohibition set out in paragraph 2 of this Article shall not apply to fresh meat obtained from animals reared outside the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II and transported, by way of derogation from Article 1(2) and (3), directly and under official control without contact to holdings situated in areas listed in Annex I to a slaughterhouse situated in the areas listed in Annex I outside the protection zone for immediate slaughter, provided that such fresh meat is only placed on the market in the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II and complies with the following conditions:\n(a)\nall such fresh meat is marked in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/99/EC or in accordance with Annex IV to this Decision;\n(b)\nthe slaughterhouse\n(i)\nis operated under strict veterinary control;\n(ii)\nsuspends any further preparation of meat for dispatch outside the areas listed in Annex I in the case of slaughter in the same slaughterhouse of animals susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease coming from holdings situated in areas listed in Annex I until the slaughter of all such animals and the cleansing and disinfection of the slaughterhouse have been completed under the control of an official veterinarian;\n(c)\nthe fresh meat is clearly identified, and transported and stored separately from meat which is eligible for dispatch outside Bulgaria.\n(d)\nCompliance with the conditions set out in the first subparagraph shall be checked by the competent veterinary authority under the supervision of the central veterinary authorities.\n(e)\nThe central veterinary authorities shall communicate to the Commission and to the other Member States a list of the establishments which they have approved for the purposes of application of this paragraph.\n7. Without prejudice to Article 6 of Decision 2008/855/EC, the prohibition set out in paragraph 2 shall not apply to fresh meat obtained from cutting plants situated in the areas listed in Annex I under the following conditions:\n(a)\nonly fresh meat as described in paragraph 4(b) is processed in that cutting plant, on the same day. Cleaning and disinfection shall be carried out after processing of any meat not meeting this requirement;\n(b)\nall meat bears the health mark in accordance with Chapter III of Section I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004;\n(c)\nthe cutting plant is operated under strict veterinary control;\n(d)\nthe fresh meat is clearly identified, and transported and stored separately from meat which is not eligible for dispatch outside the areas listed in Annex I.\nCompliance with the conditions set out in the first subparagraph shall be checked by the competent veterinary authority under the supervision of the central veterinary authorities.\nThe central veterinary authorities shall communicate to the other Member States and the Commission a list of the establishments which they have approved for the purpose of application of this paragraph.\n8. Meat dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall be accompanied by an official certificate, which shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Meat conforming to Commission Decision 2011/8/EU of 6 January 2011 concerning certain interim protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (25).\nArticle 3\nMeat products\n1. Bulgaria shall not dispatch meat products, including treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, of animals of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and other biungulates (\u2018meat products\u2019) coming from the areas listed in Annex I or prepared using meat obtained from animals originating in those areas.\n2. Without prejudice to Articles 6 and 8b of Decision 2008/855/EC, the prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to meat products, including treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, bearing the health mark in accordance with Chapter III of Section I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004, provided that the meat products:\n(a)\nare clearly identified and have been transported and stored since the date of production separately from meat products not eligible, in accordance with this Decision, for dispatch outside the areas listed in Annex I;\n(b)\ncomply with one of the following conditions:\n(i)\nthey are made from meats described in Article 2(4)(b); or\n(ii)\nthey have undergone at least one of the relevant treatments laid down for foot-and-mouth disease in Part 1 of Annex III to Directive 2002/99/EC.\nCompliance with the conditions set out in the first subparagraph shall be checked by the competent veterinary authority under the supervision of the central veterinary authorities.\nThe central veterinary authorities shall communicate to the other Member States and the Commission a list of the establishments which they have approved for the purpose of application of this paragraph.\n3. Meat products dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall be accompanied by an official certificate, which shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Meat products, including treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, conforming to Commission Decision 2011/8/EU of 6 January 2011 concerning certain interim protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (26).\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 3 it shall be sufficient, in the case of meat products which comply with the requirements of paragraph 2 and have been processed in an establishment operating hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) and an auditable standard operating procedure which ensures that standards for treatment are met and recorded, that compliance with the conditions required for the treatment laid down in point (b)(ii) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 is stated in the commercial document accompanying the consignment, endorsed in accordance with Article 9(1).\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 3 it shall be sufficient, in the case of meat products heat treated in accordance with point (b)(ii) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 in hermetically sealed containers so as to ensure that they are shelf stable, to be accompanied by a commercial document stating the heat treatment applied.\nArticle 4\nColostrums and milk\n1. Bulgaria shall not dispatch colostrums and milk from animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease intended or not intended for human consumption from the areas listed in Annex I.\n2. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to milk produced from bovine, ovine and caprine animals kept in areas listed in Annex I which has been subjected to a treatment in accordance with:\n(a)\nPart A of Annex IX to Directive 2003/85/EC, if the milk is intended for human consumption; or\n(b)\nPart B of Annex IX to Directive 2003/85/EC, if the milk is not intended for human consumption or is intended for feeding to animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease.\n3. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to milk from bovine, ovine and caprine animals prepared in establishments situated in the areas listed in Annex I under the following conditions:\n(a)\nall milk used in the establishment must either conform to the conditions set out in paragraph 2 or be obtained from animals reared and milked outside the areas listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nthe establishment is operated under strict veterinary control;\n(c)\nthe milk must be clearly identified, and transported and stored separately from milk and dairy products which are not eligible for dispatch outside the areas listed in Annex I;\n(d)\ntransport of raw milk from holdings situated outside the areas listed in Annex I to the establishments situated in the areas listed in Annex I is carried out in vehicles which were cleaned and disinfected prior to operation and had no subsequent contact with holdings in the areas listed in Annex I keeping animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease.\nCompliance with the conditions set out in the first subparagraph shall be checked by the competent veterinary authority under the supervision of the central veterinary authorities.\nThe central veterinary authorities shall communicate to the other Member States and the Commission a list of the establishments which they have approved for the purpose of application of this paragraph.\n4. Milk dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall be accompanied by an official certificate, which shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Milk conforming to Commission Decision 2011/8/EU of 6 January 2011 concerning certain interim protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (27).\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 4 it shall be sufficient, in the case of milk which complies with the requirements of paragraph 2 and has been processed in an establishment operating HACCP and an auditable standard operating procedure which ensures that standards for treatment are met and recorded, that compliance with those requirements is stated in the commercial document accompanying the consignment, endorsed in accordance with Article 9(1).\n6. By way of derogation from paragraph 4 it shall be sufficient, in the case of milk which complies with the requirements in paragraph 2(a) or (b) and which has been heat treated in hermetically sealed containers so as to ensure that it is shelf stable, to be accompanied by a commercial document stating the heat treatment applied.\nArticle 5\nDairy products\n1. Bulgaria shall not dispatch dairy products produced from colostrums and milk from animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease intended or not intended for human consumption from the areas listed in Annex I.\n2. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to dairy products:\n(a)\nproduced before the date of application of this Decision; or\n(b)\nprepared from milk complying with the provisions in Article 4(2) or (3); or\n(c)\nfor export to a third country where import conditions permit such products to be subject to treatment other than those laid down in Article 4(2) which ensures the inactivation of the foot-and-mouth disease virus.\n3. Without prejudice to Chapter II of Section IX of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, the prohibition set out in paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply to the following dairy products intended for human consumption:\n(a)\ndairy products produced from milk of a controlled pH less than 7,0 and subject to a heat treatment at a temperature of at least 72 \u00b0C for at least 15 seconds, on the understanding that such treatment was not necessary for finished products, the ingredients of which comply with the respective animal health conditions laid down in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of this Decision;\n(b)\ndairy products produced from raw milk of bovine, ovine or caprine animals which have been resident for at least 30 days on a holding situated, within an area listed in Annex I, in the centre of a circle of at least 10 km radius in which no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred during 30 days prior to the date of production of the raw milk, and subject to a maturation or ripening process of at least 90 days during which the pH is lowered below 6,0 throughout the substance, and the rind of which has been treated with 0,2 % citric acid immediately prior to wrapping or packaging.\n4. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to dairy products prepared in establishments situated in the areas listed in Annex I under the following conditions:\n(a)\nall milk used in the establishment either complies with the conditions laid down in Article 4(2) or is obtained from animals outside the areas listed in Annex I;\n(b)\nall dairy products used in the final products either comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 2(a) and (b) or paragraph 3 or are made from milk obtained from animals outside the areas listed in Annex I;\n(c)\nthe establishment is operated under strict veterinary control;\n(d)\nthe dairy products are clearly identified and transported and stored separately from milk and dairy products which are not eligible for dispatch outside the areas listed in Annex I.\nCompliance with the conditions set out in the first subparagraph shall be checked by the competent authority under the responsibility of the central veterinary authorities.\nThe central veterinary authorities shall communicate to the other Member States and the Commission a list of the establishments which they have approved for the purposes of application of this paragraph.\n5. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to dairy products prepared in establishment situated outside the areas listed in Annex I using milk obtained before the date of application of this Decision, provided that the dairy products are clearly identified and transported and stored separately from dairy products which are not eligible for dispatch outside those areas.\n6. Dairy products dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall be accompanied by an official certificate, which shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Dairy products conforming to Commission Decision 2011/8/EU of 6 January 2011 concerning certain interim protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (28).\n7. By way of derogation from paragraph 6 it shall be sufficient, in the case of dairy products which comply with the requirements of paragraph 2(a) and (b) and paragraphs 3 and 4 and have been processed in an establishment operating HACCP and an auditable standard operating procedure which ensures that standards for treatment are met and recorded, that compliance with those requirements is stated in the commercial document accompanying the consignment, endorsed in accordance with Article 9(1).\n8. By way of derogation from paragraph 6 it shall be sufficient, in the case of dairy products which comply with the requirements of paragraph 2(a) and (b) and paragraphs 3 and 4 and which have been heat treated in hermetically sealed containers so as to ensure that they are shelf stable, to be accompanied by a commercial document stating the heat treatment applied.\nArticle 6\nSemen, ova and embryos\n1. Bulgaria shall not dispatch semen, ova and embryos of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and other biungulates (\u2018semen, ova and embryos\u2019) from the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II.\n2. Without prejudice to Article 5 of Decision 2008/855/EC, the prohibitions set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nsemen, ova and embryos produced before the date of application of this Decision;\n(b)\nfrozen bovine semen and embryos, frozen porcine semen, and frozen ovine and caprine semen and embryos imported into Bulgaria in accordance with the conditions laid down in Directives 88/407/EEC, 89/556/EEC, 90/429/EEC or 92/65/EEC respectively, and which since their introduction into Bulgaria have been stored and transported separately from semen, ova and embryos not eligible for dispatch in accordance with paragraph 1;\n(c)\nfrozen semen and embryos obtained from bovine, porcine, ovine and caprine animals kept for at least 90 days prior to the date of and during collection outside the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II and which:\n(i)\nhave been be stored in approved conditions for a minimum period of 30 days prior to the date of dispatch; and\n(ii)\nhave been collected from donor animals standing in centres or on holdings which have been free from foot-and-mouth disease for at least three months prior to the date of collection of the semen or embryos and 30 days after the date of collection and which are situated in the centre of an area of 10 kilometres radius in which there has been no case of foot-and-mouth disease for at least 30 days prior to the date of collection.\n(d)\nBefore the dispatch of the semen or embryos referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) the central veterinary authorities shall communicate to the other Member States and the Commission a list of centres and teams approved for the purpose of application of this paragraph.\n3. The health certificate provided for in Directive 88/407/EEC and accompanying frozen bovine semen dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Frozen bovine semen conforming to Commission Decision 2011/8/EU of 6 January 2011 concerning certain interim protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (29).\n4. Without prejudice to Article 9(b) of Decision 2008/855/EC, the health certificate provided for in Directive 90/429/EEC and accompanying frozen porcine semen dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Frozen porcine semen conforming to Commission Decision 2011/8/EU of 6 January 2011 concerning certain interim protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (30).\n5. The health certificate provided for in Directive 89/556/EEC and accompanying bovine embryos dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Bovine embryos conforming to Commission Decision 2011/8/EU of 6 January 2011 concerning certain interim protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (31).\n6. The health certificate provided for in Directive 92/65/EEC and accompanying frozen ovine or caprine semen dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Frozen ovine/caprine semen conforming to Commission Decision 2011/8/EU of 6 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (32).\n7. The health certificate provided for in Directive 92/65/EEC and accompanying frozen ovine or caprine embryos dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Frozen ovine/caprine embryos conforming to Commission Decision 2011/8/EU of 6 January 2011 concerning certain interim protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (33).\n8. Without prejudice to Article 9(c) of Decision 2008/855/EC, the health certificate provided for in Directive 92/65/EEC and accompanying frozen porcine embryos dispatched from Bulgaria to other Member States shall bear the following words:\n\u2018Frozen porcine embryos conforming to Commission Decision 2011/8/EU of 6 January 2011 concerning certain interim protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (34).\nArticle 7\nHides and skins\n1. Bulgaria shall not dispatch skins of animals of the porcine species (\u2018skins\u2019) from the areas listed in Annex I.\n2. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply to skins which:\n(a)\nwere produced in Bulgaria before the date of application of this Decision; or\n(b)\ncomply with the requirements provided for in point (2)(c) or (d) of Part A of Chapter VI of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002; or\n(c)\nwere produced outside the areas listed in Annex I in accordance with the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, and have since introduction into Bulgaria been stored and transported separately from skins not eligible for dispatch in accordance with paragraph 1.\nTreated pig skins shall be separated from untreated hides and skins of animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease.\n3. Bulgaria shall ensure that skins to be dispatched to other Member States shall be accompanied by an official certificate which bears the following words:\n\u2018Skins conforming to Commission Decision 2011/8/EU of 6 January 2011 concerning certain interim protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (35).\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 3 it shall be sufficient, in the case of skins which comply with the requirements of points (1)(b) to (e) of Part A of Chapter VI of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, to be accompanied by a commercial document stating compliance with those requirements.\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 3 it shall be sufficient, in the case of skins which comply with the requirements of point (2)(c) or (d) of Part A of Chapter VI of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, that compliance with those requirements is stated in the commercial document accompanying the consignment, endorsed in accordance with Article 9(1).\nArticle 8\nOther animal products\n1. Bulgaria shall not dispatch products of animals of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and other biungulates not mentioned in Articles 2 to 7 produced after the date of application of this Decision and coming from the areas listed in Annex I, or obtained from animals originating in the areas listed in Annex I.\nBulgaria shall not dispatch dung and manure of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and other biungulates from the areas listed in Annex I.\n2. The prohibition set out in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nanimal products which:\n(i)\nhave been subjected to a heat treatment\n-\nin a hermetically sealed container with a Fo value of 3,00 or more, or\n-\nin which the centre temperature is raised to at least 70 \u00b0C; or\n(ii)\nwere produced outside the areas listed in Annex I in accordance with the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, and which since introduction into Bulgaria have been stored and transported separately from animal products not eligible for dispatch in accordance with paragraph 1;\n(b)\nblood and blood products as defined in points 4 and 5 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 which have been subjected to at least one of the treatments provided for in point 4(a) of Part A of Chapter IV of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, followed by an effectiveness check, or have been imported in accordance with Part A of Chapter IV of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002;\n(c)\nlard and rendered fats which have been subject to the heat treatment prescribed in point 2(d)(iv) of Part B of Chapter IV of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002;\n(d)\nanimal casings complying with the conditions in Part A of Chapter 2 of Annex I to Directive 92/118/EEC and which have been cleaned, scraped and then either salted, bleached or dried, followed by steps to prevent the recontamination of the casings;\n(e)\nsheep wool, ruminant hair and pigs bristles which have undergone factory washing or have been obtained from tanning and unprocessed sheep wool, ruminant hair and pigs bristles which are securely enclosed in packaging and dry;\n(f)\npetfood conforming to the requirements of points 2, 3 and 4 of Part B of Chapter II of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002;\n(g)\ncomposite products which are not subject to further treatment containing products of animal origin, on the understanding that the treatment was not necessary for finished products, the ingredients of which comply with the respective animal health conditions laid down in this Decision;\n(h)\ngame trophies in accordance with points 1, 3 or 4 of Part A of Chapter VII of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002;\n(i)\npacked animal products intended for use as in-vitro diagnostic, laboratory reagents;\n(j)\nmedicinal products as defined in Directive 2001/83/EC, medical devices manufactured utilising animal tissue which is rendered non-viable as referred to in Article 1(5)(g) of Directive 93/42/EEC, veterinary medicinal products as defined in Directive 2001/82/EC, and investigational medicinal products as defined in Directive 2001/20/EC.\n3. Bulgaria shall ensure that the animal products referred to in paragraph 2 to be dispatched to other Member States shall be accompanied by an official certificate which bears the following words:\n\u2018Animal products conforming to Commission Decision 2011/8/EU of 6 January 2011 concerning certain interim protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (36).\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, it shall be sufficient, in the case of the products referred to in paragraph 2(a) to (d) and (f) of this Article that compliance with the conditions for the treatment stated in the commercial document required in accordance with the respective Union legislation is endorsed in accordance with Article 9(1).\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 3 it shall be sufficient, in the case of products referred to in paragraph 2(e) to be accompanied by a commercial document stating either the factory washing or origin from tanning or compliance with the conditions laid down in points 1 and 4 of Part A of Chapter VIII of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.\n6. By way of derogation from paragraph 3 it shall be sufficient, in the case of products referred to in paragraph 2(g) which have been produced in an establishment operating HACCP and an auditable standard operating procedure which ensures that pre-processed ingredients comply with the respective animal health conditions laid down in this Decision, that this is stated on the commercial document accompanying the consignment, endorsed in accordance with Article 9(1).\n7. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, it shall be sufficient, in the case of products referred to in paragraph 2(i) and (j), to be accompanied by a commercial document stating that the products are for use as in- vitro diagnostic, laboratory reagents, medical products or medical devices, provided that the products are clearly labelled \u2018for in-vitro diagnostic use only\u2019 or \u2018for laboratory use only\u2019, as \u2018medicinal products\u2019 or as \u2018medical devices\u2019.\n8. Derogating from the provisions in paragraph 3, it shall be sufficient, in the case of composite products that fulfil the conditions set out in Article 6(1) of Decision 2007/275/EC that they are accompanied by a commercial document, which bears the following words:\n\u2018These composite products are shelf stable at ambient temperature or have clearly undergone in their manufacture a complete cooking or heat treatment process throughout their substance, so that any raw material is de-natured\u2019.\nArticle 9\nCertification\n1. Where reference is made to this paragraph, the competent authorities of Bulgaria shall ensure that the commercial document required by Union legislation for trade between Member States is endorsed by the attachment of a copy of an official certificate stating that:\n(a)\nthe products concerned have been produced\n(i)\nin a production process that has been audited and found in compliance with the appropriate requirements in Union animal health legislation and suitable to destroy the foot-and-mouth disease virus; or\n(ii)\nfrom pre-processed materials which had been certified accordingly; and\n(b)\nprovisions are in place to avoid possible re-contamination with the foot-and-mouth disease virus after treatment.\nSuch certification of the production process shall bear a reference to this Decision, shall be valid for 30 days, shall state the expiry date and shall be renewable after inspection of the establishment.\n2. In case of products for retail sale to the final consumer, the competent authorities of Bulgaria may authorise consolidated consignments of animal products other than fresh meat, minced meat, mechanically separated meat and meat preparations, each of which is eligible for dispatch in accordance with this Decision, to be accompanied by a commercial document endorsed by the attachment of a copy of an official veterinary certificate confirming that:\n(a)\nthe premises of dispatch have in place a system to ensure that goods can only be dispatched if they are traceable to documentary evidence of compliance with this Decision; and\n(b)\nthe system referred to in (a) has been audited and found satisfactory.\nSuch certification of the traceability system shall bear a reference to this Decision, shall be valid for 30 days, shall state the expiry date and shall be renewable only after the establishment had been audited with satisfactory results.\nThe competent authorities of Bulgaria shall communicate to the other Member States and the Commission the list of establishments which they have approved for the purpose of application of this paragraph.\nArticle 10\nCleansing and disinfection\nWithout prejudice to Article 11 of Decision 2008/855/EC, Bulgaria shall ensure that vehicles which have been used for the transport of live animals in the areas listed in Annex I and Annex II are cleansed and disinfected after each operation, and that such cleansing and disinfection is recorded in accordance with Article 12(2)(d) of Directive 64/432/EEC.\nArticle 11\nCertain exempted products\nThe restrictions laid down in Articles 3, 4, 5 and 8 shall not apply to the dispatch from the areas listed in Annex I of the animal products referred to in those Articles if such products were:\n(a)\nnot produced in Bulgaria and remained in their original packaging indicating the country of origin of the products; or\n(b)\nproduced in an approved establishment situated in the areas listed in Annex I from pre-processed products not originating from those areas, which:\n(i)\nhave, since introduction into the territory of Bulgaria, been transported, stored and processed separately from products which are not eligible for dispatch outside the areas listed in Annex I;\n(ii)\nare accompanied by a commercial document or official certificate as required by this Decision.\nArticle 12\nCooperation between Member States\nMember States shall cooperate in monitoring personal luggage of passengers travelling from the areas listed in Annex I and in information campaigns carried out to prevent introduction of products of animal origin into the territory of Member States other than Bulgaria.\nArticle 13\nImplementation\nMember States shall amend the measures which they apply to trade so as to bring them into compliance with this Decision. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.\nArticle 14\nThis Decision shall apply until 28 February 2011.\nArticle 15\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 January 2011.", "references": ["94", "3", "88", "37", "70", "71", "56", "67", "81", "12", "27", "73", "84", "53", "10", "31", "99", "16", "78", "62", "47", "76", "24", "93", "79", "42", "6", "33", "14", "8", "No Label", "21", "23", "38", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "23", "38", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 19 December 2011\ngranting certain parties an exemption from the extension to certain bicycle parts of the anti-dumping duty on bicycles originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93, lifting the suspension and revoking the exemption of the payment of the anti-dumping duty extended to certain bicycle parts originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China granted to certain parties pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97\n(notified under document C(2011) 9473)\n(2011/876/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019),\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 (2) (the \u2018extending Regulation\u2019), extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 (3) on bicycles originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China to imports of certain bicycle parts from the People\u2019s Republic of China, and levying the extended duty on such imports registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 703/96 (4),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 (5) (the \u2018exemption Regulation\u2019) on the authorisation of the exemption of imports of certain bicycle parts originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China from the extension by Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93, and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAfter the entry into force of the exemption Regulation, a number of bicycle assemblers submitted requests pursuant to Article 3 of the exemption Regulation for exemption from the anti-dumping duty as extended to imports of certain bicycle parts from the People\u2019s Republic of China by Regulation (EC) No 71/97 (the \u2018extended anti-dumping duty\u2019). The Commission has published in the Official Journal of the European Union successive lists of bicycle assemblers (6) for which the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty in respect of their imports of essential bicycle parts declared for free circulation was suspended pursuant to Article 5(1) of the exemption Regulation.\n(2)\nFollowing the last publication of the list of parties under examination (7), a main period of examination has been selected. This period runs from 1 January 2011 to 31 July 2011. Additional information from the years 2009 and 2010 was also requested. A questionnaire requesting information on the assembly operations conducted during the relevant period was sent to all parties under examination.\n(3)\nThe Commission was also informed of the liquidation of one company which was exempted from the extended anti-dumping duty on bicycle parts. Furthermore, one company informed the Commission that it had stopped its assembly operations.\nA. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION FOR WHICH SUSPENSION WAS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED\nA.1. Acceptable requests for exemption\n(4)\nThe Commission received from the parties listed in table 1 below all the information required for the determination of the admissibility of their requests. These parties had already received their suspension with effect from the day of receipt by the Commission of a first complete request. Based on this information, the Commission found that the requests submitted by the parties listed in table 1 below are admissible pursuant to Article 4(1) of the exemption Regulation.\nTable 1\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nTARIC additional code\nBlue Factory Team S.L.\nCL Torres y Villaroel 6, Elche Parque Industrial, 03320 Alicante\nSpain\nA984\nCODE X Sp. z o.o.\nOlszanka 109, 33-386 Podegrodzie\nPoland\nA966\nJETLANE SAS (initially JET\u2019LEAN SAS)\n4, boulevard de Mons, 59650 Villeneuve-d\u2019Ascq\nFrance\nA968\nKwasny & Diekh\u00f6ner GmbH\nHerforder Strasse 331, 33609 Bielefeld\nGermany\nA993\nMaxtec Ltd\n1 Golyamokonarsko shose Str., 4204 Tsaratsovo, Plovdiv\nBulgaria\nA991\nMetelli di Staffoni Mario & C.S.A.S.\nVia Trento 68, 25030 Trenzano (BS)\nItaly\nA979\nM\u00fcller GmbH\nRiedlerweg 7, 8054 Graz\nAustria\nA978 (initially A977)\nUnicykel AB\nAr\u00f6ds Industriev\u00e4g 14, 422 43 Hisings Backa\nSweden\nA967\n(5)\nIt was established during the examination that for all of the applicants the value of the parts originating in the PRC used in their assembly operations was lower than 60 % of the total value of the parts used in those operations. Consequently, they fall outside the scope of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(6)\nFor this reason, and in accordance with Article 7(1) of the exemption Regulation, the parties listed in table 1 above should be exempted from the extended anti-dumping duty.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) of the exemption Regulation, the exemption of the parties listed in table 1 above from the extended anti-dumping duty should take effect as from the date of receipt of their requests. In addition, their customs debt in respect of the extended anti-dumping duty is to be considered void as from the date of receipt of their requests for exemption.\n(8)\nThe company CODE X Sp. z o.o. changed its address during the examination procedure. The company received its suspension under the address ul. Krolewska 16, 00-103 Warszawa, Poland. During the suspension period the address changed to Olszanka 109, 33-386 Podegrodzie, Poland. This change of address does not affect the initial request for suspension or the decision on the exemption.\n(9)\nThe company JETLANE SAS changed its name during the examination procedure. The company was initially suspended under its name JET\u2019LEAN SAS. During the suspension period the company changed its name to JETLANE SAS. This change of name does not affect the initial request for suspension or the decision on the exemption.\n(10)\nTARIC additional code A977 initially given to the company M\u00fcller GmbH was erroneously attributed twice and had to be withdrawn. On 3 June 2010 the company received TARIC additional code A978. This change of code does not affect the initial request for suspension or the decision on the exemption.\nA.2. Rejected requests for exemption\n(11)\nThe party listed in table 2 below also submitted a request for exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty.\nTable 2\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nTARIC additional code\nBikeworks AC GmbH\nErnst-Abbe-Strasse 28, 52249 Eschweiler\nGermany\nA980\n(12)\nThe party in question assembled bicycles as subcontractor and not in its own name. The company had no purchases of parts and it could not be evaluated if the assembly operations complied with the conditions set out in Article 7(1) of the exemption Regulation.\n(13)\nOn these grounds the Commission has to reject its request, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the exemption Regulation. Consequently, the suspension of the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty referred to in Article 5 of the exemption Regulation must be lifted and the extended anti-dumping duty collected as from the date of receipt of the request for exemption submitted by this party, i.e. the date as of which the suspension took effect.\nA.3. Revocations\n(14)\nFor the parties listed in table 3 below the exemption is to be revoked.\nTable 3\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nTARIC additional code\nBicicletas de Alava SL\nC/Arcacha 1, 01006 Vitoria\nSpain\n8963\nFundador-Sociedade Importadora de Sangalhos, Lda.\nApartado, 26, P-3781-908 Sangalhos\nPortugal\n8244\n(15)\nThese parties were exempted from the extended anti-dumping duty on bicycle parts. One party now informed the Commission services that it had stopped its assembly operations. Following an enquiry, the Commission services were informed by a Court in Portugal that the other party had been liquidated. For both parties exemption should be revoked.\nB. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION FOR WHICH SUSPENSION WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY GRANTED\nB.1. Inadmissible requests for exemption\n(16)\nThe parties listed in table 4 also submitted requests for exemption from the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty:\nTable 4\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nApollo Electric Bikes B.V.\nLeemstraat 6, 4705 RH Roosendaal\nThe Netherlands\nIN CYCLES, Montagem e Com\u00e9rcio de Bicicletas Lda.\nZona Industrial de Oi\u0103, Lote A e B, Apartado 175, 3770-059 Oi\u0103\nPortugal\nKleinebenne GmbH\nHansastrasse 22, 33818 Leopoldsh\u00f6he\nGermany\nMOBIKY-TECH\n675, Promenade des Ports, 50000 Saint-L\u00f4\nFrance\nMOVITEC SRL\nJud. Brasov, Aeroportului Street 2, 507075 Ghimbav\nRomania\nSun Baby Jacek Gabrus\nUl. Jana Styki 12, 64-920 Pila\nPoland\nTORPADO S.R.L.\nViale Enzo Ferrari 11, 30014 Cavarzere (VE)\nItaly\n(17)\nOne of these parties is an assembler of electrical bicycles whose imports are not subject to anti-dumping duty on bicycle parts according to Regulation (EC) No 71/97. This party is not eligible for an exemption. For some parties the supply of parts for the production of bicycles covered by the measures according to Regulation (EC) No 71/97 falls within the de minimis threshold of less than 300 units on a monthly basis as specified in Article 14(c) of the exemption Regulation. Consequently, those parties did not meet the conditions of Article 4.1(a) of the exemption Regulation and an exemption could not be granted. Some other parties had not started the production of bicycles yet and hence no suspension could be granted to them.\n(18)\nAll companies listed in tables 1-4 above were informed and given the opportunity to comment. None of the comments received were such as to alter the conclusions set out in this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe parties listed below in table 1 are hereby exempt from the extension to imports of certain bicycle parts from the People\u2019s Republic of China by Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of the definitive anti-dumping duty on bicycles originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93, last amended and maintained by Regulation (EC) No 1095/2005.\nThe exemption shall take effect in relation to each party as from the relevant date shown in the column headed \u2018Date of effect\u2019.\nTable 1\nList of parties to be exempt\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nExemption pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 88/97\nDate of effect\nTARIC additional code\nBlue Factory Team S.L.\nCL Torres y Villaroel 6, Elche Parque Industrial, 03320 Alicante\nSpain\nArticle 7\n16.7.2010\nA984\nCODE X Sp. z o.o.\nOlszanka 109, 33-386 Podegrodzie (initially ul. Krolewska 16, 00-103 Warszawa)\nPoland\nArticle 7\n22.1.2010\nA966\nJETLANE SAS (initially JET\u2019LEAN SAS)\n4, boulevard de Mons, 59650 Villeneuve-d\u2019Ascq\nFrance\nArticle 7\n18.2.2010\nA968\nKwasny & Diekh\u00f6ner GmbH\nHerforder Strasse 331, 33609 Bielefeld\nGermany\nArticle 7\n5.7.2011\nA993\nMaxtec Ltd\n1 Golyamokonarsko shose Str., 4204 Tsaratsovo, Plovdiv\nBulgaria\nArticle 7\n15.10.2010\nA991\nMetelli di Staffoni Mario & C.S.A.S.\nVia Trento 68, 25030 Trenzano (BS)\nItaly\nArticle 7\n13.4.2010\nA979\nM\u00fcller GmbH\nRiedlerweg 7, 8054 Graz\nAustria\nArticle 7\n30.3.2010\nA978 (initially A977)\nUnicykel AB\nAr\u00f6ds Industriev\u00e4g 14, 422 43 Hisings Backa\nSweden\nArticle 7\n11.1.2010\nA967\nArticle 2\nThe request for exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 88/97 by the party listed below in table 2 is hereby rejected.\nThe suspension of payment of the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 88/97 is hereby lifted for the party concerned as from the relevant date shown in the column headed \u2018Date of effect\u2019.\nTable 2\nList of parties for which the suspension is to be lifted\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nSuspension pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 88/97\nDate of effect\nTARIC additional code\nBikeworks AC GmbH\nErnst-Abbe-Strasse 28, 52249 Eschweiler\nGermany\nArticle 5\n11.6.2010\nA980\nArticle 3\nThe exemptions from the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 88/97 for the parties listed below in table 3 are to be revoked pursuant to Article 10 of the exemption Regulation.\nThe exemption from the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty is hereby lifted for the parties concerned as from the relevant date shown in the column headed \u2018Date of effect\u2019.\nTable 3\nList of parties for which the exemption is to be lifted\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nExemption pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 88/97\nDate of effect\nTARIC additional code\nBicicletas de Alava SL\nC/Arcacha 1, 01006 Vitoria\nSpain\nArticle 7\n1 day after publication of the present Decision\n8963\nFundador-Sociedade Importadora de Sangalhos, Lda.\nApartado, 26, P-3781-908 Sangalhos\nPortugal\nArticle 7\n1 day after publication of the present Decision\n8244\nArticle 4\nThe requests for exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty made by the parties listed below in table 4 are hereby rejected.\nTable 4\nList of parties for which the request for exemption is rejected\nName\nAddress\nCountry\nApollo Electric Bikes B.V.\nLeemstraat 6, 4705 RH Roosendaal\nThe Netherlands\nIN CYCLES, Montagem e Com\u00e9rcio de Bicicletas Lda.\nZona Industrial de Oi\u0103, Lote A e B, Apartado 175, 3770-059 Oi\u0103\nPortugal\nKleinebenne GmbH\nHansastrasse 22, 33818 Leopoldsh\u00f6he\nGermany\nMOBIKY-TECH\n675, Promenade des Ports, 50000 Saint-L\u00f4\nFrance\nMOVITEC SRL\nJud. Brasov, Aeroportului Street 2, 507075 Ghimbav\nRomania\nSun Baby Jacek Gabrus\nUl. Jana Styki 12, 64-920 Pila\nPoland\nTORPADO S.R.L.\nViale Enzo Ferrari 11, 30014 Cavarzere (VE)\nItaly\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States and to the parties listed in Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4. It is also published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["56", "13", "20", "84", "53", "78", "93", "32", "74", "94", "30", "39", "28", "19", "4", "73", "57", "18", "12", "41", "8", "65", "35", "52", "72", "64", "70", "46", "7", "25", "No Label", "21", "22", "23", "48", "55", "85", "95", "96"], "gold": ["21", "22", "23", "48", "55", "85", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1215/2011\nof 24 November 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 131/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Sudan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/423/CFSP of 18 July 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Sudan and South Sudan and repealing Common Position 2005/411/CFSP (1), adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 30 May 2005, the Council adopted Common Position 2005/411/CFSP (2) concerning restrictive measures against Sudan.\n(2)\nOn 18 July 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/423/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Sudan and South Sudan and repealing Common Position 2005/411/CFSP. Decision 2011/423/CFSP amended the scope of the restrictive measures imposed by the repealed Common Position 2005/411/CFSP.\n(3)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 131/2004 (3) should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately upon its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 131/2004 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n(2)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide technical assistance related to military activities and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of arms and related material of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts therefor, directly or indirectly to any person, entity or body in, or for use in Sudan or South Sudan;\n(b)\nto provide financing or financial assistance related to military activities, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related material, or for the provision of related technical assistance, directly or indirectly to any person, entity or body in, or for use in Sudan or South Sudan.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 4(1), the following point is inserted:\n\u2018(e)\nsupport for the process of Security Sector Reform in South Sudan.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nArticles 2 and 3 shall not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to Sudan or South Sudan by United Nations personnel, personnel of the Union or its Member States, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 November 2011.", "references": ["2", "41", "35", "9", "72", "62", "34", "74", "66", "57", "76", "93", "14", "21", "98", "15", "83", "68", "49", "30", "0", "97", "64", "88", "48", "73", "33", "31", "37", "22", "No Label", "3", "6", "23", "94"], "gold": ["3", "6", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 699/2012\nof 30 July 2012\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in Russia and Turkey\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 1 November 2011, the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (\u2018the notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in Russia and Turkey (\u2018the countries concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 20 September 2011 by the Defence committee of the Steel Butt-Welding Fittings Industry of the European Union (\u2018the complainants\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 40 % of the total Union production of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainants, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the representatives of the countries concerned, known importers and users, of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(4)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(a) Sampling of Union producers\n(5)\nIn view of the apparent large number of Union producers, sampling was provided for in the notice of initiation for the determination of injury, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(6)\nIn the notice of initiation the Commission announced that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. This sample consisted of three companies, out of the 22 Union producers that were known to produce the like product prior to the initiation of the investigation.\n(7)\nThe sample was selected on the basis of volumes of sales and production that can reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sampled Union producers are based in four Member States and account for 48 % of total Union sales of all Union producers, and for 64 % of the producers who came forward. No interested party opposed to the proposed sample.\n(b) Sampling of unrelated importers\n(8)\nIn view of the potentially high number of unrelated importers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product under investigation during the investigation period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011.\n(9)\nOf the 38 unrelated importers that the Commission contacted, only 5 companies replied to the sampling questions within the deadline. One company turned out to be a user rather than an importer. Therefore it was considered that no sampling was necessary, and questionnaires were sent to all four importers that came forward. In the end, only two importers replied to the questionnaire and cooperated fully in the investigation.\n(c) Sampling of exporting producers\n(10)\nIn view of the apparent high number of exporting producers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product under investigation during the investigation period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011. The authorities of the countries concerned were also consulted.\n(11)\nAs concerns Russia, no exporting producers cooperated in the investigation. As regards Turkish exporting producers, three companies came forward; therefore the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary in respect of Turkey. The three cooperating Turkish companies represent the majority of Turkish exports to the Union during the investigation period.\n(d) Questionnaire replies and verifications\n(12)\nIn order to carry out its analysis, the Commission sent questionnaires to all three cooperating Turkish exporting producers as well as to the sampled Union producers and the cooperating unrelated importers and users.\n(13)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from all three cooperating Turkish exporting producers, from all sampled Union producers, two unrelated Union importers and four users.\n(14)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the purpose of a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies.\nExporting producers in Turkey\n-\nRSA Tesisat Malzemeleri San ve Ticaret A\u0218, K\u00fc\u00e7\u00fckk\u00f6y, Istanbul, Turkey;\n-\nSARDO\u011eAN End\u00fcstri ve Ticaret, Kurtk\u00f6y Pendik, Istanbul, Turkey;\n-\nUNIFIT Boru Baglanti Elemanlari Ltd Sti, Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey.\nUnion producers\n-\nERNE Fittings, Schlinz, Austria;\n-\nVirgilio CENA & Figli SpA, Brescia, Italy.\n3. Investigation period\n(15)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 2008 to the end of the investigation period (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n4. Measures in force in respect of other third countries\n(16)\nAnti-dumping measures are in force in respect of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in China, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand, and following circumvention practices also in respect of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in China consigned from Indonesia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Taiwan (with certain exceptions) (3). The countries mentioned in the preceding sentence shall hereafter be referred to as \u2018countries under anti-dumping measures\u2019.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(17)\nThe product concerned is tube and pipe fittings (other than cast fittings, flanges and threaded fittings), of iron or steel (not including stainless steel), with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 609,6 mm, of a kind used for butt-welding or other purposes, currently falling within CN codes ex 7307 93 11, ex 7307 93 19 and ex 7307 99 80 (\u2018the product concerned\u2019).\n(18)\nThe production process uses seamless or welded steel pipes for the production of elbows, reducers and tees, while for the manufacturing of caps, normally steel sheets are used as raw material. The elbows and reducers are made by cutting and forming, bending or reducing. Tees are made by using hydro-pressure, and caps are made by the forming of the sheets or plates. These are normally followed by chamfering and shot-blasting before the packaging. In certain cases also galvanisation is applied to the product. All types of products share the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and same basic uses.\n(19)\nTube and pipe fittings are used in the petrochemical industry, construction, energy generation, shipbuilding and industrial installations. They are used in order to connect tubes or pipes with each other in all the above applications.\n2. Like product\n(20)\nThe product concerned and certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel sold on the domestic market in the countries concerned as well as certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel sold in the Union by the Union industry were found to have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and the same basic uses. They are therefore provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n1. Russia\n(21)\nAs mentioned in recital 11 above, no Russian exporting producer cooperated in this investigation. Therefore, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the dumping calculations for Russia were made on the basis of the facts available, as explained below.\n1.1. Normal value\n(22)\nIn the absence of cooperation by any Russian exporting producer, the normal value for Russia was calculated on the basis of the facts available.\n(23)\nIt should be recalled that the complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping in respect of Russian imports of the product concerned. The calculation leading to that evidence was based on a constructed normal value for Russia, in the absence of more detailed information. Nevertheless, for the purpose of establishing a more precise normal value, the Commission provisionally decided that the normal value for Russia be constructed on the basis of information obtained during the investigation from those Turkish exporting producers that use Russian seamless steel pipes and tubes as input for the production of the product concerned. Indeed, the cost of raw material represents the vast majority of total manufacturing costs of the product concerned; therefore this method was considered as the most reasonable to establish the normal value for Russia on the basis of the available facts.\n(24)\nThe normal value for Russia was thus calculated by determining the weighted average normal value of those cooperating Turkish exporting producers that purchase part of their raw material from Russia.\n(25)\nIt is important to note that the resulting normal value was determined for the product type (elbows) representing the highest volume of imports, instead of all types of the product concerned, in order to allow a representative comparison with the export price (see in the following recitals).\n1.2. Export price\n(26)\nIn the absence of more detailed price information, the export price for imports of the product concerned originating in Russia was established on the basis of Eurostat import data. Given the large variety of the product mix declared under certain CN codes, the export price was determined by limiting the use of Eurostat data to the product type (elbows) representing the highest volume of imports, which is considered to be representative for all the product concerned. The export price was thus based on the CN code 7307 93 11.\n(27)\nThe above Eurostat import figures had to be adjusted in view of the fact that certain import transactions from Russia to Bulgaria, Estonia and Lithuania contained wrong declarations, most likely due to product misclassifications. These transactions were identified by using the imports statistics made available in the database pursuant to Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation and were removed from the calculation of the export price in order to avoid using a distorted export price in the dumping calculation.\n1.3. Comparison\n(28)\nThe dumping margin was established by comparing the ex-works export price based on the Eurostat data with the normal value for Russia as established above.\n(29)\nIn order to establish the ex-works export price, the CIF export price based on the Eurostat data (and corrected to remove the distortions as outlined above) was adjusted by the cost of transportation. For this purpose, the cost of transportation as calculated in the complaint was used since it was considered to be a reasonable estimate.\n1.4. Dumping margin\n(30)\nThe country-wide dumping margin was expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.\n(31)\nOn the basis of the above, the country-wide provisional dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is the following:\nCompany\nProvisional dumping margin\nAll companies\n23,8 %\n2. Turkey\n2.1. Normal value\n(32)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first established for each of the three cooperating exporting producers whether its total domestic sales of the like product were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of its total volume of export sales of the product concerned to the Union. The investigation established that the domestic sales of the like product were representative for all cooperating exporting producers.\n(33)\nThe Commission subsequently identified those product types sold domestically by the companies having overall representative domestic sales that were identical or closely resembling with the types sold for export to the Union.\n(34)\nFor each type of the like product sold by the exporting producers on their domestic market and found to be comparable with the type of the product concerned sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the volume of that product type sold on the domestic market to independent customers during the IP represented around 5 % of the total volume of the comparable product type sold for export to the Union. The investigation established that in the case of each of the three companies, for the majority of product types there were representative domestic sales.\n(35)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether each type of the product concerned sold domestically in representative quantities could be considered as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for each product type the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market during the investigation period.\n(36)\nWhere the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average sales price was equal to or higher than the unit cost, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of all domestic sales prices of the type in question.\n(37)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that product type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as the weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of the type in question.\n(38)\nThe investigation established that the profitable sales of certain comparable product types were more than 80 % of total domestic sales and, thus, for these sales all domestic sales were used in calculating the average price for normal value. For the other product types also considered to be sold in the ordinary course of trade only the profitable sales were used.\n(39)\nWhere the product types were all sold at a loss, it was considered that they were not sold in the ordinary course of trade. For product types not made in the ordinary course of trade, as well as for the product types that were not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, normal value had to be constructed. All three investigated companies sold such product types for export to the Union, albeit in limited quantities.\n(40)\nTo construct normal value pursuant to Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, the selling, general and administrative (\u2018SG&A\u2019) expenses incurred and weighted average profit realised by the cooperating exporting producers concerned on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period, was added to their own average cost of manufacturing during the investigation period. For product types sold in non-representative quantities in the domestic market, the weighted average profit and SG&A in the ordinary course of trade of these non-representative sales were used to construct normal value.\n2.2. Export price\n(41)\nIn all cases the product concerned was exported to independent customers in the Union, and therefore, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.\n(42)\nOne of the three cooperating Turkish companies had very limited export sales to the Union during the investigation period. The company concerned claimed that they would like to export more to the Union but were unable to offer low enough prices to importers, and requested that this fact be taken into account in our analysis.\n(43)\nHowever, as regards the dumping calculation for this company, it had to be based on their limited sales. Indeed even if the sales of the company to the Union were limited, they cannot be ignored and can be the sole basis for the calculation of an individual dumping margin for this company. In any event, the inability of the company to sell more due to its allegedly high prices cannot be viewed as a factor to influence the dumping calculation regarding this company.\n2.3. Comparison\n(44)\nThe normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Appropriate adjustments were granted in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence. In particular, an adjustment was granted for freight and insurance costs including freight in the exporting country, discounts, commissions, credit costs and bank charges.\n2.4. Dumping margins\n(45)\nThe provisional dumping margins were expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.\n(a) Dumping margin for companies investigated\n(46)\nPursuant to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the individual dumping margin for one of the three cooperating exporting producers was established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with the company\u2019s weighted average export price of the product concerned to the Union.\n(47)\nHowever, as concerns the other two cooperating Turkish producers, the dumping calculations in their respect showed that the companies conducted targeted dumping in terms of a given time period as well as in respect of given customers and regions. Indeed there was a clear pattern of their export prices which differed significantly among different purchasers, regions as well as time periods. Furthermore, the dumping calculation based on the comparison of a weighted average normal value to a weighted average of export prices did not reflect the full degree of dumping being practised by the two producers concerned.\n(48)\nTherefore, in order to reflect the full amount of dumping being practised by the two companies concerned, in accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the normal value established on a weighted average basis was compared in their case to prices of all individual export transactions to the Union.\n(b) Dumping margin for non-cooperating companies\n(49)\nAs regards all non-cooperating Turkish exporting producers, a residual dumping margin was established. Given that the level of cooperation was considered to be relatively low (the volume of exports of the three cooperating Turkish companies represented less than 80 % of total Turkish exports to the Union during the IP), the residual dumping margin was based on a reasonable method leading to a margin which is higher than the highest among the individual margins of the three cooperating companies. This margin was established on the basis of the sales of representative product types made by the Turkish cooperating producer with the highest dumping margin of the three cooperating companies.\n(50)\nOn the basis of the above, the provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are the following:\nCompany\nProvisional dumping margin\nRSA\n9,6 %\nSardogan\n2,9 %\nUnifit\n12,1 %\nAll other companies\n16,7 %\nD. INJURY\n1. Union production and Union industry\n(51)\nDuring the IP, the like product was manufactured by 22 producers in the Union. Within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation, all 22 existing Union producers constitute the Union industry and they will therefore be hereafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\n(52)\nAs indicated under recital 7 above, the three sampled Union producers represent around 50 % of the total Union sales of the like product.\n2. Union consumption\n(53)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market based on the information obtained from the questionnaire replies of the sampled companies, from the estimates provided in the complaint for the remaining Union producers and the import volumes data from Eurostat.\n(54)\nUnion consumption dropped considerably by 40 % between 2008 and the IP. It has decreased by 44 % in 2009, remained at that level in 2010, before increasing slightly by 4 percentage points in the IP.\nTable 1\nUnion consumption\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n98 197\n55 172\n54 878\n58 706\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n56\n56\n60\n3. Imports from the countries concerned\n3.1. Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned\n(55)\nThe Commission examined whether imports of the product concerned originating in Russia and Turkey should be assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(56)\nFor both countries concerned, the investigation showed that the dumping margins were above the de minimis threshold as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation and the volume of dumped imports from these two countries was not negligible in the sense of Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation.\n(57)\nWith regard to the conditions of competition between imports from Russia and Turkey and the like product, the investigation revealed that the producers from these countries use the same sales channels and sell to similar categories of customers. Moreover, the investigation also revealed that the imports from both these countries had an increasing trend in terms of market shares in the period considered.\n(58)\nTwo cooperating Turkish exporters argued that accumulation of imports from Russia and Turkey is not appropriate in this case, as imports from these countries show different trends in terms of volume and prices.\n(59)\nIt is noted in this regard that the investigation established that while imports from Turkey are relatively stable in terms of volumes, imports from Russia are increasing. However, given the contraction in demand in the period considered, the market shares of imports from both countries are increasing. At the same time their pricing does not appear to be substantially different, at least in the period between 2009 and the IP (the high average price of Russian imports in 2008 is likely to be due to incorrect reporting) with Russian average prices being somewhat lower but very close to the average Turkish prices.\n(60)\nIn view of the above, it is provisionally considered that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met and that imports from Russia and Turkey should be examined cumulatively.\n3.2. Volume of dumped imports\n(61)\nThe volume of dumped imports of the product concerned from the countries concerned into the Union market has increased over the period considered by 46 %. More specifically, imports decreased by 31 % in 2009, just before a massive increase in 2010 by 89 percentage points, followed by a slight decrease in the IP by some 12 percentage points. The volume of dumped imports in the IP was 2 935 tonnes.\nTable 2\nDumped imports from the countries concerned\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n2 009\n1 392\n3 174\n2 935\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n69\n158\n146\nMarket share\n2 %\n3 %\n6 %\n5 %\nSource: Eurostat\n3.3. Market share of dumped imports\n(62)\nThe corresponding market share of dumped imports from the countries concerned has more than doubled over the period considered, increasing from 2 % to 5 %.\n3.4. Prices\n(a) Price evolution\n(63)\nThe table below shows the average price of dumped imports from the countries concerned, at the Union frontier duty unpaid, as reported by Eurostat. During the period considered the average price of imports from the countries concerned remained generally stable at EUR 1 961 per tonne, with an exception in 2010 when they dropped by some EUR 150.\nTable 3\nAverage prices of dumped imports\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nAverage selling prices per tonne\n1 961\n1 936\n1 788\n1 961\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n99\n91\n100\nSource: Eurostat\n(b) Price undercutting\n(64)\nA type-to-type price comparison was made between the selling prices of the cooperating Turkish exporting producers and the sampled Union producers\u2019 selling prices in the Union. Given that Russian exporters did not cooperate with the investigation, the undercutting calculation was performed using average CIF prices reported in Eurostat and average Union producers\u2019 selling prices in the Union. Adjustments were applied where necessary with regard to both countries concerned to take account of the level of trade and post-importation costs, including the customs duty in the case of Russia.\n(65)\nThe comparison showed that during the IP, the dumped product concerned originating in the countries concerned sold in the Union undercut the Union industry\u2019s prices by up to approximately 30 %.\n4. Situation of the Union industry\n(66)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.\n(67)\nAs explained above, the Commission had recourse to sampling of Union producers. For the purpose of the injury analysis, the injury indicators have been established at the following two levels:\n-\nThe macroeconomic elements (production, capacity, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity, prices and magnitude of dumping margins and recovery from the effects of past dumping) were assessed at the level of the whole Union production, on the basis of the information collected from the cooperating producers and on an estimation based on data from the complaint for the other Union producers.\n-\nThe analysis of microeconomic elements (stocks, wages, profitability, return on investments, cash flow, ability to raise capital and investments) was carried out for the sampled Union producers on the basis of their information.\n4.1. Macroeconomic elements\n(a) Production\n(68)\nThe Union production decreased by 44 % between 2008 and the IP. More specifically, it decreased by 47 % in 2009 and by a further 2 percentage points in 2010 before increasing slightly by 5 percentage points in the IP, when it reached 53 653 tonnes.\nTable 4\nProduction\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n95 079\n49 917\n48 017\n53 653\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n53\n51\n56\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint\n(b) Production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(69)\nThe production capacity of the Union producers remained stable throughout the period considered at 179 912 tonnes.\nTable 5\nProduction capacity and utilisation\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n179 912\n179 912\n179 912\n179 912\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n100\n100\n100\nUtilisation rate\n53 %\n28 %\n27 %\n30 %\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n53\n51\n56\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint\n(70)\nCapacity utilisation was 53 % in 2008, decreased to 28 % in 2009 to 27 % in 2010 and slightly increased in the IP to 30 %. The development of the utilisation rate clearly reflects the production trend as the capacity remained stable.\n(c) Sales volume\n(71)\nThe sales volume of the Union producers to unrelated customers on the Union market decreased by 38 % in the period considered. The sales decreased by 45 % in 2009, stayed at that level in 2010 and modestly increased in the IP by 7 percentage points. During the IP the Union sales were at 42 379 tonnes.\nTable 6\nUnion sales\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n68 870\n37 649\n37 890\n42 379\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n55\n55\n62\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint\n(d) Market share\n(72)\nThe market share of the Union producers was relatively stable in the period considered and even increased in the IP to 72 %. The increased market share is a reflection of the fact that the sales volumes of the Union producers dropped slightly less than the consumption in the period.\nTable 7\nMarket share of the Union producers\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nMarket share\n70 %\n68 %\n69 %\n72 %\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n97\n98\n103\nSource: questionnaire replies, complaint and Eurostat\n(e) Growth\n(73)\nGiven that the consumption decreased by 40 % between 2008 and the IP, it is concluded that the Union producers could not benefit from any growth of the market.\n(f) Employment\n(74)\nThe employment level of the Union producers shows a decrease of 18 % between 2008 and the IP. More specifically, the number of people employed decreased significantly from 982 in 2008 to 824 in 2009 or by 16 % and remained close to this level in 2010 before further dropping to 801 in the IP.\nTable 8\nEmployment\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnits (persons)\n982\n824\n833\n801\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n84\n85\n82\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint\n(g) Productivity\n(75)\nProductivity of the Union producers\u2019 workforce, measured as output (tonnes) per person employed per year, decreased by 31 % in the period considered. This reflects the fact that production decreased at a faster pace than the employment level.\nTable 9\nProductivity\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnits (tonnes per employee)\n194\n121\n115\n134\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n63\n60\n69\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint\n(h) Sales prices\n(76)\nThe annual average sales prices of the Union producers on the Union market to unrelated customers decreased in the period considered by over 10 %. In detail, the average prices initially increased in 2009 by some 12 % only to fall sharply in 2010 by 23 percentage points and it remained at this level in the IP. In the IP the average price of the Union producers was at EUR 3 096 per tonne.\nTable 10\nAverage prices of Union producers\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnits (EUR/tonne)\n3 489\n3 911\n3 116\n3 096\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n112\n89\n89\nSource: questionnaire replies and complaint\n(77)\nAs indicated above, the sales prices of the Union industry were undercut by the dumped imports from Russia and Turkey.\n(i) Magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping\n(78)\nGiven the volume, market share and prices of the imports from Russia and Turkey, the impact on the Union industry of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible. It is important to recall that as indicated in recital 16 above anti-dumping measures are in force against eight countries. Given that in the period considered by this investigation the Union industry lost sales and suffered losses, no actual recovery from the past dumping can be established and it is considered that Union production remains vulnerable to the injurious effect of any dumped imports on the Union market.\n4.2. Microeconomic elements\n(a) Stocks\n(79)\nThe level of closing stocks of the sampled Union producers decreased between 2008 and the IP by 18 %. In detail, stocks increased moderately in 2009 by 2 % and later decreased by 13 percentage points in 2010 and by further 7 percentage points in the IP. In the IP the closing stock of the sampled Union producers was at 5 338 tonnes.\nTable 11\nClosing stock\nSample\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnit (tonnes)\n6 526\n6 661\n5 822\n5 338\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n102\n89\n82\nSource: questionnaire replies\n(b) Wages\n(80)\nThe annual labour cost decreased by 10 % between 2008 and the IP. More specifically, the labour cost decreased significantly in 2009 by almost 20 % (corresponding to the reduced employment) and later on increased in 2010 by 4 percentage points in 2010 and by further 5 percentage points in the IP.\nTable 12\nAnnual labour cost\nSample\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnits (EUR)\n26 412 013\n21 500 757\n22 490 982\n23 860 803\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n81\n85\n90\nSource: questionnaire replies\n(c) Profitability and return on investments\n(81)\nDuring the period considered, the profitability of the sampled producers\u2019 sales of the like product on the Union market to unrelated customers, expressed as a percentage of net sales, decreased from healthy profits to significant losses. More specifically, the profits fell from 9,6 % in 2008 to - 1,2 % in 2009 and deteriorated further in 2010 by falling to - 7,8 %. The situation slightly improved in the IP when the losses were at - 7,0 %.\nTable 13\nProfitability and return on investments\nSample\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nProfitability of Union sales\n9,6 %\n-1,2 %\n-7,8 %\n-7,0 %\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n-12\n-81\n-73\nROI\n23,9 %\n-1,7 %\n-9,4 %\n-10,6 %\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n-7\n-39\n-44\nSource: questionnaire replies\n(82)\nThe return on investments (\u2018ROI\u2019), expressed as the profit in percent of the net book value of investments, broadly followed the profitability trend.\n(d) Cash flow and ability to raise capital\n(83)\nThe net cash flow from operating activities was positive at EUR 9,3 million in 2008. It improved modestly in 2009 to EUR 9,8 million, but deteriorated in 2010 and fell to only EUR 1,5 million before reaching the negative EUR - 4,6 million in the IP.\n(84)\nThere were no indications that the Union industry encountered difficulties in raising capital, mainly due to the fact that some of the producers are incorporated in larger groups.\nTable 14\nCash flow\nSample\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnits (EUR)\n9 279 264\n9 851 842\n1 470 524\n-4 662 347\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n106\n16\n-50\nSource: questionnaire replies\n(e) Investments\n(85)\nThe sampled companies\u2019 annual investments in the production of the like product decreased constantly during the period considered. The biggest drop was in 2009 with a 32 % decrease followed by a 25 percentage points decline in 2010 and a further 8 percentage points in the IP. Overall the annual investment fell from EUR 8,3 million in 2008 to EUR 2,9 million in the IP.\nTable 15\nNet investments\nSample\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nUnits (EUR)\n8 309 731\n5 658 145\n3 579 323\n2 946 383\nIndex (2008=100)\n100\n68\n43\n35\nSource: questionnaire replies\n5. Conclusion on injury\n(86)\nThe analysis of the macroeconomic data show that the Union producers decreased significantly their production and sales during the period considered. This coincided with a drop in demand on the Union market, hence a slight increase in the Union\u2019s industry market share. The capacity utilisation declined from an already low 53 % in 2008 to as low as 30 % in the IP. Employment also decreased by 18 %.\n(87)\nAt the same time the relevant microeconomic indicators show a clear deterioration of the economic situation of the sampled Union producers. The developments of prices, profitability and return on investment show a very negative picture dropping from healthy levels in 2008 to substantial losses in the IP. Cash flow also deteriorated significantly.\n(88)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is provisionally concluded that the Union industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\nE. CAUSATION\n1. Introduction\n(89)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports have caused injury to the Union industry to a degree that enables it to be classified as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time have injured the Union industry, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n2. Effect of the dumped imports\n(90)\nBetween 2008 and the IP, the volume of the dumped imports of the product concerned increased by 46 % in a market contracting by 40 %, which resulted in an increase of their market share from 2 % to 5 %.\n(91)\nThe increase in dumped imports of the product concerned from the countries concerned over the period considered coincided with a downward trend in all injury indicators of the Union industry, with the exception of market share. The Union industry lost 38 % of their Union sales and the sales prices decreased by 11 % due to the price pressure exerted by low-priced dumped imports on the Union market.\n(92)\nThe significant price undercutting prevented the Union industry from passing on the increased production costs, which resulted in decreasing and negative profitability levels during the IP.\n(93)\nBased on the above it is provisionally concluded that the low-priced dumped imports from Russia and Turkey are causing material injury to the Union industry.\n3. Effect of other factors\n3.1. Imports from other third countries\n(94)\nDuring the period considered, there were significant imports from other third countries, including from countries under anti-dumping measures. The total market share of imports from countries other than Russia and Turkey has decreased between 2008 and the IP from 28 % to 23 %.\n(95)\nThe following table shows the development of import volumes, prices and market shares of countries under anti-dumping measures and other third countries, all based on Eurostat data.\nTable 16\nImports from other countries\nCountry\n2008\n2009\n2010\nIP\nCountries under anti- dumping measures\nVolumes (tonnes)\n20 614\n13 286\n9 721\n9 784\nMarket share (%)\n21 %\n24 %\n18 %\n17 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n1 639\n1 749\n1 468\n1 563\nOther third countries\nVolumes (tonnes)\n6 705\n2 844\n4 093\n3 608\nMarket share (%)\n7 %\n5 %\n7 %\n6 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n2 279\n2 962\n2 319\n2 925\nTotal of all third countries except Russia and Turkey\nVolumes (tonnes)\n27 319\n16 131\n13 814\n13 392\nMarket share (%)\n28 %\n29 %\n25 %\n23 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n1 796\n1 963\n1 720\n1 930\n(96)\nAs indicated in the table above, imports from the eight countries under anti-dumping measures continued to penetrate the Union market although their market share declined from 21 % in 2008 to 17 % in the IP. The average prices of those imports are generally lower than those of the dumped imports from the countries concerned. Of course, the table above based on Eurostat data shows average CIF prices before the application of duties. Still, even when the anti-dumping duty is taken into account, the prices of those imports remain low and comparable with the prices of Russian and Turkish imports and are much below the average prices of the Union producers.\n(97)\nHowever, it is recognised that the product under investigation has a significant number of different types and the comparison of overall average prices might not be a meaningful indicator. At the same time, it is considered that the anti-dumping measures currently in force eliminate the injurious effect of those imports.\n(98)\nConsequently, and given that the market share of imports from the countries under measures is declining, it is provisionally concluded that any negative effect of these low priced imports is not such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports from the countries concerned and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(99)\nThe market share of imports from other third countries declined slightly during the period considered from 7 % in 2008 to 6 % in the IP. The average prices of those imports are generally higher than the dumped imports from the countries concerned, but somewhat lower than the average prices of the Union producers.\n(100)\nEven if the comparison of overall average prices might not be considered a meaningful indicator due to variety of product types, given the declining trend for those imports, it is provisionally concluded that any negative effect of imports from other third countries is also not such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports from the countries concerned and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n3.2. Impact of market contraction and the economic crisis\n(101)\nThe financial and economic crisis of 2008/09 is in all likelihood the reason behind the decreased consumption for pipe fittings. The consumption has dropped by over 40 % between 2008 and 2009 and remained at this low level throughout the rest of the period considered (although slightly increasing in the IP). Given that fixed costs make up to 40 % of the manufacturing costs of the Union producers, the decreased demand, sales and output result in significantly higher unit manufacturing costs. This obviously has an important impact on the profitability of the Union industry.\n(102)\nWhile recognising that drop in output could have an impact on the situation of the Union industry, especially in 2009 (when the drop actually occurred), it could be reasonably expected that the Union industry would be normally in a position to increase their prices at least in the medium to long term and pass on the cost increase in the following years. However, as evident from the dropping Union prices this was not the case, and it is considered that this was not possible due to severe undercutting by the dumped imports.\n(103)\nGiven the above circumstances, it is provisionally concluded that any negative effect of contraction in demand is not such as to break the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from Russia and Turkey.\n4. Conclusion on causation\n(104)\nIn conclusion, the dumped imports from Russia and Turkey have caused the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(105)\nOther factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry have also been analysed. In this respect, it was found that imports from other third countries, including from countries under anti-dumping measures and the impact of the contraction in demand, although possibly contributing to the injury, do not break the causal link.\n(106)\nBased on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors having an effect on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effect of the dumped imports, it is provisionally concluded that the dumped imports from the countries concerned have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n(107)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether, despite the provisional conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed for concluding that it is not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this particular case. The analysis of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers, and users of the product concerned.\n1. Interest of the Union industry\n(108)\nIt is expected that if measures are imposed, the price depression and losses will be mitigated and that the sales prices of the Union industry will start to recover, resulting in a significant improvement of the Union industry\u2019s financial situation.\n(109)\nOn the other hand, should anti-dumping measures not be imposed, most likely the deterioration of the Union industry\u2019s situation would continue. In such a scenario, the Union industry would possibly lose market share, as it is not able to follow the market prices set by dumped imports from the countries concerned. The likely effects would entail unnecessary cuts in costs and the closure of production facilities in the Union, resulting in substantial job losses.\n(110)\nTaking into account the above factors, it is provisionally concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would be in the interest of the Union industry.\n2. Interest of unrelated importers in the Union\n(111)\nAs indicated above, only two unrelated importers fully cooperated in this investigation by submitting a questionnaire reply. Only a small part of the turnover of these two importers was related to resales of the product concerned. Consequently, the impact of the measures is likely to be minimal.\n3. Interest of the users\n(112)\nFour users have cooperated in this proceeding by submitting a questionnaire reply. None of them imports the product in question from the countries concerned and they all have indicated that impact of the measures, if any, would not be meaningful.\n(113)\nGiven that no user importing from the countries concerned came forward, and in the absence of any information that would indicate the contrary, it can provisionally be concluded that the impact of measures on the user industry\u2019s profitability and economic situation will be rather limited.\n4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(114)\nIt can be concluded that the imposition of measures on dumped imports of the product concerned from Russia and Turkey is expected to provide an opportunity for the Union industry to improve its situation through increased sales volumes, sales prices and profits. While some negative effects may occur in the form of cost increases for certain importers, they are likely to be limited.\n(115)\nTwo cooperating Turkish exporters argued that imposition of measures against a small exporting country like Turkey would practically leave the whole Union market in the hands of few producers with a resulting negative impact on the competitive environment.\n(116)\nIt is noted in this regard that as a matter of rule an anti-dumping duty is not meant to be prohibitive and seal off the trade flows from the countries under investigation. Measures are supposed to level the playing field between different market players. At the same time it is noted that on the Union market there are more than 20 European manufacturers and imports from other third countries are significant. Consequently, any reservations with regard to competitive environment on the Union market do not appear to be warranted.\n(117)\nIn the light of the above, it is provisionally concluded that no compelling reasons exist against the imposition of provisional measures on imports of the product concerned originating in Russia and Turkey.\nG. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(118)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional measures should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in Russia and Turkey in order to prevent further injury to the Union industry by the dumped imports.\n1. Injury elimination level\n(119)\nThe provisional measures on imports originating in the countries concerned should be imposed at a level sufficient to eliminate dumping, without exceeding the level of injury caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports. When calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it is considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and obtain overall a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports.\n(120)\nGiven that the established undercutting margins are in all cases higher than the respective dumping margins and that the Union industry suffered losses in the IP, any calculated injury elimination level would per se be always even higher. Consequently, it was considered that a detailed calculation of the injury levels is not necessary.\n2. Provisional measures\n(121)\nIn the light of the foregoing and pursuant to Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that a provisional anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in Russia and Turkey at the level of the lower of the dumping margin and injury elimination level found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule, which is in all cases the dumping margin.\n(122)\nFor Russia, in the absence of cooperation by Russian exporting producers, a country-wide dumping margin was calculated as explained in recitals 21 to 31 above.\n(123)\nFor Turkey, given that the level of cooperation was considered to be relatively low, the residual dumping margin was based on a reasonable method leading to a margin which is higher than the highest among the individual margins of the three cooperating companies as explained in recital 49 above.\n(124)\nOn the basis of the above, the proposed duty rates are:\nCountry\nCompany\nProvisional anti-dumping duty\nRussia\nAll companies\n23,8 %\nTurkey\nRSA\n9,6 %\nSardogan\n2,9 %\nUnifit\n12,1 %\nAll other companies\n16,7 %\n(125)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the countries concerned and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(126)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting-up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (4) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(127)\nIn order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the duty level for all other companies should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers, but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.\nH. FINAL PROVISION\n(128)\nIn the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of tube and pipe fittings (other than cast fittings, flanges and threaded fittings), of iron or steel (not including stainless steel), with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 609,6 mm, of a kind used for butt-welding or other purposes, currently falling within CN codes ex 7307 93 11, ex 7307 93 19 and ex 7307 99 80 (TARIC codes 7307931191, 7307931193, 7307931194, 7307931195, 7307931199, 7307931991, 7307931993, 7307931994, 7307931995, 7307931999, 7307998092, 7307998093, 7307998094, 7307998095 and 7307998098) and originating in Russia and Turkey.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below, shall be as follows:\nCountry\nCompany\nProvisional anti-dumping duty\nTARIC additional code\nRussia\nAll companies\n23,8 %\n-\nTurkey\nRSA Tesisat Malzemeleri San ve Ticaret A\u0218, K\u00fc\u00e7\u00fckk\u00f6y, Istanbul\n9,6 %\nB295\nSARDO\u011eAN End\u00fcstri ve Ticaret, Kurtk\u00f6y Pendik, Istanbul\n2,9 %\nB296\nUNIFIT Boru Baglanti Elemanlari Ltd Sti, Tuzla, Istanbul\n12,1 %\nB297\nAll other companies\n16,7 %\nB999\n3. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security, equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nWithout prejudice to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nPursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 July 2012.", "references": ["99", "54", "50", "11", "39", "7", "74", "9", "49", "70", "21", "13", "60", "55", "82", "30", "33", "17", "28", "12", "36", "44", "16", "77", "69", "80", "59", "86", "47", "24", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "84", "85", "91", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "84", "85", "91", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 829/2011\nof 17 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 August 2011.", "references": ["57", "73", "69", "27", "64", "11", "88", "19", "95", "75", "47", "46", "94", "13", "38", "86", "72", "59", "21", "79", "81", "1", "84", "62", "36", "55", "33", "41", "90", "66", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 496/2011\nof 20 May 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of sodium benzoate as a feed additive for weaned piglets (holder of the authorisation Kemira Oyj)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the au\u00e5thorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of sodium benzoate. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of sodium benzoate as a feed additive for weaned piglets, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 1 February 2011 (2) that the substance set out in the Annex, under the proposed conditions of use, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that this additive has shown a significant benefit in terms of a final body weight and an improvement in efficiency of feed conversion of the target species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of the substance shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this substance should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe substance specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018other zootechnical additives\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2011.", "references": ["9", "76", "98", "46", "4", "92", "42", "51", "17", "90", "83", "72", "29", "86", "53", "93", "87", "91", "95", "31", "61", "43", "59", "68", "81", "15", "79", "23", "57", "34", "No Label", "25", "65", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "65", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 28 June 2011\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Slovenia\n(2011/387/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (2), in particular Article 20 and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1, of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(5)\nSlovenia has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on Vehicle Registration Data (VRD).\n(6)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by Slovenia with the Netherlands, with a view to evaluating the results of the questionnaire concerning VRD.\n(7)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in Slovenia and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the Belgian/Dutch evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group with a view to evaluating the questionnaire concerning VRD.\n(8)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning VRD has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching of vehicle registration data, Slovenia has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Article 12 of that Decision as from the date of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 28 June 2011.", "references": ["85", "30", "72", "1", "90", "7", "99", "70", "67", "84", "19", "25", "86", "74", "61", "18", "34", "32", "12", "43", "41", "2", "15", "48", "46", "94", "76", "38", "6", "62", "No Label", "9", "40", "42", "53", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "40", "42", "53", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 631/2011\nof 21 June 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt is in the interest of the Union to suspend totally the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on a certain number of new products currently not listed in the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 (1).\n(2)\nFour products with CN and TARIC codes 2933399970, 2933399980, 8507803040 and 8507803050 which are currently listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 should be deleted because it is no longer in the interest of the Union to maintain the suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for those products.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to modify the product description of 15 suspensions in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 in order to take account of technical product developments and economic trends on the market. Those suspensions should be deleted from the list in that Annex and reinserted as new suspensions using new descriptions. Moreover, TARIC codes for 12 products should be changed.\n(4)\nThe suspensions for which those technical modifications are necessary should be deleted from the list of suspensions set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 and should be reinserted in that list using new product descriptions, or new TARIC codes.\n(5)\nIn the interest of clarity, the modified entries should be marked with an asterisk in the lists of inserted and deleted suspensions set out in Annex I and Annex II to this Regulation.\n(6)\nExperience has shown that it is necessary to provide an expiry date for the suspensions set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 to ensure that account is taken of technological and economic changes. This should not exclude the premature termination of certain measures or their continuation beyond the expiry date, if economic justification is provided, in accordance with the principles laid down in the Commission communication of 1998 concerning autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas (2).\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 1255/96 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nSince the suspensions laid down in this Regulation have to take effect from 1 July 2011, this Regulation should apply from that date and enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe rows for the products listed in Annex I to this Regulation are inserted;\n(2)\nthe rows for the products for which the CN and TARIC codes are set out in Annex II to this Regulation are deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 21 June 2011.", "references": ["88", "9", "42", "62", "45", "97", "98", "39", "47", "48", "61", "81", "6", "43", "41", "2", "87", "77", "93", "71", "16", "94", "19", "15", "58", "46", "73", "79", "35", "95", "No Label", "21", "22", "66", "67", "82"], "gold": ["21", "22", "66", "67", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 411/2010\nof 10 May 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006 (1) and in particular Article 18(1)(b) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex VI to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nAnnex VII to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 lists the enterprises owned or controlled by the Government of Burma/Myanmar or its members or persons associated with them, subject to restrictions on investment under that Regulation.\n(3)\nCouncil Decision 2010/232/CFSP of 26 April 2010 (2) identifies, in its Annexes II and III, the natural and legal persons to whom restrictions are to apply as provided for in Article 10 of that Decision, and Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 gives effect to that Decision to the extent that action at Union level is required. Annexes VI and VII to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 is replaced by the text of Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 is replaced by the text of Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2010.", "references": ["92", "63", "43", "52", "34", "21", "57", "87", "72", "8", "71", "2", "7", "48", "25", "42", "93", "64", "41", "46", "20", "75", "32", "18", "38", "69", "11", "19", "74", "30", "No Label", "3", "9", "12", "14", "23", "95", "96"], "gold": ["3", "9", "12", "14", "23", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 384/2011\nof 18 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 April 2011.", "references": ["21", "76", "13", "33", "94", "57", "15", "45", "25", "90", "48", "58", "89", "12", "0", "67", "72", "47", "73", "11", "53", "39", "2", "63", "83", "49", "4", "62", "29", "18", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 4 August 2010\non State aid C 40/08 (ex N 163/08) implemented by Poland for PZL Hydral S.A.\n(notified under document C(2010) 5406)\n(Only the Polish version is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/690/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to decision C(2008) 4753 final (1) by which the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and decision C(2008) 6371 final (2) extending the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of aid C 40/08 (ex N 163/08),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy letter of 27 March 2008, the Polish authorities gave notification of a restructuring plan for PZL Hydral S.A. (\u2018PZL Hydral\u2019). The Commission requested additional information by letter of 6 May 2008. By letter of 4 June 2008, the Polish authorities requested that the deadline for replying be extended until 27 June 2008; the Commission agreed by letter of 10 June 2008. The Polish authorities provided additional information concerning the restructuring plan by letter of 7 July 2008.\n(2)\nProceedings under Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the formal investigation procedure) were opened on 10 September 2008. The formal investigation procedure was subsequently extended by a decision adopted on 12 November 2008.\n(3)\nPoland submitted its observations on 14 October and 22 December 2008 and additional information on 7 April 2009. The Commission received no comments from third parties.\n(4)\nMeetings with the Polish authorities took place on 27 April and 14 October 2009 and 12 February 2010. On 18 December 2009 the Commission requested further information. Various exchanges of emails took place between the Commission and the Polish authorities and additional information was submitted by the Polish authorities by email on the following dates: 20 October 2009, 23 November 2009, 15 December 2009, 13 January 2010, 16 January 2010, 9 February 2010, 10 February 2010, 26 February 2010, 1 March 2010, 3 March 2010, 4 March 2010, 19 March 2010, 5 May 2010, 12 May 2010, 20 May 2010, 28 May 2010, 3 June 2010, 4 June 2010, 7 June 2010, 8 June 2010, 9 June 2010, 17 June 2010, 23 June 2010, 24 June 2010, 28 June 2010, 7 July 2010, 8 July 2010, 9 July 2010, 12 July 2010 and 13 July 2010.\nII. DESCRIPTION\nII.1. The beneficiaries: PZL Hydral and PZL Wroc\u0142aw\n(5)\nPZL Hydral was established in 1946 as a State enterprise. It is now a large company which until 2008 specialised in the production of civil and military industrial hydraulics, the design, manufacture and service of electronic hydromechanic fuel-regulating systems for aviation engines of all types, hydraulic control systems for aircraft and power hydraulics for helicopters. Since 2008 PZL Hydral has operated as the parent company of a group and no long has any industrial activities of its own.\n(6)\nIn 2003 the state-owned Industrial Development Agency (\u2018the IDA\u2019) acquired 80,94 % of shares in PZL Hydral (1 284 686 shares) from the Treasury. Further transfers of shares from the Treasury to the IDA took place in 2005 (499 103 shares), increasing the IDA's shareholding to 87,39 %, in 2007 (64 374 shares), increasing the shareholding to 90,54 %, and on 12 January 2010 (38 399 shares), increasing the shareholding to 92,42 %. Each of these transactions was effected at the symbolic price of PLN 1. Since 12 January 2010 the IDA has held 18 886 562 shares with a nominal value of PLN 18 865 620. The remaining shares (7,58 %), with a nominal value of 1 547 210, are currently held by the employees.\n(7)\nIn 2007 PZL Hydral controlled the following subsidiaries: Zak\u0142ad Odlewniczy \u2018Hydral\u2019 Sp. z o.o., whose main activity is casting, founding, processing and treating steel parts; Zak\u0142ad Cieplowniczy Term \u2018Hydral\u2019 Sp. z o.o., which produces and sells thermal energy; Przedsi\u0119biorstwo Us\u0142ugowo Handlowe Zak\u0142ad Produkcji Hydrauliki \u2018Hydral\u2019 Sp. z o.o., which produces valves and hydraulic distributors, processes metal equipment and provides repair services for hydraulic machinery and equipment, and PZL Wroc\u0142aw Sp. z o.o. (\u2018PZL Wroc\u0142aw\u2019). In addition, PZL Hydral controlled two other companies, now in the process of liquidation. At end-2006 the group as a whole had 795 employees.\n(8)\nPZL Wroc\u0142aw was founded as a fully-owned subsidiary of PZL Hydral in 2004 in order to create an operating company which would take over the operational arm of PZL Hydral, thereby allowing the latter to act as holding company and manage the restructuring process of the PZL Hydral group.\n(9)\nA part of PZL Wroc\u0142aw's assets was transferred from PZL Hydral to PZL Wroc\u0142aw either by way of an in-kind contribution to the capital of PZL Wroc\u0142aw or a sale at the book value in the books of PZL Hydral as of 2004, as shown in Table 1.\nTable 1\nTransfer of assets by way of an in-kind contribution or sale (in PLN)\nDate of transfer\nType of assets\nMethod of transfer (sale/in-kind contribution)\nBook value of assets\n30.12.2004\nfixed assets - movable\nin-kind contribution\n3 917 321,0\n30.12.2004\nintangible assets\nin-kind contribution\n801 332,0\n30.12.2004\nwork in progress\nin-kind contribution\n1 251 352,0\n30.12.2004\nmaterials\nin-kind contribution\n251 719,0\n30.11.2006\nfixed assets - movable\nin-kind contribution\n138 516,44\n30.11.2006\nmaterials\nin-kind contribution\n679 915,73\n30.11.2006\nfixed assets - movable\nin-kind contribution\n1 186 803,54\n30.11.2006\nintangible assets\nin-kind contribution\n290 268,95\n20.6.2007\nfixed assets - movable\nsale\n1 250 000,0\n30.12.2007\nfixed assets - movable\nin-kind contribution\n1 293 600,0\n21/23.12.2008\nwork in progress\nsale\n5 230 644,91\n27.3.2008\nmaterials\nsale\n2 985 631,15\n10.3.2009\nmaterials\nsale\n304 294,33\n(10)\nThe tangible fixed assets which PZL Wroc\u0142aw acquired from PZL Hydral were transferred either as an in-kind contribution to the capital of PZL Wroc\u0142aw or by way of a sale, as shown in Table 2. In both cases the value of the transaction was based on the assessment of an independent expert. When these fixed assets were transferred they had already been encumbered with mortgages on real estate in favour of the following public creditors: the Social Security Office, the Lower Silesia Region Tax Office and Wroc\u0142aw City Council in an amount of PLN 142,558 million.\nTable 2\nTransfer of real estate (in PLN)\nDate of transfer\nType of assets\nMethod of transfer (sale/in-kind contribution)\nBook value of assets\n30.12.2007\nfixed assets - real estate\nin-kind contribution\n8 337 000,0\n30.12.2007\nfixed assets - real estate\nsale\n10 309 508,56\n(11)\nOn 31 December 2007, PZL Hydral transferred to PZL Wroc\u0142aw funds with a nominal value of PLN 918 900 by way of a contribution to the capital of PZL Wroc\u0142aw.\n(12)\nThe rest of the assets transferred from PZL Hydral to PZL Wroc\u0142aw between 17 January 2006 and 27 April 2010 were sold at their book value and consisted of numerous transfers of assets under construction which were free of any pledges or mortgages.\n(13)\nThe overall value of the assets transferred from PZL Hydral to PZL Wroc\u0142aw between 2004 and 2010 amounted to PLN 44 708 791,02.\n(14)\n559 employees were transferred from PZL Hydral to PZL Wroc\u0142aw in 2008 and 37 employees were transferred in 2009.\n(15)\nPZL Wroc\u0142aw produces components for aircraft used by the Polish armed forces (until end-2007 this production was carried out by PZL Hydral) and provides services comprising the maintenance and repair of equipment used by the Polish army. Military products undergo certification specific to the product type in accordance with the technical requirements of the Polish armed forces. Individual documentation is provided at each stage and these products (and the associated maintenance services) are supervised by a resident military representative.\n(16)\nPZL Wroc\u0142aw currently operates on the basis of Permit No B-007/2007 issued by the Minister for Internal Affairs and Administration on 17 January 2007 for the performance of business activities in the area of:\n-\nproduction and marketing of devices to shoot off alarm, signal and gas munitions as defined in paragraph 8 (Types of arms and ammunition) of Appendix No 1 to the Cabinet Regulation dated 3 December 2001 on types of arms and ammunition and a list of military and police products and technologies for the production and marketing of which a permit is required (3),\n-\nproduction and marketing of military or police products as defined under heading \u2018WT V\u2019 and components and constituents of products as defined under heading \u2018WT II\u2019, \u2018WT III\u2019 and \u2018WT XIV\u2019 (Paragraphs 1-4 and 7-10) of Appendix No 2 (List of military and police products and technologies for the production and marketing of which a permit is required) to the above-mentioned Cabinet Regulation,\n-\nproduction and marketing of equipment for the manufacture of military or police products and marketing of technology for the manufacture of products intended for that purpose as defined under heading \u2018WT XIII\u2019 of Appendix No 2 (List of military and police products and technologies for the production and marketing of which a permit is required) to the above-mentioned Cabinet Regulation.\n(17)\nPZL Wroc\u0142aw holds the following certificates:\n-\ncertificate of compliance with the requirements of ISO 9001:2000 awarded by Bureau Veritas Certification,\n-\ncertificate of compliance with the requirements of AS9100-B awarded by Bureau Veritas Certification,\n-\ncertificate authorizing the production of aviation accessories meeting the requirements of the PART 21 aviation regulations awarded by the Polish Civil Aviation Office,\n-\ncertificate for performance of the technical servicing of products meeting the requirements of the PART 145 aviation regulations awarded by the Polish Civil Aviation Office,\n-\nNADCAP certificate awarded by the Performance Review Institute for selected special process: heat treatment (HT), non-destructive testing (NDT), chemical processes (CHP) and electro-discharge machining (EDM).\n(18)\nThe Polish authorities informed the Commission that the product line of PZL Hydral (and now PZL Wroc\u0142aw) is an important part of the economic development plan launched by the Polish Government in 1995 for 1996-2000 and in 2000 for 2001-2006.\n(19)\nMoreover, explicit reference is made to PZL Hydral or to its business activities in a number of implementing measures and governmental guidelines for the economic development plan, such as:\n-\nguidelines of the Minister/Head of the Central Planning Office dated 30 January 1995 on the economic development plan for 1996-2000,\n-\nguidelines of the Minister for Economic Affairs of July 2000 on the central economic development plan for 2001-2006,\n-\nOrganisation of Work Implemented by Companies for the Purposes of National Defence Act of 23 August 2001 (4),\n-\nCabinet Regulation of 24 June 2003 on facilities of particular significance to the security and defence of the state and special protection thereof (5),\n-\nCabinet Regulation of 20 August 2004 listing companies of particular economic and defence significance (6),\n-\nCabinet Regulation of 9 November 2007 listing companies of particular economic and defence significance (7).\n(20)\nCompanies entered on lists of this type are required to provide detailed annual reports on their defence production capacity (quantities, profile, values) in order to enable the Ministry to ensure that the military tasks are performed.\n(21)\nThe Polish authorities informed the Commission that the relevant permits and certificates (points 16 and 17) enable goods and services of specific quality to be supplied to special customers (enterprises of particular significance to the defence of the state and the Ministry of Defence). PZL Wroc\u0142aw (PZL Hydral in the past) does not just supply components of hydraulic systems, fuel systems and control systems; repairs to installed sub-assemblies are crucial to the functioning of the aircraft operated by the Polish armed forces (W-3, Mi-2, M28 Bryza and PZL 130 Orlik); the Polish authorities also emphasised that the W-3 and Mi-2 are the main helicopters used by the Polish army.\n(22)\nThe goods produced by PZL Hydral for the use of the armed forces have the corresponding NATO code under the NATO Standardisation Agreement and the company itself has a NATO code.\n(23)\nAs explained above in point 9 et seq., as of December 2004 PZL Hydral transferred assets to PZL Wroc\u0142aw. Only the assets transferred on 30 December 2007 (real estate) were encumbered by mortgages in favour of public creditors.\n(24)\nThe Polish authorities confirmed that since it started operating PZL Wroc\u0142aw has settled all its liabilities vis-\u00e0-vis public creditors on time, including social security contributions and taxes for its employees.\nII.2. Financial difficulties of PZL Hydral\n(25)\nPZL Hydral started to have difficulties in repaying liabilities to both its private and public creditors in 1998.\n(26)\nAt the end of 1998, PZL Hydral's private liabilities vis-\u00e0-vis banks and suppliers amounted to PLN 90,4 million. The bulk of these debts were owed to two banks: Bank [\u2026] (8) and Bank [\u2026].\n(27)\nPZL Hydral owed Bank [\u2026] PLN 54 million at the end of 1998 and PLN 86,4 million by November 2006, when a settlement agreement was signed, and its claim was finally settled in 2007. PZL Hydral owed Bank [\u2026] PLN 23 million at the end of 1998 and PLN 55,6 million by October 2003, and its claim was finally settled in 2004.\nTable 3\nChanges in the total amount owed by PZL Hydral to [\u2026] (PLN thousand)\n31.12.1998\n31.12.1999\n31.12.2000\n31.12.2001\n31.12.2002\n31.12.2003\n31.12.2004\n31.12.2005\n31.12.2006\nPrincipal\n44 447\n48 424\n51 605\n49 628\n37 416\n39 041\n38 741\n38 291\n35 377\nInterest\n9 583\n17 683\n26 194\n34 449\n29 157\n38 184\n40 920\n43 776\n51 018\nTotal\n54 030\n66 107\n77 798\n84 077\n66 573\n77 225\n79 721\n82 067\n86 395\nTable 4\nChanges in the total amount owed by PZL Hydral to [\u2026] (PLN thousand)\n31.12.1998\n31.12.1999\n31.12.2000\n31.12.2001\n31.12.2002\n31.12.2003\n31.12.2004\n31.12.2005\n31.12.2006\nPrincipal\n18 571\n21 986\n21 959\n21 127\n20 741\n19 825\n4 000\n0\n0\nInterest\n4 572\n5 983\n10 842\n16 759\n23 975\n35 773\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n23 143\n27 969\n32 801\n37 886\n44 716\n55 598\n4 000\n0\n0\n(28)\nThese private banks had first-rank collateral (see detailed description in points 32 and 34 below) and could have easily enforced their claims on the basis of bank enforcement orders. Under the 1997 Banking Act (9), banks can issue bank enforcement orders on the basis of their records or other documents relating to banking transactions. A bank enforcement order can serve as a basis for enforcement after the court has attached an enforceability clause to it. This is a much quicker way than is the case for other creditors, who must apply to the competent court prior to enforcement for a decision to be handed down. Despite this, the private creditors have not taken any forced enforcement action; in other words, they have not applied for bankruptcy proceedings to be instituted against PZL Hydral and nor have they taken any other action to enforce their claims against the assets.\n(29)\nWhen PZL Hydral experienced difficulties in repaying its loans in 1998-2006, the banks could, under the Civil Code, have charged it statutory interest at a rate determined by the Cabinet, as shown in Table 7. However, instead of charging this interest systematically, at times they merely charged interest at the rates shown in Table 5 and Table 6.\nTable 5\nInterest rates charged by Bank [\u2026] (USD loans based on LIBOR)\nYear\n1998\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\n2003\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\n%\n8,53\n8,71\n9,87\n8,50\n8,50\n8,50\n8,50\n8,50\n8,50\n8,50\nTable 6\nInterest rates charged by [\u2026] (USD loans based on LIBOR)\nYear\n1998\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\n2003\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\n%\n7,78\n7,96\n9,12\n6,08\n4,45\n3,62\n4,37\n6,26\n7,63\n7,37\nTable 7\nStatutory interest rates\nRok\n1998\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\n2003\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\n%\n34\n23\n23\n30\n18\n13\n12\n13\n11,5\n11,5\n(30)\nThe Polish authorities argue that these banks thought that they would receive a higher return if they contributed to the restructuring process of PZL Hydral. They closely followed negotiations with the first company that showed an interest in acquiring PZL Wroc\u0142aw, namely [\u2026] (see point 57 et seq.). The banks regularly monitored the economic situation of PZL Hydral on the basis of its financial reports, visits to its premises and market analysis.\n(31)\nBank [\u2026] finally settled its liabilities by way of a settlement agreement concluded in April 2003. It wrote off PLN 51,6 million and accepted the repayment of only PLN 4 million (7 %). The write-offs resulting from the settlement agreement were entered in PZL Hydral's books for the 2004 financial year.\n(32)\nBank [\u2026] agreed to settle on the basis of its own economic assessment despite holding first-rank priority mortgages. In particular, the bank secured its credit by establishing collateral of PLN 13,7 million on real estate, assigning all licence and commercial rights under the licence agreement concluded with [\u2026] regarding the production of air conditioning equipment to a value of USD 1,2 million (PLN 3 968 000 approx.) (10), transferring machines and equipment supplied by [\u2026] under the licence agreement to a value of USD 2,4 million (PLN 7 938 000 approx.) and assigning receivables from the sale of air conditioners to a value of at least USD 8 million annually (PLN 26,5 million approx.) (11).\n(33)\nIn November 2006 Bank [\u2026] agreed in a settlement agreement to write off PLN 86,4 million and accepted the repayment of only PLN 11,5 million. As such, only 13 % of the liability was eventually repaid by PZL Hydral. The rest, i.e. PLN 74,9 million, was written off.\n(34)\nBank [\u2026] accepted this low amount despite the fact that it had first-rank collateral on the most significant real estate on which most of the production depended and the administrative structures were located. This collateral consisted in particular of first-rank mortgages on two real properties for a total amount of PLN 19,75 million, a first-rank pledge on a technological line for the production of compressors in an amount of PLN 20 million, a first-rank assignment of receivables under sales agreements concluded for compressors worth PLN 20 million, a first-rank registered pledge on machinery and equipment with a total value of PLN 2,8 million and first-rank transfer agreements for movables worth PLN 2,65 million, PLN 2,4 million, PLN 0,56 million and PLN 1,1 million respectively. Moreover, the nature of the collateral would enable any potential buyer to continue production after purchase; would also be possible to transport the machines either as a whole or as sub-assemblies without dismantling them, should any potential buyer decide to move them.\n(35)\nAfter the agreements with the banks, the collateral on the fixed assets was released. As a result, the public creditors\u2019 position in respect of this collateral improved, i.e. they received a higher mortgage ranking (12).\n(36)\nIn 1998, the company's liabilities vis-\u00e0-vis public creditors based on claims arising under public law (i.e. claims from the Social Insurance Office, the Lower Silesia Region Tax Office, Wroc\u0142aw Psie Pole Tax Office, Lower Silesia Regional Office, Wroc\u0142aw City Council, the State Fund for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled) amounted to PLN 29 million. In addition, the Ministry of Finance had civil-law claims of PLN 9,4 million. These liabilities to individual public creditors evolved as shown in Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.\nTable 8\nLiabilities of PLZ Hydral vis-\u00e0-vis the Social Insurance Office (PLN thousand)\n31.12.1998\n31.12.1999\n31.12.2000\n31.12.2001\n31.12.2002\n31.12.2003\n31.12.2004\n31.12.2005\n31.12.2006\n31.12.2007\nPrincipal\n20 028\n27 477\n35 107\n42 963\n47 695\n55 935\n62 395\n69 296\n74 187\n74 903\nInterest\n9 219\n20 000\n32 651\n46 100\n60 810\n68 421\n76 653\n84 040\n88 835\n102 223\nTotal\n29 247\n47 477\n67 758\n89 063\n108 505\n124 356\n139 048\n153 336\n163 022\n177 126\nTable 9\nLiabilities of PLZ Hydral vis-\u00e0-vis Lower Silesia Regional Tax Office (PLN thousand)\n31.12.1998\n31.12.1999\n31.12.2000\n31.12.2001\n31.12.2002\n31.12.2003\n31.12.2004\n31.12.2005\n31.12.2006\n31.12.2007\nPrincipal\n1 700\n2 700\n3 656\n4 750\n6 198\n10 928\n12 471\n18 655\n20 769\n38 946\nInterest\n750\n1 100\n1 500\n1 950\n2 900\n3 200\n3 800\n5 347\n8 450\n10 553\nTotal\n2 450\n3 800\n5 156\n6 700\n9 098\n14 128\n16 271\n24 002\n29 219\n49 499\nTable 10\nLiabilities of PLZ Hydral vis-\u00e0-vis Wroc\u0142aw Psie Pole Tax Office (PLN thousand)\n31.12.1998\n31.12.1999\n31.12.2000\n31.12.2001\n31.12.2002\n31.12.2003\n31.12.2004\n31.12.2005\n31.12.2006\n31.12.2007\nPrincipal\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nInterest (13)\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n532\n532\n532\n532\nTotal\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n532\n532\n532\n532\nTable 11\nLiabilities of PLZ Hydral vis-\u00e0-vis Wroc\u0142aw City Council (PLN thousand)\n31.12.1998\n31.12.1999\n31.12.2000\n31.12.2001\n31.12.2002\n31.12.2003\n31.12.2004\n31.12.2005\n31.12.2006\n31.12.2007\nPrincipal\n1 682\n3 058\n4 510\n5 972\n7 556\n9 404\n11 299\n13 180\n14 465\n16 389\nInterest\n1 800\n2 200\n3 500\n5 500\n7 100\n7 950\n8 500\n9 065\n9 951\n10 698\nTotal\n3 482\n5 258\n8 010\n11 472\n14 656\n17 354\n19 799\n22 245\n24 416\n27 087\nTable 12\nLiabilities of PLZ Hydral vis-\u00e0-vis Lower Silesia Regional Office (PLN thousand)\n31.12.1998\n31.12.1999\n31.12.2000\n31.12.2001\n31.12.2002\n31.12.2003\n31.12.2004\n31.12.2005\n31.12.2006\n31.12.2007\nPrincipal\n0\n15\n37\n57\n76\n90\n90\n90\n567\n935\nInterest\n0\n2\n8\n14\n21\n29\n35\n40\n75\n136\nTotal\n0\n17\n45\n71\n97\n119\n125\n130\n642\n1 071\nTable 13\nLiabilities of PLZ Hydral vis-\u00e0-vis the State Fund for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled (PLN thousand)\n31.12.1998\n31.12.1999\n31.12.2000\n31.12.2001\n31.12.2002\n31.12.2003\n31.12.2004\n31.12.2005\n31.12.2006\n31.12.2007\nPrincipal\n2 446\n2 937\n3 457\n3 394\n4 313\n4 771\n4 927\n5 510\n5 577\n5 639\nInterest\n3 550\n3 900\n4 100\n4 308\n4 807\n5 080\n5 518\n6 040\n6 898\n7 245\nTotal\n5 996\n6 837\n7 557\n7 702\n9 120\n9 851\n10 445\n11 550\n12 476\n12 884\nTable 14\nLiabilities of PLZ Hydral vis-\u00e0-vis the Ministry of Finance (PLN thousand)\n31.12.1998\n31.12.1999\n31.12.2000\n31.12.2001\n31.12.2002\n31.12.2003\n31.12.2004\n31.12.2005\n31.12.2006\n31.12.2007\nPrincipal\n8 018,8\n14 395,5\n64 717,1\n64 717,1\n19 687,7\n19 646,5\n19 422,5\n18 773,1\n18 260,3\n18 260,3\nInterest\n1 372,9\n2 639,2\n9 627,6\n28 741,3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n193,7\n1 117,1\nTotal\n9 391,7\n17 034,7\n74 344,7\n93 458,4\n19 687,7\n19 646,5\n19 422,5\n18 773,1\n18 454,0\n19 377,4\n(37)\nThe public creditors charged the interest rates on arrears shown in Table 15. It is important to note that Tables 8 to 14 take into account partial repayments of sums and show the level at the year-end; therefore, the interest due in any given year is not directly related to the principal, which can fluctuate.\nTable 15\nInterest on tax arrears (14)\nYear\n1998\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\n2003\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\n2010\n%\n50\n35\n44\n40\n23\n15\n15\n14\n11\n12\n14\n11\n10\n(38)\nApart from charging the appropriate interest on tax arrears, the Social Security Office, the Lower Silesia Region Tax Office, Wroc\u0142aw Psie Pole Tax Office, Wroc\u0142aw City Council and the Lower Silesian Regional Office secured their claims vis-\u00e0-vis PZL Hydral by registering mortgages on its immovable assets. Tables 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 show changes in the mortgages on PZL Hydral's assets held by these public creditors.\nTable 16\nCollateral on PZL Hydral assets held by the Social Security Office\nYear\nAmount\nComments\n1\n1998\nPLN 21 996 411,92\ntotal amount of mortgages\n2\n1999\nPLN 21 996 411,92\ntotal amount of mortgages\n3\n2000\nPLN 21 996 411,92\ntotal amount of mortgages\n4\n2001\nPLN 28 660 990,95\ntotal amount of mortgages\na mortgage of PLN 6 664 579,03 was added\n5\n2002\nPLN 29 602 956,07\ntotal amount of mortgages\na mortgage of PLN 941 965,12 was added\n6\n2003\nPLN 37 315 430,58\ntotal amount of mortgages\na mortgage of PLN 7 712 474,51 was added\n7\n2004\nPLN 68 984 278,13\ntotal amount of mortgages\na mortgage of PLN 31 668 847,55 was added\n8\n2005\nPLN 82 625 551,83\ntotal amount of mortgages\na mortgage of PLN 1 364 127,70 was added\n9\n2006\nPLN 91 511 663,94\ntotal amount of mortgages\na mortgage of PLN 8 886 112,11 was added\n10\n2007\nPLN 96 153 021,00\ntotal amount of mortgages\na mortgage of PLN 4 641 357,06 was added\nTable 17\nCollateral on PZL Hydral assets held by the Lower Silesia Region Tax Office\nYear\nAmount\nComments\n1\n1998\n-\n-\n2\n1999\n-\n-\n3\n2000\n-\n-\n4\n2001\n-\n-\n5\n2002\n-\n-\n6\n2003\n-\n-\n7\n2004\n-\n-\n8\n2005\nPLN 5 692 649,25\ntotal amount of mortgages\n9\n2006\nPLN 5 692 649,25\ntotal amount of mortgages\n10\n2007\nPLN 5 692 649,25\ntotal amount of mortgages\nTable 18\nCollateral on PZL Hydral assets held by Wroc\u0142aw Psie Pole Tax Office\nYear\nAmount\nComments\n1\n1998\n-\n-\n2\n1999\n-\n-\n3\n2000\nPLN 112 759,61\ntotal amount of mortgages\n4\n2001\nPLN 212 138,61\ntotal amount of mortgages\na mortgage of PLN 99 379,00 was added\n5\n2002\nPLN 212 138,61\ntotal amount of mortgages\n6\n2003\nPLN 212 138,61\ntotal amount of mortgages\n7\n2004\nPLN 212 138,61\ntotal amount of mortgages\n8\n2005\nPLN 212 138,61\ntotal amount of mortgages\n9\n2006\nPLN 212 138,61\ntotal amount of mortgages\n10\n2007\nPLN 212 138,61\ntotal amount of mortgages\nTable 19\nCollateral on PZL Hydral assets held by Wroc\u0142aw City Council\nYear\nAmount\nComments\n1\n1998\nPLN 710 074,30\ntotal amount of mortgages\n2\n1999\nPLN 710 074,30\ntotal amount of mortgages\n3\n2000\nPLN 710 074,30\ntotal amount of mortgages\n4\n2001\nPLN 945 962,80\ntotal amount of mortgages\na mortgage of PLN 235 888,50 was added\n5\n2002\nPLN 2 119 622,40\ntotal amount of mortgages\na mortgage of PLN 1 173 659,60 was added\n6\n2003\nPLN 2 119 622,40\ntotal amount of mortgages\n7\n2004\nPLN 11 217 294,85\ntotal amount of mortgages\na mortgage of PLN 9 097 672,45 was added\n8\n2005\nPLN 11 217 294,85\ntotal amount of mortgages\n9\n2006\nPLN 12 589 452,85\ntotal amount of mortgages\na mortgage of PLN 3 538 324,00 was added\n10\n2007\nPLN 15 379 758,25\ntotal amount of mortgages\na mortgage of PLN 2 790 305,40 was added\nTable 20\nCollateral on PZL Hydral assets held by Lower Silesia Regional Office\nYear\nAmount\nComments\n1\n1998\n-\n-\n2\n1999\n-\n-\n3\n2000\n-\n-\n4\n2001\n-\n-\n5\n2002\nPLN 634 594,10\ntotal amount of mortgages\n6\n2003\nPLN 634 594,10\ntotal amount of mortgages\n7\n2004\nPLN 634 594,10\ntotal amount of mortgages\n8\n2005\nPLN 634 594,10\ntotal amount of mortgages\n9\n2006\nPLN 634 594,10\ntotal amount of mortgages\n10\n2007\nPLN 634 594,10\ntotal amount of mortgages\n(39)\nThe Polish authorities also noted that public creditors had taken into consideration the considerable increase in value of industrial real estate in Wroc\u0142aw from 2003 to 2008. Real estate prices increased by 100 % overall and the value of PZL Hydral's real estate increased by 300 %. Public creditors with mortgages on PZL Hydral's assets therefore experienced a de facto increase in the value of their collateral.\n(40)\nThe Polish authorities informed the Commission that the State Fund for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled and the Ministry of Finance did not hold any collateral (mortgages) on PZL Hydral's assets. However, the Ministry of Finance enforced part of its claims by way of an agreement with PZL Hydral concluded on 20 May 2002, under which PZL Hydral was to repay a substantial part of its liabilities by end-2002, as shown in Table 14.\n(41)\nAccording to the Polish authorities, public creditors - contrary to private creditors - undertook forced enforcement action through a court enforcement officer. Between 1998 and 2007 the Social Security Office issued enforcement titles for an amount of PLN 119,95 million, the Lower Silesia Region Tax Office for an amount of PLN 43,8 million and the State Fund for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled for an amount of PLN 2,1 million, but the amount actually obtained from enforcement did not reach the level of the liabilities indicated in the enforcement titles. The Polish authorities stressed that alternative options, such as taking possession of assets, were not deemed reasonable by the court enforcement officer to execute and made no economic sense. Other public creditors did not take any enforcement action but they observed the privatisation and restructuring process which, they believed, would provide them with a higher return than direct execution of their claims.\nTable 21\nSummary of public creditor enforcement action vis-\u00e0-vis PZL Hydral (1997-2009)\nYear\nRepaid public liabilities\n1\n1998\nPLN 206 349,90\n2\n1999\nPLN 0,00\n3\n2000\nPLN 674 100,75\n4\n2001\nPLN 4 922 525,14\n5\n2002\nPLN 3 209 042,05\n6\n2003\nPLN 223 928,70\n7\n2004\nPLN 1 960 765,69\n8\n2005\nPLN 3 641 223,35\n9\n2006\nPLN 4 472 476,92\n10\n2007\nPLN 9 455 133,89\n11\n2008\nPLN 54 590 790,45\n12\n2009\nPLN 4 500 000\nTotal\nPLN 87 846 336,84\n(42)\nBetween 1998 and 2009 public liabilities of PLN 87,846 million (26 %) were repaid.\n(43)\nThere has been a considerable increase in repayment of PZL Hydral's public liabilities since 2003.\nII.3. PZL Hydral as a company in difficulty\n(44)\nTable 22 shows the financial data of PZL Hydral for 1998-2009.\nTable 22\nSelected data from PZL Hydral's financial reports (PLN thousand)\n1998\n1999\n2000\n2001\n2002\n2003\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nRevenue from net sales\n44 088\n46 403\n45 691\n37 933\n35 500\n37 111\n34 651\n47 560\n48 618\n55 741\n32 757\n11 870\nProfit (loss) on sales\n(10 839)\n(1 546)\n2 004\n(8 772)\n(10 005)\n(9 420)\n(6 857)\n972\n49\n3 641\n(6 454)\n(165 020)\nNet profit (loss) (15)\n(13 661)\n(13 354)\n217\n18,473\n49,346\n(177 982)\n(48 151)\n(14 927)\n(1 076)\n61 578\n23 902\n46\nTotal assets\n203 936\n212 834\n228 344\n250 115\n192 013\n113 255\n86 966\n92 011\n76 986\n111 051\n35 661\n30 617\nShareholder's (negative) equity\n9 707\n3 078\n268\n18 440\n15 074\n(166 664)\n(214 815)\n(229 743)\n(250 500)\n(188 922)\n(165 020)\n(164 974)\nLong term liabilities and reserves\n194 231\n209 756\n228 075\n231 675\n176 939\n279 920\n301 781\n321 753\n327 486\n299 973\n200 681\n195 592\n(45)\nFrom 1998 until 2002, PZL Hydral had positive equity. As of 2003, it had negative equity and recorded systematic net losses until 2007. From 2007 until 2009, PZL Hydral made a profit. The value of PZL Hydral's assets decreased from PLN 203,936 million in 1998 to PLN 76,986 million in 2006. Long-term liabilities consistently increased from 1998 to 2001 and from 2003 to 2006, when they reached PLN 327,486 million.\n(46)\nAs explained above, from 2008 onwards PZL Hydral derived its income predominantly from selling services and stock produced in previous years and, to a limited extent, from its subsidiaries.\nII.4. PZL Wroc\u0142aw as a company in difficulty\n(47)\nAs regards the financial situation of PZL Wroc\u0142aw, neither in 2007, 2008 nor 2009 did PZL Wroc\u0142aw lose more than 50 % of its capital and nor did it meet the eligibility requirements for insolvency proceedings under Polish law. PZL Wroc\u0142aw's turnover amounted to PLN 5,3 million in 2006, PLN 23 million in 2007 and PLN 60 million in 2008. The net loss in 2006 was PLN 1 million, while in 2007 the net profit was PLN 0,04 million, increasing sharply to PLN 8,7 million in 2008.\n(48)\nAccording to PZL Wroc\u0142aw's financial reports, the value of its non current assets increased from PLN 4,8 million in 2006 to PLN 25,7 million in 2007, PLN 27 million in 2008 and PLN 29 million in 2009. Under the Polish Budget Act, financial resources for military purchases are allocated annually by the Ministry of Defence. In 2008 PZL Wroc\u0142aw received contracts for and sold military goods (e.g. hydraulic systems, pneumatic components for fuel control systems) to an amount of [\u2026] and provided the Ministry of Defence with maintenance services worth [\u2026], i.e. an overall amount of [\u2026].\n(49)\nThe Polish authorities also maintain that, until end-2008, the market on which PZL Wroc\u0142aw operated, i.e. the aviation and defence market, did not show any signs of slowing down.\n(50)\nIn 2009, however, PZL Wroc\u0142aw experienced financial difficulties as a result of a sharp fall in orders by the Ministry of Defence due to the economic crisis. In 2009, the value of ordered and sold military goods (e.g. hydraulic systems, pneumatic components for fuel control systems) fell to [\u2026], and the value of maintenance services provided fell to [\u2026]. As a result, sales of military goods decreased by [\u2026]% compared with 2008. Consequently, PZL Wroc\u0142aw recorded a net loss of PLN 8,3 million in 2009. Its turnover decreased from PLN 60 million in 2008 to PLN 41 million in 2009.\n(51)\nThe liabilities of the company increased from PLN 31 million in 2008 to PLN 35 million in 2009. Liabilities amounted to PLN 7 million in 2006 and to PLN 18,4 million in 2007.\n(52)\nThe Polish authorities informed the Commission that under Polish law (16) PZL Wroc\u0142aw was not yet eligible for bankruptcy proceedings. However, should the ongoing restructuring process of the Hydral Group based on the assumptions underpinning the restructuring plan for public-law liabilities and the framework agreement with the investor be unsuccessful, PZL Wroc\u0142aw will have to lodge an application for bankruptcy.\nII.5. The restructuring plan and the privatisation process\n(53)\nThe restructuring plan for PZL Hydral and PZL Wroc\u0142aw (\u2018the Plan\u2019) has to be seen in the context of Poland's attempts to privatise the viable parts of the business, particularly in the aviation and defence field.\n(54)\nIn 1998 a private consulting group, Business Management Finance S.A, prepared a strategy for restructuring PZL Hydral. The strategy comprised a diagnosis of the current financial status of PZL Hydral along with an analysis of costs and restructuring activities. It indicates that it would be reasonable to isolate some of PZL Hydral's assets and sell them to a private investor in order to restructure PZL Hydral's liabilities.\n(55)\nThe shareholders of PZL Hydral and, following its incorporation in 2004, of PZL Wroc\u0142aw, met regularly to consider privatising the group or parts thereof (PZL Wroc\u0142aw) and negotiated the terms of the transaction with the interested parties.\n(56)\nConsequently, the Polish authorities entered into negotiations with potential investors, which were closely followed by private (only for the first privatisation attempt with [\u2026]) and public creditors. The negotiations took place with the following companies: [\u2026] (2002-2006), [\u2026] (2007-2008), [\u2026] (2008) and, as of 2009, with the current investor, [\u2026] (\u2018[\u2026]\u2019 or \u2018the investor\u2019).\n(57)\nIn 2002, as a result of industrial cooperation, talks on the sale of PZL Hydral commenced with [\u2026], a global producer of aviation components with annual turnover in 2009 of [\u2026]. On 25 November 2002 [\u2026] and PZL Hydral concluded an agreement regarding non-disclosure of information. On 22 April 2003 [\u2026] sent a letter of intent to PZL Hydral in which it expressed its interest in the potential purchase of PZL Hydral's shares and its willingness to carry out a due diligence study. The due diligence study was performed in May 2003. In April 2005 [\u2026] extended the scope of the due diligence with a view to the potential purchase of PZL Wroc\u0142aw, which had been incorporated in 2004. In June 2005 the documentation was given to [\u2026]. In the second half of 2005 and the first half of 2006, numerous meeting were held with the representatives of [\u2026]. However, [\u2026] has not taken action to complete the transaction since November 2006.\n(58)\nAccording to the Polish authorities, [\u2026] withdrew from the negotiations because no solution had been found to the issue of the company's debt.\n(59)\nDuring these negotiations, the public and private creditors were regularly updated, sometimes on a weekly basis, on their progress.\n(60)\nThe Polish authorities pursued a new privatisation strategy, which focused on making PZL Wroc\u0142aw a viable business to be sold and winding up PZL Hydral afterwards with the proceeds of the sale of PZL Wroc\u0142aw and its other subsidiaries and assets. This strategy was agreed by the IDA, PZL Hydral and the public creditors of PZL Hydral and was formalised as the 2007-2010 restructuring plan (\u2018the Plan\u2019) in the fourth quarter of 2007.\n(61)\nAccording to the Plan, the public creditors were to be repaid from the proceeds of the sale of PZL Hydral's assets, shown as follows: Zak\u0142ad Ciep\u0142owniczy \u2018Term-Hydral\u2019 Sp. z o.o. - PLN 1 million, Zak\u0142ad Produkcji Hydrauliki \u2018Hydral\u2019 Sp. z o.o. - PLN 3 million. The sale of PZL Wroc\u0142aw was supposed to bring PLN 65,9 million (including the casting plant). The sale of the other financial assets was expected to yield PLN 0,5 million and a real estate asset called the BBCenter PLN 47,5 million, a car park PLN 2 million and a power station (GSZ) PLN 0,9 million. The Plan was therefore based on an assumption that the asset sale would generate total revenue of at least PLN 120,8 million.\n(62)\nThe Plan also provided for a capital injection of PLN 36 million to guarantee the repayment of PLN 156,8 million to public creditors. It also anticipated the possibility of the IDA granting an additional capital injection of PLN 77,4 million to repay the Social Security Office's liabilities for 1996-1998.\n(63)\nSubsequently, in January 2007, PZL Wroc\u0142aw acquired military certificates and permits to trade in arms (see point 16). In the course of 2007 it acquired more assets, machinery, equipment and know-how. This acquisition was financed by a loan of PLN 12,5 million, which the IDA granted to PZL Wroc\u0142aw on 24 May 2007 (\u2018the 2007 loan\u2019), and through an in-kind contribution to the capital of PZL Wroc\u0142aw by the parent company, PZL Hydral, in the form of an asset transfer in December 2007.\n(64)\nThe Polish authorities also emphasised that the 2007 loan had been granted with a view to the IDA obtaining a share of approximately [\u2026]% in PZL Wroc\u0142aw (corresponding to a debt-for-equity swap) and that the IDA would realise an adequate return on the capital invested after it sold its shares in PZL Wroc\u0142aw, whereas PZL Hydral would use its shareholding to satisfy the public creditors.\n(65)\nThe 2007 loan was granted at a variable 3M WIBOR plus 200 basis points, at that time 6,45 % for an initial duration until 2007 and was based on the understanding that it would be extended until the debt-for-equity swap took place prior to the sale of PZL Wroc\u0142aw. The loan was secured by the following collateral:\n-\na registered pledge (17) on the fixed assets of PZL Wroc\u0142aw (machinery) of PLN 5,5 million which was entered in the register of pledges,\n-\nan ordinary pledge (18) on 66 850 shares, representing 100 % of the company at the time of the transaction in May 2007 and [\u2026]% at end-2007.\n(66)\nThe Polish authorities informed the Commission that the value of PZL Wroc\u0142aw had been assessed at the request of the IDA in March 2007 by consultants Realizacja Inwestycji Techniczno-Ekonomicznych, acting as an independent expert. Three valuation methods were used: revenue method based on the discounted net profit (method 1), revenue method based on the discounted net profit plus depreciation (method 2) and discounted cash-flow method (method 3) (19), including a sensitivity analysis (moderate, optimistic and pessimistic scenarios).\n(67)\nUsing these three methods, the value of PZL Wroc\u0142aw was estimated at:\nMethod 1:\n(a)\nunder the moderate scenario the value is estimated at [\u2026];\n(b)\nunder the optimistic scenario the value is estimated at [\u2026];\n(c)\nunder the pessimistic scenario the value is estimated at [\u2026].\nMethod 2:\n(a)\nunder the moderate scenario the value is estimated at [\u2026];\n(b)\nunder the optimistic scenario the value is estimated at [\u2026];\n(c)\nunder the pessimistic scenario the value is estimated at [\u2026].\nMethod 3:\n(a)\nunder the moderate scenario the value is estimated at [\u2026];\n(b)\nunder the optimistic scenario the value is estimated at [\u2026];\n(c)\nunder the pessimistic scenario the value is estimated at [\u2026].\n(68)\nThe following three elements were used for the valuation of PZL Wroc\u0142aw:\n-\nthe company's financial forecasts, including cash flow, net profit and depreciation for 2007-2011 with a sensitivity analysis (moderate, optimistic and pessimistic scenarios); see Table 23 below,\n-\nthe discount rate based on the Weighted Average Cost Of Capital (WACC) equal to 10,25 %, and\n-\nthe assumption that cash flow becomes constant after 2007-2011.\nTable 23\nThe different scenarios incorporated into the 2007 study (PLN thousand)\nYear\n2007\n2008\n2009\n2010\n2011\nModerate scenario\nCash flow\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nNet profit\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nDepreciation\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nNet profit + depreciation\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nOptimistic scenario\nCash flow\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nNet profit\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nDepreciation\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nNet profit + depreciation\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nPessimistic scenario\nCash flow\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nNet profit\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nDepreciation\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nNet profit + depreciation\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(69)\nThe discount rate for all three methods of evaluation is based on Weighted Average Cost of Capital equal to 10,25 % (20). The company's financial forecast, including cash flow, net profit and depreciation for 2007-2011 with a sensitivity analysis (moderate, optimistic and pessimistic scenarios for 2007-2011) is based on data supplied by PZL Wroc\u0142aw. According to the study these data are to a large extent based on forecast orders by the Ministry of Defence.\n(70)\nOn the basis of this assessment, when determining of the value of the company's shares, the Polish authorities relied on the pessimistic scenario, which produced the lowest result. On that basis they assumed that the collateral in the form of the ordinary pledge on PZL Wroc\u0142aw's shares had a market value of at least PLN 20,3 million (21). Therefore, taken together with the pledge on machinery, which at the time had a value of PLN 5,5 million, the Polish authorities consider that the value of the collateral at that time exceeded the value of the loan.\n(71)\nMoreover, on the basis of the expert study the IDA took the view in 2007 that it would be reasonable to rely on a value of PZL Wroc\u0142aw at end-2007 of [\u2026] and to take the moderate scenario into consideration. The IDA also took the view that it would realise a return on its investment. The direct return that the IDA could obtain, on the basis that it would carry out a debt-for-equity swap before the sale and would hold [\u2026]% of shares (which is an approximate percentage and was the working assumption used by the IDA) would be at least PLN 48,5 million.\n(72)\nAccordingly, the Polish authorities claimed that, as regards the 2007 loan, the IDA acted as an investor within the framework of the sale of PZL Wroc\u0142aw. The Polish authorities also pointed out that the 2007 loan had not therefore been granted to PZL Hydral as stated in the opening decision.\n(73)\nBased on the new privatisation strategy and the 2007-2010 restructuring plan, [\u2026], a [\u2026] leading global supplier of systems and services to the aviation, space and defence industry which had revenue of [\u2026] in 2009 entered into negotiations for the sale of PZL Wroc\u0142aw in the first quarter of 2007 and carried out a due diligence study for PZL Wroc\u0142aw in July/August 2007 and February 2008. These negotiations were the result of existing industrial cooperation.\n(74)\nOn 31 January 2008, [\u2026] made an offer for PZL Wroc\u0142aw's shares which it increased for the first time on 14 February 2008. On 17-18 March 2008 [\u2026] representatives held a meeting with the IDA. On 2 April 2008 [\u2026] increased its offer for the second time. The price offered for the shares on 2 April 2008 was [\u2026] (which reflected the value of PZL Wroc\u0142aw on 31 December 2007), plus changes to current assets calculated according to a specific formula. The Polish authorities informed the Commission that application of the formula to reflect the growth in profit would result in a price increase of [\u2026].\n(75)\nThis offer was in line with an independent expert valuation commissioned by the IDA. This valuation, carried out by Doradztwo Ekonomiczne Dariusz Zarzecki, concluded that the value of PZL Wroc\u0142aw in March 2008 was [\u2026] on the basis of the net asset value method (\u2018the NAV method\u2019). This method takes an asset-oriented approach to the valuation and takes into account the value of assets and the credit and debit side both on and off balance sheet. At the same time, the value of PZL Hydral on the basis of the discounted cash-flow method (\u2018the DCF method\u2019), which takes into account future revenue not only from the material but also the immaterial assets in the possession of PZL Wroc\u0142aw. The study does not have any sensitivity analysis (i.e. it does not describe different scenarios).\n(76)\nUnder the DCF method cash-flow forecasts for 2008 onwards are based on PZL Wroc\u0142aw's financial plan for 2007-2013, which assumes that inflation will be the same as predicted by the Polish National Bank in February 2008 for the period in question. The cost of capital is evaluated at 16,65 %, incorporating the risk free rate (4,70 %), the market risk premium (7,17 %), the sector risk premium (1,78 %) and the market size premium (3 %) and enabling account to be taken of the size of PZL Wroc\u0142aw in comparison with its competitors (such as [\u2026] or [\u2026]). From 2014 onwards the study assumes that cash flow will increase by 3 % per annum (on the basis of 2 % inflation).\nTable 24\nPZL Wroc\u0142aw's future cash flow estimates (PLN thousand)\nYear\n2008\n2009\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\nCost of own capital (%)\n16,65\n16,65\n16,65\n16,65\n16,65\n16,65\nFuture cash flow estimates\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\nDiscounted future cash flow estimates\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n[\u2026]\n(77)\nThe adjusted net assets value method is a way of valuing a \u2018going concern\u2019 by adjusting the value of all assets and liabilities to the fair market value (22). The adjustment of liabilities with a book value of PLN 18,35 million to a net asset value of [\u2026] was realised on the basis of the planned 2007 debt-for-equity swap. The last adjustment took off-balance sheet assets into consideration.\nTable 25\nPZL Wroc\u0142aw - adjusted NAV method (PLN thousand) (23)\nBook value\nNet asset value\nFixed assets\n25 710\n[\u2026]\nCurrent assets\n9 945\n[\u2026]\nLiabilities\n18 350\n[\u2026]\nOff-balance sheet assets\n0\n[\u2026]\nTotal\n17 305\n[\u2026]\n(78)\nThe adjusted net value of the fixed assets is [\u2026], whereas their book value amounts to PLN 25,710 million. The adjustment is essentially made by computing the fair market value of all the assets on the basis of a study prepared on 29 March 2007 and submitted to the Commission by an independent expert, Realizacja Inwestycji Techniczno-ekonomicznych. The study basically assesses the value of real estate such as buildings and land. The value of buildings was assessed on the basis of the following formula:\nV = Cn(1-Lu/100) \u00d7 R\n\u2018Cn\u2019 is the cost of constructing a new building; \u2018Lu\u2019 is the level of use of the building and \u2018R\u2019 is a coefficient which factors in price differences between different regions. The value of land is determined on the basis of a comparative approach which considers the price of land to be equal to the price obtained for a similar plot of land, adjusted to reflect inflation differentials.\n(79)\nThe adjustment of liabilities with a book value of PLN 18,350 million to a net asset value of [\u2026] was realised on the basis of the planned 2007 debt-for-equity swap.\n(80)\nThe last adjustment took off-balance sheet assets into consideration. The items which do not appear in the balance sheet but which should appear in the valuation according to the authors of the study are: \u2018organisation of human resources\u2019 and \u2018organisation of the production process\u2019, taking into account the non-quantifiable aspects in the evaluation linked to the value of the company's management.\n(81)\nFollowing the offer from [\u2026], the Polish authorities provided the Commission with notification of the Plan as restructuring aid to PZL Hydral in March 2008, assuming that PZL Wroc\u0142aw would be sold for [\u2026]. They also included the 2007 loan and an additional loan of PLN 4 million to be granted to PZL Wroc\u0142aw as part of measures to finalise negotiations with [\u2026].\n(82)\nThe additional loan (\u2018the 2008 loan\u2019) was awarded on 2 April 2008, the day on which the IDA received details of the second increase in the offer. The IDA granted this loan as a bridging loan until such time as a deal was closed with [\u2026]. PZL Wroc\u0142aw needed the money in order to process the upturn in orders from the Ministry of Defence.\n(83)\nThe loan was granted for a period of five years at a variable interest rate based on the Commission reference rate for Poland (6,42 % when it was awarded) and was secured by the following collateral:\n-\nregistered pledge on fixed assets of PZL Wroc\u0142aw (four machines and items of equipment) of PLN 2,8 million which was entered in the register of pledges,\n-\nassignment of receivables under a commercial contract in an amount of PLN 5,2 million.\n(84)\nThe Polish authorities therefore consider that the value of the pledges exceeded the value of the loan.\n(85)\nThe loan was granted in order to enable PZL Wroc\u0142aw to acquire machinery necessary for the production process. The IDA granted the 2008 loan at an advanced stage of negotiations with [\u2026] on the assumption that it would be repaid either by PZL Wroc\u0142aw using its own funds or by the investor.\n(86)\nOn that basis, the Polish authorities claimed that the IDA did not just act in a manner comparable to a private investor but as the entity selling PZL Wroc\u0142aw.\n(87)\nThe Commission likewise was informed by the Polish authorities that the activity of PZL Wroc\u0142aw in 2008 was partially financed by operating leasing. In June 2008 two operating leasing agreements, [\u2026] and [\u2026] were signed with a private company [\u2026]. The net value of the lease under these agreements amounted to EUR 271 002 and EUR 401 263,20 (PLN 0,82 million including value added tax) (24). The cost of the lease for PZL Wroc\u0142aw under these agreements was: EUR 88 762,30, which is the difference between the net value of the machinery and the net value of the lease. These agreements function similarly to loans with the leased object serving as collateral. Following the expiry of the lease, PZL Wroc\u0142aw will acquire the right to purchase the machinery for an amount of EUR 5 835. Before entering into these leasing contracts with PZL Wroc\u0142aw, [\u2026] made a thorough analysis of the financial and economic situation of the company, including its capacity to generate sufficient cash flow for repayment of the instalments.\n(88)\nThe Polish authorities also referred in their initial notification to the debt-for-equity swap provided for in the Plan of PLN 13,5 million (plus interest).\n(89)\nIn March and April 2008 negotiations on the terms and provisions of the share transfer agreement were concluded. However, on 14 April 2008, [\u2026] withdrew its offer. According to the Polish authorities, the probable reason for the withdrawal was the considerable changes which had occurred on the world market as a result of the economic crisis.\n(90)\nAs a result of [\u2026]'s withdrawal from the negotiations, the sale process was relaunched. The sale was advertised in the domestic and international press in the form of an invitation to take part in negotiations for the purchase of 100 % of PZL Wroc\u0142aw's shares. On 19 May 2008 the invitation was published in Puls Biznesu (Business Pulse), the largest specialist publication in Poland and in Rzeczpospolita, the country's largest daily newspaper. On 20-26 May 2008 it was also published in Flight International, the global specialist aviation magazine. In November 2008, details of the planned sale were published in Raport Wojsko Technika Obronno\u015b\u0107, an aviation magazine in Polish with an international readership. No offers to purchase the shares were received.\n(91)\nAccordingly, further efforts were made and the information referred to above was forwarded and presented directly by PZL Hydral to companies potentially interested in purchasing PZL Wroc\u0142aw. The Polish authorities have pointed out that the sale was advertised during fairs and industry events, including air shows (25), as well as by letters sent to more than 80 companies. The Polish authorities have also indicated that information on the sale was permanently available on PZL Hydral's website, which records 500 000 visits each year. Taking into account the specific nature PZL Wroc\u0142aw's production (as a supplier of goods and services for the Polish armed forces, PZL Wroc\u0142aw is of particular importance to national security) and the fairly high level of concentration of the aviation industry throughout the world, resulting in a relatively low number of potential investors, the Polish authorities have argued that all the potential investors had the opportunity to obtain information on the sale of PZL Wroc\u0142aw and to take part in this privatisation process. Therefore, according to the Polish authorities, the whole sector knew about the sale.\n(92)\nThe sale notice was only an invitation to negotiations, and did not contain any specific conditions.\n(93)\nFollowing the renewed efforts of the Polish authorities, in the second half of 2008, the IDA received a first indication of interest, and later an offer, from [\u2026]. In the second half of 2008, the IDA received a second indication of interest, this time from [\u2026].\n(94)\nOn 30 September 2008 [\u2026] submitted a preliminary non-binding offer for the purchase of 100 % of shares in PZL Wroc\u0142aw (\u2018the offer of 30 September 2008\u2019) for an amount of [\u2026]. [\u2026] is an investment fund which invests in the private equity market and whose owner (a private person) also has a 100 % stake in [\u2026] (26). The offer of 30 September 2008 was made for a debt-free company and was conditional upon the financial results for 2009 (in particular, net profit and EBITDA) being similar to 2008. In particular, EBITDA of at least [\u2026] was to be achieved and the net profit in 2009 had to be at least [\u2026]; in addition, sales growth of 5 % was required. However, as a result of the financial crisis PZL Wroc\u0142aw's income declined by some 35 %, and the benchmarks laid down in the offer were not achieved. By the first quarter of 2009 PZL Hydral was already fully aware that the financial result would not meet the minimum threshold laid down in [\u2026]'s offer. In addition, the reduction of orders from the Ministry of Defence was confirmed at the beginning of 2009, with significant implications for the company's profitability in that year. There have been no subsequent contacts with [\u2026].\n(95)\n[\u2026], a [\u2026] company that is among the world's largest suppliers of technologically advanced aviation products (for commercial, regional, corporate and military aircraft) and industrial products, and which had turnover in 2009 of [\u2026] commenced talks with a view to purchasing shares in PZL Wroc\u0142aw in the first quarter of 2009.\n(96)\nThis company carried out a due diligence study between 20 April 2009 and 12 May 2009. On the basis of this study, it signed a memorandum of understanding (indicating the general outline of the planned transaction) with the IDA on 20 August 2009 for the purchase of PZL Wroc\u0142aw's shares for an amount of [\u2026]. The IDA undertook to ensure that all PZL Wroc\u0142aw's assets were free of any claims on the part of PZL Hydral's public creditors. The memorandum of understanding assumed that the IDA would itself buy 100 % of shares in PZL Wroc\u0142aw and sell them subsequently to the investor. The investor undertook to carry out its own detailed investment plan worth an additional [\u2026] after the sale. On 18 December 2009, the IDA, PZL Hydral and [\u2026] signed a framework agreement. Annex 2 to the Agreement, which sets out the rules governing the partial debt-for-equity swap, partial cancellation and partial repayment of the 2007 and 2008 loans, was concluded on 12 March 2010.\n(97)\nThe Polish authorities confirmed that the sale was not conditional, in particular on jobs being maintained. The Polish authorities also informed the Commission that the investor was free to determine its business dealings with the Ministry of Defence.\n(98)\nA detailed description of the negotiations with [\u2026] can be found in point VI.\nII.6. Legal assessment of the Plan by the Polish authorities\n(99)\nThe Polish authorities indicated that the overall costs of restructuring would amount to PLN 262,2 million, broken down as follows: restructuring of public debt in an amount of PLN 234 million, other financial restructuring in an amount of PLN 11,5 million, investments of PLN 11 million, asset restructuring of PLN 5,6 million and employment restructuring of PLN 0,3 million.\n(100)\nAccording to the Polish authorities, the overall costs of restructuring PZL Hydral would be funded by state aid of PLN 130,5 million and by an own contribution of PLN 132 million. Under the Plan, the own contribution represents 50,3 % of the restructuring costs. The own contribution comprises revenue from the sale of fixed assets and shares as well as funds to be provided by the future investor in PZL Wroc\u0142aw.\n(101)\nAs regards compensatory measures, the Plan proposed the sale of some production assets, which was partially implemented between 2004 and 2006, resulting in capacity reduction. According to the Plan, the sale of machinery and equipment would reduce the company's capacity by 380 000 machine hours in total, i.e. by 42 %. The bulk of the planned reduction (315 000 machine hours) has already been implemented. The Polish authorities claimed that one third of this reduction was not necessary to restore viability but was designed to cut production in the field of industrial hydraulics, a low-profit segment in which the company had decided to limit its involvement.\n(102)\nIn addition, the Plan indicated that the planned withdrawal from certain (allegedly profitable) activities and the sale of assets not related to production should be regarded as compensatory measures within the meaning of the Guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (27) (\u2018the rescue and restructuring guidelines\u2019). Lastly, the Polish authorities claimed that the privatisation of PZL Wroc\u0142aw, which will allow the company's competitors to acquire PZL Hydral's capacity, know-how and market share, should also be regarded as a compensatory measure.\nIII. DOUBTS EXPRESSED BY THE COMMISSION WHEN OPENING AND EXTENDING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(103)\nThe Plan was notified as a restructuring scenario under the rescue and restructuring guidelines. The Commission therefore based its preliminary assessment on the information at its disposal at that stage. On the basis of that information, the Commission voiced the following concerns:\n(104)\nAs regards the eligibility of the company for restructuring aid under the rescue and restructuring guidelines, the Commission doubted that PZL Hydral had not benefited from any rescue or restructuring aid in the previous ten years.\n(105)\nIn particular, the Commission wondered whether the non-enforcement or late enforcement of public liabilities should not be treated as state aid. The Commission pointed out that, where a public body collecting social security contributions tolerates the non-payment or late payment of such contributions over a long period of time, it undoubtedly gives the recipient an advantage by reducing the burden which the normal application of the social security system represents for the recipient (28). The Commission, while recognising that the public creditors had taken certain enforcement measures, doubted whether these were sufficient or, if they had been taken at a late stage, effective, especially in respect of the collateral held by the public creditors and which could have been relied on. At this stage of the proceedings, therefore, the Commission doubted that the conduct of the public creditors was in line with the way that private creditors would have behaved in those circumstances.\n(106)\nThe Commission also expressed doubts with regard to other measures reported by the Polish authorities as free of state aid.\n(107)\nThe Commission doubted whether the partial repayment and partial write-off of public liabilities reported by the Polish authorities as free of state aid, was in line with the private creditor rule.\n(108)\nThe Commission also expressed doubts regarding the Plan's compatibility with the internal market in the light of point 31 et seq. of the rescue and restructuring guidelines.\n(109)\nThe Commission doubted that the proposed contribution was real and actual and thus that the Plan complied with points 43-45 of the rescue and restructuring guidelines. The Commission doubted whether the planned revenue from the sale of PZL Wroc\u0142aw, even if achieved, could be regarded as an own contribution to the restructuring. As mentioned above, PZL Wroc\u0142aw was set up at end-2004. Under the Plan, the production assets were to have been transferred and the privatisation process was to have been launched as early as 2007. Initial offers by potential investors were to be submitted by the fourth quarter of 2007 and, following negotiations, a preliminary sales agreement was to be concluded in the first half of 2008. However, at the time when the opening decision was adopted, the Commission had not been informed of any interest on the part of potential investors in acquiring PZL Wroc\u0142aw.\n(110)\nThe Commission also expressed doubts that the Plan would ensure long-term viability as required under points 34-37 of the rescue and restructuring guidelines. The Commission observed that the planned restructuring concentrated on financial restructuring, i.e. circa 90 % of all restructuring costs had been earmarked for the repayment of public debt arrears. Consequently, the remaining restructuring measures were rather limited. The Commission also noted that, as already explained, at the time when the opening decision was adopted, it had not been informed of any interest on the part of potential investors. Poland also indicated that further restructuring measures might be necessary after the company was privatised, which raised additional doubts as to the Plan's viability.\n(111)\nThe Commission also stated that it needed further clarifications as regards the compatibility of the proposed compensatory measures with points 38-42 of the rescue and restructuring guidelines. The Polish authorities argued in the notification that at least one third of the capacity reduction was designed to cut capacity in the low-profit industrial hydraulics segment. On the basis of the information at its disposal, the Commission doubted that the reduction in production capacity implemented or planned by the company was sufficient. The Commission also noted that at least some of the proposed measures appeared to be necessary in order to achieve long-term viability. In particular, the Commission pointed out that the sale of some production assets in the past seemed to have been specifically designed to restore viability. Similarly, the planned sale of real estate would serve as a source of financing rather than as compensation for a distortion of competition.\nIV. COMMENTS OF POLAND ON THE OPENING OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE\n(112)\nThe Polish authorities submitted their comments on the opening decision with regard to the possibility of applying the private creditor test in the reported scenario, i.e. in conjunction with capital injections.\n(113)\nThe Polish authorities stated that the proposed write-offs were in line with the private creditor rule in view of the fact that the public creditors would obtain more in the event of PZL Hydral's assets being sold than in the event of the company going bankrupt. The Polish authorities also stated that this viewpoint was based on economic and financial analysis and was shared by the public creditors concerned.\n(114)\nThe Polish authorities claimed that the two capital injections to be granted by the IDA to PZL Hydral and which, according to the notification, were to be earmarked for the repayment of public creditors, did not preclude applying the private creditor rule.\n(115)\nIn addition, the Polish authorities claimed that the market value of PZL Wroc\u0142aw was closely linked to its ownership of aviation certificates and arms-trading permits and its uniquely experienced and qualified workforce. In the event of bankruptcy, it would be impossible to restore this organisation to an extent acceptable to the aviation supervision services.\n(116)\nThe Polish authorities valued the own contribution at PLN 130 million, which would amount to 50 % of the restructuring costs even if non-enforcement of public debts were to be treated as state aid. Moreover, the Polish authorities noted that the sale of assets was under way, and so all the assets provided for in the Plan would be disposed of within the framework of restructuring.\n(117)\nAs regards the long-term viability of the Plan, the Polish authorities affirmed that the objectives of the restructuring were being implemented properly. In particular, the process of concentrating production in the eastern part of PZL Hydral's site had yielded a reduction in fixed costs, operational improvements in production and additional revenue from renting out the space freed up. Moreover, production and sales (including 570 employees) had been relocated to PZL Wroc\u0142aw, which was economically viable at that time (data for the first ten months of 2008). PZL Wroc\u0142aw's net profit at end-2008 was estimated at PLN 6 million approx., with sales of PLN 50 million. The Polish authorities added that since agreement was reached on the private creditor scenario in the fourth quarter of 2007, both PZL Hydral and PZL Wroc\u0142aw had paid their current liabilities to public creditors on time.\nV. THIRD PARTY COMMENTS\n(118)\nThe Commission did not receive any third party comments.\nVI. EVENTS FOLLOWING THE OPENING OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE - THE REVISED PLAN\n(119)\nThe Polish authorities consider that the sale price for PZL Wroc\u0142aw's shares offered by [\u2026] corresponds to the market value of this company. According to the Polish authorities, the price offered reflected the company's financial situation, which worsened in 2009 as a result of the financial crisis and a downturn in orders from the Polish armed forces.\n(120)\nThe Polish authorities also indicated that this price reflected macroeconomic conditions. On the Warsaw stock exchange alone the Warsaw Stock Exchange Index (WIG) fell by 36 %. Between April 2008 (withdrawal of [\u2026] from negotiations) and June 2009, the market ranking of listed aviation sector companies with a similar production profile to PZL Wroc\u0142aw dropped dramatically. Shares in [\u2026], to which [\u2026] belongs, fell by [\u2026] %, shares in [\u2026] by [\u2026] % and shares in [\u2026] by [\u2026] %.\n(121)\n[\u2026] carried out a due diligence study (see point 96). The study compared the figures concerning [\u2026] of 32 aviation sector companies. The study then calculated average coefficients which determined how these [\u2026]. These coefficients were then applied to [\u2026]. The result was [\u2026].\n(122)\nHowever, talks with the IDA on the investor's evaluation suggest that at this stage [\u2026] is highly dependent on one customer, the Polish armed forces, from which it is expected to derive [\u2026]% of its planned revenue in 2010-13 under the modernisation programme, the outcome of which is uncertain, and bankruptcy proceedings could be launched if PZL Wroc\u0142aw's financial situation does not improve in 2010.\n(123)\nOn that basis the investor maintains that in offering [\u2026] for PZL Wroc\u0142aw's shares, he will de facto pay a premium for them.\n(124)\nOnce the price offered by the investor was known, the IDA started negotiations with the public creditors on partial repayments and partial write-offs of their claims as specified in the Plan, on the basis of the proceeds of the sale of PZL Hydral's assets without any additional capital injections.\n(125)\nFor that purpose, a study was commissioned by the IDA from Ernst&Young on 15 January 2010. Ernst&Young was instructed, as an independent expert, to produce a comparison between the following two scenarios:\n-\nbankruptcy proceedings for PZL Hydral, including its subsidiary PZL Wroc\u0142aw,\n-\nsettlement of liabilities on the basis of the proceeds of the sale of PZL Wroc\u0142aw to [\u2026] for [\u2026] and the proceeds of the sale of PZL Hydral's other assets.\n(126)\nErnst&Young assessed the situation for each individual public creditor: the Social Security Office, the Lower Silesia Region Tax Office, Wroc\u0142aw Psie Pole Tax Office, Wroc\u0142aw City Council, the State Fund for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled, the Lower Silesia Regional Office and the Ministry of Finance. The analysis does not include the IDA as it was not a creditor of PZL Hydral but only a shareholder.\n(127)\nThe Ernst&Young study was completed on 24 February 2010. The study was based on a conservative approach: only the amounts expected to be directly recovered under each scenario were quantified. Therefore the analysis did not take account of alternative costs (29), long-term profit forecasts and inflation.\n(128)\nThe bankruptcy scenario leading to liquidation was analysed on the assumption that liquidation would be reasonably effective. It refers, as the basis for its methodology, to the requirements of a proper private creditor test based on case-law (Spain v Commission and Hamsa v Commission) which analyses the behaviour of a public body from the point of view of a private creditor seeking to obtain payment by a debtor in financial difficulties (30). The report is based on an analysis of each individual creditor, taking into account, in particular, the creditor's collateral on the debtor's assets and the extent to which claims can be satisfied in the event of the debtor going bankrupt (31).\n(129)\nIn order to establish the bankruptcy value of the assets, the Ernst&Young study assumed that the fire sale value of the immovable fixed assets was 50 % of their fair value. To establish the fair value, Ernst&Young relied on the methods defined in International Accounting Standard 16 on property, plant and equipment, and used any available assessments by independent experts. The 50 % reduction is justified by the low effectiveness of bankruptcy proceedings in Poland, where revenue from sales of assets constitutes on average 26,86 % of their fair value.\n(130)\nThe Ernst&Young study also notes that the proceeds which public creditors can expect in a bankruptcy scenario depend on the respective ranking of their collateral on the assets to which the mortgages are attached. The Ernst&Young study provides for this purpose an overview of the mortgages attached to each asset component of PZL Hydral, the value of the respective mortgages and the ranking of the creditors.\n(131)\nOn the basis of the assumptions set out in the previous two paragraphs, Ernst&Young estimates that the total amount recoverable in the event of bankruptcy from the assets secured by mortgages is PLN 52,4 million; three public creditors (the State Fund for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled, the Lower Silesian Regional Office and the Ministry of Finance) will not be able to recover anything and the remaining creditors will be able to recover the following amounts: the Social Security Office - PLN 44,8 million, the Lower Silesia Region Tax Office - PLN 2,3 million, Wroc\u0142aw Psie Pole Tax Office - PLN 0,457 million and Wroc\u0142aw City Council - PLN 4,9 million.\n(132)\nThe actual amount of the proceeds under the bankruptcy scenario should then be corrected by adding the amount recovered from the other assets of PZL Hydral, i.e. PLN 13,5 million (32). Accordingly, the bankruptcy proceeds amount to PLN 66 million, as shown in Table 26.\n(133)\nThe sale of assets scenario provides for the sale of all PZL Hydral's assets referred to in the Plan for PLN 122 323 202,31: Zak\u0142ad Produkcji Hydrauliki \u2018Hydral\u2019 Sp. z o.o. for [\u2026], BBCenter's real estate for [\u2026], car park for [\u2026], Zak\u0142ad Cieplowniczy \u2018Term-Hydral\u2019 Sp. z o.o. for [\u2026], power station (GSZ) for [\u2026], PZL Wroc\u0142aw for [\u2026], the casting plant for PLN [\u2026], minority shareholdings for [\u2026] and repayment of PZL Hydral's receivables in an amount of [\u2026].\nTable 26\nComparison of the sale scenario and bankruptcy scenario from the perspective of PZL Hydral in 2010 (in PLN) in the Ernst&Young study\nPublic creditor\nTotal amount of liabilities (33)\nProceeds in bankruptcy scenario\nProceeds in sale of assets scenario\nSocial Insurance Fund\n192 427 569,63\n58 326 475,00\n91 857 554,58\nLower Silesia Region Tax Office\n59 579 407,58\n2 294 047,11\n18 250 999,45\nWroc\u0142aw - Psie Pole Tax Office\n532 432,60\n456 768,68\n456 800,00\nWroc\u0142aw City Council\n27 087 078,25\n4 928 184,34\n4 930 000,00\nState Fund for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled\n12 884 457,46\n-\n5 007 169,46\nLower Silesian Regional Office\n1 320 678,82\n-\n1 320 678,82\nMinistry of Finance\n24 050 232,71\n-\n500 000,00\nTotal\n317 881 857,5\n66 005 475,13\n122 323 202,31\n(134)\nTable 26 indicates that under the Ernst&Young study the Social Security Office would recover 47,7 % of its claims, Lower Silesia Region Tax Office would recover 30,6 %, Wroc\u0142aw Psie Pole Tax Office 85,8 %, Wroc\u0142aw City Council 18,2 %, the Lower Silesian Regional Office would recover the entirety of its claims, the State Fund for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled would recover 38,9 % and the Ministry of Finance 2,1 %.\n(135)\nUnder Polish law, once the public creditors agree to the settlement of their claims by partial write-offs, interest ceases to accrue on these claims and is charged only if settlement is not implemented, which would be the case in a bankruptcy scenario. Therefore the liabilities shown in Table 26 include appropriate interest backdated to the date of the 2007 agreement for all public creditors apart from the Lower Silesia Region Tax Office (to which interest is still being charged on some tax liabilities) and the Lower Silesian Regional Office (to which interest is still being charged) due to the special legal nature of their claim.\n(136)\nIt should be noted that as regards Wroc\u0142aw City Council, the State Fund for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled and the Lower Silesia Region Tax Office, the revised Plan provided for the partial deferral of repayment to public creditors and on the repayment in instalments of part of these liabilities until the sale of PZL Hydral's assets took place, i.e. the liabilities would be repaid in part. In particular, the agreement makes detailed provision for:\n-\nrepayment of the amount of PLN 4,9 million owed to Wroc\u0142aw City Council is deferred;\n-\nrepayment of the amount of PLN 5 million owed to the State Fund for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled is deferred;\n-\nPLN 18,25 million will be used to partially repay the amount owed to the Lower Silesia Region Tax Office; part of this repayment is deferred, part will be repaid into instalments (34) and part will be repaid with interest calculated on the payment date.\n(137)\nOn this basis, according to the Ernst&Young study (see Table 26) the creditors would receive PLN 122 million in total in the event of the sale of PZL Wroc\u0142aw and the other assets of PZL Hydral, while in the event of bankruptcy resulting in the liquidation of PZL Hydral the creditors would receive only PLN 66 million, and three of them (the Ministry of Finance, Lower Silesian Regional Office and the State Fund for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled) would not receive anything.\n(138)\nIn the sale scenario, the public creditors will write off PLN 195 million of public liabilities in total. Despite this, each public creditor is better off in the sale scenario than in the bankruptcy scenario. In total, the public creditors would recover 38,5 % of the amount owed to them.\n(139)\nThe Polish authorities informed the Commission that on the basis of the findings of the Ernst&Young study, the public creditors agreed to the partial repayment of their claims in 2010.\n(140)\nIn the framework of the talks with [\u2026], the IDA agreed that its credits would be partially swapped, partially repaid and partially waived. Under Annex 2 to the Framework Agreement, the IDA was to convert part of the 2007 loan principal and part of the 2008 loan principal totalling [\u2026] into PZL Wroc\u0142aw's share capital and liquid assets and to waive interest in an amount of [\u2026] on the 2007 loan. Following this swap, PZL Wroc\u0142aw's share capital was to be reduced by lodging an application to that effect with the court with jurisdiction.\n(141)\nThe Polish authorities pointed out that the deterioration in PZL Wroc\u0142aw's financial situation only occurred in 2009 and was caused by the economic downturn, which could not have been predicted and which resulted in a decline in orders from the Polish armed forces of almost [\u2026]%. Consequently, the IDA's situation as a creditor worsened considerably, as did the prospects for recovering its claims in full.\n(142)\nThe provisions of Annex 2 to the Framework Agreement were negotiated in close correlation with the results of the supplement to the Ernst&Young study. This supplement was prepared on 24 February 2010. It analyses two scenarios, bankruptcy leading to the liquidation of PZL Wroc\u0142aw and its sale to the investor. In particular, it focuses on what the IDA would obtain from its collateral in the bankruptcy scenario and compares this with the amounts it could expect if PZL Wroc\u0142aw were sold to the investor.\n(143)\nThe supplement to the Ernst&Young study points out that the assets of PZL Wroc\u0142aw were encumbered by pledges and mortgages. The book value of all PZL Wroc\u0142aw's assets on 31 December 2009 was PLN 52,5 million, of which secured assets accounted for PLN 21,3 million and unsecured/non-encumbered assets PLN 31,2 million.\n(144)\nEven if the unsecured/non-encumbered assets represented [\u2026]% of the value of PZL Wroc\u0142aw's assets, if the sale of PZL Wroc\u0142aw did not take place, the tax authorities would issue a tax decision pursuant to Articles 112 and 118 of the Tax Code (35) declaring that PZL Wroc\u0142aw was liable for PZL Hydral's 2006-07 liabilities in order to enforce their claims. This is confirmed by a letter from the Lower Silesia Region Tax Office of 23 November 2007, which states that should the restructuring fail, enforcement steps will be taken under Article 112 of the Tax Code.\n(145)\nAs PZL Wroc\u0142aw owns PZL Hydral's production assets (which it purchased between 2004 and 2007), this decision would impact on some of PZL Hydral's public liabilities. The value of the claims that would be affected by such proceedings would correspond to PZL Hydral's public liabilities generated in 2006-07 and would amount to a minimum of PLN 64,4 million (36). According to the supplement to the Ernst&Young study, the value of these claims would exceed the book value of the unsecured/non-encumbered assets. At the same time, the book value of these assets should be considered in the light of their market value as they are receivables, cash and other monetary assets.\n(146)\nIn the event of PZL Wroc\u0142aw going bankrupt, only assets secured by mortgages and registered pledges would therefore take priority over the claims of the tax authorities. The claims of PZL Wroc\u0142aw's unsecured private creditors could not have been satisfied from PZL Wroc\u0142aw's assets. In the light of the fact that not all creditors\u2019 claims would be satisfied from the bankruptcy estate, PZL Wroc\u0142aw shares would have zero value in the event of bankruptcy. Equally, as only the holders of registered pledges and mortgages would be satisfied, ordinary pledges are worthless.\n(147)\nOn that basis, the supplement to the Ernst&Young study analyses the value of the IDA's registered pledge on PZL Wroc\u0142aw's assets. The value of the collateral in the form of registered pledges on machinery is determined on the basis of the assumption that the value of the assets pledged in the event of bankruptcy would be 50 % of their net book value, as their fair value was not available and the value of movable fixed assets was subject to change in line with the applicable depreciation rate. Ernst&Young took the view that the value in the event of a fire sale was representative in the light of the possibility of using the evaluated assets for certain purposes and as part of certain production processes, the possibility of using them for alternative purposes and the nature of the contracts with which they were associated. The Ernst&Young study points out that when the assets to be sold are highly specific and are used to produce for a specific buyer, their liquidation value can be very low and can amount to 30 % of their net book value. By way of an example, Autoglass Group SA, which had a balance-sheet value of PLN 19,8 million, was sold in bankruptcy proceedings for PLN 6 million. In addition, the PZL Wroc\u0142aw assets in question which served as a registered pledge include many low-value items. In particular, the 2007 loan was secured by a list of 1 709 items which depreciated over the years and around 1 400 items with a value of less than PLN 3 500; consequently, a one-off depreciation was carried out.\n(148)\nAs did the main report, the supplement to the Ernst&Young study disregarded the effect of inflation, i.e. in view of potentially lengthy bankruptcy proceedings, on the assessment of the bankruptcy scenario from the perspective of PZL Wroc\u0142aw's creditors.\n(149)\nAccording to this study, the net book value of the assets serving as a registered pledge on machinery was PLN 2 106 392,71 on 31 January 2010. If this formula is applied to the net book value of the assets, their value (in bankruptcy) in the event of a fire sale is estimated at PLN 1 053 196,36.\n(150)\nThe supplement to the Ernst&Young study concludes that the IDA obtains PLN 1 053 196,36 under the bankruptcy scenario and [> PLN 1 053 196,36] under the sale scenario (as specified in Annex 2 to the Framework Agreement).\n(151)\nThe Polish authorities informed the Commission that the net book value of assets serving as a registered pledge for the 2007 loan amounted in the audited 2007 financial reports to PLN 5 480 861,37 and in the audited financial reports as at 31 January 2010 to PLN 818 967,55.\n(152)\nThe Polish authorities informed the Commission that the net book value of assets serving as a registered pledge for the 2008 loan amounted to PLN 2 763 000 according to the independent expert report dated 1 February 2008. The book value of these assets according to the audited financial reports amounted to PLN 1 883 098,97 on 1 February 2008 and the net book value of these assets according to the audited financial reports amounted to PLN 1 287 425,16 on 31 January 2010.\n(153)\nAccordingly, the Polish authorities withdrew from the two capital injections to PZL Hydral, arguing that the partial write-offs and partial repayments of public liabilities were free of state aid in the light of the private creditor rule. They also stated that the public creditors\u2019 conduct in the past (1998-2007) was in line with the private creditor rule. They also indicated that the sale of PZL Wroc\u0142aw had been open, transparent and unconditional and that the price offered by the investor could be regarded as a market price. The Polish authorities argued that both the 2007 and 2008 loans had been awarded on market terms. They also withdrew from the debt-for-equity swap for the 2007 loan described above but proposed a partial swap for both the 2007 and 2008 loans prior to the sale, arguing that this complied with the private creditor rule.\nVII. COMPETENCE OF THE COMMISSION\n(154)\nThe initial part of certain measures, namely the non-enforcement of public liabilities against PZL Hydral, started in 1998, i.e. prior to Poland's accession to the EU on 1 May 2004.\n(155)\nUnder the Accession Treaty, aid measures put into effect in the new Member States before accession and still applicable after accession which constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU and are not existing aid are to be treated as new aid for the purpose of applying Article 108(3) of the TFEU.\n(156)\nPoint 3 of Annex IV to the Accession Treaty sets out the interim mechanism procedure. It constitutes a legal framework for the assessment of aid schemes and individual aid measures which are put into effect in a new Member State before the date of its accession to the EU and are applicable after accession.\n(157)\nAid measures that were put into effect before accession and are not applicable after accession cannot be examined by the Commission, either under the interim mechanism procedure or under the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU. On the other hand, measures that were not put into effect until after accession will be assessed by the Commission as notified aid or as unlawful aid pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU.\n(158)\nA measure is applicable after accession if it was put into effect before accession but can still give rise, after accession, to the granting of additional aid or to an increase in the amount of aid already granted, i.e. if the precise economic exposure of the state is not known on the date on which the measure was put into effect and is still not known on the date of accession.\n(159)\nIn the present case, the Commission notes that the non-enforcement of public creditors\u2019 liabilities started in 1998, and continued at the date of accession. The Commission considers that the non-enforcement of all liabilities outstanding on 1 May 2004 fell under its jurisdiction as of that date.\n(160)\nIn the light of the foregoing, the non-enforcement of the public liabilities outstanding on 1 May 2004 constitutes a measure applicable after accession and falls under the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to Article 108 of the TFEU.\nVIII. ASSESSMENT\n(161)\nAccording to Article 107(1) of the TFEU, state aid is aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods in so far as it affects trade between Member States.\n(162)\nThe conditions laid down in Article 107(1) of the TFEU are cumulative and therefore for a measure to be qualified as state aid all the conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously.\n(163)\nIn the following sections, the Commission assesses possible state aid to PZL Hydral and PZL Wroc\u0142aw separately.\n(164)\nIt identifies the following measures concerning PZL Hydral:\n-\nthe planned and withdrawn capital injections for PZL Hydral,\n-\nthe enforcement of public liabilities against PZL Hydral (1998-2007),\n-\nthe settlement with the public creditors of PZL Hydral (2007-10).\n(165)\nIt identifies the following measures concerning PZL Wroc\u0142aw:\n-\nthe 2007 loan,\n-\nthe 2008 loan,\n-\nthe debt-for-equity swap concerning the 2007 and 2008 loans.\n(166)\nThe Commission notes that the Polish authorities contested the classification of the above-mentioned measures as state aid, claiming that the measures passed the private creditor test (in the case of the measures for PZL Hydral and the 2010 debt-for-equity swap for PZL Wroc\u0142aw) and the market investor test (in the case of the 2007 and the 2008 loans to PZL Wroc\u0142aw).\nVIII.1. The withdrawn capital injections to PZL Hydral\n(167)\nPursuant to Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (37) (\u2018the Procedural Regulation\u2019), a Member State may, after the opening of the formal investigation procedure, withdraw the notification in due time before the Commission has taken a decision on whether the notified measure constitutes aid. In such cases, the Commission terminates the procedure on the basis that it no longer serves any purpose.\n(168)\nThe Polish authorities withdrew the two notified capital injections (PLN 113 million). Accordingly, the Commission\u2019s investigation into these measures no longer serves any purpose.\nVIII.2. Non-enforcement of public liabilities against PZL Hydral (1998-2007)\n(169)\nState aid may have been granted to PZL Hydral in the form of continued non-enforcement of public liabilities against the company by various public creditors.\n(170)\nThe Commission points out that Article 107(1) of the TFEU covers interventions in various forms which reduce a company\u2019s normal costs and which, without therefore being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect. It is universally accepted in case-law that the conduct of a public body with responsibility for collecting social security contributions which tolerates late payment of such contributions gives a company in financial difficulties which benefits from that conduct a significant commercial advantage by mitigating the burden associated with the normal application of the social security system which cannot be wholly removed by the interest and default surcharges applied to it (38). This reasoning applies mutatis mutandis to other fees, charges and taxes collected by public authorities.\n(171)\nIn the present case, the public collecting bodies had not recovered their claims against PZL Hydral 1998-2007 in full when the public creditors adopted the Plan (see point 60 et seq.).\n(172)\nIt follows from case-law that, in order to determine whether any state aid was granted by the public authorities by way of non-enforcement of public claims, it has to be ascertained whether the company concerned would manifestly have been unable to obtain comparable facilities from a private creditor in the same situation vis-\u00e0-vis that company as the public collecting body (39).\n(173)\nThe Commission notes that in order to ensure the long-term economic viability of PZL Hydral, its owner at that time, the Polish Treasury, and subsequently the IDA, developed a privatisation strategy on the basis of a 1998 study carried out by private consultants, and started a search for investors (see point 54). The private and public creditors supported this approach and were closely involved in it.\n(174)\nIn 2002 the Polish authorities, still with the support of private and public creditors, entered into negotiations with [\u2026]. These creditors were given regular updates on the progress made (see points 30 and 56).\n(175)\nThe Commission notes that both private and public creditors took the view that the value of PZL Hydral, and in particular of its aviation and defence activities, as a going concern by far exceeded the value of its assets, in particular by virtue of its military certificates and arms-trading permits, as well as its human capital, and that for that reason they agreed to refrain from instituting bankruptcy proceedings against PZL Hydral.\n(176)\nThe Commission notes in particular that the main private creditors, i.e. Bank [\u2026] and Bank [\u2026], refrained from forced enforcement of their liabilities in spite of holding first-rank collateral (see points 32 and 34) which was enforceable directly on the basis of bank enforcement orders and could be relatively easily disposed of (see point 28).\n(177)\nThe public creditors, on the other hand, took enforcement actions via the court enforcement officer, and by end-2007 had recovered a total amount of PLN 28,76 million (see point 41).\n(178)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that between 1998 and 2007, PZL Hydral was able to obtain comparable facilities from two private creditors, i.e. Bank [\u2026] and Bank [\u2026], which were not merely in the same but actually in a better situation vis-\u00e0-vis that company than the public collecting bodies.\n(179)\nThe Commission also concludes that the decision of both private and public creditors to refrain from instituting bankruptcy proceedings against PZL Hydral was justified by the good prospects for restoring viability to the aviation and defence activities once their debt arrears had been repaid, as indicated in the strategy developed in 1998 (see point 54).\n(180)\nTherefore, the non-enforcement of the public collecting bodies of the amounts owed to them in 1998-2007 does not confer an advantage on PZL Hydral because the public authorities acted in the same way as a private creditor would have acted, and this therefore does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\nVIII.3. Repayment of PZL Hydral's public liabilities (2007-10)\n(181)\nAfter the failure of the privatisation negotiations with [\u2026], the main private creditors of PZL Hydral, i.e. Bank [\u2026] and Bank [\u2026], settled their claims vis-\u00e0-vis PZL Hydral.\n(182)\nThe private creditors\u2019 claims were settled in April 2003 (Bank [\u2026]) and November 2006 (Bank [\u2026]) respectively. Despite the good quality of their collateral, Bank [\u2026] accepted the settlement of PZL Hydral's debts of PLN 51,6 million against a payment of PLN 4 million and Bank [\u2026] accepted the settlement of PZL Hydral's debts of PLN 86,4 million against a payment of PLN 11,5 million respectively (see points 31 and 33).\n(183)\nThe public collecting bodies reached a debt settlement agreement with the IDA and PZL Hydral in 2007, which was incorporated into the Plan in November 2007. This agreement contained four essential elements:\n-\nPLZ Hydral would pay all new taxes, charges and contributions on time,\n-\nPZL Hydral would pay off part of its outstanding liabilities in instalments; payment for the remainder would be deferred until PZL Hydral had sold off its subsidiaries and assets,\n-\nPLZ Hydral would sell all its subsidiaries and assets, and use the proceeds to pay its debt arrears,\n-\nthe aviation and defence business of PZL Hydral would be hived off into the subsidiary PZL Wroc\u0142aw, which would subsequently be privatised and public creditors would be repaid from the proceeds. This would leave PZL Hydral as an empty shell, which would be liquidated.\n(184)\nIn accordance with the estimated proceeds from sales in 2007-2010, the Plan provided for the public collecting bodies to recover PLN 120,8 million (see point 61). Ex post, this turned out to be a good estimate, as the amount established in 2010 is PLN 122,3 million (see point 133).\n(185)\nThe Commission notes that the Plan also provided for two capital injections to PZL Hydral, which were designed to increase the amount of money available for settling past liabilities. The inclusion of these capital injections in the Plan was to be subject to the Commission's prior authorisation; therefore, it was clear to the public creditors when agreement was reached on the Plan that they could not view the inclusion of these additional amounts in the Plan as acquired and certain.\n(186)\nThe Commission also notes that the Plan does not include a final decision on how the proceeds will be divided between the different public creditors. This division was to be done after the process of selling the subsidiaries and assets had been carried out on the basis of the actual proceeds of the sale, taking account of the collateral of the different public creditors on these assets.\n(187)\nWith regard to the assessment of the conduct of public creditors from 2007 to 2010, the Commission considers that two different decisions on the part of the public creditors need to be assessed: first, the decision in 2007 to agree to the Plan, and second, the decision in 2010 to accept the final settlement as detailed in Table 26 of this Decision.\n(188)\nAccording to Court case-law, in such situations the Commission must apply the private creditor rule, i.e. in order to determine whether the reduction of some of the debts owed by a firm in difficulty to a public-law body constitutes state aid, it must compare that body to a private creditor seeking to recover amounts owed to it by a debtor in financial difficulty (40).\n(189)\nHowever, according to case-law, when a company facing a significant deterioration in its financial situation proposes an agreement or series of agreements for debt restructuring to its creditors with a view to remedying the situation and avoiding bankruptcy, each creditor must take its decision in the light of the amount offered to it under the proposed agreement on the one hand, and the amount it expects to be able to recover in the event of the company's liquidation on the other. Its decision is influenced by number of factors, including the creditor's status as the holder of a secured, preferential or ordinary claim, the nature and extent of any collateral it may hold, its assessment of the likelihood of the company being restored to viability and the risks of its losses increasing in the event of this not taking place and the amount it would receive in the event of liquidation. If it turned out, for example, that in the event of the company being liquidated, the realisation value of its assets sufficed only to cover mortgage and preferential claims, ordinary claims would have no value. In these circumstances, acceptance by an ordinary creditor of the cancellation of a major part of its claim would not really be a sacrifice (41).\n(190)\nThe Commission notes that the terms of the settlement with the public collecting bodies are different from the terms of the settlement with the two private banks.\n(191)\nFirst of all, the private banks opted for an immediate payout, whereas the public collecting authorities agreed to await the results of the sale of PLZ Hydral's assets and subsidiaries.\n(192)\nSecond, the expected recovery rate of the public collecting authorities by far exceeds the recovery rate of the private banks: Bank [\u2026] recovered 7 %, Bank [\u2026] recovered 13 %, whereas the public collecting authorities could expect to recover 38,5 % on the basis of sale proceedings of PLN 122,3 million.\n(193)\nThe Commission must assess whether the decision of the public creditors to agree in 2007 to the Plan, which is different in nature to the settlement obtained by the private creditors, would have been taken by a private creditor in their place, applying the principles set out in points 188 and 189 above.\n(194)\nFirst, the Commission notes that the public creditors had only limited collateral, and that their collateral was of an inferior quality to that of the private banks (see Tables 16 to 20 above). They were therefore in a weaker negotiating position. At the same time, following the settlement with the private creditors, the quality of their collateral increased significantly, giving them additional security that, even in the event of the Plan not working out as predicted, they would still obtain an acceptable recovery rate from the assets.\n(195)\nSecond, the Commission notes that the public creditors could expect, on the basis of the assumptions underpinning the Plan, a substantially higher recovery rate than the private creditors, which had opted for a quick settlement.\n(196)\nThird, the Commission notes that the private creditors obtained assurances from PZL Hydral and PZL Wroc\u0142aw that all new liabilities would be paid on time.\n(197)\nFourth, the Commission observes that as regards outstanding liabilities, PZL Hydral agreed to a payment schedule which provided for part of the debt to be repaid in instalments and for the remainder to be repaid once the proceeds of the sale of assets and subsidiaries were known. These payments constituted a substantial improvement in comparison with recovery in the years before the Plan was agreed: in 2008, the first year of the Plan, PZL Hydral repaid PLN 54,6 million, against only PLN 9,5 million in 2007 (see Table 21).\n(198)\nThe Commission concludes that on the basis of these guarantees and the assurances received from PZL Hydral, the public creditors acted as a private creditor placed in a comparable situation would have acted.\n(199)\nThe Commission also observes that due to the failure of negotiations with [\u2026] and [\u2026] (see point 94), the actual realisation of the Plan took longer than initially envisaged. The Commission considers that this was a risk inherent to the agreement given to the Plan by the public collecting bodies.\n(200)\nThe final settlement between PZL Hydral and its public creditors is described in Table 26. Once the sale price for PZL Wroc\u0142aw had been established following an offer made by [\u2026], the public creditors agreed to settlement from the sale of PZL Hydral's assets, without any capital injections, in accordance with the private creditor rule, taking into account the value of their claims and the quality of their collateral (see point 96).\n(201)\nThe Commission must therefore determine whether, in the event of a sale without capital injections, each of the public creditors is better off than in the event of bankruptcy, and whether a sale to [\u2026] is the best sale scenario the public creditors could expect.\n(202)\nAll the public creditors will recover more than the private creditors (see point 134), except the Ministry of Finance, which, however, did not hold any collateral and thus cannot be compared with private creditors holding first-rank collateral (see points 32 and 34).\n(203)\nIt should also be noted that the Ernst&Young study commissioned by the IDA compared the amounts each public creditor could expect to receive in the event of bankruptcy and in the event of a sale (which took place in 2010) (see point 137). The study concludes that each public creditor is better off in the event of a sale.\n(204)\nThe Commission has critically assessed the Ernst&Young study in order to determine whether its findings withstand scrutiny and demonstrate that by agreeing to the settlement, each public creditor behaved like a private creditor in a comparable situation, relying on the case-law cited in points 188 and 189 above.\n(205)\nFirst, the Commission notes that the Ernst&Young study used as methodology the relevant case-law of the European courts to assess the private creditor rule and took into consideration the status of each public creditor, the collateral it held, its ranking and the amount it would recover in the event of liquidation.\n(206)\nTable 26 of the present decision shows that on the basis of this assessment, each public creditor (the Social Security Office, the Lower Silesia Region Tax Office, Wroc\u0142aw Psie Pole Tax Office, Wroc\u0142aw City Council, the State Fund for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled, the Lower Silesia Regional Office and the Ministry of Finance) is better off in the event of the sale of all PZL Hydral's assets, i.e. each recuperates a higher proportion of its outstanding liabilities, than in a bankruptcy scenario leading to liquidation, taking into consideration the ranking and the respective collateral of the public creditors (see point 134).\n(207)\nThe Commission then verified the plausibility of the bankruptcy scenario developed by Ernst&Young. The starting point of the assessment is that the value of PZL Hydral is nil, as its liabilities by far exceed the value of its assets and subsidiaries. Therefore any creditor in a bankruptcy scenario would only be able to recoup the portion of its outstanding liabilities that was secured by collateral, in so far as its rank enabled it to benefit from the liquidation value of the secured assets.\n(208)\nTables 16 to 20 show the collateral for each public creditor. The extent to which each public creditor is to be satisfied from its collateral, taking its ranking into account, in the event of PZL Hydral being declared bankrupt is shown in point 131. With a view to estimating the fire sale value of the real estate, Ernst&Young took the current fair value of assets forming part of the company in accordance with point 30 and international accounting standard (IAS) 16 on property, plant and equipment (42). The Commission notes that the use of this IAS is mandatory in the EU and is therefore an appropriate starting point for assessing the liquidation value. The Commission regards it as reasonable that the bankruptcy value of these assets is reduced in the fire sale by 50 % due to the fact that these assets will be sold separately, that it will not be possible to apply the \u2018going concern\u2019 rule due to decreased demand for industrial assets in the economic crisis and that this value is above the average revenue from the sale of assets in bankruptcy in Poland, which is 26,86 % compared to their fair value.\n(209)\nThe Commission concludes that each public creditor is better off under the scenario of a sale to [\u2026] than under a bankruptcy scenario.\n(210)\nIt remains to be determined whether the offer from [\u2026] is the best offer the public creditors could expect. The Commission notes that when it became clear in the first of half of 2009 that the conditions contained in the offer from [\u2026] had not been met, [\u2026] was the only buyer interested in purchasing the PZL Wroc\u0142aw shares. Despite the publication of an invitation to express interest and an active search for possible investors as of May 2008 (see point 90 et seq.), no other investors came forward. Therefore the public creditors did not have reasonable grounds to believe that any other investor would offer a better price in the future.\n(211)\nOn this basis, the Commission considers that by agreeing in 2010 to the settlement structure shown in Table 26, the public creditors behaved like a private creditor seeking to recover amounts owed to it by a debtor in financial difficulty. Therefore the public creditors did not confer an advantage on PZL Hydral. Accordingly, the settlement of outstanding liabilities in the form of a partial write-off of public liabilities as per the Ernst&Young study does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nVIII.4. Measures with regard to PZL Wroc\u0142aw\n(212)\nThe Commission needs to determine whether the 2007 loan conferred an advantage on PZL Wroc\u0142aw. For that purpose, the Commission must establish whether a private investor (\u2018market economy investor principle\u2019) would have concluded the transaction in question on the same terms and, if not, on which terms it would have done so (43).\n(213)\nThe Commission notes that in order to ascertain whether a loan granted by a state body which is already a shareholder in the company complies with the market economy investor principle, its investment should be compared with investments by a private holding company or private group of companies pursuing structural policy and being guided by the longer-term prospects (44) .\n(214)\nThe Commission takes the view that the IDA is not an external creditor which invests in order to obtain profits based on the return on its investment in the form of an interest rate, but that it is a shareholder with more than 90 % of shares in PZL Hydral, which in turn holds 100 % of shares in PZL Wroc\u0142aw. It must therefore be determined whether a private investor would have granted the 2007 loan in the same circumstances.\n(215)\nAs regards the 2007 loan to PZL Wroc\u0142aw, the Commission notes first that it was granted to PZL Wroc\u0142aw, a company which at that time was financially viable and not in financial difficulty within the meaning of the rescue and restructuring guidelines (see points 47 and 48). Instead it was a new company without debt which already had a significant number of orders on its books, mainly in the form of contracts with the Polish Ministry of Defence, with which it had a longstanding business relationship.\n(216)\nThe Commission notes that the IDA anticipated securing a return on its investment by way of a debt-for-equity swap of [\u2026]% and the subsequent sale of this stake in PZL Wroc\u0142aw to a private investor (for an estimated [\u2026]), as stated in the Plan.\n(217)\nThe IDA took into consideration the ongoing negotiations with [\u2026] (see point 74).\n(218)\nIn order to establish whether the IDA had acted in accordance with the private investor principle, it is therefore necessary to determine what sales price IDA could expect for its stake, what the level of risk was, and whether the return on the investment resulting from that sale was adequate in relation to the risk taken by the IDA.\n(219)\nPrior to granting the loan, the IDA had commissioned a study from an independent expert in order to establish the value of PZL Wroc\u0142aw once the hive-off from PZL Hydral had been completed (see point 66).\n(220)\nThe Commission critically assessed this study and concluded that it was reasonable to expect a sales price of at least [\u2026] (see point 71 et seq.). By selling approximately [\u2026]% of the shares, the IDA could therefore expect a considerable return of at least PLN 48,5 million in the event of a successful sale.\n(221)\nThe Commission acknowledges that there are always considerable risks inherent in any privatisation. In the present case a first attempt had already failed. At the same time, the Commission notes that the overall prospects for a Polish aviation and defence company were relatively stable taking into account the Polish army's ongoing duties abroad and Poland's commitments to NATO regarding its defence capabilities. Furthermore, in view of the need to hold special permits, barriers to entry to the relevant market segment are high, which in turn increases the attractiveness of the established players.\n(222)\nThe Commission also notes that the expected return on investment was sufficiently important to justify a relatively high risk, and that in addition the IDA had obtained collateral in the form of a registered pledge on machinery for PLN 5,5 million and an ordinary pledge on [\u2026]% of the shares (see point 65).\n(223)\nOn this basis, the Commission is satisfied that the 2007 loan was granted in line with the private investor principle and therefore does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n(224)\nThe Commission needs to determine whether the 2008 loan conferred an advantage on PZL Wroc\u0142aw. To that end the Commission will apply the private investor principle as set out in points 212 to 214 and for the reasons explained therein.\n(225)\nAs regards the 2008 loan to PZL Wroc\u0142aw, the Commission notes first that it was granted to PZL Wroc\u0142aw, a company which at that time was financially viable and not in financial difficulty within the meaning of the rescue and restructuring guidelines. Instead it was a new company without debt which already had a significant number of orders on its books, mainly in the form of contracts for an amount of [\u2026] with the Ministry of Defence (see point 48). The Commission takes the view that this loan was granted specifically for the purpose of processing the increasing number of orders from the Ministry of Defence. Moreover, in 2008 the company obtained private funding in the form of an operating lease (see point 87).\n(226)\nThe Commission notes that the IDA granted the 2008 loan shortly before the expected end of negotiations with [\u2026] regarding the sale of PZL Wroc\u0142aw (see point 74). It did so in order to provide a bridging loan for the period prior to closing the deal, when PZL Wroc\u0142aw had to expand its capacity rapidly in order to cope with increasing orders from the Ministry of Defence. The IDA's main motivation for granting the loan was therefore to ensure that the company could take advantage of business opportunities before the deal with [\u2026] was closed and to ensure that the deal would be concluded swiftly.\n(227)\nThe Commission notes that the loan is limited to PLN 4 million, the amount necessary to acquire the assets needed to meet the additional demand from the Ministry of Defence.\n(228)\nFurthermore, the Commission observes that the loan was secured by a registered pledge on machinery to a value of PLN 2,8 million and by an ordinary pledge on receivables from commercial contracts to a value of PLN 5,2 million, and that it had a variable interest rate which was identical to the applicable reference rate published by the Commission (see point 83). Nevertheless, before granting the 2008 loan, the IDA examined PZL Wroc\u0142aw's financial situation and found it to be profit-making. On that basis the IDA could expect PZL Wroc\u0142aw to generate sufficient cash flow for it to repay the loan and for the IDA to receive a return on its investment.\n(229)\nThe Commission observes that it is normal business behaviour for a majority shareholder that is in the process of selling a company to grant a small bridging loan, if that loan is necessary to take advantage of business opportunities and ensures that the sale is concluded smoothly. The Commission takes the view that the 2008 loan, which, furthermore, was adequately secured and provided for interest at the reference rate, was granted by the IDA in line with that logic.\n(230)\nOn this basis, the Commission is satisfied that the 2008 loan was granted in line with the market economy investor principle and therefore does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n(231)\nBy agreeing to first swap its debt for equity and then passing on the entire proceeds of the sale of the equity to PZL Hydral to enable it to settle its outstanding liabilities to public bodies as provided for in the Plan, the IDA effectively waived debts of PLN 17,2 million, recovering only [> PLN 1 053 196,36].\n(232)\nIt is necessary to establish whether the debt-for-equity swap involves an advantage granted by the IDA to PZL Wroc\u0142aw. To that end, the Commission must determine whether, in performing this transaction, the IDA complied with the private creditor rule as defined in points 188 and 189.\n(233)\nThe Commission notes first that [\u2026]'s 2009 offer ([\u2026]) was [\u2026] lower than [\u2026]'s 2008 offer. The Commission takes the view that this difference reflects the deterioration in the situation of PZL Wroc\u0142aw, which in 2008 had been profitable and with good prospects, whereas by 2009 it was showing signs of difficulties, mainly as a result of the significant downturn in orders from the Ministry of Defence.\n(234)\nThe Commission also notes that the IDA had no expectation of finding a buyer other than [\u2026] for the shares it had obtained in PZL Wroc\u0142aw as a result of the debt-for-equity swap (see point 210). In order to ensure that the deal was successful, the IDA had to ensure that it could settle the liabilities of the public creditors, in so far as they had mortgages on the assets of PZL Wroc\u0142aw, as otherwise it would not have been in a position to honour the commitment to transfer all assets free from collateral.\n(235)\nMoreover, if the sale of PZL Wroc\u0142aw - which was the event on which restructuring of public liabilities by way of partial repayments was based - did not proceed, the tax authorities would enforce their claims pursuant to the Tax Code (see point 144). In addition, in view the financial situation of PZL Wroc\u0142aw, the failure of the sale agreement would lead to PZL Wroc\u0142aw's bankruptcy (see point 52).\n(236)\nTherefore the Commission concludes that the only alternative to accepting the de facto waiver of PLN 17,2 million was to put PZL Wroc\u0142aw and PZL Hydral into liquidation.\n(237)\nThe supplement to the Ernst&Young study assessed these two scenarios. The Commission has critically assessed the Ernst&Young study to determine whether its findings withstand scrutiny and demonstrate that, by agreeing to the settlement, the IDA behaved like a private creditor in a comparable situation, relying on the case-law quoted in points 188 and 189.\n(238)\nIn the event of bankruptcy, the study concludes that ordinary creditors will not receive anything, as many of the assets are encumbered by pledges and mortgages and, in addition, the tax authorities will be able to enforce their claims against PZL Wroc\u0142aw (see points 143 et seq.). The Commission has confirmed this information by examining the financial reports of PZL Wroc\u0142aw and by analysing implementation of Polish law, and has reached the conclusion that Ernst&Young's assessment is justified.\n(239)\nAs a result, the Commission considers that the value of the ordinary pledge on receivables which secures the 2008 loan is without any value in a liquidation scenario. Furthermore, the pledge on [\u2026]% of the shares is without any value in the liquidation scenario, as the value of the shares themselves is nil.\n(240)\nTherefore, in order to establish what the IDA would obtain in a liquidation scenario, it is necessary to estimate the profits it could expect from selling the items on which it has registered pledges.\n(241)\nThe supplement to the Ernst&Young study notes that the machinery on which the IDA had pledges for the 2007 loan had a book value in 2007 of PLN 5,5 million, whereas the machinery on which it had pledges for the 2008 loan had a book value of PLN 2,8 million in 2008.\n(242)\nIn the supplement to the Ernst&Young study the assessment of the liquidation value of the pledges registered in favour of the IDA was based on the book value of the assets entered in PZL Wroc\u0142aw's audited financial reports (see points 151 and 152) as at 31 January 2010, i.e. PLN 2,1 million.\n(243)\nThe Commission considers that the book value of the fixed movable assets (serving as a pledge for the 2007 and 2008 loans), as entered in the audited financial report, is an appropriate starting point for assessing their liquidation value. The Commission notes first that the large difference between the book value and the net asset value which the 2008 study evaluating PZL Wroc\u0142aw had found was due to a significant increase in the value of real estate. No correction was made for the value of machinery. Second, the Commission notes that, in view of the short period of time between the establishment of the pledge and the assessment, there are no other indications that the book value does not reflect the conservatively estimated value of the machinery.\n(244)\nThe supplement to the Ernst&Young study argues that in the event of liquidation, these assets would have to be sold in a fire sale at a 50 % reduction, and that therefore the expected value is PLN 1 053 196,36. The Commission acknowledges that assets such as machinery that are put up for sale in the context of liquidation are usually sold below their book value.\n(245)\nThe Commission considers that the 50 % discount is justified for the reasons stated by Ernst&Young, and described in point 147 above. It considers in particular that the evaluation of their hypothetical value in the event of bankruptcy was done using a methodology which can be considered appropriate for the purpose of determining the realisable value of claims vis-\u00e0-vis borrowers under threat of bankruptcy, taking account of the specific type of machinery to be sold, the contingency of sales on a specific customer (the Ministry of Defence) which is cutting its spending in the light of the need to adapt to the downturn in tax revenue resulting from the crisis.\n(246)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that, on the basis of the information available to it when the present decision was adopted, the bankruptcy value of the IDA's outstanding loans was PLN 1 053 196,36.\n(247)\nIn the sale scenario, the value of the IDA's outstanding loans was higher, as [\u2026] offered to pay IDA [> PLN 1 053 196,36].\n(248)\nThe Commission concludes that a private creditor placed in the situation of the IDA would have accepted to waive PLN 17,2 million, because it could not reasonably expect to recover more of its claims under bankruptcy proceedings. Therefore, on that basis, the Commission is satisfied that the behaviour of the IDA with regard to the 2010 debt-for-equity swap is in line with the private investor principle and that the debt-for-equity swap does not contain state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\nIX. CONCLUSION\n(249)\nThe Commission notes that the formal investigation into the capital injections of PLN 113 million notified but subsequently withdrawn by the Polish authorities no longer serves any purpose pursuant to Article 8 of the Procedural Regulation.\n(250)\nWith regard to the non-enforcement of public creditors\u2019 liabilities and their eventual settlement, the Commission finds that the public creditors acted in line with the private creditor rule. Consequently, the behaviour of the public creditors does not involve state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.\n(251)\nThe Commission finds that the planned partial debt-for-equity swap by the Industrial Development Agency within the framework of the Plan, as amended, does not constitute state aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU as it complies with the private creditor rule. The Commission also considers that the 2007 loan and the 2008 loan in favour of PZL Wroc\u0142aw do not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU as they comply with the private investor principle,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of the capital injections of PLN 113 million, noting that Poland has withdrawn its notification and will not pursue this aid project further.\nArticle 2\n1. The partial non-enforcement from 1998 to 2007 of the claims that the Polish public authorities had against PZL Hydral and the settlement of these debts from 2007 to 2010 does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n2. The loans granted by the IDA to PZL Wroc\u0142aw in 2007 (PLN 12,5 million) and 2008 (PLN 4 million) do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n3. The subsequent partial write-off of these loans concerning PLN 17,2 million, carried out in the form of a debt-for-equity swap, does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Poland.\nDone at Brussels, 4 August 2010.", "references": ["57", "47", "34", "87", "28", "39", "25", "55", "60", "63", "5", "21", "44", "16", "35", "59", "52", "13", "32", "74", "83", "22", "77", "40", "84", "51", "99", "1", "78", "6", "No Label", "15", "41", "48", "85", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "41", "48", "85", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 426/2012\nof 22 May 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (\u03a0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u0395\u03bb\u03b9\u03ad\u03c2 \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c2 (Prasines Elies Chalkidikis) (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 7(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and in accordance with Article 17(2) thereof, an application from Greece received on 27 March 2006 to register the name \u2018\u03a0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u0395\u03bb\u03b9\u03ad\u03c2 \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c2\u2019 (Prasines Elies Chalkidikis) as a protected designation of origin was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nBelgium and a private company from Canada lodged objections to such registration under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. The objections were deemed admissible under points (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 7(3) thereof. By letter dated 17 February 2011, the Commission asked the Parties concerned to seek agreement among them.\n(3)\nAn agreement was reached between Greece and the objectors. Pursuant to this agreement, the Specification and the Summary were amended in a minor way by adding lactic acid and citric acid to the list of authorised preservatives and by limiting at 8,5 % the sodium chloride content of the brine solution at the fermentation stage. Greece and the objectors also agreed that the registration of the name \u2018\u03a0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u0395\u03bb\u03b9\u03ad\u03c2 \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c2\u2019 (Prasines Elies Chalkidikis) should not prevent the placing on the market of a product, the labelling of which includes the term \u2018variety Chalkidikis\u2019, as long as the product in question comprises or is derived from this variety and that consumers are not misled, the usage of the variety name constitutes fair competition, and the usage does not exploit the reputation of the protected designation of origin. Pursuant to this agreement this would be ensured when the term \u2018variety Chalkidikis\u2019 appears on the label in smaller letters compared to those of the product name, at a reasonable distance from the sales designation of the product and provided it is accompanied with the indication of the place of origin, when this place is other than Chalkidiki.\n(4)\nIn the light of the above, the name \u2018\u03a0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u0395\u03bb\u03b9\u03ad\u03c2 \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c2\u2019 (Prasines Elies Chalkidikis) should be entered in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications. The Summary should be updated accordingly and published,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe designation contained in Annex I to this Regulation shall be entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThe updated Summary is contained in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 May 2012.", "references": ["5", "40", "69", "71", "74", "23", "35", "31", "86", "67", "36", "6", "59", "17", "48", "28", "72", "79", "87", "12", "50", "78", "37", "84", "32", "39", "65", "70", "10", "0", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 26 April 2011\nconcerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the \u2018energy\u2019 subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system\n(notified under document C(2011) 2740)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/274/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 2(e) and Annex II to Directive 2008/57/EC, the rail system is subdivided into structural and functional subsystems, including an energy subsystem.\n(2)\nBy Decision C(2006) 124 final of 9 February 2006, the Commission gave a mandate to the European Railway Agency (the Agency) to develop technical specifications for interoperability (TSIs) under Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (2). Under the terms of that mandate, the Agency was requested to draw up the draft TSI related to the energy subsystem of the conventional rail system.\n(3)\nTechnical specifications for interoperability (TSI) are specifications adopted in accordance with the Directive 2008/57/EC. The TSI in Annex covers the energy subsystem in order to meet the essential requirements and ensure the interoperability of the rail system.\n(4)\nThe TSI in Annex should refer to Commission Decision 2010/713/EU of 9 November 2010 on modules for the procedures for assessment of conformity, suitability for use and EC verification to be used in the technical specifications for interoperability adopted under Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 17(3) of Directive 2008/57/EC, Member States are to notify to the Commission and other Member States the conformity assessment and verification procedures to be used for the specific cases, as well as the bodies responsible for carrying out these procedures.\n(6)\nThe TSI in Annex should be without prejudice to the provisions of other relevant TSIs which may be applicable to energy subsystems.\n(7)\nThe TSI in Annex should not impose the use of specific technologies or technical solutions except where this is strictly necessary for the interoperability of the rail system within the Union.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 11(5) of Directive 2008/57/EC, the TSI in Annex should allow, for a limited period of time, for interoperability constituents to be incorporated into subsystems without certification if certain conditions are met.\n(9)\nTo continue to encourage innovation and to take into account the experience acquired, the TSI in Annex should be subject to periodic revision.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in conformity with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nA Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI) relating to the energy subsystem of the trans-European conventional railway, is hereby adopted by the Commission.\nThe TSI shall be as set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis TSI shall be applicable to all new, upgraded or renewed infrastructure of the trans-European conventional rail system as defined in Annex I to Directive 2008/57/EC.\nArticle 3\nThe procedures for assessment of conformity, suitability for use and EC verification set out in Chapter 6 of the TSI in Annex shall be based on the modules defined in Decision 2010/713/EU.\nArticle 4\n1. During a transition period of 10 years, it shall be permissible to issue an EC certificate of verification for a subsystem that contains interoperability constituents not holding an EC Declaration of conformity or suitability for use, on the condition that the provisions set out in Section 6.3 of the Annex are met.\n2. The production or upgrade/renewal of the subsystem with use of the non-certified interoperability constituents must be completed within the transition period, including the placing in service.\n3. During the transition period Member States shall ensure that:\n(a)\nthe reasons for non-certification of the interoperability constituent are properly identified in the verification procedure referred to in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe details of the non-certified interoperability constituents and the reasons for non-certification, including the application of national rules notified under Article 17 of Directive 2008/57/EC, are included by the National Safety Authorities in their annual report referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4).\n4. After the transition period and with the exceptions allowed under Section 6.3.3 on maintenance, interoperability constituents shall be covered by the required EC declaration of conformity and/or suitability for use before being incorporated into the subsystem.\nArticle 5\nIn accordance with Article 5(3)(f) of Directive 2008/57/EC, the TSI in Annex, Chapter 7, sets out a strategy for migrating towards a full interoperable energy subsystem. This migration needs to be applied in conjunction with Article 20 of that Directive which specifies the principles of the application of the TSI to the renewal and upgrading projects. Member States shall notify to the Commission a report on the implementation of Article 20 of Directive 2008/57/EC 3 years after the entry into force of this Decision. This report will be discussed in the context of the Committee set up in Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC and, where appropriate, the TSI in Annex will be adapted.\nArticle 6\n1. With regard to those issues classified as specific cases set out in Chapter 7 of the TSI, the conditions to be complied with for the verification of the interoperability pursuant to Article 17(2) of Directive 2008/57/EC shall be those applicable technical rules in use in the Member State which authorise the placing in service of the subsystems covered by this Decision.\n2. Each Member State shall notify to the other Member States and to the Commission within 6 months of the notification of this Decision:\n(a)\nthe applicable technical rules mentioned in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe conformity assessment and checking procedures to be applied with regard to the application of the technical rules mentioned in paragraph 1;\n(c)\nthe bodies it appoints for carrying out the conformity assessment and checking procedures of the specific cases mentioned in paragraph 1.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 June 2011.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 April 2011.", "references": ["73", "54", "81", "41", "24", "82", "6", "16", "51", "12", "63", "84", "78", "47", "25", "92", "36", "48", "88", "3", "70", "96", "27", "10", "31", "79", "58", "77", "93", "69", "No Label", "9", "55", "76"], "gold": ["9", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 4 May 2010\non the Security Plan for the operation of the Visa Information System\n(2010/260/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 32 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 provides that the Management Authority shall take the necessary measures in order to achieve the objectives in the field of security prescribed in Article 32(2) as regards the operation of the VIS, including the adoption of the security plan.\n(2)\nArticle 26(4) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 provides that during a transitional period before the Management Authority takes up its responsibilities, the Commission shall be responsible for the operational management of the VIS.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) applies to the processing of personal data by the Commission when carrying out its responsibilities in the operational management of VIS.\n(4)\nArticle 26(7) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 provides that where the Commission delegates its responsibilities during the transitional period before the Management Authority takes up its responsibilities, it shall ensure that this delegation does not adversely affect any effective control mechanism under Union law, whether of the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors or the European Data Protection Supervisor.\n(5)\nThe Management Authority should set out its own security plan in relation to the VIS once it will have taken up its responsibilities.\n(6)\nCommission Decision 2008/602/EC of 17 June 2008 laying down the physical architecture and requirements of the national interfaces and of the communication infrastructure between the central VIS and the national interfaces for the development phase (3) has described the required security services applicable for the network for VIS.\n(7)\nArticle 27 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 provides that the principal central VIS, which performs technical supervision and administration functions, shall be located in Strasbourg (France) and a backup central VIS, capable of ensuring all functionalities of the principal central VIS in the event of failure of the system, shall be located in Sankt Johann im Pongau (Austria).\n(8)\nThe roles of the security officers should be laid down in order to ensure efficient and prompt response to security incidents and reporting thereof.\n(9)\nA Security Policy should be set up describing all technical and organisational details in line with the provisions of this Decision.\n(10)\nMeasures should be defined to ensure the appropriate level of security of the operation of VIS,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision constitutes the security organisation and measures (security plan) within the meaning of Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008.\nCHAPTER II\nORGANISATION, RESPONSIBILITIES AND INCIDENT MANAGEMENT\nArticle 2\nTasks of the Commission\n1. The Commission shall implement and monitor the effectiveness of the security measures for central VIS and the communication infrastructure referred to in this Decision.\n2. The Commission shall designate a System Security Officer from among its officials. The System Security Officer shall be appointed by the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security of the Commission. The tasks of the System Security Officer shall include in particular:\n(a)\nthe preparation, update and revision of the Security Policy as described in Article 7 of this Decision;\n(b)\nmonitoring the effectiveness of the implementation of the security procedures of the central VIS and the communication infrastructure;\n(c)\ncontributing to the preparation of reporting in relation to security as referred to in Article 50(3) and 50(4) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008;\n(d)\nperforming coordination and assistance tasks in the checks and audits performed by the European Data Protection Supervisor referred to in Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008;\n(e)\nmonitoring that this Decision and the Security Policy are applied properly and fully by any contractor including subcontractors being involved in any way in the management and operation of the VIS;\n(f)\nmaintaining a list of single national contact points for VIS security and sharing it with the Local Security Officers for the central VIS and for the communication infrastructure.\nArticle 3\nLocal Security Officer for the central VIS\n1. Without prejudice to Article 8, the Commission shall designate a Local Security Officer for the central VIS from among its officials. Conflicts of interest between the duty of Local Security Officer and any other official duty shall be prevented. The Local Security Officer for the central VIS shall be appointed by the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security of the Commission.\n2. The Local Security Officer for the central VIS shall ensure that the security measures referred to in this Decision are implemented and the security procedures are followed in the principal central VIS. As regards the backup central VIS, the Local Security Officer for the central VIS shall ensure that security measures referred to in this Decision, except those referred to at Article 10, are implemented and the security procedures relating thereto are followed.\n3. The Local Security Officer for central VIS may assign any of his or her tasks to subordinate personnel. Conflicts of interest between the duty to execute these tasks and any other official duty shall be prevented. A single contact phone number and address shall allow reaching the Local Security Officer or his or her on-duty subordinate at any time.\n4. The Local Security Officer for the central VIS shall perform the tasks resulting from security measures to be taken at the principal and backup central VIS sites, within the limits of paragraph 1, including in particular:\n(a)\nlocal operational security tasks including firewall audit, regular security testing, auditing and reporting;\n(b)\nmonitoring the effectiveness of the business continuity plan and ensuring that regular exercises are conducted;\n(c)\nsecuring evidence on, and reporting to the System Security Officer, any incident that may have an impact on the security of the central VIS or the communication infrastructure;\n(d)\ninforming the System Security Officer if the Security Policy needs to be amended;\n(e)\nmonitoring that this Decision and the Security Policy are applied by any contractor including subcontractors being involved in any way in the management and operation of the central VIS;\n(f)\nensuring that the staff are made aware of their obligations and monitoring the application of the Security Policy;\n(g)\nmonitoring IT security developments and ensuring that staff is trained accordingly;\n(h)\npreparing underlying information and options for the establishment, update and review of the Security Policy in accordance with Article 7.\nArticle 4\nLocal Security Officer for the communication infrastructure\n1. Without prejudice to Article 8, the Commission shall designate a Local Security Officer for the communication infrastructure from among its officials. Conflicts of interest between the duty of Local Security Officer and any other official duty shall be prevented. The Local Security Officer for the Communication Infrastructure shall be appointed by the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security of the Commission.\n2. The Local Security Officer for the communication infrastructure shall monitor the functioning of the communication infrastructure and ensure that the security measures are implemented and the security procedures are followed.\n3. The Local Security Officer for the communication infrastructure may assign any of his or her tasks to subordinate personnel. Conflicts of interest between the duty to execute these tasks and any other official duty shall be prevented. A single contact phone number and address shall allow reaching the Local Security Officer or his or her on-duty subordinate at any time.\n4. The Local Security Officer for the communication infrastructure shall perform the tasks resulting from security measures relating to the communication infrastructure, including in particular:\n(a)\nall operational security tasks relating to the communication infrastructure such as, firewall audit, regular security testing, auditing, reporting;\n(b)\nmonitoring the effectiveness of the business continuity plan and ensuring that regular exercises are conducted;\n(c)\nsecuring evidence on, and reporting to the System Security Officer, any incident that may have an impact on the security of the communication infrastructure or the central VIS or on the national systems;\n(d)\ninforming the System Security Officer if the Security Policy needs to be amended;\n(e)\nmonitoring that this Decision and the Security Policy is applied by any contractor including subcontractors being involved in any way in the management of the communication infrastructure;\n(f)\nensuring that the staff are made aware of their obligations and monitoring the application the Security Policy;\n(g)\nmonitoring IT security developments and ensuring that staff is trained accordingly;\n(h)\npreparing underlying information and options for the establishment, update and review of the Security Policy in accordance with Article 7.\nArticle 5\nSecurity incidents\n1. Any event that has or may have an impact on the security of the operation of VIS and may cause damage or loss to the VIS shall be considered as a security incident, especially where access to data may have occurred or where the availability, integrity and confidentiality of data has or may have been compromised.\n2. The Security Policy shall establish procedures to recover from an incident. Security incidents shall be managed to ensure a quick, effective and proper response in compliance with the Security Policy.\n3. Information regarding a security incident that has or may have an impact on the operation of VIS in a Member State or on the availability, integrity and confidentiality of the VIS data entered by a Member State, shall be provided to the Member State concerned. Security incidents shall be notified to the Data Protection Officer of the Commission.\nArticle 6\nIncident management\n1. All staff and contractors involved in developing, managing or operating VIS shall be required to note and report any observed or suspected security weaknesses in the operation of VIS to the System Security Officer or the Local Security Officer for the central VIS or the Local Security Officer for the communication infrastructure, as appropriate.\n2. In case of detection of any incident that has or may have an impact on the security of the operation of VIS, the Local Security Officer for the central VIS or the Local Security Officer for the communication infrastructure shall inform as quickly as possible the System Security Officer and, where appropriate, the single national contact point for VIS security, if such a contact point exists in the Member State in question, in writing or, in case of extreme urgency, via other communication channels. The report shall contain the description of the security incident, the level of risk, the possible consequences and the measures that have been or should be taken to mitigate the risk.\n3. Any evidence in relation to the security incident shall be secured immediately by the Local Security Officer for the central VIS or the Local Security Officer for the communication infrastructure, as appropriate. To the extent possible under applicable data protection provisions, such evidence shall be made available to the System Security Officer upon request of the latter.\n4. Feedback processes shall be implemented to ensure that information about the results is communicated, once the incident has been dealt with and terminated.\nCHAPTER III\nSECURITY MEASURES\nArticle 7\nSecurity Policy\n1. The Director-General of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security shall establish, update and regularly review a binding Security Policy in accordance with this Decision. The Security Policy shall provide for the detailed procedures and measures to protect against threats to the availability, integrity and confidentiality of the VIS, including emergency planning, in order to ensure the appropriate level of security as prescribed by this Decision. The Security Policy shall comply with this Decision.\n2. The Security Policy shall be based on a risk assessment. The measures described by the Security Policy shall be proportionate to the risks identified.\n3. The risk assessment and the Security Policy shall be updated if technological changes, identification of new threats or any other circumstances make it necessary. The Security Policy shall be reviewed in any event on an annual basis to ensure that it is still appropriately responding to the latest risk assessment or any other newly identified technological change, threat or other relevant circumstance.\n4. The Security Policy shall be prepared by the System Security Officer, in coordination with the Local Security Officer for the VIS and the Local Security Officer for the communication infrastructure.\nArticle 8\nImplementation of the security measures\n1. The implementation of tasks and requirements laid down in this Decision and in the Security Policy, including the task of designating a Local Security Officer, may be contracted out or entrusted to private or public bodies.\n2. In this case the Commission shall ensure through legally binding agreement that the requirements laid down in this Decision and in the Security Policy, are fully complied with. In case of delegation or contracting out of the task of designating a Local Security Officer, the Commission shall ensure through legally binding agreement that it will be consulted on the person to be designated as Local Security Officer.\nArticle 9\nFacilities access control\n1. Security perimeters with appropriate barriers and entry controls shall be used to protect areas that contain data processing facilities.\n2. Within the security perimeters, secure areas shall be defined to protect the physical components (assets), including hardware, data media and consoles, plans and other documents on the VIS as well as offices and other work places of staff involved in operating the VIS. These secure areas shall be protected by appropriate entry controls to ensure that only authorised personnel are allowed access. Work in secure areas shall be subject to the detailed security rules set out in the Security Policy.\n3. Physical security for offices, rooms and facilities shall be foreseen and installed. Access points such as delivery and loading areas and other points where unauthorised persons may enter the premises shall be controlled and, if possible, isolated from data processing facilities to avoid unauthorised access.\n4. A physical protection of the security perimeters against damage from natural or man-made disaster shall be designed and applied proportionally to the risk.\n5. Equipment shall be protected from physical and environmental threats and from opportunities for unauthorised access.\n6. If such information is available to the Commission, it shall add to the list referred to in Article 2(2)(f) a single point of contact for monitoring the implementation of the provisions of this Article at the premises where the backup central VIS is located.\nArticle 10\nData media and asset control\n1. Removable media containing data shall be protected against unauthorised access, misuse or corruption and its readability shall be ensured during the whole lifetime of the data.\n2. Media shall be disposed securely and safely when no longer required, in accordance with the detailed procedures to be set out in the Security Policy.\n3. Inventories shall ensure that information on the storage location, the applicable retention period and access authorisations are available.\n4. All important assets of the central VIS and the communication infrastructure shall be identified, so that they can be protected in accordance with their importance. An up-to-date register of relevant IT equipment shall be kept.\n5. An up-to-date documentation of the central VIS and the communication infrastructure shall be available. Such documentation must be protected against unauthorised access.\nArticle 11\nStorage control\n1. Appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure proper storage of information and the prevention of unauthorised access thereto.\n2. All items of equipment containing storage media shall be checked to ensure that sensitive data have been removed or fully overwritten prior to disposal, or shall be securely destroyed.\nArticle 12\nPassword control\n1. All passwords shall be kept safely and treated confidentially. In case of suspicion that a password has been disclosed, the password has to be changed immediately or the user account has to be disabled. Unique and individual user identities shall be used.\n2. Procedures shall be defined in the Security Policy for logging in and out to prevent any unauthorised access.\nArticle 13\nAccess control\n1. The Security Policy shall establish a formal staff registration and de-registration procedure in place for granting and revoking access to VIS hardware and software at the central VIS for the purposes of the operational management. The allocation and use of adequate access credentials (passwords or other appropriate means) shall be controlled through a formal management process as laid down in the Security Policy.\n2. Access to VIS hardware and software at the central VIS shall:\n(i)\nbe restricted to authorised persons;\n(ii)\nbe limited to cases where a legitimate purpose in accordance with Articles 42 and 50(2) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 can be identified;\n(iii)\nnot exceed the duration and scope necessary for the purpose of the access; and\n(iv)\ntake place only in accordance with an access control policy to be defined in the Security Policy.\n3. Only the consoles and software authorised by the Local Security Officer for central VIS shall be used at the central VIS. The use of system utilities that might be capable of overriding system and application controls shall be restricted and controlled. There shall be procedures in place to control the installation of software.\nArticle 14\nCommunication control\nThe communication infrastructure shall be monitored in order to provide availability, integrity and confidentiality for the information exchanges. Cryptographic means shall be used to protect the data transmitted in the communication infrastructure.\nArticle 15\nControl of data recording\nAccounts for persons authorised to access VIS software from the central VIS shall be monitored by the Local Security Officer for the central VIS. Use of those accounts, including time and user identity shall be registered.\nArticle 16\nTransport control\n1. Appropriate measures shall be defined in the Security Policy to prevent unauthorised reading, copying, modification or deletion of personal data during the transmission to or from the VIS or during the transport of data media. Provisions shall be laid down in the Security Policy with regard to the admissible types of dispatch or transport as well as in respect of accountability procedures for the transport of items and their arrival at the place of destination. The data medium shall not contain any data other than the data which is to be sent.\n2. Services delivered by third parties involving accessing, processing, communicating or managing data processing facilities or adding products or services to data processing facilities shall have appropriate integrated security controls.\nArticle 17\nSecurity of the communication infrastructure\n1. The communication infrastructure shall be adequately managed and controlled in order to protect it from threats and to ensure the security of the communication infrastructure itself and of central VIS, including data exchanged through it.\n2. Security features, service levels and management requirements of all network services shall be identified in the network service agreement with the service provider.\n3. Besides protecting the VIS access points, any additional service being used by the communication infrastructure shall also be protected. Appropriate measures shall be defined in the Security Policy.\nArticle 18\nMonitoring\n1. Logs recording the information referred to in Article 34(1) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 relating to every access to and all data processing operations within the central VIS shall be kept securely stored on, and accessible from the premises where the principal and backup central VIS sites are located for the period referred to in Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008.\n2. Procedures for monitoring use or faults in information processing facilities shall be set out in the Security Policy and the results of the monitoring activities reviewed regularly. If necessary, appropriate action shall be taken.\n3. Logging facilities and logs shall be protected against tampering and unauthorised access in order to meet the requirements of collecting and retain for the evidence retention period.\nArticle 19\nCryptographic measures\nCryptographic measures shall be used where appropriate for the protection of information. Their use, along with the purposes and conditions, must be approved by the System Security Officer in advance.\nCHAPTER IV\nHUMAN RESOURCES SECURITY\nArticle 20\nPersonnel profiles\n1. The Security Policy shall define the functions and responsibilities of persons who are authorised to access the VIS, including the communication infrastructure.\n2. The security roles and responsibilities of Commission staff, contractors and staff involved in operational management shall be defined, documented and communicated to the persons concerned. The job description and the objectives shall state these roles and responsibilities for Commission staff; contracts or service level agreements shall state them for contractors.\n3. Confidentiality and secrecy agreements shall be concluded with all persons to whom no European Union or Member State public service rules apply. Staff required to work with VIS data shall have the necessary clearance or certification in accordance with the detailed procedures to be set out in the Security Policy.\nArticle 21\nInformation of personnel\n1. All staff and, where relevant, contractors shall receive appropriate training in security awareness, legal requirements, policies and procedures, to the extent required by their duties.\n2. At the termination of the employment or contract, responsibilities related to job change or employment termination shall be defined for staff and contractors in the Security Policy, and procedures shall be set out in the Security Policy to manage the return of assets and the removal of access rights.\nCHAPTER V\nFINAL PROVISION\nArticle 22\nApplicability\n1. This Decision shall become applicable as of the date determined by the Commission in accordance with Article 48(1) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008.\n2. This Decision shall expire when the Management Authority takes up its responsibilities.\nDone at Brussels, 4 May 2010.", "references": ["64", "61", "94", "58", "47", "71", "34", "62", "15", "23", "92", "75", "25", "83", "48", "65", "3", "20", "4", "7", "81", "18", "12", "27", "37", "49", "21", "33", "96", "82", "No Label", "13", "40", "41", "42"], "gold": ["13", "40", "41", "42"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 December 2010\namending Decision C(2007) 2286 on the adoption of ERC Rules for the submission of proposals and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures for indirect actions under the Ideas Specific Programme of the Seventh Framework Programme (2007 to 2013)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/767/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of research results (2007 to 2013) (1), in particular Article 16(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Decision C(2007) 2286 of 6 June 2007, the Commission adopted the rules for the submission of proposals to the European Research Council (ERC) and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures for indirect actions under the Ideas Specific Programme of the Seventh Framework Programme (2007 to 2013) (\u2018ERC Rules\u2019).\n(2)\nBy Decision C(2007) 4429 of 27 September 2007, the Commission amended those rules.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the experiences gained during the first ERC calls of 2007, 2008 and 2009, and taking into account the changes introduced in the legislation of the European Union or expressly requested by the ERC Scientific Council, Decision C(2007) 2286 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe ERC Rules for the submission of proposals and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures for indirect actions under the Ideas Specific Programme of the Seventh Framework Programme (2007 to 2013) adopted by Decision C(2007) 2286 are replaced by the rules in Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The ERC Rules for the submission of proposals and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures of indirect actions under the Ideas Specific Programme of the Seventh Framework Programme (2007 to 2013) shall apply to all ERC calls for proposals published from the date of entry into force of this Decision.\n2. The provisions on the appointment and reimbursement of independent experts and Principal Investigators invited for an interview, as laid down in the model appointment letters adopted by the Commission as well as in section 3, and Annexes B, and C to the ERC Rules for the submission of proposals and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures of indirect actions under the Ideas Specific Programme of the Seventh Framework Programme (2007 to 2013) shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2010.", "references": ["12", "20", "45", "89", "60", "16", "22", "86", "3", "81", "18", "82", "2", "67", "87", "85", "98", "97", "52", "47", "65", "1", "33", "94", "69", "8", "96", "57", "31", "88", "No Label", "7", "9", "76", "77"], "gold": ["7", "9", "76", "77"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 585/2012\nof 26 June 2012\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Articles 9(2), 9(4) and 11(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Previous investigations and existing measures\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 (2) the Council imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel, originating in, inter alia, Russia. By Commission Decision 2000/70/EC (3), an undertaking was accepted from an exporter in Russia. By Regulation (EC) No 348/2000 (4) the Council imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia and Ukraine. By Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/2004 (5), it was decided to no longer apply the measures in force on imports from, inter alia, Russia as a matter of prudence in connection with the anti-competitive behaviour of certain Union producers in the past (see recital 9 of that Regulation).\n(2)\nFollowing a review investigation carried out in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 258/2005 (6), amended the definitive measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 348/2000, repealed the possibility of exemption from the duties provided for in Article 2 of that Regulation and imposed an anti-dumping duty of 38,8 % on imports from Croatia and an anti-dumping duty of 64,1 % on imports from Ukraine with the exception of imports from Dnepropetrovsk Tube Works (DTW), which were subject to an anti-dumping duty of 51,9 %.\n(3)\nBy Decision 2005/133/EC (7), the Commission partially suspended the definitive measures regarding Croatia and Ukraine for a period of nine months, with effect from 18 February 2005. The partial extension was extended for a further period of one year by Council Regulation (EC) No 1866/2005 (8).\n(4)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 (9) the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes originating in, inter alia, Croatia, Russia and Ukraine, repealed Regulations (EC) No 2320/97 and (EC) No 348/2000, terminated the interim and expiry reviews of the anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes or iron or non-alloy steel originating, inter alia, in Russia and terminated the interim reviews of the anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in, inter alia, Croatia, Russia and Ukraine (\u2018the latest investigation\u2019).\n(5)\nTherefore, the measures in force are those established by Regulation (EC) No 954/2006, i.e. 29,8 % for imports from Croatia, 35,8 % for imports from Russia, with the exception of the Joint Stock Company Chelyabinsk Tube Rolling Plant and Joint Stock Company Pervouralsky Novotrubny Works (24,1 %), OAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant, OAO Taganrog Metallurgical Works, OAO Sinarsky Pipe Plant and OAO Seversky Tube Works (27,2 %), and 25,7 % for imports from Ukraine, with the exception of OJSC Dnepropetrovsk Tube Works (12,3 %), CJSJ Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube and OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (25,1 %).\n(6)\nWith regard to CJSC Nikopolosky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube and OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (NTRP) it is recalled that their company names changed in February 2007 to CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant, respectively (10). Subsequently, CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube has been discontinued as a legal entity and all its property and non-property rights and liabilities was taken over by LLC Interpipe Niko Tube, which was established in December 2007.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the anti-dumping duty rate for the Interpipe group was recalculated on the basis of the judgment of the ECJ of 12 February 2012 (11). The duty currently in force for this group is 17,7 % as established by Council Regulation (EU) No 540/2012 (12) implementing this judgment of the ECJ.\n1.2. Request for an expiry review\n(8)\nOn 28 June 2011, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union the initiation of an expiry review (\u2018Notice of initiation\u2019) (13) of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia, Russia and Ukraine pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(9)\nThe review was initiated following a substantiated request lodged on 29 March 2011 by the Defence Committee of the Seamless Steel Tubes Industry of the European Union (\u2018the applicant\u2019) on behalf of Union producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain seamless pipes and tubes. The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union Industry.\n(10)\nFurther to the expiry review mentioned above, the Commission has, in parallel, initiated two partial reviews pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Ukraine and Russia (14). These partial reviews were requested by one group of exporting producers in Ukraine, the Interpipe group, and one group of exporting producers in Russia, the TMK group, respectively. Both reviews are limited in scope to the examination of dumping only as far as the applicants are concerned.\n1.3. Investigation\n(11)\nThe Commission officially advised the exporting producers, importers, known users, the representatives of the exporting countries, the applicant and the Union producers mentioned in the request of the initiation of the review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(12)\nIn view of the large number of exporting producers in Russia and Ukraine, of Union producers and of importers involved in the investigation, sampling was initially envisaged in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be indeed necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested, to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the proceeding and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation.\n(13)\nGiven that only one exporting producer in Russia and only one exporting producer in Ukraine provided the information requested in the notice of initiation and expressed their willingness to further cooperate with the Commission, it was decided not to apply sampling in the case of the exporting producers in Russia and Ukraine, but to send a questionnaire to those producers. Thereafter, the exporting producer in Russia which provided the information requested in the notice of initiation decided not to cooperate further, by sending a reply to the questionnaire intended for the exporting producer in Russia.\n(14)\nNineteen Union producers provided the information requested for the selection of a sample and expressed their willingness to cooperate with the Commission. On the basis of the information received from the Union producers, the Commission had, prior to the initiation, provisionally selected a sample of four producers, which were found to be representative of the Union industry in terms of volume of production and sales of the like product in the Union. Following comments received on the appropriateness of this choice within the deadline of 15 days after the initiation, the Commission replaced one of the provisionally selected producers by another producer.\n(15)\nFour importers provided the information requested in the notice of initiation and expressed their willingness to cooperate with the Commission. Therefore the Commission decided not to apply sampling and to send a questionnaire to those importers instead.\n(16)\nQuestionnaires were therefore sent to the four sampled Union producers, to four importers and to all exporting producers in the three countries concerned that came forward.\n(17)\nAll exporting producers in Russia failed to submit a reply to the questionnaire. It is therefore considered that no exporting producer in Russia cooperated in the investigation.\n(18)\nOne group of exporting producers in Ukraine submitted a reply to the questionnaire.\n(19)\nOne exporting producer in Croatia submitted a reply to the questionnaire.\n(20)\nReplies to the questionnaires were further received from the four sampled Union producers, three importers and one user.\n(21)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of determining the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nUnion producers:\n-\nArcelor Mittal Tubular products Ostrava, Czech Republic,\n-\nTenaris Dalmine SpA, Bergamo, Italy, and its related company TGS UK, Aberdeen, UK,\n-\nTubos Reunidos SA, Amurrio, Spain, and its related company Almesa, Barcelona, Spain,\n-\nV & M Deutschland GmbH, D\u00fcsseldorf, Germany;\n(b)\nExporting producer in Croatia:\n-\nCMC Sisak d.o.o.;\n(c)\nExporting producer in Ukraine:\n-\nThe Interpipe Group (OJSC Interpipe NTRP, Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, LLC Interpipe Niko Tube, Nikopol, Ukraine) and their related trading companies LLC Interpipe Ukraine, Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine and Interpipe Europe SA, Lugano, Switzerland);\n(d)\nImporters/users:\n-\nCastellan Maria & C SPS, San Dona di Piave, Italy,\n-\nTAL Group, Siderpighi, Pontenure, Piacenza, Italy.\n(22)\nThe investigation regarding the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 (\u2018review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 up to the end of the RIP (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(23)\nThe product concerned is the same as that in the last investigation which led to the imposition of measures currently in force, i.e. certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel (SPT), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm with a carbon equivalent value (CEV) not exceeding 0,86 according to the International Institute of Welding (IIW) formula and chemical analysis (15), originating in Croatia, Russia and Ukraine (\u2018the product concerned\u2019), currently falling within CN codes ex 7304 11 00, ex 7304 19 10, ex 7304 19 30, ex 7304 22 00, ex 7304 23 00, ex 7304 24 00, ex 7304 29 10, ex 7304 29 30, ex 7304 31 80, ex 7304 39 58, ex 7304 39 92, ex 7304 39 93, ex 7304 51 89, ex 7304 59 92 and ex 7304 59 93.\n(24)\nThe product concerned is used in a wide variety of applications, like transport of gas and liquids, in the construction business for piling, for mechanical uses, gas tubes, boiler tubes as well as oil and country tubular goods (OCTG) for drilling, casing and tubing for the oil industry.\n(25)\nSPT take very different forms at the time of their delivery to the users. They can be e.g. galvanised, threaded, delivered as green tubes (i.e. without any heat treatment), with special ends, different cross-sections, cut to size or not. There are no generalised standard sizes for the tubes, which explains why most of the SPT are made upon customers\u2019 orders. SPT are normally connected by welding. However, in particular cases they can be connected by their thread or be used alone, although they remain weldable. The investigation showed that all SPT share the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and the same basic uses.\n2.2. Like product\n(26)\nAs established in previous as well as in the latest investigation, this expiry review investigation confirmed that the product exported to the Union from Croatia, Russia and Ukraine, the product produced and sold on the domestic markets of Croatia, Russia and Ukraine, and the product produced and sold in the Union by the Union producers have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and end uses and are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n3. DUMPING\n(27)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether dumping was likely to continue or recur upon a possible expiry of the measures in force.\n3.1. Preliminary remarks\n(28)\nDuring the RIP, the total import volume, as recorded in Eurostat, of SPT from Croatia, Russia and Ukraine amounted to 42 723 tonnes, representing 2,5 % of the Union market share.\n(29)\nIn accordance with Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation, the same methodology was used as in the latest investigation, whenever circumstances have not changed or whenever the information was available. In case of non-cooperation, such as in the case of Russia, use had to be made of facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. As far as Croatia and Ukraine are concerned, information made available by the cooperating companies as well as publicly available information were used.\n3.2. Dumping of imports during the RIP\n3.2.1. General methodology\n(30)\nThe general methodology set out hereafter has been applied to all cooperating producers in Croatia and in Ukraine. The presentation of the findings on dumping for each of the countries concerned therefore only describes what is specific for each exporting country. With regard to Russia, in the absence of cooperation from either of the existing Russian exporting producers the overall analysis, including the dumping calculation, is based on the best facts available pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation.\n3.2.2. Normal value\n(31)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation it was first examined for each cooperating producer whether its total volume of domestic sales of the like product to independent customers was representative in comparison with its total volume of export sales to the Union, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the product concerned to the Union.\n(32)\nFor each product type sold by an exporting producer on its domestic market and found to be directly comparable with the product type sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total volume of that product type sold by the exporting producer on the domestic market to independent customers during the RIP represented at least 5 % of its total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Union.\n(33)\nIt was also examined whether the domestic sales of each product type could be regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of domestic sales to independent customers on the domestic market which were profitable for each exported type of the product concerned during the RIP.\n(34)\nFor those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market of the product type were above cost and the weighted average sales price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not.\n(35)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during the RIP.\n(36)\nWherever there were no domestic sales of a particular product type and for product types where the domestic sales were insufficient, the normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(37)\nWhen constructing normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits have been based, pursuant to Article 2(6), introductory phrase, of the basic Regulation, on the actual data pertaining to the production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer or on facts available.\n3.2.3. Export price\n(38)\nIn all cases where the product concerned was exported to independent customers in the Union, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.\n3.2.4. Comparison\n(39)\nThe normal value and the export price of the exporting producers of the cooperating group were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.\n3.2.5. Dumping margin for the cooperating exporting producers\n(40)\nAccording to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation the weighted average normal value was compared with the weighted average export price per product type on an ex-works basis for each cooperating company.\n3.3. Croatia\n(41)\nDuring the RIP, the total import volume of SPT from CMC Sisak, which is the sole exporting producer of SPT in Croatia, represented less than 1 % of the total Union consumption.\n3.3.1. Normal value\n(42)\nThe investigation established that while the domestic sales of the product concerned were representative in accordance with recitals 30 and 31 above, there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade. Accordingly, the normal value for the cooperating producer was constructed pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(43)\nAs a result, the normal value was constructed on the basis of the cost of manufacturing to which a reasonable amount for profit and for selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) was added, based on facts available.\n3.3.2. Export price\n(44)\nThe cooperating producer exported the product concerned either directly or via their related trading company in Switzerland to independent customers in the Union. Export prices were therefore, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable by the first independent customer in the Union.\n3.3.3. Comparison\n(45)\nThe comparison between the constructed normal value and the export price was made on an ex-works basis.\n(46)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison at the same level of trade due allowance was made for differences that were found to affect price comparability. Adjustments pursuant to Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation were thus made in respect of transport costs, rebates and discounts, commissions and credit costs.\n3.3.4. Dumping margin\n(47)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average of the constructed normal value with the weighted average export price to the Union. This comparison showed the existence of significant dumping of over 60 % during the RIP.\n3.4. Russia\n(48)\nDuring the RIP, as recorded in Eurostat, the total import volume of SPT from Russia amounted to 10 785 tonnes, representing around 1 % of the Union market share.\n3.4.1. Normal value\n(49)\nAs mentioned above, in the absence of cooperation by exporting producers in Russia, resort had to be made to facts available to determine whether dumping existed in the RIP. Pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation and in the absence of questionnaire data, normal value was calculated based on data from the review request and the Metal Expert periodical publications for the most basic quality of seamless hot finished tubes.\n(50)\nIn regard to gas prices in Russia, it was noted that an adjustment had to be made under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation when measures were imposed in the latest investigation (16). However, in the current investigation, the normal value was determined without considering whether an adjustment was necessary for the gas costs borne by Russian exporting producers in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation. This was because, as shown in recital 53, the use of an unadjusted cost of production already clearly shows that dumping took place during the RIP. As a consequence, and given the fact that the purpose of an expiry review is to determine whether dumping would be likely to continue or recur should measures be repealed in order to determine whether the currently applicable measures should be maintained or repealed, it was considered that it was not necessary to examine whether an adjustment under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation was justified in this case.\n3.4.2. Export price\n(51)\nAverage export price was calculated based on the cif value from Eurostat for the corresponding types of seamless hot finished tubes.\n3.4.3. Comparison\n(52)\nIn the absence of verified questionnaire data, the comparison between the normal value and the export price was made using data found in the request in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.\n3.4.4. Dumping margin\n(53)\nIn accordance with Article 18(5) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the calculated average normal value with the weighted average export price to the Union, by product type. This comparison showed the existence of dumping amounting to 38,4 %, which is higher than the dumping margin of 35,8 % found in the latest investigation.\n3.5. Ukraine\n(54)\nOf three known exporting producers in Ukraine only one group of exporting producers cooperated with the Commission in the current review investigation; the Interpipe group. This exporting producer accounted for approximately 70 % of Ukraine\u2019s total SPT production and more than 80 % of Ukraine\u2019s total exports to the Union. During the RIP, the share of Ukraine\u2019s exports to the Union in relation to Union consumption amounted to less than 2 %.\n3.5.1. Normal value\n(55)\nThe investigation established that the domestic sales of the like product were representative in accordance with recitals 31 to 33 above. Therefore, normal value was established in accordance with recitals 34 to 37 as above.\n(56)\nIn regard to energy prices in Ukraine, it was noted that an adjustment had to be made under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation when measures were imposed in the latest investigation (17). However, in the current investigation, the normal value was determined without considering whether an adjustment was necessary for energy costs borne by Ukrainian exporting producers in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation. This was because, as shown in recital 61 below, the use of an unadjusted cost of production already clearly shows that dumping took place during the RIP. As a consequence, and given the fact that the purpose of an expiry review is to determine whether dumping would be likely to continue or recur should measures be repealed in order to determine whether the currently applicable measures should be maintained or repealed, it was considered that it was not necessary to examine whether an adjustment under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation was justified in this case.\n3.5.2. Export price\n(57)\nThe Interpipe group exported the product concerned through their related trading company located in Switzerland directly to independent customers in the Union. Export prices were therefore established in accordance with recital 38.\n3.5.3. Comparison\n(58)\nThe normal value and the export price of the Interpipe group were compared in accordance with recital 39. On this basis, adjustments for transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, credit costs, and commissions have been made where applicable and justified.\n3.5.4. Dumping margin\n(59)\nThe dumping margin was calculated in accordance with recital 40.\n(60)\nAs in the last investigation, and in line with the institutions\u2019 standard practice, a single dumping margin was calculated for the whole group. In the method used for doing so the amount of dumping was calculated for each individual exporting producer before determining a weighted average rate of dumping for the group as a whole. It should be noted that this methodology was different from the methodology applied in the last investigation, where the dumping calculation was done by collapsing all production, profitability and sales in the Union of the producing entities. The change in circumstances that warrants this change in methodology is due to a change in the corporate structure of the group allowing the identification of the producer within the group in respect to sales and production.\n(61)\nThe comparison showed the existence of dumping of more than 10 % for the cooperating group of exporting producers that exported to the Union in the RIP.\n4. LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION OF DUMPING\n4.1. Preliminary remarks\n(62)\nIt follows from the above considerations that dumping continued to be present during the review investigation period. Therefore, the likelihood of continuation of dumping in case the measures would be allowed to lapse is examined in the following.\n4.1.1. Croatia\n(63)\nAs noted above in recital 46, a significant dumping margin was found to exist during the review investigation period. However, the owner of the exporting producer has subsequently decided to divest the company and, as a consequence, the exporting producer stopped accepting new orders in autumn 2011 and ceased all production of SPT by the end of 2011. Accordingly, as of 2012 there is no production of seamless pipes and tubes in Croatia and exports in the post-RIP period have been of very limited quantities.\n(64)\nThe investigation showed that no significant stocks are held by the company which produced to order. Indeed, due to the wide variety of pipes and high costs, no economical benefits can be realised by holding large stocks.\n(65)\nIn view of the above consideration and taking into account that the process of selling the company is still ongoing, a continuation of dumping of SPT originating in Croatia is highly unlikely in the short to medium term.\n4.1.2. Russia\n4.1.2.1. Preliminary remarks\n(66)\nFurther to the analysis of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood of continuation of dumping was also investigated.\n(67)\nIn this respect, the following elements were analysed: the volume and prices of dumped imports from Russia, the production capacity and the spare capacity in Russia, the attractiveness of the Union market and other third markets.\n4.1.2.2. Volume and prices of dumped imports from Russia\n(68)\nAfter the imposition of definitive measures in June 2006, and their revision in August 2008 by Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2008 (18), imports declared as originating in Russia decreased steadily and remained low until the end of the RIP.\n(69)\nIn the same period, prices of dumped imports from Russia remained relatively low.\n4.1.2.3. Production capacity and spare capacity in Russia\n(70)\nAs far as the total production capacity of the SPT in Russia is concerned, and in the absence of verified data, different sources of information publicly available point to a production capacity that is largely in excess of demand on the domestic market.\n(71)\nEven though the Russian Union market share is not significantly above 1 %, the estimated installed Russian capacity is close to 4 million tonnes per annum. The Russian industry only operates on an estimated 70 % of its production capacity. By deducting the known domestic consumption and the export volumes to other markets according to the Russian export statistics there is a current spare capacity exceeding 1 million tonnes per annum which represents almost 65 % of the Union consumption. In spite of this current overcapacity and based on information provided by the complainant which was not contested by the interested parties, it appears that the Russian capacity may be further increased in the next years. One exporting producer in Russia argued that it was operating at a higher capacity rate and had no intention to expand its production capacity in the near future. This export producer also claimed that according to a reputable market publication, the Russian industry SPT capacity utilisation rates were \u2018high\u2019 and that the amount of production of product concerned in Russia was in line with domestic consumption. However, the information provided by the company was not available in the file as the company had chosen not to cooperate, nor could it be verified. Furthermore, the term \u2018high\u2019 was not quantified in the publication and it was not possible to reach a conclusion on this.. Hence the comments regarding production and consumption levels in Russia of the product concerned had no devaluating effects on the existence of significant spare capacity in Russia. It should be noted that the estimated installed capacity of close to 4 million tonnes per annum has not been contested after disclosure of the investigation findings to all interested parties.\n4.1.2.4. Attractiveness of the Union market and other third countries markets\n(72)\nAs mentioned above, there is an important production overcapacity on the Russian domestic market suggesting a strong and natural need to find alternative markets to absorb this excess in production capacity.\n(73)\nThe Union market is one of the biggest markets in the world and is still growing. It is also clear, based on information collected during the investigation that Russian companies have shown a big interest in developing their presence on one of the biggest markets in the world and maintaining a significant market share on the Union market. One exporting producer in Russia argued that the information submitted as requested in the notice of initiation should have been the basis for the findings regarding the existence of dumping and the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury rather than making a determination based on best facts available. However, when this exporting producer in Russia chose to not further cooperate, it stated that due to internal restructuring processes, the completion of the questionnaire, which would include the information submitted after initiation, could not be used to determine in its case whether there is a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping or whether the circumstances changed to the degree justifying the review of the level of the measures. Therefore, it was considered that this information could not be used.\n4.1.2.5. Conclusion of the likelihood of continuation of dumping\n(74)\nIn view of the findings described above, it can be concluded that imports from Russia are still being dumped and that there is a strong likelihood of continuation of dumping. Given the current and potential future spare capacity in Russia and the fact that the Union market is one of the largest market in the world with attractive level of prices, it can be concluded that the Russian exporters are likely to further increase their exports to the Union at dumped prices should the anti-dumping measures be allowed to lapse.\n4.1.3. Ukraine\n4.1.3.1. Preliminary remarks\n(75)\nFurther to the analysis of the existence of dumping during the RIP (recitals 54 to 61 above), the likelihood of continuation of dumping was also examined.\n(76)\nIn this respect, the following elements were analysed; the volume and prices of dumped imports from Ukraine, the production capacity and the spare capacity in Ukraine and the attractiveness of the Union market and other third markets.\n4.1.3.2. Volume and prices of dumped imports from Ukraine\n(77)\nAfter the imposition of definitive measures in June 2006, imports from Ukraine decreased significantly and have remained at a rather low level with a Union market share of below 2 %. In the same period, prices of dumped imports from Ukraine remained relatively low. In addition, the average sales prices to other export markets than the Union, where no anti-dumping duties are applied, were found to be at a similar or even lower level than the sales prices to the Union.\n4.1.3.3. Production capacity and spare capacity in Ukraine\n(78)\nBased on information available in the public domain there are three main Ukrainian producers of SPT with a total estimated production capacity of around 1,5 million tonnes annually or almost equal to the total Union consumption.\n(79)\nEven though, the Ukrainian Union market share is just below 2 %, the estimated spare capacity in Ukraine is 50 % or 750 000 tonnes per annum, which represents almost half of the Union consumption.\n4.1.3.4. Attractiveness of the Union market and other third markets\n(80)\nThe investigation has confirmed that all three main Ukrainian producers of SPT are exporting the product concerned to the Union. The investigation has further established that the cooperating party is exporting to the Union at dumped prices. Information available in the public domain further indicates that the other main Ukrainian producers export SPT to the Union at prices below those of the cooperating company.\n4.1.3.5. Conclusion of the likelihood of continuation of dumping\n(81)\nConsidering imports from Ukraine are still being dumped and that export sales to export markets other than the European Union are made at prices similar or even lower than the Union prices and, given the significant spare capacity in Ukraine and the fact that the Union market is one of the largest markets in the world, it can be concluded that the Ukrainian exporters are likely to further increase their exports to the Union at dumped prices should the anti-dumping measures be allowed to lapse.\n4.2. Conclusion\n(82)\nIn light of the above considerations it is concluded that there is a significant and real risk of continuation of dumping with regard to seamless pipes and tubes originating in Ukraine and Russia should the existing measures lapse. On the other hand, the particular circumstances that have been found to exist with regard to Croatia lead to the conclusion that there is no risk of continuation of dumping should the existing anti-dumping measures expire with regard to imports of seamless pipes and tubes originating in Croatia.\n5. UNION PRODUCTION AND UNION INDUSTRY\n(83)\nWithin the Union, SPT are manufactured by some 19 producers/groups of producers which constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(84)\nAs indicated under recital 14, a sample consisting of four producers/producer groups companies was selected out of the following 19 Union producers which submitted the required information:\n-\nArcelor Mittal Tubular Products Ostrava, Czech Republic,\n-\nArcelor Mittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Romania,\n-\nBenteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH, Germany,\n-\nHuta Batory, Poland,\n-\nOvako Steel AB, Sweden,\n-\nProductos Tubulares SA, Spain,\n-\nRohrwerk Max H\u00fctte GmbH, Germany,\n-\nRurexpol Sp. z o.o., Poland,\n-\nSilcotub, Romania,\n-\nTenaris Dalmine SpA, Bergamo, Italy,\n-\nTubos Reunidos SA, Amurrio, Spain,\n-\nTMK Artrom, Romania,\n-\nValcovny Trub Chomutov, Czech Republic,\n-\nVallourec Mannesmann Oil and Gas, France,\n-\nVitkovice Valcovnatrub AS, Czech Republic,\n-\nV & M Deutschland GmbH, D\u00fcsseldorf, Germany,\n-\nV & M, France,\n-\nVoest Alpine Tubulars, Austria,\n-\n\u017deleziarne Podbrezov\u00e1, Slovak Republic.\n(85)\nIt is noted that the four sampled Union producers accounted for 30 % of the total Union production during the RIP and 35 % of total sales on the Union market, whilst the above 19 Union producers accounted for 100 % of the total Union production during the RIP which is considered to be representative of the entire Union production.\n6. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n6.1. Consumption in the Union market\n(86)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market, and Eurostat data for all EU imports.\n(87)\nOn the basis of those data, it was found that the Union consumption decreased by 34 % from 2 597 110 tonnes to 1 724 743 tonnes between 2008 and the RIP. Consumption in 2008 was very high, which could be explained by the fact that high oil and gas prices in 2008 encouraged investments in these sectors and therefore increased the demand. The decrease took place fully in 2009, in which consumption decreased by almost 50 %. After 2009 consumption started increasing again, a trend which continued up to the RIP.\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nUnion consumption (in tonnes)\n2 597 110\n1 345 551\n1 609 118\n1 724 743\nIndex\n100\n52\n62\n66\n6.2. Imports from the countries concerned\n6.2.1. Cumulation\n(88)\nIn the previous investigations, imports of SPT originating in Croatia, Russia and Ukraine were assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation. It was examined whether a cumulative assessment was also appropriate in the current investigation.\n(89)\nIn this respect, it was found that the margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country was more than de minimis. As regards the quantities, a prospective analysis of the likely export volumes by each country, should measures be repealed, was performed. It revealed that imports from Russia and Ukraine, unlike Croatia, would likely increase to levels significantly above those reached in the RIP and certainly exceed the negligibility threshold, if measures were repealed. As to Croatia, it was found that imports into the Union were negligible in the period considered and production had even completely ceased after the RIP. It is thus not very likely that this situation will change in the short term.\n(90)\nGiven the fact that the volume of dumped imports from Croatia during the RIP was negligible and that it is not likely to increase due to reasons explained in recital 88 above, it was considered that the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were not met with regard to imports from Croatia.\n(91)\nRegarding imports from the three countries concerned, the investigation has found that the imported SPT from these countries were alike in their basic physical and technical characteristics. Furthermore, the various types of imported SPT were interchangeable with types produced in the Union and they were marketed in the Union during the same period. In light of the above, it was considered that the imported SPT originating in the countries concerned competed with the SPT produced in the Union.\n(92)\nOn the basis of the above, it was therefore considered that the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met with regard to Russia and Ukraine. Imports from these two countries were therefore examined cumulatively. Since the criteria set in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation and in particular the conditions of competition between imported products thereof, were not met with regard to Croatia, imports originating in this country were examined individually.\n6.3. Imports from Russia and Ukraine\n6.3.1. Volume, market share and prices of imports\n(93)\nAccording to Eurostat data, the volume of imports of the product concerned originating in Russia and Ukraine decreased by 47 % during the period considered. More precisely, a major drop of 44 % took place in 2009 and, since then, imports have slightly decreased from 40 611 to 38 108 tonnes. This has to be seen against the background of declining consumption.\n(94)\nThe market share of Russian and Ukrainian imports decreased from 2,7 % to 2,2 % during the period considered.\n(95)\nAs far as the weighted average prices of imports of SPT are concerned, they decreased by 15 % points in 2009, and then increased again to reach in the RIP the same level as in 2008. This decrease and subsequent increase followed roughly the trend of the cost of raw materials.\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nImport (tonnes)\n72 328\n40 611\n39 505\n38 108\nIndex\n100\n56\n55\n53\nMarket share %\n2,8 %\n3,0 %\n2,5 %\n2,2 %\nIndex\n100\n111\n93\n88\nPrice of import\n741,03\n627,66\n649,96\n734,22\nIndex\n100\n85\n88\n99\n6.3.2. Price undercutting\n(96)\nIn view of the absence of cooperation by the Russian exporting producers, price undercutting regarding imports from Russia had to be established on import statistics by CN code using information collected on the basis of Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation. Price undercutting regarding imports from Ukraine was established using the export prices of the cooperating Ukrainian exporting producer, without anti-dumping duty. The relevant sales prices of the Union industry were those to independent customers, adjusted where needed to an ex-works level. In the RIP, the undercutting margin for imports of SPT originating in Russia and Ukraine ranged, anti-dumping duty excluded, from 20,4 % to 55,4 %.\n6.4. Imports from Croatia\n6.4.1. Volume, market share and prices of imports from Croatia\n(97)\nAccording to Eurostat data, the volume of imports of the product concerned originating in Croatia increased by 133 % during the period considered. Very few imports took place in 2008, then imports increased up to 2010, and in the RIP they slightly decreased again. Overall, the level of imports from Croatia has remained very low during the whole period considered.\n(98)\nThe market share of Croatian imports has increased from 0,1 % to 0,3 % during the period considered.\n(99)\nAs far as import prices are concerned, they have decreased steadily by 23 % over the period considered.\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nImports\nIndex\n100\n153\n251\n233\nMarket share %\n0,1 %\n0,2 %\n0,3 %\n0,3 %\nPrice of import\nIndex\n100\n89\n74\n77\n6.4.2. Price undercutting\n(100)\nPrice undercutting was established using the export prices of the cooperating Croatian producer, without anti-dumping duty, and was found to be 29,3 %. In view of the absence of any other exporting producer in Croatia, this conclusion is also valid for the country as a whole.\n6.5. Other country concerned by anti-dumping measures\n(101)\nAccording to Eurostat data, the volume of imports of SPT originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, as defined in Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 (19) decreased by 80 % during the period considered.\n(102)\nThe market share of Chinese imports decreased from 20,5 % in 2008 to 3,1 % in the RIP.\n7. ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(103)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry.\n7.1. Preliminary remarks\n(104)\nIn view of the fact that sampling was used with regard to the Union industry, the injury was assessed both on the basis of information collected at the level of the entire Union industry as defined in recital 57 and on the basis of information collected at the level of the sampled Union producers.\n(105)\nWhere recourse is made to sampling, in accordance with established practice, certain injury indicators (production, capacity, productivity, sales, market share, growth and employment) are analysed for the Union Industry as a whole, while those injury indicators relating to the performance of individual companies, i.e. prices, costs of production, profitability, wages, investments, return on investment, cash flow, ability to raise capital are examined on the basis of the information collected at the level of the sampled Union producers.\n7.2. Data relating to the Union industry\n(a) Production\n(106)\nThe Union industry\u2019s production decreased by 16 % between 2008 and the RIP, i.e. from 3 479 266 tonnes to 2 917 325 tonnes. Production volume dropped significantly by 43 % in 2009 as a consequence of the global economic downturn. In line with the improved of demand situation, it recovered in 2010 and in the RIP, and increased by 27 % between 2009 and the RIP, but no longer reached the level of 2008. The production volume showed a similar trend to that of consumption, but decreased less than the consumption on the Union market as a consequence of the demand on non-EU markets.\nUnion industry\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nProduction volume (tonnes)\n3 479 266\n1 979 967\n2 675 053\n2 917 325\nIndex\n100\n57\n77\n84\n(b) Capacity and capacity utilisation rates\n(107)\nProduction capacity remained stable during the period considered. As production decreased by 16 %, the resulting capacity utilisation declined, from 80 % in 2008 to 67 % in the RIP. However, the major decline from 80 % to 45 %took place in 2009 as a result of the decrease in the production volume. In 2010 and the RIP capacity utilisation grew steadily.\nUnion industry\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nCapacity\n4 334 520\n4 378 520\n4 332 520\n4 357 520\nIndex\n100\n101\n100\n101\nCapacity utilisation\n80 %\n45 %\n62 %\n67 %\nIndex\n100\n56\n77\n83\n(c) Stocks\n(108)\nAs far as stocks are concerned, the vast majority of production is made to order. Therefore, whilst the level of stocks of the sampled producers decreased significantly in 2009, but increased, with slight fluctuation in 2010 to the RIP, almost to the 2008 level, it is considered that in this case stocks were not a relevant indicator of injury.\nSampled producers\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nClosing stock (tonnes)\n106 078\n82 788\n107 490\n104 184\nIndex\n100\n78\n101\n98\n(d) Sales volume\n(109)\nThe sales by the Union industry on the Union market decreased by 21 % between 2008 and the RIP. After decreasing by 42 % in 2009, sales volume increased again by 21 percentage points up to the RIP. This development is in line with the evolution of the consumption in the Union market, which declined by 48 % in 2009 as a result of the economic downturn and started recovering afterwards.\nUnion industry\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nSales to unrelated parties in the Union (tonnes)\n1 445 070\n841 514\n1 060 349\n1 135 572\nIndex\n100\n58\n73\n79\n(e) Market share\n(110)\nThe Union industry managed to increase its market share gradually from 2008 up to the RIP. This increase is mainly due to the anti-dumping measures that are in place against imports from the People\u2019s Republic of China since 2009. The market share below is the share of total sales of the Union industry, both to unrelated and related customers, in the Union as a percentage of the Union consumption.\nUnion industry\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nMarket share\n70,2 %\n78,7 %\n84,5 %\n85,2 %\nIndex\n100\n112\n120\n121\n(f) Growth\n(111)\nBetween 2008 and the RIP, when the Union consumption decreased by 34 %, the sales volume of the Union industry decreased by only 21 %. The Union industry thus gained market share, whereas the imports from Russia and Ukraine lost 0,6 % during the same period.\n(g) Employment\n(112)\nThe level of employment of the Union industry declined by 8 % between 2008 and the RIP. The decrease started in 2009, continued in 2010, but in the RIP increased again by 11 % in relation to 2010. This shows that the Union industry was able to adapt to the new market situation.\nUnion industry\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nEmployment\n14 456\n13 131\n12 073\n13 368\nIndex\n100\n91\n84\n92\n(h) Productivity\n(113)\nProductivity of the Union industry\u2019s workforce, measured as output per full-time equivalent (FTE) employed per year, was volatile over the period considered.\nUnion industry\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nProductivity tonnes/per employee\n240,7\n150,8\n221,6\n218,2\nIndex\n100\n63\n92\n91\n(i) Magnitude of dumping margin\n(114)\nAs concerns the impact on the Union industry of the magnitude of the actual margins of dumping, this impact cannot be considered negligible, in view of the overall volume of the imports from the countries concerned.\n7.3. Data relating to the sampled Union producers\n(a) Sales prices and factors affecting domestic prices\n(115)\nUnit sales prices of the Union industry decreased by 13 % between 2008 and the RIP. Prices increased slightly in 2009 before dropping by 17 % in 2010. In the RIP prices went slightly up compared to 2010. This price development is linked to the fact that 2008 was a year with a very high demand and high prices of raw materials resulting in higher sales prices. The effects of it could still be felt in the first part of 2009. As from the second part of 2009, demand decreased significantly and prices dropped following the trend of decreasing prices of raw materials. In the RIP the decrease of the prices seemed to have stopped.\nSampled producers\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nAverage unit sales price in the EU (EUR/tonne)\n1 286\n1 300\n1 086\n1 115\nIndex\n100\n101\n84\n87\n(b) Wages\n(116)\nBetween 2008 and the RIP, the average wage per FTE decreased by 12 % during the period considered. No meaningful conclusion should, however, be drawn.\n(c) Investments and ability to raise capital\n(117)\nInvestments in SPT increased by 24 % over the period considered. Investments were significant and amounted to over EUR 100 million in the RIP. SPT is a capital intensive industry which requires significant investments in the production lines in order to remain competitive. The investigation revealed that the investments were made to maintain production capacity at its current level and not with the purpose to increase the production volume. It was also found that the sampled producers did not face difficulties in raising capital over the period considered.\nSampled producers\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nInvestments (EUR 1 000)\n83 334\n91 330\n101 775\n103 635\nIndex\n100\n110\n122\n124\n(d) Profitability on the Union market\n(118)\nAlthough profitability dropped by 66 % during the period considered, the sampled producers managed to achieve profits over the whole period considered. The profits achieved from 2008 to the RIP were above the target profit of 3 % set in the latest investigation. 2008 was a very good year with high profits. In 2009 and also in 2010 profitability dropped by 50 % compared to the previous year, but in the RIP profitability raised again by 35 % compared to 2010 and was 6,6 %. The Union industry managed to adapt to the decreased demand in the EU and was helped by the sustained global demand for the sampled producers that enabled them to dilute fix costs. The drop in profitability after 2008 is explained by the economic downturn which resulted in a significant drop of demand, a drop in prices and by a decrease in production volume which had a negative impact on cost of production.\nSampled producers\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nProfitability on the Union market (%)\n19,7 %\n9,6 %\n4,9 %\n6,7 %\nIndex\n100\n49\n25\n34\n(e) Return on investments\n(119)\nThe return on investments (ROI), expressed as the total profit generated by the SPT activity as a percentage of the net book value of assets directly and indirectly related to the production of SPT, broadly followed the above profitability trends over the whole period considered and remained positive during the whole period considered. The ROI dropped by 80 % during the period considered but in the RIP increased again by 50 % compared to 2010.\nSampled producers\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nROI (%)\n30 %\n7 %\n4 %\n6 %\nIndex\n100\n23\n13\n20\n(f) Cash flow\n(120)\nThe cash-flow situation deteriorated significantly between 2008 and the RIP, as it dropped with 93 %. The trend in cash flow did not evolve in line with the trend in profitability which could be explained by the cost of depreciation, which is typically high for this capital intensive industry.\nSampled producers\n2008\n2009\n2010\nRIP\nCash flow (EUR 1 000)\n466 198\n345 152\n45 562\n33 614\nIndex\n100\n74\n10\n7\n(g) Recovery from the effects of past dumping\n(121)\nWhile the indicators examined above show that the Union industry suffered from the economic downturn as sales volume, production volume, ROI and cash flow went down, they also indicate that the Union industry adapted its production equipment to better face the new economic environment and be able to seize opportunities on Union and non-Union markets, in particular in segments where high margins can be achieved. The improvement in the economic and financial situation of the Union industry, further to the imposition of anti-dumping measures in 2006 against imports from the countries concerned and in 2009 against imports from the People\u2019s Republic of China, shows that the measures are effective and that the Union industry recovered from the effects of past dumping practices, though no longer reaches the profitability level of 2008.\n7.4. Conclusion\n(122)\nAlthough consumption decreased by 34 %, the Union industry managed to increase its market share, and production volume and sales volume decreased less than consumption. In terms of profitability, the Union industry was profitable throughout the period considered. In view of the above, it can be concluded that the Union industry did not suffer material injury over the period considered.\n8. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY\n(123)\nAs explained in recitals 69, 70, 77 and 78, the exporting producers in Russia and Ukraine have the potential to substantially raise their exports volume to the Union by using available spare capacity of some 1 750 000 tonnes, which is equal to the entire Union consumption. The total capacity of the exporting producers in Russia and Ukraine amounts to 5 500 000 tonnes. It is therefore likely that substantial quantities of Russian and Ukrainian SPT will penetrate the Union market to regain lost market share due to the anti-dumping duties in force and increase it further should measures be repealed.\n(124)\nAs highlighted in recital 95 prices of imports from Russia and Ukraine were found to be low and to undercut EU prices. These low prices would most likely continue to be charged. Indeed in the case of Ukraine, as indicated in recital 80 prices may even drop further. Such price behaviour, coupled with the ability of the exporters in those countries to deliver significant quantities of the product concerned to the Union market, would in all likelihood have a downward effect on prices in the Union market, with an expected negative impact on the economic situation of the Union industry. As shown above, the financial performance of the Union industry is closely linked to the price level on the Union market. It is therefore likely that if the Union industry was exposed to increased volumes of imports from Russia and Ukraine at dumped prices it would result in a deterioration of its financial situation as found in the latest investigation. On this basis, it is concluded that the repeal of the measures against imports originating in Russia and Ukraine would in all likelihood result in the recurrence of injury to the Union industry.\n(125)\nIt is important to recall that antidumping measures were imposed in 2006 to counteract the injurious dumping caused by imports from, inter alia, Croatia, Russia and Ukraine. However, the Union industry could not benefit fully from these measures since the market shares of these countries have been substituted by low priced Chinese imports. This certainly had an effect in limiting the recovery of the Union industry until the moment measures were imposed against China in 2009. It can therefore be concluded that the recovery of the Union industry from past dumping cannot be considered as complete and that the Union industry remains vulnerable to the injurious effect possibly caused by the presence of substantial quantities of dumped imports in the Union market.\n(126)\nAs far as Croatia is concerned and as indicated in recital 60, the sole plant is for sale, production has ceased completely and is not likely to resume shortly. In addition, given the negligible volumes exported to the Union, even if production is to be resumed shortly, it is very unlikely that the volume that can be exported to the Union will reach the volumes exported in the past.\n(127)\nTherefore, in view of the negligible exports in the period considered and the fact that production has ceased completely after the RIP, it is concluded that the repeal of the measures on imports originating in Croatia would in all likelihood not result in the recurrence of injury to the Union industry.\n9. UNION INTEREST\n9.1. Introduction\n(128)\nIn compliance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures against Russia and Ukraine would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved. It should be recalled that, in the previous investigations, the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place, allows the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.\n(129)\nOn this basis, it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures against imports originating in Russia and Ukraine in this particular case.\n9.2. Interest of the Union industry\n(130)\nThe Union industry has proven to be a structurally viable industry. This was confirmed by the positive development of its economic situation observed during the period considered. In particular, the fact that the Union industry increased its market share over the period considered is a strong indicator that the Union industry managed to adapt to the changed market circumstances. Also, the Union industry remained profitable throughout the period considered.\n(131)\nIt can reasonably be expected that the Union industry will continue to benefit if the measures are maintained. The imposition of measures will enable the Union industry to increase its sales volume and profit level to allow continued investment in its production facilities. Should the measures against imports originating in Russia and Ukraine not be maintained, it is likely that the Union industry will again suffer injury from increased imports at dumped prices from these countries and that its financial situation will deteriorate.\n9.3. Interest of importers\n(132)\nIt is recalled that in the previous investigations it was found that the impact of the imposition of measures would not be significant to importers. As indicated in recital 18, three importers replied to the questionnaire and cooperated fully in this investigation. They indicated that measures were pushing prices up. However, as the investigation showed that the cooperating importers source SPT from various suppliers from many different countries and that prices were at competitive levels, the possible impact of a continuation of measures on imports from Russia and Ukraine will be limited.\n(133)\nIn view of the above, it was concluded that the current measures in force had no substantial negative effect on the importers\u2019 financial situation and that the continuation of the measures would not unduly affect them.\n9.4. Interest of users\n(134)\nOn the basis of the information available it would appear that the share of SPT in the costs of production of users is quite low. SPT are, in general, part of larger projects (boilers, pipelines, construction) of which they form only a limited part. The possible impact of a continuation of measures may, therefore, not be significant.\n(135)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all known users. As mentioned in recital 18, only one user cooperated in this investigation. It indicated that it did not suffer from the existence of the measures as other sources were available and that SPT did not represent a significant share of its cost of production. In this context, it was concluded that given the negligible incidence of the cost of SPT on the user industries and the existence of other available sources of supply, the measures in force do not have a significant effect on the user industry.\n9.5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(136)\nGiven the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.\n10. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(137)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained on imports of the product concerned originating in Russia and Ukraine and be terminated with regard to imports originating in Croatia. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure.\n(138)\nOne Russian exporter requested and was granted a hearing with the Hearing Officer. That exporter argued that the Commission incorrectly concluded that it did not cooperate in the investigation. This exporter had come forward as an interested party and provided the Commission with two submissions, mainly related to injury, which were duly taken into consideration by the Commission. However, that exporter did not reply to the AD questionnaire and did not provide any information regarding its export price. Therefore the Commission had no option but to calculate the normal value with regard to Russia based on best facts available. The use of this methodology was not questioned by that exporter. Under these circumstances this exporter cannot be considered to have fully cooperated in the investigation.\n(139)\nThe same exporter also claimed that the disclosure was vague, contradictory and insufficiently motivated. However, this claim was not substantiated.\n(140)\nAnother Russian exporter argued that imports from Russia should be de-cumulated for those of Ukraine. However, in the latest investigation, imports from Russia and Ukraine were assessed cumulatively (together with imports from Croatia). As the conditions of Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation are still met with regard to imports from Russia and Ukraine, the effects of such imports were cumulatively assessed as set out in recitals 88 to 92. No arguments were brought forward that would justify a change in methodology in this respect.\n(141)\nSeveral interested parties argued that the situation of the Union industry does not warrant maintenance of the measures as the recurrence of injury is unlikely. However, no new arguments were brought forward that would lead to a different conclusion regarding the recurrence of injury as set out in recitals 123 to 127 above.\n(142)\nIt was also argued by several interested parties that the long duration of the measures is unjustified and calls for their expiry. In this respect it has to be recalled that this is the first expiry review regarding the current product scope. Measures regarding this product scope are only in force since 2006, which cannot be considered as an unjustifiably long duration. Indeed measures were in force between 1997 and 2004 regarding imports from Russia and between 2000 and 2004 regarding imports from Croatia and Ukraine, but these measures concerned a much smaller product scope. In any event, as it has been found in this investigation that the conditions in Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation have been met for the continuation of the measures, the fact that measures may have been in place for a number of years is irrelevant.\n(143)\nFinally it was stated that imports from Russia are treated differently than imports from Belarus and Croatia, which can be considered discriminatory. This statement does not reflect reality as the situation with regard to these countries is completely different. The complaint regarding imports from Belarus was withdrawn and the proceeding was subsequently terminated in accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation (20). Following disclosure, no indications were provided showing that such termination would not be in the Union interest. With regard to Croatia, as set out in recitals 63 to 65, production in Croatia ceased.\n(144)\nTherefore, it can be concluded that the comments received were not of such nature as to change the above conclusions.\n(145)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of SPT, originating in Russia and Ukraine should be maintained. Conversely, the measures applicable to imports from Croatia should be allowed to lapse,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel, of circular cross-section, of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm with a carbon equivalent value (CEV) not exceeding 0,86 according to the International Institute of Welding (IIW) formula and chemical analysis (21), currently falling within CN codes ex 7304 11 00, ex 7304 19 10, ex 7304 19 30, ex 7304 22 00, ex 7304 23 00, ex 7304 24 00, ex 7304 29 10, ex 7304 29 30, ex 7304 31 80, ex 7304 39 58, ex 7304 39 92, ex 7304 39 93, ex 7304 51 89, ex 7304 59 92 and ex 7304 59 93 (22) (TARIC codes 7304110010, 7304191020, 7304193020, 7304220020, 7304230020, 7304240020, 7304291020, 7304293020, 7304318030, 7304395830, 7304399230, 7304399320, 7304518930, 7304599230 and 7304599320) and originating in Russia and Ukraine.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies below shall be as follows:\nCountry\nCompany\nAnti-dumping duty\n(%)\nTARIC additional code\nRussia\nJoint Stock Company Chelyabinsk Tube Rolling Plant and Joint Stock Company Pervouralsky Novotrubny Works\n24,1\nA741\nOAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant, OAO Taganrog Metallurgical Works, OAO Sinarsky Pipe Plant and OAO Seversky Tube Works\n27,2\nA859\nAll other companies\n35,8\nA999\nUkraine\nOJSC Dnepropetrovsk Tube Works\n12,3\nA742\nLLC Interpipe Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP)\n17,7\nA743\nCJSC Nikopol Steel Pipe Plant Yutist\n25,7\nA744\nAll other companies\n25,7\nA999\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\n4. The review proceeding concerning imports of seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel, of circular cross-section, of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm with a carbon equivalent value (CEV) not exceeding 0,86 according to the International Institute of Welding (IIW) formula and chemical analysis, currently falling within CN codes ex 7304 11 00, ex 7304 19 10, ex 7304 19 30, ex 7304 22 00, ex 7304 23 00, ex 7304 24 00, ex 7304 29 10, ex 7304 29 30, ex 7304 31 80, ex 7304 39 58, ex 7304 39 92, ex 7304 39 93, ex 7304 51 89, ex 7304 59 92 and ex 7304 59 93 and originating in Croatia is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 June 2012.", "references": ["6", "42", "70", "55", "39", "67", "74", "87", "34", "21", "24", "83", "61", "52", "14", "93", "13", "20", "43", "18", "65", "94", "11", "46", "95", "92", "82", "85", "99", "72", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 11 August 2011\nauthorising Spain to temporarily suspend the application of Articles 1 to 6 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on freedom of movement for workers within the Union with regard to Romanian workers\n(2011/503/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania (1), and in particular Article 23 paragraph 7 second subparagraph of Annex VII, Part 1 \u2018Freedom of movement for persons\u2019, thereof,\nHaving regard to the request from Spain of 28 July 2011,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSpain has been fully applying Articles 1 to 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (2) to Romanian nationals since 1 January 2009. Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 was codified and replaced by Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (3) , which entered into force on 16 June 2011.\n(2)\nWith reference to a serious disturbance of the Spanish labour market, Spain notified the Commission on 22 July 2011, pursuant to paragraph 7 third subparagraph of Annex VII Part 1 of the 2005 Act of Accession, that it had decided on that day to re-introduce restrictions on labour market access for Romanian workers, notably because of the need to take immediate action in view of the seasonal situation in the agricultural sector in the summer; otherwise the danger of an increase in the number of arrivals of Romanian workers while awaiting a Commission Decision, pursuant to paragraph 7 second subparagraph of that Annex VII, would endanger the very effectiveness of the re-introduced restrictions. At the same time, the Spanish government submitted a reasoned ex-post notification with supporting information as to the labour market disturbance.\n(3)\nBy letter of 28 July 2011, pursuant to paragraph 7 second subparagraph of Annex VII to the 2005 Act of Accession, Spain followed up the notification of 22 July 2011, requesting the Commission to state that Articles 1 to 6 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 be wholly suspended in respect of Romanian workers throughout Spain and in all sectors of the labour market and that the Decision to be taken should be reviewed by 31 December 2012.\n(4)\nSpain justifies its request by reference to the current serious disturbance in the labour market in Spain, in particular the unprecedented fall in the level of employment following the economic recession that started in 2008 which has resulted in a large increase in the level of unemployment with the unemployment rate currently exceeding 20 % and the difficulty to re-create a substantial number of jobs in the short-term.\n(5)\nSpain states that the disturbance in the Spanish labour market, which seriously threatens the level of employment, is of a general nature and not limited to a particular region or sector.\n(6)\nSpain also justifies its request with the following elements: the decrease in the employment rate of Romanian nationals in Spain; the steady rise of unemployment and the high increase in the number of Romanian nationals resident in Spain which occurred despite the adverse evolution of the labour market in Spain and which had an impact on the capacity of Spain to absorb new inflows of workers.\n(7)\nParagraph 7 of Annex VII Part 1 of the 2005 Act of Accession constitutes a safeguard clause, the purpose of which is to allow a Member State that already fully applies Articles 1 to 6 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 to workers, who are concerned by the transitional arrangements of that Annex, and that undergoes or foresees a serious labour market disturbance to re-impose restrictions on the free movement of workers in order to restore to normal the disturbed labour market situation in a given region or occupation.\n(8)\nParagraph 7 of Annex VII Part 1 of the 2005 Act of Accession provides for two connected procedures: the normal procedure under paragraph 7 second subparagraph and the urgent procedure under paragraph 7 third subparagraph. While the procedure in paragraph 7 second subparagraph requires a Member State to request the Commission to state within 2 weeks the whole or partial suspension of Union law on free access to the labour market in a given region or occupation, the procedure in paragraph 7 third subparagraph provides that, in urgent and exceptional cases where the Member State cannot await the outcome of a Commission Decision under paragraph 7 second subparagraph, it can already unilaterally suspend EU law on free movement of workers.\n(9)\nThe analysis of the available economic data shows that Spain is indeed facing a serious labour market disturbance, characterised by the by far highest unemployment rate in the EU (Eurostat monthly unemployment data show 21,0 %, against 9,4 % on average in the EU and 9,9 % in the Euro area in June 2011), a particularly dramatic unemployment among youth (45,7 % in June 2011) and a slow economic recovery (Eurostat figures show GDP growth first quarter 2011 compared with the previous quarter was only 0,3 %, against 0,8 % for the EU and the Euro area), hampered in addition by the current international financial turbulence requiring Spain to introduce further budget cuts aiming at fiscal consolidation, which could have further short-term negative effects on its scope for economic growth. The impact of the employment decline has been a general one affecting all regions and all sectors of production. Labour force survey data for the period between 2008 and 2010 also shows a general fall in the employment level of 9 %, in the construction sector even of 33 %, affecting all regions, varying between 6 % in the Basque country to 13 % in the Valenciana Autonomous Community.\n(10)\nConsequently the Commission considers that Spain has provided evidence that it is undergoing a labour market disturbance in a generalised way which seriously affects the level of employment in all regions and all sectors and is liable to persist in the near future.\n(11)\nMoreover, the analysis by the Commission has established that: Romanian nationals living in Spain are strongly affected by unemployment at a rate of more than 30 % (source: Eurostat Labour force survey data, first quarter 2011). The inflows of Romanian nationals arriving in Spain, despite a certain decrease due to the economic recession, remain at substantial levels, even though there is a low labour demand in Spain. The number of Romanian nationals usually resident in Spain has increased from 388 000 on 1 January 2006 to 823 000 on 1 January 2010 (source: Eurostat migration statistics).\n(12)\nIt is likely that a continuing unrestricted inflow of Romanian workers would be a factor in increasing pressure on the Spanish labour market.\n(13)\nTherefore, in order to restore to normal the situation of the Spanish labour market, it is appropriate to authorise Spain to limit temporarily the free access of Romanian workers to that labour market.\n(14)\nRestrictions on access to the labour market constitute a derogation from a fundamental principle of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, namely the free movement of workers. In accordance with the well-established case-law of the Court of Justice, such measures should be restrictively interpreted and applied.\n(15)\nTherefore, although with a view to the specific current situation in the Spanish labour market and considering displacement and other potential spill-over effects between regions and sectors caused by a selective restriction, it is at this time appropriate that restrictions should apply for employed activities in the entire territory of Spain and to all sectors, the scope of the derogation can be reduced, should the Commission ascertain that the relevant particulars which led to its acceptance have changed or that its effects prove to be more restrictive than its purpose requires, in particular for employed activities requiring university degree and equivalent qualifications.\n(16)\nEqually, though in order for the restrictions authorised by this Decision to have the envisaged effect on the Spanish labour market, it is now considered appropriate that these restrictions remain in place until 31 December 2012. This timeframe may be shortened if the Commission determines that the relevant particulars which led to the adoption of this Decision have changed or that its effects prove to be more restrictive than its purpose requires.\n(17)\nTo this effect, Spain will be required to provide quarterly to the Commission such statistical data, as will be required to ascertain the evolution of the labour market per sector of activity and occupation. The first quarterly report is to be presented before 31 December 2011.\n(18)\nThe Decision to authorise Spain to re-introduce restrictions on the free access of Romanian nationals to the Spanish labour market is further made under certain conditions to ensure that these restrictions are strictly limited to what is necessary to meet the envisaged purpose.\n(19)\nIt is therefore not appropriate to authorise the re-introduction of restrictions in respect of Romanian nationals and their family members who are already employed in the Spanish labour market and in respect of those Romanian nationals and their family members already registered as jobseekers by the Public Employment Services in Spain.\n(20)\nThe principles governing restrictions on access to the labour market, as laid down in Annex VII Part 1 of the 2005 Act of Accession, such as the standstill clause and the principle of Union preference in paragraph 14, should also be respected.\n(21)\nThe right of family members of Romanian workers to take up employment in Spain should be governed mutatis mutandis by paragraph 8 of Annex VII Part 1 of the 2005 Act of Accession.\n(22)\nThe restrictions on the rights of Romanian nationals and their family members to access the Spanish labour market authorised by this Decision are strictly limited to the scope of this Decision and can in no way affect any other rights that Romanian nationals and their family members enjoy under Union law.\n(23)\nA quarterly monitoring and information process on the development of the Spanish labour market has to be ensured.\n(24)\nFor monitoring purposes, an obligation to provide the Commission with details of the measures that Spain has taken on the basis of this Decision has to be ensured,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSpain is hereby authorised under the conditions specified in Articles 2 to 4 of this Decision to suspend Articles 1 to 6 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 with regard to Romanian nationals until 31 December 2012.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall not affect the Romanian nationals and their family members:\n1.\nwho are employed in Spain on the day of entry into force of this Decision;\n2.\nwho are registered as jobseekers by the Public Employment Services in Spain on the day of entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThe application of this Decision shall be subject mutatis mutandis to the conditions on transitional arrangements as laid down in Annex VII Part 1 of the 2005 Act of Accession.\nArticle 4\nSpain shall take all necessary measures to continue to monitor closely the development of the labour market. It shall provide to the Commission quarterly statistical data evidencing the evolution of the labour market per sector of activity and occupation. The first quarterly report is to be presented before 31 December 2011.\nSpain shall provide the Commission and the Member States without delay in case of any significant change with an update of the relevant particulars it has supplied in respect of its request for a Commission decision and in respect of which this Decision is taken.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision may be amended or repealed in particular if the relevant particulars referred to in Article 4 and which led to its adoption have changed or that its effects prove to be more restrictive than its purpose requires.\nArticle 6\nSpain shall provide the Commission with details of the measures it has taken on the basis of this Decision within 2 months of receipt thereof.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 11 August 2011.", "references": ["85", "0", "51", "9", "32", "67", "46", "94", "12", "84", "89", "31", "21", "3", "40", "39", "72", "52", "23", "68", "88", "81", "75", "56", "15", "93", "24", "83", "43", "4", "No Label", "16", "49", "50", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["16", "49", "50", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 29 February 2012\nsetting up the Common Language Resources and Technology Infrastructure as a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (CLARIN ERIC)\n(notified under document C(2012) 1018)\n(2012/136/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 723/2009 of 25 June 2009 on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) (1), and in particular Article 6(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 September 2011 the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, the Dutch Language Union, Austria and the Netherlands requested the Commission to set up the Common Language Resources and Technology Infrastructure as a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (hereinafter \u2018CLARIN ERIC\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Netherlands has provided a declaration recognising CLARIN ERIC as an international body within the meaning of Article 143(1)(g) and Article 151(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (2) and an international organisation within the meaning of the second indent of Article 23(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (3) as of its setting up.\n(3)\nThe Commission has, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 723/2009, assessed the application and concluded that it meets the requirements set out in that Regulation.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 723/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. A European Research Infrastructure Consortium for the Common Language Resources and Technology Infrastructure named CLARIN ERIC is hereby established.\n2. The Statutes of CLARIN ERIC as agreed between its members, are annexed to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 February 2012.", "references": ["31", "34", "51", "22", "52", "1", "88", "50", "30", "11", "94", "48", "6", "62", "28", "0", "91", "14", "79", "67", "85", "84", "39", "59", "98", "43", "24", "17", "76", "20", "No Label", "3", "41", "77", "96"], "gold": ["3", "41", "77", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 152/2011\nof 18 February 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Chosco de Tineo (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Chosco de Tineo\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 February 2011.", "references": ["30", "49", "95", "39", "36", "13", "59", "64", "51", "83", "93", "54", "31", "40", "94", "38", "80", "37", "58", "70", "34", "33", "19", "68", "32", "67", "20", "47", "77", "82", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "69", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "69", "72", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 2 February 2012\non the recognition of the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping as a classification society for inland waterway vessels\n(notified under document C(2012) 429)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/65/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2006/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels and repealing Council Directive 82/714/EEC (1), and in particular Article 10(1) and Part II of Annex VII thereof,\nAfter consulting the Committee referred to in Article 7 of Council Directive 91/672/EEC of 16 December 1991 on the reciprocal recognition of national boat masters' certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy letter of 25 February 2009 Hungary has submitted an application to the Commission for recognition of the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (hereinafter \u2018RS\u2019) as a classification society within the meaning of the Directive. RS has a Branch office in Budapest (Hungary).\n(2)\nWith the applications Hungary has submitted the information and documentation needed to verify that the criteria for recognition are met.\n(3)\nA hearing was organised in the joint meeting of experts from the Member States of the European Union and the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine (hereinafter \u2018CCNR\u2019), on technical requirements for inland waterway vessels in April 2009, where the Hungarian authority and RS gave presentations.\n(4)\nThe secretariat of the CCNR has been consulted as referred to in Part II, paragraph 4 of Annex VII to Directive 2006/87/EC.\n(5)\nThe Commission has assessed the compliance of RS with the criteria of Part I of Annex VII to Directive 2006/87/EC and has concluded that RS meets them,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe classification society RS shall be recognised pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 2006/87/EC.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member State(s) which have inland waterways as referred to in Article 1(1) of Directive 2006/87/EC and to the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping, Branch Office in Hungary, 1 Marcius 15 ter, 1056 Budapest, Hungary.\nDone at Brussels, 2 February 2012.", "references": ["58", "59", "31", "13", "67", "16", "35", "55", "24", "39", "19", "75", "1", "66", "11", "18", "82", "7", "34", "95", "46", "62", "44", "52", "15", "68", "63", "23", "72", "30", "No Label", "53", "56", "76", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["53", "56", "76", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 742/2010\nof 17 August 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(a) and (d), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe eligibility criteria to be met by cereals for public intervention and the methods to be used for carrying out tests to establish such eligibility pursuant to Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 (2) are set out in Parts I to VIII and Part XII of Annex I to the said Regulation. Some of those methods have been amended by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). In order to take account of the changes in some of the methods in question and promote the European standards, those methods should be adapted. In order to ensure identical and consistent application of the methods in a given intervention period, it should be laid down that the said methods are those in force on the first day of the marketing year.\n(2)\nThe reference method for determining matter other than basic cereals of unimpaired quality, currently mentioned in Part IV of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, is described in Part V of the said Annex. Point 1 of Part V concerning common wheat, durum wheat and barley has been updated by European standard EN 15587:2008. The standard in question should be included in that point.\n(3)\nPart III of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 defines matter other than basic cereals of unimpaired quality and the factors to be taken into consideration for each type of cereal for defining impurities. For the sake of precision and concordance with European standard EN 15587:2008, certain definitions should be adapted and some subheadings should be moved from one category to another. As a result of those changes to subheadings, Part II of Annex I on minimum quality requirements should also be amended.\n(4)\nInternational method ISO 712:1998, currently mentioned in Part IV of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 as one of the methods for determining moisture content, has been updated in respect of cereals other than maize, by European and international standard EN ISO 712:2009. The standard in question should be included. For maize the update provided for in European and international standard EN ISO 6540:2010 should be taken into account. Part VI of Annex I should also be deleted, and paragraph 3 of Part XII of Annex I should be adapted accordingly.\n(5)\nThe reference method for determining the protein content of common wheat grains, currently mentioned in Part IV of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, is the method recognised by the International Association for Cereal Chemistry (ICC), as laid down in standard No 105/2. Following the work of the CEN, that method should be replaced by European and international standard EN ISO 20483:2006 and should be extended to include durum wheat grains. As an alternative method, standard CEN ISO/TS 16634-2:2009 should also be specified.\n(6)\nInternational method ISO 5529:1992 for determining the Zeleny index of common wheat, currently mentioned in Part IV of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, has been updated by European and international standard EN ISO 5529:2009. The standard in question should be included.\n(7)\nInternational method ISO 3093:2004 for determining the Hagberg falling number, currently mentioned in Part IV of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, has been updated by European and international standard EN ISO 3093:2009. The standard in question should be included.\n(8)\nThe reference method for determining the rate of loss of vitreous aspect of durum wheat, currently mentioned in Part IV of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, is described in Part VIII of the said Annex. Following the work of the CEN, that method should be replaced by European standard EN 15585:2008. The abovementioned standard should be included and Part VIII of Annex I deleted.\n(9)\nInternational reference method ISO 7971/2:1995 for determining the specific weight, currently mentioned in Part IV of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, has been updated by European and international standard EN ISO 7971/3:2009. The standard in question should be included.\n(10)\nThis Regulation should apply from the date from which the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 become applicable to cereals.\n(11)\nHowever, in order to enable the Member States to implement the amendments and updates introduced by this Regulation, in particular as regards impurities and references to standard EN 15587, a reasonable deadline should be set for the implementation of certain provisions. The amendments in question should therefore apply only from the marketing year 2011/12.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 1272/2009 is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 7 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe first indent of paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nfor cereals: in Annex I, Parts III, IV, V, VII and XII,\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph 3 is added:\n\u20183. To determine the quality of cereals offered for, or placed in, intervention, the methods to be used shall be those described in Annex I, established by the latest versions of the relevant European and/or international standards, as the case may be, in force on the first day of each marketing year.\u2019.\n2.\nAnnex I is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2010.\nHowever, Article 1(2), as regards point B of Part II, Part III, point (a) of Part IV and Part V of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, shall apply from 1 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 August 2010.", "references": ["87", "16", "34", "96", "40", "1", "8", "37", "2", "56", "51", "17", "89", "45", "46", "74", "85", "5", "9", "3", "76", "65", "63", "28", "75", "27", "41", "11", "14", "64", "No Label", "20", "24", "26", "66"], "gold": ["20", "24", "26", "66"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/587/CFSP\nof 14 June 2010\nconcerning the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Montenegro on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union (EU Treaty), in particular Article 37 thereof, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Article 218(5) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAt its meeting on 10 November 2009, the Council decided to authorise the Presidency to open negotiations, in accordance with former Article 24 of the EU Treaty, with Montenegro in order to conclude an agreement on the security of information.\n(2)\nFollowing that authorisation, the Presidency negotiated an agreement with Montenegro on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and Montenegro on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 14 June 2010.", "references": ["54", "72", "4", "23", "44", "12", "17", "80", "36", "98", "69", "53", "68", "92", "65", "56", "46", "90", "26", "73", "75", "77", "14", "99", "67", "13", "49", "39", "93", "7", "No Label", "3", "9", "41", "42", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "41", "42", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/361/CFSP\nof 20 December 2010\non the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic of Serbia in European Union crisis management operations\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 37 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 218, paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (\u2018the HR\u2019),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nConditions regarding the participation of third States in European Union crisis management operations should be laid down in an agreement establishing a framework for such possible future participation, rather than defining those conditions on a case-by-case basis for each operation concerned.\n(2)\nFollowing the adoption of a Decision by the Council on 26 April 2010 authorising the opening of negotiations, the HR negotiated an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic of Serbia in European Union crisis management operations (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic of Serbia in the European Union crisis management operations is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["26", "29", "51", "62", "27", "3", "12", "52", "47", "43", "79", "68", "85", "64", "2", "38", "75", "81", "60", "23", "76", "18", "74", "90", "14", "25", "89", "98", "71", "54", "No Label", "4", "5", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "5", "9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 918/2010\nof 12 October 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Kie\u0142basa lisiecka (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Kie\u0142basa lisiecka\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 October 2010.", "references": ["84", "2", "42", "35", "79", "60", "68", "28", "56", "23", "6", "49", "95", "89", "55", "80", "15", "31", "87", "82", "57", "66", "85", "83", "99", "81", "14", "1", "78", "70", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 8 November 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes\n(2011/34/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 114, 168, 169 and 172, Article 173(3), and Articles 188 and 192, in conjunction with Article 218(5) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 June 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part (1), on a Framework Agreement on the general principles for its participation in Union programmes (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019).\n(2)\nThe negotiations have been concluded to the satisfaction of the Commission.\n(3)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(4)\nThe Protocol should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion at a later date.\n(5)\nThe Protocol should be applied on a provisional basis in accordance with Article 10 thereof, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Protocol.\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThe Protocol shall be applied on a provisional basis as from the date of its signature, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["12", "49", "40", "56", "83", "11", "82", "66", "51", "67", "75", "87", "52", "47", "45", "50", "35", "26", "81", "19", "76", "4", "5", "60", "88", "24", "78", "38", "16", "8", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 45/2011\nof 20 January 2011\nfixing the export refunds on eggs\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices in the Union for those products may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nIn view of the current situation on the market in eggs, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products which are authorised to move freely within the Union and comply with requirements under Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2) and of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3), as well as marking requirements under point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 950/2010 (4). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the marking conditions laid down in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 and those defined in point A of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 950/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 January 2011.", "references": ["27", "0", "63", "24", "37", "84", "30", "96", "66", "2", "53", "61", "79", "41", "6", "29", "89", "12", "34", "48", "77", "21", "3", "74", "97", "82", "46", "88", "25", "83", "No Label", "20", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["20", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 13 December 2010\non the establishment of criteria for the use by liquefied natural gas carriers of technological methods as an alternative to using low sulphur marine fuels meeting the requirements of Article 4b of Council Directive 1999/32/EC relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels as amended by Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sulphur content of marine fuels\n(notified under document C(2010) 8753)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/769/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels (1) as amended by Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), and in particular Article 4c thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4b of the Directive requires that ships at berth in Community ports do not use, from 1 January 2010, marine fuels with a sulphur content exceeding 0,1 % by mass. This requirement does not apply, however, to fuels used on board vessels employing approved emission abatement technologies in accordance with Article 4c.\n(2)\nArticle 4c(4) provides that Member States may allow ships to use an approved emission abatement technology as an alternative to using sulphur marine fuels meeting the requirements of Article 4b, provided that these ships continuously achieve emission reductions which are at least equivalent to those which should be achieved through the limits on sulphur in fuel specified in the Directive.\n(3)\nArticle 4c(3) provides for the establishment of criteria for the use of technological methods by ships of all flags in enclosed ports, harbours and estuaries in the Community in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9(2) of the Directive. These criteria are to be communicated to the IMO.\n(4)\nLiquefied natural gas (LNG) Carriers are frequently fitted with dual fuel boilers, using boil-off gas and heavy fuel oil for propulsion and cargo-related operations. In order to meet the requirements of the Directive most LNG Carriers calling at EU ports could use emission abatement technology employing a mixture of marine fuels and boil-off gas to produce sulphur emissions equal to or lower than 0,1 % sulphur fuel emissions.\n(5)\nIn the long-term, boil-off gas could be used as a primary fuel at berth, producing lower sulphur emissions than those which would be achieved through the limits on sulphur in fuel specified in the Directive.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Regulatory Committee established in accordance with Article 9(2) of the Directive,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nA Liquefied Natural Gas Carrier (LNG Carrier) is a cargo ship constructed or adapted and used for the carriage in bulk of liquefied natural gas as defined under the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC) Code.\nArticle 2\nTo meet the objective on reducing emissions from ships through an alternative technological abatement method by a mixture of marine fuel and boil-off gas the LNG Carriers shall use and comply with the calculation criteria set out in Annex.\nThe LNG Carriers may use the alternative technological abatement method while at berth in Community ports, allowing sufficient time for the crew to accomplish any necessary measures to employ a mixture of marine fuel and boil-off gas as soon as possible after arrival at berth and as late as possible before departure.\nArticle 3\nThe achieved emission reductions in sulphur emissions due to the application of the method referred to in Article 2 must be at least equivalent to the reduction that would be achieved through the limits of the sulphur in fuel specified in the Directive.\nArticle 4\nMember States shall require LNG Carriers which use the alternative technological abatement method and call at ports under their jurisdiction to provide detailed record in the ship\u2019s log-book, containing the type and quantity of fuels used on board. For this purpose, these ships shall be equipped for continuous monitoring and metering of the boil-off gas and marine fuel consumption.\nArticle 5\nMember States shall take appropriate measures to monitor and verify the use of the alternative technological abatement method while at berth based on the achieved emissions reductions provided by LNG Carriers.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2010.", "references": ["15", "28", "74", "73", "10", "86", "92", "5", "4", "66", "54", "32", "1", "27", "42", "95", "22", "69", "83", "51", "3", "7", "9", "43", "55", "0", "68", "39", "96", "85", "No Label", "8", "56", "58", "60", "76", "79", "80"], "gold": ["8", "56", "58", "60", "76", "79", "80"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 20 December 2010\namending Decision 2010/320/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit\n(2011/57/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Article 126(9) and Article 136 thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1)(a) TFEU foresees the possibility of adopting measures specific to the Member States whose currency is the euro with a view to strengthening the coordination and surveillance of their budgetary discipline.\n(2)\nArticle 126 TFEU establishes that Member States are to avoid excessive government deficits and sets out the excessive deficit procedure to that effect. The Stability and Growth Pact, which in its corrective arm implements the excessive deficit procedure, provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.\n(3)\nOn 27 April 2009, the Council decided, in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community that an excessive deficit existed in Greece.\n(4)\nOn 10 May 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/320/EU (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Decision\u2019) addressed to Greece under Article 126(9) TFEU and Article 136 TFEU with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit at the latest by the deadline of 2014. The Council established the following path for the deficit correction: government deficit not exceeding EUR 18 508 million in 2010, EUR 17 065 million in 2011, EUR 14 916 million in 2012, EUR 11 399 million in 2013 and EUR 6 385 million in 2014.\n(5)\nAccording to the forecast available at the time the Council adopted the Decision, real GDP was expected to contract by 4 % in 2010 and 2,5 % in 2011, and recover afterwards, with growth rates of 1,1 % in 2012, and 2,1 % in 2013 and in 2014. GDP deflator was expected to be 1,2 %, - 0,5 %, 1,0 %, 0,7 % and 1,0 % for the years 2010 to 2014, respectively. Given economic developments, real GDP is now expected to contract by 4,25 % in 2010 and 3 % in 2011 and recover afterwards with growth rates of 1,1 % in 2012, and 2,1 % in 2013 and in 2014. GDP deflators are now expected to be 3,0 %, 1,5 %, 0,4 %, 0,8 % and 1,2 % for the years 2010 to 2014, respectively.\n(6)\nOn 7 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/486/EU (2) amending the Decision.\n(7)\nOn 15 November 2010 Eurostat validated the Greek government deficit and debt statistics, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 of 25 May 2009 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (3). On that occasion, the deficit and debt series for the years 2006-2009 were revised upwards. The government deficit ratio-to-GDP for 2009 was revised from 13,6 % of GDP to 15,4 % of GDP, while the debt ratio was revised from 115,1 % of GDP to 126,8 % of GDP.\n(8)\nGreece has made good progress in the implementation of the measures required by the Decision, including the reduction of government deficit. However, the aforesaid revision in statistical series along with weak revenue collection and other problems with budgetary implementation, including the accumulation of payables, imply that the government deficit ceiling for 2010 will most likely be missed. This slippage will have to be fully offset in the course of 2011.\n(9)\nOn 24 November 2010, Greece submitted to the Council and the Commission a report outlining the policy measures taken to comply with the Decision. The Commission assessed the report and concluded that Greece is satisfactorily complying with the Decision.\n(10)\nIn light of the above considerations, it appears appropriate to amend the Decision in a number of respects, while keeping unchanged the deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit and the adjustment path for the government deficit and the increase of government debt in nominal terms,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/320/EU is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1(3), the second sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Based on November 2010 GDP projections, the corresponding path for the debt-to-GDP ratio shall not exceed 143 % in 2010, 153 % in 2011, 157 % in 2012, 158 % in 2013 and 156 % in 2014.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 2(3), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nthe implementation of legislation strengthening the fiscal framework. This should, in particular, include the establishment of a medium-term fiscal framework, the creation of a compulsory contingency reserve in the budget corresponding to 5 % of total appropriations of government departments, other than wages, pensions and interest, the creation of stronger expenditure monitoring mechanisms and the establishment of a budget office attached to Parliament;\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 2(3), point (g) is deleted;\n(4)\nin Article 2(3), point (k) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(k)\na better management of public assets, with the aim of raising at least EUR 7 billion during the period 2011-2013, of which at least EUR 1 billion in 2011 and proceeds from the sale of assets (real estate and financial assets) shall be used to redeem debt and will not reduce the fiscal consolidation efforts to comply with the deficit ceilings in Article 1(2);\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 2(3), point (m) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(m)\na decree disallowing local governments to run deficits at least until 2014; reduction in transfers to local government in line with planned savings and transfers of competences;\u2019;\n(6)\nin Article 2(3), point (o) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(o)\nimplementation of a uniform e-prescribing system; publication of the complete price list for the medicines in the market; application of the list of non-reimbursed medicines and of the list of over-the-counter medicines; publication of the new list of reimbursed medicines using the new reference price system; the use of the information made available through e-prescribing and scanning for the collection of rebates from pharmaceutical companies; introduction of a monitoring mechanism allowing for pharmaceutical expenditure to be assessed on a monthly basis; enforcement of co-payments for regular outpatient services of EUR 5 and extension of co-payments to unwarranted visits to emergency departments; publication of audited accounts for hospitals and health centres; and creation of an independent taskforce of health policy experts whose task is to produce, by end May 2011, a detailed report for an overall reform of the health system aimed at improving efficiency and effectiveness in the health system;\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 2(3), point (p) is deleted;\n(8)\nin Article 2(3), the following points are added:\n\u2018(q)\nfurther reduction in operational expenditure by at least 5 % yielding savings of at least EUR 100 million;\n(r)\nfurther reduction in transfers yielding savings for the government as a whole of at least EUR 100 million. The beneficiary public entities will ensure the concomitant reduction in expenditure so that there is no accumulation of arrears;\n(s)\nmeans-testing of family allowances from January 2011 on yielding savings of at least EUR 150 million (net of the respective administrative costs);\n(t)\nreduction in the purchase of military equipment (deliveries) by at least EUR 500 million compared to the actual 2010 level;\n(u)\nreduction in pharmaceutical expenditure by social security funds by EUR 900 million owing to an additional reduction in drug prices and new procurement procedures and by hospitals (also including expenditure in equipment) by at least EUR 350 million;\n(v)\nchanges in the management, pricing and wages of public enterprises yielding savings of at least EUR 800 million;\n(w)\nequalisation of taxation on heating oil and diesel oil after 15 October 2011, with the aim of fighting fraud and yielding at least EUR 400 million in 2011 net of specific measures to protect the less prosperous population strata;\n(x)\nincrease in the reduced rates of VAT from 5,5 % to 6,5 % and from 11 % to 13 %, yielding at least EUR 880 million and reduction in the VAT rate applicable to medicines and hotel accommodation from 11 % to 6,5 % with a cost not exceeding EUR 250 million, net of savings for social security funds and hospitals that result from the lower VAT rate on medicines;\n(y)\nintensification of the fight against smuggling on fuel (at least EUR 190 million);\n(z)\nincrease in court trial fees (at least EUR 100 million);\n(aa)\nimplementation of an action plan to accelerate the collection of tax arrears (at least EUR 200 million);\n(bb)\nspeeding up tax penalty collection (at least EUR 400 million);\n(cc)\ncollection of revenue that results from the new framework of tax disputes and trials (at least EUR 300 million);\n(dd)\nrevenue from the renewal of telecommunication licences that are about to expire (at least EUR 350 million);\n(ee)\nrevenue from concessions (at least EUR 250 million);\n(ff)\na restructuring plan for the Athens transportation network (OASA). The objective of the plan shall be to reduce operational losses of the company and make it economically viable. The plan shall include cuts in operational expenditure of the company and tariff increases. The required actions shall be implemented by March 2011;\n(gg)\nan act that limits recruitment in the whole general government to a ratio of not more than one recruitment for five retirements or dismissals, without sectoral exceptions, and including staff transferred from public enterprises under restructuring to government entities;\n(hh)\nacts to strengthen labour market institution and establish that: firm-level agreements prevail over those under sector and occupational agreements without undue restrictions; firm-level collective agreements are not restricted by requirements regarding the minimum size of firms; the extension of sector and occupational agreements to parties not represented in negotiations is eliminated; the probationary period for new jobs is extended; temporal limits in the use of temporary working agencies are eliminated; impediments for greater use of fixed-term contracts are removed; the provision that establishes higher hourly remuneration to part-time workers is eliminated; and a more flexible working-time management including part-time shift work is allowed for.\u2019;\n(9)\nin Article 2(4), point (a) is deleted;\n(10)\nin Article 2(4), the following points are added:\n\u2018(c)\nclearance of arrears accumulated in previous years;\n(d)\na multiannual plan of structural fiscal consolidation including measures of at least 5 % of GDP that will ensure the deficit targets up to 2014;\n(e)\nan anti-evasion plan which includes quantitative performance indicators to hold revenue administration accountable; legislation to streamline the administrative tax dispute and judicial appeal processes and the required acts and procedures to better address misconduct, corruption and poor performance of tax officials, including prosecution in cases of breach of duty;\n(f)\na detailed action plan with a timeline to complete and implement the simplified remuneration system;\n(g)\nimprovement in the accounting and billing systems of hospitals, through: finalising the introduction of double-entry accrual accounting systems in all hospitals; the use of the uniform coding system and a common registry for medical supplies; the calculation of stocks and flows of medical supplies in all the hospitals using the uniform coding system for medical supplies; the collection of co-payments from patients in all National Health System facilities; and the timely invoicing of treatment costs (no later than 2 months) to Greek social security funds, other Member States and private health insurers; and ensure that at least 50 % of the volume of medicines used by public hospitals by the end of 2011 is composed of generics and off-patent medicines by making it compulsory for all public hospitals to procure pharmaceutical products by active substance;\n(h)\nwith the aim of fighting waste and mismanagement in state-owned companies and yield fiscal savings of at least EUR 800 million, Greece shall adopt an act by the end February 2011 that: cuts primary remuneration in public enterprises by at least 10 % at company level; limits secondary remuneration to 10 % of primary remuneration; establishes a ceiling of EUR 4 000 per month for gross earnings (12 payments per year); increases urban transport tariffs by at least 30 %; increases other tariffs; establishes actions that reduce operational expenditure in public companies between 15 % to 25 %; and adopts an act for the restructuring of the OASA by March 2011;\n(i)\na new regulatory framework to facilitate the conclusion of concession agreements for regional airports;\n(j)\nestablishment of an independent taskforce of education policy aiming at increasing the efficiency of the public education system (primary, secondary and higher education) and reach a more efficient use of resources;\n(k)\nadoption of a law to establish the Single Public Procurement Authority in line with the Action Plan.\u2019;\n(11)\nin Article 2(5), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nassessment of the results of the first phase of the independent functional review of central administration, including the operational policy recommendations and completion of the review of existing social programmes;\u2019;\n(12)\nin point (d) of Article 2(5), the years \u20182010-2060\u2019 are replaced by the years \u20182009-2060\u2019;\n(13)\nin Article 2(5), the following point is added:\n\u2018(h)\nfurther promotion of the use of generic medicines through compulsory e-prescription by active substance.\u2019;\n(14)\nin Article 2(6), point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe inclusion in the draft budget for 2012 of fiscal consolidation measures amounting to at least 2,2 % of GDP. The budget shall, in particular, include the following measures (or in exceptional circumstances, measures yielding comparable savings): further broaden the VAT base by moving goods and services from a reduced to a normal rate (with the aim of collecting at least an additional EUR 300 million); reduce public employment in addition to the rule of one recruitment for every five retirements in the public sector (with the aim of saving at least EUR 600 million); establish excise duties for non-alcoholic beverages (for a total amount of at least EUR 300 million); expand the real estate tax by updating asset values (in order to create at least EUR 200 million in extra revenue); reorganise sub-central governments (aiming at generating at least EUR 500 million in savings); introduce a nominal freeze on pensions; increase efficiency of the presumptive taxation of professionals (with the aim of collecting at least EUR 100 million); reduce transfers to public undertakings (by at least EUR 800 million) following their restructuring; make unemployment benefits means-tested (with the aim of saving EUR 500 million); and collect further revenues from the licensing of gaming (at least EUR 225 million in the sale of licences and EUR 400 million in royalties);\u2019;\n(15)\nin Article 2(7), point (c) is deleted;\n(16)\nin Article 2(7), the following points are added:\n\u2018(d)\na hospital case-based costing system to be used for budgeting purposes from 2013 on;\n(e)\nacts to implement the operational recommendations of the first phase of the functional review of public administration at central level and of the full review of existing social programmes;\n(f)\nthe Single Public Procurement Authority starts its operations with the necessary resources to fulfil its mandate, objectives, competences and powers as defined in the Action Plan.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["79", "62", "83", "36", "75", "84", "78", "72", "71", "40", "68", "73", "7", "1", "34", "9", "98", "56", "5", "60", "21", "82", "94", "39", "35", "50", "44", "81", "20", "80", "No Label", "15", "16", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "16", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 7 July 2011\namending Annexes II and III to Decision 2010/221/EU as regards the withdrawal of an eradication programme regarding bacterial kidney disease for the territory of Great Britain and the approval of a surveillance programme regarding ostreid herpesvirus 1 \u03bc\u03bdar for Guernsey\n(notified under document C(2011) 4770)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/403/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (1), and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2010/221/EU of 15 April 2010 approving national measures for limiting the impact of certain diseases in aquaculture animals and wild aquatic animals in accordance with Article 43 of Council Directive 2006/88/EC (2) allows certain Member States to apply placing on the market and import restrictions on consignments of those animals in order to prevent the introduction of certain diseases into their territory, provided that they have either demonstrated that their territory, or certain demarcated areas of their territory, are free of such diseases or that they have established an eradication or surveillance programme to obtain such freedom.\n(2)\nAnnex II to Decision 2010/221/EU currently lists the territory of Great Britain as an area of the United Kingdom with an approved eradication programme as regards bacterial kidney disease (BKD).\n(3)\nThe United Kingdom has notified its intention to withdraw that eradication programme. Following an extensive reassessment of the measures taken by that Member State to control BKD in the territory of Great Britain, it was concluded that it is no longer appropriate to apply restrictions on movements of consignments of certain aquaculture animals into the United Kingdom as provided for by that programme. Consequently, the territory of Great Britain should be removed from the list of areas with approved eradication programmes for BKD as set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/221/EU.\n(4)\nAnnex III to Decision 2010/221/EU currently lists parts of the territories of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as areas of the United Kingdom with approved surveillance programme as regards ostreid herpesvirus 1 \u03bc\u03bdar (OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar). The United Kingdom has now submitted a surveillance programme as regards OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar for Guernsey. That surveillance programme aims to demonstrate that the areas in Guernsey where OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar has not been detected are free of that virus and to prevent its introduction into those areas. The content of that surveillance programme is equivalent to the surveillance programmes which are already approved and listed in Annex III to Decision 2010/221/EU.\n(5)\nThere have been no detections of increased mortalities in the farms and relaying areas keeping Pacific oysters in Guernsey during the last 2 years. According to information submitted by the United Kingdom, Pacific oyster business operators have applied a voluntary ban on movements of pacific oysters into Guernsey since April 2010. That information suggests that Guernsey is free of OsHV-1 \u03bc\u03bdar. Movement restrictions to protect the health status of Pacific oysters in that territory should be approved.\n(6)\nThe surveillance programme for Guernsey should therefore be approved and Guernsey should be included in the list set out in Annex III to Decision 2010/221/EU.\n(7)\nDecision 2010/221/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Decision 2010/221/EU are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 July 2011.", "references": ["5", "51", "82", "33", "4", "64", "7", "89", "56", "88", "11", "42", "43", "50", "1", "90", "20", "16", "69", "94", "55", "63", "70", "57", "9", "62", "41", "61", "44", "71", "No Label", "38", "66", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "66", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1344/2011\nof 19 December 2011\nsuspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural, fishery and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1255/96\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe production in the European Union of certain agricultural, fishery and industrial products specified in this Regulation is currently inadequate or non-existent and thus, the needs of user industries in the Union cannot be met.\n(2)\nIt is therefore in the interest of the Union to suspend partially or totally the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for those products.\n(3)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 of 27 June 1996 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products (1) has been amended many times. In the interest of transparency it should therefore be replaced in its entirety.\n(4)\nThe Regulations suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products have largely renewed previous measures. Therefore, in the interests of rationalising the implementation of the measures concerned, it is appropriate not to limit the period of validity of this Regulation as its scope can be adapted and products added to or removed from the Annex to this Regulation by means of a Council regulation.\n(5)\nIn view of their temporary nature, the suspensions listed in the Annex to this Regulation should be reviewed systematically, at the latest five years after their application or renewal. Moreover, closure of certain suspensions should be warranted at any time, as a result of a proposal of the Commission on the basis of a review carried out on its own initiative or at the request of one or more Member States if the suspensions are no longer in the Union's interest to be maintained or due to technical product developments, to changed circumstances or to economic trends on the market.\n(6)\nIn accordance with the principle of proportionality, it is necessary and appropriate for the achievement of the basic objectives of this Regulation, namely the improvement of the competitive capacity of the Union industry, thereby enabling the latter to maintain or create employment, modernise their structures, etc., to lay down rules on the suspension of the Common Customs Tariff duties for certain products. In accordance with Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives pursued,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for the agricultural, fishery and industrial products listed in the Annex shall be suspended as set out therein.\nArticle 2\n1. The Commission may at any time review the suspensions for the products listed in the Annex in the following cases:\n(a)\non its own initiative;\n(b)\nat the request of one or more Member States.\n2. The Commission shall carry out a mandatory review of the suspensions in the year set out in the Annex.\n3. For the purpose of the review the Commission shall be assisted by a group of experts from the Member States.\nArticle 3\nWhere the Commission considers, on the basis of the review provided for in Article 2, that a suspension for a certain product is to be changed or terminated, it shall submit to the Council a proposal to amend the list set out in the Annex accordingly.\nArticle 4\nRegulation (EC) No 1255/96 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["9", "79", "73", "83", "93", "95", "39", "86", "7", "32", "2", "94", "45", "70", "78", "51", "74", "63", "62", "34", "58", "65", "13", "48", "16", "11", "40", "92", "47", "15", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "66", "67", "75", "82"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "66", "67", "75", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/44/EU\nof 13 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include azadirachtin as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 1112/2002 (2) and (EC) No 2229/2004 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included azadirachtin.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 24e of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 the applicant withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/941/EC of 8 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of azadirachtin.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the application of the accelerated procedure provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Germany, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/941/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nGermany evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 10 December 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on azadirachtin to the Commission on 28 October 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for azadirachtin.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing azadirachtin may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include azadirachtin in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information to confirm the relationship between azadirachtin A and the rest of the active components in the neem seeds extract with respect to amount, biological activity and persistence, in order to confirm the lead active compound approach with regard to azadirachtin A and to confirm specification of the technical material, residue definition and groundwater risk assessment.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing azadirachtin to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/941/EC provides for the non-inclusion of azadirachtin and the withdrawal of authorisation of plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning azadirachtin in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/941/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning azadirachtin in the Annex to Decision 2008/941/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing azadirachtin as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to azadirachtin are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing azadirachtin as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 30 April 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account Part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning azadirachtin. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing azadirachtin as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing azadirachtin as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 April 2011.", "references": ["40", "11", "22", "56", "73", "31", "47", "8", "81", "84", "90", "21", "42", "57", "9", "63", "89", "12", "19", "78", "69", "51", "4", "50", "79", "80", "77", "66", "44", "43", "No Label", "2", "20", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "20", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 19 December 2011\nappointing a German member of the European Economic and Social Committee\n(2012/1/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the German Government,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Joachim WUERMELING,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDr J\u00f6rg FREIHERR FRANK VON F\u00dcRSTENWERTH, Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft e.V., is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["81", "76", "82", "46", "19", "63", "26", "29", "20", "75", "85", "66", "45", "18", "16", "8", "5", "31", "64", "25", "78", "86", "70", "71", "15", "38", "60", "69", "73", "62", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 762/2012\nof 24 July 2012\napproving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Langres (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined France's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the name \u2018Langres\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/1996 (2).\n(2)\nSince the amendment in question is not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendment should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["45", "5", "64", "76", "67", "63", "74", "41", "20", "51", "50", "2", "10", "83", "93", "79", "61", "57", "90", "73", "68", "72", "0", "85", "81", "56", "48", "31", "35", "14", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 404/2010\nof 10 May 2010\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in the People's Republic of China\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 13 August 2009, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of certain aluminium road wheels originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (the \u2018country concerned\u2019 or \u2018the PRC\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 30 June 2009 by the Association of European wheel manufacturers (EUWA) (\u2018the complainant\u2019) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain aluminium wheels. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting there from, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant, the Union producers mentioned in the complaint, other known producers in the Union, exporting producers in the PRC, importers, traders, users, suppliers and associations known to be concerned, and the representatives of the PRC of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(4)\nAll interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(5)\nIn view of the large number of exporting producers in the PRC, importers and Union producers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping and injury in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers, importers and Union producers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide information specified in the notice of initiation.\n(6)\nA total of 36 companies or groups of related companies (\u2018groups\u2019) in the PRC came forward and provided the requested information within the given deadline. These 36 companies or groups produced and/or exported the product concerned to the European Union market during the investigation period and expressed a wish to be included in the sample. They were regarded as co-operating companies and were considered for inclusion in the sample. The level of cooperation from the PRC, i.e. the percentage of exports to the EU by the Chinese cooperating companies as compared to all Chinese exports to the EU, was more than 90 %.\n(7)\nAfter consulting the parties concerned in accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, a sample based on the largest representative volume of exports which can reasonably be investigated within the time available and also taking into account the geographical spread of the co-operating companies or groups. The sample selected consists of four (groups of) companies, representing 47 % of the exports to the EU of the 36 co-operating companies or groups, and around 43 % of the total exports to the EU from the PRC. The authorities of the PRC and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce agreed on the choice of sample made by the Commission but requested the inclusion of at least two additional (groups of) companies in the sample. However, given the fact that the sample initially selected consists of 20 companies belonging to 4 groups, it was decided that no more companies or groups could be added since this would not permit completion of investigations within the statutory time limits.\n(8)\nFive exporting producers in the PRC, which were not included in the sample, requested individual examination and provided the relevant information within the given deadline, with a view to the application of Articles 9(6) and 17(3) of the basic Regulation. However, in view of the size of the sample which concerned 4 groups with many companies involved, the Commission concludes, in accordance with Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation, that no individual examination of exporting producers in the PRC not included in the sample can be granted because this would be unduly burdensome and would prevent completion of the investigation in good time.\n(9)\nIn order to allow exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (\u2018MET\u2019) or individual examination in accordance with Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation, if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the Chinese exporting producers that made such request and to the Chinese authorities.\n(10)\nThe Notice of initiation was sent to around 40 Union producers of aluminium road wheels (ARWs). 17 replies were received. 5 groups of companies were sampled as they were found to be representative of the total Union production in terms of sales volumes and production in the EU (more than 75 %) geographical coverage and type of activity, i.e. Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and so-called aftermarket (AM) sales, see recital (19) et seq for further details. Although the majority of sales of the sampled EU producers\u2019 sales were directed to the OEM segment, 2 of the sampled producers also sold to the AM segment. Non-complaining companies were also represented in the sample.\n(11)\nDuring the investigation, parties put forward further arguments concerning alleged differences between the OEM and AM segments. In order to obtain more relevant information, it was decided to extend the sample to one additional (major) producer active in the AM segment.\n(12)\nComplainants requested that their names be kept confidential for fear that they could face retaliation by customers or competitors. The Commission took the view that there was indeed a significant possibility of retaliation and accepted that the names should not be disclosed. After initiation, all cooperating companies agreed to release their names in their capacity as co-operators but not, where applicable, in their capacity as complainants.\n(13)\nThe Notice of initiation was sent to around 80 importers and importers/users of ARWs. 40 replies were received from companies representing around one third of total imports from China. 12 of these replies were received from importers and the rest from importing users. 7 companies were sampled (5 importers and 2 importing users).\n(14)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the 6 Union producers selected in the sample, to the exporting producers in the sample selected for the PRC and to those who requested IT, to the 7 importers selected in the sample. In addition, questionnaires were sent to users and cooperating other producers.\n(15)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from the 4 sampled Chinese exporting producers and from 5 Chinese exporting producers requesting IT in accordance with Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. Replies were also received from the 6 sampled Union producers, 3 importers not related to an exporting producer, from 9 other EU producers and 13 users. Submissions were also received from the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, and from two associations of users.\n(16)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest and carried out verifications at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nUnion producers:\n-\nBorbet group:\nBorbet Solingen GmbH - Germany\n-\nHeyes Lemmerz group:\n-\nHeyes Lemmerz Alukola, s.r.o. - Czech Republic\n-\nHeyes Lemmerz Italy Holding s.r.l. - Italy\n-\nRonal group:\n-\nRonal AG - Switzerland\n-\nRonal Polska Sp. z o.o. - Poland\n-\nSpeedline s.r.l. - Italy\n-\nMapsa S. Coop. L. - Spain\n-\nAEZ - Germany\n-\nFran\u00e7aise de Roues S.A.S.V. - France\n(b)\nExporting producer sand their related companies in the PRC:\n-\nBaoding Lizhong Wheels manufacturing Co. Ltd. (Baoding)\n-\nZhejiang Wanfeng Auto Wheel Co. Ltd (Wanfeng)\n-\nYHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co., Ltd (YHI)\n-\nCITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing (CITIC)\n(c)\nRelated companies in the Union:\n-\nOZ Deutschland, Biberbach (Germany)\n-\nOZ SpA, Bassano del Grappa (Italy)\n(d)\nRelated companies in Singapore:\n-\nOZ Asia\n-\nYHI Manufacturing\n(e)\nUsers:\n-\nRenault - France\n-\nBMW - Germany\n(17)\nIn view of the need to establish a normal value for exporting producers to which MET might not be granted, a verification to establish normal value on the basis of data from Turkey as analogue country took place at the premises of the following companies:\n(f)\nProducers in Turkey:\n-\nCMS Jant ve Makina Sanayi A.\u0218.\n-\nHayes Lemmerz \u0130nci Aluminyum.\n3. Investigation period\n(18)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (the investigation period or IP). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (the period considered).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(19)\nThe product concerned is defined as aluminium road wheels of the motor vehicles of CN headings 8701 to 8705, whether or not with their accessories and whether or not fitted with tyres originating in the People's Republic of China (the product concerned), currently falling within CN codes ex 8708 70 10 and ex 8708 70 50.\n(20)\nThe product concerned is sold in the Union via two distribution channels: to the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) segment and to the so-called aftermarket (AM) segment. In the OEM segment, car manufacturers organize tender procedures for ARWs (around two years before the launch of a new car model) and are involved in the process of developing a new wheel which will bear their brand name. Both Union producers and Chinese exporters compete in the same tenders. In the AM sector, ARWs are designed, developed and branded by ARW producers to be then sold to wholesalers, retailers, tuning companies, car repair shops, etc.\n(21)\nOne exporter claimed that the ARWs destined for the OEM segment should be excluded from the product scope of the proceeding because they are fitted only on a new car while the ARWs destined to the AM segment are meant to replace the OEM wheel during the lifetime of a car model. The argument is self-contradictory because it confirms that \u2018AM ARWs\u2019 are made to fit and perform to the same degree as \u2018OEM ARWs\u2019. In fact the \u2018AM ARWs\u2019 can be produced by means of different production processes (3), in all diameters and weights, with all different types of finishing, etc. The difference between the \u2018OEM and AM\u2019 ARWs relates solely to the different channels of distribution which result in the involvement of the car industry in the process of developing and designing the wheel. It has also been claimed that the price setting of \u2018OEM and AM\u2019 ARWs differs, the former being linked to the changing London Metal Exchange (LME) price. Indeed, the car manufacturers use a so called zero-base price formula. It consists of three elements: (1) aluminium price (variable, linked to LME), (2) value added, transformation costs, and (3) a fixed quality premium. This price setting method is adjusted to the needs of the car industry, but the cost components of both \u2018OEM and AM\u2019 ARW are the same.\n(22)\nConsequently, although the \u2018OEM and AM\u2019 ARW have different channels of distribution they share the same physical and technical characteristics and are interchangeable. They are thus considered to constitute one single, homogenous product. In addition, ARWs are sold and imported from China in significant quantities via both sales channels. In the light of these findings, it is provisionally concluded that the exclusion of the \u2018OEM ARW\u2019 from the product scope of the investigation is not warranted.\n(23)\nAn interested party claimed that wheels for go-karts should be excluded because go-karts would fall out of CN headings 8701 to 8705. Nevertheless, the party failed to conclusively show that go-karts cannot be included within the above-mentioned CN headings; therefore, the claim was provisionally rejected.\n(24)\nThe same party claimed that wheels for all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) should also be excluded from the product scope, because those wheels would be fundamentally different from wheels manufactured for other motor vehicles. Nevertheless, certain ATVs could be classified in the CN headings 8701 to 8705 and therefore their wheels fall within the product scope of this investigation. As a consequence, this claim was provisionally rejected.\n2. Like product\n(25)\nThe product concerned and the aluminium road wheels produced and sold on the domestic market of the PRC, and on the domestic market of Turkey, which served provisionally as an analogue country, as well as the aluminium road wheels produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry were found to have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and uses. Therefore, these products are provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n1. Market Economy Treatment\n(26)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. Briefly and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in summarised form below:\n-\nBusiness decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values;\n-\nFirms have one clear set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards (IAS) and are applied for all purposes;\n-\nThere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;\n-\nBankruptcy and Property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty; and\n-\nExchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates.\n(27)\nIn the present investigation, all sampled exporting groups requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form within the given deadlines.\n(28)\nFor all sampled exporting groups, the Commission sought all information deemed necessary and verified information submitted in the MET claim at the premises of the groups in question.\n(29)\nThe investigation revealed that MET could not be granted to any of the four Chinese company groups as none of them fulfilled all the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, for the following reasons.\n(30)\nAll sampled exporting groups failed to demonstrate that they fulfil Criterion 1 because of State interference in decisions concerning the main raw material (aluminium).\n(31)\nIndeed, in all sampled groups, it appears that the vast majority of aluminium used for the production of aluminium road wheels is acquired in the Chinese domestic market on the basis of long term contracts. Prices are based on quotations of primary aluminium on the Chinese spot markets plus a transformation fee (and in the case of one company also on the Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE)). In this respect, it has to be pointed out that quotation on the spot markets run in parallel with the SHFE.\n(32)\nIn this regard, it has to be noted that the Chinese State has a primary role in the setting of prices of primary aluminium and interferes in the market continuously with a number of tools.\n(33)\nFirst, primary aluminium for export is subject to a 17 % VAT (while VAT on exports of finished goods is refunded) plus a 15 % export tax.\n(34)\nSecondly, the State interferes with the price setting mechanisms in the Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE) which is a closed exchange for Chinese-registered companies and Chinese citizens. This State interference with the price setting mechanisms in the SHFE is linked to its position both as a seller of primary aluminium and as a purchaser via the State Reserve Bureau and other State Bodies. In addition, the State sets daily price limits via the rules of the SHFE which have been approved by the State Regulator, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (the CSRC).\n(35)\nAnother example of State interference is the recent stimulus package of the Chinese Government aiming at limiting the effects of the economic crisis. End of 2008, the State Reserves Bureau started a scheme to buy aluminium from smelters to help their operations as the global financial crisis cut demand. Those State-backed purchases absorbed most of the stocks in the domestic market, driving up prices during the first half of 2009.\n(36)\nThis was considered as an underlying factor of State interference in decisions of firms regarding raw materials. Indeed, the current Chinese system of high export duties and lack of VAT reimbursement for export of primary aluminium and other raw materials, combined with no export taxes and VAT reimbursement on exports of the downstream product and State interference in the setting of prices in the SHFE, has essentially led to a situation where Chinese aluminium prices continue to be the result of State intervention. This has led to the situation that, historically, prices in the LME have diverged significantly from those in the Chinese market (4). Between half 2005 and the end of 2008. LME prices have been significantly higher compared to the Chinese markets, underlining the lack of any meaningful arbitrage between Chinese markets and markets in the rest of the world.\n(37)\nThus, the multiple State-induced distortions in the Chinese primary aluminium prices affect the decisions of Chinese producers of aluminium wheels when acquiring raw materials. In addition, these enjoy an advantage from these distortions, in the sense that they normally make their purchases in the Chinese market from local suppliers using Chinese spot markets prices (or SHFE) as a benchmark but can also buy certain quantities at LME prices when prices in the Chinese market are higher as a result of State intervention.\n(38)\nMoreover, in addition to the general situation described above, three other groups do not fulfil other requirements of Criterion 1 because of significant State interference in relation to important business decisions. For one of the groups, a State-owned company has veto rights disproportionate to its shareholding in two of its companies on certain main decisions. For most of the companies of another group, some main decisions are subject to significant State interference either because the companies are 100 % State-owned or because the director representing the State-owned shareholder has veto rights on important company decisions. Moreover, despite the companies\u2019 assertion to the contrary, the investigation has revealed that the local State labour Department has veto rights concerning employment of workers in two of these companies. Finally, in the case of a third group, the family that controls the group has links with the ruling party and one of the companies belonging to the group is subject to significant State interference for certain important decisions given that the director representing a State-owned shareholder has a veto right on important company decisions.\n(39)\nFor one group, there is a clear breach of the basic accounting principles in all its companies. In particular IAS 1 (Presentation of Financial Statements), IAS 12 (Income taxes) and IAS 16 (Property, Plant and Equipment) were not respected. It is therefore considered that the accounts were not prepared and audited in line with International Accounting Standards. For another group the Commission's services found non-compliance with IAS 1 and IAS 31.\n(40)\nFor one group, there are clear distortions in relation to land use rights and acquisition of fixed assets for several companies and most companies belonging to the group have benefited from preferential tax regimes, tax refunds and subsidies which constitute distortions carried over from the non-market economy system. These distortions were significant, measured for example in terms of turnover.\n(41)\nConcerning another sampled group, three of its companies have benefited from preferential tax regimes which constitute distortions carried over from the non-market economy system. These distortions can be considered as significant for example in terms of turnover.\n(42)\nIt also appears for another group that two of its companies do not comply with Criterion 3. The first one has paid the land use right with a long delay after the due date, without incurring any penalty, despite the fact that penalties were clearly stated in the contract. This meant a direct support by the State (which is the ultimate owner of the land) in the start-up phase of the company. As for the second company, it was established following a purchase of the assets of a State-owned producer of aluminium wheels at non-market conditions which translated into an undue advantage in the initial phase of the company's life.\n(43)\nA group claimed that the purchase of assets from a State-owned producer was carried out under market conditions. Nevertheless, the party failed to demonstrate that the whole of the operation could be considered as free from distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system.\n(44)\nFinally companies belonging to another group enjoyed significant tax exemptions and financial support which had significant impact on their financial situation, measured for example in terms of turnover.\n(45)\nThe Commission officially disclosed the results of the MET findings to the exporting groups concerned in the PRC, the authorities of the PRC, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and the complainant. They were also given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing if there were particular reasons to be heard.\n(46)\nOne group challenged the fact that the Commission had failed to decide on MET within the three-months deadline established in the basic Regulation, claiming that the exporters had taken all the necessary steps before this deadline to make it possible for the Commission to know what effect its decision concerning that status might have on the calculation of the dumping margin. In other words, it is claimed MET should be assessed within the three months deadline whenever answers to the anti-dumping questionnaires have been provided within that deadline. Otherwise, there is a risk that the information provided in the anti-dumping questionnaire can have an impact on the decision to grant MET.\n(47)\nHowever, in the circumstances of the present case, it should be stressed that a decision on MET could not be taken within the 3 months deadline because most of the information regarding MET was collected during the verification visits which finished beyond the three month deadline. In any event, as explained above, the decision to refuse MET to the sample exporting groups was exclusively based on a thorough assessment of the relevant 5 MET criteria laid out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.\n(48)\nIn relation to Criterion 1 it has been claimed that there is indeed arbitrage between the Chinese markets and the LME because there have been some minor exports of aluminium to/from China during the Investigation Period. This argument cannot be accepted in view of divergences of price levels between the Chinese markets and the LME.\n(49)\nAs for Criterion 2 a number of issues were raised regarding some of the incompatibilities with different IAS found by the Commission in the accounts of two companies. However, nothing in the arguments put forward allow concluding that any of these two companies has a clear set of accounting records independently audited in line with International Accounting Standards.\n(50)\nIn relation to Criterion 3 several arguments have been put forward. First it has been claimed that the impact of financial support, land rights and other advantages such as tax exemptions did not cause significant distortions on the financial situation of the companies. This argument cannot be accepted since the impact of those schemes is significant if measured in terms of turnover.\n(51)\nIt has also been pointed out that a number of support schemes and fiscal advantages were not company specific and therefore, it cannot be considered that they are the result of a carry-over effect of the non-market economy system. In this respect, it has to be underlined that the analysis in MET pertains to whether there is State interference whether or not it is specific to any company. In any event, the factual basis of the allegation is incorrect. Indeed, advantages enjoyed by the companies in the present case can be considered as company-specific because they are all targeted to a certain type of companies: e.g.: being a foreign company, being established in a given area and having carried out ad hoc negotiations with the local authorities to receive subsidies, purchasing domestic equipment, technology upgrading, participation on fairs, R&D investments etc.\n(52)\nFinally, it has been put forward that income tax exemptions and deductions for foreign companies that entered into force in 2005 do not constitute a distortion carried over from the non-market economy system. This interpretation cannot be accepted. Indeed, Criterion 3 does not refer to actions limited in time (up to 1998 when China started to apply Market Economy rules) or in their scope, but to actions that imply the involvement of the State in shaping the business environment through measures that are typical of a non-market economy, such as discriminatory tax rates.\n(53)\nOn the basis of the above, none of the PRC companies that had requested MET could show that they fulfilled the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. It was therefore considered that MET should be rejected for all these companies. The Advisory Committee was consulted and did not object to these conclusions.\n2. Individual Treatment\n(54)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate, in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, that their export prices and quantities as well as the conditions and terms of the sales are freely determined, that exchange rates are carried out at market rates, and that any State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if exporters are given different rates of duty.\n(55)\nAll exporting groups which requested MET also claimed individual treatment in the event they would not be granted MET. On the basis of the information available, it is provisionally established that two of the four sampled groups in the PRC meet all the requirements for individual, treatment. Two sampled groups are denied individual treatment. Indeed, State interference in CITIC Dicastal and Baoding is such that it permits circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty in particular having regard to the fact that these two groups have two common joint ventures producing the product concerned.\n(56)\nOf the four sampled exporting groups in the PRC, individual examination should be granted to the following groups:\n-\nZhejiang Wanfeng Auto Wheel Co. Ltd.\n-\nYHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.\n3. Normal value\n3.1. Choice of analogue country\n(57)\nAccording to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the domestic prices or constructed normal value in an analogue country.\n(58)\nIn the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its intention to use Turkey as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value and interested parties were invited to comment on this.\n(59)\nOnly one exporter has objected to this choice and has proposed Malaysia as an alternative country but stated at a later stage that Malaysian companies were not willing to co-operate with the Commission.\n(60)\nThe Commission examined whether Turkey was a reasonable choice of analogue country. It was concluded that Turkey, with five national producers and significant imports from third countries is a market with a high degree of competition. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the production process between producers in Turkey and in the People's Republic of China. Having regard to the above, the investigation showed no reason, to consider that Turkey was not adequate for the purpose of establishing normal value. Moreover, Turkish producers sell product types comparable to those exported by the PRC.\n(61)\nTwo producers in Turkey responded to the questionnaire sent to all producers of aluminium wheels in Turkey.\n(62)\nThe data submitted in the cooperating Turkish producers\u2019 replies were verified in situ and were found to be reliable information on which a normal value could be based.\n(63)\nIt is therefore provisionally concluded that Turkey is an appropriate and reasonable analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n3.2. Determination of normal value\n(64)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value was established on the basis of verified information received from the producer in the analogue country as set out below:\n(65)\nThe product concerned was sold in representative quantities on the Turkish domestic market.\n(66)\nIt was analysed whether it could be considered as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for each product type the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market during the investigation period.\n(67)\nWhere sales volume of a product type, sold at net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price. This price was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that type made during the IP, irrespective of whether the sales were profitable or not.\n(68)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represent 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of that type only.\n(69)\nFor one product type where no profitable sales were made, normal value was based on the manufacturing costs of the product type sold in the domestic market, plus selling, general and administrative costs (\u2018SG&A costs\u2019) and a reasonable value for profit on the domestic market.\n(70)\nFinally, for a limited number of product types, normal value was calculated on the basis of normal value for comparable types of products making adjustments for physical differences.\n3.3. Export prices\n(71)\nIn all cases where the product concerned was exported to independent customers in the Union, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely, on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.\n(72)\nIn cases where sales were made via a related importer or trader, the export prices were constructed in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the resale prices of that related importer/importer to first independent customers in the Union. Adjustments were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale including sales, general and administrative expenses and profit. With respect to profit margin, the profit realised by an unrelated importer/trader of the product concerned was used since the actual profit of the related importer/trader was not considered reliable because of the relationship between the exporting producers and the related importer/trader.\n3.4. Comparison\n(73)\nThe normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.\n(74)\nThe price comparison between the wheels exported from the PRC and those sold on the Turkish market by the Turkish cooperating producers was made by distinguishing sales to OEMs and sales in the After-market.\n(75)\nIn addition to the above, appropriate adjustments concerning transport, insurance, handling and ancillary costs, packing, credit, indirect taxation and bank charges were granted in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.\n4. Dumping margins\n4.1. For the sampled cooperating exporting producers granted IT\n(76)\nFor the two sampled companies granted IT, dumping margins were established by comparing the weighted average normal value established for the Turkish producers who cooperated fully with each company's weighted average export price to the Union, as provided for in Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation.\n(77)\nThe dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the import price at the European Union border, duty unpaid, are the following:\nCompany\nDumping Margin\nYHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co. Ltd\n36,7 %\nZhejiang Wanfeng Auto Wheel Co. Ltd\n61,8 %\n4.2. For all other cooperating exporting producers\n(78)\nThe dumping margin for sampled companies not granted MET or IT and for the non-sampled cooperating companies was calculated as a weighted average of the results of all sampled companies. For the two companies not granted MET nor IT the calculations were made in the same manner as described in paragraph 76. The dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the import price at the European Union border, duty unpaid is 48,7 %.\n4.3. For all other exporting producers\n(79)\nGiven that cooperation from the PRC was very high, the country-wide dumping margin applicable to all other exporters in the PRC was calculated using the highest dumping margin established on the basis of transactions made by one cooperating exporting producer. Therefore, the residual dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the import price at the European Union border, duty unpaid amounts to 69,3 %.\nD. INJURY\n1. Union production\n(80)\nARWs are produced by around 30 companies, located in many EU countries. The companies that supported the complaint and co-operated in the investigation represented more than 85 % of the total Union production in the IP.\n(81)\nThe total Union production and the support for the investigation has been established on the basis of all available information, including information provided in the complaint, data collected from Union producers before and after the initiation of the investigation, information obtained from the sampled producers, and other co-operating producers. This information allowed confirming the existence and the level of production also of those producers which did not cooperate in the investigation.\n(82)\nOne sampled producer was found to import and resell the product concerned on the Union market from the PRC. However, by comparison to its overall sales, the imports remain marginal and do not affect its qualification as Union producer.\n2. Union Consumption\n(83)\nDuring the period considered the Union consumption developed as follows.\nUnion Consumption\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nUnits (in 000)\n58 607\n62 442\n58 313\n49 508\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n107\n99\n84\n(84)\nUnion consumption (5) has been established by adding imports based on Eurostat data to the EU sales from Union producers. Imports of ARWs are covered by 2 ex CN codes which include also other products. In order to assess the part of ARWs under each CN code, their share imported under CN codes 8708 70 10 and 8708 70 50 was established country by country on the basis of the methodology suggested in the complaint. As imports were reported in weight, the conversion into units was also made with reference to the methodology suggested in the complaint (using an average weight per unit). These data were cross-checked with and confirmed by data supplied by the sampled Chinese exporters. EU deliveries were calculated by adding those made by the sampled Union producers with those made by the other producers (data collected at the pre-initiation stage, obtained from the complaint, certain estimates made on the basis of data of sampled producers).\n(85)\nOverall, consumption decreased by 15,5 % over the period considered but it followed an uneven trend, with a major decrease of 15,1 % between 2008 and the IP. It increased from 58,6 million units in 2006, to 62,4 million units in 2007 to then drop to 58,3 million units in 2008 and to 49,5 million units in the IP.\n3. Imports from the PRC\n3.1. Volume and market share of imports of the product concerned\n(86)\nThe evolution of imports from the PRC, in volume and market share, has been the following:\nImport volumes in 000 units\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nPRC\n3 703\n5 144\n5 809\n6 137\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n139\n157\n166\nMarket share (%)\n6,3\n8,2\n10\n12,4\nSource: Eurostat and data on Union sales of Union producers.\n(87)\nThe volume of Chinese imports increased from 3,7 million units in 2006, to 5,1 million units in 2007, 5,8 million units in 2008 and to 6,1 million units in the IP. It thus increased more than 66 % between 2006 and the IP.\n(88)\nThe market share of Chinese imports doubled. It increased from 6,3 % in 2006, to 8,2 % in 2007, to 10 % in 2008 and 12,4 % in the IP. Overall, the Chinese imports gained 6,1 percentage points of market share over the period considered.\n3.2. Prices of imports\n(89)\nThe table below compares the average Chinese import prices (based on Eurostat as exporter questionnaires only relate to the IP but not to the preceding years) with the average sales prices of the sampled Union producers.\nEuros/unit\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nChina\n34,7\n33,5\n31,4\n31,9\nSampled EU producers\n49,7\n49,7\n48\n46,5\nDifferential\n15\n16,2\n16,6\n14,6\n(90)\nThe average import prices from the PRC fell continuously between 2006 and 2008 by 9,5 % to then increase slightly in the IP by 0,5 %. Over the period considered prices fell by 8 %.\n(91)\nBased on this price comparison, it can be concluded that the Chinese import prices, in overall terms, were continuously and significantly below the sampled producers\u2019 prices over the period considered, forcing the latter to important reductions of their own prices.\n3.3. Price undercutting\n3.3.1. General remarks\n(92)\nThe current case is characterised by the segmental split into two distribution channels, i.e. the OEM and the AM segment. In addition, the majority of Union producers\u2019 sales concentrate on the OEM segment, whereas Chinese imports are directed mainly to the AM segment (around 70 % of imports from the PRC). Thus, there is an asymmetry in the segmental channelling of sales from the Union industry on the one hand and Chinese imports on the other hand.\n3.3.2. Undercutting\n(93)\nA comparison of sales prices on the Union market was made between the prices of the sampled Union industry and imports from the country concerned. The relevant sales prices of the sampled Union industry were those to independent customers, adjusted where necessary to an ex-works level, i.e. excluding freight costs in the Union and after deduction of discounts and rebates.\n(94)\nThese prices were compared with prices charged by the Chinese exporting producers net of discounts and adjusted where necessary to CIF Union frontier with an appropriate adjustment for the customs clearance costs and post-importation costs.\n(95)\nThe comparison showed that during the IP, imports of the product concerned were sold in the Union at prices which undercut the Union industry\u2019s prices, when expressed as a percentage of the latter by between 22 and 37 %, based on the data submitted by the cooperating exporting producers. From this level of undercutting and the negative price development of the Union industry, it is clear that substantial price depression had taken place.\n(96)\nSome parties claimed that the level of undercutting should be calculated by reference to the \u2018value added\u2019 component of the price only (excluding aluminium cost). Indeed, using this methodology would lead to an even higher level of undercutting. However, given that the levels of undercutting calculated with reference to the full price were already substantial, this method was not further explored.\n(97)\nThe high level of undercutting coupled with the price depression (see recital (89) et seq) on the part of the Union industry demonstrates the pronounced effect of dumping in this case.\n(98)\nIn order to pre-empt any possible questions as to differences between the two segments a separate analysis based on the same methodology as described above has been made for both segments. Undercutting remains substantial both those segments (between 13 and 30 % for OEM sales and between 56 and 63 % for AM sales).\n4. Imports from third countries other than PRC\n(99)\nThe following table demonstrates the developments of imports from third countries other than the PRC.\nImport volumes in 000 units\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nTurkey\n4 140\n4 522\n4 021\n3 426\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n109\n97\n83\nMarket share (%)\n7,1\n7,2\n6,9\n6,9\nNorway\n1 079\n1 210\n1 106\n520\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n112\n102\n48\nMarket share (%)\n1,8\n1,9\n1,9\n1,1\nSouth Africa\n490\n851\n790\n700\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n173\n161\n143\nMarket share (%)\n0,8\n1,4\n1,4\n1,4\nOthers\n3 746\n4 029\n3 690\n2 928\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n108\n99\n78\nMarket share (%)\n6,4\n6,5\n6,3\n5,9\n(100)\nAs seen in the above, Turkey is the second largest importer after PRC with a substantial but relatively stable market share. Imports from third countries other than the PRC and Turkey decreased their market share from 9 % in 2006 to 8,4 % in the IP. The impact of prices of those imports on the situation of the Union industry is discussed in recitals (136) et seq.\n5. Situation of the Union industry\n5.1. General\n(101)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry from 2006 to the IP.\n(102)\nAs explained above, the provisions on sampling had to be used. For the purpose of the injury analysis, the injury indicators have been analysed at the following two levels.\n-\nThe macro-economic indicators (production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volumes, market share, employment, productivity, wages and magnitude of dumping margins) were assessed at the level of the entire Union production. They are principally derived from questionnaires submitted by the six sampled companies and from the additional mini-questionnaires. These questionnaires relate to companies representing more than 80 % of the total Union production. In order to cover the entire Union production certain extrapolations have been made for the remaining production in addition to data available from various sources, most notably data from the complaint and data collected at the pre-initiation stage. All these factors were cross-checked whenever possible with overall information provided in relevant statistics.\n-\nThe analysis of micro-economic elements (stocks, sales prices, profitability, cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital and investments, production costs) was carried out for individual companies, i.e. at the level of those Union producers that were included in the sample.\n5.2. Macro-economic indicators\n5.2.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(103)\nThe table below indicates the evolution of production, production capacity and capacity utilisation on the basis of the total Union production:\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProduction (units)\n49 711\n49 511\n45 269\n37 687\nIndices 2006 = 100\n100\n100\n91\n76\nProduction capacity (units)\n53 762\n53 378\n53 819\n51 588\nIndices 2006 = 100\n100\n99\n100\n96\nCapacity utilisation (%)\n92,5\n92,8\n84,1\n73,1\nIndices 2006 = 100\n100\n100\n91\n79\n(104)\nAs shown in the table above, production remained relatively stable at around 49,5 million units in 2006 and 2007, and then dropped to 45,2 million units in 2008 and 37,6 million units in the IP, a decrease of 24 % over the period considered. The capacity utilisation rate dropped 19,4 percentage points over the same period.\n(105)\nThe main cause of the decrease in capacity utilisation, in the presence of a decrease in capacity, can only be attributed to the significant decrease in production.\n5.2.2. Sales volumes and market share\n(106)\nThe figures below present the sales volume, market share and average unit sales prices on the basis of all Union producers.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nSales volume entire Union industry in 000 units\n45 447\n46 684\n42 895\n35 794\nIndices 2006 = 100\n100\n103\n94\n79\nMarket share (%)\n78\n75\n74\n72\nIndices 2006 = 100\n100\n97\n95\n93\n(107)\nEU sales increased from 45,4 million units in 2006 to 46,6 million units in 2007 and then dropped to 42,8 million units in 2008 and 35,7 million units in the IP. In total, EU sales decreased by 21 % over the period considered.\n(108)\nAll EU producers lost market share continuously, from 78 % in 2006 to 75 % in 2007, 74 % in 2008 and 72 % in the IP. It is a total loss of 6 percentage points over the period considered. At the same time Chinese imports gained around 6 percentage points of market share.\n5.2.3. Employment, productivity and wages\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nNumber of employees\n14 204\n14 818\n14 309\n12 981\nIndices 2006 = 100\n100\n104\n101\n91\nProductivity (unit/employee)\n3 500\n3 341\n3 164\n2 903\nIndices 2006 = 100\n100\n95\n90\n83\nYearly wages (EUR)\n22 371\n20 007\n18 649\n18 420\nIndices 2006 = 100\n100\n89\n83\n82\n(109)\nEmployment increased from 14 204 employees at the end of 2006 to 14 818 employees at the end of 2007, decreased to 14 309 employees at the end of 2008 and further dropped to 12 981 employees at the end of the IP. Notably between 2008 and the IP, there is a loss of 1 328 jobs corresponding to more than one tenth of the workforce in six months.\n(110)\nIn parallel, productivity developed from 3 500 units per employee in 2006 to 3 341 units per employee in 2007, 3 164 units per employee in 2008 and 2 903 units per employee in the IP. The drop of productivity in particular between 2008 and the IP can be explained with the fact that the resizing of the workforce did not go at the same pace as the drop in production. This is explained by the limited possibility for this industry for reconversion or temporary shutting down of machinery and heavy costs related to personnel contributions in case of lay offs. The investigation showed that in particular between 2008 and the IP, the employment numbers declined. The cost of wages decreased in the period considered. The investments made by the Union industry during the IP are expected to further increase its efficiency and productivity in the mid and long term.\n5.2.4. Magnitude of the actual margin of dumping\n(111)\nThe dumping margins are specified above in the dumping section. All margins established are significantly above the de minimis level. Furthermore, given the volumes and the prices of the dumped imports, the impact of the actual margin of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.\n5.2.5. Contract landscape\n(112)\nAs indicated in recital (20) et seq the majority of Union-produced ARWs are sold through tender procedures organized on average two years before the launch of a new car model. The Commission therefore also investigated contracts concluded in the period considered (which would be executed after the IP) in order to establish whether any conclusions can be drawn on the likely development of deliveries on the part of the Union industry post IP. The data collected does however not allow for well-founded conclusions at this stage and will be hence further investigated.\n5.3. Micro-economic indicators\n5.3.1. General remark\n(113)\n3 of the 6 sampled producers are large groups with production facilities in several Member States while the three others have lighter structures concentrated in one or two Member States. During the period under investigation, 3 production sites of the sampled producers were closed down, the first one in 2006, the second in 2008 slightly before the IP and the last one towards the end of the IP.\n5.3.2. Stocks\n(114)\nThe figures below represent the volume of stocks of the sampled Union producers at the end of each period:\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nStocks (in 000 units)\n2 204\n2 444\n2 359\n2 173\nIndex 2006 = 100\n100\n111\n107\n99\n(115)\nStocks remained below 12 % of the production. It is recalled that this indicator is not very relevant as production of ARWs takes place by the Union industry to a very large extent to order; stock at a determined point in time is mostly the result of goods sold but not yet delivered.\n5.3.3. Sales prices\n(116)\nUnit selling prices of EU sampled producers were stable in 2006 and 2007 at around 49 Euros per unit but decreased to 48 Euros per unit in 2008 and 46,5 Euros per unit in the IP. This corresponds to a decrease of over 6 % over the period considered, and also shows a very substantial drop in the IP (see table at recital (89)).\n5.3.4. Profitability, cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital and investments\n(117)\nProfitability for the like product was established by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product, by the sampled companies, as the percentage of the turnover of such sales. Whilst the profitability for 2006 and 2007 was still over break-even, the situation drastically changed in 2008 and the IP due to a combination of decreasing sales volumes and a reduction in sales prices, with an inelastic cost structure of the industry with high fixed costs.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProfitability (%)\n3,2\n0,7\n-1,5\n-5,4\n(118)\nThe trend for the investments in the product concerned of the sampled Union producers is shown in the following table.\nEUR\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nInvestments (in 000 Euros)\n96 335\n99 279\n161 803\n153 724\nIndices 2006 = 100\n100\n103\n168\n160\n(119)\nThe table demonstrates that the Union industry has increased its investments in the product concerned, even when facing decreasing profitability. The investments were mainly made for machinery in order to improve efficiency. These increasing investments show that the industry still had the ability to raise capital.\n(120)\nHowever, despite these efforts, the return on investments (ROI) of the product concerned collapsed during the period considered, reaching - 40 % in the IP. This confirms the erosion of profitability of the industry and its inability to generate profit from investments.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nReturn on Investments (RoI)\n50,8 %\n12,2 %\n-13,5 %\n-40,8 %\nIndices 2006 = 100\n100\n24\n-27\n-80\nCash Flow (as percentage of turnover)\n9,3 %\n4,4 %\n3,6 %\n1,2 %\nIndices 2006 = 100\n100\n47\n39\n13\n(121)\nThe sampled producers experienced also a drop in operational cash flow of 8.1 percentage points over the period considered which reflects to a large extent the decrease in profitability. The collapse of such indicator cannot be attributed to the increase in investments but has to be derived from the operational business generating less cash. In fact, as the industry structurally requires constant injections of cash for fixed assets, the drop in cash flow reveals the increasing weakness of the Union industry and its inability to rely on self-financing.\n5.3.5. Production costs and cost of raw materials\n(122)\nThe table below develops the average cost per tonne of product concerned for the sampled producers.\nIn Euros\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nAverage cost of production (per unit)\n49,3\n49,7\n50,5\n49,2\n(123)\nThe average cost remained constant over the period considered at a level of around 50 Euros per unit on average.\n6. Conclusion on injury\n(124)\nOn these grounds, it is provisionally concluded that Union industry suffered material injury. This conclusion is indeed reinforced by the number of companies or production sites that would have closed (5 in the OEM segment) or that would have gone under insolvency procedures (21 in the AM and 4 in the OEM segment) over the period considered.\nE. CAUSATION\n1. Introduction\n(125)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether the material injury suffered by the Union industry has been caused by the dumped imports from the countries concerned. Furthermore, known factors other than dumped imports, which might have injured the Union industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those factors was not attributed to dumped imports.\n2. Impact of the imports from the PRC\n2.1. General\n(126)\nThere is a clear coincidence in time between the increase of dumped imports which gained 6 percentage points of market share between 2006 and the IP, and a parallel loss of market share of 6 percentage points suffered by the Union producers over the same period. The investigation has also established the existence of negative price effects of dumped imports which continuously undercut prices of Union producers.\n(127)\nOne party claimed that the market share of Chinese imports is too small to cause material injury. However, an overall market share of 12 % in a price sensitive market (and especially so on the OEM segment) cannot be considered small.\n(128)\nIt is further recalled that import volumes from the PRC increased by around 65 % and their estimated market share almost doubled during the period considered. In addition, as has been explained at recital (86) et seq, import prices from the PRC fell by 8 % (see recital (89) et seq) and substantial price undercutting was taking place (see recital (93) et seq). Indeed, it is the steep increase of imports and the substantial price undercutting found that are the chief factors to be considered in this case.\n(129)\nThe Union industry reacted to the injurious dumping by reducing its prices since 2007. However, due to the price pressure exerted by the Chinese imports, the Union industry was not in a position to keep its market share even at reduced prices. In the tendering processes on the OEM segment, it has been found that the low-priced Chinese offers have played a key role in the reduction of the prices offered by the Union industry. However, despite price reductions on the part of the Union industry, the average sales price of the Chinese imports remained lower than the Union industry's prices. As a result, sales by the Union industry fell significantly in the period considered. Given that Chinese prices in the IP had dropped further in comparison to 2006, the Union industry had again to decrease its prices in order to remain in business. Its profitability dropped below the break even point - which will not allow it to continue its operations over time.\n(130)\nIt is therefore evident that there is a strong link between the significant increase in import volumes at ever lower prices and the injury observed with the Union industry. It can therefore be concluded, at this stage, that there is a causal link between Chinese low-priced imports and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n2.2. Segmental split within the product concerned\n(131)\nIt has been argued that OEM and AM are two separate sales channels, without any significant interaction between them. On this basis, it has notably been claimed that the injury of the Union industry, which channels most of its sales to the OEM segment (85 % for sampled producers), could not have been caused by Chinese imports which concentrate predominantly on the AM segment and have limited OEM presence.\n(132)\nAlthough the distribution channels are indeed separate, according to the Commission's findings, some interaction, although not direct, may nevertheless be taking place. However, in order to have the most complete picture possible of the situation at hand, the two segments have also been considered separately.\n(133)\nOn the AM segment, the injury found can certainly be attributed to the high volumes of low-priced Chinese imports which account for up to 34 % on this segment. In the OEM segment, which constitutes the major part of the EU consumption (35 million units out of around 50), the Chinese presence in terms of volumes is much smaller (with a maximum of 6 %). However, as already explained it has to be borne in mind that the injury suffered in relation to OEM sales is triggered by the low Chinese prices and is indeed price-related. More specifically, there are indications that the car makers use the Chinese offers as a benchmark with the effect of forcing down the prices of the EU ARWs producers in the tendering processes. In order to remain present on the market, the Union producers indeed have no choice but to give in and reduce their prices.\n(134)\nFurther, it cannot be excluded that downward price trends on the AM segment have an effect on the OEM prices. Indeed, a comparison of average AM and OEM prices showed that while the latter were on average higher than the former until 2007, this has changed in 2008 and the IP. This shows that the price pressure on the OEM segment has been much more pronounced over the last years.\n(135)\nTherefore, it is provisionally considered that Chinese imports have caused injury to the Union industry both on the AM and the OEM segments. This will in any event be further investigated.\n3. Effects of other factors\n3.1. Impact of imports from third countries other than the PRC\n3.1.1. Impact of imports from Turkey\n(136)\nAs shown in recital (99) et seq, Turkey is the second largest importer after China. Over the period considered, Turkish imports held a market share of around 7 % on the EU market. The table below compares the prices of imports from all third countries with those of the EU producers.\nIn Euros/unit\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nTurkey\n40,8\n42,6\n52,4\n40,7\nSampled EU producers\n49,7\n49,7\n48\n46,5\nChina\n34,7\n33,5\n31,4\n31,9\nDifferential Turkey/EU producers\n8,9\n7,1\n4,4\n5,8\nDifferential China/EU producers\n15\n16,2\n16,6\n14,6\n(137)\nOver the period considered, Turkish prices were continuously lower than those of the sampled EU producers, except in 2008. In the IP, the price differential between Turkish and Union producers prices amounted at EUR 5,7 (+/- 12,3 % of EU prices) while the corresponding price differential for China amounted at EUR 14,5 (+/- 31 %). On these grounds, it is reasonable to provisionally conclude that in the IP, the lower prices of imports from Turkey had some negative impact on the situation of the EU industry, but not to a significant extent susceptible of breaking the causal link between dumped imports from China and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n3.1.2. Impact of imports from third countries other than Turkey\n(138)\nAs far as imports from countries other than China and Turkey are concerned, their cumulated market share decreased from 9 % in 2006 to 8,3 % in the IP (see recital (99)). Corresponding prices remained close to those of the Union producers over the same period. On these grounds, it is considered that imports from third countries other than China and Turkey did not contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n3.2. Impact of the economic crisis\n(139)\nSome parties claimed that imports from China were absorbed by an increase in EU consumption in 2007 and that the decrease in consumption in 2008 coincided with the economic downturn and the parallel contraction of sales of the car industry. According to this argument, these factors were the key causes of the weak performance by the Union industry.\n(140)\nThe economic crisis indeed negatively affected the situation of the Union industry due to shrinking consumption levels and downward price effects. Between 2008 and the IP, consumption dropped by 14,5 %.\n(141)\nThe ARWs producers operate in symbiosis with the car industry which was seriously affected by the crisis. The table below shows the development of car production volumes in Europe in the period considered. It is true that cars incorporate either aluminium or steel ARWs, with the proportion being difficult to establish. However, there are no indications that this proportion would have significantly changed over the period considered. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that the drop in the volume of production of cars - which indeed decreased dramatically from the end of 2008 to the IP, would have an impact on the sales volume of ARWs producers. The table below show that the decrease in production volume was indeed more than 15 % between 2008 and the IP.\nIn EU 27\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProduction in Europe (in 000 units)\n16 198\n17 103\n15 947\n13 443\n(142)\nHowever, the analysis of the economic indicators of the Union industry shows that the downward trend started well before the economic crisis and coincided in time with the start of the market penetration by Chinese imports. The profitability figures for example demonstrate that the downward trend began between 2006 and 2007 (decrease by 2,5 percentage points), continued between 2007 and 2008 (another decrease by 2,2 percentage points) to reach an extreme decrease by 6,9 percentage points between 2008 and the IP.\n(143)\nFurther, the Chinese imports continued to increase their presence on the market despite the contracting consumption, reaching 12,4 % in the IP. Their volumes and market share were steadily growing and their prices continuously undercut those of the EU industry. However, one would reasonably have expected that the crisis should affect all market operators in a similar way. Yet, as explained above, Chinese imports increased at prices that substantially undercut EU prices in the situation at hand. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that if it had not been for the economic crisis, the volumes and market share of Chinese imports would have increased even more.\n(144)\nOn these grounds, it is reasonable to assume that the economic downturn, even if it contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry, does not appear on its own to be a factor that would break the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury. To the contrary, volumes of imports from China should normally have decreased in line with the drop of consumption as did imports from other third countries and most notably the sales by the EU industry (which, it is recalled decreased commensurately with the Chinese imports increase).\n3.3. Impact of changes in export performance of the Union industry\n(145)\nExport activity of the Union producers remained low over the period considered (less than 2 % of total sales of EU sampled producers). It could not therefore have any negative impact on the weak situation of the Union industry and cannot break the causal link.\n3.4. Competition between Union producers and concentration on the EU market\n(146)\nThe number of producers of ARWs (about thirty) operating on the EU market suggests that the EU market is very competitive although it is also characterised by a high level of industrial concentration with the 3 largest companies holding a share of 60 % of total production, 2 others of around 8 % and then 4 of around 4 %. Available data on production volumes shows that the other producers are small or medium size companies.\n(147)\nIt should be noted that a number of smaller producers closed down their production before 2008, in 2008 and in the IP. This could suggest that the competition amongst Union producers - and the apparent ongoing concentration process - have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry. However, the data of the investigation show that it is not only the small producers that are affected. Indeed larger and smaller producers are similarly influenced by the developments at hand. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that competition amongst Union producers has contributed in any significant manner to the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n3.5. Consumer preferences regarding steel and ARWs\n(148)\nIt was argued that the shrinking demand for ARWs could be an economic crisis-related change in consumer preferences which might turn to less expensive steel wheels. No element was however submitted in support of this allegation. At this stage, and in the absence of any data on file supporting the argument, no such development could be confirmed.\n3.6. Product mix\n(149)\nSome parties claimed that the increase of Chinese imports was due to an increased demand for specific high end technology types of wheels produced in the PRC (i.e. forged or flow-formed wheels), which would not be (in any significant quantity) produced in the EU. Therefore, the imports from the PRC could not have caused injury to the Union industry. The investigation has however established that those imports constituted only a very small fraction of total imports from the PRC. Therefore the argument had to be rejected.\n4. Conclusion on causation\n(150)\nIt should be recalled that in this case, it has been found there has been a significant decrease of production and sales, loss of market share, as well as price depression leading to losses of the Union industry. Import volumes from the PRC, which undercut substantially the Union industry prices, as well as their market share have increased during the same period of time.\n(151)\nThe Commission has also analysed all other factors that might have contributed to the material injury suffered by the Union industry. In this respect, it was found that the economic crisis, the imports from Turkey and the competition between Union producers leading to a concentration process may have had some impact on the injury situation. However, it is provisionally concluded that their impact is not such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury found, as detailed above.\n(152)\nBased on the above analysis of the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry, it is therefore provisionally concluded that there is a causal link between the dumped imports from the PRC and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n1. Interest of the Union industry\n(153)\nThis case found a high level of cooperation and support from the Union production (more than 70 %). This suggests that the imposition of measures is clearly in the interest of the EU producers.\n(154)\nThe investigation showed that the Union industry is suffering material injury because of the effects of dumped imports which undercut its prices as elaborated in recital (93) et seq.\n(155)\nIt can be expected that the Union industry will benefit from the measures which would likely prevent a further surge of dumped, low-priced imports.\n(156)\nShould measures not be imposed, it can be expected that the increase of low-priced, dumped ARWs, in particular on the AM segment, will continue if not increase. It can further not be excluded that the increasing price pressure on and penetration of the AM segment will have at least an indirect effect on the situation on the OEM segment. In this respect, it has been found that certain producers in the country concerned are moving or have already moved to the middle and upper end of the AM segment and then further on to the OEM segment - with very low prices. This development can be expected to continue and in turn will very likely endanger also the large group of Union producers active in the OEM segment. As the financial situation and profitability of those producers is not robust enough to withstand further price pressure exerted by dumped imports that considerably undercut their prices, this would lead very likely to the progressive demise of a large number of Union producers, if not their totality.\n2. Interest of importers\n(157)\nIn the sampling exercise (see recital (13) above), 5 unrelated importers and 2 importing users were chosen on the basis of their volume of imports.\n(158)\nThe cooperation of unrelated importers in general accounts for less than 10 % of the total volume of imports from the PRC.\n(159)\nThe investigation showed that most of the importers are traders specialized in car accessories. Amongst them, 2 categories can be distinguished. One category consists of companies that import and resell their own branded ARWs, the production of which they have outsourced to the PRC. However they are not related to the Chinese exporters. This category of importers usually has not insignificant \u2018added value\u2019 activities in the EU (e.g. design, research and development), and sometimes even their own distribution chain, with a corresponding level of employment. The second category consists of importers/distributors which are traders focussing more on volumes and less on the brand. These importers in general have lower cost structures and less added value activities in the Union.\n(160)\nThe low level of co-operation of unrelated importers suggests that the imposition of measures would not have any significant impact on their activity. Indeed, for the cooperating importers/distributors it was found that re-sales of Chinese ARWs represent between 1 % and 6 % of their total turnover. The situation of outsourcing companies is more complex as Chinese ARW re-sales can represent almost the totality of their business. Measures, if any would certainly have an impact on their activity - even if it is difficult to evaluate the exact magnitude at this stage. This matter will be further investigated.\n3. Interest of users\n3.1. General\n(161)\nUsers\u2019 questionnaires were sent to around 20 identified users. 13 car manufacturers co-operated with the investigation. Two associations representing users and importers of \u2018OEM and AM\u2019 ARWs also co-operated.\n(162)\nThe imports of co-operating users account for 19 % of total imports from the PRC based on Eurostat data. Eurostat figures do not allow for a precise identification whether import sales were made to the OEM or the AM segment. As mentioned above in recital (133) a differentiation between the OEM and AM segments could nevertheless be made, showing that the OEM segment would account for between 20 and 30 % of the total imports from the PRC. On these grounds it is reasonable to assume that cooperation from the OEM segment was very high.\n(163)\nCar manufacturers on average appear to rely on Chinese supplies only to a limited extent. When considered individually, the co-operating car manufacturers employ different business models. Some do not import from China at all, others import less than 5 %, but some import up to 30 % of their needs.\n(164)\nBoth importing and non-importing users oppose measures. One of their main arguments is that car manufacturers have an interest in retaining diverse sources of supply and in benefiting from competition on the wheel market. Measures would make them overly dependent on a limited number of European producers. However, this argument in itself does not appear decisive because of the existence of significant imports from other third countries.\n3.2. Cost of measures\n(165)\nARWs represent about 1 % of the cost of a car. A measure of 20 % on ARWs would thus lead to a cost increase of 0,2 %. For those car makers which import at the maximum 5 % of their ARWs from China, the total cost increase in terms of overall car production would thus be 5 % of 0,2 %, i.e. 0,01 %. But even for those car makers which import up to 30 % of their ARWs from China, the total cost increase would be 30 % of 0,2 %, i.e. 0,06 %. Hence, measures would have a very limited cost impact. In addition, it is apparently not an uncommon feature that ARWs imported by car makers at a given price (50 Euros for arguments\u2019 sake) are sold to the final consumer at the three-to fourfold price (i.e. 200 Euros).\n3.3. Cost of switching the supplier\n(166)\nAs explained above, OEM ARWs are usually developed 2 years before the launch of a new car model. Any change of supplier requires time (at least 6 months) and could also trigger additional costs of tooling. However, the investigation has shown that most car manufacturers diversify their sources of supply as a matter of course, i.e. they share the production of a specific ARW between 2 (or more) producers. This dual sourcing is also undertaken in relation to those models which are sourced from the PRC, in order to ensure the security of supply. It seems therefore that the risk of having to switch supplier is already factored into the decision to source from the PRC. Furthermore, contracts collected during the investigation show that car manufacturers generally may terminate the contract at any time without penalty.\n3.4. Additional arguments raised by parties\n(167)\nSome parties claimed that the imposition of duties on ARWs originating in the PRC would give an advantage to South Korean car manufacturers, in addition to the 0 % duty on cars under the forthcoming Free Trade Agreement (FTA). According to this argument, South Korean car manufacturers would continue to have access to low-priced Chinese ARWs, and could even claim duty drawback for cars exported to the EU (duty paid on imports of certain car parts can be claimed back upon exportation of that car). An anti-dumping measure on Chinese ARWs would put European car makers at a competitive disadvantage with respect to South Korean cars imported into the EU at 0 % duty.\n(168)\nIn this respect it has to be noted that the market share of cars originating in South Korea amounts currently to only 3 % of the EU car market. While it is difficult to foresee the import evolution for Korean cars, but having regard to the very limited direct cost impact of measures on the EU car makers, it cannot at this stage be concluded that the imposition of an anti-dumping on ARWs from China would play any meaningful role in that respect.\n4. Interest of consumers\n(169)\nNo argument has been raised as regards the impact of measures on final consumers. This fact, as well as the low cost impact and the pricing strategies of car makers found in the investigation, indeed speak against the likelihood of any appreciable effect on consumer prices.\n5. Interest of suppliers\n(170)\n5 suppliers of raw materials/equipment to ARW producers in the Union replied to the suppliers\u2019 questionnaire. They are supplying aluminium/primary foundry ingots, paint/primer or low pressure machines. With respect to suppliers of ingots, sales to the Union industry constitute only a small fraction of their activity (below 6 % of their total turnover) which shows their relatively moderate interest in the setting of anti-dumping measures on ARWs from China. For other suppliers (of machinery or paint or low pressure machines), their sales to the Union industry range between 30 % and 50 % of their total turnover. Given that these companies are SMEs, the viability of the Union industry is essential to their operations.\n6. Conclusion on Union interest\n(171)\nIn view of the above, it was provisionally concluded that overall, based on the information available on Union interest, there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of provisional measures on imports of ARWs originating in the PRC.\nG. PROVISIONAL MEASURES\n1. Injury elimination level\n(172)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, resulting injury, causation and Union interest, provisional measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports from the PRC.\n(173)\nFor the purpose of determining the level of these duties, account was taken of the dumping margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Union industry.\n(174)\nAs outlined in recital (20), the ARW market is characterised by the existence of two relatively distinct market segments. The investigation further found that sales by the Union producers were concentrated in the OEM segment, counting for 85 % of all Union industry sales.\n(175)\nFor the sake of imposing provisional measures, it was therefore found appropriate to assess an injury margin that takes into account this specific market situation.\n(176)\nIn the OEM segment, ARW purchasers (which are carmakers) typically place their orders pursuant to tender proceedings. As a result, the same wheel model, meant to be mounted on the same car model, may in a not insignificant number of cases be ordered from several sources, often from a Chinese and an EU supplier at the same time. It was provisionally considered that this tendering process offered an accurate and reliable reflection of the average price competition existing during the IP between the Chinese and Union suppliers when competing for the same tender.\n(177)\nIt was therefore found appropriate to calculate the underselling margin on the basis of the prices identified from the data submitted by EU producers and Chinese exporters when they compete for such tenders.\n(178)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and achieve a reasonable profit. As to cost of production, adjustment was made for the actual loss incurred by the Union industry during the IP (- 5,4 %). Further, it was considered that a reasonable profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an industry of this type under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the Union should be assessed by reference to the profitability achieved in 2006 which amounted to + 3,2 %. Indeed in this year volume of imports from China were still relatively low. On this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry for the like product.\n(179)\nOn that basis, the underselling margin is 20,6 %.\n(180)\nThis result was further confirmed by an additional calculation based on a comparison of some tender contracts provided by certain car makers in the course of the investigation. Indeed when car makers ordered the same ARW model to both a Chinese producer and a Union producer, the underselling margin found, taking into account adjustments made as explained in recital (93) et seq above, was in the same order of magnitude as that established in preceding recital.\n(181)\nIt is noted that this underselling margin is lower than the margins of dumping established above in recitals (76) et seq and should therefore serve as the basis to establish the level of the duty in accordance with the lesser-duty rule.\n(182)\nGiven the methodology applied in this case to determine the injury elimination level, it is considered impracticable to specify individual anti-dumping duty rates pursuant to the second sentence of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. This is due in particular to the absence of reliable data to perform the analysis on a company-specific basis. In consequence, it is provisionally decided to impose a countrywide anti-dumping duty on all imports from China at the level of the underselling margin level of 20,6 %.\n2. Provisional measures\n(183)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, a provisional anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports originating in the PRC. In this case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the injury margin found.\n(184)\nThe proposed anti-dumping duty amounts therefore to 20,6 %.\nH. DISCLOSURE\n(185)\nThe above provisional findings will be disclosed to all interested parties which will be invited to make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Their comments will be analysed and taken into consideration where warranted before any definitive determinations are made. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of anti-dumping duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purposes of any definitive findings,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of aluminium road wheels of the motor vehicles of CN headings 8701 to 8705, whether or not with their accessories and whether or not fitted with tyres, currently falling within CN codes ex 8708 70 10 and ex 8708 70 50 (TARIC codes 8708701010 and 8708705010) and originating in the People's Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 shall be 20,6 %.\n3. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nWithout prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nPursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.\nThe Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2010.", "references": ["68", "63", "10", "77", "29", "89", "45", "1", "65", "94", "26", "36", "16", "32", "52", "25", "31", "78", "6", "51", "87", "39", "91", "28", "13", "41", "86", "9", "37", "44", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "54", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "54", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 282/2012\nof 28 March 2012\nlaying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products\n(codification)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(a), (d), (f) and (j), Article 47(2), Article 134, Article 143(b), Article 148, Article 161(3), Article 171 and Article 172(2),\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (2), and in particular Articles 37 and 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products (3), and in particular Article 4(4), Article 6(4), Article 7(3), and Article 11(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 of 30 January 2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (4), and in particular Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (5), and in particular Article 142(c) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro (6), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products (7) has been substantially amended several times (8). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.\n(2)\nNumerous provisions in agricultural regulations of the Union require that a security be given to ensure payment of a sum due if an obligation is not met. However, experience has shown that this requirement is in practice interpreted in widely differing fashions. Therefore, in order to avoid unequal competitive conditions, the requirement should be defined.\n(3)\nIn particular, the form of the security should be defined.\n(4)\nMany provisions in agricultural regulations of the Union provide that the security given is forfeited if any obligation secured is breached, without making any distinction between breaches of fundamental and of secondary or subordinate obligations. In the interests of equity a distinction should be drawn between the consequences of breaching a fundamental obligation and the consequences of breaching a secondary or subordinate one. In particular, provision should be made, where permissible, for forfeiture of only a part of the security where the fundamental obligation is in fact met but the deadline set for meeting it has been slightly exceeded, or when a secondary or subordinate obligation is not met.\n(5)\nNo distinction between the consequences of failure to meet an obligation should be made based on whether or not an advance payment has been received. Accordingly, securities given against advances should be covered by separate rules.\n(6)\nThe costs of lodging a security, incurred by both the party giving the security and the competent authority, may be out of proportion to the sum whose payment the security guarantees if that sum is below a certain limit. Competent authorities should therefore have the right to waive the requirement of a security for payment of a sum below that limit. Further, a competent authority should be empowered to waive the requirement of a security where the nature of the person required to meet the obligations makes that requirement unnecessary.\n(7)\nA competent authority should have the right to refuse a security offered where it considers it to be unsatisfactory.\n(8)\nA time limit for furnishing the evidence needed for the release of a sum secured should be laid down where no such time limit is laid down elsewhere.\n(9)\nIn connection with the exchange rate to be used for converting a sum secured expressed in euro into national currency, the operative event referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2799/98, should be defined in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1913/2006 (9).\n(10)\nThe procedure to be followed once a security is forfeited should be laid down.\n(11)\nThe Commission should be enabled to monitor the implementation of the provisions on securities.\n(12)\nThis Regulation lays down the rules to apply generally, unless specific Union legislation lays down different rules.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets and were submitted for information to the other competent committees,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nSCOPE AND DEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation lays down the rules governing securities to be provided, either under the following regulations or under any regulations adopted pursuant to those regulations, unless other rules are laid down by those regulations:\n(a)\nregulations laying down the common organisation of markets in certain agricultural products:\n-\nRegulation (EC) No 104/2000 (fishery and aquaculture products),\n-\nRegulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (Single CMO Regulation);\n(b)\nRegulation (EC) No 73/2009 (direct support schemes);\n(c)\nRegulation (EC) No 1216/2009 (trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products).\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall apply in all cases where the regulations referred to in Article 1 provide for a security as defined in Article 3, whether or not the particular term \u2018security\u2019 is used.\nThis Regulation shall not apply to securities given to ensure payment of import and export duties referred to in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (10).\nArticle 3\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018security\u2019 means the assurance that a sum of money will be paid or forfeited to a competent authority if a particular obligation is not met;\n(b)\n\u2018block security\u2019 means a security made available to the competent authority with the purpose of ensuring that more than one obligation is met;\n(c)\n\u2018obligation\u2019 means a requirement or set of requirements, imposed by a regulation, to perform or to refrain from performing an act;\n(d)\n\u2018competent authority\u2019 means either a party authorised to accept a security or a party authorised to decide in accordance with the relevant regulation if a security is to be released or forfeited.\nCHAPTER II\nREQUIREMENT OF A SECURITY\nArticle 4\nA security shall be given by or on behalf of the party responsible for paying the sum of money due if an obligation is not met.\nArticle 5\n1. The competent authority may waive the requirement of a security where the value of the sum secured is less than EUR 500.\n2. Where use is made of the facility in paragraph 1, the party concerned shall undertake in writing to pay a sum equal to that which he would have been required to pay had he given a security and that security has subsequently been forfeited in part or entirely.\nArticle 6\nThe competent authority may waive the requirement of a security where the party responsible for meeting the obligation is either:\n(a)\na public body responsible for executing the duties of a public authority; or\n(b)\na private body executing duties referred to in point (a) under State supervision.\nCHAPTER III\nFORM OF SECURITIES\nArticle 7\n1. A security may be given by:\n(a)\nmaking a cash deposit as referred to in Articles 12 and 13; and/or\n(b)\nproviding a guarantor as defined in Article 15(1).\n2. At the discretion of the competent authority, a security may be given by:\n(a)\nproviding a mortgage; and/or\n(b)\npledging cash deposits in a bank; and/or\n(c)\npledging recognised claims against a public body or public funds, which are due and payable and against which no other claim has precedence; and/or\n(d)\npledging securities negotiable in the Member State concerned provided they are issued or guaranteed by that Member State; and/or\n(e)\npledging bonds, issued by mortgage credit associations, listed on a public stock exchange and for sale on the open market, provided that their credit rating ranks equal with that of government bonds.\n3. The competent authority may impose additional terms for accepting securities of the type listed in paragraph 2.\nArticle 8\nThe competent authority shall refuse to accept or shall require the replacement of any security which it considers inadequate or unsatisfactory or which does not provide cover for a sufficient period.\nArticle 9\n1. Assets mortgaged in accordance with Article 7(2)(a) or securities or bonds pledged in accordance with Article 7(2)(d) and (e) shall, at the time the security is given, have a disposable value of at least 115 % of the value of the security required.\nA competent authority may accept a security of the type listed in Article 7(2)(a), (d) or (e) only if the party offering it undertakes, in writing, either to give an additional security or to replace the original security should the disposable value of the assets, securities or bonds in question have been for a period of three months below 105 % of the value of the security required. This written undertaking shall not be necessary where national law already so provides. The competent authority shall regularly review the value of such assets, securities or bonds.\n2. The disposable value of a security as referred to in Article 7(2)(a), (d) and (e) shall be assessed by the competent authority, taking, into account any costs of disposal.\nThe disposable value of securities or bonds shall be assessed using the last available quotation.\nThe party giving the security shall, at the request of the competent authority, provide proof of its disposable value.\nArticle 10\n1. Any security may be replaced by another.\nHowever, the agreement of the competent authority shall be required in the following cases:\n(a)\nwhere the original security has been forfeited but not yet realised; or\n(b)\nwhere the replacement security is of a type listed in Article 7(2).\n2. A block security may be replaced by another block security on condition that the new block security covers at least that part of the original block security assigned at the time of replacement to ensure fulfilment of one or more obligations still outstanding.\nArticle 11\n1. Securities as referred to in Article 1 shall be constituted in euro.\n2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, where the security is accepted in a Member State outside the euro area, in national currency, the amount of the security in euro shall be converted into that currency in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1913/2006. The undertaking corresponding to the security and any amount withheld in the event of irregularities or breaches shall remain fixed in euro.\nArticle 12\nWhere cash is deposited by transfer it shall not be regarded as establishing a security until the competent authority is satisfied that it has the amount at its disposal.\nArticle 13\n1. A cheque for a sum whose payment is guaranteed by a financial institution recognised for the purpose by the Member State of the competent authority concerned shall be treated as a cash deposit. The competent authority need not present such a cheque for payment until the period for which it is guaranteed is about to expire.\n2. A cheque, other than as referred to in paragraph 1, shall constitute a security only when the competent authority is satisfied that it has the amount at its disposal.\n3. Any charges by a financial institution shall be borne by the party giving the security.\nArticle 14\nNo interest shall be paid to the party giving a security in the form of a cash deposit.\nArticle 15\n1. The guarantor shall have his normal residence or an establishment in the Union and, subject to the provisions of the Treaty concerning freedom to supply services, be approved by the competent authority of the Member State in which the security is given. The guarantor shall be bound by a written guarantee.\n2. The written guarantee shall state at least:\n(a)\nthe obligation or, in the case of a block security, the type(s) of obligation against whose fulfilment it guarantees the payment of a sum of money;\n(b)\nthe maximum liability to pay that the guarantor accepts;\n(c)\nthat the guarantor undertakes jointly and severally with the party responsible for meeting the obligation to pay, within 30 days of demand by the competent authority, any sum, within the limit of the guarantee, due once a security is declared forfeit.\n3. The competent authority may accept a written telecommunication sent by the guarantor as constituting a written guarantee. If the competent authority does so accept, it shall take whatever steps are required to satisfy itself that the telecommunication is genuine.\n4. Where a written block guarantee has already been given, the competent authority shall determine the procedure to be followed by which all or part of the block guarantee shall be allocated to a particular obligation.\nArticle 16\nAs soon as part of a block security is assigned to a particular obligation, the balance of the block security remaining shall be noted.\nCHAPTER IV\nADVANCE PAYMENTS\nArticle 17\nThe provisions of this Chapter shall apply in all cases where specific Union rules provide that a sum may be advanced before the obligation has been met.\nArticle 18\n1. The security shall be released when:\n(a)\nfinal entitlement to the sum granted as advance has been established; or\n(b)\nthe sum granted, plus any addition provided for in the specific Union rules, has been repaid.\n2. Once the deadline for showing final entitlement to the sum granted has passed without production of evidence of entitlement, the competent authority shall immediately follow the procedure in Article 28.\nThe deadline may be postponed in a case of force majeure.\nHowever, where Union legislation so provides, evidence may still be produced after that date against partial repayment of the security.\n3. If the force majeure provisions in Union legislation permit repayment of the advance alone, the following further conditions shall apply:\n(a)\nthe circumstances claimed as force majeure shall be notified to the competent authority not later than 30 days after the day on which information was received by the party concerned that circumstances indicating a possible case of force majeure had arisen; and\n(b)\nthe party concerned shall repay the sum advanced or the relevant part of it within 30 days from the date on which the competent authority issues a request for repayment.\nIf the conditions laid down in points (a) and (b) are not respected, the terms of repayment shall be the same as if circumstances of force majeure had not occurred.\nCHAPTER V\nRELEASE AND FORFEITURE OF SECURITIES OTHER THAN THOSE REFERRED TO IN CHAPTER IV\nArticle 19\n1. An obligation may include primary, secondary or subordinate requirements.\n2. A primary requirement is a requirement, basic to the purposes of the regulation imposing it, to perform, or to refrain from performing, an act.\n3. A secondary requirement is a requirement to respect the time limit for fulfilling a primary requirement.\n4. A subordinate requirement is any other requirement imposed by a regulation.\n5. This Chapter shall not apply where the specific Union rules have not defined the primary requirements.\n6. For the purposes of this Chapter \u2018the relevant part of the sum secured\u2019 means the part of the sum secured corresponding to the quantity for which a requirement has been breached.\nArticle 20\nOnce the evidence laid down by the specific Union rules has been furnished that all primary, secondary and subordinate requirements have been fulfilled, the security shall be released.\nArticle 21\n1. A security shall be forfeit in full for the quantity for which a primary requirement is not fulfilled, unless force majeure prevented fulfilment.\n2. A primary requirement shall be considered to have been breached if the relevant evidence is not produced within the time limit set for the production of that evidence unless force majeure prevented production of such evidence within that time limit. The procedure in Article 28 for recovering the sum forfeited shall immediately be followed.\n3. Where evidence that all primary requirements have been met is produced within 18 months of the deadline in paragraph 2, 85 % of the sum forfeited shall be repaid.\nWhere evidence that all primary requirements have been met is produced within 18 months of that deadline in circumstances where the relevant secondary requirement has not been met, the sum to be repaid shall be the sum that would have been repayable under Article 22(2), less 15 % of the relevant part of the sum secured.\n4. No repayment shall be made where evidence that all primary requirements have been respected is produced after the 18 months period referred to in paragraph 3 has expired unless force majeure prevented production of this evidence within that period.\nArticle 22\n1. If the evidence laid down by the specific Union rules is produced within the specified period that all primary requirements have been met, in circumstances where a secondary requirement has been breached, a partial release of the security shall be made and the rest of the sum secured forfeited. The procedure in Article 28 for recovering the sum forfeited shall be followed.\n2. The proportion of the security released shall be: the security covering the relevant part of the sum secured less 15 %, and\n(a)\n10 % of the sum remaining after deduction of the 15 % for each day by which:\n(i)\na maximum period of 40 days or less has been exceeded;\n(ii)\na minimum period of 40 days or less has not been respected;\n(b)\n5 % of the sum remaining after deduction of the 15 % for each day by which:\n(i)\na maximum period of between 41 and 80 days has been exceeded;\n(ii)\na minimum period of between 41 and 80 days has not been respected;\n(c)\n2 % of the sum remaining after deduction of the 15 % for each day by which:\n(i)\na maximum period of 81 days or more has been exceeded;\n(ii)\na minimum period of 81 days or more has not been respected.\n3. This Article shall not apply to periods for either applying for, or using, import and export licences and advance fixing certificates, or to periods relating to the fixing of import and export levies and export refunds by tender.\nArticle 23\n1. Failure to fulfil one or more subordinate requirements shall lead to forfeiture of 15 % of the relevant part of the sum secured unless force majeure prevented fulfilment.\n2. The procedure laid down in Article 28 for recovery of the sum forfeited shall immediately be put into effect.\n3. This Article shall not apply in circumstances where Article 21(3) applies.\nArticle 24\nIf evidence is produced that all primary requirements have been observed but both a secondary and a subordinate requirement have been breached, Articles 22 and 23 shall apply and the total sum to be forfeit shall be the sum forfeit in accordance with Article 22 plus 15 % of the relevant part of the sum secured.\nArticle 25\nThe total sum forfeited shall not exceed 100 % of the relevant part of the sum secured.\nCHAPTER VI\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 26\n1. A security shall on request be released in part where the relevant evidence has been furnished in relation to part of a quantity of product, provided that that part is not less than any minimum quantity specified in the regulation requiring the security.\nWhere the specific Union rules do not specify a minimum quantity, the competent authority may itself restrict the number of partial releases of any one security, and may specify a minimum sum for any such release.\n2. Before releasing all or part of a security the competent authority may require that a written request for release be furnished.\n3. In the case of securities covering, in accordance with Article 9(1), more than 100 % of the sum required to be secured, that part of the security exceeding 100 % shall be released when the remainder of the sum secured is finally released or forfeited.\nArticle 27\n1. Where no period is laid down for producing the evidence needed to release a sum secured, such period shall be:\n(a)\n12 months from the time limit specified for respecting all primary requirements; or\n(b)\nwhere no such time limit as referred to in point (a) is specified, 12 months from the date by which all primary requirements have been met.\n2. The period laid down in paragraph 1 shall not exceed three years from the time the security was assigned to a particular obligation, except in cases of force majeure.\nArticle 28\n1. Once the competent authority is aware of circumstances giving rise to forfeiture of the security, in whole or in part, it shall without delay demand the party required to meet the obligation to pay the sum forfeited, allowing up to 30 days from the day of receipt of demand for payment.\nWhere payment has not been made at the end of this period, the competent authority shall:\n(a)\nwithout delay clear any security of the type described in Article 7(1)(a) to the appropriate account;\n(b)\nwithout delay require the guarantor described in Article 7(1)(b) to pay, allowing up to 30 days from the day of receipt of demand for payment;\n(c)\nwithout delay take steps to:\n(i)\nconvert the securities described in Article 7(2)(a), (c), (d) and (e) into money sufficient to recover the sum due;\n(ii)\nclear pledged cash deposits referred to in Article 7(2)(b) to its own account.\nThe competent authority may without delay clear any security of the type described in Article 7(1)(a) to the appropriate account without first requiring the person concerned to effect payment.\n2. The competent authority may waive the forfeiture of an amount less than EUR 60, provided that similar national provisions for comparable cases are laid down by law, regulation or administrative action.\n3. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, where the decision to forfeit a security is taken but on appeal is subsequently postponed in accordance with national law, the party concerned shall pay interest on the sum actually forfeited over the period starting 30 days from the day of receipt of the demand for payment as referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 and ending on the day prior to the payment of the sum actually forfeited.\nWhere following the outcome of the appeal procedure the party concerned is asked to pay within 30 days the sum forfeited, for the purposes of calculating interest the Member State may consider payment to be made on the 20th day following the date of such request.\nThe rate of interest applicable is calculated according to the provisions of national law, but shall in no case be lower than the interest rate applicable in case of recovery of national amounts.\nThe paying agencies shall deduct the interest paid from the expenditure of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) or the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 352/78 (11).\nMember States may claim periodically a supplementation of the security in respect of the interest involved.\nWhere a security has been forfeited and the amount already credited to the EAGF or to the EAFRD and, following the outcome of an appeal procedure, the sum forfeited in whole or in part, including interest at a rate in accordance with national law, is to be repaid, the sum to be repaid shall be borne by the EAGF or by the EAFRD unless the repayment of the security is attributable to the negligence or serious mistake of administrative authorities or other bodies of the Member State.\nArticle 29\nThe Commission may, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and in the corresponding Articles of the other relevant regulations, provide for a derogation from the foregoing provisions.\nCHAPTER VII\nINFORMATION\nArticle 30\n1. Member States shall keep available for the Commission, for each year, the total number and sum of securities forfeited, whatever stage of the procedure in Article 28 has been reached, distinguishing in either case between those credited to the national budgets and those credited to the budget of the Union.\n2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be kept in relation to all securities forfeited for an amount greater than EUR 1 000 and each Union provision requiring that a security be given.\n3. Information shall cover both sums paid directly by the interested party and sums recovered by realising a security.\nArticle 31\nMember States shall keep the following information available for the Commission:\n(a)\nthe types of institutions authorised to act as guarantors and the requirements laid down;\n(b)\nthe types of security accepted pursuant to Article 7(2) and the requirements laid down.\nArticle 32\nRegulation (EEC) No 2220/85 is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II.\nArticle 33\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 March 2012.", "references": ["56", "28", "89", "82", "71", "33", "95", "22", "77", "62", "87", "38", "94", "14", "74", "8", "85", "32", "1", "79", "97", "16", "65", "42", "68", "88", "2", "70", "84", "55", "No Label", "11", "61", "66"], "gold": ["11", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 7 June 2010\nauthorising physical checks pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 to be carried out at approved premises of feed and food business operators in Cyprus\n(notified under document C(2010) 3525)\n(Only the Greek text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/313/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 of 24 July 2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin (1), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 669/2009 lays down rules concerning those controls, including the physical checks to be carried out at designated points of entry into the European Union. It also lays down minimum requirements for such points of entry and provides for a list of those points of entry to be made publicly available by the Member States on the Internet.\n(2)\nArticle 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 foresees that the Commission, upon a request of a Member State, may authorise the competent authorities of certain designated points of entry, operating under specific geographical constraints, to carry out the physical checks at the premises of a feed or a food business operator, subject to certain conditions.\n(3)\nBy letter dated 26 October 2009, Cyprus referred to the specific geographical situation of the designated points of entry of Larnaca Airport and Limassol Port, as well as to the small size of the island, and requested the Commission to authorise the competent authorities of those points of entry to carry out the physical checks pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 at the premises of certain feed and food business operators.\n(4)\nBy letter dated 9 February 2010, Cyprus provided the Commission with assurances to the effect that: only the premises of feed and food business operators fulfilling the minimum requirements for designated points of entry laid down in Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 would be approved for the performance of the physical checks; the level of resources allocated to the competent authorities of Larnaca Airport and Limassol Port would be such that the control activities carried out at those designated points of entry would not be disrupted or adversely affected by the possibility that physical checks would be carried out away from their premises; and consignments selected for physical checks at the premises of a feed or a food business operators would remain under continuous control of the competent authorities of the concerned designated point of entry from the moment of their arrival at such point of entry and in such a way that they cannot be tampered with in any manner throughout all checks.\n(5)\nTherefore, taking into account the specific geographical constraints of the designated points of entry of Larnaca Airport and Limassol Port and the confirmation from Cyprus of the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009, it is appropriate to authorise that physical checks may be carried out at the premises of certain feed and food business operators approved by that Member State for such checks.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure adequate publicity to the authorisation provided for in this Decision, it is appropriate that a list of the premises of feed and food business operators, approved for physical checks pursuant Regulation (EC) No 669/2009, is made publicly available on the Internet through the national link provided for in Article 5 of that Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The competent authorities of the designated points of entry of Larnaca Airport and Limassol Port in Cyprus are hereby authorised, in accordance with Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009, to carry out the physical checks provided for in Article 8(1)(b) of that Regulation on imports of feed and food of non-animal origin listed in Annex I thereto, at the premises of a feed or food business operator approved by Cyprus for such checks, provided that the conditions set out in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 9(1) of that Regulation are met.\n2. The list of feed and food business operators whose premises are approved by Cyprus, as referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, shall be made publicly available on the Internet through the national link provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Cyprus.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2010.", "references": ["50", "43", "17", "69", "12", "79", "18", "92", "61", "30", "99", "47", "85", "58", "63", "33", "24", "75", "73", "48", "23", "9", "39", "10", "55", "80", "88", "41", "60", "6", "No Label", "38", "66", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["38", "66", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 30 May 2011\nextending Decision 2010/371/EU concerning the conclusion of the consultation procedure with the Republic of Madagascar pursuant to Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement\n(2011/324/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1), as last amended in Ouagadougou on 23 June 2010 (2) (\u2018the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement\u2019), and in particular Article 96 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Internal Agreement between the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe essential elements referred to in Article 9 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement have been violated.\n(2)\nOn 6 July 2009, pursuant to Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, consultations were opened with Madagascar in the presence of representatives of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (\u2018ACP\u2019) Group of States, during which representatives of the High Transitional Authority failed to present satisfactory proposals or undertakings.\n(3)\nMajor efforts have been made in terms of mediation by the Southern African Development Community (\u2018SADC\u2019) and all the political parties in order to find a solution to the political crisis, in particular the negotiation of a roadmap, proposed by the SADC mediators, charting a consensus-based transition process with a view to holding free, credible elections that would permit a return to constitutional order.\n(4)\nHowever, 12 months have elapsed and the European Union must now acknowledge that, despite these efforts, the roadmap has not yet been signed by the parties involved or endorsed by the SADC, the African Union or the international community. This makes it impossible, for the moment, to envisage a consensus-based transition for a return to constitutional order, which is essential to amend the appropriate measures in force.\n(5)\nThe period of application of Council Decision 2010/371/EU (4) is to expire on 6 June 2011. In the light of the situation described above, it should be extended for 6 months, subject to regular review during this period,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 3 of Decision 2010/371/EU, the second sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u2018It shall remain in force until 6 December 2011 subject to regular review during this period.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 30 May 2011.", "references": ["9", "10", "82", "1", "16", "61", "32", "75", "45", "58", "67", "13", "74", "25", "83", "35", "43", "3", "76", "22", "50", "41", "42", "15", "71", "95", "37", "44", "77", "51", "No Label", "0", "4", "94", "96"], "gold": ["0", "4", "94", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 29 March 2011\npursuant to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate level of protection provided by Japan for personal data transferred from the European Union in the specific cases of transfer by the European Commission to Japanese customs authorities under Decision No 1/2010 of the Joint Customs Cooperation Committee pursuant to Article 21 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Japan on cooperation and mutual administrative assistance in customs matters regarding mutual recognition of authorised economic operator programmes in the European Union and in Japan and for the exclusive and specific purposes of Decision No 1/2010 of the Joint Customs Cooperation Committee\n(2011/197/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (1), and in particular Article 9(1) and (2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Data Protection Supervisor,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 24 June 2010 the Joint Customs Cooperation Committee, set up pursuant to Article 21 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Japan on cooperation and mutual administrative assistance in customs matters (2) adopted Decision No 1/2010 regarding mutual recognition of authorised economic operators programmes in the European Union and in Japan (3), (hereafter, \u2018JCCC Decision No 1/2010\u2019).\n(2)\nJCCC Decision No 1/2010 provides in Section IV for an exchange of information between customs authorities as defined in Article 1(c) of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Japan on cooperation and mutual administrative assistance in customs matters. According to that definition, the Japanese Ministry of Finance and the competent services of the Commission are deemed to be a customs authority.\n(3)\nThe information to be exchanged between the Japanese Ministry of Finance and the competent services of the Commission comprises of details on economic operators, which may also contain personal data. The transfer of data of economic operators falls within the tasks of the Commission to be carried out under JCCC Decision No 1/2010.\n(4)\nPersonal data to be exchanged are listed in Section IV(4)(a) to (f) of JCCC Decision No 1/2010. The duration of the transfers is for the whole period of time for which the Japanese Ministry of Finance uses the information in order to grant to European economic operators benefits under the terms of JCCC Decision No 1/2010. The Commission will regularly transfer updated and modified data of European economic operators to the Japanese Ministry of Finance. With regard to the exchange of information, Section IV(6) of JCCC Decision No 1/2010 restricts the use of any such data to the purposes of implementing the mutual recognition of authorised economic operator programmes between the European Union and Japan as established by that decision. The Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Japan on cooperation and mutual administrative assistance in customs matters also ensures that any such information, including personal data, is used by the Japanese Ministry of Finance solely for the purposes of their recognition as authorised economic operators in Japan. Authorised economic operator (AEO) data may not be transferred onward by the recipient authority to other authorities or services in or outside Japan because this would amount to a change of purpose not covered by JCCC Decision No 1/2010.\n(5)\nProcessing of personal data by Japanese public authorities, such as the Japanese Ministry of Finance, is governed by the Japanese Act on the Protection of Personal Information Held by Administrative Organs. The right of access to and procedures for consulting \u2018Administrative Documents\u2019 is laid down by the Japanese Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs. Provisions on confidentiality of data handled by Japanese public authorities and data transfers between the Minister of Finance and foreign customs authorities respectively are included in the National Public Service Law and the Customs Law.\n(6)\nJapanese data protection legislation requires Japanese public authorities, amongst which the Japanese Ministry of Finance, to provide data subjects with fair disclosure of information. Data subjects have a right to access, to initiate rectification and deletion of data relating to them.\n(7)\nJapanese legislation ensures that organisational security measures, appropriate to the risks presented by data processing, are taken by the Japanese Ministry of Finance.\n(8)\nJapanese legislation provides for an investigative mechanism in the form of a Review Board, which undertakes administrative appeals and investigation. This may be regarded as sufficient for the specific data transfer provided for by JCCC Decision No 1/2010 given the limited and non-sensitive nature of the data and the purposes of the data processing.\n(9)\nThe above provisions ensure that appropriate enforcement mechanisms are in place in Japan in order to guarantee the protection of the personal data which maybe transferred by the Commission for the purpose of identifying European economic operators with regard to their recognition as authorised economic operators in Japan.\n(10)\nIn the light of all the circumstances surrounding the set of the specific data transfer operations to be performed by the Commission in implementing JCCC Decision No 1/2010, the nature of the data, the purpose and duration of the proposed processing operation or operations, the rules of law, both general and sectoral, in force in Japan and the professional rules and security measures which are complied with in Japan, the level of protection provided in Japan for the transfer of personal data from the competent services of the Commission to the Japanese Ministry of Finance in implementing JCCC Decision No 1/2010 is considered to be of an adequate level.\n(11)\nThis Decision should be limited to the specific situation referred to in JCCC Decision No 1/2010 as the assessment of Japanese data protection legal framework was based on the limited categories of data to be transferred, on the limited purpose for processing and on the limited duration of use of such data. Therefore this Decision is limited to the protection afforded to personal data transferred from the EU to Japan by the European Commission under the abovementioned JCCC Decision in view of the specific purpose and circumstances of their processing in Japan.\n(12)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to findings of the Commission in application of Article 25(4) and (6) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (4),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAn adequate level of protection is offered by Japan to personal data transferred from the European Union by the European Commission to Japan in view of the mutual recognition of authorised economic operator programmes pursuant to JCCC Decision No 1/2010 for the purpose of implementation of JCCC Decision No 1/2010 in accordance with Article 9(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 29 March 2011.", "references": ["50", "15", "69", "29", "72", "71", "45", "6", "52", "8", "73", "77", "7", "0", "53", "70", "84", "21", "36", "10", "28", "38", "93", "13", "86", "94", "97", "57", "74", "30", "No Label", "2", "4", "9", "40", "42", "95", "96"], "gold": ["2", "4", "9", "40", "42", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 736/2010\nof 13 August 2010\ncorrecting the Latvian version of Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the support schemes for farmers provided for in Titles IV and V thereof\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1) and in particular Article 142(c) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSeveral errors appear in the Latvian language version of the text of Articles 31, 32 and 33 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 (2).\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1121/2009 should therefore be corrected accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nConcerns only the Latvian language version.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 August 2010.", "references": ["60", "31", "64", "69", "47", "41", "93", "21", "90", "50", "75", "18", "78", "46", "1", "96", "72", "19", "53", "79", "38", "3", "65", "86", "63", "58", "39", "77", "43", "73", "No Label", "61"], "gold": ["61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 December 2010\nlisting the products referred to in the second subparagraph of point III(1) of Annex XII to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007\n(recast)\n(notified under document C(2010) 8434)\n(2010/791/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular point (b)(i) of Article 121 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 88/566/EEC of 28 October 1988 listing the products referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87 (2) has been substantially amended (3). Since further amendments are to be made, it should be recast in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishes the principle that the descriptions milk and milk products may not be used for milk products other than those in described point II of Annex XII thereto. As an exception, this principle is not applicable to the description of products the exact nature of which is known because of traditional use and/or when the designations are clearly used to describe a characteristic quality of the product.\n(3)\nThe Member States must notify to the Commission indicative lists of the products which they deem to meet, within their own territories, the criteria for the abovementioned exception. A list should be made of such products on the basis of the indicative lists notified by the Member States. That list should include the names of the relevant products according to their traditional use in the various languages of the Union, in order to render these names usable in all the Member States, provided they comply with the provisions of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (4).\n(4)\nAdditions to this list may be made in accordance with Article 121(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(5)\nFollowing the accessions to the European Union of 2004 and 2007, some of the new Member States have submitted lists of products which they deem to meet, within their own territories, the criteria for the abovementioned exception. The list in Annex I to this Decision should therefore be completed by including the names of the products from the new Member States, in the relevant languages, which can benefit from the exception.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe products corresponding, on the territory of the Union, to the products referred to in the second subparagraph of point III(1) of Annex XII to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 are listed in Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 88/566/EEC is repealed.\nReferences to the repealed Decision shall be construed as references to this Decision and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex III.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["42", "33", "74", "49", "28", "2", "80", "37", "96", "35", "21", "15", "29", "40", "52", "77", "5", "12", "34", "32", "59", "56", "82", "60", "67", "8", "47", "89", "17", "9", "No Label", "24", "25", "70"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 313/2011\nof 30 March 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of 3 months, continue to be invoked by the holder, pursuant to Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of 3 months pursuant to Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 March 2011.", "references": ["24", "64", "76", "93", "54", "6", "20", "39", "98", "59", "77", "16", "52", "75", "5", "36", "0", "84", "18", "46", "1", "9", "10", "15", "28", "42", "33", "45", "65", "53", "No Label", "21", "88"], "gold": ["21", "88"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1107/2010\nof 30 November 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pimiento de Gernika or Gernikako Piperra (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Pimiento de Gernika\u2019 or \u2018Gernikako Piperra\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no objections within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 were received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2010.", "references": ["72", "29", "36", "31", "86", "38", "61", "46", "32", "91", "18", "95", "90", "13", "35", "73", "42", "53", "78", "11", "87", "81", "88", "4", "1", "15", "7", "5", "58", "39", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "66", "75", "92"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "66", "75", "92"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 503/2011\nof 23 May 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2), additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010.\n(3)\nThe entries for certain persons and entities included in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities listed in Annex I to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, the entries for the following persons and entities:\n(1)\nMr Ali Akbar Salehi;\n(2)\nIran Centrifuge Technology Company (aka TSA or TESA);\n(3)\nMinistry of Defence and Support for Armed Force Logistics (MODAFL);\n(4)\nResearch Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology (aka Nuclear Science and Technology Research Institute),\nshall be replaced by the entries set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 May 2011.", "references": ["17", "80", "30", "97", "78", "16", "63", "88", "84", "45", "2", "43", "94", "26", "61", "86", "39", "7", "64", "49", "81", "68", "96", "35", "59", "14", "71", "62", "8", "22", "No Label", "3", "5", "11", "20", "76", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "11", "20", "76", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 June 2011\non establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to hand dishwashing detergents\n(notified under document C(2011) 4448)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/382/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Union Eco-labelling Board,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, the EU Ecolabel may be awarded to those products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 66/2010 provides that specific EU Ecolabel criteria are to be established according to product groups.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2005/342/EC (2) has established the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements for hand dishwashing detergents which are valid until 30 June 2011.\n(4)\nThose criteria have been further reviewed in the light of technological developments. The new criteria, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, should be valid for 4 years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\n(5)\nDecision 2005/342/EC should be replaced for reasons of clarity.\n(6)\nA transitional period should be allowed for producers whose products have been awarded the Ecolabel for hand dishwashing detergents on the basis of the criteria set out in Decision 2005/342/EC, so that they have sufficient time to adapt their products to comply with the revised criteria and requirements. Producers should also be allowed to submit applications based on the criteria set out in Decision 2005/342/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision until the lapse of validity of that Decision.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe product group \u2018hand dishwashing detergents\u2019 shall comprise all detergents intended to be used to wash by hand dishes, crockery, cutlery, pots, pans, kitchen utensils and so on.\nThe product group shall cover products for both private and professional use. The products shall be a mixture of chemical substances and must not contain microorganisms that have been deliberately added by the manufacturer.\nArticle 2\nFor the purpose of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018substance\u2019 means a chemical element and its compounds in the natural state or obtained by any production process, including any additive necessary to preserve the stability of the product and any impurity deriving from the process used but excluding any solvent, which may be separated without affecting the stability of the substance or changing its composition;\n2.\n\u2018product\u2019 (or mixture) means a mixture or solution of two or more substances, which do not react.\nArticle 3\nIn order to be awarded the EU Ecolabel under Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, an item of hand dishwashing detergent shall fall within the product group \u2018hand dishwashing detergents\u2019 as defined in Article 1 of this Decision and shall comply with the criteria as well as the related assessment and verification requirements set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThe criteria for the product group \u2018hand dishwashing detergents\u2019, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid for 4 years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 5\nFor administrative purposes the code number assigned to the product group \u2018hand dishwashing detergents\u2019 shall be \u2018019\u2019.\nArticle 6\nDecision 2005/342/EC is repealed.\nArticle 7\n1. By derogation from Article 6, applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018hand dishwashing detergents\u2019 submitted before the date of adoption of this Decision shall be evaluated in accordance with the conditions laid down in Decision 2005/342/EC.\n2. Applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018hand dishwashing detergents\u2019 submitted from the date of adoption of this Decision but by 30 June 2011 at the latest may be based either on the criteria set out in Decision 2005/342/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision. Those applications shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria on which they are based.\n3. Where the Ecolabel is awarded on the basis of an application evaluated in accordance with the criteria set out in Decision 2005/342/EC, that Ecolabel may be used for 12 months from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 June 2011.", "references": ["94", "27", "81", "42", "54", "52", "36", "53", "85", "0", "14", "84", "20", "77", "19", "41", "80", "7", "26", "62", "66", "79", "39", "56", "45", "11", "86", "97", "51", "93", "No Label", "24", "25", "58", "83"], "gold": ["24", "25", "58", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1252/2010\nof 22 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2010.", "references": ["32", "27", "29", "85", "82", "74", "70", "33", "66", "97", "10", "0", "77", "38", "19", "16", "75", "67", "95", "20", "59", "57", "55", "8", "56", "54", "89", "22", "78", "30", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 786/2011\nof 5 August 2011\napproving the active substance 1-naphthylacetamide, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and Commission Decision 2008/941/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Articles 13(2) and 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 (3), with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval. 1-Naphthylacetamide is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 1112/2002 (4) and (EC) No 2229/2004 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included 1-naphthylacetamide.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 24e of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report referred to in Article 24(2) of that Regulation. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/941/EC of 8 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (6) was adopted on the non-inclusion of 1-naphthylacetamide.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to France, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/941/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nFrance evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 12 March 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on 1-naphthylacetamide to the Commission on 15 February 2011 (7). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 17 June 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for 1-naphthylacetamide.\n(7)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing 1-naphthylacetamide may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve 1-naphthylacetamide in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that 1-naphthylacetamide should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(11)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of the approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing 1-naphthylacetamide. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw existing authorisations. By way of derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the update of the complete Annex III dossier, as set out in Directive 91/414/EEC, of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles.\n(12)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (8) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or the Regulations approving active substances.\n(13)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (9) should be amended accordingly.\n(14)\nDecision 2008/941/EC provides for the non-inclusion of 1-naphthylacetamide and the withdrawal of authorisations for plants protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning 1-naphthylacetamide in the Annex to that Decision. It is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/941/EC accordingly.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance 1-naphthylacetamide, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing 1-naphthylacetamide as an active substance by 30 June 2012.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing 1-naphthylacetamide as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by 31 December 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Following that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing 1-naphthylacetamide as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing 1-naphthylacetamide as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 December 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2008/941/EC\nThe line concerning 1-naphthylacetamide in the Annex to Decision 2008/941/EC is deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2011.", "references": ["97", "18", "89", "9", "69", "60", "33", "40", "10", "23", "47", "87", "54", "75", "19", "4", "41", "93", "6", "83", "24", "49", "68", "98", "11", "42", "58", "46", "77", "35", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 January 2012\nSA.30584 (C 38/10, ex NN 69/10) on the State aid implemented by Hungary in favour of Mal\u00e9v Hungarian Airlines Zrt.\n(notified under document C(2011) 9316)\n(Only the Hungarian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2013/150/EU)\nTHE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the decision by which the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU (1), in respect of the aid C 38/10 (ex NN 69/10) (2),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above, and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE\n(1)\nAfter several unsuccessful attempts of privatisation, in 2007 the Hungarian State concluded a sale and purchase agreement with AirBridge Zrt. (hereinafter: \"AirBridge\") concerning 99,95 % of the shares of its national flag carrier Mal\u00e9v Hungarian Airlines Zrt. (hereinafter: \"Mal\u00e9v\"). AirBridge paid HUF 200 million (EUR 740 000 (3)) in exchange for the shares. The privatisation agreement was notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU but subsequently withdrawn (4).\n(2)\nFollowing the new owner's financial troubles, Russian Vnesheconohmbank (hereinafter: \"VEB\") gained a stake of 49,5 % in AirBridge and became Mal\u00e9v's indirect shareholder.\n(3)\nIn March 2010, the Commission became aware through press reports about the Hungarian State's intention to re-nationalise Mal\u00e9v. By e-mail of 2 March 2010 the Hungarian authorities confirmed these press reports.\n(4)\nBy e-mail dated 10 March 2010, the Commission received a complaint from Wizz Air, a Hungarian based low-cost airline and a main competitor of Mal\u00e9v in Hungary. This complaint alleged illegal and incompatible State aid to Mal\u00e9v by means of a number of different measures. By letter of 29 March 2009, the Commission forwarded a non-confidential version of the complaint to the Hungarian authorities together with a request for additional information. Hungary provided comments about the substance of this complaint on 30 April 2010 providing answers to the issues raised therein.\n(5)\nAt a meeting on 5 May 2010, the Hungarian authorities indicated that they intended to restructure the airline. They also indicated however that they did not yet know how far-reaching this restructuring would be.\n(6)\nA second complaint (of a competitor which did not agree to the disclosure of its identity) dated 5 October 2010 was received by the Commission and forwarded to the Hungarian authorities by letter of 21 October 2010. The Hungarian authorities provided comments about the substance of this complaint on 19 November 2010.\n(7)\nFurther requests for information were sent to the Hungarian authorities on 14 July 2010, 8 October 2010 and replies were received on 11 August 2010, 16 August 2010, 5 October 2010, 3 November 2010, and 23 November 2010.\n(8)\nAgainst this background, on 21 December 2010 the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure pursuant Article 108(2) TFEU (hereinafter: \"the opening decision\") concerning various alleged State aid measures implemented in favour of Mal\u00e9v.\n(9)\nHungary submitted its comments to the Commission's opening decision on 24 February 2011.\n(10)\nThe opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 26 May 2011 (5). Comments were received from two interested parties: Wizz Air on 26 June 2011 and a competitor requesting for its identity not to be disclosed on 28 June 2011.\n(11)\nThese comments were transmitted to Hungary by letter of 6 July 2011. Hungary submitted comments to the third party observations on 5 September 2011.\n(12)\nFollowing the opening decision, two meetings took place in Brussels between the Commission services and the Hungarian authorities: on 10 June 2011 and 19 October 2011 respectively.\n(13)\nThe Commission requested further information from the Hungarian authorities on 26 September 2011, to which Hungary replied by letter of 25 October 2011.\nII. MAL\u00c9V AND THE MEASURES CONCERNED\nII.1. The Company\n(14)\nMal\u00e9v is based at Budapest Liszt Ferenc International Airport (hereinafter: \"Budapest Airport\") and currently operates a fleet of 22 aircraft (6) to destinations in Europe and the Middle East. In 2009, it transported 3,2 million passengers (7).\nII.2. The period prior to the 2007 privatisation\n(15)\nThe Hungarian authorities have tried to privatise Mal\u00e9v on several occasions. In 1992, a 35 % stake in Mal\u00e9v was sold to an Italian State-controlled consortium of Alitalia and Simest. In 1997, Alitalia-Simest sold its stake to a consortium of two privately owned Hungarian banks (OTP & MKB). In 1999, most of the shares in private ownership were re-purchased by the State resulting in a 97 % state ownership.\n(16)\nMal\u00e9v, along with many other airlines suffered significantly from the downturn in the aviation market which followed the events of September 2001 and became loss making (see Table 1 below).\n(17)\nIt was against this background that the State decided once again to privatise Mal\u00e9v in 2007.\nII.3. The 2007 privatisation and Mal\u00e9v under private control\nII.3.1. Sale to AirBridge\n(18)\nThe company needed to be recapitalised and the State, as owner, was restricted in its ability to fund such investment. Offers were solicited for Mal\u00e9v and in early 2007 it was decided that a special purpose vehicle named AirBridge had made the most attractive offer. AirBridge offered an attractive and allegedly commercially viable business and restructuring plan.\n(19)\nAccordingly, on 23 February 2007, a sale and purchase agreement providing for the sale of 99,95 % of the shares of Mal\u00e9v to AirBridge was concluded. AirBridge was owned 49 % by Boris Abramovich (8), a Russian businessman, who held a majority stake in a number of Russian airlines (KrasAir, and the AirUnion alliance of Russian airlines) and 51 % by Hungarian individuals. AirBridge was therefore expected to bring industrial know-how and leadership to Mal\u00e9v, along with business and restructuring plans.\n(20)\nThe most significant parts of this agreement were:\n(a)\nAirBridge bought 99,95 % of the shares in Mal\u00e9v for HUF 200 million (EUR 740 000). By 31 December 2008 at the latest, AirBridge was obliged to provide funding (9) in the amount of EUR 50 million.\n(b)\nA loan granted in 2003 to Mal\u00e9v by the 100 % state-owned Hungarian Development Bank (Magyar Fejleszt\u00e9si Bank, hereinafter \"MFB\") amounting to EUR 76 million was taken off Mal\u00e9v's balance sheet and transferred to a 100 % State-owned special purpose vehicle Mal\u00e9v Asset Management Company (Mal\u00e9v Vagyonkezel\u0151 Kft., hereinafter \"MAVA\").\nThis 2003 MFB loan was a EUR denominated, 100 % State guaranteed loan, with an interest rate of 3-month IBOR + 0,5 %. The original expiry of the loan was 2013, the principle to be repaid in one instalment at the end of the maturity. With the transfer of the principle and interest to MAVA, the loan's maturity was also extended until 2017.\nAccording to the Hungarian authorities, assets worth EUR 76 million were transferred to MAVA along with the loan. These assets comprised the Mal\u00e9v trademark, a kerosene pipeline and one B767 aircraft. Were Mal\u00e9v to be profitable, it would also have to pay 25 % of after tax profits to MAVA. AirBridge also provided a bank guarantee to MAVA from VEB to cover the reimbursement of the loan up to EUR 32 million.\n(c)\nMal\u00e9v would also pay MAVA the sum of EUR 200 000 per year as a license fee for the use of the name \"Mal\u00e9v\" and logo. AirBridge was obliged to keep using the brand name and to ensure the operation of the company as an airline until 31 December 2017, the new expiry date of the loan.\n(d)\nMal\u00e9v would lease back the B767 aircraft - just transferred to MAVA (see point b above) - from MAVA from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2017 (10).\n(21)\nA new management was appointed and a number of cost saving and revenue generating measures were put in place. These included the discontinuation of long haul operations and staff cuts. According to Hungary, however, as these measures coincided with a massive increase in fuel prices they had no overall effect on the company's profitability.\n(22)\nMal\u00e9v's financial position continued to deteriorate and, after 4 months, it lacked the necessary liquidity to make royalty payments for the use of the Mal\u00e9v brand name.\n(23)\nAccording to Hungary, payments for the B767 aircraft leased from MAVA have not been \"stopped\" once Mal\u00e9v had decided to suspend long haul routes as Mal\u00e9v is \"recognising\" those debts and there is merely a delay in payment on which interest is paid.\n(24)\nIn the second half of 2008, the global financial crisis began to impact on Mal\u00e9v as well as on its Russian partners. Several of Mr Abramovich's airlines went bankrupt. AirBridge found itself no longer able to finance Mal\u00e9v and defaulted on its loan reimbursement to VEB. As the 49 % shareholding in AirBridge was pledged to VEB, VEB took over those shares. VEB indicated that it was willing to continue to finance Mal\u00e9v, but as a bank not as an owner.\nII.3.2. Sale of Mal\u00e9v Ground Handling\n(25)\nAs previously stated, Mal\u00e9v's financial situation had further deteriorated in early 2009. Its shareholders therefore approached the State Holding Company (Magyar Nemzeti Vagyonkezel\u0151 Zrt., hereinafter \"MNV\") with the proposal to sell to MNV Mal\u00e9v Ground Handling, Mal\u00e9v's 100 % subsidiary (hereinafter: \"Mal\u00e9v GH\").\n(26)\nAccording to Hungary, Mal\u00e9v GH was at the time and continues to be a financially sound undertaking.\n(27)\nA preliminary purchase agreement was signed in January 2009 (and amended in February) providing for advance payments of HUF 4,3 billion (EUR 16 million). MNV made advance payments to Mal\u00e9v in January and February 2009. These advance payments were to be repaid within 2 working days if, after the due diligence, MNV decided not to proceed with the signing of the final sale and purchase agreement. This potential repayment obligation was secured by collateral agreements. In July 2009, MNV eventually decided to abort the transaction and the repayment of the purchase price became due.\n(28)\nThe advance payment was never reimbursed to MNV. Interest due on advance payments was never paid to MNV (11).\nII.3.3. Tax deferral\n(29)\nBetween January 2007 and March 2010, the Hungarian Tax and Financial Control Administration (Ad\u00f3- \u00e9s P\u00e9nz\u00fcgyi Ellen\u0151rz\u00e9si Hivatal, hereinafter: \"APEH\") permitted Mal\u00e9v to defer or reschedule payments for different types of taxes and social security obligations. APEH failed to enforce the overdue debt as from July 2008 and even granted the rescheduling of further amounts subsequently. In March 2010, Mal\u00e9v's tax and social security debt (principal and interest for late payment) totalled HUF 13,7 billion (EUR 51 million). With regard to the entire Mal\u00e9v Group, this figure is HUF 16,8 billion (EUR 62 million). On 11 March 2010, the remaining balance of Mal\u00e9v's current account with APEH was settled making use of part of the cash obtained through the February 2010 increase of capital mentioned further below.\nII.4. The 2010 renationalisation and Mal\u00e9v under public control\nII.4.1. Reasons leading to the renationalisation of Mal\u00e9v\n(30)\nIn 2010 it was not possible to find private investors to take over Mal\u00e9v from AirBridge /VEB as main shareholder. In particular, VEB did not have the intention to finance the airline as a strategic investor. The airline's financial performance continued to be weak, as shown in Table 1 below.\nTable 1\nMal\u00e9v's performance indicators 2003-2010 (HUF billion)\n2003\n2004\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\n2010\nEBITDA\nprofit/(loss)\n(4,4)\n(1,8)\n(4,9)\n(8,8)\n(10,6)\n(8,3)\n(15,5)\n(19,1)\nEBIT\nprofit/(loss)\n(9,4)\n(6,8)\n(9,4)\n(12,5)\n(14,7)\n(10,8)\n(17,9)\n(20,6)\nNet result\nprofit/(loss)\n(13,5)\n(4,9)\n(1,3)\n(10,9)\n0,7\n(14,5)\n(24,8)\n(24,6)\nSource:\nInformation provided by the Hungarian authorities and Mal\u00e9v's 2010 financial accounts\n(31)\nRather than liquidation, the Hungarian authorities decided to negotiate with VEB and AirBridge so as to try to improve the commercial position of Mal\u00e9v in the medium to long term.\nII.4.2. February 2010 capital increase: debt-to-equity swap and fresh capital\n(32)\nOn 26 February 2010, VEB, AirBridge, MNV, Mal\u00e9v and the Hungarian government agreed to a capital increase of HUF 25,4 billion (EUR 94 million), partly realised by injecting fresh capital of HUF 20,7 billion (EUR 77 million) and partly through a debt to equity swap of the advanced payment for Mal\u00e9v GH (see section II.3.2 above) plus interest charged thereon, a total of HUF 4,7 billion (EUR 17 million). AirBridge also swapped HUF 1,5 billion (EUR 5,4 million) into equity. As a consequence, the claims against Mal\u00e9v disappeared and the former creditors became owners of part of the company.\n(33)\nBefore the increase, the existing registered capital in Mal\u00e9v was reduced to almost zero to absorb part of the accumulated losses and to reflect the fact that the existing shares in Mal\u00e9v had become worthless. The registered capital of Mal\u00e9v was then increased by issuing new shares in the nominal amount of HUF 0,01 each. The development on Mal\u00e9v's equity situation is shown in Figure 1 below.\n(34)\nThe HUF 20,7 billion (EUR 77 million) contributed by MNV in cash enabled Mal\u00e9v to reimburse all outstanding tax obligations (see paragraph (29) above) and to temporarily stabilise its operation.\n(35)\nAfter the capital increase, the State became a 94,6 % shareholder of Mal\u00e9v and AirBridge/VEB was diluted.\nFigure 1\nDevelopment of Mal\u00e9v's equity situation\nII.4.3. May - August 2010: Shareholder's loans and conversion into equity\n(36)\nBetween May and August 2010 the Hungarian State provided Mal\u00e9v with a number of \"shareholder loans\" through MNV totalling HUF 9,2 billion (EUR 34 million).\n(37)\nThe first of these loans in May 2010 was in the amount of HUF 2,16 billion (EUR 7,9 million). It was described as a three-year shareholder's loan at an interest rate of 9,97 %. Repayment was by means of a single payment at the end of the maturity period and the security was a lien on the shares of Mal\u00e9v GH.\n(38)\nThe second of these loans in June 2010 amounting to of HUF 1,34 billion (EUR 4,9 million) was again a three-year shareholder's loan at an interest rate of 9,97 %, repayment was again by means of a single payment at the end of the maturity period and the security was a lien on the shares of Mal\u00e9v GH.\n(39)\nIn August 2010, a third shareholder's loan in the amount of HUF 5,7 (EUR 20,8 million) was granted. This was again a three-year shareholder's loan at an interest rate of 9,97 %, repayable by means a single payment at the end of the maturity period. In this case the security was a lien on an aircraft (HA-LNA - a CRJ jet).\n(40)\nOn 24 September, these three loans which totalled HUF 9,2 billion (EUR 33,6 million) along with the interest owed thereon (making a total amount of HUF 9,4 billion or EUR 34,3 million) was converted from debt to equity in Mal\u00e9v in and the underlying guarantees were released.\nII.4.4. September 2010: A further capital increase and shareholder loan\n(41)\nOn 24 September 2010, MNV also increased the capital of Mal\u00e9v by injecting a further HUF 5,3 billion (EUR 19,3 million) of cash into the company. MNV's (i.e. the State's) stake in Mal\u00e9v has thereby increased to 96,5 %\n(42)\nOn the same date, the State granted Mal\u00e9v a further shareholder loan in the amount of HUF 5,7 billion (EUR 20,8 million) with a duration of 3 years at an interest rate of 9,97 %. The first interest payment is due 6 months from the date of disbursement while the repayment of principle is by means of a lump sum at maturity. The guarantees on this loan are a registered lien on the HA-LNA CRJ aircraft with an asset value of around HUF 1,8 billion and a lien established on international and Hungarian IATA-organised agent traffic revenue.\nIII. SUMMARY OF THE MEASURES UNDER INVESTIGATION\n(43)\nIn the opening decision the Commission thus questioned whether the measures below constitute State aid in the meaning of 107(1) TFEU.\n-\nMeasure 1: The taking over on 31 December 2007 by the state-owned MAL\u00c9V MAVA of a loan granted to Mal\u00e9v by MFB, a 100 % state-owned development bank, in 2003, amounting to EUR 76 million along with some Mal\u00e9v assets. The maturity of the loan will be prolonged until 2017.\n-\nMeasure 2: The provision of a HUF 4,3 billion\"cash facility\" for one year in the context of a planned (subsequently failed) purchase by MNV of Mal\u00e9v's GH subsidiary, which according to the Hungarian authorities was a financially sound undertaking. Despite the non-realisation of the deal, this advanced payment of the purchase price has not been repaid.\n-\nMeasure 3: The deferral of different tax and social security payments due between January 2007 and March 2010. In March 2010, Mal\u00e9v's tax and social contribution debt amounted to HUF 13,7 billion.\n-\nMeasure 4: In February 2010, a capital increase by MNV of HUF 25,4 billion partly realised by injecting fresh capital of HUF 20,7 billion (EUR 77 million) and partly through a debt to equity swap of the advanced payment for GH (see measure 2) plus interest, a total of HUF 4,7 billion. (AirBridge also swapped HUF 1,5 billion into equity.)\n-\nMeasure 5: From May to August 2010, three shareholder loans totalling HUF 9,2 billion granted to Mal\u00e9v by MNV. All three HUF-loans bore an interest rate of 9,97 %, with repayment of the principal as a lump sum at the end of maturity (all tranches 3 years). The first two tranches amounting to a total of HUF 3,5 billion (EUR 13 million) were secured by the subsidiary Mal\u00e9v GH and the third tranche of HUF 5,7 billion (EUR 21 million) by an aircraft (HA-LNA, a CRJ jet).\n-\nMeasure 6: In September 2010, the conversion of these shareholder loans (along with the interest owed thereon) from debt to equity in the amount of HUF 9,4 billion.\n-\nMeasure 7: In September 2010, a further capital increase in the amount of HUF 5,3 billion in cash. The State's stake increased to 96,5 %.\n-\nMeasure 8: In September 2010, a further shareholder loan in the amount of HUF 5,7 billion, with an interest rate of 9,97 %, with redemption of the principal as a lump sum at the end of maturity. The loan was secured by the HA-LNA CRJ aircraft referred to above and a lien established on international and Hungarian IATA-organised agent traffic revenue.\n(44)\nIn the opening decision the Commission also questioned whether these measures, insofar they constitute State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, are compatible with the Internal Market in the light of the exceptions enshrined in the TFEU and, in particular, with the Community Guidelines on State Aid for Rescuing And Restructuring Firms in Difficulty (12) (hereinafter: \"Rescue and restructuring Guidelines\").\nIV. COMMENTS FROM HUNGARY\n(45)\nIn its reply to the opening decision Hungary repeated the facts described above and explained further the reasons which led to the difficulties of the airlines. Hungary also confirmed that Mal\u00e9v qualified as a company in \"permanent\" difficulty in the meaning of the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines at least since the second half of 2006.\n(46)\nPrior to the opening of the formal investigation, the Hungarian authorities argued, in a nutshell, that all measures comply with the Market Economy Investor (hereinafter: \"MEIP\") and the Market Economy Creditor Principle (hereinafter: \"MECP\").\n(47)\nIn relation to the measures accompanying the sale of Mal\u00e9v to AirBridge, the Hungarian authorities claimed that these measures are market conform because of the collateral put in place to secure the taking over of the loan by MAVA. As to the abortive sale of Mal\u00e9v GH they argued that no advantage was conferred on Mal\u00e9v as the late reimbursement of the sales price was correctly collateralised and that interest on the sales price had been calculated. With regard to the tax deferral they argue that there was collateral in place for these amounts, that all applicable interest charges and penalties had been applied and furthermore that such deferrals are general measures. Concerning the renationalisation of Mal\u00e9v, the Hungarian authorities state that they could have enforced their claims against Mal\u00e9v leading to the bankruptcy and liquidation of the company. If they had done this they are of the opinion that they would have recovered only a small part of their claims (other than a part covered by the VEB guarantee mentioned in paragraph (20) above). Moreover, they would have faced significant negative consequences for the national economy (13).\n(48)\nIn relation to the shareholder loans and their subsequent transformation into equity in Mal\u00e9v the State is of the view that these conferred no advantage on Mal\u00e9v as at all times these loans were fully secured against assets, that market conform interest rates applied and that on transformation into equity full account was taken of all interest due.\n(49)\nThe Hungarian authorities did not present any new elements after the opening decision. In fact, Hungary's reaction to the opening decision does neither contain new elements in support of the non-aid character of the measures nor information substantiating the compatibility of the implemented measures with the internal market, in particular with the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines.\nV. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(50)\nTwo competitors submitted comments (see paragraph (10) above), both supporting the Commission's investigation:\n(51)\nThe competitor requesting for its identity not to be disclosed alleged that some private investors were interested in acquiring a controlling stake in Mal\u00e9v which demonstrates that there were viable options available for Hungary as an alternative to the 2010 renationalisation of Mal\u00e9v.\n(52)\nWizz Air evaluated the aggregated market value of the assets which had been transferred to MAVA along with the MFB loan (measure 1), including the Mal\u00e9v trademark, a kerosene pipeline and one B767 aircraft, as not more than EUR 27 million which is substantially lower than the amount of the loan. Therefore, Wizz Air concluded that this transaction was not done on an arm's length basis and conferred a significant advantage to Mal\u00e9v.\n(53)\nAs to the tax deferral (measure 3), Wizz Air alleged that under Hungarian law a private undertaking in a financial situation similar to that of Mal\u00e9v could neither automatically nor as a matter of exception be granted a similar tax deferral such as the one at hand.\nVI. HUNGARY'S COMMENTS TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF INTERESTED PARTIES\n(54)\nAfter an extension of deadline to reply, Hungary reacted on these comments on 5 September 2011. Hungary maintains its position that the past measures are justified by the Market Economy Investor Principle test (see paragraph 59 below) and therefore do not constitute State aid. According to Hungary, the existence of public policy objectives does not affect the non-aid character of the measures.\n(55)\nHungary stated that there were no viable options and that only the renationalisation permitted the Hungarian authorities to regain full operational control over Mal\u00e9v, allowing the national flag carrier to actually implement the restructuring procedure that it had pursued since 2007 in order to ensure commercial success of the company. As to measure 1, Hungary took the view that the value of the assets in question corresponded to the value of the loan. As to measure 3, Hungary stated that the Hungarian tax authorities treated Mal\u00e9v as any other tax payer in a similar situation.\nVII. PRESENCE OF AID IN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU\nVII.1. General\n(56)\nIn order to ascertain whether the measures under scrutiny constitute State aid, the Commission has to assess whether they fulfil the cumulative conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU. This provision states that \"[s]ave as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\".\n(57)\nIn the light of this provision, the Commission will assess whether the contested measures in favour of Mal\u00e9v constitute State aid.\n(58)\nWith regard to the cumulative criteria of State aid, in the current case, affectation of trade and distortion of competition are indisputable and were not even debated by the Hungarian authorities. Mal\u00e9v is in competition with other European Union airlines, in particular since the entry into force of the third stage of liberalisation of air transport (\"third package\") on 1 January 1993 (14).The measures in question enabled Mal\u00e9v to continue operating so it did not have to face, as other competitors, the consequences normally deriving from its poor financial results.\n(59)\nAs regards State resources and imputability of the measures, this has not been disputed by Hungary either. APEH is the Hungarian Tax Authority and as such clearly imputable to the State. MNV is the State Holding Company. Its duties are set out in the most important framework rules of the State Assets Act. MNV executes the government's and the competent minister's decisions. With regard to MAVA, it is also 100 % State-owned (via MNV) and - as the Hungarian authorities explain - represents an \"emanation of the Hungarian State\".\n(60)\nConcerning selectivity, with the exception of measure 3 (the tax deferral) this was not disputed by Hungary. The measures were to favour a single company, Mal\u00e9v.\n(61)\nWhether an economic advantage in favour of Mal\u00e9v is present in the measures under scrutiny will be assessed hereunder.\n(62)\nHereto, the Commission notes that according to well-established principles of Community law, if additional capital is made available to an \u2027undertaking\u2027 on conditions better than normal market conditions this could fall within the remit of Article 107(1) TFEU as it would result in \u2027favouring\u2027 the particular undertaking within the meaning of this Article. In order to determine whether such advantage is granted, the Commission applies the \u2027Market Economy Investor Principle\u2027. According to this principle, where, in similar circumstances, \u2027a private investor operating in normal market conditions of a market economy of a comparable size to that of the bodies operating in the public sector could have been prompted to make the capital contribution in question\u2027, no State Aid would be involved. The Commission must therefore assess \u2027whether a private investor would have entered into the transaction in question on the same terms\u2027 (15). The attitude of the hypothetical private investor is that of a prudent investor (16) whose goal of profit maximisation is tempered with caution about the level of risk acceptable for a given rate of return. (17)\n(63)\nAccording to the jurisprudence of the European Courts, although the conduct of a private investor with which the intervention of the public investor pursuing economic policy aims must be compared need not be the conduct of an ordinary investor laying out capital with a view to realizing a profit in the relatively short term, it must at least be the conduct of a private holding company or a private group of undertakings pursuing a structural policy - whether general or sectoral - and guided by prospects of profitability in the longer term (18).\n(64)\nMoreover, \u2027\u2026 [T]he comparison between the conduct of public and private investors must be made by reference to the attitude which a private investor would have had at the time of the transaction in question, having regard to the available information and foreseeable developments at that time\u2027 (19).\n(65)\nThe Commission's analysis and assessment must include \u2027all factors that are relevant to the transaction at issue and its context\u2027. This will include the financial situation of the beneficiary undertaking and the relevant market. Based on the abovementioned considerations, the main issue that the Commission wishes to explore is whether the undertaking received \u2027an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions\u2027 (20).\n(66)\nThe Commission also notes that according to established case law, the MEIP is also applicable to loans. When applied to the grant of a loan, this principle invites the question whether a private investor would have granted the loan to the beneficiary on the terms on which it was actually granted (21).\nVII.2. Assessment of the totality of measures\n(67)\nAs already set out in the opening decision, the BP Chemicals judgement (22) is relevant for the assessment of the case at hand. In fact, the Commission considers that the measures are not autonomous and are linked through their chronology, the financial situation of Mal\u00e9v and their finality as they all aim at keeping the airline afloat and solving its liquidity needs and undercapitalisation due to its losses. In fact, Hungary also argues in its comments to the opening decision that the different steps of the \"process\" are \"inseparable\" and all measures were intended to pursue one objective, namely to ensure the airline's operation by finding a strategical investor.\n(68)\nFrom the submissions of Hungary it has become clear that the measures implemented by Hungary in favour of Mal\u00e9v are motivated by public policy considerations and not based on consideration about the future profitability of the company. Hungary underlined at several occasions the failure of the privatisation and Mal\u00e9v's importance for the national economy. It was acknowledged that, when undertaking the measures, the State took into consideration the \"airline's role for the national infrastructure, labour market and the suppliers' interest\". The Hungarian authorities also highlighted that there is no private investor which would be willing to take over the airline in its current form. Therefore, the Commission has to assume that no private investor would have acted like the Hungarian government in similar circumstances when undertaking the measures. Hereto, the Commission also recalls that in the Boch judgement the Court indicated that \u201cthe test is, in particular, whether in similar circumstances a private shareholder, having regard to the foreseeability of obtaining a return and leaving aside all social, regional policy and sectoral consideration would have subscribed the capital in question\u201d (23).\n(69)\nIn the light of Mal\u00e9v's bad financial results over a long time period (see Table 1 and points (103)-(104) below) and the Hungarian authorities claim that the airline has been in a permanent difficulty at least since 2006, a return acceptable to a private investor could have be expected only if the company had undergone a drastic restructuring. However, neither Hungary nor Mal\u00e9v ever demonstrated that such a restructuring plan was at the basis of any of the measures under examination.\n(70)\nOn the basis of the above the Commission considers that measures 1-8 taken together do not comply with the MEIP. This assessment is further confirmed by an individual analysis of each measure.\nVII.3. Assessment of measures 1-8 individually\nVII.3.1. Measure 1\n(71)\nAccording to Hungary, MAVA's activities are limited to a one-time function, i.e. holding certain assets formerly owned by Mal\u00e9v and acting as a \"conduit for certain payments between Mal\u00e9v and MFB\". MAVA is created only for this very purpose.\n(72)\nWith regard to debt amounting to EUR 76 million transferred to MAVA, this originates in a 2003 loan agreement between Mal\u00e9v and MFB. The loan was to be repaid in one single instalment at the end of the maturity and covered by a State guarantee. This 2003 loan was included in the list of existing aid measures of the Accession Treaty (24). However, in the 2007 agreement the loan's maturity was prolonged until 2017. Therefore, as of 2007, the measure cannot be regarded as an existing aid measure anymore. Indeed, the prolongation of an aid measure constitutes a new aid scheme as set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (25).\n(73)\nThe investigation has shown that this transaction (i.e. prolongation of the maturity of the debt, creation of MAVA, transfer of the debt to MAVA, transfer of the assets to MAVA and the lease back agreements) solely aimed at restructuring Mal\u00e9v's debt. Hungary admitted itself that MAVA was never intended to make profit. As a result of this transaction, the debt (together with the assets) was taken off the Mal\u00e9v's balance sheet.\n(74)\nHungary's argument that the financial obligations undertaken by Mal\u00e9v and AirBridge were sufficient to cover MAVA's costs, is not acceptable to demonstrate that the transaction is market conform, as no private market actor would have had the incentive to act in the same way. With regard to the collaterals offered, these were to enable MAVA to repay the debt at the end of the maturity of the loan, i.e. in 2017 (26). No private investor would have undertaken such risk, i.e. to take over assets of an uncertain future value against a certain payment obligation.\n(75)\nAlthough the Hungarian authorities have provided fairly comprehensible evaluations (27) for the B767 aircraft (28) and the kerosene pipeline (29), the evaluation provided (discounted cash-flow method) for the Mal\u00e9v brand (EUR 56 million) seems to be circular and highly dependent on the airline performance so that its result cannot be taken as the objective value of the Mal\u00e9v brand, especially considering the airline's state and performance. Given the fact that the State was aware of the probability that Mal\u00e9v would be not able to fulfil its royalty payment obligations, the discounted cash-flow method should have resulted in a value as low as zero. Under this specific contractual structure, the value of the brand cannot thus be accepted as sufficient collateral.\n(76)\nThe contracting parties must have been aware that Mal\u00e9v, as a firm in difficulties already in 2007, was not realistically able to fulfil its royalty payment obligation sufficiently. In fact, in the aftermath of this transaction, MAVA's \"costs\" (i.e. the interest payment to MFB) could not be covered by Mal\u00e9v's royalty payments for the trademark. MAVA has never taken any steps to enforce the outstanding payments.\n(77)\nWith regard to the EUR 32 million VEB guarantee, this was intended to cover not only the principal but also the regular interest payments MAVA has towards MFB.\n(78)\nAgainst this background and given the fact that no adequate equivalent was transferred to MAVA, taking off the debt from the company's balance sheet has to be regarded as an advantage in favour of Mal\u00e9v.\nVII.3.2. Measure 2\n(79)\nAs regards the advance payment by MNV for the (later failed) sale of GH, according to the expert evaluation submitted by Hungary, GH had a net asset value of HUF 1,6 billion and an estimated market value of HUF 3,5 billion in 2009. In fact in January 2009 MNV paid to Mal\u00e9v HUF 1,6 billion as advanced payment. This payment was secured by a pledge on HA-LNA, a CRJ jet (estimated market value HUF 1,8 billion). In February 2009 the preliminary purchase agreement was modified and MNV paid an additional HUF 2,7 billion (total HUF 4,3 billion), and a second rank pledge was registered on the same aircraft.\n(80)\nIn their comments to the opening decision, the Hungarian authorities admit that the advance payment was in fact undertaken in order to ensure Mal\u00e9v's liquidity during the negotiation phase of the re-nationalisation.\n(81)\nAccording to the preliminary purchase agreement, the repayment of this sum was immediately due (2 working days) in case the transaction failed. However, no steps were undertaken by MNV to recover this debt after MNV stepped back from the deal in July 2009. Ex-post interest was only charged - but never paid - when the debt was swapped into equity in 2010. Mal\u00e9v thus had this cash facility at its disposal free of charge.\n(82)\nThe Commission is of the view that the measure transferred to Mal\u00e9v an advantage when the repayment of the advance was not enforced after it became due in July 2009. Moreover, an advantage occurred even before, at the moment when the preliminary purchase agreement was modified in February 2009 and the advanced payment increased (above the evaluated market price of the company) without being sufficiently collateralised.\nVII.3.3. Measure 3\n(83)\nConcerning the repeated granting of tax and social liabilities obligations deferrals by the tax authority, the Commission notes that on the basis of the submissions by Hungary it is clear that in the course of 2006-2007 a deferral of payment was requested by Mal\u00e9v on 12 different occasions (concerning different payments). The tax authority granted deferrals every time. According to the relevant Hungarian legislation, the granting of such deferrals is discretionary, and could have been refused. Therefore, the measure must be considered selective (30).\n(84)\nUntil July 2008, the statutory interest was charged and paid by Mal\u00e9v according to the deferral schedules. In its decisions the tax authority reasoned by the difficult situation of Mal\u00e9v and the then envisaged restructuring.\n(85)\nAs from July 2008, however, Mal\u00e9v stopped paying its tax and social security contributions and the interest (with the exception of one partial payment in December 2008), and no steps were taken by tax authority to recover this debt. Moreover, further payments were rescheduled also after Mal\u00e9v did not comply with the rescheduling agreements. As from April 2009, the tax and social liabilities due as from that moment (i.e. not the earlier already overdue payments) were not even rescheduled anymore without any concrete action taken by the APEH to enforce any of the debt.\n(86)\nThe Commission is of the view that no private creditor would have behaved like the Hungarian State. Indeed, no concrete steps were ever taken to enforce the debt as from July 2008. Moreover, the company's financial situation, despite some restructuring efforts continued to be very weak (see Table 1 above), and there was only little or no prospect at all that the company will return to profitability. In similar circumstances, a private creditor would have pursued the enforcement of the agreement. Furthermore, after Mal\u00e9v failed to comply with the rescheduling agreements, no private creditor would have agreed to a further rescheduling.\n(87)\nTherefore, at latest as from July 2008, the non-enforcement of tax and social contributions liability by the tax authority and the further reschedulings transferred an advantage to Mal\u00e9v.\nVII.3.4. Measure 4\n(88)\nWith regard to the February 2010 capital increase, by which the State re-nationalised the airline in which it had not held a stake since its privatisation, the most striking fact is that while 99,95 % of Mal\u00e9v was sold for a price equivalent of ca. EUR 740 000 in 2007, in 2010 the State de facto paid an equivalent of EUR 94 million to regain 94,6 % ownership (by means of the capital increase: partly realised by injecting fresh capital of HUF 20,7 billion and partly through a debt-to-equity swap of the advanced payment for GH of HUF 4,7 billion HUF)), i.e. 127 times the original sales price. This behaviour of the State, especially in view of the fact that in the meantime the airline accumulated losses, continued to have negative equity and no credible restructuring plan was present, is not market conform. In fact, the Hungarian authorities acknowledged themselves that the company has been in \"permanent difficulty\" and no private investor was willing to purchase Mal\u00e9v early 2010.\n(89)\nWhile the capital increase amounted to HUF 25,4 billion (i.e. this was the amount the Hungarian State paid to regain 94,6 % ownership of the airline), at the time of the swap, Mal\u00e9v had a negative equity of HUF 41 billion (EUR 152 million), accumulated losses in the amount of HUF 51 billion (EUR 189 million) and total debt of HUF 75 billion (EUR 278 million) (31). According to the 2010 financial accounts, at the beginning of 2010 \"the airline's financing problems were serious, debt reached a dramatic level, funding sources were practically not present. [\u2026] Due to the absence of a strategic owner, no commercial funding was available.\" Indeed, the airline has been loss-making at least since 2003 without any realistic prospect to return to viability, not even the private owner had succeeded in turning around the company. Against this background it was clear that the capital increase would not be sufficient to return the company to viability and that after the re-nationalisation Mal\u00e9v would need further capital and liquidity in order merely to stay afloat.\n(90)\nAs to Hungary's argument that the State was better off by nationalising the company than enforcing its claims against Mal\u00e9v the Commission notes the following. As Hungary acknowledges, in case of bankruptcy, they would have recovered a very small portion of their claims other than the one covered by the VEB guarantee. (In fact, Mal\u00e9v asset value was negative at the time of the transaction.) By contrast, the Hungarian State decided to keep the airline alive by swapping its debt and injecting fresh money in the amount of HUF 20,7 billion (ca. EUR 77 million). No private would have undertaken this further financial burden in a similar situation, especially without realistic chances to return the company to viability.\n(91)\nThe Commission also notes that at the same time Hungarian State increased Mal\u00e9v's capital, AirBridge (indirectly VEB) also swapped its debt amounting to HUF 1,4 billion into equity. However, this amount is only 5 % of the new capital and, in addition the State, on the top of the debt converted also contributed a substantial amount of fresh capital. In fact, the injection of fresh money made up for 77 % of the capital increase. Moreover, given the bad financial conditions of Mal\u00e9v, the perspective for AirBridge to obtain the payment of that amount was very limited if not inexistent. Thus the behaviour of the private party in this case is materially different from that of the Hungarian State and it cannot take as a point of reference to consider that the State behaved as a private investor.\nTable 2\nThe 2010 Capital increase\nParticipant to the capital increase\nContribution HUF billion\nType of contribution\nShare of contribution\nMNV\n20,7\nFresh capital\n77 %\nMNV\n4,7\nDebt-to-equity swap\n18 %\nAirBridge / VEB\n1,4\nDebt-to-equity swap\n5 %\nTOTAL\n26,8\n100 %\n(92)\nOn the basis of the above the Commission concludes that under those circumstances the February 2010 re-nationalisation of Mal\u00e9v by means of the capital increase transferred an advantage to the company.\nVII.3.5. Measures 5-8\n(93)\nConcerning the measures after the re-nationalisation, it is apparent that the shareholder loans and capital injections were intended to finance Mal\u00e9v's current operations and to avoid its imminent insolvency. The State thus undertook these measures with the same objective: keeping Mal\u00e9v in business. Moreover, they are also closely linked by their chronology, as they took place within very short time intervals (i.e. from May to September 2010). Consequently, the Commission is of the view that, according to BP Chemicals, these shareholder loans cannot be assessed under the market economy investor principle and in particular, by applying the Reference Rate Communication (32), as they are all directly linked to measure 4 and hence their State aid character cannot be assessed in isolation.\n(94)\nIt is clear from the Hungarian submission that no private actor was willing to finance Mal\u00e9v, its only funding sources were supplier credits and the liquidity provided by the State. At the time of granting the loans the State could not seriously count on Mal\u00e9v meeting its interest payment obligation and that it would redeem the loan. Moreover, it is also questionable that any private creditor would take the risk to grant a loan which has to be repaid in a lump sum at the end of the maturity to a company in a comparable state like Mal\u00e9v (i.e. permanent difficulty). Finally, in view of the credit history of the company vis-\u00e0-vis the State (e.g. non reimbursement of the advance payment for GH, repeated tax deferrals and non-payments), the State and any other investor could not realistically expect that Mal\u00e9v would meet its obligations.\n(95)\nOn the other hand, even according to the Reference rate Communication the stipulated interest and collaterals agreed would not be sufficient to rule out the presence of State aid. The stipulated interest rate was 9,97 % whereas the HUF reference rate at the time of the granting amounted to 5,97 %. A mere 400 bps margin over the HUF base rate is insufficient in view of Mal\u00e9v's past performance and financial situation (a company continuously at the edge of bankruptcy). As regards the collateralisation of the loans, the market value of GH (HUF 3,5 billion) in case of Mal\u00e9v's failure is questionable, as Mal\u00e9v was the dominant partner of the ground handling operation: in 2009 63 % of the income was generated by Mal\u00e9v. Therefore, at least in the short term, its economic performance was dependent on Mal\u00e9v's existence and its market value would thus have decreased substantially in case Mal\u00e9v went bankrupt.\n(96)\nIn the absence of a credible restructuring plan, it was clear from the beginning that neither the loans nor the capital increase would allow turning around the company which continued to be in a critical state with zero market value. These measures thus are practically equal to a straightforward grant, as the State had no perspective of recovering the \"invested\" funds.\n(97)\nTherefore the Commission considers that measures 5-8 conferred an advantage to Mal\u00e9v.\nVII.4. Conclusion on the presence of State aid\n(98)\nAccording to the foregoing assessment, all measures at stake (measures 1-8) confer an advantage to Mal\u00e9v. This advantage has been granted from State resources.\n(99)\nMoreover, Mal\u00e9v is an airline company and as such qualifies as an undertaking. It competes with other airlines which do not benefit from the same advantage. Hence, the measures distort competition. Furthermore, it is active in a sector (aviation) in which trade definitely exists between Member States; the criterion of the affectation of trade within the Union is also fulfilled.\n(100)\nFinally, the measures are specific and selective in that they favour only one undertaking (i.e. Mal\u00e9v).\n(101)\nOn account of the arguments exposed above, the Commission concludes that measures 1-8 fulfil the criteria enshrined in Article 107(1) TFEU. Under those circumstances, they have to be considered State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nVII.5. Compatibility of the Aid with the Internal Market\n(102)\nArticles 107(2) and 107(3) TFEU provide for exemptions to the general rule that State aid is incompatible with the internal market as stated in Article 107(1).\n(103)\nThe Commission is of the view that Mal\u00e9v has been in permanent difficulty at least since 2006. In particular, it has been loss-making at least since 2003 (see Table 1 above) and already in 2006 its equity was negative (Figure 1 above). In addition, the Hungarian authorities confirmed the airline's permanent difficulties and that since the second half of 2006 it qualified for collective insolvency proceedings and thus fulfilled point 10(c) of the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines. Consequently, the only basis for compatibility would be the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines.\n(104)\nWith regard to eligibility and the \"one time, last time\" condition, the Commission notes that the measures under scrutiny do not form a \"restructuring continuum\". The airline changed owner twice in the relevant period (i.e. 2007-2010) as it was privatised and re-nationalised. It was under continuous \"restructuring\" but without a coherent plan. In fact some cost reduction initiatives (layoffs and route cuttings) were started after privatisation but the unit cost did not decrease enough. According to the Hungarian authorities, a new \"strategic orientation\" was elaborated in 2009, which was again revised by the consultancy Roland Berger in the context of the re-nationalisation. Therefore, the measures in questions are different restructuring measures, in principle violating the \"one time, last time\" principle.\n(105)\nThe Commission notes that, even if Mal\u00e9v were to be eligible for aid under the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines (i.e. the \"one time, last time\" condition were met, quad non), the requirements for compatible rescue and restructuring aid would be not fulfilled, for the reasons set out below.\n(106)\nWith regard to rescue aid, points 25(a)-(e) of the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines are not fulfilled. In particular, the measures at hand are not restricted to the minimum necessary, it is not demonstrated that they are warranted on the grounds of serious social difficulties and that they have no unduly adverse spill-over effects on other Member States. Moreover, with the exception of measures 5 and 8, the majority of them were not granted in the form of loans or guarantees.\n(107)\nWith regard to restructuring aid, none of the compatibility conditions under the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines is met.\n(108)\nIn particular, as regards points 34-35 of the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines, \"restoration of long-term viability\", the Hungarian authorities did not demonstrate the viability prospects of the airline and did not submit a restructuring plan complying with the requirements set by points 36-37 of the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines.\n(109)\nIn addition, concerning the requirement of \"avoidance of undue distortion of competition\" (points 38-42 of the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines), the Commission notes that no compensatory measures were implemented.\n(110)\nFinally, as regards the condition of \"aid limited to the minimum\" (points 43-45 of the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines), no own contribution is present.\n(111)\nIn view of the foregoing, measures 1-8 implemented in favour of Mal\u00e9v since 2007 are not compatible with the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines. As the measures were granted to a company in difficulty, no other basis for compatibility is applicable. Therefore, the measures are incompatible with the internal market.\nVIII. RECOVERY\nVIII.1. General\n(112)\nAccording to the TFEU and the Court of Justice's established case law, the Commission is competent to decide that the State concerned must abolish or alter aid (33) when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market. The Court has also consistently held that the obligation of a State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation (34). In this context, the Court has established that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored (35).\n(113)\nFollowing that case-law, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (36) laid down that \u201cwhere negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.\u201d\n(114)\nThus, given that the measures at hand are to be considered as unlawful and incompatible aid, the aid has to be recovered in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid. Recovery shall be hence effected from the time when the advantage occurred to the beneficiary, i.e. when the aid was put at the disposal of the beneficiary and shall bear recovery interest until effective recovery.\nVIII.2. Aid element in the individual measures\nVIII.2.1. Measure 1\n(115)\nThe Commission acknowledges that \"Mal\u00e9v\" as the brand of the Hungarian national carrier operating over decades has a certain value on the aviation market. On the other hand the Commission is of the view that under the specific contractual structure, the value of the brand as claimed by the Hungarian authorities cannot be accepted. An objective value should have been based on an independent evaluation also taking into account Mal\u00e9v's overall financial situation.\n(116)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the aid element of measure 1 is thus calculated as up to EUR 56 million, i.e. EUR 76 million minus the value of the kerosene pipeline and the aircraft (amounting to EUR 20 million), minus the objective value of the Mal\u00e9v brand (37). The exact aid element must be calculated by Hungary. Should Hungary not present convincing arguments for an objective value of the brand at the time of the conclusion of the transaction on the transfer of the brand to MAVA, the entire amount of EUR 56 million is considered as aid element.\nVIII.2.2. Measure 2\n(117)\nAs set out above, the Commission is of the view that the measure transferred to Mal\u00e9v an advantage when the repayment of the advance was not enforced after it became due. Moreover, an advantage occurred even before, at least at the moment when the preliminary purchase agreement was modified in February 2009 and the advanced payment increased (above the evaluated market price of the company).\n(118)\nThe Commission concludes that such a cash facilty would not have been granted by any private operator. In fact, no private market operator would have agreed to put these funds at Mal\u00e9v's disposal, in particular free of charge and no steps whatever taken to recover them. In fact, in their comments to the opening decision the Hungarian authorities acknowledge themselves that the advanced payment intended to secure Mal\u00e9v's survival (see paragraph (80) above). Therefore, the entire amount of the facility for the period it was at the disposal of the beneficiary is the aid element: between February 2009 and July 2009 HUF 0,8 billion (the difference between the \"overpayment\" in respect of GH's market value) and between July 2009 and February 2010 HUF 4,3 billion (the entire amount of the advanced payment). Recovery should thus take account of the fact that the amount was swapped into equity in February 2010 (see measure 4 below).\nVIII.2.3. Measure 3\n(119)\nConcerning the deferral and non-enforcement of tax and social contribution, the Commission considers that, all overdue Mal\u00e9v debt from July 2008 to March 2010 towards APEH constituted State aid. Moreover, all rescheduled amount after this date (July 2008) amount entirely to State aid as well. Indeed, nothing suggests that a private creditor would have granted those deferrals and reschedulings. Recovery should take account of the fact that the overdue amounts were paid back in March 2010.\nVIII.2.4. Measure 4\n(120)\nWith regard to the capital increase, the Commission considers that, given Mal\u00e9v's financial state, the apparent need for further support following the capital increase, the lack of any realistic prospective to recoup the \"invested\" funds, no private investor would have put those funds at Mal\u00e9v's disposal. The injected capital of HUF 25,4 billion plus the debt to equity swap of 4,7 billion HUF for the advanced payments for Mal\u00e9v GH is the aid element.\nVIII.2.5. Measure 5\n(121)\nAs to the loans totalling HUF 9,2 billion, the Commission considers that in view of the debt history and situation of the airline at the moment of the granting of those loans, the State had no reason whatsoever to expect repayment and at the time of the granting of the loan it was even doubtful whether Mal\u00e9v would be able to pay the interest. In fact, the interest charged was not paid but converted subsequently to equity.\n(122)\nTherefore the Commission considers that the loan can be compared to a straightforward grant and hence the aid element is the entire loan amount of HUF 9,2 billion for the period it was at the disposal of the beneficiary, i.e. between the granting of the tranches (May, June, July 2010 respectively) and the conversion of the loans into equity (September 2010). Due and not paid interest should be included in the aid element. Recovery should thus take account of the fact that the amount was swapped into equity in September 2010 (see measure 6 below).\nVIII.2.6. Measure 6\n(123)\nFor the reasons set out above in paragraph (120) above, the Commission considers that total amount of the converted debt to capital can be considered as a straightforward grant and hence the entire amount of HUF 9,4 billion is the aid element starting September 2010.\nVIII.2.7. Measure 7\n(124)\nFor the reasons set out above in paragraph (120), the Commission considers that the aid element is the injected capital of HUF 5,3 billion starting September 2010.\nVIII.2.8. Measure 8\n(125)\nFor the reasons set out above in paragraphs (120) above, the Commission considers that total amount of the loan is comparable to a straightforward grant and hence the entire amount of HUF 5,7 billion is the aid element starting September 2010.\nIX. CONCLUSION\n(126)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that measures 1-8 implemented by Hungary in favour of Mal\u00e9v constitute State aid in the meaning of 107(1) TFEU.\n(127)\nIn addition, the Commission concludes that measures 1-8 are incompatible with the internal market.\n(128)\nThis incompatible aid must be recovered from Mal\u00e9v as set out in section VIII.2 above in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid. The exact total amount of recovery plus recovery interest has to be computed by the Hungarian authorities.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following measures granted by Hungary to Mal\u00e9v Hungarian Airlines Zrt. constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU:\n(a)\nMeasure 1: The taking over on 31 December 2007 by the state-owned MAVA of a loan granted to Mal\u00e9v by MFB, a 100 % state-owned development bank, in 2003;\n(b)\nMeasure 2: The provision of a HUF 4,3 billion \"cash facility\" for one year in the context of a planned (subsequently failed) purchase by MNV of Mal\u00e9v's GH subsidiary;\n(c)\nMeasure 3: All overdue tax and social security debt from July 2008 to March 2010 and the deferral of different tax and social security payments as from July 2008;\n(d)\nMeasure 4: In February 2010, a capital increase by MNV of HUF 25,4 billion (partly realised by injecting fresh capital of HUF 20,7 billion and partly through a debt-to-equity swap of the advanced payment for GH of HUF 4,7 billion HUF);\n(e)\nMeasure 5: From May to August 2010, three shareholder loans totalling HUF 9,2 billion granted to Mal\u00e9v by MNV plus interest due but not paid;\n(f)\nMeasure 6: In September 2010, the conversion of the shareholder loans (along with the interest owed thereon) referred to in Article 1(e) from debt to equity in the amount of HUF 9,4 billion;\n(g)\nMeasure 7: In September 2010, a further capital increase in the amount of HUF 5,3;\n(h)\nMeasure 8: In September 2010, a further shareholder loan in the amount of HUF 5,7 billion, plus interest due but not paid.\nArticle 2\nThe State aid measures referred to in Article 1 unlawfully granted by Hungary in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU in favour of Mal\u00e9v Hungarian Airlines Zrt. are incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 3\n1. Hungary shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiary.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\nArticle 4\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2(3) shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Hungary shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.\nArticle 5\n1. Within two months following notification of this Decision, Hungary shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Hungary shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2(3) with interest has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to Hungary.\nDone at Brussels, 9 January 2012.", "references": ["10", "47", "92", "83", "84", "14", "99", "53", "93", "76", "51", "19", "42", "4", "32", "77", "20", "85", "23", "34", "70", "98", "59", "3", "74", "90", "87", "75", "63", "1", "No Label", "8", "11", "15", "48", "57", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "11", "15", "48", "57", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 477/2010/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 19 May 2010\nrepealing Council Decision 79/542/EEC drawing up a list of third countries or parts of third countries, and laying down animal and public health and veterinary certification conditions, for importation into the Community of certain live animals and their fresh meat\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) and Article 168(4)(b) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries (3) provided for a list to be drawn up of the countries or parts thereof from which Member States are to authorise the importation of certain live animals and fresh meat of certain animals.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Council Decision 79/542/EEC of 21 December 1976 drawing up a list of third countries or parts of third countries, and laying down animal and public health and veterinary certification conditions, for importation into the Community of certain live animals and their fresh meat (4) was adopted. That Decision establishes the sanitary conditions for the importation into the Union of live animals excluding equidae, and for the importation of fresh meat of such animals, including equidae, but excluding meat preparations. Annexes I and II to that Decision also set out lists of third countries or parts thereof from which certain live animals and their fresh meat may be imported into the Union as well as models of veterinary certificates.\n(3)\nSince the date of adoption of that Decision, a number of new animal health and public health requirements have been laid down in other Community acts, including Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (5) and Council Directive 2004/68/EC of 26 April 2004 laying down animal health rules for the importation into and transit through the Community of certain live ungulate animals (6), as well as Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (7), Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (8), Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (9), and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (10).\n(4)\nThose Community acts constitute a new regulatory framework in this area and Directive 72/462/EEC has also been repealed by Directive 2004/68/EC.\n(5)\nArticle 20 of Directive 2004/68/EC provides that implementing rules established in accordance with decisions adopted for the import of live animals, meat and meat products pursuant to Directive 72/462/EEC, inter alia Decision 79/542/EEC, are to remain in force until replaced by measures adopted under the new regulatory framework.\n(6)\nIn addition, Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 repealing certain Directives concerning food hygiene and health conditions for the production and placing on the market of certain products of animal origin intended for human consumption (11) provides that pending the adoption of the necessary provisions on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 or Directive 2002/99/EC, the implementing rules adopted on the basis of Directive 72/462/EEC are to continue to apply.\n(7)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 of 12 March 2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements (12) contains veterinary certification requirements and other provisions which take account of the new regulatory framework and replace those laid down in Decision 79/542/EEC. As from the date of entry into force of that Regulation, Decision 79/542/EEC will therefore have lapsed and will no longer apply.\n(8)\nFor the sake of clarity and transparency of Union legislation, Decision 79/542/EEC should be explicitly repealed with effect from that date,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 79/542/EEC shall be repealed with effect from 9 April 2010.\nReferences to the repealed Decision shall be construed as references to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 19 May 2010.", "references": ["27", "66", "9", "10", "78", "99", "98", "32", "85", "83", "72", "12", "88", "68", "49", "55", "76", "56", "24", "4", "31", "93", "54", "79", "62", "3", "57", "16", "13", "50", "No Label", "21", "22", "65", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "65", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 543/2012\nof 25 June 2012\nimplementing Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 of 1 August 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 August 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 753/2011.\n(2)\nOn 18 May 2012, the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 30 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1988 (2011) amended the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["52", "24", "48", "37", "12", "15", "84", "36", "43", "32", "72", "1", "99", "25", "31", "61", "92", "17", "78", "44", "76", "10", "63", "9", "35", "0", "90", "68", "87", "23", "No Label", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 446/2011\nof 10 May 2011\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 13 August 2010, the European Commission (the Commission) announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (Notice of initiation), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of certain fatty alcohols and their blends (the product investigated) originating in India, Indonesia, and Malaysia (the countries concerned).\n(2)\nThe anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 30 June 2010 by two Union producers, Cognis GmbH and Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH (the complainants). Both these companies are incorporated under German law, with production sites in Germany, France and Italy. These two companies represent a major proportion, in this case more than 25 % of total Union production of the product investigated. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product originating in the countries concerned and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainants, other known Union producers, importers/traders and users known to be concerned, the known exporting producers and representatives of the exporting countries concerned of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the Notice of initiation.\n(4)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(5)\nIn view of the large number of importers identified from the complaint, sampling was envisaged for importers in the Notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation. Four importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample within the deadline set in the Notice of initiation. Given this low number of importers who made themselves known, it was decided not to apply sampling.\n(6)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to exporting producers, Union producers, importers and to all users and suppliers known to be concerned as well as to all other parties who requested so within the deadlines set out in the Notice of initiation.\n(7)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from 5 Union producers, 2 importers, 21 users in the Union, 2 exporting producer in India, 2 exporting producers in Indonesia and their related traders, and 3 exporting producers in Malaysia and their related traders.\n(8)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a preliminary determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nproducers in the Union:\n-\nCognis GmbH, Germany,\n-\nCognis France S.A.S., France,\n-\nSasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH, Germany;\n(b)\nimporters in the Union:\n-\nOleo solutions Ltd, United Kingdom;\n(c)\nusers in the Union:\n-\nHenkel AG & Co., Germany,\n-\nPCC Rokita SA, Poland,\n-\nProcter & Gamble International Operations SA, Switzerland,\n-\nUnilever, Netherlands,\n-\nZshimmer & Schwarz italiana SpA, Italy;\n(d)\nexporting producers in India:\n-\nGodrej Industries Limited, Mumbai and Taluka Valia,\n-\nVVF Limited, Mumbai;\n(e)\nexporting producers in Indonesia:\n-\nP.T. Ecogreen Oleochemicals and its related companies, Batam, Singapore, Dessau,\n-\nP.T. Musim Mas and its related companies, Medan, Singapore, Hamburg;\n(f)\nexporting producers in Malaysia:\n-\nFatty Chemical Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. and its related companies, Prai, Emmerich,\n-\nKL-Kepong Oleomas Sdn. Bhd. and its related company, Petaling Jaya, Hamburg,\n-\nEmery Oleochemicals Sdn. Bhd., Telok Panglima Garang.\n1.3. Investigation period\n(9)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 (\u2018the investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the investigation period (period considered).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(10)\nThe product concerned is saturated fatty alcohols with a carbon chain length of C8, C10, C12, C14, C16 or C18 (not including branched isomers) including single saturated fatty alcohols (also referred to as \u2018single cuts\u2019) and blends predominantly containing a combination of carbon chain lengths C6-C8, C6-C10, C8-C10, C10-C12 (commonly categorised as C8-C10), blends predominantly containing a combination of carbon chain lengths C12-C14, C12-C16, C12-C18, C14-C16 (commonly categorised as C12-C14) and blends predominantly containing a combination of carbon chain lengths C16-C18, originating in India, Indonesia, and Malaysia (the product concerned), currently falling within CN codes ex 2905 16 85, 2905 17 00, ex 2905 19 00 and ex 3823 70 00.\n(11)\nThe product investigated is an intermediary product produced from natural (oleo-chemical) or synthetic (petrochemical) sources, such as natural fats and oils, crude oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids and coal. It is mainly used as an input material for the production of fatty alcohol sulphates, fatty alcohol ethoxylates and fatty alcohol ether sulphates (so-called surfactants). Surfactants are used to produce detergents, household, cleaning and personal care products.\n2.2. Like product\n(12)\nThe product exported to the Union from India, Indonesia and Malaysia, and the product produced and sold domestically in these countries and also the one manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers were found to have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same uses. They are therefore provisionally considered as alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(13)\nDuring the course of the investigation, certain parties claimed that one of the complainants produced, in one of its production sites, a product which includes branched isomer molecules, not covered by the product scope definition, and that therefore such production should not be considered as falling within the like product. It is provisionally determined that this claim is warranted, and therefore the data pertaining to this producer have not been used in the injury analysis. It should be noted that two other companies, one of them cooperating in the investigation, were excluded from the definition of the Union industry for the same reason.\n3. DUMPING\n3.1. India\n3.1.1. Normal Value\n(14)\nFor the determination of normal value, it was first established for each exporting producer whether its total volume of domestic sales of the like product to independent customers was representative in comparison with its total volume of export sales to the Union. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation domestic sales are considered to be representative when the total domestic sales volume is at least 5 % of the total volume of sales of the product concerned to the Union. It was found that the overall sales by each exporting producer of the like product on the domestic market were representative.\n(15)\nFor each product type sold by an exporting producer on its domestic market and found to be directly comparable with the product type sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total volume of that product type sold by the exporting producer concerned on the domestic market to independent customers during the IP represented at least 5 % of its total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Union.\n(16)\nIt was also examined whether the domestic sales of each product type could be regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of domestic sales to independent customers on the domestic market which were profitable for each exported type of the product concerned during the IP.\n(17)\nFor those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market of the product type were above cost and the weighted average sales price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not.\n(18)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during the IP.\n3.1.2. Export price\n(19)\nBoth exporting producers in India exported the product concerned directly to independent customers in the Union. Export prices were therefore established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable by these independent customers for the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n3.1.3. Comparison\n(20)\nThe normal value and the export price of the exporting producers were compared on an ex-works basis.\n(21)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments for differences in indirect taxes, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs, and commissions have been made where applicable and justified.\n(22)\nBoth exporting producers claimed that their sales made to one of the complainants in the Union during the IP should be ignored when calculating the dumping margin since these sales were made in significant quantities and at strongly negotiated prices. However, there is no legal reason why such exports of the product concerned should be ignored when calculating dumping. The claims by both exporting producers are therefore rejected.\n(23)\nBoth exporting producers claimed an adjustment for currency conversion arguing that there was a sustained appreciation of the Indian Rupee (INR) against the Euro (EUR) as from November 2009 which would have a distorting effect on the dumping calculations. The claim related to sales made in EUR from January 2010 onwards and consisted of a request that, for the purposes of converting the value of those sales into INR, the exchange rate of the month in which the sales were made be substituted by the exchange rate of 2 months earlier. Article 2(10)(j) indeed provides for an adjustment for currency conversions under certain circumstances. However, it is noted that the appreciation of the INR only occurred during the second half of the IP. Furthermore, it is noted that both Indian companies frequently increased their prices to their main customers in the Union during that period following a fairly regular pattern, and that the prices made in the Union by the complainants were also steadily increasing during the second half of the IP. There is therefore no clear evidence that the appreciation of the INR was not timely reflected in the prices charged by the Indian exporting producers to their customers in the EU or had an undue penalising effect in the dumping calculations. The claims by both companies were therefore rejected.\n3.1.4. Dumping margin\n(24)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margins for the cooperating Indian exporting producers were established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price.\n(25)\nBased on information available from the complaint and the cooperating Indian exporting producers, and considering the statistical information available, there are no other producers of the product concerned in India. Therefore, the country-wide dumping margin to be established for India was set at the same level as the highest margin found for a cooperating exporting producer.\n(26)\nOn this basis, the provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:\nCompany\nProvisional dumping margin\nGodrej Industries Limited\n9,3 %\nVVF Limited\n4,8 %\nAll other companies\n9,3 %\n3.2. Indonesia\n3.2.1. Normal value\n(27)\nFor the determination of normal value, it was first established for each exporting producer whether its total volume of domestic sales of the like product to independent customers was representative in comparison with its total volume of export sales to the Union. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation domestic sales are considered to be representative when the total domestic sales volume is at least 5 % of the total volume of sales of the product concerned to the Union. It was found that the overall sales by each exporting producer of the like product on the domestic market were representative.\n(28)\nFor each product type sold by an exporting producer on its domestic market and found to be directly comparable with the product type sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total volume of that product type sold by the exporting producer concerned on the domestic market to independent customers during the IP represented at least 5 % of its total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Union.\n(29)\nIt was also examined whether the domestic sales of each product type could be regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of domestic sales to independent customers on the domestic market which were profitable for each exported type of the product concerned during the IP.\n(30)\nFor those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market of the product type were above cost and the weighted average sales price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not.\n(31)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during the IP.\n(32)\nWherever there were no domestic sales of a particular product type by an exporting producer, the normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(33)\nWhen constructing normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits have been based, pursuant to Article 2(6) chapeau of the basic Regulation, on the actual data pertaining to the production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer.\n3.2.2. Export price\n(34)\nThe exporting producers made export sales to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related trading companies located in Singapore and in the Union.\n(35)\nWhere export sales to the Union were made either directly to independent customers in the Union or through related trading companies located in Singapore, export prices were established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n(36)\nWhere export sales to the Union were made through related trading companies located in the Union, export prices were established on the basis of the first resale prices of these related traders to independent customers in the Union, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.\n3.2.3. Comparison\n(37)\nThe normal value and the export price of the exporting producers were compared on an ex-works basis.\n(38)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments for differences in indirect taxes, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs, and commissions have been made where applicable and justified.\n(39)\nOne company claimed an adjustment for differences in physical characteristics on the basis that it exports the product investigated in both liquid and solid form to the EU whilst it only sells it in solid form on the domestic market and that the prices for the liquid form are lower than those for the solid form of the product investigated. However, the company did not provide a quantification of such adjustment. A simple comparison of export prices of solid and liquid forms of the product investigated cannot constitute a basis for granting an adjustment for differences in physical characteristics. Moreover, the accounting system of the company does not allow for a proper segregation of the cost differences between the solid and liquid product. Therefore, there was no reliable way to calculate a potential adjustment and the claim had to be rejected.\n(40)\nThe complainants submitted a claim that the cost of energy in Indonesia is distorted due to very cheap and subsidised energy prices. However, they have not submitted any substantiated information on how such distortion of the cost of energy used for domestic and export production would affect the dumping calculations. The claim was therefore rejected.\n3.2.4. Dumping margin\n(41)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margins for the cooperating Indonesian exporting producers were established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price.\n(42)\nBased on information available from the complaint and the cooperating Indonesian exporting producers, and considering the statistical information available, there are no other producers of the product concerned in Indonesia. Therefore, the country-wide dumping margin to be established for Indonesia was set at the same level as the highest margin found for a cooperating exporting producer.\n(43)\nOn this basis, the provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:\nCompany\nProvisional dumping margin\nP.T. Ecogreen Oleochemicals\n6,3 %\nP.T. Musim Mas\n7,6 %\nAll other companies\n7,6 %\n3.3. Malaysia\n3.3.1. Normal value\n(44)\nFor the determination of normal value, it was first established for each exporting producer whether its total volume of domestic sales of the like product to independent customers was representative in comparison with its total volume of export sales to the Union. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation domestic sales are considered to be representative when the total domestic sales volume is at least 5 % of the total volume of sales of the product concerned to the Union. For two of the cooperating exporting producers it was found that the overall sales by the exporting producers of the like product on the domestic market were representative. For the remaining cooperating exporting producer no independent domestic sales were found in the IP.\n(45)\nFor each product type sold by an exporting producer on its domestic market and found to be directly comparable with the product type sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total volume of that product type sold by the exporting producer concerned on the domestic market to independent customers during the IP represented at least 5 % of its total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Union.\n(46)\nIt was also examined whether the domestic sales of each product type could be regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of domestic sales to independent customers on the domestic market which were profitable for each exported type of the product concerned during the IP.\n(47)\nFor those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market of the product type were above cost and the weighted average sales price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not.\n(48)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during the IP.\n(49)\nWherever there were no domestic sales of a particular product type by an exporting producer, the normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(50)\nWhen constructing normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits have been based, pursuant to Article 2(6) chapeau of the basic Regulation, on the actual data pertaining to the production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer.\n(51)\nFor the exporting producer with no domestic sales in the IP, the amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits have been based, pursuant to Article 2(6)(a) of the basic Regulation, on the weighted average of the actual amounts determined for the two other exporting producers subject to investigation in respect of production and sales of the like product in the Malaysian market.\n3.3.2. Export price\n(52)\nThe exporting producers made export sales to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related companies located in the Union.\n(53)\nWhere export sales to the Union were made directly to independent customers in the Union, export prices were established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n(54)\nWhere export sales to the Union were made through related companies located in the Union, export prices were established on the basis of the first resale prices of these related companies to independent customers in the Union, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.\n3.3.3. Comparison\n(55)\nThe normal value and the export price of the exporting producers were compared on an ex-works basis.\n(56)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments for, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, and credit costs have been made where applicable and justified.\n(57)\nOne Malaysian exporting producer claimed that its related company in the Union is, in fact, the export department of the manufacturer. On this basis, the company claimed that there would be excessive deductions in establishing the ex-works price if full adjustments for selling, general and administration costs and profits, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, were made. In this regard, it was found that invoices were issued by the related company to customers in the Union and that payments were received by the related company from customers in the Union. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the sales made by the related company included a mark-up. Also, the financial accounts of the trader showed that it bore normal selling, general and administrative costs incurred between importation and resale. It would therefore appear that the related company indeed performs the typical functions of an importer. On this basis, the company\u2019s claim was rejected.\n(58)\nThe complainants submitted in respect of Malaysia the same claim concerning energy costs mentioned at recital (40) for Indonesia. This claim also was rejected for the same reasons.\n3.3.4. Dumping margin\n(59)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margins for the cooperating Malaysian exporting producers were established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price.\n(60)\nBased on information available from the complaint and the cooperating Malaysian exporting producers, and considering the statistical information available, there are no other producers of the product concerned in Malaysia. Therefore, the country-wide dumping margin to be established for Malaysia was set at the same level as the highest margin found for a cooperating exporting producer.\n(61)\nOn this basis, the provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:\nCompany\nProvisional dumping margin\nFatty Chemical Malaysia Sdn. Bhd\n13,8 %\nKL-Kepong Oleomas Sdn. Bhd.\n5,0 %\nEmery Oleochemicals Sdn. Bhd\n5,3 %\nAll other companies\n13,8 %\n4. INJURY\n4.1. Definition of the Union industry and Union production\n(62)\nDuring the IP, the like product was manufactured by two known and some other very small producers in the Union. All available information concerning Union producers, including information provided in the complaint and data collected from Union producers before and after the initiation of the investigation, was used in order to establish the total Union production. On this basis, the total Union production was estimated to be between 400 000 and 500 000 tonnes during the IP. The Union producers accounting for the total Union production constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(63)\nSome interested parties claimed that one of the complainants should not be considered part of the Union industry, because this company imported the product concerned during the IP. It was however verified that the percentage of product imported by this company from the countries concerned during the IP was relatively low, and thus not substantial in comparison with its production of the like product. Furthermore, these imports were mainly of a temporary nature. It can therefore be confirmed that the core activity of this company is production and sales of the product investigated in the EU and its main interest is that of a Union producer. In consequence, it is provisionally determined that this claim is not warranted.\n4.2. Union consumption\n(64)\nConsumption was established on the basis of the total sales on the Union market of the Union industry, the captive use, and the total imports (derived from Eurostat). Since the Eurostat data include also some products other than the product concerned, appropriate adjustments were made. The information is given in index numbers (2007 = 100) to preserve confidentiality.\nUnion consumption\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\ntonnes\n100\n102\n97\n102\nAnnual \u0394%\n2,2 %\n-4,8 %\n4,6 %\nSource: Eurostat, complaint data and questionnaire replies.\n(65)\nDuring the period considered, Union consumption increased slightly by 2 %. First, from 2007 to 2008, consumption increased by 2,2 %, followed by a decrease from 2008 to 2009 by 4,8 %. From 2009 to the end of the IP, consumption recovered by 4,6 %.\n(66)\nThe economic downturn has contributed to the decrease in consumption from 2008, during which users of the product concerned experienced a drop in demand for their products. At the start of the IP, the market situation started to improve slightly, resulting in an increase in demand for the product concerned compared to the first half of 2009.\n4.3. Imports into the Union from the countries concerned\n4.3.1. Cumulation\n(67)\nThe Commission considered whether the effects of dumped imports from the countries concerned should be assessed cumulatively, on the basis of the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation. This Article provides that the effects of imports from two or more countries simultaneously subject to anti-dumping investigations shall be assessed cumulatively only if it is determined that (a) the margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than de minimis as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation and that the volume of imports of each country is not negligible and (b) a cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports is appropriate in the light of the conditions of competition between imported products and the conditions of competition between the imported products and the like Community product.\n(68)\nThe margins of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country concerned are more than de minimis as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation, i.e. 2 % of the export prices, and the volume of imports from each country concerned is above the threshold of 1 % market share set by Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation.\n(69)\nThe investigation further showed that the conditions of competition both between the dumped imports and between the dumped imports and the like product were similar. It was found that average import prices from all countries concerned dropped over the period considered, and followed the same trend. Furthermore, the product investigated imported from the countries concerned was alike in all respects, it is interchangeable and is marketed in the Union through comparable sales channels and under similar commercial conditions, thus competing with each other and with the product investigated produced in the Union.\n(70)\nOn this basis, it is provisionally concluded that all conditions of cumulation are met and that accordingly the effects of the dumped imports originating in the countries concerned should be assessed jointly for the purpose of the injury analysis.\n4.3.2. Volume, price and market share of dumped imports from the countries concerned\nImports from the countries concerned\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\ntonnes\n112 523\n177 286\n165 386\n176 279\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n158\n147\n157\nAnnual \u0394%\n57,6 %\n-6,7 %\n6,6 %\nMarket share\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n154\n151\n154\nAnnual \u0394%\n54,2 %\n-2,0 %\n1,9 %\nAverage price in EUR/tonnes\n942\n1 017\n837\n882\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n108\n89\n94\nAnnual \u0394%\n8 %\n-18 %\n5 %\nSource: Eurostat and Questionnaire replies.\n(71)\nThe volume of imports from the countries concerned increased significantly by 57 % during the period considered. The biggest increase took place between 2007 and 2008 when imports increased by 58 %. Imports then decreased slightly in 2009 to increase again to the 2008 level during the IP.\n(72)\nAverage prices of imports from the countries concerned fluctuated heavily during the period considered, reflecting an overall 6 % decrease. Throughout the period considered, average prices of the imports from the countries concerned were always lower than those set by the rest of the world and by the Union Industry, thus resulting in an increase in the market share of the countries concerned.\n(73)\nThe market share of the countries concerned increased significantly, by 54 %, during the period considered. The biggest increase took place between 2007 and 2008. There was a slight decrease of imports during the economic crisis, which reduced the market share of the countries concerned by 2 %, between 2008 and 2009, but then they recovered again this market share by the end of the period considered.\n4.3.2.1. Price undercutting\n(74)\nFor the purposes of analysing price undercutting, the weighted average sales prices per product type of the Union industry to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports from the countries concerned to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a CIF basis, with appropriate adjustments for the existing customs duties and post-importation costs. This price comparison was made for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and discounts. The results of the comparison, when expressed as a percentage of the Union industry\u2019s sales prices during the investigation period, showed significant price undercutting margins (up to 16 %). These price undercutting margins indicate price pressure exerted by the imports from the countries concerned on the Union market.\n(75)\nPer country concerned the undercutting margins were as follows:\nCountry\nUndercutting margin\nIndia\nfrom - 0,5 to 16 %\nIndonesia\nfrom - 12,1 to - 3,2 %\nMalaysia\nfrom - 10,4 to 15,1 %\n4.4. Economic situation of the Union industry (3)\n4.4.1. Preliminary remarks\n(76)\nIn accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators for an assessment of the state of the Union industry from 2007 to the end of the IP.\n4.4.2. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\nProduction Union industry\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n90\n77\n83\nCapacity Union industry\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n109\n103\n98\nCapacity Utilisation\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n83\n75\n85\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(77)\nFrom 2007 to 2009, Union production decreased significantly by 23 % to improve slightly between 2009 and the end of the IP, resulting in an overall decrease of 17 % over the period considered. It should be noted that although Union consumption reduced by around 5 % between 2008 and 2009, the production of the Union industry fell much more, by 15 %, and that it failed to benefit from the recovery of the Union consumption experienced in the IP.\n(78)\nThe production capacity of the Union industry decreased by around 2 % over the period considered. After increasing around 9 % in 2008, capacity was downsized in the following years, to result in an overall 2 % reduction over the period considered.\n(79)\nHowever, in line with the decreasing production volumes, the utilisation of the available capacity decreased by 15 % over the period considered. The main decrease occurred in 2009, during the general economic crisis, and improved slightly during the IP.\n4.4.3. Sales and market share\n(80)\nThe sales figures in the table below relate to the sales volume and value to the first unrelated customer on the Union market.\nSales volume to unrelated in EU\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n85\n79\n82\nAnnual \u0394%\n-15,4 %\n-6,5 %\n4,3 %\nSales in value to unrelated in the EU, (EUR)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n102\n85\n88\nAnnual \u0394%\n1,6 %\n-16,6 %\n3,9 %\nMarket share Union industry\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n88\n87\n88\nSource: Eurostat and Questionnaire replies.\n(81)\nSales volumes and market share declined between 2007 and the IP, by 18 % and 12 % respectively. At the beginning of the period considered, from 2007 to 2008, despite an increase in Union consumption, the sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 15 % and they lost 12 % of market share. In 2009, Union consumption contracted, resulting in a further loss in sales volume of 6,5 % for the Union industry. In the IP, in line with the increased Union consumption, Union sales increased slightly. Market share however, remained stable from 2008 to the end of the IP.\n4.4.4. Average unit prices of the Union industry\nUnit price, sales in EU to unrelated\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n120\n107\n107\nAnnual \u0394%\n20,1 %\n-10,8 %\n-0,4 %\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(82)\nPrices increased significantly from 2007 to 2008, by 20 %. It has to be noted that the exporting producers also raised their prices during this period, although by much less than the Union industry.\n(83)\nIn 2009 the Union industry had to reduce prices, in order to respond to the pressure of the increased imports from the countries concerned. In 2008 imports from these countries had grown by 57 % and their prices were significantly lower than the Union industry\u2019s. However, the Union industry was not able to reduce its prices to the same level as the exporting producers.\n(84)\nDuring the IP, the Union industry kept the 2009 price level, resulting in an overall price increase during the period considered of 7 %.\n4.4.5. Stocks\n(85)\nStock levels of the Union industry decreased by 33 % during the period considered. In particular between 2008 and the IP stock levels decreased significantly by 51 %.\nClosing stocks Union industry\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n128\n86\n67\nAnnual \u0394%\n27,7 %\n-33,0 %\n-21,1 %\nStock in relation to production\n5,0 %\n7,1 %\n5,6 %\n4,1 %\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n4.4.6. Employment, wages and productivity\nEmployment Union industry\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nTotal employees product concerned (with silent producers)\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n97\n91\n87\nAvg. Wages per employee (EUR)\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n102\n101\n106\nProductivity (unit/employee)\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n93\n85\n96\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(86)\nDue to the downsizing activities of the Union industry, the number of employees was reduced accordingly during the period considered, by 13 %. Labour costs per employee increased slightly over the period considered, by 6 %. This is considered a natural increase and is less than the inflation rate over the period considered.\n4.4.7. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investment and ability to raise capital\nProfitability EU sales to unrelated\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\n% net loss/turnover\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n76\n408\n236\nNegative Cash flow Union industry (EUR)\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n- 249\n1 178\n439\nCash Flow in % of EU Sales to unrelated\n-1,3 %\n3,7 %\n-24,5 %\n-7,9 %\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n- 285\n1 899\n609\nInvestments Union industry (EUR)\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n56\n68\n65\nAnnual \u0394%\n-43,8 %\n20,6 %\n-4,2 %\nNegative Return on investment Union industry\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n136\n510\n320\nSource: Questionnaire replies\n(87)\nProfitability of the Union industry was established by expressing the pre-tax net profit (in this case loss) of the sales of the like product as a percentage of the turnover of these sales. It was established that the profitability of the Union industry has been negative since the beginning of the period concerned in 2007 and during the period considered the losses increased significantly. After a reduction in losses in 2008, they increased again significantly in 2009, at the time of the general economic crisis. The economic recovery felt during the IP, however, allowed the Union industry to reduce its losses with respect to turnover, but it remained still far away from returning to positive profit levels.\n(88)\nThe trend shown by the cash flow, which is the ability of the industry to self-finance its activities, reflects to a large extent the trend of profitability. The cash flow was negative in 2007 and shows a substantial decrease during the period considered. The same comments can be made about the return on investments, which showed a similar negative development in line with the negative results achieved by the Union industry over the period considered.\n(89)\nFollowing the above, the ability of the Union industry to invest became limited as the cash flow significantly deteriorated during the period considered. As a consequence, the investments dropped by about 35 % during the period considered.\n4.4.8. Growth\n(90)\nThe Union consumption remained fairly stable during the period considered. Sales volume and market share of the Union industry however, decreased during this period with 18 % and 12 % respectively.\n4.4.9. Magnitude of the actual dumping margin\n(91)\nGiven the volume, market share and prices of the dumped imports from the countries concerned, the impact on the Union industry of the actual dumping margins cannot be considered negligible.\n4.5. Conclusion on injury\n(92)\nThe investigation has shown that most of the injury indicators such as production (- 17 %), capacity utilisation (- 13 %), sales volume (- 18 %), market share (- 12 %) and employment (- 14 %) deteriorated during the period considered. In addition, the injury indicators related to the financial performance of the Union industry such as cash flow and profitability were seriously affected. This means that the ability of the Union industry to raise capital was undermined, in particular during the IP.\n(93)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it was concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\n5. CAUSALITY\n5.1. Introduction\n(94)\nIn accordance with Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the dumped imports of the product concerned originating in the countries concerned caused injury to the Union industry to a degree that enables it to be classified as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time be injuring the Union industry, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n5.2. Effect of the dumped imports\n(95)\nThe investigation showed that the Union consumption remained fairly stable during the period considered, whereas the dumped imports from the countries concerned significantly increased in volume, i.e. by 57 %.\n(96)\nThe dumped imports from the countries concerned exerted pressure on the Union industry, particularly in the year 2008, when these imports grew by 58 %. In this year, prices from countries concerned, as derived from Eurostat, were much lower than the Union industry\u2019s. This resulted in a loss of market share of the Union industry of around 12 %, whilst the countries concerned increased their market share by 54 %.\n(97)\nIn order to respond to this pressure, the Union industry reduced its prices in 2009. Although volume imports from the countries concerned decreased in volume (- 6,7 %), in line with the economic downturn and the contraction in the EU market, the import price decreased more than the Union industry\u2019s price, and this prevented the Union industry from regaining its lost market share.\n(98)\nDuring the IP, the Union industry had to further reduce its prices whereby undercutting from the countries concerned, based on verified exporting figures, was still 3 %. Union industry\u2019s sales in volume (+ 4,3 %) and value (+ 3,9 %) recovered slightly, but, even though the price difference with respect to the import price of the countries concerned reduced, the Union industry was unable to benefit from the recovery of consumption, and its market share remained unchanged. In the meantime, imports from the countries concerned experienced a further increase in volume (6,6 %) and market share (2 %) during the IP.\n5.3. Effect of other factors\n(99)\nThe other factors which were examined in the context of causality are the imports from other countries, export performance of the Union industry and the effect of the economic crisis.\n5.3.1. Imports from other countries (Rest of the World - RW)\nVolume of imports RW (Eurostat)\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\ntonnes\n32 874\n31 446\n38 295\n30 495\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n96\n116\n93\nAnnual \u0394%\n-4,3 %\n21,8 %\n-20,4 %\nMarket share RW\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n94\n120\n91\nAnnual \u0394%\n-6,4 %\n27,9 %\n-23,9 %\nAverage price in EUR/tonnes RW (Eurostat)\n1 217\n1 358\n1 129\n1 122\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n112\n93\n92\nAnnual \u0394%\n12 %\n-17 %\n-1 %\nSource: Eurostat.\n(100)\nBased on Eurostat data, the volume of imports into the Union of the product investigated originating in third countries not concerned by this investigation decreased by 7 % over the period considered. The corresponding market share of these countries decreased also by 9 %.\n(101)\nThe average prices of these imports were above those of the exporting producers in the countries concerned and above those of the Union industry.\n(102)\nOn the basis of the above, it was provisionally concluded that the imports from these third countries did not contribute to the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n5.3.2. Export performance of the Union industry\nSales volume to unrelated export\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n38\n52\n45\nAnnual \u0394%\n-62,4 %\n38,0 %\n-14,0 %\nSales in value to unrelated export\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n78\n74\n76\nAnnual \u0394%\n-21,6 %\n-5,9 %\n3,5 %\nUnit price, export sales to unrelated\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndex: 2007 = 100\n100\n208\n142\n171\nAnnual \u0394%\n108,4 %\n-31,9 %\n20,3 %\n(103)\nDuring the period considered, the volume of export sales of the Union industry decreased by 55 %. The impact of this decrease was however partly compensated by the fact that the average unit selling price increased by 71 % over the same period, limiting the decrease in export sales value to 24 %. This in combination with the fact that the export sales accounted for only 5 % of its total sales during the IP have lead to the provisional conclusion that the export performance is not a factor that breaks the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union Industry and the imports from the countries concerned.\n5.3.3. The impact of the economic crisis\n(104)\nThe Economic crisis contributed to the contraction in consumption in the Union and to the price pressure. The reduced level of demand for the product investigated resulted in the decrease in production by the Union industry and contributed to part of the depression of sales prices.\n(105)\nUnder normal economic conditions and in the absence of strong price pressure and increased import levels from the dumped imports, the Union industry might have had some difficulty in coping with the decrease in consumption and the increase in fixed costs per unit due to decreased capacity utilisation it experienced between 2007 and the IP. The dumped imports however have intensified the effect of the economic downturn and have made it impossible to sell above cost price.\n(106)\nBased on the above, it appears that the decrease in Union demand linked to the economic crisis contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry. It is considered however that this does not break the causal link established in relation to the low-priced dumped imports from the countries concerned.\n5.4. Conclusion on causation\n(107)\nThe above analysis demonstrated that there was a substantial increase in the volume and market share of the low-priced dumped imports originating in the countries concerned over the period considered. In addition, it was found that these imports were made at dumped prices, which were below the prices charged by the Union industry on the Union market for similar product types.\n(108)\nThis increase in volume and market share of the low-priced dumped imports from the countries concerned coincided with an overall and continuous decrease of consumption in the Union, during the period considered, but also with the negative development in the market share of the Union industry during the same period. Furthermore, starting from 2008, with the overall economic slowdown and Union consumption decrease, the exporters from the countries concerned managed to maintain their market share, by reducing prices, still undercutting Union price. At the same time, a further negative development in the market share of the Union industry and in the main indicators of its economic situation was observed. Indeed, over the period considered the surge in the low-priced dumped imports from India, Indonesia and Malaysia, which were constantly undercutting the prices of the Union industry, led to a drop in the Union industry\u2019s profitability, resulting in heavy losses in the IP.\n(109)\nThe examination of the other known factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry revealed that these factors do not appear to be such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the countries concerned and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(110)\nBased on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports, it was provisionally concluded that the dumped imports from India, Indonesia and Malaysia have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\n6. UNION INTEREST\n6.1. Preliminary remark\n(111)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether, despite the provisional conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed for concluding that it was not in the Union interest to adopt provisional anti-dumping measures in this particular case. The analysis of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and users of the product concerned.\n6.2. Union industry\n(112)\nThe Union industry has suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports from India, Indonesia and Malaysia. It is recalled that the majority of the injury indicators showed a negative trend during the period considered. In particular, injury indicators related to the financial performance of the Union industry, such as cash flow, return on investments and profitability were seriously affected. In the absence of measures, a further deterioration in the Union industry\u2019s economic situation appears very likely.\n(113)\nIt is expected that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties will restore effective trade conditions on the Union market, allowing the Union industry to align the prices of the product investigated to reflect the costs of the various components and the market conditions. It can be expected that the imposition of provisional measures would enable the Union industry to regain at least part of the market share lost during the period considered, with a further positive impact on its financial situation and profitability.\n(114)\nIt was therefore concluded that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of the product investigated originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia would be in the interest of the Union industry.\n6.3. Importers\n(115)\nQuestionnaires were sent to 21 importers in the Union. Only two importers cooperated in the investigation, both located in the United Kingdom, representing, together, 0,3 % of the total imports from the countries concerned, during the IP. Only the bigger of the two importers was visited. On spot, however, this importer refused to give access to his accounts and relevant information couldn\u2019t, therefore, be verified. However, it was clear that, although imposition of anti-dumping measures would mean higher costs for this company, it wouldn\u2019t mean for it very serious problems for its activity, even with the same customers or, if necessary, in changing its area of business.\n(116)\nBased on the information available, it was concluded that although the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures would negatively impact the above-mentioned importer, this should be in a position to pass at least part of the cost increase to its customers and/or shift to other sources of supply. Therefore, the imposition of provisional measures should not have a significant negative impact on the importers.\n6.4. Users\n(117)\nUsers of the product investigated have shown a strong interest in this case. Out of the 97 users contacted, 21 cooperated in the investigation. These cooperating users represented around 25 % of the imports in the Union of the product concerned, during the IP. These companies are located throughout the Union and are present in sectors regarding personal care, home and industrial detergent products.\n(118)\nOf the 21 companies, 5 were visited, representing 18 % of total EU imports of the product investigated from the countries concerned for the investigation period. On the basis of the verified information, it appears that the share of the product investigated in these companies\u2019 cost of production structures is significant, ranging between 10 % and 20 %, depending on the final product.\n(119)\nFor three of the five visited companies, about 15 % of total employees work in sectors using the product concerned, in one company the percentage is around 70 %, while for the other it was not possible to have this piece of information, because of the complex company structure and variety of products.\n(120)\nFor the investigation period, the average share of business using the product investigated of total business, for the companies visited was 22 %, while the average profit margin in this business was about 6 %. On this basis and given the relatively low level of proposed measures, it was estimated that the impact of provisional anti-dumping duties on imports from the countries concerned is overall quite limited. Some users have argued that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would create problems of availability of the product investigated in the Union, considering that there are only two big Union producers and that demand for the product investigated is increasing more and more. However, it should be noted that the relatively low level of proposed measures should not preclude the possibility to import the product investigated from the countries concerned. Furthermore, the two Union producers did not produce at full capacity during the period considered. In addition, imports are also always possible from other third countries, which are not subject to measures. Therefore, this claim was rejected.\n(121)\nTaken the above into consideration, even if most of the users are likely to be negatively impacted by the measures on imports from the countries concerned, the overall impact appears to be limited. Therefore, it was provisionally concluded that, on the basis of the information available, the effect of the anti-dumping measures against imports of the product investigated from the countries concerned will not have a significant negative impact on the users of the product concerned.\n6.5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(122)\nIn view of the above, it was provisionally concluded that overall, based on the information available concerning the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of provisional measures on imports of the product investigated from the countries concerned.\n7. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(123)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.\n7.1. Injury elimination level\n(124)\nFor the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the dumping margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Union industry.\n(125)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the Union.\n(126)\nTherefore, the injury elimination level was calculated on the basis of a comparison of the average price of the dumped imports and the target price of the Union industry. The target price was established by calculating the break even sales price of the Union industry, (since they made losses during the IP) and adding to this sales price a target profit margin. The Union industry claimed that 15 % would be appropriate as target profit margin, but it was unable to substantiate it. Therefore, the target profit margin was provisionally set at 7,7 %, which corresponds to the last profit margin realised by one of the complainants in the last profitable year before the period considered.\n(127)\nThe average underselling margin was set at 24,2 % for India, 9,1 % for Indonesia, and 25,7 % for Malaysia.\n7.2. Provisional measures\n(128)\nIn the light of the foregoing and pursuant to Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that a provisional anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in India, Indonesia, and Malaysia at the level of the lowest of the dumping and injury elimination level found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule. In all but one case the provisional anti-dumping duty rates are based on the dumping margin.\n(129)\nOn the basis of the above, the proposed anti-dumping duty rates, expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, are provisionally as follows:\nCountry\nCompany\nProvisional AD duty %\nIndia\nVVF Limited\n4,8\nAll other companies\n9,3\nIndonesia\nP.T. Ecogreen Oleochemicals\n6,3\nP.T. Musim Mas\n4,3\nAll other companies\n7,6\nMalaysia\nKL-Kepong Oleomas (KLK)\n5,0\nEmery\n5,3\nAll other companies\n13,8\n(130)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the countries concerned and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(131)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting-up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (4) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(132)\nIn order to ensure the proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the residual duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.\n(133)\nIn the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the Notice of initiation may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of saturated fatty alcohols with a carbon chain length of C8, C10, C12, C14, C16 or C18 (not including branched isomers) including single saturated fatty alcohols (also referred to as \u2018single cuts\u2019) and blends predominantly containing a combination of carbon chain lengths C6-C8, C6-C10, C8-C10, C10-C12 (commonly categorised as C8-C10), blends predominantly containing a combination of carbon chain lengths C12-C14, C12-C16, C12-C18, C14-C16 (commonly categorised as C12-C14) and blends predominantly containing a combination of carbon chain lengths C16-C18, currently falling within CN codes ex 2905 16 85, 2905 17 00, ex 2905 19 00 and ex 3823 70 00 (TARIC codes 2905168510, 2905190060, 3823700011 and 3823700091), and originating in India, Indonesia, and Malaysia.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nCountry\nCompany\nProvisional AD duty %\nTARIC Additional Code\nIndia\nVVF Limited, Sion (East), Mumbai\n4,8\nB110\nAll other companies\n9,3\nB999\nIndonesia\nPT. Ecogreen Oleochemicals, Kabil, Batam\n6,3\nB111\nP.T. Musim Mas, Tanjung Mulia, Medan, Sumatera Utara\n4,3\nB112\nAll other companies\n7,6\nB999\nMalaysia\nKL-Kepong Oleomas Sdn Bhd, Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan\n5,0\nB113\nEmery Oleochemicals (M) Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Langat, Selangor\n5,3\nB114\nAll other companies\n13,8\nB999\n3. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nWithout prejudice to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within 1 month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nPursuant to Article 21(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within 1 month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of 6 months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2011.", "references": ["21", "40", "61", "26", "54", "5", "14", "19", "27", "12", "46", "18", "15", "3", "86", "44", "58", "84", "6", "34", "88", "57", "66", "31", "55", "80", "39", "71", "43", "69", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 12 December 2011\nconcerning the accession of the European Union to the Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974, with the exception of Articles 10 and 11 thereof\n(2012/22/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with point (a) of Article 218(6) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974 (\u2018Athens Protocol\u2019) represents a major improvement to the regime relating to the liability of carriers and the compensation of passengers carried by sea. In particular, it provides for a strict liability of the carrier, including compulsory insurance, with a right of direct action against insurers up to specified limits, and for rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments. The Athens Protocol is therefore in accordance with the Union\u2019s objective of improving the legal regime relating to carriers\u2019 liability.\n(2)\nThe Athens Protocol modifies the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974 (\u2018Athens Convention\u2019) and establishes in Article 15 that the two instruments shall, as between the Parties to the Athens Protocol, be read and interpreted together as one single instrument.\n(3)\nThe majority of the rules of the Athens Protocol have been incorporated into Union law by means of Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents (1). Thus, the Union exerted competence as regards the matters governed by that Regulation. Member States, however, retain their competence regarding a number of provisions of the Athens Protocol, such as the opt out clause whereby they are allowed to fix limits of liability higher than those prescribed under the Athens Protocol. The matters of Member State competence under the Athens Protocol and those falling under the exclusive competence of the Union are interdependent. Therefore, in matters of their competence under the Athens Protocol, Member States should act in a coordinated manner, taking into account their duty of sincere cooperation.\n(4)\nThe Athens Protocol is open for ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by States and by Regional Economic Integration Organisations which are constituted by sovereign States that have transferred competence over certain matters governed by the Athens Protocol to those Organisations.\n(5)\nAccording to Article 17(2)(b) and Article 19 of the Athens Protocol, Regional Economic Integration Organisations may conclude the Athens Protocol.\n(6)\nThe Legal Committee of the International Maritime Organization adopted in October 2006 the IMO Reservation and Guidelines for Implementation of the Athens Convention (\u2018IMO Guidelines\u2019) to address certain issues within the Athens Convention, such as, in particular, compensation for terrorism-related damages.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 392/2009 reproduces in its annexes the relevant provisions of the consolidated version of the Athens Convention as amended by the Athens Protocol and the IMO Guidelines.\n(8)\nUnder the terms of Article 19 of the Athens Protocol, a Regional Economic Integration Organisation must declare at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession the extent of its competence in respect of the matters governed by the Athens Protocol.\n(9)\nThe Union should consequently accede to the Athens Protocol and make the reservation contained in the IMO Guidelines. The making of such a reservation should not be interpreted as altering the current division of competence between the Union and the Member States in relation to certification and the controls by State authorities.\n(10)\nCertain provisions under the Athens Protocol concern judicial cooperation in civil matters and therefore fall within the scope of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU. A separate Decision relating to those provisions is to be adopted in parallel to this Decision.\n(11)\nMember States which are to ratify or accede to the Athens Protocol should, if possible, do so simultaneously. Member States should therefore exchange information on the state of their ratification or accession procedures in order to prepare as far as possible the simultaneous deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession. When ratifying or acceding to the Athens Protocol, Member States should make the reservation contained in the IMO Guidelines,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe accession of the European Union to the Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974 (\u2018Athens Protocol\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union as regards matters falling within the Union\u2019s exclusive competence, with the exception of Articles 10 and 11 thereof.\nThe text of the Athens Protocol, with the exception of Articles 10 and 11, is reproduced in the Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person or persons empowered to deposit the instrument of accession of the Union to the Athens Protocol in accordance with Articles 17(2)(c), 17(3) and 19 of that Protocol.\n2. At the time of the deposit of the instrument of accession, the Union shall make the following declaration of competence:\n\u20181.\nArticle 19 of the Athens Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974 provides that Regional Economic Integration Organisations which are constituted by sovereign States that have transferred competence over certain matters governed by that Protocol to them may sign it, on condition that they make the declaration referred to in that Article. The Union has decided to accede to the Athens Protocol and is accordingly making that declaration.\n2.\nThe current Members of the European Union are the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\n3.\nThis declaration is not applicable to the territories of the Member States of the European Union in which the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) does not apply and is without prejudice to such acts or positions as may be adopted under the Protocol by the Member States concerned on behalf of, and in the interests of, those territories.\n4.\nThe Member States of the European Union have conferred exclusive competence to the Union as regards measures adopted on the basis of Article 100 of the TFEU. Such measures have been adopted as regards Articles 1 and 1 bis, Article 2(2), Articles 3 to 16 and Articles 18, 20 and 21 of the Athens Convention as amended by the Athens Protocol and the provisions of the IMO Guidelines, by means of Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents.\n5.\nThe exercise of competence which the Member States have transferred to the European Union pursuant to the TFEU is, by its nature, liable to continuous development. In the framework of the TFEU, the competent institutions may take decisions which determine the extent of the competence of the European Union. The European Union therefore reserves the right to amend this declaration accordingly, without this constituting a prerequisite for the exercise of its competence with regard to matters governed by the Athens Protocol. The European Union will notify the amended declaration to the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization.\u2019.\n3. The person or persons designated under paragraph 1 of this Article shall make the reservation contained in the IMO Guidelines when depositing the instrument of accession of the Union to the Athens Protocol.\nArticle 3\nThe Union shall deposit its instrument of accession to the Athens Protocol by 31 December 2011.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall take the necessary steps to deposit the instruments of ratification of, or accession to, the Athens Protocol within a reasonable time and, if possible, by 31 December 2011.\n2. Member States shall make the reservation contained in the IMO Guidelines when depositing their instruments of ratification of, or accession to, the Athens Protocol.\nDone at Brussels, 12 December 2011.", "references": ["23", "48", "97", "32", "18", "89", "70", "93", "60", "10", "13", "19", "57", "86", "72", "34", "92", "22", "91", "69", "87", "51", "61", "50", "63", "46", "2", "4", "96", "41", "No Label", "3", "9", "11", "53", "54", "56", "99"], "gold": ["3", "9", "11", "53", "54", "56", "99"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/392/CFSP\nof 16 July 2012\non the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 21 March 2011, the Council welcomed the European Union Strategy for Security and Development in the Sahel, underlining that the Union has a longstanding interest in reducing insecurity and improving development in the Sahel region. More recently, the intensification of terrorist actions and the consequences of the conflict in Libya have increased the urgency of protecting Union citizens and interests in the region and preventing the extension of those threats to the Union, while helping to reduce regional security threats.\n(2)\nOn 23 March 2012, the Council approved the Crisis Management Concept for a possible common security and defence policy (CSDP) civilian mission in the Sahel.\n(3)\nOn 1 June 2012, the Prime Minister of Niger addressed to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) an invitation letter with regard to the planned CSDP mission, welcoming the Union\u2019s CSDP deployment with the aim of reinforcing the capacities of the Nigerien Security Forces, in particular to fight terrorism and organised crime in an effective, coherent and coordinated manner.\n(4)\nThe Watch-Keeping Capability should be activated for EUCAP Sahel Niger.\n(5)\nEUCAP Sahel Niger will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMission\nThe Union hereby establishes a European Union CSDP mission in Niger to support the capacity building of the Nigerien security actors to fight terrorism and organised crime (EUCAP Sahel Niger).\nArticle 2\nObjectives\nIn the context of the implementation of the European Union Strategy for Security and Development in the Sahel, EUCAP Sahel Niger shall aim at enabling the Nigerien authorities to implement the security dimension of their own Strategy for Security and Development, as well as at improving regional coordination in tackling common security challenges. In particular, EUCAP SAHEL Niger shall aim at contributing to the development of an integrated, multidisciplinary, coherent, sustainable, and human rights-based approach among the various Nigerien security actors in the fight against terrorism and organised crime.\nArticle 3\nTasks\n1. In order to fulfil the objectives set out in Article 2, EUCAP Sahel Niger shall:\n(a)\nadvise and assist in the implementation of the security dimension of the Nigerien Strategy for Security and Development at national level, complementary to other actors,\n(b)\nsupport the development of comprehensive regional and international coordination in the fight against terrorism and organised crime,\n(c)\nstrengthen the rule of law through the development of the criminal investigation capacities, and in this context develop and implement adequate training programmes,\n(d)\nsupport the development of Nigerien Security Forces\u2019 sustainability,\n(e)\ncontribute to the identification, planning and implementation of projects in the security field.\n2. EUCAP Sahel Niger shall initially focus on the activities mentioned in paragraph 1 which contribute to improving the control of the territory of Niger, including in coordination with the Nigerien Armed Forces.\n3. EUCAP Sahel Niger shall not carry out any executive function.\nArticle 4\nChain of command and structure\n1. EUCAP Sahel Niger shall have a unified chain of command as a crisis management operation.\n2. EUCAP Sahel Niger shall have its Headquarters in Niamey.\n3. EUCAP Sahel Niger shall be structured as follows:\n(a)\nHead of Mission;\n(b)\nPlanning and Operations component, including regional liaison officers;\n(c)\nMission Support component;\n(d)\nReporting, Security, Analytical and Advisory/Public Information elements;\n(e)\nBrussels Support Element.\n4. EUCAP Sahel Niger shall have a Project Cell for identifying and implementing projects. EUCAP Sahel Niger may, as appropriate, coordinate, facilitate and provide advice on projects implemented by Member States and third States under their responsibility, in areas related to EUCAP SAHEL Niger and in support of its objectives.\nArticle 5\nCivilian Operation Commander\n1. The Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) Director shall be the Civilian Operation Commander for EUCAP Sahel Niger.\n2. The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and overall authority of the HR, shall exercise command and control of EUCAP Sahel Niger at the strategic level.\n3. The Civilian Operation Commander shall ensure, with regard to the conduct of operations, the proper and effective implementation of the Council\u2019s decisions as well as the PSC\u2019s decisions, including by issuing instructions at the strategic level as required to the Head of Mission and providing him with advice and technical support.\n4. The Civilian Operation Commander shall report to the Council through the HR.\n5. All seconded staff shall remain under the full command of the national authorities of the seconding State in accordance with national rules, or the Union institution concerned or of the European External Action Service (EEAS). Those authorities shall transfer Operational Control (OPCON) of their personnel, teams and units to the Civilian Operation Commander.\n6. The Civilian Operation Commander shall have overall responsibility for ensuring that the Union\u2019s duty of care is properly discharged.\n7. The Civilian Operation Commander and the Head of Union delegation in Niamey shall consult each other as required.\nArticle 6\nHead of Mission\n1. The Head of Mission shall assume responsibility for, and exercise command and control of, EUCAP Sahel Niger at theatre level and shall be directly responsible to the Civilian Operation Commander.\n2. The Head of Mission shall exercise command and control over personnel, teams and units from contributing States as assigned by the Civilian Operation Commander together with administrative and logistic responsibility including over assets, resources and information placed at the disposal of EUCAP Sahel Niger.\n3. The Head of Mission shall issue instructions to all EUCAP Sahel Niger staff, including the Brussels Support Element and regional liaison officers, for the effective conduct of the EUCAP Sahel Niger in theatre, assuming its coordination and day-to-day management, and following the instructions at the strategic level of the Civilian Operation Commander.\n4. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the implementation of the budget of EUCAP Sahel Niger. For this purpose, the Head of Mission shall sign a contract with the Commission.\n5. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for disciplinary control over the staff. For seconded staff, disciplinary action shall be exercised by the national authority in accordance with national rules, by the Union institution concerned or by the EEAS.\n6. The Head of Mission shall represent EUCAP Sahel Niger in the operations area and shall ensure appropriate visibility of EUCAP Sahel Niger.\n7. The Head of Mission shall coordinate, as appropriate, with other Union actors on the ground. The Head of Mission shall, without prejudice to the chain of command, receive local political guidance from the Head of Union Delegation in Niger.\n8. In the context of the Project Cell, the Head of Mission shall be authorised to seek recourse to financial contributions from the Member States or third States to implement projects identified as supplementing in a consistent manner EUCAP SAHEL Niger\u2019s other actions, if the project is:\n(a)\nprovided for in the Budgetary Impact Statement relating to this Decision; or\n(b)\nincluded in the course of EUCAP SAHEL Niger in the Budgetary Impact Statement at the request of the Head of Mission.\nIn such a case the Head of Mission shall conclude an arrangement with the States concerned, covering in particular the specific procedures for dealing with any complaint from third parties concerning damage caused as a result of acts or omissions by the Head of Mission in the use of the funds provided by the contributing States.\nUnder no circumstances shall the Union or the HR be held liable by contributing States as a result of acts or omissions by the Head of Mission in the use of funds from those States.\nArticle 7\nStaff\n1. EUCAP Sahel Niger shall consist primarily of staff seconded by Member States, Union institutions or the EEAS. Each Member State, Union institution, and the EEAS shall bear the costs related to any of the staff seconded by it, including travel expenses to and from the place of deployment, salaries, medical coverage and allowances other than applicable daily allowances.\n2. The Member State, Union institution, or the EEAS respectively shall be responsible for answering any claims linked to the secondment from or concerning the member of staff seconded, and for bringing any action against that person.\n3. International and local staff shall be recruited on a contractual basis by EUCAP Sahel Niger if the functions required cannot be provided by personnel seconded by Member States. Exceptionally, in duly justified cases, where no qualified applicants from Member States are available, nationals from participating third States may be recruited on a contractual basis, as appropriate.\n4. The conditions of employment and the rights and obligations of international and local staff shall be laid down in contracts between the Head of Mission and the members of staff.\nArticle 8\nStatus of EUCAP Sahel Niger and of its staff\nThe status of EUCAP Sahel Niger and its staff, including where appropriate the privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of EUCAP Sahel Niger, shall be the subject of an agreement concluded pursuant to Article 37 TEU and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 9\nPolitical control and strategic direction\n1. The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and of the HR, political control and strategic direction of EUCAP Sahel Niger. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 TEU. This authorisation shall include the powers to appoint a Head of Mission, upon a proposal of the HR, and to amend the Concept of Operations Plus (CONOPS Plus) and the Operation Plan (OPLAN). The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of the EUCAP Sahel Niger shall remain vested in the Council.\n2. The PSC shall report to the Council at regular intervals.\n3. The PSC shall receive, on a regular basis and as required, reports by the Civilian Operation Commander and the Head of Mission on issues within their areas of responsibility.\nArticle 10\nParticipation of third States\n1. Without prejudice to the decision-making autonomy of the Union and its single institutional framework, third States may be invited to contribute to EUCAP Sahel Niger, provided that they bear the cost of the staff seconded by them, including salaries, all risk insurance cover, daily subsistence allowances and travel expenses to and from Niger, and that they contribute to the running costs of EUCAP Sahel Niger, as appropriate.\n2. Third States contributing to EUCAP Sahel Niger shall have the same rights and obligations in terms of the day-to-day management of EUCAP Sahel Niger as Member States.\n3. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions and to establish a Committee of Contributors.\n4. Detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States shall be covered by agreements concluded in accordance with Article 37 TEU and additional technical arrangements as necessary. Where the Union and a third State conclude or have concluded an agreement establishing a framework for the participation of that third State in Union crisis-management operations, the provisions of that agreement shall apply in the context of EUCAP Sahel Niger.\nArticle 11\nSecurity\n1. The Civilian Operation Commander shall direct the Head of Mission\u2019s planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation by EUCAP Sahel Niger in accordance with Article 5.\n2. The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the security of EUCAP Sahel Niger and for ensuring compliance with minimum security requirements applicable to EUCAP Sahel Niger, in line with the policy of the Union on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V TEU, and its supporting instruments.\n3. The Head of Mission shall be assisted by a Mission Security Officer (MSO), who shall report to the Head of Mission and also maintain a close functional relationship with the EEAS.\n4. The EUCAP Sahel Niger staff shall undergo mandatory security training before taking up their duties, in accordance with the OPLAN. They shall also receive regular in-theatre refresher training organised by the MSO.\n5. The Head of Mission shall ensure the protection of EU classified information in accordance with Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (1).\nArticle 12\nWatch-Keeping Capability\nThe Watch-Keeping Capability shall be activated for EUCAP Sahel Niger.\nArticle 13\nFinancial arrangements\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP Sahel Niger for the first 12 months shall be EUR 8 700 000. The financial reference amount for the subsequent periods shall be decided by the Council.\n2. All expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. Nationals of participating third States and of host and neighbouring countries shall be allowed to tender for contracts. Subject to the Commission\u2019s approval, the Head of Mission may conclude technical arrangements with Member States, participating third States, and other international actors regarding the provision of equipment, services and premises to EUCAP Sahel Niger.\n4. The financial arrangements shall respect the operational requirements of EUCAP Sahel Niger including compatibility of equipment and interoperability of its teams.\n5. The Head of Mission shall report fully to, and be supervised by, the Commission on the activities undertaken in the framework of his/her contract.\n6. The expenditure related to EUCAP Sahel Niger shall be eligible as of the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 14\nConsistency of the Union\u2019s response and coordination\n1. The HR shall ensure the consistency of the implementation of this Decision with the Union\u2019s external action as a whole, including the Union\u2019s development programmes.\n2. Without prejudice to the chain of command, the Head of Mission shall act in close coordination with the Union\u2019s delegation in Niamey to ensure the consistency of Union action in Niger.\n3. The Head of Mission shall coordinate closely with Member States\u2019 Heads of Missions present in Niger.\nArticle 15\nRelease of information\n1. The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States associated with this Decision, as appropriate and in accordance with the needs of EUCAP Sahel Niger, EU classified information up to \u2018CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL\u2019 level generated for the purposes of EUCAP Sahel Niger, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU.\n2. In the event of a specific and immediate operational need, the HR shall also be authorised to release to the host State any EU classified information up to \u2018RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED\u2019 level which are generated for the purposes of EUCAP Sahel Niger, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU. Arrangements between the HR and the competent authorities of the host State shall be drawn up for this purpose.\n3. The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States associated with this Decision any EU non-classified documents connected with the deliberations of the Council relating to EUCAP Sahel Niger and covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (2).\n4. The HR may delegate the powers referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3, as well as the ability to conclude the arrangements referred to in paragraph 2 to persons placed under his/her authority, to the Civilian Operations Commander and/or to the Head of Mission.\nArticle 16\nEntry into force and duration\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply for a period of 24 months.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["92", "33", "11", "59", "5", "47", "82", "4", "49", "79", "58", "89", "62", "19", "27", "45", "74", "55", "31", "98", "10", "7", "41", "0", "3", "85", "40", "50", "12", "90", "No Label", "1", "9", "36", "94"], "gold": ["1", "9", "36", "94"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 765/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 June 2012\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 July 2011, the Dispute Settlement Body (\u2018DSB\u2019) of the World Trade Organisation (\u2018WTO\u2019) adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report as modified by the Appellate Body Report (\u2018the Reports\u2019) in the dispute \u2018European Communities - Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China\u2019 (2).\n(2)\nIn the Reports, it was found, inter alia, that Article 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (3) (\u2018Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation\u2019) was inconsistent with Articles 6.10, 9.2 and 18.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. Article 9(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation provides that individual exporting producers in non-market economy countries which do not receive market economy treatment pursuant to point (c) of Article 2(7) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation will be subject to a countrywide duty rate unless such exporters can demonstrate that they meet the conditions for individual treatment (\u2018IT\u2019) set out in Article 9(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation.\n(3)\nThe Appellate Body found that Article 9(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation establishes a presumption that exporting producers operating in non-market economy countries are not entitled to IT and that in order to qualify for IT, the onus is on them to demonstrate that they satisfy the criteria of the IT test. According to the Appellate Body, no legal basis for such a presumption is provided for in the relevant WTO agreements.\n(4)\nHowever, the Appellate Body clarified that, when determining a single dumping margin and a single anti-dumping duty for a number of exporters, the consistency of that determination with Articles 6.10 and 9.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement will depend on the existence of situations indicating that two or more exporters, albeit legally distinct, are in such a relationship that they should be treated as a single entity. Such situations may include: (i) the existence of corporate and structural links between the exporters, such as common control, shareholding and management; (ii) the existence of corporate and structural links between the State and the exporters, such as common control, shareholding and management; and (iii) control or material influence by the State in respect of pricing and output. In this regard, the terms in the proposed amendments to Article 9(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation reflecting these situations should be read in the light of the Appellate Body\u2019s clarifications without prejudice to terms using the same or a similar wording in other provisions of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation.\n(5)\nOn 18 August 2011, the Union notified the DSB that it intends to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute in a manner that respects its WTO obligations.\n(6)\nFor that purpose, it is necessary to amend the provisions of Article 9(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 9(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 is replaced by the following:\n\u20185. An anti-dumping duty shall be imposed in the appropriate amounts in each case, on a non-discriminatory basis on imports of a product from all sources found to be dumped and causing injury, except for imports from those sources from which undertakings under the terms of this Regulation have been accepted.\nThe Regulation imposing anti-dumping measures shall specify the duty for each supplier or, if that is impracticable, the supplying country concerned. Suppliers which are legally distinct from other suppliers or which are legally distinct from the State may nevertheless be considered as a single entity for the purpose of specifying the duty. For the application of this subparagraph, account may be taken of factors such as the existence of structural or corporate links between the suppliers and the State or between suppliers, control or material influence by the State in respect of pricing and output, or the economic structure of the supplying country.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply to all investigations initiated pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 following the entry into force of this Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 June 2012.", "references": ["59", "32", "13", "86", "43", "95", "20", "36", "24", "63", "18", "7", "14", "3", "83", "56", "28", "80", "84", "0", "58", "49", "37", "70", "57", "53", "69", "75", "91", "27", "No Label", "4", "22", "23", "48"], "gold": ["4", "22", "23", "48"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1066/2011\nof 18 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for roundnose grenadier in EU and international waters of Vb, VI, VII by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2011 and 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 October 2011.", "references": ["11", "20", "87", "70", "23", "53", "42", "74", "25", "48", "63", "24", "18", "88", "95", "52", "6", "12", "35", "86", "55", "65", "81", "45", "84", "94", "43", "29", "9", "92", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1101/2011\nof 31 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["77", "90", "14", "49", "36", "58", "2", "46", "51", "48", "54", "74", "88", "67", "84", "30", "13", "91", "62", "7", "65", "94", "73", "26", "50", "99", "83", "92", "0", "87", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1067/2011\nof 18 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for horse mackerel and associated by-catches in EU waters of IIa, IVa; VI, VIIa-c, VIIe-k, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 October 2011.", "references": ["1", "22", "23", "14", "94", "69", "72", "53", "0", "3", "81", "33", "59", "34", "62", "77", "52", "9", "29", "20", "84", "47", "18", "54", "31", "78", "4", "5", "65", "48", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 66/2011\nof 27 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 28 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 January 2011.", "references": ["24", "13", "22", "49", "78", "83", "9", "28", "14", "65", "96", "17", "75", "29", "39", "41", "23", "27", "48", "3", "50", "57", "46", "6", "80", "56", "84", "59", "71", "62", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/221/CFSP\nof 6 April 2011\namending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1).\n(2)\nOn 30 March 2011, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1975 (\u2018UNSCR 1975 (2011)\u2019) imposing targeted sanctions against additional individuals who meet the criteria set out in Resolution 1572 (2004) and subsequent Resolutions, including those individuals who obstruct peace and reconciliation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, obstruct the work of the United Nations Operation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (UNOCI) and other international actors in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire and commit serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.\n(3)\nIn view of the seriousness of the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, additional restrictive measures should be imposed.\n(4)\nMoreover, the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annexes I and II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP should be amended.\n(5)\nIn addition, it is necessary to clarify certain provisions of Decision 2010/656/CFSP,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/656/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 5, the following paragraphs are inserted:\n\u20183a. With regard to persons and entities listed in Annex II, Member States may allow for exemptions from the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 in respect of funds and economic resources which are necessary for humanitarian purposes after notification in advance to the other Member States and to the Commission.\n3b. Paragraph 1(b) shall not prevent a designated person or entity from making payment due under a contract entered into before the listing of such a person or entity, provided that the relevant Member State has determined that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1(b).\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 5a\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto purchase, broker or assist in the issue of bonds or securities issued or guaranteed after 6 April 2011 by the illegitimate government of Mr Laurent GBAGBO, as well as by persons or entities acting on its behalf or under its authority, or by entities owned or controlled by it. By way of exception, financial institutions shall be authorised to purchase such bonds or securities of corresponding value to bonds and securities already held by them and which are due to mature;\n(b)\nto provide loans, in any form, to the illegitimate government of Mr Laurent GBAGBO, as well as to persons or entities acting on its behalf or under its authority, or by entities that it owns or controls.\nThe purchase, brokering and assistance in the issue of bonds and securities and the provision of loans referred to in points (a) and (b) shall not give rise to any liability of any kind on the part of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies concerned if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe the prohibitions in question.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 9a\nIn order to maximise the impact of the measures set out in this Decision, the Union shall encourage third States to adopt restrictive measures similar to those contained in this Decision.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 10, the following paragraph is added:\n\u20184. The measures referred to in Article 5(2), as far as ports listed in Annex II are concerned, shall be reviewed no later than 1 June 2011.\u2019.\nArticle 2\n1. The persons listed in part A of Annex I to this Decision shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP and shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\n2. The person listed in part B of Annex I to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\n3. The persons listed in Annex II to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 6 April 2011.", "references": ["81", "90", "93", "39", "88", "76", "78", "65", "42", "25", "72", "1", "73", "82", "86", "57", "98", "20", "51", "50", "45", "33", "75", "16", "56", "67", "19", "40", "28", "17", "No Label", "3", "11", "23", "94"], "gold": ["3", "11", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 431/2011\nof 3 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 May 2011.", "references": ["73", "60", "4", "26", "54", "97", "18", "12", "96", "2", "66", "6", "88", "11", "23", "36", "55", "17", "39", "95", "32", "31", "74", "51", "27", "90", "7", "70", "85", "49", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 484/2011\nof 18 May 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [G\u00f6nci kajszibarack (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Hungary\u2019s application to register the name \u2018G\u00f6nci kajszibarack\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 May 2011.", "references": ["73", "75", "18", "53", "63", "23", "52", "37", "47", "78", "88", "36", "48", "57", "51", "40", "1", "39", "17", "0", "12", "93", "14", "22", "67", "30", "62", "81", "6", "98", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 981/2011\nof 30 September 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Jab\u0142ka gr\u00f3jeckie (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Jab\u0142ka gr\u00f3jeckie\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 September 2011.", "references": ["88", "87", "52", "54", "78", "4", "80", "56", "0", "23", "37", "55", "15", "75", "51", "12", "99", "2", "31", "5", "7", "27", "59", "67", "70", "90", "3", "76", "84", "72", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 5 August 2011\napproving the plan for the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in wild animals in Bulgaria\n(notified under document C(2011) 5625)\n(Only the Bulgarian text is authentic)\n(2011/493/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC and Decisions 89/531/EEC and 91/665/EEC and amending Directive 92/46/EEC (1), and in particular paragraph 2 of Part B of Annex XVIII thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2003/85/EC (\u2018the Directive\u2019) introduces Union measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease, including those to be applied in case of confirmation of the presence of foot-and-mouth disease in wild animals.\n(2)\nA case of foot-and-mouth disease in wild boar and a total of 11 outbreaks of that disease in livestock were confirmed in the region of Burgas in Bulgaria between 5 January and 7 April 2011. As a consequence, Bulgaria has taken measures in the framework of the Directive.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 85(4) of the Directive, as soon as the competent authority of Bulgaria had confirmation of the primary case of foot-and-mouth disease in wild animals, it applied the measures provided for in Part A of Annex XVIII to the Directive in order to reduce the spread of disease.\n(4)\nIn addition, Bulgaria drew up a plan for the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in wild animals in the area defined as infected and specified the measures applied on the holdings in that area in accordance with Part B of Annex XVIII to the Directive.\n(5)\nOn 4 April 2011, within 90 days following the confirmation of foot-and-mouth disease in wildlife, Bulgaria submitted a plan for the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in wildlife in parts of the regions of Burgas, Yambol and Haskovo.\n(6)\nFollowing evaluation by the Commission, the plan submitted by Bulgaria complies with the requirements laid down in Part B of Annex XVIII to the Directive and appears to permit the desired objectives to be attained. The plan should therefore be approved.\n(7)\nIn addition, in parts of the regions of Burgas and Yambol the measures provided for in the eradication plan are reinforced by the measures provided for in Commission Decision 2011/44/EU of 19 January 2011 concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Bulgaria (2).\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of the plan for the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in wild animals\nThe plan submitted by Bulgaria to the Commission on 4 April 2011 for the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in wild animals susceptible to that disease in the areas set out in the Annex is approved.\nArticle 2\nCompliance\nBulgaria shall take the necessary measures to comply with this Decision and publish those measures.\nIt shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.\nArticle 3\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria.\nDone at Brussels, 5 August 2011.", "references": ["42", "84", "79", "41", "44", "99", "22", "57", "13", "73", "25", "21", "58", "53", "7", "65", "86", "33", "3", "56", "64", "17", "14", "94", "20", "68", "4", "48", "47", "90", "No Label", "59", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["59", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 18 June 2010\non the use of controlled substances as process agents under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 3847)\n(Only the Dutch, French, German, Italian, Polish and Portuguese texts are authentic)\n(2010/372/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1), and in particular Article 8(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe use of ozone depleting substances as process agents is one of the few remaining emissive uses still allowed under Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009. The emission of ozone depleting substances causes potentially significant damage to the ozone layer. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the emissions resulting from process agent uses of ozone depleting substances remain insignificant.\n(2)\nFurthermore, in view of the responsibilities of the Union under Decision X/14 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 limits the use of controlled substances as process agents to 1 083 metric tonnes per year and limits the emissions from process agent uses to 17 metric tonnes per year.\n(3)\nAn unexpected increase in the use of controlled substances as process agents in recent years has threatened the compliance of the Union with Decision X/14 and has made a stricter management of the uses necessary.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 a list of undertakings for which the use of controlled substances as process agents shall be permitted should be established, laying down maximum quantities that may be used for make-up and emitted for each of the undertakings concerned.\n(5)\nThe list of undertakings and associated quantities of substances should be based upon reports submitted by Member States and adjusted to ensure that the Union stays within the limits laid down in Article 8(4). The allocation of the make-up quota should be based on the average needs in the years 2005 to 2008. The calculation of the individual average demand should not consider years during which the respective undertaking did not use controlled substances as process agent. The thresholds are fixed at 124 % of the individual average in order to accommodate fluctuations of the yearly demand, whilst ensuring that the overall limit for the Union is respected.\n(6)\nIt is appropriate to allow for the transfer of quota between undertakings listed in the Annex to increase the flexibility for undertakings to respond to changing market needs. The quota should, however, cease with the decommissioning of the installation for which it was granted. The undertaking should therefore notify the decommissioning of installations concerned to the Commission and the Member State concerned.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\n1. \u2018Make-up\u2019 means the total quantity of a controlled substance in metric tonnes, whether virgin, recovered or reclaimed, that has not been used in the process cycle before and that is fed newly into the process cycle.\n2. \u2018Emission\u2019 means the total quantity of a controlled substance in metric tonnes released into the atmosphere, water or soil during the process agent use and related storage and handling on the site of the installation.\nArticle 2\nPermitted process agent uses and threshold for emissions and quantities\n1. The Annex to this Decision establishes the list of undertakings for which the use of controlled substance as process agents shall be permitted as of 1 January 2010.\n2. Each undertaking shall only use the substance and the process set out in the Annex.\n3. The quantities, set out in the Annex, that may be used annually as make-up and that may be emitted annually by each undertaking shall not be exceeded. The allocated quota shall loose its validity at the end of the year in which the installation for which the quota was granted is definitely decommissioned.\nArticle 3\nTransfer of allocated quota\nAn undertaking may fully or partially transfer its make-up quota allocated for an existing installation outlined in the Annex, regardless of the substance or use the quantity was allocated for, to another undertaking listed in the Annex. The beneficiary may use the quantity transferred for the substance and use allocated to the beneficiary in the Annex. The transfer shall only take effect after its notification to the Commission and the competent authorities of the Member States concerned and confirmation from the Commission of its receipt.\nArticle 4\nNotification of decommissioning\nIn case of decommissioning of the installations concerned, undertakings listed in the Annex shall, within three month, notify the Commission and the competent authority of the Member State in which the installation was located thereof.\nArticle 5\nDate of application\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2010.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the following undertakings:\nAnwil SA\nUl. Torunska 222\n87-805 Wloclawek\nPOLAND\nArkema France SA\n420 rue d'Estienne D\u2019Orves\n92705 Colombes Cedex\nFRANCE\nBayer Material Science AG\nCAS-PR-CKD, Geb\u00e4ude B669\n41538 Dormhagen\nGERMANY\nCUF Quimicos Industriais SA\nQuinta da Industria Beduidu\n3860-680 Estarreja\nPORTUGAL\nPotasse et Produits Chimiques SA\n95 rue du General de Gaulle\n68802 Thann Cedex\nFRANCE\nPerstorp France SAS\nRue Lavoisier BP 21\n38801 Le Pont de Claix\nFRANCE\nSolvay Solexis SPA\nViale Lombardia 20\n20021 Bollate (MI)\nITALY\nTeijin Twaron BV\nOosterhorn 6\n9936 AD Farmsum\nNETHERLANDS\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2010.", "references": ["40", "11", "16", "41", "90", "65", "94", "22", "70", "84", "89", "82", "9", "99", "26", "12", "76", "24", "32", "45", "96", "38", "67", "86", "51", "31", "88", "64", "68", "57", "No Label", "58", "60"], "gold": ["58", "60"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU, EURATOM) No 1080/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\namending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of those Communities\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 336 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission, submitted following consultations with the Staff Regulations Committee,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Court of Auditors (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 27 of the Treaty on European Union, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (the High Representative) is to be assisted by a European External Action Service (EEAS). This service is to work in cooperation with the diplomatic services of the Member States and is to comprise officials from relevant departments of the General Secretariat of the Council and of the Commission as well as staff seconded from national diplomatic services of the Member States. It is to form part of the Union\u2019s open, efficient and independent European administration, as provided for in Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).\n(2)\nIn view of its specific tasks, the EEAS should be granted autonomy within the framework of the Staff Regulations. Therefore, for the purposes of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (4) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Staff Regulations\u2019, and the \u2018Conditions of Employment of Other Servants\u2019, respectively), the EEAS should be treated as an institution of the Union.\n(3)\nThe High Representative should act as Appointing Authority and Authority to Conclude Contracts for the staff of the EEAS, with the possibility of delegating powers in that capacity to the EEAS. As the Heads of Delegations will have to carry out tasks for the Commission as part of their normal duties, provision should be made for the participation of the Commission in certain decisions concerning those staff members.\n(4)\nOfficials of the Union and temporary agents coming from the diplomatic services of the Member States should have the same rights and obligations and be treated equally, in particular as concerns their eligibility to assume all positions under equivalent conditions. No distinction should be made between temporary agents coming from national diplomatic services and officials of the Union as regards the assignment of duties to perform in all areas of activities and policies implemented by the EEAS.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to clarify that staff of the EEAS who carry out tasks for the Commission as part of their duties should, in accordance with Article 221(2) of the TFEU, follow instructions given by the Commission. Likewise, Commission officials working in Union delegations should follow instructions from the Head of Delegation.\n(6)\nFor the avoidance of doubt, it should be confirmed that officials and temporary staff occupying a post in an organisational entity which is transferred from the General Secretariat of the Council or the Commission to the EEAS pursuant to Council Decision 2010/427/EU of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (5) are deemed to be transferred with the post. This should apply mutatis mutandis to contract and local staff assigned to such an organisational entity. The staff concerned by such transfer will be informed in advance.\n(7)\nOfficials from institutions other than the EEAS who have taken up duties in the EEAS should be able to apply for vacant posts within their institution of origin on an equal footing with internal candidates of that institution.\n(8)\nUntil 30 June 2013, in order to take account of specific situations in a flexible manner (for example a need for future transfers of technical support tasks from the General Secretariat of the Council or from the Commission to the EEAS), a transfer of officials in the interest of the service with their post, that is without prior publication of a vacant post, from the Council or the Commission to the EEAS should also be possible in duly justified exceptional cases.\n(9)\nUntil 30 June 2014, with regard to those officials from the General Secretariat of the Council or from the Commission who have been transferred to the EEAS during the start-up phase, it should be possible to transfer such EEAS officials without their post, in the interest of the service, from the EEAS to the Council or the Commission.\n(10)\nIn order to give effect to Article 27(3) of the Treaty on European Union, which identifies three sources of staff for the EEAS, it should be provided that until 30 June 2013, the EEAS will recruit exclusively officials originating from the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission as well as staff from the diplomatic services of the Member States. During this period, it is necessary to ensure that staff from national diplomatic services and candidates from the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission, as well as internal candidates, can apply for posts in the EEAS on an equal footing. During the same period, it should however be possible, in exceptional cases and after having exhausted the possibilities of recruiting from the three exclusive sources, to recruit from outside those sources technical support staff at Administrator (AD) level necessary for the good functioning of the EEAS, such as specialists in the areas of crisis management, security and IT. From 1 July 2013, access to posts in the EEAS should also be opened to officials from other institutions.\n(11)\nIn addition, with a view to attaining the objective that staff from national diplomatic services should represent at least one third of all EEAS staff at AD level, it is necessary to provide for a temporary derogation until 30 June 2013 from Article 98(1) of the Staff Regulations enabling the High Representative to give priority for certain posts in function group AD in the EEAS to candidates from such national diplomatic services in the case of equivalent qualifications.\n(12)\nIn order to ensure a proper balance amongst the different staff components of the EEAS and in accordance with Decision 2010/427/EU, when the EEAS has reached its full capacity, personnel from the diplomatic services of the Member States appointed as temporary agents should represent at least one third of all EEAS staff at AD level and Union officials should represent at least 60 % of all EEAS staff at AD level. This should include staff coming from the diplomatic services of the Member States who have become permanent officials of the Union in accordance with the provisions of the Staff Regulations.\n(13)\nSelected candidates who are seconded by the national diplomatic services of the Member States should be employed as temporary agents and thus be put on an equal footing with officials. They should be recruited on the basis of an objective and transparent procedure and the implementing provisions to be adopted by the EEAS should guarantee equivalent career prospects within the EEAS for temporary agents and officials.\n(14)\nIn accordance with Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and the first subparagraph of Article 12(1) and Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, recruitment or engagement should be directed to securing for the EEAS the services of officials and temporary staff of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of Member States of the Union. This will apply to the EEAS as a whole and to its various staff components, including temporary staff as referred to in point(e) of Article 2 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. In addition, the staff of the EEAS should comprise an appropriate and meaningful presence of nationals from all the Member States.\n(15)\nThe High Representative will take appropriate measures, as provided for in Article 1d(2) and (3) of the Staff Regulations, to promote equal opportunities for the under-represented gender in certain function groups, more particularly in the AD function group.\n(16)\nIn order to avoid unnecessary restrictions on the employment in the EEAS of staff from national diplomatic services, specific rules on the length of contracts should be adopted, together with a guarantee of reinstatement at the end of their period of service, in accordance with relevant provisions. For this particular category of temporary staff, the rules on secondment and maximum retirement age should be aligned with those applicable to officials.\n(17)\nThose specific rules should also be made applicable, with the agreement of the High Representative and of the national diplomatic service concerned, to temporary agents from national diplomatic services of the Member States who were engaged by the relevant departments of the General Secretariat of the Council or of the Commission, or whose contract was amended, before the establishment of the EEAS but after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.\n(18)\nThe EEAS may, in specific cases, have recourse to a limited number of specialised seconded national experts (SNEs), seconded with a view to their performing specific tasks, in particular tasks relating to crisis management or military functions, over whom the High Representative should have authority. Their secondment should not be counted in the one third of all EEAS staff at AD level which staff from Member States should represent when the EEAS reaches its full capacity.\n(19)\nIn order to ease the administrative burden of the EEAS, the Disciplinary Board established in the Commission should also serve as the Disciplinary Board for the EEAS, until the High Representative decides to establish a Disciplinary Board for the EEAS. The High Representative\u2019s decision should be taken by 31 December 2011 at the latest.\n(20)\nUntil a Staff Committee is set up within the EEAS in accordance with the first indent of Article 9(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations, which should be by 31 December 2011 at the latest, it should be provided that the Staff Committee of the Commission also represents EEAS staff, who will be entitled to vote and stand as candidates in its elections.\n(21)\nAs the specific provisions laid down in Annex X to the Staff Regulations for officials serving in a third country are not applicable during parental or family leave, it proves difficult in practice for officials working in delegations to take such leave. This runs counter to the general objective of better reconciling private and professional life and, in particular, constitutes an obstacle for women who might otherwise be interested in taking up a post in a Union delegation. It is therefore appropriate that the provisions of that Annex should continue to apply, to a limited extent, during parental and family leave.\n(22)\nIn the light of the experience gathered since 2004, there seems to be no justification for maintaining the existing limitation with regard to the application of Annex X to the Staff Regulations to contract staff. This means in particular that contract staff should take part fully in the mobility procedure under Articles 2 and 3 of that Annex. To this end, it is necessary to provide that contract staff engaged in delegations, to whom Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants applies, may be temporarily assigned to the seat of the institution.\n(23)\nAs regards social security for local staff, Article 121 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants refers to the social security contributions under current regulations in the place where the servant is to perform his duties. As social security systems are non-existent or insufficient in certain countries, a statutory basis should be created for the setting-up of an autonomous or complementary system of social security.\n(24)\nTo facilitate matters for staff travelling outside the European Union in the performance of their duties, it should be possible to issue laissez-passer when the interest of the service so requires, and special advisers should be covered by this possibility.\n(25)\nThe terms used in the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants need to be adapted to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(26)\nThis Regulation should enter into force at the earliest possible date, since the amendments to the Staff Regulations and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants constitute a necessary condition for the proper functioning of the EEAS,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities shall be amended as follows:\n1.\nthe title shall be replaced by \u2018Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union\u2019;\n2.\nexcept in Article 66a(1), the words \u2018European Communities\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018European Union\u2019.\nWith the exception of the references to the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community or the European Atomic Energy Community in Articles 68 and 83, the words \u2018Community\u2019 and \u2018Communities\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018Union\u2019 and any necessary grammatical changes shall be made.\nThe words \u2018the three European Communities\u2019 and \u2018one of the three European Communities\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018the European Union\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 64, second paragraph, and in Article 65(3), the words \u2018in the first indent of the second subparagraph of Articles 148(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and 118(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018in Article 16(4) and (5) of the Treaty on European Union\u2019. In Article 13, first paragraph, second sentence, of Annex X, the words \u2018in the first eventuality set out in the second subparagraph of Article 148(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and of Article 118 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018in Article 16(4) and (5) of the Treaty on European Union\u2019.\nIn Article 83a(5), Article 14(2) of Annex XII and Article 22(3) of Annex XIII, the words \u2018in the first indent of Article 205(2) of the EC Treaty\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018in Article 16(4) and (5) of the Treaty on European Union\u2019. In Article 13(3) of Annex VII, the words \u2018in the first indent of the second subparagraph of Article 205(2) of the EC Treaty\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018in Article 16(4) and (5) of the Treaty on European Union\u2019.\nIn Article 45(2) the words \u2018Article 314 of the EC Treaty\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018Article 55 of the Treaty on European Union\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 7(1) of Annex III the words \u2018European Communities Personnel Selection Office\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018European Personnel Selection Office\u2019.\nIn Article 7(3) of Annex VII the words \u2018in Annex IV to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018in Annex II to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\u2019.\nIn Article 40 of Annex VIII the words \u2018Commission of the European Communities\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018European Commission\u2019;\n5.\nthe second subparagraph of Article 6(4) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018The European Parliament and the Council shall decide in accordance with Article 336 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\u2019\nIn Article 9(2) of Annex VIII and in Article 15(2) of Annex XI, the words \u2018Article 283 of the EC Treaty\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018Article 336 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\u2019.\nIn Article 10 of Annex XI the words \u2018the Council shall act in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 283 of the EC Treaty\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018the European Parliament and the Council shall decide in accordance with Article 336 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\u2019;\n6.\nArticle 1b shall be amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following point shall be inserted:\n\u2018(a)\nthe European External Action Service (hereinafter referred to as the EEAS),\u2019;\n(b)\npoints (a) to (d) shall become points (b) to (e);\n7.\nin Article 23, the third paragraph shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018The laissez-passer provided for in the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities shall be issued to heads of unit, to officials in grade AD12 to AD16, to officials serving outside the territory of the European Union and to other officials for whom this is required in the interest of the service.\u2019;\n8.\nin Article 77, the third paragraph shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018However, in the case of officials who have been assisting a person holding an office provided for in the Treaty on European Union or the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the elected President of one of the institutions or organs of the Union or the elected Chairman of one of the political groups in the European Parliament, the entitlement to pensions corresponding to the years of pensionable service acquired while working in that capacity shall be calculated by reference to the final basic salary received during that time if the basic salary received exceeds that taken as reference for the purposes of the second paragraph of this Article.\u2019;\n9.\nTitle VIIIa shall become Title VIIIb. The following Title shall be inserted after Title VIII:\n\u2018TITLE VIIIa\nSPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE EEAS\nArticle 95\n1. The powers conferred by these Staff Regulations on the Appointing Authority shall be exercised by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter referred to as the High Representative) in respect of staff of the EEAS. The High Representative may determine who within the EEAS shall exercise those powers. Article 2(2) shall apply.\n2. In respect of Heads of Delegation, the powers concerning appointments shall be exercised, using a thorough selection procedure based on merit and having regard to gender and geographical balance, on the basis of a list of candidates on which the Commission has agreed within the framework of the powers that the Treaties confer on it. This shall apply mutatis mutandis to transfers in the interest of the service made in exceptional circumstances and for a defined temporary period to a post of Head of Delegation.\n3. In respect of Heads of Delegation, in cases where they have to carry out tasks for the Commission as part of their duties, the Appointing Authority shall initiate administrative inquiries and disciplinary proceedings as referred to in Articles 22 and 86 and Annex IX if the Commission so requests.\nFor the purposes of the application of Article 43 the Commission shall be consulted.\nArticle 96\nNotwithstanding Article 11, a Commission official working in a Union delegation shall take instructions from the Head of Delegation in accordance with the latter\u2019s role as provided for in Article 5 of Council Decision 2010/427/EU of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (6).\nAn EEAS official who has to carry out tasks for the Commission as part of his duties shall take instructions from the Commission with regard to those tasks, in accordance with Article 221(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nThe detailed arrangements for implementing this Article shall be agreed between the Commission and the EEAS.\nArticle 97\nUntil 30 June 2014, with regard to those officials who have been transferred to the EEAS pursuant to Decision 2010/427/EU, by way of derogation from Articles 4 and 29 of these Staff Regulations and under the conditions set out in Article 7(1) thereof, the Appointing Authorities of the institutions concerned may in exceptional cases, acting by common agreement and solely in the interest of the service, after having heard the official concerned, transfer such an EEAS official from the EEAS to a vacant post of the same grade in the General Secretariat of the Council or in the Commission without notifying the staff of the vacant post.\nArticle 98\n1. For the purposes of Article 29(1)(a), when filling a vacant post in the EEAS, the Appointing Authority shall consider the applications of officials of the General Secretariat of the Council, the Commission and the EEAS, of temporary staff to whom Article 2(e) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants applies and of staff from national diplomatic services of the Member States without giving priority to any of those categories. Until 30 June 2013, by way of derogation from Article 29, for recruitment from outside the institution, the EEAS shall recruit exclusively officials from the General Secretariat of the Council and from the Commission as well as staff from the diplomatic services of Member States.\nHowever, in exceptional cases and after having exhausted the possibilities to recruit in accordance with these provisions, the Appointing Authority may decide to recruit from outside the sources listed in the first sentence of the first subparagraph technical support staff at AD level necessary for the good functioning of the EEAS, such as specialists in the areas of crisis management, security and IT.\nAs from 1 July 2013, the Appointing Authority shall also consider the applications of officials from institutions other than those referred to in the first subparagraph without giving priority to any of those categories.\n2. For the purposes of Article 29(1)(a) and without prejudice to Article 97, the Appointing Authority of institutions other than the EEAS shall, when filling a vacant post, consider applications from internal candidates and officials of the EEAS who were officials of the institution concerned until they became officials of the EEAS without giving priority to any of those categories.\nArticle 99\n1. Until the High Representative decides to establish a Disciplinary Board for the EEAS, the Disciplinary Board of the Commission shall also serve as the Disciplinary Board for the EEAS. The High Representative\u2019s decision shall be taken no later than 31 December 2011.\nPending the establishment of the Disciplinary Board for the EEAS, the two additional members referred to in Article 5(2) of Annex IX shall be appointed from amongst EEAS officials. The Appointing Authority and the Staff Committee referred to in Articles 5(5) and 6(4) of Annex IX shall be those of the EEAS.\n2. Until a Staff Committee is set up within the EEAS in accordance with the first indent of Article 9(1)(a), which shall be no later than 31 December 2011, by way of derogation from the provision contained in that indent, the Staff Committee of the Commission shall also represent officials and other servants of the EEAS.\u2019;\n10.\nin Chapter 3 of Annex X, the following Article shall be added:\n\u2018Article 9a\nDuring parental and family leave as provided for in Articles 42a and 42b of the Staff Regulations, Articles 5, 23 and 24 of this Annex shall continue to apply for a cumulative maximum period of six months within each two-year period of assignment to a third country, and Article 15 of this Annex shall continue to apply for a cumulative maximum period of nine months within each two-year period of assignment to a third country.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities shall be amended as follows:\n1.\nthe title shall be replaced by \u2018Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union\u2019;\n2.\nexcept in Article 28a(8), the words \u2018European Communities\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018European Union\u2019 and the words \u2018Community\u2019 and \u2018Communities\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018Union\u2019 and any necessary grammatical changes shall be made;\n3.\nin Article 12(3) and Article 82(5) the words \u2018European Communities Personnel Selection Office\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018European Personnel Selection Office\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 39(1) the words \u2018Article 283 of the EC Treaty\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018Article 336 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 2 shall be amended as follows:\n(a)\nin point (c) the words \u2018the Treaties establishing the Communities or the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities, or the elected President of one of the institutions or organs of the Communities\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018the Treaty on European Union or the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union, or the elected President of one of the institutions or organs of the Union\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following point shall be added:\n\u2018(e)\nstaff seconded from national diplomatic services of the Member States engaged to fill temporarily a permanent post in the EEAS.\u2019;\n6.\nin the first paragraph of Article 3a, the following subparagraph shall be added:\n\u2018Staff engaged for the performance of full-time or part-time duties in Union delegations may be temporarily assigned to the seat of the institution under the mobility procedure set out in Articles 2 and 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.\u2019;\n7.\nin Article 3b, the second paragraph shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Except in the cases referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 3a(1), the use of contract staff for auxiliary tasks is excluded where Article 3a applies.\u2019;\n8.\nArticle 10 shall be amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe four existing paragraphs shall be numbered;\n(b)\nthe last sentence of paragraph 4 shall be deleted;\n(c)\nthe following paragraph shall be added:\n\u20185. Articles 95, 96 and 99 of the Staff Regulations shall apply by analogy to temporary staff. Title VIIIb of the Staff Regulations shall apply by analogy to temporary staff serving in a third country.\u2019;\n9.\nin Article 47, point (a) shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nat the end of the month in which the servant reaches the age of 65 years or, where applicable, at the date fixed in accordance with Article 50c(2); or\u2019;\n10.\nthe following Chapter shall be added to Title II:\n\u2018CHAPTER 10\nSpecial provisions for members of temporary staff referred to in Article 2(e)\nArticle 50b\n1. Staff from national diplomatic services of the Member States who were selected under the procedure laid down in Article 98(1) of the Staff Regulations and who are seconded by their national diplomatic services shall be engaged as temporary staff under Article 2(e).\n2. They may be engaged for a maximum period of four years. Contracts may be renewed for a maximum period of four years. Their engagement should not exceed eight years in total. However, in exceptional circumstances and in the interest of the service, at the end of the eighth year, the contract may be extended for a maximum period of two years. Each Member State shall provide its officials who have become temporary agents in the EEAS with a guarantee of immediate reinstatement at the end of their period of service to the EEAS, in accordance with the applicable provisions of its national law.\n3. The Member States shall support the Union in the enforcement of any liability under Article 22 of the Staff Regulations of EEAS temporary agents referred to in Article 2(e) of these Conditions of Employment.\nArticle 50c\n1. Articles 37, 38 and 39 of the Staff Regulations shall apply by analogy. Secondment shall not extend beyond the term of the contract.\n2. The second subparagraph of Article 52(b) of the Staff Regulations shall apply by analogy.\u2019;\n11.\nthe following paragraph shall be added to Article 80:\n\u20185. Articles 95, 96 and 99 of the Staff Regulations shall apply by analogy.\u2019;\n12.\nArticle 118 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 118\nAnnex X to the Staff Regulations shall apply by analogy to contract staff serving in third countries. However, Article 21 of that Annex shall only apply if the duration of the contract is for a period of not less than one year.\u2019;\n13.\nArticle 121 shall be replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 121\nAs regards social security, the institution shall be responsible for the employer\u2019s share of the social security contributions under current regulations in the place where the servant is to perform his duties, unless the seat agreement provides otherwise. The institution shall set up an autonomous or complementary system of social security for countries where coverage by the local system either does not exist or is insufficient.\u2019;\n14.\nin Article 124, the words \u2018the first and second paragraphs of Article 23\u2019 shall be replaced by \u2018Article 23\u2019.\nArticle 3\n1. Officials and temporary staff occupying a post in an organisational entity which is transferred from the General Secretariat of the Council or the Commission to the European External Action Service (EEAS) pursuant to Decision 2010/427/EU shall be deemed to be transferred to the EEAS from the relevant institutions at the date laid down in Article 7 of that Decision. This shall apply mutatis mutandis to contract and local staff assigned to such an organisational entity, for whom the conditions of the contract shall remain unchanged. The Appointing Authority of the Council or of the Commission, as the case may be, shall inform in advance the staff concerned by such a transfer.\n2. With the agreement of the High Representative and of the national diplomatic service concerned, the contracts of temporary staff from national diplomatic services of the Member States who were engaged, or whose contract was amended, after 30 November 2009 and who occupy a post in an organisational entity which is transferred from the General Secretariat of the Council or the Commission to the EEAS pursuant to Decision 2010/427/EU shall be transformed, without a new selection procedure, into contracts under point(e) of Article 2 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. For the rest, the conditions of the contract shall remain unchanged.\n3. Until 30 June 2013 and by way of derogation from Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, officials and other servants of the General Secretariat of the Council or of the Commission exercising technical support functions for the EEAS may, after having been heard, be transferred to the EEAS by common agreement of the institutions concerned, in full respect of the prerogatives of the budgetary authority. This transfer shall take effect on the date determined in the relevant budgetary Decision providing for the corresponding posts and appropriations in the EEAS.\n4. In accordance with Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and the first subparagraph of Article 12(1), and Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, recruitment or engagement shall be directed to securing for the EEAS the services of officials and temporary staff of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of Member States of the Union. This shall apply to the EEAS as a whole and to its various staff components, including temporary staff referred to in point(e) of Article 2 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. In addition, the staff of the EEAS shall comprise an appropriate and meaningful presence of nationals from all the Member States.\n5. In accordance with Article 1d(2) and (3) of the Staff Regulations, the High Representative shall take appropriate measures to promote equal opportunities for the under-represented gender in certain function groups, more particularly in the AD function group.\n6. In order to guarantee adequate representation of staff from national diplomatic services in the EEAS, the High Representative shall decide that, by way of derogation from Article 29 and from the first subparagraph of Article 98(1) of the Staff Regulations, priority may be given until 30 June 2013 for certain posts in the AD function group in the EEAS to candidates from national diplomatic services of the Member States in the case of equivalent qualifications.\nArticle 4\nBy mid-2013, the High Representative shall submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the implementation of this Regulation, with a particular emphasis on gender and geographical balance of staff within the EEAS.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["21", "25", "81", "6", "37", "76", "93", "50", "49", "97", "24", "70", "62", "52", "0", "46", "72", "5", "65", "89", "29", "60", "32", "39", "56", "27", "98", "87", "23", "66", "No Label", "2", "7"], "gold": ["2", "7"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 529/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 June 2012\nrepealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 on administering certain restrictions on imports of certain steel products from the Russian Federation\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Agreement on partnership and cooperation establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Russian Federation, of the other part (2) (\u2018the PCA\u2019), entered into force on 1 December 1997.\n(2)\nArticle 21(1) of the PCA provides that trade in certain steel products is to be governed by Title III of the PCA, with the exception of Article 15 thereof, and by the provisions of an agreement on quantitative arrangements.\n(3)\nOn 26 October 2007, the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation concluded such an Agreement on trade in certain steel products (3) (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(4)\nOn 22 October 2007, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 (4) in order to implement the Agreement.\n(5)\nThe Agreement stipulates that in the event that the Russian Federation accedes to the World Trade Organization before the expiry of the Agreement, the Agreement will be terminated and, as a consequence, the quantitative limits will be abolished as of the date of accession.\n(6)\nOn the date when the Russian Federation accedes to the World Trade Organization, the Regulation to implement the Agreement will no longer be necessary. Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 should therefore be repealed with effect from that date,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1342/2007 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall take effect on the date on which the Russian Federation accedes to the World Trade Organization. In this regard, the Commission shall publish a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union indicating this date.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 June 2012.", "references": ["8", "24", "36", "40", "53", "1", "52", "25", "44", "79", "88", "66", "51", "50", "34", "77", "82", "30", "13", "78", "28", "81", "64", "73", "60", "87", "90", "20", "94", "54", "No Label", "9", "22", "23", "84", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["9", "22", "23", "84", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 821/2012\nof 12 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in EU waters of VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2012.", "references": ["46", "5", "98", "20", "72", "49", "76", "52", "24", "51", "17", "27", "44", "84", "99", "47", "25", "70", "28", "22", "34", "36", "95", "73", "42", "7", "9", "61", "63", "35", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 14 February 2012\non excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)\n(notified under document C(2012) 726)\n(Only the Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2012/89/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving consulted the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999, and Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the Commission is to carry out the necessary verifications, communicate to the Member States the results of these verifications, take note of the comments of the Member States, initiate a bilateral discussion so that an agreement may be reached with the Member States in question, and formally communicate its conclusions to them.\n(2)\nThe Member States have had an opportunity to request the launch of a conciliation procedure. That opportunity has been used in some cases and the reports issued on the outcome have been examined by the Commission.\n(3)\nUnder Regulations (EC) No 1258/1999 and (EC) No 1290/2005, only agricultural expenditure which has been incurred in a way that has not infringed European Union rules may be financed.\n(4)\nIn the light of the verifications carried out, the outcome of the bilateral discussions and the conciliation procedures, part of the expenditure declared by the Member States does not fulfil this requirement and cannot, therefore, be financed under the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the EAGF and the EAFRD.\n(5)\nThe amounts that are not recognised as being chargeable to the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the EAGF and the EAFRD should be indicated. Those amounts do not relate to expenditure incurred more than 24 months before the Commission\u2019s written notification of the results of the verifications to the Member States.\n(6)\nAs regards the cases covered by this decision, the assessment of the amounts to be excluded on grounds of non-compliance with European Union rules was notified by the Commission to the Member States in a summary report on the subject.\n(7)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to any financial conclusions that the Commission may draw from the judgments of the Court of Justice in cases pending on 31 October 2011 and relating to its content,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe expenditure itemised in the Annex hereto that has been incurred by the Member States\u2019 accredited paying agencies and declared under the EAGGF Guarantee Section, under the EAGF or under the EAFRD shall be excluded from European Union financing because it does not comply with European Union rules.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 14 February 2012.", "references": ["26", "39", "42", "59", "89", "33", "94", "83", "72", "64", "75", "36", "90", "35", "34", "31", "20", "28", "9", "86", "95", "13", "22", "99", "17", "79", "38", "48", "7", "52", "No Label", "4", "8", "10", "61", "96"], "gold": ["4", "8", "10", "61", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1274/2011\nof 7 December 2011\nconcerning a coordinated multiannual control programme of the Union for 2012, 2013 and 2014 to ensure compliance with maximum residue levels of pesticides and to assess the consumer exposure to pesticide residues in and on food of plant and animal origin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), in particular Articles 28 and 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 1213/2008 (2) a first coordinated multiannual Community programme, covering the years 2009, 2010 and 2011, was established. That programme continued under consecutive Commission Regulations. The latest one was Commission Regulation (EU) No 915/2010 of 12 October 2010 concerning a coordinated multiannual control programme of the Union for 2011, 2012 and 2013 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of and to assess the consumer exposure to pesticide residues in and on food of plant and animal origin (3).\n(2)\nThirty to forty foodstuffs constitute the major components of the diet in the Union. Since pesticide uses show significant changes over a period of three years, pesticides should be monitored in those foodstuffs over a series of three-year cycles to allow consumer exposure and the application of Union legislation to be assessed.\n(3)\nOn the basis of a binomial probability distribution, it can be calculated that examination of 642 samples allows, with a certainty of more than 99 %, the detection of a sample containing pesticide residues above the limit of determination (LOD), provided that not less than 1 % of the products contain residues above that limit. Collection of these samples should be apportioned among Member States according to population numbers, with a minimum of 12 samples per product and per year.\n(4)\nAnalytical results from the 2009 EU official control programme (4) have shown that certain pesticides are more commonly present on agricultural products than previously, indicating changes in the use pattern of those pesticides. Those pesticides should be included in the control programme in addition to those which were covered under Regulation (EU) No 915/2010 in order to make sure that the range of pesticides covered by the control programme is representative of the pesticides used.\n(5)\nThe analysis of certain pesticides, in particular those added to the control programme by this Regulation or those with very difficult residue definition, should be optional in 2012 in order to allow time, for official laboratories to validate the methods required for the analysis of those pesticides, in case they have not yet done so.\n(6)\nWhere the residue definition of a pesticide includes other active substances, metabolites or breakdown products, those metabolites should be reported separately.\n(7)\nGuidance concerning \u2018Method Validation and Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis in food and feed\u2019 is published on the Commission website (5). Member States should be allowed, under certain conditions, to use qualitative screening methods.\n(8)\nImplementing measures, such as the Standard Sample Description (SSD) (6) for submitting results of pesticide residues analysis, relating to the submission of information by Member States have been agreed by Member States, Commission and EFSA\n(9)\nFor the sampling procedures Commission Directive 2002/63/EC of 11 July 2002 establishing Community methods of sampling for the official control of pesticide residues in and on products of plant and animal origin and repealing Directive 79/700/EEC (7) which incorporates the sampling methods and procedures recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission should apply.\n(10)\nIt is necessary to assess whether maximum residue levels for baby food provided for in Article 10 of Commission Directive 2006/141/EC of 22 December 2006 on infant formulae and follow-on formulae (8) and Article 7 of Commission Directive 2006/125/EC of 5 December 2006 on processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children (9) are respected, taking into account only the residue definitions as they are set out in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(11)\nIt is also necessary to assess possible aggregate, cumulative and synergistic effects of pesticides when methodology becomes available. This assessment should start with some organophosphates, carbamates, triazoles and pyrethroides, as set out in Annex I.\n(12)\nAs regards single residue methods Member States may be able to meet their obligations of analysis by having recourse to official laboratories already having the validated methods required.\n(13)\nMember States should submit by 31 August of each year the information concerning the previous calendar year.\n(14)\nIn order to avoid any confusion due to an overlap between consecutive multiannual programmes, Regulation (EU) No 915/2010 should be repealed in the interest of legal certainty. It should, however, continue to apply to samples tested in 2011.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nMember States shall, during the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 take and analyse samples for the pesticide/product combinations, as set out in Annex I.\nThe number of samples of each product shall be as set out in Annex II.\nArticle 2\n1. The lot to be sampled shall be chosen randomly.\nThe sampling procedure, including the number of units, shall comply with Directive 2002/63/EC.\n2. Samples shall be analysed in accordance with the residue definitions set out in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. Where no explicit residue definition is set out in that Regulation for a particular pesticide, the residue definition as set out in Annex I to this Regulation shall apply.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall submit the results of the analysis of samples tested in 2012, 2013 and 2014 by 31 August 2013, 2014 and 2015 respectively. Those results shall be submitted in accordance with the Standard Sample Description (SSD), as set out in Annex III.\n2. Where the residue definition of a pesticide includes active substances, metabolites and/or breakdown or reaction products, Member States shall report the analysis results in accordance with the legal residue definition. The results of each of the main isomers or metabolites mentioned in the residue definition shall be submitted separately, as far as they are measured individually.\nArticle 4\nRegulation (EU) No 915/2010 is repealed.\nHowever, it shall continue to apply to samples tested in 2011.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 December 2011.", "references": ["92", "41", "66", "62", "0", "3", "21", "43", "16", "22", "6", "45", "12", "11", "68", "40", "49", "78", "27", "98", "30", "5", "56", "46", "69", "39", "32", "67", "63", "75", "No Label", "7", "9", "19", "24", "38", "60", "61", "65", "72", "76"], "gold": ["7", "9", "19", "24", "38", "60", "61", "65", "72", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1012/2011\nof 11 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for common sole in VIIIa and VIIIb by vessels flying the flag of Belgium\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 October 2011.", "references": ["79", "27", "47", "14", "93", "78", "64", "35", "63", "68", "17", "48", "84", "92", "1", "36", "40", "70", "52", "80", "62", "18", "94", "74", "45", "66", "39", "7", "6", "87", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 344/2011\nof 8 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (1), and in particular Article 25(3), Article 38(b) and Article 40 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 24 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 lays down that the organic production logo of the European Union (\u2018organic logo of the EU\u2019) is one of the compulsory indications to be used as regards pre-packaged food bearing terms referring to the organic production method as referred to in Article 23(1), while the use of the logo is optional for these products imported from third countries. Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 allows the use of the organic logo of the EU in the labelling, presentation and advertising of other products which satisfy the requirements set out under that Regulation.\n(2)\nConsumers should be assured that organic products have been produced in compliance with the requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 (2). To that end, the traceability of each product carrying the organic logo of the EU at all stages of production, preparation and distribution is an important factor. Therefore, it appears useful that it should be stated more clearly that only operators who have submitted their undertaking to the organic farming control system may use the organic logo of the EU for labelling purposes.\n(3)\nThe registration of the organic logo of the EU as a trademark in the Union and international registers is independent from the rules of Regulations (EC) No 834/2007 and (EC) No 889/2008 which apply to the use of the logo itself. In order to make clear the independence of those rules, the link between those rules and any registration should be removed.\n(4)\nFollowing the change of the organic labelling system and pending the inclusion of specific Union rules on organic wine-making, there remained great uncertainty in the sector regarding the possibility to produce wine referring to organic production. In order to allow wine produced in the wine years 2010/11 and 2011/12 from organic grapes to be sold without the compulsory indications required by Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, provided that the products in question comply with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (3) or Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, it appears necessary to extend the transitional period set out in Article 95(8) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 regarding certain labelling provisions for such products until 31 July 2012. The extension of the transitional period should be applicable from 1 July 2010.\n(5)\nFollowing the assessment of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the use of rosemary extract as a food additive (4), the substance \u2018extracts of rosemary\u2019 was authorised for use as antioxidant and designated as E number in Part D of Annex III to European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (5). As a consequence it is necessary to allow the use of rosemary extract in organic food processing as food additive, if it is used as such, by inclusion of that product in Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 889/2008.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 889/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the regulatory Committee on organic production,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 889/2008 is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 57, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018For the purpose of labelling, the organic logo of the EU shall only be used if the product concerned is produced in accordance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 (6) and of this Regulation, by operators who comply with the requirements of the control system referred to in Articles 27, 28, 29, 32 and 33 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007.\n2.\nin Article 95, the following paragraph 10a is inserted:\n\u201810a As regards wine, the transitional period referred to in paragraph 8 shall expire on 31 July 2012.\nStocks of wines produced, packaged and labelled before 31 July 2012 in accordance with either Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 or Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 may continue to be brought on the market until stocks are exhausted.\u2019;\n3.\nin Section A of Annex VIII, after the food additive E 341(i) (monocalcium-phosphate), the following row is inserted:\n\u2018B\nE 392*\nExtracts of rosemary\nX\nX\nOnly when derived from organic production and if only ethanol is used for the extraction\u2019\n4.\npoint (9) of Part A of Annex XI is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nHowever, point (2) of Article 1 shall apply as from 1 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 April 2011.", "references": ["12", "31", "69", "30", "90", "4", "75", "34", "66", "28", "32", "47", "89", "0", "2", "78", "51", "21", "83", "68", "45", "97", "93", "41", "81", "33", "13", "29", "84", "46", "No Label", "24", "25", "64", "71", "72", "74"], "gold": ["24", "25", "64", "71", "72", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1066/2010\nof 19 November 2010\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 November 2010.", "references": ["96", "41", "52", "87", "5", "29", "43", "88", "99", "39", "3", "61", "55", "83", "53", "19", "30", "12", "64", "23", "60", "28", "44", "74", "47", "54", "89", "81", "25", "77", "No Label", "21", "86"], "gold": ["21", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 430/2010\nof 20 May 2010\namending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1), and in particular Article 247 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) introduced in Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 the obligation to lodge entry or exit summary declarations by electronic means. Commission Regulation (EC) No 273/2009 (3) derogating from certain provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (4) provides for a transitional phase expiring on 31 December 2010 during which economic operators are able, but not obliged, to lodge entry and exit summary declarations by electronic means.\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to make some adjustments to the rules concerning entry and exit summary declarations aiming at reducing administrative burdens in cases where, for the purpose of safety and security, such declarations are not necessary. Furthermore, for the purpose of better risk analysis, household effects as defined in Article 2(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (5) should not be exempted from such declarations if they are carried under a transport contract.\n(3)\nIn certain cases the provision of safety and security data in customs declarations and the requirement of a specific deadline for providing such declarations are not necessary for safety and security purposes so that further waivers should be introduced in this regard; such waivers should, however, not affect the general rules on customs declarations, in whatever form they may be lodged.\n(4)\nIn certain cases where the safety and security related deadlines for export declarations do not apply, such as ship and aircraft supplies, it should be possible for the customs authorities to authorise reliable economic operators to enter the goods exported in their records and to report their export operations on a periodic basis after the goods have left the customs territory of the Community.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1192/2008 (6) amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 introduced common criteria and a common application form for the granting of authorisations for simplified declarations and the local clearance procedure. It should be clarified that these rules apply to all customs procedures. The same Regulation introduced in Article 253a with effect from 1 January 2011 the requirement that the use of simplified declarations or the local clearance procedure will be conditional on the lodging of electronic customs declarations and notifications. Some Member States have informed the Commission that such systems may not be available in all cases by that date. Provided that effective risk analysis is carried out, it should be possible for those Member States, under conditions which they prescribe, to accept customs declarations and notifications in other than electronic form until Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (modernised Customs Code) (7) will apply.\n(6)\nIn cases where goods in temporary storage or in a control type I free zone are re-exported from the customs territory of the Community without an exit summary declaration being required, an alternative means for recording or notifying the re-exportation and the person responsible need to be laid down.\n(7)\nIt should be clarified that the export formalities are not only to be used for Community goods which are to be brought to a destination outside the customs territory of the Community, but also with regard to tax exempt aircraft and ship supplies so that persons delivering such supplies can receive a proof of exit from the customs territory of the Community needed for the purposes of tax exemption. The same rules should apply where non-Community goods are to be re-exported under cover of a re-export declaration.\n(8)\nArticles 278, 279 and 280 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (8) and Article 3 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (9) require the use of the import and export formalities where Community goods are moved to and from territories within the customs territory of the Community in which those Directives do not apply. It is appropriate to refer to those provisions and to exempt such movements from the requirement to provide safety and security related data and to respect the special deadlines for safety and security related controls given that those provisions should apply only for goods brought into and out of the customs territory of the Community. Due to their geographical situation, the special deadlines for safety and security related controls and the provision of safety and security related data are also not necessary in cases where goods are brought to Heligoland, the Republic of San Marino and the Vatican City State.\n(9)\nThe customs office at which the exit summary declaration is to be lodged and the person responsible for lodging such declaration should be specified. This clarification should include situations in which, instead of an exit summary declaration, a transit declaration containing the data of an exit summary declaration is lodged.\n(10)\nIn order to facilitate customs supervision at the customs office of exit, it is necessary to specify the obligations of persons handing over goods to another person before the goods are carried out of the customs territory of the Community and the obligations of persons having to provide information on the exit of goods to the customs office of exit. The same obligations should apply in cases where goods declared for export and presented at the customs office of exit are no longer destined to be brought out of the customs territory of the Community and are removed from the customs office of exit.\n(11)\nBy virtue of Directive 2008/118/EC the use of the Excise Movement Computerised System (EMCS) is mandatory for the movement of excise goods under suspension of excise duty as of 1 January 2011. According to that Directive, the movement of Community goods under suspension of excise duty with a destination outside the customs territory of the Community has to take place under the export procedure for which a computerised system is to be used. The special rules concerning the use of the administrative accompanying document provided for by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2719/92 of 11 September 1992 on the accompanying administrative document for the movement under duty-suspension arrangements of products subject to excise duty (10) should therefore be deleted with effect from 1 January 2011. Export procedures which started under cover of an administrative accompanying document before that date should be terminated in accordance with Article 793c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 as it was applicable on 31 December 2010.\n(12)\nThese amendments should not require any changes to those electronic systems which are or have to be in place when this Regulation becomes applicable.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EEC) No 2454/93 is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 1 the following point 18 is added:\n\u201818.\nExit summary declaration means: The summary declaration, referred to in Article 182c of the Code, which is to be lodged for goods to be brought out of the customs territory of the Community, except where otherwise provided for in this Regulation.\u2019;\n2.\nArticle 181c is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\ngoods for which a customs declaration made by any other act is permitted in accordance with Articles 230, 232 and 233 with the exception of, if carried under a transport contract, household effects as defined in Article 2(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 (11), pallets, containers, and means of road, rail, air, sea and inland waterway transport;\n(b)\npoint (g) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(g)\ngoods for which an oral customs declaration is permitted in accordance with Articles 225, 227 and 229(1) with the exception of, if carried under a transport contract, household effects as defined in Article 2(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, pallets, containers, and means of road, rail, air, sea and inland waterway transport;\u2019;\n(c)\npoint (m) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(m)\nthe following goods brought into the customs territory of the Community directly from drilling or production platforms or wind turbines operated by a person established in the customs territory of the Community:\n(i)\ngoods which were incorporated in such platforms or wind turbines, for the purposes of their construction, repair, maintenance or conversion;\n(ii)\ngoods which were used to fit to or to equip the said platforms or wind turbines;\n(iii)\nother provisions used or consumed on the said platforms or wind turbines; and\n(iv)\nnon-hazardous waste products from the said platforms or wind turbines;\u2019;\n(d)\nthe following point (o) is added:\n\u2018(o)\ngoods brought from territories within the customs territory of the Community where Council Directive 2006/112/EC (12) or Council Directive 2008/118/EC (13) does not apply, and goods brought from Heligoland, the Republic of San Marino and the Vatican City State to the customs territory of the Community.\n3.\nin Article 184d(3) the phrase \u2018Article 181c(c) to (i), (l) to (n)\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Article 181c(c) to (i), (l) to (o)\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 189 the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018However, goods brought into the customs territory of the Community which are unloaded and reloaded onto the same means of transport during its current voyage in order to enable the unloading or loading of other goods, shall not be presented to customs.\u2019;\n5.\nin Article 253a the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018However, in cases where the customs authorities\u2019 or the economic operators\u2019 computerised systems are not in place for the lodgement or receipt of simplified customs declarations or local clearance notifications using a data-processing technique, the customs authorities may accept other forms of declarations and notifications as prescribed by them, provided effective risk analysis is carried out.\u2019;\n6.\nin Article 261, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Authorisation to use the simplified declaration procedure shall be granted to the applicant if the conditions and criteria referred to in Articles 253, 253a, 253b and 253c are fulfilled.\u2019;\n7.\nin Article 264, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Authorisation to use the local clearance procedure shall be granted to the applicant if the conditions and criteria referred to in Articles 253, 253a, 253b and 253c are fulfilled.\u2019;\n8.\nin Article 269, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Authorisation to use the simplified declaration procedure shall be granted to the applicant if the conditions and criteria referred to in Articles 253, 253a, 253b, 253c and 270 are fulfilled.\u2019;\n9.\nin Article 272, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Authorisation to use the local clearance procedure shall be granted to the applicant if the conditions and criteria referred to in paragraph 2 and Articles 253, 253a, 253b, 253c and 274 are fulfilled.\u2019;\n10.\nArticle 279 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 279\nThe export formalities provided for in Articles 786 to 796e may be simplified in accordance with this Chapter.\u2019;\n11.\nin Article 282, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Authorisation to use the simplified declaration procedure shall be granted according to the conditions and in the manner laid down in Articles 253, 253a, 253b, 253c, 261(2) and, mutatis mutandis, Article 262.\u2019;\n12.\nArticle 283 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 283\nAuthorisation to use the local clearance procedure shall be granted according to the conditions and in the manner laid down in Articles 253, 253a, 253b and 253c to any person, hereinafter referred to as an \u201capproved exporter\u201d, wishing to carry out export procedures at his premises or at the other places designated or approved by the customs authorities.\u2019;\n13.\nArticle 284 is deleted;\n14.\nin Article 285a, the following paragraph 1a is added:\n\u20181a. In cases where Article 592a or 592d applies, the customs authorities may authorise an economic operator to enter in his records immediately each export operation and to report all of them to the authorising customs office in a supplementary declaration on a periodic basis of up to one month after the goods have left the customs territory of the Community. Such authorisation may be granted under the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe economic operator uses the authorisation only for goods which are not subject to prohibitions and restrictions;\n(b)\nthe economic operator provides all the information to the customs office of export which this office considers necessary to enable it perform controls on the goods;\n(c)\nin cases where the customs office of export is different from the customs office of exit, the customs authorities shall have agreed to the use of such an arrangement and the information referred to under point (b) is also available to the customs office of exit.\nWhere the arrangement referred to in the first subparagraph is used, entry of the goods in the records shall be deemed to be release for export and exit.\u2019;\n15.\nArticle 592a is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\ngoods for which a customs declaration made by any other act is permitted in accordance with Articles 231, 232(2) and 233 with the exception of, if carried under a transport contract, household effects as defined in Article 2(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, pallets, containers, and means of road, rail, air, sea and inland waterway transport\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (g) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(g)\ngoods for which an oral declaration is permitted in accordance with Articles 226, 227 and 229(2) with the exception of, if carried under a transport contract, household effects as defined in Article 2(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009, pallets, containers, and means of road, rail, air, sea and inland waterway transport\u2019;\n(c)\npoint (l) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(l)\nthe following goods brought out of the customs territory of the Community directly to drilling or production platforms or wind turbines operated by a person established in the customs territory of the Community:\n(i)\ngoods to be used for the construction, repair, maintenance or conversion of such platforms or wind turbines;\n(ii)\ngoods to be fitted to or used to equip the said platforms or wind turbines;\n(iii)\nprovisions to be used or consumed on the said platforms or wind turbines\u2019;\n(d)\nthe following points (n) to (p) are added:\n\u2018(n)\ngoods entitled to relief pursuant to the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations of 18 April 1961, the Vienna Convention on consular relations of 24 April 1963 or other consular conventions, or the New York Convention of 16 December 1969 on special missions;\n(o)\ngoods which are supplied for incorporation as parts of or accessories in vessels and aircraft, motor fuels, lubricants and gas necessary for the operation of the vessels or aircraft, foodstuffs, and other items to be consumed or sold on board;\n(p)\ngoods destined for territories within the customs territory of the Community where Directive 2006/112/EC or Directive 2008/118/EC does not apply, and goods dispatched from these territories to another destination in the customs territory of the Community, as well as goods dispatched from the customs territory of the Community to Heligoland, the Republic of San Marino and the Vatican City State.\u2019;\n16.\nArticle 592b is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1 point (e) is deleted;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Where the customs declaration is not lodged by use of a data processing technique, the time limits laid down in points (a)(iii) and (iv), (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 1 shall be at least four hours.\u2019;\n17.\nin Article 592g the phrase \u2018Article 592a(c) to (m)\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Article 592a(c) to (p)\u2019;\n18.\nin Chapter 2 of Title IV the following Article 786 is inserted:\n\u2018Article 786\n1. The export procedure, within the meaning of Article 161(1) of the Code, shall be used where Community goods are to be brought to a destination outside the customs territory of the Community.\n2. The formalities concerning the export declaration laid down in this Chapter shall also be used in cases:\n(a)\nwhere Community goods are to move to and from territories within the customs territory of the Community where Directive 2006/112/EC or Directive 2008/118/EC does not apply;\n(b)\nwhere Community goods are delivered tax exempt as aircraft and ship supplies, regardless of the destination of the aircraft or ship.\nHowever, in the cases referred to under points (a) and (b), it shall not be necessary to include in the export declaration the particulars for an exit summary declaration set out in Annex 30A.\u2019;\n19.\nin Article 792a(2) the phrase \u2018Article 793a(6)\u2019 is replaced by \u2018point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 793(2)\u2019;\n20.\nin Article 793 the following paragraph 3 is added:\n\u20183. In the cases referred to in point (b) of the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, where goods taken over under a single transport contract arrive at the customs office at the actual point of exit from the customs territory of the Community, the carrier shall, on request, make available to that office one of the following:\n(a)\nthe movement reference number of the export declaration where available; or\n(b)\na copy of the single transport contract or the export declaration for the goods concerned; or\n(c)\nthe unique consignment reference number or the transport document reference number and the number of packages and, if containerised, the equipment identification number; or\n(d)\ninformation concerning the single transport contract or the transport of the goods out of the customs territory of the Community contained in the data processing system of the person taking over the goods or another commercial data processing system.\u2019;\n21.\nin Article 793a paragraph 6 is deleted;\n22.\nArticle 793c is deleted;\n23.\nin Article 796c the second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Such notification shall contain the movement reference number of the export declaration.\u2019;\n24.\nArticle 796d is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Without prejudice to point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 793(2), the customs office of exit shall satisfy itself that the goods presented correspond to those declared and shall supervise the physical exit of the goods from the customs territory of the Community. Any examination of the goods shall be carried out by the customs office of exit using the \u201canticipated export record\u201d message received from the customs office of export as a basis for such examination.\nIn order to allow for customs supervision where goods are unloaded from a means of transport and handed over to another person holding the goods, and loaded to another means of transport that will carry the goods out of the customs territory of the Community following presentation at the customs office of exit, the following provisions shall apply:\n(a)\nAt the latest when handing over the goods the holder shall advise the next holder of the goods of the unique consignment reference number or the transport document reference number, and the number of packages or, if containerised, the equipment identification number, and, if one has been issued, the movement reference number of the export declaration. This advice may be made electronically and/or using commercial, port or transport information systems and processes or, where not available, in any other form. At the latest upon handover of the goods, the person to whom they are handed over shall record the advice provided by the immediately preceding holder of the goods;\n(b)\nA carrier may not load goods for carriage out of the customs territory of the Community unless the information referred to under point (a) has been provided to the carrier;\n(c)\nThe carrier shall notify the exit of the goods to the customs office of exit by providing the information referred to under point (a) unless that information is available to the customs authorities through existing commercial, port or transport systems or processes. Wherever possible this notification shall form part of existing manifest or other transport reporting requirements.\nFor the purposes of the second subparagraph \u201ccarrier\u201d means the person who brings the goods, or who assumes responsibility for the carriage of the goods, out of the customs territory of the Community. However,\n-\nin the case of combined transportation, where the active means of transport leaving the customs territory of the Community is only transporting another means of transport which, after the arrival of the active means of transport at its destination, will move by itself as an active means of transport, carrier means the person who will operate the means of transport which will move by itself once the means of transport leaving the customs territory of the Community has arrived at its destination,\n-\nin the case of maritime or air traffic under a vessel sharing or contracting arrangement, carrier means the person who has concluded a contract, and issued a bill of lading or air waybill, for the actual carriage of the goods out of the customs territory of the Community.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following paragraph 4 is added:\n\u20184. Without prejudice to Article 792a, where goods declared for export are no longer destined to be brought out of the customs territory of the Community, the person who removes the goods from the customs office of exit for carriage to a place within that territory shall provide to the customs office of exit the information referred to under point (a) of the second subparagraph of paragraph 1. This information may be provided in any form.\u2019;\n25.\nin Article 796da(4) point (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\neconomic operators\u2019 records of goods supplied to oil and gas drilling and production platforms or wind turbines.\u2019;\n26.\nin Article 841(1) the phrase \u2018Articles 787 to 796e\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Articles 786(1), (2)(b) and 787 to 796e\u2019;\n27.\nArticle 841a is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 841a\n1. In cases other than those defined in the third sentence of Article 182(3) of the Code, re-exportation shall be notified by an exit summary declaration in accordance with Articles 842a to 842e, except where this requirement is waived in accordance with Article 842a(3) or (4).\n2. Where goods under temporary storage or in a control type I free zone are re-exported and no customs declaration or exit summary declaration is required, re-exportation shall be notified to the customs office competent for the place from where the goods will leave the customs territory of the Community prior to the exit of the goods in the form prescribed by the customs authorities.\nThe person referred to in paragraph 3 shall at its request, be authorised to amend one or more particulars of the notification. Such amendment is no longer possible after the goods mentioned in the notification have left the customs territory of the Community.\n3. The notification referred to under the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 shall be made by the carrier. However, such notification shall be lodged by the holder of the temporary storage facility or the holder of a storage facility in a control type I free zone, or any other person able to present the goods, where the carrier has been informed, and given its consent under a contractual arrangement, that the person referred to in the second sentence of this paragraph lodges the notification. The customs office of exit may assume, except where there is evidence to the contrary, that the carrier has given its consent under a contractual arrangement and that the notification has been lodged with its knowledge.\nThe last subparagraph of Article 796d(1) shall apply with regard to the definition of the carrier.\n4. In cases where, following the notification referred to under the first subparagraph of paragraph 2, the goods are no longer destined to be brought out of the customs territory of the Community, Article 796d(4) shall apply mutatis mutandis.\u2019;\n28.\nArticle 842a is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 842a\n1. Without prejudice to paragraphs 3 and 4, where bringing goods out of the customs territory of the Community does not require a customs declaration, the exit summary declaration shall be lodged at the customs office of exit.\n2. For the purpose of this Chapter, the \u201ccustoms office of exit\u201d shall be:\n(a)\nthe customs office competent for the place from where the goods will leave the customs territory of the Community; or\n(b)\nwhere the goods are to leave the customs territory of the Community by air or sea, the customs office competent for the place where the goods are loaded onto the vessel or aircraft on which they will be brought to a destination outside the customs territory of the Community.\n3. No exit summary declaration is required when an electronic transit declaration contains the exit summary declaration data provided the office of destination is also the customs office of exit or the office of destination is outside the customs territory of the Community.\n4. An exit summary declaration shall not be required in the following cases:\n(a)\nthe exemptions listed in Article 592a;\n(b)\nwhere goods are loaded at a port or airport in the customs territory of the Community for discharge at another Community port or airport, provided that, upon request, evidence in the form of a commercial, port or transport manifest or loading list is made available to the customs office of exit regarding the intended place of unloading. The same applies when the vessel or aircraft that transports the goods is to call at a port or airport outside the customs territory of the Community and those goods are to remain loaded on board the vessel or aircraft during the call at the port or airport outside the customs territory of the Community;\n(c)\nwhere, in a port or airport, the goods are not unloaded from the means of transport which carried them into the customs territory of the Community and which will carry them out of that territory;\n(d)\nwhere the goods were loaded at a previous port or airport in the customs territory of the Community and remain on the means of transport that will carry them out of the customs territory of the Community;\n(e)\nwhere goods in temporary storage or in a control type I free zone are transhipped from the means of transport that brought them to that temporary storage facility or free zone under the supervision of the same customs office onto a vessel, airplane or railway that will carry them from that temporary storage facility or free zone out of customs territory of the Community, provided that:\n(i)\nthe transhipment is undertaken within fourteen calendar days from when the goods were presented for temporary storage or at a control type I free zone; in exceptional circumstances, the customs authorities may extend this period of time in order to deal with those circumstances;\n(ii)\ninformation about the goods is available to the customs authorities; and\n(iii)\nthe destination of the goods and the consignee do not change, to the knowledge of the carrier;\n(f)\nwhere evidence that the goods to be brought out of the customs territory of the Community were already covered by a customs declaration with the exit summary declaration data is made available to the customs office of exit through either the data processing system of the temporary storage holder, the carrier or the port/airport operator, or through another commercial data processing system, provided it has been approved by the customs authorities.\nWithout prejudice to Article 842d(2), in the cases referred to in points (a) to (f), the customs controls shall take into account the special nature of the situation.\n5. The exit summary declaration, where required, shall be lodged by the carrier. However, such declaration shall be lodged by the holder of the temporary storage facility or the holder of a storage facility in a control type I free zone, or any other person able to present the goods, where the carrier has been informed, and given its consent under a contractual arrangement, that the person referred to in the second sentence of this paragraph lodges the declaration. The customs office of exit may assume, except where there is evidence to the contrary, that the carrier has given its consent under a contractual arrangement and that the declaration has been lodged with its knowledge.\nThe last subparagraph of Article 796d(1) shall apply with regard to the definition of the carrier.\n6. In cases where, following the lodgement of an exit summary declaration, the goods are no longer destined to be brought out of the customs territory of the Community, Article 796 d(4) shall apply mutatis mutandis.\u2019;\n29.\nthe second subparagraph of Article 842d(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Where goods covered by one of the exemptions from the requirement for an exit summary declaration laid down in Article 842a(4) are brought out of the customs territory of the Community, risk analysis shall be carried out upon presentation of the goods where required and on the basis of documentation or other information covering the goods.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nPoints 1 to 13 and 15 to 29 of Article 1 shall apply from 1 January 2011. However, where an export operation has started before 1 January 2011 under cover of an administrative accompanying document in accordance with Article 793c(1), the customs office of exit shall apply the measures laid down in Article 793c on and after that date.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 May 2010.", "references": ["62", "73", "67", "20", "99", "90", "13", "98", "69", "58", "35", "9", "66", "60", "92", "53", "61", "12", "27", "30", "29", "70", "76", "78", "16", "72", "96", "31", "97", "52", "No Label", "8", "21"], "gold": ["8", "21"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 488/2012\nof 8 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 658/2007 concerning financial penalties for infringement of certain obligations in connection with marketing authorisations granted under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 84(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (2), and in particular Article 49(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EU) No 1235/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) amended Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as regards pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use in order to strengthen and rationalise the monitoring of the safety of medicines that have been placed on the market in the Union. The provisions of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 are complemented by Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (4) which has been amended by Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) as regards pharmacovigilance. In order to ensure the enforcement of the obligations relating to pharmacovigilance introduced by Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010 and Directive 2010/84/EU, it is necessary to adapt Commission Regulation (EC) No 658/2007 of 14 June 2007 concerning financial penalties for infringement of certain obligations in connection with marketing authorisations granted under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) so that any infringement of those obligations may be subject to the financial penalties provided for in Regulation (EC) No 658/2007.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1901/2006, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1902/2006 (7), provides that the Commission may impose financial penalties for infringement of its provisions or the implementing measures adopted pursuant to it in relation to medicinal products authorised through the procedure laid down in Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. It also empowers the Commission to adopt measures concerning the maximum amounts of those penalties and the conditions and methods for their collection. Since Regulation (EC) No 658/2007 concerns financial penalties for infringement of certain obligations in connection with marketing authorisations granted under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, it is appropriate, for reasons of consistency, to include in the scope of Regulation (EC) No 658/2007 the obligations provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 whose infringement may give rise to financial penalties under that same Regulation.\n(3)\nIn view of the harmonised application of the obligations laid down in connection with marketing authorisations granted under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and of the need to ensure the effectiveness of those obligations, the interests of the Union are involved where those obligations are infringed. Moreover, pharmacovigilance rules are necessary for the protection of public health in order to prevent, detect and assess adverse reactions to medicinal products for human use placed on the Union market, as the full safety profile of medicinal products for human use can be known only after they have been placed on the market.\n(4)\nInfringements in relation to veterinary medicinal products are not concerned by Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 or the amendments as regards pharmacovigilance. The scope of Regulation (EC) No 658/2007 therefore does not need to be modified in this respect. However, in order to ensure consistency with the amended provisions and to improve clarity, it is appropriate to restructure certain provisions concerning veterinary medicinal products without altering the substance.\n(5)\nThe amended provisions shall apply as of the same date as the amendments by Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010 as regards pharmacovigilance.\n(6)\nRegulation (EC) No 658/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and the Standing Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EC) No 658/2007 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nSubject matter and scope\nThis Regulation lays down rules concerning the application of financial penalties to the holders of marketing authorisations, granted under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, in respect of infringements of the following obligations, in cases where the infringement concerned may have significant public health implications in the Union, or where it has a Union dimension by taking place or having its effects in more than one Member State, or where interests of the Union are involved:\n(1)\nthe obligation to submit complete and accurate particulars and documents in an application for marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 submitted to the European Medicines Agency established by that Regulation, (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019), or in response to obligations laid down in that Regulation and Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 to the extent that the infringement concerns a material particular;\n(2)\nthe obligation to comply with conditions or restrictions included in the marketing authorisation and concerning the supply or use of the medicinal product, as referred to in Article 9(4)(b), the second subparagraph of Article 10(1), Article 34(4)(c) and the second subparagraph of Article 35(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(3)\nthe obligation to comply with conditions or restrictions included in the marketing authorisation with regard to the safe and effective use of the medicinal product as referred to in Article 9(4)(aa), (c), (ca), (cb) and (cc), Article 10(1), Article 34(4)(d) and Article 35(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 taking account of any deadlines set in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(4)\nthe obligation to introduce any necessary variation to the terms of the marketing authorisation to take account of technical and scientific progress and enable the medicinal products to be manufactured and checked by means of generally accepted scientific methods, as provided for in Article 16(1) and Article 41(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(5)\nthe obligation to supply any new information which may entail a variation to the terms of the marketing authorisation, to notify any prohibition or restriction imposed by the competent authorities of any country in which the medicinal product is marketed, or to supply any information that may influence the evaluation of the risks and benefits of the product, as provided for in Article 16(2) and Article 41(4) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(6)\nthe obligation to keep product information up to date with current scientific knowledge, including the conclusions of the assessment and recommendations made public on the European medicines web-portal, as provided for in Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(7)\nthe obligation to provide, at the request of the Agency, any data demonstrating that the risk-benefit balance remains favourable, as provided for in Article 16(4) and Article 41(4) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(8)\nthe obligation to place the medicinal product on the market in accordance with the content of the summary of the product characteristics and the labelling and package leaflet as contained in the marketing authorisation;\n(9)\nthe obligation to comply with the conditions referred to in Article 14(7) and (8) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 or to introduce the specific procedures referred to in Article 39(7) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(10)\nthe obligation to notify the Agency of the dates of actual marketing and of the date when the product ceases to be on the market, and to provide to the Agency data relating to the volume of sales and the volume of prescriptions of the product, as provided in Article 13(4) and Article 38(4) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(11)\nthe obligation to operate a comprehensive pharmacovigilance system for the fulfilment of pharmacovigilance tasks, including the operation of a quality system, maintenance of a pharmacovigilance system master file and performance of regular audits, in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 read together with Article 104 of Directive 2001/83/EC;\n(12)\nthe obligation to submit, at the request of the Agency, a copy of the pharmacovigilance system master file, as provided for in Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(13)\nthe obligation to operate a risk management system as provided for in Article 14a and Article 21(2) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 read together with Article 104(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC and Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006;\n(14)\nthe obligation to record and report suspected adverse reactions for medicinal products for human use, in accordance with Article 28(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 read together with Article 107 of Directive 2001/83/EC;\n(15)\nthe obligation to submit periodic safety update reports, in accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 read together with Article 107b of Directive 2001/83/EC;\n(16)\nthe obligation to conduct post-marketing studies, including post-authorisation safety studies and post-authorisation efficacy studies, and to submit them for review, as provided for in Article 10a of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006;\n(17)\nthe obligation to record and report all suspected serious adverse reactions and adverse human reactions to a veterinary medicinal product as well as all suspected serious unexpected adverse reactions and human adverse reactions or suspected transmission of infectious agents, as provided for in Article 49(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(18)\nthe obligation to record in detail all suspected adverse reactions and to submit these records in the form of periodic safety update reports, as provided for in Article 49(3) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(19)\nthe obligation to notify the Agency prior or simultaneously to any communication of information on pharmacovigilance concerns to the general public, as provided for in Article 49(5) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(20)\nthe obligation to collate and assess specific pharmacovigilance data, as provided for in the fourth paragraph of Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(21)\nthe obligation to have permanently and continuously at disposal an appropriately qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance, as provided for in Article 48 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(22)\nthe obligation to detect residues in the case of veterinary medicinal products, as provided for in Article 41(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;\n(23)\nthe obligation to ensure that public announcements relating to information on pharmacovigilance concerns are presented objectively and are not misleading and to notify them to the Agency, as provided for in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 read together with Article 106a(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC;\n(24)\nthe obligation to comply with the time limits for initiating or completing measures specified in the Agency\u2019s decision on deferral following the initial marketing authorisation of the medicinal product concerned and in accordance with the definitive opinion referred to in Article 25(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006;\n(25)\nthe obligation to place the medicinal product on the market within two years of the date on which the paediatric indication is authorised, as provided for in Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006;\n(26)\nthe obligation to transfer the marketing authorisation or to allow a third party to use documentation contained in the marketing authorisation dossier, as provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006;\n(27)\nthe obligation to submit paediatric studies to the Agency, including the obligation to enter information into the European database on third country clinical trials, as provided for in Article 41(1) and (2), Article 45(1) and Article 46(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006;\n(28)\nthe obligation to submit an annual report to the Agency as provided for in Article 34(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 and to inform the Agency in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 35 of that Regulation.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nFor infringements that started before 2 July 2012, this Regulation shall apply to the part of the infringement that takes place after that date.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 2 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 June 2012.", "references": ["16", "57", "80", "63", "49", "9", "30", "66", "58", "98", "46", "67", "48", "14", "0", "89", "33", "1", "10", "91", "41", "85", "5", "72", "35", "75", "11", "59", "54", "97", "No Label", "3", "8", "25", "38"], "gold": ["3", "8", "25", "38"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 961/2010\nof 25 October 2010\non restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 July 2010, the Council approved Decision 2010/413/CFSP confirming the restrictive measures taken since 2007 and providing for additional restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran (\u2018Iran\u2019) in order to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010), as well as for accompanying measures as requested by the European Council in its Declaration of 17 June 2010.\n(2)\nThose restrictive measures comprise, in particular, additional restrictions on trade in dual-use goods and technology, as well as equipment which might be used for internal repression, restrictions on trade in key equipment and technology for, and restrictions on investment in the Iranian oil and gas industry, restrictions on Iranian investment in the uranium mining and nuclear industry, restrictions on transfers of funds to and from Iran, restrictions concerning the Iranian banking sector, restrictions on Iran's access to the insurance and bonds markets of the Union and restrictions on providing certain services to Iranian ships and cargo aircraft.\n(3)\nDecision 2010/413/CFSP also provided for additional categories of persons to be made subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources and for certain other technical amendments to existing measures.\n(4)\nThose restrictive measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, notably with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, legislation at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement them as far as the Union is concerned.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2) enacted the restrictive measures taken by the Union further to Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (3). For the sake of clarity, Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 should be repealed and replaced by this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe revised restrictive measures concerning dual-use goods should cover all goods and technology set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (4), with the exception of certain items in Category 5 thereof. Those Category 5 items which relate to nuclear and missile technology and are currently subject to a prohibition on their transfer to and from Iran should, nevertheless, remain subject to such prohibition. Moreover, a prohibition should also be imposed on the transfer to and from Iran of certain goods and technology which were previously subject to a prior authorisation requirement under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure the effective implementation of the prohibition on the sale, supply, transfer or export to Iran of certain key equipment or technology which could be used in the key sectors of the oil and natural gas industries, a list of such key equipment and technology should be provided.\n(8)\nIn addition, to be effective, restrictions on investment in the Iranian oil and gas sector should cover certain key activities, such as bulk gas transmission services for the purpose of transit or delivery to directly interconnected grids, and, for the same reason, should apply to joint ventures as well as other forms of associations and cooperation with Iran in the sector of the transmission of natural gas.\n(9)\nThe restrictive measures should not affect the import or export of oil or gas to and from Iran, including the fulfilment of payment obligations in connection with such import or export.\n(10)\nEffective restrictions on Iranian investment in the Union require that measures be taken to prohibit natural or legal persons, entities and bodies subject to the jurisdiction of the Member States from enabling or authorising such investment.\n(11)\nIt is prohibited, pursuant to the obligation to freeze the funds and economic resources of Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line (IRISL) and of designated entities owned or controlled by IRISL to load and unload cargoes on and from vessels owned or chartered by IRISL or by such entities in ports of Member States. However, the obligation to freeze the funds and economic resources of IRISL and of designated entities owned or controlled by IRISL does not require the impounding or detention of vessels owned by such entities or the cargoes carried by them insofar as such cargoes belong to third parties, nor does it require the detention of the crew contracted by them.\n(12)\nIt should be clarified that submitting and forwarding the necessary documents to a bank for the purpose of their final transfer to a person, entity or body that is not listed, to trigger payments allowed under Article 18 of this Regulation, does not constitute making funds available within the meaning of Article 16(3) of this Regulation.\n(13)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the right to property and the right to protection of personal data. This Regulation should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(14)\nThis Regulation also fully respects the obligations of Member States under the Charter of the United Nations and the legally binding nature of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions.\n(15)\nThe power to amend the lists in Annexes VII and VIII to this Regulation should be exercised by the Council, in view of the specific threat to international peace and security posed by Iran as manifested by the deepening concern about its nuclear programme underlined by the European Council on 17 June 2010, and to ensure consistency with the process for amending and reviewing Annexes I and II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.\n(16)\nThe procedure for amending the lists in Annexes VII and VIII to this Regulation should include providing designated natural or legal persons, entities or bodies with the grounds for listing, so as to give them an opportunity to submit observations. Where observations are submitted, or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in light of those observations and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n(17)\nFor the implementation of this Regulation, and to create maximum legal certainty within the Union, the names and other relevant data concerning natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources must be frozen in accordance with the Regulation, should be made public. Any processing of personal data of natural persons under this Regulation should respect Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (6).\n(18)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, it should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nDEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018branch\u2019 of a financial or credit institution means a place of business which forms a legally dependent part of a financial or credit institution and which carries out directly all or some of the transactions inherent in the business of financial or credit institutions;\n(b)\n\u2018brokering services\u2019 means:\n(i)\nthe negotiation or arrangement of transactions for the purchase, sale or supply of goods and technology from a third country to any other third country, or\n(ii)\nthe selling or buying of goods and technology that are located in third countries for their transfer to another third country.\n(c)\n\u2018contract or transaction\u2019 means any transaction of whatever form and whatever the applicable law, whether comprising one or more contracts or similar obligations made between the same or different parties; for this purpose \u2018contract\u2019 includes a bond, guarantee or indemnity, particularly a financial guarantee or financial indemnity, and credit, whether legally independent or not, as well as any related provision arising under, or in connection with, the transaction;\n(d)\n\u2018credit institution\u2019 means a credit institution as defined in Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (7), including its branches inside or outside the Union;\n(e)\n\u2018customs territory of the Union\u2019 means the territory as defined in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (8) and in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (9);\n(f)\n\u2018economic resources\u2019 means assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which are not funds, but which may be used to obtain funds, goods or services;\n(g)\n\u2018financial institution\u2019 means\n(i)\nan undertaking, other than a credit institution, which carries out one or more of the operations included in points 2 to 12 and points 14 and 15 of Annex I to Directive 2006/48/EC, including the activities of currency exchange offices (bureaux de change);\n(ii)\nan insurance company duly authorised in accordance with Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (10), insofar as it carries out activities covered by that Directive;\n(iii)\nan investment firm as defined in point 1 of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (11);\n(iv)\na collective investment undertaking marketing its units or shares; or\n(v)\nan insurance intermediary as defined in Article 2(5) of Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation (12), with the exception of intermediaries referred to in Article 2(7) of that Directive, when they act in respect of life insurance and other investment related services;\nincluding its branches inside or outside the Union.\n(h)\n\u2018freezing of economic resources\u2019 means preventing the use of economic resources to obtain funds, goods or services in any way, including, but not limited to, by selling, hiring or mortgaging them;\n(i)\n\u2018freezing of funds\u2019 means preventing any move, transfer, alteration, use of, access to, or dealing with funds in any way that would result in any change in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination or other change that would enable the funds to be used, including portfolio management;\n(j)\n\u2018funds\u2019 means financial assets and benefits of every kind, including, but not limited to:\n(i)\ncash, cheques, claims on money, drafts, money orders and other payment instruments;\n(ii)\ndeposits with financial institutions or other entities, balances on accounts, debts and debt obligations;\n(iii)\npublicly-and privately-traded securities and debt instruments, including stocks and shares, certificates representing securities, bonds, notes, warrants, debentures and derivatives contracts;\n(iv)\ninterest, dividends or other income on or value accruing from or generated by assets;\n(v)\ncredit, right of set-off, guarantees, performance bonds or other financial commitments;\n(vi)\nletters of credit, bills of lading, bills of sale; and\n(vii)\ndocuments showing evidence of an interest in funds or financial resources;\n(k)\n\u2018goods\u2019 includes items, materials and equipment;\n(l)\n\u2018insurance\u2019 means an undertaking or commitment whereby one or more natural or legal persons is or are obliged, in return for a payment, to provide one or more other persons, in the event of materialisation of a risk, with an indemnity or a benefit as determined by the undertaking or commitment;\n(m)\n\u2018Iranian person, entity or body\u2019 means:\n(i)\nthe State of Iran or any public authority thereof;\n(ii)\nany natural person in, or resident in, Iran;\n(iii)\nany legal person, entity or body having its registered office in Iran;\n(iv)\nany legal person, entity or body, inside or outside Iran, owned or controlled directly or indirectly by one or more of the above mentioned persons or bodies;\n(n)\n\u2018reinsurance\u2019 means the activity consisting in accepting risks ceded by an insurance undertaking or by another reinsurance undertaking or, in the case of the association of underwriters known as Lloyd\u2019s, the activity consisting in accepting risks, ceded by any member of Lloyd\u2019s, by an insurance or reinsurance undertaking other than the association of underwriters known as Lloyd\u2019s;\n(o)\n\u2018Sanctions Committee\u2019 means the Committee of the United Nations Security Council which was established pursuant to paragraph 18 of United Nations Security Council Resolution (\u2018UNSCR\u2019) 1737 (2006);\n(p)\n\u2018technical assistance\u2019 means any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance, or any other technical service, and may take forms such as instruction, advice, training, transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services; including verbal forms of assistance;\n(q)\n\u2018territory of the Union\u2019 means the territories of the Member States to which the Treaty is applicable, under the conditions laid down in the Treaty, including their airspace;\n(r)\n\u2018transfer of funds\u2019 means any transaction carried out on behalf of a payer through a payment service provider by electronic means, with a view to making funds available to a payee at a payment service provider, irrespective of whether the payer and the payee are the same person. The terms payer, payee and payment service provider have the same meaning as in Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 on information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds (13);\n(s)\n\u2018claim\u2019 means any claim, whether asserted by legal proceedings or not, made before or after the date of entry into force of this Regulation, under or in connection with a contract or transaction, and includes in particular:\n(i)\na claim for performance of any obligation arising under or in connection with a contract or transaction;\n(ii)\na claim for extension or payment of a bond, financial guarantee or indemnity of whatever form;\n(iii)\na claim for compensation in respect of a contract or transaction;\n(iv)\na counterclaim;\n(v)\na claim for the recognition or enforcement, including by the procedure of exequatur, of a judgment, an arbitration award or an equivalent decision, wherever made or given.\nCHAPTER II\nEXPORT AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS\nArticle 2\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, the goods and technology listed in Annexes I and II, whether or not originating in the Union, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran; or\n(b)\nto sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex III, whether or not originating in the Union, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran;\n(c)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) and (b).\n2. Annex I shall include goods and technology, including software, which are dual-use items or technology as defined in Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items, except for the goods and technology defined in Category 5 of Annex I to that Regulation which are not included in the Nuclear Suppliers Group and Missile Technology Control Regime lists.\n3. Annex II shall include other goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy-water-related activities, to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, or to the pursuit of activities related to other topics about which the IAEA has expressed concerns or has identified as outstanding, including those determined by the UN Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\n4. Annexes I, II and III shall not include goods and technology included in the Common Military List of the European Union (14) (\u2018Common Military List\u2019).\nArticle 3\n1. A prior authorisation shall be required for the sale, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, of the goods and technology listed in Annex IV, whether or not originating in the Union, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran.\n2. For all exports for which an authorisation is required under this Article, such authorisation shall be granted by the competent authorities of the Member State where the exporter is established and shall be in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 428/2009. The authorisation shall be valid throughout the Union.\n3. Annex IV shall include any goods and technology, other than those included in Annexes I and II, which could contribute to enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, or to the pursuit of activities related to other topics about which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has expressed concerns or has identified as outstanding.\n4. Exporters shall supply the competent authorities with all relevant information required for their application for an export authorisation.\n5. The competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex V, shall not grant any authorisation for any sale, supply, transfer or export of the goods or technology included in Annex IV, if they have reasonable grounds to determine that the sale, supply, transfer or export thereof would contribute to one of the following activities:\n(a)\nIran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities;\n(b)\nthe development of nuclear weapon delivery systems by Iran; or\n(c)\nthe pursuit by Iran of activities related to other topics about which the IAEA has expressed concerns or has identified as outstanding.\n6. Under the conditions set out in paragraph 5, the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex V, may annul, suspend, modify or revoke an export authorisation which they have granted.\n7. Where the competent authority of a Member State refuses to grant an authorisation, or annul, suspend, substantially limit or revoke an authorisation in accordance with paragraph 5, the Member State shall notify the other Member States and the Commission thereof and share the relevant information with them, while complying with the provisions concerning the confidentiality of such information of Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 of 13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters (15).\n8. Before a Member State grants an authorisation in accordance with paragraph 5 for a transaction which is essentially identical to a transaction which is the subject of a still valid denial issued by another Member State or by other Member States under paragraphs 6 and 7, it will first consult the Member State or States which issued the denial. If, following such consultations, the Member State concerned decides to grant an authorisation, it shall inform the other Member States and the Commission thereof, providing all relevant information to explain the decision.\nArticle 4\nIt shall be prohibited to purchase, import or transport from Iran the goods and technology listed in Annexes I, II and III, whether the item concerned originates in Iran or not.\nArticle 5\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List, or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of goods included in that list, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran;\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to the goods and technology listed in Annexes I and II, or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of goods listed in Annexes I and II, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran;\n(c)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex III, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran;\n(d)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List or in Annexes I, II and III, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for any provision of related technical assistance to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran;\n(e)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) to (d).\n2. The provision of the following shall be subject to an authorisation from the competent authority of the Member State concerned:\n(a)\ntechnical assistance or brokering services related to goods and technology listed in Annex IV and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of those items, directly or indirectly to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran;\n(b)\nfinancing or financial assistance related to goods and technologies referred to in Annex IV, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of those items, or for any provision of related technical assistance, directly or indirectly, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran.\n3. The competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex V, shall not grant any authorisation for the transactions referred to in paragraph 2, if they have reasonable grounds to determine that the action would contribute to one of the following activities:\n(a)\nIran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities;\n(b)\nthe development of nuclear weapon delivery systems by Iran; or\n(c)\nthe pursuit by Iran of activities related to other topics about which the IAEA has expressed concerns or has identified as outstanding.\nArticle 6\nArticle 2(1)(a) shall not apply to:\n(a)\nthe direct or indirect transfer of goods falling within Part B of Annex I, through the territories of Member States when those goods are sold, supplied, transferred or exported to, or for use in, Iran for a light water reactor in Iran the construction of which has begun before December 2006;\n(b)\ntransactions mandated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) technical cooperation programme;\n(c)\ngoods supplied, transferred to or for use in, Iran due to obligations of State Parties under the Paris Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction of 13 January 1993.\nArticle 7\n1. The competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex V, may grant, under such terms and conditions as they deem appropriate, an authorisation for a transaction in relation to goods and technology referred to in Article 2(1) or assistance or brokering services referred to in Article 5(1), if they determine, except when subparagraph (c) applies, that the transaction would clearly not contribute to the development of technologies in support of Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, including where such goods and technology, assistance or brokering services are for food, agricultural, medical or other humanitarian purposes, and if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe contract for delivery of the goods or technology, or for the provision of assistance or brokering services, includes appropriate end-user guarantees;\n(b)\nIran has undertaken not to use the goods or technology concerned, or if applicable, the assistance or brokering services concerned, in proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or for development of nuclear weapon delivery systems; and\n(c)\nin those cases where the transaction concerns goods or technology contained in the Nuclear Suppliers Group or Missile Technology Control Regime lists, the Sanctions Committee has determined in advance and on a case-by-case basis that the transaction would clearly not contribute to the development of technologies in support of Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon development delivery systems.\n2. The Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission when it rejects a request for an authorisation.\n3. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to transactions or brokering services in relation to goods and technology referred to in Annex III.\nArticle 8\n1. It shall be prohibited to sell, supply, transfer or export key equipment or technology listed in Annex VI, directly or indirectly, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in, Iran.\n2. Annex VI shall include key equipment and technology for the following key sectors of the oil and gas industry in Iran:\n(a)\nexploration of crude oil and natural gas;\n(b)\nproduction of crude oil and natural gas;\n(c)\nrefining;\n(d)\nliquefaction of natural gas.\n3. Annex VI shall not include items included in the Common Military List, or in Annex I, Annex II or Annex IV.\nArticle 9\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to the key equipment and technology listed in Annex VI, or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of goods listed in Annex VI, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran.\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the key equipment and technology listed in Annex VI, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran.\n(c)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a) and (b).\nArticle 10\nThe prohibitions in Articles 8 and 9 shall not apply to transactions required by a trade contract concluded before the date of entry into force of this Regulation, or by a contract or agreement concluded before 26 July 2010 and relating to an investment in Iran made before 26 July 2010, nor shall they prevent the execution of an obligation arising therefrom, provided that the natural or legal person, entity or body seeking to engage in the transaction or to provide assistance has notified, at least 20 working days in advance, the transaction or assistance to the competent authorities of the Member State in which it is established, as identified on the websites listed in Annex V.\nCHAPTER III\nRESTRICTIONS ON FINANCING OF CERTAIN ENTREPRISES\nArticle 11\n1. The following shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nthe granting of any financial loan or credit to any Iranian person, entity or body referred to in paragraph (2);\n(b)\nthe acquisition or extension of a participation in any Iranian person, entity or body referred to in paragraph (2);\n(c)\nthe creation of any joint venture with any Iranian person, entity or body referred to in paragraph (2).\n(d)\nthe participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities, the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in points (a), (b) and (c).\n2. The prohibition in paragraph (1) shall apply to any Iranian person, entity or body engaged:\n(a)\nin the manufacture of goods or technology listed in the Common Military List or in Annex I or II;\n(b)\nin the manufacture of equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex III;\n(c)\nin the exploration or production of crude oil and natural gas, the refining of fuels or the liquefaction of natural gas.\n3. For the purposes of paragraph 2(c) only, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018exploration of crude oil and natural gas\u2019 includes the exploration for, prospection of and management of crude oil and natural gas reserves, as well as the provision of geological services in relation to such reserves;\n(b)\n\u2018production of crude oil and natural gas\u2019 includes bulk gas transmission services for the purpose of transit or delivery to directly interconnected grids;\n(c)\n\u2018refining\u2019 means the processing, conditioning or preparation for the ultimately final sale of fuels.\n4. It shall be prohibited to establish cooperation with an Iranian person, entity or body engaged in the transmission of natural gas as referred to in paragraph 3(b).\n5. For the purposes of paragraph 4, \u2018cooperation\u2019 means:\n(a)\nthe sharing of investment costs in an integrated or managed supply chain for the receipt or delivery of natural gas directly from or to the territory of Iran; and\n(b)\ndirect co-operation for the purpose of investing in liquefied natural gas facilities within the territory of Iran or in liquefied natural gas facilities directly connected thereto.\nArticle 12\n1. The making of an investment through transactions referred to in Article 11(1) in an Iranian person, entity or body engaged in the manufacture of goods or technology listed in Annex IV shall be subject to an authorisation from the competent authority of the Member State concerned.\n2. The competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex V, shall not grant any authorisation for the transactions referred to in paragraph 1, if they have reasonable grounds to determine that the action would contribute to one of the following activities:\n(a)\nIran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities;\n(b)\nthe development of nuclear weapon delivery systems by Iran; or\n(c)\nthe pursuit by Iran of activities related to other topics about which the IAEA has expressed concerns or has identified as outstanding.\nArticle 13\nBy way of derogation from Article 11(2)(a), the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex V, may grant, under such terms and conditions as they deem appropriate, an authorisation to make an investment through transactions referred to in Article 11(1), if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe Iranian person, entity or body has committed itself to apply appropriate end-user guarantees as regards the goods or technology concerned;\n(b)\nIran has undertaken not to use the goods or technology concerned in proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or for development of nuclear weapon delivery systems; and\n(c)\nin those cases where the investment is made in an Iranian person, entity or body engaged in the manufacture of goods or technology contained in the Nuclear Suppliers Group and Missile Technology Control Regime lists, the Sanctions Committee has determined in advance and on a case-by-case basis that the transaction would clearly not contribute to the development of technologies in support of Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon development delivery systems.\nArticle 14\nArticle 11(2)(c) shall not apply to the granting of a financial loan or credit or to the acquisition or extension of a participation , if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe transaction is required by an agreement or contract concluded before 26 July 2010; and\n(b)\nthe competent authority has been informed at least 20 working days in advance of that agreement or contract.\nArticle 15\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto accept or approve, by concluding an agreement or by any other means, that the granting of any finacial loan or credit, or the acquisition or extension of a participation, or the creation of any joint venture be made by one or more Iranian persons, entities or bodies, in an enterprise engaged in any of the following activities:\n(i)\nuranium mining,\n(ii)\nuranium enrichment and reprocessing of uranium;\n(iii)\nthe manufacture of goods or technology included in the Nuclear Suppliers Group and Missile Technology Control Regime lists.\n(b)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities, the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibition in point (a).\nCHAPTER IV\nFREEZING OF FUNDS AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES\nArticle 16\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex VII shall be frozen. Annex VII shall include the persons, entities and bodies designated by the United Nations Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee in accordance with paragraph 12 of UNSCR 1737 (2006), paragraph 7 of UNSCR 1803 (2008) or paragraph 11, 12 or 19 of UNSCR 1929 (2010).\n2. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex VIII shall be frozen. Annex VIII shall include the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies, not covered by Annex VII, who, in accordance with Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, have been identified as:\n(a)\nbeing engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support for Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems by Iran, including through involvement in the procurement of prohibited goods and technology, or being owned or controlled by such a person, entity or body, including through illicit means, or acting on their behalf or at their direction;\n(b)\nbeing a natural or legal person, entity or body that has assisted a listed person, entity or body to evade or violate the provisions of this Regulation, Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP or UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) and UNSCR 1929 (2010);\n(c)\nbeing a senior member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or a legal person, entity or body owned or controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or by one of more of its senior members;\n(d)\nbeing a legal person, entity or body owned or controlled by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL).\nIt shall be prohibited, pursuant to the obligation to freeze the funds and economic resources of IRISL and of designated entities owned or controlled by IRISL, to load and unload cargoes on and from vessels owned or chartered by IRISL or by such entities in ports of Member States. That prohibition shall not prevent the execution of a contract concluded before the entry into force of this Regulation.\nThe obligation to freeze the funds and economic resources of IRISL and of designated entities owned or controlled by IRISL shall not require the impounding or detention of vessels owned by such entities or the cargoes carried by them insofar as such cargoes belong to third parties, nor does it require the detention of the crew contracted by them.\n3. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annexes VII and VIII.\n4. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be prohibited.\n5. Annexes VII and VIII shall include the grounds for listing of listed persons, entities and bodies, as provided by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee for Annex VII.\n6. Annexes VII and VIII shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies concerned, as provided by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee for Annex VII. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, adress, if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, entities and bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. Annex VII shall also include the date of designation by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\nArticle 17\nBy way of derogation from Article 16, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex V, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established before the date on which the person, entity or body referred to in Article 16 has been designated by the Sanctions Committee, the Security Council or the Council or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a person, entity or body listed in Annex VII or VIII;\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgment is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned; and\n(e)\nwhere Article 16(1) applies, the Sanctions Committee has been notified by the Member State of the lien or judgment.\nArticle 18\nBy way of derogation from Article 16 and provided that a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex VII or VIII is due under a contract or agreement that was concluded by, or an obligation that arose for the person, entity or body concerned, before the date on which that person, entity or body had been designated by the Sanctions Committee, the Security Council or by the Council, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex V, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe competent authority concerned has determined that:\n(i)\nthe funds or economic resources shall be used for a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex VII or VIII;\n(ii)\nthe contract, agreement or obligation will not contribute to the manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, export, import, transport or use of goods and technology listed in Annexes I, II, III and VI; and\n(iii)\nthe payment is not in breach of Article 16(3);\n(b)\nwhere Article 16(1) applies, the Member State concerned has notified the Sanctions Committee of that determination and its intention to grant an authorisation, and the Sanctions Committee has not objected to that course of action within ten working days of notification; and\n(c)\nwhere Article 16(2) applies, the Member State concerned has, at least two weeks prior to the grant of the authorisation, notified the other Member States and the Commision of that determination and its intention to grant an authorisation.\nArticle 19\n1. By way of derogation from Article 16, the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex V, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe competent authority concerned has determined that the funds or economic resources are:\n(i)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of persons listed in Annex VII or VIII, and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(ii)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services; or\n(iii)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; and\n(b)\nwhere the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex VII, the Member State concerned has notified the Sanctions Committee of that determination and its intention to grant an authorisation, and the Sanctions Committee has not objected to that course of action within five working days of notification.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 16, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex V, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are necessary for extraordinary expenses or for payment for or transfer of goods when procured for a light water reactor in Iran the construction of which has begun before December 2006, or for goods referred to in Article 6(b) and (c), provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nwhere the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex VII, the Sanctions Committee has been notified of that determination by the Member State concerned and the determination has been approved by that Committee; and\n(b)\nwhere the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex VIII, the competent authority has notified the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted to the other competent authorities of the Member States and to the Commission at least two weeks before the authorisation.\n3. The relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraphs 1 or 2.\nArticle 20\n1. Article 16(3) shall not prevent financial or credit institutions from crediting frozen accounts where they receive funds transferred onto the account of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, provided that any additions to such accounts shall also be frozen. The financial or credit institution shall inform the competent authorities about such transactions without delay.\n2. Article 16(3) shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which the person, entity or body referred to in Article 16 has been designated by the Sanctions Committee, the Security Council or by the Council;\nprovided that any such interest or other earnings and payments are frozen in accordance with Article 16(1) or (2).\n3. This Article shall not be construed as authorising transfers of funds referred to in Article 21.\nCHAPTER V\nRESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFERS OF FUNDS AND ON FINANCIAL SERVICES\nArticle 21\n1. Transfer of funds to and from an Iranian person, entity or body shall be processed as follows:\n(a)\ntransfers due on transactions regarding foodstuffs, healthcare, medical equipment, or for humanitarian purposes shall be carried out without any prior authorisation. The transfer shall be notified in advance in writing to the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex V, if above EUR 10 000 or equivalents;\n(b)\nany other transfer below EUR 40 000 shall be carried out without any prior authorisation. The transfer shall be notified in advance in writing to the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex V, if above EUR 10 000 or equivalent;\n(c)\nany other transfer of or above EUR 40 000 or equivalent shall require a prior authorisation of the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex V.\n2. These provisions shall apply regardless of whether the transfer of funds is executed in a single operation or in several operations which appear to be linked.\n3. Notifications and requests for authorisation relating to the transfer of funds to an Iranian person, entity or body shall be addressed by or on behalf of the payment service provider of the payer as referred to in Article 1(r) to the competent authorities of the Member State where the initial order to execute the transfer is given.\nNotifications and requests for authorisation relating to the transfer of funds from an Iranian person, entity or body shall be addressed by or on behalf of the payment service provider of the payee as referred to in Article 1(r) to the competent authorities of the Member State in which the payee is resident or the payment service provider is established.\nIf the payments service provider of the payer or the payee does not fall under the scope of Article 39, notifications and requests for authorisation shall be addressed by the payer or payee to the competent authorities of the Member State in which the payer or payee is resident.\n4. For the purposes of paragraph 1(c), the competent authorities of the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex V, shall grant, under such terms and conditions as they deem appropriate, an authorisation for a transfer of funds having a value of EUR 40 000 or more, unless they have reasonable grounds to determine that the transfer of funds for which the authorisation is requested, would contribute to one of the following activities:\n(a)\nIran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities;\n(b)\nthe development of nuclear weapon delivery systems by Iran;\n(c)\nthe pursuit by Iran of activities related to other topics about which the IAEA has expressed concerns or has identified as outstanding; or\n(d)\nprohibited activities related to the exploration of crude oil and natural gas, production of crude oil and natural gas, refining, or liquefaction of natural gas as referred to in Articles 8, 9 and 11 by an Iranian person, entity or body.\nA competent authority may charge a fee for the assessment of requests for authorisation.\nAn authorisation shall be deemed granted if a competent authority has received a request in writing for authorisation and, within four weeks, the competent authority has not objected in writing to the transfer of funds. If the objection is raised because an investigation is pending, the competent authority shall state this and communicate its decision as soon as possible. The competent authorities shall have access, directly or indirectly, on a timely basis to the financial, administrative and law enforcement related information necessary for carrying out the investigation.\nThe Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission when it rejects a request for authorisation.\n5. This article shall not apply where an authorisation for a transfer has been granted in accordance with Articles 13, 17, 18, 19 or 20.\nArticle 22\n1. Branches and subsidiaries, falling within the scope of Article 39, of credit and financial institutions domiciled in Iran shall notify the competent authority of the Member State where they are established, as identified on the website mentioned in Annex V, of all transfers of funds carried out or received by them, the names of the parties and the amount and the date of the transaction, within five working days after carrying out or receiving the transfer of funds concerned. If the information is available, the notification must specify the nature of the transaction and, where appropriate, the nature of the goods covered by the transaction and must, in particular, state whether the goods are covered by Annex I, II, III, IV or VI of this Regulation and, if their export is subject to authorisation, indicate the number of the licence granted.\n2. Subject to and in accordance with the information-sharing arrangements, the other notified competent authorities shall without delay transmit that data, as necessary, in order to prevent any transaction that could contribute to proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or to the development of nuclear weapons delivery systems, to the competent authorities of other Member States where the counterparts to such transactions are established.\nArticle 23\n1. Credit and financial institutions which fall within the scope of Article 39 shall, in their activities with credit and financial institutions referred to in paragraph 2, and in order to prevent such activities from contributing to proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems:\n(a)\nexercise continuous vigilance over account activity, particularly through their programmes on customer due diligence and under their obligations relating to money laundering and financing of terrorism;\n(b)\nrequire that in payment instructions all information fields which relate to the originator and beneficiary of the transaction in question be completed and if that information is not supplied, refuse the transaction;\n(c)\nmaintain all records of transactions for a period of five years and make them available to national authorities on request;\n(d)\nif they suspect or have reasonable grounds to suspect that funds are related to proliferation financing, promptly report their suspicions to the financial intelligence unit (FIU) or to another competent authority designated by the Member State concerned, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex V, without prejudice to Articles 5 and 16. The FIU or such other competent authority will serve as a national centre for receiving and analysing suspicious transaction reports regarding potential proliferation financing. The FIU or such other competent authority shall have access, directly or indirectly, on a timely basis to the financial, administrative and law enforcement information that it requires to properly undertake this function, including the analysis of suspicious transaction reports.\nThe above requirements for credit and financial institutions shall be complementary to existing obligations deriving from Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 and from the implementation of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (16).\n2. The measures set out in paragraph 1 shall apply to credit and financial institutions in their activities with:\n(a)\ncredit and financial institutions domiciled in Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran;\n(b)\nbranches and subsidiaries, where they fall within the scope of Article 39, of credit and financial institutions domiciled in Iran;\n(c)\nbranches and subsidiaries, where they do not fall within the scope of Article 39, of credit and financial institutions domiciled in Iran;\n(d)\ncredit and financial institutions that are not domiciled in Iran but are controlled by persons and entities domiciled in Iran.\nArticle 24\n1. It shall be prohibited for credit and financial institutions falling within the scope of Article 39 to do any of the following:\n(a)\nto open a new bank account with a credit or financial institution domiciled in Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, or with any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 23(2);\n(b)\nto establish a new correspondent banking relationship with a credit or financial institution domiciled in Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, or with any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 23(2),\n(c)\nto open a new representative office in Iran or to establish a new branch or subsidiary in Iran;\n(d)\nto establish a new joint venture with a credit or financial institution domiciled in Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, or with any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 23(2).\n2. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto authorise the opening of a representative office or the establishment of a branch or subsidiary in the Union of a credit or financial institution domiciled in Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, or of any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 23(2);\n(b)\nto conclude agreements for, or on behalf of, a credit or financial institution domiciled in Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, or for, or on behalf of, any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 23(2) pertaining to the opening of a representative office or the establishment of a branch or subsidiary in the Union;\n(c)\nto grant an authorisation for taking up and pursuing the business of credit institution or for any other business requiring prior authorisation, by a representative office, branch or subsidiary of a credit or financial institution domiciled in Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, or of any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 23(2), if the representative office, branch or subsidiary was not operational before 26 July 2010.\n(d)\nto acquire or to extend a participation, or to acquire any other ownership interest, in a credit or financial institution falling within the scope of Article 39 by any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 23(2).\nArticle 25\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto sell or purchase public or public-guaranteed bonds issued after 26 July 2010, directly or indirectly, to or from any of the following:\n(i)\nIran or its Government, and its public bodies, corporations and agencies;\n(ii)\na credit or financial institution domiciled in Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, or any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 23(2);\n(iii)\na natural person or a legal person, entity or body acting on behalf or at the direction of a legal person, entity or body referred to in (i) or (ii);\n(iv)\na legal person, entity or body owned or controlled by a person, entity or body referred to in (i), (ii) or (iii);\n(b)\nto provide brokering services with regard to public or public-guaranteed bonds issued after 26 July 2010 to a person, entity or body referred to in point (a);\n(c)\nto assist a person, entity or body referred to in point (a) in order to issue public or public-guaranteed bonds, by providing brokering services, advertising or any other service with regard to such bonds.\nArticle 26\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide insurance or re-insurance to:\n(i)\nIran or its Government, and its public bodies, corporations and agencies;\n(ii)\nan Iranian person, entity or body other than a natural person; or\n(iii)\na natural person or a legal person, entity or body when acting on behalf or at the direction of a legal person, entity or body referred to in (i) or (ii).\n(b)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities, the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibition in point (a).\n2. Points (i) and (ii) of paragraph 1(a) shall not apply to the provision of compulsory or third party insurance to Iranian persons, entities or bodies based in the Union.\n3. Point (iii) of paragraph 1(a) shall not apply to the provision of insurance, including health and travel insurance, to individuals acting in their private capacity, except for persons listed in Annexes VII and VIII, and re-insurance relating thereto.\nPoint (iii) of paragraph 1(a) shall not prevent the provision of insurance or re-insurance to the owner of a vessel, aircraft or vehicle chartered by a person, entity or body referred to in point (i) or (ii) of paragraph 1(a) and which is not listed in Annexes VII or VIII.\nFor the purpose of point (iii) of paragraph 1(a), a person, entity or body shall not be considered to act at the direction of a person, entity or body referred to in points (i) and (ii) of paragraph 1(a) where that direction is for the purposes of docking, loading, unloading or safe transit of a vessel or aircraft temporarly in Iranian waters or airspace.\n4. This Article prohibits the extension or renewal of insurance and re-insurance agreements concluded before the entry into force of this Regulation, but, without prejudice to Article 16(3), it does not prohibit compliance with agreements concluded before that date.\nCHAPTER VI\nRESTRICTIONS ON TRANSPORT\nArticle 27\n1. To prevent the transfer of goods and technology which are covered by the Common Military List or the supply, sale, transfer, export or import of which is prohibited by this Regulation, all goods brought into or leaving the customs territory of the Union from or to Iran shall be made subject to pre-arrival or pre-departure information to be submitted to the competent customs authorities of the Member State concerned.\n2. The rules governing the obligation to provide pre-arrival and pre-departure information, in particular regarding the person who provides that information, the time limits to be respected and the data required, shall be as determined in the relevant provisions concerning entry and exit summary declarations as well as customs declarations in Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and in Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.\n3. Furthermore, the person who provides the information referred to in paragraph 2, shall declare whether the goods are covered by the Common Military List or by this Regulation and, where their export is subject to authorisation, specify the particulars of the export licence granted.\n4. Until 31 December 2010 the entry and exit summary declarations and the required additional elements referred to in paragraph 3 may be submitted in written form using commercial, port or transport information, provided that they contain the necessary details.\n5. As from 1 January 2011, the required additional elements referred to in this Article shall be submitted either in written form or using a customs declaration as appropriate.\nArticle 28\n1. The provision by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States of bunkering or ship supply services, or any other servicing of vessels, to vessels owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an Iranian person, entity or body shall be prohibited where the providers of the service have information, including from the competent customs authorities on the basis of the pre-arrival and pre-departure information referred to in Article 27, that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the vessels carry goods covered by the Common Military List or goods whose supply, sale, transfer or export is prohibited under this Regulation, unless the provision of such services is necessary for humanitarian purposes.\n2. The provision by nationals of Member States, or from the territories of Member States, of engineering and maintenance services to cargo aircraft owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an Iranian person, entity or body shall be prohibited, where the providers of the service have information, including from the competent customs authorities on the basis of the pre-arrival and pre-departure information referred to in Article 27, that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo aircraft carry goods covered by the Common Military List or goods the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under this Regulation, unless the provision of such services is necessary for humanitarian and safety purposes.\n3. The prohibitions in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply until the cargo has been inspected and, if necessary, seized or disposed of, as the case may be.\nAny seizure and disposal may, in accordance with national legislation or the decision of a competent authority, be carried out at the expense of the importer or be recovered from any other person or entity responsible for the attempted illicit supply, sale, transfer or export.\nCHAPTER VII\nGENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 29\n1. No claims in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which would have been affected, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the measures imposed under Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 or this Regulation, including claims for indemnity or any other claim of this type, such as a claim for compensation or a claim under a guarantee, notably a claim for extension or payment of a bond, guarantee or indemnity, particularly a financial guarantee or financial indemnity, of whatever form, shall be satisfied, if they are made by:\n(a)\ndesignated persons, entities or bodies listed in Annexes VII and VIII;\n(b)\nany other Iranian person, entity or body, including the Iranian government;\n(c)\nany person, entity or body acting through or on behalf of one of the persons, entities or bodies referred to in points (a) and (b).\n2. The performance of a contract or transaction shall be regarded as having been affected by the measures imposed under Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 or by this Regulation where the existence or content of the claim results directly or indirectly from those measures.\n3. In any proceedings for the enforcement of a claim, the onus of proving that satisfying the claim is not prohibited by paragraph 1 shall be on the person seeking the enforcement of that claim.\n4. This Article is without prejudice to the right of the persons, entities and bodies referred to in paragraph 1 to judicial review of the legality of the non-performance of contractual obligations in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 or this Regulation.\nArticle 30\nFor the purposes of Articles 8 and 9, point (c) of Article 11(2), and Articles 21 and 26, any body, entity or holder of rights derived from an original award before the entry into force of this Regulation by a sovereign Government other than Iran, of a production sharing agreement shall not be considered an Iranian person, entity or body. In such cases and in relation to Article 8, the competent authority of the Member State may require appropriate end-user guarantees from any body or entity for any sale, supply, transfer or export of any key equipment or technology listed in Annex VI.\nArticle 31\n1. Without prejudice to the applicable rules concerning reporting, confidentiality and professional secrecy, natural and legal persons, entities and bodies shall:\n(a)\nsupply immediately any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as information on accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 16, to the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex V, where they are resident or located, and shall transmit such information, directly or through the Member States, to the Commission;\n(b)\ncooperate with the competent authorities, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex V, in any verification of this information.\n2. Any additional information received directly by the Commission shall be made available to the Member State concerned.\n3. Any information provided or received in accordance with this Article shall be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.\nArticle 32\n1. The freezing of funds and economic resources or the refusal to make funds or economic resources available, carried out in good faith on the basis that such action is in accordance with this Regulation, shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal person or entity or body implementing it, or its directors or employees, unless it is proved that the funds and economic resources were frozen or withheld as a result of negligence.\n2. The prohibitions set out in the present Regulation shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal persons or entities concerned, if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe these prohibitions.\n3. The disclosure in good faith, as provided for in Articles 21, 22 and 23, by an institution or by a person covered by this Regulation or an employee or director of such an institution, of the information referred to in Articles 21, 22 and 23 shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the institution or person or its directors or employees.\nArticle 33\n1. A Member State may take all action it deems necessary to ensure that relevant international, Union or national legal obligations concerning the health and safety of workers and environmental protection are respected where cooperation with an Iranian person, entity or body may be affected by the implementation of this Regulation.\n2. For the purpose of action taken pursuant to paragraph 1, the prohibitions in Articles 8 and 9, point (c) of Article 11(2), and Articles 16(2), 21 and 26 shall not apply.\n3. Member States shall inform each other in advance of action pursuant to paragraph 1.\nArticle 34\nThe Commission and Member States shall immediately inform each other of the measures taken under this Regulation and shall supply each other with any other relevant information at their disposal in connection with this Regulation, in particular information in respect of violations and enforcement problems and judgments issued by national courts.\nArticle 35\nThe Commission shall:\n(a)\namend Annex II on the basis of determinations made by either the United Nations Security Council or the Sanctions Committee or on the basis of information supplied by Member States;\n(b)\namend Annex IV on the basis of information supplied by Member States;\n(c)\namend Annex V on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\nArticle 36\n1. Where the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee lists a natural or legal person, entity or body, the Council shall include such natural or legal person, entity or body in Annex VII.\n2. Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to the measures referred to in Article 16(2), it shall amend Annex VIII accordingly.\n3. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\n4. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the natural or legal person, entity or body accordingly.\n5. Where the United Nations decides to delist a natural or legal person, entity or body, or to amend the identifying data of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, the Council shall amend Annex VII accordingly.\n6. The list in Annex VIII shall be reviewed in regular intervals and at least every 12 months.\nArticle 37\n1. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules without delay after the entry into force of this Regulation and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment.\nArticle 38\n1. Member States shall designate the competent authorities referred to in this Regulation and identify them on the websites listed in Annex V. Member States shall notify the Commission of any changes in the addresses of their websites listed in Annex V.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of their competent authorities, including the contact details of those competent authorities, without delay after the entry into force of this Regulation, and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment.\n3. Where this Regulation sets out a requirement to notify, inform or otherwise communicate with the Commission, the address and other contact details to be used for such communication shall be those indicated in Annex V.\nArticle 39\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\nArticle 40\nRegulation (EC) No 423/2007 is hereby repealed. References to the repealed regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 41\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 October 2010", "references": ["80", "51", "22", "45", "17", "11", "92", "53", "88", "94", "44", "35", "78", "89", "82", "59", "69", "99", "91", "68", "81", "97", "86", "21", "52", "63", "39", "72", "1", "84", "No Label", "3", "5", "16", "20", "76", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "16", "20", "76", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1033/2010\nof 15 November 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1505/2006 as regards the annual reports by the Member States on the results of the checks carried out in relation to the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC (1), and in particular the first subparagraph and point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1505/2006 of 11 October 2006 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards the minimum level of checks to be carried out in relation to the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals (2) provides that the Member States are to carry out checks in order to verify compliance by keepers with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 21/2004.\n(2)\nIn addition, Regulation (EC) No 1505/2006 provides that Member States are to submit an annual report to the Commission each year, in accordance with the model set out in the Annex thereto, on the results of the checks carried out in the preceding annual inspection period.\n(3)\nThe collection of the data during the reporting process should be adequate and proportionate to the objectives pursued. For the sake of a more targeted and fit for purpose reporting, certain requirements as well as the model report set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1505/2006 should be simplified to better provide with the relevant information of the implementation of the controls and to avoid unnecessary administrative burden.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1505/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 1505/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 7, point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nthe number of holdings that have been checked;\u2019\n(2)\nthe Annex is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 November 2010.", "references": ["71", "40", "69", "27", "74", "8", "23", "43", "2", "82", "97", "78", "18", "60", "44", "96", "94", "67", "1", "33", "38", "42", "37", "55", "52", "34", "63", "25", "72", "19", "No Label", "39", "41", "61", "65", "66", "77"], "gold": ["39", "41", "61", "65", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 31 March 2011\non the security rules for protecting EU classified information\n(2011/292/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 240(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/937/EU of 1 December 2009 adopting the Council\u2019s Rules of Procedure (1), and in particular Article 24 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to develop Council activities in all areas which require handling classified information, it is appropriate to establish a comprehensive security system for protecting classified information covering the Council, its General Secretariat and the Member States.\n(2)\nThis Decision should apply where the Council, its preparatory bodies and the General Secretariat of the Council (GSC) handle EU classified information (EUCI).\n(3)\nIn accordance with national laws and regulations and to the extent required for the functioning of the Council, the Member States should respect this Decision where their competent authorities, personnel or contractors handle EUCI, in order that each may be assured that an equivalent level of protection is afforded to EUCI.\n(4)\nThe Council and the Commission are committed to applying equivalent security standards for protecting EUCI.\n(5)\nThe Council underlines the importance of associating, where appropriate, the European Parliament and other EU institutions, agencies, bodies or offices with the principles, standards and rules for protecting classified information which are necessary in order to protect the interests of the Union and its Member States.\n(6)\nEU agencies and bodies established under Title V, Chapter 2, of the Treaty on European Union, Europol and Eurojust apply, in the context of their internal organisation, the basic principles and minimum standards laid down in this Decision for protecting EUCI, as provided for in their respective founding acts.\n(7)\nCrisis management operations established under Title V, Chapter 2, of the TEU and their personnel apply the security rules adopted by the Council for protecting EUCI.\n(8)\nEU Special Representatives and the members of their teams apply the security rules adopted by the Council for protecting EUCI.\n(9)\nThis Decision is taken without prejudice to Articles 15 and 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and to instruments implementing them.\n(10)\nThis Decision is taken without prejudice to existing practices in Member States with regard to informing their national Parliaments about the activities of the Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nPurpose, scope and definitions\n1. This Decision lays down the basic principles and minimum standards of security for protecting EUCI.\n2. These basic principles and minimum standards shall apply to the Council and the GSC and be respected by the Member States in accordance with their respective national laws and regulations, in order that each may be assured that an equivalent level of protection is afforded to EUCI.\n3. For the purposes of this Decision, the definitions set out in Appendix A shall apply.\nArticle 2\nDefinition of EUCI, security classifications and markings\n1. \u2018EU classified information\u2019 (EUCI) means any information or material designated by an EU security classification, the unauthorised disclosure of which could cause varying degrees of prejudice to the interests of the European Union or of one or more of the Member States.\n2. EUCI shall be classified at one of the following levels:\n(a) TR\u00c8S SECRET UE/EU TOP SECRET: information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which could cause exceptionally grave prejudice to the essential interests of the European Union or of one or more of the Member States;\n(b) SECRET UE/EU SECRET: information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which could seriously harm the essential interests of the European Union or of one or more of the Member States;\n(c) CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL: information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which could harm the essential interests of the European Union or of one or more of the Member States;\n(d) RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED: information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which could be disadvantageous to the interests of the European Union or of one or more of the Member States.\n3. EUCI shall bear a security classification marking in accordance with paragraph 2. It may bear additional markings to designate the field of activity to which it relates, identify the originator, limit distribution, restrict use or indicate releasability.\nArticle 3\nClassification management\n1. The competent authorities shall ensure that EUCI is appropriately classified, clearly identified as classified information and retains its classification level for only as long as necessary.\n2. EUCI shall not be downgraded or declassified nor shall any of the markings referred to in Article 2(3) be modified or removed without the prior written consent of the originator.\n3. The Council shall approve a security policy on creating EUCI which shall include a practical classification guide.\nArticle 4\nProtection of classified information\n1. EUCI shall be protected in accordance with this Decision.\n2. The holder of any item of EUCI shall be responsible for protecting it in accordance with this Decision.\n3. Where Member States introduce classified information bearing a national security classification marking into the structures or networks of the European Union, the Council and the GSC shall protect that information in accordance with the requirements applicable to EUCI at the equivalent level as set out in the table of equivalence of security classifications contained in Appendix B.\n4. Large quantities or a compilation of EUCI may warrant a level of protection corresponding to a higher classification.\nArticle 5\nSecurity risk management\n1. Risk to EUCI shall be managed as a process. This process shall be aimed at determining known security risks, defining security measures to reduce such risks to an acceptable level in accordance with the basic principles and minimum standards set out in this Decision and at applying these measures in line with the concept of defence in depth as defined in Appendix A. The effectiveness of such measures shall be continuously evaluated.\n2. Security measures for protecting EUCI throughout its life-cycle shall be commensurate in particular with its security classification, the form and the volume of the information or material, the location and construction of facilities housing EUCI and the locally assessed threat of malicious and/or criminal activities, including espionage, sabotage and terrorism.\n3. Contingency plans shall take account of the need to protect EUCI during emergency situations in order to prevent unauthorised access, disclosure or loss of integrity or availability.\n4. Preventive and recovery measures to minimise the impact of major failures or incidents on the handling and storage of EUCI shall be included in business continuity plans.\nArticle 6\nImplementation of this Decision\n1. Where necessary, the Council, on recommendation by the Security Committee, shall approve security policies setting out measures for implementing this Decision.\n2. The Security Committee may agree at its level security guidelines to supplement or support this Decision and any security policies approved by the Council.\nArticle 7\nPersonnel security\n1. Personnel security is the application of measures to ensure that access to EUCI is granted only to individuals who have:\n-\na need-to-know,\n-\nbeen security cleared to the relevant level, where appropriate, and\n-\nbeen briefed on their responsibilities.\n2. Personnel security clearance procedures shall be designed to determine whether an individual, taking into account his loyalty, trustworthiness and reliability, may be authorised to access EUCI.\n3. All individuals in the GSC whose duties may require them to have access to EUCI classified CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL or above shall be security cleared to the relevant level before being granted access to such EUCI. The personnel security clearance procedure for GSC officials and other servants is set out in Annex I.\n4. Member States\u2019 personnel referred to in Article 14(3) whose duties may require access to EUCI classified CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL or above shall be security cleared to the relevant level or otherwise duly authorised by virtue of their functions, in accordance with national laws and regulations, before being granted access to such EUCI.\n5. Before being granted access to EUCI and at regular intervals thereafter, all individuals shall be briefed on and acknowledge their responsibilities to protect EUCI in accordance with this Decision.\n6. Provisions for implementing this Article are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 8\nPhysical security\n1. Physical security is the application of physical and technical protective measures to prevent unauthorised access to EUCI.\n2. Physical security measures shall be designed to deny surreptitious or forced entry by an intruder, to deter, impede and detect unauthorised actions and to allow for segregation of personnel in their access to EUCI on a need-to-know basis. Such measures shall be determined based on a risk management process.\n3. Physical security measures shall be put in place for all premises, buildings, offices, rooms and other areas in which EUCI is handled or stored, including areas housing communication and information systems as defined in Article 10(2).\n4. Areas in which EUCI classified CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL or above is stored shall be established as Secured Areas in accordance with Annex II and approved by the competent security authority.\n5. Only approved equipment or devices shall be used for protecting EUCI at the level CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL or above.\n6. Provisions for implementing this Article are set out in Annex II.\nArticle 9\nManagement of classified information\n1. The management of classified information is the application of administrative measures for controlling EUCI throughout its life-cycle to supplement the measures provided for in Articles 7, 8 and 10 and thereby help deter, detect and recover from deliberate or accidental compromise or loss of such information. Such measures relate in particular to the creation, registration, copying, translation, carriage and destruction of EUCI.\n2. Information classified CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL or above shall be registered for security purposes prior to distribution and on receipt. The competent authorities in the GSC and in the Member States shall establish a registry system for this purpose. Information classified TR\u00c8S SECRET UE/EU TOP SECRET shall be registered in designated registries.\n3. Services and premises where EUCI is handled or stored shall be subject to regular inspection by the competent security authority.\n4. EUCI shall be conveyed between services and premises outside physically protected areas as follows:\n(a)\nas a general rule, EUCI shall be transmitted by electronic means protected by cryptographic products approved in accordance with Article 10(6);\n(b)\nwhen the means referred to in point (a) are not used, EUCI shall be carried either:\n(i)\non electronic media (e.g. USB sticks, CDs, hard drives) protected by cryptographic products approved in accordance with Article 10(6); or\n(ii)\nin all other cases, as prescribed by the competent security authority in accordance with the relevant protective measures laid down in Annex III.\n5. Provisions for implementing this Article are set out in Annex III.\nArticle 10\nProtection of EUCI handled in communication and information systems\n1. Information Assurance (IA) in the field of communication and information systems is the confidence that such systems will protect the information they handle and will function as they need to, when they need to, under the control of legitimate users. Effective IA shall ensure appropriate levels of confidentiality, integrity, availability, non-repudiation and authenticity. IA shall be based on a risk management process.\n2. \u2018Communication and Information System\u2019 means any system enabling the handling of information in electronic form. A communication and information system shall comprise the entire assets required for it to operate, including the infrastructure, organisation, personnel and information resources. This Decision shall apply to Communication and Information Systems handling EUCI (CIS).\n3. CIS shall handle EUCI in accordance with the concept of IA.\n4. All CIS shall undergo an accreditation process. Accreditation shall aim at obtaining assurance that all appropriate security measures have been implemented and that a sufficient level of protection of the EUCI and of the CIS has been achieved in accordance with this Decision. The accreditation statement shall determine the maximum classification level of the information that may be handled in a CIS as well as the corresponding terms and conditions.\n5. CIS handling information classified CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL and above shall be protected in such a way that the information cannot be compromised by unintentional electromagnetic emanations (TEMPEST security measures).\n6. Where the protection of EUCI is provided by cryptographic products, such products shall be approved as follows:\n(a)\nthe confidentiality of information classified SECRET UE/EU SECRET and above shall be protected by cryptographic products approved by the Council as Crypto Approval Authority (CAA), upon recommendation by the Security Committee;\n(b)\nthe confidentiality of information classified CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL or RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED shall be protected by cryptographic products approved by the Secretary-General of the Council (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Secretary-General\u2019) as CAA, upon recommendation by the Security Committee.\nNotwithstanding point (b), within Member States\u2019 national systems, the confidentiality of EUCI classified CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL or RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED may be protected by cryptographic products approved by a Member State\u2019s CAA.\n7. During transmission of EUCI by electronic means, approved cryptographic products shall be used. Notwithstanding this requirement, specific procedures may be applied under emergency circumstances or specific technical configurations as specified in Annex IV.\n8. The competent authorities of the GSC and of the Member States respectively shall establish the following IA functions:\n(a)\nan IA Authority (IAA);\n(b)\na TEMPEST Authority (TA);\n(c)\na Crypto Approval Authority (CAA);\n(d)\na Crypto Distribution Authority (CDA).\n9. For each system, the competent authorities of the GSC and of the Member States respectively shall establish:\n(a)\na Security Accreditation Authority (SAA);\n(b)\nan IA Operational Authority.\n10. Provisions for implementing this Article are set out in Annex IV.\nArticle 11\nIndustrial security\n1. Industrial security is the application of measures to ensure the protection of EUCI by contractors or subcontractors in pre-contract negotiations and throughout the life-cycle of classified contracts. Such contracts shall not involve access to information classified TR\u00c8S SECRET UE/EU TOP SECRET.\n2. The GSC may entrust by contract tasks involving or entailing access to or the handling or storage of EUCI by industrial or other entities registered in a Member State or in a third State which has concluded an agreement or an administrative arrangement in accordance with Article 12(2)(a) or (b).\n3. The GSC, as contracting authority, shall ensure that the minimum standards on industrial security set out in this Decision, and referred to in the contract, are complied with when awarding classified contracts to industrial or other entities.\n4. The National Security Authority (NSA), the Designated Security Authority (DSA) or any other competent authority of each Member State shall ensure, to the extent possible under national laws and regulations, that contractors and subcontractors registered in their territory take all appropriate measures to protect EUCI in pre-contract negotiations and when performing a classified contract.\n5. The NSA, DSA or any other competent security authority of each Member State shall ensure, in accordance with national laws and regulations, that contractors or subcontractors registered in the said Member State participating in classified contracts or sub-contracts which require access to information classified CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET UE/EU SECRET within their facilities, either in the performance of such contracts or during the pre-contractual stage, hold a Facility Security Clearance (FSC) at the relevant classification level.\n6. Contractor or subcontractor personnel who, for the performance of a classified contract, require access to information classified CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET UE/EU SECRET shall be granted a Personnel Security Clearance (PSC) by the respective NSA, DSA or any other competent security authority in accordance with national laws and regulations and the minimum standards laid down in Annex I.\n7. Provisions for implementing this Article are set out in Annex V.\nArticle 12\nExchange of classified information with third States and international organisations\n1. Where the Council determines that there is a need to exchange EUCI with a third State or international organisation, an appropriate framework shall be put in place to that effect.\n2. In order to establish such a framework and define reciprocal rules on the protection of classified information exchanged:\n(a)\nthe Council shall conclude agreements on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information (hereinafter referred to as \u2018security of information agreements\u2019); or\n(b)\nthe Secretary-General may enter into administrative arrangements in accordance with paragraph 17 of Annex VI where the classification level of EUCI to be released is as a general rule no higher than RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED.\n3. Security of information agreements or administrative arrangements referred to in paragraph 2 shall contain provisions to ensure that when third States or international organisations receive EUCI, such information is given protection appropriate to its classification level and according to minimum standards which are no less stringent than those laid down in this Decision.\n4. The decision to release EUCI originating in the Council to a third State or international organisation shall be taken by the Council on a case-by-case basis, according to the nature and content of such information, the recipient\u2019s need-to-know and the measure of advantage to the EU. If the originator of the classified information for which release is desired is not the Council, the GSC shall first seek the originator\u2019s written consent to release. If the originator cannot be established, the Council shall assume the former\u2019s responsibility.\n5. Assessment visits shall be arranged to ascertain the effectiveness of the security measures in place in a third State or international organisation for protecting EUCI provided or exchanged.\n6. Provisions for implementing this Article are set out in Annex VI.\nArticle 13\nBreaches of security and compromise of EUCI\n1. A breach of security occurs as the result of an act or omission by an individual which is contrary to the security rules laid down in this Decision.\n2. Compromise of EUCI occurs when, as a result of a breach of security, it has wholly or in part been disclosed to unauthorised persons.\n3. Any breach or suspected breach of security shall be reported immediately to the competent security authority.\n4. Where it is known or where there are reasonable grounds to assume that EUCI has been compromised or lost, the competent security authority shall take all appropriate measures in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations to:\n(a)\ninform the originator;\n(b)\nensure that the case is investigated by personnel not immediately concerned with the breach in order to establish the facts;\n(c)\nassess the potential damage caused to the interests of the EU or of the Member States;\n(d)\ntake appropriate measures to prevent a recurrence; and\n(e)\nnotify the appropriate authorities of the action taken.\n5. Any individual who is responsible for a breach of the security rules laid down in this Decision may be liable to disciplinary action in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. Any individual who is responsible for compromising or losing EUCI shall be liable to disciplinary and/or legal action in accordance with the applicable laws, rules and regulations.\nArticle 14\nResponsibility for implementation\n1. The Council shall take all necessary measures to ensure overall consistency in the application of this Decision.\n2. The Secretary-General shall take all necessary measures to ensure that, when handling or storing EUCI or any other classified information, this Decision is applied in premises used by the Council and within the GSC, including in its liaison offices in third States, by GSC officials and other servants, by personnel seconded to the GSC and by GSC contractors.\n3. Member States shall take all appropriate measures, in accordance with their respective national laws and regulations, to ensure that when EUCI is handled or stored, this Decision is respected by:\n(a)\npersonnel of Member States\u2019 Permanent Representations to the European Union, and national delegates attending meetings of the Council or of its preparatory bodies, or participating in other Council activities;\n(b)\nother personnel in Member States\u2019 national administrations, including personnel seconded to those administrations, whether they serve on the territory of the Member States or abroad;\n(c)\nother persons in the Member States duly authorised by virtue of their functions to have access to EUCI; and\n(d)\nMember States\u2019 contractors, whether on the territory of the Member States or abroad.\nArticle 15\nThe organisation of security in the Council\n1. As part of its role in ensuring overall consistency in the application of this Decision, the Council shall approve:\n(a)\nagreements referred to in Article 12(2)(a);\n(b)\ndecisions authorising the release of EUCI to third States and international organisations;\n(c)\nan annual inspection programme proposed by the Secretary-General and recommended by the Security Committee for inspections of Member States\u2019 services and premises and of EU agencies and bodies established under Title V, Chapter 2 of the TEU as well as of Europol and Eurojust, and assessment visits to third States and international organisations in order to ascertain the effectiveness of measures implemented for protecting EUCI; and\n(d)\nsecurity policies as foreseen in Article 6(1).\n2. The Secretary-General shall be the GSC\u2019s Security Authority. In that capacity, the Secretary-General shall:\n(a)\nimplement the Council\u2019s security policy and keep it under review;\n(b)\ncoordinate with Member States\u2019 NSAs on all security matters relating to the protection of classified information relevant for the Council\u2019s activities;\n(c)\ngrant EU PSCs to GSC officials and other servants in accordance with Article 7(3) before they may be granted access to information classified CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL or above;\n(d)\nas appropriate, order investigations into any actual or suspected compromise or loss of classified information held by or originating in the Council and request the relevant security authorities to assist in such investigations;\n(e)\nundertake periodic inspections of the security arrangements for protecting classified information on GSC premises;\n(f)\nundertake periodic inspections of the security arrangements for protecting EUCI in EU agencies and bodies established under Title V, Chapter 2, of the TEU, Europol, Eurojust, as well as in crisis management operations established under Title V, Chapter 2, of the TEU and by EU Special Representatives (EUSR) and the members of their teams;\n(g)\nundertake, jointly and in agreement with the NSA concerned, periodic inspections of the security arrangements for protecting EUCI in Member States\u2019 services and premises;\n(h)\ncoordinate security measures with the competent authorities of the Member States which are responsible for protecting classified information and, as appropriate, third States or international organisations, including on the nature of threats to the security of EUCI and the means of protection against them;\n(i)\nenter into the administrative arrangements referred to in Article 12(2)(b); and\n(j)\nundertake initial and periodic assessment visits to third States or international organisations in order to ascertain the effectiveness of measures implemented for protecting EUCI provided to or exchanged with them.\nThe Security Office of the GSC shall be at the disposal of the Secretary-General to assist in these responsibilities.\n3. For the purposes of implementing Article 14(3), Member States should:\n(a)\ndesignate an NSA responsible for security arrangements for protecting EUCI in order that:\n(i)\nEUCI held by any national department, body or agency, public or private, at home or abroad, is protected in accordance with this Decision;\n(ii)\nsecurity arrangements for protecting EUCI are periodically inspected;\n(iii)\nall individuals employed within a national administration or by a contractor who may be granted access to information classified CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL or above are appropriately security cleared or are otherwise duly authorised by virtue of their functions in accordance with national laws and regulations;\n(iv)\nsecurity programmes are set up as necessary in order to minimise the risk of EUCI being compromised or lost;\n(v)\nsecurity matters related to protecting EUCI are coordinated with other competent national authorities, including those referred to in this Decision; and\n(vi)\nresponses are given to appropriate security clearance requests from EU agencies and bodies established under Title V, Chapter 2 of the TEU, Europol, Eurojust, as well as crisis management operations established under Title V, Chapter 2, of the TEU and EUSRs and their teams.\nNSAs are listed in Appendix C;\n(b)\nensure that their competent authorities provide information and advice to their governments, and through them to the Council, on the nature of threats to the security of EUCI and the means of protection against them.\nArticle 16\nSecurity Committee\n1. A Security Committee is hereby established. It shall examine and assess any security matter within the scope of this Decision and make recommendations to the Council as appropriate.\n2. The Security Committee shall be composed of representatives of the Member States\u2019 NSAs and be attended by a representative of the Commission and of the European External Action Service. It shall be chaired by the Secretary-General or by his designated delegate. It shall meet as instructed by the Council, or at the request of the Secretary-General or of an NSA.\nRepresentatives of EU agencies and bodies established under Title V, Chapter 2, of the TEU, as well Europol and Eurojust, may be invited to attend when questions concerning them are discussed.\n3. The Security Committee shall organise its activities in such a way that it can make recommendations on specific areas of security. It shall establish an expert sub-area for IA issues and other expert sub-areas as necessary. It shall draw up terms of reference for such expert sub-areas and receive reports from them on their activities including, as appropriate, any recommendations for the Council.\nArticle 17\nReplacement of previous decision\n1. This Decision shall repeal and replace Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council\u2019s security regulations (2).\n2. All EUCI classified in accordance with Decision 2001/264/EC shall continue to be protected in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Decision.\nArticle 18\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 31 March 2011.", "references": ["27", "12", "39", "44", "65", "96", "89", "7", "18", "17", "15", "37", "2", "52", "55", "95", "5", "50", "85", "68", "45", "30", "79", "69", "57", "32", "48", "11", "16", "4", "No Label", "40", "41", "42", "76"], "gold": ["40", "41", "42", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 949/2010\nof 21 October 2010\nfixing the export refunds on pigmeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVII of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in pigmeat, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 654/2010 (5). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the condition provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 654/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["2", "4", "76", "92", "27", "42", "18", "96", "82", "35", "73", "7", "98", "78", "79", "81", "44", "17", "25", "56", "33", "63", "12", "58", "77", "15", "54", "9", "95", "10", "No Label", "20", "22", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 8 March 2011\non State aid measure C 24/09 (ex N 446/08) - State aid for energy-intensive businesses under the Green Electricity Act in Austria\n(notified under document C(2011) 1363)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/528/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1), and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 27 June 2008 Austria pre-notified changes that it planned to make to the Green Electricity Act (\u2018the Act\u2019), which the Commission had found to be compatible with the internal market in 2006 in the form in which it then stood (2). On 4 September 2008 Austria notified a new version of the Act; that version is the subject of this Decision.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 28 October 2008, the Commission requested additional information. After a reminder had been sent, Austria submitted additional information by letter dated 22 December 2008. Following a meeting with Austrian representatives on 11 February 2009, the Commission requested further information by letter dated 19 February 2009. Austria provided that information in a letter dated 17 March 2009. By letter of 8 May 2009 the Commission requested further information, which Austria supplied by letters dated 9 and 19 June 2009.\n(3)\nOn 9 July 2008 the Commission received a complaint from the Austrian Chamber of Employees (Bundesarbeitskammer) relating to a measure in the Act for the benefit of energy-intensive businesses.\n(4)\nOn 22 July 2009 the Commission adopted a hybrid decision: it approved the measures in favour of green electricity producers, which it found to be in line with the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (\u2018the Environmental Aid Guidelines\u2019/\u2018the Guidelines\u2019) (3), but decided to initiate a formal investigation in respect of the exemption mechanism for energy-intensive businesses (4).\n(5)\nBy letter dated 23 July 2009 the Commission informed Austria of this decision and asked Austria to provide all information necessary for the assessment of the measure.\n(6)\nThe Commission published its decision in the Official Journal of the European Union (5), and invited interested parties to submit their comments.\n(7)\nBy letter of 19 August 2009 Austria requested an extension of the deadline for a reply, which the Commission accepted by letter of 9 September 2009. Austria ultimately submitted its comments on 8 October 2009.\n(8)\nIn the meanwhile, by letter dated 7 October 2009, the Austrian Chamber of Employees had submitted observations on the measure for the benefit of energy-intensive businesses. The Commission asked Austria to comment on these observations. Austria submitted comments on 23 December 2009, and supplied further information on 23 April 2010.\n(9)\nBy letters dated 21 June 2010 and 19 July 2010 the Commission requested additional information from Austria, which was provided on 13 September 2010. At Austria\u2019s request, a meeting between the Commission and Austrian representatives took place on 9 July 2010.\n(10)\nIn a letter dated 24 November 2010 Austria stressed the importance of the Green Electricity Act to the country, and asked for a decision in the case by the beginning of December 2010. The Commission replied to that letter on 7 December 2010. A further meeting with Austrian representatives took place on 9 December 2010.\n(11)\nBy letter of 30 December 2010 Austria recalled the arguments it had put forward in favour of the measure in the course of the proceedings, and asked the Commission to approve the exemption mechanism for energy-intensive businesses. The Commission replied to that letter on 25 January 2011.\n2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n(12)\nIn its opening decision of 22 July 2009 the Commission authorised the amended Act, with the sole exception of Section 22c, which establishes the exemption mechanism for energy-intensive businesses. The description here will therefore confine itself to that mechanism.\n2.1. The exemption mechanism for energy-intensive businesses\n(13)\nSection 3 of the Act states that Austria is to grant a concession to one or more undertakings to perform the tasks of a green electricity settlement centre (\u00d6kostromabwicklungstelle, a \u2018settlement centre\u2019). In particular, concessionaires are to buy green electricity from producers at a fixed price, and to sell that electricity to electricity suppliers at a fixed price. Electricity suppliers are obliged to purchase a percentage of their overall supply from a settlement centre: the percentage required corresponds to the average share of green electricity in the overall electricity mix in Austria.\n(14)\nCurrently, Austria has granted a single countrywide concession to a single settlement centre, Abwicklungsstelle f\u00fcr \u00d6kostrom AG (OeMAG). OeMAG is an ordinary public limited company, governed by private rather than public law, and is audited by a chartered accountant. It is monitored by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labour and by E-Control GmbH, the Austrian energy regulator. The essential components in the implementation of the measure for the benefit of energy-intensive businesses (such as the arrangements for allocating electricity to electricity traders, the price to be paid by traders, or the contribution to be made by final consumers) are laid down in advance by the authorities, by statute or executive order. Any dispute between the undertakings involved is to be settled in the ordinary courts of law rather than by administrative proceedings.\n(15)\nOeMAG is a public limited company owned by transmission system operators, banks and industrial undertakings: a 24,4 % stake is held by Verbund-APG, and the rest is held by VKW Netz AG, TIWAG Netz AG, CISMO GmbH, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG, Investkredit Bank AG, and Smart Technologies, with 12,6 % each. Verbund-APG is a wholly owned subsidiary of Verbund AG (\u00d6sterreichische Elektrizit\u00e4tswirtschafts-Aktiengesellschaft, Verbundgesellschaft); a 51 % stake in Verbund AG is held by the Republic of Austria. VKW Netz AG is owned by Illwerke AG, 95,5 % of the shares in which are held by the Province of Vorarlberg. TIWAG-Netz AG is owned by TIWAG AG, which itself is wholly owned by the Province of the Tyrol. CISMO GmbH is owned by Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG and by transmission system operators and electricity and gas undertakings. Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG is owned by Austrian banks. Investkredit Bank AG is owned mainly by the Volksbanken. Smart Technologies is owned by Siemens. Thus publicly controlled shareholders hold 49,6 % of the shares in OeMAG, and privately controlled shareholders 50,4 %. The Commission has no evidence to suggest that the publicly controlled shareholders can exercise control or at least joint control over OeMAG.\n(16)\nSection 22c(1) of the Act establishes a mechanism that entitles energy-intensive businesses to ask their electricity supplier not to supply them with green electricity. In order to be eligible, the energy-intensive businesses have to show that they comply with the following two conditions:\n(a)\nthey must qualify for the reimbursement available under the Energy Tax Rebate Act (Energieabgabeverg\u00fctungsgesetz); and\n(b)\ntheir green electricity spending must be equal to at least 0,5 % of their net production value.\nThe exemption is granted on application to the energy regulator, E-Control.\n(17)\nIf the exemption is granted, electricity suppliers are legally banned from charging the additional costs of green electricity to these large electricity consumers.\n(18)\nSection 22c(5) of the Act states that contracts between electricity distributors and large electricity consumers must provide that the distributor is not to supply green electricity to the customer and is not to not pass on the additional costs of green electricity. Any contractual provision to the contrary is null and void (6).\n(19)\nIf an energy-intensive business is exempted from the purchase obligation, it has to make a compensatory payment to OeMAG equal to 0,5 % of its net production value in the preceding calendar year (Section 22c(2) of the Act).\n2.2. Summary of the opening decision\n(20)\nIn the notification, Austria argued that the exemption mechanism should be assessed independently from the general scheme of aid to green producers, since it concerned only the \u2018private business relationship\u2019 between energy-intensive undertakings and distributors. Austria argued that the exemption did not constitute State aid, and that if it did it was in any event compatible with the internal market by analogy with Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines.\n(21)\nOn the question of the presence of State aid, the Commission in its opening decision found that the exemption from the financing mechanism could not be assessed separately from the financing mechanism itself. The Commission considered that an exception or exemption was always inseparably linked to the relevant rule, so that the exemption was an integral part of the general scheme and had to be assessed accordingly under State aid law. In addition, the legislation permitted distributors with a large share of exempted customers to apply for exemption from the feed-in tariff; thus the scheme could also cause direct losses to OeMAG, which strengthened the conclusion that State aid was involved (7).\n(22)\nThe Commission expressed doubts with regard to the compatibility of the exemption mechanism with the State aid rules. For these reasons the Commission decided to open a formal investigation into the mechanism.\n(23)\nPending a final decision on the part of the Commission, Austria granted the benefits provided for in the exemption mechanism (8) on the basis of the provision in the Temporary Framework allowing aid of up to EUR 500 000 to be given in the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2010 (9). The Commission approved this arrangement as part of State aid measure No N 47a/09 Limited amounts of compatible aid under the Temporary Framework (\u2018\u00d6sterreichregelung Kleinbeihilfen\u2019) (10). This scheme may be applied to firms that were not in difficulty on 1 July 2008, in all sectors of the economy with the exception of fisheries and primary production of agricultural products. More than 2 000 undertakings have benefited under the measure.\n3. OBSERVATIONS PUT FORWARD BY AUSTRIA\n(24)\nAs in the pre-notification and notification stages, Austria continues to take the view that the measure for the benefit of energy-intensive businesses does not constitute State aid, because it does not involve the use of State resources and is not selective.\n(25)\nBut even if the exemption mechanism did constitute State aid, Austria considers that it could in any event be declared compatible with the internal market by analogy with Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines, with Article 25 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) (11), and with Article 17 of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (12) (Energy Tax Directive).\n3.1. State resources and imputability\n(26)\nWith regard to State resources, Austria takes the view that the Act is analogous to the German Renewable Energy Act (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz), which in Austria\u2019s understanding does not involve the use of State resources. Austria refers in this regard to the ruling of the Court of Justice in the PreussenElektra case (13).\n(27)\nIn Austria\u2019s opinion the exemption mechanisms established by the Austrian Green Electricity Act and the German Renewable Energy Act share the following features:\n(a)\nin both systems the additional cost resulting from the guaranteed feed-in tariff is borne by electricity suppliers, who have to buy a certain proportion of renewable energy at a fixed price;\n(b)\nin both systems electricity suppliers are free not to buy renewable electricity for those of their clients who are exempt from the obligation to take such renewable electricity;\n(c)\nin both systems the obligation to buy renewable electricity from producers is imposed upon market participants who are not acting in a public service role; these market participants are entitled by law to pass on the additional costs to electricity suppliers, and purchase obligations and prices are determined by law;\n(d)\nin both systems, the regulator verifies that there is no overcompensation of an undertaking that has an obligation to purchase renewable electricity from producers.\n(28)\nIn paragraphs 42-48 of the opening decision, the Commission explained in detail why and in what respects the measure under assessment was comparable to the measure considered by the Court of Justice in the Essent case (14). Austria disputes these findings, on the following grounds.\n(a)\nOeMAG is not a body designated by the State for the purpose of collecting a charge. In Austria\u2019s understanding the grid operators in Germany play exactly the same role as OeMAG did in Austria.\n(b)\nOeMAG is a private undertaking, and not a body governed by public law like the corporations that were discussed in the judgments in Air France (15) and Salvat P\u00e8re (16). The State has no powers to appoint members of the management or the supervisory board, nor has it any supervisory powers or veto rights over OeMAG\u2019s decisions. The State has no power to take over OeMAG\u2019s functions.\n(c)\nAny litigation involving OeMAG is a matter for the ordinary courts.\n(d)\nThe only public control to which OeMAG is subject is an ex post audit by the Austrian Court of Auditors.\n(e)\nThe State budget does not cover any losses made by OeMAG. The role of the public authorities is limited to fixing the prices for the purchase and sale of renewable electricity. There is therefore no burden on the State budget of the kind shown in Sloman Neptun (17) and Pearle (18).\n(f)\nE-Control enjoys no discretion as to whether to grant an exemption under Section 22c of the Act.\n(g)\nThe total amount of money the electricity suppliers pay to OeMAG is not affected by the exemption mechanism. All that changes is the distribution of the overall amount between the different categories of final electricity consumer.\n3.2. Selectivity\n(29)\nAustria argues that the exemption for energy-intensive businesses does not constitute State aid, because it is not selective.\n(30)\nEnergy-intensive businesses are exempted only partially from financing the support provided to producers of green electricity. They have to make a compensatory payment of 0,5 % of their net production value directly to OeMAG, and thus continue to contribute to the financing of the support for the production of green electricity.\n(31)\nCiting the judgment in Adria-Wien Pipeline (19), Austria argues that the measure is not restricted to certain sectors of the economy de jure, nor is it selective de facto. But even if there is prima facie selectivity, it is in any event justified by the rationale of the system.\n(32)\nDe jure selectivity: The Green Electricity Act does not restrict the measure to certain sectors of the economy or to undertakings of a certain size, nor does it include any other selective criteria. In support of its argument Austria submits that there is nothing in the case-law to suggest that the selectivity test for State aid is satisfied merely because a net production value threshold has been laid down. In addition, Austria points out that the measure is not restricted to particular sectors of the economy or to undertakings of a certain size, nor is it subject to any other selective criteria: under the temporary arrangements in operation, the measure affects 19 different sectors and approximately 2 300 undertakings. Thus the measure is not selective de jure.\n(33)\nDe facto selectivity: According to Austria, the high number of sectors and undertakings affected by the exemption mechanism and the fact that the measure is not restricted to certain sectors or to undertakings of a certain size, or subject to any other selective criteria, show that the measure is de facto a general measure. Austria submits that this position too is supported by the Adria-Wien Pipeline case. In Adria-Wien Pipeline the Court of Justice had to consider a partial reimbursement of an energy tax which was granted to undertakings if the tax exceeded 0,35 % of their net production value. The Court held that \u2018National measures which provide for a rebate of energy taxes on natural gas and electricity do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the EC Treaty [now Article 107 of the TFEU] \u2026 where they apply to all undertakings in national territory, regardless of their activity\u2019 (20).\n(34)\nJustification by the rationale of the system: With regard to the structure of the refinancing and exemption mechanism, Austria takes the view that the design of the differentiation of charges is analogous to what exists in other tax- and fee-financed systems. The differentiation takes account of the capacity of undertakings to bear additional charges; it is in line with the rationale of the system, and consequently does not constitute State aid. Austria considers that this position has also been taken by the Commission in two earlier State aid decisions (21).\n(35)\nFurther, Austria points out that the exemption mechanism does not impair the environmental benefits provided by the Act, since the amount of aid available for supporting the production of green electricity is not reduced. Reducing environmental charges for certain businesses is the only way to establish a sustainable financing mechanism for green electricity, which is necessary in order to ensure support for renewable energy sources.\n3.3. Compatibility\n(36)\nOn the question of compatibility, Austria submits that Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines can be applied to the exemption mechanism by analogy.\n(37)\nChapter 4 of the Guidelines (points 151-159) sets out requirements for State aid granted in the form of reductions of or exemptions from environmental taxes. It provides for two types of assessment. First, if the aid is in the form of a reduction of or exemption from an environmental tax that has been harmonised under Community law, the measure is compatible provided the beneficiaries pay at least the Community minimum tax level set by the Energy Tax Directive (22). If the measure provides for reductions of or exemptions from harmonised environmental taxes that go beyond these minimum tax levels, or reductions of or exemptions from environmental taxes that have not been harmonised, the Member State has to provide detailed information on the necessity and proportionality of the measure.\n(38)\nAustria proposes that Chapter 4 of the Guidelines, regarding aid in the form of reductions of or exemptions from environmental taxes, should be applied by analogy here. In Austria\u2019s opinion the measure can be assessed by analogy in particular with the provisions on harmonised environmental taxes. On this legal basis, the exemption mechanism can be held compatible provided that the undertakings in question pay the minimum tax level set by the Energy Tax Directive, i.e. EUR 0,50 per MWh, which indeed they do. It follows that the additional relief from the feed-in tariff system in the form of a partial exemption from contributing to its financing can be considered compatible, since the contribution that still has to be made to the financing of support for the production of green electricity continues to function as a supplement to the minimum electricity tax.\n(39)\nAustria considers that the exemption mechanism leads at least indirectly to a higher level of environmental protection. In its view, the exemption mechanism is necessary in order to render possible a general increase in the amount that electricity consumers pay for renewable electricity.\n(40)\nAustria supports this argument by comparing the wordings of point 152 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines and Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation (23). After comparing the wordings of the General Block Exemption Regulation in several language versions, Austria comes to the conclusion that Article 25 of the Regulation is broader in scope than point 152 of the Guidelines: the reductions in environmental taxes referred to in point 152 of the Guidelines require energy taxes that have been fully harmonised, but from Article 25 of the Regulation it is clear that reductions in environmental taxes - such as reductions in an electricity charge under the Energy Tax Directive - are exempted provided that the conditions of the Energy Tax Directive are fulfilled. The exemption mechanism for energy-intensive businesses in fact reproduces the requirements for tax reductions in the Energy Tax Directive. The rationale, the evaluations and the approach in the Energy Tax Directive and provisions that refer to it, such as Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation, are consequently applicable to the proposed exemption mechanism. Both the exemption mechanism and the system for placing the cost on electricity consumption meet the conditions of the Energy Tax Directive, and are therefore justified under Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation, or compatible with the internal market by analogy with that Article (24).\n(41)\nAustria refers here to the Joint paper on the revision of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and Energy Tax Directive of 7 July 2006 (25). The joint paper made it clear that Member States needed flexibility in order to be in a position to differentiate reasonably. It was part of the nature and logic of environmental taxes and charges that there should be exemptions or differentiated rates. The Member States therefore felt that the Environmental Aid Guidelines and the General Block Exemption Regulation should be interpreted broadly.\n(42)\nFinally, Austria submits detailed argument to show that similar systems are in place in other Member States, and stresses that the Green Electricity Act is largely comparable to the German Renewable Energy Act. Since energy-intensive businesses in Austria compete with undertakings in other Member States (e.g. Germany) and outside the EU, the exemption mechanism is essential in order to ensure that they are not placed at a disadvantage in international competition.\n4. OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED FROM THIRD PARTIES\n(43)\nThe Austrian Chamber of Employees submitted observations on the opening of the formal investigation. The organisation, which had 3,2 million members, considered that the financing system of the Green Electricity Act involved State aid. It did not share Austria\u2019s view that the exemption mechanism for energy-intensive consumers was compatible with State aid law. The mechanism placed an additional burden on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and households, which were obliged to pay the extra costs of green energy even though they were not the main consumers. This would lead to distortion of competition at the expenses of SMEs.\n(44)\nThe Chamber of Employees referred to the Commission decision of 4 July 2006, in which the Commission concluded that the feed-in tariffs constituted State aid (26). Since the legal framework governing the feed-in tariffs had not changed since that time, the Chamber argued that the support system provided for in the Green Electricity Act of 2008 continued to involve State aid. The Chamber wondered how Austria could now defend a position different from the one it had expressed when it notified the earlier version of the Act.\n(45)\nThe Chamber did not agree with Austria that the exemption of large consumers from the purchase obligation, as provided in the Act, should be regarded in the same light as the cap on energy taxes. Austria, citing an earlier Commission decision approving a cap on energy taxes, was now also seeking approval for the exemption mechanism for large consumers of electricity; this was not admissible. The Chamber considered that the analogy was not a legitimate one.\n(46)\nThe cap on energy taxes was State aid, granted through the tax system, which was aimed at least indirectly at an improvement in environmental protection, whereas the exemption from the purchase obligation for energy-intensive businesses did not pursue any environmental objective and could not be subsumed under the Environmental Aid Guidelines.\n(47)\nSince the Act provided specifically for the exemption of large consumers from such a purchase obligation, the provision could not be regarded as a reduction of or exemption from environmental taxes within the meaning of Chapter 4 of the Guidelines.\n(48)\nFurther, even if Chapter 4 could be applied by analogy, the exemption mechanism would not be compatible with it, for the following reasons. The measure was not limited to a period of 10 years. In current market conditions price elasticity was sufficient to ensure that any increase in the production costs of the industries concerned (such as paper and steel) could be passed on to consumers; this meant that the exemption mechanism did not meet the condition in point 158(c) of the Guidelines.\n(49)\nThe exemption was not proportional, because energy-intensive consumers were not required to consume green electricity, so that the movement of renewable energy prices towards market price level would be delayed. SMEs and households alone had to pay for the extra costs of producing green electricity, although they consumed only small volumes of energy. The exemption mechanism consequently also failed to meet the condition in point 159(a) of the Guidelines.\n(50)\nNor were there any agreements of the kind referred to in 159(c) of the Guidelines by which large energy consumers committed themselves to achieve the objectives of the Act. Finally, the exemption mechanism for large consumers did not contribute to energy efficiency or environmentally friendly use of energy, but on the contrary excepted those consumers from any share in achieving EU-wide environmental objectives.\n(51)\nSection 22 of the Act was consequently an operational aid measure sui generis, which did not produce any environmental benefit and did not fall under the Environmental Aid Guidelines. Since this aid was not limited in time, and was not scheduled to decrease over time, and since it distorted competition mainly at the expense of SMEs, it should not be authorised.\n5. ASSESSMENT\n(52)\nThe Commission has examined the notified measure in the light of Articles 107 ff. of the TFEU and Articles 61 ff. of the EEA Agreement (27).\n(53)\nThe Commission points out, first of all, that the notified legislation contains two separate measures, both of which were considered under State aid law in the Commission\u2019s opening decision of 22 July 2009 (28). The Act provides for aid in the form of a feed-in tariff for the benefit of producers of green electricity. It also contains a provision by which energy-intensive businesses can - under certain conditions - be partially exempted from the obligation to pay the feed-in tariff. In its decision of 22 July 2009 the Commission accepted that the feed-in tariffs for the benefit of green electricity producers constituted State aid compatible with the internal market, but it expressed doubts as to whether the exemption mechanism was compatible with the State aid rules, and accordingly opened a formal investigation into this aspect of the Act. In the decision of 22 July 2009 the Commission approved the support for producers of green electricity as compatible State aid, but it did not take a final position on the question whether the exemption of energy-intensive businesses from the purchase obligation constituted State aid, and if so whether this exemption mechanism was compatible with the State aid rules. These questions have been considered in the formal investigation that has led up to the present Decision. As explained below, however, the finding in the decision of 22 July 2009 that the funds channelled through OeMAG to green electricity producers are State resources is important for the determination of the presence of State resources in the mechanism that exempts energy-intensive businesses from contributing to these funds.\n5.1. Presence of State aid\n(54)\nA measure constitutes State aid caught by Article 107(1) TFEU if: first, it confers an advantage on the recipients; second, it is financed by the State or through State resources; third, it favours selected undertakings or economic activities; and, fourth, it has the potential to affect trade between Member States and to distort or threaten to distort competition in the internal market.\n5.1.1. Advantage\n(55)\nWhere the possible advantage results from an exemption or a partial exemption from a regulatory charge, the only question to be determined is whether, under a particular statutory scheme, a State measure is such as to favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU in comparison with other undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the measure in question (29).\n(56)\nIn the present case, the objective pursued by the measure in question is to raise revenue from electricity users in order to finance the production of electricity from renewable sources. Energy-intensive businesses are in the same factual and legal situation as all other electricity users, as they all consume electricity and purchase their electricity from electricity suppliers, which in turn have the obligation to purchase a certain amount of renewable electricity at a price fixed by legislation (the \u2018clearing price\u2019 (Verrechnungspreis)). In the absence of the exemption mechanism, energy-intensive businesses would have to pay their electricity suppliers the additional costs of green electricity as shown in their electricity bill. This is the way in which electricity suppliers pass on the additional costs resulting from their obligation to purchase green electricity from the settlement centre. Other electricity users that are in the same factual and legal situation, as they all purchase electricity, do not enjoy this possibility. The exemption mechanism consequently favours energy-intensive businesses in comparison with all other electricity consumers.\n(57)\nOn the basis of an exemption granted by E-Control, energy-intensive businesses are entitled to ask not to be supplied with green electricity, and the electricity suppliers are prohibited, by law, from passing on to the exempted undertakings any costs they incur as a result of their obligation to buy green electricity from the settlement centre. Instead, energy-intensive businesses pay the equivalent of 0,5 % of their net production value to the centre.\n(58)\nThe effect of the exemption mechanism, therefore, is to cap the contribution of energy-intensive industries to the revenues of the centre at a certain level. They are thus partially exempt by law from a charge which they would have had to bear under normal market conditions. The exemption mechanism consequently confers an advantage on the undertakings which are eligible for it.\n(59)\nAccording to Austria, the relief may amount to a total of up to EUR 44 million annually (30). The measure thus constitutes an advantage to these energy-intensive businesses.\n5.1.2. State resources and imputability\nIt is settled case-law that an advantage can be categorised as State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU only if it is granted directly or indirectly through State resources and the use made of the resources is imputable to the State (31).\n(60)\nIn that regard Austria puts forward a twofold argument. First, the funds under the control of OeMAG do not constitute State resources. Second, even if the funds under the control of OeMAG do constitute State resources, the reduction in OeMAG\u2019s revenues due to the exemption mechanism does not reduce State resources, because there is no involvement of the State at the level below OeMAG (i.e. at the level of the energy-intensive consumers and electricity distributors).\n(61)\nThe Commission observes that the exemption mechanism for energy-intensive businesses reduces the revenues of the settlement centre - OeMAG - as the electricity suppliers are not obliged to purchase green electricity for those energy-intensive businesses that have been granted an exemption, and the direct payment made to OeMAG by the energy-intensive businesses is lower than what OeMAG would have received had the energy-intensive businesses not been exempted.\n(62)\nAccordingly, the Commission needs to establish whether the resources which on the basis of the Green Electricity Act are under the control of the settlement centre, that is OeMAG, constitute State resources. If that is the case, the measure under assessment leads to a reduction in State revenue, and is therefore financed from State resources.\n(63)\nIn the Essent case (32), SEP, an undertaking owned by a number of Dutch electricity generating companies, had been entrusted by the State with a public service obligation to collect revenues from a surcharge imposed on the users of the electricity grid. The law allowed SEP to use the revenues of the surcharge only for the purpose set out in the law, that is to say in order to defray stranded costs incurred by the electricity undertakings in the context of the liberalisation of the electricity market.\n(64)\nThe Court of Justice found that the surcharge collected by SEP constituted a State resource, because the following conditions were met:\n(a)\nthe surcharge was a charge imposed upon private entities by an act of public authority (paragraphs 47-66 of the judgment);\n(b)\nthe State had given SEP the task of operating an economic service of general interest, namely the task of collecting the charge (paragraph 68);\n(c)\nSEP was not entitled to use the proceeds from the charge for purposes other than those provided for by the law, and it was strictly monitored in carrying out its task (paragraph 69).\n(65)\nThe judgment made it clear that the measure in question differed from that considered in PreussenElektra, because there \u2018the undertakings had not been appointed by the State to manage a State resource, but were bound by an obligation to purchase by means of their own financial resources\u2019 (33). In its opening decision of 22 July 2009 the Commission observed that OeMAG had been set up and licensed by the Austrian State, and in its founding documents had been given the task of administering the resources needed to support green electricity. The Commission concluded that the fact that OeMAG was private was not enough to show that the measure did not involve State aid. In particular, the notified measure was not comparable to the scheme in PreussenElektra. The PreussenElektra case was concerned with relations between private undertakings, without the involvement of any intermediate body, whereas the Green Electricity Act in Austria had given OeMAG the task of collecting and distributing the funds intended for the generation of green electricity.\n(66)\nThe Court also distinguished the Essent case from the cases of Pearle and PreussenElektra: in Pearle, the funds collected by a professional body were used not for a policy decided by the public authorities, but for a private advertisement campaign; while in PreussenElektra, private electricity undertakings which were required to purchase renewable electricity at a fixed price were using their own resources, and not the proceeds of a charge they had collected on behalf of the State (paragraphs 72-74).\n(67)\nIn the present case, therefore, the Commission must assess whether OeMAG has been designated by the State to collect and administer a charge, as SEP was, or whether it is using its own funds, as the undertakings in PreussenElektra were (34).\n(68)\nPresence of a charge: The Commission first needs to establish whether the money collected by OeMAG constitutes a charge. Sections 10 and 19 of the Green Electricity Act require electricity suppliers to purchase a certain volume of renewable electricity at a price above the market price, called the \u2018clearing price\u2019(Verrechnungspreis). Section 22b of the Act states that the level of the clearing price is to be set annually by order of the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Labour, and goes on to lay down default values. The difference between the market price for electricity and the clearing price, which is set by an act of public authority, constitutes a charge on electricity. In the present case the charge is not paid to other market players engaged in ordinary commercial business, as it was in PreussenElektra, which led the Court to find that no State resources were involved. Here payments are made to a body that has the specific task of collecting and distributing these funds solely for purposes in the public interest.\n(69)\nDesignation of a private body to collect and administer the charge: The Act provides that the charge is to be levied, not by the State, but by a legal entity that holds a concession to act as a settlement centre. A concession to act as settlement centre for the whole of Austria is currently held by OeMAG. The concession gives OeMAG the public service obligation of collecting a charge in the form of the clearing price from all electricity suppliers.\n(70)\nElectricity suppliers are generally free to pass that charge on to electricity consumers, and from an economic point of view it can be assumed that they will normally do so. However, the Act prohibits them from passing the charge on to those energy-intensive businesses which have been exempted in accordance with Section 22c of the Act from the obligation to purchase renewable electricity.\n(71)\nThe Commission concludes that OeMAG has been entrusted by the State with an economic service of general interest, namely collecting and administering the charge.\n(72)\nControl of the funds and use for a purpose designated by law: Section 23 of the Act requires OeMAG to hold the revenues from the clearing price in a dedicated bank account. The funds collected on this account can be used only for the purpose of purchasing renewable electricity. OeMAG must grant access at any time to all documents concerning the account to the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labour or to the Austrian Court of Auditors. Irrespective of the ownership structure of OeMAG, Section 15 of the Act also requires the Court of Auditors to carry out ex post audits of OeMAG.\n(73)\nThe Commission concludes that OeMAG has to use the funds for a purpose designated by law, and that the State exercises strict control over their use.\n(74)\nIn line with the Essent and Steinike cases, the Commission concludes that the funds collected and administered by OeMAG constitute State resources.\n(75)\nAustria has presented a series of arguments in support of its view that the situation of OeMAG is comparable to that in PreussenElektra rather than that in Essent. It will be shown in the following recitals that these arguments do not withstand scrutiny.\n(76)\nThe Commission observes first of all that Austria compares the Green Electricity Act to the German Renewable Energy Act, as it was earlier and as it is now, citing the judgment of the Court of Justice in PreussenElektra (35). But that comparison is not relevant to the question at issue here. In the present Decision the Commission is examining only the proposed measure, and will not try to assess the German or any other similar legislation: each case must be dealt with on its own merits. With reference to the arguments put forward, however, it must be observed that the Austrian legislation differs substantially from the German Act that was considered in PreussenElektra. In PreussenElektra the Court of Justice found that only advantages granted directly by the State or by a private body designated or established by the State could involve the use of State resources. The Court then found that the purchase obligation imposed on private electricity supply undertakings did not involve any direct or indirect transfer of State resources. The scheme notified here is thus not identical to the scheme considered in PreussenElektra. As it said in its opening decision of 22 July 2009, the Commission takes the view that the Austrian scheme involves the use of resources that are imputable to the State. The Austrian scheme differs from the German one in particular in that it provides for an intermediate body such as OeMAG which is designated by the State, and the State monitors and checks the collection and distribution of the resources administered by that body. The Commission also finds that the Austrian scheme may allow direct payments from the State to OeMAG.\n(77)\nWith regard to the current German Renewable Energy Act, it should be observed that that measure is not the subject of this Decision; the Commission has not yet made an assessment of it, and consequently cannot enter into detailed consideration of a supposed analogy between the Austrian Green Electricity Act and the current German Renewable Energy Act.\n(78)\nAustria argues furthermore that OeMAG is a private undertaking, and not a body governed by public law like the corporations that were discussed in the judgments in Air France and Salvat P\u00e8re. The Austrian authorities can exercise control over OeMAG only by verifying its accounts ex post and by withdrawing its concession.\n(79)\nThe Commission points out in this regard that it is clear from the judgment in Essent that where the State designates a body to collect and administer the revenues of a charge, there is no need to draw any distinction according to whether that body is public or private. In its findings the Court did not give any indication as to whether SEP was publicly or privately owned; it follows that this fact was not relevant to its judgment. This is in line with point 106 of the conclusions of Advocate-General Mengozzi in Essent, and with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Steinike (36).\n(80)\nTherefore, the fact that OeMAG is a privately controlled undertaking does not preclude the presence of State resources. The decisive question is whether it has been designated by the State to collect a charge and administer it.\n(81)\nAustria further argues that the State budget does not cover any losses that may be made by OeMAG, and that the role of the public authorities is limited to setting the prices for the purchase and sale of renewable electricity; there is therefore no burden on the State budget of the kind that was shown in Sloman Neptun and Pearle.\n(82)\nThe Commission observes that it was shown in Essent that money at the disposal of a private entity that had been designated by the State to collect and administer a charge constituted a State resource. Accordingly, a reduction in the level of the charge paid by certain undertakings subject to the charge is sufficient to constitute a burden on the State.\n(83)\nWith regard to the Austria\u2019s argument that E-Control enjoys no discretion in exempting energy-intensive businesses from the purchase obligation, the Commission points out that, as Advocate-General Mengozzi explained in point 109 of his opinion in Essent, the fact that the body designated to collect and administer the charge enjoys no discretion is without bearing on the question whether these funds constitute State resources.\n(84)\nAustria\u2019s last argument is that the overall amount of money the electricity suppliers pay to OeMAG is not affected by the exemption mechanism, which changes only the distribution of the overall amount between the different categories of final electricity consumers; the Commission observes that the fact that a loss of State revenues may be offset by an increase in State revenues from other sources has no bearing on the question whether State resources are being used. What is decisive is that an undertaking enjoys an advantage, and that this advantage reduces the revenues to the State from that undertaking. It is obvious that the State will ultimately have to find other sources of revenue to make good the shortfall.\n(85)\nThe Commission concludes that the facts in the present case correspond to the facts considered in Essent and Steinike: all the tests for the presence of State resources established in Essent and Steinike are satisfied. The measure being assessed is therefore financed from State resources.\n(86)\nThe use of the funds under the control of OeMAG is regulated by law, namely by the Green Electricity Act. The use of the funds is therefore imputable to the State.\n(87)\nIt follows that the exemption mechanism leads to a loss of State resources, and is imputable to the State.\n5.1.3. Selectivity of the measure\n(88)\nThe Commission points out that even if the measure might in theory appear to be neutral in terms of both undertakings and economic sectors, it may still be selective in practice.\n(89)\nAustria argues that the exemption mechanism does not constitute State aid since it is not selective but is a general measure open to all undertakings and sectors. First, Austria submits that the 0,5 % threshold in the notified scheme does not impose any restriction in terms of specific industries, size of undertaking or other selective criteria (37). Second, Austria has found that the measure in fact affects 2 300 undertakings in 19 different sectors; it says this shows that the measure is indeed open to all undertakings and sectors of the economy.\n(90)\nA measure is selective if it favours only certain undertakings or the production of certain goods. It is not selective if it applies to all undertakings in national territory, regardless of their activity.\n(91)\nThe Commission finds that the fact that there is only a 0,5 % threshold does not suffice to qualify the notified scheme as a general measure. On the contrary, the Commission finds that as a result of this threshold not all undertakings in the national territory can take advantage of the notified measure.\n(92)\nAustria has submitted that the notified measure is reserved for undertakings whose costs increase by more than 0,5 % of their net production value as a result of their contribution to the support of green electricity. The Commission notes that these conditions are very similar to the requirements of the definition of an \u2018energy-intensive business\u2019 in Article 17(1)(a) of the Energy Tax Directive (38). Austria argues that the 0,5 % threshold does not suffice to qualify the notified measure as selective. In Austria\u2019s view this conclusion is supported by the judgment of the Court of Justice in Adria-Wien Pipeline. In that judgment the Court had to consider a partial reimbursement of an energy tax which was granted to firms if the tax exceeded 0,35 % of their net production value. The Court held that \u2018National measures which provide for a rebate of energy taxes on natural gas and electricity do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the EC Treaty [now Article 107 of the TFEU] \u2026 where they apply to all undertakings in national territory, regardless of their activity\u2019 (39).\n(93)\nHowever, the Commission considers that that judgment does not preclude a finding of selectivity with regard to the 0,5 % threshold in the case at hand. The judgment was a preliminary ruling, given in response to an application by an Austrian court which was concerned with the existing scheme of energy tax rebates. The Austrian court submitted two questions. First, it asked whether the fact that under the existing scheme the tax rebate was granted only to undertakings engaged in the production of goods meant that the rebate was selective. Second, it raised the hypothetical question how the Court would assess a tax rebate that was not confined to undertakings engaged primarily in the production of goods but applied to all undertakings, regardless of their activity.\n(94)\nOn the first question, the Court found that the restriction of the tax rebate to manufacturers did make the measure selective. In view of the hypothetical nature of the second question, that is to say how it would assess a tax rebate open to all sectors of the economy, the Court answered in rather general terms. It said that a measure was selective if it favoured certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, and was not selective if it benefited all undertakings in national territory without distinction (40). The Court concluded that national measures did not constitute State aid \u2018if they apply to all undertakings in national territory, regardless of their activity\u2019 (41). The Court did not give any indication whether a measure subject to a 0,35 % threshold should be considered to be applicable to all undertakings. This was noted by Advocate-General Jacobs in his opinion in a subsequent case before the Court: \u2018the effect of the 0,35 % threshold was not examined by the Court of Justice in Adria-Wien\u2019 (42). The Court did not need to decide whether the exemption mechanism as such (i.e. without the restriction to undertakings engaged primarily in the production of goods) was selective de facto. Thus the Court did not rule out the possibility that the 0,35 % threshold might be selective if it had the effect that in practice the measure was not open to all undertakings in national territory.\n(95)\nIndeed the Commission takes the view that the Court gave some indication that such a threshold could be selective even if the measure was open to a number of different sectors. In its reply to the second question, the Court said in particular that \u2018neither the large number of eligible undertakings nor the diversity and the size of the sectors to which those undertakings belong provide any grounds for concluding that a State initiative constitutes a general measure of economic policy\u2019 (43). According to the case-law, many measures that are not sector-specific can be regarded as selective if de facto they are not open to all undertakings in national territory (44). It follows that even measures which are open to all sectors can be considered selective on the grounds that de facto they are not open to all undertakings in the territory concerned.\n(96)\nThis view is also reflected in a Commission decision on the Austrian energy tax rebate (45). Following the judgment of the Court of Justice that has just been discussed, Austria broadened the measure to include undertakings from all sectors. In its assessment of the amended scheme, however, the Commission found that the measure was still selective, because even if formally speaking the rebate was open to all undertakings, in practice the only undertakings that would benefit would be those with a high energy consumption in relation to their net production value (46). The Commission concluded that the tax rebate constituted unlawful (i.e. not notified) State aid, and was incompatible with the internal market (47).\n(97)\nThe effects of the Commission decision subsequently led an Austrian administrative court to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice (48). The questions submitted by the Austrian court related to the scope of the effects of the illegality of the tax rebate, and the Court of Justice did not reopen the issue of selectivity. The question was however discussed by the Advocate-General. In his opinion the Advocate-General said that \u2018as the Commission points out, to grant rebates only to service undertakings (in addition to production undertakings) not excluded by the 0,35 % threshold would be simply to enlarge the circle of beneficiaries of the aid. It would not however deprive the aid of its effects as such, since a criterion of selectivity would remain\u2019 (49).. He also took the view that \u2018The Commission\u2019s reasoning in its 2004 decision is convincing as regards the selective nature of the 0,35 % threshold in the amended scheme\u2019 (50).\n(98)\nThe Commission concludes that the 0,5 % threshold at issue in the present case is a selection criterion which limits the benefit of the notified measure to energy-intensive undertakings and excludes undertakings which are not energy-intensive. Irrespective of the number of sectors that qualify, the threshold means that not all undertakings in the national territory can benefit under the notified measure. Consequently, the threshold renders the notified measure selective.\n(99)\nThe Commission also observes that to qualify for the exemption mechanism under assessment here, undertakings must be eligible for an energy tax rebate under the Austrian Energy Tax Rebate Act, which was the subject of the Commission decision on the Austrian energy tax rebate. The Commission\u2019s reasoning in that decision consequently applies mutatis mutandis to the present case.\n(100)\nAs regards Austria\u2019s second line of argument, the Commission finds that the notified measure is selective also because in practice it focuses primarily on a limited number of undertakings active in the production of certain energy-intensive goods. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, a measure must be analysed not by reference to its causes or aims but in relation to its effects (51). This means that even though in formal terms a measure is open to all sectors and all undertakings, it may still be considered selective if it is not open to all undertakings in national territory in practice. The Court of Justice has held that \u2018Neither the high number of benefiting undertakings nor the diversity and importance of the industrial sectors to which those undertakings belong warrant the conclusion that [a] scheme constitutes a general measure of economic policy\u2019 (52).\n(101)\nIn its investigation the Commission found that the notified scheme focused primarily on a very few undertakings, most of which were engaged in the production of goods. On 9 September 2010 Austria submitted data gathered on the basis of the scheme as it currently applied, that is to say with aid intensities below the notification thresholds. Of the approximately 300 000 undertakings in Austria, according to this information, the number that applied for benefits under the scheme was only about 2 000, or less than 1 % of all Austrian undertakings. As the scheme was applied, approximately 66 % of the benefits went to undertakings in the\u2018production of goods\u2019 (53). The Commission observes that if Austria were to increase the aid intensities above the de minimis thresholds under which the scheme is provisionally operating, the measure would most probably focus even more on undertakings active in the production of goods. This is demonstrated by the fact that, on the basis of the information provided by Austria, only 12 undertakings would benefit from aid intensities higher than under the version of the scheme currently applying, and that of these only two operate in the transport sector, while 10 are engaged in the production of goods (54).\n(102)\nThe Commission concludes that the notified scheme will provide little or no benefit to the majority of the sectors of the Austrian economy, and will benefit mainly undertakings active in one of the branches of the production of goods. Irrespective of the number of sectors in which undertakings might benefit as a result of the measure, the measure focuses mainly on undertakings active in the production of goods, and is therefore to be considered selective de facto.\n(103)\nThe Commission concludes that the notified exemption mechanism is selective, both because it provides for a 0,5 % threshold, which confines the measure to energy-intensive undertakings, and because those undertakings are active primarily in the production of goods.\n(104)\nThe Commission notes that even where a measure has a selective character it does not fulfil the condition of selectivity if it is justified by the nature or the general scheme of the system of which it is part (55). The Court of Justice has consistently held that it is for the Member State to demonstrate that this is so (56).\n(105)\nAccording to the Court, \u2018a distinction must be made between, on the one hand, the objectives attributed to a particular tax scheme which are extrinsic to it and, on the other, the mechanisms inherent in the tax system itself which are necessary for the achievement of such objectives\u2019. It is only the latter mechanisms that can be justified by the nature or the general scheme of the tax system of which the measure is part (57). Any extrinsic objectives have to be considered at the stage when the aid is being assessed for compatibility (58).\n(106)\nAustria considers that the differentiation of charges introduced by Section 22c of the Act is intended to allow for the varying capacity of undertakings to bear additional charges. Austria also takes the view that the exemption mechanism does not impair the environmental benefits provided for by the Act, since the amount of aid available to support the production of green electricity is not reduced. Austria contends that only by reducing environmental charges for certain businesses is it possible to establish a sustainable financing mechanism for green electricity, which is necessary in order to ensure support for renewable energy sources.\n(107)\nThe Commission notes in this regard that the intrinsic objective of the system established by the clearing price is to raise revenues for the specific purpose of promoting renewable energy. The exemption mechanism, however, pursues the objective of improving the competitiveness of energy-intensive businesses by reducing their electricity price, and thereby improving the acceptability of the system based on the clearing price. This objective is extrinsic to the rationale and general scheme of the system.\n(108)\nThe Court of Justice has held that the pursuit of such an extrinsic objective cannot be relied upon to justify a measure by reference to the nature or general scheme of the tax system (59). It can be analysed only when the aid has to be assessed for compatibility (60).\n(109)\nIn support of its view that the exemption mechanism is justified by the rationale and general scheme of the system, Austria cites two State aid decisions; but there the situation was different. State aid measure No N 271/06, the Danish tax on surplus heat, sought not to improve competitiveness but to place the tax treatment of all energy products on an equal footing. State aid measure No N 860/06, the German energy tax exemption for dual-use processes, was based on the principle that energy products should be taxed only when they were used for heating or fuel purposes.\n(110)\nIt follows that the notified exemption for energy-intensive industries is not justified by the nature or general scheme of the system of which it is part.\n(111)\nThe Commission concludes that the notified measure fulfils the condition of selectivity because it is selective de facto and is not justified by the nature and general scheme of the system.\n5.1.4. Distortion of competition and impact on trade\n(112)\nThe beneficiaries of the measure, which in the Commission\u2019s view constitutes operating aid, are for the most part engaged in the production of energy-intensive goods such as metal or paper products (61). These are industries where there is trade between Member States, and undertakings in one Member State are subject to competition from undertakings in others. The measure in question is therefore liable to distort competition and to affect trade in the internal market.\n5.1.5. Conclusion\n(113)\nThe Commission concludes that the exemption mechanism constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, because it has the effect of reducing State resources and thereby conferring a selective advantage on energy-intensive businesses. Consequently, the measure has the potential to affect trade between Member States and to distort competition in the internal market.\n5.2. Lawfulness of the aid\n(114)\nAustria has undertaken not to put the aid into effect until the European Commission has approved it. Austria notified the measure before putting it into effect, and has thus complied with its obligation under Article 108(3) TFEU (62).\n5.3. Compatibility of the aid\n(115)\nUnder Article 107(3) TFEU the Commission may declare State aid compatible with the internal market. It is settled case-law that the burden of proof for demonstrating that a measure is compatible lies on the Member State (63).\n(116)\nIn aid cases falling under Article 107(3) TFEU the Commission has wide discretion (64). In the exercise of its discretion it has issued guidelines and notices setting forth criteria for declaring certain types of aid compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3) TFEU. The Court of Justice has consistently held that the Commission is bound by the guidelines and notices that it issues in the area of supervision of State aid where they do not depart from the rules in the Treaty and are accepted by the Member States (65).\n(117)\nIn the first place, therefore, it must be considered whether the notified aid falls within the scope of one or more sets of guidelines or notices, and can be declared compatible with the internal market because it satisfies the tests of compatibility set out therein.\n(118)\nAustria claims that the notified measure falls within the scope of the Environmental Aid Guidelines (66), or that the Environmental Aid Guidelines are applicable by analogy. In addition, it also claims that the aid falls within the scope of the General Block Exemption Regulation (67).\n(119)\nHowever, there are clearly defined situations in which operating aid may be granted. In particular, operating aid in the form of reductions of taxes may be granted, on specific conditions, under Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines (68) or under Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation (69). Under certain conditions aid may also be assessed directly under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\n5.3.1. The Environmental Aid Guidelines\n(120)\nThe Environmental Aid Guidelines define their scope of application as follows (70):\n\u2018(58)\nThese Guidelines apply to State aid for environmental protection. They will be applied in accordance with other Community policies on State aid, other provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Treaty on European Union and legislation adopted pursuant to those Treaties.\n(59)\nThese Guidelines apply to aid to support environmental protection in all sectors governed by the EC Treaty. They also apply to those sectors which are subject to specific Community rules on State aid (steel processing, shipbuilding, motor vehicles, synthetic fibres, transport, coal agriculture and fisheries) unless such specific rules provide otherwise.\u2019\n(121)\nPoint 70(1) of the Guidelines defines \u2018environmental protection\u2019 as \u2018any action designed to remedy or prevent damage to physical surroundings or natural resources by a beneficiary\u2019s own activities, to reduce the risk of such damage or to lead to more efficient use of natural resources, including energy-saving measures and the use of renewable sources of energy\u2019. Point 151 states that for a measure to fall within the scope of the Guidelines it is enough that it should improve the level of environmental protection indirectly.\n(122)\nAustria considers that the exemption mechanism contributes indirectly to environmental protection, for two reasons: it is a necessary precondition for ensuring political support for increasing the clearing price to a higher level, which is necessary to finance the further increase in the production of renewable electricity; and it increases the price of electricity use, thereby giving an incentive to be more energy-efficient.\n(123)\nOn the first argument, the Commission observes that there is no necessary link between the clearing price and an increase in the level of production of renewable electricity. By virtue of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (\u2018the Renewable Energy Directive\u2019) (71), Austria is under an obligation to increase production of electricity from renewable sources. It is, however, free to choose how it wishes to finance this. It could, for example, use tax revenues. Thus the exemption mechanism is not necessary in order to increase production of renewable energy.\n(124)\nWith regard to the second argument, the Commission observes that the exemption mechanism functions as a cap. The average electricity price paid by energy-intensive businesses consequently decreases for each additional kilowatt-hour they consume above the threshold. Rather than encouraging energy efficiency, the exemption mechanism actually reduces it.\n(125)\nThe Commission concludes that the exemption mechanism does not fall within the scope of the Environmental Aid Guidelines.\n(126)\nBut even if the measure did fall within the scope of the Guidelines - which it does not - the Commission observes that it could not be declared compatible on this basis, as the tests of Chapter 4 of the Guidelines are not satisfied, for the following reasons.\n(127)\nFor purposes of the assessment of compatibility, Chapter 4 of the Guidelines distinguishes between harmonised and non-harmonised environmental taxes. The parafiscal levy represented by the clearing price is not an environmental tax that has been harmonised at Union level. The Renewable Energy Directive sets obligatory targets for renewable energy, but leaves it to the Member States to decide how they achieve these targets.\n(128)\nThe exemption mechanism would therefore have to be assessed under the rules for non-harmonised environmental taxes in Chapter 4 of the Guidelines (72).\n(129)\nAccording to those provisions, the Member State has to provide information on the respective sectors or categories of beneficiaries covered by the exemptions or reductions, on the situation of the main beneficiaries in each sector concerned and on how the taxation may contribute to environmental protection. The exempted sectors should be properly described, and a list of the largest beneficiaries for each sector should be provided (considering notably turnover, market shares and size of the tax base) (73). On the basis of this information the Commission has to assess whether the reductions of or exemptions from environmental taxes are necessary and proportional. With regard to necessity, the choice of beneficiaries must be based on objective and transparent criteria, and the environmental tax without reduction must lead to a substantial increase of production costs that cannot be passed on to consumers without leading to important sales reductions (74). With regard to proportionality, the Member State has to demonstrate that each individual beneficiary pays a proportion of the national tax level which is broadly equivalent to its environmental performance, or at least 20 % of the national tax, unless a lower rate can be justified, and that the reductions or exemptions are conditional on the conclusion of agreements aimed at achieving environmental objectives (75).\n(130)\nAlthough the Commission repeatedly asked it to do so, however, Austria did not provide this information (76). The Commission has consequently been unable to assess whether the aid is necessary and proportional or how it might contribute to the protection of the environment.\n5.3.2. Analogy with Chapter 4 of the Guidelines\n(131)\nGiven that the notified exemption mechanism does not contribute to environmental protection even indirectly, the Commission has considered whether it might be approved by analogy with Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines.\n(132)\nAccording to Austria, the exemption mechanism can be assessed by analogy with the rules on tax reductions for harmonised energy taxes set out in points 152- 153 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines. Chapter 4 of the Guidelines provides for two types of assessment of reductions of environmental taxes, which may lead to different conclusions. First, it lays down rules for the reduction of energy taxes harmonised under the Energy Tax Directive, which can be declared compatible without further analysis provided the minimum tax levels set out in the Energy Tax Directive are respected. Second, it lays down specific rules for the assessment of reductions of environmental taxes that have not been harmonised and reductions of harmonised energy taxes that are below the minimum tax levels set in the Energy Tax Directive. In either case the Member State has among other things to provide detailed information on the necessity and proportionality of the measure. Austria argues that the Commission could approve the exemption mechanism for parafiscal levies on the basis that the beneficiaries pay at least the minimum levels of Austrian energy taxes.\n(133)\nThe Commission observes that there are no precedents in its own decisions or in the judgments of the European courts in which the rules for the assessment of harmonised energy taxes under Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines were applied to parafiscal levies by analogy.\n(134)\nAccording to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, a rule of Union law can be applied by analogy if the following two conditions are met. First, the rules applicable to the case must be very similar to the ones which it is sought to have applied by analogy. Second, the rules applicable to the case must contain an omission which is incompatible with a general principle of EU law and which can be remedied by analogy (77). In view of these conditions, the Commission observes that analogy can be invoked in EU law only in exceptional circumstances.\n(135)\nFirst, the rules applicable to the case must be very similar to the ones which it is sought to have applied by analogy. Since Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines deals with reductions of or exemptions from environmental taxes, the rules governing the notified levies under the Green Electricity Act should be similar to those applying to environmental taxes.\nHowever, the Commission finds that the legal position with regard to environmental taxes under EU law is not comparable to the legal position with regard to parafiscal levies under EU law. While there are no specific rules in EU law with regard to parafiscal levies, there are specific rules on energy taxes. These include in particular the minimum tax levels set by the Energy Tax Directive, and exceptions to these minimum levels under the conditions set out in Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines and Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation. For parafiscal levies there are no rules on exemptions or reductions and no rules on minimum levels either.\n(136)\nThe Commission concludes that the parafiscal levies established under the Austrian scheme are not governed by rules similar to those which apply to environmental taxes under EU law.\n(137)\nSecond, the rules applicable to the case must contain an omission which is incompatible with a general principle of EU law and which can be remedied by analogy.\n(138)\nHowever, measures which do not fall within the scope of the Environmental Aid Guidelines can nevertheless be assessed under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. The Commission has consequently found no omission in the Guidelines that might be grounds for assessing the notified measures by analogy. This conclusion is the same whether the analogy is to be drawn with harmonised or non-harmonised taxes.\n(139)\nFurthermore, the absence of rules on exemptions from parafiscal levies could not in any event be remedied by analogy to the rules that govern reductions of energy taxes under EU law. If the rules governing reductions of harmonised energy taxes were to be applied by analogy to non-harmonised parafiscal levies, undertakings would be able to meet the minimum tax levels set in the Energy Tax Directive by paying such parafiscal levies. Such an approach is therefore not in the spirit of the Energy Tax Directive. The Commission considers that the minimum rates in the Energy Tax Directive were set solely with a view to their application within the harmonised energy tax system. Using them as a benchmark outside the harmonised area would give them an application that they were not meant to have. The minimum rates were clearly not set with the aim of defining the overall burden that energy-intensive businesses ought to bear as a result of environmental regulatory measures, such as in particular those arising out of financing mechanisms for feed-in tariffs. Such an approach would also overlook the fact that State aid policy accepts a lenient attitude to tax exemptions above a harmonised minimum level because a level playing field is ensured at least to some extent by compliance with the minimum rates that are applicable in all Member States. This argument does not apply to the burdens stemming from feed-in tariff systems, which are not harmonised, and where any deviation from the standard contributions can cause distortion of competition.\n(140)\nIt follows that the absence of rules on the reduction of parafiscal levies does not constitute an omission which is incompatible with a general principle of EU law and which could be remedied by analogy with the existing rules on reductions of harmonised energy taxes.\n(141)\nIn any event, even if those rules could be applied by analogy, the exemption mechanism could not be considered compatible, for the reasons set out in recitals 129-133.\n(142)\nThe Commission concludes that it cannot draw an analogy between the notified exemption mechanism and the rules for the assessment of reductions of harmonised energy taxes under Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines, and that it consequently cannot approve the exemption mechanism on the basis of such an analogy.\n5.3.3. Analogy with Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation\n(143)\nThe Commission has also considered whether it could approve the exemption mechanism on the basis of an analogy with Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation.\n(144)\nAustria takes the view that the differences between the wordings of Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines and Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation leave some room for an approval of the measure by analogy with Article 25 of the Regulation. Austria points out that point 152 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines reads as follows:\n\u2018In order to be approved under Article 87 of the EC Treaty, reductions of or exemptions from harmonised taxes, in particular those harmonised through Directive 2003/96/EC, must be compatible with the relevant applicable Community legislation and comply with the limits and conditions set out therein\u2019,\n(145)\nwhereas Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation reads as follows:\n\u2018Environmental aid schemes in the form of reductions in environmental taxes fulfilling the conditions of Directive 2003/96/EC shall be compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87(3) of the Treaty and shall be exempt from the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty, provided the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article are fulfilled\u2019 (78).\n(146)\nAustria concludes that Article 25 of the Regulation may be broader in scope than point 152 of the Guidelines. While point 152 of the Guidelines may apply only to taxes harmonised by the Energy Tax Directive, Austria argues, Article 25 of the Regulation requires only that the exemption mechanism respect the minimum tax levels set in the Energy Tax Directive, even if it is not a harmonised energy tax. Article 25 of the Regulation can therefore be applied to reductions of non-harmonised environmental taxes, which can be found compatible provided that the overall taxation system respects the minimum energy tax levels. Austria acknowledges that the contributions paid under the Green Electricity Act are not a tax (79), but submits that the notified exemption mechanism can be assessed and approved by analogy with the provision on environmental taxes in Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation.\n(147)\nIn the Commission\u2019s view, however, there is no scope for an analogy with Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation. First, the rules applicable to the case are not similar to the ones which it is sought to have applied by analogy. The wording of Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation clearly indicates that the Article applies only to environmental taxes harmonised under the Energy Tax Directive. Classification as an energy tax is thus a \u2018condition\u2019 for the applicability of Article 25 of the Regulation. This interpretation is supported by the fact that it follows from the rationale of the system of the General Block Exemption Regulation that it cannot have a scope wider than the Environmental Aid Guidelines to which it refers. Article 25 of the Regulation therefore clearly applies only to energy taxes harmonised by the Energy Tax Directive. As explained above, the contributions paid under the Green Electricity Act are not environmental taxes, and the rules of the Energy Tax Directive do not apply to them. It follows that the rules governing energy taxes are not similar to the rules governing the Austrian feed-in tariffs. Second, the rules applicable to the case do not contain an omission which is incompatible with a general principle of EU law and which can be remedied by analogy. Tax reductions or similar measures which are not covered by the General Block Exemption Regulation are not automatically incompatible with EU law: they merely have to abide by the general obligation to notify under Article 108 TFEU. They can then be assessed and found compatible under the Environmental Aid Guidelines, or, if the Guidelines do not apply, directly under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. It follows that the rules applicable to the assessment of the Austrian aid scheme do not contain an omission incompatible with EU law.\n(148)\nThe Commission concludes that it cannot draw an analogy between the contributions paid under the Green Electricity Act and the harmonised energy taxes referred to in Article 25 of the General Block Exemption Regulation, that it consequently cannot approve the exemption mechanism on the basis of such an analogy.\n5.3.4. Compatibility under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU\n(149)\nThe Commission notes that Austria has not claimed that the exemption mechanism can be declared compatible directly on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. It is for the Member State to put forward any grounds of compatibility (80) and to demonstrate that the conditions thereof are met, and for this reason alone Austria is prevented from relying on this ground of compatibility.\n(150)\nThe Commission has nevertheless considered whether it could declare the exemption mechanism compatible on this legal basis.\n(151)\nArticle 107(3)(c) TFEU states that \u2018aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest\u2019 may be considered to be compatible with the internal market. According to the case-law, the Commission may declare State aid compatible with the internal market if the aid contributes to the attainment of an objective of common interest (81), is necessary for the attainment of this objective (82), and does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.\n(152)\nAccordingly, it is established Commission practice that measures may be declared compatible directly under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU if they are necessary and proportionate and if the positive effects for the common objective outweigh the negative effects on competition and trade (83). The Commission considers it appropriate here to ask the following questions:\n1.\nIs the aid measure aimed at a well-defined objective of common interest?\n2.\nIs the aid well designed to deliver the objective of common interest? In particular:\n(a)\nis the aid measure an appropriate and necessary instrument, or are there other, more suitable instruments?\n(b)\nis there an incentive effect, or in other words does the aid change the behaviour of undertakings?\n(c)\nis the aid measure proportional, or in other words could the same change in behaviour be obtained with less aid?\n3.\nAre the distortions of competition and the effect on trade limited, so that the overall balance is positive?\n(153)\nAustria submits that the main objective of the measure is environmental protection. However, as demonstrated above in recitals 126-129, the exemption mechanism does not contribute to environmental protection.\n(154)\nIn addition, any environmental effect of the measure is to be achieved through an overall increase in feed-in tariffs, which in Austria\u2019s opinion would not be possible without ensuring the continued competitiveness of energy-intensive businesses by means of the notified exemption mechanism. As the Austrian authorities in fact acknowledge in their submissions, the objective of the exemption mechanism is to improve the competitiveness of energy-intensive businesses in Austria vis-\u00e0-vis their competitors in other Member States. In its decisions the Commission has never accepted that such aid contributes to an objective of common interest.\n(155)\nThe only exception to this practice is Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines. But even where the Commission accepts a reduction of an environmental tax, it still requires that a minimum level of tax be paid. This means that the total contribution to overall tax revenues of the undertaking benefiting from the tax reduction still increases with each unit of pollution. In the present case the situation is different. The contribution is capped at 0,5 % of the net production value. Any additional units of pollution are no longer subject to the parafiscal levy. Thus the contribution per unit of pollution decreases for each additional unit. Rather than encouraging resource efficiency, therefore, the system provides an incentive for using additional resources.\n(156)\nThe Commission consequently considers that the aid does not contribute to an objective of common interest.\n(157)\nAccording to the case-law, \u2018operating aid, that is to say, aid intended to relieve an undertaking of the expenses which it would itself normally have had to bear in its day-to-day management or its usual activities, does not in principle fall within the scope of Article 92(3) [now Article 107(3) TFEU]\u2019 (84). As the courts have said, \u2018According to the relevant case-law, the effect of such aid is in principle to distort competition in the sectors in which it is granted, whilst nevertheless being incapable, by its very nature, of achieving any of the objectives of the aforesaid exceptions\u2019 (85). In the case at hand the Commission finds that the exemption mechanism constitutes operating aid, because it relieves the beneficiaries from part of their electricity procurement costs, which they would normally have had to bear in their day-to-day operations.\n(158)\nEven if the improvement of competitiveness was an objective of common interest, therefore, the Commission considers that operating aid would in any event not be an appropriate policy instrument for achieving that objective.\n(159)\nWith regard to environmental taxes the Commission has accepted a limited exception to this principle, but with a specific objective in mind. Reductions of and exemptions from environmental taxes concerning certain sectors or categories of undertakings are admissible under Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines if they make it feasible to adopt higher taxes for other undertakings, thus resulting in an overall improvement of cost internalisation, and to create further incentives to improve on environmental protection. Here the Commission has taken the view that this type of aid might be necessary to address negative externalities indirectly by facilitating the introduction or maintenance of relatively high national environmental taxation.\n(160)\nHowever, the Commission finds that the contributions to the support of green electricity from which the beneficiaries are to be exempted under the notified scheme do not constitute an environmental tax within the meaning of points 70(14) and 151 of the Guidelines. Taxes are charges which are paid into the general budget of the State. The contributions from which the beneficiaries are to be exempted under the notified scheme are not paid into the general budget of the State. They are used exclusively to finance the contributions to OeMAG, which supports green electricity producers through feed-in tariffs. Consequently, these contributions do not constitute an environmental tax.\n(161)\nThe Commission considers that any exception from the general rule of incompatibility of operating aid which is stated in the Environmental Aid Guidelines should be interpreted strictly. Being an exception, therefore, Chapter 4 of the Guidelines must be restricted to environmental taxes.\n(162)\nFurthermore, as explained above, the application of Chapter 4 of the Guidelines to parafiscal levies would contradict the objectives of those rules and of the Energy Tax Directive with regard to harmonised energy taxes. Such an approach might also result in the general application of these provisions to parafiscal levies in the area of environmental protection (e.g. parafiscal levies on waste or the like). Such a wide application goes beyond the scope and the objectives of Chapter 4 of the Guidelines.\n(163)\nConsequently, the Commission considers that operating aid in the form of reductions of parafiscal levies is not an appropriate instrument for improving environmental protection. The Commission has never yet applied the conditions of Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines to other types of charges and parafiscal levies.\n(164)\nThe Commission observes that the volume of an environmental tax, even if only the reduced rate applies, is directly proportionate to the level of pollution created by the undertaking in question. In the present case, however, the contribution is capped at a certain level. Any consumption that goes beyond that level is no longer taxed. This exemption mechanism deprives the parafiscal levy of any incentive for resource-efficient behaviour.\n(165)\nIn the event that it were to be accepted that operating aid in the form of reductions of parafiscal levies was an appropriate policy instrument, the operating aid involved would have to be tested for necessity and proportionality in the same way as reductions of non-harmonised environmental taxes under Chapter 4 of the Environmental Aid Guidelines (86), because the assessment of non-harmonised environmental taxes under Chapter 4 reflects the general principles of the detailed economic analysis under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU\n(166)\nAccording to those provisions, the Member State has to provide information on the respective sectors or categories of beneficiaries covered by the exemptions or reductions, on the situation of the main beneficiaries in each sector concerned and on how the taxation may contribute to environmental protection. The exempted sectors should be properly described and a list of the largest beneficiaries for each sector should be provided (considering notably turnover, market shares and size of the tax base) (87). On the basis of this information the Commission has to assess whether the reductions of or exemptions from environmental taxes are necessary and proportional. With regard to necessity, the choice of beneficiaries must be based on objective and transparent criteria, and the environmental tax without reduction must lead to a substantial increase of production costs that cannot be passed on to consumers without leading to important sales reductions (88). With regard to proportionality, the Member State has to demonstrate that each individual beneficiary pays a proportion of the national tax level which is broadly equivalent to its environmental performance, or at least 20 % of the national tax, unless a lower rate can be justified, or that the reductions or exemptions are conditional on the conclusion of agreements aimed at achieving environmental objectives (89).\n(167)\nAlthough the Commission repeatedly asked it to do so, however, Austria did not provide this information (90). The Commission has consequently been unable to assess whether the aid is necessary and proportional or how it might contribute to the protection of the environment.\n(168)\nFinally, Austria also failed to show that the exemption mechanism would have any incentive effect.\n(169)\nAccording to the case-law, operating aid threatens to distort competition and to affect trade (91). In the present case, the distortive effect is aggravated by the fact that those undertakings eligible for the exemption mechanism already receive operating aid in the form of a reduced rate of energy taxation. Granting them a second form of operating aid, which in addition is not limited in time, would lead to distortion of competition and affect trade to an extent contrary to the common interest.\n(170)\nThe Commission concludes that the exemption mechanism cannot be declared compatible under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\n5.4. Conclusion\n(171)\nIn the light of the considerations set out above the Commission has assessed the support scheme for green electricity producers and the exemption mechanism for energy-intensive businesses. In its opening decision of 22 July 2009 the Commission found that the support scheme for green electricity producers constituted State aid, but was compatible with the internal market. The decision initiated a formal investigation into the exemption mechanism; the Commission now finds that that measure too constitutes State aid caught by Article 107(1) TFEU. However, the Commission considers that the exemption mechanism is pure operating aid, and is not eligible for any of the exemptions that the TFEU allows from the general prohibition of State aid.\nHaving regard to all the facts brought to the Commission\u2019s attention, the Commission concludes that the State aid that Austria plans to grant to energy-intensive businesses must be considered incompatible with the internal market,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid in the form of a partial exemption from the obligation to purchase green electricity which Austria plans to grant to energy-intensive businesses is incompatible with the internal market.\nThe aid may accordingly not be implemented.\nArticle 2\nAustria shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Austria.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2011.", "references": ["66", "55", "31", "35", "4", "89", "33", "58", "62", "11", "79", "65", "21", "53", "84", "43", "18", "75", "80", "51", "83", "70", "57", "64", "95", "16", "52", "63", "39", "88", "No Label", "15", "48", "78", "81", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "48", "78", "81", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 163/2011\nof 21 February 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 February 2011.", "references": ["20", "85", "93", "60", "9", "43", "41", "48", "5", "78", "7", "64", "29", "23", "63", "36", "83", "39", "87", "95", "1", "49", "12", "0", "40", "46", "90", "70", "69", "91", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 413/2010\nof 12 May 2010\namending Annexes III, IV and V to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste so as to take account of changes adopted by OECD Council Decision C(2008) 156\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (1), and in particular Article 58(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn December 2005, at its 8th meeting, the Working Group on Waste Prevention and Recycling (WGWPR) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) agreed to clarify the wording of entry B1030 of Annex IX to the Basel Convention. The amendment of that entry has been adopted by OECD Council Decision C(2008) 156 and still needs to be agreed under the Basel Convention. Pending approval by the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention and amendment of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, it is appropriate to incorporate that clarification in Union legislation.\n(2)\nIn April 2008, at its 11th meeting, WGWPR of OECD agreed to amend the wording of entry AA010 of the OECD Amber list of wastes. The amendment of that entry has been adopted by OECD Council Decision C(2008) 156. It is therefore appropriate to incorporate that amendment in Union legislation.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1013/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 18 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes III, IV and V to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2010.", "references": ["54", "88", "61", "31", "48", "64", "85", "93", "42", "50", "80", "77", "39", "46", "94", "33", "41", "8", "30", "73", "67", "12", "21", "91", "3", "53", "98", "36", "70", "7", "No Label", "2", "20", "58", "60", "84"], "gold": ["2", "20", "58", "60", "84"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 124/2011\nof 11 February 2011\nfixing the amount of private storage aid for certain fishery products in the 2011 fishing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2813/2000 of 21 December 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards the grant of private storage aid for certain fishery products (2), and in particular Article 1 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPrivate storage aid should not exceed the sum of technical and financial costs recorded in the Union during the fishing year preceding the year in question.\n(2)\nTo discourage long-term storage, to shorten payment times and to reduce the burden of controls, private storage aid should be paid in one single instalment.\n(3)\nIn order not to hinder the operation of the intervention system in the year 2011, this Regulation should apply retroactively from 1 January 2011.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the Management Committee for Fishery Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the 2011 fishing year the amount of private storage aid, referred to in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, for the products listed in Annex II to that Regulation shall be as follows:\n-\n:\nfirst month\n:\nEUR 219 per tonne,\n-\n:\nsecond month\n:\nEUR 0 per tonne.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 February 2011.", "references": ["63", "56", "79", "98", "74", "97", "20", "88", "2", "10", "41", "65", "99", "78", "39", "59", "21", "51", "37", "84", "38", "31", "12", "77", "76", "66", "8", "7", "5", "4", "No Label", "26", "35", "67"], "gold": ["26", "35", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1127/2010\nof 3 December 2010\nestablishing a transitional period for withdrawing the Republic of Maldives from the list of beneficiary countries of the special arrangement for least developed countries, as set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007 (1), and in particular Article 11(8) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Republic of Maldives (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Maldives\u2019) is a beneficiary of the special arrangement for least-developed countries under the Union\u2019s scheme of generalised tariff preferences.\n(2)\nArticle 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 provides for the withdrawal of a country from the special arrangement for least developed countries, when that country is excluded by the United Nations from the list of the least-developed countries. That Article also provides for the establishment of a transitional period of at least three years, to alleviate any adverse effects which may be caused by the removal of the tariff preferences granted under the special arrangement for least-developed countries.\n(3)\nMaldives has been excluded by the United Nations from the list of least-developed countries, with effect from 1 January 2011 (2).\n(4)\nMaldives should, therefore, be allowed to continue to benefit from the preferences granted under the special arrangement for least developed countries, until 31 December 2013.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Generalised Preferences Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Republic of Maldives shall be removed from the list of beneficiaries of the special arrangement for the least developed countries in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 732/2008, with effect from 1 January 2014.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 December 2010.", "references": ["88", "83", "14", "24", "36", "53", "55", "80", "25", "6", "63", "64", "5", "27", "41", "18", "21", "65", "92", "32", "1", "44", "69", "93", "40", "98", "86", "94", "90", "13", "No Label", "16", "20", "95", "96"], "gold": ["16", "20", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 830/2012\nof 14 September 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for Atlantic salmon in EU waters of subdivisions 22-31 (Baltic Sea excl. Gulf of Finland) by vessels flying the flag of Finland\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1256/2011 of 30 November 2011 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea and amending Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 September 2012.", "references": ["27", "86", "22", "50", "58", "90", "3", "87", "16", "39", "74", "40", "52", "14", "24", "93", "68", "35", "32", "84", "45", "70", "33", "61", "54", "88", "92", "36", "38", "51", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2009/029 NL/Gelderland and Overijssel Division 18 from the Netherlands)\n(2010/743/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nThe Netherlands submitted an application on 30 December 2009 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in 45 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions Gelderland (NL22) and Overijssel (NL21) and supplemented it with additional information up to 6 May 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 013 619.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Netherlands,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 013 619 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["40", "48", "37", "13", "21", "4", "14", "57", "32", "18", "45", "51", "8", "63", "2", "59", "24", "62", "61", "20", "31", "5", "47", "66", "11", "26", "25", "9", "90", "65", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 188/2011\nof 25 February 2011\nlaying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the procedure for the assessment of active substances which were not on the market 2 years after the date of notification of that Directive\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt is necessary to adopt rules on a procedure for the submission and appraisal of applications for inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances which were not yet on the market 2 years after the date of notification of that Directive. In particular periods should be set for the different steps of that procedure to ensure that they are carried out rapidly.\n(2)\nAdditional information submitted after the application and the dossiers should only be taken into account if it was requested by the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, or the rapporteur Member State and submitted within the time period set.\n(3)\nAs regards applications submitted before the entry into force of this Regulation transitional measures should be provided for. In particular, it is appropriate to extend the period which may be granted to the applicant to submit additional information requested by the Authority or the rapporteur Member State. As regards such applications, it is further necessary to set periods for the circulation of the draft assessment report by the Authority and the submission of comments by the Member States, other than the rapporteur Member State, and the applicant.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation lays down detailed rules for the submission and appraisal of applications for inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances which were not on the market on 26 July 1993.\nArticle 2\nApplication\n1. An applicant wishing to secure the inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of an active substance covered by Article 1 shall submit an application for that active substance to a Member State, hereinafter referred to as \u2018rapporteur Member State\u2019, together with a summary dossier and a complete dossier, as provided for in Article 3, or a scientifically reasoned justification for not providing certain parts of those dossiers, demonstrating that the active substance fulfils the criteria provided for in Article 5 of that Directive.\nFor the purposes of this Regulation \u2018applicant\u2019 means the person who manufactures the active substance himself or who contracts out the manufacturing to another party or a person designated by the manufacturer as his sole representative for the purpose of compliance with this Regulation.\n2. When submitting his application, the applicant may, pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC, request certain parts of the dossiers referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article to be kept confidential. The applicant shall explain for each document or each part of a document why it is to be considered as confidential.\nMember States shall assess the confidentiality requests. Upon a request for access to information, the rapporteur Member State shall decide what information is to be kept confidential.\nThe applicant shall submit separately the information to be kept confidential.\nThe applicant shall at the same time submit any claims for data protection pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 3\nDossiers\n1. The summary dossier shall include the following:\n(a)\ndata with respect to one or more representative uses of at least one plant protection product containing the active substance, demonstrating that the requirements of Article 5 of Directive 91/414/EEC are fulfilled;\n(b)\nfor each point of the data requirements for the active substance referred to in Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC, the summaries and results of tests and studies, the name of their owner and of the person or institute that carried out the tests and studies;\n(c)\nfor each point of the data requirements for the plant protection product referred to in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC, the summaries and results of tests and studies, the name of their owner and of the person or institute that carried out the tests and studies relevant to the assessment of the criteria referred to in Article 5 of that Directive taking into account that data gaps in a dossier, as set out in Annex II or Annex III to that Directive, resulting from the proposed range of representative uses, may lead to restrictions in the inclusion in Annex I to that Directive;\n(d)\na checklist demonstrating that the dossier provided for in paragraph 2 is complete;\n(e)\nthe reasons why the test and study reports submitted are necessary for inclusion of the active substance concerned;\n(f)\nan assessment of all information submitted;\n(g)\nwhere relevant, a copy of an application for a residue level as referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) or a justification for not supplying such copy of an application.\n2. The complete dossier shall contain the full text of the individual test and study reports concerning all the information referred to in points (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 with a list of those tests and studies.\nArticle 4\nCompleteness check of the dossiers\n1. Within 3 months from receiving the application, the rapporteur Member State shall check whether the dossiers submitted with the application contain all the elements provided for in Article 3, using the checklist referred to in Article 3(1)(d). It shall also check the requests for confidentiality referred to in Article 2(2) and the list of tests and studies submitted pursuant to Article 3(2).\n2. Where one or more of the elements provided for in Article 3 are missing, the rapporteur Member State shall inform the applicant, setting a time period for their submission; such time period shall be no more than 3 months.\n3. Where at the end of the period, referred to in paragraph 2, the applicant has not submitted the missing elements, the rapporteur Member State shall inform the applicant, the Commission and the other Member States that the application is rejected.\n4. Where the dossiers submitted with the application contain all the elements provided for in Article 3, the rapporteur Member State shall notify the applicant, the Commission, the other Member States and the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, of the completeness of the application. After receiving that notification, the applicant shall immediately forward those dossiers to the other Member States, the Commission and the Authority, including the information about those parts of the dossiers in respect of which confidentiality has been requested as referred to in Article 2(2).\n5. Within 4 months from the date of receipt of the notification referred to in paragraph 4, a decision shall be adopted in accordance with Article 6(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC establishing that the dossiers submitted fulfil the requirements of Annexes II and III to that Directive, hereinafter \u2018completeness decision\u2019.\nArticle 5\nSubmission of information by third parties\n1. Any person or Member State wishing to submit to the rapporteur Member State information which might contribute to the assessment, in particular with regard to the potentially dangerous effects of the active substance or its residues on human and animal health and on the environment shall do so, without prejudice to Article 7 of Directive 91/414/EEC, no later than 3 months after a completeness decision for the active substance concerned has been published.\n2. The rapporteur Member State shall immediately communicate any information received from third parties to the Authority and the applicant.\n3. The applicant may submit its comments on the information referred to in paragraph 2 to the rapporteur Member State and to the Authority at the latest 2 months after receiving that information.\nArticle 6\nAssessment by the rapporteur Member State\n1. Within 12 months from the date of publication of the completeness decision, the rapporteur Member State shall prepare and submit to the Commission, with a copy to the Authority, a report assessing whether the active substance can be expected to fulfil the conditions provided for in Article 5 of Directive 91/414/EEC, hereinafter referred to as \u2018draft assessment report\u2019. It shall at the same time inform the applicant that the draft assessment report has been submitted and request him to immediately forward to the Authority, the other Member States and the Commission the updated dossiers, where applicable.\n2. The rapporteur Member State may consult the Authority.\n3. Where the rapporteur Member State needs additional information, it shall request it from the applicant setting a period of up to 6 months for it to be supplied. The rapporteur Member State shall inform the Commission and the Authority. In its assessment the rapporteur Member State shall only take into account information which was requested and submitted within the period granted.\nIn cases where the rapporteur Member State requests additional information, the 12-month period provided for in paragraph 1 for the submission of the draft assessment report shall be extended by the period granted by the rapporteur Member State for the submission of the additional information. If the requested information is submitted to the rapporteur Member State before the end of the period granted the extension shall correspond to the part of that period actually used.\n4. Where at the end of the period referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 3, the applicant has not submitted all of the additional information requested in accordance with paragraph 1, the rapporteur Member State shall inform the applicant, the Commission, the other Member States and the Authority and shall state the missing elements in the draft assessment report.\n5. If, after giving the applicant an opportunity to comment, the Commission determines that the applicant has failed to submit elements necessary for the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, it shall adopt a decision in accordance with Article 9(2)(b), providing that the active substance concerned is not to be included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\nArticle 7\nCirculation of and access to the draft assessment report\n1. The Authority shall circulate the draft assessment report received from the rapporteur Member State to the applicant and the other Member States within 30 days from its receipt. Where within this 30-day period the Authority does not receive the dossier provided for in Article 6(1) it shall circulate that report as soon as it receives that dossier.\nThe period for the submission of written comments to the Authority from Member States and the applicant shall be 2 months.\n2. The Authority shall make the draft assessment report available to the public, excluding any information in respect of which confidential treatment has been requested and justified by the applicant in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nIt shall grant a period of 2 weeks to the applicant to request confidential treatment.\nArticle 8\nConclusion by the Authority\n1. Within 4 months from the end of the period provided for the submission of written comments, the Authority shall adopt a conclusion on whether the active substance can be expected to meet the conditions provided for in Article 5 of Directive 91/414/EEC and shall communicate it to the applicant, the Member States and the Commission and shall make it available to the public.\nWhere appropriate, the Authority shall address in its conclusion the risk mitigation options in relation to the intended uses set out in the draft assessment report.\n2. The Authority shall, where appropriate, organise a consultation of experts, including experts from the rapporteur Member State.\nIn that case the 4-month period for the adoption of the conclusion, as set out in paragraph 1, shall be extended by 2 months.\n3. Where the Authority needs additional information, it shall, in consultation with the rapporteur Member State, set a period of a maximum of 3 months for the applicant to submit that information to the Member States, the Commission and the Authority. It shall inform the applicant, the Commission and the Member States. In respect of applications for which a completeness decision was published by 31 December 2005, the maximum period shall be 5 months.\n4. Within 2 months after receipt of the additional information the rapporteur Member State shall assess that information and submit an addendum to the draft assessment report to the Authority. In respect of applications for which a completeness decision was published by 31 December 2005, that period shall be 3 months.\n5. Where the Authority requests additional information in accordance with paragraph 3, the period from the date of that request to the date of the submission of the addendum to the draft assessment report shall not be taken into account for the calculation of the period for the adoption of the conclusion, as provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2.\n6. In its conclusion the Authority shall only take into account additional information requested by it or by the rapporteur Member State and submitted within the period granted.\n7. The Authority shall establish the format for its conclusion which shall include details concerning the appraisal procedure and the properties of the active substance concerned.\nArticle 9\nPresentation of a draft act\n1. The Commission shall, at the latest 6 months after receipt of the conclusion of the Authority, submit to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, hereinafter \u2018the Committee\u2019, a draft review report to be finalised at its meeting.\nThe applicant shall be given the possibility to submit comments on the draft review report within a period, of up to 30 days, set by the Commission.\n2. On the basis of the draft review report and taking into account any comments submitted by the applicant within the period set by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 1, an act shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 19(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, providing that:\n(a)\nan active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC subject to conditions and restrictions, where appropriate;\n(b)\nan active substance is not included in Annex I to that Directive.\nArticle 10\nAccess to the review report\nThe finalised review report, excluding any parts which refer to confidential information contained in the dossiers and determined as such in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC, shall be made available to the public.\nArticle 11\nTransitional measures\n1. Articles 2, 3 and Article 4(1) shall not apply to applications for inclusion of active substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC for which the application was received by the rapporteur Member State by 17 March 2011 but for which no completeness check had been made by that date.\nFor such applications the rapporteur Member State shall perform the completeness check provided for in Article 4(1) by 18 June 2011 at the latest.\n2. Articles 2, 3 and 4 shall not apply to applications for inclusion of active substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC for which the dossier was referred to the Committee in accordance with Article 6(2) of that Directive by 17 March 2011 but for which no completeness decision had been adopted by that date.\nFor such applications a completeness decision shall be adopted in accordance with Article 6(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC by 18 July 2011.\n3. Articles 2, 3 and 4 shall not apply to applications for inclusion of active substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC for which a completeness decision was adopted but not published by 17 March 2011.\n4. Articles 2 to 6 shall not apply to applications for inclusion of active substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC for which a completeness decision was published by 17 March 2011 but no draft assessment report had been submitted to the Commission by that date.\nFor such applications the rapporteur Member State shall prepare and submit the draft assessment report to the Commission, with a copy to the Authority by 18 March 2012. It shall at the same time inform the applicant that the draft assessment report has been submitted and request him to immediately forward to the Authority, the other Member States and the Commission the updated dossiers, where applicable. Article 6(2) to (5) shall apply mutatis mutandis.\n5. Articles 2 to 6 and the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) shall not apply to applications for which the draft assessment report had been received by the Authority but not circulated to the applicant and the other Member States for comments by 17 March 2011.\n6. By way of derogation from paragraph 5, for applications for which the draft assessment report had been submitted to the Commission and the Authority by 31 December 2009 at the latest, Articles 2 to 6 and the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) shall not apply. In such cases, the following procedure shall apply.\nBy 18 April 2011, the rapporteur Member State shall request the applicant to inform that Member State and the Authority, within 1 month, in case the applicant considers that information that had not been submitted for the preparation of the draft assessment report and that might influence the outcome of the assessment, is available, specifying the nature of that information and its possible influence on the assessment.\nWithin 2 months from receiving the reply of the applicant, the Authority shall decide whether that information might influence the outcome of the assessment. If so, the Authority shall, without undue delay, ask the rapporteur Member State to request the submission of that information by the applicant. The rapporteur Member State shall update the draft assessment report where appropriate in the light of that information.\nThe Authority shall set a period of up to 6 months for the rapporteur Member State to prepare and submit to the Commission that updated draft assessment report, with a copy to the Authority. It shall at the same time inform the applicant that the draft assessment report has been submitted and request him to immediately forward to the Authority, the other Member States and the Commission the updated dossiers, where applicable. Article 6(2) to (5) shall apply mutatis mutandis, whereby the period referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 6(3) shall not exceed 3 months.\n7. The Commission shall set, and publish on its website, the dates for the circulation of the draft assessment reports referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6. Where a draft assessment report has been updated, as provided for in paragraph 6, it shall be circulated as updated. The Commission shall at the same time set, and publish on its website, the dates for the submission of comments thereon.\nArticle 12\nFees\n1. Member States may recover the costs associated with any work they carry out within the scope of this Regulation, by means of fees or charges.\n2. Member States shall ensure that the fees or charges referred to in paragraph 1:\n(a)\nare established in a transparent manner; and\n(b)\ncorrespond to the actual total cost of the work involved except if it is in public interest to lower the fees and charges.\nArticle 13\nOther charges, levies or fees\nArticle 12 is without prejudice to Member States rights to maintain or introduce, in accordance with the Treaty, charges, levies or fees with regard to the authorisation, placing on the market, use and control of active substances and plant protection products other than the fee provided for in that Article.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 February 2011.", "references": ["70", "71", "51", "89", "73", "81", "15", "97", "8", "40", "59", "14", "33", "11", "61", "74", "38", "29", "98", "17", "36", "53", "45", "21", "91", "12", "66", "52", "22", "18", "No Label", "2", "25", "41", "65", "77", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "41", "65", "77", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 February 2012\non the State aid No SA.29608 (C37/10) implemented by Hungary for the recapitalisation of FHB Jelz\u00e1logbank Nyrt\n(notified under document C(2012) 1021)\n(Only the English text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2014/296/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 25 March 2009, Hungary granted FHB Jelz\u00e1logbank Nyrt (hereinafter \u2018FHB\u2019 or the \u2018bank\u2019) a mid-term State loan of 120 billion Hungarian Forint (HUF) (approximately EUR 410 million (2)) under the liquidity scheme for Hungarian banks which had been approved by the Commission on 14 January 2010 (3). On 31 March 2009 the Hungarian authorities recapitalised FHB in the sum of HUF 30 billion (approximately EUR 100 million) in the form of newly-issued Special Dividend Preference Shares plus one voting share, granted on 31 March 2009 under the guarantee and recapitalisation scheme approved by the Commission (4).\n(2)\nBy letters dated 3 April, 13 May, 14 July and 11 September 2009, the Commission requested information from the Hungarian authorities regarding the terms of the recapitalisation. The Hungarian authorities replied by letters dated 24 April, 2 June, 12 August and 9 October 2009.\n(3)\nBecause of doubts as to the soundness of the bank at the time of the recapitalisation the Commission requested Hungary on 19 October 2009 to submit a restructuring plan for FHB in line with the Commission's Communication on the return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules (5) (hereinafter the \u2018Restructuring Communication\u2019). Hungary provided further information on 12 and 19 November 2009 and a draft restructuring plan on 26 January 2010.\n(4)\nOn 19 February 2010, FHB repaid the full amount of the recapitalisation to the State.\n(5)\nBy letters dated 24 and 25 March 2010, Hungary submitted further information to the Commission. FHB held a general assembly of shareholders on 21 April 2010, in which FHB decided on the payment of remuneration to the State for the recapitalisation, following which the Commission requested information by letter dated 22 April 2010.\n(6)\nThe Commission requested further information by letters dated 2 June and 1 October 2010. The Hungarian authorities provided additional information by letter of 11 June 2010.\n(7)\nOn 15 June 2010, Hungary submitted an updated restructuring plan, which was supplemented by a further essential data submitted on 30 September 2010.\n(8)\nThe Hungarian authorities submitted further information by letters dated 18 June, 28 July and 5 October 2010 and informed the Commission by letter dated 29 October 2010 that FHB had paid remuneration for the recapitalisation.\n(9)\nOn 16 December 2010 the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter the \u2018Treaty\u2019) in respect of the aid measures in favour of FHB. Subsequently, the Hungarian authorities requested the Commission to amend that decision as some parts of it were incorrect and not up to date. The decision was therefore replaced by a new decision of 24 January 2011 (6) hereinafter the \u2018opening Decision\u2019). By letter dated the 24 January 2011 the Commission informed the Hungarian authorities that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty in respect of the aid measure. The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 18 June 2011. The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure.\n(10)\nBy letter dated 2 March 2011, the Hungarian authorities submitted their comments on the Commission opening decision of 24 January 2011, opening a formal investigation procedure with regard to the measure granted to FHB. Those observations were supplemented by comments received from FHB by letter dated 11 July 2011.\n(11)\nBy letter dated 18 July 2011, a third party (the Magyar Jelz\u00e1logbank Egyes\u00fclet - the Association of Hungarian mortgage banks) submitted its comments on the opening decision to the Commission.\n(12)\nA further update of the restructuring plan and additional information on the repayment of the recapitalisation to the Hungarian State was submitted by the Hungarian authorities on by letter dated 3 October 2011.\n(13)\nOn 15 December 2011, a new agreement was signed between FHB and the Hungarian State, under which the bank committed to pay to the State the remuneration which had initially been agreed in the recapitalisation agreement.\nII. DESCRIPTION OF THE BENEFICIARY\n1.1. THE BENEFICIARY\n(14)\nFHB was set up by the State in 1997. The State gradually sold off its stake in FHB. In 2003 FHB was listed on the Budapest Stock Exchange and in August 2007 the State reduced its majority stake in the bank to just over 4 %.\n(15)\nFHB was originally set up as a mortgage bank in order to promote the use of mortgage bonds. It was subject to strict rules regarding limited activity, collateral and specific supervision in order to ensure the maximum safety of mortgage bonds. FHB was initially allowed only to provide long-term mortgage loans and guarantees in connection to mortgage loans and to conclude some types of derivative transactions to hedge its own position deriving from its mortgage lending activity. Mortgage bonds were the main funding source of its lending activity. The bank also refinanced mortgage loans extended by other banks.\n(16)\nIn 2006, FHB introduced the New Strategic Plan to expand its banking activity and branch network, aiming to widen its funding and operational base by entering the retail market through FHB Commercial Bank. Over time, FHB started selling various retail and corporate loan products, as well as offering account management, deposit-taking and card services, thereby expanding its product range on the liability side.\n(17)\nFHB is a group consisting of a mother company, FHB Mortgage Bank Co. Plc, and wholly-owned subsidiaries: FHB Commercial Bank Ltd, FHB Service Ltd, FHB Real Estate Ltd and FHB Life Annuity Real Estate Investment Ltd It is active mainly on the mortgage bond market. In that market, FHB has a market share of 23 % (2009) and is the second-largest player on the Hungarian market (after OTP Bank with 74 % market share). FHB has a market share of 4,6 % in the retail mortgages market and 0,6 % in retail deposits.\n(18)\nWhen the bank was recapitalised in March 2009, its total balance sheet amounted to HUF 746,2 billion. At the same date, the bank's capital adequacy ratio (hereinafter \u2018CAR\u2019) amounted to 10,5 %. The capital injection by the State increased FHB's CAR to 16,1 % at the end of 2009 (computed under Hungarian accounting rules).\n1.2. THE CONTEXT\n(19)\nHungary is one of the Member States most severely affected by the financial crisis. Years of excess government spending and a credit-fuelled construction and consumption boom led to serious imbalances in the economy even before the crisis. The prevalence of Euro- and Swiss franc-denominated household loans as well as the continued reliance on external financing made the country and its banking sector especially vulnerable to fluctuations in the value of the Hungarian forint, which weakened significantly during the crisis.\n(20)\nThe financial crisis affected Hungary to the point that the International Monetary Fund (hereinafter \u2018IMF\u2019), the European Union (hereinafter \u2018EU\u2019) and the World Bank had to provide emergency loans to Hungary in November 2008 in order to calm tensions on the country's financial markets.\n(21)\nAs a response to the serious disturbance in the Hungarian economy caused by the crisis, the Hungarian government introduced several measures aimed at supporting the financial sector and financed jointly from IMF/EU/World Bank package. The measures included a liquidity support scheme and a guarantee and recapitalisation scheme.\n(22)\nThe liquidity support scheme (hereinafter the \u2018liquidity scheme\u2019), established in the Hungarian Act on Public Finance provides for liquidity in the form of loans to financial institutions. It was approved by the Commission on 14 January 2009 (7) and prolonged several times thereafter, most recently until 31 December 2011 (8).\n(23)\nBy decision of 12 February 2009 (9) the Commission approved the Hungarian guarantee and recapitalisation scheme. Under the scheme, the Hungarian State could subscribe preference shares, which are considered as Tier 1 capital in banks. The recapitalisation part of the scheme has been prolonged several times, most recently until 31 December 2011\n(24)\nUnder the guarantee and recapitalisation scheme if a recapitalisation exceeds 2 % of a bank's risk weighted assets (hereinafter \u2018RWA\u2019), the Hungarian authorities must first inform the Commission and provide a detailed assessment on why they believe such a bank should still be regarded as a fundamentally sound institution. If the Commission does not accept the assessment of the bank as fundamentally sound, the recapitalisation may still take place, but the remuneration must be increased in order to reflect the higher risk and a restructuring plan must be submitted to the Commission within six months of the recapitalisation.\nReasons for FHB's difficulties\n(25)\nHungary was severely affected by the financial crisis, which, coupled with other internal problems in the banking sector, aggravated the situation for Hungarian banks.\n(26)\nFHB required State support because, unlike many other Hungarian banks, it did not have a parent company in the Eurozone and thus could not obtain cheap funding provided by the European Central Bank (hereinafter \u2018ECB\u2019). The ECB facilities, including various repo facilities, were available in the Eurozone as from autumn 2008. The National Bank of Hungary created a facility in early 2010 but it only increased access to Hungarian forint funding and not to Euro funding, which, according to FHB, was crucial during the hardest time of crisis (10).\n(27)\nAccording to the Hungarian authorities, the recapitalisation of FHB was required to ensure the solvency of the bank and to counteract the liquidity difficulties faced by the whole banking sector in Hungary.\nIII. DESCRIPTION OF THE AID MEASURES\n(28)\nThe aid measures granted by Hungary to FHB, described in the Commission opening decision of 24 January 2011, consist of:\n-\nA mid-term State loan under the liquidity scheme of HUF 120 billion (approximately EUR 410 million) granted on 25 March 2009, with a maturity date of 11 November 2012;\n-\nA recapitalisation of HUF 30 billion (approximately EUR 100 million), in the form of newly-issued Special Dividend Preference Shares plus one voting share, granted on 31 March 2009 under the guarantee and recapitalisation scheme.\n(29)\nA recapitalisation agreement between Hungary and FHB fixed the formula for the calculation of the State's remuneration rate for the shares at 10,49 %, which is in line with the remuneration rate for fundamentally sound banks fixed in the guarantee and recapitalisation scheme, to be paid in the form of dividends. The recapitalisation amounted to 9 % of the RWA of FHB, which is above the 2 % threshold defined in the guarantee and recapitalisation scheme under which the beneficiary institutions can be considered as fundamentally sound. Since the measure was not notified to the Commission before implementation, the Commission had no opportunity to check whether the bank should have been considered as fundamentally sound under the guarantee and recapitalisation scheme. Where the beneficiary is deemed not sound under the guarantee and recapitalisation scheme, a restructuring plan is required and the remuneration rate must reflect the non-fundamentally sound character of the bank, and be higher than the remuneration rate for a fundamentally sound bank.\n(30)\nIn spite of its difficulties, the bank managed to cope well during that period: it had a strong capital position (CAR of 10,5 % in March 2009) and it had a rating of Baa3 by Moody's Investors Service (hereinafter \u2018Moody's\u2019) which is still in the investment grade category. In February 2010, less than nine months following the recapitalisation, the bank bought back the Special Dividend Preference Shares held by the State.\n(31)\nThe bank decided to repay the recapitalisation on the basis of a reviewed consolidated current and expected CAR, considering the macroeconomic forecast used in its 2010 planning and the expected volumes, balances and risk information from the bank's 2010 financial plan. The review concluded that despite the global financial crisis, the situation of the bank by the end of the year was remarkably better than expected at the time of the agreement with the Hungarian State on the recapitalisation of the bank in early 2009.\n(32)\nFHB repaid the recapitalisation to the State and did not pay any remuneration to the State, resulting in a violation of the recapitalisation agreement (11). However, the bank considered that the Special Dividend Preference Shares held by the State were not automatically entitled to the payment of dividends and their preference meant only that the bank had to pay the stated dividend to the State prior to paying dividends on common stock. Given that common shareholders did not receive any dividends in the period during which the State held the Special Dividend Preference Shares, according to the bank there was no obligation to pay preference dividends. Furthermore, FHB argued that in any event the State was not in possession of the Special Dividend Preference Shares when dividends were declared for the year 2009, given that the repurchase of shares took place beforehand.\n(33)\nFHB informed the Commission that it had participated in the 2010 EU-wide stress test exercise coordinated by the Committee of European Bank Supervisors, in cooperation with the ECB and the Hungarian Financial Supervisory Authority. The stress test was focused on capital adequacy while liquidity risks were not directly stress-tested. The results of the test, based on the consolidated year-end 2009 figures, suggested a buffer of EUR [above 50] million (12) of Tier 1 Capital against the threshold of 6 % of Tier 1 adequacy ratio for FHB.\n(34)\nBy Act CX of 2010 on the Amendment of Certain Acts Pertaining to the Economy and Finance (hereinafter \u2018Act CX of 2010\u2019), which entered into force on 21 August 2010, Hungary amended Act CIV of 2008 on the stability of the financial intermediary system (hereinafter the \u2018Stabilisation Act\u2019). Act CX of 2010 retroactively created a legal title for the Hungarian State to claim remuneration from FHB concerning the recapitalisation even though the Hungarian State was no longer a shareholder at the time of the FHB shareholders' meeting deciding on the payment of dividends.\n(35)\nOn 28 October 2010, the Hungarian State and FHB signed an agreement according to which FHB was to pay remuneration of HUF 890 million to the Hungarian State for the recapitalisation plus late payment interest of HUF 11 726 786.\n(36)\nThe level of remuneration was allegedly determined on the basis of the terms of the liquidity scheme. The Hungarian authorities argued that the recapitalisation had been provided from the same funding source as the liquidity support in the form of the loan and for those reasons the remuneration for the recapitalisation and for the liquidity support should be the same. The capital was made available to FHB on 6 May 2009 and it was reimbursed on 19 February 2010. The interest rate ultimately applied was the same as the interest rate paid for the loan of approximately EUR 400 million. According to the information provided by Hungary, the monthly average interest rate which resulted amounted to between 3,79 % and 4,08 %; the actual amount was calculated on a weekly basis. According to information provided by Hungarian authorities the total remuneration amount of HUF 890 million was paid at the end of 2010.\n(37)\nLate payment interests were charged in line with the Hungarian reference rate of 5,97 % as published by the Commission (13), increased by 100 basis points. The late payment interest was calculated for the period from 21 August 2010, when the amended Stabilisation Act entered into force, until 28 October 2010, when the agreement was signed.\n(38)\nOn 15 December 2011, the Hungarian State and FHB entered into a new agreement by which the bank agreed to pay to the State an aggregate amount of 10,49 % of the total recapitalisation amount (i.e. total payment amount of HUF 2 491 742 552). Under that new agreement, FHB thus committed to pay to the State by 31 December 2011 an additional amount of HUF 1 601 742 552, calculated as the difference between the total remuneration amount of HUF 890 million mentioned above in recital 36 and the remuneration that had already been paid on 28 October 2010.\nIV. THE RESTRUCTURING PLAN\n(39)\nOn 30 September 2010 Hungary submitted an updated restructuring plan for FHB to the Commission. Additional information on the restructuring plan was submitted to the Commission by letter dated on 3 October 2011. The main aspects of the restructuring plan have been already described in the Commission opening decision. Additional elements were submitted on 3 October 2011 and are described in sections 4.1 to 4.3.\n4.1. VIABILITY\n(40)\nIn 2010 the international and domestic economic environment was rather difficult, though there were signs of improvement. In 2010, profitability of the Hungarian banking sector lagged far behind that of the previous year. By virtue of Act XC of 2010 that entered into effect on 13 August 2010, the Hungarian government introduced a special tax payable by financial organisations amounting to a cumulative HUF 187 billion and mainly paid by credit institutions.\n(41)\nRetail customers' demand for loans was severely reduced throughout 2010; at the same time, the supply side was weakened by unfavourable changes in the regulatory environment and in the market conditions. Corporate lending also suffered overall in the sector, though some banks - including FHB - expanded their corporate activities.\n(42)\nThe most important event concerning both operations and financial results of FHB was its acquisition of Allianz Commercial Bank Ltd (hereinafter \u2018Allianz Bank\u2019) and the long-term strategic cooperation agreement between Allianz Hungaria Insurance Co. Ltd (hereinafter \u2018Allianz Hungaria Insurance\u2019) and FHB. The acquisition was closed by 30 September 2010. At the same time an integration project was launched in FHB in order to merge Allianz Bank and FHB Commercial Bank and to rationalize and optimize the operations of the entire group (branch network, distribution channels, product portfolio, IT operations, organization structure and HR, etc.).\n(43)\nThe acquisition positively affected FHB Group's net profit for 2010; one-off items related to the acquisition counterbalanced the negative impact of the special banking tax, losses on the loan portfolio and the increasing cost of funding. The total profit of FHB in year 2010 amounted to HUF 11,2 billion, representing an increase of 58,9 % compared to 2009.\n(44)\nAs a result of the acquisition of Allianz Bank the number of retail and corporate bank accounts in FHB significantly increased, from [\u2026] in December 2009 to [\u2026] in December 2010 (+[\u2026] %). However, due to the large number of dormant accounts, the amount of deposits did not increase proportionately, but increased from HUF [\u2026] billion in December 2009 to HUF [\u2026] billion in December 2010 (+[\u2026] %). The market share of FHB on the retail and corporate deposit markets, increased respectively from [\u2026] % to [\u2026] %, and from [\u2026] % to [\u2026] %. The acquisition of Allianz Bank thus increases the share of deposits in FHB's funding mix and reduces the amount of mortgage bonds from HUF [\u2026] billion in 2010 to HUF [\u2026] billion in 2011.\n(45)\nFHB forecast that, based on the estimated consolidated balance sheet and income statement for 2011, its CAR should be around [\u2026] % in December 2011. That forecast takes into account the additional payment to be made to the Hungarian State with regard to the recapitalisation carried out in March 2009, which additional payment was made on 15 December 2011 in agreement with the Hungarian State.\n4.2. BURDEN-SHARING\n(46)\nFor the recapitalisation of HUF 30 billion, FHB has paid remuneration of HUF 890 million in October 2010. The interest rate originally applied was the same interest rate which was paid for the loan of HUF 120 billion or a monthly average of between 3,79 % and 4,08 %.\n(47)\nUnder the new agreement signed on 15 December 2011 between FHB and the Hungarian State, the bank committed to pay to the State a total remuneration of HUF 2 491 742 552, representing 10,49 % of the recapitalisation amount, as initially agreed between the bank and the State in the recapitalisation agreement.\n4.3. MEASURES TO LIMIT DISTORTIONS OF COMPETITION\n(48)\nThe additional information provided in October 2011 did not specifically address distortions of competition, aside from underlining the fact that, despite the purchase of Allianz Bank, the market share of FHB regarding retail and commercial deposits remains limited (at [0,7 %-1,3 %] and [0,4 %-0,95 %], respectively, on 31 December 2010 and [0,65 %-1,3 %] and [1 %-1,35 %], respectively, on 30 June 2011).\nV. REASONS FOR THE OPENING OF THE FORMAL PROCEDURE\n(49)\nThe Commission opened a formal investigation procedure because it considered that the main assumptions underlying the restructuring plan and business forecast of FHB were not sufficiently justified and did not take into account the recent purchase by FHB of Allianz Bank. Furthermore, the Commission also expressed doubts as to the long-term viability of FHB given its strong exposure to wholesale funding and the real estate market in Hungary.\n(50)\nIn addition, given the low level of remuneration to the State paid in October 2010 on the recapitalisation amount (corresponding to the average interest rate of 3,79 % to 4,08 % as set out in the liquidity scheme), the Commission also expressed doubts whether the bank's own contribution to its restructuring effort was sufficient. FHB's purchase of Allianz Bank and agreement with Allianz Hungaria Insurance also raised doubts on whether the aid was limited to the minimum amount necessary.\n(51)\nFinally, the Commission also considered that the Hungarian authorities had not demonstrated that sufficient measures were undertaken in order to limit the distortions of competition caused to the market by the aid received by FHB, in particular in view of its expansion strategy, its recent acquisition of Allianz Bank, and the insufficient remuneration paid for the recapitalisation by the State.\nVI. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(52)\nThe Commission received comments from the Association of Hungarian mortgage banks (hereinafter The \u2018Association\u2019)on 18 July 2011. In its comments, the Association recalled the scale of the crisis that hit the Hungarian economy and banking sector in 2008-09, and pointed out that the recapitalisation of FHB took place as a result of the difficult macroeconomic environment deriving from the crisis. The State intervention in favour of FHB was aimed at addressing serious risks to the Hungarian mortgage credit sector and the mortgage bond market. Indeed, as a result of vulnerability to currency fluctuation, the strengthening of the Swiss franc against the Hungarian forint decreasing consumer income and the rise in unemployment, there was a rapid and severe degradation of the quality of the mortgage credit stock and an increase in the number of \u2018bad credits\u2019 and dwindling funding possibilities for banks. It was especially true in the case of FHB, which is financed from the capital market.\nVII. COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBER STATE\n(53)\nThe Commission received observations from the Hungarian authorities on 2 March 2011, supplemented by comments from FHB by letter dated 11 July 2011.\n7.1. VIABILITY\n(54)\nIn response to the Commission's doubts on the accuracy of assumptions underlying the bank's restructuring plan, the Hungarian authorities state that financial forecasts are based on external experts' assumptions and are consistent with the information that is available at the time when they were made. In terms of soundness, they are no different from any other financial plans or forecasts made by FHB.\n(55)\nAccording to Hungarian authorities, the long-term viability of FHB is ensured as evidenced by the success of FHB in raising funds in both the money and capital markets: in 2009, FHB issued mortgage notes and bonds for over HUF 60 billion and private investors also lent the bank a total of [\u2026].\n(56)\nFurthermore, the Hungarian authorities state that, regarding retail deposit accounts, data reveals that FHB's share in the retail deposit segment rose from [\u2026] % to [\u2026] % in 2009; the projection for the end of 2010 is for [\u2026] %. Further, the number of retail accounts as well as the size of the portfolio of such accounts has been rising consistently and dynamically despite a market projection for a decline in the portfolio. Therefore, the bank and the Hungarian authorities do not consider the projections on retail deposits and retail accounts as over-optimistic.\n(57)\nAs regards FHB's liquidity position, it can be regarded as consistently stable, which is due, inter alia, to the fact that it has to comply with the liquidity requirements prescribed by rating agencies. The bank's liquidity situation was stable even in the most difficult periods of the crisis, which is confirmed by the letter of 19 March 2009 of the Governor of the Hungarian Central Bank to the Minister of Finance.\n(58)\nFinally, the weakening of the bank's asset quality during the crisis was mainly due to Hungary's macroeconomic situation, dwindling household income, declining employment rates and rising unemployment rate rather than the upward trend of the Swiss franc against the Hungarian forint. Although FHB has launched several schemes aimed at addressing the problems of distressed debtors, the quality of the loan portfolio will be permanently improved primarily by an economic upturn and improved economic indicators. The economic projections of the Hungarian Central Bank and the Hungarian government for 2011 are for growth in Gross Domestic Product (hereinafter \u2018GDP\u2019), gradual improvement in employment and a lower rate of unemployment, which is also likely to have a significant impact on FHB's loan portfolio.\n7.2. BURDEN-SHARING\n(59)\nThe Hungarian authorities remark that FHB concluded the agreements with Allianz Bank and Allianz Hungaria Insurance after FHB had repaid the State in full on 19 February 2010 for the entire issued value of the shares and redeemed the shares issued during the recapitalisation. The agreements of FHB with Allianz were entered into in June and July 2010 and the acquisition took place in September 2010. At that time, no State funds were held by FHB. Therefore, FHB cannot have financed the acquisition from the recapitalisation repaid in February 2010. The preparatory analyses and discussions between FHB and Allianz started only after the State loan had been repaid. Further, the purchase price that FHB paid for Allianz Bank (with the value of the treasury shares taken into consideration) amounted to approximately HUF 3,3 billion, while Allianz Bank's equity capital was close to HUF 14 billion as at 30 September 2010. Thus, in order to be able to acquire Allianz Bank, FHB did not need any capital, and the transaction did not reduce FHB's equity.\n(60)\nFurthermore, the fact that the aid was limited to the minimum necessary is reflected in the fact that FHB's CAR, which stood at 11,3 % in 2008, reached the 12 % CAR target, approved by the Commission within the guarantee and capital scheme, only after the recapitalisation.\n(61)\nThe Hungarian authorities also note that FHB has not paid dividends for several years in succession, and it has only purchased back a minor portion of its shares relative to the total value of the shareholder's equity. Accordingly, as the amount of funds returned to owners and shareholders has been low over the past years, an appropriate burden-sharing has been ensured.\n7.3. MEASURES TO LIMIT DISTORTIONS OF COMPETITION\n(62)\nIn addition to the measures to limit distortions of competition mentioned by the Commission in its decision, the Hungarian authorities point to additional measures linked with the guarantee and recapitalisation scheme and the recapitalisation agreement between FHB and the Hungarian State:\n-\nThe State is entitled to a special veto right over dividend payments and acquisitions (14); and\n-\nSome restrictions must be implemented by the bank in respect of the salary, remuneration and benefits of its senior officers until the cessation of the interest of the Hungarian State (15).\n(63)\nThe Hungarian authorities note that, according to their interpretation of State aid rules, those behavioural measures and other measures limiting the distortion of competition are or were binding on FHB for as long as the State was a shareholder of the bank.\n(64)\nIn addition to the measures mentioned above, FHB made further commitments in point 3.8 of the recapitalisation agreement, which sets out that the recapitalisation should be used to reach the following objectives:\n-\nThat FHB performs a capital increase in FHB Commercial Bank;\n-\nThat the recapitalisation contributes to the stabilisation of the Hungarian mortgage note and mortgage loan markets and finances the development of retail lending and lending to SMEs;\n-\nThat the recapitalisation improves the stability of FHB and strengthens its active presence in the capital market, thereby contributing to the restoration of investor confidence;\n-\nThat FHB participates in the consolidation of the above market segments;\n-\nThat FHB optimises its financing structure (liability structure);\n-\nThat FHB expands its toolkit needed to fend off the extreme impacts of macro (exchange rate) risks on the capital side.\n(65)\nContrary to the doubts expressed by the Commission, the recapitalisation of FHB was not aimed at distorting competition by expanding the activities of FHB Commercial Bank. The capital increase in the latter was a commitment undertaken in the recapitalisation agreement. The core activity of FHB Commercial Bank, also supported by the HUF 25 billion capital increase financed from the State's recapitalisation, has remained. The corporate loan portfolio has been expanding consistently but not in excess of its earlier trend growth.\n(66)\nIn their view, the foregoing reveals that there is no foundation to the Commission's summary judgement on the measures aimed at limiting the distortion of competition and its claim that \u2018these measures are very limited\u2019. Therefore, the Hungarian authorities insist that the recapitalisation agreement met the criteria laid down in both the Stabilisation Act and the relevant Commission Communications.\nVIII. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n8.1. EXISTENCE OF AID\n(67)\nThe Commission has already found in its opening decision of 24 January 2011 that both the recapitalisation and the liquidity support in the form of the loan provided to FHB constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty (16). Neither the Hungarian State nor FHB have put forward any argument to cast doubt on that finding.\n8.2. LEGALITY OF AID\n(68)\nThe Commission has already stated in its opening decision of 24 January 2011 that the recapitalisation in favour of FHB did not comply with the conditions of the guarantee and recapitalisation scheme. In particular it did not respect the requirements to be applied when the capital increase exceeds 2 % of the beneficiary RWA. The measure should thus have been notified to the Commission separately in accordance with the conditions of the guarantee and recapitalisation scheme and with Article 108(3) of the Treaty.\n(69)\nAs a consequence, Hungary unlawfully implemented aid in the form of a recapitalisation in favour of FHB, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty.\n8.3. QUANTIFICATION OF AID\n(70)\nIn the context of the restructuring of FHB, all measures granted to it need to be taken into account. Therefore, both the recapitalisation of HUF 30 billion and the liquidity loan of HUF 120 billion need to be taken into account in the compatibility assessment.\n8.4. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID\n8.4.1. Legal basis\n(71)\nAs already stated in the Commission's decision of 24 January 2011, given the specific circumstances on the financial markets, the Commission considers that the measures can be examined under Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty, which states that \u2018The following may be considered to be compatible with the internal market: [\u2026] aid [\u2026] to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State\u2019. As the present decision aims at assessing the aid received by FHB and its restructuring plan, the Commission finds it appropriate to base its assessment on communications on the application of State aid rules to the financial sector during the crisis (17). In particular, as regards the assessment of the bank's restructuring plan, it will be based on the Restructuring Communication (18).\n8.4.2. Compatibility of the restructuring plan\n8.4.2.1. Restoration of the long-term viability of the institution\n(72)\nIn the opening decision (19), the Commission expressed doubts as to the reliability of the assumptions adopted by FHB in its financial projections. The Commission noted that the restructuring plan submitted by FHB in September 2010 did not explain why those assumptions were correct. Furthermore, since the financial projections did not seem to take into account the consequences of the purchase of Allianz Bank and of the agreement with Allianz Hungaria Insurance, the Commission could not consider that the presented projections remain valid. The Commission has also expressed doubts about the assumptions of the bank relying upon a strong growth in deposits.\n(73)\nFurthermore, the Commission was also concerned about the long-term viability of the bank in view of the business model of FHB, which was deemed vulnerable to liquidity crises due to its strong reliance on wholesale funding and small share of deposits. The Commission considered that the bank's restructuring plan of September 2010, whilst it focused on the capital perspective, did not provide sufficient details on the long-term sustainable funding of the bank.\n(74)\nOn the basis of additional information provided on the bank's restructuring plan in October 2011, the Commission notes that the financial forecasts in the restructuring plan of September 2010 are based on sound and reliable assumptions. The updated information including the purchase of Allianz Bank shows an increase in the bank's retail and commercial deposits stemming from the accounts acquired from Allianz Bank. That acquisition supports the assumptions made on the growth of deposits.\n(75)\nThe Commission also notes favourably the fact that the growth in deposits contributes to diversifying the funding sources of the bank, to reducing the relative weight of mortgage bonds in the funding mix and reducing the bank's dependence on wholesale funding. Based on information provided, the share of wholesale funding (i.e. the sum of bonds issued, deposits from banks and the part of mortgage bonds that is not used to refinance loans) has decreased as a percentage of the total liabilities of the bank from [35 %-30 %] in 31 December 2009 to [30 %-25 %] in 31 December 2010. As a result of that rebalancing of the bank's funding mix towards deposits, its average funding cost (calculated as interest expenses on total liabilities) has improved from [7-6,5] basis points on 31 December 2009 to [6-5,5] basis points on 31 December 2010. The return on assets also improved from [0,90 %-1 %] in 2009 to [1,05 %-1,10 %] in 2010. That positive trend is confirmed in the bank's forecast with return on assets forecast to stabilise in 2014 at [1,05 %-1,2 %] in a base case scenario, and [0,9 %-1,05 %] in a stressed scenario. In 2014, return on equity would amount to [11 %-13 %] in a base case scenario and [10 %-12 %] in a stressed scenario.\n(76)\nIn the opening decision, the Commission also expressed its concerns on the sufficiency of the measures provided by the Hungarian authorities at that time to address the exposure of FHB to the Hungarian real estate market and the adverse currency movements. On the basis of the information submitted by Hungary on 9 December 2011, however, the Commission notes positively that FHB has taken the necessary steps to significantly reduce its involvement in the mortgage bond market (20). The bank has also considerably increased its share of retail loans from [3 %-5 %] in 2009 to [9 %-11 %] in 2011. The Commission further notes that the \u2018Allianz deal\u2019 (21) contributed significantly to those positive trends. As for the bank's exposure to adverse currency movements, the commitment of FHB to expand its toolkit needed to fend off the extreme impact of foreign exchange risks on the capital side can be accepted as adequate to dispel the Commission's doubts (22) because it provides the possibility for the bank to eliminate or hedge its foreign exchange risk resulting from transactions in foreign currencies.\n(77)\nThe Commission therefore considers that the updated restructuring plan, taking into account the Allianz Bank deal, provides justification for concrete target levels for FHB's financial projections and contributes to restoring the bank's long-term viability.\n8.4.2.2. Own contribution by the bank (burden-sharing)\n(78)\nThe Commission notes positively that the amount of the recapitalisation has already been fully paid back to the State on 19 February 2010, i.e. within a period of less than a year and that the bank repaid the aid amount by using its own resources. FHB also used its own funds to repay four instalments of the mid-term State loan that were due on 11 February 2011, 11 May 2011, 11 August 2011 and 11 November 2011\n8.4.2.3. Limitation of restructuring costs, remuneration\n(79)\nThe Commission considers favourably the early repayment of the amount of the recapitalisation to the State. Further, the acquisition of Allianz Bank by FHB improves the liquidity profile of the bank increasing the amount of retail and commercial deposits. That acquisition is thus an important aspect of the bank's business plan and contributes to its long-term profitability. Thus, it cannot be considered that the aid granted to FHB was used to develop its activities in new business areas, as Allianz Bank and FHB both operate in the same retail and commercial markets. As a result, the Commission considers that the acquisition of Allianz Bank Ltd by FHB an appropriate measure to maintain the bank's long-term viability.\n(80)\nThe Commission further notes that the information provided by the Hungarian authorities dispels the doubts expressed by the Commission in the opening decision of 24 January 2011 as to whether the acquisition of Allianz Bank had been carried to a large extent at the cost of the State. The acquisition of Allianz bank was completed on 30 September 2010, after the repayment of the recapitalisation to the State on 19 February 2010. As regards the outstanding amounts of the loan, the Commission notes positively that the bank has already repaid four instalments of the loan since February 2011 (23). The evaluation of the Commission is not altered by taking into consideration the \u2018missing\u2019 remuneration of the recapitalisation, i.e., the amount that was originally not paid by FHB, since that payment amounted to around HUF 1,6 billion (recital 40) and the price paid for Allianz Bank was HUF 3,3 billion (recital 60).\n(81)\nAs regards remuneration of the aid measures, the Commission notes favourably that FHB and the Hungarian Government entered into an agreement on 15 December 2011 by which FHB agreed to pay to the State an additional remuneration of HUF 1,6 billion. In addition to the payment of HUF 890 million made in October 2010, the total payment on the recapitalisation by the Hungarian State of FHB corresponds to the remuneration rate of 10,49 %, in line with the conditions set out in the guarantee and recapitalisation scheme.\n(82)\nThe Commission notes positively that the bank repaid the recapitalisation granted by the State within a period of less than a year (i.e. the bank was recapitalised on 23 March 2009 and the State was repaid on 19 February 2010).\n(83)\nThe mid-term loan received by the bank under the liquidity scheme bears a remuneration of the higher of (i) IMF Special Drawing Right (hereinafter \u2018SDR\u2019) + 345 bps and (ii) 12 month Interbank offered Rate (hereinafter \u2018IBOR\u2019) + 100 bps + 123,5 bps (corresponding to a monthly average of between 3,79 % and 4,08 %), in line with the conditions set out in the liquidity scheme.\n(84)\nThe loan agreement for the mid-term State loan provides for its repayment [\u2026] starting from 11 February 2011. According to the information submitted by the Hungarian authorities, FHB has paid four instalments of the loan that were due on 11 February 2011, 11 May 2011, 11 August 2011 and 11 November 2011. The Commission positively notes that FHB has been prompt in meeting, so far, its payment obligations regarding the mid-term loan. The Commission has no reason to doubt that there will be full and timely repayment of the loan by its maturity.\n(85)\nThat assessment is confirmed by the good performance of FHB despite difficulties in the Hungarian banking sector and the bank's relatively high core tier 1 ratio (12 % at the end of 2008, which increased to 16,9 % after the recapitalisation in 2009 and remained high at 10,5 % after the repayment of the State capital). The capital requirement for Hungarian banks was 8 % at that time. In contrast to some of its peers, the bank was able to maintain its strong capital position (CAR of 10,5 % in March 2009, after the repayment to the State of the recapitalisation). In addition, it kept a rating of Baa3 by Moody's, which is still in the investment grade category.\n(86)\nIn the light of those facts, the Commission believes that FHB encountered difficulties only temporarily and not in a fundamental fashion. It therefore considers that the remuneration paid by the bank is adequate, as corresponding to the remuneration required from a fundamentally sound bank.\n(87)\nGiven that the bank's viability was not endangered by Hungary's ongoing difficulties, the Commission will not ask for further remuneration to be paid to the State.\n(88)\nFurthermore, the remuneration of the State by FHB for the mid-term loan (see recital 84) was in line with the conditions set out in the liquidity scheme. Therefore, the Commission considers that the remuneration of both aid measures is appropriate.\n(89)\nThe Commission also notes favourably that the bank paid no dividend on its ordinary shares for the years 2009 and 2010. Some restrictions were also implemented by FHB in respect of the salary, remuneration and benefits of its senior officers until the cessation of the interest of the Hungarian State.\n(90)\nThe Commission therefore considers that the restructuring plan ensures an appropriate own contribution of the bank, its shareholders and management to the restructuring costs.\n8.4.2.4. Measures to correct the distortions of competition\n(91)\nThe Commission notes that measures contained in the bank's restructuring plan to limit distortions of competition are limited. First, no structural measures are undertaken. Second, the behavioural measures in the restructuring plan apply only as long as the bank benefits from the capital injected by the State. Third, the Commission positively notes that FHB has been prompt in meeting, so far, its payment obligations arising from the mid-term loan. The Commission has no reason to doubt the bank's ability to make full and timely repayment of the loan by its maturity. Fourth, the market position of FHB has not significantly changed since the acquisition of Allianz Bank (with market shares of [3 %-3,3 %] and [3,4 %-3,6 %] before and after the acquisition respectively) which reassures the Commission that the effect of that acquisition on distortions of competition remains limited.\n(92)\nThe behavioural measures are limited to the following:\n-\nThe bank shall not follow any aggressive business strategy;\n-\nThe bank should not invest in new business areas, unless those investments were approved before the signing of the recapitalisation agreement\n-\nThe bank should avoid marketing the existence of the State aid.\n(93)\nThe Commission does not consider that other behavioural measures associated with the recapitalisation, mentioned by Hungarian authorities in their response to the opening decision of 27 January 2011, can be considered as measures to limit the distortions of competition caused by the aid.\n(94)\nHowever, considering the limited size of FHB on the retail and commercial markets in Hungary ([0,9 %-1,08 %] and [0,5 %-0,9 %] market share respectively in the retail and corporate deposit markets) and considering the fact that the bank repaid the capital injected by the State less than one year after it has been issued, the Commission is of the opinion that the distortions of competition remain limited. Additionally, given that FHB has already paid back four instalments of the mid-term State loan under the liquidity scheme, the Commission has no reason to doubt the bank will reply the loan in full and in a timely manner.\n(95)\nFurther, the remuneration paid to the State is in line with the recapitalisation and guarantee scheme and is therefore appropriate as is required by point 34 of the Restructuring Communication.\nCONCLUSION\n(96)\nThe Commission finds that on the basis of the information communicated by the Hungarian authorities and the updated restructuring plan of FHB set out in section IV of this Decision, the implemented support measures in form of a liquidity support loan and a recapitalisation are compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty and fulfil the requirements of the Restructuring Communication in terms of viability, burden-sharing and measures to mitigate the distortions of competition.\n(97)\nHungary has exceptionally agreed that this Decision be adopted in English as its only authentic language,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe measures consisting of a mid-term State loan of HUF 120 billion (approximately EUR 410 million) granted on 25 March 2009 with a maturity date of 11 November 2012 and a recapitalisation of HUF 30 billion (approximately EUR 100 million), in the form of Special Dividend Preference Shares plus one voting share granted on 31 March 2009 which Hungary implemented for FHB Jelz\u00e1logbank Nyrt are compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to Hungary.\nDone at Brussels, 22 February 2012.", "references": ["89", "37", "12", "23", "94", "26", "36", "21", "90", "88", "45", "54", "82", "60", "0", "93", "31", "39", "35", "73", "51", "18", "65", "78", "22", "67", "27", "69", "11", "44", "No Label", "15", "29", "41", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "29", "41", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1070/2011\nof 21 October 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1059/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2011.", "references": ["55", "52", "46", "99", "18", "44", "58", "11", "94", "86", "4", "95", "5", "39", "2", "31", "25", "98", "96", "53", "17", "8", "88", "74", "24", "34", "32", "28", "77", "84", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 584/2011\nof 17 June 2011\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Grana Padano (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Grana Padano\u2019 registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union, as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation (3).\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, a statement of objection from the company Ch\u00e4s & Co K\u00e4sehandel GmbH, Inhaber Urs Reichen, Grubenstr. 39, 8045 Z\u00fcrich, Switzerland was forwarded to the Commission by the Swiss authorities. In its letter dated 6 April 2010, the Commission invited the interested parties to hold appropriate consultations.\n(4)\nGiven that an agreement was reached within 6 months including minor amendments to the specification, the Commission must now issue a decision.\n(5)\nIn the light of the above, the amendments should be approved and the amended single document should be published,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification presented in Annex 2 concerning the name in Annex 1 to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThe amended single document in Annex 2 to this Regulation shall be applied.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2011.", "references": ["85", "84", "34", "77", "89", "94", "92", "51", "57", "49", "8", "18", "61", "43", "32", "47", "46", "82", "37", "86", "22", "39", "65", "64", "90", "17", "42", "71", "6", "66", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 28 June 2011\nlaying down simplified rules and procedures on sanitary controls of fishery products, live bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates, marine gastropods, by-products thereof and products derived from these by-products coming from Greenland\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/408/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 203 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nGreenland is included in the list of overseas countries and territories set out in Annex II to the Treaties. In accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter \u2018the Treaty\u2019), the purpose of the association of the overseas countries and territories with the Union is to promote the economic and social development of the overseas countries and territories and to establish close economic relations between them and the Union as a whole.\n(2)\nDenmark and Greenland have requested that veterinary checks between the Union and Greenland on fishery products, bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates, marine gastropods, by-products and products derived from these by-products that are regarded as originating in Greenland according to Annex III to Council Decision 2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community (\u2018Overseas Association Decision\u2019) (1), and of the same products which are introduced into Greenland from third countries, be permitted in accordance with the rules on sanitary and veterinary controls applicable to trade within the Union.\n(3)\nTrade in those products between Greenland and the Union should, therefore, be conducted in compliance with Union rules on animal health and food safety. Accordingly, Denmark and Greenland should undertake to ensure that consignments of products dispatched to the Union from Greenland are in conformity with the applicable Union rules concerning animal health and food safety. In particular, eligible feed and food business operators should be registered and listed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (2).\n(4)\nVeterinary checks at border inspection posts in Greenland should be carried out in accordance with Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (3). Veterinary checks at border inspection posts should be carried out in close cooperation with customs officials. To simplify those tasks it is appropriate to provide the competent authorities with references to the Combined Nomenclature (CN) specified in Annex I to Commission Decision 2007/275/EC of 17 April 2007 concerning lists of animals and products to be subject to controls at border inspection posts under Council Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC (4).\n(5)\nThe competent authority in Greenland should provide official assurances to the Commission on the enforcement of the Union rules and animal health requirements for the products concerned. Those assurances should cover, in particular, compliance with the applicable provisions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption (5), Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (6) and Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (7). Those assurances should also include a commitment to ensure compliance with the rules on trade within the Union.\n(6)\nCouncil Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products (8) requires the establishment of national monitoring plans for aquaculture animals. Accordingly, those provisions should also apply to Greenland.\n(7)\nIn order to permit importation of the products covered by this Decision into the Union from Greenland in accordance with the rules on trade within the Union laid down in Union legal acts, as well as to ensure the sanitary safety of the products concerned, Denmark and Greenland should undertake to transpose and implement the relevant provisions of Union laws in Greenland, before the date from which this Decision should apply.\n(8)\nDenmark and Greenland should also undertake to ensure that imports into Greenland from third countries of the products concerned comply with Union rules on animal health and food safety.\n(9)\nCouncil Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (9) provides for the introduction of a computerised system linking veterinary authorities, with a view, in particular, to facilitate the rapid exchange of information relating to animal health and welfare between the competent authorities (Traces). Commission Decision 2004/292/EC of 30 March 2004 on the introduction of the Traces system (10) provides that the Member States are to use Traces from 1 April 2004. Traces is essential for the effective monitoring of trade in animals and products of animal origin and accordingly, it should be used for the transmission of data on movements and trade in such products between Greenland and the Union.\n(10)\nOutbreaks of animal diseases listed in Council Directive 82/894/EEC of 21 December 1982 on the notification of animal diseases within the Community (11), are to be reported to the Commission through the Animal Disease Notification System (ADNS) in accordance with Commission Decision 2005/176/EC of 1 March 2005 laying down the codified form and the codes for the notification of animal diseases pursuant to Directive 82/894/EEC (12). For the products concerned, those provisions should also apply to Greenland.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (13) established a rapid alert system for the notification of a direct or indirect risk to human health deriving from food or feed. Those provisions should also apply to Greenland for the products concerned.\n(12)\nBefore Greenland can carry out veterinary checks on products that are introduced into Greenland from third countries, a Union inspection should be carried out in Greenland in order to verify that one or more border inspection posts in Greenland are in compliance with the requirements laid down in Directive 97/78/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 of 22 January 2004 laying down procedures for veterinary checks at Community border inspection posts on products imported from third countries (14) and Commission Decision 2001/812/EC of 21 November 2001 laying down the requirements for the approval of border inspection posts responsible for veterinary checks on products introduced into the Community from third countries (15).\n(13)\nIn the event that the results of such an inspection are positive, one or more border inspection posts in Greenland should be listed in Commission Decision 2009/821/EC of 28 September 2009 drawing up a list of approved border inspection posts, laying down certain rules on the inspections carried out by Commission veterinary experts and laying down the veterinary units in Traces (16). In order to ensure effective control of the products covered by this Decision introduced in Greenland and in the Union, it is appropriate that this Decision apply as from the moment at which one or more border inspection posts in Greenland are listed in Decision 2009/821/EC.\n(14)\nThis Decision does not affect any possible arrangements related to the import of fishery products based on the Protocol (No 34) on special arrangements for Greenland annexed to the Treaties,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\nThis Decision lays down simplified rules and procedures for the application of sanitary controls for fishery products, bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods and to by-products thereof and products derived from these by-products (hereinafter \u2018the products\u2019), originating from Greenland or introduced into Greenland from third countries and thereafter imported from Greenland into the Union (hereinafter \u2018the products coming from Greenland\u2019).\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018bivalve molluscs\u2019 means molluscs as defined in point 2.1 of Section 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004;\n(b)\n\u2018fishery products\u2019 means products as defined in point 3.1 of Section 3 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004;\n(c)\n\u2018by-products and products derived from these by-products\u2019 means animal by-products and derived products within the meaning of points 1 and 2 respectively of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, as far as they are derived from fishery products, bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates or marine gastropods;\n(d)\n\u2018products originating from Greenland\u2019 means products provided for in points (a), (b) and (c) of this Article, as defined in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to Decision 2001/822/EC.\nArticle 3\nGeneral rules concerning sanitary controls of the products between the Union and Greenland\n1. Denmark and Greenland shall ensure that the relevant legal acts of the Union which are applicable to the products defined in Article 2, are implemented in Greenland.\n2. Member States shall not apply the veterinary checks applicable on products covered by this Decision. The products coming from Greenland shall be placed on the internal market under the sanitary rules applicable within the Union, provided that Denmark and Greenland ensure, in particular, the full respect of the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe effective transposition and implementation in Greenland of the applicable rules laid down in legal acts of the Union concerning animal health and food safety, relating to the products;\n(b)\nthe drawing-up and keeping up to date by the competent authorities in Denmark and Greenland of a list of feed and food business operators which have been registered in accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004;\n(c)\nthe conformity of consignments of products dispatched to the Union from Greenland with the applicable rules laid down in legal acts of the Union concerning animal health and food safety.\nArticle 4\nMonitoring plans for aquaculture animals\nDenmark and Greenland shall submit for approval to the Commission monitoring plans for the detection of the presence of residues and substances in aquaculture animals in Greenland, in accordance with Directive 96/23/EC.\nArticle 5\nChecks on products introduced into Greenland from third countries\n1. Veterinary checks shall be carried out on consignments of the products introduced into Greenland from third countries in accordance with the rules laid down in Directive 97/78/EC.\nTo facilitate those veterinary checks, the Commission shall provide to the competent authorities of Denmark and Greenland the CN codes of the products, listed in Annex I to Commission Decision 2007/275/EC.\n2. Proposals for border inspection posts in Greenland shall be submitted to the Commission for approval in accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 97/78/EC.\nThe list of border inspection posts approved for Greenland shall be included in the list of border inspection posts in the Member States, approved in accordance with Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC.\nArticle 6\nInformation system\n1. Data on movements of, and trade in the products to and from Greenland shall be transmitted in Danish language through the integrated computerised veterinary system (Traces) in accordance with Decision 2004/292/EC.\n2. The notification of aquatic diseases concerning the products in Greenland shall be transmitted through the animal disease notification system (ADNS), in accordance with Directive 82/894/EEC and Decision 2005/176/EC.\n3. The notification of direct or indirect risks to human health deriving from the products in Greenland shall be transmitted through the rapid alert system for feed and food (RASFF) established by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.\nArticle 7\nIdentification mark\nConsignments of the products dispatched to the Union from Greenland shall be marked with the identification mark for Greenland, \u2018GL\u2019, in accordance with the rules set out in Section I(B) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\nArticle 8\nConfirmation of compliance with the conditions laid down in this Decision\nDenmark and Greenland shall provide, before the date referred to in Article 9, from which this Decision shall apply, written confirmation to the Commission that the necessary measures for the application of this Decision have been taken.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force and applicability\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from the date of listing in Commission Decision 2009/821/EC of the first border inspection post in Greenland.\nDone at Luxembourg, 28 June 2011.", "references": ["52", "33", "76", "89", "27", "47", "34", "26", "20", "60", "24", "16", "50", "73", "92", "51", "15", "30", "29", "5", "54", "86", "31", "14", "80", "88", "81", "55", "48", "87", "No Label", "22", "23", "38", "67", "91", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "38", "67", "91", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 325/2012\nof 12 April 2012\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. PROVISIONAL MEASURES\n(1)\nThe Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 1043/2011 (2) (\u2018the provisional Regulation\u2019) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the PRC\u2019). The provisional anti-dumping duties ranged from 14,6 % to 52,2 %.\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 13 December 2010 by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) on behalf of Oxaquim S.A. (\u2018the complainant\u2019), representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of oxalic acid.\n(3)\nAs set out in recital 9 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the investigation period (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n1.2. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE\n(4)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (\u2018provisional disclosure\u2019), several interested parties made written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. In particular, one exporting producer from India requested and was afforded a hearing in the presence of the Hearing Officer of the Directorate-General for Trade.\n(5)\nThe Commission continued to seek information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.\n(6)\nRecital 150 of the provisional Regulation invited Chinese companies which had not yet made themselves known but considered that an individual duty should be established for them to come forward within 10 days from publication. No Chinese company did so.\n(7)\nSubsequently, all parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (\u2018final disclosure\u2019). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on this final disclosure.\n(8)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and were taken into account where appropriate.\n1.3. PARTIES CONCERNED BY THE PROCEEDING\n(9)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the parties concerned by the proceeding, recitals 3 to 8 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. PRODUCT CONCERNED\n(10)\nThe product concerned is as described in recitals 10 and 11 of the provisional Regulation, i.e. oxalic acid, whether in dihydrate (CUS number 0028635-1 and CAS number 6153-56-6) or anhydrous form (CUS number 0021238-4 and CAS number 144-62-7), and whether or not in aqueous solution, currently falling within CN code ex 2917 11 00 and originating in India and the PRC.\n(11)\nThere are two types of oxalic acid: unrefined oxalic acid and refined oxalic acid. Refined oxalic acid, which is produced in the PRC but not in India, is manufactured through a purification process of unrefined oxalic acid, the purpose of which is to remove iron, chlorides, metal traces and other impurities.\n(12)\nOxalic acid is used in a wide range of applications, for example as a reducing and bleaching agent, in pharmaceutical synthesis and in the manufacture of chemicals.\n2.2. LIKE PRODUCT\n(13)\nThe investigation has shown that oxalic acid produced and sold by the Union industry in the Union, oxalic acid produced and sold on the domestic market of India and the PRC and oxalic acid imported into the Union from India and the PRC have essentially the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same basic end uses.\n(14)\nIn the absence of any comments regarding the product concerned or like product, recitals 10 to 13 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3. DUMPING\n3.1. INDIA\n3.1.1. PRELIMINARY REMARK\n(15)\nIn recital 14 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission found that one Indian exporting producer could not be considered as a cooperating party and accordingly the findings for that company were made on facts available as set out in Article 18 of the basic Regulation.\n(16)\nFollowing the disclosure of provisional findings to this company, Star Oxochem Pvt. Ltd, it provided additional explanations and clarifications in respect of the information submitted earlier in the investigation by the company. It also requested to be heard by the Commission and by the Hearing Officer of the Directorate-General for Trade. The company argued that, given that it had submitted a questionnaire response and bearing in mind that the Commission services had visited the premises of the company and also in light of the additional explanations and clarifications now provided, it would not be appropriate if it were to continue to be treated like exporting producers who had not cooperated in any way with the investigation.\n(17)\nIn light of the above, in particular the additional explanations and clarifications provided, the Commission\u2019s services consider that they can use part of the original information, namely data related to export prices, as they were found to be reliable. It follows from the above considerations that the provisional findings, as set out in recital 14 of the provisional Regulation, are only partially maintained and findings in respect of this company are made partially on facts available and partially on its own export prices in accordance with Article 18(1) and (3) of the basic Regulation.\n3.1.2. NORMAL VALUE\n(18)\nNo comments have been submitted in respect of the methodology to calculate normal value for India. Accordingly, the findings in recitals 15 to 18 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed with regard to the cooperating company.\n(19)\nWith regard to Star Oxochem, and taking into account the findings above (recitals 16-17), the normal value was established on the basis of facts available pursuant to Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, the normal value for this company was based on the weighted average of a representative quantity of domestic sales by the other cooperating company, Punjab Chemicals.\n3.1.3. EXPORT PRICE\n(20)\nIn the absence of any comments, the determination of the export price, as set out in recital 19 of the provisional Regulation, is confirmed with regard to Punjab Chemicals.\n(21)\nIn view of the conclusions as set out above in recitals 16-17, the export price for Star Oxochem is, pursuant to Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable by independent customers for the product concerned when exported to the Union.\n3.1.4. COMPARISON\n(22)\nIn the absence of any comments with regard to the comparison of the normal value and the export prices, recitals 20 and 21 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed as far as the cooperating producer, Punjab Chemicals, is concerned.\n(23)\nWith regard to Star Oxochem, adjustments have been made in accordance to Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation based on the verified allowances of Punjab Chemicals.\n3.1.5. DUMPING MARGIN\n(24)\nWith regard to the cooperating producer no comments have been made on the Commission\u2019s provisional findings. Therefore, the dumping margin, as set out in recitals 22 and 23 of the provisional Regulation, is confirmed.\n(25)\nWith regard to STAR Oxochem and taking into account the above considerations, the dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the cif Union border price, duty unpaid is 31,5 %.\n(26)\nIn view of the low cooperation from India (below 80 %) it was provisionally considered that the highest dumped transaction of the cooperating party was the most appropriate method for establishing the country-wide dumping margin. This transaction is not exceptional in terms of either quantity or price and is therefore considered a representative sample that leads to a reasonable and proportionate result in relation to the dumping margin established for the cooperating producer.\n(27)\nIn view of the above the considerations the findings in recitals 24 and 25 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.\n(28)\nOn this basis the definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, for India are:\nCompany\nDefinitive dumping margin\nPunjab Chemicals and Crop Protection Limited\n22,8 %\nStar Oxochem Pvt. Ltd\n31,5 %\nAll other companies\n43,6 %\n3.2. PEOPLE\u2019S REPUBLIC OF CHINA\n3.2.1. MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT (MET)/INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT (IT)\n(29)\nAs set out in the provisional Regulation, one group of Chinese companies requested MET or, failing that, IT, while another group of Chinese companies requested IT only. As set out in recitals 26 to 32 of the provisional Regulation, the claim for MET was rejected whereas both groups of companies were provisionally granted IT.\n(30)\nNo comments have been submitted in respect of these provisional finding and recitals 26 to 32 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.2.2. ANALOGUE COUNTRY\n(31)\nNo comments were received on the provisional choice of analogue country. Accordingly, recitals 33 to 34 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.\n3.2.3. NORMAL VALUE\n(32)\nIt was explained in the provisional Regulation that the Commission established separate normal values for both unrefined and refined oxalic acid. While the normal value for unrefined oxalic acid was determined on the basis of the normal value established for India, the normal value for refined oxalic acid, which is not produced in India, was constructed on the basis of the manufacturing costs for Indian unrefined oxalic acid, adjusted with an uplift of 12 % to take into account additional manufacturing costs, plus SG&A and profit.\n(33)\nBoth cooperating producers from China contested the 12 % uplift for additional manufacturing costs, claiming that these additional costs have never been verified by the Commission and appear to be simply a rough estimation based on a methodology that has not been disclosed to them at the time of the provisional disclosure. One of the exporting producers claimed that it had estimated the additional manufacturing cost at only 5 % although it did not substantiate this claim with any supporting evidence.\n(34)\nIt is pointed out that the uplift has been determined on the basis of information provided by the cooperating Chinese exporting producers themselves. First, it is noted that the same company which now alleges that the additional manufacturing cost is only around 5 % had originally explicitly referred to additional costs of 10-15 % in its MET/IT claim form. Second, during the verification visits at the companies\u2019 premises, both cooperating producers confirmed that the additional costs for manufacturing refined oxalic acid as compared to unrefined oxalic acid were in the band of 10-12 %. Third, this latter level of 10-12 % additional manufacturing cost was also supported by calculations of the Union industry. In view of the information provided by the cooperating producers an uplift of 12 % was considered appropriate.\n(35)\nTherefore in the absence of any substantiated information or supporting evidence justifying a lower uplift the findings in recitals 35 to 37 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.2.4. EXPORT PRICE\n(36)\nBoth exporting producers from the PRC were granted IT, therefore their export prices were based on the prices actually paid or payable by the first independent customer in the Union in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n(37)\nIn the absence of comments with regard to the export price, recital 38 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n3.2.5. COMPARISON\n(38)\nOne of the cooperating producers claimed that the SG&A expenses of its related trader and commissions should not be removed from the export price as an adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation. The producer stated that the direct selling costs of their related trader had already been removed from the export price in order to arrive at an ex-works price to compare with the normal value on the same basis.\n(39)\nThe producer argued that their related trader was a wholly owned subsidiary and, in view of the export profit distribution strategy within the group, did not charge any commission. Furthermore, according to the company, the remaining SG&A expenses represented the combined costs of operating the company and were not expenses directly related to sales and should therefore not be removed from the export price.\n(40)\nArticle 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation states that commissions are to be understood to include the mark-up received by a trader if the functions of such a trader are similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis. It is therefore irrelevant whether a commission was actually paid or not. What is relevant is whether the trader re-sold the goods with a mark-up and whether the functions of the trader were similar to those of an agent.\n(41)\nEvidence on file, obtained before and during the inspection of the trading company, shows that the trader during the IP sold oxalic acid produced by the related producer to a customer in the EU. At the same time the producer was also exporting directly to the same customer in the EU. The related trader therefore duplicated the effort of the producer with different staff in a different office in a different city, thereby incurring its own costs that are reflected in their export price.\n(42)\nIt is also clear from evidence on file that the trading company purchased the exported goods from the related exporting producer and re-sold them, with a mark-up, in its own name, after having itself concluded price negotiations with the final independent customer.\n(43)\nEvidence was also collected regarding the trading company performing the functions of an agent. This evidence firstly shows that the producer sold significant volumes of the product concerned directly to the EU as well as exporting to the EU via their related trading company. Only about one third of sales to the EU were made via this related company. The trader also re-sold oxalic acid from other unrelated producers. Evidence on file shows that over half of the trader\u2019s purchases of oxalic acid were from unrelated suppliers and less than half of their purchases came from their related producer.\n(44)\nThe trader could thus not be considered as the internal export sales department of the producing exporter despite its relationship with the exporting producer.\n(45)\nIt is also clear from evidence submitted and verified that the trader only pays for the goods supplied from the related exporting producer once the customer in the EU has paid the trader. The financial risk therefore remains with the producer and not the trader.\n(46)\nIt was therefore considered that the trader was carrying out functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis. Accordingly, the claim that no adjustments should be made for commission under Article 2(10)(i) is rejected.\n(47)\nAlso the claim that SG&A expenses should not be taken into account as they do not include direct selling expenses cannot be accepted. Such overhead costs have an impact on the cost structure of the company and therefore affect the export price. Therefore, a portion of these costs was removed from the export price to allow for a fair comparison of normal value and export price, ex-works. This claim is rejected.\n(48)\nThe commission has been established on the basis of the profit margin of an unrelated EU importer rather than on the actual mark-up of the trader, which was significantly higher. This methodology was deemed more appropriate as the actual mark-up would have been based on internal transfer prices not reflecting actual market conditions.\n(49)\nIn the absence of any further comments with regard to the comparison of the normal value and the export price, recitals 39 to 44 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n3.2.6. DUMPING MARGINS\n(50)\nOne group of exporting producers claimed that individual dumping margins should be established separately for unrefined and refined oxalic acid. They argued that although dumping margins were established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price of the product concerned type by type, one common dumping margin for both types of oxalic acid was established. They claimed that it would be more appropriate to establish a dumping margin for each type of oxalic acid as the group consists of two producing companies of which one produces refined oxalic acid while the other produces unrefined oxalic acid.\n(51)\nUnrefined oxalic acid can be substituted by refined oxalic acid. Both types of oxalic acid are included under the same CN code and the different types cannot easily be distinguished from each other. The purity of the oxalic acid is the same, the difference is in the levels of other products in the remaining \u2018waste\u2019 product. As they both fall within the definition of the product concerned, one dumping margin has been established in line with usual practice. Given the significant price difference between the two types and the difficulties involved in distinguishing them from each other individual dumping margins for refined and unrefined oxalic acid would lead to an increased risk of circumvention. The claim to have individual dumping margins for refined and unrefined oxalic acid, is rejected and the dumping margins, as established in recitals 45 and 46 of the provisional Regulation, are confirmed.\n(52)\nFinally, the same exporting producer group questioned the different dumping margins established for the two groups of exporting producers from the PRC and requested clarification of the calculation methodology and the classification of refined and unrefined oxalic acid, given the difference in the dumping margins found between the two groups of exporters.\n(53)\nThe same methodology has been used in respect of both groups of exporting producers from the PRC and the weighted average export price of the product concerned includes both refined and unrefined oxalic acid. The explanation as to the different dumping margins rests therefore simply on the relative weight of exports of the respective types, considering that refined oxalic acid is normally sold at a higher price than unrefined.\n(54)\nThe definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:\nCompany\nDefinitive dumping margin\nShandong Fengyuan Chemicals Stock Co., Ltd and Shandong Fengyuan Uranus Advanced material Co., Ltd\n37,7 %\nYuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co., Ltd\n14,6 %\n(55)\nIn the absence of other comments with regard to the dumping margins, recitals 47 to 48 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(56)\nOn this basis the country-wide level of dumping is definitely established at 52,2 % of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, and recital 49 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n4. INJURY\n4.1. UNION PRODUCTION AND UNION INDUSTRY\n(57)\nAn exporting producer submitted that the reference to two Union producers constituting the Union industry in recitals 50 and 51 of the provisional Regulation (the complainant and a second non-cooperating producer) did not properly reflect the situation regarding macro economic indicators. It was also argued that data regarding the non-cooperating producer as well as the data from a third Union producer having stopped the production of OA should be disregarded and not be included in some macro indicators (see recitals 72, 74 and 78 of the provisional Regulation). First, it is hereby confirmed that contrary to what was stated in recitals 50 and 51 of the provisional Regulation, there were in fact three producers of the product concerned in the Union during the period considered constituting the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation, which thus represent 100 % of the Union production. Second, the claim that figures pertaining to the non-cooperating producer and the third Union producer having ceased its operation in 2008 should be disregarded is rejected, as it is correct to include all known figures related to the period considered for the purpose of the injury analysis in order to achieved the best informed representation of the economic situation of the Union industry as prescribed in Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(58)\nThe same exporting producer also argued that the reasons for which this third producer has ceased its production of the like product were not properly examined during the investigation. However, this matter was examined during the investigation and the company simply invoked the fact that it had stopped the production of the like product for \u2018internal reasons\u2019 without giving any further explanations. In addition, one exporting producer concurred with this explanation and claimed that the decision to stop the production was not due to the alleged dumping practices from exporting producers in China, thus contradicting the information which was made available by the complainant in the non-confidential version of the complaint, in which it is stated that \u2018[the company] ceased production, once and for all, closing the factory because of aggressive dumping from China and India\u2019. However, the exporting producer did not provide any different information with regard to the alleged production figures related to this third Union producer. Therefore, this issue does not devaluate the fact that the data related to that third EU producer could be used in the current investigation.\n(59)\nAnother exporting producer argued that the minimum threshold for the standing at initiation was not properly disclosed and in fact was not met. As mentioned in recital 2 of the provisional Regulation, the complainant represented more than 25 % of the total Union production of oxalic acid and no producer expressing opposition has come forward prior to the initiation of the investigation. An information note was made available in the non-confidential file summarising the results of the standing examination at initiation stage. Furthermore, the injury analysis made pursuant to Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation covered a major proportion of the Union Industry.\n(60)\nIn the absence of any further comments concerning the definition of the Union production and the Union industry, recitals 50 and 51 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed subject to the clarification in recital 57 above.\n4.2. DETERMINATION OF THE RELEVANT UNION MARKET\n(61)\nAn exporting producer submitted that captive use of oxalic acid should not be considered in the determination of some injury indicators and in any case the same consistent approach should be applied to all injury indicators. However, the separation made between the captive and the free markets was explained in recitals 52, 53 and 55 of the provisional Regulation and in line with the basic Regulation, the focus of the analysis was primarily on the free market, even though, both the use in the free and the captive markets were included for the determination of some injury indicators as indicated in recital 55. Indeed, some injury indicators can only be examined in regard to the use of the like product in the free market as, given the very nature of captive sales, such indicators can be distorted by the relationship between the seller and buyer. Therefore, this claim is rejected.\n(62)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the determination of the relevant Union market, recitals 52 to 55 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n4.3. UNION CONSUMPTION\n(63)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the Union consumption, recitals 56 to 58 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5. IMPORTS FROM THE COUNTRIES CONCERNED\n5.1. CUMULATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF THE IMPORTS CONCERNED\n(64)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned, recitals 59 to 62 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.2. VOLUME AND MARKET SHARE OF DUMPED IMPORTS FROM THE COUNTRIES CONCERNED\n(65)\nIn the absence of any comments concerning the volume and the market share of the imports from the countries concerned, recitals 63 and 64 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.3. PRICE OF DUMPED IMPORTS AND PRICE UNDERCUTTING\n(66)\nAs mentioned in recital 144 of the provisional regulation, in the injury margin calculation, the average import prices of the cooperating exporting producers in the PRC and India have been duly adjusted for importation costs and customs duties. An exporting producer argued however that the Commission failed to include fully an allowance of 6,5 % corresponding to the normal customs duty in the injury margin calculation. This claim was found to be warranted and the injury margins calculations were corrected accordingly for this exporting producer, as well as for the other cooperating exporting producers. However, this had no impact on the proposed definitive measures as indicated in recital 87 below.\n(67)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the price of dumped imports and price undercutting, recitals 65 to 68 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6. ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(68)\nAs mentioned in recital 57 above, an exporting producer submitted that the figures related to a third Union producer which ceased the production of oxalic acid in 2008 should not have been included in some macro indicators (see recitals 72, 74 and 78 of the provisional Regulation). However there are in fact three producers of the like product in the Union constituting the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation, representing 100 % of the Union production throughout the whole period considered, even though one producer stopped producing oxalic acid before the IP. The claim that figures pertaining to the third Union producer having ceased its operation in 2008 should be disregarded is rejected, as it is correct to include all production figures related to the period considered for the purpose of determining the economic situation of the Union industry.\n(69)\nThe same exporting producer argued that notwithstanding the alleged error mentioned in recital 66 above, the figures related to the number of employees, total yearly wages and average labour costs per employee in Table 6 of the provisional Regulation did not tally. However, the exporting producer did not refer to the correct figure when stating that average wages rose by 21 %, in fact, the right figure is 19 %.\n(70)\nWith regard to the economic crisis recitals 95 to 97 of the provisional Regulation clearly show that imports from the countries concerned continued to gain market share despite the decline in consumption and had a negative impact on various injury indicators such as sales volumes, employment, production capacity and market share.\n(71)\nIn the absence of any comments regarding recitals 69 to 94 of the provisional Regulation, these recitals are hereby confirmed.\n7. CONCLUSION ON INJURY\n(72)\nAn exporting producer argued that contrary to the provisional findings, the Union industry did not suffer material injury. It was claimed that, overall, the negative trends regarding the Union industry were due to the effects of the economic crisis in 2008 and the erroneous inclusion of the information related to the third Union producer having ceased its production in 2008, which contributed to give a vitiated representation of the injury situation. However, as mentioned above the inclusion of the third producer was considered to be correct and market share of the countries concerned continued to increase despite the crisis.\n(73)\nTherefore, recitals 94 to 98 of the provisional Regulation concluding that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n8. CAUSATION\n(74)\nOne exporting producer stated that the inclusion of data related to a third Union producer having ceased its production of oxalic acid in 2008 was distorting the provisional conclusions regarding the causal link analysis, which should be based on current producers only. Similarly to the injury analysis above, it was found that conversely, not to include this third producer would distort the conclusions in relation to the like product. However, as mentioned in recital 57 above, relevant data for this company should also be included in the analysis of the situation of the Union industry and this claim is therefore rejected.\n(75)\nOne exporting producer argued that as the import volume of the dumped imports increased at the same time as the profitability situation of the Union industry has improved, the dumped imports could not be the main cause of injury. However, this minor improvement regarding profitability does not devalue the conclusion that the overall profitability remained very low and under the normal profit of 8 %. Furthermore, despite the fact that consumption increased substantially in 2008 and again during the IP the Union industry lost 9 % market share against the Chinese imports during the period considered.\n(76)\nAnother exporting producer argued that based on the information available, the Union industry achieved in the IP, a profit which was very close to the target profit of 8 %. As the information regarding profits relates to only one Union producer, the precise profit levels cannot be published. However, as stated in recital 88 of the provisional regulation, the complainant made a small profit in the IP, after having made a loss in 2009. The assumptions that the exporting producer used to conclude that the profit in the IP was allegedly close to the target profit were in fact not correct as they did not include the relevant financial and production data of the complainant, which for confidential reasons could not be disclosed. The profit level of the complainant has been thoroughly verified, including during an on-spot verification visit and therefore, allegations that the profit achieved in the IP was very close to the target profit were found to be incorrect.\n(77)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning causation, recitals 99 to 122 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n9. UNION INTEREST\n(78)\nTwo importers argued that the measures could lead to shortages of oxalic acid in the EU. Allegedly, the Union industry cannot meet the demand in the EU for oxalic acid.\n(79)\nThe investigation revealed that during the IP, the complainant had spare capacities. Furthermore, the complainant stated that currently it is increasing its production, even though, as the production of the product concerned is based on chemical reactions, increasing capacity utilisation requires some time. However, based on the EU consumption data and the total EU capacity, it can be considered that the complainant is capable of meeting total Union demand for unrefined oxalic acid once it is producing close to full capacity. With regard to refined oxalic acid it is recalled that most of the refined oxalic acid is used in the production of products that are subsequently exported, the users could operate under the inward processing regime. In addition, the main Chinese exporter of refined oxalic acid is the one with the lowest proposed duty (14,6 %).\n(80)\nIn addition, the complainant argued that the global oxalic market (unrefined) is dominated by the Chinese producers which are setting the price level for this product. Currently the Chinese producers are more preoccupied with their domestic market and it cannot be excluded that in the absence of measures and the probable disappearance of the only remaining EU producer of unrefined oxalic acid, users in the EU would face security of supply problems potentially with chronic shortages and oligopolistic prices.\n(81)\nAnother importer/user operating in a different downstream market segment than the previous one alleged that the existence of provisional measures had a negative impact on the profitability of its own products for which oxalic acid is the main raw material, without however, providing any further details. The company was invited to attend a hearing to further develop these concerns and provide evidence, but did not react. Therefore, these allegations could not be verified.\n(82)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the Union interest, recitals 123 to 139 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n10. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n10.1. INJURY ELIMINATION LEVEL\n(83)\nAs mentioned above in recital 66 an exporting producer argued that the Commission failed to include an allowance of 6,5 % corresponding to the normal customs duty in the injury margin calculation. This claim was found to be partially correct as for some imports that were delivered to the EU customer on a duty paid basis, the duty had been underestimated. Therefore the injury margins were corrected accordingly, without however having, any significant impact on the proposed definitive measures (see recital 87 below).\n(84)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to Star Oxochem, an injury margin was also established for this exporting producer on the basis of the same calculation methodology as laid down in recitals 142 to 144 of the provisional Regulation.\n(85)\nIn the absence of comments on the injury elimination level, recitals 145 to 148 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.\n10.2. FORM AND LEVEL OF THE DUTIES\n(86)\nIn the light of the foregoing and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level of the dumping margins found, since for all the exporting producers concerned the injury margins were found to be higher than the dumping margins.\n(87)\nOn the basis of the above, the dumping and injury margins established are as follows:\nCompany/group name\nInjury margin (%)\nDumping margin (%)\nProvisional duty (%)\nProposed duty (%)\nIndia\nPunjab Chemicals and Crop Protection Limited (PCCPL)\n38,9\n22,8\n22,8\n22,8\nStar Oxochem Pvt. Ltd\n32,3\n31,5\n43,6\n31,5\nAll other companies\n47,9\n43,6\n43,6\n43,6\nPRC\nShandong Fengyuan Chemicals Stock Co., Ltd and Shandong Fengyuan Uranus Advanced Material Co., Ltd\n53,3\n37,7\n37,7\n37,7\nYuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co., Ltd\n18,7\n14,6\n14,6\n14,6\nAll other companies\n63,5\n52,2\n52,2\n52,2\n(88)\nThe individual company\u2019s anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in India and the PRC and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(89)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (3) forthwith with all the relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be amended accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(90)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of oxalic acid originating in the PRC and India. They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to the final disclosure.\n(91)\nThe comments submitted by the interested parties were duly considered. None of the comments was such as to alter the findings of the investigation.\n(92)\nIn order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the residual duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporters, but also to those companies which did not have any exports during the IP. However, the latter companies are invited, when they fulfil the requirements of Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, second paragraph, to present a request for a review pursuant to that Article in order to have their situation examined individually.\n10.3. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTIES\n(93)\nIn view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation should be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the definitive duties imposed. Where the definitive duties are lower than the provisional duties, the amount provisionally secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties should be released.\n11. UNDERTAKINGS\n(94)\nOne exporting producer in India and two exporting producers in the People\u2019s Republic of China offered price undertakings in accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(95)\nThe product concerned has shown in the last years a considerable volatility in prices and therefore it is not suitable for a fixed price undertaking. In order to overcome this problem, the Indian exporting producer offered an indexation clause without, however, determining the respective minimum price (MIP). In this respect it is noted that no direct link between the fluctuation of prices and that of the main raw material could be established and, thus, indexation is not considered appropriate. In addition, the level of cooperation of this company throughout the investigation and the accuracy of the data it had provided was not ideal. Accordingly, the Commission was not satisfied that an undertaking from this company could be effectively monitored.\n(96)\nMoreover, in relation to the exporting producers in the PRC, the investigation established that there are different types of the product concerned which are not easily distinguishable and have considerable differences in prices. The single MIP for all product types offered by one of the Chinese exporting producers would therefore not eliminate the injurious effect of dumping. Furthermore, both exporting producers concerned in the PRC are producers of different types of other chemical products and may sell these products to common customers in the European Union via related trading companies. This would create a serious risk of cross-compensation and would render extremely difficult to monitor effectively the undertaking. The different MIPs proposed by the other Chinese exporting producer would also render the monitoring impracticable due to the complexity of distinction between the various product types. On the basis of the above, it was concluded that the undertaking offers cannot be accepted,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of oxalic acid, whether in dihydrate (CUS number 0028635-1 and CAS number 6153-56-6) or anhydrous form (CUS number 0021238-4 and CAS number 144-62-7) and whether or not in aqueous solution, currently falling within CN code ex 2917 11 00 (TARIC code 2917110091) and originating in India and the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies below, shall be as follows:\nCountry\nCompany\nAnti-dumping duty rate %\nTARIC additional code\nIndia\nPunjab Chemicals and Crop Protection Limited\n22,8\nB230\nStar Oxochem Pvt. Ltd\n31,5\nB270\nAll other companies\n43,6\nB999\nPRC\nShandong Fengyuan Chemicals Stock Co., Ltd; Shandong Fengyuan Uranus Advanced Material Co., Ltd\n37,7\nB231\nYuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co., Ltd\n14,6\nB232\nAll other companies\n52,2\nB999\n3. The application of the individual duty rate specified for the companies listed in paragraph 2 of this Article shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authority of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform with the requirements set out in the Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall apply.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThe amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1043/2011 shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of the amount of the definitive anti-dumping duties shall be released.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 April 2012.", "references": ["56", "6", "46", "25", "74", "76", "51", "62", "86", "59", "4", "19", "5", "54", "57", "93", "34", "55", "1", "90", "42", "94", "63", "38", "18", "16", "35", "40", "69", "47", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/22/EU\nof 3 March 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include bispyribac as active substance\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC Italy received on 26 February 2002 an application from Bayer CropScience for the inclusion of the active substance bispyribac (also called bispyribac sodium, according to the form in which the active substance is contained in the representative formulation on which the dossier is based) in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2003/305/EC (2) confirmed that the dossier was \u2018complete\u2019 in the sense that it could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annexes II and III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(2)\nFor that active substance, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicant. The designated rapporteur Member State submitted a draft assessment report on 1 August 2003.\n(3)\nThe draft assessment report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the format of the EFSA conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance bispyribac on 12 July 2010 (3). This report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and was finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for bispyribac.\n(4)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing bispyribac may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) and Article 5(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include bispyribac in Annex I to that Directive, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance may be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(5)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain confirmatory information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that the inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information to confirm the risk assessment on the potential for groundwater contamination by metabolites M03 (4), M04 (5) and M10 (6).\n(6)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing provisional authorisations of plant protection products containing bispyribac to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should transform existing provisional authorisations into full authorisations, amend them or withdraw them in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(7)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31 January 2012 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 February 2012.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing bispyribac as active substance by 31 January 2012. By that date, they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to bispyribac are met, with the exception of those identified in part B of the entry concerning the active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(2) of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing bispyribac as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 July 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning bispyribac. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing bispyribac as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 January 2013 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing bispyribac as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 January 2013 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 August 2011.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 March 2011.", "references": ["60", "0", "4", "77", "57", "54", "83", "33", "18", "82", "59", "55", "7", "97", "91", "85", "64", "45", "89", "43", "36", "3", "30", "94", "5", "8", "37", "32", "76", "13", "No Label", "25", "38", "61"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 447/2012\nof 21 March 2012\nsupplementing Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit rating agencies by laying down regulatory technical standards for the assessment of compliance of credit rating methodologies\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies (1), and in particular point (d) of Article 21(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 requires a credit rating agency to use credit rating methodologies that are rigorous, systematic, continuous and subject to validation based on historical experience, including back-testing.\n(2)\nThis Regulation is necessary to ensure transparency in the assessment carried out by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (2) and uniform rules regarding the requirements set out in Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\n(3)\nESMA has to assess the compliance of credit rating agencies with the provision of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 when examining applications for registration pursuant to Article 15 of that Regulation. After the registration ESMA should assess as part of its ongoing supervision the continuous compliance of credit rating agencies with the provision of Article 8(3) whenever it considers such assessment necessary.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1060/2009, in particular Article 23 thereof, does not permit ESMA, the Commission or any public authorities of a Member State to interfere with the content of credit ratings or methodologies. Accordingly, this Regulation should lay down the rules by which those methodologies are to be assessed but should not provide for those authorities to decide on the accuracy of a credit rating produced by those methodologies.\n(5)\nArticle 6(2) when read in conjunction with point 9 of Section A of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 requires a credit rating agency to establish a review function responsible for periodically reviewing its methodologies, models and key rating assumptions, such as mathematical or correlation assumptions, and any significant changes or modifications thereto as well as the appropriateness of those methodologies, models and key rating assumptions where they are used or intended to be used for the assessment of new financial instruments.\n(6)\nThis Regulation is based on the draft regulatory technical standards submitted by ESMA to the Commission for endorsement by the Commission pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n(7)\nESMA has conducted open public consultations on the draft regulatory technical standards on which this Regulation is based, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the opinion of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group established under Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. In addition, ESMA has launched a call for evidence in May 2011 in order to gather information from market participants,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down the rules to be used in the assessment of compliance of credit rating methodologies with the requirements set out in Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.\nArticle 2\nDemonstration of compliance\nA credit rating agency shall at all times be able to demonstrate to ESMA its compliance with the requirements set out in Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 relating to the use of credit rating methodologies.\nArticle 3\nAssessment of compliance by ESMA\n1. In addition to examining the compliance of credit rating agencies with the provision of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 in relation to an application for registration according to Article 15 of that Regulation, ESMA shall examine compliance by each credit rating agency with Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on an ongoing basis as ESMA considers appropriate.\n2. When examining the compliance of credit rating agencies with the provision of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 ESMA shall use all information relevant to assess the process of developing, approving, using and reviewing credit rating methodologies.\n3. In determining the appropriate level of assessment, ESMA shall consider whether a credit rating methodology has a demonstrable history of consistency and accuracy in predicting credit worthiness and may have regard to methods of validation such as appropriate default or transition studies designed to test that specific methodology.\nArticle 4\nAssessing that a credit rating methodology is rigorous\n1. A credit rating agency shall use and apply credit rating methodologies which:\n(a)\ncontain clear and robust controls and processes for their developments and related approvals that allow suitable challenge;\n(b)\nincorporate all driving factors deemed relevant in determining creditworthiness of a rated entity or a financial instrument which shall be supported by statistical, historical experience or evidence;\n(c)\nconsider the modelled relationship between rated entities or financial instruments of the same risk factor and risk factors to which the credit rating methodologies are sensitive;\n(d)\nincorporate reliable, relevant and quality related analytical models, key credit rating assumptions and criteria where these are in place.\n2. A credit rating agency shall list and provide a detailed explanation of the following points with regard to the credit rating methodologies used regarding:\n(a)\neach qualitative factor, including the scope of qualitative judgement for that factor;\n(b)\neach quantitative factor, including key variables, data sources, key assumptions, modelling and quantitative techniques.\n3. The detailed explanation referred to in paragraph 2 shall include the following:\n(a)\na statement of the importance of each qualitative or quantitative factor used within that credit rating methodology including, where relevant, a description of and justification for related weightings assigned to those factors and their impact on credit ratings;\n(b)\nan assessment of the relationship between the key assumptions used in that credit rating methodology and the critical risk factors derived from macroeconomic or financial data; and\n(c)\nan assessment of the relationship between the key assumptions used in credit rating methodology and the volatility of credit ratings produced by that methodology over time.\n4. A credit rating agency shall use credit rating methodologies and their associated analytical models, key credit rating assumptions and criteria that promptly incorporate findings or outcomes from an internal review or a monitoring review undertaken by one or more of the following:\n(a)\nthe credit rating agency\u2019s independent members of the administrative or supervisory board;\n(b)\nthe credit rating agency\u2019s review function;\n(c)\nany other relevant person or committee involved in the monitoring and reviewing of credit rating methodologies.\nArticle 5\nAssessing that a credit rating methodology is systematic\n1. A credit rating agency shall use a credit rating methodology and its associated analytical models, key credit rating assumptions and criteria that are applied systematically in the formulation of all credit ratings in a given asset class or market segment unless there is an objective reason for diverging from it.\n2. A credit rating agency shall use a credit rating methodology which is capable of promptly incorporating the findings from any review of its appropriateness.\nArticle 6\nAssessing that a credit rating methodology is continuous\nA credit rating agency shall use credit rating methodologies shall that are designed and implemented in a way that enables them to:\n(a)\ncontinue to be used unless there is an objective reason for the credit rating methodology to change or be discontinued;\n(b)\nbe capable of promptly incorporating any finding from ongoing monitoring or a review, in particular where changes in structural macroeconomic or financial market conditions would be capable of affecting credit ratings produced by that methodology;\n(c)\ncompare credit ratings across different asset classes.\nArticle 7\nAssessing that a credit rating methodology is subject to validation based on historical experience including back testing\n1. A credit rating agency shall use credit ratings methodologies that are supported by quantitative evidence of the discriminatory power of the credit rating methodology.\n2. A credit rating agency shall use credit rating methodologies that describe the following:\n(a)\nthe historical robustness and predictive power of credit ratings issued using the relevant methodology over appropriate time horizons and across different asset classes;\n(b)\nthe degree to which the assumptions used in the rating model deviate from the actual default and loss rates.\n3. The validation of a credit rating methodology shall be designed to:\n(a)\nexamine the sensitivity of a credit rating methodology to changes in any of its underlying assumptions, including qualitative or quantitative factors;\n(b)\nperform an adequate and appropriate assessment of historic credit ratings produced by means of that credit rating methodology;\n(c)\nuse reliable inputs, including appropriate size of the data samples;\n(d)\ntake appropriate account of the main geographical areas of the rated entities or financial instruments for each of the credit rating categories rated such as structured finance, sovereign, corporates, financial institutions, insurances, public finance.\n4. A credit rating agency shall have processes in place to ensure that systemic credit rating anomalies highlighted by back-testing are identified and are appropriately addressed.\n5. In the process of reviewing credit rating methodologies, a credit rating agency shall include:\n(a)\nregular credit rating and performance reviews on rated entities and financial instruments;\n(b)\nin-sample and out-of-sample testing;\n(c)\nhistoric information on validation or back-testing.\nArticle 8\nExemption\nIn cases where there is limited quantitative evidence to support the predictive power of a credit rating methodology, a credit rating agency shall be exempt from complying with Article 7 of this Regulation if it:\n(a)\nensures that credit rating methodologies are sensible predictors of credit worthiness;\n(b)\napplies internal procedures in a consistent way and over time and across different market segments;\n(c)\nhas processes in place to ensure that systemic credit rating anomalies highlighted by back-testing are identified and are appropriately addressed.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2012.", "references": ["56", "85", "32", "65", "78", "29", "28", "63", "15", "10", "88", "8", "89", "59", "96", "9", "37", "24", "11", "72", "22", "53", "17", "79", "64", "68", "42", "41", "35", "91", "No Label", "2", "7", "19", "46", "47", "77"], "gold": ["2", "7", "19", "46", "47", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2012/15/EU\nof 8 May 2012\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include margosa extract as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes margosa extract.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, margosa extract has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to that Directive. The evaluation concerned margosa extract from the kernels of Azadirachta indica extracted with water and further processed with organic solvents. Any possible other substances complying with the definition of margosa extract in the list of active substances to be assessed in Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 have not been evaluated, and should therefore not be included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC based on this evaluation.\n(3)\nGermany was designated as rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 26 November 2009 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 9 December 2011, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods and containing margosa extract may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include margosa extract in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at Union level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to human populations and to environmental compartments that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(7)\nIn view of the risks identified for surface water, sediment and non-target arthropods, it is appropriate to require that product authorisations are subject to appropriate risk mitigation measures.\n(8)\nThe provisions of this Directive should be applied at the same time in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment on the Union market of biocidal products containing the active substance margosa extract and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(9)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC, in order to permit Member States and interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(10)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(11)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 April 2013 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 May 2014.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 May 2012.", "references": ["12", "38", "8", "51", "11", "35", "66", "15", "71", "53", "0", "49", "47", "86", "43", "31", "97", "10", "93", "40", "98", "99", "68", "22", "17", "14", "76", "84", "95", "5", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 June 2012\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain concentrated soy protein products originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\n(2012/343/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. INITIATION\n(1)\nOn 19 April 2011, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (\u2018notice of initiation\u2019), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports of certain concentrated soy protein products originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019 or \u2018the country concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 7 March 2011 by Solae Europe S.A. (\u2018the complainant\u2019) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of certain concentrated soy protein products (3). The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting there from, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n2. PARTIES CONCERNED BY THE PROCEEDING\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant, the other known Union producer, the exporting producers and the representatives of the PRC, importers, suppliers and users known to be concerned, as well as their associations, of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(4)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(5)\nAll oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.\n(6)\nIn view of the apparent high number of exporting producers and unrelated Union importers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers and unrelated Union importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 (\u2018the investigation period\u2019 or \u2018the IP\u2019). The authorities of the PRC were also consulted on the sampling of exporting producers.\n2.1. SAMPLING OF EXPORTING PRODUCERS\n(7)\nTwenty exporting producers provided the information requested in the sampling exercise and offered cooperation within the deadlines. The EU sales volumes reported by these (groups of) exporting producers represented around 90 % of the imports concerned during the investigation period. Therefore, the cooperation was considered high.\n(8)\nGiven the high number of (groups of) exporting producers which indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was necessary with regard to exporting producers.\n(9)\nThe Commission selected, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, a sample based on the largest representative volume of exports which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sample thus selected initially consisted of two groups of related companies, representing, inter alia, five individual producers and accounting for 40 % to 50 % of the export volume of the product concerned from the PRC to the EU during the investigation period. After indications had been received that these two groups would possibly need to be treated as a single entity for the purpose of imposing an anti-dumping duty (see recital 41), the sample was expanded by including a third group of exporting producers, thus accounting for 45 % to 60 % of Chinese imports. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned and the Chinese authorities were consulted on the initial selection as well as the later expansion of the sample. Two related exporting producers objected to the expansion of the sample as they argued that, if the sample had to be expanded, they would qualify better as a third group of exporting producers to be included in the sample. It should be underlined that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the proposed new sample consisted of the three groups of exporting producers with the largest EU sales volumes of the product concerned during the IP. Moreover, the EU sales volumes of the product concerned during the IP by the two related producers which claimed that they should have been selected as a third group were very small, representing less than 10 % of such volumes of the selected third group. Therefore it was confirmed that the representativity of the expanded sample was best served by the proposed three groups. No further objections were raised.\n2.2. SAMPLING OF IMPORTERS\n(10)\nAfter examination of the information submitted, and given the high number of importers which indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was necessary with regard to unrelated importers.\n(11)\nSeven unrelated importers, accounting for 20 % of the total imports of the product concerned into the Union, agreed to be included in the sample. Three importers, accounting for around 17 % of the total imports from the PRC and almost 90 % of imports of the cooperating importers, were selected for the sample. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned were given the opportunity to comment on the selection of the sample. No objections were raised. One of the sampled importers stopped its cooperation and did not provide a questionnaire reply.\n2.3. QUESTIONNAIRE REPLIES AND VERIFICATIONS\n(12)\nIn order to allow the sampled groups of exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent them MET/IT claim forms. In this respect, two sampled groups of companies requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, whereas the remaining sampled group of companies requested IT pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(13)\nMET/IT claim forms were also sent to non-sampled (groups of) exporting producers which had stated their intention to request individual examination as per Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(14)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the sampled exporting producers as well as to the non-sampled exporting producers which had stated their intention to request individual examination, to the complainant and the other known Union producer, to the sampled importers, and to all known users.\n(15)\nAfter having requested information from producers in the possible analogue countries Brazil, Israel and the United States of America (\u2018the USA\u2019), questionnaires were also sent to the producers that had offered cooperation in Brazil and Israel for the purpose of establishing normal value for companies to which MET could not be granted (see recitals 60 to 64 below).\n(16)\nFull questionnaire replies were received from the three sampled groups of exporting producers in the PRC, one Brazilian producer, one Israeli producer, one Union producer (with one production facility in Belgium and another one in Denmark), two (out of three) sampled importers and four users in the EU. Another Brazilian producer submitted an incomplete reply.\n(17)\nIn addition, claims for individual examination (IE) as per Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation were received from one non-sampled exporting producer (\u2018applicant A\u2019) and one group of related non-sampled exporting producers (jointly \u2018applicant B\u2019) (4). After having analysed the information submitted by the sampled parties, as well as these requests including duly completed questionnaires, it was considered that the number of (groups of) exporting producers to be investigated in the sample alone was so large that additional IEs would be unduly burdensome and would prevent completion of the investigation in good time. Therefore, the applicants were informed that their request for an individual examination was rejected.\n(18)\nApplicant B contested this determination not to consider its request for IE. It submitted that this refusal would be contrary to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation and Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA), as interpreted recently by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in the Fasteners case (5). Secondly, such refusal would be contrary to the fundamental principle of proportionality.\n(19)\nAs concerns the first argument, Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation as well as Article 6.10 of the ADA explicitly allow the investigating authority not to consider requests for IE if the number of exporters and/or producers involved is so large as to make such a determination impracticable. The WTO Appellate Body Report in the Fasteners case clarified that timely requests for IE should \u2018as a rule\u2019 be accepted unless this would be \u2018unduly burdensome\u2019 (6). In this case, the verification of the questionnaire replies and the replies to the MET claim forms of the applicants for IE would entail on-the-spot investigations at one company (applicant A) and two other companies (those forming part of applicant B). During these on-the-spot investigations, compliance with the provisions of Article 2(7)(c) would need to be verified as well as all these entities\u2019 reported structure, costs (including production costs and purchases), sales and profitability. In view of the large number of entities already investigated within the sample, to add an additional applicant would indeed have been unduly burdensome and would have seriously jeopardised the completion of the investigation in good time. Therefore, the decision not to accept these requests for individual examination is justified by the law and not in breach with the principle of proportionality.\n(20)\nAfter being informed that an IE would be too burdensome, applicant B later proposed to withdraw its MET claim if it would be agreed to examine it for IT. Because it alleged to have made only one small export transaction during the IP and would no longer claim MET, it argued that the Commission would not need to conduct an on-the-spot verification in the PRC to make a dumping determination and that it would be enough to verify that single export transaction while verifying the questionnaire reply of the complainant in the EU. On this basis, the exporter argued that granting individual examination would not be burdensome.\n(21)\nHowever, if IE were granted, an on-the-spot verification of applicant B would be necessary, since without on-the-spot verification in the PRC of both producers in the group, the existence of other sales to the EU during the IP could not be excluded. Such verification would have been unduly burdensome given the size of the sample with three big groups of companies. The request was therefore rejected.\n(22)\nThe decision not to accept the requests for individual treatment has been maintained. In view of the grounds cited above, it has been definitively decided that requests for individual examination could not be granted as they would render the investigation unduly burdensome and would prevent the completion of the investigation in good time.\n(23)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a determination of dumping, resulting injury or threat of injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a)\nExporting producers in the PRC:\n-\nGushen Biological Technology Group Co. Ltd and its related companies, Dezhou,\n-\nShandong Crown Soya Protein Co. Ltd and its related companies, Shenxian, Qingdao, Yucheng,\n-\nShandong Sinoglory Health Food Co. Ltd and its related companies, Liaocheng, Qingdao;\n(b)\nUnion producer:\n-\nSolae Europe, with production facilities in:\n-\nBelgium, Ieper (Solae Belgium), and\n-\nDenmark, Aarhus (Solae Denmark);\n(c)\nProducers in the analogue country:\n-\nBremil Industria De Produtos Alimenticios Ltda., Arroio do Meio,\n-\nSolae do Brasil Ind. Com. Alimentos Ltda., Esteio, Sao Paulo.\n3. INVESTIGATION PERIOD\n(24)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 2007 to the end of the investigation period (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n4. FINDINGS AT THE INTERIM STAGE\n(25)\nAt the interim stage it was considered that the imposition of provisional measures would not be appropriate in particular in view of the need to further analyse the causal link between the dumped imports of certain concentrated soy protein products from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n5. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE\n(26)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided not to impose provisional measures (\u2018interim disclosure\u2019), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the interim findings. The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard.\n(27)\nThe Commission continued to seek information it deemed necessary for its final findings. In addition to the verifications mentioned in recital 23 above, a further verification was carried out at the premises of Kerry in Bristol, UK, one of the importers and users of soy proteins which cooperated in the investigation.\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. PRODUCT CONCERNED\n(28)\nThe product concerned was defined in the notice of initiation as concentrated soy protein products, containing by weight 65 % or more of proteins (N \u00d7 6,25) calculated on the dry matter by excluding added vitamins, minerals, amino acids and food additives, originating in the PRC (\u2018the product concerned\u2019 or \u2018CCSPP\u2019) and currently falling within CN codes ex 2106 10 20, ex 2106 90 92, ex 2309 90 10, ex 2309 90 99 (ex 2309 90 96 as from 1 January 2012) and ex 3504 00 90.\n(29)\nWithin the above product scope, two main product groups can be distinguished: (i) soy protein concentrates (\u2018SPCs\u2019 or \u2018concentrates\u2019 including simple/basic concentrates and further processed concentrates), which have a protein content of more than 65 % but less than 90 %; and (ii) isolated soy proteins (\u2018ISPs\u2019 or \u2018isolates\u2019), which have a protein content of 90 % or more.\n(30)\nIt was also established that whereas the simple concentrate is a fairly basic product with low value added, isolates and further processed concentrates require substantially more processing and are consequently higher value added products.\n(31)\nThe product scope as described above includes also simple (not further processed) concentrates for animal feed. These were produced in the period considered in the EU by one plant of the complainant located in France and by another company, ADM, based in the Netherlands.\n(32)\nFollowing the interim disclosure the complainant requested a change of the product scope by eliminating concentrates used for animal feed. The complainant opposed the approach proposed in the interim document and argued that exclusion of data from the French plant that closed in 2009 (i.e. in the middle of the period considered) resulted in an inconsistency in the remaining data (with ADM data still included). Consequently, the sales and market share of EU producers of the product under investigation were artificially inflated.\n(33)\nThe complainant argued that given relatively stable demand, some of the supply provided by the Solae French plant until it closed in 2009 was taken over by their competitor in the EU, ADM. Consequently, disregarding the data from the French plant led to a misleading comparison of year 2008 data, when ADM had only a smaller share of the market for animal concentrates, with the IP data, when AMD had a much bigger share of that market.\n(34)\nIn particular, the complainant provided information on technical and chemical differences between the concentrates for animal feed on the one hand and other concentrates and isolates on the other hand. Also, different distribution channels are used for these subgroups. In addition, concentrates for animal feed fall within a different CN code than other concentrates (for food) and isolates.\n(35)\nFollowing the submission of the complainant, one exporter disagreed with the request to limit the product scope. However, this exporter misunderstood the request and had considered that the request was to exclude all the soy protein concentrates, while in fact it refers only to simple SPC for animal feed. In addition, the exporter provided no factual reasoning as to why the request would be unfounded.\n(36)\nIt is also noted that, based on the information collected during the investigation, imports of soy protein concentrates for animal feed account for less then 1 % of the total Chinese imports in the Union of the product under investigation (as originally defined).\n(37)\nGiven the above, and in particular the clear technical, chemical and market related differences, it is considered appropriate to limit the product scope by excluding simple soy protein concentrates of a kind used in animal feeding. Consequently, the product concerned is concentrated soy protein products, excluding such products of a kind used in animal feeding, and containing by weight 65 % or more of proteins (N \u00d7 6,25) calculated on the dry matter by excluding added vitamins, minerals, amino acids and food additives, originating in the PRC (\u2018the product concerned\u2019 or \u2018CCSPP\u2019) and currently falling within CN codes ex 2106 10 20, ex 2106 90 92 and ex 3504 00 90.\n(38)\nThe product concerned is mainly used in the food industry in meat applications and meat substitutes. Other food applications include salad dressings, soups, beverage powders, energy bars, non-dairy creamers, frozen desserts, whipped toppings, infant formulas, breads, breakfast cereals, pastas etc. Due to its functionalities, the product concerned also has some specific applications including adhesives, asphalts, resins, cleaning materials, cosmetics, inks, leather, paints, paper coatings, pesticides/fungicides, plastics, polyesters and textile fibres.\n(39)\nDespite some differences in possible final applications, the different types of the product concerned, concentrates and isolates, all share the same basic physical and chemical characteristics. They are therefore considered to constitute one single product.\n2. LIKE PRODUCT\n(40)\nThe product concerned and certain concentrated soy protein products produced and sold on the domestic market of the PRC, and on the domestic market of Brazil, which served as an analogue country, as well as certain concentrated soy protein products produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry were found to have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and uses. Therefore, these products are considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n1. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SINOGLORY GROUP AND GUSHEN GROUP\n(41)\nThe sampled exporting producers consisted of Shandong Crown Soya Protein Co. Ltd and its related companies (\u2018Crown Group\u2019), Gushen Biological Technology Group Co. Ltd and its related companies (\u2018Gushen Group\u2019) and Sinoglory Health Food Co. Ltd and its related companies (\u2018Sinoglory Group\u2019). At an early stage of the investigation it was considered that Gushen Group and Sinoglory Group might have to be treated as related exporters. However, following the explanations provided by the exporters concerned, it was finally decided to consider Gushen Group and Sinoglory Group as separate entities for the purpose of this investigation.\n2. MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT (MET)\n(42)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.\n(43)\nBriefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in summarised form below:\n1.\nBusiness decisions and costs are made in response to market conditions and without significant State interference;\n2.\nAccounting records are independently audited, in line with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes;\n3.\nThere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;\n4.\nLegal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy and property laws; and\n5.\nCurrency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.\n(44)\nMET was claimed by the Crown Group and the Sinoglory Group.\n(45)\nFor both the Crown and the Sinoglory Groups, the Commission sought all information deemed necessary and verified the information submitted in the MET claim forms and all other information deemed necessary, at the premises of the companies in question.\n(46)\nThe investigation established that both groups did not meet the requirements of the criteria set forth in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation to be granted MET.\n(47)\nIn particular, the companies from both groups failed to meet criteria 1, 2, and 3.\n(48)\nIn the case of one group, one producer in the group did not meet criterion 1 because of the existence of an obligation to sell all its products on the international market. Even though the company claimed that this provision was not binding, the company actually has never sold on the domestic market (with the exception of a minor sale in 2007). As for criterion 2, several accounting problems were found for both producers in the group. Moreover, one of the companies in the group did not submit any MET claim form. Furthermore, one company in the group let out part of its land without any record of the rental receipts in its accounts since no invoices or proofs of payment for these payments were issued. When it moved to a new production site and part of its equipment became idle, no test for impairment was made. Finally, when one of the companies in the group bought a new piece of land, it received a government transfer to be used as compensation for the villagers who had to move. However, this payment was not used for that purpose but to reduce the cost of the land use right. Regarding criterion 3, the two producers in the group swap raw material from a common supplier without any proper documentation or records, on the basis of very informal arrangements without any adjustments for price differences or fees: this constitutes a form of barter trade. Furthermore, one producer could use the land belonging to its majority shareholder without any payments for several years. According to that company, this was possible because the related land use rights had been acquired for a very low price by the parent company in the context of its privatisation.\n(49)\nFollowing disclosure of the detailed MET findings and the interim disclosure, the group reiterated earlier claims that one of the two producers should not be considered as legally related to the rest of the group. However, concerning this claim, it was found that the two producers were pursuing a coordinated commercial and industrial strategy together with the rest of the group, including the barter trade practices mentioned at recital 48 above. The claim is therefore rejected.\n(50)\nThe group also claimed that the sales restriction for one of its producers was only mentioned in its Articles of Association, and not in the business license or certificate of approval. According to the company, the restriction was therefore not binding. Moreover, it was claimed that the company which had not submitted a MET claim form was not a producing or trading company but rather a payment agent and that the group had applied its best efforts to provide all information available.\n(51)\nHowever, as mentioned above, the producer in question clearly complied with the sales restriction. Moreover, the Articles of Association are part of the documents that are submitted for approval to the authorities when the company is set up and therefore it is clear that the content of these documents forms the basis for the actual operations of the company. Finally, concerning the company which did not submit a MET claim form, this company was actually found to be involved in certain aspects relating to the export sales of the product in question and should have therefore submitted a MET claim form. Therefore, both claims are rejected.\n(52)\nIn the case of the other group, one of the exporting producers was also subject to a limitation of its sales, whereby 70 % of its production should be sold for export, and therefore did not comply with criterion 1. As for criterion 2, a number of problems concerning depreciation of assets and changes in accounting policies were found. As for criterion 3, the value attributed to two plots of land in one of the companies\u2019 accounts varies significantly, and it is considered that by acquiring a plot of land at a price clearly below market value, the company received a hidden subsidy. Moreover, another company in the group benefited from free rental of a piece of land for one year and has acquired land use rights at a price lower than the market value. Finally a number of intra-group guarantees were not disclosed in the notes to the accounts, in violation of IAS 24.\n(53)\nFollowing disclosure of the detailed MET findings and the interim disclosure, the group claimed that de facto sales of the two producers were not subject to any sales restriction. According to the companies, the fact that their respective export volumes were in line with the restrictions in their Articles of Association was only due to the supply-demand balance on the soy protein market. They underlined that these restrictive provisions had been removed from these texts soon after the IP. Moreover, regarding criterion 2, the group claimed that apart from minor accounting mistakes, it had fully complied with Chinese GAAP which they are required to implement rather than IAS. With respect to the land use rights, the group claimed that the different value of the two plots of land was due to the levelling costs of one of the two plots. Finally, it was stressed that the free rental of another plot of land was due to some administrative delays before the land use right could actually be acquired and that, anyhow, the value of the exemption was only minor if compared to the company\u2019s operational income.\n(54)\nRegarding criterion 1, the Articles of Association are part of the documents that are submitted to the authorities and approved when the company is set up. The fact that the company complied with the sales restrictions is considered to be due to a requirement to do so and it is clear that the content of these documents forms the basis for the actual operations of the company. Moreover it is underlined that the removal of the restrictions from the Article of Association took place after the IP and is therefore irrelevant for this investigation. Regarding criterion 2, it was clear that the accuracy and reliability of the records could not be confirmed. In addition, the company\u2019s accounting records should be audited in line with international accounting standards which could not be confirmed during the verification. With respect to criterion 3, no evidence could be submitted during the on-the-spot verification in order to substantiate the levelling costs for the plot of land in question. Finally, independently of the explanations brought forward, the fact remains that one of the companies rented its land for free during a certain period of time and therefore benefited from a subsidy. The comments were therefore not of a nature to change the MET findings. Those findings are hereby confirmed.\n3. INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT (IT)\n(55)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below:\n-\nin the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits,\n-\nexport prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined,\n-\nthe majority of the shares belong to private persons. State officials appearing on the Boards of Directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is none the less sufficiently independent from State interference,\n-\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate, and\n-\nState interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.\n(56)\nThe Gushen Group only claimed IT. This claim was examined and no element was found to indicate that the company did not comply with the abovementioned criteria. It was therefore concluded that Gushen Group could be granted IT.\n(57)\nAssessment was also made for the Crown Group and Sinoglory Group, since MET was not granted to these companies. In both cases, no element was found to indicate that the companies did not comply with the abovementioned criteria. It is therefore concluded that both company groups could be granted IT.\n(58)\nFollowing the final disclosure, the complainant expressed its disagreement with the granting of IT to the sampled exporter groups. However, in view of the non-imposition of measures it has not been necessary to examine this further.\n4. NORMAL VALUE\n(59)\nAs explained in recital 46, MET was not granted to the two sampled groups that had requested it. The third sampled group had not applied for MET. Therefore, in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, normal value for all groups was established on the basis of the prices or constructed value in an analogue country.\n(a) Analogue country\n(60)\nIn the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its intention to use the USA as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC and invited interested parties to comment on this.\n(61)\nA number of comments were received and other countries were proposed as an alternative, in particular Brazil and Israel. The main argument submitted against the USA as an analogue country was that in the USA the product concerned would be made from genetically modified soy beans, whereas this would not be the case in the PRC. The use of genetically modified (GM) soy beans would potentially result in the product being used by different users and/or processing industries. It was also mentioned by an exporting producer that the US subsidiary of the complainant would have a dominant position on the US market, resulting in inflated domestic sales prices.\n(62)\nIn view of these comments received, the Commission sought cooperation from all known CCSPP producers in Brazil, Israel and the USA by asking them a number of key questions on their production, sales and local markets and asking them whether they would be willing to provide more detailed information on their costs and prices, if their country would be selected as an analogue country. Only one US producer and two Brazilian producers replied by providing the requested information and offering further cooperation. At a later stage, an Israeli producer also submitted a full questionnaire response. The Commission also endeavoured to obtain information on the aforementioned and other potential markets by other means.\n(63)\nThe information thus collected was carefully analysed. It was confirmed that the US product was predominantly made from GM soy beans, as opposed to CCSPP from the PRC, Brazil or Israel. However, no conclusion could be drawn with regard to the impact of that difference in main raw materials on product characteristics, uses, cost or price. Furthermore, although the Brazilian market had an import duty of 14 %, there were significant volumes of imported CCSPP in Brazil competing with the locally produced product. In fact, the two Brazilian producers, which both offered cooperation, were accounting, roughly, for three quarters of the consumption in Brazil, whereas the US market appeared to be clearly dominated by two very large domestic producers, of which only one had offered cooperation. Therefore, although the total size of the US market was bigger, there appeared to be stronger conditions of competition in Brazil, with two large domestic producers and significant imports. Moreover, overall, the domestic sales volumes of the cooperating Brazilian producers appeared to be of the same order of magnitude as the volume of sales to the EU by the sampled Chinese producers, and the product ranges comparable. Finally, it was found that the Brazilian domestic market was significantly bigger than the Israeli one.\n(64)\nOn the basis of the above, Brazil was selected as an analogue country. This selection is confirmed.\n(b) Determination of normal value\n(65)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers was established on the basis of the verified information received from the producers in the analogue country. Where product types in the domestic market of the analogue country were not made in the ordinary course of trade or where no resembling types were sold, the normal value was constructed pursuant to Article 2(3) and 2(6) of the basic Regulation.\n(66)\nFollowing the interim disclosure the calculations were further refined to also take into account comments submitted by the parties.\n5. EXPORT PRICE\n(67)\nThe exporting producers made export sales to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related trading companies located in the PRC. The export price was therefore in all cases established pursuant to Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.\n(68)\nFollowing the interim disclosure the calculations were further refined to also take into account comments submitted by the parties.\n6. COMPARISON\n(69)\nThe normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Appropriate adjustments for discounts, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing, credit costs, and indirect taxation were granted in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.\n7. DUMPING MARGINS\n(70)\nThe definitive dumping margins were expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.\n(71)\nFor each of the three cooperating groups of exporting producers in the sample, a dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value in the analogue country with the weighted average export price, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.\n(72)\nFor the cooperating non-sampled companies the dumping margin was calculated as an average of the three sampled groups of companies.\n(73)\nGiven the high level of cooperation in the investigation, with cooperating companies representing around 90 % of all imports from the PRC during the IP, for any non-cooperating companies, the country-wide margin was established using the highest of the margins found for the sampled groups of companies.\n(74)\nOn this basis, the definitive levels of dumping established are as follows:\nCompany\nDumping margin\nCrown Group\n59,4 %\nGushen Group\n55,8 %\nSinoglory Group\n67,0 %\nCooperating non-sampled companies\n61,3 %\nOther companies\n67,0 %\nD. INJURY\n1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS\n(75)\nFollowing the revision of the product scope (exclusion of concentrates for animal feed), one company - ADM in the Netherlands, whose production is limited to concentrates for animal feed - is no longer considered to form part of the Union industry. Consequently, only the complainant (Solae) manufactured the like product in the Union during the investigation period. Solae has currently two manufacturing sites in the EU - one in Belgium producing soy protein isolates and another in Denmark producing soy protein concentrates (the basic SPC and further processed high value concentrates for which the basic SPC serves as an intermediate product). Another manufacturing site of Solae in Boudreaux, France, that manufactured and marketed only simple concentrates for animal feed closed down at the beginning of 2009.\n(76)\nAs far as the production in the EU is concerned, the investigation revealed that Solae\u2019s manufacturing process is based exclusively on a tolling agreement with its Swiss mother company, Solae Europe. Under this agreement Solae Belgium and Solae Denmark process the raw material provided by Solae Europe against a service fee. Throughout the process, Solae Europe remains the only proprietor of the raw materials, any intermediate products and the finished goods.\n(77)\nGiven that the ownership of the raw material and finished goods remains with the principal, the tolling arrangements are legally different from other possible production arrangements. However, in the current case, the value added by those companies in the EU amounts to over 50 % of the cost of manufacturing. This share of value added reflects, also, the technological and capital investments based in the Union. The net value of such investments in the EU is significant and the industry employs an important number of persons in the Union.\n(78)\nIt should also be noted that the tolling operations in the EU would constitute \u2018the last substantial transformation\u2019 and, as such, confer EU origin to the products.\n(79)\nDue to the foregoing, it was therefore concluded that an economic activity like that performed by Solae Belgium and Solae Denmark in the EU could be potentially threatened by dumping practices and could thus warrant protection irrespective of the legal nature of such activity (tolling or a different production arrangement). In the light of the above, it was concluded to consider Solae Belgium and Solae Denmark as Union producers that form part of the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) the basic Regulation.\n(80)\nFollowing the interim disclosure, one exporter commented that tolling companies do not qualify as Union producers and have no standing in anti-dumping investigations. The exporter argued that given that the ownership of the raw material and finished goods remained with Solae Europe registered in Switzerland (i.e. outside of the EU), Solae Belgium and Solae Denmark could not be considered Union producers and did not warrant protection from the dumping practices.\n(81)\nThe exporter pointed out that in previous cases, such as one concerning imports of plastic sacks and bags originating in the PRC (7), the institutions decided to exclude two Chinese companies from a sample of exporting producers because they had not themselves produced a large amount of declared exported products, but had in fact processed them for other exporting producers.\n(82)\nIt is noted that the situation in the case relied upon by the exporter is not comparable to the one in the present case. First, the Chinese companies in the plastic sacks and bags case mentioned above had their own (non-tolled) output (but the sales of own produced products were too small for the companies to be included in the sample), while in the present situation Solae Belgium and Solae Denmark work exclusively with the tolling arrangement.\n(83)\nIn addition, while Solae Belgium and Solae Denmark are fully owned by Solae Europe, the investigation of the Chinese companies excluded from the sample did not establish any ownership relation with other exporting producers for which they processed the products.\n(84)\nThe exporter in its submission also referred to another past investigation, namely that concerning imports of glycine originating in the PRC (8), where the Commission treated some Chinese companies as traders rather than producers, as the activity they carried out was found not to qualify as production.\n(85)\nIt is noted in this regard that the glycine case does not support the exporter\u2019s argument either, as in that case the exporting Chinese companies simply conducted some processing operations which did not change the chemical composition or the physical characteristics of the product under consideration. This is a completely different situation from the one at hand where the operations conducted by the EU companies convert soy beans or soy flakes into soy proteins and not only change the chemical composition or the physical characteristics of the material but also add significant value to the final product.\n(86)\nThe exporter also argued that the centre of the decision making process for the entire tolling production in the Union is exclusively within a non-EU company and that the entire fate of the tolling companies is completely and exclusively dependant on their Swiss mother company. The exporter added that in a different case, concerning imports of vinyl acetate originating in the USA (9), the Commission excluded an EU producer from the definition of the Union industry due to its relationship with a company in a targeted country.\n(87)\nAnother party also suggested that in analysing the issue of tolling arrangement and its qualification as production, issues like placement of headquarters, centre of interest and commitment to the EU market should be analysed in a manner similar to the analysis of related companies while defining the Union industry.\n(88)\nIndeed, Solae as a group has structural links with its Swiss mother company and further corporate links with US companies. It is not a novelty in anti-dumping proceedings that companies with strong EU presence have such structural, capital or corporate links outside the EU. However, such structural and corporate links outside the EU cannot undermine the conclusion that complainants qualify as EU producers.\n(89)\nIt is noted that such arguments would be relevant for the purposes of Article 4(1)a of the basic Regulation and the definition of the Union industry only in case Solae Europe would be a company in a targeted country, i.e. the PRC in this case. This is clearly not the case, and consequently the exporter\u2019s argument is irrelevant.\n(90)\nIn addition, it is reiterated that the ownership of the material used and/or of the finished product is not the decisive criterion in order to define a Union producer. While tolling is legally different from other production arrangements, toll-producing companies may be considered Union producers.\n(91)\nThis approach is consistent with earlier practice of the institutions, like for example in the expiry review concerning imports of furfuryl alcohol originating in the PRC (10).\n(92)\nIt is reiterated that in the current case the value added by the companies in the EU amounts to over 50 % of the cost of manufacturing. This share of value added reflects the technological and capital investments based in the Union. The net value of such investments in the EU is significant and the industry employs an important number of persons in the Union.\n(93)\nIn conclusion, Solae Belgium and Solae Denmark are considered Union producers that form part of the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) the basic Regulation and will be thereafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\n(94)\nThe total Union production within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation was established on the basis of the questionnaire reply of the complainant.\n(95)\nGiven that the Union industry comprises only one producer, the data below is presented in an indexed format in order to preserve confidentiality, pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation.\n2. UNION CONSUMPTION\n(96)\nThe Union consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry\u2019s tolled output destined for the Union market, the import volumes on the Union market obtained from Eurostat, and estimates by the complainant.\n(97)\nThe CN codes covering certain concentrated soy protein products cover a broader range of products, and not only the product under investigation. Based on an extensive research and market knowledge, the complainant made estimates of the value and volume of the imports of the product under investigation to the Union. These estimates were examined in the course of the investigation and are considered to be reliable. The Commission services received no comments with an alternative proposal which could call into question the use of these estimates for the purpose of this investigation.\n(98)\nOne party claimed that the methodology of calculating imports has not been sufficiently explained. Those criticisms, however, have not been further substantiated. The party was critical of the Commission\u2019s approach without however suggesting a more suitable or reliable alternative. The criticism related mainly to the fact that the party was not able to comment. It is recalled that the non-confidential version of the complaint, setting out the exclusion methodology, was available in the non-confidential file as from the initiation of the proceeding.\n(99)\nIt is recalled that the Commission services cross checked the data provided in the complaint and could not establish anything that would undermine the reasonableness of the method chosen. Further, in view of the fact that parties did not propose an alternative method of exclusion, their comments were considered as unsubstantiated.\n(100)\nThroughout the period considered the demand on the Union market decreased by 8 %. More specifically, the Union consumption remained stable between 2007 and 2008, decreased by 8 % in 2009 and remained stable in the IP.\nTable 1\nUnion consumption\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nVolume (in tonnes)\nBusiness confidential data\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n100\n92\n92\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies from the Union industry and complainant\u2019s estimates based on Eurostat data.\n3. IMPORTS FROM THE COUNTRY CONCERNED\n(a) Volume\n(101)\nThe volume of imports of the product concerned increased by 15 % over the period considered and reached 20 117 tonnes in the IP. More specifically, imports from the PRC remained stable between 2007 and 2008, before increasing by 26 percentage points in 2009, when they reached their peak. It is noted that the imports from the PRC dropped by some 9 percentage points in the IP.\nTable 2\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nVolume of dumped imports from the country concerned (tonnes)\n17 495\n17 557\n22 017\n20 117\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n100\n126\n115\nMarket share of dumped imports from the country concerned - indexed\n100\n100\n136\n125\nSource:\nComplainant\u2019s estimates based on Eurostat data.\n(b) Market share of the imports concerned\n(102)\nThe index reflecting the evolution of market share held by the dumped imports from the PRC increased by 25 % throughout the period considered. It remained stable between 2007 and 2008, but increased by 36 % in 2009. In the IP it decreased by 11 percentage points.\n(c) Prices\n(i) Price evolution\n(103)\nThe average import price increased overall by 37 % in the period considered. More specifically, it increased initially by as much as 48 % between 2007 and 2008, then dropped in 2009 by 11 percentage points and remained at that level in the IP. The average price of imports from the PRC in the IP was EUR 1 569 per tonne.\nTable 3\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nCIF price of imports from the PRC (EUR/tonne)\n1 149\n1 704\n1 570\n1 569\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n148\n137\n137\nSource:\nComplainant\u2019s estimates based on Eurostat data.\n(ii) Price undercutting\n(104)\nFor the purpose of analysing price undercutting, the weighted average sales prices of the Union producer to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted, in particular for credit costs, delivery costs, packaging and commissions, to an ex-works level, were compared with the corresponding weighted average CIF prices of the cooperating exporters from the PRC to the first independent customer on the Union market, adjusted to cover all costs related to customs clearance, i.e. customs tariff, and post-importation costs (landed price).\n(105)\nThe comparison showed that during the IP, the imports of the product concerned undercut the Union industry\u2019s prices by around 12 %.\nCompany\nUndercutting\nCrown Group\n11,1 %\nGushen Group\n9,6 %\nSinoglory Group\n15,0 %\n(106)\nOne party commented that of course the level of price undercutting has only been calculated for the IP and that previous levels of undercutting are not known. However, the party suggested, given that between 2007 and the IP, Chinese import prices have increased by significantly more than Union industry prices, it might be inferred that price undercutting has been falling.\n(107)\nIndeed, it is recognised that while between 2007 and the IP, Chinese import prices have increased by 37 %, the Union industry prices have increased by only 15 % (see recital 119 below). Consequently, it is clear that with regard to average prices, the gap between Chinese and EU prices has been narrowed between 2007 and the IP.\n4. SITUATION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(108)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.\n(109)\nFor the purpose of the injury analysis, the injury indicators have been established on the basis of the information collected from the duly verified full questionnaire reply by the complainant.\n(a) Production\n(110)\nThe Union production decreased by 14 % between 2007 and the IP. More specifically, it decreased by 8 % in 2008 before even further decreasing by another 15 percentage points in 2009. However, there was a clear improvement between 2009 and the IP, when the production increased by 9 percentage points.\nTable 4\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nProduction (tonnes)\nBusiness confidential data\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n92\n77\n86\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(b) Production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(111)\nThe production capacity of the Union producer remained stable throughout the period considered.\nTable 5\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nProduction capacity (tonnes)\nBusiness confidential data\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n100\n100\n100\nCapacity utilisation\nBusiness confidential data\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n92\n77\n86\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(112)\nThe index reflecting evolution of the capacity utilisation decreased by 14 % in the period considered. Between 2007 and 2008 it decreased by 8 % and by another 15 percentage points in 2009. It then increased by 9 percentage points in the IP. The trend for the utilisation rate reflects the development of the production over the period considered, given that the production capacity remained stable.\n(113)\nIt is noted that despite an overall decrease, capacity utilisation remained relatively high and in the IP was above 80 %.\n(c) Sales volume\n(114)\nThe sales volume of the Union industry to unrelated customers on the EU market decreased in the period considered by 8 %. The sales decreased by 9 % between 2007 and 2008 and by a further 5 percentage points in 2009. However, there was a clear improvement between 2009 and the IP, when the sales increased by some 6 percentage points.\nTable 6\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nEU sales (tonnes)\nBusiness confidential data\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n91\n86\n92\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(d) Market share\n(115)\nOverall, during the period considered, the Union industry maintained its market share. More specifically, the index decreased by as much as 9 % between 2007 and 2008, but already in 2009 it rebounded by 1 percentage point and increased by another 7 percentage points in the IP.\nTable 7\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nMarket share of the Union industry\nBusiness confidential data\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n91\n92\n99\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies from the Union industry and complainant\u2019s estimates based on Eurostat data.\n(e) Growth\n(116)\nBetween 2007 and the IP, whilst the Union consumption decreased by 8 %, the volume of sales also decreased by 8 %, and the Union industry\u2019s market share remained stable.\n(f) Employment\n(117)\nEmployment decreased by 7 % between 2007 and the IP. It increased modestly between 2007 and 2008 before a sharp 10 percentage point decline in 2009. However, employment increased again by 2 percentage points in the IP.\nTable 8\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nEmployment (persons)\nBusiness confidential data\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n101\n91\n93\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(g) Productivity\n(118)\nProductivity, measured as output (tonnes) per employee per year, decreased by 7 % in the period considered. This drop reflects the fact that production decreased at a faster pace than the employment. Still, it is noted that between 2009 and the IP the productivity increased by 8 percentage points reflecting the increase in the production at an even higher pace than the increase in the employment.\nTable 9\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nProductivity (tonnes per employee)\nBusiness confidential data\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n91\n85\n93\nSource:\nQuestionnaire replies.\n(h) Factors affecting sales prices\n(119)\nThe average sales prices of the Union producers increased by some 15 % in the period considered. The average price increased in 2008 and 2009 (by 8 % and 10 percentage points respectively), before decreasing slightly in the IP by 3 percentage points. In general, the prices of CCSPP are heavily dependent on the costs of major raw materials (i.e. soy beans or soy bean flakes) and energy. Together they account for a major proportion of the manufacturing cost. It is noted that the market for soy bean is volatile and characterised by significant annual or even monthly fluctuations.\n(120)\nGiven the significant variations of the selling prices between the different types of the product under investigation, the evolution of the average sales prices should be looked at with caution as any change in the average price is heavily influenced by any change in the product mix.\nTable 10\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nUnit price EU market (EUR/tonne)\nBusiness confidential data\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n108\n118\n115\nSource:\nQuestionnaire reply.\n(i) Magnitude of the dumping margin\n(121)\nGiven the volume, market share and prices of the imports from the PRC, the impact on the Union industry of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered negligible.\n(j) Stocks\n(122)\nThe level of closing stocks remained overall stable between 2007 and the IP. It is noted that stocks represent a rather small portion of the annual production and therefore the relevance of this indicator in the injury analysis is limited.\nTable 11\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nClosing stock (tonnes)\nBusiness confidential data\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n90\n110\n99\nSource:\nQuestionnaire reply.\n(k) Wages\n(123)\nThe annual labour cost increased by 7 % between 2007 and IP. It increased by 5 % between 2007 and 2008 before decreasing by 2 percentage points in 2009 and later increasing by 4 percentage points in the IP.\nTable 12\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nAnnual labour cost (EUR)\nBusiness confidential data\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n105\n103\n107\nSource:\nQuestionnaire reply.\n(l) Profitability and return on investments\n(124)\nDuring the period considered, the profitability of the sales of the like product on the EU market to unrelated customers, expressed as a percentage of net sales, was fluctuating considerably. While in 2007 and 2009 the Union industry achieved profits, it suffered losses in 2008 and in the IP. The oscillating profitability may be a reflection of the fluctuations on the soy bean market.\nTable 13\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nProfitability of EU (% of net sales)\nBusiness confidential data\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n-89\n10\n-45\nROI (profit in % of net book value of investments)\nBusiness confidential data\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n- 160\n-9\n- 109\nSource:\nQuestionnaire reply.\n(125)\nThe return on investments (ROI), expressed as the profit in percent of the net book value of investments, broadly followed the profitability trend.\n(m) Cash flow and ability to raise capital\n(126)\nThe net cash flow from operating activities fluctuated significantly in the period considered. Starting from a positive figure in 2007, it deteriorated in 2008 when it became negative, but improved again in 2009 only to become negative once more in the IP. Overall, cash flow broadly followed the profitability trend.\n(127)\nThere were no indications that the Union industry encountered difficulties in raising capital, mainly due to the fact that it is incorporated in a larger group.\nTable 14\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nCash flow (EUR)\nBusiness confidential data\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n-93\n24\n-7\nSource:\nQuestionnaire reply.\n(n) Investments\n(128)\nThe annual investments in the production of the like product increased by 4 % between 2007 and 2008 before increasing further by 29 percentage points in 2009. It decreased slightly by 5 percentage point in the IP. Overall, investments increased by 28 % in the period considered.\nTable 15\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nNet investments (EUR)\nBusiness confidential data\nIndex (2007 = 100)\n100\n104\n133\n128\nSource:\nQuestionnaire reply.\n5. CONCLUSION ON INJURY\n(129)\nThe analysis of the data shows that overall the Union industry decreased its production, capacity utilisation, sales, employment and productivity during the period considered. Also, wage cost increased.\n(130)\nAt the same time this negative picture is mitigated by the fact that most of these indicators have experienced positive development between 2009 and the IP (2010). In particular between 2009 and 2010 (IP) production and capacity utilisation increased by 9 percentage points; EU sales and market share increased by 6 and 7 percentage points respectively; employment increased by 2 percentage points, while productivity increased by as much as 8 percentage points.\n(131)\nAlso, the market share of the Union industry overall remained stable in the period considered. While it dropped in 2008 it increased already in 2009. In 2010 it reached a level very close to that of 2007.\n(132)\nProfitability, as well as return on investment and cash flow (both closely related to the profitability), all show a mixed picture of the economic situation of the Union industry. While overall (between 2007 and the IP) they decrease, they also oscillate significantly and show the volatile character of the market.\n(133)\nNet investment was clearly increasing between 2007 and 2009 (by 33 %) and experienced only a small decrease (by 5 percentage points) in 2010 (IP).\n(134)\nAlso, the actual level of losses suffered by the Union industry in the IP is relatively moderate.\n(135)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the Union industry has suffered some injury. However, given the relatively insignificant level of actual losses suffered by the Union industry in the IP, and signs of recovery towards the end of the period considered, that injury cannot be characterised as material within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(136)\nFollowing the disclosure of the final findings, the complainant argued that the injury in this case should be considered as material because in some other cases with allegedly similar circumstances (i.e. positive trends observed towards the end of the period considered) (11) the findings were different. The complainant also argued that looking at the later part of the period considered and drawing conclusions from signs of recovery in that period is incompatible with WTO law (12).\n(137)\nIt is noted in this regard that each case has to be judged on its own merits. In this particular case, the investigation not only established clear signs of recovery of the Union industry towards the end of the period considered, but also the magnitude of the negative trends was relatively limited. For example the market share of the Union industry remained stable and relatively high overall, capacity utilisation fell slightly but remained at a level above 80 %, and investments increased. By contrast, in Oxalic acid (13) there was, for instance, a loss of Union industry market share of 9 % in the IP compared with the first year of the injury investigation period (14). In Citric acid (15) there was a similar loss of market share and there was a decrease of investments (16).\n(138)\nWith regard to WTO obligations, the panel report quoted refers to a completely different situation in which the investigating authority analysed only partial data from only 6 months of each of three consecutive years and based its findings on this incomplete analysis. The situation in the case at hand is obviously different as the injury analysis covers full year data from four consecutive years and additionally there is some emphasis on the fact that by the end of that four-year period there was a positive development in many of the trends analysed compared to the year before the IP.\n(139)\nGiven the above, it is definitively concluded that any injury suffered by the Union industry is not characterised as material within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\nE. CAUSATION\n1. INTRODUCTION\n(140)\nWithout prejudice to the determination with regard to the lack of material injury and under the hypothesis that the injury suffered by the Union industry could have been characterised as material, the Commission examined the potential causal link.\n(141)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether any injury suffered by the Union industry has been caused by the dumped imports from the country concerned. Furthermore, known factors other than the dumped imports, which might have injured the Union industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n2. EFFECTS OF THE DUMPED IMPORTS\n(142)\nThe imports of the product concerned increased overall by 15 % between 2007 and the IP and their corresponding market share increased by 25 % despite the contracting demand on the Union market. Those developments generally coincided with the weakened economic situation of the Union industry. While the Union industry managed to keep its market share, the Chinese imports gained over 5 percentage points.\n(143)\nOn that basis it would appear, at first sight, that there is a causal link between imports from the PRC and any injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(144)\nHowever, a more detailed analysis of the effects of dumped imports on the situation of the Union industry does not appear to show a clear correlation. For example, while the imports from the PRC hardly increased between 2007 and 2008 (recital 101) and their CIF import price went up by 48 percentage points (recital 103), the Union industry in 2008 nevertheless suffered significant losses and lost some market share. By contrast, while the Chinese imports increased by 26 % between 2008 and 2009, and their CIF import price went down by 11 percentage points, the Union industry kept its market share and recovered from the 2008 losses. Also between 2009 and the IP while imports from the PRC maintained their presence on the Union market, the situation of the Union industry clearly improved as discussed above in the injury analysis.\n(145)\nThis lack of correlation between imports from the PRC and the trends of the injury indicators suggests strongly that other factors contributed and possibly caused any injury suffered by the Union industry. This question will be further explored below.\n3. EFFECTS OF OTHER FACTORS\n(146)\nThe other factors which were examined in the context of causation are: (i) the contraction in Union demand, probably partly related to the financial and economic crisis in the years 2008/2009; and (ii) the volatility of the soy bean market.\n(i) Contraction in Union demand, probably partly related to the financial and economic crisis of 2008/2009\n(147)\nA drop in Union consumption could be observed in the period considered, namely by 8 % if one compares 2007 with 2010 (the IP). Many of the injury factors developed largely in line with that factor. For instance, the sales volume of the EU industry also dropped by 8 % if one compares the aforementioned two periods. Other examples are employment - 7 % less in 2010 than in 2007 - and productivity - also 7 % less in 2010 than in 2007. It is therefore clear that the contraction in demand, whatever its underlying cause, was a major factor in the developments of the state of the Union industry.\n(148)\nAlthough the reason for the contraction in demand is not directly relevant for causation analysis, it may well be that it was caused, at least in part, by the financial and economic crisis. In this context, it is noted that demand dropped in particular between 2008 and 2009. Because of its coincidence in time, the 8 percentage points\u2019 decrease between 2008 and 2009 was in all likelihood linked to the economic crisis. Consequently, it could be argued that the injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by the economic crisis and the resulting decline in demand.\n(149)\nIt is also noted that Solae Belgium recognises in its annual report from 2009 that lower income from financial assets caused by the financial crisis have had a negative impact on the company\u2019s financial situation.\n(150)\nIt is also reiterated that the Union industry improved its economic situation between 2009 and the IP. This improvement clearly coincides with the general economic recovery.\n(151)\nGiven the above, it is considered that the contraction in demand, probably partly caused by the economic crisis, was a major cause of any injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(152)\nFollowing the final disclosure, the complainant claimed that the financial and economic crises did not cause the injury, but did not provide any convincing argument in this regard and simply referred to a number of other cases (17) where the findings were different.\n(153)\nIn this regard, it is reiterated that each case has to be judged on its own merits. In this particular case the fact remains that while there is a lack of clear correlation between dumped imports and the situation of the Union industry, the contraction in demand, probably partly caused by the economic crisis, did contribute to the poor situation of the Union industry. In fact, at least to some extent, as explained above, this was explicitly recognised in the annual report of Solae Belgium of 2009.\n(154)\nNevertheless, important differences can be noted between the cases referred to by the complainant and the present case. A number of those differences are listed in the following recitals.\n(155)\nIn the Oxalic acid case (18), although some indicators indeed marked a positive development between 2009 and the IP, the market share of the Union industry decreased, whereas in the present case it increased almost to the level of 2007 (19). Furthermore, the Oxalic acid case does not show a year-on-year absence of correlation between dumped imports from the countries concerned and the trends of the injury indicators, which is characteristic of the present case. The profitability trends are also different. Notably, in the present case the profitability fluctuates considerably. Finally, in the present case the market is highly volatile.\n(156)\nIn the Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres case (20), the market share of the Union industry decreased every year, and overall by 12 percentage points (21). At the same time the market share of Chinese imports consistently grew year on year, and overall by 12,4 percentage points (22). In the present case, the market share of Chinese imports increased up to 2009 in order to then decrease between 2009 and the IP. At the same time, the Union industry\u2019s market share decreased already in 2008 in order to then bounce back almost to the 2007 level.\n(157)\nIn the Glass fibres case (23) the market share of dumped imports consistently grew year on year, and overall by 6,3 percentage points (24).\n(158)\nIn the Ceramic tiles case (25), the market share of the dumped imports was increasing steadily (26). Furthermore, the evolution of stocks was very different. In the Ceramic tiles case the increase in stocks was a telling injury factor (27). Finally, the investigation in the Ceramic tiles case showed that despite recovery in the construction sector, the indicators of the Union industry continued to show a downward trend (28).\n(159)\nFinally, in the Fatty alcohol case (29), the development of the injury indicators between 2009 and the IP differed from the present case (e.g. employment decreased) (30), and the volume and market share of dumped imports increased between 2009 and the IP (31).\n(160)\nConsequently, the claim of the complainant must be rejected.\n(ii) Volatility of the soy bean market\n(161)\nIt has been shown above that the Union industry\u2019s profitability oscillates significantly and indicates a volatile character of the market.\n(162)\nThat volatility is closely linked with the fluctuations on the raw materials market. The spot market for the main raw material - soy beans - is traditionally characterised by significant monthly and annual fluctuations (32), while prices for the final product - CCSPP - tend to be rather stable (as they are based on longer term contracts). Consequently, the level of profitability for the product under investigation is heavily dependent on the prevailing situation on the soy bean market.\n(163)\nIn this context it is noted that indeed there was a significant soy bean price hike in 2008 that had an important impact on the profitability and the overall situation of the Union industry. The complainant itself recognised that the soy bean price hike did contribute to its poor situation in 2008.\n(164)\nGiven the above, it is clear that the volatility of soy bean market also was a major cause of any injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(165)\nFollowing the final disclosure, the complainant claimed that the volatility of soy bean prices could not break the causal link either and was only relevant for the 2008 losses. However, no substantiated evidence was presented in this respect.\n(166)\nIt is noted that soy bean price hikes coincide with the poor financial performance of the Union industry and, given that high soy bean prices were considered to be the main cause of 2008 losses, there is no particular reason why the 2010 losses coinciding with another hike of the soy bean prices should be treated differently.\n(167)\nConsequently, the claim of the complainant must be rejected.\n4. CONCLUSION ON CAUSATION\n(168)\nOther factors, and in particular the contraction in demand (probably partly caused by the economic crisis of 2008/2009) and the volatile character of the main raw material market were important causes of any injury to the Union industry.\n(169)\nTherefore, even under the hypothesis that the Union industry suffered material injury, since those other factors break the causal link, it cannot be concluded that any injury was caused by the dumped imports from the PRC.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n(170)\nSince it was found above that the Union industry is not suffering injury that can be qualified as material, and that in any case other factors break the causal link between the dumped imports and that injury, it is not necessary to examine the Union interest.\nG. TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(171)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to lack of material injury suffered by the Union industry and with regard to the absence of causal link, in accordance with Article 9 of the basic Regulation, the proceeding should be terminated without the imposition of measures.\n(172)\nAll parties concerned were informed of the final findings and the intention to terminate the proceeding and were given an opportunity to comment. Their comments were considered but they have not altered the conclusions reached above,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain concentrated soy protein products originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2012.", "references": ["56", "15", "10", "80", "44", "88", "62", "1", "52", "65", "99", "37", "14", "82", "26", "36", "34", "94", "25", "69", "8", "79", "57", "61", "16", "87", "24", "71", "74", "77", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "68", "72", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "68", "72", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 640/2012\nof 6 July 2012\namending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 laying down test methods pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of 18 December 2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 (2) contains the test methods for the purposes of the determination of the physico-chemical properties, toxicity and eco-toxicity of substances to be applied for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.\n(2)\nIt is necessary to update Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 to include with priority new and updated alternative test methods recently adopted by the OECD, in order to obtain a reduction of the number of animals to be used for experimental purposes, in accordance with Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (3) and Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (4). Stakeholders have been consulted on this draft.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 440/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 July 2012.", "references": ["89", "74", "75", "4", "67", "78", "7", "32", "22", "0", "16", "70", "34", "5", "80", "58", "72", "18", "96", "21", "37", "2", "69", "87", "36", "93", "35", "71", "62", "85", "No Label", "24", "25", "60", "66", "76", "77"], "gold": ["24", "25", "60", "66", "76", "77"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/371/CFSP\nof 10 July 2012\namending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1).\n(2)\nOn 26 April 2012, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2045 (2012) which renewed the restrictive measures imposed against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire until 30 April 2013 and amended the restrictive measures on arms.\n(3)\nDecision 2010/656/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/656/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1(2) is deleted;\n(2)\nArticle 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 2\nArticle 1 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nsupplies intended solely for the support of or use by the United Nations Operation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (UNOCI) and the French forces who support them;\n(b)\nthe following, as notified in advance to the Committee established by paragraph 14 of UNSCR 1572 (2004) (hereinafter the \u201cSanctions Committee\u201d):\n(i)\nsupplies of non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, including such equipment intended for Union, UN, African Union and Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) crisis management operations;\n(ii)\nsupplies temporarily exported to C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire to the forces of a State which is taking action, in accordance with international law, solely and directly to facilitate the evacuation of its nationals and those for whom it has consular responsibility in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire;\n(iii)\nsupplies of non-lethal military equipment related to law enforcement intended to enable the Ivorian security forces to use only appropriate and proportionate force while maintaining public order;\n(c)\nsupplies of protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire by United Nations personnel, personnel of the Union or its Member States, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only;\n(d)\nsupplies of arms and other related lethal equipment to the Ivorian security forces, intended solely for support of, or use in, the Ivorian process of security sector reform, as approved in advance by the Committee;\n(e)\nsupplies of non-lethal equipment capable of being used for internal repression and which is intended solely to enable the Ivorian security forces to use only appropriate and proportionate force while maintaining public order;\n(f)\nsupplies of equipment capable of being used for internal repression to the Ivorian security forces, intended solely for support of, or use in, the Ivorian process of security sector reform.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 10 July 2012.", "references": ["92", "18", "69", "43", "61", "85", "21", "22", "49", "52", "78", "89", "73", "17", "93", "19", "44", "13", "91", "64", "41", "9", "24", "31", "2", "0", "97", "60", "65", "56", "No Label", "3", "6", "23", "94"], "gold": ["3", "6", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 906/2011\nof 2 September 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 193/2007 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, and amending Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in, inter alia, India\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Articles 19 and 24 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Previous investigation and existing countervailing measures\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 2603/2000 (2), the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating, inter alia, in India (the original anti-subsidy investigation). Following an expiry review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 193/2007 (3), imposed a definitive countervailing duty for a further period of 5 years. The countervailing measures were amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1286/2008 (4) following a partial interim review (the last review investigation). The countervailing measures consist of a specific duty. The rate of the duty ranges between EUR 0 and EUR 106,5 per tonne for individually named Indian producers with a residual duty rate of EUR 69,4 per tonne imposed on imports from other producers.\n1.2. Existing anti-dumping measures\n(2)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 (5), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET originating, inter alia, in India (the original anti-dumping investigation). Following an expiry review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 (6), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty for a further period of 5 years. The anti-dumping measures were amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1286/2008 following the last review investigation. The measures were set at the level of the injury elimination and consisted of specific anti-dumping duties. The rate of the duty ranged between EUR 87,5 and EUR 200,9 per tonne for individually named Indian producers with a residual duty rate of EUR 153,6 per tonne imposed on imports from other producers (the current anti-dumping measures).\n(3)\nBy Decision 2000/745/EC (7) the Commission accepted undertakings offered by several exporting producers setting a minimum import price (the undertaking).\n1.3. Initiation of a partial interim review\n(4)\nA request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation was lodged by Reliance Industries Limited, an Indian exporting producer of PET (the applicant). The request was limited in scope to subsidisation and to the applicant. The applicant at the same time also requested the review of the current anti-dumping measures. The residual anti-dumping and countervailing duties are applicable to imports of products produced by the applicant and sales of the applicant to the Union are governed by the undertaking.\n(5)\nThe applicant provided prima facie evidence that the continued application of the measure at its current level was no longer necessary to offset the countervailable subsidisation. In particular, the applicant provided prima facie evidence showing that its subsidy amount has decreased well below the duty rate currently applicable to it. This reduction in the overall subsidy level would mainly be due to a significant drop in the benefits availed of under the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS).\n(6)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that the request contained sufficient prima facie evidence, the Commission announced on 10 June 2010 the initiation of a partial interim review (the present review) pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union (8). The review was limited in scope to the examination of subsidisation in respect of the applicant.\n1.4. Parties concerned by the investigation\n(7)\nThe Commission officially informed the applicant, the representatives of the exporting country and the association of Union producers about the initiation of the review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(8)\nAll interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(9)\nIn order to obtain the information deemed necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant and the government of India (GOI) and received replies within the deadline set for that purpose.\n(10)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary for the determination of subsidisation. The Commission carried out verification visits at the premises of the applicant in Mumbai, India and at the premises of the GOI in New Delhi (Directorate General of Foreign Trade and Ministry of Commerce) and Mumbai (Regional Office of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade).\n1.5. Review investigation period\n(11)\nThe investigation of subsidisation covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (\u2018the review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019).\n1.6. Parallel anti-dumping investigation\n(12)\nOn 10 June 2010 (9) the Commission announced the initiation of a partial interim review of the current anti-dumping measures pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (10) (the basic anti-dumping Regulation), limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of the applicant.\n(13)\nIn the parallel anti-dumping investigation it was found that the circumstances with regard to dumping did not change significantly and lastingly, therefore the investigation was terminated without changing the current anti-dumping measures applicable to the applicant.\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(14)\nThe product under review is PET having a viscosity of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in India (the product concerned).\n2.2. Like product\n(15)\nThe investigation revealed that the product concerned produced in India and sold to the Union is identical in terms of physical and chemical characteristics and uses to the product produced and sold on the domestic market in India. It is therefore concluded that products sold on the domestic and export markets are like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. Since the present review was limited to the determination of subsidisation as far as the applicant is concerned, no conclusions were reached with regard to the product produced and sold by the Union industry on the Union market.\n3. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n3.1. Subsidisation\n(16)\nOn the basis of the information submitted by the GOI and the applicant and the replies to the Commission\u2019s questionnaire, the following schemes, which allegedly involve the granting of subsidies, were investigated:\nNationwide schemes:\n(a)\nAdvance Authorisation Scheme (AAS);\n(b)\nDuty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS);\n(c)\nExport Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS);\n(d)\nFocus Market Scheme (FMS);\n(e)\nFocus Product Scheme (FPS);\n(f)\nIncome Tax Exemption Scheme (ITES).\nRegional schemes:\n(g)\nCapital Investment Incentive Scheme of the Government of Gujarat.\n(17)\nThe schemes (a) to (e) specified above are based on the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 (No 22 of 1992) which entered into force on 7 August 1992 (Foreign Trade Act). The Foreign Trade Act authorises the GOI to issue notifications regarding the export and import policy. These are summarised in Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) documents, which are issued by the Ministry of Commerce every 5 years and updated regularly. Two FTP documents are relevant to the RIP of this case, namely FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14. The latter entered into force in August 2009. In addition, the GOI also sets out the procedures governing FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14 in a \u2018Handbook of Procedures, Volume I\u2019 (\u2018HOP I 04-09\u2019 and \u2018HOP I 09-14\u2019 respectively). The Handbook of Procedures is also updated on a regular basis.\n(18)\nScheme (f) is based on the Income Tax Act of 1961, which is amended by the yearly Finance Act.\n(19)\nScheme (g) is administered by the Government of Gujarat and is based on Gujarat\u2019s industrial incentive policy.\n3.1.1. Advance Authorisation Scheme (AAS)\n(a) Legal basis\n(20)\nThe detailed description of this scheme is contained in paragraphs 4.1.1 to 4.1.14 of FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14 and paragraphs 4.1 to 4,30 A of HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(21)\nThe AAS consists of six sub-schemes, as described in more detail in recital 22. Those sub-schemes differ, inter alia, in the scope of eligibility. Manufacturer-exporters and merchant-exporters \u2018tied to\u2019 supporting manufacturers are eligible for the AAS for physical exports and for the AAS for annual requirement. Manufacturer-exporters supplying the ultimate exporter are eligible for AAS for intermediate supplies. Main contractors which supply to the \u2018deemed export\u2019 categories mentioned in paragraph 8.2 of FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14, such as suppliers of an export oriented unit (EOU), are eligible for AAS for deemed exports. Eventually, intermediate suppliers to manufacturer-exporters are eligible for \u2018deemed export\u2019 benefits under the sub-schemes Advance Release Order (ARO) and back-to-back inland letter of credit.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(22)\nAdvance Authorisations can be issued for:\n(i) physical exports: this is the main sub-scheme. It allows for the duty-free import of input materials for the production of a specific resultant export product. \u2018Physical\u2019 in this context means that the export product has to leave Indian territory. An import allowance and export obligation including the type of export product are specified in the authorisation;\n(ii) annual requirement: such an authorisation is not linked to a specific export product, but to a wider product group (e.g. chemical and allied products). The authorisation holder can - up to a certain value threshold set by its past export performance - import free of duty any input to be used in manufacturing any of the items falling under such a product group. It can choose to export any resultant product falling under the product group using such duty-exempt material;\n(iii) intermediate supplies: this sub-scheme covers cases where two manufacturers intend to produce a single export product and divide the production process. The manufacturer-exporter who produces the intermediate product can import duty-free input materials and can obtain for this purpose an AAS for intermediate supplies. The ultimate exporter finalises the production and is obliged to export the finished product;\n(iv) deemed exports: this sub-scheme allows a main contractor to import inputs free of duty which are required in manufacturing goods to be sold as \u2018deemed exports\u2019 to the categories of customers mentioned in paragraph 8.2(b) to (f), (g), (i) and (j) of FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14. According to the GOI, deemed exports refer to those transactions in which the goods supplied do not leave the country. A number of categories of supply is regarded as deemed exports provided the goods are manufactured in India, e.g. supply of goods to an EOU or to a company situated in a special economic zone;\n(v) ARO: the AAS holder intending to source the inputs from indigenous sources, in lieu of direct import, has the option to source them against AROs. In such cases, the Advance Authorisations are validated as AROs and are endorsed to the indigenous supplier upon delivery of the items specified therein. The endorsement of the ARO entitles the indigenous supplier to the benefits of deemed exports as set out in paragraph 8.3 of FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty). The ARO mechanism refunds taxes and duties to the supplier instead of refunding the same to the ultimate exporter in the form of drawback/refund of duties. The refund of taxes/duties is available both for indigenous inputs as well as imported inputs;\n(vi) back-to-back inland letter of credit: this sub-scheme again covers indigenous supplies to an Advance Authorisation holder. The holder of an Advance Authorisation can approach a bank for opening an inland letter of credit in favour of an indigenous supplier. The authorisation will be invalidated by the bank for direct import only in respect of the value and volume of items being sourced indigenously instead of importation. The indigenous supplier will be entitled to the forecast export benefits as set out in paragraph 8.3 of FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty).\n(23)\nIt was established that during the RIP the applicant obtained concessions only under one sub-scheme linked to the product concerned, namely the AAS for deemed exports. It is therefore not necessary to establish the countervailability of the remaining unused sub-schemes.\n(24)\nWith regard to the use of AAS for deemed exports during the RIP, both the import allowance and the export obligation are fixed in volume and value by the GOI and are documented on the authorisation. In addition, at the time of import and of export, the corresponding transactions are to be documented by government officials on the authorisation. The volume of imports allowed under this scheme is determined by the GOI on the basis of standard input-output norms (SIONs). SIONs exist for most products including the product concerned and are issued by the GOI.\n(25)\nFor verification purposes by the Indian authorities, an Advance Authorisation holder is legally obliged to maintain an actual consumption register of duty-free imported/domestically procured goods against each authorisation, as per prescribed format (paragraphs 4.26, 4.30 and Appendix 23 HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14). This register has to be verified by an external chartered accountant/cost and works accountant who issues a certificate stating that the prescribed registers and relevant records have been examined and the information furnished under Appendix 23 is true and correct in all respects.\n(26)\nThe export obligation must be fulfilled within a prescribed time-frame (24 months with two possible extensions of 6 months each) after issuance of the authorisation.\n(27)\nIt was established that there were no links between the imported inputs and the exported finished products. The eligible input materials can be also raw materials used in the production of upstream products. Furthermore, it was found that, although mandatory, the applicant did not keep for all licences the consumption register referred to in recital 25, verifiable by an external accountant. In spite of the breach of this requirement, the applicant did avail the benefits under AAS which were moreover, in view of the found overestimation of the SIONs, in excess of the legal provisions therefore.\n(d) Conclusion\n(28)\nThe exemption from import duties is a subsidy within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(a)(ii) and 3(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. a financial contribution of the GOI which conferred a benefit upon the investigated exporter.\n(29)\nIn addition, AAS for deemed exports is clearly contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation. Without an export commitment a company cannot obtain benefits under this scheme.\n(30)\nThe present review has, therefore, confirmed that the main sub-scheme used in the present case cannot be considered as permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the rules laid down in Annexes I (item (i)), II (definition and rules for drawback) and III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) to the basic Regulation. The GOI did not effectively apply its verification system or procedure to confirm whether and in what amounts inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) to the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) to the basic Regulation). The SIONs themselves cannot be considered a verification system of actual consumption, since they have been found to be overgenerous and it was established that benefits received in excess are not reclaimed by the GOI. Indeed, an effective control done by the GOI based on a correctly kept actual consumption register did not take place. In addition, the GOI did not carry out a further examination based on actual inputs involved, although this would normally need to be carried out in the absence of an effectively applied verification system (Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) to the basic Regulation). Finally, it has been confirmed that, although mandatory by law, the involvement of chartered accountants in the verification process is, in practice, not guaranteed.\n(31)\nAAS for deemed exports is therefore countervailable.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(32)\nIn the absence of permitted duty drawback system or substitution drawback system, the countervailable benefit is the remission of total import duties normally due upon importation of inputs. In this respect, it is noted that the basic Regulation does not only provide for the countervailing of an \u2018excess\u2019 remission of duties. According to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation and Annex I(i) thereto only an excess remission of duties can be countervailed, provided the conditions of Annexes II and III to the basic Regulation are met. However, these conditions were not fulfilled in the present case. Thus, if an absence of an adequate monitoring process is established, the above exception for drawback schemes is not applicable and the normal rule for countervailing the amount of (revenue forgone) unpaid duties, rather than any purported excess remission, applies. As set out in Annexes II(II) and III(II) to the basic Regulation the burden is not upon the investigating authority to calculate such excess remission. To the contrary, according to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation the investigating authority only has to establish sufficient evidence to refute the appropriateness of an alleged verification system.\n(33)\nThe subsidy amount for the applicant was calculated on the basis of import duties forgone (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) on the material imported under the deemed exports sub-scheme during the RIP (nominator). In accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the subsidy amount where justified claims were made. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount has been allocated over the total export turnover during the RIP as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(34)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme during the RIP for the applicant amounts to 0,52 %.\n3.1.2. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS)\n(a) Legal Basis\n(35)\nThe detailed description of the DEPBS is contained in paragraph 4.3 of FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14 as well as in Chapter 4 of HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(36)\nAny manufacturer-exporter or merchant-exporter is eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(37)\nAn eligible exporter can apply for DEPBS credits which are calculated as a percentage of the value of products exported under this scheme. Such DEPBS rates have been established by the Indian authorities for most products, including the product concerned. They are determined on the basis of SIONs (see recital 24) and the customs duty incidence on the presumed import content, regardless of whether import duties have actually been paid or not. The DEPBS rate for the product concerned during the RIP of the current investigation was 8 % with a value cap of 58 Rs/kg.\n(38)\nTo be eligible for benefits under this scheme, a company must export. At the time of the export transaction, a declaration must be made by the exporter to the authorities in India indicating that the export is taking place under the DEPBS. In order for the goods to be exported, the Indian customs authorities issue, during the dispatch procedure, an export shipping bill. This document shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction. At this point in time, the exporter knows the benefit it will receive. Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill, the GOI has no discretion over the granting of a DEPBS credit. The relevant DEPBS rate to calculate the benefit is that which applied at the time the export declaration was made. Therefore, there is no possibility for a retroactive amendment to the level of the benefit.\n(39)\nIt was found that in accordance with Indian accounting standards, DEPBS credits can be booked on an accrual basis as income in the commercial accounts, upon fulfilment of the export obligation. Such credits can be used for payment of customs duties on subsequent imports of any goods unrestrictedly importable, except capital goods. Goods imported against such credits can be sold on the domestic market (subject to sales tax) or used otherwise. DEPBS credits are freely transferable and valid for a period of 24 months from the date of issue.\n(40)\nApplications for DEPBS credits are electronically filed and can cover an unlimited amount of export transactions. The deadline to submit applications is 3 months after exportation, but as clearly provided in paragraph 9.3 of the HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14, applications received after the expiry of submission deadlines can always be considered with the imposition of a minor penalty fee (i.e. 10 % of the entitlement).\n(41)\nIt was found that the applicant used this scheme during the RIP.\n(d) Conclusion\n(42)\nThe DEPBS provides subsidies within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(a)(ii) and 3(2) of the basic Regulation. A DEPBS credit is a financial contribution by the GOI, since the credit will eventually be used to offset import duties, thus decreasing the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, the DEPBS credit confers a benefit upon the exporter, because it improves its liquidity.\n(43)\nFurthermore, the DEPBS is contingent in law upon export performance, and is therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(44)\nThis scheme cannot be considered as permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation as claimed by the applicant. It does not conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex I (item (i)), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) to the basic Regulation. An exporter is under no obligation to actually consume the goods imported free of duty in the production process and the amount of credit is not calculated in relation to actual inputs used. Moreover, there is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production process of the exported product or whether an excess payment of import duties occurred within the meaning of item (i) of Annex I and Annexes II and III to the basic Regulation. Lastly, an exporter is eligible for the DEPBS benefits regardless of whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported. Thus, even exporters which procure all of their inputs locally and do not import any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled to benefit from the DEPBS.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(45)\nIn accordance with Articles 3(2) and 5 of the basic Regulation, the amount of countervailable subsidies was calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to exist during the review investigation period. In this regard, it was considered that the benefit is conferred on the recipient at the time when an export transaction is made under this scheme. At this moment, the GOI is liable to forego the customs duties, which constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation.\n(46)\nIt was found that the benefits derived from DEPBS were concentrated on the product concerned. Therefore it is considered appropriate to assess the benefit under the DEPBS as being the sum of the credits earned on all export transactions of the product concerned made under this scheme during the RIP.\n(47)\nWhere justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the credits so established to arrive at the subsidy amounts as numerator, pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(48)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation these subsidy amounts have been allocated over the total export turnover of the product concerned during the review investigation period as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(49)\nBased on the above, the subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme for the applicant during the RIP amounts to 7,52 %.\n3.1.3. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)\n(a) Legal basis\n(50)\nThe detailed description of EPCGS is contained in Chapter 5 of FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14 as well as in Chapter 5 of HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(51)\nManufacturer-exporters, merchant-exporters \u2018tied to\u2019 supporting manufacturers and service providers are eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(52)\nUnder the condition of an export obligation, a company is allowed to import capital goods (new and second-hand capital goods up to 10 years old) at a reduced rate of duty. To this end, the GOI issues, upon application and payment of a fee, an EPCGS licence. The EPCGS provides for a reduced import duty rate of 3 % applicable to all capital goods imported under this scheme. In order to meet the export obligation, the imported capital goods must be used to produce a given amount of export goods during a certain period. Under FTP 09-14 the capital goods can be imported with 0 % duty rate under the EPCGS but in such case the time period for fulfilment of the export obligation is shorter.\n(53)\nThe EPCGS licence holder can also source the capital goods indigenously. In such case, the indigenous manufacturer of capital goods may avail himself of the benefit for duty-free import of components required to manufacture such capital goods. Alternatively, the indigenous manufacturer can claim the benefit of deemed export in respect of supply of capital goods to an EPCGS licence holder.\n(d) Conclusion\n(54)\nThe EPCGS provides subsidies within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(a)(ii) and 3(2) of the basic Regulation. The duty reduction constitutes a financial contribution by the GOI, since this concession decreases the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, the duty reduction confers a benefit upon the exporter, because the duties saved upon importation improve the company\u2019s liquidity.\n(55)\nFurthermore, EPCGS is contingent in law upon export performance, since such licences cannot be obtained without a commitment to export. Therefore it is deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(56)\nEPCGS cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Capital goods are not covered by the scope of such permissible systems, as set out in item (i) of Annex I to the basic Regulation, because they are not consumed in the production of the exported products.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(57)\nThe subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods used in the petrochemical segment and other sectors for which such benefits were received by the applicant, spread across a period which reflects the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in the industry concerned. Interests were added to this amount in order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. The commercial credit interest rate applied by the applicant for its sales during the review investigation period was considered appropriate for this purpose.\n(58)\nIn accordance with Article 7(2) and (3) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the export turnover of the petrochemical sector and other sectors for which such benefits were received during the RIP as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance.\n(59)\nThe subsidy rate established in respect of this scheme during the RIP amounts to 1,49 %.\n3.1.4. Focus Market Scheme (FMS)\n(a) Legal basis\n(60)\nThe detailed description of FMS is contained in paragraphs 3.9.1 to 3.9.2.2 of FTP 04-09 and paragraphs 3.14.1 to 3.14.3 of FTP 09-14 and in paragraphs 3.20 to 3.20.3 of HOP I 04-09 and paragraphs 3.8 to 3.8.2 of HOP I 09-14.\n(b) Eligibility\n(61)\nAny manufacturer-exporter or merchant-exporter is eligible for this scheme.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(62)\nUnder this scheme exports of all products to countries notified under Appendix 37(C) of HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14 are entitled to duty credit equivalent to 2,5 % to 3 % of the FOB value of products exported under this scheme. Certain type of export activities are excluded from this scheme, e.g. exports of imported goods or transhipped goods, deemed exports, service exports and export turnover of units operating under special economic zones/export operating units. Also excluded from this scheme are certain types of products, e.g. diamonds, precious metals, ores, cereals, sugar and petroleum products.\n(63)\nThe duty credits under FMS are freely transferable and valid for a period of 24 months from the date of issue of the relevant credit entitlement certificate. They can be used for payment of custom duties on subsequent imports of any inputs or goods including capital goods.\n(64)\nThe credit entitlement certificate is issued from the port from which the exports have been made and after realisation of exports or shipment of goods. As long as an applicant provides to the authorities copies of all relevant export documentation (e.g. export order, invoices, shipping bills, bank realisation certificates), the GOI has no discretion over the granting of the duty credits.\n(d) Conclusion\n(65)\nThe FMS provides subsidies within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(a)(ii) and 3(2) of the basic Regulation. A FMS duty credit is a financial contribution by the GOI, since the credit will eventually be used to offset import duties, thus decreasing the GOI\u2019s duty revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, the FMS duty credit confers a benefit upon the exporter, because it improves its liquidity.\n(66)\nFurthermore, FMS is contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(67)\nThis scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex I (point (i)), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) to the basic Regulation. An exporter is under no obligation to actually consume the goods imported free of duty in the production process and the amount of credit is not calculated in relation to actual inputs used. There is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production process of the exported product or whether an excess payment of import duties occurred within the meaning of point (i) of Annex I and Annexes II and III to the basic Regulation. An exporter is eligible for FMS benefits regardless of whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported. Thus, even exporters which procure all of their inputs locally and do not import any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled to benefit from FMS. Moreover, an exporter can use FMS duty credits in order to import capital goods although capital goods are not covered by the scope of permissible duty drawback systems, as set out in point (i) of Annex I to the basic Regulation, because they are not consumed in the production of the exported products.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(68)\nThe amount of countervailable subsidies was calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient for export of the product concerned, which is found to exist during the RIP as booked by the applicant using the scheme on an accrual basis as income at the stage of export transaction. In accordance with Article 7(2) and (3) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount (nominator) has been allocated over the export turnover of the product concerned during the RIP as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.\n(69)\nWhere justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the credits so established to arrive at the subsidy amounts as numerator, pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.\n(70)\nThe subsidy rate established with regard to this scheme during the RIP for the applicant amounts to 0,87 %.\n3.1.5. Focus Product Scheme (FPS)\n(71)\nIn the course of the investigation it was found that the applicant did not obtain any benefits under FPS during the RIP. It was therefore not necessary to further analyse this scheme in this investigation.\n3.1.6. Income Tax Exemption Scheme (ITES)\n(72)\nIn the course of the investigation it was found that the applicant did not obtain any benefits under ITES during the RIP. It was therefore not necessary to further analyse this scheme in this investigation.\n3.1.7. Capital Investment Incentive Scheme (CIIS) of the Government of Gujarat\n(73)\nThe State of Gujarat grants to eligible industrial enterprises incentives in the form of exemption and/or deferment of sales and purchase tax in order to encourage the industrial development of economically backward areas within this State.\n(a) Legal basis\n(74)\nThe detailed description of this scheme as applied by the Government of Gujarat (GOG) is set out in GOG Resolution No INC-1095/2000(3)/I of 11 September 1995, the Government Notification, Finance Department No (GHN-43) VAT-2006/S.5(2)(2)-TH dated 1 April 2006 and Rule 18A of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Rules (2006).\n(b) Eligibility\n(75)\nCompanies setting up a new industrial establishment or making a large-scale expansion of an existing industrial establishment in backward areas are eligible to avail of benefits under this scheme. Nevertheless, exhaustive lists of ineligible industries exist that prevent companies in certain fields of operations from benefiting from the incentives.\n(c) Practical implementation\n(76)\nUnder this scheme, companies must invest in backward areas. These areas, which represent certain territorial units in Gujarat are classified according to their economic development into different categories while at the same time there are areas excluded or \u2018banned\u2019 from the application of the incentive schemes. The main criteria to establish the amount of the incentives are the size of the investment and the area in which the enterprise is or will be located.\n(77)\nIncentives can be granted at any point in time since there are no time limits either in the filing of an application for the incentives or in the fulfilment of the quantitative criteria.\n(d) Conclusion\n(78)\nThis scheme provides subsidies within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(a)(ii) and 3(2) of the basic Regulation. It constitutes a financial contribution by the GOG, since the incentives granted, in the present case sales and purchase tax exemptions, decrease tax revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, these incentives confer a benefit upon a company, because they improve its financial situation since taxes otherwise due are not paid.\n(79)\nFurthermore, this scheme is regionally specific in the meaning of Articles 4(2)(a) and 4(3) of the basic Regulation since it is only available to certain companies having invested within certain designated geographical areas within the jurisdiction of the State concerned. It is not available to companies located outside these areas and, in addition, the level of benefit is differentiated according to the area concerned.\n(80)\nThe CIIS of the GOG is therefore countervailable.\n(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount\n(81)\nThe applicant claimed that it is no longer eligible for benefits under the CIIS for one of its plants. The investigation confirmed this claim. In case of another plant, the eligibility of the company expired during the current investigation. The subsidies received for the activities of these plants therefore were not taken into account in the calculation of the subsidy amount.\n(82)\nThe subsidy amount was calculated on the basis of the amount of the sales and purchase tax normally due during the review investigation period but which remained unpaid under this scheme. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the amount of subsidy (numerator) have then been allocated over total sales during the review investigation period as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is not export contingent and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. The subsidy rate obtained amounted to 0,31 %.\n3.1.8. Amount of countervailable subsidies\n(83)\nThe amount of total countervailable subsidies determined in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the applicant is 10,73 %. This amount of subsidisation exceeds the de minimis threshold mentioned under Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(84)\nIt is therefore considered that, pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, subsidisation continued during the RIP.\n3.2. Lasting nature of changed circumstances with regard to subsidisation\n(85)\nIn accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether circumstances with regard to subsidisation changed significantly during the RIP.\n(86)\nIt was established that, during the RIP, the applicant continued to benefit from countervailable subsidisation by the GOI. Further, the subsidy rate found during the present review is lower than that established during the last review investigation. No evidence is available that the schemes will be discontinued or new schemes will be introduced in the near future.\n(87)\nSince it has been demonstrated that the applicant is in receipt of less subsidisation than before and that it is likely to continue to receive subsidies of an amount less than determined in the last review investigation, it is concluded that the continuation of the existing measure is higher than the countervailable subsidy causing injury and that the level of the measures should therefore be amended to reflect the new findings.\n4. COUNTERVAILING MEASURES AND ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n4.1. Countervailing measures\n(88)\nIn line with Article 19 of the basic Regulation and the grounds of the present review stated in the notice of initiation, it is established that the margin of subsidisation with regard to the applicant has decreased from 13,8 % to 10,7 % and, therefore, the rate of countervailing duty, imposed to this exporting producer by Regulation (EC) No 1286/2008 has to be amended accordingly.\n(89)\nThe amended countervailing duty rate should be established at the level of the new rate of subsidisation found during the present review, as the injury margins calculated in the original anti-subsidy investigation remain higher.\n(90)\nIn the original anti-subsidy investigation, in order to avoid that fluctuations in the PET prices caused by variations in the crude oil prices result in higher duties being collected, was decided that measures should take the form of a specific duty. It is considered that this approach should also be followed in the present review for the same reason. The revised amount of specific duty is therefore EUR 90,4 per tonne.\n4.2. Anti-dumping measures\n(91)\nThe amendment of the countervailing duty rate will have an impact on the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of PET produced by the applicant, by Regulation (EC) No 192/2007.\n(92)\nIn all previous investigations the anti-dumping duty was adjusted in order to avoid any double-counting of the effects of benefits from export subsidies. In this regard, Article 14(1) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 24(1) of the basic Regulation provide that no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing measures for the purpose of dealing with one and the same situation arising from dumping or export subsidisation. It was found in the previous investigations as well as in the present review that certain of the subsidy schemes investigated, which were found to be countervailable, constituted export subsidies within the meaning of Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation. With respect to other subsidy schemes, and in particular the CIIS of the GOG, there was no evidence and no argument was made showing whether and to what degree the same subsidies are being offset twice when anti-dumping and countervailing duties are simultaneously imposed on the same imported product. More specifically, there was no evidence that the CIIS lowered the export price of a product in a different manner than the price of products sold domestically. Thus, the CIIS affects the prices at which the producer sells its goods in the domestic market and in export markets in the same way and to the same extent.\n(93)\nAs such, these subsidies affected the export price of the applicant, thus leading to an increased margin of dumping. In other words, the definitive dumping margins established in the original anti-dumping investigation were partly due to the existence of export subsidies.\n(94)\nConsequently, the definitive anti-dumping duty rates for the applicant must now be adjusted to take account of the revised level of benefit received from export subsidies in the RIP in the present review to reflect the actual dumping margin remaining after the imposition of the adjusted definitive countervailing duty offsetting the effect of the export subsidies.\n(95)\nIn other words, the new subsidy levels will have to be taken into account for the purpose of adjusting the dumping margins, previously established.\n(96)\nThe anti-dumping duty rate of the applicant should thus be EUR 132,6 per tonne.\n(97)\nThe applicant as well as the other parties concerned were informed of the facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose the termination of the investigation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart of the table concerning Reliance Industries Limited in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 193/2007 shall be replaced by the following:\nCountry\nCompany\nCountervailing duty\n(EUR/tonne)\nTARIC additional code\n\u2018India\nReliance Industries Ltd\n90,4\nA181\u2019\nArticle 2\nPart of the table concerning Reliance Industries Ltd in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 shall be replaced by the following:\nCountry\nCompany\nAnti-dumping duty\n(EUR/tonne)\nTARIC additional code\n\u2018India\nReliance Industries Ltd\n132,6\nA181\u2019\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2011.", "references": ["84", "63", "67", "34", "12", "26", "10", "69", "73", "66", "47", "62", "89", "3", "15", "41", "91", "33", "74", "35", "99", "27", "40", "79", "81", "16", "36", "64", "87", "32", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 572/2011\nof 16 June 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2011/137/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2011/332/CFSP (2), provides for a specific derogation in relation to the freezing of the assets of certain entities (ports).\n(2)\nIt is appropriate to ensure the continuation of humanitarian operations and of the provision of materials and supplies for essential civilian needs, as well as operations necessary for evacuations from Libya.\n(3)\nThese measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(4)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Libya and in accordance with Decision 2011/137/CFSP, additional entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (3).\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 204/2011 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 8a is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8a\nBy way of derogation from Article 5, the competent authorities in the Member States, as listed in Annex IV, may authorise the release of frozen funds or economic resources belonging to persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex III, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources to persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex III, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, where they consider it necessary for humanitarian purposes, such as the delivery and facilitation of delivery of humanitarian aid, the delivery of materials and supplies necessary for essential civilian needs, including food and agricultural materials for its production, medical products and the provision of electricity, or for evacuations from Libya. The Member State concerned shall inform other Member States and the Commission of authorisations made under this Article within 2 weeks of the authorisation.\u2019;\n2.\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 10a\nBy way of derogation from Article 5(2), the competent authorities in the Member States, as identified on the websites listed in Annex IV, may authorise the making available of certain funds or economic resources to port authorities listed in Annex III in relation to the execution, until 15 July 2011, of contracts concluded before 7 June 2011, with the exception of contracts relating to oil, gas and refined oil products. The Member State shall inform other Member States and the Commission of authorisations made under this Article within 2 weeks of the authorisation.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThe entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 June 2011.", "references": ["58", "32", "24", "42", "49", "7", "14", "5", "10", "22", "44", "88", "18", "82", "80", "66", "54", "8", "40", "2", "23", "15", "98", "26", "34", "13", "17", "57", "70", "86", "No Label", "1", "3", "11", "16", "94"], "gold": ["1", "3", "11", "16", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1290/2011\nof 9 December 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1280/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 10 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["58", "48", "34", "89", "49", "42", "66", "91", "52", "5", "97", "68", "8", "31", "64", "57", "79", "77", "1", "75", "37", "54", "99", "17", "98", "90", "44", "81", "28", "92", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 28/2012\nof 11 January 2012\nlaying down requirements for the certification for imports into and transit through the Union of certain composite products and amending Decision 2007/275/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1162/2009\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), and in particular Article 3(5) thereof;\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (2), and in particular Article 8(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 16 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (5) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules and in particular Article 48(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 63(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 97/78/EC provides that veterinary checks on products from third countries introduced into the Union are to be carried out by Member States in accordance with that Directive and with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 882/2004 lays down general rules for the performance of official controls to verify compliance with rules aiming, in particular, at preventing, eliminating or reducing to acceptable levels risks to humans and animals, either directly or through the environment.\n(3)\nDirective 2002/99/EC lays down the general animal health rules governing all stages of the production, processing and distribution within the Union and the introduction from third countries of products of animal origin and products obtained intended for human consumption.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business operators. Article 6(4) of that Regulation provides that food business operators importing food containing both products of plant origin and processed products of animal origin (composite products) are to ensure that the processed products of animal origin contained in such food satisfy certain public health requirements laid down therein. In addition, Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 provides that food business operators must be able to demonstrate that they have done so, for example through appropriate documentation or certification.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 applies from 1 January 2006. However, the application of a number of measures laid down therein with immediate effect from that date would have presented practical difficulties in certain cases.\n(6)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005 (6) therefore provided that, by way of derogation from Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, food business operators importing food containing composite products were to be exempt from the obligation provided for in that Article.\n(7)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1162/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down transitional measures for the implementation of Regulations (EC) No 853/2004, (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) repealed and replaced Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005. Regulation (EC) No 1162/2009 contains the same derogation from Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 as did Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005.\n(8)\nIn addition, Regulation (EC) No 1162/2009 provides that imports of composite products are to comply with the harmonised Union rules, where applicable, and with the national rules implemented by the Member States in other cases.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 1162/2009 applies until 31 December 2013.\n(10)\nCommission Decision 2007/275/EC of 17 April 2007 concerning lists of animals and products to be subject to controls at border inspection posts under Council Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC (8) provides that certain composite products are to be subject to veterinary checks, when imported into the Union. Pursuant to that Decision, the composite products subjected to veterinary checks are all those containing processed meat products, those containing half or more of their substance of any one processed product of animal origin other than processed meat products and those containing no processed meat products and less than half of their substance of processed milk product where the final products do not meet certain requirements laid down in Decision 2007/275/EC.\n(11)\nIn addition, Decision 2007/275/EC lays down certain certification requirements regarding the composite products subject to veterinary checks. It provides that composite products containing processed meat products are to be accompanied at introduction into the Union by the relevant certificate for meat products laid down in Union legislation. Composite products containing processed milk products, which are to be subjected to veterinary checks, are to be accompanied at introduction into the Union by the relevant certificate laid down in Union legislation. In addition, composite products containing only processed fishery or egg products which are to be subjected to veterinary checks are to be accompanied at introduction into the Union by the relevant certificate laid down in Union legislation or a commercial document where there is no certificate so required.\n(12)\nThe composite products subjected to veterinary checks pursuant to Decision 2007/275/EC are, by their very nature, the ones that may present also a higher public health risk. The levels of potential public health risk vary depending on the product of animal origin which is included in the composite product, the percentage in which that product of animal origin is present in the composite product and the treatments applied to it as well as the shelf stability of the composite product.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate that the public health requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 apply to those composite products even before the expiry of the derogation provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1162/2009.\n(14)\nIn particular, the certification of compliance with public health requirements as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 should be provided for in this Regulation for the importation of the composite products containing processed meat products, of those composite products containing half or more of their substance of milk products or of processed fishery or egg products and of those composite products containing no processed meat products and less than half of their substance of processed milk products where the final products are not shelf-stable at ambient temperature or where they have not clearly undergone in their manufacture a complete cooking or heat treatment process throughout their substance, so that any raw product is not denatured.\n(15)\nAs a consequence, the derogation laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1162/2009 should no longer apply for those composite products.\n(16)\nThe animal health requirements concerning those composite products are already laid down in Union legislation. Pursuant to those requirements, those composite products should in particular only be imported from approved third countries.\n(17)\nA specific model health certificate attesting that such composite products imported into the Union comply with those public and animal health requirements should be laid down in this Regulation. As a consequence, the certification requirements laid down in Decision 2007/275/EC should no longer apply for those composite products.\n(18)\nFor the other composite products containing half or more of their substance of products of animal origin other than milk products or fishery or egg products, the certification requirements laid down in Decision 2007/275/EC should continue to apply. However, for reasons of simplification and clarity of Union legislation, it is appropriate to include those certification requirements in this Regulation, so that the main rules on the certification of composite products be laid down in only one act.\n(19)\nDecision 2007/275/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1162/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(20)\nDue to animal health reasons, a certificate and specific conditions for transit via the Union should be provided for. However these conditions should be applicable only to composite products containing processed meat products or processed dairy products.\n(21)\nSpecific conditions for transit via the Union of consignments to and from Russia should be provided for, owing to the geographical situation of Kaliningrad, which only concerns Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.\n(22)\nTo avoid any disruption of trade, the use of certificates issued in accordance with Decision 2007/275/EC prior to the date of application of this Regulation should be authorised for a transitional period.\n(23)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down rules on the certification of consignments of certain composite products introduced into the Union from third countries.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions in Article 2 of Decision 2007/275/EC shall apply.\nArticle 3\nImports of certain composite products\n1. Consignments of the following composite products introduced into the Union shall come from a third country or part thereof authorised for the introduction into the Union of consignments of the products of animal origin contained in those composite products and the products of animal origin used for the production of such composite products shall originate from establishments in compliance with Article 6.1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004:\n(a)\ncomposite products containing processed meat products, as referred to in Article 4(a) of Decision 2007/275/EC;\n(b)\ncomposite products containing processed milk products and covered by Article 4(b) and (c) of Decision 2007/275/EC;\n(c)\ncomposite products containing half or more of their substance of processed fishery or egg products and covered by Article 4(b) of Decision 2007/275/EC.\n2. Consignments of composite products referred to in paragraph 1 shall be accompanied by a health certificate in accordance with the model health certificate set out in Annex I and comply with the conditions established in such certificates.\n3. Consignments of composite products containing half or more of their substance of products of animal origin other than those referred to in paragraph 1 shall come from a third country or part thereof authorised for the introduction into the Union of consignments of the products of animal origin contained in those composite products and shall be accompanied at introduction into the Union by the relevant certificate laid down in Union legislation for those products of animal origin or by a commercial document where there is no certificate so required.\nArticle 4\nTransit and storage of certain composite products\nThe introduction into the Union of consignments of composite products referred to in Article 3(1)(a) and (b) not intended for importation into the Union but destined for a third country either by immediate transit or after storage in the Union, in accordance with Articles 11, 12 or 13 of Council Directive 97/78/EC, shall only be authorised if the consignments comply with the following conditions:\n(a)\nthey come from a third country or part thereof authorised for the introduction into the Union of consignments of the products of animal origin contained in those composite products and comply with the appropriate treatment conditions for such products, as provided for in Commission Decision 2007/777/EC (9) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 605/2010 (10) for the product of animal origin concerned;\n(b)\nthey are accompanied by a health certificate drawn up in accordance with the model health certificate set out in Annex II;\n(c)\nthey comply with the specific animal health requirements for the importation into the Union of the products of animal origin contained in the composite products concerned, as set out in the animal health attestation in the model health certificate referred to in point (b);\n(d)\nthey are certified as acceptable for transit, including for storage as appropriate, on the common veterinary entry document referred to in Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 (11), signed by the official veterinarian of the border inspection post of introduction into the Union.\nArticle 5\nDerogation for transit of consignments coming from and destined to Russia\n1. By way of derogation from Article 4, the transit by road or by rail through the Union, between designated border inspection posts in Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, listed in Commission Decision 2009/821/EC (12), of consignments of composite products referred to Article 3 coming from and destined to Russia directly or via another third country shall be authorised provided that the following conditions are complied with:\n(a)\nthe consignment is sealed with a serially numbered seal at the border inspection post of introduction into the Union by the veterinary services of the competent authority;\n(b)\nthe documents accompanying the consignment and referred to in Article 7 of Directive 97/78/EC are stamped \u2018ONLY FOR TRANSIT TO RUSSIA VIA THE EU\u2019 on each page by the official veterinarian of the competent authority responsible for the border inspection post of introduction into the Union;\n(c)\nthe procedural requirements provided for in Article 11 of Directive 97/78/EC are complied with;\n(d)\nthe consignment is certified as acceptable for transit on the common veterinary entry document by the official veterinarian of the border inspection post of introduction into the Union.\n2. Unloading or storage, as defined in Article 12(4) or in Article 13 of Directive 97/78/EC, of such consignments on Union territory shall not be allowed.\n3. Regular audits shall be made by the competent authority to ensure that the number of consignments and the quantities of products leaving the Union territory matches the number and quantities entering the Union.\nArticle 6\nAmendment to Decision 2007/275/EC\nArticle 5 of Decision 2007/275/EC is deleted.\nArticle 7\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 1162/2009\nIn Regulation (EC) No 1162/2009, the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. By way of derogation from Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, food business operators importing food containing both products of plant origin and processed products of animal origin, other than those referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 28/2012 (13), shall be exempt from the obligation provided for in that Article.\nArticle 8\nTransitional provision\nFor a transitional period until 30 September 2012, consignments of composite products in respect of which the relevant certificates have been issued in accordance with Article 5 of Decision 2007/275/EC before 1 March 2012 may continue to be introduced into the Union.\nArticle 9\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 March 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 January 2012.", "references": ["49", "51", "73", "93", "69", "75", "82", "25", "5", "23", "89", "94", "90", "41", "84", "13", "33", "67", "19", "65", "1", "18", "56", "53", "70", "57", "2", "92", "86", "14", "No Label", "8", "21", "22", "54", "61", "74", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "21", "22", "54", "61", "74", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 November 2010\non the recognition of Sri Lanka as regards education, training and certification of seafarers for the recognition of certificates of competency\n(notified under document C(2010) 7963)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/704/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1) and in particular Article 19(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the letter of 13 May 2005 from the Cypriot authorities, requesting the recognition of Sri Lanka in order to recognise certificates of competency issued by this country,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nMember States may decide to endorse seafarers\u2019 certificates of competency issued by third countries, provided that the relevant third country is recognised by the Commission as ensuring that this country complies with the requirements of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW Convention) (2).\n(2)\nFollowing the request of the Cypriot authorities, the Commission assessed the maritime education, training and certification systems in Sri Lanka in order to verify whether this country complies with the requirements of the STCW Convention and whether appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. This assessment was based on the results of a fact-finding inspection performed by experts of the European Maritime Safety Agency in November 2006.\n(3)\nWhere deficiencies had been identified during the assessment of compliance with the STCW Convention, the Sri Lankan authorities provided to the Commission the requested relevant information and evidence concerning the implementation of appropriate and sufficient corrective action that address most of these issues.\n(4)\nSome remaining shortcomings, relating to few aspects of the national procedures concerning education training and certification of seafarers, concern in particular missing specific legal provisions regarding qualifications of instructors, the use of simulators, as well as the lack of design and testing for simulators exercises in one of the maritime education and training institutions that were examined. The Sri Lankan authorities have therefore been invited to implement further corrective action regarding these matters. However, these shortcomings do not warrant calling into question the overall level of compliance of the Sri Lankan systems regarding maritime education, training and certification with the STCW Convention.\n(5)\nThe outcome of the assessment of compliance and the evaluation of the information provided by the Sri Lankan authorities demonstrate that Sri Lanka complies with the relevant requirements of the STCW Convention. Sri Lanka has also taken appropriate measures to prevent fraud involving certificates and should thus be recognised by the Union.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSri Lanka is recognised as regards education, training and certification of seafarers, for the purpose of recognition of certificates of competency issued by this country.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 November 2010.", "references": ["72", "21", "30", "94", "39", "46", "18", "84", "20", "40", "87", "36", "2", "34", "70", "93", "14", "4", "3", "60", "23", "29", "6", "12", "28", "65", "25", "89", "82", "47", "No Label", "49", "50", "54", "56", "95", "96"], "gold": ["49", "50", "54", "56", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 117/2012\nof 10 February 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1295/2008 on the importation of hops from third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 192(2) and 195(2) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1295/2008 (2) lists the agencies in third countries which are authorised to issue the attestations accompanying hop products imported from those countries. Those attestations are recognised as equivalent to the certificate provided for in Article 117 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(2)\nIt is the responsibility of the agencies concerned in those third countries to keep the information shown in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1295/2008 up to date and to communicate that information to the Commission in a spirit of close cooperation.\n(3)\nAustralia and New Zealand communicated information on changes of name and/or address concerning the competent agency authorised to issue attestations of equivalence. The list in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1295/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1295/2008 should be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1295/2008 is hereby replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["71", "24", "26", "51", "85", "45", "87", "52", "46", "32", "4", "59", "65", "74", "9", "73", "1", "78", "3", "19", "28", "10", "99", "79", "64", "72", "29", "6", "90", "16", "No Label", "21", "22", "68", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 339/2011\nof 7 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 April 2011.", "references": ["0", "73", "82", "96", "37", "76", "5", "34", "15", "28", "9", "25", "14", "24", "29", "17", "98", "39", "88", "8", "3", "78", "77", "46", "91", "26", "2", "19", "54", "47", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 28 July 2010\nauthorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 59122x1507xNK603 (DAS-59122-7xDAS-\u00d815\u00d87xMON-\u00d8\u00d86\u00d83-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2010) 5138)\n(Only the Dutch and French texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/428/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 7(3) and 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 August 2005, Pioneer Overseas Corporation submitted to the competent authority of the United Kingdom an application, in accordance with Article 5 and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from 59122x1507xNK603 maize (the application).\n(2)\nThe application also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of 59122x1507xNK603 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with Article 5(5) and Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.\n(3)\nOn 8 April 2009, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Article 6 and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It considered that 59122x1507xNK603 maize is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment. Therefore it concluded that it is unlikely that the placing on the market of the products containing, consisting of, or produced from 59122x1507xNK603 maize as described in the application (the products) will have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment in the context of their intended uses (3). In its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Article 6(4) and Article 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(4)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.\n(5)\nTaking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products.\n(6)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).\n(7)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from 59122x1507xNK603 maize. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(8)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).\n(9)\nThe EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in Article 6(5)(e) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(10)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(11)\nArticle 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (6), lays down labelling requirements for products consisting of, or containing GMOs.\n(12)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).\n(13)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(14)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman.\n(15)\nAt its meeting on 29 June 2010, the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal. The Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded. It is accordingly for the Commission to adopt the measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) 59122x1507xNK603, as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier DAS-59122-7xDAS-\u00d815\u00d87xMON-\u00d8\u00d86\u00d83-6, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Article 4(2) and Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from DAS-59122-7xDAS-\u00d815\u00d87xMON-\u00d8\u00d86\u00d83-6 maize;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from DAS-59122-7xDAS-\u00d815\u00d87xMON-\u00d8\u00d86\u00d83-6 maize;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of DAS-59122-7xDAS-\u00d815\u00d87xMON-\u00d8\u00d86\u00d83-6 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018maize\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of DAS-59122-7xDAS-\u00d815\u00d87xMON-\u00d8\u00d86\u00d83-6 maize referred to in Article 2(b) and (c).\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nCommunity register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Pioneer Overseas Corporation, Belgium, representing Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., United States.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Pioneer Overseas Corporation, Avenue des Arts 44, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2010.", "references": ["45", "55", "92", "40", "23", "72", "22", "11", "79", "78", "46", "97", "17", "51", "48", "74", "63", "65", "61", "28", "70", "16", "31", "60", "41", "50", "18", "52", "42", "33", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 679/2012\nof 24 July 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Squacquerone di Romagna (PDO)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy's application to register the name \u2027Squacquerone di Romagna\u2027 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["40", "57", "20", "48", "31", "47", "15", "67", "64", "36", "76", "69", "16", "80", "59", "3", "41", "72", "92", "45", "81", "27", "77", "58", "2", "93", "55", "71", "17", "60", "No Label", "24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 October 2010\non State aid C 14/09 (ex NN 17/09) granted by Hungary to P\u00e9ti Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek Zrt.\n(notified under document C(2010) 7274)\n(Only the Hungarian text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/269/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the decision by which the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU (1) in respect of State aid C 14/09 (ex NN 17/09) (2),\nHaving called on interested parties in accordance with the aforementioned provisions to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions, and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nAt the end of 2008 the Commission learnt from the media about planned measures by Hungary in favour of P\u00e9ti Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek Zrt. (hereinafter \u2018Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek\u2019). After several exchanges of information, on 29 April 2009 the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure on measures allegedly constituting State aid.\n(2)\nHungary submitted its comments to the Commission\u2019s opening decision on 3 and 17 August 2009.\n(3)\nThe opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 17 July 2009 (3). Comments were received from four interested parties: from Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek, the beneficiary of the measures allegedly constituting State aid, on 18 August 2009; from two interested parties requesting that their identity not be disclosed, on 17 and 18 August 2009; and from ZAK S.A. on 19 August 2009.\n(4)\nThe Commission transmitted the comments to Hungary by letter of 21 September 2009. Hungary replied to the third-party comments by letter of 20 October 2009.\n(5)\nThe Commission requested further information from the Hungarian authorities on 3 November 2009, to which Hungary replied by letter of 4 December 2009. A further informal exchange of information took place by e-mail in June 2010 between the Commission services and the Hungarian authorities.\nII. THE BENEFICIARY\n(6)\nNitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek is a producer of synthetic fertilisers. Its head office is located in P\u00e9tf\u00fcrd\u0151, Veszpr\u00e9m county, Hungary, which is an assisted area pursuant to Article 107(3)(a) TFEU. The company is Hungary\u2019s main fertiliser producer and the main supplier of the Hungarian market.\n(7)\nIn 2008 Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek had a turnover of HUF 64,8 billion (approx. EUR 232 million), 74 % of which was realised in Hungary and 26 % exported (mainly to EU markets). In 2008 it employed 508 staff. The company\u2019s registered capital amounts to HUF 528 million (approx. EUR 1,92 million). In 2008 equity totalled HUF 11 billion (approx. EUR 40 million).\nTable 1\nNitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek\u2019s key financial data\n2007\nHUF billion\n2007\nEUR million\n2008\nHUF billion\n2008\nEUR million\nTurnover\n48,211\n175\n64,836\n232\nOperating result\n2,435\n8,9\n16,335\n59,4\nNet result profit/loss (-)\n-3,303\n-12\n7,296\n26,5\nSource: Data from the company\u2019s 2008 financial statements.\n(8)\nOn 18 October 2008, Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek stopped its production activity.\nIII. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE\n(9)\nOn 18 December 2008, the Hungarian Government announced (4) that, in order to ensure the continuation of fertiliser production in Hungary and for the sake of employment preservation, the State would \u2018rescue\u2019 Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek by providing funds to resume production and cover operating costs.\n(10)\nOn 20 December 2008, the Government approved (5) two separate state guarantees to back two loans to be granted by the 100 % state-owned Hungarian Development Bank (Magyar Fejleszt\u00e9si Bank Zrt., \u2018MFB\u2019). Both guarantees were granted against an upfront, one-off premium of 2 % of the guaranteed amount.\n(11)\nWith the backing of these state guarantees, on 26 January 2009 MFB and Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek concluded two loan agreements.\n(a)\nLoan A: investment loan (6) of EUR 52 million with a maturity of 6 years. The interest rate is 6-month EURIBOR + 1,7 %. The 100 % government guarantee has an up-front one-off premium of 2 % of the loan amount. Collaterals for MFB: 100 % state guarantee, second-rank (i.e. ranking immediately after loan B, below) pledge on assets (7). No specific collaterals for the State were specified. The principal is to be reimbursed in 12 six-monthly instalments starting from 15 June 2009. Interest payment is due every 6 months.\n(b)\nLoan B: current facilities loan HUF 10 billion (approx. EUR 36 million) loan granted for 4 years, with an interest rate of 3-month BUBOR (8) + 2,5 %. The loan is backed by an 80 % government guarantee, with an upfront one-off premium of 2 % (of the amount covered by the 80 % guarantee). Collaterals for MFB: 80 % state guarantee, first-rank pledge on assets. No specific collaterals for the State were specified. In accordance with the Government Decision, MFB had the right to appoint two members of Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek\u2019s executive board. The principal is to be repaid at the end of the maturity. Interest payment is due every 3 months.\nTable 2\nSummary of the state measures in favour of Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek\nAim\nLoan amount\nInterest\nGuarantee\n2 % upfront guarantee fee, annualised (9)\nMain collaterals to the bank\nLoan A\nInvestments\nEUR 52 million\nEURIBOR + 1,7 %\n100 %\n0,41 %\nSecond-rank asset pledge\nLoan B\nCurrent facility\nHUF 10 billion\nBUBOR + 2,5 %\n80 %\n0,46 %\nFirst-rank asset pledge\n(12)\nNitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek restarted production on 26 February 2009.\nIV. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE\n(13)\nIn the opening decision of 29 April 2009, the Commission asked whether Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek was a firm in difficulty according to the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (10) (hereinafter \u2018Rescue and restructuring guidelines\u2019) and, if so, whether it could have obtained financing on the market on the same terms as those offered by the Hungarian authorities. The Commission took the preliminary view that the following measures granted to the company could constitute incompatible State aid as they appeared to have been granted below market rate:\n(a)\nthe 100 % state guarantee on the EUR 52 million investment loan;\n(b)\nthe EUR 52 million investment loan itself, in case it is an existing loan which was granted prior to the state guarantee (On the basis of the information available at the time of the opening, it was not clear whether the investment loan was an existing or a new loan.);\n(c)\nthe 80 % state guarantee on the HUF 10 billion current facilities loan;\n(d)\nthe 20 % non-guaranteed part of the current facilities loan.\n(14)\nThe Commission also considered that the 100 % state guarantee backing the investment loan might constitute aid in favour of MFB, insofar as it guarantees an existing loan.\nV. COMMENTS FROM HUNGARY\n(15)\nIn general, Hungary argues that the measures could not be classified as State aid because they were market-conform and thus provided no advantage to the beneficiary. Hungary does not dispute the other cumulative criteria of State aid, i.e. transfer of state resources, selectivity, distortion of competition and effect on trade.\n(16)\nIn particular, Hungary contests that Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek could be defined as a firm in difficulty in the sense of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines. The Hungarian authorities claim that the company was profitable and had a stable business outlook in 2008. Hungary holds that the company\u2019s creditworthiness could be considered \u2018satisfactory\u2019 at the time of the granting of the measures, which corresponds to \u2018BB\u2019 according to the rating categories laid down in the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (11) (hereinafter \u2018Reference rate communication\u2019).\n(17)\nWith regard to the shutdown of the company\u2019s production in autumn 2008, the Hungarian authorities explain that in general the fertiliser industry is characterised by high seasonality. Moreover, due to the evolving financial and economic crisis, demand diminished. The company decided to stop its production in the view of high gas prices (which represent a major cost element in fertiliser production and were expected to fall) and the substantial accumulated inventories. Hungary also notes that such a stoppage was not a rare phenomenon on the European market; several manufacturing sites shut down or limited production in the same period.\n(18)\nWith regard to the interest paid and the guarantee fee, Hungary maintains that those are market-conform: (i) in the case of loan B they do not qualify as aid in view of the Reference rate communication; and (ii) in the case of loan A the interest rate is below that which would be deemed market-conform under the Reference rate communication, but given the high-value collaterals, it can nevertheless be considered as market-conform. Hungary also holds that there were several loan and credit line contracts concluded between the company and private banks in the first half of 2008 on similar conditions, which - it argues - would show that the premiums and terms of loans A and B did not provide the company with any advantage compared to market financing.\nVI. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES\n(19)\nThe Commission received comments to the opening decision from three competitors (12). All parties supported the Commission\u2019s investigation and argued that the loans did constitute State aid.\n(20)\nThe beneficiary also commented, contesting that the measures would entail illegal State aid. Its arguments overlapped to a large extent with those submitted by the Hungarian authorities.\nVII. HUNGARY\u2019S COMMENTS ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF INTERESTED PARTIES\n(21)\nIn its reply to the comments of interested parties, Hungary dismisses the third parties\u2019 comments and reiterates its arguments that Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek did not benefit from State aid.\nVIII. EXISTENCE OF STATE AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU\n(22)\nIn order to ascertain whether a measure constitutes State aid, the Commission has to assess whether the contested measure fulfils the conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU. This Article states that: \u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(23)\nIn the light of this provision, the Commission will assess hereunder whether the contested measures in favour of Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek constitute State aid.\nVIII.1. The loans from MFB are imputable to the State\n(24)\nThe rules governing MFB\u2019s functioning have changed since the granting of the measures. The present assessment refers to the legal situation at the time of the conclusion of the loan agreements under scrutiny.\n(25)\nMFB is a State-owned specialised financial institution, which was set up and whose functioning was, at the time of the granting of the measures, governed by a (special purpose) legal act (hereinafter \u2018the MFB Act\u2019) (13). Under the Act, the bank pursues certain public policy objectives; in particular, its core function is to promote economic development and to contribute effectively to the implementation of the State\u2019s economic and development policy. Part of the prudential rules pertaining to commercial banks is not applied to MFB, as it is subject to special prudential rules under the MFB Act.\n(26)\nMFB\u2019s share capital, amounting to HUF 60 billion, is 100 % owned by the Hungarian State, its shares are not subject to trading as stipulated by the MFB Act. Some of MFB\u2019s liabilities are covered by the State\u2019s Central Budget; the budgetary law stipulates MFB\u2019s maximum lending and the amounts it is allowed to guarantee. Moreover, any dividends paid out flow into the Central Budget. Consequently, the Commission finds that measures granted by MFB involve state resources.\n(27)\nThe State\u2019s ownership rights in MFB are exercised by the competent minister. MFB reports annually to the competent minister about its operations; the auditor is also appointed by the competent minister. The members and the Chairperson of the management and supervisory boards, as well as the Chief Executive Officer, are appointed and revoked by the competent minister.\n(28)\nAlthough public control of an institution does not automatically render all the latter\u2019s actions imputable to the State (14), in the case at hand the necessary conditions laid down by the ECJ obtain (15), suggesting that MFB\u2019s behaviour is imputable to the State. MFB pursues public policy objectives, its legal status is governed by separate legislation, it is partially exempted from financial supervisory regulation and there is a high intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management. In particular, the context in which the measures have been decided (i.e. a government decision issuing the guarantee explicitly for loans granted by the MFB and stipulating that the MFB can, in exchange, delegate two members to Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek\u2019s board and preceded by public statements by the Government\u2019s spokesperson announcing that the measures would be granted) shows that the Hungarian authorities must be regarded as having been involved in the adoption.\n(29)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the MFB\u2019s actions are imputable to the State.\nVIII.2. The measures should be assessed as straightforward state loans\n(30)\nAs the loans themselves are directly imputable to the State, the additional state guarantees do not increase the financial burden borne by the State or the advantage to Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek. It therefore appears appropriate to subsume the loans and the guarantees at issue under two measures to be assessed as straightforward loans from the State (for which the cost to Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek will be the interest on the loan plus the premium for the guarantee).\n(31)\nConsequently, the State aid assessment will be made in the light of the Reference rate communication which applies to loans.\nVIII.3. Advantage: Market conformity of the measures\nVIII.3.1. Financial health of the company at time of granting of the measures\n(32)\nHungary maintains that Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek did not qualify as a company in difficulty within the meaning of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines at the time of the granting of the measures. As regards the stoppage of the company\u2019s production in October 2008, the Hungarian authorities claimed that this was a strategic and seasonal decision and that several other market players stopped production in autumn 2008. Hungary claims that the company should rightly be considered as BB-rated at the time.\n(33)\nThe Commission notes that despite the company\u2019s apparent liquidity problems, and as the evidence submitted by Hungary suggests, the company\u2019s total equity exceeded its registered capital, it did not fulfil the criteria under domestic law for being the subject of collective insolvency proceedings, and it had positive operating as well as net results for the entire year 2008. Therefore, points 9-11 of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines do not seem to be fulfilled.\n(34)\nIt is clear, however, from the investigation, notably from the company\u2019s 2008 financial statements, that Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek needed the public money to resume operations. Indeed, the 2008 financial statements emphasised that: \u2018In the second half of [2008] the financial and economic crisis reached the company. Its customers experienced financial difficulties and hence marketing of Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek\u2019s products fell to a minimal level. On 18 October 2008 the company stopped production for financial and economic reasons. In order to relaunch production, the owner of the company initiated talks with the Government. As a result, the Government issued the guarantee with the aim of secure Hungarian fertiliser supply.\u2019 (16). The financial accounts also suggest that the current facilities loan was necessary to restart operations and that part of the amount was used to pay supplier credits due on 31 December 2008 (17).\n(35)\nThe Commission considers that a company which, having stopped its production, is unable to resume operations without public help - regardless of the reasons which led to its stoppage - cannot be regarded as a healthy and viable company. It is clear from the financial accounts that the company had a serious liquidity shortage and that the State\u2019s intervention was essential in raising funds.\n(36)\nAs regards the creditworthiness of the company, the Commission doubts that the alleged BB rating reflects the real financial situation of Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek at the time of the granting of the measures. Firstly, the Commission notes that Hungary did not provide a credit assessment by an independent rating agency or financial institution. The alleged BB rating is attributed to MFB which, for the purposes of the measures at issue, acted as an instrument of the State (indeed in line with the express decision of the Government) and not as an independent financial institution seeking to make sound commercial assessment. This is in itself liable to call into question the value of the \u2018rating\u2019. Secondly, Hungary provides no information whatsoever on the methodology and underlying information used by MFB to establish the financial health of the company. Thirdly, in the light of the fact that Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek was, at the time of the granting of the measure, a company with no production activity and apparently in urgent need of financing in the absence of which it would be unable to resume production (see in detail recitals 34 and 35 above), it is not credible that its financial situation could be considered as \u2018satisfactory\u2019. Against this specific background, and regardless of the past performance of the company, the Commission is of the view that in the present case the alleged BB rating cannot be applied for the State aid assessment of the measures under the Reference rate communication.\n(37)\nIn conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the company cannot be regarded as a company with sound financial strength. It is clear from the submissions that it suffered severe liquidity problems and was unable to resume operations (see recitals 34 and 35 above). Thus it can be considered to be in bad financial shape, which corresponds to the lowest category of the Reference rate communication (CCC category).\nVIII.3.2. Collaterals\n(38)\nThe assets offered as collaterals include land, buildings and machines on several different production plants (18) of Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek.\n(39)\nAs regards the value of the pledged asset, Hungary submitted an evaluation report by the firm [\u2026] (19), prepared in mid-2008. According to this evaluation, the pledged assets had a market value of approx. EUR [\u2026] million and an orderly liquidation value of approx. EUR [\u2026] million. MFB calculated the risk-weighted liquidation value of the assets as approx. EUR [\u2026] million.\n(40)\nGiven that the total combined value of the two loans under scrutiny is EUR 88 million (i.e. collaterals have a value of [over 70] % of the loans according to the most prudent estimate), the Commission considers that the transactions are highly collateralised. Even if the pledges for loan A are in second rank, any claims resulting from this transaction can be satisfied after those from loan B.\n(41)\nThe fact that the collateral is pledged to MFB and not to the State directly is not material. According to Hungarian law (20), if a guarantor has to satisfy claims from a guarantee, all the rights pertaining to the underlying loan are transferred to him. Thus, if Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek fails to repay the loans and MFB calls the guarantee, the State can satisfy its claims from the pledges under the loan agreement.\n(42)\nMoreover, with regard to loan B, the State had the right to appoint two members to the company\u2019s executive board, having a veto right on any decision to pay out dividends, to grant further pledges to third parties or to take out further loans exceeding HUF 100 million.\n(43)\nIn the light of these elements, the Commission considers that both transactions, loan A and loan B, were highly collateralised for the purposes of the Reference rate communication.\nVIII.3.3. Comparable market rates\n(44)\nIn its submission Hungary presented several allegedly \u2018comparable\u2019 loans concluded between private banks and Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek, with the aim of demonstrating that the financial charges under the public measures were market-conform.\n(45)\nHowever, these examples are not comparable and thus irrelevant for the sake of the current assessment. Firstly, they mostly concern lower amounts and current account credit lines (21). Secondly, the rates charged by the banks are higher that those under assessment (22). Finally and most importantly, all of them were granted before the crisis, mainly in the first half of 2008. The commercial conditions in that period are not comparable with the period December 2008-January 2009, the peak of the financial crisis.\nVIII.3.4. Benchmark rates under the Reference rate communication\n(46)\nIn order to determine whether a loan entails State aid and, if so, how much, the Commission applies a proxy for market interest rates in its Reference rate communication. According to the Reference rate communication, differentiated margins are to be applied on the base rate, depending on the creditor\u2019s rating and the available collaterals.\n(47)\nWith regard to the relevant date of assessment, given that the final binding \u2018granting\u2019 acts (i.e. the loan agreements) were concluded on 26 January 2009, the reference rate (base rate plus the relevant margin) of that day has to be compared with the corresponding effective remuneration of the financing package.\n(48)\nConcerning the margin to be applied, as set out in detail above, the Commission considers that Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek fell into the lowest category of the reference rate \u2018grid\u2019 and that the transactions were highly collateralised. Consequently, a margin of 400 basis points added on the top of the relevant base rate can be considered as a market benchmark rate.\n(49)\nAs regards loan A (EUR), its total effective financing cost amounted to 4,362 % on 26 January 2009 (23). By comparison, the relevant benchmark reference rate on that date was 8,99 % (24). The total financing cost of loan A is thus below the benchmark rate, and consequently the measure confers an advantage on the company.\n(50)\nAs regards loan B (HUF), its total effective financing cost amounts to 12,44 % (25). By contrast, the relevant reference rate on that date was 14,01 % (26). The total financing cost of loan B is thus below the benchmark rate, and consequently the measure confers an advantage on the company.\nVIII.4. Conclusion on the presence of aid\n(51)\nAs shown above, the measures are financed by state resources and imputable to the State.\n(52)\nNitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek obtained financing on better terms than on which it would have raised funds on the markets. The measures thus confer an advantage on the company.\n(53)\nFurthermore, the advantage is selective as the measures are limited to Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek.\n(54)\nThese selective measures are likely to distort competition, by providing the company with an advantage in relation to competitors, and there is extensive trade between Member States in fertilisers.\n(55)\nConsequently, loans A and B constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nIX. POSSIBLE AID TO MFB\n(56)\nIn the opening decision the Commission raised the possibility that the 100 % guarantee on loan A could be State aid to the benefit of MFB in view of the fact that contradictory information had suggested that the investment loan was an existing one (in which case the later guarantee could be considered aid to the bank inasmuch as it improved its likelihood of repayment). However, the investigation has shown that loan A is a new loan which was signed on 26 January 2009, thus the 100 % guarantee on loan A did not contain State aid to MFB.\nX. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET\nX.1. General\n(57)\nArticle 107(2) and 107(3) TFEU provide for exemptions to the general rule that State aid is incompatible with the internal market as stated in Article 107(1).\n(58)\nIn the following the Commission will assess the compatibility of the measures under those exceptions. However, it should be noted at the outset that Hungary did not put forward any arguments as regards their compatibility with the internal market.\nX.2. Exemptions under Article 107(2) TFEU\n(59)\nThe exemptions in Article 107(2) TFEU do not apply in the present case because this measure does not have a social character, has not been awarded to individual consumers, is not designed to make good damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and has not been awarded to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of that country.\nX.3. Exemptions under Article 107(3) TFEU\n(60)\nFurther exemptions are laid down in Article 107(3) TFEU. In the following, the Commission will first assess the measures\u2019 potential compatibility pursuant to Article 107(3)(a), (c) and (d) and in the end pursuant to Article 107(3)(b).\n(61)\nArticle 107(3)(a) states that \u2018aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment\u2019 may be declared compatible with the internal market. Hungary\u2019s entire territory was regarded as such an area at the time of accession, and most of its regions are still eligible for such aid (27).\n(62)\nThe compatibility of State aid to assisted areas is governed by the Commission guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 (hereinafter \u2018Regional Aid Guidelines\u2019) (28). The measures, however, do not comply with the Regional Aid Guidelines. As regards the investment loan, it was granted for an investment which had already been completed (29), and thus there is no incentive effect as required by the Regional Aid Guidelines. As regards possible operating aid, this aid does not facilitate the development of any activities or economic areas and it is not limited in time, degressive or proportionate to what is necessary to remedy specific economic handicaps (30).\n(63)\nIn view of the above, the Commission concludes that the aid is not eligible for the derogation provided for in Article 107(3)(a) TFEU.\n(64)\nArticle 107(3)(c) provides for the authorisation of State aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. The Commission has developed several guidelines and communications that explain how it will apply the derogation contained in the aforementioned provision.\n(65)\nWith regard to the Rescue and restructuring guidelines, the Commission notes that (irrespective of whether the company was eligible to receive aid under the guidelines) the criteria for compatible aid do not appear to be fulfilled. With regard to rescue aid, the measures are not restricted to the minimum necessary as they are longer than 6 months; it has not been demonstrated that they would be warranted on the grounds of serious social difficulties or would not have any unduly adverse spill-over effects on other Members. With regard to restructuring aid, in the absence of a restructuring plan, the Commission cannot evaluate whether the aid would restore long-term viability, whether it would be kept to a minimum, and that undue distortions of competition would be avoided.\n(66)\nThe Commission thus concludes that the measures are not compatible as rescue or restructuring aid.\n(67)\nThe Commission considers that because of the nature and characteristics of the aid, none of the exemptions enshrined in other guidelines and communications issued pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) is applicable to the present case.\n(68)\nArticle 107(3)(d) TFEU states that aid to promote culture and heritage conservation may be declared compatible with the TFEU where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the EU to an extent that is contrary to the common interest. This obviously does not apply to the current case.\nX.4. Compatibility assessment under the Temporary Framework\n(69)\nArticle 107(3)(b) TFEU states that \u2018aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State\u2019 may be declared compatible with the internal market.\n(70)\nThe Commission notes that the aid in question is not designed to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest.\n(71)\nWith regard to remedying a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State, the Commission adopted a Temporary Community framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (31) (hereinafter \u2018Temporary Framework\u2019).\n(72)\nThe Commission considers that on the basis of the financial figures submitted by the Hungarian authorities (32), the company did not show signs of difficulties before the outbreak of the global financial and economic crisis. More specifically, as already set out in recital 33 above, its total equity exceeded its registered capital, it did not fulfil the criteria under domestic law for being the subject of collective insolvency proceedings, and it had positive operating as well as net results with regard to the entire year 2008. The problems leading to the production shutdown arose after the beginning of the crisis. The Commission hence considers that Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek did not qualify as a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines on 1 July 2008. Therefore, it is eligible for aid under the Temporary Framework.\n(73)\nThe measures, however, do not comply with point 4.2 of the Temporary Framework as \u2018limited compatible amount of aid\u2019 because they were not granted in the form of an aid scheme and the aid amount seems to exceed EUR 500 000. Furthermore, even if the guarantees were regarded in isolation, they do not comply with point 4.3 of the Temporary Framework as measures in the form of guarantees, because the guarantee fees (33) paid are below the applicable safe harbour premia (34) under the Temporary Framework. Besides, Hungary did not demonstrate that the wage bill criterion has been complied with. The financial package is not aid for the production of green products (point 4.5), neither is it risk capital (point 4.6).\n(74)\nAs regards the subsidised loan measure under point 4.4 of the Temporary Framework, this applies to loans with unlimited duration contracted before 31 December 2010 (35). The measures under scrutiny were contracted after the entry into force of the Temporary Framework and before 31 December 2010 and could therefore be eligible.\n(75)\nThe Commission notes, however, that the effective remuneration of the transactions is below the minimum interest rate deemed compatible under the Temporary Framework.\n(76)\nAccording to the relevant provision, \u2018the Commission will accept that public or private loans are granted at an interest rate which is at least equal to the central bank overnight rate plus a premium equal to the difference between the average 1-year interbank rate and the average of the central bank overnight rate over the period from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2008, plus the credit risk premium corresponding to the risk profile of the recipient, as stipulated by the Commission Communication on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates.\u2019\n(77)\nWith regard to the EUR loan (loan A), the difference between the average 1-year interbank rate and the average overnight interbank rate over the period from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2008 is 64 basis points. Moreover, the European Central Bank overnight rate (EONIA) on 26 January 2009 (36) was 1,228 %. Given the rating of the beneficiary and the collateralisation of the transaction (see recital 48 above), an additional 400 bps margin has to be applied on this base. Therefore, the subsidised interest rate allowed under the Temporary Framework would be 5,868 %. The effective financing cost of the transaction (4,362 %) is below this rate.\n(78)\nConcerning the HUF loan (loan B), in case N 78/09 (37) the Hungarian authorities confirmed that the difference between the average 1-year interbank rate and the average overnight interbank rate over the period from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2008 is 26 basis points. Moreover, the Hungarian Central Bank\u2019s overnight rate on 26 January 2009 (38) was 9,14 %. Given the rating of the beneficiary and the collateralisation of the transaction, an additional 400 bps margin has to be applied on this base. Therefore, the subsidised interest rate allowed under the Temporary Framework would be 13,40 %. The effective financing cost of the transaction (12,44 %) is below this rate.\nX.5. Conclusion on compatibility\n(79)\nIn view of the above, the Commission concludes that loan A and loan B are partly compatible as subsidised loan measures under the Temporary Framework.\n(80)\nSpecifically, the Commission considers that the difference between the effective remuneration of the transactions and the subsidised rate is incompatible; whereas the difference between the subsidised rate and the benchmark market rate is compatible on the basis of the Temporary Framework.\nXI. RECOVERY\n(81)\nAccording to the TFEU and the Court of Justice\u2019s established case-law, when it has found aid to be incompatible with the internal market the Commission is competent to decide that the State concerned must abolish or alter it (39). The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to restore the previously existing situation (40). In this context, the Court has established that that objective is attained once the beneficiary has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid has been restored (41).\n(82)\nFollowing that case-law, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (42) laid down that \u2018where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary\u2019.\n(83)\nThus, given that the measures at hand are to be considered as unlawful and partly incompatible aid, the incompatible part must be recovered in order to restore the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid. Recovery is, therefore, to be effected from the date when the advantage accrued to the beneficiary, i.e. when the aid was made available to the beneficiary, and is to bear recovery interest until effective recovery.\n(84)\nIn light of section X.5 above, the incompatible aid element of the measures is calculated as the difference between the compatible Temporary Framework subsidised rate and the total effective financing costs (i.e. interest rate plus guarantee premium) at which the financing was provided.\n(85)\nThe exact recovery amount is to be computed by the Hungarian authorities.\nXII. CONCLUSION\n(86)\nOn the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that loan measures A and B in favour of Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(87)\nIn addition, the Commission concludes that loan A and loan B are partly compatible with the internal market as subsidised loan measures under the Temporary Framework. In particular, the difference between the subsidised Temporary Framework rate and the benchmark market rate is compatible. On the other hand, the difference between the effective remuneration of the transactions and the subsidised rate is incompatible with the internal market.\n(88)\nGiven that loan A and loan B are to be considered as unlawful and partly incompatible aid, the incompatible part must be recovered from Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek in order to restore the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid.\n(89)\nThe exact recovery amount is to be computed by the Hungarian authorities. It is calculated as the difference between the compatible Temporary Framework subsidised rate and the total effective financing costs (i.e. interest rate plus guarantee premium) at which the financing was provided.\n(90)\nThe Commission also concludes that the 100 % guarantee on loan A did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU in favour of MFB,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe EUR 52 million investment loan and the HUF 10 billion current facilities loan granted by Hungary to P\u00e9ti Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek Zrt. constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\nArticle 2\n1. The State aid unlawfully granted by Hungary to P\u00e9ti Nitrog\u00e9nm\u0171vek Zrt. in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU is partly compatible, partly incompatible with the internal market.\n2. The unlawful State aid consisting in the difference between the subsidised interest rate under the Temporary Framework and the relevant reference rate is compatible with the internal market.\n3. The unlawful State aid consisting in the difference between the effective remuneration of the measures and the subsidised interest rate under the Temporary Framework is incompatible with the internal market.\n4. Hungary shall refrain from granting the State aid referred to in paragraph 3 with effect from the date of notification of this decision.\nArticle 3\n1. Hungary shall recover the aid referred to in Article 2(3) from the beneficiary.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until the date on which they are actually recovered.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\nArticle 4\n1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2(3) shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Hungary shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within 4 months of its notification.\nArticle 5\n1. Within 2 months following notification of this Decision, Hungary shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and recovery interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\nsupporting documents demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Hungary shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2(3) with interest has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Republic of Hungary.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2010.", "references": ["9", "60", "98", "71", "14", "1", "95", "10", "45", "62", "35", "37", "85", "3", "31", "13", "67", "94", "23", "88", "8", "56", "55", "7", "49", "18", "6", "30", "12", "77", "No Label", "15", "41", "42", "44", "48", "63", "65", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "41", "42", "44", "48", "63", "65", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/61/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 8 June 2011\non Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 53(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nManagers of alternative investment funds (AIFMs) are responsible for the management of a significant amount of invested assets in the Union, account for significant amounts of trading in markets for financial instruments, and can exercise an important influence on markets and companies in which they invest.\n(2)\nThe impact of AIFMs on the markets in which they operate is largely beneficial, but recent financial difficulties have underlined how the activities of AIFMs may also serve to spread or amplify risks through the financial system. Uncoordinated national responses make the efficient management of those risks difficult. This Directive therefore aims at establishing common requirements governing the authorisation and supervision of AIFMs in order to provide a coherent approach to the related risks and their impact on investors and markets in the Union.\n(3)\nRecent difficulties in financial markets have underlined that many AIFM strategies are vulnerable to some or several important risks in relation to investors, other market participants and markets. In order to provide comprehensive and common arrangements for supervision, it is necessary to establish a framework capable of addressing those risks taking into account the diverse range of investment strategies and techniques employed by AIFMs. Consequently, this Directive should apply to AIFMs managing all types of funds that are not covered by Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (4), irrespective of the legal or contractual manner in which the AIFMs are entrusted with this responsibility. AIFMs should not be entitled to manage UCITS within the meaning of Directive 2009/65/EC on the basis of an authorisation under this Directive.\n(4)\nThis Directive aims to provide for an internal market for AIFMs and a harmonised and stringent regulatory and supervisory framework for the activities within the Union of all AIFMs, including those which have their registered office in a Member State (EU AIFMs) and those which have their registered office in a third country (non-EU AIFMs). As the practical consequences and possible difficulties resulting from a harmonised regulatory framework and an internal market for non-EU AIFMs performing management and/or marketing activities within the Union and EU AIFMs managing non-EU alternative investment funds (AIFs), are uncertain and difficult to predict due to the lack of previous experience in this regard, a review mechanism should be provided for. It is intended that, after a transitional period of 2 years, a harmonised passport regime become applicable to non-EU AIFMs performing management and/or marketing activities within the Union and EU AIFMs managing non-EU AIFs after the entry into force of a delegated act by the Commission in this regard. It is intended that the harmonised regime, during a further transitional period of 3 years, co-exist with the national regimes of the Member States subject to certain minimum harmonised conditions. After that 3-year period of co-existence, it is intended that the national regimes be brought to an end on the entry into force of a further delegated act by the Commission.\n(5)\n4 years after the deadline for transposition of this Directive, the Commission should review the application and the scope of this Directive taking into account its objectives and should assess whether or not the Union harmonised approach has caused any ongoing major market disruption and whether or not this Directive functions effectively in light of the principles of the internal market and of a level playing field.\n(6)\nThe scope of this Directive should be limited to entities managing AIFs as a regular business - regardless of whether the AIF is of an open-ended or a closed-ended type, whatever the legal form of the AIF, and whether or not the AIF is listed - which raise capital from a number of investors with a view to investing that capital for the benefit of those investors in accordance with a defined investment policy.\n(7)\nInvestment undertakings, such as family office vehicles which invest the private wealth of investors without raising external capital, should not be considered to be AIFs in accordance with this Directive.\n(8)\nThe entities not considered to be AIFMs pursuant to this Directive fall outside its scope. As a consequence, this Directive should not apply to holding companies as defined herein. However, managers of private equity funds or AIFMs managing AIFs whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market should not be excluded from its scope. Further, this Directive should not apply to the management of pension funds; employee participation or savings schemes; supranational institutions; national central banks; national, regional and local governments and bodies or institutions which manage funds supporting social security and pension systems; securitisation special purpose entities; or insurance contracts and joint ventures.\n(9)\nInvestment firms authorised under Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (5) and credit institutions authorised under Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (6) should not be required to obtain an authorisation under this Directive in order to provide investment services such as individual portfolio management in respect of AIFs. However, investment firms should be able, directly or indirectly, to offer units or shares of an AIF to, or place such units or shares with, investors in the Union only to the extent that the units or shares can be marketed in accordance with this Directive. When transposing this Directive into national law, the Member States should take into account the regulatory purpose of that requirement and should ensure that investment firms established in a third country that, pursuant to the relevant national law, can provide investment services in respect of AIFs also fall within the scope of that requirement. The provision of investment services by those entities in respect of AIFs should never amount to a de facto circumvention of this Directive by means of turning the AIFM into a letter-box entity, irrespective of whether the AIFM is established in the Union or in a third country.\n(10)\nThis Directive does not regulate AIFs. AIFs should therefore be able to continue to be regulated and supervised at national level. It would be disproportionate to regulate the structure or composition of the portfolios of AIFs managed by AIFMs at Union level and it would be difficult to provide for such extensive harmonisation due to the very diverse types of AIFs managed by AIFMs. This Directive therefore does not prevent Member States from adopting or from continuing to apply national requirements in respect of AIFs established in their territory. The fact that a Member State may impose requirements additional to those applicable in other Member States on AIFs established in its territory should not prevent the exercise of rights of AIFMs authorised in accordance with this Directive in other Member States to market to professional investors in the Union certain AIFs established outside the Member State imposing additional requirements and which are therefore not subject to and do not need to comply with those additional requirements.\n(11)\nSeveral provisions of this Directive require AIFMs to ensure compliance with requirements for which, in some fund structures, AIFMs are not responsible. An example of such fund structures is where the responsibility for appointing the depositary rests with the AIF or another entity acting on behalf of the AIF. In such cases, the AIFM has no ultimate control over whether a depositary is in fact appointed unless the AIF is internally managed. Since this Directive does not regulate AIFs, it cannot require an AIF to appoint a depositary. In cases of failure of an AIFM to ensure compliance with the applicable requirements of an AIF or another entity on its behalf, the competent authorities should require the AIFM to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation. If, despite such steps, the non-compliance persists, and in so far as it concerns an EU AIFM or an authorised non-EU AIFM managing an EU AIF, the AIFM should resign as manager of that AIF. If the AIFM fails to resign, the competent authorities of its home Member State should require such resignation and the marketing in the Union of the AIF concerned should no longer be permitted. The same prohibition should apply to authorised non-EU AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs in the Union.\n(12)\nUnless specifically provided for otherwise, where this Directive refers to the interests of the investors of an AIF the investors\u2019 interests in their specific capacity as investors of the AIF, and not their individual interests, are envisaged.\n(13)\nSubject to the exceptions and restrictions provided for, this Directive should be applicable to all EU AIFMs managing EU AIFs or non-EU AIFs, irrespective of whether or not they are marketed in the Union, to non-EU AIFMs managing EU AIFs, irrespective of whether or not they are marketed in the Union, and to non-EU AIFMs marketing EU AIFs or non-EU AIFs in the Union.\n(14)\nThis Directive lays down requirements regarding the manner in which AIFMs should manage AIFs under their responsibility. For non-EU AIFMs this is limited to the management of EU AIFs and other AIFs the units or shares of which are also marketed to professional investors in the Union.\n(15)\nThe authorisation of EU AIFMs in accordance with this Directive covers the management of EU AIFs established in the home Member State of the AIFM. Subject to further notification requirements, this also includes the marketing to professional investors within the Union of EU AIFs managed by the EU AIFM and the management of EU AIFs established in Member States other than the home Member State of the AIFM. This Directive also provides for the conditions subject to which authorised EU AIFMs are entitled to market non-EU AIFs to professional investors in the Union and the conditions subject to which a non-EU AIFM can obtain an authorisation to manage EU AIFs and/or to market AIFs to professional investors in the Union with a passport. During a period that is intended to be transitional, Member States should also be able to allow EU AIFMs to market non-EU AIFs in their territory only and/or to allow non-EU AIFMs to manage EU AIFs, and/or market AIFs to professional investors, in their territory only, subject to national law, in so far as certain minimum conditions pursuant to this Directive are met.\n(16)\nThis Directive should not apply to AIFMs in so far as they manage AIFs whose only investors are the AIFMs themselves or their parent undertakings, their subsidiaries or other subsidiaries of their parent undertaking and where those investors are not themselves AIFs.\n(17)\nThis Directive further provides for a lighter regime for AIFMs where the cumulative AIFs under management fall below a threshold of EUR 100 million and for AIFMs that manage only unleveraged AIFs that do not grant investors redemption rights during a period of 5 years where the cumulative AIFs under management fall below a threshold of EUR 500 million. Although the activities of the AIFMs concerned are unlikely to have individually significant consequences for financial stability, it is possible that aggregation causes their activities to give rise to systemic risks. Consequently, those AIFMs should not be subject to full authorisation but to registration in their home Member States and should, inter alia, provide their competent authorities with relevant information regarding the main instruments in which they are trading and on the principal exposures and most important concentrations of the AIFs they manage. However, in order to be able to benefit from the rights granted under this Directive, those smaller AIFMs should be allowed to be treated as AIFMs subject to the opt-in procedure provided for by this Directive. That exemption should not limit the ability of Member States to impose stricter requirements on those AIFMs that have not opted in.\n(18)\nNo EU AIFM should be able to manage and/or market EU AIFs to professional investors in the Union unless it has been authorised in accordance with this Directive. An AIFM authorised in accordance with this Directive should meet the conditions for authorisation established in this Directive at all times.\n(19)\nAs soon as this is permitted under this Directive, a non-EU AIFM intending to manage EU AIFs and/or market AIFs in the Union with a passport or an EU AIFM intending to market non-EU AIFs in the Union with a passport should also be authorised in accordance with this Directive. At least during a transitional period, a Member State should also be able to allow a non-EU AIFM to market AIFs in that Member State and to authorise an EU AIFM to market non-EU AIFs in that Member State in so far as the minimum conditions set out in this Directive are met.\n(20)\nDepending on their legal form, it should be possible for AIFs to be either externally or internally managed. AIFs should be deemed internally managed when the management functions are performed by the governing body or any other internal resource of the AIF. Where the legal form of the AIF permits internal management and where the AIF\u2019s governing body chooses not to appoint an external AIFM, the AIF is also AIFM and should therefore comply with all requirements for AIFMs under this Directive and be authorised as such. An AIFM which is an internally managed AIF should however not be authorised as the external manager of other AIFs. An AIF should be deemed externally managed when an external legal person has been appointed as manager by or on behalf of the AIF, which through such appointment is responsible for managing the AIF. Where an external AIFM has been appointed to manage a particular AIF, that AIFM should not be deemed to be providing the investment service of portfolio management as defined in point (9) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC, but, rather, collective portfolio management in accordance with this Directive.\n(21)\nManagement of AIFs should mean providing at least investment management services. The single AIFM to be appointed pursuant to this Directive should never be authorised to provide portfolio management without also providing risk management or vice versa. Subject to the conditions set out in this Directive, an authorised AIFM should not, however, be prevented from also engaging in the activities of administration and marketing of an AIF or from engaging in activities related to the assets of the AIF. An external AIFM should not be prevented from also providing the service of management of portfolios of investments with mandates given by investors on a discretionary, client-by-client basis, including portfolios owned by pension funds and institutions for occupational retirement provision which are covered by Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (7), or from providing the non-core services of investment advice, safe-keeping and administration in relation to units of collective investment undertakings and reception and transmission of orders. Pursuant to authorisation under Directive 2009/65/EC, an external AIFM should be allowed to manage UCITS.\n(22)\nIt is necessary to ensure that AIFMs operate subject to robust governance controls. AIFMs should be managed and organised so as to minimise conflicts of interest. The organisational requirements established under this Directive should be without prejudice to systems and controls established by national law for the registration of persons working within or for an AIFM.\n(23)\nIt is necessary to provide for the application of minimum capital requirements to ensure the continuity and the regularity of the management of AIFs provided by an AIFM and to cover the potential exposure of AIFMs to professional liability in respect of all their activities, including the management of AIFs under a delegated mandate. AIFMs should be free to choose whether to cover potential risks of professional liability by additional own funds or by an appropriate professional indemnity insurance.\n(24)\nIn order to address the potentially detrimental effect of poorly designed remuneration structures on the sound management of risk and control of risk-taking behaviour by individuals, there should be an express obligation for AIFMs to establish and maintain, for those categories of staff whose professional activities have a material impact on the risk profiles of AIFs they manage, remuneration policies and practices that are consistent with sound and effective risk management. Those categories of staff should at least include senior management, risk takers, control functions, and any employees receiving total remuneration that takes them into the same remuneration bracket as senior management and risk takers.\n(25)\nThe principles governing remuneration policies should recognise that AIFMs are able to apply those policies in different ways according to their size and the size of the AIFs they manage, their internal organisation and the nature, the scope and the complexity of their activities.\n(26)\nThe principles regarding sound remuneration policies set out in the Commission Recommendation 2009/384/EC of 30 April 2009 on remuneration policies in the financial services sector (8) are consistent with and complement the principles of this Directive.\n(27)\nIn order to promote supervisory convergences in the assessment of remuneration policies and practices, the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9) (ESMA) should ensure the existence of guidelines on sound remuneration policies in the AIFM sector. The European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10) should assist it in the elaboration of such guidelines.\n(28)\nThe provisions on remuneration should be without prejudice to the full exercise of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Treaties, in particular Article 153(5) TFEU, general principles of national contract and labour law, applicable legislation regarding shareholders\u2019 rights and involvement and the general responsibilities of the administrative and supervisory bodies of the institution concerned, as well as the right, where applicable, of social partners to conclude and enforce collective agreements, in accordance with national laws and traditions.\n(29)\nReliable and objective asset valuation is crucial for the protection of investor interests. AIFMs employ different methodologies and systems for valuing assets, depending on the assets and markets in which they predominantly invest. It is appropriate to recognise those differences but, nevertheless, to require in all cases AIFMs to implement valuation procedures resulting in the proper valuation of assets of AIFs. The process for valuation of assets and calculation of the net asset value should be functionally independent from the portfolio management and the remuneration policy of the AIFM and other measures should ensure that conflicts of interest are prevented and that undue influence on the employees is prevented. Subject to certain conditions, AIFMs should be able to appoint an external valuer to perform the valuation function.\n(30)\nSubject to strict limitations and requirements, including the existence of objective reasons, an AIFM should be able to delegate the carrying out of some of its functions on its behalf in accordance with this Directive so as to increase the efficiency of the conduct of its business. Subject to the same conditions, sub-delegation should also be allowed. AIFMs should, however, remain responsible for the proper performance of the delegated functions and compliance with this Directive at all times.\n(31)\nThe strict limitations and requirements set out on the delegation of tasks by AIFMs should apply to the delegation of management functions set out in Annex I. Delegation of supporting tasks, such as administrative or technical functions performed by the AIFM as a part of its management tasks, should not be subject to the specific limitations and requirements set out in this Directive.\n(32)\nRecent developments underline the crucial need to separate asset safe-keeping and management functions, and to segregate investor assets from those of the manager. Although AIFMs manage AIFs with different business models and arrangements for, inter alia, asset safe-keeping, it is essential that a depositary separate from the AIFM is appointed to exercise depositary functions with respect to AIFs.\n(33)\nThe provisions of this Directive relating to the appointment and the tasks of a depositary should apply to all AIFs managed by an AIFM subject to this Directive and therefore to all AIF business models. They should, however, be adapted to the specificities of different business models. For some business models certain depositary tasks are more relevant than for others, depending on the type of assets the AIFs are investing in and the tasks related to those assets.\n(34)\nFor AIFs that have no redemption rights exercisable during the period of 5 years from the date of the initial investments and that, in accordance with their core investment policy, generally do not invest in assets that must be held in custody in accordance with this Directive or generally invest in issuers or non-listed companies in order potentially to acquire control over such companies in accordance with this Directive, such as private equity, venture capital funds and real estate funds, Member States should be able to allow a notary, a lawyer, a registrar or another entity to be appointed to carry out depositary functions. In such cases the depositary functions should be part of professional or business activities in respect of which the appointed entity is subject to mandatory professional registration recognised by law or to legal or regulatory provisions or rules of professional conduct and can provide sufficient financial and professional guarantees to enable it to perform effectively the relevant depositary functions and meet the commitments inherent in those functions. This takes account of current practice for certain types of closed-ended funds. However, for all other AIFs, the depositary should be a credit institution, an investment firm or another entity permitted under Directive 2009/65/EC, given the importance of the custody function. For non-EU AIFs only, it should also be possible for the depositary to be a credit institution or any other entity of the same nature as the entities referred to in this recital as long as it is subject to effective prudential regulation and supervision which have the same effect as Union law and are effectively enforced.\n(35)\nThe depositary should have its registered office or a branch in the same country as the AIF. It should be possible for a non-EU AIF to have a depositary established in the relevant third country only if certain additional conditions are met. On the basis of the criteria set out in delegated acts, the Commission should be empowered to adopt implementing measures, stating that prudential regulation and supervision of a third country have the same effect as Union law and are effectively enforced. Further, the mediation procedure set out in Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 should apply in the event that competent authorities disagree on the correct application of the other additional conditions. Alternatively, for non-EU AIFs, the depositary should also be able to be established in the home Member State or in the Member State of reference of the AIFM managing the AIF.\n(36)\nThe Commission is invited to examine the possibilities of putting forward an appropriate horizontal legislative proposal that clarifies the responsibilities and liabilities of a depositary and governs the right of a depositary in one Member State to provide its services in another Member State.\n(37)\nThe depositary should be responsible for the proper monitoring of the AIF\u2019s cash flows, and, in particular, for ensuring that investor money and cash belonging to the AIF, or to the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF, is booked correctly on accounts opened in the name of the AIF or in the name of the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF or in the name of the depositary acting on behalf of the AIF for the safe-keeping of the assets of the AIF, including the holding in custody of financial instruments that can be registered in a financial instruments account opened in the depositary\u2019s books and all financial instruments that can be physically delivered to the depositary, and for the verification of ownership of all other assets by the AIF or the AIFM on behalf of the AIF. When ensuring investor money is booked in cash accounts, the depositary should take into account the principles set out in Article 16 of Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive (11).\n(38)\nA depositary should act honestly, fairly, professionally, independently and in the interest of the AIF or of the investors of the AIF.\n(39)\nIt should be possible for a depositary to delegate the safe-keeping of assets to a third party which, in its turn, should be able to delegate that function. However, delegation and sub-delegation should be objectively justified and subject to strict requirements in relation to the suitability of the third party entrusted with the delegated function, and in relation to the due skill, care and diligence that the depositary should employ to select, appoint and review that third party.\n(40)\nA third party to whom the safe-keeping of assets is delegated should be able to maintain a common segregated account for multiple AIFs, a so-called \u2018omnibus account\u2019.\n(41)\nEntrusting the custody of assets to the operator of a securities settlement system as designated for the purposes of Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems (12) or entrusting the provision of similar services to third-country securities settlement systems should not be considered to be a delegation of custody functions.\n(42)\nThe strict limitations and requirements to which the delegation of tasks by the depositary is subject should apply to the delegation of its specific functions as a depositary, namely the monitoring of the cash flow, the safe-keeping of assets and the oversight functions. Delegation of supporting tasks that are linked to its depositary tasks, such as administrative or technical functions performed by the depositary as a part of its depositary tasks, is not subject to the specific limitations and requirements set out in this Directive.\n(43)\nThis Directive also takes account of the fact that many AIFs, and in particular hedge funds, currently make use of a prime broker. This Directive ensures that AIFs may continue to use the function of prime brokers. However, unless it has functionally and hierarchically separated the performance of its depositary functions from its tasks as prime broker and the potential conflicts of interest are properly identified, managed and disclosed to the investors of the AIF, no prime broker should be appointed as a depositary, since prime brokers act as counterparties to AIFs and therefore cannot at the same time act in the best interest of the AIF as is required of a depositary. Depositaries should be able to delegate custody tasks to one or more prime brokers or other third parties. In addition to the delegated custody tasks prime brokers should be allowed to provide prime brokerage services to the AIF. Those prime brokerage services should not form part of the delegation arrangement.\n(44)\nThe depositary should be liable for the losses suffered by the AIFM, the AIF and the investors. This Directive distinguishes between the loss of financial instruments held in custody, and any other losses. In the case of a loss other than of financial instruments held in custody, the depositary should be liable in the case of intent or negligence. Where the depositary holds assets in custody and those assets are lost, the depositary should be liable, unless it can prove that the loss is the result of an external event beyond its reasonable control, the consequences of which would have been unavoidable despite all reasonable efforts to the contrary. In this context, a depositary should not, for example, be able to rely on internal situations such as a fraudulent act by an employee to discharge itself of liability.\n(45)\nWhere the depositary delegates custody tasks and the financial instruments held in custody by a third party are lost, the depositary should be liable. However, provided that the depositary is expressly allowed to discharge itself of liability subject to a contractual transfer of such liability to that third party, pursuant to a written contract between the depositary and the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF, in which such a discharge is objectively justified, and that the third party can be held liable for the loss based on a contract between the depositary and the third party, the depositary should be able to discharge itself of liability if it can prove that it has exercised due skill, care and diligence and that the specific requirements for delegation are met. By imposing the requirement of a contractual transfer of liability to the third party, this Directive intends to attach external effects to such contract, making the third party directly liable to the AIF, or to the investors of the AIF, for the loss of the financial instruments held in custody.\n(46)\nFurther, where the law of a third country requires that certain financial instruments be held in custody by a local entity and there are no local entities that satisfy all depositary delegation requirements, the depositary should be able to discharge itself of liability provided that: the rules or instruments of incorporation of the AIF concerned expressly allow for such a discharge; the investors have been duly informed of that discharge and the circumstances justifying the discharge prior to their investment; the AIF or the AIFM on behalf of the AIF instructed the depositary to delegate the custody of such financial instruments to a local entity; there is a written contract between the depositary and the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF, which expressly allows such a discharge; and there is a written contract between the depositary and the third party which expressly transfers the liability of the depositary to that third party and makes it possible for the AIF, or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF, to make a claim against the third party in respect of the loss of financial instruments or for the depositary to make such a claim on their behalf.\n(47)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to any future legislative measures with respect to the depositary in Directive 2009/65/EC, because UCITS and AIFs are different both in the investment strategies they follow and in the type of investors for which they are intended.\n(48)\nAn AIFM should, for each of the EU AIFs it manages and for each of the AIFs it markets in the Union, make available an annual report for each financial year no later than 6 months following the end of the financial year in accordance with this Directive. That 6-month period should be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to impose a shorter period.\n(49)\nGiven that it is possible for an AIFM to employ leverage and, under certain conditions, to contribute to the build up of systemic risk or disorderly markets, special requirements should be imposed on AIFMs employing leverage. The information needed to detect, monitor and respond to those risks has not been collected in a consistent way throughout the Union, and shared across Member States so as to identify potential sources of risk to the stability of financial markets in the Union. To remedy that situation, special requirements should apply to AIFMs which employ leverage on a substantial basis at the level of the AIF. Such AIFMs should be required to disclose information regarding the overall level of leverage employed, the leverage arising from borrowing of cash or securities and the leverage arising from positions held in derivatives, the reuse of assets and the main sources of leverage in their AIFs. Information gathered by competent authorities should be shared with other authorities in the Union, with ESMA and with the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) established by Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (13) so as to facilitate a collective analysis of the impact of the leverage of AIFs managed by AIFMs on the financial system in the Union, as well as a common response. If one or more AIFs managed by an AIFM could potentially constitute an important source of counterparty risk to a credit institution or other systemically relevant institutions in other Member States, such information should also be shared with the relevant authorities.\n(50)\nIn order to ensure a proper assessment of the risks induced by the use of leverage by an AIFM with respect to the AIFs it manages, the AIFM should demonstrate that the leverage limits for each AIF it manages are reasonable and that it complies with those limits at all times. Where the stability and integrity of the financial system may be threatened, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM should be able to impose limits to the level of leverage that an AIFM can employ in AIFs under its management. ESMA and the ESRB should be informed about any actions taken in this respect.\n(51)\nIt is also considered necessary to allow ESMA, after taking into account the advice of the ESRB, to determine that the leverage used by an AIFM or by a group of AIFMs poses a substantial risk to the stability and the integrity of the financial system and to issue advice to competent authorities specifying the remedial measures to be taken.\n(52)\nIt is necessary to ensure that the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM, the companies over which AIFs managed by an AIFM exercise control and the employees of such companies receive certain information necessary for those companies to assess how that control will impact their situation.\n(53)\nWhere AIFMs manage AIFs which exercise control over an issuer whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market, information should generally be disclosed in accordance with Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids (14) and Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (15). Specific requirements should apply to AIFMs managing AIFs which exercise control over a non-listed company. In order to ensure transparency regarding the controlled company, enhanced transparency, disclosure and reporting requirements should apply. Further, the annual reports of the relevant AIF should be supplemented with regard to the controlled company or such additional information should be included in the annual report of the controlled company. Such information should be made available to the employees\u2019 representatives or, where there are none, the employees themselves, and to the investors of the relevant AIF.\n(54)\nSpecific information requirements towards employees of certain companies apply in cases where AIFs acquire control over such companies in accordance with this Directive. However, in most cases the AIFM has no control over the AIF, unless it is an internally managed AIF. Furthermore, there is, in accordance with the general principles of company law, no direct relationship between the shareholders and the employees\u2019 representatives or, where there are none, the employees themselves. For those reasons, no direct information requirements towards the employees\u2019 representatives or, where there are none, the employees themselves, can be imposed pursuant to this Directive on a shareholder or its manager, namely the AIF and the AIFM. As regards the information requirements towards such employees\u2019 representatives or, where there are none, the employees themselves, this Directive should provide for an obligation on the AIFM concerned to use its best efforts to ensure that the board of directors of the company concerned discloses the relevant information to the employees\u2019 representatives or, where there are none, the employees themselves.\n(55)\nThe Commission is invited to examine the need and the possibilities to amend the information and disclosure requirements applicable in cases of control over non-listed companies or issuers set out in this Directive on a general level, regardless of the type of investor.\n(56)\nWhere an AIFM manages one or more AIFs which acquire control over a non-listed company, the AIFM should provide the competent authorities of its home Member State with information on the financing of the acquisition. That obligation to provide information on financing should also apply when an AIFM manages AIFs which acquire control over an issuer of shares admitted to trading on a regulated market.\n(57)\nWhere an AIFM manages one or more AIFs which acquire control over a non-listed company or an issuer, the AIFM should, for a period of 24 months following the acquisition of control of the company by the AIFs, first, not be allowed to facilitate, support or instruct any distribution, capital reduction, share redemption and/or acquisition of own shares by the company in accordance with this Directive; second, in so far as the AIFM is authorised to vote on behalf of the AIFs at the meetings of governing bodies of the company, not vote in favour of a distribution, capital reduction, share redemption and/or acquisition of own shares by the company in accordance with this Directive; and third, in any event, use its best efforts to prevent distributions, capital reductions, share redemptions and/or the acquisition of own shares by the company in accordance with this Directive. When transposing this Directive into national law, the Member States should take into account the regulatory purpose of the provisions of Section 2 of Chapter V of this Directive and take due account in this context of the need for a level playing field between EU AIFs and non-EU AIFs when acquiring control in companies established in the Union.\n(58)\nThe notification and disclosure requirements and the specific safeguards against asset stripping in the case of control over a non-listed company or an issuer should be subject to a general exception for control over small and medium-sized enterprises and special purpose vehicles with the purpose of purchasing, holding or administrating real estate. Further, those requirements do not aim at making public proprietary information which would put the AIFM at a disadvantage vis-\u00e0-vis potential competitors such as sovereign wealth funds or competitors that may want to put the target company out of business by using the information to their advantage. The obligations to notify and disclose information should therefore apply subject to the conditions and restrictions relating to confidential information set out in Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (16) and without prejudice to Directives 2004/25/EC and 2004/109/EC. This means that Member States should provide that within the limits and conditions laid down by national law the employees\u2019 representatives, and anyone assisting them, are not authorised to reveal to employees and to third parties any information affecting the legitimate interests of the company that has expressly been provided to them in confidence. Member States should, however, be able to authorise the employees\u2019 representatives and anyone assisting them to pass on confidential information to employees and to third parties bound by an obligation of confidentiality. Member States should provide that the relevant AIFMs do not request the communication of information by the board of directors to the employees\u2019 representatives or, where there are none, the employees themselves, when the nature of that information is such that, according to objective criteria, it would seriously harm the functioning of the company concerned or would be prejudicial to it. The notification and disclosure requirements and the specific safeguards against asset stripping should also apply without prejudice to any stricter rules adopted by Member States.\n(59)\nThis Directive also lays down the conditions subject to which EU AIFMs may market the units or shares of EU AIFs to professional investors in the Union. Such marketing by EU AIFMs should be allowed only in so far as the AIFM complies with this Directive and the marketing occurs with a passport, without prejudice to the marketing of AIFs by AIFMs falling below the thresholds provided for in this Directive. It should be possible for Member States to allow marketing of AIFs by AIFMs falling below those thresholds subject to national provisions.\n(60)\nIt should be possible for units or shares of an AIF to be listed on a regulated market in the Union, or offered or placed by third parties acting on behalf of the AIFM, in a particular Member State only if the AIFM which manages the AIF is itself permitted to market the units or shares of the AIF in that Member State. In addition, other national and Union law, such as Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading (17) and Directive 2004/39/EC, may also regulate the distribution of AIFs to investors in the Union.\n(61)\nMany EU AIFMs currently manage non-EU AIFs. It is appropriate to allow authorised EU AIFMs to manage non-EU AIFs without marketing them in the Union without imposing on them the strict depositary requirements and the requirements relating to the annual report provided for in this Directive, as those requirements have been included for the protection of Union investors.\n(62)\nAfter the entry into force of a delegated act adopted by the Commission in this regard, which will, in principle, taking into account the advice provided by ESMA, occur 2 years after the deadline for transposition of this Directive, authorised EU AIFMs intending to market non-EU AIFs to professional investors in their home Member State and/or in other Member States should be allowed to do so with a passport in so far as they comply with this Directive. That right should be subject to notification procedures and conditions in relation to the third country of the non-EU AIF.\n(63)\nDuring a transitional period, which will, in principle, taking into account ESMA\u2019s advice, be brought to an end by means of a delegated act 3 years after the establishment of the passport for non-EU AIFMs, EU AIFMs intending to market non-EU AIFs in certain Member States, but without a passport, should also be permitted to do so by the relevant Member States, but only in so far as they comply with this Directive with the exception of the depositary requirements. Such EU AIFMs should, however, ensure that one or more entities are appointed to carry out the duties of the depositary. In addition, appropriate cooperation arrangements for the purpose of systemic risk oversight and in line with international standards should be in place between the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM and the supervisory authorities of the third country where the non-EU AIF is established in order to ensure an efficient exchange of information that allows the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM to carry out their duties in accordance with this Directive. The cooperation arrangements should not be used as a barrier to impede non-EU AIFs from being marketed in a Member State. Further, the third country where the non-EU AIF is established should not be listed as a Non-Cooperative Country and Territory by the Financial Action Task Force on anti-money laundering and terrorist financing (FATF).\n(64)\nAfter the entry into force of a delegated act adopted by the Commission in that regard, which will, in principle, taking into account advice given by ESMA, occur 2 years after the deadline for transposition of this Directive, a basic principle of this Directive should be that a non-EU AIFM is to benefit from the rights conferred under this Directive, such as to market units or shares of AIFs throughout the Union with a passport, subject to its compliance with this Directive. This should ensure a level playing field between EU and non-EU AIFMs. This Directive therefore provides for an authorisation applicable to non-EU AIFMs which will become applicable after the entry into force of the delegated act adopted by the Commission in this regard. To ensure that such compliance is enforced, the competent authorities of a Member State should enforce compliance with this Directive. For such non-EU AIFMs the competent supervisory authorities should be the competent authorities of the Member State of reference, as defined in this Directive.\n(65)\nTherefore, where a non-EU AIFM intends to manage EU AIFs and/or market AIFs in the Union with a passport, it should also be required to comply with this Directive, so that it is subject to the same obligations as EU AIFMs. In very exceptional circumstances, if and to the extent compliance with a provision of this Directive is incompatible with compliance with the law to which the non-EU AIFM or the non-EU AIF marketed in the Union is subject, it should be possible for the non-EU AIFM to be exempted from compliance with the relevant provision of this Directive if it can demonstrate that: it is impossible to combine compliance with a provision of this Directive with compliance with a mandatory provision in the law to which the non-EU AIFM or the non- EU AIF marketed in the Union is subject; the law to which the non-EU AIFM or the non-EU AIF is subject provides for an equivalent rule having the same regulatory purpose and offering the same level of protection to the investors of the relevant AIF; and the non-EU AIFM or the non-EU AIF complies with that equivalent rule.\n(66)\nFurther, a non-EU AIFM intending to manage EU AIFs and/or market AIFs in the Union with a passport should comply with a specific authorisation procedure and certain specific requirements concerning the third country of the non-EU AIFM and, as appropriate, the third country of the non-EU AIF should be satisfied.\n(67)\nESMA should provide advice on the determination of the Member State of reference, and, where relevant, the exemption as regards compatibility with an equivalent rule. Specific requirements for the exchange of information between the competent authorities of the Member State of reference and the competent authorities of the host Member States of the AIFM should apply. Further, the mediation procedure provided for in Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 should apply in case of disagreement between competent authorities of Member States on the determination of the Member State of reference, the application of the exemption in case of incompatibility between compliance with this Directive and compliance with equivalent rules of a third country, and the assessment regarding the fulfilment of the specific requirements concerning the third country of the non-EU AIFM and, as appropriate, the third country of the non-EU AIF.\n(68)\nESMA should, on an annual basis, conduct a peer review analysis of the supervisory activities of the competent authorities in relation to the authorisation and the supervision of non-EU AIFMs, to further enhance consistency in supervisory outcomes, in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n(69)\nDuring a transitional period which will, in principle, taking into account ESMA\u2019s advice, be brought to an end by means of a delegated act 3 years after the establishment of the passport for non-EU AIFMs, a non-EU AIFM intending to market AIFs in certain Member States only and without such a passport should also be permitted to do so by the relevant Member States, but only in so far as certain minimum conditions are met. Those non-EU AIFMs should be subject at least to rules similar to those applicable to EU AIFMs managing EU AIFs with respect to the disclosure to investors. In order to facilitate the monitoring of systemic risk those non-EU AIFMs should also be subject to reporting obligations vis-\u00e0-vis the competent authorities of the Member State in which AIFs are marketed. Such AIFMs should therefore comply with the transparency requirements laid down in this Directive and the obligations on AIFMs managing AIFs which acquire control of non-listed companies and issuers. Further, appropriate cooperation arrangements for the purpose of systemic risk oversight and in line with international standards should be in place between the competent authorities of the Member States where the AIFs are marketed, if applicable, the competent authorities of the EU AIFs concerned and the supervisory authorities of the third country where the non-EU AIFM is established and, if applicable, the supervisory authorities of the third country where the non-EU AIF is established in order to ensure an efficient exchange of information that allows competent authorities of the relevant Member States to carry out their duties in accordance with this Directive. The cooperation arrangements should not be used as a barrier to impede third country funds from being marketed in a Member State. Finally, the third country where the non-EU AIFM or the non-EU AIF is established should not be listed as a Non-Cooperative Country and Territory by FATF.\n(70)\nThis Directive should not affect the current situation, whereby a professional investor established in the Union may invest in AIFs on its own initiative, irrespective of where the AIFM and/or the AIF is established.\n(71)\nMember States should be able to allow the marketing of all or certain types of AIFs managed by AIFMs to retail investors in their territory. If a Member State allows the marketing of certain types of AIF, the Member State should make an assessment on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a specific AIF should be considered as a type of AIF which may be marketed to retail investors in its territory. Without prejudice to the application of other instruments of Union law, Member States should in such cases be able to impose stricter requirements on AIFs and AIFMs as a precondition for marketing to retail investors than is the case for AIFs marketed to professional investors in their territory, irrespective of whether such AIFs are marketed on a domestic or cross-border basis. Where a Member State allows the marketing of AIFs to retail investors in its territory, this possibility should be available regardless of the Member State where the AIFM managing the AIFs is established, and Member States should not impose stricter or additional requirements on EU AIFs established in another Member State and marketed on a cross-border basis than on AIFs marketed domestically. In addition, AIFMs, investment firms authorised under Directive 2004/39/EC and credit institutions authorised under Directive 2006/48/EC which provide investment services to retail clients should take into account any additional requirements when assessing whether a certain AIF is suitable or appropriate for an individual retail client or whether it is a complex or non-complex financial instrument.\n(72)\nIt is necessary to clarify the powers and duties of the competent authorities responsible for implementing this Directive, and to strengthen the mechanisms necessary to ensure effective cross-border supervisory cooperation. Under certain circumstances it should be possible for the competent authorities of the host Member States of an AIFM to take direct action to supervise compliance with provisions for which they are responsible. For other provisions the competent authorities of the host Member States should under certain circumstances be allowed to request action from the competent authorities of the home Member State and to intervene if no such action is undertaken.\n(73)\nThis Directive provides for a general coordinating role for ESMA, and the possibility of binding mediation procedures, chaired by ESMA, to resolve disputes between competent authorities.\n(74)\nESMA should develop draft regulatory technical standards on the contents of the cooperation arrangements that must be concluded by the home Member State or by the Member State of reference of the AIFM and the relevant third-country supervisory authorities and on the procedures for the exchange of information. The draft regulatory technical standards should ensure that pursuant to those cooperation arrangements all necessary information is to be provided to enable the competent authorities of both the home and the host Member States to exercise their supervisory and investigatory powers under this Directive. ESMA should also have a facilitating role in the negotiation and conclusion of the cooperation arrangements. For example, ESMA should be able to use its facilitating role by providing for a standard format for such cooperation arrangements.\n(75)\nMember States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Directive and ensure that they are implemented. The penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n(76)\nThis Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised, in particular, in the TFEU and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter), in particular the right to the protection of personal data recognised in Article 16 TFEU and in Article 8 of the Charter. Any exchange or transmission of information by competent authorities should be in accordance with the rules on the transfer of personal data as laid down in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (18). Any exchange or transmission of information by ESMA should be in accordance with the rules on the transfer of personal data as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (19), which should be fully applicable to the processing of personal data for the purposes of this Directive.\n(77)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (20).\n(78)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU where expressly provided for in this Directive. In particular, the Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts to specify the methods of leverage as defined in this Directive, including any financial and/or legal structures involving third parties controlled by the relevant AIF where those structures are specifically set up to directly or indirectly create leverage at the level of the AIF. In particular for private equity and venture capital funds this means that leverage that exists at the level of a portfolio company is not intended to be included when referring to such financial or legal structures.\n(79)\nDelegated acts should also be adopted to specify how to calculate the thresholds for the lighter regime and how to treat AIFMs whose assets under management, including any assets acquired through use of leverage, in one and the same calendar year occasionally exceed and/or fall below the relevant threshold; to specify the obligations to register for the AIFMs falling below the thresholds and to provide information in order to effectively monitor systemic risk and the obligation for such AIFMs to notify the relevant competent authorities where they no longer fulfil the conditions for application of the lighter regime.\n(80)\nDelegated acts should also be adopted to clarify the methods of leverage, including any financial and/or legal structures involving third parties controlled by the relevant AIF and how leverage is to be calculated; to specify the risks the additional own funds or the professional indemnity insurance must cover, the conditions for determining the appropriateness of additional own funds or the coverage of the professional indemnity insurance, and the manner of determining ongoing adjustments of the additional own funds or of the coverage of the professional indemnity insurance. Delegated acts should also be adopted to specify the criteria to be used by competent authorities to assess whether AIFMs comply with their obligations as regards their conduct of business, their obligation to act in the best interests of the AIFs or the investors of the AIFs they manage and the integrity of the market; to have and employ effectively the resources and procedures that are necessary for the proper performance of their business activities; to take all reasonable steps to avoid conflicts of interest and, where such conflicts cannot be avoided, to identify, manage and monitor, and where applicable, disclose, those conflicts of interest in order to prevent them from adversely affecting the interests of the AIFs and their investors and to ensure that the AIFs they manage are fairly treated; to comply with all regulatory requirements applicable to the conduct of their business activities so as to promote the best interests of the AIFs or the investors of the AIFs they manage and the integrity of the market; and to treat all AIF investors fairly.\n(81)\nDelegated acts should also be adopted to specify the type of conflicts of interest AIFMs have to identify, as well as the reasonable steps AIFMs are expected to take in terms of structures and organisational and administrative procedures in order to identify, prevent, manage, monitor and disclose conflicts of interest. Delegated acts should also be adopted to specify the risk management functions to be employed; the appropriate frequency for review of the risk management system; how the risk management function should be functionally and hierarchically separated from the operating units, including the portfolio management function; the specific safeguards against conflicts of interest; and the risk management requirements to be employed by AIFMs. Delegated acts should also be adopted to specify the liquidity management systems and procedures that AIFMs should employ and the alignment of the investment strategy, liquidity profile and redemption policy. Delegated acts should also be adopted to specify the requirements that the originators, the sponsors or the original lenders of securitisation instruments have to meet in order for an AIFM to be allowed to invest in such instruments issued after 1 January 2011.\n(82)\nDelegated acts should also be adopted to specify the requirements that AIFMs have to comply with when investing in such securitisation instruments; to specify administrative and accounting procedures, control and safeguard arrangements for electronic data processing and adequate internal control mechanisms; to specify the procedures for the proper valuation of the assets and the calculation of the net asset value per unit or share of the AIF, the professional guarantees the external valuer must be able to provide, and the frequency for valuation appropriate for open-ended AIFs.\n(83)\nDelegated acts should also be adopted to specify the conditions subject to which the delegation of AIFM functions should be approved and the conditions subject to which the AIFM has delegated its functions to the extent that it becomes a letter-box entity and can no longer be considered to be the manager of the AIF; as regards depositaries, to specify the criteria for assessing that the prudential regulation and supervision of third countries where the depositaries are established have the same effect as Union law and are effectively enforced, the particulars that need to be included in the standard agreement, the conditions for performing the depositary functions, including the type of financial instruments that should be included in the scope of the depositary\u2019s custody duties, the conditions subject to which the depositary may exercise its custody duties over financial instruments registered with a central depositary and the conditions subject to which the depositary should safekeep the financial instruments issued in a nominative form and registered with an issuer or a registrar, the due diligence duties of depositaries, the segregation obligation, the conditions subject to and circumstances in which financial instruments held in custody should be considered as lost, what is to be understood by external events beyond reasonable control, the consequences of which would have been unavoidable despite all reasonable efforts to the contrary, and the conditions subject to and circumstances in which there is an objective reason to contract a discharge of liability. Delegated acts should also be adopted to specify the content and format of the annual report that AIFMs have to make available for each AIF they manage and to specify the disclosure obligations of AIFMs to investors and reporting requirements to competent authorities as well as their frequency.\n(84)\nDelegated acts should also be adopted to specify when leverage is considered to be employed on a substantial basis and the principles competent authorities should use when considering imposing limits to the level of leverage that an AIFM can apply. Delegated acts should also be adopted to specify the cooperation arrangements in relation to non-EU AIFMs and/or non-EU AIFs in order to design a common framework to facilitate the establishment of those cooperation arrangements with third countries. Delegated acts should also be adopted to specify the content of exchange of information regarding AIFMs between competent authorities and the provision of certain information to ESMA.\n(85)\nDepending on the advice of ESMA in this regard and the criteria set out in this Directive, a delegated act should also be adopted in order to extend the passport to EU AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs in the Union and to non-EU AIFMs managing and/or marketing AIFs in the Union, and another delegated act should be adopted to terminate the application of national private placement regimes in this regard.\n(86)\nThe European Parliament and the Council should have 3 months from the date of notification to object to a delegated act. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council, it should be possible to prolong that period by 3 months in regard to significant areas of concern. It should also be possible for the European Parliament and the Council to inform the other institutions of their intention not to raise objections. Such early approval of delegated acts is particularly important where deadlines need to be met, for example to allow Member States to transpose delegated acts within the transposition period laid down in this Directive, where relevant.\n(87)\nIn the Declaration on Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, the Conference took note of the Commission\u2019s intention to consult experts appointed by the Member States in the preparation of draft delegated acts in the financial services area, in accordance with its established practice.\n(88)\n2 years after the deadline for transposition of this Directive, ESMA should issue an opinion on the functioning of the passport then in force and on the functioning of national private placement regimes. It should also issue advice on the extension of the passport to EU AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs in the Union and to non-EU AIFMs managing and/or marketing AIFs in the Union. The Commission should adopt a delegated act within 3 months after having received that opinion and advice from ESMA and taking into account the criteria listed in, and the objectives of, this Directive, inter alia, regarding the internal market, investor protection and the effective monitoring of systemic risk, specifying the date when the rules relating to the extension of the passport provided for in this Directive should become applicable in all Member States.\n(89)\nAt the April 2009 summit in London, G20 Leaders agreed that hedge funds or their managers should be registered and should be required to disclose appropriate information on an ongoing basis to supervisors or regulators. They should be subject to oversight to ensure that they have adequate risk management. In June 2010, G20 Leaders in Toronto reaffirmed their commitment and also committed to accelerate the implementation of strong measures to improve transparency and regulatory oversight of hedge funds in an internationally consistent and non-discriminatory way. In order to support the G20 objectives, the International Organization of Securities Commissions issued high level principles of hedge fund oversight in June 2009 to guide the development of internationally consistent regulation in this area. On 16 September 2010 the European Council agreed on the need for Europe to promote its interest and values more assertively and in a spirit of reciprocity and mutual benefit in the context of the Union\u2019s external relations and to take steps to, inter alia, secure greater market access for European business and deepen regulatory cooperation with major trade partners. The Commission will endeavour to ensure that these commitments are implemented in a similar way by the Union\u2019s international partners.\n(90)\n3 years after the entry into force of the delegated act pursuant to which the passport is to apply to all AIFMs, ESMA should issue an opinion on the functioning of the passport then in force and on the functioning of national private placement regimes. It should also issue advice on the termination of those national regimes. The Commission should adopt a delegated act within 3 months of receipt of the opinion and advice from ESMA, taking into account the criteria listed in, and the objectives of, this Directive, inter alia, relating to the internal market, investor protection and the effective monitoring of systemic risk, specifying the date when the national regimes referred to in this Directive should be brought to an end in all Member States.\n(91)\n4 years after the deadline for transposition of this Directive, the Commission should, on the basis of public consultation and in the light of the discussions with competent authorities, commence a review of the application and the scope of this Directive. That review should analyse the experience acquired in applying this Directive, its impact on investors, AIFs or AIFMs, in the Union and in third countries, and the extent to which the objectives of this Directive have been achieved, if necessary proposing appropriate amendments. That review should include a general survey of the functioning of the rules laid down in this Directive and the experience acquired in applying them. The Commission should in its review examine the functions of ESMA and the Union competent authorities in ensuring effective supervision of all AIFMs operating in the Union markets in the context of this Directive, including, inter alia - in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 - entrusting ESMA with further supervisory responsibilities in the field of authorisation and supervision of non-EU AIFMs. In this context the Commission should assess the costs and benefits of entrusting ESMA with such tasks.\n(92)\nThis Directive aims at establishing a framework capable of addressing the potential risks which might arise from the activities of AIFMs and ensuring the effective monitoring of those risks by the competent authorities within the Union. It is necessary to provide for a stringent regulatory and supervisory framework which leaves no gaps in financial regulation. In that regard reference is made to the existing due diligence requirements applicable to professional investors pursuant to the relevant regulation applicable to such investors. The Commission is invited to review the relevant legislation with respect to professional investors in order to assess the need for tighter requirements regarding the due diligence process to be undertaken by Union professional investors investing on their own initiative in non-EU financial products, such as non-EU AIFs.\n(93)\nAt the end of its review, the Commission should present a report to the European Parliament and the Council including, if appropriate, proposed amendments taking into account the objectives of this Directive and potential impacts on investors, AIFs or AIFMs, in the Union and in third countries.\n(94)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely to ensure a high level of investor protection by laying down a common framework for the authorisation and supervision of AIFMs, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, as evidenced by the deficiencies of existing nationally based regulation and oversight of those actors, 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.\n(95)\nDirectives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies (21) and Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Directive lays down the rules for the authorisation, ongoing operation and transparency of the managers of alternative investment funds (AIFMs) which manage and/or market alternative investment funds (AIFs) in the Union.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. Subject to paragraph 3 of this Article and to Article 3, this Directive shall apply to:\n(a)\nEU AIFMs which manage one or more AIFs irrespective of whether such AIFs are EU AIFs or non-EU AIFs;\n(b)\nnon-EU AIFMs which manage one or more EU AIFs; and\n(c)\nnon-EU AIFMs which market one or more AIFs in the Union irrespective of whether such AIFs are EU AIFs or non-EU AIFs.\n2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the following shall be of no significance:\n(a)\nwhether the AIF belongs to the open-ended or closed-ended type;\n(b)\nwhether the AIF is constituted under the law of contract, under trust law, under statute, or has any other legal form;\n(c)\nthe legal structure of the AIFM.\n3. This Directive shall not apply to the following entities:\n(a)\nholding companies;\n(b)\ninstitutions for occupational retirement provision which are covered by Directive 2003/41/EC, including, where applicable, the authorised entities responsible for managing such institutions and acting on their behalf referred to in Article 2(1) of that Directive or the investment managers appointed pursuant to Article 19(1) of that Directive, in so far as they do not manage AIFs;\n(c)\nsupranational institutions, such as the European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank, the European Investment Fund, the European Development Finance Institutions and bilateral development banks, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other supranational institutions and similar international organisations, in the event that such institutions or organisations manage AIFs and in so far as those AIFs act in the public interest;\n(d)\nnational central banks;\n(e)\nnational, regional and local governments and bodies or other institutions which manage funds supporting social security and pension systems;\n(f)\nemployee participation schemes or employee savings schemes;\n(g)\nsecuritisation special purpose entities.\n4. Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that AIFMs referred to in paragraph 1 comply with this Directive at all times.\nArticle 3\nExemptions\n1. This Directive shall not apply to AIFMs in so far as they manage one or more AIFs whose only investors are the AIFM or the parent undertakings or the subsidiaries of the AIFM or other subsidiaries of those parent undertakings, provided that none of those investors is itself an AIF.\n2. Without prejudice to the application of Article 46, only paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article shall apply to the following AIFMs:\n(a)\nAIFMs which either directly or indirectly, through a company with which the AIFM is linked by common management or control, or by a substantive direct or indirect holding, manage portfolios of AIFs whose assets under management, including any assets acquired through use of leverage, in total do not exceed a threshold of EUR 100 million; or\n(b)\nAIFMs which either directly or indirectly, through a company with which the AIFM is linked by common management or control, or by a substantive direct or indirect holding, manage portfolios of AIFs whose assets under management in total do not exceed a threshold of EUR 500 million when the portfolios of AIFs consist of AIFs that are unleveraged and have no redemption rights exercisable during a period of 5 years following the date of initial investment in each AIF.\n3. Member States shall ensure that AIFMs referred to in paragraph 2 at least:\n(a)\nare subject to registration with the competent authorities of their home Member State;\n(b)\nidentify themselves and the AIFs that they manage to the competent authorities of their home Member State at the time of registration;\n(c)\nprovide information on the investment strategies of the AIFs that they manage to the competent authorities of their home Member State at the time of registration;\n(d)\nregularly provide the competent authorities of their home Member State with information on the main instruments in which they are trading and on the principal exposures and most important concentrations of the AIFs that they manage in order to enable the competent authorities to monitor systemic risk effectively; and\n(e)\nnotify the competent authorities of their home Member State in the event that they no longer meet the conditions referred to in paragraph 2.\nThis paragraph and paragraph 2 shall apply without prejudice to any stricter rules adopted by Member States with respect to AIFMs referred to in paragraph 2.\nMember States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that where the conditions set out in paragraph 2 are no longer met, the AIFM concerned applies for authorisation within 30 calendar days in accordance with the relevant procedures laid down in this Directive.\n4. AIFMs referred to in paragraph 2 shall not benefit from any of the rights granted under this Directive unless they choose to opt in under this Directive. Where AIFMs opt in, this Directive shall become applicable in its entirety.\n5. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts with a view to specifying the procedures for AIFMs which choose to opt in under this Directive in accordance with paragraph 4. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 59(2).\n6. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying:\n(a)\nhow the thresholds referred to in paragraph 2 are to be calculated and the treatment of AIFMs which manage AIFs whose assets under management, including any assets acquired through the use of leverage, occasionally exceed and/or fall below the relevant threshold in the same calendar year;\n(b)\nthe obligation to register and to provide information in order to allow effective monitoring of systemic risk as set out in paragraph 3; and\n(c)\nthe obligation to notify competent authorities as set out in paragraph 3.\nArticle 4\nDefinitions\n1. For the purpose of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018AIFs\u2019 means collective investment undertakings, including investment compartments thereof, which:\n(i)\nraise capital from a number of investors, with a view to investing it in accordance with a defined investment policy for the benefit of those investors; and\n(ii)\ndo not require authorisation pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 2009/65/EC;\n(b)\n\u2018AIFMs\u2019 means legal persons whose regular business is managing one or more AIFs;\n(c)\n\u2018branch\u2019 when relating to an AIFM means a place of business which is a part of an AIFM, which has no legal personality and which provides the services for which the AIFM has been authorised; all the places of business established in the same Member State by an AIFM with its registered office in another Member State or in a third country shall be regarded as a single branch;\n(d)\n\u2018carried interest\u2019 means a share in the profits of the AIF accrued to the AIFM as compensation for the management of the AIF and excluding any share in the profits of the AIF accrued to the AIFM as a return on any investment by the AIFM into the AIF;\n(e)\n\u2018close links\u2019 means a situation in which two or more natural or legal persons are linked by:\n(i)\nparticipation, namely ownership, directly or by way of control, of 20 % or more of the voting rights or capital of an undertaking;\n(ii)\ncontrol, namely the relationship between a parent undertaking and a subsidiary, as referred to in Article 1 of the Seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 on consolidated accounts (22), or a similar relationship between a natural or legal person and an undertaking; for the purposes of this point a subsidiary undertaking of a subsidiary undertaking shall also be considered to be a subsidiary of the parent undertaking of those subsidiaries.\nA situation in which two or more natural or legal persons are permanently linked to the same person by a control relationship shall also be regarded as constituting a \u2018close link\u2019 between such persons;\n(f)\n\u2018competent authorities\u2019 means the national authorities of Member States which are empowered by law or regulation to supervise AIFMs;\n(g)\n\u2018competent authorities\u2019 in relation to a depositary means:\n(i)\nif the depositary is a credit institution authorised under Directive 2006/48/EC, the competent authorities as defined in point (4) of Article 4 thereof;\n(ii)\nif the depositary is an investment firm authorised under Directive 2004/39/EC, the competent authorities as defined in point (22) of Article 4(1) thereof;\n(iii)\nif the depositary falls within a category of institution referred to in point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 21(3) of this Directive, the national authorities of its home Member State which are empowered by law or regulation to supervise such categories of institution;\n(iv)\nif the depositary is an entity referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 21(3) of this Directive, the national authorities of the Member State in which that entity has its registered office and which are empowered by law or regulation to supervise such entity or the official body competent to register or supervise such entity pursuant to the rules of professional conduct applicable thereto;\n(v)\nif the depositary is appointed as depositary for a non-EU AIF in accordance with point (b) of Article 21(5) of this Directive and does not fall within the scope of points (i) to (iv) of this point, the relevant national authorities of the third country where the depositary has its registered office;\n(h)\n\u2018competent authorities of the EU AIF\u2019 means the national authorities of a Member State which are empowered by law or regulation to supervise AIFs;\n(i)\n\u2018control\u2019 means control as defined in Article 1 of Directive 83/349/EEC;\n(j)\n\u2018established\u2019 means:\n(i)\nfor AIFMs, \u2018having its registered office in\u2019;\n(ii)\nfor AIFs, \u2018being authorised or registered in\u2019, or, if the AIF is not authorised or registered, \u2018having its registered office in\u2019;\n(iii)\nfor depositaries, \u2018having its registered office or branch in\u2019;\n(iv)\nfor legal representatives that are legal persons, \u2018having its registered office or branch in\u2019;\n(v)\nfor legal representatives that are natural persons, \u2018domiciled in\u2019;\n(k)\n\u2018EU AIF\u2019 means:\n(i)\nan AIF which is authorised or registered in a Member State under the applicable national law; or\n(ii)\nan AIF which is not authorised or registered in a Member State, but has its registered office and/or head office in a Member State;\n(l)\n\u2018EU AIFM\u2019 means an AIFM which has its registered office in a Member State;\n(m)\n\u2018feeder AIF\u2019 means an AIF which:\n(i)\ninvests at least 85 % of its assets in units or shares of another AIF (the \u2018master AIF\u2019);\n(ii)\ninvests at least 85 % of its assets in more than one master AIFs where those master AIFs have identical investment strategies; or\n(iii)\nhas otherwise an exposure of at least 85 % of its assets to such a master AIF;\n(n)\n\u2018financial instrument\u2019 means an instrument as specified in Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC;\n(o)\n\u2018holding company\u2019 means a company with shareholdings in one or more other companies, the commercial purpose of which is to carry out a business strategy or strategies through its subsidiaries, associated companies or participations in order to contribute to their long-term value, and which is either a company:\n(i)\noperating on its own account and whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market in the Union; or\n(ii)\nnot established for the main purpose of generating returns for its investors by means of divestment of its subsidiaries or associated companies, as evidenced in its annual report or other official documents;\n(p)\n\u2018home Member State of the AIF\u2019 means:\n(i)\nthe Member State in which the AIF is authorised or registered under applicable national law, or in case of multiple authorisations or registrations, the Member State in which the AIF has been authorised or registered for the first time; or\n(ii)\nif the AIF is neither authorised nor registered in a Member State, the Member State in which the AIF has its registered office and/or head office;\n(q)\n\u2018home Member State of the AIFM\u2019 means the Member State in which the AIFM has its registered office; for non-EU AIFMs, all references to \u2018home Member State of the AIFM\u2019 in this Directive shall be read as the \u2018Member State of reference\u2019, as provided for in Chapter VII;\n(r)\n\u2018host Member State of the AIFM\u2019 means any of the following:\n(i)\na Member State, other than the home Member State, in which an EU AIFM manages EU AIFs;\n(ii)\na Member State, other than the home Member State, in which an EU AIFM markets units or shares of an EU AIF;\n(iii)\na Member State, other than the home Member State, in which an EU AIFM markets units or shares of a non-EU AIF;\n(iv)\na Member State, other than the Member State of reference, in which a non-EU AIFM manages EU AIFs;\n(v)\na Member State, other than the Member State of reference, in which a non-EU AIFM markets units or shares of an EU AIF; or\n(vi)\na Member State, other than the Member State of reference, in which a non-EU AIFM markets units or shares of a non-EU AIF;\n(s)\n\u2018initial capital\u2019 means funds as referred to in points (a) and (b) of the first paragraph of Article 57 of Directive 2006/48/EC;\n(t)\n\u2018issuer\u2019 means an issuer within the meaning of point (d) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2004/109/EC where that issuer has its registered office in the Union, and where its shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market within the meaning of point (14) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC;\n(u)\n\u2018legal representative\u2019 means a natural person domiciled in the Union or a legal person with its registered office in the Union, and which, expressly designated by a non-EU AIFM, acts on behalf of such non-EU AIFM vis-\u00e0-vis the authorities, clients, bodies and counterparties to the non-EU AIFM in the Union with regard to the non-EU AIFM\u2019s obligations under this Directive;\n(v)\n\u2018leverage\u2019 means any method by which the AIFM increases the exposure of an AIF it manages whether through borrowing of cash or securities, or leverage embedded in derivative positions or by any other means;\n(w)\n\u2018managing AIFs\u2019 means performing at least investment management functions referred to in point 1(a) or (b) of Annex I for one or more AIFs;\n(x)\n\u2018marketing\u2019 means a direct or indirect offering or placement at the initiative of the AIFM or on behalf of the AIFM of units or shares of an AIF it manages to or with investors domiciled or with a registered office in the Union;\n(y)\n\u2018master AIF\u2019 means an AIF in which another AIF invests or has an exposure in accordance with point (m);\n(z)\n\u2018Member State of reference\u2019 means the Member State determined in accordance with Article 37(4);\n(aa)\n\u2018non-EU AIF\u2019 means an AIF which is not an EU AIF;\n(ab)\n\u2018non-EU AIFM\u2019 means an AIFM which is not an EU AIFM;\n(ac)\n\u2018non-listed company\u2019 means a company which has its registered office in the Union and the shares of which are not admitted to trading on a regulated market within the meaning of point (14) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC;\n(ad)\n\u2018own funds\u2019 means own funds as referred to in Articles 56 to 67 of Directive 2006/48/EC;\n(ae)\n\u2018parent undertaking\u2019 means a parent undertaking within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 83/349/EEC;\n(af)\n\u2018prime broker\u2019 means a credit institution, a regulated investment firm or another entity subject to prudential regulation and ongoing supervision, offering services to professional investors primarily to finance or execute transactions in financial instruments as counterparty and which may also provide other services such as clearing and settlement of trades, custodial services, securities lending, customised technology and operational support facilities;\n(ag)\n\u2018professional investor\u2019 means an investor which is considered to be a professional client or may, on request, be treated as a professional client within the meaning of Annex II to Directive 2004/39/EC;\n(ah)\n\u2018qualifying holding\u2019 means a direct or indirect holding in an AIFM which represents 10 % or more of the capital or of the voting rights, in accordance with Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 2004/109/EC, taking into account the conditions regarding aggregation of the holding laid down in Article 12(4) and (5) thereof, or which makes it possible to exercise a significant influence over the management of the AIFM in which that holding subsists;\n(ai)\n\u2018employees\u2019 representatives\u2019 means employees\u2019 representatives as defined in point (e) of Article 2 of Directive 2002/14/EC;\n(aj)\n\u2018retail investor\u2019 means an investor who is not a professional investor;\n(ak)\n\u2018subsidiary\u2019 means a subsidiary undertaking as defined in Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 83/349/EEC;\n(al)\n\u2018supervisory authorities\u2019 in relation to non-EU AIFs means the national authorities of a third country which are empowered by law or regulation to supervise AIFs;\n(am)\n\u2018supervisory authorities\u2019 in relation to non-EU AIFMs means the national authorities of a third country which are empowered by law or regulation to supervise AIFMs;\n(an)\n\u2018securitisation special purpose entities\u2019 means entities whose sole purpose is to carry on a securitisation or securitisations within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 24/2009 of the European Central Bank of 19 December 2008 concerning statistics on the assets and liabilities of financial vehicle corporations engaged in securitisation transactions (23) and other activities which are appropriate to accomplish that purpose;\n(ao)\n\u2018UCITS\u2019 means an undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities authorised in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2009/65/EC.\n2. For the purposes of point (ad) of paragraph 1 of this Article, Articles 13 to 16 of Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (24) shall apply mutatis mutandis.\n3. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying:\n(a)\nthe methods of leverage, as defined in point (v) of paragraph 1, including any financial and/or legal structures involving third parties controlled by the relevant AIF; and\n(b)\nhow leverage is to be calculated.\n4. The European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (ESMA) shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to determine types of AIFMs, where relevant in the application of this Directive, and to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Directive.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 5\nDetermination of the AIFM\n1. Member States shall ensure that each AIF managed within the scope of this Directive shall have a single AIFM, which shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with this Directive. The AIFM shall be either:\n(a)\nan external manager, which is the legal person appointed by the AIF or on behalf of the AIF and which through this appointment is responsible for managing the AIF (external AIFM); or\n(b)\nwhere the legal form of the AIF permits an internal management and where the AIF\u2019s governing body chooses not to appoint an external AIFM, the AIF itself, which shall then be authorised as AIFM.\n2. In cases where an external AIFM is unable to ensure compliance with requirements of this Directive for which an AIF or another entity on its behalf is responsible, it shall immediately inform the competent authorities of its home Member State and, if applicable, the competent authorities of the EU AIF concerned. The competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall require the AIFM to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation.\n3. If, notwithstanding the steps referred to in paragraph 2 being taken, the non-compliance persists, and in so far as it concerns an EU AIFM or an EU AIF, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall require that it resign as AIFM of that AIF. In that case the AIF shall no longer be marketed in the Union. If it concerns a non-EU AIFM managing a non-EU AIF, the AIF shall no longer be marketed in the Union. The competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall immediately inform the competent authorities of the host Member States of the AIFM.\nCHAPTER II\nAUTHORISATION OF AIFMs\nArticle 6\nConditions for taking up activities as AIFM\n1. Member States shall ensure that no AIFMs manage AIFs unless they are authorised in accordance with this Directive.\nAIFMs authorised in accordance with this Directive shall meet the conditions for authorisation established in this Directive at all times.\n2. Member States shall require that no external AIFM engage in activities other than those referred to in Annex I to this Directive and the additional management of UCITS subject to authorisation under Directive 2009/65/EC.\n3. Member States shall require that no internally managed AIF shall engage in activities other than the internal management of that AIF in accordance with Annex I.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, Member States may authorise an external AIFM to provide the following services:\n(a)\nmanagement of portfolios of investments, including those owned by pension funds and institutions for occupational retirement provision in accordance with Article 19(1) of Directive 2003/41/EC, in accordance with mandates given by investors on a discretionary, client-by-client basis;\n(b)\nnon-core services comprising:\n(i)\ninvestment advice;\n(ii)\nsafe-keeping and administration in relation to shares or units of collective investment undertakings;\n(iii)\nreception and transmission of orders in relation to financial instruments.\n5. AIFMs shall not be authorised under this Directive to provide:\n(a)\nonly the services referred to in paragraph 4;\n(b)\nnon-core services referred to in point (b) of paragraph 4 without also being authorised to provide the services referred to in point (a) of paragraph 4;\n(c)\nonly the activities referred to in point 2 of Annex I; or\n(d)\nthe services referred to in point 1(a) of Annex I without also providing the services referred to in point 1(b) of Annex I or vice versa.\n6. Article 2(2) and Articles 12, 13 and 19 of Directive 2004/39/EC shall apply to the provision of the services referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article by AIFMs.\n7. Member States shall require that the AIFMs provide the competent authorities of their home Member State with the information they require to monitor compliance with the conditions referred to in this Directive at all times.\n8. Investment firms authorised under Directive 2004/39/EC and credit institutions authorised under Directive 2006/48/EC shall not be required to obtain an authorisation under this Directive in order to provide investment services such as individual portfolio management in respect of AIFs. However, investment firms shall, directly or indirectly, offer units or shares of AIFs to, or place such units or shares with, investors in the Union, only to the extent the units or shares can be marketed in accordance with this Directive.\nArticle 7\nApplication for authorisation\n1. Member States shall require that AIFMs apply for authorisation from the competent authorities of their home Member State.\n2. Member States shall require that an AIFM applying for an authorisation shall provide the following information relating to the AIFM to the competent authorities of its home Member State:\n(a)\ninformation on the persons effectively conducting the business of the AIFM;\n(b)\ninformation on the identities of the AIFM\u2019s shareholders or members, whether direct or indirect, natural or legal persons, that have qualifying holdings and on the amounts of those holdings;\n(c)\na programme of activity setting out the organisational structure of the AIFM, including information on how the AIFM intends to comply with its obligations under Chapters II, III, IV, and, where applicable, Chapters V, VI, VII and VIII;\n(d)\ninformation on the remuneration policies and practices pursuant to Article 13;\n(e)\ninformation on arrangements made for the delegation and sub-delegation to third parties of functions as referred to in Article 20.\n3. Member States shall require that an AIFM applying for authorisation further provide the following information on the AIFs it intends to manage to the competent authorities of its home Member State:\n(a)\ninformation about the investment strategies including the types of underlying funds if the AIF is a fund of funds, and the AIFM\u2019s policy as regards the use of leverage, and the risk profiles and other characteristics of the AIFs it manages or intends to manage, including information about the Member States or third countries in which such AIFs are established or are expected to be established;\n(b)\ninformation on where the master AIF is established if the AIF is a feeder AIF;\n(c)\nthe rules or instruments of incorporation of each AIF the AIFM intends to manage;\n(d)\ninformation on the arrangements made for the appointment of the depositary in accordance with Article 21 for each AIF the AIFM intends to manage;\n(e)\nany additional information referred to in Article 23(1) for each AIF the AIFM manages or intends to manage.\n4. Where a management company is authorised pursuant to Directive 2009/65/EC (UCITS management company) and applies for authorisation as an AIFM under this Directive, the competent authorities shall not require the UCITS management company to provide information or documents which the UCITS management company has already provided when applying for authorisation under Directive 2009/65/EC, provided that such information or documents remain up-to-date.\n5. The competent authorities shall, on a quarterly basis, inform ESMA of authorisations granted or withdrawn in accordance with this Chapter.\nESMA shall keep a central public register identifying each AIFM authorised under this Directive, a list of the AIFs managed and/or marketed in the Union by such AIFMs and the competent authority for each such AIFM. The register shall be made available in electronic format.\n6. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information to be provided to the competent authorities in the application for the authorisation of the AIFM, including the programme of activity.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n7. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine standard forms, templates and procedures for the provision of information provided for in the first subparagraph of paragraph 6.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 8\nConditions for granting authorisation\n1. The competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall not grant authorisation unless:\n(a)\nthey are satisfied that the AIFM will be able to meet the conditions of this Directive;\n(b)\nthe AIFM has sufficient initial capital and own funds in accordance with Article 9;\n(c)\nthe persons who effectively conduct the business of the AIFM are of sufficiently good repute and are sufficiently experienced also in relation to the investment strategies pursued by the AIFs managed by the AIFM, the names of those persons and of every person succeeding them in office being communicated forthwith to the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM and the conduct of the business of the AIFM being decided by at least two persons meeting such conditions;\n(d)\nthe shareholders or members of the AIFM that have qualifying holdings are suitable taking into account the need to ensure the sound and prudent management of the AIFM; and\n(e)\nthe head office and the registered office of the AIFM are located in the same Member State.\nAuthorisation shall be valid for all Member States.\n2. The relevant competent authorities of the other Member States involved shall be consulted before authorisation is granted to the following AIFMs:\n(a)\na subsidiary of another AIFM, of a UCITS management company, of an investment firm, of a credit institution or of an insurance undertaking authorised in another Member State;\n(b)\na subsidiary of the parent undertaking of another AIFM, of a UCITS management company, of an investment firm, of a credit institution or of an insurance undertaking authorised in another Member State; and\n(c)\na company controlled by the same natural or legal persons as those that control another AIFM, a UCITS management company, an investment firm, a credit institution or an insurance undertaking authorised in another Member State.\n3. The competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall refuse authorisation where the effective exercise of their supervisory functions is prevented by any of the following:\n(a)\nclose links between the AIFM and other natural or legal persons;\n(b)\nthe laws, regulations or administrative provisions of a third country governing natural or legal persons with which the AIFM has close links;\n(c)\ndifficulties involved in the enforcement of those laws, regulations and administrative provisions.\n4. The competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM may restrict the scope of the authorisation, in particular as regards the investment strategies of AIFs the AIFM is allowed to manage.\n5. The competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall inform the applicant in writing within 3 months of the submission of a complete application, whether or not authorisation has been granted. The competent authorities may prolong this period for up to three additional months, where they consider it necessary due to the specific circumstances of the case and after having notified the AIFM accordingly.\nFor the purpose of this paragraph an application is deemed complete if the AIFM has at least submitted the information referred to in points (a) to (d) of Article 7(2) and points (a) and (b) of Article 7(3).\nAIFMs may start managing AIFs with investment strategies described in the application in accordance with point (a) of Article 7(3) in their home Member State as soon as the authorisation is granted, but not earlier than 1 month after having submitted any missing information referred to in point (e) of Article 7(2) and points (c), (d) and (e) of Article 7(3).\n6. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the:\n(a)\nrequirements applicable to the AIFMs under paragraph 3;\n(b)\nrequirements applicable to shareholders and members with qualifying holdings referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1;\n(c)\nobstacles which may prevent effective exercise of the supervisory functions of the competent authorities.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 9\nInitial capital and own funds\n1. Member States shall require that an AIFM which is an internally managed AIF has an initial capital of at least EUR 300 000.\n2. Where an AIFM is appointed as external manager of AIFs, the AIFM shall have an initial capital of at least EUR 125 000.\n3. Where the value of the portfolios of AIFs managed by the AIFM exceeds EUR 250 million, the AIFM shall provide an additional amount of own funds. That additional amount of own funds shall be equal to 0,02 % of the amount by which the value of the portfolios of the AIFM exceeds EUR 250 million but the required total of the initial capital and the additional amount shall not, however, exceed EUR 10 million.\n4. For the purpose of paragraph 3, AIFs managed by the AIFM, including AIFs for which the AIFM has delegated functions in accordance with Article 20 but excluding AIF portfolios that the AIFM is managing under delegation, shall be deemed to be the portfolios of the AIFM.\n5. Irrespective of paragraph 3, the own funds of the AIFM shall never be less than the amount required under Article 21 of Directive 2006/49/EC.\n6. Member States may authorise AIFMs not to provide up to 50 % of the additional amount of own funds referred to in paragraph 3 if they benefit from a guarantee of the same amount given by a credit institution or an insurance undertaking which has its registered office in a Member State, or in a third country where it is subject to prudential rules considered by the competent authorities as equivalent to those laid down in Union law.\n7. To cover potential professional liability risks resulting from activities AIFMs may carry out pursuant to this Directive, both internally managed AIFs and external AIFMs shall either:\n(a)\nhave additional own funds which are appropriate to cover potential liability risks arising from professional negligence; or\n(b)\nhold a professional indemnity insurance against liability arising from professional negligence which is appropriate to the risks covered.\n8. Own funds, including any additional own funds as referred to in point (a) of paragraph 7, shall be invested in liquid assets or assets readily convertible to cash in the short term and shall not include speculative positions.\n9. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures in relation to paragraph 7 of this Article specifying:\n(a)\nthe risks the additional own funds or the professional indemnity insurance must cover;\n(b)\nthe conditions for determining the appropriateness of additional own funds or the coverage of the professional indemnity insurance; and\n(c)\nthe manner of determining ongoing adjustments of the additional own funds or of the coverage of the professional indemnity insurance.\n10. With the exception of paragraphs 7 and 8 and of the delegated acts adopted pursuant to paragraph 9, this Article shall not apply to AIFMs which are also UCITS management companies.\nArticle 10\nChanges in the scope of the authorisation\n1. Member States shall require that AIFMs, before implementation, notify the competent authorities of their home Member State of any material changes to the conditions for initial authorisation, in particular material changes to the information provided in accordance with Article 7.\n2. If the competent authorities of the home Member State decide to impose restrictions or reject those changes, they shall, within 1 month of receipt of that notification, inform the AIFM. The competent authorities may prolong that period for up to 1 month where they consider this to be necessary because of the specific circumstances of the case and after having notified the AIFM accordingly. The changes shall be implemented if the relevant competent authorities do not oppose the changes within the relevant assessment period.\nArticle 11\nWithdrawal of the authorisation\nThe competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM may withdraw the authorisation issued to an AIFM where that AIFM:\n(a)\ndoes not make use of the authorisation within 12 months, expressly renounces the authorisation or has ceased the activity covered by this Directive for the preceding 6 months, unless the Member State concerned has provided for authorisation to lapse in such cases;\n(b)\nobtained the authorisation by making false statements or by any other irregular means;\n(c)\nno longer meets the conditions under which authorisation was granted;\n(d)\nno longer complies with Directive 2006/49/EC if its authorisation also covers the discretionary portfolio management service referred to in point (a) of Article 6(4) of this Directive;\n(e)\nhas seriously or systematically infringed the provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive; or\n(f)\nfalls within any of the cases where national law, in respect of matters outside the scope of this Directive, provides for withdrawal.\nCHAPTER III\nOPERATING CONDITIONS FOR AIFMs\nSECTION 1\nGeneral requirements\nArticle 12\nGeneral principles\n1. Member States shall ensure that, at all times, AIFMs:\n(a)\nact honestly, with due skill, care and diligence and fairly in conducting their activities;\n(b)\nact in the best interests of the AIFs or the investors of the AIFs they manage and the integrity of the market;\n(c)\nhave and employ effectively the resources and procedures that are necessary for the proper performance of their business activities;\n(d)\ntake all reasonable steps to avoid conflicts of interest and, when they cannot be avoided, to identify, manage and monitor and, where applicable, disclose, those conflicts of interest in order to prevent them from adversely affecting the interests of the AIFs and their investors and to ensure that the AIFs they manage are fairly treated;\n(e)\ncomply with all regulatory requirements applicable to the conduct of their business activities so as to promote the best interests of the AIFs or the investors of the AIFs they manage and the integrity of the market;\n(f)\ntreat all AIF investors fairly.\nNo investor in an AIF shall obtain preferential treatment, unless such preferential treatment is disclosed in the relevant AIF\u2019s rules or instruments of incorporation.\n2. Each AIFM the authorisation of which also covers the discretionary portfolio management service referred to in point (a) of Article 6(4) shall:\n(a)\nnot be permitted to invest all or part of the client\u2019s portfolio in units or shares of the AIFs it manages, unless it receives prior general approval from the client;\n(b)\nwith regard to the services referred to in Article 6(4), be subject to Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes (25).\n3. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying the criteria to be used by the relevant competent authorities to assess whether AIFMs comply with their obligations under paragraph 1.\nArticle 13\nRemuneration\n1. Member States shall require AIFMs to have remuneration policies and practices for those categories of staff, including senior management, risk takers, control functions, and any employees receiving total remuneration that takes them into the same remuneration bracket as senior management and risk takers, whose professional activities have a material impact on the risk profiles of the AIFMs or of the AIFs they manage, that are consistent with and promote sound and effective risk management and do not encourage risk-taking which is inconsistent with the risk profiles, rules or instruments of incorporation of the AIFs they manage.\nThe AIFMs shall determine the remuneration policies and practices in accordance with Annex II.\n2. ESMA shall ensure the existence of guidelines on sound remuneration policies which comply with Annex II. The guidelines shall take into account the principles on sound remuneration policies set out in Recommendation 2009/384/EC, the size of the AIFMs and the size of AIFs they manage, their internal organisation and the nature, the scope and the complexity of their activities. ESMA shall cooperate closely with the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (EBA).\nArticle 14\nConflicts of interest\n1. Member States shall require AIFMs to take all reasonable steps to identify conflicts of interest that arise in the course of managing AIFs between:\n(a)\nthe AIFM, including its managers, employees or any person directly or indirectly linked to the AIFM by control, and the AIF managed by the AIFM or the investors in that AIF;\n(b)\nthe AIF or the investors in that AIF, and another AIF or the investors in that AIF;\n(c)\nthe AIF or the investors in that AIF, and another client of the AIFM;\n(d)\nthe AIF or the investors in that AIF, and a UCITS managed by the AIFM or the investors in that UCITS; or\n(e)\ntwo clients of the AIFM.\nAIFMs shall maintain and operate effective organisational and administrative arrangements with a view to taking all reasonable steps designed to identify, prevent, manage and monitor conflicts of interest in order to prevent them from adversely affecting the interests of the AIFs and their investors.\nAIFMs shall segregate, within their own operating environment, tasks and responsibilities which may be regarded as incompatible with each other or which may potentially generate systematic conflicts of interest. AIFMs shall assess whether their operating conditions may involve any other material conflicts of interest and disclose them to the investors of the AIFs.\n2. Where organisational arrangements made by the AIFM to identify, prevent, manage and monitor conflicts of interest are not sufficient to ensure, with reasonable confidence, that risks of damage to investors\u2019 interests will be prevented, the AIFM shall clearly disclose the general nature or sources of conflicts of interest to the investors before undertaking business on their behalf, and develop appropriate policies and procedures.\n3. Where the AIFM on behalf of an AIF uses the services of a prime broker, the terms shall be set out in a written contract. In particular any possibility of transfer and reuse of AIF assets shall be provided for in that contract and shall comply with the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation. The contract shall provide that the depositary be informed of the contract.\nAIFMs shall exercise due skill, care and diligence in the selection and appointment of prime brokers with whom a contract is to be concluded.\n4. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying:\n(a)\nthe types of conflicts of interest as referred to in paragraph 1;\n(b)\nthe reasonable steps AIFMs are expected to take in terms of structures and organisational and administrative procedures in order to identify, prevent, manage, monitor and disclose conflicts of interest.\nArticle 15\nRisk management\n1. AIFMs shall functionally and hierarchically separate the functions of risk management from the operating units, including from the functions of portfolio management.\nThe functional and hierarchical separation of the functions of risk management in accordance with the first subparagraph shall be reviewed by the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM in accordance with the principle of proportionality, on the understanding that the AIFM shall, in any event, be able to demonstrate that specific safeguards against conflicts of interest allow for the independent performance of risk management activities and that the risk management process satisfies the requirements of this Article and is consistently effective.\n2. AIFMs shall implement adequate risk management systems in order to identify, measure, manage and monitor appropriately all risks relevant to each AIF investment strategy and to which each AIF is or may be exposed.\nAIFMs shall review the risk management systems with appropriate frequency at least once a year and adapt them whenever necessary.\n3. AIFMs shall at least:\n(a)\nimplement an appropriate, documented and regularly updated due diligence process when investing on behalf of the AIF, according to the investment strategy, the objectives and risk profile of the AIF;\n(b)\nensure that the risks associated with each investment position of the AIF and their overall effect on the AIF\u2019s portfolio can be properly identified, measured, managed and monitored on an ongoing basis, including through the use of appropriate stress testing procedures;\n(c)\nensure that the risk profile of the AIF shall correspond to the size, portfolio structure and investment strategies and objectives of the AIF as laid down in the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation, prospectus and offering documents.\n4. AIFMs shall set a maximum level of leverage which they may employ on behalf of each AIF they manage as well as the extent of the right to reuse collateral or guarantee that could be granted under the leveraging arrangement, taking into account, inter alia:\n(a)\nthe type of the AIF;\n(b)\nthe investment strategy of the AIF;\n(c)\nthe sources of leverage of the AIF;\n(d)\nany other interlinkage or relevant relationships with other financial services institutions, which could pose systemic risk;\n(e)\nthe need to limit the exposure to any single counterparty;\n(f)\nthe extent to which the leverage is collateralised;\n(g)\nthe asset-liability ratio;\n(h)\nthe scale, nature and extent of the activity of the AIFM on the markets concerned.\n5. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying:\n(a)\nthe risk management systems to be employed by AIFMs in relation to the risks which they incur on behalf of the AIFs that they manage;\n(b)\nthe appropriate frequency of review of the risk management system;\n(c)\nhow the risk management function is to be functionally and hierarchically separated from the operating units, including the portfolio management function;\n(d)\nspecific safeguards against conflicts of interest referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1;\n(e)\nthe requirements referred to in paragraph 3.\nArticle 16\nLiquidity management\n1. AIFMs shall, for each AIF that they manage which is not an unleveraged closed-ended AIF, employ an appropriate liquidity management system and adopt procedures which enable them to monitor the liquidity risk of the AIF and to ensure that the liquidity profile of the investments of the AIF complies with its underlying obligations.\nAIFMs shall regularly conduct stress tests, under normal and exceptional liquidity conditions, which enable them to assess the liquidity risk of the AIFs and monitor the liquidity risk of the AIFs accordingly.\n2. AIFMs shall ensure that, for each AIF that they manage, the investment strategy, the liquidity profile and the redemption policy are consistent.\n3. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying:\n(a)\nthe liquidity management systems and procedures; and\n(b)\nthe alignment of the investment strategy, liquidity profile and redemption policy set out in paragraph 2.\nArticle 17\nInvestment in securitisation positions\nIn order to ensure cross-sectoral consistency and to remove misalignment between the interest of firms that repackage loans into tradable securities and originators within the meaning of point (41) of Article 4 of Directive 2006/48/EC, and AIFMs that invest in those securities or other financial instruments on behalf of AIFs, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures laying down the requirements in the following areas:\n(a)\nthe requirements that need to be met by the originator, the sponsor or the original lender, in order for an AIFM to be allowed to invest in securities or other financial instruments of this type issued after 1 January 2011 on behalf of AIFs, including requirements that ensure that the originator, the sponsor or the original lender retains a net economic interest of not less than 5 %;\n(b)\nqualitative requirements that must be met by AIFMs which invest in these securities or other financial instruments on behalf of one or more AIFs.\nSECTION 2\nOrganisational requirements\nArticle 18\nGeneral principles\n1. Member States shall require that AIFMs use, at all times, adequate and appropriate human and technical resources that are necessary for the proper management of AIFs.\nIn particular, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM, having regard also to the nature of the AIFs managed by the AIFM, shall require that the AIFM has sound administrative and accounting procedures, control and safeguard arrangements for electronic data processing and adequate internal control mechanisms including, in particular, rules for personal transactions by its employees or for the holding or management of investments in order to invest on its own account and ensuring, at least, that each transaction involving the AIFs may be reconstructed according to its origin, the parties to it, its nature, and the time and place at which it was effected and that the assets of the AIFs managed by the AIFM are invested in accordance with the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation and the legal provisions in force.\n2. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying the procedures and arrangements as referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 19\nValuation\n1. AIFMs shall ensure that, for each AIF that they manage, appropriate and consistent procedures are established so that a proper and independent valuation of the assets of the AIF can be performed in accordance with this Article, the applicable national law and the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation.\n2. The rules applicable to the valuation of assets and the calculation of the net asset value per unit or share of the AIF shall be laid down in the law of the country where the AIF is established and/or in the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation.\n3. AIFMs shall also ensure that the net asset value per unit or share of AIFs is calculated and disclosed to the investors in accordance with this Article, the applicable national law and the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation.\nThe valuation procedures used shall ensure that the assets are valued and the net asset value per unit or share is calculated at least once a year.\nIf the AIF is of the open-ended type, such valuations and calculations shall also be carried out at a frequency which is both appropriate to the assets held by the AIF and its issuance and redemption frequency.\nIf the AIF is of the closed-ended type, such valuations and calculations shall also be carried out in case of an increase or decrease of the capital by the relevant AIF.\nThe investors shall be informed of the valuations and calculations as set out in the relevant AIF rules or instruments of incorporation.\n4. AIFMs shall ensure that the valuation function is either performed by:\n(a)\nan external valuer, being a legal or natural person independent from the AIF, the AIFM and any other persons with close links to the AIF or the AIFM; or\n(b)\nthe AIFM itself, provided that the valuation task is functionally independent from the portfolio management and the remuneration policy and other measures ensure that conflicts of interest are mitigated and that undue influence upon the employees is prevented.\nThe depositary appointed for an AIF shall not be appointed as external valuer of that AIF, unless it has functionally and hierarchically separated the performance of its depositary functions from its tasks as external valuer and the potential conflicts of interest are properly identified, managed, monitored and disclosed to the investors of the AIF.\n5. Where an external valuer performs the valuation function, the AIFM shall demonstrate that:\n(a)\nthe external valuer is subject to mandatory professional registration recognised by law or to legal or regulatory provisions or rules of professional conduct;\n(b)\nthe external valuer can provide sufficient professional guarantees to be able to perform effectively the relevant valuation function in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3; and\n(c)\nthe appointment of the external valuer complies with the requirements of Article 20(1) and (2) and the delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 20(7).\n6. The appointed external valuer shall not delegate the valuation function to a third party.\n7. AIFMs shall notify the appointment of the external valuer to the competent authorities of their home Member State which may require that another external valuer be appointed instead, where the conditions laid down in paragraph 5 are not met.\n8. The valuation shall be performed impartially and with all due skill, care and diligence.\n9. Where the valuation function is not performed by an independent external valuer, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM may require the AIFM to have its valuation procedures and/or valuations verified by an external valuer or, where appropriate, by an auditor.\n10. AIFMs are responsible for the proper valuation of AIF assets, the calculation of the net asset value and the publication of that net asset value. The AIFM\u2019s liability towards the AIF and its investors shall, therefore, not be affected by the fact that the AIFM has appointed an external valuer.\nNotwithstanding the first subparagraph and irrespective of any contractual arrangements providing otherwise, the external valuer shall be liable to the AIFM for any losses suffered by the AIFM as a result of the external valuer\u2019s negligence or intentional failure to perform its tasks.\n11. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying:\n(a)\nthe criteria concerning the procedures for the proper valuation of the assets and the calculation of the net asset value per unit or share;\n(b)\nthe professional guarantees the external valuer must be able to provide to effectively perform the valuation function;\n(c)\nthe frequency of valuation carried out by open-ended AIFs which is both appropriate to the assets held by the AIF and its issuance and redemption policy.\nSECTION 3\nDelegation of AIFM functions\nArticle 20\nDelegation\n1. AIFMs which intend to delegate to third parties the task of carrying out functions on their behalf shall notify the competent authorities of their home Member State before the delegation arrangements become effective. The following conditions shall be met:\n(a)\nthe AIFM must be able to justify its entire delegation structure on objective reasons;\n(b)\nthe delegate must dispose of sufficient resources to perform the respective tasks and the persons who effectively conduct the business of the delegate must be of sufficiently good repute and sufficiently experienced;\n(c)\nwhere the delegation concerns portfolio management or risk management, it must be conferred only on undertakings which are authorised or registered for the purpose of asset management and subject to supervision or, where that condition cannot be met, only subject to prior approval by the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM;\n(d)\nwhere the delegation concerns portfolio management or risk management and is conferred on a third-country undertaking, in addition to the requirements in point (c), cooperation between the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM and the supervisory authority of the undertaking must be ensured;\n(e)\nthe delegation must not prevent the effectiveness of supervision of the AIFM, and, in particular, must not prevent the AIFM from acting, or the AIF from being managed, in the best interests of its investors;\n(f)\nthe AIFM must be able to demonstrate that the delegate is qualified and capable of undertaking the functions in question, that it was selected with all due care and that the AIFM is in a position to monitor effectively at any time the delegated activity, to give at any time further instructions to the delegate and to withdraw the delegation with immediate effect when this is in the interest of investors.\nThe AIFM shall review the services provided by each delegate on an ongoing basis.\n2. No delegation of portfolio management or risk management shall be conferred on:\n(a)\nthe depositary or a delegate of the depositary; or\n(b)\nany other entity whose interests may conflict with those of the AIFM or the investors of the AIF, unless such entity has functionally and hierarchically separated the performance of its portfolio management or risk management tasks from its other potentially conflicting tasks, and the potential conflicts of interest are properly identified, managed, monitored and disclosed to the investors of the AIF.\n3. The AIFM\u2019s liability towards the AIF and its investors shall not be affected by the fact that the AIFM has delegated functions to a third party, or by any further sub-delegation, nor shall the AIFM delegate its functions to the extent that, in essence, it can no longer be considered to be the manager of the AIF and to the extent that it becomes a letter-box entity.\n4. The third party may sub-delegate any of the functions delegated to it provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe AIFM consented prior to the sub-delegation;\n(b)\nthe AIFM notified the competent authorities of its home Member State before the sub-delegation arrangements become effective;\n(c)\nthe conditions set out in paragraph 1, on the understanding that all references to the \u2018delegate\u2019 are read as references to the \u2018sub-delegate\u2019.\n5. No sub-delegation of portfolio management or risk management shall be conferred on:\n(a)\nthe depositary or a delegate of the depositary; or\n(b)\nany other entity whose interests may conflict with those of the AIFM or the investors of the AIF, unless such entity has functionally and hierarchically separated the performance of its portfolio management or risk management tasks from its other potentially conflicting tasks, and the potential conflicts of interest are properly identified, managed, monitored and disclosed to the investors of the AIF.\nThe relevant delegate shall review the services provided by each sub-delegate on an ongoing basis.\n6. Where the sub-delegate further delegates any of the functions delegated to it, the conditions set out in paragraph 4 shall apply mutatis mutandis.\n7. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying:\n(a)\nthe conditions for fulfilling the requirements set out in paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5;\n(b)\nthe conditions under which the AIFM shall be deemed to have delegated its functions to the extent that it becomes a letter-box entity and can no longer be considered to be the manager of the AIF as set out in paragraph 3.\nSECTION 4\nDepositary\nArticle 21\nDepositary\n1. For each AIF it manages, the AIFM shall ensure that a single depositary is appointed in accordance with this Article.\n2. The appointment of the depositary shall be evidenced by written contract. The contract shall, inter alia, regulate the flow of information deemed necessary to allow the depositary to perform its functions for the AIF for which it has been appointed as depositary, as set out in this Directive and in other relevant laws, regulations or administrative provisions.\n3. The depositary shall be:\n(a)\na credit institution having its registered office in the Union and authorised in accordance with Directive 2006/48/EC;\n(b)\nan investment firm having its registered office in the Union, subject to capital adequacy requirements in accordance with Article 20(1) of Directive 2006/49/EC including capital requirements for operational risks and authorised in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC and which also provides the ancillary service of safe-keeping and administration of financial instruments for the account of clients in accordance with point (1) of Section B of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC; such investment firms shall in any case have own funds not less than the amount of initial capital referred to in Article 9 of Directive 2006/49/EC; or\n(c)\nanother category of institution that is subject to prudential regulation and ongoing supervision and which, on 21 July 2011, falls within the categories of institution determined by Member States to be eligible to be a depositary under Article 23(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC.\nFor non-EU AIFs only, and without prejudice to point (b) of paragraph 5, the depositary may also be a credit institution or any other entity of the same nature as the entities referred to in points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph provided that the conditions in point (b) of paragraph 6 are met.\nIn addition, Member States may allow that in relation to AIFs which have no redemption rights exercisable during the period of 5 years from the date of the initial investments and which, in accordance with their core investment policy, generally do not invest in assets that must be held in custody in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 8 or generally invest in issuers or non-listed companies in order to potentially acquire control over such companies in accordance with Article 26, the depositary may be an entity which carries out depositary functions as part of its professional or business activities in respect of which such entity is subject to mandatory professional registration recognised by law or to legal or regulatory provisions or rules of professional conduct and which can provide sufficient financial and professional guarantees to enable it to perform effectively the relevant depositary functions and meet the commitments inherent in those functions.\n4. In order to avoid conflicts of interest between the depositary, the AIFM and/or the AIF and/or its investors:\n(a)\nan AIFM shall not act as depositary;\n(b)\na prime broker acting as counterparty to an AIF shall not act as depositary for that AIF, unless it has functionally and hierarchically separated the performance of its depositary functions from its tasks as prime broker and the potential conflicts of interest are properly identified, managed, monitored and disclosed to the investors of the AIF. Delegation by the depositary to such prime broker of its custody tasks in accordance with paragraph 11 is allowed if the relevant conditions are met.\n5. The depositary shall be established in one of the following locations:\n(a)\nfor EU AIFs, in the home Member State of the AIF;\n(b)\nfor non-EU AIFs, in the third country where the AIF is established or in the home Member State of the AIFM managing the AIF or in the Member State of reference of the AIFM managing the AIF.\n6. Without prejudice to the requirements set out in paragraph 3, the appointment of a depositary established in a third country shall, at all times, be subject to the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe competent authorities of the Member States in which the units or shares of the non-EU AIF are intended to be marketed, and, in so far as different, of the home Member State of the AIFM, have signed cooperation and exchange of information arrangements with the competent authorities of the depositary;\n(b)\nthe depositary is subject to effective prudential regulation, including minimum capital requirements, and supervision which have the same effect as Union law and are effectively enforced;\n(c)\nthe third country where the depositary is established is not listed as a Non-Cooperative Country and Territory by FATF;\n(d)\nthe Member States in which the units or shares of the non-EU AIF are intended to be marketed, and, in so far as different, the home Member State of the AIFM, have signed an agreement with the third country where the depositary is established which fully complies with the standards laid down in Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and ensures an effective exchange of information in tax matters including any multilateral tax agreements;\n(e)\nthe depositary shall by contract be liable to the AIF or to the investors of the AIF, consistently with paragraphs 12 and 13, and shall expressly agree to comply with paragraph 11.\nWhere a competent authority of another Member State disagrees with the assessment made on the application of points (a), (c) or (e) of the first subparagraph by the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM, the competent authorities concerned may refer the matter to the ESMA which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nOn the basis of the criteria referred to in point (b) of paragraph 17, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts, stating that prudential regulation and supervision of a third country have the same effect as Union law and are effectively enforced. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 59(2).\n7. The depositary shall in general ensure that the AIF\u2019s cash flows are properly monitored, and shall in particular ensure that all payments made by or on behalf of investors upon the subscription of units or shares of an AIF have been received and that all cash of the AIF has been booked in cash accounts opened in the name of the AIF or in the name of the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF or in the name of the depositary acting on behalf of the AIF at an entity referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 18(1) of Directive 2006/73/EC, or another entity of the same nature, in the relevant market where cash accounts are required provided that such entity is subject to effective prudential regulation and supervision which have the same effect as Union law and are effectively enforced and in accordance with the principles set out in Article 16 of Directive 2006/73/EC.\nWhere the cash accounts are opened in the name of the depositary acting on behalf of the AIF, no cash of the entity referred to in the first subparagraph and none of the depositary\u2019s own cash shall be booked on such accounts.\n8. The assets of the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF shall be entrusted to the depositary for safe-keeping, as follows:\n(a)\nfor financial instruments that can be held in custody:\n(i)\nthe depositary shall hold in custody all financial instruments that can be registered in a financial instruments account opened in the depositary\u2019s books and all financial instruments that can be physically delivered to the depositary;\n(ii)\nfor that purpose, the depositary shall ensure that all those financial instruments that can be registered in a financial instruments account opened in the depositary\u2019s books are registered in the depositary\u2019s books within segregated accounts in accordance with the principles set out in Article 16 of Directive 2006/73/EC, opened in the name of the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF, so that they can be clearly identified as belonging to the AIF in accordance with the applicable law at all times;\n(b)\nfor other assets:\n(i)\nthe depositary shall verify the ownership of the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF of such assets and shall maintain a record of those assets for which it is satisfied that the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF holds the ownership of such assets;\n(ii)\nthe assessment whether the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF holds the ownership shall be based on information or documents provided by the AIF or the AIFM and, where available, on external evidence;\n(iii)\nthe depositary shall keep its record up-to-date.\n9. In addition to the tasks referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8, the depositary shall:\n(a)\nensure that the sale, issue, re-purchase, redemption and cancellation of units or shares of the AIF are carried out in accordance with the applicable national law and the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation;\n(b)\nensure that the value of the units or shares of the AIF is calculated in accordance with the applicable national law, the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation and the procedures laid down in Article 19;\n(c)\ncarry out the instructions of the AIFM, unless they conflict with the applicable national law or the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation;\n(d)\nensure that in transactions involving the AIF\u2019s assets any consideration is remitted to the AIF within the usual time limits;\n(e)\nensure that an AIF\u2019s income is applied in accordance with the applicable national law and the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation.\n10. In the context of their respective roles, the AIFM and the depositary shall act honestly, fairly, professionally, independently and in the interest of the AIF and the investors of the AIF.\nA depositary shall not carry out activities with regard to the AIF or the AIFM on behalf of the AIF that may create conflicts of interest between the AIF, the investors in the AIF, the AIFM and itself, unless the depositary has functionally and hierarchically separated the performance of its depositary tasks from its other potentially conflicting tasks, and the potential conflicts of interest are properly identified, managed, monitored and disclosed to the investors of the AIF.\nThe assets referred to in paragraph 8 shall not be reused by the depositary without the prior consent of the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF.\n11. The depositary shall not delegate to third parties its functions as described in this Article, save for those referred to in paragraph 8.\nThe depositary may delegate to third parties the functions referred to in paragraph 8 subject to the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe tasks are not delegated with the intention of avoiding the requirements of this Directive;\n(b)\nthe depositary can demonstrate that there is an objective reason for the delegation;\n(c)\nthe depositary has exercised all due skill, care and diligence in the selection and the appointment of any third party to whom it wants to delegate parts of its tasks, and keeps exercising all due skill, care and diligence in the periodic review and ongoing monitoring of any third party to whom it has delegated parts of its tasks and of the arrangements of the third party in respect of the matters delegated to it; and\n(d)\nthe depositary ensures that the third party meets the following conditions at all times during the performance of the tasks delegated to it:\n(i)\nthe third party has the structures and the expertise that are adequate and proportionate to the nature and complexity of the assets of the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF which have been entrusted to it;\n(ii)\nfor custody tasks referred to in point (a) of paragraph 8, the third party is subject to effective prudential regulation, including minimum capital requirements, and supervision in the jurisdiction concerned and the third party is subject to an external periodic audit to ensure that the financial instruments are in its possession;\n(iii)\nthe third party segregates the assets of the depositary\u2019s clients from its own assets and from the assets of the depositary in such a way that they can at any time be clearly identified as belonging to clients of a particular depositary;\n(iv)\nthe third party does not make use of the assets without the prior consent of the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF and prior notification to the depositary; and\n(v)\nthe third party complies with the general obligations and prohibitions set out in paragraphs 8 and 10.\nNotwithstanding point (d)(ii) of the second subparagraph, where the law of a third country requires that certain financial instruments be held in custody by a local entity and no local entities satisfy the delegation requirements laid down in that point, the depositary may delegate its functions to such a local entity only to the extent required by the law of the third country and only for as long as there are no local entities that satisfy the delegation requirements, subject to the following requirements:\n(a)\nthe investors of the relevant AIF must be duly informed that such delegation is required due to legal constraints in the law of the third country and of the circumstances justifying the delegation, prior to their investment; and\n(b)\nthe AIF, or the AIFM on behalf of the AIF, must instruct the depositary to delegate the custody of such financial instruments to such local entity.\nThe third party may, in turn, sub-delegate those functions, subject to the same requirements. In such a case, paragraph 13 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the relevant parties.\nFor the purposes of this paragraph, the provision of services as specified by Directive 98/26/EC by securities settlement systems as designated for the purposes of that Directive or the provision of similar services by third-country securities settlement systems shall not be considered a delegation of its custody functions.\n12. The depositary shall be liable to the AIF or to the investors of the AIF, for the loss by the depositary or a third party to whom the custody of financial instruments held in custody in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 8 has been delegated.\nIn the case of such a loss of a financial instrument held in custody, the depositary shall return a financial instrument of identical type or the corresponding amount to the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF without undue delay. The depositary shall not be liable if it can prove that the loss has arisen as a result of an external event beyond its reasonable control, the consequences of which would have been unavoidable despite all reasonable efforts to the contrary.\nThe depositary shall also be liable to the AIF, or to the investors of the AIF, for all other losses suffered by them as a result of the depositary\u2019s negligent or intentional failure to properly fulfil its obligations pursuant to this Directive.\n13. The depositary\u2019s liability shall not be affected by any delegation referred to in paragraph 11.\nNotwithstanding the first subparagraph of this paragraph, in case of a loss of financial instruments held in custody by a third party pursuant to paragraph 11, the depositary may discharge itself of liability if it can prove that:\n(a)\nall requirements for the delegation of its custody tasks set out in the second subparagraph of paragraph 11 are met;\n(b)\na written contract between the depositary and the third party expressly transfers the liability of the depositary to that third party and makes it possible for the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF to make a claim against the third party in respect of the loss of financial instruments or for the depositary to make such a claim on their behalf; and\n(c)\na written contract between the depositary and the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF, expressly allows a discharge of the depositary\u2019s liability and establishes the objective reason to contract such a discharge.\n14. Further, where the law of a third country requires that certain financial instruments are held in custody by a local entity and there are no local entities that satisfy the delegation requirements laid down in point (d)(ii) of paragraph 11, the depositary can discharge itself of liability provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe rules or instruments of incorporation of the AIF concerned expressly allow for such a discharge under the conditions set out in this paragraph;\n(b)\nthe investors of the relevant AIF have been duly informed of that discharge and of the circumstances justifying the discharge prior to their investment;\n(c)\nthe AIF or the AIFM on behalf of the AIF instructed the depositary to delegate the custody of such financial instruments to a local entity;\n(d)\nthere is a written contract between the depositary and the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF, which expressly allows such a discharge; and\n(e)\nthere is a written contract between the depositary and the third party that expressly transfers the liability of the depositary to that local entity and makes it possible for the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF to make a claim against that local entity in respect of the loss of financial instruments or for the depositary to make such a claim on their behalf.\n15. Liability to the investors of the AIF may be invoked directly or indirectly through the AIFM, depending on the legal nature of the relationship between the depositary, the AIFM and the investors.\n16. The depositary shall make available to its competent authorities, on request, all information which it has obtained while performing its duties and that may be necessary for the competent authorities of the AIF or the AIFM. If the competent authorities of the AIF or the AIFM are different from those of the depositary, the competent authorities of the depositary shall share the information received without delay with the competent authorities of the AIF and the AIFM.\n17. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying:\n(a)\nthe particulars that need to be included in the written contract referred to in paragraph 2;\n(b)\ngeneral criteria for assessing whether the prudential regulation and supervision of third countries as referred to in point (b) of paragraph 6 have the same effect as Union law and are effectively enforced;\n(c)\nthe conditions for performing the depositary functions pursuant to paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, including:\n(i)\nthe type of financial instruments to be included in the scope of the depositary\u2019s custody duties in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 8;\n(ii)\nthe conditions subject to which the depositary is able to exercise its custody duties over financial instruments registered with a central depositary; and\n(iii)\nthe conditions subject to which the depositary is to safekeep the financial instruments issued in a nominative form and registered with an issuer or a registrar, in accordance with point (b) of paragraph 8;\n(d)\nthe due diligence duties of depositaries pursuant to point (c) of paragraph 11;\n(e)\nthe segregation obligation pursuant to point (d)(iii) of paragraph 11;\n(f)\nthe conditions subject to which and circumstances in which financial instruments held in custody are to be considered as lost;\n(g)\nwhat is to be understood by external events beyond reasonable control, the consequences of which would have been unavoidable despite all reasonable efforts to the contrary pursuant to paragraph 12;\n(h)\nthe conditions subject to which and circumstances in which there is an objective reason to contract a discharge pursuant to paragraph 13.\nCHAPTER IV\nTRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS\nArticle 22\nAnnual report\n1. An AIFM shall, for each of the EU AIFs it manages and for each of the AIFs it markets in the Union, make available an annual report for each financial year no later than 6 months following the end of the financial year. The annual report shall be provided to investors on request. The annual report shall be made available to the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM, and, where applicable, the home Member State of the AIF.\nWhere the AIF is required to make public an annual financial report in accordance with Directive 2004/109/EC only such additional information referred to in paragraph 2 needs to be provided to investors on request, either separately or as an additional part of the annual financial report. In the latter case the annual financial report shall be made public no later than 4 months following the end of the financial year.\n2. The annual report shall at least contain the following:\n(a)\na balance-sheet or a statement of assets and liabilities;\n(b)\nan income and expenditure account for the financial year;\n(c)\na report on the activities of the financial year;\n(d)\nany material changes in the information listed in Article 23 during the financial year covered by the report;\n(e)\nthe total amount of remuneration for the financial year, split into fixed and variable remuneration, paid by the AIFM to its staff, and number of beneficiaries, and, where relevant, carried interest paid by the AIF;\n(f)\nthe aggregate amount of remuneration broken down by senior management and members of staff of the AIFM whose actions have a material impact on the risk profile of the AIF.\n3. The accounting information given in the annual report shall be prepared in accordance with the accounting standards of the home Member State of the AIF or in accordance with the accounting standards of the third country where the AIF is established and with the accounting rules laid down in the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation.\nThe accounting information given in the annual report shall be audited by one or more persons empowered by law to audit accounts in accordance with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts (26). The auditor\u2019s report, including any qualifications, shall be reproduced in full in the annual report.\nBy way of derogation from the second subparagraph, Member States may permit AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs to subject the annual reports of those AIFs to an audit meeting international auditing standards in force in the country where the AIF has its registered office.\n4. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying the content and format of the annual report. Those measures shall be adapted to the type of AIF to which they apply.\nArticle 23\nDisclosure to investors\n1. AIFMs shall for each of the EU AIFs that they manage and for each of the AIFs that they market in the Union make available to AIF investors, in accordance with the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation, the following information before they invest in the AIF, as well as any material changes thereof:\n(a)\na description of the investment strategy and objectives of the AIF, information on where any master AIF is established and where the underlying funds are established if the AIF is a fund of funds, a description of the types of assets in which the AIF may invest, the techniques it may employ and all associated risks, any applicable investment restrictions, the circumstances in which the AIF may use leverage, the types and sources of leverage permitted and the associated risks, any restrictions on the use of leverage and any collateral and asset reuse arrangements, and the maximum level of leverage which the AIFM are entitled to employ on behalf of the AIF;\n(b)\na description of the procedures by which the AIF may change its investment strategy or investment policy, or both;\n(c)\na description of the main legal implications of the contractual relationship entered into for the purpose of investment, including information on jurisdiction, on the applicable law and on the existence or not of any legal instruments providing for the recognition and enforcement of judgments in the territory where the AIF is established;\n(d)\nthe identity of the AIFM, the AIF\u2019s depositary, auditor and any other service providers and a description of their duties and the investors\u2019 rights;\n(e)\na description of how the AIFM is complying with the requirements of Article 9(7);\n(f)\na description of any delegated management function as referred to in Annex I by the AIFM and of any safe-keeping function delegated by the depositary, the identification of the delegate and any conflicts of interest that may arise from such delegations;\n(g)\na description of the AIF\u2019s valuation procedure and of the pricing methodology for valuing assets, including the methods used in valuing hard-to-value assets in accordance with Article 19;\n(h)\na description of the AIF\u2019s liquidity risk management, including the redemption rights both in normal and in exceptional circumstances, and the existing redemption arrangements with investors;\n(i)\na description of all fees, charges and expenses and of the maximum amounts thereof which are directly or indirectly borne by investors;\n(j)\na description of how the AIFM ensures a fair treatment of investors and, whenever an investor obtains preferential treatment or the right to obtain preferential treatment, a description of that preferential treatment, the type of investors who obtain such preferential treatment and, where relevant, their legal or economic links with the AIF or AIFM;\n(k)\nthe latest annual report referred to in Article 22;\n(l)\nthe procedure and conditions for the issue and sale of units or shares;\n(m)\nthe latest net asset value of the AIF or the latest market price of the unit or share of the AIF, in accordance with Article 19;\n(n)\nwhere available, the historical performance of the AIF;\n(o)\nthe identity of the prime broker and a description of any material arrangements of the AIF with its prime brokers and the way the conflicts of interest in relation thereto are managed and the provision in the contract with the depositary on the possibility of transfer and reuse of AIF assets, and information about any transfer of liability to the prime broker that may exist;\n(p)\na description of how and when the information required under paragraphs 4 and 5 will be disclosed.\n2. The AIFM shall inform the investors before they invest in the AIF of any arrangement made by the depositary to contractually discharge itself of liability in accordance with Article 21(13). The AIFM shall also inform investors of any changes with respect to depositary liability without delay.\n3. Where the AIF is required to publish a prospectus in accordance with Directive 2003/71/EC or in accordance with national law, only such information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 which is in addition to that contained in the prospectus needs to be disclosed separately or as additional information in the prospectus.\n4. AIFMs shall, for each of the EU AIFs that they manage and for each of the AIFs that they market in the Union, periodically disclose to investors:\n(a)\nthe percentage of the AIF\u2019s assets which are subject to special arrangements arising from their illiquid nature;\n(b)\nany new arrangements for managing the liquidity of the AIF;\n(c)\nthe current risk profile of the AIF and the risk management systems employed by the AIFM to manage those risks.\n5. AIFMs managing EU AIFs employing leverage or marketing in the Union AIFs employing leverage shall, for each such AIF disclose, on a regular basis:\n(a)\nany changes to the maximum level of leverage which the AIFM may employ on behalf of the AIF as well as any right of the reuse of collateral or any guarantee granted under the leveraging arrangement;\n(b)\nthe total amount of leverage employed by that AIF.\n6. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying the disclosure obligations of AIFMs referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5, including the frequency of the disclosure referred to in paragraph 5. Those measures shall be adapted to the type of AIFM to which they apply.\nArticle 24\nReporting obligations to competent authorities\n1. An AIFM shall regularly report to the competent authorities of its home Member State on the principal markets and instruments in which it trades on behalf of the AIFs it manages.\nIt shall provide information on the main instruments in which it is trading, on markets of which it is a member or where it actively trades, and on the principal exposures and most important concentrations of each of the AIFs it manages.\n2. An AIFM shall, for each of the EU AIFs it manages and for each of the AIFs it markets in the Union, provide the following to the competent authorities of its home Member State:\n(a)\nthe percentage of the AIF\u2019s assets which are subject to special arrangements arising from their illiquid nature;\n(b)\nany new arrangements for managing the liquidity of the AIF;\n(c)\nthe current risk profile of the AIF and the risk management systems employed by the AIFM to manage the market risk, liquidity risk, counterparty risk and other risks including operational risk;\n(d)\ninformation on the main categories of assets in which the AIF invested; and\n(e)\nthe results of the stress tests performed in accordance with point (b) of Article 15(3) and the second subparagraph of Article 16(1).\n3. The AIFM shall, on request, provide the following documents to the competent authorities of its home Member State:\n(a)\nan annual report of each EU AIF managed by the AIFM and of each AIF marketed by it in the Union, for each financial year, in accordance with Article 22(1);\n(b)\nfor the end of each quarter a detailed list of all AIFs which the AIFM manages.\n4. An AIFM managing AIFs employing leverage on a substantial basis shall make available information about the overall level of leverage employed by each AIF it manages, a break-down between leverage arising from borrowing of cash or securities and leverage embedded in financial derivatives and the extent to which the AIF\u2019s assets have been reused under leveraging arrangements to the competent authorities of its home Member State.\nThat information shall include the identity of the five largest sources of borrowed cash or securities for each of the AIFs managed by the AIFM, and the amounts of leverage received from each of those sources for each of those AIFs.\nFor non-EU AIFMs, the reporting obligations referred to in this paragraph are limited to EU AIFs managed by them and non-EU AIFs marketed by them in the Union.\n5. Where necessary for the effective monitoring of systemic risk, the competent authorities of the home Member State may require information in addition to that described in this Article, on a periodic as well as on an ad-hoc basis. The competent authorities shall inform ESMA about the additional information requirements.\nIn exceptional circumstances and where required in order to ensure the stability and integrity of the financial system, or to promote long-term sustainable growth, ESMA may request the competent authorities of the home Member State to impose additional reporting requirements.\n6. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying:\n(a)\nwhen leverage is to be considered to be employed on a substantial basis for the purposes of paragraph 4; and\n(b)\nthe obligations to report and provide information provided for in this Article.\nThose measures shall take into account the need to avoid an excessive administrative burden on competent authorities.\nCHAPTER V\nAIFMs MANAGING SPECIFIC TYPES OF AIF\nSECTION 1\nAIFMs managing leveraged AIFs\nArticle 25\nUse of information by competent authorities, supervisory cooperation and limits to leverage\n1. Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM use the information to be gathered under Article 24 for the purposes of identifying the extent to which the use of leverage contributes to the build-up of systemic risk in the financial system, risks of disorderly markets or risks to the long-term growth of the economy.\n2. The competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall ensure that all information gathered under Article 24 in respect of all AIFMs that they supervise and the information gathered under Article 7 is made available to competent authorities of other relevant Member States, ESMA and the ESRB by means of the procedures set out in Article 50 on supervisory cooperation. They shall, without delay, also provide information by means of those procedures, and bilaterally to the competent authorities of other Member States directly concerned, if an AIFM under their responsibility, or AIF managed by that AIFM could potentially constitute an important source of counterparty risk to a credit institution or other systemically relevant institutions in other Member States.\n3. The AIFM shall demonstrate that the leverage limits set by it for each AIF it manages are reasonable and that it complies with those limits at all times. The competent authorities shall assess the risks that the use of leverage by an AIFM with respect to the AIFs it manages could entail, and, where deemed necessary in order to ensure the stability and integrity of the financial system, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM, after having notified ESMA, the ESRB and the competent authorities of the relevant AIF, shall impose limits to the level of leverage that an AIFM are entitled to employ or other restrictions on the management of the AIF with respect to the AIFs under its management to limit the extent to which the use of leverage contributes to the build up of systemic risk in the financial system or risks of disorderly markets. The competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall duly inform ESMA, the ESRB and the competent authorities of the AIF, of actions taken in this respect, through the procedures set out in Article 50.\n4. The notification referred to in paragraph 3 shall be made not less than 10 working days before the proposed measure is intended to take effect or to be renewed. The notification shall include details of the proposed measure, the reasons for the measure and when the measure is intended to take effect. In exceptional circumstances, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM may decide that the proposed measure takes effect within the period referred to in the first sentence.\n5. ESMA shall perform a facilitation and coordination role, and, in particular, shall try to ensure that a consistent approach is taken by competent authorities, in relation to measures proposed by competent authorities under paragraph 3.\n6. After receiving the notification referred to in paragraph 3, ESMA shall issue advice to the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM about the measure that is proposed or taken. The advice may, in particular, address whether the conditions for taking action appear to be met, whether the measures are appropriate and the duration of the measures.\n7. On the basis of the information received in accordance with paragraph 2, and after taking into account any advice of the ESRB, ESMA may determine that the leverage employed by an AIFM, or by a group of AIFMs, poses a substantial risk to the stability and integrity of the financial system and may issue advice to competent authorities specifying the remedial measures to be taken, including limits to the level of leverage, which that AIFM, or that group of AIFMs, are entitled to employ. ESMA shall immediately inform the competent authorities concerned, the ESRB and the Commission of any such determination.\n8. If a competent authority proposes to take action contrary to ESMA\u2019s advice referred to in paragraph 6 or 7 it shall inform ESMA, stating its reasons. ESMA may publish the fact that a competent authority does not comply or intend to comply with its advice. ESMA may also decide, on a case-by-case basis, to publish the reasons provided by the competent authority for not complying with its advice. The competent authorities concerned shall receive advance notice about such a publication.\n9. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures setting out principles specifying the circumstances in which competent authorities apply the provisions set out in paragraph 3, taking into account different strategies of AIFs, different market conditions in which AIFs operate and possible pro-cyclical effects of applying those provisions.\nSECTION 2\nObligations for AIFMs managing AIFs which acquire control of non-listed companies and issuers\nArticle 26\nScope\n1. This Section shall apply to the following:\n(a)\nAIFMs managing one or more AIFs which either individually or jointly on the basis of an agreement aimed at acquiring control, acquire control of a non-listed company in accordance with paragraph 5;\n(b)\nAIFMs cooperating with one or more other AIFMs on the basis of an agreement pursuant to which the AIFs managed by those AIFMs jointly, acquire control of a non-listed company in accordance with paragraph 5.\n2. This Section shall not apply where the non-listed companies concerned are:\n(a)\nsmall and medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (27); or\n(b)\nspecial purpose vehicles with the purpose of purchasing, holding or administrating real estate.\n3. Without prejudice to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, Article 27(1) shall also apply to AIFMs managing AIFs that acquire a non-controlling participation in a non-listed company.\n4. Article 28(1), (2) and (3) and Article 30 shall apply also to AIFMs managing AIFs that acquire control over issuers. For the purposes of those Articles, paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall apply mutatis mutandis.\n5. For the purpose of this Section, for non-listed companies, control shall mean more than 50 % of the voting rights of the companies.\nWhen calculating the percentage of voting rights held by the relevant AIF, in addition to the voting rights held directly by the relevant AIF, the voting rights of the following shall be taken into account, subject to control as referred to in the first subparagraph being established:\n(a)\nan undertaking controlled by the AIF; and\n(b)\na natural or legal person acting in its own name but on behalf of the AIF or on behalf of an undertaking controlled by the AIF.\nThe percentage of voting rights shall be calculated on the basis of all the shares to which voting rights are attached even if the exercise thereof is suspended.\nNotwithstanding point (i) of Article 4(1), for the purpose of Article 28(1), (2) and (3) and Article 30 in regard to issuers control shall be determined in accordance with Article 5(3) of Directive 2004/25/EC.\n6. This Section shall apply subject to the conditions and restrictions set out in Article 6 of Directive 2002/14/EC.\n7. This Section shall apply without prejudice to any stricter rules adopted by Member States with respect to the acquisition of holdings in issuers and non-listed companies in their territories.\nArticle 27\nNotification of the acquisition of major holdings and control of non-listed companies\n1. Member States shall require that when an AIF acquires, disposes of or holds shares of a non-listed company, the AIFM managing such an AIF notify the competent authorities of its home Member State of the proportion of voting rights of the non-listed company held by the AIF any time when that proportion reaches, exceeds or falls below the thresholds of 10 %, 20 %, 30 %, 50 % and 75 %.\n2. Member States shall require that when an AIF acquires, individually or jointly, control over a non-listed company pursuant to Article 26(1), in conjunction with paragraph 5 of that Article, the AIFM managing such an AIF notify the following of the acquisition of control by the AIF:\n(a)\nthe non-listed company;\n(b)\nthe shareholders of which the identities and addresses are available to the AIFM or can be made available by the non-listed company or through a register to which the AIFM has or can obtain access; and\n(c)\nthe competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM.\n3. The notification required under paragraph 2 shall contain the following additional information:\n(a)\nthe resulting situation in terms of voting rights;\n(b)\nthe conditions subject to which control was acquired, including information about the identity of the different shareholders involved, any natural person or legal entity entitled to exercise voting rights on their behalf and, if applicable, the chain of undertakings through which voting rights are effectively held;\n(c)\nthe date on which control was acquired.\n4. In its notification to the non-listed company, the AIFM shall request the board of directors of the company to inform the employees\u2019 representatives or, where there are none, the employees themselves, without undue delay of the acquisition of control by the AIF managed by the AIFM and of the information referred to in paragraph 3. The AIFM shall use its best efforts to ensure that the employees\u2019 representatives or, where there are none, the employees themselves, are duly informed by the board of directors in accordance with this Article.\n5. The notifications referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be made as soon as possible, but no later than 10 working days after the date on which the AIF has reached, exceeded or fallen below the relevant threshold or has acquired control over the non-listed company.\nArticle 28\nDisclosure in case of acquisition of control\n1. Member States shall require that when an AIF acquires, individually or jointly, control of a non-listed company or an issuer pursuant to Article 26(1), in conjunction with paragraph 5 of that Article, the AIFM managing such AIF shall make the information referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article available to:\n(a)\nthe company concerned;\n(b)\nthe shareholders of the company of which the identities and addresses are available to the AIFM or can be made available by the company or through a register to which the AIFM has or can obtain access; and\n(c)\nthe competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM.\nMember States may require that the information referred to in paragraph 2 is also made available to the competent authorities of the non-listed company which the Member States may designate to that effect.\n2. The AIFM shall make available:\n(a)\nthe identity of the AIFMs which either individually or in agreement with other AIFMs manage the AIFs that have acquired control;\n(b)\nthe policy for preventing and managing conflicts of interest, in particular between the AIFM, the AIF and the company, including information about the specific safeguards established to ensure that any agreement between the AIFM and/or the AIF and the company is concluded at arm\u2019s length; and\n(c)\nthe policy for external and internal communication relating to the company in particular as regards employees.\n3. In its notification to the company pursuant to point (a) of paragraph 1, the AIFM shall request the board of directors of the company to inform the employees\u2019 representatives or, where there are none, the employees themselves, without undue delay of the information referred to in paragraph 1. The AIFM shall use its best efforts to ensure that the employees\u2019 representatives or, where there are none, the employees themselves, are duly informed by the board of directors in accordance with this Article.\n4. Member States shall require that when an AIF acquires, individually or jointly, control of a non-listed company pursuant to Article 26(1), in conjunction with paragraph 5 of that Article, the AIFM managing such AIF ensure that the AIF, or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF, disclose its intentions with regard to the future business of the non-listed company and the likely repercussions on employment, including any material change in the conditions of employment, to:\n(a)\nthe non-listed company; and\n(b)\nthe shareholders of the non-listed company of which the identities and addresses are available to the AIFM or can be made available by the non-listed company or through a register to which the AIFM has or can obtain access.\nIn addition, the AIFM managing the relevant AIF shall request and use its best efforts to ensure that the board of directors of the non-listed company makes available the information set out in the first subparagraph to the employees\u2019 representatives or, where there are none, the employees themselves, of the non-listed company.\n5. Member States shall require that when an AIF acquires control of a non-listed company pursuant to Article 26(1), in conjunction with paragraph 5 of that Article, the AIFM managing such an AIF provide the competent authorities of its home Member State and the AIF\u2019s investors with information on the financing of the acquisition.\nArticle 29\nSpecific provisions regarding the annual report of AIFs exercising control of non-listed companies\n1. Member States shall require that when an AIF acquires, individually or jointly, control of a non-listed company pursuant to Article 26(1), in conjunction with paragraph 5 of that Article, the AIFM managing such an AIF shall either:\n(a)\nrequest and use its best efforts to ensure that the annual report of the non-listed company drawn up in accordance with paragraph 2 is made available by the board of directors of the company to the employees\u2019 representatives or, where there are none, to the employees themselves within the period such annual report has to be drawn up in accordance with the national applicable law; or\n(b)\nfor each such AIF include in the annual report provided for in Article 22 the information referred to in paragraph 2 relating to the relevant non-listed company.\n2. The additional information to be included in the annual report of the company or the AIF, in accordance with paragraph 1, shall include at least a fair review of the development of the company\u2019s business representing the situation at the end of the period covered by the annual report. The report shall also give an indication of:\n(a)\nany important events that have occurred since the end of the financial year;\n(b)\nthe company\u2019s likely future development; and\n(c)\nthe information concerning acquisitions of own shares prescribed by Article 22(2) of Council Directive 77/91/EEC (28).\n3. The AIFM managing the relevant AIF shall either:\n(a)\nrequest and use its best efforts to ensure that the board of directors of the non-listed company makes available the information referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 relating to the company concerned to the employees\u2019 representatives of the company concerned or, where there are none, to the employees themselves within the period referred to in Article 22(1); or\n(b)\nmake available the information referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 to the investors of the AIF, in so far as already available, within the period referred to in Article 22(1) and, in any event, no later than the date on which the annual report of the non-listed company is drawn up in accordance with the national applicable law.\nArticle 30\nAsset stripping\n1. Member States shall require that when an AIF, individually or jointly, acquires control of a non-listed company or an issuer pursuant to Article 26(1), in conjunction with paragraph 5 of that Article, the AIFM managing such an AIF shall for a period of 24 months following the acquisition of control of the company by the AIF:\n(a)\nnot be allowed to facilitate, support or instruct any distribution, capital reduction, share redemption and/or acquisition of own shares by the company as described in paragraph 2;\n(b)\nin so far as the AIFM is authorised to vote on behalf of the AIF at the meetings of the governing bodies of the company, not vote in favour of a distribution, capital reduction, share redemption and/or acquisition of own shares by the company as described in paragraph 2; and\n(c)\nin any event use its best efforts to prevent distributions, capital reductions, share redemptions and/or the acquisition of own shares by the company as described in paragraph 2.\n2. The obligations imposed on AIFMs pursuant to paragraph 1 shall relate to the following:\n(a)\nany distribution to shareholders made when on the closing date of the last financial year the net assets as set out in the company\u2019s annual accounts are, or following such a distribution would become, lower than the amount of the subscribed capital plus those reserves which may be not distributed under the law or the statutes, on the understanding that where the uncalled part of the subscribed capital is not included in the assets shown in the balance sheet, this amount shall be deducted from the amount of subscribed capital;\n(b)\nany distribution to shareholders the amount of which would exceed the amount of the profits at the end of the last financial year plus any profits brought forward and sums drawn from reserves available for this purpose, less any losses brought forward and sums placed to reserve in accordance with the law or the statutes;\n(c)\nto the extent that acquisitions of own shares are permitted, the acquisitions by the company, including shares previously acquired by the company and held by it, and shares acquired by a person acting in his own name but on the company\u2019s behalf, that would have the effect of reducing the net assets below the amount mentioned in point (a).\n3. For the purposes of paragraph 2:\n(a)\nthe term \u2018distribution\u2019 referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 shall include, in particular, the payment of dividends and of interest relating to shares;\n(b)\nthe provisions on capital reductions shall not apply on a reduction in the subscribed capital, the purpose of which is to offset losses incurred or to include sums of money in a non-distributable reserve provided that, following that operation, the amount of such reserve is not more than 10 % of the reduced subscribed capital; and\n(c)\nthe restriction set out in point (c) of paragraph 2 shall be subject to points (b) to (h) of Article 20(1) of Directive 77/91/EEC.\nCHAPTER VI\nRIGHTS OF EU AIFMs TO MARKET AND MANAGE EU AIFs IN THE UNION\nArticle 31\nMarketing of units or shares of EU AIFs in the home Member State of the AIFM\n1. Member States shall ensure that an authorised EU AIFM may market units or shares of any EU AIF that it manages to professional investors in the home Member State of the AIFM as soon as the conditions laid down in this Article are met.\nWhere the EU AIF is a feeder AIF the right to market referred to in the first subparagraph is subject to the condition that the master AIF is also an EU AIF which is managed by an authorised EU AIFM.\n2. The AIFM shall submit a notification to the competent authorities of its home Member State in respect of each EU AIF that it intends to market.\nThat notification shall comprise the documentation and information set out in Annex III.\n3. Within 20 working days following receipt of a complete notification file pursuant to paragraph 2, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall inform the AIFM whether it may start marketing the AIF identified in the notification referred to in paragraph 2. The competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall prevent the marketing of the AIF only if the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF does not or will not comply with this Directive or the AIFM otherwise does not or will not comply with this Directive. In the case of a positive decision, the AIFM may start marketing the AIF in its home Member State from the date of the notification by the competent authorities to that effect.\nIn so far as they are different, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall also inform the competent authorities of the AIF that the AIFM may start marketing units or shares of the AIF.\n4. In the event of a material change to any of the particulars communicated in accordance with paragraph 2, the AIFM shall give written notice of that change to the competent authorities of its home Member State at least 1 month before implementing the change as regards any changes planned by the AIFM, or immediately after an unplanned change has occurred.\nIf, pursuant to a planned change, the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF would no longer comply with this Directive or the AIFM would otherwise no longer comply with this Directive, the relevant competent authorities shall inform the AIFM without undue delay that it is not to implement the change.\nIf a planned change is implemented notwithstanding the first and second subparagraphs or if an unplanned change has taken place pursuant to which the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF no longer complies with this Directive or the AIFM otherwise no longer complies with this Directive, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall take all due measures in accordance with Article 46, including, if necessary, the express prohibition of marketing of the AIF.\n5. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine:\n(a)\nthe form and content of a model for the notification letter referred to in paragraph 2; and\n(b)\nthe form of the written notice referred to in paragraph 4.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n6. Without prejudice to Article 43(1), Member States shall require that AIFs managed and marketed by AIFMs be marketed only to professional investors.\nArticle 32\nMarketing of units or shares of EU AIFs in Member States other than in the home Member State of the AIFM\n1. Member States shall ensure that an authorised EU AIFM may market units or shares of an EU AIF that it manages to professional investors in another Member State than the home Member State of the AIFM as soon as the conditions laid down in this Article are met.\nWhere the EU AIF is a feeder AIF the right to market referred to in the first subparagraph is subject to the condition that the master AIF is also an EU AIF and is managed by an authorised EU AIFM.\n2. The AIFM shall submit a notification to the competent authorities of its home Member State in respect of each EU AIF that it intends to market.\nThat notification shall comprise the documentation and information set out in Annex IV.\n3. The competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall, no later than 20 working days after the date of receipt of the complete notification file referred to in paragraph 2, transmit the complete notification file to the competent authorities of the Member States where it is intended that the AIF be marketed. Such transmission shall occur only if the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF complies with and will continue to comply with this Directive and if the AIFM otherwise complies with this Directive.\nThe competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall enclose a statement to the effect that the AIFM concerned is authorised to manage AIFs with a particular investment strategy.\n4. Upon transmission of the notification file, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall, without delay, notify the AIFM about the transmission. The AIFM may start marketing the AIF in the host Member State of the AIFM as of the date of that notification.\nIn so far as they are different, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall also inform the competent authorities of the AIF that the AIFM may start marketing the units or shares of the AIF in the host Member State of the AIFM.\n5. Arrangements referred to in point (h) of Annex IV shall be subject to the laws and supervision of the host Member State of the AIFM.\n6. Member States shall ensure that the notification letter by the AIFM referred to in paragraph 2 and the statement referred to in paragraph 3 are provided in a language customary in the sphere of international finance.\nMember States shall ensure that electronic transmission and filing of the documents referred to in paragraph 3 are accepted by their competent authorities.\n7. In the event of a material change to any of the particulars communicated in accordance with paragraph 2, the AIFM shall give written notice of that change to the competent authorities of its home Member State at least 1 month before implementing a planned change, or immediately after an unplanned change has occurred.\nIf, pursuant to a planned change, the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF would no longer comply with this Directive or the AIFM would otherwise no longer comply with this Directive, the relevant competent authorities shall inform the AIFM without undue delay that it is not to implement the change.\nIf a planned change is implemented notwithstanding the first and second subparagraphs or if an unplanned change has taken place pursuant to which the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF would no longer comply with this Directive or the AIFM otherwise would no longer comply with this Directive, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall take all due measures in accordance with Article 46, including, if necessary, the express prohibition of marketing of the AIF.\nIf the changes are acceptable because they do not affect the compliance of the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF with this Directive, or the compliance by the AIFM with this Directive otherwise, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall, without delay, inform the competent authorities of the host Member State of the AIFM of those changes.\n8. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine:\n(a)\nthe form and content of a model for the notification letter referred to in paragraph 2;\n(b)\nthe form and content of a model for the statement referred to in paragraph 3;\n(c)\nthe form of the transmission referred to in paragraph 3; and\n(d)\nthe form of the written notice referred to in paragraph 7.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n9. Without prejudice to Article 43(1), Member States shall require that the AIFs managed and marketed by the AIFM be marketed only to professional investors.\nArticle 33\nConditions for managing EU AIFs established in other Member States\n1. Member States shall ensure that an authorised EU AIFM may manage EU AIFs established in another Member State either directly or by establishing a branch, provided that the AIFM is authorised to manage that type of AIF.\n2. An AIFM intending to manage EU AIFs established in another Member State for the first time shall communicate the following information to the competent authorities of its home Member State:\n(a)\nthe Member State in which it intends to manage AIFs directly or establish a branch;\n(b)\na programme of operations stating in particular the services which it intends to perform and identifying the AIFs it intends to manage.\n3. If the AIFM intends to establish a branch, it shall provide the following information in addition to that referred to in paragraph 2:\n(a)\nthe organisational structure of the branch;\n(b)\nthe address in the home Member State of the AIF from which documents may be obtained;\n(c)\nthe names and contact details of the persons responsible for the management of the branch.\n4. The competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall, within 1 month of receiving the complete documentation in accordance with paragraph 2 or within 2 months of receiving the complete documentation in accordance with paragraph 3, transmit the complete documentation to the competent authorities of the host Member State of the AIFM. Such transmission shall occur only if the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF complies, and will continue to comply, with this Directive and the AIFM otherwise complies with this Directive.\nThe competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall enclose a statement to the effect that the AIFM concerned is authorised by them.\nThe competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall immediately notify the AIFM about the transmission.\nUpon receipt of the transmission notification the AIFM may start to provide its services in its host Member State.\n5. The host Member State of the AIFM shall not impose any additional requirements on the AIFM concerned in respect of the matters covered by this Directive.\n6. In the event of a change to any of the information communicated in accordance with paragraph 2, and, where relevant, paragraph 3, an AIFM shall give written notice of that change to the competent authorities of its home Member State at least 1 month before implementing planned changes, or immediately after an unplanned change has occurred.\nIf, pursuant to a planned change, the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF would no longer comply with this Directive or the AIFM would otherwise no longer comply with this Directive, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall inform the AIFM without undue delay that it is not to implement the change.\nIf a planned change is implemented notwithstanding the first and second subparagraphs or if an unplanned change has taken place pursuant to which the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF would no longer comply with this Directive or the AIFM otherwise would no longer comply with this Directive, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall take all due measures in accordance with Article 46.\nIf the changes are acceptable because they do not affect the compliance of the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF with this Directive, or the compliance by the AIFM with this Directive otherwise, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall, without undue delay, inform the competent authorities of the host Member States of the AIFM of those changes.\n7. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information to be notified in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n8. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the transmission of information in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nCHAPTER VII\nSPECIFIC RULES IN RELATION TO THIRD COUNTRIES\nArticle 34\nConditions for EU AIFMs which manage non-EU AIFs which are not marketed in Member States\n1. Member States shall ensure that an authorised EU AIFM may manage non-EU AIFs which are not marketed in the Union provided that:\n(a)\nthe AIFM complies with all the requirements established in this Directive except for Article 21 and 22 in respect of those AIFs; and\n(b)\nappropriate cooperation arrangements are in place between the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM and the supervisory authorities of the third country where the non-EU AIF is established in order to ensure at least an efficient exchange of information that allows competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM to carry out their duties in accordance with this Directive.\n2. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures regarding the cooperation arrangements referred to in paragraph 1 in order to design a common framework to facilitate the establishment of those cooperation arrangements with third countries.\n3. In order to ensure uniform application of this Article, ESMA shall develop guidelines to determine the conditions of application of the measures adopted by the Commission regarding the cooperation arrangements referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 35\nConditions for the marketing in the Union with a passport of a non-EU AIF managed by an EU AIFM\n1. Member States shall ensure that an authorised EU AIFM may market to professional investors in the Union units or shares of non-EU AIFs it manages and of EU feeder AIFs that do not fulfil the requirements referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 31(1) as soon as the conditions laid down in this Article are met.\n2. AIFMs shall comply with all the requirements established in this Directive, with the exception of Chapter VI. In addition the following conditions shall be met:\n(a)\nappropriate cooperation arrangements must be in place between the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM and the supervisory authorities of the third country where the non-EU AIF is established in order to ensure at least an efficient exchange of information, taking into account Article 50(4), that allows the competent authorities to carry out their duties in accordance with this Directive;\n(b)\nthe third country where the non-EU AIF is established is not listed as a Non-Cooperative Country and Territory by FATF;\n(c)\nthe third country where the non-EU AIF is established has signed an agreement with the home Member State of the authorised AIFM and with each other Member State in which the units or shares of the non-EU AIF are intended to be marketed, which fully complies with the standards laid down in Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and ensures an effective exchange of information in tax matters, including any multilateral tax agreements.\nWhere a competent authority of another Member State disagrees with the assessment made on the application of points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph by the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM, the competent authorities concerned may refer the matter to the ESMA which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n3. If an AIFM intends to market units or shares of non-EU AIFs in its home Member State, the AIFM shall submit a notification to the competent authorities of its home Member State in respect of each non-EU AIF that it intends to market.\nThat notification shall comprise the documentation and information set out in Annex III.\n4. No later than 20 working days after receipt of a complete notification pursuant to paragraph 3, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall inform the AIFM whether it may start marketing the AIF identified in the notification referred to in paragraph 3 in its territory. The competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall prevent the marketing of the AIF only if the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF does not or will not comply with this Directive or the AIFM otherwise does not or will not comply with this Directive. In the case of a positive decision, the AIFM may start marketing the AIF in its home Member State as of the date of the notification by the competent authorities to that effect.\nThe competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall also inform ESMA that the AIFM may start marketing the units or shares of the AIF in the home Member State of the AIFM.\n5. If an AIFM intends to market units or shares of non-EU AIFs in a Member State other than its home Member State, the AIFM shall submit a notification to the competent authorities of its home Member State in respect of each non-EU AIF that it intends to market.\nThat notification shall comprise the documentation and information set out in Annex IV.\n6. The competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall, no later than 20 working days after the date of receipt of the complete notification file referred to in paragraph 5, transmit that complete notification file to the competent authorities of the Member State where the AIF is intended to be marketed. Such transmission will occur only if the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF complies and will continue to comply with this Directive and that the AIFM otherwise complies with this Directive.\nThe competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall enclose a statement to the effect that the AIFM concerned is authorised to manage AIFs with a particular investment strategy.\n7. Upon transmission of the notification file, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall, without delay, notify the AIFM about the transmission. The AIFM may start marketing the AIF in the relevant host Member States of the AIFM as of the date of that notification by the competent authorities.\nThe competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall also inform ESMA that the AIFM may start marketing the units or shares of the AIF in the host Member States of the AIFM.\n8. Arrangements referred to in point (h) of Annex IV shall be subject to the laws and supervision of the host Member States of the AIFM.\n9. Member States shall ensure that the notification letter of the AIFM referred to in paragraph 5 and the statement referred to in paragraph 6 are provided in a language customary in the sphere of international finance.\nMember States shall ensure that electronic transmission and filing of the documents referred to in paragraph 6 are accepted by their competent authorities.\n10. In the event of a material change to any of the particulars communicated in accordance with paragraph 3 or 5, the AIFM shall give written notice of that change to the competent authorities of its home Member State, at least 1 month before implementing a planned change, or immediately after an unplanned change has occurred.\nIf pursuant to a planned change, the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF would no longer comply with this Directive or the AIFM would no longer comply with this Directive, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall inform the AIFM without undue delay that it is not to implement the change.\nIf a planned change is implemented notwithstanding the first and second subparagraphs, or if an unplanned change has taken place pursuant to which the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF would no longer comply with this Directive or the AIFM otherwise would no longer comply with this Directive, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall take all due measures in accordance with Article 46, including, if necessary, the express prohibition of marketing of the AIF.\nIf the changes are acceptable because they do not affect the compliance of the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF with this Directive, or the compliance by the AIFM with this Directive otherwise, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall, without delay, inform ESMA in so far as the changes concern the termination of the marketing of certain AIFs or additional AIFs marketed and, if applicable, the competent authorities of the host Member States of the AIFM of those changes.\n11. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures regarding the cooperation arrangements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 in order to design a common framework to facilitate the establishment of those cooperation arrangements with third countries.\n12. In order to ensure uniform application of this Article, ESMA may develop guidelines to determine the conditions of application of the measures adopted by the Commission regarding the cooperation arrangements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2.\n13. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to determine the minimum content of the cooperation arrangements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 so as to ensure that both the competent authorities of the home and the host Member States receive sufficient information in order to be able to exercise their supervisory and investigatory powers under this Directive.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n14. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the procedures for coordination and exchange of information between the competent authority of the home Member State and the competent authorities of the host Member States of the AIFM.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n15. In case a competent authority rejects a request to exchange information in accordance with the regulatory technical standards referred to in paragraph 14, the competent authorities concerned may refer the matter to ESMA, which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n16. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine:\n(a)\nthe form and content of a model for the notification letter referred to in paragraph 3;\n(b)\nthe form and content of a model for the notification letter referred to in paragraph 5;\n(c)\nthe form and content of a model for the statement referred to in paragraph 6;\n(d)\nthe form of the transmission referred to in paragraph 6;\n(e)\nthe form of the written notice referred to in paragraph 10.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n17. Without prejudice to Article 43(1), Member States shall require that the AIFs managed and marketed by the AIFM be marketed only to professional investors.\nArticle 36\nConditions for the marketing in Member States without a passport of non-EU AIFs managed by an EU AIFM\n1. Without prejudice to Article 35, Member States may allow an authorised EU AIFM to market to professional investors, in their territory only, units or shares of non-EU AIFs it manages and of EU feeder AIFs that do not fulfil the requirements referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 31(1), provided that:\n(a)\nthe AIFM complies with all the requirements established in this Directive with the exception of Article 21. That AIFM shall however ensure that one or more entities are appointed to carry out the duties referred to in Article 21(7), (8) and (9). The AIFM shall not perform those functions. The AIFM shall provide its supervisory authorities with information about the identity of those entities responsible for carrying out the duties referred to in Article 21(7), (8) and (9);\n(b)\nappropriate cooperation arrangements for the purpose of systemic risk oversight and in line with international standards are in place between the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM and the supervisory authorities of the third country where the non-EU AIF is established in order to ensure an efficient exchange of information that allows the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM to carry out their duties in accordance with this Directive;\n(c)\nthe third country where the non-EU AIF is established is not listed as a Non-Cooperative Country and Territory by FATF.\n2. Member States may impose stricter rules on the AIFM in respect of the marketing of units or shares of non-EU AIFs to investors in their territory for the purpose of this Article.\n3. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures regarding the cooperation arrangements referred to in paragraph 1 in order to design a common framework to facilitate the establishment of those cooperation arrangements with third countries.\n4. In order to ensure uniform application of this Article, ESMA shall develop guidelines to determine the conditions of application of the measures adopted by the Commission regarding the cooperation arrangements referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 37\nAuthorisation of non-EU AIFMs intending to manage EU AIFs and/or market AIFs managed by them in the Union in accordance with Article 39 or 40\n1. Member States shall require that non-EU AIFMs intending to manage EU AIFs and/or to market AIFs managed by them in the Union in accordance with Article 39 or 40 acquire prior authorisation by the competent authorities of their Member State of reference in accordance with this Article.\n2. A non-EU AIFM intending to obtain prior authorisation as referred to in paragraph 1 shall comply with this Directive, with the exception of Chapter VI. If and to the extent that compliance with a provision of this Directive is incompatible with compliance with the law to which the non-EU AIFM and/or the non-EU AIF marketed in the Union is subject, there shall be no obligation on the AIFM to comply with that provision of this Directive if it can demonstrate that:\n(a)\nit is impossible to combine such compliance with compliance with a mandatory provision in the law to which the non-EU AIFM and/or the non-EU AIF marketed in the Union is subject;\n(b)\nthe law to which the non-EU AIFM and/or the non-EU AIF is subject provides for an equivalent rule having the same regulatory purpose and offering the same level of protection to the investors of the relevant AIF; and\n(c)\nthe non-EU AIFM and/or the non-EU AIF complies with the equivalent rule referred to in point (b).\n3. A non-EU AIFM intending to obtain prior authorisation as referred to in paragraph 1 shall have a legal representative established in its Member State of reference. The legal representative shall be the contact point of the AIFM in the Union and any official correspondence between the competent authorities and the AIFM and between the EU investors of the relevant AIF and the AIFM as set out in this Directive shall take place through that legal representative. The legal representative shall perform the compliance function relating to the management and marketing activities performed by the AIFM under this Directive together with the AIFM.\n4. The Member State of reference of a non-EU AIFM shall be determined as follows:\n(a)\nif the non-EU AIFM intends to manage only one EU AIF, or several EU AIFs established in the same Member State, and does not intend to market any AIF in accordance with Article 39 or 40 in the Union, the home Member State of that or those AIFs is deemed to be the Member State of reference and the competent authorities of this Member State will be competent for the authorisation procedure and for the supervision of the AIFM;\n(b)\nif the non-EU AIFM intends to manage several EU AIFs established in different Member States and does not intend to market any AIF in accordance with Article 39 or 40 in the Union, the Member State of reference is either:\n(i)\nthe Member State where most of the AIFs are established; or\n(ii)\nthe Member State where the largest amount of assets is being managed;\n(c)\nif the non-EU AIFM intends to market only one EU AIF in only one Member State, the Member State of reference is determined as follows:\n(i)\nif the AIF is authorised or registered in a Member State, the home Member State of the AIF or the Member State where the AIFM intends to market the AIF;\n(ii)\nif the AIF is not authorised or registered in a Member State, the Member State where the AIFM intends to market the AIF;\n(d)\nif the non-EU AIFM intends to market only one non-EU AIF in only one Member State, the Member State of reference is that Member State;\n(e)\nif the non-EU AIFM intends to market only one EU AIF, but in different Member States, the Member State of reference is determined as follows:\n(i)\nif the AIF is authorised or registered in a Member State, the home Member State of the AIF or one of the Member States where the AIFM intends to develop effective marketing; or\n(ii)\nif the AIF is not authorised or registered in a Member State, one of the Member States where the AIFM intends to develop effective marketing;\n(f)\nif the non-EU AIFM intends to market only one non-EU AIF, but in different Member States, the Member State of reference is one of those Member States;\n(g)\nif the non-EU AIFM intends to market several EU AIFs in the Union, the Member State of reference is determined as follows:\n(i)\nin so far as those AIFs are all registered or authorised in the same Member State, the home Member State of those AIFs or the Member State where the AIFM intends to develop effective marketing for most of those AIFs;\n(ii)\nin so far as those AIFs are not all registered or authorised in the same Member State, the Member State where the AIFM intends to develop effective marketing for most of those AIFs;\n(h)\nif the non-EU AIFM intends to market several EU and non-EU AIFs, or several non-EU AIFs in the Union, the Member State of reference is the Member State where it intends to develop effective marketing for most of those AIFs.\nIn accordance with the criteria set out in points (b), (c)(i), (e), (f), and (g)(i) of the first subparagraph, more than one Member State of reference is possible. In such cases, Member States shall require that the non-EU AIFM intending to manage EU AIFs without marketing them and/or market AIFs managed by it in the Union in accordance with Article 39 or 40 submit a request to the competent authorities of all of the Member States that are possible Member States of reference in accordance with the criteria set out in those points, to determine its Member State of reference from among them. Those competent authorities shall jointly decide the Member State of reference for the non-EU AIFM, within 1 month of receipt of such request. The competent authorities of the Member State that is appointed as Member State of reference shall, without undue delay, inform the non-EU AIFM of that appointment. If the non-EU AIFM is not duly informed of the decision made by the relevant competent authorities within 7 days of the decision or if the relevant competent authorities have not made a decision within the 1-month period, the non-EU AIFM may itself choose its Member State of reference based on the criteria set out in this paragraph.\nThe AIFM shall be able to prove its intention to develop effective marketing in a particular Member State by disclosure of its marketing strategy to the competent authorities of the Member State indicated by it.\n5. Member States shall require that a non-EU AIFM intending to manage EU AIFs without marketing them and/or to market AIFs managed by it in the Union in accordance with Article 39 or 40 submit a request for authorisation to its Member State of reference.\nAfter receiving the application for authorisation, the competent authorities shall assess whether the determination by the AIFM as regards its Member State of reference complies with the criteria laid down in paragraph 4. If the competent authorities consider that this is not the case, they shall refuse the authorisation request of the non-EU AIFM explaining the reasons for their refusal. If the competent authorities consider that the criteria of paragraph 4 have been complied with, they shall notify ESMA, requesting advice on their assessment. In their notification to ESMA, the competent authorities shall provide ESMA with the justification by the AIFM of its assessment regarding the Member State of reference and with information on the marketing strategy of the AIFM.\nWithin 1 month of having received the notification referred to in the second subparagraph, ESMA shall issue advice to the relevant competent authorities about their assessment on the Member State of reference in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 4. ESMA shall issue a negative advice only if it considers that the criteria set out in paragraph 4 have not been complied with.\nThe term referred to in Article 8(5) shall be suspended during ESMA\u2019s deliberation in accordance with this paragraph.\nIf the competent authorities propose to grant authorisation contrary to ESMA\u2019s advice referred to in the third subparagraph they shall inform ESMA, stating their reasons. ESMA shall publish the fact that the competent authorities do not comply or intend to comply with its advice. ESMA may also decide, on a case-by-case basis, to publish the reasons provided by the competent authorities for not complying with that advice. The competent authorities shall receive advance notice about such a publication.\nIf the competent authorities propose to grant authorisation contrary to ESMA\u2019s advice referred to in the third subparagraph and the AIFM intends to market units or shares of AIFs managed by it in Member States other than the Member State of reference, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall also inform the competent authorities of those Member States thereof, stating their reasons. In so far as applicable, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall also inform the competent authorities of the home Member States of the AIFs managed by the AIFM thereof, stating their reasons.\n6. Where a competent authority of a Member State disagrees with the determination of the Member State of reference by the AIFM, the competent authorities concerned may refer the matter to the ESMA which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n7. Without prejudice to paragraph 8, no authorisation shall be granted unless the following additional conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe Member State of reference is indicated by the AIFM in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 4 and supported by the disclosure of the marketing strategy, and the procedure set out in paragraph 5 has been followed by the relevant competent authorities;\n(b)\nthe AIFM has appointed a legal representative established in the Member State of reference;\n(c)\nthe legal representative shall, together with the AIFM, be the contact person of the non-EU AIFM for the investors of the relevant AIFs, for ESMA and for the competent authorities as regards the activities for which the AIFM is authorised in the Union and shall at least be sufficiently equipped to perform the compliance function pursuant to this Directive;\n(d)\nappropriate cooperation arrangements are in place between the competent authorities of the Member State of reference, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the EU AIFs concerned and the supervisory authorities of the third country where the non-EU AIFM is established in order to ensure at least an efficient exchange of information that allows the competent authorities to carry out their duties in accordance with this Directive;\n(e)\nthe third country where the non-EU AIFM is established is not listed as a Non-Cooperative Country and Territory by FATF;\n(f)\nthe third country where the non-EU AIFM is established has signed an agreement with the Member State of reference, which fully complies with the standards laid down in Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and ensures an effective exchange of information in tax matters, including any multilateral tax agreements;\n(g)\nthe effective exercise by the competent authorities of their supervisory functions under this Directive is neither prevented by the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of a third country governing the AIFM, nor by limitations in the supervisory and investigatory powers of that third country\u2019s supervisory authorities.\nWhere a competent authority of another Member State disagrees with the assessment made on the application of points (a) to (e) and (g) of this paragraph by the competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM, the competent authorities concerned may refer the matter to the ESMA, which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nWhere a competent authority of an EU AIF does not enter into the required cooperation arrangements as set out in point (d) of the first subparagraph within a reasonable period of time, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference may refer the matter to the ESMA which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n8. The authorisation shall be given in accordance with Chapter II which shall apply mutatis mutandis subject to the following criteria:\n(a)\nthe information referred to in Article 7(2) shall be supplemented by:\n(i)\na justification by the AIFM of its assessment regarding the Member State of reference in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 4 with information on the marketing strategy;\n(ii)\na list of the provisions of this Directive for which compliance by the AIFM is impossible as compliance by the AIFM with those provisions is, in accordance with paragraph 2, incompatible with compliance with a mandatory provision in the law to which the non-EU AIFM or the non-EU AIF marketed in the Union is subject;\n(iii)\nwritten evidence based on the regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA that the relevant third country law provides for a rule equivalent to the provisions for which compliance is impossible, which has the same regulatory purpose and offers the same level of protection to the investors of the relevant AIFs and that the AIFM complies with that equivalent rule; such written evidence being supported by a legal opinion on the existence of the relevant incompatible mandatory provision in the law of the third country and including a description of the regulatory purpose and the nature of the investor protection pursued by it; and\n(iv)\nthe name of the legal representative of the AIFM and the place where it is established;\n(b)\nthe information referred to in Article 7(3) may be limited to the EU AIFs the AIFM intends to manage and to those AIFs managed by the AIFM that it intends to market in the Union with a passport;\n(c)\npoint (a) of Article 8(1) shall be without prejudice to paragraph 2 of this Article;\n(d)\npoint (e) of Article 8(1) shall not apply;\n(e)\nthe second subparagraph of Article 8(5) shall be read as including a reference to \u2018the information referred to in point (a) of Article 37(8)\u2019.\nWhere a competent authority of another Member State disagrees with the authorisation granted by the competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM, the competent authorities concerned may refer the matter to the ESMA which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n9. In case the competent authorities of the Member State of reference consider that the AIFM may rely on paragraph 2 to be exempted from compliance with certain provisions of this Directive, they shall, without undue delay, notify ESMA thereof. They shall support this assessment by the information provided by the AIFM in accordance with points (a)(ii) and (iii) of paragraph 8.\nWithin 1 month of receipt of the notification referred to in the first subparagraph, ESMA shall issue advice to the competent authorities about the application of the exemption for compliance with this Directive caused by the incompatibility in accordance with paragraph 2. The advice may, in particular, address whether the conditions for such exemption appear to be met based on the information provided by the AIFM in accordance with points (a)(ii) and (iii) of paragraph 8 and on the regulatory technical standards on equivalence. ESMA shall seek to build a common European supervisory culture and consistent supervisory practices and ensure consistent approaches among competent authorities in relation to the application of this paragraph.\nThe term referred to in Article 8(5) shall be suspended during the ESMA review in accordance with this paragraph.\nIf the competent authorities of the Member State of reference propose to grant authorisation contrary to ESMA\u2019s advice referred to in the second subparagraph they shall inform ESMA, stating their reasons. ESMA shall publish the fact that the competent authorities do not comply or intend to comply with that advice. ESMA may also decide, on a case-by-case basis, to publish the reasons provided by the competent authorities for not complying with that advice. The competent authorities concerned shall receive advance notice of such publication.\nIf the competent authorities propose to grant authorisation contrary to the ESMA advice referred to in the second subparagraph and the AIFM intends to market units or shares of AIFs managed by it in Member States other than the Member State of reference, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall also inform the competent authorities of those Member States thereof, stating their reasons.\nWhere a competent authority of another Member State disagrees with the assessment made on the application of this paragraph by the competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM, the competent authorities concerned may refer the matter to the ESMA which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n10. The competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall, without undue delay, inform ESMA of the outcome of the initial authorisation process, about any changes in the authorisation of the AIFM and any withdrawal of authorisation.\nThe competent authorities shall inform ESMA about the applications for authorisation that they have rejected, providing data about the AIFM having asked for authorisation and the reasons for the rejection. ESMA shall keep a central register of those data, which shall be at the disposal of competent authorities, on request. Competent authorities shall treat this information as confidential.\n11. The determination of the Member State of reference shall not be affected by the further business development of the AIFM in the Union. However, where the AIFM changes its marketing strategy within 2 years of its initial authorisation, and that change would have affected the determination of the Member State of reference if the modified marketing strategy had been the initial marketing strategy, the AIFM shall notify the competent authorities of the original Member State of reference of the change before implementing it and indicate its Member State of reference in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 4 and based on the new strategy. The AIFM shall justify its assessment by disclosing its new marketing strategy to its original Member State of reference. At the same time the AIFM shall provide information on its legal representative, including its name and the place where it is established. The legal representative shall be established in the new Member State of reference.\nThe original Member State of reference shall assess whether the determination of the AIFM in accordance with the first subparagraph is correct and shall notify ESMA thereof. ESMA shall issue advice on the assessment made by the competent authorities. In their notification to ESMA, the competent authorities shall provide the AIFM\u2019s justification of its assessment regarding the Member State of reference and information on the AIFM\u2019s new marketing strategy.\nWithin 1 month of receipt of the notification referred to in the second subparagraph, ESMA shall issue advice to the relevant competent authorities about their assessment. ESMA shall issue a negative advice only where it considers that the criteria set out in paragraph 4 have not been complied with.\nAfter receipt of ESMA\u2019s advice in accordance with the third subparagraph, the competent authorities of the original Member State of reference shall inform the non-EU AIFM, its original legal representative and ESMA of their decision.\nWhere the competent authorities of the original Member State of reference agree with the assessment made by the AIFM, they shall also inform the competent authorities of the new Member State of reference of the change. The original Member State of reference shall, without undue delay, transfer a copy of the authorisation and the supervision file relating to the AIFM to the new Member State of reference. From the date of transmission of the authorisation and supervision file, the competent authorities of the new Member State of reference shall be competent for authorising and supervising the AIFM.\nWhere the competent authorities\u2019 final assessment is contrary to ESMA\u2019s advice referred to in the third subparagraph:\n(a)\nthe competent authorities shall inform ESMA thereof, stating reasons. ESMA shall publish the fact that the competent authorities do not comply, or intend not to comply, with its advice. ESMA may also decide, on a case-by-case basis, to publish the reasons for non-compliance provided by the competent authorities. The competent authorities concerned shall receive advance notice of such publication;\n(b)\nwhere the AIFM markets units or shares of AIFs managed by it in Member States other than the original Member State of reference, the competent authorities of the original Member State of reference shall inform the competent authorities of those other Member States thereof, stating reasons. Where applicable, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall also inform the competent authorities of the home Member States of the AIFs managed by the AIFM thereof, stating reasons.\n12. Where it appears from the actual course of the business development of the AIFM in the Union within 2 years after its authorisation that the marketing strategy as presented by the AIFM at the time of its authorisation was not followed, the AIFM made false statements in relation thereto or the AIFM has failed to comply with paragraph 11 when changing its marketing strategy, the competent authorities of the original Member State of reference shall request that the AIFM indicate the Member State of reference based on its actual marketing strategy. The procedure set out in paragraph 11 shall apply mutatis mutandis. If the AIFM does not comply with the competent authorities\u2019 request, they shall withdraw its authorisation.\nWhere the AIFM changes its marketing strategy after the period referred to in paragraph 11 and intends to change its Member State of reference on the basis of its new marketing strategy, it may submit a request to change its Member State of reference to the competent authorities of the original Member State of reference. The procedure referred to in paragraph 11 shall apply mutatis mutandis.\nWhere a competent authority of a Member State disagrees with the assessment made on the determination of the Member State of reference under paragraph 11 or under this paragraph, the competent authorities concerned may refer the matter to the ESMA which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n13. Any disputes arising between the competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM and the AIFM shall be settled in accordance with the law of and subject to the jurisdiction of the Member State of reference.\nAny disputes between the AIFM or the AIF and EU investors of the relevant AIF shall be settled in accordance with the law of and subject to the jurisdiction of a Member State.\n14. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts with a view to specifying the procedure to be followed by the possible Member States of reference when determining the Member State of reference from among those Member States in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 4. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 59(2).\n15. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures regarding the cooperation arrangements referred to in point (d) of paragraph 7 in order to design a common framework to facilitate the establishment of those cooperation arrangements with third countries.\n16. In order to ensure uniform application of this Article, ESMA may develop guidelines to determine the conditions of application of the measures adopted by the Commission regarding the cooperation arrangements referred to in point (d) of paragraph 7.\n17. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to determine the minimum content of the cooperation arrangements referred to in point (d) of paragraph 7 so as to ensure that the competent authorities of the Member State of reference and the competent authorities of the host Member States receive sufficient information in order to be able to exercise their supervisory and investigatory powers under this Directive.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n18. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the procedures for coordination and exchange of information between the competent authority of the Member State of reference and the competent authorities of the host Member States of the AIFM.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n19. In case a competent authority rejects a request to exchange information in accordance with the regulatory technical standards referred to in paragraph 17, the competent authorities concerned may refer the matter to ESMA, which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n20. In accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, ESMA shall promote an effective bilateral and multilateral exchange of information between the competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the non-EU AIFM and the competent authorities of the host Member States of the AIFM concerned, with full respect for the applicable confidentiality and data protection provisions provided for in the relevant Union legislation.\n21. In accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, ESMA shall fulfil a general coordination role between the competent authority of the Member State of reference of the non-EU AIFM and the competent authorities of the host Member States of the AIFM concerned. In particular, ESMA may:\n(a)\nfacilitate the exchange of information between the competent authorities concerned;\n(b)\ndetermine the scope of the information that the competent authority of the Member State of reference must provide to the competent authorities of the host Member States concerned;\n(c)\ntake all appropriate measures in case of developments which may jeopardise the functioning of the financial markets with a view to facilitating the coordination of actions undertaken by the competent authority of the Member State of reference and the competent authorities of the host Member States in relation to non-EU AIFMs.\n22. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the form and content of the request referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 12.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n23. In order to ensure the uniform application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards on the following:\n(a)\nthe manner in which an AIFM must comply with the requirements laid down in this Directive, taking into account that the AIFM is established in a third country and, in particular, the presentation of the information required in Articles 22 to 24;\n(b)\nthe conditions under which the law to which a non-EU AIFM or a non-EU AIF is subject is considered to provide for an equivalent rule having the same regulatory purpose and offering the same level of protection to the relevant investors.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 38\nPeer review of authorisation and supervision of non-EU AIFMs\n1. ESMA shall, on an annual basis, conduct a peer review analysis of the supervisory activities of the competent authorities in relation to the authorisation and the supervision of non-EU AIFMs under Articles 37, 39, 40 and 41, to further enhance consistency in supervisory outcomes, in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n2. By 22 July 2013, ESMA shall develop methods to allow for objective assessment and comparison between the authorities reviewed.\n3. In particular, the peer review analysis shall include an assessment of:\n(a)\nthe degree of convergence in supervisory practices achieved in the authorisation and supervision of non-EU AIFMs;\n(b)\nthe extent to which the supervisory practice achieves the objectives set out in this Directive;\n(c)\nthe effectiveness and the degree of convergence achieved with regard to the enforcement of this Directive and its implementing measures and the regulatory and implementing technical standards developed by ESMA pursuant to this Directive, including administrative measures and penalties imposed against non-EU AIFMs where this Directive has not been complied with.\n4. On the basis of the conclusions of the peer review, ESMA may issue guidelines and recommendations pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, with a view to establishing consistent, efficient and effective supervisory practices of non-EU AIFMs.\n5. The competent authorities shall make every effort to comply with those guidelines and recommendations.\n6. Within 2 months of the issuance of a guideline or recommendation, each competent authority shall confirm whether it complies or intends to comply with that guideline or recommendation. In the event that a competent authority does not comply or intend to comply, it shall inform ESMA, stating its reasons.\n7. ESMA shall publish the fact that a competent authority does not comply or intend to comply with that guideline or recommendation. ESMA may also decide, on a case-by-case basis, to publish the reasons provided by the competent authority for not complying with that guideline or recommendation. The competent authority shall receive advance notice of such a publication.\n8. In the report referred to in Article 43(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, ESMA shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of the guidelines and recommendations issued pursuant to this Article, stating which competent authorities have not complied with them, and outlining how ESMA intends to ensure that those competent authorities comply with its recommendations and guidelines in the future.\n9. The Commission shall duly take those reports into account in its review of this Directive in accordance with Article 69 and in any subsequent evaluation that it conducts.\n10. ESMA shall make the best practices that can be identified from peer reviews publicly available. In addition, all other results of peer reviews may be made public, subject to the agreement of the competent authority being the subject of the peer review.\nArticle 39\nConditions for the marketing in the Union with a passport of EU AIFs managed by a non-EU AIFM\n1. Member States shall ensure that a duly authorised non-EU AIFM may market the units or shares of an EU AIF it manages to professional investors in the Union with a passport as soon as the conditions laid down in this Article are met.\n2. In case the AIFM intends to market units or shares of the EU AIF in its Member State of reference, the AIFM shall submit a notification to the competent authorities of its Member State of reference in respect of each EU AIF that it intends to market.\nThat notification shall comprise the documentation and information set out in Annex III.\n3. No later than 20 working days after receipt of a complete notification pursuant to paragraph 2, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM shall inform the AIFM whether it may start marketing the AIF identified in the notification referred to in paragraph 2 in its territory. The competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM may prevent the marketing of the AIF only if the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF does not or will not comply with this Directive or if the AIFM otherwise does not or will not comply with this Directive. In the case of a positive decision, the AIFM may start marketing the AIF in its Member State of reference as of the date of the notification by the competent authorities to that effect.\nThe competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM shall also inform ESMA and the competent authorities of the AIF that the AIFM may start marketing units or shares of the AIF in the Member State of reference of the AIFM.\n4. In case the AIFM intends to market units or shares of the EU AIF in Member States other than its Member State of reference, the AIFM shall submit a notification to the competent authorities of its Member State of reference in respect of each EU AIF that it intends to market.\nThat notification shall comprise the documentation and information set out in Annex IV.\n5. The competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall, no later than 20 working days after the date of receipt of the complete notification file referred to in paragraph 4, transmit the complete notification file to the competent authorities of the Member States where the units or shares of the AIF are intended to be marketed. Such transmission shall be effected only if the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF complies and will continue to comply with this Directive and if the AIFM otherwise complies with this Directive.\nThe competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM shall enclose a statement to the effect that the AIFM concerned is authorised to manage AIFs with a particular investment strategy.\n6. Upon transmission of the notification file, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM shall, without delay, notify the AIFM about the transmission. The AIFM may start marketing the AIF in the relevant host Member States as of the date of that notification.\nThe competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM shall also inform ESMA and the competent authorities of the AIF that the AIFM may start marketing the units or shares of the AIF in the host Member States of the AIFM.\n7. The arrangements referred to in point (h) of Annex IV shall be subject to the laws and supervision of the host Member States of the AIFM.\n8. Member States shall ensure that the notification letter by the AIFM referred to in paragraph 4 and the statement referred to in paragraph 5 are provided in a language customary in the sphere of international finance.\nMember States shall ensure that electronic transmission and filing of the documents referred to in paragraph 6 are accepted by their competent authorities.\n9. In the event of a material change to any of the particulars communicated in accordance with paragraph 2 and/or 4, the AIFM shall give written notice of that change to the competent authorities of its Member State of reference at least 1 month before implementing a planned change, or immediately after an unplanned change has occurred.\nIf, pursuant to a planned change, the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF would no longer comply with this Directive or the AIFM would otherwise no longer comply with this Directive, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM shall inform the AIFM, without undue delay, that it is not to implement the change.\nIf a planned change is implemented notwithstanding the first and second subparagraphs or if an unplanned change has taken place pursuant to which the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF no longer complies with this Directive or the AIFM otherwise no longer complies with this Directive, the competent authorities of the Member State reference of the AIFM shall take all due measures in accordance with Article 46, including, if necessary, the express prohibition of marketing of the AIF.\nIf the changes are acceptable because they do not affect compliance of the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF with this Directive, or compliance by the AIFM with this Directive otherwise, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall, without delay, inform ESMA in so far as the changes concern the termination of the marketing of certain AIFs or additional AIFs being marketed and, in so far as applicable, the competent authorities of the host Member States of those changes.\n10. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine:\n(a)\nthe form and content of a model for the notification letter referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4;\n(b)\nthe form and content of a model for the statement referred to in paragraph 5;\n(c)\nthe form of the transmission referred to in paragraph 5; and\n(d)\nthe form of the written notice referred to in paragraph 9.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n11. Without prejudice to Article 43(1), Member States shall require that the AIFs managed and marketed by the AIFM be marketed only to professional investors.\nArticle 40\nConditions for the marketing in the Union with a passport of non-EU AIFs managed by a non-EU AIFM\n1. Member States shall ensure that a duly authorised non-EU AIFM may market units or shares of a non-EU AIF it manages to professional investors in the Union with a passport as soon as the conditions laid down in this Article are met.\n2. In addition to the requirements in this Directive in relation to EU-AIFMs, for non-EU AIFMs the following conditions shall be met:\n(a)\nappropriate cooperation arrangements are in place between the competent authorities of the Member State of reference and the supervisory authority of the third country where the non-EU AIF is established in order to ensure at least an efficient exchange of information that allows the competent authorities to carry out their duties in accordance with this Directive;\n(b)\nthe third country where the non-EU AIF is established is not listed as a Non-Cooperative Country and Territory by FATF;\n(c)\nthe third country where the non-EU AIF is established has signed an agreement with the Member State of reference and with each other Member State in which the units or shares of the non-EU AIF are intended to be marketed which fully complies with the standards laid down in Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and ensures an effective exchange of information in tax matters including any multilateral tax agreements.\nWhere a competent authority of another Member State disagrees with the assessment made on the application of points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph by the competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM, the competent authorities concerned may refer the matter to the ESMA which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n3. The AIFM shall submit a notification to the competent authorities of its Member State of reference in respect of each non-EU AIF that it intends to market in its Member State of reference.\nThat notification shall comprise the documentation and information set out in Annex III.\n4. No later than 20 working days after receipt of a complete notification pursuant to paragraph 3, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM shall inform the AIFM whether it may start marketing the AIF identified in the notification referred to in paragraph 3 in its territory. The competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM may prevent the marketing of the AIF only if the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF does not or will not comply with this Directive or the AIFM otherwise does not or will not comply with this Directive. In the case of a positive decision, the AIFM may start marketing the AIF in its Member State of reference from the date of the notification by the competent authorities to that effect.\nThe competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM shall also inform ESMA that the AIFM may start marketing units or shares of the AIF in the Member State of reference of the AIFM.\n5. If the AIFM intends to market the units or shares of a non-EU AIF also in Member States other than its Member State of reference, the AIFM shall submit a notification to the competent authorities of its Member State of reference in respect of each non-EU AIF that it intends to market.\nThat notification shall comprise the documentation and information set out in Annex IV.\n6. The competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall, no later than 20 working days after the date of receipt of the complete notification file referred to in paragraph 5, transmit the complete notification file to the competent authorities of the Member States where the units or shares of the AIF are intended to be marketed. Such transmission shall occur only if the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF complies and will continue to comply with this Directive and that in general the AIFM complies with this Directive.\nThe competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM shall enclose a statement to the effect that the AIFM concerned is authorised to manage AIFs with a particular investment strategy.\n7. Upon transmission of the notification file, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM shall, without delay, notify the AIFM of the transmission. The AIFM may start marketing the AIF in the relevant host Member States of the AIFM as of the date of that notification.\nThe competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM shall also inform ESMA that the AIFM may start marketing the units or shares of the AIF in the host Member States of the AIFM.\n8. Arrangements referred to in point (h) of Annex IV shall be subject to the laws and supervision of the host Member States of the AIFM, in so far as those Member States are different than the Member State of reference.\n9. Member States shall ensure that the notification letter by the AIFM referred to in paragraph 5 and the statement referred to in paragraph 6 are provided in a language customary in the sphere of international finance.\nMember States shall ensure that electronic transmission and filing of the documents referred to in paragraph 6 are accepted by their competent authorities.\n10. In the event of a material change to any of the particulars communicated in accordance with paragraph 3 or 5, the AIFM shall give written notice of that change to the competent authorities of the Member State of reference at least 1 month before implementing a planned change, or immediately after an unplanned change has occurred.\nIf, pursuant to a planned change, the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF would no longer comply with this Directive, or the AIFM would otherwise no longer comply with this Directive, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM shall inform the AIFM, without undue delay, that it is not to implement the change.\nIf the planned change is implemented notwithstanding the first and second subparagraphs, or if an unplanned change has taken place pursuant to which the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF no longer complies with this Directive or the AIFM otherwise no longer complies with this Directive, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the AIFM shall take all due measures in accordance with Article 46, including, if necessary, the express prohibition of marketing of the AIF.\nIf the changes are acceptable because they do not affect the compliance of the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF with this Directive or the compliance by the AIFM with this Directive otherwise, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall, without delay, inform ESMA in so far as the changes concern the termination of the marketing of certain AIFs or additional AIFs being marketed and, in so far as applicable, the competent authorities of the host Member States of the AIFM of those changes.\n11. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures regarding the cooperation arrangements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 in order to design a common framework to facilitate the establishment of those cooperation arrangements with third countries.\n12. In order to ensure uniform application of this Article, ESMA may develop guidelines to determine the conditions of application of the measures adopted by the Commission regarding the cooperation arrangements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2.\n13. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to determine the minimum content of the cooperation arrangements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 so as to ensure that the competent authorities of the Member State of reference and the competent authorities of the host Member States receive sufficient information in order to be able to exercise their supervisory and investigatory powers under this Directive.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n14. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the procedures for coordination and exchange of information between the competent authority of the Member State of reference and the competent authorities of the host Member States of the AIFM.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n15. In case a competent authority rejects a request to exchange information in accordance with the regulatory technical standards referred to in paragraph 14, the competent authorities concerned may refer the matter to ESMA, which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n16. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine:\n(a)\nthe form and content of a model for the notification letter referred to in paragraphs 3 and 5;\n(b)\nthe form and content of a model for the statement referred to in paragraph 6;\n(c)\nthe form of the transmission referred to in paragraph 6; and\n(d)\nthe form of the written notice referred to in paragraph 10.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n17. Without prejudice to Article 43(1), Member States shall require that the AIFs managed and marketed by the AIFM be marketed only to professional investors.\nArticle 41\nConditions for managing AIFs established in Member States other than the Member State of reference by non-EU AIFMs\n1. Member States shall ensure that an authorised non-EU AIFM may manage EU AIFs established in a Member State other than its Member State of reference either directly or via the establishment of a branch, provided that the AIFM is authorised to manage that type of AIF.\n2. Any non-EU AIFM intending to manage EU AIFs established in another Member State than its Member State of reference for the first time shall communicate the following information to the competent authorities of its Member State of reference:\n(a)\nthe Member State in which it intends to manage AIFs directly or establish a branch;\n(b)\na programme of operations stating in particular the services which it intends to perform and identifying the AIFs it intends to manage.\n3. If the non-EU AIFM intends to establish a branch, it shall provide, in addition to the information requested in paragraph 2, the following information:\n(a)\nthe organisational structure of the branch;\n(b)\nthe address in the home Member State of the AIF from which documents may be obtained;\n(c)\nthe names and contact details of persons responsible for the management of the branch.\n4. The competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall, within 1 month of receiving the complete documentation in accordance with paragraph 2 or within 2 months of receiving the complete documentation in accordance with paragraph 3, transmit that documentation to the competent authorities of the host Member States of the AIFM. Such transmission shall occur only if the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF complies and will continue to comply with this Directive and the AIFM otherwise complies with this Directive.\nThe competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall enclose a statement to the effect that the AIFM concerned is authorised by them.\nThe competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall immediately notify the AIFM about the transmission. Upon receipt of the transmission notification the AIFM may start to provide its services in the host Member States of the AIFM.\nThe competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall also inform ESMA that the AIFM may start managing the AIF in the host Member States of the AIFM.\n5. The host Member States of the AIFM shall not impose any additional requirements on the AIFM concerned in respect of the matters covered by this Directive.\n6. In the event of a change to any of the information communicated in accordance with paragraph 2 and, if relevant, paragraph 3, an AIFM shall give written notice of that change to the competent authorities of its Member State of reference at least 1 month before implementing a planned change, or immediately after an unplanned change has occurred.\nIf, pursuant to a planned change, the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF would no longer comply with this Directive or the AIFM would otherwise no longer comply with this Directive, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall inform the AIFM without undue delay that it is not to implement the change.\nIf a planned change is implemented notwithstanding the first and second subparagraphs or if an unplanned change has taken place pursuant to which the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF no longer complies with this Directive or the AIFM otherwise no longer complies with this Directive, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall take all due measures in accordance with Article 46, including, if necessary, the express prohibition of marketing of the AIF.\nIf the changes are acceptable because they do not affect the compliance of the AIFM\u2019s management of the AIF with this Directive or the compliance by the AIFM with this Directive otherwise, the competent authorities of the Member State of reference shall without undue delay inform the competent authorities of the host Member States of the AIFM of those changes.\n7. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information to be notified in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3.\nPower is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n8. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the transmission of information in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 42\nConditions for the marketing in Member States without a passport of AIFs managed by a non-EU AIFM\n1. Without prejudice to Articles 37, 39 and 40, Member States may allow non-EU AIFMs to market to professional investors, in their territory only, units or shares of AIFs they manage subject at least to the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe non-EU AIFM complies with Articles 22, 23 and 24 in respect of each AIF marketed by it pursuant to this Article and with Articles 26 to 30 where an AIF marketed by it pursuant to this Article falls within the scope of Article 26(1). Competent authorities and AIF investors referred to in those Articles shall be deemed those of the Member States where the AIFs are marketed;\n(b)\nappropriate cooperation arrangements for the purpose of systemic risk oversight and in line with international standards are in place between the competent authorities of the Member States where the AIFs are marketed, in so far as applicable, the competent authorities of the EU AIFs concerned and the supervisory authorities of the third country where the non-EU AIFM is established and, in so far as applicable, the supervisory authorities of the third country where the non-EU AIF is established in order to ensure an efficient exchange of information that allows competent authorities of the relevant Member States to carry out their duties in accordance with this Directive;\n(c)\nthe third country where the non-EU AIFM or the non-EU AIF is established is not listed as a Non-Cooperative Country and Territory by FATF.\nWhere a competent authority of an EU AIF does not enter into the required cooperation arrangements as set out in point (b) of the first subparagraph within a reasonable period of time, the competent authorities of the Member State where the AIF is intended to be marketed may refer the matter to ESMA which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n2. Member States may impose stricter rules on the non-EU AIFM in respect of the marketing of units or shares of AIFs to investors in their territory for the purpose of this Article.\n3. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures regarding the cooperation arrangements referred to in paragraph 1 in order to design a common framework to facilitate the establishment of those cooperation arrangements with third countries.\n4. In order to ensure uniform application of this Article, ESMA shall develop guidelines to determine the conditions of application of the measures adopted by the Commission regarding the cooperation arrangements referred to in paragraph 1.\nCHAPTER VIII\nMARKETING TO RETAIL INVESTORS\nArticle 43\nMarketing of AIFs by AIFMs to retail investors\n1. Without prejudice to other instruments of Union law, Member States may allow AIFMs to market to retail investors in their territory units or shares of AIFs they manage in accordance with this Directive, irrespective of whether such AIFs are marketed on a domestic or cross-border basis or whether they are EU or non-EU AIFs.\nIn such cases, Member States may impose stricter requirements on the AIFM or the AIF than the requirements applicable to the AIFs marketed to professional investors in their territory in accordance with this Directive. However, Member States shall not impose stricter or additional requirements on EU AIFs established in another Member State and marketed on a cross-border basis than on AIFs marketed domestically.\n2. Member States that permit the marketing of AIFs to retail investors in their territory shall, by 22 July 2014, inform the Commission and ESMA of:\n(a)\nthe types of AIF which AIFMs may market to retail investors in their territory;\n(b)\nany additional requirements that the Member State imposes for the marketing of AIFs to retail investors.\nMember States shall also inform the Commission and ESMA of any subsequent changes with regard to the first subparagraph.\nCHAPTER IX\nCOMPETENT AUTHORITIES\nSECTION 1\nDesignation, powers and redress procedures\nArticle 44\nDesignation of competent authorities\nMember States shall designate the competent authorities which are to carry out the duties provided for in this Directive.\nThey shall inform ESMA and the Commission thereof, indicating any division of duties.\nThe competent authorities shall be public authorities.\nMember States shall require that their competent authorities establish the appropriate methods to monitor that AIFMs comply with their obligations under this Directive, where relevant on the basis of guidelines developed by ESMA.\nArticle 45\nResponsibility of competent authorities in Member States\n1. The prudential supervision of an AIFM shall be the responsibility of the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM, whether the AIFM manages and/or markets AIFs in another Member State or not, without prejudice to those provisions of this Directive which confer the responsibility for supervision on the competent authorities of the host Member State of the AIFM.\n2. The supervision of an AIFM\u2019s compliance with Articles 12 and 14 shall be the responsibility of the competent authorities of the host Member State of the AIFM where the AIFM manages and/or markets AIFs through a branch in that Member State.\n3. The competent authorities of the host Member State of the AIFM may require an AIFM managing or marketing AIFs in its territory, whether or not through a branch, to provide the information necessary for the supervision of the AIFM\u2019s compliance with the applicable rules for which those competent authorities are responsible.\nThose requirements shall not be more stringent than those which the host Member State of the AIFM imposes on AIFMs for which it is the home Member State for the monitoring of their compliance with the same rules.\n4. Where the competent authorities of the host Member State of the AIFM ascertain that an AIFM managing and/or marketing AIFs in its territory, whether or not through a branch, is in breach of one of the rules in relation to which they have responsibility for supervising compliance, those authorities shall require the AIFM concerned to put an end to that breach and inform the competent authorities of the home Member State thereof.\n5. If the AIFM concerned refuses to provide the competent authorities of its host Member State with information falling under their responsibility, or fails to take the necessary steps to put an end to the breach referred to in paragraph 4, the competent authorities of its host Member State shall inform the competent authorities of its home Member State thereof. The competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall, at the earliest opportunity:\n(a)\ntake all appropriate measures to ensure that the AIFM concerned provides the information requested by the competent authorities of its host Member State pursuant to paragraph 3, or puts an end to the breach referred to in paragraph 4;\n(b)\nrequest the necessary information from the relevant supervisory authorities in third countries.\nThe nature of the measures referred to in point (a) shall be communicated to the competent authorities of the host Member State of the AIFM.\n6. If, despite the measures taken by the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM pursuant to paragraph 5 or because such measures prove to be inadequate or are not available in the Member State in question, the AIFM continues to refuse to provide the information requested by the competent authorities of its host Member State pursuant to paragraph 3, or persists in breaching the legal or regulatory provisions, referred to in paragraph 4, in force in its host Member State, the competent authorities of the host Member State of the AIFM may, after informing the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM, take appropriate measures, including those laid down in Articles 46 and 48, to prevent or penalise further irregularities and, in so far as necessary, to prevent that AIFM from initiating any further transactions in its host Member State. Where the function carried out in the host Member State of the AIFM is the management of AIFs, the host Member State may require the AIFM to cease managing those AIFs.\n7. Where the competent authorities of the host Member State of the AIFM have clear and demonstrable grounds for believing that the AIFM is in breach of the obligations arising from rules in relation to which they have no responsibility for supervising compliance, they shall refer those findings to the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM which shall take appropriate measures, including, if necessary, request additional information from the relevant supervisory authorities in third countries.\n8. If despite the measures taken by the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM or because such measures prove to be inadequate, or because the home Member State of the AIFM fails to act within a reasonable timeframe, the AIFM persists in acting in a manner that is clearly prejudicial to the interests of the investors of the relevant AIF, the financial stability or the integrity of the market in the host Member State of the AIFM, the competent authorities of the host Member State of the AIFM may, after informing the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM, take all appropriate measures needed in order to protect the investors of the relevant AIF, the financial stability and the integrity of the market in the host Member State, including the possibility of preventing the AIFM concerned to further market the units or shares of the relevant AIF in the host Member State.\n9. The procedure laid down in paragraphs 7 and 8 shall also apply in the event that the competent authorities of the host Member State have clear and demonstrable grounds for disagreement with the authorisation of a non-EU AIFM by the Member State of reference.\n10. Where the competent authorities concerned disagree on any of the measures taken by a competent authority pursuant to paragraphs 4 to 9, they may bring the matter to the attention of ESMA, which may act in accordance with the powers conferred to it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n11. Where applicable, ESMA shall facilitate the negotiation and conclusion of the cooperation arrangements required by this Directive between the competent authorities of the Member States and the supervisory authorities of third countries.\nArticle 46\nPowers of competent authorities\n1. Competent authorities shall be given all supervisory and investigatory powers that are necessary for the exercise of their functions. Such powers shall be exercised in any of the following ways:\n(a)\ndirectly;\n(b)\nin collaboration with other authorities;\n(c)\nunder their responsibility by delegation to entities to which tasks have been delegated;\n(d)\nby application to the competent judicial authorities.\n2. The competent authorities shall have the power to:\n(a)\nhave access to any document in any form and to receive a copy of it;\n(b)\nrequire information from any person related to the activities of the AIFM or the AIF and if necessary to summon and question a person with a view to obtaining information;\n(c)\ncarry out on-site inspections with or without prior announcements;\n(d)\nrequire existing telephone and existing data traffic records;\n(e)\nrequire the cessation of any practice that is contrary to the provisions adopted in the implementation of this Directive;\n(f)\nrequest the freezing or the sequestration of assets;\n(g)\nrequest the temporary prohibition of professional activity;\n(h)\nrequire authorised AIFM, depositaries or auditors to provide information;\n(i)\nadopt any type of measure to ensure that AIFMs or depositaries continue to comply with the requirements of this Directive applicable to them;\n(j)\nrequire the suspension of the issue, repurchase or redemption of units in the interest of the unit-holders or of the public;\n(k)\nwithdraw the authorisation granted to an AIFM or a depositary;\n(l)\nrefer matters for criminal prosecution;\n(m)\nrequest that auditors or experts carry out verifications or investigations.\n3. Where the competent authority of the Member State of reference considers that an authorised non-EU AIFM is in breach of its obligations under this Directive, it shall notify ESMA, setting out full reasons as soon as possible.\n4. Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities have the powers necessary to take all measures required in order to ensure the orderly functioning of markets in those cases where the activity of one or more AIFs in the market for a financial instrument could jeopardise the orderly functioning of that market.\nArticle 47\nPowers and competences of ESMA\n1. ESMA may develop and regularly review guidelines for the competent authorities of the Member States on the exercise of their authorisation powers and on the reporting obligations by the competent authorities imposed by this Directive.\nESMA shall further have the powers necessary, including those enumerated in Article 48(3), to carry out the tasks attributed to it by this Directive.\n2. The obligation of professional secrecy shall apply to all persons who work or who have worked for ESMA, and for the competent authorities or for any other person to whom ESMA has delegated tasks, including auditors and experts contracted by ESMA. Information covered by professional secrecy shall not be disclosed to another person or authority except where such disclosure is necessary for legal proceedings.\n3. All the information exchanged under this Directive between ESMA, the competent authorities, EBA, the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (29) and the ESRB shall be considered confidential, except where ESMA or the competent authority or other authority or body concerned states at the time of communication that such information may be disclosed or where such disclosure is necessary for legal proceedings.\n4. In accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, ESMA may, where all the conditions in paragraph 5 are met, request the competent authority or competent authorities to take any of the following measures, as appropriate:\n(a)\nprohibit the marketing in the Union of units or shares of AIFs managed by non-EU AIFMs or of non-EU AIFs managed by EU AIFMs without the authorisation required in Article 37 or without the notification required in Articles 35, 39 and 40 or without being allowed to do so by the relevant Member States in accordance with Article 42;\n(b)\nimpose restrictions on non-EU AIFMs relating to the management of an AIF in case of excessive concentration of risk in a specific market on a cross-border basis;\n(c)\nimpose restrictions on non-EU AIFMs relating to the management of an AIF where its activities potentially constitute an important source of counterparty risk to a credit institution or other systemically relevant institutions.\n5. ESMA may take a decision under paragraph 4 and subject to the requirements set out in paragraph 6 if both of the following conditions are met:\n(a)\na substantial threat exists, originating or aggravated by the activities of AIFMs, to the orderly functioning and integrity of the financial market or to the stability of the whole or a part of the financial system in the Union and there are cross border implications; and\n(b)\nthe relevant competent authority or competent authorities have not taken measures to address the threat or the measures that have been taken do not sufficiently address the threat.\n6. The measures taken by the competent authority or competent authorities pursuant to paragraph 4 shall:\n(a)\neffectively address the threat to the orderly functioning and the integrity of the financial market or to the stability of the whole or a part of the financial system in the Union or significantly improve the ability of competent authorities to monitor the threat;\n(b)\nnot create a risk of regulatory arbitrage;\n(c)\nnot have a detrimental effect on the efficiency of the financial markets, including reducing liquidity in those markets or creating uncertainty for market participants, in a way that is disproportionate to the benefits of the measures.\n7. Before requesting the competent authority to take or renew any measure referred to in paragraph 4, ESMA shall consult, where appropriate, the ESRB and other relevant authorities.\n8. ESMA shall notify the competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the non-EU AIFM and the competent authorities of the host Member States of the non-EU AIFM concerned of the decision to request the competent authority or competent authorities to impose or renew any measure referred to in paragraph 4. The notification shall at least specify the following details:\n(a)\nthe AIFM and the activities to which the measures apply and their duration;\n(b)\nthe reasons why ESMA is of the opinion that it is necessary to impose the measures in accordance with the conditions and requirements set out in this Article, including the evidence in support of those reasons.\n9. ESMA shall review its measures referred to in paragraph 4 at appropriate intervals and in any event at least every 3 months. If a measure is not renewed after that 3-month period, it shall automatically expire. Paragraphs 5 to 8 shall apply to a renewal of measures.\n10. The competent authorities of the Member State of reference of the non-EU AIFM concerned may request ESMA to reconsider its decision. The procedure set out in the second subparagraph of Article 44(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 shall apply.\nArticle 48\nAdministrative penalties\n1. Member States shall lay down the rules on measures and penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that those rules are enforced. Without prejudice to the procedures for the withdrawal of authorisation or to the right of Member States to impose criminal penalties, Member States shall ensure, in accordance with their national law, that the appropriate administrative measures can be taken or administrative penalties be imposed against the persons responsible where the provisions adopted in the implementation of this Directive have not been complied with. Member States shall ensure that those measures are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n2. Member States shall provide that the competent authorities may disclose to the public any measure or penalty that will be imposed for infringement of the provisions adopted in the implementation of this Directive, unless such disclosure would seriously jeopardise the financial markets, be detrimental to the interests of the investors or cause disproportionate damage to the parties involved.\n3. ESMA shall draw up an annual report on the application of administrative measures and imposition of penalties in the case of breaches of the provisions adopted in the implementation of this Directive in the different Member States. Competent authorities shall provide ESMA with the necessary information for that purpose.\nArticle 49\nRight of appeal\n1. The competent authorities shall give written reasons for any decision to refuse or withdraw authorisation of AIFMs to manage and/or market AIFs, or any negative decision taken in the implementation of the measures adopted in application of this Directive, and communicate them to applicants.\n2. Member States shall provide that any decision taken under laws, regulations or administrative provisions adopted in accordance with this Directive is properly reasoned and is the subject of the right of appeal to the courts.\nThat right to appeal to the courts shall apply also where, in respect of an application for authorisation which provides all the information required, no decision is taken within 6 months of the submission of the application.\nSECTION 2\nCooperation between different competent authorities\nArticle 50\nObligation to cooperate\n1. The competent authorities of the Member States shall cooperate with each other and with ESMA and the ESRB whenever necessary for the purpose of carrying out their duties under this Directive or of exercising their powers under this Directive or under national law.\n2. Member States shall facilitate the cooperation provided for in this Section.\n3. Competent authorities shall use their powers for the purpose of cooperation, even in cases where the conduct under investigation does not constitute an infringement of any regulation in force in their own Member State.\n4. The competent authorities of the Member States shall immediately supply one another and ESMA with the information required for the purposes of carrying out their duties under this Directive.\nThe competent authorities of the home Member State shall forward a copy of the relevant cooperation arrangements entered into by them in accordance with Article 35, 37 and/or 40 to the host Member States of the AIFM concerned. The competent authorities of the home Member State shall, in accordance with procedures relating to the applicable regulatory technical standards referred to in Article 35(14), Article 37(17) or Article 40(14), forward the information received from third-country supervisory authorities in accordance with cooperation arrangements with such supervisory authorities in respect of an AIFM, or, where relevant, pursuant to Article 45(6) or (7), to the competent authorities of host Member State of the AIFM concerned.\nWhere a competent authority of a host Member State considers that the contents of the cooperation arrangement entered into by the home Member State of the AIFM concerned in accordance with Article 35, 37 and/or 40 does not comply with what is required pursuant to the applicable regulatory technical standards, the competent authorities concerned may refer the matter to the ESMA which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n5. Where the competent authorities of one Member State have clear and demonstrable grounds to suspect that acts contrary to this Directive are being or have been carried out by an AIFM not subject to supervision of those competent authorities, they shall notify ESMA and the competent authorities of the home and host Member States of the AIFM concerned thereof in as specific a manner as possible. The recipient authorities shall take appropriate action, shall inform ESMA and the notifying competent authorities of the outcome of that action and, to the extent possible, of significant interim developments. This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the competences of the notifying competent authority.\n6. In order to ensure uniform application of this Directive concerning the exchange of information, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the conditions of application with regard to the procedures for exchange of information between competent authorities and between the competent authorities and ESMA.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 51\nTransfer and retention of personal data\n1. With regard to transfer of personal data between competent authorities, competent authorities shall apply Directive 95/46/EC. With regard to transfer of personal data by ESMA to the competent authorities of a Member State or of a third country, ESMA shall comply with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\n2. Data shall be retained for a maximum period of 5 years.\nArticle 52\nDisclosure of information to third countries\n1. The competent authority of a Member State may transfer to a third country data and the analysis of data on a case-by-case basis where the conditions laid down in Article 25 or 26 of Directive 95/46/EC are met and where the competent authority of the Member State is satisfied that the transfer is necessary for the purpose of this Directive. The third country shall not transfer the data to another third country without the express written authorisation of the competent authority of the Member State.\n2. The competent authority of a Member State shall only disclose information received from a competent authority of another Member State to a supervisory authority of a third country where the competent authority of the Member State concerned has obtained express agreement of the competent authority which transmitted the information and, where applicable, the information is disclosed solely for the purposes for which that competent authority gave its agreement.\nArticle 53\nExchange of information relating to the potential systemic consequences of AIFM activity\n1. The competent authorities of the Member States responsible for the authorisation and/or supervision of AIFMs under this Directive shall communicate information to the competent authorities of other Member States where this is relevant for monitoring and responding to the potential implications of the activities of individual AIFMs or AIFMs collectively for the stability of systemically relevant financial institutions and the orderly functioning of markets on which AIFMs are active. ESMA and the ESRB shall also be informed and shall forward this information to the competent authorities of the other Member States.\n2. Subject to the conditions laid down in Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, aggregated information relating to the activities of AIFMs under their responsibility shall be communicated by the competent authorities of the AIFM to ESMA and the ESRB.\n3. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying the content of the information to be exchanged pursuant to paragraph 1.\n4. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts specifying the modalities and frequency of the information to be exchanged pursuant to paragraph 1. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 59(2).\nArticle 54\nCooperation in supervisory activities\n1. The competent authorities of one Member State may request the cooperation of the competent authorities of another Member State in a supervisory activity or for an on-the-spot verification or in an investigation in the territory of the latter within the framework of their powers pursuant to this Directive.\nWhere the competent authorities receive a request with respect to an on-the-spot verification or an investigation, it shall perform one of the following:\n(a)\ncarry out the verification or investigation itself;\n(b)\nallow the requesting authority to carry out the verification or investigation;\n(c)\nallow auditors or experts to carry out the verification or investigation.\n2. In the case referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 the competent authority of the Member State which has requested cooperation may ask that members of its own personnel assist the personnel carrying out the verification or investigation. The verification or investigation shall, however, be the subject of the overall control of the Member State on whose territory it is conducted.\nIn the case referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 the competent authority of the Member State on whose territory the verification or investigation is carried out may request that members of its own personnel assist the personnel carrying out the verification or investigation.\n3. Competent authorities may refuse to exchange information or to act on a request for cooperation in carrying out an investigation or on-the-spot verification only in the following cases:\n(a)\nthe investigation, on-the-spot verification or exchange of information might adversely affect the sovereignty, security or public order of the Member State addressed;\n(b)\njudicial proceedings have already been initiated in respect of the same actions and the same persons before the authorities of the Member State addressed;\n(c)\nfinal judgment has already been delivered in the Member State addressed in respect of the same persons and the same actions.\nThe competent authorities shall inform the requesting competent authorities of any decision taken under the first subparagraph, stating the reasons therefor.\n4. In order to ensure uniform application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards to establish common procedures for competent authorities to cooperate in on-the-spot verifications and investigations.\nPower is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nArticle 55\nDispute settlement\nIn case of disagreement between competent authorities of Member States on an assessment, action or omission of one competent authority in areas where this Directive requires cooperation or coordination between competent authorities from more than one Member State, competent authorities may refer the matter to the ESMA which may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\nCHAPTER X\nTRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 56\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The powers to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 3, 4, 9, 12, 14 to 25, 34 to 37, 40, 42, 53, 67 and 68 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 4 years from 21 July 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated powers no later than 6 months before the end of the 4-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 57.\n2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The powers to adopt delegated acts are conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58.\nArticle 57\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 3, 4, 9, 12, 14 to 25, 34 to 37, 40, 42, 53, 67 and 68 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation and the possible reasons for a revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 58\nObjections to delegated acts\n1. The European Parliament and the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of 3 months from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 3 months.\n2. If, on expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force at the date stated therein.\nThe delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if, upon a justified request by the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to the adopted delegated act within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. In accordance with Article 296 TFEU, the institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.\nArticle 59\nImplementing measures\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the European Securities Committee established by Commission Decision 2001/528/EC (30). That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 60\nDisclosure of derogations\nWhere a Member State makes use of a derogation or option provided by Articles 6, 9, 21, 22, 28, 43 and Article 61(5), it shall inform the Commission thereof as well as of any subsequent changes. The Commission shall make the information public on a web-site or by other easily accessible means.\nArticle 61\nTransitional provisions\n1. AIFMs performing activities under this Directive before 22 July 2013 shall take all necessary measures to comply with national law stemming from this Directive and shall submit an application for authorisation within 1 year of that date.\n2. Articles 31, 32 and 33 shall not apply to the marketing of units or shares of AIFs that are subject to a current offer to the public under a prospectus that has been drawn up and published in accordance with Directive 2003/71/EC before 22 July 2013 for the duration of validity of that prospectus.\n3. AIFMs in so far as they manage AIFs of the closed-ended type before 22 July 2013 which do not make any additional investments after 22 July 2013 may however continue to manage such AIFs without authorisation under this Directive.\n4. AIFMs in so far as they manage AIFs of the closed-ended type whose subscription period for investors has closed prior to the entry into force of this Directive and are constituted for a period of time which expires at the latest 3 years after 22 July 2013, may, however, continue to manage such AIFs without needing to comply with this Directive except for Article 22 and, where relevant, Articles 26 to 30, or to submit an application for authorisation under this Directive.\n5. The competent authorities of the home Member State of an AIF or in case where the AIF is not regulated the competent authorities of the home Member State of an AIFM may allow institutions referred to in point (a) of Article 21(3) and established in another Member State to be appointed as a depositary until 22 July 2017. This provision shall be without prejudice to the full application of Article 21, with the exception of point (a) of paragraph 5 of that Article on the place where the depositary is to be established.\nArticle 62\nAmendments to Directive 2003/41/EC\nDirective 2003/41/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 2(2), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\ninstitutions which are covered by Directives 73/239/EEC (31), 85/611/EEC (32), 93/22/EEC (33), 2000/12/EC (34), 2002/83/EC (35) and 2011/61/EU (36);\n(2)\nArticle 19(1) is replaced by the following:\n1. Member States shall not restrict institutions from appointing, for the management of the investment portfolio, investment managers established in another Member State and duly authorised for this activity, in accordance with Directives 85/611/EEC, 93/22/EEC, 2000/12/EC, 2002/83/EC and 2011/61/EU, as well as those referred to in Article 2(1) of this Directive.\u2019.\nArticle 63\nAmendments to Directive 2009/65/EC\nDirective 2009/65/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 50a\nIn order to ensure cross-sectoral consistency and to remove misalignment between the interest of firms that repackage loans into tradable securities and other financial instruments (originators) and UCITS that invest in those securities or other financial instruments, the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 112a and subject to conditions of Articles 112b and 112c, measures laying down the requirements in the following areas:\n(a)\nthe requirements that need to be met by the originator in order for a UCITS to be allowed to invest in securities or other financial instruments of this type issued after 1 January 2011, including requirements that ensure that the originator retains a net economic interest of not less than 5 %;\n(b)\nqualitative requirements that must be met by UCITS which invest in those securities or other financial instruments.\u2019;\n(2)\nArticle 112(2) is replaced by the following:\n2. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Articles 12, 14, 23, 33, 43, 51, 60, 61, 62, 64, 75, 78, 81, 95 and 111 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 4 years from 4 January 2011. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 50a shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 4 years from 21 July 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of delegated powers at the latest 6 months before the end of the 4-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes them in accordance with Article 112a.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 112a(1) is replaced by the following:\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 12, 14, 23, 33, 43, 50a, 51, 60, 61, 62, 64, 75, 78, 81, 95 and 111 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\u2019.\nArticle 64\nAmendment to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009\nIn Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, the first paragraph of Article 4(1) is replaced by the following:\n1. Credit institutions as defined in Directive 2006/48/EC, investment firms as defined in Directive 2004/39/EC, insurance undertakings subject to the First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the take-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance (37), assurance undertakings as defined in Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (38), reinsurance undertakings as defined in Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance (39), UCITS as defined in Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (40), institutions for occupational retirement provision as defined in Directive 2003/41/EC and alternative investment funds as defined in Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (41) may use credit ratings for regulatory purposes only if they are issued by credit rating agencies established in the Union and registered in accordance with this Regulation.\nArticle 65\nAmendment to Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010\nIn Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, the words \u2018any future legislation in the area of Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM)\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (42)\nArticle 66\nTransposition\n1. By 22 July 2013, Member States shall adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\n2. Member States shall apply the laws, regulations and administrative provisions referred to in paragraph 1 from 22 July 2013.\n3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, Member States shall apply the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 35 and Articles 37 to 41 in accordance with the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 67(6) and from the date specified therein.\n4. Member States shall ensure that the laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted by them in compliance with Articles 36 and 42 cease to apply in accordance with the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 68(6) and on the date specified therein.\n5. When Member States adopt the measures referred to in paragraph 1, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication.\n6. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 67\nDelegated act on the application of Article 35 and Articles 37 to 41\n1. By 22 July 2015, ESMA shall issue to, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission:\n(a)\nan opinion on the functioning of the passport for EU AIFMs managing and/or marketing EU AIFs pursuant to Articles 32 and 33 and on the functioning of the marketing of non-EU AIFs by EU AIFMs in the Member States and the management and/or marketing of AIFs by non-EU AIFMs in the Member States pursuant to the applicable national regimes set out in Articles 36 and 42; and\n(b)\nadvice on the application of the passport to the marketing of non-EU AIFs by EU AIFMs in the Member States and the management and/or marketing of AIFs by non-EU AIFMs in the Member States in accordance with the rules set out in Article 35 and Articles 37 to 41.\n2. ESMA shall base its opinion and advice on the application of the passport to the marketing of non-EU AIFs by EU AIFMs in the Member States and the management and/or marketing of AIFs by non-EU AIFMs in the Member States, inter alia, on:\n(a)\nas regards the functioning of the passport for EU AIFMs managing and/or marketing EU AIFs:\n(i)\nthe use made of the passport;\n(ii)\nthe problems encountered regarding:\n-\neffective cooperation among competent authorities,\n-\neffective functioning of the notification system,\n-\ninvestor protection,\n-\nmediation by ESMA, including the number of cases and the effectiveness of the mediation;\n(iii)\nthe effectiveness of the collection and sharing of information in relation to the monitoring of systemic risks by national competent authorities, ESMA and ESRB;\n(b)\nas regards the functioning of the marketing of non-EU AIFs by EU AIFMs in the Member States and the management and/or marketing of AIFs by non-EU AIFMs in the Member States in accordance with the applicable national regimes:\n(i)\ncompliance of EU AIFMs with all the requirements established in this Directive with the exception of Article 21;\n(ii)\ncompliance of non-EU AIFMs with Articles 22, 23 and 24 in respect of each AIF marketed by the AIFM and, where relevant, with Articles 26 to 30;\n(iii)\nexistence and effectiveness of cooperation arrangements for the purpose of systemic risk oversight and in line with international standards between the competent authorities of the Member State where the AIFs are marketed, in so far as applicable, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the EU AIF and the supervisory authorities of the third country where the non-EU AIFM is established and, in so far as applicable, the supervisory authorities of the third country where the non-EU AIF is established;\n(iv)\nany issues relating to investor protection that might have occurred;\n(v)\nany features of a third-country regulatory and supervisory framework which might prevent the effective exercise by the competent authorities of their supervisory functions under this Directive;\n(c)\nas regards the functioning of both systems, the potential market disruptions and distortions in competition (level playing field) or any general or specific difficulties which EU AIFMs encounter in establishing themselves or marketing AIFs they manage in any third country.\n3. To that end, as from the entry into force of the national laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive and until the issuance of the opinion of ESMA referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1, the competent authorities of the Member States shall, quarterly, provide ESMA with information on the AIFMs that are managing and/or marketing AIFs under their supervision, either under the application of the passport regime provided for in this Directive or under their national regimes, and with information needed for the assessment of the elements referred to in paragraph 2.\n4. Where ESMA considers that there are no significant obstacles regarding investor protection, market disruption, competition and the monitoring of systemic risk, impeding the application of the passport to the marketing of non-EU AIFs by EU AIFMs in the Member States and the management and/or marketing of AIFs by non-EU AIFMs in the Member States in accordance with the rules set out in Article 35 and Articles 37 to 41, it shall issue positive advice in this regard.\n5. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying the contents of the information to be provided pursuant to paragraph 2.\n6. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act within 3 months after having received positive advice and an opinion from ESMA, and taking into account the criteria listed in paragraph 2 and the objectives of this Directive, such as those relating to the internal market, investor protection and the effective monitoring of systemic risk, in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, specifying the date when the rules set out in Article 35 and Articles 37 to 41 become applicable in all Member States.\nIf there is objection to the delegated act referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 58, the Commission shall re-adopt the delegated act pursuant to which the rules set out in Article 35 and Articles 37 to 41 shall become applicable in all Member States, in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, at a later stage which seems appropriate to it, taking into account the criteria listed in paragraph 2 and the objectives of this Directive, such as those relating to the internal market, investor protection and the effective monitoring of systemic risk.\n7. If ESMA has not issued its advice within the time limit referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall request the advice to be provided within a new time limit.\nArticle 68\nDelegated act on the termination of the application of Articles 36 and 42\n1. 3 years after the entry into force of the delegated act referred to in Article 67(6) pursuant to which the rules set out in Article 35 and Articles 37 to 41 have become applicable in all Member States, ESMA shall issue to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission:\n(a)\nan opinion on the functioning of the passport for EU AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs in the Union pursuant to Article 35 and for non-EU AIFMs managing and/or marketing AIFs in the Union pursuant to Articles 37 to 41, and on the functioning of the marketing of non-EU AIFs by EU AIFMs in the Member States and the management and/or marketing of AIFs by non-EU AIFMs in the Member States pursuant to the applicable national regimes as set out in Articles 36 and 42; and\n(b)\nadvice on the termination of the existence of the national regimes set out in Articles 36 and 42 in parallel with the existence of the passport in accordance with the rules set out in Article 35 and Articles 37 to 41.\n2. ESMA shall base its opinion and advice on the termination of the existence of the national regimes set out in Articles 36 and 42 inter alia:\n(a)\nas regards the functioning of the passport for EU AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs in the Union and for non-EU AIFMs managing and/or marketing AIFs in the Union:\n(i)\nthe use made of the passport;\n(ii)\nthe problems encountered regarding:\n-\neffective cooperation among competent authorities,\n-\neffective functioning of the notification system,\n-\nthe indication of the Member State of reference,\n-\nthe effective exercise by the competent authorities of their supervisory functions being prevented by the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of a third country governing AIFMs, or by limitations in the supervisory and investigatory powers of the third country supervisory authorities,\n-\ninvestor protection,\n-\ninvestor access in the Union,\n-\nthe impact on developing countries,\n-\nmediation by ESMA, including the number of cases and the effectiveness of the mediation;\n(iii)\nthe negotiation, conclusion, existence and effectiveness of the required cooperation arrangements;\n(iv)\nthe effectiveness of the collection and sharing of information in relation to the monitoring of systemic risks by national competent authorities, ESMA and the ESRB;\n(v)\nresults of peer reviews referred to in Article 38;\n(b)\nas regards the functioning of the marketing of non-EU AIFs by EU AIFMs in the Member States and the management and/or marketing of AIFs by non-EU AIFMs in the Member States in accordance with the applicable national regimes:\n(i)\ncompliance of EU AIFMs with all the requirements established in this Directive with the exception of Article 21;\n(ii)\ncompliance of non-EU AIFMs with Articles 22, 23 and 24 in respect of each AIF marketed by the AIFM and, where relevant, with Articles 26 to 30;\n(iii)\nexistence and effectiveness of cooperation arrangements for the purpose of systemic risk oversight and in line with international standards between the competent authorities of the Member State where the AIFs are marketed, in so far as applicable, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the EU AIF concerned and the supervisory authorities of the third country where the non-EU AIFM is established and, in so far as applicable, the supervisory authorities of the third country where the non-EU AIF is established;\n(iv)\nany issues relating to investor protection that might have occurred;\n(v)\nany features of a third country regulatory and supervisory framework which might prevent the effective exercise by the competent authorities of the Union of their supervisory functions under this Directive;\n(c)\nas regards the functioning of both systems, the potential market disruptions and distortions in competition (level playing field) and any potential negative effect on investor access or investment in or for the benefit of developing countries;\n(d)\na quantitative assessment identifying the number of third-country jurisdictions in which there is established an AIFM that is marketing an AIF in a Member State either under the application of the passport regime referred to in Article 40 or under the national regimes referred to in Article 42.\n3. To that end, as from the entry into force of the delegated act referred to in Article 67(6) and until the issuance of the ESMA opinion referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 of this Article, the competent authorities shall, quarterly, provide ESMA with information on the AIFMs that are managing and/or marketing AIFs under their supervision, either under the application of the passport regime provided for in this Directive, or under their national regimes.\n4. If ESMA considers that there are no significant obstacles regarding investor protection, market disruption, competition or the monitoring of systemic risk, impeding the termination of the national regimes pursuant to Articles 36 and 42 and making the passport for the marketing of non-EU AIFs by EU AIFMs in the Union and the management and/or marketing of AIFs by non-EU AIFM in the Union in accordance with the rules set out in Article 35 and Articles 37 to 41 the sole possible regime for such activities by the relevant AIFMs in the Union, it shall issue positive advice in this regard.\n5. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, measures specifying the contents of the information to be provided pursuant to paragraph 2.\n6. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act within 3 months after having received positive advice and an opinion from ESMA and taking into account the criteria listed in paragraph 2 and the objectives of this Directive, such as those relating to the internal market, investor protection and the effective monitoring of systemic risk, in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, specifying the date when the national regimes set out in Articles 36 and 42 are to be terminated and the passport regime provided for in Article 35 and Articles 37 to 41 shall become the sole and mandatory regime applicable in all Member States.\nIf there is objection to the delegated act referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 58, the Commission shall re-adopt the delegated act pursuant to which the national regimes set out in Articles 36 and 42 are to be terminated and the passport regime provided for in Article 35 and Articles 37 to 41 shall become the sole and mandatory regime applicable in all Member States, in accordance with Article 56 and subject to the conditions of Articles 57 and 58, at a later stage which seems appropriate to it, taking into account the criteria listed in paragraph 2 and the objectives of this Directive, such as those relating to the internal market, investor protection and the effective monitoring of systemic risk.\n7. If ESMA has not issued its advice within the time limit referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall request the advice to be provided within a new time limit.\nArticle 69\nReview\n1. By 22 July 2017, the Commission shall, on the basis of public consultation and in the light of the discussions with competent authorities, start a review on the application and the scope of this Directive. That review shall analyse the experience acquired in applying this Directive, its impact on investors, AIFs or AIFMs, in the Union and in third countries, and the degree to which the objectives of this Directive have been achieved. The Commission shall, if necessary, propose appropriate amendments. The review shall include a general survey of the functioning of the rules in this Directive and the experience acquired in applying them, including:\n(a)\nthe marketing by EU AIFMs of non-EU AIFs in the Member States taking place through national regimes;\n(b)\nthe marketing of AIFs in the Member States by non-EU AIFMs taking place through national regimes;\n(c)\nthe management and marketing of AIFs in the Union by AIFMs authorised in accordance with this Directive taking place through the passport regime provided for in this Directive;\n(d)\nthe marketing of AIFs in the Union by or on behalf of persons or entities other than AIFMs;\n(e)\nthe investment into AIFs by or on behalf of European professional investors;\n(f)\nthe impact of the depositary rules set out in Article 21 on the depositary market in the Union;\n(g)\nthe impact of the transparency and reporting requirements set out in Articles 22 to 24, 28 and 29 on the assessment of systemic risk;\n(h)\nthe potential adverse impact on retail investors;\n(i)\nthe impact of this Directive on the operation and viability of the private equity and venture capital funds;\n(j)\nthe impact of this Directive on the investor access in the Union;\n(k)\nthe impact of this Directive on investment in or for the benefit of developing countries;\n(l)\nthe impact of this Directive on the protection of non-listed companies or issuers provided by Articles 26 to 30 of this Directive and on the level playing field between AIFs and other investors after the acquisition of major holdings in or control over such non-listed companies or issuers.\nWhen reviewing marketing and/or management of AIFs referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph, the Commission shall analyse the appropriateness of entrusting ESMA with further supervisory responsibilities in this area.\n2. For the purposes of the review referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall provide the Commission annually with information on the AIFMs that are managing and/or marketing AIFs under their supervision, either under the passport regime provided for in this Directive, or under their national regimes, with an indication of the date on which the passport regime has been transposed and, if relevant, applied, in their jurisdiction.\nESMA shall provide the Commission with information on all the non-EU AIFMs that have been authorised or have requested authorisation in accordance with Article 37.\nThe information referred to in the first and second subparagraphs shall include:\n(a)\ninformation on where the AIFMs concerned are established;\n(b)\nif applicable, identification of the EU AIFs managed and/or marketed by them;\n(c)\nif applicable, identification of the non-EU AIFs managed by EU AIFMs but not marketed in the Union;\n(d)\nif applicable, identification of the non-EU AIFs marketed in the Union;\n(e)\ninformation on the applicable regime, whether national or Union, under which the relevant AIFMs are performing their activities; and\n(f)\nany other information relevant to the understanding of how the management and the marketing of AIFs by AIFMs in the Union operates in practice.\n3. The review referred to in paragraph 1 shall take due account of developments at international level and discussions with third countries and international organisations.\n4. After finalising its review, the Commission shall, without undue delay, submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council. If appropriate, the Commission shall make proposals, including amendments to this Directive, taking into account the objectives of this Directive and its effects on investor protection, market disruption and competition, the monitoring of systemic risk and potential impacts on investors, AIFs or AIFMs in the Union and in third countries.\nArticle 70\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 71\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 8 June 2011.", "references": ["88", "6", "34", "78", "23", "42", "11", "68", "15", "4", "37", "91", "56", "89", "61", "51", "82", "26", "65", "90", "94", "69", "66", "95", "44", "97", "52", "22", "7", "25", "No Label", "9", "20", "29", "30", "33", "41", "49"], "gold": ["9", "20", "29", "30", "33", "41", "49"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 744/2010\nof 18 August 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer, with regard to the critical uses of halons\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1), and in particular Article 13(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nHalon 1301, halon 1211 and halon 2402 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018halons\u2019) are ozone-depleting substances listed as controlled substances in Group III of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009. Their production in Member States has been banned since 1994, in line with the requirements of the Montreal Protocol. Their use, however, continues to be permitted for certain critical uses as set out in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009.\n(2)\nAs required by Article 4(4)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (2), the Commission has reviewed Annex VII to that Regulation. To this effect, it has evaluated the current uses of halons and the availability and implementation of technically and economically feasible alternatives or technologies that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health (hereinafter referred to as \u2018alternatives\u2019). In the meantime, Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 has been replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009, Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 becoming Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009, without any change.\n(3)\nThe review has shown some discrepancies between Member States in the interpretation of which uses of halons constitute critical uses as described in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009. Each halon application should therefore be described in more detail, specifying the category of equipment or facility, the purpose of the application, the type of halon extinguisher and the type of halon.\n(4)\nThe review has also shown that, with few exceptions, halons are no longer necessary to meet fire protection needs in new designs of equipment and new facilities and that alternatives are now routinely being installed. However, halon extinguishers and fire protection systems continue to be necessary in some equipment that is, or will be, produced to existing designs.\n(5)\nThe review has also shown that halons are being replaced or could be replaced by alternatives over time and at a reasonable cost for a majority of fire protection applications, whether incorporated in existing equipment and existing facilities or in equipment being produced to existing designs.\n(6)\nIt is therefore appropriate, in the light of the increased availability and implementation of alternatives, to establish, for each application, cut-off dates after which the use of halons for new equipment and new facilities would not be a critical use and the installation of a halon extinguisher or fire protection system would therefore not be permitted. Due account should be taken, in defining \u2018new equipment\u2019 and \u2018new facilities\u2019, of the stage in the equipment\u2019s and the facilities\u2019 lifecycle at which the design of the space requiring fire protection is effectively fixed.\n(7)\nIt is also appropriate to establish, for each application, end dates after which the use of halons for fire extinguishers or fire protection systems in all equipment and facilities, whether in existing equipment and existing facilities or in equipment that is, or will be, produced to existing designs, would cease to be a critical use. Use of halons would therefore not be permitted and all halon fire extinguishers and fire protection systems should be replaced, converted or decommissioned by the end date, in accordance with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009.\n(8)\nThe cut-off dates should take into account the availability of alternatives for new equipment and new facilities and the barriers to their implementation. They should also allow sufficient time for the development of alternatives where this is necessary, whilst providing an incentive to undertake such development. Regarding aircraft, as civil aviation is regulated at the international level, due account should be taken of initiatives by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) concerning installation and use of halons for fire extinguishers on aircraft.\n(9)\nThe end dates should, additionally, allow sufficient time for halon replacement or conversion activities to be completed as part of routine or planned equipment or facility maintenance or upgrade programmes, without unduly affecting the operation of the equipment or facilities concerned and without resulting in excessive costs. They should also take into account the time necessary to obtain any certification, authorisation or approval that may be required for the installation of alternatives in the equipment or facilities concerned.\n(10)\nFor the majority of applications for new equipment and new facilities, where halon extinguishers and fire protection systems are no longer necessary or are no longer being installed, it is appropriate to set 2010 as the cut-off date. However, it is appropriate to set 2011 as the cut-off date for some military ground vehicle and aircraft applications for which alternatives are considered now to be available but which have not been implemented during development programmes now nearing completion and for which modifications might no longer be technically and economically feasible. It is appropriate to set 2014 as the cut-off date for the aircraft engine nacelle and cabin portable extinguisher applications, which would correspond to the time-frame for the anticipated implementation of an equivalent restriction through the ICAO. It is appropriate to set 2018 as the cut-off date for the aircraft cargo compartment application where alternatives have not yet been identified but for which it can reasonably be expected that, following further research and development, alternatives will be available by that date for installation in new aircraft being submitted for type certification.\n(11)\nFor many applications, it is appropriate to set end dates between 2013 and 2025, according to the level of technical and economic challenge that halon replacement or conversion represents. Those end dates should allow sufficient time for halon replacement during routine maintenance programmes for most equipment and facilities where alternatives are now available. It is appropriate to set 2030 or 2035 as the end date for certain military ground vehicle and military ship applications for which halon replacement is likely only to be technically and economically feasible as part of planned equipment upgrade or refit programmes, and for which additional research and development to verify the suitability of alternatives may be necessary in some Member States.\n(12)\nFor some applications, on existing military vehicles, on existing military surface ships, on existing military submarines, on existing military aircraft, and on those that are, or will be, produced to existing designs, alternatives have not yet been identified. However, it can reasonably be expected that by 2040 a large part of the equipment concerned will have reached the end of its useful life or that alternatives will be available by that date, following further research and development. It is therefore appropriate to set 2040 as a reasonable end date for those applications.\n(13)\nFor fire protection systems in cargo compartments, engine nacelles and auxiliary power units, on existing civil aircraft or on those being produced in accordance with an existing type certification, alternatives have also not yet been identified. Furthermore, a significant number of civil aircraft will continue to be produced with, and be reliant on, halons for those applications for the foreseeable future. Whilst it is accepted that there are significant technical, economic and regulatory constraints affecting the replacement of halons for those applications, it is also appropriate, in view of the uncertainty concerning the long-term availability of recycled halons and the need for additional research and development to identify and develop suitable alternatives, to set 2040 as a reasonable end date.\n(14)\nAnnex VI, including the time-frames for the phasing out of the critical uses, will be kept under review to take account of continued research and development of alternatives and of new information on their availability. Furthermore, derogations from end dates and cut-off dates may be granted for specific cases where it is demonstrated that no alternative is available.\n(15)\nRegulation (EC) No 1005/2009 should, therefore, be amended accordingly.\n(16)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 August 2010.", "references": ["26", "10", "20", "44", "72", "28", "46", "13", "15", "42", "87", "96", "6", "57", "1", "70", "79", "27", "90", "62", "88", "45", "89", "71", "21", "18", "19", "30", "95", "29", "No Label", "23", "25", "48", "58", "60", "83"], "gold": ["23", "25", "48", "58", "60", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/411/CFSP\nof 12 July 2011\ndefining the statute, seat and operational rules of the European Defence Agency and repealing Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 42 and 45 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Defence Agency (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019) was established by Council Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP (1) (hereinafter \u2018Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP\u2019) to support the Council and Member States in their effort to improve the Union\u2019s defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy.\n(2)\nThe European Security Strategy, endorsed by the European Council on 12 December 2003, identifies the establishment of a defence agency as an important element towards the development of more flexible and efficient European military resources.\n(3)\nThe report on the implementation of the European Security Strategy of 11 December 2008 endorses the Agency\u2019s leading role in the process of developing key defence capabilities for the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).\n(4)\nJoint Action 2004/551/CFSP should be repealed and replaced in order to take into account the amendments to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.\n(5)\nArticle 45 TEU provides for the adoption, by the Council, of a Decision defining the Agency\u2019s statute, seat and operational rules, which should take account of the level of effective participation of the Member States in the Agency\u2019s activities.\n(6)\nThe Agency should contribute to the implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), in particular the CSDP.\n(7)\nThe structure of the Agency should enable it to respond to the operational requirements of the Union and its Member States for the CSDP and, where necessary to fulfil its functions, to cooperate with third countries, organisations and entities.\n(8)\nThe Agency should develop close working relations with existing arrangements, groupings and organisations, such as those established under the Letter of Intent Framework Agreement (hereinafter \u2018LoI Framework Agreement\u2019), as well as the Organisation Conjointe de Coop\u00e9ration en mati\u00e8re d\u2019Armement (OCCAR) and the European Space Agency (ESA).\n(9)\nThe High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), in accordance with Article 18(2) TEU, should have a leading role in the Agency\u2019s structure and provide the essential link between the Agency and the Council.\n(10)\nIn the exercise of its role of political supervision and policy-making, the Council should issue guidelines to the Agency.\n(11)\nIn view of their nature, the adoption of the Financial Framework for the Agency, as referred to in Article 4(4), and the conclusion of administrative arrangements between the Agency and third countries, organisations and entities must be approved by the Council acting unanimously.\n(12)\nWhen adopting guidelines and decisions in relation to the work of the Agency, the Council should meet at the level of Defence Ministers.\n(13)\nAny guidelines or decisions adopted by the Council in relation with the Agency\u2019s work should be prepared in accordance with Article 240 TFEU.\n(14)\nThe competences of the Council\u2019s preparatory and advisory bodies, in particular those of the Committee of Permanent Representatives under Article 240 TFEU, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) under Article 38 TEU and the EU Military Committee (EUMC) should remain unaffected.\n(15)\nThe National Armaments Directors (NAD), Capability Directors, Research and Technology (R&T) Directors and Defence Policy Directors should receive reports and contribute on issues of their competence in preparation of Council decisions relating to the Agency.\n(16)\nThe Agency should have the legal personality necessary to perform its functions and attain its objectives, while maintaining close links with the Council and fully respecting the responsibilities of the European Union and its institutions.\n(17)\nIt should be provided that the budgets administered by the Agency may, on a case-by-case basis, receive contributions towards non-administrative costs, from the general budget of the European Union, in full respect of the rules, procedures and decision-making processes applicable to it, including Article 41(2) TEU.\n(18)\nThe Agency, while being open to participation by all Member States, should also provide for the possibility of specific groups of Member States establishing ad hoc projects or programmes.\n(19)\nSubject to a Council decision on the establishment of permanent structured cooperation, in conformity with Articles 42(6) and 46 TEU and with Protocol (No 10) on permanent structured cooperation established by Article 42 TEU annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, the Agency should support the implementation of permanent structured cooperation.\n(20)\nThe Agency should have decision-making procedures allowing it to fulfil its tasks efficiently, while respecting the national security and defence policies of participating Member States.\n(21)\nThe Agency should fulfil its mission in full respect of Article 40 TEU.\n(22)\nThe Agency should act in full compliance with the Council\u2019s security standards and rules.\n(23)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications. Denmark will therefore not be bound by this Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nCHAPTER I\nESTABLISHMENT, MISSION AND TASKS OF THE AGENCY\nArticle 1\nEstablishment\n1. An Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter the \u2018European Defence Agency\u2019 or the \u2018Agency\u2019), as originally established by Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP, shall hereby continue in accordance with the following provisions.\n2. The Agency shall act under the Council\u2019s authority, in support of the CFSP and the CSDP, within the single institutional framework of the European Union, and without prejudice to the responsibilities of the EU institutions and the Council bodies. The Agency\u2019s mission shall be without prejudice to other competences of the Union, in full respect of Article 40 TEU.\n3. The Agency shall be open to participation by all EU Member States wishing to be part of it. Member States already participating in the Agency at the time of the adoption of this Decision shall continue as participating Member States.\n4. Any Member State wishing to participate in the Agency after the entry into force of this Decision or wishing to withdraw from the Agency shall notify its intention to the Council and shall inform the HR. Any necessary technical and financial arrangements for such participation or withdrawal shall be determined by the Steering Board, referred to in Article 8.\n5. The Agency shall have its seat in Brussels.\nArticle 2\nMission\n1. The mission of the Agency is to support the Council and the Member States in their effort to improve the EU\u2019s defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the CSDP as it stands now and develops in the future.\n2. The Agency shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.\n3. The Agency\u2019s mission shall be without prejudice to the competences of Member States in defence matters.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018participating Member States\u2019 means the Member States of the European Union which participate in the Agency;\n(b)\n\u2018contributing Member States\u2019 means the participating Member States of the European Union which contribute to a particular project or programme of the Agency.\nArticle 4\nPolitical supervision and reporting arrangements to the Council\n1. The Agency shall operate under the authority and the political supervision of the Council, to which it shall provide regular reports and from which it shall receive regular guidelines.\n2. The Agency shall report regularly to the Council on its activities, and shall notably:\n(a)\nsubmit to the Council in November each year a report on the Agency\u2019s activities for that year and provide elements for the Agency\u2019s work programme and budgets for the following year;\n(b)\nsubject to a Council decision on the establishment of permanent structured cooperation, submit to the Council at least once a year information on the Agency\u2019s contribution to the assessment activities in the context of permanent structured cooperation, referred to in Article 5(3)(f)(ii).\nThe Agency shall provide the Council in good time with information on important matters to be submitted to the Steering Board for decision.\n3. The Council, acting by unanimity, and with advice from the PSC or other competent Council bodies as appropriate, shall issue guidelines annually in relation to the work of the Agency, notably with regard to its work programme. The Agency\u2019s work programme shall be established within the framework of these guidelines.\n4. Every year, the Council, acting by unanimity, shall approve a Financial Framework for the Agency for the following 3 years. That Financial Framework shall set out agreed priorities associated with the Agency\u2019s 3-year Work Plan and shall constitute a legally binding ceiling for the first year and planning figures for the second and third year. The Agency shall provide, no later than 31 March each year, a draft of the Financial Framework and its associated Work Plan to the Steering Board for consideration.\n5. The Agency may make recommendations to the Council and to the Commission as necessary for the implementation of its mission.\nArticle 5\nFunctions and tasks\n1. In fulfilling its functions and tasks, the Agency shall respect other competences of the Union and those of the EU institutions.\n2. The Agency\u2019s fulfilment of its functions and tasks shall be without prejudice to the competences of Member States in defence matters.\n3. The Agency, subject to the authority of the Council, shall have as its task to:\n(a)\ncontribute to identifying the Member States\u2019 military capability objectives and evaluating observance of the capability commitments given by the Member States, in particular by:\n(i)\nidentifying, in association with the competent Council bodies, including the EUMC, and utilising, inter alia, the Capability Development Mechanism (CDM) and any successor, the EU\u2019s future defence capability requirements;\n(ii)\ncoordinating the implementation of the Capability Development Plan (CDP) and any successor thereto;\n(iii)\nevaluating, against criteria to be agreed by the Member States, the capability commitments given by the Member States, inter alia, through the CDP process and the CDM and any successor thereto;\n(b)\npromote the harmonisation of operational needs and the adoption of effective, compatible procurement methods, in particular by:\n(i)\npromoting and coordinating harmonisation of military requirements;\n(ii)\npromoting cost-effective and efficient procurement by identifying and disseminating best practices;\n(iii)\nproviding appraisals on financial priorities for capabilities development and acquisition;\n(c)\npropose multilateral projects to fulfil the objectives in terms of military capabilities, ensure coordination of the programmes implemented by the Member States and management of specific cooperation programmes, in particular by:\n(i)\npromoting and proposing new multilateral cooperative projects;\n(ii)\nidentifying and proposing collaborative activities in the operational domain;\n(iii)\nworking for coordination of existing programmes implemented by Member States;\n(iv)\ntaking, at the request of Member States, responsibility for managing specific programmes;\n(v)\npreparing, at the request of Member States, programmes to be managed by OCCAR or through other arrangements, as appropriate;\n(d)\nsupport defence technology research, and coordinate and plan joint research activities and the study of technical solutions meeting future operational needs, in particular by:\n(i)\npromoting, in liaison with the Union\u2019s research activities where appropriate, research aimed at fulfilling future security and defence capability requirements and thereby strengthening Europe\u2019s industrial and technological potential in this domain;\n(ii)\npromoting more effectively targeted joint defence R&T;\n(iii)\ncatalysing defence R&T through studies and projects;\n(iv)\nmanaging defence R&T contracts;\n(v)\nworking in liaison with the Commission to maximise complementarity and synergy between defence and civil or security-related research programmes;\n(e)\ncontribute to identifying and, if necessary, implementing any useful measure for strengthening the industrial and technological base of the defence sector and for improving the effectiveness of military expenditure, in particular by:\n(i)\ncontributing to the creation of an internationally competitive European defence equipment market, without prejudice to the internal market rules and the competences of the Commission in this field;\n(ii)\ndeveloping relevant policies and strategies in consultation with the Commission and, as appropriate, industry;\n(iii)\npursuing, in consultation with the Commission, EU-wide development and harmonisation of relevant procedures, within the tasks of the Agency;\n(f)\nsubject to a Council decision on the establishment of permanent structured cooperation, support this cooperation in particular by:\n(i)\nfacilitating major joint or European capability development initiatives;\n(ii)\ncontributing to the regular assessment of participating Member States\u2019 contributions with regard to capabilities, in particular contributions made in accordance with the criteria to be established, inter alia, on the basis of Article 2 of Protocol (No 10) on permanent structured cooperation annexed to the TEU and the TFEU and reporting thereon at least once a year.\nArticle 6\nLegal personality\nThe Agency shall have legal personality in order to perform its functions and attain its objectives. Member States shall ensure that the Agency enjoys the most extensive legal capacity accorded to legal persons under their laws. The Agency may, in particular, acquire or dispose of movable and immovable property and be a party to legal proceedings. The Agency shall have the capacity to conclude contracts with private or public entities or organisations.\nCHAPTER II\nORGANS AND STAFF OF THE AGENCY\nArticle 7\nHead of the Agency\n1. The Head of the Agency shall be the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\n2. The Head of the Agency shall be responsible for the Agency\u2019s overall organisation and functioning and shall ensure that the guidelines issued by the Council and the decisions of the Steering Board are implemented by the Chief Executive, who shall report to the Head of the Agency.\n3. The Head of the Agency shall present the Agency\u2019s reports to the Council as referred to in Article 4(2).\n4. The Head of the Agency shall be responsible for the negotiation of administrative arrangements with third countries and other organisations, groupings or entities in accordance with directives given by the Steering Board. Within such arrangements, as approved by the Steering Board, the Head of the Agency shall be responsible for establishing appropriate working relations with them.\nArticle 8\nSteering Board\n1. A Steering Board composed of one representative of each participating Member State, authorised to commit its government, and a representative of the Commission, shall be the decision-making body of the Agency. The Steering Board shall act within the framework of the guidelines issued by the Council.\n2. The Steering Board shall meet at the level of Defence Ministers of the participating Member States or their representatives. The Steering Board shall, in principle, hold at least two meetings each year at the level of Defence Ministers.\n3. The Head of the Agency shall convene and chair the Steering Board\u2019s meetings. If a participating Member State so requests, the Head of the Agency shall convene a meeting within 1 month.\n4. The Head of the Agency may delegate the power to chair the Steering Board\u2019s meetings at the level of the representatives of the Ministers of Defence.\n5. The Steering Board may meet in specific compositions (such as NADs, Capability Directors, R&T Directors or Defence Policy Directors).\n6. The Steering Board meetings are attended by:\n(a)\nthe Chief Executive of the Agency, referred to in Article 10, or his/her representative;\n(b)\nthe Chairman of EUMC or his/her representative;\n(c)\nrepresentatives of the European External Action Service (EEAS).\n7. The Steering Board may decide to invite, on matters of common interest:\n(a)\nthe NATO Secretary-General or his/her nominated representative;\n(b)\nthe Heads/Chairs of other arrangements, groupings or organisations whose work is relevant to that of the Agency (such as those established under the LoI Framework Agreement, as well as OCCAR and ESA);\n(c)\nas appropriate, representatives of other third parties.\nArticle 9\nTasks and powers of the Steering Board\n1. Within the framework of the guidelines of the Council referred to in Article 4(1), the Steering Board:\n(a)\nshall approve the reports to be submitted to the Council;\n(b)\nshall approve, on the basis of a draft submitted by the Head of the Agency, and no later than 31 December of each year, the Agency\u2019s annual work programme for the following year;\n(c)\nshall adopt the Agency\u2019s general budget no later than 31 December of each year within the limits set in the Agency\u2019s Financial Framework as decided by the Council;\n(d)\nshall approve the establishment within the Agency of ad hoc projects or programmes in accordance with Article 19;\n(e)\nshall appoint the Chief Executive and up to two deputies;\n(f)\nshall decide that the Agency may be entrusted by one or more Member States with the administrative and financial management of certain activities within its remit in accordance with Article 17;\n(g)\nshall approve any recommendation to the Council or the Commission;\n(h)\nshall adopt the Agency\u2019s rules of procedure;\n(i)\nmay amend the financial provisions for the implementation of the Agency\u2019s general budget;\n(j)\nmay amend the rules and regulations applicable to contractual staff and seconded national experts;\n(k)\nshall determine the technical and financial arrangements regarding Member States\u2019 participation or withdrawal referred to in Article 1(4);\n(l)\nshall adopt directives regarding the negotiation of administrative arrangements by the Head of the Agency;\n(m)\nshall approve the ad hoc arrangements referred to in Article 22(1);\n(n)\nshall conclude the administrative arrangement between the Agency and third parties referred to in Article 24(1);\n(o)\nshall approve the annual accounts and balance sheet;\n(p)\nshall adopt all other relevant decisions relating to the fulfilment of the Agency\u2019s mission.\n2. Unless otherwise provided for in this Decision, the Steering Board shall take decisions by qualified majority. The votes of the participating Member States shall be weighted in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 16 TEU. Only the representatives of the participating Member States shall take part in the vote.\n3. If a representative of a participating Member State in the Steering Board declares that, for important and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the adoption of a decision to be taken by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken. That representative may refer the matter, through the Head of the Agency, to the Council with a view to issuing guidelines to the Steering Board, as appropriate. Alternatively, the Steering Board, acting by qualified majority, may decide to refer the matter to the Council for decision. The Council shall act by unanimity.\n4. The Steering Board, on a proposal from the Chief Executive or from a participating Member State, may decide to set up:\n(a)\ncommittees for the preparation of administrative and budgetary decisions of the Steering Board, composed of delegates of the participating Member States and a representative of the Commission;\n(b)\ncommittees specialised in specific issues within the Agency\u2019s remit. These committees shall be composed of delegates of the participating Member States and, unless the Steering Board decides otherwise, a representative of the Commission.\nThe decision to establish such committees shall specify their mandate and duration.\nArticle 10\nThe Chief Executive\n1. The Chief Executive, and his/her Deputy(ies), shall be appointed by the Steering Board on a proposal from the Head of the Agency for 3 years. The Steering Board may grant a 2-year extension. The Chief Executive and up to two Deputies shall act under the authority of the Head of the Agency and in accordance with the decisions of the Steering Board.\n2. The Chief Executive, assisted by his/her Deputy(ies), shall take all necessary measures to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the Agency\u2019s work. The Chief Executive shall be responsible for the oversight and coordination of the functional units, in order to ensure the overall coherence of their work. The Chief Executive shall be the head of the Agency\u2019s staff.\n3. The Chief Executive is responsible for:\n(a)\nensuring the implementation of the Agency\u2019s annual work programme;\n(b)\npreparing the work of the Steering Board, in particular the draft annual work programme of the Agency;\n(c)\npreparing the draft annual general budget to be submitted to the Steering Board;\n(d)\npreparing the 3-year Work Plan to be submitted to the Steering Board;\n(e)\npreparing the 3-year Financial Framework to be submitted to the Council;\n(f)\nensuring close cooperation with, and providing information to, the Council preparatory bodies, notably the PSC and the EUMC;\n(g)\npreparing the reports referred to in Article 4(2);\n(h)\npreparing the statement of revenue and expenditure and implementing the Agency\u2019s general budget and the budgets of ad hoc projects or programmes entrusted to the Agency;\n(i)\nthe day-to-day administration of the Agency;\n(j)\nall security aspects;\n(k)\nall staff matters.\n4. Within the work programme and the general budget of the Agency, the Chief Executive shall be empowered to enter into contracts and to recruit staff. The Chief Executive shall be the authorising officer responsible for the implementation of the budgets administered by the Agency.\n5. The Chief Executive shall be accountable to the Steering Board.\n6. The Chief Executive shall be the legal representative of the Agency.\nArticle 11\nStaff\n1. The staff of the Agency, including the Chief Executive, shall consist of contract and statutory staff members recruited from among candidates from all participating Member States on the broadest possible geographical basis, and from the EU institutions. The staff of the Agency shall be selected by the Chief Executive on the basis of relevant competence and expertise and through fair and transparent competition procedures. The Chief Executive shall publish in advance details of all available positions and the criteria relevant to the selection process. In all cases, recruitment shall be directed to securing for the Agency the services of staff of the highest standard of ability and efficiency.\n2. The Head of the Agency, upon a proposal from the Chief Executive and following consultation with the Steering Board, shall appoint, and renew the contracts of, the staff of the Agency at senior management level.\n3. The Agency staff shall consist of:\n(a)\npersonnel recruited directly by the Agency under fixed-term contracts, selected among nationals of participating Member States. The Council, acting by unanimity, has approved the regulations applicable to such staff (2). The Steering Board shall review and amend as necessary those regulations where they empower it to do so;\n(b)\nnational experts seconded by participating Member States either to posts within the Agency organisational structure or for specific tasks and projects. The Council, acting by unanimity, has approved the regulations applicable to such staff (3). The Steering Board shall review and amend as necessary those regulations, where they empower it to do so;\n(c)\nUnion officials seconded to the Agency for a fixed period and/or for specific tasks or projects as required.\n4. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction over any dispute between the Agency and any person to whom the regulations applicable to the staff of the Agency may apply.\nCHAPTER III\nBUDGET AND FINANCIAL RULES\nArticle 12\nBudgetary principles\n1. Budgets, drawn up in euro, are the acts which for each financial year lay down and authorise all the revenue and expenditure administered by the Agency.\n2. The appropriations entered in a budget are authorised for the duration of a financial year which begins on 1 January and ends on 31 December of the same year.\n3. For each budget, revenue and expenditure must be balanced. All revenue and expenditure shall be entered in full in the relevant budget without any adjustment against each other.\n4. The budget shall contain differentiated appropriations, which shall consist of commitment appropriations and payment appropriations and non-differentiated appropriations.\n5. Commitment appropriations shall cover the total cost of the legal commitments entered into during the current financial year. However, commitments may be made globally or in annual instalments. Commitments shall be entered into the accounts on the basis of the legal commitments entered into up to 31 December.\n6. Payment appropriations shall cover payments made to honour the legal commitments entered into the current financial year and/or earlier financial years. Payments shall be entered in the accounts on the basis of the budget commitments up to 31 December.\n7. The revenue of a financial year shall be entered in the accounts for the financial year on the basis of the amounts collected during that financial year.\n8. Neither revenue nor expenditure may be implemented other than by allocation to a heading in the budget and within the limit of the appropriations entered therein.\n9. Appropriations shall be used in accordance with the principles of sound financial management, namely in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.\nArticle 13\nThe general budget\n1. The Head of the Agency shall provide the Steering Board, by 31 March each year, with an overall estimate of the draft general budget for the following year, with respect to the planning figures set down in the Financial Framework.\n2. The Head of the Agency shall propose the draft general budget to the Steering Board by 30 June each year. The draft shall include:\n(a)\nthe appropriations deemed necessary:\n(i)\nto cover the Agency\u2019s running, staffing and meeting costs;\n(ii)\nfor procuring external advice, notably operational analysis, essential for the Agency to discharge its tasks, and for specific research and technology activities for the common benefit of all participating Member States, notably technical case-studies and pre-feasibility studies;\n(b)\na forecast of the revenue needed to cover expenditure.\n3. The Steering Board shall aim to ensure that the appropriations referred to in paragraph 2(a)(ii) represent a significant share of the total appropriations referred to in paragraph 2. These appropriations shall reflect actual needs and shall allow for an operational role for the Agency.\n4. The draft general budget shall be accompanied by a detailed staff establishment plan and detailed justifications.\n5. The Steering Board, acting by unanimity, may decide that the draft general budget shall, furthermore, cover a particular project or programme where this is clearly for the common benefit of all participating Member States.\n6. The appropriations shall be classified in titles and chapters grouping expenditure by type or purpose, subdivided as necessary into articles.\n7. Each title may include a chapter entitled \u2018provisional appropriations\u2019. These appropriations shall be entered where there is uncertainty, based on serious grounds, about the amount of appropriations needed or the scope for implementing the appropriations entered.\n8. Revenue shall consist of:\n(a)\ncontributions payable by the Member States participating in the Agency based on the gross national income (GNI) scale;\n(b)\nother revenue.\nThe draft general budget shall carry lines to accommodate earmarked revenue and, wherever possible, shall indicate the amount foreseen.\n9. The Steering Board shall adopt the draft general budget by 31 December of each year within the Agency\u2019s Financial Framework. When doing so, the Steering Board shall be chaired by the Head of the Agency, or by a representative appointed by the Head of the Agency, or by a member of the Steering Board invited to do so by the Head of the Agency. The Chief Executive shall declare that the budget has been adopted and shall notify the participating Member States.\n10. If, at the beginning of a financial year, the draft general budget has not been adopted, a sum equivalent to not more than one twelfth of the budget appropriations for the preceding financial year may be spent each month in respect of any chapter or other subdivision of the budget. This arrangement shall not, however, have the effect of placing at the disposal of the Agency appropriations in excess of one twelfth of those provided for in the draft general budget in course of preparation. The Steering Board, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Chief Executive, may authorise expenditure in excess of one twelfth, provided that the overall budget appropriations for that financial year do not exceed those of the previous financial year. The Chief Executive may call for the contributions necessary to cover the appropriations authorised under this provision, which shall be payable within 30 days from dispatch of the call for contributions.\nArticle 14\nAmending budgets\n1. In the case of unavoidable, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances, the Chief Executive may propose a draft amending budget, within the limits set out in the Financial Framework.\n2. The draft amending budget shall be drawn up, proposed, and adopted and notification given in accordance with the same procedure as the general budget, within the limits set out in the Financial Framework. The Steering Board shall act with due account to the urgency.\n3. In the situation where the limits set down in the Financial Framework would be considered insufficient due to exceptional and unforeseen circumstances, taking also in full account rules set out in Article 13(2) and (3), the Steering Board will submit the amending budget for adoption by the Council, acting by unanimity.\nArticle 15\nEarmarked revenue\n1. The Agency may receive in its general budget as earmarked revenue for a specific purpose financial contributions to cover costs other than those referred to under Article 13(2)(a)(i):\n(a)\nfrom the general budget of the European Union on a case-by-case basis, in full respect of the rules, procedures and decision-making processes applicable to it;\n(b)\nfrom Member States, third countries or other third parties.\n2. Earmarked revenue may only be used for the specific purpose to which it is assigned.\nArticle 16\nContributions and reimbursements\n1. Determination of contributions where the GNI scale is applicable:\n(a)\nWhere the GNI scale is applicable, the breakdown of contributions between the Member States from which a contribution is required shall be determined in accordance with the gross national product scale as specified in Article 41(2) TEU and in accordance with Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities\u2019 own resources (4), or any other Council Decision which may replace it.\n(b)\nThe data for the calculation of each contribution shall be those set out in the \u2018GNI own resources\u2019 column in the \u2018Summary of financing of the general budget by type of own resource and by Member State\u2019 table appended to the latest budget of the European Union. The contribution of each Member State from which a contribution is due shall be proportional to the share of that Member State\u2019s GNI in the total GNI aggregate of the Member States from which a contribution is due.\n2. Schedule for payment of contributions:\n(a)\nThe contributions intended to finance the Agency\u2019s general budget shall be paid by the participating Member States in three equal instalments, by 15 February, 15 June and 15 October of the financial year concerned.\n(b)\nWhen an amending budget is adopted, the necessary contributions shall be paid by the Member States concerned within 60 days of dispatch of the call for contributions.\n(c)\nEach Member State shall pay the bank charges relating to the payment of its own contributions.\n(d)\nIf the annual budget is not approved by the end of November, the Agency may issue upon request of a Member State an individual provisional call for contributions from that Member State.\nArticle 17\nManagement by the Agency of expenditure on behalf of Member States\n1. The Steering Board, on a proposal from the Chief Executive or a Member State, may decide that the Agency may be entrusted by Member States with the administrative and financial management of certain activities within its remit.\n2. The Steering Board, in its decision, may authorise the Agency to enter into contracts on behalf of certain Member States. It may authorise the Agency to collect the necessary funds from these Member States in advance to honour the contracts entered into.\nArticle 18\nImplementation of the budget\n1. The financial provisions applicable to the Agency\u2019s general budget have been adopted by the Council, by unanimity (5). The Steering Board, acting by unanimity, shall review and amend these provisions, as necessary.\n2. The Steering Board, acting on a proposal from the Chief Executive, shall as necessary adopt the implementing rules regarding the implementation and control of the general budget, notably as regards public procurement, without prejudice to relevant EU rules. The Steering Board shall ensure, in particular, that security of supply and protection both of defence secret and intellectual property rights requirements are duly taken into account.\n3. The financial provisions and rules referred to in this Article are not applicable to ad hoc projects and programmes as referred to in Articles 19 and 20.\nCHAPTER IV\nAD HOC PROJECTS OR PROGRAMMES AND ASSOCIATED BUDGETS\nArticle 19\nApproval of Category A (opt out) ad hoc projects or programmes and ad hoc budgets associated thereto\n1. One or more participating Member States or the Chief Executive may submit to the Steering Board an ad hoc project or programme within the Agency\u2019s remit, which shall presume general participation by the participating Member States. The Steering Board shall be informed of the ad hoc budget, if any, to be associated with the proposed project or programme, as well as of potential contributions by third parties.\n2. All participating Member States shall in principle contribute. They shall inform the Chief Executive of their intentions in this regard.\n3. The Steering Board shall approve the establishment of the ad hoc project or programme.\n4. The Steering Board, on a proposal from the Chief Executive or from a participating Member State, may decide to set up a committee to supervise the management and implementation of the ad hoc project or programme. The committee shall be composed of delegates from each of the contributing Member States and, when the Union contributes to the project or programme, a representative of the Commission. The decision of the Steering Board shall specify the committee\u2019s mandate and duration.\n5. For the ad hoc project or programme, the contributing Member States, meeting within the Steering Board, shall approve:\n(a)\nthe rules governing the management of the project or programme;\n(b)\nwhere appropriate, the ad hoc budget associated with the project or programme, the key for contributions and the necessary implementing rules;\n(c)\nparticipation of third parties in the committee referred to in paragraph 4. Their participation shall be without prejudice to the Union\u2019s decision-making autonomy.\n6. Where the Union contributes to an ad hoc project or programme, the Commission shall participate in the decisions referred to in paragraph 5, in full compliance with the decision-making procedures applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\nArticle 20\nApproval of Category B (opt in) ad hoc projects, or programmes and ad hoc budgets associated thereto\n1. One or more participating Member States may inform the Steering Board that they intend to establish an ad hoc project or programme within the Agency\u2019s remit, and where appropriate the ad hoc budget associated with it. The Steering Board shall be informed of the ad hoc budget, if any, to be associated with the proposed project or programme and details, if relevant, on human resources for such project or programme, as well as of potential contributions by third parties.\n2. In the interest of maximising opportunities for cooperation, all participating Member States shall be informed of the ad hoc project or programme, including the basis upon which participation might be expanded, in a timely manner so that any participating Member State may express an interest in joining. Moreover, the initiator(s) of the project or programme will endeavour to make their membership as wide as possible. Participation will be established on a case-by-case basis by the initiators.\n3. The ad hoc project or programme shall then be regarded as an Agency project or programme, unless the Steering Board decides otherwise within 1 month of receiving the information referred to in paragraph 1.\n4. Any participating Member State which, at a later stage, wishes to participate in the ad hoc project or programme shall notify the contributing Member States of its intentions. The contributing Member States, within 2 months of receipt of that notification, shall decide among themselves, having due regard to the basis set out when participating Member States are informed of the project or programme, on the participation of the Member State concerned.\n5. The contributing Member States shall take the decisions necessary for the establishment and implementation of the ad hoc project or programme and, where appropriate, the budget associated with it. Where the Union contributes to such a project or programme, the Commission shall participate in the decisions referred to in this paragraph in full compliance with the decision-making procedures applicable to the general budget of the European Union. The contributing Member States shall keep the Steering Board informed, as appropriate, of developments relating to such project or programme.\nArticle 21\nContributions from the general budget of the European Union to ad hoc budgets\nContributions from the general budget of the European Union may be made to the ad hoc budgets established for ad hoc projects or programmes referred to in Articles 19 and 20.\nArticle 22\nParticipation of third parties\n1. Third parties may contribute to a particular ad hoc project or programme, established in accordance with Articles 19 or 20, and to the budget associated with it. The Steering Board shall, acting by qualified majority, approve as necessary the ad hoc arrangements between the Agency and third parties for each particular project or programme.\n2. For projects established under Article 19, the contributing Member States meeting within the Steering Board shall approve all necessary modalities with the relevant third parties relating to their contribution.\n3. For projects established under Article 20, the contributing Member States shall decide all necessary arrangements with the relevant third parties relating to their contribution.\n4. Where the Union contributes to an ad hoc project or programme, the Commission shall participate in the decisions referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3.\nCHAPTER V\nRELATIONS WITH THE COMMISSION\nArticle 23\nAssociation with the Agency\u2019s work\n1. The Commission is a member of the Steering Board without voting rights and shall be fully associated with the work of the Agency.\n2. The Commission may also participate in projects and programmes of the Agency.\n3. The Agency shall establish the necessary administrative arrangements and working relations with the Commission, in particular with a view to exchanging expertise and advice in those areas where the activities of the Union have a bearing on the Agency\u2019s mission and where the activities of the Agency are relevant to those of the Union.\n4. Necessary arrangements to cover a contribution, on a case-by-case basis, from the general budget of the European Union under Articles 15 and 21, shall be established between the Agency and the Commission by mutual agreement, or between the contributing Member States and the Commission by mutual agreement.\nCHAPTER VI\nRELATIONS WITH THIRD COUNTRIES, ORGANISATIONS AND ENTITIES\nArticle 24\nAdministrative arrangements and other matters\n1. For the purpose of fulfilling its mission, the Agency may enter into administrative arrangements with third countries, organisations and entities. Such arrangements shall notably cover:\n(a)\nthe principle of a relationship between the Agency and the third party;\n(b)\nprovisions for consultation on subjects related to the Agency\u2019s work;\n(c)\nsecurity matters.\nIn so doing, the Agency shall respect the single institutional framework and the decision-making autonomy of the EU. Each such arrangement shall be concluded by the Steering Board upon approval by the Council acting by unanimity.\n2. The Agency shall develop close working relations with the relevant elements of OCCAR and with those established under the LoI Framework Agreement, with a view to incorporating those elements or assimilating their principles and practices in due course, as appropriate and by mutual agreement.\n3. Reciprocal transparency and coherent developments in the field of capabilities shall be ensured by the application of CDM procedures. Other working relations between the Agency and relevant NATO bodies shall be defined through an administrative arrangement referred to in paragraph 1, in full compliance with the established framework of cooperation and consultation between the EU and NATO.\n4. Within the framework of arrangements referred to in paragraph 1, the Agency shall be entitled to establish working relations with organisations and entities other than those referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, with a view to facilitating their possible participation in projects and programmes.\n5. Within the framework of arrangements referred to in paragraph 1, the Agency shall be entitled to establish working relations with third countries, with a view to facilitating their possible participation in specific projects and programmes.\n6. The former non-EU members of the Western European Armaments Group shall be provided with the fullest possible transparency regarding the Agency\u2019s specific projects and programmes with a view to their participation therein as appropriate. A consultative committee shall be set up for this purpose, and in order to provide a forum for exchanging views and information on matters of common interest falling within the scope of the Agency\u2019s mission. It shall be chaired by the Chief Executive or his/her representative. It shall include a representative of each participating Member State and a representative of the Commission, and representatives of the former non-EU WEAG members in accordance with arrangements to be agreed with them.\n7. Upon request, other non-EU European NATO members may also participate in the Consultative Committee referred to in paragraph 6, in accordance with arrangements to be agreed with them.\n8. The Consultative Committee referred to in paragraph 6 may also serve as a forum for dialogue with other third parties on specific matters of mutual interest within the Agency\u2019s remit, and may serve to ensure that they are kept fully informed of developments in matters of common interest and of opportunities for future cooperation.\nCHAPTER VII\nMISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS\nArticle 25\nPrivileges and immunities\nPrivileges and immunities of the Chief Executive and the Agency\u2019s staff are provided for in the Decision of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the privileges and immunities granted to the European Defence Agency and to its staff members, dated 10 November 2004.\nPrivileges and immunities of the Agency are provided for in Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 26\nReview clause\nNo later than 14 July 2014, the Head of the Agency shall present a report to the Steering Board on the implementation of this Decision, with a view to its possible review by the Council.\nArticle 27\nLegal liability\n1. The contractual liability of the Agency shall be governed by the law applicable to the contract concerned.\n2. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by the Agency.\n3. The personal liability of staff towards the Agency shall be governed by the relevant rules applying to the Agency.\nArticle 28\nAccess to documents\nThe rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (6) shall apply to documents held by the Agency.\nArticle 29\nSecurity\n1. The Agency shall apply the Council\u2019s security regulations as adopted by Council Decision 2001/264/EC (7).\n2. The Agency shall ensure appropriate security in its external communications.\nArticle 30\nLanguage Regime\nThe language regime of the Agency shall be established by the Council, acting by unanimity.\nArticle 31\nRepeal of Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP\nThis Decision repeals and replaces Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP on the establishment of the European Defence Agency.\nArticle 32\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["53", "15", "5", "64", "12", "24", "86", "72", "62", "46", "17", "67", "95", "91", "66", "31", "69", "99", "51", "14", "3", "36", "89", "73", "77", "6", "49", "38", "78", "70", "No Label", "1", "7", "9", "33"], "gold": ["1", "7", "9", "33"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 173/2012\nof 29 February 2012\namending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 as regards clarification and simplification of certain specific aviation security measures\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nExperience with the implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 of 4 March 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (2) has shown the need for small amendments to the implementing modalities of certain common basic standards.\n(2)\nThis concerns the clarification or simplification of certain specific aviation security measures in order to improve legal clarity, standardise the common interpretation of the legislation and further ensure the best implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security.\n(3)\nThe amendments concern the implementation of a limited number of measures in relation to access control, surveillance and patrols, screening of passengers and hold baggage, security controls for cargo, mail, in-flight and airport supplies, training of persons and security equipment.\n(4)\nRegulation (EU) No 185/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Civil Aviation Security,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 February 2012.", "references": ["69", "10", "40", "17", "61", "60", "39", "11", "44", "85", "82", "50", "35", "8", "87", "80", "99", "38", "64", "45", "16", "98", "30", "74", "73", "43", "58", "34", "66", "77", "No Label", "1", "24", "36", "49", "53", "54", "57", "76"], "gold": ["1", "24", "36", "49", "53", "54", "57", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 18 November 2011\nadopting a fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region\n(notified under document C(2011) 8278)\n(2012/14/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Continental biogeographical region referred to in Article 1(c)(iii) of Directive 92/43/EEC comprises the Union territory of Luxembourg and parts of the Union territories of Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden as specified in the biogeographical map approved on 20 April 2005 by the Committee set up by Article 20 of that Directive, hereinafter the \u2018Habitats Committee\u2019.\n(2)\nIt is necessary in the context of a process which was initiated in 1995 to make further progress in the actual establishment of the Natura 2000 network, which is an essential element of the protection of biodiversity in the Union.\n(3)\nThe initial list and the first four updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region, within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC, were adopted by Commission Decisions 2004/798/EC (2), 2008/25/EC (3), 2009/93/EC (4), 2010/44/EU (5) and 2011/64/EU (6). On the basis of Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Member State concerned shall designate the sites included in the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region as special areas of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most, establishing conservation priorities and the necessary conservation measures.\n(4)\nIn the context of a dynamic adaptation of the Natura 2000 network, the lists of sites of Community importance are reviewed. A fifth update of the Continental list is therefore necessary.\n(5)\nOn the one hand, the fifth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region is necessary in order to include additional sites that have been proposed since 2009 by the Member States as sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC. For these additional sites, the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC should apply as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region.\n(6)\nOn the other hand, the fifth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region is necessary in order to reflect any changes in site related information submitted by the Member States following the adoption of the initial and the first four updated Union lists. In that sense, the fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region constitutes a consolidated version of the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region. It should be stressed that, for any site included in the fifth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region, the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC should apply as soon as possible and within six years at most following the adoption of the list of sites of Community importance in which the site was included for the first time.\n(7)\nFor the Continental biogeographical region, lists of sites proposed as sites of Community importance within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC have been transmitted to the Commission between November 2003 and October 2010 by the Member States concerned in accordance with Article 4(1) of that Directive.\n(8)\nThe lists of proposed sites were accompanied by information on each site, supplied in the format established by Commission Decision 97/266/EC of 18 December 1996 concerning a site information format for proposed Natura 2000 sites (7).\n(9)\nThat information includes the map of the site transmitted by the Member States concerned, name, location and extent of the site, and the data yielded by application of the criteria specified in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(10)\nOn the basis of the draft list drawn up by the Commission in agreement with each of the Member States concerned, which also identifies sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, a fifth updated list of sites selected as sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region should be adopted.\n(11)\nKnowledge of the existence and distribution of the natural habitat types and species is constantly evolving as a result of the surveillance in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, the evaluation and selection of sites at EU level was done using the best available information at present.\n(12)\nCertain Member States have not proposed sufficient sites to meet the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC for certain habitat types and species. For those habitat types and species it can therefore not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is complete. Taking into account the delay in receiving the information and reaching agreement with the Member States, it is necessary to adopt a fifth updated list of sites, which will need to be reviewed in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(13)\nGiven that knowledge on the existence and distribution of some of the natural habitat types of Annex I and species of Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC remains incomplete, it should not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is either complete or incomplete. The list should be reviewed, if necessary, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(14)\nIn the interests of clarity and transparency Decision 2011/64/EU should be repealed.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Habitats Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2011/64/EU is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2011.", "references": ["70", "16", "49", "26", "92", "87", "84", "13", "96", "54", "48", "97", "85", "10", "35", "24", "80", "56", "12", "37", "68", "64", "67", "40", "98", "78", "50", "11", "53", "72", "No Label", "17", "39", "58", "59"], "gold": ["17", "39", "58", "59"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 859/2011\nof 25 August 2011\non amending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security in respect of air cargo and mail\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (1) and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 of 4 March 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (2) does not contain rules for cargo and mail being carried to Union airports from third countries. It is necessary to introduce such rules in order to protect civil aviation carrying such cargo from acts of unlawful interference.\n(2)\nRegulation (EU) No 185/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(3)\nWhen assessing aviation security in third countries, consideration will be given to cooperation and partnership agreements concluded between the Union or individual Member States and third countries that provide a basis for guaranteeing the proper implementation of aviation security standards.\n(4)\nWhen concluding Air Transport Agreements with third countries, the Commission and Member States should work towards achieving enhanced cooperation on aviation security supporting the implementation and application of standards and principles in third countries equivalent to those of the Union where this is effective to meet global threat and risk.\n(5)\nBy July 2013 the Commission should, together with Member States and stakeholders, examine the practical consequences and feasibility of the implementation of independent validation for air carriers carrying cargo from third country airports into the EU and the regulated agents and known consignors from which they directly accept consignments, and make any adjustments to the system, including amendments to this Regulation, where necessary.\n(6)\nBuilding on the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) contracting states\u2019 responsibility to meet at least ICAO standards for cargo security, the Commission and the Member States should reach out to authorities in third countries to cooperate with and, where possible and requested, provide assistance with capacity building in relation to the implementation of requirements to secure air cargo and mail being carried into the EU.\n(7)\nThe Commission will coordinate and take an active part in Union action for facilitating the implementation of aviation security requirements in respect of operations into the Union from third country airports and provide non-EU bodies with access to relevant information on a strict need to know basis and on the condition that sufficient guarantees are in place.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Civil Aviation Security set up by Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe Commission will assess and evaluate the application of the measures provided for in this Regulation and if appropriate make a proposal by 1 July 2015 at the latest.\nThe Commission will, at the latest by 31 December 2012, assess the likely impact of the requirements set out in this Regulation, in particular the independent validation requirements. The results shall be submitted to the Committee on Civil Aviation Security. Where appropriate, the Commission will propose adjustments to the requirements by 1 July 2013.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply as from 1 February 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 August 2011.", "references": ["96", "50", "25", "43", "64", "48", "92", "87", "59", "15", "16", "85", "0", "34", "22", "31", "7", "55", "46", "20", "28", "51", "67", "60", "38", "44", "58", "33", "95", "30", "No Label", "8", "40", "53", "54", "57"], "gold": ["8", "40", "53", "54", "57"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 27 September 2011\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/027 NL/Noord-Brabant Division 18 from the Netherlands)\n(2011/654/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nThe Netherlands submitted an application on 20 December 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 14 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (Printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the NUTS II region of Noord-Brabant (NL41) in the Netherlands and supplemented it by additional information up to 7 March 2011. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 667 823.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Netherlands,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 667 823 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 27 September 2011.", "references": ["13", "59", "6", "11", "7", "89", "51", "62", "53", "68", "17", "47", "87", "80", "58", "98", "64", "79", "37", "56", "36", "66", "21", "76", "18", "28", "72", "94", "27", "69", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "40", "41", "49", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "40", "41", "49", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 85/2011\nof 31 January 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire (1), and in particular Article11a(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 April 2005, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures that is set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe persons and entities mentioned in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2011.", "references": ["88", "20", "89", "60", "44", "81", "35", "76", "56", "0", "32", "61", "13", "86", "63", "47", "26", "52", "95", "2", "53", "36", "49", "85", "91", "64", "83", "51", "11", "92", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "79", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "79", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 768/2012\nof 17 August 2012\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for forkbeards in EU and international waters of VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of Portugal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 August 2012.", "references": ["71", "93", "62", "18", "76", "1", "4", "53", "65", "81", "77", "68", "41", "79", "42", "52", "73", "47", "21", "11", "5", "37", "50", "32", "58", "64", "60", "10", "6", "54", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2010/41/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 7 July 2010\non the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Council Directive 86/613/EEC\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 157(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Directive 86/613/EEC of 11 December 1986 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity, including agriculture, in a self-employed capacity, and on the protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood (3) ensures application in Member States of the principle of equal treatment as between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity, or contributing to the pursuit of such activity. As far as self-employed workers and spouses of self-employed workers are concerned, Directive 86/613/EEC has not been very effective and its scope should be reconsidered, as discrimination based on sex and harassment also occur in areas outside salaried work. In the interest of clarity, Directive 86/613/EEC should be replaced by this Directive.\n(2)\nIn its Communication of 1 March 2006 entitled \u2018Roadmap for equality between women and men\u2019, the Commission announced that in order to improve governance of gender equality, it would review the existing Union gender equality legislation not included in the 2005 recast exercise with a view to updating, modernising and recasting where necessary. Directive 86/613/EEC was not included in the recasting exercise.\n(3)\nIn its conclusions of 5 and 6 December 2007 on \u2018Balanced roles of women and men for jobs, growth and social cohesion\u2019, the Council called on the Commission to consider the need to revise, if necessary, Directive 86/613/EEC in order to safeguard the rights related to motherhood and fatherhood of self-employed workers and their helping spouses.\n(4)\nThe European Parliament has consistently called on the Commission to review Directive 86/613/EEC, in particular so as to boost maternity protection for self-employed women and to improve the situation of spouses of self-employed workers.\n(5)\nThe European Parliament has already stated its position on these matters in its resolution of 21 February 1997 on the situation of the assisting spouses of the self-employed (4).\n(6)\nIn its Communication of 2 July 2008 entitled \u2018Renewed Social Agenda: Opportunities, access and solidarity in 21st century Europe\u2019, the Commission has affirmed the need to take action on the gender gap in entrepreneurship as well as to improve the reconciliation of private and professional life.\n(7)\nThere are already a number of existing legal instruments for the implementation of the principle of equal treatment which cover self-employment activities, in particular Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (5) and Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (6). This Directive should therefore not apply to the areas already covered by other directives.\n(8)\nThis Directive is without prejudice to the powers of the Member States to organise their social protection systems. The exclusive competence of the Member States with regard to the organisation of their social protection systems includes, inter alia decisions on the setting up, financing and management of such systems and related institutions as well as on the substance and delivery of benefits, the level of contributions and the conditions for access.\n(9)\nThis Directive should apply to self-employed workers and to their spouses or, when and in so far as recognised by national law, their life partners, where they, under the conditions laid down by national law, habitually participate in the activities of the business. In order to improve the situation for these spouses and, when and in so far as recognised by national law, the life partners of self-employed workers, their work should be recognised.\n(10)\nThis Directive should not apply to matters covered by other Directives implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women, notably Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (7), inter alia, Article 5 of Directive 2004/113/EC on insurance and related financial services remains applicable.\n(11)\nTo prevent discrimination based on sex, this Directive should apply to both direct and indirect discrimination. Harassment and sexual harassment should be considered discrimination and therefore prohibited.\n(12)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to the rights and obligations deriving from marital or family status as defined in national law.\n(13)\nThe principle of equal treatment should cover the relationships between the self-employed worker and third parties within the remit of this Directive, but not relationships between the self-employed worker and his or her spouse or life partner.\n(14)\nIn the area of self-employment, the application of the principle of equal treatment means that there must be no discrimination on grounds of sex, for instance in relation to the establishment, equipment or extension of a business or the launching or extension of any other form of self-employed activity.\n(15)\nMember States may, under Article 157(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, maintain or adopt measures providing for specific advantages in order to make it easier for the under-represented sex to engage in self-employed activities or to prevent or compensate for disadvantages in their professional careers. In principle, measures such as positive action aimed at achieving gender equality in practice should not be seen as being in breach of the legal principle of equal treatment between men and women.\n(16)\nIt is necessary to ensure that the conditions for setting up a company between spouses or, when and in so far as recognised by national law, life partners, are not more restrictive than the conditions for setting up a company between other persons.\n(17)\nIn view of their participation in the activities of the family business, the spouses or, when and in so far as recognised by national law, the life partners of self-employed workers who have access to a system for social protection, should also be entitled to benefit from social protection. Member States should be required to take the necessary measures to organise this social protection in accordance with national law. In particular, it is up to Member States to decide whether this social protection should be implemented on a mandatory or voluntary basis. Member States may provide that this social protection may be proportional to the participation in the activities of the self-employed worker and/or the level of contribution.\n(18)\nThe economic and physical vulnerability of pregnant self-employed workers and pregnant spouses and, when and in so far as recognised by national law, pregnant life partners of self-employed workers, makes it necessary for them to be granted the right to maternity benefits. The Member States remain competent to organise such benefits, including establishing the level of contributions and all the arrangements concerning benefits and payments, provided the minimum requirements of this Directive are complied with. In particular, they may determine in which period before and/or after confinement the right to maternity benefits is granted.\n(19)\nThe length of the period during which female self-employed workers and female spouses or, when and in so far as recognised by national law, female life partners of self-employed workers, are granted maternity benefits is similar to the duration of maternity leave for employees currently in place at Union level. In case the duration of maternity leave provided for employees is modified at Union level, the Commission should report to the European Parliament and the Council assessing whether the duration of maternity benefits for female self-employed workers and female spouses and life partners referred to in Article 2 should also be modified.\n(20)\nIn order to take the specificities of self-employed activities into account, female self-employed workers and female spouses or, when and in so far as recognised by national law, female life partners of self-employed workers should be given access to any existing services supplying temporary replacement enabling interruptions in their occupational activity owing to pregnancy or motherhood, or to any existing national social services. Access to those services can be an alternative to or a part of the maternity allowance.\n(21)\nPersons who have been subject to discrimination based on sex should have suitable means of legal protection. To provide more effective protection, associations, organisations and other legal entities should be empowered to engage in proceedings, as Member States so determine, either on behalf or in support of any victim, without prejudice to national rules of procedure concerning representation and defence before the courts.\n(22)\nProtection of self-employed workers and spouses of self-employed workers and, when and in so far as recognised by national law, the life partners of self-employed workers, from discrimination based on sex should be strengthened by the existence of a body or bodies in each Member State with competence to analyse the problems involved, to study possible solutions and to provide practical assistance to the victims. The body or bodies may be the same as those with responsibility at national level for the implementation of the principle of equal treatment.\n(23)\nThis Directive lays down minimum requirements, thus giving the Member States the option of introducing or maintaining more favourable provisions.\n(24)\nSince the objective of the action to be taken, namely to ensure a common high level of protection from discrimination in all the Member States, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can 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,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\n1. This Directive lays down a framework for putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity, or contributing to the pursuit of such an activity, as regards those aspects not covered by Directives 2006/54/EC and 79/7/EEC.\n2. The implementation of the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services remains covered by Directive 2004/113/EC.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThis Directive covers:\n(a)\nself-employed workers, namely all persons pursuing a gainful activity for their own account, under the conditions laid down by national law;\n(b)\nthe spouses of self-employed workers or, when and in so far as recognised by national law, the life partners of self-employed workers, not being employees or business partners, where they habitually, under the conditions laid down by national law, participate in the activities of the self-employed worker and perform the same tasks or ancillary tasks.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a) \u2018direct discrimination\u2019: where one person is treated less favourably on grounds of sex than another is, has been or would be, treated in a comparable situation;\n(b) \u2018indirect discrimination\u2019: where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons of one sex at a particular disadvantage compared with persons of the other sex, unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary;\n(c) \u2018harassment\u2019: where unwanted conduct related to the sex of a person occurs with the purpose, or effect, of violating the dignity of that person, and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment;\n(d) \u2018sexual harassment\u2019: where any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal, or physical, conduct of a sexual nature occurs, with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.\nArticle 4\nPrinciple of equal treatment\n1. The principle of equal treatment means that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex in the public or private sectors, either directly or indirectly, for instance in relation to the establishment, equipment or extension of a business or the launching or extension of any other form of self-employed activity.\n2. In the areas covered by paragraph 1, harassment and sexual harassment shall be deemed to be discrimination on grounds of sex and therefore prohibited. A person\u2019s rejection of, or submission to, such conduct may not be used as a basis for a decision affecting that person.\n3. In the areas covered by paragraph 1, an instruction to discriminate against persons on grounds of sex shall be deemed to be discrimination.\nArticle 5\nPositive action\nMember States may maintain or adopt measures within the meaning of Article 157(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with a view to ensuring full equality in practice between men and women in working life, for instance aimed at promoting entrepreneurship initiatives among women.\nArticle 6\nEstablishment of a company\nWithout prejudice to the specific conditions for access to certain activities which apply equally to both sexes, the Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the conditions for the establishment of a company between spouses, or between life partners when and in so far as recognised by national law, are not more restrictive than the conditions for the establishment of a company between other persons.\nArticle 7\nSocial protection\n1. Where a system for social protection for self-employed workers exists in a Member State, that Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that spouses and life partners referred to in Article 2(b) can benefit from a social protection in accordance with national law.\n2. The Member States may decide whether the social protection referred to in paragraph 1 is implemented on a mandatory or voluntary basis.\nArticle 8\nMaternity benefits\n1. The Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that female self-employed workers and female spouses and life partners referred to in Article 2 may, in accordance with national law, be granted a sufficient maternity allowance enabling interruptions in their occupational activity owing to pregnancy or motherhood for at least 14 weeks.\n2. The Member States may decide whether the maternity allowance referred to in paragraph 1 is granted on a mandatory or voluntary basis.\n3. The allowance referred to in paragraph 1 shall be deemed sufficient if it guarantees an income at least equivalent to:\n(a)\nthe allowance which the person concerned would receive in the event of a break in her activities on grounds connected with her state of health and/or;\n(b)\nthe average loss of income or profit in relation to a comparable preceding period subject to any ceiling laid down under national law and/or;\n(c)\nany other family related allowance established by national law, subject to any ceiling laid down under national law.\n4. The Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that female self-employed workers and female spouses and life partners referred to in Article 2 have access to any existing services supplying temporary replacements or to any existing national social services. The Member States may provide that access to those services is an alternative to or a part of the allowance referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.\nArticle 9\nDefence of rights\n1. The Member States shall ensure that judicial or administrative proceedings, including, where Member States consider it appropriate, conciliation procedures, for the enforcement of the obligations under this Directive are available to all persons who consider they have sustained loss or damage as a result of a failure to apply the principle of equal treatment to them, even after the relationship in which the discrimination is alleged to have occurred has ended.\n2. The Member States shall ensure that associations, organisations and other legal entities which have, in accordance with the criteria laid down by their national law, a legitimate interest in ensuring that this Directive is complied with may engage, either on behalf or in support of the complainant, with his or her approval, in any judicial or administrative proceedings provided for the enforcement of obligations under this Directive.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be without prejudice to national rules on time limits for bringing actions relating to the principle of equal treatment.\nArticle 10\nCompensation or reparation\nThe Member States shall introduce such measures into their national legal systems as are necessary to ensure real and effective compensation or reparation, as Member States so determine, for the loss or damage sustained by a person as a result of discrimination on grounds of sex, such compensation or reparation being dissuasive and proportionate to the loss or damage suffered. Such compensation or reparation shall not be limited by the fixing of a prior upper limit.\nArticle 11\nEquality bodies\n1. The Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the body or bodies designated in accordance with Article 20 of Directive 2006/54/EC are also competent for the promotion, analysis, monitoring and support of equal treatment of all persons covered by this Directive without discrimination on grounds of sex.\n2. The Member States shall ensure that the tasks of the bodies referred to in paragraph 1 include:\n(a)\nproviding independent assistance to victims of discrimination in pursuing their complaints of discrimination, without prejudice to the rights of victims and of associations, organisations and other legal entities referred to in Article 9(2);\n(b)\nconducting independent surveys on discrimination;\n(c)\npublishing independent reports and making recommendations on any issue relating to such discrimination;\n(d)\nexchanging, at the appropriate level, the information available with the corresponding European bodies, such as the European Institute for Gender Equality.\nArticle 12\nGender mainstreaming\nThe Member States shall actively take into account the objective of equality between men and women when formulating and implementing laws, regulations, administrative provisions, policies and activities in the areas referred to in this Directive.\nArticle 13\nDissemination of information\nThe Member States shall ensure that the provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive, together with the relevant provisions already in force, are brought by all appropriate means to the attention of the persons concerned throughout their territory.\nArticle 14\nLevel of protection\nThe Member States may introduce or maintain provisions which are more favourable to the protection of the principle of equal treatment between men and women than those laid down in this Directive.\nThe implementation of this Directive shall under no circumstances constitute grounds for a reduction in the level of protection against discrimination already afforded by Member States in the fields covered by this Directive.\nArticle 15\nReports\n1. Member States shall communicate all available information concerning the application of this Directive to the Commission by 5 August 2015.\nThe Commission shall draw up a summary report for submission to the European Parliament and to the Council no later than 5 August 2016. That report should take into account any legal change concerning the duration of maternity leave for employees. Where appropriate, that report shall be accompanied by proposals for amending this Directive.\n2. The Commission\u2019s report shall take the viewpoints of the stakeholders into account.\nArticle 16\nImplementation\n1. The Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 5 August 2012 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen the Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Where justified by particular difficulties, the Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of two years until 5 August 2014 in order to comply with Article 7, and in order to comply with Article 8 as regards female spouses and life partners referred to in Article 2(b).\n3. The Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 17\nRepeal\nDirective 86/613/EEC shall be repealed, with effect from 5 August 2012.\nReferences to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive.\nArticle 18\nEntry into force\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 19\nAddressees\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 7 July 2010", "references": ["99", "53", "3", "66", "84", "90", "43", "93", "95", "13", "94", "23", "65", "86", "55", "70", "89", "67", "47", "88", "63", "18", "61", "17", "80", "34", "75", "87", "27", "58", "No Label", "8", "14", "37", "38", "50"], "gold": ["8", "14", "37", "38", "50"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 31 May 2012\non the creation of an Expert Group on Land Transport Security\n(2012/286/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 90 of the Treaty establishes that the objectives of the Treaties concerning transport shall be pursued within the framework of a common transport policy and transport security is an important part of it.\n(2)\nThe White Paper \u2018Roadmap to a single European transport area - Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system\u2019 (1) establishes in its Annex I point 1(3) an initiative relating to the setting up of a permanent expert group on land transport security.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to set up a group of experts in the field of land transport security and to define its tasks and its structure.\n(4)\nThe group should assist the Commission in formulating and implementing the Union\u2019s activities aimed at developing policy on security relating to land transport, and shall foster ongoing exchanges of relevant experience, policies and practices between the Member States and the various parties involved.\n(5)\nThe group should be composed of Member States, competent authorities. They should nominate experts from the government departments in charge of transport and security or policing issues.\n(6)\nRules on disclosure of information by members of the group should be laid down.\n(7)\nPersonal data relating to members of the group should be processed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThe Expert Group on Land Transport Security, hereinafter referred to as called \u2018the Group\u2019 is hereby set up.\nArticle 2\nTasks\n1. The Group shall assist the Commission in formulating and implementing the European Union\u2019s activities aimed at developing policy on security relating to land transport, and shall foster ongoing exchanges of relevant experience, policies and practices between the Member States and the various parties involved.\n2. To achieve the aims referred to in paragraph 1, the Group shall:\n-\nassist the Commission in the development of instruments for monitoring, evaluating and disseminating the results of measures taken at European Union level in the field of land transport security,\n-\ncontribute to the implementation of European Union action programmes in the field, mainly by analysing the results and suggesting improvements to the measures taken,\n-\nencourage exchanges of information on measures taken at all levels to promote the security of land transport and, where appropriate, put forward suggestions for possible action at the European Union level,\n-\ndeliver opinions or submit reports to the Commission, either at the latter\u2019s request or on its own initiative, on any matter of relevance to the promotion of the security of land transport in the European Union.\nArticle 3\nConsultation\nThe Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to land transport security.\nArticle 4\nMembership\n1. Members shall be Member States\u2019 competent authorities. They shall nominate two representatives:\n(a)\none representative per Member State from ministries or government departments responsible for land transport;\n(b)\none representative per Member State from ministries or government departments responsible for security or policing issues.\n2. The Commission\u2019s representatives may give observer status to individuals or invite European representatives of international and professional organisations engaged in, or directly affected by, land transport security as well as transport user organisations.\n3. The names of individuals referred to in paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall be published in the Register of Commission expert groups and other similar entities (\u2018the Register\u2019). The names of Member States\u2019 authorities may be published in the Register. The names of individuals and organisations referred to in paragraph 2 shall be published in the Register and the interest represented shall be disclosed (3).\n4. Personal data shall be collected, processed and published in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.\nArticle 5\nOperation\n1. The Group shall be chaired by a representative of the Commission.\n2. In agreement with the Commission, the Group may set up working parties to examine specific questions on the basis of terms of reference defined by the Group. Such working parties shall be disbanded as soon as their mandate is fulfilled.\n3. The Commission may invite any person who is specially qualified in a particular subject on the agenda to take part in its work on an ad hoc basis. Invited experts shall only take part in the work on the particular subject for which their attendance is requested.\n4. For the preparation of its opinions, the Group may appoint one of the Member States\u2019 representatives as a rapporteur with the task of drawing up reports.\n5. The Group shall be convened by the Commission and shall normally meet on its premises. It shall meet at least twice a year. The Commission shall provide secretarial services. Other Commission officials with interest in the proceedings may attend meetings of the group and its working parties.\n6. The Group\u2019s deliberations shall deal with the requests for opinion presented by the Commission or with the opinions which the Group delivers on its own initiative. They are not followed by a vote.\n7. The Commission shall publish all relevant documents either in the Register or via a link from the Register to a dedicated website. Exceptions to publication are possible where disclosure of a document would undermine the protection of a public or private interest as defined in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4).\n8. Members of the Group and their representatives, as well as invited experts and observers, shall comply with the obligations of professional secrecy laid down by the Treaties and their implementing rules, as well as with the Commission\u2019s rules on security regarding the protection of EU classified information, laid down in the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending its internal Rules of Procedure (5). Should they fail to respect these obligations, the Commission may take all appropriate measures.\nArticle 6\nMeeting expenses and financial consequences\n1. Participants in the activities of the group shall not be remunerated for the services they render.\n2. Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by Members\u2019 representatives in connection with the activities of the group shall be reimbursed by the Commission in accordance with the provisions in force within the Commission. Travel and subsistence expenses incurred in connection with the activities of the group by observers and invited experts shall also be reimbursed.\n3. Those expenses shall be reimbursed within the limits of the available appropriations allocated under the annual procedure for the allocation of resources.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2012.", "references": ["61", "29", "19", "89", "57", "22", "59", "28", "90", "45", "30", "96", "99", "39", "63", "20", "86", "77", "85", "62", "43", "58", "68", "41", "17", "11", "74", "84", "9", "34", "No Label", "50", "53", "55"], "gold": ["50", "53", "55"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/425/CFSP\nof 18 July 2011\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for Central Asia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 5 October 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/670/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Pierre MOREL European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Central Asia. The mandate of Mr Pierre MOREL will expire on 31 August 2011.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 30 June 2012.\n(3)\nThe mandate of the EUSR will be implemented in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action, as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAppointment\nThe mandate of Mr Pierre MOREL as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Central Asia is hereby extended until 30 June 2012. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe EUSR\u2019s mandate shall be based on the policy objectives of the Union for Central Asia. Those objectives include:\n(a)\npromoting good and close relations between countries of Central Asia and the Union on the basis of common values and interests, as set out in relevant agreements;\n(b)\ncontributing to strengthening the stability and cooperation between the countries in the region;\n(c)\ncontributing to strengthening democracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Central Asia;\n(d)\naddressing key threats, especially specific problems with direct implications for the Union;\n(e)\nenhancing the Union\u2019s effectiveness and visibility in the region, including through a closer coordination with other relevant partners and international organisations, such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the United Nations.\nArticle 3\nMandate\n1. In order to achieve the policy objectives, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\npromote overall Union political coordination in Central Asia and help to ensure consistency of the external actions of the Union in the region;\n(b)\nmonitor, on behalf of the HR and in accordance with the EUSR\u2019s mandate, together with the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the Commission the implementation process of the EU Strategy for a New Partnership with Central Asia, make recommendations and report to relevant Council bodies on a regular basis;\n(c)\nassist the Council in further developing a comprehensive policy towards Central Asia;\n(d)\nfollow closely political developments in Central Asia by developing and maintaining close contacts with governments, parliaments, the judiciary, civil society and mass media;\n(e)\nencourage Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to cooperate on regional issues of common interest;\n(f)\ndevelop appropriate contacts and cooperation with the main interested actors in the region, and all relevant regional and international organisations, including the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC), the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA), the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Program (CAREC) and the Central Asian Regional Information and Coordination Centre (CARICC);\n(g)\ncontribute to the implementation of the EU human rights policy and EU Guidelines on Human Rights, in particular with regard to children and women in areas affected by conflict, especially by monitoring and addressing developments in this regard;\n(h)\ncontribute, in close cooperation with the OSCE, to conflict prevention and resolution by developing contacts with the authorities and other local actors such as non-governmental organisations, political parties, minorities, religious groups and their leaders;\n(i)\nprovide input to the formulation of energy security, anti-narcotics and water resource management aspects of the common foreign and security policy with respect to Central Asia.\n2. The EUSR shall support the work of the HR and maintain an overview of all activities of the Union in the region.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the EEAS.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 September 2011 to 30 June 2012 shall be EUR 924 850.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of the EUSR\u2019s mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of the team.\n2. Member States, the institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff is to have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, the sending institution of the Union or the EEAS, and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and the staff of the EUSR\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the EUSR\u2019s mission and the members of the EUSR\u2019s staff shall be agreed with the host party or parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegations and the Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in accordance with the EUSR\u2019s mandate and the security situation in the geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under the direct authority of the EUSR, in particular by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan, providing for mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area and the management of security incidents, and providing for a contingency plan and a mission evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance, as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of the EUSR\u2019s team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term report and the report on the implementation of the mandate.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the PSC and the HR with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report to Council working parties as necessary. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the PSC or the HR, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote overall Union political coordination and shall help ensure that all Union instruments in the field are engaged coherently to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission and of the European Union Special Representative in Afghanistan. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States\u2019 missions and the Union\u2019s delegations.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegations and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission, who shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the Council, the HR and the Commission with a progress report by the end of January 2012, and, at the end of the EUSR\u2019s mandate, with a comprehensive report on the implementation of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["37", "5", "19", "18", "74", "10", "16", "30", "40", "13", "62", "59", "72", "75", "81", "46", "12", "94", "2", "34", "44", "63", "82", "0", "87", "23", "48", "20", "68", "58", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "95"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 458/2012\nof 31 May 2012\nimplementing Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU) No 377/2012 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 377/2012 (1), and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 3 May 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 377/2012.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Guinea-Bissau, and in accordance with Council Decision 2012/285/CFSP of 31 May 2012 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (2), additional persons should be included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 377/2012,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 377/2012 shall be replaced by the list in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 May 2012.", "references": ["82", "68", "22", "35", "96", "69", "38", "80", "90", "62", "33", "79", "75", "78", "57", "26", "60", "45", "24", "20", "42", "4", "54", "49", "74", "14", "72", "51", "70", "89", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 29 September 2011\nterminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\n(2011/642/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 5 November 2010, the European Commission (Commission) received a complaint concerning the alleged injurious dumping of certain graphite electrode systems (graphite electrodes) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (China), lodged pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation by the European Carbon and Graphite Association (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain graphite electrodes systems.\n(2)\nThe complaint contained prima facie evidence of the existence of dumping, and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding.\n(3)\nThe Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) initiated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain graphite electrodes systems originating in China.\n(4)\nThe Commission officially advised the exporting producers in China, importers, traders, users and associations known to be concerned, the authorities of China and all known Union producers of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(5)\nAll interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.\nB. WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING\n(6)\nBy a letter dated 8 July 2011 and addressed to the Commission, the complainant formally withdrew its complaint.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(8)\nIn this respect it is noted that Commission did not identify any reason to indicate that termination would not be in the Union interest, nor was any such reason raised by interested parties. Therefore, the Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received indicating that such termination would not be in the Union interest.\n(9)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain graphite electrode systems originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China should be terminated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain graphite electrodes of a kind used for electric furnaces, with an apparent density of 1,5 g/cm3 or more and an electrical resistance of 7 \u03bc\u03a9.m or less originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN code ex 8545 11 00 and nipples used for such electrodes currently falling within CN code ex 8545 90 90, is hereby terminated.\nArticle 2\nThe Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 29 September 2011.", "references": ["61", "91", "65", "49", "55", "37", "7", "28", "73", "92", "20", "62", "52", "97", "78", "70", "43", "26", "98", "5", "4", "34", "88", "10", "80", "64", "63", "14", "60", "58", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "86", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "86", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 267/2012\nof 23 March 2012\nconcerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (2), in order to give effect to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3).\n(2)\nOn 23 January 2012, the Council approved Decision 2012/35/CFSP providing for additional restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran (\u2027Iran\u2027) as requested by the European Council on 9 December 2011.\n(3)\nThose restrictive measures comprise, in particular, additional restrictions on trade in dual-use goods and technology, as well as on key equipment and technology which could be used in the petrochemical industry, a ban on the import of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and petrochemical products, as well as a prohibition of investment in the petrochemical industry. Moreover, trade in gold, precious metals and diamonds with the Government of Iran, as well as the delivery of newly printed banknotes and coinage to or for the benefit of the Central Bank of Iran, should be prohibited.\n(4)\nCertain technical amendments to existing measures have also become necessary. In particular, the definition of \"brokering services\" should be clarified. In cases where the purchase, sale, supply, transfer or export of goods and technology or of financial and technical services may be authorised by a competent authority no separate authorisation of related brokering services will be required.\n(5)\nThe definition of \"transfers of funds\" should be broadened to non-electronic transfers so as to counter attempts at circumventing the restrictive measures.\n(6)\nThe revised restrictive measures concerning dual-use goods should cover all goods and technology set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (4), with the exception of certain items in Part 2 of category 5 thereof in view of their use in public communication services in Iran. However, the prohibitions in Article 2 of this Regulation do not apply to the sale, supply, transfer or export of goods and technology newly listed in Annex I or II of this Regulation for which an authorisation has already been granted by the competent authorities of the Member States pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 prior to the entry into force of this Regulation.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure the effective implementation of the prohibition on the sale, supply, transfer or export to Iran of certain key equipment or technology which could be used in the key sectors of the oil, natural gas and petrochemical industries, lists of such key equipment and technology should be provided.\n(8)\nFor the same reason, lists of items subject to trade restrictions on crude oil and petroleum products, petrochemical products, gold, precious metals and diamonds should also be provided.\n(9)\nIn addition, to be effective, restrictions on investment in the Iranian oil and gas sector should cover certain key activities, such as bulk gas transmission services for the purpose of transit or delivery to directly interconnected grids, and, for the same reason, should apply to joint ventures as well as other forms of associations and cooperation with Iran in the sector of the transmission of natural gas.\n(10)\nEffective restrictions on Iranian investment in the Union require that measures be taken to prohibit natural or legal persons, entities and bodies subject to the jurisdiction of the Member States from enabling or authorising such investment.\n(11)\nDecision 2012/35/CFSP also extends the freezing of assets to additional persons, entities or bodies providing support to the Government of Iran, including financial, logistical and material support, or associated with them. The Decision also extends the freezing measures to other members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).\n(12)\nDecision 2012/35/CFSP also provides for the freezing of the assets of the Central Bank of Iran. However, in consideration of possible involvement of the Central Bank of Iran in the financing of foreign trade, derogations are deemed necessary as this targeted financial measure should not prevent trade operations, including contracts relating to foodstuffs, healthcare, medical equipment or for humanitarian purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation. The exemptions in Articles 12 and 14 of this Regulation concerning contracts for the import, purchase or transport of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and petrochemical products concluded before 23 January 2012 also apply to ancillary contracts, including transport, insurance or inspections contracts necessary for the execution of such contracts. Furthermore, Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and petrochemical products which are legally imported into a Member State pursuant to the exemptions in Articles 12 and 14 of this Regulation are to be considered as being in free circulation within the Union..\n(13)\nIt is prohibited, pursuant to the obligation to freeze the assets of Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line (IRISL) and of entities owned or controlled by IRISL to load and unload cargoes on and from vessels owned or chartered by IRISL or by such entities in ports of Member States. Moreover, the transfer of ownership of vessels owned, controlled or chartered by IRISL companies to other entities is also prohibited pursuant to the freezing of IRISL's assets. However, the obligation to freeze the funds and economic resources of IRISL and of entities owned or controlled by IRISL does not require the impounding or detention of vessels owned by such entities or the cargoes carried by them insofar as such cargoes belong to third parties, nor does it require the detention of the crew contracted by them.\n(14)\nIn consideration of Iran's attempts at circumventing the sanctions, it should be clarified that all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by persons, entities or bodies listed in Annexes I or II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP are to be frozen without delay, including those of successor entities established to circumvent the measures set out in this Regulation.\n(15)\nIt should also be clarified that submitting and forwarding the necessary documents to a bank for the purpose of their final transfer to a person, entity or body that is not listed, to trigger payments allowed under this Regulation, does not constitute making funds available within the meaning of this Regulation.\n(16)\nIt should be clarified that funds or economic resources should be able to be released for the official purposes of diplomatic or consular missions or international organisations enjoying immunities in accordance with international law, in conformity with the provisions of this Regulation.\n(17)\nThe application of targeted financial measures by providers of specialised financial messaging services should be further developed, in conformity with the provisions of this Regulation.\nIt should be clarified that the assets of non-designated persons, entities or bodies held at designated credit and financial institutions should not remain frozen in application of the targeted financial measures and should be able to be released under the conditions provided for in this Regulation.\nIn consideration of Iran's attempts at using its financial system for the purpose of circumventing the sanctions, it is necessary to require enhanced vigilance in relation to the activities of Iran's credit and financial institutions so as to prevent circumvention of this Regulation, including the freezing of the assets of the Central Bank of Iran. These enhanced vigilance requirements for credit and financial institutions should be complementary to existing obligations deriving from Regulation (EC) 1781/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 on information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds (5) and from the implementation of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (6).\n(18)\nCertain provisions regarding the controls of funds transfers should be reviewed in order to facilitate their application by competent authorities and operators and to prevent circumvention of the provisions of this Regulation, including the freezing of the assets of the Central Bank of Iran.\n(19)\nFurthermore, the restrictions on insurance should be adjusted, in particular with a view to clarifying that the insurance of diplomatic and consular missions within the Union is permitted, and to allow for the provision of third party liability insurance or environmental liability insurance.\n(20)\nMoreover, the requirement to submit pre-arrival and pre-departure information should be updated, since this obligation has become generally applicable to all goods entering or leaving the customs territory of the Union following the full implementation as from 1 January 2012 of the customs security measures laid down in the relevant provisions concerning entry and exit summary declarations in Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (7) and in Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (8).\n(21)\nAdjustments should also be made concerning the provision of bunkering and ship supply services, the liability of operators and the prohibition of the circumvention of the relevant restrictive measures.\n(22)\nThe mechanisms for exchange of information between Member States and the Commission should be reviewed so as to ensure the effective implementation and uniform interpretation of this Regulation.\n(23)\nIn consideration of its objectives, the ban on internal repression equipment should be provided for under Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran (9), rather than under this Regulation.\n(24)\nFor the sake of clarity, Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 should be repealed and replaced by this Regulation.\n(25)\nThe restrictive measures provided for in this Regulation fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and legislation at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement them, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(26)\nThis Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in particular the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the right to property and the right to protection of personal data. This Regulation should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(27)\nThis Regulation also respects the obligations of Member States under the Charter of the United Nations and the legally binding nature of Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.\n(28)\nThe procedure for the designation of persons subject to freezing measures under this Regulation should include providing designated natural or legal persons, entities or bodies with the grounds for listing, so as to give them an opportunity to submit observations. Where observations are submitted, or substantial new evidence is presented, the Council should review its decision in the light of those observations and inform the person, entity or body concerned accordingly.\n(29)\nFor the implementation of this Regulation, and to create maximum legal certainty within the Union, the names and other relevant data concerning natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources must be frozen in accordance with the Regulation, should be made public. Any processing of personal data of natural persons under this Regulation should be in conformity with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (10) and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (11).\n(30)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, it should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nDEFINITIONS\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2027branch\u2027 of a financial or credit institution means a place of business which forms a legally dependent part of a financial or credit institution and which carries out directly all or some of the transactions inherent in the business of financial or credit institutions;\n(b)\n\u2027brokering services\u2027 means:\n(i)\nthe negotiation or arrangement of transactions for the purchase, sale or supply of goods and technology or of financial and technical services, including from a third country to any other third country, or\n(ii)\nthe selling or buying of goods and technology or of financial and technical services, including where they are located in third countries for their transfer to another third country;\n(c)\n\u2027claim\u2027 means any claim, whether asserted by legal proceedings or not, made before or after the date of entry into force of this Regulation, under or in connection with a contract or transaction, and includes in particular:\n(i)\na claim for performance of any obligation arising under or in connection with a contract or transaction;\n(ii)\na claim for extension or payment of a bond, financial guarantee or indemnity of whatever form;\n(iii)\na claim for compensation in respect of a contract or transaction;\n(iv)\na counterclaim;\n(v)\na claim for the recognition or enforcement, including by the procedure of exequatur, of a judgment, an arbitration award or an equivalent decision, wherever made or given;\n(d)\n\u2027contract or transaction\u2027 means any transaction of whatever form and whatever the applicable law, whether comprising one or more contracts or similar obligations made between the same or different parties; for this purpose \u2027contract\u2027 includes a bond, guarantee or indemnity, particularly a financial guarantee or financial indemnity, and credit, whether legally independent or not, as well as any related provision arising under, or in connection with, the transaction;\n(e)\n\u2027competent authorities\u2027 refers to the competent authorities of the Member States as identified on the websites listed in Annex X;\n(f)\n\u2027credit institution\u2027 means a credit institution as defined in Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (12), including its branches inside or outside the Union;\n(g)\n\u2027customs territory of the Union\u2027 means the territory as defined in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (13) and in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (14);\n(h)\n\u2027economic resources\u2027 means assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which are not funds, but which may be used to obtain funds, goods or services;\n(i)\n\u2027financial institution\u2027 means\n(i)\nan undertaking, other than a credit institution, which carries out one or more of the operations included in points 2 to 12 and points 14 and 15 of Annex I to Directive 2006/48/EC, including the activities of currency exchange offices (bureaux de change);\n(ii)\nan insurance company duly authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (15), in so far as it carries out activities covered by that Directive;\n(iii)\nan investment firm as defined in point 1 of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (16);\n(iv)\na collective investment undertaking marketing its units or shares; or\n(v)\nan insurance intermediary as defined in Article 2(5) of Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation (17), with the exception of intermediaries referred to in Article 2(7) of that Directive, when they act in respect of life insurance and other investment related services;\nincluding its branches inside or outside the Union;\n(j)\n\u2027freezing of economic resources\u2027 means preventing the use of economic resources to obtain funds, goods or services in any way, including, but not limited to, by selling, hiring or mortgaging them;\n(k)\n\u2027freezing of funds\u2027 means preventing any move, transfer, alteration, use of, access to, or dealing with funds in any way that would result in any change in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination or other change that would enable the funds to be used, including portfolio management;\n(l)\n\u2027funds\u2027 means financial assets and benefits of every kind, including, but not limited to:\n(i)\ncash, cheques, claims on money, drafts, money orders and other payment instruments;\n(ii)\ndeposits with financial institutions or other entities, balances on accounts, debts and debt obligations;\n(iii)\npublicly-and privately-traded securities and debt instruments, including stocks and shares, certificates representing securities, bonds, notes, warrants, debentures and derivatives contracts;\n(iv)\ninterest, dividends or other income on or value accruing from or generated by assets;\n(v)\ncredit, right of set-off, guarantees, performance bonds or other financial commitments;\n(vi)\nletters of credit, bills of lading, bills of sale; and\n(vii)\ndocuments showing evidence of an interest in funds or financial resources;\n(m)\n\u2027goods\u2027 includes items, materials and equipment;\n(n)\n\u2027insurance\u2027 means an undertaking or commitment whereby one or more natural or legal persons is or are obliged, in return for a payment, to provide one or more other persons, in the event of materialisation of a risk, with an indemnity or a benefit as determined by the undertaking or commitment;\n(o)\n\u2027Iranian person, entity or body\u2027 means:\n(i)\nthe State of Iran or any public authority thereof;\n(ii)\nany natural person in, or resident in, Iran;\n(iii)\nany legal person, entity or body having its registered office in Iran;\n(iv)\nany legal person, entity or body, inside or outside Iran, owned or controlled directly or indirectly by one or more of the above mentioned persons or bodies;\n(p)\n\u2027reinsurance\u2027 means the activity consisting in accepting risks ceded by an insurance undertaking or by another reinsurance undertaking or, in the case of the association of underwriters known as Lloyd's, the activity consisting in accepting risks, ceded by any member of Lloyd's, by an insurance or reinsurance undertaking other than the association of underwriters known as Lloyd's;\n(q)\n\u2027Sanctions Committee\u2027 means the Committee of the United Nations Security Council which was established pursuant to paragraph 18 of United Nations Security Council Resolution (\"UNSCR\") 1737 (2006);\n(r)\n\u2027technical assistance\u2027 means any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance, or any other technical service, and may take forms such as instruction, advice, training, transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services; including verbal forms of assistance;\n(s)\n\u2027territory of the Union\u2027 means the territories of the Member States to which the Treaty is applicable, under the conditions laid down in the Treaty, including their airspace;\n(t)\n\u2027transfer of funds\u2027 means:\n(i)\nany transaction carried out on behalf of a payer through a payment service provider by electronic means, with a view to making funds available to a payee at a payment service provider, irrespective of whether the payer and the payee are the same person. The terms payer, payee and payment service provider have the same meaning as in Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market (18);\n(ii)\nany transaction by non-electronic means such as in cash, cheques or accountancy orders, with a view to making funds available to a payee irrespective of whether the payer and the payee are the same person.\nCHAPTER II\nEXPORT AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS\nArticle 2\n1. It shall be prohibited to sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, the goods and technology listed in Annex I or II, whether or not originating in the Union, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran.\n2. Annex I shall include goods and technology, including software, which are dual-use items or technology as defined in Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009, except for certain goods and technology as specified in part A of Annex I to this Regulation.\n3. Annex II shall include other goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy-water-related activities, to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, or to the pursuit of activities related to other topics about which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has expressed concerns or has identified as outstanding, including those determined by the UN Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\n4. Annexes I and II shall not include goods and technology included in the Common Military List of the European Union (19) (\u2027Common Military List\u2027).\nArticle 3\n1. A prior authorisation shall be required for the sale, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, of the goods and technology listed in Annex III, whether or not originating in the Union, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran.\n2. For all exports for which an authorisation is required under this Article, such authorisation shall be granted by the competent authorities of the Member State where the exporter is established and shall be in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 428/2009. The authorisation shall be valid throughout the Union.\n3. Annex III shall include any goods and technology, other than those included in Annexes I and II, which could contribute to enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, or to the pursuit of activities related to other topics about which the IAEA has expressed concerns or has identified as outstanding.\n4. Exporters shall supply the competent authorities with all relevant information required for their application for an export authorisation.\n5. The competent authorities shall not grant any authorisation for any sale, supply, transfer or export of the goods or technology included in Annex III, if they have reasonable grounds to determine that the sale, supply, transfer or export of the goods and technology is or may be intended for use in connection with one of the following activities:\n(a)\nIran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities;\n(b)\nthe development of nuclear weapon delivery systems by Iran; or\n(c)\nthe pursuit by Iran of activities related to other topics about which the IAEA has expressed concerns or has identified as outstanding.\n6. Under the conditions set out in paragraph 5, the competent authorities may annul, suspend, modify or revoke an export authorisation which they have granted.\n7. Where a competent authority refuses to grant an authorisation, or annuls, suspends, substantially limits or revokes an authorisation in accordance with paragraphs 5 or 6, the Member State concerned shall notify the other Member States and the Commission thereof and share the relevant information with them, while complying with the provisions concerning the confidentiality of such information of Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 of 13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters (20).\n8. Before a Member State grants an authorisation in accordance with paragraph 5 for a transaction which is essentially identical to a transaction which is the subject of a still valid denial issued by another Member State or by other Member States under paragraphs 6 and 7, it shall first consult the Member State or States which issued the denial. If, following such consultations, the Member State concerned decides to grant an authorisation, it shall inform the other Member States and the Commission thereof, providing all relevant information to explain the decision.\nArticle 4\nIt shall be prohibited to purchase, import or transport from Iran, directly or indirectly, the goods and technology listed in Annex I or II whether the item concerned originates in Iran or not.\nArticle 5\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List, or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of goods included in that list, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran;\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to the goods and technology listed in Annex I or II, or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of goods listed in Annex I or II, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran; and\n(c)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List or in Annex I or II, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for any provision of related technical assistance to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran.\n2. The provision of the following shall be subject to an authorisation from the competent authority concerned:\n(a)\ntechnical assistance or brokering services related to goods and technology listed in Annex III and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of those items, directly or indirectly to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran;\n(b)\nfinancing or financial assistance related to goods and technology referred to in Annex III, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of those items, or for any provision of related technical assistance, directly or indirectly, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran.\n3. The competent authorities shall not grant any authorisation for the transactions referred to in paragraph 2, if they have reasonable grounds to determine that the action is or may be intended to contribute to one of the following activities:\n(a)\nIran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities;\n(b)\nthe development of nuclear weapon delivery systems by Iran; or\n(c)\nthe pursuit by Iran of activities related to other topics about which the IAEA has expressed concerns or has identified as outstanding.\nArticle 6\nArticle 2(1) and Article 5(1) shall not apply to:\n(a)\nthe direct or indirect transfer of goods falling within Part B of Annex I, through the territories of Member States when those goods are sold, supplied, transferred or exported to, or for use in, Iran for a light water reactor in Iran the construction of which has begun before December 2006;\n(b)\ntransactions mandated by the IAEA technical cooperation programme; or\n(c)\ngoods supplied or transferred to, or for use in, Iran due to obligations of State Parties under the Paris Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction of 13 January 1993.\nArticle 7\n1. Without prejudice to Article 1(b) of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, the competent authorities may grant, under such terms and conditions as they deem appropriate, an authorisation for a transaction in relation to goods and technology referred to in Article 2(1) of this Regulation or assistance or brokering services referred to in Article 5(1), provided that:\n(a)\nthe goods and technology, assistance or brokering services are for food, agricultural, medical or other humanitarian purposes; and\n(b)\nin those cases where the transaction concerns goods or technology contained in the Nuclear Suppliers Group or Missile Technology Control Regime lists, the Sanctions Committee has determined in advance and on a case-by-case basis that the transaction would clearly not contribute to the development of technologies in support of Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon development delivery systems.\n2. The Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission, within four weeks, of authorisations granted under this Article.\nArticle 8\n1. It shall be prohibited to sell, supply, transfer or export key equipment or technology listed in Annex VI, directly or indirectly, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in, Iran.\n2. Annex VI shall include key equipment and technology for the following key sectors of the oil and gas industry in Iran:\n(a)\nexploration of crude oil and natural gas;\n(b)\nproduction of crude oil and natural gas;\n(c)\nrefining;\n(d)\nliquefaction of natural gas.\n3. Annex VI shall also include key equipment and technology for the petrochemical industry in Iran.\n4. Annex VI shall not include items included in the Common Military List, or in Annex I, Annex II or Annex III.\nArticle 9\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to the key equipment and technology listed in Annex VI, or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of goods listed in Annex VI, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran.\n(b)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the key equipment and technology listed in Annex VI, to any Iranian person, entity or body or for use in Iran.\nArticle 10\nThe prohibitions in Articles 8 and 9 shall not apply to:\n(a)\ntransactions required by a trade contract concerning key equipment or technology in the exploration of crude oil and natural gas, production of crude oil and natural gas, refining, liquefaction of natural gas concluded before 27 October 2010, or ancillary contracts necessary for the execution of such contracts, or by a contract or agreement concluded before 26 July 2010 and relating to an investment in Iran made before 26 July 2010, nor shall they prevent the execution of an obligation arising there from; or\n(b)\ntransactions required by a trade contract concerning key equipment or technology for the petrochemical industry concluded before 24 March 2012, or of ancillary contracts necessary for the execution of such contracts, or by a contract or agreement concluded before 23 January 2012 and relating to an investment in Iran made before 23 January 2012, nor shall they prevent the execution of an obligation arising therefrom;\nprovided that the natural or legal person, entity or body seeking to engage in such transactions, or to provide assistance to such transactions, has notified, at least 20 working days in advance, the transaction or assistance to the competent authority of the Member State in which it is established.\nArticle 11\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto import crude oil or petroleum products into the Union if they:\n(i)\noriginate in Iran; or\n(ii)\nhave been exported from Iran;\n(b)\nto purchase crude oil or petroleum products which are located in or which originated in Iran;\n(c)\nto transport crude oil or petroleum products if they originate in Iran, or are being exported from Iran to any other country; and\n(d)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, including financial derivatives, as well as insurance and re-insurance related to the import, purchase or transport of crude oil and petroleum products of Iranian origin or that have been imported from Iran.\n2. Crude oil and petroleum products means the products listed in Annex IV.\nArticle 12\n1. The prohibitions in Article 11 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nthe execution until 1 July 2012, of trade contracts concluded before 23 January 2012, or of ancillary contracts necessary for the execution of such contracts;\n(b)\nthe execution of contracts concluded before 23 January 2012, or of ancillary contracts, necessary for the execution of such contracts, where such a contract specifically provides that the supply of Iranian crude oil and petroleum products or the proceeds derived from their supply are for the reimbursement of outstanding amounts to persons, entities or bodies under the jurisdiction of Member States,\n(c)\nthe import, purchase and transport of crude oil or petroleum products which had been exported from Iran prior to 23 January 2012, or where the export was made pursuant to point (a) on or prior to 1 July 2012; or where the export was made pursuant to point (b);\nprovided that the person, entity or body seeking to perform the contract concerned has notified, at least 20 working days in advance, the activity or transaction to the competent authority of the Member State in which it is established.\n2. The prohibition in Article 11(1)(d) shall not apply to the provision, until 1 July 2012, directly or indirectly, of third party liability insurance and environmental liability insurance and reinsurance.\nArticle 13\n1. It shall be prohibited\n(a)\nto import petrochemical products into the Union if they:\n(i)\noriginate in Iran; or\n(ii)\nhave been exported from Iran;\n(b)\nto purchase petrochemical products which are located in or which originated in Iran;\n(c)\nto transport petrochemical products if they originate in Iran, or are being exported from Iran to any other country; and\n(d)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, including financial derivatives, as well as insurance and re-insurance related to the import, purchase or transport of petrochemical products of Iranian origin or that have been imported from Iran.\n2. Petrochemical products means the products listed in Annex V.\nArticle 14\n1. The prohibitions in Article 13 shall not apply to:\n(a)\nthe execution until 1 May 2012, of trade contracts concluded before 23 January 2012, or of ancillary contracts necessary for the execution of such contracts;\n(b)\nthe execution of contracts concluded before 23 January 2012, or of ancillary contracts, including transport or insurance contracts, necessary for the execution of such contracts, where a contract specifically provides that the supply of Iranian petrochemical products or the proceeds derived from their supply are for the reimbursement of outstanding amounts to persons, entities or bodies under the jurisdiction of Member States;\n(c)\nthe import, purchase and transport of petrochemical products which had been exported from Iran prior to 23 January 2012, or where the export was made pursuant to point (b), on or prior to 1 May 2012,\nprovided that the person, entity or body seeking to perform the contract concerned has notified, at least 20 working days in advance, the activity or transaction to the competent authority of the Member State in which it is established.\n2. The prohibition in Article 13(1)(d) shall not apply to the provision, until 1 May 2012, directly or indirectly, of third party liability insurance and environmental liability insurance and reinsurance.\nArticle 15\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, gold, precious metals and diamonds, as listed in Annex VII, whether or not originating in the Union, to the Government of Iran, its public bodies, corporations and agencies, any person, entity or body acting on their behalf or at their direction, or any entity or body owned or controlled by them;\n(b)\nto purchase, import or transport, directly or indirectly, gold, precious metals and diamonds, as listed in Annex VII, whether the item concerned originates in Iran or not, from the Government of Iran, its public bodies, corporations and agencies and any person, entity or body acting on their behalf or at their direction, or any entity or body owned or controlled by them; and\n(c)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services, financing or financial assistance, related to the goods referred to in points (a) and (b), to the Government of Iran, its public bodies, corporations and agencies and any person, entity or body acting on their behalf or at their direction, or any enty or body owned or controlled by them.\n2. Annex VII shall include gold, precious metals and diamonds subject to the prohibitions referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 16\nIt shall be prohibited to sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, newly printed or unissued Iranian denominated banknotes and minted coinage, to, or for the benefit of the Central Bank of Iran.\nCHAPTER III\nRESTRICTIONS ON FINANCING OF CERTAIN ENTREPRISES\nArticle 17\n1. The following shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nthe granting of any financial loan or credit to any Iranian person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 2;\n(b)\nthe acquisition or extension of a participation in any Iranian person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 2;\n(c)\nthe creation of any joint venture with any Iranian person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 2.\n2. The prohibition in paragraph 1 shall apply to any Iranian person, entity or body engaged:\n(a)\nin the manufacture of goods or technology listed in the Common Military List or in Annex I or II;\n(b)\nin the exploration or production of crude oil and natural gas, the refining of fuels or the liquefaction of natural gas; or\n(c)\nin the petrochemical industry.\n3. For the purposes of paragraph 2(b) and (c) only, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2027exploration of crude oil and natural gas\u2027 includes the exploration for, prospection of and management of crude oil and natural gas reserves, as well as the provision of geological services in relation to such reserves;\n(b)\n\u2027production of crude oil and natural gas\u2027 includes bulk gas transmission services for the purpose of transit or delivery to directly interconnected grids;\n(c)\n\u2027refining\u2027 means the processing, conditioning or preparation for the ultimately final sale of fuels.\n(d)\n\u2027petrochemical industry\u2027 means production plants for the manufacturing of items in Annex V.\n4. It shall be prohibited to establish cooperation with an Iranian person, entity or body engaged in the transmission of natural gas as referred to in paragraph 3(b).\n5. For the purposes of paragraph 4, \u2027cooperation\u2027 means:\n(a)\nthe sharing of investment costs in an integrated or managed supply chain for the receipt or delivery of natural gas directly from or to the territory of Iran; and\n(b)\ndirect cooperation for the purpose of investing in liquefied natural gas facilities within the territory of Iran or in liquefied natural gas facilities directly connected thereto.\nArticle 18\n1. The making of an investment through transactions referred to in Article 17(1) in an Iranian person, entity or body engaged in the manufacture of goods or technology listed in Annex III shall be subject to an authorisation from the competent authority concerned.\n2. The competent authorities shall not grant any authorisation for the transactions referred to in paragraph 1, if they have reasonable grounds to determine that the action would contribute to one of the following activities:\n(a)\nIran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities;\n(b)\nthe development of nuclear weapon delivery systems by Iran; or\n(c)\nthe pursuit by Iran of activities related to other topics about which the IAEA has expressed concerns or has identified as outstanding.\nArticle 19\n1. By way of derogation from Article 17(2)(a), the competent authorities may grant, under such terms and conditions as they deem appropriate, an authorisation to make an investment through transactions referred to in Article 17(1), if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe investment is for food, agricultural, medical or other humanitarian purposes; and\n(b)\nin those cases where the investment is made in an Iranian person, entity or body engaged in the manufacture of goods or technology contained in the Nuclear Suppliers Group and Missile Technology Control Regime lists, the Sanctions Committee has determined in advance and on a case-by-case basis that the transaction would clearly not contribute to the development of technologies in support of Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon development delivery systems.\n2. The Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission, within four weeks, of authorisations granted under this Article.\nArticle 20\nArticle 17(2)(b) shall not apply to the granting of a financial loan or credit or to the acquisition or extension of a participation, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe transaction is required by an agreement or contract concluded before 26 July 2010; and\n(b)\nthe competent authority has been informed at least 20 working days in advance of that agreement or contract.\nArticle 21\nArticle 17(2)(c) shall not apply to the granting of a financial loan or credit or to the acquisition or extension of a participation, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe transaction is required by an agreement or contract concluded before 23 January 2012; and\n(b)\nthe competent authority has been informed at least 20 working days in advance of that agreement or contract.\nArticle 22\nIt shall be prohibited to accept or approve, by concluding an agreement or by any other means, that the granting of any financial loan or credit, or the acquisition or extension of a participation, or the creation of any joint venture be made by one or more Iranian persons, entities or bodies, in an enterprise engaged in any of the following activities:\n(a)\nuranium mining,\n(b)\nuranium enrichment and reprocessing of uranium;\n(c)\nthe manufacture of goods or technology included in the Nuclear Suppliers Group or Missile Technology Control Regime lists.\nCHAPTER IV\nFREEZING OF FUNDS AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES\nArticle 23\n1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex VIII shall be frozen. Annex VIII includes the persons, entities and bodies designated by the United Nations Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee in accordance with paragraph 12 of UNSCR 1737 (2006), paragraph 7 of UNSCR 1803 (2008) or paragraph 11, 12 or 19 of UNSCR 1929 (2010).\n2. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex IX shall be frozen. Annex IX shall include the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies who, in accordance with Article 20(1)(b) and (c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, have been identified as:\n(a)\nbeing engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support for Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems by Iran, including through involvement in the procurement of prohibited goods and technology, or being owned or controlled by such a person, entity or body, including through illicit means, or acting on their behalf or at their direction;\n(b)\nbeing a natural or legal person, entity or body that has assisted a listed person, entity or body to evade or violate the provisions of this Regulation, Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP or UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) and UNSCR 1929 (2010);\n(c)\nbeing a member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or a legal person, entity or body owned or controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or by one of more of its members, or natural or legal persons acting on their behalf;\n(d)\nbeing other persons, entities or bodies that provide support, such as material, logistical or financial support, to the Government of Iran, and persons and entities associated with them;\n(e)\nbeing a legal person, entity or body owned or controlled by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), or acting on their behalf.\nPursuant to the obligation to freeze the funds and economic resources of IRISL and of designated entities owned or controlled by IRISL, it shall be prohibited to load and unload cargoes on and from vessels owned or chartered by IRISL or by such entities in ports of Member States.\nThe obligation to freeze the funds and economic resources of IRISL and of designated entities owned or controlled by IRISL shall not require the impounding or detention of vessels owned by such entities or the cargoes carried by them insofar as such cargoes belong to third parties, nor does it require the detention of the crew contracted by them.\n3. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annexes VIII and IX or.\n4. Without prejudice to the derogations provided for in Articles 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, or 29, it shall be prohibited to supply specialised financial messaging services, which are used to exchange financial data to the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annexes VIII and IX.\n5. Annexes VIII and IX shall include the grounds for listing of listed persons, entities and bodies, as provided by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee.\n6. Annexes VIII and IX shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies concerned, as provided by the Security Council or by the Sanctions Committee. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, adress, if known, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons, entities and bodies, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. With regard to airlines and shipping companies, Annexes VIII and IX shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify each vessel or aircraft belonging to a listed company such as the original registration number or name. Annexes VIII and IX shall also include the date of designation.\nArticle 24\nBy way of derogation from Article 23, the competent authorities may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe funds or economic resources are the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien established before the date on which the person, entity or body referred to in Article 23 has been designated by the Sanctions Committee, the Security Council or the Council or of a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgment rendered prior to that date;\n(b)\nthe funds or economic resources will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a lien or recognised as valid in such a judgment, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;\n(c)\nthe lien or judgment is not for the benefit of a person, entity or body listed in Annex VIII or IX;\n(d)\nrecognising the lien or judgment is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned; and\n(e)\nwhere Article 23(1) applies, the Sanctions Committee has been notified by the Member State of the lien or judgment.\nArticle 25\nBy way of derogation from Article 23 and provided that a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex VIII or IX is due under a contract or agreement that was concluded by, or an obligation that arose for the person, entity or body concerned, before the date on which that person, entity or body had been designated by the Sanctions Committee, the Security Council or by the Council, the competent authorities may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe competent authority concerned has determined that:\n(i)\nthe funds or economic resources shall be used for a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex VIII or IX;\n(ii)\nthe payment will not contribute to an activity prohibited under this Regulation; and\n(iii)\nthe payment is not in breach of Article 23(3); and\n(b)\nwhere Article 23(1) applies, the Member State concerned has notified the Sanctions Committee of that determination and its intention to grant an authorisation, and the Sanctions Committee has not objected to that course of action within ten working days of notification.\nArticle 26\n1. By way of derogation from Article 23, the competent authorities may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe competent authority concerned has determined that the funds or economic resources are:\n(i)\nnecessary to satisfy the basic needs of persons listed in Annex VIII or IX and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;\n(ii)\nintended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services; or\n(iii)\nintended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; and\n(b)\nwhere the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex VIII, the Member State concerned has notified the Sanctions Committee of the determination referred to in point (a) and its intention to grant an authorisation, and the Sanctions Committee has not objected to that course of action within five working days of notification.\n2. By way of derogation from Article 23, the competent authorities may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are necessary for extraordinary expenses or for payment for or transfer of goods when procured for a light water reactor in Iran the construction of which has begun before December 2006, or for any goods for the purposes referred to in Article 6(b) and (c), provided that where the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex VIII, the Sanctions Committee has been notified of that determination by the Member State concerned and the determination has been approved by that Committee.\nArticle 27\nBy way of derogation from Article 23(2) and (3), the competent authorities may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are necessary for official purposes of diplomatic or consular missions or international organisations enjoying immunities in accordance with international law.\nArticle 28\nBy way of derogation from Articles 23(2) and (3), the competent authorities may also authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate:\n(a)\nthe making available of certain funds to the Central Bank of Iran, after having determined that the funds are necessary for the execution, until 1 July 2012, of a contract referred to in Article 12;\n(b)\nthe release of certain frozen funds or economic resources of the Central Bank of Iran or the making available of certain funds or economic resources to the Central Bank of Iran, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are necessary for the purpose of providing credit or financial institutions with liquidity for the financing of trade, or the servicing of trade loans; or\n(c)\nthe release of certain frozen funds or economic resources held by the Central Bank of Iran or the making available of certain funds or economic resources to the Central Bank of Iran, after having determined on a case-by-case basis, that the funds or economic resources are necessary in connection with a specific trade contract other than contracts referred to in paragraph (a), the execution of which may involve the Central Bank of Iran, provided that the payment will not contribute to an activity prohibited under this Regulation,\nprovided that the Member State concerned has notified the other Member States and the Commission of its intention to grant an authorisation at least ten working days prior to the authorisation.\nArticle 29\n1. Article 23(3) shall not prevent financial or credit institutions from crediting frozen accounts where they receive funds transferred onto the account of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, provided that any additions to such accounts shall also be frozen. The financial or credit institution shall inform the competent authorities about such transactions without delay.\n2. Article 23(3) shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:\n(a)\ninterest or other earnings on those accounts; or\n(b)\npayments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which the person, entity or body referred to in Article 23 has been designated by the Sanctions Committee, the Security Council or by the Council;\nprovided that any such interest or other earnings and payments are frozen in accordance with Article 23(1) or (2).\n3. This Article shall not be construed as authorising transfers of funds referred to in Article 30.\nCHAPTER V\nRESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFERS OF FUNDS AND ON FINANCIAL SERVICES\nArticle 30\n1. Transfers of funds to and from an Iranian person, entity or body shall be processed as follows:\n(a)\ntransfers due on transactions regarding foodstuffs, healthcare, medical equipment, or for humanitarian purposes shall be carried out without any prior authorisation. The transfer shall be notified in advance in writing to the competent authorities if above EUR 10 000 or equivalent;\n(b)\nany other transfer below EUR 40 000 shall be carried out without any prior authorisation. The transfer shall be notified in advance in writing to the competent authorities if above EUR 10 000 or equivalent;\n(c)\nany other transfer of or above EUR 40 000 or equivalent shall require a prior authorisation of the competent authorities.\n2. Paragraph 1 shall apply regardless of whether the transfer of funds is executed in a single operation or in several operations which appear to be linked. For the purpose of this Article, \"operations which appear to be linked\" includes:\n(i)\na series of consecutive transfers from or to the same Iranian person, entity or body which are made in connection with a single obligation to a transfer of funds, where each individual transfer falls below the threshold set out in paragraph 1 but which, in the aggregate, meet the criteria for notification or authorisation; or\n(ii)\na chain of transfers involving different payment service providers or natural or legal persons which effects a single obligation to make a transfer of funds.\n3. Notifications and requests for authorisation relating to the transfer of funds shall be processed as follows:\n(a)\nIn the case of electronic transfers of funds processed by credit or financial institutions, notifications and requests for authorisation relating to the transfer of funds shall be processed as follows:\n(i)\nNotifications and requests for authorisation relating to the transfer of funds to an Iranian person, entity or body which is located outside the Union, shall be addressed by or on behalf of the payment service provider of the payer to the competent authorities of the Member State where the initial order to execute the transfer is given.\n(ii)\nNotifications and requests for authorisation relating to the transfer of funds from an Iranian person, entity or body which is located outside the Union, shall be addressed by or on behalf of the payment service provider of the payee to the competent authorities of the Member State in which the payee is resident or the payment service provider is established.\n(iii)\nIf the payment service provider of the payer or of the payee does not fall under the scope of Article 49, notifications and requests for authorisation shall be addressed, in the case of a transfer to an Iranian person, entity or body, by the payer, and in the case of a transfer from an Iranian person, entity or body by the payee to the competent authorities of the Member State in which, respectively, the payer or payee is resident.\n(iv)\nNotifications and requests for authorisation relating to the transfer of funds to an Iranian person, entity or body which is located within the Union, shall be addressed by or on behalf of the payment service provider of the payee to the competent authorities of the Member States in which the payee is resident or the payment service provider is established.\n(v)\nNotifications and requests for authorisation relating to the transfer of funds from an Iranian person, entity or body which is located within the Union, shall be addressed by or on behalf of the payment service provider of the payer to the competent authorities of the Member States where the initial order to execute the transfer is given.\n(vi)\nIn relation to a transfer of funds to or from an Iranian person, entity or body where none of the payer, payee or their respective payment service providers fall under the scope of Article 49 but a payment service provider which does fall under the scope of that Article acts as an intermediary, then that payment service provider must comply with the obligation to notify or seek authorisation, as applicable, if it knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that the transfer is to or from an Iranian person, entity or body. Where there is more than one payment service provider acting as an intermediary, only the first payment service provider to process the transfer is required to comply with the obligation to notify or seek authorisation, as applicable. Any notification or request for authorisation must be addressed to the competent authorities of the Member State in which the payment service provider is established.\n(vii)\nWhere there is more than one payment service provider involved in a series of linked transfers of funds, transfers within the Union shall include a reference to the authorisation granted under this Article.\n(b)\nIn the case of transfers of funds which are effected by non-electronic means, notifications and requests for authorisation relating to the transfer of funds shall be processed as follows:\n(i)\nNotifications and requests for authorisation relating to transfers to an Iranian person, entity or body shall be addressed by the payer to the competent authorities of the Member State where the payer is resident.\n(ii)\nNotifications and requests for authorisation relating to the transfers from an Iranian person, entity or body shall be addressed by the payee to the competent authorities of the Member State in which the payee is resident.\n4. For the purposes of paragraph 1(c), the competent authorities shall grant, under such terms and conditions as they deem appropriate, an authorisation for a transfer of funds having a value of EUR 40 000 or more, unless they have reasonable grounds to determine that the transfer of funds for which the authorisation is requested could be in breach of any of the prohibitions or obligations in this Regulation.\nA competent authority may charge a fee for the assessment of requests for authorisation.\nAn authorisation shall be deemed granted if a competent authority has received a request in writing for authorisation and, within four weeks, the competent authority has not objected in writing to the transfer of funds. If the objection is raised because an investigation is pending, the competent authority shall state this and communicate its decision without delay. The competent authorities shall have access, directly or indirectly, on a timely basis to the financial, administrative and law enforcement related information necessary for carrying out the investigation.\nThe Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of authorisations rejected.\n5. This article shall not apply where an authorisation has been granted in accordance with Article 24, 25, 26, 27, or 28.\n6. Persons, entities or bodies who merely convert paper documents into electronic data and are acting under a contract with a credit institution or a financial institution do not fall within the scope of this Article, nor does any natural or legal person, entity or body that provides credit or financial institutions solely with a message or other support system for transmitting funds or with clearing and settlement systems.\nArticle 31\n1. Branches and subsidiaries, falling within the scope of Article 49, of credit and financial institutions domiciled in Iran shall notify the competent authority of the Member State where they are established of all transfers of funds carried out or received by them, the names of the parties and the amount and the date of the transaction, within five working days after carrying out or receiving the transfer of funds concerned. If the information is available, the notification must specify the nature of the transaction and, where appropriate, the nature of the goods covered by the transaction and must, in particular, state whether the goods are covered by Annex I, II, III, IV, V, VI or VII of this Regulation and, if their export is subject to authorisation, indicate the number of the licence granted.\n2. Subject to and in accordance with the information-sharing arrangements, the other notified competent authorities shall without delay transmit that data, as necessary, in order to prevent any transaction that could contribute to proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or to the development of nuclear weapons delivery systems, to the competent authorities of other Member States where the counterparts to such transactions are established.\nArticle 32\n1. Credit and financial institutions shall, in their activities with entities referred to in paragraph 2 and in order to prevent infringements of the provisions of this Regulation, conduct enhanced vigilance as follows:\n(a)\nexercise continuous vigilance over account activity, particularly through their programmes on customer due diligence;\n(b)\nrequire that in payment instructions all information fields which relate to the originator and beneficiary of the transaction in question be completed and if that information is not supplied, refuse the transaction;\n(c)\nmaintain all records of transactions for a period of five years and make them available to national authorities on request;\n(d)\nif they have reasonable grounds to suspect that activities with credit and financial institutions may be in breach of the provisions of this Regulation, report without delay their suspicions to the financial intelligence unit (FIU) or to another competent authority designated by the Member State concerned, without prejudice to Articles 5 and 23. The FIU or such other competent authority will serve as a national centre for receiving and analysing suspicious transaction reports regarding potential breaches of this Regulation. The FIU or such other competent authority shall have access, directly or indirectly, on a timely basis to the financial, administrative and law enforcement information that it requires to properly undertake this function, including the analysis of suspicious transaction reports.\n2. The measures set out in paragraph 1 shall apply to credit and financial institutions in their activities with:\n(a)\nbureaux de change, credit and financial institutions domiciled in Iran;\n(b)\nbranches and subsidiaries, where they fall within the scope of Article 49, of credit and financial institutions and bureaux de change domiciled in Iran;\n(c)\nbranches and subsidiaries, where they do not fall within the scope of Article 49, of credit and financial institutions and bureaux de change domiciled in Iran; and\n(d)\nbureaux de change, credit and financial institutions that are not domiciled in Iran but are controlled by persons and entities domiciled in Iran.\nArticle 33\n1. It shall be prohibited for credit and financial institutions falling within the scope of Article 49 to do any of the following:\n(a)\nto open a new bank account with a credit or financial institution domiciled in Iran or with any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 32(2);\n(b)\nto establish a new correspondent banking relationship with a credit or financial institution domiciled in Iran or with any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 32(2),\n(c)\nto open a new representative office in Iran or to establish a new branch or subsidiary in Iran;\n(d)\nto establish a new joint venture with a credit or financial institution domiciled in Iran or with any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 32(2).\n2. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto authorise the opening of a representative office or the establishment of a branch or subsidiary in the Union of a credit or financial institution domiciled in Iran or of any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 32(2);\n(b)\nto conclude agreements for, or on behalf of, a credit or financial institution domiciled in Iran or for, or on behalf of, any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 32(2) pertaining to the opening of a representative office or the establishment of a branch or subsidiary in the Union;\n(c)\nto grant an authorisation for taking up and pursuing the business of credit institution or for any other business requiring prior authorisation, by a representative office, branch or subsidiary of a credit or financial institution domiciled in Iran or of any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 32(2), if the representative office, branch or subsidiary was not operational before 26 July 2010.\n(d)\nto acquire or to extend a participation, or to acquire any other ownership interest, in a credit or financial institution falling within the scope of Article 49 by any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 32(2).\nArticle 34\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto sell or purchase public or public-guaranteed bonds issued after 26 July 2010, directly or indirectly, to or from any of the following:\n(i)\nIran or its Government, and its public bodies, corporations and agencies;\n(ii)\na credit or financial institution domiciled in Iran or any credit or financial institution referred to in Article 32(2);\n(iii)\na natural person or a legal person, entity or body acting on behalf or at the direction of a legal person, entity or body referred to in (i) or (ii);\n(iv)\na legal person, entity or body owned or controlled by a person, entity or body referred to in (i), (ii) or (iii);\n(b)\nto provide brokering services with regard to public or public-guaranteed bonds issued after 26 July 2010 to a person, entity or body referred to in point (a);\n(c)\nto assist a person, entity or body referred to in point (a) in order to issue public or public-guaranteed bonds, by providing brokering services, advertising or any other service with regard to such bonds.\nArticle 35\n1. It shall be prohibited to provide insurance or re-insurance, or to broker the provision of insurance or reinsurance, to:\n(a)\nIran or its Government, and its public bodies, corporations and agencies;\n(b)\nan Iranian person, entity or body other than a natural person; or\n(c)\na natural person or a legal person, entity or body when acting on behalf or at the direction of a legal person, entity or body referred to in (a) or (b).\n2. Points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 shall not apply to the provision or brokering of compulsory or third party liability insurance or reinsuranceto Iranian persons, entities and bodies based in the Union, nor to the provision of insurance for Iranian diplomatic or consular missions in the Union.\n3. Point (c) of paragraph 1 shall not apply to the provision of insurance or brokering of insurance, including health and travel insurance or reinsurance, to individuals acting in their private capacity, except for persons listed in Annexes VIII and IX.\nPoint (c) of paragraph 1 shall not prevent the provision of insurance or re-insurance or brokering of insurance to the owner of a vessel, aircraft or vehicle chartered by a person, entity or body referred to in point (a) or (b) of paragraph 1.\nFor the purpose of point (c) of paragraph 1, a person, entity or body shall not be considered to act at the direction of a person, entity or body referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 where that direction is for the purposes of docking, loading, unloading or safe transit of a vessel or aircraft temporarily in Iranian waters or airspace.\n4. This Article prohibits the extension or renewal of insurance and re-insurance agreements concluded before 27 October 2010, but, without prejudice to Article 23(3), it does not prohibit compliance with agreements concluded before that date.\nCHAPTER VI\nRESTRICTIONS ON TRANSPORT\nArticle 36\n1. To prevent the transfer of goods and technology which are covered by the Common Military List or the supply, sale, transfer, export or import of which is prohibited by this Regulation, and in addition to the obligation to provide the competent customs authorities with the pre-arrival and pre-departure information as determined in the relevant provisions concerning entry and exit summary declarations as well as customs declarations in Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (21) and in Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (22), the person who provides the information referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, shall declare whether the goods are covered by the Common Military List or by this Regulation and, where their export is subject to authorisation, specify the particulars of the export licence granted.\n2. The required additional elements referred to in this Article shall be submitted either in written form or using a customs declaration as appropriate.\nArticle 37\n1. The provision of bunkering or ship supply services, or any other servicing of vessels, to vessels owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an Iranian person, entity or body shall be prohibited where the providers of the service have information, including from the competent customs authorities on the basis of the pre-arrival and pre-departure information referred to in Article 36, that provides reasonable grounds to determine that the vessels carry goods covered by the Common Military List or goods whose supply, sale, transfer or export is prohibited under this Regulation, unless the provision of such services is necessary for humanitarian and safety purposes.\n2. The provision of engineering and maintenance services to cargo aircraft owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an Iranian person, entity or body shall be prohibited, where the providers of the service have information, including from the competent customs authorities on the basis of the pre-arrival and pre-departure information referred to in Article 36, that provides reasonable grounds to determine that the cargo aircraft carry goods covered by the Common Military List or goods the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under this Regulation, unless the provision of such services is necessary for humanitarian and safety purposes.\n3. The prohibitions in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall apply until the cargo has been inspected and, if necessary, seized or disposed of, as the case may be.\nAny seizure and disposal may, in accordance with national legislation or the decision of a competent authority, be carried out at the expense of the importer or be recovered from any other person or entity responsible for the attempted illicit supply, sale, transfer or export.\nCHAPTER VII\nGENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 38\n1. No claims in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which has been affected, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the measures imposed under this Regulation, including claims for indemnity or any other claim of this type, such as a claim for compensation or a claim under a guarantee, notably a claim for extension or payment of a bond, guarantee or indemnity, particularly a financial guarantee or financial indemnity, of whatever form, shall be satisfied, if they are made by:\n(a)\ndesignated persons, entities or bodies listed in Annexes VIII and IX;\n(b)\nany other Iranian person, entity or body, including the Iranian government;\n(c)\nany person, entity or body acting through or on behalf of one of the persons, entities or bodies referred to in points (a) and (b).\n2. The performance of a contract or transaction shall be regarded as having been affected by the measures imposed under this Regulation where the existence or content of the claim results directly or indirectly from those measures.\n3. In any proceedings for the enforcement of a claim, the onus of proving that satisfying the claim is not prohibited by paragraph 1 shall be on the person seeking the enforcement of that claim.\n4. This Article is without prejudice to the right of the persons, entities and bodies referred to in paragraph 1 to judicial review of the legality of the non-performance of contractual obligations in accordance with this Regulation.\nArticle 39\nFor the purposes of Articles 8 and 9, point (b) of Article 17(2), and Articles 30 and 35, any body, entity or holder of rights derived from an original award before 27 October 2010 by a sovereign Government other than Iran, of a production sharing agreement shall not be considered an Iranian person, entity or body. In such cases and in relation to Article 8, the competent authority of the Member State may require appropriate end-user guarantees from any body or entity for any sale, supply, transfer or export of any key equipment or technology listed in Annex VI.\nArticle 40\n1. Without prejudice to the applicable rules concerning reporting, confidentiality and professional secrecy, natural and legal persons, entities and bodies shall:\n(a)\nsupply immediately any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as information on accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 23, to the competent authorities of the Member States where they are resident or located, and shall transmit such information, directly or through the Member States, to the Commission;\n(b)\ncooperate with the competent authorities in any verification of this information.\n2. Any additional information received directly by the Commission shall be made available to the Member State concerned.\n3. Any information provided or received in accordance with this Article shall be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.\nArticle 41\nIt shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the measures referred to in Article 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 22, 23, 30, 34 or 35.\nArticle 42\n1. The freezing of funds and economic resources or the refusal to make funds or economic resources available, carried out in good faith on the basis that such action is in accordance with this Regulation, shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal person, entity or body implementing it, or its directors or employees, unless it is proved that the funds and economic resources were frozen or withheld as a result of negligence.\n2. The measures set out in the present Regulation shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies concerned, if they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that their actions would infringe these prohibitions.\n3. The disclosure in good faith, as provided for in Articles 30, 31 and 32 by a person, entity or body covered by this Regulation or an employee or director of such person, entity or body, of the information referred to in Articles 30, 31 and 32 shall not give rise to liability of any kind on the part of the institution or person or its directors or employees.\nArticle 43\n1. A Member State may take all action it deems necessary to ensure that relevant international, Union or national legal obligations concerning the health and safety of workers and environmental protection are respected where cooperation with an Iranian person, entity or body may be affected by the implementation of this Regulation.\n2. For the purpose of action taken pursuant to paragraph 1, the prohibitions in Articles 8 and 9, point (b) of Article 17(2), and Articles 23(2), 30 and 35 shall not apply.\n3. The Member State concerned shall notify the other Member States and the Commission of the determination referred to in paragraph 1 and its intention to grant an authorisation at least ten working days prior to the authorisation.\nArticle 44\n1. The Commission and Member States shall inform each other of the measures taken under this Regulation and share any other relevant information at their disposal in connection with this Regulation at three-monthly intervals, in particular information\n(a)\nin respect of funds frozen under Article 23 and authorisations granted under Articles 24, 25, 26 and 27;\n(b)\nin respect of violations and enforcement problems and judgments issued by national courts.\n2. The Member States shall immediately inform each other and the Commission of any other relevant information at their disposal which might affect the effective implementation of this Regulation.\nArticle 45\nThe Commission shall:\n(a)\namend Annex II on the basis of determinations made by either the United Nations Security Council or the Sanctions Committee or on the basis of information supplied by Member States;\n(b)\namend Annexes III, IV, V, VI, VII and X on the basis of information supplied by Member States.\nArticle 46\n1. Where the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee lists a natural or legal person, entity or body, the Council shall include such natural or legal person, entity or body in Annex VIII.\n2. Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to the measures referred to in Article 23(2) and (3), it shall amend Annex IX accordingly.\n3. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 1 or 2, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.\n4. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review its decision and inform the natural or legal person, entity or body accordingly.\n5. Where the United Nations decides to delist a natural or legal person, entity or body, or to amend the identifying data of a listed natural or legal person, entity or body, the Council shall amend Annex VIII accordingly.\n6. The list in Annex IX shall be reviewed in regular intervals and at least every 12 months.\nArticle 47\n1. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules without delay after the entry into force of this Regulation and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment.\nArticle 48\n1. Member States shall designate the competent authorities referred to in this Regulation and identify them on the websites listed in Annex X. Member States shall notify the Commission of any changes in the addresses of their websites listed in Annex X.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of their competent authorities, including the contact details of those competent authorities, without delay after the entry into force of this Regulation, and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment.\n3. Where this Regulation sets out a requirement to notify, inform or otherwise communicate with the Commission, the address and other contact details to be used for such communication shall be those indicated in Annex X.\nArticle 49\nThis Regulation shall apply:\n(a)\nwithin the territory of the Union, including its airspace;\n(b)\non board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;\n(c)\nto any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;\n(d)\nto any legal person, entity or body, inside or outside the territory of the Union, which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;\n(e)\nto any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.\nArticle 50\nRegulation (EU) No 961/2010 is hereby repealed. References to the repealed regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 51\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 March 2012.", "references": ["15", "90", "72", "50", "87", "82", "55", "64", "27", "45", "63", "48", "53", "51", "57", "24", "35", "58", "16", "32", "46", "89", "28", "20", "7", "37", "85", "91", "12", "26", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "76", "79", "80", "84", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "76", "79", "80", "84", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/764/CFSP\nof 28 November 2011\nrepealing Decision 2011/210/CFSP on a European Union military operation in support of humanitarian assistance operations in response to the crisis situation in Libya (EUFOR Libya)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal made by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 April 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/210/CFSP (1).\n(2)\nBy letter dated 27 October 2011, the European Union Operation Commander notified the closure of the Operational Headquarters on 10 November 2011. Decision 2011/210/CFSP should therefore be repealed pursuant to Article 13(3) thereof, with effect from 10 November 2011.\n(3)\nCouncil Decision 2008/975/CFSP of 18 December 2008 establishing a mechanism to administer the financing of the common costs of European Union operations having military or defence implications (Athena) (2) determines the procedures for the audit and presentation of the accounts of an operation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2011/210/CFSP is hereby repealed with effect from 10 November 2011. This repeal shall be without prejudice to the procedures laid down in Decision 2008/975/CFSP regarding the audit and presentation of the accounts of the operation.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 28 November 2011.", "references": ["16", "90", "68", "77", "12", "22", "36", "30", "81", "57", "17", "2", "60", "49", "97", "71", "31", "61", "7", "85", "67", "87", "62", "20", "78", "73", "21", "84", "34", "91", "No Label", "4", "9", "47", "94"], "gold": ["4", "9", "47", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 849/2011\nof 22 August 2011\ncorrecting Implementing Regulation (EU) No 742/2011 on the issue of licences for importing rice under the tariff quotas opened for the July 2011 subperiod by Regulation (EC) No 327/98\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 of 10 February 1998 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (2), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nA check has revealed an error in the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation No 742/2011 (3) regarding the quantity available for the September 2011 subperiod for the quota of wholly milled or semi-milled rice falling within CN Code 1006 30 provided for in Article 1(1)(d) of Regulation No 327/98 and with order number 09.4119.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 742/2011 should therefore be corrected accordingly.\n(3)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn the Annex to Implementing Regulation No 742/2011, in the table under point d) \u2027Quota for wholly milled or semi-milled rice falling within CN code 1006 30 provided for in Article 1(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98\u2027, the total quantity available for the September 2011 subperiod for the quota with order number 09.4119 shall be replaced by the following quantity:\n\"Total quantities available for the September 2011 subperiod\n(in kg)\n0\"\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 August 2011.", "references": ["57", "1", "88", "65", "54", "81", "91", "7", "40", "43", "23", "37", "62", "29", "60", "38", "96", "59", "73", "42", "32", "46", "70", "61", "79", "86", "85", "45", "18", "9", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 948/2011\nof 22 September 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 933/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 September 2011.", "references": ["38", "96", "24", "85", "34", "79", "98", "14", "51", "28", "4", "69", "89", "99", "57", "76", "50", "91", "16", "47", "97", "55", "65", "7", "1", "94", "84", "63", "62", "6", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 502/2010\nof 10 June 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 500/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 June 2010.", "references": ["32", "96", "56", "31", "76", "86", "37", "23", "4", "87", "15", "97", "94", "82", "74", "11", "48", "40", "12", "91", "68", "63", "65", "27", "57", "5", "92", "90", "77", "42", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1120/2011\nof 31 October 2011\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Carciofo Brindisino (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Carciofo Brindisino\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["33", "82", "98", "43", "92", "52", "42", "15", "46", "28", "20", "93", "14", "34", "74", "0", "6", "53", "22", "4", "60", "86", "79", "49", "81", "10", "18", "32", "88", "73", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1039/2011\nof 17 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for blue whiting in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 October 2011.", "references": ["42", "90", "37", "11", "9", "12", "20", "69", "10", "26", "68", "40", "80", "44", "78", "2", "31", "24", "0", "1", "19", "35", "61", "77", "49", "28", "51", "53", "99", "83", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 January 2012\nappointing seven members of the Court of Auditors\n(2012/60/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe terms of office of Mr Olavi ALA-NISSIL\u00c4, Mr V\u00edtor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA, Mr Morten Louis LEVYSOHN, Mr Eoin O\u2019SHEA, Mr Karel PINXTEN, Mr Massimo VARI and Mr H.G. WESSBERG are due to expire on 29 February 2012.\n(2)\nNew appointments should therefore be made,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed members of the Court of Auditors for the period from 1 March 2012 to 28 February 2018:\n-\nMr Kevin CARDIFF,\n-\nMr V\u00edtor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA,\n-\nMr Ville IT\u00c4L\u00c4,\n-\nMr Henrik OTBO,\n-\nMr Karel PINXTEN,\n-\nMr Pietro RUSSO,\n-\nMr H.G. WESSBERG,\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 January 2012.", "references": ["22", "33", "83", "97", "86", "89", "66", "52", "4", "72", "99", "3", "90", "10", "80", "96", "23", "25", "69", "79", "24", "6", "49", "58", "48", "38", "56", "98", "76", "73", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 641/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 7 July 2010\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 42, 43(2) and 349 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 (3) allowed, for a period of four years, the dispatching of sugar from the Azores to the rest of the Union in quantities exceeding the traditional flows. Acknowledging that the diversification of agriculture in the Azores could be advantageous and with a view, consequently, to facilitating such diversification, in particular with regard to the phasing out of the milk quota system, it is necessary to take appropriate measures to support the restructuring of the sugar sector in that region. To this end, to allow the local sugar processing industry to be viable, it is appropriate to allow the redispatching of sugar in quantities exceeding the traditional flows for a limited period of five years and subject to progressively reduced annual quantities.\n(2)\nArticle 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 provides for an exemption, within the limit of the forecast supply balance, from import duties for the supply of C sugar to the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands for the period laid down in Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (4). Following the sugar reform and the incorporation of the sugar sector in Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (5), the provisions of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 should be adapted. In particular, the Azores should be authorised to benefit from the exemption from import duties for raw cane sugar within the limit of their forecast supply balance.\n(3)\nArticle 6 of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 provides for a transitional period during which the Canary Islands may continue to receive supplies of predetermined quantities of milk-based preparations falling within CN codes 1901 90 99 and 2106 90 92 intended for industrial processing. This transitional period expired on 31 December 2009. However, the product falling within CN code 1901 90 99 - skimmed milk powder with vegetable fat - has become a traditional product for the local consumers, including the most deprived. Its supply has generated a specific local industry ensuring employment and added value. Therefore, it is appropriate to maintain the supply of this specific product, which is used for local consumption only.\n(4)\nArticle 12(f) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 refers to provisions for checks and penalties in the Community support programmes for the outermost regions that are to be submitted by Member States to the Commission for approval. In light of the experience gained by the Commission and in order to ensure that such support programmes are implemented effectively and appropriately, it is necessary to remove references in Article 12(f) of that Regulation to checks and penalties. However, such national measures will continue to be communicated to the Commission in accordance with Article 27 of that Regulation.\n(5)\nArticle 18 of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 determines rules concerning the applicability of special rules for the wine sector in the outermost regions of the Union. The common organisation of the market in wine has been amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine (6) and subsequently incorporated into Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. References to these measures need therefore to be updated. Furthermore, Article 85u(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 contains an explicit exemption for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands from the grubbing-up scheme. Therefore, such an exemption need no longer be mentioned in Regulation (EC) No 247/2006.\n(6)\nThe second subparagraph of Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 provides for the gradual elimination, by 31 December 2013, of vineyards planted with prohibited direct-producer hybrid vine varieties in the Azores and Madeira. The third subparagraph of Article 18(2) of that Regulation obliges Portugal to notify each year progress made in converting and restructuring areas planted with such vine varieties. These provisions are stricter than the rules laid down in Article 120a(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, namely that prohibited direct-producer hybrid vine varieties shall be grubbed up except when the resulting wine is intended exclusively for the wine producers\u2019 families. Therefore the date of 31 December 2013 in Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 should be deleted in order to eliminate the disparity of treatment between the regions of the Azores and Madeira on one hand and the rest of the Union on the other.\n(7)\nDespite the recent development of the local milk production in the French overseas department of R\u00e9union, the current need for drinking-milk for consumption on the island is not sufficiently covered. Moreover, the remoteness and insularity of this region do not allow other sources of raw milk. Consequently, the authorisation to produce reconstituted UHT milk from milk powder of Union origin, granted to Madeira by the first subparagraph of Article 19(4) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006, should be extended to R\u00e9union.\n(8)\nThe conditions for further extension of the local milk production of the outermost regions, which benefit from the waiver provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 19(4) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006, are very limited due to the topography of the islands concerned. Though the obligation to ensure the collection of and outlets for the local milk production is maintained, it is appropriate to delete the Commission\u2019s obligation, provided for in the second subparagraph of that Article, to determine an incorporation rate for fresh milk produced locally.\n(9)\nThe retroactive application of the provisions of this Regulation as from 1 January 2010 should ensure continuity in the specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union and should also meet the legitimate expectations of the operators concerned.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 247/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 247/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 4(3) is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. By way of derogation from paragraph 2(a), the following maximum quantities of sugar (CN code 1701) may be dispatched each year from the Azores to the rest of the Union for a period of five years:\n-\n:\nin 2011\n:\n3 000 tonnes,\n-\n:\nin 2012\n:\n2 500 tonnes,\n-\n:\nin 2013\n:\n2 000 tonnes,\n-\n:\nin 2014\n:\n1 500 tonnes,\n-\n:\nin 2015\n:\n1 000 tonnes.\u2019,\n(2)\nArticle 5 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 5\nSugar\n1. During the period laid down in Article 204(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (7), the following sugar produced in excess of the quota referred to in Article 61 of that Regulation shall be exempted from import duties within the limit of the forecast supply balance referred to in Article 2 of this Regulation:\n(a)\nsugar brought for consumption to Madeira or the Canary Islands in the form of white sugar falling within CN code 1701;\n(b)\nsugar refined and consumed in the Azores in the form of raw sugar falling within CN code 1701 12 10 (raw beet sugar).\n2. In the Azores, for the purpose of refining, the quantities referred to in paragraph 1 may be supplemented, within the limit of the forecast supply balance, by raw sugar falling within CN code 1701 11 10 (raw cane sugar). When determining raw sugar requirements of the Azores, account shall be taken of the development of local production of sugar beet. The quantities covered by the supply arrangements shall be determined so as to ensure that the total volume of sugar refined in the Azores each year does not exceed 10 000 tonnes.\n(3)\nArticle 6 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 6\nMilk-based preparations\nBy way of derogation from Article 2, the Canary Islands may continue to receive a supply of milk-based preparations falling within CN code 1901 90 99 (skimmed milk powder with vegetable fat) intended for industrial processing of up to 800 tonnes per year. Aid granted for supplies of this product from the Union may not exceed EUR 210 per tonne and shall be included in the limit laid down in Article 23. This product shall be used for local consumption only.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 12, point (f) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(f)\nthe steps taken to ensure the programmes are implemented effectively and appropriately, including the arrangements for publicity, monitoring and evaluation, and a specified set of quantified indicators for use in programme evaluation.\u2019;\n(5)\nArticle 18 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 18\nWine\n1. Measures referred to in Articles 103v, 103w, 103x and 182a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall not apply to the Azores and Madeira.\n2. Notwithstanding Article 120a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, grapes from prohibited direct-producer hybrid vine varieties (Noah, Othello, Isabelle, Jacquez, Clinton and Herbemont) harvested in the Azores and Madeira may be used for the production of wine which must remain within those regions.\nPortugal shall gradually eliminate vineyards planted with prohibited direct-producer hybrid vine varieties, with, where appropriate, the support provided for in Article 103q of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n3. Measures referred to in Articles 103v, 103w and 103y of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall not apply to the Canary Islands.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 19(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Notwithstanding Article 114(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the production in Madeira and in the French overseas department of R\u00e9union of UHT milk reconstituted from milk powder originating in the Union shall be authorised within the limits of local consumption requirements, insofar as this measure does not hinder locally produced milk from being collected and finding outlets. This product shall be used for local consumption only.\nThe method by which the UHT milk thus reconstituted has been obtained shall be clearly indicated on the sales labelling.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 7 July 2010.", "references": ["25", "81", "69", "96", "0", "74", "37", "87", "92", "98", "68", "80", "29", "30", "94", "27", "86", "6", "18", "12", "19", "56", "64", "40", "36", "78", "93", "57", "49", "13", "No Label", "4", "8", "10", "15", "17", "22", "61", "66"], "gold": ["4", "8", "10", "15", "17", "22", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 840/2010\nof 23 September 2010\nfixing the export refunds on beef and veal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XV of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in beef and veal, export refunds should therefore be set in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167, 168 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007 of 21 November 2007 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals (5) provides for a reduction of the special refund if the quantity of cuts of boned meat to be exported amounts to less than 95 %, but not less than 85 %, of the total weight of cuts produced by boning.\n(6)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 649/2010 (6). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(7)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004, and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nIn the case referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007, the rate of the refund on products falling within product code 0201 30 00 9100 shall be reduced by EUR 3,5/100 kg.\nArticle 3\nRegulation (EU) No 649/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 September 2010.", "references": ["11", "66", "14", "45", "5", "30", "26", "59", "47", "4", "79", "34", "44", "18", "53", "62", "55", "68", "89", "50", "23", "52", "2", "71", "21", "65", "9", "75", "24", "98", "No Label", "20", "25", "38", "69"], "gold": ["20", "25", "38", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 14 December 2011\non the determination of quantities and the allocation of quotas for substances controlled under Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer, for the period 1 January to 31 December 2012\n(notified under document C(2011) 9196)\n(Only the Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish texts are authentic)\n(2011/873/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1), and in particular to Articles 10(2) and 16 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe release for free circulation in the Union of imported controlled substances is subject to quantitative limits as set out in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009.\n(2)\nFurthermore, the Commission is required to determine the quantities of controlled substances other than hydrochlorofluorocarbons that may be used for essential laboratory and analytical uses, and the companies that may use them.\n(3)\nThe determination of the allocated quotas for essential laboratory and analytical uses has to ensure that the quantitative limits set out in Article 10(6) are respected, applying Commission Regulation (EU) No 537/2011 of 1 June 2011 on the mechanism for the allocation of quantities of controlled substances allowed for laboratory and analytical uses in the Union under Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer (2). As those quantitative limits include quantities of hydrochlorofluorocarbons licensed for laboratory and analytical uses, the production and import of hydrochlorofluorocarbons for those uses should also be covered by that allocation.\n(4)\nThe Commission has published a notice to undertakings intending to import or export controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer to or from the European Union in 2012 and undertakings intending to request for 2012 a quota for these substances intended for laboratory and analytical uses (2011/C 75/05) (3), and has thereby received declarations on intended imports in 2012.\n(5)\nThe quantitative limits and quotas should be determined for the period 1 January to 31 December 2012, in line with the annual reporting cycle under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nQuantities for release for free circulation\n1. The quantity of controlled substances of group I (chlorofluorocarbons 11, 12, 113, 114 and 115) and group II (other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 which may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2012 from sources outside the Union shall be 11 185 000 ozone depleting potential (ODP) kilograms.\n2. The quantity of controlled substances of group III (halons) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 that may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2012 from sources outside the Union shall be 15 761 510 ODP kilograms.\n3. The quantity of controlled substances of group IV (carbon tetrachloride) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 that may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2012 from sources outside the Union shall be 8 800 220 ODP kilograms.\n4. The quantity of controlled substances of group V (1,1,1-trichloroethane) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 that may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2012 from sources outside the Union shall be 1 000 015 ODP kilograms.\n5. The quantity of controlled substances of group VI (methyl bromide) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 which may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2012 from sources outside the Union shall be 889 320 ODP kilograms.\n6. The quantity of controlled substances of group VII (hydrobromofluorocarbons) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 which may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2012 from sources outside the Union shall be 1 065,8 ODP kilograms.\n7. The quantity of controlled substances of group VIII (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 that may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2012 from sources outside the Union shall be 4 581 681,8 ODP kilograms.\n8. The quantity of controlled substances of group IX (bromochloromethane) subject to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 that may be released for free circulation in the Union in 2012 from sources outside the Union shall be 294 012 ODP kilograms.\nArticle 2\nAllocation of quotas for release for free circulation\n1. The allocation of quotas for chlorofluorocarbons 11, 12, 113, 114 and 115 and other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons during the period 1 January to 31 December 2012 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex I.\n2. The allocation of quotas for halons during the period 1 January to 31 December 2012 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex II.\n3. The allocation of quotas for carbon tetrachloride during the period 1 January to 31 December 2012 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex III.\n4. The allocation of quotas for 1,1,1-trichloroethane during the period 1 January to 31 December 2012 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex IV.\n5. The allocation of quotas for methyl bromide during the period 1 January to 31 December 2012 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex V.\n6. The allocation of quotas for hydrobromofluorocarbons during the period 1 January to 31 December 2012 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex VI.\n7. The allocation of quotas for hydrochlorofluorocarbons during the period 1 January to 31 December 2012 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex VII.\n8. The allocation of quotas for bromochloromethane during the period 1 January to 31 December 2012 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the undertakings indicated in Annex VIII.\n9. The individual quotas for undertakings shall be as set out in Annex IX.\nArticle 3\nQuotas for laboratory and analytical uses\nThe quotas for importing and producing controlled substances for laboratory and analytical uses in the year 2012 shall be allocated to the undertakings listed in Annex X.\nThe maximum quantities that may be produced or imported in 2012 for laboratory and analytical uses allocated to these undertakings are set out in Annex XI.\nArticle 4\nPeriod of validity\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 January 2012 and shall expire on 31 December 2012.\nArticle 5\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the following undertakings:\nABCR Dr Braunagel GmbH & Co. (DE)\nIm Schlehert 10\n76187 Karlsruhe\nGermany\nAesica Queenborough Ltd\nNorth Street\nQueenborough\nKent ME11 5EL\nUnited Kingdom\nAirbus Operations SAS\nRoute de Bayonne 316\n31300 Toulouse\nFrance\nAlbany Molecular Research (UK) Ltd\nMostyn Road\nHolywell\nFlintshire CH8 9DN\nUnited Kingdom\nAlbemarle Europe SPRL\nParc Scientifique Einstein\nRue du Bosquet 9\n1348 Louvain-la-Neuve\nBelgium\nALFA Agricultural Supplies SA\n73, Ethnikis Antistasseos Str,\n152 31 Chalandri,\nAthens\nGreece\nArkema France SA\n420, rue d\u2019Estienne D\u2019Orves\n92705 Colombes Cedex\nFrance\nArkema Quimica SA\nAvenida de Burgos 12\n28036 Madrid\nSpain\nAteliers Bigata SAS\n10, rue Jean Baptiste Perrin,\n33320 Eysines Cedex\nFrance\nBASF Agri Production SAS\n32 rue de Verdun\n76410 Saint-Aubin l\u00e8s Elbeuf\nFrance\nBayer Crop Science AG\nGeb\u00e4ude A729\n41538 Dormagen\nGermany\nDow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH\nB\u00fctzflether Sand\n21683 Stade\nGermany\nDuPont de Nemours (Nederland) BV\nBaanhoekweg 22\n3313 LA Dordrecht\nNetherlands\nDyneon GmbH\nWerk Gendorf\nIndustrieperkstrasse 1\n84508 Burgkirchen\nGermany\nEras Labo\n222 D1090\n38330 Saint Nazaire les Eymes\nFrance\nEusebi Impianti SRL\nVia Mario Natalucci 6\n60131 Ancona\nItaly\nEusebi Service SRL\nVia Vincenzo Pirani 4\n60131 Ancona\nItaly\nFire Fighting Enterprises Ltd\n9 Hunting Gate,\nHitchin SG4 0TJ\nUnited Kingdom\nFujifilm Electronic Materials (Europe) NV\nKeetberglaan 1A\nHaven 1061\n2070 Zwijndrecht\nBelgium\nHalon & Refrigerants Services Ltd\nJ. Reid Trading Estate\nFactory Road, Sandycroft\nDeeside, Flintshire CH5 2QJ\nUnited Kingdom\nHarp International Ltd\nGellihirion Industrial Estate\nRhondda, Cynon Taff\nPontypridd CF37 5SX\nUnited Kingdom\nHoneywell Fluorine Products Europe B.V.\nLaarderhoogtweg 18\n1101 EA Amsterdam\nNetherlands\nHoneywell Specialty Chemicals GmbH\nWunstorfer Strasse 40\nPostfach 100262\n30918 Seelze\nGermany\nHovione Farmaciencia SA\nSete Casas\n2674-506 Loures\nPortugal\nICL-IP Europe B.V.\nFosfaatweeg 48\n1013 BM Amsterdam\nNetherlands\nLaboratorios Miret SA\nGeminis 4,\n08228 Terrassa, Barcelona\nSpain\nLGC Standards GmbH\nMercatorstr. 51\n46485 Wesel\nGermany\nLPG Tecnicas en Extinci\u00f3n de Incendios SL\nC/Mestre Joan Corrales 107-109\n08950 Esplugas de Llobregat, Barcelona\nSpain\nMebrom NV\nAssenedestraat 4\n9940 Rieme Ertvelde\nBelgium\nMerck KgaA\nFrankfurter Strasse 250\n64271 Darmstadt\nGermany\nMexichem UK Ltd\nPO Box 13\nThe Heath\nRuncorn Cheshire WA7 4QX\nUnited Kingdom\nMinistry of Defence\nDefence Fuel Lubricants and Chemicals\nPO Box 10.000\n1780 CA Den Helder\nNetherlands\nPanreac Quimica S.L.U.\nPol. Ind. Pla de la Bruguera, C/Garraf 2\n08211 Castellar del Vall\u00e8s-Barcelona\nSpain\nPo\u017c-Pliszka Sp. z o.o.\nul. Szczeci\u0144ska 45\n80-392 Gda\u0144sk\nPoland\nR.P. Chem SRL\nVia San Michele 47\n31062 Casale sul Sile (TV)\nItaly\nSafety Hi-Tech SRL\nVia Cavour 96\n67051 Avezzano (AQ)\nItaly\nSavi Technologie Sp. z o.o.\nUl. Wolnosci 20\nPsary\n51-180 Wroclaw\nPoland\nSicor SRL\nVia Terazzano 77\n20017 Rho\nItaly\nSigma Aldrich Chemie GmbH\nRiedstrasse 2\n89555 Steinheim\nGermany\nSigma Aldrich Chimie SARL\n80, rue de Luzais\nL\u2019isle d\u2019abeau Chesnes\n38297 St Quentin Fallavier\nFrance\nSigma Aldrich Company Ltd\nThe Old Brickyard, New Road\nGillingham SP8 4XT\nUnited Kingdom\nSolvay Fluor GmbH\nHans-B\u00f6ckler-Allee 20\n30173 Hannover\nGermany\nSolvay Fluores France\n25 rue de Clichy\n75442 Paris\nFrance\nSolvay Specialty Polymers France SAS\nAvenue de la Republique\n39501 Tavaux Cedex\nFrance\nSolvay Solexis SpA\nViale Lombardia 20\n20021 Bollate (MI)\nItaly\nSterling SRL\nVia della Carboneria 30\n06073 Solomeo di Corciano (PG)\nItaly\nSyngenta Crop Protection\nSurrey Research Park\n30 Priestly Road\nGuildford Surrey GU2 7YH\nUnited Kingdom\nTazzetti SpA\nCorso Europa n. 600/a\n10070 Volpiano (TO)\nItaly\nTEGA Technische Gase und Gastechnik GmbH\nWerner-von-Siemens-Strasse 18\n97076 W\u00fcrzburg\nGermany\nThomas Swan & Co. Ltd\nRotary Way\nConsett\nCounty Durham DH8 7ND\nUnited Kingdom\nTotal Feuerschutz GmbH\nIndustriestr 13\n68526 Ladenburg\nGermany\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2011.", "references": ["50", "23", "67", "89", "70", "36", "27", "81", "17", "77", "93", "92", "57", "14", "65", "49", "13", "26", "8", "96", "28", "64", "94", "51", "53", "68", "6", "2", "87", "3", "No Label", "45", "58", "60", "83"], "gold": ["45", "58", "60", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 681/2012\nof 24 July 2012\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Kra\u0161ki za\u0161ink (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovenia\u2019s application to register the name \u2027Kra\u0161ki za\u0161ink\u2027 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["5", "73", "50", "41", "98", "74", "88", "44", "59", "35", "77", "30", "0", "78", "42", "32", "11", "20", "99", "18", "47", "63", "66", "45", "37", "70", "26", "48", "64", "14", "No Label", "24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 771/2010\nof 31 August 2010\nfixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 September 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.\n(2)\nArticle 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.\n(3)\nUnder Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nImport duties should be fixed for the period from 1 September 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFrom 1 September 2010, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 August 2010.", "references": ["56", "6", "14", "19", "73", "80", "23", "42", "58", "94", "78", "5", "20", "83", "7", "12", "84", "41", "21", "97", "45", "2", "4", "93", "53", "16", "86", "38", "51", "92", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1202/2010\nof 15 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in VIIb, VIIc, VIIe-k, VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 December 2010.", "references": ["19", "60", "75", "27", "37", "42", "86", "10", "79", "74", "99", "26", "36", "1", "49", "93", "48", "21", "90", "71", "25", "47", "83", "39", "45", "68", "52", "95", "5", "58", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1381/2011\nof 22 December 2011\nconcerning the non-approval of the active substance chloropicrin, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply, with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval, to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (3). Chloropicrin is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish lists of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. These lists included chloropicrin.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (6) the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (7) was adopted on the non-inclusion of chloropicrin.\n(4)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nThe application was submitted to Italy, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(6)\nItaly evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 11 March 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on the risk assessment of chloropicrin to the Commission on 23 February 2011 (8). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 October 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for chloropicrin.\n(7)\nDuring the evaluation of this active substance, concerns were identified. Those concerns were, in particular, the following. There is an unacceptable risk to operators. It was not possible to perform a reliable groundwater exposure assessment as data were missing concerning the metabolite dichloronitromethane and impurities of the active substance as manufactured. Insufficient data were available to conclude on the risks to sediment dwellers, bees, earthworms and non-target plants. A high risk to aquatic organisms, birds and mammals was identified. It was not possible to perform a reliable surface water and sediment exposure assessment as data were missing for chloropicrin and the metabolite dichloronitromethane. No reliable assessment of exposure concentrations in air of phosgene could be performed. A high potential for long-range atmospheric transport was identified.\n(8)\nThe Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion of the Authority. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) to Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the applicant to submit comments on the draft review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.\n(9)\nHowever, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns referred to in recital 7 could not be eliminated. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing chloropicrin satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nChloropicrin should therefore not be approved pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(11)\nTo provide Member States with time to withdraw authorisations for plant protection products containing chloripicrin, Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 should be derogated from.\n(12)\nFor plant protection products containing chloropicrin, where Member States grant any period of grace in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, this period should expire at the latest 1 year after the withdrawal of the respective authorisation.\n(13)\nThis Regulation does not prejudice the submission of a further application for chloropicrin pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(14)\nIn the interest of clarity, the entry for chloropicrin in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC should be deleted.\n(15)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(16)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food chain and Animal Health did not deliver an opinion. An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation. The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the appeal committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nNon-approval of active substance\nThe active substance chloropicrin is not approved.\nArticle 2\nTransitional measures\nBy way of derogation from Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002, Member States shall ensure that authorisations for plant protection products containing chloropicrin are withdrawn by 23 June 2012.\nArticle 3\nPeriod of grace\nAny period of grace granted by Member States in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 shall be as short as possible and shall expire 12 months after withdrawal of the respective authorisation at the latest.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Decision 2008/934/EC\nIn the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC, the entry for \u2018chloropicrin\u2019 is deleted.\nArticle 5\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2011.", "references": ["91", "90", "78", "55", "49", "79", "45", "29", "57", "92", "28", "35", "51", "74", "15", "34", "27", "40", "73", "16", "97", "44", "33", "84", "72", "2", "47", "23", "87", "38", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 127/2011\nof 11 February 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 as regards the quantities covered by the standing invitations to tender for the resale on the internal market of cereals held by the Danish, French and Finnish intervention agencies\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO Regulation\u2019) (1), and in particular Article 43(f), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 (2) opened standing invitations to tender for the resale on the internal market of cereals held by the intervention agencies of the Member States.\n(2)\nIn view of the situation on the European Union market for common wheat and barley and of developments in demand for cereals in the different regions in recent weeks, new quantities of cereals held in intervention should be made available in some Member States. The intervention agencies in the Member States concerned should therefore be authorised to increase the quantities put out for tender by 125 tonnes in Finland for common wheat, and by 54 tonnes in France and 33 tonnes in Denmark for barley, the 125 tonnes of common wheat held in Finland, and the 54 tonnes and 33 tonnes of barley held in France and Denmark respectively, constituting retrospective corrections following an update of the stocks actually available in the storage facilities at the intervention centres and the sale of the balance under the partial invitations to tender of 16 December 2010, 13 January 2011 and 27 January 2011.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 1017/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe row relating to Denmark is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Denmark\n-\n59 583\n-\u2019\n(b)\nthe row relating to France is replaced by the following:\n\u2018France\n-\n70 439\n-\u2019\n(c)\nthe row relating to Finland is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Finland\n22 882\n784 136\n-\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 February 2011.", "references": ["71", "94", "92", "84", "39", "36", "54", "10", "99", "91", "55", "43", "4", "22", "80", "53", "2", "35", "24", "63", "85", "11", "72", "16", "86", "7", "14", "8", "46", "50", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION\nof 1 March 2012\nelecting the President of the European Council\n(2012/151/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 December 2009, by European Council Decision 2009/879/EU (1), Mr Herman VAN ROMPUY was elected President of the European Council for the period from 1 December 2009 until 31 May 2012.\n(2)\nIn accordance with the Treaty, the holder of the office of President of the European Council may be re-elected once,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Herman VAN ROMPUY is hereby re-elected President of the European Council for the period from 1 June 2012 until 30 November 2014.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be notified to Mr Herman VAN ROMPUY by the Secretary-General of the Council.\nIt shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2012.", "references": ["64", "11", "75", "71", "46", "78", "77", "2", "74", "50", "23", "40", "13", "21", "95", "33", "86", "48", "97", "38", "0", "35", "79", "82", "51", "70", "81", "25", "52", "57", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 193/2012\nof 8 March 2012\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 11a(2) and (5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 April 2005, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.\n(2)\nOn the basis of a review of the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 apply, the Council considers that there are no longer grounds for keeping certain persons on that list.\n(3)\nFurthermore, the information relating to a person on the list in Annex I and to the persons on the list in Annex IA to that Regulation should be updated,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005, the entry for the following person:\nD\u00e9sir\u00e9 Tagro\nshall be replaced by the entry set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAnnex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 shall be replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2012.", "references": ["86", "98", "28", "78", "36", "54", "42", "53", "74", "29", "33", "85", "35", "56", "82", "15", "19", "31", "61", "57", "89", "62", "22", "69", "95", "71", "93", "77", "24", "83", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 523/2011\nof 26 May 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 487/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 27 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 May 2011.", "references": ["29", "83", "34", "26", "18", "52", "40", "50", "23", "56", "9", "14", "36", "0", "16", "88", "94", "37", "63", "68", "93", "20", "6", "84", "82", "99", "45", "79", "96", "91", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 24 November 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of flavonoids from Glycyrrhiza glabra L. as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 8362)\n(Only the Dutch and the French texts are authentic)\n(2011/761/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 1 November 2007 the company Kaneka Pharma Europe made a request to the competent authorities of Belgium to place flavonoids from Glycyrrhiza glabra L. (Glavonoid) on the market as novel food ingredient.\n(2)\nOn 3 December 2008 the competent authority for food assessment of Belgium issued the initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that the company Kaneka provided sufficient information to authorise the placing on the market of flavonoids from Glycyrrhiza glabra L. as a novel food ingredient.\n(3)\nThe Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to all Member States on 19 February 2009.\n(4)\nWithin the 60-day period laid down in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 reasoned objections to the marketing of the product were raised in accordance with that provision.\n(5)\nTherefore the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was consulted on 22 July 2009.\n(6)\nOn 30 June 2011, EFSA in the \u2018Scientific opinion on the safety of \u201cGlavonoid\u00ae\u201d, an extract derived from the roots of or rootstock of Glycyrrhiza glabra L., as a novel food ingredient on request from the European Commission\u2019 (2) came to the conclusion that Glavonoid was safe for the general adult population at an intake of up to 120 mg per day.\n(7)\nIn order not to exceed an intake of 120 mg per day of Glavonoid, Kaneka Pharma Europe NV agreed on 11 August 2011 to limit the use of Glavonoid as an ingredient to food supplements and beverages.\n(8)\nOn the basis of the scientific assessment, it is established that Glavonoid complies with the criteria laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFlavonoids from Glycyrrhiza glabra L. (hereinafter referred to as \u2018Glavonoid\u2019), as specified in Annex I, may be placed on the market in the Union as a novel food ingredient for the uses specified in Annex II.\nGlavonoid shall not be sold to the final consumer as such.\nArticle 2\n1. The designation of flavonoids from Glycyrrhiza glabra L. authorised by this Decision on the labelling of the foodstuffs containing it shall be \u2018flavonoids from Glycyrrhiza glabra L.\u2019.\n2. There shall be a statement on the labelling of the foods where the product was added as a novel food ingredient indicating that:\n(a)\nthe product should not be consumed by pregnant and breast feeding women, children and young adolescents; and\n(b)\npeople taking prescription drugs should only consume the product under medical supervision;\n(c)\na maximum of 120 mg of Glavonoid per day should be consumed.\n3. The amount of Glavonoid in the final food shall be indicated on the labelling of the food containing it.\n4. Beverages containing Glavonoid shall be presented to the final consumer as single portions.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to Kaneka Pharma Europe NV, Triomflaan 173, 1160 Brussels, Belgium.\nDone at Brussels, 24 November 2011.", "references": ["15", "57", "94", "45", "43", "29", "90", "60", "44", "69", "84", "40", "47", "91", "56", "3", "65", "32", "46", "5", "28", "54", "17", "97", "75", "74", "30", "95", "59", "35", "No Label", "25", "38", "71", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 20/2011\nof 11 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 12 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 January 2011.", "references": ["47", "10", "26", "13", "12", "44", "9", "83", "38", "27", "52", "95", "25", "4", "20", "60", "28", "53", "5", "7", "3", "63", "64", "40", "58", "14", "11", "72", "71", "67", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EU BAM RAFAH/1/2011\nof 27 May 2011\nextending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Border Assistance Mission at the Rafah Crossing Point\n(2011/316/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP of 25 November 2005 on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 10(1) of Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC), in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EU BAM Rafah mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nOn 11 November 2008, upon a proposal by the Secretary General/High Representative, the PSC appointed by Decision EU BAM Rafah/1/2008 (2) Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah.\n(3)\nOn 13 May 2011, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed to the PSC that it extend the mandate of Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah until 31 December 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of the European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point is hereby extended from 25 May 2011 until 31 December 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2011.", "references": ["88", "32", "40", "97", "24", "42", "14", "30", "47", "29", "41", "69", "35", "31", "73", "37", "39", "93", "67", "95", "4", "48", "43", "34", "96", "3", "50", "26", "76", "99", "No Label", "1", "5", "52"], "gold": ["1", "5", "52"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 24 July 2012\non recognition of the \u2018REDcert\u2019 scheme for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria under Directives 98/70/EC and 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(2012/432/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1), and in particular Article 18(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels (2) as amended by the Directive 2009/30/EC (3), and in particular Article 7c(6) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee established by Article 25, paragraph 2 of Directive 2009/28/EC,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirectives 98/70/EC and 2009/28/EC both lay down sustainability criteria for biofuels. Provisions of Articles 7b, 7c and Annex IV to Directive 98/70/EC are similar to provisions of Articles 17, 18 and Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(2)\nWhere biofuels and bioliquids are to be taken into account for the purposes referred to in Article 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2009/28/EC Member States should require economic operators to show the compliance of biofuels and bioliquids with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(2) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(3)\nRecital 76 of Directive 2009/28/EC states that the imposition of an unreasonable burden on industry should be avoided and voluntary schemes can help create efficient solutions for proving compliance with these sustainability criteria.\n(4)\nThe Commission may decide that a voluntary national or international scheme demonstrates that consignments of biofuel comply with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(3) to (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC or that a voluntary national or international scheme to measure greenhouse gas emission savings contains accurate data for the purposes of Article 17(2) of this Directive.\n(5)\nThe Commission may recognise such a voluntary scheme for a period of five years.\n(6)\nWhen an economic operator provides proof or data obtained in accordance with a voluntary scheme that has been recognised by the Commission, to the extent covered by the recognition decision, a Member State should not require the supplier to provide further evidence of compliance with the sustainability criteria.\n(7)\nThe \u2018REDcert\u2019 scheme was submitted on 21 February 2012 to the Commission with the request for recognition. The scheme can cover a wide range of different biofuels and bioliquids. The recognised scheme should be made available at the transparency platform established under Directive 2009/28/EC. The Commission should take into account considerations of commercial sensitivity and may decide to only partially publish the scheme.\n(8)\nAssessment of the \u2018REDcert\u2019 scheme found it to adequately cover the sustainability criteria in Article 7b(3), (4) and (5) of Directive 98/70/EC and Article 17(3), (4) and (5) of Directive 2009/28/EC, as well as applying a mass balance methodology in line with the requirements of Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC and Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(9)\nThe evaluation of the \u2018REDcert\u2019 scheme found that it meets adequate standards of reliability, transparency and independent auditing and also complies with the methodological requirements in Annex IV to Directive 98/70/EC and Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC.\n(10)\nAny additional sustainability elements covered by the \u2018REDcert\u2019 scheme are not part of the consideration of this Decision. These additional sustainability elements are not mandatory to show compliance with sustainability requirements provided for by Directives 98/70/EC and 2009/28/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018REDcert\u2019 for which the request for recognition was submitted to the Commission on 21 February 2012 demonstrates that consignments of biofuels comply with the sustainability criteria as laid down in Article 17(3), 17(4) and 17(5) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(3), 7b(4) and 7b(5) of Directive 98/70/EC. The scheme also contains accurate data for purposes of Article 17(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7b(2) of Directive 98/70/EC.\nThe voluntary scheme \u2018REDcert\u2019 may be used for demonstrating compliance with Article 7c(1) of Directive 98/70/EC and Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC.\nArticle 2\nThe Decision is valid for a period of five years after it enters into force. If the scheme, after adoption of this Decision, undergoes changes to its contents in a way that might affect the basis of this Decision, such changes shall be notified to the Commission without delay. The Commission shall assess the notified changes with a view to establishing whether the scheme is still adequately covering the sustainability criteria for which it is recognised.\nIf it has been clearly demonstrated that the scheme has not implemented elements considered to be decisive for this Decision and if severe and structural breach of those elements has taken place, the Commission may repeal this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 24 July 2012.", "references": ["4", "43", "81", "71", "26", "92", "93", "90", "72", "40", "27", "25", "51", "18", "0", "57", "9", "33", "70", "30", "62", "80", "1", "49", "39", "16", "96", "67", "66", "69", "No Label", "58", "76", "77", "78"], "gold": ["58", "76", "77", "78"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 537/2012\nof 22 June 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, as regards the single area payment scheme for farmers in Poland\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular Article 142(e) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 124(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 lays down the rules fixing the agricultural area of the new Member States under the single area payment scheme provided for in Article 122 of that Regulation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 89 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the support schemes for farmers provided for in Titles IV and V thereof (2), the agricultural area for Poland is set out in Annex VIII to that Regulation.\n(3)\nBy letter of 22 March 2012, Poland informed the Commission that it had reviewed its utilised agricultural area eligible for the single area payment scheme, as referred to in Article 124(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. The revision is a consequence of the experience gained in 2010 and 2011 from the verification of the eligibility conditions for the single area payment under the single area payment scheme, which has shown that the utilised agricultural area maintained in good agricultural condition on 30 June 2003 was less than previously estimated. The agricultural area for the single area payment scheme should therefore be reduced to 14 000 000 ha.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1121/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe amendment proposed by this Regulation should apply to premium periods starting from 1 January 2012.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009, the row concerning Poland is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Poland\n14 000\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply to aid applications relating to premium periods starting from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2012.", "references": ["60", "47", "90", "39", "75", "92", "7", "37", "76", "67", "70", "52", "9", "11", "19", "59", "83", "95", "46", "51", "16", "68", "26", "99", "86", "48", "25", "2", "3", "45", "No Label", "4", "61", "63", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "61", "63", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 605/2011\nof 20 June 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in NAFO 3M waters by vessels flying the flag of Germany\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["85", "5", "66", "45", "24", "58", "7", "75", "51", "0", "50", "90", "94", "22", "39", "30", "14", "52", "92", "57", "47", "64", "8", "80", "72", "12", "16", "23", "55", "33", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1122/2010\nof 2 December 2010\nentering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Gouda Holland (PGI)]\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 7(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, and pursuant to Article 17(2) of the same Regulation, the application of the Netherlands to enter the designation \u2018Gouda Holland\u2019 in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nThe Czech Republic, Germany, France, Austria, the governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America, as well as Dairy Australia, Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand and the National Milk Producers Federation together with the US Dairy Export Council submitted objections to the registration under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. These objections were deemed admissible under Article 7(3) of that Regulation.\n(3)\nStatements of objection concerned non-compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, in particular the name and its use, specificity and reputation of the product, delimitation of geographical area as well as restrictions on the origin of raw materials. The objections also claimed that registration would be contrary to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, would jeopardise the existence of names, trademarks or products which had been legally on the market for at least five years preceding the date of the publication provided for in Article 6(2), and that the name proposed for registration was generic.\n(4)\nBy letters dated 4 November 2008, the Commission asked the Netherlands and the objectors to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with their internal procedures.\n(5)\nGiven that no agreement with the objectors was reached within the designated time limit, with the exception of an agreement reached between the Netherlands and France, the Commission should adopt a decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.\n(6)\nConcerning the alleged failure of compliance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 in respect of the name, geographical area, specificity of the product, link between the product characteristics and the geographical area, reputation and restrictions concerning the origin of raw material, the national authorities responsible provided confirmation that these elements were present and in addition no manifest error was identified. It should be pointed out that Holland is not the name of the Member State concerned and that \u2018Gouda Holland\u2019 is considered a traditional geographical name encompassed by Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. The requirements of Article 2(1) point (b) of the said Regulation are in this connection fulfilled since the related geographical area is delimited according to the link and the main elements of the product specificity. The specificity of Gouda Holland is due to a combination of factors linked to the geographical area such as the quality of milk (high fat level and protein content), amino acids originating from \u03b2-CN and \u03b3-glutamyl peptide, prevalence of grazing on meadows, use of calf rennet, natural ripening, as well as the skills of the farmers and cheese producers.\n(7)\nAs regards objections based on non compliance with Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Netherlands submitted information regarding the distinction between the product bearing the registered name \u2018Noord-Hollandse Gouda\u2019 and that for which the name \u2018Gouda Holland\u2019 is applied. No evidence was provided in the statement of objections that consumers would be liable to be misled or that the producers would be treated in an inequitable manner.\n(8)\nIt appears that the objectors did not refer to the entire name \u2018Gouda Holland\u2019 when claiming that registration would jeopardize the existence of names, trademarks or products and that the name proposed for registration is generic, but only to one element of it, namely \u2018Gouda\u2019. However, protection is granted to the term \u2018Gouda Holland\u2019 as a whole. Pursuant to the second sub-paragraph of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the term \u2018Gouda\u2019 may continue to be used provided the principles and rules applicable in the Union\u2019s legal order are respected. For the sake of clarification, the specification and the summary have been modified accordingly.\n(9)\nIn the light of the above, the name \u2018Gouda Holland\u2019 should be entered in the \u2018Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications\u2019.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Protected Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe designation contained in Annex I to this Regulation shall be entered in the Register.\nNotwithstanding the first paragraph, the name \u2018Gouda\u2019 may continue to be used within the territory of the Union, provided the principles and rules applicable in its legal order are respected.\nArticle 2\nA consolidated version of the summary containing the main points of the specification is set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 December 2010.", "references": ["9", "13", "28", "58", "64", "14", "8", "34", "43", "48", "81", "56", "57", "19", "90", "12", "63", "3", "29", "36", "67", "59", "26", "23", "6", "17", "7", "18", "99", "37", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "75", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/871/CFSP\nof 19 December 2011\nestablishing a mechanism to administer the financing of the common costs of European Union operations having military or defence implications (Athena)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 26(2) and 41(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Council, meeting in Helsinki on 10 and 11 December 1999, agreed in particular that, \u2018cooperating voluntarily in EU-led operations, Member States must be able, by 2003, to deploy within 60 days and sustain for at least one year, military forces of up to 50 000 to 60 000 persons capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks\u2019.\n(2)\nOn 17 June 2002, the Council approved the arrangements for the financing of EU-led crisis-management operations having military or defence implications.\n(3)\nThe Council, in its conclusions of 14 May 2003, confirmed the need for a rapid reaction capability, in particular for humanitarian and rescue tasks.\n(4)\nThe European Council, meeting in Thessaloniki on 19 and 20 June 2003, welcomed the conclusions of the Council meeting on 19 May 2003, which in particular confirmed the need for a European Union military rapid reaction capability.\n(5)\nOn 22 September 2003, the Council decided that the European Union should acquire the capacity to flexibly manage the financing of common costs of military operations of any scale, complexity or urgency, in particular by setting up, by 1 March 2004 at the latest, a permanent financing mechanism to assume charge of the financing of common costs of any future EU military operation.\n(6)\nOn 23 February 2004, the Council adopted Decision 2004/197/CFSP establishing a mechanism to administer the financing of the common costs of European Union operations having military or defence implications (1). The Decision has subsequently been amended and replaced several times, most recently by Decision 2008/975/CFSP (2).\n(7)\nThe European Union is capable of conducting military rapid response operations in accordance with the concept defined by the EU Military Committee. The European Union is capable of deploying Battle Groups in accordance with the concept defined by the EU Military Committee.\n(8)\nThe scheme for early financing is intended first and foremost for rapid response operations.\n(9)\nExercises at the political and military strategic level of the command and control structures and procedures for EU military operations through EU headquarters exercises, as approved by the Political and Security Committee (PSC), contribute to enhancing the Union\u2019s overall operational readiness.\n(10)\nThe Council decides on a case-by-case basis whether an operation has military or defence implications, within the meaning of Article 41(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).\n(11)\nThe second subparagraph of Article 41(2) of the TEU provides that Member States whose representatives in the Council have made a formal declaration pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 31(1) thereof, shall not be obliged to contribute to the financing of the operation having military or defence implications concerned.\n(12)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications. Denmark does not participate in this decision and therefore does not participate in the financing of the mechanism.\n(13)\nPursuant to Article 44 of Decision 2008/975/CFSP, the Council has reviewed that Decision and agreed to amend it.\n(14)\nFor the sake of clarity, Decision 2008/975/CFSP should be repealed and replaced by a new Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Decision:\n(a)\n\u2018participating Member States\u2019 shall mean the Member States of the European Union, except Denmark;\n(b)\n\u2018contributing States\u2019 shall mean the Member States contributing to the financing of the military operation in question in accordance with Article 41(2) of the TEU and the third States contributing to the financing of the common costs of this operation pursuant to agreements between them and the European Union;\n(c)\n\u2018operations\u2019 shall mean the EU operations having military or defence implications;\n(d)\n\u2018military supporting actions\u2019 shall mean the EU operations, or parts thereof, decided by the Council in support of a third State or a third organisation, which have military or defence implications, but which are not under the authority of European Union Headquarters.\nCHAPTER 1\nMECHANISM\nArticle 2\nEstablishment of the mechanism\n1. A mechanism to administer the financing of the common costs of operations is hereby established.\n2. The mechanism shall be called Athena.\n3. Athena shall act on behalf of the participating Member States or, regarding the specific operations, the contributing States.\nArticle 3\nLegal capacity\nWith a view to the administrative management of the financing of EU operations with military or defence implications, Athena shall have the necessary legal capacity, in particular, to hold bank accounts, acquire, hold or dispose of property, enter into contracts and administrative arrangements and be a party to legal proceedings. Athena shall be non-profit-making.\nArticle 4\nCoordination with third parties\nTo the extent necessary to achieve its tasks, and in conformity with the objectives and policies of the European Union, Athena shall coordinate its activities with the Member States, Union institutions and bodies, and international organisations.\nCHAPTER 2\nORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE\nArticle 5\nManagement bodies and staff\n1. Athena shall be managed, under the authority of the Special Committee, by:\n(a)\nthe administrator;\n(b)\nthe commander of each operation, in relation to the operation which he commands (\u2018operation commander\u2019);\n(c)\nthe accounting officer.\n2. Athena shall use existing administrative structures of the Union to the greatest possible extent. Athena shall resort to staff made available as necessary by the Union institutions or seconded by Member States.\n3. The Secretary-General of the Council may provide the administrator and the accounting officer with the staff needed for them to carry out their functions, which may be on the basis of a proposal by a participating Member State.\n4. Athena\u2019s bodies and staff shall be mobilised on the basis of operational needs.\nArticle 6\nSpecial Committee\n1. A Special Committee composed of one representative of each participating Member State is established.\nRepresentatives of the European External Action Service (EEAS) and of the Commission shall be invited to attend the meetings of the Special Committee without taking part in its votes.\n2. Athena shall be managed under the authority of the Special Committee.\n3. When the Special Committee is discussing the financing of the common costs of a given operation:\n(a)\nthe Special Committee shall be composed of one representative of each contributing Member State;\n(b)\nthe representatives of contributing third States shall participate in the proceedings of the Special Committee. They shall neither take part in nor be present at its votes;\n(c)\nthe operation commander or his representative shall participate in the proceedings of the Special Committee, without taking part in its votes.\n4. The Presidency of the Council shall convene and chair the meetings of the Special Committee. The administrator shall provide the secretariat for the Special Committee. He shall draw up the minutes of the result of the Committee\u2019s discussions. He shall not take part in its votes.\n5. The accounting officer shall participate as necessary in the proceedings of the Special Committee, without taking part in its votes.\n6. If a participating Member State, the administrator or the operation commander so requests, the Presidency shall convene the Special Committee within at most 15 days.\n7. The administrator shall adequately inform the Special Committee of any claim or dispute involving Athena.\n8. The Special Committee shall decide unanimously amongst its members, taking into account its composition as defined in paragraphs 1 and 3. Its decisions shall be binding.\n9. The Special Committee approves all budgets, taking into account the relevant reference amounts, and generally exercises the competences pursuant to this Decision.\n10. The Special Committee shall be informed by the administrator, the operation commander and the accounting officer as provided for in this Decision.\n11. The text of the acts approved by the Special Committee pursuant to this Decision shall at the time of their approval be signed by the chairman of the Special Committee and by the administrator.\nArticle 7\nAdministrator\n1. The Secretary-General of the Council, after informing the Special Committee, shall appoint the administrator and at least one deputy administrator for a period of three years.\n2. The administrator shall carry out his duties on behalf of Athena.\n3. The administrator:\n(a)\nshall draw up and submit to the Special Committee any draft budget. The \u2018expenditure\u2019 section for an operation in any draft budget shall be drawn up on the basis of a proposal from the operation commander;\n(b)\nshall adopt the budgets after their approval by the Special Committee;\n(c)\nshall be the authorising officer for the sections \u2018revenue\u2019, \u2018common costs incurred in preparation for, or further to, operations\u2019 and \u2018operational common costs\u2019 incurred outside the active phase of the operation;\n(d)\nas regards revenue, shall implement the financial arrangements made with third parties in relation to the financing of the common costs of the EU military operations;\n(e)\nshall open one or more bank accounts on behalf of Athena.\n4. The administrator shall ensure that the rules established by this Decision are complied with, and that the decisions of the Special Committee are implemented.\n5. The administrator shall be authorised to adopt any measures which he deems necessary to implement the expenditure financed through Athena. He shall inform the Special Committee thereof.\n6. The administrator shall coordinate work on financial questions relating to the EU military operations. He shall be the contact point with national administrations and, as appropriate, international organisations on these matters.\n7. The administrator shall be accountable to the Special Committee.\nArticle 8\nOperation commander\n1. The operation commander shall carry out his duties on behalf of Athena in relation to the financing of the common costs of the operation which he commands.\n2. For the operation which he commands, the operation commander shall:\n(a)\nsend the administrator his proposals for the \u2018expenditure - operational common costs\u2019 section of the draft budgets;\n(b)\nas authorising officer, implement the appropriations relating to the operational common costs as well as expenditure under Article 28; he shall exercise his authority over any person participating in the implementation of those appropriations, including pre-financing; he may award contracts and enter into contracts on behalf of Athena; he shall open a bank account on behalf of Athena for the operation which he commands.\n3. The operation commander shall be authorised to adopt any measures which he deems necessary to implement the expenditure financed through Athena, for the operation which he commands. He shall inform the administrator and the Special Committee thereof.\n4. Except in duly warranted circumstances approved by the Special Committee following a proposal by the administrator, the operation commander shall use the accounting and asset management system provided by Athena. The administrator shall inform the Special Committee in advance when he considers that such circumstances exist.\nArticle 9\nAccounting officer\n1. The Secretary-General of the Council shall appoint the accounting officer and at least one deputy accounting officer for a period of three years.\n2. The accounting officer shall carry out his duties on behalf of Athena.\n3. The accounting officer shall be responsible for:\n(a)\nproper implementation of payments, collection of revenue and recovery of amounts established as being receivable;\n(b)\npreparing the financial statements for Athena each year, and, after completion of each operation, the accounts for that operation;\n(c)\nsupporting the administrator when he submits the annual accounts or the accounts for an operation to the Special Committee for approval;\n(d)\nkeeping the accounts for Athena;\n(e)\nlaying down the accounting rules and methods and the chart of accounts;\n(f)\nlaying down and validating the accounting systems for revenue and, where appropriate, validating systems laid down by the authorising officer to supply or justify accounting information;\n(g)\nkeeping supporting documents;\n(h)\ntreasury management, jointly with the administrator.\n4. The administrator and the operation commander shall provide the accounting officer with all the information necessary for the production of accounts which accurately represent Athena\u2019s financial assets and budget implementation administered by Athena. They shall guarantee its reliability.\n5. The accounting officer shall be accountable to the Special Committee.\nArticle 10\nGeneral provisions applicable to the administrator, the accounting officer and Athena\u2019s staff\n1. The functions of administrator or deputy administrator, on the one hand, and accounting officer or deputy accounting officer, on the other, shall be mutually incompatible.\n2. Any deputy administrator shall act under the authority of the administrator. Any deputy accounting officer shall act under the authority of the accounting officer.\n3. A deputy administrator shall replace the administrator when he is absent. A deputy accounting officer shall replace the accounting officer when he is absent.\n4. Officials and other servants of the European Union, when carrying out functions on behalf of Athena, shall remain subject to the rules and regulations applicable to them.\n5. The staff made available to Athena by the Member States shall be subject to the same rules as those set out in the Council decision concerning the rules applicable to national experts on secondment, and to the provisions agreed on by their national administration and the Union institution or Athena.\n6. Before their appointment, the staff of Athena must have received clearance for access to classified information up to at least \u2018Secret UE\u2019 level held by the Council, or equivalent clearance by a Member State.\n7. The administrator may negotiate and enter into arrangements with the Member States or Union institutions with a view to designating in advance those staff who could, if need be, be made immediately available to Athena.\nCHAPTER 3\nADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS AND FRAMEWORK CONTRACTS\nArticle 11\nAdministrative arrangements and framework contracts\n1. Administrative arrangements may be negotiated with Member States, Union institutions and bodies, third States and international organisations in order to facilitate procurement and/or the financial aspects of mutual support in operations in the most cost-effective manner.\n2. Such arrangements shall be:\n(a)\nsubject to consultation of the Special Committee if they are concluded with Member States, Union institutions or bodies;\n(b)\nsubmitted for approval to the Special Committee if they are concluded with third States or international organisations.\n3. Such arrangements shall be signed by the administrator or, where appropriate, the respective operation commander, acting on behalf of Athena, and by the competent administrative authorities of the other parties referred to in paragraph 1.\n4. Framework contracts may be concluded in order to facilitate procurement in the most cost-effective manner. Such contracts shall be submitted for approval to the Special Committee before being signed by the administrator and shall be made available to Member States and operation commanders should they wish to make use of them. This provision will impose no obligation on any Member State to avail of or to procure goods or services on the basis of a framework contract.\nArticle 12\nStanding and ad hoc administrative arrangements on modalities for the payment of third States\u2019 contributions\n1. In the framework of the agreements concluded between the European Union and third States indicated by the Council as potential contributors to EU operations or as contributors to a specific EU operation, the administrator shall negotiate with these third States standing or ad hoc administrative arrangements. These arrangements shall take the form of an Exchange of Letters between Athena and the competent administrative services of the third States concerned establishing the modalities necessary to facilitate swift payment of contributions.\n2. Pending the conclusion of the agreements referred to in paragraph 1, the administrator may take the necessary measures to facilitate payments by the contributing third States.\n3. The administrator shall inform the Special Committee in advance of the envisaged arrangements referred to in paragraph 1, before signing them on behalf of Athena.\n4. When a military operation is launched by the Union, the administrator shall, for the amounts of contributions decided by the Council, implement the arrangements with the third States contributing to that operation.\nCHAPTER 4\nBANK ACCOUNTS\nArticle 13\nOpening and purpose\n1. Any bank account shall be opened at a first-rate financial institution with its head office in a Member State and shall be a current or short-term account in euro. In duly warranted circumstances, and after approval of the administrator, accounts may be opened at financial institutions with head office outside the Member States.\n2. In duly warranted circumstances, accounts may be opened in currencies other than the euro.\n3. The contributions from contributing States shall be paid into these bank accounts. They shall be used to pay for the costs administered by Athena and to make the necessary advances to the operation commander for the implementation of expenditure relating to the common costs of a military operation.\nArticle 14\nManagement of funds\n1. Any payment from Athena\u2019s account shall require the joint signature of the administrator or a deputy administrator on the one hand and the accounting officer or a deputy accounting officer on the other.\n2. No bank account may be overdrawn.\nCHAPTER 5\nCOMMON COSTS\nArticle 15\nDefinition of common costs and periods for eligibility\n1. The common costs listed in Annex I shall be at the expense of Athena whenever they are incurred. When entered in an article of the budget showing the operation to which they are most related, they shall be regarded as operational costs of that operation. Otherwise, they shall be regarded as common costs incurred in preparation for, or following, operations.\n2. Furthermore, Athena shall bear the operational common costs listed in Annex II during the period from the approval of the crisis management concept for the operation until the appointment of the operation commander. In particular circumstances, after the PSC has been consulted, the Special Committee may modify the period during which these costs shall be borne by Athena.\n3. During the active phase of an operation, which runs from the date on which the operation commander is appointed to the day on which the operation headquarters ceases its activity, Athena shall bear as operational common costs:\n(a)\nthe common costs listed in Part A of Annex III;\n(b)\nthe common costs listed in Part B of Annex III, when the Council so decides;\n(c)\nthe common costs listed in Part C of Annex III, when the operation commander so requests and if the Special Committee approves it.\n4. During the active phase of a military supporting action, as determined by the Council, Athena shall bear as operational common costs the common costs defined by the Council on a case-by-case basis by reference to Annex III.\n5. The operational common costs of an operation also include the expenditure necessary to wind it up, as listed in Annex IV.\nThe operation is wound up when the equipment and infrastructure commonly funded for the operation have found their final destination and the accounts for the operation have been approved.\n6. No expenditure incurred with a view to covering costs which would in any case have been borne by one or more contributing States, a Union institution or an international organisation, independently of the organisation of an operation, may be eligible as a common cost.\n7. The Special Committee may decide on a case-by-case basis that, in view of particular circumstances, certain incremental costs other than those listed in Part B of Annex III shall be regarded as common costs for one given operation during its active phase.\n8. If unanimity cannot be achieved in the Special Committee, the latter may, at the initiative of the Presidency, refer the question to the Council.\nArticle 16\nExercises\n1. The common costs of the European Union\u2019s exercises shall be financed through Athena following rules and procedures similar to those for operations to which all participating Member States contribute.\n2. These exercise common costs shall be composed of, firstly, incremental costs for deployable or fixed headquarters and, secondly, incremental costs incurred by EU recourse to NATO common assets and capabilities when made available for an exercise.\n3. Exercise common costs shall not include costs related to:\n(a)\ncapital acquisitions, including those related to buildings, infrastructure and equipment;\n(b)\nthe planning and preparatory phase of exercises, unless approved by the Special Committee;\n(c)\ntransport, barracks and lodging for forces.\nArticle 17\nReference amount\nAny Council decision by which the Council decides to establish or extend an EU military operation shall contain a reference amount for the common costs of that operation. The administrator shall, with the support in particular of the Union military staff and, if he is in office, the operation commander, evaluate the amount judged necessary to cover the common costs of the operation for the planned period. The administrator shall propose this amount through the Presidency to the Council body responsible for examining the draft decision. The members of the Special Committee shall be invited to the discussions of this body concerning the reference amount.\nCHAPTER 6\nBUDGET\nArticle 18\nBudgetary principles\n1. The budget, drawn up in euro, is the act which for each financial year lays down and authorises all the revenue and expenditure relating to common costs administered by Athena.\n2. All expenditure shall be linked to a specific operation, except where appropriate for the costs listed in Annex I.\n3. The appropriations entered in the budget are authorised for the duration of a financial year which begins on 1 January and ends on 31 December of the same year.\n4. Budget revenue and expenditure shall be in balance.\n5. No revenue or expenditure relating to common costs may be implemented other than by allocation to a heading in the budget and within the limit of the appropriations entered there, except pursuant to Article 32(5).\nArticle 19\nAnnual budget\n1. Each year the administrator shall draw up a draft budget for the following financial year, with the assistance of each operation commander for his operation.\n2. The draft shall include:\n(a)\nthe appropriations deemed necessary to cover the common costs incurred in preparation for, or further to, operations;\n(b)\nthe appropriations deemed necessary to cover the operational common costs for ongoing or planned operations, including, where appropriate, to reimburse common costs which have been pre-financed by a State or third party;\n(c)\nthe provisional appropriations as referred to in Article 26;\n(d)\na forecast of the revenue needed to cover expenditure.\n3. The commitment and payment appropriations shall be classified in titles and chapters grouping expenditure together by type or purpose, subdivided as necessary into articles. Detailed comments by chapter or article shall be included in the draft budget. One specific title shall be dedicated to each operation. One specific title shall be the general part of the budget and shall include the common costs incurred in preparation for, or further to, operations.\n4. Each title may include a chapter entitled \u2018provisional appropriations\u2019. These appropriations shall be entered where there is uncertainty, based on serious grounds, about the amount of appropriations needed or the scope for implementing the appropriations entered.\n5. Revenue shall consist of:\n(a)\ncontributions payable by the participating and contributing Member States and, where appropriate, by contributing third States;\n(b)\nmiscellaneous revenue, subdivided by title, which includes interest received, revenue from sales and the budget outturn from the previous financial year, after it has been determined by the Special Committee.\n6. The administrator shall propose the draft budget to the Special Committee by 31 October at the latest. The Special Committee shall approve the draft budget by 31 December. The administrator shall adopt the approved budget and notify the participating Member States and contributing third States.\nArticle 20\nAmending budgets\n1. In the case of unavoidable, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances, including when an operation is launched during the course of the financial year, the administrator shall propose a draft amending budget. The draft amending budget shall be drawn up, proposed, approved and adopted and notification given in accordance with the same procedure as the annual budget. The Special Committee shall discuss it taking account of its urgency.\n2. When this draft amending budget results from the launching of a new operation or changes in the budget of an ongoing operation, the administrator will inform the Special Committee of the total costs foreseen for this operation. If these costs substantially exceed the relevant reference amount, the Special Committee may request the Council to approve it.\n3. The draft amending budget resulting from the launching of a new operation shall be submitted to the Special Committee within a period of four months after the approval of the reference amount, unless the Special Committee decides on a longer deadline.\nArticle 21\nTransfers\n1. The administrator, where appropriate on the basis of a proposal by the operation commander, may make transfers of appropriations. The administrator shall inform the Special Committee of his intention, in so far as the urgency of the situation permits, at least one week in advance. However, the prior approval of the Special Committee shall be required when:\n(a)\nthe planned transfer will amend the total of the appropriations provided for an operation;\nor\n(b)\nthe planned transfers between chapters during the financial year exceed 10 % of the appropriations entered in the chapter from which the appropriations are being drawn, as appearing in the adopted budget for the financial year on the date when the proposal for the transfer in question is made.\n2. When he deems this to be necessary for the proper conduct of an operation, in the three months following the date of launching of the operation, the operation commander may make transfers of appropriations allocated for the operation, between articles and between chapters in the \u2018operational common costs\u2019 section of the budget. He shall inform the administrator and the Special Committee thereof.\nArticle 22\nCarryover of appropriations\n1. In principle, the appropriations intended to cover the common costs incurred in preparation for, or further to, operations, which have not been committed are cancelled at the end of the financial year, if not otherwise provided for in paragraph 2.\n2. Appropriations intended to cover the cost of storing material and equipment administered by Athena may be carried over once to the following financial year, when a commitment to that effect was made before 31 December of the current financial year. Appropriations intended to cover operational common costs may be carried over if they are necessary for an operation which has not been fully wound up.\n3. The administrator shall submit proposals for the carrying over of non-committed appropriations from the preceding financial year to the Special Committee by 15 February. These proposals shall be deemed approved unless the Special Committee decides otherwise by 15 March.\n4. The committed appropriations from the preceding financial year shall be carried over and the Special Committee shall be informed thereof by the administrator by 15 February.\nArticle 23\nAnticipated implementation\nOnce the annual budget has been approved, appropriations may be used to cover commitments and payments in so far as operationally necessary.\nCHAPTER 7\nCONTRIBUTIONS AND REIMBURSEMENTS\nArticle 24\nDetermination of contributions\n1. Payment appropriations to cover the common costs incurred in preparation for, or further to, operations which are not covered by miscellaneous revenue shall be financed by contributions from the participating Member States.\n2. Payment appropriations to cover the operational common costs of an operation shall be covered by contributions from the contributing States.\n3. The contributions payable by the contributing Member States for an operation shall be equal to the amount of the payment appropriations entered in the budget and intended to cover the operational common costs of that operation, after deduction of the amounts of the contributions payable for the same operation by contributing third States pursuant to Article 12.\n4. The breakdown of contributions between the Member States from whom a contribution is required shall be determined in accordance with the gross national product scale as specified in Article 41(2) of the TEU and in accordance with the Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities\u2019 own resources (3), or any other Council decision which may replace it.\n5. The data for the calculation of contributions shall be those set out in the \u2018GNI own resources\u2019 column in the \u2018Summary of financing of the general budget by type of own resource and by Member State\u2019 table appended to the latest general budget adopted by the Union. The contribution of each Member State from whom a contribution is due shall be proportional to the share of gross national income (GNI) of that Member State in the total GNI aggregate of the Member States from whom a contribution is due.\nArticle 25\nSchedule for payment of contributions\n1. When the Council has adopted a reference amount for an EU military operation, the contributing Member States shall pay their contributions at the level of 30 % of the reference amount, unless the Council decides on a different percentage. The administrator shall call for contributions according to operational needs for the operation up to the agreed level.\n2. The Special Committee, on the basis of a proposal by the administrator, may decide that additional contributions will be called before the adoption of an amending budget for the operation. The Special Committee may decide to refer the matter to the competent preparatory bodies at the Council.\n3. When an amending budget has been adopted for a specific operation, the Member States shall pay the balance of the contributions which they owe for that operation in application of Article 24. However, when the operation is planned to last more than six months within a financial year, the balance of contributions shall be paid in two instalments. In such a case, the first instalment shall be paid within 60 days of the launching of the operation; the second instalment shall be paid by a deadline to be set by the Special Committee acting on a proposal from the administrator, taking into account operational needs. The Special Committee may depart from the provisions of this paragraph.\n4. The administrator shall send the corresponding calls for contributions by letter to the national administrations whose details have been communicated to him when:\n(a)\na draft budget for a financial year is approved by the Special Committee provided for in Article 19. The first call for contributions covers the operational needs for eight months. The second call for contributions covers the remaining balance of contributions, taking into account the balance of the previous year budget outturn if the Special Committee decided to enter this balance in the current budget after the audit opinion has been received;\n(b)\na reference amount has been adopted as provided for in Article 25(1); or\n(c)\nan amending budget is approved as provided for in Article 20.\n5. Without prejudice to the other provisions in this Decision, the contributions shall be paid within 30 days following despatch of the relevant call for contributions, with the exception of the first call for contributions for a new financial year\u2019s budget, where the deadline for payment shall be 40 days following dispatch of the relevant call for contributions.\n6. Each contributing State shall pay the bank charges relating to the payment of its own contribution.\n7. The administrator shall acknowledge receipt of contributions.\nArticle 26\nEarly financing\n1. In the case of an EU military rapid response operation, contributions shall be due by contributing Member States at the level of the reference amount. Without prejudice to Article 25(3), payments shall be made as defined below.\n2. For the purpose of the early financing of EU military rapid response operations, the participating Member States shall either:\n(a)\npay contributions to Athena in advance; or\n(b)\nwhen the Council decides to conduct an EU military rapid response operation to the financing of which they contribute, pay their contributions to the common costs of that operation within five days following despatch of the call at the level of the reference amount, unless the Council decides otherwise.\n3. For the purpose referred to above, the Special Committee, composed of one representative of each of the Member States contributing in advance, shall establish provisional appropriations in a specific title in the budget. These provisional appropriations shall be covered by contributions payable by the Member States contributing in advance within 90 days following despatch of the call for these contributions.\n4. Any provisional appropriations referred to in paragraph 3 which are used for an operation shall be replenished within 90 days following despatch of the call.\n5. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, any Member State contributing in advance may in specific circumstances authorise the administrator to use its contribution paid in advance to cover its contribution to an operation in which it participates, other than a rapid response operation. The contribution paid in advance shall be replenished by the Member State concerned within 90 days following despatch of the call.\n6. Where funds are required for an operation, other than a rapid response operation, before sufficient contributions to that operation have been received:\n(a)\ncontributions paid in advance by Member States which contribute to financing that operation after approval by the Member States contributing in advance, may be used up to 75 % of their amount to cover contributions due to that operation. The contributions paid in advance shall be replenished by the Member States contributing in advance within 90 days following despatch of the call;\n(b)\nin the case referred to in point (a) of this paragraph, contributions due for the operation under Article 25(1) from Member States that had not contributed in advance shall be paid, after approval by the Member States concerned, within five days following despatch of the call by the administrator.\n7. Notwithstanding Article 32(3), the operation commander may commit and pay the amounts made available to him.\n8. Any Member State may reverse its option by notifying the administrator at least three months in advance.\n9. Interest earned on the early financing will be apportioned annually to the Member States contributing in advance and added to their provisional appropriations. The amounts will be notified to those Member States as part of the annual budgetary approval process.\nArticle 27\nReimbursement of pre-financing\n1. A Member State, a third State or, as appropriate, an international organisation which has been authorised by the Council to pre-finance a part of the common costs of an operation may obtain reimbursement from Athena by making a request accompanied by the necessary supporting documents and addressed to the administrator at the latest two months after the date of completion of the operation concerned.\n2. No request for reimbursement may be honoured if it has not been approved by the operation commander, if still in office, and by the administrator.\n3. If a request for reimbursement presented by a contributing State is approved, it may be deducted from the next call for contributions addressed to that State by the administrator.\n4. If no call for contributions is anticipated when the request is approved, or if the approved request for reimbursement would exceed the anticipated contribution, the administrator shall make payment of the amount to be reimbursed within 30 days, taking account of Athena\u2019s cash flow and of what is needed to finance the common costs of the operation concerned.\n5. Reimbursement shall be due in accordance with this Decision even if the operation is cancelled.\n6. Reimbursement shall include interest earned on the amount made available through pre-financing.\nArticle 28\nManagement by Athena of expenditure not included in common costs\n1. The Special Committee, on the basis of a proposal by the administrator, with the assistance of the operation commander, or by a Member State, may decide that the administrative management of certain expenditure in relation to an operation (\u2018nation borne costs\u2019), while remaining the responsibility of the Member State which it concerns, shall be entrusted to Athena.\n2. The Special Committee, in its decision, may authorise the operation commander to enter into contracts on behalf of the Member States participating in an operation and, where appropriate, third parties, for the acquisition of the services and supplies to be financed as nation borne costs.\n3. The Special Committee, in its decision, shall lay down the modalities for the pre-financing of nation borne costs.\n4. Athena shall keep accounts of the nation borne costs entrusted to it and incurred by each Member State and, where appropriate, third parties. Each month it shall send each Member State and, where appropriate, those third parties, a statement of the expenditure borne by it and incurred by it or by its staff during the preceding month, and shall call for the necessary funds to pay for this expenditure. The Member States and, where appropriate, those third parties, shall pay Athena the funds required within 30 days following despatch of the call for funds.\nArticle 29\nInterest on late payment\n1. If a State does not fulfil its financial obligations, the Union rules on interest on late payment determined by Article 71 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4) in relation to the payment of contributions to the EU budget shall be applicable by analogy.\n2. When payment is late by no more than 10 days, no interest shall be charged. When payment is late by more than 10 days, interests shall be charged for the entire delay.\nCHAPTER 8\nIMPLEMENTATION OF EXPENDITURE\nArticle 30\nPrinciples\n1. Athena\u2019s appropriations shall be used in accordance with the principles of sound financial management, i.e. economy, effectiveness and efficiency.\n2. Authorising officers shall be responsible for implementing Athena\u2019s revenue and expenditure in accordance with the principles of sound financial management and for ensuring that the requirements of legality and regularity are complied with. To implement expenditure, the authorising officers shall make budgetary commitments and legal commitments, shall validate expenditure and authorise payments and shall undertake the preliminaries for the implementation of appropriations. An authorising officer may delegate his duties by a decision determining:\n(a)\nstaff at an appropriate level for such delegation;\n(b)\nthe extent of the conferred powers;\n(c)\nthe scope for beneficiaries to subdelegate their powers.\n3. The implementation of appropriations according to the principle of the segregation of the authorising officer and the accounting officer shall be ensured. The duties of authorising officer and accounting officer shall be mutually incompatible. Any payment made from funds administered by Athena shall require the joint signature of an authorising officer and an accounting officer.\n4. Without prejudice to this Decision, when the implementation of common expenditure is entrusted to a Member State, a Union institution or, as appropriate, an international organisation, that State, institution or organisation shall apply the rules applicable to the implementation of its own expenditure. When the administrator implements expenditure directly, it shall comply with the rules applicable to the implementation of the \u2018Council\u2019 section of the general budget of the European Union.\n5. However, the administrator may provide the Presidency with elements for proposal to the Council or the Special Committee on rules for the implementation of common expenditure.\n6. The Special Committee may approve rules for the implementation of common expenditure which depart from paragraph 4.\nArticle 31\nCommon costs incurred in preparation for, or further to, operations, or not linked directly to a specific operation\nThe administrator shall perform the duties of authorising officer for expenditure covering the common costs incurred in preparation for, or further to, operations, as well as common costs which cannot be linked directly to a specific operation.\nArticle 32\nOperational common costs\n1. The operation commander shall carry out the duties of authorising officer for expenditure covering the operational common costs of the operation he commands. However, the administrator shall carry out the duties of authorising officer for expenditure covering the operational common costs incurred during the preparatory phase of a specific operation, which are implemented directly by Athena, or related to the operation after the end of its active phase.\n2. The sums required for the implementation of expenditure on an operation shall be transferred by the administrator from Athena\u2019s bank account to the operation commander, upon his request, into the bank account opened on behalf of Athena, of which the operation commander has provided the details.\n3. By way of derogation from Article 18(5), the adoption of a reference amount shall activate the right of the administrator and the operation commander, each in his area of competence, to commit and pay expenses for the operation concerned up to the percentage of the reference amount approved as provided for in Article 25(1), unless the Council decides on a higher level for commitments.\nThe Special Committee, on the basis of a proposal from the administrator or the operation commander and taking into account the operational necessity and urgency, may decide that additional expenditure may be committed and, as appropriate, paid. The Special Committee may decide to refer the question to the competent preparatory bodies at the Council through the Presidency unless operational circumstances dictate otherwise. This derogation shall not be applied as from the date of adoption of a budget for the operation concerned.\n4. During the period prior to the adoption of a budget for an operation, the administrator and the operation commander or his representative shall report to the Special Committee every month, each reporting on the matters concerning him, as regards the expenses which are eligible as common costs for that operation. The Special Committee, on the basis of a proposal by the administrator, the operation commander or a Member State, may issue directives on the implementation of expenditure during that period.\n5. By way of derogation from Article 18(5), in the case of imminent danger to the lives of personnel involved in an EU military operation, the operation commander for that operation may implement the necessary expenditure to save the lives of those personnel, in excess of the appropriations entered in the budget. He shall inform the administrator and the Special Committee as soon as possible. In such a case, the administrator shall, liaising with the operation commander, propose the transfers needed to finance this unexpected expenditure. If it is not possible to ensure sufficient funding for such expenditure by means of a transfer, the administrator shall propose an amending budget.\nCHAPTER 9\nFINAL DESTINATION OF EQUIPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCED IN COMMON\nArticle 33\nEquipment and infrastructure\n1. With a view to winding up the operation which he has commanded, the operation commander shall propose a final destination for the equipment and infrastructure financed in common for that operation. He shall propose to the Special Committee the relevant rate of depreciation as necessary.\n2. The administrator shall manage the equipment and infrastructure remaining after the end of the active phase of the operation, with a view if necessary to finding its final destination. He shall propose to the Special Committee the relevant rate of depreciation as necessary.\n3. The depreciation rate for equipment, infrastructure and other assets shall be approved by the Special Committee at the earliest time possible.\n4. The final destination of equipment and infrastructure financed in common shall be approved by the Special Committee, taking into account operational needs and financial criteria. The final destination may be as follows:\n(a)\nin the case of infrastructure, be sold or transferred through Athena to the host country, a Member State or a third party;\n(b)\nin the case of equipment, be sold through Athena to a Member State, the host country or a third party, or be stored and maintained by Athena, a Member State or such a third party, for use in a subsequent operation.\n5. When sold, equipment and infrastructure shall be sold for their market value, or, where no market value can be determined, for a fair and reasonable price taking into account specific local conditions.\n6. Sale or transfer to the host country or a third party shall be in accordance with the relevant security rules in force.\n7. When it is decided that Athena shall retain equipment financed in common for an operation, the contributing Member States may ask for financial compensation from the other participating Member States. The Special Committee, composed of the representatives of all the participating Member States, shall take the appropriate decisions on the basis of a proposal from the administrator.\nCHAPTER 10\nACCOUNTING AND INVENTORY\nArticle 34\nAccounting for operational common costs\nThe operation commander shall keep accounts of transfers received from Athena, of expenditure he has committed and of payments made and of revenue received, as well as an inventory of the movable property financed by the Athena budget and used for the operation which he commands.\nArticle 35\nConsolidated accounts\n1. The accounting officer shall keep the accounts of contributions called for and transfers made. He shall also draw up the accounts for the common costs incurred in preparation for, or further to, operations, and for operational expenditure and revenue implemented under the direct responsibility of the administrator.\n2. The accounting officer shall draw up the consolidated accounts for Athena\u2019s revenue and expenditure. Each operation commander shall send him the accounts for the expenditure he has committed and the payments he has made, and of revenue received.\nCHAPTER 11\nAUDIT AND PRESENTATION OF ACCOUNTS\nArticle 36\nRegular reports to the Special Committee\nEvery three months, the administrator shall present to the Special Committee a report on the implementation of revenue and expenditure since the beginning of the financial year. To this end, every operation commander shall provide the administrator with a report on expenditure relating to the operational common costs of the operation which he commands.\nArticle 37\nConditions for the exercise of controls\n1. The persons responsible for auditing Athena\u2019s revenue and expenditure shall, before carrying out their task, have received clearance for access to classified information up to at least \u2018Secret UE\u2019 level held by the Council, or equivalent clearance from a Member State or NATO, as appropriate. Those persons shall ensure that they respect the confidentiality of the information and protect the data of which they acquire knowledge during their audit task, in accordance with the rules applicable to that information and those data.\n2. The persons responsible for auditing Athena\u2019s revenue and expenditure shall have access without delay and without giving prior notice to the documents and to the contents of all data supports relating to that revenue and expenditure, and to the premises where those documents and supports are kept. They may make copies. The persons involved in implementing Athena\u2019s revenue and expenditure shall give the administrator and the persons responsible for the audit of that revenue and expenditure the necessary assistance in performing their task.\nArticle 38\nExternal auditing of the accounts\n1. When the implementation of Athena\u2019s expenditure has been entrusted to a Member State, a Union institution or an international organisation, that State, institution or organisation shall apply the rules which apply to the auditing of its own expenditure.\n2. However, the administrator or persons appointed by him may at any time carry out an audit of the common costs of Athena incurred in preparation for, or further to, operations, or the operational common costs of an operation. Furthermore, the Special Committee, on the basis of a proposal by the administrator or a Member State, may at any time appoint external auditors, whose tasks and conditions of employment it shall determine.\n3. With a view to external audits, a six-member College of Auditors shall be established. The Special Committee shall appoint members for a three-year period, renewable once, from candidates proposed by the Member States. The Special Committee may extend a member\u2019s mandate by up to six months.\nThe candidates must be members of the highest national audit body of a Member State, or recommended by that body, and offer adequate guarantees of security and independence. They must be available to carry out tasks on behalf of Athena as needed. In carrying out these tasks:\n(a)\nthe members of the College shall continue to be paid by their audit body of origin; Athena shall bear their mission expenses in accordance with the rules applicable to officials of the European Union of an equivalent grade;\n(b)\nthe members shall neither request nor receive instructions other than from the Special Committee; within its audit mandate the College of Auditors and its members shall be completely independent and solely responsible for the conduct of the external audit;\n(c)\nthe members shall only report on their task to the Special Committee;\n(d)\nthe members shall check during the financial year as well as ex post, through controls on the spot as well as on supporting documents, that expenditure financed or pre-financed through Athena is implemented in accordance with the legislation applicable and the principles of sound financial management, i.e. economy, effectiveness and efficiency, and that internal controls are adequate.\nEach year, the College of Auditors shall elect its chairman from amongst its members or extend his term of office. It shall adopt the rules applicable to audits carried out by its members in accordance with the highest international standards. The College of Auditors shall approve the audit reports drawn up by its members before their transmission to the administrator and to the Special Committee.\n4. The Special Committee may decide on a case-by-case basis and upon specific motivations to use other external bodies.\n5. The cost of the audits carried out by auditors acting on behalf of Athena shall be considered as a common cost to be borne by Athena.\nArticle 39\nInternal auditing of the accounts\n1. On the basis of a proposal by the administrator and after informing the Special Committee, the Secretary-General of the Council shall appoint an internal auditor of the Athena mechanism, and at least one deputy internal auditor, for a period of three years, renewable once; internal auditors must have the necessary professional qualifications and offer sufficient guarantees of security and independence. The internal auditor may not be either an authorising officer or accounting officer; he may not take part in the preparation of financial statements.\n2. The internal auditor shall report to the administrator on dealing with risks, by issuing independent opinions on the quality of management and control systems and by issuing recommendations for improving the internal audit in operations and promoting sound financial management. He shall be responsible in particular for assessing the suitability and effectiveness of internal management systems and the performance of departments in implementing policies and reaching objectives by reference to the risks associated with them.\n3. The internal auditor shall perform his duties on all departments involved in the collection of Athena\u2019s revenue or the implementation of expenditure financed through Athena.\n4. The internal auditor shall perform one or more audits during the financial year as appropriate. He shall report to the administrator and inform the operation commander of his findings and recommendations. The operation commander and the administrator shall ensure that action is taken on recommendations resulting from the audits.\n5. The administrator shall submit a report each year to the Special Committee on the internal audit work done, indicating the number and type of internal audits carried out, observations made, recommendations put forward and how those recommendations were followed up.\n6. Furthermore, each operation commander shall give the internal auditor full access to the operation which he commands. The internal auditor shall check that the financial and budgetary systems and procedures function correctly, and shall ensure that robust and effective internal audit systems are in operation.\n7. The proceedings and reports of the internal auditor shall be made available to the College of Auditors along with all supporting documents relating thereto.\nArticle 40\nAnnual presentation and closure of accounts\n1. Each operation commander shall provide Athena\u2019s accounting officer by 31 March following the end of the financial year, or within four months following the end of the operation which he commands, whichever is the earlier, with the necessary information to establish the annual accounts for common costs, the annual accounts for expenditure pre-financed and reimbursed pursuant to Article 28 and the annual activity report.\n2. The administrator, with the assistance of the accounting officer and each operation commander, shall establish and provide to the Special Committee and the College of Auditors, by 15 May following the end of the financial year, the financial statements and the annual activity report.\n3. The Special Committee shall be provided, within eight weeks of the transmission of the financial statements, by the College of Auditors with an audit opinion and, by the administrator, assisted by the accounting officer and each operation commander, with Athena\u2019s audited financial statements.\n4. The Special Committee shall be provided, by 30 September following the end of the financial year, with the audit report by the College of Auditors, and shall examine the audit report, the audit opinion and the financial statements with a view to granting a discharge to the administrator, the accounting officer and each operation commander.\n5. All accounts and inventories shall be retained, each at his level, by the accounting officer and each operation commander for a period of five years from the date on which the corresponding discharge was granted. When an operation is terminated, the operation commander shall ensure transmission of all accounts and inventories to the accounting officer.\n6. The Special Committee shall decide to enter the balance of the budget outturn for a financial year for which the accounts have been approved in the budget for the following financial year, as revenue or expenditure depending on the circumstances, by means of an amending budget. The Special Committee may, however, decide to enter the balance of the abovementioned budget outturn after having received the audit opinion from the College of Auditors.\n7. The part of the balance of the budget outturn for a financial year which comes from the implementation of appropriations intended to cover common costs incurred in preparation for, or further to, operations, shall be entered against the next contributions from participating Member States.\n8. The part of the balance of the budget outturn which comes from the implementation of appropriations intended to cover the operational common costs of a given operation shall be entered against the next contributions from the Member States which have contributed to that operation.\n9. If reimbursement cannot be done by deduction from the contributions due to Athena, the balance of the budget outturn shall be repaid to the Member States concerned according to the GNI key of the year of reimbursement.\n10. Each Member State participating in an operation may provide information by 31 March each year to the administrator, where appropriate through the operation commander, on the incremental costs it has incurred for the operation during the previous financial year. This information shall be broken down to show the main items of expenditure. The administrator shall compile this information in order to provide the Special Committee with an overview of the incremental costs of the operation.\nArticle 41\nClosure of the accounts of an operation\n1. When an operation is complete, the Special Committee may decide, on the basis of a proposal by the administrator or by a Member State, that the administrator, with the assistance of the accounting officer and of the operation commander, shall submit to the Special Committee the financial statements for that operation, at least up to the date on which it was completed, and, if possible, up to the date on which it was wound up. The deadline imposed on the administrator may not be less than four months from the date on which the operation was completed.\n2. If the financial statements cannot, within the given deadline, include the revenue and expenditure connected with the winding up of that operation, that revenue and expenditure shall appear in the financial statements for Athena and shall be examined by the Special Committee in the context of the procedure foreseen in Article 40.\n3. The Special Committee shall, based on an opinion of the College of Auditors, approve the financial statements for the operation which have been submitted to it. It shall grant a discharge to the administrator, the accounting officer and each operation commander for the operation in question.\n4. If reimbursement cannot be done by deduction from the contributions due to Athena, the balance of the budget outturn shall be repaid to the Member States concerned according to the GNI key of the year of reimbursement.\nCHAPTER 12\nMISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS\nArticle 42\nLiability\n1. The conditions governing the disciplinary or criminal liability of the operation commander, the administrator and other staff made available in particular by the Union institutions or Member States, in the event of misconduct or negligence in the implementation of the budget shall be governed by the staff regulations or the arrangements applicable to them. In addition, Athena may at its own initiative or at the request of a contributing State bring a civil action against the abovementioned staff.\n2. In no case may the Union or the Secretary-General of the Council be held liable by a contributing State as a result of the performance of their duties by the administrator, the accounting officer or the staff assigned to them.\n3. The contractual liability which may arise from contracts concluded in the context of implementation of the budget shall be covered through Athena by the contributing States. It shall be governed by the law applicable to the contracts in question.\n4. In the case of non-contractual liability, any damage caused by the operation headquarters, force headquarters and component headquarters of the crisis structure, the composition of which shall be approved by the operation commander, or by their staff in the course of their duties shall be covered through Athena by the contributing States, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States and the staff regulations of the forces, applicable in the theatre of operations.\n5. In no case may the Union or the Member States be held liable by a contributing State for contracts concluded in the framework of budget implementation or for damage caused by the units and departments of the crisis structure, the composition of which shall be approved by the operation commander, or by their staff in the course of their duties.\nArticle 43\nReview and revision\nAll or part of the present Decision, including its Annexes, shall be reviewed, if necessary, at the request of a Member State or following each operation. It shall be revised at least every three years. In the course of review or revision, all experts relevant to the proceedings, including in Athena\u2019s management bodies, may be called upon.\nArticle 44\nFinal provisions\nDecision 2008/975/CFSP is hereby repealed.\nArticle 45\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 19 December 2011.", "references": ["29", "61", "52", "18", "73", "86", "22", "11", "7", "87", "41", "96", "20", "34", "36", "62", "81", "14", "82", "58", "25", "64", "47", "74", "13", "55", "71", "3", "44", "57", "No Label", "6", "9", "10"], "gold": ["6", "9", "10"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 December 2010\nrecognising in principle the completeness of the dossier submitted for detailed examination in view of the possible inclusion of pyriofenone in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC\n(notified under document C(2010) 9076)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/785/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 91/414/EEC provides for the development of a European Union list of active substances authorised for incorporation in plant protection products.\n(2)\nThe dossier for the active substance pyriofenone was submitted by ISK Biosciences Europe SA to the authorities of the United Kingdom on 31 March 2010 with the application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nThe authorities of the United Kingdom have indicated to the Commission that, on preliminary examination, the dossier for the active substance concerned appears to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC. The dossier submitted appears also to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substance concerned. In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, the dossier was subsequently forwarded by the applicant to the Commission and other Member States, and was referred to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.\n(4)\nBy this Decision it should be formally confirmed at European Union level that the dossier is considered as satisfying in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II and, for at least one plant protection product containing the active substance concerned, the requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe dossier concerning the active substance identified in the Annex to this Decision, which was submitted to the Commission and the Member States with a view to obtaining the inclusion of that substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, satisfies in principle the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to that Directive.\nThe dossier also satisfies the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substance, taking into account the uses proposed.\nArticle 2\nThe rapporteur Member State shall pursue the detailed examination for the dossier referred to in Article 1 and shall communicate to the Commission the conclusions of its examination accompanied by any recommendations on the inclusion or non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substance referred to in Article 1 and any conditions for that inclusion as soon as possible and by 31 December 2011 at the latest.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 December 2010.", "references": ["54", "97", "79", "75", "45", "88", "10", "60", "80", "35", "37", "22", "84", "64", "43", "46", "12", "90", "24", "99", "0", "94", "52", "61", "11", "23", "82", "38", "31", "57", "No Label", "2", "25", "41", "65", "76"], "gold": ["2", "25", "41", "65", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 492/2012\nof 7 June 2012\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Berenjena de Almagro (PGI))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1), and in application of Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Spain\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification of the protected geographical indication \u2018Berenjena de Almagro\u2019 registered on the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2206/2003 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendment should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["89", "61", "12", "27", "95", "14", "35", "10", "62", "55", "46", "5", "2", "85", "74", "92", "63", "58", "32", "56", "26", "1", "42", "79", "29", "72", "93", "64", "87", "90", "No Label", "24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1220/2010\nof 17 December 2010\non selling prices for cereals in response to the third individual invitations to tender within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(f), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010 (2) has opened the sales of cereals by tendering procedures, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission has to fix for each cereal and per Member State a minimum selling price or to decide not to fix a minimum selling price.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders received for the third individual invitations to tender, it has been decided that a minimum selling price should be fixed for certain cereals and for certain Member States and no minimum selling price should be fixed for other cereals and other Member States.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the third individual invitations to tender for selling of cereals within the tendering procedures opened by Regulation (EU) No 1017/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 15 December 2010, the decisions on the selling price per cereal and Member State are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 December 2010.", "references": ["41", "11", "88", "7", "16", "91", "80", "90", "60", "54", "84", "76", "44", "17", "99", "35", "29", "92", "21", "67", "10", "57", "26", "40", "78", "0", "25", "64", "1", "55", "No Label", "20", "68", "96"], "gold": ["20", "68", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 328/2010\nof 21 April 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas and introducing a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and certain other agricultural products imported from third countries\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 134 and 148 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 (2) draws a distinction between traditional and new importers in respect of traders that may apply for import licences for garlic under the tariff quotas that are opened and administered under that Regulation.\n(2)\nIn order to ensure fair opportunities to all traders concerned, it is appropriate to enlarge the category of importers to include certain exporters of garlic to third countries within the categories of traders who may apply for import licences under the tariff quota system.\n(3)\nThe amount of the security referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 1(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (3) should be fixed at an appropriate level of 5 % of the additional duty applicable to importers of garlic, namely EUR 60 per tonne.\n(4)\nArticle 8 of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 provides that the reference quantities of traditional importers are calculated on the basis of maximum quantities of garlic imported during previous calendar years or import tariff quota periods. In order to avoid that these reference quantities are calculated on the basis of historic data which no longer reflect a genuine economic activity, it is appropriate to provide that the reference quantity should be the average of the quantities of garlic actually imported by a traditional importer during the three years which preceded the related import tariff quota period.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure efficient market management, it is appropriate to provide for a time period during which applications for \u2018A\u2019 licences may be lodged which would be chronologically close to the subperiod for which the applications are lodged.\n(6)\nFor the purpose of improving control and in order to allow a rapid reaction from the competent authorities in case of errors or malfunctioning of the system, the Member States should notify the Commission of the quantities for which licence applications have been lodged for the relevant subperiod.\n(7)\nThe reference to working days when calculating the time periods could lead to different situations among the Member States. It is therefore appropriate to use calendar days instead.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 341/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThis Regulation should apply from 1 May 2010. However, in order to ensure that importers have sufficient time to adapt themselves to the new legal framework, the new provisions concerning the calculation of the reference period and the submission of proof of the actually imported garlic should only apply from 1 February 2011.\n(10)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 341/2007 is amended as follows:\n1.\nIn Article 4(2), point (b) of the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nimported into the Union at least 50 tonnes of fruits and vegetables as referred to in Article 1(1)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (4) or exported to third countries at least 50 tonnes of garlic during the last completed import tariff quota period preceding the submission of their application.\n2.\nIn Article 4(3), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018New importers shall mean operators other than those referred to in paragraph 2, who have imported into the Union at least 50 tonnes of fruit and vegetables as referred to in Article 1(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 or have exported to third countries at least 50 tonnes of garlic in each of the previous two completed import tariff quota periods, or in each of the previous two calendar years preceding the submission of their application.\u2019\n3.\nArticle 4(4) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe second subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Proof of trade with third countries shall be furnished exclusively either by means of the customs documents of release for free circulation, duly endorsed by the customs authorities and containing a reference to the applicant concerned as being the consignee, or by means of the customs document of exportation duly endorsed by the customs authorities.\u2019\n(b)\nthe following third subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Customs agents or their representatives shall not apply for import licences under the quotas falling within the scope of this Regulation.\u2019\n4.\nArticle 6 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. \u201cA\u201d licences shall be valid only for the subperiod for which they have been issued. Box 24 thereof shall show one of the entries listed in Annex III.\u2019\n(b)\nthe following paragraph 2 is inserted:\n\u20182. The security referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 shall amount to EUR 60 per tonne.\u2019\n5.\nArticle 8 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 8\nReference quantity of traditional importers\nFor the purposes of this Chapter, the \u201creference quantity\u201d shall be the average of the quantities of garlic actually imported by a traditional importer, within the meaning of Article 4, during the three calendar years preceding the related import tariff quota period.\u2019\n6.\nIn Article 10, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Importers shall lodge their applications for \u201cA\u201d licences during the first seven calendar days of April for the first subperiod, during the first seven calendar days of July for the second subperiod, during the first seven calendar days of October for the third subperiod and during the first seven calendar days of January for the fourth subperiod.\u2019\n7.\nIn Article 10(1), the following second subparagraph is added:\n\u2018At the time of their first application for import licences for a given import tariff quota period under this Regulation, importers shall submit the proof of the actually imported quantities of garlic for the years referred to in Article 8.\u2019\n8.\nArticle 11 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 11\nIssuing of \u201cA\u201d licences\n\u201cA\u201d licences shall be issued by the competent authorities starting from the 23rd day of the month in which the applications were submitted and not later than the end of that month.\u2019\n9.\nIn Article 12(1), the first and second subparagraphs are replaced by the following:\n\u2018By the 14th day of each month referred to in Article 10(1), the Member States shall notify the Commission of the total quantities in kilograms, including nil returns, for which \u201cA\u201d licence applications have been lodged in respect of the relevant subperiod.\nBy way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, the Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantities referred to in point b) of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of that Regulation not later than 10 May for the first subperiod, 10 August for the second subperiod, 10 November for the third subperiod and 10 February for the fourth subperiod.\u2019\n10.\nIn Article 14, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Member States shall notify the Commission of the total quantities, including nil returns, covered by \u201cB\u201d licence applications by Wednesday of each week in respect of applications received the previous week.\u2019\n11.\nIn Article 15, point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\na certificate of origin issued by the competent national authorities of that country in accordance with Articles 55 to 65 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 is presented;\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 May 2010.\nHowever, points (5) and (7) of Article 1 shall apply from 1 February 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 April 2010.", "references": ["49", "10", "36", "89", "5", "45", "87", "63", "1", "35", "44", "7", "53", "54", "84", "59", "55", "41", "58", "67", "81", "51", "93", "33", "32", "47", "83", "22", "26", "96", "No Label", "4", "21", "23", "66", "68"], "gold": ["4", "21", "23", "66", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 205/2012\nof 6 January 2012\namending Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the data source and the data parameters to be reported by Member States\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 setting emission performance standards for new light commercial vehicles as part of the Union\u2019s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 8(9) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Articles 18 and 26 of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (2), a manufacturer must ensure that each new light commercial vehicle placed on the market in the Union is accompanied by a valid certificate of conformity and a Member State may not register such a vehicle unless it is accompanied by such a certificate. In accordance with Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011, data collected by a Member State to monitor the manufacturer\u2019s compliance with Articles 4 and 11 of that Regulation are to be consistent with a certificate of conformity and based on this document only.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community\u2019s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (3) requires the Member States to use the certificate of conformity as a data source but allows for the use of other documents providing equivalent accuracy for the monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions from passenger cars. In order to ensure cost-efficient and accurate monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions data for light commercial vehicles, it is appropriate in the short-term to allow Member States to use the same procedure and data sources for the monitoring and reporting under Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 as those used for reporting under Regulation (EC) No 443/2009. Therefore, Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 should, where duly justified, allow for the use of other data sources providing equivalent accuracy for CO2 monitoring and reporting purposes. The Member States should put the necessary measures in place to ensure adequate accuracy in the monitoring procedure.\n(3)\nBased on the experience gained from the monitoring of CO2 emissions from passenger cars, it is appropriate, in order to improve the means for verifying the accuracy of the data, to add type-approval number as a detailed data parameter to be reported by Member States. It has also become evident that there is no need for the parameter \u2018commercial name\u2019 which therefore should be deleted from the detailed monitoring data.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure clarity and precision in the monitoring and reporting by Member States, it is also necessary to ensure consistency between the different requirements specified in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011. The detailed data requirements are specified in the reporting formats set out in Part C of Annex II. Parts A and B of that Annex should therefore be adjusted to reflect those detailed data requirements accurately.\n(5)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 January 2012.", "references": ["74", "4", "73", "65", "15", "23", "52", "62", "70", "17", "7", "88", "25", "26", "48", "34", "59", "61", "98", "82", "64", "55", "16", "5", "41", "49", "93", "19", "50", "46", "No Label", "42", "54", "58", "60", "76"], "gold": ["42", "54", "58", "60", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 24 September 2010\namending, for the purposes of adapting to scientific and technical progress, the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards exemptions for applications containing lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls or polybrominated diphenyl ethers\n(notified under document C(2010) 6403)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/571/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (1), and in particular Article 5(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2002/95/EC prohibits the use of lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) put on the market after 1 July 2006. Exemptions from that prohibition are listed in the Annex to that Directive. Those exemptions need to be reviewed in order to adapt them to scientific and technical progress.\n(2)\nAs a result of the review of the exemptions, certain applications containing lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium should continue to be exempted from the prohibition since the elimination of these hazardous substances in those specific applications is still scientifically or technically impracticable. It is therefore appropriate to maintain those exemptions.\n(3)\nAs a result of the review of the exemptions, for certain applications containing lead, mercury, or cadmium the elimination or substitution of the use of those substances has become scientifically or technically possible. It is therefore appropriate to delete those exemptions.\n(4)\nAs a result of the review of the exemptions, for certain applications containing lead, mercury or cadmium, the elimination or substitution of the use of those substances will become scientifically or technically possible in the foreseeable future. It is therefore appropriate to set expiry dates for those exemptions.\n(5)\nAs a result of the review of the exemptions, for certain applications containing mercury, partial elimination or substitution of the use of that substance is scientifically or technically possible. It is therefore appropriate to reduce the amount of mercury that may be used in those applications.\n(6)\nAs a result of the review of the exemptions, for certain applications containing mercury, in the foreseeable future only the partial and gradual elimination or substitution of the use of that substance is scientifically or technically possible. It is therefore appropriate to gradually reduce the amount of mercury that may be used in those applications.\n(7)\nIn certain cases it is technically impossible to repair EEE with spare parts other than original ones. Therefore, in those cases only, the use of spare parts containing lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, or polybrominated diphenyl ethers, which benefited from an exemption, should be allowed in the repair of EEE, which was placed on the market before that exemption expired or was terminated.\n(8)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 244/2009 of 18 March 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for non-directional household lamps (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 245/2009 of 18 March 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for fluorescent lamps without integrated ballast, for high intensity discharge lamps, and for ballasts and luminaires able to operate such lamps, and repealing Directive 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) provide for indicative benchmarks as concerns the use of mercury in lamps. Although the mercury content of lamps was identified as a significant environmental parameter in Regulations (EC) No 244/2009 and (EC) No 245/2009, it was considered more appropriate to regulate it in Directive 2002/95/EC, which covers also lamp types exempted from those regulations.\n(9)\nAs a result of the analysis undertaken for measures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 244/2009, for certain applications containing mercury, partial elimination or substitution of the use of this substance is scientifically or technically possible without negative environmental, health and/or consumer safety impacts that outweigh the benefits of substitution. It is therefore appropriate to reduce the mercury content for those applications in line with Regulation (EC) No 244/2009.\n(10)\nIt is necessary to make substantial changes to the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC. Therefore, for reasons of clarity, the whole Annex should be replaced.\n(11)\nPursuant to Article 5(2) of Directive 2002/95/EC, the Commission has consulted the relevant parties.\n(12)\nDirective 2002/95/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 18 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 September 2010.", "references": ["42", "50", "93", "19", "44", "47", "20", "33", "98", "21", "94", "29", "69", "18", "70", "39", "31", "23", "57", "15", "74", "1", "12", "58", "25", "38", "36", "6", "62", "4", "No Label", "24", "60", "76", "77", "83", "84", "86"], "gold": ["24", "60", "76", "77", "83", "84", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 423/2010\nof 17 May 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 368/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 May 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 May 2010.", "references": ["87", "38", "82", "94", "90", "64", "6", "57", "56", "68", "29", "76", "70", "49", "5", "8", "96", "75", "20", "98", "21", "99", "63", "18", "51", "33", "79", "12", "7", "1", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 685/2010\nof 26 July 2010\nestablishing the fishing opportunities for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay for the 2010/11 fishing season and amending Regulation (EU) No 53/2010\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIt 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\u2019s fishing activities for all stocks or fisheries and having due regard to the objectives of the common fisheries policy established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1).\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 (2) established the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, including anchovy, in the Bay of Biscay (ICES Zone VIII) for 2010.\n(3)\nThe new TAC for the 2010/11 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. For the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay, the advice from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) of 16 July 2010 is based on a fishing season running from 1 July each year until 30 June of the following year.\n(4)\nFor the purposes of suitable stock management and simplification, it is appropriate to set a new TAC for this stock and to set new Member State quotas in accordance with the abovementioned dates for the 2010/11 fishing season.\n(5)\nIn order to provide for a multiannual plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay covering the fishing season and establishing the harvest rule applying for the fixing of fishing opportunities, on 29 July 2009 the Commission presented a proposal for a regulation establishing a long-term plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay and the fisheries exploiting that stock. The advice from the STECF estimated the stock biomass to be approximately 51 350 tonnes. Having regard to that Commission proposal and considering that the impact assessment underlying that proposal provided for the most recent assessment of the impact of decisions on the fishing opportunities for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay, it is appropriate to fix a TAC for that stock accordingly. Consequently, the TAC for the fishing season running from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 should be established at 15 600 tonnes.\n(6)\nIn view of the specific scope and time of application of the fishing opportunities for anchovy, it is appropriate to establish those fishing opportunities by way of a separate regulation and to amend Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 accordingly. The fishery should nevertheless remain subject to the general provisions of Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 concerning the conditions for the use of quotas.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (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.\n(8)\nIn view of the start of this fishing season and for the purpose of the annual reporting of catches, this Regulation should enter into force immediately and apply from 1 July 2010. For that same purpose, the amendment of the fishing opportunities established by Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 should apply from 1 January 2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFishing opportunities for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay\n1. The total allowable catch (TAC) and its allocation between Member States for the fishing season running from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2011 for the stock of anchovy in ICES Zone VIII as defined in Regulation (EC) No 218/2009 shall be as follows (in tonnes live weight):\nSpecies\n:\nAnchovy\nEngraulis encrasicolus\nICES Zone\n:\nVIII\n(ANE/08.)\nSpain\n14 040\nFrance\n1 560\nEU\n15 600\nTAC\n15 600\n2. The allocation of the fishing opportunities as set out in paragraph 1 and the use thereof shall be subject to the conditions set out Articles 7, 10 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 53/2010.\n3. The stock referred to in paragraph 1 shall be considered subject to an analytical TAC for the purpose of Regulation (EC) No 847/96. Article 3(2) and (3) and Article 4 of that Regulation shall apply.\nArticle 2\nAmendment to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010\nIn Annex IA to Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 the entry for anchovy in zone VIII is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Species\n:\nAnchovy\nEngraulis encrasicolus\nZone\n:\nVIII\n(ANE/08.)\nSpain\n6 300\nFrance\n700\nEU\n7 000\nTAC\n7 000 (4)\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2010, with the exception of Article 2, which shall apply from 1 January 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["9", "57", "18", "42", "69", "37", "88", "70", "48", "62", "38", "31", "32", "61", "94", "29", "24", "34", "80", "76", "30", "74", "39", "7", "11", "81", "64", "65", "53", "12", "No Label", "13", "15", "58", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "15", "58", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/32/EU\nof 8 March 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include isoxaben as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included isoxaben.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of isoxaben.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Sweden, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nSweden evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 20 November 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on isoxaben to the Commission on 27 August 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for isoxaben.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing isoxaben may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include isoxaben in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit confirmatory information as regards the specification of the technical material, as commercially manufactured, the relevance of the impurities, the residues in rotational crops and the potential risk to aquatic organisms.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing isoxaben to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of isoxaben and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning isoxaben in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning isoxaben in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing isoxaben as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to isoxaben are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing isoxaben as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account Part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning isoxaben. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing isoxaben as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing isoxaben as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 March 2011.", "references": ["88", "69", "12", "68", "85", "6", "62", "79", "47", "90", "15", "37", "50", "51", "78", "82", "53", "76", "24", "58", "14", "95", "16", "96", "55", "57", "18", "5", "66", "73", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "60", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 846/2012\nof 18 September 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 September 2012.", "references": ["44", "38", "6", "15", "99", "25", "88", "4", "79", "7", "36", "9", "20", "45", "21", "40", "98", "3", "31", "23", "8", "50", "83", "80", "34", "89", "95", "66", "12", "72", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 2 February 2011\namending Decision 2003/248/EC as regards the extension of the duration of temporary derogations from certain provisions of Council Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of plants of strawberry (Fragaria L.), intended for planting, other than seeds, originating in Argentina\n(notified under document C(2011) 447)\n(2011/74/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Directive 2000/29/EC, plants of strawberry (Fragaria L.), intended for planting, other than seeds, originating in non-European countries, other than Mediterranean countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the continental states of the United States of America, may not in principle be introduced into the Union. However, that Directive permits derogations from that rule, provided that it is established that there is no risk of spreading harmful organisms.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2003/248/EC (2) authorises Member States to provide for temporary derogations from certain provisions of Directive 2000/29/EC to permit the import of plants of strawberry (Fragaria L.), intended for planting, other than seeds, originating in Argentina.\n(3)\nThe circumstances justifying the authorisation provided for in Decision 2003/248/EC are still present and there is no new information giving cause for revision of the specific conditions.\n(4)\nBy Commission Directive 2008/64/EC (3) Colletotrichum acutatum Simmonds was removed from point (c) of Section II of Part A of Annex II to Directive 2000/29/EC. Therefore this organism should no longer be included in the Annex to Decision 2003/248/EC.\n(5)\nBased on the experience gained with the application of Decision 2003/248/EC it is appropriate to extend the period of validity of that authorisation for 10 years.\n(6)\nDecision 2003/248/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2003/248/EC is amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe second paragraph of Article 1 of Decision 2003/248/EC is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The authorisation to provide for derogations, as provided for in paragraph 1 (hereinafter referred to as \u201cthe authorisation\u201d), shall be subject, in addition to the conditions laid down in Annexes I, II and IV to Directive 2000/29/EC, to the conditions provided for in the Annex to this Decision, and shall only apply to the plants that are introduced into the Union in the period from 1 June to 30 September of each year.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following Article 3a is inserted:\n\u2018Article 3a\nThis Decision shall expire on 30 September 2020.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe second indent of point 1(c) of the Annex is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 February 2011.", "references": ["54", "16", "19", "7", "28", "95", "45", "83", "51", "71", "72", "60", "20", "24", "87", "73", "81", "11", "86", "15", "3", "70", "56", "37", "64", "48", "85", "89", "78", "55", "No Label", "8", "22", "23", "61", "65", "68", "93"], "gold": ["8", "22", "23", "61", "65", "68", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 27 June 2012\non the State aid SA.28356 (C 37/09, ex N 226/09) - Habidite Alonsotegi\n(notified under document C(2012) 4194)\n(Only the Spanish text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2013/198/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Decision by which the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty, in respect of the aid C 37/09 (ex N 226/09) (2),\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above, and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nOn 15 April 2009 the Spanish authorities notified for legal certainty purposes two contracts, concluded on 15 December 2006, between BIZKAILUR S.A. (hereinafter \"BIZKAILUR\") and the Diputaci\u00f3n Foral de Bizkaia (hereinafter \"the Diputaci\u00f3n\"), on the one hand, and on the other hand, by the private undertakings Habidite Technologies Pa\u00eds Vasco S.A. (hereinafter \"Habidite\"), Grupo Empresarial AFER S.L. (hereinafter \"the AFER group\") and the Habidite group.\n(2)\nOn 2 December 2009 the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty with regard to the notified contracts (hereinafter: \"the opening Decision\") (3). The opening Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 12 March 2010 (4).\n(3)\nThe Spanish authorities did not submit comments on the opening Decision. Habidite commented on the opening Decision by letter of 9 April 2010. These comments were transmitted to the Spanish authorities by letter of 15 April 2010, who replied by letter of 12 May 2010. No other third parties commented on the opening Decision.\n(4)\nOn 6 September 2010 Habidite requested access to the file documents originating from the Spanish authorities under Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 (5). The Commission consulted the Spanish authorities on this request on 10 September 2010. The Spanish authorities replied on 13 September that they did not object to granting access to the requested documents to Habidite. The requested documents were transmitted to Habidite on 7 October 2010.\n(5)\nThe Commission requested additional information from the Spanish authorities by letters of 28 June 2010 - to which the Spanish authorities replied on 26 July 2010, and 8 December 2010 - to which the Spanish authorities replied on 14 January 2011.\n(6)\nHabidite submitted additional comments and information on: 27 July 2010 - to which the Spanish authorities replied on 3 November 2011; 6 April 2011 (registered on 13 April 2011) - to which the Spanish authorities replied on 30 May 2011 (registered on 6 June 2011); and 7 July 2011. The Commission services met on 3 February 2011 in Brussels with representatives of Habidite, at the latter\u2019s request.\nII. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE\n(7)\nThe two contracts which are the subject of this Decision were concluded on 15 December 2006 between BIZKAILUR and the Diputaci\u00f3n, on the one side, and on the other side, Habidite, the AFER group and the Habidite group.\n(8)\nBIZKAILUR was a company 100 % owned by the Diputaci\u00f3n whose social object was the purchase and adaptation of land for promoting industrial and social housing projects in the province of Bizkaia. As of June 2010 BIZKAILUR was merged, together with other public companies with similar scope of activity, into the current AZPIEGITURAK S.A.U., also 100 % owned by the Diputaci\u00f3n, and which continues the same line of activities (6).\n(9)\nHabidite, together with other linked companies in the Habidite group, is part of the private AFER group, headquartered in Ortuella, Bizkaia (7). At the date of the notification, the AFER group comprised a total of 13 companies (8) active in the construction and adjacent sectors. All companies in the AFER group were at the time majority-owned and controlled by [\u2026] (9). According to the Diputaci\u00f3n and Habidite, neither Habidite nor the AFER group constituted firms in difficulty within the meaning of Points 9, 10 and 11 of the Community Guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (10) (hereinafter \"the R&R Guidelines\") at the time when the two notified contracts were concluded.\n(10)\nThe notified contracts were concluded to support a new investment project to be carried out by Habidite: the establishment of a factory of construction modules (hereinafter \"the Habidite factory\") in Alonsotegi, a village in the Gran Bilbao administrative area (comarca). On the date when the notified contracts were concluded, the Gran Bilbao comarca was deemed to be a region assisted under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty (11). The Habidite factory should have created 1 100 new jobs in this assisted area.\n(11)\nThe new factory would have produced the so-called \"Habidite modules\", i.e. prefabricated construction modules to be used for the direct assembly of homes/buildings. The Habidite modules were to be produced with a line assembly technology similar to the one used in the car manufacturing industry, and thereafter be transported and directly assembled at their future location. The product was considered to be innovative, not only because of the singular production technology involved, but also due to savings in time and resources in the assembly of the final product (buildings and homes), and to the use of materials allowing energy savings. The company had applied for several patents in relation to this product (12).\n(12)\nAccording to information provided by the Diputaci\u00f3n, the costs of this investment project in Alonsotegi were estimated at the time of signature of the two notified contracts at EUR 55 million, as follows:\nLand\nEUR 4,8 million\nIndustrial building\nEUR 22,5 million\nLand adaptation (urbanizaci\u00f3n)\nEUR 4,04 million\nInstallations\nEUR 24,0 million\nTotal\nEUR 55,34 million\n(13)\nThe annual production of the projected Habidite factory was estimated to be of 3 500 houses during the initial years of the functioning of the factory, and 4 500 houses once full production capacity would have been reached.\n(14)\nIn order to understand the context in which the notified contracts were concluded on 15 December 2006, it is necessary to shortly describe the legal framework in which social housing is provided in the Pa\u00eds Vasco (hereinafter \"the Basque Country\").\n(15)\nAverage real estate prices were higher in this autonomous community (comunidad aut\u00f3noma) than in the rest of Spain before the beginning of the crisis in 2008, and continue to remain higher up to the date of this Decision. The Basque authorities seek to ensure access to housing to the more disadvantaged categories of citizens by providing social housing under the protected regime (viviendas protegidas) and under the semi-protected regime (viviendas tasadas). The nature of each of these two categories of social housing is explained below.\n(16)\nThe Ley 2/2006 del suelo y de urbanismo (13) (hereinafter \"Regional Law 2/2006\") established that:\n(a)\n40 % of the urban land qualified for construction shall be destined to protected (viviendas proteg\u00eddas) and semi-protected regime houses (viviendas tasadas), in proportion of 20 % for each (Article 80.2. of the Regional Law 2/2006);\n(b)\nfrom the extra-urban land qualified for construction, 55 % shall be reserved for protected regime housing (viviendas proteg\u00eddas) and 20 % for semi-protected regime housing (viviendas tasadas) (Article 80.3. of the Regional Law 2/2006).\n(17)\nHouses under the semi-protected regime housing (viviendas tasadas) belong to an intermediary category between social protection housing and houses sold freely in the market. The prices for semi-protected houses (viviendas tasadas) are limited by Regional Law 2/2006 to maximum 1,7 of the maximum prices for equivalent houses sold in fully-protected regime (viviendas proteg\u00eddas). The maximum prices for the latter category in the province of Bizkaia are established on the basis of the Orden (Order) of 1.8.2004 of the Housing and Social Affairs Department (14), which established an initial regulated price that was to be thereafter indexed annually on the basis of the \u013andice de Precios al Consumo (Consumption Price Index) (IPC) determined by the Instituto Nacional de Estad\u00edstica (Spanish National Institute of Statistics).\n(18)\nAccording to the Diputac\u00edon, in 2006, when the notified contracts were concluded, the resulting maximum prices for protected housing (viviendas proteg\u00eddas) were the following:\n-\nEUR 1 351,86/sqm for municipalities listed in Annex I of the Order of 1.8.2004;\n-\nEUR 1 307,94/sqm for municipalities listed in Annex II to the Order of 1.8.2004;\n-\nEUR 1 181,54/sqm for other municipalities;\n-\nEUR 472,40/sqm for the annexes (garage/box etc.).\nThe prices for the viviendas tasadas were topped to a maximum 1,7 of the above-indicated prices.\n(19)\nThe Diputaci\u00f3n informs that, when BIZKAILUR concluded with Habidite the notified contracts, the former was acting within the framework of Ley 7/1985 de 2 de abril del 1985 reguladora de las Bases del R\u00e9gimen Local (Law 7/1985) (15), which gives to the municipalities the autonomy to administrate matters of local interest, including the provision of social housing (Art. 25). Based on Article 109.2 of the Real Decreto 1372/1986 (Royal Decree 1372/1986) and on Article 79 of Law 7/1985 (in its consolidated version), the municipalities transfer to BIZKAILUR, be it free of charge or against a price, assets which are necessary for carrying out social housing objectives. At the time when the notified contracts were concluded, on 15 December 2006), the social housing objectives were defined in a Plan adopted by the Diputaci\u00f3n in 2004 on the provision of social housing in this province during the period 2004-2007 - the Plan Foral de actuaci\u00f3n en materia de vivienda 2004-2007 (hereinafter \u201cthe Plan Foral\u201d). According to the Diputaci\u00f3n, the Plan Foral foresaw that BIZKAILUR would have provided over the period 2004-2007 a total of 3 000 homes in protected regime.\n(20)\nUnder the first contract - identified in the opening Decision as \"Measure 1\", hereinafter referred to as \"the Land Contract\" - the Diputaci\u00f3n and BIZKAILUR undertake that the latter would have purchased and adapted for industrial use a surface totalling 101 430 sqm (81 600 sqm for the industrial plant, 5 300 sqm for offices and 14 300 sqm for industrial annexes) in the industrial area of Montealegre in Alonsotegi, within 24 months from the date of signature of the contract (Part Two, Article 1(ii) of the contract). BIZKAILUR would have transferred ownership of the adapted land surface to Habidite within 12 months from the date of signature of the contract (Part Two, Article 1(iii) of the contract), \"free of any charge, expense or contribution\", for a price equal to \"the effective costs incurred by BIZKAILUR for its purchase\" (Part Two, Article 1(vi) of the contract). This price would have been paid by Habidite within 7 years from the date of the transfer of ownership, in 4 equal instalments (of 25 % each), to be paid at the end the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th year (Part Two, Article 1(vii) of the contract).\n(21)\nUnder the second contract - identified in the opening Decision as \"Measure 2\", hereinafter referred to as \"the Houses Contract\" - the Diputaci\u00f3n, be it directly or through BIZKAILUR, would have purchased from Habidite a total of 1 500 homes, of which 750 with a surface of less than 75 sqm. The Diputaci\u00f3n or BIZKAILUR would have ordered the 1 500 homes between May 2007 and end of June 2010, so as to allow the delivery of the total number of 1 500 homes by May 2011.\n(22)\nThe contracted homes would have been built on land placed at the disposal of Habidite by BIZKAILUR, and then sold under the semi-protected regime (as viviendas tasadas), be it directly by the Diputaci\u00f3n or BIZKAILUR, be it by Habidite itself, in respecting the maximum pricing provisions applicable (see recitals (14) to (19)). When the contracted homes were to be sold by the Diputaci\u00f3n or BIZKAILUR, Habidite would not have acquired property of the land on which the houses were to be built. In such cases, it task would have been exclusively to build the homes.\n(23)\nThe Contract also allowed, on an exceptional basis, that for some of the contracted homes, Habidite or the AFER group could also have acted as promoters (Article A(f) of the Houses Contract). In such exceptional cases, Habidite or AFER would have first received ownership of the land necessary for the construction of the homes, then would have carried out the construction works, and finally, would have sold themselves the houses under the semi-protected regime (as viviendas tasadas). In such cases, Habidite or AFER would have only retained the stipulated price for the homes, as indicated below, while the part of the price corresponding to the land would have been transferred to the Diputaci\u00f3n and/or BIZKAILUR.\n(24)\nAccording to Article A(e) of the Houses Contract, the price to be obtained by Habidite for the 1 500 homes was as follows:\n(a)\nhomes over 75 sqm: 83 % of the price applied by BIZKAILUR for the living surface, plus 100 % of the price obtained for the annexes (garage, storage box);\n(b)\nhomes under 75 sqm: 83,30 % of the price obtained by BIZKAILUR for the living surface, plus 100 % of the price obtained for the annexes (garage, storage box, etc.)\n(25)\nBIZKAILUR would thus have retained the rest of 17 %, or 16,70 % respectively, of the price obtained for the houses (except for the annexes - garage, storage box, etc. - where the entire sale price would have been for Habidite).\n(26)\nIn an example provided by the Diputaci\u00f3n, for a house of 75 sqm to be sold under the semi-protected regime in 2006, Habidite would have obtained: EUR 143 060,58 (83 % of 75 sqm \u00d7 EUR 1,351 \u00d7 1,7), plus EUR 28 107,6 for the annexes (100 % of 35 sqm \u00d7 EUR 472,4), from the total price of EUR 200 459,5 at which BIZKAILUR would have sold the home under the semi-protected regime (as viviendas tasadas).\n(27)\nAccording to Article A(g) of the Houses Contract, on an exceptional basis, part of the 1 500 homes contracted from Habidite could have been sold by the Diputaci\u00f3n or BIZKAILUR at market price, in which case Habidite would have obtained the same percentages of the sale price as stipulated at Article A(e) - as indicated in recital (24).\n(28)\nThe Diputaci\u00f3n and BIZKAILUR did not carry out a public tender before concluding the Houses Contract with Habidite.\n(29)\nThe Habidite project was eventually de facto abandoned. According to the Diputaci\u00f3n, the main reason was that BIZKAILUR would have incurred higher-than-initially-estimated costs for the purchase and adaptation to industrial use of the land plot where the Habidite factory would have been set.\n(30)\nThe Diputaci\u00f3n had informed (16) that from May 2007 until April 2008 BIZKAILUR had bought 205 487,73 sqm of land for this project, for which it had paid a total of EUR 4,7 million. According to the Diputaci\u00f3n, the purchase of an additional 95 000 sqm was necessary, for which an additional cost of EUR 2,6 million was estimated. As to the costs for adapting the land for industrial use, in March 2009 they were estimated to be EUR 28,5 million.\n(31)\nThe ownership of the land already acquired by BIZKAILUR in view of this project has not been transferred to Habidite.\nIII. THE OPENING DECISION\n(32)\nIn the opening Decision of 2 December 2009 (17), the Commission considered that both the Land Contract and the Houses Contract seemed to involve state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty. Also, the aid did not appear to be compatible with the Treaty under any of the relevant state aid rules.\n(33)\nIn relation to the Land Contract, the Commission preliminarily concluded that the terms for the repayment of by the beneficiary of the land purchase and adaptation were similar to an interest-free loan, thus conferring to Habidite an advantage that it would not have been able to obtain on the market.\n(34)\nIn relation to the Houses Contract, the opening Decision noted that the price to be paid by BIZKAILUR for the 1 500 houses did not seem to be market-conform, as the beneficiary had estimated in its own business plan that the average price to be obtained from BIZKAILUR would have been of EUR 2 012,19/sqm, whereas the average price estimated to be obtained on the market would have been EUR 1 762,6/sqm.\n(35)\nThe Commission also noted a series of indications of an advantage to Habidite in the light of the judgment of the Court in P&O Ferries (18): a) the Houses Contract had not been concluded through public tender; b) the need for providing social housing was neither claimed nor demonstrated by the Diputaci\u00f3n Foral de Bizkaia and BIZKAILUR; and c) the Houses Contract allowed for the possibility that part of the 1 500 homes purchased from Habidite be sold on the market. It also noted that that the purchase of a large part of the new factory's production in the first years of its functioning reduced the risks that are normally associated with a new investment project. Concerning the criterion of use of state resources and imputability to the State, the Decision pointed out in relation to potential aid involved in both contracts that BIZKAILUR is a company fully owned and controlled by the public authorities which performs tasks attributed by the State. With respect to selectivity, it was noted that the contracts clearly benefitted exclusively to Habidite and the AFER group. On distortion of competition and affectation of intra-Union trade, it was underlined that Habidite operates in the construction sector, where competition is very intense, and where aid to one company might harm companies from other Member States.\n(36)\nIn the opening Decision expressed doubts as regards the compatibility of the aid potentially involved in the notified contracts with the Treaty under the compatibility criteria laid down in the Commission Guidelines on National Regional Aid for 2007-2013 (19), the Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (20), and the Temporary Framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (21).\nIV. COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE SPANISH AUTHORITIES\n(37)\nThe Spanish authorities did not comment on the opening Decision (see recital 6 above), but provided additional information in answer to requests addressed by the Commission following the opening Decision, and also replied to some of the arguments put forward by Habidite. These replies and additional information are summarised in recitals (48) to (54).\nV. COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THIRD PARTIES\n(38)\nAs indicated in recitals (3) and (6), Habidite commented on the opening Decision on 9 April 2010, and provided additional information and comments on 27 July 2010, 6 April 2011 and 7 July 2011. With these submissions, Habidite on the one hand informed of relevant factual elements which were not known to the Commission at the time of the opening Decision, and on the other hand, brought forward arguments to contest the existence of aid in the notified contracts. These arguments and the additional factual information presented by Habidite are summarised recitals (39) to (47).\n(39)\nFirst, Habidite informed that a third contract was concluded on the same date with the Land and Houses Contracts (15 December 2006). With this third contract (hereinafter \u201cthe Training Aid Contract\u201d) the Diputaci\u00f3n engaged to provide to Habidite training aid for the 1 100 new hires at the Habidite factory. In particular, the Diputaci\u00f3n committed to cover training expenses for the1 100 employees, while Habidite committed on its side to preserve the 1 100 new jobs for at least 5 years. This contract was also de facto suspended due to the failure of the Habidite project (see recitals (29) to (31)).\n(40)\nSecond, Habidite provided documentation showing that the Habidite project was granted, by Decision of the Gobierno Vasco (the Basque government) of 30 December 2008, a regional aid totalling EUR 6 million, in application of the block-exempted regional aid scheme XR 175/2007 (22).\n(41)\nThird, Habidite informed that, following the suspension of the Habidite project, it filed, by letters of 6 February 2009 and 17 September 2009, administrative complaints for non-compliance by the Diputaci\u00f3n and BIZKAILUR with the obligations assumed under the three contracts. Habidite also informed that it intended to pursue its claims before the competent Spanish court.\n(42)\nHabidite argues that the Land and Houses Contracts do not fulfil the cumulative criteria for being qualified as involving state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(43)\nIn respect of the elements of the notion of state aid other than the advantage element Habidite has presented the following arguments, common to both notified contracts:\n(a)\nThe two contracts do not involve a transfer of state resources because, to the extent that they involve market-conform operations, they do not involve a loss of public resources (according to the judgment of the Court in PreussenElektra (23)).\n(b)\nThe selectivity criterion should not be assumed to be met by the Houses Contract only because the contract was not concluded following public tender. Under the Real Decreto Legislativo No. 781/1986 de 18 de abril, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de las disposiciones legales vigentes en materia de R\u00e9gimen Local (24) and Article 31 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 31 March 2004 on public procurement (25), such contracts can also be concluded directly, i.e. without public tender, when justified by the technical nature of the project or for protecting exclusivity rights.\n(c)\nThe unique nature of the Habidite prefabricated modules, in terms of the product characteristics and assembly technology, exclude the possibility of distortion of competition or affectation of trade between the Member States. In cases N-09084 Ristretto Group/Williams Scottsman and N-04059 TDR Capital/Agelco the Spanish competition authority defined the relevant market as \u201cproduction, sale and rental of modular houses\u201d. According to this definition, the uniqueness of the Habidite modules implies that it does not have any direct competitors who might be harmed by the two contracts. Moreover, in the Commission\u2019s Decision in case M2473 Finnforest/Moelven Industrier (26) it was established that the market for modular buildings is local or regional, because transport costs exclude the feasibility of competition from larger distances. The Habidite prices were at any rate very competitive, given the technological characteristics of the product.\n(44)\nHabidite also put forward specific detailed arguments to contest that any of the two notified contracts would have conferred on it an advantage.\n(45)\nIn respect of the Houses Contract, Habidite argues in essence that it could not have derived any advantage because the stipulated sales prices were not above, but actually below market levels. In particular:\n(a)\nThe prices to be obtained by Habidite under the Houses Contract were by definition under market levels, considering that the houses would have been sold by BIZKAILUR at the regulated, below-market, levels of price established by law for houses to be sold under the semi-protected regime (viviendas tasadas) - see recitals (14) to (19).\n(b)\nThe average price to be obtained by BIZKAILUR for the homes constructed by Habidite, of EUR 2 010,19/sqm, was comparable to the average prices that BIZKAILUR was paying at the time under similar contracts for the construction of homes to be sold under the protected and semi-protected regime. For example, according to Habidite, in 2007 BIZKAILUR paid for the construction of social houses in Lemoiz EUR 2 277/sqm, in Zi\u00e9rbana EUR 1 964/sqm, and in Areatza EUR 2 021/sqm. In 2007, the average price of houses sold as viviendas tasadas in four municipalities of Bizkaia was of EUR 1 808,69 EUR/sqm for houses of 84 sqm (27).\n(c)\nAt any rate, Habidite would have obtained only 83 %, and respectively 83,30 % of this average price of EUR 2 010,19/sqm (for houses of less than 75 sqm) on the basis of the Houses Contract - see recitals (24) to (25). In this respect, the opening Decision had erroneously noted that EUR 2 010,19/sqm was the price to be obtained by Habidite itself under this contract.\n(d)\nThe average price to be obtained by BIZKAILUR for the homes constructed by Habidite was well below price levels for equivalent housing sold freely on the market in the province. In 2007 the average price on the market in the province of Bizkaia was of EUR 2 921,9/sqm (28).\n(46)\nIn relation to the Land Contract, Habidite argues that it would not have derived any advantage because, according to its understanding, it would have had to repay to BIZKAILUR not only the actual costs incurred for the purchase and adaptation of the land, as stipulated in the contract, but also the financing costs incurred in relation to this operation.\n(47)\nFurthermore, Habidite contests the costs estimated by the Diputaci\u00f3n for the purchase and adaptation of the land. According to the Land Contract, BIZKAILUR had to purchase only 101 403 sqm for this project, and not 205 000 sqm, as the Diputaci\u00f3n indicated. Furthermore, the costs for adapting 254 785 sqm of land to industrial use, which the Diputaci\u00f3n claims to be of EUR 28,5 million, were erroneous. These costs seemed to correspond rather to costs that were incurred by the Diputaci\u00f3n for a different project, namely the construction of the Kadagua highway, segment Kastrexana Arbuio-Sodupe. Habidite also argues that the land purchased for the Habidite project has been used illegally for depositing waste, as established also by a national court ruling (judgment no 148/2010 of 1 September 2010 of the first instance court of Barakaldo.\nVI. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND REPLIES TO HABIDITE\u2019S COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE SPANISH AUTHORITIES\n(48)\nIn reply to the Commission's questions, the Diputaci\u00f3n confirmed that the Habidite project was suspended and the contractual obligations assumed vis-\u00e0-vis Habidite under the Land and Houses Contracts had not been performed.\n(49)\nWith respect to the Training Aid Contract (see recital (39) above), the Diputaci\u00f3n draws attention to the fact that its commitment to provide training aid for the 1 100 employees of the Habidite factory was, according to Art.10 of the contract, conditional upon compliance with the relevant legislation, including therefore implicitly an eventual notification to the Commission or clearance under the applicable state aid rules. The Diputaci\u00f3n confirms that the training aid in question was not disbursed.\n(50)\nWhen inquired about the relationship between the notified contracts and the regional aid granted in 2008 by the Basque government, and whether both sets of measures concern the same investment project, the Diputaci\u00f3n does not exclude that the investment project might be the same one, but draws attention to the fact that this does not necessarily mean that the eligible investment costs taken into account in 2008 by the regional government for the EUR 6 million aid are the same eligible costs of the project as it stood in 2006, when the notified contracts were signed. On this subject, the Diputaci\u00f3n refers to the information provided by the Basque government and by Habidite.\n(51)\nOn the issue of the repayment due by Habidite under the Land Contract, and in particular, on Habidite\u2019s argument that it interpreted its repayment obligations to include the financing costs related to the land purchase and adaptation, the Diputaci\u00f3n points to the actual wording in the Land Contract. Article 1(vi) of the Land contract reads as follows: \u201cThe price to be paid by [Habidite] is equivalent to the effective cost assumed by BIZKAILUR S.A. [\u2026] for the purchase of the land described at [\u2026]\u201d (emphasis added).\n(52)\nFinally, according to the information available to the Diputaci\u00f3n, Habidite and the AFER group as such did not qualify as firms in difficulty within the meaning of Points 9, 10 and 11 of the R&R Guidelines at the time when the two notified contracts were concluded.\n(53)\nIn its turn, the Basque government provided information on the regional aid of EUR 6 million granted to Habidite on 30 December 2008, including the eligible expenditure that was taken into account for the granting of this aid. The categories of eligible expenditures are detailed in the Table below:\nTotal investment (EUR million)\n90,42\nR&D expenses\n13,71\nEligible expenses, of which:\n76,71\nIT\n2,85\nLand\n5,5\nBuildings\n34,76\nTechnical equipment\n19,14\nMachinery\n11,94\nOther installations\n0,737\nIT equipment\n0,965\nExcess land and buildings\n3,9\nTotal eligible expenses\n72,8\nAid granted\n6\n(54)\nThis aid has not been disbursed. Pursuant to Point 65 of the Community Guidelines on National Regional Aid 2007-2013 (29), the Spanish authorities submitted to the Commission on 19 February 2009 the information sheet for aid granted to non-notifiable large investment projects under an authorised regional aid scheme (30).\nVII. ASSESSMENT\n(55)\nThis Decision does not address (a) the Training Aid Contract concluded by the Diputaci\u00f3n and Habidite on 15 December 2006 and (b) the regional aid of EUR 6 million granted to the Habidite group by the Basque government on 30 December 2008, for the reasons explained below.\n(56)\nWith respect to the Training Aid Contract concluded by the Diputaci\u00f3n and Habidite on the same date as the notified contracts (see recitals (39) and (49)), the Commission notes that this measure has not been notified by the Spanish authorities, and was not covered by the opening Decision. According to an established practice (31), state aid is considered to be granted at the moment when there is a legally-binding, non-conditional commitment for its disbursement. Article 10 in the Training Aid Contract (see recital (49)) makes the commitment to disburse the training aid conditional upon compliance with the relevant legislation, including Union's state aid rules. It follows that the commitment to disburse training aid stipulated by this contract cannot be qualified as being non-conditional at the moment of conclusion of the contract. Furthermore, the Spanish authorities confirmed that the training aid foreseen by this contract has not been disbursed. At any rate, as the Habidite project in Alonsotegi did not materialise, this aid is unlikely to be disbursed in the future.\n(57)\nThis Decision does not address either the regional aid of EUR 6 million granted by the Basque government to Habidite on 30 December 2008 (see recitals (40) and (50)). However, it should be pointed out that the two notified contracts covered by this Decision as well as the regional aid granted in 2008 all refer to the same investment project, i.e. the setup of a Habidite modules factory in Alonsotegi. This assertion was not specifically contested by the Basque government or the Diputaci\u00f3n (see in this sense recital (50)).\n(58)\nPursuant to Point 66 of the Community Guidelines on National Regional Aid 2007-2013 (32), the Spanish authorities must ensure compliance with the provisions on cumulation of aid applicable to the 2008 regional aid grant.\n(59)\nIn addition, it must be recalled that, according to information provided by the Diputaci\u00f3n (see recital (30)), the purchase of the land necessary for this investment project has started in May 2007, and several plots of land were successively purchased to this end until April 2008. Therefore the project has already started to be implemented in May 2007. Pursuant to Point 38 of the Community Guidelines on National Regional Aid 2007-2013 (33), in order to ensure that regional aid produces an incentive effect on the investment, aid may only be granted under aid schemes if the beneficiary has submitted an application for aid and the competent authorities have subsequently confirmed in writing, before the start of the work on the project, that it meets in principle the conditions of eligibility laid down in the scheme.\n(60)\nPrior to assessing existence of aid and its compatibility with the Treaty the Commission must determine the applicable state aid rules rationae temporis.\n(61)\nThe Land and Houses Contracts were signed on 15 December 2006, but they were notified to the Commission for review only in April 2009. As already indicated in recital (56) above, according to an established practice (34), state aid is considered to be granted at the moment when there is a legally-binding, non-conditional commitment for its disbursement. In the case of the two notified contracts, such a legally-binding, non-conditional commitment was taken on 15 December 2006, when the Diputaci\u00f3n and BIZKAILUR signed the two notified contracts. Therefore any aid involved in the two contracts is unlawful, since it was granted in breach of the notification obligation stipulated at Article 108(3) of the Treaty.\n(62)\nAccording to the CELF/SIDE jurisprudence (35), any posterior notification or declaration of compatibility does not remove the unlawful character of aid granted in breach of the notification or stand-still obligation. As indicated in the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid (36), the rules applicable to unlawful aid are those that were in force at the moment when the aid was granted - in the present case, on 15 December 2006. These principles are also confirmed by Points 63 and 105 of the Community Guidelines on National Regional Aid 2007-2013 (37). The Commission shall therefore rely on the state aid rules in force on 15 December 2006, when the two notified contracts were signed, for assessing both existence of aid and compatibility.\nVII.1. Existence of aid\n(63)\nIn order to ascertain whether the measures under scrutiny involve State aid, the Commission has to assess whether they fulfil the cumulative conditions of Article 107(1) of the Treaty. That provision states that \"[s]ave as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\". These cumulative criteria shall be examined in turn for each of the two notified contracts below.\nVII.1.1 Measure 1: Land Contract\n(64)\nOne of the criteria for determining whether a given measure involves state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty is that State resources should be put at use, be it through disbursement of state resources or as revenue forgone by the State. Furthermore, according to an established jurisprudence (38), the resources of public or private undertakings on which the public authorities can exercise, be it directly or indirectly, a controlling influence, also qualify as State resources, to the extent that these resources remain under public control and therefore available to the competent public authorities. On this aspect, the Commission notes the following in recitals (65) and (66).\n(65)\nFirst, the Land Contract was concluded by the Diputaci\u00f3n and BIZKAILUR together. The contract contains several clear indications that, within the framework of this contract, BIZKAILUR was acting as \u2027the arm\u2027 of the Diputaci\u00f3n. The Land Contract was signed, on behalf of the Diputaci\u00f3n and BIZKAILUR, by the Diputado General (Chairman) of the Diputaci\u00f3n. Point 2 of the Preamble to the Land Contract stipulates that the Diputaci\u00f3n, as 100 % owner of BIZKAILUR, pursues, among its public policy objectives, the promotion of new and innovative investment projects, job creation, and the facilitation of access to social housing for the citizens of the province of Bizkaia. Point 5 of the Preamble to the Land Contract stipulates that the contract is concluded in order to pursue, either directly or through public companies such as BIZKAILUR, the achievement of the economic and social policy objectives mentioned at Point 2 of the Preamble.\n(66)\nSecond, the resources to be deployed by BIZKAILUR for performing its obligations to purchase and adapt to industrial use the land for the setup of the Habidite factory in Alonsotegi were under the control of the Diputaci\u00f3n. As of 1999 onwards BIZKAILUR had been 100 % owned and controlled by the Diputaci\u00f3n (39). The following \u201corganic\u201d and \u201cstructural\u201d indicators established by the Stardust Marine jurisprudence (40) for determining whether BIZKAILUR's actions within the ambit of the Land Contract were imputable to the State are met:\n(a)\nthe scope of BIZKAILUR's actions within the framework of the Land Contract were defined by the Diputaci\u00f3n;\n(b)\nfor the purposes of this contract, BIZKAILUR was explicitly acting on behalf of the Diputaci\u00f3n;\n(c)\nthe specific nature of BIZKAILUR\u2019s activities, which were targeted exclusively at attaining public policy objectives, show that this undertaking was not a regular market operator competing on market terms.\n(67)\nIn the light of the indicators in recitals (65) and (66), the criterion of use of State resources and imputability to the State is found to be met in the case of the Land Contract.\n(68)\nThe Commission examined the terms and conditions for the repayment of the land to be facilitated by the Diputaci\u00f3n and BIZKAILUR for the Habidite project in Alonsotegi, as established in Part Two, Article 1, recitals (vi) and (vii) of the Land Contract (see also recital (20) above), and on this basis observes the following in recitals (69) to (83).\n(69)\nUnder Part Two, Article 1(vi) of the Land Contract, the price to be paid by Habidite for the land purchased and adapted for industrial use by BIZKAILUR was the \"effective cost assumed by BIZKAILUR [\u2026] for the purchase of the land [\u2026]\". Habidite argued (see recital (46)) that, in its interpretation, this would have also included financing costs. Yet such an interpretation cannot be accepted. The reference to the \u201ceffective costs incurred for the purchase of the land\u201d is sufficiently clear so as not to require further interpretation: it covers only the price effectively paid by BIZKAILUR for purchasing the land.\n(70)\nIt must therefore be concluded that, first, this wording clearly excludes the effective costs incurred by BIZKAILUR for adapting the land to industrial use.\n(71)\nSecond, the repayment facilities stipulated in Part Two, Article 1(vii) of the Land Contract, i.e. four years of \"grace period\", fractioning of the successive four yearly repayment instalments as 25 % of the price effectively paid by BIZKAILUR for the land purchase, are in practice equivalent to an interest-free loan. The wording of Article 1(vii) of the Land Contract cannot be interpreted to also include the financing costs for an equivalent loan, i.e. the interests that would have been charged to Habidite for a similar loan by a market creditor. Indeed, it is doubtful that a private operator in a situation similar to BIZKAILUR would have accepted not to charge to Habidite the costs for the adaptation of the land, and furthermore, that it would have agreed to a \u201cgrace period\u201d of 4 years for the repayment of the price paid for the land purchase, and a full repayment within 7 years from the date of transfer of ownership over the land to Habidite, without charging any interest for this financing.\n(72)\nIn the light of the findings in recitals (69) to (71) it must be concluded that Habidite would have derived from the Land Contract an advantage that could not have been obtained in normal market conditions. The advantage consists of the following two components:\n(a)\nthe interests forgone for a loan amounting to the total costs incurred by BIZKAILUR for the purchase of the land according to this contract - a loan with a duration of 7 years, a grace period of 4 years and 4 equal annual repayment instalments (of 25 % of the reimbursed sum each); and\n(b)\nthe costs that BIZKAILUR would have incurred for the adaptation to industrial use of the parcel of land totalling at least 101 403 sqm necessary for this project, as stipulated in Article 1(ii) of the Land Contract (i.e. at least 81 600 sqm for the factory, 5 300 sqm for offices and annexes, and 14 300 sqm for industrial use).\n(73)\nWith respect to the first component, i.e. the interests forgone in respect of the repayment of the price for the land purchase, the Commission estimates that those would have amounted to a net grant equivalent (NGE) of 13,21 % of the price paid for the land purchase by BIZKAILUR. This NGE was calculated as indicated in recitals (74) to (77).\n(74)\nIn a first step, the interest rate applicable to a similar loan was identified on the basis of the reference rate applicable in Spain in December 2006, of 4,36 %, as reported in the Commission\u2019s Reference Rate Communication (41).\n(75)\nIn a second step, based on the Commission notice on the method for setting the reference and discount rates of 1997 (42) (hereinafter \"the 1997 Commission Notice\" - which was in force at the time when the Land Contract was concluded) no top-up needs to be added to this reference rate so as to reflect the credit risk profile of Habidite. Under the 1997 Commission Notice, reference rates were considered to reflect the average level of interest rates charged in the various Member States on medium- and long-term loans (five to ten years) backed by normal security. This general principle was not specifically modified by the Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (43). In the absence of direct information on the credit risk rating of Habidite or the AFER group at the time, the Commission considers that it can be assumed that Habidite qualified at the time as a normal company with normal collateralisation. Indeed, both the Diputaci\u00f3n and Habidite agreed in considering that Habidite and the AFER group did not qualify as firms in difficulty within the meaning of Points 9, 10 and 11 of the R&R Guidelines at the time (see recital (52) above).\n(76)\nIn a third step, the gross grant equivalent of the aid involved in this repayment arrangement was adjusted to take into account the corporate tax that should have been paid by the recipient, which at the time in Spain was of 35 %.\n(77)\nBased on the elements in recitals (74) to (76), the resulting NGE for this subsidised loan is indicated in the Table below:\nLoan amount\n100 %\nDuration of loan\n7 years\nGrace period for repayment\n4 years\nReference rate\n4,36 %\nMargin/top-up\n0\nTotal interest rate applicable\n4,36 %\nGross grant equivalent of the aid\n20,33 %\nCorporate tax\n35 %\nNet grant equivalent (after tax)\n13,21 %\n(78)\nThe Commission also notes that the effective cost for the acquisition of the land for this project, which is the basis on which NGE should be applied in order to determine the aid amount, is disputed between the parties. As indicated at recital (30) above, the Diputaci\u00f3n claims that until September 2009 BIZKAILUR had paid EUR 4,7 million to purchase 205 000 sqm of land, and it estimated that another EUR 2,6 million would have been needed to purchase the remaining 95 000 sqm necessary for this project. Habidite, on the other hand, claims that BIZKAILUR did not have to purchase such a large surface for this project, as the Land Contract stipulated a total of only 101 403 sqm (see recital (47) above).\n(79)\nIn relation to this dispute, the Commission notes first that, according to the specific wording of Article 1(ii) of the Land Contract, the surface for the project should have been of \u201cat least\u201d101 403 sqm in total. Second, the Commission cannot take an informed view on this subject based on the information provided by the parties in the course of the formal investigation procedure. However, as the aid in the Land Contract has not been disbursed, and there is no need to order recovery, the issue of the exact price that should have been reimbursed by Habidite for the land purchase can be left open. For the purposes of this Decision it is sufficient to define the aid element arising from the repayment terms established in the Land Contract.\n(80)\nThis aid component is thereby defined as 13,21 % of the costs to be reimbursed to BIZKAILUR for the purchase of the land necessary for the Habidite project, under the terms of Part Two, Article 1(ii) of the Land Contract. The amount thus determined corresponds to the interests forgone by BIZKAILUR, and which would have been charged by a market operator, for a loan with a duration of 7 years, a grace period of 4 years, and for 4 equal annual repayment instalments (of 25 % of the reimbursed sum each). The basis for calculating this aid component is the effective cost that should have been incurred by BIZKAILUR for the purchase of the land stipulated in Part Two, Article 1(ii) of the Land Contract.\n(81)\nSimilar considerations must be made in respect to the other aid component in the Land Contract, i.e. the costs for adapting the land for industrial use - which, according to the Land Contract did not have to be repaid to BIZKAILUR (see in this sense recitals (69) and (70)). Here again, the parties disagree on the amounts. According to the Diputaci\u00f3n, in March 2009 these costs were estimated at EUR 28,5 million (see recital (30)). Habidite, however, considers that this estimate is inflated (see recital (47)), partly because BIZKAILUR purchased more land than what was required under the Land Contract for this project, and partly because it has used the part of the land already purchased for the project for other purposes, e.g. waste deposits.\n(82)\nOnce again, considering that the aid has not been disbursed, and there is no need for recovery, it is sufficient for the purposes of this Decision to define this aid component in the Land Contract: it consists of the total costs that would have been incurred by BIZKAILUR for adapting to industrial use the parcel for the project - under the terms of Part Two, Article 1(iii) of the Land Contract-, costs which, according to the wording of Part Two, Article 1(vi) of the Land Contract, did not have to be reimbursed by Habidite to BIZKAILUR.\n(83)\nThe Commission also concludes that the advantage identified at recitals (68) to (77), consisting of two components, as identified at recitals (80) and (82), must be considered selective, insofar as it would have been conferred, on the basis of the Land Contract, to one specific beneficiary, namely Habidite and the AFER group to which it belongs.\n(84)\nAs indicated in recital (43), Habidite argues that the notified contracts do not distort competition, because: (a) the relevant market is restricted to \u201cproduction, sale and rental of prefabricated modules\u201d, and (b) the unique characteristics of the Habidite prefabricated modules imply that the company has no competitors.\n(85)\nThe Commission cannot accept the arguments put forward by Habidite. Even if the Habidite prefabricated modules could be considered a singular product because of their characteristics, in the present case, the relevant product market must be defined in a broader sense, as being the market for the construction and sale of houses in general - including both houses sold on the free market, and houses sold on the regulated segment of the market (social housing).\n(86)\nAs Habidite itself argues, the prices of the houses to be sold to BIZKAILUR can be benchmarked against the prices of houses sold on the free market, or of those eventually sold in protected or semi-protected regime. The fact that BIZKAILUR also contracted with constructors other than Habidite other houses to be sold under the semi-protected regime, demonstrates that other constructors were at the time indeed in competition with Habidite for providing to BIZKAILUR houses to be sold in protected and semi-protected regime.\n(87)\nFurthermore, in the Business Plan submitted to the Basque government in support of its application for the 2008 regional aid (dated November 2008, at pp. 10-12), Habidite indicated itself that it would have been in competition with constructors of traditional houses on several Spanish regional markets on which it intended to sell its products (including in particular the Basque Country, Navarra, Cantabria, La Rioja, Madrid and Catalonia, but also other Spanish comunidades aut\u00f3nomas to a lesser extent). It estimated its overall resulting market share on the Spanish market (free market plus social housing projects) to increase from 0,4 % in 2011 to 1 % for the period 2012-2016. For the year 2011, for example, Habidite estimated that the total number of houses to be sold on the entire Spanish market would have been of approximately 320 000 houses, of which, with a production of 1 403 houses in 2011, it would have covered a market share of 0,4 %. Regarding the market in the Basque Country in particular, Habidite estimated a market share of 0,5 % in 2011 and up to 2,8 % as of 2014 onwards, assuming that the total yearly demand for housing in this region would have been of 8 000 houses for the period 2011-2016.\n(88)\nAccording to an established jurisprudence, aid is to be considered as distorting competition insofar as it strengthens the financial position and opportunities of the recipient company with respect to those of competitors not receiving aid (44). In the light of this principle and the above considerations, it must be concluded that the aid given to Habidite and the AFER group through the Land Contract would have had distortive effects on competition, because it would have allowed Habidite to reduce investment costs that normally are borne by the company itself, and thereby to derive a competitive edge vis-\u00e0-vis actual and potential competitors.\n(89)\nSimilar to the discussion in recitals (84) to (87), the argument made by Habidite that the relevant geographic market is only local or regional when it comes to prefabricated houses in particular, because of the costs associated with the transportation of the prefabricates, cannot be accepted. Due to the geographic vicinity of the Basque Country to other Member States and its closeness to the sea, the additional transportation costs would probably not be decisive for eliminating potential competitors of Habidite in this comunidad aut\u00f3noma. Conversely, transportation costs might not represent an obstacle for Habidite to compete for the construction of homes in close Member States.\n(90)\nAccording to the same line of jurisprudence as cited in recital (88), when state aid strengthens the financial position of a company compared with others competing in intra-Union trade, the latter must be regarded as impaired by the aid. Aid may be of such kind as to affect intra-Union trade even if the recipient undertaking does not participate itself in cross-border activities (45).\n(91)\nOn the basis of the considerations at recitals (89) and (90), the Commission concludes that the aid involved in the Land Contract would have been likely to affect trade between the Member States.\nVII.1.2 Measure 2: Houses Contract\n(92)\nThe considerations made at recitals (64) to (67), (84) to (88) and (89) to (90) on the criteria of use of State resources and imputability of the State, distortion of competition and affectation of intra-Union trade in the definition of state aid are also applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the Houses Contract. Consequently, in recitals (93) to (96), only the criterion of selective advantage shall be examined.\n(93)\nAs explained in recital (45), Habidite argues that the Houses Contract did not convey to it any advantage, because, in essence, the prices to be paid by BIZKAILUR for the 1 500 homes to be constructed by Habidite under this contract were actually below market levels.\n(94)\nIn particular, Habidite first argues that the 1 500 houses which were to be delivered by Habidite under this contract would have been sold by BIZKAILUR under the semi-protected regime (as viviendas tasadas), at a maximum price limited by the applicable regional law to 1,7 of the price established by the Basque government's Order of 1.8.2004, as successively indexed on the basis of the Consumption Price Index (IPC) determined by the Spanish National Institute of Statistics (see in this sense recitals (17) and (18)). The average price to be thus obtained by BIZKAILUR for the 1 500 houses was of EUR 2 010,19/sqm, which is below the average price for houses sold freely on the market in the province of Bizkaia in 2007, of EUR 2 921,9/sqm. Furthermore, Habidite would have obtained only 83 %, and respectively 83,30 % (in the case of the 750 houses under 75 sqm) of the EUR 2 010,19/sqm which were obtained by BIZKAILUR itself from the sale of these houses under the semi-protected regime.\n(95)\nSecond, Habidite argues that the price that it would have obtained from BIZKAILUR under the Houses Contract for the 1 500 houses was comparable to the prices obtained by other construction companies which had concluded similar contracts with BIZKAILUR in that period (examples are indicated in recital (45)).\n(96)\nFinally, Habidite also argued that, under Legislative Decree 78/1986 and Article 31 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 31 March 2004 on public procurement (46), such contracts can also be concluded directly, i.e. without public tender, when justified by the technical nature of the project or for protecting exclusivity rights.\n(97)\nHaving assessed the information and arguments provided by Habidite, the Commission has the following observations to make in recitals (98) to (107).\n(98)\nFirst, it should be noted that the information concerning average prices obtained by other construction companies which had concluded similar contracts with BIZKAILUR relies exclusively on press publications. The Commission did not receive direct information on this aspect from the Diputaci\u00f3n - for example, in the form of copies of similar contracts concluded by BIZKAILUR with other construction companies. At any rate, the price estimates provided by both Habidite and the Diputaci\u00f3n refer to the years 2006 and 2007, whereas, according to Article A(c) in the Houses Contract and to the Business Plan of Habidite as made publicly-available in 2009, the 1 500 houses would have been delivered to BIZKAILUR over the period 2009-2011.\n(99)\nEven if it were to be accepted that the prices to be obtained by Habidite from BIZKAILUR for the 1 500 houses on the basis of this contract were comparable with those obtained by other construction companies from BIZKAILUR on the basis of similar contracts, and were at any rate under the prices observable on the free market for such houses, this argument is not sufficient to enable the Commission to conclude that Habidite did not derive an advantage from this contract. As also noted in the opening Decision (47), the advantage derived by Habidite from this contract consists mainly in the fact that the contract secured the sale of an important part of its initial production, thus considerably reducing the risks inherently associated with a new investment project, which are by definition even higher at the launch of a new product, such as the Habidite modules were.\n(100)\nIt is commonly known that competition on the Spanish construction market was at the time, and continues to be, very intense. The fact that BIZKAILUR contracted 1 500 homes from Habidite should confer from this perspective a not-so-negligible advantage to Habidite vis-\u00e0-vis its competitors, even if only demand for the construction of houses to be sold under the protected and semi-protected regime were to be considered.\n(101)\nThe fact that, as the Diputaci\u00f3n informs, according to the Plan Foral (see recital (19)) BIZKAILUR was supposed to provide a total of 3 000 houses to be sold under the protected regime over the period 2004-2007, is a good indication that the number of houses contracted from Habidite was not negligible at all. It is true that the Plan Foral covers the period 2004 to 2007, whereas the 1 500 homes contracted with BIZKAILUR by Habidite were foreseen to be delivered over the period 2009 to 2011 (according to the company's Business Plan in the version made public in 2009). It is nevertheless an indication of the total number of houses that BIZKAILUR was intending to sell under the protected regime at the time when the Houses Contract was concluded.\n(102)\nThis element needs to be assessed in light of the ratio of houses contracted by the Diputaci\u00f3n and BIZKAILUR from the estimated total output of Habidite for the relevant period. According to the Business Plan made public in 2009, Habidite estimated that in 2009 its entire production of 433 houses would have been purchased exclusively by BIZKAILUR. In 2010, BIZKAILUR would have purchased 670 houses, whereas the total production of Habidite would have been of 1 113 houses. In 2011, BIZKAILUR would have purchased 342 houses, whereas the total production of Habidite would have been of 3 151 houses. This is an indication that, at the time when the Houses Contract was concluded, Habidite itself estimated that the Diputaci\u00f3n and BIZKAILUR would have purchased a notable part of the production during the first 2 productive years of the Habdite factory in Alonsotegi (2009 and 2010). This supports the conclusion that, indeed, the Houses Contract considerably reduced the risks inherently associated with a new investment project, and particular with the launch of a new product on the market (the Habidite modules).\n(103)\nA further indication that Habidite would have been alleviated through this contract of a considerable part of the risk associated with selling its product on the market stems from Habidite's own Business Plan (dated November 2008) as submitted in view of obtaining the 2008 regional aid. In this Business Plan, Habidite estimated the total demand for houses to be sold on the regulated market in the entire Basque Country for the years 2011-2016 at approximately 8 000 houses per year. The same Business Plan mentions that Habidite intended to sell with priority on the regulated segment of the market (social housing), both in the Basque Country and in other regions of Spain. In particular, in 2011 Habidite foresaw that it would have sold on the regulated market in Spain a total of 289 houses, from a total production of 1 403 houses in the same year. This shows that, after the end of the Houses Contract (as the 1 500 houses ordered by the Diputaci\u00f3n and BIZKAILUR were to be delivered by May 2011 at the latest), the share of houses Habidite was hoping to sell on the regulated market from its total annual production, i.e. 289 houses from a total production of 1 403 houses, compared much lower than the same ratio in the first three years of functioning of the Habidite plant in Alonsotegi, which were covered by the Houses Contract.\n(104)\nAnother relevant aspect is the actual demand for social housing in the province of Bizkaia that was covered by BIZKAILUR through the Houses Contract. Neither the Diputaci\u00f3n nor Habidite produced specific evidence regarding the actual demand for social housing that was to be covered by BIZKAILUR by means of the Houses Contract concluded with Habidite on the given terms. As already mentioned in recital (98), the 1 500 houses stipulated by this contract were estimated to be delivered during the period 2009-2011. Moreover, the Diputaci\u00f3n did not argue that the contract was concluded with a view to providing a service of general economic interest such as social housing. Also to be noted that the Houses Contract was not concluded following a public tender - whereas, according to the information provided by Habidite itself when referring to similar contracts concluded by BIZKAILUR with other construction companies, it seems that BIZKAILUR should have normally tendered such a contract.\n(105)\nFrom this perspective, the argument made by Habidite (see recital (96)) that the special technical nature of this project allowed for direct contracting, without a public tender, cannot be accepted. First, the provisions invoked by Habidite do not address situations such as the present one, where the special nature of the project consisted in introducing a new product on the market. The object of the Houses Contract was the purchase of houses to be then sold under the semi-protected regime for the disadvantaged citizens. The technology used for building such houses is irrelevant, and homes constructed with prefabricated modules were in direct competition with homes constructed through traditional methods. Second, in a report of January 2009 (48), the Tribunal Vasco de Cuentas P\u00fablicas (the Basque Court of Auditors) expressed doubts on the legality of the Land and Houses Contracts in a context where it drew attention to public contracts concluded in breach of the principles of transparency and competitive tendering.\n(106)\nAccording to the P&O Ferries jurisprudence (49), the mere fact that a public authority purchases good on market pricing terms is not sufficient in itself in order to conclude that the transaction is market-conform, if the State did not have an actual need for those good, particularly where such goods were contracted without a public tender. In the present case, the absence of information concerning the actual demand for BIZKAILUR to sell the 1 500 contracted houses under the semi-protected regime over the period 2009-2011, coupled with the absence of a public tender, are indications that the transaction was not concluded on market terms.\n(107)\nIn the light of the considerations made at recitals (97) to (106), the Commission concludes that the Houses Contract cannot be considered to be a normal market operation. Instead, the contract does confer an advantage to Habidite and the AFER group, by alleviating it of the risk of having to sell its output on market terms, in direct competition with other constructors. The aid element is hereby defined as the profit that would have been obtained by Habidite from the sale of the 1 500 homes to the Diputaci\u00f3n and BIZKAILUR under the terms of the Houses Contract, namely, the difference between the price to be obtained from BIZKAILUR from the sale of the 1 500 houses under the pricing terms stipulated by Article A(e) of the Houses Contract the Houses Contract and Habidite's production costs for the 1 500 houses. The advantage is selective, being conferred under the Houses Contract specifically to Habidite and the AFER group.\nVII.1.3 Preliminary conclusions\n(108)\nOn the basis of the considerations made at recitals (64) to (90) and (92) to (106) - and without prejudice to any further findings with regard to the compatibility with EU public procurement law - it must be concluded that both the Land Contract and the Houses Contract involve state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(109)\nIn the case of the Land Contract, the state aid involved has two components:\n(a)\nThe interests forgone for a loan totalling the costs incurred by BIZKAILUR for the purchase of the land for the Habidite project, which would have been granted interest-free for a period of 7 years, with a grace period of 4 years. These forgone interests amount to an NGE of 13,41 % of the land purchase costs undertaken by BIZKAILUR on the basis of Part Two, Article 1(ii) of the Land Contract.\n(b)\nThe total costs that BIZKAILUR would have incurred for the adaptation to industrial use of the mentioned parcel of land, totalling at least 101 430 sqm, as stipulated in Part Two, Article 1(iii) of the Land Contract.\n(110)\nIn the case of the Houses Contract, the aid element consists of the profit that would have been obtained by Habidite from the sale of the 1 500 houses under this contract, namely, the difference between the price stipulated by Article A(e) of the Houses Contract for the 1 500 houses and the production costs incurred by Habidite in the production of the 1 500 houses.\nVII.2. Compatibility\n(111)\nIn the opening Decision of 2 December 2009, the Commission doubted that the aid involved in the Land and Houses Contracts could have been considered compatible with the Treaty under the relevant rules applicable at the time of the assessment - referring in particular to the original Temporary Framework (50), the 2004 R&R Guidelines, the Community Guidelines on National Regional Aid 2007-2013 (51) and the 2008 General Block Exemption Regulation (52).\n(112)\nHowever, as indicated at recitals (60) to (62), the aid granted through the Land and Houses Contracts was unlawfully granted (i.e. prior to notification to the Commission) on 15 December 2006. Its compatibility must therefore be assessed on the basis of the state aid rules in force at the time when it was granted.\n(113)\nUnder this temporal perspective, the compatibility of the aid granted under the Land and Houses Contracts cannot be examined under the special rules applying in relation to the crisis, which were adopted and came into force later on.\n(114)\nAlso, according to the Diputaci\u00f3n, Habidite and the AFER group did not qualify on 15 December 2006 as firms in difficulty within the meaning of Points 9, 10 and 11 of the 2004 R&R Guidelines. Therefore the latter were not eligible for rescue or restructuring aid at the time when the Land and Houses Contracts were concluded.\n(115)\nThe Land and Houses Contracts were concluded on 15 December 2006 to support a new investment project in Alonsotegi, a village situated within the Gran Bilbao comarca, which was at the time an assisted region under Article 107(3(c) of the Treaty (53). It therefore needs to be examined whether the aid granted under the Land and Houses Contract may have been compatible with the Treaty under the rules applicable to regional aid on 15 December 2006, namely: the 1998 Guidelines on National Regional Aid (54) (hereinafter \"the 1998 Guidelines\") and the 2002 Multisectoral Framework on regional aid to large investment projects (55) (hereinafter \"the 2002 Framework\"), and against the background of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.\n(116)\nIn order to be found compatible with the internal market, regional investment aid must respect a series of standard compatibility criteria, which at the time when the Land Contract was concluded, on 15 December 2006, were laid down in the 1998 Guidelines. In particular, the aid had to be able to contribute to regional development and to support an initial investment project on which works have started only after the aid beneficiary introduced an application for aid (incentive effect), the investment project should have been financed by the beneficiary at least up to 25 %, and the investment project should have been maintained within the assisted region where it was located for at least five years. In addition, the eligible expenditure to be taken into account for the granting of the aid had to be limited to certain eligible costs, and the aid should not be combined with other aid so as to exceed the applicable regional aid ceiling.\n(117)\nUnder Point 2 of the 1998 Guidelines, ad hoc regional aid granted to a single firm or benefitting one single sector of activity was, as a general rule, not to be found compatible with the Treaty, as its distortive effects would in principle exceed its positive effects on regional development. Furthermore, ad hoc aid to firms in difficulty was prohibited.\n(118)\nThe aid granted to Habidite under the Land Contract was not notified by the Spanish authorities as being granted under an authorised regional aid scheme. This aid qualifies rather as an ad hoc measure benefitting only Habidite and the AFER group, and implicitly, only of benefit to the construction sector.\n(119)\nHowever, under the same Point 2 of the 1998 Guidelines, such ad hoc aid benefiting one single sector and firm may exceptionally be declared compatible with the Treaty, if it can be demonstrated that it has a significant contribution to regional development, exceeding its distorting effects on intra-Union trade and competition. Although the Spanish authorities have not put forward arguments on this aspect, the Commission shall nevertheless examine of its own motion if the conditions for such derogation are met in the case of the aid granted through the Land Contract on the basis of information in its possession.\n(120)\nThe Land Contract was clearly intended to support a new investment project, i.e. the new Habidite factory in Alonsotegi. The project was estimated at the time to create 1 100 direct new jobs in an assisted area, and very likely also a non-negligible number of indirect jobs in the same region. This element should also be corroborated with the fact that, under the parallel Houses Contract, the new investment project would have also contributed to the achievement of regional policy objectives, namely the provision of social housing for disadvantaged citizens in the province of Bizkaia. Furthermore, neither Habidite nor the AFER group qualified as firms in difficulty within the meaning of Points 9, 10 and 11 of the R&R Guidelines at the time when the Land and Houses Contracts were signed (see recital (9)). The Commission therefore concludes that the conditions for the exception foreseen in the last paragraph of Point 2 in the 1998 Guidelines are met in the case of the Land Contract.\n(121)\nUnder Point 4.4. of the 1998 Guidelines, the notion of regional aid covers only aid for initial investment, which is defined as investment in fixed capital relating to the setting up of a new establishment, the extension of an existing establishment, or the starting up of an activity involving a fundamental change in the production process of an existing establishment. The aid granted under the Land Contract complies with this definition, because the aid was granted in support of the establishment of a new investment project in Alonsotegi.\n(122)\nUnder Point 4.5. of the 1998 Guidelines, aid for initial investment should be destined to cover exclusively eligible investment costs, and consequently, the maximum amount of regional aid is defined as a percentage of the eligible investment costs. According to Points 4.5. and 4.6. of the 1998 Guidelines, the category of \u2027eligible costs\u2027 of a new investment project comprises land, buildings and plant/machinery, and also some categories of intangible investments (patents, licenses, know-how) up to a limit of 25 % of the standard base in the case of large firms.\n(123)\nTherefore the eligible costs of the Habidite project in Alonsotegi, as of 15 December 2006, should be first determined.\n(124)\nAs the aid involved in the Land Contract was not granted on the basis of a prior application for aid, the beneficiary did not submit at the time the information that is pertinent for the identification of the eligible expenditure in a new investment project in regional aid cases. The information available to the Diputaci\u00f3n on the subject of the eligible expenditure was indicated at recital (12) above, as follows:\nLand\nEUR 4,8 million\nIndustrial building\nEUR 22,5 million\nLand adaptation (urbanizaci\u00f3n)\nEUR 4,04 million\nInstallations\nEUR 24,0 million\nTotal\nEUR 55,34 million\n(125)\nThe categories of expenditure thereby indicated can indeed be considered as \u2027eligible expenditure\u2027 within the meaning of Point 4.5. of the 1998 Guidelines. Furthermore, as the aid involved in the Land Contract was linked directly to the purchase and adaptation to industrial use of the land for the new investment project, it also satisfies this requirement stemming from Point 4.5 of the 1998 Guidelines.\n(126)\nUnder Point 4.10. of the 1998 Guidelines, aid for initial investment should be made conditional on the maintenance of the investment in question for a minimum period of 5 years. While this condition is not specifically imposed on Habidite in the context of the Land Contract, it must nevertheless be noted that, in the context of the parallel Training Aid Contract (described at recital (39) above), also concluded on 15 December 2006 and in relation to the same investment project, Habidite had committed to maintain 1 100 jobs for a period of at least 5 years. The Commission therefore concludes that Point 4.10. of the 1998 Guidelines is also satisfied.\n(127)\nIn the absence of information regarding the estimated wage costs for the 1.100 employees of the Habidite factory in Alonsotegi, the Commission cannot perform a meaningful assessment of the eventual compatibility of the aid granted under the Land contract with Points 4.11. to 4.17. of the 1998 Guidelines on job creation. However, as long as the aid in the Land Contract would have been linked to the purchase of the land, which is an eligible expenditure, an assessment under Points 4.11. to 4.17. of the 1998 Guidelines is not necessary.\n(128)\nBefore the Land Contract was signed, the Habidite investment project had not previously received any other investment aid that should be taken into account for the purposes of assessing cumulative effects under Point 4.18. of the 1998 Guidelines.\n(129)\nPoint 4.2. of the 1998 Guidelines establishes that aid schemes must lay down that an application for aid must be submitted before work has started on the investment project. The purpose of this provision is to guarantee that regional aid is granted only where it has a verifiable incentive effect: should the works on a given project have started before the application for aid, the regional aid subsequently granted would evidently not have incentive effect, meaning, the project would have been likely carried out even in the absence of the aid.\n(130)\nIn relation to this point, it should be noted first that the Land Contract was an ad hoc measure, and not an aid granted under an approved scheme. Nonetheless, incentive effect is a general compatibility criterion under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, which must at any rate be verified for the Land Contract. Although the Diputaci\u00f3n did not claim incentive effect in relation to this measure, the Commission should nevertheless examine of its own motion compliance with this essential compatibility condition.\n(131)\nThe Commission considers that the incentive effect condition is met in the case of the aid involved in the Land Contract, for the following reasons. First, although the aid was not notified before the date of its granting (15 December 2006), the works related to the project had not started prior to the granting of the aid. Indeed, according to information provided by the Diputaci\u00f3n, the purchase of the land necessary for the project, which can be considered the start of the work on this investment project, started only in May 2007, therefore at a date posterior to the signature of the Land Contract on 15 December 2006. Second, the fact that the Habidite project was not carried out after the suspension of the Land and Houses Contracts can be seen as a demonstration of the fact that the aid had incentive effect: the project was not carried out in the absence of the aid.\n(132)\nPoint 4.2. of the 1998 Guidelines also required that the beneficiary of the aid should have provided itself an aid-free own financial contribution to the project of at least 25 % of the eligible costs. This condition is also evidently complied with in the case of the aid involved in the Land Contract. The eligible costs declared by the Diputaci\u00f3n for this project totalled EUR 55 million, and therefore Habidite should have financed from own resources at least 25 % of this amount, meaning at least EUR 13,75 million. The Commission considers that the aid element in the Land Contract, as identified in recital (109) above, could not have exceeded 75 % of the eligible costs, i.e. EUR 41,25 million, not even in a scenario where the total aid amount would have been considerably increased by accepting that the aid consisted of EUR 28,2 million of effective costs for the adaptation of the land to industrial use, plus EUR 0,98 million (i.e. 13,41 % of a total of EUR 7,3 million of costs for the land purchase, as estimated by the Diputaci\u00f3n).\n(133)\nBased on the considerations at recitals (116) to (132), the Commission concludes that the aid involved in the Land Contract satisfied the compatibility conditions of the 1998 Guidelines.\n(134)\nThe information on eligible investment costs indicated in recitals (12) and (124) also shows that the Habidite investment project qualified in December 2006 as a large investment project within the meaning of the 2002 Framework - the total eligible costs for this project exceeded EUR 50 million. Therefore the compatibility of the aid involved in the Land Contract must also be examined from the perspective of its compliance with the conditions of the 2002 Framework.\n(135)\nThe maximum aid intensity applicable in the Grand Bilbao comarca in December 2006, expressed as NGE, was of 20 %. Based on Point 21 of the 2002 Framework, and taking into account the eligible expenditure for the Habidite project as of 2006 as indicated in recital (12), the maximum aid intensity permissible for this project should have been scaled down as follows:\nEligible expenditure\nAdjusted aid ceiling\nUp to EUR 50 million\nEUR 10 million (20 % - the regional ceiling - of EUR 50 million)\nBetween EUR 50 million and EUR 100 million\nEUR 0,5 million (10 % - half of the regional ceiling - of EUR 5 million)\nPart exceeding EUR 100 million\n-\nTotal\nEUR 10,5 million\n(136)\nIt follows that the aid involved in the Land Contract would have been compatible only up to the total amount of EUR 10,5 million, and incompatible for the part eventually exceeding EUR 10,5 million. Indeed, as indicated in recitals (78) to (82) and (109), the amount of aid involved in the Land Contract cannot be precisely quantified, given the dispute on the effective costs that should have been incurred by BIZKAILUR for performing its contractual obligations of purchasing and adapting to industrial use the land plot for the setup of the Habidite plant in Alonsotegi - a dispute on which the Commission is not in the position to take an informed final position.\n(137)\nThe first aid component would have represented 13,21 % of the effective costs incurred by BIZKAILUR for the purchase of the land. The Diputaci\u00f3n claims that these effective costs would have amounted to a total of EUR 7,3 million, but Habidite considers this estimate to be excessive. It is also noted that, according to the information provided by the Diputaci\u00f3n itself (see recital (12)), the costs for purchasing the land were, at a given moment, estimated at EUR 4,8 million. Finally, the costs estimated in November 2008 for the purchase of the land, as reported in Habidite's Business Plan submitted in its application for the 2008 regional aid, were of EUR 5,5 million.\n(138)\nAs to the second aid element, namely the totality of the effective costs incurred by BIZKAILUR for the adaptation to industrial use of the land plot in question, the Diputaci\u00f3n estimated them at EUR 28,5 million in March 2009, but also informed that at a given moment these costs were estimated at only EUR 4,04 million (see recital (12)).\n(139)\nTo conclude, on the basis of the existent information, it cannot be excluded in full certainty that the aid involved in the Land Contract would not have exceeded the permissible amount for this project of EUR 10,5 million.\n(140)\nPoint 24 of the 2002 Framework establishes additional compatibility conditions for measures where the aid amount exceeds the maximum aid allowable for an investment of EUR 100 million in the same assisted region. In our case, based on Point 21 of the 2002 Framework, the maximum aid allowable for an investment of EUR 100 million in the Gran Bilbao comarca in December 2006 was of EUR 15 million (composed of EUR 10 million, representing 20 % of the first EUR 50 million, plus EUR 5 million, representing 10 % of the next EUR 50 million).\n(141)\nAs already explained at recitals (78) to (82), the total aid amount involved in the Land Contract cannot be precisely quantified on the basis of the information available. However, the Commission cannot exclude that the aid amount might have exceeded the ceiling of EUR 15 million. Under these circumstances, the Commission verified if the two additional conditions for the approval of such aid were complied with in the case of the Land Contract.\n(142)\nThe first condition is that the beneficiary of aid should not have exceeded 25 % of the sales of the product concerned before or after the investment. The second condition is that the capacity created by the investment project should not exceed 5 % of the market concerned. According to Point 24 of the 2002 Framework, the burden of proving that these conditions are met lies with the Member State concerned. In the case at hand, the Spanish authorities did not provide information allowing the Commission to verify if any of these two additional conditions were met.\n(143)\nHowever, based on the market rate estimates provided by Habidite in November 2008 for obtaining the 2008 regional aid (see recital (87)), the company estimated its own share on the overall Spanish house construction market (free market and the social housing segment included) to be of [0,1-1,0]% in 2011, i.e. after the addition of the new production capacity by this investment project, and rising to [0,5-1,5]% from 2012 onwards. If only the Basque market were to be considered, the share of Habidite in 2011 on the free segment of the construction market would have been of [0,1-1,0]%, rising up to [2,0-3,0]% as of 2014 onwards.\n(144)\nGiven these estimates, which are not called into question by any other information available to the Commission, it can be assumed that Habidite would not have exceeded the market share and capacity ceilings laid down in Point 24 of the 2002 Framework in December 2006 in respect of the investment supported by the Land Contract.\n(145)\nTo conclude, the compatibility conditions of the 2002 Framework would have also been satisfied by the part of the aid involved in the Land Contract not exceeding the permissible amount of maximum EUR 10,5 million. The amount of aid eventually exceeding this ceiling would not have been compatible with the Treaty as not satisfying the compatibility conditions of the 1998 Guidelines and the 2002 Framework.\n(146)\nAs the aid has not been disbursed and recovery is not necessary, these conclusions on the compatibility of the aid involved in the Land Contract are sufficient for the purposes of this Decision.\n(147)\nThe Commission draws the competent Spanish authorities' attention to the fact that the aid involved in the Land Contract must be taken into account, for examining compliance with the rules on aid cumulation, for the 2008 regional aid granted by the Basque government for the same project. This is furthermore necessary considering that both the aid in the Land Contract and the 2008 regional aid covered eligible expenses related to the purchase and adaptation of the same land plot. It is again noted that works on this investment project started in May 2007, whereas the application for the 2008 regional aid was submitted in 2008.\n(148)\nAs indicated in recitals (93) to (107), the aid involved in the Houses Contract reduces the risks associated with the initial investment by securing sale of an important part of the initial production of the new plant, and also confers an advantage to Habidite by reference to other competitors from the fact of securing without a public tender a contract for the supply to public authorities of 1 500 homes to be sold under the semi-protected regime. The aid involved in the Houses contract was defined as the profit that Habidite would have derived from the purchase of the 1 500 houses by the Diputaci\u00f3n and BIZKAILUR, namely the difference between the price at which the latter would have sold the houses and Habidite's own costs for producing those houses.\n(149)\nUnder the 1998 Guidelines, regional aid is linked to eligible costs. While it is true that Point 4.2. of the 1998 Guidelines does not limit the forms in which investment aid can be granted, it is also clear from Point 4.5. of the 1998 Guidelines and from the entire content of these Guidelines that investment aid must support eligible investment costs. Under Point 4.5. of the 1998 Guidelines, only costs for buying assets such as land, buildings and plant/machinery can be taken into account for the purpose of granting regional aid. Under Point 4.6. of the 1998 Guidelines, other costs, such as those for the acquisition of patents, licenses and know-how, can also be supported through regional aid.\n(150)\nHowever, given its nature, the aid granted through the Houses Contract does not support such eligible expenses. Rather, the nature of this aid is to reduce the beneficiary's current operating expenses. Under Point 4.15. of the 1998 Guidelines, operating aid was as a general rule prohibited, and only exceptionally allowed in regions assisted under Article 107(a) of the Treaty. Yet the Habidite project was to be carried out in a region assisted under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, and not under Article 107(3)(a) of the Treaty.\n(151)\nThe Commission therefore concludes that the aid involved in the Houses Contract qualified as operating aid, which pursuant to Point 4.15. of the 1998 Guidelines would not have been compatible with the Treaty.\nVIII. CONCLUSION\n(152)\nIn the light of the above assessment at recitals (63) to (151) - and without prejudice to any further findings with regard to the compatibility with EU public procurement legislation - the Commission concludes that the Land Contract and the Houses Contract involve state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(153)\nIn the case of the Land Contract, the aid has two components:\n(a)\nThe interests forgone for a loan totalling the costs incurred by BIZKAILUR for the purchase of the land for the Habidite project, which would have been granted interest-free for a period of 7 years, with a grace period of 4 years. These forgone interests amount to an NGE of 13,41 % of the land purchase costs undertaken by BIZKAILUR on the basis of Part Two, Article 1(ii) of the Land Contract.\n(b)\nThe total costs that BIZKAILUR would have incurred for the adaptation to industrial use of the mentioned parcel of land, totalling at least 101 430 sqm, as stipulated in Part Two, Article 1(iii) of the Land Contract.\n(154)\nIn the case of the Houses Contract, the aid element consists of the profit that would have been derived by Habidite and the AFER group from the sale of the 1 500 houses contracted by the Diputaci\u00f3n and BIZKAILUR, meaning the difference between the price at which the latter would have sold the houses based on the provisions of the Houses Contract and the costs incurred by Habidite for constructing them.\n(155)\nThe information available does not enable the exact quantification of the aid amounts involved in the Land and Houses Contracts. However, the quantification of the aid is not necessary for the purposes of this Decision: the aid has not been disbursed, and it needs not be recovered.\n(156)\nIt is also underlined that the Land and Houses Contract involve unlawful aid. The aid involved in both contracts was granted on 15 December 2006, in breach of the Treaty obligation of prior notification. In the light of the CELF/SIDE jurisprudence (56), the posterior notification of the two contracts and the finding of partial compatibility of the aid involved in the Land Contract up to the permissible amount of EUR 10.5 million do not remove the unlawful character of the aid. The Commission requires the competent Spanish authorities to draw all the necessary legal consequences form the unlawful character of the aid involved in the Land and Houses Contract.\n(157)\nThe aid granted through the Land Contracts is compatible with the Treaty under the 1998 Guidelines and the 2002 Framework up to the permissible amount of EUR 10,5 million. The part of the aid granted under the Land Contracts eventually exceeding this permissible amount is incompatible with the Treaty.\n(158)\nThe aid granted through the Houses Contract constitutes operating aid, which is incompatible with the Treaty in its entirety under Point 4.15. of the 1998 Guidelines.\n(159)\nThe findings in the present Decision on existence of aid in the Land Contract are of relevance for the 2008 regional aid granted to the same investment project by the Basque government. It is noted that works for this investment project have started in May 2007, therefore prior to the application for the 2008 regional aid.\n(160)\nThe beneficiaries of the aid granted through the Land and Houses Contracts are Habidite Technologies Pa\u00eds Vasco S.A. and the AFER group, which are both contracting parties in the Land and Houses Contracts, and are linked within the meaning of Article 3(2) and 3(3) of the Annex to the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (57),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe two contracts notified by the Kingdom of Spain on 15 April 2009, concluded on 15 December 2006 between the Diputaci\u00f3n Foral de Bizkaia and BIZKAILUR S.A., on the one hand, and Habidite Technologies Pa\u00eds Vasco S.A. and the AFER group on the other hand, involve state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\nArticle 2\nThe aid involved in the notified contracts is unlawful, as it was granted in breach of the prior notification obligation stemming from Article 108(3) of the Treaty.\nArticle 3\nThe aid involved in the Land Contract comprises:\n(a)\nThe interests forgone by the Diputaci\u00f3n and BIZKAILUR for a loan totalling the effective costs for the purchase of the land, to be reimbursed after a grace period of four years in four equal annual instalments of 25 % each, interest-free. The NGE of such an interest-free loan would have been of 13,41 % of the effective costs incurred by BIZKAILUR for the purchase of the land for this project on the basis of Part Two, Article 1(ii) of the Land Contract.\n(b)\nThe total effective costs that BIZKAILUR would have incurred for the adaptation to industrial use of the land to be purchased for this project, totalling at least 101 430 sqm, as stipulated in Part Two, Article 1(iii) of the Land Contract.\nArticle 4\nThe aid involved in the Houses Contract consists of the profit that would have been derived by Habidite and the AFER group from the sale of the 1 500 houses ordered by the Diputaci\u00f3n Foral de Bizkaia and BIZKAILUR S.A. under this contract. This profit is defined as the difference between the price obtained by Habidite from BIZKAILUR on the basis of Article A(e) of this contract and Habidite's own costs for the construction of the 1 500 houses.\nArticle 5\nThe aid involved in the Land contract is compatible with the Treaty under the 1998 Guidelines on National Regional Aid and the 2002 Multisectoral Framework on regional aid to large investment projects up to the permissible amount of EUR 10,5 million. Aid exceeding this ceiling is incompatible with the Treaty.\nArticle 6\nThe aid involved in the Houses Contract is incompatible with the Treaty under Point 4.15. of the 1998 Guidelines on National Regional Aid, since it constitutes operating aid.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2012.", "references": ["53", "14", "65", "32", "5", "57", "47", "90", "74", "52", "86", "3", "25", "36", "41", "22", "56", "24", "10", "76", "82", "87", "21", "93", "81", "64", "85", "30", "58", "29", "No Label", "8", "15", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "15", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 3 August 2012\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency measures taken to combat avian influenza in Italy in 2011\n(notified under document C(2012) 5265)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(2012/459/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3) first and second indents of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nArticle 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Implementing Decision 2012/132/EU of 15 February 2012 on a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Germany, Italy and the Netherlands in 2011 (3) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Italy in 2011. An official request for reimbursement was submitted by Italy on 11 April 2012, as set out in Article 7(1) and 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(5)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union is to be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(6)\nItaly has in accordance with Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC without delay informed the Commission and the other Member States of the measures applied in accordance with Union legislation on notification and eradication and the results thereof. The request for reimbursement was, as required in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005, accompanied by a financial report, supporting documents, an epidemiological report on each holding where the animals have been slaughtered or destroyed and the results of respective audits.\n(7)\nThe Commission\u2019s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Italy on 2 May 2012. Italy agreed by e-mail dated 2 May 2012.\n(8)\nConsequently the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred in connection with the eradication of avian influenza in Italy in 2011 can now be fixed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating avian influenza in Italy in 2011 is fixed at EUR 133 190,48.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision constituting a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 3 August 2012.", "references": ["21", "8", "67", "50", "44", "11", "2", "14", "34", "45", "18", "65", "6", "35", "55", "51", "40", "15", "7", "93", "36", "19", "1", "83", "24", "94", "37", "82", "90", "48", "No Label", "4", "10", "33", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "33", "61", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 283/2011\nof 22 March 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 633/2007 as regards the transitional arrangements referred to in Article 7\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network (the interoperability Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 3(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (2), and in particular Article 8(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe implementation of a flight message transfer protocol is intended to be used for the exchange of flight data in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1032/2006 of 6 July 2006 laying down requirements for automatic systems for the exchange flight data for the purpose of notification, coordination and transfer of flight between air traffic control units (3).\n(2)\nIn order to comply with the requirements of point 6 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 633/2007 of 7 June 2007 laying down requirements for the application of a flight message transfer protocol used for the purpose of notification, coordination and transfer of flights between air traffic control units (4), some Member States or air navigation service providers have to update not only their Internet protocol (IP) network but also many of their flight data systems and network infrastructure. The update of these systems before 20 April 2011 could have a significant financial impact for the concerned Member States or air navigation service providers and, for this reason, appropriate transitional arrangements should contribute to minimise the cost.\n(3)\nDuring the period of validity of the transitional arrangements, the concerned Member States or air navigation service providers should apply the necessary measures to ensure interoperability within the European air traffic management network (hereinafter EATMN).\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 633/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 633/2007, the first two paragraphs are numbered and the following paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 are added:\n\u20183. Where a Member State or an air navigation service provider is developing a flight message transfer protocol in conjunction with the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1032/2006 between its systems, the systems referred to in Article 1(2)(a) and (b) shall comply with the requirements of Annex I by 31 December 2012.\n4. Where a Member State or an air navigation service provider has ordered or signed a binding contract to that effect or developed a flight message transfer protocol for the systems referred to in Article 1(2)(a) and (b) before the date of entry into force of this Regulation so that the compliance with the requirements of point 6 of Annex I cannot be guaranteed, the air navigation service provider or the controlling military unit may use other versions of the Internet protocol for peer-to-peer communications between their systems until 31 December 2014.\nThose Member States and air navigation service providers shall ensure that all peer-to-peer communications from their systems to those of other Member States or air navigation service providers comply with the requirements specified in Annex I, unless a bilateral agreement concluded before 20 April 2011 allows the use of other versions of the Internet protocol for a transitional period ending no later than 31 December 2014.\n5. The Member States referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 shall communicate to the Commission before 20 April 2011 detailed information on the measures applied by the air navigation service provider or the controlling military units to ensure interoperability of the systems referred to in Article 1(2)(a) and (b) within the EATMN.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 March 2011.", "references": ["92", "55", "4", "86", "84", "74", "36", "24", "85", "16", "2", "33", "95", "87", "44", "77", "98", "17", "80", "71", "89", "73", "91", "62", "15", "70", "14", "88", "18", "48", "No Label", "40", "41", "53", "57", "76"], "gold": ["40", "41", "53", "57", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 January 2012\non the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in the Netherlands\n(2012/46/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), in particular Article 25 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2), in particular Article 20 thereof and Chapter 4 of the Annex thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Article 25 of Decision 2008/615/JHA is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision.\n(3)\nArticle 20 of Decision 2008/616/JHA provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.\n(4)\nAccording to Chapter 4, point 1.1, of the Annex to Decision 2008/616/JHA, the questionnaire drawn up by the relevant Council Working Group concerns each of the automated data exchanges and has to be answered by a Member State as soon as it believes it fulfils the prerequisites for sharing data in the relevant data category.\n(5)\nThe Netherlands has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on dactyloscopic data exchange.\n(6)\nA successful pilot run has been carried out by the Netherlands with Germany.\n(7)\nAn evaluation visit has taken place in the Netherlands and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the German evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group.\n(8)\nAn overall evaluation report, summarising the results of the questionnaire, the evaluation visit and the pilot run concerning dactyloscopic data exchange has been presented to the Council,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the purposes of automated searching of dactyloscopic data, the Netherlands has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Article 9 of that Decision as from the day of the entry into force of this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["10", "54", "3", "26", "2", "59", "36", "83", "77", "45", "56", "65", "92", "7", "13", "18", "50", "19", "47", "61", "70", "57", "58", "81", "69", "53", "34", "73", "48", "76", "No Label", "40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["40", "41", "42", "43", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 483/2012\nof 7 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 June 2012.", "references": ["95", "15", "21", "33", "12", "38", "91", "69", "62", "50", "57", "30", "1", "3", "76", "73", "84", "66", "27", "19", "26", "24", "58", "52", "41", "14", "75", "18", "97", "72", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 1194/2011/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 November 2011\nestablishing a European Union action for the European Heritage Label\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 167(5), first indent, thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) aims at an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe and confers on the Union the task, inter alia, of contributing to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore. In this respect, the Union, where necessary, supports and supplements Member States\u2019 action to improve the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples.\n(2)\nA better understanding and appreciation, especially among young people, of their shared yet diverse heritage would help to strengthen the sense of belonging to the Union and reinforce intercultural dialogue. It is therefore important to promote greater access to cultural heritage and to enhance its European dimension.\n(3)\nThe TFEU also establishes citizenship of the Union, which complements national citizenship of the respective Member States and is an important element in safeguarding and strengthening the process of European integration. For citizens to give their full support to European integration, greater emphasis should be placed on their common values, history and culture as key elements of their membership of a society founded on the principles of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights, cultural and linguistic diversity, tolerance and solidarity.\n(4)\nAn intergovernmental European Heritage Label initiative (\u2018intergovernmental initiative\u2019) was launched on 28 April 2006 in Granada, Spain.\n(5)\nOn 20 November 2008, the Council adopted conclusions (3) aimed at transforming the intergovernmental initiative into a Union action (\u2018action\u2019) by inviting the Commission to submit to it a proposal for the creation by the Union of a European Heritage Label (\u2018label\u2019) and to specify the practical procedures for the implementation of the project.\n(6)\nThe public consultation and the impact assessment carried out by the Commission confirmed the value of the intergovernmental initiative but indicated that it needed to be further developed to reach its full potential, and that the involvement of the Union could provide it with a clear added value and help it to take a qualitative step forward.\n(7)\nThe label should benefit from the experience gained from the intergovernmental initiative.\n(8)\nThe label should seek added value and complementarity with regard to other initiatives such as the Unesco World Heritage List, the Unesco Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity and the Council of Europe\u2019s European Cultural Routes. Its added value should be based on the contribution made by the selected sites to European history and culture, including the building of the Union, on a clear educational dimension reaching out to citizens, especially young people, and on networking between the sites to share experiences and best practices. The main focus of the action should be on the promotion of and access to the sites as well as on the quality of the information and activities offered, as opposed to the preservation of the sites, which should be guaranteed by existing protection regimes.\n(9)\nIn addition to strengthening European citizens\u2019 sense of belonging to the Union and stimulating intercultural dialogue, the action could also contribute to enhancing the value and profile of cultural heritage, to increasing the role of heritage in the economic and sustainable development of regions, in particular through cultural tourism, to fostering synergies between cultural heritage and contemporary creation and creativity and, more generally, to promoting the democratic values and human rights that underpin European integration.\n(10)\nThose objectives are fully in line with the objectives set out in the Commission communication entitled \u2018A European agenda for culture in a globalizing world\u2019, which include the promotion of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue as well as of culture as a catalyst for creativity.\n(11)\nIt is crucial that the label be awarded on the basis of common, clear and transparent criteria and procedures, including during the first two selection years when transitional provisions should apply.\n(12)\nThe procedure for the selection of sites under the action should be carried out in two stages. Sites should initially be pre-selected at national level. Whenever relevant, Member States could involve local and regional authorities. The selection should then take place at Union level. Each site awarded the label should be monitored in order to ensure continued compliance with the criteria as laid down for the label.\n(13)\nIn the course of the first evaluation of the action, the widening of its geographical scope should be examined.\n(14)\nWhere there is a clear thematic link between several sites located in one Member State, the action should allow for joint applications. Such joint applications should comprise a reasonable number of participating sites and demonstrate a European added value compared to individual applications in respect of the same sites.\n(15)\nSimilarly, by reason of the transnational dimension of certain sites, the action should allow for joint applications both in the case of sites which are located in different Member States but focus on one specific theme and in the case of a site located on the territory of at least two Member States.\n(16)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Decision and, in particular, the provisions concerning the designation of sites to be awarded the label, the withdrawal of the label and the formalisation of the renunciation of the label, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission.\n(17)\nThe administrative arrangements for the label should be light and flexible, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.\n(18)\nSince the objectives of this Decision cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States by reason of the need, in particular, for new common, clear and transparent criteria and procedures for the label, as well as for stronger coordination between 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 Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEstablishment\nA European Union action (\u2018action\u2019) entitled \u2018European Heritage Label\u2019 (\u2018label\u2019) is hereby established.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018sites\u2019 means monuments, natural, underwater, archaeological, industrial or urban sites, cultural landscapes, places of remembrance, cultural goods and objects and intangible heritage associated with a place, including contemporary heritage;\n(2)\n\u2018transnational site\u2019 means:\n(a)\nseveral sites, located in different Member States, which focus on one specific theme in order to submit a joint application; or\n(b)\none site located on the territory of at least two Member States;\n(3)\n\u2018national thematic site\u2019 means several sites, located in the same Member State, which focus on one specific theme in order to submit a joint application.\nArticle 3\nObjectives\n1. The action shall contribute to the following general objectives:\n(a)\nstrengthening European citizens\u2019 sense of belonging to the Union, in particular that of young people, based on shared values and elements of European history and cultural heritage, as well as an appreciation of national and regional diversity;\n(b)\nstrengthening intercultural dialogue.\n2. In order to achieve the objectives set out in paragraph 1, the action shall seek to attain the following intermediate objectives:\n(a)\nstressing the symbolic value and raising the profile of sites which have played a significant role in the history and culture of Europe and/or the building of the Union;\n(b)\nincreasing European citizens\u2019 understanding of the history of Europe and the building of the Union, and of their common yet diverse cultural heritage, especially in relation to the democratic values and human rights that underpin the process of European integration.\n3. The sites themselves shall seek to attain the following specific objectives:\n(a)\nhighlighting their European significance;\n(b)\nraising European citizens\u2019 awareness of their common cultural heritage, especially that of young people;\n(c)\nfacilitating the sharing of experiences and exchanges of best practices across the Union;\n(d)\nincreasing and/or improving access for all, especially young people;\n(e)\nincreasing intercultural dialogue, especially among young people, through artistic, cultural and historical education;\n(f)\nfostering synergies between cultural heritage on one hand and contemporary creation and creativity on the other;\n(g)\ncontributing to the attractiveness and the economic and sustainable development of regions, in particular through cultural tourism.\nArticle 4\nParticipation in the action\nThe action shall be open to the participation, on a voluntary basis, of the Member States.\nArticle 5\nAdded value and complementarity of the action with other initiatives\nThe Commission and the Member States shall ensure the added value and complementarity of the action with regard to other initiatives in the field of cultural heritage such as the Unesco World Heritage List, the Unesco Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity and the Council of Europe\u2019s European Cultural Routes.\nArticle 6\nEligibility\nSites within the meaning of Article 2 shall be eligible for the attribution of the label.\nArticle 7\nCriteria\n1. The attribution of the label shall be based on the following criteria (\u2018criteria\u2019):\n(a)\nCandidate sites for the label must have a symbolic European value and must have played a significant role in the history and culture of Europe and/or the building of the Union. They must therefore demonstrate one or more of the following:\n(i)\ntheir cross-border or pan-European nature: how their past and present influence and attraction go beyond the national borders of a Member State;\n(ii)\ntheir place and role in European history and European integration, and their links with key European events, personalities or movements;\n(iii)\ntheir place and role in the development and promotion of the common values that underpin European integration.\n(b)\nCandidate sites for the label must submit a project, the implementation of which is to begin by the end of the designation year at the latest, which includes all of the following elements:\n(i)\nraising awareness of the European significance of the site, in particular through appropriate information activities, signposting and staff training;\n(ii)\norganising educational activities, especially for young people, which increase the understanding of the common history of Europe and of its shared yet diverse heritage and which strengthen the sense of belonging to a common space;\n(iii)\npromoting multilingualism and facilitating access to the site by using several languages of the Union;\n(iv)\ntaking part in the activities of networks of sites awarded the label in order to exchange experiences and initiate common projects;\n(v)\nraising the profile and attractiveness of the site on a European scale, inter alia, by using the possibilities offered by new technologies and digital and interactive means and by seeking synergies with other European initiatives.\nThe organisation of artistic and cultural activities which foster the mobility of European culture professionals, artists and collections, stimulate intercultural dialogue and encourage linkage between heritage and contemporary creation and creativity is to be welcomed whenever the specific nature of the site allows this.\n(c)\nCandidate sites for the label must submit a work plan which includes all of the following elements:\n(i)\nensuring the sound management of the site, including defining objectives and indicators;\n(ii)\nensuring the preservation of the site and its transmission to future generations in accordance with the relevant protection regimes;\n(iii)\nensuring the quality of the reception facilities such as the historical presentation, visitors\u2019 information and signposting;\n(iv)\nensuring access for the widest possible public, inter alia, through site adaptations or staff training;\n(v)\naccording special attention to young people, in particular by granting them privileged access to the site;\n(vi)\npromoting the site as a sustainable tourism destination;\n(vii)\ndeveloping a coherent and comprehensive communication strategy highlighting the European significance of the site;\n(viii)\nensuring that the management of the site is as environmentally friendly as possible.\n2. As regards the criteria laid down in points (b) and (c) of paragraph 1, each site shall be assessed in a proportionate manner, taking into account its characteristics.\nArticle 8\nEuropean panel\n1. A European panel of independent experts (\u2018European panel\u2019) shall be established to carry out the selection and monitoring at Union level. It shall ensure that the criteria are properly applied by the sites across the Member States.\n2. The European panel shall consist of 13 members, four of whom shall be appointed by the European Parliament, four by the Council, four by the Commission and one by the Committee of the Regions, in accordance with their respective procedures. The European panel shall designate its chairperson.\n3. The members of the European panel shall be independent experts with substantial experience and expertise in the fields relevant to the objectives of the action. Each institution and body shall seek to ensure that the competences of the experts it appoints are as complementary as possible, and that those experts are drawn from a balanced geographical spectrum.\n4. The members of the European panel shall be appointed for three years.\nHowever, in 2012 four experts shall be appointed by the European Parliament for two years, four by the Council for three years, four by the Commission for one year and one by the Committee of the Regions for three years.\n5. The members of the European panel shall declare any actual or potential conflict of interest in respect of a specific site. In the event of such a declaration by a member, or if such a conflict of interest comes to light, that member shall not participate in the evaluation of the site or of any other sites from the Member State(s) concerned.\n6. All reports, recommendations and notifications of the European panel shall be made public by the Commission.\nArticle 9\nApplication form\nWith a view to keeping procedures as streamlined and light as possible, a common application form (\u2018application form\u2019) based on the criteria shall be prepared by the Commission and used by all candidate sites.\nArticle 10\nPre-selection at national level\n1. The pre-selection of sites for the attribution of the label shall be under the responsibility of the Member States.\n2. Each Member State may pre-select up to two sites every two years.\n3. The pre-selection shall be based on the criteria and on the application form.\n4. Each participating Member State shall establish its own procedures and its own calendar for the pre-selection in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, striving for administrative arrangements that are as light and flexible as possible. It shall transmit the application forms in respect of the pre-selected sites to the Commission by 1 March of the year of the selection procedure, in accordance with the calendar set out in the Annex.\n5. The Commission shall publish the full list of pre-selected sites and shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions thereof without delay after the finalisation of the pre-selection stage, so that the European Parliament, the Council, the Committee of the Regions, the Member States or any other person or entity may submit to the Commission any observation which could have an impact on the selection of those sites.\nArticle 11\nSelection at Union level\n1. The selection of sites for the attribution of the label shall be carried out by the European panel under the responsibility of the Commission.\n2. The European panel shall evaluate the applications relating to the pre-selected sites and shall select a maximum of one site per Member State. If necessary, further information may be requested and visits to the sites may be organised.\n3. The selection shall be based on the criteria and on the application form. The European panel shall also take duly into account the observations referred to in Article 10(5).\n4. The European panel shall issue a report on the pre-selected sites and transmit it to the Commission at the latest by the end of the year of the selection procedure. That report shall include a recommendation for the attribution of the label and provide an accompanying explanation for its conclusions regarding those sites which are selected and those which are not. The Commission shall forward that report without delay to the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions for information.\n5. Candidate sites which are not selected may submit new applications for pre-selection at national level in the following years.\nArticle 12\nTransnational sites\n1. In order for a transnational site to be eligible for the attribution of the label, it shall comply with all of the following conditions:\n(a)\nfull compliance with the criteria by each participating site;\n(b)\ndesignation of one of the participating sites as the coordinator, which will be the single contact point for the Commission;\n(c)\napplication under a common name;\n(d)\nwhere appropriate, demonstration of a clear thematic link.\n2. Applications in respect of transnational sites shall follow the same procedure as that for other sites. Following consultation among the participating sites with the involvement of relevant national authorities, each participating site shall complete an application form and send it to the coordinator. Transnational sites shall be pre-selected by the Member State of the coordinator within the numerical limits of sites laid down in Article 10(2) and proposed on behalf of all the Member States concerned after those Member States have agreed thereon.\n3. When a transnational site is selected, the label shall be awarded to the transnational site as a whole and under the common name.\n4. If a transnational site meets all the criteria, priority shall be given to that site during the selection.\nArticle 13\nNational thematic sites\n1. In order for a national thematic site to be eligible for the attribution of the label, it shall comply with all of the following conditions:\n(a)\ndemonstration of the European added value of a joint application compared to individual applications;\n(b)\ndemonstration of a clear thematic link;\n(c)\nfull compliance with the criteria by each participating site;\n(d)\ndesignation of one of the participating sites as the coordinator, which will be the single contact point for the Commission;\n(e)\napplication under a common name.\n2. Applications in respect of national thematic sites shall follow the same procedure as that for other sites. Each participating site shall complete an application form and send it to the coordinator. National thematic sites shall be pre-selected by the Member State concerned within the numerical limits of sites laid down in Article 10(2).\n3. When a national thematic site is selected, the label shall be awarded to the national thematic site as a whole and under the common name.\nArticle 14\nDesignation\n1. The Commission shall designate the sites to be awarded the label, having due regard to the recommendation of the European panel. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions of its designation.\n2. The label shall be awarded on a permanent basis, subject to the conditions laid down in Article 15 and to the continuation of the action and without prejudice to Article 16.\nArticle 15\nMonitoring\n1. Each site awarded the label shall be monitored on a regular basis in order to ensure that it continues to meet the criteria and that it respects the project and work plan submitted in its application.\n2. The Member States shall be responsible for the monitoring of all sites located on their respective territory. The monitoring of a transnational site shall be the responsibility of the Member State of the coordinator.\n3. The Member States shall collect all the necessary information and prepare a report every four years in accordance with the calendar set out in the Annex. The Member States shall send the report to the Commission by 1 March of the year of the monitoring procedure. The Commission shall submit the report to the European panel for examination.\n4. The European panel shall issue a report on the state of the sites awarded the label by the end of the year of the monitoring procedure, including if necessary recommendations to be taken into account for the following monitoring period.\n5. The Commission shall establish, in cooperation with the European panel, common indicators for the Member States to ensure a coherent approach to the monitoring procedure.\nArticle 16\nWithdrawal or renunciation of the label\n1. If the European panel establishes that a site no longer meets the criteria or that it no longer respects the project and work plan submitted in its application, it shall initiate a dialogue with the Member State concerned via the Commission, with a view to facilitating the necessary adjustments to the site.\n2. If, 18 months after the beginning of the dialogue, the necessary adjustments have not been made to the site, the European panel shall notify the Commission of that fact. The notification shall be accompanied by a statement of reasons and shall include practical recommendations on how to improve the situation.\n3. If, 18 months after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, the practical recommendations have not been implemented, the European panel shall issue a recommendation to the Commission for the withdrawal of the label from the relevant site.\n4. If the European panel establishes that a site participating in a transnational site or a national thematic site no longer meets the criteria or that it no longer respects the project and work plan submitted in its application, the procedure set out in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall apply. Withdrawal pursuant to this paragraph shall apply to the transnational site or national thematic site in its entirety. However, in cases where the coherence of the transnational site or national thematic site will not be undermined, the European panel may recommend limiting the withdrawal to the participating site concerned.\n5. The Commission shall take the decision to withdraw the label having due regard to the recommendation referred to in paragraph 3. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions of the withdrawal.\n6. Sites may at any time renounce the label and, in such cases, they shall notify the Member States concerned which shall in turn inform the Commission of the renunciation. The Commission shall formalise the renunciation and inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions to that effect.\nArticle 17\nPractical arrangements\n1. The Commission shall implement the action. It shall in particular:\n(a)\nensure the overall coherence and quality of the action;\n(b)\nensure coordination between the Member States and the European panel;\n(c)\nin the light of the objectives and criteria, establish guidelines to assist with the selection and monitoring procedures in close cooperation with the European panel;\n(d)\nprovide support to the European panel.\n2. The Commission shall be responsible for communicating information concerning the label and ensuring its visibility at Union level, in particular by setting up and maintaining a specific website. The Commission shall also ensure the creation of a logo for the action.\n3. The Commission shall foster networking activities between the sites awarded the label.\n4. The actions under paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article, as well as the costs of the European panel, shall be financed through the financial envelope provided for in Article 20.\nArticle 18\nEvaluation\n1. The Commission shall ensure the external and independent evaluation of the action. Such evaluation shall take place every six years in accordance with the calendar set out in the Annex and shall examine all elements, including the efficiency of the processes involved in running the action, the number of sites, the impact of the action, the widening of its geographical scope, how it could be improved and whether it should be continued.\n2. The Commission shall present a report on the evaluation provided for in paragraph 1 to the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions within six months of its finalisation, accompanied, if appropriate, by relevant proposals.\nArticle 19\nTransitional provisions\n1. Member States which did not participate in the intergovernmental European Heritage Label initiative of 2006 (\u2018intergovernmental initiative\u2019) may pre-select up to four sites in 2013 for the attribution of the label.\n2. Member States which participated in the intergovernmental initiative may pre-select up to four sites in 2014 for the attribution of the label. They may propose sites which were already awarded a label within the intergovernmental initiative.\n3. All sites referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be assessed by the European panel on the basis of the same criteria and follow the same procedure as those for other sites.\n4. Where one of the sites referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 does not meet the criteria or if further information is needed, the European panel shall initiate a dialogue with the Member State concerned via the Commission in order to examine whether the application can be improved before a decision is taken. Visits to the site may be organised if necessary.\nArticle 20\nFinancial provisions\n1. The financial envelope for the implementation of the action during the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013 is set at EUR 650 000.\n2. The annual appropriations shall be authorised by the budgetary authority within the limits of the multiannual financial framework.\nArticle 21\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 November 2011.", "references": ["98", "48", "12", "37", "0", "44", "40", "50", "3", "21", "20", "68", "14", "36", "22", "91", "49", "30", "74", "83", "60", "79", "35", "55", "16", "52", "5", "59", "45", "38", "No Label", "1", "9"], "gold": ["1", "9"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1037/2011\nof 17 October 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 18 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 October 2011.", "references": ["34", "92", "29", "46", "70", "20", "62", "88", "44", "3", "28", "60", "71", "39", "21", "4", "84", "49", "98", "27", "17", "91", "23", "90", "56", "51", "67", "7", "77", "12", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1302/2011\nof 9 December 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["33", "17", "94", "16", "84", "61", "8", "20", "79", "29", "53", "7", "22", "13", "34", "63", "23", "12", "11", "72", "9", "1", "32", "19", "93", "99", "82", "73", "39", "27", "No Label", "21", "25"], "gold": ["21", "25"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 862/2010/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 22 September 2010\non the participation of the Union in a Joint Baltic Sea Research and Development Programme (BONUS) undertaken by several Member States\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 185 and 188, second paragraph, thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (3) (the Seventh Framework Programme) provides for Community participation in research and development programmes undertaken by several Member States, including participation in the structures created for the execution of those programmes, within the meaning of Article 169 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty).\n(2)\nCouncil Decision 2006/971/EC of 19 December 2006 concerning the Specific Programme Cooperation implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (4) encourages a cross-thematic approach to research topics relevant to one or more themes of the Seventh Framework Programme, and in this context identified an initiative under Article 169 of the EC Treaty in the field of Joint Baltic Sea research as one of the fields suitable for Community participation in jointly implemented national research programmes.\n(3)\nThe Baltic Sea ecosystem, a semi-land locked European inland sea, is one of the world\u2019s largest brackish water bodies and has been seriously affected by many natural pressures and pressures caused by human activity, such as pollution from dumped chemical weapons, for example war gases dating back to the Second World War, and from heavy metal compounds, organic substances, radioactive material, and heating oil and petroleum spills. The development of agriculture in the Baltic Sea drainage basin has likewise caused excessive inputs of fertilisers and organic material leading to advanced eutrophication, and the introduction of non-endemic alien organisms into the environment. The unsustainable exploitation of fish stocks and climate change are causing the loss of original biodiversity. Those factors, as well as continuing human activity, including infrastructure projects directly on and in the immediate vicinity of the coast and in the Baltic Sea drainage basin, and ecologically unsustainable tourism, are degrading the natural environment. All this is seriously reducing the capacity of the Baltic Sea to sustainably provide the goods and services upon which people depend directly and indirectly for social, cultural and economic benefits.\n(4)\nThe European Council of 14 December 2007 highlighted concern for the status of the environment in the Baltic Sea, as reflected in the Communication from the Commission of 10 June 2009 to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Moreover, the Council invited the Commission to present a proposal for an initiative under Article 169 of the EC Treaty for the Baltic Sea Region.\n(5)\nScience should contribute to addressing such challenges and finding solutions to the urgent environmental problems in the Baltic Sea. However, the gravity of the present situation calls for a qualitative and quantitative stepping-up of current research in the Baltic region through the development and implementation of a fully-integrated approach whereby the relevant research programmes of all the bordering States can be streamlined and focused in order to address the complex and urgent issues in a coordinated, efficient and effective manner.\n(6)\nAt present, a number of research and development programmes or activities undertaken by Member States individually at national level to support research and development in the Baltic Sea region are not sufficiently coordinated at Union level to achieve the critical mass required in strategic research and development areas.\n(7)\nFurthermore, existing sector-specific research structures, which have evolved throughout a long history of national policies, are deeply rooted in national governance systems and prevent the development and funding of the multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary environmental research needed to address the Baltic Sea challenges.\n(8)\nWhile there is a long tradition of Baltic Sea research cooperation with countries both within and outside the Baltic Sea area, collaborative efforts have so far lacked adequate financial resources for the optimal exploitation of the research potential due to the unequal economic and development situation in those countries as well as highly diverse national research agendas, research themes and priorities.\n(9)\nThe Commission, in its work programme for 2007-2008 of 11 June 2007 for the implementation of the Specific Programme Cooperation, provided financial support to BONUS ERA-NET and ERA-NET PLUS in the field of Baltic Sea environmental research in order to strengthen cooperation between environmental research funding agencies in the Baltic region and facilitate the transition to a joint research and development programme in the Baltic Sea to be implemented on the basis of Article 169 of the EC Treaty.\n(10)\nBy and large, BONUS ERA-NET and ERA-NET PLUS have worked well and it is thus important to ensure the continuity of the research efforts in order to address the pressing environmental challenges.\n(11)\nIn line with the approach of the Seventh Framework Programme and as acknowledged in the consultations with stakeholders undertaken during BONUS ERA-NET, there is a need for policy-driven research programmes in the Baltic region.\n(12)\nDenmark, Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland and Sweden (the Participating States) have agreed to jointly undertake the Joint Baltic Sea Research and Development Programme BONUS (\u2018BONUS\u2019). BONUS aims to support scientific development and innovation by providing the necessary legal and organisational framework for trans-national cooperation between the Baltic Sea States on environmental research in the Baltic Sea region.\n(13)\nWhile largely focused on environmental research, BONUS cuts across a number of related Union research programmes on a range of human activities having accumulated impacts on ecosystems such as fisheries, aquaculture, agriculture, infrastructure (including in the field of energy), transport, training and mobility of researchers as well as socioeconomic issues. BONUS is of considerable relevance to a number of Union policies and directives including the Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region; the Common Fisheries Policy; the Common Agricultural Policy, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (5); Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (6), as well as international commitments of the Union such as the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. As a result, many other areas of Union policy will benefit from BONUS.\n(14)\nIn order to increase the impact of BONUS, the Participating States have agreed to the Union participating in it.\n(15)\nBONUS should include a strategic phase, followed by the implementation phase, to provide an opportunity to carry out a wide stakeholder consultation on a strategically-driven research agenda also capable of tackling emerging research needs. During the strategic phase of BONUS, the involvement of additional sector-oriented funding agencies should be sought to further enhance the integration of research addressing cross-sectoral end-user needs and to ensure the effective use and uptake of results for policy and resource management arrangements across a wide array of economic sectors.\n(16)\nAt the end of the strategic phase, the Commission should verify that the Strategic Research Agenda, Stakeholders Consultation Platforms and implementation modalities are in place for BONUS to enter the implementation phase. The Commission may, if appropriate, make recommendations for improving the Strategic Research Agenda. The transition to the implementation phase should be seamless and without delays.\n(17)\nParticipating States have agreed to contribute EUR 50 million to BONUS. In-kind contributions in the form of access to and use of infrastructures (in-kind infrastructure contribution) should be allowed, provided that they do not represent a significant part of the entire contribution. They should be subject to an evaluation of their value and their utility for carrying out BONUS projects.\n(18)\nThe Union participation in BONUS should not exceed EUR 50 million for its entire duration and match, within that limit, the contribution of the Participating States in order to increase their interest in carrying out BONUS jointly. Most of the Union financial contribution should be allocated to the implementation phase. A ceiling should be defined for each phase. The ceiling for the implementation phase should be increased by any amount remaining after implementation of the strategic phase.\n(19)\nThe joint implementation of BONUS requires a dedicated implementation structure, as provided for in Decision 2006/971/EC. The Participating States have agreed on such a dedicated implementation structure and set up the Baltic Organisations\u2019 Network for Funding Science (BONUS EEIG) to implement BONUS. BONUS EEIG should be the recipient of the Union financial contribution. While reminding the Participating States that the principle of a real common pot is important, each Participating State will decide, in accordance with the funding rules and procedures common to BONUS, whether to administer its own contribution or whether its contribution will be administered by BONUS EEIG. BONUS EEIG should also ensure that the implementation of BONUS complies with the principle of sound financial management.\n(20)\nThe Union financial contribution should be subject to formal commitments from the competent national authorities of the Participating States and the payment of their financial contributions.\n(21)\nThe payment of the Union contribution for the strategic phase should be subject to the conclusion of a grant agreement between the Commission on behalf of the Union and BONUS EEIG that should be governed by Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of research results (2007 to 2013) (7) in order to facilitate and simplify its management.\n(22)\nThe payment of the Union contribution for the implementation phase should be subject to the conclusion of an implementation agreement between the Commission on behalf of the Union and BONUS EEIG, containing the detailed arrangements for the use of the Union financial contribution. This part of the Union financial contribution should be managed under indirect centralised management in accordance with Articles 54(2)(c) and 56 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (8) (Financial Regulation), and Articles 35, 38(2) and 41 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (9).\n(23)\nAny interest accruing on the contributions paid to BONUS EEIG should be considered to be its revenue and assigned to the implementation of BONUS.\n(24)\nIn order to protect its financial interests, the Union should have the right to reduce, withhold or terminate its financial contribution in the event that BONUS is implemented inadequately, partially or late, or the Participating States do not contribute, or contribute partially or late, to the financing of BONUS, on the terms set out in the agreements to be concluded between the Union and BONUS EEIG.\n(25)\nIn order to efficiently implement BONUS, during the implementation phase, financial support should be granted to participants in BONUS projects selected at the central level under the responsibility of BONUS EEIG following calls for proposals. The grant and payment of such financial support to participants in BONUS should be transparent, unbureaucratic and in accordance with common rules in line with the Seventh Framework Programme.\n(26)\nWhilst the Joint Research Centre is a department of the Commission, its institutes nevertheless possess research capabilities that are relevant to BONUS and could contribute to its implementation. It is therefore appropriate to define the role of the Joint Research Centre in terms of its eligibility for funding.\n(27)\nIn order to assure equal treatment, the evaluation of proposals should follow the same principles applicable to proposals submitted under the Seventh Framework Programme. Therefore the evaluation of proposals should be performed centrally under the responsibility of BONUS EEIG by independent experts with a good knowledge of local conditions on the basis of transparent and common criteria, and funding should be allocated in accordance with a centrally approved ranking list. Ranking and priority order should be approved by BONUS EEIG strictly following the outcome of the independent evaluation, which should be binding.\n(28)\nAny Member State and any country associated with the Seventh Framework Programme should be entitled to join BONUS.\n(29)\nIn line with the objectives of the Seventh Framework Programme, participation by any other countries in BONUS, in particular those countries bordering the Baltic Sea or providing its drainage basin, should be possible where such participation is provided for by the relevant international agreement and where both the Commission and the Participating States agree to it. In accordance with the Seventh Framework Programme, the Union should have the right to agree on the conditions relating to its financial contribution to BONUS with regard to the participation by other countries in accordance with the rules and conditions set out in this Decision.\n(30)\nAppropriate measures should be taken to prevent irregularities and fraud and the necessary steps should be taken to recover funds lost, wrongly paid or incorrectly used in accordance with Council Regulations (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (10) and (Euratom/EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities\u2019 financial interest against fraud and other irregularities (11) and Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (12).\n(31)\nThe research activities carried out under BONUS should conform to ethical principles in accordance with the general principles of the Seventh Framework Programme, and follow the principles of gender mainstreaming and gender equality, and sustainable development.\n(32)\nIn the light of an interim evaluation conducted by the Commission, assisted by independent experts with a good knowledge of local conditions, the Commission should assess the quality and efficiency of the implementation of BONUS and progress towards the objectives set, and should conduct a final evaluation.\n(33)\nThe participants in BONUS should communicate and disseminate their results widely, in particular to other similar regional marine research projects and make the information publicly available.\n(34)\nThe successful implementation of the projects already carried out under BONUS ERA-NET and BONUS ERA-NET PLUS brought to light the disastrous condition of the Baltic Sea. The state of the Baltic Sea environment should therefore continue to be subject to further research activities,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nUnion financial contribution\n1. The financial contribution of the Union to the Joint Baltic Sea Research and Development Programme BONUS (\u2018BONUS\u2019) undertaken jointly by Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland and Sweden (the Participating States), shall be provided under the conditions set out in this Decision.\n2. The Union shall make a financial contribution not exceeding EUR 50 million for the entire duration of BONUS in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 during the strategic phase and in accordance with Article 54(2)(c) of the Financial Regulation during the implementation phase. Within that ceiling, the Union financial contribution shall match the contribution of the Participating States.\n3. The Union financial contribution shall be paid jointly from the budget appropriations allocated to all the relevant themes of the Specific Programme Cooperation.\nArticle 2\nImplementation of BONUS\n1. BONUS shall be implemented by the Baltic Organisations\u2019 Network for Funding Science (BONUS EEIG).\n2. BONUS shall be implemented in two phases, namely, a strategic phase followed by an implementation phase in accordance with Annex I.\n3. The strategic phase of BONUS shall last up to 18 months. It shall prepare the implementation phase. During the strategic phase, BONUS EEIG shall carry out the following tasks:\n(a)\npreparation of the Strategic Research Agenda defining the part on scientific content of BONUS focusing on calls for proposals, in conformity with the objectives set in the Seventh Framework Programme;\n(b)\nsetting up of the Stakeholder Consultation Platforms with the aim of strengthening and institutionalising the involvement of stakeholders from all relevant sectors;\n(c)\npreparation of the implementation modalities, including legal and financial rules and procedures, provisions governing the intellectual property rights arising from BONUS activities, human resources and communication aspects.\n4. The implementation phase shall last for a minimum period of 5 years. During the implementation phase the calls for proposals shall be published with a view to funding projects which address the objectives of BONUS. Those calls for proposals shall be targeted at multi-partner and trans-national projects, encouraging an adequate participation of small and medium-sized enterprises, and include research, technological development, training and dissemination activities. Projects shall be selected according to the principles of equal treatment, transparency, independent evaluation, co-financing, no-profit, non-retroactivity and financing not cumulated with other Union sources. The grant and payment of financing to participants in BONUS shall comply with common rules in line with the Seventh Framework Programme.\nArticle 3\nConditions for the Union financial contribution\n1. The Union financial contribution for the strategic phase shall not exceed EUR 1,25 million and match, within that limit, the contribution of the Participating States. The commitment of the Union to contribute to the strategic phase shall be conditional upon an equivalent commitment from the Participating States.\n2. The Union financial contribution for the implementation phase shall not exceed EUR 48,75 million and match, within that limit, the contribution of the Participating States. That ceiling may be increased by any amount remaining after the implementation of the strategic phase. During the implementation phase, up to 25 % of the contribution from the Participating States may consist in providing in-kind infrastructure contribution.\n3. The Union financial contribution for the implementation phase shall be conditional upon:\n(a)\nthe establishment by the Participating States of the Strategic Research Agenda, Stakeholders Consultation Platforms and the implementation modalities referred to in Article 2(3), as well as the progress made towards the achievement of objectives and deliverables set out in Annex I, section 2. The Commission may, if appropriate, make recommendations for improving the Strategic Research Agenda;\n(b)\ndemonstration by BONUS EEIG of its capacity to implement BONUS, including receiving, allocating and monitoring the Union financial contribution under indirect centralised management in accordance with Articles 54(2)(c) and 56 of the Financial Regulation and Articles 35, 38(2) and 41 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 and in accordance with the principle of sound financial management;\n(c)\nthe maintenance and application of an appropriate and efficient governance model for BONUS in conformity with Annex II;\n(d)\nthe efficient carrying out of the activities relating to the implementation phase of BONUS set out in Annex I by BONUS EEIG, which entails the launch of calls for proposals for the award of grants;\n(e)\na commitment by each Participating State to contribute its share of the financing to BONUS and the effective payment of their financial contribution, in particular the funding of participants in BONUS projects selected following the calls for proposals;\n(f)\ncompliance with the State aid rules of the Union, and in particular with the Community Framework for State Aid for Research and Development and Innovation (13);\n(g)\nensuring a high level of scientific excellence, observance of ethical principles in accordance with the general principles of the Seventh Framework Programme, and adherence to the principles of gender mainstreaming and gender equality, and to the principle of sustainable development.\nArticle 4\nParticipation of the Joint Research Centre\n1. The Joint Research Centre shall be eligible for funding by BONUS under the same conditions as those for eligible entities of the Participating States.\n2. The own resources of the Joint Research Centre, which are not covered by funding from BONUS, shall not be considered as part of the Union financial contribution within the meaning of Article 1.\nArticle 5\nAgreements between the Union and BONUS EEIG\n1. The detailed arrangements for the management and control of funds and the protection of the Union\u2019s financial interests during the strategic phase shall be laid down in a grant agreement to be concluded between the Commission on behalf of the Union and BONUS EEIG in accordance with the rules set out in this Decision and in Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006.\n2. The detailed arrangements for the management and control of funds and the protection of the Union\u2019s financial interests during the implementation phase shall be laid down in an implementation agreement and annual financial agreements to be concluded between the Commission on behalf of the Union and BONUS EEIG.\nThe implementation agreement shall in particular include the following:\n(a)\na definition of the tasks delegated;\n(b)\nprovision for the protection of Union funds;\n(c)\nthe conditions and detailed arrangements for performing the tasks, including funding rules and upper funding limits applicable to BONUS projects, appropriate provisions for demarcating responsibilities and implementing controls;\n(d)\nrules on reporting to the Commission on how the tasks are performed;\n(e)\nthe conditions under which the performance of tasks ceases;\n(f)\ndetailed arrangements for Commission scrutiny;\n(g)\nconditions governing the use of a separate bank account and the treatment of the interest yielded;\n(h)\nprovisions ensuring the visibility of Union action in relation to the other activities of BONUS EEIG;\n(i)\nan undertaking to refrain from any act that may give rise to a conflict of interests within the meaning of Article 52(2) of the Financial Regulation;\n(j)\nprovisions governing the intellectual property rights arising from the implementation of BONUS as referred to in Article 2;\n(k)\nthe criteria to be used in the interim and final evaluations, including those referred to in Article 13.\n3. The Commission shall make an ex-ante assessment of BONUS EEIG in order to obtain evidence of the existence and proper operation of the procedures and systems referred to in Article 56 of the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 6\nInterest generated from contributions\nThe interest accrued on the financial contributions allocated to BONUS shall be considered as revenue of BONUS EEIG and shall be assigned to BONUS.\nArticle 7\nReduction, withholding or termination of the Union financial contribution\nWhere BONUS is not implemented or is implemented inadequately, partially or late, the Union may reduce, withhold or terminate its financial contribution, taking into account the progress in the implementation of BONUS.\nWhere the Participating States do not contribute or contribute only partially or late to the financing of BONUS, the Union may reduce its financial contribution, taking into account the amount of public funding allocated by the Participating States under the terms of the grant agreement referred to in Article 5(1).\nArticle 8\nProtection of the Union\u2019s financial interests by the Participating States\nIn implementing BONUS, the Participating States shall take the legislative, regulatory, administrative or other measures necessary for protecting the Union\u2019s financial interests. In particular, the Participating States shall take the necessary measures to ensure full recovery of any amounts due to the Union in accordance with the Financial Regulation and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002.\nArticle 9\nControl by the Commission and the Court of Auditors\nThe Commission and the Court of Auditors of the European Union shall be entitled to carry out all the checks and inspections necessary to ensure the proper management of the Union funds and to protect the Union\u2019s financial interest against any fraud or irregularity. To this end, the Participating States and BONUS EEIG shall make available all the relevant documents to the Commission and the Court of Auditors.\nArticle 10\nMutual information\nThe Commission shall communicate all relevant information to the European Parliament, the Council and the Court of Auditors. The Participating States shall be invited to submit to the Commission, through BONUS EEIG, any additional information requested by the European Parliament, the Council or the Court of Auditors concerning the financial management of BONUS EEIG that is consistent with the overall reporting requirements set out in Article 13.\nArticle 11\nParticipation of other Member States and associated countries\nAny Member State and any country associated with the Seventh Framework Programme may join BONUS in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 3(1) and Article 3(3)(e) and (f). Member States and associated countries that have joined BONUS shall be regarded as Participating States for the purposes of this Decision.\nArticle 12\nParticipation of other countries\nThe Participating States and the Commission may agree to the participation of any other country subject to the criteria set out in Article 3(1) and Article 3(3)(e) and (f), provided that such participation is provided for by the relevant international agreement.\nThe Participating States and the Commission shall define the conditions under which legal entities established or resident in such country shall be eligible for BONUS funding.\nArticle 13\nAnnual reporting and evaluation\nThe Commission shall include a report of the activities of BONUS in the annual report on the Seventh Framework Programme presented to the European Parliament and the Council pursuant to Article 190 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nThe Commission shall carry out an interim evaluation of BONUS no later than 31 December 2014. That evaluation shall cover progress towards the objectives set out in Article 2 and Annex I, as well as the recommendations of BONUS on the most appropriate ways to further enhance integration and the quality and efficiency of the implementation, including scientific, management and financial integration and whether the level of the financial contributions of the Participating States is appropriate, given the potential demand from their national research communities. The Commission shall communicate the conclusions of its interim evaluation, accompanied by its observations, to the European Parliament and the Council.\nAt the end of Union participation in BONUS but no later than 31 December 2017, the Commission shall conduct a final evaluation of BONUS. The Commission shall submit the results of that evaluation to the European Parliament and the Council.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 15\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 22 September 2010.", "references": ["83", "26", "12", "99", "51", "3", "11", "65", "41", "57", "89", "23", "47", "96", "35", "86", "1", "38", "94", "91", "27", "79", "19", "18", "98", "45", "39", "44", "24", "43", "No Label", "10", "15", "58", "59", "60", "77"], "gold": ["10", "15", "58", "59", "60", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 653/2012\nof 17 July 2012\ninitiating a \u2027new exporter\u2027 review of Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate originating, inter alia, in Taiwan, repealing the duty with regard to imports from one exporter in this country and making these imports subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (\"the basic Regulation\") (1) and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,\nAfter having consulted the Advisory Committee in accordance with Articles 11(4) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation,\nWhereas:\nA. REQUEST\n(1)\nThe European Commission (\"Commission\") has received a request for a \u2027new exporter\u2027 review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(2)\nThe request was lodged on 27 April 2012 by Lealea Enterprise Co., Ltd. (\"the applicant\"), an exporting producer in Taiwan (\"the country concerned\") of certain polyethylene terephthalate.\nB. PRODUCT\n(3)\nThe product under review is polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to ISO (International Organization for Standardization) standard 1628-5, originating, inter alia, in Taiwan (\"the product under review\"), currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20.\nC. EXISTING MEASURES\n(4)\nThe measures currently in force are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 (2) under which imports into the Union of the product under review originating in Taiwan, including the product produced by the applicant, are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty of 143,4% with the exception of two companies specially mentioned which are subject to individual duty rates. In February 2012, the Commission initiated an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand (3), i.e. inter alia in Taiwan. Pending the completion of the expiry review investigation, the measures continue to be in force.\nD. GROUNDS\n(5)\nThe applicant claims that it did not export the product under review to the Union during the period of investigation on which the anti-dumping measures were based, i.e. the period from 1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999 (\"the original investigation period\").\n(6)\nFurthermore, the applicant claims that it is not related to any of the exporting producers of the product under review which are subject to the above-mentioned anti-dumping measures.\n(7)\nThe applicant further claims that it has begun exporting the product under review to the Union after the end of the original investigation period.\nE. PROCEDURE\n(8)\nUnion producers known to be concerned have been informed of the request for a review and have been given an opportunity to comment.\n(9)\nHaving examined the evidence available, the Commission concludes that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of a \u2027new exporter\u2027 review, pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, with a view to determine the applicant's individual margin of dumping and, should dumping be found, the level of the duty to which its imports of the product under review into the Union shall be subject.\n(10)\nIf it is determined that the applicant fulfils the requirements to have an individual duty established, it may be necessary to amend the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the product under review from companies not individually mentioned in Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007.\n(a) Questionnaires\n(11)\nIn order to obtain information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send a questionnaire to the applicant.\n(b) Collection of information and holding of hearings\n(12)\nAll interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence.\n(13)\nFurthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing showing that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\nF. REPEAL OF THE DUTY IN FORCE AND REGISTRATION OF IMPORTS\n(14)\nPursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping duty in force should be repealed with regard to imports of the product under review which are produced and sold for export to the Union by the applicant. At the same time, such imports should be made subject to registration in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, in order to ensure that, should the review result in a finding of dumping in respect of the applicant, anti-dumping duties can be levied retroactively to the date of the initiation of the review. The amount of the applicant's possible future liabilities cannot be estimated at this stage of the proceeding.\nG. TIME-LIMITS\n(15)\nIn the interest of sound administration, time-limits should be stated within which:\n(16)\ninterested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit any information to be taken into account during the investigation,\n(17)\ninterested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.\n(18)\nAttention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the time-limits indicated in Article 3 of this Regulation.\nH. NON-COOPERATION\n(19)\nIn cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time-limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.\n(20)\nWhere it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of facts available.\n(21)\nIf an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.\nI. SCHEDULE OF THE INVESTIGATION\n(22)\nThe investigation will be concluded, pursuant to Article 11(5) of the basic Regulation, within nine months of the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nJ. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\n(23)\nIt is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (4).\nK. HEARING OFFICER\n(24)\nInterested parties may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of the Directorate-General for Trade. The Hearing Officer acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission investigation services. The Hearing Officer reviews requests for access to the file, disputes regarding the confidentiality of documents, requests for extension of time-limits and requests by third parties to be heard. The Hearing Officer may organise a hearing with an individual interested party and mediate to ensure that the interested party's rights of defence are being fully exercised.\n(25)\nA request for a hearing with the Hearing Officer should be made in writing and should specify the reasons for the request. The Hearing Officer will also provide opportunities for a hearing involving parties to take place which would allow different views to be presented and rebuttal arguments offered.\n(26)\nFor further information and contact details interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages on the Directorate-General for Trade's website: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/hearing-officer/index_en.htm\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nA review of Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 is hereby initiated pursuant to Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 in order to determine if and to what extent the imports of polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to ISO standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20, originating in Taiwan, produced and sold for export to the Union by Lealea Enterprise Co., Ltd. (TARIC additional code A996) should be subject to the anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007.\nArticle 2\nThe anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 is hereby repealed with regard to the imports identified in Article 1 of the present Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThe Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 11(4) and Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union identified in Article 1 of this Regulation.\nRegistration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nArticle 4\n1. Interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views in writing and submit a reply to the questionnaire indicated in recital 11 of this Regulation or any information to be taken into account within 37 days from the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.\n2. Interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 37-day time-limit.\n3. Interested parties are required to make all submissions and requests in electronic format (non-confidential submissions via e-mail, confidential ones on CD-R/DVD), and must indicate their name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers. However, any Powers of Attorney, signed certifications, and any updates thereof, accompanying questionnaire replies must be submitted on paper, i.e. by post or by hand, at the address below. If an interested party cannot provide its submissions and requests in electronic format, it must immediately inform the Commission in compliance with Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation. For further information concerning correspondence with the Commission, interested parties may consult the relevant web page on the website of the Directorate-General for Trade: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/trade-defence.\nAll written submissions, including the information requested in this Regulation, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis must be labelled as \u2027Limited\u2027 (5) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, must be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which must be labelled \u2027For inspection by interested parties\u2027.\nCommission address for correspondence:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N105 4/92\n1049 Bruxelles/Brussel\nBELGIQUE/BELGI\u00cb\nFax +32 2295 65 05\nE-mail: Trade-R557-PET-A@ec.europa.eu\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 July 2012.", "references": ["73", "85", "8", "46", "82", "90", "52", "29", "30", "68", "24", "97", "63", "16", "64", "74", "78", "42", "11", "62", "6", "31", "47", "40", "19", "61", "80", "41", "34", "79", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1093/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\nestablishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe financial crisis in 2007 and 2008 exposed important shortcomings in financial supervision, both in particular cases and in relation to the financial system as a whole. Nationally based supervisory models have lagged behind financial globalisation and the integrated and interconnected reality of European financial markets, in which many financial institutions operate across borders. The crisis exposed shortcomings in the areas of cooperation, coordination, consistent application of Union law and trust between national supervisors.\n(2)\nBefore and during the financial crisis, the European Parliament has called for a move towards more integrated European supervision in order to ensure a true level playing field for all actors at the level of the Union and to reflect the increasing integration of financial markets in the Union (in its resolutions of 13 April 2000 on the Commission communication on implementing the framework for financial markets: Action Plan (4), of 21 November 2002 on prudential supervision rules in the European Union (5), of 11 July 2007 on financial services policy (2005 to 2010) - White Paper (6), of 23 September 2008 with recommendations to the Commission on hedge funds and private equity (7) and of 9 October 2008 with recommendations to the Commission on Lamfalussy follow-up: future structure of supervision (8), and in its positions of 22 April 2009 on the amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (9) and of 23 April 2009 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Credit Rating Agencies (10)).\n(3)\nIn November 2008, the Commission mandated a High-Level Group chaired by Jacques de Larosi\u00e8re to make recommendations on how to strengthen European supervisory arrangements with a view to better protecting the citizen and rebuilding trust in the financial system. In its final report presented on 25 February 2009 (the \u2018de Larosi\u00e8re Report\u2019), the High-Level Group recommended that the supervisory framework be strengthened to reduce the risk and severity of future financial crises. It recommended reforms to the structure of supervision of the financial sector in the Union. The group also concluded that a European System of Financial Supervisors should be created, comprising three European Supervisory Authorities, one for the banking sector, one for the securities sector and one for the insurance and occupational pensions sector, and recommended the creation of a European Systemic Risk Council. The report represented the reforms the experts considered were needed and on which work had to begin immediately.\n(4)\nIn its Communication of 4 March 2009 entitled \u2018Driving European Recovery\u2019, the Commission proposed to put forward draft legislation creating a European system of financial supervision and a European systemic risk board. In its Communication of 27 May 2009 entitled \u2018European Financial Supervision\u2019, it provided more detail about the possible architecture of such a new supervisory framework reflecting the main thrust of the de Larosi\u00e8re Report.\n(5)\nThe European Council, in its conclusions of 19 June 2009, confirmed that a European System of Financial Supervisors, comprising three new European Supervisory Authorities, should be established. The system should be aimed at upgrading the quality and consistency of national supervision, strengthening oversight of cross-border groups and establishing a European single rule book applicable to all financial institutions in the internal market. It emphasised that the European Supervisory Authorities should also have supervisory powers in relation to credit rating agencies and invited the Commission to prepare concrete proposals on how the European System of Financial Supervisors could play a strong role in crisis situations, while stressing that decisions taken by the European Supervisory Authorities should not impinge on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States.\n(6)\nOn 17 June 2010, the European Council agreed that \u2018Member States should introduce systems of levies and taxes on financial institutions to ensure fair burden-sharing and to set incentives to contain systemic risk. Such levies or taxes should be part of a credible resolution framework. Further work is urgently required on their main features and issues of level playing field and cumulative impacts of various regulatory measures should be carefully assessed\u2019.\n(7)\nThe financial and economic crisis has created real and serious risks to the stability of the financial system and the functioning of the internal market. Restoring and maintaining a stable and reliable financial system is an absolute prerequisite to preserving trust and coherence in the internal market, and thereby to preserve and improve the conditions for the establishment of a fully integrated and functioning internal market in the field of financial services. Moreover, deeper and more integrated financial markets offer better opportunities for financing and risk diversification, and thus help to improve the capacity of the economies to absorb shocks.\n(8)\nThe Union has reached the limits of what can be done with the present status of the Committees of European Supervisors. The Union cannot remain in a situation where there is no mechanism to ensure that national supervisors arrive at the best possible supervisory decisions for cross-border financial institutions; where there is insufficient cooperation and information exchange between national supervisors; where joint action by national authorities requires complicated arrangements to take account of the patchwork of regulatory and supervisory requirements; where national solutions are most often the only feasible option in responding to problems at the level of the Union, and where different interpretations of the same legal text exist. The European System of Financial Supervision (hereinafter \u2018the ESFS\u2019) should be designed to overcome those deficiencies and provide a system that is in line with the objective of a stable and single Union financial market for financial services, linking national supervisors within a strong Union network.\n(9)\nThe ESFS should be an integrated network of national and Union supervisory authorities, leaving day-to-day supervision to the national level. Greater harmonisation and the coherent application of rules for financial institutions and markets across the Union should also be achieved. In addition to the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019), a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) as well as a Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (hereinafter \u2018the Joint Committee\u2019) should be established. A European Systemic Risk Board (hereinafter \u2018the ESRB\u2019) should form part of the ESFS for the purposes of the tasks as specified in this Regulation and in Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11).\n(10)\nThe European Supervisory Authorities (hereinafter collectively referred to as the \u2018ESAs\u2019) should replace the Committee of European Banking Supervisors established by Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (12), the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors established by Commission Decision 2009/79/EC (13) and the Committee of European Securities Regulators established by Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (14), and should assume all of the tasks and competences of those committees including the continuation of ongoing work and projects, where appropriate. The scope of each European Supervisory Authority\u2019s action should be clearly defined. The ESAs should be accountable to the European Parliament and the Council. When that accountability relates to cross-sectoral issues that have been coordinated through the Joint Committee, the ESAs should be accountable, through the Joint Committee, for such coordination.\n(11)\nThe Authority should act with a view to improving the functioning of the internal market, in particular by ensuring a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision taking account of the varying interests of all Member States and the different nature of financial institutions. The Authority should protect public values such as the stability of the financial system, the transparency of markets and financial products, and the protection of depositors and investors. The Authority should also prevent regulatory arbitrage and guarantee a level playing field, and strengthen international supervisory coordination, for the benefit of the economy at large, including financial institutions and other stakeholders, consumers and employees. Its tasks should also include promoting supervisory convergence and providing advice to the Union institutions in the areas of banking, payments, e-money regulation and supervision, and related corporate governance, auditing and financial reporting issues. The Authority should also be entrusted with certain responsibilities for existing and new financial activities.\n(12)\nThe Authority should also be able to temporarily prohibit or restrict certain financial activities that threaten the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union in the cases specified and under the conditions laid down in the legislative acts referred to in this Regulation. If required to make such temporary prohibition in the case of an emergency situation, the Authority should do so in accordance with and under the conditions laid down in this Regulation. In cases where a temporary prohibition or restriction of certain financial activities has a cross-sectoral impact, sectoral legislation should provide that the Authority should consult and coordinate its action with, where relevant, the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and with the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), through the Joint Committee.\n(13)\nThe Authority should take due account of the impact of its activities on competition and innovation within the internal market, on the Union\u2019s global competitiveness, on financial inclusion, and on the Union\u2019s new strategy for jobs and growth.\n(14)\nIn order to fulfil its objectives, the Authority should have legal personality as well as administrative and financial autonomy.\n(15)\nBased on the work of international bodies, systemic risk should be defined as a risk of disruption in the financial system with the potential to have serious negative consequences for the internal market and the real economy. All types of financial intermediaries, markets and infrastructures may be potentially systemically important to some degree.\n(16)\nCross-border risk includes all risks caused by economic imbalances or financial failures in all or parts of the Union that have the potential to have significant negative consequences for the transactions between economic operators of two or more Member States, for the functioning of the internal market or for the public finances of the Union or any of its Member States.\n(17)\nThe Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 2 May 2006 in Case C-217/04 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union) held that \u2018nothing in the wording of Article 95 EC [now Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)] implies that the addressees of the measures adopted by the Community legislature on the basis of that provision can only be the individual Member States. The legislature may deem it necessary to provide for the establishment of a Community body responsible for contributing to the implementation of a process of harmonisation in situations where, in order to facilitate the uniform implementation and application of acts based on that provision, the adoption of non-binding supporting and framework measures seems appropriate\u2019 (15). The purpose and tasks of the Authority - assisting competent national supervisory authorities in the consistent interpretation and application of Union rules and contributing to financial stability necessary for financial integration - are closely linked to the objectives of the Union acquis concerning the internal market for financial services. The Authority should therefore be established on the basis of Article 114 TFEU.\n(18)\nThe following legislative acts lay down the tasks for the competent authorities of Member States, including cooperating with each other and with the Commission: Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (16), Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (17) and Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (18).\n(19)\nExisting Union legislation regulating the field covered by this Regulation also includes Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate (19), Directive 98/78/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on the supplementary supervision of insurance undertakings in an insurance group (20), Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 on information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds (21), Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions (22), and the relevant parts of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (23), of Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services (24) and of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market (25).\n(20)\nIt is desirable that the Authority promote a consistent approach in the area of deposit guarantees to ensure a level playing field and the equitable treatment of depositors across the Union. As deposit guarantee schemes are subject to oversight in their Member States rather than regulatory supervision, the Authority should be able to exercise its powers under this Regulation in relation to the deposit guarantee scheme itself and its operator.\n(21)\nIn accordance with the Declaration (No 39) on Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, the elaboration of regulatory technical standards requires assistance of technical expertise in a form which is specific to the financial services area. It is necessary to allow the Authority to provide such expertise also on standards or parts of standards that are not based on a draft technical standard that it has elaborated.\n(22)\nThere is a need to introduce an effective instrument to establish harmonised regulatory technical standards in financial services to ensure, also through a single rulebook, a level playing field and adequate protection of depositors, investors and consumers across the Union. As a body with highly specialised expertise, it is efficient and appropriate to entrust the Authority, in areas defined by Union law, with the elaboration of draft regulatory technical standards, which do not involve policy choices.\n(23)\nThe Commission should endorse those draft regulatory technical standards by means of delegated acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU in order to give them binding legal effect. They should be subject to amendment only in very restricted and extraordinary circumstances, since the Authority is the actor in close contact with and knowing best the daily functioning of financial markets. Draft regulatory technical standards would be subject to amendment if they were incompatible with Union law, did not respect the principle of proportionality or ran counter to the fundamental principles of the internal market for financial services as reflected in the acquis of Union financial services legislation. The Commission should not change the content of the draft regulatory technical standards prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority. To ensure a smooth and expeditious adoption process for those standards, the Commission\u2019s decision to endorse draft regulatory technical standards should be subject to a time limit.\n(24)\nGiven the technical expertise of the Authority in the areas where regulatory technical standards should be developed, note should be taken of the Commission\u2019s stated intention to rely, as a rule, on the draft regulatory technical standards submitted to it by the Authority in view of the adoption of the corresponding delegated acts. However, in cases where the Authority fails to submit a draft regulatory technical standard within the time limits set out by the relevant legislative act, it should be ensured that the result of the exercise of delegated power is actually achieved, and the efficiency of the decision-making process be maintained. In those cases, the Commission should therefore be empowered to adopt regulatory technical standards in the absence of a draft by the Authority.\n(25)\nThe Commission should also be empowered to adopt implementing technical standards by means of implementing acts pursuant to Article 291 TFEU.\n(26)\nIn areas not covered by regulatory or implementing technical standards, the Authority should have the power to issue guidelines and recommendations on the application of Union law. In order to ensure transparency and to strengthen compliance by national supervisory authorities with those guidelines and recommendations, it should be possible for the Authority to publish the reasons for supervisory authorities\u2019 non-compliance with those guidelines and recommendations.\n(27)\nEnsuring the correct and full application of Union law is a core prerequisite for the integrity, transparency, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, the stability of the financial system, and for neutral conditions of competition for financial institutions in the Union. A mechanism should therefore be established whereby the Authority addresses instances of non-application or incorrect application of Union law amounting to a breach thereof. That mechanism should apply in areas where Union law defines clear and unconditional obligations.\n(28)\nTo allow for a proportionate response to instances of incorrect or insufficient application of Union law, a three-step mechanism should apply. First, the Authority should be empowered to investigate alleged incorrect or insufficient application of Union law obligations by national authorities in their supervisory practice, concluded by a recommendation. Second, where the competent national authority does not follow the recommendation, the Commission should be empowered to issue a formal opinion taking into account the Authority\u2019s recommendation, requiring the competent authority to take the actions necessary to ensure compliance with Union law.\n(29)\nThird, to overcome exceptional situations of persistent inaction by the competent authority concerned, the Authority should be empowered, as a last resort, to adopt decisions addressed to individual financial institutions. That power should be limited to exceptional circumstances in which a competent authority does not comply with the formal opinion addressed to it and in which Union law is directly applicable to financial institutions by virtue of existing or future Union regulations.\n(30)\nSerious threats to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system in the Union require a swift and concerted response at Union level. The Authority should therefore be able to require national supervisory authorities to take specific actions to remedy an emergency situation. The power to determine the existence of an emergency situation should be conferred on the Council, following a request by any of the ESAs, the Commission or the ESRB.\n(31)\nThe Authority should be able to require national supervisory authorities to take specific action to remedy an emergency situation. The action undertaken by the Authority in this respect should be without prejudice to the Commission\u2019s powers pursuant to Article 258 TFEU to initiate infringement proceedings against the Member State of that supervisory authority for its failure to take such action, and without prejudice to the Commission\u2019s right in such circumstances to seek interim measures in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Furthermore, it should be without prejudice to any liability that that Member State might incur in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union if its supervisory authorities fail to take the action required by the Authority.\n(32)\nIn order to ensure efficient and effective supervision and a balanced consideration of the positions of the competent authorities in different Member States, the Authority should be able to settle disagreements in cross-border situations between those competent authorities with binding effect, including within colleges of supervisors. A conciliation phase should be provided for during which the competent authorities may reach an agreement. The Authority\u2019s competence should cover disagreements on the procedure or content of an action or inaction by a competent authority of a Member State in cases specified in the legally binding Union acts referred to in this Regulation. In such a situation, one of the supervisors involved should be entitled to refer the issue to the Authority, which should act in accordance with this Regulation. The Authority should be empowered to require the competent authorities concerned to take specific action or to refrain from action in order to settle the matter in order to ensure compliance with Union law, with binding effects for the competent authorities concerned. If a competent authority does not comply with the settlement decision addressed to it, the Authority should be empowered to adopt decisions directly addressed to financial institutions in areas of Union law directly applicable to them. The power to adopt such decisions should apply only as a last resort and then only to ensure the correct and consistent application of Union law. In cases where the relevant Union legislation confers discretion on Member States\u2019 competent authorities, decisions taken by the Authority cannot replace the exercise in compliance with Union law of that discretion.\n(33)\nThe crisis has proven that the current system of cooperation between national authorities whose powers are limited to individual Member States is insufficient as regards financial institutions that operate across borders.\n(34)\nExpert Groups set up by Member States to examine the causes of the crisis and make suggestions to improve the regulation and supervision of the financial sector have confirmed that the current arrangements are not a sound basis for the future regulation and supervision of cross-border financial institutions across the Union.\n(35)\nAs the de Larosi\u00e8re Report indicates, \u2018[i]n essence, we have two alternatives: the first \u201cchacun pour soi\u201d beggar-thy-neighbour solutions; or the second - enhanced, pragmatic, sensible European cooperation for the benefit of all to preserve an open world economy. This will bring undoubted economic gains\u2019.\n(36)\nColleges of supervisors play an important role in the efficient, effective and consistent supervision of financial institutions operating across borders. The Authority should contribute to promoting and monitoring the efficient, effective and consistent functioning of the colleges of supervisors and, in that respect, have a leading role in ensuring the consistent and coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors for cross-border financial institutions across the Union. The Authority should therefore have full participation rights in colleges of supervisors with a view to streamlining the functioning of and the information exchange process in the colleges of supervisors and to foster convergence and consistency across colleges in the application of Union law. As the de Larosi\u00e8re Report states, \u2018competition distortions and regulatory arbitrage stemming from different supervisory practices must be avoided, because they have the potential of undermining financial stability - inter alia by encouraging a shift of financial activity to countries with lax supervision. The supervisory system has to be perceived as fair and balanced\u2019.\n(37)\nConvergence in the fields of crisis prevention, management and resolution, including funding mechanisms, is necessary in order to ensure the internalisation of costs by the financial system and the ability of public authorities to resolve failing financial institutions whilst minimising the impact of failures on the financial system, reliance on taxpayer funds to bail out banks and the use of public sector resources, limiting damage to the economy, and coordinating the application of national resolution measures. In this regard it is imperative to develop a common set of rules on a complete set of tools for the prevention and resolution of failing banks, to deal in particular with the crisis of large, cross-border or interconnected institutions, and the need to confer additional relevant powers to the Authority should be assessed as well as how banks and savings institutions could prioritise the protection of savers.\n(38)\nIn the current review of Directive 94/19/EC and Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes (26), the Commission\u2019s intention to pay special attention to the need to ensure further harmonisation throughout the Union is noted. In the insurance sector, the Commission\u2019s intention to examine the possibility of introducing Union rules protecting insurance policy holders in case of a failing insurance company is also noted. The ESAs should play an important role in those areas and appropriate powers concerning the European guarantee scheme systems should be conferred upon them.\n(39)\nThe delegation of tasks and responsibilities can be a useful instrument in the functioning of the network of supervisors in order to reduce the duplication of supervisory tasks, to foster cooperation and thereby streamline the supervisory process, as well as to reduce the burden imposed on financial institutions. This Regulation should therefore provide a clear legal basis for such delegation. Whilst respecting the general rule that delegation should be allowed, Member States should be able to introduce specific conditions for the delegation of responsibilities, for example, regarding information about, and the notification of, delegation arrangements. Delegation of tasks means that tasks are carried out by the Authority or by a national supervisory authority other than the responsible authority, while the responsibility for supervisory decisions remains with the delegating authority. By the delegation of responsibilities, the Authority or a national supervisory authority (the delegate) should be able to decide upon a certain supervisory matter in its own name in lieu of the delegating authority. Delegations should be governed by the principle of allocating supervisory competence to a supervisor which is best placed to take action in the subject matter. A reallocation of responsibilities would be appropriate, for example, for reasons of economies of scale or scope, of coherence in group supervision, and of optimal use of technical expertise among national supervisory authorities. Decisions by the delegate should be recognised by the delegating authority and by other competent authorities as determinative if those decisions are within the scope of the delegation. Relevant Union legislation could further specify the principles for the reallocation of responsibilities upon agreement. The Authority should facilitate and monitor delegation agreements between national supervisory authorities by all appropriate means.\nIt should be informed in advance of intended delegation agreements, in order to be able to express an opinion where appropriate. It should centralise the publication of such agreements to ensure timely, transparent and easily accessible information about agreements for all parties concerned. It should identify and disseminate best practices regarding delegation and delegation agreements.\n(40)\nThe Authority should actively foster supervisory convergence across the Union with the aim of establishing a common supervisory culture.\n(41)\nPeer reviews are an efficient and effective tool for fostering consistency within the network of financial supervisors. The Authority should therefore develop the methodological framework for such reviews and conduct them on a regular basis. Reviews should focus not only on the convergence of supervisory practices, but also on the capacity of supervisors to achieve high-quality supervisory outcomes, as well as on the independence of those competent authorities. The outcome of peer reviews should be made public with the agreement of the competent authority subject to the review. Best practices should also be identified and made public.\n(42)\nThe Authority should actively promote a coordinated Union supervisory response, in particular to ensure the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets and the stability of the financial system in the Union. In addition to its powers for action in emergency situations, the Authority should therefore be entrusted with a general coordination function within the ESFS. The smooth flow of all relevant information between competent authorities should be a particular focus of the Authority\u2019s actions.\n(43)\nIn order to safeguard financial stability it is necessary to identify, at an early stage, trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities stemming from the micro-prudential level, across borders and across sectors. The Authority should monitor and assess such developments in the area of its competence and, where necessary, inform the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the other European Supervisory Authorities and the ESRB on a regular and, as necessary, on an ad hoc basis. The Authority should also, in cooperation with the ESRB, initiate and coordinate Union-wide stress tests to assess the resilience of financial institutions to adverse market developments, and it should ensure that an as consistent as possible methodology is applied at the national level to such tests. In order to perform its functions properly, the Authority should conduct economic analyses of the markets and the impact of potential market developments.\n(44)\nGiven the globalisation of financial services and the increased importance of international standards, the Authority should foster dialogue and cooperation with supervisors outside the Union. It should be empowered to develop contacts and enter into administrative arrangements with the supervisory authorities and administrations of third countries and with international organisations, while fully respecting the existing roles and respective competences of the Member States and the Union institutions. Participation in the work of the Authority should be open to countries which have concluded agreements with the Union whereby they have adopted and are applying Union law, and the Authority should be able to cooperate with third countries which apply legislation that has been recognised as equivalent to that of the Union.\n(45)\nThe Authority should serve as an independent advisory body to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission in the area of its competence. Without prejudice to the competencies of the competent authorities concerned, the Authority should be able to provide its opinion on the prudential assessment of mergers and acquisitions under Directive 2006/48/EC, as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC (27) in those cases in which that Directive requires consultation between competent authorities from two or more Member States.\n(46)\nIn order to carry out its duties effectively, the Authority should have the right to request all necessary information. To avoid the duplication of reporting obligations for financial institutions, that information should normally be provided by the national supervisory authorities which are closest to the financial markets and institutions and should take into account already existing statistics. However, as a last resort, the Authority should be able to address a duly justified and reasoned request for information directly to a financial institution where a national competent authority does not or cannot provide such information in a timely fashion. Member States\u2019 authorities should be obliged to assist the Authority in enforcing such direct requests. In that context, the work on common reporting formats is essential. The measures for the collection of information should be without prejudice to the legal framework of the European Statistical System and the European System of Central Banks in the field of statistics. This Regulation should therefore be without prejudice both to Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (28) and to Council Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the collection of statistical information by the European Central Bank (29).\n(47)\nClose cooperation between the Authority and the ESRB is essential to give full effectiveness to the functioning of the ESRB and the follow-up to its warnings and recommendations. The Authority and the ESRB should share any relevant information with each other. Data related to individual undertakings should be provided only upon reasoned request. Upon receipt of warnings or recommendations addressed by the ESRB to the Authority or a national supervisory authority, the Authority should ensure follow-up as appropriate.\n(48)\nThe Authority should consult interested parties on regulatory or implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations and provide them with a reasonable opportunity to comment on proposed measures. Before adopting draft regulatory or implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations, the Authority should carry out an impact study. For reasons of efficiency, a Banking Stakeholder Group should be used for that purpose, and should represent, in balanced proportions, Union credit and investment institutions, representing the diverse models and sizes of financial institutions and businesses, including, as appropriate, institutional investors and other financial institutions which themselves use financial services; small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); trade unions; academics; consumers; and other retail users of banking services. The Banking Stakeholder Group should work as an interface with other user groups in the financial services area established by the Commission or by Union legislation.\n(49)\nMembers of the Banking Stakeholder Group representing non-profit organisations or academics should receive adequate compensation in order to allow persons that are neither well-funded nor industry representatives to take part fully in the debate on financial regulation.\n(50)\nMember States have a core responsibility for ensuring coordinated crisis management and preserving financial stability in crisis situations, in particular with regard to stabilising and resolving individual failing financial institutions. Decisions by the Authority in emergency or settlement situations affecting the stability of a financial institution should not impinge on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States. A mechanism should be established whereby Member States may invoke this safeguard and ultimately bring the matter before the Council for a decision. However, that safeguard mechanism should not be abused, in particular in relation to a decision taken by the Authority which does not have a significant or material fiscal impact, such as a reduction of income linked to the temporary prohibition of specific activities or products for consumer protection purposes. When taking decisions under the safeguard mechanism, the Council should vote in accordance with the principle where each member has one vote. It is appropriate to confer on the Council a role in this matter given the particular responsibilities of the Member States in this respect. Given the sensitivity of the issue, strict confidentiality arrangements should be ensured.\n(51)\nIn its decision-making procedures, the Authority should be bound by Union rules and general principles on due process and transparency. The right of the addressees of the Authority\u2019s decisions to be heard should be fully respected. The Authority\u2019s acts should form an integral part of Union law.\n(52)\nA Board of Supervisors composed of the heads of the relevant competent authorities in each Member State, and chaired by the Chairperson of the Authority, should be the principal decision-making organ of the Authority. Representatives of the Commission, the ESRB, the European Central Bank, the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) should participate as observers. Members of the Board of Supervisors should act independently and only in the Union\u2019s interest.\n(53)\nAs a general rule, the Board of Supervisors should take its decisions by simple majority in accordance with the principle where each member has one vote. However, for acts of a general nature, including those relating to regulatory and implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations, for budgetary matters as well as in respect of requests by a Member State to reconsider a decision by the Authority to temporarily prohibit or restrict certain financial activities, it is appropriate to apply the rules of qualified majority voting as laid down in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Cases concerning the settlement of disagreements between national supervisory authorities should be examined by a restricted, objective panel, composed of members who neither are representatives of the competent authorities which are party to the disagreement nor have any interest in the conflict or direct links to the competent authorities concerned. The composition of the panel should be appropriately balanced. The decision taken by the panel should be approved by the Board of Supervisors by simple majority in accordance with the principle where each member has one vote. However, with regard to decisions taken by the consolidating supervisor, the decision proposed by the panel could be rejected by members representing a blocking minority of the votes as defined in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 3 of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions.\n(54)\nA Management Board, composed of the Chairperson of the Authority, of representatives of national supervisory authorities and of the Commission, should ensure that the Authority carries out its mission and performs the tasks assigned to it. The Management Board should be entrusted with the necessary powers, inter alia, to propose the annual and multi-annual work programme, to exercise certain budgetary powers, to adopt the Authority\u2019s staff policy plan, to adopt special provisions on the right to access to documents and to propose the annual report.\n(55)\nThe Authority should be represented by a full-time Chairperson, appointed by the Board of Supervisors, on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and of experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation, following an open selection procedure organised and managed by the Board of Supervisors assisted by the Commission. For the designation of the first Chairperson of the Authority, the Commission should, inter alia, draw up a shortlist of candidates on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation. For the subsequent designations, the opportunity of having a shortlist drawn up by the Commission should be reviewed in a report to be established pursuant to this Regulation. Before the selected person takes up his duties, and up to 1 month after his selection by the Board of Supervisors, the European Parliament should be entitled, after having heard the person selected, to object to his designation.\n(56)\nThe management of the Authority should be entrusted to an Executive Director, who should have the right to participate in meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board without the right to vote.\n(57)\nIn order to ensure cross-sectoral consistency in the activities of the ESAs, they should coordinate closely through a Joint Committee and reach common positions where appropriate. The Joint Committee should coordinate the functions of the ESAs in relation to financial conglomerates and other cross-sectoral matters. Where relevant, acts also falling within the area of competence of the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) or the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) should be adopted in parallel by the European Supervisory Authorities concerned. The Joint Committee should be chaired for a 12-month term on a rotating basis by the Chairpersons of the ESAs. The Chairperson of the Joint Committee should be a Vice-Chair of the ESRB. The Joint Committee should have dedicated staff provided by the ESAs to allow for informal information sharing and the development of a common supervisory culture approach across the ESAs.\n(58)\nIt is necessary to ensure that the parties affected by decisions adopted by the Authority may have recourse to the necessary remedies. To protect effectively the rights of parties, and for reasons of procedural economy, where the Authority has decision-making powers, parties should be granted a right of appeal to a Board of Appeal. For reasons of efficiency and consistency, the Board of Appeal should be a joint body of the ESAs, independent from their administrative and regulatory structures. The decisions of the Board of Appeal should be subject to appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Union.\n(59)\nIn order to guarantee its full autonomy and independence, the Authority should be granted an autonomous budget with revenues mainly from obligatory contributions from national supervisory authorities and from the General Budget of the European Union. Union financing of the Authority is subject to an agreement by the budgetary authority in accordance with Point 47 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (30). The Union budgetary procedure should be applicable. The auditing of accounts should be undertaken by the Court of Auditors. The overall budget is subject to the discharge procedure.\n(60)\nRegulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (31) should apply to the Authority. The Authority should also accede to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities concerning internal investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (32).\n(61)\nIn order to ensure open and transparent employment conditions and equal treatment of staff, the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (33) should apply to the staff of the Authority.\n(62)\nIt is essential that business secrets and other confidential information be protected. The confidentiality of information made available to the Authority and exchanged in the network should be subject to stringent and effective confidentiality rules.\n(63)\nDirective 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (34) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (35) are fully applicable to the processing of personal data for the purposes of this Regulation.\n(64)\nIn order to ensure the transparent operation of the Authority, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (36) should apply to the Authority.\n(65)\nThird countries should be allowed to participate in the work of the Authority in accordance with appropriate agreements to be concluded by the Union.\n(66)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely improving the functioning of the internal market by means of ensuring a high, effective and consistent level of prudential regulation and supervision, protecting depositors and investors, protecting the integrity, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, maintaining the stability of the financial system, and strengthening international supervisory coordination, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can, therefore, by reason of the scale of the 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. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(67)\nThe Authority should assume all current tasks and powers of the Committee of European Banking Supervisors. Commission Decision 2009/78/EC should therefore be repealed on the date of the establishment of the Authority and Decision No 716/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 establishing a Community programme to support specific activities in the field of financial services, financial reporting and auditing (37) should be amended accordingly. Given the existing structures and operations of the Committee of European Banking Supervisors, it is important to ensure very close cooperation between the Committee of European Banking Supervisors and the Commission when establishing appropriate transitional arrangements, to ensure that the period during which the Commission is responsible for the administrative establishment and initial administrative operation of the Authority be as limited as possible.\n(68)\nIt is appropriate to set a time limit for the application of this Regulation in order to ensure that the Authority is adequately prepared to begin operations and a smooth transition from the Committee of European Banking Supervisors. The Authority should be appropriately financed. At least initially, it should be financed 40 % from Union funds and 60 % through contributions from Member States, made in accordance with the weighting of votes set out in Article 3(3) of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions.\n(69)\nIn order to enable the Authority to be established on 1 January 2011, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nESTABLISHMENT AND LEGAL STATUS\nArticle 1\nEstablishment and scope of action\n1. This Regulation establishes a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019).\n2. The Authority shall act within the powers conferred by this Regulation and within the scope of Directive 2006/48/EC, Directive 2006/49/EC, Directive 2002/87/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006, Directive 94/19/EC and, to the extent that those acts apply to credit and financial institutions and the competent authorities that supervise them, within the relevant parts of Directive 2005/60/EC, Directive 2002/65/EC, Directive 2007/64/EC and Directive 2009/110/EC, including all directives, regulations, and decisions based on those acts, and of any further legally binding Union act which confers tasks on the Authority.\n3. The Authority shall also act in the field of activities of credit institutions, financial conglomerates, investment firms, payment institutions and e-money institutions in relation to issues not directly covered in the acts referred to in paragraph 2, including matters of corporate governance, auditing and financial reporting, provided that such actions by the Authority are necessary to ensure the effective and consistent application of those acts.\n4. The provisions of this Regulation are without prejudice to the powers of the Commission, in particular pursuant to Article 258 TFEU, to ensure compliance with Union law.\n5. The objective of the Authority shall be to protect the public interest by contributing to the short, medium and long-term stability and effectiveness of the financial system, for the Union economy, its citizens and businesses. The Authority shall contribute to:\n(a)\nimproving the functioning of the internal market, including, in particular, a sound, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision;\n(b)\nensuring the integrity, transparency, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets;\n(c)\nstrengthening international supervisory coordination;\n(d)\npreventing regulatory arbitrage and promoting equal conditions of competition;\n(e)\nensuring the taking of credit and other risks are appropriately regulated and supervised; and\n(f)\nenhancing customer protection.\nFor those purposes, the Authority shall contribute to ensuring the consistent, efficient and effective application of the acts referred to in paragraph 2, foster supervisory convergence, provide opinions to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission and undertake economic analyses of the markets to promote the achievement of the Authority\u2019s objective.\nIn the exercise of the tasks conferred upon it by this Regulation, the Authority shall pay particular attention to any systemic risk posed by financial institutions, the failure of which may impair the operation of the financial system or the real economy.\nWhen carrying out its tasks, the Authority shall act independently and objectively and in the interest of the Union alone.\nArticle 2\nEuropean System of Financial Supervision\n1. The Authority shall form part of a European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS). The main objective of the ESFS shall be to ensure that the rules applicable to the financial sector are adequately implemented to preserve financial stability and to ensure confidence in the financial system as a whole and sufficient protection for the customers of financial services.\n2. The ESFS shall comprise the following:\n(a)\nthe European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), for the purposes of the tasks as specified in Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 and this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe Authority;\n(c)\nthe European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (38);\n(d)\nthe European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (39);\n(e)\nthe Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (Joint Committee) for the purposes of carrying out the tasks as specified in Articles 54 to 57 of this Regulation, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010;\n(f)\nthe competent or supervisory authorities in the Member States as specified in the Union acts referred to in Article 1(2) of this Regulation, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n3. The Authority shall cooperate regularly and closely with the ESRB as well as with the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) through the Joint Committee, ensuring cross-sectoral consistency of work and reaching joint positions in the area of supervision of financial conglomerates and on other cross-sectoral issues.\n4. In accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, the parties to the ESFS shall cooperate with trust and full mutual respect, in particular in ensuring the flow of appropriate and reliable information between them.\n5. Those supervisory authorities that are party to the ESFS shall be obliged to supervise financial institutions operating in the Union in accordance with the acts referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 3\nAccountability of the Authorities\nThe Authorities referred to in Article 2(2)(a) to (d) shall be accountable to the European Parliament and the Council.\nArticle 4\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions apply:\n(1)\n\u2018financial institutions\u2019 means \u2018credit institutions\u2019 as defined in Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/48/EC, \u2018investment firms\u2019 as defined in Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2006/49/EC, and \u2018financial conglomerates\u2019 as defined in Article 2(14) of Directive 2002/87/EC, save that, with regard to Directive 2005/60/EC, \u2018financial institutions\u2019 means credit institutions and financial institutions as defined in Article 3(1) and (2) of that Directive;\n(2)\n\u2018competent authorities\u2019 means:\n(i)\ncompetent authorities as defined in Directives 2006/48/EC, 2006/49/EC and 2007/64/EC and as referred to in Directive 2009/110/EC;\n(ii)\nwith regard to Directives 2002/65/EC and 2005/60/EC, the authorities competent for ensuring compliance with the requirements of those Directives by credit and financial institutions; and\n(iii)\nwith regard to deposit guarantee schemes, bodies which administer deposit-guarantee schemes pursuant to Directive 94/19/EC, or, where the operation of the deposit-guarantee scheme is administered by a private company, the public authority supervising those schemes pursuant to that Directive.\nArticle 5\nLegal status\n1. The Authority shall be a Union body with legal personality.\n2. In each Member State, the Authority shall enjoy the most extensive legal capacity accorded to legal persons under national law. It may, in particular, acquire or dispose of movable and immovable property and be a party to legal proceedings.\n3. The Authority shall be represented by its Chairperson.\nArticle 6\nComposition\nThe Authority shall comprise:\n(1)\na Board of Supervisors, which shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 43;\n(2)\na Management Board, which shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 47;\n(3)\na Chairperson, who shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 48;\n(4)\nan Executive Director, who shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 53;\n(5)\na Board of Appeal, which shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 60.\nArticle 7\nSeat\nThe Authority shall have its seat in London.\nCHAPTER II\nTASKS AND POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY\nArticle 8\nTasks and powers of the Authority\n1. The Authority shall have the following tasks:\n(a)\nto contribute to the establishment of high-quality common regulatory and supervisory standards and practices, in particular by providing opinions to the Union institutions and by developing guidelines, recommendations, and draft regulatory and implementing technical standards which shall be based on the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2);\n(b)\nto contribute to the consistent application of legally binding Union acts, in particular by contributing to a common supervisory culture, ensuring consistent, efficient and effective application of the acts referred to in Article 1(2), preventing regulatory arbitrage, mediating and settling disagreements between competent authorities, ensuring effective and consistent supervision of financial institutions, ensuring a coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors and taking actions, inter alia, in emergency situations;\n(c)\nto stimulate and facilitate the delegation of tasks and responsibilities among competent authorities;\n(d)\nto cooperate closely with the ESRB, in particular by providing the ESRB with the necessary information for the achievement of its tasks and by ensuring a proper follow up to the warnings and recommendations of the ESRB;\n(e)\nto organise and conduct peer review analyses of competent authorities, including issuing guidelines and recommendations and identifying best practices, in order to strengthen consistency in supervisory outcomes;\n(f)\nto monitor and assess market developments in the area of its competence, including where appropriate trends in credit, in particular, to households and SMEs;\n(g)\nto undertake economic analyses of markets to inform the discharge of the Authority\u2019s functions;\n(h)\nto foster depositor and investor protection;\n(i)\nto contribute to the consistent and coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors, the monitoring, assessment and measurement of systemic risk, the development and coordination of recovery and resolution plans, providing a high level of protection to depositors and investors throughout the Union and developing methods for the resolution of failing financial institutions and an assessment of the need for appropriate financing instruments, in accordance with Articles 21 to 26;\n(j)\nto fulfil any other specific tasks set out in this Regulation or in other legislative acts;\n(k)\nto publish on its website, and to update regularly, information relating to its field of activities, in particular, within the area of its competence, on registered financial institutions, in order to ensure information is easily accessible by the public;\n(l)\nto take over, as appropriate, all existing and ongoing tasks from the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS).\n2. To achieve the tasks set out in paragraph 1, the Authority shall have the powers set out in this Regulation, in particular to:\n(a)\ndevelop draft regulatory technical standards in the specific cases referred to in Article 10;\n(b)\ndevelop draft implementing technical standards in the specific cases referred to in Article 15;\n(c)\nissue guidelines and recommendations, as laid down in Article 16;\n(d)\nissue recommendations in specific cases, as referred to in Article 17(3);\n(e)\ntake individual decisions addressed to competent authorities in the specific cases referred to in Articles 18(3) and 19(3);\n(f)\nin cases concerning directly applicable Union law, take individual decisions addressed to financial institutions, in the specific cases referred to in Article 17(6), 18(4) and 19(4);\n(g)\nissue opinions to the European Parliament, the Council, or the Commission as provided for in Article 34;\n(h)\ncollect the necessary information concerning financial institutions as provided for in Article 35;\n(i)\ndevelop common methodologies for assessing the effect of product characteristics and distribution processes on the financial position of institutions and on consumer protection;\n(j)\nprovide a centrally accessible database of registered financial institutions in the area of its competence where specified in the acts referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 9\nTasks related to consumer protection and financial activities\n1. The Authority shall take a leading role in promoting transparency, simplicity and fairness in the market for consumer financial products or services across the internal market, including by:\n(a)\ncollecting, analysing and reporting on consumer trends;\n(b)\nreviewing and coordinating financial literacy and education initiatives by the competent authorities;\n(c)\ndeveloping training standards for the industry; and\n(d)\ncontributing to the development of common disclosure rules.\n2. The Authority shall monitor new and existing financial activities and may adopt guidelines and recommendations with a view to promoting the safety and soundness of markets and convergence of regulatory practice.\n3. The Authority may also issue warnings in the event that a financial activity poses a serious threat to the objectives laid down in Article 1(5).\n4. The Authority shall establish, as an integral part of the Authority, a Committee on financial innovation, which brings together all relevant competent national supervisory authorities with a view to achieving a coordinated approach to the regulatory and supervisory treatment of new or innovative financial activities and providing advice for the Authority to present to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.\n5. The Authority may temporarily prohibit or restrict certain financial activities that threaten the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union in the cases specified and under the conditions laid down in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) or, if so required, in the case of an emergency situation in accordance with and under the conditions laid down in Article 18.\nThe Authority shall review the decision referred to in the first subparagraph at appropriate intervals and at least every 3 months. If the decision is not renewed after a 3-month period, it shall automatically expire.\nA Member State may request the Authority to reconsider its decision. In that case, the Authority shall decide, in accordance with the procedure set out in the second subparagraph of Article 44(1), whether it maintains its decision.\nThe Authority may also assess the need to prohibit or restrict certain types of financial activity and, where there is such a need, inform the Commission in order to facilitate the adoption of any such prohibition or restriction.\nArticle 10\nRegulatory technical standards\n1. Where the European Parliament and the Council delegate power to the Commission to adopt regulatory technical standards by means of delegated acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU in order to ensure consistent harmonisation in the areas specifically set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority may develop draft regulatory technical standards. The Authority shall submit its draft standards to the Commission for endorsement.\nRegulatory technical standards shall be technical, shall not imply strategic decisions or policy choices and their content shall be delimited by the legislative acts on which they are based.\nBefore submitting them to the Commission, the Authority shall conduct open public consultations on draft regulatory technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft regulatory technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Authority shall also request the opinion of the Banking Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37.\nWhere the Authority submits a draft regulatory technical standard, the Commission shall immediately forward it to the European Parliament and the Council.\nWithin 3 months of receipt of a draft regulatory technical standard, the Commission shall decide whether to endorse it. The Commission may endorse the draft regulatory technical standards in part only, or with amendments, where the Union\u2019s interests so require.\nWhere the Commission intends not to endorse a draft regulatory technical standard or to endorse it in part or with amendments, it shall send the draft regulatory technical standard back to the Authority, explaining why it does not endorse it, or, as the case may be, explaining the reasons for its amendments. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft regulatory technical standard on the basis of the Commission\u2019s proposed amendments and resubmit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nIf, on the expiry of that six-week period, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft regulatory technical standard, or has submitted a draft regulatory technical standard that is not amended in a way consistent with the Commission\u2019s proposed amendments, the Commission may adopt the regulatory technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant, or reject it.\nThe Commission may not change the content of a draft regulatory technical standard prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article.\n2. Where the Authority has not submitted a draft regulatory technical standard within the time limit set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Commission may request such a draft within a new time limit.\n3. Only where the Authority does not submit a draft regulatory technical standard to the Commission within the time limits in accordance with paragraph 2, may the Commission adopt a regulatory technical standard by means of a delegated act without a draft from the Authority.\nThe Commission shall conduct open public consultations on draft regulatory technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft regulatory technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Commission shall also request the opinion or advice of the Banking Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37.\nThe Commission shall immediately forward the draft regulatory technical standard to the European Parliament and the Council.\nThe Commission shall send its draft regulatory technical standard to the Authority. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft regulatory technical standard and submit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nIf on the expiry of the six-week period referred to in the fourth subparagraph, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft regulatory technical standard, the Commission may adopt the regulatory technical standard.\nIf the Authority has submitted an amended draft regulatory technical standard within the six-week period, the Commission may amend the draft regulatory technical standard on the basis of the Authority\u2019s proposed amendments or adopt the regulatory technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant. The Commission shall not change the content of the draft regulatory technical standard prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article.\n4. The regulatory technical standards shall be adopted by means of regulations or decisions. They shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nArticle 11\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt regulatory technical standards referred to in Article 10 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 4 years from 16 December 2010. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated power not later than 6 months before the end of the 4-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 14.\n2. As soon as it adopts a regulatory technical standard, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt regulatory technical standards is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 12 to 14.\nArticle 12\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 10 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke a delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the regulatory technical standards already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 13\nObjections to regulatory technical standards\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a regulatory technical standard within a period of 3 months from the date of notification of the regulatory technical standard adopted by the Commission. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 3 months.\nWhere the Commission adopts a regulatory technical standard which is the same as the draft regulatory technical standard submitted by the Authority, the period during which the European Parliament and the Council may object shall be 1 month from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 1 month.\n2. If, on the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the regulatory technical standard, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nThe regulatory technical standard may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to a regulatory technical standard within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. In accordance with Article 296 TFEU, the institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the regulatory technical standard.\nArticle 14\nNon-endorsement or amendment of draft regulatory technical standards\n1. In the event that the Commission does not endorse a draft regulatory technical standard or amends it as provided for in Article 10, the Commission shall inform the Authority, the European Parliament and the Council, stating its reasons.\n2. Where appropriate, the European Parliament or the Council may invite the responsible Commissioner, together with the Chairperson of the Authority, within 1 month of the notice referred to in paragraph 1, for an ad hoc meeting of the competent committee of the European Parliament or the Council to present and explain their differences.\nArticle 15\nImplementing technical standards\n1. The Authority may develop implementing technical standards, by means of implementing acts pursuant to Article 291 TFEU, in the areas specifically set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2). Implementing technical standards shall be technical, shall not imply strategic decisions or policy choices and their content shall be to determine the conditions of application of those acts. The Authority shall submit its draft implementing technical standards to the Commission for endorsement.\nBefore submitting draft implementing technical standards to the Commission, the Authority shall conduct open public consultations and shall analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft implementing technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Authority shall also request the opinion of the Banking Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37.\nWhere the Authority submits a draft implementing technical standard, the Commission shall immediately forward it to the European Parliament and the Council.\nWithin 3 months of receipt of a draft implementing technical standard, the Commission shall decide whether to endorse it. The Commission may extend that period by 1 month. The Commission may endorse the draft implementing technical standard in part only, or with amendments, where the Union\u2019s interests so require.\nWhere the Commission intends not to endorse a draft implementing technical standard or intends to endorse it in part or with amendments, it shall send it back to the Authority explaining why it does not intend to endorse it, or, as the case may be, explaining the reasons for its amendments. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft implementing technical standard on the basis of the Commission\u2019s proposed amendments and resubmit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nIf, on the expiry of the six-week period referred to in the fifth subparagraph, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft implementing technical standard, or has submitted a draft implementing technical standard that is not amended in a way consistent with the Commission\u2019s proposed amendments, the Commission may adopt the implementing technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant or reject it.\nThe Commission shall not change the content of a draft implementing technical standard prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article.\n2. In cases where the Authority has not submitted a draft implementing technical standard within the time limit set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Commission may request such a draft within a new time limit.\n3. Only where the Authority does not submit a draft implementing technical standard to the Commission within the time limits in accordance with paragraph 2, may the Commission adopt an implementing technical standard by means of an implementing act without a draft from the Authority.\nThe Commission shall conduct open public consultations on draft implementing technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft implementing technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Commission shall also request the opinion or advice of the Banking Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37.\nThe Commission shall immediately forward the draft implementing technical standard to the European Parliament and the Council.\nThe Commission shall send the draft implementing technical standard to the Authority. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft implementing technical standard and submit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nIf, on the expiry of the six-week period referred to in the fourth subparagraph, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft implementing technical standard, the Commission may adopt the implementing technical standard.\nIf the Authority has submitted an amended draft implementing technical standard within that six-week period, the Commission may amend the draft implementing technical standard on the basis of the Authority\u2019s proposed amendments or adopt the implementing technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant.\nThe Commission shall not change the content of the draft implementing technical standards prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article.\n4. The implementing technical standards shall be adopted by means of regulations or decisions. They shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nArticle 16\nGuidelines and recommendations\n1. The Authority shall, with a view to establishing consistent, efficient and effective supervisory practices within the ESFS, and to ensuring the common, uniform and consistent application of Union law, issue guidelines and recommendations addressed to competent authorities or financial institutions.\n2. The Authority shall, where appropriate, conduct open public consultations regarding the guidelines and recommendations and analyse the related potential costs and benefits. Such consultations and analyses shall be proportionate in relation to the scope, nature and impact of the guidelines or recommendations. The Authority shall, where appropriate, also request opinions or advice from the Banking Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37.\n3. The competent authorities and financial institutions shall make every effort to comply with those guidelines and recommendations.\nWithin 2 months of the issuance of a guideline or recommendation, each competent authority shall confirm whether it complies or intends to comply with that guideline or recommendation. In the event that a competent authority does not comply or does not intend to comply, it shall inform the Authority, stating its reasons.\nThe Authority shall publish the fact that a competent authority does not comply or does not intend to comply with that guideline or recommendation. The Authority may also decide, on a case-by-case basis, to publish the reasons provided by the competent authority for not complying with that guideline or recommendation. The competent authority shall receive advanced notice of such publication.\nIf required by that guideline or recommendation, financial institutions shall report, in a clear and detailed way, whether they comply with that guideline or recommendation.\n4. In the report referred to in Article 43(5) the Authority shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of the guidelines and recommendations that have been issued, stating which competent authority has not complied with them, and outlining how the Authority intends to ensure that the competent authority concerned follow its recommendations and guidelines in the future.\nArticle 17\nBreach of Union law\n1. Where a competent authority has not applied the acts referred to in Article 1(2), or has applied them in a way which appears to be a breach of Union law, including the regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards established in accordance with Articles 10 to 15, in particular by failing to ensure that a financial institution satisfies the requirements laid down in those acts, the Authority shall act in accordance with the powers set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of this Article.\n2. Upon a request from one or more competent authorities, the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission or the Banking Stakeholder Group, or on its own initiative, and after having informed the competent authority concerned, the Authority may investigate the alleged breach or non-application of Union law.\nWithout prejudice to the powers laid down in Article 35, the competent authority shall, without delay, provide the Authority with all information which the Authority considers necessary for its investigation.\n3. The Authority may, not later than 2 months from initiating its investigation, address a recommendation to the competent authority concerned setting out the action necessary to comply with Union law.\nThe competent authority shall, within 10 working days of receipt of the recommendation, inform the Authority of the steps it has taken or intends to take to ensure compliance with Union law.\n4. Where the competent authority has not complied with Union law within 1 month from receipt of the Authority\u2019s recommendation, the Commission may, after having been informed by the Authority, or on its own initiative, issue a formal opinion requiring the competent authority to take the action necessary to comply with Union law. The Commission\u2019s formal opinion shall take into account the Authority\u2019s recommendation.\nThe Commission shall issue such a formal opinion no later than 3 months after the adoption of the recommendation. The Commission may extend this period by 1 month.\nThe Authority and the competent authorities shall provide the Commission with all necessary information.\n5. The competent authority shall, within 10 working days of receipt of the formal opinion referred to in paragraph 4, inform the Commission and the Authority of the steps it has taken or intends to take to comply with that formal opinion.\n6. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission pursuant to Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the formal opinion referred to in paragraph 4 within the period of time specified therein, and where it is necessary to remedy in a timely manner such non-compliance in order to maintain or restore neutral conditions of competition in the market or ensure the orderly functioning and integrity of the financial system, the Authority may, where the relevant requirements of the acts referred to in Article 1(2) are directly applicable to financial institutions, adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial institution requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under Union law including the cessation of any practice.\nThe decision of the Authority shall be in conformity with the formal opinion issued by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 4.\n7. Decisions adopted under paragraph 6 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter.\nWhen taking action in relation to issues which are subject to a formal opinion pursuant to paragraph 4 or a decision pursuant to paragraph 6, competent authorities shall comply with the formal opinion or the decision, as the case may be.\n8. In the report referred to in Article 43(5), the Authority shall set out which competent authorities and financial institutions have not complied with the formal opinions or decisions referred to in paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Article.\nArticle 18\nAction in emergency situations\n1. In the case of adverse developments which may seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union, the Authority shall actively facilitate and, where deemed necessary, coordinate any actions undertaken by the relevant national competent supervisory authorities.\nIn order to be able to perform that facilitating and coordinating role, the Authority shall be fully informed of any relevant developments, and shall be invited to participate as an observer in any relevant gathering by the relevant national competent supervisory authorities.\n2. The Council, in consultation with the Commission and the ESRB and, where appropriate, the ESAs, may adopt a decision addressed to the Authority, determining the existence of an emergency situation for the purposes of this Regulation, following a request by the Authority, the Commission or the ESRB. The Council shall review that decision at appropriate intervals and at least once a month. If the decision is not renewed at the end of a 1-month period, it shall automatically expire. The Council may declare the discontinuation of the emergency situation at any time.\nWhere the ESRB or the Authority considers that an emergency situation may arise, it shall issue a confidential recommendation addressed to the Council and provide it with an assessment of the situation. The Council shall then assess the need for a meeting. In that process, due care of confidentiality shall be guaranteed.\nIf the Council determines the existence of an emergency situation, it shall duly inform the European Parliament and the Commission without delay.\n3. Where the Council has adopted a decision pursuant to paragraph 2, and in exceptional circumstances where coordinated action by national authorities is necessary to respond to adverse developments which may seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union, the Authority may adopt individual decisions requiring competent authorities to take the necessary action in accordance with the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) to address any such developments by ensuring that financial institutions and competent authorities satisfy the requirements laid down in that legislation.\n4. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission pursuant to Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the decision of the Authority referred to in paragraph 3 within the period laid down in that decision, the Authority may, where the relevant requirements laid down in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) including in regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards adopted in accordance with those acts are directly applicable to financial institutions, adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial institution requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under that legislation, including the cessation of any practice. This shall apply only in situations in which a competent authority does not apply the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), including regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards adopted in accordance with those acts, or applies them in a way which appears to be a manifest breach of those acts, and where urgent remedying is necessary to restore the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union.\n5. Decisions adopted under paragraph 4 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter.\nAny action by the competent authorities in relation to issues which are subject to a decision pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4 shall be compatible with those decisions.\nArticle 19\nSettlement of disagreements between competent authorities in cross-border situations\n1. Without prejudice to the powers laid down in Article 17, where a competent authority disagrees about the procedure or content of an action or inaction of a competent authority of another Member State in cases specified in the acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority, at the request of one or more of the competent authorities concerned, may assist the authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 2 to 4 of this Article.\nIn cases specified in the legislation referred to in Article 1(2), and where on the basis of objective criteria, disagreement between competent authorities from different Member States can be determined, the Authority may, on its own initiative, assist the authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 2 to 4.\n2. The Authority shall set a time limit for conciliation between the competent authorities taking into account any relevant time periods specified in the acts referred to in Article 1(2) and the complexity and urgency of the matter. At that stage the Authority shall act as a mediator.\n3. If the competent authorities concerned fail to reach an agreement within the conciliation phase referred to in paragraph 2, the Authority may, in accordance with the procedure set out in the third and fourth subparagraph of Article 44(1) take a decision requiring them to take specific action or to refrain from action in order to settle the matter, with binding effects for the competent authorities concerned, in order to ensure compliance with Union law.\n4. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission pursuant to Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the decision of the Authority, and thereby fails to ensure that a financial institution complies with requirements directly applicable to it by virtue of the acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority may adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial institution requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under Union law, including the cessation of any practice.\n5. Decisions adopted under paragraph 4 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter. Any action by the competent authorities in relation to facts which are subject to a decision pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4 shall be compatible with those decisions.\n6. In the report referred to in Article 50(2), the Chairperson of the Authority shall set out the nature and type of disagreements between competent authorities, the agreements reached and the decisions taken to settle such disagreements.\nArticle 20\nSettlement of disagreements between competent authorities across sectors\nThe Joint Committee shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 19 and 56, settle cross-sectoral disagreements that may arise between competent authorities as defined in Article 4(2) of this Regulation, of Regulation (EU) 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU)1095/2010 respectively.\nArticle 21\nColleges of supervisors\n1. The Authority shall contribute to promoting and monitoring the efficient, effective and consistent functioning of the colleges of supervisors referred to in Directive 2006/48/EC and foster the coherence of the application of Union law among the colleges of supervisors. With the objective of converging supervisory best practices, staff from the Authority shall be able to participate in the activities of the colleges of supervisors, including on-site examinations, carried out jointly by two or more competent authorities.\n2. The Authority shall lead in ensuring a consistent and coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors for cross-border institutions across the Union, taking account of the systemic risk posed by financial institutions referred to in Article 23.\nFor the purpose of this paragraph and of paragraph 1 of this Article, the Authority shall be considered a \u2018competent authority\u2019 within the meaning of the relevant legislation.\nThe Authority may:\n(a)\ncollect and share all relevant information in cooperation with the competent authorities in order to facilitate the work of the college and establish and manage a central system to make such information accessible to the competent authorities in the college;\n(b)\ninitiate and coordinate Union-wide stress tests in accordance with Article 32 to assess the resilience of financial institutions, in particular the systemic risk posed by financial institutions as referred to in Article 23, to adverse market developments, and evaluate the potential for systemic risk to increase in situations of stress, ensuring that a consistent methodology is applied at the national level to such tests and, where appropriate, address a recommendation to the competent authority to correct issues identified in the stress test;\n(c)\npromote effective and efficient supervisory activities, including evaluating the risks to which financial institutions are or might be exposed as determined under the supervisory review process or in stress situations;\n(d)\noversee, in accordance with the tasks and powers specified in this Regulation, the tasks carried out by the competent authorities; and\n(e)\nrequest further deliberations of a college in any cases where it considers that the decision would result in an incorrect application of Union law or would not contribute to the objective of convergence of supervisory practices. It may also require the consolidating supervisor to schedule a meeting of the college or add a point to the agenda of a meeting.\n3. The Authority may develop draft regulatory and implementing technical standards to ensure uniform conditions of application with respect to the provisions regarding the operational functioning of colleges of supervisors and issue guidelines and recommendations adopted pursuant to Article 16 to promote convergence in supervisory functioning and best practices adopted by the colleges of supervisors.\n4. The Authority shall have a legally binding mediation role to resolve disputes between competent authorities in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 19. The Authority may take supervisory decisions directly applicable to the institution concerned in accordance with Article 19.\nArticle 22\nGeneral provisions\n1. The Authority shall duly consider systemic risk as defined by Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010. It shall address any risk of disruption in financial services that:\n(a)\nis caused by an impairment of all or parts of the financial system; and\n(b)\nhas the potential to have serious negative consequences for internal market and the real economy.\nThe Authority shall consider, where appropriate, the monitoring and assessment of systemic risk as developed by the ESRB and the Authority and respond to warnings and recommendations by the ESRB in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010.\n2. The Authority shall, in collaboration with the ESRB, develop a common set of quantitative and qualitative indicators (risk dashboard) to identify and measure systemic risk.\nThe Authority shall also develop an adequate stress-testing regime to help identifying those institutions that may pose systemic risk. These institutions shall be subject to strengthened supervision, and where necessary, to the recovery and resolution procedures referred to in Article 25.\n3. Without prejudice to the acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority shall draw up, as necessary, additional guidelines and recommendations for financial institutions, to take account of the systemic risk posed by them.\nThe Authority shall ensure that the systemic risk posed by financial institutions is taken into account when developing draft regulatory and implementing technical standards in the areas laid down in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2).\n4. Upon a request from one or more competent authorities, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission, or on its own initiative, the Authority may conduct an inquiry into a particular type of financial institution or type of product or type of conduct in order to assess potential threats to the stability of the financial system and make appropriate recommendations for action to the competent authorities concerned.\nFor those purposes, the Authority may use the powers conferred on it under this Regulation, including Article 35.\n5. The Joint Committee shall ensure overall and cross-sectoral coordination of the activities carried out in accordance with this Article.\nArticle 23\nIdentification and measurement of systemic risk\n1. The Authority shall, in consultation with the ESRB, develop criteria for the identification and measurement of systemic risk and an adequate stress-testing regime which includes an evaluation of the potential for systemic risk posed by financial institutions to increase in situations of stress. The financial institutions that may pose a systemic risk shall be subject to strengthened supervision, and where necessary, the recovery and resolution procedures referred to in Article 25.\n2. The Authority shall take fully into account the relevant international approaches when developing the criteria for the identification and measurement of systemic risk posed by financial institutions, including those established by the Financial Stability Board, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements.\nArticle 24\nPermanent capacity to respond to systemic risks\n1. The Authority shall ensure it has specialised and ongoing capacity to respond effectively to the materialisation of systemic risks as referred to in Articles 22 and 23, in particular, with respect to institutions that pose a systemic risk.\n2. The Authority shall fulfil the tasks conferred upon it in this Regulation and in the legislation referred to in Article 1(2), and shall contribute to ensuring a coherent and coordinated crisis management and resolution regime in the Union.\nArticle 25\nRecovery and resolution procedures\n1. The Authority shall contribute to and participate actively in the development and coordination of effective and consistent recovery and resolution plans, procedures in emergency situations and preventive measures to minimise the systemic impact of any failure.\n2. The Authority may identify best practices aimed at facilitating the resolution of failing institutions and, in particular, cross-border groups, in ways which avoid contagion, ensuring that appropriate tools, including sufficient resources, are available and allow the institution or the group to be resolved in an orderly, cost-efficient and timely manner.\n3. The Authority may develop regulatory and implementing technical standards as specified in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 15.\nArticle 26\nEuropean system of deposit guarantee schemes\n1. The Authority shall contribute to strengthening the European system of national deposit guarantee schemes by acting under the powers conferred to it in this Regulation to ensure the correct application of Directive 94/19/EC with the aim of ensuring that national deposit guarantee schemes are adequately funded by contributions from financial institutions including from those financial institutions established and taking deposits within the Union but headquartered outside the Union as provided for in Directive 94/19/EC and provide a high level of protection to all depositors in a harmonised framework throughout the Union, which leaves the stabilising safeguard role of mutual guarantee schemes intact, provided they comply with Union legislation.\n2. Article 16 concerning the Authority\u2019s powers to adopt guidelines and recommendations shall apply to deposit guarantee schemes.\n3. The Authority may develop regulatory and implementing technical standards as specified in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 15.\n4. The review of this Regulation provided for in Article 81 shall, in particular, examine the convergence of the European system of national deposit guarantee schemes.\nArticle 27\nEuropean system of bank resolution and funding arrangements\n1. The Authority shall contribute to developing methods for the resolution of failing financial institutions, in particular those that may pose a systemic risk, in ways which avoid contagion and allow them to be wound down in an orderly and timely manner, including, where applicable, coherent and robust funding mechanisms as appropriate.\n2. The Authority shall contribute to the assessment of the need for a system of coherent, robust and credible funding mechanisms, with appropriate financing instruments linked to a set of coordinated national crisis management arrangements.\nThe Authority shall contribute to the work on the level playing field issues and cumulative impacts of any systems of levies and contributions on financial institutions that may be introduced to ensure fair burden sharing and incentives to contain systemic risk as a part of a coherent and credible resolution framework.\nThe review of this Regulation provided for in Article 81 shall, in particular, examine the possible enhancement of the role of the Authority in a framework of crisis prevention, management and resolution, and, if necessary, the creation of a European resolution fund.\nArticle 28\nDelegation of tasks and responsibilities\n1. Competent authorities may, with the consent of the delegate, delegate tasks and responsibilities to the Authority or other competent authorities subject to the conditions set out in this Article. Member States may set out specific arrangements regarding the delegation of responsibilities that have to be complied with before their competent authorities enter into such delegation agreements, and may limit the scope of delegation to what is necessary for the effective supervision of cross-border financial institutions or groups.\n2. The Authority shall stimulate and facilitate the delegation of tasks and responsibilities between competent authorities by identifying those tasks and responsibilities that can be delegated or jointly exercised and by promoting best practices.\n3. The delegation of responsibilities shall result in the reallocation of competences laid down in the acts referred to in Article 1(2). The law of the delegate authority shall govern the procedure, enforcement and administrative and judicial review relating to the delegated responsibilities.\n4. The competent authorities shall inform the Authority of delegation agreements into which they intend to enter. They shall put the agreements into effect at the earliest 1 month after informing the Authority.\nThe Authority may give an opinion on the intended agreement within 1 month of being informed.\nThe Authority shall publish, by appropriate means, any delegation agreement as concluded by the competent authorities, in order to ensure that all parties concerned are informed appropriately.\nArticle 29\nCommon supervisory culture\n1. The Authority shall play an active role in building a common Union supervisory culture and consistent supervisory practices, as well as in ensuring uniform procedures and consistent approaches throughout the Union. The Authority shall carry out, at a minimum, the following activities:\n(a)\nproviding opinions to competent authorities;\n(b)\npromoting an effective bilateral and multilateral exchange of information between competent authorities, with full respect for the applicable confidentiality and data protection provisions provided for in the relevant Union legislation;\n(c)\ncontributing to developing high-quality and uniform supervisory standards, including reporting standards, and international accounting standards in accordance with Article 1(3);\n(d)\nreviewing the application of the relevant regulatory and implementing technical standards adopted by the Commission, and of the guidelines and recommendations issued by the Authority and proposing amendments where appropriate; and\n(e)\nestablishing sectoral and cross-sectoral training programmes, facilitating personnel exchanges and encouraging competent authorities to intensify the use of secondment schemes and other tools.\n2. The Authority may, as appropriate, develop new practical instruments and convergence tools to promote common supervisory approaches and practices.\nArticle 30\nPeer reviews of competent authorities\n1. The Authority shall periodically organise and conduct peer reviews of some or all of the activities of competent authorities, to further strengthen consistency in supervisory outcomes. To that end, the Authority shall develop methods to allow for objective assessment and comparison between the authorities reviewed. When conducting peer reviews, existing information and evaluations already made with regard to the competent authority concerned shall be taken into account.\n2. The peer review shall include an assessment of, but shall not be limited to:\n(a)\nthe adequacy of resources and governance arrangements of the competent authority, with particular regard to the effective application of the regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards referred to in Articles 10 to 15 and of the acts referred to in Article 1(2) and the capacity to respond to market developments;\n(b)\nthe degree of convergence reached in the application of Union law and in supervisory practice, including regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations adopted pursuant to Articles 10 to 16, and the extent to which the supervisory practice achieves the objectives set out in Union law;\n(c)\nbest practices developed by some competent authorities which might be of benefit for other competent authorities to adopt;\n(d)\nthe effectiveness and the degree of convergence reached with regard to the enforcement of the provisions adopted in the implementation of Union law, including the administrative measures and sanctions imposed against persons responsible where those provisions have not been complied with.\n3. On the basis of a peer review, the Authority may issue guidelines and recommendations pursuant to Article 16. In accordance with Article 16(3), the competent authorities shall endeavour to follow those guidelines and recommendations. The Authority shall take into account the outcome of the peer review when developing draft regulatory technical or implementing technical standards in accordance with Articles 10 to 15.\n4. The Authority shall make the best practices that can be identified from those peer reviews publicly available. In addition, all other results of peer reviews may be disclosed publicly, subject to the agreement of the competent authority that is the subject of the peer review.\nArticle 31\nCoordination function\nThe Authority shall fulfil a general coordination role between competent authorities, in particular in situations where adverse developments could potentially jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system in the Union.\nThe Authority shall promote a coordinated Union response, inter alia, by:\n(a)\nfacilitating the exchange of information between the competent authorities;\n(b)\ndetermining the scope and, where possible and appropriate, verifying the reliability of information that should be made available to all the competent authorities concerned;\n(c)\nwithout prejudice to Article 19, carrying out non-binding mediation upon a request from the competent authorities or on its own initiative;\n(d)\nnotifying the ESRB of any potential emergency situations without delay;\n(e)\ntaking all appropriate measures in case of developments which may jeopardise the functioning of the financial markets with a view to facilitating the coordination of actions undertaken by relevant competent authorities;\n(f)\ncentralising information received from competent authorities in accordance with Articles 21 and 35 as the result of the regulatory reporting obligations for institutions active in more than one Member State. The Authority shall share that information with the other competent authorities concerned.\nArticle 32\nAssessment of market developments\n1. The Authority shall monitor and assess market developments in the area of its competence and, where necessary, inform the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), the ESRB and the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission about the relevant micro-prudential trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities. The Authority shall include in its assessments an economic analysis of the markets in which financial institutions operate and an assessment of the impact of potential market developments on such institutions.\n2. The Authority shall, in cooperation with the ESRB, initiate and coordinate Union-wide assessments of the resilience of financial institutions to adverse market developments. To that end, it shall develop the following, for application by the competent authorities:\n(a)\ncommon methodologies for assessing the effect of economic scenarios on an institution\u2019s financial position;\n(b)\ncommon approaches to communication on the outcomes of these assessments of the resilience of financial institutions;\n(c)\ncommon methodologies for assessing the effect of particular products or distribution processes on an institution\u2019s financial position and on depositors, investors and customer information.\n3. Without prejudice to the tasks of the ESRB set out in Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010, the Authority shall, at least once a year, and more frequently as necessary, provide assessments to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the ESRB of trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities in its area of competence.\nThe Authority shall include a classification of the main risks and vulnerabilities in these assessments and, where necessary, recommend preventative or remedial actions.\n4. The Authority shall ensure an adequate coverage of cross-sectoral developments, risks and vulnerabilities by closely cooperating with the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) through the Joint Committee.\nArticle 33\nInternational relations\n1. Without prejudice to the respective competences of the Member States and the Union institutions, the Authority may develop contacts and enter into administrative arrangements with supervisory authorities, international organisations and the administrations of third countries. Those arrangements shall not create legal obligations in respect of the Union and its Member States nor shall they prevent Member States and their competent authorities from concluding bilateral or multilateral arrangements with those third countries.\n2. The Authority shall assist in preparing equivalence decisions pertaining to supervisory regimes in third countries in accordance with the acts referred to in Article 1(2).\n3. In the report referred to in Article 43(5), the Authority shall set out the administrative arrangements agreed upon with international organisations or administrations in third countries and the assistance provided in preparing equivalence decisions.\nArticle 34\nOther tasks\n1. The Authority may, upon a request from the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission, or on its own initiative, provide opinions to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on all issues related to its area of competence.\n2. With regard to prudential assessments of mergers and acquisitions falling within the scope of Directive 2006/48/EC, as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC, and which according to that Directive require consultation between competent authorities from two or more Member States, the Authority may, on application of one of the competent authorities concerned, issue and publish an opinion on a prudential assessment, except in relation to the criteria in Article 19a(1)(e) of Directive 2006/48/EC. The opinion shall be issued promptly and in any event before the end of the assessment period in accordance with Directive 2006/48/EC, as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC. Article 35 shall apply to the areas in respect of which the Authority may issue an opinion.\nArticle 35\nCollection of information\n1. At the request of the Authority, the competent authorities of the Member States shall provide the Authority with all the necessary information to carry out the duties assigned to it by this Regulation, provided that they have legal access to the relevant information and that the request for information is necessary in relation to the nature of the duty in question.\n2. The Authority may also request information to be provided at recurring intervals and in specified formats. Such requests shall, where possible, be made using common reporting formats.\n3. Upon a duly justified request from a competent authority of a Member State, the Authority may provide any information that is necessary to enable the competent authority to carry out its duties, in accordance with the professional secrecy obligations laid down in sectoral legislation and in Article 70.\n4. Before requesting information in accordance with this Article and in order to avoid the duplication of reporting obligations, the Authority shall take account of any relevant existing statistics produced and disseminated by the European Statistical System and the European System of Central Banks.\n5. Where information is not available or is not made available by the competent authorities in a timely fashion, the Authority may address a duly justified and reasoned request to other supervisory authorities, to the ministry responsible for finance where it has at its disposal prudential information, to the national central bank or to the statistical office of the Member State concerned.\n6. Where information is not available or is not made available under paragraph 1 or 5 in a timely fashion, the Authority may address a duly justified and reasoned request directly to the relevant financial institutions. The reasoned request shall explain why the information concerning the respective individual financial institutions is necessary.\nThe Authority shall inform the relevant competent authorities of requests in accordance with this paragraph and with paragraph 5.\nAt the request of the Authority, the competent authorities shall assist the Authority in collecting the information.\n7. The Authority may use confidential information received pursuant to this Article only for the purposes of carrying out the duties assigned to it by this Regulation.\nArticle 36\nRelationship with the ESRB\n1. The Authority shall cooperate closely and on a regular basis with the ESRB.\n2. The Authority shall provide the ESRB with regular and timely information necessary for the achievement of its tasks. Any data necessary for the achievement of its tasks that are not in summary or aggregate form shall be provided, without delay, to the ESRB upon a reasoned request, as specified in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010. The Authority, in cooperation with the ESRB, shall have in place adequate internal procedures for the transmission of confidential information, in particular information regarding individual financial institutions.\n3. The Authority shall, in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5, ensure a proper follow-up to ESRB warnings and recommendations referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010.\n4. On receipt of a warning or recommendation from the ESRB addressed to the Authority, the Authority shall convene a meeting of the Board of Supervisors without delay and assess the implications of such a warning or recommendation for the fulfilment of its tasks.\nIt shall decide, by the relevant decision-making procedure, on any actions to be taken in accordance with the powers conferred upon it by this Regulation for addressing the issues identified in the warnings and recommendations.\nIf the Authority does not act on a recommendation, it shall explain to the ESRB and the Council its reasons for not doing so.\n5. On receipt of a warning or recommendation from the ESRB addressed to a competent national supervisory authority, the Authority shall, where relevant, use the powers conferred upon it by this Regulation to ensure a timely follow-up.\nWhere the addressee intends not to follow the recommendation of the ESRB, it shall inform and discuss with the Board of Supervisors its reasons for not acting.\nThe competent authority shall take due account of the views of the Board of Supervisors when informing the Council and the ESRB in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010.\n6. In discharging the tasks set out in this Regulation, the Authority shall take the utmost account of the warnings and recommendations of the ESRB.\nArticle 37\nBanking Stakeholder Group\n1. To help facilitate consultation with stakeholders in areas relevant to the tasks of the Authority, a Banking Stakeholder Group shall be established. The Banking Stakeholder Group shall be consulted on actions taken in accordance with Articles 10 to 15 concerning regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards and, to the extent that these do not concern individual financial institutions, Article 16 concerning guidelines and recommendations. If actions must be taken urgently and consultation becomes impossible, the Banking Stakeholder Group shall be informed as soon as possible.\nThe Banking Stakeholder Group shall meet at least four times a year.\n2. The Banking Stakeholder Group shall be composed of 30 members, representing in balanced proportions credit and investment institutions operating in the Union, their employees\u2019 representatives as well as consumers, users of banking services and representatives of SMEs. At least five of its members shall be independent top-ranking academics. Ten of its members shall represent financial institutions, three of whom shall represent cooperative and savings banks.\n3. The members of the Banking Stakeholder Group shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, following proposals from the relevant stakeholders. In making its decision, the Board of Supervisors shall, to the extent possible, ensure an appropriate geographical and gender balance and representation of stakeholders across the Union.\n4. The Authority shall provide all necessary information subject to professional secrecy as set out in Article 70 and ensure adequate secretarial support for the Banking Stakeholder Group. Adequate compensation shall be provided to members of the Banking Stakeholder Group representing non-profit organisations, excluding industry representatives. The Banking Stakeholder Group may establish working groups on technical issues. Members of the Banking Stakeholder Group shall serve for a period of 2 1/2 years, following which a new selection procedure shall take place.\nThe members of the Banking Stakeholder Group may serve two successive terms.\n5. The Banking Stakeholder Group may submit opinions and advice to the Authority on any issue related to the tasks of the Authority with particular focus on the tasks set out in Articles 10 to 16 and Articles 29, 30 and 32.\n6. The Banking Stakeholder Group shall adopt its rules of procedure by a majority of two-thirds of its members.\n7. The Authority shall make public the opinions and advice of the Banking Stakeholder Group and the results of its consultations.\nArticle 38\nSafeguards\n1. The Authority shall ensure that no decision adopted pursuant to Article 18 or 19 impinges in any way on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States.\n2. Where a Member State considers that a decision taken pursuant to Article 19(3) impinges on its fiscal responsibilities, it may notify the Authority and the Commission within 2 weeks after notification of the Authority\u2019s decision to the competent authority that the decision will not be implemented by the competent authority.\nIn its notification, the Member State shall clearly and specifically explain why and how the decision impinges on its fiscal responsibilities.\nIn the case of such notification, the decision of the Authority shall be suspended.\nWithin a period of 1 month from the notification by the Member State, the Authority shall inform the Member State as to whether it maintains its decision or whether it amends or revokes it. If the decision is maintained or amended, the Authority shall state that fiscal responsibilities are not affected.\nWhere the Authority maintains its decision, the Council shall take a decision, by a majority of the votes cast, at one of its meetings not later than 2 months after the Authority has informed the Member State as set out in the fourth subparagraph, as to whether the Authority\u2019s decision is maintained.\nWhere the Council, after having considered the matter, does not take a decision to maintain the Authority\u2019s decision in accordance with the fifth subparagraph, the Authority\u2019s decision shall be terminated.\n3. Where a Member State considers that a decision taken pursuant to Article 18(3) impinges on its fiscal responsibilities, it may notify the Authority, the Commission and the Council within 3 working days after notification of the Authority\u2019s decision to the competent authority that the decision will not be implemented by the competent authority.\nIn its notification, the Member State shall clearly and specifically explain why and how the decision impinges on its fiscal responsibilities.\nIn the case of such notification, the decision of the Authority shall be suspended.\nThe Council shall, within 10 working days, convene a meeting and take a decision, by a simple majority of its members, as to whether the Authority\u2019s decision is revoked.\nWhere the Council, after having considered the matter, does not take a decision to revoke the Authority\u2019s decision in accordance with the fourth subparagraph, the suspension of the Authority\u2019s decision shall be terminated.\n4. Where the Council has taken a decision in accordance with paragraph 3 not to revoke a decision of the Authority relating to Article 18(3), and the Member State concerned still considers that the decision of the Authority impinges upon its fiscal responsibilities, that Member State may notify the Commission and the Authority and request the Council to re-examine the matter. The Member State concerned shall clearly set out the reasons for its disagreement with the decision of the Council.\nWithin a period of 4 weeks after the notification referred to in the first subparagraph, the Council shall confirm its original decision or take a new decision in accordance with paragraph 3.\nThe period of 4 weeks may be extended by four additional weeks by the Council, if the particular circumstances of the case so require.\n5. Any abuse of this Article, in particular in relation to a decision by the Authority which does not have a significant or material fiscal impact, shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 39\nDecision-making procedures\n1. Before taking the decisions provided for in this Regulation, the Authority shall inform any named addressee of its intention to adopt the decision, setting a time limit within which the addressee may express its views on the matter, taking full account of the urgency, complexity and potential consequences of the matter. This applies mutatis mutandis to recommendations as referred to in Article 17(3).\n2. The decisions of the Authority shall state the reasons on which they are based.\n3. The addressees of decisions of the Authority shall be informed of the legal remedies available under this Regulation.\n4. Where the Authority has taken a decision pursuant to Article 18(3) or (4), it shall review that decision at appropriate intervals.\n5. The decisions which the Authority takes pursuant to Article 17, 18 or 19 shall be made public and shall state the identity of the competent authority or financial institution concerned and the main content of the decision, unless such publication is in conflict with the legitimate interests of financial institutions in the protection of their business secrets or could seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system of the Union.\nCHAPTER III\nORGANISATION\nSECTION 1\nBoard of Supervisors\nArticle 40\nComposition\n1. The Board of Supervisors shall be composed of:\n(a)\nthe Chairperson, who shall be non-voting;\n(b)\nthe head of the national public authority competent for the supervision of credit institutions in each Member State, who shall meet in person at least twice a year;\n(c)\none representative of the Commission, who shall be non-voting;\n(d)\none representative of the European Central Bank, who shall be non-voting;\n(e)\none representative of the ESRB, who shall be non-voting;\n(f)\none representative of each of the other two European Supervisory Authorities, who shall be non-voting.\n2. The Board of Supervisors shall convene meetings with the Banking Stakeholder Group regularly, at least twice a year.\n3. Each competent authority shall be responsible for nominating a high-level alternate from its authority, who may replace the member of the Board of Supervisors referred to in paragraph 1(b), where that person is prevented from attending.\n4. Where the authority referred to in paragraph 1(b) is not a central bank, the member of the Board of Supervisors referred to in that point may decide to bring a representative from the Member State\u2019s central bank, who shall be non-voting.\n5. In Member States where more than one authority is responsible for the supervision according to this Regulation, those authorities shall agree on a common representative. Nevertheless, when an item to be discussed by the Board of Supervisors does not fall within the competence of the national authority being represented by the member referred to in paragraph 1(b), that member may bring a representative from the relevant national authority, who shall be non-voting.\n6. For the purpose of acting within the scope of Directive 94/19/EC, the member of the Board of Supervisors referred to in paragraph 1(b) may, where appropriate, be accompanied by a representative from the relevant bodies which administer deposit-guarantee schemes in each Member State, who shall be non-voting.\n7. The Board of Supervisors may decide to admit observers.\nThe Executive Director may participate in meetings of the Board of Supervisors, without the right to vote.\nArticle 41\nInternal committees and panels\n1. The Board of Supervisors may establish internal committees or panels for specific tasks attributed to the Board of Supervisors, and may provide for the delegation of certain clearly defined tasks and decisions to internal committees or panels, to the Management Board or to the Chairperson.\n2. For the purposes of Article 19, the Board of Supervisors shall convoke an independent panel to facilitate an impartial settlement of the disagreement, consisting of the Chairperson and two of its members, who are not representatives of the competent authorities which are party to the disagreement and who have neither any interest in the conflict nor direct links to the competent authorities concerned.\n3. Subject to Article 19(2), the panel shall propose a decision for final adoption by the Board of Supervisors, in accordance with the procedure set out in the third subparagraph of Article 44(1).\n4. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt rules of procedure for the panel referred to in paragraph 2.\nArticle 42\nIndependence\nWhen carrying out the tasks conferred upon it by this Regulation, the Chairperson and the voting members of the Board of Supervisors shall act independently and objectively in the sole interest of the Union as a whole and shall neither seek nor take instructions from Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body.\nNeither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the members of the Board of Supervisors in the performance of their tasks.\nArticle 43\nTasks\n1. The Board of Supervisors shall give guidance to the work of the Authority and shall be in charge of taking the decisions referred to in Chapter II.\n2. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the opinions, recommendations, and decisions, and issue the advice referred to in Chapter II.\n3. The Board of Supervisors shall appoint the Chairperson.\n4. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt, before 30 September of each year, on the basis of a proposal by the Management Board, the work programme of the Authority for the coming year, and shall transmit it for information to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.\nThe work programme shall be adopted without prejudice to the annual budgetary procedure and shall be made public.\n5. The Board of Supervisors shall, on the basis of a proposal by the Management Board, adopt the annual report on the activities of the Authority, including on the performance of the Chairperson\u2019s duties, on the basis of the draft report referred to in Article 53(7) and shall transmit that report to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the European Economic and Social Committee by 15 June each year. The report shall be made public.\n6. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the multi-annual work programme of the Authority, and shall transmit it for information to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.\nThe multi-annual work programme shall be adopted without prejudice to the annual budgetary procedure and shall be made public.\n7. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the budget in accordance with Article 63.\n8. The Board of Supervisors shall exercise disciplinary authority over the Chairperson and the Executive Director and may remove them from office in accordance with Article 48(5) or 51(5) respectively.\nArticle 44\nDecision-making\n1. Decisions of the Board of Supervisors shall be taken by a simple majority of its members. Each member shall have one vote.\nWith regard to the acts specified in Articles 10 to 16 and measures and decisions adopted under the third subparagraph of Article 9(5) and Chapter VI and by way of derogation from the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the Board of Supervisors shall take decisions on the basis of a qualified majority of its members, as defined in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 3 of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions.\nWith regard to decisions in accordance with Article 19(3), for decisions taken by the consolidating supervisor, the decision proposed by the panel shall be considered as adopted, if approved by a simple majority, unless it is rejected by members representing a blocking minority of the votes as defined in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 3 of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions.\nFor all other decisions in accordance with Article 19(3), the decision proposed by the panel shall be adopted by a simple majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors. Each member shall have one vote.\n2. Meetings of the Board of Supervisors shall be convened by the Chairperson at his own initiative or at the request of one third of its members, and shall be chaired by the Chairperson.\n3. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure.\n4. The rules of procedure shall set out in detail the arrangements governing voting, including, where appropriate, the rules governing quorums. The non-voting members and the observers, with the exception of the Chairperson and the Executive Director, shall not attend any discussions within the Board of Supervisors relating to individual financial institutions, unless otherwise provided for in Article 75(3) or in the acts referred to in Article 1(2).\nSECTION 2\nManagement Board\nArticle 45\nComposition\n1. The Management Board shall be composed of the Chairperson and six other members of the Board of Supervisors, elected by and from the voting members of the Board of Supervisors.\nOther than the Chairperson, each member of the Management Board shall have an alternate, who may replace him if he is prevented from attending.\nThe term of office of the members elected by the Board of Supervisors shall be 2 1/2 years. That term may be extended once. The composition of the Management Board shall be balanced and proportionate and shall reflect the Union as a whole. Mandates shall be overlapping and an appropriate rotating arrangement shall apply.\n2. Decisions by the Management Board shall be adopted on the basis of a majority of the members present. Each member shall have one vote.\nThe Executive Director and a representative of the Commission shall participate in meetings of the Management Board without the right to vote.\nThe representative of the Commission shall have the right to vote on matters referred to in Article 63.\nThe Management Board shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure.\n3. Meetings of the Management Board shall be convened by the Chairperson at his own initiative or at the request of at least a third of its members, and shall be chaired by the Chairperson.\nThe Management Board shall meet prior to every meeting of the Board of Supervisors and as often as the Management Board deems necessary. It shall meet at least five times a year.\n4. The members of the Management Board may, subject to the rules of procedure, be assisted by advisers or experts. The non-voting members, with the exception of the Executive Director, shall not attend any discussions within the Management Board relating to individual financial institutions.\nArticle 46\nIndependence\nThe members of the Management Board shall act independently and objectively in the sole interest of the Union as a whole and shall neither seek nor take instructions from the Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body.\nNeither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the members of the Management Board in the performance of their tasks.\nArticle 47\nTasks\n1. The Management Board shall ensure that the Authority carries out its mission and performs the tasks assigned to it in accordance with this Regulation.\n2. The Management Board shall propose, for adoption by the Board of Supervisors, an annual and multi-annual work programme.\n3. The Management Board shall exercise its budgetary powers in accordance with Articles 63 and 64.\n4. The Management Board shall adopt the Authority\u2019s staff policy plan and, pursuant to Article 68(2), the necessary implementing measures of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (hereinafter \u2018the Staff Regulations\u2019).\n5. The Management Board shall adopt the special provisions on right of access to the documents of the Authority, in accordance with Article 72.\n6. The Management Board shall propose an annual report on the activities of the Authority, including on the Chairperson\u2019s duties, on the basis of the draft report referred to in Article 53(7) to the Board of Supervisors for approval.\n7. The Management Board shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure.\n8. The Management Board shall appoint and remove the members of the Board of Appeal in accordance with Article 58(3) and (5).\nSECTION 3\nChairperson\nArticle 48\nAppointment and tasks\n1. The Authority shall be represented by a Chairperson, who shall be a full-time independent professional.\nThe Chairperson shall be responsible for preparing the work of the Board of Supervisors and shall chair the meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board.\n2. The Chairperson shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and of experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation, following an open selection procedure.\nBefore taking up his duties, and up to 1 month after the selection by the Board of Supervisors, the European Parliament may, after having heard the candidate selected by the Board of Supervisors, object to the designation of the selected person.\nThe Board of Supervisors shall also elect, from among its members, an alternate who shall carry out the functions of the Chairperson in his absence. That alternate shall not be elected from among the members of the Management Board.\n3. The Chairperson\u2019s term of office shall be 5 years and may be extended once.\n4. In the course of the 9 months preceding the end of the 5-year term of office of the Chairperson, the Board of Supervisors shall evaluate:\n(a)\nthe results achieved in the first term of office and the way they were achieved;\n(b)\nthe Authority\u2019s duties and requirements in the coming years.\nThe Board of Supervisors, taking into account the evaluation, may extend the term of office of the Chairperson once subject to confirmation by the European Parliament.\n5. The Chairperson may be removed from office only by the European Parliament following a decision of the Board of Supervisors.\nThe Chairperson shall not prevent the Board of Supervisors from discussing matters relating to the Chairperson, in particular the need for his removal, and shall not be involved in deliberations concerning such a matter.\nArticle 49\nIndependence\nWithout prejudice to the role of the Board of Supervisors in relation to the tasks of the Chairperson, the Chairperson shall neither seek nor take instructions from the Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body.\nNeither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the Chairperson in the performance of his tasks.\nIn accordance with the Staff Regulations referred to in Article 68, the Chairperson shall, after leaving service, continue to be bound by the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance of certain appointments or benefits.\nArticle 50\nReport\n1. The European Parliament and the Council may invite the Chairperson or his alternate to make a statement, while fully respecting his independence. The Chairperson shall make a statement before the European Parliament and answer any questions put by its members, whenever so requested.\n2. The Chairperson shall report in writing on the main activities of the Authority to the European Parliament when requested and at least 15 days before making the statement referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. In addition to the information referred to in Articles 11 to 18 and Articles 20 and 33, the report shall also include any relevant information requested by the European Parliament on an ad-hoc basis.\nSECTION 4\nExecutive Director\nArticle 51\nAppointment\n1. The Authority shall be managed by an Executive Director, who shall be a full-time independent professional.\n2. The Executive Director shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, after confirmation by the European Parliament, on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation and managerial experience, following an open selection procedure.\n3. The Executive Director\u2019s term of office shall be 5 years and may be extended once.\n4. In the course of the 9 months preceding the end of the Executive Director\u2019s term of office, the Board of Supervisors shall evaluate in particular:\n(a)\nthe results achieved in the first term of office and the way they were achieved;\n(b)\nthe Authority\u2019s duties and requirements in the coming years.\nThe Board of Supervisors, taking into account the evaluation referred to in the first subparagraph, may extend the term of office of the Executive Director once.\n5. The Executive Director may be removed from office only upon a decision of the Board of Supervisors.\nArticle 52\nIndependence\nWithout prejudice to the respective roles of the Management Board and the Board of Supervisors in relation to the tasks of the Executive Director, the Executive Director shall neither seek nor take instructions from the Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body.\nNeither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the Executive Director in the performance of his tasks.\nIn accordance with the Staff Regulations referred to in Article 68, the Executive Director shall, after leaving service, continue to be bound by the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance of certain appointments or benefits.\nArticle 53\nTasks\n1. The Executive Director shall be in charge of the management of the Authority and shall prepare the work of the Management Board.\n2. The Executive Director shall be responsible for implementing the annual work programme of the Authority under the guidance of the Board of Supervisors and under the control of the Management Board.\n3. The Executive Director shall take the necessary measures, notably the adoption of internal administrative instructions and the publication of notices, to ensure the functioning of the Authority, in accordance with this Regulation.\n4. The Executive Director shall prepare a multi-annual work programme, as referred to in Article 47(2).\n5. Each year, by 30 June, the Executive Director shall prepare a work programme for the following year, as referred to in Article 47(2).\n6. The Executive Director shall draw up a preliminary draft budget of the Authority pursuant to Article 63 and shall implement the budget of the Authority pursuant to Article 64.\n7. Each year the Executive Director shall prepare a draft report with a section on the regulatory and supervisory activities of the Authority and a section on financial and administrative matters.\n8. The Executive Director shall exercise in respect to the Authority\u2019s staff the powers laid down in Article 68 and manage staff matters.\nCHAPTER IV\nJOINT BODIES OF THE EUROPEAN SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES\nSECTION 1\nJoint Committee of European Supervisory Authorities\nArticle 54\nEstablishment\n1. The Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities is hereby established.\n2. The Joint Committee shall serve as a forum in which the Authority shall cooperate regularly and closely and ensure cross-sectoral consistency with the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), in particular regarding:\n-\nfinancial conglomerates,\n-\naccounting and auditing,\n-\nmicro-prudential analyses of cross-sectoral developments, risks and vulnerabilities for financial stability,\n-\nretail investment products,\n-\nmeasures combating money laundering, and\n-\ninformation exchange with the ESRB and developing the relationship between the ESRB and the ESAs.\n3. The Joint Committee shall have a dedicated staff provided by the ESAs that shall act as a secretariat. The Authority shall contribute adequate resources to administrative, infrastructure and operational expenses.\n4. In the event that a financial institution reaches across different sectors, the Joint Committee shall resolve disagreements in accordance with Article 56.\nArticle 55\nComposition\n1. The Joint Committee shall be composed of the Chairpersons of the ESAs, and, where applicable, the Chairperson of any Sub-Committee established pursuant to Article 57.\n2. The Executive Director, a representative of the Commission and the ESRB shall be invited to the meetings of the Joint Committee, as well as of any Sub-Committees referred to in Article 57, as observers.\n3. The Chairperson of the Joint Committee shall be appointed on an annual rotational basis from among the Chairpersons of the ESAs. The Chairperson of the Joint Committee shall be a Vice-Chair of the ESRB.\n4. The Joint Committee shall adopt and publish its own rules of procedure. The rules may specify further participants in the meetings of the Joint Committee.\nThe Joint Committee shall meet at least once every 2 months.\nArticle 56\nJoint positions and common acts\nWithin the scope of its tasks in Chapter II, and in particular with respect to the implementation of Directive 2002/87/EC, where relevant, the Authority shall reach joint positions with the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and with the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), as appropriate.\nActs pursuant to Articles 10 to 15, 17, 18 or 19 of this Regulation in relation to the application of Directive 2002/87/EC and of any other Union acts referred to in Article 1(2) that also fall within the area of competence of the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) or the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) shall be adopted, in parallel, by the Authority, the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), as appropriate.\nArticle 57\nSub-Committees\n1. For the purposes of Article 56, a Sub-Committee on Financial Conglomerates to the Joint Committee shall be established.\n2. The Sub-Committee shall be composed of the individuals referred to in Article 55(1), and one high-level representative from the current staff of the relevant competent authority from each Member State.\n3. The Sub-Committee shall elect a Chairperson from among its members, who shall also be a member of the Joint Committee.\n4. The Joint Committee may establish further Sub-Committees.\nSECTION 2\nBoard of Appeal\nArticle 58\nComposition and operation\n1. The Board of Appeal shall be a joint body of the ESAs.\n2. The Board of Appeal shall be composed of six members and six alternates, who shall be individuals of a high repute with a proven record of relevant knowledge and professional experience, including supervisory experience, to a sufficiently high level in the fields of banking, insurance, occupational pensions, securities markets or other financial services, excluding current staff of the competent authorities or other national or Union institutions involved in the activities of the Authority. The Board of Appeal shall have sufficient legal expertise to provide expert legal advice on the legality of the Authority\u2019s exercise of its powers.\nThe Board of Appeal shall designate its President.\n3. Two members of the Board of Appeal and two alternates shall be appointed by the Management Board of the Authority from a short-list proposed by the Commission, following a public call for expressions of interest published in the Official Journal of the European Union, and after consultation of the Board of Supervisors.\nThe other members shall be appointed in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n4. The term of office of the members of the Board of Appeal shall be 5 years. That term may be extended once.\n5. A member of the Board of Appeal appointed by the Management Board of the Authority shall not be removed during his term of office, unless he has been found guilty of serious misconduct and the Management Board takes a decision to that effect after consulting the Board of Supervisors.\n6. The decisions of the Board of Appeal shall be adopted on the basis of a majority of at least four of its six members. Where the appealed decision falls within the scope of this Regulation, the deciding majority shall include at least one of the two members of the Board of Appeal appointed by the Authority.\n7. The Board of Appeal shall be convened by its President when necessary.\n8. The ESAs shall ensure adequate operational and secretarial support for the Board of Appeal through the Joint Committee.\nArticle 59\nIndependence and impartiality\n1. The members of the Board of Appeal shall be independent in making their decisions. They shall not be bound by any instructions. They shall not perform any other duties in relation to the Authority, its Management Board or its Board of Supervisors.\n2. Members of the Board of Appeal shall not take part in any appeal proceedings in which they have any personal interest, if they have previously been involved as representatives of one of the parties to the proceedings, or if they have participated in the decision under appeal.\n3. If, for one of the reasons referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 or for any other reason, a member of a Board of Appeal considers that another member should not take part in any appeal proceedings, he shall inform the Board of Appeal accordingly.\n4. Any party to the appeal proceedings may object to the participation of a member of the Board of Appeal on any of the grounds referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, or if suspected of bias.\nNo objection may be based on the nationality of members nor shall it be admissible if, while being aware of a reason for objecting, the party to the appeal proceedings has nonetheless taken a procedural step other than objecting to the composition of the Board of Appeal.\n5. The Board of Appeal shall decide on the action to be taken in the cases specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 without the participation of the member concerned.\nFor the purpose of taking that decision, the member concerned shall be replaced on the Board of Appeal by his alternate. Where the alternate is in a similar situation, the Chairperson shall designate a replacement from among the available alternates.\n6. The members of the Board of Appeal shall undertake to act independently and in the public interest.\nFor that purpose, they shall make a declaration of commitments and a declaration of interests indicating either the absence of any interest which may be considered prejudicial to their independence or any direct or indirect interest which might be considered prejudicial to their independence.\nThose declarations shall be made public, annually and in writing.\nCHAPTER V\nREMEDIES\nArticle 60\nAppeals\n1. Any natural or legal person, including competent authorities, may appeal against a decision of the Authority referred to in Articles 17, 18 and 19 and any other decision taken by the Authority in accordance with the Union acts referred to in Article 1(2) which is addressed to that person, or against a decision which, although in the form of a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to that person.\n2. The appeal, together with a statement of grounds, shall be filed in writing at the Authority within 2 months of the date of notification of the decision to the person concerned, or, in the absence of a notification, of the day on which the Authority published its decision.\nThe Board of Appeal shall decide upon the appeal within 2 months after the appeal has been lodged.\n3. An appeal lodged pursuant to paragraph 1 shall not have suspensive effect.\nHowever, the Board of Appeal may, if it considers that circumstances so require, suspend the application of the contested decision.\n4. If the appeal is admissible, the Board of Appeal shall examine whether it is well-founded. It shall invite the parties to the appeal proceedings to file observations on its own notifications or on communications from the other parties to the appeal proceedings, within specified time limits. Parties to the appeal proceedings shall be entitled to make oral representations.\n5. The Board of Appeal may confirm the decision taken by the competent body of the Authority, or remit the case to the competent body of the Authority. That body shall be bound by the decision of the Board of Appeal and that body shall adopt an amended decision regarding the case concerned.\n6. The Board of Appeal shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure.\n7. The decisions taken by the Board of Appeal shall be reasoned and shall be made public by the Authority.\nArticle 61\nActions before the Court of Justice of the European Union\n1. Proceedings may be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, contesting a decision taken by the Board of Appeal or, in cases where there is no right of appeal before the Board of Appeal, by the Authority.\n2. Member States and the Union institutions, as well as any natural or legal person, may institute proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union against decisions of the Authority, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU.\n3. In the event that the Authority has an obligation to act and fails to take a decision, proceedings for failure to act may be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with Article 265 TFEU.\n4. The Authority shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINANCIAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 62\nBudget of the Authority\n1. The revenues of the Authority, a European body in accordance with Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (40) (hereinafter the \u2018Financial Regulation\u2019), shall consist, in particular, of any combination of the following:\n(a)\nobligatory contributions from the national public authorities competent for the supervision of financial institutions, which shall be made in accordance with a formula based on the weighting of votes set out in Article 3(3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions. For the purposes of this Article, Article 3(3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions shall continue to apply beyond the deadline of 31 October 2014 therein established;\n(b)\na subsidy from the Union, entered in the General Budget of the European Union (Commission Section);\n(c)\nany fees paid to the Authority in the cases specified in the relevant instruments of Union law.\n2. The expenditure of the Authority shall include, at least, staff, remuneration, administrative, infrastructure, professional training and operational expenses.\n3. Revenue and expenditure shall be in balance.\n4. Estimates of all Authority revenue and expenditure shall be prepared for each financial year, corresponding to the calendar year, and shall be presented in the budget of the Authority.\nArticle 63\nEstablishment of the budget\n1. By 15 February each year, the Executive Director shall draw up a draft statement of estimates of revenue and expenditure for the following financial year, and shall forward it to the Management Board and the Board of Supervisors, together with the establishment plan. Each year, the Board of Supervisors shall, on the basis of the draft statement drawn up by the Executive Director and approved by the Management Board, produce a statement of estimates of revenue and expenditure of the Authority for the following financial year. That statement of estimates, including a draft establishment plan, shall be transmitted by the Board of Supervisors to the Commission by 31 March. Prior to adoption of the statement of estimates, the draft prepared by the Executive Director shall be approved by the Management Board.\n2. The statement of estimates shall be transmitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council (hereinafter referred to together as the \u2018budgetary authority\u2019), together with the draft budget of the European Union.\n3. On the basis of the statement of estimates, the Commission shall enter in the draft budget of the European Union the estimates it deems necessary in respect of the establishment plan and the amount of the subsidy to be charged to the General Budget of the European Union in accordance with Articles 313 and 314 TFEU.\n4. The budgetary authority shall adopt the establishment plan for the Authority. The budgetary authority shall authorise the appropriations for the subsidy to the Authority.\n5. The budget of the Authority shall be adopted by the Board of Supervisors. It shall become final after the final adoption of the General Budget of the European Union. Where necessary, it shall be adjusted accordingly.\n6. The Management Board shall, without delay, notify the budgetary authority of its intention to implement any project which may have significant financial implications for the funding of its budget, in particular any project relating to property, such as the rental or purchase of buildings. It shall inform the Commission thereof. If either branch of the budgetary authority intends to issue an opinion, it shall, within 2 weeks of receipt of the information on the project, notify the Authority of its intention to issue such an opinion. In the absence of a reply, the Authority may proceed with the planned operation.\n7. For the first year of operation of the Authority, ending on 31 December 2011, the financing of the Authority by the Union is subject to an agreement by the budgetary authority as provided for in Point 47 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management.\nArticle 64\nImplementation and control of the budget\n1. The Executive Director shall act as authorising officer and shall implement the Authority\u2019s budget.\n2. By 1 March following the completion of each financial year, the Authority\u2019s accounting officer shall forward to the Commission\u2019s accounting officer and to the Court of Auditors the provisional accounts, accompanied by the report on budgetary and financial management during the financial year. The Authority\u2019s accounting officer shall also send the report on budgetary and financial management to the members of the Board of Supervisors, the European Parliament and the Council by 31 March of the following year.\nThe Commission\u2019s accounting officer shall then consolidate the provisional accounts of the institutions and decentralised bodies in accordance with Article 128 of the Financial Regulation.\n3. After receiving the observations of the Court of Auditors on the provisional accounts of the Authority in accordance with Article 129 of the Financial Regulation, the Executive Director, acting on his own responsibility, shall draw up the final accounts of the Authority and transmit them, for opinion, to the Management Board.\n4. The Management Board shall deliver an opinion on the final accounts of the Authority.\n5. The Executive Director shall transmit those final accounts, accompanied by the opinion of the Management Board, by 1 July following the completion of the financial year, to the Members of the Board of Supervisors, the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors.\n6. The final accounts shall be published.\n7. The Executive Director shall send the Court of Auditors a reply to the latter\u2019s observations by 30 September. He shall also send a copy of that reply to the Management Board and the Commission.\n8. The Executive Director shall submit to the European Parliament, at the latter\u2019s request and as provided for in Article 146(3) of the Financial Regulation, any information necessary for the smooth application of the discharge procedure for the financial year in question.\n9. The European Parliament, following a recommendation from the Council acting by qualified majority, shall, before 15 May of the year N + 2, grant a discharge to the Authority for the implementation of the budget comprising revenue from the General Budget of the European Union and competent authorities for the financial year N.\nArticle 65\nFinancial rules\nThe financial rules applicable to the Authority shall be adopted by the Management Board after consulting the Commission. Those rules may not depart from Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (41) unless the specific operational needs for the functioning of the Authority so require and only with the prior agreement of the Commission.\nArticle 66\nAnti-fraud measures\n1. For the purposes of combating fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity, Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 shall apply to the Authority without any restriction.\n2. The Authority shall accede to the Interinstitutional Agreement concerning internal investigations by OLAF and shall immediately adopt appropriate provisions for all staff of the Authority.\n3. The funding decisions and the agreements and the implementing instruments resulting from them shall explicitly stipulate that the Court of Auditors and OLAF may, if need be, carry out on-the-spot checks on the beneficiaries of monies disbursed by the Authority as well as on the staff responsible for allocating these monies.\nCHAPTER VII\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 67\nPrivileges and immunities\nThe Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the TFEU shall apply to the Authority and its staff.\nArticle 68\nStaff\n1. The Staff Regulations, the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and the rules adopted jointly by the Union institutions for the purpose of applying them shall apply to the staff of the Authority, including its Executive Director and its Chairperson.\n2. The Management Board, in agreement with the Commission, shall adopt the necessary implementing measures, in accordance with the arrangements provided for in Article 110 of the Staff Regulations.\n3. In respect of its staff, the Authority shall exercise the powers conferred on the appointing authority by the Staff Regulations and on the authority entitled to conclude contracts by the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants.\n4. The Management Board shall adopt provisions to allow national experts from Member States to be seconded to the Authority.\nArticle 69\nLiability of the Authority\n1. In the case of non-contractual liability, the Authority shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by it or by its staff in the performance of their duties. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction in any dispute over the remedying of such damage.\n2. The personal financial liability and disciplinary liability of Authority staff towards the Authority shall be governed by the relevant provisions applying to the staff of the Authority.\nArticle 70\nObligation of professional secrecy\n1. Members of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board, the Executive Director, and members of the staff of the Authority including officials seconded by Member States on a temporary basis and all other persons carrying out tasks for the Authority on a contractual basis shall be subject to the requirements of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 339 TFEU and the relevant provisions in Union legislation, even after their duties have ceased.\nArticle 16 of the Staff Regulations shall apply to them.\nIn accordance with the Staff Regulations, the staff shall, after leaving service, continue to be bound by the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance of certain appointments or benefits.\nNeither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence staff members of the Authority in the performance of their tasks.\n2. Without prejudice to cases covered by criminal law, any confidential information received by persons referred to in paragraph 1 whilst performing their duties may not be divulged to any person or authority whatsoever, except in summary or aggregate form, such that individual financial institutions cannot be identified.\nMoreover, the obligation under paragraph 1 and the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall not prevent the Authority and the national supervisory authorities from using the information for the enforcement of the acts referred to in Article 1(2), and in particular for legal procedures for the adoption of decisions.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not prevent the Authority from exchanging information with national supervisory authorities in accordance with this Regulation and other Union legislation applicable to financial institutions.\nThat information shall be subject to the conditions of professional secrecy referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. The Authority shall lay down in its internal rules of procedure the practical arrangements for implementing the confidentiality rules referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.\n4. The Authority shall apply Commission Decision 2001/844/EC/ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending its internal Rules of Procedure (42).\nArticle 71\nData protection\nThis Regulation shall be without prejudice to the obligations of Member States relating to their processing of personal data under Directive 95/46/EC or the obligations of the Authority relating to its processing of personal data under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 when fulfilling its responsibilities.\nArticle 72\nAccess to documents\n1. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 shall apply to documents held by the Authority.\n2. The Management Board shall, by 31 May 2011, adopt practical measures for applying Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.\n3. Decisions taken by the Authority pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 may be the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman or of proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union, following an appeal to the Board of Appeal, as appropriate, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Articles 228 and 263 TFEU respectively.\nArticle 73\nLanguage arrangements\n1. Council Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (43) shall apply to the Authority.\n2. The Management Board shall decide on the internal language arrangements for the Authority.\n3. The translation services required for the functioning of the Authority shall be provided by the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union.\nArticle 74\nHeadquarters Agreement\nThe necessary arrangements concerning the accommodation to be provided for the Authority in the Member State where its seat is located and the facilities to be made available by that Member State, as well as the specific rules applicable in that Member State to the Executive Director, the members of the Management Board, the staff of the Authority and members of their families shall be laid down in a Headquarters Agreement between the Authority and that Member State concluded after obtaining the approval of the Management Board.\nThat Member State shall provide the best possible conditions to ensure the proper functioning of the Authority, including multilingual, European-oriented schooling and appropriate transport connections.\nArticle 75\nParticipation of third countries\n1. Participation in the work of the Authority shall be open to third countries which have concluded agreements with the Union whereby they have adopted and are applying Union law in the areas of competence of the Authority as referred to in Article 1(2).\n2. The Authority may cooperate with the countries referred to in paragraph 1, applying legislation which has been recognised as equivalent in the areas of competence of the Authority referred to in Article 1(2), as provided for in international agreements concluded by the Union in accordance with Article 216 TFEU.\n3. Under the relevant provisions of the agreements referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, arrangements shall be made specifying, in particular, the nature, scope and procedural aspects of the involvement of the countries referred to in paragraph 1 in the work of the Authority, including provisions relating to financial contributions and to staff. They may provide for representation, as an observer, on the Board of Supervisors, but shall ensure that those countries do not attend any discussions relating to individual financial institutions, except where there is a direct interest.\nCHAPTER VIII\nTRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 76\nPreparatory actions\n1. Following the entry into force of this Regulation, and before the establishment of the Authority, CEBS shall act in close cooperation with the Commission to prepare for the replacement of CEBS by the Authority.\n2. Once the Authority has been established, the Commission shall be responsible for the administrative establishment and initial administrative operation of the Authority until the Authority has appointed an Executive Director.\nFor that purpose, until such time as the Executive Director takes up his duties following his appointment by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with Article 51, the Commission may assign one official on an interim basis in order to fulfil the functions of the Executive Director. That period shall be limited to the time necessary for the appointment of an Executive Director of the Authority.\nThe interim Executive Director may authorise all payments covered by credits provided in the budget of the Authority, once approved by the Management Board and may conclude contracts, including staff contracts following the adoption of the Authority\u2019s establishment plan.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are without prejudice to the powers of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board.\n4. The Authority shall be considered the legal successor of CEBS. By the date of establishment of the Authority, all assets and liabilities and all pending operations of CEBS shall be automatically transferred to the Authority. CEBS shall establish a statement showing its closing asset and liability situation as of the date of that transfer. That statement shall be audited and approved by CEBS and by the Commission.\nArticle 77\nTransitional staff provisions\n1. By way of derogation from Article 68, all employment contracts and secondment agreements concluded by CEBS or its Secretariat and in force on 1 January 2011 shall be honoured until their expiry date. They may not be extended.\n2. All members of staff under contracts referred to in paragraph 1 shall be offered the possibility of concluding temporary agent contracts pursuant to Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants at the various grades as set out in the Authority\u2019s establishment plan.\nAn internal selection limited to staff who have contracts with CEBS or its Secretariat shall be carried out after the entry into force of this Regulation by the authority authorised to conclude contracts in order to check the ability, efficiency and integrity of those to be engaged. The internal selection procedure shall take full account of the skills and experience demonstrated by the individuals\u2019 performance prior to the engagement.\n3. Depending on the type and level of functions to be performed, successful applicants shall be offered temporary agents\u2019 contracts of a duration corresponding at least to the time remaining under the prior contract.\n4. The relevant national law relating to labour contracts and other relevant instruments shall continue to apply to staff members with prior contracts who choose not to apply for temporary agent\u2019s contracts or who are not offered temporary agents contracts in accordance with paragraph 2.\nArticle 78\nNational provisions\nThe Member States shall make such provision as is appropriate to ensure the effective application of this Regulation.\nArticle 79\nAmendments\nDecision No 716/2009/EC is hereby amended in so far as CEBS is removed from the list of beneficiaries set out in Section B of the Annex to that Decision.\nArticle 80\nRepeal\nCommission Decision 2009/78/EC, establishing CEBS, is hereby repealed with effect from 1 January 2011.\nArticle 81\nReview\n1. By 2 January 2014, and every 3 years thereafter, the Commission shall publish a general report on the experience acquired as a result of the operation of the Authority and the procedures laid down in this Regulation. That report shall evaluate, inter alia:\n(a)\nthe convergence in supervisory practices reached by competent authorities:\n(i)\nthe convergence in functional independence of the competent authorities and in standards equivalent to corporate governance;\n(ii)\nthe impartiality, objectivity and autonomy of the Authority;\n(b)\nthe functioning of the colleges of supervisors;\n(c)\nthe progress achieved towards convergence in the fields of crisis prevention, management and resolution, including Union funding mechanisms;\n(d)\nthe role of the Authority as regards systemic risk;\n(e)\nthe application of the safeguard clause established in Article 38;\n(f)\nthe application of the binding mediation role established in Article 19.\n2. The report referred to in paragraph 1 shall also examine whether:\n(a)\nit is appropriate to continue separate supervision of banking, insurance, occupational pensions, securities and financial markets;\n(b)\nit is appropriate to undertake prudential supervision and supervise the conduct of business separately or by the same supervisor;\n(c)\nit is appropriate to simplify and reinforce the architecture of the ESFS in order to increase the coherence between the macro and the micro levels and between the ESAs;\n(d)\nthe evolution of the ESFS is consistent with that of the global evolution;\n(e)\nthere is sufficient diversity and excellence within the ESFS;\n(f)\naccountability and transparency in relation to publication requirements are adequate;\n(g)\nthe resources of the Authority are adequate to carry out its responsibilities;\n(h)\nit is appropriate for the seat of the Authority to be maintained or to move the ESAs to a single seat to enhance better coordination between them.\n3. Concerning the issue of direct supervision of institutions or infrastructures of pan-European reach and taking account of market developments, the Commission shall draw up an annual report on the appropriateness of entrusting the Authority with further supervisory responsibilities in this area.\n4. The report and any accompanying proposals, as appropriate, shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nArticle 82\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011, with the exception of Article 76 and Article 77(1) and (2), which shall apply as from the date of its entry into force.\nThe Authority shall be established on 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["89", "32", "70", "63", "42", "98", "67", "83", "37", "46", "86", "6", "48", "72", "50", "94", "16", "20", "31", "40", "58", "8", "87", "93", "35", "0", "61", "38", "27", "69", "No Label", "7", "9", "10", "30", "33", "41"], "gold": ["7", "9", "10", "30", "33", "41"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 516/2012\nof 18 June 2012\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of June 2012 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 of 14 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the poultrymeat sector (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 533/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of June 2012 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2012 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2012 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 19 June 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2012.", "references": ["95", "57", "45", "82", "90", "27", "38", "44", "68", "64", "98", "39", "88", "97", "5", "50", "3", "25", "6", "56", "52", "19", "76", "14", "13", "96", "41", "58", "77", "87", "No Label", "21", "22", "66", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 748/2011\nof 28 July 2011\namending for the 153rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 19 July 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add two natural persons to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 July 2011.", "references": ["69", "19", "68", "84", "91", "58", "93", "35", "16", "80", "15", "20", "26", "67", "9", "66", "52", "55", "30", "10", "34", "14", "4", "62", "96", "38", "29", "87", "50", "40", "No Label", "3", "11", "95"], "gold": ["3", "11", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 82/2011\nof 31 January 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of okoum\u00e9 plywood originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and terminating a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Articles 9(4) and 11(2), (3), (5) and (6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Measures in force\n(1)\nThe Council, following an anti-dumping investigation (\u2018the original investigation\u2019), by Regulation (EC) No 1942/2004 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of okoum\u00e9 plywood originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC). The duty levels imposed ranged from 6,5 % to 23,5 % for four producers and 66,7 % for all other producers.\n2. Request for an expiry review and ex officio initiation of a partial interim review\n(2)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry (3) of the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of okoum\u00e9 plywood originating in the PRC, the Commission received a request for an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(3)\nThe expiry review was lodged by the European Federation of the Plywood Industry (FEIC) (\u2018the applicant\u2019) on behalf of Union producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 % of the Union production of okoum\u00e9 plywood. The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Union industry.\n(4)\nIn addition, following a French court proceeding into anti-competitive behaviour of a number of French producers of okoum\u00e9 plywood, it was considered that it could not be excluded that this could have had distorted the injury assessment in the original investigation. Therefore it was considered appropriate to also initiate in parallel an ex officio interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation to re-examine the injury situation of the Union industry in particular in comparison to the situation which prevailed in the investigation period of the original investigation.\n(5)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review and a partial interim review limited to the examination of injury pursuant to Articles 11(2) and 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission published a notice of initiation of these reviews in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) (notice of initiation).\n3. Investigation\n3.1. Investigation period\n(6)\nThe investigation of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2009 (the \u2018review investigation period\u2019 or \u2018RIP\u2019).\n(7)\nThe examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the RIP (the \u2018period considered\u2019).\n3.2. Parties concerned by this investigation\n(8)\nThe Commission officially advised the known Union producers, the exporting producers in the PRC, users and importers which were known to be concerned as well as the authorities of the PRC, of the initiation of the reviews.\n(9)\nInterested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limits set in the notice of initiation. All interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n4. Sampling\n(10)\nIn view of the apparent high number of Union producers, importers and exporting producers in the PRC it was considered appropriate, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to examine whether sampling should be used. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation.\n(11)\nOnly one Chinese exporting producer came forward and provided the requested information within the given deadline. It was therefore decided that sampling was not necessary in respect of Chinese exporting producers. A questionnaire was sent to the only cooperating Chinese exporting producer, which however subsequently stopped cooperating and never submitted a reply to the questionnaire. Therefore, as explained in recital 20, in accordance with the provisions of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, the findings were based on the facts available.\n(12)\nTen Union producers provided the requested information within the given deadline and agreed to be included in the sample. On the basis of the information received from the cooperating Union producers, the Commission selected a sample of five Union producers representing about 40 % of the sales by all Union producers to unrelated customers in the Union in the RIP and about 35 % of the production by all Union producers in the RIP. The sample was selected on the basis of the largest representative sales volume that could reasonably be investigated within the time available and taking into account the geographical spread of the Union producers.\n(13)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to the five sampled Union producers. Two of the sampled companies ceased cooperating after the sampling phase. Given that the three companies submitting questionnaire replies still represented about 30 % of the sales by all Union producers to unrelated customers in the Union during the RIP, it was considered that the sample was still representative.\n(14)\nThe Commission also sent a mini-questionnaire to the five producers which had not been selected in the sample, the two which had stopped cooperation and two other known producers, in order to obtain information on economic indicators referring to a greater number of Union producers. Replies to these mini-questionnaires were received from seven producers.\n5. Verification of information received\n(15)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of the determination of the continuation or likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury and the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n5.1.\nUnion producers\n-\nGARNICA PLYWOOD SA (Spain),\n-\nJEAN TH\u00c9BAULT SAS (France),\n-\nJOUBERT ST-JEAN-D\u2019ANG\u00c9LY SAS (France).\n5.2.\nProducers in the analogue country\n-\nEKOL KONTRPLAK, Task\u00f6pr\u00fc (Turkey).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(16)\nThe product concerned is the same as in the original investigation and is defined as follows: plywood consisting solely of sheets of wood, each ply not exceeding 6 mm thickness, with at least one outer ply of okoum\u00e9 not coated by a permanent film of other materials, originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN code ex 4412 31 10 (previously ex 4412 13 10). The product concerned is used for a wide variety of end-uses. It is used in the building industry in exterior joinery and carpentry applications for boarding, shutter boards, exterior basements and balustrades and riverside panelling. It is also used for more decorative purposes in, inter alia, road transports (e.g. cars, coaches, caravans, camping cars), maritime transports (yachts), furniture industry and doors.\n(17)\nThere are two main types of okoum\u00e9 plywood, plywood made solely with okoum\u00e9 (\u2018full okoum\u00e9\u2019) and plywood with at least one of the outer faces made of okoum\u00e9 (\u2018faced okoum\u00e9\u2019), the rest being made of other wood. Both main types of okoum\u00e9 plywood have the same external appearance. Despite differences in mechanical properties, they all share the same basic physical characteristics, and are basically used for the same purposes.\n2. Like product\n(18)\nAs shown in the original investigation, and as confirmed in the present investigation, it has been established that the okoum\u00e9 plywood manufactured in the PRC and sold domestically as well as the product manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union industry were found to have basically the same physical and technical characteristics and the same uses. Therefore, these products are considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n(19)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether dumping was likely to continue or recur upon a possible expiry of the measures in force against the PRC.\n(20)\nAs stated in recital 11, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, and in absence of any cooperation by Chinese exporting producers, the analysis of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping had to be based on information available to the Commission from other sources. In this respect, since no detailed information was available about the precise product types exported to the Union from the PRC, the comparison of normal value and export prices had to be limited to the two main types of okoum\u00e9 plywood, referred to in recital 17.\n(21)\nAs a consequence, the analysis was mainly based on Eurostat trade statistics. In addition, one Chinese exporting producer had submitted until June 2009 the periodic monitoring reports required under recital 61 of the Regulation (EC) No 1942/2004. To some extent, information from these reports could therefore be used in the analysis of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping.\n1. Normal value\n1.1. Analogue country\n(22)\nAccording to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, in economies in transition, normal value for exporting producers not granted market economy treatment has to be established on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country (\u2018analogue country\u2019).\n(23)\nIn the notice of initiation Turkey, which had already been used as analogue country in the original investigation, was envisaged as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC in the present expiry review. Although invited to do so, none of the interested parties commented on the choice of Turkey. Therefore, on the basis of the information available at the time of selection, it was concluded that Turkey was the most appropriate analogue country.\n1.2. Determination of normal value\n(24)\nOne Turkish producer cooperated and submitted a questionnaire reply. Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value was calculated on the basis of the data verified at the premises of that cooperating Turkish producer as set out below.\n(25)\nNormal value was established for both main product types described in recital 17. For one main product type normal value was based on the prices paid or payable on sales made in the domestic market of Turkey, as these were found to be made in representative quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. For the other main product type, which was produced by the Turkish producer but not sold on the domestic market, constructed normal value was used in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(26)\nTo construct normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the selling, general and administrative (SG & A) expenses incurred and the weighted average profit realised on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, was added to the average cost of production during the RIP.\n2. Export price\n(27)\nAs stated above, in the absence of any cooperation from Chinese exporting producers and in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the export price was established on the basis of available Eurostat trade statistics. Since Eurostat does not contain information per product type of okoum\u00e9 plywood, in order to assess export prices for each of the two main types of okoum\u00e9 plywood, these figures were adjusted on the basis of the price difference in per cent between full and faced okoum\u00e9 plywood as observed for the Turkish cooperating producer. The price difference so obtained was then applied to the weighted average Eurostat prices.\n(28)\nAs for the volumes, starting from the Eurostat total volumes, Chinese export volumes for each of the two main types of okoum\u00e9 plywood have been calculated, on the basis of the proportion between full okoum\u00e9 and faced okoum\u00e9 observed in the monitoring reports referred to in recital 21, for the period overlapping with the RIP.\n3. Comparison\n(29)\nIn order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments for differences in transport costs, ocean freight and insurance costs, handling, loading and ancillary costs were deducted where applicable and justified. In the absence of cooperation from Chinese exporting producers, the amounts for these allowances were established on the basis of facts available.\n4. Dumping margin\n(30)\nThe dumping margin found, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid was 34,2 %.\n5. Likely development of imports should measures be repealed\n5.1. Preliminary remarks\n(31)\nFurther to the analysis of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood of continuation of dumping was also examined. In the absence of cooperation from any Chinese exporting producers, conclusions about volume of imports and spare capacity below are based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, namely trade statistics and submissions by interested parties.\n5.2. Volume of imports\n(32)\nAccording to Eurostat trade statistics, actual imports of okoum\u00e9 plywood from the PRC into the Union significantly dropped since the original IP, but Chinese producers managed to maintain a presence on the Union market, holding a 4,7 % market share during the RIP.\n5.3. Production capacity, spare capacity\n(33)\nIn the absence of cooperation from Chinese exporting producers of okoum\u00e9 plywood, the situation of the Chinese plywood industry as a whole (producing plywood from all species of wood) was examined. As indicated in recital 89 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 988/2004 (5) imposing provisional anti-dumping duties in the course of the original investigation, plywood producers can and do produce plywood made up from different species of wood on the same equipment. The applicant provided a calculation of the volume of okoum\u00e9 plywood produced in the PRC, based on the number of okoum\u00e9 logs available on the Chinese market, which was estimated at around 900 000 m3 for the RIP. The applicant also estimated that around 85 % or 765 000 m3 are used for the production of plywood. The actual okoum\u00e9 plywood production is difficult to estimate, as is the product mix, which has an important impact on the possible quantities produced, and is unknown due to the lack of cooperation from any Chinese exporting producers. However, an estimation of production capacity based on okoum\u00e9 logs clearly shows that, in any product mix scenario, the production capacity in the PRC is largely above the volumes consumed in the Union market (291 000 m3 in the RIP, see recital 41).\n(34)\nFurthermore, it was established both during the current review as well as in the original investigation, that plywood made from different wood species is produced by the same companies, on the same equipment. Therefore, it can be expected that, in the absence of measures, Chinese producers which are currently focussing on the production of other, less lucrative types of plywood may increasingly shift their production toward okoum\u00e9 plywood. According to Chinese export statistics, Chinese exports of plywood accounted for more than 5 million m3 during the RIP, or around 17 times the Union market of okoum\u00e9 plywood. Consequently, only a minor shift in product mix is needed to substantially increase the volumes of okoum\u00e9 plywood available for export.\n5.4. Volume and price of imports from the PRC to the Union and other third countries\n(35)\nIn 2009 and based on Chinese export data, the Union was the destination for only a small portion (ca. 5 %) of Chinese exports of tropical plywood. As compared to the prices to other markets, these sales were made at relatively high sales prices. Therefore, it is likely that, should measures be repealed, a larger share of Chinese exports of okoum\u00e9 plywood would be directed to the Union.\n5.5. Conclusion on the likelihood of continuation of dumping\n(36)\nThe investigation showed that the product concerned is still sold on the Union market at dumped prices and in not insignificant volumes. Moreover, the information available indicates that the production volumes in the PRC are very high and that the share of its exports to the Union is currently restrained due to the measures in place. In this respect, it can be expected that okoum\u00e9 plywood currently exported to other countries at lower prices will be redirected to the Union market should measures be repealed. In addition, Chinese producers of plywood are expected to increase their production of okoum\u00e9 plywood if measures would lapse as the Union market of okoum\u00e9 plywood is relatively lucrative.\n(37)\nIn view of these findings, it is therefore concluded that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping should the current anti-dumping measures be allowed to lapse.\nD. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(38)\nWithin the Union, the like product is known to be manufactured by sixteen producers in Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Total Union production is estimated at 235 000 m3. The Union producers accounting for the total Union production constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation. During the period considered in the original investigation, the Union market consisted of the EU-15 Member States. However, since okoum\u00e9 plywood production in the new EU-12 Member States is rather insignificant, a comparison between the current and the original investigation will be meaningful.\n(39)\nAs mentioned in recital 10, a sample of three producers, representing about 30 % of the Union sales by all Union producers to unrelated customers during the RIP and about 26 % of production by all Union producers during the RIP, was investigated in detail. The sample consisted of the following companies:\n-\nGARNICA PLYWOOD SA (Spain),\n-\nJEAN TH\u00c9BAULT SAS (France),\n-\nJOUBERT ST-JEAN-D\u2019ANG\u00c9LY SAS (France).\nE. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1. Union consumption\n(40)\nUnion consumption of okoum\u00e9 plywood was established on the basis of sales volumes of the Union industry and of other Union producers on the Union market and the volume of imports from third countries into the Union based on Eurostat data.\n(41)\nAltogether, between the IP in the original investigation and the RIP of the current review, Union consumption has decreased by 35 %. During the period considered in the current review, Union consumption has decreased by 22 %. This is generally explained by the fact that okoum\u00e9 plywood has to a certain extent been substituted by other tropical wood species, such as red canarium, bankirai or meranti. In 2008 and the RIP, the economic crisis and the consequent reduction of certain industrial activities contributed to the declining trend in demand for okoum\u00e9 plywood in the Union.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nTotal Union consumption (m3)\n375 105\n382 976\n339 914\n291 421\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n102\n91\n78\nSource: Questionnaire replies, review request and Eurostat.\n2. Volume, market share and prices of imports from the PRC\n(42)\nActual imports of the product concerned into the Union dropped from 83 606 m3 in the original IP to 23 531 m3 in 2006. Thereafter, these imports increased by more than 20 % between 2006 and 2008 and dropped sharply between 2008 and the RIP to 54 % of the 2006 level.\nImports (m3)\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nPRC\n23 531\n37 023\n28 493\n12 620\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n157\n121\n54\nSource: Eurostat.\n(43)\nThe corresponding market share increased by 3,4 percentage points between 2006 and 2007. It decreased by 1,3 percentage points between 2007 and 2008 and dropped further by 4,1 percentage points between 2008 and the RIP. Altogether, the market share of Chinese imports to the Union decreased by 2 percentage points over the period considered.\nMarket shares\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nPRC\n6,3 %\n9,7 %\n8,4 %\n4,3 %\nSource: Questionnaire replies, review request and Eurostat.\n(44)\nAverage prices of imports of the product concerned from PRC increased by 32 % between 2006 and the RIP. More specifically, these prices increased by 22 % between 2006 and 2007, further by 3 percentage points between 2007 and 2008 and by another 7 percentage points between 2008 and the RIP.\nImports (EUR/m3)\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nPRC\n485\n590\n608\n642\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n122\n125\n132\nSource: Eurostat.\n3. Price undercutting\n(45)\nFor the purposes of analysing price undercutting the weighted average sales prices per product type of the sampled Union industry to unrelated customers on the Union market were compared with the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports concerned. The comparison was made after deduction of rebates and discounts.\n(46)\nOn this basis it was established that on average Chinese imports undercut the Union industry\u2019s sales prices by 10 % during the RIP.\n(47)\nIn the original investigation an adjustment was made for the difference in quality between the product concerned imported from the PRC and the like product sold by the Union industry. In the present investigation, the codification of product types in the questionnaires was adjusted in a way to take this into account. Therefore, as the quality difference was taken into account in the present investigation and since no data was received from Chinese exporting producers on eventual additional differences in quality, the adjustment made in the original investigation was not applied in the present investigation. During the IP of the original investigation, the products concerned originating in the PRC were sold in the Union at prices which undercut the Union industry\u2019s prices by margins ranging from 11 % to 52 %.\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n(48)\nAll injury indicators listed in Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation have been analysed. Indicators on the production volume, production capacity, capacity utilisation, employment, sales volume, sales prices, productivity and market share have been analysed on the basis of data collected for the whole Union industry. As regards all other injury indicators, their examination was based on the information submitted by the sampled Union producers as verified at the premises of each company.\n(a) Production\n(49)\nThe production volume of the Union industry increased by 31 % between 2006 and 2007 and dropped by 2 percentage points between 2007 and 2008 and by another 13 percentage points between 2008 and the RIP. Despite the 16 % increase in production volume between 2006 and the RIP, the production volume of the Union industry stays below the volumes found in the original investigation i.e. below 283 265 m3 in 2002 and 267 591 in the original IP.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProduction (m3)\n203 604\n267 155\n263 080\n235 182\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n131\n129\n116\nSource: Questionnaire replies, review request and Eurostat.\n(b) Production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(50)\nThe production capacity of the Union industry has increased by 33 % between 2006 and 2007 and further by 12 percentage points between 2007 and 2008. Between 2008 and the RIP, production capacity remained stable. Altogether, production capacity of the Union industry increased by 45 % over the period considered. Capacity utilisation was 51 % in 2006 and it dropped further to 41 % during the RIP.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProduction capacity (m3)\n399 016\n532 415\n578 484\n577 205\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n133\n145\n145\nCapacity utilisation\n51 %\n50 %\n45 %\n41 %\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n98\n89\n80\nSource: Questionnaire replies and review request.\n(c) Employment\n(51)\nThe employment level of the Union industry shows an increase of 11 % between 2006 and the RIP. More specifically, the number of people employed increased by 21 % between 2006 and 2007 and remained close to this level in 2008. Between 2008 and the RIP the number of employees dropped by 9 percentage points. As a consequence of company closures and restructuring, the employment level in the period considered never reached the levels noted during the original investigation.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nEmployment (persons)\n883\n1 064\n1 060\n983\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n121\n120\n111\nSource: Questionnaire replies and review request.\n(d) Sales volume\n(52)\nOver the period considered, the Union sales volume of the Union producers to unrelated customers decreased by 16 %. Between 2006 and 2007, sales remained stable before dropping in 2008 and in the RIP. Sales volumes during the period considered were in the same order of magnitude as compared to the period considered in the original investigation.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nUnion sales volume (m3)\n277 739\n272 341\n242 728\n233 333\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n98\n87\n84\nSource: Questionnaire replies and review request.\n(e) Sales prices\n(53)\nBetween 2006 and 2007 average sales prices of the Union industry on the Union market to unrelated customers increased by 13 % and by a further 5 percentage points between 2007 and 2008. During the RIP, these prices turned back to the level of 2007. Altogether, Union sales prices have increased by 13 % over the period considered.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nUnit price Union market (EUR/m3)\n786\n885\n930\n887\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n113\n118\n113\nSource: Questionnaire replies and review request.\n(f) Productivity\n(54)\nProductivity of the Union producers\u2019 workforce, measured as annual output (cubic metres) per person employed, increased by 4 % over the period considered. This reflects the fact that production increased at a higher pace than the employment level and is an indication of the improved efficiency by the Union producers.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProductivity (m3 per employee)\n231\n251\n248\n239\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n109\n108\n104\nSource: Questionnaire replies and review request.\n(g) Market share\n(55)\nThe market share of the Union industry increased by almost 6 percentage points during the period considered. More specifically, it dropped by 3 percentage points between 2006 and 2007 and remained fairly stable between 2007 and 2008. Between 2008 and the RIP it increased by 8,6 percentage points to 80,2 %. The increase of the Union industry\u2019s market share over the period considered is reflecting a decrease in Union sales against a more pronounced decrease in Union consumption.\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nMarket share Union producers\n74,3 %\n71,3 %\n71,6 %\n80,2 %\nSource: Questionnaire replies, review request and Eurostat.\n(h) Magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping\n(56)\nDuring the RIP, despite the measures in force, substantial dumping continued albeit at an overall lower level than that established in the original investigation. Given the volume and the price of the dumped imports, the impact of the actual margin of dumping, which is significant, cannot be considered negligible. Although some recovery from the past dumping could be established, the Union industry remains vulnerable to the injurious effects of any dumped imports in the Union market.\n(57)\nConcerning the overall situation of the Union industry, it has been found that several producers have closed down since the original investigation. According to information available, the biggest Union producer of the original IP went bankrupt in 2008 and it first reduced and then completely stopped production. Two other Union producers sampled in the original investigation closed down in 2005 and 2006 respectively. Another French producer also closed down at the beginning of 2009. In addition, a Greek producer has substantially reduced production. These developments, even though they may have contributed to an increased market share of the remaining Union producers, show that the Union industry on the whole is still fragile and vulnerable.\n(a) Stocks\n(58)\nThe level of closing stock of the sampled Union producers increased by almost five times over the period considered. Compared to the period covered by the original investigation, where okoum\u00e9 plywood was merely produced on order, higher volumes appear to be kept in stock during the period considered. This is particularly the case in 2008 and the RIP as a consequence of dropping sales volumes.\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nClosing stock (m3)\n1 419\n3 954\n6 805\n6 589\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n279\n480\n464\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(b) Wages\n(59)\nThe annual labour cost of the sampled Union producers increased by 26 % over the period considered. More specifically, annual labour cost increased by 29 % between 2006 and 2007. Further, it dropped by 3 percentage points between 2007 and 2008. Between 2008 and the RIP it remained stable.\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nAnnual labour cost (EUR)\n6 429 123\n8 262 078\n8 125 944\n8 100 326\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n129\n126\n126\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(c) Profitability and return on investments\n(60)\nThe profitability level of the sampled Union producers was 4,3 % in 2006 and it improved to 9,8 % and 8,3 % in 2007 and 2008 respectively, before dropping to 5,9 % during the RIP. The return on investments (\u2018ROI\u2019), expressed as the profit in percent of the net book value of investments decreased by 51 % over the period considered or from 12,5 % in 2006 to 6,2 % in the RIP.\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nProfitability of Union (% of net sales)\n4,3 %\n9,8 %\n8,3 %\n5,9 %\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n230\n193\n137\nROI (profit in % of net book value of investments)\n12,5 %\n13,6 %\n12,1 %\n6,2 %\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n109\n97\n49\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(d) Cash flow and ability to raise capital\n(61)\nThe net cash flow of sampled Union producers from operating activities has increased by 32 % over the period considered. There were no indications that the Union industry encountered difficulties in raising capital.\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nCash flow (EUR)\n10 507 019\n11 414 266\n15 892 091\n13 853 776\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n109\n151\n132\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(e) Investments\n(62)\nThe sampled producers\u2019 annual investments in the production of the like product increased by 10 % between 2006 and 2007, by 100 percentage points between 2007 and 2008 and by a further 16 percentage points between 2008 and the RIP. Overall, investments increased by 126 % over the period considered.\nSample\n2006\n2007\n2008\nRIP\nNet investments (EUR)\n3 588 258\n3 959 491\n7 520 975\n8 108 166\nIndex (2006 = 100)\n100\n110\n210\n226\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n5. Conclusion on the economic situation of the Union industry\n(63)\nThe analysis of the macroeconomic and microeconomic data shows that the Union industry is in a relatively stable situation. In particular, the profitability level of the sampled Union producers has recovered from the level of - 8,9 % found for the sampled producers in the original investigation and the average profitability level has remained between 4,3 % and 9,8 % throughout the period considered. The Union industry also managed to increase its market share in a shrinking market thanks to the measures in force.\nF. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY\n1. Impact of the projected volume of imports and price effects in case of repeal of measures\n(64)\nAlthough the Union industry seems to have stabilised and recovered from the effects of the dumped imports from PRC, they have not reached the level of production, sales and employment of the period before the original investigation. A number of Union producers closed down which also shows that the industry as a whole is still somewhat fragile.\n(65)\nA number of elements support the likelihood of recurrence of injury in case measures were allowed to lapse. Firstly, in the light of the current undercutting levels found for imports from the PRC and assuming that the current low level of import prices would continue or even be reinforced in order to gain lost market share, the Union industry would not be in a position to maintain the current price level. This likely depression of prices would indeed jeopardise the current recovery of the Union industry and undermine profitability.\n(66)\nSecondly, in view of the considerable production capacities of the Chinese exporting producers, it is also likely that (dumped) imports would increase at low price levels. This, in turn, would mean that the Union industry would lose sales on the market, and given the already low capacity utilisation rate during the RIP, this might lead to further reduction of production or even further closures of Union producers.\n(67)\nOn the basis of the above, it is concluded that in case the measures are allowed to expire, there is a likelihood of a recurrence of injury from renewed dumped imports of the product concerned from the PRC.\n(68)\nOkoum\u00e9 is a tropical wood which grows predominantly in Gabon and to a lesser extent in Equatorial Guinea and in Cameroon. The complainant association has provided evidence that the Gabonese government has prohibited, as of 1 January 2010, the export of unpeeled okoum\u00e9 logs from Gabon with the aim of keeping the transformation of the logs into veneers in the country. It has been therefore examined whether such a ban, although it took place after the RIP, would have a substantial impact on the present analysis.\n(69)\nInformation received in the investigation has indicated that Asian companies, which import/export more than 60 % of Gabonese logs, seem to be in a strong position to negotiate with the Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Nationale des Bois du Gabon (SNBG), the main exporter of okoum\u00e9 wood and with the Gabonese government and appear less impacted by the decision than European companies. In the absence of the cooperation of Chinese exporting producers, no further impact assessment could be carried out in this respect.\n(70)\nThe export ban entered into force on 1 January 2010 only, i.e. after the RIP and a transitory period until May 2010 applied to logs already cut at the end of 2009 which could still be exported. In order to examine the effect of entry into force of the export ban on the Union producers, additional information was requested from the members of the complainant association on 14 September 2010. Replies were received from four Union producers. Two of the sampled producers have their own peeling plant in Gabon and therefore appear not to be affected by the ban. However, all sampled producers confirmed the information that Chinese companies have a strong negotiating position to secure access to raw material and that the effectiveness of the enforcement of the law is still to be seen. Union producers confirmed that okoum\u00e9 supply has decreased and prices have increased following the export ban on logs in Gabon and that the producers which have an okoum\u00e9 peeling plant in the Union suffer the most from the new situation.\n(71)\nIn any event, the ban applies in principle to all exports, i.e. also exports to the PRC. Therefore, the new legal situation in Gabon does not seem to affect the analysis in the present expiry review.\n2. Conclusion on the likelihood of recurrence of injury\n(72)\nBased on the above analysis, it is concluded that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a recurrence of injury to the Union industry caused by dumped imports of the product concerned from the PRC.\nG. INTERIM REVIEW LIMITED TO THE INJURY ASPECTS IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE FRENCH CONSEIL DE LA CONCURRENCE\n(73)\nAs mentioned in recital 4, a number of French producers were subject to a French court proceeding into anti-competitive behaviour due to which it was considered appropriate to initiate ex officio an interim review to re-examine the injury situation of the Union industry in particular in comparison to the situation which prevailed in the investigation period of the original investigation.\n(74)\nIn the above mentioned court proceeding, the French Conseil de la Concurrence fined six French plywood producers for anti-competitive behaviour (i.e. applying the same price grills and simultaneous price increases) during the period November 1995 to May 2004. In its judgement of 29 September 2009, the Cour d\u2019Appel de Paris confirmed the decision of the Conseil de la Concurrence although it somewhat reduced the level of the fines.\n(75)\nIn the injury analysis of the original proceeding five European producers were sampled: three French, one Italian and one Portuguese. Two of the three French producers in the sample were later subject to the fines described above. In order to examine the possible influence of the above anti-competitive behaviour on the injury analysis, first the average sales prices of each of the companies in the original sample were compared. It was found that the two French producers which were later fined had indeed a higher average unit sales price than the other three companies in the sample. This price difference can be partially explained by the findings of the original investigation i.e. by a different product mix of these producers. However, when making the comparison on a more detailed level, it appears that unit sales prices of the two French producers in the original IP were also higher for both full okoum\u00e9 plywood (7-30 % higher) and faced okoum\u00e9 plywood (3-19 %).\n(76)\nTherefore, in a next step, the data of the two fined French companies were removed from the injury calculation and the injury picture of the original case was examined on the basis of the data from the remaining three sampled companies. As the macroeconomic indicators (production, productivity, sales, market share, employment and growth) were based on information provided by ten Union producers, the data of the other fined French companies was also removed from this calculation.\n(77)\nIt was found that the findings of the original investigation concerning the so-called microeconomic indicators would not change significantly without the data from the fined French companies. Over the period considered in the original investigation, profitability of the sampled companies decreased from 3,5 % to - 8,9 %. If the fined French producers were excluded from the sample, profitability would have decreased from 3,1 % to - 6,5 %. Return on investment of the sampled companies decreased from 15,6 % to - 27,5 %; without the fined French producers it would have decreased from 19,3 % to - 38,9 %. Investments of the sampled companies dropped by 80 %; without the fined French producers it would have dropped by 86 %. Cash flow of the sampled producers decreased from 7,6 million EUR to 59 000 EUR; without the fined French producers it would have decreased from 1,5 million EUR to - 69 000 EUR. Concerning macroeconomic data of the Union industry as a whole, a more nuanced picture would be noted if the data from the fined French producers were excluded. Over the period considered in the original investigation, production of the Union industry decreased by 10 %; without the fined French producers it would have decreased by 1 %. Employment in the Union industry dropped by 9 %; without the fined French producers it would have remained stable. Sales value of the Union industry decreased by 7 %; without the fined French producers it would have increased by 5 %. Sales volume of the Union industry dropped by 10 %; without the fined French producers it would have increased by 1 %.\n(78)\nTherefore, even if the injury picture would look more nuanced when excluding the fined French companies, there would still have been material injury in the original investigation. This follows, in particular, from the development of the so-called microeconomic indicators.\n(79)\nIt has also been examined whether the anti-competitive behaviour of the French producers could have had a potential effect on the injury picture of the current review. Firstly, since the cartel stopped in 2004, none of the indicators could directly be influenced by anti-competitive actions any longer. Therefore it was assessed whether indirectly, i.e. through the cost of the fines, there could still be an influence on the injury analysis. It has been found that none of the two French producers in the sample included the amount of the fine when calculating their profitability. Therefore it has been found that the past anti-competitive practices or the fines imposed had no effect on the current injury analysis.\n(80)\nBased on the above analysis, it is concluded that the anti-competitive behaviour of French producers did not affect the injury situation of the Union industry in particular in comparison to the situation which prevailed in the investigation period of the original investigation. Therefore, the partial interim review should be terminated.\nH. UNION INTEREST\n(81)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether there are compelling reasons not to maintain the existing anti-dumping measures. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved. All interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known pursuant to Article 21(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(82)\nIt should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place, allows the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.\n(83)\nOn this basis it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case.\n1. Interest of the Union industry and other Union producers\n(84)\nThe continuation of the anti-dumping measures on imports from the country concerned would enhance the possibility for the Union industry to reach a reasonable level of profitability, as it would help avoiding that the Union industry is pushed out of the market by substantial volumes of dumped imports from the PRC. Indeed, there is a clear likelihood of injurious dumping in substantial volumes which the Union industry could not withstand. The Union industry would therefore continue to benefit from the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.\n(85)\nAccordingly, it is concluded that the maintenance of anti-dumping measures against the PRC would clearly be in the interest of the Union industry and other Union producers.\n2. Interest of unrelated importers in the Union\n(86)\nTwo unrelated Union importers cooperated in the investigation. Both opposed the continuation of the measures and claimed that the measures were ineffective, that Chinese products are not comparable to like products produced by the Union industry due to quality differences and expressed doubts about the competitiveness of the Union okoum\u00e9 plywood industry. However, none of these claims have been substantiated. In the absence of any evidence suggesting that the current anti-dumping measures in force considerably affected importers, it is concluded that the continuation of measures will not affect the Union importers to any significant extent.\n3. Interest of users in the Union\n(87)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from three users located in Italy, Greece and France respectively. Given that none of them purchased the product concerned from the PRC and in the absence of further evidence suggesting that the current anti-dumping measures in force considerably affected users, it can be concluded that the maintenance of the measures would not have a significant negative impact on users in the Union.\n4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(88)\nIt is thus considered that no compelling Union interest reasons exist against the maintenance of the measures in force.\nI. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(89)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained.\nCompany\nRate of duty\n(%)\nNantong Zongyi Plywood Co. Ltd\n9,6\nZhejiang Deren Bamboo-Wood Technologies Co. Ltd\n23,5\nZhonglin Enterprise (Dangshan) Co. Ltd\n6,5\nJiaxing Jinlin Lumber Co. Ltd\n17\nAll other companies\n66,7\n(90)\nThey were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. The submissions and comments were duly taken into consideration where warranted.\n(91)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) and Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of okoum\u00e9 plywood originating in the PRC should be maintained.\n(92)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation are solely applicable to imports of the product concerned produced by these companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imports of the product concerned manufactured by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(93)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (6) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for instance, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, this Regulation will then be accordingly amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(94)\nIn order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in the duty rates, it is considered that special measures are needed in this case to ensure the proper application of the anti-dumping duty. These special measures include the presentation to the Customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the anti-dumping duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(95)\nShould the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances and provided the conditions are met an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rates and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of okoum\u00e9 plywood, defined as plywood consisting solely of sheets of wood, each ply not exceeding 6 mm thickness, with at least one outer ply of okoum\u00e9 not coated by a permanent film of other materials, currently falling within CN code ex 4412 31 10 (TARIC code 4412311010) and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union frontier price, before duty, for the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:\nManufacturer\nRate of duty\n(%)\nTARIC additional code\nNantong Zongyi Plywood Co. Ltd\nXingdong Town, Tongzhou City, Jiangsu\nProvince, People\u2019s Republic of China\n9,6\nA526\nZhejiang Deren Bamboo-Wood Technologies Co. Ltd\nLinhai Economic Development Zone, Zhejiang,\nPeople\u2019s Republic of China\n23,5\nA527\nZhonglin Enterprise (Dangshan) Co. Ltd\nXue Lou Miao Pu, Dangshan County, Anhui\nProvince 235323, People\u2019s Republic of China\n6,5\nA528\nJiaxing Jinlin Lumber Co. Ltd\nNorth of Ganyao Town, Jiashan, Zhejiang\nProvince, People\u2019s Republic of China\n17\nA529\nAll other companies\n66,7\nA999\n3. The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the duty rate applicable to all other companies shall apply.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThe partial interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 is hereby terminated.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 January 2011.", "references": ["43", "37", "52", "85", "63", "64", "82", "91", "94", "16", "67", "35", "80", "76", "55", "70", "56", "39", "20", "98", "9", "6", "25", "66", "7", "26", "74", "65", "50", "31", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "88", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "88", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 562/2011\nof 10 June 2011\nadopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 2012 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the European Union and derogating from certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular points (f) and (g) of Article 43, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro (2), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 of 14 September 2010 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Union (3), the Commission has to adopt a distribution plan to be financed from resources available in the 2012 budget year. That plan has to lay down, in particular, for each of the Member States applying the measure, the maximum financial resources available to carry out its part of the plan, and the quantity of each type of product to be withdrawn from the stocks held by the intervention agencies.\n(2)\nThe Member States involved in the distribution plan for the 2012 budget year have supplied the Commission with the information required in accordance with Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010.\n(3)\nFor the purposes of resource allocation, account must be taken of experience and of the degree to which the Member States used the resources allocated to them in previous years.\n(4)\nTaking into account the fact that availability of intervention stocks for the supply of the scheme for food distribution to the most deprived persons is substantially reduced in relation to the previous year, it is appropriate that the 2012 annual plan is adopted as soon as the Member States supplied the Commission with the information required in Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010. The fast adoption aims to allow the Member States additional time to organize the implementation of the Union annual plan with a view to giving a chance to national authorities and charities to find alternative sources of food.\n(5)\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 provides that, where no rice is available in intervention stocks, the Commission may authorise the removal of cereals from the intervention stocks as payment for the supply of rice or rice products mobilised on the market. Accordingly, given that there are currently no intervention stocks of rice, the removal of cereals from intervention stocks as payment for mobilising rice products in the market should be authorised.\n(6)\nArticle 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 provides for the transfer between Member States of products unavailable in the intervention stocks of the Member State in which such products are required to implement the annual distribution plan. Accordingly, the intra-Union transfers necessary to implement that plan for 2012 should be authorised, subject to the conditions laid down in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010.\n(7)\nDue to the current market situation in the cereals sector, which is marked by high market price levels, it is appropriate, in order to secure the Union's financial interests, to increase the security, which is to be lodged by the contractor undertaking the supply operation of cereals as provided for in Articles 4(3) and 8(4) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010.\n(8)\nTo implement the annual distribution plan, the operative event within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 should be the date on which the financial year for administration of stocks in public storage starts.\n(9)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, the Commission has consulted the major organisations familiar with the problems of the most deprived persons in the Union when drawing up the annual distribution plan.\n(10)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn 2012, the distribution of food to the most deprived persons in the Union under Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be implemented in accordance with the annual distribution plan set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nThe use of cereals as payment for mobilising rice products on the market is authorised, as referred to in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010.\nArticle 2\nThe intra-Union transfer of products listed in Annex II to this Regulation shall be authorised, subject to the conditions laid down in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010.\nArticle 3\nBy way of derogation from the fifth subparagraph of Article 4(3) and from the first subparagraph of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, for the 2012 distribution plan, before cereals are removed from intervention, the contractor undertaking the supply operation shall lodge a security equal to EUR 150 per tonne.\nArticle 4\nFor the purpose of implementing the annual distribution plan referred to in Article 1 of this Regulation, the date of the operative event within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 shall be 1 October 2011.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 June 2011.", "references": ["24", "38", "55", "79", "82", "13", "11", "95", "90", "86", "54", "78", "8", "98", "53", "84", "65", "25", "3", "32", "2", "70", "40", "36", "87", "9", "6", "19", "66", "22", "No Label", "20", "33", "37", "68", "72", "96"], "gold": ["20", "33", "37", "68", "72", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1176/2010\nof 10 December 2010\ndetermining the extent to which the import licence applications submitted in November 2010 for certain milk products under certain tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 can be accepted\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImport licence applications lodged from 20 to 30 November 2010 for certain tariff quotas referred to in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 of 14 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas (3) relate to quantities greater than those available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor import licence applications lodged from 20 to 30 November 2010 for the tariff quotas referred to in parts I.A, I.F, I.H, I.I, and I.J of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, licences shall be issued for the quantities requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficient(s) set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 December 2010.", "references": ["50", "80", "59", "62", "76", "92", "28", "36", "93", "17", "53", "7", "87", "43", "84", "56", "66", "14", "44", "35", "67", "40", "29", "47", "61", "9", "88", "1", "86", "81", "No Label", "21", "23", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "23", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 464/2010\nof 27 May 2010\nopening the invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on sorghum imported into Spain from third countries, for the quota year 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (\u2018Single CMO\u2019 Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with the Community's international obligations within the framework of the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (2), the Community undertook to import a certain quantity of sorghum into Spain.\n(2)\nChapter II of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 of 18 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of tariff quotas for imports of maize and sorghum into Spain and imports of maize into Portugal (3) laid down the specific detailed rules necessary for applying a reduction to the import duties to ensure that the quantities provided for in Article 1(1) and (2) of that Regulation are actually imported.\n(3)\nIn view of the market conditions in Spain for the year 2010, an invitation to tender for the reduction in the import duty on sorghum should be opened to ensure the import quota is completely used.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 675/2009 (4) opened an invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on sorghum imported into Spain from third countries up until 17 December 2009. This invitation was extended until 27 May 2010 by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1292/2009 (5). Regulation (EC) No 675/2009 should therefore be repealed.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A tendering procedure is opened for the reduction in the duty referred to in Article 136 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on sorghum to be imported into Spain.\n2. The provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 shall apply.\nArticle 2\nThe invitation to tender shall be open until 16 December 2010. During that period partial invitations to tender shall be issued and the dates for submission of tenders shall be laid down in the notice of invitation to tender.\nArticle 3\nImport licences issued in the context of this invitation to tender shall be valid for 50 days from the date of issue within the meaning of Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008.\nArticle 4\nRegulation (EC) No 675/2009 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 5\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 June 2010.\nIt shall expire on 16 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 May 2010.", "references": ["94", "62", "31", "77", "43", "71", "36", "45", "44", "52", "47", "78", "75", "5", "24", "3", "25", "92", "29", "74", "13", "56", "89", "12", "28", "95", "7", "69", "17", "34", "No Label", "4", "20", "21", "22", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "20", "21", "22", "23", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 685/2011\nof 15 July 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 676/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 July 2011.", "references": ["28", "13", "75", "87", "77", "41", "37", "8", "71", "51", "65", "66", "38", "33", "68", "25", "58", "88", "24", "53", "63", "36", "84", "61", "23", "14", "7", "85", "79", "86", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 84/2012\nof 1 February 2012\namending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards the substance phenoxymethylpenicillin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe maximum residue limit for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry should be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.\n(2)\nPharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (2).\n(3)\nPhenoxymethylpenicillin is currently included in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as an allowed substance, for porcine species, applicable to muscle, liver and kidney and for poultry species, applicable to muscle, skin and fat, liver and kidney, excluding animals from which eggs are produced for human consumption.\n(4)\nAn application for the extension of the existing entry for phenoxymethylpenicillin to include eggs for poultry species has been submitted to the European Medicines Agency.\n(5)\nThe Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use has recommended establishing a maximum residue limit (hereinafter \u2018MRL\u2019) for phenoxymethylpenicillin for porcine species, applicable to muscle, liver and kidney and for poultry species, applicable to muscle, skin and fat, liver, kidney and eggs.\n(6)\nThe entry for phenoxymethylpenicillin in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to include the MRL for eggs for poultry species.\n(7)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period of time for the stakeholders concerned to take measures that may be required to comply with the newly set MRL.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 2 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 February 2012.", "references": ["60", "83", "44", "41", "4", "62", "27", "34", "29", "0", "55", "5", "50", "23", "7", "1", "49", "64", "2", "24", "3", "96", "13", "30", "77", "87", "31", "81", "94", "9", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65", "66", "69", "72"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65", "66", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1014/2010\nof 10 November 2010\non monitoring and reporting of data on the registration of new passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community\u2019s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 8(9) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAccording to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 Member States must every year record and transmit certain data to the Commission about new passenger cars registered in their territory in the previous year. As those data are to serve as the basis for determining the specific CO2 emissions target for manufacturers of new passenger cars and for the assessment of whether manufacturers comply with those targets, it is necessary to harmonise the rules on the collection and reporting of those data.\n(2)\nIn order to assess fully whether each manufacturer complies with its specific CO2 emissions target established according Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and to gain the necessary experience of the application of that Regulation, the Commission needs detailed data at manufacturer level for each vehicle series defined by type, variant and version. Member States should therefore ensure that such data are recorded and transmitted to the Commission together with the aggregated data in accordance with Article 8(2) of that Regulation.\n(3)\nPursuant to Articles 18 and 26 of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (2), a manufacturer must ensure that each new passenger car placed on the market in the EU is accompanied by a valid certificate of conformity and a Member State cannot register such a vehicle unless it is accompanied by such a certificate of conformity. It is logical, therefore, that the certificate of conformity should be the primary source for the information that the Member States are required to record, make available to manufacturers pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and report to the Commission. In order to allow Member States to use information from sources other than the certificate of conformity, as indicated in recital 26 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, for the purpose of completing the process of registration and entry into service of a new passenger car, it is appropriate to establish which other documents provide equivalent accuracy and which therefore should also be permitted for use by the Member States.\n(4)\nIt is important that the data on the registration of new passenger cars is accurate and can be processed effectively for the purpose of establishing the specific emission target in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009. Manufacturers should therefore provide the Commission with up-to-date information on the names and the first section of the Vehicle Identification Number as specified in Council Directive 76/114/EEC of 18 December 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to statutory plates and inscriptions for motor vehicles and their trailers, and their location and method of attachment (3) that are used on the certificates of conformity in the different Member States of registration. That information will enable the Commission to provide the Member States with an updated list of designated manufacturers\u2019 names which should be used for the purpose of data reporting.\n(5)\nMember States should record and report information about newly registered vehicles that are designed to use alternative fuels. In order to allow the Commission to take into account reductions to the specific emissions target due to the use of ethanol (E85) fuel in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, Member States should provide the Commission with the necessary information including the proportion of filling stations in their territory and, where applicable, the total number of those which provide ethanol (E85) fuel meeting the sustainability criteria set out in Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (4), and in Article 7b of Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC (5).\n(6)\nArticles 23 and 24 of Directive 2007/46/EC provide for a simplified approval procedure for which it is not required to issue a European certificate of conformity. Member States should monitor the number of vehicles registered under those procedures in order to assess its impact on the monitoring process and the attainment of the EU\u2019s average CO2 emissions target for the new passenger car fleet.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions set out in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018type-approval documentation\u2019 means the documents including the data specified in the third column of the table set out in Annex I to this Regulation;\n(2)\n\u2018aggregated monitoring data\u2019 means the aggregated data specified in the first table in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009;\n(3)\n\u2018detailed monitoring data\u2019 means the detailed data specified in the second table in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 which is disaggregated by manufacturer and vehicle series as defined by the type, variant and version;\n(4)\n\u2018base vehicle\u2019 is as defined in Article 3(18) of Directive 2007/46/EC;\n(5)\n\u2018bi-fuel gas vehicle\u2019 and \u2018flex-fuel ethanol vehicle\u2019 are as defined in Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 (6).\nArticle 2\nData transmission\nThe aggregated monitoring data together with the detailed monitoring data shall be transmitted by the Member States via electronic data transfer to the Central Data Repository managed by the European Environmental Agency. Member States shall notify the Commission when the data is transmitted.\nArticle 3\nData sources\n1. Irrespective of the data source used by each Member State to prepare the aggregated monitoring data and the detailed monitoring data, these data shall be based upon information contained in the certificate of conformity of the relevant passenger car or the type-approval documentation including the information specified in Annex III and Annex VIII to Directive 2007/46/EC as specified in the table in Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. The parameter \u2018total number of new registrations\u2019 in the detailed monitoring data shall be determined from the total number of registration records created in each year which relate to a unique vehicle.\n3. Where there is more than one name of a manufacturer on the certificate of conformity or type-approval documentation, the Member State shall report the manufacturer of the base vehicle.\n4. The CO2 emission values to be reported under the parameter \u2018Specific emissions of CO2\u2019 in the detailed monitoring data shall be taken from the entry \u2018combined\u2019 in the certificate of conformity or the type-approval documentation, except in the case when the entry for \u2018weighted combined\u2019 applies.\n5. In reporting the alternative fuel vehicles in the detailed monitoring data, the competent authority shall provide the fuel type and fuel mode as specified in Annex I to this Regulation.\n6. In the case of bi-fuel gas or flex-fuel ethanol vehicles, the competent authority shall report the following CO2 emission values under the parameter \u2018Specific emissions of CO2 (g/km)\u2019 in the detailed monitoring data:\n(a)\nfor bi-fuel gas vehicles using petrol and gaseous fuels, the CO2 emissions value for the liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or natural gas (NG) in accordance with point 2 in Part A of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009;\n(b)\nfor flex-fuel ethanol vehicles using petrol and ethanol (E85) fuel referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, the CO2 emission value for petrol.\nIn the case of point (b), Member States shall report the petrol value also where the conditions for a reduction set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 are not met. Member States may however also report the E85 value.\n7. Where the vehicle is equipped with axle tracks of different widths, the Member State shall report the maximum axle width under the parameter \u2018Footprint - track width (mm)\u2019 in the detailed monitoring data.\n8. Where the aggregated monitoring data and the detailed monitoring data are taken from the type-approval documentation, and where those data contains ranges of values, the Member States shall ensure that the reported data provide adequate accuracy, and are in accordance with the data contained in the certificate of conformity.\nArticle 4\nData maintenance and control\nThe Member States shall ensure the maintenance, collection, control, verification and transmission of the aggregated monitoring data and the detailed monitoring data.\nArticle 5\nPreparation of data by Member States\n1. For the purpose of calculating the average specific emission of CO2 to be included in the aggregated monitoring data, Member States shall not take into account any of the following:\n(a)\nthe percentages laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009;\n(b)\nthe super-credits laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009;\n(c)\nthe CO2 emissions reduction granted in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009;\n(d)\nthe CO2 emissions reduction achieved through innovative technologies considered in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009.\n2. For the purpose of calculating the average mass and footprint to be included in the aggregated monitoring data, Member States shall not take into account any of the following:\n(a)\nthe percentages laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009;\n(b)\nthe super-credits laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009.\n3. When completing the detailed monitoring data, Member States shall include:\n(a)\nfor each vehicle with specific emissions of CO2 of less than 50 g CO2/km, the number of vehicles registered without applying the multiplication factors laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009;\n(b)\nfor each vehicle designed to be capable of running on ethanol (E85) fuel, the specific emissions of CO2 without applying the 5 % CO2 emissions reduction granted to such vehicles in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009;\n(c)\nfor each vehicle equipped with innovative technologies, the specific emissions of CO2 without taking into account the CO2 emissions reduction through innovative technologies granted in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009.\n4. The aggregated monitoring data and the detailed monitoring data shall be reported with the precision set out in Tables 1 and 2 of Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 6\nReporting of filling stations supplying ethanol (E85) fuel\n1. The information on the proportion of filling stations in the respective territory of the Member States that supply ethanol (E85) fuel complying with the sustainability criteria for biofuels set out in Article 17 of Directive 2009/28/EC and in Article 7b of Directive 98/70/EC shall be provided electronically to the Commission together with the aggregated monitoring data.\nThe proportion of filling stations shall be specified in at least 5 % band intervals stating the lowest end of the interval.\n2. Where the proportion of filling stations supplying ethanol (E85) fuel exceeds 30 %, Member States shall provide the Commission with the total number of filling stations supplying ethanol (E85) fuel that is made available in the same way as other liquid hydrocarbon fuel and that satisfies the sustainability criteria referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. The information laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be submitted to the Commission by 28 February every year.\nWhere the Commission has raised no objections within 3 months of receipt of the information provided pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article, the reduction provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 shall apply.\nArticle 7\nVehicles not covered by EC type approval\n1. Where passenger cars are subject to national type approval of small series in accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2007/46/EC or to individual approvals in accordance with Article 24 of that Directive, Member States shall inform the Commission of the respective numbers of such cars registered in their territory.\n2. In completing the aggregated monitoring data the competent authority shall, instead of the name of manufacturer, indicate one of the following:\n(a)\n\u2018AA-IVA\u2019 for reporting vehicle types approved individually;\n(b)\n\u2018AA-NSS\u2019 for reporting vehicle types approved nationally in small series.\nMember States may also complete the detailed monitoring data for these vehicles, and shall in that case use the denominations referred to in points (a) and (b).\nArticle 8\nList of manufacturers\n1. Manufacturers shall by 15 December 2010, notify the Commission of the following:\n(a)\nthe names they indicate or intend to indicate on the certificates of conformity;\n(b)\nthe first section of any Vehicle Identification Number as specified in Directive 76/114/EEC that they indicate or intend to indicate on the certificates of conformity.\nThey shall notify the Commission without delay of any changes to the information referred to in points (a) and (b). New manufacturers entering the market shall notify the details referred to in the first subparagraph to the Commission without delay.\n2. In completing the aggregated monitoring data and the detailed monitoring data, the competent authority shall use the names of the manufacturers taken from the list that is to be drawn up by the Commission on the basis of the names notified pursuant to paragraph 1. That list shall be published on the Internet for the first time on 31 December 2010 and shall be updated at regular intervals.\n3. Where the name of a manufacturer is not included in that list, the competent authority shall use the name on the certificate of conformity or in the type-approval documentation for the purpose of completing the aggregated monitoring data and the detailed monitoring data.\nArticle 9\nAdditional information to be provided by manufacturers\n1. For the purpose of the notification referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, manufacturers shall, at the latest by 31 May every year, inform the Commission of the relevant name and address of the contact person to whom the notification shall be addressed.\nIn the event of any change to the provided data the manufacturer shall inform the Commission without delay. New manufacturers entering the market shall inform the Commission without delay of their contact details.\n2. Where a group of connected undertakings forms a pool, it shall for the purposes of determining the applicability of Article 7(6) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 provide evidence to the Commission of the connection between the members of the group in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 3(2) of that Regulation.\nArticle 10\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2010.", "references": ["65", "59", "44", "79", "41", "95", "30", "1", "91", "89", "19", "15", "8", "22", "75", "17", "3", "49", "71", "11", "12", "47", "96", "6", "46", "25", "38", "68", "61", "28", "No Label", "39", "53", "54", "55", "58", "60", "76"], "gold": ["39", "53", "54", "55", "58", "60", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 206/2012\nof 6 March 2012\nimplementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for air conditioners and comfort fans\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Ecodesign Consultation Forum,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Directive 2009/125/EC ecodesign requirements should be set by the Commission for energy-related products representing significant volumes of sales and trade, having significant environmental impact and presenting significant potential for improvement through design in terms of their environmental impact, without entailing excessive costs.\n(2)\nPoint (a) of Article 16(2) of Directive 2009/125/EC provides that in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 19(3) and the criteria set out in Article 15(2), and after consulting the Ecodesign Consultation Forum, the Commission shall, as appropriate, introduce implementing measures offering a high potential for cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, such as for products in heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems.\n(3)\nThe Commission has carried out a preparatory study to analyse the technical, environmental and economic aspects of air conditioners and comfort fans typically used in households and small commercial establishments. The study has been developed together with stakeholders and interested parties from the EU and third countries, and the results have been made publicly available.\n(4)\nThe main environmental aspects of the products covered, identified as significant for the purposes of this Regulation, are energy consumption in use phase and sound power level. The preparatory study also identified possible refrigerant leakage as a significant environmental aspect in form of direct greenhouse gas emissions, representing on average 10-20 % of the combined direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions.\n(5)\nAs shown in the preparatory study and confirmed during the impact assessment, there is a lack of information on the efficiency of comfort fans. However, in order to provide market surveillance authorities important information and allow efficient monitoring of the market for the purposes of setting minimum energy efficiency requirements in the future, product information requirements on comfort fans will ensure that the efficiency of the appliance and the measurement method used be well visible on the product. Furthermore, standby and off mode requirements are set for comfort fans.\n(6)\nThe annual electricity consumption of products subject to this Regulation was estimated to have been 30 TWh in the EU in 2005. Unless specific measures are taken, annual electricity consumption is predicted to be 74 TWh in 2020. The preparatory study shows that the electricity consumption of products subject to this Regulation can be significantly reduced.\n(7)\nThe preparatory study shows that requirements regarding other ecodesign parameters referred to in Annex I, Part 1, to Directive 2009/125/EC are not necessary as electricity consumption and sound power level of air conditioners in the use phase are the most significant environmental aspects.\n(8)\nAs refrigerants are addressed under Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases (2) no specific requirements on refrigerants are set in this Regulation. However, a bonus is proposed under the ecodesign requirements to steer the market towards the use of refrigerants with reduced harmful impact on the environment. The bonus will lead to lower minimum energy efficiency requirements for appliances using low- global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants.\n(9)\nAir conditioners can be part of systems installed in buildings. National legislation based inter alia on Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (3) may set new stricter requirements on those air conditioning systems, using the calculation and measurement methods defined in this Regulation as regards the efficiency of the air conditioner.\n(10)\nStandby and off-mode functions can be responsible for an important part of the total power consumption of these appliances. For air conditioners, except for double and single duct air conditioners, power consumption of these functions is part of the minimum energy performance requirements and of the seasonal efficiency measurement method. Standby and off-mode requirements for double and single duct air conditioners are set on the basis of the Ecodesign requirements of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 (4).\n(11)\nThe combined effect of ecodesign requirements set out in this Regulation and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 626/2011 of 4 May 2011 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of air conditioners (5) is expected to result in annual electricity savings of 11 TWh by 2020, compared to the situation if no measures are taken.\n(12)\nProducts subject to this Regulation should be made more energy efficient by applying existing non-proprietary cost-effective technologies that can reduce the combined costs of purchasing and operating these products.\n(13)\nThe ecodesign requirements should not affect functionality from the end-user's perspective and should not negatively affect health, safety or the environment. In particular, the benefits of reducing electricity consumption during the use phase should more than offset any possible additional environmental impact during the production phase.\n(14)\nThe ecodesign requirements should be introduced gradually in order to provide a sufficient timeframe for manufacturers to re-design products subject to this Regulation. The timing should be such as to avoid negative impacts on the functionalities of equipment on the market, and to take into account cost impacts for end-users and manufacturers, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, while ensuring timely achievement of the objectives of this Regulation.\n(15)\nMeasurements of the relevant product parameters should be performed through reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement methods, which take into account the recognised state of the art measurement methods including, where available, harmonised standards adopted by the European standardisation bodies, as listed in Annex I to Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (6).\n(16)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of Directive 2009/125/EC, this Regulation specifies the applicable conformity assessment procedures.\n(17)\nIn order to facilitate compliance checks, manufacturers should provide information in the technical documentation referred to in Annexes IV and V to Directive 2009/125/EC in so far as this information relates to the requirements laid down in this Regulation.\n(18)\nIn addition to the legally binding requirements laid down in this Regulation, indicative benchmarks for best available technologies should be identified to ensure the wide availability and easy accessibility of information on the life-cycle environmental performance of products subject to this Regulation.\n(19)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 19(1) of Directive 2009/125/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\n1. This Regulation establishes eco-design requirements for the placing on the market of electric mains-operated air conditioners with a rated capacity of \u2264 12 kW for cooling, or heating if the product has no cooling function, and comfort fans with an electric fan power input \u2264 125W.\n2. This Regulation shall not apply to:\n(a)\nappliances that use non-electric energy sources;\n(b)\nair conditioners of which the condenser-side or evaporator-side, or both, do not use air for heat transfer medium.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions in Article 2 of Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply.\nIn addition, the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018air conditioner\u2019 means a device capable of cooling or heating, or both, indoor air, using a vapour compression cycle driven by an electric compressor, including air conditioners that provide additional functionalities such as dehumidification, air-purification, ventilation or supplemental air-heating by means of electric resistance heating, as well as appliances that may use water (either condensate water that is formed on the evaporator side or externally added water) for evaporation on the condenser, provided that the device is also able to function without the use of additional water, using air only;\n2.\n\u2018double duct air conditioner\u2019 means an air conditioner in which, during cooling or heating, the condenser (or evaporator) intake air is introduced from the outdoor environment to the unit by a duct and rejected to the outdoor environment by a second duct, and which is placed wholly inside the space to be conditioned, near a wall;\n3.\n\u2018single duct air conditioner\u2019 means an air conditioner in which, during cooling or heating, the condenser (or evaporator) intake air is introduced from the space containing the unit and discharged outside this space;\n4.\n\u2018rated capacity\u2019 (Prated) means the cooling or heating capacity of the vapour compression cycle of the unit at standard rating conditions;\n5.\n\u2018comfort fan\u2019 means an appliance primarily designed for creating air movement around or on part of a human body for personal cooling comfort, including comfort fans that can perform additional functionalities such as lighting;\n6.\n\u2018fan power input\u2019 (PF) means the electric power input of a comfort fan in Watt operating at the declared maximum fan flow rate, measured with the oscillating mechanism active (if/when applicable).\nFor the purposes of the Annexes, additional definitions are set out in Annex I.\nArticle 3\nEcodesign requirements and timetable\n1. The ecodesign requirements for air conditioners and comfort fans are set out in Annex I.\n2. Each ecodesign requirement shall apply in accordance with the following timetable:\nFrom 1 January 2013:\nsingle duct and double duct air conditioners shall correspond to requirements as indicated in Annex I, point 2(a).\nFrom 1 January 2013:\n(a)\nair conditioners, except single and double duct air conditioners, shall correspond to requirements as indicated in Annex I, point 2(b) and points 3(a), 3(b), 3(c);\n(b)\nsingle ducts and double ducts shall correspond to requirements as indicated in Annex I, points 3(a), 3(b), 3(d);\n(c)\ncomfort fans shall correspond to requirements as indicated in Annex I, points 3(a), 3(b), 3(e).\nFrom 1 January 2014:\n(a)\nair conditioners shall correspond to ecodesign requirements as indicated in Annex I, point 2(c);\n(b)\nsingle duct and double duct air conditioners shall correspond to requirements as indicated in Annex I, point 2(d).\n3. Compliance with ecodesign requirements shall be measured and calculated in accordance with requirements set out in Annex II.\nArticle 4\nConformity assessment\n1. The conformity assessment procedure referred to in Article 8 of Directive 2009/125/EC shall be the internal design control set out in Annex IV to that Directive or the management system set out in Annex V to that Directive.\n2. For the purposes of conformity assessment pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2009/125/EC, the technical documentation file shall contain the results of the calculation set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 5\nVerification procedure for market surveillance purposes\nMember States shall apply the verification procedure described in Annex III to this Regulation when performing the market surveillance checks referred to in Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/125/EC for compliance with requirements set out in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 6\nBenchmarks\nThe indicative benchmarks for best-performing air conditioners available on the market at the time of entry into force of this Regulation are set out in Annex IV.\nArticle 7\nRevision\nThe Commission shall review this Regulation in the light of technological progress and present the result of this review to the Ecodesign Consultation Forum no later than 5 years from the date of the entry into force of this Regulation. The review shall in particular assess the efficiency and sound power level requirements, the approach to promote the use of low- global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants and the scope of the Regulation for air conditioners and possible changes in market share of types of appliances, including air conditioners above 12 kW rated output power. The review shall also assess the appropriateness of the standby and off mode requirements, seasonal calculation and measurement method, including considerations on the development of a possible seasonal calculation and measurement method for all air conditioners in the scope for cooling and heating seasons.\nArticle 8\nEntry into force and application\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. It shall apply from 1 January 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 March 2012.", "references": ["21", "85", "41", "29", "34", "38", "93", "16", "83", "54", "49", "30", "23", "9", "17", "88", "24", "95", "72", "47", "50", "43", "51", "10", "27", "90", "62", "53", "0", "14", "No Label", "25", "58", "60", "76", "78", "86", "87"], "gold": ["25", "58", "60", "76", "78", "86", "87"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1240/2010\nof 20 December 2010\nadjusting, from 1 July 2010, the rate of contribution to the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the European Union\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the conditions of Employment of Other servants of the Communities laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), and in particular Article 83a thereof and Annex XII thereto,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 13 of Annex XII to the Staff Regulations, on 1 September 2010 Eurostat submitted a report on the 2010 actuarial assessment of the pension scheme updating the parameters referred to in that Annex. According to this assessment, the rate of contribution required to maintain actuarial balance of the pension scheme is 11,6 % of basic salary.\n(2)\nIn the interests of actuarial balance of the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the European Communities, the rate of contribution should therefore be adjusted to 11,6 % of the basic salary,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nWith effect from 1 July 2010, the rate of the contribution referred to in Article 83(2) of the Staff Regulations shall be 11,6 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["42", "87", "71", "33", "67", "89", "38", "88", "85", "97", "77", "50", "52", "66", "69", "61", "90", "63", "54", "79", "0", "11", "55", "6", "72", "41", "13", "49", "36", "57", "No Label", "2", "7", "37", "39"], "gold": ["2", "7", "37", "39"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 570/2010\nof 29 June 2010\nmaking imports of wireless wide area networking (WWAN) modems originating in the People's Republic of China subject to registration\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Articles 10(4) and 14(5) thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has received a request, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, to make imports of wireless wide area networking (WWAN) modems originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China subject to registration.\nA. PRODUCT CONCERNED\n(2)\nThe product concerned by this registration is wireless wide area networking (WWAN) modems with a radio antenna and providing Internet Protocol (IP) data connectivity for computing devices and including Wi-Fi routers comprising a WWAN modem (WWAN/Wi-Fi routers), originating in the People's Republic of China (\u2018the product concerned\u2019), currently falling within CN codes ex 8471 80 00 and ex 8517 62 00.\nB. REQUEST\n(3)\nHaving received a complaint from Option NV (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019), the Commission determined that there is sufficient evidence to justify initiation of a proceeding and therefore, pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation, announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (the \u2018Notice of Initiation\u2019) the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of wireless wide area networking (WWAN) modems originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n(4)\nConcerning standing to lodge a complaint, the applicant is the sole producer of the product concerned in the European Union, representing 100 % of the total Union production.\n(5)\nAs regards dumping, in view of the provisions of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, the country concerned is considered to be a non-market economy country. In the absence of known production of the product concerned outside the European Union and the country concerned, the complainant established normal value for the country concerned on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product duly adjusted where necessary to include a reasonable profit margin. The allegation of dumping is based on a comparison of the normal value thus established with the export prices (at ex-works level) of the product under investigation when sold for export to the Union. On this basis the dumping margin calculated is significant for the exporting country concerned, namely in excess of 150 %.\n(6)\nThe applicant also requests that imports of the product concerned are made subject to registration pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports from the date of such registration.\nC. GROUNDS FOR THE REGISTRATION\n(7)\nAccording to Article 7(1) of the basic Regulation, provisional measures may not be imposed earlier than 60 days from initiation. However, according to Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty may be levied on products which were entered for consumption not more than 90 days prior to the date of application of provisional measures, provided that the conditions set out in that paragraph are fulfilled, and imports have been registered in accordance with Article 14(5). According to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission may, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, direct the customs authorities to take the appropriate steps to register imports, so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports from the date of such registration. Imports may be made subject to registration following a request from the Union industry which contains sufficient evidence to justify such action.\n(8)\nThe request contains sufficient evidence to justify registration. This is further supported by evidence from other sources.\n(9)\nAs regards dumping, the Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that imports of the product concerned originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China are being dumped, and that the exporters practice dumping. The anti-dumping complaint and request for registration contain evidence with regard to export prices relating to the period from second quarter of 2009 to first quarter of 2010. In addition, the complaint contains information regarding export prices from 2006 onwards. The evidence regarding normal value, contained in the anti-dumping complaint and request for registration, at this stage and subject to further data becoming available during the investigation, consists of detailed data concerning domestic prices and costs of production from the single Union producer covering the period from 2006 to the first quarter of 2010. In the absence of any known analogue countries which could serve as a basis for reliable normal value, this is the most accurate and adequate information that can be used at this stage. This data, appropriately adjusted for estimated transport and other costs, would, on its face, appear to relate to the same product and time period and the same level of trade, and therefore would appear to be broadly comparable. As a whole, and given the extent of the dumping margin alleged, this evidence provides sufficient support at this stage that the exporters in question practice dumping, and that there was an history of dumping over an extended period of time.\n(10)\nAs regards injury, the Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that the exporters\u2019 dumping practices are causing material injury or would cause material injury. This evidence consists of detailed data, contained in the anti-dumping complaint and request for registration and supported by information from other sources, concerning the key injury factors set out in Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, the Commission has its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that exporters\u2019 practices are causing serious injury, or would cause serious injury. This has warranted initiation of a safeguard investigation. It should be underlined that the totality of imports would appear to originate in the People's Republic of China.\n(11)\nThe Commission also has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence, contained in the anti-dumping complaint and request for registration and supported by information from other sources, that the importers were aware, or should have been aware, that the exporters practice dumping injurious to or likely to be injurious to the Union industry. For instance, several articles in the specialist press over an extended period of time suggest that the Union industry may suffer injury as a result of low priced imports from China. Also, given the extent of the dumping that it would appear may be occurring, it is reasonable to conclude that the importers would be aware, or should be aware, of the situation.\n(12)\nFurthermore, the Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that such injury is being caused or would be caused by massive dumped imports in a relatively short time which in light of the timing and the volume of the dumped imports and other circumstances (such as the rapid deterioration of the situation of the Union industry (2), the fact that a single producer exists in the Union, the cycle of negotiation of contracts in this market, the relatively short lifetime of products in the sector, the significant amount of R&D expenses that must be undertaken to generate them) would be likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of any definitive anti-dumping duties, unless such duties would be applied retroactively. Evidence in relation to these circumstances is contained in the anti-dumping complaint and request for registration and supported by information from other sources.\n(13)\nAccordingly, the conditions for registration in this case are met.\nD. PROCEDURE\n(14)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission has concluded that the applicant\u2019s request contains sufficient evidence to make imports of the product concerned subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.\n(15)\nAll interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.\nE. REGISTRATION\n(16)\nPursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product concerned should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings leading to the imposition of anti-dumping duties, those duties, can, if the necessary conditions are fulfilled, be levied retroactively in accordance with applicable legal provisions.\n(17)\nAny future liability would emanate from the findings of the anti-dumping investigation. The allegations in the complaint requesting the initiation of an investigation exceed 150 % for dumping and 150 % for injury. If the investigation confirms these allegations, the measure would exceed EUR 60 per unit.\nF. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA\n(18)\nAny personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union of wireless wide area networking (WWAN) modems with a radio antenna and providing Internet Protocol (IP) data connectivity for computing devices and including Wi-Fi routers comprising a WWAN modem (WWAN/Wi-Fi routers) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 8471 80 00 and ex 8517 62 00 (TARIC codes 8471800010, 8517620011 and 8517620091). Registration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. All interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing, to provide supporting evidence or to request to be heard within 20 days from the date of publication of this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThe Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 June 2010.", "references": ["98", "76", "16", "69", "57", "59", "87", "12", "79", "70", "3", "89", "63", "4", "97", "30", "29", "67", "78", "74", "15", "25", "86", "27", "91", "26", "61", "45", "7", "64", "No Label", "22", "23", "40", "48", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "40", "48", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency measures taken to combat swine vesicular disease in Italy in 2009\n(notified under document C(2011) 8715)\n(Only the Italian text is authentic)\n(2011/795/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate swine vesicular disease as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 3(6) first indent of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2010/143/EU of 5 March 2010 on a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat swine vesicular disease in Italy in 2009 (3) granted a financial contribution from the Union to Italy towards the costs incurred for the eradication of swine vesicular disease.\n(5)\nOn 3 and 4 May 2010, Italy submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005. The Commission\u2019s final conclusions were communicated to Italy by e-mail dated 29 June 2011. Italy agreed by e-mail dated 23 August 2011.\n(6)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(7)\nThe Italian authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(8)\nIn view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial contribution from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of swine vesicular disease in Italy in 2009 should now be fixed.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating swine vesicular disease in Italy in 2009 is fixed at EUR 93 998,39. It constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["43", "28", "45", "82", "98", "87", "14", "89", "69", "59", "88", "36", "67", "86", "20", "74", "68", "83", "44", "90", "80", "51", "71", "33", "62", "30", "55", "77", "9", "58", "No Label", "4", "10", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 17 February 2012\namending Annex E to Council Directive 92/65/EEC as regards the model health certificates for animals from holdings and animals, semen, ova and embryos from approved bodies, institutes or centres\n(notified under document C(2012) 860)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/112/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 22 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in the Union in animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to the animal health requirements laid down in certain specific Union acts. In addition, Part 1 of Annex E to that Directive sets out the specimen health certificate for trade in animals from holdings (ungulates, birds, lagomorphs, dogs, cats and ferrets), while Part 3 of that Annex sets out the specimen health certificate for trade in animals, semen, embryos and ova from approved bodies, institutes or centres.\n(2)\nArticle 6(3) of Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in suidae other than those covered by Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (2). It provides, inter alia, that where suidae do not come from a brucellosis-free herd in accordance with Directive 64/432/EEC, they must, in the 30 days prior to their dispatch, have undergone with negative results a test designed to show the absence of antibodies to brucellosis. In the interests of consistency of Union legislation, the specimen health certificate set out in Part 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC should therefore be amended to include a specific reference to that requirement.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2007/598/EC of 28 August 2007 concerning measures to prevent the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza to other captive birds kept in zoos and approved bodies, institutes or centres in the Member States (3) approves preventive vaccination plans against that disease in certain Member States.\n(4)\nPoint 4(b) of Annex II to Decision 2007/598/EC provides that birds vaccinated against avian influenza kept in zoos that are not approved in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC may be moved to other Member States, after authorisation by the Member State of destination, provided that they meet the requirements set out in that Decision and they are accompanied by a health certificate, as laid down in Part 1 of Annex E to that Directive, specifying that they are conform to Decision 2007/598/EC and are vaccinated against avian influenza on a specified date.\n(5)\nHowever, birds as referred to in Article 7 of Directive 92/65/EEC are not required to be accompanied by a health certificate, as set out in Part 1 of Annex E thereto when traded within the Union, but must be accompanied by a self-certification by the operator in accordance with Article 4 of that Directive, or in the case of psittacidae by a commercial document signed by the official veterinarian or by the veterinarian responsible for the holding.\n(6)\nIt should be therefore clarified that the health certificate set out in Part 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC is only required to accompany birds that are vaccinated against avian influenza and come from a holding on which vaccination against avian influenza was carried out during the past 12 months. Therefore, the specimen health certificate set out in Part 1 of that Annex should be amended to include a reference to such vaccination.\n(7)\nArticle 10 of Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in dogs, cats and ferrets. It provides, inter alia, that they must satisfy the relevant requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (4).\n(8)\nArticle 6 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that until 31 December 2011, dogs and cats entering Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom from other Member States are to be vaccinated and subject to a pre-entry rabies blood testing in accordance with national rules.\n(9)\nIn addition, Article 16 of that Regulation provides that until 31 December 2011, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom, as regards echinococcosis, and Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom as regards ticks, may make the entry of pet animals into their territory subject to compliance with certain additional national requirements.\n(10)\nCommission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011 of 14 July 2011 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards preventive health measures for the control of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in dogs (5) was adopted in order to ensure the continuous health protection of Ireland, Malta, Finland and the United Kingdom from Echinococcus multilocularis. It is to apply from 1 January 2012.\n(11)\nThe reference to Articles 6 and 16 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 included in the specimen health certificate set out in Part 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC should therefore be deleted and replaced, as regards dogs, by a reference to Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011.\n(12)\nPart 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nArticle 13 of Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in animals of species susceptible to the diseases listed in Annexes A and B thereto and in semen, ova and embryos of such animals consigned to and from bodies, institutes or centres approved in accordance with Annex C thereto.\n(14)\nSemen, ova and embryos of certain animal species can be frozen and stored for a long time and therefore donor animal might no longer be available on the day the health certificate is issued. It is therefore necessary to amend the specimen health certificate set out in Part 3 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC to state that the donor animal was found to be healthy and free from clinical disease either on day of collection or the date of issuing of the health certificate.\n(15)\nPoint 4(a) of Annex II to Decision 2007/598/EC provides that birds vaccinated against avian influenza kept in approved bodies, institutes or centres including zoos may only be moved to approved bodies, institutes or centres including zoos in other Member States provided that they meet the requirements set out in that Decision and they are accompanied by a health certificate as laid down in Part 3 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC stating that the birds have been vaccinated against avian influenza in conformity to Commission Decision 2006/474/EC (6). As that Decision has since been repealed and replaced by Decision 2007/598/EC, that reference should be replaced by a reference to Decision 2007/598/EC.\n(16)\nPart 3 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(17)\nDirective 92/65/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(18)\nTo avoid any disruption of trade, the use of health certificates issued in accordance with Part 1 and Part 3 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC, before the amendments introduced by this Decision, should be authorised during a transitional period subject to certain conditions.\n(19)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex E to Directive 92/65/EEC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nFor a transitional period until 30 June 2012, Member States may authorise trade in animals from holdings and animals, semen, ova and embryos from approved bodies, institutes or centres accompanied by a health certificate issued not later than 29 February 2012 in accordance with the models set out in Part 1 and Part 3 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC in its version prior to the amendments introduced by this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall apply from 1 March 2012.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2012.", "references": ["62", "83", "5", "34", "1", "98", "94", "31", "99", "4", "32", "28", "41", "42", "68", "86", "20", "51", "53", "45", "79", "56", "64", "11", "24", "26", "69", "13", "63", "35", "No Label", "21", "22", "38", "59", "61", "66"], "gold": ["21", "22", "38", "59", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 668/2012\nof 20 July 2012\non the issue of import licences and the allocation of import rights for applications lodged during the first seven days of July 2012 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 (3) opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products originating in Brazil, Thailand and other third countries.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged in respect of Groups Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 during the first seven days of July 2012 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2012 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested.\n(3)\nThe applications for import rights lodged during the first seven days of July 2012 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2012 in respect of Group No 5 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import rights may be allocated should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2012 in respect of Groups Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\n2. The quantities for which import rights applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2012 in respect of Group No 5 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficient set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2012.", "references": ["41", "65", "2", "40", "18", "68", "35", "16", "72", "26", "7", "75", "64", "38", "70", "3", "78", "1", "98", "27", "20", "0", "29", "84", "19", "59", "87", "6", "58", "73", "No Label", "21", "22", "66", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2011/97/EU\nof 5 December 2011\namending Directive 1999/31/EC as regards specific criteria for the storage of metallic mercury considered as waste\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the banning of exports of metallic mercury and certain mercury compounds and mixtures and the safe storage of metallic mercury (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof, as well as to Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (2), and in particular Article 16 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1102/2008 stipulates that, by way of derogation from Article 5(3)(a) of Directive 1999/31/EC, metallic mercury that is considered as waste may, in appropriate containment, be temporarily stored for more than 1 year or permanently stored in certain types of landfills.\n(2)\nStorage of metallic mercury that is considered as waste is already regulated by Union legislation on waste management.\n(3)\nThe storage of metallic mercury that is considered as waste for up to 1 year is subject to the permit requirements according to Article 23 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste (3).\n(4)\nDirective 1999/31/EC and Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC (4) apply to facilities for the storage of metallic mercury for more than 1 year according to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008.\n(5)\nThis implies, in particular, that all facilities for the storage of metallic mercury for more than 1 year need a permit according to Articles 7, 8 and 9 of Directive 1999/31/EC and that such facilities are subject to the control and monitoring requirements laid down in Article 12 of that Directive, as well as, in the case of underground storage, to the safety assessment requirements according to Appendix A of Decision 2003/33/EC.\n(6)\nIn addition, such facilities are subject to the general provisions on record keeping as laid down in Directive 2008/98/EC.\n(7)\nIn addition, the provisions of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (5) apply to facilities for the temporary above-ground storage according to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008.\n(8)\nHowever, those provisions do not fully address the specific characteristics of metallic mercury, and additional requirements are therefore needed.\n(9)\nThose additional requirements should take into account research activities on safe disposal options, including the solidification of metallic mercury. There is progress in the development of environmentally sound solidification options but it is premature to decide on the large-scale viability of such options.\n(10)\nAdditional assessments of the long-term behaviour of metallic mercury in underground storage are needed for the determination of sound and knowledge-based requirements for permanent storage. The requirements laid down in this Directive should therefore be limited to temporary storage and are considered as appropriate and representing the best available techniques for the safe storage of metallic mercury for a time span of up to 5 years.\n(11)\nDirective 1999/31/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nNo opinion was given by the committee referred to in Article 16 of Directive 1999/31/EC. It is therefore appropriate for the Council to adopt this Directive,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I, II and III to Directive 1999/31/EC are hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 15 March 2013. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 December 2011.", "references": ["6", "69", "55", "98", "97", "43", "4", "76", "99", "40", "25", "57", "22", "79", "93", "30", "13", "19", "11", "37", "70", "92", "0", "73", "8", "80", "68", "49", "66", "1", "No Label", "58", "60", "84"], "gold": ["58", "60", "84"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/755/CFSP\nof 6 December 2010\namending Decision 2009/906/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 8 December 2009, the Council adopted Decision 2009/906/CFSP (1) on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). That Decision expires on 31 December 2011.\n(2)\nEUPM is being conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the common foreign and security policy as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty.\n(3)\nFollowing the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is to exercise political control and strategic direction of the European Union Police Missions under the responsibility of the Council and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\n(4)\nDecision 2009/906/CFSP should be amended to provide for a financial reference amount covering the expenditure of EUPM for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2009/906/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 9(2) is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Under the responsibility of the Council and the HR, the PSC shall exercise political control and strategic direction of EUPM.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 10(1) the first sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and the HR, political control and strategic direction of EUPM.\u2019;\n(3)\nthe following subparagraph is added to Article 12(1):\n\u2018The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure of EUPM for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011 shall be EUR 17 600 000.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 6 December 2010.", "references": ["39", "6", "35", "70", "42", "79", "89", "99", "58", "76", "3", "30", "98", "29", "69", "11", "44", "5", "48", "55", "52", "2", "65", "0", "82", "90", "92", "37", "59", "83", "No Label", "1", "4", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["1", "4", "7", "9", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 860/2010\nof 10 September 2010\nestablishing for 2010 the \u2018Prodcom list\u2019 of industrial products provided for by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3924/91\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3924/91 of 19 December 1991 on the establishment of a Community survey of industrial production (1), and in particular Article 2(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EEC) No 3924/91 requires Member States to carry out a Community survey of industrial production.\n(2)\nThe survey of industrial production must be based on a list of products identifying the industrial production to be surveyed.\n(3)\nA list of products is necessary to permit alignment between production statistics and external trade statistics and to afford comparison with the Community product nomenclature CPA.\n(4)\nThe list of products required by Regulation (EEC) No 3924/91, referred to as the \u2018Prodcom list\u2019, is common to all Member States, and is necessary in order to compare data across Member States.\n(5)\nThe Prodcom list needs to be updated; it is therefore necessary to establish the list for 2010.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee established by Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on European statistics (2),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Prodcom list for 2010 shall be as set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 September 2010.", "references": ["49", "95", "84", "68", "33", "44", "53", "25", "58", "69", "34", "70", "17", "92", "67", "55", "22", "48", "60", "32", "29", "27", "80", "45", "76", "74", "90", "64", "71", "5", "No Label", "19", "75", "82"], "gold": ["19", "75", "82"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1246/2010\nof 21 December 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 December 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2010.", "references": ["10", "36", "46", "94", "59", "26", "23", "79", "57", "25", "12", "7", "5", "83", "96", "20", "75", "91", "41", "88", "4", "11", "81", "29", "30", "33", "34", "86", "56", "9", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/538/CFSP\nof 12 September 2011\namending Decision 2010/565/CFSP on the European Union mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUSEC RD Congo)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 21 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/565/CFSP on the European Union mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUSEC RD Congo) (1).\n(2)\nIt is necessary to provide a financial reference amount for the Mission for the period from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012.\n(3)\nThe Mission will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/565/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 5(6) is replaced by the following:\n\u20186. The Head of Mission shall collaborate closely, in his area of competence, with the Head of the EU Delegation and the heads of Member States\u2019 missions in Kinshasa.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 9(1), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018The financial reference amount intended to cover expenditure related to the Mission for the period from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012 shall be EUR 13 600 000.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 12(4) is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. The Head of the EU Delegation in Kinshasa shall provide local political guidelines for the EUSEC RD Congo mission within the general framework defined by the planning documents.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 12(7) is deleted.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 September 2011.", "references": ["41", "7", "72", "99", "64", "59", "63", "36", "89", "76", "24", "65", "90", "43", "0", "11", "92", "3", "91", "49", "95", "13", "67", "81", "15", "34", "18", "21", "20", "8", "No Label", "1", "4", "94"], "gold": ["1", "4", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 295/2011\nof 24 March 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 276/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 25 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 March 2011.", "references": ["68", "31", "24", "90", "49", "87", "8", "48", "85", "2", "79", "74", "27", "82", "9", "6", "52", "62", "21", "54", "16", "56", "3", "37", "46", "95", "77", "34", "96", "66", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 649/2010\nof 22 July 2010\nfixing the export refunds on beef and veal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), final subparagraph, and Article 170 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XV of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in beef and veal, export refunds should therefore be set in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162 to 164 and 167 to 170 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe conditions laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007 of 21 November 2007 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals (5) provide for a reduction of the special refund if the quantity of cuts of boned meat to be exported amounts to less than 95 %, but not less than 85 %, of the total weight of cuts produced by boning.\n(6)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 338/2010 (6) should therefore be repealed and replaced by a new regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 must meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) Nos 852/2004 and 853/2004, notably preparation in an approved establishment and compliance with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nIn the case referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007, the rate of the refund on products falling within product code 0201 30 00 9100 shall be reduced by EUR 7/100 kg.\nArticle 3\nRegulation (EU) No 338/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2010.", "references": ["64", "0", "34", "51", "54", "87", "74", "16", "28", "94", "33", "27", "19", "97", "43", "59", "31", "40", "62", "48", "81", "93", "98", "15", "90", "2", "3", "5", "86", "85", "No Label", "20", "25", "38", "69"], "gold": ["20", "25", "38", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/621/CFSP\nof 21 September 2011\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative to the African Union\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 6 December 2007, the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/805/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Koen VERVAEKE as European Union Special Representative (\"EUSR\") to the African Union (\"AU\"). His mandate expired on 31 August 2011.\n(2)\nTherefore, the mandate of the EUSR should be extended from 1 September 2011 until 30 June 2012.\n(3)\nThe EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Koen VERVAEKE as EUSR to the AU is hereby extended until 30 June 2012. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative (\"HR\").\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the EU's comprehensive policy objectives in support of African efforts to build a peaceful, democratic and prosperous future as set out in the Joint Africa-EU Strategy. These objectives include:\n(a)\nenhancing the EU's political dialogue and broader relationship with the AU;\n(b)\nstrengthening the EU-AU partnership in all areas outlined in the Joint Africa-EU Strategy, contributing to the development and implementation of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy in partnership with the AU, respecting the principle of African ownership and working more closely with African representatives in multilateral fora in coordination with multilateral partners;\n(c)\nworking with, and providing support to the AU by supporting institutional development and strengthening the relationship between EU and AU Institutions, including through development assistance, to promote:\n-\npeace and security: predict, prevent, manage, mediate and resolve conflict, support efforts to promote peace and stability, support post-conflict reconstruction,\n-\nhuman rights and governance: promote and protect human rights; promote fundamental freedoms and respect for the rule of law; support, through political dialogue and financial and technical assistance, African efforts to monitor and improve governance; support growth of participatory democracy and accountability; support the fight against corruption and organised crime and further promote efforts to address the issue of children and armed conflict in all its aspects,\n-\nsustainable growth, regional integration and trade: support efforts towards interconnectivity and facilitate people's access to water and sanitation, energy and information technology; promote a stable, efficient and harmonised legal business framework; assist to integrate Africa into the world trade system, assist African countries to comply with EU rules and standards; support Africa in countering the effects of climate change,\n-\ninvestment in people: support efforts in the fields of gender, health, food security and education, promote exchange programmes, networks of universities and centres of excellence, address the root causes of migration.\nFurthermore, the EUSR will play a key role in implementing the Joint Africa-EU Strategy intended to further develop and consolidate the strategic partnership between Africa and the EU.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)/Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) aspects of the objectives referred to in Article 2, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\nstrengthen the overall EU influence in, and coordination of, the Addis Ababa-based dialogue with the AU and its Commission, on the whole range of CFSP/ESDP issues covered by the EU-AU relationship, in particular the Peace and Security Partnership and support to the operationalisation of the African Peace and Security Architecture;\n(b)\nensure an appropriate level of political representation, reflecting the importance of the EU as a political, financial and institutional partner of the AU, and the step change in that partnership necessitated by the growing political profile of the AU on the world stage;\n(c)\nrepresent, should the Council so decide, EU positions and policies, when the AU plays a major role in a crisis situation for which no EUSR has been appointed;\n(d)\nhelp achieve better coherence, consistency and coordination of EU policies and actions towards the AU, and contribute to enhance coordination of the broader partner group and its relation with the AU;\n(e)\ncontribute to the implementation of the EU human rights policy relevant to the AU, including the EU Guidelines on human rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and the EU policy on Women, Peace and Security;\n(f)\nfollow closely, and report on, all relevant developments at AU level;\n(g)\nmaintain close contact with the AU Commission, other AU organs, missions of African Sub-regional organisations to the AU and the missions of the AU Member States to the AU;\n(h)\nfacilitate the relations and cooperation between the AU and African Sub-regional organisations, especially in those areas where the EU is providing support;\n(i)\noffer advice and provide support to the AU upon request in the areas outlined in the Joint Africa-EU Strategy;\n(j)\noffer advice and provide support upon request to the building up of the AU's crisis management capabilities;\n(k)\non the basis of a clear division of tasks, coordinate with, and support, the actions of EUSRs with mandates in AU Member States/Regions; and\n(l)\nmaintain close contacts and promote coordination with key international partners of the AU present in Addis Ababa, especially the United Nations, but also with non-State actors on the whole range of the CFSP/CSDP issues covered by the EU-AU partnership.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (\"PSC\") shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR's primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (\"EEAS\").\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 September 2011 to 30 June 2012 shall be EUR 715 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of his mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting his team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of his team.\n2. Member States, institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the EU Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, institution of the Union or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and his staff\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of his staff shall be agreed with the host party/parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of his team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union's delegations and/or Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union's policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with his mandate and on the basis of the security situation in his geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under his direct authority, notably by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan, providing for mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, and the management of security incidents, and providing for a contingency plan and a mission evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of his team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the Council, the Commission and the HR with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report as necessary to Council working parties. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote overall Union political coordination. He shall help ensure that all Union instruments in the field are engaged coherently to attain the Union's policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSRs active in the region as appropriate. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States\u2019 missions and the Union's delegations.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegations and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission who shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the Council, the Commission and the HR with a progress report at the end of January 2012 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 September 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 21 September 2011.", "references": ["16", "32", "93", "76", "39", "4", "53", "20", "38", "6", "43", "31", "29", "51", "5", "49", "52", "18", "98", "36", "12", "28", "83", "65", "47", "58", "55", "59", "86", "90", "No Label", "3"], "gold": ["3"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1245/2011\nof 1 December 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran.\n(2)\nThe Council has carried out a complete review of the list of persons, entities and bodies, as set out in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, to which Article 16(2) of that Regulation applies. When doing so, the Council took account of observations submitted by those concerned.\n(3)\nThe Council has concluded that the persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 should continue to be subject to the specific restrictive measures provided for therein.\n(4)\nThe Council has also concluded that the entries concerning certain entities included in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 should be amended.\n(5)\nMoreover, in view of the continued concern over the expansion of Iran\u2019s nuclear and missiles programmes expressed by the European Council on 23 October 2011 and in accordance with Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2), additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010.\n(6)\nThe list of persons, entities and bodies referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 should be updated accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 shall be amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 December 2011.", "references": ["18", "41", "26", "9", "66", "17", "92", "54", "46", "40", "34", "85", "87", "50", "81", "0", "58", "74", "99", "93", "11", "19", "47", "12", "43", "79", "36", "73", "98", "94", "No Label", "3", "5", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 724/2011\nof 25 July 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 468/2010 establishing the EU list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999 (1), in particular Article 30 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nChapter V of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 lays down procedures for the identification of fishing vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU fishing vessels) as well as procedures for establishing a European Union list of such vessels. Article 37 of that Regulation provides for actions to be taken against fishing vessels included in that list.\n(2)\nThe Union list of IUU fishing vessels is set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 468/2010 (2).\n(3)\nAccording to Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, the Union list should comprise fishing vessels included in the IUU vessel lists adopted by regional fisheries management organisations.\n(4)\nAccording to Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, upon the receipt from regional fisheries management organisations of the lists of fishing vessels presumed or confirmed to be involved in IUU fishing, the Commission shall update the Union list.\n(5)\nThe Commission has received the updated lists from the annual meetings of the regional fisheries management organisations.\n(6)\nConsidering that the same vessel might be listed under different names and/or flags depending on the time of its inclusion on the regional fisheries management organisations lists, the updated Union list should include the different names and/or flags as established by the respective regional fisheries management organisations.\n(7)\nRegulation (EU) No 468/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nPart B of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 468/2010 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 July 2011.", "references": ["81", "88", "41", "17", "5", "97", "21", "8", "85", "47", "33", "94", "83", "62", "24", "15", "39", "73", "25", "2", "96", "22", "0", "57", "79", "50", "18", "19", "61", "43", "No Label", "4", "12", "56", "67"], "gold": ["4", "12", "56", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1065/2010\nof 19 November 2010\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 November 2010.", "references": ["60", "58", "12", "81", "62", "44", "52", "93", "51", "68", "32", "85", "38", "11", "34", "79", "94", "61", "97", "8", "1", "7", "36", "42", "80", "39", "92", "71", "14", "50", "No Label", "21", "90"], "gold": ["21", "90"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1183/2011\nof 14 November 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 521/2008 setting up the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 187 and 188 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee,\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (hereinafter referred as the \u2018FCH Joint Undertaking\u2019) was set up on 30 May 2008 under Council Regulation (EC) No 521/2008 (2) by its founding members, the European Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative Industry Grouping Aisbl (hereinafter referred as the \u2018Industry Grouping\u2019) and the Commission.\n(2)\nThe Research Grouping became a member of the FCH Joint Undertaking on 14 July 2008. The Research Grouping contributes both financially and in kind to the objectives of the FCH Joint Undertaking. Given the specific composition of the FCH Joint Undertaking, as well as its rules and the nature, objectives and scope of its activities, the members of the Research Grouping may benefit from the results achieved in the same manner as the members of the Industry Grouping. Therefore, it is justified to allow the in-kind contribution from both the Industry Grouping and Research Grouping to be counted as matching funds.\n(3)\nThe Research Grouping became a member of the FCH Joint Undertaking, and it is therefore appropriate to consider that in-kind contributions from research organisations (including universities and research centres) match the contribution of the Union, within the meaning of the Statutes of the FCH Joint Undertaking annexed to Regulation (EC) No 521/2008 (hereinafter referred as the \u2018Statutes\u2019).\n(4)\nThe FCH Joint Undertaking has been operating for more than 2 years, and during this period the entire operational cycle with publishing calls for proposals, evaluations of proposals, negotiations of funding and conclusion of grant agreements has been completed. Experience gained during this period has shown that the maximum funding levels in FCH Joint Undertaking projects had to be reduced significantly for all participants. As a result, the level of participation in the actions of the FCH Joint Undertaking proved to be significantly below initial expectations.\n(5)\nThe Governing Board approved the amendments to Regulation (EC) No 521/2008, in accordance with the Statutes.\n(6)\nAllowing in-kind contributions from all legal entities participating in the activities to be counted as matching funding would recognise the membership of the Research Grouping and would improve the funding levels while still respecting the fundamental principle of matching, as well as the need to apply fair and balanced funding reductions to the different types of participants.\n(7)\nThe running costs of the Programme Office of the FCH Joint Undertaking (hereinafter referred as the \u2018Programme Office\u2019) should be covered by its three members. It is appropriate to provide that all members of the FCH Joint Undertaking have the same payment schedule.\n(8)\nThe Commission should be given some flexibility regarding the measures to be taken in case of insufficient matching.\n(9)\nCurrently the level of funding is determined after each evaluation of proposals received. To enable beneficiaries to estimate the extent of the potential funding, it should be possible for each call to specify the minimum level of funding.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 521/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 521/2008 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 6, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The FCH Joint Undertaking may have its own internal audit capability.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe Annex is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nNotwithstanding Article 12(3) of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 521/2008, this amending Regulation shall not affect the rights and obligations arising under the grant agreements and other contracts concluded by the FCH Joint Undertaking before the entry into force of this Regulation. In particular, it shall not affect the upper funding limits set out therein.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nHowever, point 2(a) of the Annex to this Regulation shall apply from 14 July 2008.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 November 2011.", "references": ["68", "41", "84", "25", "36", "8", "76", "75", "44", "17", "64", "92", "15", "34", "4", "61", "96", "97", "47", "85", "39", "58", "30", "77", "35", "22", "7", "13", "18", "29", "No Label", "10", "31", "45", "46", "78", "83"], "gold": ["10", "31", "45", "46", "78", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 142/2012\nof 17 February 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 138/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 February 2012.", "references": ["36", "16", "98", "69", "20", "11", "45", "12", "3", "55", "26", "54", "94", "1", "50", "42", "58", "53", "84", "38", "32", "80", "60", "8", "88", "31", "95", "86", "57", "17", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "61", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1036/2011\nof 17 October 2011\nfixing the interest rates to be used for calculating the costs of financing intervention measures comprising buying-in, storage and disposal for the 2012 EAGF accounting year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 3(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 4(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) of intervention measures in the form of public storage operations and the accounting of public storage operations by the paying agencies of the Member States (2) provides that expenditure relating to the financial costs incurred by Member States in mobilising funds to buy in products is to be determined in accordance with the methods set out in Annex IV to that Regulation.\n(2)\nThe first paragraph of point I.1 of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 provides that the financial costs in question are to be calculated on the basis of a uniform interest rate for the Union fixed by the Commission at the beginning of every accounting year. This interest rate corresponds to the average of the three-month and 12-month forward Euribor rates, recorded in the six months preceding the notification from the Member States provided for in the first paragraph of point I.2 of the aforementioned Annex IV, with a weighting of one third and two thirds respectively. That rate must be fixed at the beginning of each accounting year of the EAGF.\n(3)\nHowever, if the interest rate notified by a Member State is lower than the uniform interest rate fixed for the Union, in accordance with the second paragraph of point I.2 of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 884/2006, the interest rate is to be fixed at the level of the rate notified.\n(4)\nFurthermore, in accordance with the third paragraph of point I.2 of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 884/2006, in the absence of any notification from a Member State, in the form and by the deadline referred to in the first paragraph of point I.2 of the aforementioned Annex IV, the interest rate borne by that Member State is to be considered as being 0 %. Where a Member State declares that it did not bear any interest costs because it did not have agricultural products in public storage during the reference period, the uniform interest rate fixed by the Commission applies to that Member State. Denmark, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and Slovenia have declared that they did not bear any interest costs as they did not have any agricultural products in public storage during the reference period.\n(5)\nGiven the Member States\u2019 notifications to the Commission, the interest rates applicable for the 2012 EAGF accounting year should be fixed taking the various factors into account.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor expenditure relating to the financial costs incurred by Member States in mobilising funds to buy in products chargeable to the 2012 accounting year of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), the interest rates provided for in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 in accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of that Regulation shall be fixed at:\n(a)\n0,0 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Cyprus, Estonia and Latvia;\n(b)\n0,5 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Finland;\n(c)\n0,6 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in the United Kingdom;\n(d)\n0,9 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Germany;\n(e)\n1,0 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Ireland;\n(f)\n1,2 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Belgium;\n(g)\n1,3 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Austria;\n(h)\n1,4 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in the Czech Republic;\n(i)\n1,8 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Sweden;\n(j)\n1,9 % in the case of the uniform interest rate for the Union applicable to the other Member States.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 October 2011.", "references": ["16", "3", "40", "27", "7", "99", "13", "62", "51", "42", "64", "39", "58", "87", "47", "88", "18", "54", "36", "15", "4", "68", "95", "63", "53", "2", "22", "5", "9", "70", "No Label", "10", "20", "29", "66", "96"], "gold": ["10", "20", "29", "66", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 208/2011\nof 2 March 2011\namending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 180/2008 and (EC) No 737/2008 as regards lists and names of EU reference laboratories\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (1), and in particular Article 19(iv) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (2), and in particular Article 32(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (3), and in particular Article 55(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 882/2004 lays down the general tasks, duties and requirements for Community reference laboratories for food and feed and for animal health and live animals. The Community reference laboratories for food and feed are listed in Part I and those for animal health and live animals in Part II of Annex VII to that Regulation.\n(2)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 180/2008 of 28 February 2008 concerning the Community reference laboratory for equine diseases other than African horse sickness and amending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), the Agence Fran\u00e7aise de S\u00e9curit\u00e9 Sanitaire des Aliments (AFSSA) with its research laboratories for animal pathology and zoonoses and for equine pathology and diseases, situated in France, was designated as the Community reference laboratory for equine diseases other than African horse sickness.\n(3)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 737/2008 of 28 July 2008 designating the Community reference laboratories for crustacean diseases, rabies and bovine tuberculosis, laying down additional responsibilities and tasks for the Community reference laboratories for rabies and bovine tuberculosis and amending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), the Laboratoire d\u2019\u00e9tudes sur la rage et la pathologie des animaux sauvages of the Agence Fran\u00e7aise de S\u00e9curit\u00e9 Sanitaire des Aliments (AFSSA), Nancy, France, was designated as the Community reference laboratory for rabies.\n(4)\nFrance and Denmark have officially informed the Commission of changes relating to the name of laboratories referred to in those Regulations. In addition, after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the laboratories listed in Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, previously referred to as \u2018Community reference laboratories\u2019 should now be referred to as \u2018European Union (EU) reference laboratories\u2019.\n(5)\nIt is important to keep the list of EU reference laboratories set out in Regulations (EC) No 882/2004, (EC) No 180/2008 and No 737/2008 updated. Those Regulations should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex VII to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nIn Regulation (EC) No 180/2008, Article 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\n1. Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (ANSES) with its laboratories for animal health and equine diseases, France, is hereby designated as the EU Reference Laboratory for equine diseases other than African horse sickness from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2013.\n2. The functions, tasks and procedures regarding collaboration with laboratories responsible for diagnosing infectious diseases of equidae in the Member States of the EU Reference Laboratory referred to in paragraph 1 are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\u2019\nArticle 3\nIn Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 737/2008, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Laboratoire de la rage et de la faune sauvage de Nancy of the Agence nationale de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire de l\u2019alimentation, de l\u2019environnement et du travail (ANSES), France, is hereby designated as the EU reference laboratory for rabies from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2013.\u2019\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2011.", "references": ["46", "3", "27", "5", "32", "28", "63", "33", "57", "36", "65", "34", "44", "17", "82", "97", "95", "8", "93", "29", "49", "90", "94", "20", "48", "68", "11", "99", "64", "88", "No Label", "38", "61", "66", "77"], "gold": ["38", "61", "66", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 770/2011\nof 2 August 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 3 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 August 2011.", "references": ["16", "32", "72", "83", "29", "98", "85", "42", "28", "41", "38", "47", "70", "4", "56", "87", "0", "78", "65", "80", "55", "63", "30", "97", "60", "23", "20", "99", "86", "46", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 8 June 2010\nrepealing Decision 2006/601/EC on emergency measures regarding the non-authorised genetically modified organism \u2018LL RICE 601\u2019 in rice products, and providing for random testing for the absence of that organism in rice products\n(notified under document C(2010) 3527)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/315/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2006/601/EC (2) requires that consignments of rice products originating from the United States of America and likely to be mixed may be placed on the market only if they are accompanied by certain documents demonstrating that the products concerned do not contain the genetically modified organism \u2018LL RICE 601\u2019. In addition, that Decision provides for certain other control measures.\n(2)\nThe United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has published the results of its investigation on, in particular, the presence of \u2018LL RICE 601\u2019 in US commercial rice. While the exact mechanisms of the admixture could not be established, the findings indicated that the source of the admixture with \u2018LL RICE 601\u2019 was limited.\n(3)\nAdditionally, the US Rice Federation adopted a plan aiming to remove \u2018LL RICE 601\u2019 from the US export channels. This plan included testing of the seeds before planting, as well as documentary and analytical controls at the delivery points.\n(4)\nFollowing the latest amendment to Decision 2006/601/EC, by Commission Decision 2008/162/EC (3), the 2008 seed test results for the five rice growing US states - Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Missouri -, provided in the framework of that plan, were all negative for the presence of \u2018LL RICE 601\u2019.\n(5)\nThe findings and conclusions of the Food and Veterinary Office report of 2008 concerning the evaluation of control activities in the United States of America regarding emergency measures for rice exports to the EU [United States 2008-7857] show that there was an acceptable system in place as regards the measures provided for in Decision 2006/601/EC.\n(6)\nTesting by the US Rice Federation for the 2009 crop of harvested rice, also known as green rice, did not detect lots containing LLRice601. In addition, the US industry indicated that it would continue to apply its plan for the 2010 crop and to provide pre-export testing and certification even if the measure is lifted, should market interests require continued measures.\n(7)\nConsequently, the reasons which justified Decision 2006/601/EC no longer exist. That Decision should therefore be repealed.\n(8)\nMember States should nevertheless keep up monitoring, at an appropriate level of random testing, to verify the absence of rice products mixed with \u2018LL RICE 601\u2019 on the market. The results of this monitoring are to be rapidly communicated through the RASFF to the Commission which will evaluate whether further action is required.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2006/601/EC is repealed.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall ensure an appropriate level of random testing to verify the absence on the market of rice products containing, consisting of, or produced from the genetically modified \u2018LL RICE 601\u2019, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 June 2010.", "references": ["74", "46", "23", "13", "70", "5", "43", "29", "62", "53", "30", "58", "98", "78", "83", "73", "79", "63", "75", "55", "6", "41", "9", "18", "39", "47", "35", "40", "95", "32", "No Label", "20", "25", "38", "68", "72", "76", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "25", "38", "68", "72", "76", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 310/2012\nof 21 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1569/2007 establishing a mechanism for the determination of equivalence of accounting standards applied by third country issuers of securities pursuant to Directives 2003/71/EC and 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 20(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (2), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 23(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 23(4) of Directive 2004/109/EC requires the Commission to set up a mechanism for the determination of the equivalence of the information required under this Directive. The Commission is required to adopt measures to establish general equivalence criteria regarding accounting standards relevant to issuers of more than one country. Article 23(4) of Directive 2004/109/EC also requires the Commission to take decisions in relation to the equivalence of accounting standards used by third country issuers, and enables the Commission to allow the use of third country accounting standards during an appropriate transitional period. Given the close interconnection of the information required under Directive 2004/109/EC with the information required under Directive 2003/71/EC, it is appropriate that the same criteria for determination of equivalence apply in the framework of both Directives.\n(2)\nAccordingly, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1569/2007 (3) laid down the conditions for acceptance of third country accounting standards for a limited period expiring on 31 December 2011.\n(3)\nThe Commission evaluated the usefulness and functioning of the equivalence mechanism and concluded that it should be extended for a period of 3 years until 31 December 2014. Since the period for which the Commission had put in place conditions for granting equivalence to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) of third countries expired on 31 December 2011, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2012. This is necessary in order to provide legal certainty to issuers from the relevant third countries listed in the Union and avoid the risk that they might have to reconcile their financial statements with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The provision of retroactivity thus alleviates any potential additional burden on the issuers concerned.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that a determination of the equivalence of third country accounting standards is made in all cases that are relevant to the Union markets, the Commission should assess the equivalence of third country accounting standards either upon a request from the competent authority of a Member State or an authority responsible for accounting standards or market supervision of a third country, or on its own initiative. The Commission should consult the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) with regard to the technical aspects of the assessment of equivalence of the accounting standards in question. The Union issuers should also be permitted to use IFRS adopted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) in the third country concerned.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1569/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1569/2007 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 4\nConditions for the acceptance of third country accounting standards for a limited period\n1. Third country issuers may be permitted to use financial statements drawn up in accordance with the accounting standards of a third country in order to comply with obligations under Directive 2004/109/EC and, by derogation from Article 35(5) of Regulation (EC) No 809/2004, to provide historical financial information under that Regulation for a period commencing any time after 31 December 2008 and expiring no later than 31 December 2014 in the following cases:\n(a)\nthe third country authority responsible for the national accounting standards concerned has made a public commitment to converge these standards with International Financial Reporting Standards at the latest by 31 December 2014 and both the following conditions are met:\n(i)\nthe third country authority responsible for the national accounting standards concerned has established a convergence programme that is comprehensive and capable of being completed before 31 December 2014;\n(ii)\nthe convergence programme is effectively implemented, without delay, and the resources necessary for its completion are allocated to its implementation;\n(b)\nthe third country authority responsible for the national accounting standards concerned has made a public commitment to adopt International Financial Reporting Standards before 31 December 2014 and effective measures are taken in the third country to secure their timely and complete implementation by that date.\n2. Any decision under paragraph 1 to permit the continued acceptance of financial statements drawn up in accordance with the accounting standards of a third country shall be made in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24 of Directive 2003/71/EC and Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/109/EC.\n3. Where the Commission permits the continued acceptance of financial statements drawn up in accordance with the accounting standards of a third country in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall review regularly whether the conditions specified in point (a) or (b) (as the case may be) continue to be met, and shall report accordingly to the European Parliament.\n4. If the conditions in point (a) or (b) of paragraph 1 are no longer met, the Commission shall take a decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24 of Directive 2003/71/EC and Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/109/EC amending its decision under paragraph 1 in respect of these accounting standards.\n5. When complying with this Article, the Commission shall first consult ESMA on the convergence programme or the progress towards adoption of IFRS, as the case may be.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 December 2011.", "references": ["5", "94", "41", "70", "33", "96", "68", "28", "75", "23", "81", "67", "73", "47", "49", "95", "99", "52", "21", "55", "97", "92", "25", "6", "37", "82", "91", "83", "87", "71", "No Label", "4", "18", "30", "39", "76"], "gold": ["4", "18", "30", "39", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 25 January 2012\non the measure SA.14588 (C 20/09) implemented by Belgium in favour of De Post-La Poste (now bpost)\n(notified under document C(2012) 178)\n(Only the Dutch and French texts are authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/321/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) (1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,\nHaving called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (2) and having regard to their comments,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. COMMISSION DECISION OF 2003 ANNULLED BY THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE\n(1)\nOn 3 December 2002, the Belgian authorities notified (3) to the Commission an increase in the capital of De Post-La Poste (hereinafter \u2018DPLP\u2019, now \u2018bpost\u2019 (4)), the Belgian postal operator. Following a preliminary examination, the Commission decided on 23 July 2003 (5) not to object to the notified measure. The Commission found in its decision that the capital injection, together with other measures in favour of DPLP identified in the preliminary investigation, had not overcompensated DPLP for the net costs incurred in discharging its public service missions from 1992 to 2002.\n(2)\nThe Commission\u2019s decision was challenged before the Court of First Instance (CFI) on 27 November 2003 by Deutsche Post AG and its Belgian subsidiary, DHL International (6). On 10 February 2009, the CFI annulled the Commission\u2019s decision. The CFI concluded that the Commission had decided not to raise objections despite serious difficulties that should have led it to initiate a formal investigation procedure.\n(3)\nIn April 2009, Belgium lodged an appeal (7) (C-148/09) with the Court of Justice (ECJ) against the CFI\u2019s annulment of the Commission\u2019s decision of 23 July 2003.\n(4)\nOn 22 September 2011, the ECJ dismissed Belgium\u2019s appeal and found that the CFI was right to annul the 2003 Commission decision.\n1.2. COMPLAINT CONCERNING AID TO PRESS DISTRIBUTION\n(5)\nIn 2005, a number of Belgian private press distribution companies filed a complaint (8) under antitrust and State aid rules against a press distribution agreement concluded between the Belgian authorities and DPLP. The agreement entrusts DPLP with the public service mission of press distribution throughout Belgium, and fixes tariffs for this service and the compensation DPLP is entitled to receive for the extra costs incurred in fulfilling this mission. The complaint centres on the tariffs for DPLP\u2019s services, which the complainants claim are so low as to effectively exclude any possibility of competition.\n(6)\nIn respect of State aid rules, the Commission rejected the complaint, since the preliminary assessment showed that the net additional costs of the public service had not been overcompensated. However, in May 2009 the complainants contested this preliminary position, submitted additional information and asked the Commission to carry out an in-depth investigation.\n1.3. FOURTH MANAGEMENT CONTRACT (2005-2010)\n(7)\nWhen examining the complaint concerning the compensation for press distribution, the Commission learned that Belgium had entered into a management contract (\u2018contrat de gestion\u2019) with DPLP in 2005, which had not been notified and provided for the payment of compensation for services of general economic interest (SGEIs). The Commission therefore opened an ex-officio case (9) and sent a request for information to Belgium in April 2007.\n(8)\nIn December 2007, the Belgian authorities replied that they did not regard the SGEI compensation as State aid, since it fulfilled all four conditions set out in the Altmark judgment (10). They subsequently provided information on the fourth management contract, particularly with regard to the cost accounting system used to calculate the compensation paid by the State.\n(9)\nSubsequently, the measures covered by the ex-officio case and the complaints were included in formal investigation procedure C20/09 opened on 23 July 2009.\n1.4. DECISION TO INITIATE THE PROCEDURE\n(10)\nHaving regard to the Court of First Instance\u2019s annulment of the Commission\u2019s decision of 23 July 2003 and having examined the information supplied by the Belgian authorities on the measures in question, the Commission decided on 13 July 2009 to initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU (11).\n(11)\nThe Commission decision initiating the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union and the Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments.\n1.5. COMMENTS BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES ON THE DECISION TO INITIATE THE PROCEDURE\n(12)\nThe Belgian authorities submitted comments on 13 August 2009 and made further submissions on 10 September 2009, 12 October 2009, 23 April 2010, 26 April 2010, 19 October 2010, 19 November 2010, 21 December 2010, 18 January 2011, 17 February 2011, 2 March 2011, 29 March 2011, 11 April 2011, 10 May 2011, 27 May 2011, 14 June 2011, 10 August 2011, 26 August 2011, 7 October 2011, 14 December 2011, 19 December 2011, 20 December 2011 and 26 December 2011. They pointed out that they had lodged an appeal on 22 April 2009 against the CFI judgment of 10 February 2009 and provided clarifications regarding the compensation for the public services and other ad hoc measures in favour of DPLP.\n1.6. COMMENTS BY THIRD PARTIES ON THE DECISION TO INITIATE THE PROCEDURE AND COMMENTS FROM THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES ON THE COMMENTS BY THIRD PARTIES\n(13)\nDeutsche Post AG and DHL International NV/SA submitted comments on 28 August 2009.\n(14)\nThe Vlaamse Federatie van Persverspreiders (a Dutch-language association of press distributors, hereinafter \u2018VFP\u2019) and Prodipresse (Union des professionnels de la diffusion de la presse, a French-language association of press distributors) submitted comments on 28 August 2009.\n(15)\nBelgische Distributiedienst NV/Belgique Diffusion SA (a competitor of DPLP in the press distribution market, hereinafter \u2018BD\u2019) submitted comments on 28 August 2009.\n(16)\nThe Association Belge des Editeurs de Journaux/Belgische Vereniging van Dagbladuitgevers (Belgian association of newspaper publishers) submitted comments on 28 August 2009.\n2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID\n2.1. LEGAL STATUS AND OPERATIONS OF DPLP\n(17)\nThe Belgian Post Office was a State agency (\u2018R\u00e9gie des Postes\u2019) until 1992, when it was incorporated as a separate legal entity (\u2018enterprise publique autonome\u2019, autonomous public undertaking). In 2000, its legal status changed to \u2018soci\u00e9t\u00e9 anonyme de droit public\u2019 (State-owned public limited company).\n(18)\nDPLP\u2019s operating income in 2010 was EUR 2 318 million and its operating profit was EUR 319 million. At the end of 2010, DPLP employed 33 616 people. In comparison, in 2002, it had 42 000 staff. Staff costs represent 65 % of total operating costs.\n(19)\nA minority share of 50 % minus one share is held by the private investor CVC Capital Partners. The Belgian State is the majority shareholder.\n2.2. OVERVIEW OF THE RELEVANT PUBLIC MEASURES\n2.2.1. Public service missions during the period 1992-2010\n(20)\nDPLP was entrusted with public service missions by the Postal Law (12) and four successive management contracts during the whole period under investigation, i.e. from 1992 to 2010.\n2.2.1.1. Public service obligations set out in the management contracts\n(21)\nThe management contracts stipulate the rules and conditions for carrying out the tasks undertaken by DPLP as part of its public interest activities and fix the financial intervention of the Belgian State.\n(22)\nSince its incorporation in 1992, DPLP has signed four management contracts with the Belgian State, covering the following periods (13):\n(1)\nfirst contract: 14.9.1992-31.12.1996;\n(2)\nsecond contract: 1.1.1997-23.9.2002;\n(3)\nthird contract: 24.9.2002-23.9.2005;\n(4)\nfourth contract: 24.9.2005-23.9.2010, prolonged pending a new contract.\n(23)\nThe management contracts lay down the public service missions. The public service missions defined by the Belgian State in the current management contract are as follows (14):\nPostal services\n(i)\nUniversal postal service\n(ii)\nDistribution of daily newspapers\n(iii)\nDistribution of periodicals\n(iv)\nDistribution of electoral material\n(v)\nSpecial tariffs for non-profit associations\n(vi)\nMail exempt from postal charges (royal and other special correspondence)\n(vii)\nInternational postal services\n(viii)\nInternational parcels\nFinancial services\n(ix)\nCash deposits on post-office current accounts\n(x)\nIssuance of postal orders\n(xi)\nHome payment of retirement and survivors\u2019 pensions and disabled persons\u2019 allowances\n(xii)\nPayments of attendance fees at elections\n(xiii)\nAccounting of funds and documents of title for traffic penalties\n(xiv)\nFishing licenses\nSale of stamps\n(xv)\nSale of stamps\nOther public services\n(xvi)\nSocial role of the postman\n(xvii)\nAppropriate information to the public\n(xviii)\nPrinting and delivery of electronic mail\n(xix)\nMessage certification services\n(xx)\nServices carried out for State accountants\n(xxi)\nSale of revenue and penalty stamps\n(xxii)\nCooperation in the distribution of voting packages and ballot papers\n2.2.2. Public measures under investigation\n(24)\nDPLP was granted public support in the form of several different measures from 1992 to 2010:\n(1)\npension relief: after the 1997 pension reform, the State released DPLP from EUR 3,8 billion in accumulated pension liabilities;\n(2)\nannual compensation for the cost of discharging the public service obligation (15), amounting to EUR 5,2 billion over the period 1992-2010;\n(3)\ncapital injections: two in 1997 (EUR 62 million), one in 2003 (EUR 297,5 million) and one in 2006 (EUR 40 million);\n(4)\ntax exemptions: exemption from corporate tax, property tax and other indirect and local taxes;\n(5)\ntransfer of buildings: 63 buildings worth EUR 112,2 million were transferred to DPLP in 1992;\n(6)\nState guarantee provided in 2004 at a premium of 0,25 % for a EUR 100 million loan.\n2.2.2.1. Pension relief\n(25)\nIn 1992 the R\u00e9gie des Postes was transformed by law into an autonomous public undertaking (EPA) called \u2018De Post-La Poste\u2019. DPLP, as the legal successor of the R\u00e9gie des Postes, took over its assets and personnel. The transformation led to a major change in the business model:\n(1)\nDPLP was henceforth managed by its own board of directors and management committee, with the Government retaining only supervisory powers linked to compliance with the law and the management contract. In contrast, the R\u00e9gie des Postes had been managed by and under the authority and direction of the relevant minister (16);\n(2)\nin principle DPLP was responsible for balancing its own books, whereas previously the R\u00e9gie des Poste\u2019s annual budget had been drawn up by the relevant minister, who submitted it to Parliament for approval as an annex to his own department\u2019s budget.\n(26)\nThus, in 1992 DPLP took over responsibility for 43 747 civil servants and the associated legal protection they enjoyed with regard to job security, remuneration and pension entitlements (Article 33 of the Law of 21 March 1991).\n(27)\nIn 2008 DPLP still employed some 23 500 statutory agents (with a status similar to that of civil servants), representing about two thirds of its total workforce, as set out below.\nFigure 1\nEmployment regimes in DPLP\n(28)\nBetween 1972 and 1996 pensions were paid under a pay-as-you-go scheme. Under this scheme, DPLP reimbursed the State for pensions that the State paid to retired former civil servant employees (17) for pension rights they had accumulated since 1972, when the Belgian Post Office had become a separate accounting entity within the State (R\u00e9gie des Postes).\n(29)\nThe system of financing pensions remained unchanged until the 1997 pension reform. This reform aligned the first-pillar pension system for DPLP statutory personnel with the private sector system: from 1997 onwards DPLP had to pay a contribution towards pensions to the ONSS (Belgian national social security office) amounting to 8,86 % of salaries.\n(30)\nIn parallel, the State agreed to take over DPLP\u2019s accumulated pension liabilities amounting to EUR 3,8 billion.\n2.2.2.2. Annual compensation for the cost of discharging public service obligations\n(31)\nEach contract provided for the payment by the State of annual compensation for discharging the public service missions set out in that contract.\n(32)\nUnder the first three contracts, the compensation was calculated on the basis of the actual difference between the expenditure on public service missions and revenue from them. Under the fourth management contract a fixed amount of compensation is paid, based on the projected difference between the cost borne by DPLP and revenue generated from the use of the public services. This compensation is subject to a ceiling laid down in the management contracts (18).\n(33)\nUnder the current management contract (19), DPLP is entitled to receive compensation from the State for the following public services:\nPostal services\n(ii)\nDistribution of daily newspapers\n(iii)\nDistribution of periodicals\n(iv)\nDistribution of electoral material\n(v)\nSpecial tariffs for non-profit associations\n(vi)\nMail exempt from postal charges (royal and other special correspondence)\nFinancial services\n(ix)\nCash deposits on post-office current accounts\n(x)\nIssuance of postal orders\n(xi)\nHome payment of retirement and survivors\u2019 pensions and disabled persons\u2019 allowances\n(xiii)\nAccounting of funds and documents of title for traffic penalties\n(xiv)\nFishing licenses\nSale of stamps\n(xv)\nSale of stamps\nOther public services\n(xvi)\nSocial role of the postman\n(xx)\nServices carried out for State accountants\n(xxi)\nSale of revenue and penalty stamps\n(34)\nIt should be noted that the universal postal service was excluded from compensation under the last three management contracts (20). Although press distribution can generally be part of the universal service in accordance with Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (21), the specific missions (distribution of newspapers and periodicals) to be compensated under the management contracts have been defined by the Belgian authorities according to criteria that distinguish them from the universal postal service. These criteria are: (1) the objectives of the mission, which go beyond universal service objectives, (2) the specific conditions set out in the contracts and (3) the specific provisions on pricing, which differ from those pertaining to universal service pricing.\n(35)\nObjectives of the mission: the Belgian authorities consider it particularly important to ensure a wide distribution of the written press throughout Belgium in order to enhance the level of information and diversity of opinion, and to foster public participation in the political debate.\n(36)\nSpecific operational conditions are set out in the contract: the specific press distribution service giving rise to compensation imposed on DPLP goes beyond the conventional distribution service included in the universal service. It is subject to a set of stringent quality and performance requirements in terms of time of delivery (e.g. before 07:30), frequency, delivery options for publishers, flexibility for publishers as regards volume, and continuity of service (including a narrow definition of force majeure).\n(37)\nSpecific pricing: the tariffs of the press distribution mission giving rise to compensation are fixed in tripartite negotiations (Belgian State/DPLP/press sector) and, unlike the universal public service tariffs, do not require the approval of the regulator. While the universal public service tariffs are geared to costs, the tariffs of the specific press distribution mission giving rise to compensation are much lower, so that the specific objectives of the mission can be attained.\n(38)\nThe public services mentioned in recital 33 are covered by public service compensation. The public service compensation actually paid in each financial year is as follows:\nFirst management contract\nYear\nAmount (EUR)\n1992 (22)\n91 720 000\n1993\n351 327 000\n1994\n322 138 000\n1995\n368 308 000\n1996\n314 205 000\nSecond management contract\nYear\nAmount (EUR)\n1997\n208 934 000\n1998\n228 629 000\n1999\n213 788 000\n2000\n216 282 000\n2001\n224 269 000\n2002\n194 559 000\nThird management contract\nYear\nAmount (EUR)\n2003\n175 554 000\n2004\n247 606 000\n2005\n254 825 000\nFourth management contract\nYear\nAmount (EUR)\n2006\n299 729 000\n2007\n306 396 000\n2008\n315 683 000\n2009\n321 244 000\n2010\n325 735 000\n2.2.2.3. Capital injections\n(39)\nInjections in 1997: DPLP received two non-notified capital injections amounting to EUR 62 million. However, the Belgian authorities subsequently stated that these funds in fact constituted delayed public service compensation, which had not been paid to DPLP on time.\n(40)\nInjection in 2003: the Belgian authorities injected into DPLP capital of EUR 297,5 million. They claim that this injection was made on market economy investor terms and, therefore, according to the market economy investor principle (MEIP), does not constitute State aid.\n(41)\nInjection in 2006: the Belgian authorities made a new capital injection of EUR 40 million. They claim that this injection was in line with the MEIP, having been made on terms identical to those applying to a private investor (pari passu).\n2.2.2.4. Tax exemptions\n(42)\nUntil 31 December 2005, DPLP was exempt from corporate tax.\n(43)\nThroughout the period under investigation, DPLP was exempt from property tax on the buildings used for public services tasks. The annual advantage varied between EUR [\u2026] (23) and EUR [\u2026]. If this tax had been paid the cost of the products (both public service and commercial) supplied in these buildings would have been proportionally higher.\n(44)\nDPLP is also exempt from other indirect and local taxes. The Belgian authorities are not able to estimate the exact value of the advantage but they claim that the measure falls under the de minimis rules.\n(45)\nThe tax exemptions predate the entry into force of the EEC Treaty in 1958 and have continued to exist without material alteration. While the corporate tax exemption was brought to an end on 31 December 2005, the two other measures still apply.\n2.2.2.5. Transfer of buildings\n(46)\nIn 1992 the Belgian State transferred 63 buildings (24) to DPLP free of charge. The buildings were already being used by DPLP although legally they belonged to the State. The total value of the buildings was estimated at EUR 112,2 million (25). These buildings were distinct from and additional to the original assets, which had been separated from the State property when the Post Office became a separate State agency (R\u00e9gie des Postes) in 1971. The R\u00e9gie des Postes was already the legal owner of the assets that had been included in its balance sheet. By contrast the additional buildings transferred in 1992 were supposed to compensate for the remaining pension burden on DPLP when it changed its status from a State agency to an autonomous public undertaking.\n(47)\nThe Belgian authorities claim that the transfer of buildings was merely part of an internal reorganisation of State property and did not constitute an advantage. They argue that the buildings had already been used by the Belgian Post Office before the incorporation of DPLP in 1992 (i.e. they had been already used by the State agency).\n2.2.2.6. State guarantee\n(48)\nDPLP was given the option of requesting a State guarantee for its loans at a premium of 0,25 %.\n(49)\nIn the period under investigation, the guarantee was used only once for a loan of EUR 100 million from the European Investment Bank (EIB). The agreement signed between DPLP and the EIB on 22 December 2004 enabled DPLP to use the EIB credit facility until 10 June 2008. Making use of this facility, DPLP requested EUR 100 million on 8 November 2007, which it received on 5 December 2007. DPLP undertook to reimburse the loan in 11 equal annual instalments of approximately EUR 9,09 million. The first instalment is due on 5 December 2012 and the last on 5 December 2022. Interest is payable quarterly (5 December, 5 March, 5 June, 5 September). The interest rate is calculated on the basis of the three-month Euribor minus 37 basis points.\n3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE IN 2009\n(50)\nOn the basis of the Altmark judgment (26), the Commission took the view that the public service compensation paid since 1992, as well as the tax exemptions, capital injections, State guarantee and transfer of buildings referred to above, may have constituted aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(51)\nState aid in the form of compensation for costs linked to universal service obligations may be declared compatible under Article 106(2) TFEU if it is necessary to the operation of the services and does not affect the development of trade to an extent that would be contrary to the interests of the European Union.\n(52)\nIn the 2009 decision initiating the procedure, the Commission expressed doubts about whether the aid measures granted to DPLP were necessary for the fulfilment of the public service missions and proportional to that end.\n(53)\nAs regards the calculation of overcompensation pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU, the Commission took the view that all revenue and costs linked to the public service obligations had be taken into account in verifying the absence of overcompensation for the public service missions. This calculation would include verifying the soundness of the accounting methodology used to determine the costs attributable to the SGEIs, and taking into account all net costs of the public service, as well as additional aid granted in any form whatsoever.\n(54)\nIn respect of the public financing of civil servants\u2019 pensions, the Commission expressed doubts regarding the extent to which the release from pension obligations placed DPLP in a comparable situation to its competitors as regards social security contributions.\n(55)\nIn line with the approach taken in the Commission Decision on the public financing of pension costs for civil servants working for the French Post Office (27), it was appropriate to examine whether the measure was compatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and, to this effect, to establish the extent to which the social security costs paid by DPLP after it was released from its liabilities were comparable to those of its competitors.\n4. COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES\n4.1. COMMENTS BY VFP AND PRODIPRESSE\n(56)\nOn 28 August 2009 VFP and Prodipresse submitted their comments concerning the press distribution scheme operated by DPLP.\n(57)\nIn line with their previous complaint, VFP and Prodipresse highlighted the distortion of competition arising from the low tariffs offered by DPLP for press distribution, which made it impossible for other operators to compete in the market.\n(58)\nAccording to their submission, DPLP\u2019s prices were fixed in tripartite negotiations between DPLP, publishers and the State. The losses incurred by DPLP as a result of these below-market prices are, they claim, covered by the State as part of the SGEI compensation. While DPLP is the direct beneficiary of this aid, the newspaper publishers also benefit from it indirectly.\n(59)\nVFP and Prodipresse suspect that DPLP may be overcompensated for the press distribution scheme and may be using the excess compensation to finance its other activities.\n4.2. COMMENTS BY THE ASSOCIATION BELGE DES EDITEURS DE JOURNAUX/BELGISCHE VERENIGING VAN DAGBLADUITGEVERS\n(60)\nOn 28 August 2009, the Association Belge des Editeurs de Journaux/Belgische Vereniging van Dagbladuitgevers submitted comments, in which it underlined the importance, in terms of democracy and equality, of an efficient newspaper distribution system throughout Belgium, at uniform and affordable prices, so that subscribers can receive their newspapers early in the morning.\n4.3. COMMENTS BY DEUTSCHE POST AG AND DHL INTERNATIONAL\n(61)\nOn 28 August 2009, Deutsche Post AG and DHL International submitted their comments. The submission highlighted the need to examine the pension relief granted to DPLP, in particular to ensure that it was in line with previous practice, verify the market conformity of the capital injections, check that the allocation of costs complied with the Chronopost judgment, and examine the transfer of buildings.\n4.4. COMMENTS BY BELGISCHE DISTRIBUTIEDIENST NV/BELGIQUE DIFFUSION SA\n(62)\nOn 28 August 2009, Belgische Distributiedienst NV/Belgique Diffusion SA (\u2018BD\u2019), part of the TNT group, submitted its comments. BD competes against DPLP and particularly its press-distribution subsidiary, Deltamedia, in the market for the distribution of newspapers and periodicals. In line with its earlier complaint, BD underlined DPLP\u2019s below-cost pricing of newspaper distribution. It claimed that the losses incurred by DPLP were financed by public subsidies and that the low prices made it difficult to compete against DPLP.\n(63)\nBD alleged that DPLP had breached Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (28), and Article 7 of Directive 97/67/EC. It also mooted the existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and questioned the compatibility of compensation for costs linked to SGEIs pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU.\n(64)\nBD questioned whether the distribution of newspapers could be qualified as an SGEI, since in most Member States this activity is open to competition and does not involve the postal operator.\n(65)\nBD also questioned whether a subsidy reserved exclusively for the postal operator was the most appropriate way to support the distribution of newspapers, as opposed to granting aid to publishers, who could then purchase the distribution services on the open market, thereby allowing competition between different providers.\n(66)\nEven if approval were given for entrusting the distribution of newspapers to DPLP, BD questioned whether the costs were necessary. According to BD, DPLP\u2019s costs are significantly higher than those of other operators, which increases the level of subsidies required. In this regard, the subsidies were neither proportionate nor justified.\n(67)\nFinally, BD suspects that the costs incurred by DPLP that are borne by the State could include investment costs that are not necessary for supplying the SGEI, since DPLP may have used the infrastructure in place for other services. The marketing campaigns for commercial products may also have been financed through the State subsidy.\n5. COMMENTS BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES\n5.1. COMMENTS BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES ON THE PENSION RELIEF\n(68)\nThe Belgian authorities claim that, following the approach adopted in the Combus judgment (29), the release from pension liabilities does not constitute State aid since it relieves the Belgian Post Office of an abnormal burden, which would not normally be borne from an undertaking\u2019s budget.\n(69)\nSuch an abnormal burden results from higher payroll costs associated with statutory personnel and operational rigidities, which prevent DPLP from reducing the share of civil servants in its workforce as much as it would like.\n(70)\nThe Belgian authorities identify three sources of rigidity:\n(1)\njob security for civil servants;\n(2)\nno internal mobility;\n(3)\nno access to temporary lay-offs.\n(71)\nJob security for civil servants: DPLP claims that its statutory personnel have de facto permanent employment contracts. DPLP is unable to terminate the employment of statutory personnel except for serious reasons or consistently poor performance. Even in these circumstances, the dismissal procedure is subject to particularly onerous requirements.\n(72)\nMoreover, the Belgian Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat (administrative court which has jurisdiction over statutory personnel whereas labour courts are competent for contractual personnel) has shown a tendency to favour statutory personnel by setting a strict standard for establishing \u2018good cause\u2019. As a result, DPLP is unable to dismiss statutory personnel, whether individually or collectively, on economic or technical grounds.\n(73)\nAccordingly, termination of employment is not a management tool for adjusting staffing to actual operational needs. Also, the impossibility of dismissal for economic reasons significantly limits DPLP\u2019s leverage to address such issues as inadequate mobility and above-market salaries and benefits of statutory personnel. Furthermore, statutory personnel are not entitled to transfer automatically to the public administration, nor can DPLP impose such a transfer.\n(74)\nThis means that a reduction in the number of DPLP\u2019s statutory personnel is essentially limited to voluntary departures, which are insignificant in number, and to natural wastage.\n(75)\nNo internal mobility: in addition to its inability to reduce the number of statutory personnel in areas where the demand for their services has diminished, DPLP\u2019s ability to reallocate statutory personnel within its organisation according to business needs is subject to severe constraints.\n(76)\nOn account of factors such as language group, qualifications, seniority level and functional classification, DPLP is largely unable to move statutory personnel from areas in which staffing needs are diminishing, e.g. as a result of the decline in the volume of the traditional mail business, to areas which are understaffed, inter alia, because of retirement or increased demand.\n(77)\nIn other words, as a result of the rigidities of their status, DPLP is largely unable to reallocate statutory personnel according to its needs or to address a mismatch between overstaffed and understaffed activity segments. Paradoxically, to meet needs in understaffed areas, DPLP needs to hire interim or contractual personnel, while keeping on its payroll excess statutory personnel in overstaffed areas.\n(78)\nNo access to temporary lay-offs: in addition, DPLP cannot temporarily lay off statutory personnel like private-sector operators can in case of shortage of work.\n(79)\nHigher payroll costs: when the R\u00e9gie des Postes became an autonomous public undertaking in 1992 and was renamed DPLP, the statutory personnel had significantly higher salaries and benefits than contractual personnel in the private sector. Since 1992, automatic seniority-linked salary increases and a strong union bargaining position have helped to keep salaries and benefits at their comparatively higher levels.\n(80)\nIn addition to higher salaries and benefits compared with contractual personnel, statutory employees are entitled to between 4 and 11 additional days of paid leave (30), giving rise to an additional cost to DPLP. These features of statutory personnel have made it difficult for DPLP to manage its unit staff cost, which is substantially higher than that of contractual employees in the private sector.\n(81)\nSince taking over the statutory personnel of the R\u00e9gie des Postes in 1992, the DPLP management has recognised that these staff, with their significantly higher payroll costs and operational rigidities, represented a structural handicap that was increasingly difficult to bear as postal market liberalisation progressed. Accordingly, DPLP stopped hiring statutory workers in 1998. Attrition, predominantly through retirement, then reduced these staff in absolute numbers to 23 538 in 2008.\n(82)\nAs the reduction in the number of statutory personnel is primarily dependent on the natural attrition rate in the context of the existing age pyramid, its progress has been slow and is likely to remain so until 2030, long after full liberalisation of the postal market, as portrayed below.\nFigure 2\nEvolution of DPLP\u2019s statutory workforce\n(83)\nThe Belgian authorities therefore consider that DPLP\u2019s statutory personnel represents a serious operational and cost handicap vis-\u00e0-vis private operators, and that the State has relieved DPLP of an abnormal burden not borne by its competitors.\n(84)\nThey claim that the measure does not constitute State aid and, therefore, the approach adopted by the Commission in the decision initiating the procedure, in conformity with previous pension scheme cases (EDF (31), La Poste (France) (32), Royal Mail (33)), is not necessary in the case of DPLP.\n(85)\nHowever, the Belgian authorities claim that, if such a method were applied to DPLP, it would lead to the conclusion that the share of social security costs, as a percentage of wage costs, borne by DPLP is the same as that of its competitors.\n5.2. COMMENTS BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES ON THE ANNUAL COMPENSATION FOR PUBLIC SERVICE COSTS\n(86)\nThe Belgian authorities submitted DPLP\u2019s accounting data (34) and described the principles of its cost accounting system.\n(87)\nThe Belgian authorities claim, first of all, that the annual public service compensation does not constitute aid since it complies with the Altmark judgment.\n(88)\nSecondly, the Belgian authorities argue that, if the public service compensation were aid, it would be compatible since it does not overcompensate DPLP for the net costs it incurs when discharging its public service missions. They claim that the calculations they have presented show that DPLP is undercompensated for the costs it incurs.\n(89)\nLastly, the Belgian authorities point out that some of the measures constitute existing aid. See section on existing aid (recitals 224 et seq.).\n5.3. COMMENTS BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES ON THE CAPITAL INJECTIONS\n5.3.1. Capital injections in 1997\n(90)\nIn a letter to the Commission dated 12 August 2009, the Belgian authorities indicate that the 1997 capital injections totalling EUR 62 million should be considered deferred compensation for public service obligations.\n5.3.2. Capital injections in 2003 and 2006\n(91)\nAccording to the Belgian authorities, the 2003 and 2006 capital increases were both made on the basis of a strategic plan (35) whose ultimate goal was to enhance the company\u2019s competitiveness and profitability in the context of the progressive liberalisation of the postal market.\n(92)\nThe strategic plan had two main objectives:\n(1)\nimproving productivity to ensure competitiveness and profitability in a more liberalised market environment;\n(2)\nmoving DPLP towards market logic by opening up its share capital to private investors, in other words achieving and maintaining the requisite levels of return to attract private investors and unlocking the company\u2019s potential in terms of profitability.\n(93)\n2003 capital injection: according to the Belgian authorities, the 2003 capital increase was aimed at strengthening DPLP\u2019s equity capital with regard to the major financing commitments it had undertaken, in particular for the construction of four new sorting centres and the upgrade of an existing one, the optimisation of mail distribution routes and automation.\n(94)\nMoreover, the Belgian authorities argue that the funds injected also covered personnel costs arising from a reduction in the number of employees as a result of an early retirement scheme, a reduction in working time and an increase in the salaries of new postal workers.\n(95)\nThese measures offered a reasonable assurance of increasing profitability over the period 2003-2007 to the levels expected by private investors. Thus, when it decided to make an equity investment, the Belgian State as the sole shareholder in DPLP in 2003 was guided by the prospect of profitability, in full compliance with the MEIP.\n(96)\nOn 5 August 2009 the Belgian authorities further argued that the profitability forecasts showed that the capital injection was in line with the MEIP, because the expected level of return was above what a private investor would have required. These forecasts were not unrealistic since actual profitability between 2003 and 2008 had been consistently above predicted profitability.\n(97)\nThe Belgian authorities have clarified that there is no link between the 2003 capital injection and the 2005 cancellation of receivables from the State in DPLP\u2019s accounts. The cancellation, which took place at a different time, was a normal accounting operation, since the State had clearly indicated that those receivables were not going to be paid to DPLP. The final amounts cancelled in the 2005 balance sheet clean-up were different from the amounts of capital injection in 2003 and accumulated losses at the end of 2002.\n(98)\n2006 capital injection: the Belgian authorities claim that this injection complied with the MEIP because it was made under the same terms as applied to a private investor (pari passu), namely Post Invest Europe SA, which invested EUR 300 million. New shares were issued to both the State and the private investor. As a result, the new investor obtained 50 % minus one share, while the State retained 50 % plus one share (36).\n(99)\nIn order to determine the price of the new shares issued, the investment bank hired by the Belgian authorities estimated DPLP\u2019s total value at between EUR [\u2026] and EUR [\u2026]. The State finally opted for a valuation of EUR [\u2026] for the entire company before the capital injections. The Belgian authorities acknowledge that DPLP\u2019s subsequent performance has exceeded the assumptions made at the time of the valuation.\n(100)\nAccording to the Belgian authorities, the implementation of the strategic plan made DPLP one of the most efficient operators in Europe. It achieved significant improvements in profitability, efficiency (37) and quality, while maintaining prices to customers at an affordable level.\n5.4. COMMENTS BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES ON THE TAX EXEMPTIONS\n(101)\nIn their submission of 12 August 2009, the Belgian authorities acknowledge that DPLP was not subject to a corporate tax regime, but to a tax on profits (i.e. a tax on legal persons) until 27 December 2005. They nonetheless claim that during the period 2003-2005, DPLP did not benefit from this tax regime because, if it had been subject to corporate tax, it would have been able to carry over past losses, and would not have had to pay corporate tax during that period.\n(102)\nIn addition it is claimed that DPLP had to pay taxes on profits in the order of EUR 2 million during the period 2003-2005.\n(103)\nFrom the fiscal year 2006, DPLP paid corporate taxes without being able to carry over past losses. The Belgian authorities estimate the foregone tax credit up to that time at EUR 51,87 million.\n(104)\nFor these reasons, they conclude that DPLP did not obtain a net benefit from the corporate tax exemption before 2006.\n(105)\nThe Belgian authorities specify that DPLP is exempt from property tax on the revenue from property used to supply a public interest service.\n(106)\nThe Belgian authorities have estimated the net advantage enjoyed by DPLP and argue that it is only a fraction of the additional costs DPLP incurs as a result of its obligation to maintain a postal network with a strictly defined territorial density, which is not compensated in any other way.\n(107)\nThe Belgian authorities explain that DPLP benefits from certain exemptions from indirect and local taxes. They argue that the net effect of these exemptions is de minimis.\n5.5. COMMENTS BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES ON THE TRANSFER OF BUILDINGS\n(108)\nIn their submission of 12 August 2009 the Belgian authorities confirm that a number of buildings were transferred to DPLP when it was transformed into an autonomous public undertaking. These were buildings that DPLP had been using since 1971 and were necessary for discharging its postal service mission.\n(109)\nThe Belgian authorities argue that the transfer of these buildings did not confer any advantage on DPLP since it was already using them for its public service mission. In other words, it was merely a reorganisation of public property.\n5.6. COMMENTS BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES ON THE STATE GUARANTEE FOR LOANS\n(110)\nIn their submission of 12 August 2009 the Belgian authorities claim that DPLP does not automatically benefit from a State guarantee for loans. If DPLP requested such a guarantee, the Belgian authorities would have to give their approval and DPLP would have to pay an annual premium of 0,25 % to the State Treasury.\n(111)\nDuring the period under consideration, DPLP only once resorted to a State guarantee.\n(112)\nThe Belgian authorities consider a premium of 0,25 % appropriate given DPLP\u2019s financial position and the remote possibility of its failing to repay. Moreover, they estimate that the market rate for a similar loan without the State guarantee would have been up to 40 basis points higher.\n5.7. COMMENTS BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES ON THE INTERESTED PARTIES\u2019 COMMENTS\n(113)\nIn their submission of 12 October 2009, the Belgian authorities argue that only the comments by BD and FVP/Prodipresse contain specific critical elements. These elements mainly concern the early distribution of newspapers and periodicals.\n(114)\nThe Belgian authorities argue that, contrary to BD\u2019s remarks, the award of non-reserved postal services (such as press distribution) does not fall within the scope of EU public procurement rules (Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (38)).\n(115)\nIn addition, the Belgian authorities argue that the distribution of newspapers and periodicals, which constitutes an SGEI, does not violate EU provisions on the liberalisation of the postal market.\n(116)\nThe Belgian authorities also point out that the award decision was not arbitrary. They claim that DPLP is the only company that fulfils the conditions and obligations imposed on the provider of such services.\n(117)\nThe Belgian authorities argue that, contrary to BD\u2019s claims, during the period 2002-2008 DPLP did not benefit from overcompensation for the costs linked to the supply of its newspaper and periodical distribution service.\n(118)\nThe Belgian authorities do not agree with the claim made by FVP/Prodipresse that DPLP exaggerated the investments and additional costs related to increasing national early morning coverage from 82 % to 100 %. Since the 18 % concerned mainly remote areas, DPLP\u2019s personnel costs increased disproportionately and it had to acquire long-haul vehicles with large depreciation costs.\n(119)\nLastly, the Belgian authorities argue that the costs of the publicity campaign have not been taken into account in the calculation of the State compensation which DPLP received for early morning press distribution.\n(120)\nBD claims that DPLP is manifestly cost inefficient. The Belgian authorities contest this argument by emphasising that it does not fully take into account the considerable additional costs related to early press delivery and overlooks major efforts by DPLP to control its costs and increase its productivity.\n(121)\nAs BD affirms, Deltamedia\u2019s costs are lower than those of DPLP. According to the Belgian authorities this is because of the following factors:\n(a)\nDeltamedia does not provide national coverage;\n(b)\nDeltamedia works with independent distributors;\n(c)\nthe service provided by Deltamedia is simplified since it only operates with a limited number of publishers associated with one newspaper group;\n(d)\nthe publishers deliver the newspapers immediately to the distribution points.\n5.8. COMMENTS BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES ON EXISTING AID\n(122)\nIn their submission of 21 December 2010, the Belgian authorities claim that certain of the measures under investigation constitute existing aid.\n(123)\nFirstly, the Belgian authorities claim that the tax exemptions enjoyed by DPLP predate Belgium\u2019s accession to the European Union and therefore constitute existing aid.\n(124)\nSecondly, the Belgian authorities argue that the annual subsidy paid to DPLP dates from before 1999, i.e. before the liberalisation of the postal market and therefore constitutes existing aid. Similarly, the capital injections made before 1999, if they constituted State aid, should not be considered existing aid.\n(125)\nThirdly, on account of the 10-year limitation period, the Belgian authorities claim that all measures taken before 13 July 1999 (10 years before the opening of the current formal investigation) constitute existing aid because an earlier CFI annulment would have annulled also all previous investigative acts of the Commission. However, they argue that, because the first investigative act of the Commission took place in December 2002, measures before December 1992 should be left outside the scope of the investigation. This concerns the transfer of buildings and the first annual subsidy paid in 1992.\n6. ASSESSMENT\n6.1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON DPLP\u2019S COST ACCOUNTING SYSTEM\n(126)\nArticle 14 of Directive 97/67/EC as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (39) (the third postal Directive) requires postal operators to have a cost accounting system which clearly distinguishes between services and products that are part of the universal service and those which are not. The accounting system must assign direct costs directly to the products and must allocate common costs directly or indirectly, and in particular allocate appropriately those common costs that are necessary for both universal and non-universal services. DPLP\u2019s cost accounting is an activity-based costing (ABC) methodology, which allocates all operational costs, up to the level of earnings before interest and tax (EBIT), to the various products, in line with the fully distributed costing (FDC) method. The scope of the cost accounting includes all operating costs and all organisational units of DPLP. In 2009 commercial products made up [\u2026]% of DPLP\u2019s turnover, while public service products accounted for [\u2026]%.\n(127)\nThe cost accounting methodology has three layers: resources, activities and products. The aim is to calculate the share of costs attributable to each product.\n(128)\nCosts are divided into 398 different types and 3 954 responsibility centres. For accounting purposes, these are further grouped into 34 resource pools and 108 code groups. There are 986 different activities.\n(129)\nThe costs of the resources are allocated to activities depending on their nature: \u2018direct resources\u2019 are directly associated with a specific activity, while \u2018indirect resources\u2019 contribute to several activities and need to be allocated using allocation keys that reflect the degree to which the resource is used by each activity. Finally the global contribution to the activity includes the overheads that cannot be allocated to specific activities, so they are attributed evenly to all products on a cost-plus basis.\n(130)\nThe 986 different activities constitute the building blocks of each product\u2019s value chain. A share of the costs of an activity is allocated to products in accordance with the usage of the activity in each product. Costs of non-operational activities are first allocated to the operational activities which contribute directly to the products.\n(131)\nAt the last stage of the procedure, the costs of the activities are finally allocated to each product in accordance with an allocation key, which is typically based on volume. In other words, all products that use an activity bear a share of the costs of that activity proportional to their volume of usage of that activity.\n(132)\nThe Commission considers that the cost accounting method currently used by DPLP is sound as it correctly allocates all costs with a sufficient level of adequacy. The Commission notes, however, that, as DPLP has developed the methodology over time, it can be assumed that the accounting data from the early part of the period under investigation, although globally reliable, do not have the same level of detail as the data from the current accounting system.\n(133)\nIn March 2011 the Belgian authorities presented to the Commission a retroactive modification of DPLP\u2019s cost accounting methodology with a view to adjusting the allocation of certain costs between commercial activities and public service activities. The modification contemplated by the Belgian authorities concerns the last stage of cost allocation, when products are charged costs in proportion to their volume of usage of each activity.\n(134)\nThe modification alters the method of allocating operating costs to products that DPLP has used up to now. Under such a revision, some costs linked to commercial products would be shifted to the public service sphere, thereby increasing the cost base of public services. As a result, the public services would be allocated on average EUR [\u2026] per year of the costs currently allocated to commercial products. The other parts of the cost accounting methodology would remain unchanged.\n(135)\nThe Belgian authorities claim that the costs of some activities are by their nature fixed at a certain level, which is determined by public service needs. In other words, the costs of such activities used for public service purposes would remain unchanged even if no commercial products used those activities. To the extent that a commercial product has not caused the activity, even if it uses the activity, the product should not bear the operational cost of that activity.\n(136)\nWhile the Belgian authorities argue that the revised methodology is compatible with Directive 97/67/EC, the Chronopost judgment (40) and the Community framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (41) (hereinafter \u2018SGEI Framework\u2019) because it allocates to products both directly attributable costs and a share of common costs, and better reflects the real costs of the public service obligations, the Commission considers that there are formal, economic and legal grounds not to accept the new claims.\n(137)\nFrom a formal point of view, the proposed methodology is not actually being used in DPLP\u2019s internal accounting, rather it is an ex-post modification of past data. The revised method has not been approved by the regulator as a basis for tariff-setting, nor is it being used by the State to calculate the SGEI compensation. The revised method therefore appears to be a theoretical depiction produced for the purposes of this State aid procedure. From an economic point of view, it cannot be assumed, in terms of internal transfer pricing, that the commercial products would not need to bear any share of the costs of the resources they use (e.g. under this method the commercial products would not contribute to the costs of delivery rounds by postmen even though those postmen also deliver commercial products). Finally, in legal terms, such a change does not appear to comply with Article 14(3)(b)(iv) of Directive 97/67/EC, the Chronopost judgment (42) or the 2005 SGEI Framework (43), which all require commercial activities to be charged an appropriate share of common costs.\n(138)\nConsequently, the Commission will not rely in its assessment on the modified accounts, but will instead use the cost accounting data validated, in accordance with Directive 97/67/EC, by the Belgian institute of postal and telecoms services (IBPT/BIPT, the Belgian postal regulator (44)), which were submitted previously and are based on the cost accounting method officially used by DPLP.\n6.2. ASSESSMENT OF THE PENSION RELIEF\n6.2.1. Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU\n(139)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU states: \u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market\u2019.\n(140)\nIn order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, four cumulative conditions must be met. The measure must:\n(i)\nconfer an advantage on the beneficiary;\n(ii)\ndistort or threaten to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings;\n(iii)\nbe taken by the State or involve State resources;\n(iv)\nbe capable of affecting trade between Member States.\n6.2.1.1. Advantage and selectivity\n(141)\nFollowing the approach adopted in the Combus judgment (45), the Belgian authorities claim that the pension liabilities constituted an abnormal burden, which competitors were not required to finance and, therefore, the relief from the State does not constitute aid.\n(142)\nTheir main argument is that, because of the rigidities of the status of statutory personnel, it was not possible for DPLP to reduce the share of this category of personnel among its workforce even though it was much more costly than a hypothetical workforce consisting of employees with less favourable contracts.\n(143)\nIn general, it should first be recalled that the Combus judgment has not been confirmed by the Court of Justice. On the contrary, the Court\u2019s case law contradicts the assumption that compensation for a structural disadvantage would rule out any classification as aid. For instance, the Court has consistently ruled that the existence of aid is to be assessed in relation to the effects and not the causes or objectives of state intervention (46). It has also maintained that the concept of aid covers advantages granted by the public authorities that, in various forms, mitigate the charges normally included in the budget of an undertaking (47).\n(144)\nIt has also indicated that the costs linked to employee pay naturally place a burden on the budgets of undertakings, irrespective of whether or not those costs stem from legal obligations or collective agreements (48). In this connection, it has ruled that State measures aimed at compensating for additional costs cannot exclude them from being qualified as aid (49).\n(145)\nIn addition, it can be observed that the competitive background in which Combus was operating differed from that of DPLP. Combus had to conduct its transport business on a commercial basis and operate under market conditions of competition comparable to those for private bus companies. After a tendering procedure, public transport companies divest their bus transport operations to private and public undertakings. Under the tendering rules, the contracts are awarded to the \u2018economically most advantageous bid\u2019, irrespective of the private or public nature of the tenderer. For the whole period under assessment, DPLP had a wide-ranging monopoly, in which economic constraints operated completely differently. In addition, unlike in Combus, in the present case Belgium has not adopted any legislative provision aimed at abolishing or adapting the special employment arrangements for civil servants working for DPLP or the way in which they acquire pension rights.\n(146)\nTherefore, the Commission considers that the factual differences between the Combus case and the case at issue justify a different conclusion in the present case.\n(147)\nIn order to ascertain whether the measures under scrutiny contain elements of State aid, it needs to be determined whether they confer an economic advantage on DPLP in that they allow it to avoid costs that would normally have had to be borne by its own financial resources and have thus prevented market forces from producing their normal effect. Aid consists in the mitigation of charges normally included in an undertaking\u2019s budget, taking account of the nature or general scheme of the system of charges in question. Conversely, it could potentially be possible to define a concept of \u2018special charge\u2019, which would consist in an additional charge over and above those normal charges. The withdrawal of such a special charge by way of a legislative provision would not grant any advantage to the beneficiary and would not, therefore, constitute State aid.\n(148)\nIn line with the Court\u2019s case law on selectivity analysis, which involves a comparison with a reference framework in order to determine whether or not differential treatment of certain undertakings and products is in conformity with the \u2018nature or general scheme of the system\u2019, the question as to whether a charge is \u2018normal\u2019 or \u2018special\u2019 in what is, from a structural viewpoint, a normal market situation has to be based on a reference framework or comparator with a view to identifying undertakings which would be in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the measures in question.\n(149)\nHowever, it does not appear possible to identify an exogenous comparator that would make it possible to define a \u2018normal\u2019 contribution for undertakings in a legal and factual situation comparable to that of DPLP in the light of the objective pursued by the measure under review. In particular DPLP\u2019s competitors are private-law companies operating on competitive markets, whereas DPLP benefited from a statutory monopoly during the period under assessment before full liberalisation in 2011.\n(150)\nIn determining the existence of an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, the Commission should, therefore, examine DPLP\u2019s situation and compare social security contributions before and after the pension relief.\n(151)\nFollowing the law of 6 July 1971 and until the pension reform of 1997, DPLP bore all pension costs and social liabilities for its civil servant employees. In these circumstances, the Commission takes the view that these costs are part of the normal costs DPLP had to meet from its own resources, taking into consideration its legal and factual position in the Belgian postal market.\n(152)\nSince the 1997 pension relief under review relieved DPLP of costs that would normally have had to be financed from its own financial resources, the measures in question confer on the operator an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\n(153)\nThe advantage in question is selective since it concerns only DPLP.\n6.2.1.2. State resources\n(154)\nThe pension relief was financed by the State, which took over DPLP\u2019s pension responsibilities.\n(155)\nSince the State pays the pension of DPLP retired personnel directly from the State budget, State resources are clearly involved.\n6.2.1.3. Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States\n(156)\nThe measures described above are capable of affecting trade between Member States, given that DPLP operates in markets that are open to competition, such as parcel services, and where there is significant cross-border trading. In the parcel market DPLP faces competition from undertakings with activities in other Member States, such as UPS, FedEx and TNT Express. DPLP also operates in the press distribution market, a market in which companies from other Member States are active or can become active. Parcel distribution has never been entirely reserved for DPLP, and other undertakings already provided some parcel delivery services (50) and other specific postal services at the beginning of the 1990s (51). DPLP is also active in the financial services sector (post office current and savings accounts and payment services), where it competes with operators offering financial products, such as banks and financial operators. The post office current and savings accounts, which are used for both payment and savings purposes, are in competition with bank current accounts and savings products. The banking sector was already open to competition before 1992 and has been characterised by extensive trade between Member States. Banks from different Member States were already operating in Belgium before 1992, when there were more than 70 foreign financial institutions in the country (52).\n(157)\nIn the light of the foregoing it is clear that any State measure conferring on DPLP an economic advantage may affect trade between Member States.\n(158)\nFor the reasons explained in recitals 141 to 157, the Commission considers that the pension relief constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n6.2.2. Assessment of the compatibility of pension relief with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c)\n(159)\nUnder the 1997 pension reform DPLP\u2019s refund to the State of annual net pension costs was replaced by a contribution in full discharge of liabilities aligning the pension costs borne by DPLP with those of its competitors. Without this reform, the level of these pension costs would, in the subsequent years, have continued to rise significantly, notably as a result of the deterioration in the ratio of civil servants in work (contributors) to those not in work (recipients) following DPLP\u2019s decision to halt recruitment of civil servants.\n(160)\nAs the derogations provided for in Articles 107(2) and 107(3)(a)(b) TFEU clearly do not apply and as Belgium has not invoked Article 106(2) TFEU as justification for the compatibility of the pension relief granted to DPLP, the Commission will examine whether the pension relief can be declared compatible pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, which states that aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may be declared compatible with the common market where it does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.\n(161)\nThe Commission will first analyse the extent to which the relief of the full pension cost fulfils an objective of common interest and is necessary to that end before investigating its proportionality and carrying out a balancing test of the positive and negative effects of the measure.\n6.2.2.1. Liberalisation of the postal sector as an objective of common interest\n(162)\nEU law has promoted even greater liberalisation of the postal sector since 1992 with the adoption of the green paper, which later led to the adoption of the three directives: (i) Directive 97/67/EC, (ii) Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services (53), and (iii) Directive 2008/6/EC. It is also acknowledged that the liberalisation of postal markets at EU level has an important role to play in the Lisbon strategy for growth and employment.\n(163)\nTherefore, it is important, besides safeguarding the provision of basic postal services as reflected in the concept of the universal service obligation, to create a level playing field between the incumbent, existing competitors and new entrants.\n(164)\nIn the La Poste (France) Decision, the Commission already recognised that creating a level playing field between the incumbent and its competitors with regard to social contributions is a key condition for fair competition in the postal sector. The Commission declared the relief of the obligations imposed on La Poste to finance its civil servants\u2019 pensions compatible with the internal market because the public subsidies guaranteed an equal rate of social contributions by La Poste and its competitors. The Commission intends to apply the same logic in the present case as it applied in chapter 6.3 of that Decision, which must be considered applicable in the present case in so far as it is relevant.\n6.2.2.2. Necessity of pension relief\n(165)\nThe Commission considers that the 1992 transformation of DPLP was necessary to promote competition in the postal market because it put DPLP and its competitors on an equal footing as regards legal form (and thereby eliminated the unlimited guarantee that DPLP had previously enjoyed as a public entity).\n(166)\nHowever, neither the Belgian State nor the R\u00e9gie des Postes had accumulated reserves matching the accumulated pension liabilities. When DPLP was incorporated in 1992, it continued to be responsible for pension obligations, but no corresponding assets were transferred to its accounts to cover those obligations.\n(167)\nAs a result, the payment of pensions would gradually have become an unsustainable burden on DPLP, since the retirement age of many civil servants was approaching. Even though measures (improved productivity, gradual personnel reduction as a result of natural wastage, pay indexation) would have been taken to improve this situation, they would not have been sufficient to balance DPLP\u2019s finances in the long term (see Figure 3 below).\n(168)\nThis is in particular because the transformation into a private-law company also meant that DPLP stopped employing civil servants and only hired contractual employees (subject to a general employment contract and labour law requirements). Consequently, after 1997, it would have had to finance from its revenues both the pension expenses for retired civil servants and social contributions linked to pensions for its active workforce of contractual employees.\n(169)\nDPLP\u2019s cash flow would have turned increasingly negative year after year, as the increasing pension payments would have exceeded revenues generated from its activities (see table below).\nFigure 3\nSimulations of DPLP\u2019s cash flow conducted by the Belgian authorities in 1996\n(170)\nIt cannot be denied that DPLP would have faced significantly higher costs if it had had to finance pensions for all retired civil servants from its own resources after 1997. It is evident that, without any aid, the change of legal form from public administration to private-law company would have been hampered.\n(171)\nFurthermore, complete refinancing of pension costs through increased regulated letter revenues would have led to very high letter prices and perhaps substantially decreased the number of letters sent to an extent that would have endangered the provision of the universal letter services.\n(172)\nThe Commission also takes the view that the measures in question are tailored to the objective of common interest pursued. No other instrument could have been more effective. In the sectors with an SGEI, public service compensation could indeed have been granted, but such an approach would not be sustainable over the long term because of the specific structural nature of the problem.\n(173)\nConsidering the objectives of liberalisation of the postal markets, notably safeguarding the provision of high quality and affordable universal postal services, and considering the objective of promoting fair competition, the pension relief constituted a necessary measure.\n6.2.2.3. Proportionality of pension relief\n(174)\nThe La Poste Decision set out the Commission\u2019s proportionality assessment of aid measures that provide relief from pension costs for incumbents in the postal sector who continue to employ civil servants at terms which were agreed during the monopoly period. The proportionality assessment must be carried out with regard to the establishment of a level playing field on the markets which are open to competition (e.g. mail, parcels, and financial services). The incumbent must be subject to the same rate of social security contributions as its competitors.\n(175)\nGiven that DPLP\u2019s contractual personnel is legally in the same situation as employees of any private company, while the statutory personnel has a status similar to civil servants, a comparison of the social contributions paid by DPLP for each category of employees makes it possible to verify whether, following the implementation of the pension relief measure, DPLP meets the condition of being subject to the same rate of social security contributions as its competitors.\n(176)\nA detailed comparison of the social security costs paid by DPLP for its statutory personnel and its contractual personnel is summarised in the following table:\nSocial security costs paid and incurred by DPLP\nStatutory personnel\nContractual personnel\nDPLP contributions to the social security system, including 8,86 % for pension contributions\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\nCosts borne directly by DPLP\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\nSickness and disability\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\nFamily allowances\n[\u2026] %\n-\nCompensation contribution (54)\n[\u2026] %\nStructural reduction (55)\n[\u2026] %\nTotal EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\nEMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\nEmployee contributions to the general social security system\n[\u2026] %\n[\u2026] %\n(177)\nAs this table shows, the rate of DPLP\u2019s contributions to the Belgian social security system (nominal percentage of wage costs) is considerably lower than that of private operators ([\u2026] % against [\u2026] %).\n(178)\nHowever, when the costs directly borne by the employer are included, in order to compare the actual social contribution rates, the two percentages are almost equal and even slightly higher for DPLP statutory personnel ([\u2026] % against [\u2026] %).\n(179)\nIt can also be noted that the contributions paid by employees are essentially equal in both cases ([\u2026] % against [\u2026] %).\n(180)\nThe lower nominal rate of social security contributions paid by DPLP for statutory personnel is because of the exemption from certain social security contributions that are not applicable to employees with civil servant status (e.g. occupational illness, unemployment, industrial accident). However, DPLP itself directly supports the cost of the exempted contributions on account of the special status of its statutory personnel. This approach results in high direct costs for DPLP.\n(181)\nThe employee contribution, which should also be taken into account as employees have to pay this from the salary paid to them by the employer (therefore it is also a cost for the employer), is slightly higher for statutory personnel than for contractual personnel.\n(182)\nThe Belgian authorities and DPLP have provided information showing the overall stability of direct contributions over time.\n(183)\nAlthough the direct costs borne directly by DPLP ([\u2026] %) are not stricto sensu equivalent to social contributions, it should be taken into account that these costs are not voluntary, but instead stem directly from the particular status of the statutory employees and were therefore imposed on DPLP. It seems therefore logical to treat them as equivalent to other compulsory social security costs in terms of their origin and their purpose.\n(184)\nConsequently, these direct costs should be taken into account when calculating DPLP\u2019s actual social contributions. The resulting total social security contribution rate would be slightly higher for DPLP statutory personnel ([\u2026] %) than for the personnel of private companies ([\u2026] %).\n6.2.2.4. Balancing test for pension relief\n(185)\nThe reform of the pension arrangements applicable to DPLP was an important stage in adapting the undertaking to progressive liberalisation and with a view to the full liberalisation of the Belgian postal market, which plays an important role in the Lisbon strategy for growth and employment.\n(186)\nIn the La Poste Decision, the Commission stated that the liberalisation of the postal sector could be made more difficult if plans to reform pension schemes (comparable to that implemented in Belgium) were not approved.\n(187)\nThe Commission also considers that the measures in question, even though they do not concern special arrangements for the benefits paid to pensioners, introduce sustainability into a financing mechanism that past developments had rendered obsolete. The Commission considers that the measures are, therefore, to be seen in the more general framework of pension system reform in Member States, which has the support of both the Council and the Commission.\n(188)\nThe negative effects of the measure appear limited since, given DPLP\u2019s history and its activities, it is evident that a large proportion of its pension liabilities relate to activities in the reserved sector, where the distortion of competition is by nature limited.\n(189)\nEven if the measure in question could, in theory, enable DPLP to retain a dominant position, the Commission regards this as a low risk since the measures simply align the contributions paid by DPLP with those paid by its competitors.\n(190)\nIt follows from the foregoing observations that the negative effects of the aid granted to DPLP have been limited in comparison with the positive effects of the measure.\n(191)\nSince the measures are limited to what is strictly necessary to establish a level playing field for social security contributions and put an end to a distortion of competition that was a disadvantage for DPLP, they do not affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.\n(192)\nConsequently, the Commission is of the opinion that the 1997 pension waiver can therefore be declared to be compatible aid within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU since DPLP is not in a better situation than other operators as regards the social security costs of its statutory personnel.\n6.3. ASSESSMENT OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMPENSATION AND OTHER MEASURES\n6.3.1. Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU\n6.3.1.1. Advantage and selectivity\n(193)\nIn respect of the compensation for public service costs, the Altmark judgment (56) lays down the criteria public measures must fulfil in order to be regarded as compensation for public service obligations and not State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(194)\nIn the present case, these criteria, in particular the fourth criterion, are not fulfilled: DPLP was not chosen by means of a public procurement procedure. Moreover, the Belgian authorities have not proved that the level of compensation was determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical, well-run undertaking with adequate means would have incurred in discharging the public service obligations entrusted to it, nor is there any indication or information available to the Commission that would suggest that the fourth criterion is met.\n(195)\nSince the annual compensation benefited only one undertaking and provided additional funds to that undertaking, the measure conferred a selective advantage on DPLP.\n(196)\n1997 capital injections: the Belgian authorities have acknowledged that the 1997 capital injections of EUR 62 million were in fact a delayed payment of SGEI compensation for 1996. Therefore, they should be assessed on the same basis as the annual compensation. Since not all the Altmark conditions are fulfilled, the measure conferred a selective advantage on DPLP.\n(197)\n2003 capital injection: the Belgian authorities have claimed that the 2003 capital injection (EUR 297,5 million) complied with the MEIP and therefore did not constitute State aid. According to the Belgian authorities, that capital increase aimed at strengthening DPLP\u2019s equity capital for the construction and upgrade of the sorting centres, the optimisation of mail distribution routes and automation. The funds injected were also intended to cover personnel costs arising from a reduction in the number of employees through an early retirement scheme, a reduction in working time and an increase in the salaries of new postal workers.\n(198)\nIn order to prove that the capital injection complied with the MEIP, the Belgian authorities carried out profitability forecasts as part of their strategic plan, which showed a profitability level above the cost of capital that would be required by a private investor.\n(199)\nThe projections and profit calculation carried out by the Belgian authorities are future-oriented, very detailed and in line with the method that would be used by a private investor:\n(1)\nprofitability was calculated using the discounted future cash flow method, which takes into account the future growth of the company and the ability of the investments to generate profits and cash flows for shareholders;\n(2)\nthree different scenarios were considered: an optimistic scenario, a pessimistic scenario and a most likely scenario, which was finally retained to assess the sensitiveness of the projections;\n(3)\nthe projections indicated an increase in the profit margin to [\u2026] % in 2007 (see Figure 4) and an expected internal rate of return of [\u2026] % for 2003-2012 (see Figure 5), which is above the [\u2026] % indicated by an independent expert (Bank Degroof) as the profit margin that would be regarded as appropriate by private investors in the postal sector.\nFigure 4\nEx-ante profit projections for 2003-2007 by the Belgian authorities\n[\u2026]\nSource: Belgian authorities.\nFigure 5\nEx-ante internal rate of return calculation by the Belgian authorities for the most likely scenario\n[\u2026]\nSource: Belgian authorities.\n(200)\nIt can also be noted that the robustness of the projections has been globally validated by the financial results achieved in subsequent years (see Figure 6). As a consequence of this increase in profitability, DPLP started to distribute dividends from 2007 onwards.\nFigure 6\nEx-post profits 2003-2007\n[\u2026]\nSource: Belgian authorities.\n(201)\nThe performance over a 10-year period is also in line with the 2003 forecasts since the ex-post internal rate of return should amount to [\u2026] %, which is above the [\u2026] % forecast in 2003.\n(202)\nAlthough the profitability of the Belgian State\u2019s investment seems to be sufficient to justify its compliance with the MEIP, it should be noted that the projected revenues used for the assessment of that profitability included State aid and, in particular, the annual compensation granted to DPLP.\n(203)\nHowever, these State aid measures have clearly distinct aims and have no chronological link with the 2003 capital injection.\n(204)\nMoreover, the potential uncertainty for a private investor that may have arisen from the non-notified aid in favour of DPLP was mitigated by the formal authorisation to proceed with the capital injection granted by the Commission in its 2003 decision. At the time the investment was made, any private investor faced with good prospects of a return would have probably taken the risk of making the investment following the adoption of a positive Commission decision, even if that decision was not yet final. A private investor would not have waited several years for a judgment from the General Court and the ECJ before taking an investment decision. Therefore, the subsequent annulment of the Commission decision is an event that was not foreseeable at the time of the investment, and must have appeared very unlikely as Commission decisions are considered legal until they are annulled.\n(205)\nThe Commission therefore takes the view that the 2003 capital injection can be regarded as complying with the MEIP and does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(206)\n2006 capital injection: the Belgian authorities have claimed that the 2006 capital injection (EUR 40 million) was made on MEIP terms and therefore did not constitute State aid.\n(207)\nThe 2006 capital injection was made on the same terms as those applying to a private investor: the increase in DPLP\u2019s capital was subscribed to by the State (EUR 40 million) and by Post Invest Europe (EUR 300 million) at an equivalent price per share (pari passu). At the time, Post Invest Europe was an external investor, which had no connection with DPLP or the Belgian State.\n(208)\nIn addition, the issue price of the shares was set properly. In order to determine the price of the new shares, the investment bank hired by the Belgian authorities estimated DPLP\u2019s total value at between EUR [\u2026] and EUR [\u2026]. The State finally opted for a valuation of EUR [\u2026] for the entire company before the capital injections. The assumptions regarding the level of return and risk based on a joint business plan were guided as such by considerations of long-term profit optimisation. DPLP\u2019s subsequent performance following the 2006 capital increase (see below) also confirms the robustness of the assumptions and parameters taken into account at the time of the investment decision.\nFigure 7\nDPLP\u2019s performance from 2006 to 2010\n[\u2026]\nSource: Belgian authorities.\n(209)\nThe Commission considers that the 2006 capital injection of EUR 40 million clearly corresponds to the behaviour of a market economy investor and therefore does not constitute State aid.\n(210)\nThe corporate tax exemption, while likely to confer an advantage on DPLP by possibly reducing the amount of tax it would otherwise have paid, did not produce any concrete advantage because, from 1992 to 2005, when the tax exemption was abolished, DPLP\u2019s cumulated result after tax was negative. While DPLP\u2019s net result in some years was positive, the tax credit carried over from one year to the next would have resulted in no tax payments even if DPLP had been liable for corporate tax. Consequently, this exemption is not examined in any more detail in this Decision.\n(211)\nThe property tax and local tax exemptions, by contrast, place DPLP in a more favourable position than that of other undertakings by relieving it of obligations it would have normally have had to bear. These tax exemptions therefore confer a selective advantage on DPLP.\n(212)\nThe Belgian authorities have argued that the transfer of buildings was part of an internal reorganisation of State property since at the time DPLP was fully State-owned. However, the transfer of buildings made available to DPLP new assets which had previously belonged to the State. DPLP had already been using the buildings while they belonged to the State, but was not the legal owner of them. The transfer of the legal title of ownership gave DPLP, an undertaking separate from the State, property rights over the buildings. DPLP therefore obtained additional resources compared with the situation before the transfer. The measure therefore conferred a selective advantage on DPLP.\n(213)\nWithout the State guarantee, DPLP could not have obtained a loan on the same terms. The Belgian authorities have estimated that market rates would have been up to 40 basis points higher, whereas the premium paid to the State was 25 basis points.\n(214)\nIn accordance with the Commission communication on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (57) (paragraph 3.2(d)), \u2018risk-carrying should normally be remunerated by an appropriate premium on the guaranteed or counter-guaranteed amount. When the price paid for the guarantee is at least as high as the corresponding guarantee premium benchmark that can be found on the financial markets, the guarantee does not contain aid. If no corresponding guarantee premium benchmark can be found on the financial markets, the total financial cost of the guaranteed loan, including the interest rate of the loan and the guarantee premium, has to be compared to the market price of a similar non-guaranteed loan\u2019. As the premium does not appear to be a normal market rate, the State guarantee allowed DPLP to obtain funding at a cost below what it would have normally had to bear.\n(215)\nThe measure therefore conferred a selective advantage on DPLP, which amounts to the difference between the interest rate DPLP would have had to pay in the absence of the State guarantee and the actual interest rate plus the premium paid for the guarantee. Therefore the advantage obtained was 15 basis points on the capital outstanding each year. The advantage can therefore be estimated at EUR 1,5 million over the duration of the loan.\n6.3.1.2. Existence of State resources\n(216)\nThe annual SGEI compensation was financed from the national budget, as specified in the successive management contracts between DPLP and the Belgian State. According to the information provided by Belgium, the 1997 capital injections are de facto SGEI compensation and are therefore included in this part of the Decision.\n(217)\nThe tax exemptions have decreased the State\u2019s tax revenue by reducing the income it would have received in the absence of the tax exemptions. They involve, therefore, a transfer of State resources in the form of a loss of tax revenue for the Belgian State.\n(218)\nThe buildings transferred to DPLP were previously State property. The State surrendered ownership to DPLP, thereby reducing its own assets and increasing those of DPLP. The measure therefore constitutes a transfer of State resources.\n(219)\nThe loan guarantee was granted by the State, which assumed the associated risks from its own budget without a consideration, and therefore constitutes a State resource in the form of foregone revenue.\n(220)\nRevenues from mail distribution services do not constitute State resources following the Preussen Elektra judgment (58) since the prices paid by users are financed from their own funds, which are outside the State\u2019s control.\n(221)\nNevertheless, for the purposes of the compatibility assessment, these revenues are directly linked to the provision of a service of general interest in the postal sector and must therefore be taken into account in accordance with point 17 of the SIEG Framework and Article 7 of Directive 97/67/EC for determining the necessity and proportionality of the compensation.\n6.3.1.3. Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States\n(222)\nThe measures are capable of affecting trade between Member States for the reasons indicated in recital 156 above.\n6.3.1.4. Summary of aid measures\n(223)\nFor the reasons explained in recitals 193 to 222, the following measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU:\n(a)\nannual SGEI compensation (1992-2010);\n(b)\n1997 capital injections;\n(c)\nproperty tax exemption (1992-2005);\n(d)\ntransfer of buildings in 1992;\n(e)\nState guarantee granted in 2004.\n6.3.2. Existing aid within the meaning of Article 108(1) TFEU\n(224)\nSome of the measures under assessment may be considered existing aid within the meaning of Article 108(1) TFEU.\n6.3.2.1. Corporate tax and property tax exemptions\n(225)\nThe exemptions from corporate tax and property tax benefited DPLP when it was still a State administration before 1971 and predate Belgium\u2019s EEC membership. They have not been modified since. These measures therefore constitute existing aid.\n(226)\nThe corporate tax exemption was abolished in 2005, whereas the property tax exemption still applies.\n6.3.2.2. Liberalisation of the postal market\n(227)\nThe Belgian authorities have argued that all the measures dating from before the liberalisation of postal markets in 1999 should be considered existing aid. However, the measures in questions benefited all the activities of DPLP, which was active in competitive markets (such as parcel distribution and financial services) well before the entry into force of Directive 97/67/EC in 1999. Consequently, according to the Alzetta judgment (59), such aid cannot be considered existing aid because of the evolution of the internal market: it can be considered existing aid to a given beneficiary to the extent that the beneficiary was active solely on markets not open to competition when the aid was put into effect.\n(228)\nThis claim cannot therefore be accepted by the Commission.\n6.3.2.3. Ten-year limitation period\n(229)\nThe claim that the 10-year limitation period should be counted from the opening of the current formal investigation in 2009 cannot be accepted either. The General Court\u2019s 2009 judgment did not annul all the preceding investigative acts, but only implied that the Commission should have opened a formal investigation as a result of them (60).\n(230)\nBy contrast, as the Commission\u2019s first investigative act occurred on 23 December 2002, when it sent its first request for information to the Belgian authorities, the measures put into effect before 23 December 1992 are to be considered existing aid.\n6.3.3. Compatibility of SGEI compensation in the light of Article 106(2) TFEU\n(231)\nThe compatibility of the SGEI compensation is assessed under Article 106(2) TFEU and the SGEI Framework. The SGEI Framework is applicable as of its entry into force on 29 November 2005. Since the Framework is largely a codification of rules that already existed before it entered into force, it will also be referred to when assessing the measures that precede its entry into force.\n6.3.3.1. Scope of the assessment based on the tasks entrusted in the management contracts\n(232)\nIn their submissions, the Belgian authorities and DPLP strongly opposed the Commission carrying out an overall analysis of all aid granted to DPLP over the entire period, in line with the approach it adopted previously for assessing other cases where aid was illegally paid in the past, as it assumes that the aid financed without distinction all the public service missions entrusted to the undertaking. The Belgian authorities and DPLP have contended that in the case at issue, unlike in others, the management contracts they entered into strictly delimit the scope of DPLP\u2019s aided activities and the amounts of aid for which they were eligible (61).\n(233)\nThe Commission considers that the relevant management contracts rigorously define the respective rights and obligations of the State and the aid beneficiary by setting the parameters for calculating the compensation to which the beneficiary is entitled for the specific activities listed and for the periods of time indicated. Accordingly, the Commission will base its assessment on the provisions laid down in the various management contracts.\n(234)\nThe SGEIs for which the compatibility of aid is to be checked are defined in the acts of entrustment established by the Member State. The public service missions to be discharged by DPLP are entrusted to it in the successive administrative acts approving the management contracts signed between DPLP and the State approximately every five years. These contracts develop and complement the provisions of national postal law.\n(235)\nEach successive management contract constitutes a separate act of entrustment, which describes the public missions to be discharged by DPLP, fixes the duration of the entrustment and the parameters for calculating the compensation to be paid by the State. The management contracts specify the activities included in the calculation of the amount of financial compensation granted by the State.\n(236)\nThe compatibility of the aid measures must be considered in the light of Article 106(2) TFEU since the compensation was granted to finance the costs incurred in discharging the public service missions. The compensation is compatible to the extent that it does not overcompensate DPLP for the extra costs incurred in carrying out the public service missions entrusted to it under the management contracts, including a reasonable profit. Any overcompensation will have to be recovered.\n(237)\nThe scope of the assessment of overcompensation includes those SGEIs for which compensation is provided for in the clauses of the successive management contracts.\n(238)\nIt is important to note that the provisions of the successive management contracts differ to some extent. Consequently, overcompensation must be calculated on the basis of the specific parameters provided for in each contract.\n(239)\nIn the first management contract (1992-1996), the SGEI compensation covers all public services. The provisions of this contract do not apportion the compensation between the different public services according to whether or not they are eligible for compensation under the provisions of the contract.\n(240)\nAccordingly, the compensation provided for in the contract has to be understood to cover the additional costs of discharging all the public service missions without distinction. Checking potential overcompensation in this period will therefore encompass all the public service measures: the universal postal service (USO), press distribution and other missions entrusted to DPLP.\n(241)\nBy contrast, under the clauses of the second, third and fourth management contracts, the aided activities are limited to certain SGEI missions specified therein. The SGEI missions entitled to be compensated are: the distribution of newspapers and periodicals, and other public services listed in recital 33. The clauses determining the scope of the aided activities are contained in the management contracts: Article 7 of the second management contract, Article 15 of the third management contract, and Articles 12 and 13 of the fourth management contract.\n(242)\nThe universal postal service, by contrast, does not receive any compensation under the management contracts, with the exception of the first management contract.\n(243)\nThe costs and revenues of the universal postal service are therefore not included in the calculation of overcompensation, except, where relevant, for the excess profits from the reserved area (62).\n6.3.3.2. Calculation of overcompensation\n(244)\nOn account of the differences in the public service missions entrusted, as referred to in recitals 239-243, the potential overcompensation is calculated differently for the first management contract from the three subsequent management contracts.\n(245)\nIn addition to the coverage of costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, the SGEI Framework also allows for compensation for a reasonable rate of return (63).\n(246)\nParagraph 18 of the SGEI Framework specifies that the reasonable profit \u2018should be taken to mean a rate of return on own capital that takes account of the risk, or absence of risk, incurred by the undertaking by virtue of the intervention by the Member State, particularly if the latter grants exclusive or special rights. This rate must normally not exceed the average rate for the sector concerned in recent years. In sectors where there is no undertaking comparable to the undertaking entrusted with the operation of the service of general economic interest, a comparison may be made with undertakings situated in other Member States, or if necessary, in other sectors, provided that the particular characteristics of each sector are taken into account. In determining what amounts to a reasonable profit, the Member State may introduce incentive criteria relating, among other things, to the quality of service provided and gains in productive efficiency.\u2019\n(247)\nThe appropriate level of reasonable profit is thus to be chosen taking into account a number of parameters, in particular the average rate for the sector concerned, the risk associated with the undertaking\u2019s activities and, where applicable, incentive criteria relating to the company concerned.\n(248)\nIn order to establish a level of reasonable profit, the Commission has based itself on several expert studies, which are set out in more detail below. Based on the studies and on the level of risk of each management contract, the Commission has determined a range of reasonable levels of profit for DPLP for mail delivery, on the one hand, and press distribution, on the other, for each of the four management contracts. These studies all attempt to identify sets of companies which are sufficiently comparable in terms of activities and risk profile to the postal incumbent in question and to establish a benchmark profit level for the latter on the basis of the observed levels of profit of the comparator firms.\n(249)\nAs regards risk in particular, the Commission wishes to underline that DPLP, during the entire period under investigation, has faced little or no competition in the vast majority of its operations since it either enjoyed a legally protected monopoly (this applies to most mail services), or a dominant position characterised by very high market shares and barriers to entry through the subsidisation of below-cost prices (e.g. press distribution). In the Commission\u2019s opinion, this aspect has to be borne in mind in all analyses involving benchmarking with companies that, while providing similar services to DPLP, had to operate in a competitive environment.\n(250)\nFurthermore, the extent to which a postal incumbent is exposed to risk depends essentially on the characteristics of the regulatory mechanism established by the public authority.\n(251)\nIn the context of mail delivery, a sector in which DPLP\u2019s USO was mainly financed through stamp prices (64), the Commission considers that it makes a substantial difference in terms of risk whether the stamp prices were, to a greater or lesser degree, frequently adjusted by the regulator (e.g. at the start of each year or simply whenever necessary) so as to cover the net costs of the USO on an ongoing basis, or whether stamp prices (65) were fixed in advance for a long period (e.g. four to five years) as part of a long-term contract (66). The first type of price regulation tends to be rather low risk for the firm in question, in so far as stamp prices are adjusted on a relatively frequent basis so as to maintain a constant financial equilibrium between revenues and costs. This type of regulation protects the company\u2019s profit margins against uncertainty. The second type involves more risk as it exposes the operator to the consequences of variations in costs and revenues over a long period.\n(252)\nLikewise, in the context of press distribution activities (USO financed through financial compensation), it makes a substantial difference whether the compensation is based on actual net costs (i.e. net costs actually incurred) or whether it is based on projected net costs over a long period. For instance, if the compensation takes the form of a fixed lump-sum payment covering expected net costs over a long period, it leaves the operator exposed to all variations in revenues and costs. In such a case, the operator faces a higher degree of risk than when it is compensated in full on the basis of ex-post costs and revenues.\n(253)\nWhere the contract between the operator and the public authority is such that the public service is connected with a certain degree of risk, for instance because it leaves the incumbent exposed to significant variations in revenues and costs, the reasonable profit allowed to the incumbent should be commensurate with the corresponding level of risk involved. By contrast, where the contract between the incumbent and the public authority is such that the public service is not connected with substantial risk, the reasonable profit allowed should be low as well.\n(254)\nThe Commission would also point out that the degree of risk incurred by the company and the extent to which the company is entitled to compensation for efficiency gains are closely intertwined. For instance, a public authority can set in advance a fixed level of compensation which anticipates and incorporates the efficiency gains that the undertaking can be expected to make over the lifetime of the entrustment act. By exposing the company to all variations in costs and revenues, the contract gives it incentives to improve performance and become more cost efficient. At the same time, it results in more risk for the company. To some extent, therefore, risk and efficiency incentives go hand in hand. Likewise, an ex-ante price cap over a long period normally provides stronger incentives for efficiency improvements, but is also more risky for the company involved.\n(255)\nIn order to address the question of a reasonable rate of profit for DPLP, the Commission bases itself on several expert studies:\n(256)\nWIK study: in the context of Case C-36/07, a State aid procedure relating to the German postal operator, Deutsche Post AG (hereinafter \u2018DP\u2019), the Commission asked WIK Consult to carry out a study on the appropriate level of reasonable profit for postal incumbents (67) (hereinafter \u2018WIK study\u2019). The relevant aspects of the WIK study were shared with Belgium on 25 March 2010 and 7 February 2011. The Commission received comments from Belgium on the WIK study on 23 April 2010 and 1 March 2011.\n(257)\nDeloitte study: on 23 April 2010, the Commission received a study by Deloitte (68) (hereinafter \u2018Deloitte study\u2019) setting out its views on the level of reasonable profit to be used for DP\u2019s universal services. This study was sent to Belgium on 9 December 2011. The Commission received comments from Belgium on the Deloitte study on 26 December 2011.\n(258)\nCRA study: on 1 March 2011, Belgium submitted an expert study in response to the WIK study by Charles Rivers Associates (69) (hereinafter \u2018CRA\u2019).\n(259)\nIn this study, WIK establishes a reasonable profit benchmark for DP. Specifically, WIK first performs a function and risk analysis of DP and concludes that DP predominantly provides routine functions and faces limited entrepreneurial risk (70). On the basis of this analysis, WIK selects appropriate comparators, i.e. determines the composition of the benchmark groups from which the reasonable profit benchmark is derived. Overall, WIK points out that, conceptually, the adopted benchmark procedure follows the standard methodology used for profitability benchmarks in transfer pricing (71). Such a methodology is applied not only in national transfer pricing regulations but also in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (hereinafter \u2018OECD Guidelines\u2019) (72).\n(260)\nWIK considers several measures of profitability, distinguishing between the internal rate of return (IRR), which relies on cash flows and is deemed the conceptually correct measure of the profitability of an activity, and other measures derived from accounting data (rates of return), such as the return on capital employed (ROCE), the return on equity (ROE), the return on assets (ROA) and the return on sales (ROS) (73). As set out in Chapter 5 of the study, WIK proposes using the ROS as a profitability indicator. One advantage of this measure is that it only depends on accounting profit (EBIT (74)) and sales data, which are both easily observable in the company\u2019s accounts. In addition, the use of the ROS avoids the valuation and attribution of assets between different services, which would be necessary for a capital-based benchmark, such as the ROE and the ROCE, and which is normally a difficult exercise. WIK also points out that a benchmark based on the ROS is advisable if the comparator companies and the benchmarked company belong to the same branch/industry sector so as to ensure that the structure of EBIT and sales is homogeneous.\n(261)\nRegarding the composition of the benchmark group, WIK concludes that there is a trade-off between the comparability of companies in the sample and the size of the sample. WIK argues against including European postal incumbents in the sample because their prices have been regulated in a market which has been foreclosed to competition in most countries over the entire period under investigation. For the same reason, the number of companies in direct competition with the postal incumbents is rather limited. Mostly, these are smaller companies. In order to obtain a balanced set of comparable companies, WIK includes both the direct competitors on national markets and big multinational players, such as large international express parcel companies (e.g. UPS, FedEx, DHL), which run a more capital-intensive and riskier business than a postal incumbent on a protected national market.\n(262)\nWIK addresses the trade-off between comparability and sample size by considering three different benchmark groups: (i) benchmark group I, or the narrow parcel sector, including companies that are primarily active as parcel service providers (10 companies, considered highly comparable with universal postal service providers); (ii) benchmark group II, or the broader parcel sector, including companies whose main activity might focus on other services, such as courier services (26 companies with a somewhat lower level of comparability); and (iii) benchmark group III, including also companies from the land transportation sector (1 163 companies with lower comparability) (75). This approach, according to WIK, reinforces the statistical validity of the final benchmark.\n(263)\nOne of the selection criteria applied to all benchmark groups is the size of the company; only companies with revenues above EUR 3 million are considered (76). As regards the time span of the data, reliable data were available only for the period 1998-2007, while backward interpolation was used for the period 1990-1997 (77).\n(264)\nFurthermore, WIK follows the analysis adopted in transfer pricing by relying on the concept of the interquartile range (78) to reduce the effect of outliers and to establish a level of reasonable profit.\n(265)\nWIK obtains the following results for the period 1998-2007:\n(a)\nbenchmark group I: 25th percentile equal to -0,42 %, 75th percentile equal to 6,72 % and median (50th percentile) equal to 3,86 %;\n(b)\nbenchmark group II: 25th percentile equal to 0,45 %, 75th percentile equal to 6,77 % and median (50th percentile) equal to 3,48 %;\n(c)\nbenchmark group III: 25th percentile equal to 0,64 %, 75th percentile equal to 5,57 % and median (50th percentile) equal to 2,59 %.\n(266)\nWIK concludes that the broader parcel sector, or benchmark group II, is the best benchmark because the results obtained are relatively stable over time compared with the alternative benchmark (narrow parcel sector) and because this sector is functionally closer to letter and parcel activities than the other alternative benchmark (land transport sector).\n(267)\nA further adjustment is made to obtain an upper limit for the reasonable profit for DP on the basis of the analysis of DP\u2019s entrepreneurial risk relative to the benchmark group. On this basis WIK proposes the median benchmark II ROS of 3,48 % as an upper limit for a reasonable profit for DP. WIK chooses the median instead of the 75th percentile as the upper value of reasonable profit to reflect the fact that the companies in the sample bear higher risk than postal incumbents since they do not benefit from special rights.\n(268)\nThe Belgian authorities considered the methodology used in the WIK report to be flawed and submitted several documents (letters, position papers and reports) on 23 April 2010, 1 March 2011, 14 June 2011, 5 August 2011, 10 August 2011, 14 December 2011 and 19 December 2011 which refute the approach of the WIK report and present their own method for estimating a reasonable profit benchmark.\n(269)\nIn a position paper sent on 5 August 2011, the Belgian authorities essentially argued that the sample used in the WIK study is not representative in terms of activity, size, risk profile and reference period. Belgium therefore claims that the sample is very hard to legitimise in the light of the criteria set out in paragraph 18 of the SGEI Framework.\n(270)\nIn the same position paper, Belgium also argues that it makes sense to differentiate between the profit margins for activities which present very different levels of risk: if press distribution and letters are activities which have a different risk profile, the Belgian authorities argue that different levels of reasonable profit should be used.\n(271)\nIn addition, the Belgian authorities claim that DPLP\u2019s operations benefit from productivity gains and that this should be considered by the Commission when establishing the rate of reasonable return, as set out in paragraph 18 of the SGEI Framework. The Belgian authorities point out that DPLP has become profitable as a result of numerous reforms, after having been historically loss-making. DPLP\u2019s costs have been cut, in particular by closing post offices. The 50 % share held by private investors since 2006 has created a new culture geared towards efficiency. According to the Belgian authorities such efficiency gains should be taken into account in determining the reasonable rate of return that can be granted to DPLP.\n(272)\nOn 1 March 2011, the Belgian authorities sent the Commission a report prepared by Charles River Associates (CRA), which critically evaluates the WIK study and proposes an alternative method for benchmarking the reasonable profit of DPLP.\n(273)\nRegarding the sample composition, CRA argues that all three WIK samples include many small firms whose risk profiles are not comparable to the risk profile of a large postal operator. Thus, CRA criticises WIK\u2019s conclusions that the provision of letter services by the incumbent postal operator in question is low risk and that the companies included in the benchmark groups are good comparators.\n(274)\nIn particular, CRA points to the relationship between a firm\u2019s cost structure (in terms of the proportion of fixed and variable costs) and the business risk it faces. CRA argues that a postal operator entrusted with a USO has larger fixed costs and, therefore, faces a relatively higher risk of a downturn in demand compared with a company with lower fixed costs. In addition, CRA points to the difference in the ROS between the small and big companies in the WIK groups (79), which suggests, in CRA\u2019s view, the existence of systematic differences between the small parcel firms and the larger firms, such as UPS and FedEx, which might be explained by the different cost structure.\n(275)\nCRA also analyses in more detail the characteristics of some of the small parcel firms included in the WIK Benchmark I sample and concludes that their risk profile is not comparable to that of a large postal operator. CRA also considers that increasing the size of this already barely comparable sample by adding even less comparable companies is not appropriate.\n(276)\nCRA dismisses WIK\u2019s argument that European postal incumbents should not be included in the sample because their profits have been constrained by price regulation, rather than by competition, leading to the risk that price regulation has allowed these incumbents to earn excessive profits. CRA argues that in dismissing other postal incumbents as good comparators, WIK relies on the theoretical possibility that these incumbents might have been allowed to charge excessive prices without, however, supporting its argument with empirical evidence. In this regard, CRA points out that the type of price regulation mechanisms applied in a number of Member States, such as price caps (80), would suggest that the high profits observed are the result of productivity gains rather than high prices.\n(277)\nCRA argues that the natural method for calculating a reasonable profit margin for DPLP from its public service obligations would be based on the available data on profit margins for the letter operations of other western European postal operators. This method is all the more natural because the public services at issue are primarily letter services and the data on profit margins from the letter-related operations of other western European postal operators are readily available and do not suggest too lenient price regulation.\n(278)\nSpecifically, CRA argues that the analysis should be based on the EBIT margins (ROS) realised on letter operations by western European postal operators that report segment data showing EBIT margins for their letter operations or (if segment data on EBIT margins are not reported) the company-wide EBIT margins of western European postal operators that derive more than 75 % of their revenue from letter services. CRA excludes from its sample eastern European operators on the basis of their relative inefficiency compared with postal operators in western Europe.\n(279)\nAs a result, CRA bases its analysis on a sample of 11 western European postal operators during the period 2002-2009 (73 observations in total). The mean ROS in this sample is [\u2026] %, the median is [\u2026] % and the 75th percentile is [\u2026] % (81). CRA also calculates the trimmed mean ([\u2026] %) and the Winsorised mean ([\u2026] %), which, like the median, are not affected by extreme values (82).\n(280)\nAs regards establishing a benchmark for the reasonable profit margin, CRA argues that there are methodological problems with relying on average values. CRA explains that because of variations in observed profit margins in the sample, the critical threshold for establishing excessive profitability should be higher than the mean or any other measure of central tendency and could, for example, equal the 75th percentile. Such an approach, according to CRA, would be consistent with the practice in transfer pricing investigations of relying on a range (for example, an interquartile range or other percentiles).\n(281)\nOn 14 Dec 2011, the Belgian authorities presented to the Commission a document summarising DPLP\u2019s views on the risks faced by postal operators and proposing a methodology with a view to developing a tool to measure the risk premium which, together with the risk-free return on sales, would provide a reasonable ROS rate.\n(282)\nThe document does not explain how the risk-free return on sales (expressed in terms of ROS) could be determined in the present case and does not provide a clear view of what precisely the reasonable ROS should be on the basis of the proposed methodology. Instead, the analysis focuses on the assessment of the various risks and the calculation of a risk premium that reflects all types of risks.\n(283)\nIn particular, the Belgian authorities focus on three broad risk categories - sectoral risk, service-related risk and contractual risk - and on the typical types of risks in each category to which postal operators are exposed. The methodology for the assessment of the risk premium provides for: (i) the definition of a \u2018maximum risk premium\u2019 (83); (ii) the splitting of the relevant period into contract periods to capture the risks related to each contract; (iii) the use of a simple scale to grade each individual risk for each contract period (as low, medium or high); (iv) the conversion of the individual risk scores into an overall score for each of the three broad risk categories; and (v) the conversion of the overall scores into risk premiums, the sum of which gives the total risk premium.\n(284)\nMoreover, examples are provided to illustrate that DPLP faces above-average risks. Thus, the Belgian authorities maintain that DPLP faces higher volume risk as it derives a higher proportion of its revenue from its mail segment and is characterised by higher cost rigidity on account of a higher-than-average proportion of fixed costs. Another type of risk which is considered higher for DPLP is security risk. According to the analysis, this is because DPLP is one of the few European postal operators to deliver cash payments of pensions to households.\n(285)\nOn the basis of the assessment of the different risks, the Belgian authorities conclude that the fourth management contract shows a high level of all three risk types, while the first, second and third contracts are characterised by medium-level risk (the only exception being sectoral risk, which is considered low for the first contract). The Belgian authorities provide further examples of how the above ranking of the different risks can be converted into a risk premium on the basis of different values for the \u2018maximum risk premium\u2019.\n(286)\nThe Deloitte study referred to in recital 257 above is consistent with the WIK study on several points:\n(1)\nboth studies use the same methodology to search financial databases for comparable companies in terms of functions and risks;\n(2)\nboth studies propose ROS as the most relevant benchmark for profit benchmarking (because of data limitations and differences in accounting treatment between different companies);\n(3)\nfinally, universal postal service providers are excluded from the set of comparable companies because they mainly operate on regulated markets and benefit from exclusive rights.\n(287)\nAs regards the set of comparable companies, the main difference between the WIK and Deloitte studies is the size of the companies considered. Deloitte only includes in its sample companies with annual revenue higher than EUR 100 million (84). This restriction is based on Deloitte\u2019s analysis of the particular characteristics of the activities related to universal service provision and the associated business and market risks (85).\n(288)\nIn particular, Deloitte considers that companies in the parcel and postal sector that operate large, complex collection and delivery networks can be reasonably compared to DP. The economies of scale, scope and density prevalent in postal networks and the high proportion of operating costs relative to capital costs, as well as the associated risks (for example, volume risk, risk of e-substitution), mean that large multi-product businesses in the postal and parcel sector are more relevant comparators than small mail businesses. Freight transport and logistics companies would also be - to a more limited degree - suitable comparators because they employ similar assets.\n(289)\nIn order to illustrate the importance of company size, Deloitte compares its sample with that of WIK benchmark group II. Deloitte illustrates that the average ROS in the WIK sample differs significantly between groups of companies of different size (proxied by the number of employees) (86). Deloitte argues that in its own sample (based on larger firms) there is, on the contrary, no strong relationship between scale and ROS.\n(290)\nAs a result of the sample selection process, Deloitte bases its analysis on seven postal and parcels companies, 18 logistics companies and 19 freight transport companies. As regards the postal and parcel sector, the small set of seven comparable companies includes big multinational express parcel operators, such as UPS, FedEx, and TNT Express, as well as a few other postal operators, mostly from the United States and the United Kingdom (87). In principle the data set covers the period 1990-2007, however data for the early years is very limited and, therefore, Deloitte considers the results for these years less robust (88).\n(291)\nDeloitte also examines the advantages and disadvantages of several alternative profitability measures. It dismisses the use of the IRR in the case in question because of the practical difficulties in obtaining adequate cash-flow data. It also rejects the use of the ROCE or the ROE because of, for example, differences among companies in the accounting treatment of costs and in the capital structure (the latter being important for the ROE). ROA is also deemed inappropriate because it focuses on total assets. Thus, Deloitte proposes to use the ROS but emphasises that, as the ROS is not a direct measure of return on capital, it can be relied upon for benchmarking purposes as long as the companies compared have similar capital intensity.\n(292)\nDeloitte nevertheless calculates the ROCE (as well as the market-value ROCE and the ROA) for a small subsample of six companies, but concludes that the range and variation of the ROCE might reflect a number of factors, which requires cautious interpretation and undermines its usefulness as a benchmark. Among these factors Deloitte emphasises the importance of capital intensity. Deloitte argues that, in terms of capital intensity, DP\u2019s universal service is more similar to that of, for instance, UPS and Fedex than to that of freight operators like Kuehne&Nagel or Wincanton.\n(293)\nDeloitte further highlights the significant variation in companies\u2019 profitability over time, as well as within and between the different sectors. This variation, in Deloitte\u2019s view, would warrant the use of ranges of reasonable profit rather than a single average figure. Such an approach would also be appropriate because of the need to avoid penalising above-average performance as a result of efficiency gains.\n(294)\nThe results obtained by Deloitte, by sector and for all sectors together, are summarised in Table 22 of the Deloitte study. Thus,\n(a)\nfor the postal and parcel sector, during the period 1998-2007, the average annual mean ROS is 8,1 %, the average annual median ROS is 7,4 %, the average annual 25th percentile is 4,8 % and the average annual 75th percentile is 12 %;\n(b)\nfor all sectors, during the period 1990-2007, the average annual mean ROS is 6 %, the average annual median ROS is 5,4 %, the average annual 25th percentile is 3,6 % and the average annual 75th percentile is 8,1 % (89).\n(295)\nAs a reference benchmark Deloitte proposes a value based on the average annual mean ROS of 7,9 % (90); to reflect the observed variation of the ROS, Deloitte further derives a range of reasonable ROS based on the interquartile annual ranges (91).\n(296)\nChoosing a good sample of comparable companies for postal incumbents is a complex task. It goes without saying that care must be taken to properly select a suitable group of companies as a benchmark in terms of business activities and risk.\n(297)\nThe WIK and Deloitte studies both focus on commercial companies with activities comparable to those of DPLP, while excluding postal incumbents from the comparator sample. CRA, by contrast, uses a comparator sample that consists only of other European postal incumbents.\n(298)\nThe Commission shares the views of both WIK and Deloitte that the profits of postal incumbents (which CRA uses for its benchmarking) are not determined under normal market conditions, but largely result from the regulatory choices of other Member States. As such, they may not adequately reflect a proper return benchmark. At the same time, given that the CRA sample focuses on postal incumbents in other European countries, it appears to constitute the sample of companies most similar to DPLP. For this reason, the Commission believes it is appropriate to take the CRA sample fully into account, in particular in order to cross-check the benchmark reasonable profit levels (ROS) established on the basis of the WIK and Deloitte studies.\n(299)\nThe WIK and Deloitte studies both acknowledge the need to have a sufficiently large sample to draw relevant conclusions for the purpose of benchmarking. For this purpose, they consider both a (relatively) narrow sample of companies in the postal and parcels sector and wider samples including companies in the logistics and freight transport sectors. The Commission recognises that a sufficient sample size is important for statistical purposes. In relation to CRA\u2019s position in this regard, which questions the usefulness of increasing the sample size by adding less comparable companies, the Commission takes the view that the wider samples identified by WIK and, in particular, Deloitte on the basis of the adopted sample selection methodologies are sufficiently comparable to serve as meaningful benchmark groups for benchmarking DPLP\u2019s profit.\n(300)\nThe WIK study attempts to establish a benchmark ROS on the basis of three different comparator groups. The Commission is also of the opinion, however, that the WIK study can be criticised on two distinct, yet related, issues (92): (i) WIK\u2019s use of samples that also include a large number of smaller companies (93) which are clearly not comparable to incumbent postal operators such as DPLP; and (ii) WIK\u2019s assumptions regarding the level of risk faced by the postal operator under investigation.\n(301)\nThe Commission considers that the scale of operations, as well as the cost structure of postal incumbents such as DPLP (in conjunction with the type of regulatory mechanism in place), are essential for assessing the benchmarking of profit levels.\n(302)\nFirst, in the presence of significant fixed costs (related, for example, to capital costs or other fixed costs linked to the network), the largest companies benefit more from economies of scale and density than small ones. By comparing the average ROS for large and small companies in WIK\u2019s sample, the Deloitte II study shows convincingly that the average ROS increases with the size of the companies (measured by the number of employees) (94). Indeed, the average first quartile value (Q1) is very low in the three WIK samples (e.g. only 0,75 % for the WIK sample II over the period 1998-2007) (95), so that it would appear that there is a certain over-representation of the (smallest) firms that are loss making and struggling to stay in the market. By including so many small firms in its samples (including in its main WIK II sample), WIK may have underestimated the benchmark ROS that would be more relevant for larger and better-established firms such as DP and DPLP.\n(303)\nSecond, while WIK correctly refers to the operator\u2019s low risk profile on account of the monopoly character of its operations, it does not appear to have paid sufficient attention to the significant fixed costs (relative to variable costs) arising from the USO, nor to changes in the risk profile that may have resulted from changes in the regulatory regime faced by the operator over time, particularly between the different regulatory periods (e.g. the different management contracts, in the case of DPLP).\n(304)\nThe proportion of fixed costs may be high not only because a firm is very capital intensive (a common reason why fixed costs may be high), but also because it cannot adapt its overall costs in view of the obligation to maintain a large distribution network (related to the USO) and because it is unable to reduce labour costs in view of existing labour contracts. The high proportion of fixed costs (96) further calls into question the inclusion of small companies whose cost structure (ratio of fixed to variable costs) appears to differ significantly (97).\n(305)\nAs set out in the introduction, the Commission is also of the opinion that the extent to which a postal incumbent is exposed to risk depends to a large extent on the characteristics of the regulatory mechanism established by the public authority to finance the USO. In particular, the transition to a longer-term price cap for stamp prices (as experienced by DPLP in 2006) entails a significant increase in the size of the volume risk. The existence of such risk weakens WIK\u2019s assumption about the inherently low-risk nature of DPLP\u2019s activities, at least for the period covered by a price cap.\n(306)\nGiven the considerations in recitals 286 to 295, the Commission believes that, for the purpose of benchmarking DPLP\u2019s profit, the Deloitte samples improve upon WIK\u2019s samples in so far as they are limited to companies with a bigger minimum size (annual turnover exceeding EUR 100 million).\n(307)\nAt the same time, it should be noted that, in some respects, the Deloitte approach has certain potential weaknesses and its conclusions should be interpreted cautiously.\n(308)\nIn particular, the Deloitte samples appear to comprise many firms with a capital intensity higher than that which applies to mail operators (98). From a methodological point of view, the use of ROS as a tool for profit benchmarking requires a comparable sample of firms with similar levels of capital intensity (defined here as the capital to sales ratio). The working hypothesis is that companies with the same ROS will have a return on capital employed (ROCE (99)) that is inversely proportional to their capital to sales ratio. Accordingly, the use of ROS as a benchmark indicator of profitability requires identical capital intensity for the companies in the benchmark group. Although reliable estimates of capital intensity are difficult to obtain (100), it would appear that the mail and press distribution activities are less capital intensive than the express parcel delivery activities of big multinational companies such as UPS, TNT, FedEx and DHL (101). Consequently, the reasonable profit indicator established on the basis of the Deloitte samples may overstate the benchmark profit that would be appropriate for companies with the same capital structure as DPLP (102).\n(309)\nIn view of the numerous uncertainties of this benchmarking exercise, the Commission deems it justifiable to establish a reasonable range of ROS on the basis of Deloitte\u2019s estimations of the median ROS for the wider all-sectors sample (5,4 %) as well as the median ROS for the sample of companies active in the postal and parcel sector (7,4 %) (103). The resulting range [5,4-7,4 %] would, in the Commission\u2019s view, constitute a \u2018default range\u2019 for reasonable profit, at least for those periods in which DPLP faced a significant degree of risk, in the light of the compensation contract in force, and strong incentives to become more efficient (104).\n(310)\nThe Commission considers the range of [5,4-7,4 %] suitable as a default, both for DPLP\u2019s mail delivery activities and for its press distribution activities, given that these are closely related and have very similar business characteristics.\n(311)\nIt is true that DPLP has faced little or no competition in the areas concerned (mail and press distribution). On this basis, the question arises whether it is in fact appropriate to benchmark its profit with the median profit of samples of companies actually facing competition and whether a more restrictive (i.e. lower) benchmark, e.g. the first quartile (25th percentile), would not be sufficient for a company in DPLP\u2019s position. However, in the Commission\u2019s view, such an approach would not take sufficient account of the significant variation in profit levels, both across firms and over time. Furthermore, removing possible efficiency gains by imposing such a strict cap on the ex-post ROS achieved by the company should be avoided.\n(312)\nIn the case at hand, the Commission also considers it inappropriate to base itself on measures that go beyond the median, such as the third quartile (105). As the approach chosen already establishes a range across different samples, the value added of also considering, for statistical purposes, ranges around the median within the individual samples (the interquartile range commonly used in transfer pricing) appears somewhat limited (106). The Commission therefore takes into account the variation in the median across the different benchmark groups, rather than the variation around the median within a particular sample (107).\n(313)\nMore importantly, however, given that DPLP\u2019s mail segment is less capital intensive than that of the express parcel operators (108), it would appear that using the median of the latter sample already in itself offers some leeway for capturing the variation in profit levels around the median for less capital-intensive companies, such as DPLP, and for sufficiently rewarding efficiency gains where appropriate.\n(314)\nSeveral cross-checks for consistency can be performed by comparing the default range mentioned in recital 309 with other available estimates of reasonable profit. As indicated at the start of this subsection, it is useful to perform a cross-check with the median ROS of the CRA study, which is [\u2026] % (109). The median ROS calculated on the basis of the WIK benchmark II sample, restricted to companies with a turnover of more than EUR 100 million, gives an ROS of 7,1 %. The Commission concludes that these figures fall within the range of [5,4-7,4 %], thus supporting the claim that this range can be viewed as reasonable.\n(315)\nThus, overall, the Commission concludes that a default range of [5,4-7,4 %] would appear to constitute an appropriate benchmark range of profit, at least for the periods when DPLP faced a significant degree of risk and strong incentives to become more efficient.\n(316)\nIn general, the Commission considers that, where the contract between the incumbent and the public authority is such that the public service is connected with a significant degree of risk, the reasonable profit allowed to the incumbent should be commensurate with the corresponding level of risk involved. By contrast, where the contract entails little risk, the level of reasonable profit should be low.\n(317)\nIn the previous section, the Commission explained its approach for establishing a default reasonable profit range of [5,4-7,4 %], which is considered appropriate for contracts involving a significant degree of risk. It is difficult to quantify the appropriate benchmark in terms of a range of reasonable ROS, but it is clear that such an ROS range should be on the left-hand side of the sample distribution of observed profit levels. The Commission is of the opinion that it is justified from this perspective to adopt a reasonable profit range based on the first quartile (25th percentile) instead of the median.\n(318)\nThe use of the 25th percentile as a benchmark for low-risk contracts leads to a range for reasonable ROS of [3,6-4,8 %] based on the different Deloitte samples.\n(319)\nAs before, a comparison with the CRA results for postal incumbents may be a further useful cross-check. The average annual 25th percentile calculated by the Commission is [\u2026] %. The Commission concludes that these figures fall within the range of [3,6-4,8 %], thus supporting the claim that this range can be viewed as reasonable.\n(320)\nIn general, the Commission concludes that a default range of [3,6-4,8 %] would appear to constitute an appropriate benchmark profit range for the periods when DPLP faced a low level of risk.\n(321)\nAs explained in the introduction to this section, the risk borne by DPLP depends on the compensation mechanism applied by Belgium. This mechanism is reflected in the different management contracts concluded between DPLP and the Belgian State, and varies over time. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider different ranges for the \u2018reasonable ROS\u2019 depending on the compensation mechanism in place, which determines the degree of risk faced by DPLP, but also the extent to which DPLP is incentivised to improve productivity.\n(322)\nIn this context, the Commission wishes to underline that the risk characterisation of the contracts is not only dependent on the mere existence of risk in DPLP\u2019s management contracts, or even the absolute level of risk, but above all on the extent to which the risk is greater or smaller than that faced by the companies in the same sample groups. The same applies to the extent to which DPLP is incentivised to achieve efficiency gains. Given that these sample groups are composed of firms operating in a competitive environment, they normally face significant risk and strong incentives to become more efficient.\n(323)\nThe Commission is of the opinion that the fourth management contract (2006-2010) clearly provides for mechanisms involving long-term price and funding commitments based on ex-ante parameters. This applies both to DPLP\u2019s mail delivery and press distribution activities.\n(324)\nSpecifically, as regards press distribution, Article 9 of the fourth management contract specifies that, over the contract period (standard five years), the weighted average of tariffs for the provision of services belonging to the \u2018small users package\u2019 will not increase more quickly than allowed by a price cap mechanism based on the \u2018health index\u2019 (a specific consumer price index) and a quality bonus reflecting the percentage of mail items delivered on time. In the Commission\u2019s view, fixing the tariffs over the entire contract period in this way reflects all the characteristics of an incentive contract, exposing the company to a significant degree of risk.\n(325)\nAs regards press distribution, Article 2 of the fourth management contract specifies that, over the contract period, tariffs for press distribution will not increase more quickly than the \u2018health index\u2019. In order to cover the net costs of press distribution, taking into account projected efficiencies, Article 13(2) fixes the annual compensation to which DPLP is entitled at EUR 290 613 000 (adjusted for inflation) (110). Article 13(5) sets out that, in case the scope or conditions of the SGEI change, or if there is a significant development of the costs DPLP cannot control, the contracting parties will investigate whether the compensation amount should be adjusted so that it remains in line with costs. Any such adjustment requires a decision by the Council of Minsters. The Commission recognises that this latter clause could be read as an escape clause, reintroducing certain ex-post elements into the contract (which protect DPLP from risk). However, the Commission considers that the language used by the public authorities is sufficiently non-committal and that DPLP cannot therefore count on the clause being used. In general, the Commission considers that the arrangements for DPLP\u2019s press distribution activities imply a long-term commitment as regards the level of compensation.\n(326)\nConsequently, in the Commission\u2019s view, the fourth management contract (2006-2010) cannot be characterised as involving low risk, but should rather be deemed as involving a significant degree of risk. Overall, the default range of [5,4-7,4 %] would appear appropriate for both types of activities provided for under the fourth management contract.\n(327)\nBy contrast, the earlier management contracts (up to 2005) seem to have been largely based on price and compensation mechanisms involving a low degree of risk for DPLP.\n(328)\nAs regards the setting of postage stamp prices, the Commission observes that the first three management contracts do not use a price cap mechanism of the type used in the fourth management contract (involving a long-term price commitment). Instead, these contracts refer, in rather general terms, to tariffs based on real costs, established on the basis of adequate accounting principles (111).\n(329)\nLikewise, as regards press distribution, the Commission observes that, unlike the fourth management contract, the first three management contracts do not involve lump-sum budgets covering the contract period (112). Rather, they refer to compensation on the basis of real costs (113). The Commission notes that the second contract also specified a global cap on compensation, but the actual compensation amounts observed in the period seem to call into question whether the cap was really binding (114). The first management contract also specified an annual compensation amount, but the Commission notes that, at the same time, the contract did not specify a long-term cap on the tariffs for press distribution.\n(330)\nAs a result, the Commission is of the opinion that the range of [3,6-4,8 %], which was deemed reasonable in the absence of significant contract-specific risk, should be applied to both press distribution and mail delivery for the period covered by the first three management contracts.\n(331)\nThe Commission notes that a contract-based approach is also proposed by the Belgian authorities in their submission of 14 December 2011. Although their proposed methodology raises a number of questions concerning the individual risk factors and the way in which they are weighted (115), an analysis by contract period, essentially classifying the risk faced by DPLP using a three-grade scale (low, medium and high), is consistent overall with the approach adopted by the Commission. On balance, the relevant ranking by DPLP of the contracts in terms of riskiness appears consistent with the Commission\u2019s analysis, since the Belgian authorities also consider the fourth contract riskier overall than the first three contracts.\n(332)\nThe Commission concludes that a default range for return on sales (ROS) of [5,4-7,4 %] is an appropriate benchmark range for determining reasonable profit for the periods when DPLP faced a significant degree of risk and for taking account of the strong efficiency incentives.\n(333)\nThe Commission also concludes that an ROS range of [3,6-4,8 %] is an appropriate benchmark range for determining reasonable profit for the periods when DPLP did not face a significant degree of risk.\n(334)\nIn order to take into account the efforts to achieve efficiency gains which the Belgian authorities claim DPLP made, the Commission has decided to take a prudent approach by using the upper bounds of these two ranges for fixing the reasonable profit to be included in the costs of the public service. This approach is also emphasised by the Deloitte study (see recital 293), according to which it is appropriate to use ranges because of the need to avoid penalising above-average performance resulting from efficiency gains.\n(335)\nThe Commission considers that the first three management contracts (1992-1996, 1997-2002 and 2003-2005) are low risk and a reasonable profit rate of 4,8 % ROS can be applied to them, both for mail delivery and for press distribution. The fourth management contract (2006-2010), on the other hand, is deemed to involve considerably more risk and a reasonable profit rate of 7,4 % ROS can be applied to both mail delivery and press distribution.\n(336)\nThe first management contract specifies that the annual State compensation is intended for all public service missions.\n(337)\nThe potential overcompensation is therefore to be calculated by adding together all revenues and costs of all the public service missions.\n(338)\nThe annual State compensation for the public service missions is to be included in revenue. The total amount of annual compensation received by DPLP under the first management contract is EUR 1,5 billion.\n(339)\nIn addition, the following aid measures have to be taken into account:\nTransfer of buildings\n(340)\nThe first management contract also provided for a transfer of buildings from the State to DPLP. This transfer of buildings, worth EUR 112,2 million, which did not include the payment of any consideration, is to be included in DPLP\u2019s revenue for the calculation of overcompensation for the period covered by the first management contract. DPLP did not pay any consideration to the State for the use of the buildings in the period preceding the transfer.\n(341)\nAn amount of EUR 62 million was paid by the State to DPLP in 1997 and was booked by DPLP as a capital injection. The Belgian authorities have subsequently admitted that this transfer was in fact a delayed payment of the balance of the annual compensation for 1996 provided for in the first management contract.\n(342)\nThe amount had originally not been paid on time to DPLP in 1996, so the State compensation was lower than the annual amount provided for in the management contract for the year in question.\n(343)\nFor the purposes of controlling overcompensation, the payment of EUR 62 million is included in the SGEI compensation for the period covered by the first management contract.\n(344)\nThe calculation of overcompensation for the first management contract can be summarised as follows:\n-\nNet cost (costs minus revenues) of all public service missions, including the USO\n-\nReasonable profit allowed for SGEIs\n+\nAnnual SGEI compensation\n+\nTransfer of buildings\n+\n1997 Capital injection\n=\nOvercompensation\n(345)\nFor the three subsequent management contracts, the calculation of overcompensation will take into account only the revenues and costs of the SGEIs that, under the provisions of those contracts, could be subject to public service compensation. The corresponding revenues and costs of the other SGEIs that, according to the provisions of these contracts, were not entitled to aid are not taken into consideration. As the universal postal service is not part of the aided activities, its potential net cost will not be taken into account and is to be fully financed by DPLP from its own resources in accordance with the public service mission entrusted to it under the management contracts. The activities that, in accordance with the management contracts, are entitled to the level of compensation established in each contract, include, in particular, press distribution (newspapers and periodicals) and the other public services listed in recital 33 above.\n(346)\nOn account of the low tariffs charged for press distribution, the aided SGEIs are loss-making overall.\n(347)\nAs potential overcompensation of one service may be used to finance the net costs of other undercompensated public service missions, the calculation will add together all revenues and costs of the SGEIs eligible for aid under the management contracts.\n(348)\nThe total amount of annual compensation received by DPLP under these three management contracts is EUR 3,5 billion.\n(349)\nApart from the compensation provided for in the management contracts, DPLP benefited, throughout the relevant period under investigation, from exclusive rights granted by the State for the provision of reserved postal services. Although the potential net surpluses from this reserved area do not constitute State resources for the purposes of State aid control and cannot as a result be subject to a recovery order in case of overcompensation, they can and must be taken into account under the State aid rules when assessing the necessity and proportionality of any other State aid granted to the same operator as public service compensation. Therefore, when assessing the compatibility of the compensation granted to DPLP under the different management contracts in the light of Article 106(2) TFEU, the excess profits generated by the Belgian postal operator in the reserved area will be deducted from the costs of any SGEI entitled to public service compensation in accordance with the provisions of those contracts.\n(350)\nIt should be noted in this respect that this principle is included in the SGEI Framework, which states: \u2018if the undertaking in question holds special or exclusive rights linked to a service of general economic interest that generates profit in excess of the reasonable profit, or benefits from other advantages granted by the State, these must be taken into consideration, irrespective of their classification for the purposes of Article 87 of the EC Treaty, and are added to its revenue\u2019 (116). This principle reflects the necessity and proportionality condition inherent in Article 106(2) TFEU. In fact, any aid for an SGEI paid on top of excess profits resulting from an exclusive or special right granted to the same operator which are already sufficient to cover the costs of another SGEI is not necessary for the provision of that SGEI. The operator making such excess profits already benefits from a State measure allowing it to provide the SGEI under conditions of economic equilibrium and, therefore, no additional compensation is necessary.\n(351)\nTherefore, any excess profit earned in the reserved area as a result of the exclusive right must be taken into account when assessing the necessity of the SGEI compensation granted to DPLP.\n(352)\nAccordingly, any profit from the reserved area (USO R) above the level of reasonable profit is included in the analysis of the SGEI overcompensation.\n(353)\nHowever, since the reserved area is first and foremost meant to finance the universal service, any loss in the other domains of the universal service will reduce the contribution of the reserved area to the costs of other linked SGEIs.\n(354)\nFurthermore, in order to determine the genuine excess profit generated by the reserved area, it is necessary to take account of costs incurred as a result of the universal service obligation that are borne by activities outside the scope of the universal service. In line with the Chronopost case law, the costs of the retail network are apportioned in DPLP\u2019s cost accounting among the activities using the retail network, which includes products both within and outside the scope of the universal service. In particular, the obligation imposed on DPLP to maintain a retail network of a certain size and density to provide a universal postal service at an adequate level of quality as defined by the Belgian authorities leads to losses in commercial activities outside the scope of the universal service because a share of the retail network costs is allocated, in line with the Chronopost case law, to the commercial products using the retail network.\n(355)\nNetwork constraint imposed by the management contracts: the constraints imposed by the State concern the density and type of outlets (post offices and/or\u2018points poste\u2019 (service counters)) composing the retail network. These constraints are defined in the successive management contracts. For example, the fourth management contract (2005-2010) provides for:\n(a)\nthe general requirement to operate a network enabling the provision of the universal service and other public services entrusted to DPLP (117);\n(b)\nthe requirement to operate at least 1 300 outlets (post offices and points poste (118));\n(c)\nthe requirement to operate at least 589 post offices;\n(d)\nadditionally, the maximum road distance from each outlet with a basic range of services to a post office offering a complete range of services must not exceed 10 km.\n(356)\nThe Belgian authorities consider that the specific requirements concerning the number and type of outlets in the DPLP retail network constitute a separate, territorial coverage obligation imposed by the State beyond the requirements linked to the USO. On this basis Belgium considers that all the net costs of that specific territorial coverage obligation should be compensated by the State.\n(357)\nQuantifying the network constraint: in order to determine the net costs for DPLP arising from the obligation to operate a retail network composed of at least 1 300 outlets, of which a minimum of 589 must be post offices, the Belgian authorities have compared the actual retail network, in which the density and type of outlets are imposed by the State, with a hypothetical retail network that DPLP would operate in the absence of specific constraints. In other words, the hypothetical retail network is what DPLP would have chosen to operate under commercial terms in the absence of the public service obligations imposed by the State.\n(358)\nThe Belgian authorities consider that the hypothetical network would be composed entirely of points poste. There would no longer be post offices. However, in order to be able to continue to serve the same total volume of customers, DPLP would have to drastically increase the number of points poste.\nComparison of DPLP\u2019s current retail network with a hypothetical network in the absence of State obligations\nTotal number of outlets\nPost offices (a) + points poste (b)\n(a)\nNumber of post offices\n(dedicated outlets run by DPLP itself)\n(b)\nNumber of points poste\n(service counters located in third-party premises)\nDPLP\u2019s actual retail network (end 2009)\n1 401 =\n713 +\n688\nHypothetical retail network in the absence of constraints imposed by the State (according to the Belgian authorities)\n[\u2026] =\n[\u2026] +\n[\u2026]\nRetail network obligation imposed by the State\nMinimum 1 300\nMinimum 589\nNo obligation\n(359)\nAs can be seen from table above, DPLP\u2019s actual retail network fulfils the requirements of the State: the total number of outlets and the number of post offices are both above the required level. By contrast, the hypothetical network that DPLP would operate if it were allowed to choose its retail network on a purely commercial basis would be significantly different: the total number of points poste would increase, but there would no longer be post offices run by DPLP.\n(360)\nReality of the network constraint: it should be pointed out that the State-imposed constraint on DPLP is not clearly established.\n(361)\nFirst, the actual network operated by DPLP is larger than that required by the State. Both the total number of outlets and the number of post offices is higher than the minimum required by the State. This could imply that DPLP is not actually constrained by the obligations, but instead chooses freely to operate a network of the current size.\n(362)\nThe Belgian authorities justify this excess number of post offices by the 10 km distance requirement, the need to have a safety margin in case of unexpected closures of points poste, and their intention to increase the required minimum number of post offices to 650 in the next management contract, which would make it counter-productive to close offices to come down to the level currently required, only to re-open them again later. The Belgian authorities argue that, for these reasons, it has not been feasible for DPLP to further decrease the number of post offices to move it closer to the minimum requirement of 589. According to the Belgian authorities, the current network of 713 post offices is therefore de facto constrained by the State requirements despite the nominal excess in the numbers of outlets.\n(363)\nSecond, the method chosen by the Belgian authorities relies upon backward projection of retail network costs from 2009 to 1992. Such backward projection inevitably entails methodological uncertainties. The business model of the points poste has not necessarily been available since 1992. Furthermore, in the past, DPLP\u2019s workforce was mainly composed of civil servants, whose payroll costs were very rigid. As the points poste are not run by DPLP personnel, the DPLP statutory employees no longer working in post offices would have remained on DPLP\u2019s payroll. It is therefore doubtful whether, in the early part of the period under investigation, the potential closure of post offices would have entailed savings in direct payroll costs. By contrast, in 2009, when the workforce was composed to a higher degree of contractual workers, such cost savings could have materialised to some extent. With the gradual transition towards less rigid staffing and the successive improvements in the cost accounting system, the accounting data from more recent years can be considered free from this type of distortion. However, given that there are still over 20 000 civil servants working for bpost, who can neither be employed in points poste nor be dismissed, the replacement of all post offices by points poste remains a purely theoretical and unrealistic option even today.\n(364)\nThe Belgian authorities underline, however, that potential redundancy costs in the past would have been offset by savings in operating costs and the sale of unnecessary buildings. As regards the reliability of the data for the years 1992-2002, the Belgian authorities state that the costs of the retail network have probably been underestimated, as some items that could have been considered network costs have been grouped in other cost centres. Consequently, the weaknesses in the backward projection method would be offset by the other, conservative assumptions made by the Belgian authorities when calculating the cost in the past years.\n(365)\nExistence of a specific obligation for territorial coverage: even if the existence of the network constraint were accepted, the Belgian authorities\u2019 claim that it results in a separate territorial coverage mission does not seem justified because there do not appear to be specific provisions in the management contracts defining such an obligation that would be distinct from and go beyond the requirements of the USO and other public services obligations. On the contrary, the management contracts between DPLP and the Belgian State specify that the sole purpose of the network constraint is to ensure the universal service and the other SGEIs (distribution of newspapers, magazines, postal accounts, postal orders, etc.); and the network costs necessary for the provision of these services are a priori already booked in the accounts of these different services (119). In addition, the management contracts do not provide for any mechanism to compensate for the costs of a territorial coverage obligation. The Commission notes that the requirement to define parameters in advance for calculating compensation was introduced in the 2005 SGEI Framework and that overcompensation for SGEI costs incurred by DPLP has been identified in the period after 2005 (see recital 386).\n(366)\nIt should be noted that, in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC, Member States are required to impose an obligation upon postal incumbents to provide a universal service at an appropriate level of quality, including appropriate geographic coverage. However, this territorial coverage, which also exists in the present Belgian case, is only one of the multiple aspects of the USO. In the management contracts entrusting DPLP with the universal service mission, the Commission cannot identify any reference to an additional mission requiring the postal incumbent to operate a larger network of offices beyond the territorial coverage imposed by the USO and other related public services to meet objectives of territorial cohesion or development. There is no doubt that each post office run by DPLP for universal service reasons contributes to territorial cohesion (120). However, legally speaking, the obligation to operate it is linked to the need to guarantee a sufficient degree of quality in the universal postal service and other related services. In order to invoke such a complementary territorial mission, in the light of the relevant case law, it would be necessary for DPLP to be entrusted with a separate and clearly defined mission to operate offices beyond the size of the postal network fixed for universal service reasons. This entrustment would have to specify the obligations, the ensuing costs and the system for financing the net costs of the additional territorial mission.\n(367)\nThe Commission cannot find any of these elements in the management contracts between the State and DPLP. The Belgian authorities and DPLP are in fact trying artificially to justify a posteriori the existence of a distinct territorial mission by arguing that the territorial coverage set out in the management contracts is necessary on two counts: both for USO purposes and for an alleged territorial mission beyond the USO. However, the relevant contracts lack any provisions on the alleged separate territorial mission requiring DPLP to operate a larger network than that laid down for universal service provision.\n(368)\nIt should be noted that the artificial nature of the claims made by the Belgian authorities and DPLP is further evidenced by their own reasoning. The Belgian authorities, with a view to diminishing the level of potential overcompensation, would like the Commission to take into consideration, as part of the costs of an additional territorial mission beyond the scope of the USO, the difference between the real cost of a fully-fledged office and the cost of a hypothetical point poste that would replace it. This reasoning does not rely upon a hypothetical larger network that DPLP would operate to meet its territorial objectives, but only identifies the extra cost of the universal service coverage, which is not entitled to aid under the management contracts. This absence of a territorial objective is confirmed by the fact that the Belgian authorities would have to substantially increase the number of points poste to provide the universal service since it is not possible to do it with an equivalent number of points poste.\n(369)\nNevertheless, it can be observed that, although it does not appear possible to accept the claim by the Belgian authorities of a real and distinct territorial coverage obligation, the network constraint imposed by the Belgian State to operate a network capable of delivering the universal service and the other public services not only concerns those services, but also induces additional costs for the commercial services.\n(370)\nIn line with activity-based costing and in accordance with the Chronopost case law, all the activities using the retail network contribute towards its common costs, as explained in recital 354. Consequently, all the products, including the commercial products, contribute to the network costs. The costs deriving from the State-imposed requirement to operate post offices are a burden on the commercial products, which appear to be consistently loss making as a result, even though they are sold at market price. DPLP sells its commercial services through the network because they finance a share of the fixed costs of the network and therefore contribute indirectly to the universal service.\n(371)\nFrom an economic viewpoint, it would seem sensible, when assessing overcompensation to DPLP, to take into account the losses on commercial products induced by the USO and other public services obligations. While DPLP has an economic incentive to sell commercial products through the retail network, the consequence, from a cost-accounting perspective, is that a proportion of the network costs that would otherwise be charged to the public service is instead allocated to the commercial products, which appear loss making as a result.\n(372)\nAccordingly, the calculation of overcompensation in the present case can summarised as follows:\n-\nNet cost (costs minus revenues) of SGEIs\n-\nReasonable profit allowed to SGEIs\n+\nAnnual SGEI compensation\n+\nSurplus from excess profit from USO reserved area (after the financing of the universal service, including the additional cost it induces for commercial services)\n=\nOvercompensation\n(373)\nThe compatibility of the 1997 capital injection should be examined as part of the assessment of the compatibility of the annual SGEI compensation since it was not a separate recapitalisation, but a payment related to compensation for the public service missions for the period 1992-1996.\n(374)\nAs the 2003 capital injection does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the issue of compatibility of the aid does not arise.\n(375)\nAs the 2006 capital injection does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the issue of compatibility of the aid does not arise.\n(376)\nIt is worth noting that the State guarantee is not included in the management contract as a form of compensation for the public service obligations, and therefore its compatibility cannot be assessed in the light of Article 106(2) TFEU. As no other basis for compatibility has been brought forward by the Belgian authorities nor detected by the Commission, the measure constitutes operating aid that is incompatible with the internal market and, consequently, must be recovered.\n(377)\nAs already mentioned, the corporate tax exemption has not conferred an advantage on DPLP and therefore does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.\n(378)\nThe property tax and local tax exemptions constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, but are to be considered existing aid as they were established before the entry into force of the Treaty. In addition, it is to be noted that these fiscal measures are not included in the management contracts as a form of compensation for the public service obligations.\n(379)\nConsequently, the tax exemptions do not affect the calculation of overcompensation, which is based on the actual costs borne by DPLP (which already include the effect of those tax exemptions).\n(380)\nTherefore, the tax exemptions will be dealt with separately in an existing aid procedure as provided for by Articles 17-19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (121).\n6.3.3.3. Calculation of the amount of overcompensation\n(381)\nThe amount of overcompensation can be calculated on the basis of the assessment set out in subsection 6.3.3.2. In line with the public service financing mechanism established by the Belgian authorities in the management contracts, overcompensation will be calculated separately for each period of entrustment.\nFirst management contract: 1992-1996\n(thousand EUR)\n-\nPublic service net costs\n:\n-\n[\u2026]\n-\nInduced network costs\n:\n-\n[\u2026]\n-\nReasonable profit allowed\n:\n-\n[\u2026]\n(4,8 % return on sales)\n+\nState compensation\n:\n+\n[\u2026]\n+\nCapital injection (1997)\n:\n+\n62 000\n(delayed SGEI compensation)\n+\nTransfer of buildings\n:\n+\n112 209\n=\nOvercompensation\n=\n[\u2026]\nSecond management contract: 1997-2002\nCalculation of surplus from excess profit from USO reserved area (OSU R)\n(thousand EUR)\n+\nExcess profit from USO R\n:\n+\n[\u2026]\n(USO R profit above 4,8 % ROS)\nUSO induced network costs\n:\n[\u2026]\nNet cost of USO NR\n:\n[\u2026]\n(USO NR is loss making)\nUSO NR Reasonable profit\n:\n[\u2026]\n(4,8 % return on sales)\n=\nUSO costs to be financed by the reserved area\n=\n[\u2026]\nSurplus from excess profit from the reserved area reducing the SGEI net costs\n=\n[\u2026]\nOvercompensation calculation:\n(thousand EUR)\n-\nPublic service net costs\n:\n-\n[\u2026]\n-\nReasonable profit allowed\n:\n-\n[\u2026]\n(4,8 % return on sales)\n+\nState compensation\n:\n+\n1 286 461\n+\nUSO R surplus\n+\n[\u2026]\n=\nOvercompensation\n=\n[\u2026]\nThird management contract: 2003-2005\nCalculation of surplus from excess profit from USO reserved area (USO R)\n(thousand EUR)\n+\nExcess profit from USO R\n:\n+\n[\u2026]\n(USO R profit above 4,8 % ROS)\nUSO induced network costs\n:\n[\u2026]\nNet cost of USO NR\n:\n-\n[\u2026]\n(USO NR is profit making)\nUSO Reasonable profit\n:\n[\u2026]\n(4,8 % return on sales)\n=\nUSO cost to be financed by the reserved area\n=\n[\u2026]\n(no losses to be financed)\nSurplus from excess profit from the reserved area reducing the SGEI net costs\n=\n[\u2026]\nOvercompensation calculation:\n(thousand EUR)\n-\nPublic service net costs\n:\n-\n[\u2026]\n-\nReasonable profit allowed\n:\n-\n[\u2026]\n(4,8 % return on sales)\n+\nState compensation\n:\n+\n677 985\n+\nUSO R surplus:\n:\n+\n[\u2026]\n=\nOvercompensation\n=\n[\u2026]\nFourth management contract: 2006-2010\nCalculation of surplus from excess profit from USO reserved area (USO R)\n(thousand EUR)\n+\nExcess profit from USO R\n:\n+\n[\u2026]\n(USO R profit above 7,4 % ROS)\nUSO induced network costs\n:\n[\u2026]\nNet cost of USO NR\n:\n[\u2026]\n(USO NR is profit making)\nUSO reasonable profit\n:\n[\u2026]\n(7,4 % return on sales)\n=\nUSO cost to be financed by the reserved area\n=\n[\u2026]\n(no losses to be financed)\nSurplus from excess profit from the reserved area reducing the SGEI net costs\n=\n[\u2026]\nOvercompensation calculation:\n(thousand EUR)\n-\nPublic service net costs\n:\n-\n[\u2026]\n-\nReasonable profit allowed\n:\n-\n[\u2026]\n(7,4 % return on sales)\n+\nState compensation\n:\n+\n1 568 787\n+\nUSO R surplus\n:\n+\n[\u2026]\n=\nOvercompensation\n=\n[\u2026]\nOther measures\nState guarantee\n(thousand EUR)\nState guarantee 2004:\n1 500\n=\n1 500\n(382)\nAs agreed with the Belgian authorities (122), the \u2018most objective and balanced\u2019 method for defining the time period to be taken into account in calculating overall overcompensation in the present case is the \u2018contract-by-contract\u2019 approach. The Commission does not see any problem in accepting the Belgian authorities\u2019 request. In fact this method ensures greater predictability and legal certainty for the contracting parties and thereby tends to reduce the risk of overcompensation. Consequently, each period will be considered separately and no over-/undercompensation will be carried over from one period to the next.\n(383)\nThe Belgian authorities, however, argue that, before the 2005 SGEI Framework entered into force, the Commission had consistently applied a global method for calculating over-/undercompensation. On that basis, the Belgian authorities have specifically requested a pooling of all years before 2005 (123) in one global calculation of over-/undercompensation.\n(384)\nThe Commission observes that, since all three management contracts before 2005 result in undercompensation, the pooling of all years would have no consequence on the amount of overcompensation to be recovered.\n(385)\nFurthermore, the Commission notes that, since the adoption of the 2005 SGEI Framework, the \u2018parameters for calculating, controlling and reviewing the compensation\u2019 have to be defined in advance in the entrustment act(s) (124). Since the fourth management contract does not provide for compensation for any costs incurred outside its period of validity (2006-2010), undercompensation identified for periods not covered by the contract cannot be offset against possible overcompensation granted to DPLP.\n(386)\nThe Commission concludes that DPLP has been overcompensated by the amount of EUR 415 million for discharging its public service mission, notably during the period of application of the fourth management contract. Since overcompensation constitutes incompatible aid, it must be recovered.\n7. CONCLUSION\n(387)\nThe pension relief, the annual public transfers, the transfers of buildings, the 1997 capital injection, the tax exemptions, and the State guarantee constitute aid measures within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because they relieved DPLP of costs that are normally borne by private undertakings.\n(388)\nThe 2003 and 2006 capital injections do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because the State acted in conformity with the MEIP.\n(389)\nThe Commission finds that Belgium unlawfully implemented the measures in breach of Article 108(2) TFEU, with the exception of the 2003 capital injection, which was duly notified to the Commission before being executed, and the tax exemptions, which constitute existing aid.\n(390)\nThe pension relief has not placed DPLP in a more favourable situation than its competitors with regard to social security contributions. The measure can therefore be declared compatible pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.\n(391)\nThe annual compensation granted under the fourth management contract constitutes incompatible aid pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU to the extent that it overcompensated DPLP.\n(392)\nThe State guarantee constitutes incompatible aid.\n(393)\nThe property tax exemption and local tax exemption constitute existing aid and will be dealt with separately in an existing aid procedure in accordance with Articles 17-19 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.\n(394)\nIn accordance with Article 5 of the SGEI Framework, this Decision is without prejudice to the Union provisions in force in the field of public procurement and competition,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe State aid in the form of pension relief granted to De Post-La Poste (DPLP, now bpost) implemented by Belgium is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThe State aid in the form of compensation for public service costs granted to De Post-La Poste (DPLP, now bpost) unlawfully implemented by Belgium in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 3\nThe injections of capital into De Post-La Poste (DPLP, now bpost) made by Belgium in 2003 and 2006 do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThe State aid in the form of a State guarantee granted to De Post-La Poste (DPLP, now bpost) unlawfully implemented by Belgium in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 5\n1. Belgium shall recover the incompatible aid granted under the measures referred to in Articles 2 and 4.\n2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were placed at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.\n3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (125) and Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.\n4. Belgium shall cancel, with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision, all outstanding payments of aid referred to in Articles 2 and 4.\nArticle 6\n1. Recovery of the aid granted under the measures referred to in Articles 2 and 4 shall be immediate and effective.\n2. Belgium shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months of the date of its notification.\nArticle 7\n1. Within two months of the notification of this Decision, Belgium shall submit the following information to the Commission:\n(a)\nthe total amount (principal and interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary;\n(b)\na detailed description of the measures already taken and those planned to comply with this Decision;\n(c)\ndocuments demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.\n2. Belgium shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid granted under the schemes referred to in Articles 2 and 4 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, upon simple request by the Commission, any information on the measures already taken and those planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and interest already recovered from the beneficiary.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.\nDone at Brussels, 25 January 2012.", "references": ["26", "35", "5", "9", "94", "72", "77", "25", "12", "6", "82", "78", "88", "0", "65", "84", "99", "11", "63", "60", "90", "95", "52", "30", "45", "14", "50", "85", "8", "87", "No Label", "15", "32", "40", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "32", "40", "44", "48", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 425/2011\nof 29 April 2011\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under the quota referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 of 27 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards export licences and export refunds for milk and milk products (2), and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSection 3 of Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 determines the procedure for allocating export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under a quota opened for that country.\n(2)\nApplications submitted for the 2011/2012 quota year cover quantities less than those available. As a result, it is appropriate, pursuant to Article 31(2), fourth subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 to provide for the allocation of the remaining quantities. The issue of export licences for such remaining quantities should be conditional upon the competent authority being notified of the quantities accepted by the operator concerned and upon the interested operators lodging a security,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe applications for export licences lodged from 1 to 10 April 2011 for the quota period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 shall be accepted.\nThe quantities covered by export licence applications referred to in the first paragraph of this Article for the products referred to in Article 27(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 shall be multiplied by the following allocation coefficients:\n-\n1,160149 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 28(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009,\n-\n1,311859 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 28(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009.\nExport licences for the quantities exceeding the quantities applied for and which are allocated in accordance with the coefficients set out in the second paragraph, shall be issued after acceptance by the operator within one week from the date of publication of this Regulation and subject to the lodging of the security applicable.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 April 2011.", "references": ["46", "48", "82", "56", "9", "2", "1", "27", "52", "67", "44", "35", "62", "0", "71", "78", "95", "55", "6", "83", "75", "63", "57", "92", "47", "89", "28", "87", "64", "16", "No Label", "21", "70", "93"], "gold": ["21", "70", "93"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 244/2012\nof 16 January 2012\nsupplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings by establishing a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (1), and in particular Article 5(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2010/31/EU requires the Commission to establish by means of a delegated act a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements.\n(2)\nIt is the responsibility of Member States to set minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements. The requirements must be set with a view to achieving cost-optimal levels. It is up to the Member States to decide whether the national benchmark used as the final outcome of the cost-optimal calculations is the one calculated for a macroeconomic perspective (looking at the costs and benefits of energy efficiency investments for the society as a whole) or a strictly financial viewpoint (looking only at the investment itself). National minimum energy performance requirements should not be more than 15 % lower than the outcome of the cost-optimal results of the calculation taken as the national benchmark. The cost-optimal level shall lie within the range of performance levels where the cost-benefit analysis over the lifecycle is positive.\n(3)\nDirective 2010/31/EU promotes the reduction of energy use in the built environment, but also emphasises that the building sector is a leading source of carbon dioxide emissions.\n(4)\nDirective 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (2) provides for the establishment of minimum energy performance requirements for such products. When setting national requirements for technical building systems, Member States must take into account the implementing measures established under this Directive. The performances of construction products to be used for the calculations under this Regulation should be determined in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (3).\n(5)\nThe objective of cost-effective or cost-optimal energy efficiency levels may, in certain circumstances, justify the setting by Member States of cost-effective or cost-optimal requirements for building elements that would in practice raise obstacles for some building design or technical options as well as stimulate the use of energy-related products with better energy performance.\n(6)\nThe steps that comprise the comparative methodology framework have been set out in Annex III to Directive 2010/31/EU and include the establishment of reference buildings, the definition of energy efficiency measures to be applied to these reference buildings, the assessment of the primary energy demand of these measures and the calculation of the costs (i.e. net present value) of these measures.\n(7)\nThe common framework for the calculation of the energy performance as established in Annex I to Directive 2010/31/EU applies also to the cost-optimal framework methodology for all its steps, in particular the step of the calculation of the energy performance of buildings and building elements.\n(8)\nFor the purpose of adapting the comparative methodology framework to national circumstances, Member States should determine the estimated economic lifecycle of a building and/or building element, the appropriate cost for energy carriers, products, systems, maintenance, operational and labour costs, primary energy conversion factors, and the energy price developments on this point to be assumed for fuels used in their national context for energy used in buildings, taking into account the information provided by the Commission. Member States should also establish the discount rate to be used in both macroeconomic and financial calculations after having undertaken a sensitivity analysis for at least two interest rates for each calculation.\n(9)\nTo ensure a common approach to the application of the comparative methodology framework by the Member States, it is appropriate for the Commission to establish the key framework conditions needed for net present value calculations such as the starting year for calculations, the cost categories to be considered and the calculation period to be used.\n(10)\nEstablishing a common calculation period does not conflict with Member States\u2019 right to fix the estimated economic lifecycle of buildings and/or building elements since the latter could both be longer or shorter than the calculation period fixed. The estimated economic lifecycle of a building or building element has only limited influence on the calculation period since the latter is determined rather by the refurbishment cycle of a building, which is the period of time after which a building undergoes a major refurbishment.\n(11)\nCost calculations and projections with many assumptions and uncertainties, including for example energy price developments over time, are generally accompanied by a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the robustness of the key input parameters. For the purpose of the cost-optimal calculations, the sensitivity analysis should at least address the energy price developments and the discount rate; ideally the sensitivity analysis should also comprise future technology price developments as input for the review of the calculations.\n(12)\nThe comparative methodology framework should enable Member States to compare the results of the cost-optimal calculations with the minimum energy performance requirements in force and to use the result of the comparison to ensure that minimum energy performance requirements are set with a view to achieving cost-optimal levels. Member States should also consider setting minimum energy performance requirements at cost-optimal level for those building categories where so far no minimum energy performance requirements exist.\n(13)\nThe cost-optimal methodology is technologically neutral and does not favour one technological solution over another. It ensures a competition of measures/packages/variants over the estimated lifetime of a building or building element.\n(14)\nThe results of the calculations and the input data and assumptions used are to be reported to the Commission as stipulated in Article 5(2) of Directive 2010/31/EU. These reports should enable the Commission to assess and report on the progress made by Member States towards reaching cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements.\n(15)\nTo limit their administrative burden, it should be possible for Member States to reduce the number of calculations by establishing reference buildings that are representative of more than one building category, without affecting Member States\u2019 duty under Directive 2010/31/EU to set minimum energy performance requirements for certain building categories,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\nIn accordance with Article 5 of, and Annexes I and III to, Directive 2010/31/EU, this Regulation establishes a comparative methodology framework to be used by Member States for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for new and existing buildings and building elements.\nThe methodology framework specifies rules for comparing energy efficiency measures, measures incorporating renewable energy sources and packages and variants of such measures, based on the primary energy performance and the cost attributed to their implementation. It also lays down how to apply these rules to selected reference buildings with the aim of identifying cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions in Article 2 of Directive 2010/31/EU, the following definitions shall apply noting that for the calculation at macroeconomic level applicable charges and taxes are to be excluded:\n(1)\nGlobal cost means the sum of the present value of the initial investment costs, sum of running costs, and replacement costs (referred to the starting year), as well as disposal costs if applicable. For the calculation at macroeconomic level, an additional cost category costs of greenhouse gas emissions is introduced;\n(2)\nInitial investment costs mean all costs incurred up to the point when the building or the building element is delivered to the customer, ready to use. These costs include design, purchase of building elements, connection to suppliers, installation and commissioning processes;\n(3)\nEnergy costs mean annual costs and fixed and peak charges for energy including national taxes;\n(4)\nOperational costs mean all costs linked to the operation of the building including annual costs for insurance, utility charges and other standing charges and taxes;\n(5)\nMaintenance costs mean annual costs for measures for preserving and restoring the desired quality of the building or building element. This includes annual costs for inspection, cleaning, adjustments, repair and consumable items;\n(6)\nRunning costs mean annual maintenance costs, operational costs and energy costs;\n(7)\nDisposal costs mean the costs for deconstruction at the end-of-life of a building or building element and include deconstruction, removal of building elements that have not yet come to the end of their lifetime, transport and recycling;\n(8)\nAnnual cost means the sum of running costs and periodic costs or replacement costs paid in a certain year;\n(9)\nReplacement cost means a substitute investment for a building element, according to the estimated economic lifecycle during the calculation period;\n(10)\nCost of greenhouse gas emissions means the monetary value of environmental damage caused by CO2 emissions related to the energy consumption in buildings;\n(11)\nReference building means a hypothetical or real reference building that represents the typical building geometry and systems, typical energy performance for both building envelope and systems, typical functionality and typical cost structure in the Member State and is representative of climatic conditions and geographic location;\n(12)\nDiscount rate means a definite value for comparison of the value of money at different times expressed in real terms;\n(13)\nDiscount factor means a multiplicative number used to convert a cash flow occurring at a given point in time to its equivalent value at the starting point. It is derived from the discount rate;\n(14)\nStarting year means the year on which any calculation is based and from which the calculation period is determined;\n(15)\nCalculation period means the time period considered for the calculation usually expressed in years;\n(16)\nResidual value of a building means the sum of the residual values of the building and building elements at the end of the calculation period;\n(17)\nPrice development means the development over time of prices for energy, products, building systems, services, labour, maintenance and other costs and can be different from the inflation rate;\n(18)\nEnergy efficiency measure means a change to a building resulting in a reduction of the building\u2019s primary energy need;\n(19)\nPackage means a set of energy efficiency measures and/or measures based on renewable energy sources applied to a reference building;\n(20)\nVariant means the global result and description of a full set of measures/packages applied to a building that can be composed of a combination of measures on the building envelope, passive techniques, measures on building systems and/or measures based on renewable energy sources;\n(21)\nSubcategories of buildings means categories of building types that are more disaggregated according to size, age, construction material, use pattern, climatic zone or other criteria than those established in Annex I(5) to Directive 2010/31/EU. It is for such subcategories that reference buildings are generally established;\n(22)\nDelivered energy means energy, expressed per energy carrier, supplied to the technical building system through the system boundary, to satisfy the uses taken into account (heating, cooling, ventilation, domestic hot water, lighting, appliances, etc.) or to produce electricity;\n(23)\nEnergy needed for heating and cooling means heat to be delivered to or extracted from a conditioned space to maintain intended temperature conditions during a given period of time;\n(24)\nExported energy means energy expressed per energy carrier delivered by the technical building system through the system boundary and used outside the system boundary;\n(25)\nConditioned space means space where certain ambient parameters such as temperature, humidity etc. are regulated by technical means such as heating and cooling etc.;\n(26)\nEnergy from renewable sources means energy from renewable non-fossil sources, namely wind, solar, aerothermal, geothermal, hydrothermal and ocean energy, hydropower, biomass, landfill gas, sewage treatment plant gas and biogases.\nArticle 3\nComparative methodology framework\n1. When calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements, Member States shall apply the comparative methodology framework laid down in Annex I to this Regulation. The framework prescribes calculation of cost-optimal levels for both macroeconomic and financial viewpoints, but leaves it up to the Member States to determine which of these calculations is to become the national benchmark against which national minimum energy performance requirements will be assessed.\n2. For the purpose of the calculations, Member States shall:\n(a)\ntake as a starting year for the calculation the year in which the calculation is being performed;\n(b)\nuse the calculation period in Annex I to this Regulation;\n(c)\nuse the cost categories in Annex I to this Regulation;\n(d)\nuse for carbon costing as a minimum lower bound the projected ETS carbon prices as given in Annex II.\n3. Member States shall complement the comparative methodology framework by determining for the purpose of the calculations:\n(a)\nthe estimated economic lifecycle of a building and/or building element;\n(b)\nthe discount rate;\n(c)\nthe costs for energy carriers, products, systems, maintenance cost, operational costs and labour costs;\n(d)\nthe primary energy factors;\n(e)\nthe energy price developments to be assumed for all energy carriers taking into account the information in Annex II to this Regulation.\n4. Member States shall endeavour to calculate and adopt cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements in relation to those building categories where so far no specific minimum energy performance requirements exist.\n5. Member States shall undertake an analysis to determine the sensitivity of the calculation outcomes to changes in the applied parameters, covering at least the impact of different energy price developments and the discount rates for the macroeconomic and financial calculations, ideally also other parameters which are expected to have a significant impact on the outcome of the calculations such as price developments for other than energy.\nArticle 4\nComparison of the calculated cost-optimal levels with current minimum energy performance requirements\n1. Member States shall decide after having calculated the cost-optimal requirement levels both for a macroeconomic and for a financial perspective, which one is to become the national benchmark and report this decision to the Commission as part of the reporting mentioned pursuant to Article 6.\nMember States shall compare the outcome of the calculation chosen as the national benchmark referred to in Article 3 with the current energy performance requirements for the relevant building category.\nMember States shall use the result of this comparison to ensure that minimum energy performance requirements are set with a view to achieving cost-optimal levels in accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/31/EU. Member States are strongly recommended to link fiscal and financial incentives to compliance with the cost-optimal calculation outcome of the same reference building.\n2. If a Member States has defined reference buildings in such a way that the result of the cost-optimal calculation is applicable to several building categories, they may use this result to ensure that minimum energy performance requirements are set with a view to achieving cost-optimal levels for all relevant building categories.\nArticle 5\nReview of the cost-optimal calculations\n1. Member States shall review their cost-optimal calculations in time for the review of their minimum energy performance requirements required by Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/31/EU. For the review, in particular the price developments for the input cost data has to be reviewed and if need be updated.\n2. The results of this review shall be transmitted to the Commission in the report provided for by Article 6 of this Regulation.\nArticle 6\nReporting\n1. Member States shall report to the Commission all input data and assumptions used for the calculations and the results of those calculations. This report shall include the primary energy conversion factors applied, the results of the calculations at macroeconomic and financial level, the sensitivity analysis referred to in Article 3(5) of this Regulation and the assumed energy and carbon price developments\n2. If the result of the comparison referred to in Article 4 of this Regulation shows that the minimum energy performance requirements in force are significantly less energy-efficient than cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements, the report shall include any justification for the difference. To the extent that the gap cannot be justified, the report shall be accompanied by a plan outlining appropriate steps to reduce the gap to a non-significant size by the next review. In this regard, the significantly less energy-efficient level of minimum energy performance requirements in force will be calculated as the difference between the average of all the minimum energy performance requirements in force and the average of all cost-optimal levels of the calculation used as the national benchmark of all reference buildings and building types used.\n3. Member States can make use of the reporting template provided for in Annex III to this Regulation.\nArticle 7\nEntry into force and application\n1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. It shall apply from 9 January 2013 to buildings occupied by public authorities and from 9 July 2013 to other buildings except for Article 6(1) of this Regulation, which shall enter into force on 30 June 2012, in line with Directive 2010/31/EU EPBD Article 5(2), second paragraph.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 January 2012.", "references": ["68", "83", "44", "7", "85", "56", "49", "70", "53", "61", "43", "73", "71", "26", "92", "38", "18", "5", "82", "9", "75", "55", "52", "48", "86", "12", "13", "2", "34", "74", "No Label", "47", "78", "87"], "gold": ["47", "78", "87"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 755/2012\nof 16 August 2012\namending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 as regards the eligibility of specific costs of environmental actions under operational programmes of producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 103h in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishes a common organisation of agricultural markets which includes the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors. Pursuant to Article 103c(3) of that Regulation, Member States are required to provide that operational programmes in the fruit and vegetables sector include two or more environmental actions or that at least 10 % of the expenditure under the operational programmes covers environmental actions. That Regulation also provides that support for environmental actions has to cover additional costs and income foregone resulting from the action.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 60(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), Annex IX to that Implementing Regulation sets out the list of actions or expenditure not eligible for support under operational programmes. However, it indicates that specific costs for environmental measures, including costs generated by environmental management of packaging are, as an exception, eligible.\n(3)\nExperience in applying environmental actions related to management of packaging shows that there are uncertainties about the net environmental benefits resulting from those actions and/or the fact that they effectively result in additional costs and income foregone being borne by the producer organisations and, thus, about the justification for the public support provided. Moreover, both the management and the control of those actions have proved to be complex, in particular, in respect of the calculation of the support that can be granted. Based on that experience and in order to encourage the implementation of more cost-effective environmental actions and to reduce the costs related to the management of the Union regime, it is appropriate to abandon support to environmental actions related to management of packaging.\n(4)\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 60(4) is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the first subparagraph, point (c) is deleted;\n(b)\nthe second subparagraph is deleted;\n(2)\nin the first paragraph of point 1 of Annex IX, the fourth indent is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nspecific costs of environmental actions referred to in Article 103c(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. In all cases costs related to the use and management of packaging shall not be eligible;\u2019\nArticle 2\nTransitional provisions\n1. Environmental actions related to management of packaging that are included in an operational programme approved before the date of entry into force of this Regulation may remain eligible for support until the end of the operational programme, provided that they comply with the rules applicable prior to the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Where appropriate, Member States shall amend their national framework referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 103f(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in order to adapt it to the changes provided for in Article 1 of this Regulation.\nBy way of derogation from Article 56(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, the amendments made to the national framework pursuant to the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall not be subject to the procedure set out in the second subparagraph of Article 103f(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 August 2012.", "references": ["10", "50", "21", "44", "62", "92", "85", "88", "30", "24", "80", "47", "1", "5", "6", "29", "64", "90", "23", "66", "9", "39", "20", "89", "31", "67", "84", "40", "54", "16", "No Label", "15", "25", "58", "68", "74"], "gold": ["15", "25", "58", "68", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 450/2010\nof 21 May 2010\namending for the 128th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (1) and in particular Articles 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) (2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 11 May 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add two natural persons to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply and to amend two entries on the list.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 May 2010.", "references": ["45", "24", "52", "47", "89", "60", "21", "39", "93", "26", "98", "58", "85", "65", "35", "72", "76", "44", "17", "11", "53", "5", "77", "64", "19", "63", "82", "99", "31", "33", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "23", "30", "57", "95"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "23", "30", "57", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 960/2011\nof 26 September 2011\namending for the 158th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 15 September 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add two natural persons to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\n(4)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 September 2011.", "references": ["64", "87", "84", "46", "97", "82", "65", "1", "76", "54", "93", "55", "21", "10", "79", "49", "83", "99", "26", "17", "43", "12", "74", "28", "85", "48", "71", "94", "34", "31", "No Label", "3", "95"], "gold": ["3", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 365/2011\nof 13 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 14 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 April 2011.", "references": ["78", "56", "15", "26", "54", "93", "23", "43", "62", "67", "9", "58", "24", "99", "3", "64", "84", "69", "0", "97", "57", "33", "95", "41", "28", "75", "92", "51", "13", "48", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 February 2012\nappointing four Czech members and four Czech alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2012/80/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Czech Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nFour members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Ji\u0159\u00ed BYTEL, Mr Jan KUBATA, Ms Helena LANG\u0160\u00c1DLOV\u00c1 and Mr Juraj THOMA. Four alternate members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Ms Ivana \u010cERVINKOV\u00c1, Mr Tom\u00e1\u0161 CHALUPA, Ms Sylva KOV\u00c1\u010cIKOV\u00c1 and Mr Tom\u00e1\u0161 \u00daLEHLA,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMr Ond\u0159ej BENE\u0160\u00cdK, starosta obce Str\u00e1n\u00ed,\n-\nMs \u0160t\u011bp\u00e1nka FRA\u0147KOV\u00c1, prim\u00e1torka statut\u00e1rn\u00edho m\u011bsta Pardubic,\n-\nMr Dan JIR\u00c1NEK, prim\u00e1tor statut\u00e1rn\u00edho m\u011bsta Kladna,\n-\nMr Juraj THOMA, prim\u00e1tor statut\u00e1rn\u00edho m\u011bsta \u010cesk\u00fdch Bud\u011bjovic (change of mandate);\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMr Pavel BRANDA, m\u00edstostarosta obce R\u00e1dlo,\n-\nMs Sylva KOV\u00c1\u010cIKOV\u00c1, zastupitelka m\u011bsta B\u00edlovec (change of mandate),\n-\nMr Jan MARE\u0160, prim\u00e1tor statut\u00e1rn\u00edho m\u011bsta Chomutova,\n-\nMr Robert ZEMAN, m\u00edstostarosta m\u011bsta Prachatic.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 10 February 2012.", "references": ["23", "64", "38", "76", "47", "42", "98", "86", "99", "62", "36", "84", "87", "30", "16", "94", "61", "28", "82", "39", "88", "37", "35", "74", "32", "75", "9", "22", "69", "81", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 May 2010\naddressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit\n(2010/320/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Article 126(9) and Article 136 thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1)(a) TFEU foresees the possibility of adopting measures specific to the Member States whose currency is the euro with a view to strengthening the coordination and surveillance of their budgetary discipline.\n(2)\nArticle 126 TFEU establishes that Member States are to avoid excessive government deficits and sets out the excessive deficit procedure to that effect. The Stability and Growth Pact, which in its corrective arm implements the excessive deficit procedure, provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.\n(3)\nOn 27 April 2009, the Council decided, in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), that an excessive deficit existed in Greece and issued recommendations to correct that deficit by 2010 at the latest, in accordance with Article 104(7) (TEC) and Article 3(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1). The Council also set a deadline of 27 October 2009 for Greece to take effective action. On 30 November 2009, the Council established, in accordance with Article 126(8) TFEU, that Greece had not taken effective action; consequently, on 16 February 2010, the Council gave notice to Greece in accordance with Article 126(9) TFEU to take measures to correct the excessive deficit by 2012 at the latest (hereinafter \u2018the Council Decision pursuant to Article 126(9)\u2019). The Council also set a deadline of 15 May 2010 for effective action to be taken.\n(4)\nAccording to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, if effective action has been taken in compliance with Article 126(9) TFEU and unexpected adverse economic events with major unfavourable consequences for government finances occur after the adoption of that notice, the Council may decide, on a recommendation from the Commission, to adopt a revised notice pursuant to Article 126(9) TFEU.\n(5)\nAccording to the Commission services\u2019 autumn 2009 forecasts, which provided the basis for the initial notice addressed to Greece, GDP was expected to contract by \u00bc % in 2010, and recover as from 2011, when the economy was forecast to grow by 0,7 %. A sharp fall in real GDP is now expected for 2010, followed by a further contraction in 2011. A gradual resumption of growth is expected thereafter. This marked worsening of the economic scenario implies a corresponding deterioration of the outlook for public finances at unchanged policy. To this should be added the upward revision of the government deficit outcome for 2009 (from an estimated 12,7 % of GDP at the time of the Council Decision pursuant to Article 126(9) to 13,6 % of GDP according to the fiscal notification submitted by Greece on 1 April 2010), with the risk of a further upward revision (of the order of 0,3 to 0,5 % of GDP) following completion of the investigations that Eurostat is undertaking with the Greek Statistical Authorities (2). Lastly, concerns in the markets for the public finances outlook have been reflected in a sharp rise in risk premia on government debt, compounding the difficulties in controlling the path of government deficit and debt. According to the preliminary assessment carried out by the Commission in March 2010, Greece was implementing, as requested, the fiscal measures meant to ensure the achievement of the planned deficit target for 2010. However, the abrupt change in the economic scenario means that those plans can no longer be considered valid, requiring even more drastic action in the course of the current year. At the same time, the depth of the contraction in the economy that can now be expected makes the achievement of the initial deficit reduction path unfeasible. Unexpected adverse economic events with major unfavourable consequences for government finances can be considered to have occurred in Greece and revised recommendations pursuant to Article 136 and Article 126(9) TFEU are therefore justified.\n(6)\nIn the light of the above considerations, it appears that the deadline which was set in the Council Decision pursuant to Article 126(9) for the correction of the excessive deficit in Greece needs to be extended by two years to 2014.\n(7)\nGross public debt at the end of 2009 stood at 115,1 % of GDP. This is among the highest debt ratios in the EU, and is considerably higher than the 60 %-of-GDP reference value of the Treaty. Moreover, the figure risks being further revised upwards (by 5 to 7 percentage points) as a result of the ongoing statistical investigations. Achieving the deficit reduction path that is considered necessary and feasible in the light of the circumstances would imply that the increase in debt would be reversed from 2014. In addition to persistently high government deficits, the contribution of \u2018below-the-line\u2019 operations to the increase in debt has been large. This has contributed to undermining market confidence in the ability of the Greek Government to service the debt going forward. There is an extremely urgent need for Greece to take decisive action, on an unprecedented scale, on its deficit and on other factors contributing to the increase in debt, in order to reverse the increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio and allow it to return as soon as possible to market financing.\n(8)\nThe very severe deterioration of the financial situation of the Greek Government has led euro area Member States to decide to provide stability support to Greece, with a view to safeguarding the financial stability of the euro area as a whole, in conjunction with multilateral assistance provided by the International Monetary Fund. Support provided by the euro area Member States will take the form of a pooling of bilateral loans, coordinated by the Commission. The lenders have decided that their support shall be conditional on Greece respecting this Decision. In particular, Greece is expected to carry out the measures specified in this Decision in accordance with the calendar set out herein,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. Greece shall put an end to the present excessive deficit situation as rapidly as possible and, at the latest, by the deadline of 2014.\n2. The adjustment path towards the correction of the excessive deficit shall aim to achieve a general government deficit not exceeding EUR 18 508 million (8,0 % of GDP) in 2010, EUR 17 065 million (7,6 % of GDP) in 2011, EUR 14 916 million (6,5 % of GDP) in 2012, EUR 11 399 million (4,9 % of GDP) in 2013 and EUR 6 385 million (2,6 % of GDP) in 2014. To this aim, an improvement in the structural balance of at least 10 % of GDP will have to be achieved over the period 2009-2014.\n3. The adjustment path referred to in paragraph 2 requires that the annual change in the general government consolidated gross debt does not exceed EUR 34 058 million in 2010, EUR 17 365 million in 2011, EUR 15 016 million in 2012, EUR 11 599 million in 2013 and EUR 7 885 million in 2014. Based on current GDP projections, the corresponding path for the debt-to-GDP ratio would be 133,2 % in 2010, 145,2 % in 2011, 148,8 % in 2012, 149,6 % in 2013 and 148,4 % in 2014.\nArticle 2\n1. Greece shall adopt the following measures before the end of June 2010:\n(a)\na law introducing a progressive tax scale for all sources of income and a horizontally unified treatment of income generated by labour and capital assets;\n(b)\na law repealing all exemptions and autonomous taxation provisions in the tax system, including income from special allowances paid to civil servants;\n(c)\nthe cancellation of the budgetary appropriations in the contingency reserve, with the aim of saving EUR 700 million;\n(d)\nthe abolition of most of the budgetary appropriation for the solidarity allowance (except a part for poverty relief) with the aim of saving EUR 400 million;\n(e)\na reduction of the highest pensions with the aim of saving EUR 500 million for a full year (EUR 350 million for 2010);\n(f)\na reduction of the Easter, summer and Christmas bonuses and allowances paid to civil servants with the aim of saving EUR 1 500 million for a full year (EUR 1 100 million in 2010);\n(g)\nthe abolition of the Easter, summer and Christmas bonuses paid to pensioners, though protecting those receiving low pensions, with the aim of saving EUR 1 900 million for a full year (EUR 1 500 million in 2010);\n(h)\nan increase in the VAT rate, with a yield of at least EUR 1 800 million for a full year (EUR 800 million in 2010);\n(i)\nan increase in excises for fuel, tobacco and alcohol, with a yield of at least EUR 1 050 million for a full year (EUR 450 million in 2010);\n(j)\nlegislation implementing the Services Directive (3);\n(k)\na law reforming and simplifying public administration at local level with the aim of reducing operating costs;\n(l)\nthe establishment of a task force aiming at improving the absorption rate of structural and cohesion funds;\n(m)\na law to simplify the start-up of new businesses;\n(n)\na reduction of public investment by EUR 500 million compared to plans;\n(o)\nthe channelling of the budgetary appropriations for the co-financing of structural and cohesion funds to a special central account that cannot be used for any other purpose;\n(p)\nthe establishment of an independent financial stability fund to deal with potential capital shortfalls and preserve the soundness of the financial sector, by providing equity support to banks as needed;\n(q)\nthe reinforced supervision of banks, with increased human resources, more frequent reporting and quarterly stress tests.\n2. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of September 2010:\n(a)\nan inclusion in the draft budget for 2011 of fiscal consolidation measures amounting to at least 3 % of GDP (4,1 % of GDP if carryovers from measures implemented in 2010 are considered). The budget shall, in particular, include the following measures (or in exceptional circumstances, measures yielding comparable savings): a reduction in intermediate consumption of the general government by at least EUR 300 million compared to the 2010 level (in addition to savings stemming from the reform, referred to in this paragraph, of public administration and of local government); a freeze in the indexation of pensions (with the aim of saving EUR 100 million); a temporary crisis levy on highly profitable firms (yielding at least EUR 600 million in additional revenue per year in 2011, 2012 and 2013); the presumptive taxation of professionals (with a yield of at least EUR 400 million in 2011 and increasing returns in 2012 and 2013); a broadening of the VAT base to include certain services currently exempted and moving 30 % of goods and services from the reduced rate to the main rate (with a yield of EUR 1 billion); a phased-in green tax on CO2 emissions (with a yield of at least EUR 300 million in 2011); the implementation by the Greek Government of legislation reforming public administration and reorganising local government (with the aim of reducing costs by at least EUR 500 million in 2011, and 500 additional EUR million each year in 2012 and 2013); a reduction in domestically-financed investments (by at least EUR 1 billion) by giving priority to investment projects financed by EU structural funds; incentives to regularise land-use violations (yielding at least EUR 1 500 million from 2011 to 2013, of which at least EUR 500 million in 2011); a collection of revenue from the licensing of gaming (at least EUR 500 million in sales of licences and EUR 200 million in royalties); a broadening of the real estate tax base by updating asset values (to yield at least EUR 500 million additional revenue); an increased taxation of wages in kind, including by taxing car lease payments (by at least EUR 150 million); an increased taxation of luxury goods (by at least EUR 100 million); a special tax on unauthorised establishments (to yield at least EUR 800 million per year); and a replacement of only 20 % of retiring employees in the public sector (central government, municipalities, public companies, local governments, state agencies and other public institutions);\n(b)\na law reforming the pension system with a view to ensuring its medium and long-term sustainability. The law should, in particular, introduce: a unified statutory retirement age of 65 years (including for women); a merger of the existing pension funds in three funds and a unified new pension system for all current and future employees (applicable as of 1 January 2013); a reduction of the upper limit on pensions; a gradual increase in the minimum contributory period for retirement on a full benefit from 37 to 40 years (by 2015); a minimum retirement age of 60 years by 1 January 2011 (including for workers in heavy and arduous professions and those with 40 years of contributions); the abolition of the special rules applicable to persons insured before 1993 (while retaining acquired rights); a substantial narrowing of the list of heavy and arduous professions; a reduction of pension benefits (by 6 % per year) for people entering retirement between the ages of 60 and 65 with a contributory period of less than 40 years; the creation of an automatic adjustment mechanism linking the retirement age with the increase in life expectancy (as of 2020); the creation of a means-tested minimum guaranteed income for elderly people above the statutory retirement age; stricter conditions and the regular re-examination of eligibility for disability pensions; an amendment of the pension award formula in the contributory based scheme to strengthen the link between contributions paid and benefits received (with accrual rate limited to an average annual rate of 1,2 %); and an extension of the calculation of the pensionable earnings to entire lifetime earnings (while retaining acquired rights). The implementation of this law should reduce the projected increase in the pension expenditure to GDP ratio to below the euro area average over the next decades and should limit the increase of public sector spending on pensions over the period 2010-2060 to less than 2,5 % of GDP;\n(c)\na reinforcement of the role and resources of the general accounting office and the establishment of safeguards against possible political interference in data projection and accounting;\n(d)\na draft reform of wage legislation in the public sector, including, in particular, the creation of a Single Payment Authority for the payment of wages, the introduction of unified principles and a timetable to establish a streamlined and unified public sector wage grid to apply to the state sector, local authorities and other agencies;\n(e)\nlegislation to improve the efficiency of the tax administration and controls;\n(f)\nthe launch of an independent review of public administration and of existing social programmes;\n(g)\nthe publication of monthly statistics (on a cash basis) on revenue, expenditure, financing and spending arrears for the \u2018available general government\u2019 and its sub entities;\n(h)\nan action plan to improve the collection and processing of general government data, in particular by enhancing the control mechanisms of statistical authorities and of the general accounting office and ensuring effective personal responsibility for cases of misreporting, in order to ensure the prompt supply of high quality general government data required by Regulations (EC) No 2223/96 (4), (EC) No 264/2000 (5), (EC) No 1221/2002 (6), (EC) No 501/2004 (7), (EC) No 1222/2004 (8), (EC) No 1161/2005 (9), (EC) No 223/2009 (10) and (EC) No 479/2009 (11);\n(i)\nthe regular publication of information on the financial position of public undertakings and other public entities not classified as part of the general government (including detailed income statements, balance sheets and data on employment and the wage bill).\n3. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of December 2010:\n(a)\nthe final adoption of the measures referred to in paragraphs 2(a) and (d);\n(b)\ndraft legislation strengthening the fiscal framework. This should, in particular, include the establishment of a medium-term fiscal framework, the creation of a compulsory contingency reserve in the budget corresponding to 10 % of total appropriations, the creation of stronger expenditure monitoring mechanisms and the establishment of an independent fiscal agency providing advice and expert scrutiny on fiscal issues;\n(c)\na law to reform the wage bargaining system in the private sector, which should provide for a reduction in pay rates for overtime work, enhanced flexibility in the management of working time and allow local territorial pacts to set wage growth below sectoral agreements;\n(d)\na law on minimum wages to introduce sub-minima for groups at risk such as the young and long-term unemployed, and put measures in place to guarantee that current minimum wages remain fixed in nominal terms for three years;\n(e)\na reform of employment protection legislation to extend the probationary period for new jobs to one year, reduce the overall level of severance payments and ensure that the same severance payment conditions apply to blue and white collar workers, raise the minimum threshold for the rules on collective dismissals to apply, especially for larger companies, and facilitate a greater use of temporary contracts;\n(f)\na significant increase in the absorption rate of structural and cohesion funds;\n(g)\nthe introduction of a new system for the management of drugs favouring the use of generic medicines;\n(h)\nthe establishment of a unified public procurement system with a central procurement authority, ensuring, in particular, robust tendering procedures, and ex ante and ex post controls;\n(i)\nlegislation simplifying and accelerating the process of licensing undertakings, industrial activities and professions;\n(j)\na modification of the institutional framework of the Hellenic competition authority (HCC) with a view to increasing its independence, establishing reasonable deadlines for the investigation and issue of decisions and entrusting it with the power to reject complaints;\n(k)\na better management of public assets, with the aim of raising at least EUR 1 billion per year during the period 2011-2013;\n(l)\nmeasures aiming at removing existing restrictions on the freedom to provide services.\n4. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of March 2011:\n(a)\nthe final adoption of the measures referred to in paragraph 3(b).\n5. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of June 2011:\n(a)\na streamlined and unified public sector wage grid to apply to the state sector, local authorities and other agencies, with remunerations reflecting productivity and tasks;\n(b)\nmeasures implementing the findings of the external and independent functional review of public administrations;\n(c)\na reinforcement of the labour inspectorate, which shall be fully resourced with qualified staff and have quantitative targets on the number of controls to be carried out.\n6. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of September 2011:\n(a)\nthe inclusion in the draft budget for 2012 of fiscal consolidation measures amounting to at least 2,2 % of GDP. The budget shall, in particular, include the following measures (or in exceptional circumstances, measures yielding comparable savings): further broaden the VAT base by moving goods and services from a reduced to a normal rate (with the aim of collecting at least an additional EUR 300 million); reduce public employment in addition to the rule of one recruitment for every five retirements in the public sector (with the aim of saving at least EUR 600 million); establish excise duties for non-alcoholic beverages (for a total amount of at least EUR 300 million); expand the real estate tax by updating asset values (in order to create at least EUR 200 million in extra revenue); reorganise sub-central governments (aiming at generating at least EUR 500 million in savings); reduce the intermediate consumption of the general government (by at least EUR 300 million compared to the level in 2011); introduce a nominal freeze on pensions; increase efficiency of the presumptive taxation of professionals (with the aim of collecting at least EUR 100 million); reduce transfers to public undertakings (by at least EUR 800 million) following their restructuring; make unemployment benefits means-tested (with the aim of saving EUR 500 million); and collect further revenues from the licensing of gaming (at least EUR 225 million in the sale of licences and EUR 400 million in royalties);\n(b)\na mitigation of tax obstacles to mergers and acquisitions;\n(c)\na simplification of the custom clearing process for exports and imports;\n(d)\na further increase in the absorption rates of structural and cohesion funds;\n(e)\nthe full implementation of the Better Regulation agenda with a view to reducing administrative burdens by 20 % (compared with 2008).\n7. Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of December 2011:\n(a)\nthe final adoption of the measures referred to in paragraph 6(a);\n(b)\na reinforcement of the managerial capacity of all managing authorities and intermediate bodies of operational programmes under the framework of the national strategy reference framework 2007-2013 and their ISO 9001:2008 (quality management) certification.\nArticle 3\nGreece shall fully cooperate with the Commission and transmit without delay, upon a reasoned request from the latter, any data or document required in order to monitor compliance with this Decision.\nArticle 4\n1. Greece shall submit to the Council and the Commission a report outlining the policy measures taken to comply with this Decision on a quarterly basis.\n2. The reports referred to in paragraph 1 should contain detailed information on:\n(a)\nconcrete measures implemented by the date of the report in order to comply with this Decision, including their quantified budgetary impact;\n(b)\nconcrete measures planned to be implemented after the date of the report in order to comply with this Decision, their implementation calendar and an estimation of their budgetary impact;\n(c)\nthe monthly State budget execution;\n(d)\ninfra-annual budgetary implementation by social security, local government and extra budgetary funds;\n(e)\ngovernment debt issue and reimbursement;\n(f)\npermanent and temporary public sector employment developments;\n(g)\ngovernment expenditure pending payment (cumulated arrears);\n(h)\nthe financial position of public undertakings and other public entities.\n3. The Commission and the Council shall analyse the reports with a view to assessing Greece\u2019s compliance with this Decision. In the context of those assessments, the Commission may indicate the measures needed to respect the adjustment path set by this Decision for the correction of the excessive deficit.\nArticle 5\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2010.", "references": ["95", "27", "43", "35", "39", "68", "88", "3", "90", "50", "87", "59", "89", "11", "48", "56", "1", "99", "20", "22", "71", "98", "83", "76", "69", "47", "29", "37", "44", "12", "No Label", "15", "16", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "16", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 478/2010\nof 1 June 2010\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of high tenacity yarn of polyesters originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the \u2018basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 8 September 2009, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (notice of initiation), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of high tenacity yarn of polyesters originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of Korea (Korea) and Taiwan (the countries concerned).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 27 July 2009 by CIRFS - European Man-made Fibres Association (the complainant) on behalf of producers of high tenacity yarn of polyesters representing a major proportion, in this case more than 60 % of the total Union production of high tenacity yarn of polyesters. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.\n1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant Union producers, other known Union producers, the exporting producers, importers, users, other parties known to be concerned, and representatives of the PRC, Korea and Taiwan of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(4)\nThe complainant, other Union producers, exporting producers in the PRC, Korea and Taiwan, importers and users made their views known. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(5)\nIn view of the apparent high number of exporting producers in the PRC and Korea and importers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all known exporting producers in the PRC and Korea and Union importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.\n(6)\nAs explained in recitals 22 to 27 below, eleven exporting producers in the PRC provided the requested information and agreed to be included in a sample. With regards to Korea, four exporting producers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample.\n(7)\nOn the basis of the information received from the cooperating exporting producers, the Commission selected a sample of three exporting producers in the PRC or groups of related companies having the largest volume of exports to the Union. All exporting producers concerned, as well as their association and the authorities of the PRC, were consulted and agreed on the selection of the sample.\n(8)\nIn the case of Korea only four exporting producers provided the required information for the sampling exercise. In view of the low number of exporting producers which indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was not necessary.\n(9)\nIn order to allow exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the sampled exporting producers in the PRC and to the exporting producers that requested such forms with the intention to apply for individual examination pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(10)\nThe Commission officially disclosed the results of the MET findings to the exporting producers concerned in the PRC, the authorities of the PRC and the complainants. They were also given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing if there were particular reasons to be heard.\n(11)\nTwo exporting producers which were not included in the sample because they did not meet the criteria set in Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation claimed an individual margin pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. It was considered however that individual examination of the exporting producers concerned, would have led to additional on-the-spot visits and specific analysis, and would have thus been unduly burdensome and would have prevented the timely completion of the investigation. Therefore, it was provisionally concluded that the request for an individual examination of the said exporting producers could not be accepted.\n(12)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to all the other companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation, namely to four Union producers, ten importers and 68 users.\n(13)\nReplies were received from the complainant Union producers and one additional Union producer which supported this investigation, two unrelated importers and 33 users.\n(14)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\nProducers in the Union:\n-\nBrilen SA, Barbastro, Spain,\n-\nPerformance Fibers, Bascharage, Luxemburg and its related companies Performance Fibers Longlaville, Longwy, France; Performance Fibers GmbH, Bad Hersfeld Germany; Performance Fibers, Bobingen, Germany; Performance Fibers, Guben, Germany,\n-\nPolyester High Performance, Wuppertal, Germany,\n-\nSioen, Mouscron, Belgium.\nImporters in the Union:\n-\nProtex Advanced Textiles GmbH, Rosendahl, Germany.\nUsers in the Union:\n-\nAutoliv Romania SA, Brasov, Romania,\n-\nGuth & Wolf GmbH, G\u00fctersloh, Germany,\n-\nMichelin, Clermont Ferrand, France,\n-\nMitas AS, Prague, Czech Republic.\nExporting producers in the PRC:\n-\nZhejiang Guxiandao Industrial Fibre Co., Ltd, Shaoxing,\n-\nZhejiang Hailide New Material Co., Ltd, Haining,\n-\nZhejiang Unifull Industrial Fibre Co., Ltd, Huzhou.\nExporting producers in Korea:\n-\nHyosung Corporation, Seoul,\n-\nKolon Industries Inc, Seoul,\n-\nKP Chemtech Corporation, Ulsan,\n-\nSamyang Corporation, Seoul.\nExporting producers in Taiwan:\n-\nFar Eastern Textiles Co., Ltd, Taipei,\n-\nShinkong Corporation, Tapei.\nRelated importers in the Union:\n-\nHyosung Luxembourg SA, Luxembourg.\nProducers in the analogue country:\n-\nPerformance Fibers, Inc. and Performance Fibers Operations, Inc., Richmond, USA.\n1.3. Investigation period\n(15)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from January 2005 to the end of the investigation period (period considered).\n2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n2.1. Product concerned\n(16)\nThe product concerned is high tenacity yarn of polyesters (other than sewing thread), not put up for retail sale, including monofilament of less than 67 decitex originating in the PRC, Korea and Taiwan (\u2018the product concerned\u2019 or \u2018HTY\u2019) currently falling within CN code 5402 20 00.\n(17)\nThe product concerned features outstanding properties and is used in a number of diverse applications such as tyre reinforcement, broad fabrics, conveyor belts, safety belt ropes, nets and geo-synthetic products.\n(18)\nDuring the course of the investigation, certain parties claimed that the yarn used in the production of tyres, the so called \u2018High Modulus Low Shrinkage\u2019 (HMLS) yarn, should be excluded from the scope of the investigation. They claimed that HMLS has different characteristics and applications compared to other HTY.\n(19)\nThe investigation, however, showed that, although HMLS yarn has some distinctive characteristics compared to other HTY, (e.g., modulus, shrinkage, tensile strength and fatigue resistance), the different types of the product concerned all share the same basic physical and chemical characteristics. They are therefore considered to constitute one single product.\n2.2. Like product\n(20)\nThe product exported to the Union from the PRC, Korea and Taiwan, and the product produced and sold domestically in Korea and Taiwan as well as in the PRC by the Chinese exporting producer which was granted MET and also the one manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers were found to have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same uses. They are therefore provisionally considered as alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n3. SAMPLING\n3.1. Sampling of importers\n(21)\nIn view of the large number of importers identified from the complaint, sampling was envisaged for importers in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation. However, after examination of the information submitted and given the low number of importers which indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was not necessary.\n3.2. Sampling for exporting producers in the PRC\n(22)\nIn view of the large number of exporting producers in the PRC, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping, in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(23)\nIn order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, exporting producers in the PRC were requested to make themselves known within 15 days from the date of the initiation of the investigation and to provide basic information on their export and domestic sales, their precise activities with regard to the production of the product concerned and the names and activities of all their related companies involved in the production and/or selling of the product concerned.\n(24)\nThe authorities of the PRC and the producers association, i.e. the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Textiles, were also consulted for the selection of a representative sample.\n3.2.1. Pre-selection of cooperating exporting producers\n(25)\nIn total, eleven exporting producers, including groups of related companies in the PRC, came forward and provided the requested information within the given deadline set in the notice of initiation. All of them reported exports of the product concerned to the Union during the IP and expressed a wish to participate in the sample. Thus, these eleven exporting producers were considered to be cooperating in the present investigation (cooperating exporting producers).\n(26)\nExporting producers which did not make themselves known within the aforesaid deadline or did not provide the requested information in due time, were considered as non-cooperating with the investigation. The comparison between Eurostat import data and the volume of exports to the Union of the product concerned reported for the IP by the companies mentioned in recital 25 suggests that the cooperation of Chinese exporting producers was very high as mentioned in recital 73 below.\n3.2.2. Selection of the sample of cooperating exporting producers in the PRC\n(27)\nIn accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample based on the largest representative volume of exports of HTY to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sample selected consists of three companies or groups of related companies, representing more than 65 % of the total volume of exports to the Union of the product concerned. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all exporting producers concerned, as well as their association and the authorities of the PRC, were consulted and agreed on the selection of the sample.\n3.3. Individual examination\n(28)\nTwo exporting producers which were not included in the sample because they did not meet the criteria set in Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation requested that an individual margin of dumping be established pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(29)\nAs mentioned in recital 27 above, the sample was limited to a reasonable number of companies which could be investigated within the time available. The companies investigated for the purpose of the investigation of dumping for the countries concerned are listed in recital 14 above. In view of the number of verification visits to be carried out at the premises of these companies, which in the case of the PRC entailed the verification of MET claims and anti-dumping questionnaire replies, it was considered that individual examinations would be unduly burdensome and would have prevented the timely completion of the investigation.\n(30)\nTherefore, it was provisionally concluded that the two requests for an individual examination could not be accepted.\n4. DUMPING\n4.1. General methodology\n(31)\nThe general methodology set out hereinafter has been applied to all exporting producers in Korea, Taiwan, the exporting producer in the PRC granted MET and, taking into account the concept of an analogue country, also for the other two sampled exporting producer in the PRC not granted MET. The presentation of the findings on dumping for each of the countries concerned by this investigation therefore only describes what is specific for each exporting country.\n4.1.1. Normal value\n(32)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined whether the domestic sales of the like product to independent customers by each exporting producer were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was equal to or greater than 5 % of the total volume of the corresponding export sales to the Union.\n(33)\nThe Commission subsequently identified those product types sold domestically by the companies having overall representative sales which were identical or directly comparable with the types sold for export to the Union.\n(34)\nFor each product type sold by the exporting producers concerned on the domestic market, which was found to be directly comparable with the type sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered as sufficiently representative when the volume of that product type sold on the domestic market to independent customers during the IP represented 5 % or more of the total volume of the comparable product type sold for export to the Union.\n(35)\nThe Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each company could be considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for each product type the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers.\n(36)\nWhere the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average sales price was equal to or higher than the unit cost, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of all domestic sales prices of the type in question.\n(37)\nWhere the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 %, or less of the total sales volume of that product type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cots, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as the weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of the type in question.\n(38)\nWhere the product types were all sold at a loss, it was considered that they were not sold in the ordinary course of trade.\n(39)\nFor sales of product types not made in the ordinary course of trade, as well as for product types which were not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the Commission used constructed normal value, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(40)\nTo construct normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses incurred and the weighted average profit realised by each of the cooperating exporting producers concerned on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period, was added to their own average cost of production during the investigation period. Where necessary, the costs of production and SG&A expenses reported were adjusted, before being used in the ordinary course of trade test and in constructing normal values.\n4.1.2. Export price\n(41)\nIn all cases where the product concerned was exported to independent customers in the Union, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.\n(42)\nIn cases where sales were made via a related importer, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the price at which the imported products were first resold to independent customers. In these cases, adjustments were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale, including duties and taxes, as well as a reasonable margin for SG&A and profits. The related importer\u2019s own SG&A costs were used and a reasonable profit margin was established on the basis of the one found in the investigation to have been attained by the independent importer of the product concerned.\n4.1.3. Comparison\n(43)\nThe comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis.\n(44)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Appropriate adjustments were granted in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.\n4.1.4. Dumping margin\n(45)\nAccording to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin for each cooperating exporting producer was established on the basis of a comparison between the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price.\n4.2. The PRC\n4.2.1. MET assessment\n(46)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those exporting producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.\n(47)\nBriefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in a summarised form below:\n1.\nbusiness decisions and costs are made in response to market conditions, and without significant State interference; costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values;\n2.\nfirms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with International Accounting Standards (IAS) and are applied for all purposes;\n3.\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;\n4.\nbankruptcy and property laws guarantee legal certainty and stability;\n5.\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate.\n(48)\nAll sampled companies requested MET and replied to the MET claim form within the given deadlines. The Commission sought and verified the information provided in the claim forms and all other information deemed necessary at the premises of the companies in question.\n(49)\nThe verification established that two sampled exporting producers in the PRC did not meet the requirements of the criteria set forth in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation to be granted MET.\n(50)\nIn particular, one sampled exporting producer did not meet the requirements of criteria 1 to 3. Firstly, it could not demonstrate that its decisions were made in response to market signals and without significant State interference because restrictions in its selling activities, such as the obligation to sell a certain volume of the product concerned on the domestic market, were found to exist. Secondly, it did not demonstrate that its accounting records were audited in line with IAS. The investigation pointed to a number of inconsistencies and shortcomings in the accounts of the applicant, and identified certain breaches of IAS principles. Finally, distortions carried over from the non-market economy system were observed in the form of improper land-use right evaluations.\n(51)\nThe other sampled exporting producer could not demonstrate that it met criteria 1 and 3. It could not demonstrate that its decisions were made in response to market signals and without significant State interference because restrictions in its selling activities, similar to those identified in recital 50 above, were found to exist and also despite the existence of a State certification part of its capital was found not to have been contributed. Distortions carried over from the non-market economy system were also observed in the form of improper land use right evaluations.\n(52)\nOne sampled exporting producer demonstrated that it fulfilled all the criteria of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and could be granted MET.\n4.2.2. Individual treatment (IT)\n(53)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a countrywide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation to be granted IT.\n(54)\nBriefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below:\n1.\nin the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;\n2.\nexport prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined;\n3.\nthe majority of the shares belong to private persons. State officials appearing on the board of directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from State interference;\n4.\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and\n5.\nState interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.\n(55)\nThe sampled exporting producers which did not meet the MET criteria had also claimed IT in the event that they were not granted MET.\n(56)\nOn the basis of information available, it was provisionally established that the following two exporting producers in the PRC which were included in the sample meet all the requirements for IT as set forth in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation:\n-\nZhejiang Guxiandao Industrial Fibre Co., Ltd,\n-\nZhejiang Unifull Industrial Fibre Co., Ltd.\n4.2.3. Analogue country\n(57)\nAccording to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, in economies in transition, normal value for exporting producers not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country (analogue country).\n(58)\nIn the notice of initiation the United States of America (USA) was proposed as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value in the PRC. The Commission invited all interested parties to comment on this proposal.\n(59)\nA large number of parties objected to this proposal and suggested the use of Taiwan or Korea because they claimed these countries were more appropriate. The relevant arguments put forward were:\n(a)\nthe production processes and costs in the USA vary significantly from those in the PRC because the machinery used in USA is old and obsolete whereas the equipment used by the majority of the Chinese producers is modern and based on the most recent technology. Most of the Chinese, Taiwanese and Korean exporting producers use the recent one-step production technology which makes them more efficient than their US counterparts;\n(b)\nthe fact that the Taiwanese and Korean exporters were alleged to be dumping is irrelevant for the purpose of choosing a suitable analogue country;\n(c)\nthe complainants have related companies in the USA and it would not be appropriate to base the normal value on the information provided by these related companies;\n(d)\nthe conditions of competition in the USA are different from those prevailing in the PRC. The USA market is practically monopolised by one producer whereas Taiwan and Korea have a larger number of domestic producers as it is the case in the PRC.\n(60)\nThe Commission examined the above comments and considered that they were overall valid as far as the choice of an analogue country is concerned. It was further investigated whether Taiwan or Korea would qualify as a possible market economy third country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC.\n(61)\nThe investigation showed in particular that Taiwan had a higher degree of comparability of end products with the PRC. It was noted that exporting producers in Taiwan are also present in the PRC with related producers and that they basically operate under similar conditions in both countries.\n(62)\nOn this basis, it was considered more appropriate to use Taiwan as an analogue country to establish normal value for the PRC in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.\n(63)\nFollowing the choice of Taiwan as an analogue country, normal value was calculated on the basis of the data verified at the premises of the Taiwanese exporting producers which cooperated fully with the investigation. Normal value was based on the price paid or payable on sales made in the domestic market of Taiwan for comparable product types, if these were found to be made in representative quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. This was the case for a number of exported product types.\n4.2.4. Normal value\n4.2.4.1. Sampled exporting producer granted MET\n(64)\nThe majority of the domestic sales of the sampled exporting producer granted MET were found to be made in representative quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. Normal value for these product types was based on the actual prices paid or payable during the investigation period by independent customers in the domestic market of the PRC, in accordance with Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(65)\nFor sales of product types not made in the ordinary course of trade, as well as for product types which were not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, normal value had to be constructed as set out in recital 40 above.\n4.2.4.2. Sampled exporting producers not granted MET\n(66)\nAs mentioned in recitals 57 to 63 above, normal value for exporting producers not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country, in this case Taiwan.\n(67)\nFor the other exported product types, which were either not sold in the ordinary course of trade in Taiwan or not sold in representative quantities by the Taiwanese producers on their domestic market, normal value had to be constructed. Normal value was constructed on the basis set out in recital 40 above.\n4.2.5. Export Price\n(68)\nAll sales of the product concerned made by the three sampled exporting producers on the Union market were made directly to independent customers in the Union. Consequently, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of prices actually paid or payable.\n4.2.6. Comparison\n(69)\nIn order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments for differences in transport costs, ocean freight and insurance costs, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs, commissions, discounts, rebates and indirect taxation were granted to all investigated exporting producers where applicable and justified.\n4.2.7. Dumping margins\n4.2.7.1. For the sampled exporting producers\n(70)\nFor the sampled companies, the weighted average normal value of each product type was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, as provided for in Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.\n(71)\nOn this basis, the provisional weighted average dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are the following:\nCompany\nProvisional dumping margin\n-\nZhejiang Guxiandao Industrial Fibre Co., Ltd\n9,3 %\n-\nZhejiang Hailide New Material Co., Ltd\n0\n-\nZhejiang Unifull Industrial Fibre Co., Ltd\n7,7 %\n4.2.7.2. For other cooperating exporting producers\n(72)\nThe weighted average dumping margin of the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample was calculated in accordance with the provisions of Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation. This margin was established on the basis of the margins established for the sampled exporting producers, disregarding the margin of the exporting producer with a zero dumping margin. On this basis, the dumping margin calculated for the cooperating companies not included in the sample was provisionally established at 8,9 %.\n(73)\nWith regard to all other exporters in the PRC, the Commission first established the level of cooperation. A comparison was made between the total export quantities indicated in the sampling replies received from all cooperating exporting producers and the total imports from the PRC as derived from the Eurostat import statistics. The percentage of cooperation found was 100 %. On this basis, the level of cooperation was deemed to be high and it was, therefore, considered appropriate to set the dumping margin for the non-cooperating exporting producers at the highest dumping margin established for the sampled exporting producers.\n(74)\nOn this basis, the countrywide level of dumping was provisionally established at 9,3 %.\n4.3. Korea\n4.3.1. Normal value\n(75)\nThe majority of the domestic sales of the product types sold for export to the Union by all four investigated companies were found to be made in representative quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. Normal value for these product types was based on the actual prices paid or payable during the investigation period by independent customers in the domestic market of Korea, in accordance with Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(76)\nFor sales of product types not made in the ordinary course of trade, as well as for product types which were not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, normal value had to be constructed. All four investigated companies had domestic sales of certain product types which were not made in representative quantities or in the ordinary course of trade. In these cases, normal value was constructed on the basis set out in recital 40 above.\n4.3.2. Export price\n(77)\nPart of the export sales of one exporting producer were made directly to a related importer in the Union. Consequently, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the prices at which the products were first resold to an independent buyer and in accordance with the methodology described in recital 42 above.\n(78)\nThe remaining exports of the product concerned of the said exporting producer and all the export sales of the three other exporting producers were made directly to independent customers in the Union. For those sales, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of prices actually paid or payable.\n4.3.3. Comparison\n(79)\nIn order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments for differences in transport costs, ocean freight and insurance costs, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs, commissions, were granted to all investigated exporting producers where applicable and justified.\n(80)\nAll four investigated companies claimed a duty drawback adjustment pursuant to Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation on the grounds that import charges were allegedly borne by the like product when intended for consumption in the exporting country but were refunded or not paid when the product was sold for export to the Union.\n(81)\nThis claim was considered unfounded because all four companies failed to show that import charges refunded to the companies were linked to the exports of the product concerned to the Union.\n4.3.4. Dumping margins\n(82)\nAs provided by Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, for each company the weighted average normal value established for each product type was compared with the weighted average export price of each corresponding product type.\n(83)\nOn this basis, the dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Union border, duty unpaid, of all exporting producers concerned in Korea were found to be below the de minimis threshold of 2 % in the sense of Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(84)\nIt should be noted that the four Korean exporting producers represent the entirety of exports originating in that country when compared to the Eurostat import data. Thus, it has been provisionally concluded that the adoption of anti-dumping measures with regard to imports originating in Korea was not warranted.\n(85)\nShould these findings be confirmed in the further course of the investigation, the proceeding shall be terminated as regards Korea.\n4.4. Taiwan\n4.4.1. Normal value\n(86)\nThe majority of the domestic sales of the product types sold for export to the Union by the two investigated companies were found to be made in representative quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. Normal value for these product types was based on the actual prices paid or payable during the investigation period by independent customers in the domestic market of Taiwan, in accordance with Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(87)\nFor sales of product types not made in the ordinary course of trade, as well as for product types which were not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, normal value had to be constructed. Both investigated companies had domestic sales of certain product types, which were not made in representative quantities or in the ordinary course of trade. In these cases normal value was constructed on the basis set out in recital 40 above.\n4.4.2. Export price\n(88)\nAll sales of the product concerned made by the two cooperating exporting producers on the Union market were made directly to independent customers in the Union. Consequently, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of prices actually paid or payable.\n4.4.3. Comparison\n(89)\nIn order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments for differences in transport costs, ocean freight and insurance costs, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs, commissions, discounts and rebates were granted to all investigated exporting producers where applicable and justified.\n4.4.4. Dumping margins\n(90)\nAs provided by Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, for each company the weighted average normal value established for each product type was compared with the weighted average export price of each corresponding product type.\n(91)\nOn this basis, the dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Union border, duty unpaid, were as follows:\n-\nFar Eastern Textiles Co., Ltd\n3,9 %,\n-\nShinkong Corporation\nde minimis\n(92)\nWith regard to imports originating in Taiwan, it should be noted that the two cooperating exporting producers represent the entirety of exports originating in this country when compared to the Eurostat import data. A countrywide margin of dumping was established for Taiwan. This countrywide dumping margin was found to be below the de minimis threshold of 2 % set forth in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, it has been provisionally concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures with regard to imports originating in Taiwan is not warranted.\n(93)\nShould these findings be confirmed in the further course of the investigation, the proceeding shall be terminated as regards Taiwan.\n5. UNION INDUSTRY\n5.1. Union production\n(94)\nAll available information concerning Union producers, including information provided in the complaint and data collected from Union producers before and after the initiation of the investigation, was used in order to establish the total Union production.\n(95)\nOn that basis, the total Union production was estimated to be around 121 000 tonnes during the IP. This amount included the production of all Union producers that made themselves known and the estimated production of producers which remained silent in the proceeding (silent producers). In the absence of any other information, the data indicated in the complaint in respect of the silent producers was used to establish the total Union production and consumption. The silent producers accounted for around 22 % of total Union production during the IP. None of the known Union producers were neutral or opposed to the initiation of the investigation.\n(96)\nThe production volume of the Union producers which supported the complaint amounted to 94 000 tonnes in the IP, thus representing around 78 % of the total estimated Union production.\n5.2. Definition of the Union industry\n(97)\nAs mentioned in recital 96 above, the investigation showed that the Union producers that supported the complaint and agreed to cooperate in the investigation represented around 78 % of total Union production during the IP. These producers are therefore deemed to constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation.\n6. INJURY\n6.1. Union consumption\n(98)\nConsumption was established on the basis of the total imports, derived from Eurostat, the total sales on the Union market of the Union industry, including an estimate of the sales of the silent producers.\n(99)\nAs mentioned under recital 95 above, in the absence of any other information regarding the silent producers on their production and sales of HTY during the period considered, the data pertaining to these producers provided in the complaint was used instead.\nTable 1\nUnion consumption\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nTonnes\n221 277\n233 969\n265 826\n241 258\n205 912\nIndex\n100\n106\n120\n109\n93\nSource: Eurostat, complaint data and questionnaire replies.\n(100)\nOverall, Union consumption decreased by 7 % during the period considered. It was found that the consumption first increased by 20 % between 2005 and 2007, after which it decreased by 22 % between 2007 and the IP. The downturn in consumption in 2008 and the IP was the result of a lower demand, especially in the second half of 2008, due to the economic crisis.\n6.2. Imports into the Union from the countries concerned\n6.2.1. Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports from the countries concerned\n(101)\nThe Commission examined whether imports of HTY originating in the PRC, Korea and Taiwan should be assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(102)\nAs regards the imports from Taiwan and Korea, as mentioned above, it was provisionally assessed that both the Taiwanese and Korean imports were not made at dumped prices during the IP.\n(103)\nTherefore it was provisionally concluded that the effect of imports from Korea and Taiwan should not be cumulated with the dumped imports from the PRC.\n6.2.2. Dumped imports from the PRC\n(104)\nIt should be noted that one exporting producer in the PRC included in the sample was found not to be dumping its products on the Union market. Accordingly, its exports should be excluded from the analysis concerning the development of dumped imports from the PRC on the Union market.\n(105)\nHowever, in order to avoid any possibility of disclosing sensitive business data pertaining to the said producer, it was considered appropriate for confidentiality reasons not to exclude the data of the exporter not found to be dumping on the Union market from the publicly available data presented below, such as Eurostat.\n(106)\nThe first table below, therefore, comprises all imports of HTY originating in the PRC whereas the second table shows the indexed data concerning the dumped imports on the Union market during the period considered.\nTable 2a\nTotal imports from the PRC\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolumes (tonnes)\n16 200\n23 776\n42 249\n51 406\n48 683\nIndex\n100\n147\n261\n317\n301\nMarket share\n7,3 %\n10,2 %\n15,9 %\n21,3 %\n23,6 %\nIndex\n100\n139\n217\n291\n323\nPrices (EUR/tonne)\n1 871\n1 622\n1 522\n1 571\n1 548\nIndex\n100\n87\n81\n84\n83\nSource: Eurostat.\n(107)\nThe volume of total imports from the PRC increased dramatically by three times over the period considered, while at the same time the average import prices decreased by 17 %. As a result, their market share increased significantly from 7,3 % in 2005 to 23,6 % in the IP. The investigation showed that even in the period between 2007 and the IP, when consumption decreased by 22 %, the volume of imports from the PRC increased by 15 %, leading to an increase of 7,7 percentage points in their market share.\n6.2.2.1. Volume, price and market share of dumped imports\nTable 2b\nDumped imports from the PRC\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nImports (tonnes)\nIndex\n100\n240\n582\n728\n714\nMarket share\nIndex\n100\n227\n485\n667\n768\nPrices (EUR/tonne)\nIndex\n100\n67\n61\n63\n61\nSource: Eurostat and questionnaire replies.\n(108)\nThe dumped import volumes from the PRC increased dramatically over the period considered, leading to an increase of their market share by over seven times. In addition, the investigation showed that despite the decrease in consumption in the period between 2007 and the IP, dumped imports gained considerable market share during the IP.\n(109)\nAverage prices of the dumped imports from the PRC showed a decrease of 39 % during the period considered, undercutting the Union industry\u2019s prices during the IP, as explained below in recital 112.\n6.2.2.2. Price undercutting\n(110)\nFor the purposes of analysing price undercutting, the weighted average sales prices per product type of the Union industry to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the imports from the PRC to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a CIF basis with appropriate adjustments for the existing duty rights and post-importation costs.\n(111)\nCooperation from the Chinese exporters was high and accounted for 69 % of the total export volume from the PRC to the Union during the IP. Given the fact that one Chinese exporting producer was found not to be dumping its products on the Union market, its imports have not been taken into account for the purpose of the price undercutting analysis.\n(112)\nThe comparison showed that during the IP, the dumped product concerned originating in the PRC sold in the Union undercut the Union industry\u2019s prices by 24,2 %.\n6.3. Economic situation of the Union industry\n6.3.1. Preliminary remarks\n(113)\nIn accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators for an assessment of the state of the Union industry from 2005 to the end of the IP.\n6.3.2. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation\nTable 3\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProduction (tonnes)\n145 854\n145 916\n144 053\n124 807\n94 027\nIndex\n100\n100\n99\n86\n64\nCapacity (tonnes)\n159 813\n159 785\n159 101\n154 783\n143 784\nIndex\n100\n100\n100\n97\n90\nCapacity Utilisation\n91 %\n91 %\n91 %\n81 %\n65 %\nIndex\n100\n100\n100\n88\n72\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(114)\nAs shown in the above table, the production of the Union industry decreased by 36 % over the period considered. It should be noted that although Union consumption increased by 20 % between 2005 and 2007, the production of the Union industry remained stable during that period, while it decreased significantly between 2007 and the IP, in line with the drop in the Union consumption.\n(115)\nThe Union industry decreased its production capacity to around 144 000 tonnes during the IP. However, in view of stagnating sales and decreasing production volumes, the utilisation of the available capacity decreased from 91 % in 2005 to 65 % in the IP. The main decrease occurred in the period between 2007 and the IP.\n6.3.3. Sales volume and market share\n(116)\nThe sales figures in the table below relate to the volume sold to the first independent customer on the Union market.\nTable 4\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nSales volume (tonnes)\n112 998\n113 844\n117 855\n99 495\n80 745\nIndex\n100\n101\n104\n88\n71\nMarket share\n51,1 %\n48,7 %\n44,3 %\n41,2 %\n39,2 %\nIndex\n100\n95\n87\n81\n77\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(117)\nWhile Union consumption grew by 20 % during 2005 and 2007, the sales volume of the product concerned by the Union industry to independent customers on the Union market increased by only 4 %. This means that the Union industry could not benefit from the increased consumption in that period. Moreover, in the remainder of the period considered, whereas Union consumption decreased by 22 % the sales volume of the Union industry decreased even more, by 31 %. Consequently the Union industry\u2019s sales volume decreased continuously and significantly and the loss in market share was as high as 11,9 percentage points during the period considered.\n6.3.4. Average unit prices of the Union industry\n(118)\nAverage ex-works sales prices of the Union industry to unrelated customers on the Union market decreased by 9 % over the period considered. The main decrease occurred between 2007 and the IP, thus coinciding with the surge in the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC. As a consequence, despite the increase in raw material prices the Union industry had to decrease its sales prices in particular during the IP.\nTable 5\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nAverage price (EUR/tonne)\n2 592\n2 595\n2 565\n2 510\n2 350\nIndex\n100\n100\n99\n97\n91\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(119)\nIndeed, it was found that the average cost of production of the Union industry increased by 6 % between 2005 and the IP. This was mainly due to an increase in the price of PET chips which is the main raw material used in the HTY production. The average price of PET chips increased by 12 % between 2005 and 2008 after which it decreased to a level equal to that prevailing in 2005. However, during the same period, the Union industry was forced to keep its sales prices down in order to compete with the low-priced dumped imports. Consequently, the sales prices of the Union industry were significantly below their costs during the IP.\n6.3.5. Stocks\n(120)\nStocks represented around 15 % of the production volume in the IP. The Union industry decreased its stock levels by 9 % during the period considered, in particular between 2007 and the IP. However, this decrease in stocks should be seen in light of the lower level of activity following the downsizing of the Union industry.\nTable 6\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nStocks (tonnes)\n15 004\n16 828\n17 402\n16 844\n13 727\nIndex\n100\n112\n116\n112\n91\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n6.3.6. Employment, wages and productivity\nTable 7\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nEmployment - full-time equivalent (FTE)\n1 727\n1 714\n1 667\n1 498\n1 333\nIndex\n100\n99\n96\n87\n77\nLabour cost (EUR/FTE)\n41 089\n41 996\n42 083\n48 499\n43 538\nIndex\n100\n102\n102\n118\n106\nProductivity (unit/FTE)\n84,4\n85,1\n86,4\n83,3\n70,5\nIndex\n100\n101\n102\n99\n84\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(121)\nDue to the downsizing activities of the Union industry, the number of employees was reduced substantially by 23 % during the period considered. The decrease in the productivity should be seen in light of the general nature of downsizing activities, where the decrease in the number of employees follows the drop in production only after a certain delay. As regards labour costs, they increase slightly by 6 % over the period considered.\n6.3.7. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investment and ability to raise capital\nTable 8\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nProfitability\n3,0 %\n-0,7 %\n-1,1 %\n-11,5 %\n-13,3 %\nIndex\n100\n-22\n-37\n- 378\n- 438\nCash flow (EUR thousand)\n15 936\n-1 407\n824\n-16 311\n-14 597\nIndex\n100\n-9\n5\n- 120\n- 141\nInvestments (EUR thousand)\n6 713\n3 305\n8 229\n1 295\n764\nIndex\n100\n49\n123\n19\n11\nReturn on investments\n12,6 %\n-29,4 %\n-15,7 %\n- 103,3 %\n- 130,6 %\nIndex\n100\n- 233\n- 124\n- 819\n-1 036\nSource: Questionnaire replies.\n(122)\nProfitability of the Union industry was established by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product as a percentage of the turnover of these sales. Over the period considered the profitability of the Union industry decreased dramatically from a profit of 3 % in 2005 to a loss of 13,3 % in the IP. Despite the fact that Union consumption was showing an increasing trend between 2005 and 2007, the Union industry could not benefit from this favourable development due to the low priced dumped imports from the PRC.\n(123)\nThe trend shown by the cash flow, which is the ability of the industry to self-finance its activities, reflects to a large extent the evolution of profitability. Consequently, the cash flow shows a substantial decrease during the period considered. The same comments can be made about the return on investments, which showed a similar negative development in line with the negative results achieved by the Union industry over the period considered.\n(124)\nFollowing the above, the ability of the Union industry to invest became limited as the cash flow significantly deteriorated during the period considered. As a consequence, the investments dropped by 89 % during the period considered.\n6.3.8. Growth\n(125)\nWhile the Union consumption increased by 20 % between 2005 and 2007, the Union industry managed to increase its sales volume on the Union market by a mere 4 %, thus preventing it from taking advantage of the expansion in Union consumption. When looking at the development over the period considered, the drop of 29 % in the sales volume of the Union industry was far more pronounced than the decrease of 7 % in Union consumption. As a consequence, the market share of the Union industry also decreased significantly by 12 percentage points during the same period.\n6.3.9. Magnitude of the actual margin of dumping\n(126)\nThe dumping margins for the PRC, specified above in the dumping section, are above de minimis. Given the volumes and the prices of the dumped imports, the impact of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.\n6.4. Conclusion on injury\n(127)\nThe investigation has shown that most of the injury indicators such as production (- 36 %), capacity utilisation (- 28 %), sales volume to unrelated customers on the Union market (- 29 %), market share (- 12 percentage points) and productivity (- 16 %) deteriorated during the period considered. In addition, the injury indicators related to the financial performance of the Union industry such as cash flow (- 241 %) and profitability (- 16,3 percentage points) were seriously affected. This means that the ability of the Union industry to raise capital was also undermined in particular during the IP.\n(128)\nIt was found that the main losses occurred in the period between 2008 and the IP when, despite a significant decrease in the Union consumption, the dumped imports from the PRC remained present in high volumes in the Union market, undercutting the prices of the Union industry by over 24 % in the IP.\n(129)\nThe investigation also showed that the cost of production of the Union industry reached its highest level in 2008, mainly due to the sharp increase in the prices of the main raw material. During the IP, the Union industry managed to maintain and control its cost of production with rationalisation efforts and due to the decrease of PET prices which mainly occurred in the second half of the IP. However, in view of the significant price undercutting practiced by the Chinese exporters during the IP, the Union industry was not in a position to increase its sales prices to a level that would have covered its costs. This led to a significant deterioration in its financial situation during the IP.\n(130)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it was concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\n7. CAUSALITY\n7.1. Introduction\n(131)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the dumped imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC caused injury to the Union industry to a degree that enables it to be classified as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time be injuring the Union industry, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n7.2. Effect of the dumped imports\n(132)\nThe investigation showed that dumped imports from the PRC increased dramatically over the period considered, increasing their share of the Union market by more than seven times between 2005 and the IP. It was also found that in the period between 2008 and the IP when the Union consumption decreased by about 15 %, the volume of the dumped imports from the PRC remained high and even increased their market share by 15 %.\n(133)\nDuring the period considered, the Union industry faced a significant drop of 29 % in their sales volume and consequently lost market share from 51,1 % to 39,2 %, almost 12 percentage points. In the period between 2008 and the IP, the market share of the Union industry dropped by two percentage points whereas that of the dumped Chinese imports increased, despite the declining demand on the Union market.\n(134)\nAs regards prices of the dumped imports, they decreased by 39 % during the period considered and were significantly undercutting the prices charged by the Union industry on the Union market. Consequently, the Union industry was prevented from increasing its prices to cover the increase in raw material prices. As a result, the profitability of the Union industry\u2019s sales on the Union market decreased, as explained above in recital 122, from a profit of 3 % in 2005 to a loss of 13,3 % in the IP.\n(135)\nThe investigation also showed that the increasing volumes of low-priced dumped imports from the PRC had a negative impact on the market overall by depressing the prices.\n(136)\nIt is therefore considered that the continued pressure exercised by the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC on the Union market did not allow the Union industry to adapt its sales prices to the increased raw material costs, in particular in 2008, when PET prices peaked. This explained the loss in market share and the loss in profitability of the Union industry.\n(137)\nIn view of the above it was provisionally concluded that the surge of the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC had a considerable negative impact on the economic situation of the Union industry.\n7.3. Effect of other factors\n7.3.1. Development of the demand on the Union market\n(138)\nAs mentioned in recital 100 above, the Union consumption of HTY first increased between 2005 and 2007, after which it decreased in 2008 and the IP. During the period considered, the Union industry lost a significant part of their market share. Although it cannot be excluded that this negative evolution of the Union consumption between 2008 and the IP may have had a negative impact on the situation of the Union industry, it is noteworthy that the Chinese exporters managed at the same time to increase their market share. Accordingly, it is considered that the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry cannot be explained by the decreased demand but is mainly caused by the surge in the dumped imports from the PRC and the undercutting practised by the Chinese exporters.\n7.3.2. Prices of raw material\n(139)\nPrices of raw material, mainly PET chips, have increased significantly between 2005 and 2008 after which they decreased during the second half of the IP and reached a level equal to the year 2005 by the end of the IP.\n(140)\nThe investigation confirmed that the cost of production of the Union industry to produce HTY followed the same trend as the evolution of the raw material prices, and overall increased by 6 % during the period considered. However, in a market governed by effective trade conditions, namely in the absence of injurious dumping, it could be expected that prices are regularly adapted to reflect the development of the various components of the cost of production. This did not take place in this case. Indeed, the Union industry was forced to keep its sales prices low in order to compete against the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC, which led to a significant drop in its profitability. Accordingly, it is provisionally concluded that the undercutting practiced by the Chinese exporters depressed the prices on the Union market and prevented the Union industry from increasing its sales prices to cover its costs.\n7.3.3. Captive production of the Union industry\n(141)\nThe investigation showed that only one Union producer which cooperated with the investigation was vertically integrated and that the captive production was used for further processing into value added products in the downstream industry. The investigation did not point to any production problem linked to these downstream products. Indeed, the captive use remained stable over the period considered and represented around 7 % of the production volume.\n(142)\nOn that basis, it was considered that the captive production of the Union industry did not contribute to the deterioration of its financial situation, in particular during the IP.\n7.3.4. Export performance of the Union industry\n(143)\nAlthough the analysis of injury and causation focused on the situation of the Union industry in the Union market, its export performance was examined as a potential other factor that may explain the injury found. The analysis showed that the export sales to unrelated parties made by the Union industry remained modest (around 3 %) during the period considered. The decrease in export sales volume, from around 18 000 tonnes in 2005 to around 7 000 tonnes during the IP, may be explained by the decrease in production during the same period. However, the export price was higher than the price that the Union industry was charging to its customers on the Union market. Hence, it was considered that the decrease in export volume cannot explain the level of injury suffered by the Union industry and in particular the significant drop in profitability during the IP.\n7.3.5. Imports from other third countries\n(144)\nThe trends in import volumes and prices from other third countries between 2005 and the IP were as follows:\nTable 9\nOther third countries\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nImports (tonnes)\n29 940\n30 350\n29 035\n21 590\n16 478\nIndex\n100\n101\n97\n72\n55\nMarket share\n13,5 %\n13,0 %\n10,9 %\n8,9 %\n8,0 %\nIndex\n100\n96\n81\n66\n59\nPrice (EUR/tonne)\n2 635\n2 700\n2 584\n2 606\n2 585\nIndex\n100\n102\n98\n99\n98\nSource: Eurostat.\n(145)\nThe main other third countries exporting HTY to the Union are Switzerland, Belarus, Japan and Thailand. As shown in the above table, the combined import volume from these countries was rather low in relation to the Union consumption and decreased by 45 % over the period considered. The average import prices remained stable and relatively high during the IP.\n(146)\nOn the basis of the above, it was provisionally concluded that the imports from these third countries did not contribute to the material injury suffered by the Union industry.\n7.3.6. Imports from Korea and Taiwan\n(147)\nAs regards the imports from Taiwan and Korea, as mentioned above, it was provisionally assessed that both the Taiwanese and Korean imports were not made at dumped prices during the IP. These imports are shown in tables 10 and 11 below:\nTable 10\nTotal imports from Korea\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolumes (tonnes)\n17 542\n20 701\n27 521\n24 908\n24 580\nIndex\n100\n118\n157\n142\n140\nMarket share\n7,9 %\n8,8 %\n10,4 %\n10,3 %\n11,9 %\nIndex\n100\n112\n131\n130\n151\nPrices (EUR/tonne)\n2 105\n1 958\n1 912\n1 911\n1 780\nIndex\n100\n93\n91\n91\n85\nSource: Eurostat.\n(148)\nAs can be seen in the above table, the import volumes from Korea followed by and large a trend similar to that of consumption during the period considered. Import volumes increased from 17 542 tonnes in 2005 to 24 580 tonnes in the IP. This lead to an increase in their market share from 7,9 % in 2005 to 11,9 % in the IP. It is however noteworthy that import volumes decreased substantially between 2007 and the end of the IP.\n(149)\nIt is also noteworthy that, while the average import prices from Korea decreased by 15 % during the period considered, they remained higher than the average import prices from the PRC throughout the same period.\nTable 11\nTotal imports from Taiwan\n2005\n2006\n2007\n2008\nIP\nVolumes (tonnes)\n7 343\n7 761\n10 285\n11 028\n8 163\nIndex\n100\n106\n140\n150\n111\nMarket share\n3,3 %\n3,3 %\n3,9 %\n4,6 %\n4,0 %\nIndex\n100\n100\n117\n138\n119\nPrices (EUR/tonne)\n1 968\n1 734\n1 608\n1 678\n1 687\nIndex\n100\n88\n82\n85\n86\nSource: Eurostat.\n(150)\nAs regards the imports from Taiwan, they increased from 7 343 tonnes in 2005 to 8 163 tonnes in the IP, thus by 11 %. At the same time their market share slightly increased from 3,3 % in 2005 to 4 % in the IP. Like the Korean imports, the Taiwanese import volume decreased considerably between 2007 and the end of the IP.\n(151)\nThe average import prices from Taiwan went down by 14 % during the period considered but remained considerably higher than the import prices from the PRC during the same period.\n(152)\nBased on the above, it cannot be ruled out that the imports from Korea and Taiwan may have contributed to some extent the injury suffered by the Union industry. However, import volumes and prices during the IP do not appear to be at a level such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n7.3.7. Other producers in the Union\n(153)\nThe analysis of data pertaining to the Union market suggested that the other Union producers did not gain market share during the period considered. The investigation did not point to any particular problem concerning the competition between Union producers or to any trade distorting effects which may explain the material injury found for the Union industry.\n(154)\nBased on the above, it was provisionally concluded that the producers not included in the definition of the Union industry did not contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n7.4. Conclusion on causation\n(155)\nThe above analysis demonstrated that there was a substantial increase in the volume and market share of the low-priced dumped imports originating in the PRC over the period considered. In addition, it was found that these imports were made at dumped prices which were below the prices charged by the Union industry on the Union market for similar product types.\n(156)\nThis increase in volume and market share of the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC coincided with an overall increase of the demand in the Union during the period between 2005 and 2007 but also with the negative development in the market share of the Union industry during the same period. Furthermore, between 2007 and the IP, when the demand in the Union market decreased, the Chinese exporters managed to increase their market share. At the same time a further negative development in the market share of the Union industry and in the main indicators of its economic situation was observed. Indeed, over the period considered the surge in the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC, which were constantly undercutting the prices of the Union industry, led to a drop in the Union industry\u2019s profitability by more than 16 percentage points, resulting in heavy losses in the IP.\n(157)\nThe examination of the other known factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry revealed that these factors do not appear to be such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.\n(158)\nBased on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports, it was provisionally concluded that the dumped imports from the PRC have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\n8. UNION INTEREST\n8.1. Preliminary remark\n(159)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether, despite the provisional conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed for concluding that it was not in the Union interest to adopt provisional anti-dumping measures in this particular case. The analysis of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and users of the product concerned.\n8.2. Union industry\n(160)\nThe Union industry is composed of four producers located in different Member States of the Union, employing directly over 1 300 people related to the product concerned.\n(161)\nThe Union industry has suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports from the PRC. It is recalled that all injury indicators showed a negative trend during the period considered. In particular injury indicators related to the financial performance of the Union industry, such as cash flow, return on investments and profitability were seriously affected. In the absence of measures, a further deterioration in the Union industry\u2019s economic situation appears very likely.\n(162)\nIt is expected that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties will restore effective trade conditions on the Union market, allowing the Union industry to align the prices of HTY to reflect the costs of the various components and the market conditions. It can be expected that the imposition of provisional measures would enable the Union industry to regain at least part of the market share lost during the period considered, with a further positive impact on its economic situation and profitability.\n(163)\nIt was therefore concluded that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of HTY originating in the PRC would be in the interest of the Union industry.\n8.3. Importers\n(164)\nQuestionnaires were sent to ten importers in the Union. Only two importers, located in Germany and Spain, representing 15,4 % and 0,2 % respectively of the total imports from the PRC, cooperated in the investigation. Regarding the first importer, the investigation showed that it imported only from the PRC and that almost its entire turnover related to the product concerned. In the worst case scenario an anti-dumping duty of 9 % would lead to a significant decrease in its profitability, and this company could become loss-making. It is considered however that it could pass at least part of the cost increase to its customers, given its strong market position amongst certain large users. In addition, it could revert to other sources of supply, at least in the longer term. As regards the second importer, the product concerned represented only a limited share of its total business (0-5 %) and any negative impact of the proposed measures is thus likely to be negligible.\n(165)\nBased on the information available, it was concluded that although the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures would negatively impact one of the above mentioned importers, this importer should be in a position to pass at least part of the cost increase to its customers and/or shift to other sources of supply. Therefore, the imposition of provisional measures should not have a significant negative impact overall on the importers.\n8.4. Users\n(166)\nUsers of HTY have shown a strong interest in this case. Out of the 68 users contacted, 33 cooperated in the investigation. These cooperating users represented 25 % of the total imports from the PRC. These companies are located throughout the Union and are present in various industrial sectors, such as tyres and automotive applications, ropes and industrial applications.\n(167)\nFor the sake of clarity and given that the imposition of provisional measures would impact users differently, depending on the sector where they operate, the impact of measures on users was analysed by grouping them into separate industrial sectors as described below.\n(168)\nAs regards the users present in the tyres sector, four questionnaire replies were received from tyre manufacturers. According to the data provided by the tyre manufacturers, the share of the HTY in relation to the cost of production of a tyre was relatively limited, below 1 % on average, and the average profit related to the tyre manufacturing business amounted to around 2 %. None of the cooperating users were found to import the product concerned from the PRC. Hence, should provisional anti-dumping duties be imposed, it is considered that these users should not be affected by measures on imports from the PRC. In addition, should any users in this sector import from the PRC, a number of alternative sources of supply exists.\n(169)\nRegarding the automotive sector (mainly producing seatbelts and airbags), six questionnaire replies were received from these users. These six companies represented 5 % of the total imports of HTY from the PRC in the IP. Overall, it was found that on average the products where HTY is used represented less than 4 % of the total turnover of these companies and that the average profit achieved in this business was around 3 %. Furthermore, it was found that the six companies purchased HTY mainly from the Union producers, while only 11 % of their purchases were imported from the PRC. Therefore, the imposition of provisional measures on imports from the PRC is unlikely to seriously affect the automotive sector overall since these companies were found to be profitable and the PRC was not the main source of supply.\n(170)\nConcerning the ropes manufactures, three questionnaire replies were received representing less than 1 % of the total imports from the PRC in the IP. The share of business using HTY was around 18 % of their total business and the average profit margin achieved in that business was around 8 % in the IP. On this basis, it was estimated that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties on imports from the PRC is likely to only slightly decrease their profit margin. The investigation also showed that the majority of the imports (66 %) were from the PRC during the IP while 20 % was originating in Korea. Therefore, should measures be imposed, this sector is unlikely to be seriously affected since the impact on the profit margin is limited and other sources of supply exist.\n(171)\nCertain rope manufacturers have argued that since HTY is predominantly used within other sectors, such as the industrial sector and the car industry, the imposition of anti-dumping measures would lead to a lack of availability of the types of HTY used by the ropes manufacturers, since the Union producers would allegedly focus on the big markets first and supply the remaining sectors only if spare capacity existed. It should be noted however that other sources of supply, including the Union industry, Korea and Taiwan as well as other third countries which are not subject to measures, are available. Therefore, this claim was rejected.\n(172)\nRegarding the users present within the sector of industrial applications, such as roofing, belts, lashes and industrial textiles, in total 19 questionnaire replies were received. These users represented 19 % of the total imports from the PRC during the IP. Based on the information available for this sector, the share of the business where HTY are used is 64 % of the total business and the average profit achieved within this business was 13 %. The impact of anti-dumping duties is likely to only slightly decrease the average profit margin achieved in this sector. The investigation also showed that these users mainly purchased from Union producers and from the PRC. Therefore, the imposition of measures on imports from the PRC should not have a significant negative impact on this sector considering the limited impact to the profit margin and the existence of other sources of supply.\n(173)\nSome users argued that if anti-dumping measures were imposed, this would negatively impact them in two ways. They claimed that not only would there be a lack of alternative sources available, but that also the countries concerned would shift their exports from the product concerned to products in the downstream market.\n(174)\nAs regards the claim that there will be no alternative sources available, it is firstly noted that no provisional measures will be imposed against imports from Korea and Taiwan. Moreover, as mentioned in recital 171 other sources of supply from other third countries not subject to measures are available. Secondly, regarding the supply by the Union industry, the investigation did point to some shortcomings in the supply by some Union producers to certain users. However, the analysis did not show any evidence that these shortcomings would have occurred regularly. Based on the above, and in particular due to the existence of other available sources of supply, this claim was rejected.\n(175)\nAs regards the claim that HTY producers in the countries concerned would shift their exports to the downstream market, it should be noted that provisional measures will not be imposed against imports from Korea and Taiwan. Therefore, even if the Chinese exporters shift some of their exports to the downstream market, it is considered that the users of HTY should be able to remain competitive because they would be still able to source HTY from other suppliers which are not subject to measures. Therefore, this claim was rejected.\n(176)\nTaken the above into consideration, even if some of the users are likely to be negatively impacted by the measures on imports from the PRC, the impact on the users in the various industrial sectors appears to be limited overall. Therefore, it was provisionally concluded that, on the basis of the information available, the effect of the anti-dumping measures against imports of HTY originating in the PRC will most likely not have a significant negative impact on the users of the product concerned.\n8.5. Conclusion on Union interest\n(177)\nIn view of the above, it was provisionally concluded that overall, based on the information available concerning the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of provisional measures on imports of HTY originating in the PRC.\n9. NON-IMPOSITION OF DUTIES\n(178)\nIn the light of the findings that the countrywide weighted average dumping margins for imports originating in Korea and Taiwan are de minimis, no provisional anti-dumping duties as regards imports originating in these countries are imposed.\n10. PROPOSAL FOR PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n10.1. Injury elimination level\n(179)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.\n(180)\nFor the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the dumping margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Union industry.\n(181)\nWhen calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the Union. It is considered that the profit that could be achieved in the absence of dumped imports should be based on the year 2005 which is the only year where profits were achieved by the Union industry and when Chinese imports were less present on the Union market. It is thus considered that a profit margin of 3 % of turnover could be regarded as an appropriate minimum which the Union industry could have expected to obtain in the absence of injurious dumping.\n(182)\nOn this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry for the like product. The non-injurious price was obtained by adding the abovementioned profit margin of 3 % to the cost of production.\n(183)\nThe necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison, per product type, of the weighted average import price of the sampled exporting producers in the PRC, with the non-injurious price of the product types sold by the Union industry on the Union market during the IP. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the average CIF import value of the compared types.\n10.2. Provisional measures\n(184)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in respect of imports originating in the PRC at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.\n(185)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(186)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (3) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(187)\nIn order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the residual duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.\n(188)\nThe dumping and injury margins established are as follows:\nCompany\nDumping margin\nInjury margin\nZhejiang Guxiandao Industrial Fibre Co., Ltd\n9,3 %\n57,1 %\nZhejiang Uniful Industrial Fibre Co., Ltd\n7,7 %\n57,6 %\nZhejiang Hailide New Material Co., Ltd\n0\nN/A\nCooperating non-sampled companies\n8,9 %\n57,3 %\nAll other companies\n9,3 %\n57,6 %\n11. DISCLOSURE\n(189)\nThe above provisional findings will be disclosed to all interested parties which will be invited to make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Their comments will be analysed and taken into consideration where warranted before any definitive determinations are made. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of anti-dumping duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purposes of any definitive findings,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of high tenacity yarn of polyesters (other than sewing thread), not put up for retail sale, including monofilament of less than 67 decitex originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, currently falling within CN code 5402 20 00.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies below shall be:\nCompany\nDuty (%)\nTARIC additional code\nZhejiang Guxiandao Industrial Fibre Co., Ltd\n9,3\nA974\nZhejiang Unifull Industrial Fibre Co., Ltd\n7,7\nA975\nZhejiang Hailide New Material Co., Ltd\n0\nA976\nCompanies listed in the Annex\n8,9\nA977\nAll other companies\n9,3\nA999\n3. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Without prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within 1 month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n2. Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within 1 month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of 6 months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 June 2010.", "references": ["26", "80", "35", "9", "34", "19", "42", "18", "51", "54", "17", "38", "11", "12", "53", "30", "91", "43", "64", "82", "0", "3", "74", "72", "62", "58", "86", "10", "49", "25", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "76", "83", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "76", "83", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 10 April 2012\nallowing Member States to extend provisional authorisations granted for the new active substances amisulbrom, chlorantraniliprole, meptyldinocap, pinoxaden, silver thiosulphate and tembotrione\n(notified under document C(2012) 2259)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/191/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (2), and in particular Article 80(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Directive 91/414/EEC shall continue to apply to active substances for which a decision has been adopted in accordance with Article 6(3) of Directive 91/414/EEC before 14 June 2011.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in March 2006 the United Kingdom received an application from Nissan Chemical Europe SARL for the inclusion of the active substance amisulbrom in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2007/669/EC (3) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in February 2007 Ireland received an application from DuPont International Operations SARL for the inclusion of the active substance chlorantraniliprole in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2007/560/EC (4) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in August 2005 the United Kingdom received an application from Dow Agrosciences for the inclusion of the active substance meptyldinocap in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2006/589/EC (5) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in March 2004 the United Kingdom received an application from Syngenta Ltd for the inclusion of the active substance pinoxaden in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2005/459/EC (6) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in January 2003 the Netherlands received an application from Enhold BV for the inclusion of the active substance silver thiosulphate in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2003/850/EC (7) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in November 2005 Austria received an application from Bayer CropScience AG for the inclusion of the active substance tembotrione in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2006/586/EC (8) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.\n(8)\nConfirmation of the completeness of the dossiers was necessary in order to allow them to be examined in detail and to allow Member States the possibility of granting provisional authorisations, for periods of up to three years, for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned, while complying with the conditions laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and, in particular, the conditions relating to the detailed assessment of the active substances and the plant protection products in the light of the requirements laid down by that Directive.\n(9)\nFor these active substances, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicants. The rapporteur Member States submitted the respective draft assessment reports to the Commission on 15 July 2008 (amisulbrom), on 11 February 2009 (chlorantraniliprole), on 25 October 2006 (meptyldinocap), on 30 November 2005 (pinoxaden), on 9 November 2005 (silver thiosulphate) and on 2 February 2007 (tembotrione).\n(10)\nFollowing submission of the draft assessment reports by the rapporteur Member States, it has been found to be necessary to request further information from the applicants and to have the rapporteur Member States examine that information and submit their assessment. Therefore, the examination of the dossiers is still ongoing and it will not be possible to complete the evaluation within the time-frame provided for in Directive 91/414/EEC, read in conjunction with Commission Decisions 2010/353/EU (9) (amisulbrom, chlorantraniliprole, meptyldinocap and pinoxaden) and 2010/149/EU (10) (silver thiosulphate and tembotrione).\n(11)\nAs the evaluation so far has not identified any reason for immediate concern, Member States should be given the possibility of prolonging provisional authorisations granted for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned for a period of 24 months in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of Directive 91/414/EEC so as to enable the examination of the dossiers to continue. It is expected that the evaluation and decision-making process with respect to a decision on a possible approval in accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 for amisulbrom, chlorantraniliprole, meptyldinocap, pinoxaden, silver thiosulphate and tembotrione will have been completed within 24 months.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States may extend provisional authorisations for plant protection products containing amisulbrom, chlorantraniliprole, meptyldinocap, pinoxaden, silver thiosulphate or tembotrione for a period ending on 31 May 2014 at the latest.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall expire on 31 May 2014.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 April 2012.", "references": ["54", "81", "4", "60", "10", "33", "62", "78", "30", "88", "55", "77", "14", "59", "39", "40", "42", "19", "46", "43", "79", "85", "58", "71", "52", "86", "95", "63", "15", "93", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/424/CFSP\nof 18 July 2011\nappointing a European Union Special Representative for the Southern Mediterranean region\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRecent developments in the Arab world call for a strengthened and comprehensive response from the European Union.\n(2)\nThe European Council adopted Declarations on 4 February and 11 March 2011, and Conclusions on 24-25 March 2011 expressing the Union\u2019s intention to support all steps towards democratic transformation in its Southern Neighbourhood and to develop a new partnership with the region.\n(3)\nThe Council adopted conclusions on 21 February 2011 on developments in the Southern Neighbourhood, and on 20 June 2011 on the European Neighbourhood Policy, welcoming the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) for a European Union Special Representative for the Southern Mediterranean region.\n(4)\nThe HR and the European Commission have put forward proposals for a Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity and a new approach to partnership with the Union\u2019s neighbours through the European Neighbourhood Policy in their Communications of 8 March and 25 May 2011.\n(5)\nThere is a need for enhanced diplomacy by the Union in the countries of the region in order to support an orderly transition to sustainable democracy, as well as human rights and the rule of law.\n(6)\nA European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Southern Mediterranean region should therefore be appointed.\n(7)\nThe mandate of the EUSR will be implemented in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union\u2019s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAppointment\nMr Bernardino LE\u00d3N is hereby appointed European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Southern Mediterranean region until 30 June 2012. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the HR.\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the Union regarding Southern Neighbourhood as set out in the European Council Declarations of 4 February and 11 March 2011, the Conclusions of 24-25 March 2011, and the Council Conclusions of 21 February and 20 June 2011, and taking into account the proposals of the HR and the Commission in their Communications of 8 March and 25 May 2011.\nThose objectives include:\n(a)\nenhancing the Union\u2019s political dialogue, contributing to the partnership and broader relationship with the countries of the Southern Mediterranean region;\n(b)\ncontributing to the response of the Union to the developments in the countries of the Southern Mediterranean region and, in particular, to strengthening democracy and institution building, the rule of law, good governance, respect for Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, peace and regional cooperation, including through the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Union for the Mediterranean;\n(c)\nenhancing the European Union\u2019s effectiveness, presence and visibility in the region and in relevant international forums. Establishing close coordination with relevant local partners and international and regional organisations such as the African Union, the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the League of Arab States and the United Nations.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the policy objectives, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\nstrengthen the overall political role of the Union with regard to the countries of the Southern Mediterranean region, in particular by enhancing dialogue with governments and international organisations, as well as with civil society and other relevant interlocutors, and promoting awareness among partners of the Union\u2019s approach;\n(b)\nmaintain close contact with all parties involved in the process of democratic transformation in the region, foster stabilisation and reconciliation in full respect of local ownership and contribute to crisis management and prevention;\n(c)\ncontribute to better coherence, consistency and coordination of the Union and Member States\u2019 policies and actions towards the region;\n(d)\ncontribute to promoting coordination with international partners and organisations. Assist the HR, in coordination with the Commission, by contributing to the work of the Task Force for the Southern Mediterranean;\n(e)\ncontribute to the implementation of the Union\u2019s human rights policy in the region, including the Union\u2019s Guidelines on human rights, in particular the Union\u2019s Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict, as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and the Union\u2019s policy on Women, Peace and Security, including by monitoring and reporting on developments, as well as formulating recommendations in this regard.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (EEAS).\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR until 30 June 2012 shall be EUR 855 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of the mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of the team.\n2. Member States, the institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, institution of the Union or the EEAS, and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and the staff of the EUSR\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s staff shall be agreed with the host party or parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (1).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegations and the Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall, take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with the mandate and on the basis of the security situation in the geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under the direct authority of the EUSR, in particular by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan, providing for mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area and the management of security incidents, and providing for a contingency plan and a mission evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance, as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of the EUSR\u2019s team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the PSC and the HR with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report to Council working parties as necessary. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the PSC or the HR, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall promote overall Union political coordination and shall help ensure that all Union and Member States\u2019 instruments in the field are engaged coherently, to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of the Member States and the Commission, as well as those of other European Union Special Representatives active in the region, including the EUSR for the Middle East Peace Process, as appropriate. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States\u2019 missions and the Union\u2019s delegations.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegations and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission, who shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the Council, the HR and the European Commission with a progress report by the end of January 2012, and with a comprehensive implementation report on the mandate at the end thereof.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["86", "68", "27", "39", "84", "70", "5", "65", "85", "50", "76", "77", "26", "24", "42", "94", "91", "19", "55", "31", "23", "20", "57", "51", "37", "75", "87", "74", "11", "2", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "96"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 136/2012\nof 16 February 2012\nconcerning the authorisation of sodium bisulphate as feed additive for pets and other non-food producing animals\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of sodium bisulphate. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of sodium bisulphate as a feed additive for pets and other non-food producing animals, to be classified in the additive categories \u2018technological additives\u2019 and \u2018sensory additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 13 October 2011 (2) that, under the proposed conditions of use, sodium bisulphate does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that its use is considered efficacious as acidity regulator in feed for pets and other non food-producing animals, and as flavouring substance in feed for pets. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of sodium bisulphate shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annexes to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in Annex I, belonging to the additive category \u2018technological additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018acidity regulator\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThe preparation specified in Annex II, belonging to the additive category \u2018sensory additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018flavouring compounds\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 February 2012.", "references": ["70", "51", "83", "4", "77", "45", "32", "37", "59", "9", "35", "17", "1", "39", "69", "81", "92", "63", "18", "49", "48", "11", "85", "54", "50", "52", "2", "29", "65", "79", "No Label", "25", "61", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "61", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 652/2011\nof 5 July 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 July 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 July 2011.", "references": ["23", "98", "58", "7", "3", "88", "30", "82", "18", "63", "12", "89", "46", "13", "24", "93", "36", "6", "43", "57", "31", "78", "22", "97", "27", "69", "80", "25", "8", "59", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 584/2012\nof 2 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 July 2012.", "references": ["78", "6", "24", "53", "55", "47", "19", "83", "39", "77", "69", "82", "15", "81", "13", "67", "20", "76", "51", "93", "26", "3", "9", "66", "97", "65", "43", "32", "11", "41", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1304/2011\nof 13 December 2011\non the withdrawal of the temporary suspension of the duty-free regime for the year 2012 for the importation into the European Union of certain goods originating in Norway resulting from the processing of agricultural products covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2004/859/EC of 25 October 2004 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway on Protocol 2 to the bilateral Free Trade Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway (2), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nProtocol 2 to the bilateral Free Trade Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway (3), and Protocol 3 to the EEA Agreement (4), determine the trade arrangements for certain agricultural and processed agricultural products between the Contracting Parties.\n(2)\nProtocol 3 to the EEA Agreement, as amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 138/2004 (5), provides for a zero duty applying to certain waters containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured, classified under CN code 2202 10 00 and certain other non alcoholic beverages containing sugar, classified under CN code ex 2202 90 10.\n(3)\nThe zero duty for the waters and other beverages in question has been temporarily suspended for Norway by the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway concerning Protocol 2 to the bilateral free trade Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway (6), hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019, approved by Decision 2004/859/CE. According to point IV of the Agreed Minutes of the Agreement, duty-free imports of goods of the CN codes 2202 10 00 and ex 2202 90 10 originating in Norway are to be permitted only within the limits of a duty-free tariff quota, while a duty is to be paid for imports outside the tariff quota allocation.\n(4)\nPursuant to point IV, third indent, last sentence of the Agreed Minutes of the Agreement, the products in question should be granted unlimited duty-free access to the European Union if the tariff quota has not been exhausted by 31 October of the previous year. According to data provided to the Commission, the annual quota for 2011 for the waters and beverages in question opened by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1248/2010 (7) has not been exhausted on 31 October 2011. Therefore, the products in question should be granted unlimited duty-free access to the European Union from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.\n(5)\nIt is therefore necessary to withdraw the temporary suspension of the duty-free regime applied under Protocol 2.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for horizontal questions concerning trade in processed products not listed in Annex I,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. From 1 January to 31 December 2012, the temporary suspension of the duty-free regime applied under Protocol 2 to the bilateral Free Trade Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway to goods classified under CN codes 2202 10 00 (waters, including mineral waters and aerated waters, containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured) and ex 2202 90 10 (other non-alcoholic beverages containing sugar (sucrose or invert sugar)) shall be withdrawn.\n2. The rules of origin mutually applicable to the goods referred to in paragraph 1 shall be as set out in Protocol 3 of the bilateral Free Trade Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["49", "33", "34", "23", "20", "3", "56", "16", "31", "53", "90", "15", "84", "46", "95", "30", "13", "9", "47", "8", "64", "35", "24", "81", "55", "50", "70", "62", "36", "57", "No Label", "21", "22", "71", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "71", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 799/2011\nof 9 August 2011\namending Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 15(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (2) lays down rules concerning the increased level of official controls to be carried out on imports of feed and food of non-animal origin listed in Annex I thereto (\u2018the list\u2019), at the points of entry into the territories referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\n(2)\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 provides that the list is to be reviewed on a regular basis, and at least quarterly, taking into account at least the sources of information referred to in that Article.\n(3)\nThe occurrence and relevance of food incidents notified through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), the findings of missions to third countries carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office, as well as the quarterly reports on consignments of feed and food of non-animal origin submitted by Member States to the Commission in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 indicate that the list should be amended.\n(4)\nIn particular, the list should be amended by deleting the entries for commodities for which those information sources indicate an overall satisfactory degree of compliance with the relevant safety requirements provided for in Union legislation and for which an increased level of official control is therefore no longer justified.\n(5)\nIn addition, certain other commodities for which the information sources indicate a degree of non-compliance with the relevant safety requirements, thereby warranting the introduction of an increased level of official controls, should be included in the list.\n(6)\nThe entries in the list for certain imports from Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, India and Pakistan should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nAs regards the entry for imports of fresh peppers from Thailand, a clarification is necessary in the interest of clarity of Union legislation concerning the CN codes affected.\n(8)\nThe amendment to the list concerning the deletion of the references to commodities should apply as soon as possible, as the original safety concerns have been satisfied. Accordingly, those amendments should apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\n(9)\nTaking into account the number of amendments that need to be made to Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009, it is appropriate to replace it by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 669/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 October 2011.\nHowever, the deletion of the entry for Pakistan for basmati rice shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 August 2011.", "references": ["60", "14", "21", "9", "94", "56", "6", "23", "7", "45", "90", "0", "42", "3", "12", "17", "53", "52", "76", "51", "69", "15", "19", "91", "48", "99", "35", "67", "82", "84", "No Label", "20", "22", "38", "66", "72"], "gold": ["20", "22", "38", "66", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1212/2011\nof 23 November 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1416/2006 laying down specific rules on the implementation of Article 7(2) of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine concerning the protection of US names of origin in the Community\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2006/232/EC of 20 December 2005 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1416/2006 (2) provides for the protection of certain United States names of viticultural significance in the Union.\n(2)\nIt was agreed between the Parties in accordance with Article 11(5) of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine (3) that Annex V to that Agreement should be updated in order to reflect recent regulatory changes in the United States, and in particular newly established American viticultural areas. It was further agreed that these changes should take effect on 1 December 2011.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1416/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1416/2006 shall be replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 November 2011.", "references": ["23", "59", "61", "90", "39", "6", "79", "15", "42", "18", "78", "95", "76", "31", "83", "13", "49", "4", "37", "75", "41", "34", "2", "92", "44", "5", "26", "14", "11", "19", "No Label", "3", "9", "25", "71", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "25", "71", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1307/2011\nof 14 December 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 December 2011.", "references": ["66", "88", "0", "63", "2", "87", "86", "52", "97", "53", "43", "96", "51", "25", "91", "99", "33", "98", "17", "83", "27", "69", "55", "84", "18", "70", "11", "40", "48", "82", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 December 2010\nextending the transitional period concerning the acquisition of agricultural land in Hungary\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/792/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia,\nHaving regard to the Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, and in particular point 2 of Chapter 3 of Annex X thereto,\nHaving regard to the request made by Hungary,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe 2003 Act of Accession provides that Hungary may maintain in force, under the conditions laid down therein, for a 7-year period following the accession, expiring on 30 April 2011, prohibitions on the acquisition of agricultural land by natural persons who are non-residents or non-nationals of Hungary and by legal persons. This is a temporary exception to the free movement of capital as guaranteed by Articles 63 to 66 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This transitional period may only be extended for a further 3 years.\n(2)\nOn 10 September 2010, Hungary requested to extend the transitional period concerning the acquisition of agricultural land by 3 years.\n(3)\nThe main reason for the transitional period was the need to safeguard the socioeconomic conditions for agricultural activities following the introduction of the single market and the transition to the common agricultural policy in Hungary. In particular, it aimed to meet concerns raised about the possible impact on the agricultural sector of liberalising the acquisition of agricultural land due to initial large differences in land prices and income compared with Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (hereinafter \u2018the EU-15\u2019). The transitional period was also designed to ease the process of privatisation and restitution of agricultural land to farmers, and the Commission, in its Report of 16 July 2008 on the Review of the transitional measures for the acquisition of agricultural real estate set out in the 2003 Accession Treaty (hereinafter the \u2018Mid-Term Review\u2019) already emphasised the importance of the completion of this policy by the end of the foreseen transitional period. (1)\n(4)\nDespite the increasing convergence of land prices in Hungary with those prevailing in the EU-15 after Hungary\u2019s accession to the European Union, a 3- to 20-fold difference in average land prices still persists according to information submitted by Hungary. Although the complete convergence in land prices was neither expected nor seen as a necessary condition for terminating the transitional period, the noticeable differences in prices between Hungary and EU-15 are such as they may still hinder smooth progress towards price convergence. Similarly, the gap between the income of agricultural workers and farmers in Hungary and income in the EU-15 decreased but continues to exist. Furthermore, according to data from Eurostat, the agricultural sector of Hungary was hit relatively severely by the recent global financial and economic crisis with real agricultural income per worker falling by the highest rate in the Union (about 30 per cent against a Union average of about 12 per cent) in 2009. Lower income has been coupled with worse credit conditions relative to those in most of the EU-15 countries, both as regards nominal interest rates and the volume of credit available for farmers. The expected increased presence in Hungary of new financial institutions from EU-15 after the accession of Hungary was hampered by the financial and economic crisis.\n(5)\nAlthough the restitution process has advanced during the transitional period, it encountered difficulties in particular since 2008, and has thus not yet been completed. A similar trend can be observed as regards privatisation of agricultural land. The lack of certainty of property rights as well as underdeveloped credit and insurance facilities for farmers further weaken the Hungarian agricultural land market and still hinder its proper functioning.\n(6)\nAgainst this background, it can be anticipated, as do the Hungarian authorities, that the lifting of the restrictions on 1 May 2011 would exert pressure on the land prices in Hungary. Moreover, taking into account the high number of participants, the very fragmented ownership structure of the agricultural land market, which has not changed significantly since accession, and the predominance of land leasing, the impact would likely be felt throughout the entire sector. Therefore, a threat of serious disturbances on the Hungarian agricultural land market upon the expiry of the transitional period exists.\n(7)\nAn extension of 3 years to the transitional period referred to in point 2 of Chapter 3 of Annex X to the Act of Accession should therefore be granted.\n(8)\nIn order to fully prepare the market for liberalisation, it continues to be of utmost importance, even amid adverse economic circumstances, to foster the improvement of factors such as credit and insurance facilities for farmers, and the restitution and privatisation of agricultural land during the transitional period, as already emphasised in the Mid-Term Review.\n(9)\nIncreased inflow of foreign capital into the agricultural land market also presents potential benefits for this market in Hungary. As emphasised in the Mid-Term Review, foreign investment in the agriculture sector would also have important long-term effects on the provision of capital and know-how, on the functioning of land markets and on agricultural productivity. The progressive loosening of the restrictions on foreign ownership during the transitional period would also contribute to preparing the market for full liberalisation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe transitional period concerning the acquisition of agricultural land in Hungary referred to in point 2 of Chapter 3 of Annex X to the 2003 Act of Accession shall be extended until 30 April 2014.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 20 December 2010.", "references": ["72", "13", "55", "65", "19", "51", "78", "5", "20", "6", "69", "39", "21", "60", "17", "92", "31", "46", "82", "98", "76", "61", "84", "4", "83", "88", "3", "56", "23", "43", "No Label", "8", "9", "11", "15", "30", "35", "64", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "9", "11", "15", "30", "35", "64", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 773/2012\nof 24 August 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 August 2012.", "references": ["39", "42", "67", "11", "13", "48", "73", "97", "40", "20", "79", "6", "21", "44", "99", "93", "94", "5", "1", "82", "81", "32", "25", "9", "27", "78", "65", "23", "54", "45", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 521/2011\nof 26 May 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) and Article 148, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nTo avoid speculative applications for import licences to be granted in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 (2) and to ensure that import licences are attributed to genuine importers, it is appropriate to set a historical reference quantity of beef and veal imported as a condition for the application for import licences at an appropriate level.\n(2)\nTo avoid misinterpretation the requirements for high-quality beef laid down in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 should be clarified; in particular, it should be set out in a more precise manner that the minimum energy content is applicable to the whole diet and that heifers and steers refer respectively to categories E and C defined in part A of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 620/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nSince the next tariff quota year begins on 1 July 2011, this Regulation should apply as from that date and to licence applications lodged for that period.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 620/2009 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 3(2), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018For the purposes of applying Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 import licence applicants shall, when presenting their first application as regards a given quota period, furnish proof that they imported, during each of the two periods referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, at least 100 tonnes of products covered by part XV of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\u2019;\n(2)\nAnnex I is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply as from the tariff quota year beginning on 1 July 2011 and to licence applications lodged for that period.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 May 2011.", "references": ["6", "10", "68", "42", "11", "71", "96", "36", "60", "97", "18", "90", "92", "16", "58", "45", "86", "23", "14", "12", "88", "85", "9", "5", "26", "89", "3", "24", "61", "95", "No Label", "20", "21", "38", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "21", "38", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 904/2010\nof 7 October 2010\non administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax\n(recast)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 113 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with a special legislative procedure,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 of 7 October 2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax (3) has been substantially amended several times. Since further amendments are to be made, it should be recast in the interests of clarity.\n(2)\nThe instruments to combat fraud in the field of value added tax (hereinafter \u2018VAT\u2019) in Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 should be improved and supplemented subsequent to the Council Conclusions of 7 October 2008; the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on a coordinated strategy to improve the fight against VAT fraud in the European Union; and the Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 concerning administrative cooperation in the field of VAT (hereinafter the \u2018Commission\u2019s report\u2019). Editorial and practical clarifications of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 are also required.\n(3)\nTax evasion and tax avoidance extending across the frontiers of Member States lead to budget losses and violations of the principle of fair taxation. They are also liable to bring about distortions of capital movements and of the conditions of competition. They thus affect the operation of the internal market.\n(4)\nCombating VAT evasion calls for close cooperation between the competent authorities in each Member State responsible for the application of the provisions in that field.\n(5)\nThe tax harmonisation measures taken to complete the internal market should include the establishment of a common system for cooperation between the Member States, in particular as concerns exchange of information, whereby the Member States\u2019 competent authorities are to assist each other and to cooperate with the Commission in order to ensure the proper application of VAT on supplies of goods and services, intra-Community acquisition of goods and importation of goods.\n(6)\nAdministrative cooperation should not lead to an undue shift of administrative burdens between Member States.\n(7)\nFor the purposes of collecting the tax owed, Member States should cooperate to help ensure that VAT is correctly assessed. They must therefore not only monitor the correct application of tax owed in their own territory, but should also provide assistance to other Member States for ensuring the correct application of tax relating to activity carried out on their own territory but owed in another Member State.\n(8)\nMonitoring the correct application of VAT on cross-border transactions taxable in a Member State other than that where the supplier is established depends in many cases on information which is held by the Member State of establishment or which can be much more easily obtained by that Member State. Effective supervision of such transactions is therefore dependent on the Member State of establishment collecting, or being in a position to collect, that information.\n(9)\nIn order to establish the one-stop shop scheme provided for by Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (4), and to apply the refund procedure for taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund provided for in Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (5), rules on the exchange and storage of information by Member States are required.\n(10)\nIn cross-border situations, it is important to specify the obligations of each Member State so that the tax can be effectively monitored in the Member State in which it is owed.\n(11)\nElectronic storage and transmission of certain data for VAT control purposes are indispensable for the proper functioning of the VAT system. They allow for rapid information exchange and automated access to information, which strengthen the fight against fraud. That can be achieved by enhancing the databases on VAT-taxable persons and their intra-Community transactions through the inclusion in those databases of a range of information on the taxable persons and their transactions.\n(12)\nThe Member States should implement proper verification procedures to ensure that the information is up-to-date, comparable and of good quality, thereby increasing its reliability. The conditions for the exchange of, and the automated access of Member States to, electronically stored data should be clearly defined.\n(13)\nIn order to fight fraud effectively, it is necessary to provide for information exchange without prior request. To facilitate the exchange of information, the categories for which an automatic exchange needs to be established should be specified.\n(14)\nAs indicated in the Commission\u2019s report, feedback is an appropriate means to ensure continual improvement of the quality of the information exchanged. A framework for the provision of feedback should therefore be put in place.\n(15)\nFor the effective monitoring of VAT on cross-border transactions, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of simultaneous controls by Member States and of the presence of officials of one Member State in the territory of another Member State, within the framework of administrative cooperation.\n(16)\nOnline confirmation of the validity of VAT identification numbers is a tool which is increasingly used by operators. The system for confirming the validity of VAT identification numbers should provide automated confirmation of the relevant information to operators.\n(17)\nSome taxable persons are subject to specific obligations which are different from those in force in the Member State in which they are established, particularly as regards invoicing, when they supply goods or services to customers established on the territory of another Member State. A mechanism should be established to make information on such obligations readily available for those taxable persons.\n(18)\nRecent practical experience of the application of Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 in the fight against carrousel fraud has shown that in some cases it is essential to establish a much faster mechanism for the exchange of information, covering much more, and better targeted, information in order to combat fraud effectively. In accordance with the Council Conclusions of 7 October 2008, a decentralised network without legal personality, to be called Eurofisc, should be established within the framework of this Regulation for all the Member States, to promote and facilitate multilateral and decentralised cooperation permitting targeted and swift action to combat specific types of fraud.\n(19)\nThe Member State of consumption has primary responsibility for assuring that non-established suppliers comply with their obligations. To this end, the application of the temporary special scheme for electronically supplied services that is provided for in Chapter 6 of Title XII of Directive 2006/112/EC requires the definition of rules concerning the provision of information and transfer of money between the Member State of identification and the Member State of consumption.\n(20)\nInformation obtained by a Member State from third countries may be very useful to other Member States. Likewise information obtained by a Member State from other Member States may be very useful to third countries. The conditions for the exchange of such information should therefore be specified.\n(21)\nNational rules on banking secrecy should not stand in the way of the application of this Regulation.\n(22)\nThis Regulation should not affect other measures adopted at Union level which contribute to combating VAT fraud.\n(23)\nIn the interests of effectiveness and speed and on grounds of cost, it is essential that the information communicated under this Regulation should be provided by electronic means wherever possible.\n(24)\nIn view of the repetitive nature of certain requests and the linguistic diversity within the Union, it is important to enhance the use of standard forms in the exchange of information so that information requests can be more rapidly processed.\n(25)\nThe time limits laid down in this Regulation for the provision of information are to be understood as maximum periods not to be exceeded, the principle being that, in order for cooperation to be effective, information already available to the requested Member State should be provided without further delay.\n(26)\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, it is appropriate to consider limitations of certain rights and obligations laid down by Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (6) in order to safeguard the interests referred to in Article 13(1)(e) of that Directive. Such limitations are necessary and proportionate in view of the potential loss of revenue for Member States and the crucial importance of information covered by this Regulation for the effectiveness of the fight against fraud.\n(27)\nAs the measures necessary to implement this Regulation are measures of general scope within the meaning of Article 2 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (7), they must be adopted in conformity with the regulatory procedure provided for in Article 5 of that Decision,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\n1. This Regulation lays down the conditions under which the competent authorities in the Member States responsible for the application of the laws on VAT are to cooperate with each other and with the Commission to ensure compliance with those laws.\nTo that end, it lays down rules and procedures to enable the competent authorities of the Member States to cooperate and to exchange with each other any information that may help to effect a correct assessment of VAT, monitor the correct application of VAT, particularly on intra-Community transactions, and combat VAT fraud. In particular, it lays down rules and procedures for Member States to collect and exchange such information by electronic means.\n2. This Regulation lays down the conditions under which the authorities referred to in paragraph 1 are to assist in the protection of VAT revenue in all the Member States.\n3. This Regulation shall not affect the application in the Member States of the rules on mutual assistance in criminal matters.\n4. This Regulation also lays down rules and procedures for the exchange by electronic means of VAT information on services supplied electronically in accordance with the special scheme provided for in Chapter 6 of Title XII of Directive 2006/112/EC and also for any subsequent exchange of information and, as far as services covered by that special scheme are concerned, for the transfer of money between Member States\u2019 competent authorities.\nArticle 2\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018central liaison office\u2019 means the office which has been designated pursuant to Article 4(1) with principal responsibility for contacts with other Member States in the field of administrative cooperation;\n(b)\n\u2018liaison department\u2019 means any office other than the central liaison office which has been designated as such by the competent authority pursuant to Article 4(2) to exchange directly information on the basis of this Regulation;\n(c)\n\u2018competent official\u2019 means any official who can directly exchange information on the basis of this Regulation for which he has been authorised pursuant to Article 4(3);\n(d)\n\u2018requesting authority\u2019 means the central liaison office, a liaison department or any competent official of a Member State who makes a request for assistance on behalf of the competent authority;\n(e)\n\u2018requested authority\u2019 means the central liaison office, a liaison department or any competent official of Member State who receives a request for assistance on behalf of the competent authority;\n(f)\n\u2018intra-Community transactions\u2019 means the intra-Community supply of goods or services;\n(g)\n\u2018intra-Community supply of goods\u2019 means any supply of goods which must be declared in the recapitulative statement provided for in Article 262 of Directive 2006/112/EC;\n(h)\n\u2018intra-Community supply of services\u2019 means any supply of services which must be declared in the recapitulative statement provided for in Article 262 of Directive 2006/112/EC;\n(i)\n\u2018intra-Community acquisition of goods\u2019 means the acquisition of the right pursuant to Article 20 of Directive 2006/112/EC to dispose as owner of moveable tangible property;\n(j)\n\u2018VAT identification number\u2019 means the number provided for in Articles 214, 215 and 216 of Directive 2006/112/EC;\n(k)\n\u2018administrative enquiry\u2019 means all the controls, checks and other action taken by Member States in the performance of their duties with a view to ensuring proper application of VAT legislation;\n(l)\n\u2018automatic exchange\u2019 means the systematic communication of predefined information to another Member State, without prior request;\n(m)\n\u2018spontaneous exchange\u2019 means the non-systematic communication, at any moment and without prior request, of information to another Member State;\n(n)\n\u2018person\u2019 means:\n(i)\na natural person;\n(ii)\na legal person;\n(iii)\nwhere the legislation in force so provides, an association of persons recognised as having the capacity to perform legal acts but lacking the legal status of a legal person; or\n(iv)\nany other legal arrangement of whatever nature and form, which has legal personality or not, and conducts transactions which are subject to VAT;\n(o)\n\u2018automated access\u2019 means the possibility of access without delay to an electronic system in order to consult certain information contained therein;\n(p)\n\u2018by electronic means\u2019 means using electronic equipment for the processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and employing wires, radio transmission, optical technologies or other electromagnetic means;\n(q)\n\u2018CCN/CSI network\u2019 means the common platform based on the common communication network (hereinafter the \u2018CCN\u2019) and common system interface (hereinafter the \u2018CSI\u2019), developed by the Union to ensure all transmissions by electronic means between competent authorities in the area of customs and taxation;\n(r)\n\u2018simultaneous control\u2019 means coordinated checks on the tax situation of a taxable person or related taxable persons, organised by two or more participating Member States with common or complementary interests.\n2. From 1 January 2015, the definitions contained in Articles 358, 358a and 369a of Directive 2006/112/EC shall also apply for the purposes of this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThe competent authorities are the authorities in whose name this Regulation is to be applied, whether directly or by delegation.\nEach Member State shall inform the Commission by 1 December 2010 of its competent authority for the purposes of this Regulation and shall subsequently inform the Commission without delay about any change thereof.\nThe Commission shall make available to the Member States a list of all competent authorities and publish this information in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\n1. Each Member State shall designate a single central liaison office to which principal responsibility shall be delegated for contacts with other Member States in the field of administrative cooperation. It shall inform the Commission and the other Member States thereof. The central liaison office may also be designated as responsible for contacts with the Commission.\n2. The competent authority of each Member State may designate liaison departments. The central liaison office shall be responsible for keeping the list of those departments up-to-date and making it available to the central liaison offices of the other Member States concerned.\n3. The competent authority of each Member State may in addition designate, under the conditions laid down by it, competent officials who can directly exchange information on the basis of this Regulation. When it does so, it may limit the scope of such designation. The central liaison office shall be responsible for keeping the list of those officials up-to-date and making it available to the central liaison offices of the other Member States concerned.\n4. The officials exchanging information pursuant to Articles 28, 29 and 30 shall in any case be deemed to be competent officials for this purpose, in accordance with conditions laid down by the competent authorities.\nArticle 5\nWhere a liaison department or a competent official sends or receives a request or a reply to a request for assistance, it shall inform the central liaison office of its Member State under the conditions laid down by the latter.\nArticle 6\nWhere a liaison department or a competent official receives a request for assistance requiring action outside its territorial or operational area, it shall forward such request without delay to the central liaison office of its Member State and inform the requesting authority thereof. In such a case, the period laid down in Article 10 shall start the day after the request for assistance has been forwarded to the central liaison office.\nCHAPTER II\nEXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ON REQUEST\nSECTION 1\nRequest for information and for administrative enquiries\nArticle 7\n1. At the request of the requesting authority, the requested authority shall communicate the information referred to in Article 1, including any information relating to a specific case or cases.\n2. For the purpose of forwarding the information referred to in paragraph 1, the requested authority shall arrange for the conduct of any administrative enquiries necessary to obtain such information.\n3. Until 31 December 2014, the request referred to in paragraph 1 may contain a reasoned request for an administrative enquiry. If the requested authority takes the view that the administrative enquiry is not necessary, it shall immediately inform the requesting authority of the reasons thereof.\n4. As from 1 January 2015, the request referred to in paragraph 1 may contain a reasoned request for a specific administrative enquiry. If the requested authority takes the view that no administrative enquiry is necessary, it shall immediately inform the requesting authority of the reasons thereof.\nNotwithstanding the first subparagraph, an enquiry into the amounts declared by a taxable person in connection with the supplies of goods or services listed in Annex I, which are made by a taxable person established in the Member State of the requested authority and are taxable in the Member State of the requesting authority, may be refused solely:\n(a)\non the grounds provided for in Article 54(1), assessed by the requested authority in conformity with a statement of best practices concerning the interaction of this paragraph and Article 54(1), to be adopted in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2);\n(b)\non the grounds provided for in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 54; or\n(c)\non the grounds that the requested authority had already supplied the requesting authority with information on the same taxable person as a result of an administrative enquiry held less than two years previously.\nWhere the requested authority refuses an administrative enquiry referred to in the second subparagraph on the grounds set out in points (a) or (b), it shall nevertheless provide to the requesting authority the dates and values of any relevant supplies made by the taxable person in the Member State of the requesting authority over the previous two years.\n5. In order to obtain the information sought or to conduct the administrative enquiry requested, the requested authority or the administrative authority to which it has recourse shall proceed as though acting on its own account or at the request of another authority in its own Member State.\nArticle 8\nRequests for information and for administrative enquiries pursuant to Article 7 shall be sent using a standard form adopted in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2), except in the cases referred to in Article 50 or in exceptional cases where the request includes the reasons for which the requesting authority considers the standard form not to be appropriate.\nArticle 9\n1. At the request of the requesting authority, the requested authority shall communicate to it any pertinent information it obtains or has in its possession as well as the results of administrative enquiries, in the form of reports, statements and any other documents, or certified true copies or extracts thereof.\n2. Original documents shall be provided only where this is not contrary to the provisions in force in the Member State in which the requested authority is established.\nSECTION 2\nTime limit for providing information\nArticle 10\nThe requested authority shall provide the information referred to in Articles 7 and 9 as quickly as possible and no later than three months following the date of receipt of the request.\nHowever, where the requested authority is already in possession of that information, the time limit shall be reduced to a maximum period of one month.\nArticle 11\nIn certain special categories of cases, time limits which are different from those provided for in Article 10 may be agreed between the requested and the requesting authorities.\nArticle 12\nWhere the requested authority is unable to respond to the request by the deadline, it shall inform the requesting authority in writing forthwith of the reasons for its failure to do so, and when it considers it would be likely to be able to respond.\nCHAPTER III\nEXCHANGE OF INFORMATION WITHOUT PRIOR REQUEST\nArticle 13\n1. The competent authority of each Member State shall, without prior request, forward the information referred to in Article 1 to the competent authority of any other Member State concerned, in the following cases:\n(a)\nwhere taxation is deemed to take place in the Member State of destination and the information provided by the Member State of origin is necessary for the effectiveness of the control system of the Member State of destination;\n(b)\nwhere a Member State has grounds to believe that a breach of VAT legislation has been committed or is likely to have been committed in the other Member State;\n(c)\nwhere there is a risk of tax loss in the other Member State.\n2. The exchange of information without prior request shall either be automatic, in accordance with Article 14, or spontaneous, in accordance with Article 15.\n3. The information shall be forwarded by means of standard forms adopted in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2).\nArticle 14\n1. The following shall be determined in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2):\n(a)\nthe exact categories of information subject to automatic exchange;\n(b)\nthe frequency of the automatic exchange for each category of information; and\n(c)\nthe practical arrangements for the automatic exchange of information.\nA Member State may abstain from taking part in the automatic exchange of information with respect to one or more categories where the collection of information for such exchange would require the imposition of new obligations on persons liable for VAT or would impose a disproportionate administrative burden on the Member State.\nThe results of the automatic exchange of information for each category shall be reviewed once a year by the Committee referred to in Article 58(1), so as to ensure that this type of exchange takes places only where it is the most efficient means for the exchange of information.\n2. As from 1 January 2015, the competent authority of each Member State shall, in particular, exchange information automatically in order to enable Member States of consumption to ascertain whether taxable persons not established in their territory declare and correctly pay the VAT due with regard to telecommunication services, broadcasting services and electronically supplied services, regardless of whether those taxable persons make use of the special scheme provided for in Section 3 of Chapter 6 of Title XII of Directive 2006/112/EC. The Member State of establishment shall inform the Member State of consumption of any discrepancies of which it becomes aware.\nArticle 15\nThe competent authorities of the Member States shall, by spontaneous exchange, forward to the competent authorities of the other Member States any information referred to in Article 13(1) which has not been forwarded under the automatic exchange referred to in Article 14 of which they are aware and which they consider may be useful to those competent authorities.\nCHAPTER IV\nFEEDBACK\nArticle 16\nWhere a competent authority provides information pursuant to Article 7 or 15, it may request the competent authority which receives the information to give feedback thereon. If such request is made, the competent authority which receives the information shall, without prejudice to the rules on tax secrecy and data protection applicable in its Member State, send feedback as soon as possible, provided that this does not impose a disproportionate administrative burden on it. Practical arrangements shall be determined in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2).\nCHAPTER V\nSTORAGE AND EXCHANGE OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION\nArticle 17\n1. Each Member State shall store in an electronic system the following information:\n(a)\ninformation which it collects pursuant to Chapter 6 of Title XI of Directive 2006/112/EC;\n(b)\ndata on the identity, activity, legal form and address of persons to whom it has issued a VAT identification number, collected pursuant to Article 213 of Directive 2006/112/EC, as well as the date on which that number was issued;\n(c)\ndata on VAT identification numbers it has issued which have become invalid, and the dates on which those numbers became invalid; and\n(d)\ninformation which it collects pursuant to Articles 360, 361, 364 and 365 of Directive 2006/112/EC as well as, from 1 January 2015, information which it collects pursuant to Articles 369c, 369f and 369g of that Directive.\n2. The technical details concerning the automated enquiry of the information referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 1 shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2).\nArticle 18\nTo enable the information referred to in Article 17 to be used in the procedures provided for in this Regulation, that information shall be available for at least five years from the end of the first calendar year in which access to the information is to be granted.\nArticle 19\nMember States shall ensure that the information available in the electronic system referred to in Article 17 is kept up-to-date, and is complete and accurate.\nCriteria shall be defined, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2), to determine which changes are not pertinent, essential or useful and therefore need not be made.\nArticle 20\n1. The information referred to in Article 17 shall be entered into the electronic system without delay.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the information referred to in Article 17(1)(a) shall be entered into the electronic system no later than one month after the end of the period to which that information relates.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, where information is to be corrected in, or added to, the electronic system pursuant to Article 19, the information must be entered no later than one month after the period in which it was collected.\nArticle 21\n1. Every Member State shall grant the competent authority of any other Member State automated access to the information stored pursuant to Article 17.\n2. With respect to the information referred to in Article 17(1)(a), at least the following details shall be accessible:\n(a)\nVAT identification numbers issued by the Member State receiving the information;\n(b)\nthe total value of all intra-Community supplies of goods and the total value of all intra-Community supplies of services to persons holding a VAT identification number referred to in point (a) by all operators identified for the purposes of VAT in the Member State providing the information;\n(c)\nthe VAT identification numbers of the persons who carried out the supplies of goods and services referred to in point (b);\n(d)\nthe total value of the supplies of goods and services referred to in point (b) from each person referred to in point (c) to each person holding a VAT identification number referred to in point (a);\n(e)\nthe total value of the supplies of goods and services referred to in point (b) from each person referred to in point (c) to each person holding a VAT identification number issued by another Member State under the following conditions:\n(i)\naccess is in connection with an investigation into suspected fraud;\n(ii)\naccess is through a Eurofisc liaison official, as referred to in Article 36(1), who holds a personal user identification for the electronic systems allowing access to this information; and\n(iii)\naccess is only granted during general working hours.\nThe values referred to in points (b), (d) and (e) shall be expressed in the currency of the Member State providing the information and shall relate to the periods for submission of the recapitulative statements specific to each taxable person which are established in accordance with Article 263 of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nArticle 22\n1. In order to provide a reasonable level of assurance to tax administrations with regard to the quality and reliability of the information available through the electronic system referred to in Article 17, Member States shall adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the data provided by taxable persons and non-taxable legal persons for their identification for VAT purposes in accordance with Article 214 of Directive 2006/112/EC, are, in their assessment, complete and accurate.\nMember States shall implement procedures for checking these data as determined by the results of their risk assessment. The checks shall be carried out, in principle, prior to identification for VAT purposes or, where only preliminary checks are conducted before such identification, no later than six months from such identification.\n2. The Member States shall inform the Committee referred to in Article 58(1) of the measures implemented at national level to ensure the quality and reliability of the information in accordance with paragraph 1.\nArticle 23\nMember States shall ensure that the VAT identification number, referred to in Article 214 of Directive 2006/112/EC, is shown as invalid in the electronic system referred to in Article 17 of this Regulation at least in the following situations:\n(a)\nwhere persons identified for VAT purposes have stated that their economic activity, as defined in Article 9 of Directive 2006/112/EC, has ceased or where the competent tax administration considers that they have ceased such activity. A tax administration may presume in particular that a person has ceased economic activity when, despite being required to do so, that person has failed to submit VAT returns and recapitulative statements for a year after expiry of the deadline for submission of the first return or statement missed. The person shall have the right to prove the existence of an economic activity by other means;\n(b)\nwhere persons have declared false data in order to obtain VAT identification or have failed to communicate changes to their data and, had the tax administration known, the latter would have refused identification for VAT purposes or withdrawn the VAT identification number.\nArticle 24\nWhere, for the purposes of Articles 17 to 21, the competent authorities of the Member States exchange information by electronic means, they shall take all measures necessary to ensure compliance with Article 55.\nMember States shall be responsible for all necessary developments to their systems to permit the exchange of that information using the CCN/CSI network.\nCHAPTER VI\nREQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE NOTIFICATION\nArticle 25\nThe requested authority shall, at the request of the requesting authority and in accordance with the rules governing the notification of similar instruments in the Member State in which the requested authority is established, notify the addressee of all instruments and decisions which emanate from the competent authorities and concern the application of VAT legislation in the territory of the Member State in which the requesting authority is established.\nArticle 26\nRequests for notification, mentioning the subject of the instrument or decision to be notified, shall indicate the name, address and any other relevant information for identifying the addressee.\nArticle 27\nThe requested authority shall inform the requesting authority immediately of its response to the request for notification and notify it, in particular, of the date of notification of the decision or instrument to the addressee.\nCHAPTER VII\nPRESENCE IN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND PARTICIPATION IN ADMINISTRATIVE ENQUIRIES\nArticle 28\n1. By agreement between the requesting authority and the requested authority, and in accordance with the arrangements laid down by the latter, officials authorised by the requesting authority may, with a view to exchanging the information referred to in Article 1, be present in the offices of the administrative authorities of the requested Member State, or any other place where those authorities carry out their duties. Where the requested information is contained in documentation to which the officials of the requested authority have access, the officials of the requesting authority shall be given copies thereof.\n2. By agreement between the requesting authority and the requested authority, and in accordance with the arrangements laid down by the latter, officials authorised by the requesting authority may, with a view to exchanging the information referred to in Article 1, be present during the administrative enquiries carried out in the territory of the requested Member State. Such administrative enquiries shall be carried out exclusively by the officials of the requested authority. The officials of the requesting authority shall not exercise the powers of inspection conferred on officials of the requested authority. They may, however, have access to the same premises and documents as the latter, through the intermediation of the officials of the requested authority and for the sole purpose of carrying out the administrative enquiry.\n3. The officials of the requesting authority present in another Member State in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 must at all times be able to produce written authority stating their identity and their official capacity.\nCHAPTER VIII\nSIMULTANEOUS CONTROLS\nArticle 29\nMember States may agree to conduct simultaneous controls whenever they consider such controls to be more effective than controls carried out by only one Member State.\nArticle 30\n1. A Member State shall identify independently the taxable persons which it intends to propose for a simultaneous control. The competent authority of that Member State shall notify the competent authority of the other Member States concerned of the cases proposed for a simultaneous control. It shall give reasons for its choice, as far as possible, by providing the information which led to its decision. It shall specify the period of time during which such controls should be conducted.\n2. The competent authority of the Member State that receives the proposal for a simultaneous control shall confirm its agreement or communicate its reasoned refusal to its counterpart authority, in principle within two weeks of receipt of the proposal, but within a month at the latest.\n3. Each competent authority of the Member States concerned shall appoint a representative to be responsible for supervising and coordinating the control operation.\nCHAPTER IX\nPROVIDING INFORMATION TO TAXABLE PERSONS\nArticle 31\n1. The competent authorities of each Member State shall ensure that persons involved in the intra-Community supply of goods or of services and non-established taxable persons supplying telecommunication services, broadcasting services and electronically supplied services, in particular those referred to in Annex II to Directive 2006/112/EC, are allowed to obtain, for the purposes of such transactions, confirmation by electronic means of the validity of the VAT identification number of any specified person as well as the associated name and address. This information shall correspond to the data referred to in Article 17.\n2. Each Member State shall provide confirmation by electronic means of the name and address of the person to whom the VAT identification number has been issued in accordance with its national data protection rules.\n3. During the period provided for in Article 357 of Directive 2006/112/EC, paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply to non-established taxable persons supplying telecommunication services and radio and television broadcasting services.\nArticle 32\n1. The Commission shall, on the basis of the information provided by the Member States, publish on its website the details of the provisions approved by each Member State which transpose Chapter 3 of Title XI of Directive 2006/112/EC.\n2. The details and format of the information to be submitted shall be decided in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2).\nCHAPTER X\nEUROFISC\nArticle 33\n1. In order to promote and facilitate multilateral cooperation in the fight against VAT fraud, this Chapter establishes a network for the swift exchange of targeted information between Member States hereinafter called \u2018Eurofisc\u2019.\n2. Within the framework of Eurofisc, Member States shall:\n(a)\nestablish a multilateral early warning mechanism for combating VAT fraud;\n(b)\ncoordinate the swift multilateral exchange of targeted information in the subject areas in which Eurofisc will operate (hereinafter \u2018Eurofisc working fields\u2019);\n(c)\ncoordinate the work of the Eurofisc liaison officials of the participating Member States in acting on warnings received.\nArticle 34\n1. Member States shall participate in the Eurofisc working fields of their choice and may also decide to terminate their participation therein.\n2. Member States having chosen to take part in a Eurofisc working field shall actively participate in the multilateral exchange of targeted information between all participating Member States.\n3. Information exchanged shall be confidential, as provided for in Article 55.\nArticle 35\nThe Commission shall provide Eurofisc with technical and logistical support. The Commission shall not have access to the information referred to in Article 1, which may be exchanged over Eurofisc.\nArticle 36\n1. The competent authorities of each Member State shall designate at least one Eurofisc liaison official. Eurofisc liaison officials shall be competent officials within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) and shall carry out the activities referred to in Article 33(2). They shall remain answerable only to their national administrations.\n2. The liaison officials of the Member States participating in a particular Eurofisc working field (hereinafter \u2018participating Eurofisc liaison officials\u2019) shall designate a coordinator (hereinafter \u2018Eurofisc working field coordinator\u2019), among the participating Eurofisc liaison officials, for a limited period of time. Eurofisc working field coordinators shall:\n(a)\ncollate the information received from the participating Eurofisc liaison officials and make all information available to the other participating Eurofisc liaison officials. The information shall be exchanged by electronic means;\n(b)\nensure that the information received from the participating Eurofisc liaison officials is processed, as agreed by the participants in the working field, and make the result available to the participating Eurofisc liaison officials;\n(c)\nprovide feedback to the participating Eurofisc liaison officials.\nArticle 37\nEurofisc working field coordinators shall submit an annual report of the activities of all working fields to the Committee referred to in Article 58(1).\nCHAPTER XI\nPROVISIONS CONCERNING THE SPECIAL SCHEMES IN CHAPTER 6 OF TITLE XII OF DIRECTIVE 2006/112/EC\nSECTION 1\nProvisions applicable until 31 December 2014\nArticle 38\nThe following provisions shall apply concerning the special scheme provided for in Chapter 6 of Title XII of Directive 2006/112/EC. The definitions contained in Article 358 of that Directive shall also apply for the purpose of this Chapter.\nArticle 39\n1. The information provided by the taxable person not established in the Community to the Member State of identification, when his activities commence pursuant to Article 361 of Directive 2006/112/EC, shall be submitted by electronic means. The technical details, including a common electronic message, shall be determined in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2) of this Regulation.\n2. The Member State of identification shall transmit this information by electronic means to the competent authorities of the other Member States within 10 days from the end of the month during which the information was received from the non-established taxable person. In the same manner the competent authorities of the other Member States shall be informed of the allocated identification number. The technical details, including a common electronic message, by which this information is to be transmitted, shall be determined in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2).\n3. The Member State of identification shall without delay inform by electronic means the competent authorities of the other Members States if a non-established taxable person is excluded from the identification register.\nArticle 40\n1. The return with the details set out in Article 365 of Directive 2006/112/EC is to be submitted by electronic means. The technical details, including a common electronic message, shall be determined in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2) of this Regulation.\n2. The Member State of identification shall transmit this information by electronic means to the competent authority of the Member State concerned at the latest 10 days after the end of the month during which the return was received. Member States which have required the tax return to be made in a national currency other than euro, shall convert the amounts into euro using the exchange rate valid for the last date of the reporting period. The exchange shall be done following the exchange rates published by the European Central Bank for that day, or, if there is no publication on that day, on the next day of publication. The technical details by which this information is to be transmitted shall be determined in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2).\n3. The Member State of identification shall transmit by electronic means to the Member State of consumption the information needed to link each payment with a relevant quarterly tax return.\nArticle 41\n1. The Member State of identification shall ensure that the amount the non-established taxable person has paid is transferred to the bank account denominated in euro which has been designated by the Member State of consumption to which the payment is due. Member States which required the payments in a national currency other than euro shall convert the amounts into euro using the exchange rate valid for the last date of the reporting period. The exchange shall be done following the exchange rates published by the European Central Bank for that day, or, if there is no publication on that day, on the next day of publication. The transfer shall take place at the latest 10 days after the end of the month during which the payment was received.\n2. If the non-established taxable person does not pay the total tax due, the Member State of identification shall ensure that the payment is transferred to the Member States of consumption in proportion to the tax due in each Member State. The Member State of identification shall inform by electronic means the competent authorities of the Member States of consumption thereof.\nArticle 42\nMember States shall notify by electronic means the competent authorities of the other Member States of the relevant bank account numbers for receiving payments according to Article 41.\nMember States shall without delay notify by electronic means the competent authorities of the other Member States and the Commission of changes in the standard tax rate.\nSECTION 2\nProvisions applicable from 1 January 2015\nArticle 43\nThe following provisions shall apply concerning the special schemes provided for in Chapter 6 of Title XII of Directive 2006/112/EC.\nArticle 44\n1. The information provided by the taxable person not established in the Community to the Member State of identification when his activities commence pursuant to Article 361 of Directive 2006/112/EC shall be submitted by electronic means. The technical details, including a common electronic message, shall be determined in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2) of this Regulation.\n2. The Member State of identification shall transmit the information referred to in paragraph 1 by electronic means to the competent authorities of the other Member States within 10 days from the end of the month during which the information was received from the taxable person not established within the Community. Similar details for the identification of the taxable person applying the special scheme pursuant to Article 369b of Directive 2006/112/EC shall be transmitted within 10 days from the end of the month during which the taxable person stated that his taxable activities under that scheme commenced. In the same manner the competent authorities of the other Member States shall be informed of the allocated identification number.\nThe technical details, including a common electronic message, by which this information is to be transmitted, shall be determined in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2) of this Regulation.\n3. The Member State of identification shall without delay inform by electronic means the competent authorities of the other Member States if a taxable person not established in the Community or a taxable person not established in the Member State of consumption is excluded from the special scheme.\nArticle 45\n1. The return with the details set out in Articles 365 and 369g of Directive 2006/112/EC is to be submitted by electronic means. The technical details, including a common electronic message, shall be determined in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2) of this Regulation.\n2. The Member State of identification shall transmit this information by electronic means to the competent authority of the Member State of consumption concerned at the latest 10 days after the end of the month during which the return was received. The information provided for in the second paragraph of Article 369g of Directive 2006/112/EC shall also be transmitted to the competent authority of the Member State of establishment concerned. Member States which have required the tax return to be made in a national currency other that euro, shall convert the amounts into euro using the exchange rate valid for the last date of the reporting period. The exchange shall be done following the exchange rates published by the European Central Bank for that day, or, if there is no publication on that day, on the next day of publication. The technical details by which this information is to be transmitted shall be determined in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2) of this Regulation.\n3. The Member State of identification shall transmit by electronic means to the Member State of consumption the information needed to link each payment with a relevant quarterly tax return.\nArticle 46\n1. The Member State of identification shall ensure that the amount the non-established taxable person has paid is transferred to the bank account denominated in euro which has been designated by the Member State of consumption to which the payment is due. Member States which required the payments in a national currency other than euro shall convert the amounts into euro using the exchange rate valid for the last date of the reporting period. The exchange shall be done following the exchange rates published by the European Central Bank for that day, or, if there is no publication on that day, on the next day of publication. The transfer shall take place at the latest 10 days after the end of the month during which the payment was received.\n2. If the non-established taxable person does not pay the total tax due, the Member State of identification shall ensure that the payment is transferred to the Member States of consumption in proportion to the tax due in each Member State. The Member State of identification shall inform by electronic means the competent authorities of the Member States of consumption thereof.\n3. Concerning the payments to be transferred to the Member State of consumption in accordance with the special scheme provided for in Section 3 of Chapter 6 of Title XII of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Member State of identification shall, of the amounts referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, be entitled to retain:\n(a)\nfrom 1 January 2015 until 31 December 2016 - 30 %;\n(b)\nfrom 1 January 2017 until 31 December 2018 - 15 %;\n(c)\nfrom 1 January 2019 - 0 %.\nArticle 47\nMember States shall notify by electronic means the competent authorities of the other Member States of the relevant bank account numbers for receiving payments in accordance with Article 46.\nMember States shall without delay notify by electronic means the competent authorities of the other Member States and the Commission of changes in the tax rate applicable for supplies of telecommunication services, broadcasting services and electronically supplied services.\nCHAPTER XII\nEXCHANGE AND CONSERVATION OF INFORMATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROCEDURE FOR THE REFUND OF VAT TO TAXABLE PERSONS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THE MEMBER STATE OF REFUND BUT ESTABLISHED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE\nArticle 48\n1. Where the competent authority of the Member State of establishment receives an application for refund of VAT pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 2008/9/EC, and Article 18 of that Directive is not applicable, it shall, within 15 calendar days of its receipt and by electronic means, forward the application to the competent authorities of each Member State of refund concerned with confirmation that the applicant as defined in Article 2(5) of Directive 2008/9/EC is a taxable person for the purposes of VAT and that the identification or registration number given by this person is valid for the refund period.\n2. The competent authorities of each Member State of refund shall notify by electronic means the competent authorities of the other Member States of any information required by them pursuant to Article 9(2) of Directive 2008/9/EC. The technical details, including a common electronic message by which this information is to be transmitted, shall be determined in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2) of this Regulation.\n3. The competent authorities of each Member State of refund shall notify by electronic means the competent authorities of the other Member States if they want to make use of the option to require the applicant to provide the description of business activity by harmonised codes as referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2008/9/EC.\nThe harmonised codes referred to in the first subparagraph shall be determined in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2) of this Regulation on the basis of the NACE classification established by Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the statistical classification of economic activities NACE Revision 2 (8).\nCHAPTER XIII\nRELATIONS WITH THE COMMISSION\nArticle 49\n1. The Member States and the Commission shall examine and evaluate how the arrangements for administrative cooperation provided for in this Regulation are working. The Commission shall pool the Member States\u2019 experience with the aim of improving the operation of those arrangements.\n2. The Member States shall communicate to the Commission any available information relevant to their application of this Regulation.\n3. A list of statistical data needed for evaluation of this Regulation shall be determined in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2). The Member States shall communicate these data to the Commission in so far as they are available and the communication is not likely to involve administrative burdens which would be unjustified.\n4. With a view to evaluating the effectiveness of this system of administrative cooperation in combating tax evasion and tax avoidance, Member States may communicate to the Commission any other information referred to in Article 1.\n5. The Commission shall forward the information referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 to the other Member States concerned.\n6. Where necessary, in addition to what is required by other provisions in this Regulation, the Commission shall send to the competent authorities of each Member State any information that might enable them to combat fraud in the field of VAT as soon as it obtains such information.\n7. The Commission may, at the request of a Member State, provide its expert opinions, technical or logistical assistance, or any other support with a view to attaining the objectives of this Regulation.\nCHAPTER XIV\nRELATIONS WITH THIRD COUNTRIES\nArticle 50\n1. When the competent authority of a Member State receives information from a third country, that authority may pass the information on to the competent authorities of Member States which might be interested in it and, in any event, to all those which request it, in so far as permitted by assistance arrangements with that particular third country.\n2. Competent authorities may communicate, in accordance with their domestic provisions on the communication of personal data to third countries, information obtained in accordance with this Regulation to a third country, provided that the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe competent authority of the Member State from which the information originates has consented to that communication; and\n(b)\nthe third country concerned has given an undertaking to provide the cooperation required to gather evidence of the irregular nature of transactions which appear to contravene VAT legislation.\nCHAPTER XV\nCONDITIONS GOVERNING THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION\nArticle 51\n1. Information communicated pursuant to this Regulation shall, as far as possible, be provided by electronic means under arrangements to be adopted in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2).\n2. Where the request has not been lodged completely through the electronic system referred to in paragraph 1, the requested authority shall confirm receipt of the request by electronic means without delay and, in any event, no later than five working days after receipt.\nWhere an authority has received a request or information of which it is not the intended recipient, it shall send a message by electronic means to the sender without delay and, in any event, no later than five working days after receipt.\nArticle 52\nRequests for assistance, including requests for notification, and attached documents may be made in any language agreed between the requested and requesting authority. The said requests shall be accompanied by a translation into the official language or one of the official languages of the Member State in which the requested authority is established only in special cases when the requested authority gives a reason for asking for such a translation.\nArticle 53\nThe Commission and the Member States shall ensure that such existing or new communication and information exchange systems which are necessary to provide for the exchanges of information described in this Regulation are operational. A service level agreement ensuring the technical quality and quantity of the services to be delivered by the Commission and the Member States for the functioning of those communication and information exchange systems shall be decided in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2). The Commission shall be responsible for whatever development of the CCN/CSI network is necessary to permit the exchange of this information between Member States. Member States shall be responsible for whatever development of their systems is necessary to permit this information to be exchanged using the CCN/CSI network.\nMember States shall waive all claims for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in applying this Regulation except, where appropriate, in respect of fees paid to experts.\nArticle 54\n1. The requested authority in one Member State shall provide a requesting authority in another Member State with the information referred to in Article 1 provided that:\n(a)\nthe number and the nature of the requests for information made by the requesting authority within a specific period do not impose a disproportionate administrative burden on that requested authority;\n(b)\nthat requesting authority has exhausted the usual sources of information which it could have used in the circumstances to obtain the information requested, without running the risk of jeopardising the achievement of the desired end.\n2. This Regulation shall impose no obligation to have enquiries carried out or to provide information on a particular case if the laws or administrative practices of the Member State which would have to supply the information do not authorise the Member State to carry out those enquiries or collect or use that information for that Member State\u2019s own purposes.\n3. The competent authority of a requested Member State may refuse to provide information where the requesting Member State is unable, for legal reasons, to provide similar information. The Commission shall be informed of the grounds of the refusal by the requested Member State.\n4. The provision of information may be refused where it would lead to the disclosure of a commercial, industrial or professional secret or of a commercial process, or of information whose disclosure would be contrary to public policy.\n5. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 should on no account be interpreted as authorising the requested authority of a Member State to refuse to supply information on a taxable person identified for VAT purposes in the Member State of the requesting authority on the sole grounds that this information is held by a bank, other financial institution, nominee or person acting in an agency or fiduciary capacity or because it relates to ownership interests in a legal person.\n6. The requested authority shall inform the requesting authority of the grounds for refusing a request for assistance.\n7. A minimum threshold triggering a request for assistance may be adopted in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 58(2).\nArticle 55\n1. Information communicated or collected in any form pursuant to this Regulation, including any information to which an official has had access in the circumstances set out in Chapters VII, VIII and X, and in the cases referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, shall be covered by the obligation of official secrecy and enjoy the protection extended to similar information under both the national law of the Member State which received it and the corresponding provisions applicable to Union authorities. Such information shall be used only in the circumstances provided for in this Regulation.\nSuch information may be used for the purpose of establishing the assessment base or the collection or administrative control of tax for the purpose of establishing the assessment base.\nThe information may also be used for the assessment of other levies, duties, and taxes covered by Article 2 of Council Directive 2008/55/EC of 26 May 2008 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures (9).\nIn addition, it may be used in connection with judicial proceedings that may involve penalties, initiated as a result of infringements of tax law without prejudice to the general rules and legal provisions governing the rights of defendants and witnesses in such proceedings.\n2. Persons duly accredited by the Security Accreditation Authority of the Commission may have access to this information only in so far as it is necessary for care, maintenance and development of the CCN/CSI network.\n3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authority of the Member State providing the information shall permit its use for other purposes in the Member State of the requesting authority, if, under the legislation of the Member State of the requested authority, the information can be used for similar purposes.\n4. Where the requesting authority considers that information it has received from the requested authority is likely to be useful to the competent authority of a third Member State, it may transmit it to the latter authority. It shall inform the requested authority thereof in advance. The requested authority may require that the transmission of the information to a third party be subject to its prior agreement.\n5. All storage or exchange of information referred to in this Regulation is subject to the provisions implementing Directive 95/46/EC. However, Member States shall, for the purpose of the correct application of this Regulation, restrict the scope of the obligations and rights provided for in Article 10, Article 11(1) and Articles 12 and 21 of Directive 95/46/EC to the extent required in order to safeguard the interests referred to in Article 13(1)(e) of that Directive.\nArticle 56\nReports, statements and any other documents, or certified true copies or extracts thereof, obtained by the staff of the requested authority and communicated to the requesting authority under the assistance provided for by this Regulation may be invoked as evidence by the competent bodies of the Member State of the requesting authority on the same basis as similar documents provided by another authority of that country.\nArticle 57\n1. For the purpose of applying this Regulation, Member States shall take all necessary measures to:\n(a)\nensure effective internal coordination between the competent authorities;\n(b)\nestablish direct cooperation between the authorities authorised for the purposes of such coordination;\n(c)\nensure the smooth operation of the information exchange arrangements provided for in this Regulation.\n2. The Commission shall communicate to each Member State, as quickly as possible, any information which it receives and which it is able to provide.\nCHAPTER XVI\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 58\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Standing Committee on Administrative Cooperation.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.\nThe period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.\nArticle 59\n1. By 1 November 2013 and thereafter every five years, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Regulation.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of any provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Regulation.\nArticle 60\n1. This Regulation shall be without prejudice to the fulfilment of any wider obligations in relation to mutual assistance ensuing from other legal acts, including bilateral or multilateral agreements.\n2. Where the Member States conclude bilateral arrangements on matters covered by this Regulation, in particular pursuant to Article 11, other than to deal with individual cases, they shall inform the Commission without delay. The Commission shall in turn inform the other Member States.\nArticle 61\nRegulation (EC) No 1798/2003 shall be repealed with effect from 1 January 2012. However, the effects of Article 2(1) of that Regulation shall be maintained until the date of publication by the Commission of the list of competent authorities referred to in Article 3 of this Regulation.\nChapter V, with the exception of Article 27(4), of that Regulation shall remain applicable until 31 December 2012.\nReferences made to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation.\nArticle 62\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2012.\nHowever, Articles 33 to 37 shall apply from 1 November 2010;\nChapter V, with the exception of Articles 22 and 23, shall apply from 1 January 2013;\n-\nArticles 38 to 42 shall apply from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2014; and\n-\nArticles 43 to 47 shall apply from 1 January 2015.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Luxembourg, 7 October 2010.", "references": ["44", "70", "13", "52", "83", "51", "25", "85", "71", "93", "89", "19", "95", "96", "68", "57", "76", "48", "29", "8", "1", "45", "24", "32", "84", "82", "79", "54", "90", "53", "No Label", "2", "12", "20", "34"], "gold": ["2", "12", "20", "34"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 340/2010\nof 22 April 2010\ngranting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.\n(2)\nPursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 20 April 2010.\n(3)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 20 April 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in point (c) of Article 1 and in Article 2 respectively of that Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 April 2010.", "references": ["63", "97", "34", "40", "1", "78", "85", "15", "53", "47", "77", "25", "73", "71", "59", "76", "81", "54", "45", "80", "56", "89", "67", "51", "5", "31", "39", "16", "10", "24", "No Label", "20", "70"], "gold": ["20", "70"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/327/CFSP\nof 25 June 2012\nextending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for the Southern Mediterranean region\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 July 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/424/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Bernardino LE\u00d3N as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Southern Mediterranean region. The EUSR\u2019s mandate is to expire on 30 June 2012.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the EUSR should be extended for a further period of 12 months,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nEuropean Union Special Representative\nThe mandate of Mr Bernardino LE\u00d3N as the EUSR for the Southern Mediterranean region is hereby extended until 30 June 2013. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).\nArticle 2\nPolicy objectives\nThe mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the Union regarding the Southern Neighbourhood as set out in the European Council Declarations of 4 February and 11 March 2011, the European Council conclusions of 24-25 March 2011, and the Council conclusions of 21 February and 20 June 2011, and taking into account the proposals of the HR and the Commission in their communications of 8 March and 25 May 2011.\nThose objectives include:\n(a)\nenhancing the Union\u2019s political dialogue, contributing to the partnership and broader relationship with Southern Mediterranean countries, in particular those undergoing political reform and a transition to democracy;\n(b)\ncontributing to the response of the Union to the developments of Southern Mediterranean countries, in particular those undergoing political reform and a transition to democracy, notably by strengthening democracy and institution building, the rule of law, good governance, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, peace and regional cooperation, including through the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Union for the Mediterranean;\n(c)\nenhancing the Union\u2019s effectiveness, presence and visibility in the region and in relevant international forums;\n(d)\nestablishing close coordination with relevant local partners and international and regional organisations such as the African Union, the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the League of Arab States, the Arab Maghreb Union, relevant international financial institutions, the United Nations and the private sector.\nArticle 3\nMandate\nIn order to achieve the policy objectives, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:\n(a)\nstrengthen the overall political role of the Union with regard to Southern Mediterranean countries, in particular those undergoing political reform and a transition to democracy, notably by enhancing dialogue with governments and international organisations, as well as with civil society and other relevant interlocutors, and promoting awareness among the partners of the Union\u2019s approach;\n(b)\nmaintain close contact with all parties involved in the process of democratic transformation in the region, foster stabilisation and reconciliation in full respect of local ownership and contribute to crisis management and prevention;\n(c)\ncontribute to better coherence, consistency and coordination of the Union and Member States\u2019 policies and actions towards the region;\n(d)\ncontribute to promoting coordination with international partners and organisations and to supporting regional cooperation. Assist the HR, in coordination with the Commission and Member States, by contributing to the work of the Task Force and follow up meetings for the Southern Mediterranean region;\n(e)\ncontribute to the implementation of the Union\u2019s human rights policy in the region, including the EU Guidelines on human rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict, as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and the Union\u2019s policy on Women, Peace and Security, including by monitoring and reporting on developments, as well as formulating recommendations in this regard.\nArticle 4\nImplementation of the mandate\n1. The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.\n2. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR\u2019s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.\n3. The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (EEAS) and its relevant departments.\nArticle 5\nFinancing\n1. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 shall be EUR 945 000.\n2. The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.\nArticle 6\nConstitution and composition of the team\n1. Within the limits of the mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of the team.\n2. Member States, the institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.\n3. All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, the sending institution of the Union or the EEAS, and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.\nArticle 7\nPrivileges and immunities of the EUSR and the staff of the EUSR\nThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the mission of the EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s staff shall be agreed with the host party or parties, as appropriate. Member States and the Commission shall grant all necessary support to such effect.\nArticle 8\nSecurity of EU classified information\nThe EUSR and the members of the EUSR\u2019s team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2).\nArticle 9\nAccess to information and logistical support\n1. Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.\n2. The Union delegations and/or the Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.\nArticle 10\nSecurity\nIn accordance with the Union\u2019s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with the mandate and on the basis of the security situation in the geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under the direct authority of the EUSR, in particular by:\n(a)\nestablishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, providing for mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area and the management of security incidents, and providing for a contingency plan and a mission evacuation plan;\n(b)\nensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance, as required by the conditions in the mission area;\n(c)\nensuring that all members of the EUSR\u2019s team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the EEAS;\n(d)\nensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.\nArticle 11\nReporting\nThe EUSR shall regularly provide the PSC and the HR with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report to Council working parties as necessary. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the PSC or the HR, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports. In accordance with Article 36 of the Treaty, the EUSR may be involved in briefing the European Parliament.\nArticle 12\nCoordination\n1. The EUSR shall contribute to the unity, consistency and effectiveness of the Union\u2019s action and shall help ensure that all Union instruments and Member States\u2019 actions are engaged coherently, to attain the Union\u2019s policy objectives. The EUSR shall work in full coordination with the Member States and the Commission, as well as other European Union Special Representatives active in the region, including the EUSR for the Middle East Peace Process, as appropriate. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States\u2019 missions and the Union\u2019s delegations.\n2. In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of Union delegations and Member States\u2019 Heads of Mission, who shall make every effort to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.\nArticle 13\nReview\nThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the Council, the HR and the Commission with a progress report by the end of December 2012, and with a comprehensive implementation report on the mandate at the end thereof.\nArticle 14\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 25 June 2012.", "references": ["89", "84", "8", "35", "79", "53", "11", "16", "45", "2", "22", "74", "47", "93", "64", "70", "55", "83", "38", "18", "67", "34", "40", "81", "51", "58", "43", "69", "48", "94", "No Label", "3", "7", "96"], "gold": ["3", "7", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 929/2011\nof 16 September 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of September 2011 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of September 2011 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2011 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 September 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 September 2011.", "references": ["27", "13", "82", "65", "20", "88", "38", "75", "61", "3", "7", "48", "11", "29", "67", "32", "47", "50", "86", "45", "14", "1", "63", "64", "55", "81", "99", "89", "6", "12", "No Label", "21", "22", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 338/2010\nof 22 April 2010\nfixing the export refunds on beef and veal\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 164(2), final subparagraph, and Article 170 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XV of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Community market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in beef and veal, export refunds should therefore be set in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162 to 164 and 167 to 170 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Community and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe conditions laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007 of 21 November 2007 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals (5) provide for a reduction of the special refund if the quantity of cuts of boned meat to be exported amounts to less than 95 %, but not less than 85 %, of the total weight of cuts produced by boning.\n(6)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 62/2010 (6) should therefore be repealed and replaced by a new regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 must meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) Nos 852/2004 and 853/2004, notably preparation in an approved establishment and compliance with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nIn the case referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1359/2007, the rate of the refund on products falling within product code 0201 30 00 9100 shall be reduced by EUR 7/100 kg.\nArticle 3\nRegulation (EC) No 62/2010 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 April 2010.", "references": ["91", "83", "1", "30", "85", "33", "39", "7", "65", "5", "15", "42", "21", "59", "46", "25", "51", "52", "22", "92", "13", "87", "12", "72", "35", "43", "62", "3", "71", "88", "No Label", "20", "69"], "gold": ["20", "69"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 8 November 2010\non the conclusion of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes\n(2011/33/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 114, 168, 169 and 172, Article 173(3), and Articles 188 and 192, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part (1), on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019) was signed on behalf of the Union on 22 November 2010.\n(2)\nAs a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.\n(3)\nThe Protocol should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes (2) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Protocol\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 10 of the Protocol.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2010.", "references": ["65", "82", "17", "48", "32", "68", "75", "69", "87", "61", "76", "43", "93", "81", "45", "73", "29", "99", "33", "22", "42", "10", "56", "57", "39", "20", "55", "67", "27", "74", "No Label", "3", "7", "9", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "7", "9", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 3 June 2010\nestablishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union within the Food Aid Committee as regards the extension of the Food Aid Convention 1999\n(2010/316/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 214(4) and Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Food Aid Convention 1999 was concluded on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2000/421/EC (1) and extended by decisions of the Food Aid Committee in June 2003, June 2005, June 2007, June 2008 and June 2009 so as to remain in force until 30 June 2010.\n(2)\nThe Grains Trade Convention 1995 remains in force until 30 June 2011.\n(3)\nThe Food Aid Convention 1999 expires on 30 June 2010 and the question of its renewal will be formally addressed at the 102nd Session of the Food Aid Committee on 4 June 2010.\n(4)\nAt the 101st Session of the Food Aid Committee, on 9 December 2009, some members expressed their willingness to extend the Food Aid Convention 1999 for another year until 30 June 2011. The European Union took the position that it would work towards taking a decision in June 2010 as to the future of the Food Aid Convention 1999 and that preparations could be started immediately without any prejudice to the formal position that would be communicated at the 102nd Session of the Food Aid Committee in June 2010.\n(5)\nThere are two possible scenarios for which the European Union should prepare a position in view of the 102nd Session of the Food Aid Committee:\n(a)\ndiscussions among members of the Food Aid Committee on the future of the Food Aid Convention 1999 have achieved significant progress (i.e. there is reasonable expectation that renegotiation of the Food Aid Convention 1999/negotiation of a future Convention will start in the course of 2010), by the 102nd Session of the Food Aid Committee, in which case an extension of the Food Aid Convention 1999 for one more year would be most appropriate. The Commission would then initiate the procedure laid down in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union recommending that the Council authorise the opening of negotiations and adopt negotiating directives; or\n(b)\ndiscussions among members of the Food Aid Committee on the future of the Food Aid Convention 1999 have not achieved significant progress by the 102nd Session of the Food Aid Committee, in which case an extension of the Food Aid Convention 1999 for one more year would not be appropriate, and the Commission, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, should formally oppose the emergence of a consensus in the Food Aid Committee favouring an extension of the Food Aid Convention 1999.\n(6)\nThe Commission, which represents the European Union in the Food Aid Committee, should therefore be authorised by a Council Decision to either favour an extension of the Food Aid Convention 1999 for one year, i.e. until 30 June 2011, if the condition set out in paragraph 5(a) is met, or, if that is not the case, oppose a consensus in the Food Aid Committee favouring such an extension,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position of the European Union within the Food Aid Committee shall be to favour the extension of the Food Aid Convention 1999 for a period of one year, i.e. until 30 June 2011, provided that discussions among members of the Food Aid Committee on the future of the Food Aid Convention 1999 have achieved significant progress (i.e. there is a reasonable expectation that renegotiation of the Food Aid Convention 1999/negotiation of a future Convention will start in the course of 2010), by the 102nd Session of the Food Aid Committee on 4 June 2010.\nIf that condition is not met, the position of the European Union shall be formally to oppose the emergence of a consensus in the Food Aid Committee favouring an extension of the Food Aid Convention 1999, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure of the Food Aid Committee.\nArticle 2\nThe Commission is hereby authorised to express one of the positions set out in Article 1 within the Food Aid Committee.\nDone at Luxembourg, 3 June 2010.", "references": ["67", "70", "61", "40", "49", "8", "22", "29", "15", "98", "53", "60", "51", "50", "26", "64", "80", "5", "75", "81", "74", "95", "20", "92", "54", "99", "93", "13", "12", "46", "No Label", "3", "4"], "gold": ["3", "4"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 841/2011\nof 22 August 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 833/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 August 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 August 2011.", "references": ["84", "73", "52", "93", "55", "43", "24", "78", "54", "92", "39", "88", "47", "85", "99", "8", "80", "98", "32", "87", "89", "2", "45", "31", "49", "38", "66", "0", "51", "75", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/11/EU\nof 8 February 2011\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include (Z,E)-tetradeca-9,12-dienyl acetate as an active substance in Annexes I and IA thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes (Z,E)-tetradeca-9,12-dienyl acetate.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, (Z,E)-tetradeca-9,12-dienyl acetate has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 19, repellents and attractants, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nAustria was designated as Rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 23 February 2009 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.\n(4)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 24 September 2010, in an assessment report.\n(5)\nIt appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as attractants and containing (Z,E)-tetradeca-9,12-dienyl acetate may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate to include (Z,E)-tetradeca-9,12-dienyl acetate in Annex I to that Directive.\n(6)\nIt also appears from the evaluations that biocidal products used as attractants and containing (Z,E)-tetradeca-9,12-dienyl acetate may be expected to present only low risk to humans, animals and the environment and to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC, in particular with regard to the use which was examined and detailed in the assessment report, i.e. in traps for indoor use containing a maximum of 2 mg of the active substance. It is therefore appropriate to include (Z,E)-tetradeca-9,12-dienyl acetate in Annex IA to Directive 98/8/EC.\n(7)\nNot all potential uses have been evaluated at Union level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States, when granting product authorisations, assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to the environmental compartments and populations that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(8)\nIn the light of the assumptions made during the evaluation, it is appropriate to require that (Z,E)-tetradeca-9,12-dienyl acetate is not applied where food or feed is stored unless the food or feed packaging is closed or re-closed. Labels should therefore indicate that biocidal products containing (Z,E)-tetradeca-9,12-dienyl acetate are not to be used in spaces where un-packaged food or feed is kept.\n(9)\nIt is important that the provisions of this Directive be applied simultaneously in all Member States in order to ensure equal treatment of biocidal products on the market containing the active substance (Z,E)-tetradeca-9,12-dienyl acetate and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(10)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(11)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(12)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and IA to Directive 98/8/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 January 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 February 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 February 2011.", "references": ["33", "67", "41", "48", "84", "29", "88", "45", "60", "76", "4", "82", "69", "49", "66", "18", "2", "52", "28", "36", "44", "42", "89", "91", "77", "75", "64", "3", "53", "30", "No Label", "25", "38", "61", "65", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "61", "65", "83"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUMM Georgia/1/2010\nof 3 September 2010\nextending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia\n(2010/480/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP of 15 September 2008 on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 10(1) of Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (hereinafter the \u2018PSC\u2019), in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purposes of political control and strategic direction of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (hereinafter \u2018EUMM Georgia\u2019), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.\n(2)\nOn 16 September 2008, upon a proposal from the Secretary-General/High Representative, the PSC appointed by Decision EUMM/1/2008 (2) Mr Hansj\u00f6rg HABER as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia until 15 September 2009.\n(3)\nOn 31 July 2009, upon a proposal from the Secretary-General/High Representative, the PSC adopted Decision EUMM Georgia/1/2009 (3) extending the mandate of Mr Hansj\u00f6rg HABER as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia until 15 September 2010.\n(4)\nOn 30 June 2010, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed to the PSC that it extend the mandate of Mr Hansj\u00f6rg HABER as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia for an additional year, namely until 15 September 2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe mandate of Mr Hansj\u00f6rg HABER as Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia is hereby extended until 15 September 2011.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 3 September 2010.", "references": ["53", "81", "16", "17", "78", "45", "42", "24", "36", "93", "82", "87", "94", "15", "75", "48", "49", "56", "61", "55", "95", "18", "62", "35", "12", "19", "37", "79", "97", "38", "No Label", "3", "4", "9", "11", "51", "52", "91"], "gold": ["3", "4", "9", "11", "51", "52", "91"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 656/2011\nof 7 July 2011\nimplementing Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning statistics on pesticides, as regards definitions and list of active substances\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 concerning statistics on pesticides (1), and in particular Article 5(2) and 5(3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1185/2009 establishes a new framework for the production of comparable European statistics on pesticide sales and use.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009, it is necessary to adopt the definition of the term \u2018area treated\u2019 referred to in Section 2 of Annex II to the said Regulation, as it should be understood and applied in a uniform manner throughout the Union in the interests of comparability.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009, the Commission should adapt, on a regular basis and at least every five years, the list of substances to be covered and their classification in categories of products and chemical classes as set out in Annex III. It is necessary to update the list annexed to the said Regulation, as it was last updated in 2006, to cover the period 2010 to 2015.\n(4)\nThe number of substances and the complexity involved in identifying the right compounds and classification make it difficult for the national statistical authorities to build up properly the necessary tools for collecting the information on use and placing on the markets. Hence, only those substances that have been allocated an identification number by one or both of the two major, internationally recognised institutions for registering chemical compounds or pesticides Chemical Abstracts Service of the American Chemical Society (CAS) and Collaborative International Pesticides Analytical Council (CIPAC) should be included.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe term \u2018area treated\u2019 referred to in Section 2 of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009 means the basic area treated, defined as \u2018the physical area of the crop treated at least once with a given active substance, independently of the number of applications\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 July 2011.", "references": ["93", "11", "31", "41", "63", "37", "95", "54", "6", "68", "33", "10", "72", "66", "85", "30", "64", "36", "43", "88", "48", "94", "59", "49", "27", "84", "89", "81", "53", "18", "No Label", "19", "39", "65"], "gold": ["19", "39", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/152/CFSP\nof 15 March 2012\namending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1).\n(2)\nOn 23 January 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/35/CFSP amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP (2), in response to its serious and deepening concerns over the nature of Iran's nuclear programme.\n(3)\nIn this context, the application of targeted financial measures by providers of specialised financial messaging services should be further developed, consistent with Decision 2010/413/CFSP.\n(4)\nDecision 2010/413/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 20 of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, the following paragraph is added:\n\u201812. Without prejudice to the exemptions provided for in this Article, it shall be prohibited to supply specialised financial messaging services, which are used to exchange financial data, to the persons and entities referred to in paragraph 1.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 15 March 2012.", "references": ["88", "47", "43", "10", "90", "83", "22", "16", "57", "29", "15", "91", "0", "32", "46", "17", "65", "35", "20", "51", "66", "74", "56", "45", "7", "68", "58", "97", "62", "23", "No Label", "3", "41", "95"], "gold": ["3", "41", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 29 July 2011\non granting a derogation requested by the Kingdom of Belgium with regard to the region of Flanders pursuant to Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources\n(notified under document C(2011) 4503)\n(Only the Dutch version is authentic)\n(2011/489/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIf the amount of manure that a Member State intends to apply per hectare each year is different from those specified in the first sentence of the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC and in point (a) of that subparagraph, that amount is to be fixed so as not to prejudice the achievement of the objectives specified in Article 1 of that Directive and it has to be justified on the basis of objective criteria, such as, in the present case, long growing seasons and crops with high nitrogen uptake.\n(2)\nOn 21 December 2007, the Commission adopted Decision 2008/64/EC granting a derogation requested by the Kingdom of Belgium with regard to the region of Flanders pursuant to Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (2), allowing the Kingdom of Belgium to authorise in the region of Flanders, under certain conditions, the application of up to 250 kg nitrogen per hectare per year from livestock manure on parcels cultivated with grassland and maize undersown with grassland and up to 200 kg nitrogen per hectare per year from livestock manure on parcels cultivated with winter wheat followed by a catch crop and with beet.\n(3)\nThe derogation granted by Decision 2008/64/EC concerned approximately 3 300 farmers and 83 500 ha of land and expired on 31 December 2010.\n(4)\nOn 15 March 2011, the Kingdom of Belgium submitted to the Commission a request for renewal of the derogation under the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC referred to the region of Flanders.\n(5)\nThe requested derogation concerns the intention of the Kingdom of Belgium to allow the application in Flanders, in specific holdings, of up to 250 kg nitrogen per hectare per year from grazing livestock manure and treated pig manure on parcels cultivated with grassland, maize undersown with grassland and cut grassland or cut rye followed by maize and up to 200 kg nitrogen per hectare per year from livestock manure and treated pig manure on parcels cultivated with winter wheat or triticale followed by a catch crop and with beet.\n(6)\nFlanders established clear water quality goals to be reached over the two next action programme periods. For surface water the quality standard of 50 mg nitrates per litre will be reached in 84 % of the monitoring points of the agricultural monitoring network by 2014 and in 95 % of these points by 2018. For shallow groundwater, which has a slower recovery rate, the average nitrate concentration will be decreased by 10 % in 2014 and 20 % by 2018 compared to the average level of 2010 amounting to 40 mg nitrates per litre. Specific focus is given to the hydrogeological homogeneous zones for which the nitrate concentrations in shallow groundwaters are on average higher than 50 mg nitrates per litre for which the average concentration will need to decrease by 5 mg nitrates per litre per action programme period.\n(7)\nIn order to reach these goals, Flanders has established a reinforced action programme for the period 2011-14. A review of the policy will be carried out by 2014 based on which possible further reinforced action will be taken in the action programme for the period 2015-18 in order to guarantee that the set water quality goals are reached.\n(8)\nThe legislation implementing Directive 91/676/EEC for the region of Flanders, the \u2018Decree for the protection of water against pollution by nitrates from agricultural sources\u2019 of 22 December 2006 (hereinafter \u2018the Manure Decree\u2019) has been amended (3) in accordance with the action programme for the period 2011-14 on 6 May 2011 and applies in conjunction with this Decision.\n(9)\nThe Manure Decree applies trough the whole territory of the region of Flanders.\n(10)\nThe Manure Decree includes limits for the application of both nitrogen and phosphorus.\n(11)\nThe supporting documents presented in the notification show that the proposed amount of respectively 250 and 200 kg per hectare per year nitrogen from livestock manure is justified on the basis of objective criteria such as long growing seasons and crops with high nitrogen uptake.\n(12)\nThe Commission after examination of the request considers that the proposed amounts of respectively 250 and 200 kg per hectare per year of nitrogen from grazing livestock manure and treated pig manure, will not prejudice the achievement of the objectives of Directive 91/676/EEC, subject to certain strict conditions being met which apply in addition to the reinforced measures taken in the action programme for the period 2011-14.\n(13)\nIn order to avoid that the application of the requested derogation leads to intensification of livestock rearing, the competent authorities should ensure the limitation of the number of livestock which can be kept in each farm (nutrient emission rights) in the region of Flanders according to the provisions set out in the Manure Decree.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Nitrates Committee set up pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 91/676/EEC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe derogation requested by the Kingdom of Belgium by letter of 15 March 2011, on behalf of the Flanders region, for the purpose of allowing a higher amount of livestock manure than that provided for in the first sentence of the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC and in point (a) thereof, is granted, subject to the conditions laid down in this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2018farms\u2019 means agricultural holding with or without livestock rearing;\n(b)\n\u2018parcel\u2019 means an individual field or a group of fields, homogeneous regarding cropping, soil type and fertilisation practices;\n(c)\n\u2018grassland\u2019 means permanent or temporary grassland (generally temporary lies less than 4 years);\n(d)\n\u2018crops with high nitrogen demand and long growing season\u2019 means grassland; maize undersown, before or after harvest, with grass mowed and removed from the field acting as a catch crop; cut grassland or cut rye followed by maize; winter wheat or triticale followed by a catch crop; sugar or fodder beets;\n(e)\n\u2018grazing livestock\u2019 means cattle (with the exclusion of veal calves), sheep, goats and horses;\n(f)\n\u2018manure treatment\u2019 means the processing of pig manure in two fractions, a solid and a liquid fraction, performed in order to improve land application and enhance nitrogen and phosphorus recovery;\n(g)\n\u2018treated manure\u2019 means the liquid fraction resulting from manure treatment;\n(h)\n\u2018effluent with low nitrogen and phosphate content\u2019 means treated manure with a maximum nitrogen content of 1 kg per ton effluent and a maximum phosphate content of 1 kg per ton effluent;\n(i)\n\u2018soil profile\u2019 means the soil layer below ground level to a depth of 0,90 m, unless the average highest groundwater level is shallower; in this latter case it shall be to a depth of the average highest groundwater level.\nArticle 3\nScope\nThis Decision applies on an individual basis to specified parcels of a farm, cultivated with crops with high nitrogen demand and long growing season and subject to the conditions set out in Articles 4 to 7.\nArticle 4\nAnnual application and commitment\n1. Farmers who want to benefit from derogation under this Decision shall submit an application to the competent authorities annually by 15 February. For the year 2011, the annual application shall be submitted by farmers by 15 July.\n2. Together with the annual application referred to in paragraph 1, they shall undertake in writing to fulfil the conditions provided for in Articles 5, 6 and 7.\nArticle 5\nManure treatment\n1. The solid fraction resulting from manure treatment shall be delivered to authorised installations for recycling with the aim of reducing odours and other emissions, improving agronomic and hygienic properties, facilitating handling and enhancing recovery of nitrogen and phosphate. The recycled product shall not be applied to agricultural land located in the region of Flanders except for parks, greeneries and private gardens.\n2. Farmers benefiting from derogation who carry out manure treatment shall submit each year to the competent authorities the data related to the amount of manure sent to treatment, the amount and the destination of the solid fraction and of the treated manure and their contents of nitrogen and phosphorus.\n3. The competent authorities shall establish and regularly update the acknowledged methodologies to assess the composition of treated manure, the variations in composition and treatment efficiency for each farm benefiting from individual derogation.\n4. Ammonia and other emissions from manure treatment shall be collected and treated so as to reduce environmental impact and nuisance for those installations that cause higher emissions than the reference situation, which is storage and land application of raw livestock manure. For these purposes an inventory of installations requiring emission treatment shall be established and regularly updated.\nArticle 6\nApplication of manure and other fertilisers\n1. Subject to the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 to 11, the amount of grazing livestock manure, treated manure and effluent with low nitrogen and phosphate content applied to derogated parcels each year, including the manure applied by the animals themselves shall not exceed 250 kg of nitrogen per hectare per year on parcels cultivated with the following:\n(a)\ngrassland and maize undersown with grassland;\n(b)\ncut grassland followed by maize;\n(c)\ncut rye followed by maize,\nand 200 kg of nitrogen per hectare per year on parcels cultivated with:\n(d)\nwinter wheat followed by a catch crop;\n(e)\ntriticale followed by a catch crop;\n(f)\nsugar or fodder beets.\n2. Treated manure, not qualifying as effluent with low nitrogen and phosphate content, can only be applied to derogated parcels if it has a nitrogen to phosphate ratio (N/P2O5) of minimum 3,3.\n3. The application of effluent with low nitrogen and phosphate content shall be limited to maximal 15 ton per hectare.\n4. The total nitrogen and phosphate input shall comply with the nutrient demand of the considered crop and take into account the supply from the soil and the increased manure nitrogen availability due to treatment. It shall not exceed for all crops, in any case, the maximum application standards for phosphate and nitrogen, either expressed in total nitrogen or efficient nitrogen, as established in the action programme.\n5. The use of phosphate from chemical fertiliser is banned on derogated parcels.\n6. A fertilisation plan shall be kept for each farm, for its whole acreage, describing the crop rotation and planned application of manure and nitrogen and phosphate fertilisers. It shall be available in the farm each calendar year by 15 February at the latest.\nThe fertilisation plan shall include the following:\n(a)\nthe number of livestock, a description of the housing and storage system, including the volume of manure storage available;\n(b)\na calculation of manure nitrogen and phosphorus produced in the farm;\n(c)\nthe description of manure treatment and expected characteristics of treated manure;\n(d)\nthe amount, type and characteristics of manure delivered outside the farm or in the farm;\n(e)\nthe crop rotation and acreage of parcels with crops with high nitrogen demand and long growing season and parcels with other crops;\n(f)\nthe foreseeable nitrogen and phosphorus crop requirements for each parcel;\n(g)\na calculation of nitrogen and phosphorus application from manure over each parcel;\n(h)\na calculation of nitrogen and phosphorus application from chemical and other fertilisers over each parcel.\nPlans shall be revised no later than 7 days following any change in agricultural practices to ensure consistency between plans and actual agricultural practices.\n7. Fertilisation accounts shall be prepared by each farm; they shall include applied amounts and time of application of manure and nitrogen fertilisers.\n8. Results of nitrogen and phosphorus analysis in soil shall be available for each farm benefiting from derogation. Sampling and analysis must be carried out no later than 1 June and at least once every 4 years for phosphorus and for nitrogen for each homogeneous area of the farm, with regard to crop rotation and soil characteristics. At least one analysis per 5 hectares of farmland shall be required.\n9. Nitrate concentration in the soil profile shall be measured every year in autumn and at the latest by 15 November on at least 6 % of all derogated parcels and 1 % of the other parcels in use by farms benefiting from derogation in such a way that at least 85 % of these farms are involved. At least three samples representing three different soil layers within the soil profile shall be required every 2 hectares of farmland.\n10. Manure, treated manure or effluent with low nitrogen and phosphate content with a total nitrogen content higher than 0,60 kg nitrogen per ton, as well as chemical and other fertilisers shall not be spread on derogated parcels between 1 September and 15 February the following year.\n11. At least two thirds of the amount of nitrogen from manure, excluding nitrogen from manure from grazing livestock, shall be applied before 31 May each year.\nArticle 7\nLand management\nFarmers benefiting from individual derogation shall carry out the following measures:\n(a)\ngrassland shall be ploughed in spring for all soil types except clay soils;\n(b)\ngrassland on clay soils shall be ploughed before 15 September;\n(c)\ngrassland on derogated parcels shall not include sown leguminous or other plants fixing atmospheric nitrogen;\n(d)\na crop with high nitrogen demand shall be seeded within 2 weeks after ploughed grass and fertilisers shall not be applied in the year of ploughing of permanent grassland;\n(e)\ncatch crops shall be seeded within 2 weeks after harvest of winter wheat or triticale and no later than 10 September;\n(f)\ncatch crops shall not be ploughed before 15 February in order to ensure permanent vegetal cover of the arable area for recovering subsoil autumn losses of nitrates and limit winter losses.\nArticle 8\nOther measures\nThe competent authorities shall ensure that derogations granted for the application of treated manure are compatible with the capacity of authorised installations for manure treatment and processing of the solid fraction.\nArticle 9\nMeasures on manure production and transport\n1. The competent authorities shall ensure respect of the limitation of the number of livestock which can be kept in each farm (nutrient emission rights) in the region of Flanders according to the provisions set out in the Manure Decree.\n2. The competent authorities shall ensure that manure transport from accredited transporters is recorded through geographic positioning systems for all transports as from 1 January 2012. Until that date, the competent authorities shall ensure that manure transport from accredited transporters classified in categories A 5o, A 7o, B and C according to Articles 4 and 5 of the Flemish Ministerial Decree of 19 July 2007 (4) is recorded through geographic positioning systems.\n3. The competent authorities shall ensure that manure composition with regard to nitrogen and phosphorus concentration is assessed before each transport. Manure samples shall be analysed by recognised laboratories and results of the analysis shall be communicated to the competent authorities and to the receiving farmer.\n4. The competent authorities shall ensure that a document specifying the amount of transported manure and its nitrogen and phosphorus content is available during transport.\nArticle 10\nMonitoring\n1. The competent authority shall ensure that maps showing the percentage of farms, number of parcels, percentage of livestock, percentage of agricultural land and local land use covered by individual derogation for each municipality are drawn up and updated every year. Data on crop rotations and agricultural practices covered by individual derogation shall be collected and updated every year.\n2. The monitoring network for sampling of surface and shallow groundwater established under Decision 2008/64/EC shall be maintained to assess the impact of the derogation on water quality. The amount of initial monitoring sites cannot be reduced and the location of the sites cannot be changed during the period of applicability of this Decision.\n3. A reinforced monitoring shall be conducted in agricultural catchments on sandy soils.\n4. The monitoring sites, corresponding to at least 150 farms, established under Decision 2008/64/EC shall be maintained in order to provide data on nitrogen and phosphorus concentration in soil water, on mineral nitrogen in soil profile and corresponding nitrogen and phosphorus losses through the root zone into groundwater, as well as on nitrogen and phosphorus losses by surface and subsurface runoff, both under derogation and non-derogation conditions. The monitoring sites shall include main soil types (clay, loamy, sandy and loessial soils), fertilisation practices and crops. The composition of the monitoring network shall not be modified during the period of applicability of this Decision.\nArticle 11\nVerification\n1. The competent authorities shall ensure that all the applications for derogation are submitted to administrative control. Where the control demonstrates that the conditions provided for in Articles 5, 6 and 7 are not fulfilled, the applicant shall be informed thereof. In this instance, the application shall be considered to be refused.\n2. A programme of field inspections shall be established based on risk analysis, results of controls of the previous years and results of general random controls of application of legislation implementing Directive 91/676/EEC. The field inspections shall cover at least 5 % of the farms benefiting from individual derogation in respect to the conditions set out in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of this Decision. Where verification indicates non-compliance, the farmer shall be informed thereof. In this instance, the request for derogation the next year shall be considered to be refused.\n3. The results of the measurements as referred to in Article 6(8) shall be verified. Where verification indicates non-compliance, including that the basic threshold, as defined in the Manure Decree, was exceeded, the farmer shall be informed thereof and an application for derogation for the following year for the parcel or parcels will be refused.\n4. The competent authorities shall ensure on-spot controls of at least 1 % of manure transport operations, based on risk assessment and results of administrative controls referred to in paragraph 1. Controls shall include verification of the fulfilment of the obligations on accreditation, assessment of accompanying documents, verification of manure origin and destination and sampling of transported manure. Manure sampling can be carried out, where appropriate, using automatic manure samplers installed on the vehicles, during loading operations. Manure samples shall be analysed by laboratories recognised by the competent authorities and results of the analysis shall be communicated to the delivering and to the receiving farmer.\n5. The competent authorities shall be granted the necessary powers and means to verify compliance with derogation granted under this Decision.\nArticle 12\nReporting\nThe competent authorities shall submit every year by December and for 2014 by September a report containing the following information:\n(a)\nmaps showing the percentage of farms, percentage of livestock, percentage of agricultural land and local land use, as well as data on crop rotations and agricultural practices in derogation farms, as referred to in Article 10(1);\n(b)\nthe results of water monitoring, including information on water quality trends for ground and surface waters, as well as the impact on derogation on water quality as referred to in Article 10(2);\n(c)\nevaluation of the nitrate residue in soil profile in autumn for the derogated parcels and a comparison with nitrate residue data and trends on non-derogated parcels for similar crop rotations. Non-derogated parcels should include non-derogated parcels on farms benefiting from derogation and parcels on other farms;\n(d)\nevaluation of the implementation of the derogation conditions, on the basis of controls at farm and parcel level, as well as controls on manure transport, and information on non-compliant farms, on the basis of the results of the administrative and field inspections;\n(e)\ninformation on manure treatment, including further processing and utilisation of the solid fractions, and provide detailed data on the characteristics of treatments systems, their efficiency and composition of treated manure;\n(f)\ninformation on the amount of farms benefiting from derogation and derogated parcels on which treated manure and effluents with low nitrogen and phosphate content has been applied as well as their volumes;\n(g)\nthe methodologies to assess the composition of treated manure, the variations in composition and treatment efficiency for each farm benefiting from individual derogation, referred to in Article 5(3);\n(h)\nthe inventory of manure treatment installation as referred to in Article 5(4);\n(i)\nsummary and evaluation of data obtained from the monitoring sites referred to in Article 10(4).\nArticle 13\nApplication\nThis Decision shall apply in the context in conjunction with the action programme 2011-14 for the Region of Flanders (Manure Decree) and shall expire on 31 December 2014.\nArticle 14\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2011.", "references": ["26", "35", "90", "53", "41", "19", "70", "5", "57", "39", "16", "61", "98", "44", "72", "7", "79", "82", "30", "94", "42", "81", "33", "87", "25", "73", "64", "50", "9", "4", "No Label", "8", "58", "59", "60", "65", "83", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "58", "59", "60", "65", "83", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 582/2010\nof 1 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 2 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 July 2010.", "references": ["63", "79", "86", "10", "69", "1", "7", "22", "91", "2", "17", "28", "44", "13", "67", "50", "39", "62", "72", "56", "4", "84", "73", "8", "21", "11", "0", "93", "25", "12", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 18 January 2011\nauthorising France to apply differentiated levels of taxation to motor fuels in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC\n(2011/38/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1), and in particular Article 19 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Decision 2005/767/EC (2) authorises France to apply, for a period of 3 years, differentiated levels of taxation to gas oil and unleaded petrol. France had requested the authorisation in the context of an administrative reform involving the decentralisation of certain specific powers previously exercised by central government. Decision 2005/767/EC expired on 31 December 2009.\n(2)\nBy letter dated 12 August 2009, France requested authorisation to continue to apply differentiated rates of taxation under the same conditions for a further 6 years after 31 December 2009.\n(3)\nDecision 2005/767/EC was adopted on the basis that the measure requested by France met the requirements set out in Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC. In particular, it was considered that that measure would not hinder the proper functioning of the internal market. It was also considered that it was in conformity with the relevant Community policies.\n(4)\nThe national measure is part of a policy designed to increase administrative effectiveness by improving the quality and reducing the cost of public services, as well as a policy of subsidiarity. It offers regions an additional incentive to improve the quality of their administration in a transparent fashion. In this respect, Decision 2005/767/EC requires that the reductions be linked to the socioeconomic circumstances of the regions in which they are applied. Overall, the national measure is based on specific policy considerations.\n(5)\nThe tight limits set for the differentiation of rates on a regional basis as well as the exclusion of gas oil used for commercial purposes from the measure imply that the risk of competitive distortions in the internal market is very low. Moreover, the application of the measure so far has shown a strong tendency on behalf of regions to levy the maximum rate allowable, which has further decreased any potential for competitive distortions.\n(6)\nNo obstacles to the proper functioning of the internal market have been reported as regards, more particularly, the circulation of the products in question in their capacity as products subject to excise duty.\n(7)\nWhen originally requested, the national measure had been preceded by a tax increase equal to the margin for regional reductions. Against this background and in light of the conditions of the authorisation as well as experience gathered, the national measure does not, at this stage, appear to be in conflict with Union energy and climate policies.\n(8)\nIt follows from Article 19(2) of Directive 2003/96/EC that each authorisation granted under that Article must be strictly limited in time. Due to the possible future developments of the Union framework on energy taxation, this authorisation should be limited to a period of 3 years. It is furthermore appropriate to avoid any time gap with respect to the application of the authorisation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. France is hereby authorised to apply reduced rates of taxation to unleaded petrol and gas oil used as fuel. Gas oil for commercial use within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/96/EC shall not be eligible for any such reductions.\n2. Administrative regions may be permitted to apply differentiated reductions provided the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe reductions are no greater than EUR 35,4 per 1 000 litres of unleaded petrol or EUR 23,0 per 1 000 litres of gas oil;\n(b)\nthe reductions are no greater than the difference between the levels of taxation of gas oil for non-commercial use and gas oil for commercial use;\n(c)\nthe reductions are linked to the objective socio-economic conditions of the regions in which they are applied;\n(d)\nthe application of regional reductions does not have the effect of granting a region a competitive advantage in intra-Union trade.\n3. The reduced rates must comply with the requirements of Directive 2003/96/EC, and in particular the minimum rates laid down in Article 7.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2010.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 18 January 2011.", "references": ["16", "40", "56", "75", "49", "86", "41", "77", "13", "64", "0", "78", "72", "84", "76", "18", "62", "89", "92", "65", "24", "20", "67", "36", "39", "23", "3", "38", "43", "46", "No Label", "8", "34", "48", "80", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "34", "48", "80", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1199/2011\nof 21 November 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1166/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 22 November 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 November 2011.", "references": ["42", "18", "92", "9", "24", "75", "74", "96", "49", "38", "36", "2", "64", "89", "4", "25", "53", "1", "11", "46", "32", "69", "87", "27", "30", "16", "77", "68", "73", "90", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 4 April 2011\nimplementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards transhipment at the border inspection post of introduction of consignments of products intended for import into the Union or for third countries\n(notified under document C(2011) 2067)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/215/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), and in particular Articles 9(2) and 11(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 97/78/EC provides that veterinary checks on products of animal origin and on certain plant products from third countries introduced into the Union are to be carried out by Member States in accordance with that Directive. It also provides that Member States are to ensure that consignments of such products are introduced into the Union via a border inspection post.\n(2)\nArticle 9 of Directive 97/78/EC provides for the procedures to be carried out at the border inspection post of introduction in the case of consignments intended for import into the Union via another border inspection post, but which are transhipped at the border inspection post of introduction, within the customs area of the same port or airport in the Union.\n(3)\nArticle 11 of Directive 97/78/EC concerns consignments coming from a third country and which are transhipped at the border inspection post of arrival, within the customs area of the same port or airport in the Union but which are intended for another third country either via the territory of the Union via another border inspection post or directly to a third country without introduction at another border inspection post.\n(4)\nIn addition, Articles 9 and 11 of Directive 97/78/EC provide for a number of derogations from the general rules on veterinary checks performed at the border inspection post of introduction. Those derogations have a different scope and are linked to the final destination of the consignments and to the duration of the storage of the consignments during the transhipment process at the border inspection post of arrival.\n(5)\nThat duration is determined by reference to a minimum and a maximum period for such storage, which are to be determined in accordance with the procedure referred to in Directive 97/78/EC.\n(6)\nCommission Decision 2000/25/EC of 16 December 1999 establishing the detailed rules for the application of Article 9 of Council Directive 97/78/EC concerning the transhipment of products at a Border Inspection Post where the consignments are intended for eventual import into the European Community, and amending Commission Decision 93/14/EEC (2) currently lays down the minimum and maximum periods applicable in cases where the consignments are intended for import into the Union via another border inspection post situated in the same territory or situated in the territory of another Member State.\n(7)\nDecision 2000/25/EC it is not entirely clear as regards the scope of the rules concerning consignments being transhipped from one aircraft to another or from one vessel to another within the customs area of the same port or airport to transit to a third country either without further stop on the territory of the Union or via the territory of the Union. It is therefore necessary to lay down rules in this Decision, to clarify the provisions already set out in Decision 2000/25/EC, including rules on the relevant minimum periods.\n(8)\nIn order to safeguard public and animal health, the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of introduction should receive appropriate information in the case of consignments covered by Articles 9 and 11 of Directive 97/78/EC. It is therefore appropriate to lay down rules on the information to be provided by the person responsible for the load at the time of arrival of a consignment at the border inspection post.\n(9)\nThe minimum period after which veterinary checks must be carried out on consignments which are transhipped from one vessel to another in the same port and which are intended for import or for transit to third countries as foreseen in Articles 9 and 11 of Directive 97/78/EC is seven days.\n(10)\nFor consignments which are transhipped from one vessel to another in the same port at the border inspection post of arrival and which are intended directly for a third country without further stop on the territory of the Union, the animal and public health risks for the Union are reduced, since the contact of the consignments with the territory of the Union is limited. In such cases, it may be appropriate to extend the minimum period referred to in Articles 9 and 11 of Directive 97/78/EC.\n(11)\nThat extension should be subject to appropriate guarantees from the Member State of the border inspection post of arrival. In particular, that Member State should ensure that such consignments are prevented from moving to another Union port and that they are dispatched directly to a third country. In addition, that Member State should provide the Commission and the other Member States with appropriate information concerning those guarantees, including information on the monitoring system to ensure that time periods and onward transportation arrangements to a specific destination as indicated in the notification of the consignment are respected.\n(12)\nIn addition, it is important to specify that consignments must be submitted to the full range of veterinary checks laid down in Directive 97/78/EC after the expiry of the maximum periods laid down in this decision.\n(13)\nIn the interests of clarity and consistency of Union legislation, it is appropriate to repeal Decision 2000/25/EC and replace it by this Decision.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nWhere consignments are presented at a border inspection post for subsequent transhipment, the person responsible for the load shall notify the official veterinarian at that border inspection post of the following:\n(a)\nthe estimated time of unloading of the consignment;\n(b)\nthe border inspection post of destination in the Union in case of import or transit through the Union or the third country of destination in case of transit directly to a third country;\n(c)\nthe exact location of the consignment, if it is not loaded directly on the aircraft or vessel to the onward destination;\n(d)\nthe estimated time of loading of the consignment on the aircraft or vessel bound to the onward destination.\nThat notification shall be made at the time of arrival of the consignment at the border inspection post and by a means fixed by the competent authority.\nArticle 2\n1. The minimum period provided for in Article 9(1)(b)(i) of Directive 97/78/EC shall be:\n(a)\n12 hours for an airport;\n(b)\nseven days for a port.\n2. The maximum period provided for in Article 9(1)(b)(i) of Directive 97/78/EC shall be:\n(a)\n48 hours for an airport;\n(b)\n20 days for a port.\nArticle 3\n1. For the purposes of the application of Article 11 of Directive 97/78/EC, the minimum period provided for in Article 9(1)(a) of that Directive shall be:\n(a)\n12 hours for an airport;\n(b)\nseven days for a port.\n2. For the purposes of the application of Article 11(1) of Directive 97/78/EC and of the second indent of Article 11(2)(b) of that Directive, Member States may extend the minimum period laid down in paragraph 1(b) of this Article to 14 days, provided that:\n(a)\nthe consignments come from a third country and are intended for another third country without any further stop on the territories listed in Annex I to Directive 97/78/EC;\n(b)\nthe consignments are transhipped from one vessel to another at the border inspection post within the customs area of the same port of the Union;\n(c)\nthe Member State concerned presents a detailed justification to the Commission and the other Member States in the framework of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, which specifies that they have taken all the measures necessary to prevent such consignments from being moved to another Union port instead of being transhipped directly to a third country.\nThose measures shall include a monitoring system to ensure that the time periods and the onward destination as indicated in notification provided for in Article 1 are respected.\nArticle 4\nIn cases where the maximum period laid down in Article 2(2) has elapsed, the consignment shall be submitted to the identity and physical checks as provided for in Article 4 of Directive 97/78/EC, at the border inspection post of introduction.\nArticle 5\nDecision 2000/25/EC is repealed.\nArticle 6\nThis decision shall apply from 1 May 2011.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 4 April 2011.", "references": ["59", "31", "64", "42", "87", "83", "14", "15", "78", "99", "51", "90", "39", "34", "62", "93", "84", "25", "79", "55", "26", "23", "16", "5", "30", "32", "71", "91", "0", "33", "No Label", "4", "21", "22", "61", "69"], "gold": ["4", "21", "22", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 410/2011\nof 27 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the publication of information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular point 8b of Article 42 thereof,\nHaving consulted the European Data Protection Supervisor,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn its judgment in Joined Cases C-92/09 and 93/09 (2) concerning the obligation to publish information on the beneficiaries of European agricultural funds, the Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that publishing personal data relating to natural persons without drawing a distinction based on relevant criteria such as the periods during which those persons have received such aid, or the frequency or nature and amount thereof, is not proportionate. Consequently, the Court declared that the relevant provisions are invalid. Since it is in the interest of natural persons that their personal data should be protected, and with a view to reconciling the different objectives underlying the obligation to publish information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 (3), it should be stipulated that this obligation does not apply to natural persons.\n(2)\nFor reasons of transparency, Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 should therefore be formally amended accordingly pending the adoption by Parliament and the Council of new rules taking account of the objections expressed by the Court.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Agricultural Funds,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 is hereby amended as follows:\n1.\nparagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe opening sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The publication referred to in Article 44a of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 shall include the following information on beneficiaries who are legal persons:\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (a) is deleted;\n(c)\npoints (b) and (c) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nthe full legal name as registered where the beneficiaries are legal persons with an autonomous legal personality pursuant to the legislation of the Member State concerned;\n(c)\nthe full name of the association as registered or otherwise officially recognised where the beneficiaries are associations of legal persons without an own legal personality;\u2019;\n2.\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. In the case of legal persons, Member States may publish more detailed information than provided for in paragraph 1.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2011.", "references": ["33", "37", "1", "50", "56", "18", "11", "60", "88", "6", "45", "5", "17", "12", "43", "80", "0", "7", "94", "69", "36", "85", "4", "90", "51", "20", "26", "76", "72", "2", "No Label", "10", "39", "40", "41", "61"], "gold": ["10", "39", "40", "41", "61"]}
-{"input": "POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EULEX/1/2010\nof 27 July 2010\nconcerning the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO\n(2010/431/CFSP)\nTHE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP of 4 February 2008 on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (1), and in particular Article 12(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 4 February 2008 the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP establishing the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (hereinafter referred to as EULEX KOSOVO).\n(2)\nOn 8 June 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/322/CFSP (2) extending the duration of EULEX KOSOVO until 14 June 2012.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 12(2) of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of EULEX KOSOVO, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMr Xavier BOUT DE MARNHAC is hereby appointed Head of Mission of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO with effect from 15 October 2010.\nArticle 2\nPolitical and Security Committee Decision EULEX/1/2008 of 7 February 2008 concerning the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX Kosovo (3) is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply until 14 October 2011.\nDone at Brussels, 27 July 2010.", "references": ["87", "98", "69", "41", "92", "27", "78", "81", "35", "74", "15", "32", "11", "7", "83", "16", "5", "61", "53", "80", "63", "77", "43", "75", "44", "66", "25", "24", "72", "28", "No Label", "0", "3", "9", "52", "91", "96"], "gold": ["0", "3", "9", "52", "91", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 15 May 2012\namending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of the Banque de France\n(2012/280/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular to Article 27.1 thereof,\nHaving regard to the Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 23 March 2012 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banque de France (ECB/2012/5) (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are to be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the Governing Council of the ECB and approved by the Council of the European Union.\n(2)\nThe mandate of the current external auditors of the Banque de France will end after the audit for the financial year 2011. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors as from the financial year 2012.\n(3)\nThe Banque de France has selected Deloitte & Associ\u00e9s and KPMG SA as its external auditors and BEAS and KPMG Audit FS I SAS as deputy auditors for the financial years 2012 to 2017.\n(4)\nThe Governing Council of the ECB recommended that Deloitte & Associ\u00e9s and KPMG SA should jointly be appointed as the external auditors of the Banque de France and that BEAS should be appointed as deputy auditors to Deloitte & Associ\u00e9s and KPMG Audit FS I SAS as deputy auditors to KPMG SA for the financial years 2012 to 2017.\n(5)\nIt is appropriate to follow the recommendation of the Governing Council of the ECB and to amend Council Decision 1999/70/EC (2) accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 1(4) of Decision 1999/70/EC is hereby replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Deloitte & Associ\u00e9s and KPMG SA are hereby approved as the external auditors of the Banque de France for the financial years 2012 to 2017.\nBEAS is hereby approved as the deputy auditors to Deloitte & Associ\u00e9s and KPMG Audit FS I SAS as deputy auditors to KPMG SA for the financial years 2012 to 2017.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the European Central Bank.\nDone at Brussels, 15 May 2012.", "references": ["21", "54", "57", "5", "42", "45", "39", "22", "71", "49", "0", "62", "50", "86", "90", "67", "73", "85", "8", "98", "43", "55", "82", "70", "46", "12", "23", "92", "25", "83", "No Label", "28", "47", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["28", "47", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1215/2010\nof 17 December 2010\nentering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Montoro-Adamuz (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain\u2019s application to register the name \u2018Montoro-Adamuz\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nAs no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 December 2010.", "references": ["31", "92", "83", "67", "20", "85", "3", "66", "35", "74", "94", "36", "12", "56", "55", "82", "86", "17", "88", "8", "65", "0", "64", "22", "34", "69", "43", "75", "18", "59", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "70", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 464/2011\nof 11 May 2011\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019) and in particular Article 9 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\n1. PROVISIONAL MEASURES\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EU) No 1036/2010 (2) (\u2018the provisional Regulation\u2019), the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina (\u2018BiH\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 4 January 2010 by Industrias Quimicas del Ebro SA, MAL Magyar Aluminium, PQ Silicas BV, Silkem d.o.o. and Zeolite Mira Srl Unipersonale (the \u2018complainants\u2019), representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 % of the total Union production of zeolite A powder. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n2. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE\n(3)\nSubsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (\u2018provisional disclosure\u2019), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard.\n(4)\nThe Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.\n(5)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (\u2018the investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2005 to the end of the investigation period (\u2018period considered\u2019).\n(6)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of zeolite A powder originating in the BiH and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations.\n(7)\nThe oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.\n3. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n(8)\nIn the absence of any comments on these issues, recitals 12 to 15 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n(9)\nIn view of the above, it is definitively concluded that all types of zeolite A powder as defined above are alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n4. SAMPLING\n(10)\nThe Bosnian exporting producer group (\u2018Birac\u2019) returned to its claim made at the provisional stage of the investigation that a non-sampled Union producer (Silkem d.o.o. or \u2018Silkem\u2019) should have been fully consolidated into the reply to the questionnaire of a sampled Union producer (MAL Magyar Aluminium or \u2018MAL\u2019) because the two companies are related. It was claimed that if that omission were accepted it would amount to discrimination between Union producers and exporters as in cases where there are related exporting producers located in countries subject to an anti-dumping investigation they are all required to submit replies to questionnaires. Further, Birac claimed that both MAL and Silkem should be declared to be non-cooperating.\n(11)\nThose claims cannot be accepted. For the reasons explained at recital 19 of the provisional Regulation both MAL and Silkem have fully cooperated with the investigation. It is recalled that Silkem provided information in the reply to the sampling form and account was taken of Silkem in the macro data indicators. However, the company was not included in the list of sampled companies on account of its small size. Therefore, Silkem did not need to submit so-called micro data and a fortiori those have not been verified. Moreover, since their sales of the product concerned are relatively small in comparison to those of MAL, there is no indication that consolidating Silkem\u2019s data into MAL\u2019s data would have made any difference.\n(12)\nFurthermore, the allegation of discrimination between exporting producers and Union producers is clearly unfounded because the situations are different. On the one hand, the investigation into the existence of dumping is the one that is normally conducted at company level for which the Commisson services need to calculate a company-specific dumping margin. Furthermore, a group of exporting producers has to be looked at in its totality since otherwise there is a risk that exports would be channelled through the part of the group with the lowest duty level. On the other hand, the injury investigation aims at examining whether the Union industry as a whole suffers material injury. In this case, the sampled Union producers in this investigation were considered to represent the entire Union production in respect of certain injury indicators (micro indicators). This claim is therefore rejected.\n(13)\nBirac also claimed that a Bosnian mining company, related to MAL, which supplies to this particular Union producer a pre-raw material (i.e. bauxite) should also have cooperated with the investigation. In this respect it is noted that the mining company was listed in MAL\u2019s questionnaire response. Also, the costs associated with the sourcing of bauxite, and its conversion into aluminium trihydrate, were fully reported in MAL\u2019s cost of production. Therefore, the MAL Group fully complied with the reporting requirements set out by the Commission services. This claim is therefore rejected.\n(14)\nIn the absence of any other comments on these issues, recitals 16 to 20 of the provisional Regulation are hereby definitively confirmed.\n5. DUMPING\n5.1. Normal value\n(15)\nIt is recalled that in the absence of representative domestic sales, normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(16)\nTo construct normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses incurred and the weighted average profit realised by each of the cooperating exporting producers on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period, were added to their own average cost of production during the investigation period. Since there are no separate types of the product concerned or like product, a weighted average profit was used. Where necessary, the costs of production and SG&A expenses were adjusted, before being used in the ordinary course of trade test and in constructing normal values.\n(17)\nFurther to the provisional disclosure Birac submitted comments regarding the determination of the profit margin used for constructing normal value. According to Birac, the methodology applied violates Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation because in this specific case the result of using the profit margin of the non-representative domestic sales to construct normal value is exactly the same as if the prices of the non-representative domestic sales had been used. It claimed that such an incoherent approach cannot have been intended by a combined reading of Article 2(3) and 2(6) of the basic Regulation. It also considered that the profit margin used is unreasonable and disproportionate, in particular in comparison to the target profit used for the underselling calculations.\n(18)\nFurthermore, Birac claimed that the domestic sales, due to their nature, should not be considered as having been made in the ordinary course of trade and should thus not be used to establish normal value.\n(19)\nRegarding the first claim, it is noted that the method applied is in line with the provisions of the basic Regulation and the jurisprudence stemming from WTO rulings, according to which when constructing the normal value, the profit of the domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade has to be used, even if these sales were not representative. In this specific case it is noted that since all domestic sales were profitable, constructing the normal value indeed gave the same result as if the normal value had been based on domestic sales prices. It should first be noted that the profit and SG&A data were based on the company\u2019s own domestic sales which were considered to be in the ordinary course of trade. It is further noted that \u2018reasonableness\u2019 cannot be measured against the target profit used for the underselling calculations, since that profit reflects the situation on the EU market in the absence of dumped imports and cannot therefore constitute a proper benchmark for determining the profit to be used in the context of constructing normal value.The claim should therefore be rejected.\n(20)\nAs regards the claim that the domestic sales should not be considered as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, the investigation established that the data and evidence provided by Birac constituted a reliable basis for determining the normal value. Therefore this claim was not considered warranted and was therefore rejected.\n(21)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the determination of normal value, the method described in recitals 21 to 26 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n5.2. Export price\n(22)\nIn the absence of any comments regarding the export price, recitals 27 and 28 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n5.3. Comparison\n(23)\nIn the absence of any comments regarding the comparison between normal value and export price, recital 29 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.\n5.4. Dumping margin\n(24)\nIn the absence of any other comments concerning the determination of the dumping margin, which would alter the provisional findings, recitals 30 to 32 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6. INJURY\n(25)\nComments on the findings concerning injury were received from certain Union producers, two users in the EU and from the sole Bosnian exporting producer.\n(26)\nTo the extent that arguments have already been fully addressed in the provisional Regulation they are are not repeated in this Regulation.\n6.1. General remarks\n(27)\nIt is made clear at recitals 45 and 68 of the provisional Regulation that the term \u2018Union industry\u2019 in this investigation covers all Union producers. In addition the injury factors on which the finding of injury was reached are, as a rule, based on data relating to the Union industry. When data relating to the Union industry have been used, section 5.4 of the provisional Regulation identifies this by referring to \u2018macro data\u2019. However, where information was not available for the entire Union industry the data of the representative sample of Union producers was used. No comments were received on these issues and thus the provisional findings are definitively confirmed.\n(28)\nHowever, an erroneous statement was made in recital 34 of the provisional Regulation. This recital should have read \u2018All Union producers constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will be hereafter referred to as the \u201cUnion industry\u201d\u2019.\n(29)\nIn the absence of any other comments, the findings set out in recitals 52 to 56 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6.2. Union consumption\n(30)\nIn the absence of any comments, the findings set out in recitals 35 to 38 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6.3. Imports from the country concerned\n(31)\nIn the absence of any comments, the findings set out in recitals 39 to 43 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6.4. Situation of the Union industry\n6.4.1. Injury indicators\n(32)\nIn October 2010 an industrial incident occurred at the site of one of the Union producers, MAL. However, figures supplied by the company show that its deliveries of the product concerned had recovered by January 2011. It was therefore clear that this incident did not cause serious supply problems on the EU market.\n(33)\nBirac asserted that as the above-mentioned Bosnian mining company related to MAL made profits in the IP, the Commission should adjust MAL\u2019s COP and profit in the calculation of the economic indicators because MAL\u2019s profit situation was allegedly reduced as a result of high profits made by its related mining company in BiH.\n(34)\nWith respect to the above claim it is noted that the purchases of bauxite from the related company were made at arm\u2019s length. This issue was covered during the on-the-spot verification. Because MAL purchased bauxite from both related and unrelated companies during the IP at roughly the same average prices, the Commission was satisfied that bauxite purchases were made at arm\u2019s length and therefore no adjustments are necessary to the profitability trend of MAL which was used in the calculation of the trend shown at recital 52 of the provisional Regulation. This claim was therefore rejected.\n(35)\nBirac also claimed that since it obtained certain raw materials directly from its production of alumina it had significant competitive advantages over the majority of the Union producers and this should be reflected in the injury margins. This argument cannot be accepted. If a company has a competitive advantage this should normally have an effect on its overall dumping calculation in terms of lower costs and hence also a lower normal value. This kind of competitive advantage has conceptually nothing to do with the injury margin. The latter examines whether a level of duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove the injury. This claim was therefore rejected.\n(36)\nUnion users claimed that the positive development of certain injury factors was ignored in the Commission provisional assessment (profitability, cash flow and return on investment) stating that all factors should be analysed. However in the injury assessment these positive developments are fully analysed. They were taken into account but they were not considered decisive in this case for the reasons set out in recitals 52 to 60 of the provisional Regulation. That claim was therefore rejected.\n(37)\nIn the absence of any other comments, the findings set out in recitals 44 to 64 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n6.5. Conclusion on injury\n(38)\nAccordingly, and in the absence of any other comments in this respect, the conclusions reached at recitals 65 to 69 of the provisional Regulation, are hereby confirmed.\n7. CAUSATION\n(39)\nOne cooperating user claimed that the causation analysis is flawed because the Commission stated that a temporary improvement was seen in certain injury factors for the IP (2009). That user did not agree with the assessment made by the Commission that the higher profitability in 2009 as compared to 2008 was the result of short-lived temporary developments which would not be repeated in 2010.\n(40)\nWith respect to the above submission it is noted that the party\u2019s arguments are simply statements and not backed up by any new evidence. In contrast, the Commission\u2019s position is supported by information submitted by the Union producers during the investigation both during the provisional and definitive stages. The information submitted in the run up to the verification visits was also verified on the spot. The post-IP deterioration in profit margins predicted by the Commission is also confirmed by data for the entire year 2010 provided by two Union producers. That claim is therefore rejected.\n(41)\nBirac contested the provisional finding concerning the impact of imports from third countries. However, the Commission\u2019s analysis in the provisional Regulation (recital 77) was that Birac was the only major exporter to the EU market. There were practically no imports from other sources. Birac provides no new evidence in this respect and its claim is therefore rejected.\n(42)\nOne cooperating user contested the analysis made in the provisional Regulation concerning the fall in consumption and quoted the cathode-ray colour television tubes anti-dumping investigation as a precedent regarding a contraction in demand (3). It was claimed that in that investigation a contraction in demand led to the closure of the proceedings. However there is no parallel between the cathode-ray colour television tubes case and the current investigation. In the former, consumption fell dramatically because the product concerned was substituted by other products. By contrast, the fall in consumption in the current investigation is very moderate (7 % - as stated in recitals 37 and 38 of the provisional Regulation). In this respect it is also noted that the development of consumption was further elaborated in recitals 78 to 80 of the provisional Regulation, but the cooperating user concerned was not in a position to provide any evidence to rebut the Commission\u2019s findings. Those claims are therefore rejected.\n(43)\nIn the light of the above, the findings set out in recitals 70 to 92 of the provisional Regulation, i.e. that the material injury to the Union industry was caused by the dumped imports, are herby confirmed.\n8. UNION INTEREST\n(44)\nOne cooperating user claimed that the Commission provided misleading information regarding the importance of zeolite costs in its total costs at recital 104 of the provisional Regulation. In particular it claimed that costs of zeolite are more than the 5 % of total cost as quoted at that recital. In this respect it is noted that this party did not supply any new data to support its claim while the Commission\u2019s findings were based on verified information from the cooperating users. It is noted that the term \u2018total costs\u2019 used in recital 104 of the provisional Regulation includes all manufacturing costs plus SG&A expenses. In addition, the \u2018less than 5 %\u2019 statement is an average covering both laundry detergent and water softener products combined. Finally it should be clarified that the zeolite costs in water softener are higher than those of laundry detergent but by far the most important use relates to laundry detergent. Indeed with respect to this particular cooperating user the water softeners constituted a minor part of the turnover of its downstream products using zeolite. That claim is therefore rejected.\n(45)\nOne cooperating user challenged the finding in recital 102 of the provisional Regulation that China is a potential alternative source of supply. Bearing in mind the comments made, the Commission accepts that, although some Chinese merchandise has entered the EU market during the IP, it is unlikely that China will in the near future become a major supplier (see recital 41 above). However, given the capacity utilisation rates in the Union for the product concerned, the Commission maintains its view that there are no supply problems in respect of the product concerned. That claim is therefore rejected.\n(46)\nOne cooperating user claimed that if duties were imposed as a result of this investigation, zeolite costs would increase to such an extent that its prices for laundry detergent and water softener products would also increase thereby increasing consumer prices. This argument is based on the assumption that users will pass on price increases of zeolite as a result of an anti-dumping duty. In the first place, the Commission is of the opinion that Union producers would rather benefit from the measures by increased economies of scale and not by increasing prices (see recitals 108 and 111 of the provisional Regulation). Finally, as stated above, the proportion of costs associated with zeolite in the total cost of production of downstream products is small so any consequence of the duty, albeit unlikely, would not put into question the provisional conclusion that there are no overriding Union interest reasons against the imposition of measures. That claim is therefore rejected.\n(47)\nOne cooperating user claimed that it may switch to non-zeolite formulas in its laundry detergents which would negatively impact the Union producers of zeolite. The Union producers are aware from information on the file \u2018Open for Inspection by Interested Parties\u2019 that this risk to their business exists. However, no concrete evidence exists in order to evaluate the alleged impact to the Union industry of this hypothetical switch. That claim is therefore rejected.\n(48)\nThe points made above were taken into account in the definitive stage of the investigation but do not alter its main conclusions. In the absence of any other comments, the findings set out in recitals 93 to 112 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. It is therefore concluded that no arguments have been raised to suggest that it is not in the Union interest to impose measures as a result of this investigation.\n9. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n9.1. Injury elimination level\n(49)\nIn the absence of any comments, the findings set out in recitals 114 to 116 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.\n9.2. Definitive measures\n(50)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level of the lowest of the dumping and injury margins found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule. In this case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the dumping found. This was calculated at 28,1 %.\n(51)\nOn the basis of the above, the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty for BiH is 28,1 %.\n10. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY\n(52)\nIn view of the magnitude of the dumping margin found and given the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by the provisional Regulation should be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the duty definitively imposed by this Regulation.\n11. FORM OF THE MEASURES\n(53)\nIn the course of the investigation the Bosnian exporting producer Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik, together with its related company in the Union, Kauno Tiekimas AB, located in Kaunas Lithuania, offered a price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. It is noted that recently Fabrica glinice \u2018Birac\u2019 became a holding company and Alumina d.o.o, located in Zvornik, remained the sole exporting producer of the group.\n(54)\nThe Commission examined the offer. The product concerned is a commodity product which only exists in one product type and specification, thus excluding a possible risk of price compensation through various product types. The investigation showed that all exports to the Union were invoiced via the related company in the Union (i.e. Kauno Tiekimas AB, Kaunas, Lithuania). This related company sells also other products produced by the Birac group. However, the market for zeolite A powder is well defined and the customers purchasing zeolite A powder would by nature not buy the other products produced by the Birac Group. Therefore, it was concluded that a risk of cross-compensation by possibly selling other products to the same clients was very low.\n(55)\nBy Decision 2011/279/EU (4) the Commission accepted the undertaking offer from Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik and its related company Kauno Tiekimas. The Council recognises that the offer of a price undertaking eliminates the injurious effect of dumping and limits to a sufficient degree the risk of circumvention.\n(56)\nTo further enable the Commission and the customs authorities to effectively monitor the compliance of Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik and its related company with the undertaking, when the request for release for free circulation is presented to the relevant customs authority, exemption from the anti-dumping duty is to be conditional on (i) the presentation of an undertaking invoice, which is a commercial invoice containing at least the elements listed and the declaration stipulated in the Annex; (ii) the fact that imported goods are manufactured, shipped and invoiced either directly by Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik to the first independent customer in the Union or invoiced directly by Kauno Tiekimas to the first unrelated customer in the Union and (iii) the fact that the goods declared and presented to the customs authorities correspond exactly with the description on the undertaking invoice. Where the above conditions are not met, the appropriate anti-dumping duty shall be incurred at the time of acceptance of the declaration for release into free circulation.\n(57)\nWhenever, pursuant to Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation, the Commission withdraws its acceptance of an undertaking following a breach by referring to particular transactions and declares the relevant undertaking invoices to be invalid, a customs debt shall be incurred at the time of acceptance of the declaration for release into free circulation.\n(58)\nImporters should be aware that a customs debt may be incurred, as a normal trade risk, at the time of acceptance of the declaration for release into free circulation as described in recitals 56 and 57 even if an undertaking offered by the manufacturer from whom they were buying, directly or indirectly, had been accepted by the Commission.\n(59)\nPursuant to Article 14(7) of the basic Regulation, customs authorities should inform the Commission immediately whenever indications of a violation of the undertaking are found.\n(60)\nFor the reasons stated above, the undertaking offered by Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik and Kauno Tiekimas is considered acceptable by the Commission. The companies concerned have been informed of the essential facts, considerations and obligations upon which acceptance were based.\n(61)\nIn the event of a breach or withdrawal of the undertakings, or in the event of withdrawal of acceptance of the undertakings by the Commission, the anti-dumping duty which has been imposed by the Council in accordance with Article 9(4) shall automatically apply by means of Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of zeolite A powder, also referred to as Zeolite NaA or Zeolite 4A powder, currently falling within CN code ex 2842 10 00 (TARIC code 2842100030) and originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 shall be 28,1 %.\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Imports declared for release into free circulation which are invoiced by companies from which undertakings are accepted by the Commission and whose names are listed in Decision 2011/279/EU, shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1, on condition that:\n(a)\nthey are manufactured, shipped and either invoiced directly by Alumina d.o.o., Zvornik, Bosnia and Herzegovina to the first independent customer in the Union or invoiced directly by the company Kauno Tiekimas AB, Kaunas, Lithuania to the first independent customer in the Union;\n(b)\nthey are accompanied by an undertaking invoice which is a commercial invoice containing at least the elements and the declaration set out in the Annex to this Regulation; and\n(c)\nthe goods declared and presented to the customs authorities correspond exactly with the description on the undertaking invoice.\n2. A customs debt shall be incurred at the time of acceptance of the declaration for release into free circulation:\n-\nwhenever it is established, in respect of imports described in paragraph 1, that one or more of the conditions listed in that paragraph are not fulfilled, or\n-\nwhen the Commission withdraws its acceptance of the undertaking pursuant to Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation by a Regulation or Decision which refers to particular transactions and declares the relevant undertaking invoices to be invalid.\nArticle 3\nAmounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1036/2010 on imports of zeolite A powder, currently falling within CN code ex 2842 10 00 (TARIC code 2842100030) originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be definitively collected.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 May 2011.", "references": ["21", "36", "50", "82", "35", "63", "13", "40", "71", "7", "17", "72", "10", "47", "80", "78", "42", "28", "29", "12", "74", "41", "45", "52", "81", "64", "26", "37", "55", "39", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 May 2010\non the European Capital of Culture event for the year 2014\n(2010/294/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Decision No 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019 (1), and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Selection Panel reports of September 2009 regarding the selection process of the European Capitals of Culture in Sweden and Latvia respectively and the positive opinion issued by the European Parliament,\nConsidering that the criteria referred to in Article 4 of Decision No 1622/2006/EC are entirely fulfilled,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the Commission of the 23 April 2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nSole Article\nUme\u00e5 (Sweden) and Riga (Latvia) are designated as \u2018European Capital of Culture 2014\u2019.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2010.", "references": ["28", "21", "39", "88", "43", "13", "5", "63", "69", "14", "27", "11", "35", "86", "73", "20", "33", "30", "62", "77", "46", "65", "75", "94", "8", "48", "22", "90", "19", "76", "No Label", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 21 October 2010\non the position to be taken by the European Union within the Stabilisation and Association Council established by the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part, with regard to the adoption of provisions on the coordination of social security systems\n(2010/702/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 79(2)(b) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 47 of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part (1) (the Agreement), provides that the Stabilisation and Association Council shall, by decision, adopt the appropriate provisions to implement the objectives set out in that Article.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 21) on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe position to be taken by the European Union within the Stabilisation and Association Council set up by the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part, concerning the implementation of Article 47 of the Agreement shall be based on the draft decision of the Stabilisation and Association Council attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 21 October 2010.", "references": ["25", "13", "62", "66", "39", "49", "81", "20", "85", "53", "35", "44", "89", "73", "58", "27", "76", "88", "34", "28", "7", "70", "94", "40", "68", "26", "4", "98", "23", "64", "No Label", "2", "9", "37", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "9", "37", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 July 2010\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Iceland and Norway on the application of certain provisions of Council Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime and Council Decision 2008/616/JHA on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime, and the Annex thereto\n(2010/482/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 82(1)(d) and Article 87(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a),\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 24 October 2008, the Council authorised the Presidency, assisted by the Commission, to open negotiations on an agreement between the European Union and Iceland and Norway on the application of certain provisions of Council Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime and Council Decision 2008/616/JHA on the implementation of decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime, and the Annex thereto (the Agreement).\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2009/1023/JHA of 21 September 2009 (1) the Agreement was signed on 30 November 2009, subject to its conclusion.\n(3)\nIn accordance with Article 8 of the Agreement, some of its provisions are applied on a provisional basis, as from the date of signature.\n(4)\nThe Agreement has not yet been concluded. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the procedures to be followed by the Union in order to conclude the Agreement are governed by Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Agreement should be approved.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, these Member States have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(7)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and Iceland and Norway on the application of certain provisions of Council Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime and Council Decision 2008/616/JHA on the implementation of decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime, and the Annex thereto (2) (the Agreement) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to give, on behalf of the Union, the notification provided for in Article 8(1) of the Agreement in order to bind the Union (3).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["7", "43", "49", "29", "68", "31", "82", "76", "84", "13", "16", "35", "81", "53", "95", "33", "98", "71", "27", "2", "60", "90", "17", "28", "45", "75", "42", "58", "54", "39", "No Label", "1", "3", "4", "9", "36", "40", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["1", "3", "4", "9", "36", "40", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 18 July 2011\nconcerning the conclusion of consultations with the Republic of Guinea-Bissau under Article 96 of the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part\n(2011/492/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1) and revised at Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso on 22 June 2010 (2) (the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement), and in particular Article 96 thereof,\nHaving regard to the internal agreement on measures to be taken and procedures to be followed for the implementation of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nIn conjunction with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe essential elements referred to in Article 9 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement have been violated.\n(2)\nOn 29 March 2011, pursuant to Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, consultations started with Guinea-Bissau in the presence of representatives of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, including the African Union, Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP) during which representatives of the Guinea-Bissau government presented satisfactory proposals and undertakings.\n(3)\nConsequently, the consultations opened under Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement should be closed and appropriate measures adopted for the performance of these undertakings,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nConsultations with Guinea-Bissau under Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement are hereby concluded.\nArticle 2\nThe measures set out in the annexed letter are hereby adopted as appropriate measures under Article 96(2)(c) of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nIt shall expire on 19 July 2012.\nIt shall be reviewed regularly at least once every six months, preferably in the light of joint monitoring missions by the European External Action Service and the Commission.\nDone at Brussels, 18 July 2011.", "references": ["56", "45", "54", "12", "47", "20", "58", "43", "96", "95", "15", "71", "80", "51", "50", "57", "65", "16", "46", "99", "6", "90", "66", "88", "44", "33", "22", "81", "61", "64", "No Label", "0", "4", "5", "9", "14", "36", "94"], "gold": ["0", "4", "5", "9", "14", "36", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 615/2012\nof 9 July 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 July 2012.", "references": ["10", "11", "99", "39", "71", "2", "77", "47", "66", "18", "38", "26", "45", "57", "54", "7", "43", "97", "94", "37", "28", "70", "73", "62", "88", "92", "33", "20", "49", "95", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 661/2011\nof 8 July 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste to certain non-OECD countries\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 37(2) thereof,\nAfter consultation of the countries concerned,\nWhereas:\nThe Commission has received further information relating to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Malaysia. The Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 (2) should therefore be amended to take this into account,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 14th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 July 2011.", "references": ["59", "44", "33", "24", "50", "43", "66", "51", "64", "0", "52", "61", "70", "26", "30", "68", "37", "87", "11", "83", "49", "71", "65", "35", "5", "17", "76", "15", "36", "80", "No Label", "20", "58", "60", "91", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "58", "60", "91", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 730/2010\nof 13 August 2010\ncorrecting Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), and in particular Article 142(d) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe second subparagraph of Article 19(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 (2) specifies an upper limit for the allocation of payment entitlements from the national reserve to farmers in a special situation, which should be set at the maximum number of payment entitlements that a farmer can receive in accordance with Article 17 of that Regulation. However, reference was erroneously made to Article 22 of that Regulation instead. That error needs to be corrected, with effect from the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 1120/2009 should therefore be corrected accordingly.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn the second subparagraph of Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009, \u2018Article 22\u2019 is replaced by \u2018Article 17\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 August 2010.", "references": ["54", "32", "66", "35", "69", "62", "83", "76", "38", "20", "27", "99", "10", "84", "71", "56", "11", "57", "94", "4", "50", "95", "82", "23", "31", "22", "26", "5", "53", "81", "No Label", "58", "61"], "gold": ["58", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 394/2011\nof 20 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 on the list of aircraft operators that performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on or after 1 January 2006 specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator as regards the expansion of the Union emission trading scheme to EEA-EFTA countries\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular Article 18a(3)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) amended Directive 2003/87/EC to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 (3) establishes a list of aircraft operators which had performed an aviation activity within the meaning of Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC on or after 1 January 2006.\n(3)\nThe list aims to reduce the administrative burden on aircraft operators by providing information on which Member State will be regulating a particular aircraft operator.\n(4)\nThe inclusion in the Union\u2019s emissions trading scheme is dependent upon the performance of an aviation activity as set out in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC and is not dependent on the inclusion in the list of aircraft operators established by the Commission on the basis of Article 18a(3) of the Directive.\n(5)\nCommission Decision 2009/339/EC of 16 April 2009 amending Decision 2007/589/EC as regards the inclusion of monitoring and reporting guidelines for emissions and tonne-kilometre data from aviation activities (4) was incorporated into the Agreement on the European Economic Area on 4 December 2009 by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 148/2009 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement (5). This was to ensure the timely start of monitoring by aircraft operators of aviation activities performed either within EEA-EFTA countries, between EEA-EFTA countries, or between EEA-EFTA countries and third countries outside the EEA.\n(6)\nDirective 2008/101/EC was incorporated into the Agreement on the European Economic Area by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 6/2011 of 1 April 2011, amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement (6).\n(7)\nThe extension of the aviation provisions of the Union emission trading scheme to EEA-EFTA countries implies that the criteria set under Article 18a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC to determine an aircraft operator\u2019s administering Member State must be taken into account. Thus, certain aircraft operators should be allocated to the EEA-EFTA countries for administration.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 748/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["48", "63", "42", "97", "50", "84", "8", "16", "26", "54", "87", "53", "41", "81", "90", "19", "52", "80", "51", "72", "34", "77", "7", "11", "92", "85", "66", "62", "56", "29", "No Label", "20", "57", "58", "60", "96"], "gold": ["20", "57", "58", "60", "96"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK\nof 7 July 2011\non temporary measures relating to the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or guaranteed by the Portuguese Government\n(ECB/2011/10)\n(2011/410/EU)\nTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first indent of Article 127(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the \u2018Statute of the ESCB\u2019), and in particular Article 12.1 and the second indent of Article 34.1, in conjunction with the first indent of Article 3.1 and Article 18.2 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 18.1 of the Statute of the ESCB, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of Member States whose currency is the euro may conduct credit operations with credit institutions and other market participants, with lending being based on adequate collateral. The criteria determining the eligibility of collateral for the purposes of Eurosystem monetary policy operations are laid down in Annex I to Guideline ECB/2000/7 of 31 August 2000 on monetary policy instruments and procedures of the Eurosystem (1) (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018General Documentation\u2019).\n(2)\nPursuant to Section 1.6 of the General Documentation, the Governing Council of the ECB may, at any time, change the instruments, conditions, criteria and procedures for the execution of Eurosystem monetary policy operations. Pursuant to Section 6.3.1 of the General Documentation, the Eurosystem reserves the right to determine whether an issue, issuer, debtor or guarantor fulfils its requirements for high credit standards on the basis of any information it may consider relevant.\n(3)\nThe exceptional circumstances prevailing in the financial market, in conjunction with the fiscal position of the Portuguese Government, have disrupted the assessment by the market of securities issued by the Portuguese Government, with negative effects on the stability of the financial system. This exceptional situation requires a swift and temporary adaptation of the Eurosystem monetary policy framework.\n(4)\nThe Governing Council has assessed the fact that the Portuguese Government has approved and is in the process of implementing an economic and financial adjustment programme, which it has negotiated with the European Commission, the ECB and the International Monetary Fund, and which the Portuguese Government has committed to fully implement. The Governing Council has also assessed, from a Eurosystem credit risk management perspective, the effects of such a programme on the securities issued by the Portuguese Government. The Governing Council considers the programme to be appropriate, so that, from a credit risk management perspective, the marketable debt instruments issued by the Portuguese Government or guaranteed by the Portuguese Government retain a quality standard sufficient for their continued eligibility as collateral for Eurosystem monetary policy operations, irrespective of any external credit assessment. These positive assessments provide the basis for an exceptional and temporary adaptation of the Eurosystem monetary policy framework, put in place with a view to contributing to the soundness of financial institutions, thereby strengthening the stability of the financial system as a whole and protecting the customers of those institutions.\n(5)\nThe Governing Council will closely monitor the continued strong commitment of the Portuguese Government to fully implement the economic and financial adjustment programme underlying this exceptional and temporary adaptation of the Eurosystem monetary policy framework.\n(6)\nThis exceptional adaptation of the Eurosystem monetary policy framework was decided and publicly announced by the Governing Council on 7 July 2011. It will apply temporarily, until the Governing Council considers that the stability of the financial system allows the normal application of the Eurosystem framework for monetary policy operations,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSuspension of certain provisions of the General Documentation\n1. The Eurosystem\u2019s minimum requirements for credit quality thresholds, as specified in the Eurosystem credit assessment framework rules for marketable assets in Section 6.3.2 of the General Documentation, shall be suspended in accordance with Articles 2 and 3.\n2. In the event of any discrepancy between this Decision and the General Documentation, the former shall prevail.\nArticle 2\nContinued eligibility as collateral of marketable debt instruments issued by the Portuguese Government\nThe Eurosystem\u2019s credit quality threshold shall not apply to marketable debt instruments issued by the Portuguese Government. Such assets shall constitute eligible collateral for the purposes of Eurosystem monetary policy operations, irrespective of their external credit rating.\nArticle 3\nContinued eligibility as collateral of marketable debt instruments guaranteed by the Portuguese Government\nThe Eurosystem\u2019s credit quality threshold shall not apply to marketable debt instruments issued by entities established in Portugal and fully guaranteed by the Portuguese Government. A guarantee provided by the Portuguese Government shall continue to be subject to the requirements contained in Section 6.3.2 of the General Documentation. Such assets shall constitute eligible collateral for the purposes of Eurosystem monetary policy operations, irrespective of their external credit rating.\nArticle 4\nEntry into force\nThis Decision shall enter into force on 7 July 2011.\nDone at Frankfurt am Main, 7 July 2011.", "references": ["38", "17", "11", "95", "70", "61", "71", "4", "13", "82", "34", "55", "62", "81", "0", "9", "2", "75", "58", "90", "36", "68", "1", "43", "72", "42", "74", "25", "27", "84", "No Label", "8", "32", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "32", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 255/2011\nof 15 March 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 251/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 March 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 March 2011.", "references": ["37", "65", "94", "58", "24", "85", "14", "34", "13", "96", "26", "11", "91", "5", "59", "44", "89", "50", "1", "60", "53", "30", "7", "31", "62", "19", "97", "25", "84", "63", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 182/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 16 February 2011\nlaying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 291(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nWhere uniform conditions for the implementation of legally binding Union acts are needed, those acts (hereinafter \u2018basic acts\u2019) are to confer implementing powers on the Commission, or, in duly justified specific cases and in the cases provided for in Articles 24 and 26 of the Treaty on European Union, on the Council.\n(2)\nIt is for the legislator, fully respecting the criteria laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (\u2018TFEU\u2019), to decide in respect of each basic act whether to confer implementing powers on the Commission in accordance with Article 291(2) of that Treaty.\n(3)\nHitherto, the exercise of implementing powers by the Commission has been governed by Council Decision 1999/468/EC (2).\n(4)\nThe TFEU now requires the European Parliament and the Council to lay down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers.\n(5)\nIt is necessary to ensure that the procedures for such control are clear, effective and proportionate to the nature of the implementing acts and that they reflect the institutional requirements of the TFEU as well as the experience gained and the common practice followed in the implementation of Decision 1999/468/EC.\n(6)\nIn those basic acts which require the control of the Member States for the adoption by the Commission of implementing acts, it is appropriate, for the purposes of such control, that committees composed of the representatives of the Member States and chaired by the Commission be set up.\n(7)\nWhere appropriate, the control mechanism should include referral to an appeal committee which should meet at the appropriate level.\n(8)\nIn the interests of simplification, the Commission should exercise implementing powers in accordance with one of only two procedures, namely the advisory procedure or the examination procedure.\n(9)\nIn order to simplify further, common procedural rules should apply to the committees, including the key provisions relating to their functioning and the possibility of delivering an opinion by written procedure.\n(10)\nCriteria should be laid down to determine the procedure to be used for the adoption of implementing acts by the Commission. In order to achieve greater consistency, the procedural requirements should be proportionate to the nature and impact of the implementing acts to be adopted.\n(11)\nThe examination procedure should in particular apply for the adoption of acts of general scope designed to implement basic acts and specific implementing acts with a potentially important impact. That procedure should ensure that implementing acts cannot be adopted by the Commission if they are not in accordance with the opinion of the committee, except in very exceptional circumstances, where they may apply for a limited period of time. The procedure should also ensure that the Commission is able to review the draft implementing acts where no opinion is delivered by the committee, taking into account the views expressed within the committee.\n(12)\nProvided that the basic act confers implementing powers on the Commission relating to programmes with substantial budgetary implications or directed to third countries, the examination procedure should apply.\n(13)\nThe chair of a committee should endeavour to find solutions which command the widest possible support within the committee or the appeal committee and should explain the manner in which the discussions and suggestions for amendments have been taken into account. For that purpose, the Commission should pay particular attention to the views expressed within the committee or the appeal committee as regards draft definitive anti-dumping or countervailing measures.\n(14)\nWhen considering the adoption of other draft implementing acts concerning particularly sensitive sectors, notably taxation, consumer health, food safety and protection of the environment, the Commission, in order to find a balanced solution, will, as far as possible, act in such a way as to avoid going against any predominant position which might emerge within the appeal committee against the appropriateness of an implementing act.\n(15)\nThe advisory procedure should, as a general rule, apply in all other cases or where it is considered more appropriate.\n(16)\nIt should be possible, where this is provided for in a basic act, to adopt implementing acts which are to apply immediately on imperative grounds of urgency.\n(17)\nThe European Parliament and the Council should be promptly informed of committee proceedings on a regular basis.\n(18)\nEither the European Parliament or the Council should be able at any time to indicate to the Commission that, in its view, a draft implementing act exceeds the implementing powers provided for in the basic act, taking into account their rights relating to the review of the legality of Union acts.\n(19)\nPublic access to information on committee proceedings should be ensured in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (3).\n(20)\nA register containing information on committee proceedings should be kept by the Commission. Consequently, rules relating to the protection of classified documents applicable to the Commission should also apply to the use of the register.\n(21)\nDecision 1999/468/EC should be repealed. In order to ensure the transition between the regime provided for in Decision 1999/468/EC and this Regulation, any reference in existing legislation to the procedures provided for in that Decision should, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a thereof, be understood as a reference to the corresponding procedures provided for in this Regulation. The effects of Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC should be provisionally maintained for the purposes of existing basic acts which refer to that Article.\n(22)\nThe Commission\u2019s powers, as laid down by the TFEU, concerning the implementation of the competition rules are not affected by this Regulation,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject-matter\nThis Regulation lays down the rules and general principles governing the mechanisms which apply where a legally binding Union act (hereinafter a \u2018basic act\u2019) identifies the need for uniform conditions of implementation and requires that the adoption of implementing acts by the Commission be subject to the control of Member States.\nArticle 2\nSelection of procedures\n1. A basic act may provide for the application of the advisory procedure or the examination procedure, taking into account the nature or the impact of the implementing act required.\n2. The examination procedure applies, in particular, for the adoption of:\n(a)\nimplementing acts of general scope;\n(b)\nother implementing acts relating to:\n(i)\nprogrammes with substantial implications;\n(ii)\nthe common agricultural and common fisheries policies;\n(iii)\nthe environment, security and safety, or protection of the health or safety, of humans, animals or plants;\n(iv)\nthe common commercial policy;\n(v)\ntaxation.\n3. The advisory procedure applies, as a general rule, for the adoption of implementing acts not falling within the ambit of paragraph 2. However, the advisory procedure may apply for the adoption of the implementing acts referred to in paragraph 2 in duly justified cases.\nArticle 3\nCommon provisions\n1. The common provisions set out in this Article shall apply to all the procedures referred to in Articles 4 to 8.\n2. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee composed of representatives of the Member States. The committee shall be chaired by a representative of the Commission. The chair shall not take part in the committee vote.\n3. The chair shall submit to the committee the draft implementing act to be adopted by the Commission.\nExcept in duly justified cases, the chair shall convene a meeting not less than 14 days from submission of the draft implementing act and of the draft agenda to the committee. The committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft implementing act within a time limit which the chair may lay down according to the urgency of the matter. Time limits shall be proportionate and shall afford committee members early and effective opportunities to examine the draft implementing act and express their views.\n4. Until the committee delivers an opinion, any committee member may suggest amendments and the chair may present amended versions of the draft implementing act.\nThe chair shall endeavour to find solutions which command the widest possible support within the committee. The chair shall inform the committee of the manner in which the discussions and suggestions for amendments have been taken into account, in particular as regards those suggestions which have been largely supported within the committee.\n5. In duly justified cases, the chair may obtain the committee\u2019s opinion by written procedure. The chair shall send the committee members the draft implementing act and shall lay down a time limit for delivery of an opinion according to the urgency of the matter. Any committee member who does not oppose the draft implementing act or who does not explicitly abstain from voting thereon before the expiry of that time limit shall be regarded as having tacitly agreed to the draft implementing act.\nUnless otherwise provided in the basic act, the written procedure shall be terminated without result where, within the time limit referred to in the first subparagraph, the chair so decides or a committee member so requests. In such a case, the chair shall convene a committee meeting within a reasonable time.\n6. The committee\u2019s opinion shall be recorded in the minutes. Committee members shall have the right to ask for their position to be recorded in the minutes. The chair shall send the minutes to the committee members without delay.\n7. Where applicable, the control mechanism shall include referral to an appeal committee.\nThe appeal committee shall adopt its own rules of procedure by a simple majority of its component members, on a proposal from the Commission.\nWhere the appeal committee is seised, it shall meet at the earliest 14 days, except in duly justified cases, and at the latest 6 weeks, after the date of referral. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 2 months of the date of referral.\nA representative of the Commission shall chair the appeal committee.\nThe chair shall set the date of the appeal committee meeting in close cooperation with the members of the committee, in order to enable Member States and the Commission to ensure an appropriate level of representation. By 1 April 2011, the Commission shall convene the first meeting of the appeal committee in order to adopt its rules of procedure.\nArticle 4\nAdvisory procedure\n1. Where the advisory procedure applies, the committee shall deliver its opinion, if necessary by taking a vote. If the committee takes a vote, the opinion shall be delivered by a simple majority of its component members.\n2. The Commission shall decide on the draft implementing act to be adopted, taking the utmost account of the conclusions drawn from the discussions within the committee and of the opinion delivered.\nArticle 5\nExamination procedure\n1. Where the examination procedure applies, the committee shall deliver its opinion by the majority laid down in Article 16(4) and (5) of the Treaty on European Union and, where applicable, Article 238(3) TFEU, for acts to be adopted on a proposal from the Commission. The votes of the representatives of the Member States within the committee shall be weighted in the manner set out in those Articles.\n2. Where the committee delivers a positive opinion, the Commission shall adopt the draft implementing act.\n3. Without prejudice to Article 7, if the committee delivers a negative opinion, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act. Where an implementing act is deemed to be necessary, the chair may either submit an amended version of the draft implementing act to the same committee within 2 months of delivery of the negative opinion, or submit the draft implementing act within 1 month of such delivery to the appeal committee for further deliberation.\n4. Where no opinion is delivered, the Commission may adopt the draft implementing act, except in the cases provided for in the second subparagraph. Where the Commission does not adopt the draft implementing act, the chair may submit to the committee an amended version thereof.\nWithout prejudice to Article 7, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act where:\n(a)\nthat act concerns taxation, financial services, the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or definitive multilateral safeguard measures;\n(b)\nthe basic act provides that the draft implementing act may not be adopted where no opinion is delivered; or\n(c)\na simple majority of the component members of the committee opposes it.\nIn any of the cases referred to in the second subparagraph, where an implementing act is deemed to be necessary, the chair may either submit an amended version of that act to the same committee within 2 months of the vote, or submit the draft implementing act within 1 month of the vote to the appeal committee for further deliberation.\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 4, the following procedure shall apply for the adoption of draft definitive anti-dumping or countervailing measures, where no opinion is delivered by the committee and a simple majority of its component members opposes the draft implementing act.\nThe Commission shall conduct consultations with the Member States. 14 days at the earliest and 1 month at the latest after the committee meeting, the Commission shall inform the committee members of the results of those consultations and submit a draft implementing act to the appeal committee. By way of derogation from Article 3(7), the appeal committee shall meet 14 days at the earliest and 1 month at the latest after the submission of the draft implementing act. The appeal committee shall deliver its opinion in accordance with Article 6. The time limits laid down in this paragraph shall be without prejudice to the need to respect the deadlines laid down in the relevant basic acts.\nArticle 6\nReferral to the appeal committee\n1. The appeal committee shall deliver its opinion by the majority provided for in Article 5(1).\n2. Until an opinion is delivered, any member of the appeal committee may suggest amendments to the draft implementing act and the chair may decide whether or not to modify it.\nThe chair shall endeavour to find solutions which command the widest possible support within the appeal committee.\nThe chair shall inform the appeal committee of the manner in which the discussions and suggestions for amendments have been taken into account, in particular as regards suggestions for amendments which have been largely supported within the appeal committee.\n3. Where the appeal committee delivers a positive opinion, the Commission shall adopt the draft implementing act.\nWhere no opinion is delivered, the Commission may adopt the draft implementing act.\nWhere the appeal committee delivers a negative opinion, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act.\n4. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, for the adoption of definitive multilateral safeguard measures, in the absence of a positive opinion voted by the majority provided for in Article 5(1), the Commission shall not adopt the draft measures.\n5. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, until 1 September 2012, the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion on draft definitive anti-dumping or countervailing measures by a simple majority of its component members.\nArticle 7\nAdoption of implementing acts in exceptional cases\nBy way of derogation from Article 5(3) and the second subparagraph of Article 5(4), the Commission may adopt a draft implementing act where it needs to be adopted without delay in order to avoid creating a significant disruption of the markets in the area of agriculture or a risk for the financial interests of the Union within the meaning of Article 325 TFEU.\nIn such a case, the Commission shall immediately submit the adopted implementing act to the appeal committee. Where the appeal committee delivers a negative opinion on the adopted implementing act, the Commission shall repeal that act immediately. Where the appeal committee delivers a positive opinion or no opinion is delivered, the implementing act shall remain in force.\nArticle 8\nImmediately applicable implementing acts\n1. By way of derogation from Articles 4 and 5, a basic act may provide that, on duly justified imperative grounds of urgency, this Article is to apply.\n2. The Commission shall adopt an implementing act which shall apply immediately, without its prior submission to a committee, and shall remain in force for a period not exceeding 6 months unless the basic act provides otherwise.\n3. At the latest 14 days after its adoption, the chair shall submit the act referred to in paragraph 2 to the relevant committee in order to obtain its opinion.\n4. Where the examination procedure applies, in the event of the committee delivering a negative opinion, the Commission shall immediately repeal the implementing act adopted in accordance with paragraph 2.\n5. Where the Commission adopts provisional anti-dumping or countervailing measures, the procedure provided for in this Article shall apply. The Commission shall adopt such measures after consulting or, in cases of extreme urgency, after informing the Member States. In the latter case, consultations shall take place 10 days at the latest after notification to the Member States of the measures adopted by the Commission.\nArticle 9\nRules of procedure\n1. Each committee shall adopt by a simple majority of its component members its own rules of procedure on the proposal of its chair, on the basis of standard rules to be drawn up by the Commission following consultation with Member States. Such standard rules shall be published by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIn so far as may be necessary, existing committees shall adapt their rules of procedure to the standard rules.\n2. The principles and conditions on public access to documents and the rules on data protection applicable to the Commission shall apply to the committees.\nArticle 10\nInformation on committee proceedings\n1. The Commission shall keep a register of committee proceedings which shall contain:\n(a)\na list of committees;\n(b)\nthe agendas of committee meetings;\n(c)\nthe summary records, together with the lists of the authorities and organisations to which the persons designated by the Member States to represent them belong;\n(d)\nthe draft implementing acts on which the committees are asked to deliver an opinion;\n(e)\nthe voting results;\n(f)\nthe final draft implementing acts following delivery of the opinion of the committees;\n(g)\ninformation concerning the adoption of the final draft implementing acts by the Commission; and\n(h)\nstatistical data on the work of the committees.\n2. The Commission shall also publish an annual report on the work of the committees.\n3. The European Parliament and the Council shall have access to the information referred to in paragraph 1 in accordance with the applicable rules.\n4. At the same time as they are sent to the committee members, the Commission shall make available to the European Parliament and the Council the documents referred to in points (b), (d) and (f) of paragraph 1 whilst also informing them of the availability of such documents.\n5. The references of all documents referred to in points (a) to (g) of paragraph 1 as well as the information referred to in paragraph 1(h) shall be made public in the register.\nArticle 11\nRight of scrutiny for the European Parliament and the Council\nWhere a basic act is adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, either the European Parliament or the Council may at any time indicate to the Commission that, in its view, a draft implementing act exceeds the implementing powers provided for in the basic act. In such a case, the Commission shall review the draft implementing act, taking account of the positions expressed, and shall inform the European Parliament and the Council whether it intends to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft implementing act.\nArticle 12\nRepeal of Decision 1999/468/EC\nDecision 1999/468/EC is hereby repealed.\nThe effects of Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be maintained for the purposes of existing basic acts making reference thereto.\nArticle 13\nTransitional provisions: adaptation of existing basic acts\n1. Where basic acts adopted before the entry into force of this Regulation provide for the exercise of implementing powers by the Commission in accordance with Decision 1999/468/EC, the following rules shall apply:\n(a)\nwhere the basic act makes reference to Article 3 of Decision 1999/468/EC, the advisory procedure referred to in Article 4 of this Regulation shall apply;\n(b)\nwhere the basic act makes reference to Article 4 of Decision 1999/468/EC, the examination procedure referred to in Article 5 of this Regulation shall apply, with the exception of the second and third subparagraphs of Article 5(4);\n(c)\nwhere the basic act makes reference to Article 5 of Decision 1999/468/EC, the examination procedure referred to in Article 5 of this Regulation shall apply and the basic act shall be deemed to provide that, in the absence of an opinion, the Commission may not adopt the draft implementing act, as envisaged in point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 5(4);\n(d)\nwhere the basic act makes reference to Article 6 of Decision 1999/468/EC, Article 8 of this Regulation shall apply;\n(e)\nwhere the basic act makes reference to Articles 7 and 8 of Decision 1999/468/EC, Articles 10 and 11 of this Regulation shall apply.\n2. Articles 3 and 9 of this Regulation shall apply to all existing committees for the purposes of paragraph 1.\n3. Article 7 of this Regulation shall apply only to existing procedures which make reference to Article 4 of Decision 1999/468/EC.\n4. The transitional provisions laid down in this Article shall not prejudge the nature of the acts concerned.\nArticle 14\nTransitional arrangement\nThis Regulation shall not affect pending procedures in which a committee has already delivered its opinion in accordance with Decision 1999/468/EC.\nArticle 15\nReview\nBy 1 March 2016, the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of this Regulation, accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate legislative proposals.\nArticle 16\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 March 2011.\nThis Regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 16 February 2011.", "references": ["84", "74", "5", "51", "81", "64", "82", "28", "11", "78", "91", "58", "60", "86", "25", "95", "22", "83", "93", "13", "88", "70", "79", "53", "85", "12", "97", "56", "37", "35", "No Label", "0", "7", "8", "96"], "gold": ["0", "7", "8", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 13 July 2011\non levies for Interbev\n(notified under document C(2011) 4923)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(2012/131/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof (1),\nHaving invited interested parties to submit comments in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU, and having regard to those comments,\nWhereas:\nI. PROCEDURE\n(1)\nIn the light of the information received regarding the measure in question, the European Commission asked the French authorities a number of questions by letter of 2 October 2001. The Permanent Representation of France to the European Union replied to the Commission by letter of 9 November 2001.\n(2)\nSince the measure was applied without prior authorisation by the Commission, it was entered in the register of non-notified aid under number NN 39/03.\n(3)\nThe Commission initiated the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU with respect to the aid measure in question by letter No C(2003) 2057 final on 9 July 2003.\n(4)\nThe decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). The Commission invited the other Member States and interested third parties to submit their comments on the aid in question. The Commission did not receive any comments from third parties. The French authorities sent their comments by letters of 8 and 10 October 2003 and 13 September and 29 November 2005.\n(5)\nOn 25 February 2011, a request for further information was sent to France, and a meeting took place on 29 March 2011.\n(6)\nThe French authorities replied by letter of 24 May 2011.\nII. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE IN QUESTION\n1. LEVIES FOR INTERBEV\n1.1. INTER-BRANCH ORGANISATIONS (IPO) AND THE COMPULSORY VOLUNTARY LEVIES SCHEME\n(7)\nInter-branch organisations (IPO) are umbrella groups that bring together, by farm sector, the different professions which are the most representative of agricultural production, and, if appropriate, processing, marketing and distribution, and which are recognised as inter-branch organisations by the competent administrative authority. Their existence, missions and operation are governed by Articles L. 631-1 et seq. of the Rural Code. In order for this type of organisation to be recognised, the competent authorities must check to ensure that they meet various criteria, in particular that their statutes comply with the legislation (Article L.632-1 of the Rural Code), and that their constituent organisations are representative.\n(8)\nThe mission of the IPO is to act in the interests of all the players in a sector, and they can conclude agreements for that purpose. These agreements and the collection of voluntary levies intended to fund the measures provided for in these agreements can be made compulsory (\u2018be extended\u2019) by joint ministerial decree to all the stakeholders in the sector, whether or not they belong to a professional organisation which is an IPO member, so long as they comply with objectives laid down in legislation. The main aim of these agreements is to promote market awareness, inter-professional relations, quality and products. The Rural Code only authorises the extension of the agreements where there is \u2018a common interest\u2019 based on measures \u2018in line with the general interest and compatible with the rules of the Common Agricultural Policy\u2019 (cf. Article L.632-3 of the Rural Code).\n(9)\nThe arrangements with regard to the collection and distribution of compulsory voluntary levies are governed individually by each IPO agreement.\n1.2. THE ROLE OF THE STATE\n(10)\nAlthough the IPO are legal persons governed under private law and their funding is guaranteed by contributions from the sector concerned, the functioning of the compulsory voluntary levy system requires State intervention, particularly with regard to the following:\n(a)\nprior to any extension request, the IPO must be recognised by the public authorities and comply with the objectives of national agricultural policy and the common agricultural policy (cf. recitals 7 and 8);\n(b)\nonce it has been recognised, the IPO can ask the State to make their agreements compulsory by issuing a joint ministerial decree on the extension. In this way, every operator in the production zone in question becomes subject to the compulsory voluntary levy collected by a representative IPO (cf. recital 8);\n(c)\npursuant to Article L.632-8-1 of the Rural Code, the competent authorities receive activity reports from each IPO and a summary of the implementation of each extended agreement.\n2. OBJECTIVE OF THE AID\n(11)\nThe aid\u2019s objective is to promote research and development, technical assistance and advertising for the benefit of the livestock industry.\n2.1. LEVIES INTRODUCED BY INTERBEV\n(12)\nTwo types of inter-branch levies, which were made compulsory by the public authorities, are the subject of this Decision. The first relates to the levy on meat and offal of bovine animals and sheep intended for human consumption and on live bovine animals and sheep dispatched to EU countries or exported (\u2018the meat levy\u2019) and the second relates to the levy for the benefit of the National Livestock Fund (\u2018the FNE levy\u2019).\n(13)\nThe inter-branch agreements introducing the levies for Interbev that are the subject of this Decision are as follows:\nMeat levy\nFNE levy\nIPO Agreements\nExtending Decree\nIPO Agreement\nExtending Decree\n25.7.1995\n18.12.1995\n15.6.1994\n18.12.1995\n12.6.2001\n19.9.2001\n19.4.2001\n(14)\nThe National Inter-Branch Livestock and Meat Association (Interbev) is the French inter-branch organisation for the livestock and meat sector. It was set up on 9 October 1979 on the initiative of the organisations representing the livestock and meat sectors handling bovine animals, sheep and equine animals and was recognised by Decree of 18 November 1980 (3). Its role is to defend and advance the common interests of the livestock sector and the sector\u2019s industrial, skilled trades\u2019 and marketing activities. Interbev was recognised in 1980 as the inter-branch organisation for the livestock and meat sector. Interbev comprises thirteen national organisations representing the different professions in the livestock and meat sector: producers, live animal traders, slaughterers, wholesalers, processors and distributors.\n(15)\nIts two main missions are the establishment of inter-branch agreements and reciprocal communication. It also supports meat research programmes in the meat sector. The inter-branch agreements signed within the framework of the association lay down the rules governing the sector\u2019s activities. These agreements may be submitted to the public authorities under the extension procedure. Once the extension has been officially declared in a joint decree issued by the Ministers for Agriculture and Economic Affairs, the measures laid down in an inter-branch agreement are binding on all operators in the sector.\n2.2. MEAT LEVY\n(16)\nUnder the inter-branch agreement of 25 July 1995, which was extended by Decree of 18 December 1995 (4), Interbev introduced a levy on the meat and offal of bovine animals and sheep intended for human consumption and on live bovine animals and sheep dispatched to EU countries or exported.\n(17)\nThe levy was imposed on three categories of meat and/or animal:\n(a)\nmeat and offal of animals slaughtered in France intended for human consumption, set at 0,084 French francs (FRF)/kg (5) of carcase and paid by the physical or legal person who owned or co-owned the animal at the time of its slaughter;\n(b)\nmeat introduced or imported for consumption in France, set at FRF 0,042/kg and paid by the physical or legal person who first owned or co-owned the meat on the national territory;\n(c)\nlive bovine animals or sheep dispatched to EU countries or exported, set at FRF 7/head and paid by the physical or legal person who last owned or co-owned the animals on the national territory.\n(18)\nThe inter-branch agreement of 25 July 1995 was replaced by another inter-branch agreement of 12 June 2001, which was extended by Decree of 19 September 2001 (6). Article 1 of the Decree establishes that the agreement is extended for a period ending three years after the Decree\u2019s publication date, i.e. on 30 September 2004.\n(19)\nThe inter-branch agreement of 12 June 2001 maintained the categories of meat and/or animals to which levies were applied and increased the amount of contributions to: FRF 0,1574 (EUR 0,024) for meat and offal of animals slaughtered in France intended for human consumption; FRF 0,0656 (EUR 0,010) for meat imported for consumption in France; and FRF 11,15 (EUR 1,7) for live bovine animals or sheep dispatched to an EU country or exported.\n(20)\nThe inter-branch agreement of 12 June 2001 also introduced the possibility of a partial refund of the meat levy at the time of dispatch to an EU country or export to a third country. The refund rate was FRF 0,0656/kg (EUR 0,010).\n(21)\nThe prolongations in 1995 and 2001 did not apply to the levy on meat imported for consumption in France. Therefore the compulsory voluntary meat levy is not imposed on these products.\n2.3. FNE LEVY\n(22)\nUnder an inter-branch agreement of 15 June 1994, extended by Decree of 18 December 1995 (7) and by Decree of 19 September 2001 (8), Interbev introduced a levy for the National Livestock Fund. The latter Decree establishes that the extension period for the agreement ends three years after the Decree\u2019s publication date, i.e. on 30 September 2004.\n(23)\nThis professional fund, managed in the framework of the National Livestock Confederation (CNE), was set up to meet two key objectives. Firstly, to provide an incentive for organisations to restructure and promote their adjustment to the future needs of a falling number of livestock farmers trying to cope with Community production management policies, and secondly, to contribute to the continued development of genetic resources and applied research, which in future will continue to be key factors in the competitiveness of livestock farming.\n(24)\nA levy to service this fund is borne by physical or legal persons who are owners or co-owners of bovine animals and sheep slaughtered in France. Based on the latest data submitted by the French authorities, this levy was set at FRF 0,02/kg (EUR 0,003) of slaughtered meat net (or FRF 7/head for adult bovine animals, FRF 2,40/head for veal and FRF 0,36/head for sheep - EUR 1,05, EUR 0,36 and EUR 0,054 respectively).\n(25)\nAccording to the French authorities, the revenue from this levy is used for genetic improvement, the genetic information system, biotechnology and economic studies.\n2.4. THE MEASURES FUNDED\n(26)\nThe Interbev resources generated by meat levies are used for three types of measure:\n(a)\ncommunication and promotion for the benefit of the sector;\n(b)\ntechnical assistance;\n(c)\nresearch and experimentation.\n(27)\nCommunication and promotion involves the financing of campaigns on various topics relating to quality meat products, more general beef and veal campaigns on television and radio, and public relations measures. Promotion measures on external markets are also financed, including participation in trade fairs and promotions.\n(28)\nTechnical assistance measures cover certification and qualification of farms, in particular to overcome the obstacles faced by operators dealing with these procedures. Interbev also draws up joint specifications for the sector and is involved in the distribution and implementation of the charter on best livestock-farming practice and the code of best meat practice. It is also involved in improving transactions throughout the sector.\n(29)\nResearch and experimentation measures are geared to the needs of the sector and focus on food safety, quality management and animal welfare.\n(30)\nThe Interbev resources generated by the FNE levy are used for the following measures:\n(a)\ngenetic improvement;\n(b)\ngenetic information system on livestock;\n(c)\napplied research programmes;\n(d)\neconomic studies;\n(e)\nvarious activities.\n3. DURATION OF THE MEASURE\n(31)\nThis Decision covers the period from 1996 to 2004, the year in which the last inter-branch agreement which is the subject of this procedure expired.\n4. BENEFICIARIES\n(32)\nThe beneficiaries of the aid measure in question are farmers of bovine animals and sheep.\n(33)\nThe aid measure is envisaged to benefit mainly agricultural producers, processors and distributors as final beneficiaries. It is provided for that certain activities can be carried out by private companies on behalf of distributors.\n(34)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to the Commission\u2019s position regarding the compatibility of the selection procedure for the service providers that Interbev has chosen to carry out its activities with public procurement rules.\n5. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE (9)\n(35)\nFirstly, the Commission noted that these levies were made compulsory by the French government under an extension procedure for inter-branch agreements. The agreements are extended by means of decrees published in the French Official Journal. It follows that this type of contribution therefore requires an official act in order to take full effect. Consequently, when the procedure was initiated the Commission regarded the levies as parafiscal charges, i.e. public resources and therefore illegal aid as notification had not been given.\n(36)\nAccording to point 194 of the Community\u2019s guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013 (10) (hereinafter: the agricultural guidelines), any unlawful aid must be evaluated in accordance with the rules and guidelines in force at the time the aid is granted. The agricultural guidelines have applied since 1 January 2007. The previous guidelines, the Community guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector (2000-2006) (11), had applied since 1 January 2000. Any aid granted after that date must be assessed in the light of the 2000 guidelines. By contrast, any aid granted before that date must be assessed in the light of the rules and practice applicable before 1 January 2000. The aid in question has been granted since 1996.\n(37)\nSince this is State aid funded by means of parafiscal charges, the measures funded by this aid and the funding of the aid itself must be assessed by the Commission.\n5.1. THE AID MEASURES\n5.1.1. Promotion measures\n(38)\nThe Commission has recalled that the compatibility of the aid granted before 1 January 2002 must be assessed in the light of the rules on State aid for advertising of agricultural products and certain products not covered by Annex II to the EEC Treaty (12) and that the compatibility of aid granted after that date must be assessed in the light of the Community guidelines applicable to State aid for advertising of products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty and of certain non-Annex I (13) products. Essentially, those two texts are based on the same principles in that they lay down negative and positive criteria to be met. As regards the ceiling on the aid, the sector must fund at least 50 % of the cost of these measures. In this case, the measures are funded entirely out of parafiscal charges and by definition the levy paid by operators in the sector reaches that level. Therefore when the Commission initiated the procedure, it considered that the conditions had been met.\n5.1.2. Technical assistance measures\n(39)\nThe Commission has recalled that the compatibility of the aid granted before 1 January 2000 must be assessed in the light of Commission practice based on the proposal for the appropriate measures relating to aids granted by Member States in the livestock and livestock products sector (14) and, in the case of aid granted after that date, in the light of the agricultural guidelines. Essentially, Commission practice prior to 2000 and the agricultural guidelines are based on the same principles. Thus, aid covering 100 % of eligible expenditure is authorised for this type of aid. Also, the aid must be accessible to all potentially interested operators in the sector. Therefore the Commission considered that the conditions have been met.\n5.1.3. Research and experimentation measures\n(40)\nThe Commission has recalled that the compatibility of this aid must be assessed in the light of the Community framework for State aid for research and development (15) and the Commission communication amending that framework (16). Thus, aid intensities of up to 100 % are compatible with the common market provided that the four conditions laid down in the framework are met: the aid must be of general interest to the sector, the information must be published in the appropriate journals, the research findings must be made available on an equal basis in terms of both cost and time, and the aid must meet the international trade criteria to which the EU has committed itself. Therefore when the Commission initiated the procedure, it considered that the conditions had been met.\n5.1.4. Measures funded by the FNE levy\n(41)\nThe Commission was unsure about the precise nature of the measures funded by the FNE levy, the aim of which is to provide an incentive for organisations to restructure and promote their adjustment to the future needs of livestock farmers, as well as to contribute to the continued development of genetic resources and applied research. According to the French authorities, the revenue from this levy is used for genetic improvement, the genetic information system, biotechnology and economic studies. This information is not sufficient to allow the Commission to conclude whether or not the measures are compatible with any Community provisions that may apply. Therefore at this stage the Commission is unable to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the measures funded by the FNE levy are compatible with the EC Treaty (17).\n5.2. FUNDING OF THE AID\n5.2.1. Meat levy\n(42)\nFrom 1 January 1996 this levy is imposed on, inter alia, live bovine animals and sheep dispatched to other Member States and bovine meat and sheep products dispatched to other Member States, although a partial refund of the levy was introduced in 2001 for the latter. According to a ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter: the Court of Justice) (18), a charge constitutes a breach of the prohibition of discrimination laid down by Article 110 TFEU if the advantages accrued, from the use of the revenue generated by the charge, particularly benefit the taxed national products, which are processed and marketed on the national market, by partially offsetting the burden borne by these products and placing exported national products at a disadvantage.\n(43)\nAt the investigation stage of the procedure, the Commission considered that the advantage accrued from imposing the charge on products and animals dispatched to other Member States to finance the promotion, technical assistance, research and experimentation measures carried out by Interbev could be incompatible with the internal market under the Treaty and particularly Article 107, and that the State aid so financed could be incompatible with the Treaty. The charge could disadvantage the production of these animals as regards their exportation to other Member States because the allocation of the revenue was, by its very nature, likely to encourage national production marketed in France to the detriment of exported national production, and the level of the charge did not take into account differences in profit generated by national products depending on whether they are marketed internally or externally.\n5.2.2. FNE levy\n(44)\nOn the basis of the information available at this stage, the Commission did not have reason to believe that this levy had been imposed on animals imported from or dispatched to other Member States.\n6. COMPATIBILITY OF COMPULSORY LEVIES WITH THE SYSTEM OF COMMON ORGANISATION OF MARKETS\n(45)\nWith regard to the compatibility of compulsory levies with the system of common organisation of markets (hereinafter: CMO), the Commission considered that in this case, based on the Case C-355/00 Freskot [2003] ECR I-5263 (19), compulsory levies did not interfere, directly or indirectly, with the price of the end products concerned as the contributions did not influence product prices, which were determined by the free market. Therefore, the burden on meat products and livestock is neutralised by the advantage accrued from the funded activities. Consequently, the effects of the contribution on prices can be considered to be very limited or inexistent.\nIII. COMMENTS FROM FRANCE\n(46)\nBy letters of 8 and 10 October 2003, the French authorities submitted their comments on the Commission\u2019s decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the aid measure in question.\n(47)\nBy letters of 13 September and 29 November 2005, the French authorities submitted other comments in response to the Commission\u2019s requests for additional information.\n(48)\nFollowing the Commission\u2019s request for additional information sent on 25 February 2011 and the meeting on 29 March 2011, the French authorities submitted other comments by letter of 24 May 2011.\n(49)\nThe French authorities note that the Commission regards the revenue from these compulsory voluntary inter-branch levies as comparable to parafiscal charges that could lead to distortions of competition in the internal market. The French authorities also stated that the measures should have been notified. They went on to make the following remarks:\n1. SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION\u2019S INVESTIGATION ACCORDING TO THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES\n(50)\nWith regard to the contributions levied pursuant to the inter-branch agreements of 15 June 1994 for the National Livestock Fund and of 18 December 1995 for Interbev, the French authorities considered that the Commission opened its investigation by letters of 16 January 1995 (aid NN 34/95) and 18 March 1996 and closed it by letter (SG(96) D/6396) of 15 July 1996, concluding that \u2018the measures under investigation fall exclusively within the scope of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 and must be investigated on the basis of that Regulation. Article 35(2) of that Regulation excludes the application of Articles 92 and 93 TFEU\u2019.\n(51)\nIn reply to the Commission, which pointed out that at the time it had not expressed its views on the other Interbev measures (as aid NN 34/95 only covered investments to restructure the production of suckler cows), the French authorities stated that their reply to a Commission letter of 18 March 1996 was as follows: \u2018the National Livestock Fund is intended [\u2026] to improve livestock selection and to support research, particularly genetic research [\u2026]\u2019 (letter of 13 September 2005).\n(52)\nThe French authorities therefore consider that the Commission was fully informed of the existence of communication, promotion, research and experimentation measures funded by Interbev and that it could have requested additional information from the French authorities in connection with this case. Since the Commission took no further action in response to this letter, the French authorities concluded that the Commission was satisfied with the information it had received.\n(53)\nIn a subsequent letter to the Commission, which referred to a request for additional information sent (30 May 1996) following the above-mentioned letter, the French authorities stated that they had never received a request for additional information and that the failure of the Commission to act between 30 May 1996 and 2 October 2001 constituted implicit acceptance of the compatibility of the measures of which it had been notified.\n(54)\nMoreover, the French authorities state that the Commission was aware of Interbev\u2019s communication measures as a result of Case C18/95 on measures for the sheep sector.\n(55)\nConsequently, as the Commission did not continue with its investigation of these agreements, the French authorities believed that they had legitimate grounds for considering that the Commission did not oppose their implementation.\n(56)\nIn view of this, the French authorities believed that this procedure only covered the inter-branch agreement of 12 June 2001.\n(57)\nIn their letter of 24 May 2011 and at the meeting of 29 March 2011, the French authorities finally submitted information on the entire period to the Commission.\n2. GROUNDS JUSTIFYING THE NON-NOTIFICATION OF THE AID ACCORDING TO THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES\n(58)\nAs regards the measures carried out using the revenue from levies from the new inter-branch agreements dating from 12 June 2001, for the benefit of Interbev and the FNE, the French authorities did not believe it was necessary to notify them because they were funded solely from the private contributions of the sector concerned.\n3. INTERBEV MEASURES\n(59)\nWith respect to the measures carried out by Interbev, the French authorities note that the Commission considers that they are compatible with the Community guidelines on State aid in agriculture (2000-2006) and the Community guidelines on State aid for advertising of agricultural products and certain products not covered by Annex I, based on the analysis of the information submitted to it by letter of 9 November 2001. They confirm that during, the period covered by this Decision, Interbev funded its measures on advertising, technical assistance, research and experimentation in the same way as set out in the letter of 9 November 2001.\n4. FNE RESEARCH AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MEASURES\n(60)\nAs regards the FNE, the French authorities submitted the following explanations by letter in reply to the decision to initiate the procedure (8 and 10 October 2003).\n(61)\nThe revenue from the FNE levy is used to fund technical assistance and applied research. The French authorities have confirmed that the measures were devised in compliance with points 14 and 17 of the Community guidelines on State aid in agriculture (2000-2006).\n(62)\nFirstly, it is explained that the revenue from the FNE levy was used to fund the following measures:\n(a)\ngenetic improvement;\n(b)\ngenetic information system on livestock;\n(c)\napplied research programmes;\n(d)\neconomic studies;\n(e)\nvarious activities.\n4.1. GENETIC RESEARCH\n(63)\nThe FNE\u2019s involvement in genetics is strictly limited to supporting certain joint measures under the national genetic improvement programme, as defined by the National Commission for Genetic Improvement (CNAG), which includes representatives of the French government, the profession itself, research and teaching.\n(64)\nFNE funds mainly support work by the genetic department of the Livestock Breeders Institute whose primary mission is to: support organisations on the ground that contribute to the genetic improvement of ruminants; draw up, maintain and develop specifications setting out procedures on the ground; check the development and recording procedures for data in joint information chains that is required for the genetic evaluation of reproducers; adapt indexing procedures in partnership with INRA, implement international data sharing procedures and distribute official indices in France.\n4.2. MODERNISATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LIVESTOCK INFORMATION SYSTEMS\n(65)\nAs part of its support for the modernisation and development of livestock information systems, the FNE contributes to updating the genetic information system (SIG). Modernisation began in 1995 and was needed to improve and standardise an information system set up over 20 years ago in order to ensure more efficient management of genetic data, integrate the new functions required for indexation and to cut costs.\n(66)\nThe FNE also took part in an economic, technical and legal feasibility study for a livestock information system for professionals (SPIE) that aims to provide and develop official identification data and other data at a professional and inter-branch level.\n4.3. APPLIED RESEARCH MEASURES\n(67)\nThe FNE has funded several applied research programmes and is committed to supporting studies of general interest to the livestock sector, for example, programmes on applied research and transfer in reproductive biotechnologies (embryo transfer, sexing, in-vitro fertilisation and cloning). This research involves new embryology techniques, which are of particular interest in view of the future use of molecular markers and marker-assisted selection. The programme has resulted in a significant improvement in the yield from traditional embryo transfer, the development and optimisation of the French method for embryo sexing, the development of ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval and the improvement of the in vitro fertilisation technique.\n(68)\nThe FNE also participated in a pilot research project on homologous recombination. This INRA-led project uses transgenic technology and involves the controlled modification of the genome of animals by targeting the introduction of a transgene to a specific site in the DNA. Gene targeting is intended to enable the replacement of one gene by another without using genetically-modified organisms.\n(69)\nThe FNE participated in the IDEA programme on the electronic identification of bovine animals and sheep. It also funded national projects in the framework of the EU\u2019s IDEA programme, which seeks to improve the reliability of animal identification by harnessing new techniques of electronic use.\n4.4. ECONOMIC STUDIES\n(70)\nThe FNE has helped to fund economic studies that are critical to livestock organisations, enabling them to meet the challenges posed by successive CAP reforms, enlargement, recent crises and international developments.\n(71)\nAll these studies have been conducted under the aegis of the Livestock Economic Group (GEB), managed by the Livestock Breeders Institute, which guarantees the coherence of the different research programmes requested by the profession and their complementarity with existing studies.\n(72)\nWork has resulted in the monitoring of the current situation for the milk and meat sectors in France and Europe, in-depth monthly economic analyses on animal production in France, Europe and the world, specific monitoring of prices and production costs and negotiations at EU and WTO level.\n(73)\nThe GEB\u2019s economic observatory offers a practical understanding of farm operations, as used by the livestock networks, and the synergy between a macro and micro economic approach.\n4.5. VARIOUS MEASURES\n(74)\nOccasionally the FNE is called on to support the launch of new inter-branch projects intended to facilitate the sector\u2019s adaptation to socioeconomic developments, such as the drawing up of the charter on best livestock farming practice that is the most important initiative of its kind in Europe, and the launch of a communication project on the livestock profession, in the aftermath of the second BSE crisis, in order to restore confidence between producers and consumers.\n4.6. COMMUNITY GUIDELINES\n(75)\nThe French authorities emphasised that all the funding measures were of general interest to bovine animal and sheep producers and were never limited to the benefit of individual or particular groups of operators.\n(76)\nFNE funds most often accounted for less than 50 % of the cost of programmes and research. Funds can be higher for certain one-off projects, but the amount never exceeds 100 % of the cost.\n4.6.1. Technical assistance\n(77)\nFunding for economic studies is allocated on the basis of an aid ceiling of EUR 100 000 per producer per three-year period and the rule stipulating that results must be accessible to all the producers.\n4.6.2. Applied research\n(78)\nThe French authorities confirmed that the definitive results from each economic study, like the data from each research programme, are widely distributed. The findings from all the FNE funded research are systematically published and distributed so that producers and their organisations on the ground can benefit from and have equal access to them.\n(79)\nTwo main distribution channels are used, namely the professional livestock organisations and the Livestock Breeders Institute, through which technical and economic publications are sent out to producers and technicians.\n(80)\nGiven the general interest character of the research, no commercial use of the results is planned. The real beneficiaries of the measures are truly the producers of bovine animals and sheep to whom the theoretical and practical findings are released.\n(81)\nThe research funded does not give rise to any direct payments to producers or processors.\n5. LEVIES ON IMPORTED ANIMALS AND MEAT\n5.1. INTERBEV LEVIES\n(82)\nWith regard to the levy on meat from livestock imported from other Member States or third countries to France, on the basis of information submitted by the French authorities on several occasions, the Commission has noted that the scope of the joint ministerial decrees extending the inter-branch agreements of 1995 and 2001 has always excluded the levies on imported meat.\n5.2. FNE LEVY\n(83)\nThe Commission noted that the FNE levy could be imposed on animals reared outside France but imported into France for slaughtering.\n(84)\nIn their letter of 6 October 2003, the French authorities recognised the pertinence of this objection from a Community guidelines viewpoint. As a result, they agreed to modify the text of the agreement with a view to excluding any levy on animals reared outside the national territory, but imported into France for slaughtering. The French authorities offered to submit the new text to the Commission as soon as the new agreement had been formalised and signed.\n(85)\nThey added that none the less in practice the imports of live animals were uncommon and did not run the risk of distorting competition. According to the customs service, there were 24 933 and 22 250 head of adult finished livestock imported into France in 2001 and 2002 respectively. National slaughterings amount to 4 million head; therefore, imports of live animals only represent 0,58 % of the total amount slaughtered. Moreover, more than 70 % of imports are of high conformation and high price animals, destined for a niche market that is specific to northern France. Based on the average import prices for these animals (EUR 1,50/kg of live animal, i.e. equivalent to EUR 2,5/kg net according to customs office figures), the FNE levy on these animals must have been approximately a thousandth of the value of the animal.\n(86)\nThe French authorities state that, firstly, the compulsory voluntary levies collected have been minimal, as non-payment for imported animals was common and later became systematic, and secondly, the amount of the compulsory voluntary levy in question was so low in relation to the value of the animals that it could not have distorted competition. In their letter of 24 May 2011, France provided printed copies of the levy calculations and company statements showing that refunds might have been made in certain cases, but that this practice was not compulsory.\n(87)\nBy the letters of 13 September 2005 and 24 May 2011, the French authorities confirmed that, from 2003, the FNE levy was only imposed on animals reared and slaughtered in France (20).\n6. LEVIES ON ANIMALS AND MEAT DISPATCHED TO OTHER MEMBER STATES\n6.1. INTERBEV LEVIES\n(88)\nConcerning the levy imposed on meat dispatched to other Member States, the Commission referred to the risk of discrimination in a levy system that did not take into account the dispatch outside the national territory of certain products subject to levy and fears that such a measure favours national production marketed in France.\n(89)\nAs set out in recitals 16 et seq., meat dispatched to other Member States was subject to a compulsory voluntary levy of EUR 0,0126/kg and, under the inter-branch agreement of 12 June 2001, a compulsory voluntary levy of EUR 0,024/kg. Moreover, under that agreement a refund of EUR 0,010/kg was provided for.\n(90)\nIn relation to the compulsory voluntary levies imposed on animals dispatched to other Member States, in their letter of 24 May 2011 the French authorities provided explanations to show that these levies were proportional to the advantages accrued from the measures funded by the levies.\n(91)\nThe French authorities explained that the live animals dispatched were bovine store cattle. As set out in recitals 17 et seq., these animals were subject to the compulsory voluntary levy which was calculated per head and not per kilogram of meat.\n(92)\nThe French authorities then provided a calculation allowing the evaluation of equivalence between weight per head and per kilogram. Under the inter-branch agreement of 25 July 1995 the compulsory voluntary levy for slaughter was FRF 0,084/kg of carcase, and the compulsory voluntary levy for the dispatch of live animals was FRF 7 per head of adult bovine animal (Article 4). However, one live store animal weighs approximately 250 to 280 kg, which amounts to an average weight in meat (ratio of 65 %) of 163 kg. Therefore, the levy of FRF 7 per head was equivalent to a levy of FRF 0,042/kg, comparable to half of the levy imposed on meat.\n(93)\nThe inter-branch agreement of 12 June 2001 had maintained this system of equivalence. The amounts (in euro) were as follows: compulsory voluntary levy at slaughter of EUR 0,024/kg of carcase (Article 2) and a compulsory voluntary levy at dispatch of live animals of EUR 1,7/head of adult bovine animal (Article 4). Therefore, the levy of EUR 1,7/head of adult bovine animal was equivalent to a levy of EUR 0,0104/kg, comparable to half of the meat levy.\n(94)\nThe French authorities consider that the total revenue (EUR 38 136 670) generated by the compulsory voluntary levy on products dispatched to other Member States (live animals and meat) represented 15 % of the total amount of the revenue generated by all the compulsory voluntary levies collected by Interbev between 1995 and 2004 i.e. (EUR 252 855 282). Based on an overview of the period from 1995 to 2004, the French authorities believe that the amount of revenue generated was proportionate to the advantage accrued to products dispatched to other Member States as a result of the measures undertaken.\n(95)\nFurthermore, the French authorities indicate that the animals and meat dispatched outside of France benefited from the measures undertaken outside the national territory, representing EUR 21 490 848, as well as the measures of use to all animals and products irrespective of their intended use. They state that of all the measures of use to animals and products, which amounted to EUR 91 231 075, it is fair to consider that only EUR 28 280 000 funded measures undertaken outside the national territory.\n(96)\nThe measures that specifically concerned exported animals and products related to advertising (for example international trade fairs, professional information and public relations campaigns, International Green Week in Berlin, training on cutting held abroad). The measures that had an impact on animals and products as a whole, regardless of their markets, in France and outside France included publicity campaigns on high-quality European beef, offal, beef breeds, and a number of research activities on food safety, animal welfare, quality management, product characterisation, and the certification and traceability procedures for bovine meat, the results of which were widely circulated in France and abroad.\n(97)\nThe French authorities believe that the benefits accruing to the exported products as a result of inter-branch measures amounted to EUR 49 770 000. This sum should be compared to the compulsory voluntary levy imposed on the products that amounted to EUR 38 136 670. The share of the compulsory voluntary levy paid by French export products during the period from 1995 to 2004 was balanced in relation to the advantages accrued from the measures funded by Interbev.\n6.2. FNE LEVY\n(98)\nIn their letter of 13 September 2005, the French authorities confirmed that the exported products were not subject to a specific FNE levy.\nIV. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID\n(99)\nArticles 107 and 108 of the TFEU apply to all the agricultural products listed in Annex I to the Treaty subject to a common organisation of the market (all agricultural products except horse meat, honey, coffee, alcohol of agricultural origin, vinegar made from alcohol and cork) in accordance with the different regulations governing respective common organisations of markets.\n1. EXISTENCE OF AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU\n(100)\nArticle 107(1) TFEU states that \u2018Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.\u2019\n(101)\nArticles 107 to 109 TFEU were rendered applicable in the bovine meat sector at the material time by Article 40 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 (21) on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal. Before the adoption of the latter, these articles were rendered applicable in the same sector by Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in meat and veal (22). They were rendered applicable in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sectors by Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2529/2001 of 19 December 2001 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat (23). Prior to the adoption of the latter, the articles in question were rendered applicable in the same sector under Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2467/98 of 3 November 1998 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat (24) and, prior to the adoption of that Regulation, by Article 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 of 25 September 1989 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat (25).\n(102)\nArticles 107 to 109 TFEU are applicable today, for the sectors mentioned in recital 32 et seq. of this Decision, by Article 180 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (26) (27).\n1.1. EXISTENCE OF A SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE\n(103)\nAccording to the Court of Justice, measures which, whatever their form, are likely directly or indirectly to favour certain undertakings or are to be regarded as an economic advantage which the recipient undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions are regarded as aid (28). In this case, the support granted has favoured certain undertakings in the cattle and sheep farming sector by implementing measures likely to benefit producers in, or parts of, the sectors represented by Interbev.\n(104)\nMoreover, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, measures which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which, therefore, without being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect are also considered to be aid (29).\n(105)\nIn terms of the existence of an advantage, such an advantage must be demonstrated in relation to the potential beneficiaries of the measures to the benefit of the meat sector and the inter-branch levies in question and their financing. In this case, the support granted has favoured certain undertakings in the cattle and sheep farming sector by implementing measures likely to benefit producers in the industry.\n1.2. AID GRANTED BY THE STATE OR THROUGH STATE RESOURCES\n(106)\nAccording to the case-law of the Court, for a benefit to qualify as State aid, it must first be awarded directly or indirectly through State resources and, secondly, it must be attributable to the State (30).\n(107)\nAs regards the nature of the levies in question (compulsory voluntary levies), the Commission considers that the levies constitute parafiscal charges, i.e. public resources. The Commission\u2019s assessment is based on the following considerations.\n(108)\nFirstly, it must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, and paragraph 139 of the Salvat (31) judgment in particular, the distinction between private and public organisations is not \u2018a determining factor for the application of the rules of the Treaty on State aid\u2019. In addition, the Ladbroke judgment (32) categorically states that Article 107(1) TFEU \u2018covers all the financial means by which the public sector may actually support undertakings, irrespective of whether or not those means are permanent assets of the public sector. Consequently, even though the sums (\u2026) are not permanently held by the Treasury, the fact that they constantly remain under public control, and therefore available to the competent national authorities, is sufficient for them to be categorised as State aid and for the measure to fall within Article 107(1) of the Treaty.\u2019\n(109)\nFirstly, in the light of this case-law, the Commission considers that the fact that the compulsory voluntary levies in question consist of contributions from the private sector and are not at the permanent disposal of the State does not constitute sufficient grounds for concluding that they fall outside the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU. In this context, the Commission must also examine the level of control exercised by the State in relation to the income derived from the compulsory voluntary levies in question and the State\u2019s capacity to redirect the resources to finance the aid measures.\n(110)\nIn this case, the Commission notes that the government\u2019s approval, in the form of the recognition afforded to Interbev, is a prerequisite for the introduction of compulsory voluntary levies. Therefore, although Interbev is an entity under private law, its capacity to introduce compulsory voluntary levies in its business sector is subject to State approval of its operation and objectives (cf. recital 14 of this Decision).\n(111)\nIn addition, it is stipulated under France\u2019s Rural Code that the levies become compulsory for all members of the branches in question by virtue of being extended by joint ministerial decree (cf. recital 10 of this Decision). This type of levy therefore requires an official act in order to take full effect (33).\n(112)\nOn the basis of these facts, the Commission considers that the compulsory voluntary levies examined can be considered to be under the control of the State and to constitute State resources.\n(113)\nSecondly, the use of the revenue generated by the compulsory voluntary levies is determined by the objectives and operational context of the inter-branch organisation as defined in the Rural Code (cf. recitals 7-10). Consequently, the State has the ability to channel the revenue derived from the compulsory voluntary levies to finance the aid measures carried out by Interbev. The benefits afforded by Interbev can thus be considered ascribable to the State.\n(114)\nIt is also recalled that, in case C-345/02 Pearle (34), the Court of Justice identified a series of aspects which serve to determine whether parafiscal charges should be considered State resources ascribable to the State when they are essentially collected by an inter-branch organisation for the benefit of its members.\n(115)\nIn accordance with the test proposed by the Court of Justice in this case, compulsory levies collected by an intermediary organisation representing the undertakings of certain economic sectors are not considered to be State resources if all the following conditions are met:\n(a)\nthe measure in question is established by the professional body that represents the undertakings and employees of the sector and does not serve as an instrument for the implementation of State policies;\n(b)\nthe objectives of the measure in question are fully financed by the contributions of the undertakings in the sector;\n(c)\nthe financing method and the percentage/amount of the contributions are established within the professional organisation by representatives of the employers and employees without State intervention;\n(d)\nthe contributions are obligatorily used for the financing of the measure, without the possibility for the State to intervene.\n(116)\nIt is clear, however, that the contested measure does not fulfil all the conditions of the Pearle judgment. Firstly, the existence, role and operation of Interbev are regulated by national legislation (cf. recitals 10 and 14) and its financing by the compulsory voluntary levy requires State intervention (cf. recital 10). Moreover, Article 632-2-1 of the Rural Code stipulates that inter-branch organisations contribute to the implementation of national and European Union economic policies and may enjoy priority status in the allocation of public aid. Interbev may therefore be considered as an instrument for the implementation of a policy supported by the State carrying out activities in the general interest of the inter-branch organisation (cf. recitals 40 and 61). Furthermore, as set out in Interbev\u2019s statutes, the budget of the inter-branch organisation may be supplemented by a direct subsidy from the State. Lastly, in view of the general interest of the research activities financed (cf. recital 10), it cannot be claimed with certainty in this case that the beneficiaries of the aid are always the parties subject to the charges.\n(117)\nIn the light of the considerations set out above, the Commission concludes that the measures in question are ascribable to the State and financed by State resources.\n1.3. IMPACT ON TRADE AND DISTORTION OF COMPETITION\n(118)\nIn order to fall within the scope of application of Article 107(1) TFEU, aid must also affect competition and trade between Member States. This criterion is based on the assumption that the beneficiaries of the aid engage in an economic activity.\n(119)\nLastly, in order to establish whether the aid in question falls within the scope of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, it must be established whether it is liable to affect trade among Member States and distort competition.\n(120)\nThe Court has ruled that when State financial aid strengthens the position of a category of undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid (35), which is sufficient to demonstrate distortion of competition.\n(121)\nThe existence of trade between Member States in the meat sector is sufficiently demonstrated by the existence of a common organisation of the market in the sector (36). By way of example, intra-Community trade in meat products in France represented around 15 % of total trade in the Union in the products in question (37).\n(122)\nThe aid granted is therefore likely to affect trade between the Member States since it favours domestic production to the detriment of production in other Member States. At the material time to which this Decision relates, the meat sector was extremely open to competition at Community level and, therefore, highly sensitive to any measure in favour of production in any Member State.\n1.4. CONCLUSIONS ON THE NATURE OF \u2018AID\u2019 WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) OF THE TFEU\n(123)\nThe Commission considers, in the light of the considerations set out above, that the measures implemented in this case to the benefit of the beneficiaries provide them with an advantage which cannot be enjoyed by other operators and distort or threaten to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings and the production of certain goods since they are likely to affect trade between Member States.\n(124)\nFor these reasons, the Commission concludes that the measure in question falls within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU and constitutes State aid.\n2. EXAMINATION OF THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID\n2.1. SCOPE OF THE DECISION\n(125)\nThe French authorities consider that the Decision in question should relate only to the inter-branch agreement of 12 June 2001, as explained above (cf. recital 56).\n(126)\nIn the context of aid NN 34/95, the Commission did not have any information relating to the FNE levies, nor to the system for the financing of aid in this context (38). In addition, its position only related to aid for investments in favour of certain farmers, particularly in the context of first acquisition of animals. The Commission did not adopt positions either with regard to the compulsory voluntary levy system, aid for genetic improvement, the genetic information system, biotechnology and economic studies, or the promotion, technical assistance and research and experimentation measures financed by the Interbev levies, which were not notified in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU.\n(127)\nThese measures were mentioned by France in its letter of 29 April 1996 in the context of case NN 49/96, but only with regard to measures relating to the FNE.\n(128)\nIn response to that letter, the Commission requested additional information in a letter dated 30 May 1996 (VI/021559) in order to clarify the nature and scope of the financial instruments facilitating the restructuring of the livestock organisations involved in the identification and selection of animals and the development measures. The Commission also requested that a fact sheet be completed. However, the French authorities did not reply to the letter and the Commission did not adopt a position on the compatibility of the measures in question with the internal market. The Commission opened the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU, in relation to the aid in question, by a letter dated 9 July 2003 (39).\n(129)\nThe inter-branch agreements of 15 June 1994 to the benefit of the livestock fund and of 18 December 1995 to the benefit of Interbev, as well as the State aids financed by these agreements, therefore still have to be examined in the light of the rules on State aid since they have not been approved by the Commission.\n(130)\nConsequently, this Decision also concerns the agreements of 15 June 1994 to the benefit of FNE and 18 December 1995 to the benefit of Interbev. In its analysis of these agreements, the Commission did not comment on the measures financed by the above inter-branch levies.\n(131)\nAs indicated in recital 57, the French authorities implicitly accepted this interpretation.\n2.2. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 107(3) TFEU\n(132)\nThere are exceptions to the general principle of the incompatibility of State aid with the TFEU pursuant to Article 107 of the TFEU, whilst it is clear that some are not applicable to the case in point, notably the exceptions under paragraph 2. These were not cited by the French authorities.\n(133)\nAs regards the exceptions provided for in Article 107(3), they must be strictly interpreted when examining any regional or sectoral aid programme or any individual aid under general aid schemes. In particular, they can only be granted in cases where the Commission can establish that the aid is necessary to achieve one of the stated aims. Granting the benefit of the aforementioned exceptions for aid without such consideration would amount to allowing trade between Member States to be damaged and competition distorted, which would be unjustifiable with regard to Community interests, and by the same token, would allow undue advantage for the operators of certain Member States.\n(134)\nThe Commission considers that the contested aid is not intended to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment within the meaning of Article 107(3)(a). It is also not intended to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State within the meaning of Article 107(3)(b). Nor is it intended to promote culture and heritage conservation within the meaning of Article 107(3)(d).\n(135)\nArticle 107(3)(c) does however provide that aid intended to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest may be considered to be compatible with the internal market. To qualify for the exception referred to in the aforementioned Article, the aid must contribute to the development of the sector in question.\n2.3. IDENTIFYING THE GUIDELINES APPLICABLE TO THE NON-NOTIFIED MEASURES\n(136)\nIn accordance with point 194 of the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector and the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid (40), all unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (41) must be assessed in accordance with the texts in force at the time when the aid was granted (42).\n(137)\nSpecific guidelines have applied for the agriculture sector since 1 January 2000. Any aid granted after that date must therefore be assessed in the light of the guidelines applicable to the period concerned. Between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2006, the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector applied. With effect from 1 January 2007, the Community guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sector 2007-2013 have applied.\n(138)\nConversely, any aid granted before that date must, where appropriate, be assessed in the light of the measures and practice applicable before 1 January 2000.\n2.4. COMPATIBILITY OF THE COMPULSORY VOLUNTARY LEVIES WITH THE CMO SYSTEM\n(139)\nWith regard to the question of the compatibility of the compulsory voluntary levies with the CMO system, against the background of Case C-355/00 Freskot (43) the Commission considers that, in the present case, the compulsory voluntary levies do not interfere, directly or indirectly, with the price of the end products concerned since the levies do not have an impact on product prices, which are determined by the free market. The levy on meat products and animals reared is therefore offset by the benefit represented by the measures financed. Consequently, it can be considered that the impact of the levies on prices is very limited.\n(140)\nIn the light of the information provided, the financing of this scheme does not give rise to any objections.\n2.5. ANALYSIS IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE RULES\n2.5.1. Measures funded by the meat levies\n2.5.1.1. Promotion\n(141)\nAs regards the aid for promotion, the compatibility of the aid granted prior to 1 January 2002 must be assessed in the light of the rules on State aid for advertising of agricultural products and certain products not covered by Annex II to the EEC Treaty (44) and, for aid granted after that date, in the light of the Community guidelines for State aid for advertising of products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty and of certain non-Annex I products (45).\n(142)\nThe 1987 rules and the 2002 guidelines apply, for the most part, the same principles. They set out negative and positive criteria which must be complied with by all national aid schemes. Accordingly, the measures in question must not be advertising measures which conflict with the provisions of Article 34 TFEU or secondary Community law, nor measures for the benefit of specific undertakings. According to the information provided by the French authorities, it is possible to conclude that the objectives of these measures are compliant with several of the positive criteria set out in the aforementioned rules and guidelines since some relate to the objective of reducing excess agriculture production and others to the objective of developing high-quality products and healthy eating.\n(143)\nThe French authorities have also explained that the messages conveyed by the advertising measures will not seek to dissuade consumers from buying products from other Member States or denigrate those products, nor will they benefit the brand of a particular undertaking or an individual producer.\n(144)\nAs regards the ceilings on aid, up to 50 % of the financing for publicity measures may come from State resources and the balance must be provided by the trade bodies and inter-branch organisations that benefit from the measures concerned, either in the form of voluntary contributions or by the levying of parafiscal charges or compulsory contributions. In the present case, the measures are entirely financed by parafiscal charges, where the professionals\u2019 financial contributions to the campaigns correspond by definition to 50 % of costs.\n(145)\nThe Commission considers that the public aid paid to finance the promotion measures in question complied with the criteria established under the Community legislation applicable in this area.\n2.5.1.2. Technical assistance\n(146)\nThe compatibility of the aid granted prior to 1 January 2000 must be assessed in the light of Commission practice based on the proposal for appropriate measures relating to aids granted by Member States in the livestock and livestock products sector (46) and, in the case of aid granted after that date, in the light of the agricultural guidelines (47).\n(147)\nEssentially, Commission practice prior to the year 2000 and the agricultural guidelines adopted in that year are based on the same principles. Thus, aid covering 100 % of eligible expenditure is authorised in particular for technical assistance measures based on information and accounting support, measures to spread new techniques, and measures relating to the training of farm workers.\n(148)\nA new condition was introduced with the adoption of the guidelines in 2000 when it was stipulated that the aid must be accessible to all eligible parties operating in the area in question under objectively defined conditions, and that the total amount of aid granted cannot exceed EUR 100 000 per beneficiary per three-year period or, in the case of SMEs, 50 % of eligible expenditure, whichever is greater. The French authorities have explained that the criterion of access to the work carried out by all potentially interested professional parties is fully respected. The Commission considers, on the basis of the information provided by the French authorities relating to the very high number of beneficiaries in particular, that the criterion relating to the aid ceiling is respected.\n(149)\nThe Commission considers that the public aid paid to finance the technical assistance measures in question complies with the criteria established by the Community rules applicable in this area.\n2.5.1.3. Research and experimentation\n(150)\nWith regard to research and development measures, the compatibility of aid granted before 1 January 2000 must be verified in the light of the Community framework for State aid for research and development and the Commission Communication amending that framework, and for aid granted after that date, in the light of the agriculture guidelines, which refer to the framework under point 17.\n(151)\nIn accordance with the Community framework, a level of aid up to 100 % may be compatible with the internal market, even where research and development is carried out by firms, subject to fulfilment in each case of the following four conditions:\n(a)\nthe aid is of general interest to the sector concerned, without causing undue distortion of competition in other sectors;\n(b)\ninformation must be published in appropriate newspapers with at least national circulation and not limited to the members of individual organisations to ensure that any operator potentially interested in the work can easily find out that it is being or has been carried out and that the results are or will be made available on request to any interested party. This information must be published on a date not later than any information given directly to members of individual organisations;\n(c)\nthe results of the work will be provided for exploitation by all parties interested, including the beneficiary of the aid, on an equal basis in terms of both cost and timing;\n(d)\nthe aid fulfils the conditions laid down in Annex II \u2018Domestic support: the basis for exemption from the State aid reduction commitments\u2019 to the Agreement on Agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (48).\n(152)\nThe French authorities have explained in this regard that Interbev\u2019s research and technical experimentation measures are carried out to the benefit of all stakeholders in the sector. In addition, the association shares the knowledge acquired and the technical recommendations by organising training sessions and providing documentation, notices, summaries and information brochures, including in electronic format. Any farmer, slaughterer, butcher, processor or vendor in the bovine and sheep sector can obtain information on the results and access summaries of the research on request without discrimination and at the same time as any other party. The French authorities have also given an assurance that the measures financed do not involve any direct payment to producers or processors and that they satisfy the international trade criteria to which the European Union has committed itself.\n(153)\nThe Commission considers that the public aid paid to finance the research and experimentation measures in question complied with the criteria established in Community legislation applicable in this area.\n2.5.2. Measures funded by the FNE\n2.5.2.1. Technical assistance\n(154)\nAs regards aid for technical assistance, the compatibility of the aid granted prior to 1 January 2000 must be assessed in the light of Commission practice based on the proposal for appropriate measures relating to aids granted by Member States in the livestock and livestock products sector (49) and, in the case of aid granted after that date, in the light of the agricultural guidelines (50).\n(155)\nCommission practice prior to 2000 and the agricultural guidelines are essentially based on the same principles. Thus, aid covering 100 % of eligible expenditure is authorised, in particular for technical assistance measures based on information and accounting support, measures to spread new techniques, and measures relating to the training of farm workers.\n(156)\nA new condition was introduced with the adoption of the guidelines in 2000 when it was stipulated that the aid must be available to all those eligible in the area concerned based on objectively defined conditions and that the total amount of aid granted may not exceed EUR 100 000 per beneficiary per three-year period or, in the case of SMEs, 50 % of eligible expenditure, whichever is greater.\n(157)\nThe French authorities have emphasised that all the measures financed are of a general interest for all bovine and sheep farmers; the benefits derived from the measures are never limited to individual operators or specific groups of operators.\n(158)\nThe FNE\u2019s financial participation accounts for less than 50 % of the cost of the work and research in most cases. It may account for more than 50 % for some isolated projects, but the aid level never exceeds 100 %.\n(159)\nThe economic studies are financed with due heed to the limit of EUR 100 000 per farmer per three-year period, on the one hand, and to the rule according to which all farmers must have access to the results, on the other.\n(160)\nThe Commission considers that the public aid paid to finance the technical assistance measures in question complies with the criteria established in Community legislation applicable in this area.\n2.5.2.2. Research and experimentation\n(161)\nWith regard to research and development measures, the compatibility of aid granted before 1 January 2000 must be verified in the light of the Community framework for State aid for research and development and the Commission Communication amending that framework, and for aid granted after that date, in the light of the agriculture guidelines, which refer to the framework under point 17.\n(162)\nIn accordance with the Community framework, a level of aid up to 100 % may be compatible with the internal market, even where research and development is carried out by firms, subject to fulfilment in each case of the following four conditions:\n(a)\nthe aid is of general interest to the sector concerned, without causing undue distortion of competition in other sectors;\n(b)\ninformation must be published in appropriate newspapers, with at least national circulation and not limited to the members of individual organisations, to ensure that any operator potentially interested in the work can readily be aware that it is being or has been carried out, and that the results are or will be made available, on request, to any interested party. This information must be published on a date not later than any information given directly to members of individual organisations;\n(c)\nthe results of the work are made available for exploitation by all interested parties, including the beneficiary of the aid, on an equal basis in terms both of cost and of timing;\n(d)\nthe aid fulfils the conditions laid down in Annex II, \u2018Domestic support: the basis for exemption from the State aid reduction commitments\u2019, to the Agreement on agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations.\n(163)\nIn the case at hand, the data pertaining to each economic study, as well as the results obtained at the end of each research programme once they are definitive, are widely disseminated. The results of all work supported by the fund are systematically published and disseminated to ensure discrimination-free access for farmers and their organisations in the field, thereby enabling them to benefit from the results.\n(164)\nTwo main distribution channels are used: professional farming organisations and the Livestock-Breeders\u2019 Institute, by means of technical and economic publications with high circulations among farmers and specialists in the field.\n(165)\nIn view of the general interest of the research, no commercial use of the results is planned. The question of the cost of rights of exploitation or of the conditions for access to rights of exploitation does not therefore arise. The real beneficiaries of the measures are all bovine and sheep farmers, to whom the theoretical and practical results of the work are sent.\n(166)\nThe studies financed do not involve any direct payment to producers or processors. They satisfy the general and specific conditions in Annex II \u2018Domestic support: the basis for exemption from the reduction commitments\u2019, to the Agreement on agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations.\n(167)\nThe Commission considers that the public aid paid to finance the research and experimentation measures in question complies with the criteria established in Community legislation applicable in this area.\n2.6. FINANCING OF THE AID\n(168)\nSince State aid financed by a parafiscal charge is involved (compulsory voluntary levies), the Commission must examine both the measures financed, i.e. the aid, and the way they are financed. According to the Court of Justice (51), where the method of financing the aid, in particular through compulsory contributions, forms an integral part of the aid measure, the Commission must take that method of financing into account when examining the aid.\n(169)\nIn order to define whether the measure forms an integral part of the aid measure, several elements should be taken into account: the revenue from the charge must be reserved exclusively for funding the aid and must necessarily be allocated to the financing of the aid (52), the charge must be hypothecated to the aid measure under the relevant national rules (53), and the amount of the charge should have a direct impact on the amount of State aid (54).\n(170)\nThe Commission takes note of the following points on the application of these criteria to the measures in question. Firstly, the legal basis of the measures in question, i.e. the inter-branch agreements, extended by decree, define the compulsory levies. This means that each levy is collected exclusively for the benefit of the fund in question, without being allocated to Interbev\u2019s general budget or that of the State. The levy must therefore be considered as being reserved for funding the aid and allocated for the financing of the aid, on basis of the national rules in force. Secondly, the aid measures are financed exclusively by the sectoral levies. Interbev does not make use of its other sources of funding to supplement the financing of the measures planned. It can therefore be concluded that the amount of the charge has a direct impact on the amount of State aid.\n(171)\nOn the basis of these elements, the Commission concludes that the method of financing the aid, in this case the compulsory voluntary levies, forms an integral part of the aid measure, and should therefore be taken into account by the Commission when examining the aid. As the method of financing the aid could infringe Article 110 TFEU, the Commission cannot state that the scheme was compatible if it discriminates between imported products and national ones (55), or between exported products and national ones (56).\n(172)\nIn this case, the levy was raised on domestic production, as well as on exported meat and animals (in the form of compulsory voluntary levies on meat) and imported meat and animals (in the form of the compulsory voluntary levies collected by the FNE).\n(173)\nThe Commission\u2019s examination relates to several aspects linked to the meat levy and the FNE levy since these levies could have an impact on intra-Community trade.\n2.6.1. The meat levies (Interbev levies)\n2.6.1.1. Imported meat\n(174)\nAs set out under recital 82, the levy on imported meat was not mandatory under French legislation between 1996 and 2004. It therefore falls beyond the scope of this Decision since it does not constitute State aid as such. One of the decisive criteria cited under recital 10 - mandatory force - is not fulfilled. Consequently, and on the basis of the information set out above, the measures financed by the levy raised on imported products do not constitute State aid and, accordingly, do not fall within the scope of this Decision.\n2.6.1.2. Exported products\n(175)\nAs set out in recitals 16 et seq. (57), with effect from 1 January 1996 the levy has been imposed on products exported to other Member States, although a partial refund of the levy was introduced in 2001. In the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice, this levy could result in discrimination in respect of exporters if the measures financed by the levy are not applicable to them and do not offset the expenses borne (58). It must therefore be demonstrated that the allocation of the revenue from this levy has not favoured domestic produce marketed in France to the detriment of domestic produce exported.\n(176)\nThe measures relating specifically to exported animals and products included promotion actions in particular (for example, international trade fairs, professional information and public relations activities, Green Week in Berlin, training on cutting held abroad).\n(177)\nMeasures relating to all animals and products, irrespective of their markets, in France and outside France, included publicity campaigns on high-quality European beef, offal, beef breeds, and a number of research activities on food security, animal welfare, quality management, product characterisation, and the certification and traceability of bovine meat, the results of which were circulated widely in France and abroad.\n(i) Meat and animals exported to other Member States\n(178)\nAccording to the French authorities, measures which benefited products and animals exported to other Member States, exclusively or together with domestic products, were not the only measures financed by the compulsory voluntary levies.\n(179)\nIt must therefore be established on a year-by-year basis and in overall terms whether the products exported to other Member States benefited from the measures undertaken by the inter-branch organisation.\n(180)\nThe table below sets out the breakdown of revenue from the compulsory voluntary levies in euro for the different measures undertaken by Interbev year by year, as well as the percentage of measures intended exclusively for exported meat and animals and the percentage intended for measures including domestic products and animals.\nYear\nMeasures intended for all products\nMeasures intended for products in France only\nMeasures intended for exported products only\nTotal measures per year\nAs a % of all measures financed\n(rounded)\n1996\n5 517 088,95\n13 308 769,70\n2 101 111,35\n20 926 970,00\n36\n1997\n9 244 861,43\n8 723 278,25\n2 104 379,32\n20 072 518,99\n56\n1998\n8 995 703,14\n11 214 605,23\n927 146,63\n21 137 455,00\n46\n1999\n9 780 064,41\n10 308 559,00\n1 058 778,36\n21 447 401,76\n50\n2000\n8 245 970,18\n10 126 453,50\n991 754,32\n19 264 178,00\n47\n2001\n9 447 359,23\n15 115 169,26\n1 720 267,50\n26 282 796,00\n42\n2002\n10 553 240,96\n24 553 282,92\n4 326 569,12\n39 433 093,00\n37\n2003\n12 626 096,22\n21 010 195,68\n3 761 566,70\n37 398 458,60\n43\n2004\n11 288 281,00\n20 527 149,24\n4 045 129,24\n35 860 559,48\n42\n(181)\nThe table indicates that, over the entire period considered, exported products benefited on average from around 44 % of all measures financed by the compulsory voluntary levy. It should be noted that the French authorities have indicated that, for the same period, total revenue from levies raised on exported products accounted for 15 % (59). The French authorities have also indicated that the 15 % figure is an average and have provided the figures for each year showing that the volume of levies raised on exported products was never more than 18 %.\n(ii) Compatibility with Article 110 TFEU\n(182)\nIn view of the consequences of the Court\u2019s ruling in the Nygard (60) case and the fact that the measures financed by the charge constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU, and that the charge is not of a discriminatory nature in contravention of Article 110 TFEU, since it was also applied to exported products and animals which benefited proportionally from the resulting advantages, the Commission considers that the revenue from the charges on exported products intended to finance the measures implemented by Interbev constitute aid-financing compatible with the rules set out in the TFEU and Article 107 in particular and, consequently, that the State aid thus financed is compatible with the Treaty.\n2.6.2. The FNE levy\n2.6.2.1. Imported animals\n(183)\nAccording to the French authorities, until 2003 animals reared outside France but imported into France for slaughter were also subject to the levies collected to the benefit of the FNE.\n(184)\nFollowing doubts expressed by the Commission, the French authorities confirmed that the text of the inter-branch agreement had been amended to exclude levies on animals imported into France. According to the French authorities, these levies apply exclusively to animals reared and slaughtered in France.\n(185)\nThe amendments to the inter-branch agreement have not been submitted to the Commission. The only document provided was the circular of 2 February 2005 (cf. recital 87), which states that the levies to the benefit of the FNE apply only to meat from animals reared and slaughtered in mainland France.\n(186)\nConsequently, between 1 January 1996 and 30 September 2004, the levy on meat was also raised on meat from animals reared abroad but slaughtered in France.\n(187)\nThe French authorities have not been able to demonstrate that the measures financed by these levies benefited farmers operating outside of France. Those who exported their products and were subject to the compulsory voluntary levies did not receive any refund or reduction in spite of the fact that they did not derive full benefit from the measures in question. Research and development and technical assistance measures can only benefit domestic products (meat from bovine animals reared and slaughtered in France) by definition.\n(188)\nThe fact that there were few imports of live animals at the time (61) and that only importers of live animals could declare tonnages of imported animals for deduction from the basis for the calculation of the levy and request a refund has no direct consequence as regards the Commission\u2019s detailed analysis. In addition, any discrimination, however minimal, falls within the scope of Article 110 TFEU.\n(189)\nIn view of the consequences of the Court\u2019s ruling in the Nygard (62) case and the fact that the measures financed by the charge constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU and that the charge is of a discriminatory nature in contravention of Article 110 TFEU, since it was also applied to exported products from other Member States which did not benefit fully from the resulting advantages, the Commission considers that the revenue from the charges on animals imported from other Member States to finance the measures implemented by the FNE constitute aid-financing which is incompatible with the internal market under the Treaty, in particular Article 107, and, consequently, that the State aid thus financed is incompatible with the Treaty.\n2.6.2.2. Animals exported\n(190)\nSince the FNE levy applies to animals reared or slaughtered in France, the Commission can conclude that exported products are not, as such, subject to a levy in respect of the FNE and are therefore outside the scope of this Decision.\n3. UNLAWFULNESS OF THE AID\n(191)\nAs indicated in the decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission emphasises that France did not inform it, in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU, of the decrees extending the scope of the voluntary levies by making them compulsory or of the measures financed therewith before their implementation (cf. recital 2 of this Decision).\n(192)\nArticle 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 clearly defines unlawful aid as new aid put into effect in contravention of Article 108(3) TFEU. The obligation to notify State aid is set out in Article 2 of that Regulation.\n(193)\nWith regard, firstly, to the nature of the contested levies, the Commission notes that they require an official act in order to take full effect. Consequently, the Commission considers that this is a case of parafiscal charges, i.e. public resources.\n(194)\nTo the extent that the compulsory voluntary levies are public resources (as indicated in recitals 106 et seq.) which are an integral part of an aid scheme (recitals 171 et seq.) and that these have been used to finance advantages to the benefit of undertakings in the meat sector, notification of such levies to the Commission is an obligation pursuant to Article 108(3) of the Treaty.\n(195)\nAs indicated in recitals 123 and 124, since the measures implemented by France contain elements of State aid, it constitutes new aid, not notified to the Commission, and therefore unlawful under the Treaty.\n(196)\nThe Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid (63) provides that all unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 must be examined in accordance with the texts in force at the time when the aid was granted.\nV. CONCLUSIONS\n(197)\nIn the light of the above, the Commission considers that there are no objections to the financing of this scheme with compulsory voluntary levies in as far as they are applied to domestic products and exported products and animals (in the present case, the compulsory voluntary levies paid on meat between 1996 and 2004).\n(198)\nTo the extent that levies are also imposed on imported animals (in the present case, the levies on animals to the benefit of FNE between 1996 and 2004), it follows from the considerations set out above that the system of compulsory voluntary levies is incompatible with the internal market on account of the contravention of Article 110 TFEU, since France has not been able to demonstrate that imported products have benefited from the aid to the same extent as domestic products.\n(199)\nIn addition, the aid in question here was not notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU and therefore constitutes illegal aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.\n(200)\nThe Commission regrets that France operated the above aid measures in contravention of Article 108(3) TFEU.\n(201)\nIt should be remembered that, in the case of aid measures implemented without awaiting the Commission\u2019s final decision, given the binding nature of the rules of procedure laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU, which the Court of Justice recognised as having direct effect in several rulings (64), the unlawfulness of the aid concerned cannot be regularised ex post facto (65).\n(202)\nThe Court of Justice recalled that where an aid measure, of which the method of financing is an integral part, has been implemented in breach of the obligation to notify, national courts must in principle order the reimbursement of charges or contributions levied specifically for the purpose of financing that aid. It also noted that it is for the national courts to uphold the rights of the persons concerned in the event of a possible breach by the national authorities of the prohibition on putting aid into effect, referred to in the last sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU and directly applicable. Such breaches cited by interested individuals and ascertained by national courts must result in the courts drawing the necessary consequences, in accordance with national law, with regard to both the validity of the acts giving effect to the aid and the recovery of financial support granted (66).\n(203)\nThe Commission considers appropriate in this case the adoption of a conditional decision in application of the possibility provided for by Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, according to which the Commission may attach to its decision conditions subject to which an aid may be considered compatible with the internal market and may lay down obligations to enable compliance with the decision to be monitored.\n(204)\nIn order to make good the breach of Article 110 TFEU and thus retrospectively remove the discrimination, France must refund that part of the charge imposed on imported products (levies on animals to the benefit of the FNE between 1996 and 2004) in proportion to the benefits of the aid which were not applicable to the products in question. Making good this breach will make the aid concerned compatible with Article 107 TFEU.\n(205)\nThe conditions to be met for the repayment will be laid down by the Commission. France must thus reimburse to the persons who paid the charge that part of the charge imposed on the aforementioned imported products from other Member States between the date when the charge first entered into force and 30 September 2004 in full compliance with the following conditions:\n(a)\nif they can provide evidence that the compulsory voluntary levy was imposed on imported products, the persons who paid the charge can claim the repayment of a proportion of the revenue from the charge intended to fund services exclusively benefiting domestic products within a time limit set in accordance with domestic law and in no case less than six months from the notification of this Decision;\n(b)\nFrance will establish the extent of any discrimination affecting imported products. To that end, France must check, during a reference period, the financial equivalence between the overall amounts levied on domestic products by way of the charge concerned and the advantages from which these products exclusively benefit;\n(c)\nrepayment must be made within a maximum time limit of six months from the submission of the request;\n(d)\nthe amounts repaid must include interest calculated as from the date on which they were levied up until the date of actual repayment. This interest is to be calculated on the basis of the Commission\u2019s reference rate laid down by the method for setting the reference and discount;\n(e)\nthe French authorities must accept any reasonable evidence provided by the payers of the charge of the amounts paid in respect of the charge imposed on products from other Member States;\n(f)\nthe right to repayment cannot be subject to other conditions, particularly that of the charge not having been passed on;\n(g)\nwhere the charge has not yet been paid, the French authorities are to formally waive payment of the proportion of the charge imposed on products imported from other Member States in respect of which it is demonstrated that the amount in question is intended to finance the part of the aid which exclusively benefits domestic products. Any related interest on late payment is also to be waived by the authorities;\n(h)\nwhere the Commission so requests, France undertakes to submit a full report proving the proper implementation of the repayment measure;\n(i)\nif a charge has been imposed in another Member State on the same products which have been subject to the charge in France, the French authorities undertake to reimburse those persons who have paid the charge for that part of it which affected products from that other Member State;\n(j)\nFrance undertakes to make this decision known to all potential payers of the charge,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The State aid for promotion, advertising, technical assistance and research and development unlawfully implemented by France contrary to Article 108(3) TFEU and financed by a parafiscal charge (compulsory voluntary levy on meat and live animals dispatched to other Member States between 1996 and 2004, and on live animals imported between 1996 and 2004) is State aid compatible with the internal market in accordance with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU in respect of the period between the date of implementation of the charge and 30 September 2004, provided that France complies with the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. France shall thus reimburse to the persons who paid the charge that part of the charge imposed on imported products between the date when the charge first entered into force and 30 September 2004 in full compliance with the following conditions:\n(a)\nif they can provide evidence that the compulsory voluntary levy was imposed on imported products, the persons who paid the charge can claim the repayment of a proportion of the revenue from the charge intended to fund services exclusively benefiting domestic products within a time limit set in accordance with domestic law and in no case less than six months from the notification of this Decision;\n(b)\nFrance shall establish the extent of any discrimination affecting imported products. To that end, France must check, during a reference period, the financial equivalence between the amounts levied overall on domestic products by way of the charge concerned and the advantages from which these products exclusively benefit;\n(c)\nrepayment shall be made within a maximum time limit of six months from the submission of the request;\n(d)\nthe amounts repaid shall include interest calculated as from the date on which they were levied up until the date of actual repayment. This interest shall be calculated on the basis of the Commission\u2019s reference rate laid down by the method for setting the reference and discount;\n(e)\nthe French authorities shall accept any reasonable evidence provided by the payers of the charge of the amounts paid in respect of the charge imposed on products from other Member States;\n(f)\nthe right to repayment cannot be subject to other conditions, particularly that of the charge not having been passed on;\n(g)\nwhere the charge has not yet been paid, the French authorities shall formally waive payment of the proportion of the charge imposed on products imported from other Member States in respect of which it is demonstrated that the amount in question is intended to finance the part of the aid which exclusively benefits domestic products. Any related interest on late payment shall also be waived by the authorities;\n(h)\nwhere the Commission so requests, France shall undertake to submit a full report proving the proper implementation of the repayment measure;\n(i)\nif a charge has been imposed in another Member State on the same products which have been subject to the charge in France, the French authorities shall undertake to reimburse those persons who have paid the charge for that part of it which affected products from that other Member State;\n(j)\nFrance undertakes to make this decision known to all potential payers of the charge.\nArticle 2\nFrance shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures that it has taken to comply with it.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2011.", "references": ["72", "30", "83", "7", "5", "60", "4", "92", "86", "39", "77", "44", "54", "42", "50", "99", "87", "32", "79", "68", "27", "49", "69", "47", "80", "82", "38", "41", "19", "16", "No Label", "15", "48", "73", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "48", "73", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 778/2010\nof 2 September 2010\napproving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Mela Val di Non (PDO))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy\u2019s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin \u2018Mela Val di Non\u2019 registered in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1665/2003 (3).\n(2)\nSince the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2010.", "references": ["49", "45", "42", "22", "56", "18", "21", "46", "50", "83", "48", "30", "23", "13", "1", "28", "32", "11", "74", "16", "10", "77", "33", "15", "81", "8", "35", "47", "55", "7", "No Label", "24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "25", "62", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 224/2012\nof 14 March 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 March 2012.", "references": ["39", "88", "21", "97", "64", "75", "81", "55", "4", "78", "92", "46", "76", "90", "10", "8", "51", "14", "17", "24", "40", "25", "87", "41", "52", "80", "31", "72", "69", "99", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2011/412/CFSP\nof 12 July 2011\namending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire (1).\n(2)\nOn 28 April 2011, the United Nations Security Council adopted a Resolution, UNSCR 1980 (2011), which renewed the measures imposed against C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire by UNSCR 1572 (2004), paragraph 5 of UNSCR 1946 (2010) and paragraph 12 of UNSCR 1975 (2011) until 30 April 2012, and which amended the restrictive measures on arms.\n(3)\nIn addition to the exemptions to the arms embargo provided for in UNSCR 1980 (2011), it is appropriate to amend the restrictive measures in order to exempt other equipment included autonomously by the Union.\n(4)\nDecision 2010/656/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nArticle 2 of Decision 2010/656/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\npoint (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related material and technical training and assistance intended solely for the support of the Ivorian process of Security Sector Reform, pursuant to a formal request by the Ivorian Government, as approved in advance by the Sanctions Committee;\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following point is added:\n\u2018(g)\nthe sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment capable of being used for internal repression and which is intended solely for the support of the Ivorian process of Security Sector Reform, as well as the provision of financing, financial assistance or technical assistance and training related to such equipment.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 12 July 2011.", "references": ["4", "81", "79", "17", "98", "8", "46", "76", "22", "89", "45", "56", "20", "97", "83", "1", "0", "36", "15", "51", "87", "35", "63", "70", "49", "69", "50", "95", "10", "42", "No Label", "3", "5", "6", "23", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "6", "23", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 644/2010\nof 20 July 2010\nfixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for import licences lodged from 9 to 16 July 2010 under the tariff quota for maize opened by Regulation (EC) No 969/2006\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 (3) opened an annual import tariff quota of 242 074 tonnes of maize (order number 09.4131).\n(2)\nArticle 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 fixes a quantity of 121 037 tonnes for subperiod 2 from 1 July to 31 December 2010.\n(3)\nBased on the notification made under Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 969/2006, the applications lodged from 9 July 2010 (13:00 Brussels time) to 16 July 2010 (13:00 Brussels time) in accordance with Article 4(1) of that Regulation relate to quantities in excess of those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined and the allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for.\n(4)\nImport licences should no longer be issued under Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 for the current quota period.\n(5)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Each import licence application for maize under the quota referred to in Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 and lodged from 9 July 2010 (13:00 Brussels time) to 16 July 2010 (13:00 Brussels time) shall give rise to the issue of a licence for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 40,231108 %.\n2. The issue of licences for the quantities applied for from 16 July 2010 (13:00 Brussels time) is hereby suspended for the current quota period.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 July 2010.", "references": ["38", "26", "4", "66", "41", "78", "87", "46", "28", "37", "96", "7", "18", "63", "81", "93", "39", "32", "59", "36", "92", "75", "5", "83", "86", "43", "16", "72", "35", "91", "No Label", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 557/2012\nof 26 June 2012\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nImplementing 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.\n(2)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 June 2012.", "references": ["92", "40", "82", "56", "63", "53", "29", "71", "8", "30", "41", "38", "4", "59", "0", "12", "1", "90", "55", "45", "85", "48", "7", "49", "36", "64", "11", "89", "98", "78", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1292/2011\nof 9 December 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 718/2007 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 establishing an instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (1) (\u2018the IPA Regulation\u2019) and in particular Article 3(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 718/2007 of 12 June 2007 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 establishing an instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA) (2) provides for detailed rules for the implementation of the IPA Regulation.\n(2)\nThe provisions of Regulation (EC) No 718/2007 on eligibility of operating costs should be aligned with the framework agreements concluded with international organisations.\n(3)\nIn the specific provisions for the cross-border component, the derogation clause for eligible expenditure as regards operating costs should be aligned to that of the transition assistance and institution building component.\n(4)\nIn the specific provisions for the human resources development and the rural development components, Article 160 and Article 188 of Regulation (EC) No 718/2007 lay down the conditions for paying the pre-financing for the human resources development and the rural development component. In the light of the experience gained in the implementation of these rules, the pre-financing paid by the Commission to the countries benefiting from the human resources development and the rural development component should be increased and these provisions should be aligned with the provisions governing pre-financing for the regional development component.\n(5)\nThe provisions laid down in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the IPA Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 718/2007 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 34(3), point (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\noperating costs, except where otherwise provided for under framework agreements with international organisations;\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 89(3), the following subparagraph is added:\n\u2018Operating costs, including rental costs, exclusively related to the period of co-financing of the operation, may be considered eligible on a case-by-case basis.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 160, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. In addition to the provisions of Article 42, payments for the pre-financing shall amount to 30 % of the European Union contribution for the three most recent years of the programme concerned, and shall be made once the conditions laid down in Article 42(1) are met. Where necessary, with regard to the availability of budgetary commitment, the pre-financing may be made in two instalments.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 160, paragraph 4 is deleted;\n(5)\nin Article 188, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. For the purposes of this component, pre-financing payments may amount to 30 % of the European Union contribution for the three most recent years of the programme concerned. Subject to the availability of budgetary appropriations, pre-financing may be paid in two or more instalments.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 December 2011.", "references": ["75", "72", "42", "45", "68", "27", "19", "14", "88", "98", "80", "81", "92", "3", "84", "96", "95", "11", "89", "56", "94", "41", "20", "49", "83", "67", "36", "64", "32", "5", "No Label", "9", "10", "15", "47"], "gold": ["9", "10", "15", "47"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 27 April 2011\namending Decision 89/471/EEC authorising methods for grading pig carcasses in Germany\n(notified under document C(2011) 2709)\n(Only the German text is authentic)\n(2011/258/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(m), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Decision 89/471/EEC (2), the use of several methods for grading pig carcasses in Germany was authorised.\n(2)\nGermany has stated that the update of the national formula is absolutely necessary in order to take into account the breeding progress during the past 15 years. The last update of the lean meat equation of the grading apparatus and the \u2018Zwei-Punkt-Me\u00dfverfahren\u2019 (ZP) method dates back to 1995.\n(3)\nGermany has requested the Commission to authorise the replacement of the formulas used in the \u2018General Electric Logiq 200pro\u2019, the \u2018Autofom I\u2019 and \u2018Zwei-Punkt-Me\u00dfverfahren\u2019 (ZP) methods of grading pig carcasses as well as to authorise two new methods for grading pig carcasses on its territory and has presented a detailed description of the dissection trial, indicating the principles on which that method is based, the results of its dissection trial and the equations used for assessing the percentage of lean meat in the protocol provided for in Article 23(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/2008 of 10 December 2008 laying down detailed rules on the implementation of the Community scales for the classification of beef, pig and sheep carcasses and the reporting of prices thereof (3).\n(4)\nExamination of that request has revealed that the conditions for authorising those grading methods are fulfilled. Those grading methods should therefore be authorised in Germany.\n(5)\nDecision 89/471/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nIn view of the technical circumstances while introducing new devices and new equations, the methods for grading pig carcasses authorised under this Decision should apply from 4 October 2011.\n(7)\nModifications of the apparatus or grading methods should not be allowed, unless they are explicitly authorised by Commission Decision.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 89/471/EEC is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1a is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1a\nBy way of derogation from Article 1(2) and (3), the use of the following methods is authorised for grading pig carcasses pursuant to point 1 of Section B.IV of Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (4) in Germany:\n-\nthe \u201cAutofom I\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part III of the Annex,\n-\nthe \u201cAutofom III\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part IV of the Annex,\n-\nthe \u201cCSB Image-Meater\u201d apparatus and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part V of the Annex.\n2.\nthe Annex is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall apply from 4 October 2011.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.\nDone at Brussels, 27 April 2011.", "references": ["58", "90", "79", "44", "48", "12", "80", "11", "70", "20", "98", "60", "84", "57", "51", "93", "55", "99", "29", "77", "50", "32", "86", "7", "28", "96", "34", "42", "76", "61", "No Label", "19", "69", "85"], "gold": ["19", "69", "85"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/71/EU\nof 26 July 2011\namending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include creosote as an active substance in Annex I thereto\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes creosote.\n(2)\nPursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, creosote has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 8, wood preservatives, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.\n(3)\nSweden was designated as rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 31 October 2007 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007. It follows from the report that the evaluation only covers Grade B and Grade C creosote as specified in European Standard EN 13991:2003.\n(4)\nA stakeholder consultation was launched on 30 April 2008. The outcome of the consultation was made public and discussed in the 30th meeting of representatives of Members States Competent Authorities for the implementation of Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market.\n(5)\nThe competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 17 December 2010 in an assessment report.\n(6)\nIt appears from the assessment report that wood preservatives containing creosote may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC, when applied on wood in some of the scenarios evaluated. Furthermore, there were strong indications in the abovementioned stakeholder consultation that there are considerable socioeconomic benefits of using creosote in certain applications. Life cycle analyses submitted and published in the context of the consultation have suggested that, in certain cases, no appropriate alternatives to creosote exist, which are less damaging to the environment. It is therefore appropriate to include creosote in Annex I.\n(7)\nHowever, for certain wood use scenarios presented in the assessment report, unacceptable risks for the environment were identified in the risk assessment.\n(8)\nFurthermore, creosote is considered to be a non-threshold carcinogen and is classified as carcinogen category 1B in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (3).\n(9)\nCreosote, which is a mixture of hundreds of compounds, contains mainly polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (\u2018PAHs\u2019). Some of these have been considered by the Committee for Risk Assessment of the European Chemicals Agency as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (\u2018PBT\u2019; anthracene (4)) or very persistent and very bioaccumulative (\u2018vPvB\u2019; fluoranthene, phenanthrene and pyrene (5)) in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex XIII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (6).\n(10)\nPAHs are listed as substances subject to release reduction provisions in Annex III to the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants (\u2018POPs\u2019) and in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC (7).\n(11)\nA guidance document adopted by Decision 2009/4 of the Executive Body to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution lists best available techniques to control emissions of POPs from major stationary sources. Part E of Section V of that guidance document specifically addresses emissions of PAHs associated with the preservation of wood using coal tar derived products containing PAHs, such as creosote. The techniques relate to impregnation, storage, handling and use of the wood, and include using alternatives that minimise reliance on PAH-based products. It also recommends best available techniques to be applied if treated wood is burned.\n(12)\nAccording to the second subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 read in conjunction with Annex III to that Regulation, Member States are required to adopt action plans including measures to promote the development and, where they deem appropriate, require the use of substitute or modified materials, products and processes to prevent the formation and release of PAHs. Pursuant to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004, Member States and the Commission shall, within the assessment and authorisation schemes for existing chemicals and pesticides under the relevant Union legislation, take appropriate measures to control existing chemicals and pesticides which exhibit characteristics of POPs.\n(13)\nDirective 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (8) identifies PAHs as priority hazardous substances, from which pollution of surface waters through discharge, emission or loss must cease or be phased out.\n(14)\nIt is therefore appropriate to limit the inclusion to 5 years only and to make it subject to a comparative risk assessment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 10(5)(i) of Directive 98/8/EC before its inclusion in Annex I is renewed.\n(15)\nFurthermore, biocidal products containing creosote should be authorised only for applications where, all local and other circumstances taken into account, no appropriate alternatives are available. When an application is made for product authorisation or mutual recognition, the Member State receiving the application should therefore ask the applicant for an analysis regarding the technical and economic feasibility of substitution. Based on this analysis and any other information available to it, an authorising Member State should justify their conclusion that there are no appropriate alternatives and report the justification to the Commission at a stage when product authorisations can be expected to have been granted. In this context, to increase transparency, it is appropriate to require Member States to include in the report their information on how the development of alternatives is promoted in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004, either directly or by reference to a published action plan. To further increase transparency, it is appropriate to ensure that this information is made public.\n(16)\nNot all potential uses of wood treated with creosote have been evaluated at the Union level. It is therefore appropriate that Member States assess those uses or exposure scenarios and those risks to compartments and populations that have not been representatively addressed in the Union level risk assessment and, when granting product authorisations, ensure that appropriate measures are taken or specific conditions imposed in order to reduce the identified risks to acceptable levels.\n(17)\nEntry number 31 in Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 regulates the conditions for the use of creosote in wood treatment and for the placing on the market of wood treated with creosote. It is appropriate to require that product authorisations for biocidal products containing creosote are subject to compliance with those restrictions. Through Commission Decisions 1999/832/EC of 26 October 1999 concerning the national provisions notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning the limitations of the marketing and use of creosote (9), 2002/59/EC of 23 January 2002 concerning draft national provisions notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands under Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty on limitations on the marketing and use of creosote-treated wood (10), and 2002/884/EC of 31 October 2002 concerning national provisions on restrictions on the marketing and use of creosote-treated wood notified by the Netherlands under Article 95(4) and (5) of the EC Treaty (11), the Commission has authorised the Netherlands to maintain existing and more stringent national provisions notified under the EC Treaty. By virtue of Article 67(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, and as stated in the Communication from the Commission pursuant to Article 67(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (12), these restrictions may be maintained until 1 June 2013. They include a prohibition of the use of creosote-treated wood for applications involving contact with surface water or groundwater.\n(18)\nIn the light of the findings of the assessment report, it is appropriate to require that risk mitigation measures are applied at product authorisation level to products containing creosote and used as wood preservatives. Due to the carcinogenic properties of creosote, it is appropriate to require that product authorisations for biocidal products containing the substance are subject to the requirement that all possible measures in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work (Sixth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC) (13) be applied to protect workers, including down-stream users, from exposure during treatment and handling of treated wood. In the view of the risks identified for the soil and aquatic compartments, appropriate measures should be taken to protect those compartments. Instructions should therefore be provided to indicate that freshly treated timber must be stored after treatment under shelter or on impermeable hard standing, or both, and that any losses must be collected for reuse or disposal.\n(19)\nIt is important that the provisions of this Directive be applied simultaneously in all the Member States in order to ensure equal treatment of biocidal products on the market containing the active substance creosote and also to facilitate the proper operation of the biocidal products market in general.\n(20)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed and to ensure that applicants who have prepared dossiers can benefit fully from the 10-year period of data protection, which, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC, starts from the date of inclusion.\n(21)\nAfter inclusion, Member States should be allowed a reasonable period to implement Article 16(3) of Directive 98/8/EC.\n(22)\nDirective 98/8/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(23)\nThe Committee established by Article 28(1) of Directive 98/8/EC has not delivered an opinion on the measures provided for in this Directive and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to the measures 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 (14), 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nTransposition\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 April 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 May 2013.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2011.", "references": ["64", "97", "72", "52", "2", "90", "46", "54", "17", "89", "55", "81", "3", "48", "84", "70", "35", "29", "75", "22", "26", "67", "44", "92", "71", "15", "94", "39", "20", "76", "No Label", "25", "38", "43", "58", "61", "65", "83", "88"], "gold": ["25", "38", "43", "58", "61", "65", "83", "88"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 26 April 2010\nappointing one Dutch alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/241/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Dutch Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Harry DIJKSMA,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as an alternate member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\nMr M.F.A. (Ren\u00e9) van DIESSEN, Gedeputeerde (Deputy Queen\u2019s Commissioner) of the Province of Flevoland,\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 26 April 2010.", "references": ["57", "67", "79", "46", "3", "62", "27", "0", "53", "90", "81", "92", "58", "55", "52", "21", "78", "50", "22", "16", "42", "31", "10", "40", "26", "18", "95", "38", "34", "15", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 24 April 2012\nrecognising Serbia as being free from Clavibacter michiganensis ssp. sepedonicus (Spieckerman and Kotthoff) Davis et al.\n(notified under document C(2012) 2524)\n(2012/219/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular point (12) of Part A of Annex III thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPoint (12) of Part A of Annex III to Directive 2000/29/EC provides for a general prohibition concerning the introduction into the Union of tubers of species of Solanum L. and their hybrids, other than those specified in points (10) and (11) of that Part A, including tubers of Solanum tuberosum L., originating in third countries. That prohibition is not to apply to European third countries recognised as being free from Clavibacter michiganensis ssp. sepedonicus (Spieckerman and Kotthoff) Davis et al. (\u2018the organism\u2019).\n(2)\nIt appears from official reports related to survey campaigns in 2009, 2010 and 2011 supplied by Serbia and from information collected during a mission carried out in that country by the Food and Veterinary Office in November and December 2009, that the organism does not occur in Serbia and that that country has applied control, inspection and testing procedures for the organism to imports and domestic production of tubers of Solanum tuberosum L.\n(3)\nIt is therefore appropriate to recognise Serbia as being free from the organism.\n(4)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to any subsequent findings that may show that the organism is present in Serbia.\n(5)\nThe Commission will request Serbia to supply, on a yearly basis, the information necessary to verify that Serbia continues to be free from the organism.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nRecognition\nSerbia is recognised as being free from Clavibacter michiganensis ssp. sepedonicus (Spieckerman and Kotthoff) Davis et al.\nArticle 2\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 April 2012.", "references": ["80", "21", "62", "44", "40", "16", "26", "55", "35", "31", "19", "20", "67", "17", "18", "41", "0", "10", "49", "27", "45", "13", "3", "50", "70", "33", "77", "98", "82", "74", "No Label", "22", "23", "61", "66", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["22", "23", "61", "66", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 July 2010\nestablishing a common format for the second report of Member States on the implementation of Directive 2004/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds\n(notified under document C(2010) 4955)\n(2010/693/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2004/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/42/EC, the Member States should ensure that the products set out in Annex I to that Directive are placed on the market within their territory after the deadlines specified in Annex II to that Directive only if the volatile organic compound (hereinafter, \u2018VOC\u2019) content does not exceed the relevant limit values also laid down in Annex II to that Directive and if the VOC content is correctly labelled pursuant to Article 4 of that Directive.\n(2)\nAccording to Article 7 of Directive 2004/42/EC, Member States should report, on the basis of a common format developed by the European Commission, the results of monitoring programmes established pursuant to Article 6 of that Directive and the categories and quantities of products licensed.\n(3)\nThe format for the first report covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2007 was established by Commission Decision 2007/205/EC (2). A common format for a second report should be established to allow Member States to fulfil their obligation to submit a report covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2010.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/42/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nMember States shall use the format set out in the Annex to this Decision for the purposes of preparing the report referred to in Article 7 of Directive 2004/42/EC and covering the period from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2010.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2010.", "references": ["50", "80", "76", "46", "27", "59", "49", "10", "81", "26", "13", "4", "62", "56", "45", "84", "33", "40", "90", "92", "22", "72", "47", "53", "0", "73", "79", "51", "93", "61", "No Label", "8", "20", "39", "58", "60", "83"], "gold": ["8", "20", "39", "58", "60", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 392/2011\nof 19 April 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of April 2011 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for poultrymeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 (3) opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products originating in Brazil, Thailand and other third countries.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged in respect of Groups Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 during the first seven days of April 2011 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2011 and in respect of Group No 3 for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2011 in respect of Groups Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 and for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 in respect of Group No 3 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2011.", "references": ["85", "51", "42", "73", "76", "75", "99", "49", "23", "97", "0", "80", "31", "66", "79", "93", "5", "71", "86", "14", "78", "87", "91", "9", "6", "22", "28", "95", "59", "18", "No Label", "21", "61", "69"], "gold": ["21", "61", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 21 January 2011\namending Decision 2010/468/EU providing for the temporary marketing of varieties of Avena strigosa Schreb. not included in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species or in the national catalogues of varieties of the Member States\n(notified under document C(2011) 156)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/43/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 66/402/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of cereal seed (1), and in particular Article 17(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2010/468/EU (2) authorises, until 31 December 2010, the marketing in the Union of seed of varieties of Avena strigosa Schreb. (hereinafter \u2018A. strigosa\u2019) not included in the common catalogues of varieties of agricultural plant species or in the national catalogues of varieties of the Member States.\n(2)\nThe temporary difficulties in the general supply of A. strigosa which were the reason for the adoption of Decision 2010/468/EU, continue. It is therefore necessary to extend the period of application of the authorisation provided for in that Decision.\n(3)\nIt appears from the information provided to the Commission by the Member States that, for 2011, an additional total quantity of 5 130 tonnes is necessary to resolve these supply difficulties, as Belgium has indicated to the Commission that it needs for that period a quantity of 300 tonnes, France a quantity of 3 700 tonnes, Germany a quantity of 300 tonnes, Italy a quantity of 280 tonnes, Spain a quantity of 300 tonnes and Portugal a quantity of 250 tonnes.\n(4)\nDecision 2010/468/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/468/EU is amended as follows:\n1.\nArticle 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the words \u201831 December 2010\u2019 are replaced by \u201831 December 2011\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. The total quantity of seed authorised for marketing in the Union pursuant to this Decision shall not exceed 4 970 tonnes in 2010. The total quantity of seed authorised for marketing in the Union pursuant to this Decision shall not exceed 5 130 tonnes in 2011.\u2019;\n2.\nin the second paragraph of Article 3 the words \u201831 December 2010\u2019 are replaced by \u201831 December 2011\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 January 2011.", "references": ["4", "45", "41", "35", "54", "23", "42", "61", "51", "78", "3", "5", "64", "22", "44", "99", "59", "77", "13", "60", "34", "63", "16", "98", "91", "49", "90", "74", "29", "19", "No Label", "25", "39", "65", "66", "68"], "gold": ["25", "39", "65", "66", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 418/2011\nof 28 April 2011\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 385/2011 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 April 2011.", "references": ["74", "76", "93", "98", "69", "29", "75", "12", "18", "13", "52", "44", "61", "54", "4", "43", "87", "56", "31", "15", "20", "0", "80", "89", "63", "59", "64", "6", "9", "5", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "DECISION No 1104/2011/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 25 October 2011\non the rules for access to the public regulated service provided by the global navigation satellite system established under the Galileo programme\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 172 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on the further implementation of the European satellite navigation programmes (EGNOS and Galileo) (3) provides in the Annex thereto that the specific objectives of the Galileo programme are to ensure that the signals emitted by the system established under that programme can be used in particular to offer a public regulated service (\u2027PRS\u2027) restricted to government-authorised users, for sensitive applications which require effective access control and a high level of service continuity.\n(2)\nWhile relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 also apply to the services, including the PRS, listed in the Annex thereto, considering the inter-linkage between the system established under the Galileo programme and the PRS from a legal, technical, operational, financial and ownership perspective, it is appropriate to reproduce the relevant rules on the application of security regulations for the purpose of this Decision.\n(3)\nThe European Parliament and the Council have recalled on several occasions that the system established under the Galileo programme is a civilian system under civilian control, that is, it was created in accordance with civilian standards based on civilian requirements and under the control of the Union institutions.\n(4)\nThe Galileo programme is of strategic importance for the independence of the Union in terms of satellite navigation, positioning and timing services and offers an important contribution to the implementation of the \u2027Europe 2020\u2027 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.\n(5)\nOf the various services offered by European satellite navigation systems, the PRS is both the most secure and the most sensitive and is therefore suitable for services where robustness and complete reliability must be ensured. It must ensure service continuity for its participants, even in the most serious crisis situations. The consequences of infringing the security rules when using this service are not restricted to the user concerned, but could potentially extend to other users. Use and management of the PRS is therefore the joint responsibility of Member States in order to protect the security of the Union and their own security. Consequently, access to the PRS must be strictly limited to certain categories of user which are subject to continuous monitoring.\n(6)\nIt is therefore necessary to define the rules for access to the PRS and the rules for managing it, in particular by specifying the general principles relating to access, the functions of the various management and supervisory bodies, the conditions relating to receiver manufacturing and security, and the export monitoring system.\n(7)\nWith regard to the general principles of access to the PRS, given the actual purpose of the service and its characteristics, its use must be strictly limited, with Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service (\u2027EEAS\u2027) being granted discretionary, unlimited and uninterrupted access worldwide. Furthermore, each Member State must be in a position to take its own sovereign decision on which PRS users to authorise and which uses may be made of the PRS, including uses relating to security, in accordance with the common minimum standards.\n(8)\nIn order to promote the use of European technology worldwide, it should be possible for certain third countries and international organisations to become PRS participants through separate agreements concluded with them. For secure government satellite radio-navigation applications, the terms and conditions under which third countries and international organisations may use the PRS should be laid down in international agreements, it being understood that compliance with security requirements should always be compulsory. In the context of such agreements, it should be possible to allow the manufacturing of PRS receivers under specific conditions and requirements, provided that these are of a level that is at least equivalent to the conditions and requirements applying to Member States. However, such agreements should not include particularly security-sensitive matters such as the manufacturing of security modules.\n(9)\nAgreements with third countries or international organisations should be negotiated taking full account of the importance of ensuring respect for democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as freedom of expression and information, human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.\n(10)\nThe security regulations of the European Space Agency should offer a degree of protection at least equivalent to that provided by the rules on security set out in the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom (4) and by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (5).\n(11)\nThe Union and the Member States must do their utmost to ensure that both the system established under the Galileo programme and PRS technology and equipment are safe and secure, to prevent signals emitted for the PRS from being used by non-authorised natural or legal persons, and to prevent any hostile use of the PRS against them.\n(12)\nIt is important in this connection that Member States determine the system of penalties applicable in the event of non-compliance with the obligations stemming from this Decision, and that they ensure that those penalties are applied. The penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\n(13)\nIn the case of management and supervisory bodies, the arrangement whereby PRS participants designate a \u2027competent PRS authority\u2027 responsible for managing and supervising users would appear to be the best way of effectively managing PRS use, by facilitating relations between the various stakeholders responsible for security and ensuring permanent supervision of users, in particular national users, in compliance with the common minimum standards. However, there should be flexibility in order to allow Member States to organise the responsibilities efficiently.\n(14)\nIn the implementation of this Decision, any processing of personal data should be carried out in accordance with Union law, as set out, in particular, in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (6) and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (7).\n(15)\nFurthermore, one of the tasks of the Galileo Security Centre (the \u2027Galileo Security Monitoring Centre\u2027 or the \u2027GSMC\u2027) referred to in Article 16(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 should be to provide an operational interface between the various stakeholders responsible for the security of the PRS.\n(16)\nThe Council and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy should play a role in managing the PRS, through the application of Council Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP of 12 July 2004 on aspects of the operation of the European satellite radio-navigation system affecting the security of the European Union (8). The Council should approve international agreements authorising a third country or an international organisation to use the PRS.\n(17)\nWith regard to receiver manufacturing and security, security requirements make it necessary for this task to be entrusted only to a Member State which has designated a competent PRS authority or to undertakings established on the territory of a Member State which has designated a competent PRS authority. Furthermore, the receiver manufacturer must have been duly authorised by the Security Accreditation Board for European GNSS systems established by Regulation (EU) No 912/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9) (the \u2027Security Accreditation Board\u2027) and must comply with its decisions. It is the responsibility of the competent PRS authorities to continuously monitor compliance both with that authorisation requirement and those decisions and with specific technical requirements stemming from the common minimum standards.\n(18)\nA Member State which has not designated a competent PRS authority should in any event designate a point of contact for the management of any detected harmful electromagnetic interference affecting the PRS. That point of contact should be a natural or legal person that has the role of reporting point, or an address, which the Commission can contact in the event of potentially harmful electromagnetic interference in order to remedy such interference.\n(19)\nWith regard to export restrictions, exports outside the Union of equipment or technology and software relating to PRS use and relating to the development of and manufacturing for the PRS, regardless of whether that equipment, software or technology is listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (10), must be restricted to those third countries which are duly authorised to access the PRS under an international agreement with the Union. A third country on whose territory a reference station housing PRS equipment and forming part of the system established under the Galileo programme is installed is not to be considered to be a PRS participant merely by virtue of that fact.\n(20)\nThe power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the common minimum standards in the areas set out in the Annex and, if necessary, to update and amend it in order to take into account the developments in the Galileo programme. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n(21)\nIn the light of their potential impact on the security of the system established under the Galileo programme, the Union and its Member States, both individually and collectively, it is essential that common rules concerning access to the PRS and manufacturing PRS receivers and security modules be applied uniformly in each Member State. It is therefore necessary that the Commission be empowered to adopt detailed requirements, guidelines and other measures in order to give effect to the common minimum standards. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Decision, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (11).\n(22)\nThe audits and inspections to be carried out by the Commission with the assistance of the Member States should, as appropriate, be carried out in a manner similar to that provided for in Part VII of Annex III to Decision 2011/292/EU.\n(23)\nRules for access to the PRS offered by the system established under the Galileo programme are a prerequisite for the implementation of the PRS. The Commission should analyse whether a charging policy for the PRS should be put in place, including with regard to third countries and international organisations, and report to the European Parliament and the Council on the outcome of that analysis.\n(24)\nSince the objective of this Decision - namely, to lay down the rules under which the Member States, the Council, the Commission, the EEAS, Union agencies, third countries and international organisations may access the PRS - cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale of the proposed action, be better achieved at the level of the Union, 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 Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.\n(25)\nAs soon as the PRS is declared operational, a reporting and review mechanism should be set in place,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision lays down the rules under which the Member States, the Council, the Commission, the EEAS, Union agencies, third countries and international organisations may access the public regulated service (PRS) provided by the global navigation satellite system established under the Galileo programme.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n(a)\n\u2027PRS participants\u2027 means the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the EEAS, as well as Union agencies, third countries and international organisations, in so far as such agencies, third countries and organisations have been duly authorised;\n(b)\n\u2027PRS users\u2027 means natural or legal persons duly authorised by a PRS participant to own or use a PRS receiver.\nArticle 3\nGeneral principles concerning PRS access\n1. The Member States, the Council, the Commission and the EEAS shall have the right to unlimited and uninterrupted access to the PRS worldwide.\n2. It shall be for each individual Member State, the Council, the Commission and the EEAS to decide whether to use the PRS within their respective competences.\n3. Each Member State which uses the PRS shall decide independently which categories of natural persons residing on its territory or performing official duties abroad on behalf of that Member State and legal persons established on its territory are authorised to be PRS users, as well as the uses to which the PRS may be put, in accordance with Article 8 and point 1(i) and (ii) of the Annex. Such uses may include security-related uses.\nThe Council, the Commission and the EEAS shall decide which categories of their agents are authorised to be PRS users, in accordance with Article 8 and point 1(i) and (ii) of the Annex.\n4. Union agencies may become PRS participants only in so far as necessary to fulfil their tasks and in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in an administrative agreement concluded between the Commission and the agency concerned.\n5. Third countries or international organisations may become PRS participants only where, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, they enter into both of the following agreements between the Union and the third country or international organisation concerned:\n(a)\na security of information agreement defining the framework for exchanging and protecting classified information and providing a degree of protection at least equivalent to that of the Member States;\n(b)\nan agreement laying down the terms and conditions of the detailed rules for access to the PRS by the third country or international organisation; such an agreement could include the manufacturing, under specific conditions, of PRS receivers, to the exclusion of security modules.\nArticle 4\nApplication of security regulations\n1. Each Member State shall ensure that its national security regulations offer a degree of protection of classified information at least equivalent to that provided by the rules on security as set out in the Annex to Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom and by Decision 2011/292/EU and that those national security regulations apply to its PRS users and to all natural persons resident on its territory and all legal persons established on its territory which handle EU classified information relating to the PRS.\n2. Member States shall inform the Commission without delay of the adoption of national security regulations as referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. If it emerges that EU classified information relating to the PRS has been disclosed to any person not authorised to receive it, the Commission shall, in full consultation with the Member State concerned:\n(a)\ninform the originator of the classified PRS data;\n(b)\nassess the potential damage caused to the interests of the Union or of the Member States;\n(c)\nnotify the appropriate authorities of the results of that assessment accompanied by a recommendation to remedy the situation, in which case the appropriate authorities shall inform the Commission without delay of the action they intend to take or have already taken, including action aimed at preventing recurrence, as well as of the results of such action; and\n(d)\ninform the European Parliament and the Council, as appropriate, of those results.\nArticle 5\nCompetent PRS authority\n1. A competent PRS authority shall be designated by:\n(a)\neach Member State which uses the PRS and each Member State on whose territory any of the bodies referred to in Article 7(1) are established; in such cases, the competent PRS authority shall be established on the territory of the Member State concerned, which shall notify the designation to the Commission without delay;\n(b)\nthe Council, the Commission and the EEAS, if they use the PRS. In such a case, the European GNSS Agency established by Regulation (EU) No 912/2010 (the \u2027European GNSS Agency\u2027) may be designated as a competent PRS authority in accordance with appropriate arrangements;\n(c)\nUnion agencies and international organisations, in accordance with the provisions of the agreements referred to in Article 3(4) and (5); in such cases, the European GNSS Agency may be designated as a competent PRS authority;\n(d)\nthird countries, in accordance with the provisions of the agreements referred to in Article 3(5).\n2. The costs of the functioning of a competent PRS authority shall be borne by the PRS participants who have designated it.\n3. A Member State which has not designated a competent PRS authority in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 1 shall in any event designate a point of contact for assisting as necessary in the reporting of detected potentially harmful electromagnetic interference affecting the PRS. The Member State concerned shall notify such a designation to the Commission without delay.\n4. A competent PRS authority shall ensure that the use of the PRS is in compliance with Article 8 and point 1 of the Annex and that:\n(a)\nPRS users are grouped for the management of the PRS with the GSMC;\n(b)\nthe PRS access rights for each group or user are determined and managed;\n(c)\nthe PRS keys and other related classified information are obtained from the GSMC;\n(d)\nthe PRS keys and other related classified information are distributed to the users;\n(e)\nthe security of the receivers and associated classified technology and information are managed and the risks assessed;\n(f)\na point of contact is established for assisting as necessary in the reporting of detected potentially harmful electromagnetic interference affecting the PRS.\n5. The competent PRS authority of a Member State shall ensure that a body established on the territory of that Member State may only develop or manufacture PRS receivers or security modules if such a body:\n(a)\nhas been duly authorised by the Security Accreditation Board in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) No 912/2010; and\n(b)\ncomplies both with the decisions of the Security Accreditation Board and with Article 8 and point 2 of the Annex regarding the development and manufacture of PRS receivers or security modules, in so far as these relate to its activity.\nAny equipment-manufacture authorisation provided for in this paragraph shall be reviewed at least every five years.\n6. In the case of development or manufacturing referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article, or in the case of export outside the Union, the competent PRS authority of the Member State concerned shall act as an interface to the entities competent for export restrictions of relevant equipment, technology and software regarding the use and development of, and manufacturing for, the PRS, in order to ensure that the provisions of Article 9 are applied.\n7. A competent PRS authority shall be connected to the GSMC in accordance with Article 8 and point 4 of the Annex.\n8. Paragraphs 4 and 7 shall be without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to delegate certain specific tasks of their respective competent PRS authority, by mutual consent, to another Member State, excluding any tasks related to the exercise of their sovereignty over their respective territories. The tasks referred to in paragraphs 4 and 7, as well as tasks under paragraph 5, may be carried out jointly by Member States. The Member States concerned shall notify such measures to the Commission without delay.\n9. A competent PRS authority may request the technical assistance of the European GNSS Agency in order to perform its tasks, subject to specific arrangements. The Member States concerned shall notify such arrangements to the Commission without delay.\n10. Every three years the competent PRS authorities shall report to the Commission and to the European GNSS Agency on compliance with the common minimum standards.\n11. Every three years the Commission shall, with the assistance of the European GNSS Agency, report to the European Parliament and the Council on the compliance by the competent PRS authorities with the common minimum standards, as well as in any cases of serious violation of those standards.\n12. Where a competent PRS authority does not comply with the common minimum standards set out in Article 8, the Commission may, taking due account of the subsidiarity principle and in consultation with the Member State concerned and, if necessary, after obtaining further specific information, issue a recommendation. Within three months of the recommendation being issued, the competent PRS authority concerned shall either comply with the recommendation of the Commission or request or propose changes with a view to ensuring compliance with the common minimum standards and implement them in agreement with the Commission.\nIf, once that three-month period has expired, the competent PRS authority concerned still does not ensure compliance with the common minimum standards, the Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council and propose appropriate measures to be taken.\nArticle 6\nRole of the GSMC\nThe GSMC shall provide the operational interface between the competent PRS authorities, the Council and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy acting under Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP and the control centres. It shall inform the Commission of any event that may affect the smooth running of the PRS.\nArticle 7\nManufacture and security of receivers and security modules\n1. A Member State may, subject to the requirements set out in Article 5(5), assign the task of manufacturing PRS receivers or the associated security modules to bodies established on its territory or on the territory of another Member State. The Council, the Commission or the EEAS may assign the task of manufacturing PRS receivers or the associated security modules for their own use to bodies established on the territory of a Member State.\n2. The Security Accreditation Board may at any time revoke the authorisation it has granted to a body referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article to manufacture PRS receivers or the associated security modules if the measures provided for in point (b) of Article 5(5) have not been complied with.\nArticle 8\nCommon minimum standards\n1. The common minimum standards to be complied with by the competent PRS authorities referred to in Article 5 shall cover the areas set out in the Annex.\n2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 11 concerning the adoption of the common minimum standards for the areas set out in the Annex and, if necessary, amendments updating the Annex to take account of developments in the Galileo programme, in particular with regard to technology and changes in security needs.\n3. On the basis of the common minimum standards referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, the Commission may adopt the necessary technical requirements, guidelines and other measures. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 12(2).\n4. The Commission shall ensure that the necessary steps are taken to comply with the measures referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 and that requirements relating to the security of the PRS and its users and related technology are met, taking full account of expert advice.\n5. In order to assist compliance with this Article, the Commission shall facilitate a meeting of all competent PRS authorities at least once a year.\n6. The Commission shall, with the assistance of the Member States and the European GNSS Agency, ensure that the competent PRS authorities comply with the common minimum standards, in particular by carrying out audits or inspections.\nArticle 9\nExport restrictions\nThe export outside the Union of equipment, technology and software regarding the use and development of, and manufacturing for, the PRS shall not be authorised otherwise than in accordance with Article 8 and point 3 of the Annex and pursuant to the agreements referred to in Article 3(5) or under agreements regarding the detailed rules for hosting and operating reference stations.\nArticle 10\nApplication of Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP\nThis Decision shall be applied without prejudice to measures decided on pursuant to Joint Action 2004/552/CFSP.\nArticle 11\nExercise of delegation\n1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.\n2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 8(2) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from 5 November 2011. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period.\n3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 8(2) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.\n4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 8(2) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.\nArticle 12\nCommittee procedure\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee established by Regulation (EC) No 683/2008. That Committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply. Where the committee delivers no opinion, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act and the third subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 13\nReview and report\nAt the latest two years after the PRS has been declared operational, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the adequate functioning and appropriateness of the rules established for access to the PRS and, if necessary, propose amendments to this Decision accordingly.\nArticle 14\nSpecific rules for the implementation of the Galileo programme\nNotwithstanding the other provisions of this Decision, in order to ensure that the system established under the Galileo programme functions smoothly, access to PRS technology and the ownership or use of PRS receivers shall be authorised, subject to compliance with the principles laid down in Article 8 and the Annex, as regards the following:\n(a)\nthe Commission, when acting as manager of the Galileo programme;\n(b)\noperators of the system established under the Galileo programme, strictly for the purposes of complying with their remit, as laid down in a specific arrangement with the Commission;\n(c)\nthe European GNSS Agency, in order to enable it to perform the tasks entrusted to it, as laid down in a specific arrangement with the Commission;\n(d)\nthe European Space Agency, strictly for the purposes of research, development and infrastructure roll-out, as laid down in a specific arrangement with the Commission.\nArticle 15\nPenalties\nMember States shall determine what penalties are applicable when national provisions enacted pursuant to this Decision are infringed. The penalties shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\nArticle 16\nEntry into force and application\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n2. Member States shall apply Article 5 at the latest on 6 November 2013.\nArticle 17\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 25 October 2011.", "references": ["99", "89", "56", "11", "75", "35", "5", "67", "82", "1", "85", "42", "78", "81", "32", "39", "70", "21", "61", "46", "41", "83", "2", "50", "16", "48", "79", "13", "20", "57", "No Label", "9", "24", "40", "54"], "gold": ["9", "24", "40", "54"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 975/2011\nof 30 September 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nImplementing 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 September 2011.", "references": ["38", "47", "30", "76", "82", "66", "1", "77", "39", "8", "62", "73", "58", "56", "9", "93", "3", "71", "45", "63", "17", "57", "15", "79", "20", "31", "78", "84", "0", "74", "No Label", "22", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["22", "35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1146/2010\nof 3 December 2010\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 December 2010.", "references": ["30", "95", "25", "60", "74", "45", "93", "82", "18", "58", "37", "99", "94", "78", "53", "86", "8", "2", "66", "4", "46", "17", "35", "5", "7", "31", "54", "63", "50", "52", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 389/2010\nof 6 May 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 2104/2004, as regards the management of fishing fleets in certain French outermost regions\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 639/2004 of 30 March 2004 on the management of fishing fleets registered in the Community outermost regions (1), and in particular Articles 1(2) and 4(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2104/2004 (2) lays down detailed implementing rules for Council Regulation (EC) No 639/2004 on the management of fishing fleets registered in the Community outermost regions.\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1274/2007 (3) reviewed the reference levels for the fleets in Outermost Regions set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2104/2004, following the statement made jointly by the Council and the Commission during the Fisheries Council of 27 July 2006 (4).\n(3)\nIn the case of certain fleet segments of the French outermost regions, Regulation (EC) No 1274/2007 sought the regularisation of an important number of vessels which carried out fishing activities before 31 December 2006 and were active without having been entered in the EU Fleet Register. These regularisations were considered as an extension of the development plans that had been presented for the outermost regions concerned.\n(4)\nA more recent and comprehensive inventory of the small-scale fleets operating in the most remote areas of the French outermost regions of Guyana and Martinique made by the French authorities has shown that the number of vessels requiring regularisation was underestimated at the time of the above-mentioned review of the reference levels. France has requested that a new regularisation be done for the unaccounted vessels as part of the development plans presented in 2007 for Guyana and Martinique.\n(5)\nThe fleet segments concerned by the request for increase in reference level target their activities on coastal fish resources which, according to the most recent scientific information, do not show conservation concerns.\n(6)\nIn order to contribute to the sustainable development of the fisheries sector in outermost regions, it is therefore appropriate to consider the need for regularisation of the concerned vessels in the framework of the development plans concerned and to increase the corresponding reference levels in order to allow the registration of these vessels in the EU Fleet Register.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 2104/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2104/2004 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 6 May 2010.", "references": ["8", "69", "71", "9", "43", "99", "77", "90", "26", "21", "61", "15", "18", "42", "85", "7", "32", "1", "24", "23", "38", "82", "11", "28", "47", "52", "30", "39", "50", "87", "No Label", "17", "67", "91", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["17", "67", "91", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2011/9/EU\nof 1 February 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include dodine as active substance and amending Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included dodine.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of dodine.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Portugal, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nPortugal evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 14 August 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on dodine to the Commission on 28 May 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 23 November 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for dodine.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing dodine may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include dodine in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicant submit further information to confirm the long-term risk assessment for birds and mammals and the risk assessment in natural surface water systems where major metabolites have potentially formed.\n(8)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(9)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing dodine to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(10)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(11)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(12)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of dodine and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning dodine in the Annex to that Decision.\n(13)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning dodine in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing dodine as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to dodine are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing dodine as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account Part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning dodine. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing dodine as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing dodine as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 February 2011.", "references": ["33", "27", "3", "10", "55", "68", "60", "7", "73", "5", "69", "12", "93", "25", "46", "56", "96", "78", "47", "63", "79", "61", "40", "13", "86", "19", "97", "35", "77", "64", "No Label", "20", "38", "48", "65", "66"], "gold": ["20", "38", "48", "65", "66"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1094/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\nestablishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/79/EC\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe financial crisis in 2007 and 2008 exposed important shortcomings in financial supervision, both in particular cases and in relation to the financial system as a whole. Nationally based supervisory models have lagged behind financial globalisation and the integrated and interconnected reality of European financial markets, in which many financial institutions operate across borders. The crisis exposed shortcomings in the areas of cooperation, coordination, consistent application of Union law and trust between national supervisors.\n(2)\nBefore and during the financial crisis, the European Parliament has called for a move towards more integrated European supervision in order to ensure a true level playing field for all actors at the level of the Union and to reflect the increasing integration of financial markets in the Union (in its resolutions of 13 April 2000 on the Commission communication on implementing the framework for financial markets: Action Plan (4), of 21 November 2002 on prudential supervision rules in the European Union (5), of 11 July 2007 on financial services policy (2005 to 2010) - White Paper (6), of 23 September 2008 with recommendations to the Commission on hedge funds and private equity (7) and of 9 October 2008 with recommendations to the Commission on Lamfalussy follow-up: future structure of supervision (8), and in its positions of 22 April 2009 on the amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (9) and of 23 April 2009 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Credit Rating Agencies (10)).\n(3)\nIn November 2008, the Commission mandated a High-Level Group chaired by Jacques de Larosi\u00e8re to make recommendations on how to strengthen European supervisory arrangements with a view to better protecting the citizen and rebuilding trust in the financial system. In its final report presented on 25 February 2009 (the \u2018de Larosi\u00e8re Report\u2019), the High-Level Group recommended that the supervisory framework be strengthened to reduce the risk and severity of future financial crises. It recommended reforms to the structure of supervision of the financial sector in the Union. The group also concluded that a European System of Financial Supervisors should be created, comprising three European Supervisory Authorities, one for the banking sector, one for the securities sector and one for the insurance and occupational pensions sector, and recommended the creation of a European Systemic Risk Council. The report represented the reforms the experts considered were needed and on which work had to begin immediately.\n(4)\nIn its Communication of 4 March 2009 entitled \u2018Driving European Recovery\u2019, the Commission proposed to put forward draft legislation creating a European system of financial supervision and a European systemic risk board. In its Communication of 27 May 2009 entitled \u2018European Financial Supervision\u2019, it provided more detail about the possible architecture of such a new supervisory framework reflecting the main thrust of the de Larosi\u00e8re Report.\n(5)\nThe European Council, in its conclusions of 19 June 2009, confirmed that a European System of Financial Supervisors, comprising three new European Supervisory Authorities, should be established. The system should be aimed at upgrading the quality and consistency of national supervision, strengthening oversight of cross-border groups and establishing a European single rule book applicable to all financial institutions in the internal market. It emphasised that the European Supervisory Authorities should also have supervisory powers in relation to credit rating agencies and invited the Commission to prepare concrete proposals on how the European System of Financial Supervisors could play a strong role in crisis situations, while stressing that decisions taken by the European Supervisory Authorities should not impinge on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States.\n(6)\nThe financial and economic crisis has created real and serious risks to the stability of the financial system and the functioning of the internal market. Restoring and maintaining a stable and reliable financial system is an absolute prerequisite to preserving trust and coherence in the internal market, and thereby to preserve and improve the conditions for the establishment of a fully integrated and functioning internal market in the field of financial services. Moreover, deeper and more integrated financial markets offer better opportunities for financing and risk diversification, and thus help to improve the capacity of the economies to absorb shocks.\n(7)\nThe Union has reached the limits of what can be done with the present status of the Committees of European Supervisors. The Union cannot remain in a situation where there is no mechanism to ensure that national supervisors arrive at the best possible supervisory decisions for cross-border financial institutions; where there is insufficient cooperation and information exchange between national supervisors; where joint action by national authorities requires complicated arrangements to take account of the patchwork of regulatory and supervisory requirements; where national solutions are most often the only feasible option in responding to problems at the level of the Union; and where different interpretations of the same legal text exist. The European System of Financial Supervision (hereinafter the ESFS\u2019) should be designed to overcome those deficiencies and provide a system that is in line with the objective of a stable and single Union financial market for financial services, linking national supervisors within a strong Union network.\n(8)\nThe ESFS should be an integrated network of national and Union supervisory authorities, leaving day-to-day supervision to the national level. Greater harmonisation and the coherent application of rules for financial institutions and markets across the Union should also be achieved. In addition to the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) (hereinafter the Authority\u2019), a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) as well as a Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (hereinafter the Joint Committee\u2019) should be established. A European Systemic Risk Board (hereinafter the ESRB\u2019) should form part of the ESFS for the purposes of the tasks as specified in this Regulation and in Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11).\n(9)\nThe European Supervisory Authorities (hereinafter collectively referred to as the \u2018ESAs\u2019) should replace the Committee of European Banking Supervisors established by Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (12), the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors established by Commission Decision 2009/79/EC (13) and the Committee of European Securities Regulators established by Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (14), and should assume all of the tasks and competences of those committees including the continuation of ongoing work and projects, where appropriate. The scope of each European Supervisory Authority\u2019s action should be clearly defined. The ESAs should be accountable to the European Parliament and the Council. When that accountability relates to cross-sectoral issues that have been coordinated through the Joint Committee, the ESAs should be accountable, through the Joint Committee, for such coordination.\n(10)\nThe Authority should act with a view to improving the functioning of the internal market, in particular by ensuring a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision taking account of the varying interests of all Member States and the different nature of financial institutions. The Authority should protect public values such as the stability of the financial system, the transparency of markets and financial products, and the protection of policyholders, pension scheme members and beneficiaries. The Authority should also prevent regulatory arbitrage, guarantee a level playing field, and strengthen international supervisory coordination, for the benefit of the economy at large, including financial institutions and other stakeholders, consumers and employees. Its tasks should also include promoting supervisory convergence and providing advice to the Union institutions in the area of insurance, reinsurance and occupational retirement provision regulation and supervision, and related corporate governance, auditing and financial reporting issues. The Authority should also be entrusted with certain responsibilities for existing and new financial activities.\n(11)\nThe Authority should also be able to temporarily prohibit or restrict certain financial activities that threaten the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union in the cases specified and under the conditions laid down in the legislative acts referred to in this Regulation. If required to make such temporary prohibition in the case of an emergency situation, the Authority should do so in accordance with and under the conditions laid down in this Regulation. In cases where a temporary prohibition or restriction of certain financial activities has a cross-sectoral impact, sectoral legislation should provide that the Authority consult and coordinate its action with, where relevant, the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), through the Joint Committee.\n(12)\nThe Authority should take due account of the impact of its activities on competition and innovation within the internal market, on the Union\u2019s global competitiveness, on financial inclusion, and on the Union\u2019s new strategy for jobs and growth.\n(13)\nIn order to fulfil its objectives, the Authority should have legal personality as well as administrative and financial autonomy.\n(14)\nBased on the work of international bodies, systemic risk should be defined as a risk of disruption in the financial system with the potential to have serious negative consequences for the internal market and the real economy. All types of financial intermediaries, markets and infrastructures may be potentially systemically important to some degree.\n(15)\nCross-border risk includes all risks caused by economic imbalances or financial failures in all or parts of the Union that have the potential to have significant negative consequences for the transactions between economic operators of two or more Member States, for the functioning of the internal market or for the public finances of the Union or any of its Member States.\n(16)\nThe Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 2 May 2006 in Case C-217/04 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union) held that \u2018nothing in the wording of Article 95 EC [now Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)] implies that the addressees of the measures adopted by the Community legislature on the basis of that provision can only be the individual Member States. The legislature may deem it necessary to provide for the establishment of a Community body responsible for contributing to the implementation of a process of harmonisation in situations where, in order to facilitate the uniform implementation and application of acts based on that provision, the adoption of non-binding supporting and framework measures seems appropriate\u2019 (15). The purpose and tasks of the Authority - assisting competent national supervisory authorities in the consistent interpretation and application of Union rules and contributing to financial stability necessary for financial integration - are closely linked to the objectives of the Union acquis concerning the internal market for financial services. The Authority should therefore be established on the basis of Article 114 TFEU.\n(17)\nThe following legislative acts lay down the tasks for the competent authorities of Member States, including cooperating with each other and with the Commission: Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (16), with the exception of Title IV thereof, Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation (17), Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (18), Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate (19), Council Directive 64/225/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of reinsurance and retrocession (20), Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance (21), Council Directive 73/240/EEC of 24 July 1973 abolishing restrictions on freedom of establishment in the business of direct insurance other than life assurance (22), Council Directive 76/580/EEC of 29 June 1976 amending Directive 73/239/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance (23), Council Directive 78/473/EEC of 30 May 1978 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to Community co-insurance (24), Council Directive 84/641/EEC of 10 December 1984 amending, particularly as regards tourist assistance, the First Council Directive 73/239/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance (25), Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (26), Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services (27), Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance (third non-life insurance Directive) (28), Directive 98/78/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on the supplementary supervision of insurance undertakings in an insurance group (29), Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings (30), Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (31)and Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance (32). However, with regard to institutions for occupational retirement provision, the Authority\u2019s actions should be without prejudice to national social and labour law.\n(18)\nExisting Union legislation regulating the field covered by this Regulation also includes the relevant parts of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (33), and of Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services (34).\n(19)\nIt is desirable that the Authority contribute to the assessment of the need for a European network of national insurance guarantee schemes which is adequately funded and sufficiently harmonised.\n(20)\nIn accordance with the Declaration (No 39) on Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, the elaboration of regulatory technical standards requires assistance of technical expertise in a form which is specific to the financial services area. It is necessary to allow the Authority to provide such expertise also on standards or parts of standards that are not based on a draft technical standard that it has elaborated.\n(21)\nThere is a need to introduce an effective instrument to establish harmonised regulatory technical standards in financial services to ensure, also through a single rulebook, a level playing field and adequate protection of policyholders, pension scheme members and other beneficiaries across the Union. As a body with highly specialised expertise, it is efficient and appropriate to entrust the Authority, in areas defined by Union law, with the elaboration of draft regulatory technical standards, which do not involve policy choices.\n(22)\nThe Commission should endorse those draft regulatory technical standards by means of delegated acts under Article 290 TFEU in order to give them binding legal effect. They should be subject to amendment only in very restricted and extraordinary circumstances, since the Authority is the actor in close contact with and knowing best the daily functioning of financial markets. Draft regulatory technical standards would be subject to amendment if they were incompatible with Union law, did not respect the principle of proportionality or ran counter to the fundamental principles of the internal market for financial services as reflected in the acquis of Union financial services legislation. The Commission should not change the content of the draft regulatory technical standards prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority. To ensure a smooth and expeditious adoption process for those standards, the Commission\u2019s decision to endorse draft regulatory technical standards should be subject to a time limit.\n(23)\nGiven the technical expertise of the Authority in the areas where regulatory technical standards should be developed, note should be taken of the Commission\u2019s stated intention to rely, as a rule, on the draft regulatory technical standards submitted to it by the Authority in view of the adoption of the corresponding delegated acts. However, in cases where the Authority fails to submit a draft regulatory technical standard within the time limits set out by the relevant legislative act, it should be ensured that the result of the exercise of delegated power is actually achieved, and the efficiency of the decision-making process be maintained. In those cases, the Commission should therefore be empowered to adopt regulatory technical standards in the absence of a draft by the Authority.\n(24)\nThe Commission should also be empowered to adopt implementing technical standards by means of implementing acts under Article 291 TFEU.\n(25)\nIn areas not covered by regulatory or implementing technical standards, the Authority should have the power to issue guidelines and recommendations on the application of Union law. In order to ensure transparency and to strengthen compliance by national supervisory authorities with those guidelines and recommendations, it should be possible for the Authority to publish the reasons for supervisory authorities\u2019 non-compliance with those guidelines and recommendations.\n(26)\nEnsuring the correct and full application of Union law is a core prerequisite for the integrity, transparency, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, the stability of the financial system, and for neutral conditions of competition for financial institutions in the Union. A mechanism should therefore be established whereby the Authority addresses instances of non-application or incorrect application of Union law amounting to a breach thereof. That mechanism should apply in areas where Union law defines clear and unconditional obligations.\n(27)\nTo allow for a proportionate response to instances of incorrect or insufficient application of Union law, a three-step mechanism should apply. First, the Authority should be empowered to investigate alleged incorrect or insufficient application of Union law obligations by national authorities in their supervisory practice, concluded by a recommendation. Second, where the competent national authority does not follow the recommendation, the Commission should be empowered to issue a formal opinion taking into account the Authority\u2019s recommendation, requiring the competent authority to take the actions necessary to ensure compliance with Union law.\n(28)\nThird, to overcome exceptional situations of persistent inaction by the competent authority concerned, the Authority should be empowered, as a last resort, to adopt decisions addressed to individual financial institutions. That power should be limited to exceptional circumstances in which a competent authority does not comply with the formal opinion addressed to it and in which Union law is directly applicable to financial institutions by virtue of existing or future Union regulations.\n(29)\nSerious threats to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system in the Union require a swift and concerted response at Union level. The Authority should therefore be able to require national supervisory authorities to take specific actions to remedy an emergency situation. The power to determine the existence of an emergency situation should be conferred on the Council, following a request by any of the ESAs, the Commission or the ESRB.\n(30)\nThe Authority should be able to require national supervisory authorities to take specific action to remedy an emergency situation. The action undertaken by the Authority in this respect should be without prejudice to the Commission\u2019s powers under Article 258 TFEU to initiate infringement proceedings against the Member State of that supervisory authority for its failure to take such action, and without prejudice to the Commission\u2019s right in such circumstances to seek interim measures in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Furthermore, it should be without prejudice to any liability that that Member State might incur in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union if its supervisory authorities fail to take the action required by the Authority.\n(31)\nIn order to ensure efficient and effective supervision and a balanced consideration of the positions of the competent authorities in different Member States, the Authority should be able to settle disagreements in cross-border situations between those competent authorities with binding effect, including within colleges of supervisors. A conciliation phase should be provided for during which the competent authorities may reach an agreement. The Authority\u2019s competence should cover disagreements on the procedure or content of an action or inaction by a competent authority of a Member State in cases specified in the legally binding Union acts referred to in this Regulation. In such a situation, one of the supervisors involved should be entitled to refer the issue to the Authority, which should act in accordance with this Regulation. The Authority should be empowered to require the competent authorities concerned to take specific action or to refrain from action in order to settle the matter in order to ensure compliance with Union law, with binding effects for the competent authorities concerned. If a competent authority does not comply with the settlement decision addressed to it, the Authority should be empowered to adopt decisions directly addressed to financial institutions in areas of Union law directly applicable to them. The power to adopt such decisions should apply only as a last resort and then only to ensure the correct and consistent application of Union law. In cases where the relevant Union legislation confers discretion on Member States\u2019 competent authorities, decisions taken by the Authority cannot replace the exercise in compliance with Union law of that discretion.\n(32)\nThe crisis has proven that the current system of cooperation between national authorities whose powers are limited to individual Member States is insufficient as regards financial institutions that operate across borders.\n(33)\nExpert Groups set up by Member States to examine the causes of the crisis and make suggestions to improve the regulation and supervision of the financial sector have confirmed that the current arrangements are not a sound basis for the future regulation and supervision of cross-border financial institutions across the Union.\n(34)\nAs the de Larosi\u00e8re Report indicates, \u2018[i]n essence, we have two alternatives: the first \u201cchacun pour soi\u201d beggar-thy-neighbour solutions; or the second - enhanced, pragmatic, sensible European cooperation for the benefit of all to preserve an open world economy. This will bring undoubted economic gains\u2019.\n(35)\nColleges of supervisors play an important role in the efficient, effective and consistent supervision of financial institutions operating across borders. The Authority should contribute to promoting and monitoring the efficient, effective and consistent functioning of the colleges of supervisors and, in that respect, have a leading role in ensuring the consistent and coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors for cross-border financial institutions across the Union. The Authority should therefore have full participation rights in colleges of supervisors with a view to streamlining the functioning of and the information exchange process in the colleges of supervisors and to foster convergence and consistency across colleges in the application of Union law. As the de Larosi\u00e8re Report states, \u2018competition distortions and regulatory arbitrage stemming from different supervisory practices must be avoided, because they have the potential of undermining financial stability - inter alia by encouraging a shift of financial activity to countries with lax supervision. The supervisory system has to be perceived as fair and balanced\u2019.\n(36)\nConvergence in the fields of crisis prevention, management and resolution, including funding mechanisms, is necessary in order to ensure that public authorities are able to resolve failing financial institutions whilst minimising the impact of failures on the financial system, reliance on taxpayer funds to bail out insurance or reinsurance undertakings and the use of public sector resources, limiting damage to the economy, and coordinating the application of national resolution measures. In this regard, the Commission should be able to request the Authority to contribute to the assessment referred to in Article 242 of Directive 2009/138/EC, in particular as regards the cooperation of supervisory authorities within, and functionality of, the colleges of supervisors; the supervisory practices concerning setting the capital add-ons; the assessment of the benefit of enhancing group supervision and capital management within a group of insurance or reinsurance undertakings, including possible measures to enhance the sound cross-border management of insurance groups, notably in respect of risks and assets; and reporting on any new developments and progress concerning a set of coordinated national crisis management arrangements, including the necessity or otherwise of a system of coherent and credible funding mechanisms, with appropriate financing instruments.\n(37)\nIn the current review of Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (35) and Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes (36), the Commission\u2019s intention to pay special attention to the need to ensure further harmonisation throughout the Union is noted. In the insurance sector, the Commission\u2019s intention to examine the possibility of introducing Union rules protecting insurance policy holders in case of a failing insurance company is also noted. The ESAs should play an important role in those areas and appropriate powers concerning the European network of national insurance guarantee schemes should be conferred upon them.\n(38)\nThe delegation of tasks and responsibilities can be a useful instrument in the functioning of the network of supervisors in order to reduce the duplication of supervisory tasks, to foster cooperation and thereby streamline the supervisory process, as well as to reduce the burden imposed on financial institutions. This Regulation should therefore provide a clear legal basis for such delegation. Whilst respecting the general rule that delegation should be allowed, Member States should be able to introduce specific conditions for the delegation of responsibilities, for example, regarding information about, and the notification of, delegation arrangements. Delegation of tasks means that tasks are carried out by the Authority or by a national supervisory authority other than the responsible authority, while the responsibility for supervisory decisions remains with the delegating authority. By the delegation of responsibilities, the Authority or a national supervisory authority (the delegate) should be able to decide upon a certain supervisory matter in its own name in lieu of the delegating authority. Delegations should be governed by the principle of allocating supervisory competence to a supervisor which is best placed to take action in the subject matter. A reallocation of responsibilities would be appropriate, for example, for reasons of economies of scale or scope, of coherence in group supervision, and of optimal use of technical expertise among national supervisory authorities. Decisions by the delegate should be recognised by the delegating authority and by other competent authorities as determinative if those decisions are within the scope of the delegation. Relevant Union legislation could further specify the principles for the reallocation of responsibilities upon agreement.\nThe Authority should facilitate and monitor delegation agreements between national supervisory authorities by all appropriate means. It should be informed in advance of intended delegation agreements, in order to be able to express an opinion where appropriate. It should centralise the publication of such agreements to ensure timely, transparent and easily accessible information about agreements for all parties concerned. It should identify and disseminate best practices regarding delegation and delegation agreements.\n(39)\nThe Authority should actively foster supervisory convergence across the Union with the aim of establishing a common supervisory culture.\n(40)\nPeer reviews are an efficient and effective tool for fostering consistency within the network of financial supervisors. The Authority should therefore develop the methodological framework for such reviews and conduct them on a regular basis. Reviews should focus not only on the convergence of supervisory practices, but also on the capacity of supervisors to achieve high-quality supervisory outcomes, as well as on the independence of those competent authorities. The outcome of peer reviews should be made public with the agreement of the competent authority subject to the review. Best practices should also be identified and made public.\n(41)\nThe Authority should actively promote a coordinated Union supervisory response, in particular to ensure the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets and the stability of the financial system in the Union. In addition to its powers for action in emergency situations, the Authority should therefore be entrusted with a general coordination function within the ESFS. The smooth flow of all relevant information between competent authorities should be a particular focus of the Authority\u2019s actions.\n(42)\nIn order to safeguard financial stability it is necessary to identify, at an early stage, trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities stemming from the micro-prudential level, across borders and across sectors. The Authority should monitor and assess such developments in the area of its competence and, where necessary, inform the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the other European Supervisory Authorities and the ESRB on a regular and, as necessary, on an ad hoc basis. The Authority should also, in cooperation with the ESRB, initiate and coordinate Union-wide stress tests to assess the resilience of financial institutions to adverse market developments, and it should ensure that an as consistent as possible methodology is applied at the national level to such tests. In order to perform its functions properly, the Authority should conduct economic analyses of the markets and the impact of potential market developments.\n(43)\nGiven the globalisation of financial services and the increased importance of international standards, the Authority should foster dialogue and cooperation with supervisors outside the Union. It should be empowered to develop contacts and enter into administrative arrangements with the supervisory authorities and administrations of third countries and with international organisations, while fully respecting the existing roles and respective competences of the Member States and the Union institutions. Participation in the work of the Authority should be open to countries which have concluded agreements with the Union whereby they have adopted and are applying Union law, and the Authority should be able to cooperate with third countries which apply legislation that has been recognised as equivalent to that of the Union.\n(44)\nThe Authority should serve as an independent advisory body to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission in the area of its competence. Without prejudice to the competencies of the competent authorities concerned, the Authority should be able to provide its opinion on the prudential assessment of mergers and acquisitions under Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC and 2005/68/EC, as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC (37) in those cases in which that Directive requires consultation between competent authorities from two or more Member States.\n(45)\nIn order to carry out its duties effectively, the Authority should have the right to request all necessary information. To avoid the duplication of reporting obligations for financial institutions, that information should normally be provided by the national supervisory authorities which are closest to the financial markets and institutions and should take into account already existing statistics. However, as a last resort, the Authority should be able to address a duly justified and reasoned request for information directly to a financial institution where a national competent authority does not or cannot provide such information in a timely fashion. Member States\u2019 authorities should be obliged to assist the Authority in enforcing such direct requests. In that context, the work on common reporting formats is essential. The measures for the collection of information should be without prejudice to the legal framework of the European Statistical System and the European System of Central Banks in the field of statistics. This Regulation should therefore be without prejudice both to Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (38) and to Council Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the collection of statistical information by the European Central Bank (39).\n(46)\nClose cooperation between the Authority and the ESRB is essential to give full effectiveness to the functioning of the ESRB and the follow-up to its warnings and recommendations. The Authority and the ESRB should share any relevant information with each other. Data related to individual undertakings should be provided only upon reasoned request. Upon receipt of warnings or recommendations addressed by the ESRB to the Authority or a national supervisory authority, the Authority should ensure follow-up as appropriate.\n(47)\nThe Authority should consult interested parties on regulatory or implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations and provide them with a reasonable opportunity to comment on proposed measures. Before adopting draft regulatory or implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations, the Authority should carry out an impact study. For reasons of efficiency, an Insurance and Reinsurance Stakeholder Group and an Occupational Pensions Stakeholder Group should be used for that purpose and should represent, in balanced proportions and respectively, the relevant financial institutions operating in the Union, representing the diverse business models and sizes of financial institutions and businesses; small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); trade unions; academics; consumers; other retail users of those financial institutions; and representatives of relevant professional associations. Those stakeholder groups should work as an interface with other user groups in the financial services area established by the Commission or by Union legislation.\n(48)\nMembers of the stakeholder groups representing non-profit organisations or academics should receive adequate compensation in order to allow persons that are neither well-funded nor industry representatives to take part fully in the debate on financial regulation.\n(49)\nThe stakeholder groups should be consulted by the Authority and should be able to submit opinions and advice to the Authority on issues related to the optional application to institutions covered by Directive 2002/83/EC or Directive 2003/41/EC.\n(50)\nMember States have a core responsibility for ensuring coordinated crisis management and preserving financial stability in crisis situations, in particular with regard to stabilising and resolving individual failing financial institutions. Decisions by the Authority in emergency or settlement situations affecting the stability of a financial institution should not impinge on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States. A mechanism should be established whereby Member States may invoke this safeguard and ultimately bring the matter before the Council for a decision. However, that safeguard mechanism should not be abused, in particular in relation to a decision taken by the Authority which does not have a significant or material fiscal impact, such as a reduction of income linked to the temporary prohibition of specific activities or products for consumer protection purposes. When taking decisions under the safeguard mechanism, the Council should vote in accordance with the principle where each member has one vote. It is appropriate to confer on the Council a role in this matter given the particular responsibilities of the Member States in this respect. Given the sensitivity of the issue, strict confidentiality arrangements should be ensured.\n(51)\nIn its decision-making procedures, the Authority should be bound by Union rules and general principles on due process and transparency. The right of the addressees of the Authority\u2019s decisions to be heard should be fully respected. The Authority\u2019s acts should form an integral part of Union law.\n(52)\nA Board of Supervisors composed of the heads of the relevant competent authorities in each Member State, and chaired by the Chairperson of the Authority, should be the principal decision-making organ of the Authority. Representatives of the Commission, the ESRB, the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) should participate as observers. Members of the Board of Supervisors should act independently and only in the Union\u2019s interest.\n(53)\nAs a general rule, the Board of Supervisors should take its decisions by simple majority in accordance with the principle where each member has one vote. However, for acts of a general nature, including those relating to regulatory and implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations, for budgetary matters as well as in respect of requests by a Member State to reconsider a decision by the Authority to temporarily prohibit or restrict certain financial activities, it is appropriate to apply the rules of qualified majority voting as laid down in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Cases concerning the settlement of disagreements between national supervisory authorities should be examined by a restricted, objective panel, composed of members who neither are representatives of the competent authorities which are party to the disagreement nor have any interest in the conflict or direct links to the competent authorities concerned. The composition of the panel should be appropriately balanced. The decision taken by the panel should be approved by the Board of Supervisors by simple majority in accordance with the principle where each member has one vote. However, with regard to decisions taken by the consolidating supervisor, the decision proposed by the panel could be rejected by members representing a blocking minority of the votes as defined in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 3 of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions.\n(54)\nA Management Board, composed of the Chairperson of the Authority, of representatives of national supervisory authorities and of the Commission, should ensure that the Authority carries out its mission and performs the tasks assigned to it. The Management Board should be entrusted with the necessary powers, inter alia, to propose the annual and multi-annual work programme, to exercise certain budgetary powers, to adopt the Authority\u2019s staff policy plan, to adopt special provisions on the right to access to documents and to propose the annual report.\n(55)\nThe Authority should be represented by a full-time Chairperson, appointed by the Board of Supervisors, on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and of experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation, following an open selection procedure organised and managed by the Board of Supervisors assisted by the Commission. For the designation of the first Chairperson of the Authority, the Commission should, inter alia, draw up a shortlist of candidates on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation. For the subsequent designations, the opportunity of having a shortlist drawn up by the Commission should be reviewed in a report to be established pursuant to this Regulation. Before the selected person takes up his duties, and up to 1 month after his selection by the Board of Supervisors, the European Parliament should be entitled, after having heard the person selected, to object to his designation.\n(56)\nThe management of the Authority should be entrusted to an Executive Director, who should have the right to participate in meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board without the right to vote.\n(57)\nIn order to ensure cross-sectoral consistency in the activities of the ESAs, they should coordinate closely through a Joint Committee and reach common positions where appropriate. The Joint Committee should coordinate the functions of the ESAs in relation to financial conglomerates and other cross-sectoral matters. Where relevant, acts also falling within the area of competence of the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) or the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) should be adopted in parallel by the European Supervisory Authorities concerned. The Joint Committee should be chaired for a 12-month term on a rotating basis by the Chairpersons of the ESAs. The Chairperson of the Joint Committee should be a Vice-Chair of the ESRB. The Joint Committee should have dedicated staff provided by the ESAs to allow for informal information sharing and the development of a common supervisory culture approach across the ESAs.\n(58)\nIt is necessary to ensure that the parties affected by decisions adopted by the Authority may have recourse to the necessary remedies. To protect effectively the rights of parties, and for reasons of procedural economy, where the Authority has decision-making powers, parties should be granted a right of appeal to a Board of Appeal. For reasons of efficiency and consistency, the Board of Appeal should be a joint body of the ESAs, independent from their administrative and regulatory structures. The decisions of the Board of Appeal should be subject to appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Union.\n(59)\nIn order to guarantee its full autonomy and independence, the Authority should be granted an autonomous budget with revenues mainly from obligatory contributions from national supervisory authorities and from the General Budget of the European Union. Union financing of the Authority is subject to an agreement by the budgetary authority in accordance with Point 47 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (40). The Union budgetary procedure should be applicable. The auditing of accounts should be undertaken by the Court of Auditors. The overall budget is subject to the discharge procedure.\n(60)\nRegulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (41) should apply to the Authority. The Authority should also accede to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities concerning internal investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (42).\n(61)\nIn order to ensure open and transparent employment conditions and equal treatment of staff, the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (43) should apply to the staff of the Authority.\n(62)\nIt is essential that business secrets and other confidential information be protected. The confidentiality of information made available to the Authority and exchanged in the network should be subject to stringent and effective confidentiality rules.\n(63)\nDirective 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (44) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (45) are fully applicable to the processing of personal data for the purposes of this Regulation.\n(64)\nIn order to ensure the transparent operation of the Authority, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (46) should apply to the Authority.\n(65)\nThird countries should be allowed to participate in the work of the Authority in accordance with appropriate agreements to be concluded by the Union.\n(66)\nSince the objectives of this Regulation, namely improving the functioning of the internal market by means of ensuring a high, effective and consistent level of prudential regulation and supervision, protecting policyholders, pension scheme members and other beneficiaries, protecting the integrity, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, maintaining the stability of the financial system, and strengthening international supervisory coordination, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can, therefore, by reason of the scale of the 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. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.\n(67)\nThe Authority should assume all current tasks and powers of the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors. Commission Decision 2009/79/EC should therefore be repealed on the date of the establishment of the Authority, and Decision No 716/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 establishing a Community programme to support specific activities in the field of financial services, financial reporting and auditing (47) should be amended accordingly. Given the existing structures and operations of the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors, it is important to ensure very close cooperation between the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors and the Commission when establishing appropriate transitional arrangements, to ensure that the period during which the Commission is responsible for the administrative establishment and initial administrative operation of the Authority be as limited as possible.\n(68)\nIt is appropriate to set a time limit for the application of this Regulation in order to ensure that the Authority is adequately prepared to begin operations and a smooth transition from the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors. The Authority should be appropriately financed. At least initially, it should be financed 40 % from Union funds and 60 % through contributions from Member States, made in accordance with the weighting of votes set out in Article 3(3) of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions.\n(69)\nIn order to enable the Authority to be established on 1 January 2011, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nESTABLISHMENT AND LEGAL STATUS\nArticle 1\nEstablishment and scope of action\n1. This Regulation establishes a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) (hereinafter the Authority\u2019).\n2. The Authority shall act within the powers conferred by this Regulation and within the scope of Directive2009/138/EC with the exception of Title IV thereof, of Directives 2002/92/EC, 2003/41/EC, 2002/87/EC, 64/225/EEC, 73/239/EEC, 73/240/EEC, 76/580/EEC, 78/473/EEC, 84/641/EEC, 87/344/EEC, 88/357/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 98/78/EC, 2001/17/EC, 2002/83/EC, 2005/68/EC and, to the extent that those acts apply to insurance undertakings, reinsurance undertakings, institutions for occupational retirement provision and insurance intermediaries, within the relevant parts of Directives 2005/60/EC and 2002/65/EC, including all directives, regulations, and decisions based on those acts, and of any further legally binding Union act which confers tasks on the Authority.\n3. The Authority shall also act in the field of activities of insurance undertakings, reinsurance undertakings, financial conglomerates, institutions for occupational retirement provision and insurance intermediaries, in relation to issues not directly covered in the acts referred to in paragraph 2, including matters of corporate governance, auditing and financial reporting, provided that such actions by the Authority are necessary to ensure the effective and consistent application of those acts.\n4. With regard to institutions for occupational retirement provision, the Authority shall act without prejudice to national social and labour law.\n5. The provisions of this Regulation are without prejudice to the powers of the Commission, in particular under Article 258 TFEU, to ensure compliance with Union law.\n6. The objective of the Authority shall be to protect the public interest by contributing to the short, medium and long-term stability and effectiveness of the financial system, for the Union economy, its citizens and businesses. The Authority shall contribute to:\n(a)\nimproving the functioning of the internal market, including in particular a sound, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision,\n(b)\nensuring the integrity, transparency, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets,\n(c)\nstrengthening international supervisory coordination,\n(d)\npreventing regulatory arbitrage and promoting equal conditions of competition,\n(e)\nensuring the taking of risks related to insurance, reinsurance and occupational pensions activities is appropriately regulated and supervised, and\n(f)\nenhancing customer protection.\nFor those purposes, the Authority shall contribute to ensuring the consistent, efficient and effective application of the acts referred to in paragraph 2, foster supervisory convergence, provide opinions to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission and undertake economic analyses of the markets to promote the achievement of the Authority\u2019s objective.\nIn the exercise of the tasks conferred upon it by this Regulation, the Authority shall pay particular attention to any potential systemic risk posed by financial institutions, the failure of which may impair the operation of the financial system or the real economy.\nWhen carrying out its tasks, the Authority shall act independently and objectively and in the interest of the Union alone.\nArticle 2\nEuropean System of Financial Supervision\n1. The Authority shall form part of a European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS). The main objective of the ESFS shall be to ensure that the rules applicable to the financial sector are adequately implemented to preserve financial stability and to ensure confidence in the financial system as a whole and sufficient protection for the customers of financial services.\n2. The ESFS shall comprise the following:\n(a)\nthe European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), for the purposes of the tasks as specified in Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 and this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe Authority;\n(c)\nthe European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (48);\n(d)\nthe European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (49);\n(e)\nthe Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (Joint Committee) for the purposes of carrying out the tasks as specified in Articles 54 to 57 of this Regulation, of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010;\n(f)\nthe competent or supervisory authorities in the Member States as specified in the Union acts referred to in Article 1(2) of this Regulation, of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010;\n3. The Authority shall cooperate regularly and closely with the ESRB as well as with the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) through the Joint Committee, ensuring cross-sectoral consistency of work and reaching joint positions in the area of supervision of financial conglomerates and on other cross-sectoral issues.\n4. In accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, the parties to the ESFS shall cooperate with trust and full mutual respect, in particular in ensuring the flow of appropriate and reliable information between them.\n5. Those supervisory authorities that are party to the ESFS shall be obliged to supervise financial institutions operating in the Union in accordance with the acts referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 3\nAccountability of the Authorities\nThe Authorities referred to in Article 2(2)(a) to (d) shall be accountable to the European Parliament and the Council.\nArticle 4\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions apply:\n(1)\n\u2018financial institutions\u2019 means undertakings, entities and natural and legal persons subject to any of the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2). With regard to Directive 2005/60/EC, \u2018financial institutions\u2019 means only insurance undertakings and insurance intermediaries as defined in that Directive;\n(2)\n\u2018competent authorities\u2019 means:\n(i)\nsupervisory authorities as defined in Directive 2009/138/EC, and competent authorities as defined in Directive 2003/41/EC and 2002/92/EC;\n(ii)\nwith regard to Directives 2002/65/EC and 2005/60/EC, the authorities competent for ensuring compliance with the requirements of those Directives by financial institutions as defined in point (1).\nArticle 5\nLegal status\n1. The Authority shall be a Union body with legal personality.\n2. In each Member State, the Authority shall enjoy the most extensive legal capacity accorded to legal persons under national law. It may, in particular, acquire or dispose of movable and immovable property and be a party to legal proceedings.\n3. The Authority shall be represented by its Chairperson.\nArticle 6\nComposition\nThe Authority shall comprise:\n(1)\na Board of Supervisors, which shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 43;\n(2)\na Management Board, which shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 47;\n(3)\na Chairperson, who shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 48;\n(4)\nan Executive Director, who shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 53;\n(5)\na Board of Appeal, which shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 60.\nArticle 7\nSeat\nThe Authority shall have its seat in Frankfurt am Main.\nCHAPTER II\nTASKS AND POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY\nArticle 8\nTasks and powers of the Authority\n1. The Authority shall have the following tasks:\n(a)\nto contribute to the establishment of high-quality common regulatory and supervisory standards and practices, in particular by providing opinions to the Union institutions and by developing guidelines, recommendations, and draft regulatory and implementing technical standards which shall be based on the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2);\n(b)\nto contribute to the consistent application of legally binding Union acts, in particular by contributing to a common supervisory culture, ensuring consistent, efficient and effective application of the acts referred to in Article 1(2), preventing regulatory arbitrage, mediating and settling disagreements between competent authorities, ensuring effective and consistent supervision of financial institutions, ensuring a coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors and taking actions, inter alia, in emergency situations;\n(c)\nto stimulate and facilitate the delegation of tasks and responsibilities among competent authorities;\n(d)\nto cooperate closely with the ESRB, in particular by providing the ESRB with the necessary information for the achievement of its tasks and by ensuring a proper follow up to the warnings and recommendations of the ESRB;\n(e)\nto organise and conduct peer review analyses of competent authorities, including issuing guidelines and recommendations and identifying best practices, in order to strengthen consistency in supervisory outcomes;\n(f)\nto monitor and assess market developments in the area of its competences;\n(g)\nto undertake economic analyses of markets to inform the discharge of the Authority\u2019s functions;\n(h)\nto foster the protection of policyholders, pension scheme members and beneficiaries\n(i)\nto contribute to the consistent and coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors, the monitoring, assessment and measurement of systemic risk, the development and coordination of recovery and resolution plans, providing a high level of protection to policy holders, to beneficiaries and throughout the Union, in accordance with Articles 21 to 26;\n(j)\nto fulfil any other specific tasks set out in this Regulation or in other legislative acts;\n(k)\nto publish on its website, and to update regularly, information relating to its field of activities, in particular, within the area of its competence, on registered financial institutions, in order to ensure information is easily accessible by the public;\n(l)\nto take over, as appropriate, all existing and ongoing tasks from the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors (CEIOPS);\n2. To achieve the tasks set out in paragraph 1, the Authority shall have the powers set out in this Regulation, in particular to:\n(a)\ndevelop draft regulatory technical standards in the specific cases referred to in Article 10;\n(b)\ndevelop draft implementing technical standards in the specific cases referred to in Article 15;\n(c)\nissue guidelines and recommendations, as laid down in Article 16;\n(d)\nissue recommendations in specific cases, as referred to in Article 17(3);\n(e)\ntake individual decisions addressed to competent authorities in the specific cases referred to in Articles 18(3) and 19(3);\n(f)\nin cases concerning directly applicable Union law, take individual decisions addressed to financial institutions, in the specific cases referred to in Article 17(6), in Article 18(4) and in Article 19(4);\n(g)\nissue opinions to the European Parliament, the Council, or the Commission as provided for in Article 34;\n(h)\ncollect the necessary information concerning financial institutions as provided for in Article 35;\n(i)\ndevelop common methodologies for assessing the effect of product characteristics and distribution processes on the financial position of institutions and on consumer protection;\n(j)\nprovide a centrally accessible database of registered financial institutions in the area of its competence where specified in the acts referred to in Article 1(2).\nArticle 9\nTasks related to consumer protection and financial activities\n1. The Authority shall take a leading role in promoting transparency, simplicity and fairness in the market for consumer financial products or services across the internal market, including by:\n(a)\ncollecting, analysing and reporting on consumer trends;\n(b)\nreviewing and coordinating financial literacy and education initiatives by the competent authorities;\n(c)\ndeveloping training standards for the industry; and\n(d)\ncontributing to the development of common disclosure rules.\n2. The Authority shall monitor new and existing financial activities and may adopt guidelines and recommendations with a view to promoting the safety and soundness of markets and convergence of regulatory practice.\n3. The Authority may also issue warnings in the event that a financial activity poses a serious threat to the objectives laid down in Article 1(6).\n4. The Authority shall establish, as an integral part of the Authority, a Committee on financial innovation, which brings together all relevant competent national supervisory authorities with a view to achieving a coordinated approach to the regulatory and supervisory treatment of new or innovative financial activities and providing advice for the Authority to present to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.\n5. The Authority may temporarily prohibit or restrict certain financial activities that threaten the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union in the cases specified and under the conditions laid down in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) or, if so required, in the case of an emergency situation in accordance with and under the conditions laid down in Article 18.\nThe Authority shall review the decision referred to in the first subparagraph at appropriate intervals and at least every 3 months. If the decision is not renewed after a three-month period, it shall automatically expire.\nA Member State may request the Authority to reconsider its decision. In that case, the Authority shall decide in accordance with the procedure set out in the second subparagraph of Article 44(1), whether it maintains its decision.\nThe Authority may also assess the need to prohibit or restrict certain types of financial activity and, where there is such a need, inform the Commission in order to facilitate the adoption of any such prohibition or restriction.\nArticle 10\nRegulatory technical standards\n1. Where the European Parliament and the Council delegate power to the Commission to adopt regulatory technical standards by means of delegated acts under Article 290 TFEU in order to ensure consistent harmonisation in the areas specifically set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority may develop draft regulatory technical standards. The Authority shall submit its draft standards to the Commission for endorsement.\nRegulatory technical standards shall be technical, shall not imply strategic decisions or policy choices and their content shall be delimited by the legislative acts on which they are based.\nBefore submitting them to the Commission, the Authority shall conduct open public consultations on draft regulatory technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft regulatory technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Authority shall also request the opinion of the relevant stakeholder group referred to in Article 37.\nWhere the Authority submits a draft regulatory technical standard, the Commission shall immediately forward it to the European Parliament and the Council.\nWithin 3 months of receipt of a draft regulatory technical standard, the Commission shall decide whether to endorse it. The Commission may endorse the draft regulatory technical standards in part only, or with amendments, where the Union\u2019s interests so require.\nWhere the Commission intends not to endorse a draft regulatory technical standard, or to endorse it in part or with amendments, it shall send the draft regulatory technical standard back to the Authority, explaining why it does not endorse it, or, as the case may be, explaining the reasons for its amendments. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft regulatory technical standard on the basis of the Commission\u2019s proposed amendments and resubmit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nIf, on the expiry of that six-week period, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft regulatory technical standard, or has submitted a draft regulatory technical standard that is not amended in a way consistent with the Commission\u2019s proposed amendments, the Commission may adopt the regulatory technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant or reject it.\nThe Commission may not change the content of a draft regulatory technical standard prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article.\n2. Where the Authority has not submitted a draft regulatory technical standard within the time limit set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Commission may request such a draft within a new time limit.\n3. Only where the Authority does not submit a draft regulatory technical standard to the Commission within the time limits in accordance with paragraph 2, may the Commission adopt a regulatory technical standard by means of a delegated act without a draft from the Authority.\nThe Commission shall conduct open public consultations on draft regulatory technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft regulatory technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Commission shall also request the opinion or advice of the relevant stakeholder group referred to in Article 37.\nThe Commission shall immediately forward the draft regulatory technical standard to the European Parliament and the Council.\nThe Commission shall send its draft regulatory technical standard to the Authority. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft regulatory technical standard and submit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nIf, on the expiry of the six-week period referred to in the fourth subparagraph, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft regulatory technical standard, the Commission may adopt the regulatory technical standard.\nIf the Authority has submitted an amended draft regulatory technical standard within the six-week period, the Commission may amend the draft regulatory technical standard on the basis of the Authority\u2019s proposed amendments or adopt the regulatory technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant. The Commission shall not change the content of the draft regulatory technical standard prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article.\n4. The regulatory technical standards shall be adopted by means of regulations or decisions. They shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nArticle 11\nExercise of the delegation\n1. The power to adopt regulatory technical standards referred to in Article 10 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of four years from 16 December 2010. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated power not later than 6 months before the end of the four-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 14.\n2. As soon as it adopts a regulatory technical standard, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\n3. The power to adopt regulatory technical standards is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 12 to 14.\nArticle 12\nRevocation of the delegation\n1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 10 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.\n2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke a delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation.\n3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the regulatory technical standards already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 13\nObjections to regulatory technical standards\n1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a regulatory technical standard within a period of 3 months from the date of notification of the regulatory technical standard adopted by the Commission. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 3 months.\nWhere the Commission adopts a regulatory technical standard which is the same as the draft regulatory technical standard submitted by the Authority, the period during which the European Parliament and the Council may object shall be 1 month from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by 1 month.\n2. If, on the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the regulatory technical standard, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein. The regulatory technical standard may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.\n3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to a regulatory technical standard within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. In accordance with Article 296 TFEU, the institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the regulatory technical standard.\nArticle 14\nNon-endorsement or amendment of draft regulatory technical standards\n1. In the event that the Commission does not endorse a draft regulatory technical standard or amends it as provided for in Article 10, the Commission shall inform the Authority, the European Parliament and the Council, stating its reasons.\n2. Where appropriate, the European Parliament or the Council may invite the responsible Commissioner, together with the Chairperson of the Authority, within 1 month of the notice referred to in paragraph 1, for an ad hoc meeting of the competent committee of the European Parliament or the Council to present and explain their differences.\nArticle 15\nImplementing technical standards\n1. The Authority may develop implementing technical standards, by means of implementing acts under Article 291 TFEU, in the areas specifically set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2). Implementing technical standards shall be technical, shall not imply strategic decisions or policy choices and their content shall be to determine the conditions of application of those acts. The Authority shall submit its draft implementing technical standards to the Commission for endorsement.\nBefore submitting draft implementing technical standards to the Commission, the Authority shall conduct open public consultations and shall analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft implementing technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Authority shall also request the opinion of the relevant stakeholder group referred to in Article 37.\nWhere the Authority submits a draft implementing technical standard, the Commission shall immediately forward it to the European Parliament and the Council.\nWithin 3 months of receipt of a draft implementing technical standard, the Commission shall decide whether to endorse it. The Commission may extend that period by 1 month. The Commission may endorse the draft implementing technical standard in part only, or with amendments, where the Union\u2019s interests so require.\nWhere the Commission intends not to endorse a draft implementing technical standard or intends to endorse it in part or with amendments, it shall send it back to the Authority explaining why it does not intend to endorse it, or, as the case may be, explaining the reasons for its amendments. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft implementing technical standard on the basis of the Commission\u2019s proposed amendments and resubmit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nIf, on the expiry of the six-week period referred to in the fifth subparagraph, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft implementing technical standard, or has submitted a draft implementing technical standard that is not amended in a way consistent with the Commission\u2019s proposed amendments, the Commission may adopt the implementing technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant or reject it.\nThe Commission shall not change the content of a draft implementing technical standard prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article.\n2. In cases where the Authority has not submitted a draft implementing technical standard within the time limit set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Commission may request such a draft within a new time limit.\n3. Only where the Authority does not submit a draft implementing technical standard to the Commission within the time limits in accordance with paragraph 2, may the Commission adopt an implementing technical standard by means of an implementing act without a draft from the Authority.\nThe Commission shall conduct open public consultations on draft implementing technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft implementing technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Commission shall also request the opinion or advice of the relevant stakeholder group referred to in Article 37.\nThe Commission shall immediately forward the draft implementing technical standard to the European Parliament and the Council.\nThe Commission shall send the draft implementing technical standard to the Authority. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft implementing technical standard and submit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nIf, on the expiry of the six-week period referred to in the fourth subparagraph, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft implementing technical standard, the Commission may adopt the implementing technical standard.\nIf the Authority has submitted an amended draft implementing technical standard within that six-week period, the Commission may amend the draft implementing technical standard on the basis of the Authority\u2019s proposed amendments or adopt the implementing technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant.\nThe Commission shall not change the content of the draft implementing technical standards prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article.\n4. The implementing technical standards shall be adopted by means of regulations or decisions. They shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.\nArticle 16\nGuidelines and recommendations\n1. The Authority shall, with a view to establishing consistent, efficient and effective supervisory practices within the ESFS, and to ensuring the common, uniform and consistent application of Union law, issue guidelines and recommendations addressed to competent authorities or financial institutions.\n2. The Authority shall, where appropriate, conduct open public consultations regarding the guidelines and recommendations and analyse the related potential costs and benefits. Such consultations and analyses shall be proportionate in relation to the scope, nature and impact of the guidelines or recommendations. The Authority shall, where appropriate, also request opinions or advice from the relevant stakeholder group referred to in Article 37.\n3. The competent authorities and financial institutions shall make every effort to comply with those guidelines and recommendations.\nWithin 2 months of the issuance of a guideline or recommendation, each competent authority shall confirm whether it complies or intends to comply with that guideline or recommendation. In the event that a competent authority does not comply or does not intend to comply, it shall inform the Authority, stating its reasons.\nThe Authority shall publish the fact that a competent authority does not comply or does not intend to comply with that guideline or recommendation. The Authority may also decide, on a case-by-case basis, to publish the reasons provided by the competent authority for not complying with that guideline or recommendation. The competent authority shall receive advanced notice of such publication.\nIf required by that guideline or recommendation, financial institutions shall report, in a clear and detailed way, whether they comply with that guideline or recommendation.\n4. In the report referred to in Article 43(5) the Authority shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of the guidelines and recommendations that have been issued, stating which competent authority has not complied with them, and outlining how the Authority intends to ensure that the competent authority concerned follow its recommendations and guidelines in the future.\nArticle 17\nBreach of Union law\n1. Where a competent authority has not applied the acts referred to in Article 1(2) or has applied them in a way which appears to be a breach of Union law, including the regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards established in accordance with Articles 10 to 15, in particular by failing to ensure that a financial institution satisfies the requirements laid down in those acts, the Authority shall act in accordance with the powers set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of this Article.\n2. Upon a request from one or more competent authorities, the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission or the relevant stakeholder group, or on its own initiative and after having informed the competent authority concerned, the Authority may investigate the alleged breach or non-application of Union law.\nWithout prejudice to the powers laid down in Article 35, the competent authority shall, without delay, provide the Authority with all information which the Authority considers necessary for its investigation.\n3. The Authority may, not later than 2 months from initiating its investigation, address a recommendation to the competent authority concerned setting out the action necessary to comply with Union law.\nThe competent authority shall, within ten working days of receipt of the recommendation, inform the Authority of the steps it has taken or intends to take to ensure compliance with Union law.\n4. Where the competent authority has not complied with Union law within 1 month from receipt of the Authority\u2019s recommendation, the Commission may, after having been informed by the Authority, or on its own initiative, issue a formal opinion requiring the competent authority to take the action necessary to comply with Union law. The Commission\u2019s formal opinion shall take into account the Authority\u2019s recommendation.\nThe Commission shall issue such a formal opinion no later than 3 months after the adoption of the recommendation. The Commission may extend this period by 1 month.\nThe Authority and the competent authorities shall provide the Commission with all necessary information.\n5. The competent authority shall, within ten working days of receipt of the formal opinion referred to in paragraph 4, inform the Commission and the Authority of the steps it has taken or intends to take to comply with that formal opinion.\n6. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the formal opinion referred to in paragraph 4 within the period of time specified therein, and where it is necessary to remedy in a timely manner such non-compliance in order to maintain or restore neutral conditions of competition in the market or ensure the orderly functioning and integrity of the financial system, the Authority may, where the relevant requirements of the acts referred to in Article 1(2) are directly applicable to financial institutions, adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial institution requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under Union law including the cessation of any practice.\nThe decision of the Authority shall be in conformity with the formal opinion issued by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 4.\n7. Decisions adopted under paragraph 6 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter.\nWhen taking action in relation to issues which are subject to a formal opinion pursuant to paragraph 4 or a decision pursuant to paragraph 6, competent authorities shall comply with the formal opinion or the decision, as the case may be.\n8. In the report referred to in Article 43(5), the Authority shall set out which competent authorities and financial institutions have not complied with the formal opinions or decisions referred to in paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Article.\nArticle 18\nAction in emergency situations\n1. In the case of adverse developments which may seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union, the Authority shall actively facilitate and, where deemed necessary, coordinate any actions undertaken by the relevant national competent supervisory authorities.\nIn order to be able to perform that facilitating and coordinating role, the Authority shall be fully informed of any relevant developments, and shall be invited to participate as an observer in any relevant gathering by the relevant national competent supervisory authorities.\n2. The Council, in consultation with the Commission and the ESRB and, where appropriate, the ESAs, may adopt a decision addressed to the Authority, determining the existence of an emergency situation for the purposes of this Regulation, following a request by the Authority, the Commission or the ESRB. The Council shall review that decision at appropriate intervals and at least once a month. If the decision is not renewed at the end of a one-month period, it shall automatically expire. The Council may declare the discontinuation of the emergency situation at any time.\nWhere the ESRB or the Authority considers that an emergency situation may arise, it shall issue a confidential recommendation addressed to the Council and provide it with an assessment of the situation. The Council shall then assess the need for a meeting. In that process, due care of confidentiality shall be guaranteed.\nIf the Council determines the existence of an emergency situation, it shall duly inform the European Parliament and the Commission without delay.\n3. Where the Council has adopted a decision pursuant to paragraph 2, and in exceptional circumstances where coordinated action by national authorities is necessary to respond to adverse developments which may seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union, the Authority may adopt individual decisions requiring competent authorities to take the necessary action in accordance with the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) to address any such developments by ensuring that financial institutions and competent authorities satisfy the requirements laid down in that legislation.\n4. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the decision of the Authority referred to in paragraph 3 within the period laid down in that decision, the Authority may, where the relevant requirements laid down in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) including in regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards adopted in accordance with those acts are directly applicable to financial institutions, adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial institution requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under that legislation, including the cessation of any practice. This shall apply only in situations in which a competent authority does not apply the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), including regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards adopted in accordance with those acts, or applies them in a way which appears to be a manifest breach of those acts, and where urgent remedying is necessary to restore the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union.\n5. Decisions adopted under paragraph 4 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter.\nAny action by the competent authorities in relation to issues which are subject to a decision pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4 shall be compatible with those decisions.\nArticle 19\nSettlement of disagreements between competent authorities in cross-border situations\n1. Without prejudice to the powers laid down in Article 17, where a competent authority disagrees about the procedure or content of an action or inaction of a competent authority of another Member State in cases specified in the acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority, at the request of one or more of the competent authorities concerned, may assist the authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 2 to 4 of this Article.\nIn cases specified in the legislation referred to in Article 1(2), and where on the basis of objective criteria, disagreement between competent authorities from different Member States can be determined, the Authority may, on its own initiative, assist the authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 2 to 4.\n2. The Authority shall set a time limit for conciliation between the competent authorities taking into account any relevant time periods specified in the acts referred to in Article 1(2) and the complexity and urgency of the matter. At that stage the Authority shall act as a mediator.\n3. If the competent authorities concerned fail to reach an agreement within the conciliation phase referred to in paragraph 2, the Authority may, in accordance with the procedure set out in the third and fourth subparagraph of Article 44(1) take a decision requiring them to take specific action or to refrain from action in order to settle the matter, with binding effects for the competent authorities concerned, in order to ensure compliance with Union law.\n4. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the decision of the Authority, and thereby fails to ensure that a financial institution complies with requirements directly applicable to it by virtue of the acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority may adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial institution requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under Union law, including the cessation of any practice.\n5. Decisions adopted under paragraph 4 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter. Any action by the competent authorities in relation to facts which are subject to a decision pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4 shall be compatible with those decisions.\n6. In the report referred to in Article 50(2), the Chairperson of the Authority shall set out the nature and type of disagreements between competent authorities, the agreements reached and the decisions taken to settle such disagreements.\nArticle 20\nSettlement of disagreements between competent authorities across sectors\nThe Joint Committee shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 19 and Article 56, settle cross-sectoral disagreements that may arise between competent authorities as defined in Article 4(2) of this Regulation, of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively.\nArticle 21\nColleges of supervisors\n1. The Authority shall contribute to promoting and monitoring the efficient, effective and consistent functioning of the colleges of supervisors referred to in Directive 2009/138/EC and foster the coherence of the application of Union law among the colleges of supervisors. With the objective of converging supervisory best practices, staff from the Authority shall be able to participate in the activities of the colleges of supervisors, including on-site examinations, carried out jointly by two or more competent authorities.\n2. The Authority shall lead in ensuring a consistent and coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors for cross-border institutions across the Union, taking account of the systemic risk posed by financial institutions referred to in Article 23.\nFor the purpose of this paragraph and of paragraph 1 of this Article, the Authority shall be considered a \u2018competent authority\u2019 within the meaning of the relevant legislation.\nThe Authority may:\n(a)\ncollect and share all relevant information in cooperation with the competent authorities in order to facilitate the work of the college and establish and manage a central system to make such information accessible to the competent authorities in the college;\n(b)\ninitiate and coordinate Union-wide stress tests in accordance with Article 32 to assess the resilience of financial institutions, in particular the systemic risk posed by financial institutions as referred to in Article 23, to adverse market developments, and evaluate the potential for systemic risk to increase in situations of stress, ensuring that a consistent methodology is applied at the national level to such tests and, where appropriate, address a recommendation to the competent authority to correct issues identified in the stress test;\n(c)\npromote effective and efficient supervisory activities, including evaluating the risks to which financial institutions are or might be exposed as determined under the supervisory review process or in stress situations;\n(d)\noversee, in accordance with the tasks and powers specified in this Regulation, the tasks carried out by the competent authorities; and\n(e)\nrequest further deliberations of a college in any cases where it considers that the decision would result in an incorrect application of Union law or would not contribute to the objective of convergence of supervisory practices. It may also require the group supervisor to schedule a meeting of the college or add a point to the agenda of a meeting.\n3. The Authority may develop draft regulatory and implementing technical standards to ensure uniform conditions of application with respect to the provisions regarding the operational functioning of colleges of supervisors and issue guidelines and recommendations adopted under Article 16 to promote convergence in supervisory functioning and best practices adopted by the colleges of supervisors.\n4. The Authority shall have a legally binding mediation role to resolve disputes between competent authorities in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 19. The Authority may take supervisory decisions directly applicable to the institution concerned in accordance with Article 19.\nArticle 22\nGeneral provisions\n1. The Authority shall duly consider systemic risk as defined by Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010. It shall address any risk of disruption in financial services that:\n(a)\nis caused by an impairment of all or parts of the financial system; and\n(b)\nhas the potential to have serious negative consequences for internal market and the real economy.\nThe Authority shall consider, where appropriate, the monitoring and assessment of systemic risk as developed by the ESRB and the Authority and respond to warnings and recommendations by the ESRB in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010.\n2. The Authority shall, in collaboration with the ESRB, and in accordance with Article 23(1), develop a common approach to the identification and measurement of systemic importance, including quantitative and qualitative indicators as appropriate.\nThese indicators shall be a critical element in the determination of appropriate supervisory actions. The Authority shall monitor the degree of convergence in the determinations made, with a view to promoting a common approach.\n3. Without prejudice to the acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority shall draw up, as necessary, additional guidelines and recommendations for financial institutions, to take account of the systemic risk posed by them.\nThe Authority shall ensure that the systemic risk posed by financial institutions is taken into account when developing draft regulatory and implementing technical standards in the areas laid down in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2).\n4. Upon a request from one or more competent authorities, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission, or on its own initiative, the Authority may conduct an inquiry into a particular type of financial institution or type of product or type of conduct in order to assess potential threats to the stability of the financial system and make appropriate recommendations for action to the competent authorities concerned.\nFor those purposes, the Authority may use the powers conferred on it under this Regulation, including Article 35.\n5. The Joint Committee shall ensure overall and cross-sectoral coordination of the activities carried out in accordance with this Article.\nArticle 23\nIdentification and measurement of systemic risk\n1. The Authority shall, in consultation with the ESRB, develop criteria for the identification and measurement of systemic risk and an adequate stress testing regime which includes an evaluation of the potential for systemic risk that may be posed by financial institutions to increase in situations of stress.\nThe Authority shall develop an adequate stress testing regime to help identify those financial institutions that may pose a systemic risk. These institutions shall be subject to strengthened supervision, and where necessary, to the recovery and resolution procedures referred to in Article 25.\n2. The Authority shall take fully into account the relevant international approaches when developing the criteria for the identification and measurement of systemic risk that may be posed by insurance, re-insurance and occupational pensions institutions, including those established by the Financial Stability Board, the International Monetary Fund, the International Association of Insurance Supervisors and the Bank for International Settlements.\nArticle 24\nPermanent capacity to respond to systemic risks\n1. The Authority shall ensure it has specialised and ongoing capacity to respond effectively to the materialisation of systemic risks as referred to in Articles 22 and 23, in particular with respect to institutions that pose a systemic risk.\n2. The Authority shall fulfil the tasks conferred upon it in this Regulation and in the legislation referred to in Article 1(2), and shall contribute to ensuring a coherent and coordinated crisis management and resolution regime in the Union.\nArticle 25\nRecovery and resolution procedures\n1. The Authority shall contribute to and participate actively in the development and coordination of effective and consistent recovery and resolution plans, procedures in emergency situations and preventive measures to minimise the systemic impact of any failure.\n2. The Authority may identify best practices aimed at facilitating the resolution of failing institutions and, in particular, cross-border groups, in ways which avoid contagion, ensuring that appropriate tools, including sufficient resources, are available and allow the institution or the group to be resolved in an orderly, cost-efficient and timely manner.\n3. The Authority may develop regulatory and implementing technical standards as specified in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 15.\nArticle 26\nDevelopment of a European network of national insurance guarantee schemes\nThe Authority may contribute to the assessment of the need for a European network of national insurance guarantee schemes which is adequately funded and sufficiently harmonised.\nArticle 27\nCrisis prevention, management and resolution\nThe Authority may be requested by the Commission to contribute to the assessment referred to in Article 242 of Directive 2009/138/EC, in particular as regards the cooperation of supervisory authorities within, and functionality of, colleges of supervisors; the supervisory practices concerning setting the capital add-ons; the assessment of the benefit of enhancing group supervision and capital management within a group of insurance or reinsurance undertakings, including possible measures to enhance a sound cross-border management of insurance groups, in particular in respect of risks and asset management; and may report on any new developments and progress concerning:\n(a)\na harmonised framework for early intervention;\n(b)\npractices in centralised group risk management and functioning of group internal models including stress testing;\n(c)\nintra-group transactions and risk concentrations;\n(d)\nthe behaviour of diversification and concentration effects over time;\n(e)\na harmonised framework for asset transferability, insolvency and winding-up procedures which eliminates the relevant national company or corporate law barriers to asset transferability;\n(f)\nan equivalent level of protection of policy holders and beneficiaries of the undertakings of the same group, particularly in crisis situations;\n(g)\na harmonised and adequately funded Union-wide solution for insurance guarantee schemes.\nHaving regard to point (f), the Authority may also report on any new developments and progress concerning a set of coordinated national crisis management arrangements and including the necessity or otherwise of a system of coherent and credible funding mechanisms, with appropriate financing instruments.\nThe review of this Regulation provided for in Article 81 shall, in particular, examine the possible enhancement of the role of the Authority in a framework of crisis prevention, management and resolution.\nArticle 28\nDelegation of tasks and responsibilities\n1. Competent authorities may, with the consent of the delegate, delegate tasks and responsibilities to the Authority or other competent authorities subject to the conditions set out in this Article. Member States may set out specific arrangements regarding the delegation of responsibilities that have to be complied with before their competent authorities enter into such delegation agreements, and may limit the scope of delegation to what is necessary for the effective supervision of cross-border financial institutions or groups.\n2. The Authority shall stimulate and facilitate the delegation of tasks and responsibilities between competent authorities by identifying those tasks and responsibilities that can be delegated or jointly exercised and by promoting best practices.\n3. The delegation of responsibilities shall result in the reallocation of competences laid down in the acts referred to in Article 1(2). The law of the delegate authority shall govern the procedure, enforcement and administrative and judicial review relating to the delegated responsibilities.\n4. The competent authorities shall inform the Authority of delegation agreements into which they intend to enter. They shall put the agreements into effect at the earliest 1 month after informing the Authority.\nThe Authority may give an opinion on the intended agreement within 1 month of being informed.\nThe Authority shall publish, by appropriate means, any delegation agreement as concluded by the competent authorities, in order to ensure that all parties concerned are informed appropriately.\nArticle 29\nCommon supervisory culture\n1. The Authority shall play an active role in building a common Union supervisory culture and consistent supervisory practices, as well as in ensuring uniform procedures and consistent approaches throughout the Union. The Authority shall carry out, at a minimum, the following activities:\n(a)\nproviding opinions to competent authorities;\n(b)\npromoting an effective bilateral and multilateral exchange of information between competent authorities, with full respect for the applicable confidentiality and data protection provisions provided for in the relevant Union legislation;\n(c)\ncontributing to developing high quality and uniform supervisory standards, including reporting standards, and international accounting standards in accordance with Article 1(3);\n(d)\nreviewing the application of the relevant regulatory and implementing technical standards adopted by the Commission, and of the guidelines and recommendations issued by the Authority and proposing amendments where appropriate; and\n(e)\nestablishing sectoral and cross-sectoral training programmes, facilitating personnel exchanges and encouraging competent authorities to intensify the use of secondment schemes and other tools.\n2. The Authority may, as appropriate, develop new practical instruments and convergence tools to promote common supervisory approaches and practices.\nArticle 30\nPeer reviews of competent authorities\n1. The Authority shall periodically organise and conduct peer reviews of some or all of the activities of competent authorities, to further strengthen consistency in supervisory outcomes. To that end, the Authority shall develop methods to allow for objective assessment and comparison between the authorities reviewed. When conducting peer reviews, existing information and evaluations already made with regard to the competent authority concerned shall be taken into account.\n2. The peer review shall include an assessment of, but shall not be limited to:\n(a)\nthe adequacy of resources and governance arrangements of the competent authority, with particular regard to the effective application of the regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards referred to in Articles 10 to 15 and of the acts referred to in Article 1(2) and the capacity to respond to market developments;\n(b)\nthe degree of convergence reached in the application of Union law and in supervisory practice, including regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations adopted under Articles 10 to 16, and the extent to which the supervisory practice achieves the objectives set out in Union law;\n(c)\nbest practices developed by some competent authorities which might be of benefit for other competent authorities to adopt;\n(d)\nthe effectiveness and the degree of convergence reached with regard to the enforcement of the provisions adopted in the implementation of Union law, including the administrative measures and sanctions imposed against persons responsible where those provisions have not been complied with.\n3. On the basis of a peer review, the Authority may issue guidelines and recommendations pursuant to Article 16. In accordance with Article 16(3), the competent authorities shall endeavour to follow those guidelines and recommendations. The Authority shall take into account the outcome of the peer review when developing draft regulatory technical or implementing technical standards in accordance with Articles 10 to 15.\n4. The Authority shall make the best practices that can be identified from those peer reviews publicly available. In addition, all other results of peer reviews may be disclosed publicly, subject to the agreement of the competent authority that is the subject of the peer review.\nArticle 31\nCoordination function\nThe Authority shall fulfil a general coordination role between competent authorities, in particular in situations where adverse developments could potentially jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system in the Union.\nThe Authority shall promote a coordinated Union response, inter alia, by:\n(a)\nfacilitating the exchange of information between the competent authorities;\n(b)\ndetermining the scope and, where possible and appropriate, verifying the reliability of information that should be made available to all the competent authorities concerned;\n(c)\nwithout prejudice to Article 19, carrying out non-binding mediation upon a request from the competent authorities or on its own initiative;\n(d)\nnotifying the ESRB of any potential emergency situations without delay;\n(e)\ntaking all appropriate measures in case of developments which may jeopardise the functioning of the financial markets with a view to facilitating the coordination of actions undertaken by relevant competent authorities;\n(f)\ncentralising information received from competent authorities in accordance with Articles 21 and 35 as the result of the regulatory reporting obligations for institutions active in more than one Member State. The Authority shall share that information with the other competent authorities concerned.\nArticle 32\nAssessment of market developments\n1. The Authority shall monitor and assess market developments in the area of its competence and, where necessary, inform the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), the ESRB and the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission about the relevant micro-prudential trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities. The Authority shall include in its assessments an economic analysis of the markets in which financial institutions operate and an assessment of the impact of potential market developments on such institutions.\n2. The Authority shall, in cooperation with the ESRB, initiate and coordinate Union-wide assessments of the resilience of financial institutions to adverse market developments. To that end, it shall develop the following, for application by the competent authorities:\n(a)\ncommon methodologies for assessing the effect of economic scenarios on an institution\u2019s financial position;\n(b)\ncommon approaches to communication on the outcomes of these assessments of the resilience of financial institutions;\n(c)\ncommon methodologies for assessing the effect of particular products or distribution processes on an institution\u2019s financial position and on policyholders, pension scheme members, beneficiaries and customer information.\n3. Without prejudice to the tasks of the ESRB set out in Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010, the Authority shall, at least once a year, and more frequently as necessary, provide assessments to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the ESRB of trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities in its area of competence.\nThe Authority shall include a classification of the main risks and vulnerabilities in these assessments and, where necessary, recommend preventative or remedial actions.\n4. The Authority shall ensure an adequate coverage of cross-sectoral developments, risks and vulnerabilities by closely cooperating with the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) through the Joint Committee.\nArticle 33\nInternational relations\n1. Without prejudice to the respective competences of the Member States and the Union institutions, the Authority may develop contacts and enter into administrative arrangements with supervisory authorities, international organisations and the administrations of third countries. Those arrangements shall not create legal obligations in respect of the Union and its Member States nor shall they prevent Member States and their competent authorities from concluding bilateral or multilateral arrangements with those third countries.\n2. The Authority shall assist in preparing equivalence decisions pertaining to supervisory regimes in third countries in accordance with the acts referred to in Article 1(2).\n3. In the report referred to in Article 43(5), the Authority shall set out the administrative arrangements agreed upon with international organisations or administrations in third countries and the assistance provided in preparing equivalence decisions.\nArticle 34\nOther tasks\n1. The Authority may, upon a request from the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission, or on its own initiative, provide opinions to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on all issues related to its area of competence.\n2. With regard to prudential assessments of mergers and acquisitions falling within the scope of Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC and 2005/68/EC, as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC, and which, according to those Directives, require consultation between competent authorities from two or more Member States, the Authority may, on application of one of the competent authorities concerned, issue and publish an opinion on a prudential assessment, except in relation to the criteria in Article 15b(1)(e) of Directive 92/49/EEC, Article 15b(1)(e) of Directive 2002/83/EC and Article 19a(1)(e) of Directive 2005/68/EC. The opinion shall be issued promptly and in any event before the end of the assessment period in accordance with Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC and 2005/68/EC, as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC. Article 35 shall apply to the areas in respect of which the Authority may issue an opinion.\nArticle 35\nCollection of information\n1. At the request of the Authority, the competent authorities of the Member States shall provide the Authority with all the necessary information to carry out the duties assigned to it by this Regulation, provided that they have legal access to the relevant information and that the request for information is necessary in relation to the nature of the duty in question.\n2. The Authority may also request information to be provided at recurring intervals and in specified formats. Such requests shall, where possible, be made using common reporting formats.\n3. Upon a duly justified request from a competent authority of a Member State, the Authority may provide any information that is necessary to enable the competent authority to carry out its duties, in accordance with the professional secrecy obligations laid down in sectoral legislation and in Article 70.\n4. Before requesting information in accordance with this Article and in order to avoid the duplication of reporting obligations, the Authority shall take account of any relevant existing statistics produced and disseminated by the European Statistical System and the European System of Central Banks.\n5. Where information is not available or is not made available by the competent authorities in a timely fashion, the Authority may address a duly justified and reasoned request to other supervisory authorities, to the ministry responsible for finance where it has at its disposal prudential information, to the national central bank or to the statistical office of the Member State concerned.\n6. Where information is not available or is not made available under paragraph 1 or 5 in a timely fashion, the Authority may address a duly justified and reasoned request directly to the relevant financial institutions. The reasoned request shall explain why the information concerning the respective individual financial institutions is necessary.\nThe Authority shall inform the relevant competent authorities of requests in accordance with this paragraph and with paragraph 5.\nAt the request of the Authority, the competent authorities shall assist the Authority in collecting the information.\n7. The Authority may use confidential information received under this Article only for the purposes of carrying out the duties assigned to it by this Regulation.\nArticle 36\nRelationship with the ESRB\n1. The Authority shall cooperate closely and on a regular basis with the ESRB.\n2. The Authority shall provide the ESRB with regular and timely information necessary for the achievement of its tasks. Any data necessary for the achievement of its tasks that are not in summary or aggregate form shall be provided, without delay, to the ESRB upon a reasoned request, as specified in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010. The Authority, in cooperation with the ESRB, shall have in place adequate internal procedures for the transmission of confidential information, in particular information regarding individual financial institutions.\n3. The Authority shall, in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5, ensure a proper follow-up to ESRB warnings and recommendations referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010.\n4. On receipt of a warning or recommendation from the ESRB addressed to the Authority, the Authority shall convene a meeting of the Board of Supervisors without delay and assess the implications of such a warning or recommendation for the fulfilment of its tasks.\nIt shall decide, by the relevant decision-making procedure, on any actions to be taken in accordance with the powers conferred upon it by this Regulation for addressing the issues identified in the warnings and recommendations.\nIf the Authority does not act on a recommendation, it shall explain to the ESRB and the Council its reasons for not doing so.\n5. On receipt of a warning or recommendation from the ESRB addressed to a competent national supervisory authority, the Authority shall, where relevant, use the powers conferred upon it by this Regulation to ensure a timely follow-up.\nWhere the addressee intends not to follow the recommendation of the ESRB, it shall inform and discuss with the Board of Supervisors its reasons for not acting.\nThe competent authority shall take due account of the views of the Board of Supervisors when informing the Council and the ESRB in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010.\n6. In discharging the tasks set out in this Regulation, the Authority shall take the utmost account of the warnings and recommendations of the ESRB.\nArticle 37\nInsurance and Reinsurance Stakeholder Group and Occupational Pensions Stakeholder Group\n1. To help facilitate consultation with stakeholders in areas relevant to the tasks of the Authority, an Insurance and Reinsurance Stakeholder Group and an Occupational Pensions Stakeholder Group shall be established (hereinafter collectively referred to as the \u2018Stakeholder Groups\u2019). The Stakeholder Groups shall be consulted on actions taken in accordance with Articles 10 to 15 concerning regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards, and, to the extent that these do not concern individual financial institutions, Article 16 concerning guidelines and recommendations. If actions must be taken urgently and consultation becomes impossible, the Stakeholder Groups shall be informed as soon as possible.\nThe Stakeholder Groups shall meet at least four times a year. They may, together, discuss areas of mutual interest and shall inform each other of the other issues being discussed.\nMembers of one stakeholder group may be also members of the other stakeholder group.\n2. The Insurance and Reinsurance Stakeholder Group shall be composed of 30 members, representing in balanced proportions insurance and reinsurance undertakings and insurance intermediaries operating in the Union, and their employees\u2019 representatives, as well as consumers, users of insurance and reinsurance services, representatives of SMEs and representatives of relevant professional associations. At least five of its members shall be independent top-ranking academics. Ten of its members shall represent insurance undertakings, reinsurance undertakings or insurance intermediaries, three of whom shall represent cooperative and mutual insurers or reinsurers.\n3. The Occupational Pensions Stakeholder Group shall be composed of 30 members, representing in balanced proportions institutions for occupational retirement provision operating in the Union, representatives of employees, representatives of beneficiaries, representatives of SMEs and representatives of relevant professional associations. At least five of its members shall be independent top-ranking academics. Ten of its members shall represent institutions for occupational retirement provision.\n4. The members of the Stakeholder Groups shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, following proposals from the relevant stakeholders. In making its decision, the Board of Supervisors shall, to the extent possible, ensure an appropriate geographical and gender balance and representation of stakeholders across the Union.\n5. The Authority shall provide all necessary information subject to professional secrecy as set out in Article 70 and ensure adequate secretarial support for the Stakeholder Groups. Adequate compensation shall be provided to members of the Stakeholder Groups representing non-profit organisations, excluding industry representatives. The Stakeholder Groups may establish working groups on technical issues. Members of the Stakeholder Groups shall serve for a period of two-and-a-half years, following which a new selection procedure shall take place.\nThe members of the Stakeholder Groups may serve two successive terms.\n6. The Stakeholder Groups may submit opinions and advice to the Authority on any issue related to the tasks of the Authority with particular focus on the tasks set out in Articles 10 to 16, and Articles 29, 30 and 32.\n7. The Stakeholder Groups shall adopt their rules of procedure on the basis of the agreement of a two-thirds majority of their respective members.\n8. The Authority shall make public the opinions and advice of the Stakeholder Groups and the results of their consultations.\nArticle 38\nSafeguards\n1. The Authority shall ensure that no decision adopted under Articles 18 or 19 impinges in any way on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States.\n2. Where a Member State considers that a decision taken under Article 19(3) impinges on its fiscal responsibilities, it may notify the Authority and the Commission within 2 weeks after notification of the Authority\u2019s decision to the competent authority that the decision will not be implemented by the competent authority.\nIn its notification, the Member State shall clearly and specifically explain why and how the decision impinges on its fiscal responsibilities.\nIn the case of such notification, the decision of the Authority shall be suspended.\nWithin a period of 1 month from the notification by the Member State, the Authority shall inform the Member State as to whether it maintains its decision or whether it amends or revokes it. If the decision is maintained or amended, the Authority shall state that fiscal responsibilities are not affected.\nWhere the Authority maintains its decision, the Council shall take a decision, by a majority of the votes cast, at one of its meetings not later than 2 months after the Authority has informed the Member State as set out in the fourth subparagraph, as to whether the Authority\u2019s decision is maintained.\nWhere the Council, after having considered the matter, does not take a decision to maintain the Authority\u2019s decision in accordance with the fifth subparagraph, the Authority\u2019s decision shall be terminated.\n3. Where a Member State considers that a decision taken under Article 18(3) impinges on its fiscal responsibilities, it may notify the Authority, the Commission and the Council, within three working days after notification of the Authority\u2019s decision to the competent authority, that the decision will not be implemented by the competent authority.\nIn its notification, the Member State shall clearly and specifically explain why and how the decision impinges on its fiscal responsibilities.\nIn the case of such notification, the decision of the Authority shall be suspended.\nThe Council shall, within ten working days, convene a meeting and take a decision, by a simple majority of its members, as to whether the Authority\u2019s decision is revoked.\nWhere the Council, after having considered the matter, does not take a decision to revoke the Authority\u2019s decision in accordance with the fourth subparagraph, the suspension of the Authority\u2019s decision shall be terminated.\n4. Where the Council has taken a decision in accordance with paragraph 3 not to revoke a decision of the Authority relating to Article 18(3), and the Member State concerned still considers that the decision of the Authority impinges upon its fiscal responsibilities, that Member State may notify the Commission and the Authority and request the Council to re-examine the matter. The Member State concerned shall clearly set out the reasons for its disagreement with the decision of the Council.\nWithin a period of 4 weeks after the notification referred to in the first subparagraph, the Council shall confirm its original decision or take a new decision in accordance with paragraph 3.\nThe period of 4 weeks may be extended by four additional weeks by the Council, if the particular circumstances of the case so require.\n5. Any abuse of this Article, in particular in relation to a decision by the Authority which does not have a significant or material fiscal impact, shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market.\nArticle 39\nDecision-making procedures\n1. Before taking the decisions provided for in this Regulation, the Authority shall inform any named addressee of its intention to adopt the decision, setting a time limit within which the addressee may express its views on the matter, taking full account of the urgency, complexity and potential consequences of the matter. This applies mutatis mutandis to recommendations as referred to in Article 17(3).\n2. The decisions of the Authority shall state the reasons on which they are based.\n3. The addressees of decisions of the Authority shall be informed of the legal remedies available under this Regulation.\n4. Where the Authority has taken a decision pursuant to Article 18(3) or (4), it shall review that decision at appropriate intervals.\n5. The decisions which the Authority takes pursuant to Articles 17, 18 or 19 shall be made public and shall state the identity of the competent authority or financial institution concerned and the main content of the decision, unless such publication is in conflict with the legitimate interests of financial institutions in the protection of their business secrets or could seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system of the Union.\nCHAPTER III\nORGANISATION\nSECTION 1\nBoard of Supervisors\nArticle 40\nComposition\n1. The Board of Supervisors shall be composed of:\n(a)\nthe Chairperson, who shall be non-voting;\n(b)\nthe head of the national public authority competent for the supervision of financial institutions in each Member State, who shall meet in person at least twice a year;\n(c)\none representative of the Commission, who shall be non-voting;\n(d)\none representative of the ESRB, who shall be non-voting;\n(e)\none representative of each of the other two European Supervisory Authorities, who shall be non-voting;\n2. The Board of Supervisors shall convene meetings with the Stakeholder Groups regularly, at least twice a year.\n3. Each competent authority shall be responsible for nominating a high-level alternate from its authority, who may replace the member of the Board of Supervisors referred to in paragraph 1(b), where that person is prevented from attending.\n4. In Member States where more than one authority is responsible for the supervision according to this Regulation, those authorities shall agree on a common representative. Nevertheless, when an item to be discussed by the Board of Supervisors does not fall within the competence of the national authority being represented by the member referred to in paragraph 1(b), that member may bring a representative from the relevant national authority, who shall be non-voting.\n5. The Board of Supervisors may decide to admit observers.\nThe Executive Director may participate in meetings of the Board of Supervisors, without the right to vote.\nArticle 41\nInternal committees and panels\n1. The Board of Supervisors may establish internal committees or panels for specific tasks attributed to the Board of Supervisors, and may provide for the delegation of certain clearly defined tasks and decisions to internal committees or panels, to the Management Board or to the Chairperson.\n2. For the purposes of Article 19, the Board of Supervisors shall convoke an independent panel to facilitate an impartial settlement of the disagreement, consisting of the Chairperson and two of its members, who are not representatives of the competent authorities which are party to the disagreement and who have neither any interest in the conflict nor direct links to the competent authorities concerned.\n3. Subject to Article 19(2), the panel shall propose a decision for final adoption by the Board of Supervisors, in accordance with the procedure set out in the third subparagraph of Article 44(1).\n4. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt rules of procedure for the panel referred to in paragraph 2.\nArticle 42\nIndependence\nWhen carrying out the tasks conferred upon it by this Regulation, the Chairperson and the voting members of the Board of Supervisors shall act independently and objectively in the sole interest of the Union as a whole and shall neither seek nor take instructions from Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body.\nNeither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the members of the Board of Supervisors in the performance of their tasks.\nArticle 43\nTasks\n1. The Board of Supervisors shall give guidance to the work of the Authority and shall be in charge of taking the decisions referred to in Chapter II.\n2. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the opinions, recommendations, and decisions, and issue the advice referred to in Chapter II.\n3. The Board of Supervisors shall appoint the Chairperson.\n4. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt, before 30 September of each year, on the basis of a proposal by the Management Board, the work programme of the Authority for the coming year, and shall transmit it for information to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.\nThe work programme shall be adopted without prejudice to the annual budgetary procedure and shall be made public.\n5. The Board of Supervisors shall, on the basis of a proposal by the Management Board, adopt the annual report on the activities of the Authority, including on the performance of the Chairperson\u2019s duties, on the basis of the draft report referred to in Article 53(7) and shall transmit that report to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the European Economic and Social Committee by 15 June each year. The report shall be made public.\n6. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the multi-annual work programme of the Authority, and shall transmit it for information to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.\nThe multi-annual work programme shall be adopted without prejudice to the annual budgetary procedure and shall be made public.\n7. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the budget in accordance with Article 63.\n8. The Board of Supervisors shall exercise disciplinary authority over the Chairperson and the Executive Director and may remove them from office in accordance with Article 48(5) or Article 51(5) respectively.\nArticle 44\nDecision making\n1. Decisions of the Board of Supervisors shall be taken by a simple majority of its members. Each member shall have one vote.\nWith regard to the acts specified in Articles 10 to 16 and measures and decisions adopted under the third subparagraph of Article 9(5) and Chapter VI and by way of derogation from the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the Board of Supervisors shall take decisions on the basis of a qualified majority of its members, as defined in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 3 of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions.\nWith regard to decisions in accordance with Article 19(3), for decisions taken by the group supervisor, the decision proposed by the panel shall be considered as adopted, if approved by a simple majority, unless it is rejected by members representing a blocking minority of the votes as defined in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 3 of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions.\nFor all other decisions in accordance with Article 19(3), the decision proposed by the panel shall be adopted by a simple majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors. Each member shall have one vote.\n2. Meetings of the Board of Supervisors shall be convened by the Chairperson at his own initiative or at the request of one third of its members, and shall be chaired by the Chairperson.\n3. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure.\n4. The rules of procedure shall set out in detail the arrangements governing voting, including, where appropriate, the rules governing quorums. The non-voting members and the observers, with the exception of the Chairperson and the Executive Director, shall not attend any discussions within the Board of Supervisors relating to individual financial institutions, unless otherwise provided for in Article 75(3) or in the acts referred to in Article 1(2).\nSECTION 2\nManagement Board\nArticle 45\nComposition\n1. The Management Board shall be composed of the Chairperson and six other members of the Board of Supervisors, elected by and from the voting members of the Board of Supervisors.\nOther than the Chairperson, each member of the Management Board shall have an alternate, who may replace him if he is prevented from attending.\nThe term of office of the members elected by the Board of Supervisors shall be two-and-a-half years. That term may be extended once. The composition of the Management Board shall be balanced and proportionate and shall reflect the Union as a whole. Mandates shall be overlapping and an appropriate rotating arrangement shall apply.\n2. Decisions by the Management Board shall be adopted on the basis of a majority of the members present. Each member shall have one vote.\nThe Executive Director and a representative of the Commission shall participate in meetings of the Management Board without the right to vote.\nThe representative of the Commission shall have the right to vote on matters referred to in Article 63.\nThe Management Board shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure.\n3. Meetings of the Management Board shall be convened by the Chairperson at his own initiative or at the request of at least a third of its members, and shall be chaired by the Chairperson.\nThe Management Board shall meet prior to every meeting of the Board of Supervisors and as often as the Management Board deems necessary. It shall meet at least five times a year.\n4. The members of the Management Board may, subject to the rules of procedure, be assisted by advisers or experts. The non-voting members, with the exception of the Executive Director, shall not attend any discussions within the Management Board relating to individual financial institutions.\nArticle 46\nIndependence\nThe members of the Management Board shall act independently and objectively in the sole interest of the Union as a whole and shall neither seek nor take instructions from the Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body.\nNeither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the members of the Management Board in the performance of their tasks.\nArticle 47\nTasks\n1. The Management Board shall ensure that the Authority carries out its mission and performs the tasks assigned to it in accordance with this Regulation.\n2. The Management Board shall propose, for adoption by the Board of Supervisors, an annual and multi-annual work programme.\n3. The Management Board shall exercise its budgetary powers in accordance with Articles 63 and 64.\n4. The Management Board shall adopt the Authority\u2019s staff policy plan and, pursuant to Article 68(2), the necessary implementing measures of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (hereinafter the Staff Regulations\u2019).\n5. The Management Board shall adopt the special provisions on right of access to the documents of the Authority, in accordance with Article 72.\n6. The Management Board shall propose an annual report on the activities of the Authority, including on the Chairperson\u2019s duties, on the basis of the draft report referred to in Article 53(7) to the Board of Supervisors for approval.\n7. The Management Board shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure.\n8. The Management Board shall appoint and remove the members of the Board of Appeal in accordance with Article 58(3) and (5).\nSECTION 3\nChairperson\nArticle 48\nAppointment and tasks\n1. The Authority shall be represented by a Chairperson, who shall be a full-time independent professional.\nThe Chairperson shall be responsible for preparing the work of the Board of Supervisors and shall chair the meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board.\n2. The Chairperson shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and of experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation, following an open selection procedure.\nBefore taking up his duties, and up to 1 month after the selection by the Board of Supervisors, the European Parliament may, after having heard the candidate selected by the Board of Supervisors, object to the designation of the selected person.\nThe Board of Supervisors shall also elect, from among its members, an alternate who shall carry out the functions of the Chairperson in his absence. That alternate shall not be elected from among the members of the Management Board.\n3. The Chairperson\u2019s term of office shall be 5 years and may be extended once.\n4. In the course of the 9 months preceding the end of the five-year term of office of the Chairperson, the Board of Supervisors shall evaluate:\n(a)\nthe results achieved in the first term of office and the way they were achieved;\n(b)\nthe Authority\u2019s duties and requirements in the coming years.\nThe Board of Supervisors, taking into account the evaluation, may extend the term of office of the Chairperson once subject to confirmation by the European Parliament.\n5. The Chairperson may be removed from office only by the European Parliament following a decision of the Board of Supervisors.\nThe Chairperson shall not prevent the Board of Supervisors from discussing matters relating to the Chairperson, in particular the need for his removal, and shall not be involved in deliberations concerning such a matter.\nArticle 49\nIndependence\nWithout prejudice to the role of the Board of Supervisors in relation to the tasks of the Chairperson, the Chairperson shall neither seek nor take instructions from the Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body.\nNeither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the Chairperson in the performance of his tasks.\nIn accordance with the Staff Regulations referred to in Article 68, the Chairperson shall, after leaving service, continue to be bound by the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance of certain appointments or benefits.\nArticle 50\nReport\n1. The European Parliament and the Council may invite the Chairperson or his alternate to make a statement, while fully respecting his independence. The Chairperson shall make a statement before the European Parliament and answer any questions put by its members whenever so requested.\n2. The Chairperson shall report in writing on the main activities of the Authority to the European Parliament when requested and at least 15 days before making the statement referred to in paragraph 1.\n3. In addition to the information referred to in Articles 11 to 18 and Articles 20 and 33, the report shall also include any relevant information requested by the European Parliament on an ad-hoc basis.\nSECTION 4\nExecutive Director\nArticle 51\nAppointment\n1. The Authority shall be managed by an Executive Director, who shall be a full-time independent professional.\n2. The Executive Director shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, after confirmation by the European Parliament, on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation and managerial experience, following an open selection procedure.\n3. The Executive Director\u2019s term of office shall be 5 years and may be extended once.\n4. In the course of the 9 months preceding the end of the Executive Director\u2019s term of office, the Board of Supervisors shall evaluate in particular:\n(a)\nthe results achieved in the first term of office and the way they were achieved;\n(b)\nthe Authority\u2019s duties and requirements in the coming years.\nThe Board of Supervisors, taking into account the evaluation referred to in the first subparagraph, may extend the term of office of the Executive Director once.\n5. The Executive Director may be removed from office only upon a decision of the Board of Supervisors.\nArticle 52\nIndependence\nWithout prejudice to the respective roles of the Management Board and the Board of Supervisors in relation to the tasks of the Executive Director, the Executive Director shall neither seek nor take instructions from the Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State, or from any other public or private body.\nNeither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the Executive Director in the performance of his tasks.\nIn accordance with the Staff Regulations referred to in Article 68, the Executive Director shall, after leaving service, continue to be bound by the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance of certain appointments or benefits.\nArticle 53\nTasks\n1. The Executive Director shall be in charge of the management of the Authority and shall prepare the work of the Management Board.\n2. The Executive Director shall be responsible for implementing the annual work programme of the Authority under the guidance of the Board of Supervisors and under the control of the Management Board.\n3. The Executive Director shall take the necessary measures, notably the adoption of internal administrative instructions and the publication of notices, to ensure the functioning of the Authority, in accordance with this Regulation.\n4. The Executive Director shall prepare a multi-annual work programme, as referred to in Article 47(2).\n5. Each year, by 30 June, the Executive Director shall prepare a work programme for the following year, as referred to in Article 47(2).\n6. The Executive Director shall draw up a preliminary draft budget of the Authority pursuant to Article 63 and shall implement the budget of the Authority pursuant to Article 64.\n7. Each year the Executive Director shall prepare a draft report with a section on the regulatory and supervisory activities of the Authority and a section on financial and administrative matters.\n8. The Executive Director shall exercise in respect to the Authority\u2019s staff the powers laid down in Article 68 and manage staff matters.\nCHAPTER IV\nJOINT BODIES OF THE EUROPEAN SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES\nSECTION 1\nJoint Committee of European Supervisory Authorities\nArticle 54\nEstablishment\n1. The Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities is hereby established.\n2. The Joint Committee shall serve as a forum in which the Authority shall cooperate regularly and closely and ensure cross-sectoral consistency with the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), in particular regarding:\n-\nfinancial conglomerates,\n-\naccounting and auditing,\n-\nmicro-prudential analyses of cross-sectoral developments, risks and vulnerabilities for financial stability,\n-\nretail investment products,\n-\nmeasures combating money laundering; and,\n-\ninformation exchange with the ESRB and developing the relationship between the ESRB and the ESAs,\n3. The Joint Committee shall have a dedicated staff provided by the ESAs that shall act as a secretariat. The Authority shall contribute adequate resources to administrative, infrastructure and operational expenses.\n4. In the event that a financial institution reaches across different sectors, the Joint Committee shall resolve disagreements in accordance with Article 56.\nArticle 55\nComposition\n1. The Joint Committee shall be composed of the Chairpersons of the ESAs, and, where applicable, the Chairperson of any Sub-Committee established under Article 57.\n2. The Executive Director, a representative of the Commission and the ESRB shall be invited to the meetings of the Joint Committee, as well as of any Sub-Committees referred to in Article 57, as observers.\n3. The Chairperson of the Joint Committee shall be appointed on an annual rotational basis from among the Chairpersons of the ESAs. The Chairperson of the Joint Committee shall be a Vice-Chair of the ESRB.\n4. The Joint Committee shall adopt and publish its own rules of procedure. The rules may specify further participants in the meetings of the Joint Committee.\nThe Joint Committee shall meet at least once every 2 months.\nArticle 56\nJoint positions and common acts\nWithin the scope of its tasks in Chapter II, and in particular with respect to the implementation of Directive 2002/87/EC, where relevant, the Authority shall reach joint positions with the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and with the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), as appropriate.\nActs under Articles 10 to 15, 17, 18 or 19 of this Regulation in relation to the application of Directive 2002/87/EC and of any other Union acts referred to in Article 1(2) that also fall within the area of competence of the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) or the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) shall be adopted, in parallel, by the Authority, the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Market Authority), as appropriate.\nArticle 57\nSub-Committees\n1. For the purposes of Article 56, a Sub-Committee on Financial Conglomerates to the Joint Committee shall be established.\n2. The Sub-Committee shall be composed of the individuals referred to in Article 55(1), and one high-level representative from the current staff of the relevant competent authority from each Member State.\n3. The Sub-Committee shall elect a Chairperson from among its members, who shall also be a member of the Joint Committee.\n4. The Joint Committee may establish further Sub-Committees.\nSECTION 2\nBoard of Appeal\nArticle 58\nComposition and operation\n1. The Board of Appeal shall be a joint body of the ESAs.\n2. The Board of Appeal shall be composed of six members and six alternates, who shall be individuals of a high repute with a proven record of relevant knowledge and professional experience, including supervisory experience, to a sufficiently high level in the fields of banking, insurance, occupational pensions, securities markets or other financial services, excluding current staff of the competent authorities or other national or Union institutions involved in the activities of the Authority. The Board of Appeal shall have sufficient legal expertise to provide expert legal advice on the legality of the Authority\u2019s exercise of its powers.\nThe Board of Appeal shall designate its President.\n3. Two members of the Board of Appeal and two alternates shall be appointed by the Management Board of the Authority from a short-list proposed by the Commission, following a public call for expressions of interest published in the Official Journal of the European Union, and after consultation of the Board of Supervisors.\nThe other members shall be appointed in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.\n4. The term of office of the members of the Board of Appeal shall be 5 years. That term may be extended once.\n5. A member of the Board of Appeal appointed by the Management Board of the Authority shall not be removed during his term of office unless he has been found guilty of serious misconduct and the Management Board takes a decision to that effect after consulting the Board of Supervisors.\n6. The decisions of the Board of Appeal shall be adopted on the basis of a majority of at least four of its six members. Where the appealed decision falls within the scope of this Regulation, the deciding majority shall include at least one of the two members of the Board of Appeal appointed by the Authority.\n7. The Board of Appeal shall be convened by its President when necessary.\n8. The ESAs shall ensure adequate operational and secretarial support for the Board of Appeal through the Joint Committee.\nArticle 59\nIndependence and impartiality\n1. The members of the Board of Appeal shall be independent in making their decisions. They shall not be bound by any instructions. They shall not perform any other duties in relation to the Authority, its Management Board or its Board of Supervisors.\n2. Members of the Board of Appeal shall not take part in any appeal proceedings in which they have any personal interest if they have previously been involved as representatives of one of the parties to the proceedings, or if they have participated in the decision under appeal.\n3. If, for one of the reasons referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 or for any other reason, a member of a Board of Appeal considers that another member should not take part in any appeal proceedings, he shall inform the Board of Appeal accordingly.\n4. Any party to the appeal proceedings may object to the participation of a member of the Board of Appeal on any of the grounds referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, or if suspected of bias.\nNo objection may be based on the nationality of members nor shall it be admissible if, while being aware of a reason for objecting, the party to the appeal proceedings has nonetheless taken a procedural step other than objecting to the composition of the Board of Appeal.\n5. The Board of Appeal shall decide on the action to be taken in the cases specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 without the participation of the member concerned.\nFor the purpose of taking that decision, the member concerned shall be replaced on the Board of Appeal by his alternate. Where the alternate is in a similar situation, the Chairperson shall designate a replacement from among the available alternates.\n6. The members of the Board of Appeal shall undertake to act independently and in the public interest.\nFor that purpose, they shall make a declaration of commitments and a declaration of interests indicating either the absence of any interest which may be considered prejudicial to their independence or any direct or indirect interest which might be considered prejudicial to their independence.\nThose declarations shall be made public, annually and in writing.\nCHAPTER V\nREMEDIES\nArticle 60\nAppeals\n1. Any natural or legal person, including competent authorities, may appeal against a decision of the Authority referred to in Articles 17, 18 and 19and any other decision taken by the Authority in accordance with the Union acts referred to in Article 1(2) which is addressed to that person, or against a decision which, although in the form of a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to that person.\n2. The appeal, together with a statement of grounds, shall be filed in writing at the Authority within 2 months of the date of notification of the decision to the person concerned, or, in the absence of a notification, of the day on which the Authority published its decision.\nThe Board of Appeal shall decide upon the appeal within 2 months after the appeal has been lodged.\n3. An appeal lodged pursuant to paragraph 1 shall not have suspensive effect.\nHowever, the Board of Appeal may, if it considers that circumstances so require, suspend the application of the contested decision.\n4. If the appeal is admissible, the Board of Appeal shall examine whether it is well-founded. It shall invite the parties to the appeal proceedings to file observations on its own notifications or on communications from the other parties to the appeal proceedings, within specified time limits. Parties to the appeal proceedings shall be entitled to make oral representations.\n5. The Board of Appeal may confirm the decision taken by the competent body of the Authority, or remit the case to the competent body of the Authority. That body shall be bound by the decision of the Board of Appeal and that body shall adopt an amended decision regarding the case concerned.\n6. The Board of Appeal shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure.\n7. The decisions taken by the Board of Appeal shall be reasoned and shall be made public by the Authority.\nArticle 61\nActions before the Court of Justice of the European Union\n1. Proceedings may be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, contesting a decision taken by the Board of Appeal or, in cases where there is no right of appeal before the Board of Appeal, by the Authority.\n2. Member States and the Union institutions, as well as any natural or legal person, may institute proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union against decisions of the Authority, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU.\n3. In the event that the Authority has an obligation to act and fails to take a decision, proceedings for failure to act may be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with Article 265 TFEU.\n4. The Authority shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.\nCHAPTER VI\nFINANCIAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 62\nBudget of the Authority\n1. The revenues of the Authority, a European body in accordance with Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (50) (hereinafter the \u2018Financial Regulation\u2019), shall consist, in particular, of any combination of the following:\n(a)\nobligatory contributions from the national public authorities competent for the supervision of financial institutions, which shall be made in accordance with a formula based on the weighting of votes set out in Article 3(3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions. For the purposes of this Article, Article 3(3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions shall continue to apply beyond the deadline of 31 October 2014 therein established;\n(b)\na subsidy from the Union, entered in the General Budget of the European Union (Commission Section);\n(c)\nany fees paid to the Authority in the cases specified in the relevant instruments of Union law.\n2. The expenditure of the Authority shall include, at least, staff, remuneration, administrative, infrastructure, professional training and operational expenses.\n3. Revenue and expenditure shall be in balance.\n4. Estimates of all Authority revenue and expenditure shall be prepared for each financial year, corresponding to the calendar year, and shall be presented in the budget of the Authority.\nArticle 63\nEstablishment of the budget\n1. By 15 February each year, the Executive Director shall draw up a draft statement of estimates of revenue and expenditure for the following financial year, and shall forward it to the Management Board and the Board of Supervisors, together with the establishment plan. Each year, the Board of Supervisors shall, on the basis of the draft statement drawn up by the Executive Director and approved by the Management Board, produce a statement of estimates of revenue and expenditure of the Authority for the following financial year. That statement of estimates, including a draft establishment plan, shall be transmitted by the Board of Supervisors to the Commission by 31 March. Prior to adoption of the statement of estimates, the draft prepared by the Executive Director shall be approved by the Management Board.\n2. The statement of estimates shall be transmitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council (hereinafter referred to together as the \u2018budgetary authority\u2019), together with the draft budget of the European Union.\n3. On the basis of the statement of estimates, the Commission shall enter in the draft budget of the European Union the estimates it deems necessary in respect of the establishment plan and the amount of the subsidy to be charged to the General Budget of the European Union in accordance with Articles 313 and 314 TFEU.\n4. The budgetary authority shall adopt the establishment plan for the Authority. The budgetary authority shall authorise the appropriations for the subsidy to the Authority.\n5. The budget of the Authority shall be adopted by the Board of Supervisors. It shall become final after the final adoption of the General Budget of the European Union. Where necessary, it shall be adjusted accordingly.\n6. The Management Board shall, without delay, notify the budgetary authority of its intention to implement any project which may have significant financial implications for the funding of its budget, in particular any project relating to property, such as the rental or purchase of buildings. It shall inform the Commission thereof. If either branch of the budgetary authority intends to issue an opinion, it shall, within 2 weeks of receipt of the information on the project, notify the Authority of its intention to issue such an opinion. In the absence of a reply, the Authority may proceed with the planned operation.\n7. For the first year of operation of the Authority, ending on 31 December 2011, the financing of the Authority by the Union is subject to an agreement by the budgetary authority as provided for in Point 47 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management.\nArticle 64\nImplementation and control of the budget\n1. The Executive Director shall act as authorising officer and shall implement the Authority\u2019s budget.\n2. By 1 March following the completion of each financial year, the Authority\u2019s accounting officer shall forward to the Commission\u2019s accounting officer and to the Court of Auditors the provisional accounts, accompanied by the report on budgetary and financial management during the financial year. The Authority\u2019s accounting officer shall also send the report on budgetary and financial management to the members of the Board of Supervisors, the European Parliament and the Council by 31 March of the following year.\nThe Commission\u2019s accounting officer shall then consolidate the provisional accounts of the institutions and decentralised bodies in accordance with Article 128 of the Financial Regulation.\n3. After receiving the observations of the Court of Auditors on the provisional accounts of the Authority in accordance with Article 129 of the Financial Regulation, the Executive Director, acting on his own responsibility, shall draw up the final accounts of the Authority and transmit them, for opinion, to the Management Board.\n4. The Management Board shall deliver an opinion on the final accounts of the Authority.\n5. The Executive Director shall transmit those final accounts, accompanied by the opinion of the Management Board, by 1 July following the completion of the financial year, to the Members of the Board of Supervisors, the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors.\n6. The final accounts shall be published.\n7. The Executive Director shall send the Court of Auditors a reply to the latter\u2019s observations by 30 September. He shall also send a copy of that reply to the Management Board and the Commission.\n8. The Executive Director shall submit to the European Parliament, at the latter\u2019s request and as provided for in Article 146(3) of the Financial Regulation, any information necessary for the smooth application of the discharge procedure for the financial year in question.\n9. The European Parliament, following a recommendation from the Council acting by qualified majority, shall, before 15 May of the year N + 2, grant a discharge to the Authority for the implementation of the budget comprising revenue from the General Budget of the European Union and competent authorities for the financial year N.\nArticle 65\nFinancial rules\nThe financial rules applicable to the Authority shall be adopted by the Management Board after consulting the Commission. Those rules may not depart from Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (51) unless the specific operational needs for the functioning of the Authority so require and only with the prior agreement of the Commission.\nArticle 66\nAnti-fraud measures\n1. For the purposes of combating fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity, Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 shall apply to the Authority without any restriction.\n2. The Authority shall accede to the Interinstitutional Agreement concerning internal investigations by OLAF and shall immediately adopt appropriate provisions for all staff of the Authority.\n3. The funding decisions and the agreements and the implementing instruments resulting from them shall explicitly stipulate that the Court of Auditors and OLAF may, if need be, carry out on-the-spot checks on the beneficiaries of monies disbursed by the Authority as well as on the staff responsible for allocating these monies.\nCHAPTER VII\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 67\nPrivileges and immunities\nThe Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the TFEU shall apply to the Authority and its staff.\nArticle 68\nStaff\n1. The Staff Regulations, the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and the rules adopted jointly by the Union institutions for the purpose of applying them shall apply to the staff of the Authority, including its Executive Director and its Chairperson.\n2. The Management Board, in agreement with the Commission, shall adopt the necessary implementing measures, in accordance with the arrangements provided for in Article 110 of the Staff Regulations.\n3. In respect of its staff, the Authority shall exercise the powers conferred on the appointing authority by the Staff Regulations and on the authority entitled to conclude contracts by the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants.\n4. The Management Board shall adopt provisions to allow national experts from Member States to be seconded to the Authority.\nArticle 69\nLiability of the Authority\n1. In the case of non-contractual liability, the Authority shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by it or by its staff in the performance of their duties. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction in any dispute over the remedying of such damage.\n2. The personal financial liability and disciplinary liability of Authority staff towards the Authority shall be governed by the relevant provisions applying to the staff of the Authority.\nArticle 70\nObligation of professional secrecy\n1. Members of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board, the Executive Director, and members of the staff of the Authority including officials seconded by Member States on a temporary basis and all other persons carrying out tasks for the Authority on a contractual basis shall be subject to the requirements of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 339 TFEU and the relevant provisions in Union legislation, even after their duties have ceased.\nArticle 16 of the Staff Regulations shall apply to them.\nIn accordance with the Staff Regulations, the staff shall, after leaving service, continue to be bound by the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance of certain appointments or benefits.\nNeither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence staff members of the Authority in the performance of their tasks.\n2. Without prejudice to cases covered by criminal law, any confidential information received by persons referred to in paragraph 1 whilst performing their duties may not be divulged to any person or authority whatsoever, except in summary or aggregate form, such that individual financial institutions cannot be identified.\nMoreover, the obligation under paragraph 1 and the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall not prevent the Authority and the national supervisory authorities from using the information for the enforcement of the acts referred to in Article 1(2), and in particular for legal procedures for the adoption of decisions.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not prevent the Authority from exchanging information with national supervisory authorities in accordance with this Regulation and other Union legislation applicable to financial institutions.\nThat information shall be subject to the conditions of professional secrecy referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. The Authority shall lay down in its internal rules of procedure the practical arrangements for implementing the confidentiality rules referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.\n4. The Authority shall apply Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending its internal Rules of Procedure (52).\nArticle 71\nData protection\nThis Regulation shall be without prejudice to the obligations of Member States relating to their processing of personal data under Directive 95/46/EC or the obligations of the Authority relating to its processing of personal data under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 when fulfilling its responsibilities.\nArticle 72\nAccess to documents\n1. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 shall apply to documents held by the Authority.\n2. The Management Board shall, by 31 May 2011, adopt practical measures for applying Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.\n3. Decisions taken by the Authority pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 may be the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman or of proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union, following an appeal to the Board of Appeal, as appropriate, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Articles 228 and 263 TFEU respectively.\nArticle 73\nLanguage arrangements\n1. Council Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (53) shall apply to the Authority.\n2. The Management Board shall decide on the internal language arrangements for the Authority.\n3. The translation services required for the functioning of the Authority shall be provided by the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union.\nArticle 74\nHeadquarters Agreement\nThe necessary arrangements concerning the accommodation to be provided for the Authority in the Member State where its seat is located and the facilities to be made available by that Member State, as well as the specific rules applicable in that Member State to the Executive Director, the members of the Management Board, the staff of the Authority and members of their families shall be laid down in a Headquarters Agreement between the Authority and that Member State concluded after obtaining the approval of the Management Board.\nThat Member State shall provide the best possible conditions to ensure the proper functioning of the Authority, including multilingual, European-oriented schooling and appropriate transport connections.\nArticle 75\nParticipation of third countries\n1. Participation in the work of the Authority shall be open to third countries which have concluded agreements with the Union whereby they have adopted and are applying Union law in the areas of competence of the Authority as referred to in Article 1(2).\n2. The Authority may cooperate with the countries referred to in paragraph 1 applying legislation which has been recognised as equivalent in the areas of competence of the Authority referred to in Article 1(2), as provided for in international agreements concluded by the Union in accordance with Article 216 TFEU.\n3. Under the relevant provisions of the agreements referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, arrangements shall be made specifying, in particular, the nature, scope and procedural aspects of the involvement of the countries referred to in paragraph 1 in the work of the Authority, including provisions relating to financial contributions and to staff. They may provide for representation, as an observer, on the Board of Supervisors, but shall ensure that those countries do not attend any discussions relating to individual financial institutions, except where there is a direct interest.\nCHAPTER VIII\nTRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 76\nPreparatory actions\n1. Following the entry into force of this Regulation, and before the establishment of the Authority, CEIOPS shall act in close cooperation with the Commission to prepare for the replacement of CEIOPS by the Authority.\n2. Once the Authority has been established, the Commission shall be responsible for the administrative establishment and initial administrative operation of the Authority until the Authority has appointed an Executive Director.\nFor that purpose, until such time as the Executive Director takes up his duties following his appointment by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with Article 51, the Commission may assign one official on an interim basis in order to fulfil the functions of the Executive Director. That period shall be limited to the time necessary for the appointment of an Executive Director of the Authority.\nThe interim Executive Director may authorise all payments covered by credits provided in the budget of the Authority, once approved by the Management Board and may conclude contracts, including staff contracts following the adoption of the Authority\u2019s establishment plan.\n3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are without prejudice to the powers of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board.\n4. The Authority shall be considered the legal successor of CEIOPS. By the date of establishment of the Authority, all assets and liabilities and all pending operations of CEIOPS shall be automatically transferred to the Authority. CEIOPS shall establish a statement showing its closing asset and liability situation as of the date of that transfer. That statement shall be audited and approved by CEIOPS and by the Commission.\nArticle 77\nTransitional staff provisions\n1. By way of derogation from Article 68, all employment contracts and secondment agreements concluded by CEIOPS or its Secretariat and in force on 1 January 2011 shall be honoured until their expiry date. They may not be extended.\n2. All members of staff under contracts referred to in paragraph 1 shall be offered the possibility of concluding temporary agent contracts under Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants at the various grades as set out in the Authority\u2019s establishment plan.\nAn internal selection limited to staff who have contracts with CEIOPS or its Secretariat shall be carried out after the entry into force of this Regulation by the authority authorised to conclude contracts in order to check the ability, efficiency and integrity of those to be engaged. The internal selection procedure shall take full account of the skills and experience demonstrated by the individuals\u2019 performance prior to the engagement.\n3. Depending on the type and level of functions to be performed, successful applicants shall be offered temporary agents\u2019 contracts of a duration corresponding at least to the time remaining under the prior contract.\n4. The relevant national law relating to labour contracts and other relevant instruments shall continue to apply to staff members with prior contracts who choose not to apply for temporary agent\u2019s contracts or who are not offered temporary agents contracts in accordance with paragraph 2.\nArticle 78\nNational provisions\nThe Member States shall make such provision as is appropriate to ensure the effective application of this Regulation.\nArticle 79\nAmendments\nDecision No 716/2009/EC is hereby amended in so far as CEIOPS is removed from the list of beneficiaries set out in Section B of the Annex to that Decision.\nArticle 80\nRepeal\nCommission Decision 2009/79/EC, establishing CEIOPS, is hereby repealed with effect from 1 January 2011.\nArticle 81\nReview\n1. By 2 January 2014, and every 3 years thereafter, the Commission shall publish a general report on the experience acquired as a result of the operation of the Authority and the procedures laid down in this Regulation. That report shall evaluate, inter alia:\n(a)\nthe convergence in supervisory practices reached by competent authorities,\n(i)\nthe convergence in functional independence of the competent authorities and in standards equivalent to corporate governance;\n(ii)\nthe impartiality, objectivity and autonomy of the Authority;\n(b)\nthe functioning of the colleges of supervisors;\n(c)\nthe progress achieved towards convergence in the fields of crisis prevention, management and resolution, including Union funding mechanisms;\n(d)\nthe role of the Authority as regards systemic risk;\n(e)\nthe application of the safeguard clause established in Article 38;\n(f)\nthe application of the binding mediation role established in Article 19.\n2. The report referred to in paragraph 1 shall also examine whether:\n(a)\nit is appropriate to continue separate supervision of banking, insurance, occupational pensions, securities and financial markets;\n(b)\nit is appropriate to undertake prudential supervision and supervise the conduct of business separately or by the same supervisor;\n(c)\nit is appropriate to simplify and reinforce the architecture of the ESFS in order to increase the coherence between the macro and the micro levels and between the ESAs;\n(d)\nthe evolution of the ESFS is consistent with that of the global evolution;\n(e)\nthere is sufficient diversity and excellence within the ESFS;\n(f)\naccountability and transparency in relation to publication requirements are adequate;\n(g)\nthe resources of the Authority are adequate to carry out its responsibilities;\n(h)\nit is appropriate for the seat of the Authority to be maintained or to move the ESAs to a single seat to enhance better coordination between them.\n3. Concerning the issue of direct supervision of institutions or infrastructures of pan-European reach and taking account of market developments, the Commission shall draw up an annual report on the appropriateness of entrusting the Authority with further supervisory responsibilities in this area.\n4. The report and any accompanying proposals, as appropriate, shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and to the Council.\nArticle 82\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011, with the exception of Article 76 and Article 77(1) and (2), which shall apply as from the date of its entry into force.\nThe Authority shall be established on 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["98", "84", "21", "2", "0", "35", "93", "32", "69", "99", "47", "20", "77", "52", "3", "26", "14", "71", "85", "83", "44", "55", "64", "57", "67", "92", "27", "28", "94", "22", "No Label", "7", "9", "10", "30", "33", "41"], "gold": ["7", "9", "10", "30", "33", "41"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 662/2010\nof 23 July 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee's (IFRIC) Interpretation 19 and International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 1\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards (1), and in particular Article 3(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 (2) certain international standards and interpretations that were in existence at 15 October 2008 were adopted.\n(2)\nOn 26 November 2009, the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) published IFRIC Interpretation 19 Extinguishing Financial Liabilities with Equity Instruments, hereinafter \u2018IFRIC 19\u2019. The aim of the IFRIC 19 is to provide guidance on how a debtor should account for its equity instruments issued in full or partial settlement of a financial liability following renegotiation of the terms of the liability.\n(3)\nThe consultation with the Technical Expert Group (TEG) of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) confirms that IFRIC 19 meets the technical criteria for adoption set out in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002. In accordance with Commission Decision 2006/505/EC of 14 July 2006 setting up a Standards Advice Review Group to advise the Commission on the objectivity and neutrality of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group's (EFRAG\u2019s) opinions (3), the Standards Advice Review Group considered EFRAG's opinion on endorsement and advised the Commission that it is well-balanced and objective.\n(4)\nThe adoption of IFRIC 19 implies, by way of consequence, amendments to International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 1 in order to ensure consistency between international accounting standards.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 1126/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Accounting Regulatory Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nInternational Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee's (IFRIC) Interpretation 19 is inserted as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;\n(2)\nInternational Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 1 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nEach company shall apply IFRIC 19 and amendment to IFRS 1, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation, at the latest, as from the commencement date of its first financial year starting after 30 June 2010.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2010.", "references": ["97", "89", "37", "8", "40", "58", "99", "33", "68", "46", "80", "13", "10", "63", "48", "77", "6", "83", "74", "12", "45", "93", "22", "26", "90", "5", "44", "86", "4", "11", "No Label", "18", "41", "47", "76"], "gold": ["18", "41", "47", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 67/2011\nof 27 January 2011\non the issue of licences for importing rice under the tariff quotas opened for the January 2011 subperiod by Regulation (EC) No 327/98\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 of 10 February 1998 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (3), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 327/98 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 IX to Regulation.\n(2)\nThe January subperiod is the first subperiod for the quotas provided for under Article 1(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98.\n(3)\nThe notification sent in accordance with Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 327/98 shows that, for the quotas with order numbers 09.4153 - 09.4154 - 09.4112 - 09.4116 - 09.4117 - 09.4118 - 09.4119 - 09.4166, the applications lodged in the first 10 working days of January 2011 under Article 4(1) of that Regulation cover a quantity greater than that available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined and the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities applied for under the quotas concerned should be laid down.\n(4)\nIt is also clear from the notification that, for the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4148 - 09.4149 - 09.4150 - 09.4152, the applications lodged in the first 10 working days of January 2011 under Article 4(1) of the Regulation cover a quantity less than or equal to that available.\n(5)\nThe total quantities available for the following subperiod should therefore be set for the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4148 - 09.4149 - 09.4150 - 09.4152 - 09.4153 - 09.4154 - 09.4112 - 09.4116 - 09.4117 - 09.4118 - 09.4119 - 09.4166, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 327/98.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. For import licence applications for rice under the quotas with order numbers 09.4153 - 09.4154 - 09.4112 - 09.4116 - 09.4117 - 09.4118 - 09.4119 - 09.4166 referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98 lodged in the first 10 working days of January 2011, licences shall be issued for the quantities requested, multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. The total quantities available under the quotas with order numbers 09.4127 - 09.4128 - 09.4148 - 09.4149 - 09.4150 - 09.4152 - 09.4153 - 09.4154 - 09.4112 - 09.4116 - 09.4117 - 09.4118 - 09.4119 - 09.4166 referred to in Regulation (EC) No 327/98 for the next subperiod are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 January 2011.", "references": ["8", "49", "7", "19", "29", "91", "39", "3", "24", "2", "75", "98", "51", "23", "67", "80", "28", "81", "63", "88", "86", "78", "95", "5", "54", "64", "92", "58", "50", "41", "No Label", "4", "21", "66", "68"], "gold": ["4", "21", "66", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 28 February 2012\non the conclusion of the Protocol agreed between the European Union and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau setting out fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the two parties currently in force\n(2012/145/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 17 March 2008, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 241/2008 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (1).\n(2)\nThe Union has negotiated with the Republic of Guinea-Bissau a new protocol granting EU vessels fishing opportunities in waters in which Guinea-Bissau exercises its sovereignty or jurisdiction as regards fishing (hereinafter \u2027the Protocol\u2027).\n(3)\nAt the end of those negotiations, the Protocol was initialled on 15 June 2011.\n(4)\nThe Protocol was signed in accordance with Council Decision 2011/885/EU (2) and has been applied on a provisional basis since 16 June 2011.\n(5)\nThe Protocol should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Protocol agreed between the European Union and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau setting out fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement concluded between the European Community and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau in force between the two parties (hereinafter \u2027the Protocol\u2027) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union (3).\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 14 of the Protocol with a view to expressing the Union\u2019s consent to be bound by the Protocol (4).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2012.", "references": ["73", "81", "61", "22", "11", "45", "14", "42", "65", "97", "33", "5", "50", "52", "70", "98", "1", "39", "21", "55", "71", "43", "6", "12", "13", "15", "24", "2", "53", "62", "No Label", "3", "9", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 399/2011\nof 20 April 2011\nfixing the export refunds on pigmeat\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), and Article 170, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVII of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Union market may be covered by an export refund.\n(2)\nGiven the present situation on the market in pigmeat, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167 and 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.\n(3)\nArticle 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the refund may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets, or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.\n(4)\nRefunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Union and that bear the health mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products must also satisfy the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3) and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (4).\n(5)\nThe currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 46/2011 (5). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 164 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the condition provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.\n2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 shall meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 and, in particular, shall be prepared in an approved establishment and comply with the health marking requirements laid down in Annex I, Section I, Chapter III to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nArticle 2\nRegulation (EU) No 46/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 21 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 April 2011.", "references": ["79", "98", "68", "17", "84", "67", "80", "42", "24", "12", "52", "47", "46", "51", "10", "97", "2", "33", "57", "74", "23", "90", "27", "60", "95", "89", "44", "91", "37", "85", "No Label", "20", "22", "66", "69"], "gold": ["20", "22", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1058/2010\nof 18 November 2010\nfixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Community,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.\n(2)\nRegular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.\n(3)\nIn view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 18 November 2010.", "references": ["87", "71", "44", "65", "83", "43", "77", "40", "84", "98", "55", "53", "75", "34", "54", "66", "47", "93", "74", "25", "56", "62", "68", "6", "89", "18", "59", "20", "37", "82", "No Label", "22", "35", "69", "72"], "gold": ["22", "35", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 910/2010\nof 11 October 2010\namending Regulation (EU) No 869/2010 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 October 2010\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 October 2010 were fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 869/2010 (3).\n(2)\nAs the average of the import duties calculated differs by more than EUR 5/tonne from that fixed, a corresponding adjustment must be made to the import duties fixed by Regulation (EU) No 869/2010.\n(3)\nRegulation (EU) No 869/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EU) No 869/2010 are hereby replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 12 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 11 October 2010.", "references": ["24", "99", "23", "72", "30", "61", "55", "87", "39", "94", "92", "76", "80", "56", "11", "29", "86", "5", "71", "54", "46", "9", "31", "42", "49", "98", "2", "96", "21", "84", "No Label", "10", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 562/2010\nof 28 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 29 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2010.", "references": ["21", "40", "48", "4", "59", "17", "80", "38", "99", "20", "86", "87", "22", "26", "89", "56", "66", "27", "13", "49", "84", "37", "57", "69", "76", "23", "32", "8", "0", "14", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 20 June 2011\namending Decision 2008/855/EC as regards animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in Hungary and Slovakia\n(notified under document C(2011) 4213)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/360/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2008/855/EC of 3 November 2008 concerning animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in certain Member States (3) lays down certain control measures concerning classical swine fever in the Member States or regions thereof set out in the Annex to that Decision.\n(2)\nHungary has informed the Commission about the recent developments with regard to that disease in feral pigs in the territory of the county of Heves and in certain areas of the territory of the county of Borsod-Aba\u00faj-Zempl\u00e9n.\n(3)\nThat information indicates that classical swine fever in feral pigs has been eradicated in the territory of those counties. Accordingly, those areas where the situation improved should be removed from the list in the Annex to Decision 2008/855/EC and the measures provided for in that Decision should no longer apply to them.\n(4)\nSlovakia has informed the Commission about the recent developments with regard to that disease in domestic and feral pigs in the territories listed for that Member State in the Annex to Decision 2008/855/EC.\n(5)\nThat information indicates that classical swine fever in domestic and feral pigs has been eradicated in those territories. Accordingly, those areas where the situation improved should be removed from the list in the Annex to Decision 2008/855/EC and the measures provided for in that Decision should no longer apply to the whole territory of Slovakia.\n(6)\nDecision 2008/855/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2008/855/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["51", "0", "78", "30", "28", "23", "64", "43", "1", "70", "53", "54", "24", "26", "56", "3", "84", "31", "18", "5", "17", "74", "50", "63", "16", "15", "95", "38", "94", "14", "No Label", "20", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 7/2011\nof 6 January 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 7 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 January 2011.", "references": ["32", "20", "79", "62", "87", "84", "96", "72", "25", "0", "70", "48", "36", "29", "76", "28", "11", "14", "45", "24", "64", "3", "81", "6", "66", "93", "41", "15", "67", "18", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 460/2011\nof 12 May 2011\namending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the maximum residue level for chlorantraniliprole (DPX E-2Y45) in or on carrots\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 18(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor chlorantraniliprole (DPX E-2Y45) MRLs are set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 8(4) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2), on 23 August 2010 France notified to the Commission the temporary authorisation of a plant protection product containing chlorantraniliprole (DPX E-2Y45) to be used on carrots to control carrot flies, a danger that was unforeseeable and could not be contained by any other means. Consequently, France has notified to the other Member States, the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) in accordance with Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 that it has authorised the placing on the market in its territory of carrots containing pesticide residues higher than the applicable MRL. France also submitted an appropriate risk assessment concluding that such carrots do not constitute an unacceptable risk, in particular that the proposed increased residue level does not lead to a risk for any consumer.\n(3)\nThe Authority assessed the risk assessment submitted by France, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals. The Authority gave a reasoned opinion on the proposed MRL (3). In this opinion the Authority found the proposed MRL acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups.\n(4)\nBased on the reasoned opinion of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter, it is considered that the proposed MRL fulfils the requirements of Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 May 2011.", "references": ["90", "22", "51", "99", "7", "8", "3", "32", "79", "85", "28", "89", "98", "53", "36", "74", "50", "59", "43", "73", "45", "67", "78", "40", "94", "2", "62", "48", "18", "9", "No Label", "38", "65", "66", "69", "72", "76"], "gold": ["38", "65", "66", "69", "72", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 619/2010\nof 14 July 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 616/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 July 2010.", "references": ["82", "42", "84", "96", "91", "17", "30", "64", "94", "80", "61", "43", "32", "16", "68", "50", "38", "29", "44", "59", "95", "76", "41", "90", "9", "2", "0", "56", "98", "85", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 666/2010\nof 23 July 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 658/2010 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 24 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2010.", "references": ["44", "89", "15", "48", "14", "7", "41", "40", "75", "93", "32", "76", "33", "67", "82", "59", "18", "21", "69", "28", "77", "52", "4", "3", "80", "88", "53", "64", "63", "24", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "REGULATION (EU) No 1338/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 December 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 1934/2006 establishing a financing instrument for cooperation with industrialised and other high-income countries and territories\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 207(2) and 209(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, in the light of the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on 31 October 2011 (1),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nSince 2007 the Community has streamlined its geographical cooperation with developing countries in Asia, Central Asia and Latin America, and with Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and South Africa under Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (2).\n(2)\nThe primary and overarching objective of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 is the eradication of poverty through the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals. The scope of cooperation for the geographic programmes with developing countries, territories and regions established under that Regulation is furthermore limited materially to financing measures designed to fulfil the criteria for Official Development Assistance (\u2018ODA criteria\u2019) established by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (\u2018OECD/DAC\u2019).\n(3)\nIt is in the Union\u2019s interests to further deepen its relations with the developing countries concerned, which are important bilateral partners and players in multilateral forums and in global governance. The Union has a strategic interest in promoting diversified links with those countries, in particular in areas such as economic, commercial, academic, business and scientific exchanges. It therefore needs a financial instrument that allows the financing of such measures which, in principle, do not qualify as ODA under the ODA criteria but which are crucially important in terms of consolidating relations and which make an important contribution to promoting the progress of the developing countries concerned.\n(4)\nFor that purpose, four preparatory actions were set out in the 2007 and 2008 budget procedures to initiate such enhanced cooperation in accordance with point (b) of Article 49(6) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3). Those four preparatory actions are: business and scientific exchanges with India; business and scientific exchanges with China; cooperation with middle-income group countries in Asia; and cooperation with middle-income group countries in Latin America. Under that Article the legislative procedure further to preparatory actions must be concluded before the end of the third financial year.\n(5)\nThe objectives and provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1934/2006 (4) are appropriate to pursue such enhanced cooperation with countries falling under Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006. For that purpose, it is necessary to extend the geographical scope of Regulation (EC) No 1934/2006 and to provide for a financial envelope to cover cooperation with those developing countries.\n(6)\nExtending the geographical scope of Regulation (EC) No 1934/2006 brings the developing countries concerned within the scope of two different external action financial instruments. Care should be taken to ensure that those two financial instruments are kept strictly separate from each other. Measures which fulfil the ODA criteria will be financed under Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006, whereas Regulation (EC) No 1934/2006 will apply exclusively to measures which, in principle, do not fulfil those criteria. It is also necessary to ensure that the countries previously falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1934/2006 - industrialised and other high-income countries and territories - are not placed at a disadvantage, particularly in financial terms, by the extension of that Regulation\u2019s geographical scope.\n(7)\nSince the economic crisis has placed budgets under extreme strain throughout the Union and the proposed extension embraces countries which sometimes demonstrate a similar level of competitiveness to that of the Union and have attained an average standard of living which approaches that of some Member States, Union cooperation should take into consideration efforts made by the recipient countries to comply with the international agreements of the International Labour Organisation and to participate in the general objectives of greenhouse gas emissions reduction.\n(8)\nThe review of the implementation of the external action financial instruments has identified inconsistencies in the provisions that exclude costs relating to taxes, duties or other charges as ineligible. For the sake of consistency, it is proposed to bring those provisions into line with the other instruments.\n(9)\nRegulation (EC) No 1934/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 1934/2006\nRegulation (EC) No 1934/2006 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nthe title of the Regulation is replaced by the following:\n(2)\nArticles 1 to 4 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 1\nObjective\n1. For the purpose of this Regulation, \u201cindustrialised and other high-income countries and territories\u201d shall comprise countries and territories listed in Annex I to this Regulation and \u201cdeveloping countries\u201d shall comprise countries falling under Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (5) and listed in Annex II to this Regulation. They are together hereinafter referred to as \u201cpartner countries\u201d.\nUnion financing under this Regulation shall support economic, financial, technical, cultural and academic cooperation with partner countries in the areas set out in Article 4, falling within its spheres of competence. This Regulation shall serve to finance measures which, in principle, do not fulfil the criteria for Official Development Assistance (\u201cODA criteria\u201d) established by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (\u201cOECD/DAC\u201d).\n2. The primary objective of cooperation with partner countries shall be to provide a specific response to the need to strengthen links and to engage further with them on a bilateral, regional or multilateral basis in order to create a more favourable and transparent environment for the development of relations between the Union and partner countries in accordance with the principles guiding the Union\u2019s external action as laid down in the Treaties. This refers amongst others to the promotion of democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the rule of law, as well as the promotion of decent work and good governance, and the preservation of the environment, in order to contribute to progress and sustainable development processes in partner countries.\nArticle 2\nScope\n1. Cooperation shall be aimed at engaging with partner countries in order to enhance dialogue and rapprochement and to share and promote similar political, economic and institutional structures and values. The Union shall also aim at increasing cooperation and exchanges with established or increasingly important bilateral partners and players in multilateral forums and in global governance. The cooperation also covers partners with which the Union has a strategic interest in promoting links and its values as laid down in the Treaties.\n2. In duly justified circumstances and in order to ensure the coherence and effectiveness of Union financing and to foster regional cooperation, the Commission may decide when adopting annual action programmes referred to in Article 6 that countries not listed in the Annexes are eligible for measures financed under this Regulation, where the project or programme to be implemented is of a regional or cross-border nature. Provisions shall be made for this in the multiannual cooperation programmes referred to in Article 5.\n3. The Commission shall amend the lists in Annexes I and II following the regular OECD/DAC reviews of its list of developing countries, and shall inform the European Parliament and the Council thereof.\n4. For Union financing under this Regulation, particular attention shall be paid where appropriate to the compliance of partner countries with the core labour standards of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and to their efforts to pursue reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.\n5. In relation to countries listed in Annex II to this Regulation, policy coherence with measures financed under Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 1337/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries (6) shall be strictly observed.\nArticle 3\nGeneral principles\n1. The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law and seeks to promote, develop and consolidate commitment to those principles in partner countries through dialogue and cooperation.\n2. In the implementation of this Regulation a differentiated approach in designing cooperation with partner countries shall be pursued, where appropriate, to take account of their economic, social and political contexts as well as of the Union\u2019s specific interests, strategies and priorities.\n3. Measures financed under this Regulation shall be consistent with and cover areas of cooperation set out notably in the instruments, agreements, declarations and action plans between the Union and partner countries, as well as areas pertaining to the Union\u2019s specific interests and priorities.\n4. For measures financed under this Regulation, the Union shall aim to ensure coherence with other areas of its external action as well as with other relevant Union policies, in particular development cooperation. This shall be ensured by formulating policy, strategic planning and the programming and implementation of measures.\n5. Measures financed under this Regulation shall complement and bring added value to the efforts undertaken by Member States and Union public bodies in the area of commercial relations and cultural, academic and scientific exchanges.\n6. The Commission shall inform and have regular exchanges of views with the European Parliament.\nArticle 4\nAreas of cooperation\nUnion financing shall support cooperation actions in accordance with Article 1 and shall be consistent with the overall purpose, scope, objectives and general principles of this Regulation. Union financing shall cover actions that, in principle, do not fulfil the ODA criteria, and which may include a regional dimension, in the following areas of cooperation:\n(1)\nthe promotion of cooperation, partnerships and joint undertakings between economic, social, cultural, academic and scientific actors in the Union and partner countries;\n(2)\nthe stimulation of bilateral trade, investment flows and economic partnerships, including a focus on small and medium-sized enterprises;\n(3)\nthe promotion of dialogue between political, economic, social and cultural actors and other non-governmental organisations in relevant sectors in the Union and partner countries;\n(4)\nthe promotion of people-to-people links, education and training programmes and intellectual exchanges and the enhancement of mutual understanding between cultures, particularly at the family level, including measures to ensure and increase Union participation in Erasmus Mundus and participation in European education fairs;\n(5)\nthe promotion of cooperative projects in areas such as research, science and technology, sports and culture, energy (in particular renewable energy), transport, environmental matters (including climate change), customs, financial, legal and human rights issues, and any other matter of mutual interest between the Union and partner countries;\n(6)\nthe enhancement of awareness about and understanding of the Union and of its visibility in partner countries;\n(7)\nsupport for specific initiatives, including research work, studies, pilot schemes or joint projects destined to respond in an effective and flexible manner to cooperation objectives arising from developments in the Union\u2019s bilateral relationships with partner countries or aiming to provide impetus to the further deepening and broadening of bilateral relationships with them.\n(3)\nin Article 5, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182. Multiannual cooperation programmes shall cover no more than the period of validity of this Regulation. They shall set out the Union\u2019s specific interests and priorities, the general objectives and the expected results. In particular with regard to Erasmus Mundus, programmes shall aim for the most balanced geographical coverage possible. They shall also set out the areas selected for financing by the Union and outline the indicative financial allocation of funds, overall, per priority area and per partner country or group of partner countries for the period concerned. Where appropriate, this may be given in the form of a range. Multiannual cooperation programmes shall be reviewed at mid-term, or ad hoc if necessary.\u2019;\n(4)\nthe following Article is added:\n\u2018Article 5a\nThe Union\u2019s strategic interests, general objectives, priority areas for financing and expected results for cooperation with partner countries listed in Annex II\nThe multiannual cooperation programmes referred to in Article 5 with partner countries listed in Annex II shall be based on the following general objectives, priority areas for financing and expected results:\n(1)\nPublic diplomacy and outreach, having as objectives:\n-\nto promote widespread understanding and visibility of the Union,\n-\nto promote the Union\u2019s views on important policy issues and the Union\u2019s values of democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms,\n-\nto encourage reflection and discussion on the Union and its policies, and on Union relations with partner countries listed in Annex II,\n-\nto develop new approaches that give momentum to positive, result-oriented relations with countries which have little or no knowledge of the Union.\nActivities in support of those objectives should lead to a better perception and enhanced mutual understanding of the Union and of partner countries listed in Annex II, with a consequent beneficial effect on the economic and political relationships of the Union with its partners.\n(2)\nEconomic partnership and business cooperation, having as objective:\n-\nto facilitate market access for Union companies, notably through programmes supporting them (including relevant regulatory support in relation to trade barriers), drawing on experience from long-standing business cooperation programmes.\nThose programmes should, whenever applicable, be complementary to existing support measures. Those programmes should deliver concrete opportunities for improved business and scientific cooperation, increased turnover and investments in target areas and greater trade flows with partner countries listed in Annex II.\nThose efforts shall be consistent with, and complementary to, the Commission\u2019s broader strategy to develop Union competitiveness in global markets, and other Union policies towards specific regions and countries.\nResources shall be focused on countries where interventions can increase the participation of Union companies. Small and medium-sized Union enterprises, seeking access to the Asian, Latin American, Middle Eastern and South African markets shall be an important focus. Where appropriate, resources shall be focused on countries complying with the core labour standards of the ILO and which contribute to the global efforts to pursue reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.\n(3)\nPeople-to-people links, having as objectives:\n-\nto support high quality partnerships between higher education institutions in the Union and in third-countries as a basis for structured cooperation, exchange and mobility, at all levels of higher education (Action 2 - Strand 2: Partnerships with countries and territories covered by the Industrialised Countries Instrument), under Erasmus Mundus II. Action 2,\n-\nto supplement Erasmus Mundus Action 2 scholarships, funded from the Development Cooperation Instrument (Action 2 - Strand 1: Partnerships with countries covered by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, the Development Cooperation Instrument, the European Development Fund and the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (former External Cooperation Window)), by supporting the mobility of Union students and professors to third countries,\n-\nto promote together with civil society in its widest sense a better understanding of the Union as such, its positions on global issues and of economic, social and political integration processes, thus complementing the Union\u2019s formal relationships with governments,\n-\nto promote cooperation, partnerships and joint undertakings between economic, social, cultural, academic and scientific actors in the Union and partner countries.\nThose activities should help produce mutual benefits from education, culture and civil society cooperation. This shall be done through improvements in the quality of education offered and from confronting the mutual challenges of developing knowledge-based societies. The activities undertaken should add value to the cross-fertilisation of ideas, knowledge, research and technology results through academic and professional exchanges, particularly with partner countries that have higher education systems comparable to those of the Union.\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 6, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The Commission shall adopt annual action programmes based on the multiannual cooperation programmes referred to in Article 5 and shall transmit them simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\u2019;\n(6)\nArticle 7 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe first paragraph becomes paragraph 1;\n(b)\npoints (e) and (f) of paragraph 1 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\njoint bodies set up by partner countries and regions and the Union;\n(f)\nUnion institutions and bodies, in so far as they implement support measures specified in Article 9;\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following paragraphs are added:\n\u20182. Measures covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning humanitarian aid (7), Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability (8) or Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006, and eligible for funding thereunder shall not be funded under this Regulation.\n3. Union financing under this Regulation shall not be used to finance the procurement of arms or ammunition, nor operations having military or defence implications.\n(7)\nin Article 8, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Union financing shall, in principle, not be used for paying taxes, duties or charges in the partner countries.\u2019;\n(8)\nArticle 9 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Union financing may cover expenditure associated with the preparation, follow up, monitoring, audit and evaluation activities directly necessary for the implementation of this Regulation and the achievement of its objectives, and any other administrative or technical assistance expenditure that the Commission, including its Delegations in partner countries, may incur for the management of operations financed under this Regulation.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. The Commission shall adopt support measures not covered by the multiannual cooperation programmes and shall transmit them simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.\u2019;\n(9)\nArticle 12 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Protecting the Union\u2019s financial interests\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Any agreements resulting from this Regulation shall contain provisions ensuring the protection of the Union\u2019s financial interests, in particular with respect to irregularities, fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity, in accordance with Council Regulations (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (9) and (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on the spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities\u2019 financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (10) and Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (11).\n2. Agreements shall expressly entitle the Commission and the Court of Auditors to perform audits, including document audits or on-the-spot audits of any contractor or subcontractor who has received Union funds. They shall also expressly authorise the Commission to carry out on-the-spot checks and inspections in accordance with Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96.\n(10)\nArticles 13 and 14 are replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 13\nEvaluation\n1. The Commission shall regularly evaluate the actions and programmes financed under this Regulation, where appropriate or at the request of the European Parliament or the Council, by means of independent external evaluation reports, in order to ascertain whether the objectives have been met and to enable it to formulate recommendations with a view to improving future operations. The results shall feed back into programme design and resource allocation.\n2. The Commission shall send the evaluation reports referred to in paragraph 1 to the European Parliament and to the Council for information.\n3. The Commission shall associate relevant stakeholders, including non-State actors, in the evaluation phase of the Union cooperation provided for under this Regulation.\nArticle 14\nAnnual report\nThe Commission shall examine the progress made on implementing the measures taken under this Regulation and shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a detailed annual report on the implementation of this Regulation. The report shall set out the results of the implementation of the budget and present all the actions and programmes financed, and as far as possible, set out the main outcomes and impacts of the cooperation actions and programmes.\u2019;\n(11)\nArticle 16 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 16\nFinancial provisions\nThe financial reference amount for the implementation of this Regulation for the period from 2007 to 2013 shall be EUR 172 million for countries listed in Annex I and EUR 176 million for countries listed in Annex II. The annual appropriations shall be authorised by the budgetary authority within the limits of the financial framework.\u2019;\n(12)\nin the Annex, the title is replaced by the following:\nList of industrialised and other high-income countries and territories covered by this Regulation\u2019;\n(13)\nnew Annexes II and III, the text of which is set out in the Annex to this Regulation, are added.\nArticle 2\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 December 2011.", "references": ["23", "90", "56", "61", "92", "39", "33", "96", "80", "45", "42", "66", "93", "43", "41", "84", "30", "22", "21", "73", "38", "18", "60", "51", "71", "17", "13", "57", "81", "59", "No Label", "4", "10", "16"], "gold": ["4", "10", "16"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 23 July 2012\namending Decisions 2002/731/EC, 2002/732/EC, 2002/733/EC, 2002/735/EC and 2006/66/EC and repealing Decision 2002/730/EC concerning technical specifications for interoperability\n(notified under document C(2012) 4982)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/462/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 12 of Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 establishing a European Railway Agency (Agency Regulation) (2) requires the European Railway Agency (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agency\u2019) to ensure that the technical specifications for interoperability (hereinafter referred to as \u2018TSIs\u2019) are adapted to technical progress and market trends and to the social requirements and to propose to the Commission the amendments to the TSIs which it considers necessary.\n(2)\nBy Decision C(2007) 3371 of 13 July 2007, the Commission gave a framework mandate to the Agency to perform certain activities under Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (3) and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (4). Under the terms of that framework mandate, the Agency was requested to revise the TSIs on high-speed rolling stock, freight wagons, locomotives and passenger rolling stock, noise, infrastructure, energy, control-command and signalling, operation and traffic management, telematic applications for freight and passenger services, safety on railway tunnels and accessibility to persons with reduced mobility.\n(3)\nOn 31 March 2011, the Agency issued a recommendation on the specification of the register of infrastructure, the procedure of demonstrating the level of compliance with the basic parameters of the TSIs for existing lines, and subsequent amendments to TSIs (ERA/REC/04-2011/INT).\n(4)\nOn 9 June 2011, the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC gave a positive opinion on the draft Commission Implementing Decision on the European register of authorised types of railway vehicles and on the draft Commission Implementing Decision on the common specifications of the register of railway infrastructure. Following the adoption of the two Commission acts based on these drafts, namely Commission Implementing Decision 2011/633/EU of 15 September 2011 on the common specifications of the register of railway infrastructure (5) and Commission Implementing Decision 2011/665/EU of 4 October 2011 on the European register of authorised types of railway vehicles (6), the relevant TSIs need to be updated to ensure global consistency.\n(5)\nFor practical reasons, it is preferable to amend a series of TSIs by a single Commission Decision to implement particular corrections and updates in the legal texts. These corrections and updates are not arising from a global revision of the TSIs or from the extension of their geographical scope.\n(6)\nIt is therefore necessary to amend the following Decisions:\n-\nCommission Decision 2002/731/EC of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 96/48/EC (7),\n-\nCommission Decision 2002/732/EC of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the infrastructure subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 96/48/EC (8),\n-\nCommission Decision 2002/733/EC of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the energy subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 96/48/EC (9),\n-\nCommission Decision 2002/735/EC of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 96/48/EC (10),\n-\nCommission Decision 2006/66/EC of 23 December 2005 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem \u2018rolling stock - noise\u2019 of the trans-European conventional rail system (11).\n(7)\nDecision 2002/731/EC was repealed by Commission Decision 2006/860/EC of 7 November 2006 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European high speed rail system and modifying Annex A to Decision 2006/679/EC concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system (12). Decision 2002/732/EC was repealed by Commission Decision 2008/217/EC of 20 December 2007 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the \u2018infrastructure\u2019 sub-system of the trans-European high-speed rail system (13). Decision 2002/733/EC was repealed by Commission Decision 2008/284/EC of 6 March 2008 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the \u2018energy\u2019 sub-system of the trans-European high-speed rail system (14). Decision 2002/735/EC was repealed by Commission Decision 2008/232/EC of 21 February 2008 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the \u2018rolling stock\u2019 sub-system of the trans-European high-speed rail system (15). Decision 2006/66/EC was repealed by Commission Decision 2011/229/EU of 4 April 2011 concerning the technical specifications of interoperability relating to the subsystem \u2018rolling stock - noise\u2019 of the trans-European conventional rail system (16).\n(8)\nHowever Decisions 2006/860/EC, 2008/217/EC, 2008/232/EC, 2008/284/EC and 2011/229/EU contain transitional provisions on the application of the Decisions they repeal in relation to the maintenance of projects authorised in accordance with the TSI annexed to those Decisions and to projects for a new line and for the renewal or upgrading of an existing line which are at an advanced stage of development or the subject of a contract in course of performance at the respective date of notification of Decisions 2006/860/EC, Decision 2008/217/EC, Decision 2008/232/EC, Decision 2008/284/EC and Decision 2011/229/EU. Therefore Decisions 2002/731/EC, 2002/732/EC, 2002/733/EC, 2002/735/EC and 2006/66/EC should nevertheless be amended accordingly.\n(9)\nThe Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC agreed in its session of 22 and 23 April 2004 to delete the TSI for Maintenance set out in Commission Decision 2002/730/EC (17), transferring its contents into the other TSIs. Subsequently, the revised high-speed TSIs published in 2006 incorporated the content of Decision 2002/730/EC, which should therefore be repealed, in the interest of clarity.\n(10)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in conformity with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2002/731/EC is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe Annex to Decision 2002/732/EC is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThe Annex to Decision 2002/733/EC is amended in accordance with Annex III to this Decision.\nArticle 4\nThe Annex to Decision 2002/735/EC is amended in accordance with Annex IV to this Decision.\nArticle 5\nThe Annex to Decision 2006/66/EC is amended in accordance with Annex V to this Decision.\nArticle 6\nDecision 2002/730/EC is repealed.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision shall apply from 24 January 2013.\nArticle 8\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["22", "92", "94", "14", "41", "58", "17", "65", "36", "6", "84", "5", "69", "89", "20", "99", "13", "98", "48", "85", "51", "61", "46", "19", "87", "66", "72", "1", "77", "70", "No Label", "9", "53", "54", "55", "60", "76"], "gold": ["9", "53", "54", "55", "60", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 30 November 2011\nestablishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency vaccination plans against bluetongue in the Netherlands in 2007 and 2008\n(notified under document C(2011) 8732)\n(Only the Dutch text is authentic)\n(2011/804/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 3(3), (4) and second indent of (6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.\n(2)\nDecision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate bluetongue as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. The second indent of Article 3(6) of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2008/655/EC (3) as modified by Decision 2009/19/EC (4) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in the Netherlands in 2007 and 2008.\n(5)\nOn 26 March 2009, the Netherlands submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005. The Commission\u2019s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to the Netherlands in a letter dated 27 September 2010.\n(6)\nThe payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.\n(7)\nThe Netherlands authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.\n(8)\nIn view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of bluetongue in the Netherlands in 2007 and 2008 should now be fixed according to Article 3(2) of Decision 2008/655/EC.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe financial contribution from the Union towards the expenditure associated with eradicating bluetongue in the Netherlands in 2007 and 2008 is fixed at EUR 7 672 725. It constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThe balance of the financial contribution is fixed at EUR 1 120 985.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["9", "81", "59", "21", "88", "17", "82", "35", "33", "53", "43", "7", "89", "86", "0", "13", "15", "18", "30", "67", "71", "79", "87", "90", "42", "55", "39", "49", "73", "54", "No Label", "4", "10", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "10", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 5 November 2010\nconcerning a financial contribution from the Union towards a coordinated monitoring programme on the prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in certain ready-to-eat foods to be carried out in the Member States\n(notified under document C(2010) 7516)\n(2010/678/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 66 thereof,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic agents (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 882/2004 lays down, among others, procedures governing a financial support from the Union to conduct measures necessary to ensure the application of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\n(2)\nDirective 2003/99/EC provides that coordinated monitoring programmes may be established, especially when specific needs are identified, to assess risks and to establish baseline values related to zoonoses and zoonotic agents.\n(3)\nReports on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and antimicrobial resistance in the Union were issued by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control in 2006 (3) and 2007 (4) (EFSA-ECDC reports). According to those reports, a total of 1 588 cases of listeriosis (Listeria monocytogenes) in humans were registered in 25 Member States in 2006. In addition, 1 558 such cases were registered in 26 Member States in 2007. The reports further demonstrated a significant increase in the incidence of such cases in humans over the period 2001-2006. Illness is often severe and mortality is high.\n(4)\nThe fact that Listeria monocytogenes is able to multiply in various foods at temperatures as low as 2 to 4 \u00b0C makes the occurrence of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods with a relatively long shelf-life of particular concern.\n(5)\nPursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs (5), food business operators are to comply with Listeria monocytogenes food safety criteria for ready-to-eat foods within the framework of good hygiene practices and hazard analysis of critical control point (HACCP) programmes.\n(6)\nThe EFSA-ECDC reports showed that the highest proportions of non-compliance with the Listeria monocytogenes criteria were registered in ready-to-eat cheese and in ready-to-eat fishery and heat-treated meat products.\n(7)\nThe exposure of humans to Listeria monocytogenes is mainly food-borne. Therefore the prevalence and level of Listeria monocytogenes contamination in ready-to-eat fishery products, cheeses and heat-treated meat products should be estimated in a harmonised and comparable way by means of a coordinated monitoring programme at retail level in all Member States.\n(8)\nThe growth of Listeria monocytogenes in a ready-to-eat product is influenced significantly by the pH, water activity and storage temperature of the product. A modelling can be used for the estimation of the growth of Listeria monocytogenes in a ready-to-eat product under various temperature conditions.\n(9)\nWhere there are no relevant definitions in the Union legislation, the definitions in the Codex General Standard for Cheese (CODEX STAN 283-1978, amendment 2008) and in the Codex Group Standard for Unripened Cheese including Fresh Cheese (CODEX STAN 221-2001, amendment 2008) issued by the Codex Alimentarius Commission should be used to guarantee the harmonised approach in defining ready-to-eat cheeses.\n(10)\nIn May 2009, the Task Force on Monitoring of Zoonoses Data Collection of EFSA adopted a Report on proposed technical specifications for a coordinated monitoring programme for Listeria monocytogenes in certain categories of RTE foods at retail in the EU (6).\n(11)\nIn order to further harmonise the sampling stage the samples shall be taken at retail level covering shops, supermarkets and other similar outlets that sell directly to the final consumer.\n(12)\nData collected within the frame of the coordinated monitoring programme should not be used for other purposes than this programme without a prior agreement of the Member States in order to guarantee confidentiality of the data.\n(13)\nGiven the importance of collecting comparable data on the prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods, a financial contribution from the Union for carrying out such coordinated monitoring programme should be granted.\n(14)\nIn order to allow the sampling and analyses within the frame of the coordinated programme to be performed in a harmonised way but taking into account the possible differences in the time frame of it between the Member States it is appropriate to lay down the starting time and duration of the programme.\n(15)\nA financial contribution from the Union should be granted insofar as the coordinated monitoring programme is carried out in accordance with this Decision and provided that the competent authorities furnish all the necessary information within the time limits provided for therein.\n(16)\nFor reasons of administrative efficiency all expenditure presented for a financial contribution from the Union should be expressed in euro. In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (7), the conversion rate for expenditure in a currency other than euro should be the rate most recently set by the European Central Bank prior to the first day of the month in which the application for reimbursement is submitted by the Member State concerned.\n(17)\nThe present Decision constitutes a financing Decision within the meaning of Article 75 of the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (8) (Financial Regulation), Article 90 of the detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation, and Article 15 of the Internal Rules on the Implementation of the general budget of the European Communities.\n(18)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Decision establishes a coordinated monitoring programme on the prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in certain ready-to-eat food categories provided for in Article 2 at retail level, and lays down rules on a financial contribution from the Union to the Member States for its implementation.\nArticle 2\nScope and duration of the coordinated monitoring programme\n1. The Member States shall carry out a coordinated monitoring programme to assess the prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in the following ready-to-eat food categories in samples selected at random at retail level:\n(a)\npackaged (not frozen) hot or cold smoked or gravad fish;\n(b)\nsoft or semi-soft cheeses, excluding fresh cheeses;\n(c)\npackaged heat-treated meat products.\n2. The sampling activities in the framework of the coordinated monitoring programme provided for in paragraph 1 shall be carried out starting in 2010 and covering at least 12 months.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018ready-to-eat food\u2019 means ready-to-eat food as defined in Article 2(g) of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005.\n2.\n\u2018shelf-life\u2019 means shelf-life as defined in Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005.\n3.\n\u2018batch\u2019 means batch as defined in Article 2(e) of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005.\n4.\n\u2018retail\u2019 means retail as defined in Article 3(7) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (9); however, for the purposes of this Decision, retail covers only shops, supermarkets and other similar outlets that sell directly to the final consumer; it does not include distribution terminals or centres, catering operations, institutional catering, factory canteens, restaurants and other similar food service operations and wholesale outlets.\n5.\n\u2018processing\u2019 means processing as defined in Article 2(1)(m) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (10).\n6.\n\u2018meat products\u2019 means meat products as defined in point 7.1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (11).\n7.\n\u2018country of production\u2019 means the country indicated on the identification mark as provided for in point 6 of part B of Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\n8.\n\u2018packaged food\u2019 means food that has its entire surface covered in order to prevent direct contact of the food with the environment, either by permeable or impermeable wrapping.\n9.\n\u2018modified atmosphere packaged food\u2019 means food that was packaged and hermetically sealed after the removal of air from the package and the replacement of that air with a strictly controlled gaseous mixture of carbon dioxide, oxygen, and/or nitrogen.\n10.\n\u2018vacuum packaged food\u2019 means food that was packaged and hermetically sealed after the removal of the air from the package.\n11.\n\u2018smoked fish\u2019 means fish cured by smoking.\n12.\n\u2018gravad fish\u2019 means fish that has been cured in salt and sugar without thermal treatment.\n13.\n\u2018ripened cheeses\u2019 means cheeses which are not ready for consumption shortly after manufacture but which must be held for such time, at such temperature, and under such other conditions as will result in the necessary biochemical and physical changes characterising the cheese in question.\n14.\n\u2018soft cheeses\u2019 means cheeses that have a percentage moisture, on a fat-free basis, higher than 67 %.\n15.\n\u2018semi-soft cheeses\u2019 means cheeses that have a texture which is only slighter harder than the soft cheese category. These cheeses have a percentage moisture, on a fat-free basis, ranging from 62 to 67 %. Semi-soft cheeses are characterised by their firm but elastic feel.\n16.\n\u2018mould-ripened cheeses\u2019 means cheeses in which the ripening has been accomplished primarily by the development of characteristic mould growth throughout the interior and/or on the surface of the cheese.\n17.\n\u2018smear-ripened cheeses\u2019 means cheeses in which during or after ripening, the cheese rind is treated or naturally colonised with desired cultures of micro-organisms, for instance Penicillium candidum or Brevibacterium linens. The resulting layer or smear forms a part of the rind.\n18.\n\u2018brine-matured cheeses\u2019 means cheeses matured and stored in brine until they are sold or packed.\n19.\n\u2018fresh cheeses\u2019 means curd-style cheeses which do not undergo any ripening, for example cottage cheese, mozzarella, ricotta and quark. Fresh cheeses are not included in this coordinated monitoring programme.\nArticle 4\nSampling, analyses and recording of data by the Member States\n1. Sampling shall be performed by the competent authority or under its supervision.\n2. National reference laboratories for Listeria monocytogenes shall perform the Listeria monocytogenes, pH and water activity analyses.\n3. The competent authority may designate other laboratories than the national reference laboratories which are accredited for and involved in official controls of Listeria monocytogenes to perform the Listeria monocytogenes, pH and water activity analyses.\n4. The sampling and analyses provided for in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, as well as recording of all relevant data, shall be performed in accordance with the technical specifications set out in Annex I.\n5. The number of samples to be taken per ready-to-eat food category in each Member State is set out in Annex II.\nArticle 5\nCollection, assessment, reporting and use of data at Union level\n1. Member State shall collect and assess the results of the sampling and Listeria monocytogenes, pH and water activity analyses provided for in Article 4(1), (2) and (3) of this Decision.\nThose results and their assessment, together with all relevant data, shall be included in a final report on the completion of the coordinated monitoring programme that shall be transmitted to the Commission before 31 May 2012.\n2. The Commission shall establish by the 30 November 2010 the format of the Data Dictionary and data collection forms to be used in the drawing up of the report referred to in paragraph 1 by the competent authorities.\n3. The Commission shall forward the final reports provided for in paragraph 1 to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which shall examine them, develop predictive models for the compliance with the Listeria monocytogenes food safety criteria and for the microbial growth under various storage conditions and issue a Summary Report within 6 months.\n4. Any use of the data submitted by the Member States for purposes other than the coordinated monitoring programme shall be subject to prior agreement of the Member States.\n5. Data and results shall be made publicly available in a form that ensures confidentiality of the individual results.\nArticle 6\nConditions for granting a Union financial contribution\n1. A financial contribution from the Union of a total amount of 1 555 300 euro from budget line 17 04 07 01 towards the costs of collection, assessment and reporting provided for in Article 5(1) which are related to the analyses of Article 4(2) shall be granted to the Member States up to the maximum total amount for co-financing set out in Annex III.\n2. The financial contribution from the Union provided for in paragraph 1 shall be paid to the Member States provided that the coordinated monitoring programme is carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of Union law, including rules on competition and on the award of public contracts, and subject to compliance with the following conditions:\nA final report on the completion of the coordinated monitoring programme must be submitted to the Commission before 31 May 2012; that report must contain:\n(i)\nall the information set out in Part D of Annex I;\n(ii)\nsupporting evidence for the costs incurred by the Member States for the analyses; that evidence must comprise at least the information set out in Annex IV.\n3. In the case of late submission of the final report referred to in paragraph 2 the financial contribution from the Union shall be reduced by 25 % on 1 July 2012, 50 % on 1 August 2012 and 100 % on 1 September 2012.\nArticle 7\nMaximum amounts to be reimbursed\nThe maximum amounts of the financial contribution from the Union towards the costs to be reimbursed to the Member States for the collection, assessment and reporting provided for in Article 5(1) shall not exceed the following:\n(a)\nup to EUR 60 for each sample collected, assessed and reported of for the detection of Listeria monocytogenes;\n(b)\nup to EUR 60 for each sample collected, assessed and reported of for the enumeration of Listeria monocytogenes;\n(c)\nup to EUR 15 for each sample collected, assessed and reported related to the pH level analysis;\n(d)\nup to EUR 20 for each sample collected, assessed and reported for the water activity (aw) analysis.\nArticle 8\nConversion rate for expenditure\nWhere a Member State\u2019s expenditure is in a currency other than euro, the Member State concerned shall convert it into euro by applying the most recent exchange rate set by the European Central Bank prior to the first day of the month in which the application is submitted by the Member State.\nArticle 9\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 November 2010.", "references": ["58", "63", "70", "39", "80", "35", "64", "33", "96", "71", "83", "84", "36", "15", "61", "23", "21", "5", "43", "88", "51", "25", "86", "2", "93", "27", "68", "48", "17", "46", "No Label", "9", "10", "19", "38", "72"], "gold": ["9", "10", "19", "38", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 22 December 2011\nauthorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11xMIR604xGA21 (SYN-BT\u00d811-1xSYN-IR6\u00d84-5xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2011) 9536)\n(Only the French text is authentic)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/894/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Article 7(3) and Article 19(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 31 March 2008, Syngenta Seeds SAS submitted to the competent authority of the United Kingdom an application, in accordance with Article 5 and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from Bt11xMIR604xGA21 maize (\u2018the application\u2019).\n(2)\nThe application also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of Bt11xMIR604xGA21 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with Article 5(5) and Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.\n(3)\nOn 15 June 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (\u2018EFSA\u2019) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Article 6 and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It considered that maize Bt11xMIR604xGA21 is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment. Therefore it concluded that it is unlikely that the placing on the market of the products containing, consisting of, or produced from Bt11xMIR604xGA21 maize as described in the application (\u2018the products\u2019) will have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment in the context of their intended uses (3). In its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Article 6(4) and Article 18(4) of that Regulation.\n(4)\nIn its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.\n(5)\nTaking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products.\n(6)\nA unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).\n(7)\nOn the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from Bt11xMIR604xGA21 maize. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.\n(8)\nRegulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (5), lays down labelling requirements in Article 4(6) for products containing or consisting of GMOs. Traceability requirements for products containing or consisting of GMOs are laid down in paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article 4 and for food and feed produced from GMOs are laid down in Article 5 of that Regulation.\n(9)\nThe authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). The EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in point (e) of Article 6(5) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(10)\nAll relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\n(11)\nThis Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing-House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).\n(12)\nThe applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.\n(13)\nThe Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time-limit laid down by its Chair and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures.\n(14)\nSince, at its meeting on 15 December 2011, the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal and the Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded, these measures are to be adopted by the Commission,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nGenetically modified organism and unique identifier\nGenetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) Bt11xMIR604xGA21, as specified in point (b) of the Annex to this Decision, is assigned the unique identifier SYN-BT\u00d811-1xSYN-IR6\u00d84-5xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 65/2004.\nArticle 2\nAuthorisation\nThe following products are authorised for the purposes of Article 4(2) and Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision:\n(a)\nfoods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from SYN-BT\u00d811-1xSYN-IR6\u00d84-5xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9 maize;\n(b)\nfeed containing, consisting of, or produced from SYN-BT\u00d811-1xSYN-IR6\u00d84-5xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9 maize;\n(c)\nproducts other than food and feed containing or consisting of SYN-BT\u00d811-1xSYN-IR6\u00d84-5xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation.\nArticle 3\nLabelling\n1. For the purposes of the labelling requirements laid down in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the \u2018name of the organism\u2019 shall be \u2018maize\u2019.\n2. The words \u2018not for cultivation\u2019 shall appear on the label of and in documents accompanying products containing or consisting of SYN-BT\u00d811-1xSYN-IR6\u00d84-5xMON-\u00d8\u00d8\u00d821-9 maize referred to in Article 2(b) and (c).\nArticle 4\nMonitoring for environmental effects\n1. The authorisation holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, as set out in point (h) of the Annex, is put in place and implemented.\n2. The authorisation holder shall submit to the Commission annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan in accordance with Decision 2009/770/EC.\nArticle 5\nCommunity register\nThe information set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.\nArticle 6\nAuthorisation holder\nThe authorisation holder shall be Syngenta Seeds SAS France, representing Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Switzerland.\nArticle 7\nValidity\nThis Decision shall apply for a period of 10 years from the date of its notification.\nArticle 8\nAddressee\nThis Decision is addressed to Syngenta Seeds SAS, Chemin de l\u2019Hobit 12, BP 27, 31790 Saint-Sauveur, France.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2011.", "references": ["79", "97", "50", "31", "5", "8", "36", "18", "46", "44", "81", "56", "93", "27", "82", "48", "10", "88", "99", "37", "69", "17", "29", "49", "12", "61", "64", "15", "77", "60", "No Label", "25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"], "gold": ["25", "38", "58", "66", "68", "76"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/62/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 8 June 2011\namending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114, and point (c) of Article 168(4), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) lays down the rules for, inter alia, manufacturing, importing, placing on the market, and the wholesale distribution of medicinal products in the Union as well as rules relating to active substances.\n(2)\nThere is an alarming increase of medicinal products detected in the Union which are falsified in relation to their identity, history or source. Those products usually contain sub-standard or falsified ingredients, or no ingredients or ingredients, including active substances, in the wrong dosage thus posing an important threat to public health.\n(3)\nPast experience shows that such falsified medicinal products do not reach patients only through illegal means, but via the legal supply chain as well. This poses a particular threat to human health and may lead to a lack of trust of the patient also in the legal supply chain. Directive 2001/83/EC should be amended in order to respond to this increasing threat.\n(4)\nThe threat to public health is also recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which set up the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (\u2018IMPACT\u2019). IMPACT developed Principles and Elements for National Legislation against Counterfeit Medical Products, which were endorsed by the IMPACT General Meeting in Lisbon on 12 December 2007. The Union participated actively in IMPACT.\n(5)\nA definition of \u2018falsified medicinal product\u2019 should be introduced in order to clearly distinguish falsified medicinal products from other illegal medicinal products, as well as from products infringing intellectual property rights. Furthermore, medicinal products with unintentional quality defects resulting from manufacturing or distribution errors should not be confused with falsified medicinal products. To ensure uniform application of this Directive, the terms \u2018active substance\u2019 and \u2018excipient\u2019 should also be defined.\n(6)\nPersons procuring, holding, storing, supplying or exporting medicinal products are only entitled to pursue their activities if they meet the requirements for obtaining a wholesale distribution authorisation in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC. However, today\u2019s distribution network for medicinal products is increasingly complex and involves many players who are not necessarily wholesale distributors as referred to in that Directive. In order to ensure the reliability of the supply chain, legislation in relation to medicinal products should address all actors in the supply chain. This includes not only wholesale distributors, whether or not they physically handle the medicinal products, but also brokers who are involved in the sale or purchase of medicinal products without selling or purchasing those products themselves, and without owning and physically handling the medicinal products.\n(7)\nFalsified active substances and active substances that do not comply with applicable requirements of Directive 2001/83/EC pose serious risks to public health. Those risks should be addressed by strengthening the verification requirements applicable to the manufacturer of the medicinal product.\n(8)\nThere is a range of different good manufacturing practices that are suitable for being applied to the manufacturing of excipients. In order to provide for a high level of protection of public health, the manufacturer of the medicinal product should assess the suitability of excipients on the basis of appropriate good manufacturing practices for excipients.\n(9)\nIn order to facilitate enforcement of and control of compliance with Union rules relating to active substances, the manufacturers, importers or distributors of those substances should notify the competent authorities concerned of their activities.\n(10)\nMedicinal products may be introduced into the Union while not being intended to be imported, i.e. not intended to be released for free circulation. If those medicinal products are falsified they present a risk to public health within the Union. In addition, those falsified medicinal products may reach patients in third countries. Member States should take measures to prevent these falsified medicinal products, if introduced into the Union, from entering into circulation. When adopting provisions supplementing this obligation on Member States to take those measures, the Commission should take account of the administrative resources available and the practical implications, as well as the need to maintain swift trade flows for legitimate medicinal products. Those provisions should be without prejudice to customs legislation, to the distribution of competences between the Union and the Member States and to the distribution of responsibilities within Member States.\n(11)\nSafety features for medicinal products should be harmonised within the Union in order to take account of new risk profiles, while ensuring the functioning of the internal market for medicinal products. Those safety features should allow verification of the authenticity and identification of individual packs, and provide evidence of tampering. The scope of these safety features should take due account of the particularities of certain medicinal products or categories of medicinal products, such as generic medicinal products. Medicinal products subject to prescription should as a general rule bear the safety features. However, in view of the risk of falsification and the risk arising from falsification of medicinal products or categories of medicinal products there should be the possibility to exclude certain medicinal products or categories of medicinal products subject to prescription from the requirement to bear the safety features by way of a delegated act, following a risk assessment. Safety features should not be introduced for medicinal products or categories of medicinal products not subject to prescription unless, by way of exception, an assessment shows the risk of falsification, which leads to serious consequences. Those medicinal products should accordingly be listed in a delegated act.\nThe risk assessments should consider aspects such as the price of the medicinal product; previous cases of falsified medicinal products being reported in the Union and in third countries; the implications of a falsification for public health, taking into account the specific characteristics of the products concerned; and the severity of the conditions intended to be treated. The safety features should allow the verification of each supplied pack of the medicinal products, regardless of how they are supplied including through sale at a distance. The unique identifier as well as the corresponding repositories system should apply without prejudice to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (5) and should retain clear and effective safeguards whenever personal data is processed. The repositories system containing information on safety features might include commercially sensitive information. This information must be appropriately protected. When introducing the obligatory safety features, due account should be taken of the particular characteristics of the supply chains in Member States.\n(12)\nAny actor in the supply chain who packages medicinal products has to be a holder of a manufacturing authorisation. In order for the safety features to be effective, a manufacturing authorisation holder who is not himself the original manufacturer of the medicinal product should only be permitted to remove, replace or cover those safety features under strict conditions. In particular, the safety features should be replaced in the case of repackaging by equivalent safety features. To this end, the meaning of the term \u2018equivalent\u2019 should be clearly specified. Those strict conditions should provide adequate safeguards against falsified medicinal products entering the supply chain, in order to protect patients as well as the interests of marketing authorisation holders and manufacturers.\n(13)\nManufacturing authorisation holders who repackage medicinal products should be liable for damages in the cases and under the conditions set out in Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (6).\n(14)\nIn order to increase reliability in the supply chain, wholesale distributors should verify that their supplying wholesale distributors are holders of a wholesale distribution authorisation.\n(15)\nThe provisions applicable to the export of medicinal products from the Union and those applicable to the introduction of medicinal products into the Union with the sole purpose of exporting them need to be clarified. Under Directive 2001/83/EC a person exporting medicinal products is a wholesale distributor. The provisions applicable to wholesale distributors as well as good distribution practices should apply to all those activities whenever they are performed on Union territory, including in areas such as free trade zones or free warehouses.\n(16)\nIn order to ensure transparency, a list of wholesale distributors for whom it has been established that they comply with applicable Union legislation by means of an inspection by a competent authority of a Member State, should be published in a database that should be established at Union level.\n(17)\nThe provisions on inspections and controls of all actors involved in the manufacturing and supply of medicinal products and their ingredients should be clarified and specific provisions should apply to different types of actors. This should not prevent Member States from performing additional inspections, where considered appropriate.\n(18)\nIn order to ensure a similar level of protection of human health throughout the Union, and to avoid distortions in the internal market, the harmonised principles and guidelines for inspections of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of medicinal products as well as of active substances should be strengthened. Such harmonised principles and guidelines should also help to ensure the functioning of existing mutual recognition agreements with third countries whose application depends on efficient and comparable inspection and enforcement throughout the Union.\n(19)\nManufacturing plants of active substances should be subject not only to inspections carried out on the grounds of suspected non-compliance but also on the basis of a risk-analysis.\n(20)\nThe manufacture of active substances should be subject to good manufacturing practice regardless of whether those active substances are manufactured in the Union or imported. With regard to the manufacture of active substances in third countries, it should be ensured that the legislative provisions applicable to the manufacturing of active substances intended for export to the Union, as well as inspections of facilities and enforcement of the applicable provisions, provide for a level of protection of public health equivalent to that provided for by Union law.\n(21)\nThe illegal sale of medicinal products to the public via the Internet is an important threat to public health as falsified medicinal products may reach the public in this way. It is necessary to address this threat. In doing so, account should be taken of the fact that specific conditions for retail supply of medicinal products to the public have not been harmonised at Union level and, therefore, Member States may impose conditions for supplying medicinal products to the public within the limits of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).\n(22)\nWhen examining the compatibility with Union law of the conditions for the retail supply of medicinal products, the Court of Justice of the European Union (\u2018the Court of Justice\u2019) has recognised the very particular nature of medicinal products, whose therapeutic effects distinguish them substantially from other goods. The Court of Justice has also held that health and life of humans rank foremost among the assets and interests protected by the TFEU and that it is for Member States to determine the level of protection which they wish to afford to public health and the way in which that level has to be achieved. Since that level may vary from one Member State to another, Member States must be allowed discretion (7) as regards the conditions for the supply on their territory of medicinal products to the public.\n(23)\nIn particular, in the light of the risks to public health and given the power accorded to Member States to determine the level of protection of public health, the case-law of the Court of Justice has recognised that Member States may, in principle, restrict the retail sale of medicinal products to pharmacists alone (8).\n(24)\nTherefore, and in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice, Member States should be able to impose conditions justified by the protection of public health upon the retail supply of medicinal products offered for sale at a distance by means of information society services. Such conditions should not unduly restrict the functioning of the internal market.\n(25)\nThe public should be assisted in identifying websites which are legally offering medicinal products for sale at a distance to the public. A common logo should be established, which is recognisable throughout the Union, while allowing for the identification of the Member State where the person offering medicinal products for sale at a distance is established. The Commission should develop the design for such a logo. Websites offering medicinal products for sale at a distance to the public should be linked to the website of the competent authority concerned. The websites of the competent authorities of Member States, as well as that of the European Medicines Agency (\u2018the Agency\u2019), should give an explanation of the use of the logo. All those websites should be linked in order to provide comprehensive information to the public.\n(26)\nIn addition, the Commission should, in cooperation with the Agency and Member States, run awareness campaigns to warn of the risks of purchasing medicinal products from illegal sources via the Internet.\n(27)\nMember States should impose effective penalties for acts involving falsified medicinal products taking into account the threat to public health posed by those products.\n(28)\nThe falsification of medicinal products is a global problem, requiring effective and enhanced international coordination and cooperation in order to ensure that anti-falsification strategies are more effective, in particular as regards sale of such products via the Internet. To that end, the Commission and the Member States should cooperate closely and support ongoing work in international fora on this subject, such as the Council of Europe, Europol and the United Nations. In addition, the Commission, working closely with Member States, should cooperate with the competent authorities of third countries with a view to effectively combating the trade in falsified medicinal products at a global level.\n(29)\nThis Directive is without prejudice to provisions concerning intellectual property rights. It aims specifically to prevent falsified medicinal products from entering the legal supply chain.\n(30)\nThe Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in order to supplement the provisions of Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended by this Directive, concerning good manufacturing and distribution practices for active substances, concerning detailed rules for medicinal products introduced into the Union without being imported and concerning safety features. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council.\n(31)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for implementation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission as regards the adoption of measures for the assessment of the regulatory framework applicable to the manufacturing of active substances exported from third countries to the Union and as regards a common logo that identifies websites which are legally offering medicinal products for sale at a distance to the public. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (9).\n(32)\nThe safety features for medicinal products introduced under this Directive require substantial adaptations to manufacturing processes. In order to enable manufacturers to make those adaptations, the time limits for the application of the provisions on the safety features should be sufficiently long and should be calculated as from the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the delegated acts setting out detailed rules in relation to those safety features. It should also be taken into account that some Member States already have a national system in place. Those Member States should be granted an additional transitional period for adapting to the harmonised Union system.\n(33)\nSince the objective of this Directive, namely to safeguard the functioning of the internal market for medicinal products, whilst ensuring a high level of protection of public health against falsified medicinal products, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, and can, by reason of the scale of the measure, 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.\n(34)\nIt is important that the competent authorities of the Member States, the Commission and the Agency cooperate to ensure the exchange of information on measures taken to combat the falsification of medicinal products and on the penalties systems that are in place. Currently, such exchange takes place through the Working Group of Enforcement Officers. Member States should ensure that patients\u2019 and consumers\u2019 organisations are kept informed about enforcement activities to the extent that this is compatible with operational needs.\n(35)\nIn accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (10), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.\n(36)\nDirective 2001/83/EC was recently amended by Directive 2010/84/EU (11) as regards pharmacovigilance. That Directive, inter alia, amended Article 111 with regard to inspections and Article 116 with regard to the suspension and revocation and variation of marketing authorisations under certain circumstances. Furthermore, it inserted provisions on delegated acts in Articles 121a, 121b and 121c of Directive 2001/83/EC. This Directive requires some further and complementary changes to those Articles of Directive 2001/83/EC.\n(37)\nDirective 2001/83/EC should be amended accordingly,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nDirective 2001/83/EC is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nArticle 1 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following points are inserted:\n\u20183a.\nActive substance:\nAny substance or mixture of substances intended to be used in the manufacture of a medicinal product and that, when used in its production, becomes an active ingredient of that product intended to exert a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions or to make a medical diagnosis.\n3b.\nExcipient:\nAny constituent of a medicinal product other than the active substance and the packaging material.\u2019;\n(b)\nthe following point is inserted:\n\u201817a.\nBrokering of medicinal products:\nAll activities in relation to the sale or purchase of medicinal products, except for wholesale distribution, that do not include physical handling and that consist of negotiating independently and on behalf of another legal or natural person.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following point is added:\n\u201833.\nFalsified medicinal product:\nAny medicinal product with a false representation of:\n(a)\nits identity, including its packaging and labelling, its name or its composition as regards any of the ingredients including excipients and the strength of those ingredients;\n(b)\nits source, including its manufacturer, its country of manufacturing, its country of origin or its marketing authorisation holder; or\n(c)\nits history, including the records and documents relating to the distribution channels used.\nThis definition does not include unintentional quality defects and is without prejudice to infringements of intellectual property rights.\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 2, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of this Article and Article 3(4), Title IV of this Directive shall apply to the manufacture of medicinal products intended only for export and to intermediate products, active substances and excipients.\n4. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to Articles 52b and 85a.\u2019;\n(3)\nin Article 8(3), the following point is inserted:\n\u2018(ha)\nA written confirmation that the manufacturer of the medicinal product has verified compliance of the manufacturer of the active substance with principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice by conducting audits, in accordance with point (f) of Article 46. The written confirmation shall contain a reference to the date of the audit and a declaration that the outcome of the audit confirms that the manufacturing complies with the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice.\u2019;\n(4)\nin Article 40, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Member States shall enter the information relating to the authorisation referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article in the Union database referred to in Article 111(6).\u2019;\n(5)\nin Article 46, point (f) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(f)\nto comply with the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice for medicinal products and to use only active substances, which have been manufactured in accordance with good manufacturing practice for active substances and distributed in accordance with good distribution practices for active substances. To this end, the holder of the manufacturing authorisation shall verify compliance by the manufacturer and distributors of active substances with good manufacturing practice and good distribution practices by conducting audits at the manufacturing and distribution sites of the manufacturer and distributors of active substances. The holder of the manufacturing authorisation shall verify such compliance either by himself or, without prejudice to his responsibility as provided for in this Directive, through an entity acting on his behalf under a contract.\nThe holder of the manufacturing authorisation shall ensure that the excipients are suitable for use in medicinal products by ascertaining what the appropriate good manufacturing practice is. This shall be ascertained on the basis of a formalised risk assessment in accordance with the applicable guidelines referred to in the fifth paragraph of Article 47. Such risk assessment shall take into account requirements under other appropriate quality systems as well as the source and intended use of the excipients and previous instances of quality defects. The holder of the manufacturing authorisation shall ensure that the appropriate good manufacturing practice so ascertained, is applied. The holder of the manufacturing authorisation shall document the measures taken under this paragraph;\n(g)\nto inform the competent authority and the marketing authorisation holder immediately if he obtains information that medicinal products which come under the scope of his manufacturing authorisation are, or are suspected of being, falsified irrespective of whether those medicinal products were distributed within the legal supply chain or by illegal means, including illegal sale by means of information society services;\n(h)\nto verify that the manufacturers, importers or distributors from whom he obtains active substances are registered with the competent authority of the Member State in which they are established;\n(i)\nto verify the authenticity and quality of the active substances and the excipients.\u2019;\n(6)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 46b\n1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that the manufacture, import and distribution on their territory of active substances, including active substances that are intended for export, comply with good manufacturing practice and good distribution practices for active substances.\n2. Active substances shall only be imported if the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe active substances have been manufactured in accordance with standards of good manufacturing practice at least equivalent to those laid down by the Union pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 47; and\n(b)\nthe active substances are accompanied by a written confirmation from the competent authority of the exporting third country of the following:\n(i)\nthe standards of good manufacturing practice applicable to the plant manufacturing the exported active substance are at least equivalent to those laid down by the Union pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 47;\n(ii)\nthe manufacturing plant concerned is subject to regular, strict and transparent controls and to the effective enforcement of good manufacturing practice, including repeated and unannounced inspections, so as to ensure a protection of public health at least equivalent to that in the Union; and\n(iii)\nin the event of findings relating to non-compliance, information on such findings is supplied by the exporting third country to the Union without any delay.\nThis written confirmation shall be without prejudice to the obligations set out in Article 8 and in point (f) of Article 46.\n3. The requirement set out in point (b) of paragraph 2 of this Article shall not apply if the exporting country is included in the list referred to in Article 111b.\n4. Exceptionally and where necessary to ensure the availability of medicinal products, when a plant manufacturing an active substance for export has been inspected by a Member State and was found to comply with the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice laid down pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 47, the requirement set out in point (b) of paragraph 2 of this Article may be waived by any Member State for a period not exceeding the validity of the certificate of Good Manufacturing Practice. Member States that make use of the possibility of such waiver, shall communicate this to the Commission.\u2019;\n(7)\nin Article 47, the third and fourth paragraphs are replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 121a and subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 121b and 121c, the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice for active substances referred to in the first paragraph of point (f) of Article 46 and in Article 46b.\nThe principles of good distribution practices for active substances referred to in the first paragraph of point (f) of Article 46 shall be adopted by the Commission in the form of guidelines.\nThe Commission shall adopt guidelines on the formalised risk assessment for ascertaining the appropriate good manufacturing practice for excipients referred to in the second paragraph of point (f) of Article 46.\u2019;\n(8)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 47a\n1. The safety features referred to in point (o) of Article 54 shall not be removed or covered, either fully or partially, unless the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe manufacturing authorisation holder verifies, prior to partly or fully removing or covering those safety features, that the medicinal product concerned is authentic and that it has not been tampered with;\n(b)\nthe manufacturing authorisation holder complies with point (o) of Article 54 by replacing those safety features with safety features which are equivalent as regards the possibility to verify the authenticity, identification and to provide evidence of tampering of the medicinal product. Such replacement shall be conducted without opening the immediate packaging as defined in point 23 of Article 1.\nSafety features shall be considered equivalent if they:\n(i)\ncomply with the requirements set out in the delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 54a(2); and\n(ii)\nare equally effective in enabling the verification of authenticity and identification of medicinal products and in providing evidence of tampering with medicinal products;\n(c)\nthe replacement of the safety features is conducted in accordance with applicable good manufacturing practice for medicinal products; and\n(d)\nthe replacement of the safety features is subject to supervision by the competent authority.\n2. Manufacturing authorisation holders, including those performing the activities referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, shall be regarded as producers and therefore held liable for damages in the cases and under the conditions set forth in Directive 85/374/EEC.\u2019;\n(9)\nin Article 51(1), the following subparagraph is inserted before the second subparagraph:\n\u2018The qualified person referred to in Article 48 shall in the case of medicinal products intended to be placed on the market in the Union, ensure that the safety features referred to in point (o) of Article 54 have been affixed on the packaging.\u2019;\n(10)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 52a\n1. Importers, manufacturers and distributors of active substances who are established in the Union shall register their activity with the competent authority of the Member State in which they are established.\n2. The registration form shall include, at least, the following information:\n(i)\nname or corporate name and permanent address;\n(ii)\nthe active substances which are to be imported, manufactured or distributed;\n(iii)\nparticulars regarding the premises and the technical equipment for their activity.\n3. The persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall submit the registration form to the competent authority at least 60 days prior to the intended commencement of their activity.\n4. The competent authority may, based on a risk assessment, decide to carry out an inspection. If the competent authority notifies the applicant within 60 days of the receipt of the registration form that an inspection will be carried out, the activity shall not begin before the competent authority has notified the applicant that he may commence the activity. If within 60 days of the receipt of the registration form the competent authority has not notified the applicant that an inspection will be carried out, the applicant may commence the activity.\n5. The persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall communicate annually to the competent authority an inventory of the changes which have taken place as regards the information provided in the registration form. Any changes that may have an impact on the quality or safety of the active substances that are manufactured, imported or distributed must be notified immediately.\n6. Persons referred to in paragraph 1 who had commenced their activity before 2 January 2013 shall submit the registration form to the competent authority by 2 March 2013.\n7. Member States shall enter the information provided in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article in the Union database referred to in Article 111(6).\n8. This Article shall be without prejudice to Article 111.\nArticle 52b\n1. Notwithstanding Article 2(1), and without prejudice to Title VII, Member States shall take the necessary measures in order to prevent medicinal products that are introduced into the Union, but are not intended to be placed on the market of the Union, from entering into circulation if there are sufficient grounds to suspect that those products are falsified.\n2. In order to establish what the necessary measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article are, the Commission may adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 121a, and subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 121b and 121c, measures supplementing paragraph 1 of this Article as regards the criteria to be considered and the verifications to be made when assessing the potential falsified character of medicinal products introduced into the Union but not intended to be placed on the market.\u2019;\n(11)\nin Article 54, the following point is added:\n\u2018(o)\nfor medicinal products other than radiopharmaceuticals referred to in Article 54a(1), safety features enabling wholesale distributors and persons authorised or entitled to supply medicinal products to the public to:\n-\nverify the authenticity of the medicinal product, and\n-\nidentify individual packs,\nas well as a device allowing verification of whether the outer packaging has been tampered with.\u2019;\n(12)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 54a\n1. Medicinal products subject to prescription shall bear the safety features referred to in point (o) of Article 54, unless they have been listed in accordance with the procedure pursuant to point (b) of paragraph 2 of this Article.\nMedicinal products not subject to prescription shall not bear the safety features referred to in point (o) of Article 54, unless, by way of exception, they have been listed in accordance with the procedure pursuant to point (b) of paragraph 2 of this Article, after having been assessed to be at risk of falsification.\n2. The Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 121a and subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 121b and 121c, measures supplementing point (o) of Article 54 with the objective of establishing the detailed rules for the safety features referred to in point (o) of Article 54.\nThose delegated acts shall set out:\n(a)\nthe characteristics and technical specifications of the unique identifier of the safety features referred to in point (o) of Article 54 that enables the authenticity of medicinal products to be verified and individual packs to be identified. When establishing the safety features due consideration shall be given to their cost-effectiveness;\n(b)\nthe lists containing the medicinal products or product categories which, in the case of medicinal products subject to prescription shall not bear the safety features, and in the case of medicinal products not subject to prescription shall bear the safety features referred to in point (o) of Article 54. Those lists shall be established considering the risk of and the risk arising from falsification relating to medicinal products or categories of medicinal products. To this end, at least the following criteria shall be applied:\n(i)\nthe price and sales volume of the medicinal product;\n(ii)\nthe number and frequency of previous cases of falsified medicinal products being reported within the Union and in third countries and the evolution of the number and frequency of such cases to date;\n(iii)\nthe specific characteristics of the medicinal products concerned;\n(iv)\nthe severity of the conditions intended to be treated;\n(v)\nother potential risks to public health;\n(c)\nthe procedures for the notification to the Commission provided for in paragraph 4 and a rapid system for evaluating and deciding on such notification for the purpose of applying point (b);\n(d)\nthe modalities for the verification of the safety features referred to in point (o) of Article 54 by the manufacturers, wholesalers, pharmacists and persons authorised or entitled to supply medicinal products to the public and by the competent authorities. Those modalities shall allow the verification of the authenticity of each supplied pack of the medicinal products bearing the safety features referred to in point (o) of Article 54 and determine the extent of such verification. When establishing those modalities, the particular characteristics of the supply chains in Member States, and the need to ensure that the impact of verification measures on particular actors in the supply chains is proportionate, shall be taken into account;\n(e)\nprovisions on the establishment, management and accessibility of the repositories system in which information on the safety features, enabling the verification of the authenticity and identification of medicinal products, as provided for in point (o) of Article 54, shall be contained. The costs of the repositories system shall be borne by the manufacturing authorisation holders of medicinal products bearing the safety features.\n3. When adopting the measures referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall take due account of at least the following:\n(a)\nthe protection of personal data as provided for in Union law;\n(b)\nthe legitimate interests to protect information of a commercially confidential nature;\n(c)\nthe ownership and confidentiality of the data generated by the use of the safety features; and\n(d)\nthe cost-effectiveness of the measures.\n4. The national competent authorities shall notify the Commission of non-prescription medicinal products which they judge to be at risk of falsification and may inform the Commission of medicinal products which they deem not to be at risk according to the criteria set out in point (b) of paragraph 2 of this Article.\n5. Member States may, for the purposes of reimbursement or pharmacovigilance, extend the scope of application of the unique identifier referred to in point (o) of Article 54 to any medicinal product subject to prescription or subject to reimbursement.\nMember States may, for the purposes of reimbursement, pharmacovigilance or pharmacoepidemiology, use the information contained in the repositories system referred to in point (e) of paragraph 2 of this Article.\nMember States may, for the purposes of patient safety, extend the scope of application of the anti-tampering device referred to in point (o) of Article 54 to any medicinal product.\u2019;\n(13)\nin Article 57, the fourth indent of the first paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nauthenticity and identification in accordance with Article 54a(5).\u2019;\n(14)\nthe heading of title VII is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Wholesale distribution and brokering of medicinal products\u2019;\n(15)\nin Article 76, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. Any distributor, not being the marketing authorisation holder, who imports a medicinal product from another Member State shall notify the marketing authorisation holder and the competent authority in the Member State to which the medicinal product will be imported of his intention to import that product. In the case of medicinal products which have not been granted an authorisation pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the notification to the competent authority shall be without prejudice to additional procedures provided for in the legislation of that Member State and to fees payable to the competent authority for examining the notification.\n4. In the case of medicinal products which have been granted an authorisation pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the distributor shall submit the notification in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article to the marketing authorisation holder and the Agency. A fee shall be payable to the Agency for checking that the conditions laid down in Union legislation on medicinal products and in the marketing authorisations are observed.\u2019;\n(16)\nArticle 77 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the wholesale distribution of medicinal products is subject to the possession of an authorisation to engage in activity as a wholesaler in medicinal products, stating the premises located on their territory for which it is valid.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraphs 4 and 5 are replaced by the following:\n\u20184. Member States shall enter the information relating to the authorisations referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article in the Union database referred to in Article 111(6). At the request of the Commission or any Member State, Member States shall provide all appropriate information concerning the individual authorisations which they have granted under paragraph 1 of this Article.\n5. Checks on the persons authorised to engage in activity as a wholesaler in medicinal products, and the inspection of their premises, shall be carried out under the responsibility of the Member State which granted the authorisation for premises located on its territory.\u2019;\n(17)\nArticle 80 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nthe following point is inserted:\n\u2018(ca)\nthey must verify that the medicinal products received are not falsified by checking the safety features on the outer packaging, in accordance with the requirements laid down in the delegated acts referred to in Article 54a(2);\u2019;\n(b)\npoint (e) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(e)\nthey must keep records either in the form of purchase/sales invoices or on computer, or in any other form, giving for any transaction in medicinal products received, dispatched or brokered at least the following information:\n-\ndate,\n-\nname of the medicinal product,\n-\nquantity received, supplied or brokered,\n-\nname and address of the supplier or consignee, as appropriate,\n-\nbatch number of the medicinal products at least for products bearing the safety features referred to in point (o) of Article 54;\u2019;\n(c)\nthe following points are added:\n\u2018(h)\nthey must maintain a quality system setting out responsibilities, processes and risk management measures in relation to their activities;\n(i)\nthey must immediately inform the competent authority and, where applicable, the marketing authorisation holder, of medicinal products they receive or are offered which they identify as falsified or suspect to be falsified.\u2019;\n(d)\nthe following paragraphs are added:\n\u2018For the purposes of point (b), where the medicinal product is obtained from another wholesale distributor, wholesale distribution authorisation holders must verify compliance with the principles and guidelines of good distribution practices by the supplying wholesale distributor. This includes verifying whether the supplying wholesale distributor holds a wholesale distribution authorisation.\nWhere the medicinal product is obtained from the manufacturer or importer, wholesale distribution authorisation holders must verify that the manufacturer or importer holds a manufacturing authorisation.\nWhere the medicinal product is obtained through brokering, the wholesale distribution authorisation holders must verify that the broker involved fulfils the requirements set out in this Directive.\u2019;\n(18)\nin the first paragraph of Article 82, the following indent is added:\n\u2018-\nbatch number of the medicinal products at least for products bearing the safety features referred to in point (o) of Article 54;\u2019;\n(19)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 85a\nIn the case of wholesale distribution of medicinal products to third countries, Article 76 and point (c) of Article 80 shall not apply. Moreover, points (b) and (ca) of Article 80 shall not apply where a product is directly received from a third country but not imported. The requirements set out in Article 82 shall apply to the supply of medicinal products to persons in third countries authorised or entitled to supply medicinal products to the public.\nArticle 85b\n1. Persons brokering medicinal products shall ensure that the brokered medicinal products are covered by a marketing authorisation granted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 or by the competent authorities of a Member State in accordance with this Directive.\nPersons brokering medicinal products shall have a permanent address and contact details in the Union, so as to ensure accurate identification, location, communication and supervision of their activities by competent authorities.\nThe requirements set out in points (d) to (i) of Article 80 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the brokering of medicinal products.\n2. Persons may only broker medicinal products if they are registered with the competent authority of the Member State of their permanent address referred to in paragraph 1. Those persons shall submit, at least, their name, corporate name and permanent address in order to register. They shall notify the competent authority of any changes thereof without unnecessary delay.\nPersons brokering medicinal products who had commenced their activity before 2 January 2013 shall register with the competent authority by 2 March 2013.\nThe competent authority shall enter the information referred to in the first subparagraph in a register that shall be publicly accessible.\n3. The guidelines referred to in Article 84 shall include specific provisions for brokering.\n4. This Article shall be without prejudice to Article 111. Inspections referred to in Article 111 shall be carried out under the responsibility of the Member State where the person brokering medicinal products is registered.\nIf a person brokering medicinal products does not comply with the requirements set out in this Article, the competent authority may decide to remove that person from the register referred to in paragraph 2. The competent authority shall notify that person thereof.\u2019;\n(20)\nthe following Title is inserted before Title VIII:\n\u2018TITLE VIIA\nSALE AT A DISTANCE TO THE PUBLIC\nArticle 85c\n1. Without prejudice to national legislation prohibiting the offer for sale at a distance of prescription medicinal products to the public by means of information society services, Member States shall ensure that medicinal products are offered for sale at a distance to the public by means of information society services as defined in Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (12) under the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe natural or legal person offering the medicinal products is authorised or entitled to supply medicinal products to the public, also at a distance, in accordance with national legislation of the Member State in which that person is established;\n(b)\nthe person referred to in point (a) has notified the Member State in which that person is established of at least the following information:\n(i)\nname or corporate name and permanent address of the place of activity from where those medicinal products are supplied;\n(ii)\nthe starting date of the activity of offering medicinal products for sale at a distance to the public by means of information society services;\n(iii)\nthe address of the website used for that purpose and all relevant information necessary to identify that website;\n(iv)\nif applicable, the classification in accordance with Title VI of the medicinal products offered for sale at a distance to the public by means of information society services.\nWhere appropriate, that information shall be updated;\n(c)\nthe medicinal products comply with the national legislation of the Member State of destination in accordance with Article 6(1);\n(d)\nwithout prejudice to the information requirements set out in Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce) (13), the website offering the medicinal products contains at least:\n(i)\nthe contact details of the competent authority or the authority notified pursuant to point (b);\n(ii)\na hyperlink to the website referred to in paragraph 4 of the Member State of establishment;\n(iii)\nthe common logo referred to in paragraph 3 clearly displayed on every page of the website that relates to the offer for sale at a distance to the public of medicinal products. The common logo shall contain a hyperlink to the entry of the person in the list referred to in point (c) of paragraph 4.\n2. Member States may impose conditions, justified on grounds of public health protection, for the retail supply on their territory of medicinal products for sale at a distance to the public by means of information society services.\n3. A common logo shall be established that is recognisable throughout the Union, while enabling the identification of the Member State where the person offering medicinal products for sale at a distance to the public is established. That logo shall be clearly displayed on websites offering medicinal products for sale at a distance to the public in accordance with point (d) of paragraph 1.\nIn order to harmonise the functioning of the common logo, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts regarding:\n(a)\nthe technical, electronic and cryptographic requirements for verification of the authenticity of the common logo;\n(b)\nthe design of the common logo.\nThose implementing acts shall, where necessary, be amended to take account of technical and scientific progress. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 121(2).\n4. Each Member State shall set up a website providing at least the following:\n(a)\ninformation on the national legislation applicable to the offering of medicinal products for sale at a distance to the public by means of information society services, including information on the fact that there may be differences between Member States regarding classification of medicinal products and the conditions for their supply;\n(b)\ninformation on the purpose of the common logo;\n(c)\nthe list of persons offering the medicinal products for sale at a distance to the public by means of information society services in accordance with paragraph 1 as well as their website addresses;\n(d)\nbackground information on the risks related to medicinal products supplied illegally to the public by means of information society services.\nThis website shall contain a hyperlink to the website referred to in paragraph 5.\n5. The Agency shall set up a website providing the information referred to in points (b) and (d) of paragraph 4, information on the Union legislation applicable to falsified medicinal products as well as hyperlinks to the Member States\u2019 websites referred to in paragraph 4. The Agency\u2019s website shall explicitly mention that the Member States\u2019 websites contain information on persons authorised or entitled to supply medicinal products at a distance to the public by means of information society services in the Member State concerned.\n6. Without prejudice to Directive 2000/31/EC and the requirements set out in this Title, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that other persons than those referred to in paragraph 1 that offer medicinal products for sale at a distance to the public by means of information society services and that operate on their territory are subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties.\nArticle 85d\nWithout prejudice to the competences of the Member States, the Commission shall, in cooperation with the Agency and Member State authorities, conduct or promote information campaigns aimed at the general public on the dangers of falsified medicinal products. Those campaigns shall raise consumer awareness of the risks related to medicinal products supplied illegally at a distance to the public by means of information society services and of the functioning of the common logo, the Member States\u2019 websites and the Agency\u2019s website.\n(21)\nArticle 111 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. The competent authority of the Member State concerned shall, in cooperation with the Agency, ensure that the legal requirements governing medicinal products are complied with, by means of inspections, if necessary unannounced, and, where appropriate, by asking an Official Medicines Control Laboratory or a laboratory designated for that purpose to carry out tests on samples. This cooperation shall consist in sharing information with the Agency on both inspections that are planned and that have been conducted. Member States and the Agency shall cooperate in the coordination of inspections in third countries. The inspections shall include but not be limited to the ones mentioned in paragraphs 1a to 1f.\n1a. Manufacturers, located in the Union or in third countries, and wholesale distributors of medicinal products shall be subject to repeated inspections.\n1b. The competent authority of the Member State concerned shall have a system of supervision including by inspections at an appropriate frequency based on risk, at the premises of the manufacturers, importers, or distributors of active substances, located on its territory, and effective follow-up thereof.\nWhenever it considers that there are grounds for suspecting non-compliance with the legal requirements laid down in this Directive, including the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice and good distribution practices referred to in point (f) of Article 46 and in Article 47, the competent authority may carry out inspections at the premises of:\n(a)\nmanufacturers or distributors of active substances located in third countries;\n(b)\nmanufacturers or importers of excipients.\n1c. Inspections referred to in paragraphs 1a and 1b may also be carried out in the Union and in third countries at the request of a Member State, the Commission or the Agency.\n1d. Inspections may also take place at the premises of marketing authorisation holders and of brokers of medicinal products.\n1e. In order to verify whether the data submitted in order to obtain a conformity certificate comply with the monographs of the European Pharmacopoeia, the standardisation body of the nomenclatures and the quality norms within the meaning of the Convention relating to the elaboration of the European Pharmacopoeia (the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and Healthcare) may ask the Commission or the Agency to request such an inspection when the starting material concerned is the subject of a European Pharmacopoeia monograph.\n1f. The competent authority of the Member State concerned may carry out inspections of starting material manufacturers at the specific request of the manufacturer.\n1g. Inspections shall be carried out by officials representing the competent authority who shall be empowered to:\n(a)\ninspect the manufacturing or commercial establishments of manufacturers of medicinal products, of active substances or of excipients, and any laboratories employed by the holder of the manufacturing authorisation to carry out checks pursuant to Article 20;\n(b)\ntake samples including with a view to independent tests being carried out by an Official Medicines Control Laboratory or a laboratory designated for that purpose by a Member State;\n(c)\nexamine any documents relating to the object of the inspection, subject to the provisions in force in the Member States on 21 May 1975 placing restrictions on these powers with regard to the description of the manufacturing method;\n(d)\ninspect the premises, records, documents and pharmacovigilance system master file of the marketing authorisation holder or any firms employed by the marketing authorisation holder to perform the activities described in Title IX.\n1h. Inspections shall be carried out in accordance with the guidelines referred to in Article 111a.\u2019;\n(b)\nparagraphs 3 to 6 are replaced by the following:\n\u20183. After every inspection as referred to in paragraph 1, the competent authority shall report on whether the inspected entity complies with the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice and good distribution practices referred to in Articles 47 and 84, as applicable, or on whether the marketing authorisation holder complies with the requirements laid down in Title IX.\nThe competent authority which carried out the inspection shall communicate the content of those reports to the inspected entity.\nBefore adopting the report, the competent authority shall give the inspected entity concerned the opportunity to submit comments.\n4. Without prejudice to any arrangements which may have been concluded between the Union and third countries, a Member State, the Commission or the Agency may require a manufacturer established in a third country to submit to an inspection as referred to in this Article.\n5. Within 90 days of an inspection as referred to in paragraph 1, a certificate of good manufacturing practice or good distribution practices shall, when applicable, be issued to the inspected entity if the outcome of the inspection shows that it complies with the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice or good distribution practices as provided for by Union legislation.\nIf inspections are performed as part of the certification procedure for the monographs of the European Pharmacopoeia, a certificate shall be drawn up.\n6. Member States shall enter the certificates of good manufacturing practice and good distribution practices which they issue in a Union database managed by the Agency on behalf of the Union. Pursuant to Article 52a(7), Member States shall also enter information in that database regarding the registration of importers, manufacturers and distributors of active substances. The database shall be publicly accessible.\u2019;\n(c)\nparagraph 7 is amended as follows:\n(i)\nthe words \u2018paragraph 1\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018paragraph 1g\u2019;\n(ii)\nthe words \u2018used as starting materials\u2019 are deleted;\n(d)\nin the first subparagraph of paragraph 8, the words \u2018paragraph 1(d)\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018point (d) of paragraph 1g\u2019;\n(22)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 111a\nThe Commission shall adopt detailed guidelines laying down the principles applicable to inspections referred to in Article 111.\nMember States shall, in cooperation with the Agency, establish the form and content of the authorisation referred to in Articles 40(1) and 77(1), of the reports referred to in Article 111(3), of the certificates of good manufacturing practice and of the certificates of good distribution practices referred to in Article 111(5).\nArticle 111b\n1. At the request of a third country, the Commission shall assess whether that country\u2019s regulatory framework applicable to active substances exported to the Union and the respective control and enforcement activities ensure a level of protection of public health equivalent to that of the Union. If the assessment confirms such equivalence, the Commission shall adopt a decision to include the third country in a list. The assessment shall take the form of a review of relevant documentation and, unless arrangements as referred to in Article 51(2) of this Directive are in place that cover this area of activity, that assessment shall include an on-site review of the third country\u2019s regulatory system and, if necessary, an observed inspection of one or more of the third country\u2019s manufacturing sites for active substances. In the assessment particular account shall be taken of:\n(a)\nthe country\u2019s rules for good manufacturing practice;\n(b)\nthe regularity of inspections to verify compliance with good manufacturing practice;\n(c)\nthe effectiveness of enforcement of good manufacturing practice;\n(d)\nthe regularity and rapidity of information provided by the third country relating to non-compliant producers of active substances.\n2. The Commission shall adopt the necessary implementing acts to apply the requirements set out in points (a) to (d) of paragraph 1 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 121(2).\n3. The Commission shall verify regularly whether the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled. The first verification shall take place no later than 3 years after the country has been included in the list referred to in paragraph 1.\n4. The Commission shall perform the assessment and verification referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 in cooperation with the Agency and the competent authorities of the Member States.\u2019;\n(23)\nin Article 116, the following paragraph is added:\n\u2018The second paragraph of this Article also applies in cases where the manufacture of the medicinal product is not carried out in compliance with the particulars provided pursuant to point (d) of Article 8(3), or where controls are not carried out in compliance with the control methods described pursuant to point (h) of Article 8(3).\u2019;\n(24)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 117a\n1. Member States shall have a system in place which aims at preventing medicinal products that are suspected to present a danger to health from reaching the patient.\n2. The system referred to in paragraph 1 shall cover the receipt and handling of notifications of suspected falsified medicinal products as well as of suspected quality defects of medicinal products. The system shall also cover recalls of medicinal products by marketing authorisation holders or withdrawals of medicinal products from the market ordered by national competent authorities from all relevant actors in the supply chain both during and outside normal working hours. The system shall also make it possible to recall, where necessary with the assistance of health professionals, medicinal products from patients who received such products.\n3. If the medicinal product in question is suspected of presenting a serious risk to public health, the competent authority of the Member State in which that product was first identified shall, without any delay, transmit a rapid alert notification to all Member States and all actors in the supply chain in that Member State. In the event of such medicinal products being deemed to have reached patients, urgent public announcements shall be issued within 24 hours in order to recall those medicinal products from the patients. Those announcements shall contain sufficient information on the suspected quality defect or falsification and the risks involved.\n4. Member States shall by 22 July 2013 notify the Commission of the details of their respective national systems referred to in this Article.\u2019;\n(25)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 118a\n1. The Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all necessary measures to ensure that those penalties are implemented. The penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.\nThose penalties shall not be inferior to those applicable to infringements of national law of similar nature and importance.\n2. The rules referred to in paragraph 1 shall address, inter alia, the following:\n(a)\nthe manufacturing, distribution, brokering, import and export of falsified medicinal products, as well as the sale of falsified medicinal products at a distance to the public by means of information society services;\n(b)\nnon-compliance with the provisions laid down in this Directive on manufacturing, distribution, import and export of active substances;\n(c)\nnon-compliance with the provisions laid down in this Directive on the use of excipients.\nWhere relevant, the penalties shall take into account the risk to public health presented by the falsification of medicinal products.\n3. The Member States shall notify the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Article to the Commission by 2 January 2013 and shall notify any subsequent amendment of those provisions without delay.\nBy 2 January 2018, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council giving an overview of the transposition measures of Member States as regards this Article, together with an evaluation of the effectiveness of those measures.\nArticle 118b\nMember States shall organise meetings involving patients \u201cand consumers\u201d organisations and, as necessary, Member States\u2019 enforcement officers, in order to communicate public information about the actions undertaken in the area of prevention and enforcement to combat the falsification of medicinal products.\nArticle 118c\nMember States, in applying this Directive, shall take the necessary measures to ensure cooperation between competent authorities for medicinal products and customs authorities.\u2019;\n(26)\nin Article 121a(1), the words \u2018Article 22b\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018Articles 22b, 47, 52b and 54a\u2019;\n(27)\nin Article 121b(1), the words \u2018Article 22b\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018Articles 22b, 47, 52b and 54a\u2019;\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 2 January 2013. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.\n2. Member States shall apply those measures from 2 January 2013.\nHowever, the Member States shall apply:\n(a)\nthe provisions necessary to comply with point 6 of Article 1 of this Directive in so far as it relates to Article 46b(2)(b) and Article 46b(3) and (4) of Directive 2001/83/EC as inserted by this Directive from 2 July 2013;\n(b)\nthe provisions necessary to comply with points 8, 9, 11 and 12 of Article 1 of this Directive from 3 years after the date of publication of the delegated acts referred to in point 12 of Article 1 of this Directive.\nNevertheless, Member States which, on 21 July 2011, have systems in place for the purpose referred to in point 11 of Article 1 of this Directive shall apply the provisions necessary to comply with points 8, 9, 11 and 12 of Article 1 of this Directive at the latest from 6 years after the date of application of the delegated acts referred to in point 12 of Article 1 of this Directive;\n(c)\nthe provisions necessary to comply with point 20 of Article 1 of this Directive in so far as it relates to Article 85c of Directive 2001/83/EC as inserted by this Directive at the latest from 1 year after the date of publication of the implementing acts referred to in Article 85c(3) as inserted by this Directive.\n3. When Member States adopt the measures referred to in paragraph 1, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such references shall be laid down by Member States.\n4. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nAt the latest 5 years after the date of application of the delegated acts referred to in Article 54a(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC as inserted by this Directive, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council containing the following:\n(a)\na description, where possible including quantitative data, of the trends in the falsification of medicinal products in terms of: categories of medicinal products affected, distribution channels including sale at a distance to the public by means of information society services, the Member States concerned, the nature of the falsifications, and the regions of provenance of these products; and\n(b)\nan evaluation of the contribution of the measures provided for in this Directive regarding the prevention of the entry of falsified medicinal products in the legal supply chain. That evaluation shall in particular assess point (o) of Article 54 and Article 54a of Directive 2001/83/EC as inserted by this Directive.\nArticle 4\nIn order to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 54a(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC as inserted by this Directive, the Commission shall perform a study assessing at least the following aspects:\n(a)\nthe technical options for the unique identifier of the safety features referred to in point (o) of Article 54 of Directive 2001/83/EC as inserted by this Directive;\n(b)\nthe options for the extent and the modalities of verification of the authenticity of the medicinal product bearing the safety features. This assessment shall take into account the particular characteristics of the supply chains in the Member States;\n(c)\nthe technical options for establishing and managing the repositories system, referred to in point (e) of Article 54a(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC as inserted by this Directive.\nThe study shall, for each of the options, assess benefits, costs and cost-effectiveness.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 8 June 2011.", "references": ["9", "85", "82", "87", "67", "17", "11", "22", "41", "52", "96", "58", "74", "76", "14", "45", "70", "28", "95", "48", "42", "97", "43", "57", "64", "21", "66", "89", "0", "8", "No Label", "20", "25", "26", "38", "77"], "gold": ["20", "25", "26", "38", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 887/2010\nof 7 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 8 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 7 October 2010.", "references": ["32", "74", "67", "69", "7", "86", "62", "93", "85", "59", "76", "12", "75", "8", "78", "55", "9", "57", "15", "71", "24", "18", "72", "80", "4", "31", "43", "1", "30", "25", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 670/2010\nof 13 July 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 as regards the introduction of the euro in Estonia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the Treaty), and in particular Article 140(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (1) provides for the substitution of the euro for the currencies of the Member States which fulfilled the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro at the time when the Community entered the third stage of economic and monetary union.\n(2)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2596/2000 (2) amended Regulation (EC) No 974/98 to provide for the substitution of the euro for the currency of Greece.\n(3)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2169/2005 (3) amended Regulation (EC) No 974/98 in order to prepare for subsequent introductions of the euro in Member States which have not yet adopted the euro as the single currency.\n(4)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1647/2006 (4) amended Regulation (EC) No 974/98 to provide for the substitution of the euro for the currency of Slovenia.\n(5)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 835/2007 (5) amended Regulation (EC) No 974/98 to provide for the substitution of the euro for the currency of Cyprus.\n(6)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 836/2007 (6) amended Regulation (EC) No 974/98 to provide for the substitution of the euro for the currency of Malta.\n(7)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 693/2008 (7) amended Regulation (EC) No 974/98 to provide for the substitution of the euro for the currency of Slovakia.\n(8)\nIn accordance with Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession, Estonia is a Member State with a derogation as defined in Article 139(1) of the Treaty.\n(9)\nPursuant to Council Decision 2010/416/EU of 13 July 2010 in accordance with Article 140(2) of the Treaty on the adoption by Estonia of the euro on 1 January 2011 (8), Estonia fulfils the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro and the derogation in favour of Estonia is to be abrogated with effect from 1 January 2011.\n(10)\nThe introduction of the euro in Estonia requires the extension to Estonia of the existing provisions on the introduction of the euro set out in Regulation (EC) No 974/98.\n(11)\nEstonia\u2019s changeover plan specifies that euro banknotes and coins should become legal tender in that Member State on the day of the introduction of the euro as its currency. Consequently, the euro adoption date and the cash changeover date should be 1 January 2011. No \u2018phasing-out\u2019 period should apply.\n(12)\nRegulation (EC) No 974/98 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 974/98 shall be amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.\nDone at Brussels, 13 July 2010.", "references": ["41", "58", "18", "76", "23", "54", "8", "36", "99", "81", "33", "82", "38", "77", "89", "2", "60", "72", "14", "55", "85", "42", "20", "80", "50", "70", "39", "0", "98", "31", "No Label", "10", "27", "28", "91"], "gold": ["10", "27", "28", "91"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2011/35/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 5 April 2011\nconcerning mergers of public limited liability companies\n(codification)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 50(2)(g) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThird Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies (3) has been substantially amended several times (4). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Directive should be codified.\n(2)\nThe coordination provided for in Article 50(2)(g) of the Treaty and in the general programme for the abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment (5) was begun with First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (6).\n(3)\nThat coordination was continued, as regards the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (7), and, as regards the annual accounts of certain types of companies, with Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (8).\n(4)\nThe protection of the interests of members and third parties requires that the laws of the Member States relating to mergers of public limited liability companies be coordinated and that provision for mergers should be made in the laws of all the Member States.\n(5)\nIn the context of such coordination it is particularly important that the shareholders of merging companies be kept adequately informed in as objective a manner as possible and that their rights be suitably protected. However, there is no reason to require an examination of the draft terms of a merger by an independent expert for the shareholders if all the shareholders agree that it may be dispensed with.\n(6)\nThe protection of employees\u2019 rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses is at present regulated by Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees\u2019 rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (9).\n(7)\nCreditors, including debenture holders, and persons having other claims on the merging companies should be protected so that the merger does not adversely affect their interests.\n(8)\nThe disclosure requirements of Directive 2009/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (10) should be extended to include mergers so that third parties are kept adequately informed.\n(9)\nThe safeguards afforded to members and third parties in connection with mergers should be extended to cover certain legal practices which in important respects are similar to merger, so that the obligation to provide such protection cannot be evaded.\n(10)\nTo ensure certainty in the law as regards relations between the companies concerned, between them and third parties, and between the members, it is necessary to limit the cases in which nullity can arise by providing that defects be remedied wherever that is possible and by restricting the period within which nullification proceedings may be commenced.\n(11)\nThis Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex I, Part B,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nCHAPTER I\nSCOPE\nArticle 1\n1. The coordination measures laid down by this Directive shall apply to the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the following types of company:\n-\nBelgium:\n-\nla soci\u00e9t\u00e9 anonyme/de naamloze vennootschap,\n-\nBulgaria:\n-\n\u0430\u043a\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e \u0434\u0440\u0443\u0436\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e,\n-\nthe Czech Republic:\n-\nakciov\u00e1 spole\u010dnost,\n-\nDenmark:\n-\naktieselskaber,\n-\nGermany:\n-\ndie Aktiengesellschaft,\n-\nEstonia:\n-\naktsiaselts,\n-\nIreland:\n-\npublic companies limited by shares, and public companies limited by guarantee having a share capital,\n-\nGreece:\n-\n\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03b7 \u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1,\n-\nSpain:\n-\nla sociedad an\u00f3nima,\n-\nFrance:\n-\nla soci\u00e9t\u00e9 anonyme,\n-\nItaly:\n-\nla societ\u00e0 per azioni,\n-\nCyprus:\n-\n\u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03ad\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b3\u03cd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf,\n-\nLatvia:\n-\nakciju sabiedr\u012bba,\n-\nLithuania:\n-\nakcin\u0117 bendrov\u0117,\n-\nLuxembourg:\n-\nla soci\u00e9t\u00e9 anonyme,\n-\nHungary:\n-\nr\u00e9szv\u00e9nyt\u00e1rsas\u00e1g,\n-\nMalta:\n-\nkumpannija pubblika/public limited liability company, kumpannija privata/private limited liability company,\n-\nthe Netherlands:\n-\nde naamloze vennootschap,\n-\nAustria:\n-\ndie Aktiengesellschaft,\n-\nPoland:\n-\nsp\u00f3\u0142ka akcyjna,\n-\nPortugal:\n-\na sociedade an\u00f3nima,\n-\nRomania:\n-\nsocietate pe ac\u021biuni,\n-\nSlovenia:\n-\ndelni\u0161ka dru\u017eba,\n-\nSlovakia:\n-\nakciov\u00e1 spolo\u010dnos\u0165,\n-\nFinland:\n-\njulkinen osakeyhti\u00f6/publikt aktiebolag,\n-\nSweden:\n-\naktiebolag,\n-\nthe United Kingdom:\n-\npublic companies limited by shares, and public companies limited by guarantee having a share capital.\n2. The Member States need not apply this Directive to cooperatives incorporated as one of the types of company listed in paragraph 1. In so far as the laws of the Member States make use of this option, they shall require such companies to include the word \u2018cooperative\u2019 in all the documents referred to in Article 5 of Directive 2009/101/EC.\n3. The Member States need not apply this Directive in cases where the company or companies which are being acquired or will cease to exist are the subject of bankruptcy proceedings, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings.\nCHAPTER II\nREGULATION OF MERGER BY THE ACQUISITION OF ONE OR MORE COMPANIES BY ANOTHER COMPANY AND OF MERGER BY THE FORMATION OF A NEW COMPANY\nArticle 2\nThe Member States shall, as regards companies governed by their national laws, make provision for rules governing merger by the acquisition of one or more companies by another company and merger by the formation of a new company.\nArticle 3\n1. For the purposes of this Directive, \u2018merger by acquisition\u2019 shall mean the operation whereby one or more companies are wound up without going into liquidation and transfer to another all their assets and liabilities in exchange for the issue to the shareholders of the company or companies being acquired of shares in the acquiring company and a cash payment, if any, not exceeding 10 % of the nominal value of the shares so issued or, where they have no nominal value, of their accounting par value.\n2. A Member State\u2019s laws may provide that merger by acquisition may also be effected where one or more of the companies being acquired is in liquidation, provided that this option is restricted to companies which have not yet begun to distribute their assets to their shareholders.\nArticle 4\n1. For the purposes of this Directive, \u2018merger by the formation of a new company\u2019 shall mean the operation whereby several companies are wound up without going into liquidation and transfer to a company that they set up all their assets and liabilities in exchange for the issue to their shareholders of shares in the new company and a cash payment, if any, not exceeding 10 % of the nominal value of the shares so issued or, where they have no nominal value, of their accounting par value.\n2. A Member State\u2019s laws may provide that merger by the formation of a new company may also be effected where one or more of the companies which are ceasing to exist is in liquidation, provided that this option is restricted to companies which have not yet begun to distribute their assets to their shareholders.\nCHAPTER III\nMERGER BY ACQUISITION\nArticle 5\n1. The administrative or management bodies of the merging companies shall draw up draft terms of merger in writing.\n2. Draft terms of merger shall specify at least:\n(a)\nthe type, name and registered office of each of the merging companies;\n(b)\nthe share exchange ratio and the amount of any cash payment;\n(c)\nthe terms relating to the allotment of shares in the acquiring company;\n(d)\nthe date from which the holding of such shares entitles the holders to participate in profits and any special conditions affecting that entitlement;\n(e)\nthe date from which the transactions of the company being acquired shall be treated for accounting purposes as being those of the acquiring company;\n(f)\nthe rights conferred by the acquiring company on the holders of shares to which special rights are attached and the holders of securities other than shares, or the measures proposed concerning them;\n(g)\nany special advantage granted to the experts referred to in Article 10(1) and members of the merging companies\u2019 administrative, management, supervisory or controlling bodies.\nArticle 6\nDraft terms of merger must be published in the manner prescribed by the laws of each Member State in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 2009/101/EC, for each of the merging companies, at least 1 month before the date fixed for the general meeting which is to decide thereon.\nAny of the merging companies shall be exempt from the publication requirement laid down in Article 3 of Directive 2009/101/EC if, for a continuous period beginning at least 1 month before the day fixed for the general meeting which is to decide on the draft terms of merger and ending not earlier than the conclusion of that meeting, it makes the draft terms of such merger available on its website free of charge for the public. Member States shall not subject that exemption to any requirements or constraints other than those which are necessary in order to ensure the security of the website and the authenticity of the documents, and may impose such requirements or constraints only to the extent that they are proportionate in order to achieve those objectives.\nBy way of derogation from the second paragraph of this Article, Member States may require that publication be effected via the central electronic platform referred to in Article 3(5) of Directive 2009/101/EC. Member States may alternatively require that such publication be made on any other website designated by them for that purpose. Where Member States avail themselves of one of those possibilities, they shall ensure that companies are not charged a specific fee for such publication.\nWhere a website other than the central electronic platform is used, a reference giving access to that website shall be published on the central electronic platform at least 1 month before the day fixed for the general meeting. That reference shall include the date of publication of the draft terms of merger on the website and shall be accessible to the public free of charge. Companies shall not be charged a specific fee for such publication.\nThe prohibition precluding the charging to companies of a specific fee for publication, laid down in the third and fourth paragraphs, shall not affect the ability of Member States to pass on to companies the costs in respect of the central electronic platform.\nMember States may require companies to maintain the information for a specific period after the general meeting on their website or, where applicable, on the central electronic platform or the other website designated by the Member State concerned. Member States may determine the consequences of temporary disruption of access to the website or to the central electronic platform, caused by technical or other factors.\nArticle 7\n1. A merger shall require at least the approval of the general meeting of each of the merging companies. The laws of the Member States shall provide that this approval decision shall require a majority of not less than two thirds of the votes attached either to the shares or to the subscribed capital represented.\nThe laws of a Member State may, however, provide that a simple majority of the votes specified in the first subparagraph shall be sufficient when at least half of the subscribed capital is represented. Moreover, where appropriate, the rules governing alterations to the memorandum and articles of association shall apply.\n2. Where there is more than one class of shares, the decision concerning a merger shall be subject to a separate vote by at least each class of shareholders whose rights are affected by the transaction.\n3. The decision shall cover both the approval of the draft terms of merger and any alterations to the memorandum and articles of association necessitated by the merger.\nArticle 8\nThe laws of a Member State need not require approval of the merger by the general meeting of the acquiring company if the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe publication provided for in Article 6 must be effected, for the acquiring company, at least 1 month before the date fixed for the general meeting of the company or companies being acquired which is to decide on the draft terms of merger;\n(b)\nat least 1 month before the date specified in point (a), all shareholders of the acquiring company must be entitled to inspect the documents specified in Article 11(1) at the registered office of the acquiring company;\n(c)\none or more shareholders of the acquiring company holding a minimum percentage of the subscribed capital must be entitled to require that a general meeting of the acquiring company be called to decide whether to approve the merger; this minimum percentage may not be fixed at more than 5 %. Member States may, however, provide for the exclusion of non-voting shares from this calculation.\nFor the purposes of point (b) of the first paragraph, Article 11(2), (3) and (4) shall apply.\nArticle 9\n1. The administrative or management bodies of each of the merging companies shall draw up a detailed written report explaining the draft terms of merger and setting out the legal and economic grounds for them, in particular the share exchange ratio.\nThat report shall also describe any special valuation difficulties which have arisen.\n2. The administrative or management bodies of each of the companies involved shall inform the general meeting of their company and the administrative or management bodies of the other companies involved so that the latter may inform their respective general meetings of any material change in the assets and liabilities between the date of preparation of the draft terms of merger and the date of the general meetings which are to decide on the draft terms of merger.\n3. Member States may provide that the report referred to in paragraph 1 and/or the information referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be required if all the shareholders and the holders of other securities conferring the right to vote of each of the companies involved in the merger have so agreed.\nArticle 10\n1. One or more experts, acting on behalf of each of the merging companies but independent of them, appointed or approved by a judicial or administrative authority, shall examine the draft terms of merger and draw up a written report to the shareholders. However, the laws of a Member State may provide for the appointment of one or more independent experts for all the merging companies, if such appointment is made by a judicial or administrative authority at the joint request of those companies. Such experts may, depending on the laws of each Member State, be natural or legal persons or companies or firms.\n2. In the report mentioned in paragraph 1 the experts must in any case state whether in their opinion the share exchange ratio is fair and reasonable. Their statement must at least:\n(a)\nindicate the method or methods used to arrive at the share exchange ratio proposed;\n(b)\nstate whether such method or methods are adequate in the case in question, indicate the values arrived at using each such method and give an opinion on the relative importance attributed to such methods in arriving at the value decided on.\nThe report shall also describe any special valuation difficulties which have arisen.\n3. Each expert shall be entitled to obtain from the merging companies all relevant information and documents and to carry out all necessary investigations.\n4. Neither an examination of the draft terms of merger nor an expert report shall be required if all the shareholders and the holders of other securities conferring the right to vote of each of the companies involved in the merger have so agreed.\nArticle 11\n1. All shareholders shall be entitled to inspect at least the following documents at the registered office at least 1 month before the date fixed for the general meeting which is to decide on the draft terms of merger:\n(a)\nthe draft terms of merger;\n(b)\nthe annual accounts and annual reports of the merging companies for the preceding three financial years;\n(c)\nwhere applicable, an accounting statement drawn up as at a date which must not be earlier than the first day of the third month preceding the date of the draft terms of merger, if the latest annual accounts relate to a financial year which ended more than 6 months before that date;\n(d)\nwhere applicable, the reports of the administrative or management bodies of the merging companies provided for in Article 9;\n(e)\nwhere applicable, the report referred to in Article 10(1).\nFor the purposes of point (c) of the first subparagraph, an accounting statement shall not be required if the company publishes a half-yearly financial report in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (11) and makes it available to shareholders in accordance with this paragraph. Furthermore, Member States may provide that an accounting statement shall not be required if all the shareholders and the holders of other securities conferring the right to vote of each of the companies involved in the merger have so agreed.\n2. The accounting statement provided for in point (c) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall be drawn up using the same methods and the same layout as the last annual balance sheet.\nHowever, the laws of a Member State may provide that:\n(a)\nit is not necessary to take a fresh physical inventory;\n(b)\nthe valuations shown in the last balance sheet are to be altered only to reflect entries in the books of account; the following shall nevertheless be taken into account:\n-\ninterim depreciation and provisions,\n-\nmaterial changes in actual value not shown in the books.\n3. Every shareholder shall be entitled to obtain, on request and free of charge, full or, if so desired, partial copies of the documents referred to in paragraph 1.\nWhere a shareholder has consented to the use by the company of electronic means for conveying information, such copies may be provided by electronic mail.\n4. A company shall be exempt from the requirement to make the documents referred to in paragraph 1 available at its registered office if, for a continuous period beginning at least 1 month before the day fixed for the general meeting which is to decide on the draft terms of merger and ending not earlier than the conclusion of that meeting, it makes them available on its website. Member States shall not subject that exemption to any requirements or constraints other than those which are necessary in order to ensure the security of the website and the authenticity of the documents and may impose such requirements or constraints only to the extent that they are proportionate in order to achieve those objectives.\nParagraph 3 shall not apply if the website gives shareholders the possibility, throughout the period referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph, of downloading and printing the documents referred to in paragraph 1. However, in that case Member States may provide that the company is to make those documents available at its registered office for consultation by the shareholders.\nMember States may require companies to maintain the information on their website for a specific period after the general meeting. Member States may determine the consequences of temporary disruption of access to the website caused by technical or other factors.\nArticle 12\nProtection of the rights of the employees of each of the merging companies shall be regulated in accordance with Directive 2001/23/EC.\nArticle 13\n1. The laws of the Member States must provide for an adequate system of protection of the interests of creditors of the merging companies whose claims antedate the publication of the draft terms of merger and have not fallen due at the time of such publication.\n2. To that end, the laws of the Member States shall at least provide that such creditors shall be entitled to obtain adequate safeguards where the financial situation of the merging companies makes such protection necessary and where those creditors do not already have such safeguards.\nMember States shall lay down the conditions for the protection provided for in paragraph 1 and in the first subparagraph of this paragraph. In any event, Member States shall ensure that the creditors are authorised to apply to the appropriate administrative or judicial authority for adequate safeguards provided that they can credibly demonstrate that due to the merger the satisfaction of their claims is at stake and that no adequate safeguards have been obtained from the company.\n3. Such protection may be different for the creditors of the acquiring company and for those of the company being acquired.\nArticle 14\nWithout prejudice to the rules governing the collective exercise of their rights, Article 13 shall apply to the debenture holders of the merging companies, except where the merger has been approved by a meeting of the debenture holders, if such a meeting is provided for under national laws, or by the debenture holders individually.\nArticle 15\nHolders of securities, other than shares, to which special rights are attached must be given rights in the acquiring company at least equivalent to those they possessed in the company being acquired, unless the alteration of those rights has been approved by a meeting of the holders of such securities, if such a meeting is provided for under national laws, or by the holders of those securities individually, or unless the holders are entitled to have their securities repurchased by the acquiring company.\nArticle 16\n1. Where the laws of a Member State do not provide for judicial or administrative preventive supervision of the legality of mergers, or where such supervision does not extend to all the legal acts required for a merger, the minutes of the general meetings which decide on the merger and, where appropriate, the merger contract subsequent to such general meetings shall be drawn up and certified in due legal form. In cases where the merger need not be approved by the general meetings of all the merging companies, the draft terms of merger must be drawn up and certified in due legal form.\n2. The notary or the authority competent to draw up and certify the document in due legal form must check and certify the existence and validity of the legal acts and formalities required of the company for which that notary or authority is acting and of the draft terms of merger.\nArticle 17\nThe laws of the Member States shall determine the date on which a merger takes effect.\nArticle 18\n1. A merger must be publicised in the manner prescribed by the laws of each Member State, in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 2009/101/EC, in respect of each of the merging companies.\n2. The acquiring company may itself carry out the publication formalities relating to the company or companies being acquired.\nArticle 19\n1. A merger shall have the following consequences ipso jure and simultaneously:\n(a)\nthe transfer, both as between the company being acquired and the acquiring company and as regards third parties, to the acquiring company of all the assets and liabilities of the company being acquired;\n(b)\nthe shareholders of the company being acquired become shareholders of the acquiring company;\n(c)\nthe company being acquired ceases to exist.\n2. No shares in the acquiring company shall be exchanged for shares in the company being acquired held either:\n(a)\nby the acquiring company itself or through a person acting in his own name but on its behalf; or\n(b)\nby the company being acquired itself or through a person acting in his own name but on its behalf.\n3. The foregoing shall not affect the laws of Member States which require the completion of special formalities for the transfer of certain assets, rights and obligations by the acquired company to be effective as against third parties. The acquiring company may carry out these formalities itself; however, the laws of the Member States may permit the company being acquired to continue to carry out these formalities for a limited period which cannot, save in exceptional cases, be fixed at more than 6 months from the date on which the merger takes effect.\nArticle 20\nThe laws of the Member States shall at least lay down rules governing the civil liability towards the shareholders of the company being acquired of the members of the administrative or management bodies of that company in respect of misconduct on the part of members of those bodies in preparing and implementing the merger.\nArticle 21\nThe laws of the Member States shall at least lay down rules governing the civil liability towards the shareholders of the company being acquired of the experts responsible for drawing up on behalf of that company the report referred to in Article 10(1) in respect of misconduct on the part of those experts in the performance of their duties.\nArticle 22\n1. The laws of the Member States may lay down nullity rules for mergers in accordance with the following conditions only:\n(a)\nnullity must be ordered in a court judgment;\n(b)\nmergers which have taken effect pursuant to Article 17 may be declared void only if there has been no judicial or administrative preventive supervision of their legality, or if they have not been drawn up and certified in due legal form, or if it is shown that the decision of the general meeting is void or voidable under national law;\n(c)\nnullification proceedings may not be initiated more than 6 months after the date on which the merger becomes effective as against the person alleging nullity or if the situation has been rectified;\n(d)\nwhere it is possible to remedy a defect liable to render a merger void, the competent court shall grant the companies involved a period of time within which to rectify the situation;\n(e)\na judgment declaring a merger void shall be published in the manner prescribed by the laws of each Member State in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 2009/101/EC;\n(f)\nwhere the laws of a Member State permit a third party to challenge such a judgment, that party may do so only within 6 months of publication of the judgment in the manner prescribed by Directive 2009/101/EC;\n(g)\na judgment declaring a merger void shall not of itself affect the validity of obligations owed by or in relation to the acquiring company which arose before the judgment was published and after the date on which the merger takes effect;\n(h)\ncompanies which have been parties to a merger shall be jointly and severally liable in respect of the obligations of the acquiring company referred to in point (g).\n2. By way of derogation from point (a) of paragraph 1, the laws of a Member State may also provide for the nullity of a merger to be ordered by an administrative authority if an appeal against such a decision lies to a court. Point (b) and points (d) to (h) of paragraph 1 shall apply by analogy to the administrative authority. Such nullification proceedings may not be initiated more than 6 months after the date on which the merger takes effect.\n3. The laws of the Member States on the nullity of a merger pronounced following any supervision other than judicial or administrative preventive supervision of legality shall not be affected.\nCHAPTER IV\nMERGER BY FORMATION OF A NEW COMPANY\nArticle 23\n1. Articles 5, 6 and 7 and Articles 9 to 22 of this Directive shall apply, without prejudice to Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2009/101/EC, to merger by formation of a new company. For this purpose, \u2018merging companies\u2019 and \u2018company being acquired\u2019 shall mean the companies which will cease to exist, and \u2018acquiring company\u2019 shall mean the new company.\nPoint (a) of Article 5(2) of this Directive shall also apply to the new company.\n2. The draft terms of merger and, if they are contained in a separate document, the memorandum or draft memorandum of association and the articles or draft articles of association of the new company shall be approved at a general meeting of each of the companies that will cease to exist.\nCHAPTER V\nACQUISITION OF ONE COMPANY BY ANOTHER WHICH HOLDS 90 % OR MORE OF ITS SHARES\nArticle 24\nMember States shall make provision, in respect of companies governed by their laws, for the operation whereby one or more companies are wound up without going into liquidation and transfer all their assets and liabilities to another company which is the holder of all their shares and other securities conferring the right to vote at general meetings. Such operations shall be regulated by the provisions of Chapter III. However, Member States shall not impose the requirements set out in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 5(2), Articles 9 and 10, points (d) and (e) of Article 11(1), point (b) of Article 19(1) and Articles 20 and 21.\nArticle 25\nMember States shall not apply Article 7 to the operations referred to in Article 24 if the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe publication provided for in Article 6 must be effected, as regards each company involved in the operation, at least 1 month before the operation takes effect;\n(b)\nat least 1 month before the operation takes effect, all shareholders of the acquiring company must be entitled to inspect the documents referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 11(1) at the company\u2019s registered office;\n(c)\npoint (c) of the first paragraph of Article 8 must apply.\nFor the purposes of point (b) of the first paragraph of this Article, Article 11(2), (3) and (4) shall apply.\nArticle 26\nThe Member States may apply Articles 24 and 25 to operations whereby one or more companies are wound up without going into liquidation and transfer all their assets and liabilities to another company, if all the shares and other securities specified in Article 24 of the company or companies being acquired are held by the acquiring company and/or by persons holding those shares and securities in their own names but on behalf of that company.\nArticle 27\nWhere a merger by acquisition is carried out by a company which holds 90 % or more, but not all, of the shares and other securities conferring the right to vote at general meetings of the company or companies being acquired, Member States shall not require approval of the merger by the general meeting of the acquiring company if the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe publication provided for in Article 6 must be effected, as regards the acquiring company, at least 1 month before the date fixed for the general meeting of the company or companies being acquired which is to decide on the draft terms of merger;\n(b)\nat least 1 month before the date specified in point (a), all shareholders of the acquiring company must be entitled to inspect the documents specified in points (a), (b) and, where applicable, (c), (d) and (e) of Article 11(1) at the company\u2019s registered office;\n(c)\npoint (c) of the first paragraph of Article 8 must apply.\nFor the purposes of point (b) of the first paragraph of this Article, Article 11(2), (3) and (4) shall apply.\nArticle 28\nMember States shall not impose the requirements set out in Articles 9, 10 and 11 in the case of a merger within the meaning of Article 27 if the following conditions are fulfilled:\n(a)\nthe minority shareholders of the company being acquired must be entitled to have their shares acquired by the acquiring company;\n(b)\nif they exercise that right, they must be entitled to receive consideration corresponding to the value of their shares;\n(c)\nin the event of disagreement regarding such consideration, it must be possible for the value of the consideration to be determined by a court or by an administrative authority designated by the Member State for that purpose.\nA Member State need not apply the first paragraph if the laws of that Member State entitle the acquiring company, without a previous public takeover offer, to require all the holders of the remaining securities of the company or companies to be acquired to sell those securities to it prior to the merger at a fair price.\nArticle 29\nThe Member States may apply Articles 27 and 28 to operations whereby one or more companies are wound up without going into liquidation and transfer all their assets and liabilities to another company, if 90 % or more, but not all, of the shares and other securities referred to in Article 27 of the company or companies being acquired are held by that acquiring company and/or by persons holding those shares and securities in their own names but on behalf of that company.\nCHAPTER VI\nOTHER OPERATIONS TREATED AS MERGERS\nArticle 30\nWhere in the case of one of the operations referred to in Article 2 the laws of a Member State permit a cash payment to exceed 10 %, Chapters III and IV and Articles 27, 28 and 29 shall apply.\nArticle 31\nWhere the laws of a Member State permit one of the operations referred to in Articles 2, 24 and 30, without all of the transferring companies thereby ceasing to exist, Chapter III, except for point (c) of Article 19(1), Chapter IV or Chapter V shall apply as appropriate.\nCHAPTER VII\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 32\nDirective 78/855/EEC, as amended by the acts listed in Annex I, Part A, is hereby repealed, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex I, Part B.\nReferences to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II.\nArticle 33\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 July 2011.\nArticle 34\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 5 April 2011.", "references": ["24", "27", "14", "1", "80", "19", "46", "49", "17", "0", "66", "50", "39", "18", "40", "89", "10", "83", "3", "79", "45", "93", "12", "5", "97", "20", "32", "99", "13", "47", "No Label", "8", "42", "44", "48", "96"], "gold": ["8", "42", "44", "48", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1124/2011\nof 31 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for anglerfish in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["90", "55", "63", "89", "65", "93", "69", "79", "52", "17", "12", "99", "24", "19", "16", "60", "29", "51", "66", "72", "68", "73", "82", "95", "8", "81", "28", "85", "3", "4", "No Label", "13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "92", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "59", "67", "91", "92", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 603/2011\nof 20 June 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["0", "66", "91", "65", "40", "59", "96", "73", "80", "23", "57", "61", "1", "58", "34", "3", "13", "51", "38", "16", "41", "89", "18", "8", "83", "46", "64", "29", "97", "12", "No Label", "21", "54"], "gold": ["21", "54"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 2 March 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement for cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of Australia\n(2012/55/Euratom)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 101, the second paragraph thereof,\nHaving regard to the approval of the Council,\nWhereas:\nThe Agreement for cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of Australia should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement for cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of Australia is hereby approved on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community. The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Commission or the Member of the Commission responsible for Energy are hereby authorised to sign the Agreement and to carry out all necessary steps for the entry into force of this Agreement to be concluded on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community.\nDone at Brussels, 2 March 2011.", "references": ["70", "36", "92", "60", "67", "54", "62", "87", "19", "56", "79", "42", "0", "43", "48", "63", "1", "93", "90", "65", "11", "25", "32", "39", "91", "28", "27", "22", "41", "33", "No Label", "3", "9", "78", "81", "95", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "78", "81", "95", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 894/2012\nof 6 August 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that, subject to the measures in force in the Union relating to double checking systems and to prior and retrospective surveillance of textile products on importation into the Union, binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature and which is not in accordance with this Regulation, may continue to be invoked for a period of 60 days by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nSubject to the measures in force in the Union relating to double checking systems and to prior and retrospective surveillance of textile products on importation into the European Union, binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States which is not in accordance with this Regulation, may continue to be invoked for a period of 60 days, under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 August 2012.", "references": ["90", "58", "78", "18", "42", "96", "15", "57", "75", "52", "73", "30", "80", "99", "36", "71", "35", "98", "92", "88", "56", "61", "48", "37", "32", "84", "50", "60", "31", "13", "No Label", "21", "89"], "gold": ["21", "89"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 65/2011\nof 27 January 2011\nlaying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1), and in particular Article 51(4), Article 74(4) and Article 91 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (2) repealed and replaced Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulations (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 73/2009, as well as for the implementation of cross-compliance provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 (3).\n(2)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006, laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (4), contains many cross-references to the administration and control rules set out in the repealed Regulation (EC) No 796/2004. Account should be taken of the modifications made to those administration and control rules by Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, while the principles established by Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 should be respected. In addition, to ensure coherence, clarity and simplification, certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 should be amended in order to limit the references to Regulation (EC) 1122/2009 to the minimum necessary. It is therefore appropriate to repeal and replace Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006.\n(3)\nMember States should establish a control system that ensures that all necessary checks are carried out for effective verification of compliance with the terms under which aid is granted. All the eligibility criteria established by legislation of the Union or national legislation or the rural development programmes should be able to be controlled according to a set of verifiable indicators.\n(4)\nExperience shows that the integrated administration and control system (hereinafter referred to as IACS) provided for in Chapter 4 of Title II of Council Regulation (EC) 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (5), has proven to be an effective and efficient means for the implementation of direct payment schemes. Therefore, as far as the area and animal-related measures under Axis 2 in Section 2 of Chapter I of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 are concerned, the administration and control rules, as well as the related provisions concerning reductions and exclusions in cases of false declarations, should follow the principles set out in the IACS, in particular in Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.\n(5)\nHowever, for certain support measures set out under Axis 2 and for equivalent support under Axis 4 provided for in Sections 2 and 4, respectively, of Chapter I of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the administration and control rules need to be adapted to their particular characteristics. The same applies to the support measures under Axes 1 and 3 provided for in Sections 1 and 3, respectively, of the same Chapter and equivalent support under Axis 4. Special provisions therefore need to be established for those support measures.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure that all national administrations are able to organise efficient, integrated control of all areas for which payment is claimed under Axis 2 and under the area-related aid schemes covered by Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, payment claims for area-related measures under Axis 2 should be submitted within the same deadline as the single application provided for in Chapter I of Title II of Part II of that Regulation.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure the deterrent effect of control, payments should, as a general rule, not be made before the eligibility checks have been completed. However, it is appropriate to allow payments up to a certain level after the completion of administrative checks. In fixing that level, account should be taken of the risk of overpayment.\n(8)\nThe control rules provided for in this Regulation should take into account the special characteristics of the measures concerned under Axis 2. For the sake of clarity, particular rules should therefore be established.\n(9)\nMember States may use evidence received from other services, bodies or organisations to verify compliance with eligibility criteria. However, they should have assurance that the service, body or organisation is operating to a standard sufficient to control compliance with the eligibility criteria.\n(10)\nExperience has shown that it is necessary to clarify certain provisions, especially as regards determination of the number of hectares and animals as well as reductions, exclusions and recoveries.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 50a of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, payments under certain of the measures provided for in that Regulation have been made subject to observance of cross-compliance requirements as provided for in Chapter 1 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. It is therefore appropriate to align the rules governing cross-compliance with those contained in Regulations (EC) No 73/2009 and (EC) No 1122/2009.\n(12)\nExperience has shown that specific control provisions are needed for certain specific support measures.\n(13)\nEx-post checks of investment operations should be undertaken to verify compliance with Article 72(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. The basis and the contents of those checks should be specified.\n(14)\nTo allow the Commission to meet its obligations for the management of the measures, Member States should report to the Commission on the number of checks undertaken and their results.\n(15)\nCertain general control principles should be established, covering the right of the Commission to carry out checks.\n(16)\nMember States should ensure that the paying agencies referred to in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (6) have sufficient information on checks carried out by other services or bodies in order to fulfil their duties under that Regulation.\n(17)\nIn order to avoid accounting problems which could occur if for the calendar year 2011 different control procedures had to be applied, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2011.\n(18)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Rural Development Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nPART I\nSCOPE AND GENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nScope\nThis Regulation lays down the detailed rules for the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of the co-financed rural development support measures established pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation:\n(a)\n\u2018Application for support\u2019 means an application for support or to enter a scheme under Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005;\n(b)\n\u2018Payment claim\u2019 means an application by a beneficiary for payment by the national authorities;\n(c)\n\u2018Other declaration\u2019 means any declaration or document, other than those referred to in points (a) and (b), which has to be submitted or kept by a beneficiary or a third party in order to comply with specific requirements of certain rural development measures.\nArticle 3\nApplications for support, payment claims and other declarations\n1. The Member States shall provide for appropriate procedures for the submission of applications for support.\n2. For measures with multiannual commitments, the beneficiary shall submit an annual payment claim.\nHowever, Member States may dispense with annual physical payment claims if they introduce effective alternative procedures to carry out the administrative checks provided for in Article 11 or 24 as appropriate.\n3. An application for support, payment claim or other declaration may be totally or partially withdrawn at any time. Evidence of such withdrawal shall be recorded by the competent authority.\nIf the competent authority has already informed the beneficiary of irregularities in the documents referred to in the first subparagraph or if the competent authority has given notice to the beneficiary of its intention to carry out an on-the-spot check, which subsequently reveals irregularities, withdrawals shall not be authorised in respect of the parts affected by the irregularities.\nWithdrawals referred to in the first subparagraph shall put beneficiaries in the position they were before submission of the documents in question or part of them.\n4. Applications for support, payment claims and other declarations may be adjusted at any time after their submission in cases of obvious errors recognised by the competent authority.\nArticle 4\nGeneral principles of control\n1. Member States shall establish a control system that ensures that all necessary checks are carried out for effective verification of compliance with the terms under which support is granted.\n2. Without prejudice to specific provisions in this Regulation, Member States shall ensure that all the eligibility criteria established by Union or national legislation or by the rural development programmes can be checked according to a set of verifiable indicators to be established by the Member States.\n3. Member States shall ensure that a unique identification system applies with regard to all applications for support, payment claims and other declarations submitted by the same beneficiary. This identification shall be compatible with the system referred to in Article 15(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 for recording the identity of each farmer.\n4. Where appropriate, on-the-spot checks provided for in Articles 12, 20 and 25 of this Regulation and other checks provided for in Union rules regarding agricultural subsidies shall be carried out at the same time.\n5. The results of the checks under Articles 11, 12, 24 and 25 shall be assessed to establish whether any problems encountered could in general entail a risk for other similar operations, beneficiaries or other bodies. The assessment shall also identify the causes of such situations, any further examination which may be required and the necessary corrective and preventive action.\n6. Applications for support, payment claims and other declarations shall be rejected if beneficiaries or their representatives prevent checks from being carried out. Any amounts already paid for that operation shall be recovered taking into account the criteria set out in Article 18(2) of this Regulation.\n7. Without prejudice to Article 20(4) of this Regulation, and provided that the purpose of control is not jeopardised, on-the-spot checks may be announced. The announcement shall be strictly limited to the minimum time necessary and shall not exceed 14 days. However, for on-the-spot checks concerning animal-related measures, the announcement shall, except in duly justified cases, not exceed 48 hours.\n8. Without prejudice to specific provisions, no payments shall be made to beneficiaries for whom it is established that they artificially created the conditions required for obtaining such payments with a view to obtaining an advantage contrary to the objectives of the support scheme.\n9. The reductions or exclusions under this Regulation shall be without prejudice to additional penalties pursuant to other provisions of Union or national law.\nArticle 5\nRecovery of undue payments\n1. If undue payment is made, the beneficiary shall repay the amount in question plus interest calculated in accordance with paragraph 2.\n2. Interest shall be calculated for the period elapsing between the notification to the beneficiary of the repayment obligation and the effective repayment or deduction of the amount to be repaid.\nThe rate of interest applicable shall be calculated in accordance with national law but shall not be lower than the interest rate applicable for the recovery of amounts under national provisions.\n3. The repayment obligation referred to in paragraph 1 shall not apply if the payment was made by error of the competent authority or of another authority and if the error could not reasonably have been detected by the beneficiary.\nHowever, where the error relates to factual elements relevant for the calculation of the payment concerned, the first subparagraph shall only apply if the decision to recover was not communicated within 12 months of the payment.\nPART II\nADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL RULES\nTITLE I\nRURAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN MEASURES UNDER AXIS 2 AND AXIS 4\nCHAPTER I\nGeneral provisions\nArticle 6\nScope and definitions\n1. This Title shall apply to:\n(a)\nsupport granted in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005;\n(b)\nsupport granted in accordance with Article 63(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 with regard to operations coming under measures defined under Axis 2.\nHowever, this Title shall not apply to measures referred to in Article 36(a)(vi) and (b)(vi) and (vii) and in Article 39(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 as well as to measures under Article 36(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) of that Regulation as far as the establishment cost is concerned.\n2. For the purposes of this Title, the following definitions apply:\n(a)\n\u2018area-related measure\u2019 means measures or sub-measures for which support is based on the size of the area declared;\n(b)\n\u2018animal-related measure\u2019 means measures or sub-measures for which support is based on the number of animals declared.\n(c)\n\u2018area determined\u2019 means the area of plots or parcels for which aid is claimed, as identified in accordance with Article 11 and Article 15(2), (3) and (4) of this Regulation.\n(d)\n\u2018animals determined\u2019 means the number of animals identified in accordance with Article 11 and Article 15(5) of this Regulation.\nArticle 7\nApplicable rules\n1. Article 2, second subparagraph, points (1), (10) and (20), Article 6(1), Article 10(2), Articles 12, 14, 16, 20, second subparagraph of Article 25(1), Articles 73, 74 and 82 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 shall apply mutatis mutandis for the purpose of this Title. However, for the measures referred to in Articles 36(b)(iii), (iv) and (v) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the Member States may establish appropriate alternative systems to uniquely identify the land subject to support.\n2. For the purpose of this Title, the references in Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 to \u2018farmers\u2019 shall be construed as references to \u2018beneficiaries\u2019.\nArticle 8\nPayment claims\n1. For all commitments starting or contracts entering into force after 1 January 2007, payment claims under area-related measures shall be submitted in accordance with the deadlines set out in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009. However, Member States may decide to apply this provision only as from the claim year 2008.\n2. If a Member State applies Article 3(2), second subparagraph, of this Regulation, then the payment claim shall be deemed to be submitted in accordance with the deadlines set out in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.\n3. Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 shall apply mutatis mutandis to payment claims under this Title. In addition to the information referred to in Article 12(1)(d) of that Regulation, the payment claim shall also contain the information set out in that provision with regard to non-agricultural land for which support is being claimed.\nArticle 9\nPayments\n1. No payment for any measure or set of operations falling within the scope of this Title shall be made before the checks of that measure or set of operations with regard to eligibility criteria, as referred to in Section I of Chapter II, have been finalised.\nHowever, Member States may decide, taking into account the risk of overpayment, to pay up to 75 % of the aid after completion of the administrative checks provided for in Article 11. The percentage of payment shall be the same for all beneficiaries of the measure or set of operations.\n2. With regard to cross-compliance checks provided for in Section II of Chapter II, where such checks cannot be completed before payment, any undue payments shall be recovered in accordance with Article 5.\nCHAPTER II\nControl, reductions and exclusions\nArticle 10\nGeneral principles\n1. Member States shall make use of the integrated administration and control system provided for in Chapter 4 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (hereinafter referred to as IACS).\n2. Verification of compliance with the eligibility criteria shall consist of administrative and on-the-spot checks.\n3. Observance of cross-compliance requirements shall be verified through on-the-spot checks and, where appropriate, through administrative checks.\n4. During the period covered by a commitment, parcels for which support is being granted may not be exchanged except in cases specifically provided for in the rural development programme.\nSection I\nCompliance with the eligibility criteria, commitments and linked obligations\nSubsection I\nControl\nArticle 11\nAdministrative checks\n1. Administrative checks shall be undertaken on all applications for support, payment claims and other declarations required to be submitted by a beneficiary or a third party, and shall cover all elements that it is possible and appropriate to control by administrative means. The procedures shall ensure the recording of control work undertaken, the results of the verification and the measures taken in respect of discrepancies.\n2. The administrative checks shall include cross-checks wherever possible and appropriate, inter alia with data from the IACS. These cross-checks shall apply at least to parcels and livestock covered by a support measure in order to avoid any undue payments of aid.\n3. Compliance with long-term commitments shall be checked.\n4. Indications of irregularities resulting from cross-checks shall be followed up by any other appropriate administrative procedure, and, where necessary, by an on-the-spot check.\n5. Where applicable, administrative checks on eligibility shall take into account the results of verifications carried out by other services, bodies or organisations involved in the control of agricultural subsidies.\nArticle 12\nOn-the-spot checks\n1. The total number of on-the-spot checks on payment claims presented during each calendar year shall cover at least 5 % of all beneficiaries falling within the scope of this Title. However, for the measure set out in Article 36(a)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 the 5 % rate shall be achieved at measure level.\nApplicants found not to be eligible after administrative checks shall not form part of the minimum number of beneficiaries checked in accordance with the first subparagraph.\n2. Where on-the-spot checks reveal significant irregularities for a given measure or in a region or part of a region, the competent authority shall appropriately increase the number of on-the-spot checks during the current year and shall appropriately increase the percentage of beneficiaries to be checked on-the-spot in the following year.\n3. The control samples of on-the-spot checks to be carried out pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article shall be selected in accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009. As a result of the risk analysis referred to in that Article, the Member States may select specific measures of the beneficiaries for the on-the-spot check.\n4. For the beneficiaries of any multiannual measures involving payments exceeding five years, the Member States may decide, after the fifth year of payment, to check at least 2,5 % of those beneficiaries.\nBeneficiaries checked under the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall not be taken into account for the purpose of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1.\nArticle 13\nControl report\nOn-the-spot checks under this Subsection shall be the subject of a control report to be established in accordance with Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.\nArticle 14\nGeneral principles concerning on-the-spot checks\n1. On-the-spot checks shall be spread over the year on the basis of an analysis of the risks presented by the different commitments under each rural development measure.\n2. On-the-spot checks of measures selected for the check as referred to in Article 12(3) of this Regulation shall cover all the commitments and obligations of a beneficiary which can be checked at the time of the visit.\nArticle 15\nElements of the on-the-spot checks and determination of areas\n1. The Member States shall determine criteria and control methods that allow the control of the different commitments and obligations of the beneficiary to satisfy the requirements of Article 48(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 (7).\n2. Where the Member States provide that particular elements of an on-the-spot check may be carried out on the basis of a sample, that sample shall guarantee a reliable and representative level of control. Member States shall establish the criteria for the selection of the sample. If the checks on that sample reveal irregularities, the extent and scope of the sample shall be extended appropriately.\n3. With regard to the control of area-related measures, the on-the-spot checks shall cover all agricultural parcels and non-agricultural land for which support is being claimed.\n4. Nevertheless, the actual determination of the size of areas for an on-the-spot check may be limited to a sample of at least 50 % of the areas, provided that the sample guarantees a reliable and representative level of control in respect of area checked and support claimed. If the checks on that sample reveal irregularities, the extent and scope of the sample shall be extended appropriately.\n5. Determination of areas and remote sensing shall be carried out in accordance with Article 34(1) to (5) and Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.\nHowever, for the measures set out in Articles 36(b)(iii), (iv) and (v) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the Member States may define appropriate tolerances, which shall in no case be greater than twice the tolerances set out in Article 34(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.\n6. With regard to the control of animal-related measures, the on-the-spot checks shall be carried out in accordance with Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.\nSubsection II\nReductions and exclusions\nArticle 16\nReductions and exclusions in relation to the size of area\n1. If, for a given year, a beneficiary does not declare all the agricultural areas, and the difference between the overall agricultural area declared in the payment claim on the one hand and the area declared plus the overall area of the agricultural parcels not declared, on the other, is more than 3 % of the area declared, the overall amount of aid under area-related measures payable to that beneficiary for that year shall be reduced by up to 3 % depending on the seriousness of the omission.\nThe first subparagraph shall not apply where all the agricultural areas concerned have been declared to the competent authorities in the framework of:\n(a)\nthe integrated system referred to in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009; or\n(b)\nother administration and control systems that guarantee compatibility with the integrated system in accordance with Article 26 of that Regulation.\n2. For the purpose of this Article, areas declared by a beneficiary which receive the same rate of aid under a certain area-related measure shall be considered as forming one crop group. Where degressive aid amounts are used, the average of these amounts in relation to the respective areas declared shall be taken into account.\n3. If the area determined for a crop group is found to be greater than that declared in the payment claim, the area declared shall be used for the calculation of the aid.\nIf the area declared in the payment claim exceeds the area determined for that crop group, the aid shall be calculated on the basis of the area determined for that crop group.\nHowever, where the difference between the total area determined and the total area declared in the payment claim for a measure is less than or equal to 0,1 hectare, the area determined shall be considered equal to the area declared. For this calculation, only over-declarations of areas at crop group level shall be taken into account.\nThe third subparagraph shall not apply where the difference represents more than 20 % of the total area declared for payments.\nIf a maximum limit or a ceiling has been set for the area eligible for support, the number of hectares declared in the payment claim shall be reduced to the limit or ceiling.\n4. If the same area serves as the basis for a payment claim under more than one area-related measure, that area shall be taken into account separately for each of the measures.\n5. In the case referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3, the aid shall be calculated on the basis of the area determined reduced by twice the difference found if that difference is more than either 3 % or two hectares, but not more than 20 % of the area determined.\nIf the difference is more than 20 % of the area determined, no aid shall be granted for the crop group concerned.\nIf the difference is more than 50 %, the beneficiary shall be excluded once again from receiving aid up to the difference between the area declared in the payment claim and the area determined.\n6. If the differences between the area declared in the payment claim and the area determined, as referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3, result from over-declarations committed intentionally, the aid to which the beneficiary would have been entitled pursuant to that subparagraph shall not be granted for the calendar year in question under the area-related measure concerned where that difference is more than 0,5 % of the area determined or more than one hectare.\nIf the difference is more than 20 % of the area determined, the beneficiary shall be excluded once again from receiving aid, up to an amount equal to the amount corresponding to the difference between the area declared and the area determined.\n7. The amount resulting from the exclusions provided for in the third subparagraph of paragraph 5 and in the second subparagraph of paragraph 6 of this Article shall be offset in accordance with Article 5b of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (8). If the amount cannot be fully offset in accordance with that Article in the course of the three calendar years following the calendar year of the finding, the outstanding balance shall be cancelled.\nArticle 17\nReductions and exclusions in relation to the number of animals\n1. For the purpose of this Article, bovine animals and ovine and caprine animals shall each be treated separately.\nConcerning animals other than those referred to in the first subparagraph, the Member State shall fix an appropriate system of reductions and exclusions.\n2. If an individual limit or individual ceiling is applicable, the number of animals declared in the payment claim shall be reduced to the limit or ceiling set for the beneficiary concerned.\nIn no case may aid be granted for a number of animals greater than that declared in the payment claim.\nIf the number of animals declared in the payment claim exceeds the number of animals determined as a result of administrative or on-the-spot checks, the aid shall be calculated on the basis of the number of animals determined.\n3. A bovine animal which has lost one of the two ear tags shall be deemed to belong to the animals determined provided that it is clearly and individually identified by the other elements of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals.\nIn the case of irregularities involving incorrect entries in the register of bovine animals or the animal passports, the bovine animal concerned shall only be deemed not to belong to the animals determined if the errors are found in at least two checks within a period of 24 months. In all other cases the animal concerned shall be deemed not to belong to the animals determined after the first finding.\nArticle 3(4) of this Regulation shall apply to entries in, and notifications to, the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals.\n4. In the case referred to in the third subparagraph of paragraph 2, the total amount of aid to which the beneficiary is entitled under the measure shall be reduced by the percentage to be established in accordance with paragraph 6, if no more than three animals are found with irregularities.\n5. If more than three animals are found with irregularities, the total amount of aid to which the beneficiary is entitled under the measure shall be reduced by:\n(a)\nthe percentage to be established in accordance with paragraph 6, if that percentage is not more than 10 %;\n(b)\ntwice the percentage to be established in accordance with paragraph 6, if that percentage is more than 10 % but not more than 20 %.\nIf that percentage is more than 20 %, no aid shall be granted for the measure concerned.\nIf that percentage is more than 50 %, the beneficiary shall be excluded once again from receiving aid up to an amount corresponding to the difference between the number of animals declared and the number of animals determined in accordance with the third subparagraph of paragraph 2. The amount resulting from the exclusion shall be offset in accordance with Article 5b of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. If the amount cannot be fully offset in accordance with that Article in the course of the three calendar years following the calendar year of the finding, the outstanding balance shall be cancelled.\n6. In order to establish the percentages referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5, the number of animals found with irregularities shall be divided by the number of animals determined.\nIn case of application of the second subparagraph of Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, potentially eligible animals found not to be correctly identified or registered in the system for identification and registration of bovine animals shall count as animals found with irregularities.\n7. If the difference between the number of animals declared and that determined in accordance with the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 results from irregularities committed intentionally no aid shall be granted for the measure concerned.\nIf the percentage established in accordance with paragraph 6 is more than 20 %, the beneficiary shall be excluded once again from receiving aid up to an amount corresponding to the difference between the number of animals declared and the number of animals determined in accordance with the third subparagraph of paragraph 2. The amount resulting from the exclusion shall be offset in accordance with Article 5b of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. If the amount cannot be fully offset in the course of three calendar years following the calendar year of the finding, the outstanding balance shall be cancelled.\nArticle 18\nReductions and exclusions in the case of non-compliance with other eligibility criteria, commitments and linked obligations\n1. The aid claimed shall be reduced or refused where the following obligations and criteria are not met:\n(a)\nfor the measures referred to in Article 36(a)(iv) and (v) as well in (b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the relevant mandatory standards as well as minimum requirements for fertiliser and plant protection product use, other relevant mandatory requirements as referred to in Articles 39(3), 40(2) and 47(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and commitments that go beyond such standards and requirements; or\n(b)\neligibility criteria other than those related to the size of area or number of animals declared.\nIn case of multiannual commitments, aid reductions, exclusions and recoveries shall also apply to the amounts already paid in the previous years for that commitment.\n2. The Member State shall recover and/or refuse the support or determine the amount of the reduction of the aid, in particular on the basis of the severity, extent and permanent nature of the non-compliance found.\nThe severity of the non-compliance shall depend, in particular, on the importance of the consequences of the non-compliance, taking into account the objectives of the criteria that were not met.\nThe extent of the non-compliance shall depend, in particular, on its effect on the operation as a whole.\nWhether the non-compliance is of a permanent nature shall depend, in particular, on the length of time for which the effect lasts or the possibility of terminating this effect by reasonable means.\n3. If the non-compliance results from irregularities committed intentionally, the beneficiary shall be excluded from the measure in question both for the calendar year of finding and for the following calendar year.\nSection II\nCross-compliance\nSubsection I\nControl\nArticle 19\nGeneral rules\n1. Without prejudice to Article 51(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, \u2018cross-compliance\u2019 shall mean compliance with the statutory management requirements and the good agricultural and environmental condition referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 50a(1) of that Regulation and the minimum requirements for fertiliser and plant protection product use referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 51(1) of that Regulation.\n2. Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and Article 2, second paragraph, points (2) and (32) to (37), Articles 8, 47, 48, 49, Article 50 with the exception of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, Article 51(1), (2) and (3), Articles 52, 53, 54, Article 70(3), (4), (6) and (7), and Articles 71 and 72 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 shall apply mutatis mutandis with regard to cross-compliance.\n3. For calculating the reduction referred to in Article 21 of this Regulation, the minimum requirements for the use of fertilisers and plant protection products as referred to in Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 shall be considered to relate to the area of the environment and the area of public, animal and plant health, respectively, as laid down in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. Both minimum requirements shall be considered to be an \u2018act\u2019 within the meaning of Article 2, second paragraph, point (33), of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.\nArticle 20\nOn-the-spot checks\n1. As regards the requirements and standards for which it is responsible, the competent control authority shall carry out on-the-spot checks on at least 1 % of all beneficiaries submitting payment claims under Article 36(a)(i) to (v) and (b)(i), (iv) and (v) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.\n2. The samples of beneficiaries to be checked in accordance with paragraph 1 may be selected either from the sample of beneficiaries which were already selected pursuant to Article 12 of this Regulation, and to whom the relevant requirements or standards apply, or from the full population of beneficiaries submitting payment claims under Article 36(a)(i) to (v) and (b)(i), (iv) and (v) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 and who are obliged to meet the respective requirements or standards.\n3. A combination of the procedures set out in paragraph 2 may be used where such a combination increases the effectiveness of the control system.\n4. Where the acts and standards relevant to cross-compliance require the on-the-spot checks to be unannounced, the same requirement shall also apply to the on-the-spot checks of cross-compliance.\nSubsection II\nReductions and exclusions\nArticle 21\nReductions and exclusions\nWithout prejudice to Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, if a case of non-compliance is determined, the reductions and exclusions referred to in Article 19(2) of this Regulation shall be applied to the overall amount of aid under Article 36(a)(i) to (v) and (b)(i), (iv) and (v) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 that has been, or is to be, granted to the beneficiary concerned following payment claims that the beneficiary has submitted or will submit in the course of the calendar year of the finding.\nSection III\nOrder of reductions\nArticle 22\nOrder of reductions\nWhere several reductions are applicable; they shall be applied in the following order:\n-\nfirst in accordance with Article 16(5) and (6) and with Article 17(4) and (5) of this Regulation,\n-\nthen in accordance with Article 18 of this Regulation,\n-\nthen for late submission in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009,\n-\nthen in accordance with Article 16(1) of this Regulation,\n-\nthen in accordance with Article 21 of this Regulation,\n-\nfinally, in accordance with Article 16(7) and 17(7) of this Regulation.\nTITLE II\nRURAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT UNDER AXIS 1 AND AXIS 3 AND CERTAIN MEASURES UNDER AXIS 2 AND AXIS 4\nCHAPTER I\nIntroductory provisions\nArticle 23\nScope\nThis Title shall apply to expenditure pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 not covered by Title I of this Regulation.\nCHAPTER II\nControl, reductions and exclusions\nSection I\nControl\nSubsection I\nGeneral provisions\nArticle 24\nAdministrative checks\n1. Administrative checks shall be carried out on all applications for support, payment claims or other declarations required to be submitted by a beneficiary or a third party, and shall cover all elements that it is possible and appropriate to control by administrative means. The procedures shall require recording of the control work undertaken, the results of the verification and the measures taken in the event of discrepancies.\n2. Administrative checks on applications for support shall in particular include verification of:\n(a)\nthe eligibility of the operation for which support is requested;\n(b)\ncompliance with the selection criteria set out in the rural development programme;\n(c)\ncompliance of the operation for which support is requested with applicable national and Union rules on, in particular, and where relevant, public procurement, State aid and other appropriate obligatory standards established by national legislation or established in the rural development programme;\n(d)\nthe reasonableness of the costs submitted, which shall be evaluated using a suitable evaluation system, such as reference costs, a comparison of different offers or an evaluation committee;\n(e)\nthe reliability of the applicant, with reference to any previous co-financed operations undertaken since 2000.\n3. Administrative checks on payment claims shall include in particular, and where appropriate for the claim in question, verification of:\n(a)\nthe delivery of the products and services co-financed;\n(b)\nthe reality of expenditure claimed;\n(c)\nthe completed operation compared with the operation for which the application for support was submitted and granted.\n4. Administrative checks on investment operations shall include at least one visit to the operation supported or the investment site to verify the realisation of the investment.\nHowever, Member States may decide not to carry out such visits for duly justified reasons, such as the following:\n(a)\nthe operation is included in the sample for an on-the-spot check to be carried out in accordance with Article 25;\n(b)\nthe operation in question is a small investment;\n(c)\nthe Member State considers that the risk that the conditions for receiving aid are not met is low, or that the risk that the investment has not been realised is low.\nThe decision referred to in the second subparagraph and its justification shall be recorded.\n5. Administrative checks shall include procedures to avoid irregular double financing with other Union or national schemes and with other programming periods. Where financing from other sources exists, those checks shall ensure that the total aid received does not breach the maximum permissible aid ceilings.\n6. Payments by beneficiaries shall be supported by invoices and documents proving payment. Where this cannot be done, payments shall be supported by documents of equivalent probative value.\nArticle 25\nOn-the-spot checks\n1. Member States shall organise on-the-spot checks on approved operations using an appropriate sampling basis. These checks shall, as far as is possible, be carried out before the final payment is made for an operation.\n2. The expenditure covered by on-the-spot checks shall represent at least 4 % of the expenditure referred to in Article 23 which is financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and which is to be paid by the paying agency each calendar year. Only checks carried out until the end of the year in question shall be taken into consideration.\nOver the whole programming period, the expenditure covered shall represent at least 5 % of the expenditure financed by the EAFRD.\n3. The sample of approved operations to be checked in accordance with paragraph 1 shall take into account in particular:\n(a)\nthe need to check an appropriate mix of types and sizes of operations;\n(b)\nany risk factors identified following national or Union checks;\n(c)\nthe need to maintain a balance between the axes and measures;\n(d)\nthe need to select randomly between 20 % and 25 % of expenditure.\n4. The inspectors undertaking the on-the-spot check shall not have been involved in administrative checks of the same operation.\nArticle 26\nContent of on-the-spot checks\n1. Through the on-the-spot checks, the Member States shall endeavour to verify:\n(a)\nthat the payment claims submitted by the beneficiary are supported by accounting or other documents, including, where necessary, a check on the accuracy of the data in the payment claim on the basis of data or commercial documents held by third parties;\n(b)\nfor an adequate number of expenditure items, that the nature and the timing of the relevant expenditure comply with Union provisions and correspond to the approved specifications of the operation and the works actually executed or services actually delivered;\n(c)\nthat the use or intended use of the operation is consistent with the use described in the application for support;\n(d)\nthat the publicly funded operations have been implemented in accordance with Union rules and policies, especially the rules on public tendering and relevant mandatory standards established by national legislation or established in the rural development programme.\n2. On-the-spot checks of payment claims selected for the check as referred to in Article 25(3) of this Regulation shall cover all the commitments and obligations of a beneficiary which can be checked at the time of the visit.\n3. Except in exceptional circumstances, duly recorded and explained by the national authorities, on-the-spot checks shall include a visit to the operation or, if the operation is intangible, to the operation promoter.\n4. Only checks meeting the full requirements of this Article may be counted towards achievement of the control rate set out in Article 25(2).\nArticle 27\nControl report\n1. Every on-the-spot check and ex-post check under this Section shall be the subject of a control report which makes it possible to review the details of the checks carried out. The report shall indicate in particular:\n(a)\nthe measures and applications checked;\n(b)\nthe persons present;\n(c)\nwhether notice was given to the beneficiary of the visit and, if so, the period of advance notification;\n(d)\nthe results of the checks and, where applicable, any particular observations;\n(e)\nany further control measures to be carried out.\n2. The beneficiary shall be given the opportunity to sign the report to attest the beneficiary\u2019s presence at the check and to add observations. Where irregularities are found, the beneficiary shall receive a copy of the control report.\nSubsection II\nSupplementary control provisions for specific measures\nArticle 28\nYoung farmers\nFor the measure provided for in Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the Member States shall verify compliance with the business plan according to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 by administrative checks and, on a sample basis, by on-the-spot checks.\nArticle 28a\nEarly retirement\nFor the measure provided for in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, Member States shall verify compliance with the requirements in Article 23(2)(b) and in Article 23(3) of that Regulation after transfer of the farm. Member States may dispense with on-the-spot checks after the first payment of support, provided that administrative checks, including appropriate cross-checks, in particular with the information contained in the electronic database referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, provide the necessary assurance of the legality and regularity of payments.\nArticle 28b\nSupport for food quality schemes recognised by Member States\nFor the measure provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, paying agencies may, where appropriate, make use of evidence received from other services, bodies or organisations to verify compliance with eligibility criteria. However, they shall ensure that they have assurance that the service, body or organisation is operating to a standard sufficient to control compliance with the eligibility criteria.\nArticle 28c\nSemi-subsistence farming\nFor the measure provided for in Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the Member States shall verify progress in respect of the business plan according to paragraph 2 of that Article by administrative checks and, on a sample basis, by on-the-spot checks.\nArticle 28d\nProducer groups\nFor the measure provided for in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the Member States shall recognise the producer group after verifying compliance of the group with the criteria set out in paragraph 1 of that Article and with the national rules. After recognition, continuous compliance with the recognition criteria shall be verified at least once during the five-year period through an on-the-spot check.\nArticle 28e\nHoldings undergoing restructuring\nFor the measure provided for in Article 35a of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the Member States shall assess progress in respect of the business plan according to paragraph 2 of that Article by administrative checks and, on a sample basis, by on-the-spot checks.\nArticle 28f\nLeader\n1. The Member States shall implement an appropriate system for supervision of local action groups.\n2. In the case of expenditure incurred under Article 63(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, Member States may delegate the carrying out of the administrative checks referred to in Article 24 of this Regulation to local action groups by a formal act. However, the Member States shall remain responsible for verifying that those local action groups have the administrative and control capacity to undertake that work.\nIn case of delegation referred to in the first subparagraph, the Member States shall carry out regular controls of the operations of the local action groups, including bookkeeping checks and repetition of administrative checks on a sample basis.\nThe Member States shall also carry out on-the-spot checks as referred to in Article 26 of this Regulation. In the sample of approved operations to be checked on-the-spot in accordance with Article 25(1) of this Regulation, expenditure concerning Leader shall at least have the same percentage it has in the expenditure referred to in Article 23 of this Regulation.\n3. In the case of expenditure incurred under Article 63(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the checks shall be carried out by persons independent of the local action group concerned.\nArticle 28g\nSubsidies on interest rates\nIn the case of expenditure incurred under Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006, administrative checks and on-the-spot checks shall be carried out with reference to the beneficiary and depending on the realisation of the operation concerned. The risk analysis in accordance with Article 25(3)(b) of this Regulation shall cover, at least once, the operation concerned on the basis of the discounted value of the subsidy.\nFurthermore, the Member States shall ensure, via administrative checks and, if necessary, via in-situ visits to the intermediate financial institutions and at the beneficiary, that the payments to the intermediate financial institutions are in conformity with Union legislation and with the agreement concluded between the Member State\u2019s paying agency and the intermediate financial institution as laid down in Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006.\nArticle 28h\nOther financial engineering actions\nIn the case of expenditure incurred under Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006, the Member States shall ensure, via administrative checks and, if necessary, via in-situ visits to the funds or their sponsors, that the conditions laid down in Articles 51 and 52 of that Regulation are complied with. They shall especially verify the correct usage of the funds and the closure at the end of the programming period.\nSubsection III\nEx-post checks\nArticle 29\nEx-post checks\n1. Ex-post checks shall be carried out on investment operations to verify the respect of commitments pursuant to Article 72(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 or detailed in the rural development programme.\n2. The ex-post checks shall cover in each calendar year at least 1 % of EAFRD expenditure for investment operations that are still subject to commitment as referred to in paragraph 1 and for which the final payment has been made from the EAFRD. Only checks carried out until the end of the year in question shall be taken into consideration.\n3. The sample for operations to be checked in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be based on an analysis of the risks and financial impact of different operations, groups of operations or measures. Part of the sample shall be selected randomly.\nSection II\nReductions and exclusions\nArticle 30\nReductions and exclusions\n1. Payments shall be calculated on the basis of what is found to be eligible during the administrative checks.\nThe Member State shall examine the payment claim received from the beneficiary, and establish the amounts that are eligible for support. It shall establish:\n(a)\nthe amount that is payable to the beneficiary based solely on the payment claim;\n(b)\nthe amount that is payable to the beneficiary after an examination of the eligibility of the payment claim.\nIf the amount established pursuant to point (a) exceeds the amount established pursuant to point (b) by more than 3 %, a reduction shall be applied to the amount established pursuant to point (b). The amount of the reduction shall be the difference between those two amounts.\nHowever, no reduction shall be applied if the beneficiary can demonstrate that he/she is not at fault for the inclusion of the ineligible amount.\n2. Where a beneficiary is found to have intentionally made a false declaration, the operation in question shall be excluded from support from the EAFRD and any amounts already paid for that operation shall be recovered. Moreover, the beneficiary shall be excluded from receiving support under the same measure for the calendar year of finding and for the following calendar year.\n3. The reductions and exclusions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be applied mutatis mutandis to non-eligible expenditure identified during checks under Articles 25 and 29.\nPART III\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 31\nReporting\nMember States shall send to the Commission by 15 July of each year a report:\n(a)\ncovering the results of the checks on payment claims submitted under Title I during the previous calendar year and relating, in particular, to the following points:\n(i)\nthe number of payment claims for each measure, the total amount checked for these claims, as well as the total area and total number of animals covered by checks under Articles 11, 12 and 20;\n(ii)\nfor area-related support, the total area broken down by individual aid scheme;\n(iii)\nfor animal-related measures, the total number of animals broken down by individual aid scheme;\n(iv)\nthe result of the checks carried out, indicating the reductions and exclusions applied pursuant to Articles 16, 17, 18 and 21;\n(b)\ncovering the checks and the results of the checks on payment claims carried out pursuant to Articles 24 and 25 for payments made during the previous calendar year;\n(c)\ncovering the checks and the results of the checks carried out pursuant to Articles 28 and 29 during the previous calendar year.\nArticle 32\nControl by the Commission\nArticle 27(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 shall apply to support paid under Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.\nArticle 33\nReporting of checks to the paying agencies\n1. Where checks are not carried out by the responsible paying agency, the Member State shall ensure that sufficient information on the checks carried out and their results is received by that paying agency. It is for the paying agency to define its needs for information. The information may be a report on every check carried out or, if appropriate, be in the form of a summary report.\n2. A sufficient audit trail shall be maintained. An indicative description of the requirements of a satisfactory audit trail is given in the Annex I.\n3. The paying agency shall have the right to verify the quality of checks carried out by other bodies, and to receive all other information it needs for the performance of its functions.\nArticle 34\nRepeal\n1. Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 is repealed with effect from 1 January 2011.\nHowever, it shall continue to apply in respect of payment claims submitted before 1 January 2011.\n2. References to Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 35\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the first day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 January 2011.", "references": ["98", "8", "12", "39", "3", "93", "0", "43", "65", "53", "78", "38", "21", "33", "92", "59", "69", "62", "27", "28", "6", "32", "49", "35", "64", "82", "56", "52", "50", "37", "No Label", "2", "10", "17", "46", "61"], "gold": ["2", "10", "17", "46", "61"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 6 September 2012\non excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)\n(notified under document C(2012) 6113)\n(Only the English, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)\n(2012/500/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), and in particular Article 31 thereof,\nHaving consulted the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999, and Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the Commission is to carry out the necessary verifications, communicate to the Member States the results of these verifications, take note of the comments of the Member States, initiate a bilateral discussion so that an agreement may be reached with the Member States in question, and formally communicate its conclusions to them.\n(2)\nThe Member States have had an opportunity to request the launch of a conciliation procedure. That opportunity has been used in some cases and the reports issued on the outcome have been examined by the Commission.\n(3)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 and Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, only agricultural expenditure which has been incurred in a way that has not infringed European Union rules may be financed.\n(4)\nIn the light of the verifications carried out, the outcome of the bilateral discussions and the conciliation procedures, part of the expenditure declared by the Member States does not fulfil this requirement and cannot, therefore, be financed under the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the EAGF and the EAFRD.\n(5)\nThe amounts that are not recognised as being chargeable to the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the EAGF and the EAFRD should be indicated. Those amounts do not relate to expenditure incurred more than 24 months before the Commission\u2019s written notification of the results of the verifications to the Member States.\n(6)\nAs regards the cases covered by this decision, the assessment of the amounts to be excluded on grounds of non-compliance with European Union rules was notified by the Commission to the Member States in a summary report on the subject.\n(7)\nThis Decision is without prejudice to any financial conclusions that the Commission may draw from the judgments of the Court of Justice in cases pending on 1 June 2012 and relating to its content,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe expenditure itemised in the Annex hereto that has been incurred by the Member States\u2019 accredited paying agencies and declared under the EAGGF Guarantee Section, under the EAGF or under the EAFRD shall be excluded from European Union financing because it does not comply with European Union rules.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Kingdom of Sweden, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.\nDone at Brussels, 6 September 2012.", "references": ["48", "26", "65", "77", "63", "23", "16", "19", "73", "52", "67", "43", "78", "91", "85", "25", "97", "7", "60", "40", "12", "58", "9", "99", "27", "5", "33", "38", "44", "21", "No Label", "4", "8", "10", "17", "61", "96"], "gold": ["4", "8", "10", "17", "61", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 403/2012\nof 10 May 2012\namending for the 170th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.\n(2)\nOn 30 April 2012 and 3 May 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove three natural persons from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply after considering the de-listing requests submitted by these persons and the Comprehensive Reports of the Ombudsperson established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1904(2009).\n(3)\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 May 2012.", "references": ["2", "27", "47", "65", "14", "93", "7", "45", "94", "40", "61", "60", "99", "28", "88", "35", "21", "49", "64", "74", "52", "54", "24", "6", "83", "78", "91", "85", "8", "38", "No Label", "1", "3"], "gold": ["1", "3"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 6 June 2011\non establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for light sources\n(notified under document C(2011) 3749)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/331/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Union Eco-labelling Board,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nUnder Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, the EU Ecolabel may be awarded to those products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle.\n(2)\nRegulation (EC) No 66/2010 provides that specific EU Ecolabel criteria are to be established according to product groups.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 2002/747/EC (2) has established the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements for light bulbs. Those criteria are valid until 31 August 2011.\n(4)\nThose criteria have been reviewed in the light of technological developments. In the light of the review, it is appropriate to modify the definition of the product and to change the name of the product group. Those new criteria, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, should be valid for 2 years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\n(5)\nDecision 2002/747/EC should be replaced for reasons of clarity.\n(6)\nA transitional period should be allowed for producers whose products have been awarded the Ecolabel for light bulbs on the basis of the criteria set out in Decision 2002/747/EC, so that they have sufficient time to adapt their products to comply with the revised criteria and requirements. Producers should also be allowed to submit applications based on the criteria set out in Decision 2002/747/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision until the lapse of validity of that Decision.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The product group \u2018light sources\u2019 shall comprise all light sources of a luminous flux \u2265 60 and \u2264 12 000 lumens for general lighting applications with direct or indirect connection to the public electricity supply equipped with a lamp cap listed in EN 60061 and made in order to produce a visible radiation.\n2. The following types of light sources are not included in the product group: directional lamps, high-intensity discharge lamps, coloured lamps, projector lamps, photographic lighting, solarium tubes, battery driven systems and other light sources that are not intended for general lighting applications. The following types of light sources are not included in the product group if they are not supplied directly from the mains: integral compact fluorescent lamps, filament lamps, LED lamps.\nArticle 2\nIn order to be awarded the EU Ecolabel under Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, an item of light source shall fall within the product group \u2018light sources\u2019 as defined in Article 1 of this Decision and shall comply with the criteria as well as the related assessment and verification requirements set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThe criteria for the product group \u2018light sources\u2019, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid for 2 years from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 4\nFor administrative purposes the code number assigned to the product group \u2018light sources\u2019 shall be \u2018008\u2019.\nArticle 5\nDecision 2002/747/EC is repealed.\nArticle 6\n1. By derogation from Article 5, applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018light bulbs\u2019 submitted before the date of adoption of this Decision shall be evaluated in accordance with the conditions laid down in Decision 2002/747/EC.\n2. Applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group \u2018light sources\u2019 submitted from the date of adoption of this Decision but by 31 August 2011 at the latest may be based either on the criteria set out in Decision 2002/747/EC or on the criteria set out in this Decision.\n3. Those applications shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria on which they are based.\n4. Where the EU Ecolabel is awarded on the basis of an application evaluated in accordance with the criteria set out in Decision 2002/747/EC, that EU Ecolabel may be used for 12 months from the date of adoption of this Decision.\nArticle 7\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 6 June 2011.", "references": ["26", "74", "63", "71", "87", "29", "67", "40", "73", "38", "48", "96", "53", "77", "31", "12", "4", "52", "95", "10", "30", "93", "13", "76", "34", "92", "11", "54", "68", "41", "No Label", "24", "25", "58", "86"], "gold": ["24", "25", "58", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1328/2011\nof 16 December 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2011 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for certain products in the egg sector and for egg albumin\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 of 15 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the egg sector and for egg albumin (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 539/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of egg products and egg albumin.\n(2)\nThe applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2011 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2012 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2012 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 17 December 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 December 2011.", "references": ["89", "65", "31", "57", "7", "33", "78", "27", "19", "47", "44", "38", "14", "10", "77", "74", "88", "36", "63", "71", "86", "18", "59", "84", "82", "43", "48", "66", "3", "64", "No Label", "21", "22", "69", "72"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1116/2011\nof 31 October 2011\namending Council Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 implementing the Kimberley Process certification scheme for the international trade in rough diamonds\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 of 20 December 2002 implementing the Kimberley Process certification scheme for the international trade in rough diamonds (1), and in particular Article 20 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAt the Jerusalem Plenary meeting in November 2010, Kimberley Process Participants provisionally approved, by a decision of the Plenary, the addition of Swaziland to the list of KP Participants, such approval to be confirmed by a KP Chair notice once certain outstanding issues had been resolved.\n(2)\nThe KP Chair confirmed by a notice on 30 May 2011 that Swaziland is now admitted as a KP Participant.\n(3)\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex II to Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 31 October 2011.", "references": ["36", "24", "61", "84", "43", "81", "82", "19", "39", "83", "68", "32", "52", "35", "45", "64", "25", "11", "78", "2", "77", "93", "9", "57", "13", "37", "38", "17", "67", "27", "No Label", "3", "20", "23", "76", "79", "94"], "gold": ["3", "20", "23", "76", "79", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 9 March 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Faeroe Islands on scientific and technological cooperation, associating the Faeroe Islands to the Union\u2019s Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007 to 2013)\n(2011/218/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 186, in conjunction with point (v) of Article 218(6)(a), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an Agreement with the Government of the Faeroe Islands on scientific and technological cooperation associating the Faeroe Islands to the Union\u2019s Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007 to 2013) (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Agreement was signed by the representatives of the Parties on 3 June 2010 in Brussels, and was made provisionally applicable as from 1 January 2010, pending its conclusion at a later date.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be concluded on behalf of the Union,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Faeroe Islands on scientific and technological cooperation associating the Faeroe Islands to the Union\u2019s Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007 to 2013) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (1).\nArticle 2\nThe Commission shall adopt the position to be taken by the Union in the Joint Committee established by Article 4(1) of the Agreement.\nArticle 3\nThe President of the Council, on behalf of the Union, shall make the notification provided for in Article 5(2) of the Agreement.\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 9 March 2011.", "references": ["15", "20", "98", "80", "52", "61", "85", "13", "23", "83", "72", "56", "50", "42", "51", "49", "59", "53", "58", "5", "14", "28", "2", "0", "66", "88", "86", "45", "37", "18", "No Label", "3", "4", "9", "76", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "4", "9", "76", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 756/2010\nof 24 August 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on persistent organic pollutants as regards Annexes IV and V\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC (1), and in particular Article 7(4)(a), Article 7(5) and Article 14 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 850/2004 implements in the law of the Union the commitments set out in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (hereinafter \u2018the Convention\u2019) approved by Council Decision 2006/507/EC of 14 October 2004 concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2) and in the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants (hereinafter \u2018the Protocol\u2019) approved by Council Decision 2004/259/EC of 19 February 2004 concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants (3).\n(2)\nFollowing nominations of substances received from the European Union and its Member States, Norway and Mexico, the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee established under the Convention has concluded its work on the nine proposed substances, which have been found to meet the criteria of the Convention. At the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention from 4 to 8 May 2009 (hereinafter \u2018COP4\u2019) it was agreed to add all nine substances to the Annexes to the Convention.\n(3)\nAnnexes IV and V to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 should be amended in order to take into account the new substances that have been listed during the COP4.\n(4)\nThe COP4 decided to list chlordecone, hexabromobiphenyl and hexachlorocyclohexanes, including lindane, in Annex A (elimination) to the Convention. Those substances are included in Annexes IV and V to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 since they were listed by the Protocol.\n(5)\nThe COP4 decided to list pentachlorobenzene in Annex A (elimination) to the Convention. Therefore, pentachlorobenzene should be listed in Annexes IV and V to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004, indicating the corresponding maximum concentration limits, which have been set applying the methodology used for establishing the limit values for persistent organic pollutants (hereinafter \u2018POPs\u2019) in Council Regulation (EC) No 1195/2006 of 18 July 2006 amending Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on persistent organic pollutants (4) and in Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2007 of 16 February 2007 amending Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on persistent organic pollutants (5). Those provisional maximum concentration limits should be reviewed in view of the results of a study on the implementation of the waste-related provisions of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004, to be conducted on behalf of the Commission.\n(6)\nThe COP4 decided to list Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its derivatives (hereinafter \u2018PFOS\u2019) in Annex B (restriction) to the Convention, with some exemptions for specific applications. The use of PFOS is currently allowed for some specific applications. Because of the lifespan of articles containing PFOS, these articles will continue to enter the waste stream for some years, although in decreasing volumes. There may be practical difficulties of identifying certain materials containing PFOS within a given waste stream. Data on quantities and concentrations of PFOS in articles and wastes is currently still not sufficient. Extending the obligation in Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 to destroy or irreversibly transform the POP content to PFOS for waste exceeding the concentration limits of Annex IV could have impacts on existing recycling schemes, which may challenge another environmental priority of ensuring the sustainable use of resources. In view of this, PFOS is listed in Annexes IV and V without an indication of the concentration limits.\n(7)\nThe COP4 decided to list tetrabromodiphenyl ether, pentabromodiphenyl ether, hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether, hereinafter \u2018polybrominated diphenyl ethers\u2019, in Annex A (elimination) to the Convention. Placing on the market and use of pentabromodiphenyl ether and octabromodiphenyl ether have been restricted in the Union by virtue of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency (6), with a maximum concentration limit of 0,1 % by weight. Pentabromodiphenyl ether, hexabromodiphenyl ether, heptabromodiphenyl ether and tetrabromodiphenyl ether are not currently being placed on the market in the Union as they are restricted by Commission Regulation (EC) No 552/2009 of 22 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (7) and Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (8). However, because of the lifespan of products containing those polybrominated diphenyl ethers, end-of-life products containing these substances will continue to enter the waste stream for some years. Taking into account the practical difficulties of identifying materials containing polybrominated diphenyl ethers within a mixed waste fraction and the current lack of comprehensive scientific data on quantities and concentrations of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in articles and wastes, extending the obligation to destroy or irreversibly transform the POP content to these new substances for waste exceeding the concentration limits of Annex IV could endanger existing recycling schemes and thus hinder the sustainable use of resources. This problem was acknowledged by the COP4 and special exemptions were agreed for continued recycling of wastes that contain listed polybrominated diphenyl ethers even if this may lead to recycling of the POPs. Therefore, those exceptions should be reflected in Regulation (EC) No 850/2004.\n(8)\nUniform maximum concentration limits are required in the Union in order to avoid a distortion of the internal market. Provisional maximum concentration limits have been set for pentachlorobenzene in Annexes IV and V to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 based on available data and under application of the precautionary principle.\n(9)\nIn view of the lack of comprehensive scientific information on quantities and concentrations in articles and wastes, as well as exposure scenarios, at this stage, no maximum concentration limits can be established for PFOS and polybrominated diphenyl ethers in Annexes IV and V to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004. Subject to further information becoming available and a review by the Commission, maximum concentration limits for the nine POPs will be proposed, taking into account the objectives of the POP Regulation.\n(10)\nIn accordance with Article 22 of the Convention, the amendments to Annexes A, B and C thereto enter into force one year from the date of communication by the depositary of an amendment, which will fall on 26 August 2010. Consequently and for reasons of coherence, this Regulation should apply from the same date.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Council Directive 75/442/EEC (9). This Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 is replaced by Annex I to this Regulation.\n2. Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 26 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 August 2010.", "references": ["21", "53", "11", "69", "7", "50", "97", "47", "39", "33", "37", "96", "70", "43", "4", "68", "84", "45", "57", "32", "82", "62", "42", "78", "40", "61", "18", "41", "44", "85", "No Label", "38", "58", "60", "83"], "gold": ["38", "58", "60", "83"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 903/2010\nof 8 October 2010\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 873/2010 (4)\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 for the 2010/11, marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 9 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 8 October 2010.", "references": ["16", "6", "25", "82", "90", "99", "73", "37", "68", "78", "86", "62", "69", "60", "36", "14", "45", "5", "30", "23", "20", "9", "0", "56", "21", "80", "39", "57", "53", "33", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 73/2011\nof 28 January 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in EU and Norwegian waters of IV north of 53\u00b0 30\u2032 N by vessels flying the flag of France\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2), lays down quotas for 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 January 2011.", "references": ["95", "21", "81", "9", "35", "93", "36", "66", "34", "4", "85", "49", "64", "73", "47", "98", "38", "70", "20", "89", "41", "29", "86", "92", "40", "2", "74", "1", "76", "61", "No Label", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 23 July 2012\naddressed to Spain on specific measures to reinforce financial stability\n(2012/443/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 136(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 126(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) foresees the possibility of setting out economic policy guidelines specific to the Member States whose currency is the euro.\n(2)\nIn the Recommendation on the National Reform Programme 2012 of Spain and delivering an opinion on the Stability Programme for Spain, 2012-2015 (1), the Council recommended that Spain take action to \u2018implement the reform of the financial sector, in particular complement the on-going restructuring of the banking sector by addressing the situation of remaining weak institutions, put forward a comprehensive strategy to deal effectively with the legacy assets on the banks\u2019 balance sheets, and define a clear stance on the funding and use of backstop facilities\u2019.\n(3)\nAbundant availability of external financing at low cost in the 2000s fuelled a credit-driven domestic demand and asset boom in Spain, concentrated in particular in the real estate sector. The burst of the real estate and construction bubble and the economic recession that followed have adversely affected the Spanish banking sector. As a result, with the exception of a few large and internationally diversified credit institutions, Spanish banks have largely lost access to wholesale funding markets on affordable terms and, thus, have become highly dependent on Eurosystem refinancing. In addition, their borrowing capacity has been severely limited by the impact of rating downgrades on collateral availability.\n(4)\nThe sizeable contraction of the economy in recent years, which is affecting employment and unemployment in a very negative way, has deteriorated substantially the budgetary position in Spain. According to a Commission services update of the 2012 spring forecast, the general government deficit is projected at 6,3 % of GDP in 2012, which compares to an expected deficit of 5,3 % of GDP in the 2012 stability programme and the draft 2012 budget law. Gross public debt rose to 68,5 % of GDP in 2011, and according to the Commission services update of the 2012 spring forecast it is expected to surge to 80,9 % of GDP in 2012 and to 86,8 % in 2013, based on a no-policy-change scenario, thus exceeding the Treaty reference value in all years. Risks related to the macroeconomic scenario and the budgetary targets, as well as to additional financial rescue measures, may contribute to a further increase in public debt. In view of these developments, on 10 July 2012 the Council issued a recommendation to Spain under the excessive deficit procedure (EDP) to put an end to the present excessive deficit situation by 2014.\n(5)\nThe Spanish authorities have taken a number of important measures to address the problems in the banking sector. These measures include the clean-up of banks\u2019 balance sheets, increasing minimum capital requirements, restructuring of the savings bank sector, and significantly increasing the provisioning requirements for loans related to Real Estate Development (RED) and foreclosed assets. These measures, however, have not been sufficient to alleviate market pressure.\n(6)\nIn February 2011, the Spanish authorities raised the minimum capital ratio requirement (\u2018capital principal\u2019) to 8 % of banks\u2019 risk weighted assets and gave banks until September 2011 to comply with this new regulation. For banks more dependent on wholesale funding and characterised by a limited market access the minimum capital ratio was increased to 10 %. In February and May 2012, new legislation required banks to build higher provisions and capital buffers against possible losses on both performing and non-performing loans on the legacy stock of construction and real estate assets. The expected overall volume of these new provisioning requirements amounted to approximately EUR 84 billion.\n(7)\nAs of April 2012, the total gross financial contribution by the Spanish State (excluding bond issuance guarantees) amounted to about EUR 15 billion. The capital support was provided via the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) endowed with a capital of EUR 15 billion, of which EUR 9 billion was already paid in. The State has also provided guarantees to bank senior bond issues by banks amounting to about EUR 86 billion (out of this total, about EUR 58 billion in guarantees was outstanding). Although the FROB still had a remaining capacity of three times its capital allocation, public sector support will not be sufficient to provide a sufficiently large backstop for conducting the required system-wide clean-up of the banking sector.\n(8)\nConcerns about the need for further banking sector recapitalisation have contributed to increasing market pressures on Spanish government bonds. Sovereign bond yields have reached levels of well over 500 basis points in late June 2012 and early July 2012, increasing the funding costs for the Spanish sovereign. The rising interest burden adds to the challenge of consolidating public finances in Spain and correcting the excessive deficit. Therefore, comprehensive banking sector restructuring and recapitalisation is an important element in reducing pressure on public finances.\n(9)\nOn 25 June 2012, the Spanish authorities officially requested financial assistance in the context of the ongoing restructuring and recapitalisation of the Spanish banking sector. The assistance is sought under the terms of the Financial Assistance for the Recapitalisation of Financial Institutions by the European Financial Stability Facility. The assistance provided is subject to specific financial sector conditionality, as foreseen in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) negotiated between the Spanish Government and the Commission, in liaison with the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Banking Authority (EBA), with the technical assistance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It will include both bank-specific conditionality in line with State aid rules and horizontal conditionality. In parallel, Spain will have to comply fully with its commitments and obligations under the EDP and the recommendations to address macroeconomic imbalances within the framework of the European Semester.\n(10)\nIncreasing the long-term resilience of the Spanish banking sector is critical to preserving financial stability in Spain and limiting the contagion of financial stress to other euro-area economies and, thus to avert adverse effects on the proper functioning of the economy and of economic and monetary union. Significant measures taken so far to address these problems have not been fully sufficient. Further measures are therefore necessary. In particular, Spain should implement additional specific measures to effectively deal with legacy assets, restore market-based funding, reduce banks\u2019 reliance on central bank liquidity support, and to enhance the risk identification and crisis management mechanisms.\n(11)\nAs part of the overall strategy, it is key to effectively deal with the legacy assets by requiring a clear segregation of problematic assets of aided banks from the banks\u2019 balance sheets. This should apply, in particular, for loans related to RED and foreclosed assets. Such segregation would remove any remaining doubts about the quality of the banks\u2019 balance sheets, allowing them to better carry out their financial intermediation function.\n(12)\nIn addition, improving the transparency of banks\u2019 balance sheets in this manner can facilitate an orderly downsizing of bank exposures to the real estate sector, restore market-based funding, and reduce banks\u2019 reliance on central bank liquidity support.\n(13)\nEnsuring a sound framework for the Spanish banking sector requires that the risk identification and crisis management mechanisms are enhanced. An effective strategy should comprise changes aimed at strengthening the regulatory and supervisory framework, taking into account the experiences of the financial crisis. In addition, corporate governance shall be enhanced in line with international best practices,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Commission, in consultation with the ECB, the EBA and the IMF, has agreed with the Spanish authorities the specific financial-sector policy conditions attached to the financial assistance. Those conditions are laid down in the MoU to be signed by the Commission and the Spanish authorities. The detailed financial terms shall be laid down in a Financial Assistance Facility Agreement.\nSpain shall adequately recapitalise and thoroughly restructure its banking system. In that regard, Spain shall develop in coordination with the Commission and in consultation with the ECB a strategy for the future structure, functioning and viability of the Spanish banks which will identify how to ensure that they are able to operate without further state support. This strategy will be further specified in the MoU, developing further the policy conditions embedded in this Decision.\n2. The key components of this strategy shall be an overhaul of the weak segments of the Spanish banking sector and a strengthening of the regulatory and supervisory frameworks for the banking sector.\n3. The overhaul of the weak segments of the Spanish banking sector shall be comprised of the following three elements:\n(a)\nidentification of individual bank capital needs through a comprehensive asset quality review of the banking sector and a bank-by-bank stress test, based on that asset quality review. On the basis of the stress test results, banks in need of capital injection will be divided in three different groups. Each group will be subject to the obligation to present restructuring and resolution plans, and all the complementary and subsequent measures, as provided in the MoU;\n(b)\nrecapitalisation, restructuring and/or resolution in an orderly way of weak banks, based on plans to address any capital shortfalls identified in the stress test. These plans will be based in the principles of viability, minimising the cost for taxpayers (burden sharing) and limiting distortions of competition. To that effect, Spain will adopt legislation to: (i) allow the implementation of Subordinated Liability Exercises, including mandatory forms of burden sharing, and (ii) upgrade the bank resolution framework in order to incorporate relevant resolution powers for FROB and the Deposit Guarantee Fund (DGF), and taking into account the EU regulatory proposal on crisis management and bank resolution, including special tools to resolve unviable banks;\n(c)\nsegregation of assets in those banks receiving public support in their recapitalisation effort and their transfer of the impaired assets to an external Asset Management Company (AMC), to realise their long-term value. Spain, in close consultation with the Commission, the ECB and the EBA and with the technical assistance of the IMF, will prepare a comprehensive legislative framework for the establishment and functioning of the AMC, in order to make it fully operational by November 2012.\n4. In order to ensure a sound framework for the banking sector, Spain shall also strengthen the regulatory and supervisory frameworks as well as reinforce governance. The strategy and conditionality, which is comprehensively specified in the MoU, shall, inter alia, include the following measures:\n(a)\nrequiring Spanish credit institutions to increase their Common Equity Tier (CET) 1 ratio to at least 9 % according to the definition of capital established in the EBA recapitalisation exercise;\n(b)\nrequiring, from 1 January 2013, Spanish credit institutions to apply the definition of capital established in the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR);\n(c)\nre-assessing the legal framework for loan-loss provisioning. In particular, on the back of the experiences of the financial crisis, the Spanish authorities shall make proposals to revamp the permanent framework for loan loss provisioning, taking into account the temporary measures introduced during the past months, as well as the EU accounting framework;\n(d)\nfurther strengthening, the operational independence of the Banco de Espa\u00f1a; in line with the international recommendations and standards, transferring the sanctioning and licensing powers of the Ministry of Economy with respect to the banking sector to the Banco de Espa\u00f1a;\n(e)\nfurther enhancing the supervisory procedures of Banco de Espa\u00f1a based on an internal audit;\n(f)\nreviewing the governance arrangements of the financial safety net agencies (FROB and DGF) to avoid potential conflicts of interest;\n(g)\nstrengthening the rules on the governance of the savings bank sector and of the banks owned by savings banks;\n(h)\namending consumer protection and securities legislation to limit the sale by banks of subordinate debt instruments (or instruments not covered by the DGF) to non-qualified retail clients, and strengthening compliance monitoring by the authorities;\n(i)\ntaking steps to minimise the cost to taxpayers of bank restructuring. After allocating losses to equity holders, the Spanish authorities will require burden sharing measures from hybrid capital holders and subordinated debt holders in banks receiving public capital;\n(j)\ncommitting to capping pay levels of executive and supervisory board members of all State-aided banks;\n(k)\nenhancing the public credit register.\n5. The authorities will provide to the Commission, the ECB, EBA and the IMF, under strict conditions of confidentiality, the data needed for monitoring of the banking sector.\n6. The Commission, in liaison with the ECB and EBA, will verify at regular intervals that the policy conditions attached to the financial assistance are fulfilled, through missions and regular reporting by the Spanish authorities, on a quarterly basis. Monitoring of the FROB activities in the context of the programme will take place regularly.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.\nDone at Brussels, 23 July 2012.", "references": ["65", "31", "1", "70", "72", "76", "14", "85", "98", "28", "25", "41", "54", "18", "30", "39", "10", "64", "56", "6", "43", "11", "62", "37", "17", "61", "22", "59", "94", "86", "No Label", "4", "15", "16", "29", "32", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["4", "15", "16", "29", "32", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 695/2010\nof 3 August 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 4 August 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 3 August 2010.", "references": ["73", "96", "62", "38", "29", "45", "41", "70", "97", "56", "0", "42", "36", "81", "6", "69", "67", "91", "83", "40", "3", "28", "98", "59", "65", "82", "77", "5", "64", "60", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 935/2011\nof 20 September 2011\non the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of September 2011 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.\n(2)\nArticle 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 September 2011 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nImport licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 September 2011 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 0,465148 %.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 September 2011.", "references": ["2", "19", "65", "87", "74", "25", "8", "37", "95", "11", "79", "55", "51", "85", "58", "39", "61", "76", "18", "99", "46", "30", "6", "82", "60", "67", "75", "16", "41", "68", "No Label", "21", "22", "69"], "gold": ["21", "22", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/81/EU\nof 25 November 2010\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards an extension of the use of the active substance 2-phenylphenol\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy Commission Directive 2009/160/EU (2) 2-phenylphenol was included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/CEE, with the specific provision that Member States may only authorise indoor uses as a post-harvest fungicide in closed drench chambers.\n(2)\nOn 18 June 2010 the notifier submitted information on other application techniques, such as wax treatment, dipping treatment and foam curtain treatment, in order to remove the restriction to closed drench chambers.\n(3)\nSpain, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 (3), evaluated the additional information and submitted to the Commission on 30 July 2010 an addendum to the draft assessment report on 2-phenylphenol, which was circulated for comments to the other Member States and to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In the comments received no major concerns were raised and the other Member States and EFSA did not raise any point which would exclude the extension of the use. The draft assessment report together with that addendum was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 28 October 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for 2-phenylphenol.\n(4)\nThe new information on the application techniques submitted by the notifier and the new assessment carried out by the rapporteur Member State indicate that plant protection products containing 2-phenylphenol may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the indoor uses as a post-harvest fungicide which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. Consequently, it is no longer necessary to restrict the use of 2-phenylphenol to closed drench chambers, as laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC as amended by Directive 2009/160/EU.\n(5)\nWithout prejudice to that conclusion, it is appropriate to obtain further information on certain specific points. Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides that inclusion of a substance in Annex I may be subject to conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the notifier submit further information to confirm the residue levels occurring as a result of application techniques other than those in drench chambers.\n(6)\nFurthermore, it is also appropriate to require Member States to pay particular attention to the protection of operators and workers and ensure that conditions of use prescribe the application of adequate personal protective equipment.\n(7)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 31 December 2010 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 January 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 November 2010.", "references": ["78", "60", "72", "27", "84", "23", "42", "37", "95", "29", "57", "94", "33", "40", "97", "67", "87", "15", "89", "62", "75", "96", "12", "24", "50", "49", "43", "34", "20", "10", "No Label", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 5 December 2011\nappointing six Dutch members and six Dutch alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/828/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Dutch Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nSix members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Sipke SWIERSTRA, Mr L\u00e9on FRISSEN, Ms Rinske KRUISINGA, Mr Dick BUURSINK, Ms Karla PEIJS and Ms Lenie DWARSHUIS-VAN DE BEEK. Four alternate members\u2019 seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Ren\u00e9 VAN DIESSEN, Mr Sjoerd GALEMA, Mr Martin JAGER and Mr Joop BINNEKAMP. Two alternate members\u2019 seats will become vacant following the appointment of Mr W.B.H.J. VAN DE DONK and Mr Co VERDAAS as members of the Committee of the Regions,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMs A.E. (Anne) BLIEK-DE JONG, gedeputeerde (member of the Executive Council) of the Province of Flevoland,\n-\nMr dr. J.C. (Co) VERDAAS, gedeputeerde (member of the Executive Council) of the Province of Gelderland,\n-\nMr mr. P.G. (Piet) DE VEY MESTDAGH, gedeputeerde (member of the Executive Council) of the Province of Groningen,\n-\nMr prof. dr. W.B.H.J. (Wim) VAN DE DONK, Commissaris van de Koningin (Queen\u2019s Commissioner) Province of Noord-Brabant,\n-\nMs W.H. (Hester) MAIJ, gedeputeerde (member of the Executive Council) of the Province of Overijssel,\n-\nMr drs. R.E. (Ralph) DE VRIES, gedeputeerde (member of the Executive Council) of the Province of Utrecht;\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMr H. (Henk) BRINK, gedeputeerde (member of the Executive Council) of the Province of Drenthe,\n-\nMs S.A.E. (Sietske) POEPJES, gedeputeerde (member of the Executive Council) of the Province of Frysl\u00e2n,\n-\nMr drs. Th.J.F.M. (Theo) BOVENS, Commissaris van de Koningin (Queen\u2019s Commissioner) Province of Limburg,\n-\nMs drs. E.M. (Elvira) SWEET, gedeputeerde (member of the Executive Council) of the Province of Noord-Holland,\n-\nMr drs. B.J. (Ben) DE REU, gedeputeerde (member of the Executive Council) of the Province of Zeeland,\n-\nMr mr. drs. R.A.M. (Rogier) VAN DER SANDE, gedeputeerde (member of the Executive Council) of the Province of Zuid-Holland.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 5 December 2011.", "references": ["15", "24", "28", "79", "87", "26", "44", "0", "53", "58", "88", "92", "55", "70", "85", "94", "56", "31", "3", "16", "1", "14", "47", "90", "41", "60", "12", "34", "43", "49", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 337/2010\nof 22 April 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 23 April 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 April 2010.", "references": ["62", "47", "78", "19", "59", "36", "5", "97", "11", "87", "0", "3", "4", "15", "80", "2", "13", "23", "81", "82", "43", "26", "29", "75", "49", "77", "65", "41", "84", "39", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 509/2010\nof 14 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 June 2010.", "references": ["87", "95", "84", "79", "62", "63", "76", "77", "50", "26", "46", "94", "27", "25", "1", "38", "7", "42", "72", "97", "6", "36", "74", "66", "43", "40", "2", "60", "98", "11", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 897/2011\nof 2 September 2011\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2011.", "references": ["23", "5", "87", "62", "7", "14", "9", "28", "99", "59", "76", "16", "17", "33", "0", "53", "4", "86", "66", "67", "74", "20", "96", "71", "51", "45", "50", "38", "81", "13", "No Label", "21", "72"], "gold": ["21", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 876/2010\nof 5 October 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 6 October 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 5 October 2010.", "references": ["0", "87", "88", "40", "76", "82", "96", "80", "90", "42", "20", "46", "41", "60", "9", "85", "12", "67", "52", "8", "49", "58", "3", "37", "47", "79", "73", "34", "14", "13", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2012/126/CFSP\nof 28 February 2012\nimplementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/639/CFSP.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus, certain persons should be included in Annex V to Decision 2010/639/CFSP.\n(3)\nThe information relating to persons on the list in Annex IIIA to Decision 2010/639/CFSP should be updated.\n(4)\nAnnexes IIIA and V to Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP should be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex IIIA to Decision 2010/639/CFSP, the entries for the following persons:\n1.\nKhadanevich, Aliaksandr Alyaksandrauvich\n2.\nPykina, Natallia\n3.\nSaikouski, Uladzimir\n4.\nChubkavets, Kiril\n5.\nKhrobastau, Uladzimir Ivanavich\n6.\nShylko, Alena Mikalaeuna\n7.\nStsiapurka, Uladzimir Mikhailavich\nshall be replaced by the entries set out in Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe persons listed in Annex II to this Decision shall be added to Annex V to Decision 2010/639/CFSP.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 28 February 2012.", "references": ["7", "57", "92", "65", "8", "42", "6", "58", "26", "5", "29", "22", "74", "32", "9", "14", "66", "98", "30", "25", "76", "19", "80", "64", "95", "2", "61", "93", "41", "24", "No Label", "3", "11", "16", "91", "97"], "gold": ["3", "11", "16", "91", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 November 2010\namending the Annexes to Decision 93/52/EEC as regards the recognition of Estonia, Latvia and the Autonomous Community of the Balearic Islands in Spain as officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis) and amending Annexes I and II to Decision 2003/467/EC as regards the declaration of Estonia as officially tuberculosis-free and officially brucellosis-free as regards bovine herds\n(notified under document C(2010) 7856)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/695/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), and in particular Annex A(I)(4) and Annex A(II)(7) thereto,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals (2), and in particular Section II of Chapter 1 of Annex A thereto,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 91/68/EEC defines the animal health conditions governing trade in the Union in ovine and caprine animals. It lays down the conditions whereby Member States or regions thereof may be recognised as being officially brucellosis-free.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 93/52/EEC of 21 December 1992 recording the compliance by certain Member States or regions with the requirements relating to brucellosis (B. melitensis) and according them the status of a Member State or region officially free of the disease (3) lists, in the Annexes thereto, the Member States and regions thereof which are recognised as officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis) in accordance with Directive 91/68/EEC.\n(3)\nEstonia and Latvia have submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions laid down in Directive 91/68/EEC to be recognised as officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis) for the entire territory of the respective Member State.\n(4)\nFollowing evaluation of the documentation submitted by Estonia and Latvia, both Member States should be recognised as being officially free of that disease. Annex I to Decision 93/52/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nSpain has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating for the Autonomous Community of the Balearic Islands compliance with the conditions laid down in Directive 91/68/EEC in order for that region in Spain to be recognised as officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis).\n(6)\nFollowing evaluation of the documentation submitted by Spain, the Autonomous Community of the Balearic Islands should be recognised as being officially free of that disease. Annex II to Decision 93/52/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nDirective 64/432/EEC applies to trade within the Union in bovine animals and swine. It lays down the conditions whereby a Member State may be declared officially tuberculosis-free and officially brucellosis-free as regards bovine herds.\n(8)\nAnnexes I and II to Commission Decision 2003/467/EC of 23 June 2003 establishing the official tuberculosis, brucellosis and enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free status of certain Member States and regions of Member States as regards bovine herds (4) list the Member States which are declared respectively officially tuberculosis-free and officially brucellosis-free.\n(9)\nEstonia has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions for the officially tuberculosis-free and officially brucellosis-free status laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC for the entire territory of that Member State.\n(10)\nFollowing evaluation of the documentation submitted by Estonia, that Member State should be declared officially tuberculosis-free and officially brucellosis-free. Annexes I and II to Decision 2003/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(11)\nDecisions 93/52/EEC and 2003/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annexes to Decision 93/52/EEC are amended in accordance with Annex I to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nAnnexes I and II to Decision 2003/467/EC are amended in accordance with Annex II to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 November 2010.", "references": ["18", "88", "37", "21", "97", "99", "13", "80", "75", "35", "93", "40", "68", "95", "84", "30", "9", "85", "54", "11", "1", "3", "49", "52", "23", "19", "60", "98", "5", "44", "No Label", "38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "92"], "gold": ["38", "61", "65", "66", "91", "92"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 393/2011\nof 19 April 2011\nfixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 April 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (3), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nQuantities covered by applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 1 to 7 April 2011 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, exceed the quantity available under order number 09.4380.\n(2)\nIn these circumstances, an allocation coefficient for licences to be issued regarding order number 09.4380 should be fixed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006. Submission of further applications for licences for that order number should be suspended until the end of the marketing year, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 from 1 to 7 April 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\n2. Submission of further applications for licences, which correspond to the order numbers indicated in the Annex, shall be suspended until the end of the marketing year 2010/11.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2011.", "references": ["0", "46", "82", "90", "9", "61", "7", "57", "14", "75", "5", "47", "45", "42", "27", "33", "77", "76", "97", "58", "40", "63", "37", "1", "74", "56", "78", "81", "65", "43", "No Label", "4", "21", "23", "25", "71"], "gold": ["4", "21", "23", "25", "71"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 813/2010\nof 15 September 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 September 2010.", "references": ["58", "29", "43", "56", "32", "10", "4", "73", "27", "17", "57", "19", "42", "74", "91", "62", "76", "48", "38", "40", "51", "89", "23", "6", "77", "54", "26", "82", "90", "65", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/37/EU\nof 17 June 2010\namending Directive 2008/60/EC laying down specific purity criteria on sweeteners\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1) and in particular Article 30(5) thereof,\nAfter consulting the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Directive 2008/60/EC (2) laying down specific purity criteria on sweeteners sets out the purity criteria for the sweeteners for use in foodstuffs listed in European Parliament and Council Directive 94/35/EC of 30 June 1994 on sweeteners for use in Foodstuffs (3).\n(2)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessed the information on the safety in use of neotame as a sweetener and flavour enhancer and expressed its opinion of 27 September 2007 (4). On the basis of the proposed uses, it has been considered appropriate to permit the use of this food additive. It is therefore necessary to adopt specifications for this food additive which is allocated E 961 as E number.\n(3)\nIt is necessary to take into account the specifications and analytical techniques for additives as set out in the Codex Alimentarius drafted by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). In particular, the specific purity criteria need to be adapted to reflect the limits for individual heavy metals of interest, where appropriate.\n(4)\nDirective 2008/60/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 2008/60/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\n1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 March 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\n2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 4\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 June 2010.", "references": ["22", "42", "16", "84", "51", "11", "15", "45", "19", "6", "47", "8", "40", "97", "26", "88", "50", "83", "60", "36", "5", "77", "71", "66", "75", "31", "49", "54", "43", "21", "No Label", "38", "72", "73", "74"], "gold": ["38", "72", "73", "74"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 13 June 2012\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/020 ES/Comunidad Valenciana footwear from Spain)\n(2012/354/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nSpain submitted an application on 28 December 2011 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 146 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 15 (\u2018Manufacture of leather and related products\u2019) in the NUTS II region of Comunidad Valenciana (ES52), and supplemented it by additional information up to 23 February 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 631 565.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Spain,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 631 565 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 13 June 2012.", "references": ["40", "1", "20", "54", "53", "55", "6", "58", "18", "84", "42", "8", "46", "68", "45", "3", "64", "93", "88", "11", "65", "70", "94", "82", "32", "59", "67", "90", "23", "69", "No Label", "10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "89", "91", "92", "96", "97"], "gold": ["10", "15", "16", "33", "49", "89", "91", "92", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2010/430/CFSP\nof 26 July 2010\nestablishing a European network of independent non-proliferation think tanks in support of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 26(2) and 31(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 12 December 2003, the European Council adopted the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018EU WMD Strategy\u2019), Chapter III of which contains a list of measures that need to be taken both within the Union and in third countries to combat such proliferation.\n(2)\nThe Union is actively implementing the EU WMD Strategy and giving effect to the measures listed in Chapter III thereof, such as developing the necessary structures within the Union.\n(3)\nOn 8 December 2008, the Council adopted its conclusions and a document \u2018New lines for action by the European Union in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems\u2019 (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018New Lines for Action\u2019) which states that proliferation of WMD continues to constitute one of the greatest security challenges and that non-proliferation policy constitutes an essential part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.\n(4)\nIn the New Lines for Action, the Council calls on competent Council formations and bodies, the Commission, other institutions, and Member States, to give a concrete follow-up to that document with a view to achieving its objectives by the end of 2010.\n(5)\nIn the New Lines for Action, the Council underlines that action of the Union to prevent proliferation could benefit from the support provided by a non-governmental non-proliferation network, bringing together foreign policy institutions and research centres specialising in the Union\u2019s strategic areas while building on useful networks which already exist. Such a network could be extended to institutions in third countries with which the Union is conducting specific dialogues in connection with non-proliferation.\n(6)\nOn 15-16 December 2005, the European Council adopted the EU Strategy to combat the illicit accumulation and trafficking of small arms and light weapons (SALW) and their ammunition (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018EU SALW Strategy\u2019) which sets the guidelines for the action of the Union in the field of SALW. The EU SALW Strategy considers that the illicit accumulation and trafficking of SALW and their ammunition pose a serious threat to international peace and security.\n(7)\nThe EU SALW Strategy identifies among its objectives the need to foster effective multilateralism so as to forge mechanisms, whether international, regional or within the Union and its Member States, for countering the supply and destabilising spread of SALW and their ammunition,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. For the purposes of contributing to the enhanced implementation of the EU WMD Strategy, which is based on the principles of effective multilateralism, prevention and cooperation with third countries, a European network of independent non-proliferation think tanks is hereby established to further the following objectives:\n(a)\nto encourage political and security-related dialogue and long-term discussion of measures to combat the proliferation of WMD and their delivery systems within civil societies, and more particularly among experts, researchers and academics;\n(b)\nto provide those participating in the relevant preparatory bodies of the Council with the opportunity to consult the network on issues related to non-proliferation and to enable the representatives of Member States to participate in the network\u2019s meetings chaired by the representative of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR);\n(c)\nto constitute a useful stepping stone for non-proliferation action by the Union and the international community, in particular by providing a report and/or recommendations to the representative of the HR;\n(d)\nto contribute to enhancing awareness of third countries of proliferation challenges and of the need to work in cooperation with the Union and in the context of multilateral fora, in particular the United Nations, to prevent, deter, halt and where possible, eliminate proliferation programmes of concern worldwide.\n2. In the light of the EU SALW Strategy, the scope of activities of the proposed European network of independent non-proliferation think tanks shall not be limited to addressing questions related to the threats posed by the proliferation of WMD, but shall also cover issues related to conventional weapons, including SALW. The inclusion of conventional weapons issues in the field of activity of the network will offer an outstanding tool for dialogue and recommendation on action of the Union in this area within the framework of the implementation of the EU SALW Strategy and the Union\u2019s policy on conventional weapons.\n3. In this context, the projects to be supported by the Union shall cover the following specific activities:\n(a)\nproviding means for the organisation of a kick-off meeting and an annual conference with a view to submitting a report and/or recommendations to the representative of the HR;\n(b)\nproviding financial and technical means for the creation of an Internet platform to facilitate contacts and foster research dialogue among the network of think tanks analysing WMD and conventional weapons-related issues, including SALW.\nA detailed description of the projects is set out in the Annex.\nArticle 2\n1. The HR shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.\n2. Technical implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(3) shall be carried out by the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium based on la Fondation pour la Recherche Strat\u00e9gique (FRS), the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (HSFK/PRIF), the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The EU Non-Proliferation Consortium shall perform this task under the responsibility of the HR. For this purpose, the HR shall enter into the necessary arrangements with the consortium.\nArticle 3\n1. The financial reference amount for the implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(3) shall be EUR 2 182 000.\n2. The expenditure financed by the amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.\n3. The Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 1. For this purpose, it shall conclude a financing agreement with the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium. The agreement shall stipulate that the consortium is to ensure visibility of the EU contribution, appropriate to its size.\n4. The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the agreement.\nArticle 4\n1. The HR shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular reports prepared by the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium. Those reports shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council.\n2. The Commission shall report on the financial aspects of the projects referred to in Article 1(3).\nArticle 5\n1. This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\n2. This Decision shall expire 36 months after the date of the conclusion of the financing agreement referred to in Article 3(3).\nHowever, it shall expire 6 months after its entry into force if that financing agreement has not been concluded by that time.\nDone at Brussels, 26 July 2010.", "references": ["40", "46", "65", "32", "29", "88", "7", "84", "30", "35", "11", "54", "83", "67", "23", "91", "69", "36", "63", "47", "25", "94", "49", "0", "22", "55", "19", "38", "50", "95", "No Label", "4", "5", "6", "9", "10"], "gold": ["4", "5", "6", "9", "10"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 14 December 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Russian Federation relating to the administration of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation to the European Union and the Protocol between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation on technical modalities pursuant to that Agreement\n(2012/105/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4) in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn view of the economic importance for the Union of imports of raw wood and the importance that the Russian Federation has for the Union as a supplier of raw wood, the Commission has negotiated with the Russian Federation commitments by the latter to reduce or eliminate its currently applied export duties, including for raw wood.\n(2)\nThese commitments, which are to become part of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Schedule of Concessions of the Russian Federation upon its accession to the WTO, include tariff-rate quotas for the export of specified types of coniferous wood, a share of which has been allocated to exports to the Union.\n(3)\nIn the context of the negotiations regarding the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, the Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Russian Federation relating to the administration of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation to the European Union (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(4)\nAs foreseen in the Agreement, the Union and the Russian Federation have negotiated detailed technical modalities on the management of the tariff-rate quotas, which are contained in a Protocol on technical modalities pursuant to the Agreement (\u2018the Protocol\u2019).\n(5)\nThe Agreement and the Protocol should be signed.\n(6)\nIn view of the need to ensure the implementation of the necessary management system for the tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation to the Union as from the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, the Agreement and the Protocol should be applied on a provisional basis from that date, pending the completion of the procedures for their conclusion.\n(7)\nIn order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the provisions of the Agreement and the Protocol regarding the management of the tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation to the Union, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission\u2019s exercise of implementing powers (1).\n(8)\nThe examination procedure should be used for the adoption of implementing acts regarding the management in the Union of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation, given that those acts are acts relating to the common commercial policy and therefore fall under point (iv) of Article 2(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Russian Federation relating to the administration of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation to the European Union, and of the Protocol between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation on technical modalities pursuant to that Agreement, is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to their conclusion.\nThe texts of the Agreement and the Protocol are attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement and the Protocol on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 3\nIn accordance with the provisions of the Agreement and paragraph 3 of Article 26 of the Protocol, the Agreement and the Protocol shall be applied on a provisional basis as from the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, pending the completion of the procedures for the conclusion of the Agreement (2).\nArticle 4\nThe Commission shall adopt detailed rules on the method of allocation of quota authorisations pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Protocol, and any other provisions necessary for the management by the Union of the quantities of the tariff-rate quotas allocated to exports to the Union. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 5.\nArticle 5\n1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.\n2. Where reference is made to this Article, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.\nArticle 6\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Geneva, 14 December 2011.", "references": ["4", "44", "94", "32", "68", "5", "84", "95", "24", "54", "85", "13", "45", "71", "72", "77", "62", "76", "42", "23", "57", "75", "30", "27", "50", "82", "86", "92", "1", "98", "No Label", "3", "9", "21", "22", "88", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "21", "22", "88", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 369/2011\nof 14 April 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 15 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 14 April 2011.", "references": ["52", "7", "89", "72", "19", "36", "40", "96", "30", "77", "97", "95", "94", "31", "10", "70", "41", "32", "45", "25", "39", "60", "8", "55", "78", "75", "59", "91", "86", "98", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1044/2011\nof 19 October 2011\nentering a name in the register of the traditional specialities guaranteed (Kabanosy (TSG))\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 9(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nPursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, Poland\u2019s application, received on 22 January 2007, to register the name \u2018Kabanosy\u2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).\n(2)\nThe Czech Republic, Germany and Austria submitted objections to the registration pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006. The objections were deemed admissible under point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 9(3) of that Regulation.\n(3)\nBy letters dated 26 January 2010, the Commission invited the Member States concerned to engage in appropriate consultations.\n(4)\nWhile within the designated time-frame agreements have been reached between Austria and Poland and between the Czech Republic and Poland, no agreement has been reached between Germany and Poland. The Commission therefore has to adopt a decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006.\n(5)\nThe statements of objections concerned non-compliance with the conditions laid down in Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006.\n(6)\nConcerning the alleged failure of compliance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 in respect of the specific character of \u2018Kabanosy\u2019 no manifest error was identified. By its characteristics as defined in the specification (characteristics of the meat, taste and the unique shape) \u2018Kabanosy\u2019 is clearly distinguished from other similar products of the same category and is thus in compliance with the definition for specific character in point (a) of Article 2(1) of that Regulation. In the specification \u2018Kabanosy\u2019 is described as long, thin sticks of dry sausage twisted off at one end, evenly wrinkled and folded in two, which should be considered as the product\u2019s intrinsic physical feature and therefore not as a matter of product presentation. Lastly, national standardisation of \u2018Kabanosy\u2019 does not impede the registration of the name since it has been established in order to define the specificity of the product and, therefore, it is covered by the derogation set out in the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of that Regulation.\n(7)\nAs regards the objections based on non-compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, no manifest error was identified either. The name \u2018Kabanosy\u2019 does not refer only to claims of a general nature used for a set of products nor is it misleading. Therefore it is not concerned by the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of that Regulation. The specific character is further not due to the product\u2019s provenance or geographical origin. The product specification rather establishes a quality criterion for the pig population that has an effect on the quality of the finished product and thus indeed on the specific character of \u2018Kabanosy\u2019. \u2018Kabanosy\u2019s\u2019 main elements of its traditional character consist of both the use of traditional raw materials and traditional method of production, thus those elements are in compliance with Article 4(1) of that Regulation.\n(8)\nRegarding the existence of several other linguistic or orthographic variations of the name, only \u2018Kabanosy\u2019 is sought to be registered in accordance with point (a) of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006.\n(9)\nThe protection referred to in Article 13(2) of that Regulation has not been requested. Registration without reservation of the name however allows that a registered name may continue to be used on the labelling of products not corresponding to the registered specification without the indication \u2018traditional speciality guaranteed\u2019, the abbreviation \u2018TSG\u2019 or the associated EU logo. Once \u2018Kabanosy\u2019 is registered it would still be possible to produce and market \u2018Kabanosy\u2019-like products under the name \u2018Kabanosy\u2019 but without reference to EU registration. Thus the registration of \u2018Kabanosy\u2019 as a traditional speciality guaranteed would in no way impair other producers\u2019 rights to use a similar or even identical name for their products.\n(10)\nIn order to respect fair and traditional usage and to avoid the actual likelihood of confusion, the labelling of \u2018Kabanosy\u2019 should contain an indication, in the languages of the countries in which the product is marketed, informing the consumers that it has been produced following the Polish tradition.\n(11)\nIn the light of the above, the name \u2018Kabanosy\u2019 should be entered in the register of the traditional specialities guaranteed and the product specification should be updated accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion by the Standing Committee on Traditional Specialities Guaranteed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe designation contained in the Annex I to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register of the traditional specialities guaranteed.\nArticle 2\nThe consolidated product specification is set out in Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 October 2011.", "references": ["83", "44", "34", "8", "41", "7", "13", "27", "54", "48", "70", "61", "63", "10", "95", "62", "9", "15", "92", "88", "82", "1", "36", "12", "52", "81", "14", "43", "29", "60", "No Label", "23", "24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["23", "24", "25", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 642/2012\nof 16 July 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 147/2003 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Somalia\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2010/231/CFSP of 26 April 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Somalia (1),\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 147/2003 (2) imposes a general ban on the provision of technical advice, assistance, training, financing and financial assistance related to military activities to any person, entity or body in Somalia.\n(2)\nOn 22 February 2012, the United Nations Security Council adopted UNSCR 2036 (2012), by which it calls, in paragraph 22, for all UN Member States to take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect import of charcoal from Somalia.\n(3)\nOn 16 July 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/388/CFSP (3), which amends Decision 2010/231/CFSP so as to provide for the prohibition of the direct or indirect import of charcoal from Somalia into the Union.\n(4)\nThis measure falls within the scope of the Treaty and regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary in order to implement it, in particular with a view to ensuring its uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.\n(5)\nRegulation (EC) No 147/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 147/2003 is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nThe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 3b\n1. It shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto import charcoal into the Union if it:\n(i)\noriginates in Somalia; or\n(ii)\nhas been exported from Somalia;\n(b)\nto purchase charcoal which is located in or which originated in Somalia;\n(c)\nto transport charcoal if it originates in Somalia, or is being exported from Somalia to any other country;\n(d)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, as well as insurance and re-insurance related to the import, transport or purchase of charcoal from Somalia referred to in points (a), (b) and (c); and\n(e)\nto participate knowingly and intentionally, in activities whose object or effect is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the prohibition in points (a), (b), (c) and (d).\n2. For the purposes of this Article, \u2018charcoal\u2019 means the products listed in Annex II.\n3. The prohibitions in paragraph 1 shall not apply to the purchase or transport of charcoal which had been exported from Somalia prior to 22 February 2012.\u2019.\n(2)\nIn Article 2a, Article 6a and Article 7a(1), references to \u2018the Annex\u2019 are replaced by references to \u2018Annex I\u2019.\n(3)\nThe Annex shall be renamed \u2018Annex I\u2019 and shall be replaced by the text of Annex I to this Regulation.\n(4)\nThe text set out in Annex II to this Regulation is added as Annex II.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["93", "57", "88", "15", "34", "54", "46", "60", "12", "82", "81", "37", "40", "86", "48", "68", "14", "76", "63", "67", "65", "35", "29", "85", "13", "45", "87", "51", "32", "41", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "79", "94"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "79", "94"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 25 May 2010\nappointing one Danish member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/303/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Danish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nA member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of term of Mr Jens J\u00f8rgen NYGAARD,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n-\nHr. Jan BOYE\nR\u00e5dmand\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2010.", "references": ["6", "43", "60", "93", "14", "45", "57", "53", "20", "16", "76", "26", "56", "91", "15", "5", "61", "4", "82", "79", "77", "22", "65", "37", "72", "81", "31", "29", "84", "71", "No Label", "7"], "gold": ["7"]}
-{"input": "DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 24 November 2010\non the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2009/028 NL/Limburg Division 18 from the Netherlands)\n(2010/742/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.\n(2)\nThe scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.\n(3)\nThe Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.\n(4)\nThe Netherlands submitted an application on 30 December 2009 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in nine enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the NUTS II region Limburg (NL42) and supplemented it with additional information up to 6 May 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 549 946.\n(5)\nThe EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Netherlands,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nFor the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 549 946 in commitment and payment appropriations.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.", "references": ["21", "27", "47", "40", "61", "92", "50", "28", "26", "16", "85", "74", "2", "84", "45", "8", "37", "56", "52", "35", "59", "79", "42", "1", "41", "55", "44", "71", "99", "81", "No Label", "7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "10", "15", "33", "46", "49", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 77/2011\nof 28 January 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for forkbeards in Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of V, VI and VII by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1359/2008 of 28 November 2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (2) lays down quotas for 2009 and 2010.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2010.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 January 2011.", "references": ["27", "93", "90", "14", "45", "78", "26", "2", "99", "12", "70", "98", "66", "71", "83", "84", "19", "43", "49", "65", "95", "58", "62", "77", "4", "60", "6", "36", "38", "61", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 90/2012\nof 2 February 2012\namending Regulation (EC) No 736/2006 on working methods of the European Aviation Safety Agency for conducting standardisation inspections\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (1), and in particular Article 24(5) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 736/2006 (2) lays down the working methods of the European Aviation Safety Agency (hereinafter \u2018the Agency\u2019) for conducting standardisation inspections, pursuant to Article 24(5) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. Regulation (EC) No 736/2006 was adopted at a time where the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) was limited to initial and continuing airworthiness.\n(2)\nSince that time, Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 has replaced Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and extended twice its scope, first to include in particular air crew, air operations, and secondly to include air traffic management and air navigations services (ATM/ANS) as well as airport safety. The Commission has adopted several implementing rules corresponding to those new fields of competence.\n(3)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 (4) already laid down implementing rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production organisations and includes technical requirements as well as administrative procedures to ensure the satisfactory implementation by the competent authorities of Member States.\n(4)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 (5) laid down implementing rules for the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks and includes technical requirements as well as administrative procedures to ensure the satisfactory implementation by the competent authorities of Member States.\n(5)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 805/2011 (6) lays down detailed rules for air traffic controllers\u2019 licences and certain certificates and includes technical requirements as well as administrative procedures to ensure the satisfactory implementation by the competent authorities of Member States.\n(6)\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 (7) lays down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew to ensure the satisfactory implementation by the competent authorities of Member States.\n(7)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1034/2011 (8) lays down administrative procedures for the safety oversight of air traffic management and air navigation services to ensure the satisfactory implementation by the competent authorities of Member States of the common requirements for the provision of air navigation services laid down in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1035/2011 (9).\n(8)\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (10), amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 859/2008 (11), laid down common technical requirements applicable to commercial transportation by aeroplane and administrative procedures to ensure the satisfactory implementation by the competent authorities of Member States, which remain applicable until such time that implementing rules in the field of air operations apply.\n(9)\nDirective 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (12) on the safety of third country aircraft using Community airports, amended by Commission Directive 2008/49/EC (13) laid down procedures for the conduct of ramp inspections of such aircraft (SAFA) by Member States, which remain applicable until such time that implementing rules in the field of ramp inspections apply.\n(10)\nIn order to monitor the application of these implementing rules by the competent authorities of Member States, it is necessary to extend the application of the existing working methods of the Agency for conducting standardisation inspections to the new fields of crew licensing, air operations, air traffic controllers\u2019 license and the provision of ATM/ANS without delay.\n(11)\nRegulation (EC) No 736/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(12)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 736/2006, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. For the purpose of assessing compliance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its implementing rules in the fields of initial and continuing airworthiness, air operations, ramp inspections, air crew, air traffic controllers as well as air traffic management and air navigation services, the Agency shall carry out inspections of competent authorities of Member States, and shall establish a report thereon.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThe Agency shall amend its working procedures to comply with this Regulation not later than 1 month following its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the first day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 February 2012.", "references": ["10", "48", "22", "16", "34", "78", "29", "24", "61", "8", "2", "66", "31", "68", "75", "13", "1", "91", "79", "4", "27", "69", "43", "74", "11", "51", "71", "64", "88", "70", "No Label", "7", "53", "54", "57", "76"], "gold": ["7", "53", "54", "57", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 737/2010\nof 10 August 2010\nlaying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on trade in seal products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products (1), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1007/2009 allows for the placing on the market of seal products which result from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities and which contribute to their subsistence. It also allows for the placing on the market of seal products where the hunt was conducted with the sole purpose of the sustainable management of marine resources and where the import of seal products are occasional in nature and consist exclusively of goods for the personal use of travellers and their families.\n(2)\nIt is therefore necessary to specify detailed requirements for the import and the placing on the Union market of those seal products in order to ensure a uniform application of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009.\n(3)\nThe placing on the market of seal products which result from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities and which contribute to their subsistence should be allowed where such hunts are part of the cultural heritage of the community and where the seal products are at least partly used, consumed or processed within the communities according to their traditions.\n(4)\nThe conditions for the placing on the market of seal products resulting from by-products of hunting that is conducted for the sole purpose of the sustainable management of marine resources, and for the importation of seal products for the personal use of travellers or their families, should also be laid down.\n(5)\nWithin this exceptional framework, an effective mechanism to ensure an adequate verification of compliance with those requirements should be introduced. That mechanism should not be more trade-restrictive than necessary.\n(6)\nOther options would not be sufficient to achieve these aims. Therefore, a mechanism should exist by which recognised bodies issue documents attesting that seal products are compliant with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009, unless the import is for the personal use of travellers or their families.\n(7)\nIt is appropriate to provide that entities which comply with certain requirements should be included in a list of recognised bodies issuing such attesting documents.\n(8)\nModels should be set out for the attesting document and its copies in order to facilitate the management and verification of attesting documents.\n(9)\nProcedures for the control of attesting documents should be set out. Those procedures should be as simple and as practical as possible, without compromising the credibility and consistency of the system.\n(10)\nThe use of electronic systems should be allowed in order to facilitate the exchange of data between competent authorities, the Commission and the recognised bodies.\n(11)\nThe processing of personal data for the purposes of this Regulation, in particular as regards the processing of personal data contained in attesting documents, should comply with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (2) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3).\n(12)\nSince this Regulation lays down detailed rules for the implementation of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 which applies on 20 August 2010, it should enter into force as a matter of urgency.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established pursuant to Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (4),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThis Regulation lays down detailed rules for the placing on the market of seal products pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009.\nArticle 2\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:\n1.\n\u2018other indigenous communities\u2019 means communities in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present State boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions;\n2.\n\u2018placing on the market on a non-profit basis\u2019 means placing on the market for a price less than or equal to the recovery of the costs borne by the hunter reduced by the amount of any subsidies received in relation to the hunt.\nArticle 3\n1. Seal products resulting from hunts by Inuit or other indigenous communities may only be placed on the market where it can be established that they originate from seal hunts which satisfy all of the following conditions:\n(a)\nseal hunts conducted by Inuit or other indigenous communities which have a tradition of seal hunting in the community and in the geographical region;\n(b)\nseal hunts the products of which are at least partly used, consumed or processed within the communities according to their traditions;\n(c)\nseal hunts which contribute to the subsistence of the community.\n2. At the time of the placing on the market, the seal product shall be accompanied by the attesting document referred to in Article 7(1).\nArticle 4\nSeal products for the personal use of travellers or their families may only be imported where one of the following requirements is fulfilled:\n1.\nthe seal products are either worn by the travellers, or carried or contained in their personal luggage;\n2.\nthe seal products are contained in the personal property of a natural person transferring his normal place of residence from a third country to the Union;\n3.\nthe seal products are acquired on site in a third country by travellers and imported by those travellers at a later date, provided that, upon arrival in the Union territory, those travellers present to the customs authorities of the Member State concerned the following documents:\n(a)\na written notification of import;\n(b)\na document giving evidence that the products were acquired in the third country concerned.\nFor the purposes of point 3, the written notification and the document shall be endorsed by the customs authorities and returned to the travellers. On import, the notification and document shall be presented to the customs authorities together with the customs declaration for the products concerned.\nArticle 5\n1. Seal products resulting from marine resources management may only be placed on the market where it can be established that they originate from seal hunts which satisfy all of the following conditions:\n(a)\nseal hunts conducted under a national or regional natural resources management plan which uses scientific population models of marine resources and applies the ecosystem-based approach;\n(b)\nseal hunts which does not exceed the total allowable catch quota established in accordance with the plan referred to in point (a);\n(c)\nseal hunts the by-products of which are placed on the market in a non-systematic way on a non-profit basis.\n2. At the time of the placing on the market, the seal product shall be accompanied by the attesting document referred to in Article 7(1).\nArticle 6\n1. An entity shall be included in a list of recognised bodies where it demonstrates that it fulfils the following requirements:\n(a)\nit has legal personality;\n(b)\nit has the capacity to ascertain that the requirements of Article 3 or 5 are met;\n(c)\nit has the capacity to issue and manage attesting documents referred to in Article 7(1), as well as process and archive records;\n(d)\nit has the ability to carry out its functions in a manner that avoids conflict of interest;\n(e)\nit has the ability to monitor compliance with the requirements set out in Articles 3 and 5;\n(f)\nit has the capacity to withdraw attesting documents referred to in Article 7(1) or suspend their validity in case of non-compliance with the requirements of this Regulation, and to take measures to inform competent authorities and customs authorities of Member States thereof;\n(g)\nit is subject to an independent third party audit;\n(h)\nit operates at national or regional level.\n2. In order to be included in the list referred to in paragraph 1, an entity shall submit to the Commission a request accompanied by documentary evidence that it fulfils the requirements set out in paragraph 1.\n3. The recognised body shall submit audit reports produced by the independent third party referred to in paragraph 1(g) to the Commission at the end of each reporting cycle.\nArticle 7\n1. Upon request, where the requirements for placing on the market set out in Article 3(1) or 5(1) are met, a recognised body shall issue an attesting document conforming to the models set out in the Annex.\n2. The recognised body shall deliver the attesting document to the applicant and shall keep a copy for three years for record-keeping purposes.\n3. Subject to Article 8(2), when a seal product is placed on the market, the original attesting document shall be delivered with the seal product. The applicant may keep a copy of the attesting document.\n4. A reference to the attesting document number shall be included in any further invoice.\n5. A seal product accompanied by an attesting document issued in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be deemed to comply with Article 3(1) or 5(1).\n6. Acceptance of a customs declaration for release for free circulation pursuant to Article 79 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (5) of a seal product shall be subject to the presentation of an attesting document issued in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article. Without prejudice to Article 77(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, the customs authorities shall keep a copy of the attesting document in their records.\n7. In case of doubts relating to the authenticity or correctness of an attesting document issued in accordance with paragraph 1 as well as when further advice is required, the customs authorities and other enforcement officers shall contact the competent authorities designated by the Member State concerned in accordance with Article 9. The competent authorities shall decide on the measures to be taken.\nArticle 8\n1. The attesting document referred to in Article 7(1) shall be paper-based or in electronic form.\n2. In case of an electronic attesting document, a printed copy of that attesting document shall accompany the seal product at the time of placing on the market.\n3. The use of the attesting document shall be without prejudice to any other formalities relating to the placing on the market.\n4. The competent authority designated in accordance with Article 9 may require that the attesting document be translated into the official language of the Member State where the product is to be placed on the market.\nArticle 9\n1. Each Member State shall designate one or several competent authorities responsible for the following tasks:\n(a)\nverification upon request of the customs authorities pursuant to Article 7(7) of attesting documents for imported seal products;\n(b)\ncontrol of the issuing of attesting documents by recognised bodies established and active in that Member State;\n(c)\npreservation of a copy of attesting documents issued for seal products originating from seal hunts in that Member State.\n2. Member States shall notify the Commission of the competent authorities designated in accordance with paragraph 1.\n3. The Commission shall make the list of competent authorities designated in accordance with paragraph 1 available on its website. The list shall be regularly updated.\nArticle 10\n1. Competent authorities may use electronic systems for the exchange and recording of data contained in attesting documents.\n2. Member States shall take into account the complementarity, compatibility and interoperability of the electronic systems referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 11\nThis Regulation is without prejudice to the level of protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data under Union law and national law, and in particular does not alter the obligations and rights set out in Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. The protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data shall be ensured in particular with regard to any disclosure or communication of personal data in an attesting document.\nArticle 12\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 August 2010.", "references": ["95", "89", "98", "33", "38", "20", "79", "37", "60", "81", "17", "76", "15", "93", "64", "45", "40", "16", "52", "70", "62", "24", "90", "57", "2", "31", "73", "99", "6", "1", "No Label", "23", "25", "58", "59", "66", "69"], "gold": ["23", "25", "58", "59", "66", "69"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1091/2011\nof 27 October 2011\nfixing the maximum amount of aid granted for the private storage of olive oil under the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1023/2011\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(d), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1023/2011 of 14 October 2011 opening the tendering procedure for aid for private storage of olive oil (2) provides for two tendering sub-periods.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 13(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 of 20 August 2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products (3), on the basis of tenders notified by the Member States, the Commission either fixes a maximum amount of the aid or does not fix a maximum amount of the aid.\n(3)\nOn the basis of the tenders submitted in response to the first partial invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum amount of the aid for private storage of olive oil for the tendering sub-period ending on 25 October 2011.\n(4)\nIn order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(5)\nThe Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nFor the tendering sub-period ending on 25 October 2011 within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1023/2011, the maximum amount of aid for olive oil shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 October 2011.", "references": ["69", "24", "25", "38", "22", "12", "93", "52", "33", "16", "76", "73", "55", "87", "40", "84", "80", "75", "9", "74", "21", "27", "19", "31", "53", "39", "43", "67", "89", "2", "No Label", "15", "20", "26", "62", "70"], "gold": ["15", "20", "26", "62", "70"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 2 May 2012\namending Decision 2011/207/EU establishing a specific control and inspection programme related to the recovery of bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean\n(notified under document C(2012) 2800)\n(2012/246/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 95 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn 2006 the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) adopted a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. ICCAT amended that multiannual recovery plan during the 2008 Annual Meeting. The amended plan was transposed into Union law by way of Council Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 of 6 April 2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean (2). This plan was further amended and endorsed in the 2010 ICCAT Annual Meeting by way of ICCAT Recommendation 10-04 (3).\n(2)\nTo ensure the successful implementation of the amended multiannual recovery plan, Commission Decision 2009/296/EC (4) established a specific control and inspection programme covering a period of two years, from 15 March 2009 to 15 March 2011.\n(3)\nThe specific control and inspection programme related to the recovery of bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, as established by Commission Decision 2011/207/EU (5), was adopted with a view of ensuring the continuity of the programme established by Decision 2009/296/EC and immediately implementing certain provisions of ICCAT Recommendation 10-04, in particular those on the early submission of required fishing and inspection plans. Decision 2011/207/EU covers the period from 15 March 2011 to 15 March 2014.\n(4)\nIn light of the discussions in ICCAT at the 2011 Annual Meeting and with a view to fully implement the provisions required by ICCAT, it is appropriate to implement the requirements concerning sampling and pilot operations set out in paragraph 87 of ICCAT Recommendation 10-04 establishing a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean.\n(5)\nIt is also appropriate to update and correct certain obsolete or erroneous references that existed in Decision 2011/207/EU.\n(6)\nDecision 2011/207/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2011/207/EU is amended as follows:\n1.\nthe title is replaced by the following:\n2.\nin Article 3, point 2 is replaced by the following:\n\u20182.\nall catches, landings, transfers, transhipments and caging operations, including sampling programmes and pilot studies;\u2019;\n3.\nin Article 4, the following points 9 and 10 are added:\n\u20189.\nthe implementation of pilot studies on how to better estimate both the number and weight of bluefin tuna at the point of capture;\n10.\nthe implementation of sampling programmes and/or alternative programmes at the time of caging in order to improve the counting and the weight estimations of the caged fish.\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 9, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Member State intending to conduct surveillance and inspect fishing vessels in the waters under the jurisdiction of another Member State in the framework of a Joint Deployment Plan shall notify its intentions to the contact point of the coastal Member State concerned, as referred to in Article 80, point 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, and to the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA).\u2019;\n5.\nArticle 10 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Article 10\nInformation of infringements\nMember States whose officials detect any infringement while carrying out an inspection on the activities listed in Article 3 shall inform without delay the Commission of the date of inspection and the details of the infringement.\u2019;\n6.\nin Article 14, the words \u2018the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA)\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018the EFCA\u2019.\n7.\nArticle 15 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin paragraph 1, the words \u2018the CFCA\u2019 are replaced by the words \u2018the EFCA\u2019;\n(b)\nin paragraph 3, the introductory sentence is replaced by the following:\n\u20183. This report shall contain the following information, in accordance with the table set out in Annex IV:\u2019;\n8.\nAnnexes I and II are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 May 2012.", "references": ["56", "64", "99", "39", "16", "83", "8", "98", "0", "3", "73", "55", "34", "86", "52", "13", "84", "30", "40", "90", "97", "91", "1", "20", "29", "11", "57", "18", "54", "85", "No Label", "12", "59", "67"], "gold": ["12", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 18 June 2012\napproving restrictions of authorisations of biocidal products containing difethialone notified by Sweden in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(notified under document C(2012) 4027)\n(Only the Swedish text is authentic)\n(2012/318/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1), and in particular Article 4(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAnnex I to Directive 98/8/EC contains the list of active substances approved at Union level for inclusion in biocidal products. The active substance difethialone was approved for inclusion in products belonging to product-type 14, rodenticides, as defined in Annex V to Directive 98/8/EC, by Commission Directive 2007/69/EC of 29 November 2007 amending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include difethialone as an active substance in Annex I thereto (2).\n(2)\nDifethialone is an anticoagulant rodenticide known to pose risks of accidental incidents with children, as well as risks for animals and the environment. It has been identified as potentially persistent, liable to bioaccumulate and toxic (\u2018PBT\u2019), or very persistent and very liable to bioaccumulate (\u2018vPvB\u2019).\n(3)\nFor reasons of public health and hygiene, it was nevertheless found to be justified to include difethialone and other anticoagulant rodenticides in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC, thus allowing Member States to authorise difethialone-based products. However, Directive 2007/69/EC obliges Member States to ensure, when granting authorisation of products containing difethialone, that primary as well as secondary exposure of humans, non-target animals and the environment is minimised, by considering and applying all appropriate and available risk mitigation measures.\n(4)\nThe scientific evaluation leading to the adoption of Directive 2007/69/EC concluded that the most significant reductions in exposure to and risks posed by difethialone are achieved by restricting its use to treatment campaigns of limited duration, limiting access of non-target animals to the bait and removing unused bait and dead and moribund rodents during a baiting campaign in order to minimise the opportunity of primary or secondary exposure of non-target animals. The evaluation also concluded that only professional users are expected to follow such instructions. The risk mitigation measures mentioned in Directive 2007/69/EC therefore include restriction to professional use only.\n(5)\nThe company LiphaTech S.A.S. (\u2018the applicant\u2019) has, in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 98/8/EC, submitted an application to the United Kingdom for authorisation of eight rodenticides containing difethialone (\u2018the products\u2019). The products\u2019 names and reference numbers in the Register for Biocidal Products (\u2018R4BP\u2019) are indicated in the Annex to this Decision.\n(6)\nThe United Kingdom granted the authorisations on 20 April 2011 (Generation Pat\u2019), on 26 April 2011 (Generation Block) and on 27 April 2011 (Generation Grain\u2019Tech and Rodilon Trio) (\u2018the first authorisations\u2019). The products were authorised with restrictions to ensure that the conditions of Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC were met in the United Kingdom. Those restrictions did not include a restriction to trained professional users with a license.\n(7)\nOn 9 June 2011, the applicant submitted a complete application to Sweden for mutual recognition of the first authorisations of the products. For the products with the Swedish product names Rodilon Block, Rodilon Trio and Rodilon Paste, the applications were restricted to authorisation for professional use only.\n(8)\nOn 11 October 2011, Sweden notified the Commission, the other Member States and the applicant of its proposal to restrict the first authorisations in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive 98/8/EC. Sweden proposed to impose a restriction on the products to use by trained professionals with a license.\n(9)\nThe Commission invited the other Member States and the applicant to submit comments to the notification in writing within 90 days in accordance with Article 27(1) of Directive 98/8/EC. Only the applicant submitted comments within that deadline. The notification was also discussed between Commission representatives, representatives of Member States\u2019 Competent Authorities for biocidal products, and the applicant in the meeting of the Product Authorisation and Mutual Recognition Facilitation Group of 6-7 December 2011 and in the meeting of the Competent Authorities for Biocidal Products of 29 February to 2 March 2012.\n(10)\nThe applicant has argued that the restriction to use by trained professionals with a license is unjustified and should not be accepted, since its products are also suitable for rodent control by non-trained professionals and non-professionals. Furthermore, the applicant has put forward the arguments that the products are ready-to-use products; that the active ingredient content in the products is low; that an antidote exists; that the products can easily be kept out of the reach of children and non-target animals; that non-professional users are likely to remove dead rodents; that non-professional users can be trained and that the proposed restriction to use by trained professionals is likely to increases the cost of householder\u2019s insurances in Sweden in the long term.\n(11)\nThe Commission notes that, in accordance with Directive 2007/69/EC, authorisations of biocidal products containing difethialone are to be subject to all appropriate and available risk mitigation measures, including the restriction to professional use only. The scientific evaluation leading to the adoption of Directive 2007/69/EC concluded that only professional users could be expected to follow the instructions leading to the most significant reductions in exposure and risk. A restriction to professional users should therefore in principle be considered as an appropriate risk mitigation measure. The arguments put forward by the applicant do not undermine that conclusion.\n(12)\nIn the absence of any indication to the contrary, the Commission therefore considers that restriction to professional users is an appropriate and available risk mitigation measure for the authorisation of products containing difethialone in Sweden. The fact that the United Kingdom did not consider such a restriction to be appropriate and available for authorisation in its territory is immaterial for that conclusion. The decision of the United Kingdom to authorise non-professional use was based in particular on the risk of a delay in treatment of household infestations due to the costs involved in hiring trained professionals, and the associated risks to public hygiene. Sweden, however, has explained that that risk is less prevalent in Sweden thanks to the Swedish insurance system, in which householder insurances typically cover the cost of professional pest control in case of an infestation.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nSweden may restrict the authorisations granted in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 98/8/EC for the products mentioned in the Annex to this Decision to use by trained professionals with a license.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Sweden.\nDone at Brussels, 18 June 2012.", "references": ["46", "47", "41", "27", "30", "79", "43", "18", "11", "22", "89", "81", "28", "75", "82", "87", "38", "86", "50", "8", "39", "70", "92", "62", "4", "77", "15", "71", "90", "94", "No Label", "25", "61", "83", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["25", "61", "83", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 22 June 2012\ngranting a derogation from Regulation (EU) No 1337/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning European statistics on permanent crops with regard to the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic\n(notified under document C(2012) 4132)\n(Only the French and German texts are authentic)\n(2012/337/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EU) No 1337/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 concerning European statistics on permanent crops and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 357/79 and Directive 2001/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,\nHaving regard to the requests made by the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1337/2011, where the application of this Regulation to the national statistical system of a Member State requires major adaptations and is likely to cause significant practical problems with regard to the permanent crops referred to in points (a) to (l) of Article 1(1), the Commission may grant Member States a derogation.\n(2)\nThe Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic have requested derogations from the application of Regulation (EU) No 1337/2011 in accordance with Article 10(2) thereof.\n(3)\nThe information provided by the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic justifies granting those derogations.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Statistics,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The Federal Republic of Germany is granted derogation from its obligation to submit statistics on the permanent crops referred to in points (a) to (l) of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1337/2011 until 31 December 2012.\n2. The derogation is granted for the reference year 2012.\nArticle 2\n1. The French Republic is granted derogation from its obligation to submit statistics on olive trees until 31 December 2012.\n2. The derogation is granted for the reference year 2012.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 22 June 2012.", "references": ["5", "48", "7", "15", "79", "61", "39", "65", "50", "25", "30", "84", "76", "83", "22", "95", "85", "2", "44", "46", "70", "14", "28", "69", "4", "90", "88", "58", "29", "1", "No Label", "8", "19", "63", "64", "68", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["8", "19", "63", "64", "68", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1240/2011\nof 30 November 2011\nlaying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2011/2012\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Article 64(2) and Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe world market prices for sugar have been at a level close to or even above the Union internal market price since several months. Forecasts of world market prices based on the sugar futures exchange markets of New York and London for the terms of March, May and July 2012 further indicate a constant high world market price. Imports from third countries benefiting from certain preferential agreements are therefore expected to increase only moderately during the 2011/2012 marketing year.\n(2)\nThe forecasted sugar balance within the Union for the 2011/2012 marketing year identifies a deficit between utilisation of quota sugar and what should have been available of about 700 000 tonnes. The resulting low level of ending stocks threatens to disrupt the availability of supply of the Union\u2019s sugar market and increase the Union internal sugar market price.\n(3)\nOn the other hand, a good harvest in some parts of the Union has led to the production of sugar in excess of the quota set out in Article 56 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of nearly 5 million tonnes. Taking account of estimations on contractual commitments of sugar producers in respect of certain industrial uses provided for in Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and the 2011/2012 export commitments for out-of-quota sugar, substantial quantities of out-of-quota sugar of about 1 000 000 tonnes will still be available. Part of this sugar could be made available to the sugar market of the Union in order to partially satisfy demand and to avoid excessive price increases\n(4)\nArticle 187 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 empowers the Commission to take the necessary measures for the sector if quotations or prices on the world market of sugar reach a level that disrupts or threatens to disrupt the availability of supply on the Union market. In this context, possible measures are not limited to the explicitly mentioned measure of full or partial suspension of import duties.\n(5)\nIn the 2010/2011 marketing year, the world market price for sugar was close to or even above the recorded average Union market price for certain periods of time. Against this background and taking transport costs and delays linked to imports into account, the instrument of a reduction of import duties alone might not be sufficient to address the shortage of quota sugar and the upward pressure on prices on the EU market.\n(6)\nArticle 64(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 empowers the Commission to fix the surplus levy on sugar and isoglucose produced in excess of the quota at a sufficiently high level in order to avoid the accumulation of surplus quantities. Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards sugar production in excess of the quota (2) has fixed that levy at EUR 500 per tonne.\n(7)\nThe continuing low supply of sugar on the internal market in the 2011/2012 marketing year may allow the sale of 400 000 tonnes of out-of-quota sugar on the internal market. Because the supply shortage is less severe than in the 2010/2011 marketing year and the measure is taken at an earlier stage compared to the 2010/2011 marketing year with still some uncertainties regarding exact quantities available on the EU market, the setting of a reduced levy is appropriate, in order to avoid any risk of accumulation of quantities. For that limited quantity of sugar produced in excess of the quota a reduced surplus levy should be fixed, at a level per tonne representing the difference between the most recent publicly available average Union price and the world market price.\n(8)\nAs Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 fixes quotas for both sugar and isoglucose, a similar measure should apply for an appropriate quantity of isoglucose produced in excess of the quota because the latter product is, to some extent, a commercial substitute for sugar.\n(9)\nFor that reason and with the view to increasing the supply, sugar and isoglucose producers should apply to the competent authorities of the Member States for certificates allowing them to sell certain quantities, produced above the quota limit, on the Union market with a reduced surplus levy.\n(10)\nThe validity of the certificates should be limited in time to encourage a fast improvement of the supply situation.\n(11)\nFixing upper limits of the quantities for which each producer can apply in one application period and restricting the certificates to products of the applicant\u2019s own production should prevent speculative actions within the system created by this Regulation.\n(12)\nWith their application, sugar producers should commit themselves to pay the minimum price for sugar beet used to produce the quantity of sugar for which they apply. The minimum eligibility requirements for applications should be specified.\n(13)\nThe competent authorities of the Member States should notify the Commission of the applications received. In order to simplify and standardise those notifications, models should be made available.\n(14)\nThe Commission should ensure that certificates are granted only within the quantitative limits fixed in this Regulation. Therefore, if necessary, the Commission should be able to fix an allocation coefficient applicable to the applications received.\n(15)\nMember States should immediately inform the applicants whether the quantity applied for was fully or partially granted.\n(16)\nThe reduced surplus levy should be paid after the application is admitted and before the certificate is issued.\n(17)\nThe competent authorities should notify the Commission of the quantities for which certificates with a reduction of the surplus levy have been issued. For this purpose, models should be made available by the Commission.\n(18)\nSugar quantities released on the Union market of quantities in excess of the certificates issued under this Regulation should be subject the surplus levy set out in Article 64(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. It is therefore appropriate to provide that any applicant not fulfilling his commitment to release on the Union market the quantity covered by a certificate delivered to him, should also pay an amount of EUR 500 per tonne. This consistent approach is aimed at preventing abuse of the mechanism introduced by this Regulation.\n(19)\nFor the purpose of establishing average prices for quota and out-of-quota sugar on the Union market in accordance with Article 13(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards the management of the Community market in sugar and the quota system (3), sugar covered by a certificate issued pursuant to this Regulation should be considered as quota sugar.\n(20)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nTemporary reduction of the surplus levy\nBy way of derogation from Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006, the amount of the surplus levy for a maximum quantity of 400 000 tonnes of sugar in white sugar equivalent and 21 000 tonnes of isoglucose in dry matter, produced in excess of the quota fixed in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and released on the Union market in the marketing year 2011/2012, shall be fixed at EUR 85 per tonne. The reduced surplus levy shall be paid after the application, referred to in Article 2, is admitted and before the certificate, referred to in Article 6, is issued.\nArticle 2\nApplication for certificates\n1. In order to benefit from the conditions specified in Article 1, sugar and isoglucose producers shall apply for a certificate.\n2. Applicants may be only undertakings producing beet and cane sugar or isoglucose, which are approved in accordance with Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and have been allocated a production quota for the 2011/2012 marketing year, in accordance with Article 56 of that Regulation.\n3. Each applicant may submit not more than one application for sugar and one for isoglucose per application period.\n4. Applications for certificates shall be submitted by fax or electronic mail to the competent authority in the Member State in which the undertaking was approved. The competent authorities of the Member States may require that electronic applications be accompanied by an advance electronic signature within the meaning of Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4).\n5. To be admissible, the applications shall fulfil the following conditions:\n(a)\nthe applications shall indicate:\n(i)\nthe name, address and VAT number of the applicant; and\n(ii)\nthe quantities applied for, expressed in tonnes of white sugar equivalent and tonnes of isoglucose in dry matter, rounded to no decimal places;\n(b)\nthe quantities applied for in this application period, expressed in tonnes of white sugar equivalent and tonnes of isoglucose in dry matter, shall not exceed 50 000 tonnes in the case of sugar and 2 500 tonnes in the case of isoglucose;\n(c)\nif the application concerns sugar, the applicant shall commit himself to pay the minimum beet price, set out in Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, for the quantity of sugar covered by certificates issued in accordance with Article 6 of this Regulation;\n(d)\nthe application shall be written in the official language or one of the official languages of the Member State in which the application is lodged;\n(e)\nthe application shall indicate a reference to this Regulation and the expiry date for the submission of the applications for the application period in question;\n(f)\nthe applicant shall not introduce any additional conditions to those laid down in this Regulation.\n6. An application which is not submitted in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 shall not be admissible.\n7. An application may not be withdrawn or amended after its submission, even if the quantity applied for is granted only partially.\nArticle 3\nSubmission of applications\n1. The first period during which applications may be submitted shall end on 7 December 2011 at 12 noon, Brussels time.\n2. The periods during which applications may be submitted for the second and subsequent application periods shall begin on the first working day following the end of the preceding period. They shall end at 12 noon, Brussels time, on 14 December 2011, 11 January 2012, 25 January 2012, 1 February 2012, 15 February 2012, 6 June 2012, 27 June 2012 and 11 July 2012.\n3. The Commission may suspend the submission of applications for one or several application periods.\nArticle 4\nTransmission of applications by the Member States\n1. The competent authorities of the Member States shall decide on the admissibility of applications on the basis of the conditions set out in Article 2. Where the competent authorities decide that an application is inadmissible, they shall inform the applicant without delay.\n2. The competent authority shall notify the Commission on Friday at the latest, by fax or electronic mail, of the admissible applications submitted during the preceding application period. That notification shall not contain the data referred to in Article 2(5)(a)(i). Member States that received no applications but have sugar or isoglucose quota allocated to them in marketing year 2011/2012, shall also send their nil returns notifications to the Commission within the same time limit.\n3. The form and content of the notifications shall be defined on the basis of models made available by the Commission to the Member States.\nArticle 5\nExceeded limits\nWhen the information notified by the competent authorities of the Member States pursuant to Article 4(2) indicates that the quantities applied for exceed the limits set out in Article 1, the Commission shall:\n(a)\nfix an allocation coefficient, which the Member States shall apply to the quantities covered by each notified certificate application;\n(b)\nreject applications not yet notified;\n(c)\nclose the period for submitting the applications.\nArticle 6\nIssue of certificates\n1. Without prejudice to Article 5, on the 10th working day following a week where an application period ended, the competent authority shall issue certificates for the applications notified to the Commission, in accordance with Article 4(2), during that application period.\n2. Each Monday Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantities of sugar and/or isoglucose for which they issued certificates in the preceding week.\n3. A template of the certificate is set out in the Annex.\nArticle 7\nValidity of certificates\nCertificates shall be valid until the end of the second month following the month of issue.\nArticle 8\nTransferability of certificates\nNeither the rights nor the obligations deriving from the certificates shall be transferable.\nArticle 9\nPrice reporting\nFor the purpose of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 952/2006, the quantity of sugar sold which is covered by a certificate issued pursuant to this Regulation shall be considered as quota sugar.\nArticle 10\nMonitoring\n1. Applicants shall add to their monthly notifications provided for in Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 the quantities for which they received certificates in accordance with Article 6 of this Regulation.\n2. Before 31 October 2012, each holder of a certificate under this regulation shall submit to the competent authorities of the Member States proof that all quantities covered by his certificates were released on the Union market. Each tonne covered by a certificate but not released on the Union market for reasons other than force majeure, shall be subject to payment of an amount of 415 EUR/tonne.\n3. Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantities not released on the Union market.\n4. Member States shall calculate and notify the Commission of the difference between the total quantity of sugar and isoglucose produced by each producer in excess of the quota and the quantities which have been disposed by the producers in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006. If the remaining quantities of out-of-quota sugar or isoglucose of a producer are less than the quantities issued for that producer for under this Regulation, the producer shall pay an amount of EUR 500/tonne on that difference.\nArticle 11\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall expire on 31 December 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 30 November 2011.", "references": ["8", "97", "18", "69", "66", "40", "51", "26", "74", "91", "39", "20", "54", "90", "96", "7", "15", "84", "27", "73", "52", "9", "35", "85", "49", "41", "92", "46", "99", "38", "No Label", "25", "61", "62", "71", "75"], "gold": ["25", "61", "62", "71", "75"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 613/2012\nof 9 July 2012\namending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (1), and in particular Article 8(9) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe colour of the model certificate of professional competence is defined in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 as \u2018Colour Pantone stout fawn\u2019.\n(2)\nThere is a need to specify the colour more precisely in order to encourage homogeneity and uniform interpretation and application of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009.\n(3)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009, in the third line, the sentence \u2018Colour Pantone stout fawn, format DIN A4 cellulose paper 100 g/m2 or more\u2019 is replaced by the following:\n\u2018Colour Pantone stout fawn 467, or as close as possible to this colour, format DIN A4 cellulose paper 100 g/m2 or more\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 July 2012.", "references": ["31", "95", "66", "60", "45", "22", "36", "42", "59", "16", "73", "43", "46", "92", "8", "87", "77", "57", "67", "40", "61", "13", "85", "79", "12", "5", "93", "33", "1", "58", "No Label", "49", "50", "54", "55", "76"], "gold": ["49", "50", "54", "55", "76"]}
-{"input": "DIRECTIVE 2012/11/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL\nof 19 April 2012\namending Directive 2004/40/EC on minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (18th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)\nTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 153(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),\nAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,\nActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFollowing the entry into force of Directive 2004/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), stakeholders, in particular those in the medical community, expressed serious concerns about the impact that implementing that Directive could have on the use of medical procedures based on medical imaging, as well as its impact on certain industrial activities.\n(2)\nThe Commission examined the arguments put forward by stakeholders and decided to reconsider some provisions of Directive 2004/40/EC, on the basis of new scientific evidence.\n(3)\nThe deadline for transposition of Directive 2004/40/EC was postponed, by Directive 2008/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), until 30 April 2012, in order to allow a new Directive based on the most recent evidence to be adopted by that date.\n(4)\nOn 14 June 2011, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new Directive to replace Directive 2004/40/EC. The aim of the new Directive is to ensure both a high level of health and safety protection for workers and the continuation and development of medical and other industrial activities using electromagnetic fields. Consequently, anticipating the adoption of the new Directive by 30 April 2012, the majority of Member States have not transposed Directive 2004/40/EC.\n(5)\nHowever, given the technical complexity of the subject matter, it is unlikely that the new Directive will be adopted by 30 April 2012.\n(6)\nConsequently, the deadline of 30 April 2012 should be extended. It is therefore necessary for this Directive to enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nIn Article 13(1) of Directive 2004/40/EC, the date \u201830 April 2012\u2019 is replaced by \u201831 October 2013\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 3\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Strasbourg, 19 April 2012.", "references": ["93", "55", "63", "80", "4", "53", "25", "61", "67", "41", "95", "29", "84", "64", "94", "57", "30", "15", "87", "32", "45", "9", "17", "22", "46", "73", "34", "14", "58", "56", "No Label", "8", "38", "51", "60"], "gold": ["8", "38", "51", "60"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 20 August 2010\namending Decisions 92/260/EEC, 93/195/EEC, 93/197/EEC and 2004/211/EC as regards the temporary admission, the re-entry after temporary export and imports of registered horses and imports of semen of the equine species from certain parts of Egypt\n(notified under document C(2010) 5703)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/463/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (1), and in particular Article 12(1) and (4), Article 15(a), Article 16, the introductory phrase of Article 19, and Article 19(i) and (ii) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (2), and in particular Article 17(3)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 92/260/EEC of 10 April 1992 on animal health conditions and veterinary certification for temporary admission of registered horses (3) establishes a list of third countries from which the temporary admission into the Union of such horses is to be authorised together with the certification requirements. That list, set out in Annex I to that Decision, also assigns those third countries and parts thereof to certain sanitary groups from A to F. Certain parts of Egypt are currently included in sanitary group E.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 93/195/EEC of 2 February 1993 on animal health conditions and veterinary certification for the re-entry of registered horses for racing, competition and cultural events after temporary export (4) establishes a list of third countries from which the re-entry of such horses into the Union is to be authorised together with the certification requirements. That list, set out in Annex I to that Decision, also assigns those third countries and parts thereof to certain sanitary groups, from A to E. Certain parts of Egypt are currently included in sanitary group E.\n(3)\nCommission Decision 93/197/EEC of 5 February 1993 on animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production (5) establishes a list of third countries from which the imports of such equidae into the Union is to be authorised, together with the certification requirements. That list, set out in Annex I to that Decision, also assigns those third countries and parts thereof to certain sanitary groups, from A to G. Certain parts of Egypt are currently included in sanitary group E for imports into the Union of registered horses.\n(4)\nCommission Decision 2004/211/EC of 6 January 2004 establishing the list of third countries and parts of territory thereof from which Member States authorise imports of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species (6) establishes a list of third countries and parts of territories thereof from which Member States are to authorise imports of equidae and semen, ova and embryos of animals of the equine species and indicates the other conditions applicable to such imports. Those conditions are laid down taking into account the different sanitary groups set out in Decisions 92/260/EEC, 93/195/EEC and 93/197/EEC and which are indicated in column 5 of Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC.\n(5)\nIn June 2010, the Commission carried out a veterinary inspection in Egypt. The results of that inspection were unsatisfactory. A number of substantial shortcomings were identified as regards the controls on the movement of equidae from other parts of Egypt into the areas listed in Decision 2004/211/EC as eligible for export into the Union, the certification procedures and the policy of that third country as regards imports of equidae from areas infected with or at risk of African horse sickness.\n(6)\nThat situation is liable to constitute a serious animal health risk for the equine population in the Union and therefore the temporary admission, the re-entry after temporary export and the imports into the Union of registered horses and the imports of semen of animals of the equine species from Egypt should be suspended.\n(7)\nDecisions 92/260/EEC, 93/195/EEC, 93/197/EEC and 2004/211/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nIn Annex I to Decision 92/260/EEC, in Sanitary Group E, the entry for Egypt is deleted.\nArticle 2\nIn Annex I to Decision 93/195/EEC, in Sanitary Group E, the entry for Egypt is deleted.\nArticle 3\nIn Annex I to Decision 93/197/EEC, in Sanitary Group E, the entry for Egypt is deleted.\nArticle 4\nIn Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC, the entry for Egypt is replaced by the following:\n\u2018EG\nEgypt\nEG-0\nWhole country\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nEG-1\nGovernorates of Alexandria, Beheira, Krafr el Sheikh, Damietta, Dakahlia, Port-Said, Sharkia, Gharbia, Menoufia, Kalioubia, Ishmailia, North Sinai, South Sinai, Cairo (as Greater Cairo including Giza town), Suez, Marsa Martrouh, Fayoum, Giza and Beni Suef\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\u2019\nArticle 5\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 20 August 2010.", "references": ["35", "44", "26", "27", "3", "88", "92", "85", "37", "99", "12", "34", "58", "15", "60", "0", "71", "19", "16", "75", "81", "29", "64", "14", "90", "69", "83", "6", "9", "17", "No Label", "21", "22", "36", "38", "61", "65", "66", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["21", "22", "36", "38", "61", "65", "66", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 835/2011\nof 19 August 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in foodstuffs\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (2) sets maximum levels for benzo(a)pyrene in a range of foodstuffs.\n(2)\nBenzo(a)pyrene belongs to the group of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and is used as a marker for the occurrence and effect of carcinogenic PAH in food based on a scientific opinion of the former Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) (3). In its opinion of December 2002, the SCF recommended that further analyses of the relative proportions of these PAH in foods would be necessary for a future review of the suitability of maintaining benzo(a)pyrene as a marker.\n(3)\nNew data on occurrence of carcinogenic PAH in foodstuffs have been collected by the Member States in the framework of Commission Recommendation 2005/108/EC (4). The Commission asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to review the SCF opinion taking into account the new occurrence data, other relevant new scientific information as well as the Margin of Exposure (MOE) approach. Within this review, EFSA was asked to re-assess the suitability of maintaining benzo(a)pyrene as a marker.\n(4)\nThe Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel) of EFSA adopted an opinion on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Food on 9 June 2008 (5). In this opinion EFSA concluded that benzo(a)pyrene is not a suitable marker for the occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in food and that a system of four specific substances (PAH4 (6)) or eight specific substances (PAH8 (7)) would be the most suitable indicators of PAH in food. EFSA also concluded that a system of eight substances (PAH8) would not provide much added value compared to a system of four substances (PAH4).\n(5)\nFurthermore, the CONTAM Panel concluded, using the Margin of Exposure (MOE) approach, that there is low concern for consumer health at the average estimated dietary exposures. However, for high level consumers the MOEs were close to or less than 10 000, which indicates a potential concern for consumer health.\n(6)\nBased on the conclusions of EFSA, the current system of using benzo(a)pyrene as the only marker for the group of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, can not be maintained. An amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 is therefore necessary.\n(7)\nNew maximum levels for the sum of four substances (PAH4) (benzo(a)pyrene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene and chrysene) should be introduced, whilst maintaining a separate maximum level for benzo(a)pyrene.\n(8)\nSuch system would ensure that PAH levels in food are kept at levels that do not cause health concern and that the amount of PAH can also be controlled in those samples in which benzo(a)pyrene is not detectable, but where other PAH are present.\n(9)\nThe separate maximum level for benzo(a)pyrene is maintained to ensure comparability of previous and future data. After a certain time of implementation of this amendment and on basis of new data that will be generated in future, the need for retaining a separate maximum level for benzo(a) pyrene should be re-assessed.\n(10)\nAs regards the sum of the four substances (PAH4), lower bound concentrations should be used as the basis for compliance decisions.\n(11)\nMaximum levels for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons must be safe and as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) based upon good manufacturing and agricultural/fishery practices. The new PAH occurrence data show that background levels of PAH are lower than previously thought in some food commodities. Benzo(a)pyrene maximum levels have therefore been adapted to reflect more realistic lower background levels in fresh and smoked bivalve molluscs.\n(12)\nData for smoked fish and smoked meat have also shown that lower maximum levels are achievable. Nevertheless, adaptations of current smoking technology may be necessary in some cases. Therefore, a two step procedure should be established for smoked meat and smoked fish which grants a transition of two years from the date of application of this Regulation before lower maximum levels become applicable.\n(13)\nSmoked sprats and canned smoked sprats have been found to contain higher levels of PAH than other smoked fish. Specific maximum levels should be established for smoked sprats and canned smoked sprats in order to reflect what is achievable in these foodstuffs.\n(14)\nPreviously a maximum level for benzo(a)pyrene in \"muscle meat of fish other than smoked fish\" was established as an indicator for potential environmental pollution. Nevertheless, it has been shown that PAH are quickly metabolised in fresh fish and do not accumulate in the muscle meat. Therefore, maintaining a maximum level for PAH in fresh fish is no longer appropriate.\n(15)\nHigh levels of PAH have been found in some types of heat treated meat and heat treated meat products sold to the final consumer. These levels are avoidable if appropriate processing conditions and equipment are used. It is therefore appropriate to establish maximum levels for PAH in meat and meat products that have undergone a heat treatment process known to potentially result in formation of PAH, i.e. only grilling and barbecuing.\n(16)\nCocoa butter was temporarily exempted from the existing maximum level for benzo(a)pyrene in oils and fats under Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 and a review of the appropriateness of setting a maximum level for PAH in cocoa butter was foreseen by 1 April 2007. The review was then postponed pending the result of the then ongoing scientific re-assessment of PAH by EFSA.\n(17)\nCocoa butter contains higher levels of PAH than other oils and fats. This is mainly due to inappropriate drying practices of the cocoa beans and the fact that cocoa butter can not be refined as other vegetable oils and fats. Cocoa butter is a main constituent of cocoa raw products (e.g. cocoa beans, cocoa mass, cocoa nibs or cocoa liquor) and is present in chocolate and other cocoa products often consumed by children. It thereby contributes to human exposure, in particular to exposure of children. It is therefore necessary to establish maximum levels for PAH in cocoa beans and derived products, thereby also including cocoa butter.\n(18)\nMaximum levels for PAH in cocoa beans should be established at levels as low as reasonably achievable and taking into account the current technological possibilities of producing countries. They should be established on a fat basis since PAH concentrate in the fat fraction, the cocoa butter. To allow producing countries to make technological improvements in order to adapt to these maximum levels, the date of application of the maximum levels for cocoa beans and derived products should be deferred. Furthermore, initially a higher maximum level for the sum of the four substances should apply to these products. After a transition period of two years a lower maximum level should apply. The levels of PAH in cocoa beans and derived products should be regularly monitored with a view to assessing the possibility for further decreasing the maximum levels in future.\n(19)\nData have shown that coconut oil can contain higher amounts of PAH4 than other vegetable oils and fats. This is due to the proportionally higher presence of benz(a)anthracene and chrysene which can not be easily removed during refinement of coconut oil. Specific maximum levels for coconut oil should therefore be set at levels as low as reasonably achievable and taking into account the current technological possibilities of producing countries. As technological improvements in producing countries are expected, the levels of PAH in coconut oil should be regularly monitored with a view to assessing the possibility for setting lower levels in future.\n(20)\nCurrent occurrence data on PAH in cereals and vegetables are limited. The available data indicate that cereals and vegetables contain rather low levels of PAH. The low levels seen in the currently available occurrence data do not justify the immediate setting of maximum levels. Nevertheless, EFSA identified cereals and vegetables as being important contributors to human exposure due to their high consumption. Therefore, PAH levels in these two product groups should be further monitored. On the basis of further data, the need for setting maximum levels will be evaluated.\n(21)\nHigh levels of PAH have been found in some food supplements. Nevertheless, the levels are variable and depend on the specific type of food supplements. Further data on food supplements are needed and should be collected. Once these data become available, the need for setting maximum levels for PAH in food supplements will be evaluated.\n(22)\nMember States and food business operators should be allowed time to adapt to the maximum levels established by this Regulation. The date of application of this Regulation should therefore be deferred. A transitional period should be provided for the products already placed on the market before the date of application of the amendments introduced by this Regulation.\n(23)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\n1. Foodstuffs not complying with the maximum levels applicable from 1 September 2012 pursuant to Section 6 \"Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons\" of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, as amended by this Regulation, which are lawfully placed on the market prior to 1 September 2012, may continue to be marketed after that date until their date of minimum durability or use-by-date.\n2. Foodstuffs not complying with the maximum levels applicable from 1 September 2014 pursuant to points 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, as amended by this Regulation, which are lawfully placed on the market prior to 1 September 2014, may continue to be marketed after that date until their date of minimum durability or use-by-date.\n3. Foodstuffs not complying with the maximum levels applicable from 1 April 2013 pursuant to point 6.1.2 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, as amended by this Regulation, which are lawfully placed on the market prior to 1 April 2013, may continue to be marketed after that date until their date of minimum durability or use-by-date.\n4. Foodstuffs not complying with the maximum level applicable from 1 April 2015 pursuant to point 6.1.2 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, as amended by this Regulation, which are lawfully placed on the market prior to 1 April 2015, may continue to be marketed after that date until their date of minimum durability or use-by-date.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 September 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 August 2011.", "references": ["42", "10", "2", "32", "97", "76", "18", "86", "85", "15", "9", "96", "61", "50", "59", "0", "14", "75", "29", "64", "43", "48", "1", "93", "44", "26", "80", "90", "16", "54", "No Label", "25", "38", "60", "72", "83"], "gold": ["25", "38", "60", "72", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 29 November 2010\nappointing a Finnish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions\n(2010/733/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Finnish Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).\n(2)\nAn alternate member\u2019s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the mandate of Mr Miikka SEPP\u00c4L\u00c4,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as alternate member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\nMr Antero SAKSALA\nPirkkalan kunnanvaltuuston j\u00e4sen\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 29 November 2010.", "references": ["13", "3", "79", "39", "30", "26", "77", "9", "29", "98", "88", "87", "15", "25", "34", "85", "38", "27", "4", "49", "81", "75", "23", "36", "61", "89", "41", "64", "84", "45", "No Label", "7", "52", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "52", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 310/2011\nof 28 March 2011\namending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for aldicarb, bromopropylate, chlorfenvinphos, endosulfan, EPTC, ethion, fenthion, fomesafen, methabenzthiazuron, methidathion, simazine, tetradifon and triforine in or on certain products\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor aldicarb, bromopropylate, chlorfenvinphos, endosulfan, EPTC, ethion, fenthion, methidathion, simazine and triforine maximum residue levels (MRLs) are set in Annex II and Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For fomesafen, methabenzthiazuron and tetradifon MRLs were set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(2)\nThe non-inclusion of aldicarb in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is provided for in Council Decision 2003/199/EC (3) and certain Member States were authorised to grant a period of grace expiring no later than 31 December 2007. The non-inclusion of bromopropylate, chlorfenvinphos, EPTC, ethion, fomesafen, tetradifon and triforine is provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2076/2002 (4) and certain Member States were authorised to grant a period of grace expiring no later than 31 December 2007. The non-inclusion of endosulfan in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is provided for in Commission Decision 2005/864/EC (5) and certain Member States were authorised to grant a period of grace expiring no later than 31 December 2007. The non-inclusion of fenthion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is provided for in Commission Decision 2004/140/EC (6) and certain Member States were authorised to grant a period of grace expiring no later than 31 December 2007. The non-inclusion of methabenzthiazuron in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is provided for in Commission Decision 2006/302/EC (7) and certain Member States were authorised to grant a period of grace expiring no later than 31 December 2009. The non-inclusion of methidathion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is provided for in Commission Decision 2004/129/EC (8) and certain Member States were authorised to grant a period of grace expiring no later than 31 December 2007.The non-inclusion of simazine in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is provided for in Commission Decision 2004/247/EC (9) and certain Member States were authorised to grant a period of grace expiring no later than 31 December 2007.\n(3)\nSince those periods of grace have expired, it is appropriate to lower the MRLs of those substances to the relevant level of analytical determination (LOD). This should not apply to CXLs based on uses in third countries, provided that those CXLs are acceptable with regard to consumer safety. Nor should it apply in cases where MRLs have been specifically set as import tolerances.\n(4)\nThe Commission asked the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019, to give an opinion on CXLs based on uses in third countries for bromopropylate, methidathion and triforine, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and, where relevant, to animals. The Authority gave reasoned opinions on those substances and forwarded them to the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public.\n(5)\nIn its opinion of 31 May 2010 (10) concerning bromopropylate the Authority concluded that the existing CXLs for citrus fruit, pome fruit and grapes cannot be considered acceptable with regard to consumer exposure. Therefore the current MRLs for these crops should be lowered to the relevant LOD.\n(6)\nIn its opinion of 31 May 2010 (11) concerning Methidathion the Authority concluded that the available data do not support the existing MRLs on citrus fruit, cherries, peaches, plums, olives, onions, tomatoes, cucumber, head cabbage, dry peas, rape seed, sunflower seed, maize, tea, pome fruit and pineapples. As regards pome fruit and pineapples, however, the Authority proposed new MRLs, based on the available data. In respect of peas with pods and hops, the Authority concluded that the existing MRLs are obsolete and no longer required for international trade. Therefore the current MRLs for all these crops should be amended accordingly.\n(7)\nIn its opinion of 31 May 2010 (12) concerning triforine the Authority concluded that the available data do not support the existing MRLs on pome fruit, stone fruit, currants, gooseberries, cucurbits (edible peel), barley, oats, rye, wheat and hops. Therefore the current MRLs for these crops should be lowered to the relevant LOD.\n(8)\nThe Commission consulted the European Union reference laboratories for residues of pesticides as regards the need to adapt certain LODs. As regards bromopropylate, EPTC, fenthion, methabenzthiazuron, simazine, tetradifon and triforine, those laboratories concluded that for certain commodities technical development permits the setting of lower LODs. Furthermore, those laboratories advised to increase the LOD for aldicarb in tree nuts and bulb vegetables, for chlorfenvinphos in tree nuts, bulb vegetables, oilseeds and oil fruits, for endosulfan in bulb vegetables, for ethion in tree nuts, bulb vegetables, tea, coffee, herbal infusions and cocoa, hops and spices, for fenthion in tree nuts and bulb vegetables, for fomesafen in tree nuts, bulb vegetables, oilseeds and oil fruits, tea, coffee, herbal infusions and cocoa, hops and spices and for Methidathion in bulb vegetables, oilseeds and oil fruits.\n(9)\nBased on the reasoned opinions of the Authority and on the technical advice of those laboratories and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(10)\nThrough the World Trade Organisation, the trading partners of the Union were consulted on the new MRLs and their comments have been taken into account.\n(11)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before the modified MRLs become applicable in order to permit third countries and food business operators to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the modification of the MRLs.\n(12)\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(13)\nIn order to allow for the normal marketing, processing and consumption of products, the Regulation provides for a transitional arrangement for products which have been lawfully produced before the modification of the MRLs and for which the Authority\u2019s model for acute and chronic risk assessment shows that a high level of consumer protection is maintained.\n(14)\nThe 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,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAs regards the active substances and the products set out in the following list, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as it stood before being amended by this Regulation shall continue to apply to products which were lawfully produced before 21 October 2011:\n(a) aldicarb: cereals;\n(b) bromopropylate: quinces jelly, wine, raisins, tomato juice, preserved tomatoes, beans, herbal infusions (flowers);\n(c) chlorfenvinphos: cultivated fungi;\n(d) endosulfan: preserved tomatoes, wine, raisins, pear juice, tomato juice, grapes juice, herbal infusions (flowers, leaves, roots);\n(e) EPTC: potato flakes, fried potatoes, maize, sunflower seeds, legume vegetables;\n(f) ethion: azarole juice, cherimoya juice, guava juice, lentils, bamboo shoots, dried herbs (sage, rosemary, thyme, basil, bay leaves and tarragon);\n(g) fenthion: olive oil;\n(h) fomesafen: beans and peas (with and without pods, pulses), soya beans;\n(i) methabenzthiazuron: all vegetables;\n(j) methidathion: all fruit and vegetables except for citrus fruit; dry peas, maize, sorghum, sunflower seeds and rape seeds;\n(k) simazine: all fruit and vegetables, pulses, oilseeds and oil fruits, cereals;\n(l) tetradifon: wine, raisins, pulses;\n(m) triforine: all fruit and vegetables except for pome fruit.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 21 October 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 March 2011.", "references": ["3", "63", "99", "69", "89", "64", "35", "4", "37", "53", "81", "90", "96", "26", "92", "50", "18", "79", "33", "57", "73", "61", "46", "71", "20", "24", "78", "85", "59", "84", "No Label", "38", "65", "66", "72", "76"], "gold": ["38", "65", "66", "72", "76"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 28 June 2010\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program\n(2010/411/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 87(2)(a) and 88(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nBy decision of 11 May 2010, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations on behalf of the European Union between the Union and the United States to make available to the United States Treasury Department financial messaging data to prevent and combat terrorism and terrorism financing. The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (\u2018the Agreement\u2019).\n(2)\nThe Agreement should be signed, subject to its conclusion at a later stage.\n(3)\nThe Agreement respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably the right to private and family life, recognised in Article 7 of the Charter, the right to the protection of personal data, recognised in Article 8 of the Charter and the right to effective remedy and fair trial recognised in Article 47 of the Charter. The Agreement should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.\n(4)\nIn accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.\n(5)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application, without prejudice to its rights under the Protocol with respect to the Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement.\n(6)\nIn accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (1) (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 28 June 2010.", "references": ["38", "13", "11", "50", "22", "67", "7", "78", "10", "58", "32", "4", "47", "60", "87", "30", "66", "89", "84", "94", "0", "80", "29", "86", "33", "18", "59", "92", "19", "68", "No Label", "1", "3", "9", "31", "40", "41", "42", "93", "96", "97"], "gold": ["1", "3", "9", "31", "40", "41", "42", "93", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 636/2010\nof 19 July 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 20 July 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 July 2010.", "references": ["76", "54", "8", "36", "9", "80", "42", "81", "1", "15", "53", "67", "78", "48", "87", "88", "74", "99", "6", "0", "26", "31", "20", "85", "47", "55", "17", "18", "98", "66", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 556/2012\nof 26 June 2012\namending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for spinosad in or on raspberries\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 18(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nFor spinosad maximum residue levels (MRLs) are set in Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (2), France notified on 11 May 2012 to the Commission the temporary authorisation of plant protection products containing the active substance spinosad, due to an unexpected outbreak of Drosophila suzukii, a danger that was unforeseeable and could not be contained by any other reasonable means. Consequently, France has also notified to the other Member States, the Commission and The European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter \"the Authority\", in accordance with Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 that it has authorised the placing on the market in its territory of raspberries containing pesticide residues exceeding the relevant MRL. Currently, that MRL is set at 0,3.\n(3)\nFrance submitted to the Commission an appropriate consumer risk assesment and proposed a temporary MRL on that basis.\n(4)\nThe Authority assessed the data provided and issued a statement (3) on the safety of the proposed temporary MRL.\n(5)\nThe Authority concluded that the use of spinosad on raspberries, as authorised in France, is not likely to result in a consumer exposure exceeding the toxicological reference value and therefore is not expected to pose a public health concern.\n(6)\nBased on the statement of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modification to the MRL fulfil the requirements of Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(7)\nRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(8)\nGiven that the emergency uses of plant protection products containing spinosad are already authorized by France and the resulting urgent need to ensure a high level of consumer protection, it is appropriate to provide for the MRL by applying the procedure referred to in Article 45(5) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.\n(9)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the next day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 26 June 2012.", "references": ["0", "70", "46", "97", "26", "91", "89", "92", "73", "19", "85", "23", "8", "83", "35", "75", "69", "4", "44", "82", "42", "79", "33", "67", "21", "10", "13", "54", "51", "93", "No Label", "24", "25", "38", "65", "68"], "gold": ["24", "25", "38", "65", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 878/2011\nof 2 September 2011\namending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union,\nHaving regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2).\n(2)\nCouncil Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP (3) provides for further measures to be adopted including a prohibition on the purchase, import or transportation from Syria of crude oil and petroleum products, and the freezing of funds and economic resources to further persons and entities who benefit from or support the regime. The additional persons, entities and bodies to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources is to apply are listed in the Annex to that Decision.\n(3)\nSome of those measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement them.\n(4)\nA partial suspension of the Cooperation Agreement Syria (4) has been effected by Council Decision 2011/523/EU of 2 September 2011 (5).\n(5)\nIn order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately.\n(6)\nIt should be clarified that submitting and forwarding the necessary documents to a bank for the purpose of their final transfer to a person, entity or body that is not listed, to trigger payments allowed under Article 9 of this Regulation, does not constitute making funds available within the meaning of Article 4(2) of this Regulation,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EU) No 442/2011 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1, the following points are inserted:\n\u2018(g)\n\u201cinsurance\u201d means an undertaking or commitment whereby one or more natural or legal persons are obliged, in return for payment, to provide one or more other persons, in the event of materialisation of a risk, with an indemnity or a benefit as determined by the undertaking or commitment;\n(h)\n\u201creinsurance\u201d means the activity consisting in accepting risks ceded by an insurance undertaking or by another reinsurance undertaking or, in the case of the association of underwriters known as Lloyd\u2019s, the activity consisting in accepting risks, ceded by any member of Lloyd\u2019s, by an insurance or reinsurance undertaking other than the association of underwriters known as Lloyd\u2019s;\n(i)\n\u201cpetroleum products\u201d means the products listed in Annex IV.\u2019;\n(2)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\u2018Article 3a\nIt shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nto import crude oil or petroleum products into the Union if they:\n(i)\noriginate in Syria; or\n(ii)\nhave been exported from Syria;\n(b)\nto purchase crude oil or petroleum products which are located in or which originated in Syria;\n(c)\nto transport crude oil or petroleum products if they originate in Syria, or are being exported from Syria to any other country;\n(d)\nto provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, including financial derivatives, as well as insurance and re-insurance, related to the prohibitions set out in points (a), (b) and (c); and\n(e)\nto participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities whose object or effect is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the prohibitions in point (a), (b), (c) or (d).\nArticle 3b\nThe prohibitions in Article 3a shall not apply to:\n(a)\nthe execution, on or prior to 15 November 2011, of an obligation arising from a contract concluded before 2 September 2011, provided that the natural or legal person, entity or body seeking to perform the obligation concerned has notified, at least 7 working days in advance, the activity or transaction to the competent authority of the Member State in which it is established, as identified on the websites listed in Annex III; or\n(b)\nthe purchase of crude oil or petroleum products which had been exported from Syria prior to 2 September 2011, or, where the export was made pursuant to point (a), on or prior to 15 November 2011.\u2019;\n(3)\nArticle 5(1) is replaced by the following:\n\u20181. Annex II shall consist of a list of natural or legal persons, entities and bodies which, in accordance with Article 4(1) of Decision 2011/273/CFSP, have been identified by the Council as being persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime, or persons and entities associated with them.\u2019;\n(4)\nArticle 6 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nin the first paragraph, points (c) and (d) are replaced by the following:\n\u2018(c)\nintended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources;\n(d)\nnecessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the relevant competent authority has notified to the competent authorities of the other Member States and to the Commission at least 2 weeks before the authorisation the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted;\u2019;\n(b)\nin the first paragraph, the following points are added:\n\u2018(e)\nto be paid into or from an account of a diplomatic or consular mission or an international organisation enjoying immunities in accordance with international law, insofar as such payments are intended to be used for official purposes of the diplomatic or consular mission or international organisation; or\n(f)\nnecessary for humanitarian purposes, such as the delivery and facilitation of delivery of humanitarian aid, the delivery of materials and supplies necessary for essential civilian needs, including food and agricultural materials for its production, medical products, or for evacuations from Syria.\u2019;\n(c)\nthe second paragraph is replaced by the following:\n\u2018The Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this Article, within 4 weeks following the authorisation.\u2019;\n(5)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\u2018Article 10a\nNo claims, including for compensation or any other claim of this kind, such as a claim of set-off or a claim under a guarantee, in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which was affected, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the measures imposed by this Regulation, should be granted to the Government of Syria, or to any person or entity claiming through it or for its benefit.\u2019.\nArticle 2\nAnnex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 is hereby amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 3\nAnnex II to this Regulation is hereby inserted as Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 2 September 2011.", "references": ["67", "58", "65", "36", "32", "78", "63", "15", "61", "49", "33", "4", "26", "86", "0", "6", "10", "85", "56", "53", "2", "79", "30", "90", "13", "11", "17", "50", "12", "94", "No Label", "3", "23", "80", "95"], "gold": ["3", "23", "80", "95"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 24 February 2011\non the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Democratic Republic of S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe\n(2011/296/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 23 July 2007, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 894/2007 on the conclusion of a Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Democratic Republic of S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe and the European Community (1) (the \u2018Agreement\u2019). A Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Agreement (2) (the \u2018former Protocol\u2019) was attached thereto. That former Protocol expired on 31 May 2010.\n(2)\nThe Union therefore negotiated a new Protocol (the \u2018Protocol\u2019) setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with the Democratic Republic of S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe, providing Union vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters over which the Democratic Republic of S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe has sovereignty or jurisdiction in respect of fisheries.\n(3)\nAs a result of those negotiations, the Protocol was initialled on 15 July 2010.\n(4)\nThe Protocol should be applied provisionally from the date of its signing, as provided for in Article 13 thereof.\n(5)\nGiven that the old Protocol has expired, and in order to guarantee a timely resumption of fishing activities by Union vessels, it is essential that the new Protocol be applied as quickly as possible.\n(6)\nThe Protocol should therefore be signed and provisionally applied, pending the completion of the procedures necessary for is conclusion,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe signing of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Democratic Republic of S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe (the \u2018Protocol\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol in order to bind the European Union, subject to its conclusion.\nArticle 3\nThe Protocol shall be applied provisionally from the date of its signing, as provided for in Article 13 thereof, pending the completion of the procedures necessary for is conclusion (3).\nArticle 4\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 24 February 2011.", "references": ["74", "45", "88", "31", "10", "79", "78", "2", "46", "47", "30", "77", "26", "39", "62", "54", "35", "93", "61", "90", "69", "72", "20", "50", "0", "89", "65", "6", "18", "52", "No Label", "3", "16", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "16", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 517/2010\nof 15 June 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 June 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2010.", "references": ["55", "6", "30", "3", "43", "56", "32", "75", "34", "46", "7", "91", "78", "88", "99", "48", "23", "28", "95", "38", "45", "21", "27", "96", "58", "65", "59", "41", "81", "29", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 359/2012\nof 25 April 2012\napproving the active substance metam, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) and Article 78(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (3). Metam is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.\n(2)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish lists of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. These lists included metam. By Council Decision 2009/562/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of metam in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (6) it was decided not to include metam in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to Belgium, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as those that were the subject of Decision 2009/562/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nBelgium evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 31 August 2010.\n(6)\nThe Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on metam to the Commission on 8 August 2011 (7). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 9 March 2012 in the format of the Commission review report for metam.\n(7)\nThe additional report by the rapporteur Member State and the new conclusions by the Authority concentrate on the concerns that led to the non-inclusion. Those concerns were in particular that it was not possible to demonstrate the acceptability of consumer exposure and lack of data with respect to the behaviour in the environment of the impurity N,N-dimethylthiourea (DMTU).\n(8)\nThe new information submitted by the applicant shows that the exposure of consumers may be considered acceptable and the behaviour of DMTU in the environment will not result in unacceptable effects.\n(9)\nConsequently, the additional information provided by the applicant permits to eliminate the specific concerns that led to the non-inclusion.\n(10)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing metam may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular as regards the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve metam in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n(11)\nIn accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions.\n(12)\nWithout prejudice to the conclusion that metam should be approved, it is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.\n(13)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before approval in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the approval.\n(14)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as a consequence of the approval, taking into account the specific situation created by the transition from Directive 91/414/EEC to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the following should, however, apply. Member States should be allowed a period after approval to review authorisations of plant protection products containing metam which have been maintained for certain uses in accordance with Article 3 of Decision 2009/562/EC. For the calculation of that period that provision is to be taken into account. Member States should, as appropriate, vary, replace or withdraw existing authorisations.\n(15)\nFor plant protection products containing metam, where Member States grant any period of grace in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Article 4 of Decision 2009/562/EC should be taken into account for the calculation of that period. Hence, such a period of grace should expire at the latest by 31 December 2014.\n(16)\nThe experience gained from inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (8) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I to that Directive or to the Regulations approving active substances.\n(17)\nIn accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (9) should be amended accordingly.\n(18)\nIn the interest of clarity, Decision 2009/562/EC should be repealed.\n(19)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nApproval of active substance\nThe active substance metam, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nRe-evaluation of plant protection products\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing metam as an active substance by 31 December 2014.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to this Regulation are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the column on specific provisions of that Annex, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC in accordance with the conditions of Article 13(1) to (4) of that Directive and Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing metam as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances, all of which were listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, by 30 June 2012 Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC and taking into account Part B of the column on specific provisions of Annex I to this Regulation. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing metam as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 June 2016;\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing metam as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 30 June 2016 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective act or acts which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC or approved that substance or substances, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 3\nGrace period\nWhere Member States withdraw or amend an existing authorisation in accordance with Article 2(1), any grace period granted by Member States in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 shall be as short as possible and shall expire by 31 December 2014 at the latest.\nArticle 4\nAmendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011\nThe Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.\nArticle 5\nRepeal\nDecision 2009/562/EC is repealed.\nArticle 6\nEntry into force and date of application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 July 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 April 2012.", "references": ["68", "31", "0", "90", "58", "47", "57", "49", "4", "2", "63", "88", "46", "30", "79", "42", "87", "69", "75", "83", "80", "13", "76", "51", "97", "74", "3", "55", "50", "27", "No Label", "20", "25", "61", "65"], "gold": ["20", "25", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION 2012/35/CFSP\nof 23 January 2012\namending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 27 February 2007, the Council adopted Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1) which implemented United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1737 (2006).\n(2)\nOn 23 April 2007, the Council adopted Common Position 2007/246/CFSP (2) which implemented UNSCR 1747 (2007).\n(3)\nOn 7 August 2008, the Council adopted Common Position 2008/652/CFSP (3) which implemented UNSCR 1803 (2008).\n(4)\nOn 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP (4) which implemented UNSCR 1929 (2010).\n(5)\nOn 1 December 2011, the Council reiterated its serious and deepening concerns over the nature of Iran's nuclear programme, and in particular over the findings on Iranian activities relating to the development of military nuclear technology, as reflected in the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report. In the light of these concerns and in accordance with the European Council Declaration of 23 October 2011, the Council agreed to broaden existing sanctions by examining, in close coordination with international partners, additional measures including measures aimed at severely affecting the Iranian financial system, in the transport sector, in the energy sector, measures against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), as well as in other areas.\n(6)\nOn 9 December 2011, the European Council endorsed the Council conclusions of 1 December 2011 and invited the Council to proceed with its work relating to extending the scope of the Union's restrictive measures against Iran as a matter of priority.\n(7)\nIn this context, it is appropriate to prohibit or control the supply, sale or transfer to Iran of additional items, materials, equipment, goods and technology, that could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems or to the pursuit of activities related to other topics about which the IAEA has expressed concerns or identified as outstanding, or to other weapons of mass destruction programmes. This prohibition should include dual-use goods and technology.\n(8)\nRecalling the potential connection between Iran's revenues derived from its energy sector and the funding of Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities and that chemical process equipment and materials required for the petrochemical industry have much in common with those required for certain sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities, as underlined in UNSCR 1929 (2010), the sale, supply or transfer to Iran of further key equipment and technology which could be used in key sectors in the oil and natural gas industry or, in the petrochemical industry, should be prohibited. Moreover, Member States should prohibit any new investment in the petrochemical sector in Iran.\n(9)\nIn addition, the purchase, import or transport from Iran of crude oil and petroleum products, as well as of petrochemical products, should be prohibited.\n(10)\nMoreover, the sale, purchase, transportation or brokering of gold, precious metals and diamonds to, from or for the Government of Iran should be prohibited.\n(11)\nIn addition, the delivery of newly printed or minted or unissued Iranian denominated banknotes and coinage to or for the benefit of the Central Bank of Iran should be prohibited.\n(12)\nFurthermore, restrictive measures should be imposed against the Central Bank of Iran in view of its involvement in activities to circumvent sanctions imposed against Iran.\n(13)\nThe restrictions on admission and the freezing of funds and economic resources should be applied to additional persons and entities providing support to the Government of Iran allowing it to pursue proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, in particular persons and entities providing financial, logistical or material support to the Government of Iran.\n(14)\nThe restrictions on admission and the freezing of funds applied to members of the IRGC should no longer be restricted to senior members but could apply to other members of the IRGC.\n(15)\nMoreover, additional persons and entities should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.\n(16)\nFurther action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nCouncil Decision 2010/413/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:\n(1)\nin Article 1(1), point (e) is replaced by the following:\n\"(e)\nother dual-use goods and technology listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (5) and not covered by point (a) except for certain items in category 5 - Part 1 and category 5 - Part 2 in Annex I to that Regulation.\n(2)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\"Article 3a\n1. The import, purchase or transport of Iranian crude oil and petroleum products shall be prohibited.\nThe Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this provision.\n2. It shall be prohibited to provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, including financial derivatives, as well as insurance and reinsurance, related to the import, purchase, or transport of Iranian crude oil and petroleum products.\nArticle 3b\n1. The import, purchase or transport of Iranian petrochemical products shall be prohibited.\nThe Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this provision.\n2. It shall be prohibited to provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, as well as insurance and reinsurance, related to the import, purchase, or transport of Iranian petrochemical products\nArticle 3c\n1. The prohibitions set out in Article 3a shall be without prejudice to the execution, until 1 July 2012, of contracts concluded before 23 January 2012 or ancillary contracts necessary for the execution of such contracts, to be concluded and executed not later than 1 July 2012.\n2. The prohibitions set out in Article 3a shall be without prejudice to the execution of obligations provided for in contracts concluded before 23 January 2012 or in ancillary contracts necessary for the execution of such obligations where the supply of Iranian crude oil and petroleum products or the proceeds derived from their supply are for the reimbursement of outstanding amounts with respect to contracts concluded before 23 January 2012 to persons or entities within the territories of Member States or under their jurisdiction, where those contracts specifically provide for such reimbursements.\nArticle 3d\n1. The prohibitions set out in Article 3b shall be without prejudice to the execution, until 1 May 2012, of contracts concluded before 23 January 2012 or in ancillary contracts necessary for the execution of such contracts, to be concluded and executed not later than 1 May 2012.\n2. The prohibitions set out in Article 3b shall be without prejudice to the execution of obligations provided for in contracts concluded before 23 January 2012 or in ancillary contracts necessary for the execution of such obligations where the supply of petrochemical products or the proceeds derived from the supply of these products are for the reimbursement of outstanding amounts with respect to contracts concluded before 23 January 2012 to persons or entities within the territories of Member States or under their jurisdiction, where those contracts specifically provide for such reimbursements.\";\n(3)\nthe following Articles are inserted:\n\"Article 4a\n1. The sale, supply or transfer of key equipment and technology for the petrochemical industry in Iran, or to Iranian or Iranian-owned enterprises engaged in that industry outside Iran, by nationals of Member States, or from the territories of Member States, or using vessels or aircraft under the jurisdiction of Member States shall be prohibited whether or not originating in their territories.\nThe Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this provision.\n2. It shall be prohibited to provide the following to enterprises in Iran that are engaged in the Iranian petrochemical industry or to Iranian, or Iranian-owned enterprises engaged in that industry outside Iran:\n(a)\ntechnical assistance or training and other services related to key equipment and technology as determined according to paragraph 1;\n(b)\nfinancing or financial assistance for any sale, supply, transfer or export of key equipment and technology as determined according to paragraph 1 or for the provision of related technical assistance or training.\n3. It shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly or intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.\nArticle 4b\n1. The prohibition in Article 4(1) shall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation relating to the delivery of goods provided for in contracts concluded before 26 July 2010.\n2. The prohibitions in Article 4 shall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts concluded before 26 July 2010 and relating to investments made in Iran before the same date by enterprises established in Member States.\n3. The prohibition in Article 4a(1) shall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation relating to the delivery of goods provided for in contracts concluded before 23 January 2012.\n4. The prohibitions in Article 4a shall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts concluded before 23 January 2012 and relating to investments made in Iran before the same date by enterprises established in Member States.\nArticle 4c\nThe direct or indirect sale, purchase, transportation or brokering of gold and precious metals, as well as of diamonds, to, from or for the Government of Iran, its public bodies, corporations and agencies, the Central Bank of Iran, as well as to, from or for persons and entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them shall be prohibited.\nThe Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this provision.\nArticle 4d\nThe delivery of newly printed or minted or unissued Iranian denominated banknotes and coinage to or for the benefit of the Central Bank of Iran shall be prohibited.\";\n(4)\nthe following Article is inserted:\n\"Article 6a\nThe following shall be prohibited:\n(a)\nthe granting of any financial loan or credit to enterprises in Iran that are engaged in the Iranian petrochemical industry or to Iranian or Iranian-owned enterprises engaged in that industry outside Iran;\n(b)\nthe acquisition or extension of a participation in enterprises in Iran that are engaged in the Iranian petrochemical industry, or to Iranian or Iranian-owned enterprises engaged in that industry outside Iran, including the acquisition in full of such enterprises and the acquisition of shares and securities of a participating nature;\n(c)\nthe creation of any joint venture with enterprises in Iran that are engaged in the Iranian petrochemical industry and with any subsidiary or affiliate under their control.\";\n(5)\nArticle 7 is replaced by the following:\n\"Article 7\n1. The prohibitions in Article 6(a) and (b) respectively:\n(i)\nshall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts or agreements concluded before 26 July 2010;\n(ii)\nshall not prevent the extension of a participation, if such extension is an obligation under an agreement concluded before 26 July 2010.\n2. The prohibitions in Article 6a(a) and (b) respectively:\n(i)\nshall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts or agreements concluded before 23 January 2012;\n(ii)\nshall not prevent the extension of a participation, if such extension is an obligation under an agreement concluded before 23 January 2012.\";\n(6)\nArticle 19(1) is amended as follows:\n(a)\npoint (b) is replaced by the following:\n\"(b)\nother persons not covered by Annex I that are engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support for Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, including through the involvement in procurement of the prohibited items, goods, equipment, materials and technology, or persons acting on their behalf or at their direction, or persons that have assisted designated persons or entities in evading or violating the provisions of UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) and UNSCR 1929 (2010) or this Decision as well as other members of the IRGC, as listed in Annex II.\";\n(b)\nthe following point is added:\n\"(c)\nother persons not covered by Annex I that provide support to the Government of Iran, and persons associated with them, as listed in Annex II.\";\n(7)\nArticle 20 is amended as follows:\n(a)\nparagraph 1 is amended as follows:\n(i)\npoint (b) is replaced by the following:\n\"(b)\npersons and entities not covered by Annex I that are engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support for, Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, including through the involvement in procurement of the prohibited items, goods, equipment, materials and technology, or persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them, including through illicit means, or persons and entities that have assisted designated persons or entities in evading or violating the provisions of UNSCR 1737 (2006), UNSCR 1747 (2007), UNSCR 1803 (2008) and UNSCR 1929 (2010) or this Decision as well as other members and entities of IRGC and IRISL and entities owned or controlled by them or acting on their behalf, as listed in Annex II.\";\n(ii)\nthe following point is added:\n\"(c)\nother persons and entities not covered by Annex I that provide support to the Government of Iran, and persons and entities associated with them, as listed in Annex II.\";\n(b)\nthe following paragraph is inserted:\n\"4a. With regard to persons and entities listed in Annex II, exemptions may also be made for funds and economic resources which are to be paid into or from an account of a diplomatic or consular mission or an international organisation enjoying immunities in accordance with international law, in so far as such payments are intended to be used for official purposes of the diplomatic or consular mission or international organisation.\";\n(c)\nthe following paragraphs are added:\n\"7. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to a transfer by or through the Central Bank of Iran of funds or economic resources received and frozen after the date of its designation or to a transfer of funds or economic resources to or through the Central Bank of Iran after the date of its designation where such transfer is related to a payment by a non-designated financial institution due in connection with a specific trade contract, provided that the relevant Member State has determined, on a case-by-case basis, that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1.\n8. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to a transfer by or through the Central Bank of Iran of frozen funds or economic resources where such transfer is for the purpose of providing financial institutions under the jurisdiction of Member States with liquidity for the financing of trade, provided that the transfer has been authorised by the relevant Member State.;\n9. Paragraph 2 shall be without prejudice to payments to the Central Bank of Iran in connection with the execution of contracts in conformity with Articles 3a, 3b, 3c or 3d.\n10. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent Bank Tejarat listed in Annex II, for a period of two months after the date of its designation, from making a payment from funds or economic resources received and frozen after the date of its designation or from receiving a payment after the date of its designation, where such payment is due in connection with a specific trade contract, provided that the relevant Member State has determined, on a case-by-case basis, that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1.\n11. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 are without prejudice to paragraphs 3, 4, 4a, 5 and 6 of this Article and to Article 10(3).\";\n(8)\nin Article 24, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\"2. Where the Council decides to subject a person or entity to the measures referred to in Articles 19(1)(b) and (c) and 20(1)(b) and (c), it shall amend Annex II accordingly.\";\n(9)\nin Article 25, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:\n\"2. Annexes I and II shall also include, where available, information necessary to identify the persons or entities concerned, as provided by the Security Council or by the Committee in respect of Annex I. With regard to persons, such information may include names including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, if known and function or profession. With regard to entities such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business. Annexes I and II shall also include the date of designation.\";\n(10)\nin Article 26, paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:\n\"2. The measures concerning the prohibition on import, purchase or transport of Iranian crude oil and petroleum products in Article 3a shall be reviewed not later than 1 May 2012, in particular taking due account of the availability and the financial conditions for the supply of crude oil and petroleum products produced in countries other than Iran, with a view to ensuring the continuity of energy supply of Member States.\n3. The measures referred to in Articles 19(1)(b) and (c) and 20(1)(b) and (c) shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months. They shall cease to apply in respect of the persons and entities concerned if the Council determines, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24, that the conditions for their application are no longer met.\".\nArticle 2\n1. The persons and entities listed in Annex I to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.\n2. The entity listed in Annex II to this Decision shall be removed from the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.\n3. The entries in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP shall be amended as set out in Annex III to this Decision.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 23 January 2012.", "references": ["51", "60", "34", "66", "86", "88", "62", "36", "24", "31", "81", "15", "52", "6", "85", "67", "77", "87", "40", "98", "74", "30", "16", "99", "61", "73", "56", "38", "57", "93", "No Label", "3", "5", "23", "76", "79", "80", "84", "95"], "gold": ["3", "5", "23", "76", "79", "80", "84", "95"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1018/2010\nof 10 November 2010\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 11 November 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 November 2010.", "references": ["8", "5", "75", "87", "45", "80", "30", "42", "32", "83", "44", "23", "1", "71", "56", "3", "98", "9", "10", "73", "51", "72", "69", "89", "64", "16", "25", "0", "12", "70", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 9 August 2010\nimplementing Council Decision 2000/258/EC as regards proficiency tests for the purposes of maintaining authorisations of laboratories to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines\n(notified under document C(2010) 5421)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2010/436/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2000/258/EC of 20 March 2000 designating a specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines (1), and in particular Article 3(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDecision 2000/258/EC designates the laboratory of the Agence fran\u00e7aise de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire des aliments de Nancy (\u2018AFSSA, Nancy\u2019), as the specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines. That Decision also lays down the duties of that laboratory.\n(2)\nIn particular, AFSSA, Nancy is to appraise the laboratories in Member States and third countries for the purposes of their authorisation to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines. In addition, AFSSA, Nancy is to organise inter-laboratory aptitude tests (proficiency tests).\n(3)\nIn view of maintaining the authorisation granted to such laboratories, AFSSA, Nancy has, since the year 2000, been organising proficiency tests at least once per year.\n(4)\nExperience has shown that those proficiency tests provide an effective system of monitoring the laboratories which carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines.\n(5)\nArticle 3 of Decision 2000/258/EC does not include any provisions concerning the maintenance of authorisations already granted to laboratories in Member States or in third countries to carry out such serological tests.\n(6)\nIn order to ensure the uniform application of that Article, it is appropriate to make the maintenance of those authorisations dependant on appraisal reports established by AFSSA, Nancy following the proficiency tests of the laboratories concerned.\n(7)\nIt is therefore appropriate to lay down rules for the regular carrying out of the proficiency tests by AFSSA, Nancy, as well as for the drawing up of the appraisal reports.\n(8)\nThe carrying out of the proficiency tests by AFSSA, Nancy is currently included in the yearly approved work programme for that laboratory. That work programme benefits from financial aid from the Union, granted pursuant to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (2).\n(9)\nFrom 1 January 2011, the costs incurred by AFSSA, Nancy for carrying out proficiency tests should no longer be covered by such financial aid from the Union. However, in order to ensure that it has adequate resources to carry out proficiency tests, AFSSA, Nancy should charge certain fees to the laboratories which take part in those tests.\n(10)\nThose fees should be fixed by AFSSA, Nancy taking into account the criteria laid down in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (3).\n(11)\nThe laboratories in the Member States authorised to perform analysis to check the effectiveness of vaccination against rabies in certain domestic carnivores have been listed in Annex I to Commission Decision 2004/233/EC (4).\n(12)\nHowever, Decision 2000/258/EC, as amended by Council Directive 2008/73/EC (5), provides that the competent authorities of the Member States may, from 1 January 2010, authorise laboratories to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines. That Decision also provides that Member States are to draw up and keep up to date a list of those laboratories that they have authorised and make it available to the other Member States and to the public.\n(13)\nDecision 2004/233/EC has therefore become obsolete and should be repealed for the sake of clarity of Union legislation.\n(14)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nAnnual proficiency test\n1. Each laboratory in a Member State or a third country which is authorised for carrying out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines in accordance with Article 3(1) and (2) of Decision 2000/258/EC shall undergo a proficiency test each year.\n2. That proficiency test shall be carried out by the laboratory of the Agence fran\u00e7aise de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sanitaire des aliments de Nancy (\u2018AFSSA, Nancy\u2019).\n3. Following each proficiency test as referred to in paragraph 1, AFSSA, Nancy shall submit, at the latest by 31 October of the same year, the respective appraisal report to:\n(a)\nthe corresponding laboratory which underwent the proficiency test;\n(b)\nthe competent authority of the Member State; where the laboratory referred to in point (a) is located, in the case of a laboratory authorised in accordance with Article 3(1) of Decision 2000/258/EC;\n(c)\nthe Commission, in the case of a laboratory referred to in point (a) authorised in accordance with Article 3(2) of Decision 2000/258/EC.\n4. By way of derogation from the deadline referred to in paragraph 3, an unfavourable report shall be submitted within 30 days after the appraisal.\nArticle 2\nMaintaining the authorisations granted to laboratories in the Member States\nThe authorisation granted to a laboratory in a Member State in accordance with Article 3(1) of Decision 2000/258/EC shall be maintained provided that the appraisal report established by AFSSA, Nancy following the proficiency test provided for in Article 1 is favourable.\nArticle 3\nMaintaining the authorisations granted to laboratories in third countries\nThe authorisation granted to a laboratory in a third country in accordance with Article 3(2) of Decision 2000/258/EC shall be maintained provided that the appraisal report established by AFSSA, Nancy following the proficiency test provided for in Article 1 is favourable.\nArticle 4\nFees for the annual proficiency testing\n1. From 1 January 2011, AFSSA, Nancy shall charge each laboratory a fee for taking part in the proficiency tests provided for in Article 1.\n2. That fee shall be fixed by AFSSA, Nancy taking into account the criteria for the calculation of fees or charges set out in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.\nArticle 5\nRepeal\nDecision 2004/233/EC is repealed.\nArticle 6\nAddressees\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 9 August 2010.", "references": ["46", "51", "81", "89", "29", "95", "33", "2", "56", "48", "0", "60", "90", "68", "55", "36", "92", "80", "47", "98", "7", "13", "50", "27", "12", "61", "37", "69", "19", "30", "No Label", "24", "38", "66", "76", "77", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["24", "38", "66", "76", "77", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION\nof 11 July 2012\namending the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union\n(2012/419/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 355(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the initiative of the French Republic,\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 355(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) allows the European Council, on the initiative of the Member State concerned and acting unanimously after consulting the Commission, to adopt a decision amending the status, with regard to the Union, of a Danish, French or Netherlands country or territory referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 355.\n(2)\nIn a letter from the French President dated 26 October 2011, the French Republic (hereinafter \u2018France\u2019) asked the European Council to take such a decision to enable Mayotte, which currently has the status of an overseas country or territory within the meaning of Article 355(2) TFEU and is listed as such in Annex II to the Treaty, to acquire the status of an outermost region within the meaning of Article 349 TFEU.\n(3)\nFrance\u2019s request reflects the choice by the inhabitants of Mayotte to draw progressively closer to mainland France, confirmed by the referendum of 29 March 2009 in which 95,2 % of the votes cast were in favour of a proposal to make Mayotte a department. Accordingly, on 31 March 2011, Mayotte became the 101st French department and the fifth French overseas department.\n(4)\nThe structural social and economic situation and the geographical situation of Mayotte present all the characteristics, referred to in Article 349 TFEU, of an outermost region within the meaning of that provision. References to Mayotte should therefore be inserted into Article 349, making the whole of that Article applicable to Mayotte, and into Article 355(1) TFEU.\n(5)\nThe amendment of the status with regard to the European Union of Mayotte, in response to a democratically expressed request, should represent a step consistent with Mayotte\u2019s acquisition of a status close to that of the mainland,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nWith effect from 1 January 2014, Mayotte shall cease to be an overseas country or territory, to which the provisions of Part Four of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) apply, and shall become an outermost region of the Union within the meaning of Article 349 TFEU.\nArticle 2\nThe TFEU shall be amended as follows:\n(1)\nin the first paragraph of Article 349, the word \u2018Mayotte\u2019 shall be inserted after the word \u2018Martinique\u2019;\n(2)\nin Article 355(1), the word \u2018Mayotte\u2019 shall be inserted after the word \u2018Martinique\u2019;\n(3)\nin Annex II, the sixth indent shall be deleted.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2014.\nDone at Brussels, 11 July 2012.", "references": ["81", "27", "33", "46", "85", "14", "63", "40", "58", "21", "98", "53", "31", "66", "88", "12", "9", "69", "39", "51", "67", "86", "71", "80", "75", "10", "36", "5", "92", "3", "No Label", "2", "17", "91", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["2", "17", "91", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 10 January 2011\nadopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a second updated list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region\n(notified under document C(2010) 9677)\n(2011/86/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe Pannonian biogeographical region referred to in Article 1(c)(iii) of Directive 92/43/EEC comprises parts of the territories of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania and the territory of Hungary as specified in the biogeographical map approved on 20 April 2005 by the Committee set up by Article 20 of that Directive, hereinafter the Habitats Committee.\n(2)\nIt is necessary in the context of a process which was initiated in 1995 to make further progress in the actual establishment of the Natura 2000 network, which is an essential element of the protection of biodiversity in the Union.\n(3)\nThe initial list and a first updated list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region, within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC, were adopted by Commission Decisions 2008/26/EC (2) and 2009/90/EC (3). On the basis of Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Member State concerned shall designate the sites included in the list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region as special areas of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most, establishing conservation priorities and the necessary conservation measures.\n(4)\nIn the context of a dynamic adaptation of the Natura 2000 network, the lists of sites of Community importance are reviewed. A second update of the Pannonian list is therefore necessary.\n(5)\nOn the one hand, the second update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region is necessary in order to include additional sites that have been proposed since September 2007 by the Member States as sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC. The obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC are applicable as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the second updated list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region.\n(6)\nOn the other hand, the second update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region is necessary in order to reflect any changes in site related information submitted by the Member States following the adoption of the initial and the first updated Community lists. In that sense, the second updated list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region constitutes a consolidated version of the list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region. However, it should be stressed that the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC are applicable as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the initial and the first updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region, depending on which list a site of Community importance was included as such for the first time.\n(7)\nFor the Pannonian biogeographical region, lists of sites proposed as sites of Community importance within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC have been transmitted to the Commission between May 2004 and November 2009 by the Member States concerned in accordance with Article 4(1) of that Directive.\n(8)\nThe lists of proposed sites were accompanied by information on each site, supplied in the format established by Commission Decision 97/266/EC of 18 December 1996 concerning a site information format for proposed Natura 2000 sites (4).\n(9)\nThat information includes the most recent and definitive map of the site transmitted by the Member States concerned, name, location and extent of the site, and the data yielded by application of the criteria specified in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(10)\nOn the basis of the draft list drawn up by the Commission in agreement with each of the Member States concerned, which also identifies sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, a second updated list of sites selected as sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region should be adopted.\n(11)\nKnowledge of the existence and distribution of the natural habitat types and species is constantly evolving, as a result of the surveillance in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, the evaluation and selection of sites at Community level was done using the best available information at present.\n(12)\nCertain Member States have not proposed sufficient sites to meet the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC for certain habitat types and species. For those habitat types and species it can therefore not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is complete. Taking into account the delay in receiving the information and reaching agreement with the Member States, it is necessary to adopt a second updated list of sites, which will need to be revised in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(13)\nGiven that knowledge on the existence and distribution of some of the natural habitat types of Annex I and species of Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC remains incomplete, it should not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is either complete or incomplete. The list should be revised, if necessary, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.\n(14)\nIn the interests of clarity and transparency Decision 2009/90/EC should be repealed.\n(15)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Habitats Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe second updated list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC is set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nDecision 2009/90/EC is repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 10 January 2011.", "references": ["37", "67", "38", "69", "71", "19", "61", "54", "20", "96", "70", "47", "88", "92", "26", "25", "50", "72", "40", "23", "4", "27", "31", "33", "32", "8", "65", "85", "99", "83", "No Label", "17", "39", "58"], "gold": ["17", "39", "58"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 202/2011\nof 1 March 2011\namending Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 as regards the definition of fishery products and amending Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 as regards prior notification templates, benchmarks for port inspections and recognised catch documentation schemes adopted by regional fisheries management organisations\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (1), and in particular Articles 9(1), 12(5), 13(1) and 52 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1005/2008 applies to fishery products as defined in Article 2 thereof. Annex I to that Regulation lists the products excluded from the definition of fishery products. The list of excluded products may be reviewed each year and should be amended on the basis of new information gathered under the administrative cooperation with third countries provided for in Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008.\n(2)\nProducts excluded from the definition of fisheries products are equally listed in Annex XIII to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 (2) laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008. In order to avoid unnecessary duplications, excluded products should be listed only in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 and Annex XIII to Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 should thus be deleted.\n(3)\nTitle I of Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 lays down provisions on the inspection of third country fishing vessels to be carried out in Member States ports. It is necessary to align those provisions with the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, concluded in the framework of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). Such alignment implies the inclusion of specific information in the template to be used for prior notification of port arrivals and the addition of specific criteria to the benchmarks set out for port inspections.\n(4)\nAnnex V to Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 lays down a list of catch documentation schemes adopted by regional fisheries management organisations which are recognised as complying with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008. That Annex should refer to the ICCAT catch documentation programme for bluefin tuna as set out in Regulation (EU) No 640/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).\n(5)\nRegulations (EC) No 1005/2008 and (EC) No 1010/2009 should be amended accordingly.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008\nIn Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, Annex I is replaced by the text in Annex I to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nAmendments to Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009\nRegulation (EC) No 1010/2009 is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 4, first paragraph, the following point (u) is added:\n\u2018(u)\nthe fishing vessel has been denied entry or use of port in accordance with the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, concluded in the framework of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)\u2019;\n2.\nAnnexes IIA and IIB are replaced by the text in Annex II to this Regulation;\n3.\nin Annex V, Part I, the second indent is replaced by the following:\n\u2018-\nICCAT Bluefin tuna Catch Documentation Programme as set out in Regulation (EU) No 640/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4)\n4.\nAnnex XIII is deleted.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 1 March 2011.", "references": ["38", "77", "27", "97", "11", "28", "20", "13", "61", "10", "3", "96", "74", "79", "66", "45", "73", "62", "99", "46", "76", "19", "58", "70", "23", "92", "32", "21", "55", "16", "No Label", "2", "39", "41", "67"], "gold": ["2", "39", "41", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 161/2012\nof 23 February 2012\non emergency measures for the protection of haddock stocks in waters to the west of Scotland\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, the common fisheries policy must provide for coherent measures concerning the conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources, including specific measures to reduce the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems and non-target species.\n(2)\nIn order to protect the species cod, haddock and whiting, point 6.1 of Annex III to Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1288/2009 (3), and Regulation (EU) No 579/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), establishes within ICES division VI a zone in which fishing activities are prohibited (hereafter referred to as the \u2018waters to the west of Scotland\u2019).\n(3)\nBy way of derogation from that prohibition, points 6.5 and 6.6 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 allow respectively the fishing for nephrops and the fishing with trawls, demersal seines or similar gear, provided that certain conditions are met, and in particular the requirement that no more than a certain percentage of the retained catch be comprised of any mixture of cod, haddock and/or whiting.\n(4)\nThe purpose of that requirement was to reduce fishing mortality on the three stocks within their area of distribution, by preventing a targeted fisheries.\n(5)\nEvidence and advice received by the Commission from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) highlighted that discarding was occurring as a result of the imposition of the catch composition rules in ICES division VIa.\n(6)\nICES identifies the haddock stock in ICES division VIa to be below safe biological limits, however ICES further identifies that recent stronger-than-average recruitment will contribute to an increase in the spawning stock biomass.\n(7)\nThe continued growth of these year classes means that these fish are now entering the fishery. Imposition of the catch composition rules will result in further increases in discarding of this stock to meet landing requirements before they contribute to future production. The removal of spawning biomass for a stock below safe biological limits represents a serious threat to the long-term recovery and sustainability of the stock. Landings not catches are controlled by the continued application of the catch composition rules. Regardless of any quota change the current increasing abundance of the haddock stock will result in increasing levels of regulatory induced discarding.\n(8)\nAn increase of fishing pressure will result from increased fishing opportunities for the stock of haddock in ICES division VIa as of February 2012. Any effort to utilise the 2012 fishing opportunities will result in an increased mortality upon any stock caught along with haddock, particularly for whiting and cod.\n(9)\nAs the main fishery for haddock occurs from February onwards, there is a need to introduce changes to prevent excessive discarding immediately.\n(10)\nA continuation and increase of discards of the haddock stock will impact future recovery and production. Maximising fishing opportunities threatens the sustainability of other stocks. There is a danger of causing further crashes of these stocks as a result of high fishing mortality.\n(11)\nThe mismatch between landing requirements and unavoidable catches of haddock will increase substantially in 2012. It is therefore necessary to immediately suspend the catch composition rules as regards haddock to prevent a serious threat to the recovery of that species in waters to the west of Scotland and prevent additional fishing pressure on other stocks, while allowing for the rational use of 2012 fishing opportunities,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nDuring the period of application of this Regulation, the catch composition percentages set out in points 6.5(iii) and 6.6(ii) of Part A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 shall not apply as regards haddock.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply until 25 August 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 23 February 2012.", "references": ["38", "96", "24", "30", "99", "58", "79", "85", "78", "80", "49", "6", "69", "61", "55", "81", "91", "71", "12", "72", "5", "90", "64", "82", "60", "44", "25", "53", "40", "45", "No Label", "13", "59", "67"], "gold": ["13", "59", "67"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 1059/2010\nof 28 September 2010\nsupplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of household dishwashers\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (1) and in particular Article 10 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nDirective 2010/30/EU requires the Commission to adopt delegated acts as regards the labelling of energy-related products representing significant potential for energy savings and having a wide disparity in performance levels with equivalent functionality.\n(2)\nProvisions on the energy labelling of household dishwashers were established by Commission Directive 97/17/EC of 16 April 1997 implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household dishwashers (2).\n(3)\nThe electricity used by household dishwashers accounts for a significant share of total household electricity demand in the Union. In addition to the energy efficiency improvements already achieved, the scope for further reducing the energy consumption of household dishwashers is substantial.\n(4)\nDirective 97/17/EC should be repealed and new provisions should be laid down by this Regulation in order to ensure that the energy label provides dynamic incentives for suppliers to further improve the energy efficiency of household dishwashers and to accelerate the market transformation towards energy-efficient technologies.\n(5)\nThe information provided on the label should be obtained through reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement procedures, which take into account the recognised state-of-the-art measurement methods including, where available, harmonised standards adopted by the European standardisation bodies, as listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (3).\n(6)\nThis Regulation should specify a uniform design and content for the label for household dishwashers.\n(7)\nIn addition, this Regulation should specify requirements as to the technical documentation and the fiche for household dishwashers.\n(8)\nMoreover, this Regulation should specify requirements as to the information to be provided for any form of distance selling, advertisements and technical promotional materials for household dishwashers.\n(9)\nIt is appropriate to provide for a review of the provisions of this Regulation taking into account technological progress.\n(10)\nIn order to facilitate the transition from Directive 97/17/EC to this Regulation, it is appropriate to provide that household dishwashers labelled in accordance with this Regulation are to be considered compliant with Directive 97/17/EC.\n(11)\nDirective 97/17/EC should therefore be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nSubject matter and scope\nThis Regulation establishes requirements for the labelling of and the provision of supplementary product information on electric mains-operated household dishwashers and electric mains-operated dishwashers that can also be powered by batteries, including those sold for non-household use and built-in household dishwashers.\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nIn addition to the definitions laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2010/30/EU, the following definitions shall apply for the purpose of this Regulation:\n(1)\n\u2018household dishwasher\u2019 means a machine which cleans, rinses, and dries dishware, glassware, cutlery and cooking utensils by chemical, mechanical, thermal, and electric means and which is designed to be used principally for non-professional purposes;\n(2)\n\u2018built-in household dishwasher\u2019 means a household dishwasher intended to be installed in a cabinet, a prepared recess in a wall or a similar location, requiring furniture finishing;\n(3)\n\u2018place settings\u2019 means a defined set of crockery, glass and cutlery for use by one person;\n(4)\n\u2018rated capacity\u2019 means the maximum number of place settings together with the serving pieces, as stated by the supplier, which can be treated in a household dishwasher on the programme selected, when loaded in accordance with the supplier\u2019s instructions;\n(5)\n\u2018programme\u2019 means a series of operations that are pre-defined and are declared as suitable by the supplier for specified levels of soil or type of load, or both, and together form a complete cycle;\n(6)\n\u2018programme time\u2019 means the time that elapses from the initiation of the programme until the completion of the programme, excluding any end-user-programmed delay;\n(7)\n\u2018cycle\u2019 means a complete cleaning, rinsing, and drying process, as defined for the selected programme;\n(8)\n\u2018off-mode\u2019 means a condition where the household dishwasher is switched off using appliance controls or switches accessible to and intended for operation by the end-user during normal use to attain the lowest power consumption that may persist for an indefinite time while the household dishwasher is connected to a power source and used in accordance with the supplier\u2019s instructions; where there is no control or switch accessible to the end-user, \u2018off-mode\u2019 means the condition reached after the household dishwasher reverts to a steady-state power consumption on its own;\n(9)\n\u2018left-on mode\u2019 means the lowest power consumption mode that may persist for an indefinite time after completion of the programme and unloading of the household dishwasher without any further intervention by the end-user;\n(10)\n\u2018equivalent household dishwasher\u2019 means a model of household dishwasher placed on the market with the same rated capacity, technical and performance characteristics, energy and water consumption and airborne acoustical noise emissions as another model of household dishwasher placed on the market under a different commercial code number by the same supplier;\n(11)\n\u2018end-user\u2019 means a consumer buying or expected to buy a household dishwasher;\n(12)\n\u2018point of sale\u2019 means a location where household dishwashers are displayed or offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase.\nArticle 3\nResponsibilities of suppliers\nSuppliers shall ensure that:\n(a)\neach household dishwasher is supplied with a printed label in the format and containing information as set out in Annex I;\n(b)\na product fiche, as set out in Annex II, is made available;\n(c)\nthe technical documentation as set out in Annex III is made available on request to the authorities of the Member States and to the Commission;\n(d)\nany advertisement for a specific model of household dishwasher contains the energy efficiency class, if the advertisement discloses energy-related or price information;\n(e)\nany technical promotional material concerning a specific model of household dishwasher which describes its specific technical parameters includes the energy efficiency class of that model.\nArticle 4\nResponsibilities of dealers\nDealers shall ensure that:\n(a)\neach household dishwasher, at the point of sale, bears the label provided by suppliers in accordance with Article 3(a) on the outside of the front or top of the household dishwasher, in such a way as to be clearly visible;\n(b)\nhousehold dishwashers offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase where the end-user cannot be expected to see the household dishwasher displayed, are marketed with the information provided by suppliers in accordance with Annex IV;\n(c)\nany advertisement for a specific model of household dishwasher contains a reference to its energy efficiency class, if the advertisement discloses energy-related or price information;\n(d)\nany technical promotional material concerning a specific model of household dishwasher which describes its specific technical parameters includes a reference to the energy efficiency class of that model.\nArticle 5\nMeasurement methods\nThe information to be provided pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 shall be obtained by reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement methods, which take into account the recognised state-of-the-art measurement methods.\nArticle 6\nVerification procedure for market surveillance purposes\nMember States shall apply the procedure laid down in Annex V when assessing the conformity of the declared energy efficiency class, the annual energy consumption, annual water consumption, drying efficiency index, programme time, power consumption in off-mode and left-on mode, duration of the left-on mode and airborne acoustical noise emissions.\nArticle 7\nRevision\nThe Commission shall review this Regulation in the light of technological progress no later than four years after its entry into force. The review shall in particular assess the verification tolerances set out in Annex V.\nArticle 8\nRepeal\nDirective 97/17/EC shall be repealed from 20 December 2011.\nArticle 9\nTransitional provisions\n1. Articles 3(d), (e), 4(b), (c) and (d) shall not apply to printed advertisement and printed technical promotional material published before 30 March 2012.\n2. Household dishwashers placed on the market before 30 November 2011 shall comply with the provisions set out in Directive 97/17/EC.\n3. If an implementing measure for Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) with regards to ecodesign requirements for household dishwashers was adopted, household dishwashers which comply with the provisions of this implementing measure with respect to the cleaning efficiency requirements and with the provisions of this Regulation, and which are placed on the market or offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase before 20 December 2011 shall be regarded as complying with the requirements of Directive 97/17/EC.\nArticle 10\nEntry into force and application\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 20 December 2011. However, Articles 3(d), (e), 4(b), (c) and (d) shall apply from 20 April 2012.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 28 September 2010.", "references": ["6", "30", "65", "19", "92", "37", "7", "28", "36", "89", "9", "11", "13", "22", "62", "23", "95", "81", "38", "18", "10", "88", "80", "46", "83", "53", "90", "97", "14", "79", "No Label", "24", "25", "76", "78", "86"], "gold": ["24", "25", "76", "78", "86"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1068/2011\nof 21 October 2011\nconcerning the authorisation of an enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Aspergillus niger (CBS 109.713) and endo-1,4-beta-glucanase produced by Aspergillus niger (DSM 18404) as a feed additive for chickens reared for laying, turkeys for breeding purposes, turkeys reared for breeding, other minor avian species (other than ducks for fattening) and ornamental birds (holder of authorisation BASF SE)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Aspergillus niger (CBS 109.713) and endo-1,4-beta-glucanase produced by Aspergillus niger (DSM 18404). The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Aspergillus niger (CBS 109.713) and endo-1,4-beta-glucanase produced by Aspergillus niger (DSM 18404) as a feed additive for chickens reared for laying, turkeys for breeding purposes, turkeys reared for breeding, other minor avian species (other than ducks for fattening) and ornamental birds, to be classified in the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe use of that preparation was authorised for 10 years for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening, laying hens, ducks for fattening and weaned piglets by Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2009 (2).\n(5)\nNew data were submitted in support of the application for the authorisation of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Aspergillus niger (CBS 109.713) and endo-1,4-beta-glucanase produced by Aspergillus niger (DSM 18404) for chickens reared for laying, turkeys for breeding purposes, turkeys reared for breeding, other minor avian species (other than ducks for fattening) and ornamental birds. The European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 11 May 2011 (3) that, under the proposed conditions of use, the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Aspergillus niger (CBS 109.713) and endo-1,4-beta-glucanase produced by Aspergillus niger (DSM 18404) for chickens reared for laying, turkeys for breeding purposes, turkeys reared for breeding, other minor avian species (other than ducks for fattening) and ornamental birds does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that the use of that preparation can improve the zootechnical performances of the target species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(6)\nThe assessment of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Aspergillus niger (CBS 109.713) and endo-1,4-beta-glucanase produced by Aspergillus niger (DSM 18404) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(7)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category \u2018zootechnical additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018digestibility enhancers\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 October 2011.", "references": ["93", "87", "98", "79", "60", "70", "81", "97", "43", "20", "40", "36", "45", "23", "32", "12", "68", "10", "4", "62", "78", "52", "59", "88", "3", "57", "14", "26", "77", "71", "No Label", "25", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE 2011/50/EU\nof 19 April 2011\namending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include carbetamide as active substance and amending Commission Decision 2008/934/EC\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list included carbetamide.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 11e of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the notifier withdrew its support of the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within 2 months from receipt of the draft assessment report. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (4) was adopted on the non-inclusion of carbetamide.\n(3)\nPursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter \u2018the applicant\u2019) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).\n(4)\nThe application was submitted to France, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.\n(5)\nFrance evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter \u2018the Authority\u2019) and to the Commission on 12 February 2010. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on carbetamide to the Commission on 22 November 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 March 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for carbetamide.\n(6)\nIt has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing carbetamide may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include carbetamide in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.\n(7)\nA reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.\n(8)\nWithout prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of 6 months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing carbetamide to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.\n(9)\nThe experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (7) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the Directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.\n(10)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.\n(11)\nDecision 2008/934/EC provides for the non-inclusion of carbetamide and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance by 31 December 2011. It is necessary to delete the line concerning carbetamide in the Annex to that Decision.\n(12)\nIt is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.\n(13)\nThe measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:\nArticle 1\nAnnex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.\nArticle 2\nThe line concerning carbetamide in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC is deleted.\nArticle 3\nMember States shall adopt and publish by 30 November 2011 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.\nThey shall apply those provisions from 1 December 2011.\nWhen Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.\nArticle 4\n1. Member States shall in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, where necessary, amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing carbetamide as an active substance by 30 November 2011.\nBy that date they shall in particular verify that the conditions in Annex I to that Directive relating to carbetamide are met, with the exception of those identified in Part B of the entry concerning that active substance, and that the holder of the authorisation has, or has access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive in accordance with the conditions of Article 13 of that Directive.\n2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, for each authorised plant protection product containing carbetamide as either the only active substance or as one of several active substances all of which were listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by 31 May 2011 at the latest, Member States shall re-evaluate the product in accordance with the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, on the basis of a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex III to that Directive and taking into account Part B of the entry in Annex I to that Directive concerning carbetamide. On the basis of that evaluation, they shall determine whether the product satisfies the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Directive 91/414/EEC.\nFollowing that determination Member States shall:\n(a)\nin the case of a product containing carbetamide as the only active substance, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 at the latest; or\n(b)\nin the case of a product containing carbetamide as one of several active substances, where necessary, amend or withdraw the authorisation by 31 May 2015 or by the date fixed for such an amendment or withdrawal in the respective Directive or Directives which added the relevant substance or substances to Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, whichever is the latest.\nArticle 5\nThis Directive shall enter into force on 1 June 2011.\nArticle 6\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2011.", "references": ["23", "89", "87", "83", "33", "75", "3", "46", "5", "52", "42", "45", "4", "66", "10", "49", "80", "73", "55", "0", "98", "41", "21", "85", "78", "70", "24", "96", "43", "27", "No Label", "2", "25", "38", "61", "65"], "gold": ["2", "25", "38", "61", "65"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 672/2012\nof 16 July 2012\nextending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China to imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 13 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n1. PROCEDURE\n1.1. Existing measures\n(1)\nBy Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 (2), (\u2018the original Regulation\u2019), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 62,9 % on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018the PRC\u2019) for all other companies than the ones mentioned in Article 1(2) and Annex I to that Regulation. These measures will hereinafter be referred to as \u2018the measures in force\u2019 and the investigation that led to the measures imposed by the original Regulation will be hereinafter referred to as \u2018the original investigation\u2019.\n1.2. Request\n(2)\nOn 27 September 2011, the Commission received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC and to make imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, subject to registration.\n(3)\nThe request was lodged by Saint-Gobain Adfors CZ s.r.o., Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgoz\u00f3 \u00e9s M\u0171szakisz\u00f6vet-gy\u00e1rt\u00f3 Bt., Valmieras stikla \u0161\u0137iedra AS and Vitrulan Technical Textiles GmbH, four Union producers of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres.\n(4)\nThe request contained sufficient prima facie evidence that following the imposition of the measures in force, a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the PRC and Malaysia to the Union occurred, for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the measures in force. This change in the pattern of trade stemmed allegedly from the transhipment of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC via Malaysia.\n(5)\nFurthermore, the evidence pointed to the fact that the remedial effects of the measures in force were being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. The evidence showed that these increased imports from Malaysia were made at prices below the non-injurious price established in the original investigation.\n(6)\nFinally, there was evidence that prices of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Malaysia were dumped in relation to the normal value established for the like product during the original investigation.\n1.3. Initiation\n(7)\nHaving determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated an investigation by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1135/2011 (3) (\u2018the initiating Regulation\u2019). Pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission, by the initiating Regulation, also directed the customs authorities to register imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Malaysia.\n1.4. Investigation\n(8)\nThe Commission officially notified the authorities of the PRC and Malaysia, the exporting producers in those countries, the importers in the Union known to be concerned and the Union industry of the initiation of the investigation. Questionnaires were sent to the producers/exporters in the PRC and Malaysia known to the Commission or which made themselves known within the deadlines specified in recital 14 of the initiating Regulation. Questionnaires were also sent to importers in the Union. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation.\n(9)\nThree exporting producers in Malaysia, and three unrelated importers in the Union made themselves known and submitted replies to the questionnaires.\n(10)\nThe following exporting producers submitted replies to the questionnaires and verification visits were subsequently carried out at their premises.\nExporting producers in Malaysia:\n-\nGFTex Fiberglass Manufacturer Sdn Bhd, Selangor,\n-\nGold Fiberglass Sdn. Bhd, Selangor, and\n-\nGRI Fiberglass Industries, Selangor.\n1.5. Investigation period\n(11)\nThe investigation period covered the period from 1 January 2008 to 30 September 2011 (\u2018the IP\u2019). Data were collected for the IP to investigate, inter alia, the alleged change in the pattern of trade. More detailed data were collected for the reporting period 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 (\u2018the RP\u2019) in order to examine the possible undermining of the remedial effect of the measures in force and existence of dumping.\n2. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION\n2.1. General considerations\n(12)\nIn accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the investigation of the existence of circumvention was made by the successive analysis of whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between the PRC, Malaysia and the Union; whether this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty; whether there was evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the like product; and whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product, if necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regulation.\n2.2. Product concerned and the product under investigation\n(13)\nThe product concerned is as defined in the original investigation: Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2, excluding fibreglass discs, originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 51 00, and ex 7019 59 00.\n(14)\nThe product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not.\n(15)\nThe investigation showed that open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, as defined above, exported from the PRC to the Union and those consigned from Malaysia to the Union have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and have the same uses, and are therefore to be considered as like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n2.3. Degree of cooperation and determination of the trade volumes\n(16)\nAs stated in recital 10, three exporting producers in Malaysia submitted questionnaire replies.\n(17)\nOn the spot verification visits were subsequently carried out to these three exporting producers.\n(18)\nThe three Malaysian exporting producers covered 75 % of the total exports of the product under investigation from Malaysia to the Union in the RP as reported in Comext (4).The overall export volumes were based on Comext.\n(19)\nOne of the three Malaysian exporting producers, stopped cooperating following the first day of the verification visit, therefore Article 18 of the basic Regulation was applied.\n(20)\nFor the other two companies the application of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation was also found to be warranted for the reasons explained in recitals 34 and 52 to 59.\n(21)\nThere was no cooperation from the PRC exporting producers. Therefore, findings in respect of imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from PRC into the Union and exports of the product concerned from the PRC to Malaysia had to be made partially on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation. Comext data was used to determine overall import volumes from the PRC to the Union. PRC and Malaysian national statistics were used for the determination of the overall exports from the PRC to Malaysia. Data were also cross-checked with detailed import and export data that were provided by the customs authorities of Malaysia.\n(22)\nThe import volume recorded in Malaysian and PRC statistics covered a larger product group than the product concerned or the product under investigation. However, in view of Comext data and the data provided by the three Malaysian exporting producers, it could be established that a significant part of this import volume covered the product concerned. Accordingly, these data could be used to establish a change in the pattern of trade.\n2.4. Change in the pattern of trade\n(23)\nImports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Union dropped dramatically subsequent to the imposition of the provisional measures in February 2011 (5) and of the definitive measures imposed in August 2011 (pursuant to the original Regulation).\n(24)\nOn the other hand, total exports of the product under investigation from Malaysia to the Union increased significantly in 2011. Based on Comext, exports from Malaysia to the Union increased sharply in the last year whereas they were at insignificant levels in previous years. The trend is also confirmed by the corresponding Malaysian statistics with regard to exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres to the Union from Malaysia.\n(25)\nTable 1 shows import quantities of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from the PRC and Malaysia into the Union from 1 January 2008 to 30 September 2011.\nImport volumes in millions of m2\n2008\n2009\n2010\n1.10.2010-30.9.2011\nPRC\n307,82\n294,98\n383,76\n282,03\nMalaysia\n0,02\n0,04\n0,02\n76,10\nSource: Comext statistics.\n(26)\nThe data above clearly show that imports from Malaysia into the Union were at negligible levels for the period from 2008 to 2010. However, in 2011, following the imposition of the measures, the imports surged suddenly and to some extent replaced the exports from the PRC on the Union market in terms of volume. Moreover, since the imposition of the measures in force, the decrease of the exports from PRC to the Union has been significant (26 %).\n(27)\nA dramatic increase of exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres can also be observed from the PRC to Malaysia within the same period. From a relatively small amount in 2008 (4,65 million m2) exports increased to 32,78 million m2 in the RP. The trend is also confirmed by the corresponding Malaysian statistics with regard to imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres in Malaysia from the PRC.\nTable 2\nExports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from the PRC to Malaysia from 1 January 2008 to 30 September 2011\n2008\n2009\n2010\n1.10.2010-30.9.2011\nQuantity\n(million m2)\n4,65\n5,78\n5,94\n32,78\nYearly change (%)\n24 %\n2,8 %\n452 %\nIndex (2008 = 100)\n100\n124\n128\n705\nSource: PRC statistics.\n(28)\nTo establish the trend of the trade flow of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from PRC to Malaysia, both Malaysian and PRC statistics were considered. Both of these data are only available at a higher product group level than the product concerned. However, in view of Comext data and the data provided by the three Malaysian exporters which cooperated initially, it could be established that a significant part covered the product concerned. Therefore, these data could be taken into account.\n(29)\nTables 1 and 2 above clearly demonstrate that the sharp drop of PRC exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres to the Union was followed by a significant increase of PRC exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres to Malaysia with a subsequent drastic increase of Malaysian exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres to the Union in the IP. The investigation revealed also that additional quantities of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from the PRC to Malaysia were misdeclared at the time of importation to Malaysia under different codes than the ones covered by the investigation. According to the customs import declarations those additional quantities were declared under codes 7019 11 000 and 7019 40 000.\n(30)\nThe three companies which cooperated initially were established between November 2010 and March 2011 and they started production and exports to the Union only after the imposition of the provisional measures in February 2011. Prior to February 2011 there was no production of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres in Malaysia.\n2.5. Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade\n(31)\nThe overall decrease of the exports from the PRC to the Union and the parallel increase of exports from Malaysia to the Union and of exports from the PRC to Malaysia after the imposition of provisional measures in February 2011 and of definitive measures in August 2011 constituted a change in the pattern of trade between the above mentioned countries, on the one hand, and the Union, on the other hand.\n2.6. Nature of the circumvention practice\n(32)\nArticle 13(1) of the basic Regulation requires that the change in the pattern of trade stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or work includes, inter alia, the consignment of the product subject to measures via third countries and the assembly of parts by an assembly operation in the Union or a third country. For this purpose the existence of assembly operations is determined in accordance with Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(33)\nDeclared exports of the initially cooperating Malaysian companies amounted to some 75 % of the total Malaysian exports to the Union. The remaining exports can be attributed to Malaysian producers which have not cooperated with the investigation or to transhipment practices. One of the cooperating importers in the Union had sourced open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from a Malaysian exporter who had not cooperated in this investigation.\n(34)\nAs set out in detail in recitals 52 to 59, the three initially cooperating companies were informed on the spot that they might be subject to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation as it was found that they had provided misleading information. In particular, evidence suggested that two of the exporting producers which cooperated initially did not disclose the relationship between them. Also, the companies manipulated and altered documents such as bank statements. Moreover, there are doubts as to whether some of their purchase invoices, and bank payment vouchers are genuine. Also two of them failed to demonstrate the origin of the raw materials used for the production of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres exported to the Union. Finally, based on information obtained by the Malaysian authorities, goods could qualify for the certificate of origin at the time of their export if there is a change in the code classification between the imported raw materials used in the production process and the exported finished goods. Evidence seen during the verification visits suggested that some quantities of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from the PRC are misdeclared under codes not covered by the investigation at the time of their importation to Malaysia while at the time of their export to the Union they were classified under the two CN codes covered by the investigation. This explains the additional quantities of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres exported from Malaysia to the Union as confirmed by the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of trade as described in recital 29.\n(35)\nThe existence of transhipment of PRC-origin products via Malaysia is therefore confirmed.\n(36)\nAs Article 18 of the basic Regulation was applied to all three initially cooperating companies, it could not be established whether they are involved in assembly operations.\n2.7. Insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-dumping duty\n(37)\nThe investigation did not bring to light any other due cause or economic justification for the transhipment than the avoidance of the measures in force on certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC. No elements were found, other than the duty, which could be considered as a compensation for the costs of transhipment, in particular regarding transport and reloading, of the product concerned from the PRC via Malaysia.\n2.8. Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty\n(38)\nTo assess whether the imported products had, in terms of quantities and prices, undermined the remedial effects of the measures in force on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC, Comext data was used as the best data available concerning quantities and prices of exports by the three initially cooperating exporting producers, where Article 18 of the basic Regulation was applied, and by the non-cooperating companies. The prices so determined were compared to the injury elimination level established for Union producers in recital 74 of the original Regulation.\n(39)\nThe increase of imports from Malaysia to the Union from 20 000 m2 in 2010 to 76 million m2 in the period April to September 2011 was considered to be significant in terms of quantities.\n(40)\nThe comparison of the injury elimination level as established in the original Regulation and the weighted average export price (adjusted for post importation costs and quality adjustments established in the original investigation) showed significant underselling. It was therefore concluded that the remedial effects of the measures in force are being undermined in terms of both quantities and prices.\n2.9. Evidence of dumping\n(41)\nFinally, in accordance with Article 13(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value previously established for the like products.\n(42)\nIn the original Regulation the normal value was established on the basis of prices in Canada, which in that investigation was found to be an appropriate market economy analogue country for the PRC. In line with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation it was considered appropriate to use the normal value as previously established in the original investigation.\n(43)\nThe export prices from Malaysia were based on the facts available, i.e. on the average export price of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres during the RP as reported in Comext. This was due to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation to all three initially cooperating exporters, thus their data could not be used to establish the export prices.\n(44)\nFor the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance, in the form of adjustments, was made for differences which affect prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in transport, insurance, ancillary expenses, packing costs and bank charges. Taken that Article 18 of the basic Regulation was applied to all three initially cooperating producers, the adjustments had to be established on the best facts available. Thus, the adjustment for these allowances was based on a percentage calculated as the difference between the total cif value over the total ex-works value of all the transactions provided by the three Malaysian producers in the RP.\n(45)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the weighted average normal value as established in the original Regulation and the weighted average export prices during this investigation\u2019s RP, expressed as a percentage of the cif price at the Union frontier duty unpaid.\n(46)\nThe comparison of the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price as established showed dumping.\n3. MEASURES\n(47)\nGiven the above, it was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC was circumvented by transhipment from Malaysia within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.\n(48)\nIn accordance with the first sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the measures in force on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC, should be extended to imports of the same product consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not.\n(49)\nIn light of the non-cooperation in this investigation, the measures to be extended should be the measures established in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 for \u2018all other companies\u2019, which is a definitive anti-dumping duty of 62,9 % applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty.\n(50)\nIn accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provides that any extended measure should apply to imports which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties should be collected on those registered imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Malaysia.\n4. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION\n(51)\nThe three companies in Malaysia that submitted questionnaire replies requested an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(52)\nAs mentioned in recital 19, one of the companies ceased cooperation following the first day of the verification visit. Even during the one day verification the cooperation was insufficient. In particular, the company failed to provide most of the requested supporting documents like its production sheets, stocks and energy bills. On the other hand, the raw materials kept in the company\u2019s plant were at very low levels not justifying the declared production levels, and there were not any finished goods stored in the warehouse. In addition, the purchase invoices presented had the same format as a block of invoices with pre-printed numbers found at the company\u2019s premises. This resemblance suggested that the company\u2019s purchase invoices may not be genuine. Moreover, evidence suggested that the company did not disclose its relationship with another Malaysian exporter that was also cooperating in the investigation. More specifically, documents related to the other Malaysian producer which cooperated initially were found at the first company\u2019s premises while that relationship was not revealed by those companies.\n(53)\nIn accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation, the company was informed of the intention to disregard the information submitted by it and was granted a time limit to provide its comments. The company did not provide any comments, thus in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, findings with regard to this company were based on facts available.\n(54)\nThe cooperation of the second company during the verification visit was insufficient. The company denied on several occasions access to crucial data such as the production and stock record reports. The raw materials kept in the company\u2019s plant were at very low levels compared to the declared production levels and the stock of finished goods stored in the warehouse. The company also failed to provide evidence with regard to the origin of the raw materials used for the production of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres exported to the Union.\n(55)\nIn accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation, the company was informed of the intention to disregard the information submitted by it and was granted a time limit to provide its comments. In its comments the company claimed that the planned three days for the verification visit were a short time frame and insufficient for the company to provide all the data and documents requested by the investigation team. The company also admitted that several times it denied access to data to the investigation team and moreover it confirmed that, most of the time, the persons representing the company during the verification visit had to obtain permission from their directors to grant access to data to the investigation team. In addition, the company admitted that the company\u2019s representatives had no involvement with the accounts department while it confirmed that its directors did not participate as they claimed to be occupied.\n(56)\nThe company\u2019s explanations confirm the conclusion that the company seriously impeded the investigation. The company was informed on the dates of the verification visit well in advance and agreed with them. Exporting to the Union is the company\u2019s main business, and yet its directors were not present. During the verification visit there were deliberate and unjustified delays in providing the requested data and documents while the denial of access to data created further delays and impediments in the completion of the verification within the set time frame. Therefore, in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, findings with regard to this company were based on facts available.\n(57)\nThe third company\u2019s cooperation during the verification visit was insufficient, moreover it provided misleading information. It was found that the company had manipulated bank statements while it failed to prove that its bank payment vouchers were genuine documents. Its accounting records were considered unreliable as they presented numerous serious discrepancies with regard to their opening and closing balances carried forward. The raw materials stocks were at low levels compared to the declared production levels and the stock of finished goods stored in the warehouse. The company also failed to provide evidence with regard to the origin of the raw materials used for the production of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres exported to the Union. Also evidence suggested that the company had not disclosed its relationship with the first Malaysian exporter as certain documents which belong to the third company were found in the premises of the first company.\n(58)\nIn accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation, the company was also informed on the intention to disregard the information submitted by it and was granted a time limit to provide its comments. In its comments the company claimed that it does not have any experience with such kind of verification visits which would explain, in their view, the deficiencies found. It also claimed that it was cautious with the documents requested and provided to the investigation team in particular with the bank statements and proof of payments as it was not officially informed by the Malaysian authorities of the identity of the investigation team. The company nevertheless admitted that its staff had altered the content of the bank statements but this was allegedly done due to the fact that the company was highly concerned with possible leaks of its documents, sabotage and the confidentiality of its data.\n(59)\nThe additional explanations provided by the company were not such that would lead to change the conclusion that the company had provided misleading information within the course of the investigation. Thus, in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, findings with regard to this company were based on the facts available.\n(60)\nIn view of the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of trade and transhipment practices, as set out in recitals 31 and 35 and taking into account the nature of the misleading information as set out in recitals 52 to 59, the exemptions as requested by these three companies could, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, not be granted.\n(61)\nWithout prejudice to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, other producers in Malaysia which did not come forward in this proceeding and did not export the product under investigation to the Union in the RP and which consider lodging a request for an exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation will be required to complete a questionnaire in order to enable the Commission to determine whether an exemption may be warranted. Such exemption may be granted after the assessment of the market situation of the product concerned, production capacity and capacity utilisation, procurement and sales and the likelihood of continuation of practices for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification and the evidence of dumping. The Commission would normally also carry out an on-the-spot verification visit. The request should be addressed to the Commission forthwith, with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company\u2019s activities linked to the production and sales.\n(62)\nWhere an exemption is warranted, the Commission will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, propose the amendment of the extended measures in force accordingly. Subsequently, any exemption granted will be monitored to ensure compliance with the conditions set therein.\n5. DISCLOSURE\n(63)\nAll interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were invited to comment. The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered. None of the arguments presented gave rise to a modification of the definitive findings.\n(64)\nOne cooperating importer asked if consideration could be given to applying different duty rates on registered imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres by importers who cooperated in the proceeding and those who did not. The request was rejected as there is no legal basis in the basic Regulation to support such a distinction,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. The definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019 imposed by Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2, excluding fibreglass discs, originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China, is hereby extended to imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2, excluding fibreglass discs, consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 51 00, and ex 7019 59 00. (TARIC codes 7019510011 and 7019590011).\n2. The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1135/2011 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.\n3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\n1. Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1 shall be made in writing in one of the official languages of the European Union and must be signed by a person authorised to represent the entity requesting the exemption. The request must be sent to the following address:\nEuropean Commission\nDirectorate-General for Trade\nDirectorate H\nOffice: N-105 04/92\n1049 Bruxelles/Brussel\nBELGIQUE/BELGI\u0401\nFax +32 22956505\n2. In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, may authorise, by decision, the exemption of imports from companies which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011, from the duty extended by Article 1.\nArticle 3\nCustoms authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1135/2011.\nArticle 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 16 July 2012.", "references": ["77", "52", "31", "33", "29", "35", "54", "12", "74", "70", "14", "80", "76", "46", "94", "64", "17", "97", "45", "43", "7", "9", "85", "44", "92", "71", "39", "86", "15", "87", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "83", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "83", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 25/2012\nof 12 January 2012\namending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 9/2012 (4).\n(2)\nThe data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.\n(3)\nGiven the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 12 January 2012.", "references": ["11", "99", "94", "8", "38", "79", "47", "46", "65", "15", "25", "18", "66", "20", "74", "85", "12", "89", "78", "57", "73", "63", "42", "90", "80", "37", "91", "27", "4", "59", "No Label", "10", "22", "35", "71", "72"], "gold": ["10", "22", "35", "71", "72"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION DECISION\nof 17 August 2011\namending Decision 2004/452/EC laying down a list of bodies whose researchers may access confidential data for scientific purposes\n(notified under document C(2011) 5777)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2011/511/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics (1) and in particular Article 23 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 831/2002 (2), concerning access to confidential data for scientific purposes establishes, for the purpose of enabling statistical conclusions to be drawn for scientific purposes, the conditions under which access to confidential data transmitted to the Community authority may be granted and the rules of cooperation between the Community and national authorities in order to facilitate such access.\n(2)\nCommission Decision 2004/452/EC (3) has laid down a list of bodies whose researchers may access confidential data for scientific purposes.\n(3)\nSocial Protection, Social Inclusion Strategy Unit, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion of the European Commission and Institute for Fiscal Studies (Instituto de Estudios Fiscales - IEF), Madrid, Spain, have to be regarded as bodies fulfilling the required conditions and should therefore be added to the list of agencies, organisations and institutions referred to in Article 3(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 831/2002.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee (ESS Committee),\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 2004/452/EC is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 17 August 2011.", "references": ["61", "63", "49", "98", "93", "46", "42", "53", "69", "56", "41", "34", "83", "68", "47", "71", "55", "2", "74", "82", "17", "36", "24", "33", "75", "85", "89", "59", "94", "15", "No Label", "19", "39", "77"], "gold": ["19", "39", "77"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 720/2011\nof 22 July 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 supplementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security as regards the phasing-in of the screening of liquids, aerosols and gels at EU airports\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (1) and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008, the Commission is required to adopt general measures designed to amend non-essential elements of the common basic standards laid down in the Annex to that Regulation by supplementing them.\n(2)\nGeneral measures supplementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 of 2 April 2009 supplementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security laid down in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2). In particular, Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 requires methods, including technologies, for detection of liquid explosives to be deployed on an EU-wide basis at airports as swiftly as possible, but no later than 29 April 2013.\n(3)\nIn order to allow to progressively phase-in a system of screening for liquid explosives, the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 297/2010 (3) established two dates: 29 April 2011 for the screening of liquids, aerosols and gels obtained at a third country airport or on board an aircraft of a non-Community air carrier and 29 April 2013 for the screening of all liquids, aerosols and gels.\n(4)\nAs mentioned in recital 12 of Regulation (EU) No 297/2010, developments of technological or regulatory nature both at EU and international level may affect the dates laid down in Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 and, where appropriate, the Commission may make proposals for revision, in particular taking into account the operability of equipment and passenger facilitation.\n(5)\nDevelopments of regulatory nature at EU and international level have occurred shortly before 29 April 2011. For this reason, few airports would effectively be able to offer screening facilities and it may not be clear for passengers if liquids, aerosols and gels obtained at a third country airport or on board an aircraft of a non-Community air carrier will be permitted into security restricted areas and on board an aircraft.\n(6)\nFor the reason mentioned above, the provision referring to the obligation to screen liquids, aerosols and gels as obtained at a third country airport or on board an aircraft of a non-Community air carrier as of 29 April 2011 should be deleted.\n(7)\nHaving regard to paragraph 2 of Part B1 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 272/2009, the Commission will work closely with all parties concerned and will assess the situation in respect of the screening of liquids, aerosols and gels by July 2012.\n(8)\nIn order to ensure proper implementation of the requirements laid down in paragraph 3 of Part B1 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 272/2009, Member States and airports should take all necessary preparatory steps, including operational trials, well ahead of the 2013 deadline. Experience from trials should be shared in order to assess the situation in respect of the screening of liquids, aerosols and gels by July 2012.\n(9)\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(10)\nIn order to ensure as quickly as possible legal certainty for Member States, airports and passengers, the present Regulation should be adopted by the urgency procedure referred to in Article 19(4) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 and should be applicable as of 29 April 2011.\n(11)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Civil Aviation Security,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 29 April 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 July 2011.", "references": ["77", "14", "91", "43", "65", "85", "18", "29", "16", "13", "61", "35", "1", "25", "21", "80", "11", "66", "82", "15", "51", "19", "84", "54", "70", "87", "90", "62", "69", "30", "No Label", "53", "57", "60", "76", "83"], "gold": ["53", "57", "60", "76", "83"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1375/2011\nof 22 December 2011\nimplementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 18 July 2011, the Council adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2), establishing an updated list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies.\n(2)\nThe 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 687/2011.\n(3)\nBy way of a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), the Council informed the persons, groups and entities listed in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 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. In the case of certain person and groups an amended statement of reasons was made available.\n(4)\nThe 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.\n(5)\nThe 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 (4), 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.\n(6)\nThe list of the persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies should be updated accordingly and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 should be repealed,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe list provided for in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 shall be replaced by the list set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nImplementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is hereby repealed.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 December 2011.", "references": ["34", "28", "33", "17", "78", "31", "67", "57", "98", "70", "4", "84", "56", "43", "71", "6", "74", "94", "52", "93", "87", "40", "50", "91", "83", "55", "59", "92", "44", "54", "No Label", "1", "3", "36"], "gold": ["1", "3", "36"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/175/CFSP\nof 21 March 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 28 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.\n(2)\nIn view of the gravity of the situation in Libya, additional persons and entities should be included in the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annexes II and IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\n1. The persons listed in Annex I to this Decision shall be included in the lists set out in Annexes II and IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP.\n2. The entities listed in Annex II to this Decision shall be included in the list set out in Annex IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 21 March 2011.", "references": ["0", "58", "20", "35", "96", "81", "42", "28", "7", "77", "44", "25", "30", "45", "22", "69", "49", "34", "5", "52", "63", "64", "60", "51", "19", "29", "70", "79", "66", "95", "No Label", "3", "4", "11", "14", "94"], "gold": ["3", "4", "11", "14", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1030/2011\nof 13 October 2011\nestablishing a prohibition of fishing for forkbeards in EU and international waters of VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of Spain\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCouncil Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species (2), lays down quotas for 2011 and 2012.\n(2)\nAccording to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.\n(3)\nIt is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nQuota exhaustion\nThe fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nProhibitions\nFishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.\nArticle 3\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 13 October 2011.", "references": ["17", "98", "81", "64", "29", "39", "4", "22", "42", "40", "55", "23", "53", "3", "72", "82", "61", "90", "88", "58", "48", "38", "24", "6", "52", "10", "54", "11", "68", "77", "No Label", "13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["13", "56", "67", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 20 June 2011\nappointing two Italian members and two Italian alternate members of the Committee of the Regions\n(2011/375/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal of the Italian Government,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.\n(2)\nTwo members\u2019 seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Sergio CHIAMPARINO and Mr Savino Antonio SANTARELLA. Two alternate members\u2019 seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Luigi MONTANARO and Mr Giuseppe VARACALLI,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:\n(a)\nas members:\n-\nMr Alessandro COSIMI, Sindaco del Comune di Livorno,\n-\nMr Roberto RUOCCO, Vicesindaco del Comune di Cerignola (FG),\nand\n(b)\nas alternate members:\n-\nMs Laura ARDITO, Consigliere comunale di Arese (MI),\n-\nMr Giuseppe VARACALLI, Sindaco del Comune di Gerace (RC) (change of mandate).\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Luxembourg, 20 June 2011.", "references": ["12", "50", "39", "86", "55", "99", "6", "70", "92", "73", "29", "67", "46", "82", "13", "37", "95", "41", "76", "5", "83", "35", "47", "10", "54", "25", "62", "19", "57", "88", "No Label", "7", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["7", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 7 September 2010\namending Decision 2010/320/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit\n(2010/486/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Article 126(9) and Article 136 thereof,\nHaving regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 136(1)(a) TFEU foresees the possibility of adopting measures specific to the Member States whose currency is the euro with a view to strengthening the coordination and surveillance of their budgetary discipline.\n(2)\nArticle 126 TFEU establishes that Member States are to avoid excessive government deficits and sets out the excessive deficit procedure to that effect. The Stability and Growth Pact, which in its corrective arm implements the excessive deficit procedure, provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.\n(3)\nOn 27 April 2009, the Council decided, in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community that an excessive deficit existed in Greece.\n(4)\nOn 10 May 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/320/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit (1) (hereinafter \u2018the Decision\u2019). The Decision established the deadline of 2014 at the latest for Greece to comply therewith. The Council established the following path for the deficit correction: government deficits not exceeding 8 % of GDP in 2010, 7,6 % of GDP in 2011, 6,5 % of GDP in 2012, 4,9 % of GDP in 2013, and 2,6 % of GDP in 2014.\n(5)\nAccording to the forecast available at the time the Council adopted the Decision, real GDP was expected to contract by 4 % in 2010 and 2,6 % in 2011, and recover afterwards, with growth rates of 1,1 % in 2012, and 2,1 % in 2013 and 2014. GDP deflator was expected to be 1,2 %, - 0,5 %, 1,0 %, 0,7 % and 1,0 % from 2010 to 2014, respectively. Given economic developments in the meantime, the aforementioned real GDP growth rates remain a central scenario with balanced upside and downside risks, while the deflator is now forecast to be substantially higher for the initial years: 3\u00bd %, 1\u00bc % and \u00bd % from 2010 to 2012.\n(6)\nGreece has made good progress in the implementation of the measures required by the Decision. In several areas, measures have been taken in advance of the requirements. This has been the case, in particular, in the field of pension reform, reform of local administration and publication of monthly data on state revenue and expenditure. However, a number of adjustments are still necessary in each of these areas.\n(7)\nOn 6 August 2010, Greece submitted to the Council and the Commission a report outlining the policy measures taken to comply with the Decision. The Commission assessed the report and concluded that Greece is satisfactorily complying with the Decision.\n(8)\nIn the light of the above considerations, it appears appropriate to revise the Decision in a number of respects, while keeping unchanged the deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit and the respective adjustment path for the deficit and government debt,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nDecision 2010/320/EU is amended as follows:\n1.\nin Article 2(2), point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nfiscal consolidation measures amounting to at least 3,2 % of GDP (4,3 % of GDP if carryovers from measures implemented in 2010 are considered) to be included in the draft budget for 2011: a reduction in intermediate consumption of the general government by at least EUR 300 million compared to the 2010 level (on top of savings stemming from the reform of public administration and of local government referred to in this paragraph); a freeze in the indexation of pensions (with the aim of saving EUR 100 million); a temporary crisis levy on highly profitable firms (yielding at least EUR 600 million in additional revenue per year in 2011, 2012 and 2013); a presumptive taxation of professionals (with a yield of at least EUR 400 million in 2011 and increasing returns by at least EUR 100 million per year in 2012 and 2013); a broadening of the VAT base by including certain services currently exempted and by moving 30 % of goods and services from the reduced rate to the main rate (with a yield of EUR 1 billion); a phased-in green tax on CO2 emissions (with a yield of at least EUR 300 million in 2011); the implementation by the Government of the legislation reforming the public administration and a reorganisation of local government (with the aim of reducing costs by at least EUR 500 million in 2011, and additional EUR 500 million in each year 2012 and 2013); a reduction in domestically-financed investments (by at least EUR 500 million) by giving priority to investment projects financed by EU structural funds, incentives to regularise land-use violations (yielding at least EUR 1 500 million from 2011 to 2013, of which at least EUR 500 million in 2011); a collection of revenue from the licensing of gaming (at least EUR 500 million in sales of licences and EUR 200 million in annual royalties); an expansion of the base of the real estate tax by updating asset values (to yield at least EUR 400 million additional revenue); an increased taxation of wages in kind, including by taxing car lease payments (by at least EUR 150 million); an increased taxation of luxury goods (by at least EUR 100 million); a special tax on unauthorised establishments (to yield at least EUR 800 million per year) and a replacement of only 20 % of retiring employees in the public sector (central government, local governments, social security funds, public companies, state agencies and other public institutions). Measures yielding comparable budgetary savings may be considered after consultation with the Commission;\u2019;\n2.\nin Article 2(2), point (b) is deleted;\n3.\nin Article 2(2), point (f) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(f)\nthe launch of independent reviews of central administration and of existing social programmes;\u2019;\n4.\nin Article 2(2), the following points are added:\n\u2018(j)\nthe establishment of a comprehensive central registry for public enterprises;\n(k)\nan action plan with a timetable for concrete actions leading to the creation of a central procurement authority;\n(l)\nan act establishing an upper limit of EUR 50 million for the annual public service obligation contribution from the general government to railway operators for the period 2011-2013 and establishing the principle that the State provides no additional explicit or implicit support to railway operators;\n(m)\na business plan for the Greek railways. The business plan specifies how operational activities will be made profitable, including covering depreciation costs, as from 2011, including by closing loss-making lines, by increasing tariffs and by reducing wages and staffing; provides a detailed sensitivity analysis on the implication for wage costs of various scenarios for the outcome of collective agreement and provides information on several options concerning staff; and provides for the restructuring of the holding company, including the sale of land and other assets;\u2019;\n5.\nin Article 2(2), a new point (n) is added, with the wording of point (c) of Article 2(3);\n6.\nin Article 2(2), the following points are added:\n\u2018(o)\na reform of employment protection legislation to extend the probationary period for new jobs to one year, and to facilitate greater use of temporary contracts and part-time work;\n(p)\nan amendment of the regulation of the arbitration system to allow each of the parties to resort to arbitration if they disagree with the proposal of the mediator;\n(q)\na reform of the arbitration procedure to ensure that it operates according to transparent objective criteria, with an independent committee of arbitrators with decision making capacity free from government influence.\u2019;\n7.\nin Article 2(3), point (a) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(a)\nthe final adoption of the measures referred to in paragraph 2(a);\u2019;\n8.\nin Article 2(3), point (c) shall become point (n) of Article 2(2);\n9.\nin Article 2(3), points (d), (e) and (h) are deleted;\n10.\nin Article 2(3), the following points are added:\n\u2018(m)\nan act disallowing local governments to run deficits at least until 2014;\n(n)\npublication of interim long-term projections of pension expenditure up to 2060 as set out in the July 2010 legislative reform covering the main pension schemes (IKA, including the pension scheme for civil servants, OGA and OAEE);\n(o)\nthe seeking of technical assistance from international experts on the several aspects of the efficiency and effectiveness of the health system and management of hospitals, aiming at enhancing efficiency and reducing waste;\n(p)\nthe enforcement of the payment of EUR 3 for regular outpatient services in public hospitals.\u2019;\n11.\nin Article 2(4), the following point is added:\n\u2018(b)\npublication of comprehensive long-term projections of pension expenditure up to 2060 as set out in the July 2010 legislative reform. The projections shall encompass the supplementary (auxiliary) schemes, based on a comprehensive set of data collected and elaborated by the National Actuarial Authority. The projections shall be peer-reviewed and validated by the Economic Policy Committee.\u2019;\n12.\nin Article 2(5), point (b) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(b)\nmeasures implementing the conclusions of first phase of the independent functional reviews of central administration and social programmes;\u2019;\n13.\nin Article 2(5), the following points are added:\n\u2018(d)\nan act revising the main parameters of the pension system in order to limit the increase in public sector spending on pensions over the period 2010-2060 to less than 2,5 % of GDP, if the long-term projections provided by paragraph 3(n) and paragraph 4(b) show that the projected increase in public pension expenditure would exceed this amount;\n(e)\na revision of the functioning of supplementary/auxiliary public pension schemes with the aim of stabilising expenditure and guarantee the budgetary neutrality of those schemes;\n(f)\na revision of the list of heavy and arduous professions to reduce its coverage to no more than 10 % of the labour force; the new list of difficult and hazardous occupations shall apply with effect from 1 July 2011 to all current and future employees;\n(g)\nimplementation of the reform of the public procurement system, as defined in the action plan.\u2019;\n14.\nin Article 2(7), the following point is added:\n\u2018(c)\nmeasures implementing the conclusions of second phase of the independent functional reviews of central administration and social programmes.\u2019;\n15.\nin Article 4(2), point (g) is replaced by the following:\n\u2018(g)\ngovernment expenditure pending payment, specifying those past due date;\u2019.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.\nArticle 3\nThis Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.\nDone at Brussels, 7 September 2010.", "references": ["81", "0", "27", "25", "52", "35", "58", "61", "85", "3", "26", "48", "90", "62", "87", "12", "92", "13", "54", "17", "7", "98", "74", "84", "28", "11", "51", "39", "46", "18", "No Label", "15", "16", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["15", "16", "32", "33", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/543/CFSP\nof 15 September 2011\nimplementing Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\nIn view of the developments in Libya, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP should be amended,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe entry for the entity set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IV to Decision 2011/137/CFSP.\nArticle 2\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 15 September 2011.", "references": ["25", "91", "33", "99", "72", "65", "35", "53", "88", "6", "30", "4", "86", "40", "54", "17", "63", "71", "15", "59", "20", "52", "27", "12", "82", "89", "76", "57", "5", "9", "No Label", "3", "94"], "gold": ["3", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 569/2011\nof 15 June 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 16 June 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 June 2011.", "references": ["9", "12", "30", "91", "71", "89", "26", "36", "24", "86", "29", "17", "22", "37", "67", "80", "49", "47", "40", "43", "57", "16", "27", "19", "78", "56", "68", "96", "5", "53", "No Label", "35", "61", "66"], "gold": ["35", "61", "66"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 390/2011\nof 19 April 2011\namending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 December 2005 on the establishment of a Community list of air carriers subject to an operating ban within the Community and on informing air passengers of the identity of the operating carrier, and repealing Article 9 of Directive 2004/36/EC (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 (2) established the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Union referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, some Member States communicated to the Commission information that is relevant in the context of updating the Community list. Relevant information was also communicated by third countries. On this basis, the Community list should be updated.\n(3)\nThe Commission informed all air carriers concerned either directly or, when this was not practicable, through the authorities responsible for their regulatory oversight, indicating the essential facts and considerations which would form the basis for a decision to impose on them an operating ban within the Union or to modify the conditions of an operating ban imposed on an air carrier which is included in the Community list.\n(4)\nOpportunity was given by the Commission to the air carriers concerned to consult documents provided by Member States, to submit written comments and to make an oral presentation to the Commission within 10 working days and to the Air Safety Committee established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of the technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (3).\n(5)\nThe authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight over the air carriers concerned have been consulted by the Commission as well as, in specific cases, by some Member States.\n(6)\nThe Air Safety Committee has heard presentations by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Commission about the technical assistance projects carried out in the countries affected by Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005. It has been informed about the requests for further technical assistance and cooperation to improve the administrative and technical capability of civil aviation authorities with a view to resolving any non compliance with applicable international standards.\n(7)\nThe Air Safety Committee has also been informed about enforcement actions taken by EASA and Member States to ensure the continuing airworthiness and maintenance of aircraft registered in the Union and operated by air carriers certified by civil aviation authorities of third countries.\n(8)\nThe Air Safety Committee has also heard presentations by EASA about the categorisation of findings when carrying out ramp inspections in the framework of the of the EU Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA) programme and has endorsed the Agency\u2019s proposals for a new categorisation of non-compliances with ICAO English Language Proficiency (ELP) requirements for pilots in the interest of guaranteeing full compliance with ELP standards without further delay. In accordance with such proposal, a category 2 finding should be raised in case of no ELP compliance but where the licensing state has filed an action plan with ICAO to bring itself to compliance. Furthermore, a category 3 finding should be raised in case of no ELP compliance and where the licensing state has not filed an action plan with ICAO or has notified full compliance without effectively respecting this requirement. Finally, a general remark (category G) should be recorded where formal ELP compliance can be attested even though actual communication during the ramp inspection process is very difficult because of the clear lack of English command of the pilots. The Air Safety Committee agreed to seek to apply these proposals in a harmonised way. EASA undertook to publish shortly relevant guidance material.\n(9)\nThe Air Safety Committee also endorsed the Agency\u2019s proposal for Member States to establish functional links with the relevant Air Navigation Service Providers to report communication difficulties with aircraft crews due to the insufficient command of English of the pilots. Finally, the Air Safety Committee requested EASA to report at the next meeting of the Committee on the SAFA results regarding the implementation of the ELP requirements for pilots as well as on the implementation of the proposed categorisation.\n(10)\nRegulation (EC) No 474/2006 should be therefore amended accordingly.\n(11)\nFollowing the analysis of the European Aviation Safety Agency of information resulting from SAFA ramp checks carried out on aircraft of certain Union air carriers, as well as area specific inspections and audits carried out by their national aviation authorities, some Member States have taken certain enforcement measures. They informed the Commission and the Air Safety Committee about these measures: Cyprus decided on 26 November 2010 to suspend the Air Operator Certificate (AOC) of the air carrier Eurocypria Airlines following the stop of operations and the lack of financial means of the air carrier to operate in safe conditions; Italy decided to suspend on 24 October 2010 the air transport licence held by the air carrier Livingston and that held by the air carrier ItaliAirlines on 11 March 2011; Lithuania decided to revoke the AOC of the air carrier Star 1 Airlines on 11 November 2010; following the liquidation of the air carrier Blue Line and the subsequent suspension of its operating licence, France decided to suspend the AOC of this air carrier on 6 October 2010. Furthermore, France decided not to renew the AOC of Strategic Airlines on 16 September 2010; Greece decided to revoke the AOC of Hellas Jet in November 2010, had suspended the AOC of Athens Airways in January 2011, and had placed Hellenic Imperial Airways under heightened surveillance; Sweden decided not to renew the AOC of the air carrier Viking Airlines AB on 31 December 2010 and the United Kingdom had increased their surveillance activity of the air carriers Jet2.com, Oasis and Titan Airways.\n(12)\nFollowing-up the review of the situation of certain air carriers licensed in Portugal at the Air Safety Committee held in November 2010 (4), the competent authorities of Portugal (INAC) informed about the results of the enhanced safety oversight of the air carriers Luzair and White. Regarding Luzair, INAC reported that following a change of fleet, Luzair\u2019s AOC was suspended on 11 February 2011. Regarding White, INAC reported that it had undertaken 29 inspections in the field of operations as well as 5 inspections in the field of airworthiness, which did not reveal significant deficiencies. In addition, EASA reported that the air carriers were inspected in November 2010 and that neither inspection revealed significant deficiencies. In the context of a general change of policy in the company, two aircraft of type A320 with registration marks CS-TQO and CS-TQK were phased out in 12 November 2010 and 22 February 2011 respectively.\n(13)\nFollowing the analysis of SAFA inspection data by EASA and the identification of an increased number of certain German air carriers with results from SAFA inspections of greater than a major finding per inspection, the Commission launched formal consultations with the competent authorities of Germany (Luftfahrtbundesamt - LBA) and held a meeting on 10 March 2011.\n(14)\nThe root cause analysis of the performance of these air carriers revealed particular weaknesses in the oversight of these carriers as also directly evidenced in a standardisation inspection carried out by EASA from 26-29 May 2009 in the field of operations which also pointed at an insufficient numbers of qualified personnel within the LBA, thus impacting upon Germany\u2019s ability to ensure continuous oversight and limiting the LBA\u2019s ability to increase the level of oversight where necessary.\n(15)\nThe particular situation of Bin Air, an air carrier certified in Germany, was discussed at the meeting of 10 March where the air carrier attended and made presentations indicating the actions it had taken to address verified safety deficiencies identified during SAFA inspections. Also, the competent authorities of Germany informed the Commission of the suspension of the AOC of the air carrier ACH Hamburg GmbH.\n(16)\nGermany confirmed to the Air Safety Committee that the AOC of ACH Hamburg GmbH remained in suspension and the situation would be reviewed in May 2011, and if no progress had been made by this air carrier by that date the AOC would be revoked. Germany also informed that the oversight activities regarding the air carrier Bin Air had been intensified, the aircraft of type Cessna C550, registration D-IJJJ, had been removed from the AOC of air carrier Advance Air Luftfahrtgesellschaft, and that the LBA had intensified its oversight of other air carriers where poor results from ramp checks had highlighted safety deficiencies. The LBA stated that they had made it clear to these air carriers that suspension of their AOCs could be the consequence if no improvements were noted.\n(17)\nIn terms of the lack of qualified staff, Germany informed the Air Safety Committee that no improvement in the situation would occur in 2011. However, an assessment of the LBA\u2019s personnel resources was underway and should conclude in spring 2011, therefore an improvement in the personnel situation is to be anticipated from 2012 onwards.\n(18)\nThe Commission and the Air Safety Committee noted the efforts made by the competent authorities of Germany in resolving the identified safety deficiencies of certain air carriers, and the work underway to address the shortfall in personnel resources within the LBA. However, the Commission also emphasised that, without prejudice to the enforcement powers conferred on it by the Treaty, if such actions are ineffective in improving the performance of air carriers certified in Germany, action would be necessary to ensure that identified safety risks have been adequately controlled.\n(19)\nFollowing the analysis of SAFA inspection data by EASA and the identification of an increased number of Spanish air carriers with results from SAFA inspections of greater than a major finding per inspection, the Commission launched formal consultations with the competent authorities of Spain (AESA) and held a meeting on 14 March 2011.\n(20)\nThe particular situation of Flightline, an air carrier certified in Spain was discussed at the meeting. The air carrier attended and made a presentation on actions taken to address identified safety deficiencies noted during SAFA inspections. In addition the air carrier detailed the actions taken following the accident to aircraft of type Fairchild Metro 3, registration EC-ITP. Flightline explained that they had entered into a business arrangement with the company Air Lada, not a certified air carrier, to operate two Fairchild Metro 3 aircraft, registrations EC-GPS and EC-ITP, using pilots provided by Air Lada. The Commission pointed out to Flightline that the same aircraft had been previously operating within the AOC of Eurocontinental, another air carrier certified in Spain, and that as a result of SAFA inspections and significant safety incidents with the operation of these aircraft, AESA had suspended Eurocontinental\u2019s AOC.\n(21)\nFlightline stated they had conducted all the required conversion training of the pilots and had carried out quality checks of the operation of the aircraft in the Isle of Man. The Commission requested further details concerning the air carrier\u2019s corrective action plan and copies of the internal audit reports of the Fairchild Metro 3 operation. Following receipt of the information on 22 March, the Commission invited the air carrier Flightline to make presentations to the Air Safety Committee.\n(22)\nAt the meeting on 14 March 2011 AESA briefed the Commission that they decided to limit the AOC of Flightline to prevent operation of the Fairchild Metro 3s, and that they had initiated the process to suspend the AOC.\n(23)\nThe Commission invited AESA to provide further clarification on enforcement action concerning four other air carriers certified in Spain which had been identified by EASA as having poor SAFA results. AESA subsequently informed the Commission on 28 March 2011 that, following recent audits of Air Taxi and Charter International, and Zorex, significant safety discrepancies had been noted and, therefore, the procedure to suspend the AOCs of both air carriers had been initiated. In terms of the air carrier Jetnova, AESA awaited the response of the air carrier to specific findings made by AESA and if found to be inadequate will initiate the suspension procedure. With respect to the air carriers Aeronova, Tag Aviation and Alba Star, AESA was continuing its oversight but considered specific regulatory action was not required at this stage. The air carrier Flightline was heard by the Air Safety Committee on 5 April 2011. They briefed that they had introduced revised procedures to enhance the operational control of Flightline flights, particularly those operating away from their main base, had amended their Operations Manual to include guidance on the use of alternate aerodromes, had amended their training programme to reinforce pilot knowledge of operating procedures, and had revised their pilot selection procedures.\n(24)\nSpain informed the Air Safety Committee that following discrepancies found during inspections of Flightline, AESA had initiated on 14 March 2011 a procedure to suspend the AOC of Flightline and had introduced precautionary measures to address the immediate safety concern. AESA confirmed that Flightline had subsequently taken action to address the immediate safety concern and also provided a Corrective Action Plan which was being evaluated by AESA.\n(25)\nIn light of the actions undertaken by the competent authorities of Spain in resolving the identified safety deficiencies of Flightline and other Spanish air carriers it is assessed that, at this time, no further action is necessary. However, the Commission underlined that if such actions are ineffective in improving the performance of air carriers certified in Spain, action would be necessary to ensure that identified safety risks have been adequately controlled. In the meantime, the Commission, in cooperation with EASA, will continue to monitor the safety performance of Spanish air carriers.\n(26)\nINAVIC reported further progress in the resolution of the remaining deficiencies identified by ICAO during its mission on site carried out in January 2010. In particular, INAVIC continues to update the Angolan aviation safety regulations to reflect the last amendments of ICAO standards, further strengthens its capacity, progresses in the recertification of the air carriers in accordance with those regulations, further consolidates its surveillance programme.\n(27)\nWith regard to the oversight of TAAG Angolan Airlines, INAVIC confirmed the information presented to the Commission on 3 March 2011: two aircraft B777 operated by TAAG had been involved in two serious incidents in December 2010 in Portugal and in Angola with damage not contained to the engine. Following preliminary results of the investigation carried out by the competent authorities of Portugal, at this stage, it appeared that both the air carrier and the competent authorities have taken the necessary measures to address the causes identified in relation with the manufacturer and to prevent their further reoccurrence. The operations have now resumed, including to the EU, under an enhanced surveillance programme in liaison with the manufacturer.\n(28)\nINAVIC informed that in the course of the recertification process, oversight activities of certain air carriers have revealed safety concerns and violations of the safety regulations in force, leading INAVIC to take appropriate enforcement actions. Six air carriers found not in compliance with the Angolan aviation safety regulations: AIR GEMINI, SERVISAIR, ALADA, RUI & CONCEICAO, PHA and SAL. In particular, INAVIC provided evidence that their AOC had expired and had not been renewed or were revoked. Consequently, on the basis of the common criteria, these carriers should be removed from Annex A.\n(29)\nINAVIC also indicated that the AOC of the two air carriers, ANGOLA AIR SERVICES and GIRA GLOBO, have been suspended. Pending evidence of technical capacity to complete satisfactorily the certification process by 15 April 2011, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these carriers should remain in Annex A.\n(30)\nINAVIC indicated it had recertified five air carriers in accordance with the Angolan Aviation Safety Regulations: SONAIR Air Services in December 2010, AIR26 on 31 January 2011, HELI-MALONGO Aviation Services of Angola, AEROJET, AIRJET and HELIANG on 15 February 2011. However, to date, there is no verified evidence that sufficient investigations had been conducted prior to the issuance of these new AOCs nor that the significant safety concern identified by ICAO in relation to the certification of air carriers in Angola was effectively closed. Consequently, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these carriers should remain on Annex A.\n(31)\nINAVIC further indicated that it had certified one new air carrier: FLY540 on 31 January 2011. However, there is no verified evidence that sufficient investigations was conducted prior to the issuance of these new AOCs nor that the significant safety concern identified by ICAO in relation to the certification of air carriers in Angola was effectively closed. Consequently, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these carriers should be placed on Annex A.\n(32)\nINAVIC finally reported that four air carriers were still in the recertification process: DIEXIM, AIRNAVE, GUICANGO and MAVEWA. The recertification process, which was expected to be completed by end of 2010, was delayed until 15 April 2011, date by which INAVIC indicated that those carriers shall stop operations if not recertified in accordance with the Angolan aviation safety regulations. Pending the conclusion of this process, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these carriers as well as other air carriers under the regulatory responsibility of INAVIC should remain in Annex A.\n(33)\nThe Commission urges INAVIC to finalise the recertification of the Angolan air carriers with determination and due consideration to potential safety concerns identified in this process. The Commission also encourages INAVIC to fully cooperate with ICAO in order to validate the progress in the implementation of its corrective action plan, including if possible and as appropriate, through an on-site mission (ICAO Coordinated Validation Mission - ICVM).\n(34)\nFurther to their last report on the situation in the Kingdom of Cambodia (5), the competent authorities of Cambodia (SSCA) informed that enforcement actions undertaken to address the deficiencies identified in the course of the ICAO audits have lead to the revocation of all Air Operator Certificates (AOC) that were issued to air carriers licensed in the Kingdom of Cambodia at the time of the ICAO audit.\n(35)\nIn particular, they confirmed that the AOC of Siem Reap International Airways was revoked on 10 October 2010. On the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that this air carrier should be removed from Annex A.\n(36)\nEASA reported on the technical assistance mission carried out in January 2011 to support the capacity building of the competent authorities of the Kingdom of Cambodia. EASA confirmed that the competent authorities of Cambodia have made very significant progress in the resolution of the deficiencies identified by ICAO. In particular, they have restructured completely the aviation legislation and the internal procedures for the initial and continuing oversight of undertakings, which pave the way for an oversight in accordance with the international safety standards. The Commission acknowledges the significant efforts undertaken by the SSCA to comply with the international safety standards and recognises the important of the enforcement actions taken in that respect.\n(37)\nAll air carriers certified in the Democratic Republic of Congo are subject to an operational ban within the Community and listed in Annex A. There is verified evidence that the competent authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo have issued an air operating licence to the air carrier Korongo Airlines on 7 January 2011.\n(38)\nThe Commission entered into consultations with the competent authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo to obtain clarifications on the situation of this air carrier and the conditions of its oversight. The competent authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo failed to provide a reply.\n(39)\nAs there is no evidence of any change to the capacity of the competent authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo to ensure the oversight of air carriers licensed in that State in compliance with the applicable safety standards, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Korongo Airlines should be added to Annex A.\n(40)\nThere is verified evidence of SAFA ramp inspections (6) of aircraft of certain air carriers registered in Georgia indicating various major findings. The competent authorities of Georgia (United Transport Administration - UTA) submitted information regarding enforcement action taken on the AOCs of those air carriers as well as on others. According to this information the following AOCs were revoked: LTD Eurex Airline and JSC Tam Air revoked on 24 November 2010, LTD Sky Way and LTD Sakaviaservice revoked on 29 November 2010, LTD Jav Avia revoked on 18 January 2011, LTD Carre Aviation Georgia revoked on 8 February 2011, LTD Air Batumi revoked on 17 March 2011 and LTD Air Iberia revoked on 4 April 2011. The AOC of LTD Sun Way expired on 3 February 2011 and was not renewed.\n(41)\nThere is verified evidence of accidents and incidents on the part of several Georgian air carriers. This includes the accident of an aircraft type Ilyushin 76TD with the registration number 4L-GNI operated by Sun Way that occurred in Karachi, Pakistan on 28 November 2010 and the recent accident of aircraft type Canadair CL 600 with the registration number 4L-GAE operated by Georgian Airways that occurred in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo on 4 April 2011. There is also evidence of safety non-compliances related to aircraft registered in Georgia imported from countries whose air carriers have been subject to an operating ban within the European Union.\n(42)\nThe Commission, having regard to the abovementioned evidence material, met with the competent authorities of Georgia on 22 March 2011. UTA submitted additional documentation on 22, 25, 28 and 29 March 2011. This documentation indicated that a new independent Civil Aviation Agency is to be established as of 15 April 2011, and that a number of aircraft have been deregistered (7) as a consequence of the revision of the \u2018Rules for the state registration and issuance of certificate of airworthiness to Georgian civil aircraft\u2019 that entered into force on 1 January 2011.\n(43)\nUTA made oral presentations to the Air Safety Committee on 5 April 2011. During the presentation UTA confirmed that a number of air operator certificates had been revoked and that twenty nine out of seventy nine aircraft on the state register had been removed. Furthermore, UTA informed about the corrective actions implemented as the result of the ICAO USOAP audit carried out in 2007, and presented a reform programme encompassing the harmonisation of aviation legislation with the EU acquis resulting from the Common Aviation Area Agreement. These efforts are supported by various initiatives such as a twinning programme and technical assistance to UTA in the framework of the TRACECA programme (Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia).\n(44)\nThe Commission and the Air Safety Committee took note of the progress made by UTA, its willingness to provide transparent information and cooperate closely to remove gaps and that further reforms are foreseen in the near future. The Commission will continue to work closely with the competent authorities of Georgia in their efforts to modernise their civil aviation safety system.\n(45)\nMember States shall ensure that the ramp inspections on aircraft of air carriers registered in Georgia to verify their effective compliance with the relevant safety standards are intensified pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 351/2008 (8) in order to provide basis for the reassessment of this case during the next Air Safety Committee meeting.\n(46)\nFurther to Regulation (EU) No 590/2010 (9), the Commission continued actively the consultations with the competent authorities of Indonesia on the actions undertaken by them to improve aviation safety in Indonesia and to ensure compliance with the applicable safety standards.\n(47)\nThe competent authorities of Indonesia (DGCA) participated in a video conference with the Commission on 11 March 2011 and informed that all air carriers certified in Indonesia, with the exception of Wing Air, had undergone re-certification. The DGCA also informed that only 9 % of the fleet of aircraft operating in Indonesia had yet to be fitted with the required ICAO equipment, that the DGCA had issued an exemption permitting operations until the end of 2011, and that aircraft not fitted after this date would be grounded.\n(48)\nThe Air Safety Committee takes note of these developments and encourages the competent authorities of Indonesia to continue their efforts to enhance the oversight of air carriers under their regulatory responsibility.\n(49)\nThe DGCA requested the removal of cargo only air carriers Cardig Air, Republic Express, Asia Link and Air Maleo, and provided documented evidence showing that the operations of these air carriers were limited to only cargo and excluded the carriage of passengers, and that these authorities took appropriate enforcement action to limit their AOCs to exclude operations into and out of the European Union.\n(50)\nAs a consequence, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that the Indonesian air carriers Cardig Air, Republic Express, Asia Link and Air Maleo should be removed from Annex A.\n(51)\nFollowing the analysis by EASA of the results of ramp checks carried out on aircraft operated into the EU since 2008 by the air carrier Sun D\u2019Or certified in Israel revealing repetitive serious non compliances with international safety standards, the Commission entered into formal consultations with the competent authorities of Israel and heard the air carrier on 16 March 2010. The consultations revealed that the air carrier was not properly certified by the competent authorities of Israel as it was holding an AOC despite the fact that it was not able to demonstrate that it ensured safe operation of airworthy aircraft operated under its responsibility (maintenance and operations control outside the company). Furthermore, the company was not able to demonstrate that it had put appropriate remedial and corrective actions in place to provide for sustainable solutions to the various findings raised during SAFA ramp checks. Hence, the consultations could not ascertain that the carrier complies with the relevant safety standards.\n(52)\nFollowing the consultations with the Commission and the European Aviation Safety Agency and further consultations with the air carrier, the competent authorities of Israel decided to revoke the AOC of Sun D\u2019Or effective April 1, 2011. Following their decision all aircraft were put on the AOC of another Israeli air carrier and Sun D\u2019Or was solely engaged in activities as a ticket seller.\n(53)\nThe competent authorities of Israel were invited to make presentations regarding the oversight of this air carrier to the Air Safety Committee and did so on 6 April 2011. During their presentation they stated that Sun D\u2019Or was not to be (re-)certified. During their presentation, the competent authorities of Israel also informed about their overall efforts to enhance their oversight capabilities and to modernise Israel\u2019s safety system.\n(54)\nConsequently, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that no further action is required.\n(55)\nFollowing the analysis by EASA of the results of ramp checks carried out on aircraft operated into the EU since 2008 by the air carrier Israir certified in Israel revealing repetitive serious non compliances with international safety standards, the Commission entered into formal consultations with the competent authorities of Israel and heard the air carrier on 16 March 2010. The consultations revealed that the air carrier has put in place a series of structural measures designed to ensure that it complies with the relevant safety standards in a sustainable manner. The air carrier changed management (post-holders) with a view to putting effectively in place a safety policy on the basis of a safety management system. It removed from its fleet 3 aircraft of type Airbus A-320 (registration 4X-ABH, 4X-ABD and 4X-ABF) which gave raise to the majority of serious findings raised during SAFA ramp checks. Finally it enhanced the training of qualified staff to ensure that pre-flight inspections are appropriately carried out; it revised its internal operations procedures and introduced a new quality assurance system along with a quality assurance audit system; it revised completely its ground operations manual and its maintenance manual and introduced a modern operations control centre manual.\n(56)\nIn view of these changes and in the light of the presentation of the competent authorities of Israel in the Air Safety Committee on 6 April 2011, it is assessed that the air carrier is able to improve continuously its performance. Member States will continue to verify the effective compliance of Israir with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of this air carrier pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008.\n(57)\nThe competent authorities of Kazakhstan informed the Commission that they are progressing in an ambitious reform of the aviation sector undertaken since 2009 with a view to enhancing air safety. Following the adoption of a new civil aviation code in July 2010, more than 100 specific aviation regulations are being elaborated and the majority of which are already adopted. The competent authorities are also progressing in their capacity building with the recruitment of additional qualified inspectors, to be continued in the coming months.\n(58)\nThe competent authorities of Kazakhstan informed that they continued to take enforcement actions. In particular, they informed that they revoked the AOC of the following air carriers: Air Flamingo; Almaty Aviation; Atyrau Aye Zholy; Arkhabay; Asia Continental Avialines; Centr Pankh; Kazavia National Airlines; Kokhshetau Airlines, Orlan 2000; Zherzu Avia.\n(59)\nThe competent authorities of Kazakhstan stated and provided evidence showing that these air carriers are not any more engaged in commercial air transportation and do not hold any more a valid operating licence in that respect. Therefore they are not considered any more as air carriers within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Regulation EC No 2111/2005. In view of this, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these ten air carriers should be removed from Annex A.\n(60)\nThe competent authorities of Kazakhstan also informed that they reconsidered the case of the air carrier KazAirWest, which had its AOC previously revoked, and issued a new AOC to this air carrier. On the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that this air carrier should be maintained in Annex A.\n(61)\nThe Commission supports the ambitious reform of the Civil aviation system undertaken by the authorities of Kazakhstan and invites these authorities to continue with determination their efforts to implement the corrective actions plan agreed with ICAO, focusing in priority on the unresolved significant safety concerns and the recertification of all operators under their responsibility. The Commission is ready to organise in due time, with the assistance of the European Aviation Safety Agency and the support of Member States, an on-site assessment to verify the progress achieved in the implementation of the action plan.\n(62)\nThe competent authorities of Kyrgyzstan informed that the AOCs of the following four air carriers - Golden Rules Airlines (GRS), Max Avia (MAI), Tenir Airlines (TEB) and Sky Gate International (SGD) were revoked in 2009 and 2010 and their ICAO designator codes were recalled by ICAO. Consequently, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these carriers should be removed from Annex A.\n(63)\nThe competent authorities of Kyrgyzstan also informed that the AOCs of three other air carriers - Itek Air, Trast Aero and Asian Air, had expired but failed to provide evidence thereof. Consequently, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these carriers should remain in Annex A.\n(64)\nGiven that no evidence of full implementation of appropriate remedial actions by the other air carriers certified in Kyrgyzstan and by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of these air carriers has been communicated to the Commission so far, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these air carriers should remain in Annex A.\n(65)\nThe Commission encourages the competent authorities of Kyrgyzstan to continue their efforts towards resolution of all non-compliance findings identified during the audit carried out by ICAO in April 2009 as part of its Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP). The European Commission, assisted by the European Aviation Safety Agency and with the support of the Member States, is ready to carry out an assessment on site once the implementation of the action plan submitted to ICAO has sufficiently advanced; The objective of this visit would be to verify the implementation of the applicable safety requirements by the competent authorities and by the undertakings under its oversight.\n(66)\nThere is evidence of numerous safety deficiencies on the part of Air Madagascar certified in Madagascar. These deficiencies have been identified by the competent authorities of France during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme. The results concerning the B-767 aircraft are noticeably worse than other aircraft of the air carrier. The number of findings at each SAFA inspection, the repetition of the safety deficiencies and the fact that the situation is deteriorating since 2010 indicate a serious safety concern.\n(67)\nICAO carried out a Universal Safety Oversight Audit in February 2008 and reported a large number of significant deficiencies with regards to the capability of the civil aviation authorities of Madagascar to perform their air safety oversight responsibilities.\n(68)\nThe Commission, having regard to the SAFA inspections and the results of the ICAO audit report, entered on 28 February 2011 into a formal consultation with the competent authorities of Madagascar, expressing serious concerns about the safety of the operations of Air Madagascar and urging the carrier and its competent authorities pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 to take measures to respond to ICAO findings and to satisfactorily resolve the safety deficiencies detected by SAFA inspections.\n(69)\nThe Commission met on 16 March 2011 with the civil aviation authorities of Madagascar and representatives from Air Madagascar in order to get assurance that they have both taken actions to solve the safety deficiencies raised during the SAFA inspections or that at least appropriate measures have been taken to mitigate the identified safety risks. Unfortunately, information provided during this meeting could not demonstrate the conduct of a comprehensive root cause analysis of the safety deficiencies and the implementation of a solid corrective and preventive action plan by the company as well as the running of an appropriate safety oversight programme by the authorities. As a consequence, the civil aviation authorities of Madagascar and the operator Air Madagascar were invited to clarify the situation during the meeting of the Air Safety Committee in April 2011.\n(70)\nAir Madagascar and the competent authorities of Madagascar were heard by the Air Safety Committee on 5 April 2011. Air Madagascar presented a further enhanced corrective and preventive action plan based on a solid root cause analysis but failed to provide evidence that these actions have produced results so far.\n(71)\nThe Committee whilst welcoming the encouraging moves by the air carrier expressed its concerns regarding the persistence of serious weaknesses in the field of the continuing airworthiness of all aircraft operated by Air Madagascar. The air carrier accepted the deficiencies regarding its aircraft of type Boeing B-767. It stated that it considered the measures currently in place capable of mitigating the safety risks for the rest of its fleet because of the lower flight frequencies and/or the age of these aircraft.\n(72)\nThe Committee acknowledged the efforts made by the air carrier towards bringing sustainable solutions in response to the safety deficiencies raised during the SAFA inspections and urged the competent authorities of Madagascar to enhance their oversight activities with a view to ensuring an effective implementation of the corrective and preventive action plan of the operator without undue delay.\n(73)\nTaking into account the numerous and repeated safety deficiencies detected during ramp checks of aircraft of type Boeing B-767 operated by Air Madagascar and the insufficient ability of the company to implement to date an appropriate corrective and preventive actions plan and the lack of exercise of adequate safety oversight exercised by the competent authorities of Madagascar of the operations of this air carrier, the Commission following the opinion of the Air Safety Committee considers that, the air carrier should not be allowed to operate into the Union with its aircraft of type Boeing B-767. Accordingly, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Air Madagascar should be placed on Annex B and its operations should be subject to restrictions to exclude all aircraft of type Boeing B-767. The air carrier should be permitted to fly into the Union with the other types of aircraft on its AOC as per Annex B.\n(74)\nMember States will continue to verify the effective compliance of Air Madagascar with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of this air carrier pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008.\n(75)\nThere is verified evidence of lack of ability of the authority responsible for the safety oversight of air carriers certified in Mozambique to implement and enforce the relevant safety standards, as demonstrated by the results of the audit carried out by the ICAO under the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) in January 2010. This audit reported a large number of significant deficiencies with regard to the capability of the civil aviation authorities of Mozambique to discharge their air safety oversight responsibilities. At the time of the issuance of the ICAO final report, more than 77 % of ICAO standards were not effectively implemented. On certain critical elements such as the provision for qualified technical personnel, more than 98 % of ICAO standards were not effectively implemented. Regarding the resolution of safety concerns, more than 93 % of ICAO standards were not effectively implemented.\n(76)\nFollowing the USOAP audit of Mozambique, ICAO has notified to all states party to the Chicago Convention the existence of a significant safety concern affecting the safety oversight of carriers licensed in Mozambique (10), according to which the certification process used in Mozambique for the issuance of an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) does not address the applicable provisions of ICAO Annex 6. In particular, the 15 air operators in Mozambique, including international air operators, still operate with Air Operator Certificates (AOCs) that were issued in accordance with the previous regulations that have been repealed. The competent authorities of Mozambique (IACM) had not evaluated all of the specific items pertaining to the certification process prior to the issuance of an AOC, and the IACM cannot ensure that all of the 15 AOC holders comply with the provisions of Annex 6 and national regulations prior to conducting international flight operations. Furthermore, the IACM has not been performing surveillance inspections of air operators for over 2 years.\n(77)\nThere is evidence of insufficient ability from the competent authorities of Mozambique to remedy effectively the non-compliance findings made by ICAO, as demonstrated by the fact that a significant part of the corrective action plans proposed by these authorities to remedy the non-compliance findings identified by ICAO were not considered acceptable by ICAO. This is in particular the case for the significant safety concern identified by ICAO, which remains unresolved. Furthermore, the competent authorities of Mozambique informed that the implementation of the corrective action plans has experienced delays.\n(78)\nThe Commission, having regard to the results of the ICAO USOAP audit, has entered into consultations with the competent authorities of Mozambique (IACM) in March 2010, expressing serious concerns about the safety of the operations of air carriers licensed in the State, asking for clarifications regarding the actions undertaken by the competent authorities to address the findings identified by ICAO.\n(79)\nIACM submitted documentation between April 2010 and April 2011 and made presentations to the Air Safety Committee on 6 April 2011. IACM indicated that following the submission to ICAO of the above mentioned corrective action plan, they have initiated the first steps of its implementation. They informed in particular that a reform of IACM is underway, with a view to strengthen significantly its independence and its oversight capacity, and that pending the recruitment of sufficient qualified inspectors IACM had entered into contracts with external consultants to support the oversight activities. However, in the opinion of the Air Safety Committee, IACM did not provide evidence that IACM alone has currently sufficient resources to ensure the oversight of all air carriers certified in Mozambique. They informed that 13 air carriers are certified in Mozambique and that they have been able, with the support of these consultants, to recertify 8 of them in 2010 in accordance with the Civil Aviation Regulations of Mozambique, including three air carriers involved in international flights - Mozambique Airlines, Mozambique Express and Trans Airways. However, in the opinion of the Air Safety Committee, they did not provide evidence that these carriers are subject to a continuous oversight in line with the applicable safety standards. Finally, they confirmed that 5 air carriers, declared to be solely involved in domestic operations, continue to operate with AOCs that were issued in accordance with the previous regulations that have been repealed; however, IACM did not provide these certificates. Furthermore, the significant safety concern notified by ICAO in that respect remains open to date.\n(80)\nMozambique Airlines (LAM) made written submissions and made presentations to the Air Safety Committee on 6 April 2011. LAM confirmed it was recertified on 6 April 2010 in accordance with the Civil Aviation Regulations of Mozambique. However, this AOC, which expired on 5 April, was renewed on 6 April 2011 by IACM with a limitation to exclude the low visibility approaches in Cat III as it was confirmed the carrier did not have the approvals to conduct such approaches. Mozambique Express (MEX) made written submissions and made presentations to the Air Safety Committee on 6 April 2011. MEX confirmed it was recertified in April 2010 in accordance with the Civil Aviation Regulations of Mozambique, although four aircraft of type Embraer 120 are operated without being equipped with E-GPWS (TAWS).\n(81)\nThe Commission and the Air Safety Committee acknowledge the efforts made to reform the civil aviation system in Mozambique and the first steps undertaken to address the safety deficiencies reported by ICAO. However, on the basis of the common criteria, pending the effective implementation of adequate corrective actions to remedy the deficiencies identified by ICAO and in particular the significant safety concerns, it is assessed that the competent authorities of Mozambique are, at this stage, not able to implement and enforce the relevant safety standards on all air carriers under their regulatory control. Therefore, all air carriers certified in Mozambique should be subject to an operating ban and therefore included in Annex A.\n(82)\nThe competent authorities of Portugal reported that they have agreed to provide technical assistance to the competent authorities of Mozambique and started to do so. This technical assistance will in particular encompass training of qualified staff and procedures in the area of exercise of oversight.\n(83)\nThe Commission and the Air Safety Committee encourage Mozambique to continue to fully cooperate with ICAO to validate an adequate corrective action plan to remedy the deficiencies identified by that Organisation and to validate the progress in its implementation through an ICVM mission in due time. The European Commission, with the support of the European Aviation Safety Agency, as well as the Member States, is ready to consider providing technical assistance if necessary in that respect.\n(84)\nThe Commission following the opinion of the Air Safety Committee will be ready to reassess the situation on the basis of verified evidence that the implementation of the action plan submitted to ICAO has sufficiently advanced.\n(85)\nFollowing a visit by the Commission to the Russian Federation in December 2010, the competent authorities of the Russian Federation submitted information regarding the AOCs of certain Russian air carriers whose results in SAFA ramp inspections indicated various major findings per inspection. Furthermore, during consultations with these authorities on 8 March the competent authorities of the Russian Federation undertook to submit to the Commission the following information: a) information on the results of their surveillance activities of the RU authorities on the identified Russian air carriers; b) information on the implementation of corrective actions by these air carriers to resolve problems identified during SAFA ramp inspections; and c) the list of AOCs of certain Russian air carriers flying into the EU.\n(86)\nOn the basis of the information submitted by the competent authorities of the Russian Federation, the following aircraft contained in the AOCs of certain air carriers do not currently comply with ICAO standards and the Air Safety Committee urges the Commission to seek to clarify the international operations of these aircraft with the competent authorities of the Russian Federation:\n(a)\nAircompany Yakutia: aircraft Antonov AN-140 registration RA-41250; AN-24RV registration RA-46496, RA-46665, RA-47304, RA-47352, RA-47353, RA-47360; RA-47363AN-26 registration RA-26660; aircraft Tupolev TU-154M registration RA-85007, RA-85707 and 85794.\n(b)\nAtlant Soyuz: aircraft Tupolev TU-154M registration RA-85672 and RA-85682 previously operated by Atlant Soyuz are both aircraft currently operated by other air carriers certified in the Russian Federation.\n(c)\nGazpromavia: aircraft Tupolev TU-154M registration RA-85625 and RA-85774; Yakovlev Yak-40 registration RA-87511, RA- 88300 and RA-88186; Yak-40K registration RA-21505, RA-98109 and RA-8830; Yak-42D registration RA-42437; all (22) helicopters Kamov Ka-26 (unknown registration); all (49) helicopters Mi-8 (unknown registration); all (11) helicopters Mi-171 (unknown registration); all (8) helicopters Mi-2 (unknown registration); all (1) helicopter EC-120B: RA-04116.\n(d)\nKavminvodyavia: aircraft Tupolev TU-154B registration RA-85494 and RA-85457.\n(e)\nKrasnoyarsky Airlines: the aircraft of type TU-154M RA-85672 previously on the AOC of Krasnoyarsky Airlines, which was revoked in 2009 is currently operated by Atlant Soyuz; the aircraft of the same type with registration RA-85682 is operated by another air carrier certified in the Russian Federation.\n(f)\nKuban Airlines: aircraft Yakovlev Yak-42 registration RA-42331, RA-42350, RA-42538, and RA-42541.\n(g)\nOrenburg Airlines: aircraft Tupolev TU-154B registration RA-85602; all TU-134 (unknown registration); all Antonov An-24 (unknown registration); all An-2 (unknown registration); all helicopters Mi-2 (unknown registration); all helicopters Mi-8 (unknown registration).\n(h)\nMoscovia Airlines: aircraft Antonov AN-12 RA-12193 and RA-12194.\n(i)\nTatarstan Airlines: aircraft Yakovlev Yak-42D registration RA-42374 and RA-42433.\n(j)\nUral Airlines: aircraft Tupolev TU-154B registration RA-85508 (the aircraft RA-85319, RA-85337, RA-85357, RA-85375, RA-85374 and RA-85432 are currently not operated for financial reasons).\n(k)\nUTAir: aircraft Tupolev TU-154M registration RA-85733, RA-85755, RA-85806, RA-85820; all (24) TU-134: RA-65024, RA-65033, RA-65127, RA-65148, RA-65560, RA-65572, RA-65575, RA-65607, RA-65608, RA-65609, RA-65611, RA-65613, RA-65616, RA-65620, RA-65622, RA-65728, RA-65755, RA-65777, RA-65780, RA-65793, RA-65901, RA-65902, and RA-65977; the aircraft RA-65143 and RA-65916 are operated by another Russian carrier; all (1) TU-134B: RA-65726; all (10) aircraft Yakovlev Yak-40: RA-87348 (currently not operated for financial reasons), RA-87907, RA-87941, RA-87997, RA-88209, RA-88227 and RA-88280; the aircraft of the same type RA-87292 and RA-88244 have been retired; all helicopters Mil-26: (unknown registration); all helicopters Mil-10: (unknown registration); all helicopters Mil-8 (unknown registration); all helicopters AS-355 (unknown registration); all helicopters BO-105 (unknown registration); the aircraft of type AN-24B RA-46388 and RA-87348 are not operated for financial reasons; RA-46267 and RA-47289 and the aircraft of type AN-24RV RA-46509, RA-46519 and RA-47800 are operated by another Russian carrier.\n(l)\nRossija (STC Russia): aircraft Tupolev TU-134 registration RA-65979, the aircraft RA-65904, RA-65905, RA-65911, RA-65921 and RA-65555 are operated by another Russian carrier; aircraft Ilyushin IL-18 registration RA-75454 is operated by another Russian carrier; aircraft Yakovlev Yak-40 registration RA-87203, RA-87968, RA-87971, RA-87972 and RA-88200 are operated by another Russian carrier.\n(m)\nRussair: aircraft Tupolev TU-134A registration RA 65124, RA-65908, RA-65087, RA-65790, RA-65576, RA-65102, RA-65550 and RA-65691.\n(n)\nKosmos: aircraft Tupolev TU-134-A3 registration RA-65805,RA-65010, RA-65097, RA-65557, RA-65566, TU-134-B registration RA-65574.\n(o)\nThe 224th-Flight Unit State Airlines: aircraft Ilyushin IL-76MD registration RA-76638 and RA-78750.\n(p)\nDaghestan Airlines: aircraft Tupolev TU-134B registration RA-65569.\n(q)\nKogalymavia: aircraft Tupolev TU-134A3 registration RA-65943, RA-65045, RA-65943, RA65944 and RA-65944; Tupolev TU-154B2 registration RA-85522.\n(87)\nThe Commission and the Air Safety Committee take note of the submissions by the competent authority of the Russian Federation and will pursue the sustainable resolution of identified safety non compliances through further technical consultations with the competent authorities of the Russian Federation.\n(88)\nIn the meantime, Member States will continue to verify the effective compliance of Russian air carriers with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of these carriers pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008 and the Commission will continue to closely monitor the actions taken by them.\n(89)\nThe air carrier Ukrainian Mediterranean Airlines (UMAir) requested to be heard by the Air Safety Committee and made written submissions in advance. It informed that further to its fleet renewal plans the aircraft of type DC-9 51 were not operated anymore. Also it informed that it had been re-certified by the Ukrainian civil aviation authority (UKR SAA) in January 2011 and that it had received an AOC valid for 2 years.\n(90)\nUMAir also provided documentation intending to demonstrate that all corrective actions stemming from the EU visits in May and October 2009 had been closed. Furthermore, it provided documentation regarding the verification of the status of implementation of corrective action addressing findings raised by the UKR SAA during surveillance activities. It has also submitted an investigation report on a serious incident that occurred in Beirut on 21 September 2010. According to this report the emergency landing of DC-9-51 registration UR-CBY, shortly after take-off, was due to engine shut down, which was most probably caused by bird strike. However, the report also revealed that one critical engine-inoperative procedure had not been included in UMAir\u2019s Manual of Operations.\n(91)\nGiven that the report of a ramp inspection carried out in the EU (11) on 28 February 2011 on aircraft UR-CHN operated by the air carrier revealed serious deficiencies, the Commission requested additional information to the air carrier. In response to this request the air carrier provided documentation on the operations specifications and airworthiness certificate for the aircraft MD83 registration UR-CHN showing that it is equipped with ICAO mandatory equipment.\n(92)\nThe carrier was invited to a technical meeting on 25 March 2011 to clarify the outstanding issues. During and following the meeting it provided details on the results of internal audits, inspections and ramp checks and respective corrective measures undertaken and indicated that its current Manual of Operations contained all necessary normal, abnormal and emergency procedures and provides for recurrent training on simulators.\n(93)\nUKR SAA requested to make presentations to the Air Safety Committee and did so on 6 April 2011 where it presented the process of inspections and verification and reporting of the implementation of corrective measures by the air carriers under its safety oversight, including UMAir. UKR SAA confirmed that UMAir had rectified all findings identified during the EU visits in May and October 2009. UKR SAA also stated that it continued to discharge its responsibilities as State of Registry and State of Operator with respect to the UMAir\u2019s wet leasing operations.\n(94)\nThe Air Safety Committee welcomed the improvements achieved by UMAir in the implementation of international safety standards and the suspension of DC-9-51 aircraft operations, as well as the statements made by the UKR SAA and considered that the operations of this air carrier should no longer be subject to any restrictions. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Ukrainian Mediterranean Airlines (UM Air) should be removed from Annex B.\n(95)\nMember States will continue to verify the effective compliance of UMAir with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of this air carrier pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 351/2008.\n(96)\nNo evidence of the full implementation of appropriate remedial actions by the other air carriers included in the Community list updated on 22 November 2010 and by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of these air carriers has been communicated to the Commission so far in spite of specific requests submitted by the latter. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these air carriers should continue to be subject to an operating ban (Annex A) or operating restrictions (Annex B), as the case may be.\n(97)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Air Safety Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EC) No 474/2006 is amended as follows:\n(1)\nAnnex A is replaced by the text set out in Annex A to this Regulation;\n(2)\nAnnex B is replaced by the text set out in Annex B to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 19 April 2011.", "references": ["65", "23", "36", "69", "20", "82", "6", "77", "2", "97", "10", "87", "85", "35", "80", "12", "43", "47", "14", "71", "58", "4", "63", "66", "96", "79", "5", "1", "42", "44", "No Label", "53", "54", "57"], "gold": ["53", "54", "57"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 519/2011\nof 25 May 2011\nestablishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),\nHaving regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,\nWhereas:\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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 XV, Part A thereto,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on 26 May 2011.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 25 May 2011.", "references": ["71", "80", "49", "9", "89", "26", "23", "87", "6", "90", "83", "84", "60", "5", "20", "50", "58", "96", "98", "77", "67", "55", "42", "47", "43", "22", "88", "24", "91", "41", "No Label", "35", "61", "68"], "gold": ["35", "61", "68"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 8 November 2011\non the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products reached on the basis of Article 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area\n(2011/818/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a), thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nArticle 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area foresees that the contracting parties undertake to continue their efforts with a view to achieving progressive liberalisation of agricultural trade between them.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Council Decision 2010/676/EU of 8 November 2010 (1) the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products reached on the basis of Article 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) was signed on 15 April 2011, subject to its conclusion.\n(3)\nThe Agreement should be approved,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products reached on the basis of Article 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (\u2018the Agreement\u2019) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall designate the person empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, with the deposit of the instrument of approval provided in the Agreement, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the Agreement (2).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 8 November 2011.", "references": ["44", "12", "27", "60", "32", "2", "73", "69", "6", "72", "66", "46", "77", "86", "39", "37", "23", "99", "49", "51", "31", "45", "33", "71", "61", "47", "57", "63", "16", "56", "No Label", "3", "9", "21", "22", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "9", "21", "22", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION\nof 24 January 2012\namending Decision 2008/855/EC as regards the dispatch to other Member States of certain meat and meat products from holdings situated in the areas listed in Part III of the Annex thereto\n(notified under document C(2012) 181)\n(Text with EEA relevance)\n(2012/40/EU)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Decision 2008/855/EC of 3 November 2008 concerning animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in certain Member States (3) lays down certain control measures applicable in relation to classical swine fever in the Member States or regions thereof set out in the Annex thereto.\n(2)\nArticle 7(1) of Decision 2008/855/EC provides that Member States concerned with areas listed in Part III of the Annex thereto are to ensure that no consignments of fresh pigmeat from holdings located in the areas listed in Part III of that Annex, and meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing such meat are dispatched from those areas to other Member States.\n(3)\nPart III of that Annex currently lists the whole territory of Romania.\n(4)\nRomania has provided information to the Commission showing that the classical swine fever situation in that Member State has significantly improved since the adoption of Decision 2008/855/EC.\n(5)\nRomania has requested that the dispatch to other Member States of fresh pigmeat and meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing fresh meat from pigs kept in that Member State be permitted, provided that the safety of those commodities is ensured by means of a channelled system.\n(6)\nSuch system would consist of holdings or one or more epidemiological units operating a common bio-security management system and an established supply chain, to ensure a distinct health status for classical swine fever for the subpopulation of pigs kept therein. Those holdings or epidemiological units are situated in areas in which surveillance, control and bio-security measures are being applied.\n(7)\nThe holdings belonging to the channelled system and the establishments which are producing, storing and processing fresh pigmeat and meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing such meat should be approved by the competent authority and notified to the Commission, provided that they meet the additional health conditions laid down in Decision 2008/855/EC.\n(8)\nIn addition, the production, storage and processing of such meat and meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing such meat should be carried out separately from that of other products consisting of or containing meat derived from pigs from holdings outside the channelling system located in the areas listed in Part III of the Annex to Decision 2008/855/EC.\n(9)\nIn order to ensure the safety of meat, meat products and meat preparations produced under the channelling system, regular inspections should be carried out by the competent authority in the holdings which form part of the channelled system.\n(10)\nCouncil Directive 2001/89/EC of 23 October 2001 on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever (4) establishes the minimum Union measures for the control of classical swine fever. That Directive provides that, as soon as confirmation of a primary case of classical swine fever in feral pigs has taken place, in order to reduce the spread of the disease, the competent authority of a Member State is to immediately order a number of measures detailed in that Directive.\n(11)\nThe regular inspections carried out by the competent authority in the holdings which form part of the channelled system should in particular verify that those measures are effectively applied.\n(12)\nCommission Decision 2002/106/EC of 1 February 2002 approving a Diagnostic Manual establishing diagnostic procedures, sampling methods and criteria for evaluation of the laboratory tests for the confirmation of classical swine fever (5) identifies the most suitable sampling procedures and criteria for evaluation of the results of the laboratory tests for a proper diagnosis of this disease in different situations. Those procedures and criteria should therefore be used during the regular inspections carried out by the competent authority in the holdings which form part of the channelling system.\n(13)\nRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (6) provides that Member States are to ensure that official controls with respect to fresh meat take place in accordance with Annex I thereto. That Regulation also provides that health marks are to be applied when official controls have not identified any deficiencies that would make the meat unfit for human consumption. Consequently, fresh meat produced under the channelling system should, in order to be permitted for dispatch to other Member States, be marked with the health mark set out in Chapter III of Section I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\n(14)\nRegulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (7) provides that food business operators are not to place on the market a product of animal origin handled in an establishment subject to approval in accordance with that Regulation, unless it has either a health mark applied in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 or, when that Regulation does not provide for the application of a health mark, an identification mark applied in accordance with Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004. The meat preparations and meat products containing pigmeat produced under the channelling system should therefore be marked with the identification mark provided for in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, in order to be permitted for dispatch to other Member States.\n(15)\nThe Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) carried out an audit in Romania in July 2011. A number of significant deficiencies were outlined in the implementation of the programme for the control and monitoring of classical swine fever as well as in the channelled system proposed by Romania. However, the conclusion of the report was that the implementation of such a system in that Member State has the potential to function effectively, given some relatively minor amendments. The FVO report made specific recommendations for the improvement of these deficiencies by the Romanian authorities. Following the audit, Romania has informed the Commission that the deficiencies identified during the audit have been corrected following the implementation of an action plan that addresses them. The Commission has examined these corrections and considers that they are sufficient for the channelled system to function effectively.\n(16)\nIn addition, the programme for the control and monitoring of classical swine fever submitted by Romania was approved for the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012 by Commission Implementing Decision 2011/807/EU of 30 November 2011 approving annual and multiannual programmes and the financial contribution from the Union for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses presented by the Member States for 2012 and following years (8). Under that programme and in the context of the above referred action plan, Romania has implemented additional surveillance measures with regard to classical swine fever with favourable results.\n(17)\nIn view of the data available, it is appropriate to permit the dispatch to other Member States of fresh pigmeat and meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing such meat from pigs kept in Romania in accordance to the provisions laid down in this Decision, provided that the channelled system proposed by that Member State is in place.\n(18)\nDecision 2008/855/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(19)\nThe measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe following Article 8c is inserted in Decision 2008/855/EC:\n\u2018Article 8c\nDispatch to other Member States of fresh pigmeat and meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing such meat from the areas listed in Part III of the Annex\n1. By way of derogation from Article 7(1), the Member States concerned with areas listed in Part III of the Annex may authorise the dispatch to other Member States of fresh pigmeat and meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing such meat, provided that they:\n(a)\nare derived from pigs which have been kept since birth in holdings:\n(i)\nwhich are approved for that purpose by the competent authority and notified by it to the Commission and the other Member States;\n(ii)\nwhich implement a bio-security plan approved by the competent authority;\n(iii)\nwhich have only introduced pigs from holdings:\n-\napproved in accordance with this Decision, or\n-\nlocated in areas not listed in the Annex and not subject to any restrictions for classical swine fever in accordance with national or Union legislation during a period of 6 months prior to the introduction of the pigs; the period preceding the date of approval of the holding in accordance with this Decision is included in that six-month period;\n(iv)\nwhich are regularly inspected by the competent authority at intervals of not more than 3 months; during such inspections the competent authority must at least:\n-\nfollow the guidelines laid down in Chapter III of the Annex to Decision 2002/106/EC,\n-\ncarry out a clinical examination in accordance with the checking and sampling procedures laid down in Part A of Chapter IV of the Annex to Decision 2002/106/EC,\n-\nverify the effective application of the provisions laid down in the second indent and in the fourth to seventh indents of Article 15(2)(b) of Directive 2001/89/EC,\n-\nimmediately suspend or withdraw the approval in case of non-compliance;\n(v)\nwhere the animals have been subjected to laboratory testing for classical swine fever carried out with negative results on samples taken in accordance with the sampling procedures as laid down in the classical swine fever surveillance plan implemented by the competent authority for a period of at least 6 months prior to movement to the slaughterhouse referred to in point (b);\n(vi)\nwhich are located in the centre of an area of at least 10 km radius in which animals in the pig holdings have been subjected to laboratory testing for classical swine fever carried out with negative results on samples taken in accordance with the sampling procedures as laid down in the classical swine fever surveillance plan implemented by the competent authorities for at least the last 3 months prior to movement to the slaughterhouse referred to in point (b);\n(vii)\nwhich are located in a county in which:\n-\na programme for the control and monitoring of classical swine fever approved by the Commission is implemented,\n-\nthe incidence and prevalence of classical swine fever in domestic and feral pigs has significantly decreased,\n-\nno evidence of classical swine fever virus circulation in pigs has been detected in the last 12 months;\n(b)\nwere produced in slaughterhouses, cutting plants and meat processing establishments:\n(i)\nwhich are approved for that purpose by the competent authority and notified by it to the Commission and the Member States;\n(ii)\nin which the production, storage and processing of the fresh meat and meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing such meat eligible for dispatch to other Member States is carried out separately from the production, storage and processing of other products consisting of or containing fresh meat and meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing meat derived from pigs originating in or coming from holdings other than those approved pursuant to point (a)(i).\n2. The fresh pigmeat referred to in paragraph 1 shall be marked as provided for in Chapter III of Section I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.\nThe meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing meat referred to in paragraph 1 shall be marked as provided for in Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.\u2019\nArticle 2\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 24 January 2012.", "references": ["53", "16", "48", "49", "13", "11", "51", "81", "75", "62", "23", "52", "27", "18", "87", "45", "76", "71", "12", "0", "85", "1", "33", "41", "74", "47", "37", "59", "99", "7", "No Label", "20", "61", "66", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"], "gold": ["20", "61", "66", "69", "72", "91", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 680/2010\nof 29 July 2010\namending Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on apples\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nCommission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2) provides for surveillance of imports of the products listed in Annex XVII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).\n(2)\nFor the purposes of applying Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded as part of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2007, 2008 and 2009, the trigger levels for additional duties on apples should be adapted.\n(3)\nRegulation (EC) No 1580/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.\n(4)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 September 2010.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 29 July 2010.", "references": ["14", "91", "73", "99", "76", "46", "13", "63", "4", "57", "18", "55", "66", "93", "26", "69", "53", "44", "81", "25", "77", "86", "40", "31", "87", "98", "24", "27", "88", "33", "No Label", "10", "21", "22", "68"], "gold": ["10", "21", "22", "68"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 600/2012\nof 21 June 2012\non the verification of greenhouse gas emission reports and tonne-kilometre reports and the accreditation of verifiers pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and in particular the fourth paragraph of Article 15 thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nAn overall framework of rules for the accreditation of verifiers is necessary to ensure that the verification of operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s reports in the framework of the Union\u2019s greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme, to be submitted in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), is carried out by verifiers that possess the technical competence to perform the entrusted task in an independent and impartial manner and in conformity with the requirements and principles set out in this Regulation.\n(2)\nDirective 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (3) established a general framework to facilitate the free movement of services and service providers in the Union while maintaining a high quality of service. Union harmonisation of the rules for accreditation and verification relating to the Union\u2019s emissions trading scheme should contribute to a competitive market for verifiers while ensuring transparency and information for operators and aircraft operators.\n(3)\nWhen implementing Article 15 of Directive 2003/87/EC, it is necessary to ensure a synergy between the comprehensive framework for accreditation established by Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 (4) and related provisions of Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products, and repealing Council Decision 93/465/EEC (5) on one hand, and the specific features of the Union\u2019s greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and requirements that are essential for the effective implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC on the other hand. Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 should continue to apply to those aspects of accreditation of verifiers which are not dealt with by this Regulation. In particular, it should be ensured that where, due to the internal practices of a Member State, an alternative procedure to accreditation, namely, the certification of verifiers that are natural persons, is carried out by a national authority appointed by that Member State in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, the Member State concerned shall provide documentary evidence that such authority meets a level of credibility similar to national accreditation bodies that have successfully undergone peer evaluation organised by the body recognised under Article 14 of that Regulation.\n(4)\nRegulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), repealing Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 and Commission Decisions 2001/681/EC and 2006/193/EC (6) provides for an independent and neutral accreditation or licensing system for environmental verifiers. For reasons of coherence and to reduce the administrative burden imposed on the Member States and economic operators, it is appropriate to take account of synergies between that and this Regulation.\n(5)\nThe system of verification and accreditation should avoid any unnecessary duplication of procedures and organisations established pursuant to other Union legal instruments that would result in an increased burden for Member States or economic operators. Therefore, it is appropriate to draw on best practices resulting from the application of harmonised standards adopted by the European Committee for Standardisation on the basis of a remit issued by the Commission in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (7), such as the harmonised standard concerning general requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies, and the harmonised standard concerning requirements for greenhouse gas validation and verification bodies for use in accreditation or other forms of recognition, the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, as well as Document EA-6/03 and other technical documents developed by the European co-operation for Accreditation or by other bodies.\n(6)\nWhen establishing harmonised rules for the verification of operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s reports and the accreditation of verifiers, it is necessary to ensure that the burden imposed on operators emitting a lower amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, on aircraft operators considered small emitters within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, as well as on the available resources of the Member States is not disproportionate to the aims pursued.\n(7)\nArticle 27 of Directive 2003/87/EC allows Member States to exclude small installations, subject to equivalent measures, from the Union\u2019s greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme provided that the conditions contained in that Article are met. This Regulation should not apply directly to those installations excluded pursuant to Article 27 of Directive 2003/87/EC unless the Member State decides that this Regulation should apply.\n(8)\nIn accordance with the principles of Annex V of Directive 2003/87/EC, the verifier should apply a risk-based approach with the aim of reaching a verification opinion providing reasonable assurance that the total emissions or tonne-kilometres are not materially misstated and the report can be verified as satisfactory. The level of assurance should relate to the depth and detail of verification activities carried out during the verification and the wording of the verification opinion statement. The verifier should be obliged, in the light of the findings and information obtained during the verification process, to adjust one or more activities in the verification process to meet the requirements for achieving reasonable assurance.\n(9)\nTo avoid entanglement between the role of the competent authority and the verifier, the responsibilities of a verifier when carrying out verification should be clearly defined. The verifier should take the monitoring plan approved by the competent authority as a reference point and assess whether this plan and the procedures described in this plan have been implemented correctly. Where the verifier identifies non-compliance with Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, it should be the responsibility of the verifier to report this non-compliance issue in the verification report.\n(10)\nFull understanding of the activities of an operator or an aircraft operator is necessary for the performance of an effective verification of an operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report. A verifier should only perform the requested verification activities after it has ascertained following a preliminary assessment that it is competent to do so. In the pursuit of a high-quality level of verification activities, harmonised rules should be developed for a preliminary assessment to determine whether a verifier is competent, independent and impartial to carry out the requested verification activities in accordance with the rules and principles set out in this Regulation.\n(11)\nProvision of relevant information between the operator or the aircraft operator and the verifier is essential in all facets of the verification process, in particular in the pre-contractual phase, in the performance of a strategic analysis by the verifier and throughout the verification. It is necessary to establish a set of harmonised requirements that should govern this provision of information between the operator or aircraft operator and the verifier at all times.\n(12)\nAll verification activities in the verification process are interconnected and should be concluded with the issuance of a verification report by the verifier containing a verification statement that is commensurate with the outcome of the verification assessment. Harmonised requirements for the verification reports and the performance of the verification activities should be established to ensure that verification reports and verification activities in the Member States meet the same standards.\n(13)\nAnalysing the susceptibility of reported data to misstatements that could be material is an essential part of the verification process and determines how the verification activities should be carried out by the verifier. Every element in the verification process is therefore strongly linked to the outcome of the analysis of these risks of misstatements.\n(14)\nSpecific provision should be made for the verification of the report of aircraft operators and that of operators of sites which are subject to Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (8).\n(15)\nCorrect and effective reporting of greenhouse gas emissions by the operator or the aircraft operator is essential for the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC. To ensure the proper functioning of the monitoring and reporting process, continuous improvement of the operator or aircraft operator\u2019s performance should be part of the verification activities performed by the verifier.\n(16)\nVerification activities and the issuance of verification reports should only be carried out by verifiers and their personnel that are competent. Verifiers should establish and continuously improve internal processes that ensure that all personnel involved in the verification activities are competent to perform the tasks entrusted to them. The criteria for determining whether a verifier is competent should be the same in all Member States and should be verifiable, objective and transparent.\n(17)\nThe national accreditation body established pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 should be empowered to accredit and issue an authoritative statement concerning the competence of a verifier to perform the verification activities pursuant to this Regulation, adopt administrative measures and carry out the surveillance of verifiers.\n(18)\nA Member State that does not consider it economically meaningful or sustainable to establish a national accreditation body or to carry out accreditation activities should have recourse to the national accreditation body of another Member State. Only national accreditation bodies that have undergone a successful peer evaluation organised by the body recognised under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 should be permitted to perform the accreditation activities pursuant to this Regulation.\n(19)\nNational accreditation bodies that demonstrate conformity with this Regulation and that have already successfully undergone peer evaluation organised by the body recognised under Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 765/2008 should be presumed to fulfil the procedural requirements imposed on national accreditation bodies such as requirements on the structure of a national accreditation body, setting up a competence process, setting up the necessary procedures and management system and arrangements to safeguard the confidentiality of information obtained and should be exempted from undergoing a new peer evaluation following the entry into force of this Regulation. In accordance with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (9), environmental information contained in verified operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s reports held by the public authorities should be made public to ensure transparency, subject to certain confidentiality requirements.\n(20)\nEffective cooperation between national accreditation bodies, or where applicable, other national authorities, and competent authorities is essential for the proper functioning of the greenhouse gas emission allowance scheme and the supervision on the quality of verification. For reasons of transparency, it is necessary to ensure that the national accreditation bodies, or where applicable, other national authorities, and competent authorities establish effective means of information exchange. Information exchanges between competent authorities and between competent authorities and national accreditation bodies or other national authorities should be governed by the strictest guarantees of confidentiality and professional secrecy and be handled in accordance with applicable national and Union law.\n(21)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nCHAPTER I\nGENERAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 1\nSubject matter\nThis Regulation lays down provisions for the verification of reports submitted pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC and for the accreditation and supervision of verifiers.\nThis Regulation also specifies, without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, provisions for the mutual recognition of verifiers and peer evaluation of national accreditation bodies pursuant to Article 15 of Directive 2003/87/EC.\nArticle 2\nScope\nThis Regulation shall apply to the verification of greenhouse gas emissions and tonne-kilometre data occurring from 1 January 2013, reported pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 2003/87/EC.\nArticle 3\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, in addition to the definitions laid down in Article 3 of Directive 2003/87/EC and Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, the following definitions shall apply:\n(1)\n\u2018detection risk\u2019 means the risk that the verifier does not detect a material misstatement;\n(2)\n\u2018accreditation\u2019 means attestation by a national accreditation body that a verifier meets the requirements set by harmonised standards, within the meaning of point 9 of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, and requirements set out in this Regulation to carry out the verification of an operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report pursuant to this Regulation;\n(3)\n\u2018verifier\u2019 means a legal person or another legal entity carrying out verification activities pursuant to this Regulation and accredited by a national accreditation body pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 and this Regulation or a natural person otherwise authorised, without prejudice to Article 5(2) of that Regulation, at the time a verification report is issued;\n(4)\n\u2018verification\u2019 means the activities carried out by a verifier to issue a verification report pursuant to this Regulation;\n(5)\n\u2018material misstatement\u2019 means a misstatement that, in the opinion of the verifier, individually or when aggregated with other misstatements, exceeds the materiality level or could affect the treatment of the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report by the competent authority;\n(6)\n\u2018operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report\u2019 means the annual emission report to be submitted by the operator or aircraft operator pursuant to Article 14(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC or the tonne-kilometre report to be submitted by the aircraft operator for the purposes of applying for the allocation of allowances pursuant to Articles 3e and 3f of that Directive;\n(7)\n\u2018scope of accreditation\u2019 means activities referred to in Annex I for which accreditation is sought or has been granted;\n(8)\n\u2018competence\u2019 means the ability to apply knowledge and skills to carry out an activity;\n(9)\n\u2018materiality level\u2019 means the quantitative threshold or cut-off point above which misstatements, individually or when aggregated with other misstatements, are considered material by the verifier;\n(10)\n\u2018control system\u2019 means the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s risk assessment and entire set of control activities, including the continuous management thereof, that an operator or aircraft operator has established, documented, implemented and maintained pursuant to Article 58 of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012;\n(11)\n\u2018control activities\u2019 means any acts carried out or measures implemented by the operator or aircraft operator to mitigate inherent risks;\n(12)\n\u2018non-conformity\u2019 means one of the following:\n(a)\nfor the purposes of verifying an operator\u2019s emission report, any act or omission of an act by the operator that is contrary to the greenhouse gas emissions permit and the requirements in the monitoring plan approved by the competent authority;\n(b)\nfor the purposes of verifying an aircraft operator\u2019s emission or tonne-kilometre report, any act or omission of an act by the aircraft operator that is contrary to the requirements in the monitoring plan approved by the competent authority;\n(c)\nfor the purposes of accreditation pursuant to Chapter IV, any act or omission of an act by the verifier that is contrary to the requirements of this Regulation;\n(13)\n\u2018site\u2019 means, for the purposes of verifying the emission or tonne-kilometre report of an aircraft operator, the locations where the monitoring process is defined and managed, including the locations where relevant data and information are controlled and stored;\n(14)\n\u2018control environment\u2019 means the environment in which the internal control system functions and the overall actions of an operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s management to ensure awareness of this internal control system;\n(15)\n\u2018inherent risk\u2019 means the susceptibility of a parameter in the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report to misstatements that could be material, individually or when aggregated with other misstatements, before taking into consideration the effect of any related control activities;\n(16)\n\u2018control risk\u2019 means the susceptibility of a parameter in the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report to misstatements that could be material, individually or when aggregated with other misstatements, and that will not be prevented or detected and corrected on a timely basis by the control system;\n(17)\n\u2018verification risk\u2019 means the risk, being a function of inherent risk, control risk and detection risk, that the verifier expresses an inappropriate verification opinion when the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report is not free of material misstatements;\n(18)\n\u2018reasonable assurance\u2019 means a high but not absolute level of assurance, expressed positively in the verification opinion, as to whether the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report subject to verification is free from material misstatement;\n(19)\n\u2018analytical procedures\u2019 means the analysis of fluctuations and trends in the data including an analysis of the relationships that are inconsistent with other relevant information or that deviate from predicted amounts;\n(20)\n\u2018internal verification documentation\u2019 means all internal documentation that a verifier has compiled to record all documentary evidence and justification of activities that are carried out for the verification of an operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report;\n(21)\n\u2018EU ETS lead auditor\u2019 means an EU ETS auditor in charge of directing and supervising the verification team, who is responsible for performing and reporting on the verification of an operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report;\n(22)\n\u2018EU ETS auditor\u2019 means an individual member of a verification team responsible for conducting a verification of an operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report other than the EU ETS lead auditor;\n(23)\n\u2018technical expert\u2019 means a person who provides detailed knowledge and expertise on a specific subject matter needed for the performance of verification activities for the purposes of Chapter III and for the performance of accreditation activities for the purposes of Chapter V;\n(24)\n\u2018level of assurance\u2019 means the degree of assurance the verifier provides on the verification report based on the objective to reduce the verification risk according to the circumstances of the verification engagement;\n(25)\n\u2018assessor\u2019 means a person assigned by a national accreditation body to perform individually or as part of an assessment team an assessment of a verifier pursuant to this Regulation;\n(26)\n\u2018lead assessor\u2019 means an assessor who is given the overall responsibility for the assessment of a verifier pursuant to this Regulation;\n(27)\n\u2018misstatement\u2019 means an omission, misrepresentation or error in the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s reported data, not considering the uncertainty permissible pursuant to Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012.\nArticle 4\nPresumption of conformity\nWhere a verifier demonstrates its conformity with the criteria laid down in the relevant harmonised standards, within the meaning of point 9 of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, or parts thereof, the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, it shall be presumed to comply with the requirements set out in Chapters II and III of this Regulation in so far as the applicable harmonised standards cover those requirements.\nArticle 5\nGeneral framework for accreditation\nWhere no specific provisions concerning the composition of the national accreditation bodies or the activities and requirements linked to accreditation are laid down in this Regulation, the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 shall apply.\nCHAPTER II\nVERIFICATION\nArticle 6\nReliability of verification\nA verified emissions report shall be reliable for users. It shall represent faithfully that which it either purports to represent or may reasonably be expected to represent.\nThe process of verifying emission reports shall be an effective and reliable tool in support of quality assurance and quality control procedures, providing information upon which an operator or aircraft operator can act to improve performance in monitoring and reporting emissions.\nArticle 7\nGeneral obligations of the verifier\n1. The verifier shall carry out the verification and the activities required by this Chapter with the aim of providing a verification report that concludes with reasonable assurance that the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report is free from material misstatements.\n2. The verifier shall plan and perform the verification with an attitude of professional scepticism recognising that circumstances may exist that cause the information in the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report to contain material misstatements.\n3. The verifier must carry out verification in the public interest, independent of the operator or aircraft operator and the competent authorities responsible for Directive 2003/87/EC.\n4. During the verification, the verifier shall assess whether:\n(a)\nthe operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report is complete and meets the requirements laid down in Annex X of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012;\n(b)\nthe operator or aircraft operator has acted in compliance with the requirements of the greenhouse gas emissions permit and the monitoring plan approved by the competent authority, where the verification of an operator\u2019s emission report is concerned, and with the requirements of the monitoring plan approved by the competent authority, where the verification of an aircraft operator\u2019s emission or tonne-kilometre report is concerned;\n(c)\nthe data in the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report are free from material misstatements;\n(d)\ninformation can be provided in support of the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s data flow activities, control system and associated procedures to improve the performance of their monitoring and reporting.\nFor the purpose of point (c) of this paragraph, the verifier shall obtain clear and objective evidence from the operator or aircraft operator to support the reported aggregated emissions or tonne-kilometres taking into account all other information provided in the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report.\n5. Where the verifier discovers that an operator or an aircraft operator is not complying with Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, that irregularity shall be included in the verification report even if the monitoring plan concerned is approved by the competent authority.\n6. Where the monitoring plan has not been approved by the competent authority pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, is incomplete or where significant modifications referred to in Article 15(3) or (4) of that Regulation have been made during the reporting period which have not been accordingly approved by the competent authority, the verifier shall advise the operator or aircraft operator to obtain the necessary approval from the competent authority.\nFollowing the approval by the competent authority, the verifier shall continue, repeat or adapt the verification activities accordingly.\nWhere the approval has not been obtained before the issue of the verification report, the verifier shall report this in the verification report.\nArticle 8\nPre-contractual obligations\n1. Before accepting a verification engagement, a verifier shall obtain a proper understanding of the operator or aircraft operator and assess whether it can undertake the verification. For this purpose the verifier shall at least:\n(a)\nevaluate the risks involved to undertake the verification of the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report in accordance with this Regulation;\n(b)\nundertake a review of the information supplied by the operator or aircraft operator to determine the scope of the verification;\n(c)\nassess whether the engagement falls within the scope of its accreditation;\n(d)\nassess whether it has the competence, personnel and resources required to select a verification team capable of dealing with the complexity of the installation or the aircraft operator\u2019s activities and fleet as well as whether it is capable of successfully completing the verification activities within the timeframe required;\n(e)\nassess whether it is capable of ensuring that the potential verification team at its disposal holds all the competence, and persons required to carry out verification activities for that specific operator or aircraft operator;\n(f)\ndetermine, for each verification engagement requested, the time allocation needed to properly carry out the verification.\n2. The operator or aircraft operator shall provide the verifier with all relevant information that enables the verifier to carry out the activities referred to in paragraph 1.\nArticle 9\nTime allocation\n1. When determining the time allocation for a verification engagement referred to in Article 8(1)(f), the verifier shall at least take into account:\n(a)\nthe complexity of the installation or the aircraft operator\u2019s activities and fleet;\n(b)\nthe level of information and the complexity of the monitoring plan approved by the competent authority;\n(c)\nthe required materiality level;\n(d)\nthe complexity and completeness of the data flow activities and the control system of the operator or aircraft operator;\n(e)\nthe location of information and data related to greenhouse gas emissions or tonne-kilometre data.\n2. The verifier shall ensure that the verification contract provides for a possibility of time to be charged in addition to the time agreed in the contract, where such additional time is found to be needed for the strategic analysis, risk analysis or other verification activities. The situations where the additional time may be applied shall include at least the following:\n(a)\nduring the verification where the data flow activities, control activities or logistics of the operator or aircraft operator seem to be more complex than initially anticipated;\n(b)\nwhere misstatements, non-conformities, insufficient data or errors in the data sets are identified by the verifier during the verification.\n3. The verifier shall document the time allocated in the internal verification documentation.\nArticle 10\nInformation from an operator or aircraft operator\n1. Before the strategic analysis and at other points of time during the verification, the operator or aircraft operator shall provide the verifier with all of the following:\n(a)\nthe operator\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions permit when this concerns the verification of an operator\u2019s emission report;\n(b)\nthe latest version of the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s monitoring plan as well as any other relevant versions of the monitoring plan approved by the competent authority, including evidence of the approval;\n(c)\na description of the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s data flow activities;\n(d)\nthe operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s risk assessment referred to in Article 58(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, and an outline of the overall control system;\n(e)\nthe procedures mentioned in the monitoring plan as approved by the competent authority, including procedures for data flow activities and control activities;\n(f)\nthe operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s annual emission or tonne-kilometre report, as appropriate;\n(g)\nwhere applicable, the operator\u2019s sampling plan referred to in Article 33 of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 as approved by the competent authority;\n(h)\nwhere the monitoring plan was modified during the reporting period, a record of all those modifications in accordance with Article 16(3) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012;\n(i)\nwhere applicable, the report referred to in Article 69(4) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012;\n(j)\nthe verification report from the previous year if the verifier did not carry out the verification for that particular operator or aircraft operator the previous year;\n(k)\nall relevant correspondence with the competent authority, in particular information related to the notification of modifications of the monitoring plan;\n(l)\ninformation on databases and data sources used for monitoring and reporting purposes, including those from Eurocontrol;\n(m)\nwhere the verification concerns the emission report of an installation carrying out the geological storage of greenhouse gases in a storage site permitted under Directive 2009/31/EC, the monitoring plan required by that Directive and the reports required by Article 14 of that Directive, covering at least the reporting period of the emissions report to be verified;\n(n)\nwhere applicable, the approval of the competent authority for not carrying out site visits for installations pursuant to Article 31(1);\n(o)\nany other relevant information necessary for the planning and carrying out of the verification.\n2. Before the verifier issues the verification report, the operator or aircraft operator shall provide it with the final authorised and internally validated operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report.\nArticle 11\nStrategic analysis\n1. At the beginning of the verification the verifier shall assess the likely nature, scale and complexity of the verification tasks by carrying out a strategic analysis of all activities relevant to the installation or the aircraft operator.\n2. For the purposes of understanding the activities carried out by the installation or the aircraft operator, the verifier shall collect and review the information needed to assess that the verification team is sufficiently competent to carry out the verification, to determine that the time allocation indicated in the contract has been set correctly and to ensure that it is able to conduct the necessary risk analysis. The information shall include at least:\n(a)\nthe information referred to in Article 10(1);\n(b)\nthe required materiality level;\n(c)\nwhere the verifier is carrying out the verification for the same operator or aircraft operator, the information obtained from the verification in previous years.\n3. When reviewing the information referred to in paragraph 2, the verifier shall at least assess the following:\n(a)\nfor the purposes of the verification of the operator\u2019s emission report, the category of the installation referred to in Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 and the activities carried out at that installation;\n(b)\nfor the purposes of the verification of the aircraft operator\u2019s emission or tonne- kilometre report, the size and nature of the aircraft operator, the distribution of information in different locations as well as the number and type of flights;\n(c)\nthe monitoring plan approved by the competent authority as well as the specifics of the monitoring methodology laid down in that monitoring plan;\n(d)\nthe nature, scale and complexity of emission sources and source streams as well as the equipment and processes that have resulted in emissions or tonne-kilometre data, including the measurement equipment described in the monitoring plan, the origin and application of calculation factors and other primary data sources;\n(e)\nthe data flow activities, the control system and the control environment.\n4. When carrying out the strategic analysis, the verifier shall check the following:\n(a)\nwhether the monitoring plan presented to it is the most recent version approved by the competent authority;\n(b)\nwhether there have been any modifications of the monitoring plan during the reporting period;\n(c)\nwhether those modifications have been notified to the competent authority pursuant to Article 15(1) or Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 or approved by the competent authority in accordance with Article 15(2) of that Regulation.\nArticle 12\nRisk analysis\n1. The verifier shall identify and analyse the following elements to design, plan and implement an effective verification:\n(a)\nthe inherent risks;\n(b)\nthe control activities;\n(c)\nwhere control activities referred to in point (b) have been implemented, the control risks concerning the effectiveness of these control activities.\n2. When identifying and analysing the elements referred to in paragraph 1, the verifier shall at least consider:\n(a)\nthe findings from the strategic analysis referred to in Article 11(1);\n(b)\nthe information referred to in Article 10(1) and Article 11(2)(c);\n(c)\nthe materiality level referred to in Article 11(2)(b).\n3. Where the verifier has determined that the operator or aircraft operator has failed to identify the relevant inherent risks and control risks in its risk assessment, the verifier shall inform the operator or aircraft operator thereof.\n4. Where appropriate according to the information obtained during the verification, the verifier shall revise the risk analysis and modify or repeat the verification activities to be performed.\nArticle 13\nVerification plan\n1. The verifier shall draft a verification plan commensurate with the information obtained and the risks identified during the strategic analysis and the risk analysis, and including at least:\n(a)\na verification programme describing the nature and scope of the verification activities as well as the time and manner in which these activities are to be carried out;\n(b)\na test plan setting out the scope and methods of testing the control activities as well as the procedures for control activities;\n(c)\na data sampling plan setting out the scope and methods of data sampling related to data points underlying the aggregated emissions in the operator or aircraft operator\u2019s emission report or the aggregated tonne-kilometre data in the aircraft operator\u2019s tonne-kilometre report.\n2. The verifier shall set up the test plan referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 in a manner that allows it to determine the extent to which the relevant control activities may be relied on for the purposes of assessing compliance with the requirements mentioned in Article 7(4)(b).\nWhen determining the sampling size and sampling activities for testing the control activities, the verifier shall consider the following elements:\n(a)\nthe inherent risks;\n(b)\nthe control environment;\n(c)\nthe relevant control activities;\n(d)\nthe requirement to deliver a verification opinion with reasonable assurance.\n3. When determining the sampling size and sampling activities for sampling the data referred to in point (c) of paragraph 1, the verifier shall consider the following elements:\n(a)\nthe inherent risks and control risks;\n(b)\nthe results of the analytical procedures;\n(c)\nthe requirement to deliver a verification opinion with reasonable assurance;\n(d)\nthe materiality level;\n(e)\nthe materiality of the contribution of an individual data element to the overall data set.\n4. The verifier shall set up and implement the verification plan such that the verification risk is reduced to an acceptable level to obtain reasonable assurance that the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report is free from material misstatements.\n5. The verifier shall update the risk analysis and the verification plan, and adapt the verification activities during the verification when it finds additional risks that need to be reduced or when there is less actual risk than initially expected.\nArticle 14\nVerification activities\nThe verifier shall implement the verification plan and, based on the risk analysis, the verifier shall check the implementation of the monitoring plan as approved by the competent authority.\nTo that end, the verifier shall at least carry out substantive testing consisting of analytical procedures, data verification and checking the monitoring methodology and check the following:\n(a)\nthe data flow activities and the systems used in the data flow, including information technology systems;\n(b)\nwhether the control activities of the operator or aircraft operator are appropriately documented, implemented, maintained and effective to mitigate the inherent risks;\n(c)\nwhether the procedures listed in the monitoring plan are effective to mitigate the inherent risks and control risks and whether the procedures are implemented, sufficiently documented and properly maintained.\nFor the purposes of point (a) of the second paragraph, the verifier shall track the data flow following the sequence and interaction of the data flow activities from primary source data to the compilation of the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report.\nArticle 15\nAnalytical procedures\n1. The verifier shall use analytical procedures to assess the plausibility and completeness of data where the inherent risk, the control risk and the aptness of the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s control activities show the need for such analytical procedures.\n2. In carrying out the analytical procedures referred to in paragraph 1, the verifier shall assess reported data to identify potential risk areas and to subsequently validate and tailor the planned verification activities. The verifier shall at least:\n(a)\nassess the plausibility of fluctuations and trends over time or between comparable items;\n(b)\nidentify immediate outliers, unexpected data and data gaps.\n3. In applying the analytical procedures referred to in paragraph 1, the verifier shall perform the following procedures:\n(a)\npreliminary analytical procedures on aggregated data before carrying out the activities referred to in Article 14 in order to understand the nature, complexity and relevance of the reported data;\n(b)\nsubstantive analytical procedures on the aggregated data and the data points underlying these data for the purposes of identifying potential structural errors and immediate outliers;\n(c)\nfinal analytical procedures on the aggregated data to ensure that all errors identified during the verification process have been resolved correctly.\n4. Where the verifier identifies outliers, fluctuations, trends, data gaps or data that are inconsistent with other relevant information or that differ significantly from expected amounts or ratios, the verifier shall obtain explanations from the operator or aircraft operator supported by additional relevant evidence.\nBased on the explanations and additional evidence provided, the verifier shall assess the impact on the verification plan and the verification activities to be performed.\nArticle 16\nData verification\n1. The verifier shall verify the data in the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report by applying detailed testing of the data, including tracing the data back to the primary data source, cross-checking data with external data sources, performing reconciliations, checking thresholds regarding appropriate data and carrying out recalculations.\n2. As part of the data verification referred to in paragraph 1 and taking into account the approved monitoring plan, including the procedures described in that plan, the verifier shall check:\n(a)\nfor the purposes of verifying an operator\u2019s emission report, the boundaries of an installation;\n(b)\nfor the purposes of verifying an operator\u2019s emission report, the completeness of source streams and emission sources as described in the monitoring plan approved by the competent authority;\n(c)\nfor the purposes of verifying an aircraft operator\u2019s emission report and tonne-kilometre report, the completeness of flights falling within an aviation activity listed in Annex I of Directive 2003/87/EC for which the aircraft operator is responsible as well as the completeness of emission data and tonne-kilometre data respectively;\n(d)\nfor the purposes of verifying an aircraft operator\u2019s emission report and tonne-kilometre report, the consistency between reported data and mass and balance documentation;\n(e)\nfor the purposes of verifying an aircraft operator\u2019s emission report, the consistency between aggregated fuel consumption and data on fuel purchased or otherwise supplied to the aircraft performing the aviation activity;\n(f)\nthe consistency of the aggregated reported data in an operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report with primary source data;\n(g)\nwhere a measurement based methodology referred to in Article 21(1) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 is applied by an operator, the measured values using the results of the calculations performed by the operator in accordance with Article 46 of that Regulation;\n(h)\nthe reliability and accuracy of the data.\n3. For the purposes of checking the completeness of flights referred to in point (c) of paragraph 2, the verifier shall use an aircraft operator\u2019s air traffic data, including data collected from Eurocontrol or other relevant organisations which can process air traffic information such as that available to Eurocontrol.\nArticle 17\nVerification of the correct application of the monitoring methodology\n1. The verifier shall check the correct application and implementation of the monitoring methodology as approved by the competent authority in the monitoring plan, including specific details of that monitoring methodology.\n2. For the purposes of verifying the operator\u2019s emission report, the verifier shall check the correct application and implementation of the sampling plan referred to in Article 33 of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, as approved by the competent authority.\n3. Where CO2 is transferred in accordance with Articles 48 and 49 of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 and the CO2 transferred is measured by both the transferring and receiving installation, the verifier shall check whether differences between the measured values at both installations can be explained by the uncertainty of the measurement systems and whether the correct arithmetic average of the measured values has been used in the emission reports of both installations.\nWhere the differences between the measured values at both installations cannot be explained by the uncertainty of the measurement systems, the verifier shall check whether adjustments were made to align the differences between the measured values, whether those adjustments were conservative and whether the competent authority has granted approval for those adjustments.\n4. Where operators are required, pursuant to Article 12(3) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, to include further elements in the monitoring plan that are relevant for meeting the requirements of Article 24(1) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU (10), the verifier shall check the correct application and implementation of the procedures referred to in Article 12(3) of that Regulation. In doing so, the verifier shall also check whether information on any planned or actual changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of an installation have been submitted by the operator to the competent authority by 31 December of the reporting period.\nArticle 18\nVerification of methods applied for missing data\n1. Where methods laid down in the monitoring plan as approved by the competent authority have been used to complete missing data pursuant to Article 65 of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, the verifier shall check whether the methods used were appropriate for the specific situation and whether they have been applied correctly.\nWhere the operator or aircraft operator has obtained an approval by the competent authority to use other methods than those referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 65 of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, the verifier shall check whether the approved approach has been applied correctly and appropriately documented.\nWhere an operator or an aircraft operator is not able to obtain such approval in time, the verifier shall check whether the approach used by the operator or aircraft operator to complete the missing data ensures that the emissions are not underestimated and that this approach does not lead to material misstatements.\n2. The verifier shall check whether the control activities implemented by the operator or aircraft operator to prevent missing data referred to in Article 65(1) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 from occurring are effective.\nArticle 19\nUncertainty assessment\n1. Where Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 requires the operator to demonstrate compliance with the uncertainty thresholds for activity data and calculation factors, the verifier shall confirm the validity of the information used to calculate the uncertainty levels as set out in the approved monitoring plan.\n2. Where an operator applies a monitoring methodology not based on tiers, as referred to in Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, the verifier shall check all of the following:\n(a)\nwhether an assessment and quantification of the uncertainty has been carried out by the operator demonstrating that the required overall uncertainty threshold for the annual level of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to point (c) of Article 22 of that Regulation has been met;\n(b)\nthe validity of the information used for the assessment and quantification of the uncertainty;\n(c)\nwhether the overall approach used for the assessment and the quantification of the uncertainty is in accordance with point (b) of Article 22 of that Regulation;\n(d)\nwhether evidence is provided that the conditions for the monitoring methodology referred to in point (a) of Article 22 of that Regulation have been met.\n3. Where the aircraft operator is required, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, to demonstrate that the required uncertainty levels are not exceeded, the verifier shall check the validity of the information used to demonstrate that the applicable uncertainty levels as set out in the monitoring plan approved by the competent authority have not been exceeded.\nArticle 20\nSampling\n1. When checking the conformance of control activities and procedures referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 14 or when performing the checks referred to in Articles 15 and 16, the verifier may use sampling methods specific to an installation or aircraft operator provided that, based on the risk analysis, sampling is justified.\n2. Where the verifier identifies a non-conformity or a misstatement in the course of sampling, it shall request the operator or aircraft operator to explain the main causes of the non-conformity or the misstatement in order to assess the impact of the non-conformity or misstatement on the reported data. Based on the outcome of that assessment, the verifier shall determine whether additional verification activities are needed, whether the sampling size needs to be increased, and which part of the data population has to be corrected by the operator or aircraft operator.\n3. The verifier shall document the outcome of the checks referred to in Articles 14, 15, 16 and 17, including the details of additional samples, in the internal verification documentation.\nArticle 21\nSite visits\n1. At one or more appropriate times during the verification process, the verifier shall conduct a site visit in order to assess the operation of measuring devices and monitoring systems, to conduct interviews, to carry out the activities required by this Chapter as well as to gather sufficient information and evidence enabling it to conclude whether the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report is free from material misstatements.\n2. The operator or aircraft operator shall provide the verifier access to its sites.\n3. For the purposes of verifying the operator\u2019s emission report, the verifier shall also use a site visit to assess the boundaries of the installation as well as the completeness of source streams and emission sources.\n4. For the purposes of verifying the operator\u2019s emission report, the verifier shall decide, based on the risk analysis, whether visits to additional locations are needed, including where relevant parts of data flow activities and control activities are carried out in other locations such as company headquarters and other off-site offices.\nArticle 22\nAddressing misstatements and non-conformities\n1. Where the verifier has identified misstatements or non-conformities during the verification, it shall inform the operator or aircraft operator thereof on a timely basis and request relevant corrections.\nThe operator or aircraft operator shall correct any communicated misstatements or non-conformities.\n2. The verifier shall document and mark as resolved, in the internal verification documentation, all misstatements or non-conformities that have been corrected by the operator or aircraft operator during the verification.\n3. Where the operator or aircraft operator does not correct the misstatements or non-conformities communicated to them by the verifier in accordance with paragraph 1 before the verifier issues the verification report, the verifier shall request the operator or aircraft operator to explain the main causes of the non-conformity or misstatement in order to assess the impact of the non-conformities or misstatements on the reported data.\nThe verifier shall determine whether the uncorrected misstatements, individually or when aggregated with other misstatements, have a material effect on the total reported emissions or tonne-kilometre data. In assessing the materiality of misstatements the verifier shall consider the size and nature of the misstatement as well as the particular circumstances of their occurrence.\nThe verifier shall assess whether the uncorrected non-conformity, individually or when combined with other non-conformities, has an impact on the reported data and whether this leads to material misstatements.\nThe verifier may consider misstatements as material even if those misstatements, individually or when aggregated with other misstatements, are below the materiality level set out in Article 23, where such consideration is justified by the size and nature of the misstatements and the particular circumstances of their occurrence.\nArticle 23\nMateriality level\n1. The materiality level shall be 5 % of the total reported emissions in the reporting period which is subject to verification, for any of the following:\n(a)\ncategory A installations referred to in Article 19(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 and category B installations referred to in Article 19(2)(b) of that Regulation;\n(b)\naircraft operators with annual emissions equal to or less than 500 kilotonnes of fossil CO2.\n2. The materiality level shall be 2 % of the total reported emissions in the reporting period which is subject to verification, for any of the following:\n(a)\ncategory C installations referred to in Article 19(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012;\n(b)\naircraft operators with annual emissions of more than 500 kilotonnes of fossil CO2.\n3. For the purposes of verifying tonne-kilometre reports of aircraft operators, the materiality level shall be 5 % of the total reported tonne-kilometre data in the reporting period which is subject to verification.\nArticle 24\nConcluding on the findings of verification\nWhen completing the verification and considering the information obtained during the verification, the verifier shall:\n(a)\ncheck the final data from the operator or aircraft operator, including data that have been adjusted based upon information obtained during the verification;\n(b)\nreview the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s reasons for any differences between the final data and data previously provided;\n(c)\nreview the outcome of the assessment to determine whether the monitoring plan approved by the competent authority, including the procedures described in that plan, has been implemented correctly;\n(d)\nassess whether the verification risk is at an acceptably low level to obtain reasonable assurance;\n(e)\nensure that sufficient evidence has been gathered to be able to give a verification opinion with reasonable assurance that the report is free from material misstatements;\n(f)\nensure that the verification process is fully documented in the internal verification documentation and that a final judgment in the verification report can be given.\nArticle 25\nIndependent review\n1. The verifier shall submit the internal verification documentation and the verification report to an independent reviewer prior to the issuance of the verification report.\n2. The independent reviewer shall not have carried out any verification activities that are subject to his review.\n3. The scope of the independent review shall encompass the complete verification process described in this Chapter and recorded in the internal verification documentation.\nThe independent reviewer shall perform the review so as to ensure that the verification process is conducted in accordance with this Regulation, that the procedures for verification activities referred to in Article 40 have been correctly carried out, and that due professional care and judgment has been applied.\nThe independent reviewer shall also assess whether the evidence gathered is sufficient to enable the verifier to issue a verification report with reasonable assurance.\n4. Where circumstances occur which may cause changes in the verification report after the review, the independent reviewer shall also review those changes and the evidence thereof.\n5. The verifier shall properly authorise a person to authenticate the verification report based upon the conclusions of the independent reviewer and the evidence in the internal verification documentation.\nArticle 26\nInternal verification documentation\n1. The verifier shall prepare and compile internal verification documentation containing at least:\n(a)\nthe results of the verification activities performed;\n(b)\nthe strategic analysis, risk analysis and verification plan;\n(c)\nsufficient information to support the verification opinion including justifications for judgments made on whether or not the misstatements identified have material effect on the reported emissions or tonne-kilometre data.\n2. The internal verification documentation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be drafted in such a manner that the independent reviewer referred to in Article 25 and the national accreditation body can assess whether the verification has been performed in accordance with this Regulation.\nAfter authentication of the verification report pursuant to Article 25(5), the verifier shall include results of the independent review in the internal verification documentation.\n3. The verifier shall, upon request, provide the competent authority access to the internal verification documentation to facilitate an evaluation of the verification by the competent authority.\nArticle 27\nVerification report\n1. Based on the information collected during the verification, the verifier shall issue a verification report to the operator or aircraft operator on each emission report or tonne kilometre report that was subject to verification. The verification report shall include at least one of the following findings:\n(a)\nthe report is verified as satisfactory;\n(b)\nthe operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report contains material misstatements that were not corrected before issuing the verification report;\n(c)\nthe scope of verification is too limited pursuant to Article 28 and the verifier could not obtain sufficient evidence to issue a verification opinion with reasonable assurance that the report is free from material misstatements;\n(d)\nnon-conformities, individually or combined with other non-conformities, provide insufficient clarity and prevent the verifier from stating with reasonable assurance that the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report is free from material misstatements.\nFor the purposes of point (a) of the first subparagraph, the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report may be verified as satisfactory only where the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report is free from material misstatements.\n2. The operator or aircraft operator shall submit the verification report to the competent authority together with the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report concerned.\n3. The verification report shall at least contain the following elements:\n(a)\nthe name of the operator or aircraft operator that was subject to verification;\n(b)\nthe objectives of the verification;\n(c)\nthe scope of the verification;\n(d)\na reference to the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report that has been verified;\n(e)\nthe criteria used to verify the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report, including the permit, where applicable, and versions of the monitoring plan approved by the competent authority as well as the period of validity for each monitoring plan;\n(f)\naggregated emissions or tonne-kilometres per activity referred to in Annex I of Directive 2003/87/EC and per installation or aircraft operator;\n(g)\nthe reporting period subject to verification;\n(h)\nthe responsibilities of the operator or aircraft operator, the competent authority and the verifier;\n(i)\nthe verification opinion statement;\n(j)\na description of any identified misstatements and non-conformities that were not corrected before the issuance of the verification report;\n(k)\nthe dates on which site visits were carried out and by whom;\n(l)\ninformation on whether any site visits were waived as well as the reasons for waiving these site visits;\n(m)\nany issues of non-compliance with Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, which have become apparent during the verification;\n(n)\nwhere approval by the competent authority cannot be obtained in time for the method used to complete the data gap pursuant to the last subparagraph of Article 18(1), a confirmation whether the method used is conservative and whether it does or does not lead to material misstatements;\n(o)\nwhere the verifier has observed changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of the installation, which might have an impact on the installation\u2019s allocation of emission allowances and which have not been reported to the competent authority by 31 December of the reporting period in accordance with Article 24(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU, a description of those changes and related remarks;\n(p)\nwhere applicable, recommendations for improvements;\n(q)\nthe names of the EU ETS lead auditor, the independent reviewer and, where applicable, the EU ETS auditor and the technical expert that were involved in the verification of the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report;\n(r)\nthe date and signature by an authorised person on behalf of the verifier, including his name.\n4. The verifier shall describe the misstatements and non-conformities in sufficient detail in the verification report to allow the operator or aircraft operator as well as the competent authority to understand the following:\n(a)\nthe size and nature of the misstatement or non-conformity;\n(b)\nwhy the misstatement has material effect, or not;\n(c)\nto which element of the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report the misstatement or to what element of the monitoring plan the non-conformity refers to.\n5. Where a Member State requires the verifier to submit information on the verification process in addition to the elements described in paragraph 3 and that information is not necessary to understand the verification opinion, the operator or aircraft operator may, for efficiency reasons, submit that additional information to the competent authority separately from the verification report at an alternative date, but no later than 15 May of the same year.\nArticle 28\nLimitation of scope\nThe verifier may conclude that the scope of the verification referred to in Article 27(1)(c) is too limited in any of the following situations:\n(a)\ndata are missing that prevent a verifier from obtaining the evidence required to reduce the verification risk to the level needed to obtain reasonable level of assurance;\n(b)\nthe monitoring plan is not approved by the competent authority;\n(c)\nthe monitoring plan does not provide sufficient scope or clarity to conclude on the verification;\n(d)\nthe operator or aircraft operator has failed to make sufficient information available to enable the verifier to carry out the verification.\nArticle 29\nAddressing outstanding non-material non-conformities\n1. The verifier shall assess whether the operator or aircraft operator has corrected the non-conformities indicated in the verification report related to the previous monitoring period according to the requirements on the operator referred to in Article 69(4) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, where relevant.\nWhere the operator or aircraft operator has not corrected those non-conformities, pursuant to Article 69(4) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, the verifier shall consider whether the omission increases or may increase the risk of misstatements.\nThe verifier shall report in the verification report whether those non-conformities have been resolved by the operator or aircraft operator.\n2. The verifier shall record in the internal verification documentation details of when and how identified non-conformities are resolved by the operator or aircraft operator during the verification.\nArticle 30\nImprovement of the monitoring and reporting process\n1. Where the verifier has identified areas for improvement in the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s performance related to points (a) to (d) of this paragraph, it shall include in the verification report recommendations for improvement related to the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s performance on those points:\n(a)\nthe operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s risk assessment;\n(b)\nthe development, documentation, implementation and maintenance of data flow activities and control activities as well as the evaluation of the control system;\n(c)\nthe development, documentation, implementation and maintenance of procedures for data flow activities and control activities as well as other procedures that an operator or aircraft operator has to establish pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 601/2012;\n(d)\nthe monitoring and reporting of emissions or tonne kilometres, including in relation to achieving higher tiers, reducing risks and enhancing efficiency in the monitoring and reporting.\n2. During verification following a year in which recommendations for improvement were made in a verification report, the verifier shall check whether the operator or aircraft operator has implemented those recommendations for improvement and the manner in which this has been done.\nWhere the operator or aircraft operator has not implemented those recommendations or has not implemented them correctly, the verifier shall assess the impact this has on the risk of misstatements and non-conformities.\nArticle 31\nSimplified verification for installations\n1. By way of derogation from Article 21(1), the verifier may decide, subject to the approval by a competent authority in accordance with the second subparagraph of this Article, not to carry out site visits to installations based on the outcome of the risk analysis and after determining that all relevant data can be remotely accessed by the verifier and that the conditions for not carrying out site visits established by the Commission are met. The verifier shall inform the operator thereof without undue delay.\nThe operator shall submit an application to the competent authority requesting the competent authority to approve the verifier\u2019s decision not to carry out the site visit.\nOn an application submitted by the operator concerned, the competent authority shall decide on the approval of the verifier\u2019s decision not to carry out the site visit, taking into consideration all of the following elements:\n(a)\nthe information provided by the verifier on the outcome of the risk analysis;\n(b)\ninformation that the relevant data can be remotely accessed;\n(c)\nevidence that the requirements laid down in paragraph 3 are not applicable to the installation;\n(d)\nevidence that the conditions for not carrying out the site visits established by the Commission are met.\n2. The approval of the competent authority referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be required for not carrying out site visits of installations with low emissions referred to in Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012.\n3. The verifier shall carry out site visits in any case in the following situations:\n(a)\nwhen an operator\u2019s emission report is verified for the first time by the verifier;\n(b)\nwhere a verifier has not carried out a site visit in two reporting periods immediately preceding the current reporting period;\n(c)\nwhere, during the reporting period, there have been significant modifications of the monitoring plan including those referred to in Article 15(3) or (4) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012.\nArticle 32\nSimplified verification for aircraft operators\n1. By way of derogation from Article 21(1) of this Regulation, a verifier may decide not to carry out a site visit of a small emitter referred to in Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 where the verifier has concluded, based on its risk analysis, that all relevant data can be remotely accessed by the verifier.\n2. Where an aircraft operator uses the simplified tools referred to in Article 54(2) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 to determine the fuel consumption and the reported data has been generated using those tools independently from any input from the aircraft operator, the verifier may, based on its risk analysis, decide not to carry out the checks referred to in Articles 14 and 16, Article 17(1) and (2) and Article 18 of this Regulation.\nArticle 33\nSimplified verification plans\nWhere a verifier uses a simplified verification plan, the verifier shall keep record of justifications for using such plans in the internal verification documentation, including evidence that the conditions for using simplified verification plans have been met.\nCHAPTER III\nREQUIREMENTS FOR VERIFIERS\nArticle 34\nSectoral scopes of accreditation\nThe verifier shall only issue a verification report to an operator or aircraft operator that performs an activity that is covered by the scope of the activity referred to in Annex I for which the verifier has been granted an accreditation according to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 and this Regulation.\nArticle 35\nContinued competence process\n1. The verifier shall establish, document, implement and maintain a competence process to ensure that all personnel entrusted with verification activities are competent for the tasks that are allocated to them.\n2. As part of the competence process referred to in paragraph 1, the verifier shall at least determine, document, implement and maintain the following:\n(a)\ngeneral competence criteria for all personnel undertaking verification activities;\n(b)\nspecific competence criteria for each function within the verifier undertaking verification activities, in particular for the EU ETS auditor, EU ETS lead auditor, independent reviewer and technical expert;\n(c)\na method to ensure the continued competence and regular evaluation of the performance of all personnel that undertake verification activities;\n(d)\na process for ensuring ongoing training of the personnel undertaking verification activities;\n(e)\na process for assessing whether the verification engagement falls within the scope of the verifier\u2019s accreditation, and whether the verifier has the competence, personnel and resources required to select the verification team and successfully complete the verification activities within the timeframe required.\nThe competence criteria referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph shall be specific for each scope of accreditation in which these persons are carrying out verification activities.\nIn evaluating the competence of the personnel pursuant to point (c) of the first subparagraph, the verifier shall assess that competence against the competence criteria referred to in points (a) and (b).\nThe process referred to in point (e) of the first subparagraph shall also include a process for assessing whether the verification team holds all the competence and persons required to carry out verification activities for a specific operator or aircraft operator.\nThe verifier shall develop general and specific competence criteria which are in conformity with criteria laid down in Article 36(4) and Articles 37, 38 and 39.\n3. The verifier shall, at regular intervals, monitor the performance of all personnel that undertakes verification activities for the purposes of confirming the continued competence of those personnel.\n4. The verifier shall at regular intervals review the competence process referred to in paragraph 1 to ensure that:\n(a)\nthe competence criteria referred to in points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 are developed in accordance with the competence requirements under this Regulation;\n(b)\nall issues that may be identified related to the setting of the general and specific competence criteria pursuant to points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 are addressed;\n(c)\nall the requirements in the competence process are updated and maintained as appropriate.\n5. The verifier shall have a system for recording the results of the activities carried out in the competence process referred to in paragraph 1.\n6. A sufficiently competent evaluator shall assess the competence and performance of an EU ETS auditor and EU ETS lead auditor.\nFor that purpose, the competent evaluator shall monitor those auditors during the verification of the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report on the site of the installation or aircraft operator as appropriate, to determine whether they meet the competence criteria.\n7. Where a member of personnel fails to demonstrate that the competence criteria for a specific task allocated to him or her have been fully met, the verifier shall identify and organise additional training or supervised work experience as well as monitor that individual until he or she demonstrates to the satisfaction of the verifier that he or she meets the competence criteria.\nArticle 36\nVerification teams\n1. For each particular verification engagement, the verifier shall assemble a verification team capable of performing the verification activities referred to in Chapter II.\n2. The verification team shall at least consist of an EU ETS lead auditor, and, where the verifier\u2019s conclusions during the assessment referred to in Article 8(1)(e) and the strategic analysis require this, a suitable number of EU ETS auditors and technical experts.\n3. For the independent review of the verification activities related to a particular verification engagement, the verifier shall appoint an independent reviewer who shall not be part of the verification team.\n4. Each team member shall:\n(a)\nhave a clear understanding of his or her individual role in the verification process;\n(b)\nbe able to communicate effectively in the language necessary to perform his or her specific tasks.\n5. The verification team shall include at least one person with the technical competence and understanding required to assess the specific technical monitoring and reporting aspects related to the activities referred to in Annex I that are carried out by the installation or aircraft operator, and one person who is able to communicate in the language required for the verification of an operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report in the Member State where the verifier is carrying out that verification.\n6. Where the verification team consists of one person, this person shall meet all the competence requirements for the EU ETS auditor and EU ETS lead auditor and meet the requirements laid down in paragraphs 4 and 5.\nArticle 37\nCompetence requirements for EU ETS auditors and EU ETS lead auditors\n1. An EU ETS auditor shall have the competence to perform the verification. To this end, the EU ETS auditor shall have at least:\n(a)\nknowledge of Directive 2003/87/EC, Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, this Regulation, relevant standards, and other relevant legislation, applicable guidelines, as well as relevant guidelines and legislation issued by the Member State in which the verifier is carrying out a verification;\n(b)\nknowledge and experience of data and information auditing, including:\n(i)\ndata and information auditing methodologies, including the application of the materiality level and assessing the materiality of misstatements;\n(ii)\nanalysing inherent risks and control risks;\n(iii)\nsampling techniques in relation to data sampling and checking the control activities;\n(iv)\nassessing data and information systems, IT systems, data flow activities, control activities, control systems and procedures for control activities;\n(c)\nthe ability to perform the activities related to the verification of an operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report as required by Chapter II;\n(d)\nknowledge of and experience in the sector specific technical monitoring and reporting aspects that are relevant for the scope of activities referred to in Annex I in which the EU ETS auditor is carrying out verification.\n2. An EU ETS lead auditor shall meet the competence requirements for an EU ETS auditor and shall have demonstrated competence to lead a verification team and to be responsible for carrying out the verification activities in accordance with this Regulation.\nArticle 38\nCompetence requirements for independent reviewers\n1. The independent reviewer shall have the appropriate authority to review the draft verification report and internal verification documentation pursuant to Article 25.\n2. The independent reviewer shall meet the competence requirements of an EU ETS lead auditor referred to in Article 37(2).\n3. The independent reviewer shall have the necessary competence to analyse the information provided to confirm the completeness and integrity of the information, to challenge missing or contradictory information as well as to check data trails for the purposes of assessing whether the internal verification documentation is complete and provides sufficient information to support the draft verification report.\nArticle 39\nUse of technical experts\n1. When carrying out verification activities, a verifier may make use of technical experts to provide detailed knowledge and expertise on a specific subject matter needed to support the EU ETS auditor and EU ETS lead auditor in carrying out their verification activities.\n2. Where the independent reviewer does not have the competence to assess a particular issue in the review process, the verifier shall request the support of a technical expert.\n3. The technical expert shall have the competence and expertise required to support the EU ETS auditor and EU ETS lead auditor, or the independent reviewer, where necessary, effectively on the subject matter for which his or her knowledge and expertise is requested. In addition the technical expert shall have a sufficient understanding of the issues required pursuant to points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 37(1).\n4. The technical expert shall undertake specified tasks under the direction and full responsibility of the EU ETS lead auditor of the verification team in which the technical expert is operating or the independent reviewer.\nArticle 40\nProcedures for verification activities\n1. A verifier shall establish, document, implement and maintain one or more procedures for verification activities as described in Chapter II, and the procedures and processes required by Annex II. When establishing and implementing these procedures and processes the verifier shall carry out the activities in accordance with the harmonised standard referred to in Annex II.\n2. A verifier shall design, document, implement and maintain a quality management system to ensure consistent development, implementation, improvement and review of the procedures and processes referred to in paragraph 1 in accordance with the harmonised standard referred to in Annex II.\nArticle 41\nRecords and communication\n1. A verifier shall keep records, including records on competence and impartiality of personnel, to demonstrate compliance with this Regulation.\n2. A verifier shall on a regular basis make information available to the operator or aircraft operator and other relevant parties in accordance with the harmonised standard referred to in Annex II.\n3. A verifier shall safeguard the confidentiality of information obtained during the verification in accordance with the harmonised standard referred to in Annex II.\nArticle 42\nImpartiality and independence\n1. A verifier shall be independent from an operator or aircraft operator and impartial in carrying out its verification activities.\nFor that purpose, the verifier and any part of the same legal entity shall not be an operator or aircraft operator, the owner of an operator or aircraft operator or owned by them nor shall the verifier have relations with the operator or aircraft operator that could affect its independence and impartiality. The verifier shall also be independent from bodies that are trading emission allowances under the greenhouse gas emission allowances trading scheme established pursuant to Article 19 of Directive 2003/87/EC.\n2. A verifier shall be organised in such a manner as to safeguard its objectivity, independence and impartiality. For the purposes of this Regulation, the relevant requirements laid down in the harmonised standard referred to in Annex II shall apply.\n3. A verifier shall not carry out verification activities for an operator or aircraft operator that poses an unacceptable risk to its impartiality or that creates a conflict of interest for it. The verifier shall not use personnel or contracted persons in the verification of an operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report that involves an actual or potential conflict of interest. The verifier shall also ensure that the activities of personnel or organisations do not affect the confidentiality, objectivity, independence and impartiality of the verification.\nAn unacceptable risk to impartiality or a conflict of interest referred to in the first sentence of the first subparagraph shall be considered to have arisen in either of the following cases, amongst others:\n(a)\nwhere a verifier or any part of the same legal entity provides consulting services to develop part of the monitoring and reporting process that is described in the monitoring plan approved by the competent authority, including the development of the monitoring methodology, the drafting of the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report and the drafting of the monitoring plan;\n(b)\nwhere a verifier or any part of the same legal entity provides technical assistance to develop or maintain, the system implemented to monitor and report emissions or tonne-kilometre data.\n4. A conflict of interest for a verifier in the relations between it and an operator or an aircraft operator shall be considered to have arisen in either of the following cases, amongst others:\n(a)\nwhere the relationship between the verifier and the operator or aircraft operator is based on common ownership, common governance, common management or personnel, shared resources, common finances and common contracts or marketing;\n(b)\nwhere the operator or aircraft operator has received consultancy referred to in point (a) of paragraph 3 or technical assistance referred to in point (b) of that paragraph by a consultancy body, technical assistance body or another organisation having relations with the verifier and threatening the impartiality of the verifier.\nFor the purposes of point (b) of the first subparagraph, the verifier\u2019s impartiality shall be considered compromised where the relations between the verifier and the consultancy body, technical assistance body or the other organisation is based on common ownership, common governance, common management or personnel, shared resources, common finances, common contracts or marketing and common payment of sales commission or other inducement for the referral of new clients.\n5. A verifier shall not outsource the independent review or the issuance of the verification report. For the purposes of this Regulation, when outsourcing other verification activities, the verifier shall meet the relevant requirements laid down in the harmonised standard referred to in Annex II.\nHowever, contracting individuals to carry out verification activities shall not constitute outsourcing for the purposes of the first subparagraph where the verifier, when contracting those persons, meets the relevant requirements in the harmonised standard referred to in Annex II.\n6. A verifier shall establish, document, implement and maintain a process to ensure continuous impartiality and independence of the verifier, parts of the same legal entity as the verifier, other organisations referred to in paragraph 4, and of all personnel and contracted persons involved in the verification. That process shall include a mechanism to safeguard the impartiality and independence of the verifier and shall meet the relevant requirements laid down in the harmonised standard referred to in Annex II.\nCHAPTER IV\nACCREDITATION\nArticle 43\nAccreditation\nA verifier issuing a verification report to an operator or an aircraft operator shall be accredited for the scope of activities referred to in Annex I for which the verifier is carrying out the verification of an operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report.\nArticle 44\nObjectives of accreditation\nDuring the accreditation process and the monitoring of accredited verifiers, each national accreditation body shall assess whether the verifier and its personnel undertaking verification activities:\n(a)\nhave the competence to carry out the verification of operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s reports in accordance with this Regulation;\n(b)\nare performing the verification of operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s reports in accordance with this Regulation;\n(c)\nmeet the requirements referred to in Chapter III.\nArticle 45\nRequest for accreditation\n1. Any legal person or other legal entity may request accreditation pursuant to Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 and the provisions of this Chapter.\nThe request shall contain the information required on the basis of the harmonised standard referred to in Annex III.\n2. In addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, an applicant shall also, prior to the commencement of the assessment pursuant to Article 44, make available to the national accreditation body the following:\n(a)\nall information requested by the national accreditation body;\n(b)\nprocedures and information concerning processes referred to in Article 40(1) and the information on the quality management system referred to in Article 40(2);\n(c)\nthe competence criteria referred to in Article 35(2)(a) and (b), the results of the competence process referred to in Article 35 as well as other relevant documentation on the competence of all personnel involved in verification activities;\n(d)\ninformation on the process for ensuring continuous impartiality and independence referred to in Article 42(6), including relevant records on the impartiality and independence of the applicant and its personnel;\n(e)\ninformation on the technical experts and key personnel involved in the verification of operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s reports;\n(f)\nthe system and process for ensuring appropriate internal verification documentation;\n(g)\nother relevant records referred to in Article 41(1).\nArticle 46\nPreparation for assessment\n1. When preparing the assessment referred to in Article 44, each national accreditation body shall take into account the complexity of the scope for which the applicant requests accreditation as well as the complexity of the quality management system referred to in Article 40(2), the procedures and information on processes referred to in Article 40(1) and the geographical areas in which the applicant is carrying out or planning to carry out verification.\n2. For the purposes of this Regulation, the national accreditation body shall meet the minimum requirements set out in the harmonised standard referred to in Annex III.\nArticle 47\nAssessment\n1. The assessment team referred to in Article 57 shall carry out at least the following activities for the purposes of making the assessment referred to in Article 44:\n(a)\na review of all relevant documents and records referred to in Article 45;\n(b)\na visit of the premises of the applicant to review a representative sample of the internal verification documentation and to assess the implementation of the applicant\u2019s quality management system and the procedures or processes referred to in Article 40;\n(c)\nwitnessing of a representative part of the requested scope for accreditation and the performance and competence of a representative number of the applicant\u2019s staff involved in the verification of the operator\u2019s or aircraft operator\u2019s report to ensure that the staff are operating in accordance with this Regulation.\nIn carrying out those activities, the assessment team shall meet the requirements set out in the harmonised standard referred to in Annex III.\n2. The assessment team shall report the findings and non-conformities to the applicant in accordance with the requirements set out in the harmonised standard referred to in Annex III and shall request the applicant to respond to the reported findings and non-conformities in accordance with those provisions.\n3. An applicant shall take corrective action to address any non-conformities reported pursuant to paragraph 2 and indicate in its response to the findings and non-conformities of the assessment team what actions are taken or are planned to be taken within a time set by the national accreditation body to resolve any identified non-conformities.\n4. The national accreditation body shall review the responses of the applicant to the findings and non-conformities submitted pursuant to paragraph 3.\nWhere the national accreditation body finds the response of the applicant to be insufficient or ineffective, it shall request further information or action from the applicant. The national accreditation body may also request evidence of the effective implementation of actions taken or carry out a follow-up assessment to assess the effective implementation of the corrective actions.\nArticle 48\nDecision on accreditation and accreditation certificate\n1. The national accreditation body shall take into account the requirements laid down in the harmonised standard referred to in Annex III when preparing and taking the decision on whether to grant, extend or renew the accreditation of an applicant.\n2. Where the national accreditation body has decided to grant, extend or renew the accreditation of an applicant, it shall issue an accreditation certificate to that effect.\nThe accreditation certificate shall at least contain the information required on the basis of the harmonised standard referred to in Annex III.\nThe accreditation certificate shall be valid for a period not exceeding five years after the date on which the national accreditation body has issued that certificate.\nArticle 49\nSurveillance\n1. The national accreditation body shall carry out an annual surveillance of each verifier to which it has issued an accreditation certificate.\nThe surveillance shall at least comprise of:\n(a)\na visit to the premises of the verifier with a view to carrying out the activities referred to Article 47(1)(b);\n(b)\nwitnessing the performance and competence of a representative number of the verifier\u2019s staff in accordance with Article 47(1)(c).\n2. The national accreditation body shall carry out the first surveillance of a verifier in accordance with paragraph 1 no later than 12 months after the date on which the accreditation certificate has been issued to that verifier.\n3. The national accreditation body shall prepare its plan for the surveillance of each verifier in a manner that allows for representative samples of the scope of accreditation to be assessed, in accordance with the requirements laid down in the harmonised standard referred to in Annex III.\n4. Based on the results of the surveillance referred to in paragraph 1, the national accreditation body shall decide whether to confirm the continuation of accreditation.\n5. Where a verifier carries out a verification in another Member State, the national accreditation body that has accredited the verifier may request the national accreditation body of the Member State where the verification is performed to carry out surveillance activities on its behalf and under its responsibility.\nArticle 50\nReassessment\n1. Before the expiry of the accreditation certificate, the national accreditation body shall carry out a reassessment of the verifier to which the national accreditation body has issued an accreditation certificate to determine whether the validity of that accreditation certificate may be extended.\n2. The national accreditation body shall prepare its plan for the reassessment of each verifier in a manner that allows representative samples of the scope of accreditation to be assessed. In planning and carrying out the surveillance, the national accreditation body shall meet the requirements laid down in the harmonised standard referred to in Annex III.\nArticle 51\nExtraordinary assessment\n1. The national accreditation body may conduct an extraordinary assessment of the verifier at any time to ensure that the verifier meets the requirements of this Regulation.\n2. For the purposes of enabling the national accreditation body to assess the need for an extraordinary assessment, the verifier shall inform the national accreditation body forthwith of any significant changes relevant to its accreditation concerning any aspect of its status or operation. Significant changes shall include those changes mentioned in the harmonised standard referred to in Annex III.\nArticle 52\nExtension of scope\nThe national accreditation body shall, in response to an application by a verifier for an extension of the scope of a granted accreditation, undertake the necessary activities to determine whether the verifier meets the requirements of Article 44 for the requested extension of the scope of its accreditation.\nArticle 53\nAdministrative measures\n1. The national accreditation body may suspend, withdraw or reduce an accreditation of a verifier where the verifier does not meet the requirements of this Regulation.\nThe national accreditation body shall suspend, withdraw or reduce an accreditation of a verifier where the verifier requests so.\nThe national accreditation body shall establish, document, implement and maintain a procedure for the suspension of the accreditation, the withdrawal of the accreditation and the reduction of the scope of accreditation.\n2. The national accreditation body shall suspend an accreditation, or restrict the scope of an accreditation in any of the following cases:\n(a)\nthe verifier has committed a serious breach of the requirements of this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe verifier has persistently and repeatedly failed to meet the requirements of this Regulation;\n(c)\nthe verifier has breached other specific terms and conditions of the national accreditation body.\n3. The national accreditation body shall withdraw the accreditation where:\n(a)\nthe verifier has failed to remedy the grounds for a decision to suspend the accreditation certificate;\n(b)\na member of the top management of the verifier has been found guilty of fraud;\n(c)\nthe verifier has intentionally provided false information.\n4. The decision of a national accreditation body to suspend, withdraw or reduce the scope of the accreditation in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be subject to appeal.\nMember States shall establish procedures for the resolution of those appeals.\n5. The decision of a national accreditation body to suspend, withdraw or reduce the scope of the accreditation shall take effect upon its notification to the verifier.\nThe national accreditation body shall terminate the suspension of an accreditation certificate where it has received satisfactory information and is confident that the verifier meets the requirements of this Regulation.\nCHAPTER V\nREQUIREMENTS CONCERNING ACCREDITATION BODIES FOR THE ACCREDITATION OF ETS VERIFIERS\nArticle 54\nNational accreditation body\n1. The tasks related to accreditation pursuant to this Regulation shall be carried out by the national accreditation bodies appointed pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.\n2. Where a Member State decides to allow for the certification of verifiers that are natural persons, pursuant to this Regulation, the tasks related to the certification of those verifiers shall be entrusted to a national authority other than the national accreditation body appointed pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.\n3. Where a Member State decides to use the option laid down in paragraph 2, it shall ensure that the national authority concerned meets the requirements of this Regulation, including those laid down in Article 70, and provide the required documentary evidence in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.\n4. A national accreditation body shall be a member of the body recognised under Article 14 of that Regulation.\n5. A national accreditation body shall be entrusted with the operation of accreditation as a public authority activity and be granted formal recognition by the Member State, where accreditation is not operated directly by public authorities.\n6. For the purposes of this Regulation, the national accreditation body shall carry out its functions in accordance with the requirements set out in the harmonised standard referred to in Annex III.\nArticle 55\nCross-border accreditation\nWhere a Member State considers that it is economically not meaningful or sustainable to appoint a national accreditation body or to provide accreditation services within the meaning of Article 15 of Directive 2003/87/EC, that Member State shall have recourse to a national accreditation body of another Member State.\nThe Member State concerned shall inform the Commission and other Member States.\nArticle 56\nIndependence and impartiality\n1. The national accreditation body shall be organised in a manner that guarantees its full independence from verifiers it assesses and its impartiality in carrying out its accreditation activities.\n2. For that purpose, the national accreditation body shall not offer or provide any activities or services provided by a verifier, nor shall it provide consultancy services, own shares in or otherwise have a financial or managerial interest in a verifier.\n3. Without prejudice to Article 54(2), the structure, responsibilities and tasks of the national accreditation body shall be clearly distinguished from those of the competent authority and those of other national authorities.\n4. The national accreditation body shall take all final decisions pertaining to the accreditation of verifiers.\nHowever, the national accreditation body may sub-contract certain activities, subject to the requirements set out in the harmonised standard referred to in Annex III.\nArticle 57\nAssessment team\n1. The national accreditation body shall appoint an assessment team for each particular assessment.\n2. An assessment team shall consist of a lead assessor and, where necessary, a suitable number of assessors or technical experts for a specific scope of accreditation.\nThe assessment team shall include at least one person with the knowledge of the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 that are relevant for the scope of accreditation and the competence and understanding required to assess the verification activities within the installation or aircraft operator for that scope, and at least one person with the knowledge of relevant national legislation and guidance.\nArticle 58\nCompetence requirements for assessors\n1. An assessor shall have the competence to carry out the activities required by Chapter IV when assessing the verifier. To that end, the assessor shall:\n(a)\nmeet the requirements laid down in the harmonised standard pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 referred to in Annex III;\n(b)\nhave knowledge of Directive 2003/87/EC, Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, this Regulation, relevant standards and other relevant legislation as well as applicable guidelines;\n(c)\nhave knowledge of data and information auditing referred to in Article 37(1)(b) of this Regulation obtained through training or access to a person that has knowledge and experience of such data and information.\n2. A lead assessor shall meet the competence requirements referred to in paragraph 1, have demonstrated competence to lead an assessment team and be responsible for carrying out an assessment in accordance with this Regulation.\n3. Internal reviewers and persons taking the decisions on the granting, extending or renewing of an accreditation shall, in addition to the competence requirements referred to in paragraph 1, have sufficient knowledge and experience to evaluate the accreditation.\nArticle 59\nTechnical experts\n1. The national accreditation body may include technical experts in the assessment team to provide detailed knowledge and expertise on a specific subject matter needed to support the lead assessor or assessor in carrying out assessment activities.\n2. A technical expert shall have the competence required to support the lead assessor and assessor effectively on the subject matter for which his or her knowledge and expertise is requested. In addition, the technical expert shall:\n(a)\nhave knowledge of Directive 2003/87/EC, Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, this Regulation, relevant standards, and other relevant legislation as well as applicable guidelines;\n(b)\nhave a sufficient understanding of verification activities.\n3. A technical expert shall undertake specified tasks under the direction and full responsibility of the lead assessor of the assessment team concerned.\nArticle 60\nProcedures\nThe national accreditation body shall comply with the requirements established pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.\nArticle 61\nComplaints\nWhere the national accreditation body has received a complaint concerning the verifier from the competent authority, the operator or aircraft operator, or other interested parties, the national accreditation body shall, within a reasonable time:\n(a)\ndecide on the validity of the complaint;\n(b)\nensure that the verifier concerned is given the opportunity to submit its observations;\n(c)\ntake appropriate actions to address the complaint;\n(d)\nrecord the complaint and action taken; and\n(e)\nrespond to the complainant.\nArticle 62\nRecords and documentation\nThe national accreditation body shall keep records on each person involved in the accreditation process. Those records shall include records related to relevant qualifications, training, experience, impartiality and competence necessary to demonstrate compliance with this Regulation.\nArticle 63\nAccess to information and confidentiality\n1. The national accreditation body shall, on a regular basis, make publicly available and update information obtained in the process of its accreditation activities.\n2. The national accreditation body shall make, in accordance with point 4 of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, adequate arrangements to safeguard, as appropriate, the confidentiality of information obtained.\nArticle 64\nPeer evaluation\n1. National accreditation bodies shall subject themselves to a regular peer evaluation.\nThe peer evaluation shall be organised by the body recognised under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.\n2. The body recognised under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 shall implement appropriate peer evaluation criteria and an effective and independent peer evaluation process in order to assess whether:\n(a)\nthe national accreditation body that is subject to the peer evaluation has carried out the accreditation activities in accordance with Chapter IV;\n(b)\nthe national accreditation body that is subject to the peer evaluation has met the requirements laid down in this Chapter.\nThe criteria shall include competence requirements for peer evaluators and peer evaluation teams that are specific to the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowances trading established by Directive 2003/87/EC.\n3. The body recognised under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 shall publish and communicate the outcome of the peer evaluation of a national accreditation body to the Commission, the national authorities responsible for the national accreditation bodies in the Member States, and the competent authority of Member States or the focal point referred to in Article 69(2).\n4. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, where a national accreditation body has successfully undergone a peer evaluation organised by the body recognised under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 prior to the entry into force of this Regulation, the national accreditation body shall be exempted from undergoing a new peer evaluation following the entry into force of this Regulation if it can demonstrate conformity with this Regulation.\nTo that end, the national accreditation body concerned shall submit a request and the necessary documentation to the body recognised under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.\nThe body recognised under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 shall decide whether the conditions for granting an exemption have been met.\nThe exemption shall apply for a period not exceeding three years from the date of notification of the decision to the national accreditation body.\n5. The national authority entrusted, pursuant to Article 54(2), with the tasks related to the certification of verifiers that are natural persons, pursuant to this Regulation shall meet a level of credibility equivalent to national accreditation bodies that have successfully undergone peer evaluation.\nTo that end, the Member State concerned shall, immediately following its decisions authorising the national authority to perform certification, provide the Commission and the other Member States with all relevant documentary evidence. No national authority shall certify verifiers for the purposes of this Regulation before the Member State concerned provides that documentary evidence.\nThe Member State concerned shall periodically review the functioning of the national authority with a view to ensure that it continues to meet the aforementioned level of credibility and inform the Commission thereof.\nArticle 65\nCorrective action\n1. Member States shall monitor their national accreditation bodies at regular intervals in order to ensure that they fulfil the requirements of this Regulation on a continuing basis, taking into account the results of the peer evaluation carried out in accordance with Article 64.\n2. Where a national accreditation body does not meet the requirements or fails to fulfil its obligations, as laid down in this Regulation, the Member State concerned shall take appropriate corrective action or shall ensure that such corrective action is taken, and inform the Commission thereof.\nArticle 66\nMutual recognition of verifiers\n1. Member States shall recognise the equivalence of the services delivered by those national accreditation bodies that have successfully undergone a peer evaluation. Member States shall accept the accreditation certificates of verifiers accredited by those national accreditation bodies and respect the right of the verifiers to carry out verification for their scope of accreditation.\n2. Where a national accreditation body has not undergone the complete peer evaluation process before 31 December 2014, Member States shall accept the accreditation certificates of verifiers accredited by that national accreditation body provided the body recognised under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 has started a peer evaluation for that national accreditation body and it has not identified any non-compliance of the national accreditation body with this Regulation.\n3. Where the certification of verifiers is carried out by a national authority referred to in Article 54(2), Member States shall accept the certificate issued by such authority and respect the right of certified verifiers to carry out verification for their scope of certification.\nArticle 67\nMonitoring of services delivered\nWhere a Member State has established, in the course of an inspection carried out in accordance with Article 31(4) of Directive 2006/123/EC, that a verifier is not complying with this Regulation, the competent authority or national accreditation body of that Member State shall inform the national accreditation body that has accredited the verifier.\nThe national accreditation body that has accredited the verifier shall consider the communication of that information as a complaint within the meaning of Article 61 of this Regulation and shall take appropriate action and respond to the competent authority or the national accreditation body in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 72(2) of this Regulation.\nArticle 68\nElectronic data exchange and use of automated systems\n1. Member States may require verifiers to use electronic templates or specific file formats for verification reports in accordance with Article 74(1) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012.\n2. Standardised electronic templates or file format specifications may be made available for the purpose of submitting a verification report and for further types of communication between the operator, aircraft operator, verifier, competent authority and national accreditation body in accordance with Article 74(2) of Regulation (EU) No 601/2012.\nCHAPTER VI\nINFORMATION EXCHANGE\nArticle 69\nInformation exchange and focal points\n1. The Member State shall establish an effective exchange of appropriate information and effective cooperation between their national accreditation body or, where applicable, the national authority entrusted with the certification of verifiers, and the competent authority.\n2. Where more than one competent authority is designated pursuant to Article 18 of Directive 2003/87/EC in a Member State, the Member State shall authorise one of those competent authorities as the focal point for the exchange of information, for coordinating the cooperation referred to in paragraph 1, and for the activities referred to in this Chapter.\nArticle 70\nAccreditation work programme and management report\n1. By 31 December of each year, the national accreditation body shall make available an accreditation work programme to the competent authority of each Member State containing the list of verifiers accredited by that national accreditation body and which have notified it pursuant to Article 76 that they intend to carry out verifications in those Member States. The accreditation work programme shall at least contain the following information in relation to each verifier:\n(a)\nthe anticipated time and place of the verification;\n(b)\ninformation on activities that the national accreditation body has planned for that verifier, in particular surveillance and reassessment activities;\n(c)\ndates of anticipated witnessing audits to be performed by the national accreditation body to assess the verifier including the address and contact details of operators or aircraft operators that will be visited during the witness audit;\n(d)\ninformation on whether the national accreditation body has requested the national accreditation body from the Member State in which the verifier is performing the verification, to carry out surveillance activities.\n2. Following the submission of the accreditation work programme in accordance with paragraph 1, the competent authority shall provide the national accreditation body with any relevant information, including any relevant national legislation or guidelines.\n3. By 1 June of each year, the national accreditation body shall make available a management report to the competent authority. The management report shall at least contain the following information in relation to each verifier that has been accredited by that national accreditation body:\n(a)\naccreditation details of verifiers that were newly accredited by that national accreditation body, including the scope of accreditation for these verifiers;\n(b)\nany changes to the scope of accreditation for these verifiers;\n(c)\nsummarised results of surveillance and reassessment activities carried out by the national accreditation body;\n(d)\nsummarised results of extraordinary assessments that have taken place, including reasons for initiating such extraordinary assessments;\n(e)\nany complaints filed against the verifier since the last management report and the actions taken by the national accreditation body.\nArticle 71\nInformation exchange on administrative measures\nWhere the national accreditation body has imposed administrative measures on the verifier pursuant to Article 53 or where a suspension of the accreditation has been terminated or a decision on appeal has reversed the decision of a national accreditation body to impose administrative measures referred to in Article 53, the national accreditation body shall inform the following parties:\n(a)\nthe competent authority of the Member State where the verifier is accredited;\n(b)\nthe competent authority and the national accreditation body of each Member State where the verifier is carrying out verifications.\nArticle 72\nInformation exchange by the competent authority\n1. The competent authority of the Member State where the verifier is carrying out the verification shall annually communicate to the national accreditation body which has accredited that verifier at least the following:\n(a)\nrelevant results from checking the operator\u2019s and aircraft operator\u2019s report and the verification reports, in particular of any identified non-compliance of that verifier with this Regulation;\n(b)\nthe results from the inspection of the operator or aircraft operator where those results are relevant for the national accreditation body concerning the verifier\u2019s accreditation and surveillance or where those results include any identified non-compliance of that verifier with this Regulation;\n(c)\nresults from the evaluation of the internal verification documentation of that verifier where the competent authority has evaluated the internal verification documentation pursuant to Article 26(3);\n(d)\ncomplaints received by the competent authority concerning that verifier.\n2. Where the information referred to in paragraph 1 provides evidence that the competent authority has identified non-compliance of the verifier with this Regulation, the national accreditation body shall consider the communication of that information as a complaint by the competent authority concerning that verifier within the meaning of Article 61.\nThe national accreditation body shall take appropriate action to address such information and respond to the competent authority within three months from the date of its receipt. The national accreditation body shall inform the competent authority in its response of the action taken by it and, where relevant, the administrative measures imposed on the verifier.\nArticle 73\nInformation exchange on surveillance\n1. Where the national accreditation body of the Member State in which a verifier is performing a verification has been requested, pursuant to Article 49(5), to carry out surveillance activities, that national accreditation body shall report its findings to the national accreditation body that has accredited the verifier, unless otherwise agreed between both national accreditation bodies.\n2. The national accreditation body that has accredited the verifier shall take the findings referred to in paragraph 1 into account when assessing whether the verifier meets the requirements of this Regulation.\n3. Where the findings referred to in paragraph 1 show evidence that the verifier is not complying with this Regulation, the national accreditation body that has accredited the verifier shall take appropriate action pursuant to this Regulation and shall inform the national accreditation body that has carried out surveillance activities on:\n(a)\nwhat action has been taken by the national accreditation body that has accredited the verifier;\n(b)\nwhere appropriate, how the findings were resolved by the verifier;\n(c)\nwhere relevant, what administrative measures have been imposed on the verifier.\nArticle 74\nInformation exchange with a Member State where the verifier is established\nWhere a verifier has been granted accreditation by a national accreditation body in a Member State other than the Member State in which the verifier is established, the accreditation work programme and the management report referred to in Article 70, as well as the information referred to in Article 71, shall also be provided to the competent authority of the Member State in which the verifier is established.\nArticle 75\nDatabases of accredited verifiers\n1. National accreditation bodies, or where applicable, national authorities referred to in Article 54(2), shall set up and manage a database and allow access to that database to other national accreditation bodies, national authorities, verifiers, operators, aircraft operators and competent authorities.\nThe body recognised under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 shall facilitate and harmonise access to the databases with a view to enable efficient and cost-effective communication between national accreditation bodies, national authorities, verifiers, operators, aircraft operators and competent authorities, and may reconcile those databases into a single and centralised database.\n2. The database referred to in paragraph 1 shall contain at least the following information:\n(a)\nname and address of each verifier accredited by that national accreditation body;\n(b)\nthe Member States in which the verifier is carrying out verification;\n(c)\neach verifier\u2019s scope of accreditation;\n(d)\nthe date on which the accreditation was granted and the due expiry date of the accreditation;\n(e)\nany information on administrative measures that have been imposed on the verifier.\nThe information shall be publicly available.\nArticle 76\nNotification by verifiers\n1. For the purposes of enabling the national accreditation body to draft the accreditation work programme and the management report referred to in Article 70, a verifier shall, by 15 November of each year, send the following information to the national accreditation body that has accredited that verifier:\n(a)\nthe planned time and place of the verifications that the verifier is scheduled to perform;\n(b)\nthe address and contact details of the operators or aircraft operators whose emissions or tonne-kilometre reports are subject to its verification.\n2. Where changes occur in the information referred to in paragraph 1, the verifier shall notify those changes to the accreditation body within a timeframe agreed with that national accreditation body.\nCHAPTER VII\nFINAL PROVISIONS\nArticle 77\nTransitional provisions\nEmissions and, where applicable, activity data occurring prior to 1 January 2013 shall be verified pursuant to the requirements set out in Decision 2007/589/EC (11).\nArticle 78\nEntry into force\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nIt shall apply from 1 January 2013.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 21 June 2012.", "references": ["64", "62", "69", "39", "92", "22", "87", "72", "68", "34", "1", "55", "75", "51", "65", "28", "67", "79", "99", "35", "7", "52", "80", "43", "61", "3", "94", "48", "18", "96", "No Label", "2", "41", "42", "46", "58", "60", "76"], "gold": ["2", "41", "42", "46", "58", "60", "76"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 627/2011\nof 27 June 2011\nimposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (\u2018the basic Regulation\u2019), and in particular Article 7 thereof,\nAfter consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA. PROCEDURE\n1. Initiation\n(1)\nOn 30 September 2010, the European Commission (\u2018the Commission\u2019) announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China (\u2018PRC\u2019 or the \u2018country concerned\u2019).\n(2)\nThe proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 16 August 2010 by the Defence Committee of the Seamless Stainless Steel Tubes Industry of the European Union (\u2018the Defence Committee\u2019) on behalf of two groups of Union producers (\u2018the complainants\u2019) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.\n2. Parties concerned by the proceeding\n(3)\nThe Commission officially advised the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the representatives of the PRC, known importers, suppliers and users, as well as their associations, of the initiation of the proceeding. The Commission also advised producers in the United States (\u2018the USA\u2019) as it was envisaged as a possible analogue country. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.\n(4)\nAll interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.\n(5)\nIn view of the apparent high number of exporting producers, unrelated importers and Union producers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping and injury, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers, importers and Union producers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product under investigation during the investigation period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010. The authorities of the PRC were also consulted.\n(a) Sampling of Chinese exporting producers\n(6)\nOut of the 31 Chinese exporting producers or groups of exporting producers which came forward, the Commission selected, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, a sample based on the largest representative volume of exports which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sample selected consisted of three (groups of) companies, representing 25 % of the total imports recorded in Eurostat during the IP and over 38 % of the total volume of the cooperating exporters in the IP. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned and the Chinese authorities were consulted but raised no objections to the proposed sample.\n(b) Sampling of Union producers\n(7)\nOut of the 21 Union producers that the Commission contacted, eleven provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. On the basis of the information received from these cooperating Union producers, the Commission selected a sample of two groups representing five Union producers. The sample was selected on the basis of volumes of sales and production. The sampled Union producers accounted for 48 % of total EU sales of all Union producers, and for 80 % of the producers who came forward.\n(8)\nFrom the 62 unrelated importers that the Commission contacted, only five companies replied to the sampling questions within the deadline. Therefore it was considered that no sampling was necessary, and questionnaires were sent to all these companies. Eventually, only two importers replied to the questionnaire and cooperated fully in the investigation.\n(c) Questionnaire replies and verifications\n(9)\nIn order to allow sampled exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (\u2018MET\u2019) or individual treatment (\u2018IT\u2019), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the sampled exporting producers. All groups of exporting producers requested MET pursuant to Article 2 (7) of the basic regulation or IT should the investigation establish that they did not meet the conditions for MET.\n(10)\nThree (groups of) companies requested individual examination. The examination of these claims at provisional stage was unfeasible within the time framework. A decision whether individual examination will be granted to any of these companies will be taken at definitive stage.\n(11)\nThe Commission officially disclosed the results of the MET findings to the sampled exporting producers concerned in the PRC as well as to the sampled Union producers.\n(12)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from the sampled exporting producers in the PRC, from all sampled Union producers, two unrelated Union importers and one user.\n(13)\nThe Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the purpose of analysing MET or IT and for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies.\n-\nChangshu Walsin Specialty Steel Co., Ltd., Haiyu Town, Changshu City and it's related companies: Shanghai Baihe Walsin Lihwa Specialty Steel Products Co., Ltd., Baihe Town, Qingpu District, Shanghai; Yantai Jin Cheng Precision Wire Rod Co., Ltd., ETDZ Yantai City, Shandong Province; Yantai Dazhong Recycling Resource Co., Ltd., ETDZ Yantai City, Shandong Province;\n-\nShanghai Jinchang Stainless Steel Tube Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Situan Town, Fengxian District, Shanghai and it's related companies: Shanghai Jinchang International Trade Co., Ltd., Situan Town, Fengxian District, Shanghai; Shanghai Jinchang international trading Chongqing Co., Ltd., Jieshi Town, Banan District, Chongqing;\n-\nWenzhou Jiangnan Steel Pipe Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,Yongzhong, Longwan district, Wenzhou.\n-\nSalzgitter Mannesmann Stainless Tubes Headquarters; M\u00fclheim an der Ruhr, Germany;\n-\nSalzgitter Mannesmann Stainless Tubes Deutschland; Remscheid, Germany;\n-\nTubacex Tubos Inoxidables, S.A., Llodio, Spain.\n-\nPEXCO, Scranton, Pennsylvania;\n-\nSalem Tube, Greenville, Pennsylvania;\n-\nSalzgitter Mannesmann Stainless Tubes USA, Houston, Texas;\n-\nSandvik Materials Technology, Scranton, Pennsylvania.\n3. Investigation period\n(14)\nThe investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 (\u2018investigation period\u2019 or \u2018IP\u2019). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 2006 to the end of the investigation period (\u2018period considered\u2019).\nB. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1. Product concerned\n(15)\nThe product concerned as described in the Notice of initiation is certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel, other than with attached fittings suitable for conducting gases or liquids for use in civil aircraft, currently falling within CN codes 7304 11 00, 7304 22 00, 7304 24 00, ex 7304 41 00, 7304 49 10, ex 7304 49 93, ex 7304 49 95, ex 7304 49 99 and ex 7304 90 00 (\u2018the product concerned\u2019). This includes unfinished \u2018hollows\u2019, hot-finished products and cold-finished products.\n(16)\nThe production process usually uses cylinders (\u2018billets\u2019) of stainless steel as raw material. In the first production step, an unfinished \u2018hollow\u2019 is produced using either an extrusion press or a hot piercing process. Subsequently, the hollow can be first processed by a hot-finishing process resulting in a hot-finished pipe and further processed by a cold-finishing process (cold pilger process) or by a cold drawing process, resulting in a cold-finished pipe. All types of products (hollows, hot-finished and cold-finished pipes) share the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and same basic uses.\n(17)\nStainless seamless pipes and tubes are mainly used in the following industries: chemical and petrochemical industries, fertiliser production, power generation, civil engineering and construction, pharmacology and medical technologies, biotechnology, water treatment and waste incineration, oil and gas exploration and production, coal and gas processing, food processing.\n(18)\nOne Union producer, which further processes stainless steel tubes, claimed that in case measures were to be imposed the CN code 7304 49 10 should be excluded from their scope because it covered unfinished hollows used only for further processing. However, the investigation showed that both the Union and the Chinese suppliers of that Union producer declared the goods sold to this producer as hot finished or cold finished goods.\n(19)\nIndeed the declaration of those products as \u2018unworked hollows for use solely in the manufacture of tubes and pipes with other cross-sections and wall thicknesses\u2019 concerns goods which do not necessarily have different physical characteristics, they merely have a different use. It was provisionally concluded that there were no grounds to exclude \u2018unworked hollows\u2019 from the product definition.\n2. Like product\n(20)\nThe product concerned and certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel sold on the domestic market in the PRC as well as certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel sold in the Union by the Union industry were found to have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and the same basic uses. They are therefore, provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC. DUMPING\n1. Market economy treatment\n(21)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which were found to meet all the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.\n(22)\nBriefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in summarised form below:\n1.\nbusiness decisions and costs are made in response to market conditions and without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values;\n2.\nfirms have one clear set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited, in line with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes;\n3.\nthere are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;\n4.\nlegal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy and property laws;\n5.\ncurrency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.\n(23)\nIn the present investigation, all three sampled exporting (groups of) producers requested market economy treatment (\u2018MET\u2019) pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form within the given deadlines.\n(24)\nThe investigation established that none of the sampled (groups of) exporting producers in the PRC met the requirements of the criteria set forth in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, therefore they cannot be granted MET.\n(25)\nNone of the companies fulfils the requirements of Criterion 1 because of State interference in decisions concerning acquisition of the main raw material (notably stainless steel billets, ingots, round bars). Those raw materials represent well above 50 % of the cost of production of the product concerned (seamless stainless steel pipes and tubes). Consequently, these raw materials are by far the major input in the production of the product concerned.\n(26)\nThe Chinese State has a primary role in the setting of prices of raw materials for seamless stainless steel pipes and tubes and interferes in the market continuously with the following tools: export tax and no VAT rebate. First, the main raw materials to manufacture seamless stainless steel pipes and tubes, are subject to a 15 % export tax since 1 January 2008. Second, the State does not refund the VAT on exports of those raw materials.\n(27)\nThe sampled companies acquire their main raw materials used for the production of seamless stainless steel pipes and tubes on the Chinese domestic market. The investigation established that on average and depending on the steel grade the Chinese prices of the raw materials are around 30 % lower than those on the world markets (USA or EU).\n(28)\nGiven that the PRC has to import the majority of its iron ore at international market prices, it is clear that it does not benefit from any natural comparative advantage, which would explain the low prices of the main raw materials on the Chinese domestic market. At the same time and for several years, various studies point to significant State interference in this sector. (3) Those reports indicate that the Chinese government has identified 14 \u2018key\u2019 industries and seven \u2018pillar\u2019 industries. Primary downstream consumers of specialty steel are among the seven \u2018pillar\u2019 industries supported by the Chinese government through its industrial policies. (4) The negative impact of export taxes and partial VAT rebates has also been underlined in the WTO Trade Policy Reviews of the PRC\u2019s trade policies and practices. (5)\n(29)\nAs stated in the WTO Trade Policy Reviews, export taxes and VAT rebates are policy tools whose use reduce export volumes of the raw materials in question, divert supplies to the domestic market and leads to a downward pressure on the domestic prices of those products. (6) Indeed, the current investigation established a significant price gap between domestic prices and world prices. Such a gap constitutes implicit assistance to domestic downstream industries and, thus, provides them with a competitive advantage. This argument is further reinforced by the fact that there is no export tax levied on exports of the product concerned (seamless stainless steel pipes and tubes), which also benefits from a VAT rebate.\n(30)\nThe current investigation, by establishing the different use of export taxes and VAT rebates on both the upstream and downstream industries demonstrates State interference, which can be concluded from the significant price difference for stainless steel raw materials (notably stainless steel billets, ingots, round bars) on the Chinese and world markets.\n(31)\nGiven the price difference between Chinese domestic and world markets, in the absence of the State interference, the domestic producers of the above mentioned raw materials would be inclined to export their products to markets with higher prices where they could achieve higher profits. Indeed, the Chinese customs statistics confirm that there are virtually no exports of stainless steel billets from the PRC to the rest of the world. In 2009, the exports of stainless steel ingots and other primary forms of stainless steel amounted to less then 2 tons and in 2010 less then 5 tons. This is a further argument demonstrating State interference in the raw materials market.\n(32)\nThese Chinese practices are to be considered as an underlying factor of State interference in decisions of firms regarding raw materials. Indeed, the current Chinese system of high export duties and no VAT reimbursement for export of raw materials has essentially lead to a situation where Chinese raw material prices continue to be the result of State intervention, and will, in all likelihood, continue to provide in the future a support to the Chinese producers of seamless stainless steel pipes and tubes.\n(33)\nFurther, in relation to criterion 1, one of the companies failed to include in its sampling information and the MET claim two related suppliers of raw materials. The company claimed that those suppliers supply small quantities and thus the fact that they were not reported could not and would not have any substantial impact on the outcome of the investigation. It is noted that that first of all the Commission has to obtain a full picture of all companies in a group involved in the production or sales of the product concerned, regardless of the size of those companies or the size of their sales. It is further noted that the supplies of raw materials are rather fragmented, dispersed among several small suppliers. It was concluded that the company, set aside the distortion of main inputs described above, failed to demonstrate that its business decisions were made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and costs reflected market values.\n(34)\nApart from criterion 1, certain companies also failed to demonstrate that they fulfilled criterion 2 and 3. Two companies could not demonstrate that they had a clear set of accounting records that was independently audited and in line with international accounting standards. For one company, discrepancies in the financial records were not reflected in the auditor's report. Another company could not present financial statements for some years of its operation.\n(35)\nFinally, one company received loans from State owned banks at preferential rates, significantly lower than market rates. This demonstrates that production costs and the financial situation are subject to significant distortions carried over from the non-market economy system.\n(36)\nFollowing disclosure of the MET findings, comments were received from the Union industry and three sampled exporting (groups of) producers concerned.\n(37)\nOne company claimed that the Commission\u2019s decision to reject MET was influenced and hence biased by the calculation of the dumping margin. In this regard it has to be noted that the MET determination precedes any dumping calculation and any verification which took place related solely to the data related to MET determination. The claim is thus unfounded.\n(38)\nOne company claimed that it was not required to submit MET claims for related raw material suppliers. This argument has to be rejected. The notice of initiation stated clearly that the names and the precise activities of all related companies involved in the production and/or sales (export and/or domestic) of the product under investigation have to be provided to the Commission.\n(39)\nFurther, that company claimed that the distortions on the raw materials market were not significant because 17,5 % of the raw material is imported from unrelated international suppliers and the rest is mainly purchased from related companies. The information at the Commission\u2019s disposal demonstrates that around 30 % of raw materials are purchased locally and the rest is mainly imported from related suppliers. In this context, it has to be noted that transfer prices from related suppliers are normally not considered as reliable information. Further, overall the raw material purchase prices of the company from independent suppliers are significantly lower than prices in the EU or in the US like for the other investigated exporting producers. The claim is thus rejected.\n(40)\nOne company contested Commission's calculation of the price difference between raw materials prices on the Chinese domestic and world markets. Following the verification, the Commission confirms this calculation. In particular the company did not take into account the surcharges for alloy applied by the US and EU suppliers. The claim thus has to be rejected.\n(41)\nOne company further claimed that the discrepancies between the income tax declaration and the financial statement were normal, not significant and therefore there was no obligation for explanations in the notes to the financial statement. Consequently, this should thus not have had an impact on the Commission's determination. It is noted that the discrepancies regarding annual profit are close to 30 million RMB and thus should have been considered as important and therefore to be explained in the notes to the financial statement.\n(42)\nAnother claim related to an alleged breach of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and the EU basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation. (7) The company stated that rejecting the MET claim on the grounds that companies may be receiving subsidies has the effect of penalising exporter for subsidies deemed illegal without any substantiation. This argument has to be rejected. The MET claims have not been rejected on the basis of possible subsidies but on specific grounds set out in the recitals above as well as in the detailed MET disclosure documents sent to parties. The main reason for the rejection of the MET was distortions established on the raw materials market. Further it should be underlined that for example companies obtained loans from state owned banks at preferential rates significantly lower than market rates, clearly demonstrates the carry over from the previous non-market economy.\n(43)\nIn conclusion, none of the comments received was such as to alter the findings with regard to MET determination.\n2. Individual treatment\n(44)\nPursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below:\n-\nin the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;\n-\nexport prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined;\n-\nthe majority of the shares belong to private persons. State officials appearing on the Boards of Directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from State interference;\n-\nexchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and\n-\nState interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.\n(45)\nThe three above mentioned sampled (groups of) companies, which were denied MET, also claimed individual treatment (\u2018IT\u2019). It was provisionally found that all these three sampled (groups of) companies met the conditions of Article 9 (5) of the basic Regulation and could thus be granted IT.\n3. Normal value\n(a) Analogue country\n(46)\nIn accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, normal value for exporting producers not granted MET shall be established on the basis of domestic prices or constructed normal value in an analogue country.\n(47)\nIn the Notice of initiation, the Commission indicated that it envisaged using the USA as analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC. One party claimed that India was a better analogue market because of similar level of development to the PRC. The Commission obtained no cooperation from the Indian producers. The USA seemed initially appropriate given its openness to import competition (customs tariffs of 0 % as opposed to 10 % in India) and a fairly good level of competition on the domestic market with 15 to 20 USA producers.\n(48)\nHowever, the questionnaire replies and the verification visit revealed that the USA is not an appropriate analogue country market. All the co-operating USA producers rely on imports of basic raw materials and finished products from their EU parent companies and maintain a limited production activity in the USA, mainly to respond to customized or time critical orders. In fact, the production volume of the co-operating USA producers is a fraction of their European parent producers. Most importantly, however, the USA co-operating producers have high processing costs reflecting their particular manufacturing circumstances. Those costs translate into high domestic prices on the USA market.\n(b) Determination of normal value\n(49)\nIn accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation the normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed normal value in a market economy third country or the export prices from such country to other countries, including the EU. Given that the normal value could not be established on the basis of prices or constructed values in the USA for the reasons set out in the previous recital, the second method was explored. However, for the reasons set out below this method is also not suitable for the present case. Just as the USA domestic sales prices, the USA export prices will also be tainted by the high production costs and the fact that export volumes would be limited, i.e. less than 2 % of the Chinese exports to the EU). It would also appear that some of those exports are made to related companies and are thus unreliable for the purposes of normal value determination.\n(50)\nAs an alternative to the above mentioned two methods Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation stipulates that normal value can be determined on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit. This method has been provisionally used in the present case given that the investigation established at this stage that the USA is not an appropriate analogue country.\n(51)\nFor the product types exported by the sampled Chinese (groups of) exporting producers for which no sales were made by the sampled Union producers, the Commission provisionally used prices actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit, of the closest resembling product types having the same diameter, steel grade and product type (e.g. cold or hot drawn).\n4. Export price\n(52)\nIn all cases the product concerned was exported to independent customers in the Union, and therefore, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.\n5. Comparison\n(53)\nThe dumping margins were established by comparing the individual ex-works export prices of the sampled exporters to the domestic sales prices of the sampled Union producers established as set out in recital (50) above.\n(54)\nFor the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Appropriate adjustments were granted in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence. In particular, an adjustment was granted for indirect taxes, ocean freight and insurance, freight in the exporting country, warranty expenses, commissions, credit costs, bank charges, level of trade and as elaborated in recital (70) below, quality perception.\n6. Dumping margins\n(55)\nThe provisional dumping margins were expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.\n(a) For the cooperating sampled exporting producers granted IT\n(56)\nPursuant to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margins for the sampled cooperating exporting producers granted IT were established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value established on the basis of prices actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted to include a reasonable profit as detailed in recitals (50) and (51) above with each company\u2019s weighted average export price of the product concerned to the Union as established above.\n(57)\nOn this basis, the provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:\nSampled companies\nProvisional dumping margins\nChangshu Walsin Specialty Steel, Co. Ltd., Haiyu\n83,2 %\nShanghai Jinchang Stainless Steel Tube Manufacturing, Co. Ltd., Situan\n62,5 %\nWenzhou Jiangnan Steel Pipe Manufacturing, Co. Ltd., Yongzhong\n66,5 %\n(b) For all other cooperating exporting producers\n(58)\nThe dumping margin for other cooperating exporting producers in the PRC, not included in the sample, was calculated as a weighted average of the sampled exporting producers\u2019 dumping margins, in accordance with Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation.\n(59)\nOn this basis, the provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 71,1 %.\n(c) All other (non-cooperating) exporting producers\n(60)\nGiven the high level of co-operation in the investigation (the co-operating companies represent around 64 % of the total imports recorded in Eurostat during the IP) the country wide margin for non-cooperating exporting producers, was established by using the highest of the margins found for the sampled (groups of) companies.\n(61)\nOn this basis the provisional country-wide level of dumping as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid is 83,2 %.\nD. INJURY\n1. Union production and Union industry\n(62)\nDuring the IP, the like product was manufactured by 21 producers in the Union.. Within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation, all 21 existing Union producers constitute the Union industry and they will therefore be hereafter referred to as the \u2018Union industry\u2019.\n(63)\nAs indicated under recital (7) above, two groups of Union producers, comprised of five Union producers were selected in the sample, representing more than 50 %, of the total Union production of the like product. Of the remaining cooperating Union producers, the company that requested a limitation of the product scope (see recitals (16) and (17) above - did not agree with the selection of the sample. Notably, the producer criticized that the sample includes only companies that are present both on the \u2018market of finished products\u2019 and that of \u2018pre-material\u2019, and also the fact that the sample is comprised of only complainant companies. It is reiterated that the company in question purchases pre-material from both the PRC and the Union industry. However, the producer failed to prove that indeed such two separate markets exist. In addition, the producer represented less than 2 % of total Union production during the IP, whilst the two company groups were selected on the basis of the objective criteria as described in recitals (7) and (8) above.\n2. Union consumption\n(64)\nUnion consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market based on the information obtained from the defence committee representing the complainants (see recital (2) above) and the import volumes data for the Union market obtained from Eurostat. The latter data had to be slightly adjusted with regard to imports from South Africa and Japan for certain periods given that those data included some distortions resulting from incorrect reporting of information.\n(65)\nUnion consumption dropped strongly by 35 % between 2006 and the IP. The consumption had however slightly increased between 2006 and 2007, peaked in 2007 and then continuously decreased year by year until the IP.\nTable 1\nUnion consumption\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n131 965\n153 630\n133 711\n102 865\n85 629\nIndexed\n100\n116\n101\n78\n65\n(66)\nIndeed the period considered covers considerable fluctuations on the market, mainly due to huge volatilities in demand for stainless steel tubes. The year 2007 and also the first three quarters of 2008 can be characterised as a robustly booming market. Eventually, the economic crisis had a large impact on the demand. This impact started to become visible in the last quarter of 2008, became graver throughout 2009 and continued even in the first half of 2010 thus affecting also the whole of the IP. All this is well reflected in the trend of Union consumption which was at its peak in 2007 after which it shrank year by year.\n3. Imports from the country concerned\n3.1. Volume of dumped imports\n(67)\nThe volume of imports of the product concerned from the PRC into the Union market has increased over the period considered. Overall during the period considered, imports from the PRC increased by 14 %. In fact, between 2006 and 2007, imports from the PRC have almost doubled, while they decreased year by year between 2007 and the IP, largely due to the fall in consumption (as market share remained stable between 2008 and the IP - see recital (68) below).\nTable 2\nImports from the PRC (volumes)\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nUnits (tonnes)\n13 804\n26 790\n25 186\n17 043\n15 757\nIndexed\n100\n194\n182\n123\n114\n3.2. Market share of dumped imports\n(68)\nThe market share of dumped imports from the PRC has almost doubled over the period considered, increasing by 76 % or 7,9 percentage points. This markets share growth mainly took place between 2006 and 2007, subsequently maintaining its high level.\nTable 3\nImports from the PRC (market share)\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nMarket share (%)\n10,5 %\n17,4 %\n18,8 %\n16,6 %\n18,4 %\nIndexed\n100\n167\n180\n158\n176\n3.3. Prices\n(a) Price evolution\n(69)\nThe table below shows the average price of dumped imports from the PRC, at the European border duty unpaid, as reported by Eurostat. During the period considered the average price of imports from the PRC increased until 2008 and then fell between 2008 and the IP.\nTable 4\nImports from the PRC (prices)\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nAverage price per tonne (EUR)\n4 354\n5 129\n5 506\n4 348\n3 954\nIndexed\n100\n118\n126\n100\n91\n(b) Price undercutting\n(70)\nA type-to-type price comparison was made between the selling prices of the Chinese exporting producers and the sampled Union producers\u2019 selling prices in the Union. To this end, the sampled Union producers\u2019 prices to unrelated customers have been compared with the prices of sampled exporting producers of the country concerned. Adjustments were applied where necessary to take account of differences in the market perception of product quality, the level of trade and post-importation costs.\n(71)\nThe comparison showed that, during the IP, imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC were sold in the Union at prices which undercut the Union industry prices, when expressed as a percentage of the latter, by 21 % to 32 %.\n4. Economic situation of the Union industry\n4.1. Preliminary remarks\n(72)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry. The data presented below relate to all Union producers for sales and market shares, and to the sampled Union producers for all the remaining indicators. As concerns the indicators based on the sampled producers, given that the sample was comprised of only two groups of producers, for confidentiality reasons the actual aggregate data could not be disclosed in the related tables below; instead, only the indices are presented in order to show the trend of those indicators.\n4.2. Production\n(73)\nThe Union production volumes increased between 2006 and 2008, but they fell sharply between 2008 and the IP. This substantial decrease of production was caused by both the market contraction and the increasing pressure of dumped imports.\nTable 5\nProduction\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nProduction (indexed)\n100\n107\n121\n84\n66\n4.3. Production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(74)\nThe production capacity of the Union industry remained relatively stable throughout the period considered: However, the rate of capacity utilization decreased by 35 % between 2006 and the IP. In the IP, the level of capacity utilization dropped to little more than half of the level reached in 2008.\nTable 6\nProduction capacity\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nCapacity (indexed)\n100\n98\n101\n102\n101\nCapacity utilisation (indexed)\n100\n109\n120\n82\n65\n4.4. Stocks\n(75)\nThe table below shows that the closing stocks first increased until 2008, when Union production was at its peak, but then they started decreasing due to the reduced levels of manufacturing activity.\nTable 7\nStocks\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nStocks (indexed)\n100\n124\n168\n138\n118\n4.5. Union sales volumes (total Union industry)\n(76)\nThe sales volume of all Union producers on the EU market decreased on the whole by 39 %, while Chinese exports increased by 14 % at the same time, as stated in recital (68) above. The Union sales volumes of Union industry developed as follows:\nTable 8\nUnion sales (volumes)\nall EU producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nUnion sales (tonnes)\n82 743\n91 043\n79 418\n63 223\n50 569\nIndexed\n100\n110\n96\n76\n61\n4.6. Market share (total Union industry)\n(77)\nThe market share of the Union industry decreased by 3,4 percentage points between 2006 and 2007 and remained relatively stable during the rest of the period considered, with a small temporary increase in 2009. Overall, the Union industry lost 3,6 percentage points of market share, whereby as shown in Table 3 above, the market share of dumped imports from the PRC has almost doubled over the period considered.\nTable 9\nUnion market share\nall EU producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nMarket share (%)\n62,7 %\n59,3 %\n59,4 %\n61,5 %\n59,1 %\nIndexed\n100\n95\n95\n98\n94\n4.7. Sales prices\n(78)\nAs concerns average sales prices, the table below shows that in 2007 the Union industry increased its sales prices and then gradually reduced them year by year until the IP, reaching price levels which are below those of 2006. The evolution and the high volatility of their sales prices were partly due to serious fluctuations of raw material costs.\nTable 10\nUnion sales (average prices)\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nAverage price per tonne (indexed)\n100\n135\n126\n100\n92\n4.8. Employment\n(79)\nThe employment level largely followed the development of the production volumes (see Table 5 above), which indicates that the Union industry has attempted to rationalise manufacturing costs when it was necessary. The Union industry tried to adapt their workforce to the worsening market circumstances by reducing working hours rather than reducing their headcount. Therefore, the table below shows the employment level in full-time equivalents (\u2018FTE\u2019). FTE employment of the Union producers increased by 11 percentage points between 2006 and 2008, followed by a drop of 19 percentage points from 2008 to the IP. On the whole, the number of FTE's decreased by 8 % over the period considered.\nTable 11\nEmployment\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nEmployment in full-time equivalents (indexed)\n100\n106\n111\n95\n92\n4.9. Productivity\n(80)\nDespite the above attempts of the Union industry, the output per FTE of the Union producers fell considerably, overall by 29 %. The serious impacts of dumped imports from the PRC in the period of a collapsing market demand prevented the Union industry from maintaining its productivity levels.\nTable 12\nProductivity\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nProduction volume per FTE (indexed)\n100\n102\n109\n88\n71\n4.10. Labour Costs\n(81)\nDuring the period considered, the Union industry has managed to control the development of labour costs. Indeed, the table below shows that the average annual labour cost slightly increased in 2007 and 2008, but they decreased in 2009 and the IP. Over the whole period, unit labour costs went down by 2 %. This decrease would have been more pronounced had the amounts of severance payments been excluded from the above trend.\nTable 13\nLabour costs\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nAnnual labour cost per employee (indexed)\n100\n103\n109\n100\n98\n4.11. Profitability and return on investments (ROI)\n(82)\nProfitability of the Union industry was established by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product on the EU market to unrelated customers as a percentage of the turnover of these sales. As a result, the profitability margins of the Union industry developed as follows during the period considered:\nTable 14\nProfitability & return on investments (ROI)\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nNet profit (indexed)\n100\n202\n89\n- 147\n- 188\nROI (indexed)\n100\n289\n215\n- 107\n- 153\n(83)\nAs the above table shows, the profitability of the Union industry peaked in 2007 due to the extraordinary market conditions from which all market players could benefit. The average profitability significantly deteriorated starting from 2007 and profits have turned into a significant loss during 2009 and the IP.\n(84)\nAs concerns the return on investments (\u2018ROI\u2019), expressed as the profit in percent of the net book value of investments, this indicator appears to have followed the profitability trend.\n4.12. Cash flow and ability to raise capital\n(85)\nThe net cash flow from operating activities developed as follows (given the negative amount in 2006, exceptionally for this table, 2007 was considered as the year of reference for indicating the cash flow development):\nTable 15\nCash flow\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nCash flow (indexed)\nnegative\n100\n685\n175\n53\n(86)\nThe above table shows that the cash flow of the Union industry peaked in 2008 and that subsequently it decreased until the end of the period considered, reaching a rather low level in the IP.\n4.13. Investments\n(87)\nDuring the period considered, the investments of the sampled Union producers developed as follows:\nTable 16\nInvestments\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nNet investments (indexed)\n100\n192\n406\n286\n183\n(88)\nAs the above table shows, the Union producers decided to continue to invest despite their above fragile financial situation in 2009 and the IP. The reasons for this are that (i) this type of industry normally requires certain multi-annual investments which had to be completed irrespective of the market situation, and that (ii) in this sector frequent machinery upgrades are a prerequisite to allow production of larger quantities of higher-end products (as an effort to maintain competitiveness vis-\u00e0-vis other manufacturers).\n4.14. Magnitude of the actual dumping margin\n(89)\nThe dumping margins for imports from the PRC, as specified above in recital (57) above, are very high. Given the volume, market share and prices of the dumped imports, the impact of the margins of dumping can be considered substantial.\n5. Conclusion on injury\n(90)\nThe injury indicators developed negatively during the period considered. This is particularly noticeable for the indicators concerning profitability, production volumes, capacity utilisation, sales volumes and market share that have all showed a clearly deteriorating trend.\n(91)\nAt the same time, stainless steel tube imports from the PRC were undercutting Union industry prices by up to 32 % during the IP (see recital (71) above).\n(92)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is provisionally concluded that the Union industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.\nE. CAUSATION\n1. Introduction\n(93)\nIn accordance with Article 3(6) and Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports have caused injury to the Union industry to a degree that enables it to be classified as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time have injured the Union industry, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.\n2. Effect of the dumped imports\n(94)\nBetween 2006 and the IP, the volume of the dumped imports of the product concerned increased in terms of volume by 14 % in a market contracting by 35 %, which resulted in an increase of Union market share by 76 %, from 10,5 % to 18,4 %.\n(95)\nThe increase in dumped imports of the product concerned from the PRC over the period considered coincided with a downward trend in most injury indicators of the Union industry. The Union industry lost 3,6 percentage points of market share and its sales prices decreased by 8 % due to the price pressure exerted by low-priced dumped imports on the Union market. The significant price undercutting prevented the Union industry from passing on the increased production costs in the sales prices to an acceptable extent, which resulted in negative profitability levels during the IP.\n(96)\nBased on the above it is provisionally concluded that the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC, which entered the Union market in large and overall increasing volumes and which significantly undercut the Union industry prices throughout the period considered, are causing material injury to the Union industry.\n3. Effect of other factors\n3.1. Imports from other third countries\n(97)\nDuring the period considered, there were limited imports from other third countries. The total market share of imports from countries other than the PRC has decreased by 4,3 percentage points, from 26,8 % to 22,5 %.\n(98)\nThe next largest sources of imports during the IP were Japan and Ukraine. They both held a market share of 5,2 % each. India had a market share of 3,0 % while imports from the USA had a market share of 2,7 % during the IP. The following table shows the development of import volumes, prices and market shares of the four largest import source countries following the PRC and those of the remaining other third county imports, all based on Eurostat data. As already mentioned in recital (64) above, Eurostat data for Japanese imports required slight adjustments to exclude distortions resulting from incorrect reporting of transactions.\nTable 17\nImports from other countries\nCountry\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nJapan\nVolumes(tonnes)\n5 801\n7 211\n6 955\n6 753\n4 445\nMarket share (%)\n4,4 %\n4,7 %\n5,2 %\n6,6 %\n5,2 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n7 981\n7 396\n8 591\n11 634\n9 596\nUkraine\nVolumes(tonnes)\n7 820\n8 536\n7 904\n4 659\n4 431\nMarket share (%)\n5,9 %\n5,6 %\n5,9 %\n4,5 %\n5,2 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n6 775\n9 212\n8 100\n6 336\n6 031\nIndia\nVolumes(tonnes)\n3 664\n4 323\n3 461\n3 265\n2 540\nMarket share (%)\n2,8 %\n2,8 %\n2,6 %\n3,2 %\n3,0 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n5 519\n6 874\n6 789\n3 929\n4 111\nUSA\nVolumes(tonnes)\n3 739\n6 019\n2 724\n2 740\n2 344\nMarket share (%)\n2,8 %\n3,9 %\n2,0 %\n2,7 %\n2,7 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n16 235\n5 597\n12 892\n11 175\n11 054\nOther countries\nVolumes(tonnes)\n14 394\n9 709\n8 063\n5 183\n5 542\nMarket share (%)\n10,9 %\n6,3 %\n6,0 %\n5,0 %\n6,5 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n6 643\n7 880\n8 553\n6 695\n6 497\nTotal of all third countries except the PRC\nVolumes(tonnes)\n35 418\n35 797\n29 107\n22 600\n19 303\nMarket share (%)\n26,8 %\n23,3 %\n21,8 %\n22,0 %\n22,5 %\nAv. price (EUR)\n5 586\n7 540\n8 453\n8 392\n7 484\n(99)\nAs indicated in the table above, during the period considered Japan moderately increased its market share by 0,8 percentage points from 4,4 % to 5,2 %. However, prices of Japanese imports appear to be much more comparable to the Union prices than prices of imports from the PRC. Most importantly, in the IP, Japanese import prices were significantly higher than those of the Union industry.\n(100)\nImports from the USA were made at prices considerably higher than those of the Union industry during the period considered (except for the year of 2007). As concerns imports from Ukraine and India, although average prices from these countries were overall lower than Union prices, both maintained a relatively stable market share on the Union market: the market share of Ukraine decreased from 5,9 % to 5,2 % while that of India grew from 2,8 % to 3,0 % during the period considered.\n(101)\nIn conclusion, the market share of imports from all third countries except the PRC decreased by 4,3 percentage points (from 26,8 % to 22,5 %) during the period considered. Overall, the average import price from all third countries other than the PRC increased by 34 % during the period considered (from EUR 5 586 to EUR 7 484 per tonne) which is in sharp contrast with the 9 % reduction in the already very low Chinese import prices and the 8 % drop of average Union sales prices.\n(102)\nOn the basis of the above it can be concluded that imports from third countries other than the PRC do not appear to have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry during the IP.\n3.2. Impacts of market fluctuations and the economic crisis\n(103)\nWhilst 2007 and the first three quarters of 2008 can be characterised as a robustly booming market for stainless steel tubes, eventually, the financial and economic crisis had a large impact also on this sector. The economic downturn started in the last quarter of 2008, continued throughout 2009 and affected even the first half of 2010 i.e. the whole of the IP. All this is reflected in the Union consumption trends, which was at its peak in 2007 after which it shrank year by year (see Table 1 above).\n(104)\nUndoubtedly, the above drop in consumption resulting from the economic downturn had also an impact on the situation of the Union industry. It must be noted, however, that this negative effect was seriously exacerbated by the dumped imports from the PRC, which significantly undercut the prices of the Union industry. Therefore, even if the economic downturn could be considered as a factor contributing to the injury during the IP, by no means could this diminish the injurious effects of low priced dumped imports from the PRC on the Union market. In the absence of such unfair competition from the PRC and the volume and price pressure that it exerted on the Union producers, it would have been possible for the latter to maintain the level of their sales prices and profitability at relatively acceptable levels even in a situation of decreasing demand.\n(105)\nActually, the impact of dumped imports from the PRC that largely undercut the Union sales prices during the IP can be considered as even more injurious in a period of economic crisis when sales volumes and prices are in any event already under pressure by the lower consumption.\n(106)\nGiven the above circumstances, the economic downturn cannot be considered as a possible factor that would break the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from the PRC.\n3.3. Export performance of the Union industry\n(107)\nAs concerns the development of export sales of the Union industry, exports decreased less than domestic sales, irrespective of whether all Union producers or only sampled producers are examined. As concerns the development of export sales volumes, the following trend could be established for the Union industry during the period considered:\nTable 18\nUnion industry - export sales (tonnes) to unrelated customers\nall EU producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndexed\n100\n99\n108\n88\n64\n(108)\nIt should be pointed out that the export sales of the Union industry shrank at a slower pace than its sales did on the Union market. This may imply that the pressure of dumped imports from the PRC is particularly strong in the Union market. Given this indication as well as the substantial share of exports in total sales made by the Union industry (constantly between 39 % and 45 % during the period considered), any lack of competitiveness of the Union producers on the world market can certainly be excluded.\n3.4. Competitiveness of dumped imports from the PRC and cost of production of the Union industry\n(109)\nThe high volatility of the alloy prices as well as the general developments in market demand resulted in considerable fluctuations of the costs of the main raw material for manufacturing the product under investigation. The average unit cost of production of the Union industry developed as follows during the period considered:\nTable 19\nUnion industry - cost of production (EUR per tonne)\nsampled producers\n2006\n2007\n2008\n2009\nIP\nIndexed\n100\n120\n119\n124\n118\n(110)\nAs already stated in recital (78) above, the PRC market for the main raw materials is highly distorted. Due to this distortion, exporting producers in the PRC appear to have the possibility to make export sales of the product concerned to the Union market with a pricing that is likely to be less elastic to raw material prices and which results in prices largely undercutting those on the Union market. In other words, due to the distortion on the Chinese raw material market, the stainless steel tubes manufacturers in the PRC have an unfair competitive advantage when compared to the Union industry. These distortions would have contributed to allowing the Chinese producers to keep the low price level of the dumped imports from the PRC.\n4. Conclusion on causation\n(111)\nIn conclusion, the above analysis has demonstrated that imports from the PRC have increased in terms of quantities and gained substantial market share over the period considered. Moreover, these increased quantities which entered the Union market at dumped prices severely undercut the Union industry prices. Though for a certain period the Union industry had been able to offset the negative effects of this pressure thanks to the exceptionally positive market conditions in the years of 2007 and 2008, this was no longer possible when the economic crisis substantially reduced the level of demand.\n(112)\nOther factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry have also been analysed. In this respect, it was found that imports from other third countries, the impact of the economic crisis, the export performance of the Union industry and other factors including those related to distortions on the PRC raw material market, do not appear to be such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry during the IP.\n(113)\nBased on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors having an effect on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effect of the dumped imports, it is provisionally concluded that the imports from the PRC have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.\nF. UNION INTEREST\n(114)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether, despite the conclusions on dumping, injury and causation, reasons existed which would lead the Commission to clearly conclude that it is not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this particular case. For this purpose and pursuant to Article 21(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission considered the likely impact of possible measures on all parties involved as well as the likely consequences of not taking measures.\n(115)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to independent importers and users. Eventually, two importers and one user submitted questionnaire replies within the time limits set.\n1. Interest of the Union industry\n(116)\nOne Union producer opposed the imposition of anti-dumping measures as the company partly sources unworked stainless steel hollows from the PRC in order to further process them into finished tubes. However, the producer represents less than 2 % of total Union production.\n(117)\nIt is recalled that the injury indicators showed an overall negative trend and that in particular the injury indicators related to production and sales volumes and market share as well as the financial performance of the Union industry such as profitability and return on investment, were seriously affected.\n(118)\nIf measures are imposed, it is expected that the price depression and loss of market share will be mitigated and that the sales prices of the Union industry will start to recover, resulting in a significant improvement of the Union industry's financial situation.\n(119)\nOn the other hand, should anti-dumping measures not be imposed, it would be likely that the deterioration of the Union industry's market and financial situation would continue. In such a scenario, the Union industry would lose further market share, as it is not able to follow the market prices set by dumped imports from the PRC. The likely effects would entail further cuts in manufacturing and the closure of production facilities in the Union, resulting in substantial job losses.\n(120)\nTaking into account all the above factors, it is provisionally concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would be in the interest of the Union industry.\n2. Interest of unrelated importers in the Union\n(121)\nAs indicated above, sampling was not applied for unrelated importers as only two unrelated importers fully cooperated in this investigation by submitting a questionnaire reply. Only a small part of the turnover of these two importers was related to re-sales of the product concerned from the PRC.\n(122)\nThe imports declared by these two importers however represented a relatively small proportion of all imports from the PRC in the IP (much less than 10 %). Considering the high margins that the importers achieved on the re-sales of the product concerned in the IP, it can be assumed that the imposition of anti-dumping duties could result for them in lower profitability levels. However, neither of the importers put forward arguments according to which the imposition of anti-dumping duties would be against their interest. In addition, as they both re-sell stainless steel tubes of non-Chinese origin (including tubes of Union origin), they may as well decide to shift purchases to non-Chinese suppliers, which are not affected by the duties.\n(123)\nNo other importers have cooperated by submitting a questionnaire reply or substantiated comments. On that basis, it is provisionally concluded that the imposition of provisional measures will not have substantially negative effects on the interest of the Union importers.\n3. Interest of the users\n(124)\nSeamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel subject to this proceeding are used for a large number of applications (see recital (17) above). Despite this, cooperation was obtained from only one user which uses stainless steel tubes for manufacturing air fin coolers and air cooled condensers, accounting for less than 1 % of total Chinese imports during the IP. However, it can provisionally be concluded that the very limited cooperation of users appears to indicate that in general the impact on the user industry's profitability and economic situation will be rather limited.\n(125)\nFrom the questionnaire reply of this user it appears that the company will not be seriously affected by anti-dumping measures, not even with regard to its division using the stainless tubes. When comparing the value of imports of the product concerned with the turnover of the division using the imported goods, the effect can be considered insignificant.\n(126)\nIn view of the data of this user, it can however not be excluded that certain user companies that use more substantial quantities of stainless tubes imported from the PRC could be negatively affected by the anti-dumping measures.\n(127)\nFrom the information submitted by the sole cooperating user it is impossible to estimate the total employment of the whole user industry within the Union, given its limited representativeness and the wide variety of applications.\n(128)\nIt should also be noted that the level of measures is unlikely to prevent Chinese imports from continuing to supply the Union market, albeit at increased non-injurious prices. In addition, the idle production capacity of the Union industry as well as the alternative sources of imports from various other third countries indicate that there is no risk of security of supply for the stainless steel tubes on the Union market.\n(129)\nBesides, despite the recent difficulties of the Union industry, it continues to be the largest supplier of the user industry in the Union. Without the imposition of measures, in case of further deterioration of the financial situation of the Union industry, the existence of the Union industry would be jeopardised which would bring about a risk of supply also for the users within the Union.\n(130)\nAll in all, when considering the overall impact of the anti-dumping measures, the positive effects on the Union industry appear to clearly outweigh the potential negative impacts on the other interest groups. Therefore it is provisionally concluded that the anti-dumping duties are not against the Union interest.\n4. Conclusion on Union interest\n(131)\nIt can be concluded that the imposition of measures on dumped imports of the product concerned from the PRC is expected to provide an opportunity for the Union industry to improve its situation through increased sales volumes, sales prices and market share. While some negative effects may occur in the form of cost increases for certain users, they are likely to be outweighed by the expected benefits for the producers and their suppliers.\n(132)\nIn the light of the above, it is provisionally concluded that on balance, no compelling reasons exist against the imposition of provisional measures on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC.\nG. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(133)\nIn view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional measures should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in the People's Republic of China in order to prevent further injury to the Union industry by the dumped imports.\n1. Injury elimination level\n(134)\nThe provisional measures on imports originating in the PRC should be imposed at a level sufficient to eliminate dumping, without exceeding the injury caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports. When calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it is considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and obtain overall a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports.\n(135)\nThe Union industry has claimed that for the determination of the injury elimination level a target profit of 12 % should be used. However, the evidence provided so far has not shown that this profitability can be achieved in a normal market situation. Not even in the exceptional year of 2007 could the Union industry achieve such high level of profitability. Based on the data collected during the investigation it has provisionally been considered that a 5 % profit is appropriate for determining the injury elimination level.\n(136)\nOn this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry of the like product. The non-injurious price has been established by deducting the actual profit margin from the ex-works price and adding to the thus calculated break even price the above-mentioned target profit margin.\n(137)\nAs a result, the following injury elimination levels have provisionally been established:\nCompany/companies\nInjury elimination level\nChangshu Walsin Specialty Steel, Co. Ltd., Haiyu\n71,5 %\nShanghai Jinchang Stainless Steel Tube Manufacturing, Co. Ltd., Situan\n48,2 %\nWenzhou Jiangnan Steel Pipe Manufacturing, Co. Ltd., Yongzhong\n48,0 %\nCompanies listed in Annex I\n56,6 %\nAll other companies\n71,5 %\n2. Provisional measures\n(138)\nIn the light of the foregoing and pursuant to Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that a provisional anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC at the level of the lower of the dumping margin and injury elimination level found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule, which is in all cases the injury margin.\n(139)\nGiven the high rate of co-operation of Chinese exporting producers, the all other companies rate is set at the rate of the co-operating company in the sample with the highest rate. For the co-operating non-sampled companies listed in the Annex the provisional duty rate is set at the weighted average of the rates of the sampled companies. On the basis of the above, the proposed duty rates are:\nCompany/companies\nProvisional duty\nChangshu Walsin Specialty Steel, Co. Ltd., Haiyu\n71,5 %\nShanghai Jinchang Stainless Steel Tube Manufacturing, Co. Ltd., Situan\n48,2 %\nWenzhou Jiangnan Steel Pipe Manufacturing, Co. Ltd., Yongzhong\n48,0 %\nCompanies listed in Annex I\n56,6 %\nAll other companies\n71,5 %\n(140)\nThe individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the country concerned and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to \u2018all other companies\u2019.\n(141)\nAny claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting-up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (8) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.\n(142)\nIn order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the duty level for all other companies should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers, but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.\nH. FINAL PROVISION\n(143)\nIn the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive measures,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel, other than with attached fittings suitable for conducting gases or liquids for use in civil aircraft, currently falling within CN codes 7304 11 00, 7304 22 00, 7304 24 00, ex 7304 41 00, 7304 49 10, ex 7304 49 93, ex 7304 49 95, ex 7304 49 99 and ex 7304 90 00 (TARIC codes 7304410090, 7304499390, 7304499590, 7304499990 and 7304900091), and originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China.\n2. The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below, shall be as follows:\nCompany/companies\nProvisional duty\nTARIC Additional Code\nChangshu Walsin Specialty Steel, Co. Ltd., Haiyu\n71,5 %\nB120\nShanghai Jinchang Stainless Steel Tube Manufacturing, Co. Ltd., Situan\n48,2 %\nB118\nWenzhou Jiangnan Steel Pipe Manufacturing, Co. Ltd., Yongzhong\n48,0 %\nB119\nCompanies listed in Annex I\n56,6 %\nB121\nAll other companies\n71,5 %\nB999\n3. The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex II. If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall apply.\n4. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security, equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.\n5. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.\nArticle 2\nWithout prejudice to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the details underlying the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.\nPursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nArticle 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 27 June 2011.", "references": ["35", "0", "19", "4", "82", "21", "45", "14", "50", "37", "46", "47", "18", "39", "20", "91", "65", "98", "85", "75", "72", "93", "11", "58", "69", "2", "74", "10", "13", "63", "No Label", "22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "95", "96"], "gold": ["22", "23", "48", "76", "84", "95", "96"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 13 May 2011\non the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of a Protocol between the European Union and the Arab Republic of Egypt establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part\n(2011/307/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with point (a)(v) of Article 218(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 24 February 2006 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with partners in the Mediterranean region in order to establish a dispute settlement mechanism related to trade provisions.\n(2)\nNegotiations have been conducted by the Commission in consultation with the committee appointed under Article 207 of the Treaty and within the framework of the negotiating directives issued by the Council.\n(3)\nThese negotiations have been concluded and an Agreement in the form of a Protocol (the Protocol) between the European Union and the Arab Republic of Egypt establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part (1) was initialled on 27 April 2010.\n(4)\nThe Protocol was signed on behalf of the Union on 11 November 2010.\n(5)\nThe Protocol should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Agreement in the form of a Protocol between the European Union and the Arab Republic of Egypt establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part (the Protocol) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nThe text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall give, on behalf of the Union, the notification provided for in Article 23 of the Protocol (2).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.\nDone at Brussels, 13 May 2011.", "references": ["56", "78", "27", "43", "38", "48", "33", "0", "92", "91", "58", "41", "47", "60", "68", "67", "11", "22", "16", "28", "42", "18", "2", "19", "73", "46", "35", "23", "79", "36", "No Label", "3", "4", "5", "9", "94", "96", "97"], "gold": ["3", "4", "5", "9", "94", "96", "97"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 227/2012\nof 15 March 2012\nconcerning the authorisation of Lactococcus lactis (NCIMB 30117) as a feed additive for all animal species\n(Text with EEA relevance)\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nRegulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.\n(2)\nIn accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of Lactococcus lactis (NCIMB 30117). That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(3)\nThe application concerns the authorisation of Lactococcus lactis (NCIMB 30117) as a feed additive for all animal species, to be classified in the additive category \u2018technological additives\u2019.\n(4)\nThe European Food Safety Authority (\u2018the Authority\u2019) concluded in its opinion of 16 November 2011 (2) that, under the proposed conditions of use, the preparation of Lactococcus lactis (NCIMB 30117) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that the use of the preparation has the potential to improve the production of silage from all forages by reducing the pH and increasing the preservation of dry matter. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additives in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.\n(5)\nThe assessment of Lactococcus lactis (NCIMB 30117) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(6)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe preparation specified in the Annex belonging to the additive category \u2018technological additives\u2019 and to the functional group \u2018silage additives\u2019, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 15 March 2012.", "references": ["78", "35", "64", "53", "60", "87", "88", "17", "50", "54", "89", "14", "72", "65", "26", "41", "36", "30", "70", "47", "28", "3", "99", "1", "95", "43", "96", "69", "44", "85", "No Label", "25", "38", "66", "74"], "gold": ["25", "38", "66", "74"]}
-{"input": "COUNCIL DECISION\nof 10 October 2011\non the conclusion of the Protocol agreed between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the two parties currently in force\n(2011/679/EU)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) in conjunction with point (a) of Article 218(6) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,\nHaving regard to the consent of the European Parliament,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nOn 19 December 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2027/2006 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cape Verde (1).\n(2)\nThe Union negotiated with the Republic of Cape Verde a new protocol providing EU vessels with fishing opportunities in the waters in which Cape Verde has sovereignty or jurisdiction as regards fishing.\n(3)\nOn the conclusion of those negotiations, the new Protocol was initialled on 22 December 2010.\n(4)\nThat new Protocol was signed in accordance with Council Decision 2011/405/EU (2) and will be provisionally applied as from 1 September 2011.\n(5)\nThe Protocol should be concluded,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Protocol agreed between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the two parties currently in force is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.\nArticle 2\nThe President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 16 of the Protocol, in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the Protocol (3).\nArticle 3\nThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nDone at Luxembourg, 10 October 2011.", "references": ["68", "64", "99", "91", "18", "27", "45", "52", "82", "86", "51", "28", "71", "58", "93", "92", "78", "11", "83", "50", "57", "29", "26", "88", "32", "34", "24", "10", "77", "97", "No Label", "3", "9", "67", "94"], "gold": ["3", "9", "67", "94"]}
-{"input": "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 455/2012\nof 22 May 2012\nconcerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,\nWhereas:\n(1)\nIn order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.\n(2)\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.\n(3)\nPursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.\n(4)\nIt is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).\n(5)\nThe measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nThe goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.\nArticle 2\nBinding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.\nArticle 3\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.\nDone at Brussels, 22 May 2012.", "references": ["70", "79", "52", "61", "27", "66", "8", "14", "48", "50", "32", "93", "30", "74", "7", "24", "47", "36", "85", "82", "59", "1", "55", "4", "99", "71", "31", "58", "95", "49", "No Label", "21", "72"], "gold": ["21", "72"]}